← Back to City Council Digest

Development Commission Cancelled Auto captions

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

6:30 PM · 2h 33m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
0:05 you are good to go
0:09 well good evening everyone
0:12 thank you for joining us on this
0:13 beautiful day
0:15 this is a first for us in quite a while
0:17 it's a hybrid meeting
0:19 the first i've ever attended
0:21 and
0:22 tonight we'd like to call this meeting
0:24 to order at 6 32 pm
0:27 the development commission as you can
0:29 see is live in city chambers and the
0:31 planning policy
0:32 is still virtual
0:34 comments at tonight's meeting may be
0:36 made in person or virtually
0:39 for all who would like to speak during
0:41 public comments
0:42 speak clearly and pause frequently
0:45 state your name each time before
0:47 speaking
0:48 if you are attending virtually by
0:50 computer or by phone and would like to
0:52 speak during public comments
0:54 in addition to the above please mute
0:57 your microphone when not speaking
0:59 and if you're having any technical
1:01 issues try joining the meeting using a
1:03 different device such as a smartphone or
1:05 tablet
1:06 you can also use the call-in information
1:08 in the meeting invite to call into the
1:10 meeting uh kristen will you please call
1:13 the role for the planning policy
1:15 commission
1:19 yes uh commissioner monahan
1:22 here
1:23 mr milligan
1:25 here
1:27 mr bader
1:28 here
1:29 and cheer voice
1:32 here
1:32 all our present thank you
1:43 all right so we may have a few glitches
1:45 because again this is our first hybrid
1:46 meeting
1:47 but i believe roll is already been taken
1:49 for the development communication
1:51 because as you can all see you can see
1:53 them do i have that right
1:57 yes
1:59 all right thank you
2:01 so now we're going to head into public
2:03 comment
2:04 and i want everyone to understand this
2:06 the public comment right now is just for
2:08 general comments for the planning policy
2:11 commission alone
2:13 so please keep them general this is not
2:15 about title 18 we will have a public
2:17 hearing for that uh momentarily again
2:20 this is just for the planning policy and
2:22 these are general comments for the good
2:23 of the order
2:25 kristen do we have anyone signed up to
2:27 speak to make general public comments
2:33 chair voice this is uh tisha here in the
2:35 council chambers i'll provide the
2:39 support for the public participating
2:43 so i do we do have a few folks
2:45 in the room here who've indicated a
2:47 desire to speak and then do you have
2:49 some comments some directions for
2:51 virtual public participants
2:57 if not i can give them instructions
3:02 oh cheer voice you're muted
3:05 i'll have you give the instructions
3:07 tisha as far as um being able to call in
3:10 but again i just want to point out to
3:12 everyone whether they're there
3:14 in person or virtually again this is
3:16 general public comments
3:18 um we are looking for policy directives
3:21 for
3:22 the planning policy again we will get to
3:24 title 18 here momentarily but please
3:26 keep these general i'd hate to have to
3:28 step on your comments by unmuting myself
3:32 okay and for the members of the public
3:34 who are attending virtually if you'd
3:36 like to make comments tonight please
3:38 raise your virtual hand or send me the
3:41 host a chat message
3:43 so we'll start with the in in-room
3:45 attendees the first person who signed up
3:48 to speak is hussein
3:51 kotaram
3:59 that right
4:00 okay
4:02 well um
4:04 fellow commissioners
4:05 thanks for having me staff
4:07 thank you very much
4:09 my name is hossein koram
4:12 i'm the owner of milano issaquah pardons
4:16 a apartment complex on newport way
4:20 i'm here to talk about
4:22 the general
4:24 adopting the
4:26 you know the new land use code uh mr
4:29 chair if i'm wrong stop me i i think i'm
4:32 in the right place i i don't know but
4:34 you you tell me
4:36 i uh uh we uh i believe that a lot has
4:40 happened in our state
4:43 we have been in a state of covert
4:44 emergency for three years
4:47 and the
4:48 the general the land use changes
4:52 have been slowed down and the process
4:54 have been slowed down we got a situation
4:57 that
4:59 everything takes two to three times as
5:01 long
5:02 there are economic challenges their
5:04 inflation
5:06 there's a hardship on a lot of different
5:08 people but most importantly the process
5:10 have slowed down significantly
5:12 and i believe that just like other
5:15 agencies have done
5:17 i believe that the adopting the new land
5:20 use code is the best to be delayed for a
5:24 period of six months
5:26 for the existing projects in a pipeline
5:29 and i would explain why
5:31 one of those projects is mine we've been
5:34 in permitting for literally three years
5:36 we apply for
5:37 site development permit about two years
5:39 ago
5:40 i i just found out about
5:42 this land use change about a little over
5:44 a month and a half ago
5:46 we're struggling to get it in to the
5:48 building permit phase so we can
5:51 be vested
5:53 but the problem is there's just a lot of
5:55 questions that we have and in the old
5:58 days when we had a
6:00 situation like this we would have a
6:02 meeting with the staff and
6:04 my consultant teams in really one
6:07 sitting we would be able to get it all
6:08 sorted out
6:10 but as you can see
6:11 the state of the merchants that kovadev
6:13 caused actually has
6:15 is prohibiting that
6:17 i cannot even meet with my own architect
6:20 he didn't show up the last time the last
6:22 time i was here he wouldn't show up he's
6:24 afraid so i don't blame that there's
6:26 nobody to blame it is what it is so
6:30 i just want to tell you that like city
6:32 of seattle
6:34 delayed adoption of the international
6:37 building code
6:39 by six months to 2021 international
6:43 building code is a significant code that
6:46 governs all construction and
6:48 development for
6:50 basically entire world and to delay that
6:53 for six months because the covet
6:55 is a big deal
6:57 and also
6:59 different municipalities like shoreline
7:01 is actually is considering cobit
7:07 as an extension for the permits
7:09 it has card delays cause delays
7:12 and and the reason that is important if
7:14 you want to get to the mechanics of it
7:16 is on the rcw uh again i'm not an
7:19 attorney i didn't use an attorney these
7:21 are just my common sense views
7:23 on the rcw there's rcw
7:26 36.78.0
7:31 planning goals it says that
7:33 permits applications for both state and
7:35 local government permits should be
7:37 processed in a timely and fair manner to
7:41 ensure
7:42 the predictability
7:45 if we're here to change the rules for a
7:47 project being in the pipeline for three
7:49 years
7:50 uh on a short notice
7:52 is unfair is it's great challenges and
7:56 it creates unpredictability
7:58 for the future developers who come in to
8:01 take a look at this
8:03 i i just talked to another developer
8:05 friend of mine yesterday and
8:08 he's got a project going on and he said
8:10 i asked him
8:12 in issaquah asking hey you know have you
8:14 heard about new coaching just no i
8:16 haven't
8:18 said i didn't know i said well told you
8:19 you are you have to get your stuff in
8:21 the problem with that is
8:23 to get your stuff in uh there's a wait
8:26 line this stuff of
8:28 i love the staff they're doing a great
8:30 job but they're busy they have a lot of
8:32 projects before them there's a costco
8:35 and everything is virtual you can
8:38 you can't put a call you gotta uh it's
8:40 all gonna put your paper questions in
8:42 paper and send it in uh is a processing
8:45 time
8:46 you know two to ten days uh so
8:49 i urge you to consider those
8:51 challenges
8:52 and always ask yourself
8:55 who are we serving here
8:58 are we serving the public and if we are
9:01 are aren't we here to provide the public
9:04 the housing that they need
9:06 and i think by extending
9:08 the deadline for this new land use code
9:12 applied to the existing projects in the
9:15 pipeline for additional six months so it
9:16 would be
9:17 june of 23. sir you've reached the end
9:20 of the five minute thank you thank you
9:22 very much
9:25 all right the next individual who signed
9:27 up to speak is ben hobbs
9:30 ben
9:36 i was gonna just jump in here real
9:37 quickly tisha um i apologize to mr karam
9:40 i forgot to mention that there is a a
9:42 five-minute period where we're looking
9:44 for comments so again uh for the benefit
9:46 of those behind him
9:48 um please limit your comments to five
9:50 minutes thank you
9:54 uh well i wanted to address um
9:57 specifically uh
9:59 you know sort of regulations and codes
10:01 and stuff like that and the
10:03 additions thereof
10:06 but i really uh i i guess i would have
10:09 you know talk about uh kurt hussein's
10:12 problems with uh what's going on with
10:14 his attempt at a development prod
10:17 project
10:18 i myself have seen sort of a lot of
10:20 places around in issaquad not just
10:23 issaquah but
10:25 our neighbor
10:26 snoqualmie
10:28 because my cousin was working know uh
10:31 you know my cousin and his family were
10:33 working on housing in snoqualmie and
10:36 thanks to the
10:37 sort of the regulation processes and
10:39 stuff about
10:41 uh concerning just a well you know uh in
10:44 terms of
10:45 uh how far away it was how deep it could
10:48 be how wide it was supposed to be uh it
10:51 just kind of hand strung hamstrung him
10:53 and and tied his hands together around
10:56 the project so that way he just had to
10:59 abandon it and i feel like that's um
11:02 that's not really a good place to go to
11:05 you know reach progress in terms of
11:07 either snoqualmie or here in issaquah
11:10 but besides that even here in issaquah
11:12 we've had a neighbor that basically
11:16 had
11:16 just destroyed the whole house
11:19 to sort of rebuild and stuff like that
11:22 but you know the perimeters came in and
11:24 they said well you can't even
11:26 finish the destruction of the house you
11:28 have to
11:28 you have to wait until compliance of
11:31 code for that
11:32 and uh that seemed to have been an
11:35 eyesore just on my street for you know
11:38 four or five years
11:40 same thing i think happened with the you
11:42 know silly enough uh taco bell kfc over
11:46 on gilman or whatever it was uh it was
11:49 again an eyesore on everything but uh
11:53 thanks to sort of the regulations on
11:54 that that couldn't be built
11:57 either or rebuilt well it finally did of
11:59 course but
12:02 i think i understand at least that
12:04 particular situation because that place
12:06 was actually i think located in a flood
12:09 zone and a lot of buildings might or
12:12 might not be in that flood zone but i'm
12:14 pretty sure that that area was it
12:16 actually took out a
12:18 restaurant called lombardi's there i
12:20 don't i don't think they're there
12:21 anymore at all
12:23 uh but anyways um i just wanted to sort
12:26 of ask questions about the new coding
12:29 and to sort of just ask in general is
12:31 this is this fair on
12:34 the people who are trying to build
12:36 uh and if you were a company and you had
12:39 decided to put new codes in
12:41 yourself
12:42 would you be considering considered to
12:44 be dealing in uh good faith
12:48 and would other people then want to deal
12:50 with you as said corporation because it
12:53 seems to me that you don't really answer
12:55 to those same
12:56 kinds of
12:58 let's say
12:59 social rules or more a's
13:02 you don't have to really worry about
13:03 your reputation sort of going down the
13:05 drain
13:07 and i just kind of wanted to make that
13:09 as part of a sort of a general
13:11 uh comment because uh
13:13 if anything you know i'm i'm worth con
13:15 having construction if only to get rid
13:18 of the eyesores in in in various areas
13:21 and stuff like that but anyways that's
13:23 about the
13:24 the gist of my comment uh thank you very
13:27 much
13:31 the next person signed up to speak is
13:32 bob heglund
13:39 thank you i appreciate the opportunity
13:40 to address you today my name is bob
13:42 haglund i i live in granite falls i was
13:44 here
13:45 you know several days ago when you had a
13:47 meeting and spoke to the adverse effects
13:50 on people's um livelihoods especially
13:52 their health effects
13:54 of excessive regulation i just have a
13:57 concern
13:58 it's a very general one is that when we
14:01 we act in public service that we we we
14:04 do have a role to balance the needs of
14:06 of everyone and in the case of planning
14:08 and and in your your processes you're
14:11 balancing the needs of the people and
14:13 the ever increasing population and the
14:16 needs to protect the environment we all
14:18 live in and we love
14:19 and that's something i just really like
14:20 to encourage you to really focus more on
14:23 the people for for a change a little bit
14:25 more not saying that you're you're
14:27 tilted the wrong way i'm just saying
14:28 just maybe lean a little bit more that
14:30 direction because we do have a real
14:31 problem with housing right now where p
14:33 the housing is is very much in short
14:35 supply here throughout the puget sound
14:38 region frankly other parts of the state
14:39 i've been visiting it's a it's a real
14:41 serious issue that is going to affect a
14:43 couple of things one is it affects our
14:44 children if our children can't afford to
14:46 live in the communities that they grew
14:48 up in they have to find another place to
14:49 live that breaks the community up that's
14:51 a very bad thing the other is is the
14:53 effect on health
14:55 one of the things that when we have a
14:57 short supply of housing and when housing
15:00 is not
15:01 just readily available or affordable
15:03 there's there's only a fixed amount of
15:05 money in most people's families we can't
15:06 like the federal reserve just print
15:08 money and we don't want people going to
15:09 debt to live so the choice comes down to
15:12 this is you have housing energy
15:15 food
15:16 and and then you know things like health
15:17 care come after that
15:19 the problem is as we know that the
15:20 policies outside of our arena that we
15:22 don't have direct control over are
15:24 adversely affecting the cost of energy
15:26 and it's driving up food and it's
15:27 driving up a lot of things
15:29 but you do have the ability to control
15:31 the cost of housing to some extent you
15:33 can you can nudge it
15:35 and what i'd suggest you do and i really
15:36 encourage you to do is nudge it in the
15:38 direction of affordability by allowing
15:40 these pro
15:42 projects that are in process to be
15:43 completed and get on the market it might
15:45 be just a small number a few hundred
15:47 units here a couple hundred there but it
15:49 does make a big difference so in the in
15:51 the large scale of things when you start
15:53 see the snowball effect of that and
15:55 again i don't know ask you to sacrifice
15:56 the environment or sacrifice the quality
15:58 of life for the people of issaquah
15:59 that's that's i'd never ask for that but
16:02 i just ask you just to consider a little
16:03 more weight toward the human side of it
16:05 and a little less weight because we put
16:07 a lot of emphasis on the environment be
16:09 conscious but but please think more
16:11 about the people that's why i encourage
16:12 you and thank you very much
16:16 the next speaker is council president
16:18 walsh
16:22 thank you my name is lindsay walsh i
16:25 serve currently on the city council as
16:27 the council president and um we just we
16:30 had each of us sign up to
16:33 come and meet you guys as you're working
16:35 your way back in person
16:37 both to thank you for bearing with us
16:40 through the process
16:42 and also just to thank you for serving
16:44 in a very unusual time
16:47 i know we had
16:48 many years worth of virtual meetings
16:52 and it took a while to get used to it
16:54 but then you kind of got into your
16:55 groove and you knew what you were doing
16:56 in that way and now we're coming back in
16:59 person and doing hybrid and doing things
17:02 like that so um
17:05 i guess just
17:06 thank you for bearing with us thank you
17:09 for your service for those who have been
17:11 on for a while for those who are newer
17:14 and are just learning the ropes
17:16 just as context i started out on the
17:18 planning policy commission served there
17:20 for two years it's a very rewarding
17:22 experience and so one of the other
17:25 things i want to say is
17:27 the council is really interested in
17:29 making sure that you know how important
17:32 your work is
17:34 i mean i serve on the planning
17:35 development environment committee for
17:38 council and seeing the work as it comes
17:40 through on title 18 is really
17:43 awe-inspiring
17:45 sorry if we push a few things back
17:46 towards you guys as we have more
17:48 questions and things that need to come
17:51 but i know this has been a long process
17:53 i want to thank you
17:55 dearly for that
17:57 the
17:58 expertise that you bring to this and the
18:01 engagement with the community is really
18:03 very valuable we're looking forward to
18:06 strengthening these connections making
18:08 sure that you're aware after something
18:11 passes through your committee or your
18:13 commission where it goes in council and
18:16 then closing loop and making sure the
18:18 information comes back to you so you
18:19 know how everything ended up
18:22 in the end so just again thank you and
18:25 thank you guys virtually up there um
18:29 for all of your service um
18:31 yeah if you guys need anything you can
18:33 always email us city council at
18:35 issaquah.gov
18:37 and we would love to hear from you but
18:39 otherwise we will let you do your work
18:41 and we'll get on and not be able to dig
18:44 down into it as deeply as you can so
18:47 thanks again
18:51 the next speaker is paul hess
19:00 my name is paul hess
19:02 i have known hussein karam for
19:05 over 10 years have the utmost respect
19:08 for him
19:09 and i really want to just say three
19:11 things this evening i'm not going to
19:12 take
19:13 my full five minutes
19:15 i appreciate the fact that all of you on
19:18 this commission
19:21 take your work seriously you have a lot
19:23 of interest to balance
19:25 life is complicated
19:27 and when you have a project like
19:30 hussein
19:32 and his brother are putting together
19:34 here in issaquah
19:37 they the the two complexes they have are
19:40 really quality comp uh complexes in
19:43 bellevue
19:44 and they care mr house i would ask you
19:46 to refrain from talking about any
19:49 current projects that are in the process
19:50 please the three things i want to say is
19:54 the first word is certainty
19:57 that these projects take a long time
20:01 in any project of this size
20:04 and if you change the rules
20:07 in the middle of the game
20:09 it really is not fair and can be very
20:13 expensive for the developer
20:18 having said that and looking around
20:22 at other governments uh here in king
20:24 county
20:25 delay has been the watchword is because
20:28 of covid they've extended the deadline
20:32 it seems to me that creating certainty
20:36 is part of your
20:38 is part of your role
20:39 so that people don't have to
20:42 do it all over again
20:45 when new rules are submitted so i would
20:48 submit that a
20:49 a six month moratorium maybe not a more
20:53 term extension
20:54 uh to june 30th of 2023 maybe maybe a
20:58 12-month extension
21:00 for projects that are already in the
21:02 pipeline is is more than than reasonable
21:06 uh the second thing that
21:08 that i would say
21:10 uh is that it's important to realize
21:14 the
21:15 the cost of these projects
21:19 just the preliminary costs
21:22 uh that you have to put up front
21:25 uh and again i think that you're
21:27 protecting you want to protect the
21:28 public you want to protect the
21:30 environment all these things but you
21:32 also have to look at the pocketbook of
21:33 the developer and if and if
21:36 it's it's a very discouraging situation
21:39 where
21:40 added costs
21:42 would be
21:44 incurred due to again
21:46 a change in the
21:49 uh in the code
21:50 uh that that you promulgate so again i
21:54 would ask that that
21:56 a reasonable expense tension be granted
21:58 to all projects
22:00 uh that are that are already
22:03 uh pretty far along in the process
22:06 and the last thing i want to say is that
22:09 all of us have learned
22:13 how hard it is during covid to
22:17 recalibrate and figure out how to get
22:19 things done
22:20 and there's a huge amount of arterial
22:23 sclerosis that has occurred
22:25 in trying to
22:28 get projects done and this is one of the
22:30 reasons that housing is so high
22:33 is to duplicate that in this environment
22:37 with the slow pace
22:39 using emails rather than a meet a
22:41 two-hour meeting to get things done
22:44 i i hope you take that into
22:46 consideration and recognize that we have
22:49 had a very unusual environment with
22:52 covid
22:53 and to honor those that have worked
22:55 through that process
22:57 sometimes with
22:59 great frustration but also success it's
23:02 just a very slow moving process so i
23:04 would hope you would give time extra
23:06 time
23:07 to those who have
23:10 already moved their projects fairly far
23:12 along
23:13 and not subject them to a new code thank
23:16 you
23:20 we have two more speakers here in the
23:21 room uh just a reminder to any of the
23:23 virtual attendees if you're wanting to
23:25 make comments under this general public
23:27 comment period uh please raise your
23:29 virtual hand or send me the host a chat
23:32 message the next person signed up is
23:34 dale funk
23:39 good evening commissioners and staff
23:43 i want to echo to some degree
23:46 the comments of mr hess but also
23:49 to reiterate and reflect a little bit
23:52 the comments of the council president
23:54 when she commented on
23:56 how
23:57 much of a transition it was to go from
24:01 normal in-person live meetings to
24:03 abruptly
24:05 terminating those going to
24:07 zoom meetings
24:09 and now starting a transition back to
24:13 meetings that are partly in person
24:15 partly on zoom
24:16 all of those transitions
24:18 took time
24:20 time for people to get used to the new
24:22 way of doing things and now we're
24:24 shifting a little bit to getting used to
24:26 doing them and then back to what we used
24:28 to be used to
24:31 and
24:32 all of those
24:34 time eating delays
24:37 put every project that was coming
24:39 through your your planning
24:41 and building departments
24:43 it set them back
24:45 and
24:46 i think one of the
24:49 things that you and every council
24:52 struggle with is the issue of fair
24:54 equity
24:56 what is fair to the applicant what is
24:58 fair to the residents of the city and
25:00 every other
25:01 party who has
25:03 every stakeholder involved
25:05 and and it's not an easy balancing act
25:09 but i don't think it's a stretch to
25:12 recognize as your council president did
25:15 that there have been delays
25:18 and
25:20 step back for a little bit and kind of
25:22 try to take an uh a guesstimate
25:25 if you will
25:26 at well how much of a delay
25:29 has
25:31 the project
25:32 not just this project but any of your
25:34 projects been
25:35 you know moved back in time
25:37 and to say well
25:39 maybe
25:41 that's it's not unreasonable to
25:44 use your discretionary authority
25:49 add a little padding on
25:51 i know that enormous weight is given to
25:53 the concept of vesting and and with good
25:56 reason
25:57 but um
25:59 when applicants come in
26:01 and and
26:02 try to work their way through a process
26:05 that's been fairly abruptly changed in
26:08 which
26:09 nobody on either side of any of the
26:11 parties really knew what all the new
26:13 rules and processes would be and i don't
26:15 mean the building codes i mean the the
26:17 processes for how do we
26:19 submit questions how do we get answers
26:21 how do we resolve
26:23 issues that are
26:24 there's because there are always
26:25 ambiguities on plans you know
26:28 the best experts in the world will sit
26:30 down and look at the code and try to
26:32 design something that complies with it
26:34 somebody else is going to look at it and
26:36 say well there's a better way to do it
26:38 or a different way to do it so you it's
26:40 never possible
26:42 to to just read the code and say okay
26:44 we're going to do this and it's going to
26:45 comply there are always questions and
26:47 when you
26:48 run into these
26:49 lengthy delays at getting answers and
26:52 resolutions to those questions
26:54 and
26:56 and there have been
26:58 it's not unreasonable to say well
27:00 maybe vesting isn't the absolute cast
27:04 and concrete gold standard maybe we do
27:06 need to
27:07 take us take a breath use a little
27:09 discretion and say maybe we can stretch
27:12 this out a little bit let's give these
27:15 projects that have been in the pipeline
27:17 for
27:18 a year two years or thereabouts
27:21 recognize that these delays have not
27:23 been caused by the applicant not been
27:26 caused by the city not been caused by
27:28 any of the stakeholders
27:30 but
27:31 in fairness and equity and justice
27:34 stretch that out a little bit give them
27:35 a little room to breathe
27:38 the day will come when we'll be back to
27:41 you know
27:42 normal
27:43 in-person meetings getting answers
27:44 resolved more quickly and so on but
27:47 we're not there yet so in in as we work
27:49 our way towards that i don't think it's
27:51 unreasonable
27:53 for you and and the council to
27:57 use your discretion
27:58 treat these people with some fairness
28:00 and equity it's it's good for everybody
28:04 thank you
28:07 the next speaker is landon halverson
28:13 hello everybody my name is landon
28:15 halverson i'm a resident of downtown
28:16 izakaya i live just about 500 feet that
28:19 way
28:20 and i just wanted to stop by briefly to
28:22 discuss what many others have discussed
28:24 tonight
28:25 and that's the new land code
28:28 and potentially extending that by six
28:30 months um for the implementation
28:33 i think you guys already understand why
28:36 we're asking for that i i think in your
28:38 roles you guys understand why it is
28:40 difficult for a project uh to flip on a
28:44 dime like that i think you guys
28:46 understand that so really what this is
28:48 about
28:50 is sending a very clear message do you
28:52 send a very clear message to developers
28:55 and to people who want to come in and
28:56 build up our communities that you can do
28:59 so and that the regulatory process that
29:02 you have to go through is going to be
29:04 stable
29:05 or do we send the message that well you
29:07 know you're going to have to go through
29:08 a regulatory process and it might take
29:10 many years and by the time you get
29:12 through it you may actually have to go
29:13 back to the drawing board because
29:16 by the time you have the opportunity to
29:17 finish there's going to be a new set of
29:18 requirements that you have to meet and
29:20 it kind of becomes this ongoing cycle
29:22 where i as a resident look at it and say
29:24 well whoever's making the rules must
29:25 just not want people to build because it
29:28 it ends up being a rule that
29:31 while it does not explicitly stop people
29:32 from building in issaquah it makes it
29:34 nearly impossible to do so in a timely
29:38 in a timely efficient manner to the
29:40 point where no reasonable person would
29:42 want to come into our communities and
29:44 develop
29:45 so as a resident
29:46 it is just really important to me that
29:49 we have regulatory stability for the
29:51 businesses and for the developers that
29:53 come in
29:54 those standards should be robust those
29:57 standards
29:58 should protect our natural environment
30:00 those standards
30:01 should uphold the things that we value
30:04 but at the same time those standards
30:06 if you're going to have projects that
30:08 take as long as some of these projects
30:10 have
30:11 those standards have to be applied
30:13 consistently all the way through it is
30:15 not reasonable to look at a
30:18 multi-million dollar project and say oh
30:20 well we know it's been this long but
30:21 back to the drawing board it just
30:23 doesn't make sense and ultimately
30:26 when you do that that causes the
30:28 production costs to go up and the final
30:31 sales cost of those units on a monthly
30:33 basis is going to be higher right so
30:36 every step back that we take reg with
30:39 regulatory reform ultimately is going to
30:41 cost renters and tenants more on the
30:44 front end or on the back end rather
30:46 so i would encourage you
30:48 to to think about these things and to
30:51 think about ways that you and your
30:53 commission can help to ensure regulatory
30:55 stability for developers that come in uh
31:00 the city has spent ample time designing
31:02 these um and again i i trust you guys to
31:05 make the right decision on those kinds
31:07 of things that's what's why you're here
31:09 uh but as a resident i just want to put
31:11 in my input that i really hope you take
31:13 the time to consider the importance of
31:15 regulatory stability and extend this by
31:17 at least six months thanks
31:22 the next speaker is a virtual attendee
31:24 andy andy i'm going to make you a
31:26 panelist now you should then see the
31:28 option to unmute and can choose to turn
31:31 your video on
31:42 are you able to hear me
31:44 yes okay lovely
31:47 um so i'm just calling in i'll keep my
31:50 comments short uh i grew up in cement
31:53 just nearby and lived there mostly
31:56 recently until going to burien
31:59 very passionate horticulturalist i love
32:02 nature
32:03 and uh so i i really do care about our
32:06 native species and such um that being
32:10 said uh i'm also a millennial and
32:13 housing is the thing most on people's
32:16 mind i'm fortunately
32:17 able to get one somewhat recently
32:20 but
32:21 you know i'm coming up commenting
32:23 because you know i know this area very
32:26 well i am out in the woods
32:28 super often and very aware of the
32:31 wildlife concerns but
32:33 you know i'm just also in favor of
32:36 more housing and making this process
32:38 easier this is a top concern of people
32:41 my age
32:42 and
32:43 i wanted to put my comments for that
32:45 that i really wish that
32:48 we can be pro-development in this kind
32:50 of way
32:52 that's
32:53 that's my comment there thank you
33:00 cheer voice uh no one else has signed up
33:02 to speak we do have a few additional
33:05 folks in the room here
33:09 and i i guess i'll ask if uh chaired
33:12 would you like me to see if there's
33:13 anyone else in the room who'd like to
33:15 make comments
33:17 um sure if they if they're just uh
33:19 arriving i would just mention to them
33:21 that again these are general public
33:22 comments for the policy commission
33:25 so if they could please keep it to that
33:27 that would be great
33:30 is there anyone else in the audience
33:31 who'd like to make general comments sir
33:34 go ahead
33:36 thank you
33:38 my name is frank koram i'm hussain's
33:40 partner
33:42 in construction and business
33:45 for the past 43 years
33:47 we have lived here in western washington
33:49 and we have seen
33:51 how washington state have grown from a
33:54 sleepy
33:55 east side community to a
33:57 bustling
33:59 great economy with great employment and
34:04 great housing increases and
34:07 with that we have seen great costs
34:10 that people pay to either purchase or
34:13 rent
34:15 housing for themselves and their family
34:18 and i
34:21 in the past 43 years we have never seen
34:23 inflation
34:25 like we have seen in the last few months
34:28 we have never seen
34:30 covet
34:31 pandemics
34:33 and for that reason among other reasons
34:36 i would definitely
34:40 recommend for the
34:43 city to consider
34:44 extending
34:46 the
34:49 basically the
34:51 the process
34:52 with the new codes on
34:56 projects that are in a pipeline
34:58 and especially for our project that's
35:00 been three years in the making at this
35:03 stage at a great cost
35:05 changing the rules it's
35:07 unfair
35:08 and i believe
35:10 it would serve the end user which is in
35:13 this case going to be renters
35:15 going to cost them more money
35:17 the more regulation we have
35:20 that's all i have to say
35:23 thank you
35:25 is there anyone else in the audience
35:27 wishing to make general comments sir go
35:30 ahead
35:36 hi uh thank you commissioner staff
35:39 my name is ali kim yai i'm a small
35:42 developer
35:43 currently
35:46 have two small projects
35:48 multi-family projects in renton
35:51 and
35:54 whatever happened to mr horowitz it
35:57 happens to me
35:59 i'm done
36:01 let me just thought of going through the
36:03 whole thing again it's very
36:05 time consuming and expensive
36:07 so i agree with the
36:10 six months extension if that's possible
36:13 thank you
36:21 chair voice i don't see anyone else in
36:23 the room indicating a desire to speak at
36:25 this time
36:29 thank you and let me just say very
36:31 quickly i want to
36:32 say my appreciation to everyone who just
36:35 provided comments
36:36 i know some had come armed with some
36:38 specifics and you did a very good job of
36:41 trying to keep them as general as
36:42 possible we deeply appreciate it and i
36:45 also want to say a very much thank you
36:47 to council president walsh and her uh
36:50 very nice comments so again thank you
36:52 all for participating it's an important
36:54 part of our process
36:56 and we hope you stick around for the
36:57 rest of the meeting
37:00 oh moving on
37:01 uh now we're going to actually do the
37:03 public hearing for this evening
37:06 the title 18 zoning and development
37:08 standard code updates
37:10 tonight staff will present all four
37:12 topics
37:13 after each topic
37:15 commissioners will ask clarifying
37:17 questions
37:18 once all topics have been presented and
37:20 all questions asked
37:22 we will open the hearing up for public
37:24 comment related to this issue
37:28 after that
37:29 the development commission will take
37:31 over for deliberations this evening
37:33 at that point i will pass off
37:36 control of the meeting to
37:38 vice chair brookie shore who will
37:40 facilitate her commission's uh
37:42 deliberative portion tonight
37:45 and i'll also ask planning policy who's
37:46 gotten pretty good at this to turn off
37:48 their cameras
37:49 when we get there
37:51 we will be actually deliberating this
37:54 in person
37:55 planning policy
37:56 in person on the diocese for the first
37:58 time in over two years
38:01 this july 28th
38:02 this coming thursday so looking forward
38:05 to seeing all of you guys in chambers
38:08 so tonight i'm going to ask staff to
38:10 please go ahead with your presentation
38:12 again we'll have a presentation ask
38:15 clarifying questions
38:17 move on to the next presentation
38:19 so on and then we'll go for
38:24 sorry there's a little thing on the chat
38:25 box
38:26 then we will go for uh public hearing
38:28 comments and then finally deliberations
38:30 so staff please take it away
38:49 i'm kristen lisa and i'm senior planner
38:52 um and i believe that the presentation
38:55 is going to be posted for me so i'm
38:57 going to hang on just a minute
39:27 trisha and valerie do you all need me to
39:28 present on this end
39:32 yes please present
39:35 okay
40:06 all right are we good to go we all see
40:13 kristen you're on uh
40:15 i know i can't
40:17 i'm trying
40:19 see but yes we can see it
40:22 okay
40:23 great yeah it's it won't let my phones
40:25 aren't working tonight
40:26 i'm not on my usual computer okay thank
40:29 you for your patience so tonight we are
40:31 talking about bucket five which is
40:33 zoning and development standards
40:35 included in that are transfer
40:37 development rights and affordable
40:38 housing uh to which i will speak and
40:41 then landmarks and archaeological
40:42 resources and then parking
40:48 there we go so first transfer of
40:49 development rights
40:53 come on
40:54 so what are they um transfer development
40:57 rights also known more affectionately as
40:59 tdrs because it's easier to say
41:02 so what these do what the program does
41:04 is it allows increased development on
41:06 one parcel which is the receiving site
41:09 while protecting another partial this
41:11 the sending site from future development
41:13 and this is all at the owner's
41:14 discretion so the city never went in and
41:16 said
41:18 um particularly with sending sites
41:20 you're a sending site and people want
41:22 you they can you know buy development
41:23 rights from your property
41:25 people have um opted into this program
41:29 right now the way we started this
41:30 program is that sending sites are
41:32 typically sites with 50 or more
41:34 of the land that is encumbered by
41:36 critical areas
41:38 development rates can be bought and sold
41:40 between public agencies between private
41:43 entities or between public and private
41:45 entities
41:47 tdrs can be banked to preserve so
41:51 we were given
41:52 a property as a sending site
41:55 and only one development right from that
41:57 property was
41:59 purchased and used and so we have the
42:00 remaining properties sitting in a bank
42:03 right now so that's what that means and
42:05 these can be used for four things
42:08 to on the res on the receiving side they
42:10 can be used to increase impervious
42:12 surface
42:13 to increase height
42:14 to increase floor area ratio or to
42:17 increase density
42:20 so where are these sites you ask
42:23 the
42:24 sites that are in red are our receiving
42:26 sites so all of those properties can
42:29 increase the density on those properties
42:31 through tdrs
42:33 the green sites are
42:35 sending sites and these are within the
42:37 city we also have an interlocal
42:38 agreement with the county for sending
42:40 sites out there as well
42:45 major changes that took place as i
42:46 mentioned right now our sending sites
42:48 are for properties that primarily are 50
42:52 or more encumbered by critical areas
42:55 and what we've done one of our
42:58 goals was the protection of hillsides
43:01 and so what we've done is incorporate
43:02 hillsides here
43:04 and it's parcels where 50 of the site
43:08 is a hillside with 20 to 39 of the
43:11 property as a slope
43:13 and then we've moved density
43:15 calculations that are used to determine
43:17 how much can actually be transferred and
43:19 used on the receiving site
43:21 that calculation was going to be pulled
43:24 we moved it into the section we are
43:26 looking at changing levels of review for
43:28 additions and removals of sending and
43:30 receiving sites because right now the
43:32 sending sites are level one and the
43:34 receiving sites are level three but
43:35 that's really a policy decision and both
43:37 are code changes they need to be go
43:39 higher up to the city council
43:41 and lastly we have codified bank
43:43 activities there was a bank that was
43:45 mentioned and it was floating out there
43:47 not quite sure what the authority was
43:48 though so we have included regulations
43:50 regarding that
43:51 there is one spot that it says
43:54 it's a placeholder and we're not quite
43:56 sure about
43:57 um determining the who will determine
43:59 the cost of
44:01 the sending site so we're trying to
44:02 figure that out right now with our city
44:04 attorneys
44:05 that's all i have for tdrs let me know
44:07 if you have questions
44:15 so tisha because this is our our first
44:18 hybrid meeting would you like to
44:19 facilitate
44:20 as far as calling on people
44:23 would that make it easier for everyone
44:26 i'm i'm happy to help with that i'm
44:29 looking in the room here and not seeing
44:31 any hands raised
44:34 okay i don't see anything in the chat
44:35 either but i just figured get this out
44:37 of the way since we're gonna have
44:39 some time to do some clarifying
44:40 questions for each presentation actually
44:43 commissioner milligan has a question
44:46 ah it just popped up
44:49 million
44:52 thank you chair voice uh
44:54 planning policy commissioner milligan
44:56 nina milligan here thank you uh my
44:58 question was just about
45:02 in this round of changes are there going
45:05 to be any changes in the sending or
45:08 receiving sites as defined
45:12 no or not okay thank you
45:32 any other questions
45:33 should i move on
45:38 hey
45:42 you're slow to actually put it in the
45:43 chat but i guess i have a couple real
45:45 quickly
45:48 on page 3 of 17 i believe of the code it
45:52 says
45:53 uh under c2
45:55 the parcel is within a quarter mile of a
45:57 transit stop
45:58 would this just be classified as a
46:00 normal bus stop
46:03 i am going to say that that needs to be
46:05 clarified
46:07 okay
46:08 and then on the other edge on the other
46:10 yeah because again i don't know if it's
46:11 a transit facility or just simply a stop
46:15 on the other page 5a the tdrs must be in
46:18 addition to and not as a substitute for
46:21 the development rights
46:23 as specified in the development
46:25 agreement
46:26 can you shed a little light on that
46:28 statement
46:29 would you please read it again
46:32 the tdrs must be in addition to
46:35 and not as a substitute for the
46:37 development rights as specified in the
46:39 development agreement
46:42 so as i understand it a development
46:44 agreement is essentially a land use code
46:46 for a developer who
46:48 so the isqua highlands and dallas they
46:51 could that was their own land use code
46:53 so this would work in that sense and
46:54 that that is their land use code and
46:56 then they would add on they can add
46:58 density to what is written in their
46:59 development agreement on top of that
47:01 with tdrs
47:03 yeah
47:04 that was it for me
47:06 okay
47:13 one more if i'm not jumping out of turn
47:17 uh page 7-17 it says placeholder the
47:20 fair market value of the development
47:21 right shall be established by
47:23 placeholder
47:25 anyone in mind
47:26 that well that's the one i mentioned
47:28 with um that we're working with the city
47:29 attorney right now
47:31 on that language to figure out who that
47:32 will be
47:36 okay all right
48:03 all right moving on affordable housing
48:07 still there
48:09 hi kristen a quick clarification on the
48:11 tdr
48:13 the interlocal agreement with king
48:15 county it's our understanding that uh is
48:17 no longer in effect it expired in 2014
48:20 so just wanted to note for that for the
48:22 record so
48:23 that is our understanding of talking
48:25 with king county but
48:26 we'll look further into it
48:37 we had a little mix up in here i'm
48:38 giving that roll back to you so you
48:40 should be able to share again sorry
48:42 about that okay
48:44 a little confused okay
48:47 it's new to all of us right now let's
48:49 see
49:05 every time
49:07 all right there we go affordable housing
49:10 so what is affordable housing so we have
49:13 there out there is market rate
49:15 affordable housing which is housing that
49:17 is affordable just because it is
49:18 affordable it is not because there are
49:19 any covenants tied to it or the city
49:21 requires it
49:22 it is just happens to be more affordable
49:25 when we talk about affordable housing in
49:26 this chapter we are talking about
49:28 housing that has covenants attached to
49:30 it stating that it will remain
49:31 affordable for a determined amount of
49:33 time
49:34 the income levels for this range from
49:36 below typically at about 30 of the king
49:39 county median income
49:41 up to 80 percent of the king county area
49:44 median income
49:46 that is what counts toward our
49:47 affordable housing numbers however in
49:49 issaquah we also will tie covenants to
49:52 housing that is at 81
49:54 to 120
49:55 because we recognize that the cost of
49:57 housing here is so high that we need
49:59 covenants
50:01 to make it affordable to even a larger
50:02 group of people
50:06 so just to show you the location of some
50:08 of our housing we have about 800 units
50:12 up to 80 percent
50:13 ami
50:14 and so from 30 80 and this is where they
50:17 are all located these all have covenants
50:19 attached to them
50:21 and these are our affordable housing
50:23 units we have about 200 that are above
50:26 80 of the area median income
50:30 our major changes i think the biggest
50:32 one that we made is that we updated our
50:34 code to
50:35 match other arch member cities because
50:37 so it's a regional coalition for housing
50:39 and we consider them to be that's arch
50:41 we consider them to be our affordable
50:43 housing and even our housing planners
50:46 and they work with 14 different
50:47 jurisdictions and
50:50 they try and keep consistency among the
50:52 jurisdictions one for fairness
50:54 and one to make it easier to enforce
50:57 so what we have done is updated our
51:00 codes to be consistent with other arts
51:02 jurisdictions
51:03 we also changed a 30-year rental
51:06 affordability rental not not ownership
51:09 rental affordability requirement up to
51:11 the life of the project because the 30
51:13 met the bank requirements that's what
51:14 they had to do but it didn't really meet
51:16 the requirements or the needs
51:18 of the city and its residents
51:21 they codified the quality of affordable
51:24 units so arch has always said well if
51:26 you're going to do market rate and
51:27 you're going to have affordable units
51:29 mixed in they have to be compatible with
51:32 that
51:32 but it was a little hard to enforce
51:34 because it wasn't codified both the
51:35 interior and the extra area so we made
51:37 that change
51:38 we removed right now we allow as a
51:40 flexible standard a reduction of
51:43 recreation space
51:44 and we thought why that makes no sense
51:47 everybody needs recreation space so it
51:49 just didn't make sense
51:51 and then lastly we have amended
51:52 requirements for off-site alternative
51:54 compliance and we added payment in lieu
51:57 it used to be that if you were going to
51:58 build affordable units off-site it still
52:00 had to be in the same sub-area but if
52:02 you're trying to avoid a really large
52:04 concentration of affordable units or if
52:06 there's no place to develop you may not
52:07 get those units or the original project
52:09 at all
52:10 um and similar just to fee and lou at
52:12 least if you get a family or a payment
52:14 in lieu you may not get the projects but
52:16 you still get money that can then go
52:18 toward affordable housing projects so
52:20 we've added that as a regulation as well
52:23 and those are my
52:25 that's what i have so if you have any
52:26 questions please let me know
52:44 so we have a couple questions that i see
52:46 again i think tisha and i are going to
52:48 try and share this responsibility
52:50 but uh i do see that commissioner bader
52:53 has a question so please commissioner
52:55 bader
52:57 yeah hi this is sarah bader just a quick
52:59 um clarifying question on the
53:01 inclusionary requirements um in the code
53:03 was there any expansion in the area to
53:06 which those apply from the previous code
53:08 to what's proposed now
53:10 there was not but we just received the
53:15 housing action plan implementation grant
53:17 which we are kicking off at the
53:19 beginning of august and one of the tasks
53:21 with that is to look at expanding the
53:23 area for inclusionary zoning great
53:25 thanks
53:30 thank you commissioner bader uh
53:32 commissioner milligan with a question
53:37 thank you nina milliken here i actually
53:40 have two questions should i just rattle
53:43 them off they're fairly simple
53:45 okay one of them is
53:48 for the affordable housing i think
53:51 if i'm understanding what you said
53:53 kristen that
53:55 for the fee in lieu there was this
53:56 concern about
53:58 having you know affordable housing all
54:00 in one place but
54:02 isn't our affordable housing requirement
54:04 a percentage of a project
54:07 in general
54:09 and then the second question i want to
54:11 ask is um
54:13 why
54:15 is there
54:16 why are we expanding the term
54:18 [Music]
54:20 for a rental but not for home ownership
54:25 the life of the project
54:27 those are my two i should be a little
54:29 clearer on the feet in lou we have
54:32 fianlu for
54:36 i just blinked our development bonus
54:39 right now density bonus program and then
54:41 this being lou falls under the
54:43 alternative compliance
54:46 and so it's a way
54:48 alternative compliance
54:49 prior to this
54:51 we didn't allow fan loop it just said
54:53 you have to build housing somewhere else
54:55 so this gave them an option as to if you
54:58 can't build housing somewhere else let's
55:00 at least get the money for that so that
55:02 that can go toward affordable housing
55:05 and
55:06 so those two are not really tied to the
55:08 area and also the um alternative
55:10 compliance without the fee and lieu says
55:13 you have to build in the same sub-area
55:15 so we have changed that piece to say you
55:17 don't have to build in the sub-area we
55:18 just want the housing so build it where
55:20 you can get it
55:21 and if you can't do that then give us
55:23 money and we'll we'll
55:25 help will contribute to affordable
55:26 housing
55:27 did that help clear it up at all yeah
55:29 and then i'm sorry the basic
55:31 follow-up question uh why what would be
55:34 a circumstance where
55:35 a developer
55:37 could not build
55:39 the affordable units required how would
55:41 that okay
55:43 if they were going to be off-site they
55:45 may not be able to find land
55:46 no what if they but
55:49 in the original in the on-site
55:51 development requirement
55:53 why wouldn't they be able to
55:57 um i have asked this question myself
55:59 this is new to us there are situations
56:02 where they can't um i think it's there
56:05 as a safety net
56:07 this is one of those things we're trying
56:08 to be can uh consistent with other
56:10 cities who use this
56:12 and it's just sort of been used as a
56:14 safety net it hasn't been used often the
56:16 alternative compliance
56:19 but just in case i'll save deliberations
56:22 because i know i'm not deliberating
56:24 my other question had to do with why are
56:26 this different between homeownership and
56:28 rental
56:29 again that's that's consistency with um
56:32 other jurisdictions
56:34 yeah
56:41 thank you and we have a question from
56:44 the dyess
56:45 so commissioner morgan please
56:47 uh thank you chairvoice uh the required
56:50 changing the requirement from 30 years
56:52 to indefinite is that something that was
56:56 discussed with developers and with
56:58 bankers to find out
57:01 their
57:02 feeling of what the impact would be and
57:04 if anybody would be willing to finance
57:07 affordable units
57:10 so it no it hasn't been discussed but
57:12 it's done in several other cities
57:14 and they haven't had any issues with it
57:17 so far
57:18 i i suppose we could reach out
57:21 and see but the other cities haven't had
57:22 any issues with the same requirement
57:25 okay well and i think it'd be helpful it
57:28 seems like to talk to developers and
57:29 bankers themselves that the comment was
57:31 made that is a requirement of the banks
57:33 not the the needs of the community
57:36 and i guess finding out what the basis
57:38 is because if banks won't finance
57:40 something it won't get built typically
57:45 and i'll probably have a comment about
57:46 that when we get to the comment period
57:48 so thank you
57:54 chair voice there's another question in
57:56 the room
57:58 hi thank you uh this is kevin price
58:01 speaking
58:02 um i had a question about the ami figure
58:04 that the upper limit was set at 120
58:08 is that existing or proposed i don't see
58:10 it in the existing language of the code
58:16 it is
58:17 existing okay we already have
58:20 yeah it's existing it's not but as i
58:23 mentioned so what counts toward our
58:24 affordable units when we when we talk to
58:26 the county and we say this is how many
58:28 affordable units we have
58:29 they go from zero to eighty percent
58:32 and i just mentioned because i know that
58:34 there are
58:34 two about 200 units all in the highlands
58:37 of units that go from 81 to 120
58:39 those also have covenants attached
58:42 uh they're just not really included in
58:44 this chapter so i thought i would
58:45 mention them i see and is is that 120
58:48 rental and ownership
58:50 or yes okay and it's mostly ownership
58:54 okay thank you
58:56 you're welcome
59:12 i don't see any more virtual questions
59:14 but that doesn't mean there aren't
59:15 questions
59:18 no more questions in the room
59:22 okay give it a second
59:33 all right i believe we can move along
59:46 hello my name is valerie porter and i'm
59:48 going to talk about landmarks
59:49 preservation
59:51 so what is landmarks and
59:53 archeological resources it encourages
59:56 the protection and the preservation and
59:57 enhancement
1:00:02 resources that are associated with
1:00:04 important and past events and themes and
1:00:06 peoples so this section is going to talk
1:00:08 about the landmarks commission the
1:00:11 nomination process the designation
1:00:13 criteria
1:00:14 and the designation process so in 2001
1:00:17 the city entered into an interlocal
1:00:19 agreement with king county to provide
1:00:21 issaquah assistance with historical
1:00:23 preservation this group consists of
1:00:26 about nine members and so they review
1:00:28 all of the landmark
1:00:29 nominations as well as designating any
1:00:32 landmarks for us
1:00:34 so right about now we have about six um
1:00:37 landmarks within the city
1:00:39 there's the auto freight building
1:00:41 there's the
1:00:42 issaquah trail depot and the newest one
1:00:44 is the coots garage building which is
1:00:46 right here along sunset way
1:00:51 so some of the major changes that have
1:00:52 occurred in this section is one we've
1:00:54 added a fee recovery section
1:00:56 this is to allow the city to recoup any
1:00:58 cost should we have to pay any fees on
1:01:00 behalf of the applicant
1:01:02 another one is
1:01:04 we've adopted by reference so we're no
1:01:06 longer going to be essentially adding
1:01:08 king county's code into our code
1:01:10 instead we're going to adopt by
1:01:12 reference
1:01:14 i did a little research and a lot of
1:01:15 cities actually do this
1:01:17 it makes it a lot simpler and allows our
1:01:19 code to remain
1:01:20 consistent with king county
1:01:23 another change is that we've added a
1:01:25 landmarks commission section this is
1:01:28 basically codifying the landmarks
1:01:30 commission's
1:01:31 authority to make decisions on our
1:01:33 behalf and then it's also
1:01:35 codifying the special member position
1:01:37 which is the city's representative that
1:01:40 reviews projects when any nominations
1:01:42 are made
1:01:44 in this section we also tried to align
1:01:46 our code with our interlocal agreement
1:01:48 so we added language basically stating
1:01:51 that should
1:01:52 an applicant come in wanting to make a
1:01:54 revision to a landmark that the city
1:01:57 would take into consideration the
1:01:58 county's historic preservation officer's
1:02:01 comments
1:02:02 just make sure that the city and the
1:02:03 county are aligned
1:02:05 and then we also try to just make sure
1:02:08 that our references are up to date so
1:02:10 the recently the city adopted a new code
1:02:14 enforcement section so we've updated
1:02:16 that reference so now that if there is a
1:02:18 violation the code enforcement officer
1:02:19 can properly address that
1:02:21 and those are all of the changes right
1:02:23 now take questions
1:02:38 any questions on landmarks
1:02:43 cheer voice we have one question here in
1:02:45 the room from commissioner dillon
1:02:48 please
1:02:50 thank you patty dillon speaking
1:02:52 so the adoption of the king county code
1:02:55 by reference presumably
1:02:58 or i guess does that refer to a specific
1:03:02 code so if king county changes
1:03:04 their code to a subsequent edition that
1:03:06 might have changes the city would not
1:03:08 want to adopt that we would have
1:03:10 flexibility to
1:03:12 act differently
1:03:14 so yes we would be referencing um king
1:03:16 county specific um code that talks about
1:03:19 landmarks so yes if they make a change
1:03:21 then we need to be aware of it because
1:03:23 then we would be required to apply to it
1:03:26 um it's something that we're going to
1:03:27 have to be aware of and
1:03:29 usually i think when the city or the
1:03:31 county makes changes to their code they
1:03:32 let everyone know because a lot of
1:03:34 cities are again adopting to reference
1:03:37 great thank you
1:03:46 chair there are no other questions here
1:03:47 in the room
1:03:53 thank you and i'm not seeing any
1:03:55 in my chat box but i do have one
1:03:58 and it's under article 2 general
1:04:00 administration and standards point a
1:04:03 the property owner or applicant is
1:04:05 required to pay any fees exceeding
1:04:10 for services conducted on behalf of a
1:04:13 property owner or applicant by keeping
1:04:15 king county
1:04:16 my question to you is if it's under 750
1:04:19 who picks up that tab
1:04:21 if it's under 750 the city would cover
1:04:29 thank you that's all i have
1:04:31 anyone else going once going twice
1:04:33 landmarks
1:04:38 thank you valerie
1:05:02 good evening chair and commissioners my
1:05:04 name is thomas faldrez and i'm the
1:05:06 senior transportation planner at the
1:05:08 city of isqua
1:05:10 great to meet you all today and
1:05:13 she'll be working with you a lot in the
1:05:15 coming years
1:05:17 uh next slide please oh sorry go back
1:05:22 thank you valerie
1:05:36 so moving on to parking today uh
1:05:39 as planners and staff we see this as an
1:05:42 excellent opportunity to realign our
1:05:44 parking code
1:05:45 just to better support the city's
1:05:48 adopted vision
1:05:49 goals and policies
1:05:52 as defined by the title 18
1:05:55 council ad hoc committee
1:05:58 there are four high-level goals that i'd
1:05:59 like to first chat with you about to
1:06:02 sort of ground us in what we're doing
1:06:03 here today
1:06:05 so the first goal today is to
1:06:08 modernize the code and incorporate best
1:06:10 practices
1:06:12 by creating a well-organized and clear
1:06:14 code that improves public access to
1:06:16 information
1:06:18 provides tools to address community
1:06:20 needs
1:06:22 and helps create the kinds of places
1:06:25 that the community expects
1:06:27 the second goal today is to provide
1:06:29 adequate parking while utilizing land
1:06:31 efficiently by minimizing the amount of
1:06:33 land impacted and related to parking
1:06:37 recognizing the varied amenities
1:06:39 services and needs throughout the city
1:06:42 and ensuring that reasonably adequate
1:06:43 parking provisions are provided
1:06:46 to those who are reliant on personal
1:06:48 vehicles while also planning on
1:06:51 the future conversion of garages and
1:06:53 parking spaces
1:06:56 in surface parking lots
1:06:59 the third goal is to
1:07:01 create housing diversity and that was
1:07:03 sort of touched on previously
1:07:06 the the way to do so would be to provide
1:07:09 or retain housing at a cost rarely found
1:07:11 in the city
1:07:12 encouraging small housing types for
1:07:14 improved affordability
1:07:16 as well as increasing affordability and
1:07:18 ownership
1:07:20 lastly the fourth goal that we'll be
1:07:22 sort of tying our in our conversation
1:07:24 today
1:07:25 relates to
1:07:28 the effective management of travel
1:07:30 resulting from new development
1:07:33 in line with non-motorized transit and
1:07:35 climate goals
1:07:36 by establishing electric vehicle-ready
1:07:39 which is essentially the requirement of
1:07:42 providing power facilities for the
1:07:43 future installation of electric vehicle
1:07:46 charging stations
1:07:48 next slide please
1:07:53 now so given the you know the goals and
1:07:55 objectives that you know we had just
1:07:57 referred to uh
1:07:59 staff went ahead and conducted a gaps
1:08:01 analysis
1:08:02 uh we flagged where there was
1:08:04 contradictions in the existing code uh
1:08:06 where a different code language was
1:08:08 confusing or inconsistent and
1:08:11 to make sure that the adopted policies
1:08:13 and objectives would be
1:08:16 reflected in the code
1:08:19 so staff brought this topic to ppc and
1:08:22 the affinity groups
1:08:24 and discuss the proposed changes with
1:08:26 the city attorney's office
1:08:28 and to reiterate what was mentioned at a
1:08:30 previous ppc meeting in february
1:08:33 the intent of this update is simply to
1:08:35 preserve all regulations as much as
1:08:37 possible
1:08:38 more substantial changes will be you
1:08:41 know identified on a white board there's
1:08:43 there's been a couple topics that have
1:08:45 been brought up so those are all on the
1:08:47 whiteboard and
1:08:48 will be addressed later at a future
1:08:51 update
1:08:53 so that being said there's you know
1:08:54 eight major changes that are being
1:08:56 proposed today and i would like to share
1:08:59 those with you
1:09:01 so the first three which are on our
1:09:04 slide here you know we can see that
1:09:06 they're really related to modernizing
1:09:08 the code and incorporating best
1:09:10 practices
1:09:11 so the first one we see is
1:09:14 consolidation and removing redundant
1:09:16 codes
1:09:17 just to simplify and make sure that
1:09:19 things are enforceable
1:09:21 number two we have the adoption and
1:09:23 creation of the intent sections and this
1:09:25 is just to provide a more consistent
1:09:28 application of
1:09:29 how regulations are
1:09:32 are carried through the third
1:09:34 change we have is a wholesale
1:09:36 replacement of shoulds and musks
1:09:39 this was
1:09:41 eliminated to you know
1:09:43 reduce the vagueness and make sure that
1:09:46 again
1:09:47 the code is enforceable
1:09:50 next slide please
1:09:54 continuing on with change four this
1:09:57 includes updating the portion of the off
1:09:59 street parking requirement
1:10:02 this is with parking generation
1:10:05 estimates using the latest version of
1:10:07 the institute of
1:10:08 transportation engineers
1:10:10 parking generation manual kind of a
1:10:13 mouthful
1:10:15 uh parking generation manual fifth
1:10:17 edition
1:10:19 uh this change is being proposed to
1:10:21 uh you know result
1:10:23 you know as a result of discussions from
1:10:25 the the development commission and ppc's
1:10:28 desire
1:10:29 to make sure that regulations are more
1:10:31 consistent and predictable so
1:10:33 these these metrics are really a you
1:10:35 know a nationally recognized gold
1:10:37 standard
1:10:38 and uh it'll allow us to have a more
1:10:41 consistent uh
1:10:43 way of uh you know providing adequate
1:10:45 parking but also being more efficient
1:10:47 with the land
1:10:49 uh change five includes the
1:10:52 consolidation of parking requirements
1:10:54 into two tiers
1:10:56 these tiers are based on land use
1:10:57 context and neighborhood characteristics
1:11:00 uh and you know these recognize that
1:11:03 there are differences between
1:11:04 neighborhoods
1:11:05 you know some neighborhoods support uh
1:11:08 you know denser growth and others don't
1:11:11 you know being specific here uh tier one
1:11:13 represents
1:11:16 you know neighborhoods that accommodate
1:11:17 multimodal goals uh and it's applicable
1:11:20 to central issaquah
1:11:21 the isqua highlands uh within the
1:11:24 commercial areas as well as old town
1:11:26 neighborhood
1:11:28 tier 2 just represents everything else
1:11:31 all other parts of the city which are
1:11:32 less dense
1:11:35 next slide please
1:11:38 and just finishing up here with this
1:11:40 like third uh
1:11:42 you know round of of changes that we're
1:11:44 proposing
1:11:45 uh change six
1:11:47 uh this represents um
1:11:49 existing parking requirements
1:11:52 and it's an update of uh
1:11:55 of bike parking uh per the direction of
1:11:57 the commission
1:11:59 so with with this change we're really
1:12:01 trying to support the
1:12:03 multimodal
1:12:05 system goals of the mobility master plan
1:12:08 this section was expanded upon per the
1:12:11 direction of the ppc
1:12:14 provides more details on what's required
1:12:18 and where we're encouraging
1:12:20 bicycle amenities in the more
1:12:22 urban parts of the city
1:12:26 change 7 represents shared parking
1:12:29 provisions and it incorporates
1:12:31 modern best practices with flexible
1:12:33 parking tools
1:12:37 better recognize the the market demands
1:12:41 how the market influences
1:12:43 um you know how parking
1:12:45 is is provided and the the ways that the
1:12:49 geographic location of a project
1:12:52 might impact the parking needs of a
1:12:54 project
1:12:56 and finally with change eight
1:12:58 we're proposing an update to the
1:13:01 existing electric vehicle parking
1:13:03 regulations
1:13:05 doing so would better support
1:13:07 issaquah's climate action plan
1:13:09 and also support
1:13:12 the federal electric vehicle regulations
1:13:15 that are
1:13:15 currently being imposed so
1:13:19 you know these changes really they're
1:13:21 they're just
1:13:22 adjustments
1:13:23 to ev ready
1:13:25 which is
1:13:26 you know
1:13:28 parking stations
1:13:29 within
1:13:31 a building that have you know conduit
1:13:34 and sort of electrical
1:13:36 capabilities in order to support
1:13:39 electric vehicles and then it's also
1:13:42 an adjustment just a very minor
1:13:44 adjustment to
1:13:45 the existing
1:13:47 evse or
1:13:49 ev excuse me ev charging station
1:13:52 requirements
1:13:54 and this will be applicable to new
1:13:56 development
1:13:59 and uh some existing existing buildings
1:14:02 next slide please
1:14:07 so now that we've uh you know sort of
1:14:10 shared what staff is proposing i'd like
1:14:12 to ask the commission for some feedback
1:14:14 these were the
1:14:15 the questions that were presented
1:14:18 in the memo that was provided for this
1:14:20 meeting
1:14:21 but however before i begin uh with
1:14:25 with asking these questions i did want
1:14:26 to acknowledge that
1:14:28 there were a couple typos that were
1:14:31 presented in the memo and i just wanted
1:14:33 to make you all aware of that
1:14:35 we do apologize for these typos
1:14:38 they're they represent very minor
1:14:40 omissions and typos but i did want to
1:14:43 address those and just flag those for
1:14:45 so those are on pages 64
1:14:49 88 92
1:14:53 103 and 120. um i can certainly dive
1:14:57 into these but they they really don't
1:15:00 provide uh much difference in what you
1:15:02 see here they're just
1:15:04 some of them are
1:15:06 carryovers from the old code that
1:15:09 there were just minor typos
1:15:11 missing some letters it's very minor
1:15:14 very minor things so i'd be more than
1:15:16 happy to chat about those but
1:15:18 just wanted to make you all aware of
1:15:20 going into this
1:15:24 so the first question that i had for the
1:15:27 commission
1:15:28 uh was does this draft code support
1:15:31 ppc's direction to clarify short-term
1:15:35 and long-term
1:15:36 bike parking regulations
1:15:38 so mr valdez yes
1:15:41 if you don't mind we're gonna keep those
1:15:43 discussion questions for the
1:15:44 deliberative portion of tonight's
1:15:46 meeting
1:15:47 um so again that'll be for
1:15:50 development commission to try and give
1:15:52 you some answers but uh right now we
1:15:54 really just want clarifying questions on
1:15:56 your presentation or the packet itself
1:16:00 great yeah thank you chair
1:16:06 didn't mean to step on you but is your
1:16:07 presentation through are we now at the
1:16:09 point where we want to start asking
1:16:10 questions absolutely yep
1:16:12 break your chair right on time to your
1:16:14 voice we have a question from
1:16:16 commissioner morgan
1:16:19 thank you commissioner morgan
1:16:21 thank you chair boyce
1:16:24 the location requirement so page 85 of
1:16:26 121 the location requirements
1:16:30 uh for bikes bike storage rooms
1:16:36 if you have bike storage
1:16:40 facilities within a parking garage
1:16:43 within a building
1:16:46 that's not attended by a security guard
1:16:49 not visible from employee work areas
1:16:52 and not visible from residential
1:16:55 communal areas that would not be allowed
1:16:57 is that correct
1:17:00 uh yeah thank you for the question uh
1:17:02 commissioner um
1:17:04 yeah so the the intent is really to
1:17:07 you know make sure that
1:17:09 uh the language the language that we're
1:17:11 providing for long-term parking uh
1:17:14 results in a bike parking uh
1:17:18 situation where you know the location is
1:17:20 highly visible and uh cities in the area
1:17:22 have found that you know having
1:17:25 having long-term bike parking that is
1:17:26 highly visible
1:17:28 under those you know scenarios that you
1:17:31 had just mentioned
1:17:32 results in a you know reduction in
1:17:35 bike thefts
1:17:38 but essentially any bike storage within
1:17:40 a parking garage
1:17:42 would not be allowed then
1:17:47 so if for example our our fund owns an
1:17:50 office building in seattle that has
1:17:52 three floors of underground parking and
1:17:54 two of the floors have bike storage
1:17:57 and it's a large tech tenant that
1:17:58 occupies the building
1:18:01 and it's worked really well from them
1:18:02 but that building
1:18:04 the way i understand it they wouldn't be
1:18:06 able to do that they would have have to
1:18:10 space within the regular office portion
1:18:14 like the lobby or something like that
1:18:18 so it sounds like that's that's what's
1:18:20 intended then
1:18:22 all right correct yeah so as as we have
1:18:25 it currently um that would not be an
1:18:27 allowed use
1:18:30 thank you
1:18:35 i do have another question on the i
1:18:38 think on page 88 was one of the typos
1:18:40 with the 4 000 square feet of office was
1:18:42 40 000. but also it is intended that the
1:18:46 minimum bike parking for
1:18:48 residential would be one
1:18:50 bike stall per unit so if you have a
1:18:53 200 unit apartment building it would be
1:18:55 200 bike stalls
1:18:58 uh that would be correct yes and is that
1:19:00 typical in
1:19:02 i guess my question seems like a lot is
1:19:04 that a typical standard now for
1:19:07 bike storage
1:19:10 yeah that's a great question
1:19:11 commissioner um we we have found in area
1:19:13 cities that that is um
1:19:15 that is becoming a a standard practice
1:19:18 as we move forward
1:19:20 thank you
1:19:26 um thank you commissioner
1:19:28 sorry one other question if that's okay
1:19:30 yeah um
1:19:32 the um
1:19:37 on page 113 of 121
1:19:42 if if i'm i'm trying to figure this out
1:19:43 we have a requirement that
1:19:45 10 of all the required stalls have to be
1:19:49 evse stalls
1:19:52 and then you can get a reduction of your
1:19:55 total stalls
1:19:57 up to ten percent on a one for one basis
1:20:01 if evse stalls are put in so it seems to
1:20:04 me evse stalls have to be put in at
1:20:08 least 10 percent
1:20:10 so won't that just automatically mean
1:20:12 you'll get a 10 reduction your total
1:20:14 required stalls
1:20:24 yeah i see what you're saying yeah um
1:20:27 and not that i'm against that but it
1:20:29 seems like i have to put 10 percent in
1:20:31 and i'll end up getting credit for that
1:20:33 10 in the total
1:20:36 yeah i
1:20:37 yep thank you thank you for bringing
1:20:39 that up commissioner yeah i
1:20:41 will we will go back to the drawing
1:20:43 board on that one
1:20:44 okay not that you have to change it just
1:20:48 it sort of seems like it becomes a
1:20:49 requirement
1:20:52 um and then i did have a question about
1:20:54 the overlapping business hours for
1:20:57 uh for shared parking it sounds like
1:20:59 that's determined
1:21:01 business hours are determined by the
1:21:03 developer of the property
1:21:07 that is correct yes okay
1:21:10 and if they said well
1:21:13 i guess is there is there a provision
1:21:14 there for
1:21:16 the director to have
1:21:18 an approval of that if somebody said our
1:21:21 business hours are
1:21:23 10 to 2 or
1:21:25 something that didn't seem reasonable
1:21:30 yeah that's a great question
1:21:31 commissioner
1:21:32 i think
1:21:33 how it's typically done in area cities
1:21:36 is you know as we're proposing
1:21:38 i'm not aware of issues that have come
1:21:41 up through that um we do like to provide
1:21:44 you know some flexibility for you know
1:21:45 the cases that they come in um
1:21:48 not to be like too prescriptive for all
1:21:50 the situations that that might apply but
1:21:54 you know
1:21:55 it's it's pretty common to
1:21:57 to sort of understand like
1:21:59 you know as a business functions like
1:22:02 the ebbs and flows and like the the
1:22:04 duration of a business might entail but
1:22:06 um you do raise a good point in terms of
1:22:10 like the reasonableness of
1:22:12 when a
1:22:14 when a statement is made yeah perhaps a
1:22:16 phrase about as approved by the director
1:22:18 might help
1:22:22 thank you i think that's all my
1:22:23 questions take it your voice
1:22:26 thank you commissioner morgan that was
1:22:28 fantastic
1:22:29 uh commissioner milligan has a question
1:22:31 more questions
1:22:33 questions too
1:22:35 uh commissioner milligan here thank you
1:22:37 i love going after commissioner morgan
1:22:39 who always covers that good ground uh my
1:22:43 two questions have to do with one of
1:22:44 them is kind of a general question so
1:22:46 thomas i'm going to ask that one first
1:22:47 and that is
1:22:48 as we've seen increased residential
1:22:50 density in an area like in central
1:22:52 izakawa where there used to be you know
1:22:54 just retail or just commercial and
1:22:57 the impacts that that has on on street
1:23:01 parking
1:23:02 just generally speaking how has that
1:23:04 uh influence how we're looking at these
1:23:07 parking regulations going forward
1:23:13 yeah so in a more dense area um
1:23:16 it's sort of a bouncing act between
1:23:18 providing enough parking
1:23:21 within a more dense area and also
1:23:24 acknowledging that you know there's more
1:23:26 transit access there's
1:23:28 a desire for more walkability
1:23:31 so you know you'd want
1:23:33 you know let me rephrase yeah i know
1:23:36 where you're going that's good that's
1:23:37 another way that's good too but um
1:23:39 really what i was thinking about was the
1:23:41 impact on the businesses
1:23:43 where off-street parking used to
1:23:44 accommodate business uses and now they
1:23:48 day-long parking for people in um
1:23:54 dense housing projects yeah
1:23:57 great yeah thanks thank you commissioner
1:23:59 for that clarification um so we do have
1:24:01 a provision we
1:24:04 uh you know in the code we allow for a
1:24:06 35 reduction um for you know for
1:24:10 instance uh
1:24:12 for the street level retail um
1:24:15 that sort of
1:24:16 touches on your question a little bit um
1:24:18 so we do have reductions uh within like
1:24:20 the central business district area
1:24:24 so it does provide reductions in the
1:24:27 requirement
1:24:28 uh or like you know the
1:24:32 right you know 35 reduction of what the
1:24:34 the business would be required to put in
1:24:37 yeah okay good i'll save my
1:24:39 deliberations for later
1:24:41 thank you for that uh second question
1:24:43 has to do with um ev um
1:24:48 bb facilities uh and that there is a
1:24:51 difference
1:24:52 between
1:24:53 what the planning policy commission
1:24:55 worked so hard on just a few months ago
1:24:59 and these requirements which are
1:25:02 different and higher but i don't believe
1:25:05 that the documents that you provided us
1:25:07 showed the delta between the planning
1:25:10 policy um why was that and and could
1:25:14 that be
1:25:15 in this sort of meeting format could the
1:25:18 um packet for the planning policy
1:25:20 commission include that
1:25:22 show the difference
1:25:26 i'm going to uh
1:25:28 have to phone a friend
1:25:29 i'm not aware of
1:25:31 i was actually not
1:25:33 employed
1:25:34 in february so
1:25:37 at the city of issaquah so
1:25:39 i'm not aware of what those changes were
1:25:42 i do what i what is in the packet what
1:25:44 i've shown you today um
1:25:47 you know shows the differences between
1:25:49 the existing title 18 code and what
1:25:52 we're proposing today um
1:25:54 and i i can tell you that those changes
1:25:56 are uh
1:25:58 you know fairly minor um for the evse
1:26:01 just like a five percent increase
1:26:03 um for the
1:26:05 i believe it's the
1:26:07 non-residential
1:26:09 and then a couple bump ups for uh
1:26:13 the ev requirements but not for the um
1:26:16 the evse
1:26:19 okay thank you
1:26:21 thanks chair voice
1:26:24 and thank you commissioner milligan uh
1:26:26 commissioner shor has a question from
1:26:28 the diocese
1:26:31 i was wondering if there
1:26:34 are there any examples of the shared
1:26:35 parking right now that
1:26:37 you could give us
1:26:39 where is this happening
1:26:45 i don't have specific examples but i
1:26:47 know they exist i'm just drawing a blank
1:26:49 here it is a very common practice in the
1:26:51 region to do this
1:26:55 i believe the city of kirkland is doing
1:26:58 this currently
1:27:01 yeah i unfortunately am drawing a blank
1:27:03 but i i do know that is a it is a very
1:27:06 common practice and it's a way to
1:27:08 just ensure that the city is um you know
1:27:10 aware of
1:27:13 you know there's there's existing uh
1:27:15 agreements in place already between
1:27:17 businesses
1:27:21 for the city to
1:27:23 become a party to those conversations we
1:27:25 can better monitor the situation
1:27:28 you know if there becomes a parking
1:27:30 hotspot
1:27:31 uh as a result of uh
1:27:34 the agreement being broken for some
1:27:36 reason the city has some
1:27:38 some uh
1:27:39 some levers so that you know uh the you
1:27:42 know parking situation can be rectified
1:27:44 thomas i can jump in to help answer the
1:27:46 question so uh vice chair sure
1:27:49 in the city is called we currently don't
1:27:50 have any examples for shared parking
1:27:53 agreements
1:27:54 we do have
1:27:56 multiple examples from our regional
1:27:58 partners that we can leverage and
1:28:01 copy off of that utilizes a lot of the
1:28:03 new language
1:28:04 that we're proposing in the new draft
1:28:09 thanks
1:28:12 commissioner morgan
1:28:14 thank you if i if you don't mind if i
1:28:16 can jump in to give you an example of
1:28:19 i'm not sure what the how the agreement
1:28:21 was done but we do have a shared parking
1:28:23 situation so our
1:28:25 fund owns the maple street office
1:28:27 building
1:28:28 that originally had parking stalls on
1:28:31 the south side of maple street and the
1:28:33 buildings on the north side
1:28:35 our partner wanted to build a hotel
1:28:37 there we didn't want to
1:28:39 but we sold them the parking lot with a
1:28:41 cross parking easement
1:28:43 and with the approval that
1:28:46 during the day we're able to park the
1:28:48 same number of parking stalls that we
1:28:50 had during the day for office tenants in
1:28:52 their garage
1:28:54 and during the evening they can hotel
1:28:56 guests can park in
1:28:58 in our property so we actually
1:29:00 ended up with something where we took
1:29:02 uh what was impervious surface created
1:29:05 hotel
1:29:06 redu you know and caused no other
1:29:08 impervious service to be created and the
1:29:10 shared parking agreement
1:29:12 has worked great between the two
1:29:14 properties so it is a good example and
1:29:16 the total i was checking the
1:29:18 stalled the number of stalls that we
1:29:21 shared there that we had were about 37
1:29:25 of our overall stalls so it meant that i
1:29:27 think 40 percent requirement
1:29:30 that they're inputting here that was
1:29:32 going to be one of my comments so
1:29:36 thank you
1:29:48 anyone else with questions as far as
1:29:51 parking
1:29:55 there are no other questions in the room
1:29:59 and i don't see any other virtually so i
1:30:02 just have two very quick ones i think
1:30:04 everyone did a pretty good job as far as
1:30:05 the parking
1:30:08 i'm going to save my pontificating about
1:30:12 charging cars for next time
1:30:16 real quickly on the bicycles so there's
1:30:19 two things again kind of superficial
1:30:22 it mentions
1:30:23 bicycle parking spaces must provide
1:30:25 parking for cyclists of all ages and
1:30:28 abilities
1:30:29 what does that look like
1:30:32 aren't they all the same rack
1:30:35 yeah great question uh cheer boyce um
1:30:38 that that statement is a
1:30:39 [Music]
1:30:41 is a industry
1:30:42 uh term
1:30:45 uh sort of introduce the idea of like
1:30:47 equity for cycling so making sure that
1:30:51 you know in in many words just making
1:30:53 sure that everybody feels
1:30:55 like this rack is for them
1:30:57 okay so there's not actually wider
1:30:59 spaces for tricycles and bicycles and
1:31:01 it's like you know those unicycles and
1:31:03 all that type of stuff
1:31:05 yep it uh yeah great question um yeah
1:31:09 same same rack uh same
1:31:12 you know long-term
1:31:13 uh parking situation uh it's it's really
1:31:16 just a
1:31:17 a term of a term of art that you know
1:31:20 sort of encapsulates the the equity idea
1:31:23 that we're um looking to
1:31:26 throw in the world
1:31:28 it gets thrown into our code so it's
1:31:30 always
1:31:31 i guess worth asking and then there's
1:31:33 two other things real quickly again
1:31:34 bicycles i think everyone answered the
1:31:36 questions as far as parking um
1:31:39 one of them i think it's short-term
1:31:41 bicycle parking
1:31:44 when 10 or more short-term bicycle
1:31:46 parking spaces are required a minimum of
1:31:48 50 percent of the spaces must be covered
1:31:52 what does that look like what's a
1:31:54 covered rack look like
1:31:56 yep a great question um so you know
1:32:00 as an example uh
1:32:02 if you're looking to install
1:32:04 bike racks in front of your business
1:32:08 you know one scenario is that you put it
1:32:10 in front of your you know your entryway
1:32:12 right so i think one of the requirements
1:32:15 uh you know some distance away from the
1:32:17 entrance um just a very short distance
1:32:19 so that there's good visibility on the
1:32:22 bicycle
1:32:23 and so
1:32:24 in this situation
1:32:26 you know say you have a rack of 10
1:32:29 we would ask that
1:32:31 five of them are under the eve of the
1:32:33 building or
1:32:34 or five of them have
1:32:36 some sort of um you know weather
1:32:38 protection so it's really it's about
1:32:40 weather protection uh to create
1:32:44 a comfortable biking situation so that
1:32:46 your bicycle is dry um but it's also
1:32:48 about you know making sure that it's
1:32:51 near where people are so there's good
1:32:53 visibility for your bicycle
1:32:56 i just wonder how that's going to look
1:32:58 in the actual
1:33:00 in practice and then finally one one
1:33:02 other one showers showers for bicycles
1:33:04 is this for terrain bikes near the
1:33:05 trails
1:33:08 oh yeah great question i think some
1:33:10 maybe some clarification
1:33:12 might be uh better uh suited for the the
1:33:15 code the showers is for the writer
1:33:17 themselves um so
1:33:20 i believe this was in the tier one
1:33:23 uh the tier one so in like a more dense
1:33:25 urban area that the shower would be you
1:33:27 know if you are bike commuting say um
1:33:30 having facilities so that you know when
1:33:32 you are
1:33:33 at work uh you're not sweaty so you can
1:33:36 you can have a facility to
1:33:39 make you know make biking a actual
1:33:41 sustainable way of getting to work
1:33:45 for example
1:33:46 yeah i thought i'd ask that question
1:33:49 that's all i have
1:33:51 anyone else
1:33:53 working
1:33:58 well thank you mr valdez great
1:34:00 presentation
1:34:03 yep thank you chair
1:34:10 so i don't i believe that's it for our
1:34:11 presentations uh staff can flag me if
1:34:14 i'm i'm wrong or going out of turn
1:34:16 but i believe now we're going to be
1:34:17 moving on to the
1:34:19 actual public hearing public comment
1:34:21 portion of tonight's meeting
1:34:24 so we're going to he'll go ahead it is
1:34:26 currently 806. we will open up the
1:34:28 public hearing
1:34:30 806. um again this is to reiterate
1:34:34 something that i just want everyone to
1:34:36 that we do read all of the emails that
1:34:38 are sent to us
1:34:40 and there were a couple
1:34:42 that at least i inferred so if i got
1:34:44 this wrong i apologize
1:34:46 but um that they might want to discuss a
1:34:48 current project
1:34:50 or an upcoming project and review
1:34:53 so again i want everyone to understand
1:34:54 that tonight's meeting is a public
1:34:56 hearing for the title 18 project
1:34:59 not a meeting
1:35:01 that would just have to do with the
1:35:02 development commission
1:35:05 so again the development commission is
1:35:07 the commission that handles
1:35:08 quasi-judicial matters
1:35:11 and even though this is a joint meeting
1:35:13 it is being led by the planning policy
1:35:14 and as our name suggests
1:35:16 this is about policy
1:35:18 so i would ask anyone who is going to be
1:35:22 speaking tonight as far as for the
1:35:24 public hearing
1:35:26 to please refrain from discussing
1:35:28 particular projects or particular
1:35:31 concerns about certain projects
1:35:33 because that would be inappropriate
1:35:36 tonight we are looking for
1:35:38 commentary on the title 18 update
1:35:41 draft codes and policies that are before
1:35:44 but again
1:35:45 nothing else that's really what we're
1:35:47 here to do the development commission
1:35:49 alone has the authority and is the board
1:35:51 that is set up to act as a court
1:35:54 for review so again the ppc is not set
1:35:57 up for that so we ask that everyone be
1:35:59 respectful and realize what this meeting
1:36:01 is and what this meeting is not
1:36:04 so again we are just looking for
1:36:06 uh commentary about the title 18 updates
1:36:10 and we ask that everyone be respectful
1:36:12 of the time
1:36:14 same timing rules apply
1:36:17 and i'm going to kick it over to staff
1:36:19 to let us know if we have any speakers
1:36:24 yes we have one speaker in the room and
1:36:26 one virtual who've indicated a desire to
1:36:28 speak the first in the room hussein kram
1:36:36 good evening chairman boyce um thanks
1:36:39 for having me again
1:36:41 commissioners thank you i wanted to talk
1:36:44 about affordable housing
1:36:46 we've been in the rental business for 25
1:36:49 years i think as an industry expert we
1:36:52 can offer some advice uh some thoughts
1:36:55 that to think about it's definitely up
1:36:57 to the commission and the staff to
1:36:59 consider that
1:37:00 um i do see a great strain in the
1:37:03 american people's income i cannot
1:37:05 emphasize how important it is to have
1:37:09 affordable housing
1:37:11 but one of the things we've been always
1:37:13 missing in affordable housing
1:37:15 is the diversity in affordable housing
1:37:20 the way the way arch classifies
1:37:22 affordable housing is by the bedrooms
1:37:26 so if you have a three-bedroom apartment
1:37:29 home for
1:37:31 say thousand square feet which can make
1:37:33 him that size
1:37:34 versus a three-bedroom
1:37:36 town home or a larger
1:37:38 rental unit which could be two thousand
1:37:41 square feet drinks of the same
1:37:44 well that makes it very difficult for us
1:37:46 developers to build
1:37:48 bigger ones when you have to pay the
1:37:50 price when your income is limited to the
1:37:51 small one and what that does what that
1:37:54 does it actually creates housing
1:37:57 discrimination
1:38:00 injustice and equality against
1:38:02 families well not everybody moves to our
1:38:05 area is a single person could live in a
1:38:07 small apartment there are people who
1:38:09 move in from out of state the families a
1:38:11 wife and couple of kids dogs they want
1:38:14 to have a yard
1:38:15 well are we offering that opportunity
1:38:18 for them
1:38:19 issaquah is a beautiful place i love the
1:38:21 nature in issaquah i'm impressed
1:38:25 so are other people who want to call
1:38:27 this place home so what it does it
1:38:29 actually limits them i think uh
1:38:32 it's really good to think about in terms
1:38:35 uh different type of affordable homes
1:38:38 larger ones for families
1:38:40 families could have a yard
1:38:43 for middle-income families for the
1:38:44 larger families for ethnic families i'm
1:38:47 an iranian immigrant we came here well
1:38:50 my parents-in-law lived with us well
1:38:52 does the small apartment were building
1:38:54 in downtown it's like well provide
1:38:57 enough housing for affordable families
1:39:01 to live together extend the family
1:39:02 members so that's something i want you
1:39:04 to think about it may be too late in
1:39:06 this round but i thought i'd just bring
1:39:08 it up it doesn't hurt to think
1:39:11 the other one that i want to bring up i
1:39:13 really love the idea of
1:39:16 electric homes
1:39:17 excuse me electric cars
1:39:20 that's the industry trend that's what
1:39:22 everything's moving is nice we do have
1:39:24 that happening in our properties a lot
1:39:26 of people buying teslas or electric cars
1:39:28 go in there
1:39:31 and i know you up them to 50
1:39:33 that's nice
1:39:35 have anybody ever thought about or
1:39:37 checked into
1:39:39 the demand that would create that
1:39:41 creates on the transformers on the psc
1:39:44 i don't know much about this i know
1:39:46 enough
1:39:47 but the little i know is uh when you are
1:39:51 having a much higher demand
1:39:53 then that you end up having a bigger
1:39:54 transformer when you have a bigger
1:39:56 transformer that means you end up have
1:39:58 to pay more
1:40:00 for the service
1:40:02 and as far as i know the rates that
1:40:05 the residents pay end up getting more so
1:40:10 again i don't know what the answer to
1:40:12 that is but it's something that i think
1:40:13 has a as a great city
1:40:16 you want to look into to make sure that
1:40:18 you're not over stretching
1:40:21 the electric grid
1:40:22 i think it's a great idea i think it's a
1:40:24 great way to proceed
1:40:27 to give an idea a electric vehicle
1:40:29 charging station will take about 40 amps
1:40:32 a brand new home these even the bigger
1:40:34 homes are about 200 amps so you're
1:40:37 you're talking quite a bit of juice and
1:40:39 if you have to put 50 percent off your
1:40:41 stations at 40 amp that's a lot of
1:40:44 demand
1:40:45 and the demand could be concentrated at
1:40:47 certain times of the day evening when
1:40:49 people come back home so something to
1:40:51 think about i think you ought to go
1:40:53 forward i don't think you got to go
1:40:54 backward i think you ought to proceed
1:40:56 that's a good direction but somebody has
1:40:58 to look into this thing to make sure
1:41:00 that things doesn't go haywire down the
1:41:04 thank you very much
1:41:07 the next speaker is a virtual attendee k
1:41:10 elmer
1:41:11 before we go to k i for anyone else
1:41:14 who's attending virtually if you'd like
1:41:16 to make comments if you're on the phone
1:41:18 please raise your hand by pressing star
1:41:20 three
1:41:21 if you're attending by computer or
1:41:23 smartphone send me the host to chat or
1:41:26 select the small hand icon
1:41:29 and k i will go ahead and make you a
1:41:32 panelist now you should have the option
1:41:34 to unmute and can choose to turn your
1:41:36 video on
1:41:45 k you're beautiful
1:41:50 thank you
1:41:52 my name is kay elmer i live at 2830
1:41:54 northwest pinecone drive in issaquah
1:41:57 and i just wanted to make a few comments
1:41:59 about affordable housing
1:42:02 the first one is about the
1:42:05 the extension of the 50 years for
1:42:07 homeowner i support that
1:42:10 this is about the duration of the
1:42:11 project i had a question though about
1:42:13 the rental units
1:42:15 it says they must remain affordable only
1:42:17 as long as the project is in use for
1:42:20 residential purposes
1:42:22 so i assume that means that if the owner
1:42:26 chooses to do a condo conversion
1:42:29 that those units would no longer be
1:42:32 available as affordable housing and i
1:42:34 think if that were to happen and if that
1:42:37 were is allowed of course
1:42:39 by law then the owner should be
1:42:42 responsible for paying some kind of
1:42:43 penalty
1:42:45 or compensation to the city since they
1:42:47 received a public benefit
1:42:49 based on their providing affordable
1:42:51 housing units
1:42:59 i also did have a concern about the
1:43:01 affordable housing units
1:43:04 being
1:43:05 not being allowed to be smaller than 90
1:43:08 percent
1:43:09 of the average size of the market rate
1:43:11 housing
1:43:12 unless approved by the designated
1:43:14 official i didn't understand why you
1:43:17 would discriminate and make smaller
1:43:19 units for the for low-income families or
1:43:22 individuals than for the market rate
1:43:25 participants it felt somewhat
1:43:26 discriminatory and i understand it's
1:43:28 driven by finances
1:43:30 but i think it's something that should
1:43:31 be considered especially given the
1:43:34 minimum sizes that were
1:43:36 are being considered of
1:43:38 you know 600 square feet for a one
1:43:40 bedroom unit 800 square feet for two
1:43:42 bedroom
1:43:44 uh they're very small
1:43:48 i thought it was great that you removed
1:43:52 reduction of recreation space
1:43:55 allowance that just made absolutely no
1:43:57 sense
1:43:58 um i have did have some concerns about
1:44:00 the designated official it has a lot of
1:44:03 leeway in reading through the codes he
1:44:05 has a lot of leeway in making trade-offs
1:44:07 so i would hope that is the person
1:44:10 that is also a clear supporter of
1:44:12 affordable housing
1:44:16 one of my concerns was that
1:44:19 and perhaps this is just not
1:44:20 understanding why this was done but i
1:44:23 noticed that the um charts show
1:44:26 [Music]
1:44:28 the options for affordable housing
1:44:33 at 70
1:44:34 ami and 50 ami
1:44:38 i understand those are probably the
1:44:40 ceilings
1:44:41 but i i was very concerned that there is
1:44:43 not an inclusion of 30 ami because the
1:44:46 fact of the matter is the people who
1:44:48 need it the most are the people who are
1:44:51 the lowest income families you know it
1:44:54 can be it can be a working couple
1:44:57 making minimal wage
1:45:00 that would be excluded or a senior
1:45:01 citizen living on social security and we
1:45:05 simply have nothing i mean everyone is
1:45:07 squeezed by not having enough housing
1:45:09 opportunity but when you're in the very
1:45:10 low income housing category you have
1:45:13 virtually no opportunity whatsoever
1:45:17 so i would just like added consideration
1:45:19 to be given to them
1:45:27 i also had concerned about the
1:45:28 motivation for offside affordable units
1:45:31 only because it wasn't clear to me under
1:45:33 what circumstances they would be granted
1:45:35 and what the purpose would be
1:45:39 and what the benefit would be to the
1:45:41 low-income families
1:45:43 or the the families in affordable
1:45:45 housing
1:45:47 and one question i had is and again i
1:45:50 just don't understand but is there
1:45:52 anything in the codes
1:45:54 that would allow the kind of trade-off
1:45:57 that happened several years ago which if
1:45:59 you've been around long enough you
1:46:00 remember
1:46:02 the units in a particular development
1:46:05 unnamed development the the units that
1:46:07 were intended as affordable housing
1:46:11 were traded off for road improvements
1:46:15 and and other benefits to the city
1:46:18 but the road improvements benefited the
1:46:20 general population i being one and i
1:46:22 thought they were wonderful road
1:46:24 improvements but it just felt to me like
1:46:28 reflection of our lack of
1:46:34 attention
1:46:35 and caring towards the people who are
1:46:37 more deeply affected than we were by
1:46:39 getting this benefit
1:46:41 um and i'm just wondering what kind of
1:46:44 trade-offs might be in the codes that i
1:46:46 don't understand that would allow this
1:46:47 to happen again because i hope that
1:46:49 would never happen again it did not
1:46:51 afford it did not
1:46:53 affect
1:46:54 low income or families in affordable
1:46:57 housing
1:46:59 this was not
1:47:00 this was not the the recipient of this
1:47:03 benefit
1:47:04 okay this is tisha you you've reached
1:47:07 the five minute
1:47:09 comment time
1:47:11 thank you
1:47:14 and chair i understand there might be
1:47:16 one more individual who's attending
1:47:18 virtually who wants to make comments
1:47:20 molly bull molly i think you might be
1:47:23 the phone number listed here begins with
1:47:26 425 836 going to unmute you now
1:47:34 can you hear me
1:47:37 um i originally had a general comment um
1:47:42 could i possibly talk about that at the
1:47:44 time now
1:47:49 uh because um i couldn't i didn't think
1:47:51 you could hear me because i'm on a
1:47:53 landline
1:47:54 that's why
1:47:55 but anyway my name is molly bowe i live
1:47:58 in trilogy
1:47:59 um on redmond ridge as a golf community
1:48:08 the miss baldwin community task force on
1:48:10 homelessness founder
1:48:13 and um
1:48:15 i'd like to make a comment that
1:48:18 i would like to ask your committee
1:48:23 miss bull
1:48:26 the chair has a question for you
1:48:30 yeah unfortunately miss bull right now
1:48:32 we are in a a public hearing process
1:48:35 so right now the the comments are
1:48:37 specifically specifically to what we are
1:48:40 discussing for the record
1:48:42 so right now is not unfortunately right
1:48:44 now we can't take general public
1:48:46 comments on
1:48:47 different people i'm gonna send
1:48:48 christian if it's okay i'm gonna send
1:48:50 you an email if that's okay would that
1:48:52 would be acceptable absolutely kristin
1:48:55 loves emails
1:48:56 okay very good thank you and i'm sorry
1:48:59 to uh interrupt your meeting
1:49:02 gently
1:49:04 i have a lot to say up in my email
1:49:07 because i
1:49:08 i've been a vice president of a big
1:49:10 seafood company and i'm concerned about
1:49:13 homelessness and affordable housing etc
1:49:17 great thank you miss paul
1:49:20 would is there anyone else signed up to
1:49:23 speak to sha
1:49:24 uh chair
1:49:26 no one virg no one else virtually has
1:49:28 indicated a desire to speak and i'll
1:49:30 just ask is there anyone else in the
1:49:31 room here that like to speak under the
1:49:34 public hearing
1:49:36 i'm not seeing any uh indication of an
1:49:38 interest to speak in the room
1:49:40 here great thank you tisha and uh thank
1:49:44 you mr koram and thank you miss elmer um
1:49:47 again very important part of the process
1:49:49 i know sometimes it can be difficult to
1:49:52 stay in our lane and right now like i
1:49:54 said we have all these individual lanes
1:49:56 because we have all these different
1:49:57 boards and commissions
1:49:59 each with its own uni unique purview
1:50:03 and things to do so again i know it can
1:50:05 be hard i know it can be difficult but
1:50:07 again it's very appreciated um all the
1:50:09 comments everyone's made tonight we take
1:50:11 to heart again
1:50:13 as i mentioned all of us read
1:50:15 everything we get
1:50:16 so i want to say thank you
1:50:18 and if that is truly it we are going to
1:50:21 close the public hearing tonight at 8 22
1:50:27 so now
1:50:29 for the rest of us
1:50:31 this is the deliberative portion of the
1:50:33 meeting and as i mentioned earlier
1:50:36 this is where the development commission
1:50:38 gets to shine
1:50:39 about all the topics we've talked about
1:50:41 this evening being the four
1:50:42 presentations
1:50:44 i'd like to hand the meeting over to
1:50:46 vice chair brook shore to let her facil
1:50:49 facilitate her own commission's
1:50:51 deliberations and i'd ask the planning
1:50:53 policy commission to please turn off
1:50:55 their cameras and then when they are
1:50:57 finished um we will come back
1:51:00 and move along with this evening's
1:51:02 agenda
1:51:03 so please vice chair sure thank you
1:51:06 chair voice
1:51:07 for the development commission
1:51:09 deliberation
1:51:10 i propose we tackle each topic in order
1:51:12 presented
1:51:14 the first items which did not have
1:51:16 specific policy questions posed
1:51:19 are there any comments development
1:51:20 commission would like to make on
1:51:22 transfer development rights
1:51:33 i guess the the question was do they
1:51:36 changes adequately address the goals and
1:51:38 outcomes identified by the council and i
1:51:40 believe they do
1:51:41 thank you
1:51:45 any other
1:51:46 comments on
1:51:47 transfer development rights
1:51:50 you can move on to affordable housing
1:51:53 any comments on that topic
1:52:08 i think in general the the pro the
1:52:11 proposed changes adequately address the
1:52:13 goals and outcomes identified by the
1:52:15 council but i do have a question and
1:52:16 concerned about
1:52:18 the elimination of the 30-year limit
1:52:23 without consulting especially banks and
1:52:25 affordable housing developers
1:52:28 i would hate to see an unintended
1:52:29 consequence
1:52:31 of this rule be that
1:52:33 banks would not finance projects with
1:52:36 affordable housing in them and it might
1:52:38 actually
1:52:39 backfire so i think it would be
1:52:41 who the staff and for planning policy
1:52:43 commission to consider what the impact
1:52:45 would be for sure
1:52:48 if that was changed
1:52:50 thank you
1:52:55 and are there any comments on landmarks
1:52:58 and archaeol archaeological resources
1:53:15 looks like no comments
1:53:19 specific parking questions is it
1:53:21 possible to get those back on the screen
1:53:26 go through those
1:53:49 my comment on the first item
1:53:52 i think
1:53:53 yes definitely bike parking seems very
1:53:57 elevated
1:53:58 and emphasized and i agree with
1:54:01 commissioner morgan's earlier comment
1:54:04 that the
1:54:05 the location seems
1:54:08 rather restrictive and
1:54:12 there might need to be
1:54:14 some exceptions to that based on
1:54:16 the building type or
1:54:18 size or something along those lines
1:54:26 just to add on the bike parking
1:54:29 i think some of those
1:54:32 individual requirements could possibly
1:54:34 be ores rather than ands
1:54:37 in terms of the location and
1:54:40 visibility protection of those bike
1:54:41 parking areas so it's just something to
1:54:44 possibly review with that in mind
1:54:56 i would say in answer to the three
1:54:58 questions that are raised i think the
1:55:00 um the answer would be yes but i would
1:55:04 two other comments as i mentioned before
1:55:07 i think the shared parking agreements
1:55:09 we have found it works well between the
1:55:12 maple street building and the spring
1:55:13 hill suites hotel so i think it's a
1:55:15 great idea
1:55:17 and increasing it to 40 percent
1:55:19 uh fits exactly with what had been done
1:55:22 in the past with that so i think that's
1:55:24 a great idea to move that to 40 percent
1:55:27 the bike storage i do think is is
1:55:29 problematic and doesn't fit with what
1:55:31 typical
1:55:32 development would be for especially for
1:55:34 an office building and i would suggest a
1:55:36 change
1:55:38 on page 85 of 121 item b
1:55:45 it says located in one of the following
1:55:46 secure locations a within 50 feet of an
1:55:49 attendant or security guard
1:55:51 or b in an area visible from employee
1:55:53 work areas or c
1:55:55 in an area visible from residential
1:55:57 communal areas or living spaces i would
1:55:59 add item d
1:56:01 that says within a building parking
1:56:03 garage
1:56:04 within 50 feet of an elevator
1:56:07 i think that's a very
1:56:09 common thing that you would see in
1:56:10 office buildings
1:56:12 or residential towers with parking
1:56:14 garages and i think that would help
1:56:16 alleviate that issue
1:56:18 thank you
1:56:25 on the
1:56:26 ev and ev ready parking stalls
1:56:31 without
1:56:32 knowing the statistics on
1:56:35 what's predicted and i'm guessing you
1:56:37 guys look at that sort of thing
1:56:40 but it seems like the ev ready parking
1:56:42 stalls could be increased just to give
1:56:46 future capacity um it'd be a lot easier
1:56:49 if it's done now than in the future
1:57:03 um i will call back to something that mr
1:57:05 hosanne brought up that there should be
1:57:08 [Music]
1:57:09 study of the impacts on the electrical
1:57:12 grid of
1:57:13 of development at this level
1:57:16 for for ev parking
1:57:19 if that doesn't create a huge
1:57:22 excessive demand then
1:57:24 it it seems reasonable
1:57:26 but again
1:57:28 and i guess another
1:57:29 [Music]
1:57:30 sorry adding on a slightly different
1:57:32 comment but that possibly providing
1:57:35 incentives
1:57:38 creating some tiers and providing
1:57:40 incentives maybe to go to a higher tier
1:57:42 rather than a regulatory requirement
1:57:56 i just have one other general comment
1:57:57 that um i thought the staff did a
1:58:00 tremendous job putting this all together
1:58:02 in a very readable and
1:58:04 understandable
1:58:06 manner for us to know what we were
1:58:08 supposed to be doing and what we were
1:58:10 looking at and explanations
1:58:12 i thought it was all very well done and
1:58:14 especially to stephen for answering a
1:58:15 lot of my other questions and comments
1:58:18 and i appreciate that addressing those
1:58:20 thank you
1:58:27 any other development commission
1:58:29 comments
1:58:32 voice that concludes the development
1:58:34 commission's deliberation i want to
1:58:36 remind the development commission that
1:58:38 there is one more item on tonight's
1:58:39 agenda that staff would like feedback
1:58:42 from the development commission on
1:58:49 thank you vice chair sure
1:58:52 and thank you developing commission
1:58:54 again for deliberating and for being
1:58:56 part of the process
1:58:59 this is odd this is this is my first
1:59:01 hybrid meeting i've had a lot of
1:59:02 meetings a lot of zoom meetings a lot of
1:59:04 in-person meetings but this is my first
1:59:07 hybrid meeting so it's been interesting
1:59:09 and it's been fun
1:59:11 and as miss shore had alluded
1:59:14 it looks like we do have another
1:59:16 presentation and this is going to be the
1:59:18 climate action plan and title 18.
1:59:21 many will be
1:59:23 basically presenting this for us
1:59:25 and then we're going to do the same
1:59:27 thing as we've done all night we'll be
1:59:28 doing clarifying questions from the
1:59:31 commissioners
1:59:34 but because this is not a public hearing
1:59:36 not all questions have to be asked
1:59:37 tonight but the more questions the
1:59:40 better discussion
1:59:43 and then once we are done again we'll
1:59:46 take public comment
1:59:48 hopefully on
1:59:50 again mini's presentation
1:59:52 and then development commission will
1:59:53 again have a chance to deliberate
1:59:56 and then again we will tack this on as
1:59:57 far as planning policies deliberation
2:00:00 uh at our next meeting next thursday in
2:00:03 chambers
2:00:06 um please ms dollywall has a
2:00:08 presentation for us so i'll let you take
2:00:10 it away
2:00:11 yeah thank you commissioners and members
2:00:13 of the community um so this is a topic
2:00:16 uh you know climate action plan that
2:00:18 council adopted um at the end of last
2:00:22 um has a tie-in with certain things that
2:00:24 were going to be captured with title 18
2:00:27 update
2:00:28 so in your packet we've included a table
2:00:30 that we prepared for the council
2:00:32 committee they asked us to look at that
2:00:34 based on public feedback they had
2:00:36 received
2:00:37 so we've captured the things that are
2:00:39 being addressed
2:00:40 that had a specific call in in the
2:00:42 climate action plan and tied it with the
2:00:45 items that were anticipated to be done
2:00:47 with title 18 update
2:00:50 one of the goals of title 18 update goal
2:00:52 nine is uh you know to to have codes
2:00:55 that promote sustainable development and
2:00:58 meet our climate goal climate action
2:01:00 plan goals
2:01:01 um and and so just a little bit of
2:01:04 history and i'm not sure if development
2:01:06 commission was part of that but when we
2:01:08 did the gaps analysis back um last year
2:01:12 with the planning and policy commission
2:01:14 posed some questions at a higher level
2:01:17 of how do we address some of these
2:01:19 things so at the time we talked about
2:01:22 perhaps embedding sustainability
2:01:24 throughout different sections of the
2:01:26 code so the tree preservation would have
2:01:28 a higher focus and and a filter for how
2:01:31 is going to meet the climate action
2:01:33 goals the landscaping would have more
2:01:35 drought tolerant species requirement and
2:01:40 so it was more prescriptive where we
2:01:42 could be throughout in different
2:01:43 chapters of the code we also talked
2:01:46 about um you know incentives versus
2:01:49 prescriptive approach
2:01:52 and and also talked about maybe creating
2:01:55 an escort sustainability score
2:01:57 where you would have to meet a minimum
2:02:00 score and you could get certain points
2:02:02 for getting third certifications for
2:02:04 green building
2:02:05 enhanced green storm water
2:02:08 you know if you went above and beyond
2:02:10 then you would get some credits or
2:02:12 points for it um you know if you took
2:02:14 extra measures for meeting going above
2:02:16 and beyond extra flooding protection or
2:02:19 wildfire resilience that kind of a
2:02:21 sustainability score
2:02:24 and we talked about pros and cons of the
2:02:26 different approaches and the you know it
2:02:29 would be a flexible yet very you know
2:02:32 you could verify
2:02:33 under that approach however there was a
2:02:35 lot of unknowns and we didn't know if
2:02:37 people would take on certain things
2:02:39 would become more popular and others
2:02:41 won't get used so we need to have more
2:02:44 thoughtful discussion if we go down that
2:02:46 sustainability score approach
2:02:49 so since our conversation with all of
2:02:52 council adopted the climate action plan
2:02:54 and had specific things that needed that
2:02:57 were called out as title 18 update so
2:02:59 which we've provided a status update for
2:03:02 separate from the title 18 what's
2:03:05 happening is also the state building
2:03:07 code council
2:03:09 adopted new energy code for multi-family
2:03:12 and commercial buildings
2:03:14 and that's going to go into effect june
2:03:16 of next year
2:03:18 and some of the things that are coming
2:03:19 out of that are you know how do we have
2:03:21 more high energy efficient buildings uh
2:03:24 there's a requirement for heat pump um
2:03:27 for um you know
2:03:29 for water heater and space heaters
2:03:31 instead of relying on fossil fuels
2:03:33 there's requirements for solar readiness
2:03:36 the anything over 10 000 square feet of
2:03:38 building has to have on-site renewable
2:03:41 energy um
2:03:43 indoor lighting has to uh you know be a
2:03:46 bit be
2:03:49 manageable and and your motion sensors
2:03:51 and those kind of requirements are
2:03:52 coming in and it's all based on reducing
2:03:54 you know making highly energy efficient
2:03:56 buildings so that's happening in the
2:03:57 building code which is in the title 16
2:04:00 of the super municipal code
2:04:03 so given all the all the different uh
2:04:06 pieces um
2:04:08 we did the piercing research um and have
2:04:10 included in your packet uh the one
2:04:13 takeaway from that is most of our peer
2:04:16 cities at this point in time have this
2:04:18 incentives based approach where they're
2:04:20 really saying you can build taller
2:04:22 buildings you can have more
2:04:24 you know more development capacity if
2:04:26 you do greener buildings
2:04:29 so not sure that that's uh what uh is
2:04:32 the right policy given where the climate
2:04:34 action plan is and all those long-term
2:04:36 policies that issue has adopted
2:04:39 and and the history of sustainable
2:04:41 buildings in issaquah you know we've had
2:04:43 the swedish hospital the fire stations
2:04:46 uh the development in our um
2:04:49 that was captured under development
2:04:51 agreement for highlands and talus had a
2:04:53 third party certification requirements
2:04:56 um for these homes to meet we had the z
2:04:58 homes as the you know
2:05:00 pilot project that was built um we have
2:05:03 a pros uh laminated timber building in
2:05:06 the popular building for the rowley
2:05:08 development so so a lot of
2:05:10 buildings and construction that happened
2:05:12 in in the past
2:05:14 new construction has kind of been on the
2:05:16 sustainable side
2:05:18 um so given all that history
2:05:21 uh we're proposing to you a two-tiered
2:05:23 approach so
2:05:25 uh a more thoughtful approach given the
2:05:28 energy code updates that are coming our
2:05:30 way given that the incentives based
2:05:32 approach is not where
2:05:35 commission was leaning when we first had
2:05:37 the policy discussion with you all
2:05:40 and that's what most of our peer cities
2:05:41 are doing
2:05:42 we're recommending that we have
2:05:46 larger buildings at this time be
2:05:48 required to get a third party
2:05:49 certification so if someone's building a
2:05:51 larger building that that it is more
2:05:53 sustainable
2:05:54 and then we put on the whiteboard future
2:05:57 updates uh topic that we're more
2:06:00 thoughtful of this you know whether it's
2:06:01 a sustainability score for projects that
2:06:04 are smaller
2:06:05 because what we've also heard is that
2:06:07 the certifications are expensive so they
2:06:09 add more to the cost of getting
2:06:11 certification that there are equivalent
2:06:14 ways of doing building more sustainable
2:06:16 buildings that don't require this
2:06:18 third-party certification so
2:06:20 our recommendation at this time is with
2:06:22 this current update we handle the larger
2:06:25 buildings and that came through some of
2:06:26 your discussion where you asked us to
2:06:29 look at super thresholds and maybe
2:06:31 there's a trade-off
2:06:32 that if you do a sustainable building
2:06:35 yes it's going to cost you slightly more
2:06:37 if we require third-party certifications
2:06:39 however we're raising our cpa thresholds
2:06:42 for sustainable buildings
2:06:45 and we laid in your packet and i can
2:06:47 share my screen if it's useful on
2:06:49 on the three options one is to anything
2:06:52 larger than ten thousand the second is
2:06:54 anything larger than twenty thousand and
2:06:56 the third one is anything larger than 30
2:06:59 000. so you all can decide what
2:07:02 threshold at this time makes sense to
2:07:04 require third-party certifications until
2:07:07 we have a more thoughtful discussion as
2:07:09 a future update
2:07:11 after the energy code is up you know it
2:07:13 comes into place and this is only for
2:07:15 building so we had a placeholder in the
2:07:19 building and design section of the code
2:07:21 that we all you all had a public hearing
2:07:24 but the other sections of the code we've
2:07:26 embedded and have taken a more
2:07:28 prescriptive approach for meeting the
2:07:30 climate action goals so that's all in
2:07:32 terms of our
2:07:34 ask of you
2:07:37 for this topic to give us some guidance
2:07:39 and then
2:07:40 then we can fold it in the building and
2:07:42 design section accordingly
2:07:49 great thank you minnie
2:07:51 so looking for some clarifying questions
2:07:53 for minnie
2:07:54 as far as her presentation
2:07:59 i uh and uh director dollywall i wanted
2:08:03 to mention that it appears that the
2:08:06 climate action plan implementation
2:08:08 content was not included in the
2:08:09 development commission's agenda
2:08:12 materials for tonight's meeting
2:08:14 so the commissioners may not have had an
2:08:16 opportunity to review
2:08:18 that material it was included in the
2:08:20 published ppc agenda
2:08:25 do you want me to bring up the table
2:08:28 i that may be helpful for the
2:08:30 development commissioners
2:08:35 i would need to be the participant
2:08:53 can you all see my screen
2:09:02 so the the so the two two questions uh
2:09:06 to ponder um
2:09:08 one is do you you know we're looking for
2:09:11 is this the right approach to add have
2:09:13 some stop gap measures to address
2:09:15 climate action plan
2:09:17 by requiring larger buildings to meet
2:09:19 third party certification so if you have
2:09:21 an opinion on that that would be
2:09:24 good to share
2:09:25 the second question is the threshold and
2:09:28 our recommendation is be anything larger
2:09:30 than 20 000 square feet we can we can
2:09:33 add language in the code to require
2:09:35 third-party certifications um
2:09:37 and we can give them an option
2:09:40 um so it could be leed gold certified or
2:09:43 equivalent so it's not just one as as
2:09:45 things could change
2:09:47 they would have to give us how they are
2:09:49 equivalent and we would review it so we
2:09:51 can work out some of those details
2:09:53 related to that
2:09:54 um some of the other other little
2:09:57 nuances or details uh that we talked
2:10:00 about was that we in trade for requiring
2:10:03 sustainable buildings the incentive
2:10:04 would be that we would raise the c per
2:10:06 threshold that for some of these
2:10:08 projects uh
2:10:09 up to a certain maximum allowed under
2:10:11 the state law
2:10:12 we weren't we would uh streamline their
2:10:15 process
2:10:17 we would also you know you talked about
2:10:18 affordable housing today and how hard it
2:10:21 is to cobble up the funding and and
2:10:23 everything to finance those things um so
2:10:26 we would look for some other ways for
2:10:30 cost saving measures for affordable
2:10:31 housing if we are going to require a
2:10:33 third-party certification for affordable
2:10:35 housing projects
2:10:36 but the thresholds um you know we shared
2:10:39 this with the planning and policy
2:10:40 commission i apologize to development
2:10:42 commission um
2:10:44 for not having this in their packet
2:10:47 but basically um under the state law
2:10:50 there's a maximum threshold
2:10:52 for projects that are required to go
2:10:54 through state environmental policy act
2:10:57 so what what that does is really reviews
2:10:59 it for
2:11:01 anything any impacts that need to be
2:11:03 mitigated that are not covered by our
2:11:05 existing codes
2:11:07 and for single family homes the maximum
2:11:10 threshold is 30 units essequa currently
2:11:12 has four units as our threshold some of
2:11:15 our peer cities have a little bit larger
2:11:17 multi-family
2:11:19 again our existing code has four units
2:11:21 but we can go up to 60 units
2:11:24 for commercial buildings
2:11:27 anything larger than 4000 requires sipa
2:11:29 and essaqua
2:11:30 the maximum threshold that we can raise
2:11:32 it to is 30 000 square feet so our
2:11:35 recommendation is anything
2:11:38 less than you know larger than 10 units
2:11:41 or 20 000 square feet
2:11:45 would be so we would raise it from four
2:11:46 units to ten units and from four
2:11:49 thousand to twenty thousand square feet
2:11:51 in exchange for
2:11:53 projects that have a uh have a third
2:11:55 party cert green building certification
2:11:59 so those are the the comparisons of the
2:12:01 thresholds
2:12:15 all right as long as the development
2:12:16 commission still feels comfortable
2:12:17 moving along uh moving on with this
2:12:21 we will take clarifying questions as far
2:12:23 as minnie's presentation
2:12:25 and then again we'll hand it over for
2:12:27 deliberations to the development
2:12:28 commission
2:12:29 again if they feel comfortable
2:12:31 i know they haven't had as much time to
2:12:33 look this over as i'm sure they'd want
2:12:36 but if they feel comfortable
2:12:38 we can move forward and again they can
2:12:40 ask as many as many questions as they'd
2:12:44 is it possible can we ask questions but
2:12:48 if after we
2:12:50 review
2:12:51 the document in more detail can we send
2:12:53 additional email questions or comments
2:12:55 okay absolutely yeah okay i think we can
2:12:58 proceed my understanding is it's not a
2:13:01 public hearing so again all questions
2:13:03 this is just to inform the conversation
2:13:06 so again questions are still able to be
2:13:08 submitted
2:13:09 um again it's not a public hearing so
2:13:12 but if the development commission feels
2:13:13 good about it we can move forward with
2:13:16 at least getting some questions in today
2:13:18 uh some deliberations because again as
2:13:20 many pointed out this will end up coming
2:13:22 back to us and again planning policy
2:13:24 deliberating on this next thursday
2:13:27 so i see that uh and i guess development
2:13:30 commission
2:13:31 kind of whisper amongst themselves
2:13:33 um how they want to go with this but uh
2:13:36 commissioner million does have a
2:13:37 question
2:13:39 okay i think we're okay with proceeding
2:13:45 great thank you chair voice night and
2:13:46 milligan planning policy commission
2:13:49 uh my question is and and
2:13:52 i'm gonna preface it with the comment
2:13:54 i'm glad that we're gonna continue
2:13:56 talking about this because i i must say
2:13:58 i'm not
2:14:00 i'm not getting my arms around this i
2:14:02 don't really feel like i um
2:14:04 can substantially contribute to this
2:14:06 conversation two things i'm looking for
2:14:08 are um
2:14:12 um ease of interpretation of our code so
2:14:14 that things have um
2:14:17 so that we don't have a threshold for
2:14:18 this over here and we have a different
2:14:19 threshold for that over there and then
2:14:21 for this thing you got a different
2:14:23 threshold
2:14:24 um i think that makes it difficult we
2:14:26 want ease of of interpreting our code
2:14:29 but one thing about exempting smaller
2:14:32 buildings that i i wasn't able to
2:14:34 get the answer myself so maybe uh
2:14:37 uh one of you have it is that for
2:14:40 certifications such as let's say bill
2:14:41 green
2:14:43 do they charge just a flat fee or is it
2:14:45 based on the side of the bill size of
2:14:47 the building is the smaller building
2:14:49 charged less
2:14:51 for a certification than a larger
2:14:53 building
2:14:55 you know i don't know the specifics of
2:14:57 the cost of how much it is but we can
2:15:00 find out um
2:15:02 i imagine it is going to be based on
2:15:04 some you know larger building obviously
2:15:06 would there's more nuance to it but a
2:15:08 single family home that's
2:15:11 3 000 square feet versus 2 000 square
2:15:13 feet i'm not sure there will be much of
2:15:14 a difference there
2:15:17 but we can look into that and get you
2:15:19 some more information yeah that'd be
2:15:21 interesting to know what the basis is
2:15:23 for i'm removing them okay thank you
2:15:26 that's it
2:15:30 thank you commissioner million
2:15:33 anyone else
2:15:35 questions
2:15:43 patty dillon with the development
2:15:45 commission and this may be information
2:15:47 that uh has some more background in the
2:15:49 in the packet but i'll look into that
2:15:52 once we re receive that
2:15:54 in terms of the
2:15:56 uh the threshold for
2:15:58 for cipa exemption
2:16:00 being
2:16:01 tied to the green buildings
2:16:03 there are a lot of aspects of cipa
2:16:05 beyond just the the building itself in
2:16:08 terms of the other
2:16:10 the other land uses on on a parcel so
2:16:15 just wanting some clarification whether
2:16:17 that would be
2:16:19 an exemption from that permitting
2:16:21 process altogether or an exemption from
2:16:24 from some of the aspects related to the
2:16:26 building itself
2:16:29 yeah good question so it would be
2:16:30 completely super example it won't be you
2:16:33 have to do
2:16:34 piece you know part of the cpa analysis
2:16:36 but not the complete so
2:16:38 but the state law as you can see
2:16:41 has established higher thresholds um and
2:16:44 our peer cities have kept up with
2:16:46 increasing their thresholds uh so it
2:16:48 would be the complete evaluation of all
2:16:51 the impacts um
2:16:53 but the the ecology in the state that
2:16:55 came up with these thresholds did a more
2:16:57 thorough analysis and and and from their
2:17:00 analysis that deemed that um
2:17:02 there wasn't sipa mitigation
2:17:05 required for all of these uh smaller
2:17:07 ones it became just a procedural thing
2:17:10 uh so therefore they raised some of
2:17:12 these thresholds
2:17:15 thank you
2:17:27 chair voice we have another question
2:17:29 here in the room from commissioner
2:17:30 morgan
2:17:33 please
2:17:35 thank you um so
2:17:37 as i understand it then if i want to
2:17:38 build a 19 000 square foot office
2:17:40 building i don't have to go through the
2:17:43 seeper process if i make it leed gold
2:17:47 salmon safe
2:17:49 and perhaps eco-friendly building
2:17:51 materials
2:17:53 that's correct okay and i still have to
2:17:54 meet all the other code requirements for
2:17:58 development of the building as well
2:17:59 right
2:18:00 correct okay thank you
2:18:08 hi i had a question regarding um
2:18:12 the threshold and and if it's lifted
2:18:14 what about other environmental overlays
2:18:16 that might exist on a given site
2:18:18 uh critical areas so if those are
2:18:20 present
2:18:21 uh do you still need some level of um
2:18:26 review
2:18:28 correct so
2:18:29 um you know the
2:18:31 the the cpa is something that you know
2:18:34 was established in 1970s when
2:18:36 jurisdictions didn't have
2:18:38 all their codes updated state law wasn't
2:18:41 updated so now the cities have come
2:18:42 along and there's actually a requirement
2:18:44 to meet best available science and have
2:18:47 all of these codes
2:18:49 for protection of critical areas so
2:18:52 that's going in going to be a separate
2:18:54 chapter in the municipal code there is
2:18:57 requirement to comply with those codes
2:18:59 cpa evaluates anything that generally
2:19:03 isn't addressed by our existing adopted
2:19:07 codes so if we didn't have a critical
2:19:08 area section we could use cpa as a tool
2:19:11 to require mitigation
2:19:13 uh or if
2:19:14 the cumulative impact of this
2:19:16 development for
2:19:18 you know it's a project that that really
2:19:20 falls through the cracks from our code
2:19:22 and there's a gray area and there's no
2:19:24 and we need to use cpa as a tool for
2:19:27 requiring some mitigation then then
2:19:29 jurisdictions use cpa
2:19:31 so it's more comprehensive uh it's but
2:19:34 it used
2:19:35 projects are still required to meet
2:19:38 all the
2:19:39 adopted codes including critical areas
2:19:42 perfect thank you
2:19:54 it's your voice there are no other
2:19:55 questions here in the room
2:19:59 all right and i'm not seeing any
2:20:01 other questions in the virtual room
2:20:07 all right well
2:20:09 thank you development commission
2:20:12 now we're going to open it up for public
2:20:14 comment uh again this is not a public
2:20:17 hearing so we're looking for comment to
2:20:19 help facilitate a better discussion
2:20:22 after that
2:20:23 again uh development commission will
2:20:25 deliberate
2:20:27 planning policy will turn off the
2:20:28 cameras
2:20:30 again then we'll start wrapping up
2:20:32 tonight's meeting so
2:20:35 do we have anyone signed up for public
2:20:36 comment for
2:20:38 this portion of the meeting
2:20:41 i see one person in the room who'd like
2:20:43 to make comments and then for our
2:20:44 virtual attendees if you're on the phone
2:20:46 and would like to address this topic
2:20:48 please press star 3
2:20:50 if you're joining by computer please
2:20:52 raise your hand
2:20:55 hussein
2:21:00 mr chair uh
2:21:02 director dollywall
2:21:04 fellow commissioners lovely staff thanks
2:21:07 for having me again
2:21:08 i just wanted to wade in on this i uh
2:21:12 i'm a mechanical engineer i work with
2:21:14 the boatway company i work for the
2:21:16 military u.s military and i love the
2:21:18 energy stuff i just like a kid in the
2:21:21 candy store so when i see this stuff
2:21:23 really enjoy it so thanks for giving me
2:21:25 this opportunity
2:21:26 but i do want to let you know uh you're
2:21:28 on the right track um and i want to give
2:21:31 you a little more confidence that
2:21:33 the lenders the large lenders like
2:21:35 fannie mae possibly freddie mac they
2:21:38 have discounts for lead certification
2:21:41 uh they're
2:21:43 range between 10 to 20 basis points so
2:21:46 when you make these big buildings you're
2:21:48 talking about 20 basis points that's
2:21:50 significant so that's another added
2:21:53 benefit yes the certification cost money
2:21:56 but uh in the grand scheme of things uh
2:22:00 it that saving of 20 basis points 10 to
2:22:03 200 basis points
2:22:05 just take care of all the expenses about
2:22:07 two years two to three years
2:22:09 at most so it pays for itself i
2:22:12 encourage you go to do it i think it's
2:22:14 important
2:22:17 there was but there was one thing i
2:22:19 wanted to bring up to you and that is
2:22:22 you always got to think
2:22:24 why we're doing this and who are we
2:22:26 doing this for
2:22:29 it's important to have flexibility
2:22:32 in the title 18 that you're going to be
2:22:34 considering to adopt
2:22:37 i haven't looked at the entire thing
2:22:39 but there are
2:22:41 you know provisions that could really
2:22:44 kill a project
2:22:46 it could really stop it
2:22:49 it could be bad fortune i have been
2:22:51 lately on receiving ended this thing
2:22:52 here and i'm sorry i'm kind of lucky uh
2:22:55 i didn't get stuck with the wrath of
2:22:57 things but sometimes she could go
2:22:58 sideways
2:23:01 on your code
2:23:03 trying to adopt
2:23:04 ways out
2:23:06 for somebody who's cornered
2:23:09 for an environmental situation
2:23:11 with added benefit uh that he can gain
2:23:15 go in another path
2:23:19 i don't know if for example three
2:23:21 preservations is in your quote being
2:23:23 reviewed or not
2:23:25 but if you have four big trees in the
2:23:26 middle of the site
2:23:28 uh one of them you have to keep that
2:23:30 means you can't put your building in the
2:23:31 middle of the site that could be really
2:23:33 painful
2:23:34 again i don't know if it is or not but
2:23:36 if it is then that's something you want
2:23:38 to consider what are the ways you can
2:23:40 serve the public
2:23:41 and help the environment
2:23:43 what other ways that you can achieve
2:23:46 that goal and offset that deficiency
2:23:49 is something
2:23:51 you may want to think about so i urge
2:23:54 never forget your goal your goal is
2:23:56 serve the public
2:23:58 try to be flexible
2:24:00 look at different variety of options and
2:24:02 visions and choose a path will get you
2:24:05 there
2:24:06 with the least amount of resistance
2:24:10 and i think that concludes my comments i
2:24:12 really appreciate your patience with me
2:24:14 thank you very much
2:24:20 chair i don't see that anyone
2:24:23 virtually is interested in making
2:24:25 comments and just looking to see if
2:24:26 there's anyone else in the room
2:24:29 not seeing any interest
2:24:36 all right
2:24:38 well thank you again
2:24:40 for our loan speaker our low public
2:24:43 comment this evening
2:24:45 and we will now hand it back over to
2:24:48 vice chair shore to facilitate her
2:24:51 deliberations with her commission
2:24:53 uh so planning policy
2:24:55 please go ahead and go dark
2:24:57 thank you
2:24:59 thank you chair voice for the
2:25:01 development commission deliberations we
2:25:04 will go through the policy questions
2:25:05 posed by staff
2:25:07 and then provide any additional comments
2:25:09 or deliberations
2:25:11 and i think i have the comments but i
2:25:13 don't are the questions but i don't
2:25:15 think anybody else does if we could see
2:25:17 those again
2:26:00 commissioner patty dillon
2:26:02 response to the first
2:26:04 question
2:26:06 do you agree with the proposed approach
2:26:09 to incorporate some measures in the
2:26:11 current update
2:26:17 director daliwal presented i think that
2:26:19 sounds like a logical pathway
2:26:22 i also
2:26:24 appreciated the the concept of
2:26:26 incorporating sustainability throughout
2:26:29 the title 18 document i mean i think she
2:26:32 mentioned at the beginning
2:26:34 it sustainability really is is part of a
2:26:36 whole process and not just something
2:26:38 that we want to separate out into its
2:26:41 its own section it's part of
2:26:44 coming up with the design and the
2:26:45 function of
2:26:46 of the entire site
2:26:48 so i would i would agree with that
2:26:50 approach certainly
2:26:52 given the information from neighboring
2:26:54 cities the threshold the suggested
2:26:57 threshold seems appropriate but i don't
2:26:58 have um
2:27:00 have the background research to
2:27:02 to make that a recommendation i guess
2:27:17 commission morgan i
2:27:18 uh i think this sounds like a good idea
2:27:21 uh it's kind of a quick read right now
2:27:22 but it does sound like a good idea to me
2:27:25 to um
2:27:26 as a way to incorporate to get more
2:27:28 green buildings more salmon safe
2:27:30 buildings perhaps more sustainable
2:27:32 materials sounds like it fits with other
2:27:35 jurisdictions and with what they found
2:27:37 on a state code basis
2:27:39 so i would agree with it the one change
2:27:41 i would suggest
2:27:43 is for office school commercial service
2:27:46 recreation so forth
2:27:48 the requirement would be up to 20 000
2:27:51 square feet and up to 40 parking spaces
2:27:55 the parking code earlier in the
2:27:58 presentation
2:27:59 did not have a specific commercial
2:28:01 office section
2:28:03 but there was a medical office section
2:28:05 the minimum parking for medical office
2:28:10 one per 300 square feet i believe it is
2:28:14 which for a 20 000 square foot building
2:28:16 would require 67 parking stalls which i
2:28:19 think means you would not be able to
2:28:21 build the 20 000
2:28:23 square foot building because you would
2:28:25 have to have more far more than 40
2:28:27 stalls i think
2:28:29 it means you would be limited to only a
2:28:31 12 000 square foot building
2:28:34 if you can only do it up to 40 parking
2:28:36 stalls so i think i would suggest
2:28:39 reconsidering the 40 parking spaces
2:28:43 requirement and have that fit with
2:28:46 parking stall requirements so you can
2:28:48 actually get up to 20 000 square feet
2:28:51 thank you
2:28:57 vice chair sure um i also agree with
2:29:01 requiring the third party certifications
2:29:05 larger buildings
2:29:07 i defer to others on the appropriate
2:29:10 size of those
2:29:13 but i i don't agree with tying the sepa
2:29:15 threshold
2:29:16 to the third party certifications
2:29:20 if there are
2:29:21 changes needed to the threshold to be
2:29:23 current then i think those thresholds
2:29:26 should just be
2:29:27 updated
2:29:29 across the code not just this small
2:29:32 section
2:29:40 i'm in full support of everything that
2:29:41 was outlined
2:29:57 any further comments
2:30:10 chair voice i believe we're done
2:30:18 thank you vice chair short
2:30:20 so the rest of the meeting is going to
2:30:22 go quick we rounded third base we're
2:30:25 coming in
2:30:26 to home
2:30:27 um looking for reports
2:30:30 and any city council updates from staff
2:30:33 if you could provide us any reports
2:30:37 no reports at this time uh other than
2:30:40 you know the committee has asked us to
2:30:42 come back to you with this icap
2:30:44 discussion and also we'll have another
2:30:46 discussion on zero lot lines and
2:30:50 uh subdivision grade at your next
2:30:52 upcoming meeting on the 28th so that's
2:31:00 any other updates or comments from staff
2:31:06 no but i really want to appreciate
2:31:08 everyone digging in at the last minute
2:31:09 from the development commissioners on a
2:31:11 topic so we'll make sure we send
2:31:15 all that information over to you and um
2:31:18 you know we'll look for opportunity to
2:31:19 to dig deeper if if
2:31:21 that's needed but appreciate all the
2:31:24 feedback
2:31:26 great thank you minnie any comments
2:31:29 anything from any of our commissioners
2:31:32 tonight for the good of our order
2:31:40 all right well i just wanted to extend
2:31:42 my thank you to uh city staff
2:31:44 there was one comment from commissioner
2:31:46 morgan
2:31:47 commissioner morgan please i would just
2:31:49 like to once again thank the planning
2:31:51 policy commission for letting us chime
2:31:53 in on these items we appreciate all the
2:31:55 work that you do that's very detailed
2:31:57 and hard working and
2:31:59 thank you for letting us voice some
2:32:00 opinions about him appreciate it
2:32:06 thank you commissioner morgan and i i
2:32:08 think i can safely speak for my
2:32:10 commission that
2:32:11 you know you guys provide a
2:32:13 indispensable service and again we
2:32:15 really enjoy the time together
2:32:18 i want to just say thank you to city
2:32:20 staff
2:32:21 thank you to
2:32:22 our commissions and our commissioners
2:32:24 development commission planning policy
2:32:26 commission and also everyone who made
2:32:28 public comment this evening again
2:32:31 it takes a village and we have a lot of
2:32:33 people here
2:32:34 trying to make this city
2:32:37 uh the best we can not only for us but
2:32:39 for future generations so
2:32:41 again thank you very much as far as
2:32:44 planning policy commission i am looking
2:32:45 forward to seeing all of you guys next
2:32:49 next thursday mark your calendars in
2:32:51 city chambers it'll be a good time i
2:32:53 believe it'll be the first time since
2:32:55 march of 2020
2:32:57 uh some of you the first time i've
2:32:58 actually ever met you in person
2:33:01 so again looking forward to all of that
2:33:04 and wishing you guys all a good weekend
2:33:07 and tonight we're going to adjourn this
2:33:09 meeting
2:33:11 at 904. so thank you everyone and have a
2:33:14 good evening
2:33:15 good night

Attendance

Council / Members (14)
Minnie Dhaliwal
Director
CP&D Tisha Geiser
City Clerk Christen Leeson
Senior Planner
CP&D Valerie Porter
Associate Planner 2. Public Comments (General) (00:02) ➢ Hossein Khorram
Milano Apartments
Townhomes, stated that Washington State has been in a state of COVID-19 emergency for three years
Land Use processes have slowed significantly. There are new economic challenges, inflation has become a hardship. New Land Use code should be delayed for six months for existing projects in development. The permit for Milano Issaquah was applied for two years ago, the pending Land Use change was only discovered a Page 15 of 85 APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 07-20-22 Special Joint Meeting Planning Policy Commission & Development Commission Minutes few months ago. There are many questions, the state of emergency that COVID-19 has caused has prohibited meeting efficiently for answers. The city of Seattle delayed the adoption of the International Building code by six months, a significant code that governs all construction, development. Different municipalities such as Shoreline are considering permit extensions. RCW 36.78.020 states that permit applications should be processed in a timely, fair manner to ensure predictability, changing the rules with short notice for a project that has been in development for three years is not fair, does not ensure predictability. Staff is very busy, most communication is virtual with days of processing time. Khorram asked how the public is being served, ➢ Ben Hobbs stated that excessive regulation is not conducive to progress. Certain code compliance rules can tie the hands of developers
Hobbs asked if companies would want to deal with Issaquah in good faith when excessive regulation is added. ➢ Bob Haglund
Granite Falls
WA, stated that the role of public service is to balance the needs of everyone, the public, the environment, but encouraged more of a focus on the public going forward in consideration of the housing crisis. Children will not be able to afford to live in the communities they have grown up in, breaking the community up. There is only a certain amount of money available in most families, choices must be made regarding what can be spent for housing, energy, food, healthcare. Only the cost of housing can be in someway moved toward affordability by Issaquah. ➢ Lindsey Walsh
Issaquah Council President, stated being present to welcome the Commissioners back to in-person, hybrid meetings, thanked everyone for serving in an unusual time of virtual meetings. The Council wants to express how important the work of the Commissions on Title 18 is. ➢ Paul Hess stated appreciating that the Commissioners take the work seriously with many interests to balance. Large projects take time, when rules are changed during development, the project unfairly becomes very expensive for the developer. Deadlines have been extended in other communities. A six-month extension for all projects already in development should be more than reasonable. Processes to get projects done have slowed, in example, submitting questions via email, receiving replies over days versus an in-person meeting where all issues are resolved quickly. ➢ Dale Funk stated that transitions to virtual meetings during the COVID-19 state of emergency took time to become efficient, now the transition from virtual to hybrid meetings will be similar. Delays in resolutions to questions have put every project back in progress. Discretionary authority to pad time for delays in current projects would be reasonable at this time. Delays have not been caused by any stakeholders
Staff (1)
Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Tisha Geiser, City Clerk Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2