I don’t usually chime in on social media, but I feel that due to the inflamatory nature of this post, you all deserve to hear what actually happened at the last Planning Commission meeting. I encourage each and every one of you to attend our meetings and speak at public comment. Your voices are important to the commission and to the process of implementing HB 1220.

 

The Planning Commission is made up of seven individuals, each bringing their own perspectives, experiences, and beliefs to our discussions. While we may not always agree, we are all committed to working together to achieve a common goal. We all want to create a plan that best reflects the values and priorities of our community while also meeting our legal requirements.

 

Due to the House Bill 1220 requirements, this is proving to be a difficult and complex task. Complying with this mandate involves difficult trade-offs, competing interests, and strong emotions.  Last year, Alternatives 2 & 3, which were drafted by consultants without Planning Commission input, proposed “massive upzoning”. Those alternatives did not adequately reflect the values, priorities, or concerns expressed by our community. Neither option was supported by the Planning Commission. For the last seven months, the Commission has taken on the heavy responsibility of creating our own preferred alternative that better aligns with community input.

 

I was elected Chair of the Planning Commission, and while that comes with some additional responsibilities like presiding over meetings and coordinating with staff in the preparation of agendas, the role does not come with greater authority or decision-making power than that of other commissioners.

 

Regarding the last Planning Commission meeting:

 

After public comment, the Planning Commission spent most of its remaining time discussing the work plan.  I wouldn’t characterize my comments as asking, “that the work be speeded up”. What I did say was that I saw several items on the work plan that I thought could be removed that would allow us to tighten up our timeline for the Winslow Subarea Plan.

 

Why do I want items removed from the workplan?

I do not support making changes to the density and height of the residential zones or the mixed-use districts, other than Ferry and High School Road. Since I don’t support increasing height and FAR, I see no need for those items to be on the work plan.

 

The following are some of the items that could be removed from the workplan:

• Finalize preliminary recommendations on boundaries, intensity and building height for any outstanding Winslow mixed-use districts.

• Confirm boundaries, establish development standards and processes for the Winslow Core

• Confirm boundaries, establish development standards, and processes for the Madison Zone

• Confirm boundaries, establish development standards, and processes for the Ferncliff Zone

• Confirm boundaries, establish development standards, and processes for the R-zones

 

It’s also likely that the Commission will need additional time built into the workplan to revisit our approach to House Bill 1220.  Recently, the Growth Management Hearings Board issued a decision on Mercer Island’s Comprehensive Plan update and its House Bill 1220 strategy.  This decision likely has implications for our Comprehensive Plan update review and related code amendments.

 

This work is not easy or quick.  We have spent, so far, seven months doing what staff expected us to do over two meetings in January when they presented us with staff’s preferred alternative and asked us to, essentially, rubber stamp it. Believing we could do better; we chose not to.  

 

Characterizing the Commission’s efforts as “moving full steam ahead with massive upzoning” does not reflect the reality of what has taken place. That description overlooks the months of careful discussion and serious deliberation that have occurred. We are not rushing – we are working through a difficult and sometimes uncomfortable process with thoughtfulness and diligence. No final decisions have been made, and, as mentioned earlier, we will likely have to revisit our approach to House Bill 1220 as a result of the Mercer Island decision.

​