City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, May 19, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Special Meeting, March 17, 2026

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 5:47 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-17-26 City Council Planning, Development & Page (01) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. March 17, 2026 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Promoting Building Investments in Issaquah COM 0238

45 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development Director · packet pp.7–31

▶ Watch from 6:11 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Central Issaquah Plan was developed to guide the evolution of Central Issaquah from a collection of strip malls and office buildings into a livable, sustainable, and balanced mixed-use urban area serving everyday essentials to residents, employees, and visitors. Since its 2012 adoption, council members, staff, developers, and the community have continued to devote time and effort toward bringing this vision to reality.

2837 segments .txt ↗

0:35 ↗ Good evening everyone. I, Council Member

0:38 ↗ Walsh, chair of the Planning,

0:40 ↗ Development, and Environment Committee,

0:42 ↗ call this meeting to order at 6:43 p.m.

0:47 ↗ I will note we are doing this with

0:50 ↗ generator power. You will probably not

0:52 ↗ get video of us and various things, you

0:56 ↗ know, because the lights and shadows and

0:58 ↗ all of that. Um, but we're still going

1:02 ↗ to promote building investments in

1:03 ↗ Isiqua and that'll be great. Um, so

1:06 ↗ tonight's meeting, um, I am joined by,

1:11 ↗ uh, Deputy Council President Jiang and

1:15 ↗ Council Member Nichols.

1:17 ↗ And our first order of business is

1:19 ↗ public comment. And I will note we have

1:23 ↗ a member of the public here with us. And

1:26 ↗ so what we

1:28 ↗ Let's see. Are you maybe gonna stand?

1:34 ↗ Yeah. Well, I think we're going to have

1:37 ↗ to do you at the base there or so that

1:40 ↗ we're using. So I am going to turn my

1:42 ↗ mute off or my microphone off. Yep.

1:53 ↗ And so if you will start by

1:56 ↗ >> stating your name

1:58 ↗ >> Rachel Mer

2:00 ↗ >> and your relationship to the city or

2:02 ↗ anything that you are um hear about.

2:05 ↗ >> Yeah. And just to confirm

2:07 ↗ >> the computer

2:07 ↗ >> the mic is a computer. Thank you. Don't

2:09 ↗ need to gesture into that. Um yes. Hi

2:12 ↗ everyone. Um I'm Rachel Mer. I'm a land

2:13 ↗ use attorney at Hillis Clark. Martin

2:15 ↗ Peterson here tonight representing um a

2:18 ↗ group of developers deeply invested in

2:20 ↗ the Esqua community. Um can I get

2:22 ↗ started? Is the time running? Great.

2:24 ↗ Okay. Um light. Um our co coalition of

2:29 ↗ housing developers and stakeholders

2:31 ↗ prepared a comment letter that was

2:32 ↗ submitted earlier today for your review.

2:34 ↗ For ease of reference, I have printed

2:35 ↗ copies of that comment letter um here

2:37 ↗ tonight if it would be helpful to inform

2:40 ↗ your discussion. Um, in lie of restating

2:42 ↗ that letter verbatim, I'll be brief with

2:44 ↗ a few highlights. Um, I'd first like to

2:46 ↗ convey the coalition's thanks for the

2:49 ↗ city's willingness to consider and

2:50 ↗ remedy the challenges of housing

2:52 ↗ development in Isiqua through the PBI

2:54 ↗ program and the corresponding work plan.

2:56 ↗ Um, this is difficult work which

2:57 ↗ requires thoughtful analysis, grappling

2:59 ↗ with the current state of development in

3:01 ↗ the city and identifying solutions which

3:03 ↗ will promote housing and yield real

3:05 ↗ change. Um, city staff has been

3:07 ↗ meaningfully engaged in the development

3:08 ↗ with the development community and this

3:10 ↗ is reflected in the work plan. Um, I'd

3:13 ↗ like to reiterate that every single item

3:14 ↗ on the work plan is crucial to the

3:16 ↗ success of the proposed changes for

3:18 ↗ housing production to remain the

3:20 ↗ priority here. The work plan cannot be

3:22 ↗ abbreviated. Instead, we offer a few

3:24 ↗ requests to strengthen the work plan,

3:27 ↗ which will yield more housing for

3:28 ↗ Isiqua. Um, first, we'd like to thank

3:31 ↗ staff for prioritizing the amendments to

3:33 ↗ the MFTTE program. um and encourage the

3:36 ↗ PTE to retain the higher priority level

3:39 ↗ of this highly impactful work. Um

3:42 ↗ second, we ask that the city rep

3:43 ↗ prioritize the quote ways to mitigate

3:46 ↗ redevelopment if close to slashwithin

3:49 ↗ pave buffers to de to increase

3:51 ↗ developability close quote that item um

3:54 ↗ so that it's slated for council action

3:57 ↗ much earlier than September 2027 um

4:00 ↗ which is when it's proposed right now in

4:02 ↗ the current work plan. Um third, we

4:04 ↗ request that the quote rightsize impact

4:07 ↗ fees reform effort um advance earlier

4:10 ↗ than the end of 2027. We understand that

4:13 ↗ the city plans to engage an outside

4:15 ↗ consultant uh and we encourage the city

4:18 ↗ to explore options to engage that

4:19 ↗ consultant earlier so that this work um

4:22 ↗ can begin and uh while staff uh and it

4:26 ↗ can run concurrently while staff

4:27 ↗ processes other reform items. Um,

4:30 ↗ finally, um, we ask that the city add

4:32 ↗ amending vesting regulations to the PBI.

4:35 ↗ Pro providing an earlier vesting point

4:37 ↗ similar to other jurisdictions will rem

4:39 ↗ remove significant risk that code

4:41 ↗ amendments adopted during city review

4:43 ↗ will not kill a housing project. This

4:45 ↗ certainty is needed to commit capital to

4:48 ↗ project design and entitlement and

4:50 ↗ ultimately bring more housing to Isiqua.

4:52 ↗ Um, our letter letter further expands

4:54 ↗ upon these comments and we're also

4:55 ↗ available to meet with you to answer any

4:56 ↗ questions that you might have. um if it

4:58 ↗ would be helpful to flag questions that

4:59 ↗ we could follow up via written comment,

5:00 ↗ we're happy to do that as well. Um we're

5:02 ↗ committed to participating in the public

5:04 ↗ public comment process for the PBI and

5:06 ↗ the work plan moving forward. Um and we

5:08 ↗ really appreciate staff's sincere

5:10 ↗ efforts um on this and your efforts on

5:12 ↗ this important work. Thanks so much.

5:18 ↗ >> Well, thank you.

5:22 ↗ >> Okay, thank you for that. Everybody's

5:24 ↗ gonna have to deal with a little bit of

5:26 ↗ uh mute, unmute, uh all of that. Um so

5:31 ↗ that is our only public um commenter in

5:35 ↗ person and then do we no? I assume

5:39 ↗ there's nobody online.

5:41 ↗ >> No, no.

5:44 ↗ >> Okay, great. Um, moving on with our

5:47 ↗ meeting, we have approval of the minutes

5:50 ↗ from the March 17th

5:53 ↗ um, meeting. And so, I'm looking through

5:59 ↗ um, the minutes were distributed to the

6:01 ↗ committee in advance. Are there any

6:03 ↗ corrections?

6:04 ↗ No. Okay. The minutes are approved as

6:08 ↗ presented. And the next item of business

6:11 ↗ is the only agenda item tonight which is

6:14 ↗ COM 0238

6:16 ↗ promoting business investments in Isiqua

6:18 ↗ presented by director Dollywal Community

6:21 ↗ Planning and Development.

6:24 ↗ I will

6:30 ↗ members um and I will given the

6:34 ↗ circumstances of having no power I will

6:36 ↗ quickly run through the PowerPoint

6:38 ↗ because I think you all have seen it um

6:40 ↗ so we have more time for discussion. Um

6:44 ↗ see um so we're here tonight uh to

6:48 ↗ receive feedback on the goals and

6:50 ↗ outcomes of the work plan uh that

6:51 ↗ council had uh previously established

6:54 ↗ for 2026 and 2027 based on our

6:58 ↗ discussion um with council and the um

7:02 ↗ full committee of the whole uh in March.

7:05 ↗ Um at that meeting there were seven

7:07 ↗ items that were prioritized to be put on

7:09 ↗ the work plan. Um and um following the

7:14 ↗ same model that we had for title 18 uh

7:16 ↗ we've as you know taken a stab at

7:19 ↗ creating these goals uh one to get uh

7:22 ↗ clarity from the committee and council

7:25 ↗ so that as we start this work uh with

7:28 ↗ planning and policy commission

7:31 ↗ >> process question you want us to go the

7:33 ↗ whole net first or

7:37 ↗ questions

7:38 ↗ >> um I wanted to get into the individual

7:44 ↗ uh

7:46 ↗ >> yeah into

7:50 ↗ >> Oh no, I do it on this. I just wanted to

7:51 ↗ know.

7:53 ↗ >> Yep. Thanks.

7:57 ↗ Um so uh the umbrella goals really uh

8:01 ↗ for this effort um are to transform our

8:04 ↗ urban core commercial core of 900 acres

8:07 ↗ into a vibrant sustainable walkable

8:09 ↗ urban center. Um to remove barriers,

8:12 ↗ streamline processes and create

8:14 ↗ incentives and promote development. Um,

8:16 ↗ some of the key strategies that we've

8:18 ↗ focused on are removing regulatory

8:20 ↗ barriers, improving permit processes,

8:23 ↗ uh, and incentives, including proactive

8:25 ↗ investment marketing. Um,

8:28 ↗ and, um, so now we'll get into each of

8:32 ↗ the the 17 items and what the goals are

8:35 ↗ and what's some possible actions we can

8:37 ↗ take for each one of them. And as per

8:39 ↗ your um initial discussion, I'll pause

8:42 ↗ after each slide and then we can um go

8:44 ↗ through the discussion with that. Um so

8:46 ↗ the very first one is outdoor amenity

8:48 ↗ space requirements. So the overall goal

8:51 ↗ is really to um get a balance between

8:55 ↗ having these outdoor amenity spaces with

8:57 ↗ development feasibility. Um you know it

9:00 ↗ is to be recognized that amenities like

9:02 ↗ rooftop decks, patios, balconies, plazas

9:05 ↗ foster community and enhance quality of

9:07 ↗ life. uh facilitating connections among

9:10 ↗ residents and creating a sense of

9:12 ↗ belonging as we transform our suburb

9:14 ↗ suburban

9:16 ↗ um uh areas into denser urban

9:18 ↗ environments. Um so some of the possible

9:22 ↗ actions uh here are reducing the private

9:25 ↗ balcony requirements. I think that's the

9:27 ↗ feedback that we received from the

9:28 ↗ development community. Uh eliminate the

9:31 ↗ need for frequent deviation requests. So

9:33 ↗ make make it u an outright code uh

9:36 ↗ provision instead of having um someone

9:39 ↗ to request it de u relief uh through a

9:42 ↗ deviation process. Um and also uh it has

9:45 ↗ come to our attention uh you know um

9:48 ↗ when there are existing buildings that

9:50 ↗ are trying to convert into a residential

9:52 ↗ use. For instance, the Motel 6 property

9:56 ↗ um where we had updated our code to

9:58 ↗ grant some flexibility for those kind of

10:01 ↗ conversions based on the state bill that

10:03 ↗ was passed. However, um you know the

10:06 ↗ open space requirements are still

10:08 ↗ difficult for uh those kind of

10:10 ↗ conversions to uh come into play. So,

10:13 ↗ we're taking that process uh through a a

10:15 ↗ variance process. Um but since we were

10:18 ↗ touching this section of the code, we

10:20 ↗ would like to include uh additional

10:23 ↗ flexibility for affordable housing

10:25 ↗ conversions where you're going from a

10:27 ↗ commercial to a u residential um use. Um

10:31 ↗ so, the schedule for this item um

10:33 ↗ actually since we had this aggressive

10:35 ↗ two-year work plan, we have started off

10:38 ↗ uh planning and policy commission had a

10:39 ↗ few meetings on it. They held a public

10:41 ↗ hearing and it's coming to this

10:44 ↗ committee in June, early June uh for

10:46 ↗ your discussion and recommendation to

10:49 ↗ full counsel. Um, so I will pause here

10:53 ↗ before we go to the next.

11:13 ↗ >> Should I Should I turn this? Okay. Yeah,

11:16 ↗ we can we can do this as a backup.

11:18 ↗ >> Um, okay. I guess so has this gone to

11:22 ↗ PPC already and what is their

11:25 ↗ recommendation if any?

11:28 ↗ >> Yeah. So this

11:35 ↗ and at this point is um to reduce the

11:39 ↗ private uh outdoor spaces from 50% of

11:42 ↗ the units to 30%. Um and then um the 100

11:47 ↗ square feet per unit stays the same.

11:50 ↗ Previously we had built in that

11:52 ↗ flexibility that council had adopted to

11:54 ↗ go from 100% to 50%. Um but then you

11:58 ↗ still had to count your 50 square ft for

12:01 ↗ private space and add some additional

12:04 ↗ common space. So that is struck out. So

12:07 ↗ you your common open space is only 100

12:10 ↗ not 100 plus 48 for the 70% that you're

12:14 ↗ not going to have uh balconies. So

12:16 ↗ there's a reduction in that as well as

12:18 ↗ uh 30%. And the other ones um it's not a

12:22 ↗ deviation, it's an outright code

12:24 ↗ provision. And then also um um there are

12:28 ↗ um flexibility for uh converting um

12:32 ↗ commercial building into a residential

12:34 ↗ use. Okay.

12:37 ↗ reasonable I guess on the balcony

12:40 ↗ requirements. I mean, I don't know what

12:42 ↗ the right number is necessarily. I would

12:46 ↗ just say to the extent that, you know,

12:48 ↗ we want to give people the option to

12:50 ↗ potentially pay less to rent an

12:52 ↗ apartment that doesn't have a balcony,

12:54 ↗ we should give folks that option. Um,

12:56 ↗ you know, I live in a townhouse that has

12:58 ↗ a tiny balcony that I never use. And so,

13:02 ↗ um, you know, I I would say I'm honestly

13:07 ↗ I would be okay with reducing the

13:09 ↗ private balcony requirements

13:11 ↗ requirements to zero. And if folks want

13:14 ↗ to put in balconies and, you know, some

13:16 ↗ folks are willing to pay more, then I

13:18 ↗ think that's also fine.

13:26 ↗ muted.

13:30 ↗ Um

13:33 ↗ >> would really like to understand how much

13:34 ↗ a balcony costs. Um one of the the when

13:39 ↗ the response to this that for my

13:41 ↗ questions earlier was that balconies on

13:42 ↗ one third of units are not a problem. Um

13:45 ↗ just because something's not a problem

13:46 ↗ doesn't mean it's a good idea though. So

13:48 ↗ or it's necessarily optimal. So, I know

13:51 ↗ this is a requirement we've added in

13:52 ↗ recent years, but there are many

13:53 ↗ apartments in the city that don't any I

13:56 ↗ think they're still lovely apartments.

13:58 ↗ Um, so I would also be in favor of at

14:02 ↗ least having

14:04 ↗ again presented as a bookend for

14:06 ↗ something else for us to debate whether

14:09 ↗ we want this to be a requirement at all.

14:11 ↗ Um, it does add cost and it's something

14:14 ↗ that people have to pay for and they may

14:16 ↗ not necessarily use it. I have also had

14:18 ↗ apartments that have had very tiny

14:19 ↗ balconies that I never used but I had to

14:22 ↗ pay for anyway. Um so I I would second

14:25 ↗ deputy council president Jang's comment

14:27 ↗ there.

14:32 ↗ >> Will make my comments here. Um, I want

14:36 ↗ to start out with

14:39 ↗ just a

14:41 ↗ little bit of a quibble with the idea of

14:43 ↗ the way that we've presented some of

14:45 ↗ these issues and goals and objectives. I

14:47 ↗ still want to center the community on

14:50 ↗ this. And so it feels like yes, we're

14:54 ↗ looking to

14:57 ↗ um create opportunities

15:01 ↗ um for buildings without as many

15:04 ↗ barriers. But the way that I would think

15:09 ↗ about the outdoor amenity space

15:12 ↗ requirements

15:13 ↗ is find a way to provide residents with

15:16 ↗ meaningful outdoor amenity space which

15:19 ↗ doesn't present a barrier to

15:21 ↗ development. And I have all this written

15:23 ↗ down. I can send it over to you guys.

15:25 ↗ Um, but I I just I want to make sure

15:28 ↗ that we still center the needs of the

15:31 ↗ community, especially in these areas

15:34 ↗ that I think the community had expressed

15:38 ↗ was important to them, which is outdoor

15:40 ↗ amenity spaces. That being said, I don't

15:43 ↗ think personally that balconies are

15:46 ↗ meaningful outdoor amenity spaces. And

15:50 ↗ so I will agree with the committee

15:52 ↗ members that I would be fine considering

15:55 ↗ that going down to zero. Um and

15:58 ↗ understanding that there are other

16:01 ↗ opportunities out there to provide

16:04 ↗ meaningful amen outdoor amenity spaces

16:07 ↗ for people gathering um and things like

16:09 ↗ that. I would also say the other thing

16:12 ↗ that balconies

16:14 ↗ do for a building is they provide a

16:17 ↗ little bit of visual differentiation.

16:20 ↗ And so I want, you know, as we go into

16:23 ↗ some of the other areas which I think

16:25 ↗ council member Nichols mentioned in um

16:28 ↗ one of his emails, things like the

16:30 ↗ stepbacks and the transparency and the

16:33 ↗ design standards, all of those are

16:35 ↗ trying to get at a concept of um more

16:40 ↗ variability and visual interest in

16:43 ↗ buildings. And so this could be one

16:46 ↗ where I would see a list of options.

16:50 ↗ Um, and one of them could be

16:53 ↗ balconies as a way to create some

16:56 ↗ variability in the building. Um, but I

16:59 ↗ don't know that I find it meaningful to

17:04 ↗ require balconies even at a 30% area.

17:17 ↗ balconies and what they actually are. Uh

17:19 ↗ the one thing that they are indisput

17:21 ↗ they indisputably are is a cost. Um

17:24 ↗ where the benefit is here they're listed

17:27 ↗ as an outdoor amenity. Um given what

17:31 ↗ these things actually are in most

17:32 ↗ departments as they get built, they're

17:34 ↗ they're I also debate whether they're

17:35 ↗ really an outdoor amenity. Um, I think

17:38 ↗ they're the the the folks that like

17:40 ↗ these things, I think you're right. I

17:41 ↗ think they like them for visual and for

17:43 ↗ aesthetic reasons. And if we if we're

17:45 ↗ going to mandate some some increased

17:47 ↗ cost in housing for aesthetics, um, I

17:51 ↗ think that would be something that would

17:52 ↗ be good to bucket altogether and to be

17:54 ↗ clear that that's a cost for aesthetics.

17:56 ↗ Um, not conflate it with what's really a

18:02 ↗ social goal.

18:13 ↗ fix of you want to strike out the 30% to

18:16 ↗ zero uh you'll have that opportunity to

18:19 ↗ do it and finally the city council will

18:21 ↗ make the final decision as you know um

18:25 ↗ but at the at the higher level of the

18:27 ↗ goal uh is what you know at least for

18:30 ↗ the other ones that we haven't started

18:32 ↗ the process with the planning and policy

18:33 ↗ commission the idea here is that we we

18:37 ↗ are moving in the right direction. So

18:38 ↗ planning and policy commission has some

18:40 ↗ overarching direction from council of

18:42 ↗ what you all are thinking and and in

18:45 ↗ that so it becomes a useful tool for the

18:48 ↗ commissions for the community members as

18:50 ↗ as it comes forward for a final debate

18:53 ↗ and discussion at your level. Uh but

18:56 ↗ this one like I said because we had to

18:58 ↗ start on this work plan in order to get

19:00 ↗ this done by quarter 2 um we we started

19:03 ↗ early. the specifics of that but any

19:06 ↗ feedback you have of the goals I think

19:08 ↗ would be helpful at this point and then

19:10 ↗ then you know in terms of the possible

19:13 ↗ actions probably not so much as a

19:15 ↗ specific of that which will you'll have

19:17 ↗ a chance to debate that and and on that

19:19 ↗ policy but staying at a level where you

19:22 ↗ tell us we're you know is this where

19:24 ↗ planning and policy commission should

19:26 ↗ focus their attention on would be

19:28 ↗ helpful for us

19:31 ↗ planning and policy if you say it's

19:43 ↗ Yeah, it'll come to you on June. In

19:45 ↗ June, the exact specific thing that they

19:47 ↗ recommended will come to you um in a few

19:51 ↗ weeks.

19:51 ↗ >> I guess I just want to make sure that so

19:53 ↗ we we we are talking through possible

19:55 ↗ actions tonight and I think we're being

19:56 ↗ pretty specific. I want to make sure

19:57 ↗ that we're not just talking about tweaks

19:59 ↗ on a goal for PPC for everything that's

20:02 ↗ already happened. So,

20:04 ↗ >> right.

20:04 ↗ >> Correct. So, this is a little bit of an

20:06 ↗ awkwardness because it has gone through

20:07 ↗ the process, but as we get to the other

20:09 ↗ parts, they haven't started the work.

20:12 ↗ Then, we're seeking feedback on both.

20:15 ↗ Um,

20:17 ↗ >> okay. But we are recording the So, we've

20:20 ↗ we put down some clear possible actions

20:22 ↗ here that I think we want to see some

20:23 ↗ movement on. Those are still being taken

20:25 ↗ into account, right?

20:26 ↗ >> Sure. Yes. and and then for full counsel

20:28 ↗ as they look at the goal, you know, if

20:30 ↗ you want to make tweaks to the goal for

20:32 ↗ full council to um take into

20:35 ↗ consideration for these items that have

20:37 ↗ already made their path from PPC.

20:40 ↗ >> Okay. So, I guess my tweet my tweet on

20:41 ↗ the goal would be this the goal as

20:44 ↗ written is almost all of the words are

20:47 ↗ on benefits of these various amenities

20:50 ↗ and we're we're not really thinking

20:52 ↗ about the costs very much. Um we have

20:55 ↗ two words on that note of what's maybe

20:56 ↗ 30 or 40 words. I think it would be

20:58 ↗ useful to

21:01 ↗ better emphasize that all of these our

21:04 ↗ cost increase of housing people that's

21:07 ↗ something

21:09 ↗ that we are so

21:14 ↗ >> yeah I mean I agree with that. So I also

21:19 ↗ think from the perspective of outdoor

21:21 ↗ amenity space and creating community. I

21:24 ↗ mean my you know I live in a townhouse

21:27 ↗ complex that has community space that is

21:30 ↗ just like not used. And so I think I

21:34 ↗ mean from the perspective of how do we

21:36 ↗ want to create community in our city I

21:37 ↗ really think a lot of it does come down

21:39 ↗ to public parks. And so, you know, I do

21:42 ↗ think the outpinity space there's

21:44 ↗ various other benefits, but I think like

21:46 ↗ relying on that to create a sense of

21:47 ↗ community. That's not at least to me

21:51 ↗ quite what happens in practice. So, and

21:55 ↗ especially with balconies, I mean, I

21:58 ↗ don't really see how balconies

22:00 ↗ facilitate connections and create a

22:02 ↗ sense of belonging.

22:04 ↗ >> Well, I was talking about the commonal

22:06 ↗ outdoor spaces, too. It it's bundled in.

22:09 ↗ that goal is not just for the private,

22:11 ↗ but the public.

22:12 ↗ >> Yeah, I I think I think this goal is

22:13 ↗ maybe like there's a lot of things being

22:16 ↗ conflated here. Again, I'm I don't want

22:18 ↗ to spend too much time harping on this

22:20 ↗ goal because I think in terms of the

22:21 ↗ outcome that we're going to arrive on, I

22:22 ↗ think we're generally aligned, but I do

22:25 ↗ feel like, you know, I think balancing

22:28 ↗ the requirements for outdoor amenities,

22:31 ↗ which provide public life with cost of

22:35 ↗ housing. I think that's kind of

22:38 ↗ >> so you' strike down the rest of the the

22:41 ↗ benefits of the thing and then stick

22:43 ↗ with the first sentence and but just

22:46 ↗ flush make it a little bit more clear

22:48 ↗ about the development feasibility to say

22:51 ↗ specifically cost.

22:52 ↗ >> Yeah, I I think the outdoor amenity

22:54 ↗ space requirements which you know

22:57 ↗ enhance quality of life,

23:00 ↗ balanced cost of housing. Okay.

23:06 ↗ group they're just very impressed that

23:08 ↗ you're all here still meeting

23:12 ↗ that they're here.

23:16 ↗ >> Um I'm gonna just put my own piece out

23:20 ↗ there. I think the goal and

23:24 ↗ objectives that recognizing that shared

23:28 ↗ amenity spaces are useful and giving

23:30 ↗ examples of those is a good part of the

23:35 ↗ whole um piece of so I would like to

23:39 ↗ keep that sentence in there. I think in

23:41 ↗ the issues section um I would say one of

23:46 ↗ the issues that I would see is

23:50 ↗ balconies

23:52 ↗ aren't necessarily aren't utilized at

23:55 ↗ high rates and don'tide meaningful

24:00 ↗ outdoor space for individuals.

24:04 ↗ Um

24:06 ↗ the cost is an important thing to put in

24:09 ↗ the issues section. Um and then the

24:13 ↗ other piece is sometimes balcony used as

24:17 ↗ the um

24:19 ↗ um variation and so

24:23 ↗ maybe they're looking for different ways

24:25 ↗ to solve that. So maybe just recognizing

24:29 ↗ some of the downsides of relying on

24:32 ↗ balconies

24:33 ↗ as the outdoor amenity space of choice.

24:38 ↗ Okay, are we ready to go on the next

24:40 ↗ one? Yeah.

24:42 ↗ So th this is the uh the next one step

24:45 ↗ pack requirements. So this is also in

24:47 ↗ the same process queue as the previous

24:50 ↗ one which is public hearing has been

24:52 ↗ held. Uh PPC has already made their um

24:56 ↗ recommendation to this committee and is

24:58 ↗ coming to you for full debate on June

25:00 ↗ 2nd. Um some of the things the the goal

25:03 ↗ here was to reduce multiple stepback

25:06 ↗ requirements but still achieve the goal

25:08 ↗ of architectural interest and with a

25:11 ↗ focus on public realm. Um so along the

25:14 ↗ street public streets. Um so here what

25:17 ↗ the PPC has recommended is eliminating

25:20 ↗ multiple stepbacks. Um also eliminating

25:23 ↗ them along natural context areas but

25:25 ↗ only requiring them along public

25:27 ↗ streets. Um and then there's some

25:29 ↗ flexibility in the location of the

25:30 ↗ stepback. So it could be as low as

25:32 ↗ second floor and um or or um it has to

25:37 ↗ start at sixth floor. So there was fair

25:40 ↗ amount of debate and discussion with PPC

25:42 ↗ on on that where it should start how

25:44 ↗ much flexibility to give but that's

25:46 ↗ where they landed on their

25:47 ↗ recommendation.

25:52 ↗ Um, I think the overall goal here of

25:55 ↗ architectural interest along the public

25:56 ↗ realm is good. I would maybe broaden

25:59 ↗ that to say visual interest along the

26:01 ↗ public realm, not just architectural.

26:03 ↗ And I think to me, you know, walking

26:06 ↗ around a city that generally believe to

26:10 ↗ be very beautiful like, you know,

26:12 ↗ Barcelona, they don't have stepbacks

26:17 ↗ really. And so I think but what we do

26:21 ↗ have is you know very very high quality

26:24 ↗ building materials, art, plants, all

26:27 ↗ that stuff. So I think if our overall

26:28 ↗ goal is visual interesting in the public

26:30 ↗ realm I think um and maybe we're get

26:33 ↗ going to get to this later in the

26:34 ↗ architectural design standards but like

26:36 ↗ we should you know hey here's a list of

26:38 ↗ 10 things that we think all look good

26:40 ↗ and a few of these to look nice. It

26:44 ↗ could be such that it could be you have

26:47 ↗ that's you know artist or you could have

26:49 ↗ some high quality like some kind of

26:54 ↗ politically maybe but I do think giving

26:56 ↗ more to do different things that look

26:58 ↗ good um would be great because I do

27:01 ↗ think like what you see in a lot of

27:02 ↗ cities is just like this like okay we

27:05 ↗ have everyone has uh they all the same

27:09 ↗ place they all have modulation like that

27:11 ↗ because figure out what is the one

27:13 ↗ satisfy all the requirements and they

27:15 ↗ copy paste that everywhere and I think

27:17 ↗ that's what we're trying to avoid. Um

27:21 ↗ and so I would love to see you know I

27:24 ↗ mean and maybe at this point I I think

27:26 ↗ the actions proposed by all seem totally

27:29 ↗ reasonable but I think um when we get to

27:31 ↗ the architectural stuff maybe later this

27:33 ↗ year I think having more holistic

27:35 ↗ conversation about how do we treat all

27:37 ↗ these different aspects as things that

27:39 ↗ you know provide aesthetic and visual

27:41 ↗ interest and make this qu perhaps better

27:44 ↗ than three cities.

27:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that's that's a really

27:53 ↗ interesting

27:54 ↗ point that that president just made um

27:58 ↗ that I hope we really take into

28:01 ↗ consideration. There's kind of ship

28:03 ↗ there in terms of um

28:08 ↗ looking at things that are that are

28:10 ↗ visual visually

28:14 ↗ the aesthetic

28:16 ↗ that we we are trying to trade off the

28:18 ↗ cost of those those are

28:21 ↗ >> those could all go into a single bucket

28:24 ↗ um

28:26 ↗ >> that's not what how I think the current

28:28 ↗ work is structured that would solve even

28:34 ↗ which is I think we had agreement

28:40 ↗ um this is

28:43 ↗ I don't I have

28:50 ↗ >> I I

28:54 ↗ think it's a subjective decision of like

28:58 ↗ whe

29:10 ↗ it anyway come up

29:11 ↗ that eliminate step entirely not just

29:16 ↗ multip

29:28 ↗ that would be this is an example of a

29:31 ↗ thing that could be placed into a bucket

29:32 ↗ of costs um where if you make it up

29:35 ↗ where we remark a number of points for

29:37 ↗ example and if you get a number of

29:40 ↗ points then

29:42 ↗ you can pass. Um but it's a different

29:45 ↗ model from where we are now for this as

29:53 ↗ um but as far as the slide itself goes

29:56 ↗ again one of the possible has to be just

30:02 ↗ not not

30:05 ↗ eliminating

30:07 ↗ also

30:08 ↗ and for

30:12 ↗ Great. My feedback is somewhat in

30:15 ↗ alignment um with that in that I I think

30:20 ↗ much like the outdoor amenity space

30:21 ↗ thinking back what is important to the

30:24 ↗ community here. The reason I think that

30:28 ↗ the community wants step back or at

30:31 ↗ least PPC and others that have had these

30:33 ↗ conversations is that they don't want

30:36 ↗ very

30:43 ↗ importantly

30:47 ↗ in space.

30:50 ↗ So I think from my perspective

30:54 ↗ one of the most things there is to make

30:56 ↗ sure that

30:59 ↗ feels

31:01 ↗ and so I think accomplished by many

31:04 ↗ things including

31:06 ↗ another creating

31:14 ↗ um so that might be different

31:21 ↗ steps

31:24 ↗ trying to

31:28 ↗ experience that building. Um

31:31 ↗ I agree idea that this would be one of

31:34 ↗ those in many um to satisfy

31:58 ↗ anything

32:03 ↗ Just think if we're think about

32:10 ↗ street

32:13 ↗ like

32:16 ↗ so people can't see

32:19 ↗ like tilting my head up

32:22 ↗ they have the little like awnings and

32:24 ↗ things like that

32:26 ↗ has a lot of visual interest so I'm

32:29 ↗ characteristic

32:38 ↗ and I think are pretty compared to the

32:43 ↗ other we're talking about here.

32:47 ↗ So um then uh then a couple of uh items

32:52 ↗ on this slide. A floor area ratio. Uh

32:55 ↗ this came about because in mixed use um

33:00 ↗ zone MUR uh we have a floor area ratio

33:04 ↗ of two. Um but nobody wants to do the

33:08 ↗ development density bonus which would

33:09 ↗ actually result in more affordable units

33:12 ↗ because they can meet that F of two by

33:15 ↗ building buildings that are not as tall.

33:19 ↗ Um so the request was to increase the

33:21 ↗ floor area ratio and mixed use uh

33:24 ↗ residential because we already allow

33:25 ↗ taller buildings there but there isn't

33:28 ↗ an incentive to for anyone to do. Um but

33:31 ↗ we want to tag that along with the

33:34 ↗ second more meteor discussion which is

33:36 ↗ how much inclusionary affordable housing

33:39 ↗ what percentage and what AMI we should

33:41 ↗ have how do we set up our uh voluntary

33:45 ↗ affordability which is under this

33:46 ↗ density bonus incentive program and then

33:50 ↗ how do we layer that with multi- tax

33:53 ↗ exemption to improve development

33:55 ↗ feasibility. So um some of the possible

33:58 ↗ actions in this one we we would this

34:01 ↗ hasn't started with the planning and

34:02 ↗ policy commission at this point. So feel

34:04 ↗ free to as as you know give us direction

34:08 ↗ what you think um would be helpful for

34:11 ↗ us to know from your perspective. Um but

34:14 ↗ it would increase floor ratio in MUR

34:16 ↗ district and then establishing an MFT

34:19 ↗ program with rightsizing these other

34:23 ↗ provisions with the goal of um you know

34:26 ↗ increasing affordable housing. So you

34:29 ↗ you're getting the the tax break from

34:32 ↗ public dollars in and there's some

34:34 ↗ incentive to get affordable units

34:37 ↗ because you can do MFTTE just for the

34:39 ↗ first in the market provisions which we

34:41 ↗ do have Pineard program and relaxed

34:44 ↗ affordability requirements. Um but since

34:47 ↗ then the the state law has been changed

34:50 ↗ a few times with the as you had um shown

34:53 ↗ us in your emails uh earlier about um to

34:57 ↗ zones transit oriented development zones

34:59 ↗ which have a you know baked in

35:02 ↗ percentage or what that affordability

35:04 ↗ requirement is with what type of MFT. So

35:07 ↗ we would lay we would obviously study

35:09 ↗ that. Um, something to keep in mind is

35:12 ↗ that the floor area ratio in our urban

35:14 ↗ core is already pretty high. So that

35:17 ↗ would mean downzoning if we want to kind

35:20 ↗ of get really creative with that, which

35:22 ↗ generally, you know, if it's an

35:25 ↗ entitlement that the property owners

35:26 ↗ have, you would take away the

35:27 ↗ entitlement and that's not always um,

35:30 ↗ you know, done lightly. Um, so that's

35:35 ↗ sort of the these two items. Can you

35:38 ↗ remind us what stands for?

35:40 ↗ >> Uh mixed use residential

35:44 ↗ >> right where it is.

35:47 ↗ >> Yeah.

35:48 ↗ >> What what is the standards in MU

35:50 ↗ >> or like where we would find it in the

35:52 ↗ city?

35:53 ↗ >> It's within the central is on the valley

35:55 ↗ floor but a little bit le lesser um

35:58 ↗ outside of the urban core boundaries.

36:01 ↗ >> Okay. Thanks. Okay. Go ahead.

36:04 ↗ >> Um yeah, this makes sense. I mean, I

36:07 ↗ think if we get affordable housing in

36:10 ↗ the mixeduse residential areas, we need

36:12 ↗ to make it so that you actually get a

36:14 ↗ bonus. So, I think that makes a lot of

36:15 ↗ sense. Um, and I agree with the

36:18 ↗ inclusionary zoning density bonus

36:20 ↗ calibrating that to the right level. I

36:22 ↗ mean seen with the pioneer program it's

36:28 ↗ jurisdictions required

36:31 ↗ on that you know given what we've seen

36:34 ↗ other jurisdictions always similar

36:38 ↗ as far as nuclear building costs etc to

36:40 ↗ us I think it would make sense to look

36:43 ↗ at them and you know establish something

36:44 ↗ that makes sense. Um I will just push

36:47 ↗ back slightly one thing that you said

36:49 ↗ which was that um NFT being a tax break

36:52 ↗ from public dollars. My understanding is

36:54 ↗ that at least

36:59 ↗ with um so because in the state of

37:02 ↗ Washington we're only allowed to

37:04 ↗ increase the amount of revenue generated

37:07 ↗ from

37:09 ↗ property taxes by one excluding new

37:11 ↗ construction. If there's a new apartment

37:13 ↗ building that

37:16 ↗ you know

37:21 ↗ is but

37:24 ↗ total amount tax collected could go up

37:27 ↗ by more than 1% and so that shared by

37:31 ↗ all other property owners I think it may

37:34 ↗ not

37:37 ↗ like cost something like $50 household

37:40 ↗ per year if it was fully built out. So

37:43 ↗ it is it's not really a tax break. It's

37:47 ↗ more so it is

37:50 ↗ additional property taxes to general

37:54 ↗ public which

37:56 ↗ you know cleared about and

37:59 ↗ that's

38:08 ↗ >> yes that's absolutely correct. So

38:09 ↗ there's revenue forgone

38:12 ↗ um or not paid by the developer. So

38:14 ↗ there is a tax break for the developer,

38:17 ↗ but from a city's perspective, it's a

38:19 ↗ tax shift to other prop other property

38:22 ↗ owners that are going to pick up that uh

38:25 ↗ difference. You're right.

38:32 ↗ >> Sure. Um, so when I think about barary

38:38 ↗ ratio as a tool, um, I want to primarily

38:43 ↗ be able to use it to establish a minimum

38:46 ↗ density or a flurry ratio. Um I think

38:49 ↗ that is the biggest part of that using

38:54 ↗ that as a potential tool is making sure

38:58 ↗ that land

39:00 ↗ is developed toward its highest and best

39:03 ↗ use. Um, so

39:06 ↗ to that I'm not sure if my set of goals

39:12 ↗ would be about fixing the misuse

39:17 ↗ for affordable housing. much that was

39:20 ↗ making sure we were utilizing

39:24 ↗ far in appropriate

39:28 ↗ in order to establish the density that

39:33 ↗ you know we are looking for. Um and so I

39:36 ↗ would look for analysis um from

39:40 ↗ development just to see that

39:44 ↗ we found an area where the area

39:50 ↗ is having problems but

39:54 ↗ um that and then

40:02 ↗ so question here. Do we want to pause

40:07 ↗ and try and restart? Our electricity

40:10 ↗ just came off. Do we want to pause and

40:12 ↗ try and restart

40:15 ↗ how we're recording or anything like

40:17 ↗ that or are we continuing on?

40:22 ↗ >> Continue on. Okay, fantastic.

40:25 ↗ Um so my perspective on the inclusionary

40:27 ↗ zoning and the multif family tax

40:29 ↗ exemption idea um you know I think

40:34 ↗ everybody likes the idea of you know

40:37 ↗ growth pays for growth and all of these

40:41 ↗ concepts so growth creating

40:44 ↗ uh affordable housing is good. What I

40:47 ↗ would ask is since the um analysis I

40:52 ↗ forget the name of the eco northwest

40:55 ↗ since that analysis that we had several

40:58 ↗ years ago um has happened there's been

41:01 ↗ more articles about hey you know does

41:05 ↗ that 80% area median income

41:07 ↗ affordability is that really best served

41:10 ↗ by an MF program inclusion zoning or is

41:15 ↗ it maybe to be served by market by the

41:19 ↗ market a little bit. And so my feeling

41:22 ↗ on

41:24 ↗ a tax exemption um that we make sure

41:28 ↗ that we are achieving something that

41:32 ↗ >> the market provide. Um so my preferences

41:37 ↗ for um anything that we do with MFTTE is

41:41 ↗ really to ensure that if we are making

41:43 ↗ requirements of

41:46 ↗ that

41:47 ↗ >> it do something market count.

41:51 ↗ Yeah, I I think that's um that's a good

41:53 ↗ point. Um because we also have all these

41:56 ↗ policies that we've um were required by

41:59 ↗ the King County planning policies and

42:02 ↗ the affordable housing um you know

42:05 ↗ certification of our comp plan that

42:07 ↗ looked at all of those things of what

42:09 ↗ the cities can do uh to meet that deeper

42:12 ↗ affordability requirement. So we we have

42:14 ↗ some work to do on that area and MFTTE

42:17 ↗ is one of the tools the city can use to

42:20 ↗ to provide that uh additional gap in

42:23 ↗ funding um for improving feasibility for

42:27 ↗ those situations. So yeah, we'll

42:29 ↗ certainly include that as a Yep.

42:35 ↗ So on MSD so my thoughts were we should

42:38 ↗ be as good as HP1 1491 um it would I

42:41 ↗ think though um appreciate you say

42:44 ↗ require a good amount of work but to

42:46 ↗ understand what all of the requirements

42:48 ↗ are

42:49 ↗ programs are and neighboring stations um

42:52 ↗ it would be nice to be at least as

42:53 ↗ competitive as those are um or at least

42:56 ↗ to understand what they are to to

42:58 ↗ compare ourselves against them. Um

43:02 ↗ so the other comments far

43:06 ↗ so repeat those but at least on MFT um

43:11 ↗ anyone we should be doing um

43:15 ↗ but I would like to see what else is

43:17 ↗ happening in other jurisdictions.

43:19 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean it's some of this comes

43:20 ↗ from the state law. So you can do an ATR

43:23 ↗ MFTTE and you don't have to have any

43:24 ↗ affordability requirements for a

43:27 ↗ 12-year. The minimum is 20% at 80% AMI.

43:31 ↗ Um the recent um law change was I

43:35 ↗ believe 20% at below 80% up to 80% with

43:39 ↗ a 20-year uh tax rate, but that's

43:42 ↗ permanent affordability. Um, so it gets

43:44 ↗ complex, but we'll do all of that full

43:46 ↗ analysis as we take this project through

43:48 ↗ because you the cities would still get

43:50 ↗ the tax for the the land value and any

43:53 ↗ non-residential commercial um portions

43:57 ↗ of that building, but the entire units

44:00 ↗ they, you know, if it's a 200 unit

44:02 ↗ complex and 20% of those units are

44:05 ↗ affordable, you get the tax break on

44:08 ↗ each on the entire 200 unit. So that

44:11 ↗ from a developer, you don't pay any

44:12 ↗ taxes for 20 years on the entire

44:14 ↗ residential uh units, not just the ones

44:17 ↗ that are affordable. So it it, you know,

44:19 ↗ we'll get into all of that with uh as we

44:22 ↗ lay out the different options, but we'll

44:23 ↗ certainly include the 1491 option for

44:26 ↗ sure.

44:30 ↗ Just just in case you're So it was a

44:33 ↗ squirrel and they found the squirrel

44:35 ↗ across the valley from the pole that

44:38 ↗ apparently met his demise.

44:42 ↗ >> It was really

44:46 ↗ through the squirrel with 10 ft. So

44:56 ↗ >> I have it created by

44:59 ↗ Um all right so we'll should we move on

45:02 ↗ to the next slide? Um so this uh this

45:05 ↗ one is parking um and early adoption of

45:11 ↗ the state law uh Senate Bill 5184

45:15 ↗ um which I think um by email I kind of

45:19 ↗ shared some of the highlights of some of

45:20 ↗ these things are it's not as

45:22 ↗ straightforward as just changing a

45:24 ↗ parking table. There's going to be a few

45:25 ↗ other things like uh ADA parking

45:28 ↗ requirements that are currently tied to

45:31 ↗ a percentage of the required parking. Um

45:34 ↗ so if there's no parking then how do we

45:36 ↗ deal with ADA? So you know all of that

45:38 ↗ stuff will need to get sorted out. Um

45:42 ↗ um so some of the possible actions

45:44 ↗ obviously whatever the state law

45:46 ↗ requires um the other options are to uh

45:49 ↗ related to maximum parking requirements.

45:51 ↗ So the code currently has maximums um

45:54 ↗ they never come into play um in our

45:57 ↗ context uh but you know we we will

45:59 ↗ present an option to keep it or to get

46:02 ↗ rid of the maximum uh threshold for

46:04 ↗ simplicity. Um, so those are some of the

46:07 ↗ things we are talking about and I think

46:09 ↗ I heard I received comments by email

46:12 ↗ from two of you um to have zero parking

46:15 ↗ for residential units and urban core and

46:18 ↗ one other zone um in central Isiqua. So

46:21 ↗ we will we can add that as a point of

46:24 ↗ discussion with planning and policy

46:25 ↗ commission. So when it comes forward to

46:27 ↗ you uh that you'll get their

46:29 ↗ recommendation on where they want to go

46:30 ↗ with that.

46:33 ↗ >> Yeah. And I just want to add um the

46:35 ↗ reasoning for that. You know, we've

46:37 ↗ heard from builders that you've spoken

46:39 ↗ to, which is that, you know, all the

46:41 ↗ projects that they're building right now

46:42 ↗ have 1.25 apartment units, but there are

46:44 ↗ some developers, you know, in other

46:47 ↗ areas. Um for example, last year I had

46:49 ↗ the opportunity to tour Culisac Tempi,

46:52 ↗ which is very, very cool. Um it's a very

46:55 ↗ very cool development, which is, you

46:57 ↗ know, it's famous neighborhood in

46:59 ↗ America. They have this beautiful public

47:01 ↗ plaza. these like I mean it's like the

47:03 ↗ most beautiful neighborhood with these

47:05 ↗ alleyways. It looks like it's like

47:07 ↗ straight out of Greece except with the

47:08 ↗ colors. It looks like it's in Arizona

47:10 ↗ which it is. And so I think if we want

47:14 ↗ someone like Culac to come and build

47:16 ↗ something really beautiful that is I

47:20 ↗ don't want the existence of requirements

47:23 ↗ to be a barrier for them. And so that's

47:26 ↗ why I think, you know, setting setting

47:29 ↗ the

47:30 ↗ uh parking minimum zero

47:35 ↗ where rail is going to be will be a

47:38 ↗ great way to potentially track those

47:40 ↗ types of you know forward thinking

47:41 ↗ builders. I know most builders in the

47:44 ↗ country are doing things that are not

47:46 ↗ quite as unique and they will continue

47:48 ↗ to build parking. Um, I will also

47:59 ↗ be able

48:05 ↗ to minimum

48:09 ↗ building if it's needed. I do think want

48:12 ↗ to, you know, have the door open if we

48:14 ↗ are going to have potentially really

48:22 ↗ >> sorry to all that I know

48:25 ↗ to eliminate parking minimums and I want

48:28 ↗ to be clear not eliminate parking um

48:30 ↗ that that's a key difference and it also

48:32 ↗ goes to statements about the parking etc

48:35 ↗ that are out there. So eliminate parking

48:37 ↗ lot in

48:42 ↗ market that will place

48:49 ↗ their

48:50 ↗ um the

48:53 ↗ utility of minimum

48:58 ↗ and to advertise trying to

49:04 ↗ become president. Um this is

49:09 ↗ and as we build

49:14 ↗ even as as we improve capacity hopefully

49:18 ↗ existing here as well

49:24 ↗ we shouldn't prohibit them. So, I want

49:28 ↗ to double down on

49:31 ↗ really

49:33 ↗ insisting that we at least have this as

49:34 ↗ an option to consider. I proposed two

49:37 ↗ looking at the zoning map. I've opened

49:39 ↗ thoughts on that but

49:51 ↗ that

49:54 ↗ that's a I'm not the I think what we

49:57 ↗ really want to see is some area where we

49:59 ↗ can see some

50:03 ↗ creative options that really and not

50:06 ↗ have them

50:08 ↗ um cost constrained by

50:21 ↗ one more time. None of us want to

50:26 ↗ that's that's not the goal. Um, and

50:28 ↗ anyone that is concerned about that,

50:29 ↗ like if if anybody's able to listen, I'm

50:32 ↗ not sure if we're recording or not, but

50:33 ↗ if anybody is concerned about that, um,

50:35 ↗ that's

50:39 ↗ slightly reduced

50:42 ↗ and allowing

50:44 ↗ for some more creative opportunities to

50:46 ↗ arise and if it gets out of hand, we

50:48 ↗ dial it back. But at the moment, in

50:51 ↗ urban core, we this is a a zone where we

50:54 ↗ have seen zero housing. um in the past.

51:03 ↗ So anything

51:11 ↗ I think

51:13 ↗ at least

51:16 ↗ for those

51:19 ↗ too

51:22 ↗ simply

51:26 ↗ And I will add all of the uh properties

51:30 ↗ near Tempi. They're all regular

51:32 ↗ apartments with parking and they're

51:34 ↗ advertising themselves as being next to

51:36 ↗ but with parking. So, you know, for like

51:40 ↗ >> they're obviously building parking even

51:41 ↗ though it's not required and it's just

51:43 ↗ interesting to see that and so I don't

51:45 ↗ think that this will necessarily result

51:46 ↗ in all parking going away. It'll just,

51:48 ↗ you know, result in more choice for

51:50 ↗ people to live in different types of

51:52 ↗ environments especially as we get light.

51:56 ↗ Sorry, just on the

52:03 ↗ understanding

52:19 ↗ and it's another reason why I'm not

52:22 ↗ concerned about any accessible parking

52:25 ↗ as long as there's some parking and

52:27 ↗ confident there will be some of them

52:28 ↗ that will be accessible.

52:31 ↗ >> Yeah, from a court perspective it's in

52:33 ↗ the building code and it's a percentage

52:36 ↗ of your overall parking that you're

52:37 ↗ required to provide. And so if and then

52:41 ↗ the bill that actually this particular

52:43 ↗ bill um has passed state building code

52:47 ↗ council to come up with other standards

52:50 ↗ uh for ADA stalls which they're not even

52:52 ↗ close to getting that on the books. So

52:54 ↗ if we are being the early adopters, we

52:57 ↗ won't have that guidance from state

52:59 ↗ building code council on what those

53:00 ↗ standards are going to be. So some of

53:02 ↗ the cities that have done this early

53:03 ↗ adoption have just kind of ignored the

53:06 ↗ ADA uh parking requirement. So that's

53:09 ↗ the discussion we'll have with PPC when

53:11 ↗ we get to that because

53:15 ↗ >> no it's required. So you have to have X

53:17 ↗ percentage of if you are required by

53:20 ↗ code to have 100 stalls you need to have

53:22 ↗ three or four whatever the percentage

53:24 ↗ works out for um for accessible there's

53:28 ↗ accessible van parking stalls then there

53:31 ↗ are accessible nonvan

53:33 ↗ people in wheelchairs and or otherwise.

53:37 ↗ understand if we don't require it

53:40 ↗ builder parking units.

53:43 ↗ Is that correct?

53:44 ↗ >> We could we could craft the ordinance

53:46 ↗ like that. So how many however many you

53:48 ↗ are providing you still need a

53:50 ↗ percentage of that.

53:53 ↗ >> Okay.

53:55 ↗ Okay. Thank you.

53:56 ↗ >> We'll have to craft the language around

53:58 ↗ that if that's choice we want to make.

54:00 ↗ Yeah. So my gonna go a little bit back

54:03 ↗ toward the goals and outcomes chart. Um

54:07 ↗ I think on parking lot

54:12 ↗ use and generates negative impacts dirty

54:14 ↗ storm water

54:16 ↗ etc

54:18 ↗ surface parking lots I don't think this

54:23 ↗ full understanding of the negatives of

54:26 ↗ parking. Of course, we need to address

54:29 ↗ the cost. This is a significant cost to

54:33 ↗ home builders. This is a cost that many

54:38 ↗ renters or um people that are lower

54:41 ↗ income cannot avoid

54:43 ↗ because it is built into the cost of a

54:46 ↗ unit when it is required. So, I think

54:48 ↗ that's an important element to put in

54:50 ↗ there. Um I would also say that parking

54:54 ↗ requirements um in the past have often

54:56 ↗ been arbitrary unless many areas are

54:59 ↗ over parked especially retail um and

55:02 ↗ parking lots create barriers for nonart

55:05 ↗ users pedestrians and bike riders. So I

55:09 ↗ think those are elements that we want to

55:11 ↗ include in there uh as far as the

55:15 ↗ negative impacts of having extra excess

55:20 ↗ parking um in our city. And then I will

55:23 ↗ just say don't think the state

55:26 ↗ requirement is a goal.

55:29 ↗ Um I think that's an issue. We have to

55:34 ↗ create code that at least meets them on

55:37 ↗ bar of the state requirement,

55:39 ↗ >> but we're early adopters. We don't have

55:40 ↗ to do it for another few years, but

55:42 ↗ we're choosing to.

55:44 ↗ >> Sure.

55:45 ↗ >> And if you want to state something

55:49 ↗ around

55:50 ↗ um early adoption will help us get you

55:56 ↗ know additional development. Um I think

55:58 ↗ that's a way of phrasing it. that is an

56:01 ↗ important reason why we would be going

56:04 ↗ after that. Um and then from my

56:07 ↗ perspective the goal is like establish

56:11 ↗ right parking requirements smart land

56:14 ↗ use easy access for all users and

56:17 ↗ ability to make choices based off

56:28 ↗ um removing minimums or um removing

56:33 ↗ maximum

56:35 ↗ necessarily on that. I want to make sure

56:37 ↗ understand the cost to all users uh the

56:43 ↗ cost to the builders and how we can

56:47 ↗ envision something um going forward.

56:52 ↗ >> Sure. No. Um I think we understand sort

56:54 ↗ of the goals is to let the market

56:56 ↗ determine what the right amount of

56:58 ↗ parking is. Um is what I think you all

57:01 ↗ are getting at. Um there are different

57:03 ↗ ways. I mean at one time King County

57:06 ↗ Metro had done rightsized parking model.

57:09 ↗ Uh you know that was probably we could

57:10 ↗ run the numbers through that but it's

57:12 ↗ probably going to be more than what the

57:13 ↗ state law is requiring. The state law is

57:15 ↗ 1.5 per multif family unit. Most

57:19 ↗ builders you know given our location

57:21 ↗ lack of transit currently people have to

57:24 ↗ rely on cars. And so I think that's the

57:27 ↗ even with like the GOD project, some of

57:29 ↗ the public comments we received were um

57:33 ↗ where's the on street parking in central

57:35 ↗ Isiqua, right? So if you don't have it

57:37 ↗ on your property, you need on street

57:39 ↗ parking and so if not then people will

57:42 ↗ park on a vacant parking lot across the

57:45 ↗ street and

57:48 ↗ uh you know get to you or if you have if

57:50 ↗ you don't provide all of that. So I

57:52 ↗ think as the area transitions from an

57:54 ↗ autocentric to a more urban development,

57:57 ↗ there are going to be some growing pains

57:58 ↗ during that interim uh time period

58:00 ↗ without transit until you get the

58:03 ↗ transit and people can completely live

58:05 ↗ carfree. Um so I think that's why it's

58:09 ↗ important to kind of find that right

58:11 ↗ balance at this time because we don't

58:13 ↗ want to have unintended consequences. I

58:15 ↗ I think the goal of letting the market

58:17 ↗ determine what it is. what we learned

58:19 ↗ the market rate component for the to

58:21 ↗ project wanted to go more than what the

58:23 ↗ code required because that's what their

58:25 ↗ own assessment was and so to some extent

58:29 ↗ yes the market will determine the right

58:31 ↗ amount um what what needs to be done in

58:35 ↗ terms of the removing of barriers I mean

58:37 ↗ we have to remember where the city's

58:39 ↗ code was we used to require at least 50%

58:41 ↗ of the parking stalls need to be

58:43 ↗ structured parking

58:45 ↗ >> and and that went away um you know,

58:48 ↗ that's no longer a requirement at this

58:50 ↗ point. Um, the the number of units we're

58:53 ↗ now reducing down to 0.5 half

58:57 ↗ >> one one unit will only have half a car.

58:59 ↗ The reality is for people to be able to

59:02 ↗ go from place to place in in today's

59:04 ↗ terms in today's and the next until

59:07 ↗ light rail comes here or metro provides

59:09 ↗ more connections than one bus to Seattle

59:12 ↗ people will have to rely on their cars.

59:15 ↗ So I think that's where our balance

59:20 ↗ and I think all of that is great

59:23 ↗ information to present to

59:28 ↗ I want to make sure that we are very

59:30 ↗ clear that when there will be half of

59:35 ↗ our parking that's really the case the

59:40 ↗ minimum requirement the state is only

59:43 ↗ half per mult

59:46 ↗ the developer may choose to

59:50 ↗ depending on what their analysis,

59:55 ↗ but that's an important piece that we

59:58 ↗ really need to make sure that we don't

1:00:01 ↗ add extra confirm to this because

1:00:06 ↗ what I've heard from many builders is if

1:00:08 ↗ they don't have enough, they're not

1:00:10 ↗ going to be able to get the loans to

1:00:13 ↗ make happen because a lot of financials

1:00:18 ↗ are very risk adverse and don't want to

1:00:21 ↗ invest in something that isn't going to

1:00:23 ↗ satisfy.

1:00:24 ↗ So that's

1:00:26 ↗ the second thing we really have to

1:00:29 ↗ recognize is whatever is built here is

1:00:33 ↗ going into more years and it is entirely

1:00:37 ↗ likely in that time period

1:00:42 ↗ in ebike usage.

1:00:44 ↗ It's likely that we going to continue to

1:00:48 ↗ see shifts not only through gaining,

1:00:52 ↗ you know, light rail transit but

1:00:56 ↗ potentially other buses or there's other

1:00:59 ↗ technologies such as ebikes out there.

1:01:04 ↗ And so one of my concerns then is that

1:01:10 ↗ we make sure that what we are creating

1:01:13 ↗ as a requirement

1:01:16 ↗ that is essentially a barrier housing is

1:01:20 ↗ really the necessity and is really what

1:01:24 ↗ our community needs now into the future.

1:01:28 ↗ >> I don't know which one you all first.

1:01:33 ↗ >> Okay. Um,

1:01:35 ↗ >> yeah, I I'll

1:01:37 ↗ also I I just

1:01:39 ↗ I I do disagree with the assessment that

1:01:41 ↗ everyone in our city is requires a card.

1:01:45 ↗ I know many people don't. I know it to

1:01:47 ↗ be a false statement. So, I want to want

1:01:50 ↗ to

1:01:52 ↗ better accommodate who currently do not

1:01:54 ↗ have cards and those who would prefer to

1:01:58 ↗ not have to pay for parking that they do

1:02:00 ↗ not use. Um, I don't know of the

1:02:02 ↗ numbers. I think it would be a really

1:02:03 ↗ interesting statistic to funders to get

1:02:06 ↗ better on this socially anecotally

1:02:09 ↗ talking to people observing people

1:02:11 ↗ knowing how many of the folks in our

1:02:14 ↗ housing communities get around and what

1:02:16 ↗ their transalities are. Um uh

1:02:21 ↗ so

1:02:24 ↗ I want to like correct that as something

1:02:27 ↗ that this this body is clear on this is

1:02:31 ↗ though we are we are community that is

1:02:34 ↗ larger than we are and uh we should be

1:02:39 ↗ progressive that

1:02:44 ↗ so I think that many

1:02:48 ↗ for

1:02:50 ↗ myself

1:02:53 ↗ because

1:02:56 ↗ otherwise I

1:03:00 ↗ also think about

1:03:12 ↗ that and we want to be clear on that and

1:03:14 ↗ also communicating to our partners

1:03:18 ↗ as well.

1:03:22 ↗ Not the

1:03:25 ↗ internal

1:03:36 ↗ we have to have x number of cars for a

1:03:39 ↗ unit. I think that's a model and I'm

1:03:43 ↗ also beginning to say

1:03:47 ↗ um I want to be I want to agree with the

1:03:51 ↗ statement that just minimum

1:03:56 ↗ that doesn't mean

1:03:58 ↗ we will average.

1:04:03 ↗ So the goal with eliminating

1:04:06 ↗ requirements is not to say

1:04:08 ↗ it's to allow additional opportunities

1:04:12 ↗ when they creative builders come and

1:04:15 ↗ want to try to do something that people

1:04:17 ↗ will

1:04:18 ↗ um to allow them to do that and not

1:04:21 ↗ restrict them have to increase costs for

1:04:23 ↗ people that don't want to pay for a

1:04:32 ↗ least an option. for debate all the

1:04:34 ↗ decisions that you brought up as far as

1:04:37 ↗ accessibility as well and where the

1:04:39 ↗ market may in reality those can all be

1:04:41 ↗ true and still have this as an option

1:04:44 ↗ that we may want to pursue.

1:04:46 ↗ >> Absolutely. I mean our job is to kind of

1:04:48 ↗ raise the policy questions ultimately

1:04:50 ↗ you decide what policy you want and and

1:04:53 ↗ if the council wants to have zero

1:04:56 ↗ parking in in the urban core that's

1:04:58 ↗ certainly your prerogative. uh we just

1:05:01 ↗ want to make sure that all of these are

1:05:02 ↗ the things that we hear from our

1:05:05 ↗ residents that we are making sure those

1:05:07 ↗ are um you know in in in your front. So,

1:05:10 ↗ the comments we received from the to

1:05:12 ↗ project, people are worried that people

1:05:14 ↗ are going to park in their neighboring

1:05:16 ↗ lot or a resident in a

1:05:19 ↗ housing that doesn't want to pay for

1:05:21 ↗ parking but uses the on street parking,

1:05:23 ↗ but when there's an impact to the on

1:05:25 ↗ street parking, they call the city and

1:05:27 ↗ say, "Why is my on street parking

1:05:29 ↗ blocked? Because now I have nowhere to

1:05:31 ↗ park. I don't want to pay my uh, you

1:05:34 ↗ know, the apartment complex for the

1:05:36 ↗ charge that they charge me for parking."

1:05:37 ↗ So those are all realistic things of how

1:05:39 ↗ it'll play out on the ground. But

1:05:40 ↗ certainly from a policy objective of

1:05:42 ↗ removing barriers, if you want to go the

1:05:45 ↗ route of having zero or you know let the

1:05:48 ↗ market determine what those minimums are

1:05:52 ↗ um that certainly

1:05:54 ↗ it's not zero park.

1:05:56 ↗ >> So I no one is no one is proposing zero

1:05:58 ↗ park

1:05:59 ↗ >> eliminating minimum.

1:06:00 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:06:02 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:06:03 ↗ city administrator Bob Woods.

1:06:05 ↗ >> Yes.

1:06:10 ↗ Appreciate council

1:06:14 ↗ and so

1:06:17 ↗ I would all

1:06:22 ↗ be

1:06:24 ↗ language%

1:06:29 ↗ about that language. So I think in the

1:06:32 ↗ interest of time

1:06:35 ↗ um

1:06:38 ↗ provide

1:06:40 ↗ feedback

1:06:44 ↗ and the conclusion of the evening

1:06:55 ↗ rather to have back

1:06:59 ↗ appreciate your thoughtful comments

1:07:01 ↗ unless

1:07:03 ↗ rather than

1:07:05 ↗ you know

1:07:07 ↗ that would be well

1:07:11 ↗ feedback and I think do that

1:07:15 ↗ one last I think is a topic that you

1:07:18 ↗ know people have wide range on and I

1:07:20 ↗ will not solve all problems right like

1:07:24 ↗ what we've seen a lot of and I do want

1:07:26 ↗ to point is like even build garage a lot

1:07:31 ↗ of still don't want to pay spot in their

1:07:34 ↗ parking complex

1:07:36 ↗ and a lot

1:07:40 ↗ come in like

1:07:44 ↗ so I think ahead of that and as soon

1:07:48 ↗ built we should start we should have our

1:07:50 ↗ control parking enforcement early it's

1:07:54 ↗ not

1:07:56 ↗ forever and I think if we're able to get

1:07:59 ↗ ahead of this problem that will a long

1:08:01 ↗ way towards you know people with this um

1:08:06 ↗ with our approach I I just don't requ

1:08:29 ↗ Okay, our next slide

1:08:36 ↗ um for two of them uh transparency

1:08:39 ↗ requirement along natural context areas.

1:08:42 ↗ Um the goal is to provide flexibility

1:08:45 ↗ possible actions eliminate or reduce uh

1:08:48 ↗ this requirement. Um the other one is

1:08:51 ↗ multifamily in this one particular zone.

1:08:54 ↗ Uh so the Senate bills 6026 requires

1:08:58 ↗ multif family not wherever we allow

1:09:00 ↗ commercial. We do in most zones except

1:09:02 ↗ for this one particular one. So the goal

1:09:04 ↗ is just to come into compliance with the

1:09:06 ↗ state bill and um and then allow multif

1:09:10 ↗ family in this zone. I mean it doesn't

1:09:12 ↗ make any difference on the ground

1:09:13 ↗ because the only property that zone

1:09:15 ↗ that's redevelopment is shelter and

1:09:17 ↗ we've done that through the development

1:09:19 ↗ agreement anyways. But um but other than

1:09:23 ↗ this, we do allow multif family in every

1:09:25 ↗ other zone that we allow commercial.

1:09:30 ↗ >> Okay. So um my thoughts on this is my

1:09:34 ↗ understanding is the transparency

1:09:36 ↗ requirements

1:09:38 ↗ were an issue on energy requirements

1:09:43 ↗ even outside of natural context. It's

1:09:45 ↗ only come into um to our attention

1:09:47 ↗ related to the um to the issue of um

1:09:53 ↗ natural context but also in um yeah go

1:09:57 ↗ ahead.

1:10:00 ↗ >> It it we are looking at it citywide

1:10:02 ↗ because even if you're in central and

1:10:04 ↗ you're not along natural context area,

1:10:06 ↗ you still have transparency requirements

1:10:07 ↗ that have been difficult to meet. So we

1:10:09 ↗ are looking at it at all three different

1:10:11 ↗ variations that we have.

1:10:13 ↗ >> Great. Yeah, that was something that I

1:10:15 ↗ wanted to

1:10:17 ↗ able to convey. Um I was writing

1:10:22 ↗ um the

1:10:25 ↗ goal

1:10:27 ↗ energy

1:10:29 ↗ advocate transparency which provides

1:10:34 ↗ in the building. So I think there's

1:10:36 ↗ still a

1:10:39 ↗ way to convey that transparency is

1:10:43 ↗ important um but not necessarily having

1:10:48 ↗ as many

1:10:50 ↗ requirements um because I think the

1:10:54 ↗ portion of that is important and I think

1:10:58 ↗ most people who live in buildings like

1:11:00 ↗ windows and thus builders who build

1:11:03 ↗ buildings

1:11:05 ↗ Yeah.

1:11:05 ↗ >> And I think it's a street level for the

1:11:07 ↗ pedestrians and all that is a different

1:11:09 ↗ thing than the whole tall building and

1:11:11 ↗ what what's the requirement on the upper

1:11:13 ↗ floors because right now the way the

1:11:14 ↗ code is written if you're next to a

1:11:16 ↗ natural context area the whole thing is

1:11:18 ↗ 50% and that's the problem people were

1:11:20 ↗ having uh complying with

1:11:24 ↗ but we're looking at all of them.

1:11:26 ↗ >> Okay. Want to make sure that it's

1:11:27 ↗ crossed everything. Um council member

1:11:29 ↗ Nichols.

1:11:30 ↗ >> Yeah. Just to make sure there's the

1:11:32 ↗ consensus of this is clear. Uh same

1:11:34 ↗ exact comment. Um I think the goal

1:11:37 ↗ should be flexibility

1:11:39 ↗ and doesn't

1:11:45 ↗ >> do.

1:11:47 ↗ >> Um and one thing I will add is I mean

1:11:49 ↗ with the transparency personally I've

1:11:51 ↗ never really understood how it was

1:11:53 ↗ necessarily like interesting.

1:11:56 ↗ I would much rather look at a mural than

1:11:58 ↗ like look into someone's private home.

1:12:01 ↗ Um, and so I think again, you know, I

1:12:04 ↗ think transparency to me at least falls

1:12:06 ↗ under the bucket of adding interest

1:12:10 ↗ along the, you know, ground floor and so

1:12:13 ↗ we can have it as an option and maybe

1:12:16 ↗ want to require a certain amount, but

1:12:17 ↗ you know, if I'm think as I'm walking

1:12:19 ↗ around town like what do I want to see?

1:12:21 ↗ I'm I don't think looking into someone's

1:12:24 ↗ home is really like what I want to be

1:12:27 ↗ doing. So I would um be in favor of

1:12:30 ↗ additional flexibility on that.

1:12:34 ↗ >> Yeah, I think we distinguish between um

1:12:37 ↗ if you are a residence on the on the

1:12:39 ↗ first floor then you have to have it

1:12:41 ↗ over six feet so people can't peek into

1:12:43 ↗ your windows and that kind of stuff or

1:12:44 ↗ you have to have stoops to create that

1:12:47 ↗ interest along the street front. I think

1:12:49 ↗ that it gets nuanced in that. But for

1:12:52 ↗ the commercial properties, you know,

1:12:54 ↗ commercial storefront, it's the interest

1:12:56 ↗ of people walking and seeing inside. But

1:12:59 ↗ this one is really getting at the whole

1:13:00 ↗ building, not just the lower floor. If

1:13:03 ↗ you're next to a natural context, which

1:13:04 ↗ inquas, you know, uh that's in a lot of

1:13:07 ↗ places. So, but we understand it. We'll

1:13:09 ↗ look at it all together. It'll come back

1:13:11 ↗ to you in different areas where we have

1:13:14 ↗ this requirement.

1:13:14 ↗ >> Yeah. Then I mean so I've seen some

1:13:16 ↗ other cities where they have the

1:13:17 ↗ transparency requirements you know if

1:13:19 ↗ you have like daycare or something then

1:13:21 ↗ they like put a giant wall inside the

1:13:25 ↗ building fronting the window because you

1:13:26 ↗ don't want people from the street being

1:13:28 ↗ able to like look in and see the kids.

1:13:31 ↗ So that kind of you know defeats the

1:13:33 ↗ purpose of having the windows perhaps.

1:13:35 ↗ So I think we should, you know, think

1:13:37 ↗ critically about what's the right way to

1:13:39 ↗ do this to have interesting things for

1:13:43 ↗ people to look at.

1:13:46 ↗ >> And then the other one which is the

1:13:48 ↗ multif family in the urban village

1:13:50 ↗ commercial retail. Um

1:13:54 ↗ I'm not sure.

1:13:57 ↗ So SB 602 requires that allow multif

1:14:01 ↗ family in all commercial zones. So we

1:14:03 ↗ know we have to make that change. I

1:14:07 ↗ guess what would say is

1:14:12 ↗ having retail

1:14:15 ↗ as part of a denserable neighborhood is

1:14:20 ↗ important to create le neighborhoods.

1:14:23 ↗ And so

1:14:25 ↗ I think you're saying we already allow

1:14:29 ↗ residential pretty much everywhere but I

1:14:33 ↗ >> not as mixed use. So okay

1:14:36 ↗ >> um that is only along one street in

1:14:38 ↗ central Esta. Yeah.

1:14:40 ↗ >> So we used to have you need to preserve

1:14:42 ↗ jobs on a parcel by parcel basis which

1:14:45 ↗ was impossible to implement. that was

1:14:47 ↗ taken out with the idea that we would

1:14:49 ↗ have look at other ways to get mixed

1:14:51 ↗ use. But

1:14:53 ↗ you know it and now I think the

1:14:56 ↗ discussion with the state legislature

1:14:58 ↗ and others is that that's a drag on the

1:15:01 ↗ housing and so you can't really you

1:15:03 ↗ shouldn't mandate commercial use on the

1:15:06 ↗ bottom floor and all that. So we haven't

1:15:09 ↗ taken that up in the work plan of uh

1:15:12 ↗ expanding that area but there's only one

1:15:14 ↗ street mall street where it's zoned

1:15:17 ↗ vertical mixed use where we require that

1:15:20 ↗ you have to have vertical mixed use. Now

1:15:22 ↗ of course with the light rail station

1:15:24 ↗ planning and if we ever get to the point

1:15:25 ↗ of doing the transit oriented

1:15:27 ↗ development planning that can be looked

1:15:29 ↗ as a subset of central Isqua area where

1:15:32 ↗ we could have um requirements for

1:15:34 ↗ mandatory vertical mixed use. Yeah, in

1:15:38 ↗ the future. Yeah,

1:15:41 ↗ >> I guess I agree with the idea that that

1:15:44 ↗ could be a future conversation, but I do

1:15:47 ↗ think if we're going to go about

1:15:48 ↗ implementing 6026,

1:15:52 ↗ but it does provide a a point in time of

1:15:56 ↗ figuring out are there areas where we

1:15:59 ↗ really can't create

1:16:02 ↗ that

1:16:04 ↗ include require retail. Um I will defer

1:16:09 ↗ if we feel like it's too much for now.

1:16:13 ↗ Um but I really feel strongly that an

1:16:17 ↗ area that is housing

1:16:20 ↗ a cannot pay for itself

1:16:24 ↗ isn't as

1:16:29 ↗ >> Yeah. And I'll just note the UVCOM

1:16:31 ↗ retail zone is it's basically like the

1:16:33 ↗ Grand Ridge Plaza in uh the Highlands

1:16:36 ↗ plus the shelter holdings thing. So I

1:16:39 ↗ mean allowing family in that zone to

1:16:43 ↗ comply with the uh state law is good and

1:16:47 ↗ we can

1:16:51 ↗ acquire some amount of retail in that

1:16:54 ↗ area as well. But I mean I I don't want

1:16:56 ↗ to spend too much time on that point

1:16:58 ↗ because I know this public slides.

1:17:01 ↗ >> Okay.

1:17:02 ↗ >> Okay. Um self-certification of ADUs. Um

1:17:06 ↗ so I think we heard some comments

1:17:09 ↗ >> self-certification of ADUs. So I think

1:17:11 ↗ we heard some um from you all via email.

1:17:16 ↗ Um, so when we looked into it, there's

1:17:18 ↗ this house bill 1353 that talks about

1:17:20 ↗ self-certification,

1:17:22 ↗ which means someone has to hire a

1:17:24 ↗ registered architect to design these

1:17:27 ↗ plans and then they could forgo this

1:17:29 ↗ whole requirement of getting um a code

1:17:33 ↗ review from the city. Uh however uh you

1:17:37 ↗ know we looked at some of the

1:17:38 ↗ pre-approved programs where which we

1:17:41 ↗ thought maybe were more cost effective

1:17:43 ↗ for people to just pick that up and they

1:17:45 ↗ don't have to go first find an architect

1:17:47 ↗ who's registered in the state of

1:17:48 ↗ Washington and then um do um you know

1:17:52 ↗ pay them because that may be more

1:17:54 ↗ costly. Um generally in the state you

1:17:57 ↗ don't need a registered architect unless

1:17:59 ↗ you're building over 4,000 square foot

1:18:01 ↗ structure. So, these are small

1:18:03 ↗ structures. Um, but we're happy to go

1:18:07 ↗ the self-certification route if that's

1:18:09 ↗ council's um this committee's desire.

1:18:11 ↗ Uh, that's why we're here today so that

1:18:13 ↗ we don't go down one path and then you

1:18:15 ↗ have a different vision for it. Um,

1:18:18 ↗ either way, if it's self-certification

1:18:20 ↗ or the pre-approved program, um, the the

1:18:25 ↗ issues that people are going to run into

1:18:27 ↗ are not so much the architectural

1:18:29 ↗ design, it's the utility costs. Where's

1:18:31 ↗ the water? Where's the sewer? How do I

1:18:33 ↗ hook up to that? How much does it cost

1:18:35 ↗ me to hook up to that? Uh the city

1:18:37 ↗ already grants and exempts uh adus from

1:18:42 ↗ impact fees. So that's not a problem. Um

1:18:45 ↗ council when we did the mental housing

1:18:47 ↗ legislation um asked us to keep an eye

1:18:50 ↗ out for that. If there's an influx of uh

1:18:53 ↗ ADUs, then they want to have the

1:18:55 ↗ conversation about should the waiver be

1:18:58 ↗ 50% 100% whatever um the case may be

1:19:01 ↗ because the city still I believe has to

1:19:02 ↗ make up some of that difference. Um but

1:19:05 ↗ we haven't had an uptick of those. So

1:19:07 ↗ we're not concerned from a monetary

1:19:09 ↗ standpoint. It's just which one is going

1:19:12 ↗ to be better. If the pre-approved

1:19:14 ↗ program hasn't been taken up by people,

1:19:16 ↗ I suspect the self-certification one is

1:19:19 ↗ going to be similar in results or

1:19:21 ↗ outcome. Um, but it is one thing. Um, we

1:19:25 ↗ can certainly pivot whichever way this

1:19:28 ↗ committee desires us to do. Go.

1:19:31 ↗ >> Yeah. So, I've known a lot of folks from

1:19:34 ↗ cities that have done the pre-approved

1:19:35 ↗ program and essentially it's like people

1:19:38 ↗ want to go to a more specific purpose,

1:19:40 ↗ right? They're like, "Oh, I want my

1:19:42 ↗ family member to move in with me or

1:19:44 ↗ whatever the case may be." And so people

1:19:46 ↗ people and a lot of people people

1:19:48 ↗ spending their own money or getting a

1:19:50 ↗ home run of credit is what they're going

1:19:51 ↗ to invest or $300,000 building this

1:19:54 ↗ thing. They're going to spend

1:19:57 ↗ something that's exactly what they want.

1:19:59 ↗ And I think anecdotally people don't

1:20:02 ↗ want to do because you know it's not

1:20:04 ↗ exactly what they want or especially

1:20:06 ↗ different

1:20:14 ↗ for your specification

1:20:19 ↗ you know design but also still

1:20:21 ↗ processes. I also understand all the

1:20:23 ↗ utility protections and stuff all still

1:20:25 ↗ require city but I think you know my

1:20:30 ↗ having talked to folks that have tried

1:20:31 ↗ to do in cities you know including is so

1:20:35 ↗ I think Seattle is just a lot worse of

1:20:37 ↗ how

1:20:38 ↗ through the process I think this is

1:20:41 ↗ something that we should try to

1:20:43 ↗ encourage more of I feel like selfution

1:20:46 ↗ could be a good to do that so would

1:20:48 ↗ explore that option

1:20:53 ↗ similar similar feedback um both looking

1:20:56 ↗ at a few of our agencies as well as

1:20:57 ↗ talking to some of the home builders

1:20:59 ↗ that are out there uh expressed that

1:21:02 ↗ most of the pre-approved the states have

1:21:05 ↗ adopted pre-approved plans have not

1:21:07 ↗ gotten much

1:21:09 ↗ barriers especially

1:21:14 ↗ hills etc

1:21:15 ↗ um

1:21:22 ↗ so I would selfation towards the stream

1:21:30 ↗ >> um

1:21:34 ↗ I don't think there's enough details

1:21:36 ↗ here about why the process is difficult

1:21:40 ↗ you know I think um we recognize that

1:21:43 ↗ the process is difficult because the

1:21:46 ↗ financial barriers and the utility

1:21:48 ↗ barriers and things like that that we

1:21:49 ↗ can't solve. But I think it's also an

1:21:53 ↗ information barrier. Um which you know

1:21:56 ↗ if you think about it I think that's one

1:21:58 ↗ of the

1:22:00 ↗ things that people conceptually like

1:22:02 ↗ about pre-approved plans is they feel

1:22:04 ↗ like they can understand what they would

1:22:07 ↗ be able to do. That means that I do

1:22:09 ↗ agree with my two fellow committee

1:22:13 ↗ members that other cities that have done

1:22:15 ↗ this and invested in it haven't seen

1:22:17 ↗ much of an uptick. So, I think

1:22:21 ↗ recognizing

1:22:22 ↗ what the barriers are to people um is

1:22:26 ↗ really important and if we do determine

1:22:30 ↗ that the barrier is the back and forth

1:22:34 ↗ of permitting or having a hard time

1:22:37 ↗ understanding what the code requirements

1:22:40 ↗ are and things like that. I think there

1:22:42 ↗ are different solutions

1:22:45 ↗ than necessarily what is presented here.

1:22:48 ↗ Um I think what is presented here

1:22:51 ↗ is going to

1:22:54 ↗ like

1:22:56 ↗ concept as certification that we use not

1:22:59 ↗ necessarily you know

1:23:03 ↗ and what would we do to um just like

1:23:09 ↗ about

1:23:10 ↗ why it is aren't happening that are with

1:23:16 ↗ and we're talking streamlining the

1:23:19 ↗ pering process.

1:23:21 ↗ I I would like a wider selection of

1:23:25 ↗ potential actions out there, including,

1:23:29 ↗ you know, better documentation or just

1:23:32 ↗ really simplified requirements for

1:23:36 ↗ height or even like

1:23:39 ↗ form based code um is something that

1:23:43 ↗ people use as a way to you know

1:23:46 ↗ streamline concepts. I wonder if

1:23:48 ↗ something like that where it's the

1:23:51 ↗ external portion of the idea that is

1:23:55 ↗ necessarily important um whether having

1:24:00 ↗ focus in that way would be one way to

1:24:04 ↗ improve the experience.

1:24:09 ↗ But out of the sub um so you want a more

1:24:14 ↗ holistic understanding of the barriers

1:24:16 ↗ for not getting as many ADUs. Uh

1:24:19 ↗ certainly we can include that in the

1:24:20 ↗ information moving to planning and

1:24:22 ↗ policy commission and that'll come to

1:24:24 ↗ this committee. Uh out of the two

1:24:26 ↗ options there's consensus to just

1:24:28 ↗ proceed with the self-certification

1:24:30 ↗ methodology for now.

1:24:32 ↗ No, that was not my point. I don't know

1:24:36 ↗ anything about the selfification and

1:24:39 ↗ whether or not that would be used or

1:24:42 ↗ anything like that. I do think there is

1:24:46 ↗ a very minimal that

1:24:51 ↗ been well used.

1:24:52 ↗ >> Okay. So, we don't need to spend more

1:24:54 ↗ time going down that path. I I think I

1:24:56 ↗ will pursue the self-certification and

1:25:00 ↗ removing other barriers that may have

1:25:02 ↗ >> may help streamline the process. Is that

1:25:04 ↗ fair? Okay.

1:25:05 ↗ >> And making sure that chart really

1:25:07 ↗ recognizes what those barriers are and

1:25:11 ↗ other creative ways you might be able to

1:25:14 ↗ improve the user experience.

1:25:16 ↗ >> Sure. So some of it may be

1:25:18 ↗ implementation, some of it may be that.

1:25:20 ↗ All right. Uh so moving on. So quarter

1:25:23 ↗ 2024 2026 we hope to accomplish these

1:25:27 ↗ things. Um architectural design

1:25:29 ↗ standards. So uh we have the city had

1:25:32 ↗ done a huge effort. Uh this was not

1:25:36 ↗ something that we tackled with title 18

1:25:38 ↗ and kept it as is. Uh however some of

1:25:41 ↗ the language in there is a mandate of

1:25:44 ↗ here are the things you have to do and

1:25:46 ↗ the here are the things you don't need

1:25:47 ↗ to do. And so the idea here is um that

1:25:51 ↗ we give those things that are a

1:25:53 ↗ requirement to say these are menu of

1:25:55 ↗ options or these are more like

1:25:57 ↗ guidelines to meet the objective um

1:26:00 ↗ which is stated in the in the code. Um

1:26:03 ↗ as opposed to a a specific design

1:26:06 ↗ requirement of these 10 things you have

1:26:08 ↗ to do and these 10 things you cannot do.

1:26:10 ↗ That's how the manual is currently

1:26:12 ↗ written. Um there are also you have to

1:26:15 ↗ choose one one out of the five uh

1:26:17 ↗ architectural styles and each style has

1:26:20 ↗ a specific thing. Um and you know we

1:26:24 ↗ haven't heard much feedback from people

1:26:25 ↗ as to that's a good or bad thing. U most

1:26:28 ↗ people go towards the northwest

1:26:29 ↗ contemporary architectural style. uh but

1:26:32 ↗ I think the this uh this idea that these

1:26:35 ↗ are guidelines to meet your intent will

1:26:38 ↗ help satisfy a lot of uh comments that

1:26:40 ↗ we've received on the architectural

1:26:42 ↗ design standards. Um the second element

1:26:44 ↗ on this um um on this slide is variances

1:26:47 ↗ and deviations. Um so this goes back to

1:26:52 ↗ uh before title 18 update we had a

1:26:54 ↗ process called AES administrative

1:26:56 ↗ adjustment of standards. anything under

1:27:00 ↗ uh the standards could be modified but

1:27:02 ↗ there was no criteria. So it led to

1:27:04 ↗ really arbitrary decisions and potential

1:27:07 ↗ liability for the city to say yes you

1:27:09 ↗ can do it but you can't do it. So land

1:27:12 ↗ use litigation gets very expensive and

1:27:14 ↗ so we want to make sure that whatever

1:27:16 ↗ codes we put in place have a specific

1:27:18 ↗ criteria on which those variances and

1:27:20 ↗ deviations are established. So through

1:27:23 ↗ that process there were 10 or 11 uh list

1:27:25 ↗ of things that came out that people

1:27:27 ↗ thought that they needed to get

1:27:29 ↗ deviations from. So there was robust

1:27:31 ↗ discussion about what are some elements

1:27:33 ↗ that should have deviations in the code

1:27:36 ↗ and those were entered in. But I think a

1:27:39 ↗ lot of this feedback why this element

1:27:42 ↗ remained in our 17 items is really

1:27:44 ↗ related to architectural design

1:27:46 ↗ standards by fixing the the provisions

1:27:49 ↗ in there to make those guidelines uh to

1:27:51 ↗ meet the intent. Some of that's going to

1:27:55 ↗ get addressed this concern. However, we

1:27:57 ↗ will seek uh feedback from the

1:28:00 ↗ developers see which other standard um

1:28:03 ↗ that they would like flexibility on and

1:28:06 ↗ and if we can identify which ones those

1:28:09 ↗ are then we would look at criteria for

1:28:11 ↗ the flexibility around that.

1:28:16 ↗ Yeah, I think going back to my earlier

1:28:18 ↗ comments on the, you know, step backs

1:28:21 ↗ and balconies and all those different

1:28:23 ↗ types of things. I think I think the

1:28:25 ↗ architecture standards would be a good

1:28:26 ↗ place to, you know, put in here's all

1:28:28 ↗ the different ways that we can make a

1:28:30 ↗ building look good and, you know, pick

1:28:32 ↗ whatever seven out of 10, whatever the

1:28:34 ↗ case may be, so that we can, you know,

1:28:36 ↗ get some variation in things that look

1:28:40 ↗ good. Um, and also one thing that I

1:28:42 ↗ would encourage, you know, our staff and

1:28:44 ↗ our planning commission council members

1:28:46 ↗ to do is look at examples, really nicely

1:28:50 ↗ designed buildings or properties in our

1:28:53 ↗ area or beyond. One in particular that I

1:28:56 ↗ really like is uh district flats in

1:28:58 ↗ Woodenville. They have this nice little

1:29:00 ↗ alleyway with these umbrellas. It's very

1:29:02 ↗ rare to

1:29:04 ↗ in my mind I mean before I saw that I

1:29:07 ↗ was like all five ever. But I saw that I

1:29:10 ↗ was like, "No, some of them actually

1:29:12 ↗ look very very charming." So I would um

1:29:14 ↗ everyone to go with that and think of,

1:29:16 ↗ you know, I think the like how they've

1:29:19 ↗ designed that. Um and the mix that they

1:29:21 ↗ have, there's also really good. So

1:29:24 ↗ definitely look forward to seeing what

1:29:26 ↗ you come up with on the architectural

1:29:27 ↗ design side of things. Um I think on the

1:29:30 ↗ bigger pieces, I think that also, you

1:29:32 ↗ know, makes sense. You want to increase

1:29:35 ↗ any surface area to recreation for the

1:29:38 ↗ city. So I'm with all that.

1:29:44 ↗ Um the goals

1:29:50 ↗ for this incorporated all Boulevard

1:30:17 ↗ to allow us

1:30:20 ↗ if we are response.

1:30:39 ↗ >> Yeah, I know. We were dealing with the

1:30:42 ↗ uh

1:30:43 ↗ >> lack of electricity earlier and having

1:30:48 ↗ >> you did. Yeah. No, I've been for a

1:30:50 ↗ little while. Um Okay. Soart

1:30:56 ↗ is really really sparse and so I think

1:31:00 ↗ the important things here are

1:31:04 ↗ recognizing that architectural interest

1:31:06 ↗ may be achieved through many different

1:31:09 ↗ methods.

1:31:10 ↗ um it isn't necessarily, you know, the

1:31:14 ↗ design um style of building that is

1:31:19 ↗ going to be the most important in

1:31:23 ↗ deciding something has architectural

1:31:25 ↗ interest. Um so having a set of out

1:31:29 ↗ there be a way of doing that. But I want

1:31:32 ↗ to make sure then that the goals and

1:31:34 ↗ outcomes just recognize that if we're uh

1:31:38 ↗ making requirements on architectural

1:31:42 ↗ standards

1:31:43 ↗ does

1:31:45 ↗ limit the creativity um of developers

1:31:48 ↗ and it adds cost to it.

1:31:52 ↗ >> So that's an important part of the issue

1:31:54 ↗ and then for the goal and outcome is to

1:31:57 ↗ have options on the methods that you

1:31:59 ↗ could achieve that. Absolutely. And you

1:32:02 ↗ know, um it's all how much time we have

1:32:07 ↗ and what we're trying to accomplish in

1:32:10 ↗ the by the end of 2026. So I think there

1:32:14 ↗ there'll have to be some some conscious

1:32:17 ↗ choices to be made. Uh we'll certainly

1:32:20 ↗ um make it broad broader um but

1:32:25 ↗ cognizant of the the time it'll take to

1:32:29 ↗ create ordinances get all of that

1:32:31 ↗ adopted if we are going back to scrap

1:32:34 ↗ you know redoing the whole design stuff

1:32:37 ↗ and so um

1:32:40 ↗ cautious of that. Yeah,

1:32:41 ↗ >> we have a gonna really talk about the

1:32:44 ↗ schedule as well. So I think we can kind

1:32:47 ↗ of

1:32:47 ↗ >> and and if the idea is to get these in

1:32:49 ↗ place and then you know come back if

1:32:51 ↗ there's more ambitious work plan uh then

1:32:55 ↗ certainly we can do that but in the in

1:32:58 ↗ by the end of 2026 I want to

1:33:01 ↗ >> be honest in terms of um what what we

1:33:04 ↗ can't accomplish um we'll have to stay

1:33:07 ↗ focused without making scope

1:33:10 ↗ >> you know get too big uh and which then

1:33:13 ↗ delays the adoption piece.

1:33:15 ↗ But certainly uh as we have that

1:33:18 ↗ discussion with PPC, we'll lay it out

1:33:20 ↗ where things stand and bring.

1:33:22 ↗ >> Yeah, this might be one that I would be

1:33:25 ↗ willing to push back on a little bit of

1:33:28 ↗ scope. Just make sure that if we're

1:33:31 ↗ going to be making changes to things

1:33:33 ↗ like stepbacks and other things that we

1:33:36 ↗ really recognize is that our goal is to

1:33:41 ↗ create that visual interest without

1:33:45 ↗ naming the method. And so I I really

1:33:56 ↗ introduce that as an idea.

1:34:03 ↗ as well.

1:34:10 ↗ We take some of these that are

1:34:12 ↗ aesthetics together. If the sequencing

1:34:15 ↗ of that is not correct, it very

1:34:25 ↗ steps

1:34:27 ↗ are having

1:34:29 ↗ itself then that can go in the

1:34:33 ↗ calendarility.

1:34:49 ↗ So when we get to the discussion, I

1:34:51 ↗ think that's that's going to be a key

1:34:53 ↗ point that will avoid going on that

1:34:57 ↗ whole topic.

1:34:58 ↗ >> Sure. Um but yeah, certainly you know

1:35:01 ↗ they're interconnected but there's been

1:35:03 ↗ specific feedback from the development

1:35:04 ↗ community but step back. So hence it got

1:35:08 ↗ ranked into the top two things that we

1:35:10 ↗ can easily quickly get them adopted. So

1:35:12 ↗ that's where that came from was this is

1:35:14 ↗ an issue. it was given as a um a de

1:35:18 ↗ deviation by council for the tod project

1:35:21 ↗ and so but that certainly if if you

1:35:24 ↗ don't think that that can wait that

1:35:26 ↗ shouldn't get passed on you know um you

1:35:28 ↗ can make that call but but the idea was

1:35:30 ↗ that there's a low hanging fruit let's

1:35:32 ↗ get them in the books and there's

1:35:34 ↗ nothing that prevents us from having a

1:35:35 ↗ larger conversation at a future date but

1:35:38 ↗ quickly getting some of these things uh

1:35:40 ↗ done in a timely manner was

1:35:43 ↗ >> yeah and I was a way We're creating a

1:35:46 ↗ menu of options, we would want a more

1:35:49 ↗ flexible step back option in there. And

1:35:53 ↗ so if we decide of options that that's

1:35:57 ↗ one of them, then we have already done

1:36:00 ↗ work to understand what values would

1:36:04 ↗ >> agree to.

1:36:05 ↗ >> Yep.

1:36:06 ↗ Okay. Um so the other things that are

1:36:09 ↗ going to happen by the end of this year

1:36:11 ↗ are through block connectors and uh peer

1:36:15 ↗ review um pieces. And so for the

1:36:17 ↗ throughblock connectors, you know, those

1:36:19 ↗ are really for pedestrian bike

1:36:21 ↗ connectivity on the valley floor uh

1:36:23 ↗ while facilitating building placement um

1:36:27 ↗ and um let's see and and obviously uh

1:36:33 ↗ looking into sight specific conditions.

1:36:36 ↗ Um and then obviously looking into sight

1:36:37 ↗ specific conditions. Um so um the main

1:36:41 ↗ action here is to provide some more

1:36:43 ↗ flexibility. Uh the code does have some

1:36:45 ↗ flexibility but I think we want to give

1:36:47 ↗ some examples and look at some of those

1:36:49 ↗ things. Um during the last title 18

1:36:51 ↗ update we had really wide connector

1:36:55 ↗ requirements to the order of 40 ft and

1:36:57 ↗ such. So uh that seemed too excessive.

1:37:00 ↗ So we had already narrowed them down and

1:37:02 ↗ made them um similar to our trail width

1:37:06 ↗ standards. So that that effort had

1:37:08 ↗ already occurred. We do have some

1:37:10 ↗ flexibility, but we've heard that there

1:37:11 ↗ needs to be more.

1:37:13 ↗ >> Um and so that's the goal there uh for

1:37:16 ↗ peer review. um uh you know there's all

1:37:19 ↗ sorts of um things that we send out for

1:37:22 ↗ peer review and some of it isn't

1:37:24 ↗ necessarily rerunning the calculations

1:37:26 ↗ but it's doing code review by a third

1:37:28 ↗ party consultant because we don't have

1:37:30 ↗ the staff uh expertise in that area. Um

1:37:34 ↗ things like lighting and landscaping

1:37:36 ↗ inspections we think we can handle those

1:37:38 ↗ inhouse by additional uh training of uh

1:37:41 ↗ our existing staff. Um but there are

1:37:44 ↗ other peer reviews such as critical area

1:37:47 ↗ studies, the geotechnical reports um

1:37:50 ↗ that are really licensed professionals.

1:37:52 ↗ Um and given some of the the things that

1:37:56 ↗ we encounter in our in development uh

1:37:59 ↗ here, you know, retaining walls, the

1:38:01 ↗ safety and stability of people up and

1:38:03 ↗ down those walls, not just that

1:38:06 ↗ particular project, but other community

1:38:08 ↗ members that live around them. um those

1:38:11 ↗ go through a peer review process and um

1:38:15 ↗ so our you know we'll look at that look

1:38:18 ↗ at some of the the selection of peer

1:38:20 ↗ reviewers um we can create a

1:38:24 ↗ pre-selected consultant list um we'll

1:38:26 ↗ need to work with legal to make sure the

1:38:29 ↗ purchasing and all those policies that

1:38:31 ↗ that the cities have to comply with are

1:38:33 ↗ met and that that also these selected

1:38:36 ↗ list can do design as well as review a

1:38:40 ↗ report. So, it'll get a little complex,

1:38:42 ↗ but we wanted to at least um tackle that

1:38:45 ↗ and see what's um if that's feasible or

1:38:48 ↗ not. So, that's that's what we've come

1:38:50 ↗ up with these two items.

1:38:53 ↗ >> Um I have a question on the peer review.

1:38:55 ↗ Are the changes that you're proposing

1:38:58 ↗ including the explore if a select list

1:39:00 ↗ of technical professionals can be

1:39:03 ↗ created um and eliminate some reviews

1:39:06 ↗ such as lighting and landscaping

1:39:08 ↗ inspections? Are those process changes

1:39:12 ↗ that you are making or are they code

1:39:14 ↗ changes?

1:39:15 ↗ >> Um once we figure out how we want to do

1:39:17 ↗ it, then we'll look at the code to see

1:39:18 ↗ if any code changes need to be made. we

1:39:20 ↗ may may not need code changes but um you

1:39:24 ↗ know depending on the lang the exact

1:39:26 ↗ language in the code or the fee schedule

1:39:28 ↗ or something we may need to look at that

1:39:30 ↗ first figure out what do we want to do

1:39:32 ↗ what we can do inhouse what we

1:39:34 ↗ absolutely need the consultants to do

1:39:36 ↗ and then and then if there are any code

1:39:38 ↗ changes then we can do that by ordinance

1:39:41 ↗ >> okay I think my feedback there would be

1:39:45 ↗ that if we are able to find that this is

1:39:49 ↗ a process changed

1:39:52 ↗ and that from my perspective is a

1:39:56 ↗ priority out of all of this list and so

1:40:00 ↗ I'm willing to potentially

1:40:03 ↗ deputy council president.

1:40:05 ↗ Yeah, I guess on the three block

1:40:07 ↗ connectors,

1:40:09 ↗ >> um I think

1:40:11 ↗ I'm on board with added flexibility, but

1:40:13 ↗ I could envision a case where this could

1:40:15 ↗ go terribly wrong where it's like, you

1:40:17 ↗ know, there's one through block

1:40:18 ↗ connector that's over here. You have to

1:40:20 ↗ go like 200 feet along the sidewalk to

1:40:22 ↗ connect to the next through block

1:40:23 ↗ connector and it's very like

1:40:24 ↗ disappointed.

1:40:28 ↗ So I want to make you know if we're

1:40:30 ↗ adding flexibility it still makes best

1:40:34 ↗ if you're

1:40:36 ↗ different um you know do um that

1:40:42 ↗ is potentially something be aware of um

1:40:47 ↗ I think on review I know this is

1:40:50 ↗ something that there's been a lot of

1:40:52 ↗ angst about from home community I think

1:40:56 ↗ generally I mean I like they're like we

1:40:59 ↗ actually like peer reviewing some cases

1:41:00 ↗ because it's nice to have someone else

1:41:01 ↗ to check their work. I think

1:41:04 ↗ their work instead of us going out to

1:41:07 ↗ check their work I think that makes a

1:41:09 ↗ lot more sense that they can work with

1:41:10 ↗ you know someone that they know. Um and

1:41:13 ↗ so I think uh

1:41:16 ↗ so certainly on the geotechnical stuff I

1:41:18 ↗ think it's good to have multiple people

1:41:21 ↗ checking even if it's not necessarily

1:41:25 ↗ you know like you know they

1:41:30 ↗ two people in the same

1:41:39 ↗ level of people each other. It could be

1:41:42 ↗ something very major and we're talking

1:41:45 ↗ about massive

1:41:48 ↗ families.

1:41:52 ↗ Um so yeah I I think I think in general

1:41:57 ↗ want to make more Michigan but notice

1:42:02 ↗ related to public safety.

1:42:04 ↗ >> No, we appreciate that. Thank you.

1:42:06 ↗ >> Okay.

1:42:09 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:42:10 ↗ Also, um I heard comments from several

1:42:15 ↗ film on particular and one example that

1:42:19 ↗ stuck to me was set up voices between

1:42:21 ↗ what they

1:42:28 ↗ process

1:42:30 ↗ and was never show was significant. This

1:42:35 ↗ is added thousands of dollars to the

1:42:36 ↗ cost of this single. Um those are the

1:42:40 ↗ people

1:42:49 ↗ having

1:43:06 ↗ wonder Um there's some

1:43:13 ↗ problems as well

1:43:17 ↗ as

1:43:19 ↗ some of the goals that are andffect

1:43:23 ↗ our goals for

1:43:26 ↗ some

1:43:28 ↗ ways

1:43:30 ↗ that I think would be good to take a

1:43:31 ↗ look at.

1:43:32 ↗ >> Sure. Yeah. We, you know, the city used

1:43:33 ↗ to do double peer review for properties

1:43:35 ↗ that were kind of questionable,

1:43:38 ↗ landslided potential and this that we we

1:43:40 ↗ don't do double peer review anymore

1:43:43 ↗ already through our implementation. So

1:43:46 ↗ um but if it's a licensed um yes

1:43:49 ↗ certainly you know we'll get into all

1:43:51 ↗ the details um on different options um

1:43:56 ↗ keeping public safety in mind um and

1:43:59 ↗ ensuring that we have the staff

1:44:00 ↗ capability as a limitation

1:44:12 ↗ the geote here and then

1:44:24 ↗ because I think

1:44:26 ↗ we get all flexible

1:44:31 ↗ and so

1:44:34 ↗ I think through this

1:44:41 ↗ rest of the high region

1:44:44 ↗ I'm seeing

1:44:46 ↗ this

1:44:48 ↗ I think.

1:44:52 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean

1:44:54 ↗ there's a landslide. People's homes get

1:44:56 ↗ swept away because no one checked the

1:44:58 ↗ geotechnical work. And so I appreciate

1:45:00 ↗ that. That's what we're trying to do

1:45:02 ↗ here.

1:45:08 ↗ this one.

1:45:16 ↗ >> So then we'll start our next year 202.

1:45:20 ↗ So we'll start 2027

1:45:22 ↗ with um these two items um buffers um

1:45:28 ↗ how to incentivize redevelopment of

1:45:30 ↗ paved areas. Um so allow expansion.

1:45:33 ↗ Currently, we allowed them to go up, go

1:45:35 ↗ further away from the buffer. If there's

1:45:38 ↗ already a building, they can, you know,

1:45:40 ↗ even if it maybe it's in the buffer, but

1:45:42 ↗ you already have a portion of the

1:45:43 ↗ building, you can expand on the other

1:45:44 ↗ side. But looking at expansion towards

1:45:47 ↗ the uh critical area with some tradeoffs

1:45:50 ↗ of storm water improvements and other

1:45:52 ↗ ecological improvements, um if those are

1:45:55 ↗ done, then what that means, we will have

1:45:57 ↗ to take best available science into

1:45:59 ↗ consideration uh in order to pass any of

1:46:01 ↗ these changes. And so um we'll work with

1:46:04 ↗ ecology um and our um um subject matter

1:46:08 ↗ experts um on that. The our idea here is

1:46:13 ↗ that um in central if we can get an

1:46:16 ↗ inventory of all the wetlands and all

1:46:18 ↗ the streams so there isn't a debate and

1:46:20 ↗ we know what the buffers are of of

1:46:22 ↗ course they can change after five years

1:46:23 ↗ of you know we can keep a better

1:46:25 ↗ inventory but we start with that as our

1:46:28 ↗ basis uh to help facilitate

1:46:30 ↗ redevelopment and then figure out what

1:46:33 ↗ what those so hence the the start date

1:46:35 ↗ of quarter 1 2027 to see if we can get

1:46:38 ↗ some of that inventory work done

1:46:41 ↗ earlier. Um, structured parking, retail

1:46:45 ↗ frontage. Uh, again, how to activate

1:46:47 ↗ structured parking requirements. Um, I

1:46:50 ↗ think we heard feedback art, mural

1:46:52 ↗ modulation, all of those things work.

1:46:54 ↗ Uh, it also, you know, if you're if

1:46:56 ↗ you're exiting and and coming in um onto

1:46:59 ↗ a public sidewalk, there's also safety

1:47:02 ↗ things that come into play for cars

1:47:04 ↗ coming in and out of a parking garage.

1:47:06 ↗ You probably have seen it in urban areas

1:47:08 ↗ where you have the mirrors, the the

1:47:10 ↗ bells and whistles or, you know, some

1:47:11 ↗ sound that that alerts people that there

1:47:14 ↗ are people walking here. So, we'll take

1:47:16 ↗ a look at all of that. But, um, the idea

1:47:19 ↗ here is not not to have a mandate for

1:47:22 ↗ retail frontage.

1:47:24 ↗ >> Still allow it if people want to

1:47:26 ↗ activate your space, but have other

1:47:28 ↗ options for activation.

1:47:32 ↗ >> Got it. Um I was gonna say I mean in

1:47:35 ↗ terms of the structured parking retail

1:47:37 ↗ frontage department I don't see how this

1:47:38 ↗ is any different than like any other

1:47:40 ↗ blank wall that exists you know I know

1:47:45 ↗ like this wall because there's room on

1:47:47 ↗ the inside or whatever and so I don't

1:47:50 ↗ think have something specific structure

1:47:54 ↗ just like generally outside of the

1:47:56 ↗ building no we want it to look nice I

1:48:00 ↗ you know we don't care what's like the

1:48:02 ↗ time whether it's cars cars or bikes or

1:48:08 ↗ residences or whatever the case may be

1:48:10 ↗ generally and I think I think we should

1:48:13 ↗ probably have some kind of similar

1:48:15 ↗ requirements um art mural ornamentation

1:48:19 ↗ modulation etc. I think fine and I think

1:48:23 ↗ generally you know but perhaps this can

1:48:25 ↗ also somewhat be the architectural

1:48:27 ↗ design aesthetic.

1:48:31 ↗ >> Um and then on the

1:48:34 ↗ >> mitigate development close to or within

1:48:38 ↗ buffers

1:48:38 ↗ >> I think I think

1:48:41 ↗ >> I mean I mean I think generally this

1:48:44 ↗ makes sense but I would I would be very

1:48:46 ↗ curious to see what specifically the

1:48:47 ↗ proposal is because I think you know in

1:48:49 ↗ some cases the pavement pavement almost

1:48:53 ↗ right up to the stream and also in a lot

1:48:55 ↗ of places I mean the barrier very much

1:48:58 ↗ almost

1:49:04 ↗ what you do to expand some valility

1:49:08 ↗ resto but not make it overly difficult

1:49:10 ↗ and impossible build anything without

1:49:12 ↗ like huge chunks of that already exist

1:49:15 ↗ um I also the you know you know having

1:49:20 ↗ a map for all of the time buffers very

1:49:24 ↗ helpful. Um, I think, you know, there

1:49:26 ↗ have been cases where someone, you know,

1:49:29 ↗ bought a piece of property and then

1:49:30 ↗ they're like, "Oh, there's this wetland

1:49:31 ↗ over here, so you can't build as much."

1:49:34 ↗ And it would have been nice, you know,

1:49:36 ↗ time.

1:49:37 ↗ >> Um, I will also say, and this is a

1:49:39 ↗ little random, but there is a property

1:49:42 ↗ for sale that I've seen on Zillow that

1:49:44 ↗ advertises that it's a large flat wall,

1:49:46 ↗ but the entire thing is covered by a

1:49:48 ↗ fisherman stream. And I think the fact

1:49:51 ↗ that that's not like immediately

1:49:53 ↗ transparent, I think we should make it

1:49:55 ↗ really easy for people to be able to

1:49:56 ↗ tell like, oh yeah, obviously this is

1:49:58 ↗ not something where we want people to be

1:50:00 ↗ housing. Um, you know, areas where we

1:50:04 ↗ actually do, which is like, you know,

1:50:07 ↗ not next to, you know, immediately next

1:50:09 ↗ to a sharing screen, but it's currently

1:50:10 ↗ like a meadow.

1:50:14 ↗ I think we should have a map that makes

1:50:20 ↗ Um, I think that on this are written

1:50:23 ↗ really well and it does a good job of

1:50:27 ↗ explaining what the problem is, which is

1:50:29 ↗ that previous standards allowed this

1:50:32 ↗ parking to be built really close to

1:50:35 ↗ stream buffers. And thus, when the

1:50:39 ↗ buffer amount changed, you have this

1:50:42 ↗ area just can't be adjusted. and thus

1:50:46 ↗ it's bad for um the streams and the

1:50:49 ↗ ecological wildlife. So I I really

1:50:51 ↗ appreciate the way that this is written.

1:50:53 ↗ I would just add as an action is that

1:50:56 ↗ map of properties because I think that

1:50:59 ↗ part of it is particularly um useful out

1:51:03 ↗ of it. And then I really appreciate

1:51:06 ↗ understanding that this will require

1:51:08 ↗ working and we know that that is not a

1:51:10 ↗ fast process. So while I generally agree

1:51:14 ↗ that this is an important area um for

1:51:18 ↗ unlocking development on the valley

1:51:19 ↗ floor, I recognize the time commitment

1:51:22 ↗ that will be required for that as well

1:51:24 ↗ as creating that map. And so I agree

1:51:27 ↗ with your timeline.

1:51:29 ↗ >> Yeah. And you know um because some of

1:51:32 ↗ our streams are all well we'll get to

1:51:35 ↗ the nitty-gritty details in in in a

1:51:37 ↗ future conversation, but yeah, thank

1:51:40 ↗ you. Um so moving on um

1:51:46 ↗ oops

1:51:50 ↗ so the other thing um in quarter one of

1:51:53 ↗ next year is going to be more options

1:51:55 ↗ for sustainable development standards.

1:51:57 ↗ So we know that affordable housing

1:52:00 ↗ projects have to meet this ever

1:52:02 ↗ evergreen sustainable development

1:52:03 ↗ standard. So obviously we don't want

1:52:05 ↗ them to get another certification. So we

1:52:09 ↗ certainly want to include that. I think

1:52:11 ↗ I heard some um comments from you all by

1:52:13 ↗ email uh to allow other options like um

1:52:17 ↗ non-fossil stuff. So, we'll we'll look

1:52:19 ↗ into all of those. Um we obviously want

1:52:22 ↗ to make it easy and simple. Um give

1:52:25 ↗ people options. Um but sustainability is

1:52:28 ↗ a big goal of the city and a lot of our

1:52:30 ↗ long-range plans including climate

1:52:32 ↗ action plan including a comprehensive

1:52:34 ↗ plan have targets that we are all

1:52:37 ↗ striving to to meet and so that's

1:52:40 ↗ usually happens with a combination of

1:52:41 ↗ trees you know solar panels and all of

1:52:45 ↗ and uh chargers and all of that gets

1:52:48 ↗ bundled up with getting this lead

1:52:50 ↗ certification piece. So um but we'll

1:52:53 ↗ certainly explore different options. Um

1:52:56 ↗ from a building standpoint, concrete uh

1:52:59 ↗ is a heavy generator of greenhouse gas

1:53:02 ↗ emissions, not just the the heating and

1:53:05 ↗ all those kind of things. So that that's

1:53:07 ↗ why I think this this um gets complex. I

1:53:10 ↗ think in the past when we said we could

1:53:12 ↗ we would give people a choice of how

1:53:13 ↗ many points you want to add up and when

1:53:16 ↗ we dug into it some of the cities that

1:53:18 ↗ do it um you know the outcome is the

1:53:20 ↗ same but the a lot of time was spent on

1:53:22 ↗ creating a cityowned process so we

1:53:25 ↗ wanted to make it simple so we adopted

1:53:28 ↗ this lead platinum certification uh

1:53:30 ↗ piece but um we'll have a deeper

1:53:32 ↗ conversation with planning and policy

1:53:34 ↗ commission and our sustainability staff

1:53:36 ↗ around this

1:53:38 ↗ >> yeah I mean this is an issue that I had

1:53:40 ↗ flyed last year. I think I did find it

1:53:42 ↗ weird because it's like you can you know

1:53:44 ↗ if you're residential you have to be

1:53:45 ↗ platinum but if you're you have to do

1:53:47 ↗ like real five star

1:53:50 ↗ >> it's other way around. So

1:53:53 ↗ people haven't compl you know people

1:53:54 ↗ like built for green star is a master

1:53:57 ↗ builder association program and and a

1:54:00 ↗ lot of uh housing development that has

1:54:02 ↗ happened it's worked really well for the

1:54:04 ↗ homebuilders for the master builder

1:54:07 ↗ association and the city. So, we haven't

1:54:10 ↗ received any negative feedback from

1:54:12 ↗ that.

1:54:12 ↗ >> Yeah, I think you know we should just

1:54:14 ↗ full menu like other cities like Belby

1:54:16 ↗ where they're like, "Hey, here's like

1:54:18 ↗ the five different ones that are all

1:54:19 ↗ kind of comparable in terms of

1:54:21 ↗ environmental performance." I think

1:54:22 ↗ that's good. Uh, and you know, you

1:54:25 ↗ mentioned in your earlier email, um,

1:54:28 ↗ lenders will people preferential

1:54:30 ↗ interest rates.

1:54:31 ↗ >> That's what we heard from one developer.

1:54:32 ↗ I mean this is because my company

1:54:35 ↗ actually runs that program for one of

1:54:37 ↗ the big national GSSEs. This is a thing

1:54:41 ↗ I will say also I mean I would love an

1:54:45 ↗ option where it's like if you don't want

1:54:46 ↗ to get a green building certification

1:54:48 ↗ but you you know we can decide hey we

1:54:51 ↗ care about climate action. So if you go

1:54:53 ↗ you know no field connection building

1:54:56 ↗ then you don't have to go through the

1:54:58 ↗ trouble of paying a consultant to get

1:54:59 ↗ your certification um which I think

1:55:02 ↗ would be a great option as well and I

1:55:04 ↗ know that's something you're considering

1:55:05 ↗ with sustainability so I'm very glad to

1:55:07 ↗ hear that and very interested.

1:55:12 ↗ >> Okay. Um so towards the latter part of

1:55:17 ↗ 2027

1:55:19 ↗ uh is this large project called impact

1:55:21 ↗ fee right sizing the impact fee. Um this

1:55:25 ↗ one of course requires a lot of

1:55:27 ↗ conversations internally because it's

1:55:28 ↗ the traffic impact. This is also parks

1:55:31 ↗ impact and where the city is in its

1:55:34 ↗ long-term planning efforts that you know

1:55:36 ↗ should or could be done before an impact

1:55:38 ↗ study is done. So we'll need to uh have

1:55:42 ↗ a lot of discussions internally between

1:55:44 ↗ various city departments um to flush

1:55:47 ↗ this one out a little bit more. But the

1:55:49 ↗ the basic goal here is to rightsize the

1:55:52 ↗ impact fees for new growth to ensure um

1:55:55 ↗ that they are paying their prora share

1:55:57 ↗ of funding the city's capital

1:55:58 ↗ facilities. Um and then the potential

1:56:01 ↗ use of AI uh you know technologies

1:56:04 ↗ changing in the blink of an eye. Um the

1:56:06 ↗ city has a group uh that is meeting

1:56:08 ↗ regularly around AI in generally. Uh

1:56:12 ↗ we're focused on a business you know

1:56:14 ↗ workflow processes and how to improve

1:56:16 ↗ those. Uh and for permitting uh there

1:56:20 ↗ are ongoing conversations with ECD gov

1:56:22 ↗ alliance about the permitting software

1:56:24 ↗ part uh that pot has some potential uh

1:56:28 ↗ to um look into this further. Um but

1:56:33 ↗ that's a much larger bigger uh piece uh

1:56:36 ↗ costwise as well as timewise. Um but in

1:56:40 ↗ the interim we can explore options for

1:56:43 ↗ completeness reviews. So we are working

1:56:46 ↗ on really um very uh clear guidance to

1:56:50 ↗ applicants about what a complete

1:56:52 ↗ application is, what you need and if we

1:56:55 ↗ could have some sort of a system that

1:56:57 ↗ could scan those when an application

1:56:59 ↗ comes in and to make and flag this is

1:57:02 ↗ incomplete. Um maybe something we can

1:57:04 ↗ look into. Um also you know chat bots

1:57:07 ↗ and frequently asked questions has been

1:57:09 ↗ tried by various cities. So we can

1:57:11 ↗ certainly look into uh creating that um

1:57:15 ↗ um option

1:57:18 ↗ and of course updating a website the

1:57:20 ↗ permitting software website you know uh

1:57:22 ↗ will go a long ways um where people can

1:57:26 ↗ search Google searches uh through Google

1:57:29 ↗ and you know other um AI um searches

1:57:33 ↗ that will lead them to the right

1:57:35 ↗ direction um and pinpoint them in the

1:57:38 ↗ right direction for permitting. So I

1:57:40 ↗ think that concludes

1:57:43 ↗ um again any feedback that you have for

1:57:45 ↗ us is

1:57:47 ↗ welcome

1:57:48 ↗ >> very briefly on impact fees. We can

1:57:50 ↗ maybe get to this in calendar

1:57:51 ↗ discussions too if we go there but uh I

1:57:53 ↗ do want to be the public comment we

1:57:55 ↗ received on the relative time frame when

1:57:57 ↗ we might want to address impact fees and

1:57:59 ↗ also elsewhere that this is one of the

1:58:01 ↗ more important things. Um I don't have a

1:58:03 ↗ good sense

1:58:05 ↗ I don't want to push on that too much

1:58:07 ↗ but uh

1:58:09 ↗ feedback is more important to take that

1:58:11 ↗ account.

1:58:15 ↗ Yeah, my understand

1:58:17 ↗ we would have to spend money to retain a

1:58:19 ↗ consultant and that's not within the

1:58:20 ↗ budget for this year. I do remember

1:58:27 ↗ to kind of

1:58:42 ↗ I do think something where

1:58:45 ↗ uh

1:58:47 ↗ this is

1:58:49 ↗ it is a very direct cost like a fee that

1:58:53 ↗ we're charging um and I think previously

1:58:56 ↗ I'd reviewed the you know schedule that

1:58:58 ↗ we used to impact previously and

1:59:02 ↗ projecting

1:59:07 ↗ now cost upwards of $100 million

1:59:12 ↗ and that's

1:59:15 ↗ for transportation impact fees. And so,

1:59:18 ↗ you know, I do think it revisiting what

1:59:21 ↗ projects we think are actually going to

1:59:22 ↗ be constructed, how much we think is

1:59:26 ↗ that the city could be contributing to

1:59:27 ↗ that and adjust accordingly. So,

1:59:30 ↗ definitely forward to seeing what we can

1:59:32 ↗ do to expedite this impact fee study.

1:59:37 ↗ >> Um, I will add in here. I think when I

1:59:41 ↗ first came into the housing

1:59:43 ↗ conversation, I was very interested in

1:59:45 ↗ making sure that we were adjusting

1:59:47 ↗ impact fees um as one of our priorities.

1:59:51 ↗ I think recognizing that it was not in

1:59:55 ↗ our previous budget, we'll have to

1:59:56 ↗ establish the money for this that it

1:59:58 ↗ impacts um you know our CIP and

2:00:01 ↗ potential grant areas, all of that. And

2:00:04 ↗ then also recognizing that there are a

2:00:07 ↗ lot of process changes and just being

2:00:12 ↗ more friendly to development and you

2:00:14 ↗ know allowing variances and things like

2:00:16 ↗ that that are going to make development

2:00:19 ↗ more likely to happen. I think I'm

2:00:22 ↗ actually okay with this at the timeline

2:00:25 ↗ that was presented.

2:00:32 ↗ >> Anything else?

2:00:34 ↗ Yeah, I mean I I think the timeline is

2:00:36 ↗ okay if there is absolutely nothing we

2:00:38 ↗ can do to move it up. I think we can

2:00:41 ↗ definitely see if this is they

2:00:44 ↗ absolutely that we could do this impact

2:00:46 ↗ study. I'd be curious to see if there's

2:00:48 ↗ you know anything we can do to expedite.

2:00:49 ↗ So oh city administrator

2:00:52 ↗ >> well we can do anything. We had I think

2:00:55 ↗ it's a matter of priority. Um there are

2:00:58 ↗ multiple parties within the city

2:01:00 ↗ involved and so uh who are be working on

2:01:04 ↗ other things right now. So um if the

2:01:08 ↗ council really feel strongly about this

2:01:11 ↗ you know we may intermediate staff and

2:01:15 ↗ bring this on top council and lay out we

2:01:19 ↗ think that we need to do this. Um you

2:01:21 ↗ know it is all fun many other things um

2:01:26 ↗ you know those dollars changing have

2:01:30 ↗ effects in many other things but if it's

2:01:32 ↗ department

2:01:35 ↗ I think this has to make that decision

2:01:38 ↗ and then perhaps

2:01:41 ↗ one piece back

2:01:43 ↗ to have we started to te it up um and

2:01:49 ↗ it's a diffulture

2:01:51 ↗ I think

2:01:55 ↗ um you know

2:01:59 ↗ some cases

2:02:04 ↗ have to

2:02:14 ↗ take

2:02:17 ↗ it something like

2:02:25 ↗ discuss.

2:02:31 ↗ >> So I think my preference would be to put

2:02:33 ↗ my thumb on um creating potential design

2:02:38 ↗ standard options. I think that to me is

2:02:43 ↗ a more important change

2:02:47 ↗ um from this committee than necessarily

2:02:50 ↗ moving up a conversation about

2:02:56 ↗ um impact fees,

2:02:58 ↗ but I would love to hear from committee

2:03:01 ↗ members.

2:03:09 ↗ Yeah, I mean I definitely think for

2:03:10 ↗ architectural

2:03:12 ↗ piece going to be a lot of work.

2:03:16 ↗ >> So

2:03:17 ↗ >> I mean I don't know it's it's hard to

2:03:20 ↗ know without knowing you know what else

2:03:22 ↗ would have to be sacrificed if we were

2:03:23 ↗ to move this item up.

2:03:26 ↗ >> And I I don't know how much effort it

2:03:28 ↗ would take for kind of a preliminary

2:03:31 ↗ sense of what that would be that we

2:03:32 ↗ could perhaps discuss in our next

2:03:34 ↗ meeting.

2:03:44 ↗ Okay.

2:03:51 ↗ >> Our our colleagues work

2:04:02 ↗ on projects.

2:04:06 ↗ Um there's a lot the computer.

2:04:13 ↗ We don't want

2:04:28 ↗ >> I don't really have enough to say very

2:04:32 ↗ well opinion. Um I have heard some

2:04:37 ↗ feedback from the community. This is one

2:04:39 ↗ of the more important things. I'm taking

2:04:41 ↗ that into account. Um

2:04:44 ↗ the impact of

2:04:47 ↗ um

2:04:52 ↗ additional that's the other I would want

2:04:54 ↗ to understand is there what would

2:05:00 ↗ be is it

2:05:03 ↗ because

2:05:06 ↗ trade-off is a binary trade-off between

2:05:09 ↗ these two things. Is there something

2:05:11 ↗ else? Um, is there so I guess

2:05:19 ↗ could we see some options with this

2:05:21 ↗ forward? Could we see what the real

2:05:24 ↗ possibilities of moving this forward

2:05:26 ↗ would look like? um would be

2:05:29 ↗ understanding that something has to

2:05:30 ↗ shift and what those what those would

2:05:34 ↗ most likely have to be based on your

2:05:36 ↗ understandable

2:05:41 ↗ proposals that we could look through

2:05:43 ↗ otherwise I don't know how to give I

2:05:46 ↗ don't have that but I appreciate you

2:05:50 ↗ can't you cannot do that in two weeks I

2:05:52 ↗ don't know how long it would take to do

2:05:53 ↗ that but if we do want to do it that's

2:05:56 ↗ the kind of thing that we have to said,

2:06:00 ↗ >> I think the other piece is not my

2:06:05 ↗ document again is just when we're

2:06:09 ↗ looking at impact fees. I want to better

2:06:12 ↗ understand

2:06:15 ↗ right now we we recognize direct cost to

2:06:19 ↗ builders. There's also if something is

2:06:24 ↗ we don't get property taxes

2:06:27 ↗ and tax and all of those other things.

2:06:31 ↗ And so my perspective

2:06:34 ↗ in order to consider whether or not our

2:06:36 ↗ impact fees are reducing our reducing

2:06:41 ↗ home building cost of building. I would

2:06:46 ↗ need to understand what a picture could

2:06:48 ↗ look like. um if it weren't enough so

2:06:53 ↗ some modeling

2:06:55 ↗ what areas of might and so I really

2:07:01 ↗ complex

2:07:02 ↗ set of conversations

2:07:06 ↗ and

2:07:08 ↗ intertwine impacts um is my perspective.

2:07:13 ↗ >> Yeah, you're you're absolutely right. I

2:07:15 ↗ mean it is going to be complex and I

2:07:16 ↗ think what to Wally's point we want to

2:07:19 ↗ have some of those you know

2:07:20 ↗ conversations earlier about what the

2:07:23 ↗ park

2:07:25 ↗ projects are on the list what are

2:07:27 ↗ transportation projects on the list that

2:07:30 ↗ may so those conversations will take a

2:07:32 ↗ little bit of time and then then the

2:07:34 ↗ methodology for calculating your impact

2:07:37 ↗ fees is is has to be done right um

2:07:40 ↗ because it is um you know something that

2:07:43 ↗ can

2:07:45 ↗ looked at um and should be done

2:07:46 ↗ correctly. So, in order to do a good

2:07:48 ↗ job, this is an aggressive schedule what

2:07:51 ↗ we've put together. We will need this

2:07:53 ↗ much time um to get some of those

2:07:56 ↗ earlier pieces done. However, if um this

2:07:59 ↗ needs to be moved up um based on your

2:08:02 ↗ direction, then we'll have to take you

2:08:04 ↗ know take that into consideration come

2:08:06 ↗ back and have a deeper conversation

2:08:07 ↗ around schedule.

2:08:09 ↗ >> So,

2:08:18 ↗ Um and we can commence provide an

2:08:21 ↗ update.

2:08:26 ↗ Um I don't have the meeting dates

2:08:28 ↗ memorized

2:08:29 ↗ >> in July. Um we I'm not sure if we will

2:08:33 ↗ have uh PPC

2:08:35 ↗ materials coming to PTE in July. Yeah,

2:08:38 ↗ July and August is a council

2:08:42 ↗ bring

2:08:44 ↗ you guys meet in August.

2:08:47 ↗ >> Yeah,

2:08:51 ↗ I think

2:08:58 ↗ maybe we can take all this

2:09:02 ↗ uh do our best. Um if we if we have

2:09:05 ↗ progress in two weeks, so be it. Um

2:09:07 ↗ otherwise I convince you to at least

2:09:09 ↗ check in at the July meeting. Um

2:09:14 ↗ but I think the very busy fall in order

2:09:17 ↗ to keep this up but also to the folks in

2:09:20 ↗ this room just to keep things moving. So

2:09:24 ↗ but I appreciate the conversation on the

2:09:26 ↗ impacts um the architecture standards.

2:09:29 ↗ Um so those are the two things. Is there

2:09:33 ↗ anything else that

2:09:36 ↗ everything's important but

2:09:39 ↗ >> parking architect standards and um

2:09:42 ↗ impact please is what I heard.

2:09:44 ↗ >> I guess I would say the architectural

2:09:45 ↗ standards is probably the one area where

2:09:47 ↗ there's the least clarity in terms of

2:09:50 ↗ what it would look like going forward. I

2:09:52 ↗ think on the other ones it is you know

2:09:54 ↗ we have some pretty clear guidance and

2:09:56 ↗ so I think that's what warrants us you

2:09:58 ↗ know spending some more time diving into

2:10:01 ↗ those.

2:10:03 ↗ that um

2:10:06 ↗ you know

2:10:08 ↗ September October November.

2:10:14 ↗ I don't think we would be ready prior to

2:10:16 ↗ that.

2:10:18 ↗ >> September,

2:10:21 ↗ we need to look at twice a month meeting

2:10:24 ↗ September.

2:10:26 ↗ >> Yeah. We would just like to see because

2:10:31 ↗ if I look at the PD of items in

2:10:36 ↗ September 1st to cover

2:10:44 ↗ and

2:10:49 ↗ so I think we were already feedback was

2:10:52 ↗ going to be we're going to need to make

2:10:55 ↗ adjustments on how we are getting that

2:11:00 ↗ information. Debbie said I don't see

2:11:05 ↗ necessarily a date in here in October or

2:11:09 ↗ November for things to come to PD. Um

2:11:15 ↗ the next date that you're showing review

2:11:19 ↗ is December 1st. So I think doing more

2:11:22 ↗ of a break on this

2:11:30 ↗ hand

2:11:35 ↗ >> um I guess on the impact in particular I

2:11:38 ↗ guess I'm curious when the timing of

2:11:42 ↗ gets paid to the city right

2:11:46 ↗ >> okay

2:11:47 ↗ >> um so the impact fees get paid at the

2:11:49 ↗ issuance of the building permit

2:11:51 ↗ Sometimes the residential folks can ask

2:11:54 ↗ for an extension to certificate of

2:11:57 ↗ occupancy. So the code allows folks to

2:11:59 ↗ request an extension. We sometimes get

2:12:01 ↗ those um because the impact doesn't

2:12:03 ↗ start until people start living in

2:12:04 ↗ there. So the state law was changed to

2:12:06 ↗ allow that type of a time frame for

2:12:08 ↗ folks to pay it at the time of uh when

2:12:11 ↗ they're given occupancy. Um and and to

2:12:15 ↗ to the point of um you know if council

2:12:18 ↗ desires to provide some relief in the

2:12:19 ↗ interrum we don't do in u we haven't

2:12:22 ↗ done an inflationary increase because

2:12:24 ↗ every year we can do an inflationary

2:12:26 ↗ increase because we were trying to do

2:12:28 ↗ when the study is going to happen and

2:12:29 ↗ all that. So that can be paused until

2:12:32 ↗ the study is complete. Um that may

2:12:34 ↗ provide some relief in the interim uh of

2:12:37 ↗ not getting that whatever percentage

2:12:39 ↗ that's based on the building cost index.

2:12:43 ↗ um that is published by engineering

2:12:45 ↗ news, you know, then we look at that and

2:12:47 ↗ we do an inflationary increase. So, we

2:12:49 ↗ can pause that until the study is

2:12:52 ↗ complete.

2:12:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. I guess just to put a finer

2:12:54 ↗ point on it because what I was trying to

2:12:56 ↗ get at is you know I'm pretty sure the

2:13:00 ↗ there's probably one specific who I mean

2:13:02 ↗ there's only one building I think of

2:13:04 ↗ that would potentially be interested in

2:13:06 ↗ a building permit before 2027 which

2:13:08 ↗ would be rate developer of the other the

2:13:12 ↗ project. So,

2:13:13 ↗ >> so if if

2:13:16 ↗ >> not not having a lower

2:13:22 ↗ >> that we're going to be revisiting impact

2:13:23 ↗ fees and

2:13:26 ↗ >> not

2:13:28 ↗ likely reducing them there's no they're

2:13:32 ↗ just wait what happens before they

2:13:34 ↗ submit a building permit right

2:13:36 ↗ >> well it depends on their carrying cost

2:13:38 ↗ if they're paying loan um you know then

2:13:41 ↗ every builder wants to get it in the

2:13:43 ↗ ground and start getting their revenue

2:13:45 ↗ as soon as possible. So impact fees are

2:13:47 ↗ a you know your your soft costs are less

2:13:50 ↗ than 2% of your overall uh project

2:13:52 ↗ costs. So there's a lot of money spent

2:13:55 ↗ on buying the land construction loans

2:13:58 ↗ and all of that those add up. So time is

2:14:01 ↗ essential for them to not wait for a

2:14:03 ↗ million dollar relief and impact fees if

2:14:06 ↗ that. Right. I mean my understanding is

2:14:08 ↗ also that they have not purchased that

2:14:10 ↗ half of the project yet. And so anyway,

2:14:13 ↗ I mean definitely something for us to

2:14:15 ↗ keep in mind is that you know for the TD

2:14:17 ↗ project we want to make sure that both

2:14:19 ↗ the affordable and rate side of things

2:14:21 ↗ are moving if we're thinking about what

2:14:24 ↗ potentially is the impact of this.

2:14:28 ↗ It could be that okay that you know

2:14:30 ↗ they're actually being in parallel which

2:14:32 ↗ would be great.

2:14:37 ↗ Okay, so we're kind of coming down to

2:14:41 ↗ the end of all of this. I think we've

2:14:43 ↗ given a lot of feedback. Um, I'd like to

2:14:48 ↗ know what the next steps are

2:14:50 ↗ particularly on the go chart. You know,

2:14:53 ↗ we've given feedback

2:14:57 ↗ issues, outcomes, actions, things like

2:15:00 ↗ that.

2:15:01 ↗ who sees that plan.

2:15:04 ↗ >> We can take the feedback that we have

2:15:06 ↗ today and try and revise the golden

2:15:09 ↗ outcome chart and include it in your

2:15:11 ↗ packet for next meeting. Um, which the

2:15:14 ↗ packet goes go out soon, but we'll give

2:15:17 ↗ it a shot. See, it's fresh in our

2:15:19 ↗ memory. We've had this discussion. So if

2:15:21 ↗ we can capture some of your feedback in

2:15:23 ↗ that

2:15:26 ↗ >> uh we're bringing the stepbacks and the

2:15:28 ↗ outdoor amenity space and some other

2:15:30 ↗ clarifying code amendments

2:15:32 ↗ >> that's coming from PC.

2:15:33 ↗ >> Yes.

2:15:35 ↗ >> Okay. I think that will be a good

2:15:37 ↗ pairing um because it will be important

2:15:39 ↗ when we are evaluating the proposed

2:15:42 ↗ actions on those to make sure that they

2:15:44 ↗ align with the goals and outcomes um of

2:15:47 ↗ that. And so that's the next

2:15:51 ↗ we don't have necessarily

2:15:54 ↗ certain of when you're going to come

2:15:56 ↗ back

2:15:58 ↗ um any schedule changes or kind of how

2:16:02 ↗ you might rearrange some of the other

2:16:04 ↗ areas.

2:16:05 ↗ >> What's the July date?

2:16:07 ↗ >> Uh BDE July date.

2:16:10 ↗ >> Yeah. July 77.

2:16:16 ↗ Uh

2:16:17 ↗ let's see.

2:16:21 ↗ >> Yes. July 7th and our calendarly says

2:16:24 ↗ open accepting items.

2:16:27 ↗ >> And that's that's a Tuesday.

2:16:33 ↗ Yes,

2:16:39 ↗ >> I think

2:16:45 ↗ um I think during the month of June we

2:16:47 ↗ can at least conven

2:17:00 ↗ >> I'm just trying to hear

2:17:01 ↗ >> I don't

2:17:02 ↗ Yeah,

2:17:03 ↗ >> absolutely.

2:17:05 ↗ >> Yeah, because we're we're adding

2:17:06 ↗ something and making requests and all of

2:17:09 ↗ that. So um then it sounds like

2:17:13 ↗ something coming back to us and

2:17:15 ↗ executing in uh June which is uh review

2:17:20 ↗ of the goals and outcomes changes and

2:17:22 ↗ everything that's from PBC and then the

2:17:26 ↗ July meeting looking at some of these

2:17:29 ↗ bigger areas where we've asked for some

2:17:32 ↗ adjustments on um the administrative

2:17:35 ↗ standards and impact fees how we

2:17:38 ↗ mightong

2:17:39 ↗ with a calendar of how we can address

2:17:43 ↗ some things that might to shift for

2:17:45 ↗ that.

2:17:48 ↗ >> Absolutely. Let us know if you run into

2:17:51 ↗ conflict on that need to shift dates.

2:17:54 ↗ I'm just explaining the conversation out

2:17:59 ↗ there. Okay. Anything else, folks? Okay.

2:18:04 ↗ Um

2:18:06 ↗ I think that's it. any No, we're good.

2:18:10 ↗ Hey, we did this power outage

2:18:13 ↗ transformer. Good job, everybody. Um, I

2:18:17 ↗ will mark closed at 9 p.m. Thank you.

2:18:24 ↗ >> Oh my goodness.

2:18:31 ↗ >> Yeah,

2:18:32 ↗ >> city clerk's office.

2:18:35 ↗ >> Doesn't matter. There's no power. You

2:18:37 ↗ know

2:18:37 ↗ >> who make it

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Lindsey Walsh

Kelly Jiang

Kevin Nichols

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant

Recommendations & actions (4)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

PUBLIC COMMENT The following public comment was received: • Rachel Mazur, an attorney representing developers, spoke regarding requested amendments to the proposed 2026-2027 work plan on tonight's Promoting Building…
There being no changes, the minutes were unanimously approved as presented.
a) COM 0238 - Promoting Building Investments in Issaquah Presented by: Minnie Dhaliwal, Community Planning & Development Director The Committee recommended to:
More information was requested regarding how the schedule would be affected if the impact fee work was expedited over other parts of the proposed schedule.