Good evening everyone. I, Council Member
Walsh, chair of the Planning,
Development, and Environment Committee,
call this meeting to order at 6:43 p.m.
I will note we are doing this with
generator power. You will probably not
get video of us and various things, you
know, because the lights and shadows and
all of that. Um, but we're still going
to promote building investments in
Isiqua and that'll be great. Um, so
tonight's meeting, um, I am joined by,
uh, Deputy Council President Jiang and
Council Member Nichols.
And our first order of business is
public comment. And I will note we have
a member of the public here with us. And
so what we
Let's see. Are you maybe gonna stand?
Yeah. Well, I think we're going to have
to do you at the base there or so that
we're using. So I am going to turn my
mute off or my microphone off. Yep.
And so if you will start by
>> stating your name
>> Rachel Mer
>> and your relationship to the city or
anything that you are um hear about.
>> Yeah. And just to confirm
>> the computer
>> the mic is a computer. Thank you. Don't
need to gesture into that. Um yes. Hi
everyone. Um I'm Rachel Mer. I'm a land
use attorney at Hillis Clark. Martin
Peterson here tonight representing um a
group of developers deeply invested in
the Esqua community. Um can I get
started? Is the time running? Great.
Okay. Um light. Um our co coalition of
housing developers and stakeholders
prepared a comment letter that was
submitted earlier today for your review.
For ease of reference, I have printed
copies of that comment letter um here
tonight if it would be helpful to inform
your discussion. Um, in lie of restating
that letter verbatim, I'll be brief with
a few highlights. Um, I'd first like to
convey the coalition's thanks for the
city's willingness to consider and
remedy the challenges of housing
development in Isiqua through the PBI
program and the corresponding work plan.
Um, this is difficult work which
requires thoughtful analysis, grappling
with the current state of development in
the city and identifying solutions which
will promote housing and yield real
change. Um, city staff has been
meaningfully engaged in the development
with the development community and this
is reflected in the work plan. Um, I'd
like to reiterate that every single item
on the work plan is crucial to the
success of the proposed changes for
housing production to remain the
priority here. The work plan cannot be
abbreviated. Instead, we offer a few
requests to strengthen the work plan,
which will yield more housing for
Isiqua. Um, first, we'd like to thank
staff for prioritizing the amendments to
the MFTTE program. um and encourage the
PTE to retain the higher priority level
of this highly impactful work. Um
second, we ask that the city rep
prioritize the quote ways to mitigate
redevelopment if close to slashwithin
pave buffers to de to increase
developability close quote that item um
so that it's slated for council action
much earlier than September 2027 um
which is when it's proposed right now in
the current work plan. Um third, we
request that the quote rightsize impact
fees reform effort um advance earlier
than the end of 2027. We understand that
the city plans to engage an outside
consultant uh and we encourage the city
to explore options to engage that
consultant earlier so that this work um
can begin and uh while staff uh and it
can run concurrently while staff
processes other reform items. Um,
finally, um, we ask that the city add
amending vesting regulations to the PBI.
Pro providing an earlier vesting point
similar to other jurisdictions will rem
remove significant risk that code
amendments adopted during city review
will not kill a housing project. This
certainty is needed to commit capital to
project design and entitlement and
ultimately bring more housing to Isiqua.
Um, our letter letter further expands
upon these comments and we're also
available to meet with you to answer any
questions that you might have. um if it
would be helpful to flag questions that
we could follow up via written comment,
we're happy to do that as well. Um we're
committed to participating in the public
public comment process for the PBI and
the work plan moving forward. Um and we
really appreciate staff's sincere
efforts um on this and your efforts on
this important work. Thanks so much.
>> Well, thank you.
>> Okay, thank you for that. Everybody's
gonna have to deal with a little bit of
uh mute, unmute, uh all of that. Um so
that is our only public um commenter in
person and then do we no? I assume
there's nobody online.
>> No, no.
>> Okay, great. Um, moving on with our
meeting, we have approval of the minutes
from the March 17th
um, meeting. And so, I'm looking through
um, the minutes were distributed to the
committee in advance. Are there any
corrections?
No. Okay. The minutes are approved as
presented. And the next item of business
is the only agenda item tonight which is
COM 0238
promoting business investments in Isiqua
presented by director Dollywal Community
Planning and Development.
I will
members um and I will given the
circumstances of having no power I will
quickly run through the PowerPoint
because I think you all have seen it um
so we have more time for discussion. Um
see um so we're here tonight uh to
receive feedback on the goals and
outcomes of the work plan uh that
council had uh previously established
for 2026 and 2027 based on our
discussion um with council and the um
full committee of the whole uh in March.
Um at that meeting there were seven
items that were prioritized to be put on
the work plan. Um and um following the
same model that we had for title 18 uh
we've as you know taken a stab at
creating these goals uh one to get uh
clarity from the committee and council
so that as we start this work uh with
planning and policy commission
>> process question you want us to go the
whole net first or
questions
>> um I wanted to get into the individual
uh
>> yeah into
>> Oh no, I do it on this. I just wanted to
know.
>> Yep. Thanks.
Um so uh the umbrella goals really uh
for this effort um are to transform our
urban core commercial core of 900 acres
into a vibrant sustainable walkable
urban center. Um to remove barriers,
streamline processes and create
incentives and promote development. Um,
some of the key strategies that we've
focused on are removing regulatory
barriers, improving permit processes,
uh, and incentives, including proactive
investment marketing. Um,
and, um, so now we'll get into each of
the the 17 items and what the goals are
and what's some possible actions we can
take for each one of them. And as per
your um initial discussion, I'll pause
after each slide and then we can um go
through the discussion with that. Um so
the very first one is outdoor amenity
space requirements. So the overall goal
is really to um get a balance between
having these outdoor amenity spaces with
development feasibility. Um you know it
is to be recognized that amenities like
rooftop decks, patios, balconies, plazas
foster community and enhance quality of
life. uh facilitating connections among
residents and creating a sense of
belonging as we transform our suburb
suburban
um uh areas into denser urban
environments. Um so some of the possible
actions uh here are reducing the private
balcony requirements. I think that's the
feedback that we received from the
development community. Uh eliminate the
need for frequent deviation requests. So
make make it u an outright code uh
provision instead of having um someone
to request it de u relief uh through a
deviation process. Um and also uh it has
come to our attention uh you know um
when there are existing buildings that
are trying to convert into a residential
use. For instance, the Motel 6 property
um where we had updated our code to
grant some flexibility for those kind of
conversions based on the state bill that
was passed. However, um you know the
open space requirements are still
difficult for uh those kind of
conversions to uh come into play. So,
we're taking that process uh through a a
variance process. Um but since we were
touching this section of the code, we
would like to include uh additional
flexibility for affordable housing
conversions where you're going from a
commercial to a u residential um use. Um
so, the schedule for this item um
actually since we had this aggressive
two-year work plan, we have started off
uh planning and policy commission had a
few meetings on it. They held a public
hearing and it's coming to this
committee in June, early June uh for
your discussion and recommendation to
full counsel. Um, so I will pause here
before we go to the next.
>> Should I Should I turn this? Okay. Yeah,
we can we can do this as a backup.
>> Um, okay. I guess so has this gone to
PPC already and what is their
recommendation if any?
>> Yeah. So this
and at this point is um to reduce the
private uh outdoor spaces from 50% of
the units to 30%. Um and then um the 100
square feet per unit stays the same.
Previously we had built in that
flexibility that council had adopted to
go from 100% to 50%. Um but then you
still had to count your 50 square ft for
private space and add some additional
common space. So that is struck out. So
you your common open space is only 100
not 100 plus 48 for the 70% that you're
not going to have uh balconies. So
there's a reduction in that as well as
uh 30%. And the other ones um it's not a
deviation, it's an outright code
provision. And then also um um there are
um flexibility for uh converting um
commercial building into a residential
use. Okay.
reasonable I guess on the balcony
requirements. I mean, I don't know what
the right number is necessarily. I would
just say to the extent that, you know,
we want to give people the option to
potentially pay less to rent an
apartment that doesn't have a balcony,
we should give folks that option. Um,
you know, I live in a townhouse that has
a tiny balcony that I never use. And so,
um, you know, I I would say I'm honestly
I would be okay with reducing the
private balcony requirements
requirements to zero. And if folks want
to put in balconies and, you know, some
folks are willing to pay more, then I
think that's also fine.
muted.
Um
>> would really like to understand how much
a balcony costs. Um one of the the when
the response to this that for my
questions earlier was that balconies on
one third of units are not a problem. Um
just because something's not a problem
doesn't mean it's a good idea though. So
or it's necessarily optimal. So, I know
this is a requirement we've added in
recent years, but there are many
apartments in the city that don't any I
think they're still lovely apartments.
Um, so I would also be in favor of at
least having
again presented as a bookend for
something else for us to debate whether
we want this to be a requirement at all.
Um, it does add cost and it's something
that people have to pay for and they may
not necessarily use it. I have also had
apartments that have had very tiny
balconies that I never used but I had to
pay for anyway. Um so I I would second
deputy council president Jang's comment
there.
>> Will make my comments here. Um, I want
to start out with
just a
little bit of a quibble with the idea of
the way that we've presented some of
these issues and goals and objectives. I
still want to center the community on
this. And so it feels like yes, we're
looking to
um create opportunities
um for buildings without as many
barriers. But the way that I would think
about the outdoor amenity space
requirements
is find a way to provide residents with
meaningful outdoor amenity space which
doesn't present a barrier to
development. And I have all this written
down. I can send it over to you guys.
Um, but I I just I want to make sure
that we still center the needs of the
community, especially in these areas
that I think the community had expressed
was important to them, which is outdoor
amenity spaces. That being said, I don't
think personally that balconies are
meaningful outdoor amenity spaces. And
so I will agree with the committee
members that I would be fine considering
that going down to zero. Um and
understanding that there are other
opportunities out there to provide
meaningful amen outdoor amenity spaces
for people gathering um and things like
that. I would also say the other thing
that balconies
do for a building is they provide a
little bit of visual differentiation.
And so I want, you know, as we go into
some of the other areas which I think
council member Nichols mentioned in um
one of his emails, things like the
stepbacks and the transparency and the
design standards, all of those are
trying to get at a concept of um more
variability and visual interest in
buildings. And so this could be one
where I would see a list of options.
Um, and one of them could be
balconies as a way to create some
variability in the building. Um, but I
don't know that I find it meaningful to
require balconies even at a 30% area.
balconies and what they actually are. Uh
the one thing that they are indisput
they indisputably are is a cost. Um
where the benefit is here they're listed
as an outdoor amenity. Um given what
these things actually are in most
departments as they get built, they're
they're I also debate whether they're
really an outdoor amenity. Um, I think
they're the the the folks that like
these things, I think you're right. I
think they like them for visual and for
aesthetic reasons. And if we if we're
going to mandate some some increased
cost in housing for aesthetics, um, I
think that would be something that would
be good to bucket altogether and to be
clear that that's a cost for aesthetics.
Um, not conflate it with what's really a
social goal.
fix of you want to strike out the 30% to
zero uh you'll have that opportunity to
do it and finally the city council will
make the final decision as you know um
but at the at the higher level of the
goal uh is what you know at least for
the other ones that we haven't started
the process with the planning and policy
commission the idea here is that we we
are moving in the right direction. So
planning and policy commission has some
overarching direction from council of
what you all are thinking and and in
that so it becomes a useful tool for the
commissions for the community members as
as it comes forward for a final debate
and discussion at your level. Uh but
this one like I said because we had to
start on this work plan in order to get
this done by quarter 2 um we we started
early. the specifics of that but any
feedback you have of the goals I think
would be helpful at this point and then
then you know in terms of the possible
actions probably not so much as a
specific of that which will you'll have
a chance to debate that and and on that
policy but staying at a level where you
tell us we're you know is this where
planning and policy commission should
focus their attention on would be
helpful for us
planning and policy if you say it's
Yeah, it'll come to you on June. In
June, the exact specific thing that they
recommended will come to you um in a few
weeks.
>> I guess I just want to make sure that so
we we we are talking through possible
actions tonight and I think we're being
pretty specific. I want to make sure
that we're not just talking about tweaks
on a goal for PPC for everything that's
already happened. So,
>> right.
>> Correct. So, this is a little bit of an
awkwardness because it has gone through
the process, but as we get to the other
parts, they haven't started the work.
Then, we're seeking feedback on both.
Um,
>> okay. But we are recording the So, we've
we put down some clear possible actions
here that I think we want to see some
movement on. Those are still being taken
into account, right?
>> Sure. Yes. and and then for full counsel
as they look at the goal, you know, if
you want to make tweaks to the goal for
full council to um take into
consideration for these items that have
already made their path from PPC.
>> Okay. So, I guess my tweet my tweet on
the goal would be this the goal as
written is almost all of the words are
on benefits of these various amenities
and we're we're not really thinking
about the costs very much. Um we have
two words on that note of what's maybe
30 or 40 words. I think it would be
useful to
better emphasize that all of these our
cost increase of housing people that's
something
that we are so
>> yeah I mean I agree with that. So I also
think from the perspective of outdoor
amenity space and creating community. I
mean my you know I live in a townhouse
complex that has community space that is
just like not used. And so I think I
mean from the perspective of how do we
want to create community in our city I
really think a lot of it does come down
to public parks. And so, you know, I do
think the outpinity space there's
various other benefits, but I think like
relying on that to create a sense of
community. That's not at least to me
quite what happens in practice. So, and
especially with balconies, I mean, I
don't really see how balconies
facilitate connections and create a
sense of belonging.
>> Well, I was talking about the commonal
outdoor spaces, too. It it's bundled in.
that goal is not just for the private,
but the public.
>> Yeah, I I think I think this goal is
maybe like there's a lot of things being
conflated here. Again, I'm I don't want
to spend too much time harping on this
goal because I think in terms of the
outcome that we're going to arrive on, I
think we're generally aligned, but I do
feel like, you know, I think balancing
the requirements for outdoor amenities,
which provide public life with cost of
housing. I think that's kind of
>> so you' strike down the rest of the the
benefits of the thing and then stick
with the first sentence and but just
flush make it a little bit more clear
about the development feasibility to say
specifically cost.
>> Yeah, I I think the outdoor amenity
space requirements which you know
enhance quality of life,
balanced cost of housing. Okay.
group they're just very impressed that
you're all here still meeting
that they're here.
>> Um I'm gonna just put my own piece out
there. I think the goal and
objectives that recognizing that shared
amenity spaces are useful and giving
examples of those is a good part of the
whole um piece of so I would like to
keep that sentence in there. I think in
the issues section um I would say one of
the issues that I would see is
balconies
aren't necessarily aren't utilized at
high rates and don'tide meaningful
outdoor space for individuals.
Um
the cost is an important thing to put in
the issues section. Um and then the
other piece is sometimes balcony used as
the um
um variation and so
maybe they're looking for different ways
to solve that. So maybe just recognizing
some of the downsides of relying on
balconies
as the outdoor amenity space of choice.
Okay, are we ready to go on the next
one? Yeah.
So th this is the uh the next one step
pack requirements. So this is also in
the same process queue as the previous
one which is public hearing has been
held. Uh PPC has already made their um
recommendation to this committee and is
coming to you for full debate on June
2nd. Um some of the things the the goal
here was to reduce multiple stepback
requirements but still achieve the goal
of architectural interest and with a
focus on public realm. Um so along the
street public streets. Um so here what
the PPC has recommended is eliminating
multiple stepbacks. Um also eliminating
them along natural context areas but
only requiring them along public
streets. Um and then there's some
flexibility in the location of the
stepback. So it could be as low as
second floor and um or or um it has to
start at sixth floor. So there was fair
amount of debate and discussion with PPC
on on that where it should start how
much flexibility to give but that's
where they landed on their
recommendation.
Um, I think the overall goal here of
architectural interest along the public
realm is good. I would maybe broaden
that to say visual interest along the
public realm, not just architectural.
And I think to me, you know, walking
around a city that generally believe to
be very beautiful like, you know,
Barcelona, they don't have stepbacks
really. And so I think but what we do
have is you know very very high quality
building materials, art, plants, all
that stuff. So I think if our overall
goal is visual interesting in the public
realm I think um and maybe we're get
going to get to this later in the
architectural design standards but like
we should you know hey here's a list of
10 things that we think all look good
and a few of these to look nice. It
could be such that it could be you have
that's you know artist or you could have
some high quality like some kind of
politically maybe but I do think giving
more to do different things that look
good um would be great because I do
think like what you see in a lot of
cities is just like this like okay we
have everyone has uh they all the same
place they all have modulation like that
because figure out what is the one
satisfy all the requirements and they
copy paste that everywhere and I think
that's what we're trying to avoid. Um
and so I would love to see you know I
mean and maybe at this point I I think
the actions proposed by all seem totally
reasonable but I think um when we get to
the architectural stuff maybe later this
year I think having more holistic
conversation about how do we treat all
these different aspects as things that
you know provide aesthetic and visual
interest and make this qu perhaps better
than three cities.
>> Yeah, I think that's that's a really
interesting
point that that president just made um
that I hope we really take into
consideration. There's kind of ship
there in terms of um
looking at things that are that are
visual visually
the aesthetic
that we we are trying to trade off the
cost of those those are
>> those could all go into a single bucket
um
>> that's not what how I think the current
work is structured that would solve even
which is I think we had agreement
um this is
I don't I have
>> I I
think it's a subjective decision of like
whe
it anyway come up
that eliminate step entirely not just
multip
that would be this is an example of a
thing that could be placed into a bucket
of costs um where if you make it up
where we remark a number of points for
example and if you get a number of
points then
you can pass. Um but it's a different
model from where we are now for this as
um but as far as the slide itself goes
again one of the possible has to be just
not not
eliminating
also
and for
Great. My feedback is somewhat in
alignment um with that in that I I think
much like the outdoor amenity space
thinking back what is important to the
community here. The reason I think that
the community wants step back or at
least PPC and others that have had these
conversations is that they don't want
very
importantly
in space.
So I think from my perspective
one of the most things there is to make
sure that
feels
and so I think accomplished by many
things including
another creating
um so that might be different
steps
trying to
experience that building. Um
I agree idea that this would be one of
those in many um to satisfy
anything
Just think if we're think about
street
like
so people can't see
like tilting my head up
they have the little like awnings and
things like that
has a lot of visual interest so I'm
characteristic
and I think are pretty compared to the
other we're talking about here.
So um then uh then a couple of uh items
on this slide. A floor area ratio. Uh
this came about because in mixed use um
zone MUR uh we have a floor area ratio
of two. Um but nobody wants to do the
development density bonus which would
actually result in more affordable units
because they can meet that F of two by
building buildings that are not as tall.
Um so the request was to increase the
floor area ratio and mixed use uh
residential because we already allow
taller buildings there but there isn't
an incentive to for anyone to do. Um but
we want to tag that along with the
second more meteor discussion which is
how much inclusionary affordable housing
what percentage and what AMI we should
have how do we set up our uh voluntary
affordability which is under this
density bonus incentive program and then
how do we layer that with multi- tax
exemption to improve development
feasibility. So um some of the possible
actions in this one we we would this
hasn't started with the planning and
policy commission at this point. So feel
free to as as you know give us direction
what you think um would be helpful for
us to know from your perspective. Um but
it would increase floor ratio in MUR
district and then establishing an MFT
program with rightsizing these other
provisions with the goal of um you know
increasing affordable housing. So you
you're getting the the tax break from
public dollars in and there's some
incentive to get affordable units
because you can do MFTTE just for the
first in the market provisions which we
do have Pineard program and relaxed
affordability requirements. Um but since
then the the state law has been changed
a few times with the as you had um shown
us in your emails uh earlier about um to
zones transit oriented development zones
which have a you know baked in
percentage or what that affordability
requirement is with what type of MFT. So
we would lay we would obviously study
that. Um, something to keep in mind is
that the floor area ratio in our urban
core is already pretty high. So that
would mean downzoning if we want to kind
of get really creative with that, which
generally, you know, if it's an
entitlement that the property owners
have, you would take away the
entitlement and that's not always um,
you know, done lightly. Um, so that's
sort of the these two items. Can you
remind us what stands for?
>> Uh mixed use residential
>> right where it is.
>> Yeah.
>> What what is the standards in MU
>> or like where we would find it in the
city?
>> It's within the central is on the valley
floor but a little bit le lesser um
outside of the urban core boundaries.
>> Okay. Thanks. Okay. Go ahead.
>> Um yeah, this makes sense. I mean, I
think if we get affordable housing in
the mixeduse residential areas, we need
to make it so that you actually get a
bonus. So, I think that makes a lot of
sense. Um, and I agree with the
inclusionary zoning density bonus
calibrating that to the right level. I
mean seen with the pioneer program it's
jurisdictions required
on that you know given what we've seen
other jurisdictions always similar
as far as nuclear building costs etc to
us I think it would make sense to look
at them and you know establish something
that makes sense. Um I will just push
back slightly one thing that you said
which was that um NFT being a tax break
from public dollars. My understanding is
that at least
with um so because in the state of
Washington we're only allowed to
increase the amount of revenue generated
from
property taxes by one excluding new
construction. If there's a new apartment
building that
you know
is but
total amount tax collected could go up
by more than 1% and so that shared by
all other property owners I think it may
not
like cost something like $50 household
per year if it was fully built out. So
it is it's not really a tax break. It's
more so it is
additional property taxes to general
public which
you know cleared about and
that's
>> yes that's absolutely correct. So
there's revenue forgone
um or not paid by the developer. So
there is a tax break for the developer,
but from a city's perspective, it's a
tax shift to other prop other property
owners that are going to pick up that uh
difference. You're right.
>> Sure. Um, so when I think about barary
ratio as a tool, um, I want to primarily
be able to use it to establish a minimum
density or a flurry ratio. Um I think
that is the biggest part of that using
that as a potential tool is making sure
that land
is developed toward its highest and best
use. Um, so
to that I'm not sure if my set of goals
would be about fixing the misuse
for affordable housing. much that was
making sure we were utilizing
far in appropriate
in order to establish the density that
you know we are looking for. Um and so I
would look for analysis um from
development just to see that
we found an area where the area
is having problems but
um that and then
so question here. Do we want to pause
and try and restart? Our electricity
just came off. Do we want to pause and
try and restart
how we're recording or anything like
that or are we continuing on?
>> Continue on. Okay, fantastic.
Um so my perspective on the inclusionary
zoning and the multif family tax
exemption idea um you know I think
everybody likes the idea of you know
growth pays for growth and all of these
concepts so growth creating
uh affordable housing is good. What I
would ask is since the um analysis I
forget the name of the eco northwest
since that analysis that we had several
years ago um has happened there's been
more articles about hey you know does
that 80% area median income
affordability is that really best served
by an MF program inclusion zoning or is
it maybe to be served by market by the
market a little bit. And so my feeling
on
a tax exemption um that we make sure
that we are achieving something that
>> the market provide. Um so my preferences
for um anything that we do with MFTTE is
really to ensure that if we are making
requirements of
that
>> it do something market count.
Yeah, I I think that's um that's a good
point. Um because we also have all these
policies that we've um were required by
the King County planning policies and
the affordable housing um you know
certification of our comp plan that
looked at all of those things of what
the cities can do uh to meet that deeper
affordability requirement. So we we have
some work to do on that area and MFTTE
is one of the tools the city can use to
to provide that uh additional gap in
funding um for improving feasibility for
those situations. So yeah, we'll
certainly include that as a Yep.
So on MSD so my thoughts were we should
be as good as HP1 1491 um it would I
think though um appreciate you say
require a good amount of work but to
understand what all of the requirements
are
programs are and neighboring stations um
it would be nice to be at least as
competitive as those are um or at least
to understand what they are to to
compare ourselves against them. Um
so the other comments far
so repeat those but at least on MFT um
anyone we should be doing um
but I would like to see what else is
happening in other jurisdictions.
>> Yeah, I mean it's some of this comes
from the state law. So you can do an ATR
MFTTE and you don't have to have any
affordability requirements for a
12-year. The minimum is 20% at 80% AMI.
Um the recent um law change was I
believe 20% at below 80% up to 80% with
a 20-year uh tax rate, but that's
permanent affordability. Um, so it gets
complex, but we'll do all of that full
analysis as we take this project through
because you the cities would still get
the tax for the the land value and any
non-residential commercial um portions
of that building, but the entire units
they, you know, if it's a 200 unit
complex and 20% of those units are
affordable, you get the tax break on
each on the entire 200 unit. So that
from a developer, you don't pay any
taxes for 20 years on the entire
residential uh units, not just the ones
that are affordable. So it it, you know,
we'll get into all of that with uh as we
lay out the different options, but we'll
certainly include the 1491 option for
sure.
Just just in case you're So it was a
squirrel and they found the squirrel
across the valley from the pole that
apparently met his demise.
>> It was really
through the squirrel with 10 ft. So
>> I have it created by
Um all right so we'll should we move on
to the next slide? Um so this uh this
one is parking um and early adoption of
the state law uh Senate Bill 5184
um which I think um by email I kind of
shared some of the highlights of some of
these things are it's not as
straightforward as just changing a
parking table. There's going to be a few
other things like uh ADA parking
requirements that are currently tied to
a percentage of the required parking. Um
so if there's no parking then how do we
deal with ADA? So you know all of that
stuff will need to get sorted out. Um
um so some of the possible actions
obviously whatever the state law
requires um the other options are to uh
related to maximum parking requirements.
So the code currently has maximums um
they never come into play um in our
context uh but you know we we will
present an option to keep it or to get
rid of the maximum uh threshold for
simplicity. Um, so those are some of the
things we are talking about and I think
I heard I received comments by email
from two of you um to have zero parking
for residential units and urban core and
one other zone um in central Isiqua. So
we will we can add that as a point of
discussion with planning and policy
commission. So when it comes forward to
you uh that you'll get their
recommendation on where they want to go
with that.
>> Yeah. And I just want to add um the
reasoning for that. You know, we've
heard from builders that you've spoken
to, which is that, you know, all the
projects that they're building right now
have 1.25 apartment units, but there are
some developers, you know, in other
areas. Um for example, last year I had
the opportunity to tour Culisac Tempi,
which is very, very cool. Um it's a very
very cool development, which is, you
know, it's famous neighborhood in
America. They have this beautiful public
plaza. these like I mean it's like the
most beautiful neighborhood with these
alleyways. It looks like it's like
straight out of Greece except with the
colors. It looks like it's in Arizona
which it is. And so I think if we want
someone like Culac to come and build
something really beautiful that is I
don't want the existence of requirements
to be a barrier for them. And so that's
why I think, you know, setting setting
the
uh parking minimum zero
where rail is going to be will be a
great way to potentially track those
types of you know forward thinking
builders. I know most builders in the
country are doing things that are not
quite as unique and they will continue
to build parking. Um, I will also
be able
to minimum
building if it's needed. I do think want
to, you know, have the door open if we
are going to have potentially really
>> sorry to all that I know
to eliminate parking minimums and I want
to be clear not eliminate parking um
that that's a key difference and it also
goes to statements about the parking etc
that are out there. So eliminate parking
lot in
market that will place
their
um the
utility of minimum
and to advertise trying to
become president. Um this is
and as we build
even as as we improve capacity hopefully
existing here as well
we shouldn't prohibit them. So, I want
to double down on
really
insisting that we at least have this as
an option to consider. I proposed two
looking at the zoning map. I've opened
thoughts on that but
that
that's a I'm not the I think what we
really want to see is some area where we
can see some
creative options that really and not
have them
um cost constrained by
one more time. None of us want to
that's that's not the goal. Um, and
anyone that is concerned about that,
like if if anybody's able to listen, I'm
not sure if we're recording or not, but
if anybody is concerned about that, um,
that's
slightly reduced
and allowing
for some more creative opportunities to
arise and if it gets out of hand, we
dial it back. But at the moment, in
urban core, we this is a a zone where we
have seen zero housing. um in the past.
So anything
I think
at least
for those
too
simply
And I will add all of the uh properties
near Tempi. They're all regular
apartments with parking and they're
advertising themselves as being next to
but with parking. So, you know, for like
>> they're obviously building parking even
though it's not required and it's just
interesting to see that and so I don't
think that this will necessarily result
in all parking going away. It'll just,
you know, result in more choice for
people to live in different types of
environments especially as we get light.
Sorry, just on the
understanding
and it's another reason why I'm not
concerned about any accessible parking
as long as there's some parking and
confident there will be some of them
that will be accessible.
>> Yeah, from a court perspective it's in
the building code and it's a percentage
of your overall parking that you're
required to provide. And so if and then
the bill that actually this particular
bill um has passed state building code
council to come up with other standards
uh for ADA stalls which they're not even
close to getting that on the books. So
if we are being the early adopters, we
won't have that guidance from state
building code council on what those
standards are going to be. So some of
the cities that have done this early
adoption have just kind of ignored the
ADA uh parking requirement. So that's
the discussion we'll have with PPC when
we get to that because
>> no it's required. So you have to have X
percentage of if you are required by
code to have 100 stalls you need to have
three or four whatever the percentage
works out for um for accessible there's
accessible van parking stalls then there
are accessible nonvan
people in wheelchairs and or otherwise.
understand if we don't require it
builder parking units.
Is that correct?
>> We could we could craft the ordinance
like that. So how many however many you
are providing you still need a
percentage of that.
>> Okay.
Okay. Thank you.
>> We'll have to craft the language around
that if that's choice we want to make.
Yeah. So my gonna go a little bit back
toward the goals and outcomes chart. Um
I think on parking lot
use and generates negative impacts dirty
storm water
etc
surface parking lots I don't think this
full understanding of the negatives of
parking. Of course, we need to address
the cost. This is a significant cost to
home builders. This is a cost that many
renters or um people that are lower
income cannot avoid
because it is built into the cost of a
unit when it is required. So, I think
that's an important element to put in
there. Um I would also say that parking
requirements um in the past have often
been arbitrary unless many areas are
over parked especially retail um and
parking lots create barriers for nonart
users pedestrians and bike riders. So I
think those are elements that we want to
include in there uh as far as the
negative impacts of having extra excess
parking um in our city. And then I will
just say don't think the state
requirement is a goal.
Um I think that's an issue. We have to
create code that at least meets them on
bar of the state requirement,
>> but we're early adopters. We don't have
to do it for another few years, but
we're choosing to.
>> Sure.
>> And if you want to state something
around
um early adoption will help us get you
know additional development. Um I think
that's a way of phrasing it. that is an
important reason why we would be going
after that. Um and then from my
perspective the goal is like establish
right parking requirements smart land
use easy access for all users and
ability to make choices based off
um removing minimums or um removing
maximum
necessarily on that. I want to make sure
understand the cost to all users uh the
cost to the builders and how we can
envision something um going forward.
>> Sure. No. Um I think we understand sort
of the goals is to let the market
determine what the right amount of
parking is. Um is what I think you all
are getting at. Um there are different
ways. I mean at one time King County
Metro had done rightsized parking model.
Uh you know that was probably we could
run the numbers through that but it's
probably going to be more than what the
state law is requiring. The state law is
1.5 per multif family unit. Most
builders you know given our location
lack of transit currently people have to
rely on cars. And so I think that's the
even with like the GOD project, some of
the public comments we received were um
where's the on street parking in central
Isiqua, right? So if you don't have it
on your property, you need on street
parking and so if not then people will
park on a vacant parking lot across the
street and
uh you know get to you or if you have if
you don't provide all of that. So I
think as the area transitions from an
autocentric to a more urban development,
there are going to be some growing pains
during that interim uh time period
without transit until you get the
transit and people can completely live
carfree. Um so I think that's why it's
important to kind of find that right
balance at this time because we don't
want to have unintended consequences. I
I think the goal of letting the market
determine what it is. what we learned
the market rate component for the to
project wanted to go more than what the
code required because that's what their
own assessment was and so to some extent
yes the market will determine the right
amount um what what needs to be done in
terms of the removing of barriers I mean
we have to remember where the city's
code was we used to require at least 50%
of the parking stalls need to be
structured parking
>> and and that went away um you know,
that's no longer a requirement at this
point. Um, the the number of units we're
now reducing down to 0.5 half
>> one one unit will only have half a car.
The reality is for people to be able to
go from place to place in in today's
terms in today's and the next until
light rail comes here or metro provides
more connections than one bus to Seattle
people will have to rely on their cars.
So I think that's where our balance
and I think all of that is great
information to present to
I want to make sure that we are very
clear that when there will be half of
our parking that's really the case the
minimum requirement the state is only
half per mult
the developer may choose to
depending on what their analysis,
but that's an important piece that we
really need to make sure that we don't
add extra confirm to this because
what I've heard from many builders is if
they don't have enough, they're not
going to be able to get the loans to
make happen because a lot of financials
are very risk adverse and don't want to
invest in something that isn't going to
satisfy.
So that's
the second thing we really have to
recognize is whatever is built here is
going into more years and it is entirely
likely in that time period
in ebike usage.
It's likely that we going to continue to
see shifts not only through gaining,
you know, light rail transit but
potentially other buses or there's other
technologies such as ebikes out there.
And so one of my concerns then is that
we make sure that what we are creating
as a requirement
that is essentially a barrier housing is
really the necessity and is really what
our community needs now into the future.
>> I don't know which one you all first.
>> Okay. Um,
>> yeah, I I'll
also I I just
I I do disagree with the assessment that
everyone in our city is requires a card.
I know many people don't. I know it to
be a false statement. So, I want to want
to
better accommodate who currently do not
have cards and those who would prefer to
not have to pay for parking that they do
not use. Um, I don't know of the
numbers. I think it would be a really
interesting statistic to funders to get
better on this socially anecotally
talking to people observing people
knowing how many of the folks in our
housing communities get around and what
their transalities are. Um uh
so
I want to like correct that as something
that this this body is clear on this is
though we are we are community that is
larger than we are and uh we should be
progressive that
so I think that many
for
myself
because
otherwise I
also think about
that and we want to be clear on that and
also communicating to our partners
as well.
Not the
internal
we have to have x number of cars for a
unit. I think that's a model and I'm
also beginning to say
um I want to be I want to agree with the
statement that just minimum
that doesn't mean
we will average.
So the goal with eliminating
requirements is not to say
it's to allow additional opportunities
when they creative builders come and
want to try to do something that people
will
um to allow them to do that and not
restrict them have to increase costs for
people that don't want to pay for a
least an option. for debate all the
decisions that you brought up as far as
accessibility as well and where the
market may in reality those can all be
true and still have this as an option
that we may want to pursue.
>> Absolutely. I mean our job is to kind of
raise the policy questions ultimately
you decide what policy you want and and
if the council wants to have zero
parking in in the urban core that's
certainly your prerogative. uh we just
want to make sure that all of these are
the things that we hear from our
residents that we are making sure those
are um you know in in in your front. So,
the comments we received from the to
project, people are worried that people
are going to park in their neighboring
lot or a resident in a
housing that doesn't want to pay for
parking but uses the on street parking,
but when there's an impact to the on
street parking, they call the city and
say, "Why is my on street parking
blocked? Because now I have nowhere to
park. I don't want to pay my uh, you
know, the apartment complex for the
charge that they charge me for parking."
So those are all realistic things of how
it'll play out on the ground. But
certainly from a policy objective of
removing barriers, if you want to go the
route of having zero or you know let the
market determine what those minimums are
um that certainly
it's not zero park.
>> So I no one is no one is proposing zero
park
>> eliminating minimum.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
city administrator Bob Woods.
>> Yes.
Appreciate council
and so
I would all
be
language%
about that language. So I think in the
interest of time
um
provide
feedback
and the conclusion of the evening
rather to have back
appreciate your thoughtful comments
unless
rather than
you know
that would be well
feedback and I think do that
one last I think is a topic that you
know people have wide range on and I
will not solve all problems right like
what we've seen a lot of and I do want
to point is like even build garage a lot
of still don't want to pay spot in their
parking complex
and a lot
come in like
so I think ahead of that and as soon
built we should start we should have our
control parking enforcement early it's
not
forever and I think if we're able to get
ahead of this problem that will a long
way towards you know people with this um
with our approach I I just don't requ
Okay, our next slide
um for two of them uh transparency
requirement along natural context areas.
Um the goal is to provide flexibility
possible actions eliminate or reduce uh
this requirement. Um the other one is
multifamily in this one particular zone.
Uh so the Senate bills 6026 requires
multif family not wherever we allow
commercial. We do in most zones except
for this one particular one. So the goal
is just to come into compliance with the
state bill and um and then allow multif
family in this zone. I mean it doesn't
make any difference on the ground
because the only property that zone
that's redevelopment is shelter and
we've done that through the development
agreement anyways. But um but other than
this, we do allow multif family in every
other zone that we allow commercial.
>> Okay. So um my thoughts on this is my
understanding is the transparency
requirements
were an issue on energy requirements
even outside of natural context. It's
only come into um to our attention
related to the um to the issue of um
natural context but also in um yeah go
ahead.
>> It it we are looking at it citywide
because even if you're in central and
you're not along natural context area,
you still have transparency requirements
that have been difficult to meet. So we
are looking at it at all three different
variations that we have.
>> Great. Yeah, that was something that I
wanted to
able to convey. Um I was writing
um the
goal
energy
advocate transparency which provides
in the building. So I think there's
still a
way to convey that transparency is
important um but not necessarily having
as many
requirements um because I think the
portion of that is important and I think
most people who live in buildings like
windows and thus builders who build
buildings
Yeah.
>> And I think it's a street level for the
pedestrians and all that is a different
thing than the whole tall building and
what what's the requirement on the upper
floors because right now the way the
code is written if you're next to a
natural context area the whole thing is
50% and that's the problem people were
having uh complying with
but we're looking at all of them.
>> Okay. Want to make sure that it's
crossed everything. Um council member
Nichols.
>> Yeah. Just to make sure there's the
consensus of this is clear. Uh same
exact comment. Um I think the goal
should be flexibility
and doesn't
>> do.
>> Um and one thing I will add is I mean
with the transparency personally I've
never really understood how it was
necessarily like interesting.
I would much rather look at a mural than
like look into someone's private home.
Um, and so I think again, you know, I
think transparency to me at least falls
under the bucket of adding interest
along the, you know, ground floor and so
we can have it as an option and maybe
want to require a certain amount, but
you know, if I'm think as I'm walking
around town like what do I want to see?
I'm I don't think looking into someone's
home is really like what I want to be
doing. So I would um be in favor of
additional flexibility on that.
>> Yeah, I think we distinguish between um
if you are a residence on the on the
first floor then you have to have it
over six feet so people can't peek into
your windows and that kind of stuff or
you have to have stoops to create that
interest along the street front. I think
that it gets nuanced in that. But for
the commercial properties, you know,
commercial storefront, it's the interest
of people walking and seeing inside. But
this one is really getting at the whole
building, not just the lower floor. If
you're next to a natural context, which
inquas, you know, uh that's in a lot of
places. So, but we understand it. We'll
look at it all together. It'll come back
to you in different areas where we have
this requirement.
>> Yeah. Then I mean so I've seen some
other cities where they have the
transparency requirements you know if
you have like daycare or something then
they like put a giant wall inside the
building fronting the window because you
don't want people from the street being
able to like look in and see the kids.
So that kind of you know defeats the
purpose of having the windows perhaps.
So I think we should, you know, think
critically about what's the right way to
do this to have interesting things for
people to look at.
>> And then the other one which is the
multif family in the urban village
commercial retail. Um
I'm not sure.
So SB 602 requires that allow multif
family in all commercial zones. So we
know we have to make that change. I
guess what would say is
having retail
as part of a denserable neighborhood is
important to create le neighborhoods.
And so
I think you're saying we already allow
residential pretty much everywhere but I
>> not as mixed use. So okay
>> um that is only along one street in
central Esta. Yeah.
>> So we used to have you need to preserve
jobs on a parcel by parcel basis which
was impossible to implement. that was
taken out with the idea that we would
have look at other ways to get mixed
use. But
you know it and now I think the
discussion with the state legislature
and others is that that's a drag on the
housing and so you can't really you
shouldn't mandate commercial use on the
bottom floor and all that. So we haven't
taken that up in the work plan of uh
expanding that area but there's only one
street mall street where it's zoned
vertical mixed use where we require that
you have to have vertical mixed use. Now
of course with the light rail station
planning and if we ever get to the point
of doing the transit oriented
development planning that can be looked
as a subset of central Isqua area where
we could have um requirements for
mandatory vertical mixed use. Yeah, in
the future. Yeah,
>> I guess I agree with the idea that that
could be a future conversation, but I do
think if we're going to go about
implementing 6026,
but it does provide a a point in time of
figuring out are there areas where we
really can't create
that
include require retail. Um I will defer
if we feel like it's too much for now.
Um but I really feel strongly that an
area that is housing
a cannot pay for itself
isn't as
>> Yeah. And I'll just note the UVCOM
retail zone is it's basically like the
Grand Ridge Plaza in uh the Highlands
plus the shelter holdings thing. So I
mean allowing family in that zone to
comply with the uh state law is good and
we can
acquire some amount of retail in that
area as well. But I mean I I don't want
to spend too much time on that point
because I know this public slides.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Um self-certification of ADUs. Um
so I think we heard some comments
>> self-certification of ADUs. So I think
we heard some um from you all via email.
Um, so when we looked into it, there's
this house bill 1353 that talks about
self-certification,
which means someone has to hire a
registered architect to design these
plans and then they could forgo this
whole requirement of getting um a code
review from the city. Uh however uh you
know we looked at some of the
pre-approved programs where which we
thought maybe were more cost effective
for people to just pick that up and they
don't have to go first find an architect
who's registered in the state of
Washington and then um do um you know
pay them because that may be more
costly. Um generally in the state you
don't need a registered architect unless
you're building over 4,000 square foot
structure. So, these are small
structures. Um, but we're happy to go
the self-certification route if that's
council's um this committee's desire.
Uh, that's why we're here today so that
we don't go down one path and then you
have a different vision for it. Um,
either way, if it's self-certification
or the pre-approved program, um, the the
issues that people are going to run into
are not so much the architectural
design, it's the utility costs. Where's
the water? Where's the sewer? How do I
hook up to that? How much does it cost
me to hook up to that? Uh the city
already grants and exempts uh adus from
impact fees. So that's not a problem. Um
council when we did the mental housing
legislation um asked us to keep an eye
out for that. If there's an influx of uh
ADUs, then they want to have the
conversation about should the waiver be
50% 100% whatever um the case may be
because the city still I believe has to
make up some of that difference. Um but
we haven't had an uptick of those. So
we're not concerned from a monetary
standpoint. It's just which one is going
to be better. If the pre-approved
program hasn't been taken up by people,
I suspect the self-certification one is
going to be similar in results or
outcome. Um, but it is one thing. Um, we
can certainly pivot whichever way this
committee desires us to do. Go.
>> Yeah. So, I've known a lot of folks from
cities that have done the pre-approved
program and essentially it's like people
want to go to a more specific purpose,
right? They're like, "Oh, I want my
family member to move in with me or
whatever the case may be." And so people
people and a lot of people people
spending their own money or getting a
home run of credit is what they're going
to invest or $300,000 building this
thing. They're going to spend
something that's exactly what they want.
And I think anecdotally people don't
want to do because you know it's not
exactly what they want or especially
different
for your specification
you know design but also still
processes. I also understand all the
utility protections and stuff all still
require city but I think you know my
having talked to folks that have tried
to do in cities you know including is so
I think Seattle is just a lot worse of
how
through the process I think this is
something that we should try to
encourage more of I feel like selfution
could be a good to do that so would
explore that option
similar similar feedback um both looking
at a few of our agencies as well as
talking to some of the home builders
that are out there uh expressed that
most of the pre-approved the states have
adopted pre-approved plans have not
gotten much
barriers especially
hills etc
um
so I would selfation towards the stream
>> um
I don't think there's enough details
here about why the process is difficult
you know I think um we recognize that
the process is difficult because the
financial barriers and the utility
barriers and things like that that we
can't solve. But I think it's also an
information barrier. Um which you know
if you think about it I think that's one
of the
things that people conceptually like
about pre-approved plans is they feel
like they can understand what they would
be able to do. That means that I do
agree with my two fellow committee
members that other cities that have done
this and invested in it haven't seen
much of an uptick. So, I think
recognizing
what the barriers are to people um is
really important and if we do determine
that the barrier is the back and forth
of permitting or having a hard time
understanding what the code requirements
are and things like that. I think there
are different solutions
than necessarily what is presented here.
Um I think what is presented here
is going to
like
concept as certification that we use not
necessarily you know
and what would we do to um just like
about
why it is aren't happening that are with
and we're talking streamlining the
pering process.
I I would like a wider selection of
potential actions out there, including,
you know, better documentation or just
really simplified requirements for
height or even like
form based code um is something that
people use as a way to you know
streamline concepts. I wonder if
something like that where it's the
external portion of the idea that is
necessarily important um whether having
focus in that way would be one way to
improve the experience.
But out of the sub um so you want a more
holistic understanding of the barriers
for not getting as many ADUs. Uh
certainly we can include that in the
information moving to planning and
policy commission and that'll come to
this committee. Uh out of the two
options there's consensus to just
proceed with the self-certification
methodology for now.
No, that was not my point. I don't know
anything about the selfification and
whether or not that would be used or
anything like that. I do think there is
a very minimal that
been well used.
>> Okay. So, we don't need to spend more
time going down that path. I I think I
will pursue the self-certification and
removing other barriers that may have
>> may help streamline the process. Is that
fair? Okay.
>> And making sure that chart really
recognizes what those barriers are and
other creative ways you might be able to
improve the user experience.
>> Sure. So some of it may be
implementation, some of it may be that.
All right. Uh so moving on. So quarter
2024 2026 we hope to accomplish these
things. Um architectural design
standards. So uh we have the city had
done a huge effort. Uh this was not
something that we tackled with title 18
and kept it as is. Uh however some of
the language in there is a mandate of
here are the things you have to do and
the here are the things you don't need
to do. And so the idea here is um that
we give those things that are a
requirement to say these are menu of
options or these are more like
guidelines to meet the objective um
which is stated in the in the code. Um
as opposed to a a specific design
requirement of these 10 things you have
to do and these 10 things you cannot do.
That's how the manual is currently
written. Um there are also you have to
choose one one out of the five uh
architectural styles and each style has
a specific thing. Um and you know we
haven't heard much feedback from people
as to that's a good or bad thing. U most
people go towards the northwest
contemporary architectural style. uh but
I think the this uh this idea that these
are guidelines to meet your intent will
help satisfy a lot of uh comments that
we've received on the architectural
design standards. Um the second element
on this um um on this slide is variances
and deviations. Um so this goes back to
uh before title 18 update we had a
process called AES administrative
adjustment of standards. anything under
uh the standards could be modified but
there was no criteria. So it led to
really arbitrary decisions and potential
liability for the city to say yes you
can do it but you can't do it. So land
use litigation gets very expensive and
so we want to make sure that whatever
codes we put in place have a specific
criteria on which those variances and
deviations are established. So through
that process there were 10 or 11 uh list
of things that came out that people
thought that they needed to get
deviations from. So there was robust
discussion about what are some elements
that should have deviations in the code
and those were entered in. But I think a
lot of this feedback why this element
remained in our 17 items is really
related to architectural design
standards by fixing the the provisions
in there to make those guidelines uh to
meet the intent. Some of that's going to
get addressed this concern. However, we
will seek uh feedback from the
developers see which other standard um
that they would like flexibility on and
and if we can identify which ones those
are then we would look at criteria for
the flexibility around that.
Yeah, I think going back to my earlier
comments on the, you know, step backs
and balconies and all those different
types of things. I think I think the
architecture standards would be a good
place to, you know, put in here's all
the different ways that we can make a
building look good and, you know, pick
whatever seven out of 10, whatever the
case may be, so that we can, you know,
get some variation in things that look
good. Um, and also one thing that I
would encourage, you know, our staff and
our planning commission council members
to do is look at examples, really nicely
designed buildings or properties in our
area or beyond. One in particular that I
really like is uh district flats in
Woodenville. They have this nice little
alleyway with these umbrellas. It's very
rare to
in my mind I mean before I saw that I
was like all five ever. But I saw that I
was like, "No, some of them actually
look very very charming." So I would um
everyone to go with that and think of,
you know, I think the like how they've
designed that. Um and the mix that they
have, there's also really good. So
definitely look forward to seeing what
you come up with on the architectural
design side of things. Um I think on the
bigger pieces, I think that also, you
know, makes sense. You want to increase
any surface area to recreation for the
city. So I'm with all that.
Um the goals
for this incorporated all Boulevard
to allow us
if we are response.
>> Yeah, I know. We were dealing with the
uh
>> lack of electricity earlier and having
>> you did. Yeah. No, I've been for a
little while. Um Okay. Soart
is really really sparse and so I think
the important things here are
recognizing that architectural interest
may be achieved through many different
methods.
um it isn't necessarily, you know, the
design um style of building that is
going to be the most important in
deciding something has architectural
interest. Um so having a set of out
there be a way of doing that. But I want
to make sure then that the goals and
outcomes just recognize that if we're uh
making requirements on architectural
standards
does
limit the creativity um of developers
and it adds cost to it.
>> So that's an important part of the issue
and then for the goal and outcome is to
have options on the methods that you
could achieve that. Absolutely. And you
know, um it's all how much time we have
and what we're trying to accomplish in
the by the end of 2026. So I think there
there'll have to be some some conscious
choices to be made. Uh we'll certainly
um make it broad broader um but
cognizant of the the time it'll take to
create ordinances get all of that
adopted if we are going back to scrap
you know redoing the whole design stuff
and so um
cautious of that. Yeah,
>> we have a gonna really talk about the
schedule as well. So I think we can kind
of
>> and and if the idea is to get these in
place and then you know come back if
there's more ambitious work plan uh then
certainly we can do that but in the in
by the end of 2026 I want to
>> be honest in terms of um what what we
can't accomplish um we'll have to stay
focused without making scope
>> you know get too big uh and which then
delays the adoption piece.
But certainly uh as we have that
discussion with PPC, we'll lay it out
where things stand and bring.
>> Yeah, this might be one that I would be
willing to push back on a little bit of
scope. Just make sure that if we're
going to be making changes to things
like stepbacks and other things that we
really recognize is that our goal is to
create that visual interest without
naming the method. And so I I really
introduce that as an idea.
as well.
We take some of these that are
aesthetics together. If the sequencing
of that is not correct, it very
steps
are having
itself then that can go in the
calendarility.
So when we get to the discussion, I
think that's that's going to be a key
point that will avoid going on that
whole topic.
>> Sure. Um but yeah, certainly you know
they're interconnected but there's been
specific feedback from the development
community but step back. So hence it got
ranked into the top two things that we
can easily quickly get them adopted. So
that's where that came from was this is
an issue. it was given as a um a de
deviation by council for the tod project
and so but that certainly if if you
don't think that that can wait that
shouldn't get passed on you know um you
can make that call but but the idea was
that there's a low hanging fruit let's
get them in the books and there's
nothing that prevents us from having a
larger conversation at a future date but
quickly getting some of these things uh
done in a timely manner was
>> yeah and I was a way We're creating a
menu of options, we would want a more
flexible step back option in there. And
so if we decide of options that that's
one of them, then we have already done
work to understand what values would
>> agree to.
>> Yep.
Okay. Um so the other things that are
going to happen by the end of this year
are through block connectors and uh peer
review um pieces. And so for the
throughblock connectors, you know, those
are really for pedestrian bike
connectivity on the valley floor uh
while facilitating building placement um
and um let's see and and obviously uh
looking into sight specific conditions.
Um and then obviously looking into sight
specific conditions. Um so um the main
action here is to provide some more
flexibility. Uh the code does have some
flexibility but I think we want to give
some examples and look at some of those
things. Um during the last title 18
update we had really wide connector
requirements to the order of 40 ft and
such. So uh that seemed too excessive.
So we had already narrowed them down and
made them um similar to our trail width
standards. So that that effort had
already occurred. We do have some
flexibility, but we've heard that there
needs to be more.
>> Um and so that's the goal there uh for
peer review. um uh you know there's all
sorts of um things that we send out for
peer review and some of it isn't
necessarily rerunning the calculations
but it's doing code review by a third
party consultant because we don't have
the staff uh expertise in that area. Um
things like lighting and landscaping
inspections we think we can handle those
inhouse by additional uh training of uh
our existing staff. Um but there are
other peer reviews such as critical area
studies, the geotechnical reports um
that are really licensed professionals.
Um and given some of the the things that
we encounter in our in development uh
here, you know, retaining walls, the
safety and stability of people up and
down those walls, not just that
particular project, but other community
members that live around them. um those
go through a peer review process and um
so our you know we'll look at that look
at some of the the selection of peer
reviewers um we can create a
pre-selected consultant list um we'll
need to work with legal to make sure the
purchasing and all those policies that
that the cities have to comply with are
met and that that also these selected
list can do design as well as review a
report. So, it'll get a little complex,
but we wanted to at least um tackle that
and see what's um if that's feasible or
not. So, that's that's what we've come
up with these two items.
>> Um I have a question on the peer review.
Are the changes that you're proposing
including the explore if a select list
of technical professionals can be
created um and eliminate some reviews
such as lighting and landscaping
inspections? Are those process changes
that you are making or are they code
changes?
>> Um once we figure out how we want to do
it, then we'll look at the code to see
if any code changes need to be made. we
may may not need code changes but um you
know depending on the lang the exact
language in the code or the fee schedule
or something we may need to look at that
first figure out what do we want to do
what we can do inhouse what we
absolutely need the consultants to do
and then and then if there are any code
changes then we can do that by ordinance
>> okay I think my feedback there would be
that if we are able to find that this is
a process changed
and that from my perspective is a
priority out of all of this list and so
I'm willing to potentially
deputy council president.
Yeah, I guess on the three block
connectors,
>> um I think
I'm on board with added flexibility, but
I could envision a case where this could
go terribly wrong where it's like, you
know, there's one through block
connector that's over here. You have to
go like 200 feet along the sidewalk to
connect to the next through block
connector and it's very like
disappointed.
So I want to make you know if we're
adding flexibility it still makes best
if you're
different um you know do um that
is potentially something be aware of um
I think on review I know this is
something that there's been a lot of
angst about from home community I think
generally I mean I like they're like we
actually like peer reviewing some cases
because it's nice to have someone else
to check their work. I think
their work instead of us going out to
check their work I think that makes a
lot more sense that they can work with
you know someone that they know. Um and
so I think uh
so certainly on the geotechnical stuff I
think it's good to have multiple people
checking even if it's not necessarily
you know like you know they
two people in the same
level of people each other. It could be
something very major and we're talking
about massive
families.
Um so yeah I I think I think in general
want to make more Michigan but notice
related to public safety.
>> No, we appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
Also, um I heard comments from several
film on particular and one example that
stuck to me was set up voices between
what they
process
and was never show was significant. This
is added thousands of dollars to the
cost of this single. Um those are the
people
having
wonder Um there's some
problems as well
as
some of the goals that are andffect
our goals for
some
ways
that I think would be good to take a
look at.
>> Sure. Yeah. We, you know, the city used
to do double peer review for properties
that were kind of questionable,
landslided potential and this that we we
don't do double peer review anymore
already through our implementation. So
um but if it's a licensed um yes
certainly you know we'll get into all
the details um on different options um
keeping public safety in mind um and
ensuring that we have the staff
capability as a limitation
the geote here and then
because I think
we get all flexible
and so
I think through this
rest of the high region
I'm seeing
this
I think.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean
there's a landslide. People's homes get
swept away because no one checked the
geotechnical work. And so I appreciate
that. That's what we're trying to do
here.
this one.
>> So then we'll start our next year 202.
So we'll start 2027
with um these two items um buffers um
how to incentivize redevelopment of
paved areas. Um so allow expansion.
Currently, we allowed them to go up, go
further away from the buffer. If there's
already a building, they can, you know,
even if it maybe it's in the buffer, but
you already have a portion of the
building, you can expand on the other
side. But looking at expansion towards
the uh critical area with some tradeoffs
of storm water improvements and other
ecological improvements, um if those are
done, then what that means, we will have
to take best available science into
consideration uh in order to pass any of
these changes. And so um we'll work with
ecology um and our um um subject matter
experts um on that. The our idea here is
that um in central if we can get an
inventory of all the wetlands and all
the streams so there isn't a debate and
we know what the buffers are of of
course they can change after five years
of you know we can keep a better
inventory but we start with that as our
basis uh to help facilitate
redevelopment and then figure out what
what those so hence the the start date
of quarter 1 2027 to see if we can get
some of that inventory work done
earlier. Um, structured parking, retail
frontage. Uh, again, how to activate
structured parking requirements. Um, I
think we heard feedback art, mural
modulation, all of those things work.
Uh, it also, you know, if you're if
you're exiting and and coming in um onto
a public sidewalk, there's also safety
things that come into play for cars
coming in and out of a parking garage.
You probably have seen it in urban areas
where you have the mirrors, the the
bells and whistles or, you know, some
sound that that alerts people that there
are people walking here. So, we'll take
a look at all of that. But, um, the idea
here is not not to have a mandate for
retail frontage.
>> Still allow it if people want to
activate your space, but have other
options for activation.
>> Got it. Um I was gonna say I mean in
terms of the structured parking retail
frontage department I don't see how this
is any different than like any other
blank wall that exists you know I know
like this wall because there's room on
the inside or whatever and so I don't
think have something specific structure
just like generally outside of the
building no we want it to look nice I
you know we don't care what's like the
time whether it's cars cars or bikes or
residences or whatever the case may be
generally and I think I think we should
probably have some kind of similar
requirements um art mural ornamentation
modulation etc. I think fine and I think
generally you know but perhaps this can
also somewhat be the architectural
design aesthetic.
>> Um and then on the
>> mitigate development close to or within
buffers
>> I think I think
>> I mean I mean I think generally this
makes sense but I would I would be very
curious to see what specifically the
proposal is because I think you know in
some cases the pavement pavement almost
right up to the stream and also in a lot
of places I mean the barrier very much
almost
what you do to expand some valility
resto but not make it overly difficult
and impossible build anything without
like huge chunks of that already exist
um I also the you know you know having
a map for all of the time buffers very
helpful. Um, I think, you know, there
have been cases where someone, you know,
bought a piece of property and then
they're like, "Oh, there's this wetland
over here, so you can't build as much."
And it would have been nice, you know,
time.
>> Um, I will also say, and this is a
little random, but there is a property
for sale that I've seen on Zillow that
advertises that it's a large flat wall,
but the entire thing is covered by a
fisherman stream. And I think the fact
that that's not like immediately
transparent, I think we should make it
really easy for people to be able to
tell like, oh yeah, obviously this is
not something where we want people to be
housing. Um, you know, areas where we
actually do, which is like, you know,
not next to, you know, immediately next
to a sharing screen, but it's currently
like a meadow.
I think we should have a map that makes
Um, I think that on this are written
really well and it does a good job of
explaining what the problem is, which is
that previous standards allowed this
parking to be built really close to
stream buffers. And thus, when the
buffer amount changed, you have this
area just can't be adjusted. and thus
it's bad for um the streams and the
ecological wildlife. So I I really
appreciate the way that this is written.
I would just add as an action is that
map of properties because I think that
part of it is particularly um useful out
of it. And then I really appreciate
understanding that this will require
working and we know that that is not a
fast process. So while I generally agree
that this is an important area um for
unlocking development on the valley
floor, I recognize the time commitment
that will be required for that as well
as creating that map. And so I agree
with your timeline.
>> Yeah. And you know um because some of
our streams are all well we'll get to
the nitty-gritty details in in in a
future conversation, but yeah, thank
you. Um so moving on um
oops
so the other thing um in quarter one of
next year is going to be more options
for sustainable development standards.
So we know that affordable housing
projects have to meet this ever
evergreen sustainable development
standard. So obviously we don't want
them to get another certification. So we
certainly want to include that. I think
I heard some um comments from you all by
email uh to allow other options like um
non-fossil stuff. So, we'll we'll look
into all of those. Um we obviously want
to make it easy and simple. Um give
people options. Um but sustainability is
a big goal of the city and a lot of our
long-range plans including climate
action plan including a comprehensive
plan have targets that we are all
striving to to meet and so that's
usually happens with a combination of
trees you know solar panels and all of
and uh chargers and all of that gets
bundled up with getting this lead
certification piece. So um but we'll
certainly explore different options. Um
from a building standpoint, concrete uh
is a heavy generator of greenhouse gas
emissions, not just the the heating and
all those kind of things. So that that's
why I think this this um gets complex. I
think in the past when we said we could
we would give people a choice of how
many points you want to add up and when
we dug into it some of the cities that
do it um you know the outcome is the
same but the a lot of time was spent on
creating a cityowned process so we
wanted to make it simple so we adopted
this lead platinum certification uh
piece but um we'll have a deeper
conversation with planning and policy
commission and our sustainability staff
around this
>> yeah I mean this is an issue that I had
flyed last year. I think I did find it
weird because it's like you can you know
if you're residential you have to be
platinum but if you're you have to do
like real five star
>> it's other way around. So
people haven't compl you know people
like built for green star is a master
builder association program and and a
lot of uh housing development that has
happened it's worked really well for the
homebuilders for the master builder
association and the city. So, we haven't
received any negative feedback from
that.
>> Yeah, I think you know we should just
full menu like other cities like Belby
where they're like, "Hey, here's like
the five different ones that are all
kind of comparable in terms of
environmental performance." I think
that's good. Uh, and you know, you
mentioned in your earlier email, um,
lenders will people preferential
interest rates.
>> That's what we heard from one developer.
I mean this is because my company
actually runs that program for one of
the big national GSSEs. This is a thing
I will say also I mean I would love an
option where it's like if you don't want
to get a green building certification
but you you know we can decide hey we
care about climate action. So if you go
you know no field connection building
then you don't have to go through the
trouble of paying a consultant to get
your certification um which I think
would be a great option as well and I
know that's something you're considering
with sustainability so I'm very glad to
hear that and very interested.
>> Okay. Um so towards the latter part of
2027
uh is this large project called impact
fee right sizing the impact fee. Um this
one of course requires a lot of
conversations internally because it's
the traffic impact. This is also parks
impact and where the city is in its
long-term planning efforts that you know
should or could be done before an impact
study is done. So we'll need to uh have
a lot of discussions internally between
various city departments um to flush
this one out a little bit more. But the
the basic goal here is to rightsize the
impact fees for new growth to ensure um
that they are paying their prora share
of funding the city's capital
facilities. Um and then the potential
use of AI uh you know technologies
changing in the blink of an eye. Um the
city has a group uh that is meeting
regularly around AI in generally. Uh
we're focused on a business you know
workflow processes and how to improve
those. Uh and for permitting uh there
are ongoing conversations with ECD gov
alliance about the permitting software
part uh that pot has some potential uh
to um look into this further. Um but
that's a much larger bigger uh piece uh
costwise as well as timewise. Um but in
the interim we can explore options for
completeness reviews. So we are working
on really um very uh clear guidance to
applicants about what a complete
application is, what you need and if we
could have some sort of a system that
could scan those when an application
comes in and to make and flag this is
incomplete. Um maybe something we can
look into. Um also you know chat bots
and frequently asked questions has been
tried by various cities. So we can
certainly look into uh creating that um
um option
and of course updating a website the
permitting software website you know uh
will go a long ways um where people can
search Google searches uh through Google
and you know other um AI um searches
that will lead them to the right
direction um and pinpoint them in the
right direction for permitting. So I
think that concludes
um again any feedback that you have for
us is
welcome
>> very briefly on impact fees. We can
maybe get to this in calendar
discussions too if we go there but uh I
do want to be the public comment we
received on the relative time frame when
we might want to address impact fees and
also elsewhere that this is one of the
more important things. Um I don't have a
good sense
I don't want to push on that too much
but uh
feedback is more important to take that
account.
Yeah, my understand
we would have to spend money to retain a
consultant and that's not within the
budget for this year. I do remember
to kind of
I do think something where
uh
this is
it is a very direct cost like a fee that
we're charging um and I think previously
I'd reviewed the you know schedule that
we used to impact previously and
projecting
now cost upwards of $100 million
and that's
for transportation impact fees. And so,
you know, I do think it revisiting what
projects we think are actually going to
be constructed, how much we think is
that the city could be contributing to
that and adjust accordingly. So,
definitely forward to seeing what we can
do to expedite this impact fee study.
>> Um, I will add in here. I think when I
first came into the housing
conversation, I was very interested in
making sure that we were adjusting
impact fees um as one of our priorities.
I think recognizing that it was not in
our previous budget, we'll have to
establish the money for this that it
impacts um you know our CIP and
potential grant areas, all of that. And
then also recognizing that there are a
lot of process changes and just being
more friendly to development and you
know allowing variances and things like
that that are going to make development
more likely to happen. I think I'm
actually okay with this at the timeline
that was presented.
>> Anything else?
Yeah, I mean I I think the timeline is
okay if there is absolutely nothing we
can do to move it up. I think we can
definitely see if this is they
absolutely that we could do this impact
study. I'd be curious to see if there's
you know anything we can do to expedite.
So oh city administrator
>> well we can do anything. We had I think
it's a matter of priority. Um there are
multiple parties within the city
involved and so uh who are be working on
other things right now. So um if the
council really feel strongly about this
you know we may intermediate staff and
bring this on top council and lay out we
think that we need to do this. Um you
know it is all fun many other things um
you know those dollars changing have
effects in many other things but if it's
department
I think this has to make that decision
and then perhaps
one piece back
to have we started to te it up um and
it's a diffulture
I think
um you know
some cases
have to
take
it something like
discuss.
>> So I think my preference would be to put
my thumb on um creating potential design
standard options. I think that to me is
a more important change
um from this committee than necessarily
moving up a conversation about
um impact fees,
but I would love to hear from committee
members.
Yeah, I mean I definitely think for
architectural
piece going to be a lot of work.
>> So
>> I mean I don't know it's it's hard to
know without knowing you know what else
would have to be sacrificed if we were
to move this item up.
>> And I I don't know how much effort it
would take for kind of a preliminary
sense of what that would be that we
could perhaps discuss in our next
meeting.
Okay.
>> Our our colleagues work
on projects.
Um there's a lot the computer.
We don't want
>> I don't really have enough to say very
well opinion. Um I have heard some
feedback from the community. This is one
of the more important things. I'm taking
that into account. Um
the impact of
um
additional that's the other I would want
to understand is there what would
be is it
because
trade-off is a binary trade-off between
these two things. Is there something
else? Um, is there so I guess
could we see some options with this
forward? Could we see what the real
possibilities of moving this forward
would look like? um would be
understanding that something has to
shift and what those what those would
most likely have to be based on your
understandable
proposals that we could look through
otherwise I don't know how to give I
don't have that but I appreciate you
can't you cannot do that in two weeks I
don't know how long it would take to do
that but if we do want to do it that's
the kind of thing that we have to said,
>> I think the other piece is not my
document again is just when we're
looking at impact fees. I want to better
understand
right now we we recognize direct cost to
builders. There's also if something is
we don't get property taxes
and tax and all of those other things.
And so my perspective
in order to consider whether or not our
impact fees are reducing our reducing
home building cost of building. I would
need to understand what a picture could
look like. um if it weren't enough so
some modeling
what areas of might and so I really
complex
set of conversations
and
intertwine impacts um is my perspective.
>> Yeah, you're you're absolutely right. I
mean it is going to be complex and I
think what to Wally's point we want to
have some of those you know
conversations earlier about what the
park
projects are on the list what are
transportation projects on the list that
may so those conversations will take a
little bit of time and then then the
methodology for calculating your impact
fees is is has to be done right um
because it is um you know something that
can
looked at um and should be done
correctly. So, in order to do a good
job, this is an aggressive schedule what
we've put together. We will need this
much time um to get some of those
earlier pieces done. However, if um this
needs to be moved up um based on your
direction, then we'll have to take you
know take that into consideration come
back and have a deeper conversation
around schedule.
>> So,
Um and we can commence provide an
update.
Um I don't have the meeting dates
memorized
>> in July. Um we I'm not sure if we will
have uh PPC
materials coming to PTE in July. Yeah,
July and August is a council
bring
you guys meet in August.
>> Yeah,
I think
maybe we can take all this
uh do our best. Um if we if we have
progress in two weeks, so be it. Um
otherwise I convince you to at least
check in at the July meeting. Um
but I think the very busy fall in order
to keep this up but also to the folks in
this room just to keep things moving. So
but I appreciate the conversation on the
impacts um the architecture standards.
Um so those are the two things. Is there
anything else that
everything's important but
>> parking architect standards and um
impact please is what I heard.
>> I guess I would say the architectural
standards is probably the one area where
there's the least clarity in terms of
what it would look like going forward. I
think on the other ones it is you know
we have some pretty clear guidance and
so I think that's what warrants us you
know spending some more time diving into
those.
that um
you know
September October November.
I don't think we would be ready prior to
that.
>> September,
we need to look at twice a month meeting
September.
>> Yeah. We would just like to see because
if I look at the PD of items in
September 1st to cover
and
so I think we were already feedback was
going to be we're going to need to make
adjustments on how we are getting that
information. Debbie said I don't see
necessarily a date in here in October or
November for things to come to PD. Um
the next date that you're showing review
is December 1st. So I think doing more
of a break on this
hand
>> um I guess on the impact in particular I
guess I'm curious when the timing of
gets paid to the city right
>> okay
>> um so the impact fees get paid at the
issuance of the building permit
Sometimes the residential folks can ask
for an extension to certificate of
occupancy. So the code allows folks to
request an extension. We sometimes get
those um because the impact doesn't
start until people start living in
there. So the state law was changed to
allow that type of a time frame for
folks to pay it at the time of uh when
they're given occupancy. Um and and to
to the point of um you know if council
desires to provide some relief in the
interrum we don't do in u we haven't
done an inflationary increase because
every year we can do an inflationary
increase because we were trying to do
when the study is going to happen and
all that. So that can be paused until
the study is complete. Um that may
provide some relief in the interim uh of
not getting that whatever percentage
that's based on the building cost index.
um that is published by engineering
news, you know, then we look at that and
we do an inflationary increase. So, we
can pause that until the study is
complete.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I guess just to put a finer
point on it because what I was trying to
get at is you know I'm pretty sure the
there's probably one specific who I mean
there's only one building I think of
that would potentially be interested in
a building permit before 2027 which
would be rate developer of the other the
project. So,
>> so if if
>> not not having a lower
>> that we're going to be revisiting impact
fees and
>> not
likely reducing them there's no they're
just wait what happens before they
submit a building permit right
>> well it depends on their carrying cost
if they're paying loan um you know then
every builder wants to get it in the
ground and start getting their revenue
as soon as possible. So impact fees are
a you know your your soft costs are less
than 2% of your overall uh project
costs. So there's a lot of money spent
on buying the land construction loans
and all of that those add up. So time is
essential for them to not wait for a
million dollar relief and impact fees if
that. Right. I mean my understanding is
also that they have not purchased that
half of the project yet. And so anyway,
I mean definitely something for us to
keep in mind is that you know for the TD
project we want to make sure that both
the affordable and rate side of things
are moving if we're thinking about what
potentially is the impact of this.
It could be that okay that you know
they're actually being in parallel which
would be great.
Okay, so we're kind of coming down to
the end of all of this. I think we've
given a lot of feedback. Um, I'd like to
know what the next steps are
particularly on the go chart. You know,
we've given feedback
issues, outcomes, actions, things like
that.
who sees that plan.
>> We can take the feedback that we have
today and try and revise the golden
outcome chart and include it in your
packet for next meeting. Um, which the
packet goes go out soon, but we'll give
it a shot. See, it's fresh in our
memory. We've had this discussion. So if
we can capture some of your feedback in
that
>> uh we're bringing the stepbacks and the
outdoor amenity space and some other
clarifying code amendments
>> that's coming from PC.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I think that will be a good
pairing um because it will be important
when we are evaluating the proposed
actions on those to make sure that they
align with the goals and outcomes um of
that. And so that's the next
we don't have necessarily
certain of when you're going to come
back
um any schedule changes or kind of how
you might rearrange some of the other
areas.
>> What's the July date?
>> Uh BDE July date.
>> Yeah. July 77.
Uh
let's see.
>> Yes. July 7th and our calendarly says
open accepting items.
>> And that's that's a Tuesday.
Yes,
>> I think
um I think during the month of June we
can at least conven
>> I'm just trying to hear
>> I don't
Yeah,
>> absolutely.
>> Yeah, because we're we're adding
something and making requests and all of
that. So um then it sounds like
something coming back to us and
executing in uh June which is uh review
of the goals and outcomes changes and
everything that's from PBC and then the
July meeting looking at some of these
bigger areas where we've asked for some
adjustments on um the administrative
standards and impact fees how we
mightong
with a calendar of how we can address
some things that might to shift for
that.
>> Absolutely. Let us know if you run into
conflict on that need to shift dates.
I'm just explaining the conversation out
there. Okay. Anything else, folks? Okay.
Um
I think that's it. any No, we're good.
Hey, we did this power outage
transformer. Good job, everybody. Um, I
will mark closed at 9 p.m. Thank you.
>> Oh my goodness.
>> Yeah,
>> city clerk's office.
>> Doesn't matter. There's no power. You
know
>> who make it