City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Thursday, July 7, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Tile 18: Building & Design ID 1155

90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.167

▶ Watch from 0:36 Open packet at p.167 ↗

Staff report:

Do the proposed changes fully meet the goals and outcomes intended for this topic update?

3351 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ to start the meeting

0:09 ↗ welcome everyone i council member hunt

0:11 ↗ called the july 7th 2022 city council

0:14 ↗ planning development and environment

0:15 ↗ committee to order i am joined today

0:18 ↗ with my fellow council members council

0:19 ↗ member ray and council president walsh

0:22 ↗ and i wanted to announce as well that

0:24 ↗ there are multiple public comment

0:26 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:28 ↗ will be a general public comment

0:29 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:30 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:32 ↗ the presentation and counsel question

0:34 ↗ and answer period on tonight's agenda

0:36 ↗ item we have one agenda item today and

0:38 ↗ that will be id 1155 title 18 building

0:42 ↗ and design

0:45 ↗ we will start off with public comments

0:47 ↗ members of the public may address

0:48 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:50 ↗ virtually although i will note there are

0:51 ↗ no members of the public in the audience

0:53 ↗ today those who are signed up in advance

0:55 ↗ to make comments will be called on first

0:57 ↗ if you are joining us virtually and

0:59 ↗ would like to make comments please raise

1:00 ↗ your virtual hand if you are on the

1:02 ↗ phone press star 3 and if you have

1:04 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone look

1:05 ↗ for a hand icon this varies by device

1:08 ↗ one option

1:09 ↗ may be to go to the participant panel

1:11 ↗ and choose the raise hand icon in the

1:12 ↗ lower right hand corner

1:15 ↗ and i will wait for a minute to see if

1:17 ↗ anyone wishes to speak and raises their

1:20 ↗ hand and i'll check in with the city

1:22 ↗ clerk clerk has anyone signed up or

1:25 ↗ indicated a desire to speak

1:28 ↗ councilmember hunt connie marsh has

1:30 ↗ indicated a desire to speak at public

1:32 ↗ comment

1:34 ↗ okay um i have some additional

1:36 ↗ guidelines then

1:37 ↗ citizen comments are an important part

1:39 ↗ of the public process we take them

1:41 ↗ seriously and factor them into the

1:42 ↗ decisions we make please direct comments

1:44 ↗ to the whole council and not individuals

1:46 ↗ and while this is not a question and

1:48 ↗ answer session we will contact you to

1:50 ↗ follow up if needed when recognized

1:52 ↗ please unmute your microphone or step up

1:54 ↗ to the lectern state your name address

1:56 ↗ and relationship to the city please

1:59 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently and

2:01 ↗ please limit your comments to five

2:02 ↗ minutes

2:07 ↗ connie

2:08 ↗ yep ms marsh i've made you a panelist uh

2:10 ↗ you can now unmute and you can turn on

2:12 ↗ your video

2:14 ↗ yes you were there i was just waiting

2:16 ↗ for directions

2:17 ↗ anyway connie marsh um

2:19 ↗ so

2:22 ↗ i'm going to just talk about one little

2:24 ↗ clip of this in advance of the

2:26 ↗ discussion that you're going to have and

2:28 ↗ that is something that i don't see

2:31 ↗ translated

2:33 ↗ through any of the matrices and that is

2:35 ↗ in the urban design guidelines section

2:38 ↗ um

2:39 ↗ there is sort of a placeholder for what

2:43 ↗ this whole section applies to

2:45 ↗ and so when there's a placeholder my

2:47 ↗ mind says

2:49 ↗ it could be anything and so i had a very

2:51 ↗ hard time deciding whether i liked it or

2:53 ↗ not because my mind said is this

2:56 ↗ supposed to also be about single-family

2:59 ↗ housing and so if that placeholder was

3:03 ↗ to say

3:04 ↗ single-family housing is included in

3:07 ↗ these urban design guidelines i'm

3:10 ↗ adamantly opposed

3:12 ↗ so while you're listening

3:15 ↗ think about that thank you

3:19 ↗ thank you connie

3:21 ↗ um city clerk do we have anyone else who

3:23 ↗ has indicated a desire to speak at this

3:25 ↗ time

3:28 ↗ council member hunt i do not see any

3:31 ↗ other virtual hands raised at this at

3:33 ↗ this time

3:35 ↗ great thank you

3:36 ↗ as a reminder written comments can be

3:38 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at

3:40 ↗ issaquah.gov

3:42 ↗ and now we will go to our first and only

3:45 ↗ agenda item this evening which is

3:48 ↗ id1155 title 18 building and design and

3:51 ↗ this will be presented by director

3:53 ↗ dollywall the director of community

3:55 ↗ planning and development

3:59 ↗ good evening council members and members

4:01 ↗ of the community um

4:03 ↗ i'll quickly walk through the

4:05 ↗ presentation this was in your packet

4:07 ↗ some of it is um a little bit repetitive

4:10 ↗ you know we're repeating things that

4:11 ↗ we've already given you but sometimes

4:13 ↗ community members join in in the middle

4:14 ↗ of this conversation so we've kept that

4:16 ↗ same format for the presentation

4:19 ↗ uh but tonight we're going to talk about

4:22 ↗ building and design

4:23 ↗ uh topics

4:25 ↗ and we're seeking input sorry

4:28 ↗ would it be possible to put it in the

4:30 ↗ design

4:31 ↗ or the um

4:32 ↗ the full mode yes thank you

4:36 ↗ there is can you guys see it now okay

4:38 ↗ perfect yes that's great thank you

4:40 ↗ um so uh what we're trying to do today

4:44 ↗ is to seek your input on the building

4:47 ↗ and design regulations and to uh find

4:50 ↗ out if there are any additional

4:51 ↗ considerations for planning and policy

4:53 ↗ commission

4:54 ↗ to study before they can finalize their

4:56 ↗ recommendation to city council

5:01 ↗ let's see is it

5:08 ↗ there are three topics uh in this larger

5:11 ↗ topic of building and design so one is

5:13 ↗ building design the second is site urban

5:15 ↗ design

5:16 ↗ and then we have the neighborhood

5:18 ↗ overlays

5:20 ↗ three goals from the goals and outcomes

5:23 ↗ chart that relate to this topic are

5:26 ↗ goal eight neighborhoods retain their

5:28 ↗ character goal nine sustainable

5:31 ↗ development goal 13 modernize and

5:34 ↗ streamline the code

5:36 ↗ where we are in the process

5:38 ↗ uh we have finished phase one and phase

5:41 ↗ two

5:42 ↗ and planning and policy commission has

5:44 ↗ deliberated on this topic and we're as

5:47 ↗ having this uh discussion draft uh for

5:50 ↗ you all to discuss based on the feedback

5:53 ↗ today

5:54 ↗ you know we'll produce a combined draft

5:57 ↗ and that'll be back

5:58 ↗ to the committee in november

6:02 ↗ what we've included in your packet i

6:04 ↗ think by this time everyone's familiar

6:05 ↗ but there's a summary of the proposed

6:07 ↗ changes how they align with the golden

6:09 ↗ outcomes update

6:10 ↗ links to all the planning and policy

6:12 ↗ commissions and uh which include all the

6:15 ↗ responses to public comments

6:17 ↗ minutes of these meetings uh there we've

6:19 ↗ created a document called public

6:21 ↗ feedback loop matrix and also the draft

6:23 ↗ code

6:25 ↗ these three topics we'll take tackle

6:28 ↗ them one at a time so the first one

6:30 ↗ building design

6:32 ↗ what this really regulates is the

6:34 ↗ exterior of the building should look

6:36 ↗ like articulation and modulation any

6:39 ↗ rooftop activities weather protection

6:42 ↗ uh transparency along the street front

6:46 ↗ um and what we've some of the major

6:50 ↗ changes um

6:51 ↗ we've uh revised the step backs which is

6:55 ↗ different than the setback and there was

6:56 ↗ a little bit of confusion

6:58 ↗ about the terminology but it's sort of

7:00 ↗ this tiered effect in the building

7:02 ↗ massing

7:03 ↗ it used to be

7:05 ↗ that we required it above the third

7:07 ↗ floor and what we heard uh from

7:09 ↗ community members and also with the tod

7:11 ↗ project that um it's we we need some

7:14 ↗ flexibility in where the step back

7:16 ↗ occurs um so with the proposed draft

7:19 ↗ we're saying that it can occur after the

7:21 ↗ first or second floor but no higher than

7:23 ↗ six uh floor

7:25 ↗ but you can choose where where you're

7:27 ↗ going to step it back and for the most

7:29 ↗ part you know four or five over two

7:32 ↗ buildings which generally is two floors

7:34 ↗ of concrete and wood frame construction

7:36 ↗ it usually will occur at the second

7:37 ↗ floor

7:38 ↗ uh but you will have the opportunity to

7:41 ↗ do it within that range

7:44 ↗ we had a lot of deviations sprinkled

7:47 ↗ throughout the code some of them were

7:49 ↗ pretty broad and vague and hard to

7:51 ↗ administer so we've limited some of

7:54 ↗ those

7:54 ↗ however the window transparency

7:57 ↗ deviations are still in the code

7:59 ↗ and um these were the ones that most

8:02 ↗ people asked for the deviation

8:04 ↗ and it's really for commercial buildings

8:06 ↗ where you have some storage needs or for

8:08 ↗ multi-family that abuts the

8:10 ↗ the sidewalk uh there's some privacy

8:13 ↗ concerns and such um but what we're

8:15 ↗ gonna do is go back and add some more

8:17 ↗ clear uh guidance criteria for approval

8:20 ↗ of this deviation which is still missing

8:22 ↗ from the draft

8:23 ↗ um but in other words we've organized

8:26 ↗ and reformatted revised the text to be

8:29 ↗ more

8:30 ↗ clear uh and predictable then and remove

8:33 ↗ the arbitrary and and vague language

8:36 ↗ um we used to have requirements for sky

8:39 ↗ bridge generally over the street

8:41 ↗ standards those are going to move to the

8:42 ↗ street standard section

8:46 ↗ in the sustainable and energy code there

8:48 ↗ was some confusion and i'll try my best

8:50 ↗ to

8:51 ↗ to sort this out but we are going to

8:53 ↗ have further discussion with planning

8:55 ↗ and policy commission on this while we

8:58 ↗ were in the middle of these

8:59 ↗ updates the state law was changed

9:02 ↗ so building code

9:05 ↗ under the state building code we have to

9:07 ↗ adopt it by july of 2023 there is some

9:10 ↗ guidance on

9:12 ↗ sustainable buildings

9:14 ↗ and it's very specific and detailed

9:18 ↗ so that's going to occur in the building

9:20 ↗ code we didn't want to duplicate or add

9:23 ↗ you know confusion by adding something

9:25 ↗ in the title 18 so we

9:27 ↗ for the purposes of the hearing took

9:29 ↗ that section out

9:30 ↗ we will go back to ppc to discuss if

9:33 ↗ there needs to be a stop gap measure for

9:37 ↗ larger buildings that we would require

9:39 ↗ some sort of a leed certification or

9:40 ↗ built green certification for larger

9:42 ↗ subdivisions because bill green my

9:44 ↗ understanding is for residential and

9:46 ↗ leed would apply for the other ones

9:48 ↗ there was some discussion about

9:49 ↗ ecological score

9:51 ↗ uh with the landscaping chapter we're

9:53 ↗ looking at that as well

9:55 ↗ so more information and discussion with

9:58 ↗ ppc will occur on this however a more

10:01 ↗ thoughtful discussion about

10:04 ↗ how to build sustainable buildings uh is

10:07 ↗ a much lengthier and

10:09 ↗ a very thoughtful discussion is needed

10:12 ↗ because we could go the certification

10:14 ↗ route i don't think the city should have

10:16 ↗ its own certification process because

10:17 ↗ it'll be a huge undertaking and

10:20 ↗ and um

10:22 ↗ with un you know unintended outcomes

10:24 ↗ could come out of that

10:26 ↗ um

10:27 ↗ so that currently is on the whiteboard

10:31 ↗ but we can talk more about it

10:33 ↗ at the end

10:34 ↗ site and urban design is the second

10:37 ↗ topic so this one really regulates the

10:40 ↗ arrangement appearance and relationship

10:43 ↗ of the development as it relates to the

10:45 ↗ public realm along the public street

10:47 ↗ next to your

10:49 ↗ neighboring properties and such

10:52 ↗ and and even critical areas

10:55 ↗ entryway design driveway and parking

10:57 ↗ location retaining wall heights all fall

11:00 ↗ under this

11:01 ↗ topic

11:04 ↗ and some of the major changes here

11:07 ↗ um you know we didn't have solid waste

11:09 ↗ collection standards and those were

11:10 ↗ always the last thing to come on on the

11:13 ↗ property and the first thing for anyone

11:15 ↗ to see so we've added some standards

11:17 ↗ here

11:19 ↗ primarily to add some more awareness so

11:20 ↗ it's not an afterthought that that's

11:22 ↗ taken into consideration as the site is

11:24 ↗ being designed but also to ensure better

11:27 ↗ enforceability

11:29 ↗ um

11:30 ↗ again uh deviations which were pretty

11:32 ↗ broad and vague have been limited we did

11:35 ↗ leave the deviation from view corridors

11:38 ↗ in the draft the language for the view

11:41 ↗ corridor is still pretty broad it's more

11:43 ↗ policy language than it is regulatory

11:45 ↗ language and these are hard to enforce

11:49 ↗ so uh we you know

11:51 ↗ this is we've added this item to the to

11:53 ↗ the

11:54 ↗ whiteboard uh it there is some language

11:56 ↗ in the centralistic plan that exists i

11:59 ↗ think we could probably keep it keep

12:01 ↗ some of that fine tune some of the

12:03 ↗ language uh in the interim

12:05 ↗ um but this is it's it's difficult to uh

12:08 ↗ to regulate and

12:10 ↗ needs more thoughtful discussion

12:13 ↗ um

12:14 ↗ and the current draft language is isn't

12:16 ↗ where it needs to be in this at this

12:19 ↗ stage

12:20 ↗ again we've merged some sections removed

12:23 ↗ redundancy provided some clarity uh

12:26 ↗ we've also removed a universal design

12:28 ↗ stain requirement because it duplicates

12:30 ↗ what's already required in the building

12:32 ↗ code uh and sometimes there are

12:34 ↗ conflicts

12:36 ↗ we've taken the through block passage

12:38 ↗ regulations to the street standards uh

12:41 ↗ and those will occur

12:43 ↗ discussion with ppc will occur in the

12:45 ↗ coming

12:48 ↗ months there's a beep i want to make

12:50 ↗ sure

12:50 ↗ [Music]

12:51 ↗ is

12:53 ↗ we

12:55 ↗ so a pause for a minute

12:57 ↗ until we figure out the beep

13:04 ↗ oh it's in the hallway

13:17 ↗ yeah well it stopped

13:22 ↗ so we'll continue um

13:26 ↗ and so that's sort of the main

13:28 ↗ highlights of the site in urban design i

13:30 ↗ think there was a question about whether

13:31 ↗ it applies to single family no it does

13:33 ↗ not

13:35 ↗ and the neighborhood overlays

13:39 ↗ section

13:41 ↗ it contains specific regulations for

13:44 ↗ specific areas of our city

13:47 ↗ and i have a map that i include in the

13:49 ↗ presentation so old town a central

13:52 ↗ business district and multi-family

13:54 ↗ uh has its own overlay standards a

13:56 ↗ single-family duplex the city did a lot

13:59 ↗ of work those are being carried forward

14:02 ↗ central issaquah

14:04 ↗ highlands

14:05 ↗ talus

14:06 ↗ so all of those are separate

14:08 ↗ neighborhood overlays but instead of

14:09 ↗ going to five different documents it'll

14:11 ↗ be

14:12 ↗ merged into one document they're

14:13 ↗ organized by neighborhood we've added

14:16 ↗ some text to add clarity and be be more

14:19 ↗ specific

14:20 ↗ than more broad and vague language

14:24 ↗ we've adopted the single family duplex

14:26 ↗ materials and color standards for

14:29 ↗ central business district and

14:30 ↗ multi-family so there's a little bit of

14:32 ↗ expansion but in the interest of not

14:34 ↗ having very unique things uh there's a

14:37 ↗ little bit of broadening going on with

14:39 ↗ this update

14:41 ↗ uh for central issaquah design bonus

14:44 ↗ density bonus program

14:46 ↗ you know we've called it development

14:47 ↗ bonus but it's essentially the same

14:50 ↗ standards for traditional isoqua and

14:52 ↗ urban core combined where they were

14:55 ↗ quite similar but slightly different

14:58 ↗ um can i can i ask a question on the

15:01 ↗ last slide yeah um thanks so

15:04 ↗ uh when when you say adopted the

15:07 ↗ material and color standards for cbd and

15:10 ↗ multi-family in old town

15:12 ↗ i know

15:13 ↗ i um i guess my question is

15:16 ↗ what are they replacing and would this

15:18 ↗ be more prescriptive than what it's

15:20 ↗ replacing

15:21 ↗ it is so i think that a lot of work

15:25 ↗ occurred with a single family duplex

15:27 ↗ design standards with the community

15:28 ↗ outreach and all that

15:30 ↗ there was a slight difference between

15:31 ↗ that and

15:33 ↗ the cbd and the multi-family general

15:36 ↗ multi-family standard so i think those

15:37 ↗ got carried forward

15:40 ↗ valerie are you on the call do you want

15:42 ↗ to give a specific example

15:47 ↗ yes i'm on the call can you repeat the

15:49 ↗ question please so uh for the old town

15:52 ↗ you know single-family duplex materials

15:55 ↗ and color standard

15:57 ↗ that we applied to cbd and multi-family

16:00 ↗ uh so the question is

16:02 ↗ did we make it more prescriptive

16:05 ↗ no they're essentially the same so no

16:07 ↗ they're not more prescriptive

16:13 ↗ okay thank you

16:18 ↗ so

16:19 ↗ um

16:20 ↗ so here's a little bit more detail about

16:21 ↗ them uh you know ppc had a good

16:23 ↗ discussion on multi-family

16:25 ↗ um

16:26 ↗ medium in old town um

16:31 ↗ and there's more specific things about

16:32 ↗ the windows and dormers in old town than

16:35 ↗ citywide standards the question we asked

16:37 ↗ ppc was do we want to make multi-family

16:40 ↗ medium the same throughout the city and

16:44 ↗ because of all the public outreach that

16:46 ↗ was done recently these were left

16:48 ↗ separate so multi-family medium

16:50 ↗ standards in old town are going to be

16:53 ↗ more prescriptive and unique uh because

16:56 ↗ of the most recent work that was done

16:58 ↗ um

17:00 ↗ you know gable roof form more specific

17:03 ↗ you know being more specific about

17:04 ↗ projecting windows those are some

17:06 ↗ examples

17:07 ↗ the city-wide multi-family medium

17:11 ↗ you know standards were rooftops solar

17:13 ↗ panels green roofs minimum 412 roof

17:16 ↗ pitch front yards with decks and porches

17:20 ↗ windows

17:22 ↗ you know replacement

17:24 ↗ windows being must be sensitive to the

17:26 ↗ historic style of the building

17:28 ↗ more prominent entrances

17:31 ↗ for the materials and colors i think we

17:33 ↗ asked for

17:34 ↗ have a base middle and top

17:37 ↗ those kind of things

17:38 ↗ are applied city-wide

17:41 ↗ another topic developer obligations

17:44 ↗ which is not in the draft right now this

17:47 ↗ is in the central associate plan there's

17:49 ↗ one line that got carried forward saying

17:52 ↗ you know in the regulations that

17:55 ↗ developers had to apply you know comply

17:57 ↗ with these developer obligations

17:59 ↗ we are going through these um you know

18:02 ↗ in a more regulatory detailed way to

18:04 ↗ make them actual regulations than policy

18:07 ↗ language um

18:08 ↗ for example one of the things to

18:10 ↗ preserve jobs in central issaquah

18:13 ↗ refers you to ite gen manual but it

18:16 ↗ doesn't get into the methodology to be

18:18 ↗ used or

18:20 ↗ uh how you know how which use if it's a

18:22 ↗ vacant building how do we determine the

18:24 ↗ existing use those kind of things so

18:26 ↗ we are going to add more specific

18:28 ↗ language to not have to um do code

18:31 ↗ interpretations each time we get a

18:32 ↗ project so uh that's not in the draft

18:35 ↗ but we will be included for ppc

18:38 ↗ discussion in the coming

18:40 ↗ future

18:42 ↗ i want to spend a little bit of time

18:43 ↗ kind of going through

18:45 ↗ what we heard through this public

18:47 ↗ process um

18:49 ↗ so step backs the tiered effect language

18:54 ↗ there's there's some discussion about

18:55 ↗ whether when you step it back should it

18:57 ↗ be usable open space and terrace

19:00 ↗ um i think the current language in the

19:02 ↗ draft says yes they should all be

19:04 ↗ terraces

19:11 ↗ um

19:13 ↗ so

19:14 ↗ those uh we're going to take a look at

19:17 ↗ i think we heard both sides

19:19 ↗ whether there are some challenges with

19:21 ↗ ada requirements and other things from

19:24 ↗ one developer if

19:26 ↗ we mandate that the step back should all

19:28 ↗ be usable terra space

19:30 ↗ but we're going to do further research

19:32 ↗ and understand that issue

19:33 ↗ the step back will remain but whether

19:35 ↗ that

19:36 ↗ all of it needs to be usable open space

19:38 ↗ or not

19:39 ↗ we'll look into that

19:41 ↗ we also heard screening the top of any

19:43 ↗ rooftop equipment is problematic um

19:46 ↗ especially for ventilation and other

19:48 ↗ things so

19:50 ↗ which seems

19:51 ↗ reasonable requests so we're going to

19:53 ↗ take a look at that

19:55 ↗ weather protection along alleys and

19:58 ↗ facades that don't have pedestrian

19:59 ↗ access

20:00 ↗ um you know there were comments that why

20:02 ↗ do we need weather protection when

20:03 ↗ nobody's going to walk there

20:08 ↗ so

20:09 ↗ again more research where

20:11 ↗ it can sometimes help break the facade

20:13 ↗ maybe if there is weather protection you

20:15 ↗ would get some pedestrian access however

20:17 ↗ if there's no door

20:19 ↗ it probably won't be for the building

20:20 ↗ users so

20:21 ↗ more nuances to it but we'll take a look

20:23 ↗ at it

20:25 ↗ transparency for multi-family uses along

20:28 ↗ sidewalks so if a code requires the

20:30 ↗ building to be right against the

20:32 ↗ sidewalk

20:33 ↗ um the current draft

20:36 ↗ and the existing code has a 40

20:39 ↗ transparency requirement for

20:40 ↗ multi-family above six feet from the

20:42 ↗ sidewalk um and that can be challenging

20:46 ↗ according to some so um i think the the

20:49 ↗ height the separation is meant for

20:50 ↗ privacy

20:51 ↗ needs um

20:53 ↗ so we'll take a look what's the common

20:55 ↗ you know what's the desired outcome and

20:57 ↗ how best to provide some flexibility

20:59 ↗ there if

21:00 ↗ if we can the idea is not to have blank

21:04 ↗ walls

21:06 ↗ but yet

21:07 ↗ have some privacy

21:09 ↗ addressed

21:11 ↗ pedestrian correct connections to

21:13 ↗ surrounding properties and through block

21:15 ↗ connections

21:16 ↗ these have been a little bit uh

21:18 ↗ challenging uh from what we heard from

21:21 ↗ our tours and from others that we do get

21:23 ↗ these through block connections but it's

21:25 ↗ hard for people to know whether this is

21:26 ↗ public or private and the design isn't

21:29 ↗ concerned but also what it connects to

21:31 ↗ is a concern

21:32 ↗ so we're really looking at the whole

21:34 ↗ approach to through block connection and

21:36 ↗ we'll include it for ppc discussion in

21:39 ↗ the future with the street standards

21:42 ↗ um

21:42 ↗ number six preserving views section um

21:46 ↗ we got comments that it's uh still too

21:49 ↗ you know broad and vague

21:51 ↗ uh it could be problematic who decides

21:53 ↗ whether it blocks or preserves the view

21:55 ↗ what criteria we're to use if it should

21:58 ↗ be only on the valley floor throughout

22:00 ↗ the city

22:01 ↗ the current view protection is only

22:04 ↗ applicable in the central essequa

22:08 ↗ plan however there's been community

22:10 ↗ desire in all of our comp plans and

22:12 ↗ others to make it city-wide

22:15 ↗ but again it's one of those things

22:16 ↗ that's hard to regulate

22:18 ↗ unless you have specific regulations

22:21 ↗ of what this means we have added it to

22:24 ↗ the whiteboard list to have a more

22:26 ↗ thoughtful discussion about it

22:28 ↗ but we'll we'll keep some of the

22:30 ↗ language uh for central issaquah at

22:32 ↗ least that exists but try to make it

22:34 ↗ more

22:35 ↗ regulatory language and and specific

22:38 ↗ um

22:40 ↗ the screening of roll out waste

22:42 ↗ containers um will clarify that that you

22:45 ↗ know if temporarily you're pulling it

22:47 ↗ out you have to take them back but you

22:49 ↗ don't have to screen them

22:51 ↗ food waste requirements for multifamily

22:54 ↗ was raised as an issue

22:55 ↗ our code currently requires each floor

22:58 ↗ to have a food waste requirement

23:01 ↗ and the shoots have operation and

23:03 ↗ sanitary issues we'll see if what the

23:05 ↗ best industry standard is

23:08 ↗ on how to re you know

23:10 ↗ have composting for multifamily

23:13 ↗ in a more

23:15 ↗ less

23:16 ↗ heavy on the operation side

23:18 ↗ um so we'll look at that i'm sorry

23:21 ↗ before you before you go on process

23:24 ↗ question there's a number of things on

23:26 ↗ this list that i do think have a policy

23:28 ↗ aspect to them and would probably be of

23:31 ↗ interest to counsel into this committee

23:33 ↗ and

23:34 ↗ um i'm wondering when

23:36 ↗ there and there are also a number of

23:38 ↗ like to-do items on this list um and so

23:41 ↗ i'm wondering um when

23:43 ↗ or what's the plan for bringing

23:46 ↗ that back to um

23:48 ↗ council into this body

23:51 ↗ yeah i i think we can narrow down the

23:53 ↗ the policy questions that the committee

23:55 ↗ wants to review today from this list of

23:57 ↗ 17

23:58 ↗ and then we can um figure out uh you

24:01 ↗ know if we can when we can bring it back

24:04 ↗ with the next round with some options

24:06 ↗ for the committee or if you want

24:09 ↗ planning and policy commission to weigh

24:10 ↗ in on those policy options before we

24:12 ↗ come back to the committee

24:14 ↗ okay that sounds good i think it's good

24:16 ↗ for us to know that that's in our

24:18 ↗ purview thank you

24:23 ↗ so uh number nine um we heard um

24:27 ↗ that we needed some deviations for block

24:29 ↗ circulation access to step back terraces

24:32 ↗ and view preservation so

24:35 ↗ definitely we want to have predictable

24:37 ↗ regulations but also build in some

24:39 ↗ flexibility that is based on criteria

24:42 ↗ these are the three topics that

24:45 ↗ we heard definitely should be

24:48 ↗ some flexibility built into the

24:50 ↗ regulations

24:51 ↗ um we have some language in the in the

24:54 ↗ current draft about sustainable site

24:56 ↗ design that talks about how wind and

24:58 ↗ topography should be incorporated in

25:00 ↗ site design

25:01 ↗ i agree it's pretty broad and vague i

25:03 ↗ think we need to re-look at that

25:06 ↗ and either

25:07 ↗ have more specific

25:10 ↗ guidance or

25:11 ↗ you know

25:12 ↗ take it out

25:15 ↗ there are also zoning cap tables and

25:18 ↗ neighborhood map for um essequa

25:20 ↗ highlands and talus in our current draft

25:23 ↗ in our existing regulations uh when the

25:26 ↗ replacement regulations were put in

25:27 ↗ place it was set up as um as zoning cap

25:31 ↗ tables and map

25:33 ↗ those will be included in the draft and

25:36 ↗ we're going to take that forward to

25:38 ↗ ppc

25:40 ↗ um this came as a comment from one of

25:42 ↗ the ppc uh commissioners we are trying

25:44 ↗ to

25:45 ↗ make it less you know the current tables

25:48 ↗ include everything that's already

25:49 ↗ developed and undeveloped so we're

25:52 ↗ trying to consolidate it so that we can

25:54 ↗ separate the develop versus the

25:56 ↗ undeveloped uh portions to make it more

26:00 ↗ easy to understand uh what those mean

26:04 ↗ some discretionary decisions are still

26:06 ↗ too subjective so we're going to re-look

26:09 ↗ at that

26:11 ↗ there was a concern about we've changed

26:13 ↗ the should to shell and must and

26:16 ↗ what does that mean have we made it more

26:18 ↗ prescriptive

26:20 ↗ really the intent for all of this was to

26:23 ↗ create more predictable

26:25 ↗ regulations and if where there was

26:27 ↗ should we move some of those into intent

26:30 ↗ statements and where there were broad

26:33 ↗ statements we tried to narrow it down to

26:35 ↗ make it clear what what those

26:37 ↗ regulations were but we are going to go

26:39 ↗ back and and take a look at where we

26:41 ↗ move the should and the shell and and

26:44 ↗ present it

26:45 ↗ with the next draft in an open clear

26:48 ↗ uh transparent way

26:50 ↗ and easy to understand where that was

26:52 ↗ changed um

26:54 ↗ there's also this density bonus language

26:57 ↗ that has a hardwired dollar amount

27:00 ↗ um which we're going to change to the

27:02 ↗ fluid arch formula

27:04 ↗ that is used to determine the current

27:06 ↗ market value

27:07 ↗ um we talked about the developer

27:09 ↗ obligation section so we're going to

27:11 ↗ incorporate some regulations related to

27:13 ↗ that

27:14 ↗ um then there was an ask to have to

27:16 ↗ define some of those terms used in these

27:18 ↗ chapters

27:20 ↗ such as through block connections

27:22 ↗ sustainable materials

27:24 ↗ so we will

27:26 ↗ you know definitions are a chapter on

27:28 ↗ its own so we'll make sure

27:30 ↗ some of these things are defined

27:33 ↗ and lastly

27:34 ↗ to address the climate action goals in

27:36 ↗ building design so we'll have a further

27:38 ↗ discussion on that that i mentioned

27:40 ↗ earlier so that's pretty much the

27:43 ↗ summary of the comments and how we're

27:44 ↗ going to address it

27:46 ↗ real quickly the next

27:48 ↗ steps um october consolidated draft

27:51 ↗ november december back to committee for

27:54 ↗ review

27:55 ↗ next topic that we plan on coming to you

27:57 ↗ all in august is

27:59 ↗ transfer of development rights

28:01 ↗ affordable housing landmark and

28:03 ↗ archaeological resources and parking

28:06 ↗ so i'll go back to this list to see if

28:09 ↗ we can narrow down the policy

28:12 ↗ things that we want to have a discussion

28:14 ↗ about so

28:17 ↗ and can i ask a question on one of these

28:19 ↗ um

28:20 ↗ so

28:21 ↗ on the zoning cap

28:23 ↗ i

28:24 ↗ i guess i don't understand how that

28:26 ↗ would this is in the land use code so

28:29 ↗ who and how who would use this and how

28:32 ↗ would they use that information

28:35 ↗ so

28:36 ↗ when replacement regulations were put in

28:38 ↗ place

28:39 ↗ you know each parcel was assigned

28:42 ↗ what the maximum development potential

28:44 ↗ was for that so so many square feet of

28:46 ↗ commercial so many square feet of

28:48 ↗ residential so many residential units

28:51 ↗ and it was done parcel by parcel bases

28:54 ↗ so for

28:56 ↗ parcels that were already developed or

28:58 ↗ that had attract for instance that was

29:00 ↗ common open space or

29:02 ↗ an access tract the zoning cap was

29:04 ↗ assigned zero to those

29:07 ↗ during the replacement regulations so

29:09 ↗ we're separating the ones that were zero

29:11 ↗ and fully developed kind of addressing

29:13 ↗ them in the non-conforming section

29:15 ↗ uh of

29:17 ↗ when redevelopment occurs and those

29:19 ↗ they would they would be

29:21 ↗ allowed to

29:22 ↗ do the development what was permitted

29:24 ↗ however the unbuilt

29:27 ↗ that have

29:28 ↗ specific numbers assigned to them will

29:31 ↗ were planning to carry that forward in

29:32 ↗ the draft

29:35 ↗ okay and is that typical sort of best

29:38 ↗ practice to

29:39 ↗ to have that and to you to use it in

29:41 ↗ that way

29:43 ↗ just not sure i guess i'm not sure why

29:45 ↗ that one is on this list basically so

29:48 ↗ what's the concern about it and

29:50 ↗ what's the

29:52 ↗ yeah um

29:53 ↗ so

29:54 ↗ you know that that's how replacement

29:56 ↗ regulations are currently set up

29:58 ↗ um so

30:00 ↗ we're taking them forward in that that

30:03 ↗ way

30:07 ↗ okay um

30:10 ↗ all right so i think um is are you

30:13 ↗ concluded with your presentation

30:15 ↗ okay great thank you and i think now we

30:17 ↗ can go into council questions i know i

30:19 ↗ have some i want to

30:22 ↗ open the floor to my

30:24 ↗ colleagues

30:26 ↗ go first

30:27 ↗ okay

30:30 ↗ so i have a number of questions

30:33 ↗ one is

30:35 ↗ and this is one that i had emailed but i

30:36 ↗ think it's

30:38 ↗ important to talk about because it

30:39 ↗ affects the application of the

30:41 ↗ building code um can you speak to the

30:45 ↗ plan as far as the treasures list

30:48 ↗ and how that would be handled

30:50 ↗ sure um so um in the land use element

30:54 ↗ and the comprehensive plan we have a

30:56 ↗ council adopted

30:57 ↗ issaquah treasures list

31:00 ↗ in that are included

31:02 ↗ some developments some non-development

31:04 ↗ type of things uh but for the ones that

31:06 ↗ are actual buildings uh we plan on

31:09 ↗ taking the those items from that list

31:13 ↗ and including them in the process and

31:14 ↗ procedures section

31:16 ↗ to to state that those particular

31:20 ↗ projects

31:21 ↗ aren't subject to the five architectural

31:24 ↗ styles that are in the architectural

31:26 ↗ style manual so they'll they should be

31:28 ↗ able to

31:29 ↗ do small expansions and additions

31:31 ↗ without having to show compliance with

31:33 ↗ how they meet these five um

31:35 ↗ architectural style standards so that's

31:37 ↗ a yeah at what threshold you know if

31:40 ↗ they were to completely redevelop

31:42 ↗ and and you know start over then yes but

31:45 ↗ if for additions and and if they're

31:47 ↗ keeping their property as is so those

31:50 ↗ are some of the details in the language

31:51 ↗ that we're working through but it'll be

31:53 ↗ in the process and procedures section

31:55 ↗ where we have these thresholds of what

31:57 ↗ has to comply with the architectural

31:59 ↗ style standards

32:04 ↗ okay

32:04 ↗ um thank you for that and i

32:06 ↗ i know you're working with the treasures

32:09 ↗ um the owners of the treasure property

32:12 ↗ on on what that could look like is that

32:14 ↗ right uh yes we'll we'll reach out to

32:16 ↗ them we have been working with and

32:18 ↗ that's where some of these comments have

32:20 ↗ come in

32:21 ↗ um hearing from the community members

32:23 ↗ that some of some of these standards

32:24 ↗ don't really make a whole lot of um you

32:28 ↗ know the outcome isn't any different but

32:29 ↗ it's a long lengthy process to to show

32:31 ↗ how they comply with

32:33 ↗ these standards but in the end it's sort

32:35 ↗ of the the same design

32:37 ↗ um but it's the narratives that they

32:40 ↗ have to give to the city to show

32:41 ↗ compliance and all that so yes we are

32:43 ↗ going to streamline all of that okay

32:45 ↗ right

32:46 ↗ um

32:48 ↗ that's great thank you um

32:51 ↗ and then with that streamlined

32:53 ↗ because that's part of rules and

32:55 ↗ procedure would that come back to this

32:57 ↗ yes that's bucket sex absolutely okay

33:00 ↗ um

33:04 ↗ all right um i know i did ask this when

33:06 ↗ you had the slides up about the old town

33:08 ↗ standards but i'm i'm still wondering if

33:13 ↗ what they're replacing um the single

33:16 ↗ family duplex and multi-family is it

33:19 ↗ really the same like color palette and

33:20 ↗ really the same level of prescription

33:23 ↗ just just that it was exactly the same

33:25 ↗ in two places he

33:27 ↗ was a

33:28 ↗ yeah so

33:30 ↗ old town duplex valerie

33:35 ↗ sorry um yes they're they're very

33:38 ↗ similar so both have um one kind of has

33:42 ↗ like a color wheel and the other one

33:43 ↗ kind of has um paint chips and so

33:46 ↗ basically what we're trying to do is

33:48 ↗ just consolidate the two um because

33:50 ↗ they're basically having the same thing

33:53 ↗ so we're not making anything more

33:55 ↗ prescriptive we're actually just trying

33:56 ↗ to remove redundancies

34:00 ↗ okay all right that's that's good to

34:02 ↗ know

34:03 ↗ um

34:06 ↗ okay uh last big

34:09 ↗ question

34:10 ↗ right now

34:12 ↗ um

34:13 ↗ is

34:14 ↗ it's

34:15 ↗ it seemed that

34:18 ↗ there was one of our goals in the golden

34:20 ↗ outcome chart was about um the climate

34:22 ↗ goals goal nine

34:24 ↗ and i didn't see a lot of updates in

34:27 ↗ this section that um

34:29 ↗ are on there i know there was some

34:31 ↗ mention of that in the comments list as

34:33 ↗ well

34:34 ↗ so i'm wondering if you could

34:36 ↗ talk through

34:37 ↗ uh what changes were made to address

34:39 ↗ that goal nine and um

34:42 ↗ and how you think there could be

34:44 ↗ opportunities to better address that

34:46 ↗ goal nine

34:47 ↗ yeah so um for the building design

34:51 ↗ um

34:52 ↗ you know um

34:54 ↗ we we had some discussions early on with

34:56 ↗ the planning and policy commission

34:58 ↗ during the gaps analysis phase of

35:00 ↗ uh how best to address this goal and at

35:03 ↗ the time we had presented uh perhaps you

35:07 ↗ know what we heard was we we need to

35:09 ↗ create it shouldn't be an incentive

35:11 ↗ based approach uh it isn't um because

35:14 ↗ nobody takes up uh the city on the

35:17 ↗ incentives and and it just doesn't you

35:19 ↗ know that was sort of the resonant uh

35:22 ↗ message that we heard so without the

35:24 ↗ incentive based approach if we are going

35:26 ↗ to require things so all the homes and

35:30 ↗ highlands and telus were required to

35:32 ↗ have built green certification for

35:34 ↗ instance so it was a third party

35:35 ↗ certification before we gave the

35:37 ↗ occupancy of the building uh they had to

35:40 ↗ show that they were certified as a built

35:42 ↗ green

35:43 ↗ you know certification so that was one

35:45 ↗ approach that we could just require

35:47 ↗ everyone to be certified but we also

35:49 ↗ heard was

35:50 ↗ it's expensive to get certification and

35:53 ↗ and

35:54 ↗ you know things have evolved people have

35:55 ↗ figured out how to do sustainable

35:57 ↗ buildings without actually getting leed

35:59 ↗ certified and built green certified

36:01 ↗ so

36:02 ↗ and then in the interim we have the

36:05 ↗ state law that got passed with the

36:07 ↗ energy code updates that gets into more

36:09 ↗ specifics about what point system to use

36:12 ↗ what number to use how to reduce your

36:14 ↗ energy costs how to get some electric

36:16 ↗ outlets for future retrofitting of the

36:18 ↗ you know so it gets very

36:20 ↗ ingrained kind of things in the building

36:23 ↗ code

36:24 ↗ so

36:25 ↗ it's true we haven't fully nailed the

36:28 ↗ sustainability for building design yet

36:31 ↗ um

36:33 ↗ but the options at this time that we're

36:35 ↗ exploring

36:36 ↗ are if we want to have a thoughtful

36:38 ↗ discussion on sustainable building

36:39 ↗ design that isn't everyone's certified

36:43 ↗ and gets this sort of third-party

36:45 ↗ certification

36:46 ↗ we don't think a city certification

36:48 ↗ program is the right approach to go

36:52 ↗ nobody's done it it's going to be too

36:54 ↗ labor intensive and we don't know the

36:56 ↗ outcome it's not it could be an

36:58 ↗ experiment that uh

37:00 ↗ we'll need some technical expertise if

37:02 ↗ we want to go down that approach

37:04 ↗ but our recommendation is not to have a

37:06 ↗ city certification

37:08 ↗ or we

37:10 ↗ do a stop gap measure get some of the

37:12 ↗ larger buildings to get leed

37:14 ↗ certification and build green

37:16 ↗ certification in the meantime we figure

37:18 ↗ out

37:19 ↗ this

37:20 ↗ building code

37:21 ↗ what it means so the climate action gold

37:23 ↗ we have been able to

37:25 ↗ uh you know as you see in the icap in

37:28 ↗ the the landscaping chapter in the tree

37:31 ↗ preservation in the so we've been able

37:34 ↗ to do it in those chapters but for the

37:36 ↗ building design itself

37:38 ↗ um there are some options we're going to

37:40 ↗ talk to ppc

37:42 ↗ um we are hoping we can have that

37:44 ↗ discussion with them on in july um or

37:48 ↗ you know first part of august um

37:51 ↗ and lay out some options for them to

37:52 ↗ consider

37:54 ↗ and make their recommendation to to you

37:56 ↗ all

37:59 ↗ okay

38:00 ↗ um

38:04 ↗ thank you

38:05 ↗ um i'll it does

38:07 ↗ my fellow accounts members have

38:08 ↗ questions all right councilmember ray

38:10 ↗ thanks just uh just a couple of

38:11 ↗ interesting things so i was really

38:13 ↗ intrigued with your discussion of the

38:15 ↗ step backs and

38:17 ↗ and redoing those um i was kind of

38:19 ↗ curious what the rationale for that was

38:22 ↗ and particularly if we could have

38:24 ↗ higher step backs would that create this

38:26 ↗ canyon effect if we have you know two

38:28 ↗ tall buildings across the street from

38:29 ↗ each other with very high step backs

38:32 ↗ yeah so so the current requirement is to

38:34 ↗ have a higher step back

38:37 ↗ we're just letting folks do it at a

38:40 ↗ lower level i i thought that the current

38:42 ↗ was three stories and you're now going

38:44 ↗ to allow up to six

38:47 ↗ did i miss here that i must have missed

38:48 ↗ you yeah let me pull it up real quick

38:51 ↗ okay

39:01 ↗ and we can't see we we don't see the

39:04 ↗ screen anymore okay i'll share my screen

39:21 ↗ um i could quickly jump in and just read

39:24 ↗ the requirement so in the new code it's

39:26 ↗ stating that for buildings taller than

39:28 ↗ five floors the step back shall begin at

39:30 ↗ the sixth floor but may begin as low as

39:33 ↗ the third floor so it's kind of putting

39:36 ↗ some you know um

39:37 ↗ [Music]

39:39 ↗ at this requirement you know this is

39:40 ↗ your max but you can go as low as this

39:43 ↗ so going forward we're going to try to

39:45 ↗ clear up that language because we could

39:46 ↗ tell that's a little confusing

39:48 ↗ great and so building's less than six

39:50 ↗ stories it's it's what is it the second

39:53 ↗ story second third floor

39:55 ↗ um at a minimum the first two floors

39:58 ↗ okay um but i could build a

40:01 ↗ um ten story building and i would not

40:03 ↗ have to step back until six

40:06 ↗ yes you have to step back um

40:08 ↗ be um before you're six four or at your

40:11 ↗ sixth floor okay so you can go lower

40:14 ↗ but you're right that just seems high to

40:16 ↗ me um

40:17 ↗ i mean i'm not expecting any 10-story

40:18 ↗ buildings here but um that's just a lot

40:21 ↗ of wall um and particularly if you have

40:23 ↗ like two of them across the street from

40:25 ↗ each other so some something to consider

40:28 ↗ yeah so that's existing so here's a

40:30 ↗ picture of what the current code says if

40:33 ↗ taller than five floors step back floors

40:36 ↗ above the fifth floor minimum five feet

40:39 ↗ maximum 20 feet so

40:40 ↗ i think part of it was to create it

40:43 ↗ it's hard to kind of figure out i think

40:44 ↗ the the

40:45 ↗ objective is to reduce the perceived

40:48 ↗ building size

40:49 ↗ and avoid the so instead of having the

40:52 ↗ whole thing be one floor it was a step

40:54 ↗ back at the top

40:55 ↗ um but also probably to create a top of

40:58 ↗ the building

41:00 ↗ and then it's in two different locations

41:02 ↗ that's one place and then we have this

41:05 ↗ objective along the natural context zone

41:07 ↗ so if you're fronting a

41:10 ↗ wetland or a

41:12 ↗ you know to provide visual relief

41:14 ↗ between natural and built environments

41:16 ↗ in that case we said the existing code

41:19 ↗ says

41:21 ↗ provide a minimum step back of 10 feet

41:24 ↗ and a maximum of 20 feet for all floors

41:27 ↗ above the fourth floor that face the

41:29 ↗ natural area so slightly different five

41:32 ↗ versus four um

41:34 ↗ natural versus uh breaking up the

41:38 ↗ the

41:39 ↗ you know facade yeah let me ask the

41:40 ↗ question a little differently what were

41:42 ↗ you trying to accomplish with with this

41:43 ↗ what are what are we trying to

41:44 ↗ accomplish with the step backs yeah so

41:46 ↗ what we tried to fix is what we heard

41:48 ↗ was this step back at the at the upper

41:51 ↗ floor from a building construction

41:53 ↗ standpoint is problematic

41:55 ↗ um

41:56 ↗ in most of the development that that

41:58 ↗ you're seeing around with a with two

42:00 ↗ stories of concrete and

42:03 ↗ and five stories of wood frame where the

42:05 ↗ materials change it makes more sense to

42:07 ↗ have the step back but these regulations

42:10 ↗ prevented people to have a lower step

42:12 ↗ back so we're allowing people to step it

42:15 ↗ back at a lower floor but i think what i

42:17 ↗ hear you say is that

42:19 ↗ up to sex is you know we should just

42:21 ↗ require it at a lower

42:23 ↗ you know from where where i

42:25 ↗ sit um lots of

42:27 ↗ lots of tall buildings creates a canyon

42:29 ↗ and it's not my favorite um and most

42:32 ↗ inviting effects so

42:34 ↗ you know that's one person's opinion of

42:36 ↗ of step back so for me yeah i would like

42:39 ↗ to see lower step backs

42:41 ↗ and

42:42 ↗ city deputy administrator had a comment

42:45 ↗ i think

42:47 ↗ um i i did but i think minnie has has

42:51 ↗ answered everything so um

42:53 ↗ thank you

42:55 ↗ yeah no i think this is great so um

42:57 ↗ consider that um and then the other ques

42:59 ↗ i have a couple others um one is um love

43:02 ↗ the idea of the white board

43:04 ↗ aka parking lot i assume that's where

43:06 ↗ we're parking things is there a list of

43:07 ↗ that we could see

43:09 ↗ at some point it'd be fun to see what

43:10 ↗ what we're what we're still working on

43:12 ↗ in the

43:13 ↗ in the parking lot or what's on what's

43:15 ↗ on the whiteboard oh

43:17 ↗ never mind

43:19 ↗ yeah it's a work in progress so we've

43:21 ↗ given you at this stage of

43:23 ↗ our um you know update we have uh the

43:27 ↗ items that we've shared with you it's

43:29 ↗ evolving

43:31 ↗ and we plan to have you know after

43:33 ↗ planning and policy commission finishes

43:34 ↗ their discussion with the six

43:36 ↗ larger groups we will discuss this white

43:39 ↗ list to make sure that we didn't miss

43:40 ↗ anything that ppc had in mind or if they

43:44 ↗ felt something needed to come off of the

43:46 ↗ list all right one one final question

43:48 ↗ has the state building code revisions

43:50 ↗ that you referenced have they been

43:51 ↗ finalized yet and just not implemented

43:54 ↗ uh that's my understanding so those got

43:56 ↗ adopted at the state level and the

43:58 ↗ cities have till july of 2023 to adopt

44:01 ↗ them have we looked at them and yes okay

44:04 ↗ and and do they help uh with some of the

44:06 ↗ things we've talked about with relative

44:08 ↗ to climate action goals they do um you

44:12 ↗ know the building code has become

44:15 ↗ pretty complex um

44:18 ↗ and let me kind of pull this up and

44:20 ↗ share a few snippets from it with you

44:23 ↗ all

44:24 ↗ of what we learned

44:26 ↗ with this update

44:32 ↗ i had it open here

44:44 ↗ sorry

44:46 ↗ [Music]

44:56 ↗ so things like

44:59 ↗ you know

45:01 ↗ reduces emission by requiring heat pump

45:04 ↗ water heating in lu

45:05 ↗ so that's in there

45:07 ↗ we have higher performance buildings by

45:10 ↗ increasing the number of efficiency

45:11 ↗ credits and the way these are calculated

45:14 ↗ is pretty complex and so architects are

45:16 ↗ having to do this so it used to be six

45:19 ↗ they've gone it up to seven

45:20 ↗ um solar readiness requirement for

45:23 ↗ multi-family buildings as part of this

45:25 ↗ uh update

45:27 ↗ uh on-site renewable energy generation

45:29 ↗ for commercial buildings over 10 000

45:31 ↗ square feet

45:32 ↗ at 0.5 watt per square foot so

45:36 ↗ there's that

45:39 ↗ luminaire

45:40 ↗ level lighting controls or enhanced

45:43 ↗ digital lighting control for open

45:45 ↗ offices greater than 5000 so there's a

45:47 ↗ lot in there those are just some

45:49 ↗ highlights

45:50 ↗ and then demolition waste materials you

45:52 ↗ got to reuse them so all of those are

45:54 ↗ part of this

45:56 ↗ state

45:57 ↗ update great thank you

46:02 ↗ council president walsh

46:03 ↗ thank you

46:05 ↗ okay that's fine

46:07 ↗ um okay so

46:09 ↗ i i have questions in random places so

46:13 ↗ i'll just go through some of them um how

46:17 ↗ does somebody know that they need to go

46:18 ↗ to the overlays section

46:22 ↗ um you know we'll probably have a

46:24 ↗ roadmap sort of things

46:26 ↗ and references so if you are here um you

46:30 ↗ know we were thinking of even

46:32 ↗ development

46:33 ↗ agreement areas so that'll be the

46:36 ↗ usability

46:38 ↗ portion with the whole consolidated

46:40 ↗ section of how does someone kind of know

46:43 ↗ from here to here to hear that this also

46:44 ↗ applies to them it'll be

46:46 ↗ cross-referenced in some other section

46:49 ↗ so if they're looking at their height

46:50 ↗ and

46:51 ↗ you know the form and intensity

46:53 ↗ standards we will direct them if you are

46:56 ↗ in here you also need to go here

46:58 ↗ or maybe even a design standard so we

47:00 ↗ will figure that out

47:02 ↗ okay i really like that idea of a road

47:05 ↗ map and that concept of helping someone

47:08 ↗ understand which sections they need to

47:10 ↗ go to um ultimately i think that's

47:12 ↗ better for staff because then if

47:14 ↗ somebody gets all of the things right

47:16 ↗ before they come to you you don't have

47:18 ↗ to go through multiple versions of a

47:20 ↗ permit review yeah

47:22 ↗ um

47:24 ↗ okay um are there any building

47:28 ↗ or site design requirements for

47:31 ↗ wildfire or does that go into another

47:35 ↗ area

47:36 ↗ yeah we we

47:38 ↗ haven't had anything in the site design

47:41 ↗ uh any criteria that i read through in

47:44 ↗ our draft we did talk a little bit about

47:47 ↗ in the landscaping chapter and i think

47:48 ↗ one of the comments from you all were um

47:52 ↗ why don't we make that sort of a

47:53 ↗ requirement rather than um so we we will

47:56 ↗ you know it'll probably reside in the

47:58 ↗ landscape chapter perhaps

48:00 ↗ but what about like building materials

48:03 ↗ and things like i know parts of the

48:05 ↗ highlands require

48:08 ↗ non-wood shingle roofs and things like

48:11 ↗ that is there

48:12 ↗ does that come into building code rather

48:15 ↗ than

48:16 ↗ site design yeah that is also state

48:18 ↗ adopted code and that's also in effect

48:21 ↗ um that's been adopted and and that does

48:23 ↗ talk about uh there's a map that was

48:26 ↗ released by state and that doesn't make

48:28 ↗ any sense for for our city and we're

48:30 ↗ looking at that talking to the folks

48:33 ↗ that created the map and and commenting

48:35 ↗ on it to designate the areas that are

48:37 ↗ wildfire you know it goes through the

48:39 ↗ middle of south cove and half of it is

48:42 ↗ and halfway so some of those things are

48:44 ↗ being worked out but that yes you're

48:46 ↗ absolutely right requirement for

48:48 ↗ a non-um you know the roof materials

48:52 ↗ is in there

48:54 ↗ that's part of the building code

48:56 ↗ okay

48:58 ↗ um

49:00 ↗ i'm trying to decide if these are

49:01 ↗ comments or questions um i'll go with

49:04 ↗ one more question the multifamily

49:08 ↗ food waste i thought was a really

49:10 ↗ interesting set of conversations between

49:13 ↗ what was going on

49:16 ↗ so i'm wondering

49:17 ↗ [Music]

49:18 ↗ at what

49:20 ↗ size of apartment does that apply was

49:24 ↗ that multi-family mid-rise

49:26 ↗ and then if that's the case what about

49:28 ↗ low rise apartments or

49:31 ↗ is there any requirement that a

49:34 ↗ building provide

49:37 ↗ that a building be built in a way

49:40 ↗ to house something if it's a lower rise

49:43 ↗ apartment

49:45 ↗ good question i you know i think our our

49:47 ↗ regulations don't talk about a sliding

49:50 ↗ like a smaller size is exempt

49:52 ↗ i think it just says every floor has to

49:54 ↗ have is that correct valerie i don't

49:57 ↗ remember okay because i'm thinking there

49:59 ↗ are a lot of apartments where you've

50:01 ↗ just got

50:03 ↗ two on top of each other with their own

50:05 ↗ entrances and two on top of each other

50:07 ↗ where it just

50:08 ↗ wouldn't make sense to say have to have

50:11 ↗ something on every floor but you still

50:13 ↗ want something in the

50:16 ↗ built design that accommodates for it

50:20 ↗ in the way so

50:21 ↗ yeah i i think the the waste collection

50:24 ↗ from ricology would probably distinguish

50:26 ↗ whether they get a single family rate or

50:28 ↗ a multi-family rate so a town home which

50:30 ↗ is two-story everyone probably just

50:32 ↗ brings their containers out at the

50:34 ↗ street

50:35 ↗ in a more larger complex three-story

50:37 ↗ wood frame or something you know

50:39 ↗ nobody's building those anymore but

50:41 ↗ existing apartment complexes like that

50:45 ↗ where you have a

50:46 ↗ container um whether people are coming

50:49 ↗ in and dropping it up in the container

50:52 ↗ versus throwing it down a shoot uh good

50:54 ↗ question if if um you know we'll look at

50:58 ↗ that yeah to see if there's um

51:00 ↗ uh you know distinction between when

51:02 ↗ that that comes into play yeah yeah

51:04 ↗ because i know there's just one

51:06 ↗ yeah go ahead

51:07 ↗ i just wanted to add that the shoe isn't

51:09 ↗ a requirement it just says that if you

51:11 ↗ do do it then you should do these things

51:14 ↗ so and right now it doesn't um

51:17 ↗ uh

51:18 ↗ outline the regulations by use it just

51:20 ↗ does it by indoor outdoor

51:23 ↗ okay tell them

51:25 ↗ i know i read over that section that

51:27 ↗ said you could either do a shoot or

51:31 ↗ have a location on each of the floors

51:33 ↗ that would then be serviced but either

51:35 ↗ way one of the two of those is required

51:37 ↗ right

51:38 ↗ oh yes you have to have an outdoor

51:40 ↗ location for

51:42 ↗ the waste truck to pick up the

51:44 ↗ the waste so you definitely need to have

51:46 ↗ um that but the shoot

51:48 ↗ is it's not required it's just saying if

51:51 ↗ you have the shoe then you need to

51:52 ↗ design it for the three different

51:54 ↗ streams

51:56 ↗ yeah if you have it on each floor then

51:58 ↗ either someone has to

52:00 ↗ carry that and take it down and if you

52:02 ↗ have a five-story building on a regular

52:04 ↗ basis

52:06 ↗ or

52:07 ↗ have the shoot system

52:09 ↗ so we'll look at what the best practice

52:12 ↗ is

52:13 ↗ and

52:14 ↗ tweak the the requirement

52:16 ↗ accordingly okay i know this isn't

52:18 ↗ comments time but let me just put out

52:20 ↗ there as far as

52:22 ↗ what my expectation in reading over that

52:25 ↗ and

52:27 ↗ you know if i'm interpreting it wrong

52:29 ↗ then maybe that indicates there wasn't

52:31 ↗ something there that i could understand

52:33 ↗ is

52:33 ↗ that our intention was to have

52:37 ↗ multi-family buildings have a

52:40 ↗ requirement in their built

52:43 ↗ system

52:44 ↗ for

52:45 ↗ handling food waste recycling and trash

52:49 ↗ whether that be

52:51 ↗ a chute or

52:52 ↗ a space on each floor that then the

52:55 ↗ management would have to bring down not

52:57 ↗ that individuals would have to bring

52:59 ↗ down correct is that correct okay i

53:01 ↗ think i think we just want to make

53:03 ↗ composting easy

53:05 ↗ and not someone to throw everything down

53:07 ↗ the trash so how we achieve that

53:09 ↗ objective with these regulations you

53:11 ↗ know is the conversation we'll have with

53:13 ↗ the property managers with recology and

53:17 ↗ and see what what makes more sense i

53:19 ↗ think this is a really good example of

53:21 ↗ one of those scenarios where

53:23 ↗ we're coming into it with a good intent

53:27 ↗ and we hear from building developers and

53:30 ↗ landlords and say okay this might cause

53:32 ↗ a problem

53:34 ↗ and instead of abandoning it we create

53:36 ↗ options and so i'm encouraged by those

53:40 ↗ as ideas and want to look at other ways

53:42 ↗ that we can do that in this

53:46 ↗ throughout the code so

53:48 ↗ let me see if there are any other

53:53 ↗ oh

53:54 ↗ i'm going to consider the rest of these

53:55 ↗ comments um actually

53:58 ↗ one question is how do we how are we

54:01 ↗ planning to address

54:03 ↗ kind of conversation about the

54:07 ↗ future whiteboard list and the icap

54:10 ↗ because

54:10 ↗ i'm kind of

54:12 ↗ sticking to code title 18 code and then

54:15 ↗ there's this other topic

54:18 ↗ yes um so i have a question which maybe

54:22 ↗ helps address this question

54:24 ↗ so

54:25 ↗ we have in this

54:27 ↗ id which

54:29 ↗ the title which is you know title 18

54:31 ↗ buildings

54:32 ↗ we have the whiteboard table which

54:34 ↗ covers everything and then we also have

54:36 ↗ the icap table which also covers all the

54:39 ↗ different parts of title 18.

54:41 ↗ so

54:42 ↗ one question i had is

54:45 ↗ i feel like these need to live somewhere

54:47 ↗ else for people to be able to find them

54:49 ↗ because they're not actually connected

54:52 ↗ with this id uh and so

54:55 ↗ that would be my first comment and then

54:56 ↗ this then as far as um

55:00 ↗ so does that do i guess the question is

55:02 ↗ do you have a plan for putting them

55:04 ↗ somewhere else that people can get to

55:06 ↗ them

55:07 ↗ we can put them on the website um that's

55:09 ↗ not an issue at all um we you know we'll

55:12 ↗ put it with some caveat that this is a

55:14 ↗ work in progress and it'll evolve kind

55:16 ↗ of language so we can put it on the

55:18 ↗ website so that people can easily find

55:19 ↗ it

55:20 ↗ we plan to take it with the ppc packets

55:23 ↗ and call out

55:25 ↗ these as a memo for the icap table we'll

55:27 ↗ have a memo we'll lay out some options

55:29 ↗ to do here so that'll that'll be another

55:32 ↗ easy access for folks but more thought

55:35 ↗ given into options and what to do and

55:37 ↗ same thing with the whiteboard it'll be

55:38 ↗ part of the ppc packet in the future too

55:41 ↗ so but in the interim we're happy to put

55:42 ↗ this on the website

55:44 ↗ yep

55:45 ↗ okay um yeah i think then for our

55:48 ↗ discussion to answer your question i

55:50 ↗ think um probably we can have a separate

55:52 ↗ part of our discussion to to address

55:55 ↗ those um

55:56 ↗ since now is the time when we are

55:58 ↗ presented with these materials

56:00 ↗ okay um

56:02 ↗ so do we have any uh additional

56:04 ↗ questions at this point

56:06 ↗ not seeing any so i will then move to um

56:09 ↗ public comments and i will check in with

56:12 ↗ the city clerk if there is anyone on the

56:14 ↗ line and if so if they have indicated a

56:17 ↗ desire to speak on this topic

56:22 ↗ councilmember hunt connie marsh has

56:24 ↗ indicated a desire to

56:26 ↗ speak at public comment

56:29 ↗ ms marsha making you a panelist you

56:32 ↗ should

56:33 ↗ now be able to unmute and turn on your

56:35 ↗ video

56:39 ↗ well in theory

56:42 ↗ there we go we can't hear you yes and

56:44 ↗ now we can see you yeah now you can see

56:46 ↗ me and my storage room i'm

56:49 ↗ so

56:52 ↗ ah hi i you know i'm gonna start with

56:54 ↗ the white board first

56:56 ↗ because

56:58 ↗ the whiteboard is super awkward

57:01 ↗ as

57:02 ↗ staff is pulling topics

57:05 ↗ onto the whiteboard

57:08 ↗ um

57:12 ↗ sort of without without specific council

57:14 ↗ approval

57:16 ↗ that they're getting pulled and i don't

57:18 ↗ know if that's the correct process some

57:20 ↗ of those things i think are integral

57:23 ↗ in

57:24 ↗ title 18 update and of course i'm

57:26 ↗ harping on the um

57:28 ↗ stream buffers

57:29 ↗ and

57:30 ↗ best management practices for stream

57:33 ↗ buffers which i've been asking for for

57:35 ↗ now almost a year and have not

57:37 ↗ not uh best available science i'm sorry

57:40 ↗ have not seen any best available science

57:42 ↗ on so

57:44 ↗ i don't understand how we can do a title

57:46 ↗ 18 update according to state law and not

57:50 ↗ have best available science for stream

57:53 ↗ buffers and so

57:55 ↗ that is probably not the only topic on

57:58 ↗ that white board

58:00 ↗ that

58:00 ↗ people or you all might think does not

58:05 ↗ need should not be on the whiteboard so

58:07 ↗ i would like some sort of

58:09 ↗ intentional conversation

58:12 ↗ about that and then a

58:14 ↗ vote

58:16 ↗ uh that that would

58:19 ↗ show that council has responsibility

58:22 ↗ for

58:23 ↗ that being on the whiteboard

58:26 ↗ okay moving backward in time

58:29 ↗ and ppc talked about this

58:31 ↗ several times and that is the

58:34 ↗ descriptions of the neighborhoods that

58:36 ↗ we have we have

58:38 ↗ old town that has its own sort of

58:40 ↗ regulations we have

58:42 ↗ um

58:43 ↗ isqua highlands and talus but many of

58:46 ↗ the neighborhoods within those areas

58:48 ↗ have their specific neighborhood

58:51 ↗ identity

58:53 ↗ yet i don't understand how we are used

58:56 ↗ going to be able to use this code

58:59 ↗ to maintain that neighborhood character

59:03 ↗ central issaquah plan we went to the

59:06 ↗ effort of creating these pictures of

59:09 ↗ what those neighborhoods would build out

59:11 ↗ to in the future

59:13 ↗ yet there does not seem to be a

59:16 ↗ connection with code that would make it

59:20 ↗ so

59:21 ↗ that

59:22 ↗ that

59:23 ↗ um

59:24 ↗ that that

59:26 ↗ implementing the code will get you the

59:28 ↗ character that you

59:30 ↗ are trying to create

59:32 ↗ and then there is the question of uh

59:36 ↗ different neighborhoods who have

59:38 ↗ particular characters but they have not

59:41 ↗ been

59:42 ↗ oh

59:44 ↗ uh written in stone yet what do you do

59:47 ↗ with those and how do you understand if

59:50 ↗ you're implementing your code according

59:53 ↗ to that character so we use this as the

59:56 ↗ theme but i don't see that we are

59:59 ↗ creating an implementable set of rules

1:00:02 ↗ in order to

1:00:03 ↗ to meet that

1:00:05 ↗ goal and i i i guess i i've never

1:00:08 ↗ understood how that was going to work

1:00:10 ↗ so

1:00:11 ↗ then the question of

1:00:14 ↗ leads and built green

1:00:16 ↗ over time we have used lead and we have

1:00:18 ↗ used built green and

1:00:22 ↗ they clearly became

1:00:25 ↗ not even code our codes were more strict

1:00:27 ↗ than those levels of of uh

1:00:31 ↗ of checklists that you use so unless you

1:00:33 ↗ went to leed silver or lead platinum you

1:00:36 ↗ just weren't keeping up with the

1:00:39 ↗ requirements of our environmental world

1:00:42 ↗ so i

1:00:43 ↗ um i don't understand how

1:00:46 ↗ how

1:00:47 ↗ how we're going to

1:00:49 ↗ work

1:00:51 ↗ with this

1:00:52 ↗ over

1:00:53 ↗ time and so when you're having the

1:00:55 ↗ conversation

1:00:56 ↗ about what tools to use i want to throw

1:01:00 ↗ in that

1:01:02 ↗ the tools are going to have to advance

1:01:05 ↗ continually as we

1:01:08 ↗ see more and more opportunities to do

1:01:12 ↗ things better they cannot be stagnant

1:01:15 ↗ and we have made that mistake in the

1:01:16 ↗ past and we have had stagnant tools

1:01:19 ↗ and it has not worked out well for us

1:01:22 ↗ and then we have had some brilliant

1:01:23 ↗ moments like z home

1:01:25 ↗ but then z home never turned into

1:01:27 ↗ anything and we never made it a reality

1:01:30 ↗ for more than just

1:01:31 ↗ z home and and um most of our staff that

1:01:35 ↗ actually has any history of all these

1:01:37 ↗ things in town is gone

1:01:39 ↗ so i want to try to put a post in the

1:01:42 ↗ ground

1:01:43 ↗ to

1:01:44 ↗ to

1:01:45 ↗ state this and hope that council

1:01:47 ↗ supports

1:01:48 ↗ that concept

1:01:50 ↗ and that oh wait i want to agree that i

1:01:53 ↗ actually like the st the setbacks being

1:01:56 ↗ lower than six stories when i'm in

1:01:58 ↗ bellevue

1:01:59 ↗ um the very most downtown areas have

1:02:03 ↗ that tunnel feeling and they actually

1:02:04 ↗ have wind problems every time you open a

1:02:06 ↗ door

1:02:07 ↗ so um the step back

1:02:10 ↗ does seem to help um

1:02:13 ↗ uh

1:02:14 ↗ with that channelization and

1:02:18 ↗ so i would change it yeah i'm done

1:02:20 ↗ that's my last thing right now though

1:02:23 ↗ did i was it five minutes at the

1:02:24 ↗ beginning i didn't hear that i timed you

1:02:26 ↗ that was five minutes no no i didn't

1:02:29 ↗ hear the rule five minutes

1:02:31 ↗ when you're the only one speaking that

1:02:32 ↗ seems like a horrible rule by the way

1:02:35 ↗ okay i'm done bye

1:02:37 ↗ thank you

1:02:39 ↗ um city clerk do we have anyone else on

1:02:41 ↗ the line indicating a desire to speak on

1:02:43 ↗ this topic

1:02:44 ↗ uh yes councilmember hunt

1:02:48 ↗ steve bulger would like to speak

1:02:51 ↗ great

1:02:52 ↗ steve i have made you a panelist you

1:02:54 ↗ should be able to unmute and turn on

1:02:56 ↗ your video

1:03:02 ↗ can everyone hear me and see me

1:03:05 ↗ we can hear you

1:03:06 ↗ oh great

1:03:07 ↗ well a couple comments i was intrigued

1:03:10 ↗ by uh what many had talked about in

1:03:13 ↗ terms of

1:03:14 ↗ uh the lack of sustainable incentives

1:03:18 ↗ doing anything because

1:03:20 ↗ i know other jurisdictions especially

1:03:22 ↗ seattle that i'm familiar with

1:03:24 ↗ have been very successful in using

1:03:27 ↗ incentives to encourage sustainable

1:03:30 ↗ development so

1:03:32 ↗ i'm guessing that it might be what's

1:03:34 ↗ being offered in terms of those

1:03:37 ↗ incentives that's

1:03:39 ↗ lacking

1:03:40 ↗ so i i

1:03:42 ↗ would hate to dismiss that as

1:03:45 ↗ a tool to use so

1:03:48 ↗ i would like

1:03:49 ↗ for folks to to relook at that because i

1:03:52 ↗ think we can make great progress in that

1:03:54 ↗ direction the other thing that was

1:03:56 ↗ intriguing many said there's no

1:03:58 ↗ development

1:03:59 ↗ going on in the three story and i'm

1:04:01 ↗ guessing three to four story

1:04:03 ↗ probably realm

1:04:05 ↗ and

1:04:06 ↗ why is that you know because that is a

1:04:09 ↗ lot of infill product that's on the

1:04:11 ↗ edges probably of the central

1:04:14 ↗ plan but still isn't important

1:04:16 ↗ so

1:04:17 ↗ again i'm thinking that it has to do

1:04:19 ↗ with our code

1:04:21 ↗ and i've made comments about that in the

1:04:23 ↗ past but i

1:04:25 ↗ continue especially with her reflection

1:04:28 ↗ on the fact that no development is

1:04:30 ↗ really happening in that type of

1:04:32 ↗ building

1:04:33 ↗ product so

1:04:35 ↗ those are my comments thank you

1:04:39 ↗ thank you very much

1:04:42 ↗ city clerk is there anyone else

1:04:43 ↗ indicating a desire to speak on this

1:04:45 ↗ topic

1:04:47 ↗ council member hunt i see no other

1:04:49 ↗ virtual hands raised at this time

1:04:53 ↗ okay

1:04:55 ↗ great then i will um close the public

1:04:57 ↗ comments and we will get into council

1:04:59 ↗ discussion on this topic

1:05:02 ↗ councilman ray yes

1:05:03 ↗ but before we get into liberation i so

1:05:06 ↗ rather new to um the this committee

1:05:10 ↗ but um and i know the white board has

1:05:12 ↗ been around for a while and something

1:05:13 ↗ that we have

1:05:14 ↗ seen as a whole council but what what

1:05:17 ↗ what's the purpose of the whiteboard

1:05:21 ↗ sure

1:05:22 ↗ so

1:05:23 ↗ you know the scope of title 18 um

1:05:26 ↗ was set as

1:05:27 ↗ a

1:05:28 ↗ and then as we undertook this journey of

1:05:31 ↗ getting public comments and

1:05:33 ↗ conversations going with planning and

1:05:34 ↗ policy commission sometimes the scope

1:05:36 ↗ tends to wear off and but those are good

1:05:39 ↗ conversations that are

1:05:41 ↗ occurring

1:05:42 ↗ other times the timing of some of these

1:05:44 ↗ things like the energy code updates that

1:05:47 ↗ just came through and how do they

1:05:48 ↗ interplay

1:05:50 ↗ make us kind of figure out whether

1:05:53 ↗ that these these regulations are part of

1:05:55 ↗ this we don't want to lose those

1:05:57 ↗ important ideas and conversations that

1:05:59 ↗ occur on topics so this became kind of a

1:06:02 ↗ place to put things as conversations

1:06:04 ↗ occurred or

1:06:06 ↗ important things that probably meet the

1:06:07 ↗ goals and outcomes but are maybe outside

1:06:10 ↗ the scope of the current

1:06:12 ↗ update

1:06:14 ↗ but should be considered for the future

1:06:16 ↗ update um that that was sort of the

1:06:19 ↗ purpose it became a spot um the idea was

1:06:22 ↗ once we're done with all of this that we

1:06:24 ↗ would have planning and policy

1:06:25 ↗ commission deliberate on the white board

1:06:27 ↗ we would come back to the committee in

1:06:29 ↗ council so that you all could prioritize

1:06:32 ↗ the whiteboard list item these are

1:06:34 ↗ things you want us to work on the next

1:06:36 ↗ year or two

1:06:38 ↗ these are long-term things that should

1:06:39 ↗ occur at this point and then provide

1:06:42 ↗ budget and funding to address those

1:06:45 ↗ items based on your priority

1:06:47 ↗ well that was kind of what i thought it

1:06:49 ↗ was so there's nothing that's there

1:06:51 ↗ other than their placeholders and their

1:06:53 ↗ their things to go back to and they're

1:06:55 ↗ good ideas that we didn't want to lose

1:06:56 ↗ and there's a lot of complexity here and

1:06:59 ↗ we wanted to minimize

1:07:01 ↗ uh getting

1:07:02 ↗ bogged down in little rabbit holes so we

1:07:05 ↗ we parked them and we're going to go

1:07:06 ↗ back to them and

1:07:08 ↗ but there's no decisions been made about

1:07:09 ↗ anything that's on the parking lot

1:07:12 ↗ whiteboard today correct

1:07:16 ↗ if if i may add uh something as well

1:07:19 ↗ this is andrea snyder deputy city

1:07:21 ↗ administrator

1:07:22 ↗ um

1:07:23 ↗ the the other guidance um for what goes

1:07:26 ↗ onto the whiteboard versus what

1:07:28 ↗ maintains a part of the scope was

1:07:30 ↗ something we talked about with the title

1:07:32 ↗ 18 ad hoc committee is the idea that we

1:07:34 ↗ didn't want to

1:07:36 ↗ um you know this should be more of an

1:07:38 ↗ update

1:07:40 ↗ and

1:07:41 ↗ any major policy shifts that require a

1:07:44 ↗ lot of public outreach or a lot of

1:07:46 ↗ additional study um we would put on a

1:07:48 ↗ whiteboard and go through that process

1:07:50 ↗ that many just described so um we're

1:07:52 ↗ trying to stay stay true to some of

1:07:55 ↗ the the guidance on that scope that the

1:07:58 ↗ title 18 ad hoc committee provided

1:08:01 ↗ great thank you

1:08:09 ↗ okay um so i think we have a number of

1:08:11 ↗ very uh relatively dissimilar things to

1:08:14 ↗ talk about um potentially so i'm gonna

1:08:17 ↗ suggest that we start with um any

1:08:21 ↗ comments we have

1:08:22 ↗ on the whiteboard and then on the

1:08:27 ↗ icap table both of which are not only

1:08:29 ↗ relevant to this chapter but are

1:08:30 ↗ actually just relevant to title 18 writ

1:08:33 ↗ large and then

1:08:35 ↗ and then go into deliberations on the

1:08:39 ↗ buildings and design does that sound

1:08:41 ↗ good

1:08:42 ↗ all right great um okay so

1:08:46 ↗ i will start off on the whiteboard with

1:08:49 ↗ um first of all

1:08:51 ↗ it is it is good to see it and um i just

1:08:54 ↗ would would uh very much appreciate it

1:08:56 ↗ being somewhere where people can find it

1:08:59 ↗ it's come up in community dialogue a lot

1:09:01 ↗ about the lack of visibility on this so

1:09:03 ↗ i think yes it is a work in progress but

1:09:05 ↗ having it accessible will will help with

1:09:07 ↗ those conversations people will see that

1:09:09 ↗ they're

1:09:10 ↗ um that items are

1:09:12 ↗ noted and it has been recorded and i

1:09:15 ↗ think that would would help with some of

1:09:17 ↗ some of the concerns that we've heard

1:09:18 ↗ about this um the other thing is i think

1:09:20 ↗ it would be helpful to have a preamble

1:09:23 ↗ on there to the you know something

1:09:25 ↗ similar to what you just said

1:09:27 ↗ as far as the

1:09:29 ↗ history why what this is how it's used

1:09:33 ↗ and and that it's a work in progress but

1:09:35 ↗ also just describing exactly like what

1:09:37 ↗ you said earlier that these are items

1:09:40 ↗ that are important but they um they were

1:09:42 ↗ determined over the course of this title

1:09:44 ↗ 18 update to be

1:09:46 ↗ for any number of reasons not um

1:09:49 ↗ executable within the time frame of the

1:09:52 ↗ title 18 update but will be prioritized

1:09:55 ↗ will be looked at by planning policy and

1:09:57 ↗ then prioritized and then acted upon

1:10:00 ↗ in a prioritized manner by council so um

1:10:03 ↗ i think that preamble would be helpful i

1:10:04 ↗ think this is a a list that is um

1:10:07 ↗ helpful to see like i said there are

1:10:10 ↗ some specific items on here um where i

1:10:13 ↗ also think it would be helpful to

1:10:15 ↗ give more information about what the

1:10:17 ↗ plan

1:10:18 ↗ for those items

1:10:21 ↗ is

1:10:21 ↗ or if there's more information

1:10:24 ↗ so for example the first one which is

1:10:26 ↗ stream buffers

1:10:28 ↗ i i know that uh i've had a conversa

1:10:31 ↗ number of conversations about this item

1:10:33 ↗ in particular i believe that there will

1:10:36 ↗ be um

1:10:37 ↗ more information coming up in this

1:10:39 ↗ budget season about how we would um pay

1:10:41 ↗ for this work and things like that so if

1:10:44 ↗ there is more information about the

1:10:46 ↗ options that have been considered for

1:10:49 ↗ this and more information about why it's

1:10:51 ↗ on the whiteboard i think especially for

1:10:53 ↗ those that we have had

1:10:55 ↗ engagement on and where that information

1:10:58 ↗ exists it would be great to put that

1:11:00 ↗ kind of information in the stack note

1:11:03 ↗ um and for some of them for some of them

1:11:05 ↗ i feel that that it is there it's more

1:11:07 ↗ just sort of for the ones that have more

1:11:09 ↗ information that could be

1:11:10 ↗ helpful

1:11:16 ↗ and then i think

1:11:17 ↗ other than that

1:11:19 ↗ one other item that would be helpful

1:11:21 ↗ would be

1:11:23 ↗ my feeling on how

1:11:25 ↗ my feeling on

1:11:27 ↗ council's role as far as this list is

1:11:30 ↗ that

1:11:30 ↗ if we have particular

1:11:34 ↗ items on this list that we feel

1:11:37 ↗ need to be addressed or are within the

1:11:39 ↗ scope of the title 18 then we would have

1:11:41 ↗ that discussion in this committee with

1:11:44 ↗ you

1:11:45 ↗ and then potentially you know understand

1:11:47 ↗ options for going forward in a different

1:11:49 ↗ way if those options exist

1:11:51 ↗ and then we would report back to the

1:11:52 ↗ full council and then whatever that

1:11:54 ↗ version would come back to full council

1:11:56 ↗ for a vote so that would that would be

1:11:58 ↗ my thought but also just wanted to

1:11:59 ↗ clarify that process

1:12:01 ↗ um

1:12:04 ↗ on on how things could come off the

1:12:06 ↗ whiteboard or change whiteboard status

1:12:10 ↗ so those are those are my thoughts again

1:12:12 ↗ good good to see this would like to see

1:12:14 ↗ it in a publicly accessible place and

1:12:19 ↗ and yeah then i have some specific

1:12:21 ↗ comments on some items having to do with

1:12:22 ↗ this chapter but i'll save those for the

1:12:24 ↗ chapter discussion council president

1:12:26 ↗ walsh

1:12:28 ↗ thank you thank you i will echo i would

1:12:30 ↗ love to see this added to the website

1:12:32 ↗ underneath the goals and outcomes chart

1:12:34 ↗ and have a little introduction that

1:12:36 ↗ talks about scope

1:12:38 ↗ um

1:12:39 ↗ let's see

1:12:41 ↗ on the where are my comments for this

1:12:44 ↗ um i'm not sure what it means in the

1:12:47 ↗ staff notes column when it says that an

1:12:50 ↗ item is identified

1:12:53 ↗ does that mean it's included in the

1:12:56 ↗ current drafts or does that mean

1:12:59 ↗ that so let me see if i can find an

1:13:01 ↗ example of this um

1:13:06 ↗ so under

1:13:08 ↗ i guess it's bucket three in the zone

1:13:11 ↗ section

1:13:12 ↗ number nine

1:13:14 ↗ says consider multifamily to be an

1:13:16 ↗ allowed use in the urban villages

1:13:19 ↗ commercial retail zone and the staff

1:13:21 ↗ note says identified in the zones and

1:13:23 ↗ uses feedback loop table in response to

1:13:26 ↗ commission feedback so

1:13:28 ↗ i get that it's been identified does

1:13:30 ↗ that mean that it's being addressed or

1:13:33 ↗ not or that it's in limbo what what does

1:13:36 ↗ that mean yeah i i think this um we'll

1:13:40 ↗ clean up the language here uh what this

1:13:42 ↗ particular one that you're saying is

1:13:44 ↗ it's a staff note that where this came

1:13:46 ↗ from so in the feedback loop table

1:13:49 ↗ that's where we grabbed this information

1:13:51 ↗ from and it was actually in response to

1:13:53 ↗ community comments and not commission

1:13:55 ↗ feedback so

1:13:58 ↗ we'll go through this list um but staff

1:14:01 ↗ notes are really

1:14:02 ↗ for staff purposes of you know this came

1:14:04 ↗ from this particular place and that's

1:14:06 ↗ why it's in here uh that's that's what

1:14:08 ↗ we mean by identified

1:14:11 ↗ okay yeah so i think what i would like

1:14:14 ↗ to see off of this is

1:14:17 ↗ we've done a really great job of using

1:14:19 ↗ the goals and outcomes chart as a way to

1:14:22 ↗ kind of track

1:14:24 ↗ the sense of hey this was our goal

1:14:27 ↗ here's our objective possible outcomes

1:14:30 ↗ or possible actions outcomes and whether

1:14:33 ↗ or not we've done something with it

1:14:36 ↗ and so

1:14:38 ↗ i

1:14:39 ↗ i would almost like to see

1:14:41 ↗ the whiteboard

1:14:44 ↗ rather than it just being an issue

1:14:47 ↗ to see if we can redefine it redefine it

1:14:51 ↗ as

1:14:52 ↗ a goal or an outcome and a possible

1:14:56 ↗ action

1:14:57 ↗ and with that possible action

1:15:01 ↗ it

1:15:02 ↗ would potentially be the

1:15:04 ↗ staff's recommendation of whether

1:15:07 ↗ this be something that goes to

1:15:11 ↗ you know a ppc meeting during the second

1:15:15 ↗ draft that we think we can accomplish

1:15:18 ↗ something in that

1:15:19 ↗ whether it's something that

1:15:22 ↗ you're recommending

1:15:23 ↗ really truly for post title 18.

1:15:27 ↗ um

1:15:28 ↗ and then i'd like to see our committee

1:15:31 ↗ use that and kind of get a sense of do

1:15:34 ↗ we agree with where that is going and

1:15:37 ↗ just be very specific on each of those

1:15:39 ↗ items

1:15:41 ↗ because this is great as documentation

1:15:43 ↗ but i want to make sure that it becomes

1:15:45 ↗ actionable and usable

1:15:48 ↗ so that's what i hope to see in the next

1:15:51 ↗ draft of that

1:15:53 ↗ and toward that idea

1:15:56 ↗ um i had previously mentioned in the

1:15:59 ↗ landscaping area adding a point space

1:16:02 ↗ system like redmond i don't remember

1:16:05 ↗ whether we ended up deciding that was

1:16:07 ↗ going to go into the draft code or

1:16:09 ↗ whether that would go on to the

1:16:11 ↗ whiteboard

1:16:13 ↗ yeah we you know i tracked it as the

1:16:15 ↗ potential to look at it for the second

1:16:18 ↗ draft

1:16:19 ↗ i've looked at the point-based system

1:16:21 ↗ that redmond has

1:16:22 ↗ and real quickly there are some things

1:16:24 ↗ that we're actually requiring you know

1:16:26 ↗ tree preservation is already a

1:16:28 ↗ requirement

1:16:29 ↗ landscaping we already have so so you

1:16:31 ↗ don't get credit for that

1:16:34 ↗ so we may you know we'll we're studying

1:16:36 ↗ it to see

1:16:38 ↗ what part of it makes sense uh to

1:16:40 ↗ incorporate with this current title 18

1:16:43 ↗ update we also don't want to create more

1:16:46 ↗ process with the same intended outcome

1:16:49 ↗ so i think we're studying it and we'll

1:16:51 ↗ report back with the second draft what

1:16:53 ↗ we you know we did but we also thinking

1:16:55 ↗ we will have that conversation with ppc

1:16:57 ↗ when we take the icap table with them

1:16:59 ↗ about incentives based approach that

1:17:01 ↗ shoreline has

1:17:02 ↗ an ecology score that redmond has

1:17:06 ↗ and

1:17:07 ↗ where we are and what the state energy

1:17:10 ↗ code requirements are and what some of

1:17:12 ↗ our options are to incorporate in this

1:17:15 ↗ update and which ones need to be

1:17:17 ↗ thoughtfully discussed later

1:17:20 ↗ okay i love that idea i love

1:17:22 ↗ love always love looking at other cities

1:17:25 ↗ and what they've done and using that as

1:17:28 ↗ an example that ppc can look at and say

1:17:31 ↗ do i want to go with this approach do

1:17:33 ↗ you want to go with this approach what

1:17:34 ↗ are the pros and cons so i think that's

1:17:36 ↗ fantastic but trying to step back into

1:17:40 ↗ this idea of the whiteboard

1:17:43 ↗ um future

1:17:45 ↗ actions list whatever we want to call it

1:17:48 ↗ um

1:17:51 ↗ it sounds like then there are some

1:17:52 ↗ things that have been proposed as

1:17:54 ↗ possibilities for the second draft

1:17:58 ↗ that staff might end up looking at and

1:18:00 ↗ going not sure if that's going to make

1:18:02 ↗ it in

1:18:03 ↗ so

1:18:04 ↗ how are we tracking those items

1:18:07 ↗ yeah so so things that you know we we

1:18:09 ↗ for each of the bucket that we finish

1:18:12 ↗ after the council

1:18:14 ↗ committee discussion we create a list a

1:18:16 ↗ consolidated list i think we shared one

1:18:19 ↗ with you

1:18:20 ↗ will include the rest of the

1:18:21 ↗ consolidated lists with your next packet

1:18:26 ↗ but those those are our

1:18:28 ↗ capture

1:18:29 ↗ here are things we're going to do and

1:18:31 ↗ not do

1:18:32 ↗ i think in this packet we probably

1:18:34 ↗ should have given you the consolidated

1:18:36 ↗ list for our second bucket

1:18:40 ↗ but we'll include the second and the

1:18:42 ↗ third bucket with your fourth round so

1:18:44 ↗ you can tell us if

1:18:45 ↗ if we captured everything in there or

1:18:47 ↗ not um

1:18:50 ↗ we're not making a call you know if it

1:18:52 ↗ goes on that second draft list

1:18:54 ↗ and we're going to have that discussion

1:18:57 ↗ with ppc and if it if it comes out that

1:19:00 ↗ the ecological score that redmond has or

1:19:02 ↗ this incentive based approach that this

1:19:04 ↗ has and where the energy code is that

1:19:07 ↗ this needs to go on the whiteboard then

1:19:09 ↗ we'll put it on the whiteboard and we'll

1:19:11 ↗ communicate with you all if it means we

1:19:13 ↗ can incorporate it with this code update

1:19:16 ↗ we'll obviously try and attempt to do

1:19:18 ↗ that

1:19:19 ↗ but

1:19:20 ↗ we also don't want to create a

1:19:22 ↗ half-baked

1:19:23 ↗ thing on ecological you know sustainable

1:19:25 ↗ buildings so we want to have be

1:19:26 ↗ thoughtful over some of those things so

1:19:28 ↗ there'll be some judgment call we'll

1:19:30 ↗ make those calls

1:19:31 ↗ and we'll document them and we'll bring

1:19:34 ↗ it back for the committee and for ppc in

1:19:36 ↗ an open transparent way

1:19:40 ↗ so let me continue on this

1:19:42 ↗ realm

1:19:44 ↗ there were

1:19:45 ↗ many things that came up during

1:19:49 ↗ this whole process where we said that

1:19:52 ↗ doesn't really belong in title 18

1:19:55 ↗ but it's still something that that came

1:19:58 ↗ up from this and

1:20:00 ↗ the obvious example is the building code

1:20:03 ↗ and so

1:20:04 ↗ i'm wondering

1:20:06 ↗ whether there is a way to document that

1:20:10 ↗ as an idea on the whiteboard because the

1:20:12 ↗ way that you've organized the whiteboard

1:20:14 ↗ right now is based on the buckets that

1:20:16 ↗ you've defined for title 18 sure but

1:20:19 ↗ there were some other items there that

1:20:21 ↗ we really wanted to make sure to follow

1:20:22 ↗ up yeah well we can add at the bottom

1:20:25 ↗ you know non-code related which were

1:20:28 ↗ more programmatic you know programs like

1:20:30 ↗ urban forestry program and there were

1:20:32 ↗ other things that came through this

1:20:34 ↗ conversation so

1:20:35 ↗ non-code related items can be added at

1:20:38 ↗ the end yes yeah

1:20:40 ↗ okay

1:20:41 ↗ i will stop there for now

1:20:44 ↗ or i think to capture your intent it was

1:20:45 ↗ non-title 18 code right it could be

1:20:48 ↗ building it could be a different section

1:20:49 ↗ of code yeah

1:20:52 ↗ councilmember ray

1:20:54 ↗ thanks

1:20:54 ↗ so that was fascinating i i appreciate

1:20:57 ↗ that um so i was thinking that the

1:20:59 ↗ whiteboard was kind of a classic parking

1:21:01 ↗ lot where

1:21:02 ↗ ideas that come up we park them so we

1:21:04 ↗ don't lose track of them um in listening

1:21:06 ↗ to that discussion i'm thinking it's

1:21:08 ↗ actually different than that i think

1:21:09 ↗ what the whiteboard has become is a

1:21:10 ↗ backlog of work that needs to be um

1:21:13 ↗ scheduled and so this isn't a

1:21:16 ↗ classic parking lot is what are we going

1:21:18 ↗ to do about this what are we going to do

1:21:20 ↗ about that but very real time i think

1:21:21 ↗ this is we're actually building a

1:21:23 ↗ backlog of work that we need to

1:21:26 ↗ in a very structured and programmatic

1:21:27 ↗ way say we're going to address this in

1:21:30 ↗ this thing and we're going to address

1:21:31 ↗ this in this thing and we're going to

1:21:32 ↗ push this out for four years because we

1:21:34 ↗ don't know what the heck to do with it

1:21:35 ↗ and this is addressed in building code

1:21:36 ↗ so i think it needs a little more

1:21:40 ↗ intentionality for everything that's

1:21:42 ↗ coming up here

1:21:43 ↗ on the list about what how how are we

1:21:46 ↗ going to dispose of this item and it and

1:21:49 ↗ uh it's pretty it's completely

1:21:51 ↗ legitimate to say the disposition is um

1:21:55 ↗ you know we're gonna we're gonna study

1:21:57 ↗ it or we're gonna push it out we don't

1:21:58 ↗ know what to do with it that's legit but

1:22:00 ↗ everything else i mean we should be

1:22:01 ↗ figuring out where we're where we're

1:22:02 ↗ gonna do this and and and then we can

1:22:05 ↗ come back and say okay we like that idea

1:22:07 ↗ and we can move forward with that so

1:22:09 ↗ andrea you look like you're really

1:22:10 ↗ thinking

1:22:13 ↗ i'm sorry councilmember i was listening

1:22:15 ↗ very intently

1:22:17 ↗ okay so it looked like thinking

1:22:20 ↗ um so anyway that was just you know my

1:22:22 ↗ thought in listening to the conversation

1:22:24 ↗ is maybe we've got

1:22:26 ↗ a tool that started out truly as a

1:22:28 ↗ parking lot on a whiteboard but it's

1:22:29 ↗ evolved into this is our backlog of work

1:22:32 ↗ that we can't deal with in our current

1:22:35 ↗ using the kind of technical phrase this

1:22:36 ↗ is a you know we got a release of title

1:22:38 ↗ 18 going out and we can't get these

1:22:40 ↗ features and functions into this release

1:22:42 ↗ of title 18 that doesn't mean we're not

1:22:44 ↗ going to do them we're just um we're not

1:22:46 ↗ and we're not going to lose track of

1:22:47 ↗ them

1:22:48 ↗ so

1:22:49 ↗ just a different way to think about it

1:22:50 ↗ sure

1:22:54 ↗ thank you um

1:22:55 ↗ building on that i one other

1:22:59 ↗ comment on this and on the framing is

1:23:01 ↗ there have been instances where this has

1:23:03 ↗ been referred to as a list of things

1:23:06 ↗ that have been delayed

1:23:07 ↗ and i also wanted to clarify that

1:23:10 ↗ a lot of these have come up during the

1:23:12 ↗ process of title 18 and been put here

1:23:14 ↗ but they they weren't

1:23:15 ↗ in the original scope and then have been

1:23:17 ↗ delayed past the original scope for

1:23:19 ↗ example so there's a mix of where these

1:23:21 ↗ things came from but um a number of them

1:23:23 ↗ did come up during the process and so

1:23:25 ↗ this isn't a list of things were

1:23:27 ↗ uh that were on a timeline that we're

1:23:29 ↗ now delaying um it's more nuanced than

1:23:31 ↗ that

1:23:32 ↗ um and then i have one more

1:23:34 ↗ comment question uh so

1:23:37 ↗ on the

1:23:38 ↗ um on the

1:23:40 ↗ whiteboard there's a mention under

1:23:42 ↗ affordable housing of

1:23:44 ↗ the work that's on the with the hap

1:23:48 ↗ hapi grant and i wonder if you could

1:23:51 ↗ speak to the extent of what's covered in

1:23:54 ↗ that grant because my understanding of

1:23:56 ↗ it was that that was missing middle but

1:23:57 ↗ not

1:23:59 ↗ um specifically affordable and the

1:24:02 ↗ reason for the question is we've lately

1:24:04 ↗ had a lot of conversation about

1:24:05 ↗ differentiating those and making sure

1:24:07 ↗ that we address both but that may not be

1:24:09 ↗ like all the same tools to address both

1:24:12 ↗ and we may need to have conversations

1:24:14 ↗ about both um so that was that was part

1:24:16 ↗ of my question

1:24:17 ↗ yeah um so the the part about

1:24:20 ↗ inclusionary zoning uh whether that

1:24:22 ↗ should be um expanding to

1:24:26 ↗ three or four other zones than where it

1:24:27 ↗ currently applies is part of the

1:24:30 ↗ um

1:24:31 ↗ part of the the grant

1:24:33 ↗ um let me find the scope here real quick

1:24:36 ↗ um

1:24:38 ↗ so

1:24:39 ↗ the strategy number six seven and eight

1:24:42 ↗ of our uh adopted

1:24:45 ↗ housing action plan or housing whatever

1:24:48 ↗ we call it um

1:24:50 ↗ the housing strategies uh six seven and

1:24:53 ↗ eight

1:24:54 ↗ number six is increase the developer

1:24:56 ↗ provided affordable housing in central

1:24:58 ↗ isoqua so

1:24:59 ↗ part of that we're going to look at

1:25:01 ↗ increasing the inclusionary zoning in

1:25:03 ↗ central issaquah to three or four other

1:25:05 ↗ zones and it currently is applicable to

1:25:08 ↗ evaluate how many units this could

1:25:10 ↗ create and would there be an unintended

1:25:12 ↗ consequences so we're looking at

1:25:15 ↗ really from an economic standpoint that

1:25:17 ↗ issue

1:25:18 ↗ that's what i think this whiteboard

1:25:20 ↗ thing is referring to

1:25:21 ↗ um

1:25:22 ↗ and then also potentially looking at

1:25:24 ↗ inclusionary zoning outside of central

1:25:26 ↗ isoqua

1:25:27 ↗ so that's that strategy six saying

1:25:30 ↗ increased developer provided affordable

1:25:32 ↗ housing in central asia i think that's

1:25:35 ↗ that's this topic

1:25:37 ↗ okay that's interesting so i had thought

1:25:39 ↗ that we also do is it a separate grant

1:25:41 ↗ then that

1:25:42 ↗ is covering the missing middle housing

1:25:45 ↗ no so the three strategies in there uh

1:25:48 ↗ so the second

1:25:50 ↗ uh one

1:25:52 ↗ was the

1:25:54 ↗ mitigate offset deterrence to

1:25:55 ↗ condominium construction so really

1:25:57 ↗ understanding

1:25:59 ↗ uh and researching

1:26:01 ↗ how the state and other states colorado

1:26:03 ↗ for example has local provisions of

1:26:06 ↗ impacting condominium development so

1:26:07 ↗ we're getting mostly apartments so

1:26:09 ↗ that's

1:26:10 ↗ you know goes with the

1:26:12 ↗ uh housing diversity issue and strategy

1:26:14 ↗ eight which is talking about

1:26:16 ↗ uh increasing potential diversity of

1:26:18 ↗ housing types built in the city

1:26:20 ↗ um

1:26:21 ↗ is looking at

1:26:24 ↗ uh housing diversity aspects of it

1:26:27 ↗ so that's strategy eight

1:26:31 ↗ okay great thank you for that context so

1:26:33 ↗ one one more comment i have on this is

1:26:36 ↗ that

1:26:36 ↗ um

1:26:38 ↗ in the in the white board it has this

1:26:40 ↗ item with affordability and then it has

1:26:42 ↗ that um h api grant addressing that in

1:26:45 ↗ the notes and uh i do recall that

1:26:48 ↗ council at the beginning of this process

1:26:51 ↗ had on

1:26:53 ↗ early in the process decided that

1:26:54 ↗ affordable housing

1:26:56 ↗ [Music]

1:26:57 ↗ would be something that needed the

1:26:58 ↗ bigger policy discussion and that we

1:27:00 ↗ would that that would not be completely

1:27:02 ↗ contained within title 18. so i do

1:27:04 ↗ remember deliberately that council i

1:27:06 ↗ believe was the one who

1:27:07 ↗ at least initially set that on a

1:27:09 ↗ separate path because it needed more of

1:27:11 ↗ that conversation and research

1:27:14 ↗ however we also do have a goal in the

1:27:17 ↗ goals

1:27:18 ↗ that was included

1:27:20 ↗ uh which and and still is there about

1:27:22 ↗ the diversity of housing so um what

1:27:25 ↗ leads me to my comment is that in the

1:27:29 ↗ um it's

1:27:30 ↗ there's affordable housing with

1:27:31 ↗ diversity mentioned in the whiteboard

1:27:33 ↗ and then in the icap

1:27:36 ↗ there's adopt codes it's prioritizing

1:27:38 ↗ missing middle in the icap table and

1:27:39 ↗ then it says

1:27:41 ↗ changes to housing diversity are not

1:27:42 ↗ part of this phase of the title 18

1:27:44 ↗ update but it is part of the housing

1:27:46 ↗ action plan implementation with the hapi

1:27:48 ↗ grant so

1:27:50 ↗ i did want to flag this because that's

1:27:52 ↗ not

1:27:53 ↗ my understanding my understanding is we

1:27:55 ↗ are still attempting to look at this

1:27:57 ↗ through the goals list which includes

1:27:59 ↗ that goal and diversity of housing so

1:28:01 ↗ that it's not completely

1:28:03 ↗ addressed it's okay because we will have

1:28:05 ↗ this grant and i understand wanting to

1:28:07 ↗ maximize the use of this grant and and

1:28:09 ↗ that that's part of this work but i i

1:28:11 ↗ still

1:28:12 ↗ think that

1:28:13 ↗ it's incorrect to say

1:28:15 ↗ and i disagree i guess i'll say i

1:28:17 ↗ disagree that changes to housing

1:28:18 ↗ diversity are not part of this phase of

1:28:20 ↗ the title 18 update because we

1:28:22 ↗ specifically do have that goal still in

1:28:24 ↗ our goals and outcomes table so um

1:28:26 ↗ i guess i wanted to

1:28:28 ↗ confirm with my fellow council members

1:28:30 ↗ if you think that's

1:28:31 ↗ the case seeing some head nods and then

1:28:34 ↗ to if there's a reaction so that um that

1:28:36 ↗ would also be great

1:28:38 ↗ no i think um but the subdivision design

1:28:41 ↗ section um the committee asked us to go

1:28:44 ↗ back and and put that lens in for

1:28:46 ↗ subdivision design so we are working on

1:28:48 ↗ that um with the ppc um

1:28:52 ↗ of uh you know primarily

1:28:55 ↗ uh the the grid uh the street

1:28:58 ↗ connectivity issue and and uh the zero

1:29:01 ↗ lot line were the two topics identified

1:29:03 ↗ in the in the subdivision design so we

1:29:05 ↗ we do have that filter in there uh

1:29:08 ↗ this housing you know the housing

1:29:10 ↗ strategies that the city has adopted the

1:29:13 ↗ nine strategies

1:29:14 ↗ kind of gives a good foundation for for

1:29:17 ↗ some of that

1:29:18 ↗ and and i think this grant is going to

1:29:20 ↗ give us some good information to make

1:29:22 ↗ meaningful con you know changes that

1:29:25 ↗ need to occur to create those um

1:29:28 ↗ you know whether it's cottage housing or

1:29:30 ↗ you know single room occupancy or other

1:29:33 ↗ things or condominiums so the whole

1:29:35 ↗ gamut of

1:29:37 ↗ housing diversity conversations

1:29:40 ↗ primarily will will

1:29:42 ↗ this this work that will occur under the

1:29:44 ↗ grant will provide a foundation to have

1:29:46 ↗ those meaningful thoughtful

1:29:47 ↗ conversations now

1:29:49 ↗ title 18 includes a lot of stuff a lot

1:29:51 ↗ of other chapters so uh it'll be helpful

1:29:54 ↗ to

1:29:55 ↗ to us if you can help us understand you

1:29:58 ↗ know building

1:30:00 ↗ which which of the buckets you feel like

1:30:02 ↗ we need to provide more attention to the

1:30:04 ↗ housing diversity with this current

1:30:06 ↗ title 18 update

1:30:08 ↗ um

1:30:10 ↗ uh well

1:30:12 ↗ on that question we i was trying to pull

1:30:14 ↗ it up but i don't have it in front of me

1:30:16 ↗ in the in the goals and outcomes chart

1:30:18 ↗ it does identify the parts of the

1:30:19 ↗ chapters in the earlier one and so i

1:30:22 ↗ wouldn't i'm not asking for scope creep

1:30:24 ↗ but i am asking that it not be um as it

1:30:28 ↗ said

1:30:28 ↗ in the in the icap table changes to

1:30:31 ↗ housing diversity are not part of this

1:30:32 ↗ phase of title 18 update because that is

1:30:35 ↗ one of our goals is to increase housing

1:30:37 ↗ diversity and that's still one of our

1:30:38 ↗ goals and i still want this evaluated

1:30:40 ↗ through that lens especially in those

1:30:42 ↗ chapters that are singled out so sounds

1:30:44 ↗ good yep we'll make that change

1:30:48 ↗ uh council president walsh

1:30:51 ↗ thank you

1:30:52 ↗ um

1:30:53 ↗ to build upon that idea um

1:30:57 ↗ goal number two is provide adequate

1:31:00 ↗ parking while utilizing land efficiently

1:31:02 ↗ and i understand the parking is coming

1:31:03 ↗ up as our next section

1:31:06 ↗ but looking at the whiteboard backlog

1:31:10 ↗ you've already added things onto the

1:31:13 ↗ parking section

1:31:16 ↗ that are considered backlog and number

1:31:18 ↗ 28 says update off street parking

1:31:20 ↗ requirements table and review minimums

1:31:22 ↗ versus maximums saying that it needs

1:31:26 ↗ study and facilitate community

1:31:28 ↗ discussion determined best approach

1:31:30 ↗ draft changes are temporary until final

1:31:32 ↗ approach is finalized

1:31:34 ↗ and i get that and i get that it's big

1:31:37 ↗ but this was one of the goals that we

1:31:40 ↗ adopted

1:31:41 ↗ was to use land efficiently

1:31:45 ↗ it says provide adequate parking while

1:31:47 ↗ utilizing land efficiently and so i'm

1:31:50 ↗ wondering how

1:31:52 ↗ the administration can justify

1:31:56 ↗ putting that on the whiteboard

1:31:58 ↗ considering this is

1:32:01 ↗ one of the major goals that

1:32:03 ↗ we thought needed to come out of a title

1:32:05 ↗ 18 process

1:32:07 ↗ yeah you know i don't know if steven's

1:32:09 ↗ on the line i'm not seeing him here

1:32:12 ↗ he's been working on the parking chapter

1:32:15 ↗ and has had multiple affinity group

1:32:18 ↗ meetings with vision partners with

1:32:21 ↗ others

1:32:22 ↗ and some of this feedback of what can be

1:32:26 ↗ done now or not has evolved through

1:32:28 ↗ those conversations but like you said

1:32:30 ↗ this is something we're going to discuss

1:32:32 ↗ with planning and policy commission

1:32:33 ↗ coming up so again this whiteboard list

1:32:36 ↗ is going to evolve based on what ppc

1:32:39 ↗ says

1:32:40 ↗ we need to do or not do with this

1:32:42 ↗ current update

1:32:44 ↗ so toward that idea i would really

1:32:46 ↗ appreciate it in that conversation with

1:32:48 ↗ ppc to

1:32:49 ↗ give them

1:32:50 ↗ some options

1:32:52 ↗ that allow them to indicate at a better

1:32:56 ↗ rate of

1:32:57 ↗ no this is really important that we take

1:33:00 ↗ this on or

1:33:02 ↗ we're

1:33:04 ↗ we feel like we can really accomplish it

1:33:05 ↗ for areas a b or c or

1:33:08 ↗ no it needs a really robust community

1:33:11 ↗ conversation and we should leave it out

1:33:14 ↗ and stick with our current

1:33:16 ↗ parking

1:33:17 ↗ requirements because

1:33:20 ↗ and asking them how

1:33:22 ↗ how that satisfies

1:33:25 ↗ the goal and outcome that we had adopted

1:33:28 ↗ um

1:33:29 ↗ because i think this is this is one

1:33:30 ↗ we've been hearing from the community

1:33:32 ↗ about it's one that has a major impact

1:33:35 ↗ on climate action and our ability to get

1:33:38 ↗ things done and our ability to make sure

1:33:40 ↗ that

1:33:41 ↗ 50 to 75 percent of our land use isn't

1:33:44 ↗ parking lots

1:33:45 ↗ um

1:33:46 ↗ and so

1:33:48 ↗ yeah sure yeah i i think you'll see in

1:33:50 ↗ the parking chapter there's a map that

1:33:52 ↗ talks about tier one and tier two so if

1:33:55 ↗ you have transit and you're close to

1:33:56 ↗ that you have a different standard so

1:33:58 ↗ we'll walk through all of that with you

1:34:00 ↗ all and with ppc

1:34:04 ↗ um

1:34:05 ↗ are you

1:34:06 ↗ okay well i was just gonna say i think

1:34:08 ↗ uh

1:34:09 ↗ i think from from this committee also

1:34:12 ↗ hearing that there's a higher bar for

1:34:14 ↗ putting

1:34:15 ↗ goals onto the white board so it's one

1:34:17 ↗ thing like goals that are in the goals

1:34:18 ↗ and outcome chart onto the whiteboard

1:34:21 ↗ because

1:34:22 ↗ uh

1:34:23 ↗ you know there are things that will come

1:34:25 ↗ up during conversations and issues to

1:34:27 ↗ address and and that's all understood

1:34:29 ↗ but the whiteboard or the the goals and

1:34:32 ↗ outcomes is one of the guiding documents

1:34:33 ↗ that's that is defining the scope so so

1:34:36 ↗ in that case

1:34:37 ↗ you know i earlier said this isn't a

1:34:39 ↗ delay list but in that case

1:34:41 ↗ it it was planned to be as part of the

1:34:43 ↗ subject and so um in that case i think

1:34:46 ↗ it has a higher bar and and you know

1:34:48 ↗ will come to council's attention i think

1:34:51 ↗ probably does requ

1:34:53 ↗ should be um weighted on by

1:34:56 ↗ uh council in this committee

1:34:58 ↗ yeah no definitely i think your idea

1:34:59 ↗ about taking the whiteboard and linking

1:35:01 ↗ it to the goals outcomes you will will

1:35:03 ↗ provide that prioritization anyways for

1:35:06 ↗ us too but also when we come back so

1:35:09 ↗ we'll do that exercise

1:35:13 ↗ okay great um

1:35:16 ↗ council president walsh

1:35:18 ↗ um i think the other one that just

1:35:21 ↗ needs to be said and put out there on

1:35:24 ↗ the

1:35:25 ↗ uh

1:35:28 ↗ sheet is single-family zoning

1:35:31 ↗ single-family housing and whether we're

1:35:33 ↗ going to have a conversation about

1:35:36 ↗ whether that is the most appropriate for

1:35:38 ↗ all of our areas or not

1:35:42 ↗ i will note that redmond i believe has

1:35:45 ↗ recently eliminated single family zoning

1:35:50 ↗ and so we're seeing a lot more of the

1:35:52 ↗ this conversation happening regionally

1:35:55 ↗ and so i think we at least need to have

1:35:57 ↗ the conversation

1:36:00 ↗ but it is not one that i would say is on

1:36:03 ↗ the goals and outcomes chart that it

1:36:06 ↗ probably squarely

1:36:08 ↗ lands in the um

1:36:12 ↗ i keep wanting to call it the delay

1:36:14 ↗ sheet now that you've mentioned that

1:36:16 ↗ word the whiteboard backlog there we go

1:36:19 ↗ yeah we need to come up with a better

1:36:20 ↗ name

1:36:22 ↗ we uh can i ask a clarifying question do

1:36:26 ↗ you see that as different than the

1:36:29 ↗ missing middle conversation which is on

1:36:31 ↗ the whiteboard on their their uh

1:36:33 ↗ diversity housing conversation because

1:36:36 ↗ to me i would think of that as a

1:36:38 ↗ noteworthy element of that conversation

1:36:41 ↗ but part of that

1:36:46 ↗ no i i do think that is a good point and

1:36:49 ↗ perhaps what i would say is if the

1:36:52 ↗ administration can come back with

1:36:55 ↗ a plan for addressing missing middle

1:36:59 ↗ that

1:37:00 ↗ has elements without looking at the

1:37:03 ↗ single family zoning then i'm open to

1:37:06 ↗ that as a concept but i would agree that

1:37:10 ↗ it's hard to get missing middle if

1:37:11 ↗ everything is zoned as either single

1:37:13 ↗ family or multi-family high

1:37:16 ↗ and so

1:37:19 ↗ yeah no i i think that is a good

1:37:22 ↗ point of the conversation that needs to

1:37:24 ↗ be had

1:37:29 ↗ all right great discussion

1:37:31 ↗ are we are we done with the whiteboard

1:37:33 ↗ part of this discussion

1:37:35 ↗ okay so we will now move on to our other

1:37:38 ↗ informational

1:37:39 ↗ um

1:37:41 ↗ not completely related to this part of

1:37:43 ↗ title 18 uh information that was

1:37:45 ↗ provided with the packet which is the

1:37:47 ↗ issaquah climate action plan actions

1:37:51 ↗ and

1:37:54 ↗ i will start off with saying this is

1:37:56 ↗ something that

1:37:57 ↗ community members have been asking for

1:37:59 ↗ and so i appreciate seeing it and i will

1:38:02 ↗ appreciate um having it be accessible

1:38:04 ↗ for people on the

1:38:06 ↗ website i think that would be great and

1:38:07 ↗ provides more transparency into the

1:38:10 ↗ process

1:38:12 ↗ and i think it also hopefully helps um

1:38:17 ↗ those who are interested in following

1:38:19 ↗ this process really see where we are

1:38:21 ↗ doing things and and

1:38:23 ↗ if we aren't doing things in this update

1:38:25 ↗ there are places as well where it says

1:38:27 ↗ for example like in the um incentivize

1:38:29 ↗ low impact development projects and it

1:38:31 ↗ says that it's being addressed in a

1:38:33 ↗ different chapter so i think that uh

1:38:36 ↗ these are this is a hopefully very

1:38:38 ↗ helpful document especially for those

1:38:40 ↗ who are following along this process and

1:38:41 ↗ for those community members who are

1:38:43 ↗ specifically

1:38:45 ↗ concerned um

1:38:48 ↗ about climate and climate action and um

1:38:50 ↗ hopefully this provides more information

1:38:53 ↗ for um for them

1:38:56 ↗ so and i found it very helpful as well

1:38:58 ↗ if you have any other comments on on

1:39:00 ↗ this informational item

1:39:02 ↗ council member right um i agree with

1:39:04 ↗ what you just said but um and i don't

1:39:06 ↗ know if this is even relevant or

1:39:08 ↗ possible but i would love to see the new

1:39:10 ↗ state building codes um kind of layered

1:39:13 ↗ in here too because we're going to be

1:39:15 ↗ bound by them and so they're not title

1:39:16 ↗ 18 per se but i think there's a lot of

1:39:19 ↗ good coming out of those building code

1:39:21 ↗ changes that will address some of the

1:39:23 ↗ climate action plan and i think

1:39:26 ↗ highlighting them to give people

1:39:27 ↗ visibility to

1:39:29 ↗ other things that we're going to be

1:39:30 ↗ doing because of state law would be very

1:39:32 ↗ helpful also

1:39:40 ↗ i got some overwatch

1:39:45 ↗ i should actually turn that on

1:39:47 ↗ um

1:39:49 ↗ yeah i guess

1:39:51 ↗ my comments regarding the icap was

1:39:55 ↗ first of all appreciating seeing it

1:39:57 ↗ i know this was extra work that we asked

1:40:00 ↗ you to do

1:40:01 ↗ that wasn't necessarily in the schedule

1:40:03 ↗ but

1:40:04 ↗ was necessary to be responsive to the

1:40:06 ↗ community

1:40:07 ↗ but i to

1:40:10 ↗ want to better understand the concepts

1:40:13 ↗ of

1:40:15 ↗ building performance and energy

1:40:16 ↗ efficiency versus building design

1:40:20 ↗ um

1:40:22 ↗ because while we're saying hey here are

1:40:25 ↗ the icap things that are addressed in

1:40:27 ↗ title 18 there's just this

1:40:30 ↗ huge underlying area of stuff that is

1:40:33 ↗ title 16

1:40:34 ↗ related and the state building code and

1:40:37 ↗ so being able to at the very least

1:40:40 ↗ just

1:40:42 ↗ address that in a small paragraph and

1:40:44 ↗ say here's what's coming

1:40:46 ↗ i think would be very useful

1:40:50 ↗ and

1:40:52 ↗ i think that was everything i had i was

1:40:54 ↗ trying to go through the implementation

1:40:58 ↗ matrix um for the climate action plan

1:41:01 ↗ not just the

1:41:03 ↗ um

1:41:07 ↗ yeah not just the

1:41:09 ↗ objectives and actions that you had

1:41:11 ↗ pulled out there because there was the

1:41:13 ↗ transportation and land use area and so

1:41:16 ↗ i just wanted to make sure that all of

1:41:18 ↗ those really

1:41:21 ↗ came out because

1:41:23 ↗ some of those were things like

1:41:25 ↗ tl 1.1 was incentivized dense mixed use

1:41:28 ↗ and transit-oriented developments

1:41:31 ↗ and so it says implement through title

1:41:33 ↗ 18 update action requires the city to

1:41:35 ↗ develop more elaborate parking policy

1:41:37 ↗ including differentiating three areas so

1:41:40 ↗ i feel like the

1:41:42 ↗ transportation and land use area at

1:41:44 ↗ least the ones that are

1:41:47 ↗ related

1:41:49 ↗ from the implementation matrix probably

1:41:51 ↗ need to come out onto that

1:41:54 ↗ yeah so i i think um so on this

1:41:58 ↗ this table that we created tl 1.1 is on

1:42:01 ↗ there and then we we instead of having

1:42:04 ↗ the 65 oh however many there were we

1:42:07 ↗ took the ones that had title 18

1:42:08 ↗ associated with it so it's your table

1:42:11 ↗ where the intention was that this would

1:42:14 ↗ be implemented this strategy would be

1:42:16 ↗ implemented by title 18. so those so

1:42:18 ↗ this is what this is referring to so it

1:42:20 ↗ doesn't include all of them but it's a

1:42:23 ↗ synthesis of which ones had an

1:42:25 ↗ associated title 18 action

1:42:27 ↗ okay got it i i had seen the blue

1:42:30 ↗ portion being the focus area and the

1:42:31 ↗ strategies and hadn't really connected

1:42:34 ↗ that you were combining the two so thank

1:42:36 ↗ you

1:42:45 ↗ here comments okay i'll just i've

1:42:47 ↗ mentioned it already but i think that

1:42:49 ↗ sentence about the housing diversity

1:42:51 ↗ needs to be revised um

1:42:54 ↗ i already mentioned my rationale for

1:42:56 ↗ that

1:42:56 ↗ so

1:42:57 ↗ i think then we can move on to

1:43:00 ↗ um

1:43:02 ↗ our

1:43:02 ↗ uh

1:43:04 ↗ house housing uh not housing

1:43:07 ↗ building design part um the main topic

1:43:10 ↗ and uh

1:43:12 ↗ we also within this part of the

1:43:14 ↗ discussion have i think at least two

1:43:16 ↗ sections one is that list of the 17

1:43:20 ↗ comment areas some of which i think

1:43:23 ↗ are probably policy related and so

1:43:25 ↗ um

1:43:26 ↗ should be

1:43:28 ↗ brought back to this committee and then

1:43:30 ↗ we have the the things that were

1:43:32 ↗ presented in this version that we have

1:43:35 ↗ that we should discuss so i my thought

1:43:38 ↗ is to go

1:43:39 ↗ 17 lists first and then go to the

1:43:42 ↗ general comments okay so if we could

1:43:44 ↗ pull up that list i think that'd be

1:43:45 ↗ helpful

1:44:05 ↗ so uh the first one was the step back

1:44:09 ↗ um

1:44:11 ↗ and

1:44:11 ↗ i think the ppc was unanimous in

1:44:14 ↗ making their recommendation to council

1:44:16 ↗ to to allow that flexibility to have it

1:44:18 ↗ lower but no more no more than six feet

1:44:22 ↗ this topic was talking about what

1:44:24 ↗ happens with the step back area whether

1:44:26 ↗ it's all terrace usable open space or is

1:44:29 ↗ it just from the outside you see the

1:44:30 ↗ building so

1:44:32 ↗ the unit facing it can open into and

1:44:34 ↗ this becomes a

1:44:36 ↗ terrace space that's usable or not i

1:44:38 ↗ think that's uh were some of these

1:44:41 ↗ comments related to it

1:44:42 ↗ um

1:44:45 ↗ so

1:44:46 ↗ i'm going to take a step back

1:44:50 ↗ this list these are all things that are

1:44:52 ↗ going to be worked on by staff right for

1:44:54 ↗ the next version correct okay

1:44:58 ↗ i guess my question is

1:45:01 ↗ based on that and based on i do think

1:45:02 ↗ some of these are

1:45:04 ↗ topics for discussion or at least should

1:45:07 ↗ be i think reviewed by this committee

1:45:09 ↗ within our purview um

1:45:12 ↗ i guess i'm wondering can

1:45:16 ↗ can all of these items come back in in a

1:45:18 ↗ second draft and and um not to get too

1:45:21 ↗ much into my general comments on this

1:45:22 ↗ but i i felt while reading this like

1:45:25 ↗ there was a lot of stuff that wasn't

1:45:27 ↗ um fully

1:45:29 ↗ in this version that is still in the

1:45:32 ↗ works

1:45:32 ↗ um so that

1:45:34 ↗ maybe would streamline things if if you

1:45:36 ↗ could um if that's an option and then if

1:45:39 ↗ not then we can go through all of these

1:45:40 ↗ and do we think that sounds reasonable

1:45:43 ↗ to to have all of these come back in the

1:45:46 ↗ next okay

1:45:47 ↗ would that be possible um sure the

1:45:49 ↗ timing of uh you know we'll be working

1:45:51 ↗ on this along with the other six buckets

1:45:54 ↗ um our plan was to

1:45:57 ↗ when we release the the second draft

1:45:59 ↗ when we fix all of these we will lay out

1:46:01 ↗ what we did with it and if there were

1:46:03 ↗ different options that we evaluated and

1:46:04 ↗ which one we incorporated in the draft

1:46:07 ↗ so there'll be a memo

1:46:08 ↗ with this um all the building design um

1:46:12 ↗ bucket to say how we addressed it and

1:46:14 ↗ what options we considered um for the

1:46:17 ↗ planning and policy commission to

1:46:19 ↗ to know what what happened with that we

1:46:21 ↗ can bring that to committee after

1:46:24 ↗ planning policy commission um

1:46:27 ↗ or would you would you

1:46:29 ↗ want to see with with their final

1:46:31 ↗ recommendations so it'll get folded in

1:46:32 ↗ or do you want a mid-step

1:46:34 ↗ of checking

1:46:36 ↗ what we're doing with this

1:46:42 ↗ how's my ray i i would actually like to

1:46:44 ↗ have a midpoint checkpoint on this okay

1:46:48 ↗ um just to see where you're going what

1:46:50 ↗ the options look like before before we

1:46:52 ↗ take it forward and and quite honestly i

1:46:54 ↗ wouldn't mind um if we were to do that

1:46:57 ↗ also i mean not to rewind a whiteboard

1:46:59 ↗ but i i think that we need to have a

1:47:01 ↗ richer

1:47:02 ↗ whiteboard discussion too so i mean not

1:47:05 ↗ that i

1:47:06 ↗ want to want us to have another special

1:47:08 ↗ meeting but there's there may be

1:47:10 ↗ we're maybe at a point where we want to

1:47:11 ↗ do this uh

1:47:13 ↗ more often than once a month

1:47:15 ↗ so just my thoughts

1:47:18 ↗ you

1:47:19 ↗ uh you have a preference for before or

1:47:22 ↗ after ppc that this would come back

1:47:25 ↗ i don't have a strong preference either

1:47:27 ↗ way um

1:47:28 ↗ i think

1:47:29 ↗ just the point is

1:47:32 ↗ it maybe if there are a few items that

1:47:33 ↗ need to be

1:47:35 ↗ called out

1:47:36 ↗ i think

1:47:38 ↗ otherwise

1:47:39 ↗ a fair number of these from my

1:47:42 ↗ perspective seem like

1:47:44 ↗ things that have been mentioned in other

1:47:45 ↗ things as far as

1:47:47 ↗ second draft

1:47:49 ↗ and so i'm not sure whether i would

1:47:51 ↗ necessarily treat this differently

1:48:00 ↗ um okay does it

1:48:02 ↗ as far as timing um any considerations

1:48:05 ↗ as far as this

1:48:06 ↗ uh

1:48:08 ↗ um impacting overall timeline if we were

1:48:10 ↗ to have this come back for a second

1:48:13 ↗ touch before planning policy uh not not

1:48:16 ↗ necessarily i mean if if we need to come

1:48:18 ↗ and check in with you with this list and

1:48:21 ↗ say what we did with the list instead of

1:48:22 ↗ giving you the whole draft again to get

1:48:24 ↗ your feedback on it before we make the

1:48:26 ↗ edits to the draft

1:48:28 ↗ that's fine if we bring if we make the

1:48:30 ↗ changes to the draft bring it back and

1:48:32 ↗ then we have to go back and change it

1:48:34 ↗ that that will add more more time

1:48:37 ↗ okay well given that let's go with the

1:48:39 ↗ more efficient option

1:48:41 ↗ um because i do think you know things

1:48:43 ↗ like

1:48:45 ↗ um the the pedestrian block connections

1:48:48 ↗ and the the um weatherization those are

1:48:51 ↗ things that have come up a lot and it

1:48:52 ↗ seems like having that there is a sort

1:48:54 ↗ of policy decision there because yes um

1:48:58 ↗ like as you pointed out if you have the

1:49:00 ↗ weatherization along an alley that could

1:49:01 ↗ make for a more pedestrian oriented so i

1:49:03 ↗ think there are some policy discussions

1:49:05 ↗ if you go to the next one um

1:49:07 ↗ i think there were a few other ones in

1:49:09 ↗ there as well

1:49:11 ↗ oh yeah density bonus jumped out at me

1:49:14 ↗ um

1:49:15 ↗ yes we can go to arch but i also

1:49:16 ↗ understood that there were um

1:49:18 ↗ [Music]

1:49:19 ↗ there are only a couple

1:49:21 ↗ uh buildings so far that have used that

1:49:23 ↗ so are there ways to you know we want

1:49:26 ↗ this to be used presumably so are there

1:49:28 ↗ ways to improve that so i think that's a

1:49:29 ↗ policy

1:49:30 ↗ discussion um

1:49:33 ↗ so yeah i think of those two options

1:49:35 ↗ that you gave i think go with the one

1:49:37 ↗ that's most

1:49:38 ↗ efficient

1:49:40 ↗ the other one that jumped out my this

1:49:42 ↗ mic is also

1:49:44 ↗ um going in and out i think but uh the

1:49:45 ↗ other one is of course the last one

1:49:47 ↗ address climate action goals you know i

1:49:49 ↗ think that was um

1:49:51 ↗ in my email to you i also asked about

1:49:52 ↗ that and it seems like that one needs uh

1:49:56 ↗ just needs more

1:49:58 ↗ work and more

1:50:00 ↗ explanation and that's a policy

1:50:03 ↗ stance i think that i'm taking on that

1:50:05 ↗ but without really much information so

1:50:08 ↗ uh

1:50:09 ↗ yeah so i think um if we can have these

1:50:11 ↗ come back to us before you do the draft

1:50:13 ↗ drafting but as a just a second touch

1:50:15 ↗ because there's so many things left to

1:50:18 ↗ be done that'd be great

1:50:19 ↗ sure

1:50:20 ↗ so we'll we'll schedule the time when we

1:50:22 ↗ will have a complete response to you but

1:50:24 ↗ it'll be

1:50:25 ↗ um and then number 17 we're trying to

1:50:28 ↗ schedule that conversation with ppc and

1:50:30 ↗ share the icap table with them uh in in

1:50:33 ↗ which case we'll lay out some options

1:50:35 ↗ for them to consider so we'll we'll sync

1:50:37 ↗ up the timing between ppc and and you

1:50:40 ↗ all but

1:50:41 ↗ we'll bring a response back and some

1:50:43 ↗ policy options for some of these um to

1:50:45 ↗ the committee

1:50:49 ↗ okay great

1:50:50 ↗ um does that sound like a good approach

1:50:51 ↗ to this whole list and we don't have to

1:50:53 ↗ go through them one by one okay okay

1:50:55 ↗ great excellent

1:50:56 ↗ um so now we will get into the general

1:51:00 ↗ comments on

1:51:01 ↗ the

1:51:02 ↗ um the chapter drafts that

1:51:05 ↗ the things that were singled out

1:51:08 ↗ council president walsh would you like

1:51:09 ↗ to start us off sure

1:51:12 ↗ okay

1:51:13 ↗ um these go willy-nilly through all

1:51:15 ↗ kinds of stuff but we'll get there

1:51:17 ↗ eventually um i think the

1:51:21 ↗ the

1:51:23 ↗ comment about

1:51:25 ↗ this code being adopted and then there

1:51:27 ↗ being a delay before the energy code

1:51:30 ↗ update

1:51:31 ↗ to the building code in july

1:51:33 ↗ is really important i think we do need a

1:51:35 ↗ stop gap measure in there

1:51:37 ↗ um

1:51:39 ↗ you know we've seen other code

1:51:41 ↗ expirations

1:51:43 ↗ that have been replaced with

1:51:45 ↗ replacement code that have caused us

1:51:47 ↗ major problems and i would just rather

1:51:49 ↗ not i would rather have something in

1:51:52 ↗ there even if that is hey you need to be

1:51:55 ↗ lead silver if you're over a certain

1:51:58 ↗ standpoint um i think that's really

1:52:00 ↗ important

1:52:02 ↗ with the multi-family medium having that

1:52:07 ↗ in old town and in the full city and

1:52:10 ↗ having a different overlay and

1:52:12 ↗ requirement there is

1:52:14 ↗ very confusing to me so i would ask that

1:52:18 ↗ we come up with a way to handle that

1:52:20 ↗ that doesn't use

1:52:22 ↗ the same name or somehow otherwise

1:52:24 ↗ differentiates it

1:52:28 ↗ the through block approach is really

1:52:31 ↗ important and i just want to make sure

1:52:34 ↗ we

1:52:35 ↗ emphasize that

1:52:39 ↗ i'm not sure there should be many

1:52:41 ↗ deviations on that one um

1:52:43 ↗ if if there's a way that we can make

1:52:46 ↗ sure that we are prioritizing the

1:52:47 ↗ pedestrian especially in central isoqua

1:52:50 ↗ i think that's important

1:52:54 ↗ in the overlays section

1:52:57 ↗ i think what i was hit with was a lack

1:53:00 ↗ of pictures and maps and especially for

1:53:03 ↗ those

1:53:04 ↗ neighborhoods within the neighborhoods

1:53:08 ↗ i need something that tells me

1:53:10 ↗ because i've lived in the highlands for

1:53:12 ↗ 12 years and i couldn't tell you where

1:53:14 ↗ some of those

1:53:16 ↗ neighborhood overlays were

1:53:21 ↗ for

1:53:22 ↗ weather protection

1:53:25 ↗ um i was walking around kirkland

1:53:27 ↗ downtown the other day when it was

1:53:29 ↗ raining and i just very much appreciated

1:53:32 ↗ the

1:53:34 ↗ consistency

1:53:35 ↗ of their awnings and the fact that they

1:53:39 ↗ go out to

1:53:42 ↗ pretty much 100

1:53:43 ↗ of um their front of the space

1:53:46 ↗ and so i was looking for that when i was

1:53:48 ↗ reading through this code

1:53:50 ↗ and unfortunately

1:53:53 ↗ um i think there's two areas where

1:53:56 ↗ weather protection is included so

1:53:58 ↗ 18.606.070

1:54:02 ↗ covers

1:54:03 ↗ all multi-family and commercial

1:54:05 ↗ buildings and it says they need to be at

1:54:09 ↗ 75 percent of the width

1:54:11 ↗ but then in the commercial business

1:54:14 ↗ district overlay area in 18.700.030

1:54:21 ↗ it only gives depth

1:54:23 ↗ and vertical clearance and not

1:54:26 ↗ width and i think if there was any place

1:54:29 ↗ that i would want to say

1:54:31 ↗ has to be more than 75 or something um

1:54:34 ↗ that would be where um

1:54:37 ↗ i think there's a huge economic benefit

1:54:39 ↗ to making sure that that is addressed

1:54:43 ↗ as much as possible um

1:54:46 ↗ and so i would just ask that we look at

1:54:49 ↗ that make sure we maximize the weather

1:54:52 ↗ protection as much as possible and that

1:54:53 ↗ there aren't

1:54:55 ↗ areas where that conflicts

1:54:59 ↗ and then finally building step backs

1:55:02 ↗ i also was a little bit conflicted with

1:55:04 ↗ the idea of

1:55:05 ↗ it being up to the

1:55:08 ↗ sixth floor

1:55:09 ↗ um i

1:55:11 ↗ remember the earlier conversation about

1:55:13 ↗ adopting that related to the tod project

1:55:17 ↗ and wanting to have flexibility

1:55:20 ↗ i just don't

1:55:21 ↗ i don't quite remember it going that

1:55:24 ↗ high

1:55:27 ↗ but i'm probably remembering it

1:55:28 ↗ incorrectly but yeah i think we might

1:55:31 ↗ need to really think about that step

1:55:34 ↗ back and whether or not that

1:55:36 ↗ truly is the best approach for us

1:55:40 ↗ that's my comment

1:55:44 ↗ serious that's right i'm gonna be really

1:55:47 ↗ brief because i've already kind of

1:55:48 ↗ talked about it and it's exactly what

1:55:49 ↗ council president walsh has talked about

1:55:51 ↗ which is the step backs i'd like to

1:55:53 ↗ make sure that we understand what we're

1:55:55 ↗ really signing up for and what it's

1:55:56 ↗ going to look like

1:55:58 ↗ you know what what the potential is so

1:56:00 ↗ i'd like us to think that one through a

1:56:02 ↗ little bit more than that um i don't

1:56:04 ↗ think i have much else to add

1:56:07 ↗ okay

1:56:08 ↗ um

1:56:09 ↗ great so i on this step backs i think

1:56:13 ↗ maybe some pictures would be helpful

1:56:15 ↗ if i if i understand it correctly i'm in

1:56:18 ↗ support of the changes and i also think

1:56:20 ↗ it's important that we have this tod

1:56:23 ↗ project that specifically called this

1:56:25 ↗ out as as a sort of necessary change for

1:56:28 ↗ that project and we want more of that

1:56:30 ↗ kind of development so i uh

1:56:33 ↗ i think i'm supportive but i also

1:56:36 ↗ without pictures and based on the

1:56:37 ↗ comments of my fellow council members

1:56:39 ↗ i'm not

1:56:40 ↗ totally sure i understand the

1:56:42 ↗ implications so pictures would be great

1:56:44 ↗ um and then

1:56:46 ↗ i too have a sort of

1:56:48 ↗ list of

1:56:49 ↗ miscellaneous things

1:56:50 ↗ um i support the exemption of the

1:56:52 ↗ treasures list from the architectural

1:56:55 ↗ standards i think one of the reasons we

1:56:57 ↗ have those standards is to preserve the

1:56:59 ↗ sort of charm and the character and the

1:57:01 ↗ treasures are by definition these

1:57:03 ↗ important pieces of our our city's charm

1:57:06 ↗ and so um exempting them from having to

1:57:09 ↗ make changes to comply with something

1:57:10 ↗ else makes total sense and and support

1:57:13 ↗ and also just really appreciate that

1:57:15 ↗ that that has been come up

1:57:17 ↗ that has

1:57:18 ↗ been um

1:57:19 ↗ developed as a strategy for preserving

1:57:22 ↗ our very special list of

1:57:25 ↗ treasures

1:57:27 ↗ then on the um

1:57:30 ↗ on the goals at a higher level here we

1:57:33 ↗ have these three goals for this chapter

1:57:37 ↗ and they were around

1:57:39 ↗ preserving the neighborhood character

1:57:41 ↗ and then the sustainability and climate

1:57:42 ↗ action goal and the streamlining the

1:57:45 ↗ um process

1:57:47 ↗ goal

1:57:48 ↗ so when i was looking through this i

1:57:50 ↗ think a lot of the changes in this draft

1:57:52 ↗ are around the streamlining the process

1:57:54 ↗ which really

1:57:55 ↗ hard to argue that that's important but

1:57:57 ↗ also not

1:57:58 ↗ something that there's a lot of policy

1:58:00 ↗ uh

1:58:02 ↗ discussion around in my opinion

1:58:04 ↗ um so that i think yes

1:58:06 ↗ did a lot of that achieved that goal um

1:58:09 ↗ i saw a lot of preserving of

1:58:11 ↗ neighborhood character largely because

1:58:13 ↗ the codes are unchanged from the way

1:58:14 ↗ they were and so they're just sort of

1:58:16 ↗ consolidation um so i think that goal

1:58:18 ↗ was was largely achieved the one that i

1:58:22 ↗ was underwhelmed with to be honest is

1:58:25 ↗ was around the um community sustainable

1:58:28 ↗ development and climate goals i think a

1:58:29 ↗ stop gap measure on some of these

1:58:32 ↗ building standards would help

1:58:34 ↗ but really i think just looking through

1:58:36 ↗ this more with that lens and thinking

1:58:39 ↗ about how we could do things

1:58:40 ↗ um to better meet those sustainability

1:58:43 ↗ and climate goals

1:58:45 ↗ i think that's the goal that for me

1:58:46 ↗ really stood out as as needing work here

1:58:50 ↗ um also in that goals and outcomes chart

1:58:52 ↗ really didn't um

1:58:54 ↗ that that sort of also led me to that

1:58:56 ↗ same conclusion that that's the goal

1:58:57 ↗ that this needs to be

1:58:59 ↗ strengthened needs to be strengthened

1:59:01 ↗ for this chapter

1:59:03 ↗ um

1:59:06 ↗ support the comments on the weather

1:59:08 ↗ protection that's something that's come

1:59:09 ↗ up a lot

1:59:11 ↗ we have very rainy weather and

1:59:14 ↗ you know to make the sidewalks safe and

1:59:16 ↗ accessible i think there's

1:59:17 ↗ considerations there so would uh would

1:59:19 ↗ like to make sure that we are addressing

1:59:22 ↗ that and i understand that it doesn't

1:59:23 ↗ make sense to put weatherization

1:59:25 ↗ somewhere where no one goes but really

1:59:26 ↗ making sure that where people

1:59:29 ↗ might want to walk that we have that

1:59:30 ↗ would be great

1:59:32 ↗ um

1:59:35 ↗ the view corridor was was uh

1:59:38 ↗ i think

1:59:39 ↗ singled out as something that we need to

1:59:41 ↗ work more on that code which i i can see

1:59:45 ↗ is is uh needs to be

1:59:47 ↗ very clear for it to be effective but i

1:59:49 ↗ think that that's potentially a policy

1:59:52 ↗ related

1:59:53 ↗ discussion because we we have

1:59:56 ↗ wanted to have this

1:59:59 ↗ impact where we are not

2:00:01 ↗ negatively impacting the views because

2:00:03 ↗ they're very important to the

2:00:05 ↗ natural beauty of our area and

2:00:08 ↗ and so i think that that was a

2:00:10 ↗ deliberate sort of overarching policy

2:00:12 ↗ decision and so i think for for council

2:00:15 ↗ it would be important to fully

2:00:17 ↗ understand how that can be better

2:00:19 ↗ implemented

2:00:21 ↗ because i do think the goal there is

2:00:22 ↗ important but i also understand that

2:00:24 ↗ having it implemented in code is

2:00:26 ↗ currently problematic

2:00:28 ↗ one other overarching thing is um and i

2:00:31 ↗ asked some questions to this is i think

2:00:34 ↗ generally anything that's making

2:00:37 ↗ the

2:00:39 ↗ architectural standards or colors or

2:00:41 ↗ things like that more prescriptive i

2:00:44 ↗ would not support i didn't hear i heard

2:00:46 ↗ that we aren't doing that so that's

2:00:48 ↗ great but just going forward i've heard

2:00:50 ↗ from a lot of people about how overly

2:00:53 ↗ prescriptive it is and you know to the

2:00:55 ↗ extent that we to the extent that i

2:00:57 ↗ believe it also matches this sort of

2:00:59 ↗ um this goal about modernizing and

2:01:01 ↗ streamlining the code i think we should

2:01:04 ↗ strive to make it

2:01:05 ↗ uh not more prescriptive and if there

2:01:08 ↗ are areas where we can make it less

2:01:09 ↗ prescriptive i would be

2:01:11 ↗ um at least interested in understanding

2:01:13 ↗ those

2:01:15 ↗ and the last thing is i think developer

2:01:18 ↗ obligations is

2:01:20 ↗ important um i understand that's also to

2:01:22 ↗ come but interested in that and believe

2:01:24 ↗ that that is also a policy based

2:01:27 ↗ discussion about what developer

2:01:29 ↗ obligations we're

2:01:30 ↗ gonna

2:01:31 ↗ enforce through the code

2:01:34 ↗ so yeah those are my comments again the

2:01:36 ↗ big one is that i think uh my my

2:01:39 ↗ takeaway was you know we had these goals

2:01:41 ↗ list and one of them is on community

2:01:42 ↗ sustainable development and climate

2:01:44 ↗ goals and that one really didn't sing so

2:01:53 ↗ all right do we have any other

2:01:55 ↗ comments on this one

2:01:57 ↗ um do you have do you have any other

2:02:00 ↗ questions for us or

2:02:02 ↗ anything that we didn't address that

2:02:03 ↗ would be helpful for us to address yeah

2:02:05 ↗ no i think um i think i i understand uh

2:02:09 ↗ the discussion

2:02:10 ↗ so the next steps will bring back this

2:02:13 ↗ list of 17

2:02:14 ↗ for the committee before we fold it into

2:02:17 ↗ the draft code language to get your

2:02:20 ↗ take on some of these things we'll make

2:02:22 ↗ those edits to

2:02:24 ↗ the whiteboard

2:02:26 ↗ items tie them to the goals and outcomes

2:02:28 ↗ chart and put it on the website same

2:02:30 ↗ thing with the

2:02:32 ↗ and then add other non-title 18 items to

2:02:35 ↗ the whiteboard that were more

2:02:36 ↗ programmatic programs and other things

2:02:38 ↗ that

2:02:39 ↗ were related um

2:02:41 ↗ we will

2:02:43 ↗ try and for the icap

2:02:45 ↗ table

2:02:46 ↗ we'll try and add the building code and

2:02:48 ↗ the state law requirements that are in

2:02:50 ↗ there title 18

2:02:53 ↗ and then

2:02:54 ↗ as far as the the topic uh you know the

2:02:57 ↗ housing diversity section of the line

2:03:00 ↗ we'll we'll look at we'll revise that

2:03:03 ↗ we'll also

2:03:07 ↗ have some policy options for the items

2:03:09 ↗ on the 17 list for you all to weigh in

2:03:12 ↗ on

2:03:13 ↗ to the extent that we can bring that

2:03:15 ↗ forward

2:03:16 ↗ um i think i think i know where to go

2:03:19 ↗ with this so thank you for your input

2:03:22 ↗ yeah i have one more that i

2:03:24 ↗ didn't read um so uh on the whiteboard

2:03:29 ↗ it has evaluate eco-friendly roof

2:03:31 ↗ materials metal is a more eco-friendly

2:03:33 ↗ alternative and less expensive and um

2:03:35 ↗ that to me jumped out as something that

2:03:38 ↗ could be done to address the

2:03:40 ↗ sustainability in this draft so um i

2:03:43 ↗ would like unless there's opposition

2:03:46 ↗ based on something i'm not understanding

2:03:48 ↗ i would like to pull that

2:03:50 ↗ into the current draft off of the

2:03:52 ↗ whiteboard because i think it's

2:03:54 ↗ clearly goes towards that goal which as

2:03:56 ↗ i said earlier

2:03:57 ↗ the goal uh i think it's nine about

2:04:00 ↗ climate and sustainability seems

2:04:02 ↗ underrepresented in this work and i also

2:04:04 ↗ have experience with with this um and

2:04:06 ↗ with regulations not allowing

2:04:08 ↗ metal roof and they're more eco-friendly

2:04:10 ↗ so that'd be a great one too yeah it's

2:04:12 ↗ really interesting we've had internal

2:04:14 ↗ debates about that i think uh the

2:04:16 ↗ development agreements had that

2:04:17 ↗ requirement where the galvanized metal

2:04:19 ↗ couldn't be used and it was more related

2:04:21 ↗ to the critical air aquifer recharge

2:04:23 ↗ areas

2:04:24 ↗ uh but the jury's still out whether that

2:04:27 ↗ actually

2:04:28 ↗ has an impact on

2:04:30 ↗ on water

2:04:31 ↗ or not so we'll take a look at it but

2:04:34 ↗ the yeah the the metal is more you know

2:04:36 ↗ recyclable than than wood and the other

2:04:40 ↗ things that are more not less green but

2:04:42 ↗ then there's the issue of galvanized

2:04:44 ↗ metal and what it does to the water that

2:04:46 ↗ seeps in into the aquifer so

2:04:49 ↗ we'll review it um

2:04:51 ↗ and and add it in with this update um if

2:04:54 ↗ it makes sense yeah okay that would be

2:04:56 ↗ great i i happen to know that there are

2:04:58 ↗ some restrictions based not on the

2:05:00 ↗ galvanized issue but on re

2:05:02 ↗ reflectiveness

2:05:04 ↗ and it's not actually they they

2:05:06 ↗ currently are matching or better than um

2:05:09 ↗ there are options that are matching

2:05:10 ↗ you're better than that yeah and for

2:05:11 ↗ wildfire purposes you know there's that

2:05:13 ↗ aspect and you know you you know it's

2:05:15 ↗ more

2:05:16 ↗ yeah there's a bunch of bustable yeah i

2:05:18 ↗ think there's a bunch of good reasons to

2:05:20 ↗ consider it and i think it should be

2:05:22 ↗ done in this go around

2:05:24 ↗ um okay

2:05:27 ↗ anyone any other comments from the

2:05:29 ↗ committee on anything else we missed

2:05:32 ↗ okay okay and yes i think that was a

2:05:34 ↗ great um summary of of what we have said

2:05:36 ↗ and where you're gonna go with it so

2:05:39 ↗ that was great

2:05:40 ↗ thank you

2:05:42 ↗ okay so um that was the only item on our

2:05:45 ↗ agenda and so i will call for

2:05:49 ↗ announcements if there's any

2:05:50 ↗ announcements on any topics my fellow

2:05:53 ↗ council members and i'm not seeing any

2:05:55 ↗ so with that then we are adjourned at 86

2:05:59 ↗ pm

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF