Thank you. Councilors, I would
like to remind you we're going
to be practicing our
accessibility standards this
evening. Let me go ahead and
lead off. I'm Anne McEnerny
Ogle, mayor for the City of
Vancouver. And councilors, if
you would be so kind as to turn
on your microphones, we're
going to try this now so that
if you have any questions,
everyone can be will be able to
hear you. If we have a problem
with the microphones, then
we'll have some turned off. But
please make sure when you talk,
identify yourself and we'll
move forward. With those new
standards, I'm sure you're
aware of all of those Aaron and
Brian. So it's 4 p.m. and we'll
start the workshops on the
state legislative end of the
session update. So Aaron, go
ahead and kick this off, please.
>> Good afternoon, Mayor and
Council. Aaron Lande Assistant
City Manager. I'm joined here
with Brian Enslow, the city's
state contract lobbyist, and
we're providing a recap of the
2026 Washington State
legislative session. Without
stealing too much of Brian's
thunder. Not the greatest
session for the city of
Vancouver and frankly, cities
in general. But we'll get into
some of those details as we
work our way through the slides.
And our intent is to get
through the slides fairly
quickly so that we can have
some time at the end for dialog
and especially some look
forward how we're going to try
to change things up for the
next session in 27. So I'll
turn it over to Brian now.
>> Thank you very much, Mr.
Lande. I am Brian Enslow. I am
the principal of Arbutus
Consulting. And as you
mentioned, I am your state
government consultant. Thank
you for allowing me some time
today. All right. Good. Great.
Everything's working here on my
end. As part of today's agenda,
we are going to provide a
little bit of overview of the
final budget and the impacts to
either Vancouver directly or
cities broadly discuss some
kind of statewide policy issues,
highlight some key measures
that impact the city or city
operations. And then, as Mr.
Lande alluded to, maybe just do
a little kind of discussion
about some observation kind of
after action review items that
we've had a chance to discuss,
but maybe kind of share some
thoughts with you all as well.
So with that, I'm going to jump
right in. So the overall state
budget. Is, in my opinion, a
little bit fragile moving
forward. It's it's based on
significant revenue from the
assumption of, of primarily one
new revenue source, which is
the millionaire's tax Senate
Bill 6346, which I believe
probably most of you have kind
of heard about or read about,
but just for level setting, the
state did pass a income tax on
income above $1 million at a
9.9% rate increase for
individuals and, and businesses.
And then there's a little bit
of additional revenue in the
short term on repeal of a data
center, tax tax provision, kind
of opposite direction, organs
going on, increasing their
incentives for data centers.
Washington kind of pulled back.
It also has a substantial
transfer from the capital
budget. So the operating budget
for two years for the state is
around $80 billion. They borrow
$1 billion from the capital
budget or use it one time. They
also use roughly a billion out
of their budget stabilization
account, which they then
backfill from kind of some some
resources they grabbed from,
from collapsing some pensions
accounts. So there was a lot of
creativity, good staff work on
behalf of the long term
nonpartisan staff and the
budget office to find ways in
which to continue to maintain
some of the services being
provided by state in in lieu of
some of the cost increase. So
short term solvency, as I
mentioned, was kind of
dependent on those one term,
one time transfers out of the
capital budget, out of the
budget stabilization account,
things like that. And then that
long term where the
millionaire's tax kicks in is
about year three and year four
moving forward. And that's kind
of the where the long term
solvency is depended on. So if
that were to be found
unconstitutional or if that was
to be repealed by a ballot
measure, we wouldn't have a
real fiscal crisis in the
current biennium in the short
run. You know, the next year to
two years, 18 months, but
outward, then kind of the, the,
the. Projections in which they
would have a balanced budget in
fiscal year 28, fiscal year 29,
those would be seriously
impacted. And then and we'll
talk more about this kind of on
the last slide, I think. But I
think one of the things that we
have been experiencing, either
as the city of Vancouver or
cities broadly, is state
revenue and fiscal choices do
impact kind of the tools that
are available. And just
generally the, the atmosphere
of the, of the citizens and the
voting public. So when we look
at the fact that the state
increased, you know, operating
revenue last year of 8 to 9
billion to balance their budget
last year, and then now are
looking at another kind of 2
billion annually or, you know,
in, in out years, you know,
like three on the millionaire's
tax that does, you know, kind
of take some of the, I guess,
space or room when we start
looking at, at, at, at
municipal parks or if we look
at at, you know, like levy lid
lifts and things like that,
when there's all these other
things happening at the state
level. So that's kind of what I
wanted to highlight there. And
what I think has been something
that has been felt in many
jurisdictions, particularly at
the ballot the last couple of
years. Excuse me, I'm just
going to take a little sip of
water. Treglown was
particularly bad at my house
this morning. So one of the
perhaps not anticipated
features of the millionaire's
tax is it has a substantial
reduction in the city sales tax
base and not just our city, but
cities broadly. And so that tax,
as it was constructed, has, as
I mentioned, the aforementioned
piece where it's there's the
tax on income. But then then
there's also some what I would
call kind of givebacks or ways
that were intended to kind of
like balance. Our tax code and
make it a little bit more
progressive. So it has repeals
of sales tax on certain
personal care items like
deodorant, shampoo, and things
like that that are experienced
by everyone. So there is kind
of a sales tax relief for every
individual, but it does impact
the local sales tax as well. So
I'm not I'm not making any
policy argument one way or
another on kind of that that
proposal. I'm just saying that
that there is no share of the
new revenue, specifically with
local government. But there is
a repeal of sales tax on
certain consumable items. So
states still gets all the new
revenue. We don't. And and it
wasn't necessarily an
unintended consequence, but it
was a consequence of that.
There is some language in the
bill that says there will be a
mitigation fund. That fund is
possibly sufficient. We won't
really know until 2029. It's
not actually appropriated
because you only appropriate
for two years. You can't
appropriate four years out. And
then the one thing I find
slightly concerning, again,
we've talked about this, you
pay me to be nervous is it's
200 million to cover the cost
of the 2029 impact. But moving
forward, the impact's closer to
400 million are estimated to be
400 million. So some concern
there about how we'll approach
that and how cities are made
whole and and philosophically,
kind of the other concern is,
is if your intent was to maybe
make the state's overall
revenue more. Like proportional
to like how much you make by,
by, by creating a hole in local
government that can only be
filled by sales tax, you kind
of just undo the policy you
were trying to do. And I don't
know if I did a very good job
of explaining that, but if
you're trying to move away from
a regressive sales tax system,
but if ultimately you create a
hole at the local level where
our only tools then are local
sales tax options, you haven't
really accomplished that, or
you maybe haven't accomplished
as much as you would have liked,
I think is what I'm trying to
say. Okay, that was a lot. I
apologize, thanks for sticking
with me. Otherwise, no major
changes to state shared revenue.
There is some increase in the
housing trust fund that is
important specifically to us. I
know if staff are listening. We
have lots of great projects in
the pipeline. We got one
project funded this year. We
did got zero like a year ago.
We're behind. And so the more
money that's in the housing
trust fund, the more
opportunity we get to move
forward on those amazing
projects that we've worked with
our community partners that are
really just waiting on those
tax credits, quite frankly. So
that's good. The there was a
somewhat significant increase
in early childhood education
assistance program on a future
slide, we'll talk a little bit
more about the working families
connections, childcare, which
are working connections,
childcare, which was not so
great, I think from a policy
perspective. And then
unfortunately, there was no
additional funding for indigent
defense either. I know there's
been some real energy put in
that and trying to get some
additional state assistance,
especially based on the new
misdemeanor caseload standards,
which are coming into play
pretty soon. Now that we see as
an unfunded mandate. There was
a lot of conversation initially
as part of the millionaires tax
bill that there would be local
government resources dedicated
for indigent defense, as that
moved out of the Senate and
into the House, those
provisions were stripped out
and ultimately were not
included in that bill. So so
there was, I think Aaron
alluded to. That there isn't
going to be a whole lot of
great news that I report today.
And that's that was some of the
news that could have been
positive, but ultimately did
not move forward. We did have
some some really strong support
from our local delegation and
specifically Representative
Stonier. We were able to
introduce House Bill 2583,
which was Vancouver requested
legislation that would
essentially align our lodging
tax authority with that of
Seattle. I think one of the
primary pieces that we were
hoping to to look at was the
Performing Arts Center. With
some of those new resources. We
had a good hearing and a good
showing on that. We did not.
Ultimately, we weren't
successful. A lot of times with
this, it takes more than a year.
We did have some very good
conversations with the lodging
industry broadly. I think what.
And there is a commitment to
work with us. This interim and
kind of refining our proposal.
I think there's some actually I
think there's some real
opportunity, especially given
the way this city currently
uses their lodging tax
resources, how we would think
about using these new resources
moving forward. I think there's
a lot of alignment because I
think they see the value in
what we're trying to do, and
actually seeing a direct nexus
between what we're trying to do
and the lodging industry. I
think broadly, there was some
concern statewide about some
other some other entities not
using lodging tax resources
without much nexus. So and
that's something that kind of
needs to be ferreted through
before I think we can see
something like our proposal
ultimately making it to the
governor's desk.
>> Yes, councilor. Go ahead and
identify yourself.
>> This is council Member Diana
Perez. Brian, can you elaborate
on the third bullet there of
the crowding from other tax
policies? Is that local state
all of the above, or can you
just elaborate on that comment
there?
>> Great question, Brian. So
here again, so specifically,
specifically I was alluding to,
there was a lot of work on the
short term rental tax, which
ultimately didn't prevail
either. I think there was a
desire to get in ahead of FIFA
to get some additional lodging
tax associated with short term
rentals, and that took up a lot
of the oxygen. But there were,
as I mentioned, quite a few.
And we'll get to it later,
quite a few other kind of
taxing issues that were in some
of those finance committees
that took up kind of more of
the oxygen in the room,
specifically in the lodging
sphere, the one on short term
rentals.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Great question. As I
alluded to in my previous slide,
although there were some
investments in the state
supported. Icap program for
kind of early education, just
the the. Working or working
connections childcare program
itself had some legislation
that was a little challenging.
And so House Bill 2689. I think
the, the big thing that I
wanted to highlight for you was
there was some planned
expansion of eligibility. Right
now, in order for a family to
be eligible, you can be up to
about 60% of. And the
eligibility was planned to go
up to 75 in 2020, 2029, and
then 85% of median family
income in 31. Those were
suspended. There were some
other changes around the
margins around like when you
allow billing, whether you can
bill for like a like 11 days
versus a full month, 15 days
versus a full month or full
month. Those were that was put
in place. But, but, but broadly,
I did want to share. I think
there was some disappointment
about previous commitments and
expansions that. Have now since
been suspended. I think one
thing that was considered a
success is the governor and the
governor's proposal had had
proposed capping the program.
Ultimately, the legislature did
not go with that. So it's still
available to all people that
meet the criteria, as opposed
to having a hard cap. There was
a childcare standard board
created by House Bill 1128,
largely that's focused on work
workers, workforce issues,
working conditions, things like
that. The board composition
then reflects that. So it's
like labor groups that
represent childcare workers,
childcare organizations, the
appropriate state agencies,
things like that. 2219 passed
this year requires childcare
providers to be free of high
potency opioids, equipment and
paraphernalia. I did want to
highlight just Councilor Fox, I
know we've talked about this a
lot. I just want to take. So
some of the things that we. I
think we're looking for. And
that child endangerment statute
that was House Bill 1087 was
reflected in this. I think that
bodes well. I know we had some
the sponsor of 1087 has stated
that they will not be seeking
reelection. So I think that
creates an opportunity for
someone to pick up that issue.
And so that's something we can
talk more about this interim,
about how we kind of move
forward on that. And and sorry,
I was having a little bit of a,
a, a. 1087 was the piece of
legislation that we've spoken a
couple times, but it's around
adding fentanyl to the child
endangerment statute. So okay,
great. So, so right now,
currently it's, it's a, it's a,
you could it's potentially a
crime of child endangerment if
you have like methamphetamine
and methamphetamine related
products in your home. 1087
would have added fentanyl and,
and things of that nature. So.
Okay. So one of the things we
talked about was supporting
concerning essentially banning
law enforcement from using,
having their faces covered.
That bill was passed into law.
It it was and it was signed by
the governor on the 19th of
March, and it was signed with
an emergency clause. So it was
effective immediately. So as of
now. Law enforcement officials
are not allowed to use face
coverings. There are some
appropriate, I would say,
exceptions to that, whether
it's in like a Swat environment
where you need some sort of
protection based on, on, on, on,
like munitions or quite frankly,
if it's really, really cold and
you're, you're out doing some
law enforcement and below
certain temperatures, there are
some exceptions around that
also around like surgical masks
or firefighting equipment, but
for it also puts in a civil
action. So if, if you are an
individual who is approached by
a law enforcement officer who
has not is not properly
identified, I know the city
actually, because I follow you
on social media, did an
excellent social media campaign
on on law enforcement
identification. I can't
remember like all seven signs,
but I know that Vancouver
Police Department have their
own hat and badge and. Okay,
but if some other agency not as
responsible as the Vancouver
police were to have their face
covered and approach an
individual, they have a. They
have a course of action. 6002.
Was around license plate
readers. And. We we at the
staff level are still parsing
out some of the implementation
issues. I think broadly, from a
policy perspective, the notion
that the city of Vancouver
wouldn't be like reading
licenses, license plates, and
then selling that information
to Ice or giving that
information to Ice, I think is
something that we all
understand and appreciate. But
in terms of some of the
restrictions on like vicinity
and proximity to like schools
or health care centers or
things like that, is
challenging to figure out how
to actually operationalize. And
so I know we're still sorting
through that. I know there's
been some conversations about
parking and parking enforcement
and using the the bill
explicitly states you can, but
it also has then a lot of
provisions that make it tricky
around data retention and audit
trails and things like that. So
more to come on that I wouldn't
be surprised if there was some
refinement on that bill next
year, just because of some of
the unintended consequences.
And so, so like I said, we're
doing we're doing a lot of work
at the staff level, both at the
department and kind of the
legal side of that. And so more
to come. And then lastly, you
know, we've done a lot of work
on on trying to create a
regional consensus on moving
forward with a physical campus
for our regional training
center. Seems like we have a
little bit more work to do. And
so unfortunately, our capital
request was not funded this
year with moving forward on
kind of planning and designing.
A long term community asset for
regional training.
>> Yes, councilor. Go ahead.
>> This is Diana Perez, City
Council member. Bryan, can you
elaborate on the not funded
part and a little more clarity
on they just run out of time.
Was there missing information?
Was it just lower priority,
just a little more context to
why it wasn't funded?
>> I have a hard time. It
obviously wasn't a priority
because it because ultimately
it wasn't funded. I think there
was some lack of clarity from
the from the delegation
perspective of whether it was a
regional priority from all of
the local government entities
and things like that versus,
say, just a Vancouver priority.
And I think there's probably
more work to be done there. And
that was probably the biggest
piece.
>> And if I can add again,
Aaron Lande, Council Member,
just so you're aware, our
police department and police
leadership is reaching out to
the sheriff's office as well as
other of our regional partners
to make sure we're all on the
same page and maybe revisit
what page we're on, but trying
to once again come back with
one voice because as the
message we heard was there were
there was there was lack of
clarity about what exactly
Selch was Washington wanted.
And so that conversation is now
going to continue to get back
on the same page. So we can
make that regional ask next
year.
>> On the housing side, one of
the pieces of legislation that
we moved forward this year was
the kind of the annexation
conversation. And what are the
development standards and in in
the city, and then what are the
development standards in the
associated urban growth areas?
We were, you know, essentially,
I wouldn't call our legislation
heavy handed, but it was it was
pretty direct in saying that,
you know, the county will do
what we do from a from, from a
development standard in the UGA.
They're not surprisingly, from
other counties statewide. And
the county association, there's
concerns over some fiscal
impacts and desire to have date
certain annexations, which
ultimately is something I don't
think we could support. So it
was a good conversation starter,
much like our lodging tax bill.
It was there's a lot more work
to do and more work to do over
in this interim. There were
some other kind of significant
housing policy items that were
passed, specifically House Bill
2266, which. Makes it very
difficult to not allow shelters
in your jurisdictions. I don't
think there's any significant
impacts to the way the city
currently operates. It wasn't
targeted at us. There were some
we do use operating agreements,
and there was some language
around that that we kind of had
to like, work on and make sure
we continue to kind of have the
good neighbor agreements that
actually help make these
facilities move forward. But
beyond that, I think that's
something that makes sense from
a regional perspective. And
then we did a lot of work on 60,
26, and a lot of the work we
did was just to make sure that
the legislature didn't upset
the apple cart. Of the tens of
thousands of hours your staff
had already done on our comp
plan update. But Vancouver is
already moving towards
deregulation and already trying
to allow kind of the market to
decide whether it makes sense
to have commercial or, or just
housing. So a lot of alignment
there as well, although it took
me a lot of work to get
alignment. So anyhow, just
wanted to highlight those.
>> Yes, councilor. Identify
yourself.
>> Taste over Council member
Brian, back to 2266. So good
neighbor agreements survived or
were working on the details
there.
>> So existing provisions and
contracts are validated and get
to move forward. And then
there's some language around
kind of what can and cannot be
in there moving forward. But I
think for the most part, it's
not concerning or prohibitive
to what Vancouver staff are
asking from their partner.
Vancouver and Vancouver's
partners are asking for from
providers.
>> Okay.
>> So you can still so you can
still have operating agreements
or, or good, good neighbor
provisions, however you want to
call that. There's just a
little bit of sideboards about
it. And really what it's trying
to make it is it's so, so
cities can't make it
prohibitive, which is not what
we're trying to do, obviously.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> I think I'll just quickly go
over this. But just moving
forward, we're wrestling with
what is a motorcycle versus
what is a what is what is an
e-bike. And, and I don't think
it's a huge issue yet in
Vancouver, but it's coming. So
they're out there. And so the,
the, the big thing there is
there's going to be a work
group that's going to come back
with more recommendations,
specifically on Emoto's. The
bike community was, was, was
was very adamant in helping
define that motorcycles are not
e-bikes and that that language
does that piece and it
establishes the workgroup to
start talking about how we do
enforcement and how we how we
approach this. So, okay, on the
side of I guess good news is
there was a kind of like not
omnibus, but a but a but a
fairly large piece of
legislation that had some city
flexibility and some other city
resources. House Bill 2442. A
lot of things were kind of
crammed into it at the end. It
had a good title. First and
foremost, it allows the city to
establish fire protection
district within our boundaries.
So and, and, and so there's
regional fire authorities, city
fire authority. This is kind of
like a kind of almost a middle
ground where the city could
create a fire authority, but
still have access to the same
level of resources that
regional fire authorities are.
So I know that at least some
members of the staff have
started looking at it,
including our city manager over
here. So at least it's it's an
it's an interesting piece of
flexibility. The other piece of
flexible. Well, the other new
resource that's been added is,
is Councilmanic authority to an
additional one tenth of 1% on
sales tax specifically for. You
know, children and family
services, child care, things of
that nature. It's, it's only
like two paragraphs. So it's,
it's pretty broad. And as
always, when you have
legislative authority, you
could also put it out to a vote.
And then I guess lastly, I
wanted to highlight that you
also now can extend levy lid
lifts from six years to ten. So
not insignificant. Sarah. I
feel certain I've pressed it
three times. Would you if you
could advance it? Thank you so
much. She's the best. Some of
the things I think, like moving
forward, you know, as Aaron
mentioned, you know, we had
some go go years with with
Covid and Arpa dollars and a
lot of additional resources
where we were very successful
in getting either direct
appropriations or just, you
know, there wasn't what I would
call like a lot of tension
between state government and
local government in terms of
resources, since they're just
we were fairly resource rich
from, you know, 2021 until 24
or so. That's obviously changed
the last couple of years. And
just thinking more about where
we fit in with respect to some
of our traditional partners.
And I think. Maybe doing a
better job of cultivating some
new partners that we haven't
traditionally thought of, like
with respect to public safety
issues, how do we get more, how
do we get more engaged with
like the victim's community and
things like that on the housing?
I think this city rightfully
prides itself on all of the
incredible work you've done in
the unhoused sphere and the
housing housing sphere
generally, but we've been we
broadly cities have been
targeted, has have been kind of
put in the position where. Both
from the left and right, we're
kind of they're kind of
pointing at us as being the
problem. And I think that's a
narrative that has maybe been
true in some jurisdictions, but
certainly not in the city of
Vancouver. And how do we kind
of tackle that narrative head
on? And I think, you know,
we've done some thinking at the
staff level, and we know that
there's some conversations,
this interim that we want to
have with some key figures at
the state level, including the
governor's office, lieutenant
governor's office, about kind
of our role and and how we see
that and how we see that moving
forward with relationship to
state policies. I think at
times we're spread too thin.
And I think especially at the
association level, I think the
engagement has negative impacts
on our priorities at times. And
I think that we can probably
think a little bit more
strategic about that. We're
going to continue to. Push on
earlier agenda setting, both at
the association and here
locally, so we can get off the
ground and running on issues
sooner. And then there is a lot
of new members. There's going
to be a lot of new members in
our delegation as well. So
better education, better
engagement of members,
specifically on city specific
issues. You know, ultimately, I
always, you know, I know this
is reductive, but I often say,
you know, you have to fill a
pothole and, and, and, and I,
and there's not a lot of
politics around filling that
pothole. And sometimes that's
just a challenge that we need
to think about. And, and how do
we fit in that conversation in
this legislature?
>> Okay. All right. Yes. Mayor
pro tem fox. Go ahead.
>> Hi, Sarah Fox. I wanted to
focus a little bit on what
you're saying about the
narrative on housing and also
sharing that view that it seems
that the state continues to
look at cities as being the
obstacle to why we don't have
more housing. It must be
because we we don't issue
permits fast enough. It's it
must be because we have too
many fees and impact fees
associated with the housing.
And I find it really concerning,
especially two of the bills
that passed that had to do with
having preemption over whether
or not we can collect property
taxes on these new, more dense
housing types. And so if you're
not going to help us with, you
know, changing our revenue
structure around property taxes,
and now you're exempting, you
know, whole cloth property
types, I'm just kind of
wondering how the legislature
expects us to fund our work. So
really looking forward to
making sure we identify earlier
when the legislature decides
that they're going to tell us
that we can't collect fees on
on new projects.
>> Yeah. Thank you for those
insights.
>> Yes, councilor Stober.
>> Thank you, mayor.
Councilmember Stober Brian is
always good to see you. You
skipped over and and admittedly,
Vancouver doesn't use this a
lot, but you skipped over one
area where the legislature took
a big swing at cities by
sweeping the Public Works
assistance account. So it just
it comes back to this, you know,
last year, they wouldn't 11th
hour refused to move forward
with partial common sense on
property taxes. This year. They
continue to to pull resources
away one after the other. And
I'm feeling like we're starting
to get into being a Dylan Reule
state, which is where the
legislature says everything
that cities can and can't do
and away from any semblance of
a home rule state. And it's
getting concerning. If I could
ask some specifics. So you had
mentioned to the mayor pro tem
1087, having some things from
2219 or was the other way
around and you brought up
fentanyl, but you I was not
clear if one of the things that
got pulled over was fentanyl,
or if fentanyl still stands out
there as a whole in that
legislation.
>> Great question. I think what
I was saying is. There was a
bill that passed 2219
specifically around child care
providers that requires them to
be free of of high potency
opioids. And I was probably
perhaps Inartfully wanted to
transition that to flag an
issue that had been brought up
a couple times on the child
endangerment statute. And what
I intended to report was 1087
did not pass. 1087 would have
added fentanyl to the child
endangerment statute. I would
assume under 2219, and I don't
have the actual legislation in
front of me right now. But
fentanyl is is a highly potent
opioid. So I assume it makes
that definition okay. Yeah.
>> That's better. Clarity.
Thank you. Of course. And on
6026. So carte blanche, I
filled this early in the
session and I not late in the
session. So the concern was
carte blanche. Ground floor
retail goes away as a
requirement. Is that what ended
up happening?
>> No. Our ability to require
ground floor retail is limited.
There are a litany of
provisions. We have exceptions
around our station areas. We
have like a 40% set aside,
things like that, having very
in-depth conversations with
staff during the session. I
believe what is being put
forward in the comp plan update
fits in within that level of
limitations. So I think we're
okay there, but they're,
they're it had started as
essentially a blanket provision
on us being able to require
ground floor retail in some
areas. And why that's important,
right? Is walkability,
livability, having
neighborhoods that are, you
know, like grocery shopping and
things like that and kind of
ten minute neighborhoods
instead of 45 minute
neighborhoods. And that's
really the goal. We understand
that that does potentially make
it a little bit more expensive.
But again, I think, you know,
there's been tens of thousands
easily of hours of staff work
trying to figure this out at
the local level versus having
kind of a top down approach
from the city level or from the
state level has been part of
the problem.
>> Yeah. So it it's again,
being it moving us closer and
closer to Dylan Reule where the
legislature dictates everything.
And, and I'm, I'm all for
common sense policies, but it's,
it's just really getting hard
to accept one year after
another in this direction.
Thanks.
>> Councilor Paulson, any
comments or questions?
Councilor Hansen? Go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mayor and Council
member Stober Council Member
Hansen, Council member Stober,
I think that's a good point. I
think it'd be interesting to
see if we could look over the
past few years, if we didn't
have that requirement. How many
units are we actually talking
about here is as far as what
would be able to go. And if you
didn't require commercial on
ground floor. So I think a
little bit of data on this to
see what would it look like if
we didn't have to do this over
past projects? Because if we
only have 700 and some units in
the permitting section for last
year, what would that actually
mean? As far as how many more
units would we get?
>> Councilor Perez, any
additional comments? Councilor
Harless, thank you so very much,
Brian. It's good to see you
again. We'll stay in touch,
especially with the Southwest
Washington Training Academy. We
have a couple different pieces
that should be happening in the
next month or so.
>> That's great. Thank you.
>> You bet.
>> Thank you. I appreciate your
time.
>> You bet. All right. Let's go
ahead and transition now to our
comprehensive plan. And we'll
have Rebecca Kennedy get
everything lined up.
>> Sir, are we supposed to be
done at 530? Is that what the
agenda says? Okay, great. We
will manage time appropriately.
>> Yes, please.
>> Okay. Evening, mayor and
council. City manager, thank
you for having us back yet
again on the Comprehensive Plan
and Development code update.
>> This is Rebecca Kennedy,
deputy director of community
development, and Mark Pearson,
senior planner for community
development. Go ahead. Rebecca.
>> Thank you. So we are here
tonight to give you an update
on the second draft of the
Comprehensive plan and code
updated development code that
has been published, and
basically to get any remaining
comments that you have prior to
us initiating the three touch
adoption process on April 28th
with a workshop followed by
first reading consent on May
11th, and a public hearing and
adoption on June 1st. So we'll
do a quick recap. We're going
to spend most of the time here
on the engagement feedback that
we received and the changes
that were made. There is a
detailed log of changes
associated with both the plan
and the code, and where those
sort of what those changes were
in response to as part of your
packet, we'll kind of review it
at a high level, and then we'll
just cover next steps. So we do
this at every workshop just to
set the stage. If anyone is new
to this, but comprehensive
plans guide the city's growth
and development for the built
and natural environment. Over
20 years. We have targets for
population, jobs and housing
that we are mandated to
accommodate and demonstrate
capacity for under the Growth
Management Act and the City
Council several a couple years
ago adopted this vision on the
right for the Comprehensive
Plan update. It reads that this
Vancouver is an equitable and
prosperous community which
ensures that all residents,
businesses, and organizations
benefit from the growth and
advancement we make together.
Vancouver will be recognized
for our quality of life, as
evidenced by affordable housing
and vibrant, safe and walkable
neighborhoods, access to jobs
and economic opportunity for
all, and leading edge efforts
to address climate change.
>> You also have a chart over
on the left hand side that
points out the population,
housing units and jobs for 2024.
Our 2045 targets in the growth
in between, correct?
>> Yes. And the the anticipated
population growth is 81,000
people. That translates into
38,000 housing units to address
our existing deficit as well as
future needs. And 43,200 jobs
to continue meeting the
council's policy objective to
have slightly more than one job
for every working age person.
>> Thank you.
>> And I'm still getting used
to these new guidelines, so
thank you, mayor. Me too. So
we've talked many times about
the the changing conditions,
the conditions we're
experiencing that are driving a
lot of this update. We've,
we've experienced shifts in
economics and employment,
including, you know, work from
home, including sort of seeing
that k-shaped economy that you
read about in the news all the
time, where we increasingly
have lots of jobs on the low
wage end, lots of jobs in the
high wage end, but not those
middle wage family wage jobs
that typically don't require
advanced education. A lot of
those are in manufacturing and
production. So thinking about
how to address that, we've seen
tremendous growth over the last
several years. Clark County is
the really the only county in
in the tri or the four county
area that's been growing
consistently with both
population and jobs driving a
need for more housing.
Vancouver continues to grow and
add about 5000 people a year on
average, give or take. We know
that we have disparities in
access. We know that your zip
code in some part, determines
what you have access to in
terms of transportation,
education, parks and open space,
health care services. And and
so we want to address that. And
that's been part of the
council's sort of core policy
objectives for this. Over the
last several years, we've been
working on the comp plan and
then aggressive climate action.
We have very ambitious targets
to be net neutral on our local
GHG emissions by 2040, and this
plan is really trying to pull
the levers we have in a land
use plan to help achieve that.
We also have a set of new state
laws that we have to comply
with. At a minimum, we need to
allow 4 to 6 units per
residential lot in the city for
as a base minimum to if two of
those are affordable or if it's
in proximity to transit, we
have to make room for 38,000
new housing units. And we have
targets within various income
bands. And that includes
allowing permanently supportive
housing. Everywhere we allow
housing, we have to account for
racially disparate impacts. And
that is a lot of the analysis
you've seen in terms of the
opportunity for all piece to.
We have to allow two ADUs or
accessory dwelling units per
residential lot, and there are
regulations restricting the
amount of off street parking
that jurisdictions can require.
We've really moved away from
parking minimums in the new
code, and so you don't see
those. But but the state has
the legislature has acted on
that. And we have to make
impact fees proportional to the
size of housing. So a smaller
unit would pay relatively less
than a larger unit. And then
climate chapters or elements of
the comprehensive plan and the
associated greenhouse gas
analysis. Those are new
requirements for this periodic
update cycle. And we've I think
it's important to kind of note,
as we kind of as we come
towards the end of this process,
you know, what, what have we
been doing? And the answer is a
lot of stuff, a lot of detailed
analysis, a lot of engagement,
but they all roll up into
essentially five key tasks. One
is community partnership and
engagement. You were all aware
that the public involvement
plan and ongoing public
engagement is a requirement
under the Growth Management Act.
When you do periodic update
processes, we've documented
that in our our appendices, but
also online and summarize that
in the presentations and the
memo from today, we have to
update our plan document itself.
And that that includes a lot of
detailed analysis of existing
conditions that go into that.
So you'll recall from earlier
in the process, our housing
needs assessment, our economic
conditions and opportunity
assessment, our equity atlas, a
number of of really detailed
sort of data and technical
analysis. We also have to have
a preferred alternative. That's
a land use map that applies
zoning districts around the
city. We've got to update all
the elements from our existing
comp plans. And we have to have
a capital facilities element,
which is essentially two lists,
one for the 1 to 6 year period
and another list for the 7 to
20 year period covered by the
comprehensive plan that lists
out our capital facilities that
we'll need to serve growth. And
in the 1 to 6 year list, have
what we call a financing plan,
which is just really
demonstrating sources of
funding for those those
improvements. And those will
not look unfamiliar to you
because they are essentially
our six year capital
improvement program,
transportation improvement
programs that that you're
familiar with. Title 20. We
have to update our land use
code to implement our
comprehensive plan. That's been
a key part of this. And what
we've done as part of this
process represents a major
overhaul of our code, not just
sort of a tweaking around the
edges. We have to include some
key priority implementation
steps that show and provide
information on how we will
implement the plan. We have
those at the end of each
chapter, and then we have to we
have to comply with the State
Environmental Policy Act, which
includes an environmental
impact statement for a project
of this size and scope and
impact. And we will release a
final EIS Thursday with the
final plan and or the close to
final planning code that will
be going to Planning Commission
for their review and public
hearing on April 28th. And just
to note, it's important to note
that all the comments. We
received 400 plus comments to
the draft Environmental Impact
Statement process and the final
version of that will respond to
all those comments. So here's
the process. You know, where
we've been, where we are. We
had, you know, a sort of
introductory phase where we
were educating people, learning
from them, doing a lot of
visioning. We moved on to
analyzing data, starting to
kind of put the framework for
the new code in place. We did a
lot of mapping activities and
community engagement around
what what should go where and
what do you want to see where
in the community? We did an
analysis, as I mentioned,
through the draft environmental
impact statement process. We
had a 60 day public comment
period for that, got 400 plus
responses. Then we moved to
refining the policies, the map
policies and code, including
council's endorsement of a
preferred land use alternative
via resolution. At the end of
last year, we've been sharing
out drafts of the planning code.
We published the first kind of
full drafts of the plan and the
code on April 19th or sorry, on
February 19th, which is why you
see on the following slides
changes since February 19th,
because that was sort of the
last time we did a full update
or we published a full draft,
and now we are really moving
towards the adoption phase.
Again, as I said, this is the
last workshop with council
prior to starting the three
touch adoption process, we did
a lot of engagement and
outreach as part of this
process, partnered with many,
many different organizations
across the community that focus
on, you know, development
business, providing services,
transportation, climate. So a
lot of youth based
organizations overall, we
talked to 200 plus people
directly at 200 meetings and
events. We had 2000, sorry,
2000 people directly at 200
meetings in event 2000 plus
ideas and comments received
through various phases of
outreach, we utilized a lot of
different methods of engagement
and really, really met people
kind of where they were. So
like, we had a lot of youth
specific events partnering
directly with schools or youth
serving organizations. We
released the first draft, as I
mentioned, of the draft
planning code in February. We
had a for we did for
presentations with the
community on the draft planning
code, answering questions to in
person and two virtual. We had
about 120 people attend those
across the four meetings. Got a
lot of feedback via email. We
had 1600 plus story map views
and a lot of views of the
interactive map as well. And
then throughout the process, we
distributed information on the
process and how to get engaged
via a lot of direct mail
through the quarterly Vancouver
Hard Copy newsletter that goes
out, as well as many of our
distribution lists. Newsletters,
there was a lot of local news
coverage, etc. Oh, and then we
had a lot of fun social media
content thanks to our comms
people for their support. Okay,
jumping into the feedback. So
again, this is a rolled up
summary. We have more details
in the memo and the various
documents, including all the
engagement summaries. But high
level, we've heard quite a bit
about the medium scale
neighborhood and the building
heights in the medium scale
neighborhood, 75ft is what it
is currently at, I think people
feel that that's we've got
feedback that that just feels
too, too much, especially in
existing neighborhoods. We've
had some feedback that maybe it
could be a little lower. I
think staff feel like that
provides the 75ft, provides the
flexibility that builders need.
Now, given the energy code and
all the other requirements to
build livable units,
multifamily units in these
areas. We've got a lot of
feedback on vehicle traffic and
parking. I think, you know,
people rightly understand that
more people means more trips,
means more demand on the
transportation system. And I
think, you know, we've done a
lot of work just trying to talk
to people about how we need to
more efficiently use the
infrastructure we have, because
the cost of upgrading
infrastructure is often
prohibitive. You know, we have
some large upgrade roadway, you
know, southeast First Street,
18th, 1/92. But those are the
exception, not the rule, and
that we would never have the
revenues to expand nor the
space because we wouldn't have
the right of way to expand all
our roads. So the strategy
really about moving people more
efficiently, providing more
opportunity for shopping for,
for access to, you know, your
doctor's office or healthcare
clinic near where you live to
decrease the lengths of trips
and allow for maybe different
trip types as we invest in the
multimodal system. I think from
green space parks and trees,
people love parks, people love
parks, they want more parks,
but they also want to make sure
that, you know, new development
is helping to support new parks
and isn't sort of overburdening
existing parks. And then we had
a bunch of specific suggestions,
a lot of them coming out of our
like our specific like topic
specific working groups. So we
had some with, for instance,
affordable housing developers,
market rate developers around
different, different kind of
standards or policies that we,
we've sought to address and are
logged. A lot of the questions
we get are not, they're really
about like the interaction of
the plan with various external
things. So like application of
state laws, which we're showing
how we do that in the plan, but
we're also just educating
people about those state laws
and what do they mean and
what's required. Lots of
questions about the 2045
targets for population and
housing. And like, for instance,
if we annex, could we spread
those numbers out across more
land? And, you know, the answer
is no. We just have higher
numbers to accommodate. If we
annex more, because the UGA has
its own set of urban growth
area, has its own set of stuff,
of course, conditions,
covenants and restrictions, a
lot of educating that those are
private contracts that the city
does not enforce. And so a lot
of that this kind of stuff is
in our FAQs that are online. So
we've continually been adding
to that as well. You know, we
send responses to people and
answer them in real time. But,
but some of it is just
educating people that the
overall system. Okay, I'm going
to walk through this kind of
quickly. Council feedback that
we got over two or, sorry,
three workshops. And just to
note that, you know, there was
a lag between. Well, there was
a, there was a time difference
between our, our receiving
council feedback and our
ability to incorporate that
into a draft that got published.
So just want to note that for
February and March workshops on
the plan, even though the
February 1st took part took
place before that, we published
the draft. Most of those were
not incorporated because we
didn't have time. So this is us
responding to a lot of what we
heard at your workshops in
February and March. So the idea
that we need to. Needed to
recognize the importance of the
Columbia River and our the
city's responsibility to
preserve and enhance and
protect that resource. We've
added in policy language around
that in our policies, but also
in the introduction section,
there was some feedback about
really elevating arts and
culture and tying that more
specifically, both to the parks,
recreation and Cultural
Services chapter, but also to
community experience and how
arts and culture contributes to
community experience.
Recognizing the role that small
businesses play in building an
identity and supporting a
culture of belonging and
innovation. So we added
language there, recognizing the
role of sports and recreation
in building community identity.
Again, we added language there.
We did a lot to kind of clarify
and cross-reference connections
between the community
experience, goals and park's
goals. I mean, I think, again,
people love, love parks. And so
when they think about what's
their experience of their
community parks and open space
play an events play a huge role
in that. So we really tried to
make that clear and, and create
those connections across
different plan chapters. We
added some language around
encouraging or incentivizing or
the city playing kind of an
active role in solving some of
the problems around access
Surface Park redevelopment,
because we know it's
challenging. There's often
leases involved out of town
landlords. And so really trying
to kind of find a way to
support that process of
conversion. Over time. We got a
better description of the
health impact assessment map.
We we got, we heard you that
you wanted more specific
geographic information about
where future and library
investments might be made, but
we were unable to get any
additional information from the
library. So just we didn't make
that change because we don't
have any new information, heard
feedback that we need to
celebrate when we when we
finish public facilities and
infrastructure projects and
educate people and bring them
out to show that. So we added
some policy and narrative
language around that. We
updated our student enrollment
table to add current enrollment
numbers. We did just a kind of
a full review for how our maps
and figures to make sure that
the way we described them were
clear and that they were
consistently labeled and that
the policies were structured
kind of in a consistent way.
And then we also added policies
on related to annexation and
conversations. So related to
the county adopting city
development regulations and
infrastructure standards in
advance of annexation and
exploring regional service
models, etc. Okay, we got a lot
of feedback from the Planning
Commission as well, and we've
integrated a lot of this. We've
got more information in the
introduction section about the
school for the deaf and the
blind. They pointed out
correctly that how you make
budget decisions, like what
informs those is in itself a
policy decision. And so we've
made a policy around that that
basically says they'll reflect
our values and various inputs.
We added some information about
the impact of just cars on
personal safety. We've got more
data in the equity chapter on
representation and the
community Experience chapter on
representation that we pulled
from the Equity Atlas. We had
it. We just integrated it more
into the narrative, talked
about, you know, adding more
about what builds an identity.
We had a, I think, great
comment from a planning
commissioner just wanting us to
call out that we often hear a
lot about the evils of rental
housing and how it will ruin
neighborhoods. And, you know, I
think she really gracefully
pointed out that renters are
more than 50% of the city and
they're our neighbors, and they
contribute to the community and
to our neighborhoods, not just
don't detract from it. And so
we added some language there.
We, we took a look at a lot of
our tree canopy stuff to make
sure we're emphasizing that
sufficiently added a just a, I
think a piece to a policy about
looking at, you know,
pedestrianization of streets
and permanent or temporary
street closures. Added a
section in our transportation
chapter. We previously had a
section on our Ada transition
plan, but we didn't. We just
said what we were required to
do instead of prefacing it with
why that's important, and why
continuing to upgrade our
infrastructure, to make it all,
to make it accessible for more
people is a value of the city.
So we added language there.
Some more information on
annexation, some more
information about kind of the
differences between the city
and the Vancouver urban growth
area in terms of both service
provision and demographic
demographics. We were asked to
add targets for mode shift, and
we actually don't have those in
the transportation system plan
either. And so I think that is
something we're going to need
to tackle after this, because
it's a complicated thing to do
and do it by transportation
analysis zones, which is kind
of how we think about we
measure the transportation
system. So that's really a
future step. We weren't able to
do it as part of this. We have
heard from one planning
commissioner in particular, and
I want to make sure to call
this out that the ground floor
active use ready overlay adds
complexity and cost. And we
don't disagree, but we have
removed the ground floor
commercial or active use
requirement from so much of the
city. As part of this, it
really picked the key places
where we need it to advance
connected and accessible
neighborhoods. And we think it
is feasible that the the ground
floor active use ready is sort
of the other piece of getting
to those connected and
accessible neighborhoods
because development lasts 50
years. And so, no, you don't
have to put an active
commercial use there now, but
we want it to be ready to be
converted in the future when
the, you know, more rooftops
are there and support that. So
we have left it in. We believe
it is a key piece of the
combination of those two
overlays and getting us to our
connected and accessible
neighborhood goals over time.
We also heard from the same
planning commissioner that he
thinks we should reduce the
maximum height in the medium
scale neighborhood to 65ft, and
we've had the Planning
Commission had a tremendous
amount of debate between about
buffers between zoning
districts. Some people thought
they were good. Some people
thought they should go away. I
think from we have buffers
today, and we think it's
important to keep them to
differentiate between the scale
of different districts so that
we have left that in. Okay, I
covered this so I won't go over
it again, but this is sort of
how we responded to those
comments as in the various
chapters. And again, this is
listed in a table, but I just
covered this as I went through
the comments so I won't be
redundant. Similar here. Yeah,
we, we tried to take in and
integrate as many comments as
we could from the various
people that we were doing
outreach and engagement with,
including yourselves in the
planning Commission, but also
the community broadly and a lot
of different groups that we've
been partnering with as part of
this, as long as they were kind
of consistent with overall
council direction and policy.
Mark's going to take the code,
but I may have hopefully I
didn't cover all of this.
>> Thanks, Rebecca. Mark person
planner in our development
review department. I'll be
covering the draft code changes
since the publish of the draft
code on February 19th, we
updated the code, and as
Rebecca mentioned, there's a
full list of code changes in
your packet tonight as well.
But we've made some refinements
to the manufactured home
district. There were some
questions from council on that.
On the previous workshops, we
clarified our definitions,
updated the purpose and
character description. We also
allowed permanently affordable
building types to be to open up
those areas more for those
permanently affordable uses.
And then we clarified to allow
community serving accessory
uses in that district, such as
laundry, recreation centers,
that sort of thing. We
clarified that modular and
manufactured homes are allowed
anywhere that housing is
allowed in the updated draft.
So anywhere that household
living is allowed, right? Title
20 is not regulating how
something is built. It's simply
regulating the height, setbacks,
transparency, those things
we've made a reduction in our
bicycling, bicycle and small
mobility parking minimums.
After feedback from Planning
Commission and some of our
community working groups, we've
had a reduction in ground floor
transparency requirements and
weather protection clarified
the definition of ground to
ceiling height, and that's
specifically related to the
active use and active use ready
areas to let folks know what
we're looking for. Exactly.
They're on the ground floor,
and then we allowed for an
increase in setback for
industrial buildings and
employment and industrial zones.
Realizing that, excuse me,
those areas aren't, you know,
aren't in our dense, more
pedestrian oriented areas. And
the functions of those
buildings and areas sometimes
mandate that those are further
from the, the public right of
way. Moving on to some more
code changes. Since February
19th, we updated the buffer
table and diagram for clarity
and readability. We've updated
the childcare to allow those
uses everywhere except heavy
industrial, and we'll defer to
the state for the regulations.
We don't want to be any more
restrictive than the state.
We've updated our annexation
section to reflect the new base
districts and update some
outdated language. We've made
some refinements to show that
neighborhood association
officers will be automatically
notified of pre apps, and that
other folks can opt in. We
extended the timeline for
replacement of single family
homes in the medium scale
district to two years after
hearing from some folks in the
community and how long it can
take to settle with an
insurance claim or to go
through the permitting process
and really to show that that
that timeline is to building
permit submittal, not issuance.
>> And just real quick, let me
jump in here. You receive
comment on this today and we'll
be responding to that comment.
But we, we did address it. You
know, we so we have responded
to in the code. I just have
need to respond to it in
writing, but essentially in the
medium scale neighborhood, you,
you tear down a single family
house for whatever reason, you
can rebuild a single family
house without meeting minimum
density requirements for up to
two years. And you just got to
start the permitting process
within two years. You don't
have to finish it. And
essentially, you know, we've
we've heard a lot. I think
people are some people think
that we are like trying to
intentionally move away from
single family homes, like all
together. And that is not the
case. And we are allowing, you
know, the code allows for
people to replace existing
single family homes in the
medium scale and low scale
neighborhoods in the medium
scale. They've got two years in
the low scale. It's any time,
any basically whenever. So I
just wanted to clarify that,
you know, we I have been slow
in responding to the person who
submitting this comment, but we
have integrated it and
responded to it in the actual
text of the code. Thanks.
>> Jesser are you all done?
>> This is the last slide I
think of of draft changes.
Mayor, do you want me to finish
and take questions?
>> Let's finish.
>> Okay. Updated the map. We
updated the master Mark person
again. Development review.
Updated the master plan section
to clarify requirements for
those larger sites. We updated
our development agreement code
to include the expectation of
public benefit and to set
expectation of term in there.
And then we updated our fee
schedule and maps to reflect
our new design.
>> You have one more slide. Yep.
This is just.
>> This is Rebecca Kennedy,
Community Development
Department. Just going over
that. You know, we have our
final workshop with Planning
Commission tomorrow. Then we
will have a workshop with you
on the 22nd, effectively
starting your three touch
process. The following day, the
Planning Commission will have a
public hearing and take a vote
on the drafts of the plan code
supported by a final
environmental impact statement.
And then we're slated to come
back to you on May 11th for
consent and June 1st for
adoption. And I just want to
make this last bullet count
here. We are not going to get
every single thing right. Right.
This is we have done an
overhaul, full overhaul, new
structure paradigm for our
development code. And we have
worked with a lot of people to
get it as right as we can. And
a lot of people have read
through the code and provided
us comments and really helped
us make it better. But there
will be things that we didn't
that we missed, and we will
need to not just implement the
plan and code, post adoption
and educate people on the new
code in the development
community and how it works, and
facilitate them learning about
it and getting through a smooth
process. We're also going to
have to refine and fix and
learn and adjust and adapt as
we always have, because we
change our codes every year.
But I just don't want to set
the expectation. I want to be
clear that there is no way we
get it 100% right. But we
believe we have worked
extraordinarily hard to get it
close to right and to respond
to as many comments. And and
really, I've expressed deep
gratitude to a lot of the folks
who have taken time to go
through it, put new eyes on it
from their lens and give us
great feedback. So that's it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Mayor Anne
McEnerny Ogle councilors. We
have a hard stop. Let's make
sure our comments and questions
are brief and focused. Let's go
in reverse. Councilor Harless,
do you have any Councilor Perez
anything? Councilor Hansen.
>> Rebecca, Councilor Bart
Hansen. Rebecca, I think you
nailed it when talking about
the middle and what I think is
going up Broadway and going up
uptown area and looking at some
of those areas, how many units
are required for a half acre
parcel? And and if you can go
single family for single family
is that you have two years to
do that from now, or you have
two years from when the unit is
demolished or.
>> Two years from when it's
demolished.
>> Okay. And if you wanted to
add density to that, I think
one of the concerns is with the
units that are required, will
it reach a point where the
proforma doesn't work and it
won't get developed? And then
the single family home just
sits there?
>> Yeah, I think, you know,
again, we've tried to balance a
lot of competing perspectives.
And so Broadway in specifically
is a high capacity transit
corridor and the framework we
used to develop, the preferred
alternative said our high
capacity transit corridors
largely should be mixed use or
regional activity center. And
so those have higher minimum
densities. We believe, based on
our internal feasibility
analysis, that you can build
something there that that meets
the minimum density. It may not
be the product that someone
specifically wants to build,
but we believe we should hold
the line on, you know, really
leveraging those investments
and high capacity transit for
those higher intensity
development types because we
need to hit 38,000 units and
we've got medium scale all over
the city. So that's, I mean, I
think, and, and we, we refine
our code and update our
comprehensive plan every year.
And if we continue to see that,
that, that there, you know, are
things that the minimum
densities are not feasible, we
can change them or we can
change the zoning on sites to,
to reflect that. So that's kind
of where we landed on the
Broadway corridor.
>> Councilor Stapper, Councilor
Paulson, Councilor Stober.
>> Hello, Ty Stober Council
Member Rebecca, this what I'm
about to say is not a. Rebecca,
I want you to change something
now, at the last minute, if you
answered differently the way
I'm thinking, it would be in
the bucket of that future. So
conversations have happened
over the past for the over the
time that I've been on council.
Conversations that were
hypothetical at one point and
then started to become reality.
And that is the situation where
a small, naturally occurring,
low income development gets
torn down and is replaced by a
much larger. Single family home.
Therefore changing it from
something that was once
affordable to something that is
only affordable to a very
limited number of people. Does
the code address that at all?
>> The code does not. The new
code currently does not address
that. And I will say we had
quite a bit of discussion about
this through the process. And
in the spirit, which is one
thing that has guided this
process throughout is
simplification, not regulating
to the lowest common
denominator and trying to say,
let's see what the market
delivers before we kind of try
to regulate those bad outcomes.
And so I think the, the, what
we worked through, and I think
with the development community
as well, though, is that people
are going to maximize units.
We're unlikely to see very many
of those scenarios where you
tear down either a smaller
house and build a 4000 square
foot huge house, or you tear
down, you know, a duplex and do
that because the development
economics are very tight. Now,
maximizing units is really what
we think we're going to see
happen. And this will be a
fairly low risk if we start to
see it, we can change the code.
>> Okay. I'm seeing something
akin to that in my neighborhood,
so I hope we do keep having
this conversation going into
the future. Thank you.
>> Mayor Pro tem fox.
>> Sarah Fox. I just want to
say that I am just so pleased
with all of the work that staff
has done on on this. And I am
also really appreciative of the
staff report that included the
change logs. For those of you
that maybe haven't dived in, I
mean, the documents themselves
are hundreds of pages and the
code is, you know, hundreds of
pages. And so having that as a
key to zoom in on the things
that are different is really
helpful. And I appreciate that.
Other than that, I don't have
any other. Well, one other
thing that was really pleasing
to me really was staff working
closely with me on on better
refining the manufactured
housing, zoning and seeing that
also reflected in, in the
updated version. I was really
pleased with that. So thank you.
>> Yes. Thank you. And McEnerny
Ogle mayor Mark, could you go
back one slide. Slide 14. Last
bulleted item, updated fee
schedule. We have earlier in
the presentation state law that
says align the impact fees to
the size of housing. So we have
schools, parks, traffic, all of
those are now aligned.
>> No, it's a great question,
mayor. So that is a state law.
It is not required for us to do
as part of our periodic review
process though. And while we
have always been intending to
do it, the schools are taking
longer. They've hired their own
consultant, and I get it. They
need some time. It's it's more
complicated for schools because
they're not just looking at,
you know, like an A for traffic,
right? All people generate
impact on the traffic system.
But for schools, only certain
people generate impact. So what
we've basically agreed to is
we're looking at our traffic
impact fee program right now
because of that was called out
in the transportation system
plan to update that. So we'll
do transportation impact fee
proportionality through that.
And then we'll come back with
parks and schools when the
schools are ready.
>> All right. Thank you so very
much. Congratulations on your
work here. I talked all right.
Thank you. That concludes that
particular work Council. We are
now going to go into a closed
session concerning collective
bargaining C w 42 .3.1 44 from
530 to 6. Then we'll go into
executive session concerning
pending or potential litigation
according to C w 42 .3. 110I
triple I from 6 to 630. We'll
be back here at 630 for a
regular council meeting.