Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses staff and applicant on traffic study, parcel impacts and enforceability
Summary
Commissioners questioned the traffic memorandum's assumptions, asked if the commission can attach conditions to a comp-plan amendment, and requested staff provide supplemental analysis for council on adjacent parcels and mitigation pathways.
Commissioners spent a large portion of deliberations probing the applicant’s traffic memorandum and the broader implications of a land-use map change. Vice Chair Gibson moved an amendment contending the submitted traffic memo combined changes in both building intensity and use-type (office vs. recreation) and thereby masked potential peak-hour impacts; that motion failed 2-1 after staff and the applicant explained the memo was provided at staff’s request to analyze the highest potential use for a non-project SEPA comparison.
Senior Planner Molly McGuire explained that a comprehensive plan amendment is a non-project, policy-level action and that subsequent rezone or project applications would require transportation concurrency review (traffic impact analysis if net new trips exceed thresholds), SEPA project review, design review and adherence to development standards (stormwater, tree code, parking). Contract assistant city attorney Nina Kiefer told commissioners that conditioning a comprehensive plan amendment is atypical and that enforceable mechanisms are more likely at rezone or project stages or via later council action.
Commissioners ultimately amended findings to recommend an instrument running with the land (a mechanism the council could consider) and asked staff to provide council with supplementary information on parcel configuration options, potential mitigation approaches and realistic size constraints, noting the traffic memo analyzed theoretical maximums rather than a project-level proposal.
