All right, good evening everybody. Thank
you for joining us on this sunny
Thursday. I would like to call the March
26 Planning Policy Commission meeting to
order at 6:32 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. Staff, do we
have a quorum this evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Excellent. We will now move on to
minutes. Uh in our packet, we had our
first item of business night, which is
approval of our minutes. Uh we want to
take action to approve them from the
March 12th PPC meeting.
Uh PPC, are there any corrections to the
minutes from the March 12th meeting?
Head shakes. All right?
Hearing none, the minutes are approved.
We will get into our next item of
business, which is public comment. Uh
for this meeting, we're holding general
public comment at this time for all
general topics uh being discussed by the
commission. Staff, has anybody signed up
to make public comment?
>> No, they have not.
All right, then I will skip our
guidelines for that for now and we will
move on to our next item on the agenda,
uh, which will be our title 18
clarifying amendments for residential
use definitions and daycare standards.
Um, Kate Kaney, our principal planner,
and Yayi Chen, our associate planner,
will be presenting tonight. K and Yi,
please go ahead.
Hold on just one moment.
>> We're rolling right along with those uh
intros. So, [laughter]
sorry to put you on the spot so quickly.
the beach ball where it just keeps
rolling there. So, hold on one second.
I'm not sure why.
Sorry about that.
We just failed. So, give me just one
moment.
>> Yeah, no worries. In the meantime, I
might approach to tilt the TVR direction
a little bit if you don't mind.
Sorry about
everyone seeing the PowerPoint now.
Thank you. Um again, my name is Kate
Katy. I'm sorry for the delay. Um, I'm
the city's principal planner and I'm
here today uh with my colleague Y Chen
to uh continue the review of the
clarifying code amendments that the
commission has been reviewing over the
past few meetings.
Um, as always as you're listening to our
proposals, uh, these are some
considerations we have for you. Um, we
would like you to think of, you know,
what does the code say now? Are you
understanding that? Why are we proposing
the amendment? and are the proposed
changes clear? Um do you think any other
changes might be um helpful?
This slide gives you a sense of where we
are in this process of review. Um
tonight, March 26th, we are going
through the last um new briefing for
you. And tonight um once again, it's um
anformational briefing. It's your
opportunity to ask questions. There's no
action requested.
um the meeting following this um on the
9th um of April, we will bring all of
the amendments back to you that you've
seen. Um some may have changed a little
bit. We will share that based on the
input we get from you or that we have
gotten from you. So now I am going to go
ahead and hand over the mic to Y Chen to
present the new proposal.
Good evening, commission. My name is Yi
Chen and I'm an associate planner of the
city and I'm here tonight with a couple
of simple and short code amendments for
you all. And please feel free to ask me
questions as I present.
So our first amendment tonight will be M
definitions and we're proposing to
repeal the definition of multif family
residential. The reason for this change
is because we have currently two multif
family definitions within the IMC. The
first one being multif family
residential and the second one being
dwelling multif family. With the
implementation of middle housing into
our land use code, we currently have
dwelling middle housing is defined as
two to four units. In addition to
dwelling multif family as five plus
units. So with these new definitions,
the multif family residential definition
is now outdated and the amendment aims
to decrease confusion while navigating
our land use code.
Any questions before I move on to the
next proposed? Thank you. All right. So
then our second amendment is going to be
increasing clarity by adding references
to definitions. We are proposing to add
references to the definitions
specifically for daycare center. daycare
center family in addition to adult
family home. The reason for this change
is because the land use code currently
does not provide direct direct
references to the definitions for each
of these uses. And this is important
because the definitions outline the
number of individuals that can be under
care in addition to applicable state
regulations.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, and this
is pretty important for applicants to
know as they're going through the
process.
In addition to this proposed amendment,
we're also asking for a minor wording
update pertaining to family daycare
center criteria. This change will be
updating terminology from family
childcare center to family daycare
center for cohesion within the whole
code section. The goal of this amendment
is to provide clear navigation through
the code for the specific uses I've just
described.
Any questions before I move on? Yes.
Just a quick hopefully easy one. Um, so
when I was looking at the code, they
said that you could have six residents
in an adult daycare. Does that include
the carers in addition to the people
being taken care of when they say and is
that like for people who are living
there overnight? Is that the definition
of resident? I'm just curious. Uh from
the re Oh, from the research and looking
at the definition, the six person limit
is um limited to the
individuals under care. So caregivers
aren't accounted for.
Moving on to the next one.
All right. So our next proposed
amendment in relation to the last slide,
but slightly different will be for
daycare center standards. and we are
proposing to add in a new provision
pertaining to traffic impact fee
waiverss. The reasons for this change is
because of since March 2nd, 2026, city
council has adopted ordinance number
3134,
which offers options of 80 and 100%
traffic impact fee waiverss for early
learning facilities, which are
applicable to daycare center uses. So,
just a little bit of background for all
of you guys. Um, for the ordinance, the
80% reduction will automatically apply
for all early learning facility uses,
but if the 100% fee waiver is chosen,
the facility is required to record a
covenant with the city to outline how
the enrollment requirement will be met.
In addition to what the 20% waved impact
fee is in case it needs to be repaid.
And part of what the covenant needs to
outline is the state subsidized
childcare enrollment needs to be at
minimum 25% and it needs to be verified
by CCYF.
This amendment will provide necessary
guidance on when the covenant should be
recorded with the city in the case the
100% impact fee waiver is being
requested.
Any questions on that one?
>> Questions?
>> I do I have one on that one.
>> Okay.
>> Um I guess a couple actually.
Um, are operators informed about the
timing of covenant records? Meaning, uh,
are they flagged up front to know when
they need to apply so they can plan for
that? Because I know it's between the
building permit and I think the
certificate of occupancy. Yes. So, like
are they is it very clear to them like
they need to do that? This will be the
goal for this amendment specifically for
when operators are doing their um
research for their building permit
application that the traffic impact fee
waiverss will be upfront in the code so
then they can prepare and let us know.
Um but there will hopefully be a lot of
conversation with operators through the
building process just to confirm.
>> Awesome. And then one followup is does
the covenant expire if the property is
sold and it's not used as a daycare?
>> Yes. Okay. Any other questions?
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. And then our last
proposed amendment will be the removal
of daycare operation or yeah, daycare
operation references from the home
business standard section. And we are
proposing to omit a sentence that
outlines outside storage or display
requirements for daycare operations. And
the specific sentence we're asking to
omit is play equipment for daycare
operations is considered outdoor storage
display. The reasons for this change is
because this is a residual language that
was originally there because daycare
operations were originally a part of our
home business standard section of the
code, but it is no longer applicable
since the daycare operation use has
since been moved to a different section
within the IMC.
All right, this about wraps up my
proposed code amendments for tonight.
Um, can I ask if any commissions have
any questions for me?
Seeing a lot of head shakes. [laughter]
Uh, I do have kind of one one I guess
kind of follow comment would be
regarding the uh dwelling uh dwelling
unit definition.
>> Yes. Um are there any like permits,
covenants or prior approvals with the
old definition that we would need to
consider um how to resolve those with
this update? Like any
>> um per my research, it seems like the
definition for multif family residential
is the only kind of residual point that
might have been overlooked during the
implementation of middle housing and
tour code. So I think we're good on
that.
>> Awesome. Cool. Any other questions,
comments?
Commissioner,
>> just a point of clarification following
up on Jesse's uh question. Um, so I'm
assuming that uh once a project is sort
of vested and the permit is approved
that they're kind of grandfathered under
the existing code at that time,
not not necessarily having to change
anything based on these these code
changes.
>> Oh yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you all so
much.
>> So, I will just go over a couple more
slides and let you know next steps in
our process. Um, I believe the
commission has seen this slide before.
Um, just letting you know um what we
will be doing uh over the next quarter.
Um and that is again on April 9th to
review all of the code amendments and
then uh there will be a public hearing
that will be in May and uh we will be
asking you for your recommendation at
that time. So uh council action still
anticipated in June. Lastly um I know ye
asked you if you had any final
questions. We wanted to ask you one more
time just in case uh before closing out.
Any other comments?
>> Going once. going twice.
>> Great.
>> I think we're all set. Do you get what
you need from us?
>> Yes. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you so much.
>> Excellent. Uh that will take us to our
second item of regular business tonight,
which is to discuss the uh promoting
building investment in Isaakiqua 2026
2027 work plan. So, we're now going to
have Kristen Leon, our planning manager,
to present tonight.
Kristen, when you are set up and ready,
you may steal the show.
There we go. Thank you. Yep. Kristen
Leon, uh, planning manager.
[clears throat] So, I've told you this a
few times, but I thought you'd I'd
present it to you all as well. We're
selling our plan. So, um, Oops, that
didn't happen.
There we go. So yes, we are on a mission
to promote building particularly housing
investments in Isiqua
and so we um have come up with ways that
hopefully will work um to do that and
we're just looking for your feedback
tonight. We have presented this to
council. It's also been presented to the
master builders association and now it's
you guys because you are the first step
to getting these things approved.
So there are a lot of factors in
development and the easiest one to see
is land use regulations, right? Um we
don't have control over construction
costs. We don't have control over the
market, taxes, tariffs, land costs. We
can't control those things. So we are
focused right now on the land use
regulations to do with those what we can
to help the process and also on
partnerships with our builders, our
developers, our legislators to make
these things happen.
So, we're going to be proactive with our
builder outreach and community
participation
um or community perception, I'm sorry.
So, our goal is to create momentum in
building and change our perceptions, but
right now there's not necessarily a
positive perception about how we how
permitting is and how development is
here in the city. So, we need to get the
positive stories out there and let
people know. So, our economic
development and housing manager is out
there meeting one-on-one with
developers,
uh, finding specific contacts with these
people. We're starting to have roundt
discussions with different developers in
the master builders association in the
area, and we're getting our success
stories out there. Um, making sure, you
know, when we get pro projects completed
on time or um, un, you know, help them
do it, you know, under budget or within
budget, that kind of thing. We want to
get those success stories out there.
We also want to um build more
relationships and Whoops,
there we go. Um so we're going
specifically to some of the larger home
builders, some of the smaller ones as
well, but since our focus is on central
Isiqua, we are working for some of the
bigger developers. Um but our our goal
is we want to increase volume. So we
want to improve speed at which we get
these things permitted, predictability
and ironically flexibility at the same
time um clarity and design support. We
want to just help walk them through the
process.
Come on.
There we go.
So we the council had a retreat on
January 31st and they identified things
that they want to focus on this year and
most of it was housing also
transportation but mostly housing as I
mentioned we've also talked with
different home builders in the area
different developers um who came up with
a list for us as well about three pages
long and staff every time we go through
projects we identify things that need to
be fixed or we talk with developers and
developers say this is hard or this
doesn't make sense and we go oh you're
right it doesn't we can reook at that.
And also from when we did our title 18
update, we had a whiteboard and there
were things items that were too big to
address at the time that we said we
would try and get back to later. So,
some of those are on our list as well.
I'm not going to go through all of
these, but I think there were
19 things on the council list. We're
proposing to do most of those and one
has already been done. It's the tree
code. And I'll go through these a little
bit later um in a little bit more
detail. The homebuilders, they had two
lists. the primary list to secondary
list. They had 27 things total. And
again, we're doing most of those. We
already allow binding site plans, so we
don't need to address that. Secondary
list, I think there were seven things.
We're only not proposing to do one. Um,
which is to transfer from parcel base to
district zone based parking.
Our title 18 upboard, we had title 18
upboard whiteboard. We have uh nine
different items on here that we're
trying to do, but we have a list of
about 27 or something like that, 17 that
we're not that we just can't get to yet.
So, um and then we also have our
non-code updates. Everything else that
you guys are going to see, we have the
track uh we're required to do our
shoreline master program update uh by
the end of 2027. We have wildfire
regulations that we're going to have to
get put into place soon. our
comprehensive plan updates. We have
regional growth center reertification
coming through you all. Um legislative
updates. They keep coming out with new
updates and we keep having to get those
done. We wanted to start neighborhood
plans. I don't think that's going to
happen. We also have big projects that
some point I'd like to go with the
through these with you all to see what
your decisions what effect they have on
the ground. I was thinking about that
today. I'd like to go through some of
those with you sometime or maybe even do
a tour. We'll talk about it later. But
um but we have current projects. So, we
have nine, I think, different projects
coming up in High Street in Isiqua. We
have our trail head to which is hoping
to break ground in June. We have the
Isiqua High School. We have um some
multif family conversions, uh commercial
to multif family conversions. We have
different town homes going up all over
the place. And Costco is putting in a
new fuel station. So, there's there's a
lot going on.
Um I this I this one the council asked
for it and I wasn't sure where to throw
it in but they said what are both and
Woodenville doing that's so right? Why
are they getting so much development
right now and we're not and both needed
to increase their zoning and their
capacity
because they didn't have enough to meet
their growth targets their housing
growth targets that have been to
assigned to them. [clears throat]
So excuse me. So about 75% of their land
was zoned for single family and they've
gone in and they've reszoned a lot of
that. They have set minimums as to what
they can develop on these properties and
it may go up to 25 units minimum and up
to 80% maximum. They removed all of
their parking requirements and now
they're reooking at it going, "Huh,
whoops." Now they're talking about
putting maximums on there. [laughter] So
um they created a very simple
development bonus program. We have one,
but ours is comp complicated. It's kind
of convoluted. So, we're going to fix
that. Um, they also though, I think one
of the biggest pieces is that land is
the most expensive piece of development.
And they had four parcels of land for
one and a half to two acres each. Two of
those they've already negotiated, given
away, and those have been developed.
One's mixed use, one is affordable
housing. They have two other properties
about the same size that are being
cleaned up right now. They were
contaminated, and those are also being
cleaned up. and then they will start
negotiations for those properties. We
simply don't have those properties right
now. So,
um the other one that they wanted to
look at was Woodenville and quite
frankly, they've done nothing to change
their code in about 15 years. So,
they've just gotten lucky and the market
found them. They have a lot of green
space and that we don't have green
fields that we don't have. And so,
they've they've just been discovered and
it's pretty and as we keep pointing out,
they have wine so it doesn't hurt. So,
So here's where we're going. We are have
decided to focus on central Isiqua
because that's where as you know for
years we've wanted our growth to go.
So here is I'm going to go over these
but these are 17 items that we are going
to address. 14 14 of these will be
coming through you. Okay.
So in the first actually the second
quarter the ones that we've already
talked about that we've already started
are outdoor amenity space requirements
stepback requirements and
self-certification of ADUs. So the third
one won't be coming to you but what that
is is pre-approved plans that the
building you know it's certified by
architects that the building works the
building works the way it is. It has all
the required ADA so forth things that it
needs. it would still have to get land
use approval but it's whole program you
can go on to a website pick the one you
want say this is it I want to put it on
this parcel and then you have to go
through the land use process step back
requirements
we have um
we currently require depending on where
you are that you step back your
building anywhere between the fourth
floor and above you know fourth floor
and sixth floor something like that and
uh developers say that this is more
expensive. So, we're looking at how to
adjust that and have been talking to
people to make it a little less
expensive. But the purpose of the
stepback requirements is to make it more
pedestrian friendly and also to allow
more light to come through on those
streets so that you don't get a canyon
effect. So, we want them, we just don't
know how to make it work with the
developers. The other one, I'm going
backwards here. Um, outdoor amenity
space requirements. We currently, you
may recall, we did an amendment for our
outdoor amenity space requirements. And
if you have 22 units or more, you're
required to do 100 square ft of outdoor
common amenity space, 48 space, 48
square ft per unit
with the unit and then an additional 400
square f feet and we changed it and
every unit had to have this 48 square
feet attached to it. And we came back
and we said, "Okay, we'll reduce that.
You can do just 50% of your units have
the 48 square feet. Now, you're going to
keep that same amount, 148 square feet
for every unit, but the rest of those
can all be into a common space to
hopefully make it easier, but they're
still saying, "Ah, not enough." So, and
a a um developer pointed out to me the
other day that with what he wants to put
on a site and the size of the site, it
would take the open space amenity is
more than half of the site and he
wouldn't be able to do the development.
So, clearly there's there's an issue
there. So, we're going to take a look at
that.
That's our next meeting.
Um, these were just other things that
are other annual updates that we're
working on right now that you already
know about. So, I won't talk about those
because you've seen them all. After that
is floor area ratio. Same developer I
was just talking about can go in. We
have a
maximum height maximum F floor area
ratio of two in one of our zones. And
the I do this wrong every time. Uh
that's the Oh, but the height so two F
but the height is 65 ft. Well, he can
hit that max F at two stories ra or at
40 feet rather than 65 feet. So, he's
really not getting to use the full site
to its to its highest and best use. So,
we're going to go back and look at some
of our floor area ratios to make sure
that developers are actually use being
able to use them the way we want to be
able to use them. We're not talking
about increasing height though at this
time because that doesn't increase
density the way F does. Uh,
statemandated parking requirements is a
bill I think it's 5184. We haven't done
those yet. We promised that we would get
all those are due by 2027 2028. We said
we'd get them done now. Um, natural
context areas and transpar transparency
requirements.
We have transparency requirements that
in central Isiqua, if you are on a
street and you are a retail or a um
multif family development, the 40% of
your facade on that street side has to
be transparent starting above six feet
so that people can't see in your
windows. Could use curtains, but that's
our rule. Um that also said that if
you're retail, 70% if you're on a 70% of
the facade that faces a street has to be
transparent. And if you're next to a
natural context area which is you know
like a wetland or something like that
50% of it has to be transparent. And
again we have found with developers that
is very difficult to do. So we're going
to look at that. Um the last one is to
allow multif family in
uh urban village commercial retail
development. It may get bigger than this
but right now all we're proposing to do
is to allow multif family there. That
came up during title 18.
Q4, wait till you see your schedule when
I show it to you at the end. Q4 um one
is to provide flexibility. So our
design, our architectural design
standards currently say
um
here's the intent and you must include
every single one of these items to get
approved. What it should like should
what it should probably say is here's
the intent and to meet the intent you
need to pick three or four of these
items and then that may that'll make
this pencil out more for the developers
which is what we're going for as long as
they still meet the intent and hit the
character what we're looking for.
Variances and departures will kind of do
the same thing. Through block corridors
we currently require um they used to be
40 foot minimum we've taken them down to
a 10-ft minimum. What they do is they
go, we have blocks that are 1,000 feet
long, especially in central Isiqua. The
idea is to get blocks that are near
anywhere between 250 and 300 feet long.
So, you use three block corridors
instead of doing a whole street. And
that way, pedestrians when they're
walking, it's easier to go. But some of
these, we just kind of mapped them out
and said, you just have to do it. And
you know, if you hit that 250, 300 foot
mark and it's not working everywhere
because you might have a threeb block
corridor that goes to another building
that's not going anywhere or you might
have a threeb block corridor that's
going to an alley and you don't want
those. So, we need to revisit that to
make it more practical for people to do.
Although we still want the smaller block
sizes, we just need to find out a more
practical way to do it. The last one
that you all will not see is peer
review.
uh we take we have to take things like
critical area studies, geotechnical
reports, landscape reviews. We have to
take those all out to peer reviewers
because we don't have it in-house. We
need to figure out and it that's getting
pretty costly for developers,
particularly the smaller developers. So,
we need to figure out how to reduce that
cost. I can slow down if you guys have
any questions so far. Sorry.
[cough]
Commissioner Adair,
>> I had a question about the transparency
standards if you don't mind going back.
>> Yeah.
>> So, when this is being explained, I'm
kind of confused. So, somebody's doing a
multif family unit, right, on a street,
they have to have 40% of the street
frontage as windows or is it that they
need something windows over a certain
height? I'm I was just confused.
>> It's 40% has to be windows and doors.
Okay. But the ground floor level that
doesn't start until 6 ft or above where
that counts.
>> Okay.
>> Because
>> so it doesn't count on the ground floor.
It counts basically on the first the
second story going.
>> It starts on the first story but not
your feet.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It started about right here.
>> Okay. At about six feet. And so they're
having problems because it means that we
can everyone can stare into somebody's
house.
>> Right. That's the intent of the six
feet.
>> Would an example of that, sorry guys, to
keep talking. be the town homes on
Newport A, right? Like how they have
windows going into their garages.
>> That is exactly one of the examples.
Yes, that was that's okay. Thanks. I was
wondering about that.
>> And then we had a recent one with
natural context areas too and they were
doing town homes and very very difficult
to get that 50% in there.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Commissioner,
>> I had a question about the through block
uh connectors. Um, I may have
misunderstood, but I thought you said we
had narrowed those down to 10 feet,
>> the width of the connector.
>> So, it was supposed to be 40 feet and
we've narrowed that down to 10 feet,
hoping that that would help and provide
more, you know, land for development and
so forth, but it's still not helping
because it the placement of these is can
be really, really odd.
>> And 10 feet sounds more like an alley
than a connector, you know? It's not the
generosity isn't there.
>> It's true.
>> It's true. Yeah.
All right. Moving into 2027, uh we have
found in central Isiqua there are
critical areas there and there are
wetlands that you wouldn't know are
there because they're paved over. Um we
are finding that with trail head right
now and that it's it's entire parking
lot is sitting over a wetland, but we
still want people to be able to develop.
So what do you do if you want to protect
the wetland and re you know mitigate and
revive? I'm not using the right words
here, revive that wetland but still
allow development to happen there. So we
are trying to figure out ways to sort of
come to a compromise there where you
still get the wetland back, you improve
the wetland and you protect it but you
still allow for the development.
Um we're also work as you know um the
climate action plan is going under is
being updated right now. So, as a part
of that, we're going to try and find
more options for developers to meet
sustainable development standards than
what we use right now.
Pretty high standards.
>> Question about that. Um, does that
include uh lead platinum being reviewed?
>> Yes.
>> Good.
We also require
um structured parking. I mean, I'm
sorry. We require a retail or office use
on the ground floor of parking
structures
because you don't want to stare at blank
walls. You don't really want to stare at
parking structures. But, as you can see
from the picture on on the slide,
they're getting better looking. And so
and it's really you require developers
to put in these and they only have to be
25 foot deep. So you require them to put
in these 25 foot deep storefronts that
really nobody wants and they sit there
vacant and it's going to be less
attractive than an attractive garage. So
again something to revisit. We don't
have answers to any of these yet. We're
just thinking through things. Um, then
you may remember that we did our North
Eco Northwest report and what they did,
I don't know if you remember that or
not. I'm not sure most of you were here
when we talked about it. We asked Eco
Northwest, a consultant, to implement
three of our
housing action plan strategies. One was
to expand inclusionary zoning.
Two was to help us increase the
diversity of housing. and three was to
help us um mitigate for development for
condominiums. That one is really a state
issue. They keep passing laws, but
there's liability in building
condominiums because anything happens
and the developer can get sued within
the first four years and they just they
can't get insurers to cover them. So,
that's kind of more at a state level.
Um, however, inclusionary zoning and the
uh diversity of housing, we've we've
kind of solved for the diversity of
housing. we allow it, but we'd still
like to get some of that in other zones.
So, what we're going to do are the
consultant said, "You need to redo
inclusionary zoning, redo your
development bonus program, and consider
using multif family tax exemptions and
adjust those levers so that they are
just right and developers code. That is
the sweet spot. I will come in and I
will do this and you will get affordable
housing." So, that's our goal there.
Um, last, you won't see either one of
these. One is to rightsize our impact
fees which our transportation impact fee
in particular is relatively high
compared to other cities
and
also the potential use of AI to aid in
permitting. We have a one one person
committee who's looking into that.
Belle's just started it but they're
using it for very very simple things. It
hasn't made a huge difference from what
I understand so far but it's new so
we'll see. Okay. Those are the last of
the amendments. But do you all have any
more questions about those?
>> Questions, comments
down.
>> Okay. It's a lot.
>> A lot.
>> Yeah. So, look at this. So, um
um so these are all your public hearings
and in between these are just the public
hearings. So, in between each of these,
you will you will see them, you will
talk about them, we will bring them back
again, and then you'll have the public
hearing. And so I'm just putting this up
here to let you know it's going to be
busy. So try to be here for the
meetings. And if you can't be here, then
watch it or come in and talk to us
afterwards because it's a lot. Um but
you can do it. We did title 18. We can
do this. Promise. Okay. Um so that's it.
And then I just had Do you have any
questions? So there we go.
>> Anybody? I have a couple comments
um general comments on this one. One is
um lot going on here. Very cool to see.
I'm excited after kind of a slower last
six months or so. Uh we'll be busy for
sure. Um one thing that might be helpful
as I'm thinking about is, you know, I'm
looking at, you know, summarizing this
is you guys had some meetings with some
developers. You listen to their feedback
and this is kind of like the next step
of that like proposals based on what
they've shared. And I think at first
glance putting my like community member
hat on, you're like, whoa, what are they
doing? Like you're you're like, is this
a good thing? like it seems like it like
we want development, we want growth,
we've been planning for it like and it
hasn't happened in the way we thought
and so it makes sense that we're trying
to figure out how to make it work. But I
think from a community member
perspective, you're like why are like
this seems like a big shift. So my
suggestion um to try and help kind of
bridge that gap a little bit and be
offer some transparency to the public in
an easy to understand way that's like oh
this is why this development isn't
happening would be to somehow categorize
some of those changes with like labels
or tags and I what comes to mind for me
is is is essentially you're answering
the question like why are we doing this
like if somebody from the community
member was like why are we doing you
know this uh this certain uh change
there would be a very Easy answer said
this will help increase units or this
will help lower costs for development or
this will help increase efficiency in
the processes to get permits or get you
know get things done whatever it may be.
But if there's some way that we can kind
of like
make a a kind of funnel it down to a tag
or label that's like this is why these
changes are happening. it might be good
for the community to easily understand
and it's not because I think a lot of
people their red flags will go up and be
like wait
>> but what about the environment or what
about the you know the parking or that
they'll start to question more about
like what like are we going too far in
the other direction you know we're
talking about pulling levers and stuff I
think as best we can we always try and
pull all the levers at once in a a
beautiful partnership which is a
incredibly hard thing to do but um I
think just having that transparency to
say this is why we're pulling this
developer level and our our city staff,
you know, levers is to try and make it
better for the community. So, it's it's
funny you bring that up because we
actually just had a conversation about
this um with the group yesterday
and that so and it also kind of came up
at council as well because at council
they we were talking about character
and I think we need to take a step back
too and say we have these plans and we
have these visions and every single
neighborhood in central Isiqua because
there are seven different neighborhoods
in central Isiqua They each have their
own vision. And so we're trying what
we're doing is trying to make all this
happen within those visions. And the
character character is not the right
word these days, but I'm sorry that's
what I that's that's what I'm using
right now. I know. Um within the um you
know what we want it to look like. We're
trying to make sure that this all
happens within that. So we were talking
about you know putting up there here's
the vision for this area. here's why
we're making this change. Here's how we
will meet it. But we're also talking
about pros and cons because you're
right, there will be negatives. So, yes,
we're going to do this and here's what
we'll get from it. Here's what we might
have to here's what we might have to not
here's what we might not get out of
that. So, I think I think that's a
really good point and I like the idea of
sort of the labels.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Some something, you know, I
think uh compromise was a word that
comes to mind. It's like at the end of
the day, no one's going to get
everything they want. So, it's like
finding like the right compromise that
everyone's willing to make to get, you
know, the ultimate outcome, right?
>> Um, and we're fortunate that you guys do
a great job of juggling all of those uh
things, but I know um trying to
represent our PPC, work with the staff,
and u you know, represent the community.
It's just kind of that helping find that
peculiar balance.
Uh, Commissioner Adair.
>> Yeah. And just along those lines, going
forward, I think what would help me is
um I'm just going to say I'm very
skeptical of for-profit corporations and
how we can make sure we're balancing
their needs with the community's needs
and desires to live in a nice place. So,
the more hard examples, like the more
concrete examples, the better for me.
Like seeing something about, for
example, the 40% transparency and then
knowing that the result was the Newport
where you know you're looking in the
garage. Yeah. Okay. I understand now why
that's a problem. Um that would be very
helpful. And also like when they see but
one of the things that like raises my
skepticism alarm for lack of a better
word is when I read things like oh
they're saying paint is more expensive
in a different color. Right? that
immediately I I would like to see an
example of like oh so you know this is
kind of what the cost differential would
be and this is why they're saying this
is expensive and just to answer me cuz
you know I'm not out here building a 200
unit apartment maybe the paint color
does really add up right so something
along those lines and I want to you know
I want to be informed and I want to know
what we're talking about I also want to
get affordable housing in and more
housing but okay I want to, you know,
look good and be nice.
>> Commissioner Olner.
>> Yeah. I mean, I just following that
thread, um, having have been on the
developer side and the homeowner side
and, uh, etc., uh, I, you know, there's
a sense out there, I I believe the
public is very suspicious of developers.
Uh, they think they come in and they do
stuff and then they leave and, you know,
what's left is for the community to
figure out. And I I think that's that's
something that needs to be addressed in
the in the sort of public expectations
and communications process. Um I just
wanted to respond uh to the paint
question because um
when we built our house, we had a number
of different paint colors that we
wanted. Blues in the bed in the
bathrooms, more sort of peachy white in
bedrooms. and and we were told, you
know, if I if I if the painter can't go
out and buy, you know, 30 gallons of one
paint and he's got to do this and this
and this, uh, and he's got to keep track
of it, that that adds perceptibly at
least to their costs. Um, it's it it's
not a it's not a big number and I and I
think some of the the the requests from
developers sort of fall into that
category as well. It would be great if X
and you know would lower our cost by
20%. Well, yeah, but there's there's
costs to be paid by the community for
that uh in terms of blank walls or
whatever the the issue is. Um so I think
you know um you're walking a fine line
by having developer roundts and and you
know trying to to uh meet what they
believe are essential requirements so
that they can build and at the same time
protect the community from kind of
[clears throat] being perceived as as
falling over for the developers. So it's
a tough balance.
Commissioner Matthews,
>> I actually had kind of the same comment
about when um one of the questions or
one of their comments was about the
natural context area and how you had to
have glazing facing the natural context
and how that'd be too expensive. And I
kind of had the same feeling. It's like,
okay, if I bought or rented a place that
was against the woods, I would like to
have a view of that area, you know,
that's makes it appealing to me. So, I'm
not sure why. So, I was under the same
impression. It's like, oh, they're just
kind of throw one over on you that it's
more expensive, but we don't have an
example
that tells me, you know, it increase
their cost by 15, 20% or whatever it is.
So, it would be nice to actually get
physical concrete
um numbers or examples for some of these
really um things that I think would
actually benefit a community that they'd
like to remove or have us reanalyze.
Thanks.
>> Other questions?
Um, I'll just add one more thing on the
AI thing. I know we're a couple years
out from it, but is a hot topic. It's
moving very fast. Uh, I would just
suggest to that one person that's
working on it currently. Um, just think
about what specific problem that they're
trying to solve, right? So, is it um is
it like consistency of review? Is it the
speed of the review? Is it uh you know
staff capacity and what they trying to
basically keep up if you will. Um I
think you know hopefully Belleview's
experience. I know it's new, but
hopefully they'll be able to glean some
things over time by the time we get
around to it. But um that's one thing I
see currently with my day job being in
the IT tech area is like everyone's like
throw AI at it and they don't really
think about why or what they're throwing
it at. So I think you got to start with
like what's the problem and kind of peel
back the layers before you go like let's
just AI.
So anyway anecdotal any other questions
or comments?
Uh Commissioner Zacharov
>> I'll also comment on the AI
implementation. Last year I had a lot of
meetings about that and I believe
Cologne BC has implemented AI and it
takes them now 10 days for simple permit
processes. It was already a year ago was
taking them 10 days to go through simple
permits with AI. So hopefully we can get
there. And I'm actually this was also
something I was talking about and I'm so
glad to hear that a lot of things that
was were very important to me like a
year ago that we now work on them
including the AI. [laughter]
So thank you for that.
>> On that note, I am a big proponent of
AI. I think it does have its benefits.
You just got to figure out what they
are. [laughter]
Cool. Uh any last comments? Anything for
Kristen?
You get what you need from us for now?
>> I did. Thank you.
>> Awesome.
>> All right. Well, that takes us to our
next item on the agenda, which is
reports. Uh, city council updates. Is
there anything to update us on?
>> I don't have any updates today.
>> No updates. All right. any other
business
besides that?
>> No. Um, but I I really am starting to
think harder about the tour. Either a
tour um Yeah. or a somehow a tour here.
But if you all are up for it, maybe we
can go do that sometime.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Love a good field trip tour.
>> Yeah.
>> What's that?
>> Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Only
>> it's been about
>> [laughter]
>> I think it's been about a year or so
from our last field trip when we did the
middle housing walking tour, which was a
lot of fun to see. So,
>> are are you thinking of Mine Hill?
>> Ah, yes.
Eventually that will be 20 new homes
back there in a cluster development.
Yeah, but the two homes that are on the
street right now will stay there. They
may be torn down at some point, but
yeah.
>> All right. Uh, any further business from
the commission? All good. Right. If
there's nothing else, then we will
adjourn this meeting at 7:19 p.m. Thank
you very much.