Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-31 Committee of the Whole MinutesJuly 31 1995 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Council President Ekberg called the Committee of The Whole Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS None. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; ALLEN EKBERG, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; STEVE MULLET; PAM CARTER; JIM HAGGERTON. JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, CITY ATTORNEY; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; STEVE LANCASTER, DCD Director; JACK PACE, Senior Planner; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; RANDY BERG, Project Manager; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; DON WILLIAMS, Parks and Recreation Director. SPECIAL ISSUES Discussion of New Community Mayor Rants explained that the results of the Community Center bids bid openings were not particularly encouraging. The two low bidders have asked to have their submissions withdrawn due to bidding error. The third lowest bid, while responsive, exceeds the engineer's estimate by $400.000. Mayor Rants continued that the Community Center represents the center -piece of our Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. He's concerned that if we attempt to redesign or scale down the quality of the project, we will quickly regret that decision. We are building a center that will stand for 50 years or more. Economizing construction today will result in higher operating and maintenance costs in the future. Every effort will be made to identify potential, meaningful cost savings with the contractor. The Finance Director is working to develop options within the Six Year Capital Plan that will lessen the impacts of the project. This will not be a simple task and will require us to carefully assess this project in light of all the capital projects we would like to accomplish in the next few years. He said he believes we can build a Community Center that we can all be proud of, while maintaining fiscal responsibility in our overall capital program. Therefore, it is his recommendation that the Council authorizes the Administration to move ahead with the Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes July 31, 1995 Page 2 New Community Center bids (Cont'd) Amend Agenda REPORTS Comp Plan Deliberations ADJOURNMENT 10:15 p.m. project, awarding the bid to Berschauer Phillips Construction in the amount of $7,392,951; include up to $117,752 in "deductibles," making a possible bid award of $7,275,199. Don Williams, Parks Recreation Director, commented that several options concerning the bid award had been reviewed: 1) award the bid; 2) delay bid award; 3) add additional funding; redesign the building. Williams said we need to keep cost as low as possible and still provide a facility in a timely manner that will include the elements the community expects and that the BAR will approve. After a very extensive and lengthy discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to go with Option #1 -to award the bid to Berschauer Phillips Construction Co., in the amount of $7,275,199; then forward to the next Regular Council for possible approval. It was the consensus of the Council to amend the agenda to have Reports precede the Comp Plan Deliberations. Mayor Rants reported that he had attended and was appointed to serve as representative on the steering committee for future funding of parks and open space with King County, City of Seattle, and Suburban Cities. Councilmember Hernandez reported that she had attended the Night Out Against Crime at Foster High School. It was well attended and well represented by the staff and the community. The City's new VISTA volunteer, Jennifer, spoke on behalf of the City and did a very nice job. Refer to Verbatim Transcript attached. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. kberg, C ncil President G- Celia Square, DeAty City Clerk Deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan July 31, 1995 Those Present: Mayor Rants; Councilmembers, Allan Ekberg, Council President; Dennis Robertson; Steve Mullet; Pam Carter; Jim Haggerton. Those Absent: Joe Duffie. Staff Present: Jack Pace, Senior Planner; Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner; Ann Siegenthaler, Associate Planner; Lucy Lauterbach, Council Aid; John McFarland, City Administrator. MR. EKBERG. I was informed that on Thursday night when we meet we will be able to meet here in this room instead in the conference room. MS. HERNANDEZ: Tuesday and Thursday here? MR. EKBERG: Tuesday and Thursday. Okay. Well, we have before us, probably, logistically, one of the more difficult things we'll have to work with. And that's the large scale maps they have before us. And I thought I would solicit, going around the room, ideas that we can use to work these maps and try to figure from the rest of us what our thoughts are, and put that down on paper, and make a game plan. MR. MULLET: Color crayons. MR. ROBERTSON: Wide ones. MR. EKBERG: The one thing I thought about, and I'll start the ball rolling, would be to go through a map, a section at a time based on the map, one of maps before us. Try not to jump around the borders of Tukwila, if you will. Comments, Dennis? MR. ROBERTSON: Can I try something different? To spend five minutes of each map and go back and forth. Seriously, I think if tonight we went through each map, basically, seeing, having a recording of every area that some one of the eight counsel members is interested in discussing or changing let's put it that way, but not discussing. Almost like you would do a consensus agenda. We're going to go through and mark the areas on all four maps. So we will have an idea how big a battle we're going to have, and what the issues really are. I don't know if there is only 3 issues, or 76, or whatever. If you went through the maps. And we just took turns on one map at a time, telling you what maps we wanted to discuss and mark with a florescent marker, are something, to mark on it. And then we're all done; stop and take a breather, and see how much we really have, and then lay it out. But I'd, kind of, like to know what the issues really are, and where the council sits before we get into prolonged debate on a particular point. MS. HERNANDEZ: That's true, Dennis, but I don't know where some of the issues are until I have some answers to some questions. So I need some staff assistance in answering some questions before I move into the phase that you're talking about. MR. ROBERTSON: What I would suggest, all you have to do, is, say, there's an issue, an area, one of ones that's marked off, that you'd like to discuss. Then you might want more information on it. We can ask staff for that. But we can go through and pick all of those areas. Anyway, that was one approach. MS. HERNANDEZ: Well, I think what's important to me, which I don't know how to find the answer for just by looking at these maps is what the current zoning is. To me, that would make a difference, what the current zoning is. We're looking at proposed zoning, but we are not being told what's the current zoning. I guess, if I pulled that out and compared, I could. But just looking at these alone doesn't tell you that. That's one thing. I want to know how we are going to resolve that Allan? MR. ROBERTSON: Where did you find that map, MR. EKBERG: Where did I find that map? This map here was sitting on a side table in the back of the room at one of the meetings I attended as a 2 council member. This is a previous Comp Plan map based on Ann, help me out here, based on zoning. MS. SIEGENTHALER: You, the counsel, have been given previously the existing Comprehensive Plan map at that scale which, I believe, is one inch equals a thousand. You also have you asked staff to provided you with an 11 by 17 reduced colored map of the existing Comprehensive Plan, too. You do have that. So you can compare your two small plans, existing Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission's proposed Comprehensive Plan map. I can go get you, now, prior to your discussion, copies of the existing Comprehensive Plan map at that one inch equals a thousand scale if that will help in your discussion tonight. MR. ROBERTSON: before we leave tonight, MS. HERNANDEZ: one of the colored ones, at home. ones. MS. SIEGENTHALER: Does anyone need one of the small 11 by 17, the colored existing Comp Plan maps? too. We would like one of those anyway. I need one, and I also need because I, evidently, left it MR. ROBERTSON: I'll give one of my colored MS. HERNANDEZ: And I'd like another one of MR. MULLET: I'm sure I have it at home, but I'd like another one. MS. SIEGENTHALER: I ll get them to you so you have them prior to the map discussion tonight. MS. HERNANDEZ: And just the only other thing I wanted to mention. In the land -use designations, I was wondering why, here, the key is PE for public recreation, but on the map it says PR. MS. SIEGENTHALER: I think I can answer your question now, or I can wait until the rest of the council brings up your questions. 3 MR. EKBERG: Tell us now. MS. SIEGENTT'HALER: And your question was? MS. HERNANDEZ: Why is the land -use designation that PE is for public recreation, but on the map it looks like they've used the PR. MS. SIEGEN'THALER: The PE is a typographic error, it should be PR. MR. HAGGERTON: That's was easy to explain. MR. CARTER: Allan, I think a combination of your brilliant idea, and Dennis's brilliant idea would probably work best. If we identified put the little dots or marks on the map and give us an overall idea, and then we can break it down into manageable chunks. Because, for instance, map number 1 is practically all MIC. So there's probably not as many issues. You get down to some of the other maps, there's likely to be more issues. It maybe a couple issues that take a long time out of those many issues. So I think it would give us a better idea. Then if they can develop a schedule so that we know for the next week what we are going to be talking about. Then we can do our preparation instead of all become instant experts on everything. MR. EKBERG: So the thing is to facilitate this combined approach. If Ann or Jack would get a copy of each one of these maps here, a large scale -map, and hang it on the wall throughout the room. And, maybe, Lucy, if you had any of those stickers, those yellow dots and red dot stickers, we can all have some of those. And then, individually or collectively, we can put dots on the map, like where issues are we'd like to talk about. Then from that, we can, or I could go offline and get staff support, possibly figure out which issues to talk about first. MR. ROBERTSON: You could almost put it up 4 there, and where the dots are we work our way down. MS. CARTER: I had another question on procedure. I thought we were considering our draft EIS briefing tonight. MR. EKBERG: We'11 get there. MS. CARTER: Oh, we are. MR. PACE: That's what I was going to ask, we can give that presentation now, and then Vernon can leave early. MR. EKBERG: What I want to be clear on, what we expect is the opportunity to go to maps that are posted on the wall. It could be out of the foyer, that might be easier, and then have dots available to post on those maps. So we can come back and discuss those. With that, Vernon please go forward. MR. UMETSU: Thank you. Tonight I'd like to give you a very short briefing on the Comprehensive Plan Environment Impact Statement or EIS. The proposed action in the EIS is the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for growth management Comprehensive Plan. Given the schedule, the way things were being completed, that was the most complete articulation of City policy that we had at the time when we had to start on the this Comprehensive Plan. That was back in January. The existing Comprehensive Plan was used as an alternative action whose impacts would be contrasted with the proposed Comp Plan, and the results of our analyzes are summarized on the introductory page number 8 which is a summary table of impacts mitigating measures and alternative impacts. The Comprehensive Plan that you have been reviewing is relatively general when compared with the implementation and the implementing actions such as road construction, couuuercial buildings, residential buildings, industrial buildings. And so the analyses is commensurately generalized in this environmental impact statement, and that's why we called a non project EIS. 5 Now, the specific implementing actions for this EIS, such as the road construction, such as industrial building, and commercial building. Those will be subject to their own detailed environmental review when those projects are sufficiently designed to allow for this close impacting analyses, and that's your standard SEPA review that almost all projects go through. Once you have completed your review of the Comprehensive Plan, we'll review it, and I should note that any significant changes from the proposed action will be reviewed by the City's designated SEPA responsible official, who is Steve Lancaster, to determine whether further environment review and /or public comment periods are appropriate. At this time, the draft impact statement has been issued. It was issued on June 27th. The comment period was extended from July 27th, by request from Seattle City Light, to August llth. This would be followed by the publication of the final impact statement, which we anticipate to be somewhere around September 25th. There is to be a ten -day appeal period for that FEIS. Then we would be done with all of your environment impact analyses by October 5th, well within the anticipated November 6th adoption date. At this time are there any questions that I can answer about the EIS or the process that we've used? MR. EKBERG: Council? MS. HERNANDEZ: Just that, do you have any idea if we made any major changes that might require it to be more extensively reviewed? MR. UMETSU: It's hard for me to say what all the changes have been because I haven't really been here for all the changes. But what we will do is take a look at all those changes and evaluate them with respect to several dimensions. First of all, what is the effect on our statutory environments? How does it effect our regional role as required by the GMA policies and the King County planning policies that have been adopted? And, finally, is it subject to regulation anyway? If 6 the changes are not subject to regulations, perhaps they are as significant. MR. PACE: One thing I'd like to add to council you have three documents that are being reviewed by various people. You have the Environmental Impact Statement, the City staff has prepared to the State agency a review of the draft plan. They'll provide comments to you as well as we submitted a draft and packet of material to the Regional Planning Agency. They will provide comments. What staff as trying to do is take these three independent review comments, and coordinated them so that they are done prior to your public hearing. So when, you have your public hearing, you can see all the various comments at one time. So you're not getting piece -meal comments, one from the SEPA, one from the State agencies, and one from the regional agency. So that's our goal. So you have one time and place to look at various comments and assess what those comments are and make a decision. Because maybe the State agency may say, we want you to go left, while the regional agency wants you to go to the right. Somebody else will say, we want you to go up. We are trying to coordinate those comments so you're being as effective and efficient as possible in trying to deal with the variety of comments that come in. MR. EKBERG: Pam? MS. CARTER: I have a problem with the language that used about the schools, on page 85. Okay, the top paragraph, it says: It should also be noted that South Central Schools accept students from outside district boundaries, this includes students dismissed or expelled from other school districts. That is what all public school districts do in this State. There is a choice law now, and all districts must accept out -of- districts students if there's one space available in the schools. And they may only refuse students if they pose a threat to the health or safety of staff and other students. So, this makes it sound like South Central Schools are going out of their way to let in troublemakers. Which is not the way it is. Certain students that are expelled, for instance, for bringing a handgun to school, the district is not required to take them in. But if its a student that's been dismissed or expelled from another school district, South Central evaluates them on a case -by -case basis. And I think that's what most other school districts do. So this gives the mistaken impression that they are letting a lot of bad apples in. MR. UMETSU: We can amend that by adding in: As required by State law. We can amend that. MS. CARTER: Well, and it's also that sentence. It should be noted that they accept students from outside district boundaries. That sounds like we're one of the few districts that do that. As I say, all districts are required to do that by law. MR. ROBERTSON: Why would you even bother saying anything? What does that have to do with the Comp Plan, that whole statement, with the Comp Plan process? MR. UMETSU: It goes to the question: Can you collect can the school petition the City to collect impact fees for facility development because they are close to capacity in certain primarily grades? I don't know whether you can do that. If you are accepting students from out of district and then saying that I'm close to capacity; therefore, Mr. Developer, you owe me impact fees. That was what we're looking at that question. MS. CARTER: All districts have do that. So far as I know, there haven't been any challenges where a district has said, we don't have room and someone has said, oh, yes, you do, you can put another desk in there. And South Central has closed certain grade levels to new out -of- district students. It needs some other sort of wording there. MR. MULLET: I think it can just be left out. I don't think it has any pertinence here since all school districts do exactly the same thing. 8 account. MR. UMETSU: Okay. I will take that into MS. CARTER: And then further down, below the table, it says, "No facility expansions are projected in the district's six -year Capital Improvement Program." I don't believe they have a six -year Capital Improvement Program, but they do have a long -range facilities plan. There are no dates tied to the remodeling and expansion of Thorndike and Tukwila. But those are forecasting long range. It's just they have to wait until time is favorable to float a bond issue and get the voters to approve that. So it's not that they haven't done any planning; they do have a plan but there's not a definite timetable. MR. MULLET: Actually, since I chaired that facility committee that set up that plan, the plan was that when Sho;.lwalter and Cascadeview are done, those are the two oldest schools, that Thorndike and Tukwila will be brought onboard for remodeling. And so that's basically what they were waiting for is to get the two done we're doing now. Actually, they've already been looked at so the review has been done. It's just the phasing to get the bonding and construction started. I'm sure we'll be leaping right into it just as soon as Cascadeview and Shoalwalter are done. MS. CARTER: Find someone else to run. MR. UMETSU: So you're looking at Thornlike Elementary and what was the other one? Tukwila Elementary will be upgraded in the near future. Okay. MR. MULLET: Pending voter approval. MS. CARTER: On page 87, the second paragraph, there's another statement there, the last sentence: In addition, the district's resources have also been encumbered by accepting dismissed or expelled students from other school districts. I think that sentence could go. 9 And on page 88, the last bullet: Where proposed mitigation. It says that the districts should prepare a long -range facilities strategic plan. They do have a facilities plan. MR. MULLET: Yes. MS. CARTER: Then if I could continue, I had problem on page 108 with the proposed intersection and arterial capacity improvements shown in Table 17. Now, I understand this was taken from the transportation element background report, because I looked it up and found the table there, and these were identified in the 1988 -1989 study. However, it seems to me there's some things on here that I heard council say they weren't really interested in doing. For instance, the widening of South 178th, "Construct a three -lane street with grade for buses." I thought I had heard the council definitely say they were not interested in that. So I'm having a problem with this table being put in here this way. And a citizen could easily think these are the priorities that the council has set for intersection and arterial improvements. MR. EKBERG: What does the rest of council think about that? MS. HERNANDEZ: I think they might have been at this time, but this doesn't have a date on it. So it's kind of hard to tell. We did make this change. MS. CARTER: It's like seven lanes for Pacific Highway. MR. HAGGERTON: What is our schedule to go through this in detail? correct. MR. ROBERTSON: Has this been sent out yet? MR. UMETSU: This has been issued; that is MR. ROBERTSON: There's no sense going through it in detail. MR. UMETSU: It's been issued, and what we expect is that we will receive comments, both from the 10 council, as you wish, as a group or as an individual; and from all of the jurisdictions, which we have received some comments so far. MR. HAGGERTON: So what are you doing after you receive those comments? MR. UMETSU: We will go through these. We'll respond to all of them and modify this document as necessary, and then issue a final impact statement. MR. HAGGERTON: What's the schedule on that? MR. UMETSU: We're anticipating issuing the final impact statement September 25th, approximately. Comments are due by August llth. MR. EKBERG: Okay. MR. MULLET: Vernon, can I just ask a general question? Where did you get the information from South Central Schools? MR. UMETSU: Our consultant contacted the administrative services section of the South Central School District, and they talked to the representive there. I couldn't tell you exactly who that was, but I could find out easily. MR. MULLET: I would appreciate that. There is definitely some bad information. There is very poor information. And as I said, I was on that Board for almost two years. I guarantee you that was done, but it's and I can understand if you contacted them and got bad information. I would like to know who that was at the school level. MR. UMETSU: Okay. MR. EKBERG: Other comments? Okay. MR. UMETSU: If I might ask, what would be a good resource to go and recheck this Table 17, arterial movements? Would that be your six -year DIP or 'the CIP? MR. ROBERTSON: CIP is what we're hoping to get back into this very shortly. I don't know how it fits in within your timeline. 11 MR. UMETSU: We can just go back and check what was the most recent, the 1994 or 1995 DIP or CIP. MR. MULLET: Only problem is we canceled everything after 1995 last year. MR. UMETSU: Okay. MR. MULLET: So we basically started over. Some of the things will naturally come back in again. But when we started the neighborhood revitalization project, we wanted to take a fresh look at all funding as we got into it to make sure we were able to move through it. And so some of the transportation projects will be moved, too, depending on what money is needed and what other projects restarted. So it is a fresh look this year. It's kind of difficult to say which ones are going to be in and which ones are going to go out at this time. MR. UMETSU: We have made provisions for the annual updating of this table and of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. So, you know, as you adopted those, it would be adopted by reference into the Comp Plan. MR. EKBERG: Any other comments? Okay. Thank you. Thanks. MR. HAGGERTON: If there was no other comments about that, I've got a question for you. We received a book on the Preliminary Development Regulations. Now, I heard a comment before we started our meeting tonight that that book had been pulled back for further review. And my question is: Should we waste our time reviewing that yet or not? I've got enough stuff to read. MR. PACE: I have good news for you. You don't need to review it. MR. HAGGERTON: That's all I need to now. MR. PACE: We are rescheduling the open houses on the public hearing. There are some corrections that need to be made. So we're taking care of those before those are given out. We will save the time and energy. 12 MR. ROBERTSON: We're what? Rescheduling? MR. PACE: The open house and public hearing to make some corrections in that document to minimize some confusion. MR. ROBERTSON: What does the new schedule look like? MR. PACE: The regional public hearing was scheduled for August 10th, We're doing it on the 24th. MR. ROBERTSON: Two weeks? MR. PACE: Yes. MR. ROBERTSON: When do you expect to get this to the council then? MR. PACE: We're still shooting to get it to the council sometime in September. We're making adjustments. MR. ROBERTSON: Sometime in September? The commitment was the first week in September. MR. PACE: We're still trying. We have Rick redoing the schedule. I'm not seeing it revised. We are working with the Planning Commission to change some of your meeting schedules, so we can still try to do this thing ahead. MR. MCFARLAND: The Planning Commission commitment is to get it to the council on the original date. They are going to do everything they can to do that. So at this point, as far as we're concerned, we're still going to meet this original date. MR. ROBERTSON: Which is what? Which original date are you discussing? MR. MCFARLAND: The first week in September. MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. What happened? MR. MCFARLAND: A combination of things, as near has we can determine. The biggest problem was a failure of the data base in the computer that we were 13 using to publish this document resulted in the failure of some information to get merged. That, and the timeline which, basically, had the printer standing at the counter to pick up the plan, to get it out, and meet the timeline, resulted in an ineffective review of the document in draft, at least the final draft, before it was published. Unfortunately, those things combined to create these errors. Many of them are very minor. But there are a few errors that, in fact, are substantive, where some tables were left out, some information that was to be deleted was not deleted or added was not added. In the technical editing over the weekend by a number of people, these things have been picked up. We're now publishing errata sheets. And rather than trying to coordinate a series of errata sheets with this huge document, we felt it was better to make sure they are fully integrated and in a reasonable format, so people can read them and understand them. A lot of discussion went on this morning on options, and we felt this was the best way to go to keep the integrity of the process and still try to meet the schedule this was agreed upon to the council. MR. ROBERTSON: Two points. It would have been nice if the administration would have come forward and stated this at the start of the meeting instead of it coming out as a casual comment. MR. MCFARLAND: Agreed. MR. ROBERTSON: Two, this is a fairly serious commitment and I'm not going to speak for the rest of the council, but I've done two things based upon that date. One is I've been working pretty long hard evenings lately. I understand mistakes and screw ups and computer errors, but they are almost always caused by people. MR. MCFARLAND: It was human error. It was a failure to merge, but it should have been caught; it wasn't. MR. ROBERTSON: Second, I made a decision on 14 whether to run or not, based upon the commitment that this would be done the first of September. I would expect to see that this commitment, to have it done by the first of September, honored. MR. MCFARLAND: As I said we spent several hours this morning Jack, myself, Rick, representatives from the Planning Commission, the mayor trying to find ways to make sure that we meet that commitment. And I think we felt confident when we left that meeting that we would meet that commitment. Which is probably why we didn't burden you with any kind of warning order to say that we might not. We feel that the same level of intensity to meet that commitment has probably doubled now because of these other problems. If it gets to the point where it looks like we're not going do meet that date, council will be a first to know. At this point we don't feel we're going to miss that date. We think we can still do it. MR. HAGGERTON: Will we get a book to replace the one to start reviewing the preliminary draft? Do you have any idea on that? MR. PACE: Not yet. I'll have an idea about the middle of this week, then I can have John brief you next week. MR. HAGGERTON: As it stands right now, I can lay this aside and not worry about it until I get another book? MR. PACE: Yes. MR. MCFARLAND: Nobody feels good about this. I think in some ways it is a product of just the amount of work we're compressing, all of us. The council, the staff, the voluntary boards, and commission compressing into a very, very short period of time, and it just points out the need for continuing oversight on this process. We're going to miss things. What we don't want to miss are big structural things that make a huge difference. I'm sure we're going to miss a lot of small things that we can come back and clean up. 15 We just need to make sure we don't miss big things that move the plan in the direction that the council does not want to move the plan. And that's what we're trying to clean up right now. Unfortunately, there are half a dozen things that are either contained or not contained in that document that need to be corrected. So that's what we're going to concentrate on. Some of the little things we've already decided we're not going do bother with; they're inconsequential. So that was the crises de jour this morning. MR. EKBERG: Okay. Any comments or questions? Vernon, do you have any questions before we excuse you? MR. UMETSU: No. Thank you. MR. EKBERG: Thank you for your time. Behind us we have maps on the wall. We have stickers. What we can do right now is, for those who are comfortable doing it, go up and put a sticker on the map where you think you might have an issue that you would like to talk about. Then we'll move through the maps. Maybe starting at the north end first to get a feel of what we are going to do, and then we'll break. And we'll come back tomorrow and start deliberation on other sections. We may get through the north and the south tonight. Let's take a feeling for it and see where we are. Tonight we have two colors. I don't think any color matters. MS. CARTER: To clarify, this isn't a popularity contest if he puts a dot on something, I don't need to put my dot. [Brief recess taken.] MR. EKBERG: We will reconvene. What we would like to do, as you can see, Lucy is numbering each dot on the map. So when we talk about the map we're talking about a number. What will happen between tonight and tomorrow is staff will get these photocopied, and we will have these as our documents to work from. So any maps you have now, keep them, 16 and we'll be working off these and off the numbers on these, and so we're talking the same language. Ann has two issues: One of business; one is a glossary issue, and another one is the write -up for the process for changing the Comprehensive Plan document. She'd like to bring those out right now. MS. SIEGENTHALER: These are two handouts that address some council issues raised previously. You have asked staff for some additional glossary revisions, which wF have for you in the first handout. And the council had also asked, under the Roles and Responsibilities discussion, that staff take the policy on monitoring and updating the plan and develop a new section for the Comprehensive Plan. And that is what we have done in the second handout. If you're able to look at those tonight or sometime before tomorrow night, it would be very helpful for staff. If you can give us feedback on those, and if you have any changes you might want in your draft highlighted version this Friday. Thank you. MR. EKBERG: I would suggest that we move through the glossary revisions like we did the last time we looked at them. We can move through those relatively quickly and digest them has they are put up before us right now. Is everyone okay with that? Okay. So let's turn to the handout, dated July 28, on Comprehensive Plan glossary Revisions. Okay. Regarding gross acre. Let's take a second to look at it. Ann, for my understanding and clarification or Jack gross area and the site development scale, basically, it's total site from border to border. MS.SIEGENTHALER: That is correct, within the property border. MR. ROBERTSON: I would suggest instead of saying at the site development scale, we say "at the site development level." MR. EKBERG: Okay. MS. HERNANDEZ: I like that. 17 MR. ROBERTSON: In fact, in the next one, too. I'd say at the area wide planning level. In fact, I'd put "level" everywhere you've got "scale." MR. EKBERG: Let's stay on glossary. Okay, on the gross acre, one, section one, anyplace there's "scale," we'll replace it with "level." On the question regarding the area -wide planning level, streams, and lakes, and things of that nature, would they be included in this gross acreage or excluded? MS. SIEGENTHALER: Your question is whether or not streams or lakes would be included in gross acres? The answer is that, typically, they would be included. MR. EKBERG: Will be included. All right. Any other thoughts on gross acre glossary definition? How about net acre. Let's look at that one. Once again, we'll change "scale" to "level." MR. MULLET: So to follow up on your question, Allan, under "net acre" it say "total acreage, less transferred, that transferred to public ownership." I'm assuming that wet lands, unless they're transferred to public ownership, would still be included in the net acre. MS. SIEGENTHALER: That's correct. MR. EKBERG: What would be an example of something that would be transferred to public ownership? MS. SIEGENTHALER: A road right -of -way, for example, or a wet land that is transferred to the City for a detention facility, for example, or a trail easement. MAYOR RANTS: How about out right purchasing? The City purchased upper 144th and Academy. MS. SIEGENTHALER: Yes. MR. HAGGERTON: But the net acreage includes all easements? MS. SIEGENTHALER: Yes. Easements are included in net acre but dedications or donations or sale to the public entity would not be included. 18 MR. EKBERG: Would this be correct if we put in parentheses after the word "transferred" what you just said, Ann? Dedications, donations, sales. Would that be correct? Would we be missing another transfer vehicle? MS. SIEGENTHALER: That would help clarify what you mean by "transfer to the public." MR. EKBERG: Maybe "E," period, "G," period, comma, and then the examples. Okay, after the word transfer, we put in parens, "E," period, "G," period, "dedications donations, sale," end parens. As examples of what transfer represents. MR. HAGGERTON: We had that one project where this was a very important item, that dedication of the trail right -of -way. I can't remember what the parcel was, but I think it was a pretty important part of that project. MR. EKBERG: On the last sentence, here, "the net acre typically includes easement areas." Would that be included in the measurements or excluded in the measurements? Which side of the equation is that on? MS. SIEGENTHALER: Easement areas would be included in net acre as part of the total acreage acreage? MR. EKBERG: Would be a total developable MS. SIEGENTHALER: Yes. MR. EKBERG: Other questions on number two? MR. HAGGERTON: Seems strange that it's that way, though, to have easements included in there because you're talking about buildable square footage of an acre. But part of that square footage is easement, which is controlled. MS. CARTER: Well, isn't it usable, not buildable? You can use that easement area by putting in a lawn. MS. SIEGENTRALER: Also the easement area as usable area for the development. For example, it may 19 be a private roadway easement, but if it's dedicated or sold to public ownership, then it's no longer usable by that property owner. It is no longer part of that property. So easements are included in that acreage. Right -of -way dedications are excluded. MR. EKBERG: All right. Let's go on to the next one. Shorelines elements, 3, physical access. MR. ROBERTSON: Would parking lots be considered a part of that physical access? MS. SIEGENT'HALER: You could consider those parking lots physical access. MR. ROBERTSON: Good. Then I would suggest we delete bicycle racks and replace that with parking lots. Bicycle racks seem kind of a small thing to list but parking lots aren't. I have another question that, "or direct contact with the water." The way it is written at the end, wouldn't it be better to say with direct contact to the water? MR. MULLET: Number one, we have very little direct contact with the water anywhere along the river anyway because there's a 15 to 20 foot bank there. MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. All right. MR. EKBERG: Everyone okay with physical access? Okay. Let's go on to the number 4, visual access. Okay with that one? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. MR. EKBERG: Okay. Let's go on to cultural access. Everyone okay with that one? Let's go on the 6th one, natural area, non public. MR. HAGGERTON: I think that's about the best we've ever had on cultural access. It's kind of been a thorn to really identify, but that's pretty good. MR. EKBERG: Let's go on to the 6th one: Natural area, non public public. MR. ROBERTSON: Why do you say vary in size there when we didn't anywhere else. I would rather 20 leave the size an issue for the developmental regulations. So just say: An area adjacent. that? MR. EKBERG: I agree. Everyone okay with MR. MULLET- Yes. MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. The last sentence, the two words of the last line says, "ornamental plantings." Would it be better to say "non- native plantings in a habitat are allowed." MS. SIEGENTHA.LER: You could use the word "non- native," ornamental usually takes non native MR. ROBERTSON: I rather use "non- native," because I've got this visualization of someone planting roses and all kinds of things like that. MR. EKBERG: So what's your comment, again, Dennis, please? MR. ROBERTSON: Replace the word "ornamental" in the last line with the word "non- native." MR. MULLET: You can could have a wild rose, and it could enhance the habitat. MR. ROBERTSON: Yes, but I've seen your flower garden, and I don't want that on my river. MR. EKBERG: I'm kind of concerned, I might be concerned with having the actual area, comma, non public. Would it matter if we reversed it and said non public natural area? MS. SIEGRN BALER: Perhaps I can answer that question in a direct way by telling you why this definition is here. We had discussed under the shoreline element the idea of allowing the term that was used was "limited access natural areas," in lieu of providing cultural, physical, visual access. There was a lot of discussion and concern with how to use that term "limited access natural areas," particularly when we already used the teL[IL "natural area" under the definition of physical access. 21 So the term non public natural area is intended to replace limited access natural area. You may find a better term for that, but the idea was distinguish that from those public natural areas. MR. EKBERG: I think what you just said links it well for me. When you describe this, you described it as non public natural area. I think with what we want to do is inverse the relationship between non public and natural on the document. Do you see that? Ann, do you follow me? We'll have that read as non public natural area. MS. CARTER: Do you think when people see the term in the policy, and they go to look it up in the glossary, which are they going to look for, is what you want. MR. EKBERG: Well, I would have them all "non- public natural area," and, hopefully, that will be capitalized within the document. MS. HERNANDEZ: I got so use to the term "limited access natural area," now I'm having a hard time identifying with "non- public natural area." I wondered if the public will think they're prohibited, like, they'll be trespassing if they intrude on this area. MR. ROBERTSON: It won't bother the fishermen. MR. HAGGERTON: I kind of think that's what that is intended for, there are some businesses, I guess, it relates to homeowners also. Those areas aren't really designed to be public, but those people are required to have that vegetation, either native or non native allowed in plantings to maintain their part of the bank. MS. HERNANDEZ: So would public access actually be prohibited? Is it just discouraged, or is it actually prohibited? MR. HAGGERTON: I'm not sure you can say prohibited, but it is discouraged on some of that property. MS. CARTER: And this doesn't address that. It just says this isn't developed for human use. So 22 it could apply in two different areas. It could apply in an area that was private property that they didn't want people on. It could apply in an area that was publicly owned, but it didn't have any structures. It wasn't maintained for human use. MR. EKBERG: Would it help if we said it has no structures for public human use, or something to that effect. We're not excluding human use. We're excluding public. use. MR. ROBERTSON: I think it would be no human MR. EKBERG: I think we had talked about someone being able to cut through this limited access area down to the water. MR. ROBERTSON: Sure, if it was private property. They still couldn't have a structure there they couldn't put MS. CARTER: A gazebo or whatever there. MS. HERNANDEZ: I think that's clear. I don't have a problem with any structure. I just wonder if we're going to have a problem like they did on the water front, on the salt water front, where people said you can't stop me from walking here if I want to. MR. ROBERTSON: When you say, "non- public" that kind of implies it. MR. HAGGERTON: Have we clearly stated where a property owner could go to get direction on non native plantings? MS. SIEGENTHALER: No, but that would be something, typically, a development regulation MR. HAGGERTON: That's going to be in there, because I have had that question asked. MS. SIEGENTHALER: We'll give some guidance on that at that point. MR. EKBERG: So we have a primary purpose of wild life habitat, but could a secondary, or another purpose, be visual access? Because if we have this 23 established across the river, it may mean visual access to somebody. MR. ROBERTSON: I don't think we need to say it here but it would be. MS. CARTER: I think I don't know that we need to state it, but I think the other purpose is maintenance of the bank. MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. MR. EKBERG: Okay. So we have now for 6 is: Non public natural area. An area adjacent to the riverbank that is not developed and has no structure for human use., but where vegetation is maintained for the primary purpose of wild life habitat. Native vegetation predominance but non native plantings that enhance habitat are allowed. MR. HAGGERTON: Still, I have a little concern how that's going to relate to the glossary. It seems to me that natural area should be first, because that is what people are going to be looking for. MR. ROBERTSON: But if we said "non- public natural areas.!' MR. HAGGERTON: Well, it will appear shortly after natural areas. It'll be close enough to the same thing. They will be able to see that. MR. EKBERG: Thanks. MS. SIEGENTHALER: The next thing I'll ask you about, if you want to go through the maintenance of the plan right now, and take a few minutes to read this, or do you want to talk about it tomorrow? MR. ROBERTSON: I'm dissatisfied with it. This is wide open. I realize you were going to go talk to the attorney and ask the land -use attorney why he wants the process for maintaining the plan in the ordinance in the adopting ordinance or the developmental code. It says: Establish specific process in the developmental code. The only reason, I just would kind of like to know why. MS. SIEGKNTHALER: Your question if I might 24 paraphrase is why would the specific process for updating the Comprehensive Plan be in the development phase and not in the Comprehensive Plan? MR. ROBERTSON: Yes. MR. PACE: It's best to keep your plan somewhat general so it maximizes flexibility for the council to make changes in its ordinances. If you have everything very detailed in the Comp Plan, anytime you want to make an adjustment, you have to wait a year for that one period when you decide to make any changes. What the attorney is advising you is to maximize the City, to you the council, the flexibility to better put those perimeters in the zoning code. MR. ROBERTSON: Is that the only reason? MR. PACE: That was the major reason we had a staff person working with the council was to provide some flexibility to the council and administration to deal with these of these issue. MR. ROBERTSON: I guess I'd like to counter that with, this is a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, not a normal ordinance or resolution. This is a planning document. It's certainly shouldn't changed very frequently. And shouldn't be intended to change. I would think once allowing a dual process as it was proposed but once a year at a fixed time and every five years, but any significant change was a five year thing. I'm horrified by the thought of a council going through something like this every year. There are lots of other things that council and staff need to do that aren't getting done right now. MR. PACE: Again, the attorney's advice was to go with this wording. This would meet the he felt the State requirements while at the same time providing some flexibility for the City in actually coming up with the mechanical detailed working through the developmental regulations. MR. EKBERG: I kind of have a concern about this, too. I'm concerned from the aspect of we may have multiple regulations on the book. And at any point in time we may be looking at one piece of the 25 big puzzle. The Comp Plan is a big puzzle. So we change that one piece in March, we change another piece in July, and a third piece in October without actually, conceptually, thinking about the whole plan in general. Therefore, my thought would be to see all those different pieces of the puzzle coming together at one point in time for one combined deliberation. So when we change that puzzle, we change it concisely through all the elements. I'm afraid if we piece -meal it, we'll probably lose the essence of the Comp Plan. MR. MULLET: Allan, I agree with you, but it seems that proposal that Dennis read the other night, what we had talked about in front of the attorney and everything; once that goes in to the developmental regulations, you're concerns are gone because it, basically, said we were only going to review once a year. MR. EKBERG: That's assuming that each development regulation employs the same process policy, which we're not guaranteed at this point. By putting the process policy in the Comp Plan we are guaranteed that. Back to my statement, we can do one regulation revision in March; one in July. MR. MULLET: Read this one down here. That covers everything that has to do with monitoring the Comp Plan. Establish specific processes and developmental codes for monitoring and evaluating and updating the Comprehensive Plan and regulations. MR. EKBERG: According to that one code or that one regulation, not globally in my opinion. MR. EKBERG: If we want to read that to read globally, then we should put that in the Comprehensive Plan so it is global and provide the direction to staff to have that happen. MR. ROBERTSON: What developmental regulation and when would you plan for this to be done? MR. PACE: My understanding of the discussion that the attorney explained to you he's looking at doing that in the package. Either we can do it in the MR. MULLET: I read that to say globally. 26 package that the Planning Commission gives to you, or do it when you do Bond 1724 and those changes next year. I think right now, to be honest, I'd like some direction from council if this wording is okay. That is one decision. Second decision, if there are any changes? Third would be if the council wants to see some wording in this council's Planning Commission draft and not wait until next year, that would be a third comment. MR. ROBERTSON: There are three parts to this. The first one, "periodic re- evaluation of Comp Plan designations and policies." I don't like the word "periodic." I guess, I'd like to see something more structured. Why is that there? What's the difference between that clause and the third clause that reads what is it trying to accomplish different from the one that reads: Establish specific process and Development Code for monitoring, evaluating, etc. What's the difference between those two? MS. SIEGENTHALER: There are two things that this policy implementation strategies really addresses. One, is the timing of the date of the plan, and the second issue is the process. And the specific process is something that, again, the attorney advises that it would be best to deal with that in the Development Code, and that process, once you decide on this process, then that applies to all of those updates. The timing of the updates has much to do with the statutes. Much of that we don't have control over, and in fact, the attorney has reviewed this wording to make sure that we comply with the latest requirements, which are under RCW 3671 A, and that's why that citation is in here. We know at present that we need to have some policy for monitoring the plan in our Comprehensive Plan that addresses the requirement that we not update it more frequently than once per year except as allowed in the new legislation. And he's included that citation here, so those the timing issue. MR. ROBERTSON: What. does the new legislation 27 allow? MS SIEGENTHALER: That included, I believe, the requirement to make sure that the Shoreline Plan Master Program matches the Comprehensive Plan, so forth. And I'm not sure where this legislation is going. I'm not sure if it's something that will change. So the attorney has advised us to use the citation in our plan so that we know that this policy in our plan will be always consistent with the State statutes. Then the process, the specific details of how you go through that process, will be worked out in the Development Code. MR. ROBERTSON: If we put the process in the Development Code, does it have to go through a review and a public hearing by the Planning Commission? MS. SIEGENTHALER: The answer to that question depends on whatever review the Development Regulations goes through, that process will also go through. And I'm not sure, maybe Jack can answer what the plans are for the rest of the Development Code. MR. PACE: Let's say you want to ask the Planning Commission, for whatever reason, that does not need to go back to the Planning Commission. I understand your question correctly so let's say you get a document, the Planning Commission says, here's our recommendations you wanted to change some things and take some things out. That does not need to go back through. MR. ROBERTSON: So, it does not have to go to the Planning Commission. That means if we agreed to do it in the developmental regulations, and we wanted to do it with the set of Development Regulations, we're going to get the first week in September, that we could add this to it. MR. PACE: Yes. Let's take another example let's say the Planning Commission is not making any changes MR. ROBERTSON: I don't want another example; is what I said correct? MR. PACE: That is going to be correct. What 28 I would like from you is some direction not just the Comp Plan wording. If I know this is something you want moved up, I can make arrangements with our attorney to have some wording done. MR. MULLET: I would like to say there was a document prepared and handed out at the last meeting. I agreed with that document as the version of the process. I don't know if it was intended to be the finite word on it or not. It was some thoughts we had talked about, and Dennis wrote down, and I agree with that as a direction. I know Dennis agrees with it. MS. SIEGENTHALER: Would you like us to have the land -use attorney look at that handout, and address the process outlined in that handout and how that would fit in the Development Regulations? MR. MULLET: He sat right here and addressed it when we talked about it. He said it sounded like it wasn't a problem. I guess we just need him to really read it. MR. EKBERG: Why don't we request staff to have the lawyer look at that document, draft that in whatever legally is required, and present that back to the council. MR. ROBERTSON: As part of the developmental regulations? MR. EKBERG: I would like to see it on the Comprehensive Plan. MR. ROBERTSON: I would still prefer to see it there myself. MR. EKBERG: For instance, the question I have is update plans as the community needs change. Well, who would make that determination that the community needs change? If it isn't council, who else is there? I think that's why it needs to be derived by some decision by the elective people of the future City of Tukwila, not us in particular, to change what that Comprehensive Plan is. Joan, what do you think? MS. HERNANDEZ: Yes. I believe I'd like if I was on the council I'd certainly like to be part 29 of the making of that decision. And I think it's important that it does become part of policy in the Comp Plan for that reason. But I also am concerned that this is the first attempt that we've done to update the Comprehensive Plan in a long time. I would like to, certainly, allow for the fact there may be some circumstances that we are unaware of that we might need to address. I do agree, also, with your suggestion, Allan, that if we do it, that we do it all at one time. Not more than once a year, and we do that all at one time. We do have to allow a process that we do review it at least once a year. So that when those issues do come up, that we can forward them and set them aside in a process that would come up for consideration at least once a year. MR. ROBERTSON: I agree. MR. HAGGERTON: I didn't hear Dennis's earlier conversation. I was trying to read some sense into this. I think the addition of a word in there would make me more comfortable. The State recommends that each City established an annual review of the changes to Development Regulations in the Comprehensive Plan. It sounds like you're going to review the whole plan once a year. We talked about a system where any changes to the plan would be accumulated, and at least once a year those would be reviewed as if we needed to update the plan. MR. EKBERG: Where are you reading that in particular, under issues? MR. MULLET: 15.1.16. MS. CARTER: I think he's on page 2. MR. HAGGERTON: First paragraph, page 2. The third sentence: The State recommends that each City establish an annual review of the Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan to measure and evaluate. 30 That sounds like you have to review the complete plan once a year. In fact, that's exactly what it says. All we want to do is review the changes to the plan that we may deem necessary to modify the plan. There may just be a very short list every year. We certainly don't want to review the whole Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations every year. MS. CARTER: That would be consider cruel and unusual punishment. MAYOR RANTS: I'll agree with that one. MR. ROBERTSON: By quoting that, that implies, and I'll even go back to re- evaluate the whole thing, you're going to see if it's actually working toward the State's goal for the GMA's goals. 1 don't know what that means, but, geez, nothing could make this longer could it? MR. EKBERG: I have a thought. I we've asked staff to do is have the lawyer with the implementation strategy. I think that are here as implementation strategies definitely become policies. think what come back the words can The re- evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan designations and policies as required by RCW. That can be a policy, and the next one could be a policy re- evaluation of implementing the Development Regulations related to the City's long range plan. That could be a policy. And then we'd scratch the third have an implementation strategy based on lawyer comes back with for the consensus policy in the document. one, and we what the for the MS. CARTER: I don't really see them as policies. If we're going to do it this way, the policy of monitoring, evaluating, and updating. That's the policy. We want a do housekeeping. How do you do housekeeping? You do housekeeping by periodically looking at it, and t1'en leaving a process to go through. So I think those are properly strategies. 31 MR. ROBERTSON: So you have the first two strategies, and then the fourth one is a strategy. But the third one would be MS. CARTER: That is a strategy, too. It says you've got to have a process to do this. MR. ROBERTSON: We actually are saying that the policy be part of the document itself. MR. EKBERG: I would scratch the third one. MR. ROBERTSON: By the way, if the process didn't work, there would be nothing to stop the council at end of the first year from changing the process system. MR. EKBERG: Sure. MR. ROBERTSON: Can I ask what the data base above the land use and demographics would include? Is that more demographics then we're currently gathering now? SIEGENTHALER: That's what that implies. Yes, that you would have an on -going collection of land -use data, that of demographics. We have some of that now. MR. EKBERG: We spent a lot of time cutting out demographic types of things in the document, as I remember. We don't want to study every individual in the City to find that skill base that they might have. MR. ROBERTSON: I'm not sure, if this means more than what were going now. I'm not sure I would want to spend the money to do that. MAYOR RANTS: Can I make a observation here? Some of this, it seems to me, in the GMA and State wording is intended to fully employ every planner that ever comes out of college for the next twenty years with the number of reviews that we have to go through, and the way it's stated. It does need to be simplified. I think that as we make these complaints to legislators, some of this might resolve a little bit over the years. And I don't know mean to embarrass you that you need full -time time employment because you have it now. I 32 know how much you have. MR. EKBERG: Also, on that same note, data is updated land use is that geo -base system we hear about once in a while, but it's not employed yet? MS. SIEGENTHALER: It does not need to take any particular form such as a GIS system. It can be simply the manual systems that we have now. But if it's not an implementation strategy you feel appropriate here, we can certainly delete that. The real key in this list of implementation strategies is the third one regarding the process. The rest are simply elaborations of that policy. think? MR. EKBERG: I understand. What do you guys MS. CARTER: I don't know that that last one on the data base is a necessary implementation strategy to the policy of monitoring. Because I think in other parts of the document, we've talked about evaluating something, gathering the statistics, and whether it's a level of service, etc., so I don't really think it needs to be here. MR. EKBERG: I agree with you, Pam. MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. I would like to go back okay, I agree with that. MR. EKBERG: What we talked about for implementation strategies, the first two we'll keep. The third one we'll strike and replace it with an actual policy that we have talked about. The fourth one we'll strike. MR. ROBERTSON: I want to go back to page two the one that Ji«uny pointed out. What I'd like to do is take the first sentence from each paragraph and combined them into a paragraph and throw the last of each paragraph away. Take the two first sentences. MR. EKBERG: Read them to us, Dennis. MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. That would read: The GMA recognizes that, periodically, developmental regulations need to be up dated sorry. I want to take the first two sentences. As regulations must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, some changes of 33 the plan will be needed. The GMA also states that amendments to the plan shall not be considered more frequently then once every year except in cases of emergency, period. The reason to do what I just said, is it gives what we want to do. I'm hoping the GMA will change the part about having to measure and evaluate progress and all that other kind of stuff. But in any case, the GMA states all kinds of things that we are not listing here. I don't think we have to think these, too, or the stuff that's there. So again, if we made a paragraph the way I said we do have to periodically update the plan, and our regulations must also be consistent with the Comp Plan, and the amendments can't be more frequent than once every year accept in cases of emergency. And let it go at that. MS. CARTER: I see what you're doing. I agree with that, except I question your ending your last sentence after the word "emergency," and not quoting all the reasons they give in that RCW. MR. ROBERTSON: For one thing they adopted a subarea plan. We don't do subarea plans. We never have in the City, we don't have subareas. I don't want to hint at something we don't do. If we took subarea out, so we just said: Except in cases of emergency, comma, or amend the Shoreline Master Program. Well, I'd agree with that. MS. HERNANDEZ: I think we should leave that in there: The Shoreline Master Program. Isn't that something we need to do north of the City? We need to adopt King County's plan, and we need to develop our own. MS. CARTER: I think what I'm seeing quotation marks at the beginning before "amendments" there's no closing quotations. I think maybe if we take the quotations out. MR. ROBERTSON: Would you be happy, then, starting the whole thing over again, if we said: The GMA recognizes that, periodically, Development Regulations need to be updated. As regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, some changes in the plan will be needed. 34 The GMA also states that amendments to the plan should not be considered more frequently then once every year, except in cases of emergency, or to amend the Shoreline Master Program, RCW 36.78.130. MS. CARTER: Sounds good to me. Doesn't sound as much like it's written by a lawyer. MR. ROBERTSON: We got rid of we pretended the part we don't like doesn't exist. MR. HAGGERTON: I have a feeling that the State may have been a concern. We plan to review the changes, annually. That's one of their criteria. MR. ROBERTSON: What we actually do, this is the just text leading into the part that really matters. But I just hate to see the text hint at something we really don't want to do, subarea plans or that point you made, Jim, goals. So we will do it. changes? MR. EKBERG: So is everybody okay with those MR. MULLET: Yes. MR. EKBERG: Ann or Jack, are you clear on what we've asked you to do? Maybe you could tell us, so we're all clear. MS. SIEGENTHALER: The council has agreed that we'll have a separate section in the Comprehensive Plan called Maintenance of the Plan. And you looked at purpose and issue sections, those are okay, with the exception of some changes that you made tonight. The policy 15.1.16 about monitoring and evaluating the Comprehensive Plan, you're going to leave that as is. I'm not clear what you've decided on the implementation strategies. MR. EKBERG: I'll re- emphasize that. On the implementation strategies, the first and second identified strategies will remain, and the fourth would be stricken, and the third, technically, would be stricken. And what would occur, based on a conversation 35 with the attorney, basically, is to provide him the written document that we had here in the council, ask him to write that in implementation strategy format, and bring that back to the council. MS SIEGBNTHALER: I also heard the council ask if we would work with the land -use attorney on the handout that Mr. Robertson passed out and prepare a section that could fit appropriately in the developmental regulations. MR. EKBERG: No. That's the document that I was referring to that was handed out before the council is Dennis Robertson's write -up. That's the write -up we wanted the land -use attorney to review, and take from that and create implementation strategies to be incorporated into this section of the document. In essence, what we're saying is do not deploy a process within the regulations and Development Regulations themselves for this change. MR..PACE: May I make one correction to that? The land -use attorney is on vacation for two weeks; to keep the document produced so you can review it, we may be not be able to get him to be review the work. MS SIEGENTHALER: What we can do, though, we will have the changes you've made tonight, and then the supplemental implementation strategy that you've asked him to look at and rewrite, we'll have for you to look at as soon as we can after the attorney gets back. MR. EKBERG: But I would expect and ask, I think you guys are on track about what you're saying, is any work we've done up to this point in time, getting the document published and back to the council, we do not want to impact. This we can stand alone with and have available at the final public hearing as necessary. Okay? So we don't impact our schedule. MS CARTER: Since we're now talking about using this procedure as policy. MR. ROBERTSON: Using it as a base to write. MS CARTER: As a base to write. Do we really 36 need the attorney to write that, or wouldn't staff be able to propose wording that he could look at later, because most of this Comp Plan hasn't been written by the attorney. They've written the text before. MR. ROBERTSON: They could write it. MS CARTER: Without impacting, as you said, the draft going to the printer. MS HERNANDEZ: I think that should be acceptable, because he'll eventually review everything in the end. MAYOR RANTS: I think they have a better idea of what you want than the land -use attorney will have. MR. EKBERG: Okay. So we'll have staff do that then again. Just to be clear, the work on this section of the document, we don't need to have it impact the deliverable date of August 4th for the rest of the information. Good work. We are closing in on 9:00. Ann, were there other issues you want to have brought to your attention tonight? MS SIEGENTKALER: I don't have any other issues regarding the text. Just to recap what we're going to do on the maps. We've numbered the dots that the council has placed on the maps. Staff will make sure you get your copies of these to work with before tomorrow night's discussion. And then we'll talk about the map areas, identifying them has numbers. I also heard council say they had questions on what the existing Comprehensive Plan designations are. So you now have the small Comprehensive Plan map, the existing map, and I've also distributed to you the large Comprehensive Plan map, one inch equals a thousand, that you asked for. Hopefully, they will help you answer the questions, if not, staff can go through those with you tomorrow. MS CARTER: Allan, I just noticed on this Maintenance of the Plan that we were given, the proposal, I hesitated when I made my suggestion about staff rewriting it, because I was confused as to whether this was a goal or policy we wanted them to 37 write. I realize we have no goal for this element. Look on page 3, goals and policies. 15.1.16, that is a policy. We should have 15.1; that's a goal. That would be, what, something like a updated plan that meets the needs, etc.? MR. ROBERTSON: If you took the paragraph, we just create a page 2 and reword that slightly, it becomes a goal. Basically, it says: The City recognizes that the periodic development I don't know, write a goal from that. MS. CARTER: She can figure it out. MR. ROBERTSON: But the points are there. It has to be periodic. It has to be a GMA requirement. No more frequently then once a year unless it's an emergency. MS SIEGBNTHALER: Okay Thank you. MR. EKBERG: Any other information you want to share before we break?. MAYOR RANTS: Allan, yes, please. A few things I'd like to remind you about the ribbon cutting for Minkler, corner of Minkler and West Hanover, at 10:00 o'clock. So if you can make that one. I don't know how you're going to handle this one. Tomorrow night is the Block Watch meetings for the Night Out Against Crime. There are 16 block watches that begin at 5:00 o'clock and run until 10:00 o'clock. If you haven't got a list of that, I'm sure Lucy can get one in your box for you. The police and fire department have spent a tremendous amount of energy pulling together this and the churches, for these black watches, for the Bar -B -Q, the neighborhood Bar -B -Q that went on at Foster this evening. They've done a magnificent job. If you can find any time possibly tomorrow evening to go to one of those, to show your support, I think you should try to do that. MR. ROBERTSON: What time do they start? MAYOR RANTS: 5:00 o'clock. 38 MS CARTER: I think it would have been nice if we had been provided that information. I assumed that they started later, and since I knew we were meeting, I thought we weren't able to go. today. MAYOR RANTS: I just recieved an updated list MR. ROBERTSON: Do you have a list of that? MAYOR RANTS: Do you have a copy of that? I can't remember if I took it home for tomorrow night or whether I left it on my desk. MS. CARTER: Because last week I was planning on going to them until somebody pointed out we had a meeting tomorrow night. MAYOR RANTS: The third issue if I can, I'll try to get that for you. The third issue, if I can, developmental regulations. I think you asked John, and John told you what the problems are. My commitment is to follow that schedule we've agreed upon that you've there. There is a clitch, and it is a heads up. That was the information that was for you tonight, only information. My commitment is that's going forward, and we will stick on that schedule. Okay. MR. ROBERTSON: Okay. MAYOR RANTS: I'm driving a lot of people crazy right now saying you promised me, and I expect that to happen. MS CARTER: The other thing was, it's nice to know that we don't have to waste our time studying that. And so it would be nice if we're notified of the fact that that draft will be redone. So, as soon as we know it, because otherwise MR. PACE: I didn't know you had even recieved a copy. MR. EKBERG: What occurred was a businessman in the community, who was at the meeting when we started at 6:00, brought this up to a couple of council member's attention. We had an meeting for an 39 hour and a half, we still hadn't had any discussion with on. MAYOR RANTS: This information was brought to me by the Planning Commission this weekend. MR. EKBERG: There's one community activity, starting at 4:00 o'clock tomorrow, which you would probably be able to attend. I believe Allentown is having their Bar -B -Q and their picnic at 4:00 o'clock. I know my black watch has its kick off at 7:00. I might go out for that and come back in twenty minutes just to say, "Hi," and come back. That's the only two things I know about. MAYOR RANTS: I say that because it's support to the community, and I think it's important. MR. EKBERG: Meeting adjourned. 40