►
From YouTube: Bothell Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2022
Description
0:03:35 - Public Comments
0:04:15 - Approval of Minutes
0:05:15 - New Business
0:05:20 - Public Hearing: Bike Plan (continued)
0:34:30 - Public Hearing: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) (continued)
1:21:40 - Unfinished Business
1:21:45 - Reports from Staff
1:24:00 - Reports from Members
1:27:15 - Item to Report to Council
A
A
Before
we
move
on
to
agenda
items,
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
our
remote,
our
hybrid
meeting
format,
city
of
Bothell
is
providing
the
option
to
attend
this
meeting,
either
in
person
or
remotely
via
Zoom
for
those
participating
via
Zoom
to
chat
and
question
functions
are
not
available
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
open
public
meetings.
Act.
A
We
have
a
public
comment
agenda
item
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
This
time
is
for
comments
on
issues
not
on
tonight's
agenda.
Please
limit
these
comments
to
three
minutes.
Public
comment
and
hearing
testimony
will
be
allowed
both
in
person
and
Via
Zoom.
Those
wishing
to
comment
via
Zoom
were
asked
to
submit
an
online
form
by
3
pm.
Today.
People
wishing
to
submit
written
comments
were
also
asked
to
submit
those
comments
by
3
pm.
Email
was
encouraged
as
well
and
will
be
acknowledged
and
we
did
receive
an
email.
A
Those
in
attendance
may
also
make
comments
and
have
been
asked
to
indicate
the
desire
to
comment
on
the
sign-in
sheets.
Imagine
Bothell
notice,
City
website
and
tonight's
agenda
all
provided
information
to
the
public
for
providing
comments.
A
video
of
this
meeting
will
be
streamed,
live
as
well
as
recorded
and
available
for
viewing
later
on,
the
city's
YouTube
channel,
a
call-in
number
was
provided
on
the
meeting
agenda
for
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
call
on
by
phone
and
listen
live
to
the
meeting
for
our
phone
and
callers
during
staff.
A
C
A
Lastly,
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
reiterate
some
meeting
guidelines
for
all
meeting
attendees,
please
speak
clearly
and
pause,
frequently
state
your
name
each
time
before
speaking,
mute
your
microphone
when
not
speaking,
if
you
are
also
streaming
the
live,
video
feed.
Please
turn
the
sound
off
as
there
is
a
delay
for
Commissioners
at
the
specific
breaks
in
the
presentation.
I'll
be
calling
on
members
who
wish
to
speak
or
ask
a
question
if
you
want
to
speak,
please
indicate
this
by
raising
your
hand
and
I
will
call
on
you
as
I
see.
A
This
will
help
avoid
the
problem
of
having
two
people
speaking
at
the
same
time.
Identify
yourself
before
you
ask
a
question:
make
a
motion,
second
emotion
or
participate
in
debate,
and
please
mute
your
microphone
when
not
speaking
so
on
to
our
agenda.
The
first
agenda
item
is
public
comment.
The
city
has
accepted
visitor
comment
in
writing,
as
well
as
accepted
sign
up
sheets
for
those
who
wish
to
speak
at
tonight's
meeting.
Written
comments
submit
it
to
staff
no
longer
3
pm
today,
we're
forwarded
to
all
Commissioners
and
are
part
of
the
record.
D
A
A
A
A
D
F
G
A
D
G
D
F
F
Tonight
we'll
discuss
the
final
draft
bike
plan
and
some
revisions
we
made
based
on
Planning
Commission
comments
from
our
last
meeting
on
November
16th,
who
would
be
discussing
the
findings,
conclusions
and
recommendations
for
the
bike
plan,
as
well
as
the
final
proposed
comprehensive
plan
Amendment
with
the
suggested
revisions
from
planning.
Commissioners
again,
we
thank
you
for
your
time,
patience
as
we
prepared
the
final
documentation
for
your
review
before
you
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council
for
approval.
G
F
F
The
combination
of
projects
did
not
significantly
impact
the
overall
priority
of
projects,
but
did
improve
the
rankings
for
the
segments
that
were
combined
foreign
upon
revealing
the
priority
criteria
that
228th
Street
segment
in
question,
which
is
only
like
a
couple
of
walks.
Long
did
not
include
any
equity
and
components
like
the
West
and
East
228c
segments,
which
resulted
in
the
lower
ranking.
F
G
F
F
There
we
go
okay,
the
other,
combined
projects
that
we
reviewed
and
and
looked
at
for
continuity
and
consistency,
included.
Project
43,
which
is
a
the
Meridian
connection
from
240th
to
the
Kenmore.
City
Limits
is
again
another
short
section
which
was
added
to
project
number
17,
which
is
Meridian
Avenue
from
228
to
240th.
F
F
F
and
based
on
Planning
Commission
suggestions
from
the
last
meeting.
The
revisions
made
to
the
comprehensive
plan
actions
include
on
revising
the
transportation
action
on
56
to
ensure
that
the
city
Will
Champion,
ease
of
onboarding
bikes
by
bicyclists
onto
transit
buses,
basically
rolling
being
able
to
trying
to
roll
on
bikes
onto
the
transit
from
commission
occurred.
So
the
the
action
now
reads:
investigate
and
Advocate
advocate
for
good
bicycle
connections
between
neighborhoods
growth
and
activity,
centers
and
Transit
facilities
and
Advocate
to
improve
ease
of
onboarding
and
access
and
safety
for
all
users
to
Transit.
F
Planning
Commission
finds
the
existing
bicycle
facilities,
actions
needing
to
be
updated
to
reflect
the
current
vision
of
a
complete,
safe
bicycle
facilities.
Network
Citywide,
the
Planning
Commission,
finds
that
future
bicycle
Phyllis
facilities
shall
be
protected
and
not
on
Street
facilities
and
Planning.
Commission
finds
that
the
transportation
element
Amendment
of
the
comprehensive
plan
shall
one
include
a
new
action
that
considers
developing
a
maintenance
and
operating
budget
dedicated
to
provide
existing
and
future
bike
facilities
over
time
to
provide
a
safe
and
accessible
bike.
A
A
E
F
When
we
started
this
process,
we
had
developed
a
plan
that
included
bike
facilities
generally
following
you
know.
Basically,
national
standards
that
includes
bicycle
facilities
that
are
not
only
you
know,
bike
Lanes
in
the
street,
but
like
buffered
bike,
Lanes,
also,
which
have
a
little
wider
protective
striping,
I
guess
between
the
bike
lane
and
the
and
the
travel
Lane.
F
The
feeling
was
that
the
protected
bike
Lanes
is
really
what's
going
to
get
people
out
there
and
and
be
able
to
travel
safely.
Staff
agrees
with
that.
It's
not
a
lot
and
we
decided
to
basically
revise
the
whole
city
plan
to
include
significantly
protected
bike
Lanes
everywhere,
except
with
the
exception
of
a
few
neighborhoods
that
include
neighborhood.
We
call
Neighborhood
Greenways
because
they
really
have
slow
moving
traffic,
not
a
lot
of
following
traffic
volumes
and
would
be.
We
feel
safe
enough
with
some
markings
on
the
ground
called
sharrows.
G
H
B
F
And
I
remember
the
comments
from
David
Leviton
that
was
regarding
basically
the
segment
of
Bothell
Way
between
190th
roughly
well.
No
I'll
say
that.
Let
me
change
that
like
well
the
beginning
of
this,
the
sections
that
has
the
parking
it's
like
McMenamins,
roughly
all
the
way
down
to
sr522
you're
correct
those
facilities
were
were
built
and-
and
you
know
planned
out
what
a
long
time
ago,
with
the
intent
to
be
a
low
speed
load
load
traffic
facility
that
could
accommodate
bikes
safely
granted
there.
F
You
know
there
is
moving
traffic
in
there.
It's
not
it's,
not
a
protected
bike
lane
per
se,
but
we
felt
that
you
know
that
was
that
discussion
had
been
had
been
gone
over
I.
Think
personally,
I
I
feel
that
it's
safe
enough
I
mean
there's
you
know,
would
you
let
a
12
year
old
ride
your
bike
down
that
by
himself?
F
Maybe
maybe
not,
but
you
know
they're
going
to
take
the
sidewalk
it's
kind
of
like
leading
children
through
you
know
any
Street
downtown
on
where
we
have
planned
Cheryl's,
for
example,
in
yeah
I,
don't
know
if
we're
going
to
be
able
to.
You
know
ADD
protected
bike
Lanes
now
with
that
configuration
in
that
section.
F
Maybe
in
the
future
there's
different
different
discussions
that
could
occur
in
terms
of
removing
parking
again,
and
you
know
that's
at
the
that's
at
the
you
know:
expensive
other
other
businesses
and
such
as
far
as
the
crossing
of
522
there's
a
pedestrian
bridge.
Well,
it's
not
even
freshness.
It's
a
bridge
of
102nd.
F
Well,
has
a
planned
shared
use
path
got
built
when
that
bridge
gets
rebuilt
to
cross
over
522
as
a
separated
bike,
a
separated,
a
physical
facility
other
than
that,
the
only
other
way
to
make
it
any
safer
to
cross
other
than
Crossing
at
the
signals.
Basically,
you
know,
just
as
any
pedestrian
is,
as
is
would
be
to
to
build
additional.
You
know
bridges
over
over
the
highway,
and
that
would
be
a
very
costly
project,
but
again
understanding
that
you
know
it's.
F
It's
a
it's
a
busy
street
to
cross
and
and
a
significant
connection
to
get
to
Bothell
Landing
as
well,
as
you
know,
the
Sammamish,
River,
Trail
and
all
the
other
amenities
on
that
side.
It
understood
and
that
we
could
that's
something
that
could
be
looked
at
again
in
the
in
a
way,
long
term,
because
that's
just
such
an
expensive
project
for
that
Crossing
in
the
and
we
do
have
the
bridge
102nd
Street
bridge
that
we
hope
to
use
to
accommodate
something
much
safer.
B
G
B
C
Hi
Sarah
Gustafson
here
and
doing
commissioner
robson's
thanks
to
senior
planner
gong
for
keeping
all
of
these
details
in
order
when
there
are
a
lot
of
moving
pieces
to
this
target.
I
wanted
to
ask
one
question:
to
follow
up
to
commissioner
Robson
for
the
102nd
Street
Bridge,
with
the
shared
youth
bike
path.
C
F
Sorry
was
that
a
question
for
commissioner
Robson
or
me
I
think
I
thought
you
said
you
said:
yeah,
commission,
okay,
so
that
that,
for
that
bridge,
I'm
I
believe
the
connection.
There's
a
you
there's
a
a
a
of
course,
a
part
of
that
where
you
can
turn
off
the
102nd
Street
bridge
to
get
onto
this
Sammamish
River
Trail,
so
I'm,
not
sure
that
takes
you
takes
you
down
to
the
trail
where,
like
that
gravel
parking
lot
is
I,
guess
I'll,
say
I!
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
I'll
lower
my
hand.
What
I'm
trying
to
think
of
is,
if
you're
going
northbound
on
a
protected
bike
lane,
so
you
would
be
on
the
right
side
of
the
street
if
I'm
thinking
and
then,
if
you
want
to
get
into
that
gravel
parking
lot,
you're
gonna
need
to
hang
a
sharp
I
guess
it
would
be
a
sharp
left
kind
of
against
traffic.
And
how
can
you
signal
that
you're
gonna
go
there?
Is
there
going
to
be
protection?
I.
F
See
so
the
shared
Lane
will
actually
for
anybody
going
northbound,
let's
say
from
East
Riverside
Drive
you're
you're,
going
that
that
shared
Lane
will
go
all
the
way
down
to
East
Riverside
Drive.
So
it's
not
a
protected
bike
lane
for
there's
not
going
to
be
a
protected
bike.
Lane
northbound
on
that
section
of
102nd
it'll,
the
shared
Lane
will
be
carried
all
the
way
down
to
East
Riverside
Drive.
So
if
you're
you
wouldn't
be
going
northbound
on
102nd
per
se,
you
actually
be
our
you'll
have
to
get
on
to
the
TR.
C
I
Trail
Sherman
Let,
Me
Take,
a
Shot,
okay,
I,
think
the
difference
is
we're
not
going
to
put
a
protective
bike
lane
one
on
each
side
on
102nd
Avenue,
the
thought
is
to
put
a
shared
use
path
on
the
west
side
of
the
bridge.
So
you
know
where
there
are
single.
Sidewalk
is
now
picture
that
being
12
feet
wide
and
you'll
be
sharing
that
with
pedestrians
and
bikes
going
in
two
directions:
there's
just
not
enough
room
there
to
put
facilities
on
both
sides
of
the
road,
and
just
like
you
pointed
out.
I
If
we
did
a
protected
bike
lane
one
in
each
Direction,
then
we
start
getting
difficulty
in
crossing
over
on
either
end
of
that
stretch
or
roadway.
So
it
was
felt
like
a
shared
use.
Past
would
go
north
and
south
from
Main
Street,
all
the
way
to
West
Riverside
Drive
and
in
the
future.
East
Riverside
Drive
will
have
a
shared
use
path
as
well
on
the
north
side
and
West
Riverside
Drive
already
has
a
shared
use
path
that
goes
to
Blythe
Park.
So
it's
kind
of
consistent
there
yeah.
I
J
A
A
Seeing
none
all
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
approve
the
comprehensive
plan,
Transportation
melons
amendments
and
the
bike
plan
and
the
findings,
conclusions
and
recommendations
supporting
that,
please
indicate
by
saying
aye,
aye,
aye
and
Okay,
so
we've
got
unanimous
approval
of
that
I'd
like
to
thank
staff
for
their
work
on
this
I
know.
You
received
a
lot
of
input
on
this
from
the
commission.
There's
a
very
high
level
of
interest
in
the
bike
plan
as
I
think
you
you're
well
aware,
and
you
have
been
responsive
to
comments
we
made.
So
thank
you
for
that.
D
Yeah
tonight
we
are
bringing
you
a
follow-up
on
our
last
public
hearing
to
the
transfer
of
development
rights
program.
I
have
a
brief,
PowerPoint
presentation,
so
I
only
have
one
screen
so
give
me
a
minute
to
get
all
of
this
maneuvered
correctly,
and
then
we
also
have
tonight
our
consultant
Andrew
Bjorn,
with
beer
with
Burke.
To
answer
any
questions
you
all
might
have
about
the
phase
one
report
and
then
also
we
have
some
follow-up
to
some
questions
that
were
asked
last
time.
D
So
as
a
reminder,
the
Canyon
Park
transfer
development
rates
program
is
a
implementation
measure
for
the
Canyon
Park
sub-area
plan,
essentially
to
allow
us
to
preserve
activity
units
for
essential
public
facilities
in
Canyon.
Park
specific
for
this
project
is
the
Sound
Transit
bus
based
North
site,
and
so
this
program
would
allow
us
to
take
unused
activity
units
from
that
site
and
transfer
them
to
other
locations
in
Canyon
Park.
Essentially,
this
could
be
a
pilot
program
if
we
wish
to
do
this
in
other
parts
of
the
city
or
even
expand
it
within
Canyon
Park.
D
So
tonight
we're
going
to
go
over
follow-up
questions,
some
slight
updates
to
the
code
language
and
then
talk
about
next
steps
for
the
program,
so
just
a
reminder
of
what
we've
done
so
far.
We've
met
with
our
development
services.
Advisory
Group
we've
had
study
sessions
with
you
all
earlier
this
year
and
then
this
is
our
fourth
public
hearing
tonight.
D
So
we
received
some
follow-up
questions
from
commissioner
Gustafson
and
would
like
to
go
through
those
tonight.
So
the
first
question
was
related
to
benefit
calculations.
So
essentially
the
question
was:
if
credits
are
costing
three
to
five
dollars
per
foot
per
square
foot,
what
would
that
calculation
look
like
once?
A
developer
is
taking
advantage
of
that
and
the
example
was
provided
that
for
a
10,
000
square
foot,
building
you're
paying
five
dollars
per
square
foot
or
fifty
thousand
dollars.
D
You
know
you
would
receive
a
boost
in
far
and
essentially
what
this
this
plan
will
be
doing.
Is
we're
really
going
to
be
calculating
and
transferring
square
foot
square
footage
not
necessarily
fully
transferring
far,
although
the
far
may
be
higher,
because
we've
transferred
square
feet
to
that
site?
And
so,
if
a
developer
in
Canyon
Park
wanted
to
develop
a
5
on
a
5
000
square
foot
site
they
needed
to
minimum
far
of
two
and
they
wanted
to
add
an
additional
10
000
square
feet.
D
D
So
it
would
have
more
to
do
with
it's
just
an
example
of
how
that
square
footage
would
transfer
or
how
we
would
be
calculating
that
transfer
and
I
have
an
example
later
that
would
I
think
make
that
a
little
bit
clearer
than
I
just
explained
it,
but
really
we're
going
to
be
hoping
that
folks
are
transferring
square
footage
above
and
beyond.
You
know
just
a
thousand
square
feet
here
and
there
we're
hoping
for
greater
transfers
of
square
footage.
D
And
then
we
also
have
an
example
of
what
this
could
look
like.
Essentially,
let's
say
that
there's
a
10
000
square
foot
site,
so
it
requires
a
minimum.
Far
of
so
this
is
the.
Let
me
start
over.
This
is
the
sending
site.
So
this
is
the
site
that
has
the
square
footage
that
would
be
sent
to
another
site.
They
have
a
10,
000
square
foot
lot.
They
have
a
minimum
far
of
2.0,
so
they
need
a
building.
That's
20
000
square
feet.
They
only
want
to
build
so
it's
essential.
D
It's
an
essential
public
facility
and
they
only
want
to
build
10
000
square
foot
of
building,
so
what
they
would
do
is
they
would
take.
They
would
transfer
that
remaining
10
000
square
feet
of
development
capacity
to
meet
the
minimum
requirements
so
once
they
transfer
that
capacity
essentially
they've
met
the
requirement
because
those
those
units
are
preserved,
so
those
would
be
in
our
TDR
Bank
and
then
let's
say
there
is
a
site
with
a
5
000
square
foot
maximum
base,
far
3.0,
and
so
the
building
must
be
15,
000
square
feet
or
less.
D
D
So
after
they
purchased
that
capacity,
essentially
the
the
processes,
the
sending
site
applies
for
and
receives
certification
of
TDR
availability
from
the
city.
They
used
a
TDR
Covenant
registered
to
the
parcel
to
sever
the
development
rights
on
a
site,
and
so
that
Covenant
would
live
with
the
land.
The
land
is
sold.
You
would
see
that
those
development
rights
have
been
sold
and
then
the
city
we
would
update
the
city's
registry
and
potentially
transfer
to
the
city's
TDR
Bank
then
later
on.
D
When
the
receiving
site
is
ready
to
develop,
they
would
be
purchasing
a
certificate
of
CDR
receipt
from
the
city's
TDR
bank
or
other
holder.
They'd
provide
a
statement
about
the
TDR
development
rights
used
with
permanent
applications
for
approval,
and
then
the
city
would
update
its
registry
documenting
the
ownership
history
of
the
certificates.
That's
a
very
general
process
of
how
this
would
work.
D
C
Hi
Sarah
Gustafson
here.
Thank
you
so
much
deputy
director
Winchell
for
providing
that
example.
It
was
very
clear
it
was
visual.
It
answered
a
lot
of
questions
I
had,
and
my
ask
for
you
is
that
we
put
that
example
in
all
of
the
documentation,
for
example
in
the
Burke
Consulting
packet,
and
also
in
any
presentations
that
we
made.
D
C
D
Thank
you,
I
think
that's
a
great
suggestion,
especially
as
we
move
this
to
council
and
and
even
in
our
documents.
We
will
create
after
this
to
explain
the
program
to
folks.
It's
definitely
a
slightly
hairy
program.
However,
you
Dice
it
so
we've
also
made
some
changes
to
the
text
since
last
time,
based
on
further
conversations
with
Sound
Transit
and
our
City
attorney.
Those
amendments
in
your
packet
are
highlighted
in
Gray.
Just
so
you
can
see
what
those
are
or
what
those
changes
are.
D
So
we
wanted
to
remove
that
that
that
piece
of
code
and
then
a
small
change
from
a
shell
to
a
May
as
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
requiring
the
Covenant
versus
May,
which
would
be
a
little
more
like
you
could
do
this.
We
want
it
to
be.
You
will
do
this,
so
that's
a
very
quick
summary
of
the
changes
in
the
code
since
last
time
and
those
are
again
highlighted
in
Gray
I'm
realizing
those
of
you
who
have
a
black
and
white
packet.
D
There
are
some
things
that
are
also
highlighted
in
yellow.
So
if
you
want
clarification
on
anything
before
page
29
are
changes
that
staff
has
made
since
the
code
was
updated.
The
changes
on
29
are
changes
to
existing
code
that
are
highlighted
in
yellow,
so
black
and
white
packets
not
going
to
show
you
the
differences
between
those
two
texts.
I
apologize
for
not
thinking
that
one
through
before
we
printed
these
out.
A
D
Are
working
with
our
consultant
on
getting
those
Maps
finalized,
so
the
information
will
not
be
different.
It
will
just
look
a
little
bit
cleaner.
We
won't
have
the
background
information
of
the
intersection
performance
on
those
Maps,
so
we're
still
working
with
our
consultant
to
get
that
updated
for
the
final
packet
for
the
final
approval.
Okay,.
D
So
then,
just
to
quickly
go
over
the
process
again
for
a
sending
site.
So
these
are
the
sites
that
will
be
developing
less
than
what
the
code
permits
the
sites
that
will
be
sending
some
of
their
development
capacity
to
other
locations.
They
will
file
an
application
with
the
city
for
a
certificate
of
transfer
of
development
rights
availability.
D
We
would
evaluate
that
application
and
provide
a
certificate
of
a
TDR
availability.
So
there's
one
thing
that
came
up
in
the
letter
that
you
all
received
about
a
five-year
limitation
and
what
the
five-year
limitation
is
for
is
for
the
certificate
of
TDR
availability,
and
so
essentially,
the
certificate
of
TDR
availability
is
kind
of
like
a
letter
telling
you
how
much
based
on
what
your
your
based
on
the
conditions
today,
how
much
development
can
you
send
somewhere
else,
and
so
we
gave
those
a
five-year
expiration
for
a
few
reasons.
D
Codes
can
change,
developments
can
change,
situations
can
change,
and
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
didn't
vest
or
have
these
TDR
availabilities
living
out
there
for
ever,
and
so
that's
why
there
is
a
five-year
limit
on
the
TDR
availability,
and
so
essentially
the
TDR
availability
tells
us
as
staff.
How
much
can
move
from
this
site.
Nothing
is
finalized
until
there's
that
TDR
Covenant,
and
so
that
tells
them
what
they
can
put
in
the
Covenant.
D
The
Covenant
is
what
finalizes
the
severing
it
from
the
site,
so
essentially
the
after
the
registration
of
the
TDR
Covenant.
We
would
issue
a
certificate
of
TDR
receipt
to
the
owner,
essentially
letting
them
know
this
is
what
can
be
transferred.
So
that's
a
little
there's
a
lot
of
TDR
certificate.
Covenant,
all
the
terms
are
defined.
D
They
would
provide
evidence
prior
to
final
approval
of
development
permits
that
they
own
these
certificates,
so
they'd
be
allowed
to
go
through
the
land
use
development
process.
But
before
we
issue
any
final
permits,
they
have
to
have
those
in
hand,
and
so
you
know,
through
conditions
and
through
other
protections,
we
have
available
we'd,
be
making
sure
that
it's
very
clear
that
you
know
the
land
use.
Approval
may
show
more
than
is
permitted
by
the
code,
but
that
is
with
the
assumption
that
they
then
have
to
receive
these.
D
They
have
to
receive
these
additional
development
rights
for
the
site
before
we'd.
Actually,
issue
the
permit
for
them
to
build
more
than
is
permitted,
and
then
we
would
record
the
use
of
those
certificates
so
that
we
know
in
the
future.
We
don't
want
a
situation
where
the
5
000
square
feet
got
used
on
six
different
sites,
and
we
are,
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
complying
with
our
own
codes
and
not
over
using
any
of
these
certificates.
D
D
So
essentially
my
understanding
of
how
we
would
process
this
is
if
someone
gets
the
certificate
of
TDR
availability,
though
those
have
to
be
memorialized
with
the
Covenant
in
association
with
development
on
the
sending
site.
So
if
someone
came
in
got
a
certificate
of
TDR
availability
for
the
sending
site
and
then
they
never
did
anything
and
they
expired,
then
all
of
the
development
rights
would
still
exist
on
that
site.
D
If
they
recorded
the
Covenant
and
developed,
then
they
five
years
10
years,
20
years
they
live
in
the
bank,
and
so
they,
if
they
do
nothing
on
the
site
and
if
they
do
nothing
on
the
site,
but
they've
recorded
the
Covenant,
then
technically
they
couldn't
develop
anything
above
that
when
they
come
in
for
land
use
entitlements
in
the
future.
So
let's
say
that
someone
does
the
TDR
availability,
they
record
the
Covenant
and
then
they
don't
follow
through
with
their
development
plans
and
10
years
later
they
say:
hey
I
want
to
develop
my
site.
D
Well,
if,
and
my
understanding
of
it
is,
is
if
those
TDR
credits
that
have
been
recorded
with
the
Covenant
have
never
been
used,
they
could
essentially
pull
them
back
to
the
site,
extinguish
the
Covenant
and
develop
to
that
full
potential.
So
it
really
depends
on
whether
the
sending
site
follows
through
with
their
development
or
not.
D
If
they
say
they,
this
is
would
be
a
very
weird
situation,
but
they
record
the
Covenant.
They
don't
develop
on
the
site,
but
then
they
sell
those
credits.
Then,
essentially,
if
someone
came
in
to
develop
that
site
later,
they
could
only
develop
to
the
point
that
that
the
credits,
the
available
trying
to
think
of
the
right
terms
to
use
here
that
the
available
development
capacity
sure
is
permitted
on
the
site.
I.
J
Think
what
I'm
getting
at
I
appreciate
that,
because
I
helped
me
understand
that
aspect
a
lot
better.
You
know
we
put
in
place
a
minimum
density.
We
want
to
see
in
these
in
this
part
of
Bothell
and
Sound
Transit,
for
example,
saying
well.
We
don't
want
to
put
that
that
in
because
we're
doing
our
bus
facility
and
it's
very
much
what
spurred
this
process.
J
But
we
as
a
city
are
saying
we
really
want
that
maxed
out
and
if
you're
not
going
to
Max
it
out.
We've
got
this
TDR
program
we
developed
and
if
no
one
ever
uses
them,
then
I
feel
like
they've
gotten
away
with
under
developing
an
area
so
where
they
said,
we
said
you
need
to
develop
x
amount
and
you
didn't.
You
put
the
TDR
credits
out
there,
which
is
great.
J
We
have
a
program
for
that
now,
and
they
weren't
taken
up
is,
is
the
requirement
by
sound
transit
to
then
somehow
work
to
build
something
themselves
or
with
a
partner
that
uses
those
credits
so
that
they're
on
the
hook
to
use
to
to
redevelop
that
extra
capacity
within
the
Zone,
where
we
want
to
see
that
extra
building
happen.
We.
D
Haven't
put
anything
like
that
in
place
in
this
ordinance,
and
so
it
really
would
and
I've
pulled
in
Andrew
Bjorn
with
Burke.
But
it's
my
understanding
that
through
this
ordinance
we
would
not
be
putting
anything
like
that
in
place
and
that
those
essentially
safeguards
would
not
be
there
to
require
them
to
use
these
credits.
But
essentially,
if
and
when
the
market
hit
a
point,
that
those
credits
were
valuable
and
could
be
used,
then
they
would
come
into
play
and
is
there
anything
you'd
want
to
add
to
that.
K
The
only
the
only
other
thing
to
add
is
that
this
this
program
also
follows,
along
with
sound
transits,
ongoing
policy
for
land
disposal
for
affordable
housing.
So
there
is
an
interest
that
they
have
and
they
have
disposed
of
other
properties
in
Seattle
and
other
places
before,
specifically
for
the
purposes
that
we're
looking
at
for
this
TDR
program.
K
So
when
we're
like
I
I,
completely
understand
the
the
reticence
about
it,
it's
it's
one
of
those
things
where
it's
it's
trying
to
leverage
the
fact
that,
in
a
lot
of
other
cases,
this
could
be
dropped
in
as
an
essential
public
facility
and
kind
of
it.
It
might
try
to
do
an
end
run
around
yeah.
Some
of
the
provisions
of
the
sub-area
plan
right.
J
Exactly
I
know
that
I
remember
a
prior
to
my
being
on
Planning
Commission.
This
came
to
council
and
they
well
I
should
say
the
Sound
Transit
their
interest
in
creating
this.
This
base
came
to
council
and
there
was
there
is
some
contention
around
it
because
we
said
well.
We
set
this
aside
for
a
sub
area
plan
to
have
a
certain
amount
of
density
and
we're
going
to
create
an
another
node
in
the
city,
another
commercial
node,
and
they
said
well.
J
J
So
I
don't
know
if
there's
an
answer
but
and
I
know
about
the
was
it
880
yeah
there
we
go
yeah,
yeah
so
and
that's
great
I
love
that
they
they
provide
land
for
fantastic
projects,
so
maybe
they're
compensating
in
other
ways
through
that
80
80
program
and
and
I
shouldn't
fuss
over
it.
But
I
know
it's
come
up
a
couple
times,
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up
that
one
one
more
time.
C
Hi,
chair
Sarah
Augustus:
do
you
feel
that
commissioner
westerbeck's
point
is
very
well
taken
and
I
do
feel
that
it
is
within
our
bounds
as
Planning
Commission?
If
we
so
desire
to
make
a
motion
that
we
want
that
in
here,
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
go
through
the
council,
but
if
we
believe
it's
important
enough
to
stop
the
process
to
put
that
in
I
feel
we
should
at
least
have
a
discussion
about
it.
So
I
would
move
that.
H
Thanks
yeah,
this
is
Karsten
I
I,
understand,
commissioner
westerbeck's
point
and
on
Planning
Commission.
We
are
trying
to
make
sure
that
our
our
recommendations
are
going
to
affect
chain
bring
about
change,
especially
in
Canyon
Park,
where
we've
spent
so
many
hours,
deliberations
and
vision
and
Community
conversations.
H
Rights,
development
rights
there
we
go
so
the
considerations
that
we've
brought
up
at
other
meetings
have
been.
How
is
the
city
and
the
Community
Development
Department,
going
to
be
advertising
the
use
of
these
these
rights
and
so,
whether
that's
specific
Outreach
to
the
development
Community
or
whenever
a
project
is
brought
forward
in
one
of
the
receiving
sites?
That
there's
a
specific
time
in
the
pre-application
process
that
the
program
can
be
highlighted.
H
Those
are
types
of
like
implementation
that
isn't
really
in
our
purview,
it's
more
in
Community,
Development
purview
and
so
the
encouragement
to
Community
Development
and
to
counsel
to
encourage
the
use
of
the
the
program
without
holding
up
the
process
to
put
teeth
where
I
don't
think
that
we
have
the
Dentistry
to
do
so
is
my
opinion.
Thanks.
A
D
D
You
know,
I
think
Canyon.
Park
is
definitely
a
place
where,
like
a
catalyst,
development
is
needed
to
really
spur
the
vision
of
that
plan,
but
we
can
really
think
about
how
do
we
make
sure
folks
know
these
are
available?
How
can
we
make
sure
that
they
get
used
and
I
think
another
thing
about
the
program
to
is
that
it
is
so
narrowly
focused
on
one
sending
site
that
it
can't
be
overly
abused.
In
terms
of
you
know,
anyone
in
Canyon
Park
who
doesn't
want
to
do
it,
can
preserve
these
credits.
D
So
at
this
point
you
know
and
I
think
that's
a
really
good
point
too,
as
we
think
about
transfer
of
development
rights.
Moving
forward
is
making
sure
that
you
know
it's
really
when
we
are
doing
these
programs
there's
some
benefit
to
transferring
the
rights
we're
wanting
to
preserve
something-
and
in
this
case
you
know,
we
love
Transit,
but
we
also
know
that
Transit
needs
these
utility
yards.
D
That
aren't
always
the
easiest
thing
to
cite,
and
so
in
order
to
support
Transit
we're
getting
a
bus
space,
and
you
know
this
is
helping
with
us
having
bus,
Rapid,
Transit,
and
so
it's
kind
of
the
exchange
between
the
the
desire
for
meeting
the
goals
of
the
Canyon
Park
sub
area
plan,
but
also
the
reality
that
gonna
go
somewhere.
So
how
can
we
make
the
most
of
it?
D
But
I
think
these
are
all
good
points
too,
as
we
move
forward
thinking
about
you
know,
once
we
pass
code,
we
always
have
to
think
about
the
forms
we
create
and
how
we
we
encourage
a
program,
and
so
I
think
everything
from
comments
about
the
graphics
showing
how
the
program
works
to.
How
do
we
make
sure
that
we
plug
this
every
time
a
developer
asks
us
about?
One
of
these
receiving
sites
are
all
well
noted
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
just
passing
the
program
putting
in
bus
space
North
and
forgetting
that
the
credits
exist.
D
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
too
of
this
was
specifically
recommended
in
the
Canyon
Park
sub-area
plan
for
these
uses
in
this
purpose,
and
so
I
think
we
can
come
back
to
the
fact
that
there's
a
public
purpose
to
this.
It's
not
necessarily
just
because
we
like
this.
It's
that
there's
a
public
purpose
to
having
a
bus
maintenance
facility,
but
there's
also
a
public
purpose
to
reserving
these
these
sites.
So
if
other
folks
came
forward
in
the
future,
I
think
we'd
really
have
to
look
at
it
as
staff.
As
is
this
meeting
a
public
purpose.
D
J
Committee,
right
back
just
want
to
follow
up
and
say,
I
totally
appreciate
what
commissioner
kurd
said.
I
also
appreciate,
commissioner
Augustus
and
bringing
the
point
up:
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
going
to
you
know,
go
to
the
mat
on
this
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up,
make
sure
we
we
kind
of
aired
it
out
and
understood,
and
I
also
have
I'm
pretty
confident
that
they
are
the
credits.
The
development
rights
will
actually
probably
get
used
because
it
is
going
to
be
an
up-and-coming
area
and
we're
going
to
need
it
developed.
J
J
J
As
you
know,
across
that
bridge,
we
come
to
it
sort
of
if
this
became
an
issue
and-
and
we
had
to
to
work
on
something
creative
at
the
five-year
point.
No
one
had
used
the
credits
so
I.
Also
have
faith
in
that
process
as
well,
so
I'm
not
going
to
blow
this
all
up,
but
I
just
wanted
to
at
least
bring
it
up,
because
I
think
it
also
came
up
in
the
letter
today.
C
Thank
you,
chair
Sarah
Gustafson,
here
I
appreciate
the
decision
to
move
forward
without
specific
exploration,
dates
and
the
decision
to
really
focus
on
the
marketing
and
fine-tuning
of
this
program.
But
for
me
that
brings
up
the
question
of
how
many
staff
hours
each
year
do.
We
estimate
might
be
used
to
do
this
work.
Are
we
looking
at
30
hours
perhaps,
and
what
is
the
cost
there
and
is
Sound
Transit
going
to
help
offset
that
cost
they've
already
offset
the
cost
for
the
setup,
but
the
ongoing
Administration?
C
D
So
I
can
just
add
in
that
at
this
point
we
don't
have
any
agreements
with
Sound
Transit
as
we
move
forward
to
fund
administration
of
the
program
or
or
anything
along
those
lines.
They
are
supporting
the
development
of
this
ordinance,
I
think
as
we
continue
conversations
with
them.
You
know
it
really
depends
on
what
happens
that
year.
D
D
But
it's
when
someone
actually
then
comes
in
for
a
receiving
site
or
transferring
things
within
the
bank
that
then
there
may
be
some
more
Demand
on
staff
and
so
I
think
that's
something
too
that
we
can
look
at
whether
there's
a
need
for
a
administration
fee
and
our
code
or
something
along
those
lines
to
make
sure
that
you
know
there's
compensation
for
work
done.
That
being
said,
it's
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
project,
but
we
are
doing
some
fee
studies
in
the
upcoming
biennium,
and
so
maybe
there's
some
opportunity
in
that
to
look
at.
D
K
Could
I
just
add
something:
Ashley
is
that
okay?
Of
course,
oh
great,
so
one
other
thing
to
note
as
well
is
that
the
administrative
cost
for
the
program
generally
would
not
only
include
managing
those
certificates
and
tracking
TBR
availability
and
the
like,
but
also
on
the
other
end,
with
the
use
of
the
revenues
as
well.
K
And
this
is
it
it's
I'm
pointing
this
out,
not
because
it's
something
that
we
would
expect
to
be
very
onerous,
because
you
know
we're
specifically
making
recommendations
as
part
of
this,
for
you
know
the
city
to
be
working
with
partners
that
you
know
are
developing
affordable
housing
in
the
area,
but
it
is
something
else
to
take
into
consideration,
because,
depending
on
the
level
of
oversight
that
would
be
necessary
over
the
longer
term.
That
may
also
be
a
source
for
staff
time.
So.
A
A
G
D
So
I
think
we
covered
one
of
the
items
which
was
that
these
expire
after
five
years
and
so
I
think
we've
addressed
that
it's
the
availability
that
expires
not
the
actual
certificate.
There
are
also
some
concerns
about
the
administration
of
the
program.
Yes,
one
thing
I
want
to
note-
and
this
is
similar
on
in
maybe
not
the
most
direct
answer,
but
on
a
lot
of
the
things
we
pass,
whether
it
is.
D
Middle
housing,
whether
it's
transfer
development
rights,
a
lot
of
times,
we
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
the
code
and
then
once
something
is
adopted,
we
spend
time
working
on
the
implementation
of
the
forms
of
the
exact
process
of
how
this
code
would
be
done
in
real
life,
and
so
those
are
conversations
that
we're
continuing
to
have
some
of
the
process
documents
provided
by
Burke
or
an
example
of
that.
But
there
will
be
a
time
where
we're
figuring
out
what
do
these
forms
look
like?
What
do
we
make
sure
we
get
in
the
Ila?
D
A
D
And
the
the
phase
one
report
includes
information
about
the
potential
cost
of
those
credits,
and
so
we
do
have
information
about
what
that
cost
could
look
like
and
how
that
would
be
administered.
And
so
that's
something
that
we
would
include
as
a
part
of
the
implementation
and
then
Andrew.
If
you
want
to
provide
some
more
background
on
that.
K
Yeah
I
think
I
could
make
two
comments
about
this.
In
particular,
one
is
that
I
we
did
take
a
look
at
prototypical
Financial
scenarios
to
just
get
a
general
idea
about
how
much
you
could
charge
for
additional
additional
development
on
a
site.
It's
it's
something
it
you
know.
Financial
analysis
of
real
estate
is
sometimes
more
in
art
than
a
science,
but
it's
something
where
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
weren't
encouraging
densities
would
be
not
supported
with
current
or
expected
future
rents.
K
A
Great,
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
be
sure
you
know
we
are
in
a
public
hearing.
This
is
the
comment
we
received
so
for
the
record.
I
want
us
to
go
through
and
respond
to
this
and
yeah
dot
our
eyes
and
cross
our
T's,
so
the
second
Point
does
go
to
the
five
years
and
I
think
we
addressed
that.
Our
third
point.
D
Yeah,
so
this
is
talking
a
little
bit
about
the
TDR
deal
for
Sound
Transit,
differing
differing
in
substantive
ways
from
The
Standard
Process
outlined
in
the
ordinance.
So
first
off
the
outline
in
the
ordinance
does
have
a
caveat
for
interlocal
agreements,
and
so
it
is
it's
not
that
the
process
is
different
for
Sound
Transit.
It's
that
there's
essentially
two
processes,
there's
one
for
organizations
that
are
able
to
do
interlocal
agreements,
so
government
agencies
and
then
there's
a
process
for
Sound
Transit
could
follow
the
code
or
they
could
do
the
interlocal
agreement
process.
D
It
doesn't
necessarily
get
them
out
of
anything.
It's
just
a
different
way
to
calculate
that
sending
site
or
process
the
sending
site,
and
then,
let's
see
it
does
also
talk
about
the
TDR
credits
from
Sound
Transit
being
subject
to
additional
restrictions
that
are
likely
to
make
it
more
difficult
to
find
a
buyer.
For
those
credits,
that's
something
that,
to
my
understanding,
is
outside
of
our
control.
Sound
Transit
has
their
own
rules
and
bylaws
of
of
how
they
sell
real
estate,
and
so
these
credits
would
be
subject
to
those.
D
And
so
that's
the
comment
that
is
being
made
there.
You
know
whether
or
not
those
make
it
more
difficult
to
find
a
buyer
for
those
credits
I'm
not
aware
of
whether
that's
the
case
or
not.
We
also
have
affordability
requirements
in
the
city
and
other
things
that
these
credits
may
fall
in
line
with
those
requirements.
Otherwise,.
D
You
need
to
look
exactly
at
our
city
code
about
what
our
noticing
requirements
are
for
the
interlocal
agreement,
but
interlocal
Agreements
are
essentially
contracts
between
the
city
and
Sound
Transit,
and
so
in
order
to
enter
into
those
contracts.
We'd
need
to
follow
our
own
processes
and
code.
Okay,.
A
A
D
So
our
city
practice
is
to
complete
sipa
after
Planning
Commission,
so
the
thought
of
that
being
that
if
we
issue
cipa
prior
to
Planning
Commission,
there
are
significant
changes.
Then
we
have
to
issue
a
sepa
addendum
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you
all
and
if
there's
other
significant
changes,
then
we
might
so
we
could
end
up
in
a
little
bit
of
a
sepa
circle,
and
so
state
law
does
allow
us.
You
know
it's
before:
it's
adopted
that
we
need
to
go
through
the
cepa
process.
D
We
have
looked
at
the
sepa
analysis
and
and
a
lot
of
the
work
that's
before
you
today
is
based
on
the
existing
environmental
impact
statement
and
based
on
the
existing
environmental
work.
That's
been
been
done
for
Canyon
Park.
They
make
a
comment
about
whether
or
not
so
I
think
one
of
their
concerns
is
say.
We
adopted
this
Canyon
Park,
this
change
to
the
Canyon
Park
sub-area
plan
code
and
then
in
a
few
years
we
decide
that
we
want
to
have
more
sending
and
receiving
sites.
D
Would
we
just
do
a
code
Amendment
like
like
a
housekeeping
code
Amendment,
the
kind
that
you
will
see
all
the
time
or
would
we
go
back
through
a
review
process
similar
to
this
and
I
feel
pretty
comfortable,
saying
that
you
know
in
order
to
identify
sending
and
receiving
sites
and
make
sure
that
we're
not
pushing
capacity
or
or
having
negative
impacts
on
our
environmental
review?
Existing
environmental
review
that
we
would
do
some
level
of
analysis
to
make
sure
that
we
aren't
just
changing,
sending
and
receiving
sites
and
the
code
and
having
impacts
that
weren't
anticipated.
I
So
I
think
the
question
was:
would
we
mitigate
for
any
impacts
in
in
the
packet?
Well,
one
thing
I
would
point
out
is
the
city
of
Bothell
the
municipal
code.
Our
requirement
is
to
figure
out
a
level
of
service
averaged
over
a
corridor
which
needs
to
be
leveler
service
e.
It's
not
intersection
by
intersection.
I
All
scenarios
actually
meet
that
requirement,
so
we
would
not
mitigate
now.
That
being
said
scenario
four
for
one
particular
intersection,
the
average
delay
there
goes
up
by
about
90
seconds,
which
is
quite
significant.
So
that's
why
staff
is
not
recommending
scenario,
four
as
a
good
option,
even
though
it
still
meets
the
corridor
wide
level
of
service
requirement,
so
again,
bottom
line
from
a
transportation
point
of
view.
I
A
A
A
H
A
A
Seeing
none
all
in
favor
of
the
motion
as
proposed
hi
hi,
we
have
all
six
Commissioners
present
voting
affirmatively
to
adopt
the
motion
I'd
like
to
thank
staff
for
their
work
on
this
one
as
well.
It's
been
a
long
journey,
a
lot
of
interest
from
parties
involved.
So
thank
you
for
being
responsive
and
moving
this
forward.
D
Just
quickly
provide
a
few
updates,
so
the
seventh
planning,
commissioner,
was
selected
last
night.
Her
name
is
Sharon
Jones.
We
just
got
notice
of
it
today,
so
we've
emailed
her
but
haven't
necessarily
been
able
to
touch
base,
yet
we're
hoping
to
get
her
oriented
and
everything
ready
so
that
she
can
at
least
start
by
the
beginning
of
the
year.
So
that'll
be
really
exciting
to
my
understanding,
she's
a
downtown
resident
and
she
works
for
UW
Bothell
and
has
a
really
great
background
that
I
think
will
pair
well
with
with
the
Planning
Commission.
D
So
we're
excited
to
have
her
and
have
a
full
commission
again
and
then
we
are
currently
working
on
our
2023
work
plan
and
docket
it'll
look
slightly
different
than
what
you
all
have
seen
in
the
past,
we're
working
on
essentially
kind
of
laying
out
a
five-year
work
plan
and
then
individual
items
for
each
year
as
the
year
comes
up.
So
really
wanting
to
look
at
our
long-range
planning
from
a
very
future
focused.
D
What
do
we
need
to
get
done
and
make
sure
that
we're
really
laying
things
out
and
thinking
about
how
much
Staffing
and
time
we
have
to
work
on
those
things?
So
it'll
look
slightly
different,
but
we
will
spend
time
walking
you
all
through
it
and
talking
you
through
how
we've
done
things
and
calculated
things,
and
we
think
it'll
really
set
us
up
well
for
knowing
not
where
we're
just
going
for
2023
but
know
where
we're
going
in
2024
and
even
starting
to
think
about
what
are
we
going
to
be
doing
in
25
26.?
D
So
those
are
our
major
updates
and
then
assuming
all
continues
going
well
on
the
docket.
Our
new
director,
Jason
Greenspan,
is
planning
on
joining
us
on
the
21st
of
this
month.
So
please
let
us
know
if
any
last
minute
changes
to
your
holiday
schedule
comes
up.
I
know
sometimes
you're,
like
I,
will
do
all
these
things
before
the
holidays
and
then
you're
like
no
I'm
going
to
be
cozy
and
not
do
things.
D
C
Rachel
Lee
one
second
here,
the
racially
disparate
impacts
and
how
to
evaluate
them
in
planning
webinar.
That
was
yesterday
and
one
very
interesting
takeaway
that
I
from
this
webinar,
which
was
presented
by
Washington
Department
of
Commerce,
is
that
they're
asking
people
to
get
very
creative
with
the
kind
of
data
that
is
used
to
paint
a
picture
of
the
city
and
get
a
background
of
what
our
vulnerable
populations
to
displacement.
C
What
are
existing
imbalances
and
I
have
a
list
of
information
that
they
recommended
using
Community
histories,
whether
they're
online
or
oral,
going
into
your
prose
plan
data
and
dragging
out
data
looking
at
census
tract
data
for
your
city
if
it's
homogeneous
and
comparing
it
to
Washington
as
a
whole.
So
there
is
a
lot
of
good
information
and
basically
it's
don't.
Let
perfect
be
the
enemy
of
the
good.
When
trying
to
get
a
picture
of
what's
going
on
in
your
city,.
J
G
D
A
Foreign
I
know
the
rest
of
the
commission
will
be
very
interested
in
hearing
that
as
well.
Okay,
anything
else.
So
our
our
next
item
is
a
draft
letter
to
council.
We
had
a
comment
in
our
packets
and
what
I
would
propose
is
that
there'd
be
a
motion
that
we
transmit
this
when
the
motion
is
seconded,
then
we
would
open
it
for
discussion
and
then,
based
on
the
discussion,
we'd
make
any
modifications
before
we
adopt.
A
H
Okay,
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
the
ad
hoc
committee
for
putting
this
together
during
your
own
hours.
So
thank
you.
I,
really,
especially
appreciated
that
you
brought
it
home
to
some
of
the
work
that
the
commission
has
done,
especially
communicating
middle
housing
in
lower
Maywood.
So
I
just
wanted
to
show
my
appreciation
for
those
callbacks.
A
All
right
other
comments,
so
I
had
two
thoughts.
I
can't
help
myself
from
editing
right
at
the
top.
We
say
we
urge
you
to
pass,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we've
felt
in
the
commission
is
the
need
to
act.
A
little
more
expeditiously
on
this,
so
I
would
propose
that
we
edit
that
sentence
to.
We
urge
you
to
act
expeditiously,
to
pass
that
guidelines
to
kind
of
give
a
little
more
push
to
it.
A
Okay
and
then
towards
the
end,
I
also
thought
about,
including
the
thought
and
I
have
this.
We
hope
that
we
can
continue
to
work
together
to
expand
housing
opportunities
kind
of
place,
the
seed
that
this
isn't
the
end
they're
not
done,
there's
more
to
more
work
to
be
done
here,
but
you
know
this
is
this
is
a
good
step.
We
want
this
to
happen
quickly,
but
then
we
want
to
do
more
in
the
future.
A
E
C
Hi
Sarah
Gustafson
here
I
wanted
to
mention
that
the
amazing
analogy
to
a
baby
growing
up
was
commissioner
robson's
idea
and
I
love
it
and
commissioner
Robson
I
think
you
recommended
even
starting
with
that.
Imagine
the
way
you
feel
Etc
after
you
introduce
yourself
and
I
said
well,
let's
put
that
later
on
in
the
letter
and
let's
do
the
legal
stuff
up
front
and
then
looking
at
it
and
thinking
about
it,
I
think
if
we
were
to
choose
to
change
it
up.
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
Which
so
I
think
there's
two
upcoming
opportunities
one
tomorrow
our
director
is
providing
an
update
on
middle
housing,
ordinance
to
council,
and
essentially
he
will
be
going
over
the
upcoming
schedule
and
what
to
expect
in
the
new
year.
But
that's
like
a
five
minute
presentation
of
the
the
top
of
of
city
council
tomorrow
and
then
on
January
17th.
There
will
be
a
study
session
at
city.
Council
it'll
be
the
first
of
two
study
sessions
on
middle
housing.
The
first
one
is
January
17th.
D
The
second
one
is
I,
believe
February
7th
and
then
we're
planning
on
public
hearings
on
I'll
confirm
this
via
email,
because
I'm
using
what
I'm
remembering
I
believe
it
is
February,
21st
and
March
seventh
for
public
hearings
with
city
council,
but
I
will
confirm
that
via
email.
So
you
have
a
few
dates
that
you
get,
that
middle
housing
is
going
to
city
council.
D
That's
a
repo,
if
they're,
if
you're
wanting
to
speak
at
reports
from
commissions,
I'll
need
to
coordinate
with
the
city
clerk
to
determine
what
meeting
that
would
be
at
so
I
think,
there's
a
question
of
whether
you
want
to
speak
during
public
comment
or
if
you
want
this
to
be
a
formal
report
from
commissions.
If
it's,
if
it's
during
public
comments,
those
are
open
at
any
any
city
council
meeting,
if
you
wanted
it
to
be
a
report
from
commission
I.
Think
I
need
to
coordinate
that
with
our
city
clerk
to
get
it
on
the
agenda.
A
D
B
I
just
want
to
recommend
that
we
read
it
after
the
Break
people.
It
will
pack
more
punch
if
we
can
stack
it
as
close
to
the
voting
if
we
can
in
sort
of
one
chunk
of
the
study
session
and
public
comment,
as
opposed
to
giving
it
a
long
break
between
our
comment
and
the
official
study
session,
so
I
would
I
would
recommend
that
we
do
it
as
close
to
the
study
sessions
and
public
comments
areas
as
we
can.
J
Westerbeck
just
to
be
clear,
are
we
talking
about
when
we
present
the
information
as
a
as
a
Planning
Commission,
formally
that
we
have
asked
to
get
on
the
docket,
as
you
did
just
a
minute
ago,
that
is
up
beyond
the
the
letter
that
we
wrote
or
is
it
just
this
report,
and
just
this
letter
is
acting
as
a
kind
of
a
it
sounds
like
we
were.
You
were
indicating.
Maybe
we
were
reporting
out
something
a
little
more
robust
that
maybe
take
a
few
minutes.
A
J
J
D
G
J
A
And
if
you
do
have
any
conflicts,
I'm
sure
any
one
of
a
number
of
Commissioners
would
be
glad
to
step
in
for
you
just
let
us
know,
but
we're
glad
to
have
you
take
the
opportunity
all
right.
So
we
have
a
motion
before
us
that
the
letter
as
pre,
as
edited
during
this
meeting,
be
presented
to
Council
in
their
January
17th
meeting.
All
in
favor
of
that
motion.