Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 14, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Oct 7, 2020

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison About Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2021* - Ron Faul improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2021* - Joan Probala Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 - Joy Lewis 2022 - Matt Monahan Membership 2022 - Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 - Jason Voiss seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2023 - Nina Milligan and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03. *Short term expiring April 30,…

Welcome New Members

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 10, 2020

packet pp.5–8

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Oct 7, 2020

▶ Watch from 7:21 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 12-10-20 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:30 PM Virtual Hearing December 10, 2020 MINUTES

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Review and Discuss Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) 18 for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, (D)

Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.9–27

Topics: Land UseClimate

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

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.29

Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/11/21 Public Hearing: Electric Vehicle Charging 8/12/21 2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Stations (tentative) Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements 2/25/21 Title 18: Signs Amendments

3351 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ so this is the

0:10 ↗ um january 7 14th meeting of the

0:14 ↗ planning policy commission

0:17 ↗ welcome to all of you in this new year

0:21 ↗ uh due to the governor's proclamation on

0:24 ↗ 2028 related to the covet 19 emergency

0:28 ↗ and open public meetings this

0:30 ↗ meeting is being held remotely

0:34 ↗ the commissioners know that if they want

0:37 ↗ to

0:38 ↗ make a comment or ask a question that to

0:40 ↗ put their

0:43 ↗ question or comment in the chat

0:47 ↗ as normal we will have uh

0:50 ↗ public comments at the end of this

0:52 ↗ meeting if anybody

0:54 ↗ is out there that would like to make a

0:56 ↗ public comment please

0:58 ↗ follow the directions on the website

1:04 ↗ hit pound three to tell us that you want

1:06 ↗ to

1:07 ↗ make a comment kristen will call the

1:11 ↗ last

1:12 ↗ two letters of your

1:15 ↗ the numbers of your phone call when you

1:17 ↗ are ready to speak

1:19 ↗ hit top pound six so that we can hear

1:23 ↗ you

1:23 ↗ and you will have a limit of five

1:25 ↗ minutes to make your

1:31 ↗ conversation um the first thing on

1:34 ↗ our agenda is a roll call so if kristen

1:37 ↗ would take the roll call

1:40 ↗ okay just uh unmute and say here when i

1:42 ↗ call your name please commissioner

1:44 ↗ monahan

1:47 ↗ here commissioner milligan

1:51 ↗ chair commissioner zaragoza

1:54 ↗ here commissioner lewis

1:57 ↗ here commissioner carl

2:00 ↗ here commissioner voice

2:04 ↗ here commissioner fall

2:14 ↗ before we before we start i want to make

2:16 ↗ sure that everybody realizes that my

2:19 ↗ name is not joan me

2:22 ↗ somehow we have not been able to put my

2:25 ↗ full name on there so

2:27 ↗ i will introduce myself as joan probla

2:30 ↗ and i'm serving as chair

2:31 ↗ for this evening's meeting

2:35 ↗ even though we are not voting on

2:39 ↗ anything tonight

2:40 ↗ it's nice to see that we are in full

2:43 ↗ attendance this evening

2:45 ↗ it's nice to have everybody here but

2:48 ↗ especially

2:49 ↗ the three new members that we have

2:53 ↗ on our commission this evening

2:57 ↗ and as normal what we usually do is have

3:01 ↗ each of you

3:02 ↗ just say who you are how long have you

3:04 ↗ been in the city and maybe

3:06 ↗ a three second uh blurb on

3:10 ↗ why you want to be on planning policy or

3:13 ↗ what you

3:14 ↗ hope to learn or do while you're here so

3:17 ↗ we're going to start

3:18 ↗ with matt if commissioner

3:21 ↗ monahan would like to take the

3:23 ↗ microphone and introduce himself that

3:25 ↗ would be great

3:26 ↗ yes thank you very much good afternoon

3:29 ↗ good evening everybody

3:30 ↗ my name is matt monaghan i live in the

3:32 ↗ uh essential highlands we've been here

3:35 ↗ for about a year and a half and uh in my

3:37 ↗ previous life

3:38 ↗ in washington dc i was a litigator and

3:41 ↗ litigated a

3:42 ↗ land use case that was a lot of fun and

3:44 ↗ figured that i'd want to see how the

3:46 ↗ sausage was made on the inside so that's

3:47 ↗ one of the

3:48 ↗ main reasons i'm here so i'm really

3:49 ↗ looking forward to working with all of

3:51 ↗ you

3:51 ↗ in the coming years welcome

3:55 ↗ um commissioner milligan

4:03 ↗ thank you chair probably my name is nina

4:05 ↗ milligan

4:06 ↗ and uh thank you for welcoming me and us

4:09 ↗ to the

4:10 ↗ the commission i've lived in issaquah

4:13 ↗ for about 15 years in issaquah highlands

4:16 ↗ i served on the urban village

4:18 ↗ development commission for eight years

4:20 ↗ as one of my first

4:22 ↗ volunteers i'm sorry about this hang on

4:26 ↗ um can you still hear me

4:30 ↗ okay i

4:33 ↗ having served on a commission that

4:35 ↗ approves

4:37 ↗ land use applications i've always wanted

4:39 ↗ to work more with the policy that

4:40 ↗ created them

4:42 ↗ created the standards and brought forth

4:46 ↗ those

4:46 ↗ issues for developers to work with

4:50 ↗ so i'm really glad to be here on the

4:52 ↗ planning policy commission thank you

4:55 ↗ and our final final person hopefully i

4:58 ↗ will say your name

4:59 ↗ correctly commissioner zaragoza

5:03 ↗ you got it richard zaragoza yeah i'm

5:06 ↗ super happy to be here this is

5:08 ↗ this is actually going to be a lot of

5:09 ↗ fun i think um so i've been in this club

5:12 ↗ for 15 years my wife and

5:14 ↗ two kids um we've lived in the

5:16 ↗ highlands for

5:17 ↗ about a decade and most recently in may

5:20 ↗ valley

5:21 ↗ and now uh downtown isquad so we've been

5:24 ↗ all over the place

5:24 ↗ and we really love it here and this is

5:27 ↗ my chance to learn a little bit more

5:28 ↗ about how the city functions

5:30 ↗ and get to understand the details of how

5:33 ↗ we all

5:33 ↗ live together thank you and again

5:37 ↗ welcome to all of you so i know that

5:40 ↗ we're all excited to have more uh

5:43 ↗ more ideas um that to look at uh what we

5:48 ↗ have to

5:48 ↗ work on um our pr our purpose is

5:52 ↗ to take what the city gives us and tear

5:54 ↗ it apart and make sure that

5:55 ↗ there's nothing that they've forgotten

5:58 ↗ and to have more eyes

5:59 ↗ put on this is always a good idea

6:02 ↗ tonight we oh um kristen

6:06 ↗ is there anybody from the city or

6:11 ↗ staff that is joining us tonight yes i'm

6:13 ↗ kristen leason senior planner with

6:15 ↗ community planning and development

6:17 ↗ we also have andrea snyder who is our

6:18 ↗ deputy city administrator

6:20 ↗ and interim community planning and

6:22 ↗ development director

6:23 ↗ and megan curtis murphy who is going to

6:26 ↗ use with the

6:26 ↗ office of sustainability and will be

6:28 ↗ giving our presentation tonight

6:30 ↗ which leads us right into our

6:32 ↗ presentation for this evening

6:35 ↗ which is the well a discussion on the

6:38 ↗ proposed amendments to the

6:41 ↗ electric vehicle charging station so

6:45 ↗ i'm assuming that all of you have uh

6:49 ↗ been able to join in and and hear part

6:52 ↗ of

6:54 ↗ megan's presentation to the city

6:57 ↗ uh session whatever they call it

7:01 ↗ excuse me joan i'm going to interrupt

7:03 ↗ for one moment please um

7:04 ↗ commissioner voice just made a good

7:06 ↗ point we still need to approve the

7:07 ↗ minutes from the last meeting

7:08 ↗ before moving on to the presentation oh

7:11 ↗ excuse me

7:13 ↗ since we do this every time i'm really

7:15 ↗ surprised and we've been looking at the

7:17 ↗ agenda so

7:18 ↗ um we as a

7:21 ↗ i need a an approval of the minutes from

7:24 ↗ the december 10

7:26 ↗ 2020 meeting

7:29 ↗ is there any additions discussion

7:33 ↗ on the proposed minutes

7:39 ↗ hearing none according to city

7:43 ↗ directions the minutes are approved

7:47 ↗ so now we will ask

7:50 ↗ megan curtis murphy to give us a

7:54 ↗ presentation on the proposed

7:56 ↗ amendments to our electric vehicle

7:59 ↗ charging stations

8:19 ↗ thank you just taking a minute to set up

8:21 ↗ my screen there can everyone see that

8:24 ↗ yes great well good evening everyone

8:27 ↗ uh welcome to the new commissioners and

8:30 ↗ uh nice to see

8:31 ↗ um the the current commissioners as well

8:35 ↗ so my name is megan curtis murphy and i

8:37 ↗ am the senior sustainability coordinator

8:39 ↗ for the city

8:42 ↗ so tonight i'll be presenting about the

8:44 ↗ proposed electric vehicle or ev

8:46 ↗ ordinance this ordinance would require

8:49 ↗ eb

8:49 ↗ charging infrastructure in new

8:51 ↗ multi-family and commercial buildings as

8:54 ↗ well as substantial retrofits

8:56 ↗ and if passed the new code language

8:57 ↗ would reside in title 18

8:59 ↗ under 1809 parking standards

9:02 ↗ i'm going to pause for my little

9:04 ↗ feedback from myself is anyone else

9:06 ↗ hearing them

9:08 ↗ okay just one moment

9:21 ↗ it may have been fixed for that um so

9:24 ↗ the city council has requests

9:26 ↗ no it was not sorry one minute i'll try

9:28 ↗ taking off my headphones

9:35 ↗ okay can you hear me now all right

9:38 ↗ sorry we did the audio check beforehand

9:41 ↗ there was a change since then

9:42 ↗ um so the city council had requested a

9:45 ↗ draft ordinance to come before them at a

9:47 ↗ january meeting

9:48 ↗ which we did at the study session this

9:50 ↗ past tuesday

9:51 ↗ and council members then explicitly said

9:53 ↗ they wanted input on the proposal from

9:56 ↗ the planning policy commission

9:57 ↗ as well as the newly formed

9:59 ↗ environmental board later this month

10:04 ↗ evening we're looking for direction from

10:06 ↗ the commissioners on the overall

10:07 ↗ proposal which will increase the

10:09 ↗ infrastructure needed to support

10:10 ↗ electric vehicles in the city

10:13 ↗ specifically there's a couple components

10:15 ↗ of the ordinance that came up at the

10:17 ↗ council meeting that we want to get some

10:18 ↗ further feedback on

10:20 ↗ so first is the use of incentives to

10:23 ↗ encourage electric vehicle readiness in

10:25 ↗ single-family homes and townhomes and

10:28 ↗ second

10:28 ↗ is the use of a waiver for affordable

10:30 ↗ housing units

10:31 ↗ so as not to add cost to these projects

10:34 ↗ and also third is whether transit

10:36 ↗ oriented development or tod projects

10:38 ↗ should be handled differently in the

10:39 ↗ ordinance due to their proximity to

10:41 ↗ transit

10:44 ↗ there are several reasons why this is an

10:46 ↗ optimal time to implement an ev

10:48 ↗ charging infrastructure ordinance uh

10:50 ↗ back in 2014

10:52 ↗ issaquah adopted gdg emission reduction

10:54 ↗ targets

10:55 ↗ and transportation makes up 38 of our

10:58 ↗ community-wide emissions

11:00 ↗ so by increasing ev ridership this will

11:02 ↗ help the city move closer to our climate

11:04 ↗ goals

11:06 ↗ the sustainable building action strategy

11:08 ↗ is another city plan that supports the

11:10 ↗ ordinance

11:11 ↗ this was adopted by council in 2017

11:14 ↗ and includes a strategy to prioritize

11:16 ↗ clean and shared

11:18 ↗ mobility design elements by updating

11:20 ↗ codes for electric vehicles

11:23 ↗ we also have the city's mobility master

11:25 ↗ plan which includes a policy to help

11:27 ↗ increase

11:28 ↗ use of electric vehicles with these new

11:30 ↗ standards will help to do

11:32 ↗ and lastly increasing ev infrastructure

11:35 ↗ was identified as a priority at the

11:37 ↗ community convening on climate which we

11:39 ↗ hosted last july

11:40 ↗ last july uh and together with the local

11:43 ↗ organizations who are co-hosting that

11:45 ↗ we presented the recommendations from

11:47 ↗ the convening at an october 19th council

11:49 ↗ meeting

11:50 ↗ and council members then requested a

11:52 ↗ proposal to come before them

11:53 ↗ in january

11:57 ↗ another reason why eb ordnance is

11:59 ↗ especially important for issaquah now

12:01 ↗ is that king county is expected to

12:03 ↗ experience rapid growth and ev

12:05 ↗ ownership over the coming years and one

12:08 ↗ reason for this

12:08 ↗ is that washington state passed a law in

12:11 ↗ 2020

12:12 ↗ that will require automakers to sell a

12:14 ↗ certain percentage of zero emission

12:16 ↗ vehicles each year

12:18 ↗ a similar law is already on the books in

12:20 ↗ california which has the largest market

12:22 ↗ share percentage of ebees in the country

12:25 ↗ and in addition electric vehicles are

12:27 ↗ expected to achieve

12:28 ↗ price parity with gas vehicles as soon

12:31 ↗ as 2023

12:32 ↗ and are also cheaper to own and maintain

12:34 ↗ than gas vehicles

12:36 ↗ however one factor that might pivot this

12:39 ↗ growth is lack of access to ev charging

12:41 ↗ infrastructure

12:42 ↗ which this ordinance helps to address

12:45 ↗ the people most affected are those

12:46 ↗ living in multi-family housing

12:48 ↗ which unfairly deters them from the

12:50 ↗ benefits of ev ownership

12:52 ↗ since most ev charging happens at home

12:54 ↗ this is why a policy requiring electric

12:57 ↗ vehicle charging infrastructure in

12:59 ↗ apartment buildings

13:00 ↗ is particularly needed to increase ev

13:02 ↗ ownership

13:04 ↗ you know i'm hearing a little bit of

13:06 ↗ feedback um councilman

13:08 ↗ our commissioner probably uh were you

13:10 ↗ able to go and

13:11 ↗ mute

13:18 ↗ to what to go on mute i think that might

13:21 ↗ be

13:22 ↗ with the what the feedback is from

13:27 ↗ okay all right great thank you

13:31 ↗ so before we get into the details of the

13:35 ↗ proposal

13:36 ↗ um i want to clarify although some of

13:38 ↗ the lingo around the various types of eb

13:40 ↗ infrastructure

13:42 ↗ so this ordinance is looking at level 2

13:44 ↗ charging

13:45 ↗ which is the most common because it

13:47 ↗ allows cars to charge

13:48 ↗ faster so it requires the 2 240 volt

13:52 ↗ circuit and this is like the bigger

13:54 ↗ outlet that is commonly used for dryers

13:57 ↗ in a household so you can charge using

14:00 ↗ you can also charge using a common 110

14:02 ↗ plug

14:04 ↗ 110 volt plug point but this takes much

14:07 ↗ longer so it's not really considered

14:09 ↗ adequate for common electric vehicle

14:11 ↗ usage

14:12 ↗ um so the first type of ev charging is

14:14 ↗ ev capable

14:16 ↗ this means that there's electrical panel

14:18 ↗ capacity and space to support level 2

14:20 ↗ charging

14:21 ↗ but no outlet installed the second type

14:24 ↗ of ev infrastructure is ev

14:25 ↗ ready so this is a designated parking

14:28 ↗ spot

14:29 ↗ that's provided with one 240 volt

14:31 ↗ dedicated circuit for the charging

14:33 ↗ station

14:34 ↗ so this includes the plug point for the

14:36 ↗ charger but not the charging equipment

14:38 ↗ itself

14:39 ↗ so in a house someone could easily plug

14:41 ↗ into this to charge

14:42 ↗ as long as it's located near the

14:44 ↗ designated parking area

14:46 ↗ but at say an apartment building or a

14:48 ↗ commercial lot

14:49 ↗ it would likely be covered up since it

14:51 ↗ wouldn't be managed as a charging port

14:54 ↗ so ev ready in the image shown includes

14:57 ↗ all the parts

14:58 ↗ up to the end of the pink line at the

15:00 ↗ parking spot and

15:01 ↗ outlet and finally evse

15:05 ↗ or electric vehicle supply equipment is

15:08 ↗ the final part which is the charging

15:10 ↗ station itself which allows cars to plug

15:12 ↗ in

15:12 ↗ and charge up

15:17 ↗ there's many states and jurisdictions

15:18 ↗ that have implemented ev codes already

15:21 ↗ many are along the west coast with the

15:23 ↗ most in california

15:24 ↗ and one reason for this is likely the

15:26 ↗ policy i discussed earlier that

15:28 ↗ california has in place

15:29 ↗ which requires automakers to sell a

15:31 ↗ certain percentage of electric vehicles

15:33 ↗ each year

15:35 ↗ and this is the policy that washington

15:36 ↗ state adopted in 2020

15:38 ↗ so many of the jurisdictions in

15:40 ↗ california have already adopted policies

15:42 ↗ to increase

15:43 ↗ charging infrastructure to meet demand

15:48 ↗ this slide shows the jurisdictions in

15:50 ↗ washington that currently have ev

15:52 ↗ codes are in the process of developing

15:54 ↗ them

15:55 ↗ the regional code collaboration or rcc

15:58 ↗ is a collection of jurisdictions around

16:00 ↗ king county that work together to

16:02 ↗ collect research

16:03 ↗ and develop green codes which help she

16:06 ↗ achieves greater consistency across

16:08 ↗ jurisdictional boundaries and the rcc

16:11 ↗ developed an

16:12 ↗ ev charging code this past year through

16:14 ↗ a large stakeholder process

16:15 ↗ with jurisdictions the ev industry

16:18 ↗ utilities and interest groups

16:20 ↗ and the next step is for cities like

16:22 ↗ issaquah to consider

16:24 ↗ it and modify it as needed for our

16:26 ↗ jurisdiction

16:28 ↗ so the chart to the left shows the

16:30 ↗ basics of the model rcc code

16:32 ↗ the proposed king county code is based

16:34 ↗ on this and each of the other

16:36 ↗ jurisdictions have

16:37 ↗ slightly different codes but most are

16:39 ↗ pretty similar to this one

16:42 ↗ in addition the cities of bellevue

16:44 ↗ kirkland and redmond

16:45 ↗ all included the development of eb codes

16:48 ↗ in their recent climate action plans

16:50 ↗ and have expressed interest in using the

16:52 ↗ rcc model for their own jurisdictions as

16:54 ↗ well

16:57 ↗ so overall the city's proposed ordinance

17:00 ↗ is based on and very similar to the

17:01 ↗ regional code collaborations

17:03 ↗ model code the biggest difference is

17:05 ↗ that the city's ordinance deviates from

17:07 ↗ the rcc's proposed code

17:09 ↗ with an incentive for single family and

17:11 ↗ town home charging

17:12 ↗ rather than a requirement so the

17:15 ↗ administration is proposing

17:17 ↗ projects that install ev ready

17:18 ↗ infrastructure would receive a 350

17:21 ↗ incentive for each ev parking space

17:24 ↗ installed

17:25 ↗ so the incentive would be in the form of

17:27 ↗ a reduced building permit fee

17:29 ↗ and from our research the incentive

17:31 ↗ would most likely cover the majority if

17:33 ↗ not

17:33 ↗ all of the expenses of eb ready

17:35 ↗ installation for these building types

17:38 ↗ and we'll look at cost a bit more on one

17:40 ↗ of the future slides

17:43 ↗ since 70 to 90 percent of people charge

17:45 ↗ their vehicles at home

17:47 ↗ the administration believes it's

17:48 ↗ important to have this incentive to

17:49 ↗ encourage the installation of charging

17:51 ↗ infrastructure

17:52 ↗ when a building is first constructed

17:56 ↗ and the cities is recommending an

17:58 ↗ incentive rather than a requirement

18:00 ↗ because of a state law which prevents

18:02 ↗ cities from making amendments to the

18:03 ↗ state building code

18:05 ↗ that affects the single-family

18:06 ↗ residential construction code

18:09 ↗ without approval from the state building

18:11 ↗ code council

18:12 ↗ so although this code is in the city's

18:14 ↗ land use code rather than the building

18:16 ↗ code

18:17 ↗ the administration is recommending the

18:19 ↗ incentives rather than requirements

18:22 ↗ and in addition the city is proposing

18:24 ↗ weaving the ev infrastructure

18:26 ↗ requirements for affordable housing

18:28 ↗ units

18:29 ↗ at or below 80 of the area median income

18:32 ↗ so in other words the number of

18:34 ↗ affordable housing units does not need

18:36 ↗ to be included in the calculation

18:38 ↗ of eb parking spaces and

18:41 ↗ overall developing more affordable

18:43 ↗ housing in issaquah is really a priority

18:45 ↗ for the city

18:46 ↗ so we don't want to be adding any

18:47 ↗ additional requirements or costs that

18:49 ↗ could impact a project

18:51 ↗ however single-family and town home

18:53 ↗ affordable housing units are still

18:54 ↗ eligible for the eb

18:56 ↗ incentive program

19:02 ↗ for all new construction

19:05 ↗ of multi-family buildings the proposed

19:07 ↗ ordinance would require

19:09 ↗ 10 percent of parking speeds per 10

19:12 ↗ percent of parking spaces have

19:14 ↗ evse or the complete charging

19:16 ↗ infrastructure

19:17 ↗ and 30 of all parking spaces would have

19:20 ↗ to be ev ready

19:21 ↗ meaning that they have the outlet or

19:23 ↗ terminal available to easily install a

19:25 ↗ charging port later

19:27 ↗ and for all existing multi-family

19:30 ↗ buildings undergoing substantial

19:32 ↗ improvements or retrofits

19:34 ↗ 10 percent of all parking spots would

19:36 ↗ have the evse

19:37 ↗ which is the same as new construction

19:39 ↗ and 20 percent of the spaces would need

19:41 ↗ to be ev ready

19:43 ↗ and a substantial improvement is defined

19:46 ↗ as

19:46 ↗ any repair uh reconstruction or

19:49 ↗ improvement of a structure

19:50 ↗ where the cost is equal to or exceeds 50

19:53 ↗ percent of the actual cash or market

19:55 ↗ value so fairly substantial project

20:00 ↗ since most ev charging happens at home

20:02 ↗ the proposed ordinance places higher ev

20:05 ↗ infrastructure requirements on

20:06 ↗ multi-family residential buildings than

20:08 ↗ non-residential buildings

20:10 ↗ so for all non-residential buildings

20:13 ↗ five percent of all parking spaces would

20:15 ↗ have

20:16 ↗ evsc and 10 of spaces would be ev ready

20:20 ↗ so these requirements apply both new

20:22 ↗ construction and substantial

20:24 ↗ improvements

20:25 ↗ and then there's also the same

20:26 ↗ requirement for any new paved surface

20:28 ↗ parking lots and parking garages

20:31 ↗ and these are all the same percentages

20:32 ↗ from that regional code collaborations

20:34 ↗ model ordinance

20:39 ↗ here's a table with the cost estimates

20:41 ↗ for ev

20:42 ↗ supply equipment and ev ready

20:44 ↗ installation so the cost for ev

20:47 ↗ ready and evse new construction are

20:50 ↗ shown in those first two columns

20:52 ↗ with the total cost in the third column

20:55 ↗ and the last column shows the estimated

20:56 ↗ cost for

20:57 ↗ retrofitting these costs were deducted

21:00 ↗ by king county through their research

21:02 ↗ as well as through consultation with ev

21:04 ↗ charging infrastructure companies

21:07 ↗ and the cost of the ev infrastructure

21:09 ↗ installation will really vary based on

21:12 ↗ factors like building type the charging

21:15 ↗ type that

21:16 ↗ they decide to use whether it's i have a

21:18 ↗ smart charger

21:19 ↗ or a dumb charger so one that's not

21:21 ↗ connected through internet so there's

21:22 ↗ more capabilities with the smart

21:24 ↗ chargers

21:25 ↗ and then also whether it's a new

21:27 ↗ construction project or a retrofit

21:29 ↗ project and it's important to note that

21:32 ↗ ev readiness retrofits

21:34 ↗ cost two to eight times more than ev

21:36 ↗ ready construction

21:38 ↗ due to several factors including

21:40 ↗ breaking and repairing walls

21:42 ↗ add costs upgrading electric service

21:45 ↗ panels when needed

21:47 ↗ breaking and repairing parking spaces

21:49 ↗ and or sidewalks

21:50 ↗ adding more expensive methods of conduit

21:53 ↗ installation

21:54 ↗ and additional permitting and inspection

21:56 ↗ costs from from those actions

21:59 ↗ so overall this is why it's important to

22:01 ↗ install ev infrastructure when

22:02 ↗ a building is first built since it'll be

22:05 ↗ lasting for

22:06 ↗ 30 50 plus years

22:12 ↗ i mentioned earlier we had an initial

22:14 ↗ conversation with city council about

22:15 ↗ this at the study session on tuesday

22:18 ↗ and there was a lot of discussion around

22:21 ↗ the first two pieces i mentioned

22:22 ↗ at the beginning of the conversation on

22:24 ↗ single single-family requirements

22:26 ↗ first incentives and then also the

22:28 ↗ policy discussion about affordable

22:30 ↗ housing

22:31 ↗ so the council had this initial

22:33 ↗ discussion but really wants to hear both

22:35 ↗ from

22:36 ↗ this commission as well as the

22:37 ↗ environmental board

22:39 ↗ um see what they think and hear

22:42 ↗ the thoughts for moving forward with the

22:44 ↗ proposal and

22:45 ↗ specific these elements so the third

22:48 ↗ item that came up

22:49 ↗ um about wanting to look more closely at

22:52 ↗ how the proposal

22:53 ↗ should treat transit-oriented

22:54 ↗ development or tod projects

22:57 ↗ we heard from a developer that they had

22:59 ↗ concerns about added cost to projects

23:02 ↗ and he expressed the parking is already

23:04 ↗ expensive and

23:06 ↗ the project is close to transit so it

23:07 ↗ doesn't want to add more costs for doing

23:09 ↗ that the eb

23:10 ↗ requirements we also heard from a

23:13 ↗ resident

23:13 ↗ and an interest group who expressed

23:15 ↗ concern with the

23:17 ↗ waiver for affordable housing due to

23:18 ↗ equity concerns

23:20 ↗ um and a brief summary of the concerns

23:22 ↗ they were talking about

23:23 ↗ is that overall lower income people are

23:26 ↗ disproportionately impacted by climate

23:28 ↗ and pollution

23:29 ↗ including pollution from vehicles so as

23:33 ↗ electric vehicles are getting cheaper

23:35 ↗ to buy and they're already cheaper to

23:36 ↗ own there's concern about exempting

23:39 ↗ affordable housing

23:40 ↗ which would preclude them from the

23:42 ↗ benefits of ev ownership in the future

23:45 ↗ and i'm happy to answer any questions

23:47 ↗ about these topics in just a moment too

23:52 ↗ so here is a timeline showing the next

23:54 ↗ steps for the ev proposal

23:56 ↗ on january 27th i'll be bringing this to

23:59 ↗ the newly formed environmental board

24:01 ↗ we just had their first meeting last

24:03 ↗ night so this will be a topic of

24:04 ↗ discussion for

24:05 ↗ their second meeting and i'll be sharing

24:08 ↗ both the discussion we have tonight as

24:10 ↗ well as what

24:11 ↗ we heard at the study session and then

24:14 ↗ i'll return

24:14 ↗ to council study session on february 9th

24:18 ↗ it would also need a public hearing by

24:20 ↗ ppc

24:21 ↗ and further council action but we want

24:24 ↗ to hear

24:25 ↗ what what your commission and and the

24:28 ↗ environmental board

24:29 ↗ have to say about it before doing that

24:31 ↗ so with that

24:32 ↗ thank you and that concludes my

24:34 ↗ presentation for the evening

24:37 ↗ thank you

24:40 ↗ for the presentation i think it covers a

24:43 ↗ lot

24:44 ↗ i do have a question from uh

24:48 ↗ commissioner zaragoza if you would like

24:52 ↗ to

24:52 ↗ um hi yeah

24:55 ↗ could you explain the difference in the

24:57 ↗ total cost

24:58 ↗ from the different types of developments

25:00 ↗ the apartments seem to be a lot more

25:02 ↗ than

25:03 ↗ other ones can you explain the

25:05 ↗ difference in

25:06 ↗ i guess technology or why they would

25:08 ↗ cause so much

25:10 ↗ there'd be such a difference in cost

25:14 ↗ sure um i think there there's a several

25:17 ↗ different factors um including that that

25:20 ↗ charging type

25:21 ↗ um with single family and town homes

25:24 ↗ we're looking at just mostly the ev

25:27 ↗ ready construction

25:29 ↗ um because with that you can you can

25:31 ↗ just plug into the plug point you don't

25:33 ↗ need the charging station

25:34 ↗ um as much as you need it in a

25:36 ↗ multi-family or

25:38 ↗ a commercial building um

25:42 ↗ as as you get bigger in the buildings

25:44 ↗ there's um

25:45 ↗ there's more parking required so some

25:47 ↗ parking would be out in a parking lot

25:49 ↗ other parking would be

25:51 ↗ um if it's structured parking both of

25:53 ↗ those add costs

25:54 ↗ rather than doing it more simply in a

25:57 ↗ driveway

25:57 ↗ or a single family garage

26:00 ↗ conduit has to to run farther distances

26:04 ↗ channels are in different places so

26:06 ↗ there's just kind of added costs

26:08 ↗ for for those bigger building types

26:14 ↗ so i want to

26:17 ↗ again say ask all the commissioners to

26:20 ↗ introduce themselves

26:21 ↗ when they ask a question i have a

26:24 ↗ question from

26:25 ↗ commissioner lewis commissioner joy

26:28 ↗ lewis uh

26:29 ↗ thank you madam chair and uh just a

26:32 ↗ quick note um

26:33 ↗ for our new members we're so happy to

26:35 ↗ have you here and it helps uh when using

26:37 ↗ the chat

26:38 ↗ to just put in question or comment um

26:40 ↗ because we are um

26:42 ↗ here for the public and being recorded

26:44 ↗ and so just a quick little reminder on

26:46 ↗ that

26:46 ↗ um the one question i had um that came

26:49 ↗ up

26:49 ↗ um was specifically regarding um the

26:52 ↗ number of incentives that developers are

26:53 ↗ able to use

26:54 ↗ is there a restriction are they able to

26:56 ↗ pick and choose like take your top three

26:58 ↗ or is every incentive that a developer

27:00 ↗ qualifies for able to be used megan

27:03 ↗ or um are christopher specifically

27:06 ↗ talking about

27:07 ↗ ev incentives or any sorts of incentives

27:10 ↗ any sort of incentives that we offer

27:11 ↗ developers

27:12 ↗ um i'm curious you know when we talk

27:13 ↗ about using kind of the characteristic

27:15 ↗ restriction versus incentive

27:17 ↗ um and so i'm curious are you able to

27:20 ↗ basically amass an

27:21 ↗ unlimited amount of incentives when

27:22 ↗ you're doing a project in issaquah or do

27:25 ↗ we currently have a limit on how many

27:27 ↗ you're able to pick or

27:29 ↗ as far as i know um any projects would

27:32 ↗ be able to participate in any incentive

27:34 ↗ programs um so if there's affordable

27:36 ↗ housing incentive

27:37 ↗ it would be able to participate in that

27:40 ↗ um and any other ones

27:41 ↗ available i don't think there's a limit

27:43 ↗ specifically i that's what i thought um

27:45 ↗ i'm curious

27:47 ↗ um for our for our tod or um

27:50 ↗ the projects there already is a

27:53 ↗ restriction in

27:54 ↗ the amount of um parking isn't that

27:57 ↗ correct

27:58 ↗ i'm having trouble sometimes remembering

28:00 ↗ what we recommend and what actually ends

28:02 ↗ up getting passed so it's helpful for

28:03 ↗ staff to kind of remind me

28:04 ↗ when we were doing all of our parking

28:06 ↗ requirements um

28:08 ↗ transit oriented developments already

28:09 ↗ have a lower amount of requirements

28:11 ↗ isn't that correct

28:14 ↗ i think i can jump in here this is

28:16 ↗ kristen leason senior planner um

28:17 ↗ we don't have a um there's no lower

28:21 ↗ requirement

28:22 ↗ they are allowed to go lower if they are

28:24 ↗ within one quarter of a mile of the

28:25 ↗ transit center

28:26 ↗ and they can do 0.75 spaces per unit

28:29 ↗ that's what i thought thank you that's a

28:31 ↗ good reminder uh that's a good refresher

28:33 ↗ um and then my last question

28:34 ↗ because i have a few more i just wanted

28:36 ↗ to um before i turn it over

28:37 ↗ to somebody else megan one thing i had

28:39 ↗ asked you about was

28:41 ↗ regarding specifically our development

28:43 ↗ agreements if you have the data on um i

28:46 ↗ know we had mentioned in that in the

28:47 ↗ meeting that council had

28:49 ↗ that costco was at five percent do you

28:51 ↗ have any other

28:53 ↗ information on other development

28:54 ↗ agreements yes um and

28:56 ↗ thank you for for sending that so i was

28:58 ↗ able to um get some help from some

29:00 ↗ colleagues on data for that

29:02 ↗ um so with the city's five development

29:04 ↗ agreements that we have

29:06 ↗ um we don't have any requirements for

29:09 ↗ um for ev infrastructure in any of those

29:13 ↗ um there are some sustainability

29:15 ↗ elements of

29:16 ↗ each of those development agreements

29:18 ↗ which vary in

29:19 ↗ in what they ask of the developer so

29:23 ↗ in three of those different development

29:24 ↗ agreements

29:26 ↗ ev infrastructure is an option that a

29:29 ↗ developer could use

29:30 ↗ to to meet that sustainability

29:32 ↗ requirement and it varies a little bit

29:34 ↗ in each of them

29:35 ↗ and then two of them have incentive base

29:38 ↗ so they're able to reduce their

29:40 ↗ their parking minimums um but there is

29:43 ↗ no requirement in any of the city

29:44 ↗ documents

29:46 ↗ um there is a requirement at the state

29:48 ↗ level however

29:50 ↗ that um that commercial buildings need

29:53 ↗ to have five percent

29:55 ↗ uh with ev infrastructure but the way

29:58 ↗ they

29:59 ↗ define ev infrastructure is they could

30:01 ↗ either have five percent of parking

30:03 ↗ spaces have

30:04 ↗ ev chargers or just to have space in the

30:07 ↗ electrical panel

30:08 ↗ for the chargers so that's a pretty big

30:11 ↗ ore

30:12 ↗ there i would say so they can install

30:14 ↗ chargers

30:15 ↗ to fulfill that or they can just have

30:17 ↗ the space for it

30:21 ↗ so i have a question from commissioner

30:23 ↗ milligan

30:28 ↗ great thank you this is nina milligan

30:31 ↗ and uh

30:32 ↗ question of process here do we i have

30:34 ↗ three questions

30:36 ↗ do i ask them all at once or do i want

30:37 ↗ to do one at a time as we go around

30:39 ↗ robin

30:44 ↗ oh i'm off mute can you not hear me

30:48 ↗ um

30:52 ↗ so let's do one at a time one at a time

30:54 ↗ okay

30:55 ↗ um my first question megan is when we're

30:58 ↗ talking about a percentage of a

31:00 ↗ multi-family parking garage that has

31:04 ↗ um ev infrastructure how does that

31:07 ↗ work when you've got you know 100

31:11 ↗ units or something and there are um five

31:14 ↗ percent of those who gets to park in

31:16 ↗ those and and how do they manage the

31:18 ↗ time that

31:19 ↗ is um allotted to each parking

31:22 ↗ person i think that's up to the

31:25 ↗ the property manager themselves and i

31:27 ↗ think it's it's managed in different

31:29 ↗ ways

31:30 ↗ um so by having a a smart charger which

31:34 ↗ um a lot of multi-families would do

31:37 ↗ you can kind of schedule when your car

31:39 ↗ is being charged or you can look at the

31:41 ↗ charger and see when someone is

31:44 ↗ plugged in or not plugged in um so if

31:46 ↗ someone is plugged in when you get there

31:48 ↗ then

31:49 ↗ you might have to wait and you know go

31:51 ↗ plug it in after dinner after they've

31:52 ↗ removed their car

31:54 ↗ um so that's one of the reasons i think

31:56 ↗ why it's important to make sure we're

31:58 ↗ building enough of this infrastructure

32:00 ↗ so that um

32:01 ↗ it's easy to to have an electric vehicle

32:03 ↗ and charge when needed

32:05 ↗ um so by having that infrastructure in

32:08 ↗ place it just it allows people to be

32:10 ↗ able to do that

32:11 ↗ um some might have time limits on them

32:14 ↗ and

32:14 ↗ um and that might be the way that they

32:17 ↗ enforce it

32:18 ↗ um but i think you know that take a lot

32:20 ↗ of kind of oversight to do that

32:22 ↗ um at a couple of recent projects that

32:25 ↗ we've

32:25 ↗ seen some of the larger multi-family

32:27 ↗ buildings we've been seeing about one

32:29 ↗ percent of the spots

32:30 ↗ have ev infrastructure or ev chargers in

32:33 ↗ place

32:34 ↗ um and they seem to be pretty busy um

32:38 ↗ so if if you're moving into a building

32:40 ↗ and there's usually

32:41 ↗ a car parked there that would probably

32:43 ↗ prevent someone from wanting to buy an

32:44 ↗ electric vehicle if there's

32:46 ↗ not charging available

32:50 ↗ so there's a comment from deputy city

32:53 ↗ administrator

32:54 ↗ snyder

32:58 ↗ thank you madam chair uh i no longer

33:01 ↗ have a comment i think kristen answered

33:03 ↗ the previous question well thank you

33:07 ↗ uh i have never mind i have uh

33:11 ↗ another question for commissioner

33:12 ↗ zaragoza

33:16 ↗ oops yeah hi thank you uh richard

33:19 ↗ saragosa

33:20 ↗ um so i had questions about kind of

33:22 ↗ future proofing

33:23 ↗ the charging stations um

33:26 ↗ as as electric cars kind of evolve and

33:30 ↗ get a little faster

33:32 ↗ there's shorter times is that generally

33:35 ↗ up to

33:36 ↗ the port that you're plugging into or is

33:39 ↗ or will that affect what we're actually

33:42 ↗ going to be installing into the

33:44 ↗ the permanent sections that we're

33:45 ↗ installing into the buildings

33:47 ↗ how does that work so the

33:50 ↗ um the ordinance doesn't say the type of

33:53 ↗ charger that should be installed so that

33:55 ↗ is left up to the building

33:57 ↗ um and it varies a little bit about kind

34:01 ↗ of how many

34:01 ↗ um how many chargers are hooked up to

34:04 ↗ the same

34:05 ↗ infrastructure um and with

34:08 ↗ and and the types of cars that are just

34:10 ↗ charging up so overall that level two

34:12 ↗ charging

34:13 ↗ is kind of the most common um and people

34:15 ↗ are able to charge their

34:16 ↗ their cars within a few hours if there's

34:19 ↗ more

34:20 ↗ cars hooked up to the same port it might

34:22 ↗ take a little bit

34:23 ↗ longer for some of the cars so it does

34:25 ↗ vary a little bit

34:27 ↗ there's also you know cars that can go

34:31 ↗ with older electric vehicles there's

34:33 ↗ cars that are only

34:34 ↗ going you know 80 miles whereas the

34:35 ↗ average now is really closer 200

34:38 ↗ 250 miles um so that might

34:41 ↗ factor into the charging as well and i

34:44 ↗ think as far as the future-proofing

34:46 ↗ part there's likely to be new types of

34:49 ↗ chargers in the future

34:51 ↗ you know something that is fairly new

34:54 ↗ right now is

34:55 ↗ wireless charging so you can have

34:58 ↗ something in your drive when you drive

35:00 ↗ your car

35:00 ↗ over it that hasn't that hasn't really

35:03 ↗ come out a lot yet

35:04 ↗ um but i think this this ordinance to

35:07 ↗ some degree takes that

35:08 ↗ into consideration um in not requiring

35:11 ↗ you know we're requiring more ev

35:13 ↗ ready than more um actual chargers

35:16 ↗ recognizing that there could be changes

35:18 ↗ in technology there could be

35:20 ↗ improvements um so when they're able to

35:23 ↗ start adding more chargers in the future

35:25 ↗ because they already have that ev ready

35:27 ↗ infrastructure

35:28 ↗ they can take that into consideration

35:33 ↗ so there's a question from commissioner

35:36 ↗ melania

35:41 ↗ um thank you i think ron fall uh was

35:44 ↗ passed over

35:45 ↗ ron are you looking to ask a question

35:49 ↗ okay i don't want to jump ahead of you

35:50 ↗ i'll go after you go ahead

35:53 ↗ i'll i'll let john call him yeah okay

35:55 ↗ i'll go i'll go and then you can go

35:56 ↗ okay my next question regards um

35:58 ↗ commercial

36:00 ↗ properties we have retail and commercial

36:01 ↗ all bundled up together

36:03 ↗ uh where in a retail situation you might

36:05 ↗ come in

36:06 ↗ for 10 minutes or a half an hour on a

36:08 ↗ job you might come in and stay there for

36:10 ↗ eight hours and really get a decent

36:11 ↗ charge

36:12 ↗ is there any um consideration to

36:15 ↗ increasing the number of percentages

36:20 ↗ for commercial buildings

36:23 ↗ that have say job centers in them

36:27 ↗ i think yeah for commercial the type of

36:29 ↗ building does really

36:30 ↗ depend like you're saying um but it

36:32 ↗ could also change over

36:34 ↗ so it could be a retail space and then

36:36 ↗ later an office space

36:38 ↗ um so there's just kind of that one

36:40 ↗ standard

36:41 ↗ um uh you know five percent for the

36:44 ↗ commercial

36:45 ↗ um partly for that reason also another

36:48 ↗ reason why that is lower

36:49 ↗ is because um people do primarily charge

36:52 ↗ at home um but people like you're saying

36:55 ↗ they might go to a store or to work to

36:57 ↗ charge

36:58 ↗ um we also as you know we already have a

37:01 ↗ lot of buildings in issaquah

37:03 ↗ so there's a lot of existing building

37:05 ↗ that doesn't have the

37:06 ↗ infrastructure in place so some of those

37:08 ↗ commercial

37:10 ↗ chargers offer people that may be living

37:12 ↗ a multi-family that don't have

37:14 ↗ a charger an ability to charge at a

37:16 ↗ different location

37:20 ↗ i didn't pass over commissioner of fall

37:23 ↗ i what i did say was never saw was never

37:27 ↗ mind

37:28 ↗ um if you would like to ask a question

37:30 ↗ now please do

37:34 ↗ thank you madam chairs this is ron fall

37:37 ↗ uh i have two questions and i will

37:42 ↗ um recap them first uh the first one is

37:46 ↗ about some of the incentives and the

37:48 ↗ second one is concerning

37:51 ↗ the percentages for ev ready

37:56 ↗ when we do a major development

38:00 ↗ either new development or a major

38:02 ↗ retrofit

38:05 ↗ i think 30 for multi-family is probably

38:09 ↗ too low the reason why i'm saying that

38:11 ↗ is because

38:14 ↗ looking out 20 30 years from now

38:17 ↗ california is expected to have

38:20 ↗ reduced the number of gas

38:24 ↗ combustion sold vehicles to almost zero

38:27 ↗ so they are not going to allow in 30

38:30 ↗ years

38:31 ↗ the sale of combustion engines so

38:34 ↗ i think we're going to see a significant

38:36 ↗ increase in electric car use

38:39 ↗ and looking at the 30 percent for ev

38:42 ↗ ready i think is

38:45 ↗ limiting us it's it's basically cutting

38:47 ↗ us in the achilles heel

38:49 ↗ because of retrofit costs um

38:52 ↗ there are different technologies for ev

38:55 ↗ stations and so i'm not going to get

38:56 ↗ into the ev stations themselves

38:58 ↗ but there are 30 amp systems there are

39:01 ↗ 40 amp systems and there are 50 amp

39:03 ↗ systems

39:04 ↗ the 30 amp systems take twice as long to

39:07 ↗ charge a car

39:08 ↗ as a 50 amp system so if you have an

39:10 ↗ apartment complex

39:13 ↗ you want the 50 amp system because your

39:16 ↗ tenants are going to be able to charge

39:17 ↗ your cars

39:18 ↗ faster if you're sharing the same space

39:21 ↗ but to put a 50 amp line through a

39:24 ↗ retrofit or

39:25 ↗ let's say conduit ready because that's

39:28 ↗ one of the things i saw

39:29 ↗ in the packet was the one of the an ev

39:33 ↗ ready maybe

39:34 ↗ conduit but no wire if you have that

39:37 ↗ you're trying to run 50 amp lines

39:39 ↗ for maybe 50 stalls out of 100

39:43 ↗ you're going to need all new breaker

39:45 ↗ panels because that is a lot of amperage

39:48 ↗ and running those 50 amp lines through

39:51 ↗ conduit is going to be an enormous task

39:54 ↗ that's really stiff wire and you got

39:57 ↗ four zero gauge wires that you're

39:59 ↗ running through for 50 amp lines

40:02 ↗ it's almost impossible to run that stuff

40:04 ↗ through conduit

40:06 ↗ so i think by not having

40:09 ↗ higher numbers up front for ev ready i

40:12 ↗ think is really detrimental to us

40:14 ↗ uh because people aren't going to want

40:16 ↗ to do it it's going to be very costly if

40:18 ↗ you think it's 14

40:19 ↗ 000 now to do a retrofit

40:23 ↗ it's probably going to cost at least 100

40:24 ↗ 000 20 30 years out from now

40:27 ↗ so i think we need to revisit that even

40:30 ↗ though

40:30 ↗ king county may be saying 30 is what

40:33 ↗ their proposed

40:35 ↗ limits are i think from our standpoint

40:37 ↗ why don't we make it more

40:40 ↗ and then the other question i have is

40:41 ↗ for incentives

40:44 ↗ i'd like to learn more about what would

40:47 ↗ be some of the incentives for affordable

40:49 ↗ housing in the tod project because

40:52 ↗ as electric vehicles become cheaper i

40:55 ↗ think

40:55 ↗ electric vehicles will be

41:00 ↗ more affordable for low-income people to

41:03 ↗ drive

41:04 ↗ and so if we don't have tod projects in

41:08 ↗ um with these requirements then

41:11 ↗ uh we're gonna be limiting those people

41:14 ↗ even though there may be an upfront cost

41:16 ↗ now to build those systems in uh

41:20 ↗ we need to have them now because now

41:23 ↗ it's going to be a lot cheaper than it

41:24 ↗ will be

41:26 ↗ 20 30 years from now when those people

41:28 ↗ are going to require it

41:29 ↗ and they can't get it because we didn't

41:32 ↗ build it in when we should have

41:36 ↗ thanks that was a lot long-winded but

41:40 ↗ thank you um yeah so for the the first

41:43 ↗ part

41:43 ↗ about um looking at the eb readiness and

41:46 ↗ the total

41:47 ↗ percentage um i think that there's a lot

41:50 ↗ of people that probably would agree with

41:52 ↗ you that 30 might be low

41:53 ↗ there's probably people on the other

41:55 ↗ side as well um i think

41:57 ↗ through through kind of this um this

41:59 ↗ stakeholder process that the regional

42:01 ↗ code collaboration

42:02 ↗ went through they're listening to both

42:04 ↗ of those sides

42:06 ↗ the legislation that you mentioned that

42:08 ↗ was passed in california

42:10 ↗ prohibiting gas vehicles there was

42:12 ↗ similar legislation

42:14 ↗ that came before um that was in front of

42:17 ↗ washington

42:17 ↗ in 2020 that did not pass but it's

42:20 ↗ expected that you know that might make

42:21 ↗ its way

42:22 ↗ through in washington in later years as

42:24 ↗ well um so i agree evs will be rising

42:27 ↗ um so that's something to think about

42:28 ↗ with that piece um

42:30 ↗ for the second piece with the incentives

42:33 ↗ for affordable housing and tod

42:35 ↗ with the current proposal we are not

42:37 ↗ offering incentives for that so that was

42:39 ↗ part of

42:40 ↗ one of the pieces that we're interested

42:42 ↗ in hearing that type of feedback from

42:44 ↗ so we have the incentives in place in

42:46 ↗ the current proposal

42:48 ↗ for single family and town homes

42:51 ↗ since we're not able to do the

42:53 ↗ requirement for them

42:55 ↗ but we don't have anything in that

42:57 ↗ current proposal for affordable housing

42:59 ↗ or

42:59 ↗ tod

43:04 ↗ and why do we not have incentive

43:06 ↗ incentives for

43:08 ↗ affordable housing and today

43:12 ↗ so in the current proposal the way it is

43:15 ↗ is that we were

43:15 ↗ exempting affordable housing um so they

43:19 ↗ wouldn't need to

43:20 ↗ um meet the requirements so if we're not

43:25 ↗ if we're not if we don't have the

43:29 ↗ requirements the developer probably

43:31 ↗ isn't going to build it so therefore

43:33 ↗ we're going to be handicapping the

43:37 ↗ people living in tod projects because

43:40 ↗ they're not going to have

43:40 ↗ electric vehicle access where a

43:44 ↗ townhouse that does have the subsidies

43:47 ↗ that probably has a higher income

43:49 ↗ will have access to it so now we're

43:51 ↗ talking about

43:53 ↗ [Music]

43:54 ↗ equality disparity between the two

43:57 ↗ so it doesn't make much sense for us to

44:00 ↗ incentivize low income and not

44:03 ↗ tod projects even though i know tod

44:06 ↗ projects are supposed to be transit

44:07 ↗ oriented

44:08 ↗ but a lot of people living there are

44:10 ↗ still going to have cars

44:16 ↗ i don't know i need help with this it

44:19 ↗ doesn't make sense to me it just doesn't

44:21 ↗ pass the sniff test

44:26 ↗ so the next question is from a smiling

44:30 ↗ commissioner voice

44:35 ↗ thank you madam chair and thank you miss

44:37 ↗ curtis

44:38 ↗ murphy i

44:41 ↗ i do have to agree with commissioner

44:44 ↗ fowle

44:45 ↗ i mean the mission statement kind of was

44:47 ↗ contradictory

44:48 ↗ contradictory uh on page 12

44:52 ↗ the explanation for waving ev parking

44:54 ↗ requirements

44:56 ↗ really kind of go against page 10

44:58 ↗ reasoning why they're important

44:59 ↗ in multi-families and affordable housing

45:02 ↗ so that's kind of strange literature

45:04 ↗ might want to look at taking that out in

45:05 ↗ your explanation i really am not

45:08 ↗ bothered by the

45:09 ↗ um tod projects being exempted but

45:12 ↗ affordable housing if we really are

45:13 ↗ trying to make it more equitable for

45:15 ↗ people

45:16 ↗ seems like at least incentives would

45:17 ↗ work there pretty well

45:19 ↗ i actually think the numbers are pretty

45:21 ↗ pretty solid for where they need to be

45:24 ↗ and i'm okay with i mean that i don't

45:25 ↗ even think it's up to us

45:27 ↗ as far as residential single families

45:29 ↗ and townhomes

45:31 ↗ the bottom line is we can always revisit

45:33 ↗ this in the future

45:34 ↗ right now evs only make up four percent

45:37 ↗ of

45:37 ↗ washington state's car population

45:41 ↗ and a big part of that probably because

45:43 ↗ tesla made an ev that actually looks

45:45 ↗ like a car

45:46 ↗ so i think as we see more cars and

45:48 ↗ models that actually resemble something

45:51 ↗ that we're all familiar with you're

45:52 ↗ going to see more people invest in them

45:54 ↗ at four percent it's kind of hard to ask

45:56 ↗ developers

45:58 ↗ to invest 50 of their parking lot and ev

46:01 ↗ ready

46:01 ↗ i mean safeway is a walk so again i

46:05 ↗ think we can always come back and look

46:06 ↗ at this

46:07 ↗ and fine-tune it in five to ten years um

46:10 ↗ point of clarification

46:11 ↗ as far as the percentage tables i think

46:13 ↗ i know the answer to this but i'll ask

46:15 ↗ it anyway

46:16 ↗ if you need 10 percent that has to be

46:18 ↗ evse ready

46:20 ↗ that would not go towards the ev ready

46:22 ↗ percentage correct

46:25 ↗ right you need to meet both requirements

46:27 ↗ separately

46:29 ↗ okay and then one more question is i

46:31 ↗ noticed in the literature it also said

46:33 ↗ that puget sound energy had a pretty

46:34 ↗ popular program

46:36 ↗ why was that discontinued and could we

46:38 ↗ lobby them

46:39 ↗ to bring it back i know they're a

46:40 ↗ private company but uh

46:42 ↗ they are puppy public utility as well

46:46 ↗ yeah so psc needs to spend a certain

46:49 ↗ dollar amount on various

46:50 ↗ incentives um so that program that they

46:53 ↗ had was very popular it was offering

46:55 ↗ incentives for

46:56 ↗ single-family um chargers and that

46:59 ↗ quickly ran out of money

47:01 ↗ a newer program that they have

47:04 ↗ been looking at is kind of doing pilots

47:07 ↗ in some multi-family and commercial

47:09 ↗ buildings

47:10 ↗ um so i think that they are just they're

47:12 ↗ testing

47:13 ↗ different things they did their single

47:15 ↗ family incentive now they're working on

47:17 ↗ some multi-family commercial incentive

47:20 ↗ but they they know that that this is

47:22 ↗ coming

47:23 ↗ they have a transportation

47:26 ↗ electrification

47:27 ↗ draft plan um they did a survey

47:31 ↗ um to their customers and 68

47:34 ↗ said that they expect to be buying or

47:36 ↗ leasing an ev

47:37 ↗ so they're planning for it now so i

47:40 ↗ expect that

47:41 ↗ um there may be incentives from them in

47:43 ↗ the future as well

47:45 ↗ okay and then one final thought just

47:47 ↗ real quickly and

47:49 ↗ in hopes of being transparent that four

47:51 ↗ percent number i came up with was taken

47:53 ↗ about a year and a half ago from a como

47:55 ↗ news article

47:56 ↗ in june of 2019 those numbers might have

47:58 ↗ changed by now

48:00 ↗ but again it's a very small part of the

48:01 ↗ population at this point

48:03 ↗ and then as far as public utilities

48:06 ↗ school districts

48:08 ↗ government owned buildings and

48:09 ↗ facilities as far as making them esve

48:13 ↗ ready what would the cost be to city

48:16 ↗ government

48:17 ↗ in cases of upkeep hoses

48:20 ↗ vandalism things like that energy bills

48:22 ↗ what's that what's that look like for

48:24 ↗ the city

48:26 ↗ um i don't have specific dollars for

48:29 ↗ that but the city is the owner of

48:31 ↗ um two charging ports four

48:35 ↗ or sorry eight eight four four charging

48:38 ↗ stations which serves eight vehicles

48:40 ↗ um and so we do keep that under our

48:43 ↗ public works

48:44 ↗ um operations is able to maintain those

48:48 ↗ um i don't have exact cost on on what

48:51 ↗ that is but it is built into the city's

48:53 ↗ program and budget to have those

49:01 ↗ uh i have a question from commissioner

49:03 ↗ lewis

49:06 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here um

49:08 ↗ you know i want to thank

49:10 ↗ uh ron for bringing up something that i

49:12 ↗ think is really important about this

49:13 ↗ proposal

49:14 ↗ um i agree with jason's comments that we

49:17 ↗ start off talking about

49:18 ↗ why this is necessary now what are the

49:20 ↗ benefits what do we really see happening

49:23 ↗ um in the short term to our community

49:25 ↗ and the need and then we go and say well

49:28 ↗ but we're gonna instead um not only

49:31 ↗ are going to exempt projects that have

49:34 ↗ that are pretty important to our

49:35 ↗ community

49:36 ↗ but we're not going to propose a plan um

49:40 ↗ for any kind of moving away from that so

49:42 ↗ i

49:43 ↗ i don't know that i have a problem with

49:44 ↗ the numbers right now i understand that

49:46 ↗ we kind of need to start somewhere

49:47 ↗ and that there is a likelihood that over

49:49 ↗ time that those um numbers can get

49:51 ↗ adjusted

49:52 ↗ as we need and we can amend our code

49:54 ↗ we've seen that time and time again

49:55 ↗ um i'm sitting here um on this

49:58 ↗ commission

49:59 ↗ but i do have some serious concerns

50:01 ↗ right now about the exemptions

50:03 ↗ um and i really would like to encourage

50:06 ↗ some side some type of long-term

50:08 ↗ strategy to help all people to have

50:10 ↗ access to clean technology um

50:12 ↗ you know i'm curious if ins if if there

50:15 ↗ almost needs to be a trade-off right if

50:16 ↗ you think that for some reason

50:18 ↗ um exempting um these projects are going

50:20 ↗ to be so vital to having them

50:22 ↗ um be built then i'd like to see

50:24 ↗ something like

50:25 ↗ a public projects plan right where can

50:28 ↗ anybody from the public go

50:30 ↗ um and be able to charge right we need

50:31 ↗ to have some sort of offset to say if

50:33 ↗ we're not going to do it one place then

50:34 ↗ how else can we do it

50:36 ↗ i didn't really see that in this

50:37 ↗ proposal um and so i'd really like to

50:40 ↗ kind of

50:41 ↗ use this forum to kind of start talking

50:43 ↗ about the plan to really have

50:45 ↗ open access to clean technologies for

50:47 ↗ everybody

50:48 ↗ and so um rather than kind of talking

50:51 ↗ maybe specifically about

50:52 ↗ um the exemption in this space i'd love

50:55 ↗ to hear from the city as far as

50:57 ↗ kind of what what your trade-off is

51:02 ↗ in terms of the affordable housing yeah

51:05 ↗ in terms of saying we're gonna

51:06 ↗ you know we're gonna right now the

51:07 ↗ proposal is to exempt um

51:09 ↗ tods and um projects that have

51:11 ↗ affordable housing but there needs to be

51:13 ↗ an offset right because right now we're

51:14 ↗ saying commercial only needs to have

51:16 ↗ five percent right so

51:17 ↗ if i live in affordable housing and the

51:19 ↗ whole idea is to create an equitable

51:21 ↗ community right

51:22 ↗ so we do that right now with jobs and

51:24 ↗ with housing

51:25 ↗ so i live in affordable housing and i

51:27 ↗ work in issaquah which is the goal we

51:29 ↗ want people to be able to work

51:30 ↗ play live here um but my building

51:33 ↗ doesn't

51:33 ↗ i'm not able to charge my vehicle

51:35 ↗ because there's only a five percent

51:36 ↗ um requirement for my building plus i

51:39 ↗ don't have it where i live

51:41 ↗ because they've been accepted and

51:42 ↗ developers aren't going to put it in

51:43 ↗ unless they've been incentivized

51:44 ↗ or or made to so where is then the space

51:48 ↗ right because right now we're just

51:49 ↗ leaving

51:50 ↗ out a huge subset of a population that

51:52 ↗ is disproportionately affected by the

51:53 ↗ effects of

51:54 ↗ climate change um so how what is our

51:57 ↗ plan for

51:58 ↗ all of our community including

51:59 ↗ low-income members of our community to

52:01 ↗ be able to have access to it so i'd love

52:03 ↗ to hear like what the plan

52:04 ↗ is for a public projects program or

52:06 ↗ proposal

52:07 ↗ um to be able to have charging available

52:09 ↗ when we're saying we don't we only need

52:11 ↗ to have five percent commercial

52:12 ↗ and these other places are exempt where

52:15 ↗ where are they going to be doing it

52:18 ↗ okay um yeah so i think the first part

52:20 ↗ of that just a little bit of

52:21 ↗ clarification

52:22 ↗ on the ordinance as it's written now

52:25 ↗ um so it is exempting um affordable

52:28 ↗ housing like you mentioned

52:30 ↗ tod is not actually mentioned or called

52:32 ↗ out in the current proposal

52:34 ↗ um that was something that came up at

52:35 ↗ the study session

52:37 ↗ on tuesday on the council wanted your

52:40 ↗ input exactly

52:41 ↗ on on that sort of project if that

52:44 ↗ should be exempted or not or have if

52:46 ↗ that should be handled any differently

52:48 ↗ so that wasn't in the proposal yet um

52:52 ↗ as far as the affordable housing the

52:53 ↗ overall

52:55 ↗ thought with that is that we all agree

52:57 ↗ we need

52:59 ↗ more affordable housing in issaquah and

53:01 ↗ we haven't been getting as much as we

53:03 ↗ want to be seeing

53:05 ↗ so the concern was adding any additional

53:07 ↗ costs

53:08 ↗ just not wanting to put that additional

53:10 ↗ burden

53:12 ↗ before we're getting the housing that we

53:14 ↗ want to see um

53:16 ↗ we have heard the the equity concerns as

53:18 ↗ well so i think that is something

53:19 ↗ that we'll want to think a little bit

53:21 ↗ more about um

53:23 ↗ and and to your point about a plan so if

53:26 ↗ we are going to exempt them

53:28 ↗ then would we be looking at more public

53:31 ↗ charging stations or

53:32 ↗ as you're saying um or having a

53:36 ↗ map or access to the the other charging

53:39 ↗ stations

53:40 ↗ um what's their proximity to affordable

53:42 ↗ housing so i think those are some

53:44 ↗ questions that we will

53:45 ↗ be digging into a little bit more

53:50 ↗ so there's another question from

53:51 ↗ commissioner

53:54 ↗ milligan

53:56 ↗ thank you this is nina milligan i have

54:00 ↗ two little questions and i'll save my

54:02 ↗ comments for later

54:03 ↗ um did could you um reiterate

54:07 ↗ whether we can require

54:11 ↗ uh ev ready or esev um for

54:15 ↗ uh single family town homes

54:20 ↗ yes um well no but yes i will go into it

54:23 ↗ um so

54:24 ↗ overall um there is a requirement

54:29 ↗ for the single family and town homes are

54:32 ↗ not able

54:33 ↗ to have additional requirements beyond

54:36 ↗ what is in the state residential

54:39 ↗ building code so they are not allowed to

54:41 ↗ have additional

54:43 ↗ building requirements that doesn't

54:45 ↗ preclude them from having

54:47 ↗ additional land use requirements but

54:49 ↗ they are not allowed to have additional

54:50 ↗ building code requirements

54:52 ↗ unless it is something that is reviewed

54:54 ↗ and approved by the state building code

54:56 ↗ council

54:58 ↗ um so electric that's good that's what i

55:00 ↗ wanted

55:01 ↗ that's what i wanted to know i just

55:03 ↗ didn't quite get that earlier

55:05 ↗ and then i have one more question that

55:06 ↗ has to do with um tod

55:08 ↗ is there an assumption that

55:10 ↗ transit-oriented development is

55:12 ↗ affordable housing

55:15 ↗ i don't think so i think it's often

55:18 ↗ included

55:19 ↗ in it but i think it doesn't have to be

55:21 ↗ um that's my understanding of it

55:23 ↗ unless you think other staff that has a

55:24 ↗ different opinion

55:27 ↗ excellent thank you so we have

55:30 ↗ a comment from ebony city administrator

55:34 ↗ scott snyder

55:39 ↗ thank you commissioner pobla um

55:43 ↗ i have been listening to this great

55:46 ↗ discussion and all these questions

55:48 ↗ and sometimes i want to weigh in on them

55:51 ↗ but i put myself in the queue and then

55:52 ↗ they're quickly answered

55:54 ↗ by our more than capable staff megan and

55:57 ↗ kristen

55:58 ↗ so um just to underscore the point that

56:01 ↗ megan just made a few moments ago

56:02 ↗ regarding affordable housing you know i

56:04 ↗ heard commissioner fall say

56:06 ↗ it just doesn't pass the sniff test this

56:08 ↗ doesn't make sense and

56:10 ↗ um to to underscore what megan said i

56:12 ↗ think that

56:13 ↗ the thought behind it was just the

56:15 ↗ concern that

56:16 ↗ affordable housing developers

56:21 ↗ already are up against different

56:24 ↗ financial

56:25 ↗ requirements when it comes to financing

56:28 ↗ as well as uh

56:30 ↗ you know a little bit less flexibility

56:32 ↗ than market rate developers when it

56:34 ↗ comes to recouping costs so

56:36 ↗ their margins are different and

56:37 ↗ everything else so there was just a

56:38 ↗ concern

56:39 ↗ that um by increasing requirements for

56:41 ↗ affordable housing

56:43 ↗ developers then does that then hinder

56:46 ↗ another one of the city's goals which is

56:48 ↗ to increase our supply of affordable

56:50 ↗ housing i think

56:51 ↗ i've heard some other comments tonight

56:54 ↗ for other ways to

56:57 ↗ to approach that and as megan said

56:59 ↗ giving it more thought is something that

57:00 ↗ i think we really want to do so

57:01 ↗ appreciate

57:02 ↗ the comments and thoughts that you have

57:04 ↗ tonight on this topic absolutely

57:06 ↗ um the the second thing that i wanted to

57:10 ↗ address

57:14 ↗ which was the comment that commissioner

57:17 ↗ lewis made

57:18 ↗ on you know what is the city's

57:21 ↗ thoughts on a public project or

57:24 ↗ something that's more accessible to the

57:25 ↗ public

57:28 ↗ great question i don't know that we have

57:31 ↗ thought

57:31 ↗ that much about it what i

57:34 ↗ would say is that we do have currently

57:37 ↗ some

57:37 ↗ electric vehicle charging stations that

57:39 ↗ are available to the public

57:41 ↗ and they're located at city hall

57:44 ↗ northwest

57:44 ↗ i know of those too there might be a few

57:46 ↗ others that i'm not aware of but

57:49 ↗ megan's nodding her head so she can she

57:51 ↗ can tell me where those other ones are

57:53 ↗ but

57:53 ↗ we already have we have a couple could

57:55 ↗ we use some more

57:56 ↗ great questions great thoughts um

57:58 ↗ certainly worth a little bit more

58:00 ↗ thought but we have we have a couple now

58:02 ↗ so

58:03 ↗ um we're not incredibly uh behind the

58:06 ↗ eight ball here

58:07 ↗ so thank you for the opportunity to

58:09 ↗ comment and my final thing megan

58:11 ↗ um you know i know you had some

58:12 ↗ discussion questions that you brought up

58:15 ↗ in your presentation uh at the beginning

58:17 ↗ of the evening

58:18 ↗ i don't know if this would be helpful uh

58:20 ↗ to to you or to

58:22 ↗ our commissioners to pull those up again

58:24 ↗ so that they can make sure that they

58:26 ↗ are um asking additional questions on

58:30 ↗ those

58:30 ↗ discussion questions or providing the

58:32 ↗ input that you are hoping to hear

58:34 ↗ tonight

58:35 ↗ all right thank you

58:49 ↗ so the um purpose of this meeting is to

58:52 ↗ get feedback on

58:53 ↗ on and answer those questions plus

58:57 ↗ uh obviously creating some other ones

59:00 ↗ that we have

59:01 ↗ come up with but i'd like to finish the

59:03 ↗ a couple comments that have been in the

59:06 ↗ queue before we um

59:10 ↗ uh look at those

59:13 ↗ specifically so i'd like to go to

59:16 ↗ commissioner

59:17 ↗ monahan who has a comment or a question

59:21 ↗ thank you madam chair and thank you

59:23 ↗ megan for your presentation this evening

59:25 ↗ a question about the single family and

59:28 ↗ town homes

59:29 ↗ is it envisioned to be a one-time

59:32 ↗ incentive or would a builder be able to

59:35 ↗ get you know two incentives by

59:37 ↗ installing two

59:38 ↗ uh ports in a garage

59:44 ↗ great technical legal question there i

59:46 ↗ think

59:47 ↗ um so in it we say that we still need to

59:50 ↗ figure out the administrative procedures

59:52 ↗ for that which i think it falls under

59:53 ↗ but the overall intent um would be that

59:56 ↗ it would be an incentive for

59:58 ↗ um per purse per unit

1:00:01 ↗ so if you're installing two um

1:00:04 ↗ at one house then that would only be one

1:00:07 ↗ uh incentive

1:00:08 ↗ okay thank you so there's a question

1:00:12 ↗ from commissioner fall

1:00:17 ↗ thank you madam chair this is

1:00:18 ↗ commissioner fall

1:00:20 ↗ uh so from a cost

1:00:24 ↗ standpoint as far as affordable housing

1:00:28 ↗ and tod trump projects i

1:00:30 ↗ i believe that we should treat

1:00:34 ↗ low income and tod projects equally

1:00:37 ↗ i don't want to limit people

1:00:42 ↗ if we don't offer it and if we don't

1:00:44 ↗ require it it's not going to get done

1:00:47 ↗ and if you look at uh go back to the

1:00:50 ↗ 1970s when gm and ford looked at honda

1:00:53 ↗ and with despair and said you know no

1:00:56 ↗ one's gonna ever buy a honda

1:00:57 ↗ and we went through an oil crisis and

1:00:59 ↗ now we have

1:01:01 ↗ uh fuel efficiency standards right and

1:01:04 ↗ so

1:01:05 ↗ back then general motors and ford would

1:01:07 ↗ say we can't build our cars to be this

1:01:10 ↗ you know getting 25 miles of the gallon

1:01:13 ↗ it's not possible and now we're getting

1:01:15 ↗ 35 and 40 miles a gallon

1:01:17 ↗ without pushing and creating

1:01:20 ↗ requirements from a legal standpoint

1:01:22 ↗ industry isn't going to move forward and

1:01:23 ↗ then adopt it so i think we need to be

1:01:26 ↗ relatively tough and put down our foot

1:01:29 ↗ and say

1:01:30 ↗ you know you need to put this in every

1:01:32 ↗ development it's not even a question

1:01:35 ↗ and i think we shouldn't be fearful of

1:01:37 ↗ that i think long-term

1:01:38 ↗ electric cars are going to replace gas

1:01:41 ↗ cars i mean

1:01:41 ↗ california is doing it washington state

1:01:43 ↗ wants to do it

1:01:45 ↗ i believe electric cars are going to be

1:01:47 ↗ cheaper if we don't

1:01:49 ↗ require it we're hamstringing those

1:01:50 ↗ people that are going to be living

1:01:52 ↗ in shared housing community housing

1:01:55 ↗ whether you want to call it low income

1:01:56 ↗ or

1:01:57 ↗ or tod projects or single family town

1:02:00 ↗ homes

1:02:03 ↗ the other thought is because we're so

1:02:05 ↗ early in this phase

1:02:06 ↗ if we decide to have higher standards

1:02:10 ↗ is there a way that maybe the city can

1:02:12 ↗ reach out and find

1:02:14 ↗ or help find grants to help offset some

1:02:17 ↗ of these costs

1:02:18 ↗ so that we get what we need we can get

1:02:21 ↗ what

1:02:22 ↗ the our customers our residents

1:02:25 ↗ need to

1:02:28 ↗ have a higher standard of living in this

1:02:31 ↗ low in these low

1:02:32 ↗ affordable housing situations

1:02:35 ↗ and i really think the short-term costs

1:02:39 ↗ are going to be much less expensive than

1:02:43 ↗ the long-term costs

1:02:44 ↗ so if we push this stuff out and say

1:02:47 ↗ well we're

1:02:49 ↗ we're not going to have such a high 30

1:02:51 ↗ percent

1:02:52 ↗ um adoption rate for new development

1:02:59 ↗ in 20 years from now we're not going to

1:03:00 ↗ get it developers aren't gonna there's

1:03:03 ↗ no incentive for anyone to go back

1:03:05 ↗ and put in retrofit systems it just

1:03:07 ↗ won't happen and we're gonna be stuck

1:03:09 ↗ with

1:03:10 ↗ uh all these gas vehicles on the road

1:03:13 ↗ and

1:03:14 ↗ these residents are going to be upset

1:03:16 ↗ because they're not going to be able to

1:03:17 ↗ get their cars charged i just

1:03:19 ↗ it just it's an accident waiting to

1:03:21 ↗ happen and i think if we take the right

1:03:23 ↗ approach

1:03:24 ↗ and and embrace the

1:03:28 ↗ the environmental benefits behind it as

1:03:30 ↗ well as the cost benefits on it i think

1:03:32 ↗ the city could really do um the city

1:03:35 ↗ could really make a big

1:03:37 ↗ improvement in our community

1:03:40 ↗ quality of living so i'm worried that

1:03:44 ↗ it's not going to get done

1:03:46 ↗ if we if we're too light-footed about it

1:03:53 ↗ next is a comment from commissioner

1:03:56 ↗ voice

1:03:58 ↗ i am so glad i get to follow

1:04:00 ↗ commissioner fowle

1:04:02 ↗ because now i get to play a little bit

1:04:04 ↗ of devil's advocate

1:04:06 ↗ uh all of you guys are familiar with

1:04:09 ↗ kevin costner's field of dreams right

1:04:12 ↗ if you build it they will come right now

1:04:15 ↗ in building zoom rooms are all of the

1:04:18 ↗ rage

1:04:19 ↗ right because that's what the market's

1:04:20 ↗ bearing so i am a believer in the market

1:04:23 ↗ and if that is what

1:04:24 ↗ the market wants the market will get it

1:04:26 ↗ um

1:04:27 ↗ i think all of us here know that our

1:04:29 ↗ beloved city is one of

1:04:30 ↗ the toughest cities in terms of

1:04:32 ↗ regulations for developers

1:04:35 ↗ and continuing for is aquatic continue

1:04:38 ↗ to get that reputation

1:04:40 ↗ uh we're gonna scare developers off and

1:04:42 ↗ again these are all things that can be

1:04:44 ↗ amended down the road

1:04:46 ↗ so we have to find a happy balance i

1:04:47 ↗ mean if again isaqah

1:04:49 ↗ is known for being one of the toughest

1:04:51 ↗ cities to build in

1:04:53 ↗ even without the moratorium that

1:04:54 ↗ happened a couple of years ago so

1:04:56 ↗ while i understand the point you know

1:04:58 ↗ you want to set a high bar

1:05:00 ↗ we've set a high bar in a lot of

1:05:02 ↗ different areas as far as our building

1:05:03 ↗ codes so

1:05:04 ↗ again i do think as these electric

1:05:08 ↗ vehicles come to market

1:05:09 ↗ as they actually start to resemble

1:05:11 ↗ vehicles more people will start to buy

1:05:13 ↗ them

1:05:14 ↗ um to miss curtis murphy's point we

1:05:16 ↗ don't even have price parity yet with

1:05:18 ↗ these vehicles

1:05:19 ↗ they don't even extend to the range my

1:05:22 ↗ truck gets

1:05:23 ↗ 360 miles so

1:05:26 ↗ the electric vehicle companies still

1:05:27 ↗ have some work to do before people

1:05:29 ↗ want the cars themselves and like i said

1:05:32 ↗ if we start putting in these hard

1:05:34 ↗ regulations now

1:05:36 ↗ that could create a situation where

1:05:39 ↗ people are no longer

1:05:40 ↗ developing in our city so again i

1:05:43 ↗ i believe we need to start somewhere to

1:05:46 ↗ commissioner lewis's point

1:05:47 ↗ and i think we we have a good starting

1:05:50 ↗ point right now

1:05:52 ↗ um and again all of these things can

1:05:54 ↗ come back and be revisited in five to

1:05:55 ↗ ten years

1:05:56 ↗ so that's my piece thank you

1:05:59 ↗ commissioner foul

1:06:00 ↗ you serve that one up to me um

1:06:04 ↗ so that prompted some other questions so

1:06:06 ↗ i have a question from commissioner

1:06:07 ↗ zaragoza

1:06:11 ↗ thank you uh richard cercos uh i

1:06:14 ↗ actually had a comment

1:06:15 ↗ on a question but i wanted to second

1:06:17 ↗ what commissioner foul

1:06:19 ↗ uh actually said um

1:06:22 ↗ the package says that we're gonna reach

1:06:24 ↗ price parity uh by 2023

1:06:27 ↗ that's two years from now once that

1:06:28 ↗ happens my assumption is that adoption

1:06:31 ↗ of evs will be

1:06:32 ↗ exponential so that four percent

1:06:35 ↗ could be 50 in 10 years not

1:06:39 ↗ 20 years something like that so i agree

1:06:42 ↗ we might be not being aggressive enough

1:06:44 ↗ with the numbers

1:06:45 ↗ that we're currently um thinking about

1:06:49 ↗ um that's my comment just wanted to

1:06:52 ↗ second that

1:06:55 ↗ so we'll follow that with a question a

1:06:57 ↗ comment

1:06:58 ↗ from commissioner carl

1:07:03 ↗ thank you this is janice carl

1:07:06 ↗ um really appreciate all of the thought

1:07:09 ↗ and

1:07:09 ↗ questions and comments that have been

1:07:11 ↗ raised so far

1:07:13 ↗ um i have to say here's my teeny tiny

1:07:15 ↗ question

1:07:16 ↗ on the table of cost estimates

1:07:19 ↗ i'm just going crazy trying to

1:07:21 ↗ understand the difference

1:07:23 ↗ in ev ready costs for townhome versus

1:07:26 ↗ single family duplex

1:07:28 ↗ so i'd really like to understand where

1:07:30 ↗ that 3600

1:07:31 ↗ came from as composed to 3.75

1:07:34 ↗ but my more substantive comment is i'm

1:07:37 ↗ really concerned

1:07:40 ↗ so i when when we are trying to

1:07:44 ↗ represent

1:07:46 ↗ broad and varying interests in our

1:07:49 ↗ community

1:07:50 ↗ it means we have to set priorities we're

1:07:53 ↗ not always going to be able to

1:07:58 ↗ pursue all things equally especially

1:08:00 ↗ when they interact with one another like

1:08:02 ↗ this affordable housing requirement

1:08:04 ↗ or waiver issue does

1:08:08 ↗ i i think it's i i think the point

1:08:11 ↗ that making additional costs

1:08:15 ↗ fall on developers who are already

1:08:18 ↗ facing

1:08:19 ↗ challenges in that line of work line of

1:08:21 ↗ business and also in doing business with

1:08:23 ↗ the city

1:08:24 ↗ um is probably a substantive concern

1:08:28 ↗ in terms of attracting the affordable

1:08:30 ↗ housing

1:08:31 ↗ that we need now we need

1:08:34 ↗ yesterday whereas

1:08:38 ↗ ev charging in affordable housing i'm

1:08:40 ↗ just

1:08:41 ↗ really you're really gonna have to work

1:08:43 ↗ hard to convince me

1:08:44 ↗ that that's a major issue for that

1:08:46 ↗ population

1:08:47 ↗ in the next five years i'm not saying

1:08:50 ↗ i'm right

1:08:51 ↗ it's just what i feel in my heart so

1:08:54 ↗ again that's my primary comment that

1:08:56 ↗ probably from my perspective

1:08:58 ↗ availability of affordable housing

1:09:00 ↗ is more important than providing eb

1:09:02 ↗ charging

1:09:03 ↗ and so providing that waiver there makes

1:09:05 ↗ sense to me

1:09:07 ↗ um but i do wonder about that thirty six

1:09:10 ↗ hundred dollar cost

1:09:12 ↗ for a space in a town home thank you

1:09:16 ↗ yes thank you for the question that came

1:09:18 ↗ up during the council meeting

1:09:20 ↗ on tuesday and the answer had left my

1:09:23 ↗ brain at that moment but i have it now

1:09:25 ↗ so thank you for asking that

1:09:27 ↗ um there is a large variation there

1:09:29 ↗ because

1:09:30 ↗ it it depends on the situation um so

1:09:34 ↗ there's two reasons that could make that

1:09:36 ↗ cost a lot more expensive

1:09:38 ↗ um one is if it is um for a townhome if

1:09:42 ↗ it's

1:09:42 ↗ like parking underneath the building um

1:09:45 ↗ that could that could add some more cost

1:09:47 ↗ there

1:09:48 ↗ um rather than just a a spot right next

1:09:50 ↗ to

1:09:51 ↗ um you know above ground right next to

1:09:53 ↗ the home um

1:09:54 ↗ the other reason is that in some cases

1:09:58 ↗ if uh say a single family home was gonna

1:10:00 ↗ be

1:10:01 ↗ torn down and there's multi-family or

1:10:05 ↗ town homes going up in very rare cases

1:10:08 ↗ there might need to be a transformer

1:10:10 ↗ update which would be

1:10:11 ↗ a larger cost so that would be

1:10:14 ↗ represented there

1:10:16 ↗ city of seattle has a an

1:10:19 ↗ exemption for that in their code

1:10:22 ↗ um it is not something they've ever they

1:10:25 ↗ haven't had to they haven't gotten any

1:10:27 ↗ waiver seen a waivers for that because

1:10:30 ↗ it's so

1:10:30 ↗ um not common that they do have that

1:10:33 ↗ exemption so that

1:10:34 ↗ is why that is such a big difference

1:10:41 ↗ so the last question is from

1:10:43 ↗ commissioner foul

1:10:47 ↗ thank you madame commissioner fall i'm

1:10:49 ↗ not a mayor yet

1:10:52 ↗ the other mayor did i say mayor did it

1:10:55 ↗ say madam

1:10:57 ↗ you said mayor oh oops

1:11:01 ↗ thank you madam chair that sounds better

1:11:05 ↗ all right so i'm going to add on to

1:11:08 ↗ um richard's commissioner richard's

1:11:10 ↗ comment

1:11:11 ↗ and um janice's comment and

1:11:14 ↗ to megan's comment so

1:11:18 ↗ into jason's as well if

1:11:21 ↗ we look at it from an infrastructure

1:11:23 ↗ standpoint where

1:11:24 ↗ i'm not saying put the stations in i'm

1:11:26 ↗ saying ev ready

1:11:29 ↗ and i think we need to be prepared for

1:11:31 ↗ it because if you look

1:11:32 ↗ around issaquah half of our apartment

1:11:35 ↗ complexes were built in the 50s that's

1:11:37 ↗ over 60

1:11:38 ↗ 65 years old so if we're going to build

1:11:42 ↗ new apartment complexes what's the

1:11:45 ↗ likelihood that they're going to be

1:11:46 ↗ 50 65 years before they're torn down

1:11:50 ↗ we're not we're not tearing down

1:11:52 ↗ apartments right now

1:11:55 ↗ but those old apartments are still there

1:11:58 ↗ the infrastructure to support ev

1:12:01 ↗ is you need 50 amp lines ran you need

1:12:04 ↗ transformers you need service panels

1:12:07 ↗ and when the building is being built

1:12:09 ↗ that stuff is really cheap to put in

1:12:11 ↗ conduit is like

1:12:13 ↗ you can buy a a 10 foot

1:12:16 ↗ section of conduit that's three inches

1:12:19 ↗ for

1:12:19 ↗ ten dollars a pipe so we're not talking

1:12:22 ↗ about a lot of

1:12:23 ↗ cost to require the capacity to handle

1:12:27 ↗ ev systems or making them ev ready if

1:12:30 ↗ you don't want to run the lines okay i

1:12:32 ↗ i'll compromise with not running the

1:12:34 ↗ lines but have

1:12:35 ↗ the conduit in place at least for these

1:12:38 ↗ complexes

1:12:40 ↗ so when the time comes that ev should be

1:12:43 ↗ installed on these systems it's not so

1:12:45 ↗ cost prohibitive to the developer or to

1:12:48 ↗ the residents that they can't afford to

1:12:51 ↗ install it

1:12:52 ↗ but if we do it now it if we require it

1:12:55 ↗ now

1:12:56 ↗ we're not putting a lot of upfront cost

1:12:58 ↗ in it

1:12:59 ↗ but it's getting built with the capacity

1:13:01 ↗ to be able to handle it

1:13:02 ↗ right so um i just think it's

1:13:06 ↗ it's a it's a bad thing to overlook

1:13:10 ↗ because we know

1:13:11 ↗ this we know for fact we're going down

1:13:14 ↗ this road

1:13:16 ↗ right so electric vehicles is going to

1:13:18 ↗ be the thing of the future

1:13:19 ↗ because combustion is getting to the

1:13:20 ↗ point where

1:13:22 ↗ we have too many environmental issues

1:13:24 ↗ with it um

1:13:26 ↗ the industry wants the electric cars

1:13:28 ↗ industry is telling us that electric

1:13:30 ↗ cars will be cheaper to manufacture

1:13:32 ↗ than gas cars so there's so many

1:13:35 ↗ different reasons to say

1:13:37 ↗ ev's going to be the future maybe 20

1:13:40 ↗ years so to janice's point maybe there

1:13:41 ↗ won't be anything in the five-year term

1:13:44 ↗ right maybe we'll be a slight increase

1:13:47 ↗ but in 10-15 years we could see

1:13:50 ↗ exponential growth and if we're our

1:13:52 ↗ residents aren't

1:13:54 ↗ able to charge our cars it's going to be

1:13:56 ↗ miserable when i worked at microsoft

1:13:58 ↗ it was those people who drove electric

1:14:01 ↗ cars in and wanted to charge them

1:14:03 ↗ there were never enough chargers and so

1:14:06 ↗ you have

1:14:07 ↗ you know people always complaining that

1:14:08 ↗ there aren't enough chargers there's

1:14:10 ↗ like

1:14:10 ↗ 20 chargers in each microsoft building

1:14:13 ↗ and it's like you got to be kidding

1:14:14 ↗ that's how many people are driving

1:14:15 ↗ electric cars so i think there is demand

1:14:19 ↗ what's keeping us from having enjoying

1:14:21 ↗ that demand is that

1:14:23 ↗ people are

1:14:27 ↗ worried about getting the car charged so

1:14:30 ↗ um and i think if we alleviate that

1:14:33 ↗ it'll happen

1:14:33 ↗ if to jason's point if we build it they

1:14:36 ↗ will come

1:14:40 ↗ thank you i i i feel very passionate

1:14:43 ↗ about this i think is we're just under

1:14:44 ↗ selling it and we're

1:14:46 ↗ we need to stiffen the requirements and

1:14:48 ↗ i don't think it's going to add that

1:14:49 ↗ much cost to

1:14:50 ↗ developers and maybe there if it does we

1:14:54 ↗ can

1:14:54 ↗ help them incentivize it with with

1:14:56 ↗ grants

1:14:59 ↗ all right thank you now um

1:15:03 ↗ i have a comment from commissioner lewis

1:15:07 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis megan

1:15:10 ↗ do you mind putting up that slide

1:15:11 ↗ that's guiding our three things that we

1:15:13 ↗ wanted to have our discussion about

1:15:14 ↗ right now because um

1:15:15 ↗ we're having a lot of great discussion

1:15:16 ↗ and i want to kind of gear us to the

1:15:18 ↗ fact that we have

1:15:19 ↗ more than one thing that we're looking

1:15:20 ↗ at right now um

1:15:23 ↗ i have a specific ask after we um are

1:15:26 ↗ looking at this the next group to look

1:15:28 ↗ at it

1:15:28 ↗ is our um we're very proud of our of our

1:15:31 ↗ brand new commission

1:15:32 ↗ our brand new board i should say and i'd

1:15:34 ↗ love to have

1:15:35 ↗ the board members um obviously they're

1:15:37 ↗ going to have the presentation we had

1:15:38 ↗ i'd really like them to kind of focus on

1:15:40 ↗ something that i think needs to be

1:15:42 ↗ drilled down a little bit more on a

1:15:43 ↗ micro level

1:15:44 ↗ and that is this discussion of

1:15:45 ↗ incentives versus code regulations

1:15:48 ↗ um the cities that have gone before us

1:15:50 ↗ our forebears in california

1:15:52 ↗ have a lot of great data for us it's

1:15:54 ↗ something i asked you about megan um

1:15:56 ↗ in the email but i'd love for them to be

1:15:58 ↗ presented with a little more

1:16:00 ↗ information and data about how previous

1:16:02 ↗ municipalities have gone about this

1:16:04 ↗ and to be able to have a really hardcore

1:16:05 ↗ discussion for our environment

1:16:07 ↗ environmental board to come back and

1:16:09 ↗ have a more concrete um

1:16:11 ↗ discussion and have a more concrete um

1:16:14 ↗ resolution

1:16:15 ↗ when we go to council of saying this is

1:16:17 ↗ why we want to use incentives this is

1:16:18 ↗ why we want to use regulations

1:16:21 ↗ and being able to drill that down a

1:16:22 ↗ little bit more with some more data so i

1:16:24 ↗ think they're a really good place

1:16:25 ↗ for that board to really look at that

1:16:27 ↗ discussion and to see how we want to

1:16:28 ↗ guide it so that would be

1:16:30 ↗ my recommendation specifically about um

1:16:33 ↗ about that um i also want to say that at

1:16:36 ↗ this point

1:16:37 ↗ without seeing a concrete plan

1:16:40 ↗ from the city about how we're going to

1:16:43 ↗ offset

1:16:44 ↗ the subsequent waivers for affordable

1:16:46 ↗ housing um

1:16:47 ↗ and i have some serious questions about

1:16:49 ↗ it um right now

1:16:50 ↗ um really helping and protecting

1:16:53 ↗ economically vulnerable populations

1:16:55 ↗ needs to be accounted for in this

1:16:57 ↗ situation electric cars we know

1:16:59 ↗ are cheaper to maintain they're also

1:17:02 ↗ better to use as far as

1:17:04 ↗ car share programs which are also the

1:17:06 ↗ future as far as

1:17:07 ↗ tools and resources that we have to

1:17:09 ↗ impact climate change

1:17:11 ↗ and they're just a better resource for a

1:17:14 ↗ lot of economically vulnerable members

1:17:15 ↗ of our community

1:17:16 ↗ um so having that availability

1:17:19 ↗ in some form needs to be addressed if

1:17:22 ↗ we're going to go ahead and say

1:17:24 ↗ and stick with right now the city's

1:17:25 ↗ recommendation of a waiver so

1:17:27 ↗ um i'd like to see the next time that we

1:17:30 ↗ have this discussion to have a more

1:17:31 ↗ concrete

1:17:32 ↗ um example of this is how we're going to

1:17:35 ↗ address it if you want to have the

1:17:36 ↗ waivers because i agree with janice's

1:17:37 ↗ comment we

1:17:38 ↗ you know uh sometimes you gotta rob

1:17:41 ↗ peter to pay paul

1:17:42 ↗ so we can't really have everything that

1:17:43 ↗ we want so if we're going to prioritize

1:17:46 ↗ um being able to limit the amount

1:17:50 ↗ of restrictions on developers who are

1:17:52 ↗ going to help helping us to achieve

1:17:54 ↗ our affordable housing goals that we

1:17:55 ↗ need to have a plan for how we're going

1:17:57 ↗ to be addressing

1:17:58 ↗ um the the lack of of disparity so

1:18:02 ↗ um the other thing i would say is that

1:18:04 ↗ um from where i'm sitting

1:18:06 ↗ um i don't think the tod project should

1:18:09 ↗ be handled any differently

1:18:10 ↗ um i think that it's a natural

1:18:14 ↗ inclination for us to be putting

1:18:15 ↗ affordable housing

1:18:16 ↗ um so there is an overlap with tod and i

1:18:19 ↗ do think that there is a natural

1:18:20 ↗ um overlap for people to be using having

1:18:23 ↗ less reliance on vehicles

1:18:25 ↗ um but having them exempt i think goes

1:18:27 ↗ to ron's point that being able to have

1:18:29 ↗ that readiness is really important when

1:18:30 ↗ we look at that cost of retrofitting

1:18:32 ↗ um and for new buildings and so that's

1:18:35 ↗ that's where i'm sitting right now on

1:18:36 ↗ those kinds of points

1:18:37 ↗ um and i'd love to hear more from the

1:18:39 ↗ city the next time that we talk

1:18:41 ↗ and really being able to have that board

1:18:42 ↗ come back to us with their suggestions

1:18:44 ↗ for this as well

1:18:46 ↗ i think from the uh comments that we've

1:18:49 ↗ had this evening that there

1:18:51 ↗ is a lot this is a complicated

1:18:54 ↗ situation and i think that um

1:18:58 ↗ before we approve or

1:19:02 ↗ the the council approves this kind of

1:19:06 ↗ a regulation that we need to

1:19:09 ↗ have a better understanding of what the

1:19:11 ↗ costs are

1:19:12 ↗ and what uh the problems

1:19:15 ↗ are and be more confident of what

1:19:18 ↗ we're going to be addressing in the way

1:19:21 ↗ of

1:19:22 ↗ affordable housing

1:19:27 ↗ there is a comment in the chat box from

1:19:29 ↗ commissioner carl

1:19:33 ↗ thank you again this is janice carl

1:19:37 ↗ i i second joy's

1:19:40 ↗ recommendation that tod projects

1:19:44 ↗ not be subject to any any special

1:19:47 ↗ considerations

1:19:48 ↗ their status as multi-family projects

1:19:51 ↗ are primarily

1:19:53 ↗ considered trends and oriented

1:19:54 ↗ development because they're close to

1:19:56 ↗ transit and that

1:19:57 ↗ is going to not necessarily

1:20:00 ↗ require any additional subsidies i would

1:20:03 ↗ think

1:20:04 ↗ and if they do include affordable

1:20:07 ↗ housing then they would be able to take

1:20:08 ↗ advantage of the exemptions for those

1:20:11 ↗ particular units so i think that that is

1:20:13 ↗ a reasonable con

1:20:16 ↗ compromise um i would like to suggest

1:20:19 ↗ that given ron's comment and i and i do

1:20:23 ↗ believe in paying a little bit now to

1:20:25 ↗ save a lot later

1:20:27 ↗ um might we consider the ev capable

1:20:30 ↗ categorization as part of our options

1:20:34 ↗ for making requirements

1:20:36 ↗ the memo and the presentation and i

1:20:40 ↗ think the proposal

1:20:41 ↗ primarily focuses on ev ready and

1:20:44 ↗ actually having equipment equipment in

1:20:46 ↗ place

1:20:47 ↗ but the background memo also talked

1:20:49 ↗ about just making sure that

1:20:51 ↗ the the infrastructure is there to

1:20:54 ↗ facilitate

1:20:56 ↗ um implementation of of the

1:20:59 ↗ wiring and hardware other hardware

1:21:03 ↗ later so just kind of called

1:21:06 ↗ conduit only we might make that

1:21:09 ↗ a requirement with much higher

1:21:12 ↗ percentages

1:21:13 ↗ as a way of laying the groundwork for

1:21:17 ↗ for better volume of service later thank

1:21:20 ↗ you

1:21:22 ↗ there's an additional comment from

1:21:24 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:21:28 ↗ thank you uh richard zaragoza i

1:21:30 ↗ definitely second

1:21:32 ↗ um what janice was just saying about

1:21:35 ↗ the uh eevee capable

1:21:38 ↗ at a much larger number i think that

1:21:40 ↗ makes a lot of sense

1:21:42 ↗ um but also i wanted to comment on the

1:21:44 ↗ incentives i think incentives are a

1:21:46 ↗ great idea i support those and

1:21:50 ↗ it also makes a lot of sense that

1:21:52 ↗ affordable housing is a priority so the

1:21:54 ↗ waiver does make sense but

1:21:57 ↗ as commissioner lewis suggested

1:21:59 ↗ offsetting that with some kind of

1:22:01 ↗ increased incentive or public station

1:22:03 ↗ something like that if that could be

1:22:05 ↗ added into the

1:22:07 ↗ the recommendation i think that would

1:22:10 ↗ make a lot of sense to me

1:22:12 ↗ thank you i have a comment from

1:22:16 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:22:20 ↗ thank you madam chair yeah i'd just like

1:22:22 ↗ to wrap up with a

1:22:24 ↗ few comments in the providing feedback

1:22:27 ↗ and kind of really appreciate this

1:22:28 ↗ discussion i am so glad

1:22:30 ↗ to be part of this group let me

1:22:33 ↗ join ranks with ron and janice

1:22:37 ↗ and thank you for that refinement janice

1:22:39 ↗ i think it is a priority to put in the

1:22:42 ↗ ev capable

1:22:43 ↗ if if not the eevee ready um and

1:22:46 ↗ even at higher percentages if we could

1:22:49 ↗ you know i would go for that

1:22:52 ↗ getting more coverage at a a lower

1:22:56 ↗ level of infrastructure so that we don't

1:22:58 ↗ have to go retrofit

1:23:00 ↗ that that i think is the most important

1:23:03 ↗ and especially

1:23:04 ↗ if we could look at increasing those

1:23:05 ↗ percentages required in commercial

1:23:08 ↗ buildings

1:23:09 ↗ where there are jobs as far as the

1:23:13 ↗ discussion about

1:23:15 ↗ affordable housing and tod those two

1:23:18 ↗ weave in and out of each other sometimes

1:23:20 ↗ and sometimes they don't

1:23:21 ↗ i agree with the commissioners who say

1:23:23 ↗ that

1:23:24 ↗ uh that we should not exempt affordable

1:23:28 ↗ housing because

1:23:29 ↗ those people need ev plug-ins in the

1:23:32 ↗ near future just as much as anybody else

1:23:34 ↗ and and why leave them out

1:23:35 ↗ i wholeheartedly agree with that and

1:23:37 ↗ it's my

1:23:38 ↗ um observation although

1:23:42 ↗ somewhat amateur that there will be

1:23:45 ↗ other forces greater

1:23:47 ↗ determining how many affordable housing

1:23:49 ↗ units we get

1:23:51 ↗ especially if we get into the

1:23:52 ↗ circumstances where we require

1:23:54 ↗ affordable housing to be

1:23:55 ↗ developed which is where i think we need

1:23:57 ↗ to go rather than

1:23:59 ↗ softballing oh gee can i make it work

1:24:02 ↗ worth your while

1:24:03 ↗ um we require affordable housing and

1:24:06 ↗ projects should have

1:24:08 ↗ requirements and we shouldn't have such

1:24:09 ↗ a thing as the ev

1:24:11 ↗ plug-ins um making it so we can't do an

1:24:15 ↗ affordable housing project

1:24:16 ↗ and the uh the last thing is is the

1:24:19 ↗ transfer oriented development

1:24:21 ↗ um if it's being built as intended that

1:24:24 ↗ you're using transit instead of cars

1:24:26 ↗ um the reduced need for parking all

1:24:28 ↗ together

1:24:29 ↗ would reduce the need for

1:24:32 ↗ ev infrastructure

1:24:36 ↗ but then as i said as it waves with

1:24:38 ↗ affordable housing we wouldn't want to

1:24:40 ↗ purposefully leave out that um

1:24:44 ↗ that population incentives for single

1:24:47 ↗ family and townhomes

1:24:48 ↗ fine sure wish we could require it

1:24:51 ↗ especially

1:24:52 ↗ in um in new

1:24:56 ↗ construction if we could do it

1:24:59 ↗ i would require it in new construction

1:25:02 ↗ and have

1:25:03 ↗ the um the credit for

1:25:06 ↗ homeowners doing retrofits

1:25:10 ↗ so that's my feedback tell them what i

1:25:13 ↗ think

1:25:13 ↗ and thank you again you guys this is

1:25:15 ↗ really fun

1:25:17 ↗ so i have a comment

1:25:21 ↗ from commissioner voice all right well

1:25:25 ↗ to uh to just reiterate what uh

1:25:27 ↗ commissioner

1:25:28 ↗ sarah gosa and commissioner carl said

1:25:32 ↗ i think uh commissioner carl hit on

1:25:34 ↗ something i think all of us could

1:25:35 ↗ probably agree on

1:25:37 ↗ one thing we don't see in our charts is

1:25:39 ↗ the cost

1:25:40 ↗ of having it just be eevee capable and

1:25:43 ↗ i know uh commissioner fowle's coming up

1:25:45 ↗ right behind me and i'm sure he has

1:25:46 ↗ something to say about that because that

1:25:48 ↗ might be able to

1:25:49 ↗ push those numbers up without scaring

1:25:53 ↗ our developers off so i i would be

1:25:56 ↗ interested to see more information about

1:25:57 ↗ ev

1:25:58 ↗ capable um again like i said it's kind

1:26:01 ↗ of

1:26:02 ↗ it's hard to predict the future only 13

1:26:05 ↗ years ago they

1:26:06 ↗ made the movie who killed the electric

1:26:07 ↗ car so i don't know if it's going to

1:26:10 ↗ grow exponentially or not

1:26:11 ↗ i don't think anybody can really say for

1:26:13 ↗ certain i think we're

1:26:15 ↗ it's trending upwards but i do think the

1:26:18 ↗ ev capable

1:26:19 ↗ is is something to look at i think that

1:26:21 ↗ was a great suggestion by commissioner

1:26:22 ↗ carl so

1:26:24 ↗ there's that and then real quickly i

1:26:26 ↗ also agree with the use of incentives

1:26:28 ↗ for single families because um if we

1:26:30 ↗ could knock off some of their building

1:26:31 ↗ permit costs

1:26:33 ↗ i think most builders would be able to

1:26:35 ↗ put it down as a

1:26:37 ↗ an amenity where they could actually use

1:26:39 ↗ it as a selling point

1:26:41 ↗ people are getting more and more

1:26:43 ↗ interested into these smart homes

1:26:45 ↗ i myself don't believe it should be a

1:26:47 ↗ requirement

1:26:48 ↗ at this point i don't believe the

1:26:50 ↗ numbers bear it out but i believe if you

1:26:52 ↗ incentivize builders especially for

1:26:54 ↗ residential construction like we see

1:26:55 ↗ what's going up

1:26:56 ↗ in issaquah highlands i think you might

1:26:59 ↗ get some buy-in from them

1:27:00 ↗ uh especially if you're covering a

1:27:02 ↗ majority of their costs

1:27:04 ↗ so i think it's a great idea i think

1:27:05 ↗ it's a great program and as far as the

1:27:08 ↗ affordable housing

1:27:10 ↗ and the tod to commissioner lewis's

1:27:12 ↗ point it

1:27:13 ↗ we i think we need some more literature

1:27:14 ↗ there because again

1:27:16 ↗ the priority really should be getting

1:27:18 ↗ these units into our city

1:27:20 ↗ and we need to again these guys are

1:27:23 ↗ they're working with much smaller

1:27:24 ↗ margins than your

1:27:26 ↗ safeways your qfcs and also your

1:27:28 ↗ residential buildings so

1:27:30 ↗ we probably need a lot more literature

1:27:31 ↗ on that before we're able to

1:27:34 ↗ give a proper response so thank you

1:27:38 ↗ i have a quick comment from commissioner

1:27:41 ↗ fall

1:27:45 ↗ thank you madam uh chair i almost called

1:27:47 ↗ you madam mayor again

1:27:50 ↗ i'm gonna talk to we're gonna talk to

1:27:52 ↗ the real mayor and

1:27:53 ↗ have a discussion here uh okay so this

1:27:57 ↗ commissioner falls so i really like what

1:27:58 ↗ jason just said

1:28:00 ↗ um i think he's right on it so capable

1:28:03 ↗ to i think is really good

1:28:07 ↗ i think capable with the panel because

1:28:10 ↗ that means

1:28:11 ↗ the basic core infrastructure's in

1:28:14 ↗ and we reduce the cost because we're not

1:28:16 ↗ running lines

1:28:17 ↗ we know that the copper wires is

1:28:19 ↗ expensive to run

1:28:20 ↗ so i think that would be a great

1:28:24 ↗ solution there

1:28:24 ↗ to solve everyone's issue but the quick

1:28:27 ↗ comment was

1:28:28 ↗ also about tod requirements

1:28:31 ↗ because tod is right next to a transit

1:28:34 ↗ system

1:28:36 ↗ maybe we could leverage a shared

1:28:38 ↗ charging station

1:28:40 ↗ with transit so if you park at the

1:28:43 ↗ transit center you have

1:28:44 ↗ ev access and maybe the people living in

1:28:47 ↗ tod would also

1:28:48 ↗ share that same access because

1:28:51 ↗ those are all usually paid machines you

1:28:53 ↗ require a debit card or credit card to

1:28:56 ↗ charge your car

1:28:57 ↗ anyways so that might be a really

1:28:59 ↗ economic way to

1:29:01 ↗ max or optimize the situation

1:29:05 ↗ and give expand your resource capability

1:29:10 ↗ your bandwidth that's it

1:29:13 ↗ thanks so i have and also a quick

1:29:16 ↗ comment from

1:29:18 ↗ senior planner lisa

1:29:22 ↗ hi this is oops i keep turning my video

1:29:24 ↗ off there we go

1:29:26 ↗ this is kristin leeson and it is a quick

1:29:28 ↗ comment and i may have misheard it

1:29:30 ↗ um but i believe commissioner milligan

1:29:32 ↗ uh mentioned that we need to require

1:29:34 ↗ affordable housing and i don't know if

1:29:35 ↗ this influences the conversation or

1:29:37 ↗ contributes to the conversation at all

1:29:39 ↗ but just to note that we do require

1:29:41 ↗ affordable housing in several several

1:29:42 ↗ areas of the city

1:29:44 ↗ so our development agreements require

1:29:46 ↗ affordable housing

1:29:48 ↗ so that would be rally and that would be

1:29:49 ↗ lakeside and i believe still up in

1:29:52 ↗ issaquah highlands there's some that's

1:29:53 ↗ still required

1:29:54 ↗ and also if anybody's going to build in

1:29:56 ↗ our urban core or mixed use

1:29:58 ↗ zones they're also required to do

1:30:00 ↗ affordable housing as part of

1:30:02 ↗ residential projects there

1:30:06 ↗ thank you kristen i'm gonna i'd like to

1:30:08 ↗ jump in because that's exactly

1:30:10 ↗ what i'm talking about the fact that

1:30:12 ↗ there's ev or not ev

1:30:13 ↗ isn't what's determining whether we get

1:30:15 ↗ affordable housing or not

1:30:16 ↗ it's regulations that require it or not

1:30:19 ↗ so

1:30:20 ↗ that was awesome thank you kristen

1:30:24 ↗ is there anybody else that wants to make

1:30:26 ↗ a comment

1:30:27 ↗ before we actually um do some more work

1:30:31 ↗ on the uh three things that are up on

1:30:35 ↗ the screen

1:30:38 ↗ if not i'd like to say a couple things

1:30:41 ↗ before i

1:30:42 ↗ unhook myself from my computer again

1:30:46 ↗ um i

1:30:50 ↗ disagree with the incentives for

1:30:53 ↗ single-family housing and i know that

1:30:57 ↗ at the present time we cannot require it

1:31:00 ↗ for single-family housing but

1:31:02 ↗ from listening to the discussion from

1:31:04 ↗ the

1:31:06 ↗ council session on was it

1:31:09 ↗ tuesday

1:31:14 ↗ bellevue has required that and they are

1:31:19 ↗ fine and there was a comment that said

1:31:23 ↗ uh from somebody uh i thought it was

1:31:26 ↗ staff

1:31:28 ↗ that the

1:31:31 ↗ group that determines

1:31:34 ↗ what the building requirements are

1:31:40 ↗ is actually looking at and they looking

1:31:43 ↗ at requiring

1:31:45 ↗ some of these stations to be put in in

1:31:48 ↗ single-family housing and

1:31:52 ↗ within the year and so i think we should

1:31:56 ↗ um follow the direction of some of the

1:31:59 ↗ other cities that have required in

1:32:01 ↗ single family homes

1:32:02 ↗ and i i personally do not agree with

1:32:06 ↗ incentivizing uh

1:32:10 ↗ having it uh ev capable

1:32:14 ↗ uh in single family and

1:32:17 ↗ town homes and condos that have garages

1:32:21 ↗ um i i just don't i

1:32:25 ↗ i don't think they should be

1:32:26 ↗ incentivized um

1:32:29 ↗ in issaquah the medium range for new

1:32:32 ↗ construction single family

1:32:34 ↗ is somewhere in the high 700s or

1:32:38 ↗ 800 000. putting in

1:32:41 ↗ an additional three hundred fifty fifty

1:32:44 ↗ dollars to run

1:32:45 ↗ a cable into the garage

1:32:49 ↗ while you're putting in all the electric

1:32:51 ↗ in the house

1:32:52 ↗ to me is not any big deal either

1:32:57 ↗ you can

1:33:00 ↗ put it in the cost of the house or you

1:33:02 ↗ can do what

1:33:03 ↗ new house new construction is required

1:33:05 ↗ to do right now is to charge

1:33:08 ↗ fifteen thousand dollars to put in the

1:33:10 ↗ sewer system and and you have the option

1:33:12 ↗ to pay for it

1:33:14 ↗ up front or you can do it

1:33:17 ↗ um a certain small amount

1:33:20 ↗ quarterly till it's paid off um

1:33:24 ↗ things like that can can happen and you

1:33:26 ↗ can go into

1:33:28 ↗ um condos and townhomes in issaquah

1:33:31 ↗ the median price is somewhere around six

1:33:34 ↗ hundred thousand dollars and

1:33:36 ↗ and to put in an additional three

1:33:38 ↗ hundred fifty dollars on top of that

1:33:39 ↗ just

1:33:40 ↗ uh doesn't seem reasonable to me um

1:33:44 ↗ i've been a builder i've been a realtor

1:33:46 ↗ i you know

1:33:48 ↗ looking at what the single family

1:33:51 ↗ person owner would gain by having this

1:33:55 ↗ connection

1:33:56 ↗ in the garage if it cost 400

1:33:59 ↗ to put in the um capable

1:34:04 ↗ plug when you go to sell the house

1:34:09 ↗ the owner will make fifteen hundred

1:34:12 ↗ dollars

1:34:14 ↗ there will be more cars uh electrical

1:34:17 ↗ cars

1:34:18 ↗ out there and more people that we

1:34:20 ↗ require it and so this is an

1:34:22 ↗ added feature to the house uh and i i

1:34:26 ↗ just

1:34:26 ↗ uh i think we should look at that more

1:34:29 ↗ closely

1:34:29 ↗ and i know that uh we're not

1:34:33 ↗ allowed basically to look at single

1:34:36 ↗ family homes

1:34:37 ↗ but i think that having bellevue and

1:34:40 ↗ some of the other cities set the

1:34:42 ↗ precedent

1:34:42 ↗ and with the knowledge that the powers

1:34:45 ↗ of b

1:34:46 ↗ are going to be looking at this this

1:34:47 ↗ year i think

1:34:49 ↗ we should be looking at that to put an

1:34:52 ↗ incentive to the builder

1:34:55 ↗ to put in ev

1:34:59 ↗ capable wiring you're going to give the

1:35:05 ↗ incentive to the builder his cost will

1:35:08 ↗ be less

1:35:09 ↗ but once the homeowner buys the home

1:35:12 ↗ you're giving him a up

1:35:16 ↗ you're giving him uh instead of 300

1:35:19 ↗ you're giving him 1200

1:35:22 ↗ and that's not fair either so you know

1:35:26 ↗ you have to look at a lot of things

1:35:29 ↗ in the way that are presented um i think

1:35:32 ↗ we have a lot of questions

1:35:35 ↗ and a lot of concerns from

1:35:38 ↗ what we should do with affordable

1:35:40 ↗ housing

1:35:42 ↗ i don't think the tod should be

1:35:45 ↗ restricted

1:35:46 ↗ or exempt from having

1:35:50 ↗ at least the capable

1:35:53 ↗ [Music]

1:35:55 ↗ wiring put in we're talking about new

1:35:57 ↗ construction though we're not

1:35:58 ↗ we're not talking about retrofit or

1:36:03 ↗ anything else we're basically talking

1:36:04 ↗ about what we should do

1:36:06 ↗ for new additional construction and

1:36:10 ↗ when you look at the

1:36:15 ↗ the numbers that are put out by what the

1:36:18 ↗ not only what's required but what the

1:36:20 ↗ automotive industry is requires

1:36:23 ↗ suggesting that in a short amount of

1:36:25 ↗ time

1:36:27 ↗ 30 or 40 percent or more of their cars

1:36:30 ↗ that are going to be

1:36:32 ↗ built are going to be either

1:36:35 ↗ electrical or some

1:36:39 ↗ some hybrid

1:36:42 ↗ to that and very soon we're not going to

1:36:46 ↗ have the option

1:36:47 ↗ and to be able to say issaquah highlands

1:36:51 ↗ started

1:36:52 ↗ years ago in making uh green

1:36:56 ↗ uh important in the development

1:37:00 ↗ which has spread to all of issaquah and

1:37:02 ↗ then spread

1:37:03 ↗ out everywhere i think that as a leader

1:37:05 ↗ we should be

1:37:07 ↗ looking at more specific things to do

1:37:11 ↗ to help

1:37:14 ↗ climate change we also have to look at

1:37:19 ↗ we don't but the legislature has to look

1:37:22 ↗ at you're

1:37:22 ↗ you're taking gas guzzling

1:37:26 ↗ cars off the road you're olymp you're

1:37:29 ↗ downgrading a lot of the gas that's sold

1:37:32 ↗ which the taxes on gas go to do the

1:37:36 ↗ infrastructure and even with

1:37:38 ↗ electric cars you still need the

1:37:41 ↗ infrastructure

1:37:42 ↗ so all of these things have to be put

1:37:44 ↗ together and

1:37:46 ↗ i don't think that we are in a position

1:37:48 ↗ to

1:37:49 ↗ uh to actually make some decisions or

1:37:53 ↗ recommendations on this so i'd like to

1:37:55 ↗ go back to the

1:37:57 ↗ feedback request and

1:38:01 ↗ ask all of you to

1:38:04 ↗ pay more attention of these questions so

1:38:07 ↗ that we can

1:38:10 ↗ get some more agreement

1:38:14 ↗ and maybe some ideas going um

1:38:21 ↗ i think we've gone way in different

1:38:24 ↗ directions and we're

1:38:26 ↗ we're getting different ideas and i like

1:38:28 ↗ to

1:38:29 ↗ kind of come to some kind of conclusion

1:38:31 ↗ maybe not tonight

1:38:32 ↗ but to stimulate some more discussion

1:38:35 ↗ because i think it really needs more

1:38:37 ↗ discussion

1:38:40 ↗ there have been two sides and maybe well

1:38:43 ↗ we should look at something about

1:38:45 ↗ what other options

1:38:48 ↗ or what other ways can we

1:38:51 ↗ put this together so that we eventually

1:38:54 ↗ come up with

1:38:55 ↗ a a goal a

1:38:59 ↗ a code that meets

1:39:04 ↗ now and in the future i i like the fact

1:39:07 ↗ that

1:39:08 ↗ um you know it's hard to

1:39:12 ↗ put in some requirements

1:39:15 ↗ where you if you put in

1:39:18 ↗ more charging stations you can downgrade

1:39:22 ↗ the number of parking spaces that you

1:39:23 ↗ need besides

1:39:25 ↗ the charging stations

1:39:29 ↗ well you're going to

1:39:32 ↗ charge your car for a couple hours but

1:39:34 ↗ you need a place

1:39:35 ↗ for it to go and so in the

1:39:38 ↗ tod development you are downgrading the

1:39:42 ↗ number of

1:39:43 ↗ parking spaces that are required then

1:39:44 ↗ you're going to downgrade again

1:39:46 ↗ to provide more charging stations

1:39:50 ↗ so what is the happy median

1:39:53 ↗ so i'd like you to look at those three

1:39:58 ↗ things that are on the screen now and

1:40:00 ↗ see if there's anything

1:40:02 ↗ else that you want to add i do have a

1:40:05 ↗ comment from

1:40:07 ↗ uh senior plant or leasing

1:40:11 ↗ hi i was just actually wondering maybe

1:40:13 ↗ if uh

1:40:14 ↗ megan curtis murphy could just sort of

1:40:17 ↗ summarize

1:40:18 ↗ what she has on those three topics and

1:40:20 ↗ that might help you all

1:40:22 ↗ um to focus and see if there's anything

1:40:23 ↗ missing but there were a lot of comments

1:40:25 ↗ so i don't know

1:40:26 ↗ megan if you were able to capture i hope

1:40:28 ↗ i think you were able to capture them

1:40:29 ↗ all but

1:40:29 ↗ um that may help

1:40:33 ↗ sure yes this is begging curtis murphy

1:40:35 ↗ i'd be happy to do that

1:40:37 ↗ um and again i'm probably not going to

1:40:39 ↗ capture everything everyone said but i

1:40:41 ↗ have written down a lot of the great

1:40:43 ↗ ideas we heard tonight and i really

1:40:45 ↗ appreciate

1:40:46 ↗ um the way that we have focused in on

1:40:48 ↗ these questions so thank you for that

1:40:50 ↗ um so some things that i am hearing um

1:40:53 ↗ going through this list for the use of

1:40:55 ↗ incentives for single family and town

1:40:57 ↗ homes

1:40:58 ↗ um it sounds like there is some desire

1:41:00 ↗ that if we could

1:41:01 ↗ um turn this into a requirement in some

1:41:04 ↗ way that

1:41:05 ↗ um uh some commissioners would be

1:41:08 ↗ interested in that

1:41:09 ↗ um there's some overall thought that

1:41:11 ↗ incentives are they really needed

1:41:13 ↗ for this type of housing um either

1:41:16 ↗ because

1:41:17 ↗ it's already going to be sold for

1:41:21 ↗ a high cost do they really need this

1:41:22 ↗ additional incentive

1:41:24 ↗ or should the incentives be used for

1:41:26 ↗ other purposes such as retrofits or

1:41:28 ↗ maybe affordable housing

1:41:30 ↗ so to dig into this a little bit more

1:41:32 ↗ with some information

1:41:35 ↗ for the use of a waiver for affordable

1:41:37 ↗ housing units

1:41:38 ↗ um i'm hearing a lot of of

1:41:42 ↗ comments about equity and wanting to

1:41:44 ↗ make sure that

1:41:45 ↗ the group of people living here would

1:41:47 ↗ have access to

1:41:48 ↗ ebs as they are becoming more and more

1:41:51 ↗ common

1:41:52 ↗ um but also hearing that affordable

1:41:55 ↗ housing is really expensive

1:41:57 ↗ and and we need to think about that

1:41:59 ↗ angle too

1:42:00 ↗ um and however it is also required in

1:42:04 ↗ the city

1:42:05 ↗ so um we are going to be getting it as

1:42:08 ↗ commissioner milligan was saying

1:42:09 ↗ um so you know does uh does it need to

1:42:12 ↗ be waived or not for that purpose so

1:42:14 ↗ i am hearing kind of both sides of that

1:42:17 ↗ so i think um

1:42:18 ↗ wanting more information on that about

1:42:21 ↗ what more of the costs are

1:42:23 ↗ um if ev capable might be an option here

1:42:26 ↗ some more information on that and then

1:42:29 ↗ also

1:42:30 ↗ if we are going to be keeping the waiver

1:42:32 ↗ um wanting to hear more information

1:42:34 ↗ about some sort of public plan for

1:42:36 ↗ charging um you know are they able to

1:42:38 ↗ use the chargers in the transit system

1:42:40 ↗ the transit station or um or other

1:42:43 ↗ ways to get public access so that

1:42:46 ↗ they're not precluded from

1:42:47 ↗ having eb's in the future even if there

1:42:49 ↗ is the waiver

1:42:51 ↗ um last for the whether the tod project

1:42:55 ↗ should be handled differently in the

1:42:56 ↗ ordinance

1:42:57 ↗ um i think overall i'm hearing

1:43:00 ↗ that they shouldn't necessarily be

1:43:03 ↗ handled differently

1:43:04 ↗ um that you know some of them include

1:43:07 ↗ affordable housing a lot do a lot don't

1:43:10 ↗ but that there doesn't necessarily need

1:43:13 ↗ to be

1:43:14 ↗ special consideration for that type of

1:43:17 ↗ project and again it sounds like maybe

1:43:20 ↗ some more information about

1:43:22 ↗ evie capable might be another option for

1:43:24 ↗ this type of project

1:43:26 ↗ um or the others so again i am sure i

1:43:29 ↗ have not captured everything that was

1:43:31 ↗ said i

1:43:32 ↗ have more written down and can

1:43:33 ↗ definitely um re-watch for more of the

1:43:35 ↗ comments but i hope i was able to

1:43:37 ↗ capture

1:43:38 ↗ some of those but if there's anything on

1:43:40 ↗ any big items i'm missing i would

1:43:42 ↗ be interested in hearing those

1:43:47 ↗ does anybody else

1:43:51 ↗ have any questions or comments

1:43:56 ↗ commissioner boyce

1:44:01 ↗ i think commissioner fowle's in front of

1:44:03 ↗ me but i do have a comment any question

1:44:10 ↗ well i know you'd like to go after

1:44:13 ↗ commissioner file so

1:44:16 ↗ commissioner would you have do you have

1:44:18 ↗ a question

1:44:19 ↗ darn thank you madam mayor it's

1:44:22 ↗ commissioner fall

1:44:23 ↗ so um i just lost my

1:44:27 ↗ we just lost the questions that we had

1:44:30 ↗ well

1:44:31 ↗ i think i remember it so the use for um

1:44:34 ↗ the incentives for single family and

1:44:35 ↗ townhomes i'm i'm against that i don't

1:44:37 ↗ think we need it

1:44:39 ↗ retrofits uh if you're going to be

1:44:42 ↗ replacing a breaker panel

1:44:44 ↗ if you're going to be doing any kind of

1:44:45 ↗ major electrical work

1:44:47 ↗ the dick the cost difference between 125

1:44:50 ↗ amp breaker panel which is probably what

1:44:52 ↗ most town houses have

1:44:53 ↗ 200 amp panels for what most single

1:44:56 ↗ family homes have

1:44:58 ↗ a 250 amp panel that would allow you to

1:45:00 ↗ have an ev car

1:45:01 ↗ the cost difference we're talking 10 or

1:45:04 ↗ 20 dollars for a panel so

1:45:06 ↗ we're not talking about a lot of cost i

1:45:08 ↗ think any time anyone

1:45:10 ↗ upgrades their panel should be a

1:45:11 ↗ requirement to have pv capability

1:45:15 ↗ capability installed

1:45:18 ↗ it doesn't have to be wired for it so

1:45:21 ↗ much but they just they have to have

1:45:23 ↗ the capacity to be able to handle it i

1:45:25 ↗ think that would be

1:45:27 ↗ a great move forward and as far as the

1:45:29 ↗ tod

1:45:30 ↗ project to

1:45:35 ↗ making curtis murphy's comment

1:45:38 ↗ if we share

1:45:42 ↗ ev capacity with a transit center

1:45:46 ↗ then we don't have to remove any

1:45:50 ↗ long-term parking spaces possibly from

1:45:53 ↗ the tod development because i don't want

1:45:55 ↗ to remove car

1:45:55 ↗ capacity i know the intent of a tod

1:45:59 ↗ is that we get people on the bus or

1:46:01 ↗ alternative transportation instead of

1:46:03 ↗ driving a car but

1:46:04 ↗ if you look at atlas half those people

1:46:06 ↗ are parking in the safeway parking lot

1:46:08 ↗ or on the street because there just

1:46:09 ↗ isn't enough capacity because we

1:46:12 ↗ didn't provide enough parking but

1:46:15 ↗ i don't want to remove parking spaces

1:46:17 ↗ for ev

1:46:18 ↗ if we can share it with the transit

1:46:20 ↗ center so i think that would be

1:46:22 ↗ a great option and we can leverage

1:46:25 ↗ economies of scale across

1:46:26 ↗ both projects

1:46:30 ↗ thank you

1:46:34 ↗ i think it would be nice to require the

1:46:36 ↗ transit center to have

1:46:38 ↗ very fast charging capabilities

1:46:42 ↗ otherwise you'll drive in park your car

1:46:45 ↗ leave it there uh for hours

1:46:48 ↗ for the entire day so we have to

1:46:52 ↗ look at what kind of charging stations

1:46:56 ↗ there

1:46:56 ↗ actually are in there that would be

1:46:58 ↗ beneficial so now we will have a comment

1:47:00 ↗ from

1:47:01 ↗ commission royce

1:47:05 ↗ thank you madam chair um so first of all

1:47:09 ↗ just let me

1:47:10 ↗ talking about the incentives for single

1:47:12 ↗ family and townhomes

1:47:13 ↗ my understanding at the very beginning

1:47:15 ↗ of this presentation is that's a moot

1:47:17 ↗ point

1:47:18 ↗ we're not allowed to go above and beyond

1:47:20 ↗ the building codes but i don't know how

1:47:21 ↗ belgium got away with it

1:47:22 ↗ but my understanding is that we can't do

1:47:24 ↗ that if i'm wrong let me know but

1:47:27 ↗ to the chairs point yes in a single

1:47:31 ↗ family house

1:47:32 ↗ let's say the cost is 975 dollars yes a

1:47:36 ↗ builder can absorb that when they're

1:47:37 ↗ selling a 700

1:47:38 ↗ 000 house i don't think anybody has a

1:47:40 ↗ problem with that regulation

1:47:42 ↗ i think where we where we might have a

1:47:44 ↗ difference of opinions is when you start

1:47:46 ↗ getting into

1:47:46 ↗ the apartments the affordable housing

1:47:48 ↗ and i do appreciate chris

1:47:50 ↗ you got miss leeson's point that

1:47:53 ↗ um there are regulations you know you

1:47:55 ↗ have to build a certain amount of

1:47:57 ↗ affordable housing

1:47:58 ↗ however if you look at the the price

1:48:00 ↗ chart

1:48:02 ↗ this these are all per space so a total

1:48:05 ↗ cost range for new construction is three

1:48:08 ↗ thousand dollars

1:48:10 ↗ per space yet the requirements

1:48:13 ↗ are in percentages so if five percent of

1:48:16 ↗ your parking lot needs to be evse ready

1:48:19 ↗ and another thirty percent uh need to be

1:48:22 ↗ ev ready at fifteen hundred dollars yes

1:48:25 ↗ that's much more significant than a

1:48:27 ↗ single family house

1:48:28 ↗ and that's what i think we need more

1:48:30 ↗ literature as far as when it comes to

1:48:31 ↗ the affordable housing

1:48:33 ↗ um and again i'm okay with having the

1:48:35 ↗ percentages there for the multi-families

1:48:38 ↗ but that i think is the point is it's

1:48:40 ↗ one thing to do it in a single car

1:48:42 ↗ garage

1:48:42 ↗ even a double car garage it's quite

1:48:45 ↗ another when we're talking about

1:48:46 ↗ percentages of parking lots

1:48:49 ↗ so that's where i'd like to see more

1:48:50 ↗ literature as far as getting feedback

1:48:52 ↗ for these three questions

1:48:53 ↗ um the tod projects like i said i just i

1:48:57 ↗ i think i would need more information as

1:49:00 ↗ far as how that works

1:49:02 ↗ being intertwined with affordable

1:49:04 ↗ housing and whatnot

1:49:06 ↗ i think all of us would agree that

1:49:08 ↗ having a public spaces where you can

1:49:10 ↗ charge your cars would be beneficial

1:49:12 ↗ the chair just mentioned something

1:49:14 ↗ towards the end about having level three

1:49:16 ↗ charging and that price

1:49:18 ↗ jumps exponentially so again it's one

1:49:21 ↗ thing when we're talking about a single

1:49:22 ↗ residential which

1:49:24 ↗ i thought was a moot point myself um i

1:49:27 ↗ thought we couldn't jump the shark

1:49:29 ↗ if we can it's not a big deal but again

1:49:31 ↗ we're talking about percentages of

1:49:33 ↗ parking spots and that does start adding

1:49:34 ↗ up very quickly

1:49:35 ↗ and i again i'm comfortable with the 30

1:49:38 ↗ the 10

1:49:39 ↗ but when we start talking about the 50

1:49:41 ↗ we're talking big numbers

1:49:43 ↗ and that's why i'm very appreciative uh

1:49:46 ↗ commissioner carl's point

1:49:47 ↗ about what let's look at ev

1:49:50 ↗ capable and that's the one thing we

1:49:52 ↗ don't have

1:49:54 ↗ a price chart for so

1:49:57 ↗ that's my piece thank you

1:50:00 ↗ so we have a comment from

1:50:05 ↗ uh

1:50:08 ↗ miss lisa i i think that may have been

1:50:12 ↗ from before i do not have a comment

1:50:14 ↗ thank you

1:50:17 ↗ okay i have a comment from commissioner

1:50:19 ↗ lewis

1:50:21 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here um

1:50:23 ↗ megan i think you did a really nice job

1:50:25 ↗ summarizing up um

1:50:26 ↗ a lot of what we've been throwing at you

1:50:28 ↗ um i didn't want to reiterate one of my

1:50:30 ↗ points

1:50:30 ↗ and if no one else agrees with it that's

1:50:32 ↗ okay um

1:50:33 ↗ but it's pretty common um historically

1:50:36 ↗ from where we sit

1:50:37 ↗ that we look at a lot of broad things

1:50:38 ↗ and we ask other commissions

1:50:41 ↗ and boards to give us opinions on nitty

1:50:43 ↗ gritty right so

1:50:44 ↗ whether that be the development

1:50:45 ↗ commission our previous rivers and

1:50:47 ↗ streams

1:50:48 ↗ it's very common for us to say hey can

1:50:49 ↗ you deep dive into this when you're

1:50:51 ↗ looking at this so when it comes back to

1:50:52 ↗ us

1:50:53 ↗ we know what your recommendation is and

1:50:55 ↗ i'd really like to

1:50:56 ↗ have um a fine-tooth recommendation on a

1:51:00 ↗ couple of these things from our

1:51:01 ↗ environmental board

1:51:03 ↗ they are sitting in a position that

1:51:04 ↗ we're not and it's a great one for them

1:51:07 ↗ to cut their teeth on right

1:51:08 ↗ for them to be able to say um staff is

1:51:10 ↗ giving us the recommendation

1:51:12 ↗ um let's really get the data on what

1:51:14 ↗ other municipalities have done on

1:51:16 ↗ incentive

1:51:16 ↗ versus requirement um this is what other

1:51:20 ↗ municipalities have gotten this is what

1:51:21 ↗ we're looking for and this is kind of

1:51:23 ↗ the strategy we want to go with right

1:51:26 ↗ um how do we want to jumpstart these

1:51:28 ↗ protections

1:51:29 ↗ um and i'd really like for them to get

1:51:31 ↗ more concrete data

1:51:33 ↗ then we've gotten here tonight and i'd

1:51:34 ↗ like them to be able to make a

1:51:35 ↗ recommendation of saying this is where

1:51:36 ↗ we want to incentivize

1:51:38 ↗ this is where we want to require so that

1:51:40 ↗ we have a better idea than going

1:51:42 ↗ um to council on this kind of on this

1:51:44 ↗ issue of where do we

1:51:46 ↗ where do we use our carrot where we use

1:51:47 ↗ our stick so i just had missed that from

1:51:50 ↗ when

1:51:50 ↗ you were summarizing your comments so i

1:51:52 ↗ just wanted to include everything

1:51:53 ↗ thank you

1:51:57 ↗ are there any more comments

1:52:00 ↗ have we given staff enough direction

1:52:07 ↗ this is megan curtis murphy yes this has

1:52:09 ↗ been very very helpful

1:52:10 ↗ um and yeah i look forward to talking

1:52:13 ↗ about it with the

1:52:14 ↗ environmental board next and providing

1:52:16 ↗ more answers to some of these questions

1:52:18 ↗ and the data

1:52:19 ↗ and then bringing it back to council on

1:52:22 ↗ february

1:52:22 ↗ 9th with more data as well

1:52:26 ↗ okay so um on january 28th we will have

1:52:30 ↗ a public hearing on uh

1:52:34 ↗ this specific thing um i'm sure that

1:52:37 ↗ we'll

1:52:38 ↗ get more information i have more

1:52:39 ↗ questions uh

1:52:43 ↗ at that time it's not an easy

1:52:46 ↗ it's not an easy fix and so um i

1:52:48 ↗ appreciate all the comments

1:52:50 ↗ i think the council

1:52:54 ↗ appreciates the time and

1:52:57 ↗ interest you have listening to the

1:53:00 ↗ council session on tuesday night um

1:53:04 ↗ i was really um uh

1:53:08 ↗ excited maybe that's not the right word

1:53:10 ↗ about

1:53:11 ↗ the what the council actually thinks

1:53:15 ↗ of the ability of ppc

1:53:18 ↗ to dig into the subject and

1:53:21 ↗ provide some comments when you look at

1:53:23 ↗ the city council they have 12

1:53:25 ↗ issues to look at at one time we are

1:53:28 ↗ looking at one specifically and so we

1:53:30 ↗ have the time to do it so

1:53:32 ↗ i really appreciate some of the comments

1:53:34 ↗ that they've been saying

1:53:35 ↗ um uh in the last

1:53:39 ↗ well a couple months especially about

1:53:42 ↗ the

1:53:42 ↗ power of ppc in uh

1:53:46 ↗ helping to provide some guidance

1:53:50 ↗ not only from ppc but for the community

1:53:52 ↗ so that the

1:53:54 ↗ council can make the final uh decision

1:53:57 ↗ on all this so

1:53:58 ↗ um is there any

1:54:02 ↗ comments for the the good of the order

1:54:06 ↗ before we talk about the upcoming

1:54:10 ↗ schedule

1:54:11 ↗ in more detail

1:54:15 ↗ okay does the staff

1:54:19 ↗ have any other

1:54:22 ↗ any comments to make that we should

1:54:26 ↗ to direct us to do anything

1:54:29 ↗ more specific on these issues

1:54:33 ↗ nope okay so um

1:54:37 ↗ i guess we're gonna

1:54:42 ↗ is there a um

1:54:45 ↗ a coming from commissioner lewis or is

1:54:48 ↗ that one that we've already

1:54:49 ↗ nope okay so with that we're going to

1:54:52 ↗ end the discussion on this particular

1:54:54 ↗ topic and thank you awesome

1:54:57 ↗ feedback um i'm going to ask kristen to

1:55:01 ↗ uh talk about the upcoming schedule the

1:55:04 ↗ calendar of events

1:55:07 ↗ hi this is kristin leeson senior planner

1:55:09 ↗ um

1:55:10 ↗ i do want to note i think uh

1:55:14 ↗ chair pueblo may have just said that we

1:55:15 ↗ have a public hearing on this on the

1:55:17 ↗ 28th but we do not

1:55:20 ↗ not sure when that's going to happen it

1:55:21 ↗ was supposed to happen february

1:55:23 ↗ 3rd but that might be changing depending

1:55:25 ↗ on what happens at

1:55:27 ↗ the environmental board and

1:55:30 ↗ the city council study session on the

1:55:32 ↗ 9th so

1:55:34 ↗ i'll keep you posted the schedule has

1:55:35 ↗ changed quite a few times this week so

1:55:39 ↗ i didn't want to put anything else out

1:55:40 ↗ there because it just keeps changing

1:55:42 ↗ um i do want to say on the 28th

1:55:46 ↗ next at our next meeting we're having a

1:55:48 ↗ public hearing on the comprehensive plan

1:55:50 ↗ and sony map amendment docket

1:55:54 ↗ we were also supposed to talk about

1:55:55 ↗ signs however

1:55:58 ↗ that's one of the things that's changed

1:55:59 ↗ this week and we're no longer talking

1:56:00 ↗ about signs so i will let you know now

1:56:02 ↗ the docket will probably take about 15

1:56:04 ↗ minutes

1:56:05 ↗ so i am going to request from you all is

1:56:08 ↗ there anything that you

1:56:10 ↗ would like to talk about at that meeting

1:56:13 ↗ where you feel like you don't have

1:56:14 ↗ enough information it's something that

1:56:16 ↗ you've always wanted to talk about and

1:56:17 ↗ we don't i think we've asked you all

1:56:19 ↗ about this let us know if there's

1:56:20 ↗ something else that you want to talk

1:56:21 ↗ about and we can put it on that agenda

1:56:24 ↗ not the color of the sky or why the

1:56:26 ↗ sky's blue

1:56:30 ↗ so just to be clear

1:56:33 ↗ will this be coming back to

1:56:36 ↗ us before city council makes a decision

1:56:40 ↗ yes there will be a public hearing here

1:56:43 ↗ at ppc okay but you are going back to

1:56:47 ↗ city council

1:56:48 ↗ before um it comes back to us

1:56:53 ↗ it is going back for a study session yes

1:56:57 ↗ on february 9th okay just

1:57:00 ↗ just to be clear that uh yeah

1:57:04 ↗ we will the next time we talk about it

1:57:06 ↗ we will have feedback from the city

1:57:08 ↗ council

1:57:12 ↗ okay so um

1:57:15 ↗ that handles the calendar i have a quick

1:57:17 ↗ question on our calendar

1:57:18 ↗ um i know there's a lot of tbd so i'm

1:57:21 ↗ kind of curious if one of

1:57:22 ↗ some of those tvd's are going to be

1:57:25 ↗ storm water

1:57:26 ↗ if they're going to be deep diving into

1:57:28 ↗ title 18 some of the things that in

1:57:30 ↗ 2019 and in 2020 we were like this is

1:57:33 ↗ when we're gonna get to it

1:57:34 ↗ um if we're looking for a placeholder

1:57:36 ↗ and if it's going to be hitting us this

1:57:38 ↗ year

1:57:39 ↗ um if you're looking for a filler for

1:57:41 ↗ the 28th what i would recommend

1:57:44 ↗ right now is that we have a lot of

1:57:45 ↗ wonderful new people joining our

1:57:47 ↗ commission and some of these things

1:57:48 ↗ are big right so it might be nice to say

1:57:52 ↗ while we're not presenting to you what

1:57:54 ↗ we're proposing right now

1:57:55 ↗ let's have a little bit of an education

1:57:57 ↗ about what um

1:57:58 ↗ what our comp plan looks like right so

1:58:00 ↗ for some of us who have done it year

1:58:01 ↗ after year

1:58:02 ↗ um it's like riding a bike it's actually

1:58:05 ↗ fun but for someone who hasn't looked at

1:58:07 ↗ it it can be a lot to chew so if you're

1:58:08 ↗ looking for a night to kind of say

1:58:10 ↗ let's have a little bit of education

1:58:12 ↗ let's talk about how these things work

1:58:13 ↗ let's talk about where we've been

1:58:15 ↗ a little history it might be a good

1:58:16 ↗ point maybe not um but just a

1:58:18 ↗ recommendation

1:58:24 ↗ this is kristen lisa that sounds good we

1:58:26 ↗ can do that um

1:58:30 ↗ we i will let you know you asked about

1:58:32 ↗ title 18 and some other things

1:58:33 ↗ stormwater i don't think we'll be coming

1:58:35 ↗ back this year that's i'm going to take

1:58:36 ↗ a little bit longer

1:58:38 ↗ you will see a lot of megan curtis

1:58:40 ↗ murphy because they are also creating a

1:58:42 ↗ climate change plan this year and that

1:58:44 ↗ is going to affect the comprehensive

1:58:45 ↗ plan policies

1:58:47 ↗ so both of those things both the climate

1:58:49 ↗ change plan

1:58:50 ↗ and the policy amendments will be coming

1:58:52 ↗ to city council probably in june

1:58:56 ↗ we have title 18 i think i just

1:58:59 ↗ mentioned will be coming

1:59:01 ↗ if andrea snyder would like to add to

1:59:03 ↗ that we're going to start some changes

1:59:05 ↗ in 2021 initially we had these big plans

1:59:09 ↗ being done this year but you know

1:59:10 ↗ coveted and

1:59:12 ↗ so it's going to extend into 2022 but

1:59:15 ↗ there will be some things that are done

1:59:16 ↗ this year

1:59:17 ↗ and there's andrea uh let her speak

1:59:23 ↗ uh thank you kristen so for title 18

1:59:26 ↗ we are um about

1:59:30 ↗ to hit publish on our rsq um

1:59:33 ↗ for consultant firms that would be

1:59:35 ↗ helping us with it

1:59:36 ↗ and so um it's a little difficult for us

1:59:39 ↗ to

1:59:40 ↗ nail down topics uh and commission dates

1:59:44 ↗ when we need we need to get them on

1:59:47 ↗ board

1:59:48 ↗ and to really use some of their

1:59:51 ↗ expertise to also help hammer out

1:59:53 ↗ a public engagement plan but i think

1:59:55 ↗ what we do anticipate

1:59:57 ↗ are some joint meetings

2:00:01 ↗ between the environmental board and

2:00:03 ↗ development commission

2:00:04 ↗ on some topics of course every topic

2:00:07 ↗ with title 18 is going to come to this

2:00:10 ↗ lucky

2:00:10 ↗ very thoughtful group so there might be

2:00:14 ↗ some things that are really more

2:00:18 ↗ exclusively in ppc's wheelhouse or that

2:00:20 ↗ we will do

2:00:21 ↗ other types of public engagement on

2:00:24 ↗ before it comes to you

2:00:25 ↗ for your consideration and discussion so

2:00:28 ↗ we we need to kind of finalize those

2:00:30 ↗ plans

2:00:31 ↗ and we need our consultant group on

2:00:33 ↗ board to do that

2:00:34 ↗ what we had imagined is that we would do

2:00:37 ↗ the bulk of

2:00:38 ↗ the public engagement this year

2:00:41 ↗ with still going through the approval

2:00:44 ↗ process

2:00:45 ↗ of which you are a major critical and

2:00:48 ↗ necessary component

2:00:50 ↗ the following year so we do anticipate

2:00:53 ↗ uh

2:00:53 ↗ title 18 which is uh the land use code

2:00:57 ↗ um we do anticipate that work to

2:01:00 ↗ absolutely spill over

2:01:02 ↗ into 2022 um so there's going

2:01:05 ↗ but we're trying to figure out exactly

2:01:07 ↗ when those topics will come to you for

2:01:09 ↗ discussion

2:01:11 ↗ i think a lot of it will be next year

2:01:13 ↗ but certainly you'll see some of it

2:01:15 ↗ in 21 as well

2:01:21 ↗ this is kristen lisa and again just

2:01:22 ↗ adding on to the schedule and things

2:01:23 ↗ that you all

2:01:24 ↗ will be seeing this year at some point

2:01:26 ↗ we will talk housing strategy

2:01:28 ↗ um that may come up again we may also

2:01:30 ↗ talk uh growth targets are being

2:01:32 ↗ discussed this year that process is just

2:01:34 ↗ beginning but because

2:01:36 ↗ that is always a hot topic at ppc we

2:01:38 ↗ will bring that to you all

2:01:40 ↗ as well for an education piece and um

2:01:43 ↗ central isoqua monitoring report hasn't

2:01:45 ↗ been done in a while so that will come

2:01:46 ↗ to you as well this year yeah

2:01:50 ↗ um that's all i have for the schedule i

2:01:53 ↗ do have quick

2:01:54 ↗ one quick report if you'd like to hear

2:01:56 ↗ it

2:01:58 ↗ of course so the uh

2:02:01 ↗ on tuesday night we took the old town

2:02:03 ↗ architectural standards for single

2:02:05 ↗ family duplex to

2:02:06 ↗ the city council meeting and they

2:02:10 ↗ liked it so there were two two comments

2:02:13 ↗ at the end one had to do with just

2:02:15 ↗ concerned with making sure that

2:02:17 ↗ buildings

2:02:17 ↗ are not big box buildings that there's

2:02:19 ↗ not a huge expanse of just flat wall

2:02:21 ↗ that there's some modulation in there

2:02:22 ↗ but i think the code

2:02:24 ↗ or the standards covered that and then

2:02:26 ↗ another concern that perhaps the

2:02:28 ↗ choice of just limiting the colors to

2:02:31 ↗ three

2:02:32 ↗ it may be too prescriptive but i think

2:02:35 ↗ i think we've got that covered as well

2:02:37 ↗ um so that's going to go back on

2:02:39 ↗ february 1st to the city council for

2:02:41 ↗ action

2:02:43 ↗ andrew did you have anything else to oh

2:02:45 ↗ sorry

2:02:47 ↗ no so following up on um

2:02:51 ↗ what the council said in regards to the

2:02:57 ↗ old town standards

2:03:01 ↗ they were all in agreement i think to

2:03:04 ↗ forward it onto council to get their

2:03:05 ↗ final vote

2:03:07 ↗ i would like to reiterate the fact that

2:03:10 ↗ 90 of everything that's in that

2:03:14 ↗ new code was

2:03:18 ↗ formulated at our january walk around

2:03:21 ↗ when we had 40 people many of whom were

2:03:25 ↗ members of the community and these were

2:03:28 ↗ their suggestions we just formalized

2:03:31 ↗ them and

2:03:32 ↗ and made them work and put them together

2:03:36 ↗ but i hope that once it does come to

2:03:39 ↗ to a vote a city council that they

2:03:41 ↗ understand that you know

2:03:42 ↗ a lot of people have worked on it and

2:03:44 ↗ approved

2:03:46 ↗ prove the suggestions in that

2:03:50 ↗ new possible requirement for old town

2:03:54 ↗ so i'm hoping they do that um

2:03:58 ↗ do you have anything else to

2:04:01 ↗ if not i'm going to open public comments

2:04:04 ↗ and just ask

2:04:05 ↗ uh kristen if there is anybody signed i

2:04:07 ↗ don't see anybody but is there anybody

2:04:09 ↗ signed

2:04:10 ↗ up to speak there is no one signed up to

2:04:12 ↗ speak tonight

2:04:14 ↗ okay so i didn't forget asking for that

2:04:17 ↗ so

2:04:18 ↗ i'm right on schedule here if there's

2:04:21 ↗ nothing

2:04:21 ↗ else um if they're seeing no comments

2:04:25 ↗ uh nothing for the good of the order i'm

2:04:28 ↗ going to call the meeting to close

2:04:31 ↗ at 8 36

2:04:34 ↗ and wish you oh one other thing um

2:04:38 ↗ since this is going to the

2:04:42 ↗ uh council study session on

2:04:45 ↗ the 9th i would hope that you all tune

2:04:48 ↗ in and listen to

2:04:49 ↗ the council suggestions at that time

2:04:53 ↗ so that uh either have us have more

2:04:56 ↗ questions or

2:04:58 ↗ settle some of the things that we do

2:04:59 ↗ have have now so

2:05:01 ↗ i would hope uh that you would all tune

2:05:04 ↗ in for that on the

2:05:05 ↗ on the night and maybe kristen can send

2:05:07 ↗ out a um

2:05:09 ↗ a reminder to everybody so with that

2:05:13 ↗ i can send you the links excuse me i'm

2:05:15 ↗ sorry um this is kristen leeson i can

2:05:16 ↗ send you the links to both the

2:05:17 ↗ environmental board meeting

2:05:19 ↗ once they've had that because that will

2:05:20 ↗ also be filmed and to the city council

2:05:22 ↗ meeting

2:05:24 ↗ thank you i think the more we know about

2:05:27 ↗ what's going on in the other

2:05:29 ↗ other commissions helps us and our

2:05:32 ↗ questions that we

2:05:33 ↗ ask in this particular commission so

2:05:36 ↗ even though i called the meeting to a

2:05:38 ↗ close at 8 36

2:05:39 ↗ i'm going to change it to 8 37 to allow

2:05:42 ↗ all of these uh little things that i've

2:05:45 ↗ brought up here to

2:05:46 ↗ be part of the meeting so um thank you

2:05:49 ↗ all

2:05:50 ↗ so the meeting is adjourned and i thank

2:05:53 ↗ you for all your comments

2:05:55 ↗ outstanding meeting everybody awesome

2:05:58 ↗ see you next time y'all thank you nice

2:06:01 ↗ to meet you everybody

2:06:02 ↗ welcome goodbye

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (1)

Administration/

Staff (1)

Joan Probala, Chair Christen Leeson, Sr. Planner Ron Faul, Vice Chair Megan Curtis-Murphy, Sr. Sustainability Janice Carle Coordinator Joy Lewis Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator Nina Milligan Matt Monahan Jason Voiss Richard Zaragoza, Alternate