Environmental Board · Wednesday, January 27, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Board Membership

packet pp.3

▶ Watch from 0:06 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD Staff Liaison Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior About Sustainability Coordinator Created in 2020, the objective of the Email Environmental Board is to protect, preserve and enhance the natural environment and take Regular Members action on climate change to reduce its impacts 2021 - Jamie Finch by advising the Mayor, City Council and City 2022 - Dani Madden* departments on the City’s plans, policies, 2022 - Don McQuilliams regulations and programs related to 2023 - Rishi Hazra* environmental stewardship. 2023 - Cameron Fisher 2023 - Lara Lebeiko Membership 2024 - Nancy Davidson 2024 - Dan Hintz The Environmental Board is comprised of nine 2024 - Anne Newcomb regular members, and up to three alternates. All members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Alternate Members Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2021 - Janet Wall…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Jan. 13, 2021

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-13-21 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000]

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Election of Chair & Vice Chair, Facilitated by: Megan Curtis Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator

Action · packet pp.7–8

Topics: ClimateElections

▶ Watch from 13:07 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Chair, or Acting Chair, can use the following script to facilitate nominations and elections of officers.

Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance

Action · Megan Curtis Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.9–55

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 56:12 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

This section summarizes the background of Issaquah and the EV ordinance. For more information, please refer to the full Background Report in

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next Board meeting is scheduled for Feb. 10, 2021

▶ Watch from 0:21

2688 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ well welcome everyone to the

0:03 ↗ january 27th environmental board meeting

0:06 ↗ i'm calling this meeting to order

0:08 ↗ i'm also serving as the duties uh for

0:11 ↗ chair for this evening before we do the

0:14 ↗ election of the chair which is coming up

0:15 ↗ on the agenda this evening so

0:17 ↗ excited to get that process rolling

0:21 ↗ so i have a couple announcements here so

0:23 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:25 ↗ meeting

0:26 ↗ i'd like to start by providing some

0:28 ↗ guidelines

0:29 ↗ we do have some participants attending

0:31 ↗ both by phone and video

0:33 ↗ so for all meeting attendees please

0:35 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

0:37 ↗ state your name before each time you're

0:39 ↗ speaking mute your microphone

0:41 ↗ when not speaking and use the call-in

0:44 ↗ information in the meeting invite if

0:46 ↗ you're having any

0:47 ↗ technical difficulties at all and that

0:50 ↗ reminds me that i did not introduce

0:51 ↗ myself so i'm megan curtis murphy

0:54 ↗ i am serving as a staff liaison to the

0:56 ↗ board and i'm the senior

0:58 ↗ sustainability coordinator for the city

1:00 ↗ of issaquah

1:03 ↗ so i'd like to now go ahead and take

1:06 ↗ roll so i will go ahead and call

1:09 ↗ everyone by alphabetical order

1:10 ↗ so please unmute yourself and say here

1:13 ↗ when i call your name

1:18 ↗ first we have tom anderson here

1:23 ↗ surya bola pragata

1:28 ↗ here nancy davidson

1:33 ↗ here

1:36 ↗ jamie finch here

1:40 ↗ and please remember to mute yourself

1:42 ↗ after you have spoken

1:50 ↗ thank you um cameron fisher

1:53 ↗ yeah rishi hasra

2:03 ↗ thank you dan hintz

2:06 ↗ here and i do not see

2:10 ↗ laura labiko yet unless if she is on

2:13 ↗ the other caller i'm here i'm not i'm on

2:15 ↗ the macbook air

2:17 ↗ yes i see you thank you that's what roll

2:19 ↗ calls for

2:20 ↗ um danny madden here

2:24 ↗ don mcwilliams yeah here

2:28 ↗ and newcomb here

2:32 ↗ and janet wall

2:41 ↗ yep janet are you able to unmute

2:43 ↗ yourself there

2:45 ↗ finally yes great

2:48 ↗ thank you very much all right we have a

2:51 ↗ full house again so wonderful

2:54 ↗ so the first item on the agenda is

2:56 ↗ approval of the january 13 minutes

2:59 ↗ um so is there any objection to approval

3:01 ↗ of the minutes

3:06 ↗ and hearing none the minutes are

3:08 ↗ approved for that meeting

3:12 ↗ we will now have an opportunity for

3:15 ↗ public comment so it's great that we

3:18 ↗ have this we'll have this on all of our

3:19 ↗ agendas so

3:20 ↗ members of the public will be able to

3:22 ↗ comment on the items before the board or

3:24 ↗ other items that they

3:25 ↗ have comments on so for members of the

3:28 ↗ public joining us welcome

3:31 ↗ if you'd like to make comments please

3:32 ↗ press star 3

3:34 ↗ on your phone and we'll call your name

3:36 ↗ either by your name or the last two

3:38 ↗ digits of the phone number when it's

3:39 ↗ your turn to make comments

3:42 ↗ a few things keep in mind when

3:44 ↗ recognized

3:45 ↗ please unmute your microphone so star

3:48 ↗ six

3:48 ↗ will probably be an option to do this i

3:51 ↗ will

3:52 ↗ send you a unmute request first and then

3:54 ↗ you press star six

3:55 ↗ and then you unmute your phone and i can

3:58 ↗ review that again in a moment as we do

4:00 ↗ each one

4:01 ↗ also please state your name address and

4:03 ↗ relationship to the city

4:06 ↗ and speak clearly and pause frequently

4:09 ↗ and please limit comments to five

4:11 ↗ minutes

4:12 ↗ and then remember to mute your

4:14 ↗ microphone when you're done as well

4:17 ↗ if you do not respond after the name or

4:19 ↗ phone number is called or if your

4:20 ↗ connection is lost unexpectedly

4:22 ↗ the meeting will need to proceed but

4:24 ↗ you're encouraged to rejoin the meeting

4:26 ↗ as you are able

4:28 ↗ so we did have one person sign up to

4:32 ↗ um to do comments this evening so we'll

4:35 ↗ go ahead and start with

4:36 ↗ ann fletcher so and i will go ahead and

4:38 ↗ request to unmute you now

4:51 ↗ and and we don't hear you yet if you're

4:52 ↗ talking

4:54 ↗ so you might have to press star six

4:57 ↗ and unmute your phone can you hear me

5:01 ↗ now

5:02 ↗ yes we can great great thank you

5:06 ↗ i'm ann fletcher i'm a resident

5:10 ↗ of issaquah and a member of people for

5:13 ↗ climate action

5:16 ↗ i want to thank you environmental board

5:19 ↗ members

5:20 ↗ for your service to the community and i

5:24 ↗ want to give you best wishes for the

5:25 ↗ productive work that you will do to

5:27 ↗ protect protect

5:29 ↗ the environment

5:32 ↗ i am in favor of issaquah having a

5:34 ↗ strong

5:36 ↗ electric vehicle charging ordinance

5:42 ↗ this is supported by current city plans

5:45 ↗ and policies it is a first

5:49 ↗ step to bring hope

5:52 ↗ and motivate us to take other actions

5:55 ↗ to get a jump start on addressing

5:58 ↗ climate change

6:02 ↗ electric vehicle readiness will

6:03 ↗ encourage

6:05 ↗ and meet the predicted demand

6:09 ↗ electric cars plus less car driving

6:13 ↗ go hand in hand to reduce our carbon

6:16 ↗ emissions

6:18 ↗ initial plans like this can be worked

6:21 ↗ out

6:22 ↗ simultaneously with updating issaquah's

6:25 ↗ plans

6:26 ↗ policies and regulations over the next

6:29 ↗ few years the community

6:33 ↗ and the council have requested action

6:36 ↗ of this ordinance the staff has done

6:40 ↗ much research to bring this proposal to

6:42 ↗ this point

6:43 ↗ i suggest two improvements to the

6:46 ↗ proposed ordinance

6:48 ↗ number one require electric vehicle

6:52 ↗ charging

6:52 ↗ ability in single-family duplex and

6:55 ↗ townhome units

6:56 ↗ rather than using incentives seattle

7:00 ↗ already has this in their code

7:02 ↗ and let's resolve any further legal

7:05 ↗ issues about it

7:07 ↗ number two require electric vehicle

7:10 ↗ charging ability

7:12 ↗ in affordable housing units rather than

7:15 ↗ discriminating

7:16 ↗ on basic transportation needs

7:19 ↗ provide incentives and reduce the cost

7:23 ↗ to affordable housing builders

7:26 ↗ such as reducing the number of total

7:29 ↗ parking spaces

7:30 ↗ required my written comments include

7:33 ↗ additional support for these statements

7:35 ↗ and i will end

7:37 ↗ with a quote from greta tunberg

7:40 ↗ she encourages leaders in this way

7:43 ↗ the one thing we need more than hope

7:47 ↗ is action taking action

7:51 ↗ unleashes hope thank you

7:59 ↗ thank you ann and do we have any other

8:02 ↗ members of the public that would like to

8:04 ↗ make comments

8:05 ↗ if you do please press star 3 on

8:08 ↗ your phone now

8:16 ↗ i am not seeing anyone

8:20 ↗ um i see the last two digits six four

8:22 ↗ i'm just going to try to unmute

8:24 ↗ you in case you did want to make

8:26 ↗ comments so i'll go ahead and request

8:28 ↗ unmute now

8:32 ↗ and if so you can press star 6 on your

8:34 ↗ phone and unmute

8:43 ↗ and i'm not hearing anyone

8:49 ↗ and not seeing anyone else that wants to

8:50 ↗ make comments so we will go ahead

8:52 ↗ and move on with the agenda

8:56 ↗ so the next item on the agenda is the

8:59 ↗ election of the

9:00 ↗ chair and vice chair for the board and

9:03 ↗ they will be taking over the duties of

9:05 ↗ of chair so i would go like to go ahead

9:09 ↗ and first call for nominations we'll

9:11 ↗ start with the

9:12 ↗ chair position um so we'll go ahead and

9:15 ↗ call for nomination so would anyone like

9:17 ↗ to

9:18 ↗ let me know they'd like to nominate

9:20 ↗ someone to be the chair

9:22 ↗ and i see in the chat um and could you

9:25 ↗ unmute yourself and we'll start with

9:27 ↗ just the chair here

9:30 ↗ yes i would like to nominate nancy

9:32 ↗ davidson as

9:33 ↗ chair and thank you nancy for

9:37 ↗ volunteering for this position

9:42 ↗ great thank you

9:45 ↗ and if there's anyone else that would

9:47 ↗ like to make a nomination you can

9:49 ↗ indicate in the chat otherwise we'll

9:52 ↗ move on to the vice chair position

9:58 ↗ and i'm not seeing any other

10:02 ↗ any other nominations so um since

10:05 ↗ there's been no other nominations

10:07 ↗ um nancy davidson is now considered an

10:10 ↗ elected

10:11 ↗ uh chair by unanimous consent so

10:13 ↗ congratulations

10:14 ↗ nancy and thank you very much for taking

10:17 ↗ on this role to lead

10:19 ↗ the new board

10:22 ↗ we will now move on to the vice chair

10:25 ↗ position

10:28 ↗ so is if anyone would like to nominate

10:30 ↗ someone to be vice chair you can go

10:31 ↗ ahead and type it into the chat

10:35 ↗ i'm just supposed to be calling up i'm

10:38 ↗ hearing a little bit

10:40 ↗ um background noise

10:43 ↗ um and i see ann newcombe has mentioned

10:46 ↗ someone for vice chair can you unmute

10:48 ↗ yourself

10:50 ↗ yes i would like to nominate jamie finch

10:53 ↗ as

10:53 ↗ vice chair and thank you genie

10:58 ↗ thank you and is there anyone else that

11:00 ↗ would like to make a nomination for the

11:02 ↗ vice chair position

11:09 ↗ and i am not seeing any in chat um so

11:12 ↗ jamie finch congratulations you've been

11:14 ↗ elected to our vice chair position by

11:17 ↗ unanimous consent

11:20 ↗ so congratulations to both of you um i

11:23 ↗ did want to i heard

11:24 ↗ the caller um with the last two digits

11:27 ↗ six

11:28 ↗ four um so i want to go ahead and and go

11:30 ↗ back just to make sure we didn't miss

11:32 ↗ anyone that wanted to make public

11:33 ↗ comment

11:34 ↗ um so the caller six four i'm going to

11:36 ↗ go ahead and

11:38 ↗ request um that you unmute yourself now

11:47 ↗ and you can press star

11:50 ↗ up so you're now unmuted on our end did

11:52 ↗ you want to make public comment

11:55 ↗ no i'm just here visiting my name is

11:57 ↗ jerry gordon and i'm a member of the

11:58 ↗ league of women voters

12:00 ↗ i'm isoqua's climate guide and i had

12:03 ↗ decided that i would attend tonight's

12:05 ↗ meeting to see how your board is

12:06 ↗ operating

12:07 ↗ and just be a part of your organization

12:09 ↗ thanks for having me

12:11 ↗ wonderful thank you i will go ahead and

12:13 ↗ meet you now

12:17 ↗ all right with that we have our new

12:19 ↗ chair and vice chair

12:21 ↗ so i had spoken with nancy a little bit

12:24 ↗ before

12:24 ↗ and she had generously offered to take

12:27 ↗ over the duties of of chair

12:29 ↗ starting after this so i will let her

12:32 ↗ move us through the agenda with the

12:36 ↗ the next item which will be myself

12:41 ↗ nancy is there anything you'd like to

12:42 ↗ say before we get started well i'm

12:44 ↗ looking forward to working with all of

12:46 ↗ you and thanks for

12:47 ↗ um allowing me the opportunity to chair

12:50 ↗ this group i think it'll be a fun

12:53 ↗ working group we have a lot of tough

12:54 ↗ challenges ahead of us in terms of work

12:56 ↗ plan that has been identified by the

12:58 ↗ administration

13:00 ↗ so with that given that we have a fairly

13:03 ↗ vigorous

13:04 ↗ agenda for tonight i thought we'd move

13:06 ↗ right into

13:07 ↗ the next agenda item unless there's any

13:10 ↗ objection

13:13 ↗ and with that let's move into the

13:16 ↗ electrical electric vehicle charging

13:18 ↗ ordinance

13:19 ↗ and we'd like to start it off with a

13:21 ↗ presentation from megan

13:23 ↗ and after that just kind of laying this

13:25 ↗ out so everyone knows

13:26 ↗ i don't know if megan wants questions

13:28 ↗ along the way

13:29 ↗ or if you want to wait till the end of

13:31 ↗ the presentation i think that's

13:32 ↗ something when you unmute megan you

13:34 ↗ might want to point out

13:35 ↗ how you want to receive questions and

13:37 ↗ then at that point we will continue to

13:39 ↗ ask

13:40 ↗ questions until we get as many of our

13:42 ↗ questions answered as we have time

13:43 ↗ allotted

13:44 ↗ and then move on into kind of providing

13:47 ↗ some kind of comments for the

13:49 ↗ administration

13:50 ↗ just a quick remin reminder to everyone

13:53 ↗ on the board i hope i'm not speaking too

13:55 ↗ fast

13:56 ↗ um we are doing this in a two-touch

13:59 ↗ um we're getting two times to review

14:02 ↗ this

14:02 ↗ policy and ordinance this one here is

14:05 ↗ more since we're a new board

14:07 ↗ this provides us an opportunity to hear

14:10 ↗ what megan has to say um kind of answers

14:13 ↗ ask questions and get and provide a

14:15 ↗ little bit of guidance and comments

14:17 ↗ back to the city council and to the

14:20 ↗ planning policy commission

14:22 ↗ um and then at a subsequent yet to be

14:26 ↗ determined date which megan may have

14:27 ↗ more information it'll be

14:29 ↗ brought back to us to actually provide

14:32 ↗ some motions

14:32 ↗ when we get more feedback from the

14:34 ↗ council and from the planning policy

14:36 ↗ commission

14:37 ↗ and with that um i'm going to turn it

14:40 ↗ over to megan

14:46 ↗ great thank you very much um to answer

14:49 ↗ that question

14:50 ↗ um i i would prefer overall questions at

14:53 ↗ the end if there is a burning question

14:55 ↗ along the way

14:56 ↗ feel free to indicate that in the chat

14:58 ↗ though and

15:00 ↗ nancy can keep her eye on it and and let

15:02 ↗ me know

15:03 ↗ so if there is anything along the way i

15:05 ↗ can answer that

15:06 ↗ so i will go ahead and share my screen

15:10 ↗ here

15:16 ↗ okay get just a thumbs up if people can

15:18 ↗ see my screen

15:20 ↗ that's a lot of thumbs up all right

15:27 ↗ all right so good evening so as i

15:30 ↗ mentioned i'm megan curtis murphy the

15:32 ↗ senior sustainability coordinator with

15:34 ↗ the city

15:35 ↗ so tonight i'll be presenting about the

15:37 ↗ proposed electric vehicle ordinance or

15:40 ↗ ev ordnance this will require ev

15:42 ↗ charging infrastructure

15:43 ↗ in new multi-family and commercial

15:45 ↗ buildings as well as substantial

15:47 ↗ retrofits

15:48 ↗ if passed the new code language would

15:51 ↗ reside in the city's land use code under

15:53 ↗ the parking standards

15:55 ↗ the city council had requested a draft

15:57 ↗ ordinance to come before them earlier

15:59 ↗ this month

15:59 ↗ and the council has now requested

16:01 ↗ feedback from the planning policy

16:02 ↗ commission

16:03 ↗ and the environmental board this evening

16:06 ↗ we're asking for input

16:08 ↗ on the overall proposal to increase ev

16:10 ↗ infrastructure in the city

16:12 ↗ however there are also a few specific

16:13 ↗ areas that we're looking for input on

16:16 ↗ both the council and the planning policy

16:18 ↗ commission discussed each of these items

16:20 ↗ and requested feedback from the board

16:23 ↗ the first is the use of incentives to

16:25 ↗ encourage electric vehicle readiness

16:27 ↗ in single-family homes and townhomes the

16:30 ↗ second

16:30 ↗ is the use of a waiver for affordable

16:32 ↗ housing units so as not to add

16:34 ↗ additional cost to these

16:36 ↗ projects and the third is whether

16:38 ↗ transit-oriented development or tod

16:40 ↗ projects

16:41 ↗ should be handled differently in the

16:42 ↗ ordinance due to their proximity to

16:45 ↗ transit

16:46 ↗ there are brief summaries of the

16:48 ↗ conversations at the council

16:50 ↗ meeting and the ppc meeting in the memo

16:52 ↗ as well as some additional information

16:54 ↗ that was requested to help inform the

16:56 ↗ discussion for this evening

16:59 ↗ first i want to provide some background

17:01 ↗ information

17:02 ↗ on the city goals and plans that support

17:05 ↗ increasing ev infrastructure in our city

17:07 ↗ as well as why we're discussing the

17:09 ↗ proposal now

17:10 ↗ so back in 2014 issaquah adopted

17:13 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions reduction

17:15 ↗ targets

17:16 ↗ transportation makes up 38 of our

17:19 ↗ community-wide emissions

17:21 ↗ so increasing ev ridership will help us

17:23 ↗ move closer to our city's climate goals

17:27 ↗ the city's sustainable building action

17:29 ↗ strategy is another plan that supports

17:31 ↗ this ordinance

17:32 ↗ the goal of the strategy that was

17:34 ↗ established by the city council

17:36 ↗ was to establish issaquah as a regional

17:38 ↗ leader in green building

17:40 ↗ this plan was adopted in 2017 and

17:44 ↗ includes a strategy to update codes for

17:46 ↗ electric vehicles

17:48 ↗ we also have the city's mobility master

17:50 ↗ plan which includes a policy to help

17:52 ↗ increase

17:53 ↗ use of electric vehicles which these new

17:55 ↗ standards will help to do

17:57 ↗ and last increasing ev infrastructure

18:00 ↗ was identified as one of the priorities

18:02 ↗ at the community convening on climate

18:04 ↗ and together with local organizations we

18:06 ↗ presented the recommendations from the

18:08 ↗ convening during the october 19th

18:10 ↗ council meeting

18:12 ↗ and at that meeting council members

18:13 ↗ requested that the proposal come to them

18:16 ↗ before january

18:17 ↗ there's an overall feeling at the

18:19 ↗ convenience that we wanted to start with

18:21 ↗ action

18:21 ↗ uh we'll be developing a climate action

18:23 ↗ plan later but there was a request to

18:25 ↗ see actions

18:26 ↗ uh straight away after that so this was

18:28 ↗ a response to that

18:33 ↗ another reason why an ev ordinance is

18:35 ↗ especially important for issaquah right

18:36 ↗ now

18:37 ↗ is that king county is expected to

18:39 ↗ experience rapid growth and eva

18:41 ↗ ownership in the coming years one reason

18:44 ↗ for this

18:44 ↗ is the washington state passed a law in

18:46 ↗ 2020 that will require automakers to

18:49 ↗ sell a certain percentage of

18:51 ↗ zero emission vehicles each year a

18:54 ↗ similar law is already on the books in

18:55 ↗ california

18:57 ↗ which has the largest market share

18:58 ↗ percentage of evs in the country

19:02 ↗ also electric vehicles are expected to

19:04 ↗ achieve price parity with gas vehicles

19:07 ↗ as soon as 2023 and they're also cheaper

19:10 ↗ to own and maintain than gas vehicles

19:13 ↗ but one factor that might inhibit growth

19:15 ↗ is the lack of access to ev

19:17 ↗ charging which this ordinance will help

19:18 ↗ to address the people most affected

19:21 ↗ are those living in multi-family housing

19:23 ↗ who can't just install the

19:24 ↗ infrastructure needed to charge

19:26 ↗ so are more often excluded from the

19:28 ↗ benefits of ev ownership

19:33 ↗ before we get into the details of the

19:34 ↗ proposal i want to clarify some of the

19:36 ↗ lingo around the various

19:38 ↗ types of ev infrastructure so this

19:41 ↗ ordinance is looking at level two

19:42 ↗ charging

19:43 ↗ which is the most common because it

19:45 ↗ allows cars to charge past

19:47 ↗ faster than plugging into a standard

19:48 ↗ outlet but it's also less costly than

19:51 ↗ level 3

19:52 ↗ fast charging it requires a 240 volt

19:55 ↗ circuit

19:56 ↗ which is the bigger outlet that's

19:58 ↗ commonly used for for dryers and

19:59 ↗ households

20:01 ↗ and although you could charge using the

20:03 ↗ common household outlet

20:04 ↗ it takes much longer time to do this so

20:06 ↗ it's not considered adequate for common

20:08 ↗ electric vehicle usage so the first type

20:12 ↗ of charging is called ev

20:13 ↗ capable this means that there's electric

20:16 ↗ panel capacity and space

20:18 ↗ to support level 2 charging but no

20:21 ↗ outlet installed

20:23 ↗ and ev capable is not included in the

20:25 ↗ proposal

20:26 ↗ as most ev codes have focused on most of

20:30 ↗ the recent ev codes have focused on the

20:32 ↗ later two types of infrastructure which

20:34 ↗ actually makes it easier to get the

20:36 ↗ cars plugged in and the second type of

20:40 ↗ ev infrastructure is called eb ready so

20:43 ↗ this is the designated parking space

20:44 ↗ that's provided with the 240 volt

20:46 ↗ dedicated circuit for the charging

20:48 ↗ station

20:49 ↗ an ev ready is represented in the image

20:52 ↗ on the slide here with the pink line

20:54 ↗ that includes the plug point for the

20:55 ↗ charger

20:56 ↗ but not the charging equipment itself

20:59 ↗ so in a house someone could easily plug

21:02 ↗ into this to charge as long as it's

21:04 ↗ located near the designated parking area

21:07 ↗ but at an apartment building or a

21:09 ↗ commercial lot it would likely be

21:10 ↗ covered up

21:11 ↗ since it wouldn't be managed as a

21:12 ↗ charging point

21:15 ↗ and finally evse or electric vehicle

21:18 ↗ supply equipment

21:20 ↗ is the final part which is the charging

21:23 ↗ station itself which allows cars to plug

21:25 ↗ in

21:28 ↗ so there are many states and

21:30 ↗ jurisdictions that have implemented ev

21:32 ↗ codes already

21:33 ↗ many are along the west coast with most

21:35 ↗ in california

21:36 ↗ and one reason for this is likely the

21:38 ↗ policy that i was discussing earlier

21:40 ↗ that requires automakers to sell a

21:42 ↗ certain percentage of electric

21:44 ↗ vehicles each year and again this is the

21:46 ↗ same policy that washington state just

21:48 ↗ adopted last year

21:50 ↗ and the codes themselves vary by various

21:53 ↗ building types and

21:54 ↗ type of ev infrastructure as you can see

21:58 ↗ on the slide here

22:02 ↗ so this slide shows the jurisdictions in

22:04 ↗ washington that currently have ev codes

22:07 ↗ or are in the process of developing them

22:10 ↗ the regional code collaboration or the

22:12 ↗ rcc

22:13 ↗ is a collection of jurisdictions around

22:15 ↗ king county that work together to

22:17 ↗ collect research and develop green codes

22:20 ↗ and last year they developed an ev

22:22 ↗ charging code

22:23 ↗ through a large stakeholder process with

22:25 ↗ jurisdictions

22:26 ↗ the ev industry utilities and interest

22:29 ↗ groups

22:30 ↗ and the next steps for that ordinance is

22:32 ↗ for cities like issaquah

22:34 ↗ to consider it and modify as needed for

22:36 ↗ their individual

22:38 ↗ jurisdictions so the

22:40 ↗ chart to the left shows the basics of

22:43 ↗ the model rcc code

22:45 ↗ the proposed king county code is based

22:47 ↗ on this

22:48 ↗ and each of the other jurisdictions have

22:50 ↗ slightly different codes

22:51 ↗ but most are pretty similar to this one

22:54 ↗ also the cities of bellevue kirkland and

22:57 ↗ redmond

22:58 ↗ all included the development of ev codes

23:00 ↗ in their recent climate action plans

23:02 ↗ and have expressed interest in using the

23:04 ↗ rcc model for their own jurisdictions as

23:06 ↗ well

23:10 ↗ overall the city's proposed ordinance is

23:13 ↗ based on and is very similar to the

23:15 ↗ regional code collaborations

23:16 ↗ model code the biggest difference is

23:19 ↗ that the city's ordinance proposes an

23:21 ↗ incentive

23:22 ↗ for single family and town home charging

23:24 ↗ rather than a requirement

23:26 ↗ so the administration is proposing the

23:28 ↗ projects that install ev

23:30 ↗ ready infrastructure would receive a 350

23:33 ↗ incentive for each of their

23:35 ↗ ev parking spaces installed and from our

23:38 ↗ research

23:38 ↗ this incentive would most likely cover

23:40 ↗ the majority if not all

23:42 ↗ of the expenses of ev ready in

23:44 ↗ installation in these building types

23:46 ↗ and we'll look at the cost a bit more on

23:48 ↗ a future slide

23:51 ↗ so the city is recommending an incentive

23:53 ↗ rather than a requirement

23:55 ↗ because of a state law which prevents

23:57 ↗ cities from making amendments to the

23:59 ↗ state building code

24:00 ↗ that affects single-family residential

24:03 ↗ construction

24:04 ↗ such as the ev code without approval

24:06 ↗ from the state building code council

24:09 ↗ the state also recently adopted ev codes

24:12 ↗ in the state building code

24:14 ↗ so since they're regulating them there

24:17 ↗ it's advised that the city does not

24:18 ↗ impose

24:19 ↗ the single-family regulations through

24:21 ↗ the land use code

24:23 ↗ so the administration is instead

24:26 ↗ recommending incentives

24:27 ↗ to increase the likelihood we get the ev

24:29 ↗ ready construction

24:30 ↗ in single family and town home units

24:34 ↗ for the second piece for affordable

24:36 ↗ housing city the city is proposing

24:39 ↗ waiving the ev infrastructure

24:40 ↗ requirements

24:41 ↗ for units at or below 80 percent of the

24:44 ↗ area median

24:45 ↗ income so in other words the number of

24:48 ↗ affordable housing units does not need

24:50 ↗ to be included in the calculation for ev

24:52 ↗ parking spaces and one of the reasons

24:55 ↗ for this is that developing

24:56 ↗ more affordable housing issaquah is a

24:59 ↗ big priority for the city

25:01 ↗ so in the proposal we didn't want to add

25:03 ↗ any additional requirements or cost

25:05 ↗ these types of projects

25:07 ↗ and as we know both the council and ppc

25:09 ↗ has provided feedback

25:11 ↗ on both of these components of the

25:12 ↗ ordinance and i'll talk a little bit

25:13 ↗ more about that shortly

25:18 ↗ so we'll now go ahead and look at the

25:19 ↗ specific components of the issaqua

25:21 ↗ proposal

25:22 ↗ this first slide shows the proposed

25:24 ↗ requirements for multi-family

25:26 ↗ residential buildings

25:28 ↗ for all new construction of multi-family

25:30 ↗ buildings the proposed ordinance would

25:32 ↗ require 10 percent of all parking spots

25:35 ↗ have evse

25:36 ↗ or the complete charging infrastructure

25:39 ↗ and 30 percent of the parking spaces

25:41 ↗ would have to be ev

25:42 ↗ ready meaning that they have the outlet

25:44 ↗ or terminal available to easily install

25:46 ↗ charging equipment

25:49 ↗ for all existing multi-family buildings

25:51 ↗ undergoing substantial improvements or

25:54 ↗ retrofits

25:55 ↗ 10 percent of parking spaces will have

25:58 ↗ evse which is the same as new

26:00 ↗ construction

26:01 ↗ and then 20 percent of the spaces will

26:02 ↗ need to be ev ready

26:04 ↗ and a substantial improvement is defined

26:07 ↗ as any repair

26:08 ↗ reconstruction or improvement of a

26:10 ↗ structure

26:11 ↗ where the cost is equal to or exceeds 50

26:14 ↗ percent

26:15 ↗ of the actual cash or market value

26:21 ↗ since most ev charging happens at home

26:23 ↗ the proposed ordinance places higher

26:25 ↗ requirements on multi-family buildings

26:28 ↗ than non-residential ones

26:30 ↗ so for non-residential five percent of

26:32 ↗ all parking spaces would need to have

26:34 ↗ evse

26:35 ↗ and 10 of spaces would need to be eb

26:37 ↗ ready

26:38 ↗ and these requirements apply to both the

26:40 ↗ new construction and the substantial

26:42 ↗ improvements

26:44 ↗ then there's also the same requirement

26:46 ↗ for any new paved surface parking lots

26:48 ↗ and parking garages

26:50 ↗ and these are the same percentages that

26:52 ↗ are in the

26:53 ↗ regional code collaborations model

26:55 ↗ ordinance

26:58 ↗ so here is a table with cost estimates

27:00 ↗ of the various types of ev

27:02 ↗ infrastructure

27:03 ↗ the cost for ev capable ev ready and

27:06 ↗ evse

27:07 ↗ are in the first three columns with the

27:09 ↗ total cost in the fourth column

27:12 ↗ the last column here shows the estimated

27:15 ↗ cost for retrofitting

27:17 ↗ so these costs were developed by king

27:19 ↗ county through

27:20 ↗ research and consultation and since

27:22 ↗ presenting these i've heard from some

27:24 ↗ that they are about right and then i

27:26 ↗ have heard from others that they seem

27:28 ↗ a bit low so this is probably because

27:31 ↗ costs will

27:32 ↗ really vary depending on building type

27:34 ↗ charger type

27:35 ↗ whether it's new construction or

27:37 ↗ retrofits there's a lot of factors going

27:39 ↗ into them

27:40 ↗ but something that's important to note i

27:42 ↗ think is that ev readiness retrofits

27:45 ↗ cost two to eight times more than

27:46 ↗ ev-ready construction

27:49 ↗ which is due to several factors some of

27:51 ↗ those being

27:52 ↗ if you need to break and repair walls if

27:54 ↗ you need to upgrade electric service

27:56 ↗ panels

27:57 ↗ if you need to break and then repair

27:59 ↗ parking surfaces

28:01 ↗ there's also various methods for

28:03 ↗ installing conduit

28:05 ↗ and then there's also the additional

28:07 ↗ permitting and inspection costs

28:08 ↗ associated with the retrofits

28:10 ↗ so overall that's why it's important to

28:13 ↗ install ev infrastructure when a

28:15 ↗ building is first built

28:18 ↗ is that for that slide is that the

28:21 ↗ apartment cost is that per

28:23 ↗ apartment building or that's just per

28:26 ↗ spot

28:26 ↗ this is per spot per parking space

28:34 ↗ and as i mentioned earlier we had an

28:36 ↗ initial conversation with the city

28:38 ↗ council about this on january 12th

28:41 ↗ and the planning policy commission on

28:42 ↗ the 14th

28:44 ↗ so there was a lot of discussion

28:46 ↗ particularly around the three items i

28:48 ↗ mentioned at the beginning of the

28:49 ↗ conversation

28:50 ↗ the first was on single-family

28:52 ↗ requirements verse incentives

28:55 ↗ since the majority of people charge

28:57 ↗ their vehicles at home there was concern

28:59 ↗ that we wouldn't be getting

29:01 ↗ enough an adequate ev infrastructure at

29:03 ↗ home without making this a requirement

29:06 ↗ and there was also discussion about

29:08 ↗ whether providing incentives to single

29:10 ↗ family units

29:11 ↗ was the best use of the money since it's

29:13 ↗ a relatively small cost to make these

29:15 ↗ units ev ready

29:18 ↗ also the owners of single family homes

29:20 ↗ would likely have more resources

29:22 ↗ to add it in themselves compared with

29:24 ↗ other types and other needs including

29:26 ↗ affordable housing

29:29 ↗ another point was that developers should

29:31 ↗ already be doing this and not getting

29:32 ↗ added incentives to do

29:35 ↗ this as a low cost because it's a low

29:37 ↗ cost item

29:38 ↗ and i already touched on the reason why

29:40 ↗ the city proposed incentives rather than

29:42 ↗ requirements but i'm happy to discuss

29:44 ↗ that more

29:45 ↗ um if questions arise about it

29:50 ↗ sorry i'm going to stay on this slide so

29:52 ↗ the next point discussion was on the

29:53 ↗ proposed waiver for affordable housing

29:56 ↗ so the discussion about this item was

29:58 ↗ mainly about the cost of building

29:59 ↗ affordable housing

30:01 ↗ balance with the equity concern of

30:03 ↗ excluding residents from the benefits of

30:05 ↗ ev ownership

30:07 ↗ the council and ppc both requested

30:09 ↗ additional information on this

30:11 ↗ some of which was provided in the memo

30:14 ↗ including examples of how other

30:15 ↗ jurisdictions have approached it

30:18 ↗ i also provide some information on the

30:19 ↗ overall costs of parking

30:21 ↗ and the additional cost of ev

30:23 ↗ infrastructure

30:24 ↗ as well as a perspective from the

30:26 ↗ affordable housing community itself

30:30 ↗ the last main item of discussion was

30:33 ↗ about wanting to look more closely at

30:34 ↗ how the proposal should treat

30:37 ↗ tod projects so during the public

30:40 ↗ comments at the council meeting we heard

30:41 ↗ from a developer

30:43 ↗ that they had concerns about added cost

30:45 ↗ to projects and he expressed that the

30:47 ↗ projects

30:47 ↗ already or the parking is already

30:49 ↗ expensive

30:50 ↗ and the project is close to transit so

30:53 ↗ he didn't want to add more costs with ev

30:55 ↗ infrastructure

30:59 ↗ the planning policy commission also

31:00 ↗ reviewed the ordinance so they made many

31:02 ↗ of the same points as a city council

31:04 ↗ on both single-family requirements and

31:06 ↗ affordable housing

31:08 ↗ there was also more discussion from ppc

31:11 ↗ about the best use of incentives and

31:12 ↗ whether they should be used for other

31:14 ↗ purposes rather than single-family

31:16 ↗ and one ppc commissioner was

31:18 ↗ particularly interested in the

31:19 ↗ environmental board's perspective on the

31:21 ↗ use of incentives versus requirements

31:24 ↗ for ev general or for ev charging in

31:26 ↗ general

31:28 ↗ uh the ppc also discussed tod a bit more

31:31 ↗ a projects located near transit are

31:33 ↗ already allowed to build less parking

31:35 ↗ since they are encouraging the use of

31:38 ↗ transit rather than personal vehicles

31:40 ↗ however many residents do still own a

31:43 ↗ personal

31:43 ↗ a personal vehicle and not having access

31:46 ↗ to chargers would likely prohibit them

31:48 ↗ from choosing an electric vehicle

31:50 ↗ many of which have ranges of 250 miles

31:53 ↗ or more

31:55 ↗ as i mentioned there were requests for

31:57 ↗ more information on what other

31:58 ↗ jurisdictions are doing

32:00 ↗ on affordable housing as well as costs

32:02 ↗ and parking which were provided in the

32:03 ↗ memo

32:05 ↗ and last there was a discussion about ev

32:08 ↗ capable infrastructure

32:10 ↗ so remember this would provide space and

32:12 ↗ capacity for chargers

32:14 ↗ as well as the conduit but no wiring and

32:17 ↗ the wiring itself

32:18 ↗ is more expensive so it would be another

32:20 ↗ barrier to actually getting the chargers

32:22 ↗ in place

32:24 ↗ overall i found that in the literature

32:26 ↗ of the codes

32:28 ↗ ev capable was more common several years

32:30 ↗ ago when eb codes were first being

32:32 ↗ developed when they were focusing more

32:34 ↗ on planning and design

32:36 ↗ but now most recently the the majority

32:39 ↗ of codes are focusing on ev

32:40 ↗ ready or ebsc which is what the regional

32:43 ↗ code collaboration found as well

32:45 ↗ so they left ev capable out of their

32:48 ↗ model ordinance

32:53 ↗ so here's a timeline showing the path

32:55 ↗ thus far for the ev proposal

32:58 ↗ and the the next steps in the process so

33:01 ↗ we'll be returning to council study

33:02 ↗ session on february 9th

33:05 ↗ and we'll bring the back the additional

33:06 ↗ information that was included in the

33:08 ↗ memo

33:09 ↗ as well as the feedback from the

33:10 ↗ environmental board that we get tonight

33:12 ↗ and ppc

33:14 ↗ this will help inform overall next steps

33:16 ↗ for the proposal

33:18 ↗ and we'll be looking for council

33:20 ↗ direction on on those next steps in

33:22 ↗ process so

33:23 ↗ as nancy mentioned at the beginning we

33:26 ↗ do want this to be a two-touch

33:27 ↗ so that we have an opportunity to get

33:29 ↗ more into questions and discussions

33:31 ↗ tonight

33:32 ↗ we just don't have the the future dates

33:34 ↗ for those next meetings on it yet

33:39 ↗ and so when we originally sent out the

33:41 ↗ packet um

33:43 ↗ we had included the environmental board

33:44 ↗ recommendation report

33:46 ↗ but as i was just mentioning overall

33:48 ↗ this will be a two-step process so we

33:50 ↗ won't be filling this out tonight

33:52 ↗ but i think it's a good chance to kind

33:54 ↗ of talk about it and preview what the

33:56 ↗ the next meetings will be

33:59 ↗ so this is this is what the

34:01 ↗ recommendation

34:02 ↗ report will look like and

34:05 ↗ overall will there'll be an opportunity

34:08 ↗ at um

34:08 ↗ future meetings to have an opportunity

34:10 ↗ to have discussion about the types of

34:12 ↗ recommendations that the board wants to

34:14 ↗ be making

34:15 ↗ uh those would be made through a motion

34:17 ↗ which would then be discussed through

34:19 ↗ the board

34:20 ↗ and then voted on and each of those

34:23 ↗ items would either be included in this

34:24 ↗ recommendation report or not depending

34:27 ↗ on that vote

34:28 ↗ and then there would also be an overall

34:30 ↗ vote from the board about which

34:32 ↗ which action to take to recommend it as

34:35 ↗ to recommend the proposal as presented

34:37 ↗ um do not recommend it and providing the

34:40 ↗ reasons for that

34:41 ↗ or to recommend it with um with the

34:44 ↗ changes through the motions that that

34:46 ↗ the board talks about

34:52 ↗ so the last slide here is just a

34:53 ↗ reminder on the feedback being

34:55 ↗ requested for this evening we are

34:57 ↗ looking on for feedback on the overall

34:59 ↗ proposal

35:00 ↗ but also the pieces that council and ppc

35:03 ↗ were specifically looking for

35:04 ↗ feedback on as well about the single

35:07 ↗ family incentives

35:08 ↗ um the affordable housing waiver and

35:10 ↗ then the tod projects

35:13 ↗ so with that um that concludes my

35:15 ↗ presentation

35:16 ↗ i will hand it back to nancy

35:20 ↗ thank you megan that was a great

35:21 ↗ presentation at this point

35:24 ↗ um like to open this up for questions

35:27 ↗ from the board

35:28 ↗ and if you have a question please

35:30 ↗ identify it

35:31 ↗ in the chat message bar and um

35:35 ↗ i'm sure megan will get on to address

35:37 ↗ them and i'd like to try and make sure

35:39 ↗ that we have enough time to give any

35:40 ↗ comments at the end but this is really

35:42 ↗ focused on

35:42 ↗ questions for megan as she has done her

35:45 ↗ work so

35:46 ↗ with that i'm open to anybody have any

35:48 ↗ questions

35:53 ↗ okay i see that rishi has one go ahead

35:56 ↗ rishi

35:58 ↗ yes i'm curious how requiring

36:01 ↗ ev ready or evsc capabilities in

36:04 ↗ affordable housing will affect the

36:06 ↗ prices of the affordable homes

36:07 ↗ themselves

36:08 ↗ or is that just for developer costs

36:14 ↗ that is a good question um i it from my

36:17 ↗ understanding it it's more for

36:19 ↗ the developer so they have to pay for

36:21 ↗ the parking and

36:23 ↗ um uh and the

36:26 ↗ the added infrastructure for that on the

36:28 ↗ pieces that they're doing

36:29 ↗ um but as far as i know it wouldn't

36:32 ↗ change the cost of the actual housing

36:34 ↗ itself

36:37 ↗ okay our next question is from dawn

36:49 ↗ don you there

36:53 ↗ you might want to unmute don sorry my

36:56 ↗ button wasn't working i

36:57 ↗ kept clicking it and it wasn't doing

36:58 ↗ anything i understand

37:00 ↗ hey i'm going to make a lot of mistakes

37:03 ↗ mine's also on affordable housing meg

37:05 ↗ and you mentioned in there that um

37:08 ↗ with the affordable housing waiver that

37:10 ↗ the developer got to

37:12 ↗ reduce the amount of parking spaces

37:15 ↗ something along those lines you go back

37:17 ↗ to that a little bit

37:20 ↗ sure um so the affordable housing waiver

37:22 ↗ it doesn't change the number of

37:24 ↗ parking spots so um through the the land

37:27 ↗ use code

37:28 ↗ all projects are required i have a

37:30 ↗ minimum and maximum parking

37:32 ↗ so this does not change that what it

37:34 ↗ changes is that um the waiver itself

37:37 ↗ would say

37:38 ↗ that if for however many units of

37:40 ↗ affordable housing

37:41 ↗ they have they wouldn't need to do the

37:44 ↗ infrastructure for that

37:45 ↗ um so for example if they're building a

37:48 ↗ a project that is all affordable housing

37:50 ↗ units there would be no

37:51 ↗ ev infrastructure included with that

37:53 ↗ with the waiver

37:54 ↗ however if they were building a building

37:57 ↗ that had both

37:58 ↗ market rate and affordable housing units

38:01 ↗ then they would be doing

38:02 ↗ um ev infrastructure based on the

38:05 ↗ percentages

38:06 ↗ of parking spaces that are associated

38:09 ↗ with the

38:10 ↗ market rate units but not the affordable

38:12 ↗ housing units

38:14 ↗ okay and follow-up to that do you do you

38:17 ↗ have buildings in issaquah i'm not that

38:19 ↗ familiar

38:19 ↗ with the affordable housing industry do

38:21 ↗ you have dedicated buildings for

38:23 ↗ affordable housing or most of them

38:25 ↗ incorporated into

38:26 ↗ other residentials there are

38:30 ↗ several that are all affordable housing

38:32 ↗ now

38:33 ↗ but this wouldn't affect those unless if

38:36 ↗ there was that substantial

38:38 ↗ retrofit or substantial improvement

38:41 ↗ what we're seeing a lot of going forward

38:43 ↗ is in the valley floor which is where

38:45 ↗ we're going to be focusing

38:47 ↗ a lot of the development coming forward

38:49 ↗ depending on where

38:51 ↗ you build in the valley floor there's

38:53 ↗ certain requirements to have

38:54 ↗ affordable housing units so that ranges

38:58 ↗ if you're building a you know

39:00 ↗ an overall market rate building um

39:02 ↗ depending on where it's located you'd be

39:04 ↗ required to have

39:05 ↗ i think between about seven and a half

39:07 ↗ to fifteen percent affordable housing

39:09 ↗ units in that building

39:11 ↗ so then that's where the waiver would

39:12 ↗ come into play

39:14 ↗ okay thank you

39:17 ↗ jamie you're up next

39:21 ↗ thank you megan um one question i had

39:24 ↗ was

39:25 ↗ obviously everything here is focused on

39:27 ↗ either new construction

39:28 ↗ or substantial retrofits or substantial

39:32 ↗ improvements is there any plans or is

39:35 ↗ there a specific reason that

39:36 ↗ anything related to like a retrofit in

39:38 ↗ an existing structure

39:40 ↗ was not included in this in this

39:42 ↗ ordinance

39:43 ↗ proposal so

39:47 ↗ um with the proposal if if there's a

39:49 ↗ substantial retrofit to a project then

39:52 ↗ it would be included

39:53 ↗ and depending if it's residential or

39:56 ↗ commercial

39:57 ↗ um the percentages change for that uh

40:00 ↗ but overall it's less than if it was

40:02 ↗ built new

40:04 ↗ is that answering your question sort of

40:07 ↗ i mean

40:07 ↗ i'm just like obviously most of the

40:09 ↗ houses that are going to be

40:10 ↗ or the the structures that are going to

40:12 ↗ be in issaquah for the pursuit of the

40:14 ↗ future

40:14 ↗ exist today versus are going to be built

40:16 ↗ so i'm just curious like

40:18 ↗ around are is it a future focus to look

40:21 ↗ at the

40:22 ↗ strut like the existing structures or is

40:25 ↗ that something that we just think is too

40:26 ↗ difficult a problem to

40:28 ↗ try to address today got it

40:31 ↗ um yeah so for i agree that a lot of the

40:34 ↗ buildings are already built now

40:36 ↗ and so that is one of the reasons why we

40:39 ↗ think this ordinance is

40:40 ↗ so important to have particularly the

40:42 ↗ fact that includes commercial

40:45 ↗ development as well so for example if

40:47 ↗ someone is living in

40:48 ↗ an apartment building now that doesn't

40:50 ↗ have access to charging stations

40:53 ↗ by getting more infrastructure out there

40:55 ↗ some that are at commercial developments

40:57 ↗ and public parking lots

40:58 ↗ they might have the option of doing that

41:02 ↗ we don't have any anything in mind to go

41:04 ↗ back and

41:05 ↗ start requiring it in current buildings

41:08 ↗ there could be incentives in the future

41:10 ↗ for example

41:12 ↗ puget sound energy they've had some

41:15 ↗ projects before where they're looking at

41:17 ↗ some existing buildings to set up

41:19 ↗ chargers um

41:21 ↗ there might be incentives for it for

41:22 ↗ building owners to do it but we don't

41:24 ↗ have any specific plans to require that

41:26 ↗ in

41:26 ↗ existing buildings okay and i do have

41:30 ↗ one more question if i have time is that

41:33 ↗ is that all right

41:34 ↗ go ahead jamie okay um the other

41:37 ↗ the other question was i know what was

41:39 ↗ proposed was an incentive for single

41:41 ↗ family is there any

41:43 ↗ possible strategy that would involve

41:44 ↗ like the opposite so a disincentive to

41:47 ↗ not have it in

41:48 ↗ the in the fees that are charged or

41:51 ↗ whatever it might be

41:56 ↗ um from my understanding that would get

41:59 ↗ into a little bit more of the

42:00 ↗ requirement side of it

42:02 ↗ so if we are having a penalty for not

42:05 ↗ having it that would be

42:06 ↗ too similar to having the requirement

42:08 ↗ which um which wouldn't be

42:11 ↗ advised by the city to have that

42:17 ↗ okay thank you uh laura you're up next

42:23 ↗ hi um i have uh

42:26 ↗ have you we talked at all with

42:29 ↗ developers of affordable housing and

42:31 ↗ gotten their direct

42:32 ↗ feedback on anything about this

42:37 ↗ yeah so i've i've reached out to a

42:39 ↗ couple i've heard back from

42:41 ↗ one um and they overall

42:44 ↗ felt that um agreed that

42:48 ↗ that that electric vehicles are coming

42:51 ↗ and that's important to have the

42:52 ↗ infrastructure

42:53 ↗ there was concern about cost but the

42:56 ↗ biggest concern they expressed to me

42:58 ↗ was actually in charging actually

43:01 ↗ installing the infrastructure um they

43:03 ↗ were more amenable to having

43:05 ↗ ev ready in affordable housing rather

43:09 ↗ than actually

43:10 ↗ putting in the chargers

43:14 ↗ so that so

43:17 ↗ so ev ready was easier to accommodate

43:20 ↗ than actually installing

43:22 ↗ exactly so kind of in the um

43:25 ↗ in the line of infrastructure there's ev

43:27 ↗ capable first which is the

43:29 ↗ the farthest from actually being able to

43:31 ↗ charge um ev

43:32 ↗ ready has the actual plug point that you

43:35 ↗ you could plug into

43:37 ↗ um usually that would be covered up

43:40 ↗ unless if there was a charging port

43:42 ↗ just because a manager of a building

43:44 ↗ would want to charge for it if they were

43:45 ↗ going to have it

43:46 ↗ um but having it ev ready allows them to

43:49 ↗ just at a future date at

43:51 ↗ the chargers themselves but there is

43:53 ↗ that cost difference between ev ready

43:56 ↗ and evsc the charging infrastructure um

43:58 ↗ so this

43:59 ↗ developer that i spoke to preferred ev

44:02 ↗ ready rather than having the additional

44:05 ↗ requirement to also have the

44:06 ↗ evse thank you

44:10 ↗ and um

44:14 ↗ i have like a million questions but i'm

44:16 ↗ trying to be filtering them um

44:18 ↗ [Music]

44:20 ↗ i had asked you before

44:23 ↗ maybe i'll save my question and come

44:25 ↗ back but i do have more questions um

44:27 ↗ well i'll jump into it because i'm

44:28 ↗ interrupting myself uh

44:30 ↗ i think something that's concerning me

44:32 ↗ is the presumption that this is going to

44:34 ↗ be reducing fossil fuel usage

44:36 ↗ and i appreciate that we're planning for

44:38 ↗ the future but

44:40 ↗ 40 of issaquah's fuel as um

44:43 ↗ we're researching earlier today like 40

44:46 ↗ is coal based

44:47 ↗ so um and then we don't have a lot of

44:49 ↗ new developments coming in i don't want

44:51 ↗ to give the illusion of us

44:52 ↗ being extremely progressive when the

44:54 ↗ reality is this isn't going to affect a

44:56 ↗ lot of things

44:58 ↗ um so i'm curious about like the

45:00 ↗ infrastructure

45:01 ↗ needs i had asked for but if we could

45:03 ↗ get information i'd be curious just on

45:05 ↗ how much

45:06 ↗ more power that might require if

45:08 ↗ anything to different houses

45:10 ↗ i'm guessing not a lot because it seems

45:11 ↗ like a pretty low voltage but

45:13 ↗ um you know if we're going to be putting

45:15 ↗ up more more power

45:17 ↗ more any sort of power lines or anything

45:19 ↗ like that i'd be interested in the

45:20 ↗ impact of that as well

45:24 ↗ sure i can i can speak to that a little

45:26 ↗ bit and then you can let me know if

45:27 ↗ there's more information

45:28 ↗ that's needed so overall um

45:32 ↗ kind of the first point about reducing

45:33 ↗ emissions um

45:36 ↗ they electric vehicles um

45:40 ↗ are or let me back up from it um so i

45:43 ↗ think the

45:43 ↗ the first piece is that with pse's fuel

45:47 ↗ mix

45:48 ↗ they are planning to have a lot more

45:50 ↗ electric vehicles come online

45:53 ↗ they have a draft electro transportation

45:55 ↗ electrification

45:56 ↗ plan right now and in that they had a

45:59 ↗ survey where they

46:01 ↗ um surveyed customers and 68 of them

46:04 ↗ said that they

46:04 ↗ expect to own or lease an electric

46:06 ↗ vehicle

46:07 ↗ um in the future so they are currently

46:09 ↗ planning for that

46:11 ↗ um also through the legislation that was

46:15 ↗ passed last year that requires

46:18 ↗ the clean electricity transformation act

46:20 ↗ that requires a clean electricity supply

46:24 ↗ for all utilities in washington so

46:27 ↗ that's a phased approach

46:29 ↗ part of that phasing is that by 2025

46:34 ↗ coal will be required to be out of the

46:36 ↗ fuel mix

46:37 ↗ so you mentioned that pse's fuel mix is

46:41 ↗ about 40

46:42 ↗ coal right now so they are are currently

46:44 ↗ planning um

46:45 ↗ to to get that out of their fuel mix

46:47 ↗ because of washington state law

46:50 ↗ and then by 2045 they

46:54 ↗ are all required to have clean

46:55 ↗ electricity so 100 renewable electricity

46:57 ↗ by 2045.

46:59 ↗ so we are planning um as we get more

47:03 ↗ electric vehicles the

47:04 ↗ electricity supply for that will be a

47:06 ↗ lot cleaner than what is currently

47:08 ↗ with gas vehicles so you said that thank

47:12 ↗ you that's very helpful you said the

47:13 ↗ first one was 2025 to be article

47:17 ↗ correct that's ambitious

47:21 ↗ um and that's a statewide mandate that

47:23 ↗ they're under

47:25 ↗ yes so that's called the clean energy

47:27 ↗ transformation act

47:28 ↗ ceta um which was passed uh in

47:32 ↗ 20 um forget it was 2019 or 2020

47:35 ↗ um but the utilities are all currently

47:38 ↗ working towards that and planning for

47:40 ↗ that

47:41 ↗ on a follow-up for that i noticed on

47:42 ↗ their website that they

47:44 ↗ um that you can opt in to like a greener

47:48 ↗ energy versus

47:49 ↗ the opting like not opting in is that

47:52 ↗ relevant

47:52 ↗ to this or maybe less so given that it's

47:55 ↗ headed that direction

47:57 ↗ i think residents have the option to um

47:59 ↗ purchase green power through the green

48:01 ↗ power program that they have

48:03 ↗ um so that's something that the

48:05 ↗ residents can do

48:12 ↗ okay i'm going to move on now danny you

48:14 ↗ had a question

48:16 ↗ yeah hi um i was curious about the

48:19 ↗ city's recommendation for doing

48:21 ↗ incentives

48:22 ↗ rather than um a requirement so

48:26 ↗ my understanding is this would be in the

48:28 ↗ land use code but um

48:30 ↗ and i think you mentioned that the state

48:33 ↗ law was only

48:34 ↗ prohibiting um changes to

48:37 ↗ the building code um so i was just

48:39 ↗ curious as to why the recommendation was

48:41 ↗ incentives yes

48:45 ↗ so yes in order to make changes to

48:49 ↗ the single family building code you

48:52 ↗ would need to go before the state

48:53 ↗ building code council

48:55 ↗ you re you said that this is in the land

48:57 ↗ use code which is correct

49:00 ↗ however through the newest

49:04 ↗ state energy code they have put in

49:06 ↗ electric vehicle requirements into the

49:08 ↗ building code

49:10 ↗ so even though we're able to

49:14 ↗ require zoning and parking standards in

49:17 ↗ the land use code

49:19 ↗ um it would it could possibly be seen as

49:21 ↗ going around

49:22 ↗ that state requirement that you can't

49:25 ↗ modify the single family building code

49:28 ↗ since now the state is saying that ev

49:31 ↗ infrastructure

49:32 ↗ is being mandated through the building

49:34 ↗ code

49:35 ↗ so it's a little bit about you know

49:37 ↗ where the code is

49:38 ↗ um what the intent of it is um

49:42 ↗ and with that we i am i am not a full

49:46 ↗ lawyer i have been

49:47 ↗ consulting with our attorney on this um

49:49 ↗ and he is going to be attending the

49:52 ↗ um council study session on february 9th

49:55 ↗ to kind of get into

49:56 ↗ the further intricacies of that because

49:58 ↗ i know it's something that's come up in

50:00 ↗ in each of the meetings um so i think he

50:02 ↗ might be able to address that

50:03 ↗ a little bit better but hopefully i um

50:06 ↗ was able to explain that a little bit

50:08 ↗ here

50:08 ↗ okay yeah understood thank you um also i

50:11 ↗ wanted to ask about

50:13 ↗ um affordable housing so you mentioned

50:15 ↗ that there is

50:16 ↗ a waiver um but also is affordable

50:19 ↗ housing

50:20 ↗ um would the incentives also be

50:22 ↗ available to

50:23 ↗ affordable housing developers um yes

50:26 ↗ they would so

50:27 ↗ for single-family affordable housing

50:29 ↗ units or town homes is

50:31 ↗ um probably more likely um then that

50:34 ↗ would

50:34 ↗ they would be able to take advantage of

50:36 ↗ that incentive program

50:37 ↗ okay thank you

50:42 ↗ and i'm going to step in and just ask a

50:44 ↗ question to follow on to danny's

50:46 ↗ um real quick and that is have we

50:48 ↗ approached

50:49 ↗ the state building council in terms of

50:51 ↗ what

50:52 ↗ they might consider in terms of

50:54 ↗ requiring

50:55 ↗ eb charging stations and if that might

50:58 ↗ be on their agenda or something they

51:00 ↗ might be willing to have a conversation

51:02 ↗ about given all of the need to get away

51:05 ↗ from some of these other

51:07 ↗ energy sources

51:10 ↗ um i have not contacted them directly

51:13 ↗ but i've

51:15 ↗ talked to several people at king county

51:18 ↗ and

51:18 ↗ city of seattle that have

51:22 ↗ and overall it's it's generally um

51:25 ↗ a time-consuming process but also

51:28 ↗ um uphill battle a little bit to get um

51:32 ↗ something like this

51:33 ↗ to go through the state building code

51:35 ↗ council

51:36 ↗ often these types of proposals are do

51:38 ↗ not pass through

51:40 ↗ the state building code council is not

51:42 ↗ just king county it's the full state so

51:44 ↗ it's

51:45 ↗ representing interest building interests

51:47 ↗ from across the state

51:49 ↗ so often the single-family type of

51:53 ↗ programs do not get through

51:58 ↗ thank you um and go ahead and i

52:01 ↗ apologize for interrupting in front you

52:03 ↗ thank you

52:04 ↗ no worries yeah at first i just want to

52:07 ↗ add one more thing about sita

52:09 ↗ um the clean energy transformation act

52:12 ↗ i i work really closely with

52:16 ↗ the irp um that psc is doing for their

52:19 ↗ 2021 irp

52:21 ↗ and um

52:23 ↗ [Music]

52:24 ↗ they are they will be required

52:28 ↗ to meet all the goals and um the middle

52:31 ↗ part that we didn't

52:32 ↗ mention is by 2030 they'll need to be

52:34 ↗ carbon neutral

52:36 ↗ um which means they can still have

52:40 ↗ 20 percent of say natural gas but

52:43 ↗ they'll have to pay pay offsets for that

52:48 ↗ so so it is looking good and

52:52 ↗ i think this is just part of the plan as

52:55 ↗ we move forward

52:57 ↗ to reduce our carbon footprint

53:00 ↗ and then um i wanted to also mention

53:04 ↗ so with the um the homes

53:07 ↗ and um apartments and townhomes that are

53:10 ↗ next to

53:12 ↗ transit

53:14 ↗ have we considered that a lot of people

53:16 ↗ who take

53:17 ↗ transit are actually people who think

53:21 ↗ my experiences they're people who think

53:23 ↗ more um

53:25 ↗ they're environmentally minded and so

53:27 ↗ they might be more even more apt to get

53:29 ↗ an electric car so i think if they could

53:33 ↗ if we could have some requirements for

53:37 ↗ them as well i think that would be good

53:41 ↗ and then for the um the affordable

53:45 ↗ housing

53:46 ↗ um i think

53:50 ↗ at the very least it would be great to

53:52 ↗ have the eb

53:53 ↗ eb ready and then i also have a question

53:57 ↗ about

53:58 ↗ um how will they be paying for it well

54:01 ↗ will they need to insert like if you're

54:04 ↗ an apartment

54:04 ↗ um well they need to insert a card

54:09 ↗ for it with a credit card or a little

54:10 ↗ card that they have a charging card

54:12 ↗ that's prepaid um do we know how that's

54:16 ↗ going to work

54:20 ↗ so that would be up to the building

54:22 ↗ owner and operator

54:23 ↗ themselves um often people will have if

54:26 ↗ they have an electric car they'll have

54:28 ↗ an account with

54:29 ↗ whichever charger they're using most

54:30 ↗ frequently um but there's various

54:33 ↗ charging either

54:34 ↗ you know by session by hour but that

54:36 ↗ would be up to the building operator

54:38 ↗ cool and then i think

54:41 ↗ um this is really awesome and then the

54:45 ↗ more that are

54:46 ↗ at home and to make it convenient is

54:48 ↗ really great

54:50 ↗ but then also having it so that um

54:53 ↗ people can charge keep it plugged in

54:58 ↗ um even at apartment houses so it's good

55:01 ↗ that there's going to be a lot of them

55:03 ↗ um i'm just wondering if if there if

55:07 ↗ there

55:07 ↗ aren't there are enough spaces like it

55:09 ↗ sounds like there will be

55:11 ↗ at least for a while um if they can be

55:14 ↗ plugged in

55:15 ↗ and then some people

55:18 ↗ will want to opt out to get a

55:21 ↗ refund on their electric bill and

55:23 ↗ eventually

55:25 ↗ they'll be using the batteries to feed

55:28 ↗ into the grid when the grid needs energy

55:30 ↗ and then charge the car

55:34 ↗ when they when they need to and then

55:36 ↗ plus you can program it to charge it at

55:38 ↗ night when the grid has

55:39 ↗ more energy to be used

55:42 ↗ so hopefully that wasn't too much

55:44 ↗ talking rather than questions

55:47 ↗ and that's what i was going to try and

55:48 ↗ remind everyone on the board um

55:50 ↗ want to stay focused on questions right

55:52 ↗ now and then we'll have a time for

55:54 ↗ comments and so

55:55 ↗ um i'm going to try and move us through

55:57 ↗ our questions so that we have time to

55:59 ↗ provide feedback to megan into the

56:00 ↗ council along the way

56:02 ↗ so with that um i see that laura and

56:06 ↗ if we could stay with questions and then

56:08 ↗ we'll come back and have another round

56:10 ↗ for

56:10 ↗ comments please

56:13 ↗ um i had a question about the ev ready

56:16 ↗ how

56:17 ↗ is that going to be phased in like the

56:20 ↗ context i'm asking about is you know

56:22 ↗ how do we know that if we asked for a

56:24 ↗ bunch of

56:25 ↗ spots like that they'll ever turn into

56:27 ↗ actual ev spaces

56:28 ↗ is that going to be zoned or planned for

56:30 ↗ at all do you know

56:32 ↗ that is not part of the requirement um

56:35 ↗ the ed ready is

56:36 ↗ really to make sure as we're seeing more

56:38 ↗ electric vehicles come on as the demand

56:41 ↗ is coming up

56:42 ↗ we have that infrastructure in place to

56:44 ↗ easily put in the charger

56:46 ↗ um so if there's a larger multi-family

56:49 ↗ building

56:49 ↗ and um and the spots are getting filled

56:52 ↗ up and they're hearing from people who

56:53 ↗ want to buy

56:54 ↗ electric cars they would it would be a

56:56 ↗ lot easier for them to put in that

56:58 ↗ infrastructure

57:04 ↗ okay the next question is from

57:08 ↗ jamie go ahead jamie

57:11 ↗ yeah so you mentioned that there was ev

57:13 ↗ requirements requirements being added to

57:14 ↗ the state building code

57:16 ↗ is that accurate what can you share

57:19 ↗ anything about what those look like

57:24 ↗ yes um i don't quite have it memorized

57:27 ↗ in front of me but

57:29 ↗ they're they're fairly minimal but they

57:32 ↗ require

57:33 ↗ either for buildings to put in

57:37 ↗ infrastructure which they classify a

57:40 ↗ little bit differently

57:41 ↗ either just space and capacity for

57:44 ↗ chargers later um not even ev ready they

57:47 ↗ require you to either do a certain

57:49 ↗ percent that

57:49 ↗ they're just building in the space or

57:52 ↗ you can put in the eb

57:54 ↗ chargers themselves so the way i

57:56 ↗ describe it's a pretty big ore there

57:58 ↗ about you could either just build in

58:00 ↗ that capacity

58:02 ↗ or actually have the chargers um so it's

58:05 ↗ up to the the building owners themselves

58:06 ↗ and the percentages

58:08 ↗ is is lower for that um five percent of

58:10 ↗ spots

58:11 ↗ okay and is that that's multi-family or

58:15 ↗ is that all across all use all building

58:17 ↗ types or is that

58:19 ↗ that is multi-family and commercial okay

58:22 ↗ so there aren't none of that is relevant

58:23 ↗ to

58:24 ↗ single family correct right so the

58:26 ↗ building code isn't

58:27 ↗ yeah yeah um and then one quick more

58:30 ↗ other question

58:31 ↗ how did the because the incentive is

58:34 ↗ coming from

58:35 ↗ a reduction of permit fees for building

58:37 ↗ correct

58:38 ↗ do you know how the the like per

58:41 ↗ unit cost for multi-family for a

58:43 ↗ building permit

58:44 ↗ relative to a permit for a single family

58:47 ↗ like trying to get a sense for like how

58:49 ↗ much money per unit

58:50 ↗ is there to work with in that in that

58:54 ↗ fee that's paid that is a great question

58:58 ↗ that i do not know the answer to

58:59 ↗ um so i can put that on a list for

59:01 ↗ follow-up

59:03 ↗ thank you

59:08 ↗ dan i see you have a question yeah thank

59:11 ↗ you dan here

59:12 ↗ um megan i think this is kind of

59:14 ↗ building on don's question earlier but i

59:16 ↗ was

59:16 ↗ kind of revisiting the memo here about

59:19 ↗ the city of seattle's ordinance and

59:20 ↗ affordable housing and actually were

59:23 ↗ looking but still enforcing the um

59:26 ↗ still requiring the uh ev ready spots

59:30 ↗ i guess i didn't quite feel like i got a

59:32 ↗ satisfying answer or maybe i kind of

59:33 ↗ missed that but is that something that's

59:34 ↗ being

59:35 ↗ considered um in terms of possibly

59:38 ↗ requiring

59:39 ↗ less overall parking but still requiring

59:41 ↗ the eb ready spots and i guess just a

59:43 ↗ higher level question do you think

59:45 ↗ there's any way this

59:46 ↗ incentivizes or disincentivizes more

59:48 ↗ parking more impervious surfaces this is

59:50 ↗ kind of getting at more of a comment and

59:52 ↗ opinion on

59:53 ↗ where i stand on that where i think it's

59:55 ↗ a little unnecessary but i don't know if

59:57 ↗ you feel like that sways one way or

59:58 ↗ another

1:00:01 ↗ um let's see i think you you or i cut

1:00:04 ↗ out for a second there but i believe i

1:00:06 ↗ understand the question so um looking at

1:00:08 ↗ what a city seattle did so they have

1:00:11 ↗ they reduced um

1:00:15 ↗ for affordable housing in general in

1:00:17 ↗ issaquah we don't have that

1:00:19 ↗ right now um because just where we are

1:00:21 ↗ with the

1:00:22 ↗ city and development it's still fairly

1:00:25 ↗ card dependent

1:00:26 ↗ so we don't have that as an option to to

1:00:28 ↗ reduce overall parking

1:00:30 ↗ so that was just kind of taking a look

1:00:32 ↗ at another city and how they've

1:00:34 ↗ incorporated meaning that cities can

1:00:37 ↗ can make different decisions about how

1:00:40 ↗ they want to treat

1:00:40 ↗ affordable housing and and these types

1:00:42 ↗ of requirements

1:00:44 ↗ and did that did that answer your

1:00:45 ↗ question

1:00:48 ↗ i guess i'm still unmuted sorry um that

1:00:50 ↗ answers a question specifically around

1:00:52 ↗ the the trade-offs there and i guess

1:00:54 ↗ high-level yeah maybe i'll say this for

1:00:56 ↗ the comment

1:00:56 ↗ part of our discussion

1:01:02 ↗ i don't know if you all noticed i left

1:01:04 ↗ for a while we lost our internet for a

1:01:05 ↗ second

1:01:06 ↗ so um you know if that happens i hope

1:01:08 ↗ jamie steps in or megan

1:01:10 ↗ as may until i figure it out my

1:01:13 ↗ apologies to everyone

1:01:15 ↗ um let me pull up the chat bar again if

1:01:18 ↗ someone else wanted to chat i lost it

1:01:20 ↗ all so

1:01:22 ↗ i'm gonna ask megan to call on people

1:01:23 ↗ that are on the chat

1:01:25 ↗ side that have questions and i'd like to

1:01:27 ↗ try and get us

1:01:28 ↗ wrapped up at least on the question part

1:01:30 ↗ of this in about 10 minutes so

1:01:33 ↗ my apologies i can't see who put in for

1:01:35 ↗ a chat

1:01:36 ↗ and i believe rishi is next

1:01:40 ↗ yeah i had a question on the third piece

1:01:42 ↗ of feedback requested

1:01:43 ↗ and that was around uh weather transit

1:01:46 ↗ um or

1:01:46 ↗ tod projects and if i'm correct is that

1:01:50 ↗ transit oriented development um and i

1:01:53 ↗ was wondering

1:01:54 ↗ how that if there's a specific example

1:01:56 ↗ of that

1:01:57 ↗ in the ordinance itself like what

1:01:59 ↗ they're asking for feedback

1:02:01 ↗ on in terms of that

1:02:04 ↗ yes so there's there's no there's

1:02:06 ↗ nothing about transit oriented

1:02:08 ↗ development

1:02:08 ↗ in the ordinance as it's written um so

1:02:11 ↗ that came up at the council meeting

1:02:13 ↗ um i think one of the reasons is because

1:02:15 ↗ we had someone

1:02:17 ↗ a developer who's working on a tod

1:02:19 ↗ project

1:02:21 ↗ to put it in near the issaquah transit

1:02:22 ↗ center he

1:02:24 ↗ called in and provide comments that he

1:02:26 ↗ was concerned about the added cost

1:02:28 ↗ for for these types of projects

1:02:31 ↗ so he'd mentioned that since it's so

1:02:33 ↗ close to

1:02:35 ↗ transit people may not want to people

1:02:37 ↗ we're focusing more on getting people

1:02:39 ↗ into transportation rather than

1:02:40 ↗ the kind of the different cars that they

1:02:42 ↗ are driving

1:02:44 ↗ so that's why it came up as one of those

1:02:46 ↗ topics of conversation and council

1:02:47 ↗ members

1:02:48 ↗ were wondering if if it should be

1:02:50 ↗ included in the ordinance at all

1:02:56 ↗ um serea

1:03:00 ↗ hi um this is just a clarifying question

1:03:03 ↗ but um there wasn't too much about

1:03:06 ↗ single-family homes so

1:03:07 ↗ is it like assumed that that majority of

1:03:10 ↗ the single-family homes in issaquah

1:03:12 ↗ are already ev ready including houses

1:03:14 ↗ built like before 2000

1:03:16 ↗ and is that why single family homes

1:03:18 ↗ weren't really like

1:03:19 ↗ mentioned too much on this presentation

1:03:24 ↗ um i don't think most have been built

1:03:26 ↗ evie ready

1:03:27 ↗ um the ones that we have

1:03:31 ↗ in the city i think so if you're in a

1:03:32 ↗ single family home you

1:03:34 ↗ um you might have access to an outdoor

1:03:37 ↗ plug point

1:03:38 ↗ um you know a normal charge so someone

1:03:40 ↗ could charge their vehicle

1:03:42 ↗ through that not everyone has access to

1:03:43 ↗ that um it could be slow they might run

1:03:45 ↗ a cord through

1:03:47 ↗ a window um they might try to find a

1:03:49 ↗ different port but

1:03:50 ↗ most most probably don't have access to

1:03:52 ↗ that 240 volt

1:03:54 ↗ plug um i think the

1:03:57 ↗ overall in issaquah we're expecting to

1:03:59 ↗ have more

1:04:00 ↗ development that is going to be um

1:04:03 ↗ multi-family and commercial

1:04:05 ↗ and as well as townhomes but less likely

1:04:07 ↗ to see as many single-family homes just

1:04:09 ↗ because of the the land capacities that

1:04:11 ↗ we have

1:04:12 ↗ but i think the so overall um

1:04:16 ↗ it might have been mentioned less

1:04:17 ↗ because we were having the the

1:04:19 ↗ single-family incentive rather than

1:04:21 ↗ the enquirement

1:04:26 ↗ i believe danny's next yeah um

1:04:29 ↗ so you mentioned a little bit earlier

1:04:31 ↗ that a lot of these types of proposals

1:04:33 ↗ don't

1:04:34 ↗ um or sometimes don't pass the state

1:04:36 ↗ council i'm just wondering um like what

1:04:38 ↗ generally

1:04:39 ↗ the process would look like if we did

1:04:41 ↗ want to um propose

1:04:43 ↗ to the state council and um like impose

1:04:45 ↗ requirements and

1:04:47 ↗ um like how we would navigate that

1:04:56 ↗ yes thank you um i have been inquiring

1:04:58 ↗ about that a little bit myself

1:05:01 ↗ um overall to go through

1:05:04 ↗ the state building code council you

1:05:06 ↗ would need to get their permission

1:05:08 ↗ to have an amendment and the amendment

1:05:11 ↗ would need to

1:05:12 ↗ state why there's something special or

1:05:15 ↗ unusual about the city that would

1:05:17 ↗ require

1:05:17 ↗ a departure from state code and then the

1:05:21 ↗ state building code would consider

1:05:23 ↗ whether um

1:05:25 ↗ whether that is a reason that they want

1:05:27 ↗ to take up and then it would be a

1:05:28 ↗ process to figure out when they want to

1:05:30 ↗ hear it

1:05:31 ↗ and um they do meet monthly but it's not

1:05:35 ↗ sure when they would be able to meet on

1:05:36 ↗ that

1:05:38 ↗ but overall there would be probably

1:05:41 ↗ several several meetings on it and

1:05:45 ↗ through some others experiences i've

1:05:47 ↗ talked to with seattle and king county

1:05:50 ↗ items like that are often have been

1:05:51 ↗ denied in the past

1:05:53 ↗ so that is kind of my my anecdotal

1:05:57 ↗ stories from others i've heard that have

1:05:58 ↗ gone through the process

1:06:02 ↗ and it looks like we have two more

1:06:04 ↗ questions

1:06:05 ↗ um so jamie oh he's actually having

1:06:09 ↗ connectivity issues that's not a

1:06:10 ↗ question

1:06:11 ↗ i think i had the same connectivity

1:06:13 ↗ issues that nancy had so that wasn't a

1:06:15 ↗ question

1:06:16 ↗ okay um so it looks like the last

1:06:18 ↗ question i'm seeing is the chat

1:06:20 ↗ from the chat box is laura

1:06:23 ↗ all right one last question the um since

1:06:26 ↗ i know that

1:06:27 ↗ the city will be working on zoning and

1:06:29 ↗ planning updates

1:06:30 ↗ how does this fit in at all with the

1:06:32 ↗ bigger picture of that effort

1:06:34 ↗ or is that not relevant right now

1:06:38 ↗ i think that's um relevant so that the

1:06:40 ↗ city

1:06:41 ↗ um had the the climate convening and

1:06:44 ↗ various plans where we've been looking

1:06:45 ↗ to

1:06:46 ↗ um to bring ev policy forward so that's

1:06:49 ↗ the reason why

1:06:50 ↗ we're talking about it now also at the

1:06:53 ↗ same time the city does have

1:06:55 ↗ plans and is currently working on doing

1:06:57 ↗ the land use code update

1:07:00 ↗ that will be a a longer process most

1:07:03 ↗ likely

1:07:04 ↗ that this board will be heavily involved

1:07:06 ↗ in and there'll be several aspects to

1:07:08 ↗ that

1:07:09 ↗ but this was pulled out as an item that

1:07:11 ↗ would be important to

1:07:13 ↗ be considered due to the community

1:07:16 ↗ convenient climate where it's really

1:07:18 ↗ asked to start doing

1:07:19 ↗ action we also have plans to do a

1:07:21 ↗ climate action plan but there was a

1:07:22 ↗ request to

1:07:23 ↗ to start doing actions rather than just

1:07:25 ↗ planning

1:07:27 ↗ so that's why we're talking about moving

1:07:29 ↗ this forward

1:07:32 ↗ it looks like nancy got a question

1:07:35 ↗ so has there been any consideration by

1:07:38 ↗ the city and the coalition that it's

1:07:40 ↗ working with to run a legislative

1:07:42 ↗ proposal to try and

1:07:44 ↗ address putting mandating um

1:07:47 ↗ ev capable in or

1:07:50 ↗ ev ready in single-family homes instead

1:07:52 ↗ of going through the building council

1:07:58 ↗ we have not discussed that yet i think

1:08:01 ↗ because some cities have have already

1:08:04 ↗ been passing codes there is

1:08:06 ↗ a desire to work through the regional

1:08:07 ↗ code collaboration to to get cities on

1:08:10 ↗ board to do that

1:08:12 ↗ but no i haven't i haven't talked to

1:08:14 ↗ them about any sort of legislative

1:08:16 ↗ proposal

1:08:21 ↗ okay i think that addresses all the

1:08:23 ↗ questions at this point we need to

1:08:25 ↗ provide some comments and feedback

1:08:28 ↗ particularly on the four items that were

1:08:30 ↗ identified by megan and her proposal

1:08:33 ↗ um or in general and um

1:08:36 ↗ with that please put in the chat box

1:08:39 ↗ that you're interested in providing

1:08:40 ↗ comment

1:08:41 ↗ and be called on i'd ask you to try and

1:08:43 ↗ keep it succinct because we only have

1:08:46 ↗ about um 50 minutes left and have a few

1:08:49 ↗ more things to discuss

1:08:50 ↗ but with that i open it to anyone that

1:08:53 ↗ has comments

1:09:04 ↗ well i'll start okay so um

1:09:07 ↗ i firmly believe that we need to explore

1:09:10 ↗ other options for single-family

1:09:12 ↗ residences and townhomes um

1:09:15 ↗ people tend to charge where they're at

1:09:17 ↗ home at night

1:09:19 ↗ when they bring their vehicles home from

1:09:20 ↗ wherever they're driving and we seem to

1:09:23 ↗ not be treating our single family homes

1:09:25 ↗ the same way we're treating our

1:09:26 ↗ multi-family buildings

1:09:28 ↗ um we need to find some way of making

1:09:32 ↗ that

1:09:33 ↗ more accessible when a house is built or

1:09:35 ↗ a town home particularly

1:09:36 ↗ in particular uh 350 incentive in my

1:09:40 ↗ opinion is not very much towards

1:09:42 ↗ getting anyone to do it i have a

1:09:44 ↗ neighbor that got a permit to build a

1:09:46 ↗ new house

1:09:47 ↗ in december of 2020 and the permit fees

1:09:50 ↗ were 83

1:09:50 ↗ 000 from the city of issaquah that was

1:09:53 ↗ the permit and impact fees

1:09:55 ↗ a 350 incentive

1:09:58 ↗ is not much to get someone to consider

1:10:00 ↗ doing something like this

1:10:02 ↗ um so it's about point four percent of

1:10:04 ↗ the overall

1:10:05 ↗ permit cost so i think um

1:10:09 ↗ when i asked this person would they

1:10:10 ↗ consider it for an incentive or three

1:10:12 ↗ hundred fifty dollars they said are you

1:10:14 ↗ crazy

1:10:15 ↗ and so that's my concern so i think

1:10:17 ↗ we're not achieving our goal

1:10:20 ↗ of trying to get um to reduce

1:10:24 ↗ you know the carbon emissions from

1:10:25 ↗ vehicles and be more prepared for

1:10:27 ↗ electric vehicles by not

1:10:28 ↗ addressing that impact that's why i

1:10:30 ↗ asked the questions about

1:10:32 ↗ legislation or other options the second

1:10:35 ↗ thing i

1:10:35 ↗ i'd like to point out is i'm concerned

1:10:37 ↗ about the timing of this

1:10:39 ↗ um you know the city is currently

1:10:41 ↗ working on a significant review of land

1:10:44 ↗ use code title 18 which will be coming

1:10:45 ↗ to the board

1:10:47 ↗ and um i believe that piecemealing the

1:10:50 ↗ land use code

1:10:51 ↗ is what's got us to the mess and the

1:10:53 ↗ land use code we're in today

1:10:55 ↗ which is you know we kind of take a

1:10:57 ↗ single agenda item and we move it

1:10:59 ↗ forward

1:10:59 ↗ and we all have different concepts of

1:11:01 ↗ that and i think we really need to

1:11:04 ↗ make sure we're doing the right thing

1:11:06 ↗ for the multi-family

1:11:07 ↗ homes the town homes and everything and

1:11:10 ↗ it needs to be a comprehensive look at

1:11:12 ↗ it not just looking at

1:11:14 ↗ eve um electric vehicles and how they're

1:11:17 ↗ charged but

1:11:18 ↗ other things we're going to ask of these

1:11:20 ↗ buildings as we build them

1:11:21 ↗ and so when i looked at the work plan

1:11:23 ↗ that megan presented to us last week

1:11:26 ↗ she identified her two weeks ago on the

1:11:28 ↗ 13th

1:11:29 ↗ she identified that part of what we're

1:11:32 ↗ looking at when we receive the land use

1:11:34 ↗ code

1:11:35 ↗ and it's coming to the environmental

1:11:36 ↗ board is that we ensure new development

1:11:39 ↗ demonstrates implementation

1:11:40 ↗ of community sustainable development

1:11:43 ↗ clinicals

1:11:44 ↗ well clearly this is one piece of it but

1:11:47 ↗ there may be things that are higher

1:11:48 ↗ priorities and get us more bangs for our

1:11:50 ↗ buck if we ask the development community

1:11:53 ↗ to do

1:11:54 ↗ so i feel like with this piecemealed

1:11:56 ↗ approach it would be very hard to come

1:11:58 ↗ back and get another bite at the apple

1:12:00 ↗ then

1:12:01 ↗ so i think that's my thought is um

1:12:04 ↗ at least comments is to consider our

1:12:07 ↗ timing on this

1:12:08 ↗ and making sure that we're thinking

1:12:10 ↗ about this holistically

1:12:12 ↗ as we do this major rewrite of the land

1:12:14 ↗ use code those are my comments to date

1:12:24 ↗ i gotta facilitate this meeting still

1:12:26 ↗ sorry

1:12:28 ↗ um and you're next

1:12:34 ↗ i was partially wondering if the

1:12:36 ↗ comments that i made before will count

1:12:39 ↗ for now or did i make them in the wrong

1:12:42 ↗ place and so they won't count

1:12:44 ↗ of course they count they count all the

1:12:46 ↗ time okay

1:12:48 ↗ good and then

1:12:53 ↗ then i probably don't have any more

1:12:55 ↗ comments but i do

1:12:57 ↗ agree with nancy that if we can

1:13:00 ↗ get um requirements for single

1:13:04 ↗ homes for builders for single homes that

1:13:07 ↗ would be

1:13:08 ↗ preferable um

1:13:11 ↗ it'd be good to know if new construction

1:13:14 ↗ is already doing it

1:13:15 ↗ or not guess

1:13:19 ↗ thank you

1:13:34 ↗ is it my turn yes it is uh

1:13:37 ↗ everything cut out there for a minute

1:13:39 ↗ i'm sorry about that well i just wanted

1:13:41 ↗ to reflect a little bit on the big

1:13:42 ↗ picture

1:13:43 ↗ uh here and uh in terms of you know

1:13:46 ↗ where are we headed as a society and all

1:13:48 ↗ that

1:13:48 ↗ and think back it wasn't that long ago

1:13:51 ↗ when uh single-family residences did not

1:13:54 ↗ have electricity and didn't have indoor

1:13:55 ↗ plumbing

1:13:56 ↗ um at least for an old person like me it

1:13:59 ↗ wasn't that long

1:14:00 ↗ ago so now we wouldn't

1:14:03 ↗ think of that as um you know should

1:14:06 ↗ should a low-income housing unit have a

1:14:09 ↗ toilet or not

1:14:10 ↗ you know we don't we don't argue about

1:14:12 ↗ that well of course we you have a toilet

1:14:13 ↗ should have a place to plug a

1:14:15 ↗ refrigerator in well of course

1:14:17 ↗ and uh it won't be too long in the

1:14:19 ↗ future in my opinion

1:14:21 ↗ uh when should we have a place to plug

1:14:23 ↗ in an electric vehicle well of course

1:14:25 ↗ that'll be

1:14:26 ↗ that'll just be standard uh we're not

1:14:28 ↗ that far from that uh in my opinion

1:14:31 ↗ it'll be

1:14:31 ↗ like a generation from now so that's

1:14:34 ↗ where we're headed

1:14:35 ↗ let's keep that in mind where we're

1:14:36 ↗ headed of course i could be wrong i was

1:14:38 ↗ wrong once before

1:14:40 ↗ uh but um i i think that's where we're

1:14:43 ↗ headed

1:14:44 ↗ and so the the details of how we get

1:14:46 ↗ there

1:14:47 ↗ uh well that's the messy part and that's

1:14:48 ↗ what we have to work through

1:14:50 ↗ uh here but uh i guess well

1:14:53 ↗ so the bottom part of what i was saying

1:14:55 ↗ there is that the distinction between

1:14:57 ↗ uh low-income housing and single-family

1:15:00 ↗ residents i'd

1:15:01 ↗ i don't uh approve of that i think

1:15:04 ↗ that's that's wrong-headed

1:15:05 ↗ their needs for transportation are the

1:15:07 ↗ same and

1:15:09 ↗ the infrastructure for accomplishing

1:15:10 ↗ that are the same and

1:15:12 ↗ it should be the same uh sort of

1:15:14 ↗ requirement so that's all i have to say

1:15:16 ↗ about that

1:15:17 ↗ thank you

1:15:25 ↗ i think i'm up next is that right

1:15:28 ↗ sorry i didn't hear anyone

1:15:32 ↗ jamie go ahead sorry okay um

1:15:36 ↗ yeah and i think the two two main things

1:15:39 ↗ that come to mind for me i mean i think

1:15:40 ↗ in an ideal

1:15:42 ↗ state for all types of buildings we

1:15:45 ↗ would be finding a way to not only

1:15:47 ↗ require but help subsidize the cost of

1:15:50 ↗ these installations i think that's

1:15:53 ↗ i just worry for the long-term effects

1:15:54 ↗ of of putting extra costs on

1:15:56 ↗ future buildings and then um not

1:15:59 ↗ necessarily having

1:16:01 ↗ a funding source for uh

1:16:04 ↗ existing buildings to have retrofits

1:16:06 ↗ like that you're basically

1:16:07 ↗ introducing kind of structural inequity

1:16:10 ↗ between like

1:16:11 ↗ kind of vintages of of construction that

1:16:13 ↗ are going to be really hard to overcome

1:16:15 ↗ without a without a plan and i i i do

1:16:17 ↗ wonder if

1:16:18 ↗ the question around whether we should be

1:16:20 ↗ providing incentives for single family

1:16:22 ↗ is actually

1:16:23 ↗ the better question we should be asking

1:16:25 ↗ is like why can't we provide incentives

1:16:27 ↗ for all building types

1:16:29 ↗ maybe it's more of a subsidy than a

1:16:31 ↗ incentive when it's not a requirement

1:16:33 ↗ but uh that's that's really something

1:16:35 ↗ that i would

1:16:36 ↗ would ask that we take a close look at

1:16:38 ↗ is finding a way

1:16:39 ↗ particularly for low-income housing i

1:16:41 ↗ think that's where that that becomes

1:16:43 ↗ particularly important is um

1:16:46 ↗ i think it's a huge equity problem not

1:16:48 ↗ to include it

1:16:50 ↗ but we need to find a way um i i do

1:16:52 ↗ think

1:16:53 ↗ what rishi's question earlier around

1:16:55 ↗ does it increase the cost to the end

1:16:57 ↗ user of like someone

1:16:59 ↗ well a developer is going to end up

1:17:01 ↗ passing those costs through so

1:17:03 ↗ i think that's where finding a way to

1:17:07 ↗ mitigate those costs is something that i

1:17:09 ↗ think would be really important

1:17:11 ↗ but similarly not doing that through

1:17:12 ↗ just waiving the requirement entirely so

1:17:15 ↗ whether that's through subsidies or some

1:17:17 ↗ way to shift the

1:17:19 ↗ uh requirement from evsc to maybe more

1:17:22 ↗ emphasis on ed

1:17:23 ↗ ready which does provide a pretty

1:17:25 ↗ significant cost savings so

1:17:28 ↗ um but yeah that that's really the heart

1:17:30 ↗ of it i think is is finding a way

1:17:32 ↗ because the actual

1:17:33 ↗ per unit costs i just threw together a

1:17:35 ↗ quick excel model on the per unit cost

1:17:38 ↗ for all these different uses they're not

1:17:39 ↗ actually that different between

1:17:41 ↗ single-family it's more about

1:17:44 ↗ um it's it's it yeah it's it's

1:17:48 ↗ uh it's if you could provide the same

1:17:50 ↗ subsidy subsidy per

1:17:51 ↗ housing unit um they actually the cost

1:17:54 ↗ coverage is

1:17:55 ↗ is actually quite similar so that would

1:17:57 ↗ be the big thing coming out of this is

1:17:59 ↗ can we find another funding source or

1:18:02 ↗ commit to funding

1:18:03 ↗ other uses than just the

1:18:06 ↗ single family

1:18:10 ↗ thank you rishi you're um you're now on

1:18:15 ↗ yep i just want to express my concern in

1:18:17 ↗ simply incentivizing single family homes

1:18:20 ↗ um rather than requiring it i think

1:18:23 ↗ since retrofitting costs are

1:18:25 ↗ approximately two to eight times as

1:18:27 ↗ expensive as

1:18:29 ↗ making them eb ready at the time of

1:18:30 ↗ construction

1:18:32 ↗ i think it's important to require ep

1:18:34 ↗ readiness

1:18:35 ↗ in all single-family homes and

1:18:37 ↗ townhouses

1:18:39 ↗ also i did want to say that the

1:18:41 ↗ non-residential buildings

1:18:43 ↗ um as proposed in the ordinance where

1:18:46 ↗ they said that the number of ev ready

1:18:47 ↗ parking spaces should be only 10

1:18:50 ↗ i think that's disproportionately

1:18:53 ↗ affecting lower income individuals who

1:18:55 ↗ work multiple jobs on different job

1:18:57 ↗ sites throughout the course of one day

1:18:59 ↗ they have to travel more and so they

1:19:01 ↗ need to ensure that

1:19:02 ↗ they have a ability to charge their

1:19:05 ↗ vehicles

1:19:06 ↗ at the place of their work so i think uh

1:19:08 ↗ increasing the percentage of

1:19:10 ↗ uh ev ready um parking spaces and

1:19:14 ↗ potentially evsc parking spaces

1:19:16 ↗ in non-residential and parking spaces uh

1:19:19 ↗ surface park parking spaces and parking

1:19:21 ↗ garages uh should be considered

1:19:28 ↗ okay next we have danny

1:19:32 ↗ um yeah so i would echo um rishi's said

1:19:35 ↗ i do think um requirements would be um

1:19:38 ↗ preferable and ideal although the

1:19:40 ↗ process around that seems

1:19:42 ↗ a little complicated so i'd be

1:19:43 ↗ interested to see what the lawyer says

1:19:45 ↗ at the

1:19:45 ↗ um council study session um but also

1:19:49 ↗ i think um as nancy was saying it's

1:19:51 ↗ really important to consider like

1:19:53 ↗ a holistic approach um there are a lot

1:19:55 ↗ of equity issues around this

1:19:57 ↗ um especially with affordable housing

1:20:00 ↗ which is why you know i agree i think

1:20:01 ↗ it should be a requirement just as it is

1:20:04 ↗ in the other single family homes um

1:20:06 ↗ you know because yeah um and then also

1:20:11 ↗ um you know i think i i just reread the

1:20:14 ↗ um caliber convening memo

1:20:17 ↗ and um there is just so much like

1:20:20 ↗ wonderful energy for issaquah to be

1:20:22 ↗ you know a leader in uh pushing the

1:20:24 ↗ community forward with

1:20:26 ↗ climate and um i think this would be a

1:20:29 ↗ really great step towards that um

1:20:31 ↗ so i hope that we can figure out a way

1:20:33 ↗ to make it a requirement

1:20:37 ↗ laura

1:20:41 ↗ thank you um quick aside i am so

1:20:44 ↗ thrilled that

1:20:45 ↗ to be with the company of you guys i'm

1:20:47 ↗ really impressed by everyone's questions

1:20:48 ↗ it's really lovely to hear people say

1:20:50 ↗ such thoughtful and diverse

1:20:52 ↗ um thoughts i uh will get the

1:20:56 ↗ least interesting thought out of the way

1:20:57 ↗ which is i agree that i think the

1:20:59 ↗ affordable housing

1:21:00 ↗ um any sort of waiver would be punitive

1:21:02 ↗ and is ridiculous

1:21:04 ↗ um the single family is more of a target

1:21:06 ↗ they're consuming the most they produce

1:21:08 ↗ the most emissions

1:21:09 ↗ and um i think we need to look at ways

1:21:12 ↗ to

1:21:12 ↗ incentivize existing retrofits even just

1:21:15 ↗ giving a

1:21:16 ↗ a cash credit just saying if you

1:21:18 ↗ purchase

1:21:19 ↗ an electric car you get a credit from

1:21:21 ↗ the city and you can do it as you please

1:21:23 ↗ on your house

1:21:24 ↗ that gets a lot of the paperwork out of

1:21:25 ↗ the way um

1:21:27 ↗ it just seems like it's a little bit

1:21:29 ↗ simpler for if there aren't that many

1:21:30 ↗ buildings going up

1:21:32 ↗ that's another option to consider um but

1:21:35 ↗ i agree with everyone so far in that

1:21:36 ↗ the um i also agree about the concern

1:21:40 ↗ about it being a piecemeal i think

1:21:42 ↗ there's interest in doing action but the

1:21:44 ↗ successful action would be for people to

1:21:46 ↗ not drive

1:21:48 ↗ um so i fully support this i think it's

1:21:51 ↗ great but i also

1:21:52 ↗ want us to be careful about the

1:21:53 ↗ potential um

1:21:55 ↗ and what it yields um and aside for just

1:21:58 ↗ for zoning consideration as we're doing

1:22:00 ↗ like

1:22:01 ↗ more planning updates um there's a

1:22:04 ↗ potential

1:22:04 ↗ for like if you were to put this in a

1:22:06 ↗ commercial space so if your business had

1:22:08 ↗ a charging station most likely they're

1:22:10 ↗ going to light it and

1:22:12 ↗ night lighting would could be you know

1:22:14 ↗ have a bad impact on

1:22:16 ↗ species migration so just little things

1:22:18 ↗ like that they're going to be a lot of

1:22:19 ↗ little

1:22:20 ↗ detailed impacts where if they put a

1:22:22 ↗ bright light in a parking lot it's one

1:22:23 ↗ more light in a parking lot

1:22:24 ↗ that's consuming more electricity but

1:22:26 ↗ more so that's just disruptive

1:22:28 ↗ um so i'd be interested in also not

1:22:30 ↗ having an eyesore of like a bunch of

1:22:32 ↗ charging stations everywhere

1:22:34 ↗ um but that's just an aside of like

1:22:35 ↗ things to keep on our radars um

1:22:40 ↗ and then i also would be interested in

1:22:42 ↗ um

1:22:43 ↗ being able to do um incentivized solar

1:22:46 ↗ or off-grid hookups of some sort down

1:22:49 ↗ the line

1:22:50 ↗ i think there's a potential for us to do

1:22:51 ↗ phasing so we don't have to

1:22:53 ↗ force everyone to change right away as

1:22:55 ↗ the technology is evolving but

1:22:57 ↗ more people off-grid the better um or so

1:23:00 ↗ it seems

1:23:05 ↗ thank you laura next in you have some

1:23:08 ↗ comments

1:23:10 ↗ um i just wanted to have another comment

1:23:13 ↗ on the transit oriented development

1:23:15 ↗ um i you reminded me of

1:23:19 ↗ what a builder had said during one of

1:23:22 ↗ the city council meetings

1:23:24 ↗ and i just wanted to

1:23:27 ↗ say that while i do agree with him that

1:23:31 ↗ people living

1:23:32 ↗ next to transit might be down to just

1:23:35 ↗ one car they might want to try to just

1:23:37 ↗ have one

1:23:37 ↗ car i mean it's getting easier and

1:23:39 ↗ easier to

1:23:41 ↗ just have one car and have it be

1:23:43 ↗ electric

1:23:44 ↗ in fact um my husband and i are going to

1:23:47 ↗ give it a try

1:23:48 ↗ with the new aria which will be a four

1:23:50 ↗ wheel drive and get like 300 miles

1:23:53 ↗ um so the more charging stations we have

1:23:57 ↗ the better and um

1:24:00 ↗ i would like to encourage stations

1:24:04 ↗ for people who live next to the transit

1:24:06 ↗ as well thanks

1:24:11 ↗ uh don did you have a comment or was

1:24:13 ↗ that just telling us she got offline

1:24:17 ↗ oh just letting you know that i i'm back

1:24:20 ↗ now i

1:24:20 ↗ lost my connection there for a couple

1:24:22 ↗ minutes for some reason

1:24:25 ↗ um well i guess i'll sorry don you know

1:24:28 ↗ all in our comment and on

1:24:30 ↗ on where i'm at with this um i would

1:24:32 ↗ like to see the single families be

1:24:34 ↗ included but i understand the code

1:24:36 ↗ challenges that you face i would like to

1:24:39 ↗ thank megan and your staff for all the

1:24:40 ↗ research you've done on this

1:24:42 ↗ very well presented um affordable

1:24:45 ↗ housing waiver i'm not

1:24:47 ↗ i don't think that you should give a

1:24:48 ↗ waiver for affordable housing i think

1:24:50 ↗ that they should include this in the

1:24:51 ↗ build i mean this is part of what we're

1:24:53 ↗ going to see in the future and

1:24:54 ↗ the demand for this is just going to

1:24:56 ↗ increase so

1:24:58 ↗ this is just the first step and i think

1:25:00 ↗ these should be regulated into your

1:25:02 ↗ codes

1:25:03 ↗ as much as possible um

1:25:06 ↗ the trend same with the transit oriented

1:25:08 ↗ development

1:25:09 ↗ i don't believe that that should be

1:25:10 ↗ excluded from this

1:25:13 ↗ i do have one thing that i ask megan you

1:25:15 ↗ and your staff to research a little bit

1:25:18 ↗ and that's on the existing housing and

1:25:20 ↗ existing building structures

1:25:22 ↗ is there a way to provide grant

1:25:24 ↗ assistance to those people to

1:25:26 ↗ provide electric vehicle charging i

1:25:29 ↗ don't like the idea of the city spending

1:25:32 ↗ public funds to give them incentives

1:25:35 ↗ or kickbacks i think that's gifting of

1:25:36 ↗ public funds

1:25:38 ↗ but i do believe that there's plenty of

1:25:39 ↗ grants out there and the city could

1:25:41 ↗ probably help them

1:25:42 ↗ figure out a way to navigate that

1:25:47 ↗ great and i would like to offer just a

1:25:50 ↗ little bit more feedback myself one

1:25:52 ↗ other comment i have and that is

1:25:54 ↗ that i too support putting in the ev

1:25:57 ↗ infrastructure in affordable housing and

1:26:00 ↗ the transit oriented

1:26:01 ↗ development i think we need to try and

1:26:03 ↗ develop policies and ordinances that

1:26:05 ↗ are equitable for all and that's

1:26:09 ↗ one way of achieving it and i would

1:26:11 ↗ suggest that if there's

1:26:13 ↗ pushback on the cost associated with

1:26:15 ↗ those to look at

1:26:16 ↗ the parking requirements for both of

1:26:18 ↗ those and see if there's some way

1:26:21 ↗ to you know i understand it's very

1:26:23 ↗ expensive to build parking

1:26:25 ↗ and perhaps there is a way to reduce the

1:26:27 ↗ parking requirements

1:26:29 ↗ a little further so that you get more ev

1:26:31 ↗ infrastructure along the way

1:26:33 ↗ but just for consideration and

1:26:36 ↗ i think there's one other two more

1:26:38 ↗ question no one other question from

1:26:40 ↗ laura and i just want to remind before i

1:26:44 ↗ go to you i wanted to um point out that

1:26:46 ↗ we did get

1:26:47 ↗ um six comments from the public

1:26:50 ↗ associated with

1:26:51 ↗ um our consideration of this which i

1:26:53 ↗ know you've all received

1:26:55 ↗ um five they were from five different

1:26:57 ↗ public members and

1:26:59 ↗ i know megan has them available if the

1:27:01 ↗ public is interested in seeing those

1:27:03 ↗ comments and the feedback received to

1:27:04 ↗ this board

1:27:05 ↗ and with that i think laura had one more

1:27:07 ↗ comment

1:27:10 ↗ i think rishi had something first

1:27:16 ↗ i'll go and you can jump in i can't tell

1:27:17 ↗ if you're talking right now

1:27:21 ↗ okay uh just two quick side comments um

1:27:25 ↗ the 10 and then 30 for ev ready it still

1:27:29 ↗ seems low

1:27:30 ↗ um i think

1:27:33 ↗ why would we i mean as an environmental

1:27:35 ↗ board why would we say that's sufficient

1:27:37 ↗ um that means that you know 60 percent

1:27:40 ↗ of people

1:27:41 ↗ can't charge their cars when they might

1:27:42 ↗ need to i don't know if that matters or

1:27:44 ↗ not but it

1:27:44 ↗ seems rather arbitrary and then also i

1:27:47 ↗ do think it's important to look at

1:27:49 ↗ the eevee ready being something that is

1:27:52 ↗ not just

1:27:53 ↗ built i know in landscaping often will

1:27:55 ↗ require people to put in trees and then

1:27:57 ↗ if the trees die

1:27:58 ↗ they met the requirement for putting

1:27:59 ↗ them in and they don't maintain that

1:28:01 ↗ vegetation so if we

1:28:02 ↗ require ev ready there should be some

1:28:05 ↗ consideration about

1:28:06 ↗ what's the expectation long term when

1:28:09 ↗ more people have cars especially in

1:28:10 ↗ affordable housing they might not be

1:28:12 ↗ interested in upgrading amenities

1:28:18 ↗ rishi i'm sorry i missed you um and your

1:28:20 ↗ comment

1:28:22 ↗ no worries thank you um i just wanted to

1:28:24 ↗ mention that a lot of the ordinance is

1:28:26 ↗ just focused purely on

1:28:28 ↗ new building construction and major

1:28:30 ↗ retrofits

1:28:31 ↗ but i'm wondering if there's a potential

1:28:33 ↗ to incentivize

1:28:34 ↗ for existing residents so that um

1:28:38 ↗ in a similar program that was proposed

1:28:40 ↗ for single-family homes

1:28:42 ↗ but instead just for existing residents

1:28:45 ↗ and residential buildings

1:28:51 ↗ i can this is megan curtis murphy we

1:28:54 ↗ haven't considered incentive programs

1:28:57 ↗ for

1:28:57 ↗ existing buildings at this time um the

1:29:00 ↗ overall

1:29:01 ↗ cost um as we talked about a little bit

1:29:03 ↗ before is

1:29:04 ↗ a lot more expensive for existing

1:29:06 ↗ buildings two to eight times more

1:29:08 ↗ um so i think the focus is trying to

1:29:10 ↗ make sure we're getting it

1:29:11 ↗ into the buildings as they come online

1:29:15 ↗ i think looking at the

1:29:18 ↗ possible grant assistance programs as

1:29:20 ↗ don was mentioning i think that would be

1:29:21 ↗ helpful in trying to get that

1:29:23 ↗ information out

1:29:24 ↗ to existing buildings could be one way

1:29:26 ↗ that the city could try to eat that

1:29:34 ↗ okay i see that jamie had a comment go

1:29:36 ↗ ahead jamie yeah i just had one

1:29:39 ↗ comment on that and i do think it's the

1:29:42 ↗ same thing that nancy said earlier but

1:29:44 ↗ i do wonder as we look at like towards

1:29:48 ↗ us planning for a climate action plan

1:29:50 ↗ um where we're gonna have like a bunch

1:29:53 ↗ of cost benefit analysis to do on like

1:29:56 ↗ where do we invest funds and and how do

1:29:59 ↗ we

1:30:00 ↗ make the biggest impact in the greatest

1:30:02 ↗ way so i do wonder if there's

1:30:04 ↗ there's some piece there that would be

1:30:06 ↗ helpful as we look at

1:30:08 ↗ incentives and whatnot of like the

1:30:10 ↗ broader

1:30:12 ↗ the broader um context of like where

1:30:14 ↗ else do we think we might need to make

1:30:16 ↗ investments to really drive um

1:30:18 ↗ greenhouse gas submission

1:30:20 ↗ um changes so that would just be one

1:30:23 ↗ other thing that i think

1:30:25 ↗ it'd be helpful to have that context and

1:30:27 ↗ know and be able to have that holistic

1:30:29 ↗ conversation not only for

1:30:31 ↗ land use but i think also climate action

1:30:32 ↗ plan so we know

1:30:34 ↗ where we're making investments and and

1:30:36 ↗ maybe this is the right place and we can

1:30:38 ↗ try to really push for that but that's

1:30:41 ↗ one thing that i feel a little bit

1:30:42 ↗ um it's a little bit hard for us or at

1:30:45 ↗ least me to do that today

1:30:49 ↗ and i would second that perspective

1:30:51 ↗ jamie a um

1:30:53 ↗ you know are the percentages we're

1:30:55 ↗ looking for the right

1:30:56 ↗ percentages you know if you're looking

1:30:58 ↗ at an overall climate action plan

1:31:00 ↗ um is this the best use of it that's

1:31:04 ↗ just a question well i think i'm going

1:31:06 ↗ to close out the comments now

1:31:08 ↗ and ask megan i'm going to put her on

1:31:10 ↗ the spot to kind of summarize

1:31:12 ↗ generally what feedback she's received

1:31:14 ↗ from all of us and see if we need to

1:31:15 ↗ clarify anything

1:31:17 ↗ as this moves forward to the council so

1:31:19 ↗ megan you're on the spot

1:31:22 ↗ all righty and i said and i said you can

1:31:25 ↗ do that in advance i've been thinking

1:31:26 ↗ about it some but um

1:31:28 ↗ but yes let me let me give it a whirl um

1:31:31 ↗ so i think we've heard a lot of great

1:31:34 ↗ feedback

1:31:34 ↗ um here so kind of looking at the the

1:31:38 ↗ pieces

1:31:38 ↗ i'll start with the pieces that we um

1:31:41 ↗ the specific pieces we're asking for

1:31:42 ↗ feedback on and then come back to some

1:31:44 ↗ of the other ones

1:31:45 ↗ um this about single-family

1:31:49 ↗ incentives i hear a desire from the

1:31:52 ↗ board

1:31:53 ↗ of wanting to find some sort of path for

1:31:55 ↗ doing that if we're legally not able to

1:31:57 ↗ do it

1:31:58 ↗ through this ordinance then what other

1:32:01 ↗ things could be explored for that i'm

1:32:03 ↗ hearing similar comments to what

1:32:07 ↗ we heard from from ppc about just kind

1:32:10 ↗ of concern about incentives

1:32:12 ↗ for single family that that might not be

1:32:14 ↗ the best use of the money

1:32:16 ↗ um and hearing that from a few different

1:32:18 ↗ angles that maybe there's other climate

1:32:20 ↗ actions that might be

1:32:21 ↗ important for or um it's such a small

1:32:24 ↗ percentage of the overall permit cost

1:32:26 ↗ maybe it's not really worth it there

1:32:28 ↗ so i am hearing some hesitation from the

1:32:29 ↗ board in

1:32:31 ↗ um in the single family incentive

1:32:32 ↗ program

1:32:34 ↗ for affordable housing waivers i'm

1:32:37 ↗ hearing from the board that there's

1:32:39 ↗ not interest in having that in the

1:32:41 ↗ ordinance

1:32:42 ↗ primarily for equity reasons and really

1:32:45 ↗ wanting to make sure that

1:32:46 ↗ everyone has equal access to this

1:32:50 ↗ sort of

1:32:53 ↗ transportation have the benefits of ev

1:32:55 ↗ ownership

1:32:56 ↗ um if that's something pretty consistent

1:32:58 ↗ that i heard across the board

1:33:00 ↗ um also thinking about how we can make

1:33:03 ↗ it easier to get

1:33:04 ↗ that that infrastructure there

1:33:08 ↗ if that is a place for incentives it

1:33:10 ↗ seems like there might still be a

1:33:11 ↗ question about that

1:33:12 ↗ um but that that might be an option um

1:33:15 ↗ if not trying to maybe look for grants

1:33:17 ↗ for that but just trying to find other

1:33:18 ↗ ways

1:33:20 ↗ uh for the tod projects um

1:33:23 ↗ i think overall again similar ppc i'm

1:33:25 ↗ not hearing

1:33:26 ↗ that these should necessarily have a

1:33:29 ↗ weaver

1:33:30 ↗ um that people who live in these

1:33:33 ↗ projects um in these homes you know are

1:33:36 ↗ still going to have

1:33:37 ↗ a vehicle and electric vehicle is

1:33:40 ↗ going to be um a good option for many

1:33:43 ↗ it's not going to be an option for

1:33:44 ↗ everyone but that's why we have kind of

1:33:46 ↗ these percentages

1:33:47 ↗ about um we're not requiring all the

1:33:50 ↗ spots to be

1:33:50 ↗ ev ready or evsc but it would provide

1:33:54 ↗ that option

1:33:54 ↗ and people in that housing type should

1:33:57 ↗ not be prohibited from

1:33:58 ↗ that option um

1:34:02 ↗ let's see here i'm hearing some thoughts

1:34:06 ↗ about the timing of the ordinance um so

1:34:08 ↗ we are doing the title 18

1:34:11 ↗ overhaul this year and working on that

1:34:13 ↗ so wondering if

1:34:15 ↗ um if this should be considered at that

1:34:18 ↗ time or if we should move it forward

1:34:20 ↗ now as more a climate initiative i'm

1:34:23 ↗ hearing thoughts kind of on on both

1:34:25 ↗ sides of that i wouldn't say that i've

1:34:26 ↗ heard

1:34:27 ↗ necessarily a consensus on either ways

1:34:29 ↗ on either side but

1:34:31 ↗ i'm definitely bringing up some

1:34:33 ↗ questions about

1:34:34 ↗ um if we want to keep moving forward

1:34:37 ↗ with this now

1:34:38 ↗ as a climate initiative or or folding it

1:34:40 ↗ into that

1:34:44 ↗ um uh okay here i want for

1:34:47 ↗ research on existing uh or grant

1:34:50 ↗ assistance for existing buildings

1:34:52 ↗ and um wanting to try to find as much

1:34:55 ↗ ways we can get

1:34:56 ↗ ev infrastructure into them um also

1:34:59 ↗ thoughts about

1:35:00 ↗ kind of is this the right percentage

1:35:01 ↗ should it be should it be more

1:35:03 ↗ um i think this is a starting point that

1:35:05 ↗ we have through

1:35:06 ↗ that big stakeholder process with the

1:35:09 ↗ regional code collaboration i think

1:35:11 ↗ they looked at a lot of other ordinances

1:35:13 ↗ and got a lot of feedback from people

1:35:15 ↗ saying

1:35:16 ↗ um you know is this the right amount and

1:35:18 ↗ these are the numbers that they came out

1:35:19 ↗ based off of that um not going too high

1:35:22 ↗ for

1:35:22 ↗ overall cost concerns but not going over

1:35:24 ↗ too low since we are expecting to see

1:35:27 ↗ more evs coming down the line

1:35:32 ↗ and i think that's kind of some of the

1:35:34 ↗ main pieces i have i have a lot more

1:35:36 ↗ written

1:35:36 ↗ on my sheet so don't think if i didn't

1:35:38 ↗ mention your comment that

1:35:40 ↗ that it hasn't been recorded um

1:35:44 ↗ but that is uh the kind of the major

1:35:46 ↗ pieces i'm hearing is there

1:35:48 ↗ is there anything kind of big that i'm

1:35:50 ↗ missing there that someone wants to

1:35:51 ↗ chime in with

1:35:58 ↗ well hearing nothing i think um we're

1:36:00 ↗ going to move forward

1:36:01 ↗ um i think megan has some work to do to

1:36:03 ↗ prepare this for the council and for the

1:36:05 ↗ planning policy commission

1:36:07 ↗ in terms of how at least our comments

1:36:10 ↗ get back to them

1:36:12 ↗ with that i'm going to conclude our

1:36:15 ↗ conversation about the

1:36:16 ↗ elec electric vehicle charging ordinance

1:36:20 ↗ we aren't voting this time in terms of

1:36:23 ↗ a position or a recommendation we're

1:36:25 ↗ moving just giving feedback

1:36:26 ↗ but likely we'll be providing a

1:36:28 ↗ recommendation

1:36:30 ↗ at a future date so with that

1:36:33 ↗ we're going to move on to the next

1:36:34 ↗ agenda topic which is reports

1:36:37 ↗ megan do you have anything to report on

1:36:42 ↗ um i i think the only other thing is

1:36:45 ↗ this i just want to mention

1:36:47 ↗ people brought up a lot of great

1:36:49 ↗ feedback about kind of the climate plan

1:36:51 ↗ and other ways that what else has the

1:36:53 ↗ city done

1:36:55 ↗ that we should be considering when we're

1:36:56 ↗ thinking about the ev ordinance

1:36:58 ↗ and at the next meeting we're going to

1:37:00 ↗ be doing kind of a bigger

1:37:02 ↗ conversation and presentation about the

1:37:05 ↗ different actions climate and

1:37:06 ↗ sustainability actions the city has done

1:37:09 ↗ so i think that will really provide some

1:37:10 ↗ useful context

1:37:12 ↗ for moving forward with the other agenda

1:37:14 ↗ items that we have

1:37:16 ↗ no other formal report

1:37:20 ↗ anybody else have anything to add as

1:37:21 ↗ reports that they might be aware of that

1:37:23 ↗ we should talk about

1:37:26 ↗ with that we're going to move on to the

1:37:28 ↗ next agenda item which is

1:37:29 ↗ other business and announcements and i

1:37:32 ↗ think megan has some

1:37:33 ↗ things to bring up there yes um so i'd

1:37:36 ↗ sent out an

1:37:37 ↗ email to the board um right before this

1:37:40 ↗ meeting but the

1:37:41 ↗ city is hosting um some community

1:37:44 ↗ convenings on equity

1:37:46 ↗ um coming up it's the human services

1:37:48 ↗ commission is hosting these

1:37:50 ↗ they'll be virtual convenings of course

1:37:52 ↗ to discuss the role of residents in the

1:37:54 ↗ city's equity initiatives

1:37:56 ↗ and to brainstorm the creation of a new

1:37:58 ↗ board or commission on equity

1:38:01 ↗ and i think our board members know

1:38:03 ↗ something about creating a new board as

1:38:04 ↗ this is only

1:38:05 ↗ our second meeting um and the human

1:38:08 ↗ services commission has asked for

1:38:10 ↗ representatives from

1:38:11 ↗ various boards um to participate if

1:38:14 ↗ they're able to

1:38:15 ↗ so i sent out information before to see

1:38:17 ↗ if anyone is available or interested in

1:38:19 ↗ that

1:38:20 ↗ i heard back from nancy and jamie that

1:38:23 ↗ they would be available to attend that

1:38:26 ↗ so i think that would be great if

1:38:27 ↗ they're able to go and

1:38:29 ↗ and participate and are able to come

1:38:31 ↗ back and just provide a report out of

1:38:33 ↗ what was discussed at those meetings

1:38:35 ↗ at our at our next meeting that would be

1:38:37 ↗ great if anyone else

1:38:39 ↗ is interested the first meeting is

1:38:42 ↗ tomorrow and the second one

1:38:43 ↗ is either on february 4th or

1:38:47 ↗ 5th february 4th so it's a two-part

1:38:50 ↗ series

1:38:51 ↗ um please let me know we're happy to

1:38:54 ↗ have other people go

1:38:55 ↗ we do need to however make sure we don't

1:38:56 ↗ have a quorum of the board

1:38:58 ↗ present so that would be uh

1:39:01 ↗ five or more people so i'm just trying

1:39:03 ↗ to track people so just let me know if

1:39:05 ↗ you are interested

1:39:06 ↗ in going to that

1:39:12 ↗ great thank you megan does anybody else

1:39:15 ↗ have anything else i'd like to add

1:39:17 ↗ for the good of the order with that if

1:39:20 ↗ there's no further business

1:39:22 ↗ um i am going to state that the meeting

1:39:25 ↗ is adjourned

1:39:26 ↗ with that thank you and you all have a

1:39:28 ↗ very good night

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF