Good evening, planning policy. Great to
see everybody. We're going to call the J
January. I apologize. This is February
26th. We're going to call the February
26th Planning Policy Commission meeting
to order and it currently is 6:30 p.m.
Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The
Planning Policy Commission is in person,
but staff or members of the public may
be attending virtually or in person. Uh
Kristen, do we have a quorum this
evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> All right. And I'd also just like to
mention that we do have two excused
absences, Commissioner Adair and
Commissioner Mulberu.
Let's begin with the approval of minutes
that were provided in your agenda
packet.
Those were for the January 22nd
meeting.
January 8th. Do we have two sets of
minutes?
No, we have
>> We should just have January 22nd.
>> Yeah, I think that might have just been
a spelling mistake. Okay.
>> Yes, there's just a spelling mistake.
So, okay. This is for the January 22nd
meeting. Uh, any questions, concerns,
anything that the commissioners would
like to point out?
Meeting minutes. We're good with them.
Okay. Seeing a bunch of head nods. Uh,
those meeting minutes are approved. Our
next order of business is public
comment. While we don't have anyone in
chambers this evening, we may have
somebody online. Amanda, do we have
anyone that would like to make general
public comments at this time?
>> No, chair, we do not.
>> Okay. Well, then I will not waste all of
our time by talking about a bunch of
general rules.
What we are going to do right now is
move into regular business.
And it looks like we're going to kick
this off with the Isiqua climate action
plan update. So this is our first item
of regular business as stated. Stacy Vin
McKinstry, our sustainability
sustainability manager, will be
presenting this evening. So St. Stacy,
when you're ready, please go ahead with
your presentation.
Try and say that five times fast. Wow.
>> All right. Thank you. Give me one moment
just to bring up the presentation. Don't
use WebEx as often.
Okay.
Need to adjust.
Good. Okay, great. Well, thank you very
much for having me this evening. Uh, as
mentioned, Stacy Vin McKinstry. I'm the
sustainability manager with the city,
and it's great to be back after visiting
with you all in the fall. Um I'll
debrief a little bit on what we
discussed at that last meeting, but
essentially I'm here to bring back uh
some of the concepts for consideration
in the update to Isaqua's climate action
plan.
So tonight I'll pro provide a bit of a
progress update on where we are with
updating the plan and then really
tonight we're jumping um into a few
policy considerations and I apologize
there's a error on there. We are looking
at transportation, land use policies,
but also some potential policies for the
built environment around buildings and
energy.
Um, so tonight we're really uh seeking
that feedback from you all um and really
focused in on those policies that may be
considered in the the plan update.
Just as a brief refresher, uh the Isiqua
climate action plan is really our staff
guidance and the community's guidance
and the work that we're doing to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the city. It
was adopted in 2021 after extensive
community engagement uh working with
focus groups and different interest
groups. Um, this year is our five-year
update and we've been really focused on
refining actions within the plan and
there's a few targets we've also been
looking at improving to make sure um
they best reflect the work that we need
to do to um make progress on our
emissions reduction. Um I'll speak about
this a little bit more later, but um
tonight we're also bringing a number of
policies that may seem a little out
there. Uh we were asked by a council
committee to really take a look at what
policies or actions could be taken to um
significantly move the needle on
reducing climate emissions. And so we
really did look at other communities
across the state and in North America to
pull some of those ideas for uh initial
discussion this evening.
Um, as mentioned tonight, we'll be
really focusing in on transportation
land use related policies and then also
that those that impact the built
environment.
So, what are we trying to achieve with
these policies as well as the actions in
the plan? Um, I'll focus on the areas of
transportation, land use, and the built
environment tonight. Those are just two
sections of the plan. Um but for our
transportation and land use that section
is really focused on increasing um uh
car pooling non single driver uh use of
vehicles and then also decreasing the
number of miles that we're treat
traveling in our vehicles. Uh this is
done as the plan states through actions
related to decreasing auto reliance
through uh land use planning, overall
auto use reduction by offering
alternative ways to get around the
community and then looking at the
transition to electric vehicles to
reduce our emissions
in the built environment. This section
of the plan um has targets focused on
decreasing our energy use. uh looking at
no new greenhouse gas emissions and new
buildings and then reducing uh natural
gas and other fossil fuel use. The plan
includes actions and policies um that
are really focused on uh decreasing the
building energy use and increasing
energy resilience uh advancing
decarbonization or the and the
transition away from fossil fuels.
So, that is what we are trying to
achieve. I'll just speak briefly about
kind of where we are in the um process
to update the plan. Um we uh as a
reminder, last summer we had several
committees that met to really hone in on
certain sections of the plan, members of
the um PPC uh participate in that
process. We then took that input from
the committees and we uh visited several
of our boards and commissions this fall
to provide some of that initial feedback
and get your input. We took all that
input, presented it to the environmental
board. They provided um their uh
feedback and now we are coming back to
several of our boards and commissions
for a second round of review.
Um what we will be doing next is taking
the input from our boards and
commissions and returning back um to the
planning development uh and environment
council committee. Um so here's where I
just wanted to note that we did meet
with that committee a few weeks ago and
um as mentioned earlier they did ask us
to look at what actions might have the
greatest impact in reducing our
emissions.
In response to that request, um, we
looked at some of the, uh, most
progressive actions we could find around
the country, um, and have pulled out
some of those policies for initial
consideration.
Those policies have not yet been vetted
or right-sized for Isiqua. um we're
really bringing to you tonight for a
first consideration and your input on
whether they are something that we
should explore and um further assess if
they're appropriate for Isiqua.
Um and one thing I did want to note that
for any policies we do identify in the
update to the climate action plan, our
intent is to um include language in
there that talks about evaluating the
feasibility of those policies first. We
are not going to commit the city to
implementing a policy without really
going through a a um review and making
sure it's appropriate and what the cost
might be to implement as well as the
impact on our greenhouse gas emissions.
Wanted to first um before we dig into
the proposed policies, just a refresh of
what we talked about last fall and the
feedback that you all provided us. Um
just a brief summary that um some of our
discussion back in the fall talked about
grid capacity with electrification and
making sure that we could handle um
transition to um electric appliances and
equipment. We talked about uh with
multifamily housing really focusing in
more on technical support for electric
vehicle charging or offering options for
kind of shared charging location.
Um, we talked about uh maybe focusing
more on kind of the carrots versus the
requirements. So, offering more
incentives and again that technical
support.
Um, other items we talked about were
around storage for ebikes and scooters.
Um, the need to really assess how we're
doing in terms of adding bike lanes to
our community. Um, and also making sure
that the IAAP isn't too redundant with
the mobility action plan.
Um, and then some of the other items we
talked about was really continuing to
promote and support the programs that
Fugit Sound Energy has um, such as their
flex programs and other ones that reduce
uh, demand on the grid.
So be well actually I'll share one more
thing and then pause if there's any
questions. Um, so what I did want to
just walk through, and I think we
touched on this back in the fall, is a
wedge analysis. Um, so this is really
just a representation of where we would
be if we didn't do any work to reduce
um, our greenhouse gas emissions and
then um, where our target is and then
all the contributing factors that can
help get us towards our target.
Um, so the business as usual emissions
scenario is that black line up top. Um,
our target is that lower red dash line.
And then the solid colors are the
federal, state, and regional policies
that are currently in place and how far
they're anticipated to reduce our
emissions.
Those dotted or shaded areas is um the
action that can help help more at the
local level.
And um the blue and green shaded areas
represents that work on buildings and
transportation including work we can do
around energy efficiency um reducing BMT
in the transition to electric vehicles.
These wedge analysis are not meant to be
prescriptive. They're really meant to be
a guiding light to help us understand
where we should be focusing our efforts.
Um and so that is why we really focus
looking at those big policies uh that
get at transportation as well as uh
emissions reduction in the built
environment.
Um so I'll move into the policies in
just a minute, but I do want to say um
there's nine of them. That's a lot. We
can see how far we get tonight. Um you
don't have to like any of them. You can
say no to them. Um you can propose
alternatives to what's on the screen. Uh
this is really just to start that
conversation and get your feedback so we
can then share that with our council
committee um and get some more direction
from them on where they would like to
go.
So I will pause there before I move into
the policies and just see if there's any
questions on that background
information.
Okay.
All right.
So moving into the first one. Um, so
this policy looks at reducing or
removing parking minimums. Uh, there's
kind of two options we've posed here.
One would be removing parking minimums
as long as a multifamily building is
near transit. Um, and in working with
our planning team, we use the term
frequent transit. Um, which is a term
used at the state level, meaning it's
regular and reliable transit. Um the
alternative to this is removing parking
minimums regardless of that current
access to transit. Um I did discuss this
policy with TAB last night. They were
generally supportive of removing the
minimums and really letting the market
um drive the number of parking places um
that are installed.
um they did have a lot of considerations
about what a feasibility study should
include um if we move this forward. So I
wanted to open it up to feedback
considerations for this policy.
>> Thank you Commissioner Kra.
>> Hello. Thank you for also uh hitting on
the the point that it's a costbenefit
analysis. And some of these things may
sound great if you only look at through
one lens, but you have to look at it not
just feasibility, but what's the other
thing that happens. Um this one for
example um I'll I'll come to a scenario
and I'd like people's feedback on but I
do have a broader question which will
hit on all of these is um the thought
process of why we would want to exceed
what the state requires which the state
already has fairly stringent things and
Washington state is super progressive
and I think as we look through all these
things I think we have to have really
good rationale of why we want to exceed
that and understand that the the the
unintended consequence um would be on
that. On this one specifically, um I do
think that the question about if you if
you take away all minimums
um how would we feel if like the Atlas
apartments for example were built with
zero parking spaces and what do you do
when you have a couple hundred units in
zero parking spaces and what does that
do? So I I um I guess the question it's
more of a statement I guess than a
question is um things that sound good on
paper but in reality like communism may
sound great on paper but when you it
doesn't work. We all read Animal Farm
when we were in eth grade. Um so I it
would be interesting to to to look at
the extreme but then what's the reality
of what some of these things are. I
guess it's more of a statement than a
question.
And I sorry if I interrup I can share
one anecdote um around a development and
um our planning team may have more but
um in one of our recent multifamily
permitting process they were um required
to put in a certain amount of parking.
It was actually below some of the
requirements and the developer chose to
build more parking because they knew
they wouldn't be able to rent um the
apartments without adequate parking. And
so in some ways where uh communities
that are removing parking minimums,
you're seeing just that market demand,
uh the developers are still putting in
the parking. Um but I'll definitely
defer to our planning team since that's
what they look at every day.
>> So then the question is, do you want to
take that risk?
>> Yeah.
>> Or do you want to handle it with
exceptions
>> versus policy? That's the that's the
thing I would be scared about. And
>> um so something to consider. Yeah,
>> there there are several cities around
the region who have eliminated all
parking requirements. And what they're
finding is is that like Stacy said, the
market needs them. So, it's really the
market that drives parking. And in some
cities, they're actually considering now
putting maximums on parking where
they've removed all parking
requirements. And that's something that
our city already has is parking
maximums.
>> Yeah.
Commissioner Matthews,
>> I want to take off from um Commissioner
Krauss's comment about parking. So, I
used to live in Northwest Portland,
which has no parking. It's basically all
street parking. So, I think when you
start building a lot and in cases like
where a few policies down, you're saying
that they have to put EV ready on every
and so they may decide I don't want to
pay for that. We're not going to put any
parking. So now we have fierce competiti
competition for parking on the street
and we in Isqua currently don't have a
lot of parking to handle any kind of
overflow and especially when you have
one parking ride that's always full. So
you can imagine what it would be like
when you start putting two policies back
to back, one requiring EV ready
everywhere plus no minimums. You could
create a lot of push back from the
community at some point saying this is
not working. So, kind of like what
Commissioner Krauss was saying, maybe
you just especially ones that are more
than 0.25 miles away that you know the
alternative policy
>> that might be something where you may
just reduce the minimums and you know
just for a safeguard.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Great.
>> Okay. Any other feedback?
>> Any other comments?
>> Uh Commissioner Oler.
Um just like to echo uh both what uh
Commissioner Crass and uh and others
have said here. Um I I think it also to
me depends on what your target market is
for the development of of housing. So
for example, affordable housing becomes
much more affordable if you don't have
to build structured parking.
But unless the
um frequent transit is very close by,
you're going to have very unhappy
tenants regardless. So, I
I think the the policy needs to be, as
it's been suggested by um Commissioner
Matthews as well, um that it needs to be
nuanced, that making a blanket statement
of all development just does not capture
all of the conditions that may vary.
>> Further comments?
Uh, Chair Voice, I'm just going to echo
my comm fellow commissioners over here.
Um, to me it seems like it would be more
responsible at least until the
feasibility study comes out. It's one
thing to reduce minimums. It's another
thing to completely get rid of them.
>> And I would be more interested to see,
you know, it's one thing if we're
talking about quarter mile from a
frequent transit. Okay. I could even
maybe then you can make the argument
that they're not necessary in this
particular area, but I'm thinking of
redevelopment down in Old City. And if
you were to try to do that, you would
put a burden on the streets where people
already park.
>> Yeah.
>> So it's like anything in Isiqua, we have
very different neighborhoods with
different needs. Um so again, I to just
take it away. I I really don't like
alternative policy one. Um I don't know
why we just couldn't reduce the minimums
versus just completely getting rid of
them.
>> That would be my thoughts, too.
>> Yep. Vice Chair Patterson,
>> you triggered a thought in my brain. Uh
maybe there's an opportunity to also do
um you know if that alternative policy
of eliminating parking minimums in like
central Isiqua
>> but then keep it for everywhere else or
something along those lines like some
sort of phased approach or something
where you know to encourage development
and also because we're hoping to get
some additional you know multimmodal
transportation in that area maybe that's
an opportunity to you know pilot that
there or what have you but may maybe
kind of take that approach to
Great.
>> Great. So, hearing concerns for overall
blanket removal of minimums, but maybe
there's some options for certain
neighborhoods or maybe the city could
offer waiverss for certain developments,
make some exceptions. I think someone
mentioned um but that we really need to
consider the risk and further assess
through feasibility.
>> Seem like a fair statement,
commissioners. Yeah, proceed with
caution.
>> Okay, great.
>> All right. Uh moving on to number two.
Um this one is looking uh referenced
earlier looking at increasing
multifamily charging requirements above
state requirements. And I know we
discussed this one back in the fall. Um
there were some uh concerns around this,
but we wanted to bring it back. Um and I
can share a little bit about what TAB
said last night. Um the alternative is
looking at that 100% EV ready parking
stalls and multifamily developments and
redevelopment. Um, so TAB did discuss
this last night. Um, they actually had
general support for the 100% EV ready.
Uh, given that Redmond has moved this
forward and did so without hearing
significant concerns from, uh,
developers. However, they were very
interested in looking further into the
analysis that Redmond did before moving
it forward and um engaging with our
development community um and uh further
assessing whether it's something that
they would be amendable to. So, wanted
to bring this one back for discussion on
whether uh there would be interest to at
least looking at whether we should
increase multifamily or further
evaluating uh the approach that Redmond
took.
>> Thank you. I I feel like we just went
through this like what a year two years
ago with the EV ready. So I feel like
it's coming back again like a Groundhog
Day.
>> Commissioner Krauss,
>> hello again.
>> Yeah.
>> Um so the interesting
thing this this has a huge dependency
that could stop everything in its tracks
and that is Puget Sound Energy or
whoever the
>> the who would bring that in. uh example
uh there's a like really nice condo
right next to our our place. I think
there's 50 units and they looked at
converting like two or three spaces to
have EV charging stations. This is not
100% of all their stock. This is just
three spaces.
>> And the quote came back at like
$100,000.
And um and it was going to take a long
time. And if we put if you look at time
and cost
um this is just will never happen until
that dependency is understood. And I
would be afraid to even bring this up to
someone because then what'll happen is
um no one will redevelop. I mean then
the question like they're going to just
let things crumble because they're going
to be afraid of this thing that's un
unattainable. So I think understanding
more what is the logistics on something
like this before I could even you know
give a nod to having this type of
requirement um that's
>> um let's go with commissioner
I'm drawing a blank cut
off thank you call
>> um well to me it's we also have a very
big conversation about the affordability
of housing
And every time when we are talking about
new uh like parking, new EV 100% EV
ready, uh it makes it way and way less
affordable for people. So we should be
considering that uh because the more we
put on the developers, the more
requirements we put on them, the longer
is permitting process going to be, the
more it's going to cost, the more things
they going to be have they're going to
have to do. So, I cannot really be uh on
the same page with a tab on this.
>> So, sorry.
>> No, no apologies here. Did I see
Commissioner Holer?
>> Yes. Thanks. Um
I think if we're if we're trying to
encourage development uh in the city, we
should be thinking about um some
offsetting uh cost savings, whether it
be, you know, direct payments or working
with PSSE to reduce the cost of install
installation and and maintenance of
these u EV uh chargers. Um but uh I mean
I I I think it's a fine goal. I I think
we want to move toward electric vehicles
in the future. I think the when we had a
discussion about this several months
ago, I had raised the question of of
these u you know where these charging
stations would be concentrated
>> and if they're all in one area then you
create deserts throughout the rest of
the city. So again, I I would argue in
terms of flexibility and also
considering ways in which to offset the
costs, whether it's, you know,
incentives to to build higher uh greater
density. Um but uh I I echo the the
concerns about uh about the cost and and
the the impact on u on uh creating
affordable housing in the city.
Thank you, Commissioner Oler. Uh,
Commissioner Miller Irwin.
>> Thank you.
>> Turned off my mic. Thank you very much.
So I am in support of this policy from
the standpoint of uh development uh
specifically for um uh medium to large
scale homeowner associations because
it's a challenge in that environment um
to have already ready EV charging
station capabilities. Um
the counter however is in older
communities and I think the comment that
I'm making now is one that I made back
in the fall which is um older
communities are very challenged with the
changing demographics of their
communities and the higher demand for EV
charging stations. So um I think this is
great for new development but I think
also there needs to be some study in
terms of how do you bring along older
communities to support their need as
well. to have EV charging stations
installed.
>> Great.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Miller Irwin.
Anyone else like to speak?
>> Uh, Chair Voice, to me, this is one area
where I think this is where incentives
work. I think carrots are what we need
here. Mhm.
>> Um I don't think it's any secret that
again we're moving in that direction,
but to me it, you know, to use a rough
analogy, it's kind of like your phone,
right? Most people do their phone
charging at home, but you still need the
infrastructure in case your phone runs
out of batteries when you're out and
about. Um so I think it is what we're
aspiring to, which is what Commissioner
Olner Ner said.
>> But like I said, this one feasibility
makes sense. um incentives here make
sense to me
>> uh to try and push it, but I think
requirements probably were not there
yet. I'm looking at Safeway and those
beautiful charging stations that are
completely empty all the time. And but
again, I do get it. Most people are
charging their EVs at home and they're
able to do that because they have their
parking stalls and they're ready and
wired for it. But again, I think here
here I think the incentives and carrots
would probably be more appropriate at
least right now. M
>> um it's kind of the way I I I wish if we
could go back in the way back machine,
we kind of looked at some of that uh
either for for large box stores or
commercial spaces because again we might
be jumping ahead of our skis at the
moment.
>> Um until that demand is there.
>> Okay.
>> So I like the idea of uh carrots at the
moment.
>> Uh yes, Commissioner Cass.
>> I like carrots much better than sticks
as as most people do. the um I wonder if
there's a nuance cuz another example
there's some new town I think we talked
about this in the same topic is there's
some new town homes being built two
different set two like one at 19 and one
at 29 units and I know one of them they
advertise that there's EV charging in
their garages
>> um and I think there's a difference in a
new development of if you have your own
garage running 240 to that garage in
your own structure is a much different
then you have a giant garage and each
each one has to have something
>> uh and then tie back to that somehow
meter to that unit. So I wonder if
there's something in between as you look
at new developments of if you have your
own sole garage, this may be a bridge to
get to some of these.
>> There may be some
>> um uh requirements or maybe maybe we
just use incentives to do that. um where
that that starts taking into
consideration the logistic ability to do
that versus you have 50unit building and
everyone has a parking spot and then you
know how do you meter it back to that
individual unit versus your own
individual garage so there's something
to be thought of on when you have your
own unit your own your own parking space
>> vice trip
>> thank you chair uh I also want to bring
up a a point that you actually shared
earlier which is why not let the market
drive the demand of this I mean, I think
that if people really want EV charging
and that's something that's desirable
for them, then people will start
building it. Um, I do like incentivizing
though. I mean, obviously, this is a
forward thinking motion and and
environmentally it makes sense. But, um,
I think in, you know, when you start
using requirement and things like that
and adding cost to our developers, like
maybe there's another way to go about
moving that forward, I guess.
>> Thank you, vice chair. Yeah, I just one
of the things that caught my eye did not
face major push back. So
>> clearly I don't know what that means,
>> but I'd like to know like who were the
developers, how many were there.
>> Um doesn't really tell the full story.
So but I
>> there on any
>> Yeah.
>> Right. But I also like I said I I
appreciate what Milan Commissioner
Miller Irwin has said as well. I mean we
have different different parts of the
city that are different places. Yes. To
vice chair Patterson's point, it is
forward thinking. It is pushing it
forward, but I don't know if we're quite
there in 2026.
>> Mhm.
>> So,
>> great.
>> Any other word?
>> All right.
>> Great. That was a great summary. And
yeah, the other the state is also
discussing whether they'll have be
increasing requirements. Those could be
amendments that we adopt in the future
or we may see them go through the state
building code. So, there could be some
additional leadership at the state level
on this one.
All right. Um, oh, and the one other
thing I will add is um, absolutely the
incentive piece. I think what we will be
looking at in the plan is in ensuring
that we're including actions around um,
incentives, technical support, better
outreach to multifamily to support those
that um, do want to increase multifamily
uh, charging in their parking stalls.
So,
all right. Um, the next one also looks
at multifamily development and
redevelopment. Um this one it would be
an update to one of the current actions
that talks about ensuring that our land
use code had um what it previously start
over. Previously in the IAP or in the
existing IAP we had an action around um
updating our land use code to include um
covered secure parking for bikes for
example. Um and what this one what this
proposed revision would do is um include
access for charging for ebikes and e-
scooters. We have already updated the
land use code to include a lot of that
covered secure uh bike um storage at
multifamily. So this is just that
addition to the charging access. Um TAB
did discuss this one last night. They
actually thought it probably wasn't
necessary. um they really wanted us to
focus more on the covered secure um
parking uh for bikes and scooters and
then also working with um businesses or
places of employment to make sure that
there are options there for bikes to be
stored, covered, and even charged. Um
but they felt like it wasn't a necessary
uh focus for the ICAP. and um many of
the ebikes, scooters, the batteries can
be removed and charged in the apartment.
I think we also saw from public comment
some concerns around um safety. So, um
just wanted to see if there are other uh
thoughts, considerations from PPC on
this action.
>> I've never ridden one, so
>> they're fun, right?
>> They look fun. Um Commissioner Zach,
>> thank you. I would like to use a chair
voices example and say I'm also here on
a position of carrots. So, uh I would
love to have this in a policy but only
as an incentive and not as a like ruling
that any kind of property has to have a
secured parking because again it's an
additional cost on the um builders and
yeah that's not what we need right now.
Thank you. Great.
>> Commissioner Oler.
>> Um, going to the safety issue. Um, I
don't think um, we've caught up with
what are the best fire suppression
techniques for ebikes and and uh,
electric vehicles in general. Um, but I
imagine that a different kind of fire
suppression system is probably going to
be required in covered areas where bikes
are charged. So again, it's an
additional cost to to the developer that
you know needs to be considered.
>> I guess one question I have is so the is
the concern that with ebikes and e-
scooters that the rider walks away and
then there could be a malfunction with
the battery and it starts a fire. Is
that the concern? What I as far as I
understand if you buy a ebike e- scooter
at a authorized retailer um there is a
very very low likelihood of any um fire
issue happening. I think what some folks
are buying them online or maybe kind of
building their own. That's my
understanding. And then that might be
more at risk.
>> So it's kind of a
>> So it's like they get it like a for lack
of a better word like a knockoff
battery. the battery sparks and the
rider's gone and
>> yeah, they're hard to put out.
>> Cell phone chargers on airplanes,
>> right? Yeah, there's bad cell phone. All
the ones in the gas stations they tell
you not to use your phone with to start
a fire. Okay. Yeah, like I said, no real
understanding of these things. So
curious. Vice Chair Patterson actually
have a question. Um this one might be
for Kristen. Um when it says update land
use codes for ebike and escooter
charging, what what is the current code?
like what would we be updating like to
allow that or is that I don't know who
would be best to answer this.
>> We don't have anything right now in our
code regarding parking and ebike and e-
scooters. So yes, that would be updating
our parking.
>> Got so it would not be allowed to have
something like this currently or
>> Well, if we're uh No, you could
absolutely you could do this.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. But we would be saying it's like a
>> But if you want to incentivize it, then
we would say if you do this, then here's
what you get.
>> Got it. Got it. Okay. Thank you.
>> So it' be something like putting outlets
in if they have a bike storage unit,
putting outlets in there so they could
be charged.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Chair Voice, I guess I don't
really have a dog in this fight. Um yeah
if if I understand it we build storage
that's that is a requirement but it's
just the charger component that is not
is that correct
>> right we do we do currently have yes if
you build so I guess I was sort of wrong
um we don't anyway yes we do have
requirements that you have bike storage
and scooter storage when you build
multif family developments um there is
nothing in any of our commercial parking
that requires this kind of thing any of
our single family residential. So
>> for the charging component
>> for the charging. Yeah, I guess we do
have for storage. You do need it for
multif family.
>> Okay.
>> But you know, you just have like you do
have to have bike spaces for retail
stores if you're going to ride your bike
there and spend two hours or something.
>> This is strictly the charging component.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I I just I don't know. Like I
said, I I do see them around the city.
They're usually younger people using
them.
I would assume that they probably charge
them at home.
>> Commissioner CR
>> and you mentioned a lot of them now the
batteries you remove them to charge them
which which solves that.
>> Yeah.
>> Question for Kristen.
>> Can a builder
put outlets in the bike storage if they
just choose to do so? Or is that against
some other type of building code or is
it
>> as far as land use goes? Yes, they can
put them in there and there's probably
something in the building code that
would address it, but I'm that
>> because they could do I mean it sounds
like if if it's allowed they could just
>> have Well, let people fight it out for
those few
>> spots. But
>> again, I don't own one. Is this Are we
talking like a typical outlet?
>> Yeah, the 110.
>> Yeah, I
>> that's what I use mine. Well, and I for
I think Tab talked about the removable
batteries like some of them the
batteries built inside. like mine, I
can't remove the battery and carry it up
to an apartment. So, yeah, it's a
regular outlet, but I think that's a
great suggestion. We could look at our
building code, too, and make sure
there's nothing that would restrict an
outlet going in um to a bike storage
unit.
>> Yeah, definitely. Nothing should
restrict it. So, okay, everybody good on
policy question three?
>> Okay.
>> Okay, great. Um, I will take the moment
to plug uh our sustainability fair.
April 25th, we'll have ebike test rides
there if you've never ridden one. And
then um we do have a grant for ebike
rebates that we'll be launching this
summer. So keep an eye out for that.
>> What date was that again?
>> We'll have a rebate for ebikes. Um
>> what was the date? Uh, sorry. The
sustainability fair is April 25th at
Pickering Barn and we'll have test rides
from two uh local uh bike stores if you
want to try out a ebike. Um, and then
the city will be uh issuing rebates for
ebikes probably early summer.
>> Yeah, I left dirt bikes a long time ago.
I don't know if I'm ready to get back on
another bike. Um, okay. Commissioner,
>> just just one further comment. I mean,
promoting ebikes is great, but when I
was sitting out in my car waiting to
come inside, a kid rode on the sidewalk
in an ebike and he was going at least 35
miles an hour on a pedestrian pathway.
And I think before we jump in full boore
to promote ebikes, we need to have
traffic regulations that keep pace with
that.
>> Yeah. And the city has passed an
ordinance um where Yeah. So that would
that's probably a class 3 ebike which
technically are not allowed on the
sidewalks. They have to be riding with
traffic. So that is a focus of the city
this year will be on ebike e motorcycle
safety.
>> Yeah. And there's probably some public
outreach that should go along with that.
>> Absolutely.
Great. All right. Um our next policy
might be a little out there. Again, this
was looking for kind of those big bold
ideas. Um this was one Vancouver BC
actually um passed and then they've
pulled back so it actually hasn't been
implemented but interesting concept and
this was requiring fueling stations to
put in electric vehicle charging or else
that fueling station was charged a
higher uh BNO tax. Um discussed this
with TAB last night. They appreciated
the concept. um they did not think it
was really necessary, especially for um
a community of our size and our location
where folks aren't necessarily traveling
several hundred miles and passing
through. Um what they did recommend was
really focusing again on those
incentives, but really more in our
retail areas. So thinking about um the
chargers that are next to Starbucks are
really well used because folks are
popping in for 20 to 40 minutes at
Starbucks or the ones at Target. Um, so
maybe focusing more on encouraging and
incentivizing more fast charging near
retail areas.
Open it up for other feedback.
>> Yes, Commissioner Matthews.
>> I know that Philip 66 was looking at
testing this out in Houston,
>> but this is like are you saying for new
stations because I doubt that we're
going to have any new stations in Philip
or in Isiqua, right? We're pretty
saturated. So, is this something you're
saying they have to would have to
implement in an existing station?
>> That's how the Vancouver policy was
passed that all gas stations had to
install charging or else they would be
taxed at a higher level.
>> So, yeah, it doesn't really make sense
like what you've already said. Plus,
some of the stations are so tiny. Where
would you even park a bank of cars? It
doesn't seem to make sense unless you
had a really big station with a lot of
area to park in.
>> Yeah. I feel like 20 years ago, this
would have been great to see like one
stall,
>> you know, as they were retrofitting gas
fueling stations. Um, I think to Tab's
point, very interesting. This, like I
said, this one was like, whoa. And then
you see Vancouver going pulling back and
it's like, oh,
>> yeah.
>> Uh, Commissioner Zacharov,
>> thank you. So my position is if we are
uh requiring any kind of fee, if we're
imposing any fee on a uh gas station, if
we're imposing any tariff, tariff will
then goes to the customer. So it will
just make the gas in Isqua in general
more expensive and it doesn't matter if
we if the station will be paying an
extra fee or if they will have to
remodel the station and to put an extra
electric charging facility. So they will
just simply make a guess for all of us
more expensive. So yeah, I I don't see
it visible. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh, one quick question. Did you said
Vancouver is pairing it back? Are they
pairing back the BNO draconian
requirement or what what are they doing
to pair it back?
>> They've actually they have did not move
to the phase of implementing the policy
with the um the statement I read spoke
to just lack of enough infrastructure to
actually for the gas stations to be able
to comply. That's what I saw. I don't
know if it'll be reconsidered in the
>> interesting. I just wondered if anyone
just took them up or if it was a
>> if it was a threat of a higher tax that
stalled out. Uh Commissioner Cass,
>> hi. Um so totally agree that doesn't
make sense for fuel stations but retail
but it opens up a question and do you do
you have data on the utilization of the
places that we already have now? Not
just anecdotal like you have Starbucks,
you've got Target. There's a whole bunch
that were put in. I'm not sure if
they're live uh at Barnes & Noble. No,
they're not. I've unfortunately
>> there's a few different the ones that
are Fred Miles. So, it'd be good to see
what the utilization of those are now
because then that helps push the
conversation along because that's you're
right, that's when someone goes into
some place for 20 30 minutes, that's
when they're going to do it,
>> right?
>> Um and if it's super low um utilization,
then understanding why. Mhm.
>> Um, and if it's already built out, then
that says you have a different set of
actions to figure out what is what's the
next place that you would want to have
those type of banks.
>> Um, yeah, the Barnes & Noble one was
built and it's just sad. But
>> well, I think that's interesting is like
you said, it's it's hard to make policy
without any data. You're right, the
Starbucks ones do seem to get used. I
think there's like two or three, at
least the one in Gilman that I'm
thinking of.
>> And I don't know if the ones by Barnes &
Noble are live, but if they're if they
are, they're not. No.
>> Okay. So, that is why they are
completely dead
>> and they took the chain link fence down.
So, that's why I assume they were dead.
You live. Um, but yeah, like you said,
kind of hard to make a a Ford pass when
we don't have the data on what's already
being currently used. Like you said, now
that I think about Yeah. Starbucks, few
different areas. I see cars there. I
mean, they're usually not full, but
>> but the data is
Yeah. No, it's a good point.
>> Yeah, it's a great question. They're
private. A lot of the fast chargers are
all privately owned, but we could reach
out, see if they'd be willing to share
that. The city owns um the level two
chargers that are by the community
center and then some that are up in the
Isqua Highlands. We can definitely pull
that data. Community center ones um are
heavily heavily used. Um but yeah, be we
can reach out and see if they'd be
willing to share any of that
information. That's a great suggestion
because that could be used as an
incentive for other retailers then to to
put them in. So
>> yeah, I'd definitely like to hear more
because yeah, I appreciate Commissioner
Kra bringing that up
>> again. I I didn't know that the Barnes &
Nobles ones weren't live. Uh
Commissioner Miller Urban, did I see
>> I I love Barnes & Nobles and I I always
see it empty. I also love Chipotle, so
they're constantly.
>> Now, I just had a a comment that I think
is probably going to echo the sentiment
of um my fellow commissioners. Um but my
general thought from this conversation
is that it's really about intention when
development is being done and um I too
have seen all the the bank of um EVs by
what is it uh the Safeway in um the Isco
Highlands and I don't think I've ever
seen more than maybe one car there. So,
I don't know if during the development
it was a incentive for the developer in
order to install those, but perhaps
because of the housing mix in the the
Highlands, uh the majority of the people
that live in that area may very well
already have EV charging stations either
that they've installed on their own or
maybe it was a incentive by the
developer when their homes were built.
So, the overall intention about where
these stations go and if they're going
to be utilized, um, I do see the ones by
Starbucks being used quite often. So, I
think before any of these decisions are
made, it's really about the data and the
intention. So, thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Thank you, commissioners. Um,
any other comments or questions?
>> We're going to get through all nine.
Yeah, absolutely. All right. Poor poor
Andrew here. Great. Well, great
feedback. Um, and definitely not going
in the direction of how this is stated,
but looking at those uh trying to gather
more data on the usage, the need, and
then um looking at opportunities where
we can provide incentives around other
retail or high use, high utilized
spaces.
All right, this one's a little
different, too. Um, and then we'll be
moving next into buildings and energy.
Um this concept comes out of Berkeley.
They have passed what they call a
transit first policy. It is really about
ensuring government leadership is fully
behind um promoting transit first
through all of their projects. Kind of
using a transit lens when they're
looking at their priorities and budget
and infrastructure projects. Um, this
could really be whatever is needed to
promote transit or maybe it's even
multimodal. In talking talking with TAB,
I think just trying to wrap our heads
around what this actually would mean. um
they really felt that this wasn't the
intent of the mobility action plan and
that instead of looking at something
new. Um looking back at our mobility
action plan, see how we can better
elevate that as really a priority for
the city and even review the mobility
action plan to ensure that it's meeting
this need where it's really um moving
the city to consider and prioritize
transit and multimodal mobile movement.
So, welcome. Any additional feedback on
that one?
>> Commissioner Zacharov,
>> thank you. Well, to uh to prioritize
transit first, we need to make sure that
we have a reliable transit here in
Isqua. And again, right now we have
conversations about a light link and
hopefully everything comes to fruition
there. And also the local
transportation, the micro transportation
or the all of the buses that we have in
a city, they have to be reliable because
having a bus that comes uh only from a
certain hour to a certain hour, it's not
a reliable, it's existing, but it's not
a reliable transportation. So that
that's what is important to me. And yes,
the mobility action plan is actually
there. And I think I here I would be
totally on the same page with with the
tab. So thank you.
That's great. Uh, Commissioner Oler,
>> just a personal anecdote. I'm I'm taking
a course at Udub and I I drive my EV to
the South Kirkland park and ride and
then I hop on the 255 bus. It is always
on time, uh, 15 minutes apart. It's very
short waiting time. Uh, the buses are
clean. Um, they're they're
wellmaintained. the bus drivers are
friendly and courteous. Um, so I I think
I think we have a good at least bus
system here and uh I just you know I I
think as long as we maintain that the
reliability of it um I would I would
support uh policy along these lines but
again if it's in the mobility uh
component might as well keep it there.
Any further comments?
Commissioner Matthews,
>> I also have an anecdote. I noticed that
there's a new bus route that go or a new
I guess it's a new route. It's 203 and
it goes along Newport Way, which I was
really excited about cuz I could go to
the trail head without driving if I
could get my dog on there, you know. But
it's like it's if they maintain that
route cuz now nobody really knows it's
there cuz the road just opened. So a lot
of people are not aware that this bus is
regular and what the schedule is. But I
think over time it probably will be
used, especially once the link opens for
Mercer Island to Seattle and you could
start taking the bus to the baseball
games cuz paying 50 bucks every time you
want to park or find parking, you know,
I if people could start getting used to
using it just for events like that, I
think they'll start using transportation
or much more often, especially once the
link opens. So, I think it is important
to to stick with this policy and where
it is. Um,
>> the train is when you're sitting in
traffic and you see the train go
>> I know it's like
>> Yeah, it's exciting to see it now. It's
like it does pass you faster. It's like
one day.
>> Great. Next one.
>> Uh, any other comments?
>> Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Thank you. I think with the policy on
the screen right here, it's just of all
the ones we've seen tonight is the
broadest stroke. like it's very broad in
what it's trying to say. And so I think
that's where it's a little tough to kind
of start to pick it apart. Um I think
some of it probably is addressed in some
of our existing policies that maybe we
can like lean into those a little bit
more.
>> Um I I personally kind of agree with the
concept of this. I think it's just how
it gets interpreted or put into place is
is maybe the missing piece here.
>> Yeah. No, thank you, Vice Chair
Patterson. I'm going to piggyback on
him. I I agree. I mean, again, it sounds
right. Um but Isizakiqua as a government
I mean we are very focused on mobility.
We have as as everybody knows we have
congestion problems in one part of the
city. We've got regional problems that
are um I forget where Seattle area lands
in terms of just traffic. So I know the
city already kind of uses that lens when
we talk about any of these things. I
don't really know what this does in
terms of a transit lens per se. Um, I
kind of feel like we spend a lot of time
on mobility things already. I mean, I
don't think it really necessarily hurts,
but I kind of agree with Tab. I mean,
these are these are our mobility
experts. These are the guys that look at
it with a bigger uh magnifying glass
than us. So, if they feel like, hey, we
have a plan uh the mobility action plan.
Let's stick with this and flush it out.
If we need upgrades, great. Um, again, I
don't necessarily see anything wrong
with it. Um, but like I said, I think
I'll I think I'll tip my hat to them as
they spend a lot more time on it than us
and we spend quite a bit of time on it
as it is. So,
>> okay,
that was a great summary again. Thank
you.
All right, we are going to transition to
buildings and energy.
Um all right. So the next one, um this
recommendation is coming out of that
council committee directive to think
big. Um so this looks at um energy
benchmarking. Uh just to back up, the
state has in place a clean um
uh clean energy a building performance
standard uh that applies to buildings
that are 20,000 square ft and above,
commercial buildings, multifamily. Um
what this policy would be looking at is
having buildings that are not covered um
under that state law, so those that are
under 20,000 report on their energy use.
Um it's been shown in lots of other
communities if you have buildings report
on energy use they tend to reduce energy
because they're now tracking data um and
looking to conserve energy. Um what the
alternative option is doing is taking
more of an approach that's been done in
Seattle where they have put in place a
energy standard that goes above and
beyond the state standard. Um they
require their buildings to report to
them. um they have energy efficiency
targets they have to meet and those will
become um stronger and stronger harder
and harder over time. Um so that first
option again is just uh looking to the
buildings that aren't currently covered
by the state requirement. The other
would be actually putting in place
stronger standards than the state. Um,
what I did want to note is that, uh,
with the current state law, uh, the city
of Isiqua has had in place for the last
couple of years an incentive program
where we've had a a vendor on contract
and we go out and work with our comm
commercial building partners to help
them meet the state compliance
requirement and secure incentive
dollars. It has been even offering a
free service where we're saving them
money. we're helping them access money.
It's been very challenging to get
commercial buildings to participate in
our program even though we're helping
them get um on the pathway to
compliance. So, this would be a big lift
um for the city to do, but it's probably
one of the most impactful programs we
could put in um to reduce commercial
energy, large building energy use.
So, welcome your feedback. At 5,000 and
above, would that also include single
family homes, any structure?
>> Yeah, usually this is Yeah. What they
call covered what the state does is call
covered buildings. And they're uh the
current law just looks at 20,000 square
feet and above. Um which includes multif
family, commercial, but that also is uh
public and nonprofit owned. This would
be maybe a 5,000. We could set it where
we wanted, but 5,000 to 20 probably
excluding single family. Yeah. So five
5,000 single family residents, which we
do have estate lots, those would be
exempt.
>> Yes, I think we we would not want to
include um every homeowner in the city
reporting on their energy use. There is
actually another um policy. We'll talk
about that in a minute with the home
energy score. But yes, this would just
be for commercial nonprofit uh publicly
owned buildings.
>> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Oler.
So PSSE um as a homeowner I get a a
monthly report from PSSE. How do I
compare with my my neighbors? Um and
it's obviously not especially accurate
but um so there is in in some ways a
benchmarking program already in place
for single family residences. I guess
the question that I would have is um so
we have a benchmarking program that's
being proposed but what uh what
incentives or penalties would go along
with that or is that just information
data for the city to collect?
>> Yeah, that's a great question. So, at
the state level, for buildings that are
um 50,000 square feet and above, there
are energy targets set they have to meet
and there will be penalties put in uh
there are penalties that will come into
play if um the buildings don't meet them
for those 20 to 50,000 as part of the
state program. There's not yet targets
they have to meet. They just have to
report. Um they have some other
requirements, but no target to meet and
no penalties. If the city was to put
something like this in place, um what
was envisioned for this first one is
really just reporting. So there wouldn't
necessarily be a target. Um the city
would need to decide if we would fine a
building owner if they did not report,
but yeah, we haven't that has not been
discussed. We wanted to see if there was
any general con uh support for the
concept. Does that help answer?
Yeah, I I think it does. I mean, I I
think the other question is if you've
got a 50-year-old building, it's clearly
not going to be energy efficient. And
would they be penalized for not being
energy efficient and be forced to
upgrade or in some cases just sell the
building because they can't afford to do
it?
>> Yeah, it's a great question. That would
depend on um how the program was
designed. If they meet those state
thresholds, then yes, they do have to
meet the energy efficiency requirements.
But um we'd have to design that as part
of the city program and consider all
those things. Good question.
>> Great. Um Commissioner Zachro,
you guys relate to high.
>> So um my again my thing is currently u
any kind of property is very expensive.
It's very expensive to rent. It's very
expensive to lease. It's like I'm both
I'm now the homeowner, but uh I also a
small business owner and it's extremely
hard to find a property that I can
afford as a small business and I'm and I
have a pretty good small business. But
um to me, if we are aiding any
initiatives without incentives, if we
adding any requirements, there's a
reporting requirement. Reporting already
costs money. So you uh the um building
owner will have to hire consultants of
some sort and this costs will go into
the tenants of the building. Doesn't
matter if this is people who live there
or people who do business there. So this
will make it even less affordable for
people to both live in a city and do
business in a city. So to me it kind of
works a little bit against leave work
and play rule that we have or kind of
like some not a rule but what we have
here. Um so yeah I cannot support that.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Uh Commissioner Krafts.
>> Hello. Um, so I'll start with kind of
showing my bias of I I think it's a
pretty high bar if we want to exceed the
what the state requires period. Um, so I
think going above and beyond I there has
to be a lot of consideration uh on the
reporting aspect of it. Um, going back
to like we I get I get the same things
from future energy and I'm always
disappointed. Um, so I've got room for
improvement. Um, instead of putting the
burden on the property owners,
hug energy can do this.
>> If it's if if if it's really about
reporting and benchmarking,
>> they should do two things. They should
be giving this data to the um building
owners
because it's their incentive to use less
energy because let market forces take
take effect and um and then at the same
time they could you work out the details
but the same information can come to the
city for benchmarking. So adding that
requirement to the the owners, let's see
if we can push that to the people who
actually should be already tracking this
thing. Giving it to both parties
>> with the um because sometimes data is
power on these things and you know if if
I have the chance to to reduce by a
little bit it's as actual dollars if I
own a building. Um but you're right,
some old buildings it's going to be a
big retrofit issue. But let's start with
the reporting and also um going back to
my bias of not exceeding what the state
is already probably pretty stringent
already. So um I wouldn't want us to to
exceed that.
>> Yeah,
>> Commissioner Zach.
>> Thank you. Well, I actually I would like
to support Commissioner Cross and uh
back at the um climate action plan
committee. I was also mentioning that
Puget Sound energy right now has uh
several programs that several incentive
programs that they uh question why are
they not working. So maybe there should
be something worked with together with
uh Puget Sound Energy as partners and
they can offer us something way better
than what we are trying to create here.
So that's my idea. Thank you.
other comments.
So, I also get those same things from
PSSE and I always kill it because I do
like the flex events and everything and
I always I get to see my Yeah, I do. I
do. And it always shows me and my
neighbors and I always crush it. Um, so
that's funny. Um, I will say it's it's
very hard to argue with the premise.
Let's look into the feasibility. So you
kind of it's already set up like okay
>> um I kind of and I think we'll get this
into the other two policies because I am
going to agree um our state is a leader.
It's one of the legacies of Governor
Eninsley. So I'm going to need to be
convinced why is needs to go further.
Having said that um reporting knowledge
is power.
>> Maybe that's where we start. Again I I
don't see think there's anything wrong
with it. I think to Commissioner Oler
and Commissioner Crass, yeah, you're
going to have some 50-y old buildings.
And then to Commissioner Zach's point,
we also are renters in the city of
Isiziqua over by Bows. I know that
building's at least 40 years old.
>> And yeah, that cost would be kicked over
to us and because you are dealing with
consultants and energy departments, but
having said that, I mean, this is where
we want to move to. So, I'm not against
it. But I think reporting would be the
first step. M
>> first step would actually be the other
thing too is you mentioned this is a
heavy lift for the city.
>> What type of resources would this take
from city staff in order to get this
type of reporting? Do you guys have the
infrastructure to get it to do it?
>> Sounds like a great idea. Is it
something that should be tabled? I mean
I guess I'm just asking questions.
>> Those are great questions. um to run
especially a beeps having our own
standards that exceed the state
standards I think is a pretty massive
lift. Seattle has an entire team
dedicated it to it. Granted they have a
lot more buildings. Um but I think there
were some really interesting ideas
generated here that we'll probably look
in around um working with PSC to see how
they can uh really focus on
communication around reporting the
energy data but then promoting their
incentives with it. I was also getting
some nuggets of idea around maybe a
voluntary reporting program and then we
would work directly with those buildings
to connect them to incentives or
something like that. So I think there's
some variation um coming out of here
that could be a good first step and then
we see where we go.
>> Great feedback.
>> Great. Any other comments on policy six?
>> Okay.
>> Okay. How are we doing on time? We got
three left. Just keep going. Okay. All
right.
>> We haven't met in a month.
>> All right. Great. Um, this one we
started to get into this uh a little bit
in some of the discussion. Um, uh,
there's two options here. The first one
is a little bit simpler. Um, this is the
concept of a home energy score. Um so uh
home energy score has been discussed at
the Washington state level. It's been um
uh uh initiated in the state legislature
the last couple of years. It's not yet
move forward. Um Oregon is implementing
this. Uh the city of Tom Water is
actually considering their council's
discussing whether to put this in place.
But it would basically be at the time of
sale, you report out kind of a score of
how you're doing, how your home is doing
in terms of home energy just for
awareness. Um I have a lot of questions
around that and um equity and and
there's a lot of questions to go with
that. Um but that is a concept that's
been really promoted by one of our
strong climate partners and again has
been considered at the state level. The
alternative option here um is taking
this quite a bit further. Um the city of
Berkeley has a program in place called
their building emission saving ordinance
that actually requires at the time of
sale for um the seller to meet certain
uh weatherization or energy improvements
in their home. They have to uh hit six
points. So like a heat pump for example,
that's your full six points. if you
replace windows and do some
weatherization work, that would get you
to your six points. It's a pretty
extensive program. Um, but it is uh put
in place at the time of sale.
Um, so wanted to share these concepts
with you all. See if you have feedback
on they're a little bit different but
related. So included them in the same
slide.
>> Uh, let's go. Commissioner Crass.
>> Hello again. Um so energy score is this
energy usage or is this something is
this a set of metrics that is different
than what just you just give your energy
bills and that's what it's all about.
>> It's um typically as I understand it is
there is actually an assessment done on
the home like a weatherization
assessment and you would receive a score
um on that home.
>> So um once again I would not do anything
that's above and beyond the state
>> period. um Berkeley, which
um my wife went to school there, so I
know how that one's the extreme extreme
on some of these things. Um I'm I'm not
for the draconian of having to have
something done before you sell a house
because otherwise it would it would just
it would just it would Yeah, it would
just have huge huge implications. Um, I
do wonder,
um, going back to just what that energy
score is. When people get a home
inspection, they kind of go through this
kind of stuff already.
>> I haven't bought a house in 10 years,
and it was a new house, so they probably
I don't think I even did an inspection
on that one. But the one before that,
>> they do go through all of those types of
things. So, how is this any different
than a home inspection when someone buys
it and then they have the information?
>> If it's not doesn't have great weather
stripping or it's got an old furnace,
it's up to them. I mean, that's it's not
a requirement that they have a better
furnace, but they're going to want a
better furnace. So,
>> yeah, absolutely. And that first one,
um, I think, as I understand it, is
going above and beyond what you would
get in a normal inspection. You'd
actually receive a score, whether that's
a poor, good, very good score. Um it
could be designed however we wanted but
um it would rate your home in terms of
energy use and that's looking both at
equipment weatherization etc. Um
I lost my train of thought. You had a
sec other part of your question.
>> Well first of all the state or if our
state is not requiring this I don't even
know why we're spending a lot of energy
on this one. No no pun intended.
>> Yeah the yeah
>> got to work that one in there. Um, and
it's kind of a known thing if a house is
probably pretty efficient or not. This
is like regulating obvious
um, which is just adds more cost, time,
tax, etc. So,
>> yes. Yes. So, that's where Thank you. I
was going to go was um, there's nothing
necessarily to be done with the score.
It is meant to be information to the
buyer. Um, hence my note. I have lots of
questions about this in terms of equity
and making sure those older homes um uh
would be penalized. Um so there's a lot
of questions around this, but I guess um
what's before us is this is something we
would want to explore. Should we wait
and see if the state takes this up
again? Um or do we want to even think
beyond that and have some requirements
at at time of sale um for energy
efficiency improvements?
>> We got hands. Let's go to the end of the
table. Commissioner
>> Millinder win.
>> Thank you. Um the the first thought that
I had was this has some farreaching
equity um implications in terms of
people that have older homes. Um, and my
concern is that um, having these types
of ratings, they absolutely do have an
effect on the ability of someone to sell
their home. It's going to stick out if
someone may have a older and thus uh,
more inefficient home. So, I think this
is a great big idea, but I think that
the unintended consequences of this as a
an actual ineffect
um, uh, program would be problematic. Um
unless and I I don't even like my own
own unless so I'll say that um there
would have to be a counterbalance in my
opinion which would be what type of
program would be put in place to address
the equity implications which is is the
intent to bring someone up to a
particular standard if they have a
particular score that's not seen as um
helpful. So um I have concerns.
>> Great. Yeah.
>> Thank you. Thank you,
>> Commissioner Matthews.
>> Uh, my question or my comment was on the
same lines. And actually, I think it's
even worse when you think about
homeowner associations that have
standards on windows. So, now you're
going in and you're digging up a, you
know, a can of worms here. You got to
replace your windows because it does
stay in the state in the policy that
>> they would have to implement changes at
the time that they sell their home. So,
that could be a very big problem. And
again, when you have a downturn, so like
now home prices are low, now you're
killing it. Somebody who wants to move
up to a bigger home is not able to do
that because they have large costs. So,
it it seems like a good idea, but I
think it could be painful depending on
the upturn or downturn of housing
prices.
>> Um, and especially like first-time
buyers, this just could be a big problem
to or hurdle for them to overcome.
It's funny. I I have a little note that
just uses different language than the
two of you. I said maybe not a bad idea.
So, but anyway, um Commissioner
Zacharov,
>> thank you. Well, um I've had a quite a
time working on a climate action plan uh
update and also talking to people about
this. And what I found is uh well, first
of all, our community is very green and
people in general, they not against it.
they like people want to leave green but
at the very same time they cannot afford
it and so uh this is not just in
relation maybe to this policy but all
the policies that we've been looking
through today uh it makes it makes it
less and less affordable and so my thing
here with any any of this policies is we
need to have incentives we need to offer
people to make go turning green easier
for them but we cannot put it as a
requirement
>> because right now it's it's a very
simple situation. People cannot afford
it. So we have to start there. So thank
you.
>> Would anyone else like to weigh in?
>> Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Yeah, nothing too different than what's
been shared, but um I I'm out on
alternative policy here for sure. Uh but
the policy itself like I'm kind of
interested in the idea of a score if it
was more of like an FYI like like just
so you know kind of like Commissioner
Craft was saying is like yeah it might
be nice to know and it's usually obvious
like oh you have single pane windows or
you know like you know there's an
opportunity to update that uh maybe by
establishing a score and then taking a
step towards where Commissioner Zachro
was going of like if you were to upgrade
your furnace you could save X amount of
dollars a year or reduce your energy you
know like giving incentives or even just
uh people understanding of what it could
mean to upgrade in some of those areas.
Um, so it does become more of an FY, an
incentive, you know, something that
encourages people of like, oh, you know,
this could be a good long-term
investment, uh, versus like requiring
any upgrades or punishing them for, you
know, not being a certain level. Like I
I think we should avoid that, uh,
particularly for the equity standpoint.
But, um, I think there's there's
something in here, uh, just not quite
this.
>> Yeah, Commissioner.
>> So, it goes back to the role of Isiqua
and Puis Energy. I thought Pugan Energy
has services like that where they will
give you a energy audit and all those
things. They don't
>> they don't anymore unfortunately. Um
>> so all the people that should do it is
them and then if they don't want to do
it then I then I'm I'm confused why
other So do you have any history of why
they stopped doing that or is it
>> um I don't know. I think it was sort of
during the pandemic and then now you can
go on and request consultation with the
energy advisor, but it's not necessarily
the service they had before where they
were coming out to your home kind of
doing a big assessment and providing
specific recommendations. Um, we have I
was going to talk about this a bit with
the next policy. We have a very um
well-developed heat pump program right
now where we offer incentives and
rebates. We're about to expand that with
some additional PSSE funding uh where
we'll be also uh doing uh supporting
weatherization. So going out doing some
of those assessments and then um
providing some incentives for upgrades.
So we're trying to help fill fill that
gap. But um yeah, I
sounded like it was a very popular
program. Unfortunately, I'm not sure
more history there.
>> Vice Chair Patterson,
>> that was kind of a follow-up comment. um
as we kind of go down the path if we do
start to evaluate some kind of approach
like this um you know questions that pop
into my head are like who's going to do
the evaluation you know like how how is
it going to get delivered like where is
it tracked you know some of the more
administrative burdens of a program like
this um you know you mentioned like the
city having a staff to do that um
starting to break it down in that thing
of like if we got to a point where a
score made sense how would we even
implement it and what would the
administrative burden be for that so I
think those are important you know
considerations for if this were to go
further beyond evaluation.
>> Great. Yeah, great comment.
>> Uh, Chair Voice, that first of all, I
think all of the commissioners had
fantastic comments. So, again, I'm in
agreement with all of you guys. Again,
when it comes to homeowners, I'm pretty
sensitive at the moment. I think
everybody knows the situation. Uh,
Commissioner Miller Irwin, you're right
for people that, you know, what what's
that look like? If you get a score and
it's you're trying to sell versus your
neighbor. Um, Vice Chair Patterson,
again, FYI, knowledge is power. Uh, my
concern again is is we're just we're
going through a time when I think I
heard last the other day like the
national average to buy a home is 40
years now.
>> And anything that moves that number up
to 41, I'm going to be against. Anything
that gets it down to 39, I'm going to be
four. This one, in my mind, moves that
up to 41. Uh, Commissioner Zacharov
mentioned added costs. uh with interest
rates high, with construction costs and
housing costs being high right now for
multitude of reasons, this one to me
moves the needle the wrong way.
>> Okay, great.
>> So,
>> great, great feedback. Um, we'll also
track Tumb Water as their council
debates the potential for putting uh
this in place in their community and see
what we learn from that and have further
discussion if there seems to be added
benefit or it moves us in would move us
in the right direction.
>> Let's let Tum Water be the guinea pig.
Yeah, Washington getting big.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Um I think that's it for this
policy question.
>> All right. Getting close. Okay. Um so
this next one, as I mentioned, the city
has a extensive heat pump program we've
had in place for uh three plus years. Uh
we run that in partnership with five
other neighboring cities. Uh Energy
Smart East Side. Um, we offer incentives
and rebates and education, uh,
incentives at all income levels. Um, so
we will be continuing to run that
program and, uh, as I mentioned, it's
extending to weatherization. This year,
we're looking at, um, electric and heat
pump water heaters in the future. Um,
what these policies are proposing is to
go more the requirement route versus the
incentive education. There's so far we
can get with incentives and educations.
um where this concept came up from a
council member where could we have in
place any kind of requirement. Uh again,
don't know how this would be tracked,
but um where contractors when they're
providing quotes, they at least have to
provide one quote for a heat pump uh
versus a gas furnace replacement, for
example. Um so uh having the contractors
um at least provide the homeowner with
those options in front of them. The
alternative is going a direction more um
that Vancouver has put in place where
there would be um a required energy
efficiency standard at time of
replacement. So, um, if your gas furnace
goes out, you'd be required to install a
gas furnace, um, or a, uh, heat pump
that hits a certain energy efficiency
threshold. So, those are kind of
options, either kind of going the
contractor education route, again,
providing that data to the homeowner at
time of replacement or looking at a
requirement, energy efficiency
requirement at time of replacement.
All right, let's go. Commissioner Olner,
>> there are uh some buildings with systems
that do not lend themselves to heat
pumps. Our house has radiant heat floor
in the floors.
>> There's no way. So, we have no ducts.
>> And other than putting in many splits,
there's really no way to utilize a heat
pump. Um, and we're certainly not going
to rip out all of the the radiant
heating and put in ducts after the the
house is has been completed. So, um, I I
think there are some alternatives here
that need to be considered like perhaps
gas fired boilers that are very
efficient, for example. I and I know the
state is trying to move us toward total
electrification, but there are these
stumbling blocks.
Commissioner Zacharov,
>> I think uh Commissioner already went
ahead and kind of I I have a very
similar similar idea. So yeah, not every
building can be turned from gas to uh
electrifi electrified
heating and yeah that's that's kind of
yeah it's good if the information will
be provided by whoever is exchanging the
equipment but it's not always possible.
Thank you.
>> He stole your thunder.
>> Um uh yes Commissioner Matthews.
Um, I think it's a good idea to have the
contractors provide a quote, but I think
I mean I've had two water heaters
replaced and that each time they were
like, "Hey, this is a better model. This
will give you this much savings." I
think a lot of them are already doing
that.
>> So, um, maybe it's redundant because I
think a lot of contractors are pushing
the better models, you know,
>> when they when they're out there.
>> Yeah.
>> So, maybe just a little more education.
Maybe there's some that aren't. But
yeah, I think it I think it's a good
idea to give homeowners an option
because they may not think of it at the
time. They're just more concerned about
replacing their equipment and getting it
all running.
>> Yeah.
>> So, yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> There was a comment, I think, in one of
our uh letters that kind of made that
that same thing. Um, you know, I
actually replaced my water heater last
year. I had a ream. It went 15 years.
Never had a problem. Just just very
quick showers, but that was it. But, uh,
you're right. They give you they're
like, "Hey, this is the model. this is a
more energy efficient, this is a better
model.
>> Um, I think again knowledge is power.
Um, definitely don't like the
requirement. Again, I don't think it's
the season at the moment for any type of
requirements that are going to add
burdens and cost to homeowners or, you
know, selling between homeowners, but or
or businesses for that matter. But
again, I I kind of agree, knowledge is
power. I think what I'd be interested to
hear is a little bit more about what
contractors are doing now and what they
think of this you know, maybe reach out
to a couple of locals and ask, I mean,
is this a big burden for you guys to
provide a quote or a little bit of
education? I wouldn't think it is. Um,
you know, this is all stuff they could
do pretty much on the fly.
>> Yeah.
>> But again, as far as requiring anything
at the moment, again, when when the
economy is humming and housing is
humming, it's one thing. Right now, it's
on its back.
>> Uh, Commissioner Crass.
>> So, I think um like Bobs or some of the
other ones you see around town, um
you're right. when they come out,
they'll say, "Here's like two or three
options. You have a whole like cost
benefit." Um, if we insist that they do
a heat pump, they may say, "Oh, this one
costs four times as much to do this."
It's kind of wasting everybody's time.
>> Um, if a heat heat pump is something
that's beneficial, they're already doing
it. Um, I would assume like I have a
furnace and I have an outdoor air
conditioner. So, if I had to change to a
heat pump, I'm not even sure what that
would mean. And I'm like, would I rip
and replace everything out for something
that's probably four times the cost to
do that? I don't know. Um,
but I think if it's in the realm of the
things that are are potential, they're
already doing it. Um, but I do like the
idea of talk to some of the like what's
the one with the guy on the side? He's
always waving south oh
>> plumbing one.
>> Southwest plumbing or Bobs or whatever.
They'll probably give you some good good
feedback of what they're already doing
in different scenarios. Scenario one is
someone has this type of setup, scenario
two, and how they handle that. And that
may help shape I I I you know, you know
where I'm going to go with this. I don't
want to have any requirements of that,
but even the the the quote aspect that
may help tune the language and the ask
to something that's beneficial for
everybody in the value chain.
Yeah, that's great feedback. Through our
heat pump existing heat pump program, we
have a pretty extensive network of
contractors, but it's the contractors
that work with certain equipment. And
so, one thing we could do is look at by
the um permits that are being pulled,
look at those contractors that were not
part of our existing program and maybe
do some outreach or connect with them
and understand what they're what what
they've already incorporated. It's good
feedback.
>> Great. Thank you. I saw a hand. Vice
Chair Patterson. Thank you, sir. Um,
just one more kind of to add on to what
Commissioner Crest was saying is there
might also be certain scenarios where
different policies could come into play.
Meaning there's like new development,
redevelopment, and then emergency
replacement or repair. U, I think the
public comment we got was very focused
on like when you're in the middle of a
replacement, it's kind of an emergency
and you're just doing what you can to
get business back up or get your house
back to normal. Um, so that's probably
maybe an outlier that we don't want to
consider in that situation. Um, but
maybe there's an opportunity to find a
middle ground. I still don't like
requiring too much, but uh I do
understand like if we're trying to pull
the right levers to find a balance
between development of environmental
sustainability, you know, all those
different things, affordability, u maybe
there's some middle ground of either new
or redevelopment where um you know, we
we get that that quote for the, you
know, more energy efficient one or
something along those lines.
>> Great. Awesome.
Yeah. Like I said, it's really hard to
argue with evaluate the feasibility.
Kind of sets you up for that way. Right.
Right. It's like, okay, of course.
>> Um, any other comments as far as policy
8?
>> You get everyone?
>> Commissioner Miller.
>> Okay, great.
>> Um, all right. Let's go for uh the dark
sky.
>> Last one. Uh, this is a little
different, too. Um, so what this one is
looking at is a dark sky ordinance
specifically focused on commercial
buildings. We have quite a bit of dark
sky language in our code. We really
strive to reduce that light pollution.
Um, this one came out of the
environmental board where they have a
particular interest in focusing in on
some of the big commercial buildings in
the city that are lit up all hours of
the day. So, they were interested in
seeing if there are any um restrictions
that could be put in place um really
focused on that commercial se sector.
>> All right. I just real quickly I feel
like we just talked about dark sky
within the last year
>> so I maybe it's fresh for everybody. Um
but yeah let's give it a go.
Commissioner Zacharov
>> thank you. Well to me it's again it's an
incentive not a requirement. So if the
building is currently working and the
light is currently there, uh maybe
incentifies and offer the building owner
to change the lighting when they can or
when it stops working to more efficient
one. But everything that we require then
goes to the tenant of that building and
it makes it again affordability of well
I I said the word affordable today more
times than I have ever said that. So
yeah so that's what it that's what it is
to me. Thank you
>> Commissioner Matthews.
>> Um I had to work with the city of Malibu
on their dark sight. So this is extreme
on their dark dark sky ordinance. And
some of the things that came up that I
think it's important to keep in mind is
safety is one of the big ones. So
>> you have these big commercial parking
lots or whatever and they have huge like
big bright lights. But when they asked
them to change the color like the Kelvin
to a warm very low light, the safety
went down. So I think considering
shielding versus like bringing down the
looms or the Kelvin um and also there's
spillover issues like at gas stations
because of the safety issues. They do
have light that spills into the streets.
So
>> keeping some of those issues in mind
around safety um is something that's
important with the dark dark sky
ordinance. And some of the best places
probably to do it is actually on city
streets where you don't have lights that
aim up. They're actually focused down. I
think they have a couple on Newport Way
um on the walkways and that really helps
to reduce kind of the spill up of the
lighting. So that that was just and you
know they're ordinance. They actually
have a whole thing that you can look at
to see um what the public comments and
commercial ones so you don't have to
rebuild from scratch just to get an
idea. Okay, thanks.
>> Uh, Commissioner Olner.
>> So, um,
fairly new, uh, commercial buildings
typically have occupancy sensors
>> and they're controlled on a roomby room
basis, but slightly older buildings have
an entire floor. So, if somebody shows
up to their office and there's a 20,000
square foot floor plate, uh, all 20,000
square feet are going to light up. And I
I can't imagine that they would retrofit
their electrical system. They would
>> Well, they they might they would they
would, but I I I think it's, you know,
it's a costbenefit uh thing. So, I'm not
I'm not quite sure what the ordinance
would have. Uh, you know, where where
are the teeth in that? Again, is it an
incentive? Is it a a penalty? Um, but uh
I mean, I think we're all in favor of
not being blinded uh in the middle of
the night by buildings.
>> Great. Great points.
>> Just for and Kristen can let me know if
I'm wrong. I mean, talk about so many
things. I feel like dark sky last time
it was more about some of the standards,
what we meant by it. We weren't really
talking necessarily about I mean I think
we were talking about where things were
pointed, how they were pointed for the
most part.
>> I I'm going to be frank. I don't recall
those discussions.
>> Like I said, I have a general idea of
what we talked about and I want to say
it was it really had a lot more to do
with like, okay, where's this shining?
You know, like colors. Um, I think the
point being to me it would be in the
self-interest of these commercial
buildings to turn and use less energy.
>> It's a lot of savings. Yeah.
>> I mean, would is that a fair statement?
>> It's a lot of energy cost savings,
>> right? So, I mean, to me, I I would
assume if we all took a field trip and
did some homework and went by Costco
later tonight at 12:00, I'm going to
guess most of those lights are going to
be off. So, um, again, kind of a
self-interest thing.
Um, I do think Commissioner Matthews
brings up really good points. I mean, as
long as it's not encumbering safety. Uh,
you know, there's definitely some other
metrics that have to be looked at in
order, but I mean, I who doesn't love
the idea of, you know, an Arizona sky
being able to look up and and see the
galaxy. So, I I don't
>> Right. I mean, but but you know what I
mean? 2 am. Like I I get it, but I would
assume that would be in the
self-interest of the the buildings
themselves.
>> I would assume.
>> So again, I I think or maybe Vice Chair
Patterson can remind Kristen and me, but
I I feel like it was more again about
kind of what we we we're talking a lot
about lumens, which lumens, and it was
less about like where and how. It was
more about, okay, we wanted to see this
and that. Now I'm interested. Now I'm
going to have to go back into the the
vault and see that video.
I think
>> Oh, yeah. Please.
>> I I think we did cover this in title 18
and we talked I I was trying to do the
research as we were talking, but there's
like outdoor lighting standards in
chapter 18 uh 610.
>> And it talks about uh let's see uh some
commercial
>> like dark sky hours from 10 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. 30 minutes after business closes or
30 minutes before it opens. uh
commercial sites must reduce total
outdoor lighting by at least 30%. So I
think I guess what what is this policy
trying to do beyond what we already
have? I think is probably the the
summary of the question.
>> Yeah, I think it was trying to go a step
further. I think there's concerns for a
certain large building along I90 that is
pretty lit up at night or some of the
concerns raised by the environmental
board in particular.
But one thing we could do is take
another look at the current ordinance
current ordinance um and see if there
are opportunities for improvement. This
is something that's also been raised by
the Snowquali tribe. They were um
interested in seeing if there's
opportunities to improve the code. So
>> have we just talked to the people who
own that building and see what they say
and that may solve this without a policy
or more discussion?
>> Yes. Yeah. Do that.
They're definitely great friends of our
city. So, okay. Um, any other comments
about policy? Let me ask, did you get
what you needed for policy 9?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Does anyone have any more comments
about policy 9?
>> Okay.
>> All right. Well, I want to thank you,
Stacy. Um, let me ask just your
totality. Did you get everything you
needed?
>> Yes. Thank you for the last hour and a
half, most of your meeting. I appreciate
it. It has been um incredibly helpful.
We'll be taking all of that info input
as we share out to the plane development
and environment council committee. Um,
and then bringing that all together as
we share a draft draft final list of
actions and uh targets with the
environmental board in March and April.
>> All right. Well, thank you very much.
Um, yeah, we came to play, huh? So, see
what happens when Kristen doesn't let us
meet. It's only once a month.
We're going to keep you guys here till
10. Um, okay. Well, thank you again,
Stacy. Appreciate the presentation.
We're going to move along to our next
item of business. This is the title 18
clarifying amendments introduction. Um,
now
Kristen Leon, our senior planner, along
with Andrew Love, our associate planner,
will be presenting tonight. So, Kristen
and Andrew, when the two of you are
ready, please go ahead.
You demoted me.
>> You did.
>> It's okay. I'll forgive you. Um, well, I
moved this to the top and it didn't go.
Well,
let's try this again.
That's bizarre.
Okay.
I apologize. One second.
Okay.
Okay, there we go. I apologize. My
PowerPoint just suddenly turned black
and I had two screens. I couldn't get
there.
So, poor Andrew. I'm going to let him go
in just a minute here.
Um, but yes, we sent Kate off tonight to
go Washington State is currently
traveling around the state to talk about
their potential their wildfire
mitigation and wildfire plans and Kate
will be bringing those amendments to you
at some point during the year, we hope.
Um, so she we found out that that was
tonight, so she went there and I am
here. I am Kristen Leon, planning
manager. Um,
and we are we're going to start kicking
off our Title 18 amendments.
Um, there we go. So, uh, just to review,
we're kicking this off and we want to
make sure that you all I think you've
all been through before, but just want
to remind you of the process. Tonight,
you're going to get you're going to talk
about three proposed amendments, all
regarding signs that Andrew, as soon as
I'm done here, will uh, present to you.
There we go.
So, most cities do this. You look at
your codes and you know, we're sitting
there in a staff meeting and realized,
you know, this doesn't make sense, so we
need to update it. Or a developer comes
to us and says, um, this isn't working
for me and here's why. Here's why it
doesn't pencil out and it won't be just
me. So, we revisit and we say, okay. So,
we update it. Most cities do this. Um,
as usual, we're going to present these
to you in batches and then after you
look at all these, we'll bring you the
final version just for a final review
and then we'll have a public hearing.
Right now, there are 1 2 3 seven on this
list, eight. Um, pending our March 9th
meeting, there should be about 10 more
on here.
Some will be completed in June. Some of
those will be a little bit longer. I
need to put the timeline together. Some
of those will take about a year and a
half, but you will be seeing most of
them. Uh right now, we have three sign
amendments that you'll talk about
tonight. We're going to talk about the
definitions of development and
development permits and site. And right
now, we have some conflicting
information in there that we need to
clear up. So, we're going to fix that.
talk about how we are recording plat
procedures because that's been an issue
sometimes with developers and what comes
when um sorry I've got this thing in the
way um temporary uses we've had some
issues with donation bins and that kind
of thing operation standards and then
some other definitions about residential
we have two definitions of multif family
residential so we need to fix that
Okay. So, tonight um you're just going
to learn about uh the code amendment
proposals and provide input to us and
then eventually make a recommendation.
Um some of these will come to you like
they have tonight. Some will come in
already come code format. Some of these
will come to you as ideas sort of like
they did when you were talking about IAP
tonight. And then we'll back based on
your
on the discussion and feedback. We'll
come back with code amendments and then
they'll come back to you for final
review.
Um, what we look at is when we say what
when we're doing these, what does the
code say now? Um, why is the amendment
proposed? And feel free to ask us that
question if we don't tell you and are
the proposed changes clear or are there
additional changes needed or do we not
need this amendment at all? Does it seem
fine? Why are we changing this? Um, so
as I mentioned, we're coming through
with the batch of proposals. We'll come
here through April. We need to have the
public hearing in April by the by the
end of April to make sure that this
count gets through council in June for
council action.
So any questions on the process or
what's coming to you?
Okay. All right. Then I am going to hand
it over to Andrew Love, our um one of
our associate planners.
>> It's acting up.
>> Oh, is it?
>> Yeah.
>> Hello. Uh my name is Andrew Love. I'm a
relatively new associate planner with
the city of Isiqua. Very happy to be
here and um meet all of you. I've been
here for almost six months now. So
pretty exciting. Um sign code not quite
as exciting as the last uh discussion,
but uh I will do my best. So uh so there
were a total of three kind of more minor
housekeeping items related to the sign
code that we identified. I do want to uh
before I dive into the proposed
amendments, I do want to acknowledge
that um some people on the staff have
felt that the sign code really needs a
more of an overhaul. But um right now
this is just kind of focusing on um what
temporary fixes may uh may we need um
while we kind of strategize and you know
it's kind of up to council as well. uh
because as you may know there's always
so many different code amendments that
are required and kind of trying to fit
in an overhaul of the sign code is um I
find that a lot of communities find it
challenging because it it is a big lift
with you know questionable reward. So
let me just dive into the first one is
mostly related to well it is related to
balloons. though right now this was
brought up by the code enforcement
officer because uh it's a little unclear
as to what types of balloons or balloon
like objects are prohibited in the city.
So the currentit
large inflatable objects uh things that
that could uh be considered is perhaps a
giant inflatable elephant on top of a
car wash or one of those like wacky, you
know, armwaving things that could be
distracting to motorists.
the and then a separate section of the
prohibited signs uh code is prohibits
balloons although it only states myar
specifically.
So this amendment would um kind of be
more
it would more clearly restrict um
different types of balloons or
balloon-like objects because they find u
the things that you can see on the
screen. They're they look like balloons,
but they are I guess technically
not be considered balloons depending on
um who you may ask. And
really more than for the aesthetic
purposes, the objects like these could
result in obscuring um the vision of
motorists, which is uh I think the main
reason why it was brought to our
attention um by the code enforcement
officer.
Um the second uh Oh yeah, we can do
that. Yeah.
>> Yeah, I'm good with that.
>> Yeah. Do you want to do it one by one?
>> Sure.
>> One by one.
>> I'm happy to take questions or
>> Commissioner Craftoon
go without all that was about.
>> I've been waiting all night for the
balloon. No, I think it's kind of cool.
The myar thing I I understand because it
gets caught up in power lines and that's
a big issue. So I understand why those
have been banned. Um the only question I
have on this is is this really a
problem? Um going back to the is like
one person saw it could be a problem but
is this ever shown to really be a
problem that needs to be addressed? Do
we think understand myar because it
causes power issues. Um, but if these
don't fly away, they're just I mean
essentially
balloon like objects or so. So So I'm
just curious if we've if we've actually
had an accident or any other thing
that's ever happened because of these
things that would warrant us to want to
address it.
>> Yeah, thank you for your question. It's
not something that I have heard. Um, and
I also to preface this, um, she is in
our department, but I don't have as much
crossover with the code enforcement
officer. Um, I do know that they find
that she finds uh numerous examples of
balloons being tied to sandwich boards
and um and examples like you can see on
the screen. Um, as far as whether or not
they are a problem is, I guess,
subjective. Uh, I know some cities they
do make exceptions for having balloons
say in residential areas. Um that's
something that you know is important to
consider too. Uh people having um
balloons for uh special events like
graduation. Um so I think um
I can say that it seems as if the city
lately has been strict about not
allowing balloons. So if we wanted to
continue down that route, then this
proposed amendment would do that. um if
we wanted to steer another direction,
I'm also happy to entertain um any idea
like that.
>> Commissioner Zacharov,
>> thank you. So, are we talking uh only
about balloons that are closer to the
road or any balloons anywhere?
>> The proposed amendment, I don't have it
in front of me right now. I apologize,
but it is it does specifically say that
it if it is interfering with the line of
sight um that is causing some sort of
vision disturbance uh for vehicles um is
should be in one of the exhibits.
>> So in the rideway
>> not necessarily it could even actually
be outside of it.
>> Interesting.
>> Can I follow up
>> please? Um, okay. So, and if we're like
if we're talking about those that are
like on the right of way or can distract
the driver, do we have any data on the
number of road accidents that happen
because of balloons specifically? Like,
>> not that I'm aware of. No.
>> So then I would also agree with
Commissioner Cross as like why is that a
problem? And my other thing is even if
we are enforcing something closer to the
road because it distracts drivers, we
need to have we need to establish a
distance that it needs to be away from
the road. It cannot be just this broad
kind of thing broad phrase that uh in a
like on a on a right of way or in like
can distract cuz what can distract one
person will not distract the other
person. So yeah, so we need to establish
a distance and I don't think it should
be enforced anywhere.
Well, maybe closer to the road, maybe if
we had accidents, but if it's not closer
to the road, so I I don't think we have
any right to do that.
>> Okay. Thank you for your comments. And
>> I I feel like Vice Chair Patterson is uh
doing some research right now over here
on his phone. Um I I Kristen, remind me
if I'm wrong. I believe the sign code
kind of does that, right? It's all about
distances and feet. I mean, it's not
like we're talking about in a park where
somebody's having a party. We're not
talking about balloons out there in the
back 40. This is mostly for, to Andrew's
point,
>> it would be closer to the rideway to
anything that's going to distract, you
know, somebody's riding their bike down
the street and the balloons blow in
front of their faces and, you know, or a
car, you know, turns right and didn't
realize that they're left and didn't
realize there was a car there cuz they
couldn't see past the balloons. But this
is absolutely something that we can go
back and talk with our code enforcement
officer just to get a better idea of. I
mean, she doesn't she doesn't ask for
changes lightly. So, um, we can
certainly go back and talk to her and
see get more information about how many
how many incidents have there been and
how many complaints have there been and
where have those balloons been located
um when these complaints have taken
place.
>> Yeah, that might be a great place to
start.
>> Yeah, let me go to Commissioner Miller
Irwin first.
>> No, I I thank you very much, Kristen. I
appreciate that additional information.
I my uh first inclination was, is this a
solution looking for a problem? Um
metrics are always good. Um I think that
any well-intentioned uh um amendment uh
should be easily supported by uh metrics
on on this uh sort of issue. So thank
you
>> um Commissioner Krauss.
>> And I think it's I mean balloons is I
think the heart of it is we want to have
things that aren't distracting or
dangerous, right?
And balloons is one thing. I mean, so I
think it's we're going to be whackable
because then someone will take it down
and then they'll have flamingos and then
are we going to have a flamingo code? So
I think there's some type of as I mean
for code enforcement if things are
blocking views that make something
dangerous that is no matter whether it's
a balloon or a velvet Elvis that's up
there or or whatever. Um, I I think
that's really the point and whether we
have the right rules or not for that is
is the question and um that's all I have
to say. So I think it's really more
about that.
>> Uh, Vice Chair Patterson.
>> Yeah, I think Kristen and I are about to
do the same thing, but I I think there's
one important distinction here. Andrew,
for the record, this is the level of
detail we tend to get into, but there's
an important distinction here. Uh,
balloons are already in the code. It's
part of a the the code itself is
prohibited signs and it's strings of
pennants, ribbon streamer, spinners,
balloons. What's being changed here is
uh is uh it had originally said myar
balloons. So it it was almost too
specific and now it's being expanded to
say balloons in general or balloon like
structures or objects. Sorry.
>> Question is what's the reason?
Um well I think I mean the reason is
also being added. So the reason is uh
interfering with sight lines or creating
a safety hazard which in itself is broad
but that's the new part of the code is
it's saying it's removing myar to be
less specific and saying balloons are
balloonlike objects and saying because
there is a sighteline issue or a safety
issue and my I'm guessing that requires
someone to report on it. Meaning like if
you have a graduation party and you have
balloons on your mailbox, no one's
probably likely to report you. However,
if they're at the corner of your block
and you know somebody's trying to turn a
corner and they they can't get around,
then they call in and say, "Hey, city of
Isqua or cops or whatever, uh, I can't
see around this corner cuz there's a
big, you know, 40 balloon
uh up style house, you know, kind of
setup going on. Can you do something
about this?" So, that's my that would be
my interpretation of like what's
happening here. Um, and maybe why they
asked for that is is uh to do that.
And we were going the same direction I
was going.
>> I thought you were.
>> Okay. Um,
further discussion on balloons.
All right. No, I appreciate that, Vice
Chair Patterson. Um, so do you want to
sum it up? I guess bests
ultimately I think it's less about
including balloons and more about
expanding the definition of balloons.
So, it's going from myar balloons to
balloons in general. And then the reason
why is because all of those prohibited
objects can increase or interfere with
sight lines or or safety create safety
hazards.
>> Yeah. And I guess the only thing I would
say to add on to that is yeah, as as far
as Kristen mentioned, maybe take it back
to the enforcement officer and see if
she agrees with Vice Patterson uh
summary right there. And if that is what
she was looking for, I don't think
anybody here has a problem with that. I
personally hate the little guy that does
the thing. So I I think those are tacky.
I would hate to see those in Isiqua
myself. So I think we're good. Okay.
Okay. Thank you. Um the next one uh
second out of three uh this one is uh
regarding illumination with specifically
monument signs also known as ground
signs in some cities. So the description
of the changes uh right now it um
specifies that grandfathered monument
signs in central Isiqua, Isiqua
Highlands, Talis and the CBD zone uh may
keep interior illumination if replacing
a legally established non-conforming
sign. The reasons for the change would
be that the current monument sign
standards are a bit unclear when it
comes to uh legal non-conforming
interior illumination. Meaning um the
monument sign is in place and it was uh
approved under the previous code and now
we no longer allow interior illumination
of monument signs. Um, this would also
clarify standards um assisting with uh
or I'm sorry, this would clarify
standards to assist in addressing the
numerous instances where we do have
these signs still um all around central
Isiqua and the other neighborhoods.
So you can see that um a sign like and
these are not taken from the city. Uh
but you could see how something like the
sign in the middle would be kind of hard
to um be adequately illuminated without
using the interior illumination. Um
whereas some of the other signs they may
be able to get by with using exterior
illumination.
Some other considerations for this would
be that um multi-tenant signs like I
showed on the previous slide uh could
have challenges uh using other methods
of lighting um and there could be an
option to uh allow exemptions for
multi-tenant signs uh but
u but requiring monument signs uh for
single tenants to conform with the
lighting uh exterior lighting
requirement that is um in the code right
now.
>> Are we good?
>> Yep.
>> Okay. I saw Commissioner Matthews.
Um in your definition of replacement,
are you just talking about face
replacement? You're not actually talking
about they're changing a cabinet out.
So, say that they have five tenants, but
they're going to two, so they have to
replace the entire cabinet system. Is
that considered a replacement or is that
>> I mean
>> Right. Yeah, I see where you're going.
So, um this would be the proposed
amendment as it's currently written
would be for both the face of the sign
replacing for a different tenant for
example or if they were to reconstruct
the sign like for like
>> but certainly we can we could make
adjustments to it.
>> Okay.
Great question, Commissioner Zachro.
>> Thank you. So, the word affordability
comes another time. Um, this is actually
like signs in general are very
expensive, very expensive. So when if we
are requiring a uh and usually it's done
by the landlord if we're requiring a
landlord to refresh the whole sign it's
again it goes to the tenant and it like
I'm not sure how well signs are in tens
of thousands of dollars like this. Uh so
yeah I kind of like I think that the
sort of like grandfathered rule should
be in place. So if the sign already
exists in a certain way, it should
continue existing in a certain way. Uh
and if the new sign is built, well,
yeah, we can have any well, we can have
requirements cuz there's a choice there.
But with old signs, my position is it
has to stay as is. Thank you. And
Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong, but
this amendment is not requiring people
to change existing illumination. It's
just if they come in and they are
changing a sign.
We're not requiring signs that already
have illumination to go in and change
it. We're just So, it's only if they if
it's only if they are planning on
changing their sign. We're not requiring
anybody to go in and make changes.
>> Commissioner Grass.
>> So, is a new tenant considered changing
the sign or is that just changing the
information on the sign?
>> You'd be changing the monument, right?
It's that's just swapping out a slide.
So, as long as you're not changing out
the monument itself.
>> Well, I'm asking.
>> Yeah. Well, it's a good point because
the actually the picture on the left is
what brought this up. There wasn't a
there wasn't a question by the property
owner, but it was a question I had. Um,
what what do we consider? Because if the
code says we don't allow interior
illumination for new monument signs,
then is the change of the face from one
tenant to the other, is that considered
a change or not? Can they still use the
same method of interior illumination?
And I know it's kind of splitting hairs,
but I just um it was just something that
I noticed and it could be useful to have
a clear answer um especially since you
also have similar the similar question
of what does what constitutes as a
change?
>> Yeah, good point. Did you want to follow
that up? Did you want to follow that up?
>> I mean, I think it's it's I think he
just re reiterated it's a question.
like G.I. Joe's
changes to Dick Sporting Goods. Same
square sign. They just change the the
illuminate. I'm just making this one up
because that's the change. Is that a
different sign? So, they have to or is
that just a name plate change? So,
understanding what the what what the it
is
>> um kind of defines it's a big no.
>> Would that be fair to say the structure
itself? I mean,
>> right. So could that particular person
on the left if they were to maybe take
the top part off but kept the square? I
mean I guess that's what Andrew is
asking is you know um there could be an
option to
>> that one's a little hard. That one's in
the middle, right? That was talking
about like you have a square sign that's
a monument. It's it's lit. Different
tenant. Same square. Different one in
there.
>> Is that a new sign or just same sign but
with it?
>> That's what I That's what I want to
confir.
So it so not to um
what I'm hearing is that um it might be
there might be a
a greater appetite for allowing this uh
grandfathered situation for just simply
like kind of face changes to the sign.
Whereas if you were to reconstruct uh
the sign then you would have to conform
with the new standards.
Commissioner Matthews,
>> I think it might be easier to just
modify the language a bit so that if
you're doing a full structural change so
that you take everything off the
foundation, then then you would have to
go with external illumination. But if
you're changing the cabinet cuz somebody
could crash into your sign and then you
have a dent that you have to replace
that cabinet, that may just be, you
know, like for like replacement on a
grandfathered sign cuz you're not
changing the entire structure. So I
think maybe just how the language is
stated on replacement
um it might simplify for everybody else
like a face change, internal lighting
change to LED or you know that those
type of things might help simplify the
language a bit so it's not confusing.
>> Okay. Yeah. So what I'm hearing is um
greater specificity for what exactly it
means with um you know
keeping the nonconformity. Um uh total
replacement may not warrant the keeping
the internal elimination. Uh but
something simple like um repairing after
you know uh damage or uh new tenant um
just changing out the face of the sign
would be acceptable to keep the the
interior illumination.
Uh any other questions for this one?
>> Anything?
>> Okay. So sounds like some more um word
smithing for that. Um but thank you for
your feedback. And then the last one is
uh kind of what I what I kind of see as
a win for new businesses is that right
now, believe it or not, the the sign
code um in its 101 pages um is not super
specific on um
uh new tenants or new businesses that
want to come to the city, they usually
will want to have something some sort of
graphics on their windows while it's
under construction. And while we do have
uh a route an avenue for having a
temporary sign agreement that is more
for geared towards businesses that are
open and want a temporary sign for up to
like 30 days for maybe a special event.
Whereas for this this that could be
under construction for longer than 30
days. So I saw the need to have a
um kind of very clear you um well at my
proposal is that it is just exempt from
needing a signed permit. So the business
owners I mean signs to your point are
expensive um especially with all the
inflation. So, this would give the
businesses permission to use
uh what we're calling uh temporary
window signs associated with
construction while they may be, for
example, working on um you know, hiring
a sign consultant or um saving up money
to for the permanent signs while they're
while the building is under
construction. Um, so
just to reiterate, the sign code does
not clearly exempt um, signs like this
from needing a permit. And the change
would make it easier for new businesses
to install these types of signs um, in
advance of uh, obtaining permits for
whatever permanent sign or signs they
may want.
Are there any questions or feedback
regarding this proposed item?
>> Uh, Commissioner Zachro.
Thank you. As you can imagine, I'm in
total agreement with this. Yes. Yeah.
So, any uh temporary sign uh for
whatever period of time because it
depends on a business. Some businesses
are open within a week. Some businesses
are open within a year. Um so, but any
temporary sign should be uh like the
right should be given to a business to
install it without any permit. That's my
opinion. Thank you. Any
other comments, opinions?
I I think Andrew, my only ask would that
would be that they're not tacky, right?
I don't want to see I don't want to see
like, you know, high school car wash
type sign up for two weeks, two months.
These all three of these examples work
for me. Um, just not tacky, right?
Because it it could hurt businesses are
next to it. I mean again I think that
would be my only ask.
>> What's that?
>> Yeah. I mean I guess you have to define
tacky for us but uh
>> driven as a face of the business,
>> right? But I mean again that the one
from the Apple store I mean again all
three of them those look great. I again
just want to avoid like high school
signs with magic marker stuff like that.
That would be my ask.
>> So no handwritten signs.
>> No not really into the handwritten signs
with the bubble letters and stuff like
that. No. No. Not at all.
>> So tacky is kind of subjective, right?
>> Sure.
>> Um but uh but I think that's a great
idea to specify that they are um you
know professional signs rather than
handwritten. Um but just to be clear,
the the methods of obscuring the
construction, um for example, the middle
image shows paper being used to obscure
the construction. So um is that
something that would be acceptable to
CPC?
>> Any thoughts on that? I I mean I'd
prefer the one on the left. I prefer the
one on the right, but you know, again, I
I don't want to make this difficult for
people that are are under the building
process. I mean, again, the one in the
middle works. That doesn't really bother
me. Commissioner Zacharov,
>> thank you. Well, as someone who again
knows exactly like I'm looking at this
window, I know how much they cost. Um
to me just covering the window with
paper any kind of material is actually
it's important because sometimes when
there is a construction there's some
equipment inside and you don't want
people to come in the middle of the
night and take it away from you. There
are some people like that too sometimes.
So uh I think that is permissible and
again you know any business when they
build even while they built especially
if that's a front street they are
thinking that their customers are
walking around and they're thinking that
they already kind of like trying to
express themselves and bring new
customers to their business once they
are done building it. uh and they want
people to expect something good, right?
So, it's in an it's definitely in the
interest in the best interest of any
business to look nice even while you're
in a construction kind of period. Uh
yeah, I've been there several times. So,
yeah, I can say that that's should not
be a problem. And yes, businesses will
do everything in their power to uh make
it like as cost-saving as possible at
the very same time um to present
themselves as good as possible. So I
think it's market driven and we should
kind of like let it go with with the
business owner.
>> Thank you,
>> Commissioner Matthews.
>> So how about if as long as they can
obscure the window with paper, but as
long as it's neat. So say that there
somebody drops something and rips the
paper. Don't just leave it all tattered.
So just neat and pres presentable during
the duration of construction might be a
way to put it.
>> Commissioner.
>> Yeah, that was pretty much what I was
going to s say that, you know, the the
signs should be durable uh and replaced
if damaged.
>> Yeah, I I Yes. I mean, the one thing I
would say is I'm glad Commissioner
Zacharov brought up Front Street. There
were two
residents that moved in probably uh in
the last year and a half and I think you
know some of them use like the the foam
spray paint and stuff like that. I
here's where I actually kind of think
yeah we could probably tighten this up a
little. So again um for what it's worth
I I think you heard our comments. My
mind would be to actually see stuff more
like this that's more inviting. Again I
don't think the cost is a whole lot. I'm
trying to avoid, like I said, the the
the foam spray paint and and things like
this. And I think both of the ones that
I'm thinking about actually did use,
you know, color board that you get at
Michaels and like I said, that weird
foam. So anyway, I I think that could be
done a little bit better myself.
Any other comments as far as the uh
temporary window signs?
>> Sparkles.
>> No sparkles. No sparkles. And just to
just to um be clear, this is for the the
case. Basically, this would have they
would have to be taken down before
business opens. And if the business
wanted a an act like a window sign
that's permanent, um they would still
have to apply for all like you can apply
for a signed permit but have multiple
signs in the permit. So that would be
reviewed um against the sign code for
when the business opens.
>> Right. to your point, this is literally
just the temporary ones.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. I think we're all in
agreement.
>> Yeah.
>> On that part.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Well, Andrew, did uh Pleasure to
meet you. Um looking forward to working
with you in the future. Did you get
everything that you needed?
>> Yeah, thank you so much. Um I'm hap
happy to take any additional questions
or
feedback.
>> Commissioners, anything else for Andrew
before we cut them loose?
>> All right. hearing none. I will um step
aside. Thank you so much. It's uh it was
a pleasure meeting all of you.
>> I'll see you around.
>> Thank you, Andrew.
>> Okay, that takes care of regular
business for this evening.
Um
we're going to move into the last parts
and we're looking for reports. Kristen,
city council updates.
>> City Council updates. You'll recall last
time we met, we talked about uh traffic
fee waivers for early learning
facilities
and we you all recommended doing 80%
traffic impact fee waivers for those
facilities. We took them to planning
development and environment committee I
don't know a few weeks ago and they
actually are recommending to do both 80%
fee waivers and 100% waivers and the
100% fee waivers of course come with
conditions that 25% of the enrolled
students and families must be eligible
for state subsidies and that if at any
time during that year they fall below
that 25% they are required to pay 20% of
the waved impact fee back to the city
within 90 days. So that is what the
council is recommending. We will see
what happens on that goes back on March
2nd, so next Monday.
Okay. Thought I saw questions. Okay. Um
that's that's all I have for council
right now. Of course, I'm going to
remind you one more time that on March
9th, we're going back to council for
what is now called investing in building
development or something like that. Um
it was uh removing barriers to
development. Now, it's investing in
building development on the 9th to talk
about what our work program will be, but
we're coming forward with several
recommendations about what we're going
to do. Um, that's all the those are all
the council.
>> Uh, okay. Then, how about just any
updates, staff updates, city updates? We
had a big uh I saw Vice Chair Patterson
the other night. We had a lot of people
in this room for uh a very exciting
event that I believe the mayor and
>> our very own Thomas Valdz
>> um and a couple others were hosting on
light rail. Maybe that's part of the
update.
>> Heard it was huge.
>> It was a big turn. I mean Jesse was up
on the stairwell.
>> I mean I I I got there like 529 and
there's standing room only.
>> Right. This place was packed. Thomas was
over here, I guess, against this wall.
And all of a sudden, he sees this just
hand reaching around the corner going,
"Hello, I have a question." So, it was
it was pretty crowded. Um,
>> and Katya was here, too. Kati was also
>> Yeah, raise your Who was?
>> She got great seating.
>> She was next to the former mayor.
>> Who who was there that night?
>> The three of you. Okay, great. That's
great. Um, I just wanted to say great
conversation tonight. Thank you for
sticking around for um all of it. I
mean, not like you had a choice, but
thank you.
But it was it was a good conversation
and I think I think all of us uh Stacy
and Andrew got some good feedback
tonight. And lastly, you all are really
good at this, but just one last
reminder, if you are if you know that
you're going to be away, try and let us
know at least a week before because
that's when we get our packets out and
we'd like to know. We want to be sure
that we have a quorum. So, it just I
know things come up, but if you're able
to do that, that would be very helpful.
Thank you. Yes.
Um should we talk a little bit about the
light link quickly
>> about the light
>> just uh the light link and the thing
that we have around it just to remind
people to that we have the program to
save the link and to use the camera time
for that and that um the CT website
right now has the information that you
can kind of look into and uh you can
just Google the light link is safe light
link uh CTF Visiqua and you will go to
the website with the meeting and it has
all of the links where you can submit
your public testimony or just send an
email and everybody's talking about this
now and this is very important even
though we are expecting a link in 2044.
It's the preparation is now the time is
now and the South Sun transit board will
be discussing this in March. So by March
they have to make sure that we are as a
school residents that we are very
interested in having a link in the city.
This is extremely important cuz they're
really looking into kind of eliminating
us there. So we should make sure that
they are not eliminating us and if you
didn't check check on uh Mayor Mullet
information he is like the council is
now really discussing how to make it
more affordable even for Sound Transit
to partner with Sound Transit. So, it's
a big deal.
>> And so, thank you for doing that. And
and Mayor Mullet and council members
Jiang and Nichols
>> uh joined together to write an article
in the urbanist about Sound Light Rail
here in Isiqua and us and how much we
want to have it. So, it would be an
interesting article for you all to
Google and and take a look.
>> That's Yeah, I actually read it the
other day. Great article. Um, I guess
that's fair since I stole Katya's
thunder because I the next thing on my
list was other businesses and
announcements. So, Commissioner Oler.
>> Well, just to to piggyback on that,
Thomas was kind enough to send out a
couple of uh suggested texts
>> to send to the Sound Transit board. Um,
and I I did send a letter to them. So, I
I would encourage others to do the same.
>> Yeah. And I think Mayor Mullet that
evening also said that the form letters
are not as good as your own personal
handwritten letters. So again, stick
stay away from the form letters. Um, not
that they're not helpful, but the the
other ones that actually move the needle
or when you guys write, even if it's
brief, it it's more impactful when it's
your actual language. So that was
something I learned. Um, so yeah.
How about any other B? Great plug. Thank
you, Commissioner Zacharov. Um, any
other business or announcements?
>> A quick question.
>> Yeah, please.
>> Uh, Kristen, anything on the Pioneer
plan lately or Pioneer project? I just
>> nothing. There was there was a project
that we were discussing and they backed
out. So no
>> bummer. Bummer.
Okay. Um let's talk schedule. Upcoming
PPC schedule.
>> It it seems a little empty right now,
but it won't be. Um so
what what did they say in the movie?
Gird your loins. I think that's what it
is. We're getting getting ready to go.
Yes.
>> All right. Just getting warmed up. Um
All right. Well, again, thank you
everybody for a great evening. Any other
final comments? Anything for the good of
the order, the commission, for the city.
Okay. Well, you all have a great evening
and we will adjourn this meeting of the
planning policy commission at 8:49 p.m.
Thank you.