← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Auto captions

Tuesday, July 9, 2024

7:00 PM · 2h 29m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
Lakeside Transfer of Development Rights AB 8890 3/4
Annual Amendments to Title 18 and Title 3 COM 0061 3/3
Topic
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3a
Minutes of May 7, 2024
packet pp.5–6
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-07-24 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. May 7, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4a
Lakeside Transfer of Development Rights COM 0019
45 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.7–82
Staff report:
In September 2005, the Issaquah City Council adopted the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program (Land Use Code Chapter 18.806). The voluntary program provides financial incentives for landowners (sending site property) of property adjacent to public open space, property the City desires to acquire as open space, or property with extensive critical areas on their property the option to sell their “development rights” instead of developing their property, in exchange for recording a permanent conservation easement on the property to a purchaser. Once sold, the development rights can be used by the purchaser to increase the density of a project planned in an area more suitable for development; a “receiving site”.
4b
Annual Amendments to Title 18 and Title 3 COM 0061
30 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.83–225
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
In 2023, the city adopted a major update to Title 18, Land Use Code, with the intent of modernizing the regulations, simplifying the language and unifying a complex set of codes. Similar to any major project, the city is committed to quality control best practices and conducting an annual review of issues found by staff through implementation of the new code. The city started implementing the updated Title 18 code in June 2023. A number of projects under review for the last year were vested to the old code. For those that were subject to the new code the general feedback we have received is positive. The true
4c
Housing and Parking Analysis Scope of Work COM 0067
20 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.227–239
Topics: HousingTransportation
Staff report:
The goal of the Central Issaquah Plan was to guide the evolution of Central Issaquah from a collection of strip malls and office buildings into a more livable, sustainable, and balanced mixed use urban regional growth area by incenting future residential development onto the valley floor. Since the plan’s adoption in 2013, no housing units have been constructed in the Urban Core zone and only one residential development has occurred inside the Mixed Use zone.
0:02 good evening everyone welcome to the
0:04 city council Planning Development and
0:06 environment committee meeting um I am
0:09 council member hunt and I'm joined
0:10 tonight with council president Walsh and
0:12 council member Hall and tonight is July
0:14 9th uh
0:16 20124 there will be multiple public
0:18 comment opportunities at tonight's
0:20 meeting there will be a general public
0:21 comment opportunity at the beginning of
0:23 the meeting and there will be
0:25 opportunities to make comments after the
0:26 presentations on tonight's topics as
0:29 well
0:31 um and we will start with a general
0:32 public comment opportunity members of
0:35 the public May address council at this
0:36 time in person or virtually those who
0:38 are signed up in advance to make
0:40 comments will be called on first if you
0:42 are joining us virtually and would like
0:44 to make comments please raise your
0:45 virtual hand and if you are on the phone
0:48 press star three and if you have joined
0:49 by computer or smartphone please look
0:51 for the hand icon and this varies by
0:53 device if you're in the room and did not
0:55 sign up we will also call on you so I
0:57 will take a minute to find out if we
0:58 have speakers for general public
1:00 comments and then I have some additional
1:03 guidelines chair Hunt No One signed up
1:06 prior to the meeting to speak all right
1:09 and we do have several members of the
1:10 audience are there any members of the
1:12 audience that would like to speak at the
1:13 general public comment opportunity okay
1:16 all
1:17 right then um we will have more
1:20 opportunities later on and also as a
1:22 reminder written comments can be
1:23 submitted at any time to city council at
1:26 isqua wa.gov
1:32 what oh and there's nobody that's
1:35 indicating a desire online as well just
1:37 confirm okay um so we will go to our
1:40 first item the first item tonight is uh
1:44 Comm 0019 Lakeside transfer of
1:46 development rights and this will be
1:48 presented by director Dolly wall I'm
1:50 sorry chair could I ask you to approve
1:52 the prior set of minutes before we go
1:54 into oh I'm sorry yes yes uh first we
1:57 have the minutes of the May 7th meeting
1:59 which is
2:01 um which are in our packet do we have
2:03 any corrections or any edits to those
2:06 okay um then if you approve of uh of
2:11 having those be approved please say I I
2:14 all right those are approved uh we will
2:16 go on to agenda items com 0019 Lakeside
2:19 transfer of development
2:23 rights good evening council members and
2:25 members of the community um so for this
2:28 first topic um let me just begin the
2:33 presentation um um so I want to First
2:36 acknowledge we have Jeff Watling our
2:38 Parks director here as well so we've tag
2:40 teamed on this item because it's half
2:42 Community Development and half parks and
2:45 also
2:46 online uh we have Kim Adams Pratt from
2:48 Madrona Law Group uh if uh Council has
2:51 any questions uh related to this item um
2:54 for the legal team um so for the purpose
2:58 of tonight's meeting on this agenda
3:01 item is oops go back um review the
3:07 transfer development rights um for
3:09 city-owned Park Properties uh to
3:12 Lakeside uh and this is to comply with
3:14 the agreement um that was signed in
3:18 2013 um so the direction we're seeking
3:20 from the council committee is uh if you
3:23 recommend um authorizing the deed
3:26 restrictions which is the conservation
3:28 easement for B uh for Harvey Manning
3:31 Park and also for Kora Park um and also
3:35 second direction is if you if the
3:37 committee authorizes transfer
3:39 certificate to transfer the development
3:42 rights from burnston uh Ingy Johnson
3:45 Confluence Park for and Harvey Manning
3:48 Park uh to Lakeside uh property to
3:52 comply with the prior uh development
3:54 agreement um again just a quick
3:56 background um on what is transfer of
4:00 development rights uh it's basically to
4:02 allow increased development on one
4:04 parcel the receiving property in this
4:06 case the Lakeside uh property uh while
4:08 protecting another parcel the sending
4:10 site um and generally uh the sending
4:14 sites are constraint sites that have
4:17 critical areas and and such um they can
4:21 be bought between public agencies
4:23 private entities but majority of this
4:25 transfer development rights happens in
4:27 the private Market where um sending
4:30 property owner sells it to a receiving
4:31 property owner uh these can be used to
4:35 increase um either impervious surface
4:38 height floor area ratio or density at
4:41 the receiving site um City's uh
4:44 Municipal Code has a map that has mapped
4:47 uh the sending sites uh which are green
4:50 and the receiving sites which are uh red
4:53 on this map um in
4:57 203 the city entered into a development
5:00 agreement with Lakeside Industries uh
5:03 and in that is a section
5:05 7.1.3 which obligates the city to
5:08 provide 100 units uh transferred to the
5:12 Lakeside properties at a fixed rate of
5:15 15,000 uh dollars for each equivalent
5:18 residential unit and that uh in essence
5:21 is really 63 multi family unit one
5:24 single family unit or 12200 Square ft of
5:27 commercial space so it can be you know
5:29 or the other but for one eru is a fixed
5:33 price it can be adjusted based on
5:35 construction cost index um so in 2022
5:40 the city was notified by Lakeside
5:41 Industries of their intention to
5:43 purchase these 100 uh and they're called
5:45 the mitigated sepa equivalent
5:48 residential units so a long way of
5:50 saying that that there they would you
5:54 know pay the mitigation fee fund and in
5:56 your memo we kind of broke down what the
5:58 current uh mitigation Fe fees are um uh
6:02 again the breakdown um so the city's
6:04 been trying to find 100 units uh for
6:07 this transaction to be completed uh we
6:09 had about 82 uh previously certified
6:12 units and then um this chart here kind
6:16 of explains uh how many total are
6:18 certified for each of the park um and
6:21 what this um transfer uh will entail so
6:24 for
6:25 burnston um it would be 22 TDR units for
6:29 Johnson 15 and Conference Park 18 B 15
6:35 and bergsma Harvey Manning Park uh a
6:38 total of 30 so we can come up with a
6:40 total of 100 transfer development rights
6:44 um again administration's recommendation
6:46 is uh authorize the conservation
6:48 easements for bergsma and Kora
6:50 properties those are the new documents
6:52 that are part of your packet um we also
6:56 recommend uh authorizing the transfer of
6:58 development rights from all five parks
7:00 in that table uh the numbers that are
7:03 just shared um to Lakeside properties um
7:07 in terms of timing and Next Step uh so
7:10 we're here today uh at Planning
7:12 Development and environment committee um
7:14 based on the committee's direction we
7:16 will schedule this item for city council
7:18 decision uh in uh July August after all
7:22 the uh the pending um documents are
7:25 completed and after city council action
7:27 if it is approved uh then they the these
7:31 transfer of development right
7:32 certificates will be executed uh the
7:35 easements um and transfers uh
7:37 certificates will be recorded and then
7:39 transfer of funds will follow uh the
7:41 council
7:43 action um just to Circle back the
7:45 direction we're asking uh authorizing of
7:48 the two deed restrictions or
7:50 conservation easements um and then also
7:53 recommending um asking committees a
7:56 recommendation on transferring the
7:58 development rights for all
8:01 with that I conclude my presentation but
8:04 we're happy to answer any questions um
8:07 the whole
8:09 team council president
8:12 was thank you I'm wondering when I think
8:15 of a transfer development rights um
8:19 situation I tend to think of a
8:21 completely pristine natural
8:25 environment that we are buying to
8:28 protect um and then transferring the
8:31 development rights in this case several
8:33 of these are actively used parks and
8:37 things like that is there a way we
8:39 should be thinking about that is it
8:41 normal and you know typical to use and
8:46 already I wouldn't say developed but at
8:49 least in use Park um to do a transfer of
8:53 development rights sure um by by
8:57 authorizing transfer of development
8:59 rights you know you're binding any
9:01 future councils to be able to sell that
9:03 property for development so it it B you
9:06 know those transfer rights are are taken
9:09 away from that particular property if
9:11 this uh transfer occurs um in terms of
9:15 comparison between a developed Park
9:17 versus um an open space you know more
9:20 naturalistic critical areas piece uh you
9:23 still have to determine the
9:24 certification of how many units can be
9:26 transferred it still needs to be
9:28 established in that's based on the
9:30 zoning and how much of it is developable
9:31 and you know there's a whole exercise
9:33 that establishes how many units can
9:35 actually be be transferred but all of
9:37 these sites are on the city's sending
9:39 site
9:44 map I think there may be some additional
9:46 clarification from
9:48 Kim on this uh on this
9:51 question I would I would only add that
9:56 the the TDR program that was adopted by
9:59 Council in 23 2023 kind of updated
10:03 things and one of the specific intents
10:05 was to add park space so I think you
10:09 added in a different dimension in
10:11 addition to open space of park space so
10:16 this can't you know this could not be
10:18 developed for anything else other than
10:20 the park space and more traditional open
10:24 space thank you Kim um would you mind
10:27 also introducing yourself and your role
10:29 for the record and for the public yes
10:32 thank you yes I'm Kim Adams Pratt I am
10:35 one of the attorneys at Madrono law
10:37 group that represents the city of isqua
10:40 great thank you so much um additional
10:46 questions okay I have a few if you want
10:48 to okay um so my first question is in
10:53 the memo there is a snippet of this
10:56 agreement from 20 um 13
11:00 and it's not clear to me from that
11:02 snippet is this 100 tdrs the extent of
11:06 the agreement compliance or is this the
11:09 first step towards compliance sure um I
11:13 me there are a lot of Provisions in the
11:14 development agreement the city's
11:16 obligation to to provide is 100 transfer
11:19 development rights it also has
11:21 Provisions where in the private Market
11:23 Lakeside could go and seek 400
11:26 additional transfer of development
11:28 rights to raise the total number of
11:30 development you know erus that can be
11:33 built on that property to about 1,200
11:36 units total so if tomorrow they want to
11:38 develop they can do 700 from 700 to 800
11:43 this transaction will get them 800 units
11:45 but they can increase that to 1,200 by
11:47 getting some additional transfer of
11:49 development rights um in the from the
11:52 private
11:53 Market okay thank you so this this does
11:56 then conclude the city's um
11:59 responsibility C's obligations yes okay
12:06 um okay
12:10 and if we so we are in a the way I read
12:14 this snippet from the
12:16 agreement they decide when they want to
12:19 do this so we have to our our um
12:23 parameter space for what we can decide
12:25 is we have to figure out which 100 units
12:27 but the 100 units that's said and the
12:29 timing is also set because it's up to
12:32 the property administrator that that's
12:34 all correct that is my understanding yes
12:37 okay um did the city in considering you
12:42 know you have um several options here of
12:45 different Parks including um the bergsma
12:48 property were there other things that
12:51 were considered that are also sending
12:53 sites that did not make it onto this
12:57 list I would refer to Jeff U my
13:00 understanding is we had a hard time
13:02 getting this 100 but were the other
13:05 parts
13:06 yeah thanks Minnie good question Jeff
13:08 Watling parks and Community Services
13:10 director um as we worked with planning
13:12 um as they notified of of this of of
13:15 lakeside's interest in pursuing this uh
13:17 we started with those sending sites and
13:20 and also started with the units that
13:22 were already
13:23 identified um so I guess to answer your
13:27 question um it became pretty evident
13:29 that these five sites these five
13:32 locations uh the three that already had
13:35 existing tdrs ready and in place made
13:38 sense uh with the recent purchase of
13:41 Harvey Manning Park expansion the
13:42 bergsma property knowing that was a
13:44 sending site uh previously identified
13:46 before we bought it but now that we
13:48 owned it fee simple and and um with uh
13:52 deed um it made sense for for that
13:55 property to uh be a candidate to
13:58 consider
14:01 okay um thank you so just so I
14:04 understand though there's 33 units right
14:06 now from bergsma is that the extensive
14:10 of the T does that cover all of bergsma
14:13 or okay that's my understanding yes many
14:16 can probably answer that they did the
14:17 calculation for the TDR
14:20 numbers that is that is correct that is
14:23 our okay so is this all of all of these
14:26 properties and it worked out to be 100
14:29 well we're not selling all of them so if
14:31 you look in the one column there's like
14:33 two remaining for each part or two or
14:36 three remaining for each
14:39 Park okay yes I see that now so um all
14:45 right then there's uh this leads into my
14:48 next question which is it says that TDR
14:51 um oh no it doesn't so does this
14:54 restrict more on some parts of some
14:57 properties than than other and what does
14:59 that do for you know planning for uses
15:03 of the parks how does that influence
15:04 what we can and can't do on almost all
15:07 of these properties but not quite all of
15:09 these properties like not quite all of
15:11 each one yeah I I'll take a good good
15:13 effort at that and and Kim could
15:15 certainly help as well um really
15:16 appreciate Kim Adams Pratt again Robin
15:18 Spear and Kim are the ones that uh
15:20 drafted the conservation enement that's
15:22 proposed before you um I guess to start
15:25 with answering that I would note that
15:27 all of these are currently owned by the
15:30 city of isqua and in that acquisition
15:32 many of these were used with Grant funds
15:34 those Grant funds have Grant covenants
15:37 deed covenants already put onto this
15:39 prop onto these properties and so these
15:42 cons the conservation easements that are
15:44 before you are not meant to take the
15:46 place of or supersede in many places
15:48 they're just complementing the
15:50 restrictions that are already on that
15:51 site uh what we Tred to do in drafting
15:54 that conservation easement is look ahead
15:56 you may notice as you read the the
15:58 bergsma property uh that is that has
16:00 some different language in it because
16:02 that is really intended as open space
16:05 and conservation of HED Hillside its mix
16:09 of conservation and recreational uses
16:11 are going to be very different um
16:13 bergsma's really going to be identified
16:15 recreationally as Trails uh but mostly
16:18 habitat conservation is a high priority
16:20 whereas the cor of conservation easement
16:23 um knowing that will um and is intended
16:27 to be a future neighborhood park that
16:28 connects next to our other downtown
16:30 Parks um wanted to recognize um ability
16:34 for that future planning uh community
16:37 outreach Community engagement to to
16:38 identify What's um possible and
16:41 potential there so these easements made
16:43 every effort to um protect the sites in
16:46 perpetuity as Parks but also um give
16:50 that ability and understanding that
16:51 there will be some degree of um um
16:54 investment um both um conservation
16:57 related investment but also some
16:59 recreational investment on on those
17:03 sites I would add that on each of these
17:06 conservation easements there is a map
17:09 attached so say for the bergsma property
17:12 in your pocket it's on page
17:14 25 and that outlines for you there's a
17:18 note it says limits of protected
17:20 property and in both of these cases the
17:24 the conservation easement covers the
17:27 entirety
17:29 of the city owned property so we could
17:33 have the city could have um kept some of
17:37 the property out and not covered it with
17:40 the conservation protective um
17:42 protection eement but the decision was
17:45 to not do that and so for both uh
17:47 bergsma and Kora the easement covers the
17:50 entire property so everywhere on the
17:53 property is protected exactly the same
17:56 under the easement
18:01 okay thank you that that also helps um
18:04 so for the property the eous
18:09 um property which is in the uh
18:13 Confluence Park set of tdrs this you
18:16 know we've talked about how to make sure
18:18 that we make that a space that is uh
18:22 used you know provides public benefit
18:24 and that will require some work does
18:27 this impact those plans at all this
18:29 would not impact future restoration and
18:32 sort of re Redevelopment um historically
18:34 landmarking the E house and and having
18:36 it available for public
18:39 use okay and then my last question which
18:41 you already pretty much answered but
18:43 just to confirm so this isn't expected
18:46 this TDR process isn't expected to
18:49 impact any of the conservation efforts
18:52 or um or uh easements or other plans for
18:59 bergsma in terms of making sure that it
19:01 remains public open space and in fact
19:02 maybe reinforces it by based on that you
19:06 can't we're uh binding future councils
19:09 as you mentioned earlier it would be our
19:12 hope that this complements the
19:13 protections that are already on that
19:14 site from the and just let me remind you
19:17 King County Conservation futures money
19:19 that was that was provided to us in that
19:22 acquisition the rco the state um Urban
19:25 wildlife habitat funding uh that we
19:28 received for the acquisition of that
19:29 site that also has covenants um you
19:32 remember the carbon credit program uh
19:34 that we implemented on bur that also has
19:36 some protections so so there are this is
19:39 again is not meant to supersede or take
19:41 the place of it's really meant to
19:42 complement those protections that are
19:44 that are already on that really
19:46 important parcel okay um thank you last
19:50 question which I think is um maybe
19:52 director Dolly wall uh this is an
19:55 agreement from 2013 this um TDR
19:59 for the city covers the city's um
20:02 portion of this
20:04 agreement are there other agreements out
20:07 there where we also are expecting to
20:09 need to find or need to have sending
20:11 sites for tdrs um and other development
20:14 agreements that you're aware of that I'm
20:17 not aware of but I do know um you know
20:20 there was uh not the city's obligation I
20:22 think they may there are maybe terms in
20:25 in other development agreements that I
20:27 can think of like rowy properties
20:28 actually there was one unit that was
20:30 transferred from one place to the other
20:31 or something like that but that that can
20:34 happen outside of the city's obligation
20:36 I'm not aware of I haven't you
20:39 know not that I know
20:42 of okay well when this comes back to
20:45 council I think that would be a good
20:46 context piece um just to confirm that
20:50 okay those were my questions uh council
20:52 member Hall do you have ADD y sure yeah
20:56 I think just a couple so even with
20:59 um seems like quite a bit of assurances
21:03 that conservation easement is there to
21:06 help protect um the intended use of that
21:09 as open space and Recreation it's still
21:10 not quite clear to me reading the
21:13 conservation easement for the bergsma
21:15 property the intent to which what are
21:19 what kinds of improvements can be
21:21 constructed on the site so I'm wondering
21:23 if we can kind of walk through that part
21:25 of the easement together
21:29 sure I will I will oh go ahead Kim no go
21:33 ahead Jeff I was just going to say it's
21:35 really in section four of the agreement
21:38 yeah that's where I was going to going
21:39 to add if you if you read the easement
21:41 going to section four it really
21:43 expresses um what is um allowed um so
21:49 you'll see things like you know
21:51 Recreation um related to to Trail use um
21:54 speaks to our commitments to um
21:57 addressing the the already existing
21:59 covenants and and putting together
22:01 maintenance practices as well as any
22:03 proposed improvements that um do not
22:07 impact and in fact in both conservation
22:09 easements I would point out you'll see
22:11 the term conservation and Recreation
22:14 values um and and that is defined at the
22:17 beginning of the conservation easement
22:19 really is that is the intent of this
22:21 protection um to not do anything not
22:24 propose even as we build Trails or build
22:27 what is proposed um is not meant to to
22:29 to take away from the conservation and
22:31 recreational value it's meant to improve
22:34 it and and build upon it um so section
22:36 four kind of speaks to what um can be
22:39 done section five then goes into what is
22:41 not um allowed and you'll see a number
22:44 of the things that are that are not
22:45 allowed um I would point out just
22:47 because it it has come up in a public
22:49 comment um cell towers are are listed
22:52 there as not something that is allowed
22:55 um because again that would detract from
22:57 the conser ation and recreational value
23:00 on this site so think of section four as
23:03 as our sort of management boundaries and
23:08 what we're going to try and do and
23:09 section five is those things that um we
23:12 want to limit and are not allow on the
23:18 site that's where you'll see section
23:20 four is a little bit different spells
23:22 out of a different set of recreational
23:24 opportunities and quite frankly
23:26 conservation commitments on bergsma than
23:28 for uh they were really I think again
23:31 well written by Kim and by Robin to be
23:33 site
23:34 specific and future specific in terms of
23:36 what those sites may
23:39 become okay thank you yeah
23:42 on it was it was a little unclear to me
23:45 exactly what kinds of utilities would
23:47 would be prohibited versus versus
23:49 allowed so I'm seeing that now
23:52 um another thing I would note yeah not
23:55 only in terms of Utilities in this
23:57 conservation need but again remember the
23:59 there's three other deeds and Covenants
24:01 on that site so any proposed utility
24:05 would also have to abide by and abide
24:07 within the covenants and restrictions of
24:10 those three other sites this doesn't
24:13 this doesn't take the place of of those
24:15 requirements as well so no good reminder
24:18 when it comes to do Trail development or
24:20 anything on the bergsma site we're going
24:21 to have to be really intentional and
24:23 make sure we're abiding by all four of
24:26 these restrictions and Covenant
24:29 thank you um and then director Dolly
24:31 wall you had also said that
24:36 um on none of
24:39 these um in none of these areas are we
24:41 selling all of the TDR units that are
24:43 available and I'm just wondering why
24:45 that is if there was a particular
24:46 rationale that went into keeping a
24:48 couple for particular site Jeff can
24:50 probably explain the rationale from a
24:53 park planning
24:57 perspective yeah um I'll do my best to
24:59 explain and and Kim please jump in um as
25:02 well so um just more future thinking um
25:07 not knowing what might be on the horizon
25:11 um not knowing um again knowing the
25:15 protection of of these as Park
25:17 Properties in perpetuity if there was a
25:20 time sometime in the future where um
25:25 codes changed or rules changed and there
25:27 was a perception that every development
25:29 right was stripped from this park
25:31 property therefore not allowing any type
25:34 of Park development to happen um this is
25:38 I guess Department director's
25:40 recommendation to suggest maybe we we
25:43 keep a couple on there just just in
25:48 case and I would say um a little bit
25:51 simpler we were only obligated to find
25:54 100 for
25:56 Lakeside and that me that there were
25:59 several leftover um in the Parks and so
26:02 we only we are only selling them 100
26:05 that's just how the map worked out
26:07 thanks Kim that's much simpler no thank
26:09 you I mean both of those are helpful for
26:11 my understanding because I guess with
26:12 your answer about um bergsma and all the
26:16 different things that are impacting that
26:18 property I was thinking it might make
26:20 sense to sell all of the ones from the
26:24 other sites before touching any of the
26:26 tdrs at ber because it's so complicated
26:28 but maybe that's not the right rational
26:31 in terms of what you were saying at a
26:33 future proofing being prepared for Parks
26:36 planning yeah Kim I'm going to let you
26:38 speak to this because I think you you do
26:40 a good job of of addressing sort of what
26:42 the conservation easement allows us to
26:45 do Park development yeah um I we weren't
26:48 able to keep out any one of these
26:52 properties um by selling all the units
26:55 you know on them we needed to include
26:58 all of them
27:00 so but we held a few back from several
27:04 um but for Park development we don't
27:07 need um erus that's for how you know
27:12 that's for residential use commercial
27:14 use and so um while we're being very
27:18 conservative and holding a few back and
27:20 not selling them they aren't needed for
27:23 say installing a field or um uh you know
27:27 a trail
27:28 or a kiosk anything like that we don't
27:32 need uh Eros to do
27:40 that um thank you um my last question
27:44 then is I guess um you know most of the
27:47 times when items come before committee
27:49 or counsel there are options and
27:51 different levs if coun if committee or
27:53 Council wants to change things those
27:56 don't really exist in this kind of
27:57 situation it was struggle to come up
27:59 with the 100 tdrs in the first place and
28:01 we have to comply with the terms of The
28:04 Da is that correct yeah I mean the
28:05 city's under a contract uh to provide
28:08 100 units uh the options for Council are
28:10 if you don't like the mix of what is
28:12 proposed you could change that mix uh
28:15 you could tell us to go look for some
28:17 other property um you know
28:21 so but but it is a legal contract
28:23 between the city and
28:28 and is there a time that just maybe
28:30 think of another one um is there a time
28:32 from which Lakeside approached the city
28:35 and said we'd like to purchase these 100
28:36 units as per our contract in 2022 that
28:40 they have to we have to have gone
28:42 through a process with them or is it
28:44 kind of hope I I don't think there's a
28:47 firm timeline but we do want to honor
28:50 you know their their timeline of when
28:52 they want to do the development and
29:02 okay thank you
29:06 um were there are there other large Open
29:09 Spaces like in in the city that are
29:13 owned by the city that could be an
29:15 option for for selling tdrs or is I know
29:19 you said it was hard to find these but
29:20 yeah they have to be on the map the the
29:23 sending sites they have to be designated
29:24 on the map for the city to transfer them
29:27 there the other lar
29:30 site um hi again um yeah step one would
29:35 be needing to do legis bring legislation
29:38 before you to put that property on as a
29:41 as a sending site okay um so that that
29:44 that hasn't been done yet we do have
29:47 some recent acquisitions uh the squawk
29:49 Mountain Estates property we did look at
29:51 that with the planning team uh that
29:53 would yield a pretty small number of
29:55 units but again would require a first
29:58 step of of amending Title 18 to get that
30:01 site onto the map
30:04 before sending sites from it or sending
30:06 tdrs from
30:14 it okay thank you um I think that's our
30:17 questions for now we can ask questions
30:20 after if we have public comments um so
30:23 with that we will go now to public
30:25 comment on this item there any was the
30:28 public that would like to speak on this
30:29 item okay um I have some additional
30:31 comments to read uh I did not read them
30:34 at the beginning because we didn't have
30:34 any public comment so um public comments
30:37 are an important part of the public
30:38 process we take them very seriously and
30:40 Factor them into the decisions we make
30:43 during audience comments members of the
30:44 public are invited to address um all of
30:46 us regarding the matters that are
30:47 directly related to City programs
30:49 projects services or events except
30:51 public hearing items quas judicial items
30:53 or campaign related
30:55 matters and when recognized please
30:57 unmute the microphone so for the podium
30:59 there's a little button that you will
31:01 press um please state your name address
31:04 and relationship to the city and please
31:06 speak clearly and pause frequently um if
31:09 you are attending virtually and do not
31:11 respond or if your connection is lost
31:13 the meeting will need to proceed and you
31:15 can write written comments to uh to city
31:18 council at isqua wa.gov and then
31:20 personal attacks of seen language or
31:22 derogatory remarks and disruptive
31:24 behaviors such as shouting booing
31:25 clapping and stomping feet will not be
31:27 permitted the speaker is out of order
31:29 the presiding officer will direct the
31:30 speaker to return to his her seat or if
31:32 for virtual attendees may direct the
31:35 staff to meute the microphone there's
31:36 some additional comments in our packet
31:38 are there any members of the public on
31:40 the um on our virtual call as well that
31:44 would like to speak just so I know chair
31:47 hunt I see two hands raised
31:51 to speak to this topic on among our
31:54 virtual attendees okay um well then we
31:57 will first go with uh the um commenter
32:01 in the room and then we will go to the
32:03 virtual
32:05 commentary great uh good evening council
32:08 members my name is Kim Lee I'm an isqua
32:11 resident and president of roadstone
32:13 which is the real estate development arm
32:14 of Lakeside
32:16 Industries uh I'd like to start by
32:18 thanking Minnie and Jeff and Kim and
32:20 your staff for all the hard work that
32:22 went into this transfer development
32:24 rights package that that we're talking
32:26 about tonight um and I'd like to thank
32:28 each of you for your consideration of
32:31 what we think is a really wonderful
32:33 opportunity for the city and its future
32:35 growth um not only did these
32:38 conservation easements before you
32:40 tonight uh and their transfer of tdrs
32:42 satisfy a contract provision uh between
32:45 the city and Lakeside under the
32:46 development agreement but they preserve
32:49 these parks for the benefit of the
32:51 community in perpetu in perpetuity
32:53 meaning
32:54 forever um and we believe that's a
32:57 win-win for all involved uh especially
32:59 the
33:00 community um on the topic of tdrs uh
33:03 many mentioned that the development
33:05 agreement between the city and Lakeside
33:08 um requires that Lakeside obtain an
33:11 additional 400 tdrs uh which are not
33:14 currently available in the city of isqua
33:17 at that scale um so therefore we will
33:20 need to acquire those tdrs through
33:22 another mechanism and mani mentioned one
33:25 option being through the private Market
33:27 um another option is through by way of a
33:30 renewed interlocal agreement with King
33:32 County um we believe that uh by entering
33:36 into a new interlocal agreement um that
33:39 would be an amazing tool that would
33:40 benefit both that would benefit the city
33:43 so by entering into this agreement with
33:46 the county it would allow the city to
33:48 reap the benefits of the landscape
33:51 conservation local infrastructure
33:53 program it's a long L clip that you
33:56 might be more familiar with uh in the
33:58 2023 24 biannual budget uh the city
34:03 approved funds for a TDR and elcp
34:05 feasibility study to explore the city's
34:08 benefit of such a program in a nutshell
34:11 ELP not only supports Regional
34:13 conservation goals of preserving
34:15 Agricultural and Forest lands but would
34:18 provide potentially millions of dollars
34:20 of additional tax revenue to the city of
34:22 isqua for infrastructure which is very
34:25 broadly defined by the state to to
34:27 include roads utilities Parks additional
34:31 parks and now that that definition has
34:33 been expanded to include affordable
34:35 housing the ELP program is an amazing
34:38 opportunity for the city because it
34:40 would obtain up to
34:42 75% of King County share of the
34:45 increased property taxes generated over
34:47 many
34:48 years isqua is the only city in the
34:50 region where there is a buyer of tdrs at
34:53 the scale that we're talking about which
34:55 would significantly increase tax
34:57 revenues for the city's infrastructure
34:59 needs the prior interlocal agreement
35:02 between the city and King County expired
35:05 2015 but you have the opportunity to
35:08 prioritize and realize this opportunity
35:10 to preserve lands while bringing
35:12 significant Revenue to the
35:15 city Switching gears uh I'd also like to
35:18 express my support for the housing
35:21 analysis which is a later item on the
35:23 agenda tonight but I'm going to use my
35:25 time wisely here my hope is that you
35:27 would consider an mfte program for the
35:30 entire city rather than limiting the
35:32 scope to Central isqua we understand
35:35 that the future development of central
35:37 isqua is a priority to the city but
35:40 there's a significant amount of
35:41 development planned in the highlands and
35:44 elsewhere um including our project that
35:46 should be included in that
35:48 analysis we all know that we need more
35:51 affordable and middle housing in our
35:53 community and mfte is a very effective
35:56 way to fill that need
35:58 in fact we at roadstone would welcome
36:00 the opportunity to participate in an
36:02 mfte program to increase the amount of
36:04 affordable housing in our
36:06 community as I've mentioned before I
36:08 would love the opportunity to meet with
36:10 you and discuss tdrs mfte um and our
36:13 future plans for the Lakeside
36:15 development that we envision that was
36:17 envisioned by us in the city over 10
36:20 years ago um also King County and for
36:24 Tera have also expressed strong interest
36:26 in discussing these topics with council
36:28 members and with staff as well I'm
36:31 looking forward to the continued
36:33 discussions and seeing the city make
36:34 progress towards these goals thank
36:37 you thank you very much for those
36:40 comments city clerk there are members of
36:43 the public online that would like to
36:45 speak on this topic yes chair hun all
36:49 right if we can um we can have the first
36:52 of those members of the
36:54 public Nancy I am making you aen
36:57 panelist you should see uh you should
37:00 now have the ability to unmute your
37:02 microphone and turn on your camera
37:04 please State your full name for the
37:12 record Nancy can you hear
37:16 us hi this is Nancy Davidson I'm a
37:19 resident in Oldtown at 405 Southeast
37:22 Bush Street and I wanted to speak to
37:24 this subject um one of the things that I
37:27 really think is important as we're
37:28 looking at it I totally support the
37:30 transfer of development rights I think
37:32 it's a great idea I think it's a great
37:34 way to utilize the available property in
37:37 the city however I am concerned about
37:39 the conservation easements as they're
37:41 currently written particularly on the
37:43 burisma and the core properties and the
37:45 reason I'm really concerned is when the
37:47 staff person I remember it it was Jeff
37:50 or Minnie that stated they're not
37:52 knowing what was on the horizon and
37:55 that's the concern I see when I read
37:57 these easements is that there's some
37:59 flexibility in here to allow some
38:03 options that could affect the city in
38:06 the intent while we were not given the
38:09 full um brma underlying documents the
38:12 other ones that came through with the
38:13 county I'm concerned that there might be
38:16 things in the future that would impact
38:18 this and given the amount of time the
38:20 council and the city and many of its
38:23 committees took looking at Title 18 and
38:25 the land use codes trying to
38:28 protect uh the environmental areas of
38:31 the city I urg the Council to look
38:33 carefully at how much flexibility they
38:36 want to provide in this these easements
38:39 for what might be coming down on the
38:41 horizon I don't think that these
38:43 easements
38:45 specifically um identify that the intent
38:48 of them is to follow all of the
38:49 permitting requirements of the city for
38:51 example all the title 18 requirements
38:54 one of them includes the ability to
38:56 provide storm water in it and restrooms
38:59 while I agree that's part of a park but
39:01 that's something Council I would urge
39:02 you to consider if that's what you want
39:05 in these areas at some point we know
39:08 that PSC and other utilities are going
39:10 to be looking for locations to put
39:12 facilities as they try and meet the
39:14 expanding growth of this community and
39:17 other areas and so whatever flexibility
39:20 or things that are coming down in the
39:21 Horizon this Council has the opportunity
39:23 through these easements to identify how
39:26 you want to protect these lands
39:28 and I'm not sure the documents that you
39:29 have in hand provide that thank you very
39:32 much for the
39:34 opportunity thank you
39:37 Nancy city clerk um can we please go to
39:41 the next
39:43 speaker yes Susan Neville uh Susan I am
39:48 making you a panelist you should be able
39:50 to unmute your mic and turn on your
39:51 camera
40:00 Susan can you hear us
40:03 oh uh where unmute yes my mic we can
40:08 hear you oh hi
40:10 everybody
40:12 um let
40:16 me I wanted to see everybody because
40:19 it's been quite some time
40:23 I due to health issues I have not been
40:26 able to attend at the
40:28 um the way I wanted to the way I'm Susan
40:33 nille I'm a 26 year resident of
40:36 isqua um I've spent numerous hours
40:39 helping with giving my opinion on titlea
40:44 changes
40:47 and co-
40:49 changes from the really from the person
40:54 of a community
40:55 background and m 1 I have not been um
40:58 involved recently due to current health
41:01 issues but it doesn't mean that I don't
41:05 love isqua and that it's still not the
41:08 most important area that we've been
41:11 given and everything I've heard like
41:15 from Nancy just recently and from Connie
41:18 Marsh I'm in total agreement
41:21 with regarding protecting this to the
41:25 best of our abilities we we've been
41:27 given a gift and I and I
41:30 know there's many ways to look at it and
41:34 taxpayer dollars coming and going but
41:37 the bottom line is taxpayer dollars
41:41 did did make this purchase possible and
41:45 that that's the bottom line so I
41:47 appreciate everyone who is looking into
41:51 this and putting their time in into uh
41:55 keeping this gift for us thank
41:59 you thank you very much Susan are there
42:02 any other members of the public online
42:05 that would like to comment on this
42:07 item chair hunt I see no other virtual
42:10 hands raised at this time okay thank you
42:13 are there any members of the public in
42:15 council chambers that would like to
42:17 speak on this
42:20 item okay welcome Connie
42:27 hi my name is Connie Marsh and uh I
42:30 don't know how many years I've been
42:32 looking at tdrs so this was interesting
42:35 uh and
42:38 the conservation easement
42:41 language of the past and to now I've
42:45 read pretty much all of them and uh
42:49 they're hard to
42:51 enforce and then you have multiple
42:53 layers of contradictory EX Journal
42:58 requirements and so every new person who
43:02 reads these conservation
43:05 easements is not going to know how it
43:08 fits in with everything else and so I've
43:12 experiened that when our new parks
43:15 director came in and things started
43:16 happening around conservation easements
43:20 they were just lost and so things have
43:22 happened in parks that should not have
43:25 happened under the conservation
43:26 easements
43:27 so my first topic is a conservation
43:32 easement should reflect all of the
43:35 requirements so that they're in one
43:37 document so that people can actually use
43:40 them
43:41 effectively because it's it's uh it's
43:45 hard taking four layers right and then I
43:48 read the city code and it turns out that
43:52 there is a section for parks and there's
43:55 a section for preservation and they are
43:57 two different mechanisms for preserving
44:01 and so what they have done which doesn't
44:03 seem to be supported by code is they
44:05 have taken the more active Park parts
44:10 and the more conservation parts and
44:12 mushed them all together and that is one
44:14 of the things that's creating this sort
44:16 of odd uh protect but somehow a gravel
44:21 parking lot is going to be something
44:23 that's both protective and helping the
44:26 park and I think that's really confusing
44:28 because somebody is going to be having
44:30 to judge
44:32 well is this environmentally protective
44:35 like we say or do we really need to have
44:38 a parking lot for people to be able to
44:39 park and visit the park and who is going
44:42 to Define that who's going to say yes
44:44 it's okay it's in the conservation
44:46 easement that you can but if it's going
44:49 to impact the environment can you really
44:52 so who's going to judge it and then the
44:54 stewardship plan the stewardship plan is
44:57 supposed to be a part of the
44:58 conservation easement that effectively
45:01 says how you are managing and
45:04 maintaining your parks and that
45:06 stewardship plan is not in these
45:08 conservation easements as it required by
45:11 code because we're expecting to keep
45:14 these in good condition this does not
45:16 tell us how we're going to do that and
45:19 then in five you have several places
45:22 that say no you cannot do a a utility
45:28 but then it says oh unless it's allowed
45:31 by the city the state or the feds and
45:34 then you go down to another section in
45:36 five and it says the same thing so how
45:40 does that actually work out we have that
45:42 Tibbits example of the cell tower and it
45:44 does
45:46 say it says above ground so cell tower
45:49 might not be the greatest example but
45:51 it's the idea of it can't be anywhere
45:53 else city code says if it can't be
45:55 anywhere else then you could locate in
45:57 this area so does that mean you can take
46:00 down some trees and then cuz you're
46:02 replanting trees cuz code says you can
46:05 it's okay to put this in bergsma and
46:07 these are the types of conflicts and
46:09 language that create problems because
46:13 who is the decision maker and who's
46:14 going to say it's okay or not okay and I
46:18 would I would clear out those
46:20 contradictory language pieces and just
46:22 say you can't and if you want a Parks
46:26 section where you you want to be able to
46:27 put a parking lot say okay well in this
46:30 area you we're going to be able to do
46:33 more but for cor property most of cor
46:37 property is is either flood plane or
46:40 creek or creek buffer there's very
46:43 little left out of that and so then when
46:45 they say Oo we can do storm
46:48 water well what what does what exactly
46:53 does that mean are you going to be able
46:54 to like cut out most of coral Park to
46:58 reduce flooding and so now you've
47:00 actually reduced the amount of land in
47:02 Kora park because this conservation
47:04 easement says that you can use cor Park
47:07 to reduce flooding is that really what
47:10 you want to say in your conservation
47:12 easement is that what you want to do
47:14 with cor Park I don't I so I would ship
47:19 it back and I would have a conversation
47:21 about it at Park Board and environmental
47:24 board because these are two combined
47:28 issues and it has come straight to you
47:30 without that public review and so I
47:33 would chip it back as a complex piece
47:35 and try to get a better grasp of what we
47:38 really want
47:40 really
47:42 huh I'm assuming that was telling me to
47:48 stop thank you
47:52 Connie thank you all um for those
47:55 comments do we have additional questions
47:58 Council
48:01 um oh I'm
48:08 sorry Dave
48:13 welcome this on David kapler to 55
48:16 Southeast Andrew
48:18 Street um you know I think
48:22 there's this is a complicated issue and
48:25 it it does I I think it needs some
48:28 clarification partly to
48:30 facilitate in the future when somebody's
48:33 trying to figure out what we might want
48:35 to do on certain pieces of property um
48:38 just example you know we would would the
48:42 bathroom the whole bathroom thing is we
48:45 um the county built their nice big big
48:50 tree Ridge Trail head but can only put
48:53 it in an ouse right is my understanding
48:57 even because they're in the county
48:58 they're not in the city and they can't
49:00 hook up to the Sewer even though there's
49:02 a sewer line right there in the street
49:04 so I mean do we've we've kept a a few um
49:09 erus from
49:11 bergsma is that going to be how we can
49:14 try and maybe get on City's property a
49:17 bathroom I don't know you know these
49:20 these kinds of things but it's it's it's
49:24 um it needs some some clarification I I
49:26 think um the suggestion of the park
49:29 board environmental board taking a look
49:31 at this I think is um well worth
49:35 it the
49:39 um I think yeah that's I guess that I
49:43 it's interesting we're going back a long
49:45 ways on on this commitment that we've
49:48 made um I think we're able to do a
49:50 better job than we could have would have
49:52 done maybe if we had made all the
49:55 original commitments
49:57 um I have a lot of confidence in City
49:59 the council and staff so um let's um
50:03 work on it a little bit more and um
50:06 we're going to get there and give
50:09 us a more of a feeling long-term um
50:14 feeling what we're going to do in
50:15 long-term Pro a little little stronger
50:17 long-term protect thank
50:22 you thank you David are there any other
50:25 members of the public either in the room
50:28 or online that are indicating a desire
50:30 to speak on this
50:32 item I'm not seeing anyone in the
50:36 audience and there are no additional
50:39 members of the public online wishing to
50:40 speak on this item so thank you all
50:43 again now we will go to any additional
50:46 questions or if not we will go to
50:49 comments I did have I did have a one
50:52 question
50:55 um so so there was some uh in in the
50:59 comments there was some discussion about
51:03 um how the different you know
51:05 conservation easement and the other code
51:08 works together and who enforces and and
51:11 all of that and so I wondered if you
51:12 could speak to that from your earlier
51:14 comments my understanding is that this
51:16 is putting
51:18 additional um restrictions it's the TDR
51:21 so it's uh reducing the uses on the
51:25 property in terms of building but it
51:27 it's not in conflict with the other
51:29 items but if there were something that
51:31 had to be judged who would judge that
51:33 and how would it be
51:38 enforced
51:39 so if and when the city decides to do
51:42 anything on these Parcels we are still
51:45 an applicant and we go to the regulatory
51:48 agency and there's a permitting process
51:50 to do anything on that site so anything
51:55 in a conservation needs been
51:57 doesn't um allow us to skip that process
52:01 um another commitment that that we make
52:04 that you as Council make that the mayor
52:06 makes that we as staff make is any U
52:09 when it comes time to do anything on the
52:10 bergsma property um Trail construction
52:14 uh there'll be public Outreach there'll
52:16 be community outreach as to what that
52:18 process will be and so
52:22 um balancing this conservation easement
52:24 with what might be done in the future on
52:26 any of these properties doesn't take the
52:29 place of that um requirement that um
52:33 anything we propose needs to meet code
52:36 um needs to um address any impacts um
52:40 that it has and mitigate for any of
52:42 those those
52:44 impacts does that
52:46 help answer your question I think so so
52:50 I think then um Community Planning
52:52 Development would be the Arbiter of of
52:55 if there was some ambiguity between what
52:58 what is allowed with the easen what is
53:00 allowed in code or something like that
53:02 it would come down to community Planning
53:04 Development to to make that
53:06 determination that
53:10 correct oh I would answer that both
53:12 apply so section 4.2 in the conservation
53:17 easements um it is a statement that the
53:21 applicable laws so Title 18 that was
53:24 brought up in an earlier context M
53:27 always applies so the the conservation
53:31 easement could never allow something to
53:33 be done that title 18
53:37 prohibits and then in regard to
53:40 utilities those are in uh section
53:46 5.12 and any utility that's allowed has
53:50 to serve the um the park amenity and a
53:56 app and comply with local laws so it
53:59 always has to be part for the park
54:03 amenity there's that
54:07 restriction okay thank
54:10 you did you did you have additional no I
54:13 I was just going to say because these
54:15 are city-owned properties you know uh in
54:17 addition to the code and Community
54:19 planning and developments rooll uh the
54:22 funding from the Council of what happens
54:24 on these Parks the park boards review of
54:27 what the vision for these Parks is all
54:29 of that plays into what happens with
54:32 these capital projects then of course
54:34 the added layer of regulatory as you
54:36 know critical areas and other things
54:38 that that have come through the policy
54:40 discussions that are regulations that we
54:43 will ensure that those are complied with
54:46 okay thank you and one more question so
54:49 this was uh this is a 2013 agreement it
54:52 was brought to the city in 2022 with no
54:56 ified by Lakeside Industries um is there
54:59 a pressing urgency on making this
55:02 decision that's before Council or is
55:04 there a timeline restriction there you
55:06 know the funds should transfer by the
55:07 end of the year if we are going to do
55:10 this in this fashion uh because the cost
55:12 inflation index then um is Frozen from
55:16 the time the the request came
55:18 in but I'm sure the applicant deserves
55:22 has a timeline that they're trying
55:24 to okay great thank you than
55:28 you great thoughts council member
55:32 help question
55:35 um another question um I had also I
55:39 forgot to ask this earlier but I had
55:40 also noticed that have a touch with the
55:43 Parks Board or the environmental board
55:44 and I was wondering if there was kind of
55:46 some intention behind that or if you see
55:47 that maybe there's potential value um to
55:51 go to those boards and then also if we
55:52 would have
55:54 time to stick to the same time
55:57 certain your call with time um I'll let
55:59 Minnie answer some of this too as the
56:00 TDR program is really Community Planning
56:02 Development I I guess as we've talked
56:04 with Kim um Adams Pratt and and others
56:08 um understanding this is already a
56:10 council approved development agreement
56:11 uh so this is not a staff isn't bringing
56:14 forward a TDR wish this is an obligation
56:19 uh that we are legally required to do
56:21 and so um it wasn't meant to bypass um a
56:24 board by any means it was really meant
56:26 to this is an obligation that needs to
56:28 be um needs to be
56:31 fulfilled and I think another concern is
56:34 what are we asking them you know we're
56:36 basically saying give us input on
56:38 something that was decided 10 years ago
56:41 and so I mean that's a challenge and you
56:43 know we could spend multiple meetings
56:45 explaining processes understanding but
56:47 at the end of the day we can say this
56:49 was decided by the city council 10 years
56:51 ago there are multiple restrictions
56:54 already placed on the property and oh by
56:55 the way anything that would have to be
56:57 done as all of these things that have to
56:59 be done comply with Title 18 go through
57:01 public processes so you know we always
57:04 try to hesitate to take the time of our
57:06 boards and commissions when at the end
57:08 of the day the answer is a decision was
57:10 made 10
57:13 years um yes thank you for that I do
57:17 think um what was asked about in public
57:21 comment seemed to me was also specific
57:24 to the content of the conservation
57:26 easement language and making sure that
57:28 that complied with um best practices for
57:32 conservation of these specific parks and
57:34 things like that so if we were to uh I
57:38 agree that if we were to send something
57:41 um for review by our volunteer boards it
57:43 should be a substantive discussion it
57:46 seems to me like that's a potential item
57:50 not the TDR and not that these TDR is
57:53 from these properties but rather the
57:56 content of the conservation easement um
58:00 that is that fair to would that be a
58:03 substantive discussion or is that also
58:05 so limited that it there wouldn't be
58:07 much for well I I I think it would take
58:09 we would need to walk through all
58:11 existing easements that we have so
58:13 they'd have some context then we'd also
58:15 have to walk through all of the existing
58:17 covenants that have been placed on these
58:19 properties either by their purchase or
58:21 by money that we've used for those all
58:23 of which we can do um I think it's the
58:25 concern of aapse Time how many hours
58:28 would we need to take with each of these
58:30 groups to bring them up to speed so that
58:32 they can then understand what you're
58:34 asking them to weigh and if that's
58:37 something the council feels is valuable
58:39 um you know certainly we're prepared to
58:40 do it um we get a lot of push back from
58:43 our boards and commissions about a lapse
58:45 time of things that are asked again this
58:48 seems like something that would take us
58:50 quite a bit of time to bring them to the
58:52 level that they could have a discussion
58:54 that was thoughtful but if that's
58:55 something the council would like to do
58:56 we can look at their agendas through the
58:58 fall and make adjustments as
59:03 needed okay thank
59:06 you right so we have clarification on
59:08 those do we have additional
59:11 questions okay and then if we can pull
59:15 up the questions that you would like our
59:17 feedback on from your slide deck that
59:20 could also help us be sure to make sure
59:23 to answer those
59:32 anyone like to kick us off
59:36 here all right council president Walsh
59:39 um been pretty quiet through questions
59:42 because to me this seems like a pretty
59:45 straightforward idea um I think we you
59:49 know the TDR portion is not in question
59:53 um that is something that we as a
59:56 community have supported that we have um
1:00:00 we have a commitment to do according to
1:00:03 our development agreement um so I I
1:00:06 don't think there's any questions there
1:00:08 I think the process that um City
1:00:13 administrator Bob ktz mentioned about
1:00:16 having to bring the boards up to speed
1:00:18 and we'd have to go through all of these
1:00:21 documentation I appreciate that and to
1:00:24 me that's exactly would have to happen
1:00:27 if there was a proposed development or
1:00:31 change on one of these sites after doing
1:00:34 this approval um so I think I feel like
1:00:40 the requirements of this deed
1:00:45 restriction and conservation
1:00:47 easement um in addition to all of the
1:00:50 other requirements from the grant
1:00:53 funding and things like that um do
1:00:57 protect these properties from
1:01:01 development and I feel pretty good about
1:01:04 that going forward
1:01:10 okay um so I sort of similarly big
1:01:15 picture we we have our hands Bound by
1:01:18 the council from 2013 and we are binding
1:01:21 you know we're passing along that
1:01:23 binding to future councils but um we
1:01:26 also are under contract by the council
1:01:29 decision from 2013 so I I do think we
1:01:32 have to honor that I don't see um as has
1:01:35 been explained by staff we don't have a
1:01:37 lot of existing options for these tdrs
1:01:40 and these ones do seem like
1:01:43 um reducing the amount of development
1:01:46 rights on these complies with my
1:01:48 understanding of the community's vision
1:01:49 for these properties these um you know
1:01:51 parks and Parcels where we uh want to
1:01:55 maintain public benefit in terms of
1:01:58 potentially Recreational Park type
1:02:00 activities but not um other development
1:02:04 so I think it's largely in line with
1:02:06 with the public benefit provided by
1:02:09 these parcels and maintaining that um
1:02:12 and then we also have the obligation of
1:02:15 the contract um my my
1:02:19 one potential thought is this has been
1:02:23 you know this was brought to this uh um
1:02:26 City staff in
1:02:28 2022 um it took until now to bring it to
1:02:32 council we have until the end of the
1:02:35 year um I understand there are other
1:02:39 factors but
1:02:41 um we could I think potentially consider
1:02:45 the conservation um easement part if we
1:02:48 think there are substantive things that
1:02:51 need to be addressed I will say I I
1:02:54 didn't I think that
1:02:58 I think that it's a layer of additional
1:03:00 protection is my understanding and it's
1:03:02 still not allowing things that aren't
1:03:03 allowed by other codes so it's sort of
1:03:06 additive layer of conservation
1:03:09 protection um so that's that's my read
1:03:13 of it which doesn't seem like it needs
1:03:15 to be additionally vetted however I'm
1:03:19 also open to that particular
1:03:21 Point council member Hall what are your
1:03:24 thoughts on this one
1:03:33 well I think for the most part I agree
1:03:34 with everything that's been said um when
1:03:36 it comes to what we can and what we
1:03:39 can't do and what we're kind of
1:03:40 restricted to it I do think a lot of the
1:03:43 concerns that we're hearing about are
1:03:45 around the conservation easement plans
1:03:50 um uh some concern around the potential
1:03:53 flexibility and uncertainty there
1:03:55 whether or not it's reflective of
1:03:58 everything um over those
1:04:02 properties
1:04:05 um and so those are the kinds of
1:04:07 questions that I potentially would see
1:04:10 valuable value and going to the
1:04:12 environmental board and saying is this a
1:04:15 concern to you that we go into more
1:04:17 depth on this um to review
1:04:21 because number one to me that seems like
1:04:23 kind of reason that why we brought that
1:04:25 um um where we establish the
1:04:28 environmental board and also they're um
1:04:30 always talking about wanting to really
1:04:32 be helpful and contribu to these kinds
1:04:34 of efforts so I see I see potential
1:04:36 value in taking um that kind of policy
1:04:39 question to them is this a concern to
1:04:41 you do you see that there is kind of
1:04:43 uncertainty and flexibility here or to
1:04:46 the points that you were making director
1:04:48 Watling are is it the opposite and kind
1:04:50 of having that kind of high Lev
1:04:52 conversation with them um and then
1:04:54 seeing how in depth they they might want
1:04:56 to go it doesn't necessarily need to be
1:04:58 as extensive I think as unless they want
1:05:01 to as was prescribed earlier so those
1:05:04 are kind of my initial thoughts I don't
1:05:06 see any harm with going forign
1:05:09 commission level especially if they want
1:05:10 to be helpful in this
1:05:15 process it back to you shair
1:05:17 hunt sh hunt yes um you
1:05:21 know our suggestion is if there is
1:05:24 additional scrutiny that perhaps it
1:05:26 happened here uh because the time and
1:05:28 energy it will take to bring two boards
1:05:30 and commissions up to speed to even get
1:05:32 them to a point to be able to address
1:05:34 the question you're asking I think is
1:05:36 going to be difficult so perhaps what we
1:05:39 could do is if you'd like we could come
1:05:41 back with the presentation talk about
1:05:43 each property put up side by side each
1:05:46 of the existing constraints that are on
1:05:49 the the Deeds that are on the funding
1:05:51 agreements and this easement to
1:05:54 demonstrate where that how they all come
1:05:57 together because otherwise we would have
1:05:59 to I think start at the beginning with
1:06:01 each of the boards and commissions
1:06:02 explain what this is try to explain the
1:06:05 levels and because you're asking them
1:06:07 then to
1:06:08 evaluate is this good enough and we
1:06:11 would have to have them get to the point
1:06:12 of being able to understand what
1:06:15 constitutes good enough even in their
1:06:16 own opinion based on the information
1:06:18 that we would share and so my guess is
1:06:20 that's two meetings of each of the
1:06:22 groups that meet monthly they're not
1:06:24 going to meet in August
1:06:26 they already have full agendas poor
1:06:27 Stacy's got another meeting tomorrow
1:06:29 night three nights in a row with the
1:06:31 environment board um so that means we
1:06:34 would then perhaps be back to if we did
1:06:37 September October get their
1:06:38 recommendations in October comes back to
1:06:40 you in November uh at full council at
1:06:43 the end of November or 1 of
1:06:46 December which we're happy to do but at
1:06:49 the same time does that warrant the
1:06:52 issue before you versus The Other M
1:06:55 matters that both the environment board
1:06:57 and the Park yeah thank you um so the
1:07:01 the suggestion then is to bring this
1:07:04 back to this committee before it goes to
1:07:06 the full Council specifically focusing
1:07:08 in on the cons if you feel that you're
1:07:09 not satisfied with to protect the
1:07:12 multiple layers of protection that are
1:07:13 currently there then we will take your
1:07:16 time to walk through each of the levels
1:07:19 Point by Point yeah okay thank you I
1:07:21 think um another option that we have
1:07:24 exercised in the past is to bring that
1:07:26 additional information back I think it's
1:07:29 pretty clear it's like a sorry it's like
1:07:30 a matrix with the protection from Title
1:07:34 18 the protection from um the other
1:07:37 covenants and then the protection that
1:07:39 the conservation easement has on the
1:07:41 different properties that could come
1:07:42 back to
1:07:43 council with the full packet I mean that
1:07:46 is another option that we've sometimes
1:07:48 done just requesting specific
1:07:49 information that is brought back to us
1:07:51 if we don't think we we need to as a
1:07:53 group discuss that necessarily and we
1:07:56 can always pull it off of oh we would
1:07:58 leave it on regular agenda we could put
1:07:59 it discuss it in the regular agenda then
1:08:01 we had planned to bring this back I
1:08:03 think on July 22nd the full Council if
1:08:06 there was action this evening July or
1:08:08 August we have a few things to on on the
1:08:10 documents the transfer of develop you
1:08:12 know the the certificates have to be
1:08:14 prepared the legal description and
1:08:15 everything so so if we came back on
1:08:17 August 5th had this on regular business
1:08:20 with that kind of walkth through uh the
1:08:22 August 5th meeting um least this morning
1:08:26 wasn't very crowded but uh um you know
1:08:29 we could do that on August 5th and then
1:08:31 have the the full Council receive the
1:08:35 have it in the packet and then work with
1:08:37 the chair to decide how much detail you
1:08:39 want to go into
1:08:40 to council present okay thank you so
1:08:44 those are those are the options I think
1:08:47 um and okay so Direction
1:08:50 needed we
1:08:53 recommend Okay so we've we've we
1:08:55 answered the the second part of this I
1:08:57 think uh completely it's really on the
1:09:00 conservation easement part which is the
1:09:02 first part of Direction needed um how do
1:09:07 we feel about the options
1:09:11 of getting or you know having more
1:09:14 information on conservation
1:09:17 easements brought to the full Council
1:09:19 versus another another meeting of this
1:09:22 committee versus 2A board
1:09:27 counc
1:09:30 member that's a good point about kind of
1:09:32 the effort um and how long it would take
1:09:35 to bring boards and commissions up to
1:09:39 kind of the point not even necessarily
1:09:40 where where we are but beyond we are to
1:09:42 be able to make that kind of decision
1:09:43 and make a recommendation to us before
1:09:46 the end of the year um the same could be
1:09:49 said for if we take it to full council
1:09:51 with the rest of the council that would
1:09:52 be their first touch with it too so I
1:09:54 think I would prefer maybe a second
1:09:55 touch with kind of the breakdown here at
1:09:58 pde that would just be my thought second
1:10:01 touch here second touch here at pde
1:10:04 yeah here's what you
1:10:09 two I'm scrolling through the uh uh
1:10:13 calendar trying to figure out which uh
1:10:15 pte meeting we would end up bringing it
1:10:18 to um you don't have anything scheduled
1:10:22 in August yeah so that means either you
1:10:25 have a special meeting in
1:10:27 August
1:10:28 um SE
1:10:31 9th so
1:10:33 yeah I think I am leaning
1:10:36 to you know our colleagues on the full
1:10:39 Council and lean in or lean out as much
1:10:43 as needed on a topic and if we at least
1:10:48 have the three of us that are engaging
1:10:51 and uh another I would feel comfortable
1:10:54 bringing to the full Council and just
1:10:58 being very clear with them we're not
1:11:01 debating tdrs we're not debating whether
1:11:04 or not this happens we're just making
1:11:07 sure that we are hitting a schedule and
1:11:11 understanding what the requirements are
1:11:13 there so I think my preference would be
1:11:15 to do full councel on the
1:11:18 5th okay thank you additionally we do
1:11:21 have a meeting in between if we are at
1:11:23 the August um the first meeting in
1:11:26 August for the full Council we would
1:11:28 have another regular council meeting
1:11:30 between then and now where we can also
1:11:33 um I as the chair can also recap this
1:11:35 meeting I I think the full council is
1:11:37 going to have to or you know the full
1:11:40 Council will have to approve this in any
1:11:42 event so it's really um how how clear do
1:11:47 we want to be and have done our
1:11:50 recommendation ahead of time on the
1:11:51 specific
1:11:53 item so I think that I'm also okay with
1:11:57 having it bringing it back to the full
1:11:59 Council um but yeah how does that sound
1:12:03 that seem okay if we make the
1:12:05 recommendation to
1:12:07 the or we can do a special meeting I
1:12:09 think that's I think those are the two
1:12:11 scheduling
1:12:14 options so so what you're saying is we
1:12:17 have another council meeting so if we
1:12:19 like didn't make a decision at the next
1:12:21 council meeting it
1:12:23 could oh sorry no I was what I was
1:12:25 saying was that um at this next
1:12:29 meeting regular meeting I can do my
1:12:31 report out and let them let the council
1:12:34 know that most of our discussion was on
1:12:36 this particular item when this
1:12:37 particular item come back we are going
1:12:38 to have additional
1:12:43 information yeah I mean I guess I'm not
1:12:45 like actively opposed to it I still
1:12:46 think that there's probably value in
1:12:48 talking about it amongst us three
1:12:51 another committee meeting or a special
1:12:52 committee meeting or something like if
1:12:55 you do think that the we can accomplish
1:12:57 and get to the same
1:12:58 outcome uh with regular
1:13:08 Council we're I think we are we have a
1:13:12 request in for additional
1:13:14 information um I think we are aiming
1:13:18 for the August 5th meeting um if that
1:13:22 information can come out uh sooner since
1:13:27 it may be of interest to us and the full
1:13:29 Council that would be great um are we
1:13:33 okay all right uh do you have what you
1:13:35 need from us on this item uh we do just
1:13:38 to summarize uh August 5th U full
1:13:41 Council regular business agenda and then
1:13:44 in addition to what we've shared today
1:13:46 we're going to have a comparison for the
1:13:49 two new park easements that we have for
1:13:51 Kora and for um Harvey Manning the the
1:13:56 existing covenants and restrictions that
1:13:58 are already on the property as part of
1:13:59 grand obligations the new proposed the
1:14:02 the regulatory um you know uh checks and
1:14:05 balances that are in place so lay that
1:14:08 out and then that's it right okay yeah I
1:14:14 think it would just be like really
1:14:15 helpful to hear like here are the
1:14:17 concerns also here are the concerns that
1:14:18 we heard in committee here's our kind of
1:14:21 reaction to it or here's why we think
1:14:23 this is right or nuanced or wrong
1:14:26 yeah I think some of the public comments
1:14:27 today were more about what does storm
1:14:29 water mean and and things like that so
1:14:32 In the comparison that you know in
1:14:34 addition to that we can try and um
1:14:38 explain what what those things are meant
1:14:42 in the in the easement if that's of
1:14:45 interest to council or if there's any
1:14:47 particular thing in the easement
1:14:49 language that you'd like us to
1:14:51 explain um
1:14:57 I think I think from our earlier
1:14:58 comments it's really about things that
1:15:01 are things that are allowed that would
1:15:03 be in some sort of conflict with
1:15:05 conservation goals
1:15:06 or yeah that's sounds good we're
1:15:10 wondering yeah okay all right I think we
1:15:13 are concluded with our first item all
1:15:16 right we will move to our second item
1:15:18 thank you thank you all again on that
1:15:20 one okay the second item is Comm 0061
1:15:24 annual amend M ments to Title 18 and
1:15:26 title 3 this is presented by Steven
1:15:29 Padua longrange planning manager
1:15:32 welcome thank you chair hun just give me
1:15:35 one moment to my presentation
1:15:41 up hey good evening committee members uh
1:15:45 tonight I'm going to talk about the
1:15:46 annual updates to our code which for
1:15:49 this year includes Title 18 as well as
1:15:50 title 3 um the purpose of this is to
1:15:53 review the proposed amendments
1:15:57 um that are focused on issues that were
1:15:59 identified by staff through
1:16:01 implementation of the code for the last
1:16:03 year um I'm not going to read through
1:16:05 each of these because I'm going to go
1:16:06 through them in my presentation um but
1:16:10 we have seven policy questions for the
1:16:11 committee
1:16:14 tonight a little background information
1:16:16 on on our annual updates so uh last year
1:16:20 the city completed a multi-year project
1:16:23 to overhaul our land use code and as a
1:16:27 result we wanted to make sure that we
1:16:30 had an annual annual review process so
1:16:32 that we don't have to do that again and
1:16:33 we maintain our code in uh consider
1:16:37 modern best practices and make sure it's
1:16:39 it's up to the level of um detail that
1:16:43 we want it to be for um achieving the
1:16:46 city's vision for land use development
1:16:48 and so since June 2023 staff have been
1:16:51 applying the code through various
1:16:54 projects through through various
1:16:55 questions from applicants and
1:16:57 prospective applicants and identifying
1:16:59 issues where clarification is needed as
1:17:02 well as additional uh code language is
1:17:04 needed which is identified in the seven
1:17:06 policy questions for tonight so we
1:17:10 presented all the issues the clarifying
1:17:13 amendments as well as the policy
1:17:14 questions to the planning policy
1:17:16 Commission on June 20th and then held a
1:17:19 planning policy commission public
1:17:20 hearing on June 27th and then tonight we
1:17:23 are presenting the resulting draft
1:17:26 amendments uh we would like to for
1:17:28 consider council's
1:17:31 consideration so these first two
1:17:34 amendments are actually items that were
1:17:35 proposed to be removed by planning
1:17:37 policy commission so they are included
1:17:39 in the committee's packet for tonight
1:17:42 but we just want to highlight the change
1:17:43 from what was presented to Poli so this
1:17:46 first item is related to the
1:17:48 pre-application meeting requirement and
1:17:50 the propos proposal was to change the
1:17:53 requirement for pre application meetings
1:17:55 to be required post submittal and
1:17:58 recommended um as prior to application
1:18:00 submittal and the purpose of this change
1:18:03 was actually to comply with Provisions
1:18:05 that were provided in state Bill
1:18:08 5290 that would allow exemptions from
1:18:11 committing to refunds if for some reason
1:18:14 um for a particular application or
1:18:16 project we aren't able to meet the
1:18:18 review timelines for that and so the
1:18:21 bill bill provides in the provision
1:18:23 several options to to comply with that
1:18:26 exemption and this option was one of
1:18:29 those options that we were choosing to
1:18:32 use to comply uh to be Exempted from
1:18:34 refunds uh the commission did not
1:18:38 recommend moving this forward so it is
1:18:40 not included in the draft
1:18:43 Amendment the second item that was
1:18:45 removed from the draft Amendment list
1:18:48 okay uh sorry you have many questions
1:18:50 actually
1:18:52 yes president Walsh yeah I watched the
1:18:55 meeting so can you explain a little bit
1:18:58 more if these are removed even
1:19:02 though the administration
1:19:05 says we need this in order to comply
1:19:08 with State Bill 5290 and not pay or do
1:19:13 potential
1:19:14 refunds you guys are not no longer
1:19:18 recommending we move that Amendment
1:19:20 forward what we're proposing is a
1:19:22 recommendation that's consistent with
1:19:24 the planning policy commission's
1:19:25 recommendation so that is what's
1:19:27 included in your packet
1:19:31 tonight okay how how do we then comply
1:19:34 with stap 529 so this provision is
1:19:37 actually an optional provision it's not
1:19:39 necessary that we have to do this we're
1:19:42 choosing to do this in order to comply
1:19:45 with the exemption that they're allowing
1:19:47 us to have so it's not necessarily we
1:19:50 can move forward without this we would
1:19:52 then be committing to having to refund
1:19:54 if we don't commit or if we don't meet a
1:19:57 a development Review Time
1:20:03 timeline and
1:20:05 okay so uh you know we still waiting for
1:20:08 guidance from Department of Commerce on
1:20:10 how to implement 5290 it doesn't go into
1:20:13 effect until January of 2025 these
1:20:15 strict timelines the the state law had
1:20:19 eight things that we had to choose three
1:20:21 out of eight options so um that would
1:20:26 you know if we picked three that we
1:20:27 could meet then we are out of that
1:20:30 refund Provisions so there's a lot
1:20:33 happening at the state level all the
1:20:35 cities are struggling to kind of get
1:20:37 that guidance and figure out what their
1:20:39 options are so in terms of timing at
1:20:42 this St at this point um that's the
1:20:45 discussion planning and policy
1:20:46 commission had and we had initially
1:20:48 recommended this because we were in the
1:20:50 middle of the housekeeping code changes
1:20:53 but that's a separate discussion uh you
1:20:54 know in terms of compliance with the
1:20:56 state Bill 5290 that we're going to be
1:20:58 tracking and keeping track of and we'll
1:21:01 bring forward administration's
1:21:02 recommendation on those in three out of
1:21:05 three out of eight Provisions at a
1:21:08 future time so this is this was removed
1:21:10 from this housekeeping code Amendment
1:21:13 list will be bundled with other process
1:21:15 improvements and and options related to
1:21:18 State Bill 5290 as we get more guidance
1:21:21 from Commerce
1:21:27 that was my that okay if I that was my
1:21:30 question to yeah and I thought I thought
1:21:32 even I heard the word defer this
1:21:34 decision at the pp PPC hearing to wait
1:21:37 for guidance so would we have an
1:21:39 opportunity to act on this yes in this
1:21:43 cycle just later once we hear feedback
1:21:45 or is the idea that it would be yes as
1:21:46 part of implementation of 5290 if there
1:21:48 are any code amendments needed we'll
1:21:50 bring those
1:21:51 forward at that time sometime between
1:21:54 now and the next regular annual
1:21:58 updates all
1:22:04 right um one more question on this one
1:22:08 if so the timelines being met this has
1:22:12 been a challenge in the past for the
1:22:15 city it has but we have streamlined a
1:22:17 few things so uh the the code language
1:22:20 was we cannot have this community
1:22:21 meeting on any other day that the city
1:22:23 has any other meeting meeting it can
1:22:25 only be on Tuesday and Thursday and with
1:22:27 all these other restrictions it took a
1:22:30 longer time to kind of plan for that but
1:22:32 as part of our permit process
1:22:34 improvements we're looking at you know
1:22:36 getting it started early on the other
1:22:38 part I think was this has to happen
1:22:40 before they even apply so technically it
1:22:44 doesn't count towards your comp you know
1:22:47 the clock starts sticking when you are
1:22:49 deit an application is complete so
1:22:51 that's the guidance we're waiting for
1:22:52 from Commerce so if you can't this as
1:22:55 part of your completeness and and
1:22:57 developers have told us that there's
1:22:58 value they they want to see hear early
1:23:01 before they've invested too much time
1:23:03 into designing so that's why planning
1:23:05 and policy commission said well if the
1:23:06 developers don't care the community
1:23:08 thinks as value why do we jump to the
1:23:11 conclusion make this change now I think
1:23:13 that was their rationale for removing it
1:23:16 from this Suite of changes that
1:23:21 we okay thank you
1:23:28 the next item on the list it's related
1:23:29 to tree removal tracking and so proposed
1:23:32 amendment included removing the
1:23:34 requirement for Community Planning
1:23:36 Development to track tree removals for
1:23:38 public projects uh the justification for
1:23:42 the change the proposed change was
1:23:44 through implementation of the code we
1:23:45 found that um Public Works and the parks
1:23:48 department actually already track
1:23:50 removal of tree projects with public
1:23:52 projects and so this change was actually
1:23:54 to remove the redundancy in discussion
1:23:56 with the planning policy commission they
1:23:58 were me recommending removing this from
1:24:00 the amendment list primarily because
1:24:01 they wanted to wait until the urban
1:24:03 forestry plan was completed so that we
1:24:05 have a better idea of how um tree
1:24:08 removals are being tracked and monitored
1:24:09 throughout the city and how it meets the
1:24:12 city's goals for tree canopy and so um
1:24:16 it is not included in the committee's uh
1:24:19 pcket tonight for that reason
1:24:28 the next item on the list is related to
1:24:29 techn document review um this is your
1:24:33 first policy question that's listed in
1:24:35 your packet the proposed changes to
1:24:38 actually add flexibility in the language
1:24:40 related to the requirements for Tech do
1:24:42 review to allow applicants to uh
1:24:45 complete specific technical documents
1:24:47 rather than Al together which is what
1:24:49 the current requirement is now and so
1:24:51 this would allow applicants to um
1:24:56 have a little more flexibility without
1:24:57 the burden of completing all technical
1:24:59 documents that are required to pres uh
1:25:02 and make the decision on whether to
1:25:03 pursue the project early on the planning
1:25:07 policy commission recommended approval
1:25:09 of uh these draft amendments as
1:25:14 proposed the next item is related to
1:25:16 heat pumps and similar equipment
1:25:18 installations the proposed changes to
1:25:20 allow heat pump installations uh within
1:25:23 regulated setbacks which um currently
1:25:26 Cod does not allow um the the reason for
1:25:31 this change is due to the growing demand
1:25:33 as um as we're seeing with the impacts
1:25:37 of climate change we're seeing a lot
1:25:38 hotter Summers and a lot longer hotter
1:25:41 summer and so a lot of older buildings
1:25:44 within the city don't weren't installed
1:25:46 with any of these types of uh cooling
1:25:48 equipments um which does not match or
1:25:52 which is led to a growing demand
1:25:55 so we are proposing to allow heat pumps
1:25:58 in regulated setbacks in discussion with
1:26:00 the planning policy commission they
1:26:01 asked for two changes for the draft
1:26:04 language the first is to require that
1:26:07 installations in the side setbacks be
1:26:09 installed closer to the primary
1:26:11 structure rather than to the property
1:26:13 line the other change was to require
1:26:16 screening if the installation in the
1:26:18 frontage
1:26:19 setback so um the question for the
1:26:22 committee is should the city allow heat
1:26:23 pumps for similar equipment to be
1:26:25 installed within regulated setbacks and
1:26:28 the planning policy commissioner
1:26:29 recommended the draft changes as
1:26:31 proposed
1:26:38 tonight I'm also happy we just as a
1:26:41 committee want go through it all and do
1:26:43 question is there value and just kind of
1:26:45 stopping I think this is this is okay
1:26:48 that's good um okay because I I have a
1:26:51 lot of kind of just clarifying questions
1:26:53 in this one and they had had a great
1:26:54 discussion at PPC um around this
1:27:03 um so the screening um my first my first
1:27:08 question is around the screening so is
1:27:11 I'm curious so the there is requirement
1:27:14 for this screening is there value or I
1:27:17 guess maybe I should just ask it this
1:27:19 way what is the value of having this
1:27:21 kind of blanket screening requirement
1:27:23 from a city perspective as opposed to
1:27:25 letting like the neighborhood make that
1:27:27 decision for themselves like the HOA
1:27:29 decision what do you think are the kind
1:27:31 of tradeoffs there the discussion with
1:27:33 the planning policy commission was um
1:27:35 more around Aesthetics with being
1:27:36 installed in the front side of the
1:27:38 buildings they didn't want that to be
1:27:41 more of an ey sore um that being an
1:27:44 impact in in any of the neighborhoods
1:27:46 now some of the neighborhood
1:27:48 associations might already require some
1:27:50 type of screening for these type of
1:27:51 installations you'd have to look at and
1:27:55 um whether or not any of them
1:27:56 specifically all already require that
1:27:58 but that was the discussion that we had
1:28:00 with the planning policy Comm um which
1:28:02 is why we added it to the draft
1:28:04 Amendment okay so there wasn't really
1:28:06 any I mean I guess my question is really
1:28:08 more as do we see this as an opportunity
1:28:11 or do we see this as our role or is this
1:28:15 really an opportunity to take a step
1:28:17 back this can be kind of a more local
1:28:20 decision on on aesthetic um with regard
1:28:23 to screening but I suppose also there's
1:28:26 argument HOA hasn't done this maybe this
1:28:28 is kind of the foundation city um okay
1:28:32 well anyways I'll come back to that in
1:28:34 comments um for the same provision or
1:28:38 for this revision
1:28:40 um permanent amenity was changed to
1:28:44 meical structure something like that um
1:28:47 to accommodate a couple Commissioners
1:28:49 who had concerns around well what could
1:28:52 that lead to in the future that's kind
1:28:53 of unforeseen do you have any of the
1:28:55 same concerns with the language as it is
1:28:57 now including like mechanical I think
1:29:00 it's mechanical equipment included
1:29:03 includes or included but not limited
1:29:07 to I think as the code is currently
1:29:09 written it it's it's clearly defined on
1:29:11 what permanent amenities is um but to
1:29:15 the commissioner's point it's not
1:29:16 intuitive if you just read the
1:29:19 requirement on perent amenities within
1:29:21 the setbacks you'd have to go and find
1:29:23 that definition and that's what staff
1:29:25 actually had to do so um to give
1:29:28 Commissioners credit of of changing the
1:29:29 language to mechanical equipment it is a
1:29:32 little more self-explanatory intuitive
1:29:33 in terms of like what exactly do we mean
1:29:36 by uh allowing the installations in the
1:29:38 required sets and we feel more
1:29:41 comfortable with that
1:29:44 term yeah in in in doing additional
1:29:47 research um we didn't find any um
1:29:51 conflicts with changing the language
1:29:54 okay good um what about the word
1:29:57 adjacent I know there was some
1:29:58 conversation around that
1:30:01 too maybe that was fixed with the like
1:30:03 as adjacent as operationally feasable
1:30:05 part but what's your thought about the
1:30:09 word some of the staff thinking around
1:30:12 the installation of um installing in the
1:30:15 side setbacks directly adjacent as
1:30:17 operational Fleet feasible was to allow
1:30:20 flexibility in terms of installation
1:30:22 because it most of when the installers
1:30:25 put these mechanical equipments they're
1:30:27 wanting it directly adjacent to the
1:30:29 building but sometimes there's something
1:30:31 in the way or the location of the piping
1:30:33 needs to go somewhere different because
1:30:35 of the location of the Furnace or the
1:30:37 hookups into the house and so we didn't
1:30:39 want to put too much restriction that
1:30:41 actually increased the costs too much on
1:30:48 homeowners um
1:30:54 Monument signs um well I have a couple
1:30:58 questions on noise but maybe it's not
1:31:00 the plan is to come back and have a
1:31:01 broader conversation around yes noise
1:31:03 right so because we had uh for the noise
1:31:06 ordinance particularly we had to provide
1:31:07 Department Cy a longer comment period so
1:31:11 we that'll be something that'll be
1:31:12 coming back later on to the
1:31:14 committee well then I won't ask my
1:31:17 thanks those are my questions
1:31:24 okay I have I have one quick question on
1:31:28 um what was the impetus for this change
1:31:33 is it that there were complaints about
1:31:36 them there were complaints that we that
1:31:40 homeowners weren't being allowed to
1:31:42 install them um particularly with town
1:31:44 home installations they're very limited
1:31:47 on where they can installing and
1:31:48 sometimes they don't have any area in
1:31:51 the rear uh setbacks or limited yards
1:31:56 where they these installations can go so
1:31:57 they're limited and um with like zero
1:32:00 lot line developments there's no side
1:32:02 setback so they're only allowed to put
1:32:03 it in the frontage so um this is really
1:32:07 accommodation of that growing need for
1:32:09 these type of installation particularly
1:32:10 for properties that weren't don't have a
1:32:13 whole lot of room okay so the but the so
1:32:16 the complaints were not there were there
1:32:18 were complaints that led to changes but
1:32:20 the complaints were not about the need
1:32:22 for screening and
1:32:25 unsightly that that wasn't one comp I
1:32:29 mean one complaint about noise you know
1:32:32 the neighbor who didn't have this was
1:32:35 bothered by Noise Okay one complaint
1:32:38 about noise more complaints about issues
1:32:41 with citing these that home owners
1:32:43 wanted to be able to put them in town
1:32:45 homes they couldn't do it under current
1:32:47 code correct thank you
1:32:55 so the next proposed Chang is related to
1:32:57 the lighting code um the proposed change
1:33:00 is to allow Stadium lighting to exceed
1:33:03 the minimum requirements with a lighting
1:33:05 study the purpose of this is to actually
1:33:08 recognize limits within the market for
1:33:10 lighting um what we found in our
1:33:13 research is that the market doesn't
1:33:15 actually produce Stadium lighting that
1:33:17 is within the limits of uh what we have
1:33:20 established in the lighting code and so
1:33:21 this changes to recognize that
1:33:24 the um in discussion with the planning
1:33:27 policy commission they asked for
1:33:28 additional language that recognize that
1:33:30 this lighting study should include
1:33:33 mitigation strategies that comply with
1:33:36 the dark sky initiative and so that
1:33:39 language was added for this draft
1:33:40 Amendment so the policy question is
1:33:42 should the city allow Stadium lighting
1:33:45 to exceed the Min minimum color
1:33:47 rendering index with supporting lighting
1:33:48 studies paired um and the planning
1:33:51 policy commission is Rec M menting
1:33:54 approval as drafted in your packet
1:34:01 T the next item is related to Monument
1:34:03 signs and it's really more of a
1:34:07 clarification of what is required for
1:34:09 Monument signs is what's being proposed
1:34:12 it is a policy change primarily because
1:34:14 the language within the sign code isn't
1:34:16 clear in what direction we're supposed
1:34:18 to go with Monument signs which is why
1:34:19 it's being posed as a policy question
1:34:22 the question being posed is should the
1:34:23 city City Chang the requirements were
1:34:25 Monument signers on where prohibited and
1:34:27 where current signs may be modified or
1:34:29 removed and the planning policy
1:34:30 commission didn't have any recommended
1:34:32 changes but they did have a recommended
1:34:35 uh have a recommendation for the
1:34:37 administration to consider allowing
1:34:39 Monument signs for new developments
1:34:40 which is what's not currently allowed
1:34:42 within the
1:34:49 Cod council member Hall so thank you so
1:34:53 then just for clarity I CU it I think
1:34:56 these conversations at the PBC level
1:34:58 kind of got morphed in my head a little
1:35:01 bit so there's one unclarity that you're
1:35:04 saying for when they're allowed and
1:35:06 prohibited like previously was like said
1:35:08 aloud somewhere and then then it
1:35:10 prohibited and now it's making that
1:35:11 clearer across the pages I think I saw
1:35:15 you were like scrolling uh in the
1:35:17 hearing and then the other conversation
1:35:18 is just whether or not to allow them
1:35:21 outright other time that your guys are
1:35:24 looking at yeah and and so the the ask
1:35:27 from the commission is to at in future
1:35:30 updates of the code and consider adding
1:35:32 this as a policy question of should we
1:35:34 allow monu Monument signs for new
1:35:37 developments they um approved the draft
1:35:41 language on clarifying for existing
1:35:43 Monument signs what exactly is
1:35:45 required is there a lot of demand for
1:35:49 Monument
1:35:50 signs that I'm not aware
1:35:52 of there is demand for the modification
1:35:55 of a monument sign so I think from you
1:35:58 know while we respect PPC asking us to
1:36:01 look at Future new monument signs the
1:36:04 the main issue here is the
1:36:06 existing yeah there was one Community
1:36:08 member who came to the planning policy
1:36:10 commission who requested it's an
1:36:13 existing building and he can't put a
1:36:15 monument sign because they're not
1:36:17 allowed and he you know he did um ask
1:36:21 the planning policy commission to eval
1:36:23 valate whether that should be allowed or
1:36:25 not and and the reasoning um for not
1:36:29 allowing is because in central esqua you
1:36:32 have a bill two line standards so uh
1:36:35 that's sort of the the reason when
1:36:38 you're going to have your building it to
1:36:39 the streets Edge you allowed a building
1:36:42 wall mounted sign but Redevelopment
1:36:44 happens over a long period of time so
1:36:46 some of these properties that are
1:36:47 converting from residential to
1:36:49 commercial Zone have expressed in you
1:36:52 know one person has expressed
1:37:02 the next the next item is related to
1:37:04 Landmark Signs and the proposed update
1:37:09 to clarify for landmark designation
1:37:12 requirements um what exactly is required
1:37:15 once a landmark sign designation is
1:37:17 established in discussion with the
1:37:19 planning policy commission they ask that
1:37:21 we include um additional crit criteria
1:37:24 as well as a process for making
1:37:26 additional changes so that we are still
1:37:28 establish establishing more flexibility
1:37:30 with Landmark Signs but at least
1:37:32 establish not making it so flexible that
1:37:35 a um property owner is able to do
1:37:37 anything they want with the landmark
1:37:39 sides and so the question is should the
1:37:41 city simplify the requirements for how
1:37:43 Landmark sign designation is maintained
1:37:46 and the planning policy commission
1:37:48 recommends approval as recommend as
1:37:50 drafted in your pack
1:37:56 the next two items for
1:38:00 um uh code sections 3.71 and 3.72 uh
1:38:04 weren't subject to the public hearing so
1:38:05 they weren't discussed at the ji June
1:38:07 27th meeting with planning policy
1:38:09 commission but in discussion with them
1:38:11 they did not have any changes
1:38:13 recommended changes for uh what's being
1:38:15 drafted for these Cod
1:38:17 sections the issue is with traffic
1:38:20 impact fees we want to clarify with a
1:38:22 change of used when the traffic impact
1:38:25 fees are actually exempt and for uh
1:38:27 traffic impact fees and for uh Park
1:38:30 impact fees they're not consistent with
1:38:32 the language what's in the fire impact
1:38:34 view Cod language and so the policy
1:38:37 question for both is should the city
1:38:38 update the language for both traffic and
1:38:41 park impact fees to clarify when a
1:38:43 change of use to exempt from the impact
1:38:50 fees so the timeline for the code
1:38:53 Amendment m ments is this will next uh
1:38:55 tended go to council for review on
1:38:58 action on July
1:38:59 22nd and the administration recommends
1:39:02 approval all proposed amendments
1:39:04 presented
1:39:06 tonight and and for the the presentation
1:39:11 I only went over the uh the Amendments
1:39:14 that had a policy question but we're
1:39:15 happy to discuss any of the other
1:39:17 clarifying amendments in your
1:39:20 packet okay thank you council president
1:39:25 I'm going to jump right over to those
1:39:27 minor amendments um just one question
1:39:34 18.04.4 a uh bike parking that one
1:39:38 changed from and to or and if I'm
1:39:43 reading that correctly it
1:39:47 the first portion said two spots per
1:39:51 building and one per whatever it was
1:39:55 square footage or whatever now it would
1:39:58 read two spots or one per whatever
1:40:04 portion could that
1:40:06 mean that a building would only be
1:40:10 required one bike parking
1:40:12 spot that's correct and the reason for
1:40:15 that the the clarification was because
1:40:18 when we were looking at administering
1:40:20 that code um there wasn't actually clear
1:40:23 Direction on which one we were actually
1:40:25 supposed to be requiring whether it's
1:40:26 both together added up or choosing one
1:40:29 and the intention was to actually have
1:40:31 one or U the the smallest amount or the
1:40:36 the maximum amount and so that's why the
1:40:38 change was made the change from and to
1:40:42 or so you just said the intention was to
1:40:46 choose the maximum amount as as the
1:40:50 starting point for what's being required
1:40:51 so it's if the
1:40:54 um so the only time somebody would go
1:40:57 down to one is if they had a really
1:40:59 small building or a really small number
1:41:01 of whatever the units
1:41:04 was correct we didn't want to require a
1:41:07 portion of a parking space if it was a
1:41:09 smaller unit yeah I don't know I feel
1:41:11 like bike parking should always come in
1:41:13 at least too but I I'll uh not argue
1:41:17 that one um too much thank you for the
1:41:21 clarification on that I think that's my
1:41:26 question one uh one additional question
1:41:30 on the last um
1:41:33 the uh
1:41:36 exempt um fire versus traffic issue um
1:41:41 what is the why couldn't there be
1:41:44 different exemptions or why is
1:41:46 standardizing those important seems
1:41:48 Seems possible that you could just have
1:41:50 different exemptions intentionally it's
1:41:52 possible it but it creates a little bit
1:41:54 of confusion um which is what staff
1:41:57 experienced when we were applying the
1:41:58 code of when fire code is or when it's
1:42:02 um the fire impact fees are supposed to
1:42:04 be applied with a change of use and then
1:42:06 we look at the traffic impact fees we're
1:42:07 having to now um look at it a little bit
1:42:10 different in terms of what gets applied
1:42:12 but the intention was that they get
1:42:14 applied together what but despite what
1:42:16 the change of use
1:42:19 was okay thank you
1:42:23 that's I don't have any other questions
1:42:26 about um these but um in the public
1:42:30 hearing there was a gentleman from Talis
1:42:32 who also had just talked about
1:42:33 challenges with regard to like tree code
1:42:35 and open space up in Talis and then also
1:42:38 around kind of
1:42:40 landscaping uh and the lack
1:42:43 of code around like irrigation standards
1:42:46 and appropriate vegetation so it doesn't
1:42:49 damage sidewalks and stuff like that I
1:42:51 know that's not relevant to this but I'm
1:42:52 just curious because I've had that
1:42:54 conversation with them as well
1:42:55 previously is that something we're
1:42:57 thinking about or looking into for kind
1:42:59 of a future update or just
1:43:01 future consideration so um as part of
1:43:04 phase two is the tree code um you know
1:43:07 conversation that we're going to have
1:43:08 with environmental board and others
1:43:10 before it comes to you so some of the
1:43:12 tree stuff is going to get fixed in
1:43:13 there some of the things with the
1:43:14 Landscaping were already fixed in Title
1:43:17 18 but you know these are things that
1:43:18 were planted many years ago um so we do
1:43:21 now require structural soil we require
1:43:23 minimum soil volumes and and minimum
1:43:26 widths to accommodate for sidewalks and
1:43:29 trees in a healthy uh way so you're
1:43:32 avoiding the high edges over the Long
1:43:35 Haul uh the other stuff I think that was
1:43:38 the his request was bonding requirements
1:43:41 then um so the implementation you know
1:43:43 that's not really you know from a code
1:43:45 perspective but it's also what kind of
1:43:46 documentation we were asking for the
1:43:48 bonds and being very clear what can it
1:43:51 be pulled for so we've already made some
1:43:53 adjustments on the implementation side
1:43:56 um as it relates to
1:44:05 bonding any additional
1:44:08 questions all right then we will go to
1:44:10 public comments on this item and I will
1:44:14 first check in if there's any member of
1:44:15 the public that would like to comment on
1:44:17 this item not seeing anyone um and I
1:44:21 will check in with city clerk if there's
1:44:22 any members of the public online that
1:44:24 would like to comment on this
1:44:26 item chair hunt I see no virtual hands
1:44:29 raised at this time okay thank you and
1:44:32 we will go
1:44:34 into into comments and we have Direction
1:44:38 needed on all of these so we can take
1:44:40 them one at a time or we can um pull
1:44:43 down ones that we want to talk about
1:44:46 further what is the council's preference
1:44:51 there I'm pretty comfortable with with
1:44:53 doing them all um at once per right if
1:44:59 you want go ahead yep um first of all
1:45:02 I'm just very pleased that we were doing
1:45:04 this very very pleased um and many of
1:45:07 these were things that I was tracking as
1:45:10 council president because I get the
1:45:11 emails from the community and so I
1:45:13 wanted to make sure that things like the
1:45:16 um heat pumps and everything came
1:45:18 through so I am generally in
1:45:23 agreement um with this final version of
1:45:28 The Proposal the only one that I will
1:45:32 push back on a little bit is the
1:45:34 pre-application meeting I think I'm
1:45:38 pretty comfortable with doing that um
1:45:42 that being said I do recognize the
1:45:44 interest in reviewing all eight of the
1:45:47 options and choosing the ones that work
1:45:52 I thought it was a pretty compelling
1:45:53 argument that if you have to do this
1:45:57 pre-application doesn't that feel like
1:45:59 part of your application time clock um
1:46:03 and I think given
1:46:05 that developers and the community all
1:46:09 find it very useful I don't see that
1:46:13 going away just because we
1:46:16 say you don't have to do it
1:46:19 pre-application you have to do it post
1:46:22 application and you can do a
1:46:24 pre-application so I I thought that was
1:46:25 a really smart choice um from the
1:46:30 administration and so if it needs to be
1:46:33 taken somewhere to consider all of it as
1:46:35 a whole I'm fine with that but I do want
1:46:38 to make sure that we get that done
1:46:41 before January and that we
1:46:45 recognize
1:46:47 um you know the the the risks of what
1:46:51 the change for State bill is and also
1:46:54 our desire to streamline permitting and
1:46:58 recognize
1:47:00 that we don't have to be a barrier on as
1:47:03 many things so I would be interested in
1:47:05 hear what other council members
1:47:12 say Okay
1:47:16 um yeah no I think thank you very much
1:47:18 for the level of depth you you went in
1:47:21 on all of this and I'm glad staff has
1:47:23 identified opportunities to come back
1:47:24 and VI for this um and then also of
1:47:26 course the level of depth with planning
1:47:28 policy commission I was very impressed
1:47:30 as I continue to be and our newest
1:47:32 member um with planning policy
1:47:34 commission continue to be impressed with
1:47:36 the level of detail that they go in um
1:47:39 so uh for the most part I'm happy with
1:47:42 the direction that the administration is
1:47:44 recommend or that PPC and the
1:47:45 administration are recommending for all
1:47:46 these um I got to say I don't think the
1:47:49 screening part is a priority but if
1:47:51 that's what PPC thinks is is important
1:47:55 to just maintain that aesthetic me that
1:47:57 seems like an opportunity for kind of
1:47:59 locals to really decide it's necessary
1:48:02 but they want to do that and the
1:48:04 administration agrees that's perfectly
1:48:05 fine um and then I'm also fine with
1:48:09 deferring that very first question
1:48:11 around the pre-application or Community
1:48:12 meetings until we get that more that
1:48:14 guidance later um the my question for
1:48:17 that would be once we do get that
1:48:19 guidance does it go back to PBC or would
1:48:21 it come to us
1:48:25 um or would it just go right to council
1:48:27 well um I think we've brought forward
1:48:30 bpc's recommendation so um we we
1:48:34 wouldn't go back to them for that I
1:48:36 think their recommendation is what is in
1:48:38 front of you if Council chooses to go a
1:48:41 different direction then uh that can be
1:48:44 handled now or it could be handled with
1:48:47 the phase two of housekeeping code
1:48:49 amendments which tentatively are
1:48:52 scheduled at this point is looking like
1:48:53 after comprehensive plan is uh work
1:48:56 because that's a significant amount of
1:48:58 work uh that's going to come in front of
1:48:59 the boards and commissions and we don't
1:49:00 want to you know pull them in multiple
1:49:02 directions um so which is Once in a
1:49:05 10year kind of work that's going to
1:49:07 happen so their attention is going to be
1:49:09 unom so we're thinking tentatively
1:49:12 probably late 2024 or even uh first
1:49:15 quarter of
1:49:17 2025 um when it'll come
1:49:19 back but we we're welcome to take it
1:49:22 back after the guidance and get asked
1:49:23 PPC again and bring forth their
1:49:26 recommendation if you choose to oh I was
1:49:27 just curious I didn't necessarily have a
1:49:30 thoughts on that what you
1:49:32 were but okay good to know yeah so we'll
1:49:35 bring it with the tree uh code you know
1:49:37 things uh there's also one item about
1:49:40 art and creative art district so there's
1:49:43 some policy questions that we'll be
1:49:44 asking uh PPC so there are like four or
1:49:47 five in that phase two um right
1:49:54 yeah I think the concern with the timing
1:49:56 is we're we're it's hard to say when the
1:49:59 guidance is going to come out from
1:50:00 Commerce on this so it's hard to say
1:50:02 whether or not we could actually bring
1:50:04 something prior to January so that's
1:50:07 part of
1:50:11 the thanks
1:50:13 again okay so I think we have um so you
1:50:18 have concern potential concern about the
1:50:21 uh pre-application
1:50:23 meeting one or the flexibility there and
1:50:26 potentially going with requiring it
1:50:27 preapplication
1:50:31 I PPC recommended to remove that and the
1:50:37 community meeting from this update and
1:50:41 what I am saying is I think the argument
1:50:44 for having that in is compelling I think
1:50:47 I would ask it the refund requires that
1:50:51 we adopt three of the eight so this is
1:50:54 the only one that we're looking at here
1:50:56 is that
1:50:57 correct for a couple that we already do
1:51:00 like plan you want to speak to yeah so
1:51:03 uh two of the provisions that's on the
1:51:05 list that we already do one is that we
1:51:07 meet with developers to resolve issues
1:51:10 as part of the development review
1:51:11 process and schedule kind of separate
1:51:13 meetings throughout our process that's
1:51:15 one thing that we already do the other
1:51:17 is that we have a budget for having um a
1:51:19 consultant on board as a supportive
1:51:21 staff for review when needed that's also
1:51:24 something that we already do and so with
1:51:26 those two and then this third one that
1:51:29 meets the three Provisions for the
1:51:33 exemption okay so I think my preference
1:51:36 would be to move forward and have that
1:51:40 included because I think it's pretty
1:51:43 important that we have that in place
1:51:46 before January um I'm perfectly
1:51:49 comfortable after that point to go back
1:51:52 to PPC with a larger conversation about
1:51:56 you know which of these do we think is
1:51:59 useful um if that conversation would
1:52:03 sense okay so the so you are advocating
1:52:06 for the city maintaining current
1:52:09 requirements that correct I'm advocating
1:52:12 for the city adding that Amendment back
1:52:17 in okay because when the city created
1:52:22 this bucket of
1:52:25 proposals there were more than the
1:52:27 seven and PPC recommended removing
1:52:33 that I think it should be back in I I
1:52:36 think there's too much risk I think
1:52:39 it's okay
1:52:44 yeah okay I I think tend to agree with
1:52:48 that um I had the question about the
1:52:51 timelines and meeting that so I think
1:52:53 having the exemption uh is beneficial um
1:52:58 so I agree with that
1:53:00 one and then you're the the one change
1:53:03 that you are um advocating for is around
1:53:07 screening essentially well I think so
1:53:09 too so I I don't think that um I think
1:53:13 that we've heard from the community my
1:53:15 understanding is that we've heard we
1:53:16 need to make it easier to install these
1:53:18 it's one of our um things that we're
1:53:20 able to facilitate for the community
1:53:22 that helps us address our climate action
1:53:24 goals buildings is one of our biggest
1:53:26 sources of emissions this is also you
1:53:28 know it is a cost to folks that are
1:53:31 choosing to install heat pumps so adding
1:53:33 an additional cost that's purely
1:53:35 aesthetic and requiring it from the
1:53:37 state of City I don't think that that
1:53:38 meets our community goals so um there
1:53:41 are options of course for HOAs and other
1:53:44 things to have additional requirements
1:53:46 but I I don't see that as the um role of
1:53:49 the city so I would be in support of not
1:53:52 requiring those screenings as an
1:53:54 additional cost for implementing a
1:53:57 climate action um that we're trying to
1:54:00 incentivize for our
1:54:02 community um so that's that one I I
1:54:05 agree with and thank you for um calling
1:54:08 out that one uh on The Monuments I just
1:54:10 remember from previously serving on PBC
1:54:13 that the arguments around um having the
1:54:16 monument signs you know for the central
1:54:19 area where we want walkability we want
1:54:20 the buildings to be close to the the
1:54:22 street so that improves the walkability
1:54:24 versus buildings that are way set back
1:54:26 so um I think that's a discussion that
1:54:29 PBC can have again but I do remember
1:54:31 having that discussion previously and so
1:54:33 I think that can be another phase too
1:54:35 which I believe is how it's slated for
1:54:37 the new monuments that's going to be in
1:54:40 future conversations right that's
1:54:42 correct yeah the plan was to potentially
1:54:45 consider that policy question with next
1:54:47 year's phase of uh code amendments yeah
1:54:50 I think that's I think that's okay I
1:54:51 think I would be if it were proposed to
1:54:54 allow them in places where they aren't
1:54:56 currently I would uh probably not be for
1:54:59 that at this point um having heard the
1:55:01 arguments you know for walkability
1:55:04 around there um so I think I'm I
1:55:08 understand and I'm supportive of the
1:55:10 other updates I appreciate all the work
1:55:11 that went into this with staff and PBC
1:55:15 um so we have two changes then uh are we
1:55:20 are you comfortable with the
1:55:23 ccil member Walsh is I I I think so
1:55:26 maybe maybe there's a lot of negatives
1:55:28 in the in the like there's an amendment
1:55:30 removing removing an option um it's
1:55:34 confusing to me as well so maybe I'm not
1:55:36 following the risk that you were
1:55:37 mentioning with not including it um so
1:55:41 maybe maybe if we do add it back as a
1:55:44 committee and it comes before Council
1:55:46 maybe there can just be a little bit
1:55:50 about it just seems like they had a good
1:55:53 conversation about this and said we
1:55:54 shoulder and there was Community
1:55:56 concern so if if the recommendation is
1:55:59 to add that back in into what we present
1:56:02 to council for July 22nd we can add
1:56:04 additional information of what that risk
1:56:05 is uh related to not being able to be
1:56:09 exempt from refunds is that what we're
1:56:11 is what the committee is asking for so
1:56:14 it's 80% of the fees would be collected
1:56:16 and 20% would be returned back to the
1:56:19 app if we don't meet our timelines and
1:56:22 and we don't have three out of eight
1:56:25 picked C can choose which three out of
1:56:29 eight you you know are
1:56:36 preferred just say uh I appreciated the
1:56:40 presentation as it was made to PPC and
1:56:44 the discussion there and I I hear what
1:56:47 they're saying you know this is
1:56:48 something useful to the community I
1:56:52 think it's just important that we adhere
1:56:57 to the portion of s SP
1:57:00 5290 that reduces our need to give
1:57:05 refunds if we go over by a day or two
1:57:08 our goal isn't to shoot the moon over
1:57:11 that um but I think it's important from
1:57:15 a taxpayer perspective that we don't go
1:57:18 giving back money that we don't have to
1:57:21 um and then I also think just the idea
1:57:26 that we're not removing this preapp or
1:57:29 community meeting we're just saying it's
1:57:32 optional before you put in the
1:57:33 application and it's required after um
1:57:38 which really just shifts it a portion of
1:57:40 time which I think is completely
1:57:42 reasonable and having heard from
1:57:44 developers that it's useful I don't see
1:57:49 I mean it can't be eliminated it just
1:57:52 shifts um the timeline on that it it's
1:57:55 just at what level uh the community uh
1:57:58 gets involved so in the earlier vers you
1:58:00 know if it's early they there it's not
1:58:03 fully baked they haven't spent all that
1:58:05 money and energy into designing the
1:58:07 buildings and everything else so they're
1:58:09 more receptive to change is sort of the
1:58:12 other side of the conversation that was
1:58:14 had as opposed to bringing in an
1:58:16 application that's fully baked at that
1:58:18 point it it's harder to make changes for
1:58:20 the applicant yes and I completely
1:58:24 understand that I think
1:58:26 the if a developer wants to spend their
1:58:29 money earlier on and then face the risk
1:58:33 of community anger if they don't make a
1:58:37 change that's one thing um they can also
1:58:41 make the decision to come in earlier but
1:58:44 that has some downsides for the
1:58:46 community as well because you might not
1:58:48 see the full set of information and be
1:58:53 able to react to it so I think this
1:58:55 provides the ability
1:58:57 to have options still have a requirement
1:59:01 and it protects the city um from
1:59:05 something that we would have to refund
1:59:09 money okay maybe I am sold on this then
1:59:11 let me ask a question though because one
1:59:13 of the concerns at PPC was if it's not
1:59:16 required some free applications some
1:59:19 people are just going to be like don't
1:59:21 need to do it then
1:59:22 whoever sits right next to me
1:59:25 um yeah are we still like very clear
1:59:28 like is there some clear communication
1:59:30 Avenue that like this is really in your
1:59:31 best interest you should yeah we can put
1:59:34 our handouts on that I think the comment
1:59:35 from the planning policy commission
1:59:37 member was we moved in the direction of
1:59:40 providing Clarity in the code not this
1:59:43 optional yes no and then you know if
1:59:46 it's optional most people will probably
1:59:48 consider it no you know uh other than
1:59:52 someone really finds value in it and
1:59:53 they'll do it um so so I think the the
1:59:57 the the comment from one of the
1:59:59 Commissioners if I remember correctly
2:00:01 was more about being more clear is it
2:00:03 required yes or no and you know the
2:00:06 optional was May maybe is more ambiguous
2:00:09 I think that's what they were getting
2:00:18 okay great um so so we're we all agree
2:00:23 with that one and then you agree on the
2:00:26 the screening one yeah I think you guys
2:00:28 made good arguments on that I'm
2:00:30 comfortable with removing the city's
2:00:32 involvement in that okay the only other
2:00:35 edit and then do we have any additional
2:00:38 recommendations otherwise we are in
2:00:41 agreement okay otherwise um we are in
2:00:43 agreement with the staff recommendation
2:00:45 on the other
2:00:46 items great thank you just one
2:00:48 clarifying question for this item going
2:00:50 to Council on July 22nd is it consent or
2:00:53 regular
2:00:59 business feels consent like to me but um
2:01:03 that staff's okay it can be on consent
2:01:06 thank you great thank you all right um
2:01:11 thank you last item of business tonight
2:01:18 0067 housing and parking analysis scope
2:01:21 of work and and this will also be
2:01:22 presented by stepen
2:01:28 Pou good evening again um so tonight I'm
2:01:31 going to talk quickly about the scope of
2:01:33 work that's been proposed for the
2:01:35 housing and parking analysis projects um
2:01:38 the discussion tonight is to hopefully
2:01:41 get the committee's feedback on whether
2:01:43 or not the proposed uh scope of work is
2:01:46 consistent with what we've discussed in
2:01:47 the past and if the committee has any
2:01:49 proposed
2:01:50 changes so a little background
2:01:53 information a lot of this work really
2:01:56 originates from when the city developed
2:01:58 the central esal plan back in
2:02:00 2013 when we established the vision for
2:02:02 housing and the general environment for
2:02:05 um establishing a regional growth Center
2:02:07 in the city and when we U put in place
2:02:11 the moratorium in 2016 we wanted to
2:02:13 address several issues that were
2:02:16 highlighted when development started to
2:02:17 come into the City and one being housing
2:02:19 and the other being with parking and
2:02:22 resulted in several changes to our
2:02:24 parking regulations within the land use
2:02:26 code but it also resulted in the housing
2:02:28 strategy work plan that was developed in
2:02:30 2017 and then through implementation of
2:02:34 the housing strategy work plan we got
2:02:36 the Eco Northwest University of housing
2:02:38 report last year which came up with
2:02:41 several recommendations on how to
2:02:43 further look into getting to the city's
2:02:46 vision for housing that was established
2:02:48 from the central squal plan and through
2:02:50 the development of the title 18 update
2:02:52 project we identified the parking
2:02:54 regulations as being an additional item
2:02:56 that we wanted to look into further to
2:02:59 determine whether or not what we are
2:03:01 requiring for parking actually matches
2:03:03 our vision for development and growth
2:03:04 for the city um and with additional new
2:03:08 state legislation that being House Bill
2:03:11 1110 um that being the middle housing
2:03:14 Bill House Bill 1337 related to
2:03:16 accessory dwelling units and then the
2:03:19 state bills 6
2:03:22 15 which limits what cities can require
2:03:25 for uh parking structures that is also
2:03:28 furthering this need for what has been
2:03:30 proposed for these two
2:03:33 projects so for the housing analysis
2:03:35 project we are proposing uh what was
2:03:38 recommended from the the diversity of
2:03:39 housing report that is to further look
2:03:41 into the multif family tax exemption um
2:03:45 and whether or not we want to establish
2:03:46 a broader program for allowing or using
2:03:50 this in throughout Central
2:03:53 uh the other recommendation was looking
2:03:55 at our inclusionary zoning requirements
2:03:58 and whether or not what we require now
2:04:00 is actually meeting the vision for
2:04:02 Housing Development and affordable
2:04:04 housing in the city the the last piece
2:04:06 is to look at our development bonus
2:04:08 program which has been underutilized
2:04:10 since it was established um back in
2:04:16 2015 for the parking analysis project we
2:04:19 wanted to include an econom IC analysis
2:04:22 to look at the cost benefits of changing
2:04:25 our parking regulations as it relates to
2:04:28 Housing Development and the feasibility
2:04:30 of housing um um to meet our goals the
2:04:34 this also included evaluating our
2:04:36 Citywide parking requirements which is
2:04:38 what was one of the things that was
2:04:39 identified in the title 18 update
2:04:41 project on whether or not what we're
2:04:43 requiring it's actually helping us meet
2:04:45 our goals for development as well as the
2:04:48 general environment for centralal as the
2:04:50 broader community
2:04:52 and then with the state Bill
2:04:55 6015 we needed to we also need to take a
2:04:58 look at what we are requiring for
2:04:59 parking structures as we're limited on
2:05:02 actually what we would require and so
2:05:04 potentially coming up with changes of
2:05:06 what a regulations say around parking
2:05:11 structures so the timeline for these
2:05:13 projects is to um start soon issue an
2:05:16 RFB and hire a consultant to help us
2:05:18 work through these two
2:05:20 projects the hope is to come up with
2:05:22 initial recommendations early in 2015
2:05:25 and then have draft recommendations by
2:05:29 mid to late
2:05:30 2025 and then have uh adopted
2:05:33 regulations by the end of
2:05:38 2025 the administra the administration
2:05:41 recommends moving forward with the
2:05:42 proposed scope as presented
2:05:45 tonight and that concludes my
2:05:46 presentation for this
2:05:50 item great thank you very much we have
2:05:53 any questions council member
2:05:59 Hall so for the uh parking analysis part
2:06:03 of the project or I guess their SE
2:06:05 project but um the first one was the
2:06:08 economic analysis of of
2:06:10 modern parking practices so I I seem to
2:06:13 recall to go back to my notes from when
2:06:15 we were like talking about the title 18
2:06:17 white board the issues of parking and
2:06:20 and um missing middle and just housing
2:06:22 in general then FL report but um I
2:06:27 remember asking if part of this process
2:06:30 would be like evaluating what are those
2:06:32 like really Progressive kind of parking
2:06:35 policies I feel like unlike
2:06:37 urbanist Twitter and Instagram I always
2:06:40 see like this new city ended all parking
2:06:42 requirements like is that are those
2:06:44 going to be the kinds of things that we
2:06:45 do the kind of economic analysis for
2:06:47 like is that feasible would that produce
2:06:49 the kind of outcomes that we would see
2:06:52 yes that's that's the intention um the
2:06:55 idea is to look at all the modern bre
2:06:58 best practices within our region and
2:07:00 what how cities are looking at it and
2:07:02 what the costs are with changing those
2:07:04 regulations to be match what what other
2:07:07 cities are doing but also look at the
2:07:09 other strategies other cities are doing
2:07:11 whether it's parking minimums or
2:07:12 maximums in consideration or changing
2:07:15 those type of regulations um be
2:07:18 consistent so you ALS you said in the
2:07:20 region are we we kind of narrowing our
2:07:22 Focus to similar cities within the
2:07:25 region or are we
2:07:26 looking the intent was to look at
2:07:29 similar cities in the region um but we
2:07:31 can't look broader uh just so we could
2:07:33 see what are the impact we were trying
2:07:35 to stick to cities that were similar in
2:07:38 size to the city is AA
2:07:41 similar ish um but also look at um
2:07:46 cities with similar governmental
2:07:48 structures and so that we can consider
2:07:50 organizationally how how are we going to
2:07:52 be able to manage this and so that's why
2:07:53 we also want to look at cities of
2:07:55 similar
2:07:58 size um and then to clar okay and to
2:08:05 clarify got a public comment but the mft
2:08:08 program is just cenal right that was the
2:08:10 original event when we were talking not
2:08:12 including any
2:08:13 other area in correct what we discussed
2:08:16 uh previously with um city council and
2:08:18 the committee was primarily just
2:08:20 focusing the MFD for
2:08:23 c will we be able to learn anything from
2:08:26 the mfte pilot program that we've put in
2:08:30 place by the time probably not only if
2:08:35 someone is a we have discussions with a
2:08:38 potential applicant about the program
2:08:41 yes but not we won't be able to there
2:08:44 won't have been enough time to actually
2:08:46 go through the motions of applying the
2:08:47 program by that point
2:08:54 president was thank you um I noticed
2:08:58 adus are mentioned in here but really
2:09:02 just in the portion um that was talking
2:09:04 about parking
2:09:06 regulations um if I'm thinking back to
2:09:10 what some of the areas were that we
2:09:12 wanted to do for future updates was to
2:09:14 try to encourage adus and parking is
2:09:18 only one portion of that there's also
2:09:20 permitting fees there's lot line
2:09:24 requirements there's and we have a
2:09:26 pre-approved plan like Redmond or
2:09:29 Kirkland Kirkland does um are we
2:09:32 considering any of those things yes but
2:09:35 in a separate project looking at middle
2:09:37 housing in adus um we have Grant funds
2:09:40 actually funding a project that we've
2:09:42 already started looking at the
2:09:44 regulations from House Bill 1110 and
2:09:46 1337 so that's why only the parking
2:09:49 regulations related to the parking
2:09:50 analysis was mentioned for these
2:09:52 particular projects that project will be
2:09:55 coordinated with these two efforts so
2:09:57 that we're looking at the feasibility
2:09:59 the overall development and how we're
2:10:00 meeting our housing goals okay yeah
2:10:03 because it it's hard to evaluate is this
2:10:05 doing everything that we want it to do
2:10:08 if there's also so um I think it would
2:10:11 be useful to better understand what's
2:10:14 being considered
2:10:15 elsewhere um in addition to
2:10:19 this and then the other question um I
2:10:22 appreciate the title 18 future update
2:10:25 list being added back onto the website
2:10:29 so there are 35 items on that list not
2:10:33 all of them obviously relate to housing
2:10:36 and parking um and so wouldn't
2:10:39 necessarily be applicable to this but
2:10:43 how how are we planning to address the
2:10:47 rest of these is there a timeline for
2:10:50 those is is there anything in the
2:10:53 housing and parking
2:10:55 area that won't be covered by
2:11:02 this for housing and parking in
2:11:04 particular I think the projects that
2:11:06 we've started and are about to start
2:11:08 will be covering what was uh called out
2:11:10 for the title 18 future updates list um
2:11:13 beyond that for the rest of list I defer
2:11:15 to director Dolly wall on on how we want
2:11:18 to prioritize or at least continue to
2:11:20 have ations about how we want to address
2:11:24 list yeah I mean um out of the 35 I
2:11:27 think we PR the council prioritize three
2:11:30 the housing parking and stream buffer
2:11:32 studies so we've been focused on that
2:11:35 given with all the workload with uh
2:11:37 comprehensive plan uh you know and the
2:11:40 capacity of um staff and boards and
2:11:44 Council to get to meet your discussions
2:11:47 we haven't really focused on anything
2:11:48 beyond that um but we can look at you
2:11:51 know once we finish this work what what
2:11:54 next uh can can we handle at that point
2:11:57 so I think our focus is at this point
2:11:59 has been on comprehensive planning and
2:12:02 these three meteor uh discussions we
2:12:05 don't have a timeline on the others just
2:12:07 to clarify I completely agree with that
2:12:10 you guys obviously heard us on these are
2:12:12 the priority areas I just want to make
2:12:14 sure we don't lose those and so by
2:12:17 bringing it up when we're talking about
2:12:19 this it you know continues to have it in
2:12:22 the conversation recognizing that it's
2:12:24 it's still a list that we have to
2:12:27 address thank
2:12:32 you uh so when we were looking at Title
2:12:36 18 seemed to me like there were also
2:12:39 potential
2:12:41 um we we want to have different kinds of
2:12:44 Housing and we know that the community
2:12:46 needs different kinds of Housing and um
2:12:48 but there's also some uh inter
2:12:51 relationship between things that we do
2:12:53 on the housing code side and on the
2:12:56 parking side so there could be some uh
2:12:59 joint recommendations like
2:13:00 recommendation to do this this housing
2:13:04 policy with this parking policy so if
2:13:07 there's separate studies how does that
2:13:09 kind of
2:13:10 joint uh recommendation how would a
2:13:14 joint recommendation come about the idea
2:13:18 or at least the approach that staff is
2:13:19 taking with the two projects is is
2:13:21 actually requiring that the Consultants
2:13:23 actually coordinate with each other as
2:13:24 we're doing the analysis and with the
2:13:26 timelink of different deliverables
2:13:28 particularly with like the economic
2:13:29 analysis on best practice for parking
2:13:31 feeding into the conversations on
2:13:33 housing and then kind of them working
2:13:37 with each other on tweaking what those
2:13:38 requirements might look like that work
2:13:40 on the feasibility of housing as well as
2:13:42 meeting what we're trying to intend with
2:13:44 parking regulations accordance to our
2:13:47 discussions on the economic analysis
2:13:51 okay great um and then also I've been um
2:13:54 participating in the discussions uh
2:13:57 around the update of the Strategic plan
2:13:59 one thing that came out of those is um
2:14:02 Over The Last 5 Years a lot more
2:14:04 discussion around preparing for more
2:14:06 electric vehicles and EV charging um can
2:14:10 that also be considered as part of this
2:14:12 best practices and parking
2:14:16 discussion we
2:14:19 can we'll have to take a look at that in
2:14:21 terms of the the budget and the skope
2:14:23 that have for the
2:14:28 project okay and then we can discuss
2:14:30 with the sustainability group in in
2:14:32 terms of like how best to approach
2:14:33 because we we just had the discussions
2:14:35 back in
2:14:36 2021 on EV regulations and and that
2:14:40 exceeding what the state requires but um
2:14:43 we also want to make sure that we're
2:14:45 keeping up with that and staying a
2:14:47 leader with a lot of those regulations
2:14:48 so if if um
2:14:51 uh we're in agreement with
2:14:53 sustainability that we should include it
2:14:55 or take a look at that then that's
2:14:57 something that we can include as part of
2:15:04 project are we on questions or feedback
2:15:06 I think we're still on questions do you
2:15:07 have any additional questions no okay um
2:15:11 any additional questions
2:15:21 all right um are there any members of
2:15:23 the public that would like to comment on
2:15:25 item okay
2:15:35 welcome hi I'm Anne Fletcher 255
2:15:39 Southeast Andrew Street um and um I just
2:15:44 want to make one point and it uh fits in
2:15:47 with just what you were saying um I'm
2:15:50 just starting to um research a little
2:15:52 bit back on that
2:15:55 2021 uh EV infrastructure charging uh
2:15:59 and understand it and um people for
2:16:02 climate action is also working on that
2:16:04 in all the cities um partly because the
2:16:08 state has a requirement um of I believe
2:16:13 45% of the parking spaces need to be um
2:16:18 I think at least EV capable um so in
2:16:21 looking at our
2:16:23 2021 uh ordinance which I thought was
2:16:26 ahead of the times it's actually looking
2:16:28 like it might be behind the times now um
2:16:31 because if you add up the 10% uh EV U
2:16:36 actual charging and the
2:16:39 20% uh no 30% um of EV
2:16:43 ready there's nothing on our chart about
2:16:45 EV capable that means only 40% of the
2:16:50 parking space would need to be um would
2:16:54 need to have something done with them
2:16:56 and 60% would have nothing so um I do
2:17:00 believe that your question um from our
2:17:03 perspective is that that really needs to
2:17:05 be looked at uh as part of one of your
2:17:08 studies I don't know which one but uh to
2:17:12 um to further look at that uh as I said
2:17:16 I just really started looking at that
2:17:18 today so I um do but I do believe that
2:17:21 we need to to um incorporate that into
2:17:25 what we're doing in these
2:17:27 updates that's all thank you thank you
2:17:30 an all right uh anybody else in the
2:17:33 audience would that would like to make a
2:17:35 comment not seeing anyone are there any
2:17:39 members of the public online yes chair
2:17:42 hunt Nicole Deon would like to address
2:17:45 the committee Nicole I have made you a
2:17:48 panelist you can unmute your mic phone
2:17:51 and turn on your camera thank
2:17:56 you good evening I think yes um just
2:17:59 confirming that you can hear me yes we
2:18:02 can wonderful thank you um again for the
2:18:05 record my name is Nicole Deon and my
2:18:07 address is actually 5242 Avenue in
2:18:10 Seattle I am a land use attorney with
2:18:13 the law firm Karen cross and hemple but
2:18:15 I am here before you in my capacity as a
2:18:17 member and representative of naop
2:18:19 Washington
2:18:21 um Na Washington is our state's
2:18:23 Commercial Real Estate Association it
2:18:25 includes over 1,000 members several of
2:18:28 which are builders in Isa we are very
2:18:31 supportive of the committee's work and
2:18:32 want again thank you all for endeavoring
2:18:35 um on this very important uh research
2:18:37 and and Analysis particularly with
2:18:39 respect to advancing the mfte program um
2:18:43 as I think you all know it's an
2:18:44 essential tool in the state that
2:18:46 incentivizes creation of uh new
2:18:48 middle-income housing specifically in
2:18:51 other King County cities mfte has
2:18:53 successfully created thousands of below
2:18:55 Market Apartment Homes um as our
2:18:57 Region's housing and affordability
2:18:59 crisis deepens we need access to every
2:19:02 single tool possible to Spur more
2:19:04 housing production including below
2:19:05 Market units for this reason we strongly
2:19:08 encourage the city to expand the
2:19:10 application of the mfte program to
2:19:13 Citywide as opposed to just focusing on
2:19:15 Central isqua um and particularly in the
2:19:17 highlands alone there are hundreds of
2:19:19 potential affordable housing units that
2:19:21 could be forgone if Mt mfte is not
2:19:24 applied more broadly we also request the
2:19:27 study evaluate the benefits of voluntary
2:19:30 incentive based inclusionary zoning and
2:19:32 bonus programs um mandatory mechanisms
2:19:34 tend to disincentivize development in
2:19:37 the city whereas voluntary incentive
2:19:39 based programs are needed to ensure that
2:19:42 the city can accommodate you know the
2:19:44 significant velocity of growth that's
2:19:46 anticipated in the city of
2:19:47 Isa lastly again just really want to
2:19:49 thank the city um the staff for
2:19:51 undertaking this important work and we
2:19:53 truly look forward to continuing to work
2:19:55 with the city as this all progresses so
2:19:57 thank you
2:19:58 again okay thank you very much for those
2:20:01 comments city clerk are there any other
2:20:04 members of the public on the
2:20:07 call uh no are not okay thank you very
2:20:10 much that concludes our last public
2:20:13 comment period of the evening um I will
2:20:17 I will start off with comments if that's
2:20:20 cool all right so I think um I think
2:20:23 this uh continues our exploration of the
2:20:27 recommendations but we're in the Eco
2:20:29 Northwest report which I think we should
2:20:31 absolutely do and which continues the
2:20:32 work that we've been doing on Title 18
2:20:34 as well make sure that we're getting the
2:20:36 kinds of housing that our community
2:20:38 needs I do recall that when we adopted
2:20:43 um the the EV parking requirements there
2:20:46 was a discussion about that additional
2:20:48 cost of having EV capable spots and
2:20:50 discussion around how to how to make
2:20:52 sure that especially for affordable
2:20:55 units that they weren't adding an
2:20:57 additional cost and so how could there
2:20:58 be a trade-off with other requirements
2:21:00 on those properties and so I think in
2:21:02 the spirit of of that and with knowing
2:21:06 that there are more EVS coming um due to
2:21:09 other laws and due to the fact that from
2:21:11 our community surveys we know people
2:21:13 majority of our residents are either
2:21:15 interested in or have an electric
2:21:18 vehicle um I think that would be an
2:21:21 important change that I would like to
2:21:23 see considered in this scope of work um
2:21:26 I liked that to hear that the housing
2:21:29 and the parking uh teams are going to
2:21:31 work together because I think those
2:21:33 joint recommendations are going to be
2:21:34 really um important and in that same
2:21:37 spirit I think that the EV part of the
2:21:40 parking um could also be considered in
2:21:43 in a trade-off other than that I am
2:21:45 supportive and um I didn't identify any
2:21:49 other recommended scope
2:21:53 changes president
2:21:55 Walsh thank you um a question when
2:21:59 you're talking about the economic
2:22:00 analysis of um parking and parking
2:22:04 changes is it looking at our code and
2:22:10 proposed changes to our
2:22:13 code how do we factor in things like
2:22:16 state law that are going to require
2:22:21 changes that would increase the cost of
2:22:25 development because it sounds like
2:22:27 that's what this you know some of the EV
2:22:31 code or there's another idea of um
2:22:34 evaluating and
2:22:36 trade-offs I think the intent of the
2:22:38 economic analysis was primarily to look
2:22:40 at costs and benefit or costs and and
2:22:44 benefits associated with exceeding what
2:22:46 maybe is required from the state rather
2:22:48 than seeing what the benefits costs is
2:22:51 for complying with what the state
2:22:53 regulations are just because we're going
2:22:54 to have to make the change anyway but we
2:22:56 can definitely take a look at what the
2:22:58 differences is and once we make that
2:23:00 change to help communicate um where we
2:23:04 stand with the regulations and the
2:23:06 economic impacts with making those
2:23:07 changes overall is that what the let me
2:23:11 clarify a little bit because I was on
2:23:13 PPC when we were talking about the
2:23:15 structured parking and one of the things
2:23:17 there is understanding what the cost of
2:23:19 putting in a parking space is for a
2:23:22 developer and thus for the person who
2:23:24 resides there or um uses that space if
2:23:29 there are increased costs from a state
2:23:32 level to putting in a parking space
2:23:35 whether that's a you know regular lot
2:23:38 space or a structured parking that's
2:23:40 going to increase the cost of
2:23:42 development and so one of the factors
2:23:44 that I'm going to need to consider when
2:23:47 we get this information is is it really
2:23:51 worth it to me to have five spaces
2:23:55 required for X number of square
2:23:58 feet if that increases the cost by y
2:24:03 amount so that's really what I'm asking
2:24:07 and understanding that any state changes
2:24:10 are going to have an impact on what the
2:24:12 cost is for that particular parking
2:24:15 space yeah I would say the the intention
2:24:19 is to look at all those required changes
2:24:21 and and um factor that into kind of that
2:24:25 economic analysis as we're proposing
2:24:26 something
2:24:28 different okay and then my feedback is
2:24:31 really just I want to go bold I want to
2:24:33 go big you know that from me I'm going
2:24:36 to put it out there I agree there's some
2:24:40 really great things happening nationally
2:24:43 and so I I would be
2:24:47 really frustrated if after waiting this
2:24:51 long to tackle this area that we only
2:24:54 look at Regional cities who may not have
2:24:58 had the chance
2:24:59 to do the work here already um I don't
2:25:04 want to be limited by that and so I
2:25:07 think it's really important for us to
2:25:10 recognize that there is a big need here
2:25:14 and I I don't want to be limited um in
2:25:17 those areas so as long as I communicate
2:25:19 that please clearly and openly to
2:25:22 whoever is doing this um really excited
2:25:25 to see this happening thank you
2:25:30 yeah great member heal very much you
2:25:35 know especially on that last part which
2:25:36 is why I'm hesitant to include stuff
2:25:40 about EV in this um because I could see
2:25:44 how even just that could be a a lot of
2:25:47 capacity um and a lot of work
2:25:51 um and and with the EV part as you
2:25:54 brought up it's like very it's very cost
2:25:57 prohibitive for developers um depending
2:26:01 on um for Ev spots or EV capable spots
2:26:04 for that infrastructure as well and I
2:26:06 think we had talked about how much it
2:26:07 innovates all the time too so we don't
2:26:09 necessarily know where it's going to go
2:26:13 um I'm not sure about that um although I
2:26:16 guess I don't
2:26:18 feel super strongly one where the other
2:26:20 so if there is support of including that
2:26:23 kind of in the parking analysis and we
2:26:25 feel that from a staff capacity
2:26:28 perspective between now and q1 Q2 2025
2:26:32 we can include that then great um but
2:26:35 again um did O to what the council
2:26:38 president said and yes I agree with the
2:26:41 the proposed um scope of work and very
2:26:44 excited um this is what excites me the
2:26:46 most is what this project has slowly
2:26:48 been creeping forward and overs so I I
2:26:50 can't
2:26:54 wait great yes I I agree with the go big
2:26:57 and bold and let's get some big big
2:26:59 recommendations out of this we have been
2:27:02 um this has been a long time coming so
2:27:04 be great to get some uh bold
2:27:07 recommendations for us to
2:27:09 consider um all right so I think we all
2:27:13 are on the same page generally support
2:27:17 um do we want maybe we could get
2:27:19 additional information on what it could
2:27:21 look like to
2:27:23 include evv charging that's some
2:27:27 interest and I don't know where you are
2:27:29 on this yeah I I think I would side more
2:27:33 on the side of caution of including it
2:27:36 given that there's what I it was either
2:27:39 200,000 or 130,000 for this I want a lot
2:27:43 out of this um and so yes if there's a
2:27:48 sense of understanding how much of you
2:27:51 know whether we can include that with
2:27:53 the budget I think that's fine
2:27:58 um but I'm also willing to I don't know
2:28:02 I was going to say put that onto a
2:28:05 sustainability um action list
2:28:09 so yeah I'm fine to get an estimate but
2:28:12 I don't want it to limit all of the
2:28:15 other things that we've already had
2:28:17 established on our future updates list
2:28:24 okay so maybe when this comes back if
2:28:26 you can provide a estim or a a
2:28:31 information on if this
2:28:33 is if this is feasible within the budget
2:28:35 or if this would be a an additional
2:28:38 budget item yes we can follow up we'll
2:28:40 we'll consult with the sustainability
2:28:42 group in terms of figuring out the
2:28:43 discrepancy with the state requirements
2:28:45 and U try to factor that into how we're
2:28:48 looking at the regulation changes
2:28:50 okay um all right so I think our other
2:28:53 advice is just go big and bold yeah
2:28:57 anything else you need from us on this
2:28:59 item that's everything I need thank you
2:29:01 okay great thank you so much um do we
2:29:03 have any
2:29:05 announcements okay there being no
2:29:07 further business and there being no
2:29:09 announcements we are adjourned
2:29:11 at we are adjourned at 9:42 p.m.