← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, March 11, 2021

6:30 PM · 2h 43m
Topic tracked across meetings:
County-wide Planning Policies and Growth Targets, (I) AB 7048 3/3
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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,…
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of Jan. 28, 2021
packet pp.5–8
Staff report:
MILLIGAN asked for more details about the redesignation application just received yesterday, and how it fits into the Comprehensive Plan amendments review and approval process. Leeson described the opportunities going forward for the public to comment on the proposal, including at PPC’s next public hearing on the amendments.
2a
Proposed Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure, (A)
60 min · Megan Curtis-Murphy, Senior Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.9–43
Topics: Climate
Staff report:
Increasing EV infrastructure was identified as a priority at the Community Convening on Climate held in July of 2020. It was also identified in previous city plans and policies. At the Oct. 19, 2020 Council Meeting, the City Council requested an EV charging ordinance proposal to come to them in January 2021. Increasing EV charging infrastructure in new buildings and substantial retrofits will help encourage the growth in EV usage among residents, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
4. REGULAR BUSINESS
4a
County-wide Planning Policies and Growth Targets, (I)
30 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.45–55
Staff report:
The purpose of the March 11 meeting is to inform the Planning Policy Commission of the current updates and processes regarding the Countywide Planning Policies and Growth Targets. Because growth targets are adopted in and monitored annually as part of the comprehensive plan, it is important that PPC have a good understanding of the numbers, their genesis, and the reason behind them.
5. REPORTS
5a
City Council Updates
5 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner
7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
7a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.57–58
Staff report:
FEBRUARY AUGUST 2/11/21 Cancelled 8/12/21  2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Land Use Element: Climate Change policies 2/25/21 Cancelled 8/26/21  2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: Redesignations/Rezones MARCH SEPTEMBER 3/11/21  Public Hearing: Electric Vehicle Charging 9/9/21 TBD Stations  CPPs and Growth Targets Presentation (Informational) 3/25/21  PPC/EVC Joint Meeting: Title 18: Signs 9/23/21  Public Hearing: 2021 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments APRIL OCTOBER 4/8/21  Title 18: Amendments Overview 10/14/21  Public Hearing: 2021 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (continued) 4/22/21  Public Hearing: Signs Amendments 10/28/21 TBD MAY NOVEMBER 5/13/21  PPC Training 11/11/21 To be rescheduled (holiday)  Election of Officers 5/27/21 TBD 11/25/21 Cancelled (holiday) JUNE DECEMBER 6/10/21  2021 Comprhensive Plan Amendments: 12/9/21 TBD Olde Town Action…
0:00 this is the march 11th meeting the
0:03 planning policy commission
0:06 due to the governor's restrictions in
0:09 regard to
0:10 covid the meeting is held
0:13 remotely
0:16 today we're going to we have two
0:20 things to discuss the first one is the
0:24 eevee electrical vehicle charging
0:27 station
0:28 and then we will have a presentation by
0:30 a christian for
0:31 um planning policies and growth targets
0:35 uh for just a uh discussion but in the
0:38 in the way of the um
0:42 the meeting the way it's going to be
0:44 held is that
0:46 there there will be a presentation
0:50 by megan there will be a
0:54 public hearing once we close the public
0:58 hearing
0:59 we will have a discussion with the
1:02 commission
1:02 with the assumption that we will be
1:05 pending
1:06 a um a a
1:12 whatever to the city council and a
1:14 proposal to the city council
1:17 uh for what we have come up with so that
1:19 is what's going to happen
1:22 um for the public hearing and
1:25 a for the um
1:30 what is it called the um
1:38 there will be two error two times that
1:40 the publican
1:41 can make comments the first one in the
1:43 public hearing
1:44 or after we discuss the second
1:48 thing on our agenda there will be
1:50 another time for
1:52 public comment if anybody is
1:56 on the public wants to make any comments
1:58 the
1:59 directions are on the website
2:02 uh just hit star three if you want to
2:06 make a comment
2:07 please state your name your address and
2:10 if you're a
2:11 citizen of the city and you have
2:14 a limit of five min five minutes for
2:17 discussion
2:19 um with that i will
2:23 take the role
2:28 if i can pull up the screen so i can
2:30 make sure i get all of you uh
2:36 ron fowle please answer
2:40 yay
2:44 joy lewis yay
2:47 matt monaghan
2:54 jason boyce
2:59 yeah nina milligan
3:02 okay so we have a quorum
3:06 so that means that anybody who is an
3:09 alternate cannot
3:10 vote but we certainly encourage you to
3:13 be part of the discussion
3:16 with that i will ask megan
3:24 present what the city has in plans for
3:28 us in regard to oh first of all
3:31 i did it again
3:34 the minutes from last meeting
3:38 does anybody have any comments
3:42 editions none
3:45 hearing none the minutes are approved
3:47 and now we will go into the presentation
3:49 by megan curtis murphy uh in regard to
3:53 the
3:53 electric vehicle charging ordinance that
3:56 is being presented by the city
3:58 so megan take it away
4:10 thank you setting up my screen there
4:14 so good evening i'm megan curtis murphy
4:17 the senior sustainability coordinator
4:19 for the city
4:21 i'm hearing a little bit of feedback
4:25 uh if everyone could go on mute
4:33 oh great so i'm here this evening to
4:36 talk about the electric vehicle proposal
4:39 which i last talked about with the ppc
4:41 back in january
4:49 there we go so the purpose of the
4:51 meeting this evening is to discuss the
4:53 options and the administration's
4:54 recommended changes
4:56 to the ev proposal and conduct a public
4:58 hearing on the ordinance
5:00 i'll also provide some feedback that
5:02 we've received thus far on the proposal
5:06 so this evening we're looking for
5:08 feedback from ppc on the overall
5:10 proposal
5:11 but especially on the two recommended
5:13 options proposed by the administration
5:15 the first recommendation is on
5:17 affordable housing to meet ev
5:19 requirements but through a cost neutral
5:21 approach and the second recommendation
5:24 is to have no requirements for single
5:25 family and townhomes
5:27 we'll go into more depth on both of
5:29 these later in the presentation
5:32 so here's just a quick reminder about
5:34 some of the reasons we're proposing the
5:36 ordinance
5:37 the city has committed to reduce
5:39 greenhouse gas emissions
5:40 and increasing ev use in our region will
5:43 help us move closer to these goals
5:45 the city also has two plans the
5:47 sustainable building action strategy
5:49 and the mobility master plan that
5:51 include policies and strategies around
5:53 expanding the use of evs through code
5:56 updates
5:57 ev codes and requirements was also
5:59 identified by the community as a
6:01 priority
6:02 during the community convening on
6:03 climate last year
6:05 and there's also been a lot of coverage
6:07 in the media recently about electric
6:09 vehicles
6:10 for example three major car
6:11 manufacturers have recently committed to
6:13 increasing ev production
6:15 and the obayan administration plans to
6:17 invest heavily in
6:18 electric vehicles so by acting on the
6:21 ordnance now
6:22 we'll be preparing our buildings and our
6:24 residents for the increase in electric
6:26 vehicles that are coming to market
6:30 the table on this slide is an overview
6:32 of the percentages of ev infrastructure
6:34 that are included in the proposal so
6:36 just a reminder that ev
6:38 ready means there's the 240 volt circuit
6:40 that would allow for a charger to be
6:42 hooked up
6:43 and evse or electric vehicle supply
6:45 equipment
6:46 includes the charging equipment itself
6:48 which would allow someone to plug right
6:51 so overall the percentages are higher in
6:54 multi-family than in commercial
6:56 since the majority of people charge at
6:58 home however commercial charging is also
7:00 an important piece of the puzzle
7:03 and last there's requirements for both
7:05 new construction
7:06 and existing buildings going through a
7:08 substantial improvement
7:09 as well as for parking lots and parking
7:11 garages
7:15 back in january the administration
7:17 received feedback on the proposal from
7:19 the council
7:20 ppc the environmental board and members
7:22 of the public
7:24 we included a matrix of the main points
7:26 of discussion in the agenda packet
7:28 so overall most agreed that the ev
7:31 requirement percentages for multi-family
7:33 and commercial buildings are a good
7:35 starting point
7:36 but a few asked for increased
7:38 requirements next the city had proposed
7:41 an incentive for single-family and
7:42 townhomes since
7:44 the majority of people charge at home
7:46 however there was little support for
7:47 this and most
7:48 comments urge a city to require ev
7:50 readiness in single
7:52 family households if legally feasible
7:55 one reason against the incentive program
7:57 was that builders should already be
7:58 including ev infrastructure and projects
8:01 and another was it single-family home
8:03 incentives may not be the best use of
8:05 city dollars
8:06 and where it's most needed so for
8:10 affordable housing
8:11 the majority of feedback was that the
8:13 city should not waive the ev
8:14 requirements
8:15 as we talked about last time evs are
8:18 getting cheaper to buy and
8:19 own and could be a good way for people
8:21 to get around who can't rely on transit
8:25 so instead most people supported either
8:27 full or res
8:28 or reduced requirements for affordable
8:30 housing to ensure equitable access to
8:32 evs
8:34 and last there was little support for
8:35 exempting tods from requirements
8:40 the council reviewed the proposal again
8:42 on february 9th after receiving more
8:44 information on the main topics
8:46 most council members were still in favor
8:48 of removing the single-family incentive
8:51 council members then discussed the
8:52 attorney's member memo that recommended
8:55 against imposing single-family
8:57 requirements
8:58 and most but not all council members
9:00 were supportive of this recommendation
9:03 several council members also supported
9:04 collaborating with regional cities and
9:06 the state building code council
9:08 to work towards a statewide change that
9:10 would allow cities to establish
9:12 requirements for single-family homes
9:16 for affordable housing there were some
9:17 council members in favor of removing the
9:20 waiver for affordable housing and others
9:22 for reduced requirements
9:23 or more flexibility for projects
9:27 and last for tods most council members
9:29 were in favor of not making any changes
9:31 to the requirements
9:35 so here's a summary of the changes that
9:37 have been made to the ordinance
9:38 following the study session
9:41 the first is the removal of the single
9:42 family and townhome incentive
9:45 second no changes to tods have been made
9:48 so the ev
9:48 requirements will continue to apply to
9:50 them
9:51 third due to equity concerns the
9:54 administration retracted the waiver for
9:56 affordable housing
9:57 and instead the ordinance now includes a
9:59 new proposal
10:00 that provides more flexibility to keep
10:02 the eva infrastructure cost neutral
10:04 for affordable housing units and last
10:07 there was no change to the single family
10:09 requirements
10:12 so now to start talking a little bit
10:14 more about the options the first is for
10:16 affordable housing
10:18 so as mentioned in previous slides the
10:20 administration has removed this waiver
10:22 and we're now proposing that affordable
10:24 housing units meet ev
10:26 infrastructure requirements but allows
10:28 the builders to take cost reductions
10:31 reduction measures like reducing parking
10:33 spots and structured parking
10:35 in order to make it cost neutral if
10:37 these are not feasible there are
10:39 allowances for reduced parking lot
10:41 landscaping
10:42 or providing a portion of the stalls to
10:44 be ev capable this option is the
10:46 administration's recommendation
10:48 and is currently included in the
10:50 proposal
10:52 another option is to not have a waiver
10:54 for affordable housing
10:55 which would require them to meet 100
10:57 percent of ev requirements
10:59 a third option is to have a full waiver
11:01 for affordable housing
11:02 a fourth option is to have a fifty
11:04 percent reduction in ev ready and evsc
11:07 requirements
11:08 and the fifth option is to remove the
11:11 evse requirement
11:12 and keep the ev ready requirement for
11:14 affordable housing
11:17 city staff has reached out to several
11:19 affordable housing groups to ask for
11:20 their perspective on these options
11:23 both imagine housing and a regional
11:26 coalition for housing which is called
11:28 arch
11:28 were supportive of the cost neutral
11:30 approach that was proposed by the
11:32 administration
11:33 however king county housing authority
11:35 and a developer working on a tod project
11:38 were concerned that ev charging spaces
11:40 would not be
11:41 would not be utilized in affordable
11:43 housing units due to the lack of ev
11:45 ownership we also received some feedback
11:48 from puget sound energy on the ordinance
11:51 and they are overall supportive of the
11:53 ordinance and plan to submit a letter to
11:55 that effect to city council before
11:57 april
12:01 the next topic of discussion is single
12:03 family and town home requirements
12:05 in the original proposal single family
12:08 and town homes are exempt from the ev
12:10 ordinance and the city recognition
12:13 administration recommendation is that
12:15 they continue to be exempt for the
12:17 advice of the city attorney
12:18 which was detailed in the memo and
12:20 attached to the staff report
12:22 the other option is to cross is to
12:24 require ev ready infrastructure for
12:26 single family and townhomes
12:31 so yesterday the environmental board had
12:33 a meeting to discuss the proposal
12:36 and overall they recommended that the
12:37 council move forward with the ordinance
12:39 but with a couple of amendments the
12:42 first amendment is to require evie ready
12:45 for single family if possible but if not
12:48 to include it in the future
12:50 the second was about the new proposal on
12:53 affordable housing
12:55 so overall they wanted to specify that
12:57 substituting
12:58 ev ready or evsc infrastructure with ev
13:01 capable infrastructure should only be
13:04 done as a last resort as we talked a bit
13:06 about in a previous meeting
13:09 ev capable infrastructure is
13:12 does not include the wiring for electric
13:14 vehicle chargers
13:16 they also provided a few other pieces of
13:19 feedback
13:20 including when to revisit the proposal
13:22 encouraging pathways for getting
13:24 single-family requirements through the
13:26 state building
13:27 code council and considering subsidies
13:29 for affordable housing
13:31 but within the larger update to title
13:33 18.
13:38 we've had several conversations on the
13:39 proposal thus far and we've changed it
13:41 based on the feedback we've received
13:44 the next meeting will be with council on
13:46 april 5th where they're expected to take
13:47 final action on the ordinance
13:52 so as a reminder the administration is
13:54 looking for a final recommendation from
13:56 ppc
13:57 on the proposal as a whole as well as
14:00 the two recommended options that are
14:02 listed here
14:03 thank you and i'm happy to take any
14:05 questions on the proposal
14:18 if if it is okay with the
14:22 commission i would like to
14:25 open up the uh open up to
14:29 comments a public hearing to get
14:34 their input before we do any discussion
14:38 and i would assume that there should be
14:40 a lot from you guys
14:42 so with that i would like to open
14:46 up the public hearing at 6 47
14:50 and ask whoever
14:53 it kristen meghan who
14:56 is uh do we have anybody signed up to
15:00 speak
15:01 there is no sign up to speak
15:05 i'll have to fix that there's no one
15:06 signed up there's no one on the line
15:11 okay um
15:14 then i will wait just a minute or two
15:17 and see if anybody
15:18 has a last minute desire to come in and
15:23 update us on anything
15:26 in regard to the ev charging
15:29 ordinance
15:34 hearing none
15:39 unless i have a
15:42 direction from you i will close the
15:45 public hearing
15:47 at 6 48 and
15:50 open it up to discussions
15:54 from the committee i would like and you
15:57 know i know that you guys
15:59 every one of you has different ideas
16:01 about different
16:03 different parts of this but if we could
16:06 take it individually i think it would
16:07 work
16:08 better if we would just look at what you
16:11 think the changes for the affordable
16:14 housing changes
16:16 and what you think should be the
16:18 requirement for
16:19 affordable housing
16:24 i don't see um
16:28 nina you have a question
16:32 yes i do i have a question and i can
16:35 tell you what i think about it after i
16:36 have my question answered
16:38 uh i have two questions about the
16:42 affordable housing section and
16:45 the uh first part has to do with
16:48 the language that says
16:53 affordable housing shall be cost
16:57 neutral struck me as
17:00 odd that it would be required to create
17:04 a cost neutral uh situation even if it
17:06 were not
17:07 needed by the developer in order to
17:10 pursue their
17:12 affordable housing so tell me a little
17:13 bit more about why that's a shall
17:15 and then and then
17:18 if especially megan if you can remind me
17:22 why do we have landscaping required in
17:25 parking lots
17:26 and does removing
17:29 or reducing the amount of landscaping in
17:32 parking lots
17:33 tend to offset the overall goal of
17:37 climate impacts from this legislation
17:42 sure this is megan thank you oh i'm
17:45 hearing a little bit of feedback
17:48 um joan would you be like
17:54 thank you um so the
17:57 first part of that and i might phone a
17:59 friend if anyone else
18:00 has a little bit more information on
18:02 landscape parking
18:04 but the first part that you mentioned
18:05 about saying that it shall be cost
18:07 neutral
18:09 when we were developing it i think we
18:11 just
18:12 used the word shell but i think that
18:14 that is a good consideration
18:16 that i think we want to make sure that
18:18 it could be
18:20 um cost neutral and that everyone would
18:22 have that option
18:24 but the fact that it shall be cost
18:25 neutral um i think that is a
18:28 a point that we might want to think a
18:29 little bit more about
18:32 for the landscaping requirements so
18:34 overall the way that we
18:36 we talked about this ordinance is we
18:38 wanted to have
18:40 the reduced parking requirements and
18:43 structured parking first
18:44 but if those didn't end up with cost
18:47 neutral
18:48 options or if they weren't applicable
18:51 for that project for any reason than to
18:53 have other
18:54 um other aspects that would be able to
18:56 provide that cost neutral approach
18:58 so the landscape parking was one of
19:00 those options that we came up with
19:02 that could be a cost saver
19:05 the other one was the ev capable
19:10 one of the requirements that we
19:13 initiated
19:14 in uh previous meetings was the fact
19:17 that we
19:18 wanted uh landscaping in the parking
19:21 lots
19:23 to meet the goals of carbon
19:27 emissions and taking away that
19:31 from the parking lot to add
19:36 additional ev charging stations
19:40 doesn't seem kind of fair
19:43 to me um so uh
19:47 i don't know how many it's always nice
19:50 to say to make it
19:52 neutral cost neutral but it's going to
19:54 be very hard to do that
19:56 so i have a question from uh joy lewis
20:02 thank you joan commissioner joy lewis
20:04 here
20:05 i'm going to limit my questions right
20:06 now to be specifically about the
20:08 affordable housing so that we can kind
20:10 focus on that chunk right now as you
20:11 requested um and i'm going to
20:13 do this in reverse i'm going to give
20:15 kind of my initial thoughts and then i'm
20:17 going to ask my question
20:19 so that was a little bit easier to go on
20:20 to the next um commissioner
20:22 um i have some concerns right now about
20:24 the neutrality
20:26 part of the affordable housing um when
20:28 looking at your slides right now i'm i'm
20:30 moving
20:31 towards number three which is to say um
20:35 that we do um i remember i don't know if
20:37 you want to bring up that slide but um
20:39 you were asking us
20:40 for our specific um ideas about that
20:43 um right now i'm moving towards number
20:45 three i have some issues with the
20:46 neutrality as a
20:48 as a dinosaur on this commission i'm
20:50 proud to say yeah
20:51 sorry i'm sorry um joan would you be
20:54 able to mute again i'm
20:55 hearing some feedback things i just want
20:57 to make sure i'm able to hear
20:58 i apologize i can't find my uh earphones
21:02 to connect
21:11 i went through this commission we went
21:14 through the parking requirements and we
21:16 definitely did not build in
21:18 any kind of buffer right we really
21:21 um put it down to the minimum so when we
21:23 when like joan mentioned when we started
21:25 talking about landscaping and how to add
21:28 um greenery and things like that the
21:30 things that you're taking away right now
21:32 to try to create some sort of cost
21:33 neutral situation for the developer
21:36 struck me um a little bit differently
21:38 than i think if i would have approached
21:39 it not knowing the background
21:41 of why we've gotten to the code that we
21:43 have um
21:44 i think the equity disparity um must be
21:46 the forefront of our mind when drafting
21:48 this code
21:49 and i think it's really important that
21:50 we do not reduce access to services and
21:52 to me that's a lot of how these
21:54 neutrality things are reading
21:56 um so it gets to my question
22:00 of wondering basically wanting to have
22:02 you help us be a fly on the wall when
22:04 staff was discussing all these different
22:06 options and things that we could do
22:08 what were some of the things that you
22:10 guys were bouncing around that maybe
22:12 didn't make
22:12 the cut for instance my mind naturally
22:15 went to you know we were talking about
22:16 incentives for single family homes which
22:18 is now no longer on the table because it
22:20 was not popular
22:21 i mean is there an idea of having an
22:22 incentive for individuals
22:24 who are living in affordable housing and
22:26 have electric vehicles right you show
22:28 your utility bill
22:29 you you know what i mean you and
22:30 something where you have something
22:32 direct
22:32 to somebody living in affordable housing
22:35 rather than all this discussion being
22:37 about how do we make it neutral
22:39 for developers how about we make it
22:40 neutral for the people who are paying
22:43 the actual uh price of it so i kind of
22:45 wanted to have staff be able to address
22:47 what those other ideas were and kind of
22:49 what um what direct incentives could be
22:51 considered
22:52 because right now i'm not in favor of
22:54 how it's dated
22:58 sure this is banking i think overall
23:02 we are wanting to make sure that we're
23:04 not putting
23:05 additional costs on affordable housing
23:07 coming in the city
23:08 so recognizing that that's really a
23:10 priority in order to get
23:12 the amount of affordable housing that we
23:14 need and just not wanting to
23:16 to have any additional cost to that so
23:18 that was the foundation of wanting to
23:20 establish this cost neutral
23:22 approach the ideas that we had
23:26 these were most of them that we talked
23:28 about we did talk about kind of the
23:29 prioritizing of them
23:31 so in the ordinance there you'll see
23:34 them kind of in two bunches with
23:36 the first two being about reduced
23:37 parking and minimums and structured
23:39 parking
23:41 we talked with affordable housing
23:43 providers about how much
23:44 affordable housing or how much parking
23:47 costs and
23:48 we receive numbers between about 30 to
23:50 60 000 per space depending on
23:52 if it's above grade or covered parking
23:56 so it really depends there um the cost
23:58 of ev
23:59 infrastructure also ranges but looking
24:01 at 1500
24:03 so we thought that by using those
24:06 initial two categories we'd probably be
24:09 able to get towards that cost neutrality
24:11 pretty soon
24:12 um city of seattle has also looked at
24:15 this a little bit and they have
24:17 they reduce parking requirements
24:19 specifically for affordable housing
24:22 so that's how they've tried to make it a
24:24 little bit less expensive and then they
24:26 do require
24:27 affordable housing to meet ev
24:29 infrastructure requirements that they
24:31 have in seattle too
24:32 so that was another thought about that
24:36 and then like i said we did structure it
24:38 to kind of have that
24:40 priority in with those two and then go
24:43 into the landscape requirements and the
24:45 ev capable
24:46 if those other two are not possible
24:50 so is there anything about direct to
24:52 resident right rather than trying to
24:53 compensate the developer
24:55 because i can easily see a situation
24:57 where
24:58 you know we already give incentives for
24:59 the affordable housing we give the
25:01 incentives of all these different things
25:02 to try to
25:03 entice more affordable housing in our
25:06 community and then those costs
25:07 end up getting built in anyways right is
25:09 there some way to
25:10 basically negate the process if we say a
25:12 developer is gonna end up charging that
25:14 extra fifteen hundred dollars um to a
25:16 resident
25:17 in form of rent over time um then are we
25:20 able to then actually do a subsidy do an
25:22 incentive do something directly for
25:24 individuals
25:25 that are living in affordable housing
25:26 and who have um
25:28 either some sort of you know um rental
25:31 have some sort of access
25:32 or ownership of an electric vehicle in
25:35 some way where we
25:36 are are thinking of it rather than being
25:38 from the developer standpoint but from
25:40 the residence standpoint
25:43 uh i think that overall for incentives
25:46 um we had them included in the original
25:49 proposal
25:50 for single family not for affordable so
25:52 you know a couple of things we heard
25:53 that
25:54 it shouldn't if we were going to do
25:55 incentives affordable might be a better
25:57 place for that
25:58 but we also heard in that conversation
26:00 that
26:01 um we might want to look at incentives
26:04 on a broader scale
26:05 as we go into the the title 18 update
26:08 so rather than looking at just on on
26:10 this piece but seeing
26:12 um as we go into that update there might
26:14 be other things that might be
26:17 more expensive that we'd want to provide
26:19 incentives for so
26:21 i expect that we'll be having that
26:22 conversation as we get into the title 18
26:25 update um so we did not
26:26 include the incentive specifically in
26:29 this proposal anymore
26:32 thank you megan
26:35 i have a question from ron fowle
26:40 thanks madam uh thanks madam chair uh so
26:43 question for um megan curtis uh
26:47 to jones point is our joy's point as
26:49 well
26:51 i been doing some research behind the
26:53 scenes and what i came up with
26:56 uh was some interesting findings and i'm
26:58 going to name off three vehicles i just
27:00 want to
27:00 start with luxury vehicles the cadillac
27:04 lyric
27:04 as an expected launch date of 2022
27:08 it's a very heavy luxury suv
27:12 will have a range of 300 miles per
27:15 electric vehicle
27:16 the bmw inext is expected to launch in
27:19 2023 will have
27:21 a an expected range of 400 miles
27:24 and chevrolet is going to be launching a
27:28 full electric pickup truck that is going
27:30 to have 300 miles
27:32 so i think it is
27:35 plainly obvious that the range is going
27:38 to continue to increase
27:40 and as we move towards the
27:43 electrification of transportation
27:45 it's going to become very affordable for
27:48 lower income people to be able to pick
27:50 up vehicles that are electric
27:51 and it costs less
27:54 to drive per mile an electric vehicle
27:57 than does a
27:58 gas vehicle so from an affordability
28:00 standpoint
28:02 it is likely to say that lower income
28:05 people will start to migrate towards
28:07 electric vehicles at a higher adoption
28:10 rate
28:13 because it's just naturally more
28:14 affordable for them to drive so
28:16 if we disenfranchise
28:20 affordable housing by saying
28:24 we're going to give up services
28:27 for this cost neutral position i think
28:30 that's not the right
28:32 chemistry we want to promote the
28:36 in the documents uh the city
28:40 staff came up and they said it's going
28:41 to cost thus adding a thousand dollars
28:44 per stall to add ev ready infrastructure
28:50 based on a stall that cost between
28:52 thirty thousand forty thousand
28:54 a thousand dollars is a drop in the
28:56 bucket and i don't
28:58 think that we need to have a
29:00 conversation about
29:02 creating a cost neutral plan when we're
29:04 talking about
29:06 only a thousand dollars per stall if
29:09 an apartment complex has 40 40 stalls
29:12 it's 40 000
29:14 the
29:18 in order for a developer
29:23 if we look at the language we're only
29:25 asking five percent
29:27 which i think i disagree with i think it
29:29 should be higher than
29:30 five percent but if only five percent of
29:32 the stalls need to be ev ready
29:35 that's two stalls out of a forty stall
29:37 apartment which is probably equivalent
29:39 to the tod project
29:41 and
29:45 i think there's going to be so much
29:46 demand for
29:48 ev hookup that five percent
29:52 is going to be a very impacted
29:55 um number to start with
29:59 and i think it's going to slow adoption
30:02 down
30:02 because it's going to be a cost burden
30:04 if a
30:06 property owner has to go in and do
30:08 rework
30:09 or retrofitting to
30:13 add more stalls that's going to be a
30:15 significantly higher cost
30:17 than the thousand dollars so i think
30:18 these need to be we need to
30:20 increase the number of stalls that are
30:23 ready um to probably closer to
30:26 25 percent and
30:30 as far as the cost or going to a cost
30:32 neutral thing i think
30:34 we shouldn't even be having that
30:35 conversation
30:40 thank you i have a comment from
30:45 jason voss
30:48 voice
30:52 three more meetings that i can okay
30:56 no thank you madam chair and uh thank
30:58 you miss murphy
30:59 uh for the presentation so my thinking
31:02 on affordable housing
31:04 is that if we do a reduction
31:07 it's the very people that have the most
31:09 to gain
31:10 from this particular project are people
31:12 that once
31:14 once there's some price parity with
31:15 electric vehicles
31:17 they're going to be cheaper to run and i
31:20 actually
31:21 i think by giving them a waiver i don't
31:24 think that's the
31:25 appropriate way to do it and i just
31:27 listening to commissioner powell right
31:28 now i
31:30 like i'm kind of in agreement to the
31:31 point where i don't really like the cost
31:33 neutrality because
31:35 again we're not talking about a huge
31:37 burden on multiple parking spots
31:40 um for me like i said i i think
31:44 as things move in the next year to two
31:46 years
31:48 you probably will see more electric
31:50 vehicles i am personally myself
31:52 uncomfortable with the percentages as
31:53 they are now let's see what happens over
31:56 the next couple years
31:57 so i think the numbers for me are fine
32:00 but i don't really like the cost
32:01 neutrality thing
32:02 either and to the point about
32:05 landscaping i mean
32:06 the whole idea is to make the affordable
32:08 housing
32:09 look nice it's not even so much for me
32:11 the climate as to commissioner
32:14 milligan's point or to the chairs point
32:16 um it's also just about beautifying the
32:18 landscape
32:19 and not making them look like tentaments
32:21 so i don't like that at all
32:24 um that the landscaping thing for me
32:25 would be you know pretty much a no-go
32:28 i'm kind of in favor of not providing a
32:30 waiver
32:31 keeping the percentages where they are
32:33 let's see what happens with electric
32:34 vehicles
32:35 we can always come back and retool the
32:37 percentages
32:39 the only thing i would add is
32:42 if we were looking to keep prices down
32:46 what if we were to remove the evse
32:48 requirement
32:50 but double the ev ready requirement so
32:52 you're kind of
32:53 you're just swapping the percentage
32:55 numbers but you're still getting
32:57 you know they just have to bring their
32:58 own hose to the party that'd be the only
33:00 difference
33:01 and i think if they were saving that
33:03 much money with an electric vehicle they
33:04 could afford the
33:05 i don't know how much they cost but i
33:07 can't imagine they cost over
33:10 hundreds of dollars to buy that
33:11 particular plug
33:13 but again by taking the requirements
33:15 away
33:16 we're kind of i mean the whole idea is
33:18 to benefit people that are already in
33:20 affordable housing with
33:21 cheaper electric vehicles and then again
33:23 i i don't really like the cost
33:25 neutrality thing because
33:27 i don't really like the idea of the city
33:30 subsidizing these projects myself
33:34 my comment
33:37 i have a comment from senior planner
33:40 kristen
33:41 gleason
33:46 no i don't have a comment
33:49 well it's okay
33:53 um you're on there so
33:57 i have a question
34:00 from richard zaragoza
34:08 if you don't they're coming up here with
34:10 uh i do
34:12 thank you manager um richard zaragoza my
34:15 question is around
34:17 the cost neutrality exactly can you
34:20 explain
34:20 how that's negotiated so if um
34:25 if one stall costs two percent of
34:28 an underground stall which is at fifty
34:30 thousand dollars like that
34:32 um and the requirements only for a
34:34 handful of stalls do they save fifty
34:36 thousand dollars by reducing
34:38 the stall and then only spend a few
34:40 thousand dollars or is it neutral both
34:42 ways so if they
34:44 if they get to reduce one stall in the
34:47 parking lot do they then have to put
34:48 fifty thousand dollars worth of
34:51 uh ev-ready stalls into the building
34:56 how does that how is that negotiated how
34:57 do they decide whether it's going to be
34:59 landscape or reduction in parking spots
35:04 you just explain that yes yes this is
35:07 megan
35:08 um so i think a couple things so um
35:12 we ask the the applicant to demonstrate
35:15 how cost neutrality has been
35:17 calculated so we asked them to come up
35:19 with the methodology so
35:21 it's showing the cost that they're
35:23 expecting for in
35:24 for installing the ev infrastructure and
35:27 then
35:29 the cost associated with parking so with
35:31 the first two options
35:33 um the reduction in minimum required
35:35 percentage of
35:36 structured parking and then minimum
35:38 required parking
35:40 they would need to show how much they're
35:41 spending on each of those things
35:43 and then that's how we would try to
35:45 reach the cost neutrality so
35:47 if their ev charging stations were
35:50 twenty thousand dollars for for however
35:52 many they're requiring
35:54 um and then if they're parking spots
35:58 cost you know 30 000 per parking spot or
36:01 let's say 20 000 per parking spot for
36:03 easier math then they'd be able to
36:04 reduce their
36:05 um their parking spot by one and then
36:08 they would install the eb infrastructure
36:12 did that get at it yeah thank you
36:19 i have a question from ron fowle
36:23 i was uh uh
36:26 instructed or told that i do not have to
36:29 call you all commissioners
36:31 so i know you're all looking at me
36:32 thinking why isn't she saying that
36:35 and that's why i'm using your full name
36:37 so ron do you have a question
36:39 yep thanks so do we call you do you want
36:41 to do you want to be called madame
36:43 chair or do you want to be called joan
36:46 how about joe
36:47 okay all right so thank you joan
36:51 um so comment for
36:54 well um clarification to uh
36:57 jason's point and then i guess a comment
37:00 for
37:00 or question to um megan curtis
37:04 evie ready uh is what i was
37:08 promoting that we have a higher
37:09 percentage of not evs
37:11 because as technol as the years go
37:15 forward technology is going to change
37:17 and so if we
37:18 require stations now those stations may
37:21 be outdated in
37:22 a couple years and or there may be lease
37:24 agreements or some company may want to
37:26 come in and say hey i'll contract and
37:28 put all
37:28 you know put put in the charging
37:30 stations with fees and credit card
37:33 services and things like that
37:34 so i think having evie ready having the
37:38 infrastructure there
37:39 to support the systems as a
37:42 multi-family or multi-family development
37:45 is being developed
37:47 is key because that's the highest cost
37:50 to entry um so that's kind of what i was
37:54 referring to
37:55 and the question i have for megan curtis
37:57 is when we're talking about ev ready
37:59 are we talking about copper in the
38:02 conduit line
38:03 to each stall or are we talking about
38:05 conduit only
38:09 ev ready would be the the conduit and
38:11 the wiring
38:12 ev capable would just be um the conduit
38:16 no wiring
38:17 okay all right thank you
38:23 so i have a comment from
38:27 nina thank you joan
38:31 i was holding my comments uh to hear
38:34 what the
38:34 other questions were from the other
38:36 commissioners and to hear the
38:37 conversation
38:38 uh and it sounds like commissioners are
38:40 weighing in now with their preferences
38:42 so i thought i would chime in with mine
38:45 i if the if the commission were leaning
38:47 towards
38:48 just having straight up requirements in
38:51 the affordable housing ev
38:53 uh standards i i would vote for that
38:57 now if we don't have a majority on that
39:00 and
39:01 if if we go with the
39:07 sorry what is it called when you um cost
39:09 the
39:10 cost recovery proposal
39:13 i definitely think the language should
39:19 maybe costume and it
39:22 might be done through these ways and
39:24 tighten up the language that says that
39:26 this is the only way you can
39:28 and i would remove letter c reduction in
39:31 the amount of
39:32 parking landscaping but to recap the
39:35 whole thing
39:36 i am i am um convinced by my fellow
39:39 commissioners who've spoken up to say
39:40 that why are we taking away
39:42 amenities from affordable housing and is
39:45 the cost really prohibitive and will it
39:47 really disincentivize
39:48 developers from building affordable
39:50 housing my
39:54 kind of superficial understanding of the
39:56 way that
39:57 a developer is building affordable
39:59 housing the pricing
40:01 is being set somewhere else it's not
40:02 going to be passed on to
40:04 the consumer that doesn't even happen in
40:06 market housing
40:08 market housing is prices determined by
40:11 the market
40:11 and a lot of times affordable housing
40:14 pricing
40:14 is determined by a market rate not by
40:18 how much it costs them to build it so um
40:21 i'm not so worried about adding costs
40:25 for
40:26 features that residents will need
40:29 so that would be my first pick say that
40:33 there's
40:34 requirements and if we can't get that
40:36 through the council
40:37 then make it you can go
40:40 they go cost neutral through these
40:42 particular needs
40:43 thank you so so nina just to be
40:46 clarified
40:47 to leave the restrictions not the
40:50 restrictions the
40:52 uh number of stars the way they are
40:54 being presented by the city now
40:57 so exactly what is being presented is
41:00 the way
41:00 you would leave it with its with the
41:03 different
41:04 with the language restrictions in there
41:07 i i have
41:08 i don't have a strong as strong opinion
41:10 about what percentage
41:12 goes for ev some commissioners have said
41:15 increase the percentage or increase the
41:17 percentage of those that are ready
41:18 that's fine with me too the main thing
41:21 is that i think that we should make them
41:23 a requirement and that they shouldn't
41:24 um we shouldn't be afraid that they're
41:26 going to disincentivize affordable
41:27 housing development
41:30 thank you i have a comment from joy
41:33 lewis
41:36 thank you joan joy lewis here um i want
41:38 to continue the affordable
41:40 housing conversation by asking megan to
41:43 bring up that slide
41:44 because you are specifically asking for
41:46 our um our recommendation
41:48 and i think without actually making a
41:50 motion of voting maybe it would help
41:52 if we have our if we gear our discussion
41:54 towards how people are feeling about the
41:55 different numbers so that we can help
41:57 give you something
41:58 precise um so if you want to bring that
42:00 bring that up i think that might be
42:02 helpful um you know the last time that
42:04 we spoke about this i'm really proud by
42:05 the way of our commission
42:07 um bringing to staff kind of this
42:09 difference between
42:10 evie ready versus you know the equipment
42:14 you know so i i really loved this
42:16 edition
42:17 um and we kind of talked about this
42:19 balance right the city can't have it all
42:21 we need to be able to say where
42:23 where is our priority right um it's hard
42:25 to kind of say well we really care about
42:27 this but we really care about this and
42:29 kind of have this balance
42:31 you know i think it's important to
42:32 invest in clean energy future now
42:34 if we expect to have a safe happy and
42:37 equitable future
42:38 so um we can't say well we really want
42:41 to incentivize one
42:42 but we're gonna take away from another i
42:45 think that we start to get into a really
42:46 murky area and i think that
42:48 if we are saying as a community this is
42:50 our priority that we need to stick with
42:52 and i really do have concerns right now
42:56 that's the proposed ordinance for um the
42:58 percentages i was meeting megan you were
43:00 going to bring up this uh to bring up
43:01 the slide where you were asking for
43:03 um the recommendations like um of the
43:06 the numbers that are of
43:07 options that you were looking for for
43:09 affordable housing
43:11 yeah i know i really thought of the life
43:13 of perfect
43:14 so um you know i had voiced before that
43:16 i have i'm worried about this reduction
43:19 of services
43:20 um and um i i think it's important
43:24 for us to really lay out a clear
43:26 recommendation to council
43:28 on affordable housing um and after
43:30 hearing my fellow commissioners i really
43:32 think it's important to have no
43:33 reduction in the parking requirements
43:35 um this idea of the neutrality as it's
43:38 being proposed to us i'm not in favor of
43:40 so i believe that i'm gonna sit
43:41 with number three as i mentioned before
43:44 um in that i want to move that to a
43:47 question
43:48 um from the affordable housing into
43:50 these numbers which was the slide you'd
43:51 had before
43:52 so now we have this edition of the eb
43:54 ready and i think that this is
43:56 really clutch to our conversation
43:57 because we really want to kind of
43:59 um start in a way that is achievable
44:01 right we're not trying to put in these
44:03 really large numbers
44:04 um that makes it so that developers feel
44:07 like
44:08 they can't actually achieve what we're
44:09 wanting however
44:11 i would love to hear from staff about
44:13 how the numbers were reached about ev
44:15 ready because we know that the cost of
44:17 retrofit is expensive
44:19 exponentially high and we know that
44:23 right now there's a focus from the
44:24 federal government and from
44:26 the current administration to use um
44:30 infrastructure as a way to be able to
44:33 um really affect clean energy
44:36 in local communities so i think that to
44:39 the a fellow commissioner's point of
44:40 being able to actually have the conduit
44:42 in and ready is so much more important
44:45 than actually having um having that
44:47 supply equipment
44:48 right so i i would be i would love to
44:51 hear from the city why those numbers are
44:53 the 30
44:53 the 20 and then we have 10 obviously for
44:55 the for the non
44:57 residential and commercial spaces how
44:59 those numbers were achieved because
45:01 while i have no problem with the tens
45:03 and fives where they're at so that we
45:04 have something we can bite off and we
45:05 can start with
45:06 i was expecting those numbers to come up
45:08 a little bit higher and would love to
45:09 hear more about that
45:12 sure this is megan um so the city
45:16 worked with an organization called the
45:19 regional code collaboration
45:21 which is has been the foundation for
45:23 this ordinance
45:25 that is a group of jurisdictions not
45:27 just in king county but some other
45:29 surrounding counties as well
45:31 that work together to develop green
45:32 codes so they worked on this last year
45:36 and they had a large stakeholder process
45:38 that involved
45:40 utilities interest groups
45:44 the public and they they heard a lot of
45:46 feedback
45:47 and forget what percentages they exactly
45:50 started with but they heard
45:51 um some people saying that if they
45:54 thought all spots should be eevee ready
45:55 it should be 100 ev ready and then of
45:58 course there's others who don't think
45:59 there should be any requirements
46:01 so through that process they were able
46:03 to arrive at these numbers that they got
46:05 the majorities of stakeholders buy off
46:08 so it was a fairly negotiated process
46:11 for that
46:12 so the city has taken those foundation
46:15 numbers
46:16 um and used those exact numbers which
46:18 are here so that's how we arrived at
46:19 them
46:22 thank you megan so just uh
46:25 to follow up on this slide when you look
46:29 new malted family the ten percent in the
46:32 that means that 40 of all of the
46:37 parking spaces are either one or the
46:40 other
46:42 so 40 are ready or have the
46:45 facilities in there is that correct
46:49 it's not 30 over um including the 10
46:53 we're talking 40 percent
46:57 40 correct
47:01 okay i just wanted to make that clear
47:03 that uh
47:04 you know you can put 10 and 30 and 20
47:07 whatever but when you realize that it's
47:10 of all of the parking spaces are gonna
47:13 able to utilize ev
47:17 capability
47:22 so uh i have a comment for janice carl
47:30 thank you joan this is janice carl um
47:35 i want to return to a couple of
47:38 issues that were raised by both joy and
47:41 ron
47:43 but i want to start by asking a question
47:44 as i recall when we discussed this
47:47 several weeks ago we talked about the
47:49 cost of
47:50 the cost range for ev capable
47:53 to ev ready to ebsc full service
47:57 was something like from 1 000 to 10 000
48:01 per space is that roughly correct
48:06 the 10 000 sounds high i don't have the
48:09 numbers
48:10 in front of me but that was that was i
48:12 think the highest
48:13 original estimate was that it was more
48:15 like 6 000 per space at a maximum
48:18 um uh i think the maximum was 3500 and
48:22 that was if there had to be
48:24 um yeah my point
48:28 um more salient
48:31 the cost of a parking space we talked
48:33 about is 30 to 60 000
48:35 per space that means that
48:39 at the high range of that cost
48:42 the ratio reducing one parking space
48:46 pays at like a ten to one ratio we've
48:49 paid for six
48:50 spaces to have ev capability at the high
48:54 high value i mean at six thousand
48:56 dollars of space that should be able to
48:58 make them all edse
49:02 i really don't understand why when we're
49:04 only talking about a relatively
49:06 small percentage of spaces
49:10 that are even going to be required to
49:12 have
49:13 these extra costs we're even bothering
49:16 with this neutrality calculation
49:19 because the ratios are such that it's
49:22 it's
49:23 um it's such a tiny tiny reduction in
49:26 parking spaces that would be needed
49:28 to cover the minimal amount of effort
49:30 that we're requiring
49:33 my second thought is that um
49:37 as especially as ron noted and really
49:41 several people have touched on the fact
49:42 that the huge cost that we're trying to
49:45 avoid
49:48 is either not being able to have these
49:52 usable spaces in the future or worse
49:55 having to incur
49:56 great retrofitting costs the
49:59 retrofitting cost
50:01 is primarily incurred by having to run
50:04 the conduit
50:06 if you've got the conduit running the
50:08 cable
50:09 is not very expensive and the cost of
50:12 the servicing equipment is
50:13 the same no matter when you put it in
50:15 basically
50:18 so i i fall back to where we came out of
50:21 our original conversation here at ppc
50:24 that why aren't you requiring a much
50:27 higher percentage 50
50:30 of spaces be ev capable just
50:33 running conduit so that in the future it
50:36 is so much easier
50:38 to make them more practical that's all i
50:41 have
50:42 thank you
50:46 i have a comment from matt monahan
50:49 matt thank you joan matt monaghan here
50:53 um to to voice support for some of what
50:56 my fellow members have already said i i
50:59 think i am very much on board
51:00 with moving from a shall be cost neutral
51:03 to like a
51:04 maybe cost neutral uh situation so not
51:07 being a requirement
51:08 um two i i like the idea
51:12 of city staff having some discretion in
51:15 how they get to that maybe cost neutral
51:19 stance and i really liked what jason had
51:22 proposed earlier which is i think the
51:24 first thing that they should do
51:26 is not remove remove spots not remove
51:28 landscaping but instead
51:30 you know entertain a proposal from the
51:31 developer to move from
51:33 an evse spot to an ev ready spot
51:38 and and get the savings there in the
51:40 first instance
51:41 and then three my last point on the
51:43 percentages i think i'm comfortable with
51:45 where the percentages
51:46 are as an initial matter right before
51:49 kind of ratcheting up the numbers i'd
51:51 like to see
51:52 you know some history of utilization of
51:55 those spots
51:56 i don't know if anybody saw in the new
51:57 york times i think it was yesterday
52:00 just projecting about the number of
52:02 eevee cars
52:03 on the road and it's that even though
52:05 they're going to be a majority purchase
52:07 2035 just given the market for used cars
52:10 they're not going to be a majority of
52:12 the cars on the road for
52:14 much after 2050 and so although i would
52:16 like to encourage the adoption
52:18 of evs i'm just a little concerned that
52:20 it's not going to happen
52:21 at the pace but certainly i thought
52:24 before reading that article
52:25 so that's all i had thank you
52:30 i have a comment from ron fall
52:35 thank you john so uh
52:38 to cap on um to recap on what
52:42 janice had mentioned uh about evie ready
52:44 so ev ready would
52:46 have wire in the conduit and i think you
52:48 were just thinking of empty conduit
52:50 but the size of wire that they would
52:54 have to run
52:55 to these terminals would be
52:59 30 to 50 amp wire and
53:02 that's very very difficult to run
53:05 through conduit unless you're actually
53:07 building out the conduit while you're
53:08 running the wires so it would have to be
53:10 done it would have to be electrify
53:13 electrical
53:14 ready at the outlet
53:17 and to matt's point as far as evse
53:21 i i'm not even interested or i i don't
53:23 really care
53:24 if a developer has actual
53:27 equipment in the in the development
53:32 to actually charge a vehicle and the
53:34 reason why i say that is because
53:36 i think that there will be a
53:40 significant presence or significant
53:44 market launch of companies that will
53:47 lease equipment
53:52 charging equipment because the developer
53:54 isn't going to want to pay or i should
53:56 say a property owner
53:58 that has a development is going to put a
54:00 meter on
54:05 ev ready stations right they don't want
54:08 to pay the electrical bills to charge
54:10 everybody's car
54:12 but if they have meters out there and
54:14 then they
54:15 a contract company comes in and actually
54:18 puts the equipment in
54:19 that contract company not only owns the
54:22 equipment but they
54:23 service the equipment and that's not a
54:26 place a developer wants to be or a
54:28 property management
54:29 wants to be but that would i can see a
54:30 company coming in and doing that and so
54:32 therefore
54:33 we're not even really concerned with the
54:36 cost
54:36 of the stations themselves we're only
54:39 interested
54:39 in the infrastructure to support that
54:43 model
54:44 whatever model that developer
54:47 or property manager wants to put in so i
54:49 i think we're putting
54:51 we're getting we're looking too far down
54:53 the road we just want to make sure that
54:55 have the available capacity to handle
54:59 av um evs
55:02 systems as opposed to actually
55:07 just being easy ready and so my my
55:10 emphasis is i
55:11 strongly support evie ready not evse
55:15 um and then second of all we need to
55:17 also i think
55:18 look at what does isaiah want to be what
55:20 does our culture tell us
55:22 we're the is called alps we're
55:23 everything about the environment
55:25 or about our streams and so on why don't
55:30 become the market leader and say we're
55:33 also going to be
55:34 um an eevee city
55:39 and just you know take that leap of
55:41 faith and move in that direction and
55:43 challenge the status quo i mean we're in
55:45 situation where everyone's changing and
55:47 everyone's looking at all the other
55:49 cities of
55:50 what is that city doing what is this
55:51 county doing why don't we take a
55:53 leadership role and just
55:54 make it happen i mean that really
55:57 speaks to who we are we if we look to
56:00 renton
56:01 or tuckwell or kirkland or
56:05 bothell those are great cities and all
56:09 but they're not environmental cities and
56:11 we're really
56:12 unique because we are an environmental
56:14 city right look at the
56:16 residents that live here we have
56:18 different values towards
56:20 the environment than maybe some of these
56:22 other places and so we
56:24 need to consider that as well our
56:27 residents may be more
56:29 open more early adopters of av
56:32 vehicles because that's really how we
56:36 think
56:37 so i think we need to look at culture as
56:39 well as um
56:41 you know uh policy in requiring
56:45 av ready systems i think we
56:48 we have the people the clientele that
56:50 really want this technology
56:53 and i think we need to just own it
56:58 and not be afraid of it so i i implore
57:01 my commissioners to really
57:02 think about that and move towards higher
57:05 percentages
57:06 of ev ready systems and not worry about
57:09 evsc i think that's too much
57:15 at this time so so ron what is your
57:18 suggestion
57:20 what percentage i think we should be
57:22 closer to 60 to 70 percent
57:25 ev ready and there could be potential
57:29 up uh if a company wants to come in and
57:32 do a lease
57:33 there may be even something for the
57:35 property manager in terms of revenue
57:37 making money off of people charging
57:40 their systems
57:42 so i don't think it's really
57:45 i don't think we should be afraid of the
57:46 cost i think it's a business opportunity
57:49 waiting to happen
57:51 i mean i maybe even considered going
57:53 opening my own business and looking at
57:55 that because
57:56 it that's a significant opportunity i
58:00 think from a market standpoint
58:03 it's just servicing charging stations
58:06 okay there's one more comment from joy
58:09 lewis
58:09 and then we're going to um
58:13 come down to um
58:16 an agreement on this particular thing we
58:18 still haven't
58:19 talked about uh
58:23 individual homes yet and so i would like
58:26 to have a discussion on that
58:28 that's one of the things that we have to
58:30 decide on
58:31 so joy have your comment
58:35 and then we will have to make you know
58:37 this this or this and make a decision
58:40 of which one we're going to choose so
58:41 joy thank you joan commissioner joy lou
58:44 is here
58:45 um i'm gonna i'm gonna
58:48 i'll i'll make this a little bit easier
58:50 i'll do my my they're
58:52 responding to your question and then
58:53 i'll do my comments so i was incorrectly
58:55 saying number three was my
58:56 was my choice it was number two
58:58 originally no waiver for affordable
59:00 housing
59:00 um after hearing jason and matt's
59:02 comments um
59:04 i would definitely be on board with
59:06 striking
59:07 the other neutrality options that the
59:10 administration is recommending and
59:12 instead
59:13 only having the option to remove the
59:15 evse
59:16 and keep the ev ready requirement and do
59:18 a swap
59:19 um i would be on board with that you
59:22 know janice and ron make really great
59:23 points
59:24 um that i think that we you know we need
59:27 to lead in our region and we need to be
59:29 bold on this right
59:30 the um the cost to retrofit is is so
59:33 exponentially higher
59:34 um you know we're talking right now
59:37 about
59:38 a percentage of parking space is being
59:39 able to have the
59:41 um the electric conduit to be able to be
59:44 capable of it when right now we have
59:47 cities that are leading on this i mean
59:48 right now denver will electrify most
59:50 buildings by 2027.
59:52 um i mean you're looking at buildings in
59:54 salt lake city that aren't even putting
59:55 in gas lines
59:56 um there's serious um progress that
59:59 needs to happen on our infrastructure
1:00:00 changes to make real difference
1:00:02 in addressing vital changes that need to
1:00:04 happen and i want us to remember
1:00:06 why we heard talking about this is that
1:00:08 the threat is real and we really must
1:00:10 make a strong commitment on this issue
1:00:12 um it would be if the commission agrees
1:00:16 um to change um the ev ready percentage
1:00:19 a bit um i would be for that i would
1:00:22 also be for us
1:00:23 putting in some sort of sunset like for
1:00:25 instance every year it gets bumped up by
1:00:27 five percent
1:00:28 um on on eb ready um and having a
1:00:31 rolling thing
1:00:31 or instead recommending to the council
1:00:34 that this come back to us
1:00:35 in a year right we know that basically
1:00:37 in the next couple years
1:00:38 that um big changes are going to be
1:00:40 happening and we need to be
1:00:42 leaders and at the forefront in our
1:00:43 region so if we want to stick with the
1:00:45 current numbers as they are
1:00:47 i think it's something that needs to be
1:00:48 revisited regularly
1:00:50 um so i would also would like to hear
1:00:53 from my fellow commissioners on
1:00:54 something like that in
1:00:55 regards to the numbers so um to
1:00:57 reiterate i'm either with number two
1:00:59 or if we want to um if right now that
1:01:01 looks like there's a consensus from matt
1:01:02 and jason to be able to do something
1:01:04 where we um take out the other cost
1:01:07 neutrality
1:01:08 recommendations but only keep the one
1:01:10 where there's a swap of the evse to be
1:01:12 ready i would definitely back that
1:01:14 in regards to the affordable housing
1:01:19 so i have a comment from jason
1:01:22 voice but i would like to
1:01:27 kind of put it into a what exactly it is
1:01:32 that you would like to see happen
1:01:35 in specific terms so jason can you do
1:01:40 i can do that joan good
1:01:43 the wonderful thing about our commission
1:01:46 is the diversity of thought yet we all
1:01:48 do kind of share
1:01:49 a lot of similar values and i think i
1:01:51 just heard that across the board
1:01:54 for me when it comes to this piece
1:01:57 as far as the i guess the looking to
1:02:00 send something to council
1:02:02 i agree with joy i don't i think we
1:02:05 should strike the waiver
1:02:07 um i i just don't think it's necessary i
1:02:10 think janus brought up some great
1:02:11 numbers that make some good points
1:02:14 however having said that and i and i
1:02:17 love my fearless brother ron
1:02:19 i am comfortable with the numbers as
1:02:21 they are now
1:02:23 and to joy's point again we can revisit
1:02:27 and i really like what matt had to say
1:02:28 which is we don't have the history yet
1:02:31 and i know everybody wants to go full
1:02:33 speed ahead and i'm all for it
1:02:36 but the thing is is a quad does
1:02:39 have a reputation of being a difficult
1:02:42 place for builders and developers
1:02:44 i don't want us to be an outlier of
1:02:47 continually
1:02:48 being the a difficult place to build i
1:02:51 think like i said these numbers are a
1:02:53 great start
1:02:54 i'm happy to basically what i would like
1:02:56 to see i guess
1:02:57 making this a lot shorter strike the
1:02:59 waiver
1:03:00 get rid of the net the the cost
1:03:03 neutrality
1:03:04 require it at the numbers we have and
1:03:06 then let's revisit it in a year or two
1:03:08 when we have more
1:03:10 data i mean we don't even have the price
1:03:12 parity yet
1:03:13 and i i appreciate ron giving so giving
1:03:15 us some examples
1:03:16 but those are all very expensive cars
1:03:18 those are not probably going to be an
1:03:20 affordable housing parking lots
1:03:22 so we need to let this roll out then
1:03:25 look at the history
1:03:26 and to joy's point we can come back and
1:03:28 revisit this
1:03:29 in two years and see when we have more
1:03:32 is this going in the right direction so
1:03:35 for me
1:03:36 strike the waiver get rid of the cost
1:03:38 neutrality
1:03:39 and again if there was going to be any
1:03:42 swap at all
1:03:43 take the percentage of evsc and just
1:03:46 flip it so now instead of requiring
1:03:48 twenty percent ev ready ten percent ef
1:03:51 ef evse then just require thirty percent
1:03:55 ev ready
1:03:56 that's a trade i could deal with i could
1:03:57 live with that but
1:03:59 but um like i said i'm kind of happy
1:04:01 where the numbers are now until we see
1:04:04 from the market and to matt's other
1:04:05 point um
1:04:07 you know we are going to have a big
1:04:09 population of older cars
1:04:10 for a while so that's my piece
1:04:15 and that's it
1:04:18 um i was going to say something and i
1:04:22 uh forgot exactly what i was going to
1:04:27 um so are we
1:04:32 okay the majority of you okay with
1:04:35 leaving the numbers the way they are
1:04:39 i'm hoping that uh in
1:04:43 two years the cars come with the
1:04:45 charging
1:04:47 uh capability and all they need is
1:04:49 something to charge into
1:04:51 they don't need a thirty thousand dollar
1:04:53 upgrade
1:04:54 i mean that's where i think if you're
1:04:56 willing to buy the car then you should
1:04:58 have the
1:04:59 the uh capability of using that
1:05:02 equipment
1:05:03 so um and think of this joan and
1:05:06 everybody
1:05:06 it's job security for us if it keeps
1:05:08 coming back to us
1:05:10 so it keeps us in good keeps us having
1:05:12 our job so
1:05:14 yeah and the big payment we get our
1:05:16 salary for being it yes
1:05:18 um megan can you take this off of the
1:05:22 screen so that i can see the rest of the
1:05:24 people
1:05:24 and get their ups or downs
1:05:29 so um to get off this topic
1:05:34 um are you this is not a motion
1:05:38 um i'd like to to do a little bit more
1:05:40 on the other
1:05:42 other at least the other single family
1:05:45 houses
1:05:46 and then go from there and do a uh um
1:05:50 a motion altogether are we
1:05:53 comfortable with the percentages
1:05:57 that are are being presented by the by
1:06:00 um city could we have an up or down
1:06:06 one two three four five
1:06:10 okay so what about i know that jason
1:06:13 said two years
1:06:14 but the environmental committee had
1:06:17 suggested
1:06:18 come back in a year are we comfortable
1:06:20 with the year
1:06:21 and continue on with uh
1:06:25 you know the same process same
1:06:29 highway to come back in a year and see
1:06:32 where we are and see what the process is
1:06:34 i'm assuming that there's going to be a
1:06:37 lot of
1:06:39 um upgrades and improvements
1:06:42 on on these um uh
1:06:47 charging stations and so every year
1:06:50 you're going to see something
1:06:51 something more something more and if you
1:06:53 require
1:06:54 whole bunches of of all the equipment in
1:06:58 there they're going to be obsolete
1:07:00 and so i think we have to be very
1:07:02 careful and i agree with
1:07:03 whoever said that you know they
1:07:07 everybody could put in different things
1:07:09 to meet their
1:07:13 their requirements so we're on
1:07:16 on this we are happy with the uh the
1:07:19 numbers that the city put out
1:07:21 and we are in one year come back in a
1:07:25 and discuss this i do have a couple
1:07:28 comments
1:07:30 but i'd like to get the comment to sign
1:07:32 off on that or we could be here
1:07:34 discussing this all night so
1:07:36 so this is this is where we are we're
1:07:38 going to keep the numbers the same we're
1:07:39 going to come back in a year
1:07:41 and then we have a comment from richard
1:07:48 thank you joan richard ceragosa i just
1:07:51 wanted to agree
1:07:52 with joy and everybody else i
1:07:55 i'm comfortable with the numbers but i
1:07:57 would really like definitely to revisit
1:07:59 on an annual basis and i agree kind of
1:08:02 up up the ante every year
1:08:04 as technology is going to be making it
1:08:06 much much
1:08:07 uh more necessary and i also agree with
1:08:11 being able to swap uh to the ev ready
1:08:14 in order to reduce costs i think that
1:08:16 makes a lot of sense and
1:08:19 i agree with the idea that apartment
1:08:23 owners are not going to be wanting to
1:08:24 manage all of that
1:08:26 those those stations and that third
1:08:28 parties are would come in and
1:08:29 and it's going to create jobs and i
1:08:31 think that's a great thing so
1:08:33 you'd be ready makes sense to me i also
1:08:36 think that uh
1:08:38 in the process builders are going to
1:08:40 understand that
1:08:41 this is one thing that is going to make
1:08:44 their
1:08:44 apartments condos more
1:08:47 a desirable and they might be willing on
1:08:51 their own to
1:08:52 add some uh if i go into the gas station
1:08:55 and there's a
1:08:57 charging station in the gas station you
1:08:59 might find a lot more
1:09:03 in the new construction so i have
1:09:05 another comment from
1:09:07 ron thank you john so
1:09:11 quick clarification joan evie ready is
1:09:14 just the wire in the conduit not the
1:09:17 station
1:09:18 so i do have a background in residential
1:09:21 electrical and
1:09:25 if we require ev readiness
1:09:28 uh that standard would probably
1:09:32 hold for the next 20 to 30 years before
1:09:36 the national electrical code would make
1:09:38 any changes to
1:09:41 in terms of technology it's wire and a
1:09:44 conduit but what would change
1:09:46 would be the actual charging stations so
1:09:49 i want the commissioners to understand
1:09:51 if we go large and own the eevee ready
1:09:55 which just copper wire and conduit is
1:09:57 all it is
1:09:58 and maybe a thousand dollars cost per
1:10:01 station
1:10:02 after that it's up to the market demand
1:10:06 to put in the
1:10:07 charging station to make it evse and by
1:10:11 that time they'll probably have
1:10:12 wireless technology so that we wouldn't
1:10:14 even need to have any kind of
1:10:18 communications conduit within the
1:10:20 buildings because we'd all be
1:10:23 wireless so really it's just about
1:10:26 the large copper cable in a conduit
1:10:29 to be able to support a av ready station
1:10:35 i have a comment from nina
1:10:39 thank you john nina milligan here so
1:10:41 mine had to do with the process of how
1:10:43 we get past
1:10:44 this and get some voting and some
1:10:47 decisions made
1:10:48 and so i'm asking kristin and
1:10:51 and our other staff members here should
1:10:54 we make a motion
1:10:56 as presented in the chat window on the
1:10:58 original presentation
1:11:00 and then make an amendment and ha
1:11:03 allow the commissioners to vote
1:11:05 independently
1:11:06 on an amendment that says strike the
1:11:08 waiver
1:11:10 for affordable housing have an amendment
1:11:13 that allows commissioners to vote on
1:11:16 increasing the
1:11:18 percentages and perhaps have an
1:11:20 amendment
1:11:21 if we need it to say that we want it to
1:11:25 revisit in a certain period of time what
1:11:28 would be the best way to get the voice
1:11:30 of the commission without having to try
1:11:32 to make consensus on everything
1:11:34 i i wasn't trying to make consensus to
1:11:36 the point that we were not going to have
1:11:38 amendments but i at least wanted to
1:11:40 finish this conversation so we could get
1:11:43 to the next one
1:11:44 so everybody understood what we're where
1:11:46 we were going
1:11:47 i assume that you're going to make
1:11:49 amendments once the uh
1:11:51 the motion is made because there is
1:11:55 other things that we should be
1:11:57 considering maybe
1:11:58 so i just wanted to move it along a
1:12:01 little bit so
1:12:02 um nina i agree with you i think there
1:12:04 are going to be amendments if somebody
1:12:05 wants to make one
1:12:07 but i just wanted to get a little bit
1:12:12 constricted so um i think we spent
1:12:15 enough time on the
1:12:17 affordable housing and i guess that came
1:12:19 into the
1:12:20 uh multifamily buildings at the same
1:12:24 time i think that we're kind of
1:12:27 going by the same numbers but i do want
1:12:30 to get into the single family
1:12:32 houses i know that
1:12:36 we were told by the
1:12:39 uh a city attorney that um it's not
1:12:43 uh acceptable to be uh to require that
1:12:47 for single family
1:12:49 residents but i'd like to um
1:12:52 open that up for a discussion and um
1:12:57 i have a couple questions i guess to
1:12:59 megan i don't know if
1:13:02 if or andrea as a matter of fact has
1:13:05 anybody
1:13:06 contacted the bits uh the state building
1:13:10 code commission to see what their plans
1:13:14 in changing that requirement
1:13:18 and what would happen if the city took
1:13:21 the leadership and
1:13:22 actually uh required
1:13:26 uh eb ready
1:13:30 this is megan um i have talked to them
1:13:34 and they don't have a
1:13:36 a comment or opinion if the city wanted
1:13:42 wanted to offer an amendment to the
1:13:45 state building
1:13:46 code to consider then that would be the
1:13:48 process to do that we would need to go
1:13:50 through the amendment process
1:13:52 to talk to the state building code
1:13:53 council to get their
1:13:55 opinion on it so we could actually
1:13:58 require required for single family and
1:14:00 then ask for the amendment
1:14:04 this is making again um so the the
1:14:07 attorney's opinion
1:14:09 is to not require it
1:14:12 um and there was some information about
1:14:16 that there could be a conflict with the
1:14:18 building code
1:14:19 um because it's already included in the
1:14:22 building code
1:14:22 is that similar to making amendment to a
1:14:25 building code and so that was
1:14:26 kind of detailed out in that opinion
1:14:30 so it's the overall recommendation from
1:14:33 the attorney is to not
1:14:34 require it
1:14:39 that his recommendation and that's no
1:14:41 not to say that
1:14:43 uh this commission could
1:14:46 encourage or request or suggest
1:14:50 or whatever so i'm opening it up to a
1:14:54 discussion um
1:14:58 janice do you have a a question or
1:15:00 comment on
1:15:02 single family housing
1:15:05 no mine was a point of clarification on
1:15:08 the overall recommendations
1:15:10 that came from the environmental board
1:15:14 was for two year review
1:15:15 not one were they oh i read it as one
1:15:18 year but
1:15:20 okay um commissioner
1:15:24 lewis point of clarification uh
1:15:28 commissioner joy lewis thank you joe no
1:15:29 mine is a question
1:15:31 um uh and it's specifically
1:15:34 uh if the administration is behind um
1:15:38 the action of offering an amendment to
1:15:40 the state building commission
1:15:42 um so this is something where i have to
1:15:44 add a big thank you to the public we've
1:15:46 even though we don't have them with us
1:15:47 tonight at our meeting we've had a lot
1:15:49 of really great discussion
1:15:50 and comments from the public either at
1:15:52 work sessions at the environmental board
1:15:54 at um
1:15:55 at comments that have been received an
1:15:56 email directly from us and i want to say
1:15:58 thank you for those
1:15:59 uh conversations that have helped
1:16:00 facilitate it i think it's apparent that
1:16:02 this city
1:16:04 right now is um recommending what you
1:16:07 know our our in-house council has
1:16:09 recommended
1:16:09 i don't have a problem with that right
1:16:11 now because i'm not in a position
1:16:13 to disagree with that legal um advice um
1:16:16 however i do feel strongly that we must
1:16:19 not be silent in our code
1:16:21 about single-family homes and townhomes
1:16:23 so i would almost recommend a sunset
1:16:25 right i would give the administration
1:16:27 for instance one year
1:16:28 um if that's something they back i'm not
1:16:30 even sure the administration
1:16:31 backs going through those channels of
1:16:34 lobbying offering an amendment
1:16:36 if they were to then my recommendation
1:16:38 would be to almost put a sunset engine
1:16:40 to say
1:16:40 that we on the advice of legal counsel
1:16:43 that we leave this for now
1:16:44 and again we do a one year um janice is
1:16:46 correct that the environmental board did
1:16:48 a two year
1:16:49 i would like to see this again in at a
1:16:51 one year time frame
1:16:52 and that would basically give us um some
1:16:54 time to work within the bureaucracy that
1:16:57 exists
1:16:58 um and to allow the state to be able to
1:17:00 say hey this is something that's coming
1:17:02 up how do we work with it
1:17:03 before we kind of go rogue but i do want
1:17:06 to put some sort of
1:17:08 measure on it um so that it isn't just
1:17:11 in perpetuity because again this is only
1:17:13 right now talking about
1:17:14 new buildings so that was both my
1:17:17 opinion and a question for megan to say
1:17:19 does the administration support going
1:17:21 through that
1:17:22 process this is megan
1:17:26 i don't have a formal answer on that yet
1:17:29 i think right now we've been
1:17:30 getting the feedback from the from the
1:17:32 public and
1:17:33 various boards and commissions have been
1:17:35 making the recommendations to council
1:17:37 and then they would be able to
1:17:38 provide direction on that we have talked
1:17:41 with people who have
1:17:43 um who have put amendments forward to
1:17:46 the state building code council
1:17:48 overall um the feedback that i've heard
1:17:50 is it is it's expected that this would
1:17:53 um pass the state building code council
1:17:56 and would be a a process in order to do
1:17:59 that so
1:18:00 um you know time and capacity as well um
1:18:03 but overall it would be expected to be
1:18:05 uphill um amendment
1:18:10 i have a a hard time with that everybody
1:18:15 um uh we don't need so many
1:18:18 in the commercial section because most
1:18:20 people
1:18:22 uh charge their cars at home
1:18:25 well if home doesn't have one
1:18:28 they're going to have to go out and find
1:18:32 so um i see that uh
1:18:36 deputy city administrator snyder has
1:18:40 joined us and i'm sure she has some
1:18:43 comments
1:18:46 uh thank you um madame tara
1:18:50 probably this is andrea snyder
1:18:53 the deputy city administrator also
1:18:55 serving as the interim community
1:18:57 planning and development director
1:19:00 i just wanted to weigh in and
1:19:03 put a finer point on what megan said
1:19:05 which is that
1:19:07 the administration does is seeking
1:19:10 feedback
1:19:10 and recommendations from this commission
1:19:13 and so
1:19:14 if this commission feels really strongly
1:19:16 about
1:19:17 lobbying the state for a change to that
1:19:21 code then that's something that
1:19:25 is well within the commission's
1:19:27 prerogative to provide that
1:19:29 recommendation and that would be
1:19:31 something that the administration and
1:19:33 city council would consider based on
1:19:35 your feedback i also wanted to just
1:19:38 share that the the building code
1:19:43 the state building code was just updated
1:19:47 in i think february 1st of this year
1:19:50 which included the electric vehicle
1:19:53 provision and so
1:19:55 my best guess is that because it was
1:19:58 just recently updated
1:20:00 there and there has been a lot of
1:20:02 apprehension from the building community
1:20:04 about this new code that there's
1:20:06 probably going to be some trial period
1:20:07 where they want to see how it works
1:20:10 and how the developer community responds
1:20:12 to the new building code and
1:20:14 how those codes are then implemented in
1:20:16 cities across the state so there's
1:20:18 we're in a bit of a uh observation
1:20:21 period for the new code
1:20:23 um that said
1:20:27 excuse me that's that if there's a
1:20:28 desire to uh for this commission um
1:20:32 to recommend that the city get more
1:20:34 involved in
1:20:35 lobbying the state than than we would
1:20:37 like to hear that recommendation
1:20:40 thank you so with that recommendation be
1:20:43 part of the motion or would that be
1:20:48 separate from emotion
1:20:51 uh madam chair i would recommend that
1:20:54 that's separate from emotion because
1:20:56 that's
1:20:56 a little different you know it's a
1:20:57 separate item from
1:21:00 the code that's before you today for
1:21:01 your consideration and so
1:21:03 it would be an additional action that
1:21:04 you would be asking the
1:21:06 administration to take that's separate
1:21:08 from the code that's before you
1:21:10 okay so there could be other ones that
1:21:14 other recommendations that go with with
1:21:17 uh the motion is so um
1:21:20 i think that's where we are in the way
1:21:24 single family homes i uh i'm
1:21:28 kind of on the other other side i i used
1:21:30 to have a building company i used to
1:21:32 build homes
1:21:33 and small uh 7-eleven stores
1:21:38 and if i was building today i would put
1:21:42 it without a requirement because i know
1:21:44 the value of
1:21:46 of doing that and so it's hard to
1:21:49 you know it would take very little
1:21:53 to put in the uh
1:21:56 the readiness when you look at
1:21:58 issaquah's
1:22:00 median value of homes it's eight hundred
1:22:03 thousand
1:22:04 so when you say it's a thousand dollars
1:22:07 to put in
1:22:08 it's uh i it's nothing
1:22:11 and so i i hope that uh you guys
1:22:14 [Music]
1:22:15 promote the recommendation that we
1:22:18 uh make sure that this is
1:22:23 the city continues uh in
1:22:26 trying to make this work so um
1:22:29 i have two more comments
1:22:34 and hopefully then we can have a motion
1:22:38 of where we're going to proceed with
1:22:39 this so i have a comment from
1:22:42 jason boyce
1:22:46 thank you madam chair and um i also want
1:22:49 say that i appreciate deputy
1:22:50 administrator snyder's point of view as
1:22:52 well as commissioner lewis's
1:22:54 uh as far as the actual what's before us
1:22:58 tonight
1:22:58 i would agree with the city's council
1:23:02 that we do not need to go rogue we do
1:23:04 not need to impose some type of
1:23:06 de facto um rule change for issaquah
1:23:10 and begun become again an outlier
1:23:13 in the regional area
1:23:16 so for me i'm definitely against
1:23:20 having this as a requirement i have no
1:23:22 problem with
1:23:23 the city if it wants to pursue lobbying
1:23:25 with other cities to get
1:23:26 the state code changed the state
1:23:29 building code
1:23:30 council to change that but um again
1:23:34 for me it's just another area where i
1:23:36 understand people want
1:23:38 is a quad to be this but i also
1:23:40 understand that there is a hesitancy
1:23:43 out there um as far as isoqua being
1:23:45 difficult to be in the
1:23:47 east side if you're developing and i
1:23:48 agree with madam chair
1:23:50 it's not super expensive i think most
1:23:53 responsible builders will do it
1:23:54 on their own and i think in time it will
1:23:57 be a requirement
1:23:58 but to needlessly kind of go rogue
1:24:01 and put it as a requirement that
1:24:03 actually puts us
1:24:05 i don't want to say in violation of the
1:24:06 law but i guess kind of outside the
1:24:08 rules
1:24:08 i think is unnecessary at this point
1:24:12 i think the requirement was to have them
1:24:15 continue to look into it not to actually
1:24:18 require it
1:24:20 um so the last quest last
1:24:23 question is from uh joy lewis
1:24:27 uh commissioner joy lewis here thank you
1:24:29 joan andrea this um
1:24:31 i so while i i still stand by my
1:24:33 comments before that
1:24:34 that i'm not in a position to overturn
1:24:36 the advice of counsel
1:24:38 um the information you just gave it i
1:24:39 guess i either misunderstood or this is
1:24:42 new information that um that february
1:24:45 put in new building code
1:24:47 that we're looking at can you actually
1:24:49 clarify what the new code
1:24:51 is because um i i don't i didn't
1:24:54 remember hearing this come up in the
1:24:55 discussions and i'm hoping you can
1:24:56 elaborate on this for us
1:25:01 uh sure commissioner lewis this is
1:25:03 andrea snyder again um
1:25:05 so the the states periodically updates
1:25:09 building codes and then cities are
1:25:11 expected
1:25:12 to adopt that building code the state
1:25:14 due to the pandemic was
1:25:17 had postponed the building code updates
1:25:19 that were scheduled for last year
1:25:21 and and just adopted
1:25:24 them in february those building codes
1:25:27 come with
1:25:28 a suite of updates heavily around
1:25:33 electric
1:25:37 i'm sorry efficiencies with power unit
1:25:40 power usage and so um
1:25:44 the city uh of issaquah also
1:25:47 adopted those building codes as is
1:25:49 required
1:25:50 uh earlier this year and so my
1:25:53 understanding is that there are
1:25:54 provisions
1:25:55 um requiring some amount of electrical
1:25:57 vehicle
1:25:58 um infrastructure in business in
1:26:01 buildings and i'm wondering if megan can
1:26:02 elaborate on that as she is our
1:26:04 resident expert on electric vehicle
1:26:07 codes at this point
1:26:11 thank you this is megan chris murphy um
1:26:14 yes so the washington
1:26:15 state code update that just went into
1:26:17 effect requires
1:26:20 five percent of parking spaces in
1:26:23 um commercial or multi-family buildings
1:26:26 to have ev infrastructure or
1:26:30 big or there to have or sorry to have ev
1:26:33 chargers in place
1:26:34 or be ev ready so they can
1:26:37 install just ev ready or they can choose
1:26:40 to make it
1:26:41 have the chargers in place so their
1:26:43 requirement again is the five percent
1:26:46 so am i to understand that right now
1:26:49 there's
1:26:50 um the the newly adopted um
1:26:53 the newly adopted code um from the state
1:26:56 commission
1:26:57 in february is purposely silent on
1:26:59 single family
1:27:01 and so um that is why obviously we've
1:27:04 the advice of council to not go against
1:27:06 that but
1:27:07 is that what you're referring to as the
1:27:08 watching and waiting is that they've
1:27:10 chosen not to
1:27:11 and are trying to see if they can offset
1:27:12 it i mean something i'm trying to
1:27:14 understand is that
1:27:15 right now there is no we're
1:27:16 understanding that there is no
1:27:17 requirement
1:27:18 for single family so our council has
1:27:21 advised us to stick with that and that's
1:27:23 what you're saying is that they're if
1:27:24 that's on purpose right that the state
1:27:26 choosing to not have that and we need to
1:27:28 we should align to that
1:27:31 correct yes this is megan the state
1:27:33 chose to do multi-family and commercial
1:27:36 left single family out of it thank you
1:27:39 that i
1:27:40 i'm sorry if that was a long way of
1:27:42 asking for that clarification thank you
1:27:47 so i am looking for a motion
1:27:53 from one of you
1:27:58 there is a motion in the chat
1:28:02 if somebody would like to continue on
1:28:05 with that one
1:28:10 jason can i yes
1:28:14 so i have no problem making the motion
1:28:16 but we are
1:28:17 going to also allow amen that's correct
1:28:20 oh absolutely absolutely this is just to
1:28:22 start the discussion
1:28:23 okay excellent so madam chair i would
1:28:26 like to make a motion to recommend
1:28:28 approval of the proposed amendments to
1:28:30 title 18 land use code regarding
1:28:32 electric vehicle
1:28:34 charging infrastructure as presented
1:28:36 tonight
1:28:38 do i have a second i'll second georgia
1:28:40 lewis
1:28:43 is there any other is there any
1:28:45 discussion
1:28:47 amendments
1:28:50 uh the floor is open for amendments
1:28:55 nina great i'll make it i'll make an
1:28:58 amendment
1:28:59 uh i move to strike the
1:29:03 chapter to waive requirements on
1:29:07 affordable housing developments and that
1:29:09 is chapter 18.09.14 whoever is
1:29:14 dinging could you mute
1:29:19 again that was to strike the waiver for
1:29:20 affordable housing
1:29:23 i'm sorry nina i would love to hear do
1:29:25 you mind speaking a little bit closer to
1:29:27 the microphone so we can
1:29:28 capture that did anybody hear the
1:29:31 dinging in the background or
1:29:33 am i losing my mind okay so if you
1:29:36 repeat that
1:29:37 if you could repeat your your amendment
1:29:39 that would be great
1:29:40 thank you i moved to strike the section
1:29:44 that gives affordable housing a waiver
1:29:48 ev infrastructure notably
1:29:52 the section 18.09.1408.10.
1:30:00 you are from the city council
1:30:07 [Music]
1:30:10 does the maker of the motion accept the
1:30:13 amendment
1:30:16 yes jason yes
1:30:19 um so
1:30:22 i need a vote
1:30:25 on the amendment this is not the
1:30:29 motion it's the amendment point of
1:30:31 clarification on
1:30:32 on the motion i'd like to ask nina um i
1:30:35 see that you're striking the waiver part
1:30:38 you haven't included what had been
1:30:39 discussed before about taking away the
1:30:41 neutrality
1:30:42 is that on purpose because you would
1:30:44 like to do a different motion or because
1:30:45 you're against it
1:30:50 uh this night i'm not sure if i
1:30:52 understand you joy um
1:30:54 in the neutrality you mean the cost
1:30:56 neutrality
1:30:57 i think all the cost neutrality
1:30:59 languages in that
1:31:01 section but those who wrote it can
1:31:04 help me make sure that i'm covering the
1:31:06 whole part that
1:31:08 gives an exclusion for affordable
1:31:09 housing megan
1:31:11 yes this is megan yes by striking that
1:31:14 section with the numbers you laid out
1:31:16 ending in 10 would remove the
1:31:19 the whole piece about affordable housing
1:31:21 so affordable housing would not be
1:31:23 mentioned anywhere separately in the
1:31:26 ordinance
1:31:26 so there would be no waiver for it
1:31:30 it would be treated the same important
1:31:31 clear inflation would that include then
1:31:34 that trade-off of the evsc versus the eb
1:31:37 that we had discussed as well
1:31:41 this is megan the that's right that
1:31:43 would all be crossed out
1:31:45 so there would be no difference for
1:31:47 affordable housing as any other
1:31:49 multi-family housing
1:31:53 okay any other discussion on the motion
1:31:56 point of clarification so
1:32:00 and i actually some discussion um
1:32:03 i actually am quite fine with everything
1:32:06 that was just stated i would just like
1:32:07 to say if there was going to be some
1:32:09 type of measure to help
1:32:10 a developer save a little bit of money
1:32:13 how would you put it into the discussion
1:32:15 the other commissioners agree how would
1:32:17 you put it being able to say
1:32:19 okay the evs e percentage can be
1:32:23 changed as long as it is added towards
1:32:26 ev ready percentage so instead of 10 and
1:32:30 yes you could save some money by not
1:32:32 putting the evse
1:32:34 but you have to take that 10 and then
1:32:35 add it to the 20
1:32:37 for a total of 30 percent of ev ready
1:32:40 parking units um
1:32:44 how would i say that or i don't even
1:32:46 know if i'm allowed to say it since i
1:32:47 made the motion but
1:32:48 that was my point well i think
1:32:51 jason is for staff right because it's
1:32:53 pretty common in that historically
1:32:55 for us to convey our thoughts and for
1:32:57 staff to say hey we're going to pass
1:32:58 that on so in theory
1:33:00 and please um kristen and megan correct
1:33:04 if we passed this current amendment as
1:33:07 is on the table right now
1:33:08 you would also be able to separately
1:33:10 convey to council
1:33:11 that should they desire and some type of
1:33:14 neutrality that that is what our
1:33:16 position is as a commission or are
1:33:19 you would you like us to have a vote on
1:33:21 that particular opinion
1:33:28 that could be a request
1:33:35 and clarification unless
1:33:39 nina puts it part of her motion
1:33:44 if she doesn't put it on the motion then
1:33:46 the motion stands
1:33:48 we we um vote on the motion
1:33:52 and then if you need more clarification
1:33:54 if you want to make an
1:33:55 additional amendment then we can look at
1:33:58 another amend but right now we've got to
1:34:01 discuss
1:34:02 nina's amendment and so i need
1:34:06 kristin or megan whoever's going to take
1:34:08 the role
1:34:09 to uh on this motion
1:34:13 on this amendment to the motion
1:34:17 be happy to take the role on that cool
1:34:21 do we it's okay so you all are clear on
1:34:25 what this amended motion is
1:34:27 correct uh to remove
1:34:30 the motion is to remove
1:34:36 1809.01
1:34:38 excuse me 1809 140
1:34:42 and i'm just going to say ending in 10
1:34:45 from the proposed amendments correct
1:34:49 do you agree and then that also strikes
1:34:53 the neutrality part
1:34:55 yes it does okay
1:34:58 so i will take votes now please
1:35:02 uh commissioner fall hi
1:35:07 commissioner lewis aye
1:35:10 commissioner monahan hi
1:35:14 commissioner parabola aye aye chair
1:35:16 provola
1:35:17 uh commissioner carl hi
1:35:22 commissioner voice hi
1:35:25 and commissioner milligan aye
1:35:29 the amendment passes 7-0
1:35:33 is there anybody else
1:35:37 who wants to make another motion for him
1:35:40 for another amendment is there anything
1:35:42 else that you want to put into this
1:35:44 statement
1:35:48 okay so i wanted so as a source of
1:35:54 cost savings i would like
1:35:58 to propose an amendment that would allow
1:36:01 the evsc percentage to be turned into
1:36:05 ev ready uh that percent i don't know
1:36:10 how to word this
1:36:11 have that percentage basically be taken
1:36:13 and turned into eevee ready
1:36:16 somebody clean up my language please but
1:36:18 that's the idea
1:36:20 all of it so there is no well i just
1:36:24 think it's even ready and i guess
1:36:28 okay so how do i do this with further
1:36:29 discussion
1:36:31 does anybody think that would actually
1:36:32 just create a dissentive
1:36:34 in order for people to get out of the
1:36:36 evsc percentage
1:36:39 i don't because like i said i think ev
1:36:43 ready is really where we
1:36:45 should be focused because evsc could be
1:36:48 a third-party contractor okay
1:36:53 in my opinion and
1:36:56 [Music]
1:36:58 if it's ev ready and there's market
1:37:01 demand
1:37:03 then conversations can be said between
1:37:06 the residents and the property managers
1:37:09 about adding
1:37:10 charging stations and then you have an
1:37:12 evse so i think
1:37:13 if we i think to jason's point is a good
1:37:17 if we want to incentivize
1:37:21 evie ready in exchange give up one evse
1:37:26 and we get two or three ev readies i
1:37:28 think that's actually
1:37:29 progress keeps the percentage as long as
1:37:32 they keep the percentage right so that's
1:37:34 the idea
1:37:35 well there's a trade-off evs much more
1:37:38 expensive right so
1:37:39 we're going to trade off an evsc i want
1:37:42 two more evr
1:37:43 you readies or three more ev readies but
1:37:45 how do i do that
1:37:46 and i think to your point jason you're
1:37:49 looking for
1:37:50 language how do we do that and so that
1:37:54 might be a question
1:37:55 for andrea or megan
1:37:58 curtis to help us understand how to
1:38:02 put that into words right
1:38:05 this is megan i can take a stab um for a
1:38:09 point of clarification are you talking
1:38:11 about just affordable housing are you
1:38:13 talking about the full
1:38:14 ordinance percentages no it was just
1:38:17 about affordable housing at least for me
1:38:18 it was
1:38:20 okay so it sounds like
1:38:23 um so the vote just passed to strike
1:38:26 that section 10.
1:38:28 and now it sounds like if council
1:38:31 wants to move forward with the cost
1:38:34 neutrality
1:38:35 approach the commission would recommend
1:38:40 an option to have a trade-off
1:38:44 an option for um
1:38:48 developer to install more ev
1:38:52 ready spaces than
1:38:55 ev and get rid of some of the evsc
1:38:57 spaces
1:38:58 can you put what you put
1:39:01 can you put two to one or three to one
1:39:04 well i think yeah
1:39:06 it could actually help them save a
1:39:07 little money so i think it would still
1:39:09 be just the percentage of the parking
1:39:11 spot it's not about getting more
1:39:14 a bigger percentage it's about getting
1:39:16 so if you have 10 percent that are evse
1:39:19 you'd still keep 10 it wouldn't you
1:39:21 wouldn't all of a sudden take the money
1:39:23 you're saving and then add more ebsc
1:39:25 that's not what i meant
1:39:26 the idea is if you were going to try and
1:39:28 help them save a little bit of money on
1:39:29 their parking
1:39:31 you could convert the 10 percent evse
1:39:35 into that 10 be just being added to the
1:39:38 30 percent
1:39:39 ev ready because if you just take the
1:39:42 money that you're saving
1:39:43 all of a sudden convert it into multiple
1:39:45 more parking spots
1:39:46 you're not really helping them at all
1:39:52 maybe
1:39:54 and wiring i mean you look at from a
1:39:56 cost standpoint if they're going to wire
1:39:58 10 units or 10 stalls adding
1:40:02 three more may not be very may not add
1:40:05 very much cost at all
1:40:08 but adding that charging station is a
1:40:10 significant cost
1:40:11 so again i would into ron's point i
1:40:13 would stick with that number that
1:40:14 percentage
1:40:15 10 would turn into 10
1:40:18 10 more ev ready
1:40:25 so what you're saying is we're going to
1:40:27 give up an evsc but in exchange we're
1:40:29 going to get
1:40:30 more stalls that are going to be eevee
1:40:34 ready
1:40:34 so in other words we give up if we have
1:40:37 20 stalls that are
1:40:38 evr or ev ready one stalls evs that's 11
1:40:42 stalls we give up
1:40:44 the evse we're going to get
1:40:47 12 stalls that are ev ready or 13 stalls
1:40:51 that are ev ready
1:40:52 that was my thinking i'm going to give
1:40:54 something up i want something to return
1:40:56 but then it's not really sitting often
1:40:58 it's not really helping them it's
1:40:59 i guess my point what would i guess
1:41:03 the idea to make it cheaper if the
1:41:06 and again i i'm fine just i'm fine
1:41:09 kicking that can
1:41:10 down the road i think we got the first
1:41:12 amendment which was
1:41:13 to make sure that the the thing that we
1:41:16 wanted her strike you know we have the
1:41:18 waiver strike
1:41:19 my point was if you were going to try to
1:41:21 help them save a little bit of money
1:41:22 but again if that's not a big concern
1:41:24 then i'm okay with letting this go the
1:41:26 way it is
1:41:27 but you would be saving money if it's 30
1:41:30 or 40
1:41:31 if it's 30 000 to put in the
1:41:34 the complete system
1:41:38 and you say take one of those off and
1:41:41 put in
1:41:42 three ready ones you're still and each
1:41:46 one of those is a thousand dollars
1:41:48 you are saving money but you are giving
1:41:51 uh evie ready
1:41:55 to the inhabitants so you are
1:41:58 doing that and that's why i said if you
1:42:00 take off one
1:42:01 can you can you do that you have to do
1:42:04 two or three to balance it out you have
1:42:07 to have a give and a take you're going
1:42:09 to save money but you're going to end up
1:42:12 if you can and it will depend on how
1:42:14 many parking spots you have all
1:42:18 in the in the whole place if you want to
1:42:20 do that
1:42:21 okay well i i like joan's explanation
1:42:23 and to move this along
1:42:24 i am happy with what joan just said does
1:42:26 somebody else want to do this
1:42:28 i have clearly butchered it
1:42:32 commissioner joy lewis i'm jumping in
1:42:34 here again with the question that i'd
1:42:35 asked staff before
1:42:36 historically we have made a separate
1:42:39 from the ordinance that we're voting on
1:42:41 we have made recommendations to council
1:42:43 on the subject of which we are advising
1:42:45 on it sounds to me that we have
1:42:48 some excellent advice for council for
1:42:51 when they're reviewing this that is
1:42:52 separate from the wording and language
1:42:54 of the ordinance so i'm asking staff
1:42:56 to confirm that we are able to give
1:42:58 language
1:42:59 that is not attached to the ordinance
1:43:01 but is in relation to our recommendation
1:43:03 of how to move forward to counsel
1:43:07 hi this is kristen lease and yes you all
1:43:08 have done this before
1:43:10 and the way we have done it in the past
1:43:11 you have made a formal amendment or a
1:43:14 formal amendment to the motion and that
1:43:17 goes into the findings effect which goes
1:43:18 to counsel
1:43:19 if there are other recommendations not
1:43:22 directly associated with the amendment
1:43:23 that is proposed
1:43:25 it can be put into the agenda bill as
1:43:27 other recommendations from the planning
1:43:29 policy commission however you all still
1:43:30 need to agree on it it can't be that one
1:43:32 person says it
1:43:33 and it goes in the agenda bill you all
1:43:34 still need to agree on whether or not
1:43:36 you want that in there
1:43:37 that's exactly that's my thought but
1:43:38 before i take a stab at the wording on
1:43:41 because i feel like andrea is the great
1:43:42 powerful oz who then themes into us i
1:43:44 want to give her a chance to talk
1:43:49 uh we were still discussing the emotion
1:43:51 that jason wanted to
1:43:54 to put forth that i just
1:43:58 i understand i understand but maybe
1:44:01 from what you said maybe he doesn't even
1:44:02 have to make emotions
1:44:04 it's up to him to not make the notion
1:44:07 and put it as a recommendation
1:44:13 so i'm excited to hear her point of
1:44:15 clarification too
1:44:21 um i'm still reeling from being called
1:44:24 the great powerful oz
1:44:26 so um
1:44:29 i i uh so chris and lisa got it right
1:44:35 so what we are looking for
1:44:38 is recommendations from the commission
1:44:42 on the ordinance as it is proposed
1:44:47 if the commission wants to provide
1:44:49 additional recommendations
1:44:51 outside of the ordinance then that's
1:44:53 something that
1:44:54 the commission can do and that kristin
1:44:57 would include in the materials to
1:45:00 counsel
1:45:03 so i'll go back to
1:45:07 does anybody want to make an additional
1:45:10 abandonment
1:45:12 to the emotion or
1:45:16 the amendment that we've already passed
1:45:20 i have a
1:45:23 question from
1:45:27 ron did we take care of
1:45:30 joy did you have another question no
1:45:33 i'll let ron go ahead i just have
1:45:35 language written down to help
1:45:36 this okay then in that case let's i was
1:45:39 going to
1:45:40 take a stab at making a motion but if
1:45:43 joy has language
1:45:44 let's hear what she has to say first
1:45:48 all right let's see how everybody feels
1:45:50 about this it is the recommendation
1:45:52 of this commission that the co-changes
1:45:54 to the electric vehicle ordinance
1:45:55 be revisited by both the environmental
1:45:58 board
1:45:59 and the planning policy commission in
1:46:01 one year or on the daca calendar of 2022
1:46:05 it is the recommendation of this
1:46:06 commission if the council would like to
1:46:08 have an incentive for affordable housing
1:46:11 that uh would be uh the swap of an evse
1:46:15 to an all ev ready component uh with
1:46:19 i believe is what we're what the two
1:46:21 things that we've
1:46:22 auditioned if anyone else would like to
1:46:24 jump on before we make
1:46:26 it formal i'd love to hear
1:46:29 would we like to put in numbers and say
1:46:33 uh part of that proposal if we swap out
1:46:36 for every evse
1:46:40 two or three ev readies
1:46:46 yeah so that the percentage does not
1:46:48 decline i think is what the intended
1:46:50 reason
1:46:51 grows we get something for nothing well
1:46:54 i don't ever say that it would be
1:46:55 be neutral ron but we can have that we
1:46:58 can have that debate too which i think
1:46:59 will be really good
1:47:00 but what i've heard so far is that they
1:47:02 be equal right the percentage that we
1:47:04 currently have
1:47:05 does not change however in order to help
1:47:09 the cost for a developer who is um
1:47:12 involved in affordable housing would be
1:47:15 able to have the trade-off of the higher
1:47:17 cost of the evse
1:47:18 instead convert that to an all
1:47:22 eb ready and that is again only if the
1:47:24 council
1:47:25 decides that it would like to have some
1:47:27 type of incentive
1:47:28 incentivization then uh then that is our
1:47:31 recommendation
1:47:32 to council so kristin i need to er
1:47:36 or andy i need some clarification those
1:47:39 are recommendations are they
1:47:41 are they part of the motion process
1:47:45 or are they in addition to motion
1:47:48 amendments and then separately to have
1:47:50 the recommendation
1:47:52 this is kristin those would be in
1:47:54 addition to okay
1:47:56 so it's not emotion
1:47:59 i sorry madame joan can i add something
1:48:04 right so maybe to
1:48:07 joy's point um and jason's point
1:48:10 as far as a cost reduction moving
1:48:14 towards neutrality
1:48:16 maybe we could word it so that uh
1:48:20 25 or 50 of the savings would then go
1:48:24 towards building out new ev ready
1:48:29 so therefore if i'm going to give up
1:48:32 if we have 10 stalls one of those is
1:48:34 supposed to be an evs
1:48:36 or an evse and 9 or evr ready
1:48:40 then if we give up the evse then maybe
1:48:43 50 of the savings would be then applied
1:48:46 towards
1:48:48 building out more ev ratties whether
1:48:50 that's maybe
1:48:51 two or three or four or five spa stalls
1:48:55 would be ev ready and that way the
1:48:58 developer is still saving costs
1:49:00 but we're getting more capacity my that
1:49:03 that's kind of what i'm looking at is
1:49:05 my goal in this conversation is to get
1:49:07 you all on board with
1:49:12 capacity
1:49:14 i actually think you're undercutting
1:49:16 yourself i think like you said if you
1:49:17 just take the ten percent that are ea
1:49:20 and you re well okay like i said i'm
1:49:24 starting to get burned out on this
1:49:26 but if you actually took the ten percent
1:49:28 right
1:49:29 and you turned and you had to turn that
1:49:31 10 into ev ready
1:49:33 i guess i guess you would i guess you
1:49:36 wouldn't end up with any different
1:49:38 number of stalls you just end up with ev
1:49:40 ready stalls and i guess what ron's
1:49:42 saying is he'd like to see that grow
1:49:44 yeah well that's that has to
1:49:48 you can't just take a uh
1:49:51 a stall away and not i mean that would
1:49:54 be crazy that's just giving you back
1:49:57 thirty thousand dollars you can't do
1:49:59 that um
1:50:05 if we're going to put that as
1:50:08 a recommendation um i would suggest
1:50:12 that we
1:50:16 put in there that we suggest that
1:50:20 somehow this is put together with a
1:50:22 discussion in the future
1:50:24 of how how
1:50:27 it should be done i don't think we're
1:50:29 going to be able to make that decision
1:50:31 now but we want that to happen
1:50:34 so can we make it as a recommendation
1:50:37 that we
1:50:38 that this is a possibility that um
1:50:42 you know we're open to have this happen
1:50:46 somehow to present that to to counsel
1:50:50 and continue on with our
1:50:54 uh motion and amendment
1:50:57 that we've already passed if that's
1:51:00 going to be a recommendation
1:51:02 then you can discuss how you want to
1:51:05 present it to city council
1:51:08 thank you that's exactly right what i
1:51:10 what i would like to hear from right now
1:51:12 ron has from what i originally proposed
1:51:15 ron has said that he would like to use
1:51:16 this as an opportunity to
1:51:18 increase which i was not proposing right
1:51:21 so i would love to hear where other
1:51:23 commissioners are falling
1:51:24 on the two things that i just put
1:51:26 forward to see where we're at as far as
1:51:29 a consensus
1:51:34 well my feeling is if we take away a
1:51:38 uh are ready then we're going to get
1:51:42 two or three additional
1:51:46 stalls evie ready stalls
1:51:50 there has to be something it can't just
1:51:53 just taking away one of the one of the
1:51:56 main stalls and
1:51:58 and not doing anything with it so i have
1:52:00 a comment from nina and then we're gonna
1:52:05 great thank you this is nina milligan i
1:52:07 want to agree with you joan and the
1:52:09 others who are saying that if we are
1:52:10 going to
1:52:11 incentivize and help portable housing
1:52:14 developers by reducing the cost by
1:52:17 reducing the number of
1:52:18 ebse stalls that we would get
1:52:22 more than a one-to-one ratio of ev
1:52:25 ready now i don't know what the ratio is
1:52:28 is it two or three or what but the staff
1:52:30 does a really good job of
1:52:31 figuring these things out or finding out
1:52:33 how to dial that in
1:52:35 but if we say to the council
1:52:38 if you feel like you need an incentive
1:52:41 this is the
1:52:41 one that we're in favor of
1:52:45 trading an ebsc for more than one
1:52:48 be ready okay so that that
1:52:52 is just a recommendation so we're back
1:52:54 to we've
1:52:55 gotten the amendment we've taken out the
1:53:00 affordable housing part of it and now
1:53:02 we're back to the
1:53:03 actual emotion and kristen could you
1:53:07 um repeat the original motion
1:53:15 okay we're going back to the original
1:53:17 motion well yeah
1:53:19 because we've already okay there's no
1:53:20 other amendments and so we're
1:53:22 right we've got we're back to the
1:53:24 original motion okay so the original
1:53:26 motion
1:53:27 is to recommend approval of proposed
1:53:29 amendments
1:53:31 to title 18 land use code regarding
1:53:33 electrical vehicle charging
1:53:35 infrastructure
1:53:36 as presented any further discussion on
1:53:43 so kristen would you take the role
1:53:47 yes commissioner fall
1:53:59 commissioner lewis aye
1:54:02 mr monahan aye commissioner carl
1:54:07 right commissioner voice
1:54:11 i commissioner milligan
1:54:15 aye and chair probola aye
1:54:21 so that motion passed but to be clear
1:54:24 that motion has already been
1:54:25 amended right or has an amendment to it
1:54:28 to remove 1810 okay got it okay all
1:54:32 right so
1:54:32 so with that what do you want to
1:54:36 add as recommendation do you want to go
1:54:40 a one year you want to
1:54:44 give me some ideas of what those
1:54:46 specifics are
1:54:50 joy i will reiterate and i would love to
1:54:54 hear from everybody to say if they
1:54:57 uh it is the recommendation of this
1:54:58 commission that the code changes to the
1:55:00 electric vehicle ordinance be revisited
1:55:03 by both the
1:55:04 environmental board and the planning
1:55:05 policy commission in one year
1:55:07 or on the docket calendar of 2022
1:55:11 it is the recommend uh recommendation of
1:55:13 this commission
1:55:14 that if the council would like to have
1:55:16 an ince if have an incentive
1:55:18 for affordable housing uh that that
1:55:20 would be the swap of the percentage from
1:55:22 ebse to ev
1:55:24 ready however this commission is split
1:55:27 on whether that percentage be a
1:55:29 one-to-one gain
1:55:30 or whether the ratio will be worked out
1:55:32 by staff
1:55:34 can we just say that i think we'll all
1:55:37 agree that it will be worked out by
1:55:38 staff
1:55:41 and not put in yes
1:55:44 okay so is there any
1:55:47 do we all agree on the recommendation
1:55:56 i think kristen wants our hands yes um
1:56:03 okay that's that's a majority and i will
1:56:07 write that up and then we will include
1:56:09 it in the agenda bill that goes to
1:56:10 council
1:56:11 okay and there's another no other
1:56:13 recommendations
1:56:16 you know this one
1:56:19 i'm sorry did we have a did we want to
1:56:22 make a recommendation about single
1:56:23 family
1:56:24 to lobby at the state level for there to
1:56:27 a requirement allowed on the city level
1:56:29 is that something that
1:56:30 we wanted to talk about
1:56:33 okay can i see hands
1:56:37 on that one also i didn't hear one add
1:56:44 i'll say it again they uh recommend
1:56:48 that we recommended the council that we
1:56:51 lobby
1:56:52 for changes at the state level for
1:56:55 requirements for single-family housing
1:57:00 and i'm sorry just to piggyback that we
1:57:01 would that we the the planning policy
1:57:04 commission recommends that the
1:57:05 administration offer an amendment to the
1:57:08 state building code to michigan
1:57:13 ron oh that's
1:57:16 okay so everybody agrees
1:57:20 see your hands
1:57:25 joy could you write
1:57:28 your recommendation in the chat so that
1:57:33 um megan has a
1:57:37 formal uh wording of what you had
1:57:40 recommended
1:57:41 the same for you lina could you you know
1:57:44 this is
1:57:45 super interesting i like a point of
1:57:46 clarification from staff on it
1:57:49 it is my understanding that the only
1:57:50 thing we're supposed to be writing in
1:57:53 is comment question and that um the
1:57:56 that right now as i as i witness the
1:57:58 environmental board writing in
1:58:00 amendments into chat is actually
1:58:02 a direct violation of what's been handed
1:58:05 down by the governor of what's been
1:58:07 allowed because it's a violation of the
1:58:08 opens meetings act
1:58:10 that by verbally saying it and staff
1:58:12 recounting it is actually what needs to
1:58:14 happen
1:58:14 and that i'm not able to do that at this
1:58:16 point joan but if i have some sort of
1:58:18 guidance otherwise then i will obviously
1:58:20 invent that
1:58:22 i will say we were given direction by
1:58:24 the clerk's office
1:58:26 that we can put amendments into the chat
1:58:28 as long as they are spoken aloud as well
1:58:30 because the public needs to be
1:58:32 needs to know what's in the chat
1:58:35 besides the fact that megan asked us to
1:58:37 do that
1:58:39 okay if you two could put that in the
1:58:43 and make sure that kristen gets that
1:58:46 uh i would say that joy's was the same
1:58:49 as mine just much better written
1:58:52 i'm just using the language that staff
1:58:54 gave us because that's the bureaucrat
1:58:55 bureaucracy if there's some sort of
1:58:57 lobbying that can be done by the mayor
1:59:00 in her um specific commissions and
1:59:02 things i'm happy to include that as well
1:59:05 um because i think it sounds like
1:59:06 there's a consensus on the commission
1:59:08 that we would like to explore that so i
1:59:10 will go ahead and type that in
1:59:11 the consensus was for what you actually
1:59:15 said so i'm going to type that uh
1:59:18 because i think what nina's point was
1:59:19 uh something about lobbying uh and
1:59:22 that's a
1:59:23 a different thing than offering the
1:59:24 minute so i'm going to combine them both
1:59:25 as what was verbally said
1:59:28 and moves on with the presentation okay
1:59:30 so there are three different
1:59:32 recommendations that we're forwarding on
1:59:34 to city council
1:59:36 so with that we're going to continue
1:59:40 with a presentation by kristin
1:59:45 on citywide planning
1:59:49 policies and growth targets
1:59:57 you are muted
2:00:01 sorry i was moving to another screen um
2:00:03 i do want to ask if you all want to take
2:00:04 a five minute break or if you're good
2:00:06 you just want to keep growing and move
2:00:07 through this
2:00:08 we want to go through it all right it
2:00:11 all right
2:00:12 let's do this i will share my screen
2:00:32 i think this is an awesome commission
2:00:35 you guys have such
2:00:36 great ideas and you're willing to say
2:00:43 um okay you all can see my screen
2:00:48 yep okay great
2:00:51 doesn't look like it's sharing on my
2:00:53 computer so i wasn't sure
2:00:55 all right um
2:00:58 here we go can you full screen yes yeah
2:01:02 i'm having trouble come on
2:01:06 oh my god cute yeah went to the other
2:01:09 one let me see display settings
2:01:12 swap presenter there we go
2:01:15 are we good now okay
2:01:20 great
2:01:22 i am going to talk with you all about
2:01:25 growth targets
2:01:26 and i talked with presented this to the
2:01:29 city council
2:01:30 on tuesday night with the
2:01:33 king county who also came to talk and we
2:01:36 had a very long
2:01:37 very good discussion about growth
2:01:38 targets and i wanted to share
2:01:40 some of that with you and you all have a
2:01:43 lot to do with growth targets because
2:01:45 they're in our comprehensive plan
2:01:46 we track our growth targets regularly
2:01:50 you all need to understand them so we
2:01:52 wanted to be sure to try and give you
2:01:54 all a good understanding of what's going
2:01:55 on here so
2:01:56 i'm actually going to start with the
2:01:59 king county county-wide
2:02:01 planning policies so as you know we have
2:02:03 our growth management act way up at the
2:02:05 top who sets rules and regulations for
2:02:07 development
2:02:08 and all things state-related and
2:02:11 then they require that counties plan
2:02:14 and regions plans so we have our puget
2:02:16 sound regional council which has
2:02:19 snohomish kitsap pierce and king
2:02:22 counties
2:02:23 and they have their comprehensive plan
2:02:25 which was just updated
2:02:26 in october of 2050 called vision 2050.
2:02:31 they then based on that and based what
2:02:33 the state says
2:02:34 uh there are county wide planning
2:02:36 policies
2:02:38 and then that fall flows down to our
2:02:40 comprehensive plan our zoning code and
2:02:42 our development and construction and how
2:02:44 things
2:02:44 are done in the city so the county-wide
2:02:48 planning policies are
2:02:50 they are within only the urban growth
2:02:54 area boundary they don't go into the
2:02:55 rural areas they have criteria for
2:02:58 revising the growth boundary
2:03:02 they include policies for issues of
2:03:04 county-wide
2:03:05 nature just like our comprehensive plan
2:03:07 is city-wide nature this is county-wide
2:03:08 nature
2:03:09 there's criteria for defining urban
2:03:12 centers and manufacturing and industrial
2:03:14 centers and we have an urban center in
2:03:15 our city it's our regional growth center
2:03:18 it provides guidance for our
2:03:20 comprehensive plans and
2:03:22 growth targets for each jurisdiction
2:03:25 so this countywide planning policies
2:03:28 which i will call the cpps
2:03:30 are being updated now because one as i
2:03:33 mentioned
2:03:33 the vision 2050 or the region-wide
2:03:37 comprehensive plan
2:03:38 was just updated there had been several
2:03:41 policy and legislative changes since
2:03:43 2012 which need to be included in the
2:03:47 there are the gm the growth management
2:03:51 planning council just
2:03:52 created a regional affordable housing
2:03:55 the committee did and there are some
2:03:57 recommendations that need to be included
2:03:59 there
2:04:00 and then there's also a lot of policy
2:04:02 guidance for 2024 comprehensive planned
2:04:04 periodic update
2:04:06 including growth targets
2:04:09 so what are growth targets growth
2:04:11 targets are
2:04:12 a policy estate statement about the
2:04:15 amount of housing and job growth
2:04:17 that we say we commit to planning for
2:04:20 over a defined planning horizon
2:04:24 they are part of the cpps they are
2:04:28 for the urban area only again not for
2:04:30 the rural area
2:04:31 they are for at least a 20 year period
2:04:35 and they are created collaboratively
2:04:38 by all cities within each county in our
2:04:41 case king county
2:04:44 so just to kind of give you a an idea of
2:04:46 where we stand now
2:04:48 our our last targets
2:04:51 were from 2006 through 2031 and this is
2:04:55 a snapshot
2:04:56 of where the cities landed between
2:04:59 to the core cities between 2006 and
2:05:03 2018 and as you can see issaquah
2:05:06 and i'm going to say unofficially has
2:05:08 met its housing targets
2:05:10 um bottle was at 58 we were at 89
2:05:14 and i think redmond was up there kind of
2:05:16 at about 50 with
2:05:18 their housing targets
2:05:21 and then jobs we were kind of middle of
2:05:24 the road
2:05:25 bothell exceeded theirs with over 100 of
2:05:28 their housing target
2:05:29 and then kirkland and redmond weren't
2:05:31 too far behind there
2:05:35 so what's the difference between
2:05:36 capacity and targets because they are
2:05:38 not the same thing
2:05:40 so land use capacity as you can see the
2:05:42 little
2:05:43 cutout from our comprehensive plan that
2:05:45 is our land use designation map
2:05:47 and you may recall that within under
2:05:49 each land use designation is an umbrella
2:05:52 and within that you have zoning
2:05:53 districts the zoning districts have
2:05:55 regulations tied to them and those
2:05:57 regulations
2:05:58 dictate it's a hard word but dictate
2:06:01 regulate
2:06:02 how much density can occur in each zone
2:06:05 right so by adopting these
2:06:08 land-use designations we sort of
2:06:10 identify our capacity
2:06:12 and it's the ultimate without a time
2:06:13 horizon attached to it
2:06:15 how much how many housing units and
2:06:17 non-residential space that we can
2:06:19 accommodate
2:06:20 and then a growth target is a policy
2:06:23 statement saying
2:06:24 we will accommodate this much growth
2:06:27 housing units and jobs within this
2:06:30 planning horizon
2:06:32 so that it's it's a fine line but but
2:06:34 there's a difference between the two
2:06:38 so growth targets and key assumptions in
2:06:40 the process so how this starts
2:06:43 is that the psr the puget sound regional
2:06:46 council
2:06:47 gives us a forecast of population that
2:06:50 is going to come to the region
2:06:52 over by 2050 2050 ceo that they gave
2:06:55 and it's just over a million people
2:06:59 and jobs over eight hundred thousand
2:07:01 almost nine hundred thousand
2:07:05 so the puget sound regional council
2:07:08 takes that information
2:07:09 and they sort of um divvied up among
2:07:13 based on policy and based on what's
2:07:16 happened in the past
2:07:18 they say okay so king county is going to
2:07:20 have about 50 of that growth that
2:07:21 population growth which is then
2:07:23 converted into housing
2:07:24 and they're going to have about 59
2:07:26 percent of the job share
2:07:30 then they give it to the counties and
2:07:31 the counties divided up between metro
2:07:34 cities core cities high capacity transit
2:07:36 cities
2:07:36 and towns and urban unincorporated and
2:07:40 metro cities for king county are
2:07:42 bellevue and seattle
2:07:44 there are 11 core cities there are 16
2:07:46 region-wide but there are 11
2:07:48 in king county and we are expected to
2:07:52 about 40 of the housing growth share and
2:07:56 45 of the job growth share
2:08:00 meaning that um the anticipated
2:08:02 population is just over it's about 262
2:08:06 000 people that means that king county
2:08:09 core cities would need to take
2:08:10 100 almost 113 000 housing units
2:08:15 and almost 223 000 jobs
2:08:19 so what happens
2:08:22 is for about a year and a half
2:08:26 jurisdictions work to prepare what's
2:08:28 called a buildable land report
2:08:30 and we look at all of the vacant and
2:08:33 redevelopable land to determine our
2:08:35 capacities
2:08:36 and we give those to king county and our
2:08:39 capacity
2:08:41 if something vacant's obvious right but
2:08:44 if something is
2:08:45 redevelopable it maybe it has
2:08:48 one house on it right now where the
2:08:51 zoning actually allows for four houses
2:08:52 on it
2:08:53 or it's a one-story commercial building
2:08:56 that can actually allow for
2:08:57 four stories or maybe a 2.5 far where it
2:09:01 only has one far
2:09:04 so that's what we provide to the county
2:09:07 we're looking at our regulations we say
2:09:09 this is how much capacity we have
2:09:12 we do take out things like critical
2:09:14 areas we take out
2:09:16 percentages for roads that will need to
2:09:18 be constructed
2:09:19 percentages for public purpose things
2:09:21 like um stormwater ponds
2:09:24 um and then we have a market
2:09:26 consideration that's taken out as well
2:09:29 and then the cities the from
2:09:32 the information given to them the county
2:09:34 comes up with draft target ranges for
2:09:36 the cities
2:09:38 and then all the cities come together
2:09:40 and we start talking about it we react
2:09:41 to the initial ranges
2:09:43 um we go back to the you know our
2:09:46 administrations and say
2:09:48 what what do we think is good here and
2:09:50 then over a period of time
2:09:52 several months um we keep going back and
2:09:54 having those discussions to try
2:09:56 and determine our local growth targets
2:10:01 things that are considered in factoring
2:10:04 these numbers
2:10:07 hello okay
2:10:13 you all can hear me okay right okay okay
2:10:17 weird feedback can everybody turn off
2:10:20 their
2:10:20 um mute their mics
2:10:28 let's see there we go thank you thank
2:10:45 i'm afraid to talk
2:10:49 so we look at the initial capacity
2:11:11 i think it may be susan's that it's not
2:11:14 muted
2:11:16 that might be it susan you seem to have
2:11:23 they're on
2:11:28 you all hear me sounds good now
2:11:31 okay yeah okay so things that are
2:11:34 considered when we when we get our range
2:11:36 of numbers that we're going to do we
2:11:38 look at the initial capacity
2:11:40 we look at current jobs for 2019
2:11:43 and housing estimate housing for 2020.
2:11:46 we looked at the current
2:11:48 20 2006 to 2001 or 2031 or 2035 targets
2:11:54 and then we look at the growth that
2:11:56 occurred between 2006 and 2018
2:12:00 and that's how we get our numbers
2:12:04 so here's here's what we started with
2:12:06 our housing targets for
2:12:08 2006 to 2031 were 5750 units
2:12:12 and 20 000 jobs
2:12:16 and what the capacity
2:12:20 that we sent to the county was that we
2:12:21 have enough capacity
2:12:23 in our comprehensive plan for 14 000
2:12:26 housing units and 19 000 jobs
2:12:29 so our preliminary target as of three
2:12:32 days ago
2:12:33 was 5 400 units
2:12:36 and 9 750 jobs as proposed by key county
2:12:41 and what this means
2:12:42 is that we have enough capacity to
2:12:44 support the proposed targets
2:12:47 so we would not have to change our
2:12:48 comprehensive plan land use and do any
2:12:50 zoning changes
2:12:51 to be able to accommodate that um by in
2:12:54 our next
2:12:55 and our 2024 updates however
2:12:58 after i spoke with the council and we
2:13:00 had a very long conversation
2:13:02 about things that were mentioned in your
2:13:03 memo about
2:13:05 infrastructure and the ability to
2:13:07 accommodate growth with our
2:13:08 infrastructure to accommodate schools
2:13:14 transportation concurrency that kind of
2:13:16 thing they actually directed
2:13:18 us to lower our
2:13:21 projected our proposed targets to 3 500
2:13:25 housing units and 7 500 jobs so
2:13:28 as of our meeting today with king county
2:13:32 those are the draft numbers that we have
2:13:36 um so the next step so the draft housing
2:13:38 targets and cpps are
2:13:40 going to be done uh by the end of march
2:13:44 those will be sent to the growth
2:13:45 management planning council who will
2:13:46 then review it
2:13:47 and take action on those targets
2:13:51 then the king county-wide planning
2:13:52 policies will be
2:13:54 they'll take action on those likely
2:13:56 approve those and then they go to all
2:13:58 the cities and the cities have to ratify
2:14:00 those targets yeah and what it is is
2:14:03 it's 30
2:14:04 of the cities that hold 70 percent of
2:14:07 the population
2:14:08 if 30 of those cities approve that then
2:14:11 the targets are approved
2:14:15 that's all i have i kind of went through
2:14:17 that pretty quickly do you all have any
2:14:18 questions
2:14:21 it's a lot to take in
2:14:25 good job thank you
2:14:29 um nobody has any questions no
2:14:34 um when i read it i was a little uh
2:14:39 concerned and you presented it in a
2:14:42 different way than when i took it
2:14:43 um i look at buildable land
2:14:47 and you look at well there is already a
2:14:50 house on it but you can
2:14:52 the zoning changes it
2:14:55 you're still using the same buildable
2:14:59 but i was getting a little uh frustrated
2:15:02 when i was reading the
2:15:04 that but now i understand how you put it
2:15:06 together
2:15:08 um so i have a we'll come back to joy
2:15:13 so um i have a question from naina
2:15:18 but you're you can have ron go first i
2:15:22 think he's in the queue ahead of me
2:15:25 okay wrong of course she says there was
2:15:29 enthusiasm
2:15:32 thank you joan now this is commissioner
2:15:34 ron so
2:15:35 uh a couple slides back you had talked
2:15:37 about core city housing comparisons
2:15:40 and i noticed that
2:15:43 i didn't see bellevue on there but
2:15:46 issaquah is almost at 90
2:15:49 um of our growth targets where
2:15:54 i think the next leading city
2:15:58 redmond is at only at 48
2:16:01 why are we leading the charge and
2:16:05 we're increasing capacity and no one
2:16:08 else is
2:16:09 is doing their part and now st3
2:16:13 is a big question mark of whether or not
2:16:15 there will be sufficient funding for us
2:16:17 so the
2:16:18 king county's expecting us to have to
2:16:20 hit some of these growth targets
2:16:22 we don't have the capacity if they're
2:16:24 not going to give us the resources
2:16:26 and again it comes down to
2:16:29 why should we put all this effort into
2:16:32 growing our community if the other
2:16:34 neighboring communities aren't willing
2:16:36 to do their part to grow because
2:16:38 i mean will is at three percent
2:16:41 that's a prime place for growth renton
2:16:43 is only at 44 percent
2:16:46 uh burien is at 28 bothell's at
2:16:49 58. it doesn't make sense to me so
2:16:54 i guess question to kristen is why would
2:16:58 try it and increase our growth target
2:17:01 numbers when
2:17:02 st3 is still kind of a question mark at
2:17:05 this point because that's
2:17:06 if we're going to grow we don't have the
2:17:09 transportation infrastructure to support
2:17:12 it's going to be a traffic nightmare for
2:17:14 us but
2:17:15 i don't i don't know what's the
2:17:18 chemistry behind this what's the madness
2:17:21 oh so there are so many pieces to your
2:17:23 question
2:17:24 um i'm gonna i'm gonna move back a
2:17:26 little bit
2:17:27 um yeah bothell's at 58 redmond's at 48
2:17:31 and yes we have almost hit our targets
2:17:35 and and i think one of your
2:17:38 first questions was why are we growing
2:17:40 and they're not and you know a lot of
2:17:42 it's driven
2:17:42 by the market you know we don't have a
2:17:45 lot of control over what the market can
2:17:47 another reason that i think issaquah has
2:17:49 grown
2:17:50 as quickly as it has is because we had
2:17:52 the two
2:17:54 villages we had essentially two green
2:17:56 fields that accommodated 5 000 units of
2:17:59 our 5750 target
2:18:01 and those are easy to build on you know
2:18:03 it's it's open flat land that
2:18:05 can go in and be developed it doesn't
2:18:07 have to be redeveloped you don't have to
2:18:08 tear down buildings worry about
2:18:09 infrastructure
2:18:11 that needs to be updated anything like
2:18:13 that it's just it's a little easier
2:18:15 to build on a green field targets are
2:18:18 not meant to be hit
2:18:19 targets are numbers that we say we will
2:18:21 accommodate
2:18:22 it's not that we're going to go out and
2:18:23 try and market and
2:18:25 bring all those units or all those jobs
2:18:27 here we just say that if they want to
2:18:29 come here
2:18:30 we will provide the infrastructure for
2:18:34 as for st3 yes that has come up many
2:18:37 times
2:18:38 it's come up at every meeting it came up
2:18:39 again today at our king county meeting
2:18:42 some of the cities that are in there are
2:18:46 have two transit stops that are coming
2:18:49 through their city
2:18:51 soon and you know redmond
2:18:54 for example federal way for example and
2:18:57 when those stops come they're probably
2:18:59 going to see
2:19:00 more urban growth faster than we are
2:19:03 and we and other cities have said but
2:19:05 we're not getting it until 2043 if at
2:19:07 all because there's an 11 billion dollar
2:19:09 deficit
2:19:10 and we don't know if we can get it if we
2:19:12 do or the literally
2:19:13 and figuratively the end of the line um
2:19:16 so yes that has been a factor in us
2:19:18 trying to push back on our numbers as
2:19:20 and we're not taking more right now um
2:19:24 at 3 500 we have the
2:19:27 lowest housing target of the 11 core
2:19:29 cities
2:19:31 it is i can't remember three or four
2:19:33 percent of the growth one of those is
2:19:34 jobs one of those is housing
2:19:36 for all of the core cities and
2:19:39 i forgot my next point
2:19:42 um oh yeah uh it's that we don't
2:19:46 add on to our targets so our targets
2:19:49 actually start over
2:19:51 in 2019. so whatever happened before
2:19:54 this goes away and our targets start
2:19:56 over so
2:19:57 if this were to be adopted and our
2:20:00 target was 3 500 units
2:20:02 it would start anything constructed
2:20:04 april 1st
2:20:05 and beyond april 1st of 2019 and beyond
2:20:08 would count toward our targets so all
2:20:11 that anthology
2:20:12 and revel in those projects that were
2:20:14 completed after that
2:20:16 not completed until march of 2020 those
2:20:19 would count toward our targets
2:20:21 so in short i think what you're saying
2:20:24 we are a highly desirable place to live
2:20:28 so when we talk about developers not
2:20:30 wanting to build here because of costs
2:20:32 such as like
2:20:33 ev stations and so on that's really not
2:20:35 true at all
2:20:36 and so in essence we can almost ask for
2:20:40 the world
2:20:40 and we will probably get it because
2:20:43 everybody wants to build here you look
2:20:44 at the growth targets and that's
2:20:46 writing on the wall that's double
2:20:48 confirmation that
2:20:50 we should be asking for more from ppc
2:20:54 and from city council of our developers
2:20:56 because
2:20:57 if they don't want to give it to us well
2:21:00 there will be another developer right
2:21:01 behind them
2:21:03 is that true so stay tuned um
2:21:06 we will be having more conversations
2:21:08 with city council about this but yes we
2:21:10 highly desirable people want to be here
2:21:13 we have good schools it's beautiful
2:21:16 and people do want to be here but our
2:21:17 our challenge
2:21:19 is how to manage that growth how to
2:21:22 ensure that we have
2:21:24 the transportation infrastructure the
2:21:26 storm water infrastructure wastewater
2:21:28 that we have
2:21:29 any transit that we need to get and it's
2:21:31 not just an issaquah i think it's a
2:21:33 regional discussion
2:21:34 it's not just issaquah asking these
2:21:36 questions it's everyone but issaquah
2:21:37 needs to address it as well
2:21:48 hey now it's my turn thanks ron that was
2:21:50 kind of one of my questions but i'm
2:21:51 going to follow up for a little more
2:21:52 clarification and
2:21:54 so kristen you sort of answered in
2:21:58 how to calculate the overlap
2:22:02 between the plan that goes up to 31
2:22:04 which we have fulfilled all of that do
2:22:06 we get
2:22:06 credit for that and then do the cities
2:22:09 who do not
2:22:10 fulfill their growth targets for
2:22:13 2031 are they being
2:22:17 um does that have does that
2:22:20 fall into the calculation of their
2:22:21 future growth
2:22:24 and then i so that's um that's kind of a
2:22:26 two-part one question
2:22:28 and then the other question has to do
2:22:32 our desire to redevelop rather than to
2:22:36 develop any more green fields
2:22:37 and because we are we have what i
2:22:41 what seems to be over capacity is there
2:22:44 something we can do
2:22:45 to focus our capacity to perhaps even
2:22:48 reduce our capacity since we have so
2:22:50 into the areas that we most desire
2:22:54 redevelopment into the places where it's
2:22:56 mostly parking lots which was the the
2:22:58 main point in the first place
2:23:00 so the two-part question is how do we
2:23:02 get credit for
2:23:04 already fulfilling our targets and those
2:23:05 other guys didn't
2:23:07 and is there any way for us to reduce
2:23:08 our capacity or should we
2:23:13 so no we don't get credit although i did
2:23:16 bring it up today i think i got some
2:23:17 ugly looks
2:23:18 um but we don't get credit
2:23:21 they just say great way to go um and
2:23:24 whatever happened between 2006 and 2018
2:23:27 that sort that just gets erased
2:23:29 what happened then happened then and we
2:23:31 start over in 2019.
2:23:33 um and a lot of people a lot of
2:23:36 demographic zoning has changed in a lot
2:23:38 of cities market has changed in a lot of
2:23:40 cities that's part of the reason that
2:23:41 you start over
2:23:43 as for focusing growth into
2:23:46 say for example central issaquah where
2:23:49 we would like it to go
2:23:51 that's the plan um that was sort of the
2:23:53 plan when we came up with the centralist
2:23:54 equal plan
2:23:55 and there were things that we said need
2:23:57 to happen um
2:23:59 we need to figure out how to make that
2:24:01 happen
2:24:02 yeah so that's the idea we just need to
2:24:06 do it yeah
2:24:10 we have two richards
2:24:15 um joy do you have a question
2:24:19 i do thank you joan um commissioner joy
2:24:22 lewis here
2:24:23 um well first of all i just want to give
2:24:25 a shout out to ron
2:24:26 i love throwback to ev never let it go
2:24:29 um second of all i want to say that um
2:24:33 i do appreciate the reduction of what we
2:24:35 were expecting i was a little nervous
2:24:37 and while i get not his point this just
2:24:39 feels a little bit like a gold star
2:24:40 right
2:24:41 without commenting on what other cities
2:24:43 and municipalities are doing i do feel
2:24:44 like at least
2:24:45 in part we're being recognized for you
2:24:47 know fulfilling our commitments
2:24:49 i'm hoping and that's kind of what it
2:24:51 felt like when you gave us these new
2:24:52 numbers tonight
2:24:53 um but i do want to ask you about the
2:24:56 infrastructure build out plan right we
2:24:57 know that we
2:24:59 are near capacity on a lot of surfaces
2:25:02 services we know that our schools open
2:25:04 to portables and are over capacity
2:25:06 so when we talk about um services and
2:25:09 infrastructure
2:25:10 um you know this is something we go
2:25:12 through in the comp plan every year and
2:25:13 we have regular points that staff
2:25:15 gives us updates on where we're at i'm
2:25:17 kind of curious when
2:25:19 um and how does that become part of the
2:25:21 conversation right because we were
2:25:22 talking about 2044
2:25:24 remind us when we want to start um
2:25:27 thinking about that infrastructure build
2:25:30 out or again if it is more let's trickle
2:25:31 out at our normal intervals that we're
2:25:33 normally looking at these things
2:25:36 so this is kristen i i'm going to start
2:25:38 the conversation but i have a feeling
2:25:40 deputy city administrator andrea could
2:25:42 fill in a few more blanks because she
2:25:44 broader conversations than i do um our
2:25:47 stormwater plan
2:25:48 was just updated or is actually it's in
2:25:51 the process of being updated right now
2:25:53 yes it's in the up
2:25:54 it's in the process of being updated um
2:25:56 waste water also needs to be updated we
2:25:59 are getting ready in a few months i
2:26:01 believe to start
2:26:02 looking at concurrency again how we
2:26:05 measure concurrency do you want to shift
2:26:07 from i mean
2:26:07 i know that we probably do want to shift
2:26:09 from a car centric sort of concurrency
2:26:11 model that we have
2:26:13 to one that has a bit more of a mode
2:26:14 split in there i know that's been
2:26:16 discussed and if you do that that
2:26:17 changes
2:26:18 uh the numbers a little bit there do
2:26:20 need to be conversations with the
2:26:21 schools
2:26:22 with the school district uh i believe
2:26:25 that the central isoqua eis says that we
2:26:27 would need one
2:26:28 elementary school one middle school and
2:26:29 one high school so you know there need
2:26:31 to be conversations where
2:26:33 those schools are going to go parks is
2:26:36 another factor
2:26:38 and land will be taken out for transit
2:26:40 there are all sorts of things that need
2:26:42 to be discussed
2:26:43 as far as infrastructure goes and
2:26:45 there's andreas i'm going to let her
2:26:46 jump in
2:26:50 thank you this is andrea snyder
2:26:54 i kristen is absolutely right and she's
2:26:57 identifying all those
2:26:58 detailed areas where we need to look at
2:27:00 our infrastructure i think
2:27:02 the other thing that was discussed with
2:27:03 council earlier this week was
2:27:07 the desire to take a step back
2:27:10 and consider discuss as a community
2:27:14 how much we want to grow how quickly
2:27:18 we want to grow and what are our tools
2:27:21 that we can use to manage growth
2:27:23 to make sure that we are able to provide
2:27:26 all of those
2:27:26 aspects and pieces of infrastructure
2:27:28 that kristin was just talking about
2:27:31 so there is a desire for us to have this
2:27:33 conversation it'll be a pretty robust
2:27:35 conversation and uh something that
2:27:38 the mayor has requested and was part of
2:27:40 the administration's recommendation to
2:27:42 council earlier this week
2:27:44 and certainly i think you saw and
2:27:46 certainly
2:27:47 um certainly council echoed
2:27:50 uh the desire to have that conversation
2:27:52 and i know many in the community feel
2:27:54 the same
2:27:54 um so we need to uh tristan talked about
2:27:58 concurrency that's a conversation that's
2:28:00 all part
2:28:02 of this conversation on growth and how
2:28:04 we manage growth and provide
2:28:06 the needed infrastructure to maintain is
2:28:08 quite high quality of life
2:28:10 and so there's a lot more to come on
2:28:12 this conversation
2:28:13 um and we look forward to having it
2:28:17 thank you i i appreciate that with with
2:28:20 you know with doing
2:28:22 the work that we've done um and the
2:28:23 research on the eb
2:28:25 ordinance i think it's become really
2:28:26 clear that a discussion of the grid
2:28:28 needs to happen right how do we have
2:28:30 totally clean power
2:28:32 made versus you know it's obviously much
2:28:35 it's much more efficient to have a coal
2:28:38 burning plant be supplying electricity
2:28:40 then having all those cars
2:28:41 using um a fossil fuel however you know
2:28:45 using
2:28:45 solar wind hydro is you know a much
2:28:48 cleaner way so
2:28:49 talking about how we're getting the
2:28:51 energy that we are and how we get to
2:28:53 where we want to go i think it's an
2:28:54 interesting conversation that while it
2:28:56 doesn't necessarily pertain
2:28:57 to the eevee ordinance it plays into the
2:29:01 the values of our community and i think
2:29:03 it's something that needs to be
2:29:04 discussed when
2:29:05 discussing concurrency as well
2:29:10 so we had the hour-long discussions
2:29:14 many times in creating the central area
2:29:20 the it always came down to
2:29:23 it will happen when the market says it
2:29:26 will happen
2:29:27 or be built when the market says it will
2:29:30 be happened
2:29:31 um i think we've gotten to a point in
2:29:33 time that
2:29:35 maybe we have to
2:29:38 follow up on what andrea is saying and
2:29:42 look at where we want the rest of our
2:29:45 city to go
2:29:47 it's not like we have a lot of green
2:29:49 space to build
2:29:52 it's going to be redeveloping what's
2:29:54 already there
2:29:56 and i think we need to look at it in the
2:29:58 way of
2:30:00 making sure that the codes and
2:30:02 everything else is is ready for
2:30:05 where we want to go i mean what do we
2:30:09 want the city to look like we should
2:30:11 have some
2:30:13 say over what the development comes into
2:30:17 our city
2:30:18 i mean we are to that point in time now
2:30:21 with limited infrastructure trouble with
2:30:25 from all of the things that kristen said
2:30:28 i think we have to
2:30:29 really look at that my thoughts i i
2:30:32 don't want it's just oh there's a space
2:30:34 there
2:30:35 uh it's uh one house but it's zoned for
2:30:39 two so we're just gonna put
2:30:41 something here and something there and i
2:30:43 think we really need to
2:30:46 be more forceful in what we as a city
2:30:49 want to be in our city
2:30:52 so i have a question
2:30:57 from ron yeah thanks joan uh so this is
2:31:02 a question for
2:31:03 kristen the purpose of this
2:31:06 portion of the meeting is really just
2:31:07 informational we're not
2:31:09 going to be recommending anything
2:31:12 okay um if we
2:31:15 are to hit the growth targets that
2:31:20 the city council had recommended that
2:31:22 pushing forward the 3 500
2:31:25 i've heard and i don't know if this is
2:31:27 true or not but
2:31:28 we are almost at maximum capacity for
2:31:31 water
2:31:32 and over capacity for sewer so
2:31:36 if we're let's just hypothetically say
2:31:38 we're closed because
2:31:39 i think we are if we're close to
2:31:43 maximum capacity of both those services
2:31:45 who would pay
2:31:46 for the increased capacity to be able to
2:31:49 build out
2:31:50 to handle the extra 3 500 because i
2:31:53 imagine that would be
2:31:54 a very huge bill
2:31:57 would that fall on to existing um
2:32:00 residents or would that all
2:32:02 be put on to new development costs
2:32:04 because if it's on new development costs
2:32:06 they're not going to afford it to build
2:32:08 here then we're not going to enter
2:32:09 growth targets but then
2:32:10 the pushback we're going to have from
2:32:11 the community is we as commissioners and
2:32:14 city residents
2:32:15 we don't want to pay for all that if
2:32:17 it's going to double our sewer bill
2:32:21 so kristin can i take that one sure
2:32:24 great thanks this is andrea snyder
2:32:28 i think you all may be familiar that as
2:32:30 part of my
2:32:31 role as deputy city administrator one of
2:32:33 the things i do is get to
2:32:35 work a lot with bob york our public
2:32:36 works director
2:32:38 and um last july
2:32:42 the city passed kind of a new approach
2:32:45 to managing our water
2:32:47 i just want to start with the underlying
2:32:50 mining assumptions that you've that
2:32:52 you're
2:32:52 kind of asking and and maybe thinking
2:32:55 our assumptions commissioner fall
2:32:57 we are not at our max capacity for water
2:33:01 we have plenty of water supply
2:33:04 now and into the future and certainly
2:33:07 the actions of city council
2:33:09 that they took last july helped secure
2:33:12 that even further
2:33:14 so we operate a number of city wells
2:33:16 those are doing well
2:33:18 no pun intended and we have um
2:33:23 we also uh have a new agreement with
2:33:26 cascade water alliance to
2:33:27 supply additional water for the city so
2:33:30 we're not
2:33:31 nearing capacity with with water i think
2:33:34 we are
2:33:35 we have plenty of supply there um as for
2:33:38 sewer
2:33:39 i have never heard that we are over
2:33:41 capacity for sewer
2:33:43 um i've understood that we that we have
2:33:46 the sewer infrastructure required but as
2:33:50 we talk about growth
2:33:51 and concurrency the um
2:33:55 the the intent of the growth management
2:33:58 act is that
2:33:59 growth pays for growth so as we have
2:34:02 a new development that occurs we charge
2:34:04 impact fees
2:34:06 for that development that provides for
2:34:08 that infrastructure
2:34:09 that's the idea behind it and then the
2:34:12 rate payers for our utilities
2:34:14 pay for the operation of that utility
2:34:18 so that's the general thought also for
2:34:20 large infrastructure projects we do
2:34:23 frequently get grants federal grants or
2:34:27 state grants to provide that
2:34:28 infrastructure so
2:34:29 i think hopefully that answers your
2:34:31 question commissioner fall
2:34:35 yes it does thank you
2:34:38 um i don't see any other questions or
2:34:41 comments so
2:34:44 what i'd like to do is ask kristin if
2:34:47 there's anybody
2:34:49 else that wants to
2:34:52 make any public comment
2:34:58 is no one else on the line
2:35:02 so with that um is there any
2:35:05 report from the city council that you
2:35:07 want to highlight
2:35:09 there are we haven't met in a while so
2:35:11 we have a few things
2:35:13 i have my list here on
2:35:17 february 16th the 2021 docket of
2:35:21 proposed comprehensive plan amendments
2:35:22 was approved by council
2:35:24 on march 1st the old town architectural
2:35:27 standards were approved
2:35:32 let's see a couple weeks ago i didn't
2:35:35 put down the dates
2:35:36 the arch 2021 budget work program was
2:35:39 approved and the arch 2020 fall
2:35:41 trust fund round was approved there were
2:35:43 three projects and five million dollars
2:35:45 so that was that was a big deal um
2:35:48 as i mentioned on monday i gave a growth
2:35:50 targets presentation and
2:35:52 i think you might want to stay tuned to
2:35:54 the council meeting on march 15th
2:35:56 andrea will be talking about the transit
2:35:59 oriented development
2:36:00 memorandum of a member and of
2:36:03 understanding
2:36:04 and you all have shown interest in that
2:36:06 so you may want to tune in
2:36:08 that night and see what she has to say
2:36:10 uh those
2:36:11 are the only updates i have unless you
2:36:13 have questions so
2:36:15 uh instead of waiting for andrea to make
2:36:17 some comments i think she would like to
2:36:19 make comment now
2:36:24 well thank you madam chair um
2:36:28 yes we uh i will be giving a
2:36:30 presentation next week
2:36:33 for city council on the memorandum of
2:36:36 understanding we're looking to update
2:36:38 that with our developer team
2:36:41 it's something city council had executed
2:36:44 had authorized the mayor to execute
2:36:46 to mousse that's the acronym
2:36:49 there's going to be plenty of alphabet
2:36:51 soup next week so
2:36:52 two mousse with our development team
2:36:56 that was way back in uh 2017
2:36:59 and so we're looking to update those
2:37:01 those
2:37:03 uh really guide um
2:37:06 the roles and responsibilities in the
2:37:08 work that we
2:37:09 accomplish before the development
2:37:12 agreement so there are things
2:37:14 provisions in the mou that talk about
2:37:17 more details on the programming of the
2:37:20 site how many units at what level of
2:37:22 affordability etc
2:37:25 and other details so that information
2:37:27 will be available in the packet once
2:37:29 it's published tomorrow
2:37:30 and if you're curious to tune in to what
2:37:33 the latest
2:37:35 thinking is on that project then please
2:37:38 do so
2:37:40 so council will be offering feedback on
2:37:41 those mous and then
2:37:44 we are still really in the final stages
2:37:46 of negotiating the purchase and sale
2:37:48 agreements
2:37:49 with lumen uh and the developer team
2:37:52 it's three-party
2:37:53 or rather four-party agreement um so
2:37:57 the mouse and the purchase and sale
2:38:00 agreements will be considered by
2:38:02 council in april and
2:38:05 then we can proceed from there if those
2:38:08 purchase and sale agreements
2:38:09 are approved and executed so that's kind
2:38:12 of where we are with the tod project
2:38:15 unless there's any questions i have
2:38:16 another announcement that i'd like to
2:38:22 okay seeing none i have very exciting
2:38:26 which is that the city is going to get a
2:38:30 new community planning and development
2:38:31 director
2:38:33 um we uh we
2:38:36 have offered and she has graciously
2:38:38 accepted
2:38:40 the position to um
2:38:43 mini dollywall and she is the deputy
2:38:47 director
2:38:47 of the community planning and
2:38:49 development department in tukwila
2:38:51 she comes to us with over 24 years of
2:38:54 experience
2:38:54 in the planning field including a fair
2:38:58 amount of experience managing long-range
2:39:00 planning
2:39:01 so kristin will be able to
2:39:04 work with her a lot with somebody who's
2:39:06 informed on all the things that
2:39:08 kristen's been doing with growth targets
2:39:10 comp plan so minnie will join us on
2:39:13 march 22
2:39:15 and we think she's going to be a great
2:39:17 addition to the team and look forward to
2:39:20 the leadership that she will bring to
2:39:21 the community planning and development
2:39:23 department
2:39:24 so you will have the opportunity to meet
2:39:27 after she starts again that's march 22nd
2:39:30 we had a pretty um
2:39:34 i would say rigorous interview process
2:39:37 and just would like to thank the the
2:39:39 community members who were involved of
2:39:41 course
2:39:42 jason voice you were there and so thank
2:39:44 you for that and several other members
2:39:46 as well so
2:39:47 um that was that was a fun process and
2:39:49 we really appreciate all of the input
2:39:52 that the community had to this position
2:39:53 because of course it's a critical
2:39:55 position for us
2:39:56 so that means that you will in the
2:39:58 future be seeing less of me
2:40:00 and more of minnie and like i said we're
2:40:03 looking forward to having her join us
2:40:05 that's not great we still we still could
2:40:08 request
2:40:09 your presence right it would be great
2:40:13 news if we had both of you
2:40:14 but we can't give you up the great and
2:40:17 powerful odds
2:40:22 joyce at the bar you can't let us down
2:40:26 well okay i don't think that many will
2:40:29 and certainly i will still be involved
2:40:30 in the department so many will be one of
2:40:32 my direct reports
2:40:34 and will still be involved in the in the
2:40:36 workings of the department so
2:40:38 um you know i hope you all welcome her
2:40:40 when she comes
2:40:41 like i said we're all pretty excited
2:40:43 thank you
2:40:45 okay so we have a this great
2:40:48 uh name for andrea
2:40:52 so we have to come up with one for
2:40:54 kristin
2:40:55 just smiling there so um we do
2:40:58 appreciate kristen so
2:41:00 um if you think about it and can come up
2:41:03 with a perfect name we can uh
2:41:05 highlight it she can be the good host
2:41:12 so um on our next meeting which uh
2:41:15 kristen's going to talk about the
2:41:17 calendar right now
2:41:19 we can uh uh christen her with a new
2:41:25 so um schedule her with a new name
2:41:31 you're on mute
2:41:35 still on mute
2:41:49 sorry i moved to one screen and then i
2:41:50 couldn't find anything um
2:41:52 yes you can chris and kristen with the
2:41:54 new name um
2:41:56 next week and i'll send out the
2:41:57 invitation tomorrow uh next
2:41:59 at our next meeting on the 25th we are
2:42:01 doing a joint meeting with the economic
2:42:04 vitality commission
2:42:05 to talk about signs those are coming
2:42:08 back to us
2:42:08 and then we may get the chance to see
2:42:10 andrea on
2:42:12 april 8th we will be talking about the
2:42:14 title 18
2:42:15 amendments that's sort of an overview of
2:42:17 what's going on there
2:42:19 because you all will be super involved
2:42:20 in that and then on april 22nd
2:42:23 public hearing and sign amendments
2:42:26 um and then on in a in may we have to
2:42:30 say goodbye
2:42:32 to some people um but we'll be welcoming
2:42:34 new people
2:42:35 and we will do a big ppc training
2:42:38 because we had midterm members so we
2:42:40 will do a big training
2:42:41 of ppc members in april as well as an
2:42:44 election of
2:42:44 officers and that's as far as i'll go
2:42:46 right now but if you all have any
2:42:48 questions
2:42:49 let me know if you have any need to talk
2:42:52 about something in a meeting and would
2:42:53 like to add that to our schedule let me
2:42:59 so seeing nothing else on the agenda is
2:43:02 there anything for the good of you
2:43:04 anybody wants to to bring anything up
2:43:08 um okay since if i have no
2:43:12 uh objections i will
2:43:15 close the meeting at 9
2:43:19 16 and wish you all
2:43:22 a wonderful couple weeks till we meet
2:43:24 again
2:43:26 take care y'all see matamos
2:43:30 thank you all good job

Attendance

Council / Members (7)
Administration/Staff: Joan Probala
Christen Leeson
Senior Planner Ron Faul
Megan Curtis-Murphy
Senior Janice Carle Sustainability Coordinator Joy Lewis Andrea Snyder
Deputy City Administrator Nina Milligan Matt Monahan Jason Voiss Richard Zaragoza
Alternate (nonvoting)