← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Auto captions

Thursday, August 4, 2022

6:30 PM · 2h 54m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
Title 18 Future Updates ID 1224 1/2
Title 18: Zoning & Development Standards ID 1156 3/3
Transportation Advisory Board · Nov 18, 2021 Planning Policy Commission · Aug 2, 2022 Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Aug 4, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3a
Minutes of June 28, 2022
packet pp.5–6
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 06-28-22 City Council Planning, Development & Page (0000) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. June 28, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
3b
Minutes of July 7, 2022
packet pp.7–8
Staff report:
in possible action. • Goals and outcomes define the scope. • Should be a higher bar for putting goals on the white board. • Add single family zone to the white board. • The white board needs to be intentional.
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Title 18: Zoning & Development Standards ID 1156
90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.9–213
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
The Title 18 Update has been divided into six “buckets” (topics) that include: Natural Environment; Landscape, Trees and Open Space; Zoning and Uses; Building and Design; Zoning and Development Standards and Procedures and Administration.
4b
Title 18 Land Use Code - Future Updates List ('White Board') ID 1224
90 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.215–221
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
The city is currently undertaking a large overhaul of the Title 18, the City’s land use code. This update is being guided by various city adopted policies in the following documents: Strategic Plan, Comprehensive Plan & Olde Town Subarea Plan, Central Issaquah Plan, Parks Strategic Plan, Mobility Master Plan, Climate Action Plan and Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee created Goals, Policy Changes, and Desired Outcomes Document. This update also incorporates updates that are to ensure consistency with State Law and other best management practices. However, during community conversations at various boards and commission meetings that were items that came up that are outside the scope of the current update. These items have been captured in the future updates list (white board).
0:00 meeting
0:10 welcome everyone i council member hunt
0:12 call the august 4th council planning
0:14 development and environment committee to
0:16 order
0:18 the first item on our agenda will be
0:20 public comment and there are multiple
0:22 public comment opportunities at
0:24 tonight's meeting there's general public
0:26 comment opportunity at the beginning of
0:27 the meeting or you can make comments
0:29 after the presentation and cancel a
0:30 question and answer period on tonight's
0:32 agenda items
0:34 and
0:36 have two agenda items this evening
0:39 the first is
0:42 id id1156 title 18 zoning and
0:45 development standards and the second is
0:48 id1224 title 18 land use code futures
0:52 future updates list or whiteboard
0:56 so at this time
1:00 members of the public may address
1:02 counsel either in person or virtually
1:04 although i will note that there is no
1:06 one in council chambers to make comments
1:08 in person
1:09 and those who are signed up in advance
1:11 will make comments first if you're
1:12 joining virtually and would like to make
1:14 comments please raise your virtual hands
1:15 and i'll check in with the city clerk is
1:17 there anyone on the line that will be
1:19 making virtual comments this evening for
1:20 public comment
1:22 uh yes chair hunt
1:24 kim lee is attending virtually and has
1:27 indicated that
1:29 she would like to address the committee
1:31 okay um in that case then i'll continue
1:33 reading the directions for
1:35 for
1:36 providing public comments so if you're
1:38 joining us virtually and would like to
1:39 make public comment please raise your
1:41 virtual hands if you're on the phone
1:42 press star 3 and if you have joined by a
1:44 computer or smartphone please look for
1:46 the hand icon this varies by device one
1:48 option may be to go to the participant
1:50 panel
1:51 and choose the raise hand icon in the
1:53 lower right hand corner
1:59 citizen comments are an important part
2:00 of the public process we take them very
2:02 seriously and factor them into the
2:03 decisions we make and please do direct
2:06 comments to the whole council and not
2:07 individuals and while this is not a
2:09 question and answer session we will
2:11 contact you to follow up if needed when
2:13 recognized please unmute your microphone
2:15 please state your name address and
2:17 relationship to the city please speak
2:19 clearly and pause frequently and please
2:21 limit comments to five minutes
2:24 and if you are attending virtually and
2:26 do not respond if your your name or
2:28 phone number is called the meeting will
2:29 need to proceed so with that i'll check
2:32 in with the city clerk to call the first
2:34 person up for a public comment
2:36 ms lee i've made you a panelist you can
2:38 now unmute
2:42 thank you can you hear me
2:44 yes we can
2:46 great
2:47 good evening my name is kim lee
2:50 23266 southeast 53rd i'm an issaquah
2:53 resident and director of real estate
2:56 development at lakeside industries
2:59 lakeside industries is very interested
3:02 in the city's transfer development
3:03 rights program and coinciding code
3:05 provisions that are on the agenda today
3:08 as you may know lakeside is currently
3:10 working with city staff to implement the
3:12 lakeside hillside village development
3:14 agreement
3:15 that agreement requires lakeside to use
3:17 tdrs to realize the maximum density
3:21 authorized by the agreement and approved
3:23 by the city council
3:25 we've already provided comments to the
3:27 staff about the tdr ordinance and are
3:29 collaborating with staff on ways to make
3:31 the tdr program
3:33 well
3:34 we look forward to working with the city
3:36 to achieve our shared vision of a
3:38 successful implementation of this
3:40 development agreement thank you
3:45 thank you very much
3:48 um city clerk has anyone else indicated
3:50 a desire to speak
3:53 uh chair hunt there is no one else
3:55 virtually attending at the moment
3:57 okay thank you very much and as a
3:59 reminder written comments can be
4:00 submitted at any time to city council at
4:02 issaquah.gov
4:05 with that we will move into
4:07 approval of the minutes we have two
4:10 sets of minutes
4:11 to approve today and the first one is
4:14 from june 28th from this committee
4:16 meeting that occurred on june 28th and
4:17 the second one is from the um july 7th
4:20 meeting i did want to ask my fellow
4:23 committee members council president
4:24 walsh and councilmember ray if they have
4:27 if you have any comments on those before
4:29 we go ahead and approve them
4:32 okay i do have uh two quick comments the
4:35 first one is on the june 28th meeting
4:37 minutes that i realized there was a
4:40 quick turnaround but that's those items
4:42 on the
4:43 minutes have already gone to the full
4:45 council and been approved so
4:47 in the future if we could have those
4:49 at the meeting before just in case to
4:51 check if we wanted to add anything
4:54 or clarify anything in those so that
4:56 they could be more useful to counsel
4:58 that timing um would be great and then
5:00 my other comment is on the july 7th
5:04 meeting
5:05 there were two comments that i thought
5:09 could be clarified probably just a few
5:11 words added but one
5:14 there's a
5:15 note that we talked about adding
5:17 single family zone for a topic of
5:19 discussion and my understanding is that
5:22 that was part of the discussion around
5:26 cities that have
5:27 stopped using that zoning and allowed
5:29 other kinds of housing
5:32 within that zone
5:34 multi multi-family housing and
5:37 missing middle housing and so i thought
5:39 we should clarify what that meant
5:40 because right now it just says add
5:42 single family zone as a topic
5:44 um and then the other one was that i
5:47 thought you could
5:48 the intent could be clarified was
5:51 about should there be a higher bar for
5:53 goals in the white bar in the whiteboard
5:57 discussion
5:58 and i think
6:00 to clarify that for
6:01 for council and for those reading those
6:04 minutes that's regarding the outcomes
6:06 goals and outcomes chart and that we
6:08 felt if it's
6:10 if it's a action item that would be
6:12 directly addressing one of the items on
6:15 that goals and outcomes chart we felt
6:17 there should be a higher bar for that
6:19 becoming a whiteboard item so i thought
6:22 that should also be clarified because it
6:23 involves multiple charts and processes
6:27 and
6:28 was a little unclear the way it was
6:29 written
6:32 does that was that clear for those two
6:35 minute notes in the minutes okay
6:38 great thank you we can make those
6:39 changes okay wonderful um then with that
6:42 i will
6:43 make
6:44 i will move to approve the minutes as
6:47 they appear in our evenings agenda
6:50 please indicate
6:51 by saying aye
6:53 hi hi
6:55 okay
6:56 chair hunt
6:58 did you mean to state that the minutes
7:01 would be approved as amended yes
7:04 yes apologies should i go ahead and make
7:07 that change or
7:09 i think as long as we note that that was
7:11 the intent of the motion that uh
7:14 and i see other nods from the committee
7:16 members so i think we're good
7:17 great yes thank you thank you for
7:19 catching that
7:21 okay um then with that we will move to
7:23 the first agenda item um today which is
7:26 id1156 title 18 zoning and development
7:29 standards and this will be presented by
7:31 director dollywall of community planning
7:33 and development
7:57 good evening council members and members
7:59 of the community i'm going to quickly
8:02 share my screen
8:12 can you see it okay
8:15 all right
8:16 um so uh tonight uh we're talking about
8:20 uh topic number five out of six so we've
8:23 divided the whole land use code into six
8:26 we're at topic number five
8:28 uh we're calling it development
8:30 standards um but it's really um
8:33 a few uh we'll get into what's included
8:36 in this
8:36 and we're hoping for direction to see if
8:39 we you know these for for these
8:41 particular topics if
8:43 we've met the golden outcomes intended
8:45 for this topic uh or if there are any
8:47 additional topics you want us to go back
8:50 to planning and policy commission to
8:51 re-evaluate
8:53 we've also added another policy question
8:55 here specific to transfer development
8:57 rights and it relates to
9:00 we had an interlocal
9:01 agreement with king county
9:04 and whether we should renew it extend it
9:06 uh start a new one
9:09 uh and then also should the city all
9:12 explore um we'll get into the specifics
9:14 of what this is but it's landscape elk
9:17 clip program
9:18 um so those are the three
9:20 larger questions were uh asking for
9:22 direction
9:24 um for this
9:26 bucket number five uh there are few
9:29 goals uh from the golden outcomes chart
9:32 uh that we've evaluated these against
9:34 um you know protect the forested
9:36 hillsides adequate parking while using
9:39 the land efficiently
9:40 increasing housing diversity
9:43 effective management of travel
9:45 in line with non-motorized and transit
9:47 and climate goals and then also the
9:49 overarching modernize the code and
9:51 incorporate best practices
9:54 the four sub-topics in this larger topic
9:57 are affordable housing transfer
9:59 development rights lands landmarks and
10:02 archaeological resources and parking so
10:04 i'm going to present the first three and
10:08 stephen padua long-range planning
10:09 manager is going to take over the
10:11 parking he's been
10:13 going to all the
10:14 affinity group meetings on parking and
10:17 and can get into the details of that
10:21 so first off uh affordable housing um
10:25 you know we started this conversation
10:26 with the community and uh with the
10:28 planning and policy commission really at
10:30 a very basic level what is it
10:32 um and you know what is regulated and
10:34 non-regulated
10:36 um so just a very short summary it
10:40 affordable housing for the purposes of
10:41 this chapter in title 18 is housing that
10:44 has covenants attached to it to remain
10:46 affordable for a certain amount of time
10:48 or for perpetuity
10:51 and the income levels range from 30
10:53 percent of king county's area-wide
10:56 median income to 80 percent
10:59 uh in our in our city in essequa we
11:02 allow covenants up to 120 of emi but
11:05 those don't count towards our required
11:08 um affordable housing under the king
11:11 county so
11:12 very basic things uh about what is
11:15 affordable housing um and the programs
11:17 that we currently have include this list
11:21 we have inclusionary zoning it's limited
11:23 to certain parts of central issaquah we
11:26 do allow cluster housing we have fee
11:28 waivers for affordable housing we have
11:30 priority permit review
11:32 we also allow reduction in parking
11:34 spaces
11:35 we have multi-family tax exemption
11:38 for it's a pilot project for the tod
11:40 project only and of course the most of
11:42 the
11:43 you know uh
11:45 real
11:47 affordable housing we've gotten through
11:48 is through the use of development
11:50 agreements uh we also have a central
11:52 essay called density bonus program
11:56 and what it is is you know we've adopted
11:58 this in 2013. it's an incentive it's
12:01 voluntary we don't require it it's only
12:04 in the sub area for central issaquah
12:07 where we allow additional development
12:09 capacity
12:10 so one third of the floor area ratio
12:12 over this base
12:14 two-third over the base for
12:17 on-site affordable units or fee in lieu
12:20 uh what what that has resulted for the
12:22 city you know we have 11 units at 50 ami
12:26 and 650 000 fee in lieu of
12:29 um so
12:30 it hasn't been used that much uh but
12:33 primarily because the development in
12:34 central esquire hasn't been that that
12:37 much
12:38 uh the mandatory programs of course the
12:40 inclusionary zoning in those three zones
12:43 cluster housing and development
12:45 agreement
12:46 um so we started the conversation with
12:48 planning and policy commission
12:50 asking whether we should keep the
12:51 density bonus program
12:54 because it hadn't reaps too much success
12:57 or should we eliminate it and just
12:58 require mandatory um we had arch
13:02 representative do a presentation to
13:04 planning and policy commission which was
13:05 uh well uh liked by the planning and
13:08 policy commission community members and
13:09 they wanted more of that which we are uh
13:12 going to plan for
13:14 but uh and and the information shared at
13:17 that time was you know if you go down
13:19 the path of mandatory affordable housing
13:21 and what our peer cities have done is
13:23 they've coupled it up with some incent
13:25 incentives such as multi-family tax
13:27 exemption
13:29 um the other question we asked planning
13:31 a policy commission at the time was do
13:34 you you know should the city
13:36 institute more affordable housing
13:37 programs mandatory or uh and where um
13:42 you know planning and policy commission
13:43 wanted to explore uh inclusionary zoning
13:46 beyond the three zones um so we've we've
13:49 considered this on ppc's work plan for
13:52 2023
13:54 with the 100 000 grant that we received
13:57 from department of commerce called in
13:59 short the happy grant but it's housing
14:01 action plan implementation grant
14:05 and with that grant we're studying the
14:07 three strategies that the city has
14:10 adopted through their housing strategies
14:12 plan
14:13 number six which is really to evaluate
14:16 potential for inclusionary zoning
14:18 outside of central issaquah
14:21 so we'll be looking at that uh strategy
14:23 seven
14:24 is to mitigate and offset the deterrence
14:27 for condo construction
14:29 um you know that
14:31 what we'd heard was the state's warranty
14:34 provisions are the biggest deterrent so
14:36 in 2019 um that was those provisions of
14:39 the state law were loosened but we
14:41 haven't seen a big demand so far um so
14:44 it's important for us to understand how
14:46 if if we want diversity of housing an
14:48 important home ownership program
14:50 how do we
14:51 what's at play here and how do we how
14:53 you know is there anything in our code
14:55 that we can do to mitigate or offset
14:57 those deterrents
15:00 and then lastly um
15:02 how do we increase the potential
15:04 diversity of housing types
15:06 and um so we'll be studying all of this
15:11 part of this happy grant uh
15:13 implementation program
15:15 however we've done some work with this
15:18 affordable housing chapter in title 18.
15:22 we worked with arch and we're updating
15:24 the code to match some of the other
15:26 cities
15:29 and and some of the cleanup that has
15:30 occurred the second item that we've
15:32 listed here um
15:34 you know there was some confusion and
15:36 we've sorted it out uh we changed this
15:39 in 2013. we the code is code used to
15:42 have a 30-year
15:44 uh cap of rental affordability that that
15:46 was what the covenant uh term limit was
15:48 it's no longer in play um and that's
15:51 consistent with what other cities have
15:54 and that participate in arch
15:57 and i think some of the comments we
15:58 received was
15:59 is it going to deter the banks from
16:01 lending money and as a result we won't
16:03 get any
16:04 affordable housing but that's not the
16:06 case because we've already kind of
16:08 implemented this change um
16:11 and we've confirmed with arch that that
16:13 is not the case it may have been in the
16:15 past but no longer at play
16:18 the other thing we've codified is that
16:21 the affordable units need to look and
16:23 feel and appearances appliances interior
16:26 exterior appearances similar to
16:29 regular housing so
16:32 that's been codified now
16:34 we also had a provision where affordable
16:36 housing didn't have to provide a
16:37 recreation space we've taken that out
16:39 there wasn't any logic for having that
16:41 distinction
16:42 um this last bullet point um
16:45 is we have these uh
16:48 you know alternative compliance is what
16:50 it's called but you can have your
16:52 um you can provide your affordable
16:54 housing offsite
16:56 the code currently says within the same
16:58 sub area or you can pay payment in lieu
17:01 of um there was a discussion at planning
17:03 and policy commission at one point about
17:05 this
17:06 uh we have kept it and maintained it but
17:08 we're going to take a second look at it
17:10 um based on comments we received from
17:12 planning and policy commission
17:15 you know we went back to arch to ask how
17:18 how is it working for other cities
17:19 should we take it out and i think the
17:22 advice we've received from arch is it's
17:24 better to keep it in however we can um
17:29 you know based on that information i
17:30 think we'll we'll tighten some of the
17:31 language that it's at the city's
17:33 discretion
17:34 um the example we received where another
17:37 peer city had used was there was a great
17:39 affordable housing being proposed next
17:41 to a another residential development
17:43 where
17:44 uh getting that fee in lieu of was was
17:46 made the sense for that particular city
17:48 at the time so if there is a similar
17:50 scenario for us
17:52 down the pipeline we want to have that
17:54 opportunity but for most of the folks
17:56 that have this requirement we want to
17:58 obviously have them build it at their
18:00 site so we'll clean up some of the
18:02 language related to how that can play
18:04 out
18:05 um can i can i ask a question on that
18:07 because i i did have a question just
18:09 reading the material so in the proposed
18:12 changes it says um
18:14 in our packet it says option for payment
18:16 in lieu as alternative compliance was
18:19 added
18:20 so this is
18:22 an additional option right i think the
18:25 the the the changes were that you're not
18:28 subject to just the sub-area
18:30 uh but you can go beyond your sub-area
18:33 because that was limiting
18:37 my understanding is that we do currently
18:39 have
18:41 this in our provision we loosened it to
18:43 go outside the sub-area
18:47 okay but um
18:49 so it is still
18:50 loosening we're allowing more
18:53 options for payment in lieu yeah we're
18:56 going to go back and re-look at this i
18:58 think we we based on new feedback and
19:00 planning and policy commissions
19:02 discussion
19:03 we want we don't want to eliminate this
19:05 option but we only wanted to use it to
19:07 the city's advantage where it does make
19:09 sense
19:10 uh which in the particular scenario that
19:13 arch explained to us was where there was
19:15 an actual affordable housing project
19:17 being built and it made sense to get the
19:20 the funding and to make that a reality
19:22 because they were cobbling up their
19:24 funding for that particular project so
19:26 we'll relook at it but if
19:28 the committee has any feedback on
19:31 your thoughts about that we we want to
19:33 hear from you as well okay i'll i'll
19:35 hold my feed back i don't think i have a
19:36 question but councilman ray
19:38 um thanks that was a nice tea i had a
19:40 question about what do we do with the uh
19:43 in lieu of fees where do those go do
19:45 they are they earmarked and targeted to
19:47 affordable housing or
19:50 yeah and so how do we how do we spend it
19:52 we give it to arch or what's what's the
19:54 uh what's the mechanics of
19:56 of distributing that funding
19:59 city administrator warning
20:01 council member members of the committee
20:02 good evening um there is an affordable
20:04 housing fund
20:06 from time to time there are allocations
20:07 that are requested of the city council
20:09 there is no
20:10 master plan per se
20:12 to that i think it's on a project by
20:14 project basis great thank you
20:21 okay
20:23 should i keep going so um it's a real
20:26 high-level summary of uh public comments
20:28 uh the first one just ignore that uh we
20:30 sorted it out there was some confusion
20:32 related to it
20:34 we heard that interspersing the
20:36 affordable housing rather than putting
20:38 it in one project has a positive effect
20:41 so whatever policies we come up with
20:43 through the happy grant or whatever
20:44 that's
20:46 a good piece of information
20:49 we got some questions about what happens
20:51 when affordable rentals with uh
20:53 covenants are converted into
20:54 condominiums so it does improve housing
20:56 affordability from an ownership
20:58 perspective but do they stay affordable
21:00 so we asked arch
21:02 we got some good feedback that they
21:04 there are mechanisms to kind of make
21:05 sure but we're going to codify some of
21:07 that in our in our code to ensure that
21:10 you don't lose that affordability piece
21:13 there was also
21:15 um an expression about wanting to see 30
21:19 ami included in the inclusionary zoning
21:22 so we'll have that policy discussion as
21:23 we look at expanding the inclusionary
21:25 zoning um and then the second one uh you
21:29 know expanded to more than the three
21:30 zones uh we also received one comment
21:33 about expanding uh multi-family tax
21:35 exemption program to citywide this is
21:38 not one of the strategies that we're
21:39 looking at it's a little bit of an
21:40 interplay with that um i you know so
21:43 we'll we'll consider it um
21:46 but a more in-depth analysis for the
21:48 multi-family tax exemption should
21:50 probably go on the whiteboard uh per se
21:53 it probably you know if there's a way to
21:55 get what the city wants in the area we
21:58 want uh it could be a targeted sort of a
22:01 multi-family tax exemption for what the
22:03 city's policies are
22:05 uh perhaps not a blanket um
22:07 um program so there may be different
22:10 options of how to how to kind of
22:12 address that
22:13 but that's not part of this title 18
22:15 update um
22:17 the uh
22:19 the other comments we heard was the
22:20 calculation for payment in lieu are
22:23 unclear so we're going to try and see if
22:25 we can make them more clear and maybe
22:28 text amendments and working with arch on
22:29 that
22:31 and then i think there was a general
22:33 desire to understand why the incentives
22:34 are not working
22:36 you know
22:39 and then of course um some of the
22:41 comments we heard from ppc where
22:42 diversity in affordable housing has been
22:44 missing micro units cottage housing adus
22:47 are all needed to address affordable
22:48 housing needs
22:51 and then
22:52 there was one
22:53 comment about affordable housing
22:55 covenant should be recorded at occupancy
22:58 rather than at building permit issuance
23:01 there are some
23:02 concerns with letting folks build
23:04 without actually getting the covenants
23:06 recorded but we'll consider it and and
23:08 review that comment
23:11 and then of course uh on-site versus
23:14 alternate compliance that we're going to
23:16 reevaluate
23:17 uh with the second draft so that
23:20 concludes the affordable housing piece
23:22 um i can keep going to tdr or pause for
23:26 discussion on that topic i think i i
23:28 think this will be quick um so on the
23:31 last slide the second last one
23:33 was about the covenant recorded at
23:37 occupancy can you just um explain
23:41 who would be in favor of that and why
23:45 um i think that particular comment came
23:47 from lakeside industries
23:50 and it was
23:51 i'm not exactly sure so we'll we'll
23:53 check in with them
23:55 why that was preferred
23:57 from their perspective
23:58 from the city's perspective it's harder
24:00 if you've given folks a building permit
24:03 and it's already built and occupied you
24:06 know we still have an occupancy but it's
24:08 not like a commercial occupancy
24:11 um but we just didn't want to lose that
24:12 comment so we put it on the list here
24:15 okay thank you
24:21 it's memory
24:23 i just want to actually pick up on one
24:25 of the comments which is you need to
24:27 understand why the incentives are not
24:28 working i mean it doesn't seem like
24:30 we're we're moving the needle with the
24:32 the programs that we have in place right
24:34 now any any insights
24:36 into
24:37 uh why that is and i guess more
24:39 importantly
24:40 uh what we can do and how we roll that
24:41 into the the code update to actually
24:44 drive some behavior change
24:46 yeah you know um i mean ultimately um
24:50 you know
24:51 the economics is a play for people to
24:54 use the incentives and not use the
24:56 incentives the market demand and and the
24:59 fact that we haven't had
25:01 residential in our central square that
25:03 we designated to be a growth center
25:06 um all of those things and that's where
25:08 really our incentives are so far
25:12 so that's why expanding the inclusionary
25:15 zoning to more than those three zones is
25:18 the as the studying will do with the
25:20 grant to see if that'll result in more
25:25 you know
25:26 just a requirement but but we'll need to
25:28 understand the the economics there too
25:31 um so
25:32 the consultant we've selected is eco
25:34 northwest they they do uh understand all
25:37 the you know so we're hoping that we'll
25:39 we'll get to some of the underlying
25:41 issues and our understanding of that
25:44 great thanks
25:45 council president washington
25:48 thanks so i'll throw my hat in there too
25:50 um that was certainly something that
25:52 came up for me as i was reading over
25:55 the previous conversations on this and
25:58 so when we take a look at that and the
26:02 cost effectiveness of that
26:04 the other thing that came up for me was
26:05 structured parking because right around
26:08 the time that we added in structured
26:10 parking as a requirement for
26:13 the central issaquah area it starts to
26:16 look at potentially that concept of oh
26:19 are we
26:20 disincentifying
26:22 any housing in the central issaquah
26:25 by adding costs for both inclusionary
26:28 zoning and structured parking so i'm
26:30 hoping that when we come back to
26:33 information on that we can assess what
26:36 those potential costs are and if they're
26:38 shifting
26:39 housing
26:41 into
26:42 the other areas yeah
26:44 you know the structured parking a lot of
26:46 affordable
26:47 housing developers will tell you that
26:49 the funding
26:50 actually doesn't allow them to use that
26:52 for structured parking because none of
26:54 these
26:55 funds want to pay for parking they want
26:57 to pay for units so
27:00 it's it's a good point um at the same
27:02 time unless there's transit and and how
27:06 do you you know how do you get uh people
27:09 moving in about out and about um so it's
27:11 yeah so we can add that to to the list
27:15 to study
27:20 okay
27:21 should we move on to tdr
27:24 um so transfer of development rights um
27:27 again we started the conversation with
27:29 planning and policy commission about
27:31 what what are they you know it basically
27:33 allows increased development on one
27:35 parcel the receiving site
27:38 uh while protecting another site
27:40 sending site
27:41 um and it's all at the owner's
27:43 discretion uh it's not you have to do it
27:46 it's just another incentive or a tool
27:50 for folks to preserve their open space
27:53 for folks that think it's going to be
27:54 too expensive for them to develop to
27:56 pass on their development rights to
27:58 someone else
28:00 and they're typically with um you know
28:04 lands that are encumbered with critical
28:05 areas um
28:07 and or utilities are extremely hard to
28:09 get to and all that kind of stuff um
28:13 they can be bought and sold between
28:15 public agencies certainly the city has
28:18 been part of these conversations in the
28:20 past
28:21 they can be banked to preserve the land
28:23 now and later tdr them
28:27 but in our code
28:29 that was last updated i believe in 2013
28:33 or something close to that
28:36 can be used to increase impervious
28:38 surface height floor area ratio or
28:40 density and you can choose which one of
28:43 those development rights is more
28:46 of an incentive for you
28:49 so in our code we have a map that shows
28:52 the receiving sites in red the sending
28:54 sites in green
28:57 we we have discovered that there is a
28:59 disconnect between the text in our code
29:02 and this map which
29:04 the text disallows properties that are
29:07 zoned
29:09 community facilities open space and such
29:11 to be designated as sending sites when
29:13 most of our sending sites are that so
29:17 we'll be working um to fix that
29:20 but what we've changed the the biggest
29:22 change um here is um you know one of the
29:25 goals of the golden outcomes chart was
29:27 to protect forested hillsides so
29:30 previously we didn't have um
29:32 this requirement um or or this tool uh
29:36 to be used for slopes that are
29:38 that lie between 20 and 39
29:41 so the city already prohibits
29:43 development over 40 of slopes uh but
29:46 anything below that but as steep
29:49 um you can um you know
29:52 add uh add this and you can go through a
29:56 process to designate your site as a
29:58 sending site
29:59 um to protect the uh your property uh
30:02 from development but actually get
30:04 something in exchange uh by giving your
30:06 development rights to another property
30:09 we've moved the density calculations to
30:12 this chapter so
30:14 when we did the critical areas code
30:16 update we took out
30:19 and you know we had incentivized more
30:22 density for properties that had critical
30:24 areas it wasn't a significant amount it
30:26 was a complicated uh solution but it was
30:29 only for residential properties so none
30:31 of that made sense
30:33 so we had removed that however we kept
30:35 it in the tdr
30:37 and the reason is
30:39 you know it's more of an incentive for
30:41 someone to do a tdr to try to to get to
30:45 transfer your development rights than to
30:46 actually do the development on your
30:48 property so it's it's another nuance in
30:50 the tdr program
30:51 that if you were to do the development
30:53 you get 10 homes if you transfer your
30:55 development you get 11 homes so you're
30:58 you know so there's a little bit of an
31:00 incentive built into that
31:03 we've changed the level of review for
31:05 addition and removal of sending insights
31:07 so it'll still require a council
31:09 approval uh to add or remove uh
31:12 you know these sites sending and
31:13 receiving
31:16 and we can get into the procedures of
31:18 what that makes sense or not
31:20 um and then we've codified some of the
31:22 bank activities expenditures and
31:24 authorization so
31:26 uh it was a little bit unclear about the
31:28 bank the city's bank authority
31:30 and and things of that nature
31:34 and uh the one thing that we're asking
31:37 council's feedback on
31:38 is we have this interlocal with king
31:40 county um that allowed
31:44 some of the sending sites along esqua
31:46 creek basin
31:47 um to to be transferred their
31:49 development rights to for additional
31:51 development capacity within the city
31:54 it was entered in 2007
31:56 it expired in 2014
32:00 the question is should the city extend
32:02 this renew it enter into a new one
32:06 and and then i think we also learned
32:09 that there is also this king county's
32:12 landscape conservation and local
32:14 infrastructure program for short we'll
32:16 call it l clip
32:18 where the city retains a portion of the
32:20 county's share of property taxes on for
32:22 new construction for 25 years
32:25 and we can use it to spend on public
32:27 improvements parks trails streetscapes
32:29 utilities um
32:31 so this is a graphic version of
32:33 explaining what the self clip program is
32:36 if without the transfer of additional
32:38 development capacity our base assessed
32:40 value is that blue line
32:42 and if as new development get you know
32:45 capacity
32:46 happens and we get more development the
32:49 is how your you know your increased
32:52 property taxes
32:53 but in here
32:55 you know obviously this the or the
32:57 city's share of taxes will increase but
33:00 the city is also allowed to keep up to
33:02 75 of the county's new taxes so this
33:05 little sliver this blue sliver on the
33:07 right hand corner stays with the city
33:10 for 25 years to fund infrastructure
33:14 you know our
33:15 our thought process in this was if we
33:17 are going to do an an interlocal
33:20 perhaps uh bundling it up with l-clip
33:23 makes sense for the city
33:26 so the elk clip can only be used for
33:30 transfer of development rights if
33:31 there's an interlocal with king county
33:33 for only the portions that's transferred
33:35 from the county into the city
33:39 and and there's a whole feasibility
33:41 study that has to be done that
33:42 establishes some of this stuff we've had
33:45 meetings with the king county tdr
33:47 program and for terra and our finance
33:49 department to kind of
33:51 understand some of the basics of this
33:52 but we're asking council
33:55 whether we should renew that entry local
33:58 whether we you know if so then should
34:02 should we consider l clip
34:04 as another program okay question from
34:06 councilmember okay that's really complex
34:09 um can we go let me play back what i
34:11 think i heard so if we do a tdr program
34:14 and uh
34:15 using l clip and um
34:17 this interlocal agreement agreement
34:20 and
34:21 we we build additional
34:24 housing units
34:26 within the city that were originally
34:29 allocated out someplace in the county in
34:31 the esquad creek basin let's just say
34:34 then we of course get our um property
34:37 tax increment but then there's also some
34:40 part of what the county would take
34:42 their share of our property to our that
34:45 resident's property tax that we'll get
34:49 for
34:52 for our purposes i'll just won't even
34:54 define what purposes those might be yeah
34:56 are there any restrictions on what we
34:58 can use that money for
34:59 uh it is my understanding yes so we
35:01 could use it for infrastructure you know
35:03 but that's a broad spectrum of things
35:05 within infrastructure that we can use it
35:07 for you know you know what how much of
35:08 it it is is it
35:10 some
35:11 whole percentage some fraction of a
35:13 percent um
35:15 uh the the dollar amount well the pers
35:17 you know the
35:18 so you know there's a certain amount of
35:20 property tax we get um works out to i
35:23 think about 10 so county gets their
35:26 chunk of it how much of our of their
35:27 chunk do we get
35:29 do you know uh of the total additional
35:32 that they would may get we would get 75
35:35 of that okay
35:37 so in this pie chart it kind of shows
35:40 the low you know on the right hand side
35:44 if you see the local taxing disc you
35:46 know that would be ours uh and then that
35:48 orange part would be our new tax
35:51 the counties um which is this more
35:54 deeper brown or rust colored
35:57 the blue piece of that would remain to
36:00 the city of the outer slice of that pie
36:02 this where that arrow is pointing
36:05 and then the 25 county would still keep
36:08 that
36:09 okay great
36:10 that was helpful thanks
36:15 i had a question about the previous
36:17 interlocal agreement
36:19 previously we weren't in entered into
36:22 the l clip program and so i and um
36:26 there were sending or yes sending sites
36:30 in the
36:31 county and they would send to receiving
36:34 sites in the city of issaquah and so i'm
36:36 wondering
36:37 in that previous agreement
36:39 what was the
36:41 benefit to
36:42 the city
36:43 i i imagine the
36:46 benefit to the county is that they're
36:47 preserving those
36:49 forested lands and
36:51 and working farms and things like that
36:53 and so
36:55 then
36:55 without this program what would be the
36:57 benefit to the city
36:59 yeah you know it was limited to this
37:00 aqua creek basin so i will need to look
37:03 at the legislative history of what the
37:05 pros and cons were discussed at that
37:07 time but it wasn't like anywhere in the
37:09 county it was more in proximity to to
37:12 issaquah and there must be for apparent
37:14 you know for some ecological game that
37:16 the county felt the city
37:18 leadership at that time felt it was
37:21 the you know um okay to participate in
37:23 that yeah so it was just sort of mutual
37:26 benefit of improving the creek although
37:28 it wasn't the creek within the city
37:30 probably okay yeah okay great thank you
37:32 but but you know if the other
37:34 conversation we've had with king county
37:37 is uh
37:38 if the if the policy is to incentivize
37:41 preservation of sending sites within the
37:44 city limits the the interlocal can be
37:47 structured where the tdr transfer is
37:50 at a smaller ratio so if you transfer
37:53 from outside the county
37:55 outside the city limits you get half
37:57 that value as opposed to you get so
37:59 there's still an incentive for
38:00 preserving open space within the city
38:02 and that's how seattle is set up
38:06 okay good to know thank you
38:08 council president walsh
38:10 thank you so would the receiving sites
38:13 for this l clip be the same as the
38:15 receiving sites
38:17 that we've determined for
38:19 our tdr program
38:22 yeah i mean whichever we want to
38:24 designate receiving sites it's up to
38:27 council um and uh but the sending sites
38:31 would be from outside the limits yeah
38:34 um and then i know there's this other
38:36 question about do we have enough
38:40 potential sending and receiving sites
38:43 within the city to meet our needs
38:46 would
38:47 establishing any of this l-clip program
38:50 potentially hinder or help that
38:54 is there any relationship there
38:56 you know elk clip is successful if
38:58 there's demand is what we understand so
39:01 if there's demand to purchase tdrs then
39:04 some somebody will actually use it and
39:06 therefore the tax you know you'll get
39:08 the development and then there is
39:09 so it it's it's another tool it you know
39:13 if it if it doesn't if nobody uses it
39:15 then
39:16 then
39:17 the city spent the time
39:19 instituting the the tdr and stuff like
39:22 that but it it there's no harm
39:24 per se in that if it gets used then you
39:27 get to keep the revenue uh it all
39:29 depends on private marketplace and the
39:32 demand for receiving property owners to
39:35 to want to you know purchase the tdrs or
39:38 not
39:40 so but my question was related to
39:42 lakeside industries has brought up this
39:44 concept of
39:45 are there enough tdr and i can't
39:48 remember whether it's receiving sites or
39:49 sending sites
39:52 fill out their
39:53 development agreements yeah
39:55 does this impact that
39:57 uh well the the inter-local agreement
40:00 would uh you know would be beneficial to
40:03 lakeside because
40:05 the development agreement with lakeside
40:07 is that um
40:08 they can purchase 100 tdrs from the city
40:11 at a fixed price
40:12 and these are sipa mitigated
40:15 tdrs so they paid their mitigation fees
40:18 uh in 2013
40:20 and all that kind of stuff you know we
40:22 won't get into the specifics of theirs
40:24 but
40:24 they um
40:26 but in addition they have 400 additional
40:29 tdrs that they can get on the private
40:31 marketplace it's clear that the
40:34 city doesn't have those at this point um
40:37 that we can just hand out to them in
40:39 talking with king county even when this
40:42 issaquah creek basin uh it'll be they
40:44 don't that won't add to 400 either
40:49 uh the from a demand perspective yes
40:51 king the the
40:53 lakeside industries has a need or they
40:56 you know they're looking for 400 because
40:58 that's what the development agreement
41:01 said that they could
41:03 get that
41:04 much okay thanks just wanted to make
41:07 sure it wasn't going in the other
41:08 direction
41:10 councilmember murray
41:12 so this is really interesting because
41:14 it's driven by market forces on both the
41:16 buy and the sell side
41:18 say just looking back over the last
41:19 couple of years what have we seen in in
41:21 the marketplace for tdrs are they are
41:23 there all much demand is there much
41:25 supply how's that in that balance look
41:27 yeah um you know we're trying to piece
41:29 all that information but from our
41:31 research so far
41:33 uh there was a you know receiving sites
41:36 back in 2007 2008
41:38 then some activity um you know in
41:41 2018 or something like that but um
41:45 the the wash dot tdr you know that
41:48 development agreement the highlands with
41:51 the park point uh the talus with
41:54 preserving the open space and and uh you
41:57 know through the development agreement
41:59 um so it's been used much more than any
42:02 other cities in the region uh per se
42:04 than it was was at the forefront uh back
42:07 then but it you know that was another
42:09 one of the questions councilmember
42:10 hunter asked us to the changes are we
42:12 making are is it going to make it more
42:14 useful
42:16 again it depends on on the
42:19 more demand on the receiving side
42:21 if you have a base development capacity
42:25 and you you can build that without
42:27 purchasing the development
42:29 rights and and then you layer it with
42:31 where you can purchase additional but
42:33 you're going to actually gain
42:35 more is it beneficial for you so
42:38 it's hard to tell
42:40 at this point whether
42:43 the market forces are
42:45 you know tipping in their favor or not
42:48 but clearly for us for lakeside itself
42:51 is going to use up a lot of uh tdrs yeah
42:55 quick follow on
42:56 um since this is market driven are the
42:58 is the price of tdrs driven by market
43:00 forces or is it fixed
43:02 uh it is driven by market forces king
43:04 county has a program uh of how they
43:07 established that uh we have in our code
43:10 baked in how we determine how many tdr
43:12 units per density and all that kind of
43:14 calculation that will occur
43:17 but then it's it's market driven
43:20 thank you fascinating
43:24 so i i had emailed in a similar
43:28 question but i think my question was
43:30 more about
43:31 also
43:34 my understanding and correct me if i'm
43:35 wrong is that there have been uses of
43:38 this
43:39 in development agreements and sort of
43:41 large
43:45 instances where it was used quite a bit
43:48 but then in between those development
43:50 agreements or those instances it hasn't
43:53 really been used by you know
43:55 an owner of an individual parcel for
43:58 example those smaller
44:00 uses of it and so that's
44:02 that's my understanding and then i just
44:03 wonder if that was true because i
44:05 couldn't and it might be there but i
44:06 didn't see
44:07 the information and i think with
44:09 without that information it's hard for
44:11 me to know how
44:14 how successful or how frequently this
44:17 program has been used and and how does
44:20 that
44:21 although it was good to hear that it's
44:23 used more than other cities so relative
44:24 to other cities is being used more than
44:26 others but um you know how would this
44:28 change that and what's the current
44:30 status was a little bit hard for me to
44:32 parse
44:34 yeah i mean we we are um
44:38 trying to
44:39 get a handle on um
44:41 the previous here's
44:43 one you know it's not holistic and
44:45 complete but this was our
44:47 um looking at how many receiving sites
44:50 and how many tdrs were purchased so
44:53 you know washed out tdr at the bellevue
44:55 college you know they purchased 200 um
44:58 polygon westridge was 100 units so
45:01 beyond those larger ones there were some
45:03 of these um
45:05 and then of course lakeside has 100 from
45:08 us at a fixed rate cost and then
45:11 another 400 from the private marketplace
45:17 we can create a report and share that
45:20 with you uh for the next um
45:23 iteration if that's going to be helpful
45:26 or useful but i think what you were
45:28 asking was are we making any changes so
45:30 that this is used more yeah
45:34 yeah so
45:35 you know because it's market driven
45:38 it's a little bit it's a tool it's not
45:42 that
45:43 we can
45:45 we can really say you have to do it
45:48 it's an optional
45:53 okay thank you
45:58 so so really the the main public
46:00 comments were the conflict between the
46:02 map and the designation which we're
46:04 going to fix we're asking about the
46:06 interlocal
46:07 um and then i think we heard from
46:09 lakeside it's clear that nowhere 400
46:11 tdrs are currently available
46:13 define transit stop so there was some
46:16 cleanup needed for definitions
46:19 and then i think there was some
46:21 confusion about the contents of the tdrs
46:23 certificate perhaps even defining a
46:25 development right because it could be
46:27 the three or four things
46:29 um and then i think our code says you we
46:31 can use tdr funds for administration
46:34 because it is complex um you know
46:36 to understand and implement and do all
46:38 of these things
46:40 so one of the planning commissioners
46:42 said if that if those funds haven't been
46:44 used so far but if they are used they
46:46 should be tracked uh and and there was a
46:48 general inclination that those should
46:50 remain for preservation of open space
46:52 rather than for administration
46:55 that's that's what we heard through the
46:57 public process
47:03 okay i think you can continue on okay
47:06 thanks
47:07 so the next one is really um this
47:09 landmark in archaeological resources um
47:13 we have a section in title 18 it
47:15 encourages the protection preservation
47:17 and enhancement
47:19 there's a landmarks commission a
47:21 nomination process a designation
47:23 criteria
47:25 i'm sorry could we get it in the
47:27 presentation mode so we can see it a
47:29 little bigger thank you so much
47:35 um so
47:37 this you know the city contracts um has
47:39 an interlocal with king county um for
47:42 assistance on historic preservation and
47:44 i think council recently uh updated that
47:47 interlocal um so king county landmark
47:50 and heritage commission has nine members
47:53 there is one representative from
47:55 issaquah
47:57 so someone can submit a nomination it's
47:59 reviewed for completeness
48:02 the commission reviews the nomination
48:04 and then gives them a decision
48:08 and what we're doing with this code
48:09 update is instead of
48:11 you know hard baking the the king
48:13 county's code into our code we're
48:15 referencing it so as it changes over
48:18 time
48:19 we don't have to come back and change
48:21 our code
48:22 but there is a collaboration that king
48:24 county whenever they change their code
48:25 they would send us you know they would
48:27 participate and we would get an
48:29 opportunity to comment on it
48:31 so far there have been six properties
48:33 that have been received nomination and i
48:36 think it's there's a seventh one the big
48:38 picture was the most recent nomination
48:41 that happened that's not on this list
48:45 and so we've added a free recovery
48:48 section
48:49 uh it's really only if the fees are more
48:51 than 750 dollars
48:53 we've adopted king county's code by
48:55 reference we've added a landmark
48:58 commission section so it's clear about
49:00 the isoqua's special member position in
49:03 there
49:05 and we've aligned with the interlocal
49:08 language where we've said the city's
49:10 building official will consider the
49:12 county's historic preservations comments
49:15 we recently updated our violation
49:17 section so we've changed that reference
49:20 um the public comments we received um
49:22 from planning commission and others were
49:25 when we codified the the section for
49:28 issaquah's specific member position why
49:30 did we have a term limit of three years
49:33 you know there was a concern that maybe
49:35 we won't find people that are
49:37 um you know volunteering to do this and
49:39 it's special and how would you train
49:41 them and then you lose them after three
49:44 years so we'll take a look at it to see
49:46 where that came from and if we can say
49:48 or you know
49:50 three years or more you know have some
49:52 flexibility
49:55 then um
49:56 and then someone asked why there are
49:58 only six properties that are designated
50:00 again it's up to the property owner to
50:02 file for a nomination
50:03 um and then i think there was a there
50:05 was a question about if king county
50:07 changes the code and we adopt it by
50:09 reference how will we ensure that there
50:11 are no concerns for the city so that
50:13 happens in a collaborative process where
50:15 we comment on king county
50:17 code
50:19 that's pretty much it that was
50:21 very shortened
50:23 you know clean up
50:25 for that chapter
50:28 okay
50:29 so with that i'm going to turn it over
50:31 to stephen to talk about parking
50:43 good evening committee members uh
50:46 i'm stephen padua long-range planning
50:48 manager i'm going to kind of conclude
50:49 the presentation about parking
50:52 so as minnie mentioned earlier in the
50:54 presentation
50:55 parking in particular
50:57 moves towards modernizing the code and
50:59 incorporating best practices
51:01 for what we want to do with our
51:03 regulations it provides adequate parking
51:05 while utilizing land efficiently it
51:08 helps support the diversification of
51:11 housing and it helps with
51:13 managing
51:14 travel when it results from new
51:16 development
51:19 the changes we made
51:20 for these first three changes it's
51:22 consistent with a lot of the changes we
51:23 made with other draft sections of the
51:25 code
51:26 we reduced redundancies consolidated
51:28 many sections of code that came from
51:30 multiple documents we adapted and and
51:33 added more context to the intent
51:36 sections for parking to help explain
51:38 what we were trying to achieve and then
51:40 replace a lot of the must
51:41 should with must so that we're
51:44 adding more enforceability with our
51:45 regulations
51:48 when it comes to the off-street parking
51:50 requirements
51:53 had several discussions with the
51:54 affinity groups and well with the
51:57 development commission in the planning
51:58 policy commission to talk about what we
52:00 want to do with off-street parking as
52:02 especially as it applies with central
52:05 isla and more of the surrounding
52:07 neighborhoods and what we
52:09 concluded from the recommendations from
52:11 the commissions and the affinity members
52:13 was we wanted to provide more
52:15 predictable metrics move away from
52:17 metrics like
52:20 using the
52:21 number of employees for development
52:23 which is really extremely hard to
52:24 predict at that early this stage and
52:27 we're moving towards metrics
52:30 related to
52:31 square footage of a building
52:33 something out of that ite generation
52:35 manual
52:37 while not many of the affinity groups
52:39 agreed with using
52:42 square footage for a lot of them for a
52:44 lot of the land use they did agree using
52:46 ite as kind of a general basis
52:50 with the hope that the city would
52:52 continue discussions about off-street
52:53 parking
52:55 and then for the consolidation of
52:56 parking requirements
52:58 this was primarily to recognize that
53:00 central esqua and the areas around
53:02 central have different land uses
53:04 and we want to be able to
53:06 establish a tier system to show that
53:09 the parking regulations are different
53:11 for the two tiers
53:16 and then for these last three changes it
53:18 was
53:19 it came from discussions from
53:21 the planning policy commission around
53:23 bike parking share parking and electric
53:26 vehicles and
53:27 really trying to
53:29 clarify what the regulations are while
53:31 also
53:33 push kind of pushing the needle of what
53:35 the city plans were calling for when it
53:37 related to bike parking actually
53:39 encouraging bicycle use as part of a
53:41 transportation system as well as making
53:44 shared parking more of a usable flexible
53:46 parking option
53:48 and then when it came to the ev parking
53:50 regulations it was moving towards a lot
53:52 of the implementation of the icap action
53:55 items and so we increased some of those
53:57 regulations which is a little more
53:59 significant that we did with other
54:00 sections of the code so we added a slide
54:03 to to clarify some of that just because
54:07 it was a little bigger change compared
54:09 to the other
54:10 sections of the draft code
54:12 so we added new town homes
54:14 to the table to be 100 percent ev ready
54:18 and for
54:20 clarification ev ready is the electrical
54:23 infrastructure that goes in the ground
54:25 or in the walls and then evse
54:28 which i'll mention a little bit later is
54:30 the electrical infrastructure plus the
54:33 equipment hookup that connects to the
54:34 vehicles
54:37 next we
54:39 uh changed the new multifamily and
54:41 increased it from 30 to 50 50
54:44 and did the same for existing
54:46 multifamily increased it from 20 to 40
54:50 and then for non-residential we
54:52 increased ev ready to from 10 to 25
54:56 and then evse from 5 to 10
54:59 and that was in line
55:01 in consultation with our sustainability
55:03 staff as
55:05 to look at what we were trying to
55:06 achieve out of the icap
55:10 the planning policy commission weighed
55:12 in on a lot of the draft changes and we
55:14 posed the questions on
55:17 if the long-term and short-term bike
55:19 parking was in line with their
55:20 recommendations during the gaps analysis
55:22 phase of the project
55:24 we also asked the similar question on
55:26 shared parking on clarifying
55:28 that as a flexible parking tool
55:31 as and we asked if we need to reconsider
55:34 the ev regulations and consider looking
55:37 into increasing it further um because
55:39 that was part of the discussion we've
55:41 had with
55:42 the planning part
55:43 planning policy commission and the
55:45 development commission in the gaps
55:46 analysis phase
55:51 for public comments
55:55 we looked at a lot of the public
55:56 comments in particular for the first one
55:58 where we
55:59 removed the parking requirement for adus
56:01 this was actually in response to a state
56:03 requirement that went in to make sure
56:05 that we eliminated any parking
56:07 requirements related to adus
56:09 for the second item we looked at and
56:12 actually
56:13 with the individual looked at the tier
56:15 parking maps and it was his concern was
56:17 primarily related to where the transit
56:19 services were that actually aren't in
56:21 place yet so that'll be something that
56:23 we'll be reviewing in a future date once
56:25 transit services change
56:27 the next item on off street parking
56:29 requirements and multifamily this is
56:31 something that's actually identified on
56:33 the future updates list for us to take
56:35 another look at to really evaluate what
56:37 we want to achieve in central and and
56:39 the areas outside of central
56:42 the item on on-site loading space
56:44 standards was actually a typo where
56:46 that'll be recognized in the next draft
56:49 and then the integration of daylight and
56:51 structured parking is something that um
56:53 i think directory dollywall mentioned
56:55 that we'll be taking a look another look
56:57 at the structured parking requirements
57:00 the electric
57:02 cars for industry and trend this is
57:04 something that we've had discussions
57:06 with puget sound energy and and their
57:09 preferences actually we just continue to
57:11 talk with them once new developments
57:13 come in
57:14 they're not too concerned with one or
57:16 two developments increasing
57:18 with any of these rates they've seen
57:20 kind of the draft code and said this is
57:22 fine
57:23 but if and then all of central is all of
57:25 a sudden developed all at the same time
57:27 then there's a concern there so they are
57:30 actually monitoring all cities
57:31 regulations related to electric vehicles
57:34 and they're developing their own plans
57:36 to kind of update the infrastructure to
57:37 kind of go along with it for bike
57:40 parking we're also taking another look
57:42 at bike parking to see where we might be
57:44 able to
57:45 clarify where the restrictions are and
57:47 how to
57:49 better meet what the best practices are
57:52 for bike parking standards and then for
57:54 shared parking staff is also looking
57:56 into how to increase those opportunities
57:59 so before i go into next steps
58:02 are there any questions
58:05 councilman murray
58:06 thanks um going back to the proposed
58:08 draft ads for the ev standards the
58:10 fourth bullet uh non-residential
58:12 buildings increased the ev ready
58:13 requirement from 10 to 25.
58:16 is that new or is that a substantial
58:18 remodel or both
58:20 it's a substantial remodel
58:22 okay
58:25 so both of the and then the the um
58:28 evse from five to ten that's also for a
58:30 substantial remodel
58:34 crap that whole that whole bullet yeah
58:35 so for non-residential the the rates for
58:38 new and for existing substantial
58:40 remodels increased the same
58:43 got it it would be good to uh
58:45 just call out the substantial remodel on
58:47 that one that would be helpful thanks
58:49 thank you
58:54 okay
58:56 so for next steps
58:58 city council will review
59:00 at the end of the year
59:02 at the end of the year after the
59:04 planning policy commission does a public
59:06 hearing on the consolidated draft
59:08 and then there's a typo on the slide
59:10 recognizing august where it's really
59:12 september you'll see
59:13 um the administration procedures uh so
59:16 the last topics for the title 18 project
59:20 and that will include procedures
59:22 definitions
59:26 trying to remember all the
59:28 cipa
59:30 uh yeah forested hillside preservation
59:33 and
59:37 wireless communications thank you
59:44 so the direction going back to the
59:46 direction needed for tonight um we're
59:48 asking if
59:49 the proposed changes fully meet the
59:51 goals and outcomes intended for the
59:53 topic update
59:54 are there additional topics uh the
59:56 committee would like staff to consider
59:59 for making final edits and then should
1:00:02 the city pursue extension of the expired
1:00:05 interlocal agreement with king county
1:00:07 regarding transfer to development rights
1:00:09 and explore the l-kip program
1:00:16 okay great thank you um so committee we
1:00:19 will now have some time for questions
1:00:20 and then i'll call for public comments
1:00:22 if there's any members of the public
1:00:24 wishing to comment on this item and then
1:00:26 we can make our recommendation uh
1:00:28 council member council president wash
1:00:32 thank you
1:00:34 stephen you might as well stay up there
1:00:36 i've got questions about parking
1:00:41 you mentioned how you were looking at
1:00:44 using the gross floor area based on the
1:00:47 i.t manual
1:00:49 instead of
1:00:51 kind of some of our previous stuff
1:00:53 related to
1:00:55 commercial uses particularly that were
1:00:57 often per employee per classroom all of
1:01:02 how do we analyze
1:01:04 whether
1:01:05 [Music]
1:01:06 the proposed is an increase or a
1:01:08 decrease in parking requirements and how
1:01:11 do we understand
1:01:13 what that recommendation is related to
1:01:17 other cities are we
1:01:19 proposing
1:01:20 something that is
1:01:23 restrictive like less parking required
1:01:26 or more parking required
1:01:28 what is that
1:01:30 so the ite manual actually provides a
1:01:34 tool that recommends based on the city
1:01:37 size and the demographics what type of
1:01:41 requirement should be used
1:01:43 in line with any of the square footage
1:01:47 for the city esqua what was rec what was
1:01:51 put into the table is actually what was
1:01:52 recommended for a city of our size and
1:01:54 the type of development that we're
1:01:55 looking for
1:01:58 comparison with the other cities or at
1:02:01 least our peer cities they all use
1:02:03 different metrics and so it's it's a
1:02:05 little difficult for us to i think to
1:02:06 compare to what they do some of them do
1:02:09 use square footage which we'd looked at
1:02:11 and made sure that we were in line with
1:02:13 what they were doing and or what we're
1:02:15 requiring for the off-street parking
1:02:16 requirements but if there was no
1:02:18 consistent metric that we could use then
1:02:21 we use what was recommended by the i.t
1:02:23 manual
1:02:24 okay so continuing on that concept
1:02:28 i just can't analyze this and figure out
1:02:31 if this is getting us toward was that
1:02:34 goal two
1:02:36 and so
1:02:38 i'm wondering whether
1:02:41 the administration could
1:02:44 provide us with a visual comparison of
1:02:48 min and max parking particularly for
1:02:51 restaurant school
1:02:52 retail and multi-family housing
1:02:56 for some of our major current projects
1:02:59 that are in tier one
1:03:00 and in tier two
1:03:03 so that we can understand okay
1:03:06 take target for example if it's a
1:03:09 certain number of gross floor area
1:03:12 the previous code required x mini min
1:03:15 max parking spots and the proposed code
1:03:18 requires so many because without that
1:03:23 i just don't yeah so is that something
1:03:26 that we can consider
1:03:27 [Music]
1:03:28 within a timeline of
1:03:30 doing this um review
1:03:33 yes yeah so when uh the administration
1:03:36 returns to the committee to kind of look
1:03:38 at the consolidated draft we'll return
1:03:41 a little more graphics and kind of
1:03:43 show what this change actually
1:03:45 represents
1:03:48 i keep going okay uh bike parking so
1:03:52 really like the conversation that you
1:03:55 had with ppc it seems like they had a
1:03:58 lot of input
1:03:59 on that
1:04:01 which i think is great but what i didn't
1:04:03 hear in the staff report or presentation
1:04:06 is whether this is also based on any
1:04:09 other cities or how it differs from
1:04:12 other cities so again
1:04:14 i appreciate that we have some local
1:04:17 input particularly from people who are
1:04:19 bike riders in the city um but i need to
1:04:22 understand how
1:04:24 because that's a big change for us i
1:04:26 need to understand how that relates to
1:04:30 what other cities in the area are doing
1:04:32 do you have any
1:04:34 idea of that now or is that something
1:04:36 you're planning to bring back to us
1:04:38 i actually actually can respond to that
1:04:40 now so we actually use the city of
1:04:42 kirkland and city redmond's bike parking
1:04:44 standards to put together what was
1:04:46 proposed in the draft
1:04:52 one more
1:04:54 parking requirements related to
1:04:57 residential housing so
1:05:00 i appreciated seeing that related to
1:05:03 land use but that got me thinking about
1:05:05 number of bedrooms
1:05:07 and how
1:05:10 we might
1:05:11 end up over providing parking for i
1:05:14 believe was multi-family housing
1:05:16 in tier two
1:05:18 was 1.21 parking stalls per unit minimum
1:05:23 but if all of those were one bedroom or
1:05:26 studios that could potentially be over
1:05:29 parked so do any other cities use number
1:05:33 of bedrooms for their
1:05:34 decision points and is that something we
1:05:36 considered
1:05:38 it is something that staff is actually
1:05:39 considering we received a similar
1:05:41 comment actually from the affinity group
1:05:42 so our staff is actually looking into it
1:05:45 i do know a few cities um not on the
1:05:48 east side do use those type of metrics
1:05:51 or go into that level of detail but not
1:05:53 everybody um none of the other east side
1:05:55 cities go into that level of detail when
1:05:57 it comes to bike parking
1:06:03 that wasn't related to bike parking that
1:06:05 was just
1:06:06 regular parking in general but um
1:06:10 i think that's all i had right now
1:06:16 okay um okay i have a couple questions
1:06:20 uh so
1:06:22 one is on the happy grant um it seems
1:06:26 like there's
1:06:28 a lot of
1:06:29 a lot of different topics writing on
1:06:31 that grant and i wondered if the scope
1:06:34 increased or if you think that hundred
1:06:36 thousand dollars is likely to actually
1:06:38 cover those or if the scope just was
1:06:40 always that scope we just keep hearing
1:06:42 about pieces that are going to be
1:06:44 addressed by that grant
1:06:46 no i think when we applied for the grant
1:06:48 that was the scope that we could study
1:06:50 those three strategies so um but now of
1:06:52 course we're getting into the kickoff
1:06:54 meetings and really deliverables what
1:06:57 are we going to get from the consultants
1:06:58 so but the over
1:07:00 but our goal is to to understand those
1:07:02 three strategies
1:07:05 okay and and do you still expect that
1:07:07 the the grant will cover the totality of
1:07:10 that or do you expect there may need to
1:07:11 be additional funding for those topics
1:07:14 based on learning more and hearing the
1:07:16 conversations at ppc thus far in our
1:07:18 conversations etc
1:07:20 yeah so
1:07:21 the grant will cover the deliverables
1:07:23 from the consultant so if the ppc or
1:07:25 council wants more
1:07:27 conversations you know that'll be
1:07:29 covered by staff
1:07:31 um okay great thank you
1:07:37 um so one other question i had is sort
1:07:40 of similar to council president walsh
1:07:43 walsh's questions but
1:07:45 um the question was if we are
1:07:48 if there are cases where we're
1:07:49 increasing the parking requirement based
1:07:52 on making these changes i think that
1:07:54 would be good in particular to flag for
1:07:57 our consideration because
1:07:59 pretty
1:08:01 so i don't know if you based on the
1:08:03 answer to that question i don't know if
1:08:04 you know that um yet or if you've done
1:08:07 that comparison no okay so that would be
1:08:09 really helpful information because my
1:08:11 concern
1:08:12 similar to council president walsh i
1:08:14 think is about over parking and it is
1:08:17 hard to know if we're
1:08:19 exacerbating
1:08:20 that with these changes because it's
1:08:23 unclear you know it's kind of like
1:08:25 apples to oranges methods and so it's
1:08:27 unclear if we're increasing parking
1:08:28 requirements when we've we've heard from
1:08:33 a number of different sort of community
1:08:36 members and community groups that um
1:08:37 there's very high parking standards so
1:08:41 um so that would be super helpful and
1:08:42 it's it's kind of hard to evaluate
1:08:44 without that i feel like um
1:08:51 i think
1:08:55 one other sort of minor question but on
1:08:58 the adus are we considering also um a
1:09:00 conversation on detached edus
1:09:04 i like
1:09:07 do you know we already allow detached
1:09:10 adus so the last adu update uh was to
1:09:14 allow attached and detached okay is that
1:09:16 for everywhere where we allow ads i
1:09:18 believe so yeah okay okay great um
1:09:22 this uh issue with the parking we did
1:09:24 require parking for adus the state law
1:09:27 was changed where we couldn't require
1:09:30 parking additional parking for adus and
1:09:32 so we
1:09:34 fix that
1:09:36 but we don't have a choice there it's a
1:09:38 state law requirement okay great i think
1:09:40 that that's my questions at this point
1:09:43 any other okay
1:09:44 um then at this time i will check in
1:09:48 that concludes our
1:09:49 our committee q a and so i'll check in
1:09:51 with the city clerk if there are any uh
1:09:54 members of the public on the line and
1:09:55 also note that we we do not have any
1:09:57 members of the public here in council
1:09:59 chambers is anyone indicating desire to
1:10:01 speak on this topic at this time
1:10:04 yes chair hunt kim lee would like to
1:10:07 address the committee on this topic
1:10:11 ms lee i am making you a panelist you
1:10:14 should be able to unmute and address the
1:10:16 committee
1:10:18 everyone again um
1:10:20 thank you for allowing me to make one
1:10:22 more just quick clarification comment
1:10:25 about the tdrs so
1:10:27 um i just wanted to clarify that there
1:10:30 two separate decisions to be made with
1:10:32 regard to the interlocal agreement
1:10:36 in my understanding it's either one
1:10:40 do we move forward with
1:10:43 either amending or extending the
1:10:46 expired agreement
1:10:49 and then the separate decision is if
1:10:51 you know if council decides to move
1:10:54 forward with a new agreement do you
1:10:57 consider the elk clip program not that
1:10:59 those two decisions are coupled together
1:11:02 um if you decide to and
1:11:05 mrs dalawalkin can correct me but as i
1:11:07 understand it
1:11:08 if the lclip program is a program that
1:11:12 you wish to move forward with
1:11:15 then that precludes the ability to
1:11:16 simply amend and extend
1:11:20 previously existing interlocal agreement
1:11:29 all right thank you thank you for those
1:11:31 comments
1:11:33 and at this time we will
1:11:37 deliberate and potentially make a
1:11:39 recommendation
1:11:40 i think it would probably be helpful to
1:11:43 address the items in order as we've done
1:11:46 before
1:11:47 um and then i'll sort of summarize what
1:11:49 i've heard back and we can take it from
1:11:52 there um
1:11:57 i believe the
1:11:58 first item
1:12:01 within this
1:12:06 is tdr right
1:12:09 affordable affordable housing okay
1:12:11 um so first let's start off with
1:12:12 affordable housing then tdr then parking
1:12:16 no then land uh
1:12:18 landmark yeah
1:12:20 okay all right affordable housing who
1:12:23 would like to kick us off the council
1:12:25 members
1:12:27 i i think the changes around affordable
1:12:29 housing are good i i continue to be
1:12:33 concerned that
1:12:35 the the methods we're using have been
1:12:38 less than effective in generating
1:12:40 affordable housing so
1:12:43 i think anything that we can do now to
1:12:46 make it clearer would be good i think
1:12:48 looking at expanding inclusionary zoning
1:12:51 is good i think expanding the
1:12:53 multi-family tax exemption is good
1:12:56 and i think
1:12:57 the happy grant
1:12:59 if it can give us some insights into how
1:13:03 actually move the needle on affordable
1:13:04 housing that would be very good
1:13:11 council president
1:13:13 plus one to what he said
1:13:15 basically i'm
1:13:17 i think it's really good that we're
1:13:18 having the conversation about why we're
1:13:21 not receiving affordable housing or any
1:13:23 development really in that central
1:13:25 isoqua area um and
1:13:28 really getting down into the details and
1:13:30 understanding why not i think we
1:13:33 basically have
1:13:36 well there's probably more but to my
1:13:38 simplifying mindset it's either
1:13:41 hey whatever we did didn't work and we
1:13:43 either need to roll back the regulations
1:13:45 or add on extra incentives or
1:13:49 it incentivized things
1:13:51 out of the central issaquah area and
1:13:54 that thus we're
1:13:56 getting development out in those areas
1:13:58 and so one of the other ways to handle
1:14:00 that is to
1:14:02 expand the requirements to the whole
1:14:04 city so i look forward to
1:14:07 getting the information on that analysis
1:14:11 but in lieu of that i think
1:14:16 the conversations that you had
1:14:18 and the changes made to
1:14:21 affordable housing in the code are good
1:14:24 adjustments um and so
1:14:26 glad to see that area moving forward
1:14:32 thank you i
1:14:33 agree with my fellow committee members
1:14:36 i think
1:14:37 however that
1:14:39 not only are we not getting affordable
1:14:41 housing
1:14:43 to the degree we need it the
1:14:45 issues around
1:14:47 folks being cost burdened and rents
1:14:49 increasing
1:14:50 those as far as i can tell are also
1:14:53 becoming worse and worse so the problem
1:14:55 is becoming worse while we're also not
1:14:57 seeing
1:14:59 seeing affordable housing being built
1:15:02 and so
1:15:05 i think the grant it's
1:15:07 scoped you know to address these
1:15:09 questions but i guess i would really
1:15:13 reiterate that we do need to have
1:15:16 actions come out of that you know
1:15:18 recommendations that we can act on i
1:15:19 think we generally know that we need
1:15:23 more tools and we need to
1:15:27 see changes from the way
1:15:29 you know the way we've been headed as
1:15:31 far as
1:15:33 an increasingly
1:15:34 large
1:15:35 portion of our
1:15:37 community being so cost burdened for
1:15:39 housing
1:15:40 are by by housing costs so um
1:15:44 i think increasing the multi-family tax
1:15:47 exemption increasing inclusionary zoning
1:15:49 to other areas all of those things are
1:15:50 things we will need to do and then it's
1:15:53 a question of
1:15:54 of how exactly but i i would hope to
1:15:57 have that really solidified by this
1:15:59 happy grant so then we can take action
1:16:01 within i would hope within that year
1:16:03 2023 um
1:16:06 i i think
1:16:08 we can hopefully
1:16:10 have not only the information but also
1:16:11 recommendations on on how to act that
1:16:14 would be most useful
1:16:16 [Music]
1:16:18 and then
1:16:20 see what else
1:16:25 oh one other comment
1:16:27 there were changes made to
1:16:29 um ink to make the appliances also the
1:16:33 interior and exterior
1:16:36 more similar to market rate for
1:16:37 affordable units as i understood it i
1:16:40 just want to make sure that that's not
1:16:43 in any way decreasing the likelihood
1:16:45 that we would have affordable housing i
1:16:47 i think that the point that was made
1:16:49 at pbc i think or it was made in the pub
1:16:52 in the comments
1:16:54 uh about interspersing units in market
1:16:57 rate with um
1:16:59 with affordable housing that's a really
1:17:02 important concept and i would like to
1:17:05 incentives or you know would like to see
1:17:07 driving toward that as a goal
1:17:10 but just a note of caution if if the
1:17:12 appliances and things are
1:17:14 are um adding to the cost i would would
1:17:17 not want that to disincentivize building
1:17:19 it and i think at the end of the day we
1:17:23 there's an underlying issue which is
1:17:24 that we're not seeing this being built
1:17:26 and that's that's the big problem not
1:17:27 really like the
1:17:29 quality of the appliances necessarily so
1:17:31 just i know that's a balancing act but i
1:17:33 would just look at it
1:17:34 through that lens and then again like
1:17:36 interspersed with market rate and
1:17:38 affordable housing that's that that can
1:17:40 be really important and that also then
1:17:43 those units are going to be very similar
1:17:46 just in their nature and similar
1:17:47 exterior etc to the market rate which
1:17:50 would be
1:17:52 way to do that and i think has multiple
1:17:54 benefits
1:17:56 so those are my comments on affordable
1:17:58 housing
1:17:59 anything
1:18:00 additional okay
1:18:02 um so to summarize i think we're
1:18:04 generally in support of using the happy
1:18:06 grant
1:18:08 uh to look at this more but also just
1:18:10 recognizing that we aren't getting the
1:18:12 affordable housing that we need to see
1:18:17 and i think also council president walsh
1:18:20 had mentioned earlier looking at at
1:18:22 parking as well just coupled with you
1:18:24 know what are all the cost drivers here
1:18:26 and then sort of my my comment on the
1:18:28 appliances is similar like just
1:18:30 considering all of the things that are
1:18:31 making this costly that we could adjust
1:18:34 uh to get more
1:18:36 affordable housing would be
1:18:38 will be good i think
1:18:41 it's not good summary anything else okay
1:18:45 so then we will move to tdrs
1:18:48 any comments on tdrs council president
1:18:50 walsh
1:18:52 thanks um first of all i really really
1:18:55 really liked seeing the inclusion of the
1:18:58 hillsides as a way to
1:19:01 preserve
1:19:02 those i think that meets so many of our
1:19:05 goals
1:19:06 and does so in a creative way and
1:19:09 hopefully we can get the word out i
1:19:12 think
1:19:13 one of the
1:19:15 problems we may face with the tdrs is as
1:19:18 much as we
1:19:20 look at it and go oh we know what a tdr
1:19:22 is and transfer development right
1:19:24 it isn't something very commonly used
1:19:28 and so
1:19:30 it would be
1:19:31 nice from a kind of communication
1:19:34 standpoint or maybe just a
1:19:37 kind of what's the workflow as a larger
1:19:39 project comes in through the permit
1:19:42 cycle that maybe there's a handout or a
1:19:45 link that can be sent that says hey you
1:19:48 want some additional density here's one
1:19:50 way you can do it
1:19:53 because i think we've made adjustments
1:19:56 to the code and we've seen it on some of
1:19:59 those larger projects like the
1:20:01 development agreements where they've had
1:20:03 a really good incentive to
1:20:06 get some extra density
1:20:08 and they've had the time with staff to
1:20:10 be able to understand what their options
1:20:13 so to me it seems like we may have
1:20:16 some questions of kind of communication
1:20:19 public publicization
1:20:22 and then
1:20:24 there was the question from miss lee
1:20:26 about what's the difference between
1:20:29 extending the current ila with king
1:20:31 county versus the l-clip program
1:20:34 i didn't understand what the difference
1:20:37 is between that so i think i would be
1:20:40 interested in exploring it
1:20:42 because i think in general
1:20:45 preserving stephen king county and
1:20:47 particularly preserving stuff in the
1:20:49 issaquah creek
1:20:51 watershed area is
1:20:53 really good serves many of our needs
1:20:56 but i don't want to make the wrong
1:20:58 decision a choice between those if i
1:21:00 don't understand what the difference is
1:21:06 i wondered if we could have a comment on
1:21:09 i my understanding was that the
1:21:11 administration is recommending that we
1:21:13 couple
1:21:14 if we if we did the ila that we would
1:21:16 couple the l clip program with the ila
1:21:20 for king county is that right i mean
1:21:22 they don't have to be together but that
1:21:23 that was the recommendation oh correct
1:21:25 they don't have to be together and i
1:21:26 think lord from lakeside's perspective
1:21:29 it's going to take time for the elk clip
1:21:30 to to be sorted out so you you know the
1:21:33 the city could just
1:21:35 separate them and you know council could
1:21:36 decide to just extend the
1:21:38 uh the ila separate from the l clip but
1:21:41 we felt the council needed to know that
1:21:43 there is this added benefit to the city
1:21:46 from the taxes purposes if we wanted to
1:21:49 couple them together
1:21:54 and and obviously the l clip can't go
1:21:57 alone or it wouldn't yeah it would there
1:21:59 wouldn't be any way to use it if we
1:22:01 didn't do the ila okay
1:22:03 um i thought yeah
1:22:06 i think we're clear okay
1:22:10 thanks um i agree on the uh wooded
1:22:12 hillside i think that's that's a really
1:22:14 clever way to fix that problem and and
1:22:16 i'm super excited about that um i agree
1:22:19 with um council president walsh on
1:22:22 tdr's are
1:22:24 a form of currency if you will that can
1:22:26 be used in many different ways and i
1:22:27 think having clarity on how tdrs can be
1:22:31 spent would be very helpful
1:22:33 and then i was just
1:22:34 using on the fact that if density is one
1:22:36 of the things that i can use a tdr for
1:22:39 and what we're doing to
1:22:40 promote affordable housing is a density
1:22:42 bonus i wouldn't want us to shoot our
1:22:44 affordable housing in the foot with a
1:22:46 tdr so
1:22:48 so we've got to figure a way to balance
1:22:49 that out so that we don't
1:22:51 undermine
1:22:53 the incentives around density because
1:22:55 we're using tdrs in that area
1:22:58 i would be very interested to know what
1:23:00 the development rights remaining in the
1:23:02 isquad creek basin are so what is it
1:23:05 that we would be potentially looking at
1:23:07 there because if it's a small number
1:23:09 maybe we don't need the ila
1:23:11 i'm very interested in in the l clip
1:23:14 program if we're going to be looking at
1:23:16 expanding tdrs because i think
1:23:19 with additional growth and additional
1:23:21 density
1:23:22 do come additional costs for
1:23:23 infrastructure and having assistance in
1:23:26 defraying some of those
1:23:28 infrastructure costs would be
1:23:30 very positive so not certain that i'm
1:23:33 super psyched about
1:23:34 the ila focused on isquad creek without
1:23:36 elk club
1:23:40 okay thank you
1:23:41 uh one clarifying question can you
1:23:44 explain
1:23:46 issue or potential concern around using
1:23:49 the tdr funds for
1:23:50 administrative purposes
1:23:55 yeah so the code says you know up to
1:23:58 five percent of the jobs um tdr funds
1:24:01 can be used for administration i think
1:24:03 the the thought was the if to run this
1:24:05 program there's some administration
1:24:07 costs and how to to use the funds for to
1:24:11 offset that and the comment from the
1:24:13 planning policy commission was they felt
1:24:16 like most of that money should be spent
1:24:18 the uh for preservation rather than an
1:24:20 administration
1:24:21 of the program
1:24:23 okay thank you
1:24:25 i think
1:24:26 i think i i think
1:24:29 seems like five percent seems like a
1:24:31 small but reasonable you know it's up to
1:24:33 five percent seems like a small but
1:24:35 reasonable percentage it would be nice
1:24:36 to know if that's standard though um
1:24:39 because for a very large
1:24:41 project is five percent really
1:24:42 reasonable for administration so i i
1:24:44 guess i would just it might be helpful
1:24:46 to compare against other tdr programs
1:24:49 but um
1:24:51 just for our for our future information
1:24:53 so um as far as the issaquah creek and
1:24:57 the ila and then elk clip i
1:25:01 intrigued by the possibility of
1:25:03 preserving
1:25:04 that um
1:25:06 those conservation areas on issaquah
1:25:08 creek although they're outside of
1:25:10 issaquah it does feed into
1:25:13 our portion of the issaquah
1:25:16 creek and then you know which goes out
1:25:18 to lake samamish and of course
1:25:20 none of those boundaries matter to
1:25:23 wildlife or to salmon and for habitat
1:25:26 quality and so you know the quality of
1:25:28 the water coming down that stream is is
1:25:31 ultimately what matters so we will
1:25:32 benefit from
1:25:34 conservation of the the creek
1:25:36 outside of our city as well so i i like
1:25:40 that idea i also like the l clip program
1:25:44 and i think um the point council member
1:25:46 ray made was a good one about just
1:25:49 making just getting more information
1:25:51 about what is the potential there um as
1:25:53 far as what are those undeveloped areas
1:25:56 that would be eligible to become sending
1:25:59 sites if we were to
1:26:00 enter into the isla um and then i did
1:26:03 remember one other question i had so you
1:26:05 mentioned that the map and the um
1:26:08 the map and the code were not aligned
1:26:10 for sending sites and receiving sites
1:26:12 and that it was the difference was in
1:26:14 the community facilities so are the
1:26:16 community facilities just going to be
1:26:17 changed so that they are
1:26:19 receiving sites yeah that's what we're
1:26:21 thinking so you know we do things
1:26:23 slightly differently so if there's a
1:26:25 park acquisition it's zone
1:26:28 whatever the underlying zoning is
1:26:30 single-family states you know whatever
1:26:32 the or single-family small lot
1:26:34 and then once the city acquires that we
1:26:37 re-zone it to say community facilities
1:26:39 open space so community facilities you
1:26:41 know we have like five different or
1:26:42 seven different types of cf zones
1:26:47 so it it
1:26:48 uh becomes
1:26:50 if they're designated as um
1:26:53 as park space you know um ascending
1:26:55 sites and then you've you've now rezoned
1:26:58 them to a thing that can't be allowed so
1:27:03 our intention here is to change the text
1:27:05 keep the map
1:27:06 be the the visual that explains which
1:27:08 you're sending in which you're receiving
1:27:10 but but take out the portion that
1:27:12 prohibits some of those zone properties
1:27:14 to be considered sending sites but we'll
1:27:16 work with uh legal to kind of
1:27:19 figure out about there
1:27:23 okay great thank you council president
1:27:24 walsh
1:27:25 yeah um i just wanted to chime in on the
1:27:28 ila um with the information that you've
1:27:30 provided about the difference between
1:27:33 just extending versus the l clip i'm
1:27:36 definitely in favor of the l clip
1:27:38 program for the tax benefits that it
1:27:40 would provide us in order to
1:27:42 add any infrastructure so i would fall
1:27:44 on that side of that idea thanks
1:27:51 okay i think we were all pretty much in
1:27:52 agreement did you get a consensus from
1:27:54 that conversation about
1:27:56 yeah next steps okay great um then the
1:27:59 next one is regarding landmarks and
1:28:01 archaeological resources
1:28:08 um i agree i think this is is a is very
1:28:11 clear
1:28:12 the one thing i had flagged was
1:28:15 um i also
1:28:16 sat in
1:28:18 on the ppc meeting on these topics and i
1:28:20 thought the the points about
1:28:23 the uh commission member for the
1:28:26 landmarks commission that three years
1:28:28 you wouldn't really get
1:28:30 acclimated and everything i think that
1:28:31 made a lot of sense so that could be
1:28:33 looked at and just
1:28:35 made to be more flexible i think but
1:28:37 other than that i think it's it's good
1:28:40 okay and then the last section is
1:28:42 parking
1:28:44 council president wash
1:28:49 i think in general the parking
1:28:52 code is gonna need another touch
1:28:56 just to understand what
1:28:59 whether we are achieving what we
1:29:00 intended to achieve
1:29:03 so if the question is is this ready to
1:29:06 move on my answer is no i think we need
1:29:09 more information more data on that
1:29:11 [Music]
1:29:13 other
1:29:14 areas within that
1:29:16 i actually don't support the changes
1:29:18 that are proposed related to the ev
1:29:21 ready and evse um i appreciate the staff
1:29:25 is pushing forward on this based on the
1:29:28 sustainability ideas but
1:29:31 we just made that policy decision on
1:29:34 council
1:29:37 we got some pushback
1:29:39 we had questions whether it was
1:29:41 financially
1:29:42 feasible and whether it would
1:29:45 hurt development and so looking at the
1:29:48 proposal here
1:29:50 to potentially double that without
1:29:52 having a policy conversation on the
1:29:54 financial ramifications i think is not
1:29:58 where we as council intended to move
1:30:02 forward on that um so i wouldn't
1:30:05 support that area
1:30:07 [Music]
1:30:11 appreciated the
1:30:14 presentation of the conversations with
1:30:16 the affinity groups on
1:30:18 the parking including the off-street
1:30:21 parking maxims versus minimums and all
1:30:23 of the conversations about maybe we
1:30:25 should just eliminate minimums in
1:30:27 certain areas
1:30:29 i really
1:30:30 like those as
1:30:33 concepts i appreciate that we eliminated
1:30:35 the minimums for adus though now hearing
1:30:38 that it was a state requirement i'm i'm
1:30:40 not as uh gung-ho like way to go
1:30:42 issaquah moving forward on some of these
1:30:44 areas where we can
1:30:46 uh i i would like to do more of that and
1:30:49 i think we
1:30:51 seeing that you've had affinity group
1:30:53 conversations
1:30:54 says hey we're already moving forward on
1:30:57 that i
1:30:59 you know i know this goes a little bit
1:31:01 the next
1:31:03 point but i think
1:31:06 that's one i'm not really ready to shift
1:31:09 on to a
1:31:11 future discussions whiteboard list
1:31:14 given we've already started those
1:31:15 conversations i don't want to lose
1:31:20 those ideas
1:31:22 i think
1:31:23 also given
1:31:24 that there were a lot of changes made to
1:31:28 the bike parking code based on ppc's
1:31:30 conversation or discussions there
1:31:33 i mean i think
1:31:35 it's good that we're looking at making
1:31:38 some changes there but i really struggle
1:31:41 when the administration then comes back
1:31:43 and says oh but we can't talk about
1:31:46 vehicle parking requirements
1:31:49 because it's too new and so i'm having a
1:31:52 hard time
1:31:53 mixing those two
1:31:55 when we didn't really put anything in
1:31:57 there about bike parking as a big change
1:32:00 that we wanted to accomplish but we did
1:32:01 about parking
1:32:04 so i guess
1:32:06 again this also goes into that future
1:32:08 conversation but
1:32:10 what i'm looking for then is not only an
1:32:14 understanding of does this get us
1:32:17 how does this move the needle from the
1:32:18 current code but also
1:32:21 are we making the appropriate changes to
1:32:23 achieve goal two
1:32:25 which was
1:32:27 hey let's use our land use well
1:32:29 let's do it
1:32:30 in a way
1:32:32 knowing that these things that are gonna
1:32:33 be built are gonna be there for the next
1:32:35 50 years
1:32:38 so i have concerns um i appreciate that
1:32:42 we've moved to a tier one tier two
1:32:45 um concept i think that's the right
1:32:48 direction i just don't yet know where
1:32:51 the numbers
1:32:54 come down as far as achieving our goal
1:32:56 so thanks
1:32:59 councilman rory thanks i'm just going to
1:33:01 open in one area and that's i
1:33:03 i was also
1:33:05 struck with the ev parking
1:33:07 regs and particularly the substantial
1:33:10 improvements the last two bullets and
1:33:12 the increases there i guess i could get
1:33:14 behind
1:33:15 the new townhomes and new multi-families
1:33:17 because i think that that makes sense
1:33:19 but to council presidents
1:33:21 comment we got a fair amount of uh
1:33:23 pushback from the community over these
1:33:26 regs when we put them together and i was
1:33:28 and was and am very supportive of them
1:33:31 um but i wouldn't want to make any
1:33:33 changes now particularly without doing a
1:33:34 fairly extensive outreach to the
1:33:36 business community
1:33:41 all right thank you
1:33:42 um so
1:33:45 on the eevee
1:33:47 parking i'll start there um i
1:33:51 from the pvc conversation there were
1:33:53 many opinions on it and um one of the
1:33:57 opinions was that this should be
1:33:59 reviewed after a couple years and not
1:34:03 not so fast after the other changes had
1:34:05 been made
1:34:07 so i do think that would be prudent just
1:34:09 to see more projects come through the
1:34:11 pipeline with the
1:34:12 existing regulations and make sure that
1:34:14 it's working as expected
1:34:18 i think i i too as far as the
1:34:21 ev ready
1:34:23 most people do prefer to charge their
1:34:25 car at their residence so you know if we
1:34:28 can for new residences uh townhomes
1:34:31 multi-family if we can make sure that
1:34:33 we're right-sizing ev readiness for that
1:34:37 um especially given that these buildings
1:34:39 will be there for 50 years i think that
1:34:41 would be
1:34:42 that would be good um as far as the ev
1:34:46 uh the ev4 non-residential and the evse
1:34:52 um i i think it would be good to give
1:34:55 our current code some time and make sure
1:34:57 that it's it it is right-sized for our
1:35:00 community at this point so um and that
1:35:03 that was in the mix of opinions from pbc
1:35:05 there was there was also some support
1:35:07 for the ev ready
1:35:09 less so for the evse given techno
1:35:11 technology changes and things like that
1:35:18 okay so then other comments on the bike
1:35:21 parking generally i heard from ppc and i
1:35:24 agree
1:35:25 that it should be
1:35:27 pretty flexible to make sure that that
1:35:29 buildings
1:35:31 are designed with this in mind but that
1:35:32 they can do it that they can put in this
1:35:34 bike parking however works best for them
1:35:37 so i generally am on board with that
1:35:39 um and
1:35:40 then also generally agree that it's hard
1:35:44 to know if we're
1:35:46 making our
1:35:48 if we're increasing parking requirements
1:35:50 because there's not a not
1:35:52 apples-to-apples comparison with this
1:35:54 code i'm very concerned that we
1:35:58 you know we have this vision
1:35:59 for especially central issaquah where we
1:36:01 don't have these big parking lots um and
1:36:05 that we are using our space
1:36:08 uh more efficiently making more
1:36:10 pedestrian-oriented spaces making
1:36:13 spaces that are more inviting for people
1:36:15 to get out of their cars and walk around
1:36:18 um and so i think
1:36:20 it's it's hard to know how much that
1:36:22 this changes i don't think it changes
1:36:25 very much also um but i think generally
1:36:27 it would be good to look at our parking
1:36:29 requirements and then look at the vision
1:36:30 we have for central esqua and then how
1:36:32 can we adjust our
1:36:34 parking requirements accordingly which i
1:36:38 think direction wise is
1:36:40 uh reducing the
1:36:42 minimum or you know putting a maximum
1:36:46 and just having less parking
1:36:49 um so that's
1:36:50 those are my thoughts on that and i
1:36:52 think we we basically need more
1:36:54 information i also generally agree that
1:36:56 of the different topics this was the one
1:36:59 it was particularly hard to evaluate
1:37:01 against the goals
1:37:09 all right um
1:37:10 so that concludes this item unless there
1:37:13 are any questions
1:37:15 that you have for our committee um no i
1:37:17 think it's clear one question i have on
1:37:20 the parking i think uh there's the
1:37:22 general desire to have a comparison
1:37:25 of what's changed increase decreased uh
1:37:27 piercity research
1:37:29 um where do we stand um by the number of
1:37:32 units you know uh one bedroom versus two
1:37:35 bedroom how how does multi-family stack
1:37:37 up um so we can we can come back to the
1:37:41 committee with that information
1:37:43 the ev i think there's generally
1:37:46 consensus to not change the remodel and
1:37:49 all that but general support for
1:37:52 multi-family
1:37:56 okay the townhomes we do need to fix it
1:37:58 because right now we have a percentage
1:38:00 and it's not a multi-family townhome you
1:38:02 either have it or you don't so i think
1:38:05 that that's a flaw in our existing code
1:38:07 that we we it we do need to fix that
1:38:10 um any other questions on parking
1:38:17 so i just wanted to clarify what one of
1:38:19 the things that i'm looking for in being
1:38:22 able to evaluate and understand what the
1:38:24 proposed code is
1:38:26 for parking related to the existing code
1:38:29 is to use some example projects and so
1:38:32 if you're looking at say target as an
1:38:35 example
1:38:36 target is
1:38:37 x number of
1:38:39 gross floor area and with the current
1:38:43 code or whatever code they were
1:38:44 developed under
1:38:47 this many spaces required if they were
1:38:50 to develop the same project with new
1:38:52 code and they're in tier 1 versus tier 2
1:38:56 what are their minimums what are their
1:38:57 maximums
1:38:59 so that
1:39:00 we can really look at it
1:39:02 in in a way that you know i'm not saying
1:39:06 draw the target and show what the scale
1:39:09 of it would be but just so that we can
1:39:11 relate it to some specific projects and
1:39:15 understand how the numbers come back and
1:39:17 forth and again particularly
1:39:20 on some of those areas where it used to
1:39:24 be number of employees
1:39:27 number of
1:39:28 i think it was bowling lanes on one of
1:39:30 them or you know something like that
1:39:34 bowling lanes probably isn't a good
1:39:35 example because we don't have any
1:39:37 previous projects that you could look at
1:39:39 but um some of those areas so that we
1:39:41 can really get a sense of what the
1:39:43 proposed change has as an effect thanks
1:39:46 sure yeah and and one of the things you
1:39:48 know in the consolidation part was the
1:39:50 the size of the stalls right so we had
1:39:53 two different standards one in central
1:39:55 and one
1:39:56 side of central so we've merged them and
1:39:58 kind of so there is some efficient use
1:40:00 of land
1:40:01 that comes from you know how how wide
1:40:04 your drive aisle with needs to be in all
1:40:06 angled parking versus 90 degree parking
1:40:09 so we've fixed some of those
1:40:11 as well with this update just so um
1:40:13 that's on the table the comparison with
1:40:16 the ite um you know at one point we had
1:40:19 had a discussion with ppc um stephen i
1:40:22 think was before perhaps uh your
1:40:25 conversation with uh the affinity groups
1:40:27 was king county has a right-sized
1:40:30 parking model
1:40:31 where
1:40:32 they have built-in
1:40:34 sort of their you know the market demand
1:40:36 close to proximity and you can plug in
1:40:38 your address and things and it spits out
1:40:40 a number
1:40:41 so as we do this research and give you
1:40:44 this analysis we can kind of throw that
1:40:46 one in there too you know based on king
1:40:48 county's right size parking model this
1:40:50 is the number that they come up with so
1:40:52 you'll have more holistic picture of
1:40:55 here we are here's the proposed draft
1:40:56 here's the peer city research and here's
1:40:59 ite manuel and versus the other one so
1:41:02 we'll work on that comparison to show
1:41:09 your comment about the stall size and
1:41:11 the aisles
1:41:12 reminded me
1:41:15 one of the things that i've appreciated
1:41:16 about the development in of the retail
1:41:19 on the highlands is that pretty much all
1:41:22 the time most of the spaces are used up
1:41:26 it seems right-sized and i'm sure there
1:41:28 are some people in the community who see
1:41:30 that and go
1:41:31 gosh there's no parking
1:41:34 understanding
1:41:37 those requirements may be taking some of
1:41:39 the developments in that retail space
1:41:41 there and using that would be really
1:41:44 helpful
1:41:46 from my mind because there's a big
1:41:47 difference in the parking requirements
1:41:50 in the grand ridge plaza versus the
1:41:52 parking requirements in
1:41:54 a target as a box store
1:41:58 and then the other thing is
1:42:00 some of our newer
1:42:03 parking lots that have requirements for
1:42:08 trees and also pedestrian walk zones
1:42:12 that isn't in this parking area is that
1:42:15 in landscaping instead
1:42:18 to have uh
1:42:19 you know how do you have pedestrian
1:42:21 connections from your parking uh surface
1:42:23 parking lot to to your building entrance
1:42:26 yeah we'll take a look i think it's in
1:42:29 the site design manual okay so we have a
1:42:31 building design and we have a site
1:42:32 layout and design
1:42:34 that's my understanding it's in the site
1:42:36 design manual that's correct it's in the
1:42:38 site designer
1:42:39 because that would be the other thing
1:42:41 that comes up for me on parking is i
1:42:43 really love a good parking lot that
1:42:45 thinks of me as a human who has to walk
1:42:48 and doesn't want to walk behind a bunch
1:42:50 of cars and potentially be hit so
1:42:53 more we can do more of that the better
1:42:56 city we will be
1:42:58 thanks
1:43:03 anything else okay
1:43:04 i did just want to add one one more
1:43:06 reason to support the evie
1:43:09 ready for multi-family which had came up
1:43:11 in our previous conversations but i'll
1:43:13 just restate for the record is that also
1:43:16 when you don't have the ability to
1:43:17 charge at your home then that can become
1:43:19 a barrier to having that kind of vehicle
1:43:21 and for multi-family they won't have the
1:43:23 ability to
1:43:24 do that remodel themselves
1:43:26 and so it's especially important for for
1:43:29 them for that
1:43:30 equity component so again support that
1:43:33 and then think we need more data about
1:43:35 how the non-residential piece pieces
1:43:37 working all right i think i think with
1:43:39 that we are concluded on this topic so
1:43:42 we will move on to
1:43:45 our second and final item which is
1:43:46 id1224 title 18 land use code future
1:43:49 updates list
1:43:50 also known as the whiteboard and this
1:43:52 will also be presented by director
1:43:55 dollywall
1:44:01 i'll go ahead and share my screen again
1:44:09 so for this topic um
1:44:11 you know we we have been
1:44:13 the purpose of the whiteboard or the
1:44:15 future us
1:44:16 we put it in full screen sorry sorry
1:44:24 so um this future updates list what is
1:44:28 it and how did it come about and what's
1:44:30 the process so in summary
1:44:33 as we started having these conversations
1:44:35 with the community members with the
1:44:36 planning and policy commission and
1:44:38 various boards and commissions
1:44:40 there were some topics that were
1:44:42 good conversations but they were outside
1:44:44 the scope of the current title 18 update
1:44:47 but we didn't want to lose them so we
1:44:49 started adding them to this list
1:44:52 it's evolved in terms of the name of
1:44:54 this list from a parking lot to a bike
1:44:58 barn to
1:44:59 a whiteboard i think we landed with the
1:45:01 whiteboard but um so that anyone who's
1:45:04 not queued into this conversation
1:45:06 doesn't know what we're talking about
1:45:07 we're now calling it future updates list
1:45:10 in parentheses whiteboard
1:45:13 and uh so what we gave you is based on
1:45:16 each of those six
1:45:18 larger categories of how we're doing
1:45:20 this update
1:45:21 and um in the
1:45:24 in your packet is a detailed list i
1:45:26 think what we heard from the last time
1:45:28 when we gave you a bullet point list was
1:45:30 put it in the format of goals outcomes
1:45:32 what is your intent and and is it
1:45:34 covered under the existing goals and
1:45:36 outcomes chart so we've taken that and
1:45:39 and revised the list that's in your
1:45:41 packet
1:45:42 the two questions we received from uh
1:45:45 council members were
1:45:48 which are of these items uh is actually
1:45:50 implementing the centralization plan so
1:45:53 i'll go over that in my uh this list
1:45:56 it's just the the list um
1:45:59 and then the ones that are in blue are
1:46:02 the ones that have are somewhat related
1:46:04 to the centralistic plan now obviously
1:46:07 we've implemented the central estima
1:46:09 plan by already the things that are in
1:46:10 the code
1:46:12 with this update we've codified few
1:46:15 things in the plan that were
1:46:17 only mentioned tangentially
1:46:20 as applicable code requirements for
1:46:22 instance developer obligations are in
1:46:24 the plan but now we're embedding it in
1:46:27 the code
1:46:29 and but other densities requirements and
1:46:31 those all of those have already been
1:46:33 implemented in title 18 code but the the
1:46:36 stuff from this white the future updates
1:46:39 the things that are actually mentioned
1:46:41 in the uh central square plan we've you
1:46:44 know in this presentation
1:46:46 we've highlighted them in blue and
1:46:49 included in parentheses where it's
1:46:51 mentioned whether it's a vision
1:46:52 statement whether it's an actual policy
1:46:55 or um
1:46:57 or or not so that was one question um so
1:47:01 let's go through this list
1:47:02 the first topic um was natural
1:47:06 environments and those are the the the
1:47:08 three things then we had um
1:47:11 the landscape and open space
1:47:13 we've put an urban forestry program well
1:47:15 it's not a title 18 update but i think
1:47:17 it was a big enough uh
1:47:19 conversation that we've added it here
1:47:22 and the other ones are all um the third
1:47:25 item here is for
1:47:27 building and design
1:47:30 or zoning and uses i'm sorry um that
1:47:33 talked about
1:47:34 some of the you know are these kind of
1:47:37 uses allowed in in residential zones can
1:47:39 we prohibit self-storage uh facilities
1:47:42 can what can we do about impervious
1:47:44 surface limits um and then of course
1:47:46 school siting in compact school design
1:47:49 and and emergency shelters and
1:47:51 transitional housing this is a state law
1:47:53 requirement that we're going to have
1:47:55 conversations with the comprehensive
1:47:57 plan update because there's requirements
1:47:58 that need to go in the housing element
1:48:00 but there'll be some code changes
1:48:01 occurring as part of that
1:48:04 this uh slide shows bucket four which is
1:48:08 building and design
1:48:10 there are things that came up during
1:48:13 these conversations
1:48:15 view shed study
1:48:16 way finding you know how do we
1:48:18 make things connected
1:48:21 and this last item you know i didn't put
1:48:23 it in blue because it's not really
1:48:25 implementing an existing central support
1:48:28 but it's really looking at form based
1:48:30 code in lieu of the strict architectural
1:48:32 style
1:48:33 and maybe there's an overlap with
1:48:35 missing middle and central isoqua and
1:48:38 using form-based code to regulate that
1:48:42 so there's that and then
1:48:44 of course uh the topics that we talked
1:48:46 about today
1:48:48 um interlocal you know um the the
1:48:51 parking
1:48:52 and all that so i won't go into
1:48:55 the details of that
1:48:56 uh the second question we had from the
1:49:00 council member was how do land use
1:49:02 policies affect transit development
1:49:06 really our master mobility plan
1:49:10 and title 18
1:49:11 there are a lot of things in title 18
1:49:13 which we've kind of taken from the
1:49:16 master mobility plan from the park
1:49:18 strategic plan
1:49:19 and you know like we shared in the
1:49:21 community facilities um
1:49:24 chapter where we are showing where these
1:49:26 connections are where's the mountain sun
1:49:28 greenway trust if you're developing
1:49:30 property next to it you need to improve
1:49:31 it based on this where are the trail
1:49:33 connections so all of that
1:49:35 we're folding in title 18
1:49:38 and there are other things like
1:49:39 landscaping and build form so the kind
1:49:42 of densities we allow the kind of
1:49:44 development you know close to transit we
1:49:45 allow you know more dense development so
1:49:49 that's the interplay between land use
1:49:51 policies and transit planning
1:49:53 now of course um there's a piece called
1:49:57 city street standards
1:49:59 which we're also working on and stephen
1:50:01 can speak more about the details of that
1:50:04 and it'll be going to the tab
1:50:06 transportation
1:50:08 committees as well
1:50:10 uh but basically we're trying to create
1:50:13 detailed street typologies in central
1:50:15 isoqua so
1:50:16 we know where the bike facilities are
1:50:18 going to be where the pedestrian transit
1:50:20 connection so if you get private
1:50:21 development we know exactly what the
1:50:23 street cross section should be or should
1:50:25 look like in that area
1:50:27 and lastly uh thank you council for
1:50:30 funding transit study we are we've
1:50:32 launched that we had an uh successful
1:50:34 rfp and we have a consultant on board
1:50:37 that's started work on that so a lot of
1:50:40 the implementation of master mobility
1:50:43 plan and the
1:50:45 cip and tip is going to get addressed
1:50:47 through that work
1:50:49 so i think that answers the second
1:50:51 council question
1:50:54 but really for the future updates list
1:50:56 we're asking
1:50:58 the committee's input
1:51:00 did you see anything that's glaringly
1:51:02 missing from this list
1:51:05 and then
1:51:06 do you you know did we incorporate all
1:51:08 the things you asked us in the format is
1:51:10 it good to go to council on august 8th
1:51:13 um or do you are you looking for any
1:51:15 changes there
1:51:18 council can decide which ones to to
1:51:22 prioritize from the list
1:51:28 does that conclude your presentation
1:51:29 that does great thank you
1:51:31 council president walsh
1:51:34 great
1:51:35 first of all really appreciate the
1:51:38 additional columns and the ability to
1:51:40 really look through this and understand
1:51:42 what the administration
1:51:44 has in mind as far as potential actions
1:51:48 and all of that
1:51:50 so with that additional information i
1:51:53 generally agree with most of the items
1:51:56 continuing on the future updates list
1:51:58 and going to council for
1:52:00 that approval
1:52:03 even some of those that
1:52:06 have a relationship to the goals and
1:52:08 outcomes chart
1:52:10 because there's good explanation from
1:52:13 like hey we did area x y and z and then
1:52:17 the other stuff is going to come with
1:52:18 the happy grant so i appreciate that
1:52:21 there were
1:52:23 three exceptions and then two editions
1:52:27 that i have
1:52:28 so um things that i think should come
1:52:31 off of the future updates list
1:52:34 um are number 24 the parking minimum and
1:52:37 maximums
1:52:38 so i think given that we've already
1:52:40 started the conversations with the
1:52:43 affinity groups and they provided
1:52:45 feedback we really should utilize that
1:52:48 instead of waiting i think this is an
1:52:50 important one the community has has
1:52:52 asked for it
1:52:54 i think we can potentially get a lot
1:52:56 more development on that so i think that
1:52:59 is one that we should talk about now
1:53:02 number the next one is number 30 the
1:53:05 transit access parking and whether we
1:53:08 should
1:53:10 potentially reduce
1:53:12 parking requirements if they're near
1:53:15 transit
1:53:16 i think this is one that doesn't really
1:53:18 require community engagement you've
1:53:20 mentioned in the action
1:53:22 it just requires research into our peer
1:53:25 cities and so i think it should be
1:53:27 included i think that from my standpoint
1:53:29 is kind of one of those
1:53:32 in the gaps analysis is hey let's see
1:53:34 what everybody else is doing if somebody
1:53:36 has a good set of code let's see if we
1:53:38 can plug that in rather than delay that
1:53:42 and then similarly number 20 on the
1:53:45 missing middle housing diversity i think
1:53:48 there's a lot there but one piece that i
1:53:51 think should be included here and not
1:53:53 put on a future
1:53:55 updates list
1:53:57 is the peer city research i think if
1:54:00 there are some good things that we're
1:54:02 seeing with peer cities that they've
1:54:05 implemented
1:54:06 we can potentially
1:54:09 make some movement here without having
1:54:14 have the full conversation about hey is
1:54:16 single family zoning right for all areas
1:54:19 of our city um
1:54:21 so i think
1:54:23 i'd like to see the peer city research
1:54:26 and see if there are some things here
1:54:28 with the missing middle housing
1:54:29 diversity that we could implement within
1:54:32 title 18.
1:54:33 so those are the three things that i
1:54:35 don't think should necessarily remain on
1:54:38 the future updates list and then i have
1:54:41 two things that are additions
1:54:46 so by removing it from the list means
1:54:49 what then because it sounds like you're
1:54:51 interested in all three but you don't
1:54:53 want them on this list
1:54:54 so you want to remove them and put them
1:54:56 where
1:54:57 in title 18 update that we are doing
1:55:00 right now okay so i think
1:55:03 this so we're all clear that that would
1:55:06 be the direction
1:55:08 that's my direction okay i'll see what
1:55:10 everybody else is this conversation is
1:55:12 extraordinarily important
1:55:14 um because we need to get this all
1:55:17 ducks in a row so to speak
1:55:19 so that if there is additional work that
1:55:21 you're looking for now with title 18
1:55:24 now that we're
1:55:25 nearly done with this phase that's an
1:55:27 impact on
1:55:28 staff for that additional work versus
1:55:31 additional work that would be
1:55:33 after title 18.
1:55:36 i hope i'm not overstating this but i
1:55:38 think it's really
1:55:40 because we're going to talk about this
1:55:41 again monday night with the full council
1:55:45 chair hunt would be very helpful to as
1:55:47 before we leave tonight if we can make
1:55:48 those distinctions
1:55:50 um versus taking them off the list
1:55:52 because you don't want them on the list
1:55:53 so that's a different place for taking
1:55:55 them off the list so thank you
1:55:58 okay great thank you um and i wondered
1:56:00 if you could
1:56:02 clarify too because i think it was it
1:56:04 was not complete as i understood it
1:56:06 wasn't complete items in some cases like
1:56:08 you said the pure city research element
1:56:10 of one item on the list and so if you
1:56:12 could
1:56:13 uh either
1:56:15 restate it or maybe we could also email
1:56:17 it but just so we we're clear on which
1:56:20 elements of which items you're you're
1:56:22 actually proposing to remove yeah so
1:56:25 just to clarify number 24
1:56:28 the parking minimum maximum i think we
1:56:30 just need to have that conversation with
1:56:32 ppc based on
1:56:34 what the affinity groups had provided
1:56:37 and come to
1:56:40 decision about whether we should just be
1:56:41 using maximums
1:56:43 or whether we should continue using um
1:56:46 off-site parking
1:56:49 minimums
1:56:50 and so having that conversation as it
1:56:52 relates to residential and commercial
1:56:56 uses i think is the next step there with
1:56:59 number 30 related to the transit access
1:57:01 parking
1:57:03 the action listed was do the peer city
1:57:06 research and so i would propose that we
1:57:10 do that paracity research and have an
1:57:13 understanding is there something there
1:57:15 that we could adopt and implement in our
1:57:18 similarly number 20
1:57:21 really is
1:57:22 missing middle housing is a huge huge
1:57:24 issue um
1:57:26 so the only thing that i would pull off
1:57:28 of the future updates list into title 18
1:57:32 is the peer city research
1:57:36 then if based on that it needs to go
1:57:38 back to ppc
1:57:41 great um
1:57:44 yeah that one's a little bit tricky
1:57:45 because there's a lot related to missing
1:57:48 middle housing
1:57:50 i am not at this point
1:57:52 proposing that we
1:57:56 have the conversation about
1:57:57 single-family zoning but if there are
1:58:00 things that other cities have done
1:58:02 that we could
1:58:04 effectively implement in our code i
1:58:06 think now is the time rather than
1:58:08 waiting on that
1:58:12 okay so
1:58:14 i'm just gonna read back and you can
1:58:16 correct me if this
1:58:17 is wrong so your proposal is for item 24
1:58:21 which is the parking minimum and
1:58:22 maximums that that whole
1:58:25 thing be accomplished within the title
1:58:27 18 update
1:58:28 then pure city research for missing
1:58:31 middle
1:58:32 and transit access
1:58:35 parking which is 20 and 30
1:58:38 on the update okay
1:58:50 chair hunt may i uh can the clerk ask a
1:58:53 question
1:58:55 have we moved into committee
1:58:56 recommendation uh at this stage
1:59:03 we seem to have skipped over the public
1:59:04 comment uh and we do have a member of
1:59:06 the public present virtually and i just
1:59:08 want to make sure that
1:59:10 they have the opportunity to either
1:59:13 make public comment or or not
1:59:16 great thank you yes i think because we
1:59:18 didn't have
1:59:19 many or any questions on this section we
1:59:22 moved
1:59:22 so thank you very much for that that um
1:59:25 for catching that so at this time in
1:59:28 apologies i will call for public comment
1:59:30 and i will check in with city clerk if
1:59:32 anybody is indicating a desire to speak
1:59:34 on this topic
1:59:37 thank you chair hunt i don't see a
1:59:39 desire on the part of
1:59:41 the public attending to speak to this
1:59:43 topic
1:59:45 okay and i will note also for the record
1:59:47 that there is still nobody in council
1:59:49 chambers to make a comment in person
1:59:51 okay so we will now
1:59:54 resume
1:59:56 deliberations on this topic um
1:59:59 all right did you have any additional
2:00:01 thoughts i have two additions um to the
2:00:04 future updates list is now a good time
2:00:06 for that
2:00:09 yes so my thought is we can get
2:00:12 all the changes might and we can discuss
2:00:16 but my thought is we could get all the
2:00:18 changes on the table
2:00:21 and kind of talk through that and then
2:00:22 we could talk about the the policy or
2:00:25 the if we have process recommendations
2:00:27 we could then talk about that
2:00:29 um and then check in with the
2:00:30 administration if they have what they
2:00:32 need to prepare for the council's full
2:00:35 consideration on monday night
2:00:38 okay so yes so i think uh then we'll
2:00:40 just sort of get any changes on the
2:00:42 table and then discuss
2:00:44 okay great so the two additions that i
2:00:47 think need to be added to
2:00:50 the future updates list so looking back
2:00:52 at the goals and outcome chart
2:00:55 we have goal number five related to
2:00:57 construction notices
2:00:59 so i guess my first question is
2:01:03 it i don't think we've talked about that
2:01:05 yet is that in this last section of
2:01:07 title 18
2:01:10 so public notices yeah they're in the
2:01:12 procedure section and so we have some
2:01:13 amendments to that section coming right
2:01:16 then assuming that is handled
2:01:18 that doesn't need to be added to the
2:01:20 future updates so there's one off um but
2:01:24 the thing the other thing that i think
2:01:26 needs to be added is single family
2:01:27 zoning so i know during the last meeting
2:01:31 we talked about potentially adding that
2:01:35 the future updates list and
2:01:38 i'm seeing missing middle on that but
2:01:40 i'm not seeing specifically that
2:01:42 conversation about single family zoning
2:01:44 so i request that that get added in
2:01:50 and the the conversation would be around
2:01:54 changing
2:01:55 existing single-family zoning to
2:01:58 allowing for
2:01:59 um multi-family and other forms of
2:02:02 housing yeah what what our city wants
2:02:04 because i don't we haven't had that
2:02:06 conversation
2:02:08 i certainly wouldn't want to put it into
2:02:11 title 18 right now but i think
2:02:15 even separate from the idea of what are
2:02:18 the administration's
2:02:20 proposed changes
2:02:22 to achieve missing middle
2:02:24 i want to make sure that we are at least
2:02:27 having that conversation about
2:02:29 should single family zoning
2:02:32 be allowed to be duplexes etc
2:02:38 all right so so we ended up with then
2:02:39 one proposed edition which is this
2:02:41 conversation okay great councilman ray
2:02:43 did you have any changes recommendations
2:02:45 i actually just have a question um and
2:02:47 it really
2:02:48 deals with line 25 which is
2:02:50 increased the ev requirements for new
2:02:52 and existing developments
2:02:55 did we not kind of
2:02:57 address that one tonight or
2:02:59 or set ourselves on the path to address
2:03:01 that one
2:03:04 that one's more in response to the
2:03:06 public comments of reviewing the ev in
2:03:08 the future in every few years okay so
2:03:11 that's the sort of a long term
2:03:13 placeholder correct right now i don't
2:03:14 have any ads or or delete
2:03:20 but before i give up the mic um the
2:03:22 second question is some process related
2:03:24 things and i do have some thoughts here
2:03:26 you want to do those separately the does
2:03:27 lists contain the information we need to
2:03:29 sort so are we just doing question one
2:03:31 which is the ads and deletes right now i
2:03:34 i think that's the that's yeah
2:03:37 okay great
2:03:38 um okay so i
2:03:41 going into this um
2:03:44 didn't have ads or deletes however i do
2:03:48 think um
2:03:50 the missing
2:03:51 middle
2:03:52 item on there
2:03:54 i'm wondering if we could sort of expand
2:03:56 that to capture this idea of the
2:03:59 single-family zoning conversation as
2:04:02 well as other tools that we could use
2:04:04 um because i know
2:04:07 uh and i i don't know enough about this
2:04:11 but um i've
2:04:12 read that some cities that have
2:04:16 replaced the single family zoning with
2:04:18 zoning that allows other housing types
2:04:20 if it's already completely built out
2:04:22 that's that in itself isn't going to
2:04:24 make that change and so i think it would
2:04:27 be good to kind of take a step back for
2:04:30 that conversation and really think about
2:04:32 what what do we need from my perspective
2:04:34 we had that
2:04:35 housing
2:04:36 strategy uh which was done prior to my
2:04:39 time on council and it identified that a
2:04:41 number of families at that time
2:04:47 single individuals or or couples and
2:04:49 that they would prefer to have a smaller
2:04:52 a smaller housing more modest housing
2:04:55 situation than what was currently on the
2:04:56 market so there was a mismatch between
2:04:58 the kinds of housing that people would
2:05:00 prefer to have and that would be more
2:05:01 affordable to them
2:05:03 and what was on the market and so i
2:05:05 think just looking at from that bigger
2:05:06 perspective what could we do to better
2:05:08 match
2:05:11 better match the community's
2:05:13 needs for
2:05:14 certain kinds of housing versus our
2:05:16 housing stock i think that would
2:05:18 that would be great it's a bigger
2:05:20 conversation and then the single family
2:05:22 zoning could be in there but i you know
2:05:23 i wonder if there could be other tools
2:05:25 other things that we should look at as
2:05:27 well so that would be my suggestion on
2:05:28 that one i think it's a big conversation
2:05:30 i think
2:05:34 it's important to
2:05:36 make the changes that we
2:05:38 we have made um i thought pbc had a
2:05:41 really good conversation about the zero
2:05:43 lot lines for example and about um
2:05:45 allowing housing to be built on you know
2:05:47 the importance of allowing housing in
2:05:49 some instances to be built on those
2:05:51 smaller lots which the zero lot line
2:05:54 changes would make and so i think we've
2:05:56 we've taken some steps in that direction
2:05:57 but we clearly need to go further so
2:06:00 that would be my my suggestion on that
2:06:02 but then other than that i didn't have
2:06:03 any other
2:06:05 additions or
2:06:08 remove
2:06:10 removal items
2:06:13 um so on
2:06:15 council president on your list i think
2:06:17 the one
2:06:18 that is the real
2:06:22 work item is
2:06:23 the parking one because the other two
2:06:25 are comparisons with pure cities
2:06:28 um and i think that that's a smaller
2:06:31 lift than having the whole conversation
2:06:33 about the parking and then also making
2:06:35 changes within this current title 18
2:06:37 update was that does the administration
2:06:39 agree with that assessment
2:06:41 um so um
2:06:43 from council president walsh's list
2:06:46 so number 24 you know uh the parking
2:06:48 minimum maximum peer city research i
2:06:51 think we can do that and bring it back
2:06:53 to you the question is going to be
2:06:56 what we find from there and there's not
2:06:58 going to be this easy solution but but
2:07:00 that's something we can bring back some
2:07:02 research for you to evaluate i think our
2:07:04 recommendation would be to not take
2:07:06 anything out of the list for now but we
2:07:09 continue to work and and give you the
2:07:11 information that we talked about in
2:07:12 parking you had a
2:07:14 you know a lot of things that that would
2:07:16 be helpful so we can do one check-in
2:07:18 with the committee on parking and some
2:07:21 pending items and number 24 the minimum
2:07:23 maximum piece and kind of get into some
2:07:25 more details about that topic with you
2:07:28 um and then i think number 30 was uh
2:07:32 research into peer city so why don't we
2:07:34 bring that back to you but we don't
2:07:37 recommend that we take that off the list
2:07:39 because based on our conversations these
2:07:42 are difficult things
2:07:43 uh to really put it in this code and
2:07:47 appear city research is going to give us
2:07:49 one idea
2:07:50 and and what others are doing some of
2:07:52 them may be lagging behind we may be
2:07:54 ahead of them
2:07:58 our recommendation would be to leave
2:07:59 them on the list we give come back with
2:08:02 some additional information on parking
2:08:03 items on the missing middle
2:08:06 uh you know it's going to need a
2:08:07 comprehensive plan amendments it's going
2:08:09 to need policy change it's not just a
2:08:11 regulation update on title 18 so
2:08:14 and what we've said before is that needs
2:08:17 to be a thoughtful communications with
2:08:19 the community members in different
2:08:20 neighborhoods and all that so that one
2:08:23 or we feel strongly should be on the
2:08:25 whiteboard list uh because there's a
2:08:28 complexity of everything in title 18
2:08:31 um to try and fold that in with title
2:08:33 18. one of the things i think in terms
2:08:36 of making it clear that what this
2:08:37 includes i think in the intent section
2:08:39 we said
2:08:41 housing diversity goals and to evaluate
2:08:44 single-family housing zones to expand
2:08:46 single-family so i think that's covered
2:08:48 in their there
2:08:49 in terms of what changes
2:08:52 need to be made
2:08:53 so um
2:08:55 in short we leave the number 24 and 20
2:08:57 30 there but we do a check in with the
2:09:00 committee with the spear city research
2:09:02 and then you can decide if there's
2:09:04 anything in this in in this title 18
2:09:06 update that we can fold in or
2:09:09 we put it you know we continue to work
2:09:11 towards it until we get it right
2:09:13 one of the things we heard loud and
2:09:15 clear even in the very beginning when we
2:09:17 started uh you know having these
2:09:19 conversations with the community members
2:09:21 when you have a large parking lot
2:09:23 you know next to an apartment building
2:09:26 there's going to be that overflow
2:09:27 parking and so
2:09:29 the commercial property owners felt by
2:09:32 going to a maximum parking and and
2:09:34 really having no minimum parking stall
2:09:36 if someone could say i'm not going to
2:09:38 build you know a developer is not going
2:09:39 to build any parking what's that impact
2:09:42 to the neighboring property owner so
2:09:44 it's complex it works for really urban
2:09:47 cities it's the chicken and the egg we
2:09:49 don't have the transit yet people still
2:09:51 rely on cars so the timing of it is is
2:09:54 interesting and but we're committed to
2:09:57 giving you all more information
2:09:59 comparison piercing research but what
2:10:02 what you all do with that i think is
2:10:04 going to be
2:10:06 need to be thoughtful
2:10:09 so that's our recommendation not of uh
2:10:12 you know
2:10:13 given where we're right now
2:10:18 council president walsh and i you i'm
2:10:21 just gonna clarify i think the origin
2:10:22 the intent of the first the item for 24
2:10:26 was to actually have the whole from your
2:10:28 perspective was to have the whole
2:10:30 conversation not to do the pure cities
2:10:31 research that's the parking one the
2:10:33 other two
2:10:34 item 30 which is the transit access
2:10:36 parking and then
2:10:38 20 which is the missing middle those
2:10:39 were to do only the pure city research
2:10:42 but for 24 years which is parking you
2:10:44 were proposing to do the entire item
2:10:47 within
2:10:49 current update
2:10:51 that was my
2:10:53 recommendation
2:10:55 given that we have already started the
2:10:57 conversation and had multiple meetings
2:10:59 with the affinity groups i see the next
2:11:02 step there being taking that topic to
2:11:07 and in pulling together a proposal for
2:11:10 should we have parking minimums and
2:11:12 maximums and what that should be
2:11:13 obviously you would do some peer city
2:11:15 research but it's more of having a
2:11:19 full and comprehensive conversation
2:11:22 about it um
2:11:26 i think you've given me a lot to think
2:11:28 about i think i will pull back the idea
2:11:30 of single family zoning and recognize
2:11:33 that that already is within
2:11:35 number 20 the missing middle housing
2:11:38 diversity
2:11:41 i would like to hear from my
2:11:43 fellow committee members on how they
2:11:45 feel about the 24 30 and
2:11:50 um because you have given some comments
2:11:53 how difficult these are
2:11:57 marie
2:12:02 i'm trying to be cognizant of the goal
2:12:04 of the title 18 project which is to you
2:12:07 know how much how much work can we get
2:12:08 done within a fixed amount of time it's
2:12:10 sort of a kind of a
2:12:11 you know
2:12:13 that kind of idea of i had scope and i
2:12:15 got time and i got money and two to them
2:12:17 are fixed and and we have fixed um you
2:12:22 scope and time
2:12:23 and so if um
2:12:25 and so my only concern really with kind
2:12:28 of expanding scope is if you don't
2:12:30 expand time and our resources are are
2:12:33 fixed then
2:12:35 then quality is going to go down so i
2:12:37 think if we if if we really are at
2:12:39 maximum capacity right now to drive
2:12:41 towards the end of year to complete this
2:12:44 phase of title 18 updates
2:12:46 then i would like to keep the scope kind
2:12:48 of where it is and as much as i think
2:12:50 that that's a good thing to do
2:12:52 um i i don't know that it would matter i
2:12:54 just want to get this wrapped up by the
2:12:56 end of the year because we have been
2:12:57 talking about this for way too many
2:12:58 years right so let's let's you know
2:13:00 let's get to done
2:13:02 and and i keep looking at this like this
2:13:04 is a product backlog and we've got all
2:13:06 sorts of work we need to do and there's
2:13:08 a there's there's another release coming
2:13:10 of title 18 and then there's another
2:13:11 release of title 18. so we can
2:13:13 prioritize some of these at the
2:13:14 beginning of that next release and and
2:13:17 they don't have to be annual updates
2:13:18 maybe we we make uh we make deposits
2:13:21 every quarter instead of once a year but
2:13:23 um i just want to get done with this
2:13:26 this particular iteration of the update
2:13:29 and so i'm inclined to say let's
2:13:31 let's not kind of pull any new scope in
2:13:40 so for me i think that um
2:13:42 requesting an earlier
2:13:45 peer city review for for things that um
2:13:49 that does make sense to me i think it
2:13:51 sort of tease up those conversations and
2:13:53 and really these are important items um
2:13:56 this isn't a list of things that we can
2:13:58 you know we we are putting on this list
2:14:00 because we feel we can get to them later
2:14:02 it's really because of the capacity
2:14:04 issue that you mentioned so i think um
2:14:07 i think that seems uh
2:14:10 hopefully doable and um i'm
2:14:13 supportive
2:14:14 on the the parking conversation
2:14:20 would like to see the information that
2:14:22 we requested come back because i think
2:14:25 if we can confirm that we're moving
2:14:28 in the right direction with the existing
2:14:30 updates
2:14:31 i would be i think
2:14:34 satisfied with that for now and then
2:14:36 with the bigger conversations for the
2:14:38 next part to take a more comprehensive
2:14:40 bigger step at improving further
2:14:44 so strategically i think that
2:14:46 would make sense and that would also
2:14:48 better address the concerns that have
2:14:51 voiced by the administration about
2:14:52 adding anything to the current um
2:14:55 you know sort of
2:14:57 re-scoped uh version of the
2:15:00 existing update
2:15:01 um that said i do want to have that
2:15:03 information come back so that we can
2:15:05 make sure that the current changes are
2:15:06 moving us in the right direction um and
2:15:10 and um and then i think that that would
2:15:12 be adequate for me and then uh
2:15:16 on the missing middle one
2:15:18 there's a column it's actually labeled
2:15:20 column one on the thing but i think it's
2:15:24 probably like the title of the item
2:15:28 okay um so it's like the
2:15:31 bucket
2:15:33 draft section task column one incentive
2:15:41 i'm that column i think should be the
2:15:43 title um but i think i think what i
2:15:45 would propose is
2:15:47 if you look at that
2:15:48 item it has a lot of things other than
2:15:50 missing middle it has affordable housing
2:15:53 it has looking at the condo
2:15:55 regulations it has basically everything
2:15:56 that's in the happy grant which is based
2:15:58 on our housing strategy so i think if we
2:16:02 if we
2:16:03 just kind of
2:16:05 make that clear that that is a
2:16:07 comprehensive look at all these items in
2:16:09 the housing strategy work plan it's
2:16:11 really to try to realign
2:16:13 our housing stock best we can with our
2:16:16 tools as a city and the market will also
2:16:19 play a big factor but you know how
2:16:22 taking the steps we can to
2:16:24 address the housing needs of our
2:16:26 community through the tools that we have
2:16:27 as a city using the housing strategy is
2:16:31 a guide i think
2:16:33 that might be the way to go
2:16:36 um so i would rename that one on that
2:16:38 column one to be something other
2:16:40 something more like
2:16:42 um align code with the housing strategy
2:16:47 and then and it kind of all is it's all
2:16:50 in there
2:16:52 council president walsh
2:16:54 yeah so i appreciate having this
2:16:56 conversation um
2:16:58 the reason that i pulled these
2:17:00 particular items out is because they
2:17:04 match up with our goals and outcomes
2:17:06 sure and so
2:17:08 i i wanted to at least call out that hey
2:17:13 when we initially created the scope of
2:17:15 this project we said it was going to
2:17:17 include parking and we said it was going
2:17:19 to include
2:17:20 missing middle housing
2:17:23 so i don't feel like this is adding to
2:17:25 the scope
2:17:26 necessarily that being said i also want
2:17:30 to get things done
2:17:33 these are really complex problems so i'm
2:17:36 willing to
2:17:38 leave them on
2:17:41 future updates list
2:17:44 with the recommended changes that you
2:17:47 but i think this kind of naturally leads
2:17:50 into that second part of the process
2:17:52 question which is
2:17:54 and what do we do with this and how do
2:17:56 we decide on budget so
2:18:03 because there isn't anything here that
2:18:05 really helps me
2:18:07 in that budget conversation
2:18:10 so i guess my first question would be
2:18:13 to the administration
2:18:15 what do you think we would do with this
2:18:17 at budget time
2:18:21 well we're hoping to short-circuit that
2:18:24 conversation by tonight's conversation
2:18:26 of monday's conversation so that we can
2:18:28 you know get some feedback from the
2:18:30 committee
2:18:32 excuse me hopefully then
2:18:34 excuse me sharing that feedback with
2:18:36 your colleagues monday night
2:18:37 and then we can incorporate that into
2:18:39 the budget so
2:18:41 you know for example if the missing
2:18:43 middle whatever we we re-title it is
2:18:46 most important i mean it would be useful
2:18:48 to know that
2:18:49 because what we need to do with the
2:18:51 budget of course
2:18:52 is stage the next step after we have the
2:18:54 champagne toasts to minnie and her team
2:18:57 for completing it the next day we get to
2:19:00 start something new and so we want to
2:19:02 know what that something new should be
2:19:04 according to the city council and have
2:19:07 whatever
2:19:08 staff consultant resources you might
2:19:10 want and or what we would need to do
2:19:13 what you would like
2:19:14 in place to move forward so
2:19:16 i don't think we're here
2:19:18 with any particular preferences i think
2:19:20 we've you know certainly many and her
2:19:22 staff has been working with this list
2:19:23 and as as that ppc as have our community
2:19:26 stakeholders everybody feels these
2:19:29 things are important some have different
2:19:30 constituencies but we want to know what
2:19:32 you think is important and if we can
2:19:34 glean that from the committee get the
2:19:36 council's feedback that will inform our
2:19:38 our budget
2:19:40 creation i mean we have one-time dollars
2:19:43 we're fortunate to have one-time dollars
2:19:45 nearly all of this i think
2:19:47 needs one time dollars
2:19:49 we have a new planning manager starting
2:19:51 august 6th 16th august 16th
2:19:55 so we'll be i think fully staffed now in
2:19:58 the current planning
2:19:59 division
2:20:00 um so we'll know what we can handle but
2:20:04 we would like to know what you would
2:20:05 like us to do moving forward
2:20:10 councilman ray yeah the only thing i
2:20:12 would add as
2:20:14 you know the budget process i think
2:20:16 wally covered it well
2:20:17 in terms of uh the periodic update for
2:20:20 comprehensive plan
2:20:21 uh that we have to do uh so we have to
2:20:24 finish that by 2024 and that's going to
2:20:26 be you know we're done with huge title
2:20:28 18 but that's another huge um thing that
2:20:32 and then of course the happy grand the
2:20:34 transit study
2:20:35 uh and the concurrency update so that's
2:20:38 on the work plan
2:20:40 uh for those two years in addition to
2:20:42 whatever council decides to pick from
2:20:44 this list for the you know to fund for
2:20:48 for those two years absolutely and so
2:20:51 if you say
2:20:53 here's four more things you want to do
2:20:55 in addition to everything that many just
2:20:56 described then it may be additional
2:20:58 staff resources in addition to
2:20:59 consultant resources and then that
2:21:02 becomes a larger
2:21:03 organizational question on
2:21:06 resources police officers versus more
2:21:08 planners
2:21:12 um so what would make me um really happy
2:21:15 is to get some
2:21:17 some rough level of uh effort estimates
2:21:19 for each of these things so because we
2:21:21 got we got large items here and we got
2:21:23 super large items here so um i was gonna
2:21:26 say boulders and pebbles but i don't
2:21:27 think we got any pebbles i think we have
2:21:29 boulders and bigger boulders so what you
2:21:31 know what's the level of effort and then
2:21:32 what's our capacity that's the other
2:21:34 thing we need to know is you know tell
2:21:36 tell me how much effort is going to take
2:21:38 to do critical areas
2:21:40 relative to our current capacity because
2:21:42 that'll inform whether or not we need
2:21:44 additional resources and then there's
2:21:46 the problem of the mythical man month or
2:21:48 the mythical person month you know
2:21:50 sometimes it's just not about throwing
2:21:52 resources at these problems because you
2:21:53 can't ramp up people fast enough
2:21:56 so we've got to figure out what our
2:21:58 capacity is to deliver
2:22:01 and then the other thing i would like to
2:22:02 do this isn't necessarily for monday's
2:22:04 conversation but
2:22:05 for an implementation point of view
2:22:08 um i'd like to do um
2:22:11 complete chunks um with very discreet
2:22:13 boundaries like
2:22:14 for the next quarter the next six months
2:22:16 we're just working on this and we're
2:22:17 going to get this done and i think it
2:22:19 gets quarters not six months so that we
2:22:21 can really move stuff forward and get it
2:22:22 done because i think to some of the
2:22:24 issues that council president walsh
2:22:26 brought up i mean these are important
2:22:28 and so let's like we're going to do this
2:22:30 and we're going to focus on this and
2:22:31 we're going to knock this out of the
2:22:32 park and then we're going to move on to
2:22:33 the next one more champagne toast that
2:22:34 way so it's all good
2:22:36 so um so that's you know what i'd like
2:22:38 and then you know just from my
2:22:40 perspective uh my two esteemed
2:22:42 colleagues have been working on this as
2:22:43 part of the ad hoc for a long time and
2:22:44 so we're coming with uh
2:22:46 with the white board with a lot more
2:22:48 momentum than me and so
2:22:50 um this is gonna be a little bit of uh
2:22:52 in you know just myself a little more
2:22:54 introduction to the full council than
2:22:57 this committee because um these these
2:23:00 two uh council members really uh you
2:23:02 know you knew the origin where it came
2:23:03 from and how it got put together um i'm
2:23:06 running really hard to catch up and and
2:23:08 they're still you know sitting at the
2:23:09 starting block so you know when we meet
2:23:11 on monday it takes some time to really
2:23:13 uh introduce this how it evolved what it
2:23:15 was for what the purpose of it was and
2:23:19 and what each of the columns means
2:23:21 particularly column one which needs a
2:23:22 title
2:23:25 thanks
2:23:26 thank you
2:23:27 okay so i
2:23:29 i thought
2:23:31 the goals and outcomes chart has always
2:23:33 been throughout this process has been
2:23:35 very helpful i think it's been helpful
2:23:36 to us i think it's also been helpful to
2:23:38 the administration and to the staff that
2:23:40 have put in a lot of hard work and into
2:23:43 making these code changes and so i was
2:23:47 thinking that
2:23:48 firstly i would prioritize
2:23:51 those
2:23:52 items here that are most strongly
2:23:54 associated with those goals and outcomes
2:23:56 chart from this update those were scoped
2:23:59 into the original title 18 with time we
2:24:02 learned that that
2:24:04 they probably need more time and so
2:24:05 we've adjusted accordingly but i think
2:24:07 those should be the first ones and those
2:24:10 the two that are the biggest ones are
2:24:13 the missing middle which we're sort of
2:24:15 making even bigger and then the um
2:24:19 although not really just sort of
2:24:21 re-titling making the title more
2:24:22 accurate and then the um
2:24:25 parking so the items that are
2:24:28 that were originally
2:24:30 strongly connected to that goals and
2:24:32 outcomes chart i think should be
2:24:34 prioritized and then we can completely
2:24:36 finish out that list and then
2:24:38 um my thought for council on monday is
2:24:42 these other items
2:24:44 could we could have a goals and outcomes
2:24:47 conversation for this next round and
2:24:50 then prioritize using that
2:24:52 so we could probably group these in some
2:24:55 sort of meaningful way based on what
2:24:57 outcome we would you know scope the
2:24:59 outcomes that we would want and then
2:25:02 prioritize the items that we feel are
2:25:04 most important to those outcomes
2:25:08 and some of the goals and outcomes may
2:25:11 similar you know we had environmental
2:25:13 sort of conservation protection of
2:25:14 forested hillsides type goals there will
2:25:17 probably be a similar one it's
2:25:19 environmental but it's about noise
2:25:20 pollution or things like that that could
2:25:23 come out of that conversation
2:25:26 i also thought in terms of information
2:25:29 that would be helpful i agree that some
2:25:32 metric of effort would be helpful
2:25:35 but i also thought connection to
2:25:38 existing plans which it it does have for
2:25:41 some items if that could be more
2:25:45 more called out in a systematic way i
2:25:48 think that would be good and i also was
2:25:49 thinking about that in terms of the two
2:25:51 questions we received from the other
2:25:52 council members
2:25:54 basically about
2:25:56 connection to other plans about the cip
2:25:58 and about the master mobility plan um
2:26:00 specifically with regards to transit so
2:26:04 it there is that information there for
2:26:06 some items
2:26:07 and for some items it's less clear but i
2:26:10 thought you know we could look at the
2:26:12 goals and outcomes chart prioritize
2:26:13 those then prioritize things that are
2:26:16 strongly connected to the implementation
2:26:18 of other plans because those are also
2:26:20 things that we've set out to do and
2:26:22 confirmed and all voted on
2:26:25 you know or past councils have voted on
2:26:27 doing those things
2:26:29 um and then prioritize the other items
2:26:31 according to whatever new
2:26:33 or you know emerged
2:26:35 issues we
2:26:37 we feel are
2:26:38 uh important after that so that would be
2:26:41 my sort of process recommendation
2:26:47 council president washington
2:26:49 yeah i i like that i guess
2:26:52 i'm thinking ahead to what that budget
2:26:55 discussion and deliberation looks like
2:26:58 when we look back at our budget
2:26:59 priorities meeting and we say these were
2:27:02 the four or five priorities how
2:27:07 what does that mean related to this
2:27:09 future updates list does that mean we
2:27:12 wanted to accomplish everything does
2:27:14 that mean we wanted to
2:27:16 make sure we got 50 of it done
2:27:21 i'm trying to understand
2:27:23 what the information is that we would
2:27:25 need from
2:27:27 the administration in order to figure
2:27:30 out what our intention and our scope is
2:27:34 um related to the pile of money that
2:27:37 will be available
2:27:39 that we then have to figure out between
2:27:41 all of the things that you're presenting
2:27:45 from the administration standpoint we
2:27:47 want to try to make this as
2:27:48 straightforward as we can and i think
2:27:51 the committee is rightfully looking at
2:27:53 this as a very broad
2:27:55 from beginning middle and end and i
2:27:58 think from the administration standpoint
2:27:59 we're not thinking that broadly right
2:28:00 now we're thinking we have limited
2:28:03 resources in 2023
2:28:06 we'll be done with title 18
2:28:09 if not by the end of calendar 22
2:28:11 certainly first quarter 23 so we'll have
2:28:14 nine months more let's say
2:28:16 what else would the council like to see
2:28:18 us work on next recognizing that even
2:28:21 with nine months we're not likely to
2:28:23 finish it so if we can get
2:28:26 the very top priorities one or two items
2:28:30 and if it's missing middle and parking
2:28:32 maybe that's enough and then we go back
2:28:34 and decide between now and when you see
2:28:36 the budget in september and say these
2:28:39 are the resources we need to begin
2:28:41 ramping up
2:28:43 those discussions in the meantime this
2:28:45 committee can revisit this list at
2:28:47 whatever point you think is appropriate
2:28:49 either at the conclusion of title 18
2:28:51 later in this fall and go through i
2:28:54 think the process that council president
2:28:55 walsh just described because i think
2:28:56 that'd be very useful to to have that uh
2:29:00 recognizing that we probably wouldn't
2:29:02 move beyond those one or two top
2:29:04 priorities until 24 and beyond
2:29:10 okay so i think so we've had a
2:29:12 conversation about the broader
2:29:16 the broader process which we can bring
2:29:19 back to council and then
2:29:20 the administrations ask is that we
2:29:22 consider the top priorities i do think
2:29:24 that those that are most connected to
2:29:26 the current goals and outcomes so that
2:29:28 we can sort of finish out the original
2:29:29 intent of that update are the ones that
2:29:32 i would single out so that's
2:29:34 missing middle and parking i i do think
2:29:37 though if if we're singling out the ones
2:29:39 that are most connected the other one
2:29:40 that is extremely connected is the
2:29:42 stream
2:29:44 buffers one which is the first item so
2:29:46 that's item number one and that
2:29:49 is already planned as far as i know it's
2:29:51 already planned to be done
2:29:53 but i would i would put that in that you
2:29:55 know very top tier because that was
2:29:57 something that we set out to do with
2:29:58 this update
2:30:04 additional
2:30:05 thoughts on that so that's three
2:30:12 that's president walsh yes i'm trying to
2:30:14 look through
2:30:16 list and i think
2:30:21 gosh it's so hard to figure out what is
2:30:25 related to
2:30:26 other plans but generally yes i agree
2:30:29 missing middle and parking are the two
2:30:32 that are
2:30:33 most related to the goals and outcomes
2:30:36 chart i would definitely put the stream
2:30:38 buffers as next i was trying to figure
2:30:41 out if i would put urban forestry
2:30:44 as a next point as it relates to
2:30:49 icap and
2:30:51 various other things but i'm not sure
2:30:54 how much
2:30:55 that as an idea relates to code versus
2:30:58 funding of staff versus
2:31:04 and quite honestly we're sorting through
2:31:05 that ourselves from from the
2:31:07 administration's perspective
2:31:10 i think as we have talked there's about
2:31:12 two million dollars of ongoing
2:31:14 additional revenue that we're looking at
2:31:16 and so
2:31:18 the needs is already identified by the
2:31:20 council exceed that two million dollars
2:31:22 and so we're trying to prioritize
2:31:25 where that is so i
2:31:27 i will tell you that you know if the if
2:31:30 the forestry piece is really important
2:31:31 to the council that's a good thing to
2:31:34 know because that will
2:31:35 i think guide the administration and its
2:31:37 final budget deliberations and well
2:31:41 quite honestly is move it up
2:31:43 the priority list
2:31:46 thank you i
2:31:48 however i i think that the urban
2:31:51 forestry ideas that
2:31:53 have been
2:31:54 put forward a lot of them don't have to
2:31:56 do closely with the code we did we did
2:31:58 update the
2:32:01 tree retention code and our tree code
2:32:05 so the next steps i think would be an
2:32:07 arborist you know having more
2:32:09 enforcement and figuring out that aspect
2:32:11 of things so that those don't
2:32:13 have to do with title 18.
2:32:16 um so i don't and i also want to be
2:32:19 cognizant that you know this committee
2:32:21 is working on a specific question which
2:32:22 is this title 18 list and so um
2:32:25 that's i i don't want to get into like
2:32:27 bigger you know what we we as a group
2:32:29 think about different budget items that
2:32:31 are outside of that list so because i
2:32:33 don't think that would be within our
2:32:34 purview um and so that's a
2:32:37 strange
2:32:39 president so um yeah that would be my
2:32:41 thought on that one i think i think it's
2:32:44 super important i just don't think that
2:32:46 this is the
2:32:47 place for that conversation and we're
2:32:49 about to have budget conversations where
2:32:51 that'll fit better
2:32:54 okay so just to recap
2:32:56 we the items parking items are 24 and 30
2:33:00 and we think those are
2:33:02 our tier top tier because they're
2:33:04 closely related to the existing goals
2:33:05 and outcomes chart and 20 which is the
2:33:07 missing middle closely related and one
2:33:09 which is stream buffers which again i
2:33:11 think is already kind of in the works
2:33:13 plans on being done
2:33:16 okay is there any other yeah council
2:33:19 president washington um i would probably
2:33:21 put 29 the parking structure
2:33:23 requirements
2:33:25 in with that mix because i think it
2:33:27 makes a difference on affordable housing
2:33:29 and parking and kind of what our parking
2:33:33 requirements should be
2:33:34 um but i don't know if you guys agree
2:33:37 with that as a big part of that next
2:33:39 conversation councilman ray
2:33:41 um just to clarify so um
2:33:45 are we going to bring some
2:33:46 recommendations from this committee to
2:33:48 the council as a whole on monday and
2:33:50 saying here are the four things we think
2:33:51 we should move forward with are we
2:33:53 bringing them the list and a process for
2:33:55 them to evaluate or is it some hybrid of
2:33:59 because it sounded me like we were just
2:34:00 saying okay here's our recommendations
2:34:03 to the whole council
2:34:04 so my my take on this is that we will
2:34:08 make a recommendation that is on the
2:34:10 process and then we were requested to
2:34:13 have clarity on what so we i think have
2:34:16 agreed that a process that prioritizes
2:34:20 items that are closely related to the
2:34:22 existing goals and outcomes chart that
2:34:24 those those should be prioritized first
2:34:26 and then we we were asked for additional
2:34:28 clarity on what we believe those to be
2:34:32 and so now we're just kind of um
2:34:35 noodling through what those items are
2:34:39 based on our prior conversations and
2:34:42 familiarity with the goals and outcomes
2:34:43 chart and this table at this point
2:34:46 my uh thought on the
2:34:49 parking is now similar to what i said
2:34:51 about the missing middle item which is
2:34:54 can we put an item about
2:34:57 parking on there and then we have 24
2:35:00 which is the min and the max and 30
2:35:02 which is the transit access
2:35:04 parking and then there's
2:35:06 29 which is the
2:35:08 parking structure requirements so just
2:35:10 all of that together and the big
2:35:12 conversation because it it says that
2:35:15 that's not covered by the golden
2:35:16 outcomes chart but i think it wasn't
2:35:18 considered by the goals and outcomes
2:35:19 chart but it could be a tool to achieve
2:35:21 that goal that was in the goals and
2:35:23 outcome chart so that would be my
2:35:26 recommendation for us is that we kind of
2:35:28 say we're going to have the broader
2:35:30 parking conversation which includes
2:35:33 multiple items on the table and then
2:35:37 again the housing conversation and
2:35:41 streams we believe those to fit in that
2:35:43 top tier because of our recommended
2:35:45 process of
2:35:47 prioritization
2:35:51 does that
2:35:52 sound okay
2:35:55 um does the administration
2:35:57 is that clear recommendation does that
2:36:00 give you the information sure i mean and
2:36:02 i and i think as you just described it i
2:36:04 think your colleagues would appreciate
2:36:06 the process that you've just gone
2:36:07 through this evening and so
2:36:09 you know it's it's it's sharing that
2:36:12 it's kind of sharing your conclusions
2:36:14 you may not even want to call it a
2:36:15 recommendation per se but you know this
2:36:17 was how the committee ended up and
2:36:19 perhaps that's where the council begins
2:36:21 the discussion from where you ended
2:36:24 so that it's not if there's any
2:36:26 sensitivity to be telling the council
2:36:29 what to think instead you're simply
2:36:31 saying
2:36:32 now police council continue the
2:36:33 conversation we started
2:36:35 you know the week prior
2:36:38 again i think as all of you have said in
2:36:40 different times you're all a little bit
2:36:42 more focused on this than perhaps your
2:36:43 colleagues are but i think that's what
2:36:45 your colleagues have asked you to do
2:36:47 um by having the standing committee so
2:36:50 we're happy to you know make a couple of
2:36:52 the changes that were there we can
2:36:53 change the title for missing middle
2:36:55 you know the agenda for the meeting is
2:36:57 going to be out tomorrow so um there's
2:36:59 there's not much turnaround and i think
2:37:01 we can simply
2:37:03 share that the committee has reviewed
2:37:07 the chair hunt will be there to you know
2:37:09 share where the the committee is at um
2:37:12 and maybe we can just say generally
2:37:14 the committee was thinking that they
2:37:16 would of these issues those that you
2:37:19 know complete the original assignment
2:37:21 complete the goals and outcomes chart
2:37:23 that's sort of the framework the matrix
2:37:25 that the committee was looking at and we
2:37:27 could leave it at that and then
2:37:29 council member honda you're going to be
2:37:32 remote but you will be participating
2:37:33 correct correct so you can i think take
2:37:36 it from there and
2:37:38 your colleagues can further discuss
2:37:41 right and i think that that's all
2:37:44 exactly right i just to clarify my
2:37:46 earlier comments about
2:37:48 budget i just didn't want to get into a
2:37:50 into a bigger prioritizing other parts
2:37:52 of the budget conversation which is
2:37:54 where i felt we were going with urban
2:37:56 forestry but
2:37:58 completely agree we've been tasked with
2:38:00 having this conversation by the
2:38:02 committee structure and so i think
2:38:04 uh perfectly comfortable with that
2:38:07 um scope and we'll relay this process
2:38:10 and this rec you know this conclusion
2:38:13 from our committee to the full council
2:38:14 on monday
2:38:16 council president walsh
2:38:18 so can i ask the administration what is
2:38:24 the council on monday related to this is
2:38:28 it just merely a we think you're going
2:38:31 in the right direction please then use
2:38:33 this to develop some data for the budget
2:38:37 or is it really an adoption of these are
2:38:40 the priorities
2:38:42 as far as what
2:38:43 staff should be doing because we usually
2:38:45 don't direct staff
2:38:47 well it's also the beauty of community
2:38:49 of the whole
2:38:50 you know i think your your your
2:38:52 colleagues can have the discussion
2:38:54 and it can kind of end up wherever
2:38:57 uh it ends up and that's the reason it's
2:39:00 on committee of the whole not going to
2:39:01 the council as a as an action item
2:39:04 you know i i think under the committee
2:39:06 the whole it's perfectly appropriate
2:39:08 if you think about committee the whole
2:39:10 budget discussions um the council steers
2:39:13 and so i i think what we're looking for
2:39:15 is steering and in talking with mayor
2:39:17 paulie
2:39:18 she was just anxious to see the seven
2:39:20 steer
2:39:21 versus just the committee steer so i
2:39:24 think what you've done tonight is great
2:39:26 i think as council member hunts
2:39:28 described it laid out like that and
2:39:30 however it ends up it ends up if it's a
2:39:33 firm recommendation great if it's we
2:39:35 agree that the parameters should be to
2:39:37 complete the goals and outcomes chart
2:39:39 that's fine i mean we're all obviously
2:39:40 here listening um
2:39:42 you know unless the council veers in a
2:39:44 completely different direction
2:39:46 my sense is the administration will take
2:39:47 these comments tonight you know in the
2:39:49 forefront and then look to see what
2:39:52 money we need to put in and then when
2:39:53 you see the budget the council have an
2:39:55 opportunity then to react to
2:39:57 you know how he responded
2:40:01 okay thumbs up
2:40:02 on that um i did want to
2:40:07 reiterate that i think the two pieces of
2:40:09 additional information that it would be
2:40:11 useful to have and i recognize that the
2:40:13 packet is going out tomorrow um
2:40:16 some indication of effort maybe that
2:40:18 could be the effort on these top
2:40:20 these items that we are
2:40:22 recommending to be top tier um some
2:40:26 indication of effort would be useful i
2:40:27 think and then um also some indication
2:40:31 and this could be maybe for subsequent
2:40:33 conversations about connections to other
2:40:35 adopted plans
2:40:38 and we will not be able to do that in
2:40:39 writing for tomorrow um what we can
2:40:42 try to do is be thoughtful over the next
2:40:44 couple of days and at least do our best
2:40:47 to address it orally at the meeting
2:40:48 monday night
2:40:50 right and so i think the the plans
2:40:52 connection will be useful for future
2:40:54 prioritization conversations so that
2:40:56 doesn't need to be in the packet for
2:40:58 tomorrow and i understand it won't be
2:41:01 and then um yeah the effort conversation
2:41:04 could be uh it would just be useful to
2:41:07 have that information especially
2:41:09 by monday evening we can at least give
2:41:11 an order of magnitude or at least you
2:41:13 know share some thoughts of what an
2:41:15 order of magnitude might be high medium
2:41:18 low you know something like that i mean
2:41:20 you know i i i only play a planner on
2:41:23 television but you know certainly the
2:41:25 two topics you picked are broad
2:41:28 wide-ranging topics but i also know that
2:41:31 they're so broad and wide-ranging that
2:41:34 there are
2:41:35 third-party consultants
2:41:37 that we could bring in
2:41:38 to do that and so
2:41:40 while we still need staff to manage that
2:41:42 in the midst of all the other projects
2:41:43 that this dolly wall
2:41:45 explained
2:41:47 the these two at least lean or tend to
2:41:50 lean toward you know outside help
2:41:52 perhaps more than a couple of the others
2:41:54 you might have picked so i think that's
2:41:57 a preview of what that would be uh we'll
2:42:00 we'll try to define it a little further
2:42:01 over the next few days yeah i mean there
2:42:03 are some that we have to do in this list
2:42:06 you know which is the house bill 1220
2:42:09 um so we have to make um changes in the
2:42:12 housing element so that that's just the
2:42:14 state law piece so
2:42:16 uh but but i think the capacity
2:42:18 discussion is real uh not just from
2:42:20 staff for the consultants but the boards
2:42:22 and commissions you know as they uh have
2:42:26 vet out really read these complex um you
2:42:29 know policy just uh ideas and then and
2:42:32 make a recommendation to council so
2:42:34 um so just having that balance of
2:42:38 the comprehensive plan update is fair
2:42:40 and square in front of us so if it
2:42:42 wasn't for that then yeah we could knock
2:42:45 out the whole list or you know whatever
2:42:46 so that should she didn't really just
2:42:48 say that so we need to strike but that's
2:42:50 an important comprehensive plan update
2:42:52 is a you know eight-year update so we do
2:42:55 want to do a good job
2:42:56 with having conversations and and giving
2:42:59 the time for community and and the
2:43:00 boards and commissions to really
2:43:03 you know do that well
2:43:05 while these are important too so just as
2:43:07 you tee up your conversation with the
2:43:08 council
2:43:11 you know if it's two or three or however
2:43:12 many items you want us to focus on uh
2:43:15 from this list in the next couple of
2:43:16 years um keep that you know the
2:43:19 comprehensive plan update and maybe some
2:43:21 of these blend in well with the comp
2:43:23 plan update you know missing middle
2:43:25 conversations we might want to have with
2:43:27 the community
2:43:29 through that process but maybe it's it
2:43:31 won't be all of it that under that
2:43:32 umbrella maybe it's a slice of it
2:43:34 that'll get addressed so it's going to
2:43:36 be nuanced in terms of how it gets
2:43:38 implemented um but the budget timing is
2:43:41 is critical and we kind of need to make
2:43:44 some decisions for what what's coming
2:43:46 from a resource standpoint
2:43:48 or you all need to tell us what the
2:43:51 resources are coming away in the next
2:43:53 couple of years but i think we've heard
2:43:55 loud and clear from this committee
2:43:57 from ppc from residents who've come here
2:44:00 that they don't want this list of future
2:44:02 projects to be a black hole they don't
2:44:04 want this list to go away never to be
2:44:06 seen again so
2:44:07 if the council comes up again with you i
2:44:10 think you've mentioned three tonight um
2:44:12 i think we can commit
2:44:14 that you will hear about the three will
2:44:16 they be completed in six months
2:44:17 absolutely not but will there be
2:44:19 continued
2:44:20 dialogue and discussion about the topics
2:44:23 um absolutely
2:44:25 we're really committed to that and i
2:44:27 think we're just trying to be as honest
2:44:28 as possible
2:44:30 about
2:44:31 staff resources about the comp plan
2:44:33 about you know current planning projects
2:44:35 that may come along i mean
2:44:37 one of the hopeful outcomes of a better
2:44:39 title 18 is more people will want to
2:44:41 come to do business here because they
2:44:42 feel that the land use approval process
2:44:45 is more straightforward so that
2:44:46 conceivably could mean there's more
2:44:48 current projects for all of you to
2:44:50 review too so um
2:44:52 again i think the conversation tonight
2:44:54 was excellent thank you all for for
2:44:56 being uh
2:44:58 as precise as you could be with us and i
2:45:00 think your colleagues on monday will
2:45:02 also appreciate it
2:45:06 that's president washington
2:45:08 so the other one that i want to kind of
2:45:11 throw out there because i understand
2:45:13 what a form-based code is but i'm not
2:45:15 sure everybody does and so looking at
2:45:18 that number 19
2:45:21 if we're well and truly considering the
2:45:24 concept of a form-based code
2:45:27 i would almost say that that needs to
2:45:29 come earlier in the process rather than
2:45:32 later just because it has so many
2:45:34 ramifications on
2:45:36 all kinds of other things because a form
2:45:38 based code is basically changing from a
2:45:41 zoning and use to
2:45:43 what it looks like
2:45:46 and so
2:45:47 i don't
2:45:49 how do we make
2:45:52 assessment of whether that needs to come
2:45:54 earlier
2:45:55 rather than later
2:45:57 what the requirements staff time would
2:46:02 so i'm trying to think about what that
2:46:03 conversation looks like with committee
2:46:05 of the whole in trying to explain
2:46:09 what that is
2:46:12 and i and i think if the question is
2:46:14 asked of staff next monday we will be
2:46:16 brutally honest
2:46:18 and the brutal honest answer is
2:46:20 that we do not have the capacity to deal
2:46:23 with this anytime soon
2:46:26 that we need to get title 18 done we
2:46:27 need to get the comp plan done
2:46:29 um we're certainly prepared to work on
2:46:31 some of the others but the idea of a
2:46:33 form based code
2:46:35 i mean it's pretty much starting all
2:46:36 over in some respects
2:46:39 and the amount of energy time it will
2:46:42 the development commission ppc community
2:46:44 stakeholders our other boards and
2:46:46 commissions is enormous
2:46:49 and so if the council on monday night
2:46:51 says that's the most important thing
2:46:53 and we don't care about the rest
2:46:55 then that will be a very difficult
2:46:57 budget conversation because we will say
2:46:59 we have to hire another planning
2:47:01 department
2:47:02 in order to do that
2:47:04 because the planning department we have
2:47:06 will be busy with all the other stuff i
2:47:08 mean it's not unlike the munis
2:47:09 implementation where we've had to
2:47:11 basically double up on our utility
2:47:13 billing folks and our accountants we
2:47:15 will basically come to you and say we
2:47:17 have to double up on our planners
2:47:19 because that is the scope and magnitude
2:47:21 of that and so that
2:47:22 i wish it was a different answer but
2:47:24 that and many please correct me if i've
2:47:27 misspoke but i think it would be an
2:47:29 enormous enormous undertaking that we
2:47:32 are not in the position to do certainly
2:47:34 not in 2023
2:47:36 and maybe not in 2024. yeah i mean you
2:47:39 know it's a yeah different people have a
2:47:42 different understanding of what it means
2:47:43 and and all that so and and the scope
2:47:46 could be a huge tube but
2:47:48 we can start the conversation to a
2:47:50 comprehensive plan update process
2:47:52 there's a could be a little bit overlap
2:47:55 between
2:47:56 housing in a in a you know where you
2:47:58 have nine units and it looks like a
2:48:00 house on the outside but it's zoned
2:48:02 multi-family and what does that look
2:48:04 like but if you you know so having those
2:48:07 conversations steed up during the comp
2:48:09 plan update uh will let lead us to some
2:48:13 code amendments in the future years
2:48:16 but it's a policy discussion
2:48:20 i mean right now we have architectural
2:48:22 style you pick out of the five styles
2:48:24 and you you know go through that process
2:48:26 so yes and that took
2:48:28 years of community conversations and and
2:48:31 and all that to get us there so yes it
2:48:32 is a bigger project but it's also what
2:48:35 do we want to do do we want to just try
2:48:37 it for
2:48:38 missing middle in this zone in central
2:48:40 issaquah and and test it out
2:48:43 that you know maybe that's doable in the
2:48:45 next five years not a whole
2:48:49 um of central's floor plan so it very it
2:48:52 can vary but yeah it could be huge it
2:48:56 could be small and to say i'm not
2:48:59 advocating for it i'm just looking at
2:49:01 this list and going
2:49:04 what is the conversation look like on
2:49:06 monday and because that has
2:49:08 ramifications on everything else
2:49:11 is that something the administration
2:49:13 would necessarily propose going first
2:49:17 again i i truly believe that your
2:49:20 colleagues were very excited about going
2:49:23 to standing committees and one of the
2:49:25 main reasons for that was to use the
2:49:26 expertise of the of the colleagues on
2:49:29 the committee to help the council sort
2:49:32 through these more difficult decisions
2:49:33 and i think monday night's conversation
2:49:36 on this topic will be exhibit a
2:49:38 as to why people are happy that there
2:49:41 are standing committees and will
2:49:43 listen closely to what this committee
2:49:45 has to say on the subject
2:49:51 two comments one is on the form based
2:49:53 code and one is
2:49:56 separate so on the on the form based
2:49:59 this is from you know having previously
2:50:01 worked at the university of washington
2:50:03 urban design and planning department but
2:50:05 also it came up in the ppc discussions
2:50:07 you know these codes won't it's not like
2:50:09 we're
2:50:10 making the perfect code and then it's
2:50:12 going to be applied to a city that will
2:50:13 then you know use that code from a blank
2:50:16 slate we're starting with an existing
2:50:18 city that's built in an existing way and
2:50:20 then we're also starting with an
2:50:21 existing code so while i
2:50:24 i think it ideally in an ideal you know
2:50:27 starting from a blank slate situation
2:50:29 you would consider do you you know you
2:50:30 would have a decision tree would you
2:50:32 want to do form-based code do you want
2:50:33 to do this other kind of code then you
2:50:34 would decide that then you would make
2:50:36 all the other decisions that's not where
2:50:38 we are we're not at that starting point
2:50:40 we're somewhere
2:50:41 quite a ways down that list and so i
2:50:44 think um given that and given also that
2:50:47 this wasn't in our initial scope for the
2:50:49 update and given that it isn't
2:50:52 um that i think there are ways to
2:50:54 achieve the community's goals given that
2:50:56 we have this
2:50:57 existing code given that we have
2:51:00 a certain amount of staff capacity i
2:51:01 think we can achieve them uh more
2:51:04 efficiently within the existing code so
2:51:07 i agree with this sort of you know
2:51:08 shouldn't we have shouldn't this big
2:51:10 picture thing be considered first but i
2:51:12 i we're just not at that point in the
2:51:15 conversation in my opinion
2:51:19 unrelated to that on the requirement uh
2:51:22 you know you mentioned some items will
2:51:23 be required to be done
2:51:26 that was also true with the original
2:51:28 title 18 update those items got pulled
2:51:30 to the side for example the sign
2:51:33 code needed to be done to comply with
2:51:36 i believe
2:51:37 as a case yeah
2:51:40 um so it needed to be done there was a
2:51:42 timeline on that
2:51:44 and so it got done so i i would say i
2:51:47 think that we as a committee we as a
2:51:49 council can also acknowledge that there
2:51:51 are items that will be required to be
2:51:53 done but i i don't you know aside from
2:51:55 acknowledging that they need to be done
2:51:56 that affects the capacity of staff i
2:51:59 don't know that we
2:52:00 need to prioritize them further because
2:52:03 they they do need to be done and we we
2:52:05 recognize that
2:52:11 all right um do you have what you need
2:52:13 from this committee yeah any other
2:52:15 questions
2:52:16 yeah just to uh summarize for the packet
2:52:19 for council
2:52:20 uh we're going to um
2:52:23 you know provide them the information
2:52:25 that we have we'll see if we can add
2:52:27 a call the change the housing middle
2:52:29 missing middle to a more broader
2:52:31 category
2:52:33 i think we have a column that talks
2:52:34 about whether it's covered by the
2:52:36 existing goals and outcomes we'll pull
2:52:38 that out more strongly
2:52:41 relationship to other
2:52:43 long-range plans um we'll see if that's
2:52:46 you know makes sense
2:52:48 the metric of effort will cover that in
2:52:51 our presentation on monday
2:52:53 and then we'll summarize we'll we'll
2:52:55 provide a little bit more context for
2:52:57 what is it how did it come about for the
2:52:59 rest of the council members so
2:53:01 that those are the
2:53:03 elements we'll include in the packet and
2:53:04 then you'll lead the discussion
2:53:07 with your
2:53:09 the rest of the cast members
2:53:11 yeah i think that that all sounds good
2:53:13 and i would say i don't think we i think
2:53:15 it's most it will be most important and
2:53:17 most useful
2:53:18 to the council's discussion to have an
2:53:21 effort
2:53:22 metric associated with those three
2:53:26 things that we
2:53:27 repeatedly mentioned which were the
2:53:29 parking the
2:53:31 uh housing and the um stream buffers
2:53:34 because if we're if we're recommending
2:53:36 those for councils full consideration
2:53:38 those are the ones that the effort
2:53:39 metric would be would be most useful for
2:53:41 there are a lot of other things on this
2:53:43 list i think there's
2:53:45 you know 32 things on this list and so i
2:53:47 think
2:53:48 i think it would be a big lift to have
2:53:50 all of that information for monday but i
2:53:52 think having
2:53:53 some more detailed information about
2:53:55 those
2:53:56 items that this committee is
2:53:57 recommending to prioritize would be
2:53:58 super helpful sounds good
2:54:03 is there any other
2:54:05 questions thoughts from
2:54:08 administration okay and so you have what
2:54:10 you need from this committee
2:54:13 all right i will then
2:54:15 close out this item and we will move
2:54:17 into announcements are there any
2:54:19 announcements from the committee
2:54:21 there are not
2:54:22 and then
2:54:23 there being no further business i will
2:54:25 adjourn this meeting at
2:54:27 9 24 pm thank you everyone have