Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, July 28, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 23, 2022

packet pp.5–9

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

language has arrived here needs clarification. In 18.606.080, Ground Level Transparency, window tinting for energy efficiency could be added until the Energy Code is revisited. Recessed stories may be a clearer term than stepbacks, and in addressing building massing and articulation in 18.606.050, a Policy debate may be needed regarding where the recess can begin as the information provided has only been that the situation would be onerous to the Developer but there has been no mention of the community or design standards. Terracing and green space possibilities need to be discussed.

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Preliminary Recommendation on Proposed Amendments to Title 18 Subdivisions Chapter: Block Length and Zero Lot Line Requirements, (A)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development Please note, comments will be allowed on · packet pp.21–33

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the July 28, 2022, Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to re-evaluate the zero-lot line and maximum block length/street grid requirements in the Subdivision Chapter with the lens of Goal 6 -Increase Housing Diversity.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.35–37

▶ Watch from 1:31:32 Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

Page 36 of 37 Staff Support: Christen Leeson Staff Support: Stephen Padua

2623 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ well good evening everyone and welcome

0:12 ↗ back

0:14 ↗ welcome back commissioner lewis uh

0:16 ↗ welcome back our fellow fellow

0:18 ↗ commissioners who are joining us

0:20 ↗ virtually tonight welcome back staff and

0:23 ↗ welcome back public it is good to be

0:25 ↗ here it has been

0:27 ↗ 28

0:29 ↗ long months since the last time

0:32 ↗ we were all here

0:33 ↗ so it is good to be back and we are

0:36 ↗ looking forward to this evening's

0:39 ↗ meeting

0:41 ↗ so first i would like to call the july

0:43 ↗ 28th planning policy commission

0:45 ↗ meeting to order and it is 6 32.

0:49 ↗ as a reminder we do still have a remote

0:51 ↗ aspect to our meetings

0:52 ↗ in fact two of our commissioners are

0:54 ↗ joining us virtually

0:56 ↗ this means staff ppc members and members

0:58 ↗ of the public may be participating in

1:00 ↗ the meeting remotely via webex

1:04 ↗ for all who would like to speak during

1:06 ↗ public comments

1:07 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

1:10 ↗ state your name each time before

1:12 ↗ speaking

1:13 ↗ and if you are attending virtually

1:16 ↗ by computer or by phone and would like

1:18 ↗ to speak during public comments in

1:20 ↗ addition to the above please

1:22 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:24 ↗ speaking and if you're having any

1:26 ↗ technical issues try joining the meeting

1:29 ↗ using a different device such as a

1:30 ↗ smartphone or tablet

1:32 ↗ or you can use the call and information

1:35 ↗ in the meeting invite to call into the

1:37 ↗ meeting

1:38 ↗ stephen would you please take attendance

1:43 ↗ commissioner monahan

1:47 ↗ here

1:48 ↗ commissioner bader

1:50 ↗ here commissioner lewis

1:52 ↗ present chair voice here

1:56 ↗ and then commissioner milligan is

1:57 ↗ excused for tonight

2:00 ↗ and we do have a quorum yes excellent

2:04 ↗ so tonight we have no minutes to approve

2:06 ↗ so the first item of our business is

2:09 ↗ public comment

2:10 ↗ uh the guidelines for public comments

2:12 ↗ are

2:14 ↗ um

2:14 ↗ first of all we take them very seriously

2:16 ↗ they help our decision making

2:18 ↗ but for the members of the public who

2:20 ↗ are joining us welcome

2:23 ↗ and if there is anyone

2:26 ↗ in the meeting who would like to do this

2:27 ↗ and make public comments please raise

2:29 ↗ your virtual hand to do this if you are

2:32 ↗ on the phone please press three

2:35 ↗ if you have joined by computer or

2:36 ↗ smartphone look for the hand icon

2:39 ↗ and this can vary by device

2:41 ↗ one option may be to go to the

2:43 ↗ participant panel and choose the raised

2:45 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

2:50 ↗ it may also be located under the

2:51 ↗ reactions menu or more menu

2:54 ↗ tonight we will only be taking general

2:55 ↗ public comment

2:57 ↗ for the planning policy we won't be

2:59 ↗ taking comment on the

3:01 ↗ title 18 updates as that

3:04 ↗ was a public hearing that has been

3:06 ↗ closed

3:07 ↗ but please feel free

3:09 ↗ to

3:11 ↗ provide public comment for the second

3:13 ↗ part of tonight which will be

3:15 ↗ on xero lot lines as well as a block

3:19 ↗ length

3:20 ↗ that many will be presenting so it is

3:22 ↗ appropriate to either discuss general

3:24 ↗ public comments or mini's presentation

3:25 ↗ but again we are not looking for public

3:27 ↗ comment about the title up to 18 updates

3:30 ↗ at this time

3:32 ↗ when recognized please unmute your

3:34 ↗ microphone state your name

3:36 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently and

3:38 ↗ please limit your comments to five

3:40 ↗ minutes or less

3:41 ↗ and when you are finished please mute

3:43 ↗ your microphone

3:45 ↗ and if you do not respond after your

3:46 ↗ name or your phone number is called or

3:48 ↗ if your connection is lost unexpectedly

3:50 ↗ the meeting will need to proceed

3:53 ↗ you are encouraged to rejoin the meeting

3:55 ↗ if you are able

3:57 ↗ and so stephen

3:58 ↗ has anyone from the public signed up to

4:01 ↗ make general comments

4:03 ↗ we have one in room signed up

4:06 ↗ council member hunt

4:14 ↗ evening hello um it's great to be here

4:16 ↗ in person

4:18 ↗ good evening chair voice commissioner

4:20 ↗ lewis and commissioners vader and

4:23 ↗ monahan

4:25 ↗ my name is victoria hunt i live in the

4:27 ↗ talus neighborhood

4:29 ↗ and i am so glad to be here

4:31 ↗ back in person with you so welcome back

4:33 ↗ to council chambers

4:35 ↗ i serve on the issaquah city council i'm

4:37 ↗ in my fifth year and actually before i

4:40 ↗ was on council i served on this very

4:43 ↗ commission the planning policy

4:44 ↗ commission and actually serves with

4:46 ↗ commissioner lewis and so it is great to

4:48 ↗ be back with you here this evening and i

4:50 ↗ really just wanted to say thank you so

4:52 ↗ much for all of the time and effort and

4:56 ↗ thoughtfulness with which you consider

4:58 ↗ and deliberate on issues the the work

5:01 ↗ that you do is really important to our

5:03 ↗ process on council and it's really

5:05 ↗ important to the community for getting

5:07 ↗ the outcomes that they

5:08 ↗ they are looking for in that

5:11 ↗ and

5:11 ↗ that fulfills the vision that we have

5:14 ↗ for issaquah so i wanted to say thank

5:16 ↗ you i know it's a lot of work i know

5:19 ↗ firsthand that it's a lot of time and

5:21 ↗ effort and really wanted to thank you

5:23 ↗ for taking the time

5:25 ↗ and also wanted to open up channel of

5:27 ↗ communication if you have questions

5:28 ↗ about

5:30 ↗ how council does things or how we're

5:32 ↗ thinking about things please always feel

5:34 ↗ free to reach out and would love to talk

5:37 ↗ with you

5:38 ↗ so again thank you and i look forward to

5:41 ↗ hearing the rest of your conversation

5:43 ↗ this evening

5:50 ↗ chair boys that's the only public

5:51 ↗ comment signed up for tonight

5:54 ↗ all right well i don't think i'm being

5:55 ↗ biased and saying thank you victoria

5:57 ↗ those were fantastic comments and yes

5:59 ↗ the planning policy produces a lot of

6:01 ↗ rock stars including our very own

6:03 ↗ council member uh victoria so

6:07 ↗ thank you and as far as a public comment

6:10 ↗ through with that so the next item on

6:12 ↗ the agenda is the continuation of the

6:14 ↗ public hearing for title 18

6:16 ↗ zoning and development standard updates

6:19 ↗ tonight is the deliberation portion of

6:22 ↗ the public hearing so i'm hoping that

6:24 ↗ all of our clarifying questions have

6:26 ↗ already been asked

6:28 ↗ and really we're just looking to have a

6:29 ↗ brief presentation on what we've already

6:31 ↗ heard

6:32 ↗ possibly a couple small questions but

6:34 ↗ again hopefully most of the questions

6:36 ↗ have already been asked and then the

6:38 ↗ planning policy will have the

6:39 ↗ opportunity to deliberate

6:41 ↗ on the four different presentations in

6:44 ↗ front of us

6:59 ↗ so after staff provides a quick summary

7:01 ↗ of the public comments with the scope of

7:03 ↗ this project and responses

7:05 ↗ we will move on to the policy questions

7:08 ↗ for the planning policy deliberation

7:10 ↗ and direction as we did on july 20th we

7:13 ↗ will start with transfer of development

7:15 ↗ rights or tdrs

7:17 ↗ move to affordable housing

7:19 ↗ then move on to landmarks and

7:20 ↗ archaeological resources and conclude

7:23 ↗ with parking

7:24 ↗ we'll deliberate

7:26 ↗ after

7:26 ↗ all of the presentations

7:29 ↗ so staff i believe

7:32 ↗ there you go

7:38 ↗ i'm kristen leason senior planner with

7:40 ↗ the community planning and development

7:41 ↗ department

7:42 ↗ and yes as chair voice mentioned we are

7:45 ↗ deliberating on bucket five tonight

7:47 ↗ which contains transfer development

7:48 ↗ rights affordable housing landmarks and

7:51 ↗ archaeological resources and parking

7:54 ↗ so i'm going to start with transfer

7:56 ↗ development rights again and just give

7:57 ↗ you a quick overview

8:00 ↗ so what are they they allow transfer

8:02 ↗ development rights the program

8:05 ↗ allows for one parcel the receiving site

8:07 ↗ to

8:09 ↗ have increased development while

8:11 ↗ protecting another parcel which is the

8:12 ↗ sending site

8:14 ↗ from future development and all of this

8:16 ↗ is at the owner's discretion this is not

8:18 ↗ something the city says you are part of

8:19 ↗ this

8:20 ↗ people opt into this program

8:22 ↗ ascending sites are typically as they

8:24 ↗ currently stand they are sites with 50

8:26 ↗ or more of their land

8:28 ↗ is encumbered by critical areas

8:31 ↗ and development rights can be bought and

8:33 ↗ sold between public

8:35 ↗ agencies between private entities or

8:37 ↗ between private and public entities

8:41 ↗ transfer development rights can be

8:43 ↗ banked

8:44 ↗ to preserve land now and use later in

8:48 ↗ the future so we had that happen not too

8:50 ↗ long ago someone dedicated land to the

8:52 ↗ city

8:52 ↗ as part of the tdr program just a

8:54 ↗ portion of land was sold and so we still

8:56 ↗ have

8:57 ↗ transfer

8:59 ↗ of development rights or development

9:01 ↗ rights sitting in a bank with the city

9:03 ↗ and they can be used for four things

9:06 ↗ on the receiving sites it can be used to

9:08 ↗ increase impervious

9:10 ↗ increase height

9:11 ↗ increase floor area ratio or far and to

9:15 ↗ increase density

9:18 ↗ next slide please

9:20 ↗ so just uh to show you where

9:23 ↗ these rights are the sending sites are

9:25 ↗ located in the green

9:27 ↗ they're shown in the green and the red

9:30 ↗ are the receiving sites

9:35 ↗ so major changes that we made in order

9:38 ↗ to try and address the protection of

9:40 ↗ hillside school we have added hillsides

9:43 ↗ so any parcels with 50 of their site as

9:47 ↗ 20 to 39 percent

9:49 ↗ slope it can now apply to be a potential

9:53 ↗ sending site

9:54 ↗ um density calculations that were uh

9:57 ↗ used to determine how much density can

9:59 ↗ actually get transferred were in a

10:01 ↗ different location that was moved into

10:03 ↗ this area

10:04 ↗ or into this chapter i apologize

10:06 ↗ changing levels of review for additions

10:08 ↗ and removals of sending sites is

10:10 ↗ something that we're proposing we need

10:12 ↗ to need to figure that out as part of

10:14 ↗ bucket six but right now one is sending

10:17 ↗ sites are level one and the receiving

10:20 ↗ sites are a level three review

10:22 ↗ but both of those should really

10:23 ↗ technically be probably level sixes

10:25 ↗ because it is a code change and then we

10:28 ↗ codified

10:30 ↗ what the bank does we knew there's a

10:31 ↗ bank out there we didn't quite know what

10:33 ↗ they could and couldn't do and how

10:34 ↗ things were calculated so we've tried to

10:36 ↗ codify that

10:38 ↗ next slide

10:41 ↗ and then there was

10:43 ↗ uh only one comment last time from the

10:46 ↗ development commission and the public

10:48 ↗ which is what does transit stop mean and

10:50 ↗ that's a good point we need to go back

10:51 ↗ and clarify if that's every individual

10:54 ↗ bus stop within the city or if that's

10:56 ↗ like a park and ride or transit center

10:58 ↗ so we need to clarify that

11:00 ↗ next slide please i'm going to move on

11:02 ↗ to affordable housing

11:06 ↗ so what is it in the

11:08 ↗ content of this chapter

11:11 ↗ housing is has covenants that are

11:13 ↗ attached to it stating that it will

11:14 ↗ remain affordable for a determined

11:17 ↗ amount of time

11:18 ↗ and ownership is one level and rental is

11:21 ↗ another level income levels for this

11:23 ↗ range from anywhere from the from 30 of

11:26 ↗ the king county area median income or

11:28 ↗ just the 80 ami

11:31 ↗ to 80 of the ami and that means that

11:33 ↗ those people make 30

11:35 ↗ of

11:36 ↗ you know 100 that you know what most

11:38 ↗ people make in the in the county

11:41 ↗ issaquah allows covenants up to 120 and

11:43 ↗ i just mentioned that because

11:45 ↗ while what counts as our affordable

11:47 ↗ housing goes anywhere from you know zero

11:49 ↗ to eighty percent

11:50 ↗ of the king county affordable ami

11:53 ↗ we do have units to go up to 120 those

11:56 ↗ are all located in the highlands

11:59 ↗ and those don't count towards our

12:00 ↗ affordable housing accounts but we do

12:02 ↗ have them and they have covenants

12:04 ↗ next slide please

12:08 ↗ major changes to affordable housing we

12:10 ↗ have updated the code to match other

12:12 ↗ arch jurisdictions this makes it easier

12:14 ↗ for us and for arch

12:17 ↗ not only um

12:18 ↗ it makes it consistent among all the

12:20 ↗ cities there's no ambiguity there

12:23 ↗ we are proposing to change the 30-year

12:25 ↗ affordability level for rental

12:28 ↗ to the life of the project because the

12:30 ↗ 30-year

12:31 ↗ met the bank requirements but not so not

12:33 ↗ necessarily the city's needs

12:36 ↗ we

12:36 ↗ codified um

12:38 ↗ the quality of affordable units so

12:41 ↗ in particular it's all the units but if

12:44 ↗ you have affordable units within

12:47 ↗ a complex that also contains market rate

12:50 ↗ units those need to be compatible with

12:52 ↗ each other

12:53 ↗ so um that

12:55 ↗ would it's not something that we've

12:57 ↗ always tried to enforce but because it

12:59 ↗ hasn't been codified it's been sort of

13:00 ↗ difficult

13:02 ↗ we removed or proposing to remove

13:04 ↗ the flexible standard of the reduction

13:07 ↗ of recreation space for affordable units

13:10 ↗ because that just doesn't make a whole

13:11 ↗ lot of sense and then we've added

13:13 ↗ requirements two things

13:15 ↗ um we've added requirements for off-site

13:18 ↗ for alternative compliance

13:20 ↗ we have amended

13:23 ↗ the requirements for the location of

13:24 ↗ these it used to have to be within the

13:25 ↗ same sub-area and now it can be outside

13:27 ↗ the sub-area we also added a payment in

13:30 ↗ lieu

13:31 ↗ as an as an alternative compliance

13:33 ↗ option

13:35 ↗ so next slide please

13:38 ↗ so some

13:40 ↗ concerns that came up one is there is a

13:42 ↗ concern about moving from a 30-year

13:43 ↗ rental requirement to the life of use as

13:46 ↗ residential so that's something that we

13:49 ↗ need to double check with arch and see

13:52 ↗ most other cities that i know do this so

13:54 ↗ we just need to make sure that there

13:55 ↗ haven't been any issues with the banks

13:57 ↗ and then there was a question about what

13:59 ↗ happens with affordable rentals when

14:00 ↗ covenants are converted to condominiums

14:02 ↗ and are they required to stay affordable

14:04 ↗ that's another good question we need to

14:06 ↗ do a little more research into and then

14:09 ↗ there was a note that someone would like

14:11 ↗ to see 30 ami included in the

14:13 ↗ inclusionary zoning but that's a policy

14:15 ↗ discussion that would need to be had at

14:16 ↗ a later time

14:18 ↗ and that's that's all i have for those

14:19 ↗ two

14:48 ↗ all right next we're going to talk about

14:50 ↗ landmarks and archaeological resources

14:58 ↗ so what is this

15:01 ↗ this section about it encourages the

15:03 ↗ protection preservation and enhancement

15:05 ↗ of

15:07 ↗ historic resources that are associated

15:09 ↗ with important past

15:11 ↗ events themes and people

15:13 ↗ in this section it's going to talk about

15:14 ↗ the landmarks commission the nomination

15:17 ↗ process what that looks like in order to

15:19 ↗ have a complete application

15:21 ↗ also the designation process as well as

15:23 ↗ the designation criteria so in 2001 the

15:26 ↗ city entered into an intra-local

15:28 ↗ agreement with king county to provide

15:30 ↗ issaquah assistance with respect to

15:32 ↗ historic preservations so the board the

15:34 ↗ king county landmarks and heritage

15:36 ↗ commission which is made up of nine

15:38 ↗ members they're the ones that review

15:40 ↗ landmark nomination and determine

15:43 ↗ designation status for landmarks within

15:45 ↗ city of issaquah

15:48 ↗ so far we have about six

15:50 ↗ landmarks

15:52 ↗ and the newest designation is the cutest

15:55 ↗ garage building on sunset way

15:59 ↗ so some of the changes that occurred in

16:00 ↗ this um section are we've added a fee

16:04 ↗ recovery section this allows the city to

16:06 ↗ recoup any costs that we have to pay on

16:08 ↗ behalf of the applicant

16:11 ↗ another change was that a big change was

16:13 ↗ that we no longer

16:16 ↗ basically inserted king county's code

16:18 ↗ into

16:20 ↗ our

16:21 ↗ code instead we're going to be adopting

16:23 ↗ by reference um i did some research a

16:26 ↗ lot of cities do this it's very common

16:28 ↗ um it allows us to simplify our code and

16:30 ↗ it remains it allows our code to remain

16:32 ↗ up to date

16:34 ↗ we also um added the landmarks

16:37 ↗ commission section which essentially is

16:39 ↗ codifying the landmarks commission's um

16:42 ↗ authority to make decisions on the

16:43 ↗ city's behalf and we're also codifying

16:45 ↗ the special member position which is

16:47 ↗ that representative that reviews

16:49 ↗ issaquah nominations for us

16:53 ↗ also in the code we try to

16:56 ↗ be more aligned with our interlocal

16:57 ↗ agreement and so we added some language

16:59 ↗ that basically

17:00 ↗ states that the city's building official

17:02 ↗ will consider

17:03 ↗ county's historic preservation officers

17:05 ↗ comment should

17:06 ↗ someone submit a building permit wanting

17:09 ↗ to make revisions to

17:11 ↗ a landmark

17:12 ↗ and one of the last changes that we made

17:15 ↗ was we tried to update some of our

17:17 ↗ references one of them is the violations

17:21 ↗ the city recently updated a new code

17:23 ↗ enforcement section so now the landmark

17:26 ↗ section will reference that code

17:29 ↗ so that the code enforcement officer can

17:31 ↗ properly enforce

17:33 ↗ and that concludes my presentation

17:45 ↗ thanks valerie um so next we'll be

17:47 ↗ discussing parking regulations

17:49 ↗ next slide please

17:55 ↗ great um so yeah again thank you thank

17:58 ↗ you chair and commissioners for this

17:59 ↗ opportunity to present this information

18:01 ↗ again um so as chair voice said uh the

18:05 ↗ slide deck is you know the same as last

18:07 ↗ time so i'll just quickly run through

18:09 ↗ uh some background information and then

18:11 ↗ talk about the major changes proposed

18:13 ↗ for this update

18:15 ↗ so as defined by the title 18 council ad

18:18 ↗ hoc committee

18:19 ↗ there's four high-level goals and

18:21 ↗ associated objectives related to the

18:23 ↗ parking section update

18:25 ↗ the first goal is to modernize the code

18:27 ↗ and incorporate best practices

18:29 ↗ by creating a well organized and clear

18:32 ↗ code that improves public access to

18:34 ↗ information

18:35 ↗ provides tools that address community

18:38 ↗ needs

18:38 ↗ and helps create the kinds of places

18:40 ↗ that the community expects

18:42 ↗ the second goal is to provide adequate

18:44 ↗ parking while utilizing land efficiently

18:48 ↗ by minimizing the amount of land and

18:50 ↗ associated impacts

18:52 ↗ related to parking

18:53 ↗ recognizing that the varied amenities

18:56 ↗ services and needs

18:58 ↗ are you know around the city

19:01 ↗ and ensuring that reasonably adequate

19:02 ↗ parking is there for those who are

19:04 ↗ reliant on personal vehicles while also

19:07 ↗ planning for the future conversion of

19:09 ↗ garages and service level parking lots

19:12 ↗ the third goal is to increase housing

19:14 ↗ diversity by providing or retaining

19:17 ↗ housing at a cost point rarely found in

19:19 ↗ the city

19:20 ↗ encouraging small housing types for the

19:22 ↗ improved affordability of housing around

19:24 ↗ the city and increasing affordability

19:27 ↗ and ownership

19:29 ↗ lastly the fourth goal of this parking

19:31 ↗ section update is to effectively manage

19:34 ↗ travel resulting from new development

19:36 ↗ in line with non-motorized transit and

19:39 ↗ climate goals by establishing electric

19:42 ↗ vehicle ready code

19:44 ↗ which is essentially the requirement for

19:46 ↗ power facilities

19:47 ↗ for the future installation of electric

19:50 ↗ vehicle chargers

19:52 ↗ next slide please

19:58 ↗ so today staff is proposing eight major

20:00 ↗ changes to realign our parking code to

20:03 ↗ better support our communities adopted

20:05 ↗ vision goals and policies

20:08 ↗ these first three changes relate to the

20:09 ↗ goal of modernizing our code and

20:12 ↗ incorporating best practices

20:14 ↗ so number one we're proposing

20:15 ↗ consolidating and removing redundant

20:17 ↗ codes in order to simplify and support

20:20 ↗ the enforceability of the code

20:23 ↗ during the development review process

20:25 ↗ number two is the adaption and creation

20:28 ↗ of intent sections which provide more

20:31 ↗ consistent application and regulation of

20:33 ↗ code

20:34 ↗ three is the wholesale replacement of

20:37 ↗ shoulds and mus

20:39 ↗ this language

20:40 ↗ really helps to eliminate vagueness and

20:42 ↗ improve the enforceability of the code

20:45 ↗ next slide please

20:49 ↗ change for it includes the updating of a

20:51 ↗ portion of the off-street parking

20:53 ↗ requirements

20:54 ↗ with the parking regulation estimates

20:57 ↗ based on the most current version of the

20:59 ↗ institute of transportation engineers

21:02 ↗ parking generation manual

21:04 ↗ this change is proposed as a result of

21:06 ↗ discussions with affinity groups the

21:08 ↗ development commission and ppc's desire

21:11 ↗ to

21:13 ↗ have regulations that are based on

21:16 ↗ consistent and predictable metrics

21:18 ↗ ite parking generation rates are the

21:21 ↗ nationally recognized standard and will

21:23 ↗ allow for

21:25 ↗ for the city to provide adequate parking

21:28 ↗ resulting in a more efficient use of the

21:30 ↗ land

21:32 ↗ change five includes the consolidation

21:34 ↗ of parking requirements into two tiers

21:36 ↗ these tiers are based on land use

21:38 ↗ context and neighborhood characteristics

21:41 ↗ these characteristics

21:42 ↗ recognize that there's a difference

21:44 ↗ between the parking demand between

21:46 ↗ neighborhoods that support dense growth

21:48 ↗ and those that don't

21:49 ↗ so

21:50 ↗ again tier one

21:53 ↗ is representatives of central issaquah

21:56 ↗ the issaquah highland commercial areas

21:58 ↗ and the old town neighborhood

22:01 ↗ and these requirements are to

22:02 ↗ accommodate the multimodal goals

22:05 ↗ for urban development

22:07 ↗ and the tier two is all other parts of

22:10 ↗ the city which we know are less dense

22:13 ↗ next slide please

22:18 ↗ change six

22:19 ↗ involves updating existing parking

22:21 ↗ regulations

22:23 ↗ for bikes and this is to support the

22:25 ↗ mobility master plan's goals for a

22:28 ↗ multimodal supported system

22:30 ↗ this section was expanded upon for the

22:32 ↗ direction of the ppc

22:34 ↗ and provides more details on what is

22:36 ↗ required and where to encourage

22:39 ↗ more bicycle amenities in more urban

22:41 ↗ parts of the city

22:43 ↗ change seven is

22:45 ↗ an update to the shared parking

22:47 ↗ provision and incorporates modern best

22:50 ↗ practices with a flexible parking tool

22:52 ↗ that recognizes market demands

22:54 ↗ influenced by a project's geographic

22:56 ↗ location and other land uses

22:58 ↗ and finally staff is proposing to update

23:01 ↗ the electric vehicle parking regulations

23:04 ↗ to support the implementation of the

23:06 ↗ issaquah climate action plan or icap

23:08 ↗ and federal ev requirements

23:11 ↗ these changes are adjustments to the ev

23:14 ↗ ready parking stall requirements and

23:16 ↗ minor adjustments to the ev charging

23:19 ↗ station or evse requirements

23:22 ↗ next slide please

23:28 ↗ and so again these are the

23:30 ↗ the major changes the staff is proposing

23:32 ↗ and these are the questions for ppc to

23:34 ↗ consider

23:38 ↗ with that i am

23:40 ↗ done with my presentation

23:45 ↗ all right well thank you staff fantastic

23:47 ↗ presentations

23:49 ↗ and if the commission

23:52 ↗ would allow me i think maybe we just

23:54 ↗ unpack this one topic at a time

23:57 ↗ so i think we'll just start with tdrs

24:00 ↗ and we can deliberate on tdrs and then

24:03 ↗ we'll move to

24:06 ↗ the right the affordable housing

24:09 ↗ landmarks and parking

24:11 ↗ so we'll begin with tdrs does anyone

24:14 ↗ have

24:15 ↗ comments

24:24 ↗ chair i'd love to make a comment but i

24:26 ↗ will i will mention that uh for each

24:28 ↗ topic i would love to give an

24:29 ↗ opportunity for our

24:30 ↗ uh our remote uh commissioners to go

24:33 ↗ first so that we don't stomp over them

24:35 ↗ because we're here in person so

24:37 ↗ i will start this off tonight as i often

24:39 ↗ do

24:40 ↗ i want to start out telling kristin

24:42 ↗ and staff i think you guys did a

24:44 ↗ fantastic job on tdrs i see a huge leap

24:46 ↗ in progress from where we've been

24:48 ↗ previously and there's been a lot of

24:50 ↗ changes that needed to happen and so i

24:51 ↗ want to not only acknowledge that but

24:53 ↗ say thank you because reading this

24:54 ↗ section

24:55 ↗ really was a pleasure because i know

24:58 ↗ what it what it's entailed and where

24:59 ↗ it's come

25:01 ↗ i'm curious if it's worth having a

25:03 ↗ little bit more

25:04 ↗ discussion not necessarily here but

25:07 ↗ internally with staff about language

25:09 ↗ that we want to do

25:11 ↗ specifically with we talk about

25:13 ↗ maintenance costs for the fund and i'm

25:15 ↗ curious about

25:17 ↗ um how that ends up adding up and coming

25:19 ↗ out of the fund um for instance there's

25:21 ↗ mentions about maintaining a website i'm

25:23 ↗ not quite sure why that can't roll into

25:25 ↗ the general city budget for maintaining

25:26 ↗ the website why it would be separate

25:29 ↗ and i'm just kind of curious about what

25:30 ↗ those maintenance costs will end up

25:32 ↗ entailing and taking away from the tdr

25:34 ↗ fund

25:35 ↗ and so having it all kind of come out of

25:38 ↗ that bank

25:39 ↗ i'm curious if that if that move was

25:41 ↗ purposeful because it's a large charge

25:45 ↗ that would end up impacting the budget

25:47 ↗ and that's the direction that council

25:48 ↗ has put us to or if it just kind of

25:50 ↗ was more of a neat tidy bucket

25:52 ↗ and if staff wants to comment on it but

25:56 ↗ hey minnie

26:00 ↗ i i can take that um

26:03 ↗ uh stab at that answer so i think that's

26:06 ↗ carryover from um before um commissioner

26:10 ↗ and uh

26:11 ↗ and you know this it gets very technical

26:14 ↗ and complicated in terms of managing

26:16 ↗ some of these where things are coming

26:18 ↗ and going from and all that kind of

26:20 ↗ stuff so

26:21 ↗ um

26:22 ↗ king county has this program where they

26:24 ↗ just kind of you know do it for the

26:26 ↗ cities that they participate in their

26:28 ↗ interlocal agreement they've offered

26:29 ↗ that to us

26:30 ↗ uh as well so

26:32 ↗ um it's just a placeholder you know it's

26:35 ↗ not like we're charging them but if it

26:37 ↗ gets complex then it then it's something

26:39 ↗ that the city has uh to

26:42 ↗ to set up the program staffing costs to

26:45 ↗ uh to manage and monitor all of that so

26:47 ↗ it's it's

26:48 ↗ you know it hasn't been used for

26:50 ↗ administration purposes

26:52 ↗ ever in my is our understanding uh the

26:55 ↗ other thing i'd like to quickly add

26:56 ↗ since i'm talking about the tdrs is i

26:58 ↗ think in your packet we have a more

27:01 ↗ complete response to all the comments

27:03 ↗ that that were submitted

27:04 ↗ on this topic and one big one i think

27:07 ↗ um is we have a map that shows the

27:10 ↗ sending sites but then we have text

27:12 ↗ language that talks about

27:14 ↗ uh if your property is zoned

27:16 ↗ com you know community facilities so

27:18 ↗ anytime we have a park acquisition we

27:21 ↗ change the zoning to make it community

27:22 ↗ facilities

27:24 ↗ that that doesn't qualify for a tdr so

27:26 ↗ we do need to fix that in the next round

27:30 ↗ because it defeats the purpose of

27:32 ↗ preserving open space and if it's a park

27:34 ↗ and once you give it a different zoning

27:36 ↗ so so there's a disconnect between the

27:38 ↗ map and the language that that was in

27:42 ↗ that was carried forward from from

27:43 ↗ before and and we do intend to fix it

27:45 ↗ with the next time thank you minnie that

27:48 ↗ was one thing that i also had as a

27:49 ↗ comment of um

27:51 ↗ wanting to make sure that there are

27:52 ↗ language supported all of our um

27:55 ↗ all of our park zoning that included

27:57 ↗ open space because right now the way

27:58 ↗ that it's written makes you think maybe

28:00 ↗ it's going to be one particular type of

28:02 ↗ zone whereas i believe we have four if

28:04 ↗ that's if i'm correct

28:06 ↗ uh chair voice that that fall into that

28:08 ↗ bucket of parks that would be able to be

28:10 ↗ ascending site

28:12 ↗ different yes that could be so um thank

28:14 ↗ you that's very helpful so i would i

28:16 ↗ would want to put a pin on that for

28:18 ↗ because i understand since king county

28:19 ↗ has been maintaining this in a very

28:21 ↗ different way than what we're taking

28:22 ↗ over now to have stuff kind of keep an

28:24 ↗ eye on that and see how are those

28:25 ↗ maintenance costs really what are where

28:27 ↗ are they coming from

28:29 ↗ and how are we folding in and kind of

28:31 ↗ how is that impacting the fund i think

28:32 ↗ is something that's worth keeping an eye

28:33 ↗ on right now from how it's done um and

28:36 ↗ then many since i have you my other my

28:38 ↗ other thing with tdrs that i'm a little

28:40 ↗ bit worried about is when we i

28:42 ↗ appreciated very much um the change of

28:44 ↗ level review um to a level six because

28:46 ↗ that means that we're going to have

28:48 ↗ really good eyes on it we're going to

28:49 ↗ have community involvement we're going

28:50 ↗ to be able to have a little bit of an

28:52 ↗ extra touch with these things what i

28:54 ↗ don't want to have happen is that we end

28:55 ↗ up having

28:56 ↗ an effective receiving site wall that

28:59 ↗ will end up coming up right when you

29:00 ↗ start adding the increased height when

29:02 ↗ you start having the increased density

29:04 ↗ we're going to have a balance of then

29:06 ↗ having a blocking of view corridors

29:08 ↗ right we're going to the density has to

29:09 ↗ be able

29:10 ↗ to go somewhere and what i'm worried

29:12 ↗ about is eventually this density kind of

29:15 ↗ all clustering in the same spot because

29:18 ↗ honestly that's what we want right we're

29:19 ↗ trying to keep it in central issaquah

29:22 ↗ and then having

29:23 ↗ um an effect that maybe we're not hoping

29:26 ↗ to have so being able to kind of have

29:27 ↗ eyes on um are there restrictions to

29:30 ↗ which sites are able to be built up as

29:34 ↗ things

29:35 ↗ grow and as we anticipate this density

29:37 ↗ going somewhere we want to know i mean

29:39 ↗ is there going to be any restrictions i

29:41 ↗ don't know that we need to have coded

29:42 ↗ language in it right now but it's

29:44 ↗ certainly something that i want staff to

29:45 ↗ have an eye on of saying

29:47 ↗ how are we going to be managing um

29:50 ↗ maybe it's creek side properties right

29:52 ↗ that are able to be able to put more of

29:54 ↗ that density maybe it's this kind of

29:56 ↗ conjoining of properties it will end up

29:57 ↗ being built up but i think it's worth

29:58 ↗ keeping an eye on

30:00 ↗ um those are my only comments on tdrs

30:03 ↗ chair

30:06 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

30:08 ↗ would anyone else like to comment on the

30:10 ↗ tdr

30:15 ↗ seeing none going once

30:18 ↗ i think that's it like i said i actually

30:20 ↗ think it was pretty well written

30:22 ↗ i think the staff did a fantastic job

30:25 ↗ on actually i'm spoiler alert on all

30:27 ↗ four of them uh there's a couple of

30:29 ↗ comments i have for the next ones but

30:30 ↗ the tdrs

30:32 ↗ look pretty good so um

30:34 ↗ moving on

30:37 ↗ one last thing chair i wanted to add on

30:39 ↗ the tdrs just uh this is more fyi

30:43 ↗ i think it's included in your packet um

30:45 ↗ as part of the comments so the

30:46 ↗ interlocal that we have with the king

30:48 ↗ county is no longer in effect it expired

30:51 ↗ in 2014.

30:52 ↗ so we'll be having the conversation with

30:55 ↗ council if if that needs to be renewed

30:58 ↗ um

30:59 ↗ and if that needs to be added to the to

31:01 ↗ the future updates list or or how how

31:04 ↗ best to address that

31:06 ↗ but basically

31:07 ↗ right now this section would apply to if

31:10 ↗ you want to preserve open space within

31:12 ↗ the city from one of your sending sites

31:14 ↗ you can do that uh

31:16 ↗ if with the center local it was the

31:19 ↗ isoqua creek basin outside the city

31:21 ↗ limits that were in king county if you

31:24 ↗ know some of those tdr uh units could be

31:26 ↗ transferred for

31:28 ↗ additional uh development capacity

31:30 ↗ within the city limits so which is no

31:32 ↗ longer in effect and that that is a

31:34 ↗ something that i think lakeside

31:36 ↗ has asked uh to to renew um

31:40 ↗ uh and you know so we'll we'll be having

31:42 ↗ that conversation with the city council

31:44 ↗ so that's just fi for planning and

31:46 ↗ policy commission

31:49 ↗ great thank you minnie

31:52 ↗ and we are now moving along to

31:55 ↗ affordable housing yes correct

31:58 ↗ affordable housing

32:04 ↗ any comments about affordable housing

32:12 ↗ commissioner bader has a comment

32:14 ↗ commissioner bader

32:16 ↗ yeah i think sam i'll jump in here um i

32:19 ↗ think this is a cerebrator i think in

32:21 ↗ general that the updates were good i

32:23 ↗ wanted to

32:24 ↗ follow up to the question that i'd asked

32:26 ↗ last week about whether

32:27 ↗ there was any expansion to where the

32:29 ↗ inclusionary zoning

32:31 ↗ applied to and my understanding was that

32:33 ↗ that work will be happening separately

32:34 ↗ and so i just wanted to like state for

32:36 ↗ the record that i would like to see that

32:37 ↗ happen and i don't think that the code

32:40 ↗ as written now we'll do enough you know

32:42 ↗ just kind of keeping that requirement

32:43 ↗ where it is in in central issaquah do

32:45 ↗ enough to help us meet our our

32:47 ↗ affordable housing targets so

32:49 ↗ um wanted to just state i don't know

32:50 ↗ what the timeline is um for that work

32:52 ↗ but um look forward to seeing that

32:55 ↗ come to fruition

33:00 ↗ thank you commissioner

33:03 ↗ commissioner lewis thank you that is i'm

33:05 ↗ going to pity back and uh second

33:07 ↗ commissioner bader's comments i

33:09 ↗ certainly

33:11 ↗ i certainly i'm curious if these

33:13 ↗ percentages if

33:15 ↗ if the administration really feels like

33:16 ↗ this number of units is going to support

33:18 ↗ our housing goals um it it feels like a

33:20 ↗ slow crawl it has been a slow crawl

33:23 ↗ we've seen progress there's been

33:24 ↗ wonderful things that have happened

33:26 ↗ in the last decade but i'm curious

33:30 ↗ the way that these numbers are written i

33:31 ↗ feel like it keeps us at a pace that

33:33 ↗ doesn't allow align to our housing goals

33:35 ↗ with affordable housing um and so i

33:38 ↗ think that that's something that's worth

33:41 ↗ going back to our various boards and

33:43 ↗ commissions and talking about the

33:44 ↗ incentives that we want to do that's a

33:45 ↗ different situation i think from this

33:47 ↗ title 18 uh code update but it's

33:50 ↗ something that we've had really

33:51 ↗ productive conversations with

33:53 ↗ in the past and i would encourage us

33:55 ↗ to do another round of them like we've

33:56 ↗ done previously with different boards

33:58 ↗ and commissions in the community um and

34:01 ↗ i am curious for staff to kind of make a

34:03 ↗ comment to say we think these numbers

34:05 ↗ will or will not or and how that

34:07 ↗ actually connects us to our housing

34:08 ↗ goals

34:12 ↗ probably a christian comment or a

34:13 ↗ question

34:15 ↗ or a mini

34:17 ↗ yeah you know um

34:19 ↗ so um i mean we we do have an affordable

34:22 ↗ housing um issue um we've you know it

34:26 ↗ it's more than just planning

34:28 ↗ policy tools that get us there um

34:31 ↗ but what i also want to kind of uh let

34:34 ↗ all of you know that that there's you

34:36 ↗ know the state law has changed the

34:37 ↗ department of commerce is working on

34:40 ↗ uh this methodology for allocating uh

34:43 ↗ the share you know what the cities need

34:45 ↗ to do for affordable housing so there's

34:47 ↗ a lot of work that's happening at the

34:49 ↗ regional level

34:50 ↗ and king county to really establish um

34:54 ↗ some of these um

34:56 ↗ goals for affordable housing of course

34:58 ↗ we have i think in in your packet we say

35:00 ↗ 40

35:01 ↗ and so uh whether we're meeting that uh

35:04 ↗ obviously we know we're not um uh and

35:07 ↗ but it's not

35:09 ↗ an easy you know um

35:11 ↗ easy thing to do the inclusionary zoning

35:14 ↗ expansion it outside of the central

35:15 ↗ issaquah that's certainly something

35:17 ↗ we're looking at so we have this

35:19 ↗ grant uh money that we got from the

35:21 ↗ state to study how how to implement our

35:23 ↗ housing strategies

35:25 ↗ so the city did a lot of work on housing

35:27 ↗ strategies um and there are nine of them

35:31 ↗ uh you know the one is the inclusionary

35:33 ↗ zoning piece uh the other one is how do

35:35 ↗ how do we have a diversity of housing

35:37 ↗ choices which is also one of the goals

35:39 ↗ of this

35:40 ↗ particular title 18 update and in that

35:42 ↗ we're trying to

35:44 ↗ study you know how to how to remove the

35:47 ↗ barriers for condominium development

35:49 ↗ because we're seeing

35:51 ↗ uh there were some state law changes

35:52 ↗ that occurred to a former liability

35:55 ↗ standpoint but we're still not seeing

35:56 ↗ people wanting to build condos on a

35:59 ↗ scale that uh increases the home

36:01 ↗ ownership as well as housing diversity

36:03 ↗ options so there's a lot more work um

36:07 ↗ for the cities for the region

36:09 ↗ you know on this topic and there there

36:12 ↗ are conversations occurring there's

36:14 ↗ things that are going on and in

36:16 ↗ particular for our case uh

36:19 ↗ really spending the time uh

36:21 ↗ understanding

36:22 ↗ what it's going to take us to to get

36:24 ↗ those three strategies you know

36:27 ↗ um that we talked about in with this

36:29 ↗ grant work so that'll come back to

36:31 ↗ planning and policy commission next year

36:33 ↗ um so our grant goes till mid next year

36:36 ↗ i believe

36:37 ↗ um so we're going to be doing a lot of

36:39 ↗ background work and then if any code

36:41 ↗ amendments need to come out of that work

36:43 ↗ they'll be in front of planning and paul

36:45 ↗ you know

36:46 ↗ for you all to weigh in

36:50 ↗ thank you

36:54 ↗ uh the only other thing i um i wanted to

36:56 ↗ mention many about um what we're looking

36:58 ↗ at right now for the affordable housing

37:00 ↗ uh code changes

37:01 ↗ is we have a lot of good

37:03 ↗ code that specifically tries to address

37:06 ↗ parity and making sure that when

37:07 ↗ affordable housing units are mixed in

37:09 ↗ with market rate housing units that they

37:11 ↗ are on the same level

37:13 ↗ that they and so some of the language um

37:16 ↗ you know we talk about um

37:18 ↗ that we want to make sure that between

37:20 ↗ the cost of construction for a prototype

37:22 ↗ for instance if we're getting payments

37:23 ↗ in lieu of and what i wanted to make

37:25 ↗ sure of is that they were not having

37:27 ↗ there's some sort of double check right

37:28 ↗ a projected um amount for a prototype

37:32 ↗ versus how things actually get built and

37:33 ↗ that kind of follow up and being able to

37:35 ↗ have an adjustment of saying

37:37 ↗ this is what we thought was working but

37:39 ↗ it turns out that there's a discrepancy

37:41 ↗ in being able to update that

37:43 ↗ sometimes it's hard to be able to have

37:44 ↗ eyes on how that actually happens in

37:46 ↗ real time on a project and i think it's

37:48 ↗ an incredibly important part of our the

37:49 ↗ equity piece of this and so i just

37:51 ↗ wanted to make mention i don't know that

37:53 ↗ it's appropriate to put into code but i

37:55 ↗ do think that there needs to be some

37:56 ↗ sort of measure of double check of

37:58 ↗ making sure that we're um following

38:00 ↗ through on our intent as written right

38:02 ↗ now that was my only other comment chair

38:04 ↗ thank you

38:05 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

38:08 ↗ i'll just add my comments so i think as

38:10 ↗ far as the way it's written

38:12 ↗ the different goals and the different

38:13 ↗ changes look great so i am a little bit

38:16 ↗ concerned

38:17 ↗ we typically in this city i love the

38:19 ↗ city i've lived here for almost 20 years

38:21 ↗ but we typically have

38:22 ↗ we

38:24 ↗ we lean on the developers quite a bit

38:27 ↗ and i happen to work in the field and

38:29 ↗ again i don't always hear the kind of

38:30 ↗ things about our beautiful lovely city

38:32 ↗ as far as a developer and again we

38:34 ↗ it can't be just done in a vacuum

38:36 ↗ whether it's i mean it's things as

38:38 ↗ little as not being able to work

38:39 ↗ saturdays

38:40 ↗ we were able to get the affordable

38:42 ↗ housing in the westridge

38:44 ↗ land agreement because that was built

38:46 ↗ into it but getting a private developer

38:48 ↗ to come in and build a set of apartments

38:51 ↗ i mean again i get the feeling sometimes

38:53 ↗ like isaqah does not like developers

38:56 ↗ i hear it when we're talking on

38:58 ↗ different commissions and again it's

38:59 ↗ important to have high standards i think

39:01 ↗ a lot of this

39:03 ↗ as far as the different changes all look

39:05 ↗ good one of the concerns i have and i'm

39:07 ↗ glad it was brought up in

39:09 ↗ the presentation is i would like to know

39:12 ↗ what is the con of going from 30-year to

39:14 ↗ the lifetime

39:16 ↗ of the property i'd like to know what

39:18 ↗ the banks feel about that and i know you

39:20 ↗ guys are going to circle back and let us

39:22 ↗ know but that's a big shift and again

39:24 ↗ what does that do for financing and how

39:26 ↗ does that impact the developers and

39:28 ↗ people that would be taking on this

39:29 ↗ project especially at the spec level so

39:31 ↗ a few concerns again we lean on our

39:34 ↗ developers quite a bit we ask the best

39:35 ↗ of them

39:36 ↗ but it can't simply be a one-way street

39:39 ↗ and we expect that we're going to get

39:40 ↗ all the goodies

39:41 ↗ without some give

39:46 ↗ would anyone else like to make a comment

39:47 ↗ as far as affordable housing

39:52 ↗ commissioner lewis is the only one i can

39:54 ↗ look at

39:58 ↗ all right

40:00 ↗ thank you

40:01 ↗ and now we're going to move on to

40:02 ↗ landmarks

40:07 ↗ so commissioners looking for comments on

40:10 ↗ landmarks

40:15 ↗ don't everybody go at once

40:18 ↗ i'll start us off on this because

40:20 ↗ valerie mine is pretty simple um it's

40:23 ↗ it's it's kind of an idea

40:25 ↗ so you had valerie you've given us this

40:27 ↗ really great slide that talked about

40:28 ↗ landmarks and um

40:30 ↗ i i don't want to make an assumption but

40:32 ↗ how many how many um preservation

40:35 ↗ landmark sites do we have i'm hoping

40:37 ↗ that wasn't all of them but it may have

40:38 ↗ been

40:40 ↗ um

40:43 ↗ that was the bulk of them um

40:46 ↗ we may have maybe one or two more that

40:48 ↗ could be added to the list but for the

40:50 ↗ most part that was it i i didn't want to

40:52 ↗ assume but it was my assumption so i

40:55 ↗ guess one thing that i was curious about

40:56 ↗ was kind of the appointments in section

40:58 ↗ b um one we talk about the appointment

41:01 ↗ terms

41:02 ↗ and

41:03 ↗ um at the rate of which these are going

41:04 ↗ to be coming in and the rate of which

41:07 ↗ they're going to be looked at to then

41:08 ↗ have a turnover and term and we're

41:10 ↗ serving three ter three years no more

41:13 ↗ than two consecutive terms it might be

41:15 ↗ plausible that somebody could serve

41:16 ↗ those two terms and maybe see one

41:19 ↗ to then need to turn over to have

41:21 ↗ somebody else who then doesn't have that

41:23 ↗ same experience and i think of it as a

41:26 ↗ biased way of how i've come into my work

41:28 ↗ as a commissioner

41:29 ↗ and the ramp up time that it takes to

41:31 ↗ getting to understand the process ask

41:34 ↗ particular things and so i would love to

41:36 ↗ see for staff to kind of talk a little

41:38 ↗ bit about why these particular

41:40 ↗ appointment time links why you guys feel

41:42 ↗ that this is appropriate for this

41:44 ↗ particular

41:45 ↗ venue right why um maybe it's worth

41:48 ↗ doing four years instead of three i i

41:51 ↗ don't want to nitpick but at the same

41:52 ↗ time i have a concern about this being

41:55 ↗ an important position that tends to have

41:58 ↗ high turnover with little

42:00 ↗ familiarity because of how much we do it

42:04 ↗ i don't know if that's a relevant thing

42:05 ↗ to talk about but that was what kind of

42:06 ↗ jumped out to me so

42:08 ↗ if you have any thoughts on that

42:10 ↗ i think the great comment uh yeah

42:12 ↗ clearly something's not working because

42:13 ↗ our list is so small but uh yeah i mean

42:17 ↗ as far as a learning curve and getting

42:18 ↗ used to uh

42:20 ↗ you know serving in a different capacity

42:22 ↗ and not being able to see any type of

42:23 ↗ landmark come across your desk for up to

42:25 ↗ a year to two years two-thirds of the

42:27 ↗ way into your term or you might just

42:28 ↗ finally be like i got the hang of this

42:30 ↗ and then you gotta hand it off yeah

42:32 ↗ unless you then you're yeah you're

42:33 ↗ handing it off so if uh i think that's a

42:36 ↗ salient point so

42:39 ↗ would anyone else like to comment on

42:40 ↗ landmarks

42:49 ↗ all right thank you

42:51 ↗ parking we'll probably get some more

42:52 ↗ responses for parking

43:11 ↗ commissioner bader

43:14 ↗ can you pull up the questions again that

43:15 ↗ we were supposed to respond to

43:19 ↗ yeah if we'd like would we just want to

43:21 ↗ go through those questions let's start

43:22 ↗ with that that's right yeah okay

43:25 ↗ please if uh

43:27 ↗ i know ms porter likes being the

43:29 ↗ presenter but yeah if we could pull

43:30 ↗ those up

43:35 ↗ can you see the questions

43:38 ↗ yep okay perfect

43:45 ↗ so i guess i'll read them aloud and then

43:46 ↗ we'll we'll see if anyone wants to jump

43:48 ↗ in with yay or nay does the draft code

43:51 ↗ support planning policy commission's

43:53 ↗ direction to clarify short-term and

43:55 ↗ long-term bike parking regulations and

43:57 ↗ to elevate the bike amenity

44:05 ↗ i will start off with

44:07 ↗ with a broad yes i want to say thank you

44:10 ↗ this was direct feedback that we had

44:12 ↗ given and it feels good i gotta say i

44:15 ↗ really appreciate it

44:16 ↗ i do think that there are some tweaks

44:18 ↗ that can happen to this i think

44:19 ↗ overarching it's a big yes but i do

44:22 ↗ think that there are some things that

44:23 ↗ have been pointed out previously about

44:26 ↗ location right security issues of

44:28 ↗ location right now i think are trying to

44:30 ↗ be addressed and right now the code ends

44:32 ↗ up

44:33 ↗ making it for instance having to have

44:35 ↗ bike racks right near um the main

44:38 ↗ entrance i think might be problematic

44:39 ↗ and maybe we could adjust that to

44:41 ↗ including things like

44:42 ↗ a garage entrance

44:44 ↗ i think that when a building has

44:48 ↗ security on site or has camera access

44:50 ↗ whatever security

44:52 ↗ concerns we're trying to address i think

44:53 ↗ that there is room to be able to um to

44:56 ↗ change this a little bit so that bike

44:58 ↗ parking is able to be included in a

45:00 ↗ variety of places and spaces and

45:02 ↗ hopefully um enlarged right rather than

45:05 ↗ just having the minimum that's required

45:07 ↗ i think there's a little bit of tweaks

45:09 ↗ that can be done there i think also when

45:10 ↗ we start talking about shower facilities

45:12 ↗ i think that's something that we need to

45:13 ↗ kind of dive into of

45:15 ↗ how that ends up actually getting used

45:17 ↗ and actually getting done so i do think

45:18 ↗ there are some tweaks that need to

45:19 ↗ happen for our next draft but i want to

45:21 ↗ say i want to say thank you because i do

45:23 ↗ think this supports

45:25 ↗ our intent very much

45:29 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

45:33 ↗ it clearly um i think supports what we

45:35 ↗ are trying to do as far as uh the short

45:37 ↗ term and long term as far as being a

45:39 ↗ multimodal city

45:41 ↗ my concern is more

45:43 ↗ to kind of piggyback on commissioner

45:44 ↗ lewis is

45:46 ↗ how it's implemented right so the shower

45:48 ↗ thing and at what number um you know do

45:51 ↗ we have any type of

45:52 ↗ evidence from other cities i mean how

45:54 ↗ often are these things used do people

45:56 ↗ even enjoy public showers like that

45:57 ↗ again

45:59 ↗ and then i also with i think

46:01 ↗ somewhere i'm not going to be able to

46:02 ↗ find it at the moment but there was also

46:04 ↗ if we get to a certain level 50 of it is

46:06 ↗ covered what does that look like and

46:08 ↗ then again to commissioner lewis's point

46:10 ↗ if that's in front of

46:12 ↗ if that's in front of a an entrance you

46:15 ↗ know how does that work with the eaves

46:17 ↗ and things like that so there are some

46:18 ↗ definitely some particulars uh to work

46:21 ↗ out as far as the bike storage racks and

46:23 ↗ things like that i think this may be a

46:25 ↗ good example of you know we've been

46:27 ↗ we've kind of actually beat up staff on

46:29 ↗ our shoulds versus our musts right but

46:31 ↗ this is kind of an area where maybe some

46:33 ↗ shoulds would be appropriate when we

46:35 ↗ start talking about i know we've had

46:36 ↗ there's a little bit of discussion um

46:38 ↗ about material i think there could be

46:40 ↗ more discussion about material and

46:41 ↗ design of how we can make bike racks be

46:44 ↗ a little bit more presentable and

46:46 ↗ friendly and approachable i think we've

46:47 ↗ seen there's been a lot of great

46:48 ↗ examples over the years of things we can

46:50 ↗ do and so it may be that we need to have

46:52 ↗ a few more shoulds about that included

46:55 ↗ into language without being overly

46:57 ↗ prescriptive um but also allowing more

46:59 ↗ space i know for instance when we talk

47:01 ↗ about showers i think then it's easy to

47:03 ↗ think about towel service right are we

47:05 ↗ are we then having somebody bring their

47:06 ↗ wet towel to their desk right i mean

47:08 ↗ like there's a little bit that needs to

47:10 ↗ be worked out of saying what is the

47:12 ↗ expectation and i think it would be very

47:13 ↗ interesting to be able to have um

47:15 ↗ whether it be biking advocate groups be

47:17 ↗ able to comment about this is what we

47:19 ↗ found have worked because i think that

47:21 ↗ we're coming a little bit short the

47:23 ↗ intent is there i love it i think

47:24 ↗ there's a little more flushing so to

47:26 ↗ speak yeah this would be a good time for

47:28 ↗ our former commissioner commissioner

47:30 ↗ foul

47:30 ↗ who uh like to bike to and from work

47:33 ↗ shout out ron and his cinnamon tea yes

47:36 ↗ so and i i can't believe i heard

47:38 ↗ commissioner lewis advocating for more

47:40 ↗ shoulds

47:42 ↗ stranger things have happened so yeah i

47:44 ↗ think the intent is good and uh but

47:46 ↗ there are definitely some particulars

47:48 ↗ that

47:49 ↗ might not necessarily be maybe not

47:52 ↗ thought out 100 or at least i don't see

47:54 ↗ it because again if we're

47:57 ↗ i don't know i don't know how that's

47:59 ↗ basically what i wrote down on my agenda

48:00 ↗ a few different times what does this

48:02 ↗ look like what does this look like so

48:04 ↗ yeah all right so any other comments

48:08 ↗ question one

48:13 ↗ i think question two leads us to shared

48:15 ↗ parking

48:17 ↗ um

48:17 ↗ i really have to give a shout out to

48:20 ↗ to commissioner mel morgan i thought his

48:22 ↗ comments last uh last meeting for the

48:24 ↗ joint commission meeting were extremely

48:27 ↗ relevant and very helpful um

48:29 ↗ i one thing that i i'm been very excited

48:32 ↗ by this i think it's something that has

48:34 ↗ been very successful in various cities

48:36 ↗ that i've lived in and i've been

48:38 ↗ surprised that we haven't had it already

48:40 ↗ so i'm very encouraged that we're using

48:41 ↗ it

48:42 ↗ and i was very encouraged by

48:45 ↗ commissioner mel morgan talking about an

48:46 ↗ example right here in our own city of

48:48 ↗ how it's been successful i would like to

48:50 ↗ see um maybe a review of use um as we

48:54 ↗ have for shared parking kind of like

48:56 ↗ you know are we tracking that the spaces

48:58 ↗ that are adequate right is this actually

49:01 ↗ working for the two parties

49:03 ↗ with the city it's a three-party system

49:04 ↗ but you really have these two different

49:05 ↗ sites that are working together um are

49:08 ↗ we finding that they're at max capacity

49:09 ↗ are we finding that they're not being

49:11 ↗ used it would be nice to be kind of have

49:12 ↗ a little bit of tracking to see

49:14 ↗ is this tool um successful i think it's

49:17 ↗ also relevant for us to start talking

49:19 ↗ about things like a fallout of use right

49:21 ↗ um oil spills from vehicles um increase

49:24 ↗ in trash right has is there adverse

49:27 ↗ effects that end up happening that we're

49:29 ↗ not accounting for and how do we have

49:31 ↗ maybe

49:33 ↗ a mitigation process of how parties are

49:35 ↗ able to come together when they're in a

49:36 ↗ contract for a shared parking space that

49:38 ↗ maybe has uses beyond the actual space

49:40 ↗ or use um

49:42 ↗ maybe may be relevant i know that

49:44 ↗ there's been issues like with that in

49:46 ↗ seattle

49:47 ↗ we may not but it's something that would

49:48 ↗ be nice as we implement this program to

49:50 ↗ kind of figure out

49:52 ↗ how is this how is this working and how

49:53 ↗ are we tracking it um but i certainly

49:56 ↗ enjoy this as being a tool for us to

49:58 ↗ utilize i think it's underserved and i

50:00 ↗ think it'll be really successful

50:06 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis does anyone

50:08 ↗ else like to discuss the shared parking

50:11 ↗ question

50:15 ↗ most of what i had a concern was with

50:17 ↗ just how the covenants work

50:19 ↗ you know i know

50:20 ↗ probably can't go back retroactively

50:25 ↗ i love the village theater full stop uh

50:27 ↗ just saw mamma mia there at the end of

50:29 ↗ june

50:30 ↗ but uh it is crazy how

50:32 ↗ when the theater is having a production

50:34 ↗ uh production night it just swamps um

50:37 ↗ all of that parking you know my one of

50:40 ↗ my favorite places to get teriyaki can't

50:41 ↗ even park there so uh and i love simon

50:44 ↗ so again there there's some concerns but

50:47 ↗ i i'm more interested in seeing it used

50:49 ↗ and used well uh i just more interested

50:52 ↗ kind of how the covenants work but it

50:53 ↗ would be nice to see if it could be

50:54 ↗ retroactive i don't think it can

50:56 ↗ unfortunately

51:03 ↗ all right moving on to number three

51:05 ↗ should the city consider raising the

51:07 ↗ amount of required ef evse and ev ready

51:11 ↗ parking stalls

51:13 ↗ i hear exasperation

51:15 ↗ it's the same way i feel

51:17 ↗ feels like we've been here before this

51:19 ↗ is deja vu

51:20 ↗ all over again would anyone like to

51:23 ↗ comment on the evse and ev ready parking

51:26 ↗ stalls

51:32 ↗ now i guess just a quick question and i

51:34 ↗ know we're not supposed to be asking

51:35 ↗ clarifying questions but

51:37 ↗ real quickly now these are minor changes

51:40 ↗ that are being implemented because of

51:42 ↗ the state

51:44 ↗ that updated their guidelines or is this

51:46 ↗ is this something completely different

51:48 ↗ am i getting that right this is to match

51:50 ↗ uh state and federal guidelines that

51:52 ↗ have shifted in the last what four

51:54 ↗ months

51:58 ↗ chair boys you're you're referring to

51:59 ↗ the

52:00 ↗ increase in the eve regulations right uh

52:04 ↗ the changes we made were actually in

52:07 ↗ accordance with um the icap goals

52:10 ↗ and trying to push for more of the euv

52:12 ↗ in the shift

52:13 ↗ a lot of the market is driving that

52:15 ↗ because of new federal regulations

52:18 ↗ the question is more about to to

52:22 ↗ meet more of the icap goals should we

52:24 ↗ consider

52:26 ↗ increasing

52:27 ↗ it even more

52:30 ↗ thank you stephen

52:32 ↗ so i'm going to jump into that question

52:34 ↗ and give a resounding yes

52:36 ↗ i uh i'm incredibly proud of the work

52:39 ↗ that this particular commission did when

52:40 ↗ we uh when we first went through and

52:42 ↗ presented this to council

52:44 ↗ we really helped spearhead the ev ready

52:47 ↗ and i'm incredibly proud of that

52:49 ↗ the cost of having buildings be eevee

52:51 ↗ ready when built versus having to

52:52 ↗ retroactive is astounding and i think

52:55 ↗ when we look at the direction that

52:56 ↗ governor inslee has given since we did

52:59 ↗ that work and we see these goals that

53:01 ↗ he's put forward i mean 100 of new car

53:03 ↗ sales by 2035 should be zero emission

53:06 ↗ it's a no-brainer right now that we

53:08 ↗ especially in the category of the number

53:10 ↗ of ev ready parking spaces increase

53:12 ↗ these numbers i think it's an

53:14 ↗ impressive how many members of our

53:16 ↗ community have voiced to us that this is

53:18 ↗ a priority to them not only in how

53:20 ↗ they've come to in public discussion but

53:22 ↗ also in polls when we've gotten feedback

53:24 ↗ from the sitting on polls that have been

53:25 ↗ conducted and how people have

53:26 ↗ prioritized different things so

53:29 ↗ um you know with as far as the um the

53:32 ↗ equipment piece of this goes for the

53:34 ↗ evse

53:36 ↗ it's uh

53:37 ↗ it's constantly changing right and to be

53:39 ↗ able to have the difference between like

53:40 ↗ three pin which can take you 24 hours to

53:43 ↗ charge versus a supercharge which you

53:45 ↗ know can be like 80 like 45 minutes or

53:48 ↗ something right you have such a huge

53:49 ↗ swath of things and that technology is

53:51 ↗ constantly changing so i'm hesitant to

53:53 ↗ make a developer need to put in the

53:56 ↗ equipment however being able to have

53:59 ↗ the appropriate voltage right and being

54:01 ↗ able to have

54:02 ↗ um

54:04 ↗ the ability and that infrastructure to

54:06 ↗ me is incredibly important so if we were

54:08 ↗ going to be as a commission having this

54:10 ↗ discussion to be advising council i

54:12 ↗ would say that for me it sits really in

54:14 ↗ the ev ready parking spaces being able

54:16 ↗ to increase that

54:17 ↗ um is where i sit but i you know i want

54:20 ↗ to hear from every single one of you

54:21 ↗ guys

54:25 ↗ everybody heard that commissioner lewis

54:27 ↗ wants to hear from all of us

54:31 ↗ i'm gonna take the alternate track

54:33 ↗ uh

54:34 ↗ you know again i'm i could probably be

54:37 ↗ pushed around and uh cajoled and and

54:40 ↗ convinced that the evse ready uh where

54:43 ↗ we have the conduit and things in the

54:44 ↗ wall ready to go

54:46 ↗ uh could possibly be increased but again

54:49 ↗ i'm kind of with a firm belief you know

54:51 ↗ i'd like to see some action because

54:53 ↗ again i think i quoted last time a

54:55 ↗ couple meetings ago

54:57 ↗ at the most generous i think washington

54:59 ↗ state is currently four percent ev cars

55:02 ↗ on the on the road

55:03 ↗ so again these are all things that

55:05 ↗ always can be come back to

55:07 ↗ but to start requiring it of every

55:09 ↗ development and every builder these

55:10 ↗ these larger numbers

55:12 ↗ again they're not the one who's going to

55:14 ↗ pick up the cost it's going to be the

55:15 ↗ consumer

55:16 ↗ it will be passed on

55:18 ↗ so again i hear what commissioner lewis

55:21 ↗ is saying as far as the 2035 and we all

55:24 ↗ hope so but uh again these are all rules

55:26 ↗ that we can always come back to and

55:28 ↗ these can always be put on the docket

55:30 ↗ annually so

55:31 ↗ i can probably put around for the evse

55:34 ↗ harder for me to get my head around

55:36 ↗ actually having the ports and everything

55:38 ↗ ready to go well so i think we agree

55:40 ↗ right now because we're saying evie

55:41 ↗ ready is having the 220 in the wall oh

55:44 ↗ do i have it back do i have my

55:46 ↗ my acronyms backwards

55:49 ↗ okay so the ev ready is the one with the

55:51 ↗ conduits and everything all the

55:53 ↗ electronics and everything ready to go

55:54 ↗ in the wall all they got to do is punch

55:56 ↗ a hole in the wall and

55:58 ↗ get something the plug should be there

55:59 ↗ right

56:00 ↗ in theory the plug should be there right

56:02 ↗ so you have your 220 that you're able to

56:04 ↗ then plug your equipment into right so

56:07 ↗ conduit lines electricity ready to go

56:09 ↗ plug and play versus the evse parking

56:12 ↗ spaces is your you have to you could

56:14 ↗ actually able to charge right charge a

56:17 ↗ fee right cause that's the other thing

56:18 ↗ too is that it's not just that ability

56:20 ↗ um for the various types of uh speed of

56:23 ↗ which you're able to charge but then you

56:25 ↗ have to have the ability to be able to

56:26 ↗ charge yeah evsc is where you just break

56:29 ↗ charge is such a little work because i'm

56:30 ↗ using it in two terms but uh so that's

56:32 ↗ so i think we're saying the same thing

56:33 ↗ is that uh you would write you would

56:35 ↗ also agree about having an increase

56:37 ↗ for the readiness i said i could be

56:39 ↗ pushed around

56:40 ↗ but yes to commissioner lewis's point

56:43 ↗ yes if i got my acronyms turned around

56:45 ↗ uh i'm i could be probably

56:48 ↗ i could see the increase as far as

56:49 ↗ putting the conduits and things ready to

56:51 ↗ go harder for me to see uh the actual

56:54 ↗ package where someone just drives up

56:55 ↗ with the

56:56 ↗ hose and literally plugs into something

56:58 ↗ because again i'm

56:59 ↗ a little fearful we're still at four

57:01 ↗ percent

57:03 ↗ same thing just different way

57:08 ↗ would anyone else like to comment on the

57:10 ↗ electric charging stations

57:12 ↗ chair voice commissioner monahan would

57:14 ↗ like has a comment commissioner monahan

57:18 ↗ yeah hey um i think all in all i'm

57:21 ↗ generally in favor of more ev ready

57:23 ↗ parking stalls but i'm also a firm

57:25 ↗ believer that

57:27 ↗ if folks building buildings think that

57:29 ↗ they're going to get value out of it

57:30 ↗ they'll build them anyway and so i

57:33 ↗ i

57:34 ↗ i'd like there to be a mechanism to

57:35 ↗ revisit this maybe once every two years

57:38 ↗ and not

57:38 ↗ you know once every other meeting um

57:41 ↗ because to

57:42 ↗ jason's point like

57:44 ↗ we're not there yet we're trying to get

57:46 ↗ there um with the number of electric

57:48 ↗ cars so

57:49 ↗ um i'd just like to see some kind of

57:51 ↗ mechanism to revisit this you know maybe

57:53 ↗ once every two years as the numbers

57:55 ↗ start to bear out the climate goals that

57:57 ↗ we're all reaching for so thank you

58:02 ↗ commissioner bader also has a comment

58:04 ↗ commissioner bader

58:17 ↗ can you hear me now

58:18 ↗ yes we can i wipe the dust i wipe some

58:21 ↗ dust off my computer before and like

58:22 ↗ screwed up the audio so i'm on my on my

58:24 ↗ phone now um just i agree i think um

58:29 ↗ with the eb readiness parts i am

58:32 ↗ i think it gets us closer to where we

58:34 ↗ need to be and maybe you know if there's

58:36 ↗ more availability of death and there's

58:38 ↗ more electric cars that kind of come

58:39 ↗ along with that um

58:41 ↗ and so i just want to agree um

58:44 ↗ i really disagree with what's been said

58:46 ↗ around the readiness

58:53 ↗ thank you commissioner bader

58:55 ↗ is there anyone who else would like to

58:57 ↗ speak

58:58 ↗ on electric vehicle chart

59:02 ↗ i think my only question is for staff is

59:04 ↗ we seem to have a bit of a consensus to

59:06 ↗ not move evse however to move ev ready i

59:10 ↗ don't think we're at a point right now

59:11 ↗ where we're really to recommend

59:14 ↗ a percentage and so if

59:16 ↗ if we're not being helpful to staff for

59:18 ↗ how they approach this for the next

59:19 ↗ draft to please let us know how we how

59:22 ↗ we can help them because right now we're

59:24 ↗ just kind of giving you one thumbs up

59:25 ↗ and one thumbs down so

59:28 ↗ uh if it's not helpful please

59:30 ↗ kick it back to us and let us know

59:32 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

59:34 ↗ yeah the staff will be evaluating for

59:36 ↗ the second draft and um we were really

59:39 ↗ really trying to determine if we should

59:41 ↗ spend time on

59:43 ↗ looking into it a little bit further or

59:44 ↗ not and so that was kind of where we're

59:46 ↗ trying to get for if we have um

59:49 ↗ more specific questions for the second

59:51 ↗ draft on counter percentages we'll bring

59:53 ↗ that in the next

59:55 ↗ public hearings or the meetings with

59:58 ↗ you all right thank you

1:00:03 ↗ was there a

1:00:04 ↗ is there a second page of parking

1:00:05 ↗ questions

1:00:11 ↗ i don't believe so

1:00:15 ↗ chair voice i think these were it okay

1:00:18 ↗ would anyone else like to speak on any

1:00:20 ↗ of the four topics we've discussed

1:00:22 ↗ any final comments

1:00:30 ↗ all right well we thank you for that

1:00:31 ↗ discussion

1:00:32 ↗ and we are now

1:00:35 ↗ going to move along to our follow-up

1:00:37 ↗ discussion on subdivisions

1:00:39 ↗ this item is a follow-up from bucket

1:00:41 ↗ three subdivisions and the planning

1:00:43 ↗ development and environmental council

1:00:45 ↗ committee has asked staff to bring this

1:00:47 ↗ topic back for further feedback from ppc

1:00:50 ↗ and this is minnie's presentation so

1:00:52 ↗ please minnie

1:00:54 ↗ yeah

1:00:55 ↗ thank you commissioners so this is a

1:00:57 ↗ topic that you all

1:00:58 ↗ weighed in previously um it was bundled

1:01:01 ↗ in with a bunch of other things so we

1:01:03 ↗ pulled this piece out that the council

1:01:05 ↗ committee planning

1:01:07 ↗ a development and environment committee

1:01:09 ↗ um has asked uh the commission to

1:01:12 ↗ re-look at

1:01:13 ↗ a couple of these things with a

1:01:15 ↗ different lens that we missed in our

1:01:17 ↗ last iteration with you

1:01:19 ↗ so uh you know how does this put these

1:01:22 ↗ two particular

1:01:23 ↗ items affect housing diversity goal that

1:01:26 ↗ was set up as for this uh current update

1:01:30 ↗ um

1:01:30 ↗ so in your packet we've broken it up

1:01:33 ↗ into

1:01:34 ↗ two different things so let's talk about

1:01:36 ↗ uh the maximum block length of 250 feet

1:01:40 ↗ uh requirement

1:01:43 ↗ what the subdivision chapter did was it

1:01:45 ↗ added a design section

1:01:48 ↗ because that was one of the goals

1:01:50 ↗ currently our subdivision design doesn't

1:01:53 ↗ have a requirement for open space or

1:01:57 ↗ uh you know design with your hillside or

1:01:59 ↗ uh anything that discusses how the

1:02:02 ↗ street network should be laid out and

1:02:03 ↗ such

1:02:04 ↗ um

1:02:05 ↗ so we we'd uh put put a placeholder and

1:02:08 ↗ then think in your packet we pulled out

1:02:10 ↗ that section so you have a complete uh

1:02:13 ↗ design section

1:02:14 ↗ included and one of the items there was

1:02:17 ↗ that um

1:02:18 ↗ that if you're building new streets uh

1:02:21 ↗ the maximum block length is 250 feet

1:02:24 ↗ uh one of the comments or a couple

1:02:26 ↗ comments we received in that was that it

1:02:29 ↗ uh probably doesn't make sense for all

1:02:31 ↗ the neighborhoods in the city

1:02:34 ↗ and i think development commission and

1:02:36 ↗ planning and policy commission was

1:02:38 ↗ leaning in your earlier deliberations

1:02:41 ↗ towards

1:02:42 ↗ not being so prescriptive about this

1:02:44 ↗ requirement because of the topography

1:02:47 ↗ and other things that might come into

1:02:48 ↗ play

1:02:49 ↗ um

1:02:50 ↗ so we've laid out a couple of options

1:02:52 ↗ you know one is to have keep keep the

1:02:54 ↗ way it is written in the draft of 250

1:02:57 ↗ foot block length throughout the city

1:03:00 ↗ the other one was where you do have more

1:03:03 ↗ um you know central isoqua talus and

1:03:05 ↗ highlands where there is more

1:03:07 ↗ opportunity to have the these kind of

1:03:08 ↗ maximum block lengths uh in the code

1:03:11 ↗ that we limited to those three

1:03:13 ↗ neighborhoods but if for the other

1:03:15 ↗ neighbors there's some general

1:03:17 ↗ uh

1:03:18 ↗ you know language in that design section

1:03:20 ↗ that talks about connecting to existing

1:03:22 ↗ streets and such so if if you if for

1:03:26 ↗ instance i think in the in your previous

1:03:27 ↗ examples we've shown you

1:03:30 ↗ some examples where you have a

1:03:32 ↗ subdivision side by side you would make

1:03:35 ↗ that street connection however if you

1:03:37 ↗ were the only subdivision there and

1:03:39 ↗ there's no street to connect to we

1:03:40 ↗ wouldn't require a maximum block length

1:03:43 ↗ of 250 feet so we've we've

1:03:46 ↗ you know given you the pros and cons for

1:03:48 ↗ city wide versus only to these three

1:03:50 ↗ neighborhoods um and our recommendation

1:03:53 ↗ is to keep it for three neighborhoods

1:03:55 ↗ however

1:03:56 ↗ i think the city should revisit the

1:03:58 ↗ whole street network as part of uh title

1:04:01 ↗ 12 talks about public streets

1:04:04 ↗ um

1:04:05 ↗ and and so some

1:04:07 ↗ some

1:04:08 ↗ more thoughtful discussion about this

1:04:10 ↗ total street network in the city should

1:04:12 ↗ occur but it shouldn't be a requirement

1:04:14 ↗ uh when we don't have that full analysis

1:04:17 ↗ for different parts of the city

1:04:19 ↗ uh that's why we've landed on that

1:04:21 ↗ um the zero lot line was the other topic

1:04:24 ↗ and i think

1:04:25 ↗ there was some

1:04:27 ↗ um

1:04:29 ↗ confusion about what a zero lot line is

1:04:32 ↗ um and so we've given you in your packet

1:04:34 ↗ you know it's a detached single family

1:04:36 ↗ home so it's you know townhomes that are

1:04:38 ↗ attached we already put in the code a

1:04:41 ↗ provision to have unit lot subdivision

1:04:43 ↗ so you can sell it fee simple

1:04:45 ↗ however for zero lot lines it's really

1:04:48 ↗ an alternate layout

1:04:50 ↗ of the um of the house relative to the

1:04:53 ↗ property lines but but the form of the

1:04:55 ↗ development is still a detached home

1:04:58 ↗ uh and a lot of times these are used

1:05:00 ↗ when you have a smaller lot size and

1:05:02 ↗ you're trying to use land efficiently so

1:05:05 ↗ uh instead of having two five foot um

1:05:08 ↗ you know side yards with a fence in

1:05:10 ↗ between that you let one home be right

1:05:13 ↗ at the edge of their property line so

1:05:15 ↗ that the other neighbor can use

1:05:18 ↗ 10 feet and that becomes a more usable

1:05:20 ↗ space and so everything shifts uh so

1:05:22 ↗ that you know you you share

1:05:25 ↗ um

1:05:27 ↗ you you have

1:05:28 ↗ one ten foot setback instead of two five

1:05:30 ↗ feet um so that's that's what the zero

1:05:33 ↗ lot line is

1:05:34 ↗ and looking at it from uh

1:05:36 ↗ from the lens of how do we how do we

1:05:38 ↗ encourage more um

1:05:41 ↗ of you know diversity in of housing and

1:05:44 ↗ how do we use land efficiently

1:05:46 ↗ uh our recommendation on this is that

1:05:48 ↗ perhaps it should be allowed in central

1:05:51 ↗ talus highlands and other parts of the

1:05:54 ↗ city where you have a minimum lot

1:05:56 ↗ density of 7.26 dwelling units so single

1:06:00 ↗ family small lot zone

1:06:03 ↗ would have this opportunity again it's

1:06:05 ↗ allowing these type of uh you know lot

1:06:08 ↗ layout configuration it's not a

1:06:10 ↗ requirement that everyone has to do a

1:06:13 ↗ zero lot line some of the concerns that

1:06:15 ↗ were expressed during the public

1:06:17 ↗ comments where is it going to densify

1:06:18 ↗ some of the areas that um

1:06:20 ↗ and what does it do to the former

1:06:22 ↗ development so it doesn't change your

1:06:24 ↗ lot size it doesn't change your building

1:06:26 ↗ height or your maximum footprint those

1:06:29 ↗ kind of standards but it's really uh

1:06:31 ↗ giving people an opportunity to use be

1:06:34 ↗ creative with how they cite the the home

1:06:36 ↗ on the lot

1:06:37 ↗ so our recommendation is to allow it in

1:06:39 ↗ those three neighborhoods and also in

1:06:42 ↗ any um

1:06:44 ↗ areas that are zoned single-family small

1:06:46 ↗ lot

1:06:47 ↗ um so that that's pretty much what we've

1:06:49 ↗ laid out uh so we we have a couple of

1:06:52 ↗ questions that um to prompt you um to

1:06:56 ↗ discuss you know if you agree with

1:06:58 ↗ staff's recommendation you want to

1:07:00 ↗ change anything or you want additional

1:07:02 ↗ information

1:07:03 ↗ we're happy to provide that

1:07:08 ↗ thank you that concludes my presentation

1:07:09 ↗ chair yep thank you

1:07:13 ↗ all right

1:07:14 ↗ deliberating on the the last two topics

1:07:19 ↗ uh i guess we'll just take this apart

1:07:20 ↗ like we did the previous ones um we'll

1:07:22 ↗ start with

1:07:24 ↗ uh block length anybody have any

1:07:26 ↗ thoughts on block lengths

1:07:36 ↗ i guess i'll just i'll kick this off and

1:07:38 ↗ i the one concern i have is i just i

1:07:41 ↗ don't know what the correct number is i

1:07:42 ↗ know we want

1:07:44 ↗ we do not want long blocks right we want

1:07:46 ↗ more interconnectivity with our

1:07:47 ↗ neighborhoods more use out of our

1:07:49 ↗ neighborhoods so i'm in full agreement

1:07:51 ↗ of of having shorter lengths as far as

1:07:53 ↗ block lengths i just don't know if 250

1:07:55 ↗ feet is the number i did some

1:07:56 ↗ supplemental reading

1:07:58 ↗ on this and i heard everything from 400

1:08:00 ↗ to 600 like they said if if you're at

1:08:03 ↗ 1600 your code probably hasn't been

1:08:05 ↗ updated since the 70s

1:08:07 ↗ so i'm i'm for it i just i don't know

1:08:09 ↗ what the right number is is 250 the

1:08:11 ↗ right number how do we get to that

1:08:13 ↗ number um i i'm generally in favor of it

1:08:15 ↗ i just

1:08:16 ↗ why 250.

1:08:18 ↗ um

1:08:19 ↗ and then as far as the topography and

1:08:20 ↗ the other concerns you brought up those

1:08:22 ↗ are all valid there's definitely areas

1:08:24 ↗ in the city where it's probably not

1:08:25 ↗ necessary to have it required but

1:08:28 ↗ that was my bigger one was just

1:08:30 ↗ why then where did we pull that number

1:08:31 ↗ 250

1:08:33 ↗ is it something you've seen in other

1:08:35 ↗ comparative cities that are around us

1:08:41 ↗ chair voice commissioner vader has a

1:08:43 ↗ comment

1:08:44 ↗ okay

1:08:45 ↗ i want money to answer

1:08:50 ↗ yeah i am i'm just going to say that i i

1:08:52 ↗ think the city's kind of proposal of

1:08:54 ↗ like just investigating this a little

1:08:55 ↗ bit more um is good and so i support

1:08:57 ↗ that of kind of keeping it in the three

1:09:00 ↗ areas where that block length is set

1:09:02 ↗ although um care voice just

1:09:04 ↗ i think made a good point about like

1:09:06 ↗ could we

1:09:07 ↗ think about different block lengths in

1:09:09 ↗ different areas based on

1:09:11 ↗ like what existing development looks

1:09:12 ↗ like and is that something that's also

1:09:14 ↗ worth

1:09:14 ↗ um exploring or figuring out kind of

1:09:16 ↗ what that right size

1:09:18 ↗ block length is um

1:09:21 ↗ that was a good comment

1:09:25 ↗ thank you commissioner bader

1:09:29 ↗ minnie do you want to step in here and

1:09:32 ↗ let you step in and we'll move along

1:09:33 ↗ with our more comments for you

1:09:36 ↗ sure

1:09:40 ↗ oh that's not sorry

1:09:44 ↗ i don't know why it just um popped up on

1:09:46 ↗ my can you guys hear me yes okay all

1:09:48 ↗ right

1:09:49 ↗ so um

1:09:52 ↗ you know the 250 block length uh is

1:09:56 ↗ currently uh a standard in the central

1:09:58 ↗ issaquah so i think that's where that

1:10:00 ↗ came from it is a pretty standard

1:10:04 ↗ thing for a city block it's really

1:10:06 ↗ driven by how much

1:10:07 ↗ people want to walk and all that kind of

1:10:09 ↗ stuff

1:10:11 ↗ stephen has done some additional work in

1:10:13 ↗ terms of looking at you know the

1:10:15 ↗ centralized one in terms of the street

1:10:18 ↗ grid and where that came from i don't

1:10:20 ↗ know stephen if you want to add to

1:10:22 ↗ where where this original rich this

1:10:25 ↗ number originated from

1:10:27 ↗ uh

1:10:28 ↗ mini is correct it came from the central

1:10:30 ↗ plan in terms of identifying more

1:10:32 ↗ walkable lengths

1:10:33 ↗ um but and i to speak to a little more

1:10:35 ↗ to the research on y250 it kind of comes

1:10:38 ↗ around

1:10:39 ↗ um when they've looked at walkable areas

1:10:42 ↗ and the block lengths related to them

1:10:44 ↗ 250 was actually in those cities where

1:10:46 ↗ you had the most walkable area not to

1:10:48 ↗ say that a 300 foot block length wasn't

1:10:51 ↗ walkable it just didn't have the same

1:10:53 ↗ level of activity that those major

1:10:55 ↗ high-density cities saw but that's to

1:10:58 ↗ say it was more high density cities not

1:11:01 ↗ more suburban less dense neighborhoods

1:11:04 ↗ that were that 250 length and so

1:11:06 ↗ as you

1:11:07 ↗ length you know increase that length for

1:11:09 ↗ the block length it does

1:11:11 ↗ lean towards having less activity less

1:11:13 ↗ walkable um not to say that it's less

1:11:16 ↗ walkable it just you have less activity

1:11:18 ↗ in those areas and so that just kind of

1:11:20 ↗ leans towards the type of land use and

1:11:23 ↗ activity that you're wanting to to have

1:11:26 ↗ um is

1:11:28 ↗ not and and it's hard to say you know

1:11:30 ↗ for talis or highlands it's 300 or 350.

1:11:33 ↗ it's it's

1:11:34 ↗ it's we'll need to take a look a little

1:11:36 ↗ bit closer into

1:11:38 ↗ what makes sense for those particular

1:11:40 ↗ neighborhoods

1:11:46 ↗ yeah and i would add really there is no

1:11:48 ↗ you know

1:11:50 ↗ 250 versus 300 um and and you know

1:11:54 ↗ having a rectangular block rather than

1:11:56 ↗ just 250 by 250 um it it we can look

1:12:01 ↗ further into uh into you know what where

1:12:04 ↗ some of the legislative history of why

1:12:06 ↗ we landed at 250 in the past

1:12:08 ↗ um but

1:12:10 ↗ but you're you're right in terms of you

1:12:12 ↗ know this isn't a one number

1:12:14 ↗ that's going to make the city more

1:12:15 ↗ walkable that it could be tailored and

1:12:18 ↗ fit to different parts of the

1:12:20 ↗ neighborhood but but again it gets down

1:12:22 ↗ to

1:12:23 ↗ where are the existing streets which are

1:12:25 ↗ the blocks that we're trying to break

1:12:28 ↗ into

1:12:29 ↗ um

1:12:30 ↗ and and it becomes more of a

1:12:31 ↗ [Music]

1:12:34 ↗ the the existing street pattern is going

1:12:36 ↗ to play a role into what that ideal

1:12:38 ↗ number is for different parts of the

1:12:39 ↗ city

1:12:44 ↗ um i

1:12:46 ↗ i really spent a lot of time on these

1:12:49 ↗ sections many

1:12:50 ↗ i wanted to respect the council kicked

1:12:52 ↗ it back to us and the administration

1:12:53 ↗ wanted us to go back over it

1:12:55 ↗ and it led me to trying to think about

1:12:59 ↗ some of my more academic work about the

1:13:01 ↗ history of how we've planned cities and

1:13:04 ↗ to kind of try to look at a broader

1:13:06 ↗ perspective on on this and i think one

1:13:09 ↗ of the things that

1:13:11 ↗ we were all concerned about when we had

1:13:12 ↗ a joint meeting with the dc about this

1:13:14 ↗ and the public was talking about well

1:13:16 ↗ how do we get to these block lengths

1:13:17 ↗ really involves lot consolidation and

1:13:20 ↗ there's a concern about uh neighborhood

1:13:23 ↗ character and there's a concern about if

1:13:25 ↗ this is really the right tool for

1:13:27 ↗ everywhere i think it's um very

1:13:30 ↗ applicable for central i think it's um i

1:13:32 ↗ think it definitely works for the

1:13:33 ↗ highlands um i think there's a

1:13:35 ↗ discussion to be made for talis but

1:13:37 ↗ making this city wide is something that

1:13:39 ↗ i really can't get behind because we're

1:13:41 ↗ not building from scratch right now

1:13:43 ↗ we're in a city with a vast topography

1:13:45 ↗ and so being able to say

1:13:47 ↗ block length doesn't i don't actually

1:13:49 ↗ think we'll promote mobility in the same

1:13:51 ↗ way that we're hoping with a tool you

1:13:53 ↗ have to think about also where people

1:13:55 ↗ are walking i don't think it's a number

1:13:56 ↗ of crosswalks that they take at the end

1:13:58 ↗ of the block to be able to get there if

1:14:00 ↗ you don't have if you have a food desert

1:14:02 ↗ then you're going to be getting into

1:14:03 ↗ your car to go grocery shopping

1:14:05 ↗ regardless of the size of your block

1:14:07 ↗ length

1:14:08 ↗ if you live on squawk

1:14:10 ↗ you are probably not going to be walking

1:14:12 ↗ to all of the destinations that you then

1:14:14 ↗ need to be carrying your retail

1:14:16 ↗ purchases from back to your home right

1:14:18 ↗ so i think that the different

1:14:19 ↗ neighborhoods that we have um you know i

1:14:21 ↗ think south coba is another good example

1:14:23 ↗ of things where i don't think that this

1:14:24 ↗ works so i'm gonna stick with our

1:14:28 ↗ original recommendation

1:14:30 ↗ i think that right now

1:14:32 ↗ we have to look at our land use i don't

1:14:34 ↗ think that this necessarily works for

1:14:35 ↗ everywhere if the city would like to put

1:14:38 ↗ more resources into being able to

1:14:40 ↗ actually say we would like this to be

1:14:41 ↗ more prescriptive in the future and we

1:14:43 ↗ want to be able to say for this area it

1:14:45 ↗ makes sense to be a block length here

1:14:46 ↗ and here uh i then i think that makes a

1:14:48 ↗ lot of sense but for where we are right

1:14:50 ↗ now with the information that we have i

1:14:52 ↗ do want to keep it restricted

1:14:54 ↗ and not have it be city-wide

1:15:01 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis and i think

1:15:03 ↗ commissioner lewis brings up some good

1:15:04 ↗ points as regardless there's very

1:15:06 ↗ different communities within our city

1:15:08 ↗ you have everything from squawk mountain

1:15:10 ↗ south cove that look a lot different

1:15:12 ↗ than talus which is currently being

1:15:14 ↗ developed

1:15:15 ↗ i think they're in phase

1:15:16 ↗ i don't know what phase they're on phase

1:15:18 ↗ four

1:15:19 ↗ where they have the opportunity to

1:15:20 ↗ implement some of this others we're

1:15:22 ↗ filling in the blanks and doing

1:15:23 ↗ basically backfill so again i generally

1:15:27 ↗ like the idea i like having the mobility

1:15:28 ↗ the connectivity

1:15:30 ↗ but it is definitely going to probably

1:15:32 ↗ vary from neighborhood to neighborhood

1:15:34 ↗ issaquah at the end of the day is kind

1:15:36 ↗ of a conglomeration of little townships

1:15:38 ↗ that

1:15:39 ↗ decided to become a city with one

1:15:40 ↗ another so but we definitely have some

1:15:43 ↗ unique neighborhoods with their own

1:15:45 ↗ unique characteristics and perspectives

1:15:48 ↗ so

1:15:52 ↗ staff feel like they got enough there

1:15:57 ↗ yeah

1:15:58 ↗ thank you

1:16:00 ↗ thank you minnie

1:16:01 ↗ and now on to zero lot lines

1:16:06 ↗ any comments on zero lot lines

1:16:12 ↗ chair voice commissioner bader as a

1:16:13 ↗ comment

1:16:16 ↗ and so does commissioner monahan

1:16:18 ↗ commissioner bader uh please

1:16:22 ↗ yeah thanks um sarah bader again um i

1:16:25 ↗ just wanted to kind of voice my

1:16:27 ↗ support for zero lot lines especially

1:16:29 ↗ thinking of affordability we before we

1:16:31 ↗ moved to issaquah we lived in san diego

1:16:34 ↗ and as like a young family trying to

1:16:35 ↗ like establish ourselves in the housing

1:16:37 ↗ market in san diego it was really hard i

1:16:39 ↗ know like now like those prices would be

1:16:41 ↗ like chump change compared to what

1:16:43 ↗ real estate looks like but um you know

1:16:45 ↗ at the time we were able to buy

1:16:47 ↗ a zero lot line home in a really great

1:16:49 ↗ area and a really great school district

1:16:52 ↗ and i don't think we would have been

1:16:53 ↗ able to afford

1:16:54 ↗ to live in that area had it not been for

1:16:57 ↗ that type of housing and so i think it

1:16:59 ↗ really serves a

1:17:01 ↗ purpose you know to get

1:17:03 ↗ again the housing diversity um you know

1:17:06 ↗ more affordable housing developments

1:17:10 ↗ that are more accessible to more people

1:17:12 ↗ to more families and so i think that um

1:17:16 ↗ having that as something that's allowed

1:17:17 ↗ again not required but allowed um in

1:17:21 ↗ um i think the recommendation of like

1:17:22 ↗ the higher density areas is good and

1:17:25 ↗ especially like looking at new

1:17:26 ↗ subdivisions so just wanted to kind of

1:17:28 ↗ voice my support for that type of

1:17:30 ↗ housing

1:17:35 ↗ thank you commissioner bader

1:17:36 ↗ commissioner monahan vice chair monahan

1:17:38 ↗ apologies

1:17:39 ↗ i'm really glad sarah went first because

1:17:41 ↗ she said something

1:17:43 ↗ much more eloquently than i would have

1:17:44 ↗ so everything sarah just said i agree

1:17:46 ↗ with 100

1:17:48 ↗ so thank you sarah

1:17:51 ↗ thank you vice chair monahan thank you

1:17:53 ↗ commissioner bader

1:17:55 ↗ commissioner lewis

1:17:57 ↗ i uh i think it's really important the

1:18:00 ↗ way that uh commissioner bader spoke

1:18:02 ↗ about it is that it should be a tool

1:18:04 ↗ that we use to be able to achieve a

1:18:07 ↗ purpose

1:18:08 ↗ i don't necessarily believe that this is

1:18:09 ↗ something that should be available

1:18:11 ↗ citywide i think that

1:18:15 ↗ what often happens

1:18:17 ↗ when you allow zero lot lines everywhere

1:18:20 ↗ is there's a tendency for homes to be

1:18:22 ↗ built in a way that create a heat island

1:18:25 ↗ effect um and there's also a tendency

1:18:28 ↗ for homes to be built um with fences

1:18:30 ↗ there's privacy issues that end up

1:18:32 ↗ people end up feeling a perceived

1:18:34 ↗ different

1:18:35 ↗ perception of their privacy and of their

1:18:38 ↗ space and what you see is more fences

1:18:41 ↗ less community in the way that we build

1:18:43 ↗ isaqah highlands has done a fantastic

1:18:45 ↗ job in the way that they prescribe the

1:18:47 ↗ building that i'm afraid wouldn't

1:18:48 ↗ necessarily come through

1:18:50 ↗ in the code right now four zero lot

1:18:52 ↗ lines i think zero lines are very

1:18:55 ↗ applicable in central and i think

1:18:56 ↗ they're applicable when we start talking

1:18:58 ↗ about

1:18:59 ↗ fostering micro housing when we try to

1:19:01 ↗ have

1:19:02 ↗ more affordable housing and when we talk

1:19:03 ↗ about things like tree retention right

1:19:05 ↗ when we say you are able to do this

1:19:08 ↗ because of other factors we want to be

1:19:10 ↗ able to have this be giving our

1:19:12 ↗ community a whole picture and so it

1:19:14 ↗ makes sense to say this is allowed in

1:19:16 ↗ these particular uses what i'm not a fan

1:19:19 ↗ of is having zero lot lines city-wide

1:19:22 ↗ and being able to have them to be in any

1:19:24 ↗ neighborhood regardless of the

1:19:26 ↗ particular situation of the lot

1:19:28 ↗ i realize that makes it a little bit

1:19:29 ↗ more difficult for staff because then it

1:19:31 ↗ really ends up putting it on to the

1:19:32 ↗ director

1:19:33 ↗ to be able to have more allowances of

1:19:36 ↗ saying when it's appropriate and when

1:19:37 ↗ it's not

1:19:39 ↗ so that i see that as being problematic

1:19:41 ↗ obviously because i'm just creating a

1:19:44 ↗ work item in a sense but i do think it's

1:19:46 ↗ interesting to start thinking about zero

1:19:47 ↗ lot lines

1:19:48 ↗ as a tool to be achieving our means

1:19:51 ↗ whether it be with tree retention

1:19:52 ↗ whether it be with affordable housing or

1:19:54 ↗ whether it be with how we're building a

1:19:56 ↗ mixed-use community whether that be with

1:19:58 ↗ micro housing where we're having shared

1:20:01 ↗ communal spaces and things like that i

1:20:03 ↗ think it's fantastic

1:20:04 ↗ but again i would halt

1:20:06 ↗ the idea of putting zero lot lines

1:20:09 ↗ citywide

1:20:10 ↗ thank you

1:20:13 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis and i guess

1:20:15 ↗ i will go last

1:20:17 ↗ so i

1:20:18 ↗ personally and this is me personally i

1:20:20 ↗ don't like zero lot lines for a few

1:20:21 ↗ different reasons uh just aesthetically

1:20:24 ↗ big blank walls

1:20:26 ↗ again this just happens to be someone

1:20:28 ↗ who

1:20:29 ↗ enjoys you know

1:20:31 ↗ nice elevations from their homes and

1:20:33 ↗ just to have blanks even the nice

1:20:34 ↗ trellises that they put up uh bother me

1:20:37 ↗ again seeing it buttressed right up

1:20:39 ↗ against the property bothers me but i do

1:20:41 ↗ understand that the city's goal is to

1:20:43 ↗ add for

1:20:44 ↗ to make way for densification so

1:20:47 ↗ i'm willing to i'm able to put aside

1:20:50 ↗ some of my own personal feelings about

1:20:52 ↗ zero lot lines in order to reach the

1:20:54 ↗ city's goal which is a stated goal by

1:20:56 ↗ the city um and i do think it'd probably

1:20:58 ↗ be a

1:21:00 ↗ used tool i i'm also appreciative of the

1:21:02 ↗ fact it's not required so and also

1:21:05 ↗ appears to be overlays so this is not

1:21:07 ↗ just something where they're buttressing

1:21:09 ↗ it right up against and then you have

1:21:10 ↗ two houses where there's a very very

1:21:12 ↗ narrow alley it sounds like it's for

1:21:14 ↗ unique situations already with the

1:21:15 ↗ overlays many described previously

1:21:19 ↗ but to commissioner lewis's point

1:21:20 ↗ definitely would not like to see this

1:21:21 ↗ city wide we want to concentrate this

1:21:24 ↗ densification in certain areas of our

1:21:26 ↗ community again i could probably be

1:21:28 ↗ pushed around and cajoled and agreed to

1:21:31 ↗ certain things

1:21:32 ↗ again personally i don't like them but

1:21:34 ↗ again it's not all about me i suppose

1:21:38 ↗ so

1:21:38 ↗ again um so yeah i think we would keep

1:21:41 ↗ it to certain areas certain districts

1:21:43 ↗ where we are already intending to put

1:21:45 ↗ that amount of housing and try to do the

1:21:48 ↗ different things that commissioner lewis

1:21:49 ↗ had mentioned the cottage housing the

1:21:51 ↗ adus the different things in order to

1:21:53 ↗ densify certain areas

1:22:00 ↗ does anyone else have a comment as far

1:22:02 ↗ as the zero lot lines

1:22:10 ↗ all right many were you able to get what

1:22:12 ↗ you needed from that conversation

1:22:15 ↗ i did uh so we'll we'll take your

1:22:17 ↗ recommendation

1:22:19 ↗ uh back to the council committee um so

1:22:21 ↗ it sounds like we have

1:22:24 ↗ everyone agrees with the staff's

1:22:26 ↗ recommendation or are there any um

1:22:30 ↗ edits or changes to that

1:22:34 ↗ i mean i think broadly where

1:22:37 ↗ we have an agreement um but i i again i

1:22:41 ↗ will i will get on my uh on my soapbox

1:22:43 ↗ and say that i do think this is a tool

1:22:44 ↗ that we should be using in um

1:22:47 ↗ to achieve a particular end um and to

1:22:51 ↗ the chairs comment about having it be in

1:22:53 ↗ particular areas i think is also very

1:22:55 ↗ applicable and so um if you can

1:22:57 ↗ communicate to counsel for us that we

1:22:59 ↗ have we see a a narrow a narrow lane for

1:23:02 ↗ this

1:23:03 ↗ okay

1:23:04 ↗ but but the suggested narrow lane was

1:23:07 ↗ the three neighborhoods and and

1:23:09 ↗ single-family small lot with a density

1:23:11 ↗ of 7.26 do you guys

1:23:14 ↗ agree with that or are we missing any

1:23:17 ↗ neighborhood in that list or i only

1:23:19 ↗ agree with it for those neighborhoods

1:23:21 ↗ not for all single family small lots

1:23:23 ↗ so you don't disagree the single family

1:23:25 ↗ small lot needs to occur within central

1:23:27 ↗ palace or the highlands

1:23:30 ↗ it should not be applicable city-wide in

1:23:31 ↗ my opinion so i think if i get if i'm

1:23:34 ↗ let me know if i'm getting this wrong so

1:23:35 ↗ you don't agree with the 7.26

1:23:38 ↗ that's kind of sprinkled throughout the

1:23:39 ↗ city i do not again unless the city is

1:23:41 ↗ specifically using this as a tool to be

1:23:43 ↗ able to achieve other goals that we're

1:23:45 ↗ trying to do with our housing for

1:23:46 ↗ instance with micro housing cottage

1:23:48 ↗ housing right if we have this particular

1:23:50 ↗ thing what i would like to see is that

1:23:52 ↗ this is not something that can be in any

1:23:55 ↗ small lot across the city so that that

1:23:57 ↗ is where i have a have a disagreement

1:23:58 ↗ with where i see

1:24:00 ↗ the projected growth being so i believe

1:24:03 ↗ if i got this right i believe

1:24:05 ↗ commissioner lewis is coming down on the

1:24:07 ↗ middle the middle i think the middle

1:24:09 ↗ class

1:24:11 ↗ okay

1:24:13 ↗ uh how does commissioner monahan and

1:24:15 ↗ commissioner bader feel

1:24:21 ↗ this is sarah i am i support it on small

1:24:23 ↗ watch development um citywide

1:24:27 ↗ invites chair

1:24:30 ↗ same

1:24:33 ↗ am i the tiebreaker

1:24:40 ↗ so i guess i i would probably go with

1:24:41 ↗ the 7.26 and go with vice chair monahan

1:24:44 ↗ and commissioner bader just because

1:24:46 ↗ again it's not a requirement this is

1:24:48 ↗ just a tool that would be allowed

1:24:50 ↗ i think commissioner lewis brings up

1:24:52 ↗ some good points it'd be nice to work in

1:24:54 ↗ conjunction with

1:24:56 ↗ being able to use it as a tool if

1:24:57 ↗ there's a tree or if there's some type

1:24:59 ↗ of critical area where then they can be

1:25:01 ↗ encouraged to use it

1:25:03 ↗ but i just don't know if again

1:25:05 ↗ i don't know if we can get that

1:25:06 ↗ prescriptive i

1:25:07 ↗ i think probably using it on the smaller

1:25:09 ↗ ones knowing that

1:25:11 ↗ be interesting to know how many people

1:25:12 ↗ actually would take advantage of it

1:25:14 ↗ but again not being a requirement i

1:25:16 ↗ think i can get behind column three

1:25:19 ↗ territories commissioner bader has an

1:25:21 ↗ additional comment commissioner bader

1:25:24 ↗ yeah sorry i just i feel the need to

1:25:26 ↗ advocate for my former neighborhood a

1:25:28 ↗ little bit um and that

1:25:31 ↗ i'll just kind of describe what it was

1:25:32 ↗ like because i think that the image

1:25:34 ↗ that's kind of being conjured for folks

1:25:36 ↗ is like

1:25:36 ↗ solid you know walls and like just paved

1:25:40 ↗ over yards and you know no vegetation at

1:25:43 ↗ all and i don't think that's the case

1:25:45 ↗ and to be honest where i live in telus

1:25:47 ↗ now um we have very small

1:25:49 ↗ blocks we happen to have space between

1:25:51 ↗ each spot but we have a little patchy

1:25:52 ↗ grass you know out in the back our house

1:25:54 ↗ is much bigger um

1:25:56 ↗ but the way it was set up there was that

1:25:58 ↗ you know we had a patio area we had a

1:26:00 ↗ grassy area we had trees um along the

1:26:03 ↗ solid wall

1:26:05 ↗ um that went like was our neighbor's

1:26:07 ↗ wall that kind of went along our walkway

1:26:08 ↗ it was all landscaped and hedged so it

1:26:10 ↗ didn't feel like kind of like a blank

1:26:12 ↗ you know just wall

1:26:14 ↗ um and so i think that especially and

1:26:16 ↗ that was you know built in the like late

1:26:18 ↗ 80s early 90s i think and so thinking of

1:26:20 ↗ like what modern development looks like

1:26:22 ↗ i feel pretty comfortable that they

1:26:23 ↗ would be designed in such a way

1:26:25 ↗ to promote you know the kind of

1:26:27 ↗ aesthetic feel that we would want in

1:26:29 ↗ addition to kind of again the kind of

1:26:30 ↗ diversity and affordability component of

1:26:33 ↗ it

1:26:36 ↗ you know many it may be applicable to

1:26:38 ↗ ask

1:26:39 ↗ that if this is something that council

1:26:41 ↗ wants to move forward with that we have

1:26:43 ↗ a design standard that we have a place

1:26:45 ↗ in the code that specifies when you do a

1:26:47 ↗ zero lot line these are the expectations

1:26:49 ↗ that we have

1:26:50 ↗ similar to the way that we have in um in

1:26:52 ↗ the highlands of ways that we promote

1:26:53 ↗ community the way that we design our

1:26:55 ↗ spaces in a thoughtful manner and it may

1:26:57 ↗ just be that zero lot lines needs to

1:26:58 ↗ have

1:26:59 ↗ its own section that really dives deep

1:27:01 ↗ into how it's designed and how it comes

1:27:03 ↗ out right to be able to kind of assuage

1:27:05 ↗ ideas of how it can go wrong let's talk

1:27:08 ↗ about how it can go right

1:27:12 ↗ yeah um

1:27:13 ↗ go ahead minnie oh i was just going to

1:27:15 ↗ add so um you know the the section in

1:27:18 ↗ the draft right now talks about you know

1:27:21 ↗ you know the privacy walls that to

1:27:23 ↗ maintain that no windows doors air

1:27:25 ↗ conditioning or other type of opening

1:27:26 ↗ and the walls along zero lot line are

1:27:28 ↗ allowed

1:27:29 ↗ except uh you know where there's there's

1:27:32 ↗ some um clear story and you know those

1:27:35 ↗ kind of things so i think there was

1:27:37 ↗ discussion at the council level um about

1:27:39 ↗ maybe not being that prescriptive and

1:27:42 ↗ and giving people the flexibility that

1:27:43 ↗ if they choose to have windows and that

1:27:46 ↗ that works for them then then perhaps we

1:27:49 ↗ don't mandate

1:27:51 ↗ a blank wall for instance so we were

1:27:53 ↗ going to re-look at that section to see

1:27:55 ↗ if we could loosen that a little bit and

1:27:57 ↗ not have a prescriptive you shall not

1:27:59 ↗ have any windows along the small kind of

1:28:02 ↗ a approach

1:28:05 ↗ so we

1:28:07 ↗ so there was some discussion at the

1:28:08 ↗ council level about

1:28:10 ↗ being prescriptive about

1:28:13 ↗ the design for zero lot lines and maybe

1:28:15 ↗ not being so prescriptive um that it

1:28:18 ↗ and leaving it up to

1:28:20 ↗ the folks that want to build this to to

1:28:22 ↗ make that call

1:28:24 ↗ yeah i'm not quite sure if i you know

1:28:27 ↗ again i kind of like commissioner

1:28:28 ↗ lewis's point maybe it needs its own

1:28:30 ↗ design chapter or i don't know which way

1:28:32 ↗ is the right way to go maybe you go with

1:28:34 ↗ minnie's suggestion and you just leave

1:28:35 ↗ it less prescriptive i'll be very honest

1:28:37 ↗ for me i'm looking at this

1:28:39 ↗ very superficially i just i am much more

1:28:42 ↗ worried about the aesthetics of our

1:28:43 ↗ community

1:28:44 ↗ again i know the goals that our city has

1:28:46 ↗ which you know this would help

1:28:48 ↗ accomplish and again i'm a team player

1:28:50 ↗ my concerns really are just how it looks

1:28:52 ↗ how does it look when you have a rambler

1:28:54 ↗ right next to a two-story that's just a

1:28:55 ↗ big blank wall

1:28:57 ↗ you know there's nothing worse than

1:28:58 ↗ looking like you're living next to a box

1:29:00 ↗ i mean that's one of the beautiful

1:29:01 ↗ things about homes when they're well

1:29:03 ↗ done they have proper elevations cut up

1:29:05 ↗ roof lines

1:29:06 ↗ so again i just don't want to see big

1:29:08 ↗ boxes going up everywhere that just do

1:29:10 ↗ not look aesthetically pleasing into our

1:29:12 ↗ community

1:29:13 ↗ but i'm all for the goal

1:29:15 ↗ if that just means more densification so

1:29:17 ↗ i'm not quite sure which way to go about

1:29:19 ↗ it

1:29:20 ↗ maybe sure we can we can look a little

1:29:22 ↗ bit more into the design considerations

1:29:24 ↗ you know and while not having a more

1:29:28 ↗ prescriptive approach of no windows uh

1:29:30 ↗ we

1:29:31 ↗ maybe have some more design

1:29:33 ↗ sort of goals for

1:29:35 ↗ for that that wall that's going to sit

1:29:38 ↗ right next next on you know maybe more

1:29:40 ↗ in the guidelines

1:29:41 ↗ rather than as a requirement so we can

1:29:44 ↗ further look into design of zero lot

1:29:47 ↗ lines

1:29:48 ↗ yeah because even regardless of where in

1:29:50 ↗ the city you do it i mean you'd still

1:29:51 ↗ want to have i mean the trellis in the

1:29:53 ↗ picture was kind of weak

1:29:55 ↗ sitting against that big wall so again i

1:29:57 ↗ think we can come up with something

1:29:59 ↗ where everybody wins

1:30:00 ↗ and gets what they want

1:30:05 ↗ all right does anyone else have any

1:30:06 ↗ comments on the xero lot line portion of

1:30:08 ↗ uh minnie's presentation

1:30:12 ↗ any comments at all for minnie's entire

1:30:14 ↗ presentation

1:30:17 ↗ thank you

1:30:18 ↗ it was uh it was great to have further

1:30:20 ↗ information to be able to dive in

1:30:22 ↗ so we appreciate the time that you took

1:30:24 ↗ to be able to bring it back to us with

1:30:25 ↗ with kid clubs

1:30:29 ↗ thank you for your time

1:30:32 ↗ all right well that is the last of our

1:30:34 ↗ business we are going to move on now to

1:30:36 ↗ reports um

1:30:38 ↗ i believe i'm i'm

1:30:40 ↗ looking at you stephen

1:30:41 ↗ all right so we're looking for any city

1:30:43 ↗ council updates

1:30:45 ↗ thank you chair voice um so for council

1:30:48 ↗ next week council committee is going to

1:30:49 ↗ be um taking a look at the future

1:30:51 ↗ updates list formerly known as the white

1:30:54 ↗ board for title 18 and they'll be

1:30:57 ↗ talking with staff of how to approach

1:31:00 ↗ the future updates for title 18 and then

1:31:02 ↗ uh they'll also be taking a look at the

1:31:04 ↗ zoning development standards so all the

1:31:06 ↗ topics that you looked at tonight for um

1:31:09 ↗ bucket five they'll also be discussing

1:31:11 ↗ on august 4th

1:31:13 ↗ that's it for council update

1:31:15 ↗ and then will we get to

1:31:17 ↗ here and have a meeting to discuss

1:31:19 ↗ formerly the white board often called a

1:31:21 ↗ garage now called i'm sorry future

1:31:24 ↗ development projects is that what future

1:31:26 ↗ future updates update

1:31:28 ↗ um yes how does that work that was

1:31:30 ↗ actually just gonna if if chair voice if

1:31:32 ↗ you want me to shift to announcements um

1:31:34 ↗ i was just gonna start to talk about

1:31:35 ↗ that

1:31:39 ↗ you see it used to be the computer now

1:31:40 ↗ it's the microphone button yes we're

1:31:42 ↗ ready for other businesses announcements

1:31:44 ↗ okay so um we've updated the calendar uh

1:31:47 ↗ we've had to shift things a little bit

1:31:48 ↗ for title 18 in terms of being able to

1:31:51 ↗ incorporate

1:31:52 ↗ a little more time for testing of the

1:31:54 ↗ code and then part of that is going to

1:31:56 ↗ be allowing ppc to have a discussion to

1:31:59 ↗ look at the future updates lists um i

1:32:01 ↗ believe in august

1:32:06 ↗ and the other announcement i have is

1:32:08 ↗ tonight is

1:32:10 ↗ vice chair monahan's last meeting

1:32:12 ↗ um

1:32:13 ↗ i want to thank vice chair monahan for

1:32:15 ↗ all the work that he's done for the

1:32:17 ↗ commission it's it's it's really been a

1:32:19 ↗ pleasure i know i've only been part of

1:32:20 ↗ the commission for you know a short

1:32:22 ↗ while but i i've been in the background

1:32:24 ↗ listening and watching and seeing a lot

1:32:26 ↗ of the activity of this commission and

1:32:29 ↗ it's been um it's been great seeing a

1:32:31 ↗ lot of the contribution he's been able

1:32:32 ↗ to put into a lot of the work the

1:32:34 ↗ commission's done

1:32:36 ↗ matt um i'll hand it over to you

1:32:40 ↗ thank you stephen and uh yeah i'm really

1:32:42 ↗ sorry to announce tonight's my last ppc

1:32:44 ↗ meeting

1:32:45 ↗ um there's some big changes in my

1:32:46 ↗ professional and personal life and i

1:32:48 ↗ have to move to the east coast so

1:32:50 ↗ um i've truly enjoyed my time on the

1:32:52 ↗ commission first a huge thank you to the

1:32:55 ↗ staff i'm just constantly amazed at all

1:32:58 ↗ the hard work and dedication you put

1:32:59 ↗ into each and every presentation

1:33:02 ↗ really makes us look good because of all

1:33:04 ↗ of your preparation and your thoughtful

1:33:07 ↗ uh your thoughts that go into everything

1:33:09 ↗ and also a huge thank you for your

1:33:10 ↗ patience particularly as it applies to

1:33:12 ↗ obnoxious legal questions

1:33:14 ↗ um and then to my fellow commissioners

1:33:16 ↗ um thank you so much for your dedication

1:33:18 ↗ passion and good humor uh the city is so

1:33:21 ↗ much better because of your dedication

1:33:23 ↗ i will truly miss spending a part of my

1:33:26 ↗ week with with you all so i thank you

1:33:29 ↗ all and i'll miss you guys

1:33:35 ↗ well thank you vice chair monahan uh

1:33:37 ↗ definitely the feeling is mutual

1:33:39 ↗ appreciated getting to know you for the

1:33:41 ↗ last couple years um

1:33:43 ↗ yeah bummed we're bummed we're losing a

1:33:45 ↗ good one

1:33:46 ↗ the east coast is gaining what we're

1:33:47 ↗ losing so i do wish you well in your

1:33:50 ↗ future endeavors and your move and as

1:33:52 ↗ far as your professional and personal

1:33:53 ↗ life

1:33:54 ↗ i hope it continues just to continue to

1:33:56 ↗ get better and better for you

1:33:58 ↗ uh any other comments as far as matt

1:34:00 ↗ yeah you've been a wonderful part of our

1:34:02 ↗ of our work we're so grateful to have

1:34:04 ↗ had uh the time that we've had with you

1:34:05 ↗ and best wishes on exciting stuff

1:34:09 ↗ thank you we look forward to you getting

1:34:10 ↗ even better and coming back to the west

1:34:12 ↗ coast best coast

1:34:13 ↗ [Laughter]

1:34:15 ↗ and they weren't obnoxious legal

1:34:16 ↗ questions i learned a lot actually from

1:34:19 ↗ my time with

1:34:20 ↗ vice chair monahan like i said i i

1:34:22 ↗ always found it very interesting and

1:34:24 ↗ as our legal eagle he provided us with a

1:34:26 ↗ lot of inside baseball that always

1:34:29 ↗ helped our commission look at things

1:34:30 ↗ from a different perspective so

1:34:32 ↗ again

1:34:33 ↗ best of luck to you in the future

1:34:35 ↗ um

1:34:36 ↗ we are ready to close for this evening

1:34:38 ↗ so uh anybody have any further

1:34:41 ↗ announcements whether it's from staff i

1:34:42 ↗ see many motioning me well i was just

1:34:45 ↗ gonna say my thanks to uh commissioner

1:34:47 ↗ monaghan you know in my one year i've

1:34:50 ↗ been impressed with everyone's

1:34:51 ↗ thoughtfulness the amount of time you

1:34:53 ↗ put in but your legal questions kept us

1:34:55 ↗ in line kept the commission in line

1:34:57 ↗ through wearing off on tangents so

1:35:00 ↗ you'll be missed but good luck to you

1:35:06 ↗ yes matt definitely kept us all honest

1:35:08 ↗ no doubt about that

1:35:10 ↗ does anyone else have any

1:35:12 ↗ further comments anything to bring up

1:35:15 ↗ for the good of the order

1:35:20 ↗ well i just want to personally say how

1:35:22 ↗ excited i am to be back into chambers

1:35:24 ↗ with staff

1:35:26 ↗ with part of our planning call policy

1:35:29 ↗ commission i know we'll see the other

1:35:30 ↗ part here shortly but i i've been

1:35:32 ↗ waiting for this day for 28 months

1:35:34 ↗ um a long time and i cannot tell you how

1:35:38 ↗ how happy i am to be here with all of

1:35:40 ↗ you and looking forward to our next

1:35:42 ↗ meeting i believe it's uh august 7th

1:35:46 ↗ august 11th i guess i'll be here by

1:35:48 ↗ myself on august 7th

1:35:49 ↗ um august 11th we'll be here and i

1:35:52 ↗ believe that's also a joint meeting as

1:35:53 ↗ well

1:35:54 ↗ no all right i got all my facts so it is

1:35:58 ↗ time to go

1:35:59 ↗ um so again thank you everyone have a

1:36:01 ↗ good evening and tonight we will adjourn

1:36:03 ↗ the meeting at

1:36:05 ↗ 8 07 p.m thank you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (4)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Monahan

Commissioners Bader

Lewis Absence: Commissioner Milligan (Excused)

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner Doug Yormick, Assistant Planner Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner 2. Approval of Minutes