Planning Policy Commission · Wednesday, July 20, 2022 · City Council Digest

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Climate Action Plan Implementation and Title 18 Updates, (D)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Please note, public comment will be taken · packet pp.123–133

Topics: Land UseClimate

Open packet at p.123 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the July 20, 2022, Joint Planning Policy Commission (PPC) and Development Commission meeting is to seek comments and feedback pertaining to the Title 18 updates and Climate Action Plan Implementation.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.135–137

Open packet at p.135 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2022 Schedule (subject to change) 2022 1/20/22 1/27/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission  Public Hearing: Proposed 2022 Docket of Education: Title 18 - Building and Design Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map  Neighborhood Overlay Standards Amendments January o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Joint Meeting with Development Commission Highlands, Talus Title 18: Education - Building and Design  Neighborhood Overlay Standards o Olde Town, Central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Talus 2/10/22 2/24/22 Joint Meeting with Development Commission Joint Meeting with Environmental Board

3884 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ you are good to go

0:09 ↗ well good evening everyone

0:12 ↗ thank you for joining us on this

0:13 ↗ beautiful day

0:15 ↗ this is a first for us in quite a while

0:17 ↗ it's a hybrid meeting

0:19 ↗ the first i've ever attended

0:21 ↗ and

0:22 ↗ tonight we'd like to call this meeting

0:24 ↗ to order at 6 32 pm

0:27 ↗ the development commission as you can

0:29 ↗ see is live in city chambers and the

0:31 ↗ planning policy

0:32 ↗ is still virtual

0:34 ↗ comments at tonight's meeting may be

0:36 ↗ made in person or virtually

0:39 ↗ for all who would like to speak during

0:41 ↗ public comments

0:42 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

0:45 ↗ state your name each time before

0:47 ↗ speaking

0:48 ↗ if you are attending virtually by

0:50 ↗ computer or by phone and would like to

0:52 ↗ speak during public comments

0:54 ↗ in addition to the above please mute

0:57 ↗ your microphone when not speaking

0:59 ↗ and if you're having any technical

1:01 ↗ issues try joining the meeting using a

1:03 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

1:05 ↗ tablet

1:06 ↗ you can also use the call-in information

1:08 ↗ in the meeting invite to call into the

1:10 ↗ meeting uh kristen will you please call

1:13 ↗ the role for the planning policy

1:15 ↗ commission

1:19 ↗ yes uh commissioner monahan

1:22 ↗ here

1:23 ↗ mr milligan

1:25 ↗ here

1:27 ↗ mr bader

1:28 ↗ here

1:29 ↗ and cheer voice

1:32 ↗ here

1:32 ↗ all our present thank you

1:43 ↗ all right so we may have a few glitches

1:45 ↗ because again this is our first hybrid

1:46 ↗ meeting

1:47 ↗ but i believe roll is already been taken

1:49 ↗ for the development communication

1:51 ↗ because as you can all see you can see

1:53 ↗ them do i have that right

1:57 ↗ yes

1:59 ↗ all right thank you

2:01 ↗ so now we're going to head into public

2:03 ↗ comment

2:04 ↗ and i want everyone to understand this

2:06 ↗ the public comment right now is just for

2:08 ↗ general comments for the planning policy

2:11 ↗ commission alone

2:13 ↗ so please keep them general this is not

2:15 ↗ about title 18 we will have a public

2:17 ↗ hearing for that uh momentarily again

2:20 ↗ this is just for the planning policy and

2:22 ↗ these are general comments for the good

2:23 ↗ of the order

2:25 ↗ kristen do we have anyone signed up to

2:27 ↗ speak to make general public comments

2:33 ↗ chair voice this is uh tisha here in the

2:35 ↗ council chambers i'll provide the

2:39 ↗ support for the public participating

2:43 ↗ so i do we do have a few folks

2:45 ↗ in the room here who've indicated a

2:47 ↗ desire to speak and then do you have

2:49 ↗ some comments some directions for

2:51 ↗ virtual public participants

2:57 ↗ if not i can give them instructions

3:02 ↗ oh cheer voice you're muted

3:05 ↗ i'll have you give the instructions

3:07 ↗ tisha as far as um being able to call in

3:10 ↗ but again i just want to point out to

3:12 ↗ everyone whether they're there

3:14 ↗ in person or virtually again this is

3:16 ↗ general public comments

3:18 ↗ um we are looking for policy directives

3:21 ↗ for

3:22 ↗ the planning policy again we will get to

3:24 ↗ title 18 here momentarily but please

3:26 ↗ keep these general i'd hate to have to

3:28 ↗ step on your comments by unmuting myself

3:32 ↗ okay and for the members of the public

3:34 ↗ who are attending virtually if you'd

3:36 ↗ like to make comments tonight please

3:38 ↗ raise your virtual hand or send me the

3:41 ↗ host a chat message

3:43 ↗ so we'll start with the in in-room

3:45 ↗ attendees the first person who signed up

3:48 ↗ to speak is hussein

3:51 ↗ kotaram

3:59 ↗ that right

4:00 ↗ okay

4:02 ↗ well um

4:04 ↗ fellow commissioners

4:05 ↗ thanks for having me staff

4:07 ↗ thank you very much

4:09 ↗ my name is hossein koram

4:12 ↗ i'm the owner of milano issaquah pardons

4:16 ↗ a apartment complex on newport way

4:20 ↗ i'm here to talk about

4:22 ↗ the general

4:24 ↗ adopting the

4:26 ↗ you know the new land use code uh mr

4:29 ↗ chair if i'm wrong stop me i i think i'm

4:32 ↗ in the right place i i don't know but

4:34 ↗ you you tell me

4:35 ↗ uh

4:36 ↗ i uh uh we uh i believe that a lot has

4:40 ↗ happened in our state

4:43 ↗ we have been in a state of covert

4:44 ↗ emergency for three years

4:47 ↗ and the

4:48 ↗ the general the land use changes

4:52 ↗ have been slowed down and the process

4:54 ↗ have been slowed down we got a situation

4:57 ↗ that

4:59 ↗ everything takes two to three times as

5:01 ↗ long

5:02 ↗ there are economic challenges their

5:04 ↗ inflation

5:06 ↗ there's a hardship on a lot of different

5:08 ↗ people but most importantly the process

5:10 ↗ have slowed down significantly

5:12 ↗ and i believe that just like other

5:15 ↗ agencies have done

5:17 ↗ i believe that the adopting the new land

5:20 ↗ use code is the best to be delayed for a

5:24 ↗ period of six months

5:26 ↗ for the existing projects in a pipeline

5:29 ↗ and i would explain why

5:31 ↗ one of those projects is mine we've been

5:34 ↗ in permitting for literally three years

5:36 ↗ we apply for

5:37 ↗ site development permit about two years

5:39 ↗ ago

5:40 ↗ i i just found out about

5:42 ↗ this land use change about a little over

5:44 ↗ a month and a half ago

5:46 ↗ we're struggling to get it in to the

5:48 ↗ building permit phase so we can

5:51 ↗ be vested

5:53 ↗ but the problem is there's just a lot of

5:55 ↗ questions that we have and in the old

5:58 ↗ days when we had a

6:00 ↗ situation like this we would have a

6:02 ↗ meeting with the staff and

6:04 ↗ my consultant teams in really one

6:07 ↗ sitting we would be able to get it all

6:08 ↗ sorted out

6:10 ↗ but as you can see

6:11 ↗ the state of the merchants that kovadev

6:13 ↗ caused actually has

6:15 ↗ is prohibiting that

6:17 ↗ i cannot even meet with my own architect

6:20 ↗ he didn't show up the last time the last

6:22 ↗ time i was here he wouldn't show up he's

6:24 ↗ afraid so i don't blame that there's

6:26 ↗ nobody to blame it is what it is so

6:30 ↗ i just want to tell you that like city

6:32 ↗ of seattle

6:34 ↗ delayed adoption of the international

6:37 ↗ building code

6:38 ↗ to

6:39 ↗ by six months to 2021 international

6:43 ↗ building code is a significant code that

6:46 ↗ governs all construction and

6:48 ↗ development for

6:50 ↗ basically entire world and to delay that

6:53 ↗ for six months because the covet

6:55 ↗ is a big deal

6:57 ↗ and also

6:59 ↗ different municipalities like shoreline

7:01 ↗ is actually is considering cobit

7:07 ↗ as an extension for the permits

7:09 ↗ it has card delays cause delays

7:12 ↗ and and the reason that is important if

7:14 ↗ you want to get to the mechanics of it

7:16 ↗ is on the rcw uh again i'm not an

7:19 ↗ attorney i didn't use an attorney these

7:21 ↗ are just my common sense views

7:23 ↗ on the rcw there's rcw

7:26 ↗ 36.78.0

7:31 ↗ planning goals it says that

7:33 ↗ permits applications for both state and

7:35 ↗ local government permits should be

7:37 ↗ processed in a timely and fair manner to

7:41 ↗ ensure

7:42 ↗ the predictability

7:44 ↗ so

7:45 ↗ if we're here to change the rules for a

7:47 ↗ project being in the pipeline for three

7:49 ↗ years

7:50 ↗ uh on a short notice

7:52 ↗ is unfair is it's great challenges and

7:56 ↗ it creates unpredictability

7:58 ↗ for the future developers who come in to

8:01 ↗ take a look at this

8:03 ↗ i i just talked to another developer

8:05 ↗ friend of mine yesterday and

8:08 ↗ he's got a project going on and he said

8:10 ↗ i asked him

8:12 ↗ in issaquah asking hey you know have you

8:14 ↗ heard about new coaching just no i

8:16 ↗ haven't

8:18 ↗ said i didn't know i said well told you

8:19 ↗ you are you have to get your stuff in

8:21 ↗ the problem with that is

8:23 ↗ to get your stuff in uh there's a wait

8:26 ↗ line this stuff of

8:28 ↗ i love the staff they're doing a great

8:30 ↗ job but they're busy they have a lot of

8:32 ↗ projects before them there's a costco

8:35 ↗ and everything is virtual you can

8:38 ↗ you can't put a call you gotta uh it's

8:40 ↗ all gonna put your paper questions in

8:42 ↗ paper and send it in uh is a processing

8:45 ↗ time

8:46 ↗ you know two to ten days uh so

8:49 ↗ i urge you to consider those

8:51 ↗ challenges

8:52 ↗ and always ask yourself

8:55 ↗ who are we serving here

8:58 ↗ are we serving the public and if we are

9:01 ↗ are aren't we here to provide the public

9:04 ↗ the housing that they need

9:06 ↗ and i think by extending

9:08 ↗ the deadline for this new land use code

9:12 ↗ applied to the existing projects in the

9:15 ↗ pipeline for additional six months so it

9:16 ↗ would be

9:17 ↗ june of 23. sir you've reached the end

9:20 ↗ of the five minute thank you thank you

9:22 ↗ very much

9:25 ↗ all right the next individual who signed

9:27 ↗ up to speak is ben hobbs

9:30 ↗ ben

9:36 ↗ i was gonna just jump in here real

9:37 ↗ quickly tisha um i apologize to mr karam

9:40 ↗ i forgot to mention that there is a a

9:42 ↗ five-minute period where we're looking

9:44 ↗ for comments so again uh for the benefit

9:46 ↗ of those behind him

9:48 ↗ um please limit your comments to five

9:50 ↗ minutes thank you

9:54 ↗ uh well i wanted to address um

9:57 ↗ specifically uh

9:59 ↗ you know sort of regulations and codes

10:01 ↗ and stuff like that and the

10:03 ↗ additions thereof

10:05 ↗ um

10:06 ↗ but i really uh i i guess i would have

10:08 ↗ to

10:09 ↗ you know talk about uh kurt hussein's

10:12 ↗ problems with uh what's going on with

10:14 ↗ his attempt at a development prod

10:17 ↗ project

10:18 ↗ i myself have seen sort of a lot of

10:20 ↗ places around in issaquad not just

10:23 ↗ issaquah but

10:25 ↗ our neighbor

10:26 ↗ snoqualmie

10:28 ↗ because my cousin was working know uh

10:31 ↗ you know my cousin and his family were

10:33 ↗ working on housing in snoqualmie and

10:36 ↗ thanks to the

10:37 ↗ sort of the regulation processes and

10:39 ↗ stuff about

10:41 ↗ uh concerning just a well you know uh in

10:44 ↗ terms of

10:45 ↗ uh how far away it was how deep it could

10:48 ↗ be how wide it was supposed to be uh it

10:51 ↗ just kind of hand strung hamstrung him

10:53 ↗ and and tied his hands together around

10:56 ↗ the project so that way he just had to

10:59 ↗ abandon it and i feel like that's um

11:02 ↗ that's not really a good place to go to

11:05 ↗ you know reach progress in terms of

11:07 ↗ either snoqualmie or here in issaquah

11:10 ↗ but besides that even here in issaquah

11:12 ↗ we've had a neighbor that basically

11:16 ↗ had

11:16 ↗ just destroyed the whole house

11:19 ↗ to sort of rebuild and stuff like that

11:22 ↗ but you know the perimeters came in and

11:24 ↗ they said well you can't even

11:26 ↗ finish the destruction of the house you

11:28 ↗ have to

11:28 ↗ you have to wait until compliance of

11:31 ↗ code for that

11:32 ↗ and uh that seemed to have been an

11:35 ↗ eyesore just on my street for you know

11:38 ↗ four or five years

11:40 ↗ same thing i think happened with the you

11:42 ↗ know silly enough uh taco bell kfc over

11:46 ↗ on gilman or whatever it was uh it was

11:49 ↗ again an eyesore on everything but uh

11:53 ↗ thanks to sort of the regulations on

11:54 ↗ that that couldn't be built

11:57 ↗ either or rebuilt well it finally did of

11:59 ↗ course but

12:02 ↗ i think i understand at least that

12:04 ↗ particular situation because that place

12:06 ↗ was actually i think located in a flood

12:09 ↗ zone and a lot of buildings might or

12:12 ↗ might not be in that flood zone but i'm

12:14 ↗ pretty sure that that area was it

12:16 ↗ actually took out a

12:18 ↗ restaurant called lombardi's there i

12:20 ↗ don't i don't think they're there

12:21 ↗ anymore at all

12:23 ↗ uh but anyways um i just wanted to sort

12:26 ↗ of ask questions about the new coding

12:29 ↗ and to sort of just ask in general is

12:31 ↗ this is this fair on

12:34 ↗ the people who are trying to build

12:36 ↗ uh and if you were a company and you had

12:39 ↗ decided to put new codes in

12:41 ↗ yourself

12:42 ↗ would you be considering considered to

12:44 ↗ be dealing in uh good faith

12:48 ↗ and would other people then want to deal

12:50 ↗ with you as said corporation because it

12:53 ↗ seems to me that you don't really answer

12:55 ↗ to those same

12:56 ↗ kinds of

12:58 ↗ let's say

12:59 ↗ social rules or more a's

13:02 ↗ you don't have to really worry about

13:03 ↗ your reputation sort of going down the

13:05 ↗ drain

13:07 ↗ and i just kind of wanted to make that

13:09 ↗ as part of a sort of a general

13:11 ↗ uh comment because uh

13:13 ↗ if anything you know i'm i'm worth con

13:15 ↗ having construction if only to get rid

13:18 ↗ of the eyesores in in in various areas

13:21 ↗ and stuff like that but anyways that's

13:23 ↗ about the

13:24 ↗ the gist of my comment uh thank you very

13:27 ↗ much

13:31 ↗ the next person signed up to speak is

13:32 ↗ bob heglund

13:39 ↗ thank you i appreciate the opportunity

13:40 ↗ to address you today my name is bob

13:42 ↗ haglund i i live in granite falls i was

13:44 ↗ here

13:45 ↗ you know several days ago when you had a

13:47 ↗ meeting and spoke to the adverse effects

13:50 ↗ on people's um livelihoods especially

13:52 ↗ their health effects

13:54 ↗ of excessive regulation i just have a

13:57 ↗ concern

13:58 ↗ it's a very general one is that when we

14:01 ↗ we act in public service that we we we

14:04 ↗ do have a role to balance the needs of

14:06 ↗ of everyone and in the case of planning

14:08 ↗ and and in your your processes you're

14:11 ↗ balancing the needs of the people and

14:13 ↗ the ever increasing population and the

14:16 ↗ needs to protect the environment we all

14:18 ↗ live in and we love

14:19 ↗ and that's something i just really like

14:20 ↗ to encourage you to really focus more on

14:23 ↗ the people for for a change a little bit

14:25 ↗ more not saying that you're you're

14:27 ↗ tilted the wrong way i'm just saying

14:28 ↗ just maybe lean a little bit more that

14:30 ↗ direction because we do have a real

14:31 ↗ problem with housing right now where p

14:33 ↗ the housing is is very much in short

14:35 ↗ supply here throughout the puget sound

14:38 ↗ region frankly other parts of the state

14:39 ↗ i've been visiting it's a it's a real

14:41 ↗ serious issue that is going to affect a

14:43 ↗ couple of things one is it affects our

14:44 ↗ children if our children can't afford to

14:46 ↗ live in the communities that they grew

14:48 ↗ up in they have to find another place to

14:49 ↗ live that breaks the community up that's

14:51 ↗ a very bad thing the other is is the

14:53 ↗ effect on health

14:55 ↗ one of the things that when we have a

14:57 ↗ short supply of housing and when housing

15:00 ↗ is not

15:01 ↗ just readily available or affordable

15:03 ↗ there's there's only a fixed amount of

15:05 ↗ money in most people's families we can't

15:06 ↗ like the federal reserve just print

15:08 ↗ money and we don't want people going to

15:09 ↗ debt to live so the choice comes down to

15:12 ↗ this is you have housing energy

15:15 ↗ food

15:16 ↗ and and then you know things like health

15:17 ↗ care come after that

15:19 ↗ the problem is as we know that the

15:20 ↗ policies outside of our arena that we

15:22 ↗ don't have direct control over are

15:24 ↗ adversely affecting the cost of energy

15:26 ↗ and it's driving up food and it's

15:27 ↗ driving up a lot of things

15:29 ↗ but you do have the ability to control

15:31 ↗ the cost of housing to some extent you

15:33 ↗ can you can nudge it

15:35 ↗ and what i'd suggest you do and i really

15:36 ↗ encourage you to do is nudge it in the

15:38 ↗ direction of affordability by allowing

15:40 ↗ these pro

15:42 ↗ projects that are in process to be

15:43 ↗ completed and get on the market it might

15:45 ↗ be just a small number a few hundred

15:47 ↗ units here a couple hundred there but it

15:49 ↗ does make a big difference so in the in

15:51 ↗ the large scale of things when you start

15:52 ↗ to

15:53 ↗ see the snowball effect of that and

15:55 ↗ again i don't know ask you to sacrifice

15:56 ↗ the environment or sacrifice the quality

15:58 ↗ of life for the people of issaquah

15:59 ↗ that's that's i'd never ask for that but

16:02 ↗ i just ask you just to consider a little

16:03 ↗ more weight toward the human side of it

16:05 ↗ and a little less weight because we put

16:07 ↗ a lot of emphasis on the environment be

16:09 ↗ conscious but but please think more

16:11 ↗ about the people that's why i encourage

16:12 ↗ you and thank you very much

16:16 ↗ the next speaker is council president

16:18 ↗ walsh

16:22 ↗ thank you my name is lindsay walsh i

16:25 ↗ serve currently on the city council as

16:27 ↗ the council president and um we just we

16:30 ↗ had each of us sign up to

16:33 ↗ come and meet you guys as you're working

16:35 ↗ your way back in person

16:37 ↗ both to thank you for bearing with us

16:40 ↗ through the process

16:42 ↗ and also just to thank you for serving

16:44 ↗ in a very unusual time

16:47 ↗ i know we had

16:48 ↗ many years worth of virtual meetings

16:52 ↗ and it took a while to get used to it

16:54 ↗ but then you kind of got into your

16:55 ↗ groove and you knew what you were doing

16:56 ↗ in that way and now we're coming back in

16:59 ↗ person and doing hybrid and doing things

17:02 ↗ like that so um

17:05 ↗ i guess just

17:06 ↗ thank you for bearing with us thank you

17:09 ↗ for your service for those who have been

17:11 ↗ on for a while for those who are newer

17:14 ↗ and are just learning the ropes

17:16 ↗ just as context i started out on the

17:18 ↗ planning policy commission served there

17:20 ↗ for two years it's a very rewarding

17:22 ↗ experience and so one of the other

17:25 ↗ things i want to say is

17:27 ↗ the council is really interested in

17:29 ↗ making sure that you know how important

17:32 ↗ your work is

17:34 ↗ i mean i serve on the planning

17:35 ↗ development environment committee for

17:38 ↗ council and seeing the work as it comes

17:40 ↗ through on title 18 is really

17:43 ↗ awe-inspiring

17:45 ↗ sorry if we push a few things back

17:46 ↗ towards you guys as we have more

17:48 ↗ questions and things that need to come

17:50 ↗ up

17:51 ↗ but i know this has been a long process

17:53 ↗ i want to thank you

17:55 ↗ dearly for that

17:57 ↗ the

17:58 ↗ expertise that you bring to this and the

18:01 ↗ engagement with the community is really

18:03 ↗ very valuable we're looking forward to

18:06 ↗ strengthening these connections making

18:08 ↗ sure that you're aware after something

18:11 ↗ passes through your committee or your

18:13 ↗ commission where it goes in council and

18:16 ↗ then closing loop and making sure the

18:18 ↗ information comes back to you so you

18:19 ↗ know how everything ended up

18:22 ↗ in the end so just again thank you and

18:25 ↗ thank you guys virtually up there um

18:29 ↗ for all of your service um

18:31 ↗ yeah if you guys need anything you can

18:33 ↗ always email us city council at

18:35 ↗ issaquah.gov

18:37 ↗ and we would love to hear from you but

18:39 ↗ otherwise we will let you do your work

18:41 ↗ and we'll get on and not be able to dig

18:44 ↗ down into it as deeply as you can so

18:47 ↗ thanks again

18:51 ↗ the next speaker is paul hess

19:00 ↗ my name is paul hess

19:02 ↗ i have known hussein karam for

19:05 ↗ over 10 years have the utmost respect

19:08 ↗ for him

19:09 ↗ and i really want to just say three

19:11 ↗ things this evening i'm not going to

19:12 ↗ take

19:13 ↗ my full five minutes

19:15 ↗ i appreciate the fact that all of you on

19:18 ↗ this commission

19:21 ↗ take your work seriously you have a lot

19:23 ↗ of interest to balance

19:25 ↗ life is complicated

19:27 ↗ and when you have a project like

19:30 ↗ hussein

19:32 ↗ and his brother are putting together

19:34 ↗ here in issaquah

19:37 ↗ they the the two complexes they have are

19:40 ↗ really quality comp uh complexes in

19:43 ↗ bellevue

19:44 ↗ and they care mr house i would ask you

19:46 ↗ to refrain from talking about any

19:49 ↗ current projects that are in the process

19:50 ↗ please the three things i want to say is

19:54 ↗ the first word is certainty

19:57 ↗ that these projects take a long time

20:01 ↗ in any project of this size

20:04 ↗ and if you change the rules

20:07 ↗ in the middle of the game

20:09 ↗ it really is not fair and can be very

20:13 ↗ expensive for the developer

20:16 ↗ so

20:18 ↗ having said that and looking around

20:22 ↗ at other governments uh here in king

20:24 ↗ county

20:25 ↗ delay has been the watchword is because

20:28 ↗ of covid they've extended the deadline

20:32 ↗ so

20:32 ↗ it seems to me that creating certainty

20:36 ↗ is part of your

20:38 ↗ is part of your role

20:39 ↗ so that people don't have to

20:42 ↗ do it all over again

20:45 ↗ when new rules are submitted so i would

20:48 ↗ submit that a

20:49 ↗ a six month moratorium maybe not a more

20:53 ↗ term extension

20:54 ↗ uh to june 30th of 2023 maybe maybe a

20:58 ↗ 12-month extension

21:00 ↗ for projects that are already in the

21:02 ↗ pipeline is is more than than reasonable

21:06 ↗ uh the second thing that

21:08 ↗ that i would say

21:10 ↗ uh is that it's important to realize

21:14 ↗ the

21:15 ↗ the cost of these projects

21:19 ↗ just the preliminary costs

21:22 ↗ uh that you have to put up front

21:25 ↗ uh and again i think that you're

21:27 ↗ protecting you want to protect the

21:28 ↗ public you want to protect the

21:30 ↗ environment all these things but you

21:32 ↗ also have to look at the pocketbook of

21:33 ↗ the developer and if and if

21:36 ↗ it's it's a very discouraging situation

21:39 ↗ where

21:40 ↗ added costs

21:42 ↗ would be

21:44 ↗ incurred due to again

21:46 ↗ a change in the

21:49 ↗ uh in the code

21:50 ↗ uh that that you promulgate so again i

21:54 ↗ would ask that that

21:56 ↗ a reasonable expense tension be granted

21:58 ↗ to all projects

22:00 ↗ uh that are that are already

22:03 ↗ uh pretty far along in the process

22:06 ↗ and the last thing i want to say is that

22:09 ↗ all of us have learned

22:13 ↗ how hard it is during covid to

22:17 ↗ recalibrate and figure out how to get

22:19 ↗ things done

22:20 ↗ and there's a huge amount of arterial

22:23 ↗ sclerosis that has occurred

22:25 ↗ in trying to

22:28 ↗ get projects done and this is one of the

22:30 ↗ reasons that housing is so high

22:33 ↗ is to duplicate that in this environment

22:37 ↗ with the slow pace

22:39 ↗ using emails rather than a meet a

22:41 ↗ two-hour meeting to get things done

22:44 ↗ i i hope you take that into

22:46 ↗ consideration and recognize that we have

22:49 ↗ had a very unusual environment with

22:52 ↗ covid

22:53 ↗ and to honor those that have worked

22:55 ↗ through that process

22:57 ↗ sometimes with

22:59 ↗ great frustration but also success it's

23:02 ↗ just a very slow moving process so i

23:04 ↗ would hope you would give time extra

23:06 ↗ time

23:07 ↗ to those who have

23:10 ↗ already moved their projects fairly far

23:12 ↗ along

23:13 ↗ and not subject them to a new code thank

23:16 ↗ you

23:20 ↗ we have two more speakers here in the

23:21 ↗ room uh just a reminder to any of the

23:23 ↗ virtual attendees if you're wanting to

23:25 ↗ make comments under this general public

23:27 ↗ comment period uh please raise your

23:29 ↗ virtual hand or send me the host a chat

23:32 ↗ message the next person signed up is

23:34 ↗ dale funk

23:39 ↗ good evening commissioners and staff

23:43 ↗ i want to echo to some degree

23:46 ↗ the comments of mr hess but also

23:49 ↗ to reiterate and reflect a little bit

23:52 ↗ the comments of the council president

23:54 ↗ when she commented on

23:56 ↗ how

23:57 ↗ much of a transition it was to go from

24:01 ↗ normal in-person live meetings to

24:03 ↗ abruptly

24:05 ↗ terminating those going to

24:07 ↗ zoom meetings

24:09 ↗ and now starting a transition back to

24:13 ↗ meetings that are partly in person

24:15 ↗ partly on zoom

24:16 ↗ all of those transitions

24:18 ↗ took time

24:20 ↗ time for people to get used to the new

24:22 ↗ way of doing things and now we're

24:24 ↗ shifting a little bit to getting used to

24:26 ↗ doing them and then back to what we used

24:28 ↗ to be used to

24:31 ↗ and

24:32 ↗ all of those

24:34 ↗ time eating delays

24:37 ↗ put every project that was coming

24:39 ↗ through your your planning

24:41 ↗ and building departments

24:43 ↗ it set them back

24:45 ↗ and

24:46 ↗ i think one of the

24:49 ↗ things that you and every council

24:52 ↗ struggle with is the issue of fair

24:54 ↗ equity

24:56 ↗ what is fair to the applicant what is

24:58 ↗ fair to the residents of the city and

25:00 ↗ every other

25:01 ↗ party who has

25:03 ↗ every stakeholder involved

25:05 ↗ and and it's not an easy balancing act

25:09 ↗ but i don't think it's a stretch to

25:12 ↗ recognize as your council president did

25:15 ↗ that there have been delays

25:18 ↗ and

25:19 ↗ to

25:20 ↗ step back for a little bit and kind of

25:22 ↗ try to take an uh a guesstimate

25:25 ↗ if you will

25:26 ↗ at well how much of a delay

25:29 ↗ has

25:31 ↗ the project

25:32 ↗ not just this project but any of your

25:34 ↗ projects been

25:35 ↗ you know moved back in time

25:37 ↗ and to say well

25:39 ↗ maybe

25:41 ↗ that's it's not unreasonable to

25:44 ↗ use your discretionary authority

25:47 ↗ to

25:49 ↗ add a little padding on

25:51 ↗ i know that enormous weight is given to

25:53 ↗ the concept of vesting and and with good

25:56 ↗ reason

25:57 ↗ but um

25:59 ↗ when applicants come in

26:01 ↗ and and

26:02 ↗ try to work their way through a process

26:05 ↗ that's been fairly abruptly changed in

26:08 ↗ which

26:09 ↗ nobody on either side of any of the

26:11 ↗ parties really knew what all the new

26:13 ↗ rules and processes would be and i don't

26:15 ↗ mean the building codes i mean the the

26:17 ↗ processes for how do we

26:19 ↗ submit questions how do we get answers

26:21 ↗ how do we resolve

26:23 ↗ issues that are

26:24 ↗ there's because there are always

26:25 ↗ ambiguities on plans you know

26:28 ↗ the best experts in the world will sit

26:30 ↗ down and look at the code and try to

26:32 ↗ design something that complies with it

26:34 ↗ somebody else is going to look at it and

26:36 ↗ say well there's a better way to do it

26:38 ↗ or a different way to do it so you it's

26:40 ↗ never possible

26:42 ↗ to to just read the code and say okay

26:44 ↗ we're going to do this and it's going to

26:45 ↗ comply there are always questions and

26:47 ↗ when you

26:48 ↗ run into these

26:49 ↗ lengthy delays at getting answers and

26:52 ↗ resolutions to those questions

26:54 ↗ and

26:56 ↗ and there have been

26:58 ↗ it's not unreasonable to say well

27:00 ↗ maybe vesting isn't the absolute cast

27:04 ↗ and concrete gold standard maybe we do

27:06 ↗ need to

27:07 ↗ take us take a breath use a little

27:09 ↗ discretion and say maybe we can stretch

27:12 ↗ this out a little bit let's give these

27:15 ↗ projects that have been in the pipeline

27:17 ↗ for

27:18 ↗ a year two years or thereabouts

27:21 ↗ recognize that these delays have not

27:23 ↗ been caused by the applicant not been

27:26 ↗ caused by the city not been caused by

27:28 ↗ any of the stakeholders

27:30 ↗ but

27:31 ↗ in fairness and equity and justice

27:34 ↗ stretch that out a little bit give them

27:35 ↗ a little room to breathe

27:38 ↗ the day will come when we'll be back to

27:41 ↗ you know

27:42 ↗ normal

27:43 ↗ in-person meetings getting answers

27:44 ↗ resolved more quickly and so on but

27:47 ↗ we're not there yet so in in as we work

27:49 ↗ our way towards that i don't think it's

27:51 ↗ unreasonable

27:53 ↗ for you and and the council to

27:57 ↗ use your discretion

27:58 ↗ treat these people with some fairness

28:00 ↗ and equity it's it's good for everybody

28:04 ↗ thank you

28:07 ↗ the next speaker is landon halverson

28:13 ↗ hello everybody my name is landon

28:15 ↗ halverson i'm a resident of downtown

28:16 ↗ izakaya i live just about 500 feet that

28:19 ↗ way

28:20 ↗ and i just wanted to stop by briefly to

28:22 ↗ discuss what many others have discussed

28:24 ↗ tonight

28:25 ↗ and that's the new land code

28:28 ↗ and potentially extending that by six

28:30 ↗ months um for the implementation

28:33 ↗ i think you guys already understand why

28:36 ↗ we're asking for that i i think in your

28:38 ↗ roles you guys understand why it is

28:40 ↗ difficult for a project uh to flip on a

28:44 ↗ dime like that i think you guys

28:46 ↗ understand that so really what this is

28:48 ↗ about

28:50 ↗ is sending a very clear message do you

28:52 ↗ send a very clear message to developers

28:55 ↗ and to people who want to come in and

28:56 ↗ build up our communities that you can do

28:59 ↗ so and that the regulatory process that

29:02 ↗ you have to go through is going to be

29:04 ↗ stable

29:05 ↗ or do we send the message that well you

29:07 ↗ know you're going to have to go through

29:08 ↗ a regulatory process and it might take

29:10 ↗ many years and by the time you get

29:12 ↗ through it you may actually have to go

29:13 ↗ back to the drawing board because

29:16 ↗ by the time you have the opportunity to

29:17 ↗ finish there's going to be a new set of

29:18 ↗ requirements that you have to meet and

29:20 ↗ it kind of becomes this ongoing cycle

29:22 ↗ where i as a resident look at it and say

29:24 ↗ well whoever's making the rules must

29:25 ↗ just not want people to build because it

29:28 ↗ it ends up being a rule that

29:31 ↗ while it does not explicitly stop people

29:32 ↗ from building in issaquah it makes it

29:34 ↗ nearly impossible to do so in a timely

29:38 ↗ in a timely efficient manner to the

29:40 ↗ point where no reasonable person would

29:42 ↗ want to come into our communities and

29:44 ↗ develop

29:45 ↗ so as a resident

29:46 ↗ it is just really important to me that

29:49 ↗ we have regulatory stability for the

29:51 ↗ businesses and for the developers that

29:53 ↗ come in

29:54 ↗ those standards should be robust those

29:57 ↗ standards

29:58 ↗ should protect our natural environment

30:00 ↗ those standards

30:01 ↗ should uphold the things that we value

30:04 ↗ but at the same time those standards

30:06 ↗ if you're going to have projects that

30:08 ↗ take as long as some of these projects

30:10 ↗ have

30:11 ↗ those standards have to be applied

30:13 ↗ consistently all the way through it is

30:15 ↗ not reasonable to look at a

30:18 ↗ multi-million dollar project and say oh

30:20 ↗ well we know it's been this long but

30:21 ↗ back to the drawing board it just

30:23 ↗ doesn't make sense and ultimately

30:26 ↗ when you do that that causes the

30:28 ↗ production costs to go up and the final

30:31 ↗ sales cost of those units on a monthly

30:33 ↗ basis is going to be higher right so

30:36 ↗ every step back that we take reg with

30:39 ↗ regulatory reform ultimately is going to

30:41 ↗ cost renters and tenants more on the

30:44 ↗ front end or on the back end rather

30:46 ↗ so i would encourage you

30:48 ↗ to to think about these things and to

30:51 ↗ think about ways that you and your

30:53 ↗ commission can help to ensure regulatory

30:55 ↗ stability for developers that come in uh

31:00 ↗ the city has spent ample time designing

31:02 ↗ these um and again i i trust you guys to

31:05 ↗ make the right decision on those kinds

31:07 ↗ of things that's what's why you're here

31:09 ↗ uh but as a resident i just want to put

31:11 ↗ in my input that i really hope you take

31:13 ↗ the time to consider the importance of

31:15 ↗ regulatory stability and extend this by

31:17 ↗ at least six months thanks

31:22 ↗ the next speaker is a virtual attendee

31:24 ↗ andy andy i'm going to make you a

31:26 ↗ panelist now you should then see the

31:28 ↗ option to unmute and can choose to turn

31:31 ↗ your video on

31:42 ↗ are you able to hear me

31:44 ↗ yes okay lovely

31:47 ↗ um so i'm just calling in i'll keep my

31:50 ↗ comments short uh i grew up in cement

31:53 ↗ just nearby and lived there mostly

31:56 ↗ recently until going to burien

31:59 ↗ very passionate horticulturalist i love

32:02 ↗ nature

32:03 ↗ and uh so i i really do care about our

32:06 ↗ native species and such um that being

32:10 ↗ said uh i'm also a millennial and

32:13 ↗ housing is the thing most on people's

32:16 ↗ mind i'm fortunately

32:17 ↗ able to get one somewhat recently

32:20 ↗ but

32:21 ↗ you know i'm coming up commenting

32:23 ↗ because you know i know this area very

32:26 ↗ well i am out in the woods

32:28 ↗ super often and very aware of the

32:31 ↗ wildlife concerns but

32:33 ↗ you know i'm just also in favor of

32:36 ↗ more housing and making this process

32:38 ↗ easier this is a top concern of people

32:41 ↗ my age

32:42 ↗ and

32:43 ↗ i wanted to put my comments for that

32:45 ↗ that i really wish that

32:48 ↗ we can be pro-development in this kind

32:50 ↗ of way

32:52 ↗ that's

32:53 ↗ that's my comment there thank you

33:00 ↗ cheer voice uh no one else has signed up

33:02 ↗ to speak we do have a few additional

33:05 ↗ folks in the room here

33:09 ↗ and i i guess i'll ask if uh chaired

33:12 ↗ would you like me to see if there's

33:13 ↗ anyone else in the room who'd like to

33:15 ↗ make comments

33:17 ↗ um sure if they if they're just uh

33:19 ↗ arriving i would just mention to them

33:21 ↗ that again these are general public

33:22 ↗ comments for the policy commission

33:25 ↗ so if they could please keep it to that

33:27 ↗ that would be great

33:30 ↗ is there anyone else in the audience

33:31 ↗ who'd like to make general comments sir

33:34 ↗ go ahead

33:36 ↗ thank you

33:38 ↗ my name is frank koram i'm hussain's

33:40 ↗ partner

33:42 ↗ in construction and business

33:45 ↗ for the past 43 years

33:47 ↗ we have lived here in western washington

33:49 ↗ and we have seen

33:51 ↗ how washington state have grown from a

33:54 ↗ sleepy

33:55 ↗ east side community to a

33:57 ↗ bustling

33:59 ↗ great economy with great employment and

34:04 ↗ great housing increases and

34:07 ↗ with that we have seen great costs

34:10 ↗ that people pay to either purchase or

34:13 ↗ rent

34:15 ↗ housing for themselves and their family

34:18 ↗ and i

34:21 ↗ in the past 43 years we have never seen

34:23 ↗ inflation

34:25 ↗ like we have seen in the last few months

34:28 ↗ we have never seen

34:30 ↗ covet

34:31 ↗ pandemics

34:33 ↗ and for that reason among other reasons

34:36 ↗ i would definitely

34:40 ↗ recommend for the

34:43 ↗ city to consider

34:44 ↗ extending

34:46 ↗ the

34:49 ↗ basically the

34:51 ↗ the process

34:52 ↗ with the new codes on

34:56 ↗ projects that are in a pipeline

34:58 ↗ and especially for our project that's

35:00 ↗ been three years in the making at this

35:03 ↗ stage at a great cost

35:05 ↗ changing the rules it's

35:07 ↗ unfair

35:08 ↗ and i believe

35:10 ↗ it would serve the end user which is in

35:13 ↗ this case going to be renters

35:15 ↗ going to cost them more money

35:17 ↗ the more regulation we have

35:20 ↗ that's all i have to say

35:23 ↗ thank you

35:25 ↗ is there anyone else in the audience

35:27 ↗ wishing to make general comments sir go

35:30 ↗ ahead

35:36 ↗ hi uh thank you commissioner staff

35:39 ↗ my name is ali kim yai i'm a small

35:42 ↗ developer

35:43 ↗ currently

35:46 ↗ have two small projects

35:48 ↗ multi-family projects in renton

35:51 ↗ and

35:54 ↗ whatever happened to mr horowitz it

35:57 ↗ happens to me

35:59 ↗ i'm done

36:01 ↗ let me just thought of going through the

36:03 ↗ whole thing again it's very

36:05 ↗ time consuming and expensive

36:07 ↗ so i agree with the

36:10 ↗ six months extension if that's possible

36:13 ↗ thank you

36:21 ↗ chair voice i don't see anyone else in

36:23 ↗ the room indicating a desire to speak at

36:25 ↗ this time

36:29 ↗ thank you and let me just say very

36:31 ↗ quickly i want to

36:32 ↗ say my appreciation to everyone who just

36:35 ↗ provided comments

36:36 ↗ i know some had come armed with some

36:38 ↗ specifics and you did a very good job of

36:41 ↗ trying to keep them as general as

36:42 ↗ possible we deeply appreciate it and i

36:45 ↗ also want to say a very much thank you

36:47 ↗ to council president walsh and her uh

36:50 ↗ very nice comments so again thank you

36:52 ↗ all for participating it's an important

36:54 ↗ part of our process

36:56 ↗ and we hope you stick around for the

36:57 ↗ rest of the meeting

37:00 ↗ oh moving on

37:01 ↗ uh now we're going to actually do the

37:03 ↗ public hearing for this evening

37:06 ↗ the title 18 zoning and development

37:08 ↗ standard code updates

37:10 ↗ tonight staff will present all four

37:12 ↗ topics

37:13 ↗ after each topic

37:15 ↗ commissioners will ask clarifying

37:17 ↗ questions

37:18 ↗ once all topics have been presented and

37:20 ↗ all questions asked

37:22 ↗ we will open the hearing up for public

37:24 ↗ comment related to this issue

37:28 ↗ after that

37:29 ↗ the development commission will take

37:31 ↗ over for deliberations this evening

37:33 ↗ at that point i will pass off

37:36 ↗ control of the meeting to

37:38 ↗ vice chair brookie shore who will

37:40 ↗ facilitate her commission's uh

37:42 ↗ deliberative portion tonight

37:45 ↗ and i'll also ask planning policy who's

37:46 ↗ gotten pretty good at this to turn off

37:48 ↗ their cameras

37:49 ↗ when we get there

37:51 ↗ we will be actually deliberating this

37:54 ↗ in person

37:55 ↗ planning policy

37:56 ↗ in person on the diocese for the first

37:58 ↗ time in over two years

38:01 ↗ this july 28th

38:02 ↗ this coming thursday so looking forward

38:05 ↗ to seeing all of you guys in chambers

38:08 ↗ so tonight i'm going to ask staff to

38:10 ↗ please go ahead with your presentation

38:12 ↗ again we'll have a presentation ask

38:15 ↗ clarifying questions

38:17 ↗ move on to the next presentation

38:19 ↗ so on and then we'll go for

38:21 ↗ um

38:24 ↗ sorry there's a little thing on the chat

38:25 ↗ box

38:26 ↗ then we will go for uh public hearing

38:28 ↗ comments and then finally deliberations

38:30 ↗ so staff please take it away

38:49 ↗ i'm kristen lisa and i'm senior planner

38:52 ↗ um and i believe that the presentation

38:55 ↗ is going to be posted for me so i'm

38:57 ↗ going to hang on just a minute

39:27 ↗ trisha and valerie do you all need me to

39:28 ↗ present on this end

39:32 ↗ yes please present

39:35 ↗ okay

40:06 ↗ all right are we good to go we all see

40:08 ↗ it

40:13 ↗ kristen you're on uh

40:15 ↗ i know i can't

40:17 ↗ i'm trying

40:19 ↗ see but yes we can see it

40:22 ↗ okay

40:23 ↗ great yeah it's it won't let my phones

40:25 ↗ aren't working tonight

40:26 ↗ i'm not on my usual computer okay thank

40:29 ↗ you for your patience so tonight we are

40:31 ↗ talking about bucket five which is

40:33 ↗ zoning and development standards

40:35 ↗ included in that are transfer

40:37 ↗ development rights and affordable

40:38 ↗ housing uh to which i will speak and

40:41 ↗ then landmarks and archaeological

40:42 ↗ resources and then parking

40:48 ↗ there we go so first transfer of

40:49 ↗ development rights

40:53 ↗ come on

40:54 ↗ so what are they um transfer development

40:57 ↗ rights also known more affectionately as

40:59 ↗ tdrs because it's easier to say

41:02 ↗ so what these do what the program does

41:04 ↗ is it allows increased development on

41:06 ↗ one parcel which is the receiving site

41:09 ↗ while protecting another partial this

41:11 ↗ the sending site from future development

41:13 ↗ and this is all at the owner's

41:14 ↗ discretion so the city never went in and

41:16 ↗ said

41:18 ↗ um particularly with sending sites

41:20 ↗ you're a sending site and people want

41:22 ↗ you they can you know buy development

41:23 ↗ rights from your property

41:25 ↗ people have um opted into this program

41:29 ↗ right now the way we started this

41:30 ↗ program is that sending sites are

41:32 ↗ typically sites with 50 or more

41:34 ↗ of the land that is encumbered by

41:36 ↗ critical areas

41:38 ↗ development rates can be bought and sold

41:40 ↗ between public agencies between private

41:43 ↗ entities or between public and private

41:45 ↗ entities

41:47 ↗ tdrs can be banked to preserve so

41:51 ↗ we were given

41:52 ↗ a property as a sending site

41:55 ↗ and only one development right from that

41:57 ↗ property was

41:59 ↗ purchased and used and so we have the

42:00 ↗ remaining properties sitting in a bank

42:03 ↗ right now so that's what that means and

42:05 ↗ these can be used for four things

42:08 ↗ to on the res on the receiving side they

42:10 ↗ can be used to increase impervious

42:12 ↗ surface

42:13 ↗ to increase height

42:14 ↗ to increase floor area ratio or to

42:17 ↗ increase density

42:20 ↗ so where are these sites you ask

42:23 ↗ the

42:24 ↗ sites that are in red are our receiving

42:26 ↗ sites so all of those properties can

42:29 ↗ increase the density on those properties

42:31 ↗ through tdrs

42:33 ↗ the green sites are

42:35 ↗ sending sites and these are within the

42:37 ↗ city we also have an interlocal

42:38 ↗ agreement with the county for sending

42:40 ↗ sites out there as well

42:45 ↗ major changes that took place as i

42:46 ↗ mentioned right now our sending sites

42:48 ↗ are for properties that primarily are 50

42:52 ↗ or more encumbered by critical areas

42:55 ↗ and what we've done one of our

42:58 ↗ goals was the protection of hillsides

43:01 ↗ and so what we've done is incorporate

43:02 ↗ hillsides here

43:04 ↗ and it's parcels where 50 of the site

43:08 ↗ is a hillside with 20 to 39 of the

43:11 ↗ property as a slope

43:13 ↗ and then we've moved density

43:15 ↗ calculations that are used to determine

43:17 ↗ how much can actually be transferred and

43:19 ↗ used on the receiving site

43:21 ↗ that calculation was going to be pulled

43:24 ↗ we moved it into the section we are

43:26 ↗ looking at changing levels of review for

43:28 ↗ additions and removals of sending and

43:30 ↗ receiving sites because right now the

43:32 ↗ sending sites are level one and the

43:34 ↗ receiving sites are level three but

43:35 ↗ that's really a policy decision and both

43:37 ↗ are code changes they need to be go

43:39 ↗ higher up to the city council

43:41 ↗ and lastly we have codified bank

43:43 ↗ activities there was a bank that was

43:45 ↗ mentioned and it was floating out there

43:47 ↗ not quite sure what the authority was

43:48 ↗ though so we have included regulations

43:50 ↗ regarding that

43:51 ↗ there is one spot that it says

43:54 ↗ it's a placeholder and we're not quite

43:56 ↗ sure about

43:57 ↗ um determining the who will determine

43:59 ↗ the cost of

44:01 ↗ the sending site so we're trying to

44:02 ↗ figure that out right now with our city

44:04 ↗ attorneys

44:05 ↗ that's all i have for tdrs let me know

44:07 ↗ if you have questions

44:15 ↗ so tisha because this is our our first

44:18 ↗ hybrid meeting would you like to

44:19 ↗ facilitate

44:20 ↗ as far as calling on people

44:23 ↗ would that make it easier for everyone

44:26 ↗ i'm i'm happy to help with that i'm

44:29 ↗ looking in the room here and not seeing

44:31 ↗ any hands raised

44:34 ↗ okay i don't see anything in the chat

44:35 ↗ either but i just figured get this out

44:37 ↗ of the way since we're gonna have

44:39 ↗ some time to do some clarifying

44:40 ↗ questions for each presentation actually

44:43 ↗ commissioner milligan has a question

44:46 ↗ ah it just popped up

44:49 ↗ million

44:52 ↗ thank you chair voice uh

44:54 ↗ planning policy commissioner milligan

44:56 ↗ nina milligan here thank you uh my

44:58 ↗ question was just about

45:00 ↗ um

45:02 ↗ in this round of changes are there going

45:05 ↗ to be any changes in the sending or

45:08 ↗ receiving sites as defined

45:12 ↗ no or not okay thank you

45:32 ↗ any other questions

45:33 ↗ should i move on

45:38 ↗ hey

45:42 ↗ you're slow to actually put it in the

45:43 ↗ chat but i guess i have a couple real

45:45 ↗ quickly

45:48 ↗ on page 3 of 17 i believe of the code it

45:52 ↗ says

45:53 ↗ uh under c2

45:55 ↗ the parcel is within a quarter mile of a

45:57 ↗ transit stop

45:58 ↗ would this just be classified as a

46:00 ↗ normal bus stop

46:03 ↗ i am going to say that that needs to be

46:05 ↗ clarified

46:07 ↗ okay

46:08 ↗ and then on the other edge on the other

46:10 ↗ yeah because again i don't know if it's

46:11 ↗ a transit facility or just simply a stop

46:15 ↗ on the other page 5a the tdrs must be in

46:18 ↗ addition to and not as a substitute for

46:21 ↗ the development rights

46:23 ↗ as specified in the development

46:25 ↗ agreement

46:26 ↗ can you shed a little light on that

46:28 ↗ statement

46:29 ↗ would you please read it again

46:32 ↗ the tdrs must be in addition to

46:35 ↗ and not as a substitute for the

46:37 ↗ development rights as specified in the

46:39 ↗ development agreement

46:42 ↗ so as i understand it a development

46:44 ↗ agreement is essentially a land use code

46:46 ↗ for a developer who

46:48 ↗ so the isqua highlands and dallas they

46:51 ↗ could that was their own land use code

46:53 ↗ so this would work in that sense and

46:54 ↗ that that is their land use code and

46:56 ↗ then they would add on they can add

46:58 ↗ density to what is written in their

46:59 ↗ development agreement on top of that

47:01 ↗ with tdrs

47:03 ↗ yeah

47:04 ↗ that was it for me

47:06 ↗ okay

47:13 ↗ one more if i'm not jumping out of turn

47:17 ↗ uh page 7-17 it says placeholder the

47:20 ↗ fair market value of the development

47:21 ↗ right shall be established by

47:23 ↗ placeholder

47:25 ↗ anyone in mind

47:26 ↗ that well that's the one i mentioned

47:28 ↗ with um that we're working with the city

47:29 ↗ attorney right now

47:31 ↗ on that language to figure out who that

47:32 ↗ will be

47:36 ↗ okay all right

48:03 ↗ all right moving on affordable housing

48:07 ↗ still there

48:09 ↗ hi kristen a quick clarification on the

48:11 ↗ tdr

48:12 ↗ um

48:13 ↗ the interlocal agreement with king

48:15 ↗ county it's our understanding that uh is

48:17 ↗ no longer in effect it expired in 2014

48:20 ↗ so just wanted to note for that for the

48:22 ↗ record so

48:23 ↗ that is our understanding of talking

48:25 ↗ with king county but

48:26 ↗ we'll look further into it

48:37 ↗ we had a little mix up in here i'm

48:38 ↗ giving that roll back to you so you

48:40 ↗ should be able to share again sorry

48:42 ↗ about that okay

48:44 ↗ a little confused okay

48:47 ↗ it's new to all of us right now let's

48:49 ↗ see

49:05 ↗ every time

49:07 ↗ all right there we go affordable housing

49:10 ↗ so what is affordable housing so we have

49:13 ↗ there out there is market rate

49:15 ↗ affordable housing which is housing that

49:17 ↗ is affordable just because it is

49:18 ↗ affordable it is not because there are

49:19 ↗ any covenants tied to it or the city

49:21 ↗ requires it

49:22 ↗ it is just happens to be more affordable

49:25 ↗ when we talk about affordable housing in

49:26 ↗ this chapter we are talking about

49:28 ↗ housing that has covenants attached to

49:30 ↗ it stating that it will remain

49:31 ↗ affordable for a determined amount of

49:33 ↗ time

49:34 ↗ the income levels for this range from

49:36 ↗ below typically at about 30 of the king

49:39 ↗ county median income

49:41 ↗ up to 80 percent of the king county area

49:44 ↗ median income

49:46 ↗ that is what counts toward our

49:47 ↗ affordable housing numbers however in

49:49 ↗ issaquah we also will tie covenants to

49:52 ↗ housing that is at 81

49:54 ↗ to 120

49:55 ↗ because we recognize that the cost of

49:57 ↗ housing here is so high that we need

49:59 ↗ covenants

50:01 ↗ to make it affordable to even a larger

50:02 ↗ group of people

50:06 ↗ so just to show you the location of some

50:08 ↗ of our housing we have about 800 units

50:12 ↗ up to 80 percent

50:13 ↗ ami

50:14 ↗ and so from 30 80 and this is where they

50:17 ↗ are all located these all have covenants

50:19 ↗ attached to them

50:21 ↗ and these are our affordable housing

50:23 ↗ units we have about 200 that are above

50:26 ↗ 80 of the area median income

50:30 ↗ our major changes i think the biggest

50:32 ↗ one that we made is that we updated our

50:34 ↗ code to

50:35 ↗ match other arch member cities because

50:37 ↗ so it's a regional coalition for housing

50:39 ↗ and we consider them to be that's arch

50:41 ↗ we consider them to be our affordable

50:43 ↗ housing and even our housing planners

50:46 ↗ and they work with 14 different

50:47 ↗ jurisdictions and

50:50 ↗ they try and keep consistency among the

50:52 ↗ jurisdictions one for fairness

50:54 ↗ and one to make it easier to enforce

50:57 ↗ so what we have done is updated our

51:00 ↗ codes to be consistent with other arts

51:02 ↗ jurisdictions

51:03 ↗ we also changed a 30-year rental

51:06 ↗ affordability rental not not ownership

51:09 ↗ rental affordability requirement up to

51:11 ↗ the life of the project because the 30

51:13 ↗ met the bank requirements that's what

51:14 ↗ they had to do but it didn't really meet

51:16 ↗ the requirements or the needs

51:18 ↗ of the city and its residents

51:21 ↗ they codified the quality of affordable

51:24 ↗ units so arch has always said well if

51:26 ↗ you're going to do market rate and

51:27 ↗ you're going to have affordable units

51:29 ↗ mixed in they have to be compatible with

51:32 ↗ that

51:32 ↗ but it was a little hard to enforce

51:34 ↗ because it wasn't codified both the

51:35 ↗ interior and the extra area so we made

51:37 ↗ that change

51:38 ↗ we removed right now we allow as a

51:40 ↗ flexible standard a reduction of

51:43 ↗ recreation space

51:44 ↗ and we thought why that makes no sense

51:47 ↗ everybody needs recreation space so it

51:49 ↗ just didn't make sense

51:51 ↗ and then lastly we have amended

51:52 ↗ requirements for off-site alternative

51:54 ↗ compliance and we added payment in lieu

51:57 ↗ it used to be that if you were going to

51:58 ↗ build affordable units off-site it still

52:00 ↗ had to be in the same sub-area but if

52:02 ↗ you're trying to avoid a really large

52:04 ↗ concentration of affordable units or if

52:06 ↗ there's no place to develop you may not

52:07 ↗ get those units or the original project

52:09 ↗ at all

52:10 ↗ um and similar just to fee and lou at

52:12 ↗ least if you get a family or a payment

52:14 ↗ in lieu you may not get the projects but

52:16 ↗ you still get money that can then go

52:18 ↗ toward affordable housing projects so

52:20 ↗ we've added that as a regulation as well

52:23 ↗ and those are my

52:25 ↗ that's what i have so if you have any

52:26 ↗ questions please let me know

52:44 ↗ so we have a couple questions that i see

52:46 ↗ again i think tisha and i are going to

52:48 ↗ try and share this responsibility

52:50 ↗ but uh i do see that commissioner bader

52:53 ↗ has a question so please commissioner

52:55 ↗ bader

52:57 ↗ yeah hi this is sarah bader just a quick

52:59 ↗ um clarifying question on the

53:01 ↗ inclusionary requirements um in the code

53:03 ↗ was there any expansion in the area to

53:06 ↗ which those apply from the previous code

53:08 ↗ to what's proposed now

53:10 ↗ there was not but we just received the

53:15 ↗ housing action plan implementation grant

53:17 ↗ which we are kicking off at the

53:19 ↗ beginning of august and one of the tasks

53:21 ↗ with that is to look at expanding the

53:23 ↗ area for inclusionary zoning great

53:25 ↗ thanks

53:30 ↗ thank you commissioner bader uh

53:32 ↗ commissioner milligan with a question

53:37 ↗ thank you nina milliken here i actually

53:40 ↗ have two questions should i just rattle

53:43 ↗ them off they're fairly simple

53:45 ↗ okay one of them is

53:48 ↗ for the affordable housing i think

53:51 ↗ if i'm understanding what you said

53:53 ↗ kristen that

53:55 ↗ for the fee in lieu there was this

53:56 ↗ concern about

53:58 ↗ having you know affordable housing all

54:00 ↗ in one place but

54:02 ↗ isn't our affordable housing requirement

54:04 ↗ a percentage of a project

54:07 ↗ in general

54:09 ↗ and then the second question i want to

54:11 ↗ ask is um

54:13 ↗ why

54:15 ↗ is there

54:16 ↗ why are we expanding the term

54:18 ↗ [Music]

54:20 ↗ for a rental but not for home ownership

54:23 ↗ to

54:25 ↗ the life of the project

54:27 ↗ those are my two i should be a little

54:29 ↗ clearer on the feet in lou we have

54:32 ↗ fianlu for

54:34 ↗ um

54:36 ↗ i just blinked our development bonus

54:39 ↗ right now density bonus program and then

54:41 ↗ this being lou falls under the

54:43 ↗ alternative compliance

54:46 ↗ and so it's a way

54:48 ↗ alternative compliance

54:49 ↗ prior to this

54:51 ↗ we didn't allow fan loop it just said

54:53 ↗ you have to build housing somewhere else

54:55 ↗ so this gave them an option as to if you

54:58 ↗ can't build housing somewhere else let's

55:00 ↗ at least get the money for that so that

55:02 ↗ that can go toward affordable housing

55:04 ↗ um

55:05 ↗ and

55:06 ↗ so those two are not really tied to the

55:08 ↗ area and also the um alternative

55:10 ↗ compliance without the fee and lieu says

55:13 ↗ you have to build in the same sub-area

55:15 ↗ so we have changed that piece to say you

55:17 ↗ don't have to build in the sub-area we

55:18 ↗ just want the housing so build it where

55:20 ↗ you can get it

55:21 ↗ and if you can't do that then give us

55:23 ↗ money and we'll we'll

55:25 ↗ help will contribute to affordable

55:26 ↗ housing

55:27 ↗ did that help clear it up at all yeah

55:29 ↗ and then i'm sorry the basic

55:31 ↗ follow-up question uh why what would be

55:34 ↗ a circumstance where

55:35 ↗ a developer

55:37 ↗ could not build

55:39 ↗ the affordable units required how would

55:41 ↗ that okay

55:43 ↗ if they were going to be off-site they

55:45 ↗ may not be able to find land

55:46 ↗ no what if they but

55:49 ↗ in the original in the on-site

55:51 ↗ development requirement

55:53 ↗ why wouldn't they be able to

55:57 ↗ um i have asked this question myself

55:59 ↗ this is new to us there are situations

56:02 ↗ where they can't um i think it's there

56:05 ↗ as a safety net

56:07 ↗ this is one of those things we're trying

56:08 ↗ to be can uh consistent with other

56:10 ↗ cities who use this

56:12 ↗ and it's just sort of been used as a

56:14 ↗ safety net it hasn't been used often the

56:16 ↗ alternative compliance

56:19 ↗ but just in case i'll save deliberations

56:22 ↗ because i know i'm not deliberating

56:24 ↗ my other question had to do with why are

56:26 ↗ this different between homeownership and

56:28 ↗ rental

56:29 ↗ again that's that's consistency with um

56:32 ↗ other jurisdictions

56:34 ↗ yeah

56:41 ↗ thank you and we have a question from

56:44 ↗ the dyess

56:45 ↗ so commissioner morgan please

56:47 ↗ uh thank you chairvoice uh the required

56:50 ↗ changing the requirement from 30 years

56:52 ↗ to indefinite is that something that was

56:56 ↗ discussed with developers and with

56:58 ↗ bankers to find out

57:01 ↗ their

57:02 ↗ feeling of what the impact would be and

57:04 ↗ if anybody would be willing to finance

57:07 ↗ affordable units

57:10 ↗ so it no it hasn't been discussed but

57:12 ↗ it's done in several other cities

57:14 ↗ and they haven't had any issues with it

57:17 ↗ so far

57:18 ↗ i i suppose we could reach out

57:21 ↗ and see but the other cities haven't had

57:22 ↗ any issues with the same requirement

57:25 ↗ okay well and i think it'd be helpful it

57:28 ↗ seems like to talk to developers and

57:29 ↗ bankers themselves that the comment was

57:31 ↗ made that is a requirement of the banks

57:33 ↗ not the the needs of the community

57:36 ↗ and i guess finding out what the basis

57:38 ↗ is because if banks won't finance

57:40 ↗ something it won't get built typically

57:42 ↗ so

57:45 ↗ and i'll probably have a comment about

57:46 ↗ that when we get to the comment period

57:48 ↗ so thank you

57:54 ↗ chair voice there's another question in

57:56 ↗ the room

57:58 ↗ hi thank you uh this is kevin price

58:01 ↗ speaking

58:02 ↗ um i had a question about the ami figure

58:04 ↗ that the upper limit was set at 120

58:08 ↗ is that existing or proposed i don't see

58:10 ↗ it in the existing language of the code

58:16 ↗ it is

58:17 ↗ existing okay we already have

58:20 ↗ yeah it's existing it's not but as i

58:23 ↗ mentioned so what counts toward our

58:24 ↗ affordable units when we when we talk to

58:26 ↗ the county and we say this is how many

58:28 ↗ affordable units we have

58:29 ↗ they go from zero to eighty percent

58:32 ↗ and i just mentioned because i know that

58:34 ↗ there are

58:34 ↗ two about 200 units all in the highlands

58:37 ↗ of units that go from 81 to 120

58:39 ↗ those also have covenants attached

58:42 ↗ uh they're just not really included in

58:44 ↗ this chapter so i thought i would

58:45 ↗ mention them i see and is is that 120

58:48 ↗ rental and ownership

58:50 ↗ or yes okay and it's mostly ownership

58:54 ↗ okay thank you

58:56 ↗ you're welcome

59:12 ↗ i don't see any more virtual questions

59:14 ↗ but that doesn't mean there aren't

59:15 ↗ questions

59:18 ↗ no more questions in the room

59:22 ↗ okay give it a second

59:33 ↗ all right i believe we can move along

59:46 ↗ hello my name is valerie porter and i'm

59:48 ↗ going to talk about landmarks

59:49 ↗ preservation

59:51 ↗ so what is landmarks and

59:53 ↗ archeological resources it encourages

59:56 ↗ the protection and the preservation and

59:57 ↗ enhancement

1:00:00 ↗ of

1:00:02 ↗ resources that are associated with

1:00:04 ↗ important and past events and themes and

1:00:06 ↗ peoples so this section is going to talk

1:00:08 ↗ about the landmarks commission the

1:00:11 ↗ nomination process the designation

1:00:13 ↗ criteria

1:00:14 ↗ and the designation process so in 2001

1:00:17 ↗ the city entered into an interlocal

1:00:19 ↗ agreement with king county to provide

1:00:21 ↗ issaquah assistance with historical

1:00:23 ↗ preservation this group consists of

1:00:26 ↗ about nine members and so they review

1:00:28 ↗ all of the landmark

1:00:29 ↗ nominations as well as designating any

1:00:32 ↗ landmarks for us

1:00:34 ↗ so right about now we have about six um

1:00:37 ↗ landmarks within the city

1:00:39 ↗ there's the auto freight building

1:00:41 ↗ there's the

1:00:42 ↗ issaquah trail depot and the newest one

1:00:44 ↗ is the coots garage building which is

1:00:46 ↗ right here along sunset way

1:00:51 ↗ so some of the major changes that have

1:00:52 ↗ occurred in this section is one we've

1:00:54 ↗ added a fee recovery section

1:00:56 ↗ this is to allow the city to recoup any

1:00:58 ↗ cost should we have to pay any fees on

1:01:00 ↗ behalf of the applicant

1:01:02 ↗ another one is

1:01:04 ↗ we've adopted by reference so we're no

1:01:06 ↗ longer going to be essentially adding

1:01:08 ↗ king county's code into our code

1:01:10 ↗ instead we're going to adopt by

1:01:12 ↗ reference

1:01:13 ↗ this

1:01:14 ↗ i did a little research and a lot of

1:01:15 ↗ cities actually do this

1:01:17 ↗ it makes it a lot simpler and allows our

1:01:19 ↗ code to remain

1:01:20 ↗ consistent with king county

1:01:23 ↗ another change is that we've added a

1:01:25 ↗ landmarks commission section this is

1:01:28 ↗ basically codifying the landmarks

1:01:30 ↗ commission's

1:01:31 ↗ authority to make decisions on our

1:01:33 ↗ behalf and then it's also

1:01:35 ↗ codifying the special member position

1:01:37 ↗ which is the city's representative that

1:01:40 ↗ reviews projects when any nominations

1:01:42 ↗ are made

1:01:44 ↗ in this section we also tried to align

1:01:46 ↗ our code with our interlocal agreement

1:01:48 ↗ so we added language basically stating

1:01:51 ↗ that should

1:01:52 ↗ an applicant come in wanting to make a

1:01:54 ↗ revision to a landmark that the city

1:01:57 ↗ would take into consideration the

1:01:58 ↗ county's historic preservation officer's

1:02:01 ↗ comments

1:02:02 ↗ just make sure that the city and the

1:02:03 ↗ county are aligned

1:02:05 ↗ and then we also try to just make sure

1:02:08 ↗ that our references are up to date so

1:02:10 ↗ the recently the city adopted a new code

1:02:14 ↗ enforcement section so we've updated

1:02:16 ↗ that reference so now that if there is a

1:02:18 ↗ violation the code enforcement officer

1:02:19 ↗ can properly address that

1:02:21 ↗ and those are all of the changes right

1:02:23 ↗ now take questions

1:02:38 ↗ any questions on landmarks

1:02:43 ↗ cheer voice we have one question here in

1:02:45 ↗ the room from commissioner dillon

1:02:48 ↗ please

1:02:50 ↗ thank you patty dillon speaking

1:02:52 ↗ so the adoption of the king county code

1:02:55 ↗ by reference presumably

1:02:58 ↗ or i guess does that refer to a specific

1:03:02 ↗ code so if king county changes

1:03:04 ↗ their code to a subsequent edition that

1:03:06 ↗ might have changes the city would not

1:03:08 ↗ want to adopt that we would have

1:03:10 ↗ flexibility to

1:03:12 ↗ act differently

1:03:14 ↗ so yes we would be referencing um king

1:03:16 ↗ county specific um code that talks about

1:03:19 ↗ landmarks so yes if they make a change

1:03:21 ↗ then we need to be aware of it because

1:03:23 ↗ then we would be required to apply to it

1:03:25 ↗ so

1:03:26 ↗ um it's something that we're going to

1:03:27 ↗ have to be aware of and

1:03:29 ↗ usually i think when the city or the

1:03:31 ↗ county makes changes to their code they

1:03:32 ↗ let everyone know because a lot of

1:03:34 ↗ cities are again adopting to reference

1:03:37 ↗ great thank you

1:03:46 ↗ chair there are no other questions here

1:03:47 ↗ in the room

1:03:53 ↗ thank you and i'm not seeing any

1:03:55 ↗ in my chat box but i do have one

1:03:58 ↗ and it's under article 2 general

1:04:00 ↗ administration and standards point a

1:04:03 ↗ the property owner or applicant is

1:04:05 ↗ required to pay any fees exceeding

1:04:08 ↗ 750

1:04:10 ↗ for services conducted on behalf of a

1:04:13 ↗ property owner or applicant by keeping

1:04:15 ↗ king county

1:04:16 ↗ my question to you is if it's under 750

1:04:19 ↗ who picks up that tab

1:04:21 ↗ if it's under 750 the city would cover

1:04:23 ↗ it

1:04:29 ↗ thank you that's all i have

1:04:31 ↗ anyone else going once going twice

1:04:33 ↗ landmarks

1:04:38 ↗ thank you valerie

1:05:02 ↗ good evening chair and commissioners my

1:05:04 ↗ name is thomas faldrez and i'm the

1:05:06 ↗ senior transportation planner at the

1:05:08 ↗ city of isqua

1:05:10 ↗ great to meet you all today and

1:05:13 ↗ she'll be working with you a lot in the

1:05:15 ↗ coming years

1:05:17 ↗ uh next slide please oh sorry go back

1:05:22 ↗ thank you valerie

1:05:36 ↗ so moving on to parking today uh

1:05:39 ↗ as planners and staff we see this as an

1:05:42 ↗ excellent opportunity to realign our

1:05:44 ↗ parking code

1:05:45 ↗ just to better support the city's

1:05:48 ↗ adopted vision

1:05:49 ↗ goals and policies

1:05:52 ↗ as defined by the title 18

1:05:55 ↗ council ad hoc committee

1:05:58 ↗ there are four high-level goals that i'd

1:05:59 ↗ like to first chat with you about to

1:06:02 ↗ sort of ground us in what we're doing

1:06:03 ↗ here today

1:06:05 ↗ so the first goal today is to

1:06:08 ↗ modernize the code and incorporate best

1:06:10 ↗ practices

1:06:12 ↗ by creating a well-organized and clear

1:06:14 ↗ code that improves public access to

1:06:16 ↗ information

1:06:18 ↗ provides tools to address community

1:06:20 ↗ needs

1:06:22 ↗ and helps create the kinds of places

1:06:25 ↗ that the community expects

1:06:27 ↗ the second goal today is to provide

1:06:29 ↗ adequate parking while utilizing land

1:06:31 ↗ efficiently by minimizing the amount of

1:06:33 ↗ land impacted and related to parking

1:06:37 ↗ recognizing the varied amenities

1:06:39 ↗ services and needs throughout the city

1:06:42 ↗ and ensuring that reasonably adequate

1:06:43 ↗ parking provisions are provided

1:06:46 ↗ to those who are reliant on personal

1:06:48 ↗ vehicles while also planning on

1:06:51 ↗ the future conversion of garages and

1:06:53 ↗ parking spaces

1:06:56 ↗ in surface parking lots

1:06:59 ↗ the third goal is to

1:07:01 ↗ create housing diversity and that was

1:07:03 ↗ sort of touched on previously

1:07:06 ↗ the the way to do so would be to provide

1:07:09 ↗ or retain housing at a cost rarely found

1:07:11 ↗ in the city

1:07:12 ↗ encouraging small housing types for

1:07:14 ↗ improved affordability

1:07:16 ↗ as well as increasing affordability and

1:07:18 ↗ ownership

1:07:20 ↗ lastly the fourth goal that we'll be

1:07:22 ↗ sort of tying our in our conversation

1:07:24 ↗ today

1:07:25 ↗ relates to

1:07:28 ↗ the effective management of travel

1:07:30 ↗ resulting from new development

1:07:33 ↗ in line with non-motorized transit and

1:07:35 ↗ climate goals

1:07:36 ↗ by establishing electric vehicle-ready

1:07:39 ↗ code

1:07:39 ↗ which is essentially the requirement of

1:07:42 ↗ providing power facilities for the

1:07:43 ↗ future installation of electric vehicle

1:07:46 ↗ charging stations

1:07:48 ↗ next slide please

1:07:53 ↗ now so given the you know the goals and

1:07:55 ↗ objectives that you know we had just

1:07:57 ↗ referred to uh

1:07:59 ↗ staff went ahead and conducted a gaps

1:08:01 ↗ analysis

1:08:02 ↗ uh we flagged where there was

1:08:04 ↗ contradictions in the existing code uh

1:08:06 ↗ where a different code language was

1:08:08 ↗ confusing or inconsistent and

1:08:11 ↗ to make sure that the adopted policies

1:08:13 ↗ and objectives would be

1:08:16 ↗ reflected in the code

1:08:19 ↗ so staff brought this topic to ppc and

1:08:21 ↗ dc

1:08:22 ↗ the affinity groups

1:08:24 ↗ and discuss the proposed changes with

1:08:26 ↗ the city attorney's office

1:08:28 ↗ and to reiterate what was mentioned at a

1:08:30 ↗ previous ppc meeting in february

1:08:33 ↗ the intent of this update is simply to

1:08:35 ↗ preserve all regulations as much as

1:08:37 ↗ possible

1:08:38 ↗ more substantial changes will be you

1:08:41 ↗ know identified on a white board there's

1:08:43 ↗ there's been a couple topics that have

1:08:45 ↗ been brought up so those are all on the

1:08:47 ↗ whiteboard and

1:08:48 ↗ will be addressed later at a future

1:08:51 ↗ update

1:08:53 ↗ so that being said there's you know

1:08:54 ↗ eight major changes that are being

1:08:56 ↗ proposed today and i would like to share

1:08:59 ↗ those with you

1:09:01 ↗ so the first three which are on our

1:09:04 ↗ slide here you know we can see that

1:09:06 ↗ they're really related to modernizing

1:09:08 ↗ the code and incorporating best

1:09:10 ↗ practices

1:09:11 ↗ so the first one we see is

1:09:14 ↗ consolidation and removing redundant

1:09:16 ↗ codes

1:09:17 ↗ just to simplify and make sure that

1:09:19 ↗ things are enforceable

1:09:21 ↗ number two we have the adoption and

1:09:23 ↗ creation of the intent sections and this

1:09:25 ↗ is just to provide a more consistent

1:09:28 ↗ application of

1:09:29 ↗ how regulations are

1:09:32 ↗ are carried through the third

1:09:34 ↗ change we have is a wholesale

1:09:36 ↗ replacement of shoulds and musks

1:09:39 ↗ this was

1:09:41 ↗ eliminated to you know

1:09:43 ↗ reduce the vagueness and make sure that

1:09:46 ↗ again

1:09:47 ↗ the code is enforceable

1:09:50 ↗ next slide please

1:09:54 ↗ continuing on with change four this

1:09:57 ↗ includes updating the portion of the off

1:09:59 ↗ street parking requirement

1:10:02 ↗ this is with parking generation

1:10:05 ↗ estimates using the latest version of

1:10:07 ↗ the institute of

1:10:08 ↗ transportation engineers

1:10:10 ↗ parking generation manual kind of a

1:10:13 ↗ mouthful

1:10:14 ↗ ite

1:10:15 ↗ uh parking generation manual fifth

1:10:17 ↗ edition

1:10:19 ↗ uh this change is being proposed to

1:10:21 ↗ uh you know result

1:10:23 ↗ you know as a result of discussions from

1:10:25 ↗ the the development commission and ppc's

1:10:28 ↗ desire

1:10:29 ↗ to make sure that regulations are more

1:10:31 ↗ consistent and predictable so

1:10:33 ↗ these these metrics are really a you

1:10:35 ↗ know a nationally recognized gold

1:10:37 ↗ standard

1:10:38 ↗ and uh it'll allow us to have a more

1:10:41 ↗ consistent uh

1:10:43 ↗ way of uh you know providing adequate

1:10:45 ↗ parking but also being more efficient

1:10:47 ↗ with the land

1:10:49 ↗ uh change five includes the

1:10:52 ↗ consolidation of parking requirements

1:10:54 ↗ into two tiers

1:10:56 ↗ these tiers are based on land use

1:10:57 ↗ context and neighborhood characteristics

1:11:00 ↗ uh and you know these recognize that

1:11:03 ↗ there are differences between

1:11:04 ↗ neighborhoods

1:11:05 ↗ you know some neighborhoods support uh

1:11:08 ↗ you know denser growth and others don't

1:11:10 ↗ so

1:11:11 ↗ you know being specific here uh tier one

1:11:13 ↗ represents

1:11:15 ↗ uh

1:11:16 ↗ you know neighborhoods that accommodate

1:11:17 ↗ multimodal goals uh and it's applicable

1:11:20 ↗ to central issaquah

1:11:21 ↗ the isqua highlands uh within the

1:11:24 ↗ commercial areas as well as old town

1:11:26 ↗ neighborhood

1:11:28 ↗ tier 2 just represents everything else

1:11:30 ↗ so

1:11:31 ↗ all other parts of the city which are

1:11:32 ↗ less dense

1:11:35 ↗ next slide please

1:11:38 ↗ and just finishing up here with this

1:11:40 ↗ like third uh

1:11:42 ↗ you know round of of changes that we're

1:11:44 ↗ proposing

1:11:45 ↗ uh change six

1:11:47 ↗ uh this represents um

1:11:49 ↗ existing parking requirements

1:11:52 ↗ and it's an update of uh

1:11:55 ↗ of bike parking uh per the direction of

1:11:57 ↗ the commission

1:11:59 ↗ so with with this change we're really

1:12:01 ↗ trying to support the

1:12:03 ↗ multimodal

1:12:05 ↗ system goals of the mobility master plan

1:12:08 ↗ this section was expanded upon per the

1:12:11 ↗ direction of the ppc

1:12:13 ↗ and

1:12:14 ↗ provides more details on what's required

1:12:16 ↗ and

1:12:18 ↗ and where we're encouraging

1:12:20 ↗ bicycle amenities in the more

1:12:22 ↗ urban parts of the city

1:12:26 ↗ change 7 represents shared parking

1:12:29 ↗ provisions and it incorporates

1:12:31 ↗ modern best practices with flexible

1:12:33 ↗ parking tools

1:12:35 ↗ that

1:12:37 ↗ better recognize the the market demands

1:12:39 ↗ and

1:12:41 ↗ how the market influences

1:12:43 ↗ um you know how parking

1:12:45 ↗ is is provided and the the ways that the

1:12:49 ↗ geographic location of a project

1:12:52 ↗ might impact the parking needs of a

1:12:54 ↗ project

1:12:56 ↗ and finally with change eight

1:12:58 ↗ we're proposing an update to the

1:13:01 ↗ existing electric vehicle parking

1:13:03 ↗ regulations

1:13:05 ↗ doing so would better support

1:13:07 ↗ issaquah's climate action plan

1:13:09 ↗ and also support

1:13:11 ↗ the

1:13:12 ↗ the federal electric vehicle regulations

1:13:15 ↗ that are

1:13:15 ↗ currently being imposed so

1:13:19 ↗ you know these changes really they're

1:13:21 ↗ they're just

1:13:22 ↗ adjustments

1:13:23 ↗ to ev ready

1:13:25 ↗ which is

1:13:26 ↗ you know

1:13:28 ↗ parking stations

1:13:29 ↗ within

1:13:31 ↗ a building that have you know conduit

1:13:34 ↗ and sort of electrical

1:13:36 ↗ capabilities in order to support

1:13:39 ↗ electric vehicles and then it's also

1:13:42 ↗ an adjustment just a very minor

1:13:44 ↗ adjustment to

1:13:45 ↗ the existing

1:13:47 ↗ evse or

1:13:49 ↗ ev excuse me ev charging station

1:13:52 ↗ requirements

1:13:54 ↗ and this will be applicable to new

1:13:56 ↗ development

1:13:59 ↗ and uh some existing existing buildings

1:14:02 ↗ next slide please

1:14:07 ↗ so now that we've uh you know sort of

1:14:10 ↗ shared what staff is proposing i'd like

1:14:12 ↗ to ask the commission for some feedback

1:14:14 ↗ these were the

1:14:15 ↗ the questions that were presented

1:14:18 ↗ in the memo that was provided for this

1:14:20 ↗ meeting

1:14:21 ↗ but however before i begin uh with

1:14:25 ↗ with asking these questions i did want

1:14:26 ↗ to acknowledge that

1:14:28 ↗ there were a couple typos that were

1:14:31 ↗ presented in the memo and i just wanted

1:14:33 ↗ to make you all aware of that

1:14:35 ↗ we do apologize for these typos

1:14:38 ↗ they're they represent very minor

1:14:40 ↗ omissions and typos but i did want to

1:14:43 ↗ address those and just flag those for

1:14:44 ↗ you

1:14:45 ↗ so those are on pages 64

1:14:47 ↗ 87

1:14:49 ↗ 88 92

1:14:52 ↗ 99

1:14:53 ↗ 103 and 120. um i can certainly dive

1:14:57 ↗ into these but they they really don't

1:15:00 ↗ provide uh much difference in what you

1:15:02 ↗ see here they're just

1:15:04 ↗ some of them are

1:15:06 ↗ carryovers from the old code that

1:15:09 ↗ there were just minor typos

1:15:11 ↗ missing some letters it's very minor

1:15:14 ↗ very minor things so i'd be more than

1:15:16 ↗ happy to chat about those but

1:15:18 ↗ just wanted to make you all aware of

1:15:19 ↗ that

1:15:20 ↗ going into this

1:15:23 ↗ um

1:15:24 ↗ so the first question that i had for the

1:15:27 ↗ commission

1:15:28 ↗ uh was does this draft code support

1:15:31 ↗ ppc's direction to clarify short-term

1:15:35 ↗ and long-term

1:15:36 ↗ bike parking regulations

1:15:38 ↗ so mr valdez yes

1:15:41 ↗ if you don't mind we're gonna keep those

1:15:43 ↗ discussion questions for the

1:15:44 ↗ deliberative portion of tonight's

1:15:46 ↗ meeting

1:15:47 ↗ um so again that'll be for

1:15:50 ↗ development commission to try and give

1:15:52 ↗ you some answers but uh right now we

1:15:54 ↗ really just want clarifying questions on

1:15:56 ↗ your presentation or the packet itself

1:16:00 ↗ great yeah thank you chair

1:16:06 ↗ didn't mean to step on you but is your

1:16:07 ↗ presentation through are we now at the

1:16:09 ↗ point where we want to start asking

1:16:10 ↗ questions absolutely yep

1:16:12 ↗ break your chair right on time to your

1:16:14 ↗ voice we have a question from

1:16:16 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:16:19 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan

1:16:21 ↗ thank you chair boyce

1:16:22 ↗ um

1:16:24 ↗ the location requirement so page 85 of

1:16:26 ↗ 121 the location requirements

1:16:30 ↗ uh for bikes bike storage rooms

1:16:36 ↗ if you have bike storage

1:16:40 ↗ facilities within a parking garage

1:16:43 ↗ within a building

1:16:46 ↗ that's not attended by a security guard

1:16:49 ↗ not visible from employee work areas

1:16:52 ↗ and not visible from residential

1:16:55 ↗ communal areas that would not be allowed

1:16:57 ↗ is that correct

1:17:00 ↗ uh yeah thank you for the question uh

1:17:02 ↗ commissioner um

1:17:04 ↗ yeah so the the intent is really to

1:17:07 ↗ you know make sure that

1:17:09 ↗ uh the language the language that we're

1:17:11 ↗ providing for long-term parking uh

1:17:14 ↗ results in a bike parking uh

1:17:18 ↗ situation where you know the location is

1:17:20 ↗ highly visible and uh cities in the area

1:17:22 ↗ have found that you know having

1:17:25 ↗ having long-term bike parking that is

1:17:26 ↗ highly visible

1:17:28 ↗ under those you know scenarios that you

1:17:31 ↗ had just mentioned

1:17:32 ↗ results in a you know reduction in

1:17:35 ↗ bike thefts

1:17:38 ↗ but essentially any bike storage within

1:17:40 ↗ a parking garage

1:17:42 ↗ would not be allowed then

1:17:47 ↗ so if for example our our fund owns an

1:17:50 ↗ office building in seattle that has

1:17:52 ↗ three floors of underground parking and

1:17:54 ↗ two of the floors have bike storage

1:17:57 ↗ and it's a large tech tenant that

1:17:58 ↗ occupies the building

1:18:01 ↗ and it's worked really well from them

1:18:02 ↗ but that building

1:18:04 ↗ the way i understand it they wouldn't be

1:18:06 ↗ able to do that they would have have to

1:18:08 ↗ find

1:18:10 ↗ space within the regular office portion

1:18:14 ↗ like the lobby or something like that

1:18:16 ↗ and

1:18:18 ↗ so it sounds like that's that's what's

1:18:20 ↗ intended then

1:18:22 ↗ all right correct yeah so as as we have

1:18:25 ↗ it currently um that would not be an

1:18:27 ↗ allowed use

1:18:29 ↗ okay

1:18:30 ↗ thank you

1:18:35 ↗ i do have another question on the i

1:18:38 ↗ think on page 88 was one of the typos

1:18:40 ↗ with the 4 000 square feet of office was

1:18:42 ↗ 40 000. but also it is intended that the

1:18:46 ↗ minimum bike parking for

1:18:48 ↗ residential would be one

1:18:50 ↗ bike stall per unit so if you have a

1:18:53 ↗ 200 unit apartment building it would be

1:18:55 ↗ 200 bike stalls

1:18:58 ↗ uh that would be correct yes and is that

1:19:00 ↗ typical in

1:19:02 ↗ i guess my question seems like a lot is

1:19:04 ↗ that a typical standard now for

1:19:07 ↗ bike storage

1:19:10 ↗ yeah that's a great question

1:19:11 ↗ commissioner um we we have found in area

1:19:13 ↗ cities that that is um

1:19:15 ↗ that is becoming a a standard practice

1:19:18 ↗ as we move forward

1:19:20 ↗ thank you

1:19:26 ↗ um thank you commissioner

1:19:28 ↗ sorry one other question if that's okay

1:19:30 ↗ yeah um

1:19:32 ↗ the um

1:19:35 ↗ uh

1:19:37 ↗ on page 113 of 121

1:19:40 ↗ um

1:19:42 ↗ if if i'm i'm trying to figure this out

1:19:43 ↗ we have a requirement that

1:19:45 ↗ 10 of all the required stalls have to be

1:19:49 ↗ evse stalls

1:19:52 ↗ and then you can get a reduction of your

1:19:55 ↗ total stalls

1:19:57 ↗ up to ten percent on a one for one basis

1:20:01 ↗ if evse stalls are put in so it seems to

1:20:04 ↗ me evse stalls have to be put in at

1:20:08 ↗ least 10 percent

1:20:10 ↗ so won't that just automatically mean

1:20:12 ↗ you'll get a 10 reduction your total

1:20:14 ↗ required stalls

1:20:24 ↗ yeah i see what you're saying yeah um

1:20:27 ↗ and not that i'm against that but it

1:20:29 ↗ seems like i have to put 10 percent in

1:20:31 ↗ and i'll end up getting credit for that

1:20:33 ↗ 10 in the total

1:20:36 ↗ yeah i

1:20:37 ↗ yep thank you thank you for bringing

1:20:39 ↗ that up commissioner yeah i

1:20:41 ↗ will we will go back to the drawing

1:20:43 ↗ board on that one

1:20:44 ↗ okay not that you have to change it just

1:20:48 ↗ it sort of seems like it becomes a

1:20:49 ↗ requirement

1:20:52 ↗ um and then i did have a question about

1:20:54 ↗ the overlapping business hours for

1:20:57 ↗ uh for shared parking it sounds like

1:20:59 ↗ that's determined

1:21:01 ↗ business hours are determined by the

1:21:03 ↗ developer of the property

1:21:07 ↗ that is correct yes okay

1:21:10 ↗ and if they said well

1:21:13 ↗ i guess is there is there a provision

1:21:14 ↗ there for

1:21:16 ↗ the director to have

1:21:18 ↗ an approval of that if somebody said our

1:21:21 ↗ business hours are

1:21:23 ↗ 10 to 2 or

1:21:25 ↗ something that didn't seem reasonable

1:21:30 ↗ yeah that's a great question

1:21:31 ↗ commissioner

1:21:32 ↗ i think

1:21:33 ↗ how it's typically done in area cities

1:21:36 ↗ is you know as we're proposing

1:21:38 ↗ i'm not aware of issues that have come

1:21:41 ↗ up through that um we do like to provide

1:21:44 ↗ you know some flexibility for you know

1:21:45 ↗ the cases that they come in um

1:21:48 ↗ not to be like too prescriptive for all

1:21:50 ↗ the situations that that might apply but

1:21:53 ↗ um

1:21:54 ↗ you know

1:21:55 ↗ it's it's pretty common to

1:21:57 ↗ to sort of understand like

1:21:59 ↗ you know as a business functions like

1:22:01 ↗ what

1:22:02 ↗ the ebbs and flows and like the the

1:22:04 ↗ duration of a business might entail but

1:22:06 ↗ um you do raise a good point in terms of

1:22:10 ↗ like the reasonableness of

1:22:12 ↗ when a

1:22:14 ↗ when a statement is made yeah perhaps a

1:22:16 ↗ phrase about as approved by the director

1:22:18 ↗ might help

1:22:21 ↗ okay

1:22:22 ↗ thank you i think that's all my

1:22:23 ↗ questions take it your voice

1:22:26 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan that was

1:22:28 ↗ fantastic

1:22:29 ↗ uh commissioner milligan has a question

1:22:31 ↗ more questions

1:22:33 ↗ questions too

1:22:35 ↗ uh commissioner milligan here thank you

1:22:37 ↗ i love going after commissioner morgan

1:22:39 ↗ who always covers that good ground uh my

1:22:43 ↗ two questions have to do with one of

1:22:44 ↗ them is kind of a general question so

1:22:46 ↗ thomas i'm going to ask that one first

1:22:47 ↗ and that is

1:22:48 ↗ as we've seen increased residential

1:22:50 ↗ density in an area like in central

1:22:52 ↗ izakawa where there used to be you know

1:22:54 ↗ just retail or just commercial and

1:22:57 ↗ the impacts that that has on on street

1:23:01 ↗ parking

1:23:02 ↗ just generally speaking how has that

1:23:04 ↗ uh influence how we're looking at these

1:23:07 ↗ parking regulations going forward

1:23:13 ↗ yeah so in a more dense area um

1:23:16 ↗ we

1:23:16 ↗ it's sort of a bouncing act between

1:23:18 ↗ providing enough parking

1:23:21 ↗ within a more dense area and also

1:23:24 ↗ acknowledging that you know there's more

1:23:26 ↗ transit access there's

1:23:28 ↗ a desire for more walkability

1:23:31 ↗ so you know you'd want

1:23:33 ↗ you know let me rephrase yeah i know

1:23:36 ↗ where you're going that's good that's

1:23:37 ↗ another way that's good too but um

1:23:39 ↗ really what i was thinking about was the

1:23:41 ↗ impact on the businesses

1:23:43 ↗ where off-street parking used to

1:23:44 ↗ accommodate business uses and now they

1:23:47 ↗ are

1:23:48 ↗ day-long parking for people in um

1:23:54 ↗ dense housing projects yeah

1:23:57 ↗ great yeah thanks thank you commissioner

1:23:59 ↗ for that clarification um so we do have

1:24:01 ↗ a provision we

1:24:04 ↗ uh you know in the code we allow for a

1:24:06 ↗ 35 reduction um for you know for

1:24:10 ↗ instance uh

1:24:12 ↗ for the street level retail um

1:24:15 ↗ that sort of

1:24:16 ↗ touches on your question a little bit um

1:24:18 ↗ so we do have reductions uh within like

1:24:20 ↗ the central business district area

1:24:22 ↗ um

1:24:24 ↗ so it does provide reductions in the

1:24:27 ↗ requirement

1:24:28 ↗ uh or like you know the

1:24:32 ↗ right you know 35 reduction of what the

1:24:34 ↗ the business would be required to put in

1:24:37 ↗ yeah okay good i'll save my

1:24:39 ↗ deliberations for later

1:24:41 ↗ thank you for that uh second question

1:24:43 ↗ has to do with um ev um

1:24:46 ↗ uh

1:24:48 ↗ bb facilities uh and that there is a

1:24:51 ↗ difference

1:24:52 ↗ between

1:24:53 ↗ what the planning policy commission

1:24:55 ↗ worked so hard on just a few months ago

1:24:59 ↗ and these requirements which are

1:25:02 ↗ different and higher but i don't believe

1:25:05 ↗ that the documents that you provided us

1:25:07 ↗ showed the delta between the planning

1:25:10 ↗ policy um why was that and and could

1:25:14 ↗ that be

1:25:15 ↗ in this sort of meeting format could the

1:25:18 ↗ um packet for the planning policy

1:25:20 ↗ commission include that

1:25:22 ↗ show the difference

1:25:26 ↗ i'm going to uh

1:25:28 ↗ have to phone a friend

1:25:29 ↗ i'm not aware of

1:25:31 ↗ i was actually not

1:25:33 ↗ employed

1:25:34 ↗ in february so

1:25:36 ↗ um

1:25:37 ↗ at the city of issaquah so

1:25:39 ↗ i'm not aware of what those changes were

1:25:41 ↗ uh

1:25:42 ↗ i do what i what is in the packet what

1:25:44 ↗ i've shown you today um

1:25:47 ↗ you know shows the differences between

1:25:49 ↗ the existing title 18 code and what

1:25:52 ↗ we're proposing today um

1:25:54 ↗ and i i can tell you that those changes

1:25:56 ↗ are uh

1:25:58 ↗ you know fairly minor um for the evse

1:26:01 ↗ just like a five percent increase

1:26:03 ↗ um for the

1:26:05 ↗ i believe it's the

1:26:07 ↗ non-residential

1:26:09 ↗ and then a couple bump ups for uh

1:26:13 ↗ the ev requirements but not for the um

1:26:16 ↗ the evse

1:26:19 ↗ okay thank you

1:26:21 ↗ thanks chair voice

1:26:24 ↗ and thank you commissioner milligan uh

1:26:26 ↗ commissioner shor has a question from

1:26:28 ↗ the diocese

1:26:31 ↗ i was wondering if there

1:26:34 ↗ are there any examples of the shared

1:26:35 ↗ parking right now that

1:26:37 ↗ you could give us

1:26:39 ↗ where is this happening

1:26:45 ↗ i don't have specific examples but i

1:26:47 ↗ know they exist i'm just drawing a blank

1:26:49 ↗ here it is a very common practice in the

1:26:51 ↗ region to do this

1:26:54 ↗ and

1:26:55 ↗ i believe the city of kirkland is doing

1:26:58 ↗ this currently

1:27:01 ↗ yeah i unfortunately am drawing a blank

1:27:03 ↗ but i i do know that is a it is a very

1:27:06 ↗ common practice and it's a way to

1:27:08 ↗ just ensure that the city is um you know

1:27:10 ↗ aware of

1:27:13 ↗ you know there's there's existing uh

1:27:15 ↗ agreements in place already between

1:27:17 ↗ businesses

1:27:19 ↗ but

1:27:21 ↗ for the city to

1:27:23 ↗ become a party to those conversations we

1:27:25 ↗ can better monitor the situation

1:27:27 ↗ and

1:27:28 ↗ you know if there becomes a parking

1:27:30 ↗ hotspot

1:27:31 ↗ uh as a result of uh

1:27:34 ↗ the agreement being broken for some

1:27:36 ↗ reason the city has some

1:27:38 ↗ some uh

1:27:39 ↗ some levers so that you know uh the you

1:27:42 ↗ know parking situation can be rectified

1:27:44 ↗ thomas i can jump in to help answer the

1:27:46 ↗ question so uh vice chair sure

1:27:49 ↗ in the city is called we currently don't

1:27:50 ↗ have any examples for shared parking

1:27:53 ↗ agreements

1:27:54 ↗ we do have

1:27:56 ↗ multiple examples from our regional

1:27:58 ↗ partners that we can leverage and

1:28:01 ↗ copy off of that utilizes a lot of the

1:28:03 ↗ new language

1:28:04 ↗ that we're proposing in the new draft

1:28:09 ↗ thanks

1:28:12 ↗ commissioner morgan

1:28:14 ↗ thank you if i if you don't mind if i

1:28:16 ↗ can jump in to give you an example of

1:28:18 ↗ of

1:28:19 ↗ i'm not sure what the how the agreement

1:28:21 ↗ was done but we do have a shared parking

1:28:23 ↗ situation so our

1:28:25 ↗ fund owns the maple street office

1:28:27 ↗ building

1:28:28 ↗ that originally had parking stalls on

1:28:31 ↗ the south side of maple street and the

1:28:33 ↗ buildings on the north side

1:28:35 ↗ our partner wanted to build a hotel

1:28:37 ↗ there we didn't want to

1:28:39 ↗ but we sold them the parking lot with a

1:28:41 ↗ cross parking easement

1:28:43 ↗ and with the approval that

1:28:46 ↗ during the day we're able to park the

1:28:48 ↗ same number of parking stalls that we

1:28:50 ↗ had during the day for office tenants in

1:28:52 ↗ their garage

1:28:54 ↗ and during the evening they can hotel

1:28:56 ↗ guests can park in

1:28:58 ↗ in our property so we actually

1:29:00 ↗ ended up with something where we took

1:29:02 ↗ uh what was impervious surface created

1:29:05 ↗ hotel

1:29:06 ↗ redu you know and caused no other

1:29:08 ↗ impervious service to be created and the

1:29:10 ↗ shared parking agreement

1:29:12 ↗ has worked great between the two

1:29:14 ↗ properties so it is a good example and

1:29:16 ↗ the total i was checking the

1:29:18 ↗ stalled the number of stalls that we

1:29:21 ↗ shared there that we had were about 37

1:29:25 ↗ of our overall stalls so it meant that i

1:29:27 ↗ think 40 percent requirement

1:29:30 ↗ that they're inputting here that was

1:29:32 ↗ going to be one of my comments so

1:29:36 ↗ thank you

1:29:48 ↗ anyone else with questions as far as

1:29:51 ↗ parking

1:29:55 ↗ there are no other questions in the room

1:29:59 ↗ and i don't see any other virtually so i

1:30:02 ↗ just have two very quick ones i think

1:30:04 ↗ everyone did a pretty good job as far as

1:30:05 ↗ the parking

1:30:08 ↗ i'm going to save my pontificating about

1:30:11 ↗ the

1:30:12 ↗ charging cars for next time

1:30:16 ↗ real quickly on the bicycles so there's

1:30:19 ↗ two things again kind of superficial

1:30:22 ↗ it mentions

1:30:23 ↗ bicycle parking spaces must provide

1:30:25 ↗ parking for cyclists of all ages and

1:30:28 ↗ abilities

1:30:29 ↗ what does that look like

1:30:32 ↗ aren't they all the same rack

1:30:35 ↗ yeah great question uh cheer boyce um

1:30:38 ↗ that that statement is a

1:30:39 ↗ [Music]

1:30:41 ↗ is a industry

1:30:42 ↗ uh term

1:30:44 ↗ to

1:30:45 ↗ uh sort of introduce the idea of like

1:30:47 ↗ equity for cycling so making sure that

1:30:51 ↗ you know in in many words just making

1:30:53 ↗ sure that everybody feels

1:30:55 ↗ like this rack is for them

1:30:57 ↗ okay so there's not actually wider

1:30:59 ↗ spaces for tricycles and bicycles and

1:31:01 ↗ it's like you know those unicycles and

1:31:03 ↗ all that type of stuff

1:31:05 ↗ yep it uh yeah great question um yeah

1:31:08 ↗ it's

1:31:09 ↗ same same rack uh same

1:31:12 ↗ you know long-term

1:31:13 ↗ uh parking situation uh it's it's really

1:31:16 ↗ just a

1:31:17 ↗ a term of a term of art that you know

1:31:20 ↗ sort of encapsulates the the equity idea

1:31:23 ↗ that we're um looking to

1:31:26 ↗ throw in the world

1:31:28 ↗ it gets thrown into our code so it's

1:31:30 ↗ always

1:31:31 ↗ i guess worth asking and then there's

1:31:33 ↗ two other things real quickly again

1:31:34 ↗ bicycles i think everyone answered the

1:31:36 ↗ questions as far as parking um

1:31:39 ↗ one of them i think it's short-term

1:31:41 ↗ bicycle parking

1:31:43 ↗ d

1:31:44 ↗ when 10 or more short-term bicycle

1:31:46 ↗ parking spaces are required a minimum of

1:31:48 ↗ 50 percent of the spaces must be covered

1:31:52 ↗ what does that look like what's a

1:31:54 ↗ covered rack look like

1:31:56 ↗ yep a great question um so you know

1:32:00 ↗ as an example uh

1:32:02 ↗ if you're looking to install

1:32:04 ↗ bike racks in front of your business

1:32:07 ↗ um

1:32:08 ↗ you know one scenario is that you put it

1:32:10 ↗ in front of your you know your entryway

1:32:12 ↗ right so i think one of the requirements

1:32:14 ↗ was

1:32:15 ↗ uh you know some distance away from the

1:32:17 ↗ entrance um just a very short distance

1:32:19 ↗ so that there's good visibility on the

1:32:22 ↗ bicycle

1:32:23 ↗ and so

1:32:24 ↗ in this situation

1:32:26 ↗ you know say you have a rack of 10

1:32:28 ↗ um

1:32:29 ↗ we would ask that

1:32:31 ↗ five of them are under the eve of the

1:32:33 ↗ building or

1:32:34 ↗ or five of them have

1:32:36 ↗ some sort of um you know weather

1:32:38 ↗ protection so it's really it's about

1:32:40 ↗ weather protection uh to create

1:32:44 ↗ a comfortable biking situation so that

1:32:46 ↗ your bicycle is dry um but it's also

1:32:48 ↗ about you know making sure that it's

1:32:51 ↗ near where people are so there's good

1:32:53 ↗ visibility for your bicycle

1:32:56 ↗ i just wonder how that's going to look

1:32:58 ↗ in the actual

1:33:00 ↗ in practice and then finally one one

1:33:02 ↗ other one showers showers for bicycles

1:33:04 ↗ is this for terrain bikes near the

1:33:05 ↗ trails

1:33:08 ↗ oh yeah great question i think some

1:33:10 ↗ maybe some clarification

1:33:12 ↗ might be uh better uh suited for the the

1:33:15 ↗ code the showers is for the writer

1:33:17 ↗ themselves um so

1:33:19 ↗ in a

1:33:20 ↗ i believe this was in the tier one

1:33:23 ↗ uh the tier one so in like a more dense

1:33:25 ↗ urban area that the shower would be you

1:33:27 ↗ know if you are bike commuting say um

1:33:30 ↗ having facilities so that you know when

1:33:32 ↗ you are

1:33:33 ↗ at work uh you're not sweaty so you can

1:33:36 ↗ you can have a facility to

1:33:39 ↗ make you know make biking a actual

1:33:41 ↗ sustainable way of getting to work

1:33:45 ↗ for example

1:33:46 ↗ yeah i thought i'd ask that question

1:33:49 ↗ that's all i have

1:33:51 ↗ anyone else

1:33:53 ↗ working

1:33:58 ↗ well thank you mr valdez great

1:34:00 ↗ presentation

1:34:03 ↗ yep thank you chair

1:34:10 ↗ so i don't i believe that's it for our

1:34:11 ↗ presentations uh staff can flag me if

1:34:14 ↗ i'm i'm wrong or going out of turn

1:34:16 ↗ but i believe now we're going to be

1:34:17 ↗ moving on to the

1:34:19 ↗ actual public hearing public comment

1:34:21 ↗ portion of tonight's meeting

1:34:24 ↗ so we're going to he'll go ahead it is

1:34:26 ↗ currently 806. we will open up the

1:34:28 ↗ public hearing

1:34:30 ↗ at

1:34:30 ↗ 806. um again this is to reiterate

1:34:34 ↗ something that i just want everyone to

1:34:35 ↗ know

1:34:36 ↗ that we do read all of the emails that

1:34:38 ↗ are sent to us

1:34:40 ↗ and there were a couple

1:34:42 ↗ that at least i inferred so if i got

1:34:44 ↗ this wrong i apologize

1:34:46 ↗ but um that they might want to discuss a

1:34:48 ↗ current project

1:34:50 ↗ or an upcoming project and review

1:34:53 ↗ so again i want everyone to understand

1:34:54 ↗ that tonight's meeting is a public

1:34:56 ↗ hearing for the title 18 project

1:34:59 ↗ not a meeting

1:35:01 ↗ that would just have to do with the

1:35:02 ↗ development commission

1:35:05 ↗ so again the development commission is

1:35:07 ↗ the commission that handles

1:35:08 ↗ quasi-judicial matters

1:35:11 ↗ and even though this is a joint meeting

1:35:13 ↗ it is being led by the planning policy

1:35:14 ↗ and as our name suggests

1:35:16 ↗ this is about policy

1:35:18 ↗ so i would ask anyone who is going to be

1:35:22 ↗ speaking tonight as far as for the

1:35:24 ↗ public hearing

1:35:26 ↗ to please refrain from discussing

1:35:28 ↗ particular projects or particular

1:35:31 ↗ concerns about certain projects

1:35:33 ↗ because that would be inappropriate

1:35:36 ↗ tonight we are looking for

1:35:38 ↗ commentary on the title 18 update

1:35:41 ↗ draft codes and policies that are before

1:35:43 ↗ us

1:35:44 ↗ but again

1:35:45 ↗ nothing else that's really what we're

1:35:47 ↗ here to do the development commission

1:35:49 ↗ alone has the authority and is the board

1:35:51 ↗ that is set up to act as a court

1:35:54 ↗ for review so again the ppc is not set

1:35:57 ↗ up for that so we ask that everyone be

1:35:59 ↗ respectful and realize what this meeting

1:36:01 ↗ is and what this meeting is not

1:36:04 ↗ so again we are just looking for

1:36:06 ↗ uh commentary about the title 18 updates

1:36:10 ↗ and we ask that everyone be respectful

1:36:12 ↗ of the time

1:36:14 ↗ same timing rules apply

1:36:17 ↗ and i'm going to kick it over to staff

1:36:19 ↗ to let us know if we have any speakers

1:36:24 ↗ yes we have one speaker in the room and

1:36:26 ↗ one virtual who've indicated a desire to

1:36:28 ↗ speak the first in the room hussein kram

1:36:36 ↗ good evening chairman boyce um thanks

1:36:39 ↗ for having me again

1:36:41 ↗ commissioners thank you i wanted to talk

1:36:44 ↗ about affordable housing

1:36:46 ↗ we've been in the rental business for 25

1:36:49 ↗ years i think as an industry expert we

1:36:52 ↗ can offer some advice uh some thoughts

1:36:55 ↗ that to think about it's definitely up

1:36:57 ↗ to the commission and the staff to

1:36:59 ↗ consider that

1:37:00 ↗ um i do see a great strain in the

1:37:03 ↗ american people's income i cannot

1:37:05 ↗ emphasize how important it is to have

1:37:09 ↗ affordable housing

1:37:11 ↗ but one of the things we've been always

1:37:13 ↗ missing in affordable housing

1:37:15 ↗ is the diversity in affordable housing

1:37:20 ↗ the way the way arch classifies

1:37:22 ↗ affordable housing is by the bedrooms

1:37:26 ↗ so if you have a three-bedroom apartment

1:37:29 ↗ home for

1:37:31 ↗ say thousand square feet which can make

1:37:33 ↗ him that size

1:37:34 ↗ versus a three-bedroom

1:37:36 ↗ town home or a larger

1:37:38 ↗ rental unit which could be two thousand

1:37:41 ↗ square feet drinks of the same

1:37:44 ↗ well that makes it very difficult for us

1:37:46 ↗ developers to build

1:37:48 ↗ bigger ones when you have to pay the

1:37:50 ↗ price when your income is limited to the

1:37:51 ↗ small one and what that does what that

1:37:54 ↗ does it actually creates housing

1:37:57 ↗ discrimination

1:38:00 ↗ injustice and equality against

1:38:02 ↗ families well not everybody moves to our

1:38:05 ↗ area is a single person could live in a

1:38:07 ↗ small apartment there are people who

1:38:09 ↗ move in from out of state the families a

1:38:11 ↗ wife and couple of kids dogs they want

1:38:14 ↗ to have a yard

1:38:15 ↗ well are we offering that opportunity

1:38:18 ↗ for them

1:38:19 ↗ issaquah is a beautiful place i love the

1:38:21 ↗ nature in issaquah i'm impressed

1:38:25 ↗ so are other people who want to call

1:38:27 ↗ this place home so what it does it

1:38:29 ↗ actually limits them i think uh

1:38:32 ↗ it's really good to think about in terms

1:38:34 ↗ of

1:38:35 ↗ uh different type of affordable homes

1:38:38 ↗ larger ones for families

1:38:40 ↗ families could have a yard

1:38:43 ↗ for middle-income families for the

1:38:44 ↗ larger families for ethnic families i'm

1:38:47 ↗ an iranian immigrant we came here well

1:38:50 ↗ my parents-in-law lived with us well

1:38:52 ↗ does the small apartment were building

1:38:54 ↗ in downtown it's like well provide

1:38:57 ↗ enough housing for affordable families

1:39:01 ↗ to live together extend the family

1:39:02 ↗ members so that's something i want you

1:39:04 ↗ to think about it may be too late in

1:39:06 ↗ this round but i thought i'd just bring

1:39:08 ↗ it up it doesn't hurt to think

1:39:11 ↗ the other one that i want to bring up i

1:39:13 ↗ really love the idea of

1:39:16 ↗ electric homes

1:39:17 ↗ excuse me electric cars

1:39:20 ↗ that's the industry trend that's what

1:39:22 ↗ everything's moving is nice we do have

1:39:24 ↗ that happening in our properties a lot

1:39:26 ↗ of people buying teslas or electric cars

1:39:28 ↗ go in there

1:39:30 ↗ but

1:39:31 ↗ and i know you up them to 50

1:39:33 ↗ that's nice

1:39:34 ↗ but

1:39:35 ↗ have anybody ever thought about or

1:39:37 ↗ checked into

1:39:39 ↗ the demand that would create that

1:39:41 ↗ creates on the transformers on the psc

1:39:44 ↗ i don't know much about this i know

1:39:46 ↗ enough

1:39:47 ↗ but the little i know is uh when you are

1:39:51 ↗ having a much higher demand

1:39:53 ↗ then that you end up having a bigger

1:39:54 ↗ transformer when you have a bigger

1:39:56 ↗ transformer that means you end up have

1:39:58 ↗ to pay more

1:40:00 ↗ for the service

1:40:02 ↗ and as far as i know the rates that

1:40:05 ↗ the residents pay end up getting more so

1:40:10 ↗ again i don't know what the answer to

1:40:12 ↗ that is but it's something that i think

1:40:13 ↗ has a as a great city

1:40:16 ↗ you want to look into to make sure that

1:40:18 ↗ you're not over stretching

1:40:21 ↗ the electric grid

1:40:22 ↗ i think it's a great idea i think it's a

1:40:24 ↗ great way to proceed

1:40:27 ↗ to give an idea a electric vehicle

1:40:29 ↗ charging station will take about 40 amps

1:40:32 ↗ a brand new home these even the bigger

1:40:34 ↗ homes are about 200 amps so you're

1:40:37 ↗ you're talking quite a bit of juice and

1:40:39 ↗ if you have to put 50 percent off your

1:40:41 ↗ stations at 40 amp that's a lot of

1:40:44 ↗ demand

1:40:45 ↗ and the demand could be concentrated at

1:40:47 ↗ certain times of the day evening when

1:40:49 ↗ people come back home so something to

1:40:51 ↗ think about i think you ought to go

1:40:53 ↗ forward i don't think you got to go

1:40:54 ↗ backward i think you ought to proceed

1:40:56 ↗ that's a good direction but somebody has

1:40:58 ↗ to look into this thing to make sure

1:41:00 ↗ that things doesn't go haywire down the

1:41:01 ↗ road

1:41:04 ↗ thank you very much

1:41:07 ↗ the next speaker is a virtual attendee k

1:41:10 ↗ elmer

1:41:11 ↗ before we go to k i for anyone else

1:41:14 ↗ who's attending virtually if you'd like

1:41:16 ↗ to make comments if you're on the phone

1:41:18 ↗ please raise your hand by pressing star

1:41:20 ↗ three

1:41:21 ↗ if you're attending by computer or

1:41:23 ↗ smartphone send me the host to chat or

1:41:26 ↗ select the small hand icon

1:41:29 ↗ and k i will go ahead and make you a

1:41:32 ↗ panelist now you should have the option

1:41:34 ↗ to unmute and can choose to turn your

1:41:36 ↗ video on

1:41:45 ↗ k you're beautiful

1:41:50 ↗ thank you

1:41:52 ↗ my name is kay elmer i live at 2830

1:41:54 ↗ northwest pinecone drive in issaquah

1:41:57 ↗ and i just wanted to make a few comments

1:41:59 ↗ about affordable housing

1:42:02 ↗ the first one is about the

1:42:05 ↗ the extension of the 50 years for

1:42:07 ↗ homeowner i support that

1:42:10 ↗ this is about the duration of the

1:42:11 ↗ project i had a question though about

1:42:13 ↗ the rental units

1:42:15 ↗ it says they must remain affordable only

1:42:17 ↗ as long as the project is in use for

1:42:20 ↗ residential purposes

1:42:22 ↗ so i assume that means that if the owner

1:42:26 ↗ chooses to do a condo conversion

1:42:29 ↗ that those units would no longer be

1:42:32 ↗ available as affordable housing and i

1:42:34 ↗ think if that were to happen and if that

1:42:37 ↗ were is allowed of course

1:42:39 ↗ by law then the owner should be

1:42:42 ↗ responsible for paying some kind of

1:42:43 ↗ penalty

1:42:45 ↗ or compensation to the city since they

1:42:47 ↗ received a public benefit

1:42:49 ↗ based on their providing affordable

1:42:51 ↗ housing units

1:42:56 ↗ um

1:42:59 ↗ i also did have a concern about the

1:43:01 ↗ affordable housing units

1:43:03 ↗ uh

1:43:04 ↗ being

1:43:05 ↗ not being allowed to be smaller than 90

1:43:08 ↗ percent

1:43:09 ↗ of the average size of the market rate

1:43:11 ↗ housing

1:43:12 ↗ unless approved by the designated

1:43:14 ↗ official i didn't understand why you

1:43:17 ↗ would discriminate and make smaller

1:43:19 ↗ units for the for low-income families or

1:43:22 ↗ individuals than for the market rate

1:43:25 ↗ participants it felt somewhat

1:43:26 ↗ discriminatory and i understand it's

1:43:28 ↗ driven by finances

1:43:30 ↗ but i think it's something that should

1:43:31 ↗ be considered especially given the

1:43:34 ↗ minimum sizes that were

1:43:36 ↗ are being considered of

1:43:38 ↗ you know 600 square feet for a one

1:43:40 ↗ bedroom unit 800 square feet for two

1:43:42 ↗ bedroom

1:43:44 ↗ uh they're very small

1:43:46 ↗ um

1:43:48 ↗ i thought it was great that you removed

1:43:50 ↗ the

1:43:52 ↗ reduction of recreation space

1:43:55 ↗ allowance that just made absolutely no

1:43:57 ↗ sense

1:43:58 ↗ um i have did have some concerns about

1:44:00 ↗ the designated official it has a lot of

1:44:03 ↗ leeway in reading through the codes he

1:44:05 ↗ has a lot of leeway in making trade-offs

1:44:07 ↗ so i would hope that is the person

1:44:10 ↗ that is also a clear supporter of

1:44:12 ↗ affordable housing

1:44:16 ↗ one of my concerns was that

1:44:19 ↗ and perhaps this is just not

1:44:20 ↗ understanding why this was done but i

1:44:23 ↗ noticed that the um charts show

1:44:26 ↗ [Music]

1:44:28 ↗ the options for affordable housing

1:44:31 ↗ um

1:44:33 ↗ at 70

1:44:34 ↗ ami and 50 ami

1:44:38 ↗ i understand those are probably the

1:44:40 ↗ ceilings

1:44:41 ↗ but i i was very concerned that there is

1:44:43 ↗ not an inclusion of 30 ami because the

1:44:46 ↗ fact of the matter is the people who

1:44:48 ↗ need it the most are the people who are

1:44:51 ↗ the lowest income families you know it

1:44:54 ↗ can be it can be a working couple

1:44:57 ↗ making minimal wage

1:45:00 ↗ that would be excluded or a senior

1:45:01 ↗ citizen living on social security and we

1:45:05 ↗ simply have nothing i mean everyone is

1:45:07 ↗ squeezed by not having enough housing

1:45:09 ↗ opportunity but when you're in the very

1:45:10 ↗ low income housing category you have

1:45:13 ↗ virtually no opportunity whatsoever

1:45:16 ↗ and

1:45:17 ↗ so i would just like added consideration

1:45:19 ↗ to be given to them

1:45:22 ↗ um

1:45:26 ↗ so

1:45:27 ↗ i also had concerned about the

1:45:28 ↗ motivation for offside affordable units

1:45:31 ↗ only because it wasn't clear to me under

1:45:33 ↗ what circumstances they would be granted

1:45:35 ↗ and what the purpose would be

1:45:39 ↗ and what the benefit would be to the

1:45:41 ↗ low-income families

1:45:43 ↗ or the the families in affordable

1:45:45 ↗ housing

1:45:47 ↗ and one question i had is and again i

1:45:50 ↗ just don't understand but is there

1:45:52 ↗ anything in the codes

1:45:54 ↗ that would allow the kind of trade-off

1:45:57 ↗ that happened several years ago which if

1:45:59 ↗ you've been around long enough you

1:46:00 ↗ remember

1:46:02 ↗ the units in a particular development

1:46:05 ↗ unnamed development the the units that

1:46:07 ↗ were intended as affordable housing

1:46:11 ↗ were traded off for road improvements

1:46:15 ↗ and and other benefits to the city

1:46:18 ↗ but the road improvements benefited the

1:46:20 ↗ general population i being one and i

1:46:22 ↗ thought they were wonderful road

1:46:24 ↗ improvements but it just felt to me like

1:46:26 ↗ a

1:46:28 ↗ reflection of our lack of

1:46:34 ↗ attention

1:46:35 ↗ and caring towards the people who are

1:46:37 ↗ more deeply affected than we were by

1:46:39 ↗ getting this benefit

1:46:41 ↗ um and i'm just wondering what kind of

1:46:44 ↗ trade-offs might be in the codes that i

1:46:46 ↗ don't understand that would allow this

1:46:47 ↗ to happen again because i hope that

1:46:49 ↗ would never happen again it did not

1:46:51 ↗ afford it did not

1:46:53 ↗ affect

1:46:54 ↗ low income or families in affordable

1:46:57 ↗ housing

1:46:58 ↗ um

1:46:59 ↗ this was not

1:47:00 ↗ this was not the the recipient of this

1:47:03 ↗ benefit

1:47:04 ↗ okay this is tisha you you've reached

1:47:07 ↗ the five minute

1:47:09 ↗ comment time

1:47:11 ↗ thank you

1:47:14 ↗ and chair i understand there might be

1:47:16 ↗ one more individual who's attending

1:47:18 ↗ virtually who wants to make comments

1:47:20 ↗ molly bull molly i think you might be

1:47:23 ↗ the phone number listed here begins with

1:47:26 ↗ 425 836 going to unmute you now

1:47:33 ↗ um

1:47:34 ↗ can you hear me

1:47:35 ↗ yes

1:47:37 ↗ um i originally had a general comment um

1:47:42 ↗ could i possibly talk about that at the

1:47:44 ↗ time now

1:47:49 ↗ uh because um i couldn't i didn't think

1:47:51 ↗ you could hear me because i'm on a

1:47:53 ↗ landline

1:47:54 ↗ that's why

1:47:55 ↗ but anyway my name is molly bowe i live

1:47:58 ↗ in trilogy

1:47:59 ↗ um on redmond ridge as a golf community

1:48:06 ↗ i am

1:48:08 ↗ the miss baldwin community task force on

1:48:10 ↗ homelessness founder

1:48:13 ↗ and um

1:48:15 ↗ i'd like to make a comment that

1:48:18 ↗ i would like to ask your committee

1:48:22 ↗ um

1:48:23 ↗ miss bull

1:48:25 ↗ yeah

1:48:26 ↗ the chair has a question for you

1:48:30 ↗ yeah unfortunately miss bull right now

1:48:32 ↗ we are in a a public hearing process

1:48:35 ↗ so right now the the comments are

1:48:37 ↗ specifically specifically to what we are

1:48:40 ↗ discussing for the record

1:48:42 ↗ so right now is not unfortunately right

1:48:44 ↗ now we can't take general public

1:48:46 ↗ comments on

1:48:47 ↗ different people i'm gonna send

1:48:48 ↗ christian if it's okay i'm gonna send

1:48:50 ↗ you an email if that's okay would that

1:48:52 ↗ would be acceptable absolutely kristin

1:48:55 ↗ loves emails

1:48:56 ↗ okay very good thank you and i'm sorry

1:48:59 ↗ to uh interrupt your meeting

1:49:02 ↗ gently

1:49:04 ↗ i have a lot to say up in my email

1:49:07 ↗ because i

1:49:08 ↗ i've been a vice president of a big

1:49:10 ↗ seafood company and i'm concerned about

1:49:12 ↗ uh

1:49:13 ↗ homelessness and affordable housing etc

1:49:16 ↗ amen

1:49:17 ↗ great thank you miss paul

1:49:20 ↗ would is there anyone else signed up to

1:49:23 ↗ speak to sha

1:49:24 ↗ uh chair

1:49:26 ↗ no one virg no one else virtually has

1:49:28 ↗ indicated a desire to speak and i'll

1:49:30 ↗ just ask is there anyone else in the

1:49:31 ↗ room here that like to speak under the

1:49:34 ↗ public hearing

1:49:36 ↗ i'm not seeing any uh indication of an

1:49:38 ↗ interest to speak in the room

1:49:40 ↗ here great thank you tisha and uh thank

1:49:44 ↗ you mr koram and thank you miss elmer um

1:49:47 ↗ again very important part of the process

1:49:49 ↗ i know sometimes it can be difficult to

1:49:51 ↗ uh

1:49:52 ↗ stay in our lane and right now like i

1:49:54 ↗ said we have all these individual lanes

1:49:56 ↗ because we have all these different

1:49:57 ↗ boards and commissions

1:49:59 ↗ each with its own uni unique purview

1:50:02 ↗ uh

1:50:03 ↗ and things to do so again i know it can

1:50:05 ↗ be hard i know it can be difficult but

1:50:07 ↗ again it's very appreciated um all the

1:50:09 ↗ comments everyone's made tonight we take

1:50:11 ↗ to heart again

1:50:13 ↗ as i mentioned all of us read

1:50:15 ↗ everything we get

1:50:16 ↗ so i want to say thank you

1:50:18 ↗ and if that is truly it we are going to

1:50:21 ↗ close the public hearing tonight at 8 22

1:50:25 ↗ pm

1:50:27 ↗ so now

1:50:29 ↗ for the rest of us

1:50:31 ↗ this is the deliberative portion of the

1:50:33 ↗ meeting and as i mentioned earlier

1:50:36 ↗ this is where the development commission

1:50:38 ↗ gets to shine

1:50:39 ↗ about all the topics we've talked about

1:50:41 ↗ this evening being the four

1:50:42 ↗ presentations

1:50:44 ↗ i'd like to hand the meeting over to

1:50:46 ↗ vice chair brook shore to let her facil

1:50:49 ↗ facilitate her own commission's

1:50:51 ↗ deliberations and i'd ask the planning

1:50:53 ↗ policy commission to please turn off

1:50:55 ↗ their cameras and then when they are

1:50:57 ↗ finished um we will come back

1:51:00 ↗ and move along with this evening's

1:51:02 ↗ agenda

1:51:03 ↗ so please vice chair sure thank you

1:51:06 ↗ chair voice

1:51:07 ↗ for the development commission

1:51:09 ↗ deliberation

1:51:10 ↗ i propose we tackle each topic in order

1:51:12 ↗ presented

1:51:14 ↗ the first items which did not have

1:51:16 ↗ specific policy questions posed

1:51:19 ↗ are there any comments development

1:51:20 ↗ commission would like to make on

1:51:22 ↗ transfer development rights

1:51:33 ↗ i guess the the question was do they

1:51:36 ↗ changes adequately address the goals and

1:51:38 ↗ outcomes identified by the council and i

1:51:40 ↗ believe they do

1:51:41 ↗ thank you

1:51:45 ↗ any other

1:51:46 ↗ comments on

1:51:47 ↗ transfer development rights

1:51:50 ↗ you can move on to affordable housing

1:51:53 ↗ any comments on that topic

1:52:05 ↗ um

1:52:08 ↗ i think in general the the pro the

1:52:11 ↗ proposed changes adequately address the

1:52:13 ↗ goals and outcomes identified by the

1:52:15 ↗ council but i do have a question and

1:52:16 ↗ concerned about

1:52:18 ↗ the elimination of the 30-year limit

1:52:23 ↗ without consulting especially banks and

1:52:25 ↗ affordable housing developers

1:52:28 ↗ i would hate to see an unintended

1:52:29 ↗ consequence

1:52:31 ↗ of this rule be that

1:52:33 ↗ banks would not finance projects with

1:52:36 ↗ affordable housing in them and it might

1:52:38 ↗ actually

1:52:39 ↗ backfire so i think it would be

1:52:41 ↗ who the staff and for planning policy

1:52:43 ↗ commission to consider what the impact

1:52:45 ↗ would be for sure

1:52:48 ↗ if that was changed

1:52:50 ↗ thank you

1:52:55 ↗ and are there any comments on landmarks

1:52:58 ↗ and archaeol archaeological resources

1:53:15 ↗ looks like no comments

1:53:17 ↗ for

1:53:18 ↗ the

1:53:19 ↗ specific parking questions is it

1:53:21 ↗ possible to get those back on the screen

1:53:24 ↗ and

1:53:26 ↗ go through those

1:53:49 ↗ my comment on the first item

1:53:52 ↗ i think

1:53:53 ↗ yes definitely bike parking seems very

1:53:57 ↗ elevated

1:53:58 ↗ and emphasized and i agree with

1:54:01 ↗ commissioner morgan's earlier comment

1:54:04 ↗ that the

1:54:05 ↗ the location seems

1:54:08 ↗ rather restrictive and

1:54:12 ↗ there might need to be

1:54:14 ↗ some exceptions to that based on

1:54:16 ↗ the building type or

1:54:18 ↗ size or something along those lines

1:54:26 ↗ just to add on the bike parking

1:54:29 ↗ i think some of those

1:54:32 ↗ individual requirements could possibly

1:54:34 ↗ be ores rather than ands

1:54:37 ↗ in terms of the location and

1:54:40 ↗ visibility protection of those bike

1:54:41 ↗ parking areas so it's just something to

1:54:44 ↗ possibly review with that in mind

1:54:55 ↗ um

1:54:56 ↗ i would say in answer to the three

1:54:58 ↗ questions that are raised i think the

1:55:00 ↗ um the answer would be yes but i would

1:55:03 ↗ have

1:55:04 ↗ two other comments as i mentioned before

1:55:07 ↗ i think the shared parking agreements

1:55:09 ↗ we have found it works well between the

1:55:12 ↗ maple street building and the spring

1:55:13 ↗ hill suites hotel so i think it's a

1:55:15 ↗ great idea

1:55:17 ↗ and increasing it to 40 percent

1:55:19 ↗ uh fits exactly with what had been done

1:55:22 ↗ in the past with that so i think that's

1:55:24 ↗ a great idea to move that to 40 percent

1:55:27 ↗ the bike storage i do think is is

1:55:29 ↗ problematic and doesn't fit with what

1:55:31 ↗ typical

1:55:32 ↗ development would be for especially for

1:55:34 ↗ an office building and i would suggest a

1:55:36 ↗ change

1:55:38 ↗ on page 85 of 121 item b

1:55:42 ↗ 2.

1:55:45 ↗ it says located in one of the following

1:55:46 ↗ secure locations a within 50 feet of an

1:55:49 ↗ attendant or security guard

1:55:51 ↗ or b in an area visible from employee

1:55:53 ↗ work areas or c

1:55:55 ↗ in an area visible from residential

1:55:57 ↗ communal areas or living spaces i would

1:55:59 ↗ add item d

1:56:01 ↗ that says within a building parking

1:56:03 ↗ garage

1:56:04 ↗ within 50 feet of an elevator

1:56:07 ↗ i think that's a very

1:56:09 ↗ common thing that you would see in

1:56:10 ↗ office buildings

1:56:12 ↗ or residential towers with parking

1:56:14 ↗ garages and i think that would help

1:56:16 ↗ alleviate that issue

1:56:18 ↗ thank you

1:56:25 ↗ on the

1:56:26 ↗ ev and ev ready parking stalls

1:56:31 ↗ without

1:56:32 ↗ knowing the statistics on

1:56:35 ↗ what's predicted and i'm guessing you

1:56:37 ↗ guys look at that sort of thing

1:56:40 ↗ but it seems like the ev ready parking

1:56:42 ↗ stalls could be increased just to give

1:56:46 ↗ future capacity um it'd be a lot easier

1:56:49 ↗ if it's done now than in the future

1:57:03 ↗ um i will call back to something that mr

1:57:05 ↗ hosanne brought up that there should be

1:57:08 ↗ some

1:57:08 ↗ [Music]

1:57:09 ↗ study of the impacts on the electrical

1:57:12 ↗ grid of

1:57:13 ↗ of development at this level

1:57:16 ↗ for for ev parking

1:57:18 ↗ if

1:57:19 ↗ if that doesn't create a huge

1:57:22 ↗ excessive demand then

1:57:24 ↗ it it seems reasonable

1:57:26 ↗ but again

1:57:28 ↗ and i guess another

1:57:29 ↗ [Music]

1:57:30 ↗ sorry adding on a slightly different

1:57:32 ↗ comment but that possibly providing

1:57:35 ↗ incentives

1:57:37 ↗ for

1:57:38 ↗ creating some tiers and providing

1:57:40 ↗ incentives maybe to go to a higher tier

1:57:42 ↗ rather than a regulatory requirement

1:57:56 ↗ i just have one other general comment

1:57:57 ↗ that um i thought the staff did a

1:58:00 ↗ tremendous job putting this all together

1:58:02 ↗ in a very readable and

1:58:04 ↗ understandable

1:58:06 ↗ manner for us to know what we were

1:58:08 ↗ supposed to be doing and what we were

1:58:10 ↗ looking at and explanations

1:58:12 ↗ i thought it was all very well done and

1:58:14 ↗ especially to stephen for answering a

1:58:15 ↗ lot of my other questions and comments

1:58:18 ↗ and i appreciate that addressing those

1:58:20 ↗ thank you

1:58:27 ↗ any other development commission

1:58:29 ↗ comments

1:58:31 ↗ okay

1:58:32 ↗ voice that concludes the development

1:58:34 ↗ commission's deliberation i want to

1:58:36 ↗ remind the development commission that

1:58:38 ↗ there is one more item on tonight's

1:58:39 ↗ agenda that staff would like feedback

1:58:42 ↗ from the development commission on

1:58:49 ↗ thank you vice chair sure

1:58:52 ↗ and thank you developing commission

1:58:54 ↗ again for deliberating and for being

1:58:56 ↗ part of the process

1:58:58 ↗ um

1:58:59 ↗ this is odd this is this is my first

1:59:01 ↗ hybrid meeting i've had a lot of

1:59:02 ↗ meetings a lot of zoom meetings a lot of

1:59:04 ↗ in-person meetings but this is my first

1:59:06 ↗ uh

1:59:07 ↗ hybrid meeting so it's been interesting

1:59:09 ↗ and it's been fun

1:59:11 ↗ and as miss shore had alluded

1:59:14 ↗ it looks like we do have another

1:59:16 ↗ presentation and this is going to be the

1:59:18 ↗ climate action plan and title 18.

1:59:21 ↗ many will be

1:59:23 ↗ basically presenting this for us

1:59:25 ↗ and then we're going to do the same

1:59:27 ↗ thing as we've done all night we'll be

1:59:28 ↗ doing clarifying questions from the

1:59:31 ↗ commissioners

1:59:34 ↗ but because this is not a public hearing

1:59:36 ↗ not all questions have to be asked

1:59:37 ↗ tonight but the more questions the

1:59:40 ↗ better discussion

1:59:43 ↗ and then once we are done again we'll

1:59:46 ↗ take public comment

1:59:48 ↗ hopefully on

1:59:50 ↗ again mini's presentation

1:59:52 ↗ and then development commission will

1:59:53 ↗ again have a chance to deliberate

1:59:56 ↗ and then again we will tack this on as

1:59:57 ↗ far as planning policies deliberation

2:00:00 ↗ uh at our next meeting next thursday in

2:00:03 ↗ chambers

2:00:05 ↗ so

2:00:06 ↗ um please ms dollywall has a

2:00:08 ↗ presentation for us so i'll let you take

2:00:10 ↗ it away

2:00:11 ↗ yeah thank you commissioners and members

2:00:13 ↗ of the community um so this is a topic

2:00:16 ↗ uh you know climate action plan that

2:00:18 ↗ council adopted um at the end of last

2:00:21 ↗ year

2:00:22 ↗ um has a tie-in with certain things that

2:00:24 ↗ were going to be captured with title 18

2:00:27 ↗ update

2:00:28 ↗ so in your packet we've included a table

2:00:30 ↗ that we prepared for the council

2:00:32 ↗ committee they asked us to look at that

2:00:34 ↗ based on public feedback they had

2:00:36 ↗ received

2:00:37 ↗ so we've captured the things that are

2:00:39 ↗ being addressed

2:00:40 ↗ that had a specific call in in the

2:00:42 ↗ climate action plan and tied it with the

2:00:45 ↗ items that were anticipated to be done

2:00:47 ↗ with title 18 update

2:00:49 ↗ um

2:00:50 ↗ one of the goals of title 18 update goal

2:00:52 ↗ nine is uh you know to to have codes

2:00:55 ↗ that promote sustainable development and

2:00:58 ↗ meet our climate goal climate action

2:01:00 ↗ plan goals

2:01:01 ↗ um and and so just a little bit of

2:01:04 ↗ history and i'm not sure if development

2:01:06 ↗ commission was part of that but when we

2:01:08 ↗ did the gaps analysis back um last year

2:01:12 ↗ with the planning and policy commission

2:01:13 ↗ we

2:01:14 ↗ posed some questions at a higher level

2:01:17 ↗ of how do we address some of these

2:01:19 ↗ things so at the time we talked about

2:01:22 ↗ perhaps embedding sustainability

2:01:24 ↗ throughout different sections of the

2:01:26 ↗ code so the tree preservation would have

2:01:28 ↗ a higher focus and and a filter for how

2:01:31 ↗ is going to meet the climate action

2:01:33 ↗ goals the landscaping would have more

2:01:35 ↗ drought tolerant species requirement and

2:01:38 ↗ such

2:01:40 ↗ so it was more prescriptive where we

2:01:42 ↗ could be throughout in different

2:01:43 ↗ chapters of the code we also talked

2:01:46 ↗ about um you know incentives versus

2:01:49 ↗ prescriptive approach

2:01:52 ↗ and and also talked about maybe creating

2:01:55 ↗ an escort sustainability score

2:01:57 ↗ where you would have to meet a minimum

2:02:00 ↗ score and you could get certain points

2:02:02 ↗ for getting third certifications for

2:02:04 ↗ green building

2:02:05 ↗ enhanced green storm water

2:02:08 ↗ you know if you went above and beyond

2:02:10 ↗ then you would get some credits or

2:02:12 ↗ points for it um you know if you took

2:02:14 ↗ extra measures for meeting going above

2:02:16 ↗ and beyond extra flooding protection or

2:02:19 ↗ wildfire resilience that kind of a

2:02:21 ↗ sustainability score

2:02:23 ↗ um

2:02:24 ↗ and we talked about pros and cons of the

2:02:26 ↗ different approaches and the you know it

2:02:29 ↗ would be a flexible yet very you know

2:02:32 ↗ you could verify

2:02:33 ↗ under that approach however there was a

2:02:35 ↗ lot of unknowns and we didn't know if

2:02:37 ↗ people would take on certain things

2:02:39 ↗ would become more popular and others

2:02:41 ↗ won't get used so we need to have more

2:02:44 ↗ thoughtful discussion if we go down that

2:02:46 ↗ sustainability score approach

2:02:49 ↗ so since our conversation with all of

2:02:51 ↗ you

2:02:52 ↗ council adopted the climate action plan

2:02:54 ↗ and had specific things that needed that

2:02:57 ↗ were called out as title 18 update so

2:02:59 ↗ which we've provided a status update for

2:03:01 ↗ you

2:03:02 ↗ separate from the title 18 what's

2:03:05 ↗ happening is also the state building

2:03:07 ↗ code council

2:03:09 ↗ adopted new energy code for multi-family

2:03:12 ↗ and commercial buildings

2:03:14 ↗ and that's going to go into effect june

2:03:16 ↗ of next year

2:03:18 ↗ and some of the things that are coming

2:03:19 ↗ out of that are you know how do we have

2:03:21 ↗ more high energy efficient buildings uh

2:03:24 ↗ there's a requirement for heat pump um

2:03:27 ↗ for um you know

2:03:29 ↗ for water heater and space heaters

2:03:31 ↗ instead of relying on fossil fuels

2:03:33 ↗ there's requirements for solar readiness

2:03:36 ↗ the anything over 10 000 square feet of

2:03:38 ↗ building has to have on-site renewable

2:03:41 ↗ energy um

2:03:43 ↗ indoor lighting has to uh you know be a

2:03:46 ↗ bit be

2:03:49 ↗ manageable and and your motion sensors

2:03:51 ↗ and those kind of requirements are

2:03:52 ↗ coming in and it's all based on reducing

2:03:54 ↗ you know making highly energy efficient

2:03:56 ↗ buildings so that's happening in the

2:03:57 ↗ building code which is in the title 16

2:04:00 ↗ of the super municipal code

2:04:03 ↗ so given all the all the different uh

2:04:06 ↗ pieces um

2:04:08 ↗ we did the piercing research um and have

2:04:10 ↗ included in your packet uh the one

2:04:13 ↗ takeaway from that is most of our peer

2:04:16 ↗ cities at this point in time have this

2:04:18 ↗ incentives based approach where they're

2:04:20 ↗ really saying you can build taller

2:04:22 ↗ buildings you can have more

2:04:24 ↗ you know more development capacity if

2:04:26 ↗ you do greener buildings

2:04:28 ↗ um

2:04:29 ↗ so not sure that that's uh what uh is

2:04:32 ↗ the right policy given where the climate

2:04:34 ↗ action plan is and all those long-term

2:04:36 ↗ policies that issue has adopted

2:04:38 ↗ um

2:04:39 ↗ and and the history of sustainable

2:04:41 ↗ buildings in issaquah you know we've had

2:04:43 ↗ the swedish hospital the fire stations

2:04:46 ↗ uh the development in our um

2:04:49 ↗ that was captured under development

2:04:51 ↗ agreement for highlands and talus had a

2:04:53 ↗ third party certification requirements

2:04:56 ↗ um for these homes to meet we had the z

2:04:58 ↗ homes as the you know

2:05:00 ↗ pilot project that was built um we have

2:05:03 ↗ a pros uh laminated timber building in

2:05:06 ↗ the popular building for the rowley

2:05:08 ↗ development so so a lot of

2:05:10 ↗ buildings and construction that happened

2:05:12 ↗ in in the past

2:05:14 ↗ new construction has kind of been on the

2:05:16 ↗ sustainable side

2:05:18 ↗ um so given all that history

2:05:21 ↗ uh we're proposing to you a two-tiered

2:05:23 ↗ approach so

2:05:25 ↗ uh a more thoughtful approach given the

2:05:28 ↗ energy code updates that are coming our

2:05:30 ↗ way given that the incentives based

2:05:32 ↗ approach is not where

2:05:34 ↗ the

2:05:35 ↗ commission was leaning when we first had

2:05:37 ↗ the policy discussion with you all

2:05:40 ↗ and that's what most of our peer cities

2:05:41 ↗ are doing

2:05:42 ↗ we're recommending that we have

2:05:46 ↗ larger buildings at this time be

2:05:48 ↗ required to get a third party

2:05:49 ↗ certification so if someone's building a

2:05:51 ↗ larger building that that it is more

2:05:53 ↗ sustainable

2:05:54 ↗ and then we put on the whiteboard future

2:05:57 ↗ updates uh topic that we're more

2:06:00 ↗ thoughtful of this you know whether it's

2:06:01 ↗ a sustainability score for projects that

2:06:04 ↗ are smaller

2:06:05 ↗ because what we've also heard is that

2:06:07 ↗ the certifications are expensive so they

2:06:09 ↗ add more to the cost of getting

2:06:11 ↗ certification that there are equivalent

2:06:14 ↗ ways of doing building more sustainable

2:06:16 ↗ buildings that don't require this

2:06:18 ↗ third-party certification so

2:06:20 ↗ our recommendation at this time is with

2:06:22 ↗ this current update we handle the larger

2:06:25 ↗ buildings and that came through some of

2:06:26 ↗ your discussion where you asked us to

2:06:29 ↗ look at super thresholds and maybe

2:06:31 ↗ there's a trade-off

2:06:32 ↗ that if you do a sustainable building

2:06:35 ↗ yes it's going to cost you slightly more

2:06:37 ↗ if we require third-party certifications

2:06:39 ↗ however we're raising our cpa thresholds

2:06:42 ↗ for sustainable buildings

2:06:45 ↗ and we laid in your packet and i can

2:06:47 ↗ share my screen if it's useful on

2:06:49 ↗ on the three options one is to anything

2:06:52 ↗ larger than ten thousand the second is

2:06:54 ↗ anything larger than twenty thousand and

2:06:56 ↗ the third one is anything larger than 30

2:06:59 ↗ 000. so you all can decide what

2:07:02 ↗ threshold at this time makes sense to

2:07:04 ↗ require third-party certifications until

2:07:07 ↗ we have a more thoughtful discussion as

2:07:09 ↗ a future update

2:07:11 ↗ after the energy code is up you know it

2:07:13 ↗ comes into place and this is only for

2:07:15 ↗ building so we had a placeholder in the

2:07:19 ↗ building and design section of the code

2:07:21 ↗ that we all you all had a public hearing

2:07:23 ↗ on

2:07:24 ↗ but the other sections of the code we've

2:07:26 ↗ embedded and have taken a more

2:07:28 ↗ prescriptive approach for meeting the

2:07:30 ↗ climate action goals so that's all in

2:07:32 ↗ terms of our

2:07:34 ↗ ask of you

2:07:35 ↗ um

2:07:37 ↗ for this topic to give us some guidance

2:07:39 ↗ and then

2:07:40 ↗ then we can fold it in the building and

2:07:42 ↗ design section accordingly

2:07:49 ↗ great thank you minnie

2:07:51 ↗ so looking for some clarifying questions

2:07:53 ↗ for minnie

2:07:54 ↗ as far as her presentation

2:07:58 ↗ yes

2:07:59 ↗ i uh and uh director dollywall i wanted

2:08:03 ↗ to mention that it appears that the

2:08:06 ↗ climate action plan implementation

2:08:08 ↗ content was not included in the

2:08:09 ↗ development commission's agenda

2:08:12 ↗ materials for tonight's meeting

2:08:14 ↗ so the commissioners may not have had an

2:08:16 ↗ opportunity to review

2:08:18 ↗ that material it was included in the

2:08:20 ↗ published ppc agenda

2:08:22 ↗ okay

2:08:25 ↗ do you want me to bring up the table

2:08:28 ↗ i that may be helpful for the

2:08:30 ↗ development commissioners

2:08:32 ↗ yes

2:08:34 ↗ yep

2:08:35 ↗ i would need to be the participant

2:08:39 ↗ or

2:08:42 ↗ sure

2:08:53 ↗ can you all see my screen

2:08:59 ↗ yes

2:09:01 ↗ okay

2:09:02 ↗ so the the so the two two questions uh

2:09:06 ↗ to ponder um

2:09:08 ↗ one is do you you know we're looking for

2:09:11 ↗ is this the right approach to add have

2:09:13 ↗ some stop gap measures to address

2:09:15 ↗ climate action plan

2:09:17 ↗ by requiring larger buildings to meet

2:09:19 ↗ third party certification so if you have

2:09:21 ↗ an opinion on that that would be

2:09:24 ↗ good to share

2:09:25 ↗ the second question is the threshold and

2:09:28 ↗ our recommendation is be anything larger

2:09:30 ↗ than 20 000 square feet we can we can

2:09:33 ↗ add language in the code to require

2:09:35 ↗ third-party certifications um

2:09:37 ↗ and we can give them an option

2:09:40 ↗ um so it could be leed gold certified or

2:09:43 ↗ equivalent so it's not just one as as

2:09:45 ↗ things could change

2:09:47 ↗ they would have to give us how they are

2:09:49 ↗ equivalent and we would review it so we

2:09:51 ↗ can work out some of those details

2:09:53 ↗ related to that

2:09:54 ↗ um some of the other other little

2:09:57 ↗ nuances or details uh that we talked

2:10:00 ↗ about was that we in trade for requiring

2:10:03 ↗ sustainable buildings the incentive

2:10:04 ↗ would be that we would raise the c per

2:10:06 ↗ threshold that for some of these

2:10:08 ↗ projects uh

2:10:09 ↗ up to a certain maximum allowed under

2:10:11 ↗ the state law

2:10:12 ↗ we weren't we would uh streamline their

2:10:15 ↗ process

2:10:16 ↗ um

2:10:17 ↗ we would also you know you talked about

2:10:18 ↗ affordable housing today and how hard it

2:10:21 ↗ is to cobble up the funding and and

2:10:23 ↗ everything to finance those things um so

2:10:26 ↗ we would look for some other ways for

2:10:30 ↗ cost saving measures for affordable

2:10:31 ↗ housing if we are going to require a

2:10:33 ↗ third-party certification for affordable

2:10:35 ↗ housing projects

2:10:36 ↗ but the thresholds um you know we shared

2:10:39 ↗ this with the planning and policy

2:10:40 ↗ commission i apologize to development

2:10:42 ↗ commission um

2:10:44 ↗ for not having this in their packet

2:10:47 ↗ but basically um under the state law

2:10:50 ↗ there's a maximum threshold

2:10:52 ↗ for projects that are required to go

2:10:54 ↗ through state environmental policy act

2:10:57 ↗ so what what that does is really reviews

2:10:59 ↗ it for

2:11:01 ↗ anything any impacts that need to be

2:11:03 ↗ mitigated that are not covered by our

2:11:05 ↗ existing codes

2:11:07 ↗ and for single family homes the maximum

2:11:10 ↗ threshold is 30 units essequa currently

2:11:12 ↗ has four units as our threshold some of

2:11:15 ↗ our peer cities have a little bit larger

2:11:17 ↗ multi-family

2:11:19 ↗ again our existing code has four units

2:11:21 ↗ but we can go up to 60 units

2:11:24 ↗ for commercial buildings

2:11:27 ↗ anything larger than 4000 requires sipa

2:11:29 ↗ and essaqua

2:11:30 ↗ the maximum threshold that we can raise

2:11:32 ↗ it to is 30 000 square feet so our

2:11:35 ↗ recommendation is anything

2:11:38 ↗ less than you know larger than 10 units

2:11:41 ↗ or 20 000 square feet

2:11:45 ↗ would be so we would raise it from four

2:11:46 ↗ units to ten units and from four

2:11:49 ↗ thousand to twenty thousand square feet

2:11:51 ↗ in exchange for

2:11:53 ↗ projects that have a uh have a third

2:11:55 ↗ party cert green building certification

2:11:59 ↗ so those are the the comparisons of the

2:12:01 ↗ thresholds

2:12:15 ↗ all right as long as the development

2:12:16 ↗ commission still feels comfortable

2:12:17 ↗ moving along uh moving on with this

2:12:21 ↗ we will take clarifying questions as far

2:12:23 ↗ as minnie's presentation

2:12:25 ↗ and then again we'll hand it over for

2:12:27 ↗ deliberations to the development

2:12:28 ↗ commission

2:12:29 ↗ again if they feel comfortable

2:12:31 ↗ i know they haven't had as much time to

2:12:33 ↗ look this over as i'm sure they'd want

2:12:36 ↗ but if they feel comfortable

2:12:38 ↗ um

2:12:38 ↗ we can move forward and again they can

2:12:40 ↗ ask as many as many questions as they'd

2:12:42 ↗ like

2:12:44 ↗ is it possible can we ask questions but

2:12:48 ↗ if after we

2:12:50 ↗ review

2:12:51 ↗ the document in more detail can we send

2:12:53 ↗ additional email questions or comments

2:12:55 ↗ okay absolutely yeah okay i think we can

2:12:58 ↗ proceed my understanding is it's not a

2:13:01 ↗ public hearing so again all questions

2:13:03 ↗ this is just to inform the conversation

2:13:06 ↗ so again questions are still able to be

2:13:08 ↗ submitted

2:13:09 ↗ um again it's not a public hearing so

2:13:12 ↗ but if the development commission feels

2:13:13 ↗ good about it we can move forward with

2:13:16 ↗ at least getting some questions in today

2:13:18 ↗ uh some deliberations because again as

2:13:20 ↗ many pointed out this will end up coming

2:13:22 ↗ back to us and again planning policy

2:13:24 ↗ deliberating on this next thursday

2:13:27 ↗ so i see that uh and i guess development

2:13:30 ↗ commission

2:13:31 ↗ kind of whisper amongst themselves

2:13:33 ↗ um how they want to go with this but uh

2:13:36 ↗ commissioner million does have a

2:13:37 ↗ question

2:13:39 ↗ okay i think we're okay with proceeding

2:13:41 ↗ here

2:13:45 ↗ great thank you chair voice night and

2:13:46 ↗ milligan planning policy commission

2:13:49 ↗ uh my question is and and

2:13:52 ↗ i'm gonna preface it with the comment

2:13:54 ↗ i'm glad that we're gonna continue

2:13:56 ↗ talking about this because i i must say

2:13:58 ↗ i'm not

2:14:00 ↗ i'm not getting my arms around this i

2:14:02 ↗ don't really feel like i um

2:14:04 ↗ can substantially contribute to this

2:14:06 ↗ conversation two things i'm looking for

2:14:08 ↗ are um

2:14:12 ↗ um ease of interpretation of our code so

2:14:14 ↗ that things have um

2:14:17 ↗ so that we don't have a threshold for

2:14:18 ↗ this over here and we have a different

2:14:19 ↗ threshold for that over there and then

2:14:21 ↗ for this thing you got a different

2:14:23 ↗ threshold

2:14:24 ↗ um i think that makes it difficult we

2:14:26 ↗ want ease of of interpreting our code

2:14:29 ↗ but one thing about exempting smaller

2:14:32 ↗ buildings that i i wasn't able to

2:14:34 ↗ get the answer myself so maybe uh

2:14:37 ↗ uh one of you have it is that for

2:14:40 ↗ certifications such as let's say bill

2:14:41 ↗ green

2:14:43 ↗ do they charge just a flat fee or is it

2:14:45 ↗ based on the side of the bill size of

2:14:47 ↗ the building is the smaller building

2:14:49 ↗ charged less

2:14:51 ↗ for a certification than a larger

2:14:53 ↗ building

2:14:55 ↗ you know i don't know the specifics of

2:14:57 ↗ the cost of how much it is but we can

2:15:00 ↗ find out um

2:15:02 ↗ i imagine it is going to be based on

2:15:04 ↗ some you know larger building obviously

2:15:06 ↗ would there's more nuance to it but a

2:15:08 ↗ single family home that's

2:15:11 ↗ 3 000 square feet versus 2 000 square

2:15:13 ↗ feet i'm not sure there will be much of

2:15:14 ↗ a difference there

2:15:16 ↗ yeah

2:15:17 ↗ but we can look into that and get you

2:15:19 ↗ some more information yeah that'd be

2:15:21 ↗ interesting to know what the basis is

2:15:23 ↗ for i'm removing them okay thank you

2:15:26 ↗ that's it

2:15:30 ↗ thank you commissioner million

2:15:33 ↗ anyone else

2:15:35 ↗ questions

2:15:42 ↗ okay

2:15:43 ↗ patty dillon with the development

2:15:45 ↗ commission and this may be information

2:15:47 ↗ that uh has some more background in the

2:15:49 ↗ in the packet but i'll look into that

2:15:52 ↗ once we re receive that

2:15:54 ↗ in terms of the

2:15:56 ↗ uh the threshold for

2:15:58 ↗ for cipa exemption

2:16:00 ↗ being

2:16:01 ↗ tied to the green buildings

2:16:03 ↗ there are a lot of aspects of cipa

2:16:05 ↗ beyond just the the building itself in

2:16:08 ↗ terms of the other

2:16:10 ↗ the other land uses on on a parcel so

2:16:15 ↗ just wanting some clarification whether

2:16:17 ↗ that would be

2:16:19 ↗ an exemption from that permitting

2:16:21 ↗ process altogether or an exemption from

2:16:24 ↗ from some of the aspects related to the

2:16:26 ↗ building itself

2:16:29 ↗ yeah good question so it would be

2:16:30 ↗ completely super example it won't be you

2:16:33 ↗ have to do

2:16:34 ↗ piece you know part of the cpa analysis

2:16:36 ↗ but not the complete so

2:16:38 ↗ but the state law as you can see

2:16:41 ↗ has established higher thresholds um and

2:16:44 ↗ our peer cities have kept up with

2:16:46 ↗ increasing their thresholds uh so it

2:16:48 ↗ would be the complete evaluation of all

2:16:51 ↗ the impacts um

2:16:53 ↗ but the the ecology in the state that

2:16:55 ↗ came up with these thresholds did a more

2:16:57 ↗ thorough analysis and and and from their

2:17:00 ↗ analysis that deemed that um

2:17:02 ↗ there wasn't sipa mitigation

2:17:05 ↗ required for all of these uh smaller

2:17:07 ↗ ones it became just a procedural thing

2:17:10 ↗ uh so therefore they raised some of

2:17:12 ↗ these thresholds

2:17:15 ↗ thank you

2:17:27 ↗ chair voice we have another question

2:17:29 ↗ here in the room from commissioner

2:17:30 ↗ morgan

2:17:33 ↗ please

2:17:35 ↗ thank you um so

2:17:37 ↗ as i understand it then if i want to

2:17:38 ↗ build a 19 000 square foot office

2:17:40 ↗ building i don't have to go through the

2:17:43 ↗ seeper process if i make it leed gold

2:17:47 ↗ salmon safe

2:17:49 ↗ and perhaps eco-friendly building

2:17:51 ↗ materials

2:17:53 ↗ that's correct okay and i still have to

2:17:54 ↗ meet all the other code requirements for

2:17:58 ↗ development of the building as well

2:17:59 ↗ right

2:18:00 ↗ correct okay thank you

2:18:08 ↗ hi i had a question regarding um

2:18:12 ↗ the threshold and and if it's lifted

2:18:14 ↗ what about other environmental overlays

2:18:16 ↗ that might exist on a given site

2:18:18 ↗ uh critical areas so if those are

2:18:20 ↗ present

2:18:21 ↗ uh do you still need some level of um

2:18:26 ↗ review

2:18:28 ↗ correct so

2:18:29 ↗ um you know the

2:18:31 ↗ the the cpa is something that you know

2:18:34 ↗ was established in 1970s when

2:18:36 ↗ jurisdictions didn't have

2:18:38 ↗ all their codes updated state law wasn't

2:18:41 ↗ updated so now the cities have come

2:18:42 ↗ along and there's actually a requirement

2:18:44 ↗ to meet best available science and have

2:18:47 ↗ all of these codes

2:18:49 ↗ for protection of critical areas so

2:18:52 ↗ that's going in going to be a separate

2:18:54 ↗ chapter in the municipal code there is

2:18:57 ↗ requirement to comply with those codes

2:18:59 ↗ cpa evaluates anything that generally

2:19:03 ↗ isn't addressed by our existing adopted

2:19:07 ↗ codes so if we didn't have a critical

2:19:08 ↗ area section we could use cpa as a tool

2:19:11 ↗ to require mitigation

2:19:13 ↗ uh or if

2:19:14 ↗ the cumulative impact of this

2:19:16 ↗ development for

2:19:18 ↗ you know it's a project that that really

2:19:20 ↗ falls through the cracks from our code

2:19:22 ↗ and there's a gray area and there's no

2:19:24 ↗ and we need to use cpa as a tool for

2:19:27 ↗ requiring some mitigation then then

2:19:29 ↗ jurisdictions use cpa

2:19:31 ↗ so it's more comprehensive uh it's but

2:19:34 ↗ it used

2:19:35 ↗ projects are still required to meet

2:19:38 ↗ all the

2:19:39 ↗ adopted codes including critical areas

2:19:42 ↗ perfect thank you

2:19:54 ↗ it's your voice there are no other

2:19:55 ↗ questions here in the room

2:19:59 ↗ all right and i'm not seeing any

2:20:01 ↗ other questions in the virtual room

2:20:07 ↗ all right well

2:20:09 ↗ thank you development commission

2:20:12 ↗ now we're going to open it up for public

2:20:14 ↗ comment uh again this is not a public

2:20:17 ↗ hearing so we're looking for comment to

2:20:19 ↗ help facilitate a better discussion

2:20:22 ↗ after that

2:20:23 ↗ again uh development commission will

2:20:25 ↗ deliberate

2:20:27 ↗ planning policy will turn off the

2:20:28 ↗ cameras

2:20:29 ↗ and

2:20:30 ↗ again then we'll start wrapping up

2:20:32 ↗ tonight's meeting so

2:20:35 ↗ do we have anyone signed up for public

2:20:36 ↗ comment for

2:20:38 ↗ this portion of the meeting

2:20:41 ↗ i see one person in the room who'd like

2:20:43 ↗ to make comments and then for our

2:20:44 ↗ virtual attendees if you're on the phone

2:20:46 ↗ and would like to address this topic

2:20:48 ↗ please press star 3

2:20:50 ↗ if you're joining by computer please

2:20:52 ↗ raise your hand

2:20:54 ↗ uh

2:20:55 ↗ hussein

2:21:00 ↗ mr chair uh

2:21:02 ↗ director dollywall

2:21:04 ↗ fellow commissioners lovely staff thanks

2:21:07 ↗ for having me again

2:21:08 ↗ i just wanted to wade in on this i uh

2:21:12 ↗ i'm a mechanical engineer i work with

2:21:14 ↗ the boatway company i work for the

2:21:16 ↗ military u.s military and i love the

2:21:18 ↗ energy stuff i just like a kid in the

2:21:21 ↗ candy store so when i see this stuff

2:21:23 ↗ really enjoy it so thanks for giving me

2:21:25 ↗ this opportunity

2:21:26 ↗ but i do want to let you know uh you're

2:21:28 ↗ on the right track um and i want to give

2:21:31 ↗ you a little more confidence that

2:21:33 ↗ the lenders the large lenders like

2:21:35 ↗ fannie mae possibly freddie mac they

2:21:38 ↗ have discounts for lead certification

2:21:41 ↗ uh they're

2:21:43 ↗ range between 10 to 20 basis points so

2:21:46 ↗ when you make these big buildings you're

2:21:48 ↗ talking about 20 basis points that's

2:21:50 ↗ significant so that's another added

2:21:53 ↗ benefit yes the certification cost money

2:21:56 ↗ but uh in the grand scheme of things uh

2:22:00 ↗ it that saving of 20 basis points 10 to

2:22:03 ↗ 200 basis points

2:22:05 ↗ just take care of all the expenses about

2:22:07 ↗ two years two to three years

2:22:09 ↗ at most so it pays for itself i

2:22:12 ↗ encourage you go to do it i think it's

2:22:14 ↗ important

2:22:17 ↗ there was but there was one thing i

2:22:19 ↗ wanted to bring up to you and that is

2:22:22 ↗ you always got to think

2:22:24 ↗ why we're doing this and who are we

2:22:26 ↗ doing this for

2:22:29 ↗ it's important to have flexibility

2:22:32 ↗ in the title 18 that you're going to be

2:22:34 ↗ considering to adopt

2:22:37 ↗ i haven't looked at the entire thing

2:22:39 ↗ but there are

2:22:41 ↗ you know provisions that could really

2:22:44 ↗ kill a project

2:22:46 ↗ it could really stop it

2:22:49 ↗ it could be bad fortune i have been

2:22:51 ↗ lately on receiving ended this thing

2:22:52 ↗ here and i'm sorry i'm kind of lucky uh

2:22:55 ↗ i didn't get stuck with the wrath of

2:22:57 ↗ things but sometimes she could go

2:22:58 ↗ sideways

2:23:00 ↗ so

2:23:01 ↗ on your code

2:23:03 ↗ trying to adopt

2:23:04 ↗ ways out

2:23:06 ↗ for somebody who's cornered

2:23:09 ↗ for an environmental situation

2:23:11 ↗ with added benefit uh that he can gain

2:23:15 ↗ go in another path

2:23:17 ↗ uh

2:23:18 ↗ it

2:23:19 ↗ i don't know if for example three

2:23:21 ↗ preservations is in your quote being

2:23:23 ↗ reviewed or not

2:23:25 ↗ but if you have four big trees in the

2:23:26 ↗ middle of the site

2:23:28 ↗ uh one of them you have to keep that

2:23:30 ↗ means you can't put your building in the

2:23:31 ↗ middle of the site that could be really

2:23:33 ↗ painful

2:23:34 ↗ again i don't know if it is or not but

2:23:36 ↗ if it is then that's something you want

2:23:38 ↗ to consider what are the ways you can

2:23:40 ↗ serve the public

2:23:41 ↗ and help the environment

2:23:43 ↗ what other ways that you can achieve

2:23:46 ↗ that goal and offset that deficiency

2:23:49 ↗ is something

2:23:51 ↗ you may want to think about so i urge

2:23:53 ↗ you

2:23:54 ↗ never forget your goal your goal is

2:23:56 ↗ serve the public

2:23:57 ↗ and

2:23:58 ↗ try to be flexible

2:24:00 ↗ look at different variety of options and

2:24:02 ↗ visions and choose a path will get you

2:24:05 ↗ there

2:24:06 ↗ with the least amount of resistance

2:24:10 ↗ and i think that concludes my comments i

2:24:12 ↗ really appreciate your patience with me

2:24:14 ↗ thank you very much

2:24:20 ↗ chair i don't see that anyone

2:24:23 ↗ virtually is interested in making

2:24:25 ↗ comments and just looking to see if

2:24:26 ↗ there's anyone else in the room

2:24:29 ↗ not seeing any interest

2:24:36 ↗ all right

2:24:38 ↗ well thank you again

2:24:40 ↗ for our loan speaker our low public

2:24:43 ↗ comment this evening

2:24:44 ↗ um

2:24:45 ↗ and we will now hand it back over to

2:24:48 ↗ vice chair shore to facilitate her

2:24:51 ↗ deliberations with her commission

2:24:53 ↗ uh so planning policy

2:24:55 ↗ please go ahead and go dark

2:24:57 ↗ thank you

2:24:59 ↗ thank you chair voice for the

2:25:01 ↗ development commission deliberations we

2:25:04 ↗ will go through the policy questions

2:25:05 ↗ posed by staff

2:25:07 ↗ and then provide any additional comments

2:25:09 ↗ or deliberations

2:25:11 ↗ and i think i have the comments but i

2:25:13 ↗ don't are the questions but i don't

2:25:15 ↗ think anybody else does if we could see

2:25:17 ↗ those again

2:26:00 ↗ commissioner patty dillon

2:26:02 ↗ in

2:26:02 ↗ response to the first

2:26:04 ↗ question

2:26:06 ↗ do you agree with the proposed approach

2:26:09 ↗ to incorporate some measures in the

2:26:11 ↗ current update

2:26:13 ↗ i

2:26:15 ↗ from

2:26:16 ↗ what

2:26:17 ↗ director daliwal presented i think that

2:26:19 ↗ sounds like a logical pathway

2:26:22 ↗ i also

2:26:24 ↗ appreciated the the concept of

2:26:26 ↗ incorporating sustainability throughout

2:26:28 ↗ the

2:26:29 ↗ the title 18 document i mean i think she

2:26:32 ↗ mentioned at the beginning

2:26:34 ↗ it sustainability really is is part of a

2:26:36 ↗ whole process and not just something

2:26:38 ↗ that we want to separate out into its

2:26:41 ↗ its own section it's part of

2:26:44 ↗ coming up with the design and the

2:26:45 ↗ function of

2:26:46 ↗ of the entire site

2:26:48 ↗ so i would i would agree with that

2:26:50 ↗ approach certainly

2:26:52 ↗ given the information from neighboring

2:26:54 ↗ cities the threshold the suggested

2:26:57 ↗ threshold seems appropriate but i don't

2:26:58 ↗ have um

2:27:00 ↗ have the background research to

2:27:02 ↗ to make that a recommendation i guess

2:27:15 ↗ um

2:27:17 ↗ commission morgan i

2:27:18 ↗ uh i think this sounds like a good idea

2:27:21 ↗ uh it's kind of a quick read right now

2:27:22 ↗ but it does sound like a good idea to me

2:27:25 ↗ to um

2:27:26 ↗ as a way to incorporate to get more

2:27:28 ↗ green buildings more salmon safe

2:27:30 ↗ buildings perhaps more sustainable

2:27:32 ↗ materials sounds like it fits with other

2:27:35 ↗ jurisdictions and with what they found

2:27:37 ↗ on a state code basis

2:27:39 ↗ so i would agree with it the one change

2:27:41 ↗ i would suggest

2:27:43 ↗ is for office school commercial service

2:27:46 ↗ recreation so forth

2:27:48 ↗ the requirement would be up to 20 000

2:27:51 ↗ square feet and up to 40 parking spaces

2:27:55 ↗ the parking code earlier in the

2:27:58 ↗ presentation

2:27:59 ↗ did not have a specific commercial

2:28:01 ↗ office section

2:28:03 ↗ but there was a medical office section

2:28:05 ↗ the minimum parking for medical office

2:28:08 ↗ is

2:28:10 ↗ one per 300 square feet i believe it is

2:28:14 ↗ which for a 20 000 square foot building

2:28:16 ↗ would require 67 parking stalls which i

2:28:19 ↗ think means you would not be able to

2:28:21 ↗ build the 20 000

2:28:23 ↗ square foot building because you would

2:28:25 ↗ have to have more far more than 40

2:28:27 ↗ stalls i think

2:28:29 ↗ it means you would be limited to only a

2:28:31 ↗ 12 000 square foot building

2:28:34 ↗ if you can only do it up to 40 parking

2:28:36 ↗ stalls so i think i would suggest

2:28:39 ↗ reconsidering the 40 parking spaces

2:28:43 ↗ requirement and have that fit with

2:28:46 ↗ parking stall requirements so you can

2:28:48 ↗ actually get up to 20 000 square feet

2:28:51 ↗ thank you

2:28:57 ↗ vice chair sure um i also agree with

2:29:01 ↗ requiring the third party certifications

2:29:04 ↗ for

2:29:05 ↗ larger buildings

2:29:07 ↗ i defer to others on the appropriate

2:29:10 ↗ size of those

2:29:13 ↗ but i i don't agree with tying the sepa

2:29:15 ↗ threshold

2:29:16 ↗ to the third party certifications

2:29:20 ↗ if there are

2:29:21 ↗ changes needed to the threshold to be

2:29:23 ↗ current then i think those thresholds

2:29:26 ↗ should just be

2:29:27 ↗ updated

2:29:29 ↗ across the code not just this small

2:29:32 ↗ section

2:29:40 ↗ i'm in full support of everything that

2:29:41 ↗ was outlined

2:29:57 ↗ any further comments

2:30:10 ↗ chair voice i believe we're done

2:30:18 ↗ thank you vice chair short

2:30:20 ↗ so the rest of the meeting is going to

2:30:22 ↗ go quick we rounded third base we're

2:30:25 ↗ coming in

2:30:26 ↗ to home

2:30:27 ↗ um looking for reports

2:30:30 ↗ and any city council updates from staff

2:30:33 ↗ if you could provide us any reports

2:30:37 ↗ no reports at this time uh other than

2:30:40 ↗ you know the committee has asked us to

2:30:42 ↗ come back to you with this icap

2:30:44 ↗ discussion and also we'll have another

2:30:46 ↗ discussion on zero lot lines and

2:30:50 ↗ uh subdivision grade at your next

2:30:52 ↗ upcoming meeting on the 28th so that's

2:30:56 ↗ all

2:31:00 ↗ any other updates or comments from staff

2:31:06 ↗ no but i really want to appreciate

2:31:08 ↗ everyone digging in at the last minute

2:31:09 ↗ from the development commissioners on a

2:31:11 ↗ topic so we'll make sure we send

2:31:15 ↗ all that information over to you and um

2:31:18 ↗ you know we'll look for opportunity to

2:31:19 ↗ to dig deeper if if

2:31:21 ↗ that's needed but appreciate all the

2:31:24 ↗ feedback

2:31:26 ↗ great thank you minnie any comments

2:31:29 ↗ anything from any of our commissioners

2:31:32 ↗ tonight for the good of our order

2:31:40 ↗ all right well i just wanted to extend

2:31:42 ↗ my thank you to uh city staff

2:31:44 ↗ there was one comment from commissioner

2:31:46 ↗ morgan

2:31:47 ↗ commissioner morgan please i would just

2:31:49 ↗ like to once again thank the planning

2:31:51 ↗ policy commission for letting us chime

2:31:53 ↗ in on these items we appreciate all the

2:31:55 ↗ work that you do that's very detailed

2:31:57 ↗ and hard working and

2:31:59 ↗ thank you for letting us voice some

2:32:00 ↗ opinions about him appreciate it

2:32:06 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan and i i

2:32:08 ↗ think i can safely speak for my

2:32:10 ↗ commission that

2:32:11 ↗ you know you guys provide a

2:32:13 ↗ indispensable service and again we

2:32:15 ↗ really enjoy the time together

2:32:18 ↗ i want to just say thank you to city

2:32:20 ↗ staff

2:32:21 ↗ thank you to

2:32:22 ↗ our commissions and our commissioners

2:32:24 ↗ development commission planning policy

2:32:26 ↗ commission and also everyone who made

2:32:28 ↗ public comment this evening again

2:32:31 ↗ it takes a village and we have a lot of

2:32:33 ↗ people here

2:32:34 ↗ trying to make this city

2:32:37 ↗ uh the best we can not only for us but

2:32:39 ↗ for future generations so

2:32:41 ↗ again thank you very much as far as

2:32:44 ↗ planning policy commission i am looking

2:32:45 ↗ forward to seeing all of you guys next

2:32:48 ↗ week

2:32:49 ↗ next thursday mark your calendars in

2:32:51 ↗ city chambers it'll be a good time i

2:32:53 ↗ believe it'll be the first time since

2:32:55 ↗ march of 2020

2:32:57 ↗ uh some of you the first time i've

2:32:58 ↗ actually ever met you in person

2:33:01 ↗ so again looking forward to all of that

2:33:04 ↗ and wishing you guys all a good weekend

2:33:07 ↗ and tonight we're going to adjourn this

2:33:09 ↗ meeting

2:33:11 ↗ at 904. so thank you everyone and have a

2:33:14 ↗ good evening

2:33:15 ↗ good night

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Tisha Geiser, City Clerk Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CP&D Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2

Recommendations & actions (4)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

COMMISSIONER MORGAN suggested that verbiage, as approved by the Director, could be added.
Dhaliwal replied correct, SEPA evaluates what is not addressed by existing, adopted code.
VICE CHAIR SHORE stated agreement with requiring third party certifications for larger buildings and deferred to other Commissioners on an appropriate size.
The Council has asked staff to come back to the Planning Policy Commission with an ICAP discussion, zero-lot lines, and subdivision grade at the next meeting on July 28, 2022.