Well, hello planning policy people.
Welcome to this evening's planning
policy commission meeting. We're going
to bring this meeting to order and it
currently is 6:32 p.m. Tonight's meeting
is a hybrid meeting. The planning policy
commission is in person. one of our
commissioners is joining us uh via
online, but also for staff or members of
the public, they also might be attending
virtually or in person. Kristen, uh do
we have a quorum this evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Great. Thank you. We're going to move
along and we are going to start with
approving last meeting's minutes. and I
was not here. But if anyone has any
concerns,
any corrections, please now
let us know.
All right. By unanimous unanimous
consent, those meeting minutes are
approved. And that was for the October
23rd meeting. We are now going to move
on to public comment. And for this
meeting, we're going to hold general
public comment right now. If you do wish
to speak about the public hearing
topics, we ask that you hold on to those
comments for just a little bit longer.
This right now is just for general
public comments for the good of the PPC
and general comments um city business,
city issues,
but uh we'll start by asking has anyone
signed up to make general public
comments this evening?
>> No, chair, they have not.
>> Okay. Thank you, Amanda. So, I'm going
to read the public comment stuff when we
get to it.
Okay. Does anyone want to speak
generally at this time?
All right. So, it looks like everyone's
here for the public hearing.
Good news. The next thing on the topic
is our public hearing. This are the
proposed amendments to title 18 section
18.606. 606 landscaping of the Isiziqua
Municipal Code. This will be our first
item of business and this is to hold a
public hearing regarding the proposed
amendments. The purpose of this public
hearing is to provide a formal
opportunity for public comment
on the proposed amendments.
We'll open the public hearing which will
be followed by a presentation from
staff. Then I'd ask the PPC to follow up
with any questions that you may have.
We'll take public testimony, then close
the public hearing, and then the
planning policy commission will have an
opportunity to make a recommendation on
this item. John Mortonson, the
transportation engineering manager, will
be presenting this evening. So, John,
when you are ready, please go ahead with
your presentation.
>> All right. Thank you very much. I'm John
Mortonson. I am the city's
transportation engineering manager. I
want to make sure you guys can hear me.
Okay.
>> Yes, we can.
>> Okay. I will share my screen in just a
minute.
All
right.
Thank you for having me here again
tonight. I am here to talk about the
landscaping standards for streets. The
purpose of tonight's topic is to hold a
public hearing on the proposed
amendments to chapter 18.606
of the Isiqua Municipal Code
Landscaping.
Some background on this information that
I'm presenting tonight are the street
standards are the standards that the
city has when streets whether privately
owned or publicly owned are um the
standards for design and construction.
And inside the street standards right
now the landscaping requirements. It
requires a planner strip and also
references Escoan municipal code 18.606
for a lot of the details. And when you
combine the two requirements right now
the current standard is a landscape
planter strip that is 5 ft wide with
street trees that goes in between the
travel lanes and the sidewalk. Right
now, the only allowable deviation to not
construct the 5-ft planter strip for
streets is for a safety risk. Usually,
that would be associated with sight
distance, not get driveways. Um,
however, the administration's done some
research and believes this is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan
and critical areas code, which the
comprehensive plan talks about tree
preservation and the critical areas code
talks about avoiding and minimizing
impacts to critical areas.
And so the administration worked with
the mobility and infrastructure
committee and the transportation
advisory board to create guard rails to
revise these standards which were
presented to the planning policy
commission at the October meeting, the
second October meeting.
And just to put some visuals behind what
I had talked about, this is Northwest
Dogwood and you can see a landscape
planter strip. It has street trees and
it's in this case there's on street
parking but basically between where the
cars are and the pedestrians there is a
landscaped liner strip with street
trees. When the administration was
working on a preferred concept for the
Squawk Mountain sidewalk project, one of
the things that really stood out is in
order to construct the sidewalk to city
code that required the 5-ft planter
strip which made the
roadway section wider and would have had
significant impact on trees. And in
addition to the comprehensive plan,
really talking about pre-preservation,
also just knowing this community and the
values that it would not be very popular
with the community to cut down a bunch
of 60-year-old burned cedar trees in
order to put in decorative landscaping
trees.
Um, and so the proposed standards have a
deviation process to preserve trees.
The
critical areas code in title 18 really
talks about avoiding and minimizing
impacts to critical areas like wetlands
and streams and their buffers. And so
the administration is proposing changes
to the landscape standards to reduce or
eliminate the landscape planner strip in
situations where a project or
development is trying to avoid impacts
to critical areas.
This next photo is a photo along
Northwest Seamish Road. This is an area
where the it the city is designing a
project that will construct a 12 to 14
foot wide multi-use path for pedestrians
and bicycles. In addition, the road will
be shifting a little bit towards
Interstate 90. Uh but one of the things
that this proposed street standards have
are a deviation process to not make
steep driveways steeper in situations
where the property that's served by the
driveway is not being redeveloped.
And finally, there's a deviation that's
being proposed to reduce or eliminate
the planner strip when it comes to
impacting section 4F properties. These
are recreational properties and this
really applies to city projects with
federal funds
and this would be very context
sensitive. So this is the Harvey Manning
Park on the left and of course this is a
situation where you'd want to preserve
trees and not construct a planter strip.
And actually in this case we're not even
proposing sidewalk but um it also if it
was a city park with a playground then
it might make sense to
put in a landscape planter strip.
And also the administration is proposing
a deviation process for
rehabilitation or not deviation process
an exemption to the landscape standards
for rehabilitation projects so the city
can take care of its aging
infrastructure. On the left is a
retaining wall on Black Nugget Road that
needs to
be replaced and on the right is 190th.
This is up the hill from Cougar Mountain
Zoo and the pavement
has been and the roadway has been
sliding down and so the administration
needs to come up with the fix and that
is in the capital improvement plan.
There's also a proposed exemption for
non-motorized gaps. On the left is a
picture of Second Avenue Northwest. This
is a sidewalk gap in front of three
parcels of land. It connects Gilman
Village and Confluence Park and it's
something that the the community has
asked for for the city to eliminate the
sidewalk gap and
right now it's a really expensive
sidewalk gap with all the requirements
to build it to full standard without any
exemptions.
major things that we
>> So what the administration is proposing
is
standards that were developed with
feedback from the transportation
advisory board in the mobility and
infrastructure committee which create a
deviation criteria for tree preservation
protection of critical areas driveway
access advisory board in the mobility
and properties or section 4f
as they're called And uh it would be
based on the pedestrian level of traffic
stress. That's a metric that comes from
the washout design manual where one
being the most ideal situation for a
pedestrian where anyone people young
children, people with disabilities,
elderly and everyone in between would
feel comfortable walking along that
corridor to
four, which is a very s stressful
situation for any pedestrians and that
the standard would be two or better with
one exception and that's on the 40 mph
straights but where the applicant would
need to do a much more in-depth
analysis. It would also be based on an
arborous tree health and condition
assessment because there's no point in
preserving a tree if after the proposed
action the tree isn't going to survive.
And so it's really important to make
sure that
The deviation process considers the
health and condition of a tree. It
utilizes existing definitions in title
18
>> to help simplify things for the
applicant.
The critical areas report would be an
important piece of the review process.
Obviously, for driveways, the actual
grade, how steep the dragway is, and for
recreational properties, the
recreational use.
I mentioned earlier that the pedestrian
level traffic stress would need to be
two or better in order to have a
deviation approved. Um
and that the deviation process would
include land use context such as are
there a lot of pedestrian generators in
the area or not? The needs for
multi-modal users, the roadway
characteristics, equity and costs.
A 20 foot
or longer full length planner strip
would be required. And on the next
slide, I'll show you a picture of what
this would look like. This was really
based on the city's standards and code
for a minimum planning area is 100
square ft. If the planning strip is 5 ft
wide, that means we need 20 ft of
planner strip. And of course, I talked a
lot about the exemptions for
rehabilitation projects to help the city
maintain its existing infrastructure
where the use of the street would not be
changing. and the interim pedestrian and
bicycle connections to help the
community get
more immediate connections while waiting
for the city or developers to
fully develop frontage.
So I mentioned the a planter strip needs
to be 20 ft long. And so this top this
image on the top you can see a situation
where with smooth transitions
you can fit in a 20tx 5 ft landscape
planter strip. So in this situation
where the project was trying to preserve
trees, the sidewalk would have a little
bit of meandering or jogging in order to
get the planting strip in as many areas
as possible. On the bottom of this
picture though, there's more trees and
that the sidewalk would stay next to the
curb.
The administration's recommendation is
to approve the chapter
18.606 landscaping amendments as
presented
and timing and next steps are this item
is scheduled to go before the mobility
and infrastructure committee on November
24th and tenatively scheduled for the
full council on January 5th.
And that concludes my presentation.
>> All right. Well, thank you, John.
Appreciate the presentation. We're going
to open it up right now for the
commissioners to ask any questions that
you may have at this point. Are there
any takers?
>> Commissioner Dair.
>> Uh, so I have a question. For example,
in the second street example you had
where you're basically bridging the gap
across those three parcels, would that
need
um to have that 20x 5 ft square planting
area because it looks like it should
just go straight down
logically.
>> Yeah.
So the
interim pedestrian and bicycle
connections would actually be an
exemption not a deviation. So in this
case there would not be a landscape
planner strip.
>> Great.
>> Because it's not trying to it's a
different mechanism. So it's I guess did
I answer your question?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Any other questions?
Okay,
seeing as there's no more questions,
thank you, John. Uh, we will open the
public hearing at 6:48 p.m.
Um, in one moment I'll ask, it does
appear we have some people that would
like to speak. So, just real quickly,
let me read some boilerplate.
Uh comments at tonight's meeting may be
made in person or virtually. For all
those who would like to speak during
public comments, we ask that you speak
clearly and pause frequently and please
state your name. Uh before you begin to
speak, if you're attending virtually by
computer or by phone and would like to
speak during the public comments, please
mute your microphone until you have been
called to speak. If you're having any
technical issues, you can try joining in
on another's device such as a smartphone
or tablet. We do ask people that you
keep your comments to 5 minutes or less.
All right,
staff, do we have I know we have. Who's
first up to speak?
>> Chair, no one has signed up to speak.
>> Oh, okay. Well, I imagine we have some
people in the room that would like to
speak. Would anyone like to speak that's
in the room?
>> Sure. By all means, please.
>> My name is Mike Bailey. I live at 275
East Sunset Way.
question isn't necessarily about the
street parts landscaping we're talking
about tonight. I have some other
questions about landscaping. When it
just said landscaping code, I didn't
understand that was just for street. I
thought it was going to cover the whole
landscaping thing. So, I may hold my
comments until later at the end. Is that
possible or are you only taking comments
at this time?
>> We're only taking comments right now,
but at the end of the meeting, you're
more than welcome to reach out to staff
and talk to them about the issues that
you have with landscaping.
>> Thank you.
>> By all means. Thank you.
Anyone else in the room? Going once,
going twice. How about virtually? Do we
got any takers virtually?
>> No, chair.
>> Okay.
Setting records.
Okay. We are going to close the public
hearing at 6:50 p.m. Now, there is a
formal action requested on this agenda
item. Is a member of the commission
willing to make the motion to begin uh
deliberations?
Chair Patterson.
>> Thank you, Chair Voice. I would like to
move to approve the chapter 18606
landscaping amendments as presented.
>> All right. Do we have a second?
>> Second.
>> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Oler.
It's opened up. The floor is yours. Who
would like to speak on this particular
topic?
>> Commissioner Moberu.
>> I think the lack of public comment
indicates the support for this for
voting for this measure.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Walburu. Um,
Commissioner Crass.
>> Uh, thank you, Commissioner Crass. I
think John did an excellent job both
today as well as we went through it at
the end of October and kind of talked
through a lot of the scenarios. So I
feel very comfortable moving forward the
way we have it.
>> Uh Commissioner Dair.
>> Yeah, just to it all seems very logical
to me and I think it's pretty
straightforward.
>> Thank you commissioners and I'm getting
a couple headshakes from other
commissioners. Uh yeah, what? Oh, I'm
sorry. Commissioner Zachro. Yes, yes,
yes. Commissioner Zacharov, please.
>> Thank you. Thank you guys. I would like
to say a special thank you to John for
excellent presentation. This was very
like u it's great. It's great to see the
visuals and to understand where exactly
everything should go and how it's going
to work. Uh that's probably one of the
reasons why there are not that many
questions and people are in agreement
because thank you. Thank you for great
presentation. That was my only comment.
Great comment. Thank you, Commissioner
Zachar. And I'm sure John likes to hear
from all of us, too.
Anything else?
Yeah, I think to uh Commissioner Molber,
Commissioner Crass, Commissioner Zachro,
Commissioner Adair, uh all seems pretty
logical stuff. These exemptions seem
needed, makes sense to me. Um just a
list of priorities. So, I want to say
thank you. Now, there is a motion on the
floor. So right now there's no changes
to that motion.
So I can just ask for a vote.
Phone a friend. All in favor of the
motion on the floor. All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> Thank you Commissioner Zacharov. And
thank you all of you. So that was
unanimous. That can pass and move along.
Did you get what you wanted? Good. Okay.
All right. Thank you, John, again for
the presentations. Appreciate it.
And we are now going to move along to
our next item of regular business.
And this tonight, we have Stacy Vin
McKinstry, sustainability manager, and
she's going to walk us through the isa
climate action plan. This is an update
uh with proposed amendments and proposed
actions. So when Stacy when you are
ready uh please go ahead. Looks like we
got some it over there.
>> Right. Good evening. Thank you very
much. Uh my name is Stacy Vin McKinstry.
I'm the sustainability manager with the
city. Um and tonight we are doing a
first touch with you all. Um we are in
the process of updating the climate
action plan and would like to get some
initial feedback um to bring back to the
environmental board as we begin working
on uh revisions to this plan. Um tonight
I'll provide a little bit of background
as well as an update on the climate
action plan progress and how we're doing
in terms of implementation and then I
will review some proposed revisions to
the land use actions that came out of a
committee process held this summer.
Um so following overview of the IAAP
implementation I'll talk give you a
little bit more detail around uh the
process we're using for our update. Um I
will go through the recommendations that
came out of committee meetings and I'll
describe how those committee meetings
worked as well. Um and that's where we
really want your feedback. We have, I
believe it's six actions um that we
received feedback on related to land use
and that's where we're really looking
for your initial input this evening.
Um it's some of you were probably
involved in the climate action plan
process back in 2021. It was uh quite a
long time ago, but I'm sure some of you
are probably new to the commission as
well. So, I wanted to provide a little
bit of a background. Um, the plan was
adopted back in December of 2021. Uh, it
went through about a 9-month process
around community engagement, a pretty
intensive process, all done virtually
during COVID.
Um, the work that was undertaken was
really meant to be as inclusive as as
possible. Uh, given the virtual nature,
there were many community listening
sessions. There were focus groups,
meetings held with youth and businesses
and environmental leaders. Um, and it
was really meant to try and represent
the voices across Isiqua and um, the
priorities for climate mitigation as
well as uh, resilience or climate
adaptation.
Um, it was really a great achievement
for the city. It was our first climate
action plan and it held the city to some
very bold and ambitious um priorities
around reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions and preparing for change.
We have a number of targets within the
plan. Some are short-term, some are
longer term uh that we are implementing
actions to make toward progress towards
those targets.
Um
so and then I did want to just show you
all um this graphic. This is called a
wedge analysis. Um this particular one
was produced through a King County
report and it's become very common in
terms of looking at how we're doing um
and where we need to go. Um what this
represents
is um a climate emission scenario. kind
of the track that we're on right now is
shown in that black dotted line. Um it
shows where our targets are, which is
that red dashed line at the bottom. And
then the solid colors are showing how
far we can get from reducing our
missions with just federal, state, and
regional policies.
What's really important for us at the
city level are those um shaded or dotted
areas that's showing where we really
need to be taking action and focusing
our efforts in terms of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Um this is not
meant to be prescriptive. It's meant to
give us a sense of where we should be
focusing our priorities. Um and for us
in Isiqua, a lot of that area is around
um transportation um which uh is
impacted quite a bit by our land use
decisions and then buildings looking at
energy use and buildings. So we use this
um type of graphic as a bit of a guiding
uh force as we start to think about our
plan update and where we want to focus
our actions.
Um so just a little bit of where we are
right now uh with the plan and
implementing it uh almost four years
into that process. Um the plan has kind
of six focus areas within it uh where we
have goals, targets and actions within
each of those areas. So the first one is
called overarching actions that um
encompasses a lot of our city
operations. There's actions around
education and then we have a section
focused on transportation and land use,
natural systems and water resources,
buildings and energy, materials and
resources and then community well-being
and resilience.
We have a very small team working on
implementation. um started with one
person, we now have a two-person
full-time team and then we work with a
number of interns from Gibson and um as
well as fellows through Americanore to
work to implement all of the the
actions. Um we also work very closely
across departments at the city to get
that work done. Um we are proud to share
that we have about 90% of the actions
that were identified in that climate
action plan um they're on track or in
progress. So they're underway. Maybe
some slight hurdles or barriers, but for
the most part, we are able to move
forward. Um a number most of those
actions that were in the plan. We have a
lot of projects and programs underway
that are helping to reduce emissions in
our city operations. Um we have a couple
solar projects that'll be happening
before the end of the year and next
year. Um we're increasing energy
efficiency in our buildings. Um we're
replacing a lot of our gas heating and
cooling systems with um heat pumps or
electric systems. Um and then we're
helping green our fleet at the city. Um
we're helping the community to do
similar. Um we have a number of
community programs looking at um
providing significant rebates for heat
pumps. We've run solar campaigns. Um,
and we work with our commercial
buildings to help them meet energy
efficiency requirements.
So, we're doing all this work, um, which
is great, and we've been able to secure,
uh, quite a bit of money, uh, primarily
from the state and the state's climate
commitment act. Um, but our progress in
terms of how we're doing at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is showing that
we're not on track to meet those targets
that we set. Um, so we had some uh
really great actions in that first plan,
but they may not have taken us far
enough to really make progress at
reducing emissions. So that is something
that we're looking at um are very
focused on for this next iteration of
the climate plan.
So as we approach um the 5-year mark of
the climate plan, um it is due for an
update in 2026. We've started that
process early. Uh we had some grant
funding that we could use back in the
spring that was able to bring on some
facilitation support.
Um and we also knew that we wanted to
finish this update ahead of the city's
next budget cycle uh which really kicks
off um by next summer. Um so we've
started this process a little bit early
with the goal of having an updated
climate plan by June of 26. Um and our
approach approach for the update is
really three-fold.
Um we're looking back at our experience
implementing the plan over the last few
years. Um identifying what types of
actions um and policies we think can
really help us uh make greater progress
towards our targets. Uh we're reviewing
other jurisdictions plans. So Belleview
is currently going through a climate
plan update. Um Redmond as well. Um,
other jurisdictions such as Bellingham
and King County have just uh wrapped up
some their plan updates. So, we have a
lot of great lessons to learn from them.
And then we knew there was a couple
areas of the climate plan that we wanted
to dig in deeper. And one of those was
around land use actions. And so, we
formed a number of committees back in
the spring to bring in subject matter
experts and really help advise us on how
we might revise those actions.
um those committees
uh were focused on land use and
transportation
um and natural systems and water
resources.
So we brought in members of our boards
and commissions um staff from across
multiple departments um in the snowcom
tribe also participated.
Uh there were only two meetings. One of
the meetings the committees met together
and then split uh in the middle of that
meeting to talk about their priorities
and then in the second meeting um the
committees met just to focus on their
area of expertise.
They shared goals um objectives for
updating the actions in that area of the
plan. Um they looked at what the current
actions were in the plan. They looked at
uh other plans and examples our
consultants had pulled in. um and then
they provided back feedback.
Um so this is just a snapshot of those
committee members. Again, this is um or
this is the combined between those two
groups, the land use and transportation
and the natural systems. So we had um
quite a few folks participating across
those and we did have um Katya
representative of the planning policy
commission participate.
So next I wanted to just provide a
highlevel summary of the recommendations
that came out of the land use and
transportation
committee. Um and then what I'll move
into is I would um really appreciate
kind of a reflection on what you all um
heard um or or what the committee shared
um and your own thoughts or reactions
and reflection on that. and then we'll
move into specific actions where there
was a recommendation coming out of the
committee discussion and we would like
your feedback on those recommendations.
So for our land use it was a combined
land use and transportation committee.
Um they looked at the actions in the
plan related mostly around adoption of
ebikes, electric vehicles and land use.
They really stressed a desire for
flexibility in terms of implementation.
Um looked at a stronger focus on
pedestrian safety and wanted um more
outcomebased metrics in the climate
plan. They felt that many of the land
use related actions had already been
covered through the recent or semi-reent
title 18 land use code update. Um as
well as implementation of the mobility
action plan. There was some concerns
voiced in the committee about too many
actions in the climate plan um also
existing in the mobility action plan and
other plans across the city.
They did express a real strong support
for expanding bike and ebike
infrastructure
um ensuring community engagement to
understand barriers to bike adoption. uh
tracking uh vehicle mile miles traveled
impacts and ensuring that any plans for
expanded biking infrastructure were
really forward-looking and aligning with
our unique community needs.
They supported incentivizing EV
infrastructure, particularly within
multifamily dwellings, and we'll talk
about that in a moment. um and uh really
wanted to see the city play a role in um
helping connect our utility um with a
multifamily developments or dwellings um
to ensure that there is capacity to
address uh uh increasing EV charging
needs. So there was a lot of focus on
transportation um but of course uh
that's very directly related to our land
use.
So um as mentioned what I would like to
do now with that kind of history of the
IAP where we are um hearing a little bit
about what came out of those committee
discussions was first just get some
general feedback on what are your all
priorities for land use actions in the
updated climate plan and then we'll go
through a few specific actions uh where
we have a recommendation and we would um
appreciate your reflection.
Um, again, this is just a first review.
Um, what we will do then is take any of
your feedback we hear tonight to the
environmental board. They'll digest that
a bit. We'll continue to revise the
actions and then we would likely come
back to you all in early 26 with any
actions that have a policy implication
around land use. So, it's a bit of a
iterative process.
So any questions before we move to
general feedback?
>> Okay, great. All right, let's jump in.
So yeah, again, we just really really
appreciate any of your feedback um from
the summary of the committee input as
well as in general any priorities you
have for updates to land use actions in
the climate plan.
>> All right. Well, thank you uh Miss
McKinstry. We'll begin with uh general
feedback. So again, just ultimate
feelings about um the process about IAP
in general and then we'll get to a
little bit more
uh specifics here momentarily. Yeah,
there we go.
>> Is that a hand I see?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Two hands.
>> Mulberu.
>> Okay. First, um we attempted to bring an
EV charging station to Gilman Village.
What we found, and I don't know if
you're aware of it, yes. In the older
part of town, there is a lack of
electric capa electricity capacity.
Puget
power, I think it is
>> Puget Sound, PSSE, I I don't live in
Isiqua, sorry. PSSE uh said it was very
clear they did not and they attempted to
they they required the the uh provider
we were working with to do a major uh
infrastructure and it killed the deal.
So just so you understand PSSE does not
have the capacity in the bulk of Isiqua
for electric charging stations.
So um and this is critical and they seem
disinterested in doing anything. They
don't have the money. The second
question I have is what is the plan B?
the uh the previous governor sort of saw
himself as the environmental that was
his um take on who he wanted to be and
our state uh even before the federal
cuts was facing I think was an enormous
budget deficit.
It uh it appears the current governor
has a very different um list of of
things he sees as important. what is
your plan B for dealing with that?
>> Yeah. So, I think um in terms of there's
a bigger picture, but in terms of
funding city work and doing projects in
Isiqua, we're um very fortunate that the
Climate Commitment Act was um upheld.
And so that provides not only a lot of
funding for city projects, partner
projects, but also will be providing
additional um rebates and incentives to
um community members. And so we partner
as much as we can, whether that's with
departments or the school district or
the library to uh work on pursuing those
grant opportunities so that we can bring
projects to our community. So what
happens if you the grants don't exist in
the in the next bienium there are going
to be severe cuts to most services. What
do you guys intend to do if those things
simply if there are no if there are no
funds available?
>> Right. Yeah. So we will as um our city
budget allows we'll continue to fund
projects and prioritize those within uh
the funds that our program um has a say
in. Um, a lot of what we are likely
going to be focusing on for this plan
update is work continuing to work with
the community business owners to help
change behavior, access rebates and
incentives through the utility um, and
pursue um, making sure that the
community understands this is a
communitywide plan. The city can't be
doing this alone, but really working
with our communities to to take that
action. Um, and that's what we would um,
appreciate feedback on is how how do we
reflect that in the plan um, and
identify actions where we can really see
that behavior change. Um, and did want
to just recognize the concerns around
the electrical capacity and grid and we
will be acknowledging those concerns in
the plan and calling on that strong
partnership with PSSE.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner
Millander Irwin, is that a red mic? Is
that a hot mic?
>> It is. It is. Chair Voice. Um, I just
have a a perspective um as a manager in
a multifamily uh community, specifically
a large scale uh condominium property.
The PSC process for EV for multifamilies
is very um cumbersome
>> and with an older established community,
without a doubt, we do have a challenge
with electrical capacity. So in my
estimation it appears that there are
probably two tracks to be considered for
EVs in multifamily. So one would be
directly to uh developers. So as they're
developing a um a community that
electrical capacity is being addressed
immediately
um as the community is being built and
um EV is made as part of that that
entire process. Um that seems to be the
easier lift. I think the challenging
aspect are older larges scale
communities or even smaller scale
communities that are wanting to have um
EV in their communities but simply don't
have the wherewithal. So I think a uh I
think a wholesome kind of a a plan to
address that to make um EV more
accessible for multifamily communities
um beyond what uh PSSE offers is is
really I think a need that should be
addressed.
>> Great. Great. That's great feedback. We
do have a specific action. We can talk a
little bit more about that, but I'm
hearing kind of those two tracks for new
development and existing.
>> Thank you.
>> Um, let's move on to let's let everybody
speak. Uh, Commissioner Zachro.
>> Thank you. Well, I would like to support
Commissioner Milinder Irvin because I'm
also representing a multif family uh
community and we also had a
communication with PSC and this is
something that I have mentioned at the
IAP meetings as well. Uh some of the
programs that PSE is offering uh they
are not getting very popular and not
getting very popular because we actually
we touched them twice and those were
programs that would not really work for
communities. So there's some more
communication has to be uh taken with
the PSE regarding what programs they're
offering and what actually those
programs doing for existing communities
uh not just newly built communities. So
we actually need the upgrade of our grid
in the community and we kind of like
there there might be different
initiatives that I made. Uh that is the
first thing. Another thing is of course
I've had a lot of conversations in the
past months about our climate action
plan and the uh education of the major
contributors to our emissions which are
the residents of the city and uh well
cars and uh buildings are the major
major contributors. So residents need to
understand what role they're actually
playing and not many people really think
about that and not many people know what
they can do uh to make things better.
And then another thing that I would
really like us to think about, it's not
only rebates or tax rebates that are
important because many people cannot
simply afford uh upgrading their uh
upgrading their buildings or upgrading
their cars. So there's some programs
should be there for grants. And going
back to uh uh Commissioner Maul's
comment, we do not currently probably
have uh funds for that. So we need to be
uh creative. So those are my comments
and those comments. I think I had very
similar comments during the IP meeting.
So I just wanted to repeat that one for
the commission. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Zack Ruff.
Commissioner Kra.
>> Hi. Um u mine's I have a question. Um
there's two projects being built. Um
they're both town houses. One's 19
units, one's 29 units. They're both down
near the Safeway
>> and they're nice. They're all between a
million and a million and a half
dollars. So do we have any learning? Do
we know if they're doing EV charging in
those? And if so, what learnings do we
have that um tipped the developers to
say yes, it's worth building this into
the cost structure? Um, I think one of
them even had it on a sign saying EV
ready. I wasn't sure if that meant they
just put a plug in there or they did
something special. So, any learnings
that we have of the things that are kind
of currently in the process, albeit at
the higher end, may help understand what
what the market will take care of um or
how that that process works so far.
>> That's a good question. I don't know
specific to that project. I'll look to
>> your staff leaison. Yeah, that's over on
over on seventh.
>> Um and one on seventh.
>> There's one on seventh and then there's
one right near the school. The one in
the school is 29 units, right?
>> And then the one um on seventh I think
is 19. Yeah.
>> Wow. They move fast, too. I'm very
impressed.
>> Yeah, they did. They they move very
fast. Um they are required. There are
two different levels of EV,
>> and I can't recall. One is to be EV
ready. So you can go in and just plug it
in. You're you're ready to go. And the
other we had a long conversation about
this.
>> But the EV I'm curious.
>> And then there's the EV.
>> Is EV ready? Give some definitions if
you can. Does that mean a plug a 240
plug or is that
>> one? One means that you can come and
it's it's set up so that you can come
and install the plugs. The other one
actually installs the plug for you. It's
ready to go. But I believe that right
now our multif family projects, our new
multif family projects are required to
be the ones that you can in you can set
it up. It doesn't have the plug in
there.
>> You'd be ready,
>> but you'd be ready,
>> right? It's like the the plugs and all
the the conduit and everything's already
in the walls.
>> And then like you said, the there's like
three tiers from what I remember and
then the actual one where the plug is in
the wall.
>> Exactly. So they're not required to have
the plug in the wall. They're required
to be EV ready.
>> Right. I'm just curious, not just what's
required, but what they're doing because
it'd be interesting to see if they say,
"Wow, our customers want this. We're
building this in. Sure, it may cost an
extra $500 when we're building out the
garage to have the two
>> the city had really high requirements
that exceeded the state. The state got
ahead for the EV ready and then we've
caught up to the state. And so I think
that will be a question. Um and we have
a proposed action is do we increase even
further the requirement for multifamily
in particular to get at that new
development. Um and that could be either
um EV ready which is you just need to
install the charger. There's also the
third um option which is EV capable um
where I believe just the conduit is in.
Uh Redmond passed a 100% EV ready
requirement. Uh I believe it went into
effect in July. So, we're curious to see
lessons learned from that. So, I don't
know those two projects how far they've
exceeded the state and city requirement,
but
>> we can look. There are requirements. But
your second question is interesting. You
know, you're wondering if they're EV
capable, how many have actually gone in
and and employed that. And our code
hasn't been in place long enough to be
able to go back and and find out. But I
think that's a really interesting
question.
>> If you don't mind, a couple other
questions on this topic because it help
with our learning.
>> Can I continue? Can I can I speak?
>> Oh, this is just a follow. This is this
is related to that same question.
>> All right. And then I want to make sure
we get to Commissioner Matthews and
Commissioner Mayor before we start.
>> I think it's valuable to say yes, we
understand what the requirements are. I
think the things we it'd be great to
find out from the from the city talking
to the developers are what are they
doing? Are they doing above on that? And
then
>> are they um and if they can give any
information of what the extra cost was.
So I think those are help influence when
we start making decisions of what we
require a developer either for um multif
family or single family understanding
what's already been happening what the
costs and the decisions I think that
would be helpful.
>> Thank you Commissioner Crass. I want to
make sure everybody gets the opportunity
to talk. Clearly there's some people
that are very passionate about this but
let's make sure we get everybody in the
conversation. Commissioner Oler,
Commissioner Matthews, Commissioner
Derek. We haven't heard any of you
speak. Would any of you like to speak on
this?
>> All right, we see Commissioner Derek
grabbed it first. She's got a hot mic.
>> So, this is not EV related, but I just
wanted to uh ask and maybe bring to your
attention the adoption of solar by
commercial. Uh, one thing from when I
moved, we had in LA a lot of commercial
buildings putting solar panels over
their parking lot, which kind of served
a double service, right? They provided
energy and they also protected from the
rain and the elements. So, and it just
occurs to me there's a lot of commercial
buildings with a lot of flat roofs. So,
that just might be something to look at
and investigate and see if we can
explore.
>> Yeah. And not only the protection from
the elements, they're a great cooling
mechanism and help reduce that urban
heat island. So, yeah, that's something
we're definitely interested in. So,
yeah.
>> All right. Uh let's go with Commissioner
Matthews and we'll round it out with
you, Commissioner. Um, I'm going to go
off of uh Milner, Commissioner Milner
and Zagarov regarding the multif family
existing units. The electrical capacity
may not be the only limitation. They may
not have spots.
>> You know, there may be visitor spot
limitations. Um, since there's so many
condo units or multi-family housings
close together, I was wondering if there
was a way where they could share like
cuz they obviously these HOAs probably
don't talk to each other, but it may be
an opportunity to use shared street
frontage or something where they could
actually share in the cost because it
can be very expensive to bring,
you know, sorry, extra electrical into
an existing complex but may not on the
street. So that might be something to to
think about is having them share cost
and actually do it street frontage
instead of within a complex.
>> Yeah, it's a great suggestion.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah,
>> thank you Commissioner Eer. Uh just to
build on uh Commissioner Matthews
comment, I I think geographical
distribution is essential. And so, you
know, we don't want to have three or
four developments within a very tightly
uh tight geographical area all with EVs
and then have another portion of the
city where it's basically an EV desert.
Um the other point I wanted to make was
just from an anecdotal standpoint. I
read recently that EV sales have started
to taper off and I don't know whether
that's something that we are able to
measure locally but generally on a
national basis when the uh tax credits
go away
>> um it's important I I think to not get
ahead of ourselves and have so many
charging stations and so few cars or
trucks that are actually using them.
>> Great.
>> Thank you. Yeah, that's a great point.
And there is data from the state. We can
track sales um and by zip code. So, I
haven't looked at it since the federal
rebate ended at the end of September,
but that's something we'll keep a close
eye on. Thank you. Yeah, great point.
>> All right. And Chair Patterson, we
haven't heard from you. Would you like
to speak?
>> Vice Chair, don't try and give me your
your role.
Uh thank you so much, Chair Voice. Uh
couple of things. one on the EV one that
you just kind of pinged me my brain on
was um I have noticed an increase in
charging station banks across Isqua like
parking lot uh where there's multiple
charging stations that might be
something to take into consideration is
uh maybe distance from one of those
larger installments based on how we
would judge the criteria for for
charging units at maybe a multif family.
Um the other thing I want to bring up is
also a little bit anecdotal uh but it's
regarding uh 2.4 for and uh land use
codes to promote multimmodal
transportation. Uh one thing I've
recently observed is in multif family
developments in Newcastle and Redmond is
>> um condos, town houses, uh apartments
that have a bike storage room. So if you
imagine you go in, there's like two
racks stacked on top of each other with
multiple uh slots to park a bike. Um, as
someone that lives in a condo with mine
mounted on a wall, I think that having
the opportunity to store them in a room
meant for that where they're not only
secure but easily accessible and not in
your living space, uh, would be a great
opportunity. Um, and one thing that I
thought from a land use perspective is I
believe we recently discussed the need
for shared recreational space, if that's
correct. Uh maybe that's an opportunity
to make those part of that um area
square footage that's required for that.
>> Excellent. Thank you, Vice Chair
Patterson.
>> And I'll just briefly say that uh yeah,
I know these are a little bit it seems
we've zeroed in on our favorite topic,
but uh we'll be getting Yeah, we'll
we'll definitely get there. But I know I
applaud the work you guys are done and
and again I I know a lot of work has
gone into IAP. Um, yeah, I'll I'll have
a little bit more to say when we
actually start going down the list.
>> But again, I applaud all the work you
guys have done and I'm looking forward
to even more conversations. Now, we're
going to I'll go around the horn again
to uh let anybody else continue to
speak. Again, we're trying to keep these
general. Uh we're going to get all the
opportunity in the world to drill down
on this, but general. And then I would
ask that when you are done speaking,
please turn off your microphone. That
way when I don't have to hear people
breathe. Okay. Commissioner Mu.
>> Okay. When we talk about capacity,
there's another point to be made here.
And that is when we had the extreme heat
about two years ago. Gilman Village was
shut down, we had no power on two
Sundays. Now, I believe that it was
because of the amount of air
conditioning that was used in that part
of the grid.
I believe that with all of the
additional electrical requirements that
we run the risk of damaging the amount
of commerce that's being done and I can
tell you the city of Isiqua loses a fair
amount of sales tax when businesses
cannot operate on a Sunday
>> and I think that needs to be considered.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Molber. Uh
again, any other general comments and
then we'll start drilling down on
everything.
That's okay, Commissioner there.
>> Okay, this might not be the
jurisdiction, so feel free to correct
me, but I just want to put on the radar.
I love electric bikes. My husband loves
his electric bike, but there is a lot of
misuse of electric bikes right now.
Also, just to put on the radar that we
should also be concurrently developing
perhaps regulations around the use of
electric bikes and perhaps the age of
people riding electric bikes. That's
all.
>> You are not alone. That was quite a
discussion both at TAB and the
environmental board and incorporating a
saf safety aspect into any actions
around ebikes and there's language
working its way through council as well
around that. Yeah, I feel like we had a
conversation about ebikes and we were
talking a little bit about how you
regulate these things. Again, they're
they're new phenomena, but yeah, having
people, you know, going 15 miles per
hour, people are walking, uh, you know,
could be quite dangerous. And then also
people leaving them areas, you know,
leaving them inappropriately. How do you
keep them? You see some of the line
bikes in Seattle that have been
vandalized. So, yeah, clearly that's
going to end up being on staff's work
plate one day.
>> Yep. Just anecdotally, someone almost
hit my 5-year-old going like 25 miles
per hour in front of the community
center and then it happened to someone
else's 5-year-old, too. So, it's
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> It's not even just the ebikes. That's
right. Some of those uh What are the
other things? The scooters and the other
things that
>> Yeah. No, they they move pretty quick.
>> Yeah.
>> So, agreed. All right. any other general
um conversation point points to offer
now I believe we're going to get into
some specifics.
>> Great. You all have teed up most of what
we're going to discuss the rest of the
night and again this is kind of a first
touch getting those initial reactions
feedback um and then any actions related
to policy code change we would be
bringing those back for further review.
Um so what we've done here is we prevent
presented kind of a summary of what the
current action is and then what the
recommendation or potential
recommendation is for a change. Um so
the first action that focused on kind of
land use transportation was looking at
incentivizing dense mixeduse transit
oriented development. I think a lot of
the committee discussion felt that um
this had been accomplished in some ways
in the title 18 update and there was a
recommendation to maybe step back and
instead have some more general language
that looked across um not just uh these
specific topics currently identified in
the action, but across city code in
general and making sure that there's
kind of a climate advocate um or lens
that's applied to those city codes. So,
it'd be a little bit more of a general
statement about ensuring that climate,
sustainability, environmental protection
are considered in those city codes um
and holding staff accountable to working
with our planning department and other
departments to ensure that um happens.
So, that that was a recommendation to
kind of take a step back um not a step
back, but a step up I guess and look a
little more broadly at what this action
was. So just curious for any reactions
to that concerns.
>> All right. Again, we want to try and do
a roundroin, but uh Okay, let's let's go
this way, right? So, let's start with uh
Commissioner Crass. We can come back to
>> Okay,
>> I'll be
um so I agree with the view, but I do
have a question on how you measure.
>> So, you went from things that are
measurable to words that are not
measurable, or maybe you have some ideas
on that. So, if you could share how you
could say, "Yeah, we did a good job
because we hit A, B, and C." What are
your thoughts on that?
>> Yeah, great question. Um, we are
actually going to have another committee
forming that's going to be focused on
metrics. Um, and one thing we've talked
about is for each of the focus areas
such as land use and transportation,
instead of having a metric tied to each
individual action, we may be considering
a set of metrics that looks overall at
how those actions are being implemented.
Um but for this one in particular, it
could look at if um title 18 is updated,
were there specific actions that
strengthened the climate lens such as um
when we revisit the um sustainable
building requirements and kind of what
that process and and progress that we
made in those updates would be one way
to measure this. But we will be um
developing those metrics uh in the
coming months as we shape the actions.
>> Commissioner Olner,
Commissioner Matthews,
Commissioner Millander,
Commissioner Adair, Commissioner
Molberu,
Vice Chair Patterson.
I know that was a co-chair.
All right, Vice Chair Patterson,
nothing.
>> See what happens when you miss one
meeting.
>> Okay. All right. Um, were you able to
get what you needed?
>> Yeah, I think Stacy,
>> just potentially some concern that it
might not be measurable, maybe too
general. So, just being cautious if we
do look at revising this um and that we
have something that we could show
progress on essentially. So, yeah.
>> Oh, and I apologize, Commissioner
Zacharov. I I you know, you're this big
on my screen and so I often miss miss to
call on you, but did you want to mention
anything? I know you don't have the
Simpson hand up. Okay,
>> no problem. No problem.
>> Okay, thank you, Katya. Uh okay, let's
move on to the next point.
>> Great.
>> All right. And then um the next action
was very focused on um incorporating
sustainable design standards in city
code. We did that through the title 18
update. Uh we incorporated a lead
platinum requirement for buildings of a
certain size. Um there is a commitment
by the city to revisit that. um that's
on the work plan where I think in
particular we're looking at expanding
certification opportunities recognizing
lead is one way to certify a sustainable
building. There are others some that are
less expensive than that process. So
we'll be um having those discussions in
the new year. Um and so we felt that
this had been essentially accomplished
um and is already planned for
improvements next year. Um and so one of
the recommendations was that the if we
were to generalize that previous action
um this would be considered as part of
that. So as we're going through any
other additional improvements to title
18 we'd be making sure that there's a
strong climate sustainability uh lens
applied to those updates.
>> All right we can start at the other end
of the bench this time. Commissioner
Malberu.
Okay. Commissioner Adair, Commissioner
Miller Irwin.
>> All right. Commissioner Matthews,
>> Commissioner Oler. There we go. There's
a comment.
>> There we go. Uh I I support the notion
of having alternative uh measures other
than lead
>> uh platinum. We're going through this
with the food bank now and it's, you
know, we're nonprofit uh trying to
develop a property and serve clients in
the community. uh and lead is uh an
expense a significant one given the the
scale of the project. So I I support
that notion.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Oler. Uh
Commissioner Crass, Vice Chair
Patterson.
>> Okay, I'll just double down on uh
Commissioner Oler's comment. Yeah,
there's there's different avenues to get
where we want to go. So again, having an
expanded uh template that people can
choose different ways to get that
certification or get a similar
certification makes sense to me.
>> Mhm. Great.
>> So
>> I know you all just want to get to EV
charging and multif family and ebikes.
>> There's more. There's more to
>> almost there.
Okay.
>> Um I think this one and then we'll we'll
get into those. Um so we have a current
action 2.4 that's focused. Uh oh, I I
think I actually skipped one. Sorry. Um
that's focused on implementing the
missing middle housing ordinance. Um
there was a recommendation to maybe
consider that a little bit more broadly
around language that cons improves
density walkability
um as it relates to uh benefiting uh
climate mitigation.
And then or another option would be just
to continue to emphasize the need to
implement the current ordinance. So,
kind of mixed uh mixed feelings uh mixed
reactions that we had to any revisions
to this this action, but curious if you
all feel like um we should continue to
advance an action around implementing
missing building missile missing middle
housing um or if you think there's an
improvement we could make on that
action.
All right,
send it back the other way if Vice Chair
Patterson
and you can you can always come back if
you don't have something when we
>> Yeah, go ahead and come back to me. I'm
thinking how to phrase this for sure.
Uh, Commissioner Crass, Commissioner
Oler, Commissioner Matthews,
Commissioner Miller Irwin,
>> Commissioner Dair.
>> Yeah. So, just I agree with the idea
that we should be um prioritizing
walkability over the missing middle
housing because I feel like we're we've
covered middle housing pretty well a
lot. So, anything we can do to improve
safety and walkability is great.
>> Commissioner Molaru
Commission, I I support Commissioner
Dar's position.
>> Okay.
Uh, anyone like the opportunity to go?
Vice Chair Patterson.
>> All right. I'm going to try and say this
eloquently. Uh, obviously, as you
mentioned, we're big fans of missing
middle here. We've talked about a lot in
the last couple years. Um, personally, I
feel like in this document and this
topic, it feels a little out of place to
get to to that level. I think when we're
talking about missing middle in this
context, we're talking about
sustainability, walkability. I feel like
that's covered in other places. like
that should apply to all of our housing,
not just mi the middle housing. Um, so I
don't know if there's a way to combine
that. Like I think middle housing has
more to do with like affordability and
um the volume of housing available
versus specifying middle housing in the
climate action plan. So I think in
summary, I guess uh being able to just
fold that into the other actions as like
another type of housing that we want to
apply those uh sustainability and and
other requirements versus separating it
out.
>> Okay, great. Yeah, that's helpful.
>> Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair Patterson. I
I kind of agree with Vice Chair
Patterson. I I don't really know how to
express what I feel, but it seems to me
that unless you copy
the housing goal or or action almost
verbatim, it almost seems like they they
kind of
>> this is where people start getting
confused, right? At least I I do. When
you start looking at two different
documents and going, how do these fit
together? So whether or not you you take
their language and you incorporate it
into IAP or whether you just
kind of walk around it, maybe not even
bring up middle housing, I don't know
how to say it eloquently,
>> but again, I think this is where people
start getting confused when they start
looking at two different plans. They're
both talking about something, but
they're coming at it from different
areas. I feel that's where people that
are using these codes and actually
trying to build around it, that's where
they start getting frustrated. Okay,
>> so Anyone
else like to go one more time for number
three?
Okay,
Commissioner Molaru. Um, I live in
Seattle and one of the things that we
see because Seattle is so concerned both
about climate action and about uh
affordability for housing, one of the
things that we see is conflicts
constantly because the more one focuses
in general on
uh on on climate action,
it becomes expensive.
And I don't know how you guys get around
it, but I can tell you the amount of
money just in rehabbing a garage, the
amount of money that it was required
because of climate um action was
substantial. And I don't know how you
can how you can address the the
differences.
>> Yeah, fair point.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Is is that all the comments for
number three?
Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. All right. Um the
next one is uh number 2.4 and the
current action was focused on updating
the land use codes to promote multimodal
transportation.
Um we did feel like uh in some ways this
was covered through the title 18 update
through the update to the mobility
action plan. And so there was interest
in either having this sort of embedded
in that first action that's a little
more overarching or ensuring a climate
lens in city plans and codes or an
alternative would be we just make sure
that we include the same language here
that is in the updated mobility action
plan um and just ensure it has that kind
of climate lens and it has a reason for
being in the the climate plan.
All right. Uh, I'm going to start with
Commissioner Zackov because I feel like
I missed her just a second ago.
Okay. Nope. Uh, Commissioner
>> Molaru
in Seattle. Again, multimodal
>> multimodal dealing with multimodal
transportation. I also happen to work in
a part of South Lake Union where we have
every vehicle known to man going past
us, including people on feet. And two of
the things I would suggest, one, before
a bike lane is added, make sure it's
needed because I can tell you from the
people who live on 75th
that they lost a traffic lane to u a
bike lane and they needed that traffic
lane and the bike lane never gets used.
This is over on Northeast 35th. The
other thing is that when you introduce
many different vehicle, many different
modes of transportation and you're
crossing in front of cars, make sure
that what you do is you when those are
built, allow for many different rates of
movement, perhaps having stop lights for
pedestrians crossing because I'm sure
somebody's going to get killed um
leaving leaving the our parking lot at
my office. It's only a matter of time.
Maybe not killed, maybe just severely
injured.
Thanks,
uh, Commissioner
>> Adair,
Commissioner Miller Win,
>> Commissioner Matthews,
>> always come back. Uh, Commissioner Oler.
Yeah, just getting back to um um
vice chair's comments on the previous uh
point. Um I I think we want to try to
avoid redundancy and and confusion. Um
and I I think if you know if the
requirement is in one portion of our
code, does it really need to you know
bleed over into others?
>> That's helpful.
>> Great. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner
Crafts,
Vice Chair Patterson,
anyone else before we turn it over to
number five? Yeah. And again, I it's I
kind of go back to the last one. I I
know you guys have to put language into
this stuff. I just for me it it seems
like Yeah, you got to be real careful
just to confuse people. I think that's
my only problem.
>> So, and I know I I appreciate the fact
that you said climate lens because again
the IAP's going to mirror a lot of stuff
in other plans. Uh but the less that you
can do to confuse people I think is
helpful. So that'd be my only concern.
>> All right.
>> All right.
>> Um and then the next two focus on EV
infrastructure. Um I did want to there
was discussion around the bike storage
room. I think maybe Commissioner
Patterson you brought that up. Um I did
want to mention that actually came up at
the environmental board last night. Um
coming out of the TAB discussion, they
had discussed having potentially some
requirements for uh bike storage or
scooter storage and charging in
multifamily. Um that's something we
might consider looking at in terms of
increasing requirements and there were
some concerns around safety battery
fires. Um and so just having to weigh
kind of all those considerations. But uh
it was great to hear your input on that
because that's something too that we may
consider looking at in terms of an
action. So wanted to mention that before
we move into the last two that are
focused on EV infrastructure. Um so
there is a current action that's focused
on increasing
or having requirements for single family
EV infrastructure. Um the state has uh
code requirements now around uh new
single family residences having EV
infrastructure. Um so we uh were
proposing or the committee discussed um
removing this since it's already covered
in state code or maybe refocusing on
multifamily which I have another slide
around that. So wanted to see if there
was any additional input on uh single
family uh requirements for charging.
See if anybody has anything to say about
that.
Start with Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Crass,
Commissioner Oler,
Commissioner Matthews,
Commissioner Miller, Irwin. Um, I'll
just repeat that I I support a focus on
um EV in multifamily uh specifically in
older communities that are probably the
most challenged with that. Um, so
without a doubt I I support
>> Commissioner Adair,
Commissioner Mulberu.
Okay. Commissioner Zacharov.
>> Yeah, I think that was a no. Okay. Um,
if I understand this correctly, Stacy,
this is this is the idea that um they
actually want to see action on single
family
>> that there was an action to pursue
requirements around EV charging in
single family residents that has been
done at the state level. their state
code around that now. Um, so we feel
like that action's completed
essentially. Um, and I know there's
limitations on what the city can impose
on um, single family.
>> I think this one to me, similar to the
multif family, I I think we just stay
with the state, especially with the
housing industry right now being flat.
>> U, this is something that we could
always look back. I mean, obviously this
is going to be a plan that gets updated
along the way.
>> Um, but yeah, no new burdens at the
moment. Okay,
>> Commissioner Grass.
>> Hi. So, in single family, there's I
agree that let's not add any burdens,
but then let me flip it the other way is
like are there any carrots that we that
we would want to look at? For example,
speedier permits or less, you know, you
know, just uh cheaper permits if they do
certain things. Once again,
um help push that farther without
putting more burdens on there. So, um I
agree adding more
um for single family, someone building
or remodeling is hard, but maybe let's
look at carrots as well.
>> And that was around single family or is
that multif family as well? Okay.
>> Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Crest.
That was something I actually had in my
notes is like for certain things right
now just with how flat the economy is
and especially one of the backbones of
uh one of the pillars of the American
economy is the housing industry now
seems like a better time to incentivize
>> rather than require or regulate. So
where we can I I still think you know we
move forward with our goals but uh I
like what you said. Yeah, carrots right
now.
>> Sticks can come later.
>> Okay.
>> Um Okay. Great.
>> And that I think we've discussed this
quite a bit tonight. Um that feeds it to
the or carries over from the last
conversation. Um I think what I have
been hearing around any input around um
for strengthening requirements for
multifamily charging is um potentially
for existing multifamily focusing on
education outreach probably technical
support um and then maybe consider more
incentive based actions for new
multifamily to go above and beyond
requirements
um is what I've heard so far tonight.
But yeah, curious if there's any other
reflections. Of course, if we were to
propose an action that looked at
increasing
requirements for multif family, we would
bring you a lot more of the research
especially that Redmond uh did leading
up to their code change as well as
implications since they've um
implemented that. But um if there's
other thoughts around increasing
multifamily development um or haven't
reflected back what I heard tonight,
would appreciate any of those comments.
Yeah. No, thank you. I think that was a
great summary and again I I like what uh
Stacy had to say because it's kind of my
feeling about it, but let's definitely
uh let's kick it around the room one
more time. Um Commissioner Zacharov,
Vice Chair Patterson,
uh just a quick clarifying question and
apologies if I missed it, but are there
any state requirements for either new or
existing multif family EV? Yes, for new
um I believe it's I would have to look
up the numbers. I want to say 10%.
Um
and forgive me, I don't remember if
that's EV ready or EV capable. Um we can
follow up and provide you that
information, but there is a there is a
requirement. I believe it's 10%. Okay.
For new for existing buildings, I don't
think there's anything we can post
there. We um recommend the PSSE upandgo
program which I know has its significant
challenges. Um Belleview is
experimenting right now with uh
providing technical support to multi
existing multifamily to support them
pursuing um EV charging. So we'll be
tracking that and see how that process
goes and the the interest from
multifamily but no requirements for
existing multif family.
I kind of like the idea of letting
Belleview stick their neck out there.
Let's see how they do and let's take
their information. You know, they're a
very wealthy city. So, again, I'm I'm
okay with that. Commissioner Crass,
>> I guess I'm still puzzled. Um, we're
taking a to do this right. We have a
hard dependency on Puget Sound Energy,
and if they don't have a shared goal,
then I don't know how this moves
forward. So, I don't understand or know
enough about why they don't think this
is important. Um, I have my own
anecdotal. There's right near my house
there are some condos. They wanted to
have two EV spots and I talked to the
woman who runs the HOI and the HOA and
they had to scrap it because it was so
exorbitantly expensive. It was just not
worth doing. So, that just says the
actions of of Pugan Energy, they don't
care or it's not a priority. So unless
this changes, I think we're just going
to continue to be frustrated. Um, and
there's only so much we can do. So I'm
not sure where that goes. And any
insights into why that's not a priority
>> because unless that's changed, we're
just going to be talking about this
every year.
>> Yeah. Um, and PSSE has their own
requirements for decarbonization. Um,
they have clean energy requirements.
they'll be um coal free by the end of
this year, but they have a number of
requirements for decarbonizing the grid
and funding projects. So, we've worked
really well with them on a number of
projects. The grid capacity has
definitely been a challenge. Um
Belleview and Redmond right now are
working on a assessment of where they
anticipate their cities going with
electrification and what the gap is in
terms of grid capacity. So again, we'll
be kind of looking to those studies
because I'm sure it'll be somewhat
reflective of Isiqua. Um, but I do know
it has been a priority of Mayor Paulie
to be working with ESC, PSSE, raising
the concerns, raising the issue that
happened with Gilman Village and the um
the falling through of a a big charging
project there as an example. Um, and so
that's something we'll be working with
the the new mayor too to build that
relationship and be um continuing to uh
encourage PSSE and work with PSSE to
build out that capacity. Yeah.
>> Thank you. And I want to give I'm going
to do something a little odd. I'm going
to jump over to Commissioner Malberu
because Gilman Village was brought up.
Do you have anything you want to say?
>> It was mentioned earlier. Yeah.
>> One one other one other thought. Um,
would the city perhaps create a
voluntary times to charge your EVs?
Because I am very concerned again with
the increase in heat uh temperatures
>> that there's going and and air
conditioning systems. When I was growing
up, nobody had an air conditioner and
now they're fairly common. And I'm very
concerned that we hit these peak peak
periods
um where the system blacks out which is
what happened. You can look at the dates
and it and and perhaps it is best done
in a shared system so there's no not too
much strain all at once
>> during the day.
>> Great question. Um PSSE has a couple of
programs both for uh home heating and
cooling as well as charging where uh
residents can enroll in the program.
They have to connect their equipment and
then during um major electrical demands
PSSE can lower your thermostat for
example or maybe not have you charging
your vehicle then and then it will start
charging in time when the the grid isn't
at a uh being hit so hard. um those are
programs they can run as the utility,
but that's something we can help
promote. But also considering where
there's other education around the
conservation or other kind of programs,
policies, incentives we can um put in
place for that the conservation. But
yeah, it's a it's a really great
question you raised and we can look and
see what other cities are doing to
outside of what the utility has control
of.
All right, Commissioner Dair,
Commissioner Millander Irwin,
>> I just want to say thank you for a great
presentation, very comprehensive, and um
also allowing us to give uh uh a comment
on the uh EV charging stations and
multif family. It's something I'm pretty
passionate about. Um so, thank you very
much.
>> I second that. Uh Commissioner Matthews.
>> Okay. Commissioner Eer. Okay.
I think Commissioner Crass had already
went. So, um, yeah, I kind of concur
with the rest of the group. Um, I I'd
like to see the multifamilies kind of
stay at the state level until things
simmer down. Uh, but I think that's it,
Stacy. And hopefully you got what you
were looking for
>> and enough information that you can take
back and and continue to work on um,
what you guys are doing with the IAP.
>> Yeah, thank you very much. um very
helpful feedback. We'll be taking all
the input tonight and sorting through
it, working on a summary for the
environmental board and then the revised
actions. As I mentioned, I think we'll
probably try and come back in 2026 with
any actions that have a policy
implication related to um land use. Um
and so you'll have a chance to see those
before anything moves to council. Um,
and then in the meantime, if there are
other ideas you have, um, feel free to
to send those um, our way or any
followup from tonight and what we
shared. That was a real small snapshot
of the the IAP, but the ones that we
felt was most relevant for this group.
So, thank you.
>> Excellent. Well, thank you again for the
presentation. Like Commissioner
Millander said, fantastic job. Very
comprehensive. And I'm sorry did
Commissioner Zacharov I I did ask
>> I can only join the rest of the team and
uh thank you for the great presentation
and yeah thank you.
>> All right. All right. Well, thank you.
Okay, that concludes our regular
business for this evening. Uh we are now
going to move along to council updates
and I'm looking to Kristen to provide
any if you have any.
Good evening. I I actually have quite a
few updates tonight.
Um council related and other. So, first
of all, we had a big night at council
the other night. Uh I think we took four
or five items from our department to
council. Uh we did just recently update,
we try and do this annually, updated our
land use application and permit fees
that was approved. Uh updated fire fees
were approved. Our comprehensive plan
and the food bank reszone were approved
on consent. There was sort of a
congratulations and a a pull out from
that. They highlighted it.
They also approved I think that many
talked to you all about the Belleview
College development agreement and the
potential extension and council after a
very long discussion voted to extend the
development agreement for the 19 acre
parcel for two more years which gives
and in those two years the college is
required to go out and do community
outreach to figure out what they can do
on that site. Had the development
agreement not happened, they would not
be able to do residential out there. And
right now, they may be able to do it
still with council approval, but they're
going to go out and do outreach and see
what the community really wants. There
was some information misinformation out
there that that was where the high
school wanted to go and that was cleared
up that that was that was not the issue.
This is this was not about putting the
high school there. It was about
extending their development agreement.
We don't have anything else going to
council again this year. So those that
is my council update.
>> All right, sounds good. Uh are there any
other updates to provide?
>> Yes.
>> All right.
>> So we as a reminder, we do not have our
second meetings in November and December
because of Thanksgiving and Christmas
holiday. We may not have our first
meeting in December. We were supposed to
be talking about the light rail criteria
and that came back to us and it's not
exactly what we wanted. So, we're
working on it and not sure if we can
make it in time for the December
meeting. So, I keep your keep checking
your emails and we will let you know as
soon as we know whether or not that is
coming.
>> So, it's a possibility this might be our
last meeting of the year.
>> It is a possibility that this might be
the last meeting. Yes.
>> Wow. The last thing I think that I have
is um we now have a new principal
planner.
>> Hey,
>> it is Kate Kaney right here. And hey,
Kate, do you want to say hi and
introduce yourself real quick? Okay.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
Um, my name is Kate Kaney and I just
started last Monday. So, this is week
two and I um am extremely happy to be
here. I have worked as a planner in this
region for over 20 years primarily in
two cities. Um, a little bit in city
Seattle and mostly for 18 years in city
of SeaTac. Um I uh left city of SeaTac
as principal planner after managing the
uh major comprehensive plan update there
and uh we did a lot of things that I
think you all went through. Um so I'm
very familiar with Washington state's
requirements uh PSRC King County and you
know that overall context of growth and
equity in this region. Um I also um am
familiar with um station area planning
um in SeaTac. There are actually three
light rail stations that um serve that
city and I was there long enough to see
um them all built. So that was pretty
exciting. Um so doing I know that this
city uh is waiting for and preparing for
um a new light rail station. really
excited to uh start helping um this city
uh you know bring any knowledge that I
can to uh expanding um access and and
opportunity um and just maximizing you
know the great things that can come from
from stationary planning. I I know that
I'm not the transportation planner but
so much land use goes on in that that
it's really great. Um I also spent a
long time working on a city center plan.
Um, CATAC had a plan from 1999 that we
were updating and um, looking at central
Isqua and um, you know, the issues and
opportunities there. Uh, it's really
exciting for me to look at that. Um, so
so much great work here and it's so
beautiful in Isukqua. I don't live here.
I actually live in Ballard. Maybe uh,
one of your commissioners does or is
around there. Um, so um, I I uh I've
just enjoyed being here. Uh Kristen has
been amazing showing me around the city
and uh just I I'm really wowed by all
the plans and and
action plans that you have and
strategies. And so my hope is to uh come
up to speed as fast as I can and to help
supporting you and the city um as you do
this important work. Uh my favorite
thing is to go out into communities and
work on visions and implementing those
visions to maintain and enhance the
places people love. So really excited to
um do that work with you all.
>> That's it.
>> All right. Well, welcome Kate. Uh that's
fantastic. And it is Kate with a T,
correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I thought I heard that. Um yeah.
Well, welcome. Isqua is very fortunate.
We have a deep bench of tremendous
talent on our staff. Uh, you know, I'm
sitting next to two fantastic people and
again, uh, welcome to the city and
that's great. You bring a lot of
knowledge and yes, we are going to need
some help with that light rail they keep
talking about. Um, okay. I believe that
is it for announcement. Does anybody
have anything for the good of the order
they'd like to present before we close
this out?
Nothing. All right. We're going to
adjourn this meeting of the Planning
Policy Commission this evening at 8:03
p.m. Have a good night.