Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 8, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 11, 2022

packet pp.3–13

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, August 11, 2022

Minutes of August 25, 2022

packet pp.15–24

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, August 25, 2022

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

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

35 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.25–36

Topics: Land UseClimate

▶ Watch from 14:58 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the September 8, 2022, Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to deliberate on the Title 18 updates and Climate Action Plan Implementation.

Title 18 Future Updates

Discussion · 50 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.37–45

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 45:40 Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the September 8, 2022, Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to review the Title 18 Future Updates List and respond to clarifying questions of the Commission.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.47–49

▶ Watch from 1:30:22 Open packet at p.47 ↗

Staff report:

Page 48 of 49 Staff Support: Christen Leeson Staff Support: Stephen Padua

2459 segments .txt ↗

0:01 ↗ [Music]

0:25 ↗ good evening everyone

0:26 ↗ welcome to tonight's planning policy

0:28 ↗ commission

0:29 ↗ and i would like to call the meeting to

0:31 ↗ order and it is currently

0:33 ↗ 6 33 pm

0:35 ↗ today's meeting is a hybrid meeting the

0:38 ↗ planning policy commission is in person

0:40 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

0:42 ↗ be attending virtually or in person

0:45 ↗ comments at tonight's meeting may be

0:47 ↗ made in person or virtually

0:49 ↗ for all who would like to speak during

0:51 ↗ public comments

0:53 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently

0:56 ↗ state your name each time before

0:57 ↗ speaking

0:58 ↗ and if you are attending virtually by

1:00 ↗ computer or by phone and would like to

1:02 ↗ speak during public comments

1:04 ↗ in addition to the above please

1:06 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

1:07 ↗ speaking

1:09 ↗ and if you're having any technical

1:10 ↗ issues try joining the meeting using a

1:13 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

1:14 ↗ tablet

1:16 ↗ you can also use the call-in information

1:17 ↗ in the meeting invite to call in

1:21 ↗ uh stephen do we have a quorum this

1:22 ↗ evening

1:25 ↗ chair yes you do

1:26 ↗ great thank you

1:28 ↗ and our first order of business is a

1:30 ↗ little bit of housekeeping

1:31 ↗ we have some minutes to approve

1:34 ↗ and we'll begin with the august 11th

1:36 ↗ minutes

1:37 ↗ does anyone have any corrections or

1:38 ↗ concerns about the august 11th minutes

1:43 ↗ all right hearing none the meeting

1:44 ↗ minutes are approved

1:46 ↗ uh august 25th meeting minutes

1:48 ↗ again any corrections or concerns

1:52 ↗ meeting minutes are approved

1:54 ↗ we will now move on to public comment

1:59 ↗ and we have a few guidelines for those

2:01 ↗ who would like to make a public comment

2:03 ↗ they are indeed an important part of the

2:05 ↗ public process we take them seriously

2:08 ↗ and factor factor them into the

2:10 ↗ decisions we make

2:11 ↗ comments may be general

2:13 ↗ or related to the topics we are

2:15 ↗ discussing tonight

2:16 ↗ please note for these meetings comments

2:19 ↗ are limited to five minutes or less do

2:22 ↗ we have anyone signed up to speak this

2:24 ↗ evening

2:25 ↗ yes

2:26 ↗ excellent

2:34 ↗ are you ready for them okay sorry

2:36 ↗ um so and for anyone who's participating

2:39 ↗ virtually i see one hand raised but if

2:41 ↗ anyone else uh any other virtual

2:43 ↗ attendees would like to make comments

2:45 ↗ please raise your virtual hand

2:47 ↗ or send me the host to chat so i see

2:49 ↗ that susan neville would like to make

2:51 ↗ comments

2:52 ↗ susan i'm going to make you a panelist

2:54 ↗ now you should have the option to unmute

2:56 ↗ and can choose to turn your video on

3:00 ↗ hello everybody let me see if this works

3:03 ↗ tonight

3:04 ↗ yeah

3:06 ↗ um

3:07 ↗ hope everyone's well

3:09 ↗ uh thank you commissioners and

3:11 ↗ administration for being here

3:13 ↗ um i wanted to start out with saying

3:16 ↗ i hope everyone had the opportunity to

3:18 ↗ read connie marsh's

3:20 ↗ missing middle email that went out

3:21 ↗ earlier i think she brought up many good

3:24 ↗ points that really warrant future

3:26 ↗ discussion

3:27 ↗ and it stirred some

3:28 ↗ things for me that as we went through

3:30 ↗ the process of

3:31 ↗ code changes

3:33 ↗ there's many definitions that still

3:35 ↗ really need to be

3:37 ↗ determined and should be included in the

3:39 ↗ current code and i just wanted to

3:41 ↗ mention a few of those

3:43 ↗ this evening

3:44 ↗ and

3:45 ↗ i wanted to start with the definition of

3:48 ↗ walkable

3:50 ↗ um

3:51 ↗ another one is served by retail

3:54 ↗ including the definition of retail

3:58 ↗ uh served by transit and i believe

4:00 ↗ cluster housing

4:02 ↗ and i think in order to

4:06 ↗ give an indication to planning and

4:08 ↗ developers in the near future until we

4:10 ↗ really have

4:12 ↗ a clear focus in place

4:14 ↗ these definitions will serve

4:17 ↗ to meet our goals that we're trying to

4:19 ↗ attain in the longer term

4:21 ↗ um

4:24 ↗ this is coming in at a different time

4:25 ↗ and i hope as we move forward this will

4:27 ↗ be thought of when we're doing our

4:29 ↗ second draft and that we will all look

4:31 ↗ for these to be included

4:34 ↗ um

4:36 ↗ and

4:38 ↗ i am going to leave it there but i have

4:40 ↗ one other question i wanted to ask and

4:42 ↗ that's about the future meeting

4:45 ↗ and it's the comp plan and zoning map

4:47 ↗ amendment discussion on 9 29

4:50 ↗ and i think this could be a big

4:53 ↗ discussion

4:55 ↗ and i'm wondering if

4:57 ↗ the ppc and also other people involved

5:00 ↗ would have longer than four days to

5:02 ↗ review what

5:03 ↗ is going to be discussed and when i

5:05 ↗ mentioned four days i mean four working

5:07 ↗ days

5:08 ↗ so i wanted to throw that out there

5:10 ↗ thank you all for your time and i look

5:11 ↗ forward to this meeting

5:18 ↗ next we have connie marsh indicating a

5:20 ↗ desire to speak

5:22 ↗ connie i will make you a panelist now

5:35 ↗ there we go

5:36 ↗ hi i'm connie marsh

5:39 ↗ interesting we're getting double

5:41 ↗ pictures of on this video screen sort of

5:44 ↗ strange

5:45 ↗ uh so

5:47 ↗ step one you did get

5:51 ↗ an in-depth complex email from me

5:54 ↗ because you all know how frustrated i am

5:57 ↗ with actually trying to speak to the

5:59 ↗ complex issues that you've been

6:01 ↗ dealing with

6:03 ↗ uh

6:03 ↗ within a five-minute speaking time

6:06 ↗ so i hope

6:08 ↗ everyone

6:09 ↗ read it and i hope it triggered

6:12 ↗ some thoughts

6:13 ↗ on um

6:16 ↗ before we have discussions about things

6:19 ↗ we should actually know what they

6:21 ↗ are so we've been talking about missing

6:23 ↗ middle for example but it really isn't

6:26 ↗ very clear what that means in the city

6:28 ↗ of issaquah

6:29 ↗ so i'm going to leave

6:31 ↗ that assuming that you were all true to

6:33 ↗ your word and you read it

6:35 ↗ and then i'm going to talk about the

6:37 ↗ climate

6:39 ↗ uh

6:39 ↗ presentation for today and i looked

6:42 ↗ through there and i was looking for the

6:44 ↗ environmental

6:45 ↗ boards

6:46 ↗ review on this

6:49 ↗ and i didn't see anything um showing

6:52 ↗ what the environmental board thought of

6:53 ↗ this concept

6:55 ↗ so

6:56 ↗ i was i was wondering why that didn't go

6:58 ↗ to the environmental board before you

7:01 ↗ all got it and then two

7:04 ↗ you discuss

7:06 ↗ lead gold

7:08 ↗ and

7:09 ↗ fish friendly

7:11 ↗ yet i have never seen a presentation

7:13 ↗ here of what lead gold actually means

7:16 ↗ and what that does and exactly what fish

7:19 ↗ friendly is and what those two things

7:22 ↗ look like in

7:23 ↗ issaquah

7:25 ↗ i

7:26 ↗ have not seen a lot of success requiring

7:30 ↗ a lead

7:31 ↗ standard the city has done lead platinum

7:34 ↗ voluntarily but typically what happens

7:37 ↗ is the codes advance and the lead

7:39 ↗ checklists

7:43 ↗ stay stagnant and two

7:45 ↗ the lead

7:47 ↗ situation and the salmon friendly

7:48 ↗ situation are not necessarily climate

7:53 ↗ oriented and so you could very easily

7:56 ↗ be able to do things on the checklist

7:59 ↗ that did not provide a lot of

8:02 ↗ climate action improvement so

8:05 ↗ before you make a discussion or give a

8:08 ↗ given opinion one direction or the other

8:10 ↗ i think it would be super important to

8:12 ↗ actually understand

8:14 ↗ what

8:15 ↗ exactly it is that you're deciding on

8:18 ↗ thank you very much

8:24 ↗ chair it doesn't appear that we have any

8:26 ↗ more virtual attendees wishing to make

8:28 ↗ comments but i understand there might be

8:29 ↗ someone in the room

8:36 ↗ sir

8:41 ↗ well hello uh mr chair

8:44 ↗ uh fellow commissioners lovely staff

8:47 ↗ thanks for having me i really start to

8:50 ↗ like it here so i keep coming back here

8:53 ↗ well i'm i'm here to address the issue

8:55 ↗ of vesting and i'm glad that connie and

8:58 ↗ some other folks brought up the issue of

9:00 ↗ definitions because it all kind of goes

9:02 ↗ hand in hand in a different angle

9:05 ↗ i remember the last time i was here

9:07 ↗ there was a conversation about well why

9:10 ↗ don't

9:11 ↗ some of the some of

9:13 ↗ you that you're asking for

9:14 ↗ a delay and

9:17 ↗ option three for the existing projects

9:19 ↗ in the site development permit won't you

9:21 ↗ guys just turn in your building

9:22 ↗ permanently be done with it

9:24 ↗ well i'll i'll give i copied this and i

9:27 ↗ gave it to uh

9:29 ↗ some some of the lovely staff and you

9:30 ↗ get it in order to turn in for building

9:33 ↗ permit a city has about at least seven

9:36 ↗ permits uh that goes part of the

9:39 ↗ building permit but usually it's double

9:41 ↗ that because there's a lot more involved

9:45 ↗ consultant fees is about half a million

9:47 ↗ dollars to about a million dollars for a

9:50 ↗ small or medium-sized project like like

9:53 ↗ an apartment about 100 units

9:55 ↗ and honestly consultants don't care

9:58 ↗ uh they will do it just do fine so if

10:01 ↗ you don't have a full understanding of

10:03 ↗ the definitions

10:05 ↗ they could do a a a design a premature

10:09 ↗ design and turn it into a building

10:10 ↗ permit and

10:12 ↗ staff will say well this is really what

10:14 ↗ it means you got to do it this way and

10:16 ↗ then here we are the developer gotta pay

10:19 ↗ it again and do it over

10:21 ↗ it could be another 50 or 100 more so

10:24 ↗ would you

10:26 ↗ do something that costs half a million

10:28 ↗ bucks to a million dollars not knowing

10:30 ↗ if it's going to work or not

10:32 ↗ so that's why we take the time to

10:35 ↗ move forward as much as we can as

10:38 ↗ developers to make sure we get full

10:40 ↗ understanding of the definitions kovid

10:43 ↗ did a job on all of us everything's

10:46 ↗ gotten delayed everything's going to be

10:47 ↗ more complex i can't even meet my own

10:50 ↗ consultants so i urge you to consider

10:54 ↗ option three

10:56 ↗ which is uh vesting for uh

10:59 ↗ another six month existing projects in a

11:02 ↗ site development permit zone and

11:04 ↗ honestly at the day's end

11:06 ↗ most pro most pro most developers will

11:09 ↗ probably turn in the vesting and the

11:11 ↗ staff will really help them with that

11:12 ↗ process

11:13 ↗ to get out of the way

11:15 ↗ what it will leave behind it will leave

11:18 ↗ kind of a bad taste

11:20 ↗ and next time a developer will

11:23 ↗ wanted to invest in issaquah

11:26 ↗ put millions of their money online

11:29 ↗ they're going to think well are they

11:31 ↗ going to change the code on me

11:33 ↗ uh with a very short notice

11:35 ↗ we got about seven months notice a round

11:38 ↗ of revision usually takes about eight

11:40 ↗ months takes about three to four

11:42 ↗ revisions so seven months is nothing

11:45 ↗ you know so it would nice to get a

11:48 ↗ little more notice to the developers in

11:50 ↗ the pipeline but

11:52 ↗ we always go look forward and my my

11:54 ↗ recommendation would be do this

11:57 ↗ probably not going to get used by anyone

11:59 ↗ but it will leave a good taste

12:02 ↗ for the future developers who would want

12:05 ↗ to help

12:06 ↗ make issaquah a greater place most

12:09 ↗ developers that i know

12:11 ↗ most of my friends have gone bankrupt

12:13 ↗ for little hiccups like this

12:15 ↗ and that's why maybe we have a shortage

12:17 ↗ of housing so help with that process is

12:20 ↗ in your hand

12:21 ↗ thanks god bless you all

12:29 ↗ it appears we have one more virtual

12:31 ↗ comment

12:32 ↗ we do uh david kapler david i'm making

12:35 ↗ you a panelist now you should see the

12:37 ↗ option to unmute and can choose to turn

12:39 ↗ your video on

12:52 ↗ kepler

12:58 ↗ okay now i should be

13:02 ↗ we can hear you now

13:05 ↗ nope

13:09 ↗ mr kepler i think you've maybe just

13:11 ↗ re-muted

13:15 ↗ okay okay

13:16 ↗ we can hear you now

13:18 ↗ thank you okay i see my initials up

13:20 ↗ there on the screen thank you

13:21 ↗ um

13:22 ↗ i'm a resident of old town and we did go

13:26 ↗ through quite a lengthy process with a

13:28 ↗ significant amount of

13:30 ↗ time city staff time and all the rest

13:33 ↗ and quite extensive involvement of the

13:35 ↗ community and i think

13:37 ↗ that it is

13:38 ↗ the one area in the city as

13:40 ↗ connie has

13:42 ↗ discovered that really

13:44 ↗ um

13:45 ↗ has place for

13:48 ↗ the missing middle perhaps increasing

13:51 ↗ one of the the problems in the area is

13:54 ↗ how much parking is required now

13:57 ↗ and if we're this close to quality

14:00 ↗ transportation with 554 we certainly

14:03 ↗ have some good

14:04 ↗ good access on the bus and all

14:07 ↗ i think we have to look at the parking

14:10 ↗ requirements and maybe reducing them

14:12 ↗ but

14:14 ↗ we don't we don't have a lot of options

14:16 ↗ here uh given

14:17 ↗ how many places are in

14:20 ↗ not

14:21 ↗ they're not one not a lot of tear downs

14:22 ↗ and is equine people really treasure

14:24 ↗ that the neighborhood as it is

14:27 ↗ so um it's it won't be simple but that

14:30 ↗ is the one area in the city where uh the

14:33 ↗ missing middle perhaps could be has a

14:36 ↗ chance to uh to expand

14:38 ↗ the rest of it is is more difficult for

14:40 ↗ sure

14:42 ↗ thank you

14:49 ↗ chair i'm not of aware of anyone else

14:51 ↗ wishing to make comments

14:53 ↗ great thank you

14:54 ↗ thank you for the comments

14:56 ↗ uh the next item on the agenda this

14:58 ↗ evening is our regular business and we

15:00 ↗ are going to start with the title 18

15:02 ↗ updates in the issaquah climate action

15:04 ↗ plan implementation

15:07 ↗ tonight staff will present the follow-up

15:08 ↗ to the july 20th joint meeting with the

15:10 ↗ development commission

15:12 ↗ since it has been some time since the

15:14 ↗ commission has seen this item the

15:16 ↗ commissioners will be allowed to ask

15:17 ↗ clarifying questions before getting into

15:20 ↗ the discussion

15:23 ↗ staff please go ahead with your

15:24 ↗ presentation

15:29 ↗ thank you chair advice

15:34 ↗ so the purpose of tonight's discussion

15:36 ↗ on

15:36 ↗ the title 18 icap table is to go through

15:40 ↗ a couple policy questions that we were

15:42 ↗ posing but this is really a continuation

15:44 ↗ of the july

15:45 ↗ meeting that we had with a joint meeting

15:47 ↗ with the development commission

15:52 ↗ so the direction needed is going to be

15:53 ↗ on

15:54 ↗ whether or not we have a requirement for

15:56 ↗ larger buildings to meet third-party

15:58 ↗ certifications or whether or not we

16:00 ↗ establish a threshold of 20 000 square

16:02 ↗ feet to require the third-party

16:03 ↗ certification for green buildings

16:08 ↗ and just for background information um

16:12 ↗ there was extensive

16:14 ↗ discussions on a lot of the

16:15 ↗ sustainability development standards

16:17 ↗ last year

16:18 ↗ as part of the gaps analysis for the

16:19 ↗ title 18 project and so that first

16:22 ↗ meeting july was kind of a continuation

16:25 ↗ of those meetings from 2021 where we

16:27 ↗ were now presenting options based on

16:29 ↗ those conversations and so

16:32 ↗ one thing to note is a lot of the

16:34 ↗ significant changes that we're proposing

16:36 ↗ with what's on the table we'll be going

16:38 ↗ with the planned building code update

16:40 ↗ which will start next year potentially

16:42 ↗ going to 2024 so we'll be working with

16:43 ↗ the building official on several of

16:45 ↗ those changes and bringing a lot of

16:47 ↗ policy questions once we do

16:53 ↗ so in our peer city research we found

16:54 ↗ that most cities actually push for

16:56 ↗ incentive programs when it comes to

16:58 ↗ sustainable

16:59 ↗ development design

17:01 ↗ we found a couple outliers with mercer

17:04 ↗ island and redmond

17:05 ↗ which is fairly typical when we're

17:07 ↗ looking at development standards

17:09 ↗ they

17:10 ↗ provide different options in terms of

17:12 ↗ requirements and set of incentives with

17:14 ↗ mercer island

17:15 ↗ and city of redmond actually providing

17:17 ↗ an ecological score requirement

17:20 ↗ with their incentives

17:25 ↗ before i get into the

17:27 ↗ staff recommendation are there any

17:28 ↗ questions on any of the peer city

17:30 ↗ research which was one of the

17:31 ↗ attachments with

17:32 ↗ agenda packet

17:39 ↗ thank you stephen are you referring to

17:41 ↗ the table on page 28 of 49 of the packet

17:45 ↗ where the project type and the

17:48 ↗ cities across the top and then these

17:51 ↗ um square footages and unit counts

17:53 ↗ because it looks very much like the sepa

17:55 ↗ table

17:56 ↗ i believe so the super threshold i was

17:59 ↗ um i was just a little confused when i

18:01 ↗ was reading through this section because

18:02 ↗ it was so very much like

18:04 ↗ the sipa

18:05 ↗ threshold that

18:07 ↗ um i'm sorry

18:08 ↗ i just need a little walk through on

18:11 ↗ page

18:13 ↗ 28.

18:14 ↗ i want to jump in here too for a minute

18:16 ↗ and say i thought it was interesting

18:17 ↗ that we didn't actually have mercer

18:18 ↗ island as a city type when we um

18:21 ↗ when we talk about the different kind of

18:23 ↗ structures that our sister cities and

18:25 ↗ our neighboring cities have but yet our

18:27 ↗ table didn't include them as to what

18:28 ↗ kind of units they used and so i didn't

18:30 ↗ know if that information was on purpose

18:32 ↗ or

18:33 ↗ or available or not

18:36 ↗ i see and for reference i'm looking at

18:39 ↗ page

18:40 ↗ four of the memorandum page 18 of 39.

18:44 ↗ yeah it seems uh that attachment wasn't

18:46 ↗ part of your packet ah

18:51 ↗ yeah

18:52 ↗ okay

18:53 ↗ is it the the table that's the city kind

18:56 ↗ of down the left and an incentive or

18:57 ↗ requirement and then ecological score

18:59 ↗ requirement

19:02 ↗ that steven's talking about

19:04 ↗ this one yes

19:08 ↗ actually

19:13 ↗ yeah that's the table we're talking

19:14 ↗ about tonight the one i was just

19:15 ↗ mentioning was a different table that

19:17 ↗ showed a different list of cities from

19:19 ↗ the beer city research that this site is

19:21 ↗ speaking to but apparently you didn't

19:22 ↗ get it as part of your attachments

19:36 ↗ one second i'm pulling up the

19:37 ↗ attachments

19:42 ↗ okay we're looking at um what's titled

19:45 ↗ attachment being the upper right

19:47 ↗ that's what this okay

19:50 ↗ i get confused on which table mentioning

19:52 ↗ cities

19:56 ↗ so were there any questions on this

19:58 ↗ attachment

19:59 ↗ i do have one a question on this

20:00 ↗ attachment since we're there um i'm

20:02 ↗ specifically looking at seattle which

20:04 ↗ has an incentives based approach and

20:06 ↗ they talk about having innovation

20:08 ↗ advisory committee this group of experts

20:10 ↗ will review energy efficiency proposals

20:11 ↗ not covered in the technical codes i was

20:13 ↗ curious if this is something that the

20:15 ↗ environmental board can take on

20:19 ↗ if that's the approach that we

20:20 ↗ potentially want to go with a lot of our

20:22 ↗ regulations we can take a look at that

20:40 ↗ were there any other questions on this

20:41 ↗ table

20:42 ↗ okay i can continue on

20:46 ↗ so the staff recommendation is to

20:47 ↗ require

20:48 ↗ newly renovated newly or renovated

20:51 ↗ buildings above 20 000 square feet to

20:53 ↗ meet leed gold or equal

20:55 ↗ um also provide exemption for

20:57 ↗ sustainable buildings that are less than

20:58 ↗ 20 000 square feet for from sipa

21:03 ↗ and there's a couple options in for

21:05 ↗ consideration as part of

21:07 ↗ those policy questions

21:09 ↗ there is a consideration of

21:11 ↗ going to

21:12 ↗ less than

21:14 ↗ or going

21:15 ↗ lowering it to 10 000 square feet which

21:17 ↗ would actually have an impact on costs

21:20 ↗ for smaller projects but increase the

21:22 ↗ amount of projects that would be

21:23 ↗ considered for sibo

21:25 ↗ we could keep it the same at 20 000

21:27 ↗ square feet or we can raise the bar to

21:29 ↗ 30 000 square feet which would

21:32 ↗ is the maximum level we can go to based

21:34 ↗ on state recommendations that are

21:36 ↗ allowed for sibo but it would regulate

21:39 ↗ less buildings for cipa

21:43 ↗ something for consideration

21:47 ↗ and then when i in terms of the future

21:49 ↗ updates list the staff recommendation is

21:51 ↗ is the consideration of ecological score

21:54 ↗ um for buildings that are less than 20

21:56 ↗ 000 square feet but also the

21:57 ↗ consideration and development of a deep

21:59 ↗ green incentive program

22:01 ↗ in combination with some of these

22:03 ↗ requirements

22:09 ↗ so timing and next steps it's really

22:11 ↗ going to after a lot of these

22:12 ↗ discussions where the next meetings are

22:15 ↗ consideration the comp plan amendments

22:17 ↗ and so it is the consolidated draft

22:19 ↗ public hearings in november something

22:21 ↗ uh for consideration of that is as staff

22:23 ↗ is consolidating the drafts we are

22:24 ↗ taking a look at if the number of

22:26 ↗ meetings that are planned are adequate

22:28 ↗ for discussions for the commission

22:33 ↗ so now i'd like to open the floor for

22:35 ↗ clarifying questions on the policy

22:37 ↗ questions or the table itself questions

22:41 ↗ i'll start off with a question

22:43 ↗ and you'll have to pardon my ignorance

22:45 ↗ right now the question before us is

22:47 ↗ about building square feet as a

22:49 ↗ threshold but it seems to me too that to

22:51 ↗ be able to properly say that is for us

22:53 ↗ to establish how we're grading

22:56 ↗ these projects so there's been talk

22:58 ↗ about creating a categorized system and

23:00 ↗ then there's been talk of an ecological

23:02 ↗ score is it fair to say these are two

23:03 ↗ different systems or is the ecological

23:05 ↗ score going to be based on the table

23:07 ↗ that would be created or is this again

23:09 ↗ two systems they're

23:11 ↗ right now treated as two systems but the

23:13 ↗ proposal could be combining the two so

23:15 ↗ the ecological score is tied to the

23:17 ↗ other okay um

23:19 ↗ i think that it would be

23:21 ↗ um onerous for us to ask you at the

23:24 ↗ administration to say give us the plan

23:27 ↗ so that we can better know but i do find

23:29 ↗ it a little bit hard for us to get in

23:31 ↗ without some more granularity of saying

23:33 ↗ how do we want

23:36 ↗ buildings to be like i can imagine

23:39 ↗ categorizations there's language in here

23:40 ↗ that talks about

23:42 ↗ things that are favored by developers

23:43 ↗ versus little little things right that

23:45 ↗ are easy to add but not as onerous on a

23:47 ↗ developer

23:49 ↗ i would really love a score card that

23:51 ↗ talks about what's really hard what's

23:53 ↗ really tough so we get a little bit of

23:55 ↗ both right

23:56 ↗ rather than having the little things

23:58 ↗ being done

23:59 ↗ but that would put before this

24:01 ↗ commission the concept of what does that

24:03 ↗ scorecard look like and i think that

24:05 ↗ that would adjust the size of the

24:07 ↗ building right i'm having one um one

24:10 ↗ fabulous thing you guys did for us a

24:11 ↗ meeting or two before was going to talk

24:13 ↗ about here are some buildings you're all

24:14 ↗ familiar with in the city and here's

24:15 ↗ their kind of where they fall

24:17 ↗ and so

24:18 ↗ i think that it would be reasonable for

24:19 ↗ us to be talking about having a tiered

24:21 ↗ system if you build in this size and you

24:24 ↗ do these things then this is what your

24:25 ↗ score needs to be you build to this size

24:27 ↗ and this is what your score needs to be

24:29 ↗ and how they achieve that is up to them

24:30 ↗ right the things that they pick from in

24:32 ↗ categories but right now we don't really

24:34 ↗ have a lot of framework so i was a

24:36 ↗ little confused about um as we look at

24:38 ↗ our sister cities and what we want to

24:40 ↗ create and i was curious if right now

24:42 ↗ this is a little bit of a

24:43 ↗ a little bit of a free-for-all of all

24:45 ↗ saying hey this is what we'd like to see

24:47 ↗ or if this is a little bit more of us

24:48 ↗ saying this is what we want you know

24:50 ↗ what i mean i know that you guys are

24:52 ↗ asking about our square footages but i

24:54 ↗ was also wanting how do we kind of get

24:55 ↗ to that from another

24:57 ↗ roundabout

24:59 ↗ it was based on

25:00 ↗ the impacts of the size of projects that

25:02 ↗ we typically see and so we were trying

25:04 ↗ to some of the feedback that we heard

25:06 ↗ from the commissioners in the earlier

25:07 ↗ discussions was we're not wanting to

25:10 ↗ impact smaller projects and burden them

25:12 ↗ with costs but at the same time we want

25:14 ↗ to make sure that the buildings are of

25:16 ↗ adequate size for consideration for siba

25:18 ↗ and so this is where we kind of found

25:20 ↗ that middle ground at 20 000 square feet

25:22 ↗ in terms of the type of projects that we

25:23 ↗ see

25:24 ↗ that number might change over time as we

25:26 ↗ see more development but that is kind of

25:28 ↗ the consideration that we were

25:30 ↗ taking into for this proposal one thing

25:32 ↗ to consider with the scorecard

25:35 ↗ since you mentioned it commissioner

25:36 ↗ lewis is that the city of redmond what

25:38 ↗ they treat as incentives for the

25:40 ↗ ecological score we already require the

25:42 ↗ majority of those incentives in our

25:45 ↗ proposed code and so

25:48 ↗ some of the consideration of what that

25:49 ↗ framework might look like isn't going to

25:51 ↗ be so much as offering a huge suite of

25:53 ↗ incentives but more of offering kind of

25:55 ↗ a smaller suite of incentives that we

25:57 ↗ don't already require or we're changing

25:59 ↗ those requirements so that's just

26:02 ↗ something to consider in terms of like

26:03 ↗ what that framework might look like for

26:04 ↗ the

26:05 ↗ ecological score

26:07 ↗ is it possible to to think of an overlay

26:10 ↗ in terms of where the square footage

26:12 ↗ falls in town for instance

26:14 ↗ is that something that would be

26:16 ↗ again too onerous on staff to talk about

26:18 ↗ being

26:20 ↗ aware this applies versus doing it

26:22 ↗ citywide

26:23 ↗ we would have to see what it would look

26:24 ↗ like by doing an overlay um i know some

26:27 ↗ of the impact with sustainable design is

26:31 ↗ we're really getting the

26:33 ↗ the bigger impact by requiring like in

26:35 ↗ the central area where we're expecting a

26:37 ↗ lot a lot more development right but at

26:39 ↗ the same time

26:40 ↗ looking at sustainable building design

26:42 ↗ in the other sub-areas of the city is

26:45 ↗ also something for consideration too of

26:47 ↗ using equal materials or other types of

26:50 ↗ sustainable design as

26:52 ↗ um you know the

26:55 ↗ when we're looking at what's allowed for

26:57 ↗ land use in some of the other sub-areas

26:59 ↗ out just outside of central we want to

27:01 ↗ make sure that we're treating the sub

27:03 ↗ areas equally in terms of what we're

27:04 ↗ allowing

27:05 ↗ thank you

27:09 ↗ thank you

27:11 ↗ i want to introduce myself like i'm on

27:13 ↗ camera and i've got this old habit

27:15 ↗ popping back up stephen okay so i'm

27:19 ↗ trying to line up all the numbers

27:21 ↗ where are we now

27:25 ↗ cpa

27:26 ↗ and incentives and last time when we

27:29 ↗ talked about the sepa threshold i don't

27:31 ↗ remember it being 20 000 like i didn't

27:33 ↗ remember it being 30 either

27:36 ↗ so where are we now what's the draft

27:39 ↗ that we're working with

27:41 ↗ and

27:43 ↗ and then the suggestion

27:46 ↗ for

27:47 ↗ is on our screen is for just the

27:51 ↗ um certification

27:56 ↗ the answer to the second question is yes

27:58 ↗ okay the answer the first question is i

28:00 ↗ don't know off the top of my head so i'd

28:02 ↗ have to get back to you on exactly where

28:04 ↗ we're at right now i

28:06 ↗ do remember when we were having the

28:07 ↗ conversations that

28:09 ↗ it's

28:11 ↗ it we're close to the 20 000 square feet

28:13 ↗ in terms of what we're requiring but

28:16 ↗ this is

28:18 ↗ right now there it's not a requirement

28:20 ↗ it's optional and so um

28:24 ↗ it's hard for me to say exactly where

28:25 ↗ we're at right now okay a follow-up

28:27 ↗ question

28:29 ↗ what do you think is more onerous

28:31 ↗ a sipa checklist

28:34 ↗ or a lead gold

28:41 ↗ from a staff perspective i think the

28:44 ↗ cipa checklist both both perspectives if

28:46 ↗ you could yeah so the staff is more

28:48 ↗ onerous it's more ownership on the staff

28:50 ↗ to have the cepa but not so much the

28:51 ↗ lead because somebody else administers

28:53 ↗ it also depends on the project through

28:54 ↗ when it comes to the cipa checklist so

28:58 ↗ certain projects are going to be a

29:00 ↗ little more extensive when it comes to

29:01 ↗ the cpa checklist in terms of how they

29:03 ↗ mitigate for certain requirements

29:06 ↗ at the same time the

29:08 ↗ lead gold asks for certain requirements

29:12 ↗ in order to get that certification that

29:14 ↗ isn't

29:15 ↗ standard and so being able to get either

29:18 ↗ the materials or to

29:20 ↗ acquire what's

29:23 ↗ acquire what's needed to get some of

29:25 ↗ those certifications is going to be

29:27 ↗ something new particularly for our area

29:29 ↗ so that's something for consideration as

29:31 ↗ well okay thank you

29:36 ↗ okay my turn and probably no surprise

29:38 ↗ i'm like a little confused

29:40 ↗ um so my question is on the

29:43 ↗ i guess page three slash page 27 like

29:46 ↗ one two and three the ten thousand

29:47 ↗ twenty thousand thirty thousand

29:49 ↗ um under ten thousand it says that

29:53 ↗ when this new state energy code

29:55 ↗ requirements come in i guess in next

29:57 ↗ july

29:58 ↗ and that they will require

30:01 ↗ renewable energy generation for

30:03 ↗ commercial buildings over 10 000 square

30:05 ↗ feet

30:06 ↗ and so i guess my question is that

30:10 ↗ does that mean are there other

30:11 ↗ requirements that will go along with

30:13 ↗ that um and if so is this 20 000 are we

30:16 ↗ actually like

30:18 ↗ going kind of

30:19 ↗ i don't know if it's above or under the

30:21 ↗ like what will be the state requirement

30:23 ↗ come next july

30:26 ↗ i can speak to it briefly uh stacey then

30:28 ↗ mckinstry the sustainability manager um

30:31 ↗ a little bit outside of my expertise but

30:33 ↗ have been doing a little bit of research

30:35 ↗ on the updated building code there will

30:37 ↗ be requirements for renewable energy

30:40 ↗ generation or purchase of credits as

30:42 ↗ well as heat pump

30:44 ↗ for water and

30:46 ↗ energy use so

30:48 ↗ in some ways the the leed gold

30:50 ↗ certification is a a placeholder to get

30:53 ↗ us um and to incorporate more of those

30:56 ↗ sustainable building uh aspects where i

30:59 ↗ think a lot of the state code updates

31:01 ↗ that'll come into play next year will

31:04 ↗ help address more of the climate and the

31:06 ↗ energy piece

31:08 ↗ there are and i know one of the

31:11 ↗ public comments earlier

31:13 ↗ addressed this

31:15 ↗ lead gold is going to eventually fall

31:18 ↗ behind our own state code but leed is

31:21 ↗ and usgbc is working to update it so

31:24 ↗ that it can stay ahead of our code

31:27 ↗ and allow for that

31:29 ↗ additional benefit of the buildings that

31:31 ↗ work towards that certification

31:35 ↗ okay so we're really just talking about

31:36 ↗ like the stop gap as you said so between

31:39 ↗ now and july and then

31:40 ↗ anything extra that lead gold might

31:42 ↗ require will apply to the over 20 000.

31:46 ↗ if this proposal is

31:48 ↗ what we go ahead with yes that's correct

31:53 ↗ that was a great question vice chair

31:55 ↗ because that was kind of my thinking too

31:57 ↗ i mean again the way i read this is that

31:59 ↗ this is mainly a stop gap until the 2023

32:02 ↗ report comes out so i appreciate it

32:06 ↗ any other clarifying questions

32:10 ↗ uh this is a little bit more of a

32:12 ↗ comment when looking at options one two

32:14 ↗ and three uh right now the staff is

32:16 ↗ falling on number two and i had the

32:18 ↗ thought about

32:19 ↗ um if we think about square footage in

32:21 ↗ terms of market rate versus affordable

32:24 ↗ housing i know that this adds another

32:26 ↗ dimension to it so again it could be too

32:28 ↗ onerous

32:30 ↗ we've tended to get our affordable

32:31 ↗ housing in a little bit of a onesie

32:32 ↗ twozy way when we're when we're building

32:35 ↗ and instead being able to have kind of a

32:37 ↗ sweeping percentage for instance

32:40 ↗ of saying uh unless you have a certain

32:43 ↗ number of units

32:45 ↗ um that would as a trade-off right if

32:47 ↗ you don't want to go through um

32:50 ↗ this energy certification process then

32:52 ↗ you need to have and i don't want to

32:54 ↗ throw out a number but so many

32:55 ↗ percentage right of your units be at

32:57 ↗ affordable rates right have we thought

32:59 ↗ about how we kind of cross incentivize a

33:01 ↗ little bit of saying look if you want to

33:03 ↗ build a market rate these are the

33:04 ↗ standards that we have and we have this

33:07 ↗ lower threshold right like the 10 000

33:09 ↗ however if you are going to be um

33:13 ↗ um

33:14 ↗ being able to help our housing supply in

33:16 ↗ maybe a different way than you were

33:17 ↗ thinking then there might be these other

33:19 ↗ categorizations is that something that

33:20 ↗ staff kind of

33:22 ↗ was

33:22 ↗ approaching yes actually that's a timely

33:25 ↗ comment because that's something that

33:26 ↗ staff has been discussing in terms of

33:28 ↗ like how do we balance the incentives

33:29 ↗ for

33:30 ↗ sustainable building design and

33:32 ↗ incentives for affordable housing and

33:34 ↗ make sure they're coordinating so that

33:36 ↗ we're

33:36 ↗ not creating a system where it's bashing

33:40 ↗ against each other and they're having to

33:41 ↗ choose one or the other but really we're

33:43 ↗ trying to get both and so that's

33:44 ↗ something that staff is discussing

33:46 ↗ especially as we're going through

33:47 ↗ further revisions for the code

33:54 ↗ any further questions

33:57 ↗ let's open up to deliberations

34:10 ↗ i guess it's a comment i was like is

34:12 ↗ this a comment or is it a question um to

34:14 ↗ what joy just mentioned about like

34:16 ↗ downstream effects of some of these

34:18 ↗ choices and so i think we're talking

34:20 ↗ about affordable housing in terms of

34:22 ↗ like the purchase of a house um you know

34:24 ↗ or like cost of rent but

34:26 ↗ um

34:27 ↗ does like

34:29 ↗ the lead stuff also affect just like

34:31 ↗ cost of living right let's see like

34:33 ↗ energy bills for people

34:35 ↗ knowing just kind of what

34:37 ↗ you know bills are high right now and so

34:39 ↗ are there downstream effects and can we

34:40 ↗ consider those as well

34:42 ↗ as part of this

34:47 ↗ sorry was that a question or a comment

34:49 ↗ okay

34:50 ↗ i was just making sure

34:57 ↗ i'll jump in on on comment on comment

34:59 ↗ time and i'll tell you that um

35:01 ↗ i

35:02 ↗ really big kudos to our sister city of

35:04 ↗ mercer island i think it made me feel

35:06 ↗ very empowered to know that they've been

35:08 ↗ doing this we have right now we have a

35:09 ↗ note that effective in 2016 all

35:11 ↗ recyclable materials for construction

35:13 ↗ demolition are required to be recycled

35:14 ↗ at king county designated facilities um

35:17 ↗ i don't know about anybody else but 2016

35:19 ↗ kind of feels like a lifetime ago

35:21 ↗ and i'm incredibly impressed by the work

35:24 ↗ that they've done and if anyone else

35:26 ↗ clicked on some of these links that

35:27 ↗ staff was so kind to present

35:29 ↗ that

35:30 ↗ it was very encouraging to know that

35:31 ↗ sometimes

35:32 ↗ uh it may seem like a harder road at

35:34 ↗ first but it's all coming around right

35:37 ↗ we know that we're at a tipping point

35:39 ↗ on a variety of issues

35:41 ↗ that are um host in our community and so

35:43 ↗ i was i'm very encouraged by

35:46 ↗ mercer islands telling us this is the

35:48 ↗ community we want and this is the

35:49 ↗ community we're going to build

35:51 ↗ at this point

35:52 ↗ thinking about a stop gap until 2023

35:54 ↗ when we do our building code i'm of the

35:57 ↗ mind to be a little bit more stringent

36:00 ↗ once we actually have in place and the

36:02 ↗ planning policy commission is able to

36:03 ↗ give a recommendation on how do we have

36:05 ↗ a score card how do we involve um the

36:08 ↗ equity board the environmental board of

36:10 ↗ being able to get feedback on creating a

36:13 ↗ tool that works for developers that

36:15 ↗ works for the administration

36:17 ↗ i kind of want to hedge our bet a little

36:18 ↗ more towards one i think that i could

36:20 ↗ align on two

36:22 ↗ if we had more of a framework in place

36:25 ↗ since we're still creating that and i

36:26 ↗ think it's pretty um

36:28 ↗ unrealistic for us to expect to be able

36:30 ↗ to create something really strong in the

36:32 ↗ structure we need right now

36:34 ↗ this year i would tend to be i'll get a

36:37 ↗ little bit more restrictive until we're

36:38 ↗ able to readdress it in the next

36:40 ↗ calendar year is where i'm sitting

36:47 ↗ she's sitting right next to me

36:50 ↗ i don't disagree with that

36:53 ↗ commissioner lewis about being stricter

36:55 ↗ until we have time to reconsider 2023

36:57 ↗ where

36:58 ↗ 2016 seems like a lifetime ago

37:01 ↗ 2023 is tomorrow

37:03 ↗ so you know how long are we waiting here

37:05 ↗ we're not waiting that long for

37:06 ↗ washington state to provide some code i

37:08 ↗ i don't have

37:11 ↗ a real lot to to help with here i find

37:13 ↗ this kind of confusing and difficult to

37:15 ↗ to balance these things that seem to

37:17 ↗ have

37:20 ↗ their own we're trying we're trying to

37:22 ↗ put things in one bucket that have their

37:24 ↗ own

37:25 ↗ purpose

37:26 ↗ uh and it's so it's hard to balance them

37:29 ↗ i will say that

37:34 ↗ the uh the creeping up of the sipa

37:39 ↗ exemption

37:40 ↗ uh continues to

37:43 ↗ kind of chip away at what we thought we

37:45 ↗ were kind of holding a ground on and i

37:48 ↗ thought i was

37:49 ↗ helping to speak for the community that

37:51 ↗ the cipa checklist is effective and

37:54 ↗ useful

37:55 ↗ so i'm going to say that again here that

37:58 ↗ we didn't want the

38:00 ↗ exemption

38:02 ↗ level to go up

38:05 ↗ and the

38:07 ↗ lead gold

38:10 ↗ is a good

38:12 ↗ standard to use and i would prefer it

38:14 ↗ wherever we use it instead of making our

38:17 ↗ own checklist

38:19 ↗ so that's all i really have to say about

38:20 ↗ that one is that i think that referring

38:21 ↗ to another standard i do trust that they

38:24 ↗ will catch up but their their very

38:26 ↗ lifeblood depends on them being relevant

38:28 ↗ or else they don't have an organization

38:30 ↗ anymore and all those people who work in

38:31 ↗ that big office in washington dc won't

38:33 ↗ have anything to do

38:34 ↗ don't have to put that in minutes

38:38 ↗ so so i would i would prefer to go with

38:40 ↗ a standard than a internally generated

38:43 ↗ checklist

38:52 ↗ yeah so i

38:53 ↗ um

38:54 ↗ i guess i'm okay with the number one for

38:57 ↗ now especially because it's a stop gap

38:59 ↗ and i think by the time the code takes

39:00 ↗ place it's like there for you know a

39:03 ↗ couple of months and then the state

39:05 ↗ requirements come which i think will

39:07 ↗ potentially be stricter than um what

39:09 ↗ this is um agree with nina i think just

39:11 ↗ go with lead gold as a kind of known

39:14 ↗ accepted standard um

39:17 ↗ and

39:18 ↗ yeah the cipa one i feel like last time

39:20 ↗ we had talked about and kind of come to

39:22 ↗ consensus at like the 10 000

39:25 ↗ um square foot level and especially if

39:27 ↗ that is like a standard that's going to

39:29 ↗ be coming for something from the state

39:31 ↗ you know um

39:33 ↗ did we just stick with stick with that

39:35 ↗ but um i also know that i'm not sure

39:37 ↗ where the kind of current

39:39 ↗ conversation is on that so

39:42 ↗ my two cents

39:46 ↗ well thank you and that was very well

39:48 ↗ said by all three of you i appreciate

39:50 ↗ commissioner milligan's point about the

39:52 ↗ the gold the lead gold

39:55 ↗ using it as one checklist i think that

39:56 ↗ makes a lot of sense

39:58 ↗ uh i appreciate commissioner lewis's

40:00 ↗ point

40:01 ↗ but it should be of no surprise surprise

40:03 ↗ i like number two and i think the reason

40:05 ↗ i like number two is i think staff put a

40:07 ↗ lot of work into it i believe it is a

40:09 ↗ clarion call to developers this is a

40:12 ↗ quad's open for business and we're

40:13 ↗ allowing it to move a little

40:15 ↗ um

40:17 ↗ you know i just

40:18 ↗ i keep hearing

40:20 ↗ that you know like i said we need to

40:22 ↗ without naming names

40:25 ↗ local developers

40:27 ↗ you know those are the developers i

40:29 ↗ think most of us for the most part again

40:30 ↗ with the checks and balances that we

40:32 ↗ have

40:33 ↗ these are the type of developers i i'd

40:34 ↗ like to see more in the city

40:36 ↗ you know there's some very big national

40:38 ↗ developers those ones are typically the

40:40 ↗ ones you get more trouble with

40:42 ↗ so i'd prefer number two because i think

40:45 ↗ it's a modest increase i don't think

40:47 ↗ it's asking a whole lot and it's showing

40:48 ↗ some good faith and good faith works in

40:50 ↗ both ways and i think the city needs to

40:52 ↗ show a little bit of good faith to

40:53 ↗ developers i think it's a very modest

40:55 ↗ increase it is a stop gap next year we

40:58 ↗ will have new rules and we can look at

41:00 ↗ this again but i think again to me i

41:02 ↗ kind of like the idea of

41:04 ↗ letting people know that we're not as

41:05 ↗ hostile as sometimes it may seem

41:12 ↗ chair boys if i might offer

41:15 ↗ an option for consideration for for the

41:17 ↗ commissioners

41:19 ↗ i heard several comments on

41:22 ↗ you know kind of depends on where we

41:23 ↗ kind of stand in terms of development

41:25 ↗ when it comes to the size of the

41:26 ↗ buildings if staff take a look at it and

41:29 ↗ see a comparison where we're

41:32 ↗ in the number of building or the type of

41:34 ↗ building developments that we're seeing

41:35 ↗ right now and we're closer to either 20

41:37 ↗ 000

41:38 ↗ and

41:39 ↗ we're feeling like that's adequate in

41:41 ↗ terms like the number of cipa review or

41:44 ↗ where we want to require the legal

41:46 ↗ would the commissioners feel more

41:48 ↗ comfortable with the 20 000 or

41:50 ↗ just with based on the conversations

41:51 ↗ we've had the 10 000 is where you want

41:55 ↗ to settle

41:57 ↗ in terms of that stop cap

42:03 ↗ would you say that again are you so see

42:05 ↗ because the problem i'm having is that

42:06 ↗ we've got sipa and then we've got this

42:08 ↗ incentive thing and i um

42:11 ↗ say it again i'll i'll start with the

42:12 ↗ incentive so with lead gold

42:16 ↗ the comments i heard was that we're

42:18 ↗ wanting to lean towards the ten thousand

42:20 ↗ correct

42:22 ↗ did i hear that correctly

42:24 ↗ i didn't say that

42:26 ↗ one i think we're talking about

42:28 ↗ right now city right now the city is

42:30 ↗ pairing the two of them together so

42:32 ↗ we've commented about one but no okay

42:34 ↗ okay that's where i got confused

42:36 ↗ apart if that's a little bit more

42:38 ↗ clarity um and i will tell you stephen i

42:40 ↗ think that um

42:41 ↗ for something that really rang a bell

42:42 ↗ for me was when you um when we talked

42:44 ↗ about

42:46 ↗ the chase bank on gilman

42:48 ↗ being just right around 13 000 square

42:50 ↗ feet right and for me i find that to be

42:53 ↗ a very good benchmark of

42:56 ↗ things that can be built in a variety of

42:57 ↗ places and so

42:59 ↗ that i think for me is a part of why

43:01 ↗ when i look at 10 and i look at 20 the

43:03 ↗ idea that at 20 what are we what are we

43:06 ↗ getting with that right when we start um

43:08 ↗ thinking about well

43:10 ↗ you know

43:11 ↗ a hundred unit apartment building

43:12 ↗ there's really not a lot of places that

43:14 ↗ um that this commission believes that

43:16 ↗ that building should be sitting in is

43:17 ↗ quite right we would what we want to put

43:19 ↗ that um capacity on the valley floor and

43:21 ↗ so again that kind of makes me go back

43:23 ↗ to well instead of doing city-wide we

43:25 ↗ have an overlay where we talk about

43:27 ↗ where it makes sense

43:29 ↗ to be having this differentiation of

43:30 ↗ space but it makes me nervous the 20 000

43:33 ↗ to be city-wide

43:34 ↗ for both of these standards i will say

43:37 ↗ that but part of that too is just

43:38 ↗ thinking about what is it that we would

43:39 ↗ be able to get from that so i skew more

43:42 ↗ to the ten thousand right now wanting us

43:43 ↗ to revisit our building code um when we

43:46 ↗ get handed down the requirements from

43:47 ↗ the state for that reason

43:53 ↗ okay that's

43:54 ↗ thank you

43:56 ↗ that's all i needed

43:59 ↗ would anyone else like to comment

44:03 ↗ i'm not sure what we got

44:06 ↗ are we saying that above 10 000 would

44:09 ↗ require a leed certified

44:12 ↗ building

44:15 ↗ below 20 000 would be no sepa

44:20 ↗ so above 20 would be cepa and lead

44:26 ↗ between 10 and 20

44:28 ↗ would just be

44:30 ↗ leed certified and under 10 would be

44:33 ↗ nothing

44:36 ↗ i don't know 10 000 just didn't seem

44:39 ↗ like the

44:40 ↗ um

44:44 ↗ eight unit townhome

44:47 ↗ complex

44:48 ↗ not having any sipa review does that

44:51 ↗ sound right

44:53 ↗ just to you i do want i want to

44:55 ↗ encourage missing middle but i'm just uh

44:57 ↗ that seems like a significant um

44:59 ↗ contribution to the city and it should

45:01 ↗ have some kind of environmental review

45:02 ↗ let's give them something else then

45:04 ↗ everything's by perspective so like i i

45:06 ↗ happen to work in a lot of large houses

45:08 ↗ and again these are houses that i'll

45:09 ↗ push the 7000 10 000 barrier

45:12 ↗ and i appreciate commissioner lewis

45:13 ↗ bringing up the chase on gilman because

45:16 ↗ again i agree with their 110

45:18 ↗ we know where we want our our big

45:20 ↗ development where to go

45:22 ↗ um but to me i guess the the difference

45:24 ↗ is perspective i just don't see that

45:25 ↗ chase bank is very big for the

45:27 ↗ development we're looking for

45:33 ↗ if i could offer one clarification

45:36 ↗ buildings under 10 000 will still get a

45:38 ↗ environmental review as recognized

45:40 ↗ through the cold it just won't be sipa

45:42 ↗ checklist

45:45 ↗ i think stephen i think what would be an

45:46 ↗ interesting discussion to have um

45:49 ↗ from the administration when you go to

45:50 ↗ council is to say

45:52 ↗ what does it look like where we require

45:55 ↗ we right now before we have a checklist

45:57 ↗ we're going to go with leed gold

45:58 ↗ certified certified and we're going to

46:00 ↗ have that be across the board if we just

46:01 ↗ take out the first requirement right

46:03 ↗ because a lot of this has been this

46:04 ↗ trade-off with cpa and so i feel like um

46:08 ↗ in some ways when i look at the planning

46:10 ↗ for this community i can't have all the

46:12 ↗ things that i want right i need to

46:13 ↗ balance

46:14 ↗ a host of things when i'm looking at

46:16 ↗ these at one time and acknowledging that

46:19 ↗ uh the state standard for cipa is far

46:22 ↗ past what our current threshold is and

46:23 ↗ that our sister cities have been

46:25 ↗ successful with raising theirs having

46:27 ↗ some give

46:28 ↗ on one part of saying okay we're going

46:30 ↗ to trust this process is working

46:33 ↗ but we still have goals as a community

46:35 ↗ that need to be met and we want to see

46:37 ↗ how we meet those right so that's really

46:38 ↗ where that recommendation came from from

46:40 ↗ ppc of saying hey how are we going to

46:42 ↗ get closer to where we want to be on our

46:44 ↗ sustainable goals um

46:46 ↗ so i i'm going to put out a crazy idea

46:50 ↗ that the administration can obviously

46:52 ↗ you know bulk out but what if we just

46:54 ↗ said

46:55 ↗ it's across the board this is something

46:56 ↗ that is a part of our values we'll be

46:59 ↗ re-looking at what that certification

47:00 ↗ looks like whether it be a checklist or

47:02 ↗ this or that but for now

47:04 ↗ this is what we require

47:06 ↗ for all buildings of any size for number

47:08 ↗ one and then our sepa threshold is

47:10 ↗ raised to the 20 000 to be more in line

47:12 ↗ with what modern uses are from the state

47:16 ↗ if anybody else wants to think about

47:17 ↗ that

47:19 ↗ did you say

47:20 ↗ all buildings lead certified

47:23 ↗ and then when it's residential i'm sorry

47:26 ↗ clarifying question did we talk about

47:28 ↗ the certification for residential

47:29 ↗ buildings

47:30 ↗ for bill green

47:36 ↗ we didn't talk about it tonight if

47:37 ↗ that's what the question was

47:45 ↗ i kind of like the latter part of what

47:46 ↗ the commissioner lewis had to say i'm

47:48 ↗ not so sure about the before part

47:57 ↗ so

47:59 ↗ how do i articulate myself here i feel a

48:01 ↗ little like unqualified to

48:03 ↗ comment on all of this but

48:06 ↗ i think

48:07 ↗ everything feels like a bit much um

48:11 ↗ and again

48:12 ↗ i hear share voices comments about like

48:15 ↗ you know we want to bring

48:17 ↗ developers in you know we want to be you

48:20 ↗ know achieving the other goals that we

48:21 ↗ have as well and so

48:23 ↗ i guess i'll say that the

48:25 ↗ i might even confuse the 10 000 20 000

48:29 ↗ that that that thing that we talked

48:30 ↗ about

48:31 ↗ um

48:33 ↗ will

48:34 ↗ get my vote for right now

48:38 ↗ number one yeah yeah

48:41 ↗ yeah

48:43 ↗ i think stephen that's probably the

48:45 ↗ closest you're going to get to consensus

48:48 ↗ it is thank you got my outlier view but

48:51 ↗ yeah

48:52 ↗ well thank you commissioners would

48:53 ↗ anyone else like to add uh

48:56 ↗ anything else to this discussion

48:59 ↗ all right

49:01 ↗ all right

49:02 ↗ so we are going to move along for

49:04 ↗ another lively discussion after another

49:06 ↗ fantastic presentation uh this is the

49:09 ↗ title 18 future updates list previously

49:12 ↗ known as the whiteboard

49:14 ↗ the purpose of this discussion is to

49:16 ↗ allow commissioners to discuss and ask

49:17 ↗ clarifying questions of staff on the

49:20 ↗ list

49:21 ↗ the staff will present on each bucket

49:23 ↗ section of the list and pause for

49:25 ↗ clarifying questions before moving on to

49:28 ↗ the next bucket so we have six

49:30 ↗ six presentations uh six opportunities

49:33 ↗ for clarifying questions

49:35 ↗ and then

49:36 ↗ um like the format everyone's so

49:39 ↗ used to lately then we will get to a

49:42 ↗ discussion

49:43 ↗ so please

49:47 ↗ thank you

49:48 ↗ thank you chairwise

49:51 ↗ so the purpose of this discussion is to

49:52 ↗ go over the future updates list as

49:54 ↗ turquoise indicated um

49:57 ↗ this

49:58 ↗ just for a little bit background this

50:00 ↗ was reviewed by the council committee

50:01 ↗ back on july 7th and again on august 2nd

50:04 ↗ and then the committee of the whole on

50:06 ↗ august 8th where we received a little

50:07 ↗ bit of direction on how to approach

50:11 ↗ taking on this future updates list which

50:13 ↗ is

50:14 ↗ is is going to be a living

50:16 ↗ i'll say a living document for our code

50:19 ↗ because what we've discussed with city

50:21 ↗ council is to regularly review our code

50:24 ↗ and so i imagine as we go through

50:27 ↗ tackling a lot of these tasks

50:29 ↗ some are going to be smaller some are

50:30 ↗ going to be bigger

50:32 ↗ this list will

50:33 ↗ also be adding items to the list as we

50:35 ↗ continue to review and operate with the

50:38 ↗ new

50:39 ↗ code

50:41 ↗ the direction we see from council is

50:43 ↗ that right now there's three priority

50:45 ↗ areas housing parking and then the

50:47 ↗ stream buffer analysis

50:49 ↗ future priorities as we're considering

50:51 ↗ our work plan and an available budget is

50:54 ↗ implementation of the ad hoc committee

50:56 ↗ goals as well as the implementation of

50:57 ↗ city plans and so as we're identifying

50:59 ↗ new tasks to take on with updating the

51:02 ↗ code we want to make sure they're in

51:03 ↗ alignment with what we have already

51:05 ↗ adopted with within our city plans

51:11 ↗ before i get started on each of the

51:13 ↗ buckets are any clarifying questions on

51:15 ↗ any of this

51:17 ↗ okay i'll type in and then i'll i'll run

51:20 ↗ through each of the sections and then

51:21 ↗ i'll pause for questions once i get

51:23 ↗ through all the bucket is that

51:25 ↗ good okay

51:28 ↗ so with bucket one

51:31 ↗ with bucket one with critical areas we

51:32 ↗ have the stream buffer analysis this is

51:34 ↗ something that's been discussed with the

51:35 ↗ commission before in terms of looking at

51:37 ↗ what's best available science so that

51:40 ↗ even though some things we've discussed

51:41 ↗ is already

51:43 ↗ looking to budget for early next year we

51:46 ↗ wanted to make sure that it's recognized

51:47 ↗ on this future updates list because it

51:49 ↗ is impact to our code

51:50 ↗ the other item is noise code update and

51:53 ↗ taking a look at

51:54 ↗ adding specific language on noise

51:56 ↗ impacts to critical areas because that's

51:58 ↗ something that we don't have specific

51:59 ↗ language on we have it for lighting but

52:01 ↗ not so much for noise

52:04 ↗ the other one is the

52:05 ↗ item that we were discussing earlier in

52:07 ↗ terms of looking at some type of

52:08 ↗ ecological score when it comes to

52:10 ↗ sustainable design

52:12 ↗ but also as it relates to the critical

52:14 ↗ areas and impacts on critical areas and

52:15 ↗ making sure it's recognized in that

52:17 ↗ scoring system

52:22 ↗ before i move on to bucket two are there

52:23 ↗ any questions on those three tasks

52:29 ↗ no questions okay

52:31 ↗ so with bucket two and landscaping uh

52:33 ↗ the first two items is looking at

52:35 ↗ developing a prohibited plants list and

52:37 ↗ that and a uh exploring an urban

52:40 ↗ forestry program two things that have

52:42 ↗ been called up before in previous

52:43 ↗ discussions as the caps analysis but

52:44 ↗ also separate from title 18 to make sure

52:47 ↗ that we're very clear in terms of like

52:48 ↗ what we want when we're putting in

52:51 ↗ any types of landscaping or planning

52:53 ↗ when it comes to new development and

52:54 ↗ make sure it's in alignment with

52:57 ↗ what we're looking for in terms of what

52:59 ↗ we want in school to look like

53:01 ↗ but also add clarity in terms of like

53:02 ↗ how we want to manage that system with

53:04 ↗ the urban forestry program

53:08 ↗ before i move on to bucket three are any

53:09 ↗ questions

53:12 ↗ uh

53:12 ↗ i two questions one is um when we look

53:15 ↗ at this is this to develop our own or to

53:18 ↗ refer to a standard such as king county

53:20 ↗ or king conservation district or other

53:22 ↗ resources that we might fall under are

53:23 ↗ you referring to the prohibited plants

53:25 ↗ or the uh well both of them

53:27 ↗ king conservation district has a

53:28 ↗ forestry program and uh king county has

53:30 ↗ a prohibited plants list

53:33 ↗ uh we haven't done much digging into it

53:34 ↗ but i i imagine that as we're developing

53:36 ↗ an urban forestry program we would want

53:37 ↗ to make sure it's coordinated with the

53:38 ↗ king county system

53:40 ↗ for the prohibited plants list it's the

53:42 ↗ same deal as making sure we're looking

53:43 ↗ at the peer city review but also what

53:45 ↗ king county allows or doesn't allow in

53:47 ↗ in their system so that we're at least

53:49 ↗ consistent with what we're requiring

53:51 ↗ then i have one more question do you

53:52 ↗ want me to go ahead or wait till the

53:54 ↗ others

53:56 ↗ we're going to talk a little bit about

53:57 ↗ uh upcoming business where we'll be

53:59 ↗ talking about our possible

54:01 ↗ new colleagues so enjoy the time we have

54:03 ↗ now

54:04 ↗ keep going okay so one more question has

54:06 ↗ to do with something that came up um

54:08 ↗ while we were deliberating fences

54:10 ↗ earlier and i had a lovely conversation

54:12 ↗ with valerie about hedges

54:14 ↗ and this falls into landscaping and we

54:17 ↗ have these um

54:19 ↗ standards in our code that prevent a

54:21 ↗ neighbor from encroaching

54:23 ↗ and

54:24 ↗ a setback from a neighbor's property but

54:27 ↗ we don't have anything that prevents

54:28 ↗ them from planting something that might

54:30 ↗ be

54:31 ↗ uh very tall or very

54:35 ↗ we haven't even talked about it you know

54:37 ↗ how the how the neighboring

54:39 ↗ you can't put a house right next to

54:40 ↗ somebody else's property line but you

54:42 ↗ can put a 10 foot

54:45 ↗ hedge

54:46 ↗ so i wondered is that something that was

54:48 ↗ considered

54:49 ↗ or is it anything that would fall into

54:51 ↗ this it would probably fall under that

54:52 ↗ prohibited plants list i imagine as

54:54 ↗ we're kind of developing that list we'd

54:56 ↗ be

54:57 ↗ changing it or at least identifying how

54:59 ↗ it might impact different land uses

55:01 ↗ within the city not necessarily just you

55:03 ↗ can use this in this we would want to

55:04 ↗ recognize that there's going to be

55:05 ↗ different development in different areas

55:11 ↗ a quick comment about

55:13 ↗ urban forestry program i appreciate this

55:15 ↗ being in the landscape and open space

55:17 ↗ bucket but what i recall as well is that

55:19 ↗ we had very hardy community comments

55:22 ↗ prior to our gaps analysis and then

55:25 ↗ during our gaps analysis where we talked

55:27 ↗ about the need for there to be dedicated

55:29 ↗ staff

55:30 ↗ who were doing this work as well as kind

55:33 ↗ of tangential work when we talked about

55:35 ↗ code enforcement not just being reliant

55:37 ↗ on neighborhood you know neighbors

55:39 ↗ reporting for instance when we talked

55:41 ↗ about um having in-house um technical

55:43 ↗ staff um you know right now the biden

55:46 ↗ administration is um is asking the

55:48 ↗ question what is an old growth tree and

55:49 ↗ they're putting you know so this is a

55:52 ↗ rapidly changing environment um but it's

55:54 ↗ one that's happening right now and we

55:55 ↗ need staff to be able to be up to date

55:57 ↗ and expecting

55:59 ↗ all departments to be able to do a

56:00 ↗ little bit of everything

56:02 ↗ is a little bit unrealistic right now

56:04 ↗ and so we had talked about um having on

56:06 ↗ on the whiteboard of having um a couple

56:09 ↗ different effective roles um i can think

56:11 ↗ of a couple different cities like miami

56:13 ↗ who have brought in um an actual

56:16 ↗ chief of staff

56:17 ↗ of climate to be able to manage better

56:19 ↗ manage across departments for instance

56:21 ↗ and so what i don't see here is kind of

56:23 ↗ the more administrative side of urban

56:25 ↗ and forestry planning

56:27 ↗ and

56:28 ↗ and then in turn also how we work with

56:30 ↗ neighborhoods is something that is kind

56:32 ↗ of missing so while i appreciate the

56:34 ↗ area that it's in i can also see a

56:35 ↗ duplicate category that right now is

56:37 ↗ missing from our whiteboard where we

56:38 ↗ talk about the administrative purpose of

56:40 ↗ how we actually

56:41 ↗ align our neighborhoods and be able to

56:42 ↗ better manage these programs

56:44 ↗ yeah for the purposes of this list we

56:46 ↗ didn't recognize the administration or

56:48 ↗ operations of this type of program

56:51 ↗ that's something that is in discussion

56:52 ↗ at staff and an administration level and

56:54 ↗ we'll be taking a look at the upcoming

56:56 ↗ budget on whether or not it's something

56:57 ↗ that's you can at least prioritize at

56:59 ↗ this time

57:04 ↗ i guess i have a real like softball um

57:07 ↗ question for you just on the format of

57:09 ↗ the table so this kind of covers all the

57:11 ↗ buckets the

57:12 ↗ rows that don't have anything kind of

57:14 ↗ next to them so like community space and

57:16 ↗ green necklace that just means there's

57:17 ↗ no

57:18 ↗ whiteboard items for that topic

57:20 ↗ that's correct and and i i forgot to add

57:23 ↗ kind of clarific clarification before i

57:25 ↗ started i'm not recognizing those areas

57:28 ↗ because it it felt

57:30 ↗ didn't feel prudent to add a list of

57:32 ↗ saying there's nothing here

57:34 ↗ when it's just on your table so

57:36 ↗ don't be surprised if i'm not

57:38 ↗ recognizing those ones that don't have

57:39 ↗ but if you do have questions on those

57:40 ↗ i'd be happy to answer any questions

57:50 ↗ okay and we'll move on

57:51 ↗ so for bucket three we have permitted

57:54 ↗ uses we're going to be taking a looking

57:56 ↗ uh taking another look at cluster

57:57 ↗ housing and as as we are continuing

57:59 ↗ these discussions on missing middle and

58:01 ↗ middle housing uh what cluster housing

58:03 ↗ as an option can offer for

58:05 ↗ um

58:06 ↗ as i guess filling that hole for a

58:09 ↗ missing middle and

58:11 ↗ and uh even though this is primarily as

58:13 ↗ part of the comprehensive plan we will

58:14 ↗ likely be making changes to the code

58:17 ↗ with house bill 1220 that's the

58:19 ↗ requirement for emergency shelters and

58:22 ↗ affordable housing as required within

58:24 ↗ your regulations and so be we're just

58:26 ↗ recognizing that on this list

58:33 ↗ i'm curious in some of these categories

58:35 ↗ that we have specifically number nine

58:36 ↗ and number 11 which is allowing cafes

58:38 ↗ and residential zones and impervious

58:40 ↗ service limits i'm wondering if part of

58:42 ↗ this um would be

58:43 ↗ good to talk about having on the comp

58:45 ↗ plan for 2023

58:47 ↗ right now we have these not covered

58:49 ↗ right so we kind of have a little bit of

58:50 ↗ a tbd on some of these things and i'm

58:52 ↗ wondering if um it would be a reasonable

58:55 ↗ idea of rather than prioritizing them in

58:57 ↗ the same way that um

58:59 ↗ obviously you know parking um and

59:01 ↗ streams have been prioritized by council

59:02 ↗ but instead to say that

59:04 ↗ some of these particular bucket three

59:06 ↗ categories made

59:08 ↗ maybe a comp plan i think we can have

59:10 ↗ those discussions what typically would

59:12 ↗ go in the comp plan is kind of that

59:13 ↗ higher level of in residential areas we

59:15 ↗ want access to

59:17 ↗ this right not necessarily cafes and

59:19 ↗ then from that would be kind of a result

59:21 ↗ of changing the code for that allowance

59:24 ↗ of cafes within the residential area so

59:26 ↗ i think i think the comp plan would be a

59:28 ↗ great place to have those discussions

59:30 ↗ but not specifically just for cafes sure

59:33 ↗ yeah but i've been looking at some of

59:34 ↗ these zones and i'm wondering if um

59:36 ↗ rather than making them a work item for

59:37 ↗ a future

59:38 ↗ um

59:40 ↗ development if instead it's saying hey

59:41 ↗ we're going to put this on the on the

59:43 ↗ docket

59:44 ↗ we have identified several actually a

59:46 ↗ lot of the items on this list for

59:48 ↗ conversations as part of compliment

59:49 ↗ thank you

59:52 ↗ the table staff have was much larger and

59:55 ↗ it didn't seem prudent to give it to you

59:59 ↗ quick question me

1:00:01 ↗ uh cluster housing uh how does this

1:00:03 ↗ differ from

1:00:05 ↗ the cluster housing code

1:00:06 ↗ excuse me that we have the for

1:00:09 ↗ critical areas

1:00:14 ↗ so the cluster housing

1:00:16 ↗ code that's specifically for the

1:00:18 ↗ critical areas is primarily for hillside

1:00:20 ↗ development um this one is primarily

1:00:22 ↗ looking at cluster housing in general as

1:00:24 ↗ how we're offering it as part of

1:00:27 ↗ providing either affordable housing or

1:00:30 ↗ different housing options

1:00:32 ↗ within the city

1:00:33 ↗ is there an expectation that this would

1:00:35 ↗ be an overlay or zone specific or

1:00:38 ↗ central it's a qua specific

1:00:40 ↗ it could be um that's part of what we're

1:00:42 ↗ what we're proposing is just looking at

1:00:44 ↗ it in general and to see if we want to

1:00:46 ↗ make any types of changes that better

1:00:48 ↗ align with what we're trying to achieve

1:00:49 ↗ at least when it comes to housing yeah

1:00:51 ↗ okay thank you

1:01:02 ↗ so for the next section for zones

1:01:04 ↗ the task is to evaluate urban village

1:01:07 ↗ commercial retail

1:01:08 ↗ zone for the allowance of multi-family

1:01:10 ↗ development and the allowance of cafes

1:01:12 ↗ resident both of these are items that

1:01:14 ↗ are kind of flagged as

1:01:16 ↗ potential discussion ads as part of the

1:01:17 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:01:22 ↗ question

1:01:23 ↗ um where did the um

1:01:24 ↗ evaluate the uv comrade

1:01:27 ↗ zone come from who where how did that

1:01:29 ↗ get elevated to the white board that

1:01:32 ↗ um

1:01:33 ↗ that was suggested through the public

1:01:35 ↗ comments and was wasn't something within

1:01:37 ↗ the scope of

1:01:39 ↗ making the change and so we primarily if

1:01:41 ↗ we couldn't make the change as part of

1:01:42 ↗ the scope of the project now we

1:01:44 ↗ identified it on this list

1:01:47 ↗ okay looking forward to that

1:01:48 ↗ conversation

1:01:55 ↗ so for the next section for specified

1:01:57 ↗ use standards um there was a suggestion

1:01:59 ↗ of pro prohibiting self-source

1:02:01 ↗ facilities

1:02:02 ↗ i believe it came from you commissioner

1:02:04 ↗ milligan

1:02:06 ↗ in one of our commission discussions and

1:02:08 ↗ so that was added to the list

1:02:10 ↗ in terms of the type of discussion we

1:02:11 ↗ might be having at a future time

1:02:16 ↗ and then for the foreman intensity

1:02:18 ↗ section we would be exploring impervious

1:02:21 ↗ service limits and then looking at

1:02:23 ↗ school setting and compact school

1:02:24 ↗ designs

1:02:27 ↗ are there any any further questions on

1:02:29 ↗ bucket three sections

1:02:36 ↗ so for bucket four there's the building

1:02:38 ↗ design uh code section specifically

1:02:41 ↗ looking at system

1:02:42 ↗ it's very similar to the discussions we

1:02:44 ↗ were having earlier tonight in terms of

1:02:45 ↗ looking at the building code and trying

1:02:47 ↗ to make advances of what we're requiring

1:02:49 ↗ whether it's

1:02:50 ↗ lee gold or lead platinum certification

1:02:52 ↗ or something of that sorts

1:02:55 ↗ as we continue a lot of those

1:02:56 ↗ discussions as when we go to the

1:02:58 ↗ building code

1:03:00 ↗ update going to nitpick something a

1:03:03 ↗ little bit right here and it's when

1:03:04 ↗ we're looking at this number 13

1:03:06 ↗ sustainable development and it talks

1:03:08 ↗ about washington state building code

1:03:09 ↗ being effective in july of 2023 and at

1:03:11 ↗ that time staff will propose an update

1:03:14 ↗ i want to strongly encourage that we

1:03:15 ↗ don't start that work in july of 2023

1:03:18 ↗ i'm always a proponent of us deciding as

1:03:20 ↗ a community what we want and then being

1:03:23 ↗ able to adapt to what state code is

1:03:26 ↗ because it's going to be

1:03:27 ↗ a process right so i kind of want to be

1:03:30 ↗ ready so

1:03:31 ↗ for july 2023 so just to put up a little

1:03:33 ↗ flag of saying um i think that there's

1:03:36 ↗ going to be a little bit of prep right

1:03:37 ↗ and just trying to put that on the

1:03:39 ↗ request to have that be on the on

1:03:41 ↗ staff's work items correct yeah it's

1:03:43 ↗ it's it's on staff's work plan and um

1:03:46 ↗ just to clarify it's not we're going to

1:03:48 ↗ come to you with a proposal it is

1:03:50 ↗ we won't even see the state code or know

1:03:52 ↗ what's really finalized until july 2023

1:03:55 ↗ and so that's when we'll start a lot of

1:03:56 ↗ those discussions thank you

1:04:05 ↗ so for the next section of bucket four

1:04:07 ↗ is with overlays and it's

1:04:11 ↗ so neighborhood visions is actually an

1:04:13 ↗ item that's identified on the citywide

1:04:15 ↗ strategic plan of looking at

1:04:17 ↗ providing neighborhood planning process

1:04:19 ↗ and so neighborhood visions would

1:04:21 ↗ actually build into the code what those

1:04:23 ↗ visions would be from the neighborhood

1:04:24 ↗ planning process that would specifically

1:04:28 ↗ look at what would be required within

1:04:29 ↗ each of the sub-areas of the city

1:04:31 ↗ because we have that for

1:04:32 ↗ a certain number of sub-areas but not

1:04:34 ↗ all of them and so we want to continue

1:04:36 ↗ those discussions in a sub-area so that

1:04:38 ↗ we can make sure that we're recognizing

1:04:39 ↗ what the character characteristics of

1:04:42 ↗ those sub-areas should be and how that's

1:04:44 ↗ enforced in the code

1:04:46 ↗ the other discussion for overlays is

1:04:48 ↗ looking at eco-friendly materials

1:04:50 ↗ one of the items was looking at roof

1:04:52 ↗ rooftop materials as part of the title

1:04:55 ↗ code so we want to continue a lot of the

1:04:56 ↗ discussions as it relates to

1:04:58 ↗ implementing the

1:05:00 ↗ the icap and want to identify other

1:05:03 ↗ equal materials that could be

1:05:05 ↗ required or um

1:05:08 ↗ provided as an incentive to use within

1:05:11 ↗ our sustainable building design

1:05:15 ↗ and then for site urban design it's

1:05:18 ↗ we would want to be exploring developing

1:05:20 ↗ a

1:05:21 ↗ view shed analysis so that we could be a

1:05:22 ↗ lot more specific in terms of like what

1:05:24 ↗ we want to actually preserve in terms of

1:05:26 ↗ view shed into the city as well right

1:05:28 ↗ now the regulations are very broad

1:05:30 ↗ and we want to be a lot more specific

1:05:33 ↗ consistent with a lot of the other

1:05:34 ↗ regulations that we've updated as part

1:05:36 ↗ of this project

1:05:37 ↗ the other regulations that we'll be

1:05:39 ↗ wanting to take a look at it and

1:05:40 ↗ providing a little more specifics on is

1:05:42 ↗ wayfinding that's something that

1:05:44 ↗ everybody has recognized to be

1:05:46 ↗ essential for a lot of connections and

1:05:48 ↗ whether it's walkability or even for

1:05:50 ↗ connectivity for throughout the city

1:05:53 ↗ we just haven't identified what that

1:05:55 ↗ should look like throughout the city at

1:05:56 ↗ least for private development

1:05:58 ↗ and then the same would be for universal

1:06:01 ↗ design regulations providing specifics

1:06:02 ↗ of what that actually means

1:06:04 ↗ because we have very broad language from

1:06:06 ↗ existing code that

1:06:08 ↗ is

1:06:09 ↗ was carrying over but we're looking to

1:06:11 ↗ remove it until we can actually have

1:06:13 ↗ those conversations of what that

1:06:14 ↗ actually means for issaquah

1:06:16 ↗ and then

1:06:17 ↗ the last item form based code that's

1:06:19 ↗ actually a flag as a discussion item as

1:06:21 ↗ part of the comprehensive plan to look

1:06:22 ↗ at if we want to make that shift to

1:06:25 ↗ foreign base code which has actually

1:06:26 ↗ been a proven

1:06:28 ↗ uh strategy for a lot of cities

1:06:29 ↗ throughout the nation to achieve exactly

1:06:31 ↗ what the city esqua is trying to achieve

1:06:37 ↗ any questions on bucket four

1:06:40 ↗ i have a question on bucket three

1:06:44 ↗ yes thank you

1:06:46 ↗ um

1:06:49 ↗ there are a bunch of questions

1:06:50 ↗ not book of three maybe

1:06:52 ↗ the one that was about overlays

1:06:54 ↗ where'd that go

1:06:56 ↗ that one okay

1:06:58 ↗ sorry got my numbers next time thank you

1:07:01 ↗ um where would the conversation go about

1:07:04 ↗ focusing

1:07:06 ↗ uh growth in residential development in

1:07:08 ↗ central issaquah

1:07:10 ↗ where it is by our targets

1:07:13 ↗ and preserving single-family

1:07:14 ↗ neighborhoods is that a neighborhood

1:07:16 ↗ overlay

1:07:17 ↗ or is that where does that go

1:07:22 ↗ it just talks about neighborhood

1:07:23 ↗ character and

1:07:25 ↗ protecting neighborhood character and

1:07:27 ↗ all these sorts of things so i was

1:07:29 ↗ thinking that this might be where

1:07:31 ↗ finding some way to

1:07:34 ↗ express that

1:07:36 ↗ what i think is a popular opinion for

1:07:38 ↗ our single family neighborhoods where

1:07:39 ↗ would we express that i believe that

1:07:41 ↗ would go into overlays but i have to

1:07:43 ↗ double check

1:07:45 ↗ okay thank you but i know we had similar

1:07:48 ↗ language before in the code that we've

1:07:50 ↗ been taking a look at okay thanks

1:07:53 ↗ um i'm going to stick with overlays

1:07:56 ↗ right now as well for bucket four and

1:07:58 ↗ say that it seemed to me that this might

1:08:00 ↗ be an appropriate place to have a new

1:08:01 ↗ board formed

1:08:03 ↗ when we talk about how we better

1:08:05 ↗ consolidate our community involvement i

1:08:07 ↗ could see

1:08:09 ↗ a board that maybe tackles some of our

1:08:11 ↗ existing boards that aren't necessarily

1:08:14 ↗ needing

1:08:15 ↗ the kind of capacity that maybe ours

1:08:17 ↗ does cemetery board you know things like

1:08:19 ↗ that and i wonder if instead a creation

1:08:21 ↗ of a neighborhood board would be

1:08:22 ↗ relevant um to be able to have

1:08:24 ↗ stakeholders across the city being able

1:08:26 ↗ to be represented to be able to have a

1:08:28 ↗ regular space where they're able to um

1:08:31 ↗ see all the different things that come

1:08:32 ↗ through the city and be able to add a

1:08:33 ↗ neighborhood perspective um i think that

1:08:36 ↗ you know maybe a a collapse or a

1:08:39 ↗ conjoining of some boards and the

1:08:40 ↗ creation of one kind of similar to what

1:08:42 ↗ we did with the environmental board may

1:08:43 ↗ be applicable for when we talk about

1:08:45 ↗ being able to have the people who are on

1:08:47 ↗ the ground being able to talk about

1:08:48 ↗ overlays

1:08:49 ↗ and how they want you know the materials

1:08:51 ↗ they want used in their neighborhoods

1:08:53 ↗ and things like that i think it could be

1:08:54 ↗ a relevant place a different way of kind

1:08:56 ↗ of looking at the way we have in

1:08:57 ↗ community involvement

1:09:06 ↗ oh i'll stick also with beckett 4 right

1:09:08 ↗ now on the site in urban design for the

1:09:10 ↗ view shed study um

1:09:12 ↗ previously

1:09:14 ↗ in the days of yore this commission

1:09:17 ↗ was told a little bit of the opposite

1:09:19 ↗ view we made we made the code broad on

1:09:22 ↗ purpose because we have huge swaths of

1:09:25 ↗ area that it applies to right so the

1:09:28 ↗ idea of narrowing it

1:09:30 ↗ um it will be something that was

1:09:32 ↗ interesting when we have the discussion

1:09:34 ↗ about how

1:09:35 ↗ how we narrow right because i think it's

1:09:37 ↗ been

1:09:38 ↗ in all the years that i've been here

1:09:40 ↗ it's been an overwhelming

1:09:42 ↗ response by the community to say that

1:09:43 ↗ it's a priority for them and they value

1:09:46 ↗ it above many other values

1:09:49 ↗ so for instance being able to have

1:09:51 ↗ different developer trade-offs

1:09:53 ↗ height has never been one that the

1:09:54 ↗ community has been willing to kind of

1:09:56 ↗ give on so

1:09:58 ↗ i didn't necessarily read that

1:09:59 ↗ perspective in the very brief notes not

1:10:02 ↗ that it's not included in 16 um but i

1:10:04 ↗ just i it reminded me again of putting

1:10:07 ↗ on my granny glasses and my walker and

1:10:09 ↗ remembering that when we looked at this

1:10:10 ↗ before it was broad for a reason and so

1:10:13 ↗ it will be interesting to say why are we

1:10:15 ↗ being more prescriptive and how are we

1:10:16 ↗ going to achieve our goals

1:10:28 ↗ any other comments or questions okay

1:10:31 ↗ now we'll move on to bucket five so the

1:10:33 ↗ first one with affordable housing this

1:10:34 ↗ is a continuation of uh the discussions

1:10:36 ↗ on missing middle the

1:10:39 ↗ implementation of our housing strategy

1:10:40 ↗ work plan the

1:10:43 ↗ discussions from the happy grant it's

1:10:44 ↗ all related to this even though it's

1:10:46 ↗ identified as one task it really is

1:10:48 ↗ multiple tasks as it relates to housing

1:10:51 ↗ for the city of issaquah and so that's

1:10:53 ↗ just something that we want to recognize

1:10:54 ↗ because it'll likely have impacts on the

1:10:56 ↗ code

1:10:59 ↗ and then for transfer development rights

1:11:01 ↗ the discussions that we've had with

1:11:03 ↗ council is that we want to take a look

1:11:05 ↗ at the interlocal agreement with king

1:11:06 ↗ county and exploration of

1:11:08 ↗ another program that could help with

1:11:11 ↗ the use of tdrs within the city as

1:11:14 ↗ and expanding its uses

1:11:18 ↗ and then for

1:11:21 ↗ parking it was everybody's

1:11:23 ↗ favorite topic is i have two slides for

1:11:25 ↗ parking

1:11:26 ↗ we're going to be taking a look at

1:11:27 ↗ drive-through facilities

1:11:29 ↗ the shuttles

1:11:32 ↗ i believe as a flex incentive program

1:11:35 ↗ and then

1:11:35 ↗ potentially

1:11:36 ↗ and also looking at off street update or

1:11:39 ↗ off-street parking regulation update and

1:11:41 ↗ so that's something that's recognized on

1:11:43 ↗ the future updates list that's something

1:11:44 ↗ that we want to make sure that we're

1:11:47 ↗ if we're going to be applying parking

1:11:48 ↗ regulations that they're updated as a

1:11:50 ↗ lot of them are based on older studies

1:11:52 ↗ that don't necessarily recognize the

1:11:54 ↗ newer development within the city

1:11:56 ↗ the

1:11:57 ↗ electric vehicle regulations

1:12:00 ↗ as it applies for

1:12:02 ↗ major multi-family or commercial

1:12:04 ↗ developments but also for single-family

1:12:05 ↗ development something that's being

1:12:06 ↗ recognized by the state in

1:12:08 ↗ its next update

1:12:10 ↗ and then also looking at the transfer

1:12:11 ↗ development or not the transfer the

1:12:14 ↗ transportation demand management program

1:12:16 ↗ and the regulations behind that in terms

1:12:18 ↗ of

1:12:19 ↗ how do we want to regulate how new

1:12:23 ↗ developments are impacting the street

1:12:25 ↗ system and making sure that they are

1:12:27 ↗ having a much more multi-modal approach

1:12:29 ↗ particularly in the central israel area

1:12:34 ↗ and then lastly for parking is looking

1:12:37 ↗ at exemptions for affordable housing

1:12:38 ↗ that's something that was identified as

1:12:40 ↗ staff as an important aspect of our

1:12:42 ↗ housing conversations

1:12:43 ↗ and the same goes for structure parking

1:12:45 ↗ regulations that

1:12:47 ↗ many developers have said that our code

1:12:50 ↗ is either too strict or not clear enough

1:12:52 ↗ of what we're requiring for parking

1:12:54 ↗ regulations and that

1:12:56 ↗ it is very difficult to come up with

1:12:58 ↗ affordable housing with the structured

1:13:00 ↗ parking regulations that we have in

1:13:01 ↗ place

1:13:02 ↗ and so we'll be taking a look at that to

1:13:04 ↗ to modify whether we want it or if we

1:13:08 ↗ want to change it so that it applies for

1:13:10 ↗ a lot of the other changes of

1:13:11 ↗ regulations that we're

1:13:12 ↗ having in conversations

1:13:14 ↗ and then for the transit credit that's

1:13:16 ↗ taking a look at parking regulations in

1:13:18 ↗ in relation to the location of transit

1:13:21 ↗ services and providing a credit uh for

1:13:24 ↗ developments that are in close proximity

1:13:26 ↗ to a lot of that

1:13:27 ↗ and then looking at shared driveway use

1:13:30 ↗ that's something that was flagged by our

1:13:31 ↗ city attorney's office uh to take

1:13:34 ↗ another review at um to make sure that

1:13:37 ↗ we have legal standing for what we're

1:13:39 ↗ requiring

1:13:42 ↗ and then you may have noticed bucket six

1:13:45 ↗ oh yes

1:13:48 ↗ so because the uh this is why it's so

1:13:50 ↗ confusing and complicated is the single

1:13:52 ↗ family housing

1:13:55 ↗ areas and neighborhoods that we're

1:13:56 ↗ trying to preserve

1:13:58 ↗ are evaluated in so many different

1:14:01 ↗ places and in the missing middle

1:14:03 ↗ so-called missing middle

1:14:04 ↗ section again we're talking about using

1:14:07 ↗ single-family

1:14:08 ↗ housing

1:14:09 ↗ zones to accommodate missing middle

1:14:12 ↗ housing diversity and

1:14:15 ↗ number one the growth for housing is

1:14:18 ↗ targeted for central issaquad central

1:14:20 ↗ issaquah has room for missing middle

1:14:22 ↗ housing diversity another is that

1:14:25 ↗ i would i hope that when this comes back

1:14:28 ↗ that the isn't there a report that has

1:14:31 ↗ the housing mix in the city of issaquah

1:14:34 ↗ that would really help us see because

1:14:36 ↗ sometimes i'll tell you some of the

1:14:37 ↗ missing middle it's not missing we have

1:14:39 ↗ a lot of it you just don't see it so i

1:14:41 ↗ need a report that tells me really do we

1:14:42 ↗ have the percentages that we're trying

1:14:44 ↗ to have do we have the

1:14:46 ↗ um are we covering the bases and the

1:14:48 ↗ appropriate proportions that we would

1:14:50 ↗ like to and then where does the growth

1:14:51 ↗ need to go

1:14:53 ↗ i haven't heard

1:14:54 ↗ any of the public's

1:14:57 ↗ support

1:14:59 ↗ for using single-family zoning for

1:15:00 ↗ missing middle or more

1:15:03 ↗ dense housing if that's how it goes so

1:15:06 ↗ i'm just

1:15:07 ↗ saying it again because they're often

1:15:09 ↗ not here and heard and then uh i want to

1:15:12 ↗ say

1:15:13 ↗ to

1:15:14 ↗ staff

1:15:15 ↗ everywhere

1:15:16 ↗ that uh there's so much good stuff that

1:15:19 ↗ you're putting up here and when we say

1:15:20 ↗ no i don't have anything to say that

1:15:21 ↗ really means yeah good job move on so

1:15:24 ↗ anyway compliments to you uh back to

1:15:26 ↗ parking

1:15:27 ↗ the

1:15:28 ↗ tdm is that what uh what covers

1:15:32 ↗ the um

1:15:34 ↗ evaluating the value of on-street

1:15:36 ↗ parking

1:15:37 ↗ is that where that comes

1:15:39 ↗ for when say you have dense housing next

1:15:41 ↗ to on-street parking and the

1:15:44 ↗ parking that is allocated on-site is not

1:15:47 ↗ being used but residents are using

1:15:50 ↗ on-street parking which is designated to

1:15:52 ↗ an adjacent use for instance in its

1:15:55 ↗ account you know what i'm am i saying

1:15:57 ↗ that right yes

1:15:58 ↗ yep

1:16:00 ↗ gotta turn this on the um so the last

1:16:03 ↗ part that that's actually a separate

1:16:05 ↗ flex program that's offered as part of

1:16:07 ↗ one of the parking incentives uh that

1:16:09 ↗ wasn't on this list it is related to the

1:16:11 ↗ tdm portion of the parking regulations

1:16:14 ↗ as that was requiring

1:16:15 ↗ of some type of agreement with the

1:16:17 ↗ developer or the op or the property

1:16:20 ↗ manager for the property

1:16:22 ↗ to identify other methods and then you

1:16:25 ↗ know shared parking would be one of

1:16:26 ↗ those things or

1:16:29 ↗ access to transit would be one of those

1:16:30 ↗ things or

1:16:33 ↗ potentially looking at

1:16:35 ↗ uh another method that would uh get

1:16:38 ↗ people away from either owning a car and

1:16:40 ↗ using it on the property or

1:16:43 ↗ using some type of other mode of

1:16:45 ↗ transportation from that property

1:16:49 ↗ uh if i could just follow up on that so

1:16:51 ↗ then uh to the transit center i think

1:16:53 ↗ discussion that we had

1:16:55 ↗ with mobility master plan um it relates

1:16:58 ↗ to parking and how

1:16:59 ↗ having a terminus of a transit center

1:17:01 ↗ here in isequan we already are

1:17:04 ↗ just look at issaquah highlands where we

1:17:06 ↗ have a significant park and ride

1:17:08 ↗ and it has its own parking and yet

1:17:10 ↗ people

1:17:11 ↗ who want to use that transit often park

1:17:15 ↗ in parking that is thought of as

1:17:17 ↗ um on street on street parking for the

1:17:19 ↗ adjacent uses of retail

1:17:21 ↗ and

1:17:23 ↗ we haven't put any controls on that kind

1:17:24 ↗ of thing but

1:17:26 ↗ um the need will soon come if it isn't

1:17:30 ↗ here already

1:17:31 ↗ as we have a

1:17:33 ↗ transit major transit centers

1:17:35 ↗ serving cities like north bend who are

1:17:38 ↗ people are driving in here dropping off

1:17:39 ↗ their cars and getting on transit

1:17:41 ↗ are you are you saying the uh the time

1:17:43 ↗ will come one will have to manage the

1:17:45 ↗ parking manager on street park i got it

1:17:47 ↗ okay yeah

1:17:48 ↗ and so i hope there's a bullet point for

1:17:50 ↗ that

1:17:52 ↗ thank you

1:17:54 ↗ um i'm going to add on to the parking

1:17:56 ↗ discussion only because it's so much fun

1:17:59 ↗ and this commission has spent so much

1:18:00 ↗ time talking about parking um that i i

1:18:03 ↗ want to highlight something that i was a

1:18:05 ↗ little confused about on on the way that

1:18:07 ↗ the parking is

1:18:09 ↗ is detailed right now on the on the

1:18:12 ↗ future workboard

1:18:14 ↗ i don't know the right term right now i

1:18:15 ↗ know it um so is to say that one reason

1:18:18 ↗ that the parking code is the way that it

1:18:21 ↗ is which we know is

1:18:24 ↗ on the higher side of requirements is

1:18:26 ↗ because we designed it to have a live

1:18:28 ↗ work balance we wanted to have retail on

1:18:30 ↗ ground floor and you needed to be able

1:18:32 ↗ to have um a place for the retail right

1:18:36 ↗ and so when we started looking at our

1:18:37 ↗ requirements and we really started to

1:18:38 ↗ deep dive into what we were requiring

1:18:40 ↗ for residential what we're requiring and

1:18:42 ↗ how it was going to be blending day to

1:18:44 ↗ night um we weren't really able to lower

1:18:47 ↗ it much more than we were when we

1:18:49 ↗ actually started doing parking studies

1:18:50 ↗ right we found the parking studies told

1:18:52 ↗ us that issaquah the city streets were

1:18:54 ↗ not at capacity however parking rides

1:18:57 ↗ are far past capacity right and so we

1:18:59 ↗ had this very bizarre

1:19:01 ↗ mix of things that we're going into when

1:19:03 ↗ we made our parking code and so what i

1:19:05 ↗ didn't see talked about was that we were

1:19:07 ↗ going to be getting

1:19:08 ↗ new studies new data to be able to say

1:19:11 ↗ hey how is it that we're realigning

1:19:12 ↗ because right now how it's written is to

1:19:13 ↗ say hey we want to figure out how to

1:19:15 ↗ reduce parking but when we've tried to

1:19:17 ↗ do that before there's a very real

1:19:18 ↗ reason why we don't

1:19:20 ↗ right everyone likes the idea of not

1:19:22 ↗ having parking until you can't find a

1:19:23 ↗ place to park and therefore you're not

1:19:25 ↗ you're going to the next town over to be

1:19:27 ↗ able to get your services so um

1:19:29 ↗ i

1:19:30 ↗ i may i don't know if i'm if this is

1:19:32 ↗ just a cautionary tale again but um the

1:19:35 ↗ way that um parking is divided out in

1:19:37 ↗ our work plan right now i don't know is

1:19:39 ↗ necessarily synonymous with our goals

1:19:42 ↗ which is very odd to say right but right

1:19:44 ↗ now the way the parking is detailed

1:19:46 ↗ doesn't actually reflect i think the

1:19:48 ↗ parking discussion that needs to happen

1:19:51 ↗ so i would i would re-tool it a little

1:19:53 ↗ bit

1:19:54 ↗ you know i think that's a good point in

1:19:56 ↗ terms of clarity for like that

1:19:57 ↗ off-street parking analysis that is to

1:20:00 ↗ do actually a new analysis or parking

1:20:01 ↗ study for the city as well to look at

1:20:04 ↗ what those regulations should be it

1:20:06 ↗ added in with that conversation of

1:20:08 ↗ what's minimal or

1:20:09 ↗ minimum versus maximum primarily because

1:20:12 ↗ that's been brought up several times

1:20:13 ↗ throughout this process and so we want

1:20:15 ↗ to make sure that we're recognizing a

1:20:17 ↗ lot of those comments that were made as

1:20:18 ↗ per the gaps analysis but also with the

1:20:20 ↗ community

1:20:21 ↗ the conversations with the commissions

1:20:23 ↗ as well

1:20:24 ↗ absolutely i mean when we talk about um

1:20:26 ↗ drive-throughs to me i remembered um an

1:20:28 ↗ entire meeting that this commission has

1:20:31 ↗ had talking about how we want to direct

1:20:33 ↗ where drive-throughs are allowed because

1:20:35 ↗ of where we plan for future growth for

1:20:37 ↗ instance the creation of mall street

1:20:38 ↗ right where do we want to have purely

1:20:40 ↗ walkable

1:20:41 ↗ sites and be able to encourage that

1:20:44 ↗ there was a reason that we built our

1:20:45 ↗ code

1:20:46 ↗ it's not just for our needs now it's

1:20:48 ↗ also for our needs in the future

1:20:50 ↗ and the way that it read a little bit is

1:20:52 ↗ to say oh we're having a gap but we it

1:20:54 ↗ was my recollection we created that gap

1:20:55 ↗ on purpose

1:21:10 ↗ so for packet six you may have noticed

1:21:12 ↗ there's nothing there it's that's

1:21:14 ↗ primarily because we're not done with

1:21:15 ↗ the conversations with the council

1:21:17 ↗ committee on that and we want to make

1:21:18 ↗ sure we get through that conversations

1:21:19 ↗ before we start populating at least the

1:21:21 ↗ bucket six portions for the future

1:21:23 ↗ updates list

1:21:24 ↗ um but i'm happy to answer any questions

1:21:26 ↗ that you might have of

1:21:28 ↗ since you've read through some of the

1:21:29 ↗ draft code and answered some of those

1:21:31 ↗ policy questions of what could or or

1:21:33 ↗ might can't recognize but

1:21:35 ↗ at this point we'll show you what will

1:21:37 ↗ eventually go on that list after we have

1:21:39 ↗ that conversation with the council

1:21:40 ↗ committee on september 22nd

1:21:44 ↗ are there any questions for bucket six

1:21:48 ↗ all right

1:21:49 ↗ um if staff wouldn't mind could we take

1:21:51 ↗ a five-minute break

1:21:53 ↗ okay

1:21:54 ↗ don't mind it all right

1:25:43 ↗ well thank you and welcome back

1:25:45 ↗ and now we're going to begin our

1:25:46 ↗ discussions over

1:25:48 ↗ um

1:25:50 ↗ well what you just heard

1:25:52 ↗ so does anyone have any commentary for

1:25:55 ↗ the

1:25:56 ↗ different presentations steven was so

1:25:58 ↗ kind to share with us

1:26:07 ↗ any commentary at all

1:26:13 ↗ i mean i think that uh

1:26:14 ↗ we've done a little bit of commenting

1:26:16 ↗ while we did this and especially since

1:26:18 ↗ i'm looking at it up on our board number

1:26:20 ↗ six uh since it is still in flux there's

1:26:22 ↗ not really a lot for us to say until

1:26:24 ↗ until we come back and see um what moves

1:26:27 ↗ we're planning on making but i know

1:26:30 ↗ all of them

1:26:31 ↗ but in particular um zebra rules and

1:26:33 ↗ wireless are ones that i think are going

1:26:36 ↗ to require

1:26:37 ↗ a closer a closer look if not in this

1:26:39 ↗ title 18 update then

1:26:42 ↗ pretty quickly on the

1:26:44 ↗ on the garage board

1:26:53 ↗ no and i think that was

1:26:55 ↗ actually a little bit of the reason for

1:26:56 ↗ my silence is because i know we're going

1:26:58 ↗ to get the opportunity to talk about

1:26:59 ↗ this and i've always appreciated the

1:27:01 ↗ idea and i appreciate that council also

1:27:03 ↗ felt this way that

1:27:05 ↗ you know our code is supposed to be

1:27:06 ↗ accessible it is supposed to be living

1:27:08 ↗ and it is supposed to be returnable

1:27:11 ↗ so again i know we're going to get our

1:27:13 ↗ day with all of these different topics

1:27:14 ↗ we'll all have a lot to say

1:27:17 ↗ but so far the list looks pretty much

1:27:19 ↗ about the important things we've been

1:27:20 ↗ talking about since we started this

1:27:22 ↗ discussion

1:27:24 ↗ months and months ago

1:27:26 ↗ so

1:27:28 ↗ you know something else that we talked

1:27:29 ↗ about in our gaps analysis was that the

1:27:31 ↗ community felt that there was a dearth

1:27:34 ↗ of possible places to interject

1:27:37 ↗ and

1:27:38 ↗ that we were getting um buildings that

1:27:40 ↗ the community wasn't supportive of and

1:27:42 ↗ that the update for title 18 while we

1:27:44 ↗ were supposed to be

1:27:46 ↗ having an increased fluidity and

1:27:48 ↗ succinctness about the code we were also

1:27:50 ↗ supposed to be creating additional

1:27:52 ↗ places for the public to be able to be

1:27:54 ↗ engaging in their spaces

1:27:56 ↗ and in the construction of those spaces

1:27:57 ↗ and

1:27:58 ↗ i would be remiss if i didn't say that i

1:28:00 ↗ think that is not currently being

1:28:01 ↗ represented on the whiteboard and i

1:28:03 ↗ think that it's something that is um

1:28:05 ↗ fallen to the wayside a little bit on

1:28:06 ↗ our current first draft of title 18. um

1:28:09 ↗ i think that it's something that we can

1:28:11 ↗ do better about and i think that there's

1:28:13 ↗ further discussion to be had about how

1:28:14 ↗ we do that and how we have a better

1:28:16 ↗ living and breathing code as

1:28:18 ↗ our chair so eloquently put

1:28:20 ↗ and so i don't see it represented i

1:28:22 ↗ don't know that it deserves

1:28:24 ↗ its own bucket but it's something that i

1:28:26 ↗ think it needs to continue to be looked

1:28:28 ↗ at

1:28:29 ↗ um when we talk about how we make

1:28:30 ↗ revisions how this is a living code and

1:28:32 ↗ creating that structure i know we've had

1:28:34 ↗ discussions with the administration

1:28:35 ↗ offline about how um title 18 and um

1:28:39 ↗ will be continue to be looked at at a

1:28:41 ↗ more frequent

1:28:42 ↗ intervals than it has in the past and

1:28:44 ↗ things like that but i think it's worth

1:28:45 ↗ having a work item of talking about hey

1:28:47 ↗ how do we expect the community to be

1:28:49 ↗ able to have places to show up and be

1:28:51 ↗ able to be a part of the process

1:28:55 ↗ yeah thank you commissioner lewis i mean

1:28:56 ↗ it's amazing the explosive growth it has

1:28:59 ↗ really gone from a sleepy town uh even

1:29:01 ↗ when i moved here about 20 years ago the

1:29:04 ↗ changes are just exponential so it is

1:29:06 ↗ important that we're able to come back

1:29:07 ↗ again and again and again and keep

1:29:10 ↗ looking and revising our code to meet

1:29:12 ↗ the needs of today

1:29:13 ↗ or that day

1:29:16 ↗ anyone else that has any further

1:29:19 ↗ deliberations for

1:29:20 ↗ stephen and staff as far as this

1:29:22 ↗ particular

1:29:24 ↗ part of our business

1:29:27 ↗ all right well thank you for the

1:29:28 ↗ fantastic discussion thank you stephen

1:29:31 ↗ and we are now going to move on to

1:29:33 ↗ agenda item number five reports

1:29:37 ↗ city council updates

1:29:40 ↗ do we have any updates sure voice i just

1:29:42 ↗ have two quick updates for you so last

1:29:44 ↗ night we had a meeting with the council

1:29:46 ↗ committee to discuss

1:29:48 ↗ the follow-up items from bucket three

1:29:50 ↗ four and five specifically on parking

1:29:52 ↗ from bucket five and specifically on

1:29:54 ↗ subdivisions from bucket three and then

1:29:57 ↗ a long list of items from bucket four so

1:30:00 ↗ if you'd like to take a look at the

1:30:01 ↗ materials for that or if you have any

1:30:03 ↗ questions about what was discussed with

1:30:04 ↗ the community please let me know

1:30:06 ↗ and then on september 22nd we'll be

1:30:08 ↗ going to the council committee for a

1:30:10 ↗ review of bucket six

1:30:13 ↗ that concludes the council report

1:30:17 ↗ great thank you

1:30:20 ↗ any other reports are we just going to

1:30:22 ↗ move on to other business and

1:30:23 ↗ announcements that was the report

1:30:26 ↗ all right other business and

1:30:27 ↗ announcements are there any other

1:30:29 ↗ business or announcements from staff

1:30:34 ↗ i was going to mention

1:30:35 ↗ recruitment and interviews but maybe you

1:30:38 ↗ wanted to do that

1:30:39 ↗ uh sure yeah we've still i believe the

1:30:42 ↗ recruitment period is over

1:30:44 ↗ we have uh we have a good group of

1:30:46 ↗ applicants that we've already begun

1:30:49 ↗ interviewing and i believe the last

1:30:50 ↗ round of interviews will happen tomorrow

1:30:52 ↗ afternoon

1:30:54 ↗ so vice chair

1:30:56 ↗ bader and myself along with stephen and

1:31:00 ↗ miss porter and mr valdez

1:31:04 ↗ did i get that right maltress fell

1:31:05 ↗ dressed

1:31:06 ↗ so all of us were sitting in so again

1:31:09 ↗ we've gone through our first bucket i

1:31:10 ↗ believe we had nine applicants so

1:31:12 ↗ hopefully uh good things will happen and

1:31:14 ↗ so the next time that we see each other

1:31:16 ↗ on this dais uh it might look a little

1:31:19 ↗ bit fuller

1:31:20 ↗ excellent yes yes we've been a little

1:31:23 ↗ thin lately so

1:31:24 ↗ um yeah ideally i believe it's the first

1:31:27 ↗ meeting in october right

1:31:28 ↗ stephen correct but you do have one

1:31:31 ↗ meeting on september 29th so you might

1:31:33 ↗ have one more meeting before the

1:31:34 ↗ november start

1:31:36 ↗ i'm already trying to get through

1:31:37 ↗ september wow who tries to whisk their

1:31:39 ↗ life away

1:31:41 ↗ so the plan for

1:31:42 ↗ the recruitment process for new

1:31:44 ↗ commissioners is that

1:31:46 ↗ once we conclude the interviews tomorrow

1:31:48 ↗ we'll make the recommendation and have

1:31:50 ↗ the discussion with the mayor next week

1:31:53 ↗ and then the following week on september

1:31:54 ↗ 19th then the mayor will have the

1:31:56 ↗ confirmations with city council

1:32:00 ↗ great thank you

1:32:02 ↗ i believe that's it unless anyone else

1:32:04 ↗ has anything that yes commissioner

1:32:06 ↗ million

1:32:07 ↗ just a question about the calendar

1:32:09 ↗ the comp plan amendments uh is there a

1:32:12 ↗ permanent home where the docket sits

1:32:16 ↗ or something to refer to before we get

1:32:18 ↗ our packet

1:32:19 ↗ and tell me it's remind me a little bit

1:32:21 ↗ about the process i can't remember if i

1:32:23 ↗ did this last year

1:32:25 ↗ so is the question on where where the

1:32:27 ↗ docket sits in terms of like what items

1:32:29 ↗ you're going to be seeing yeah that and

1:32:31 ↗ then how do those two meetings go so the

1:32:35 ↗ onto the first one there is a website

1:32:36 ↗ that recognizes what was approved for

1:32:38 ↗ the docket for the compound amendments

1:32:40 ↗ that you can see and find the list of

1:32:42 ↗ what was approved from council

1:32:44 ↗ the other part of your question for what

1:32:46 ↗ the process looks like so the first

1:32:48 ↗ meeting will be a review of what was uh

1:32:51 ↗ proposed with the complements and

1:32:52 ↗ there's two items that you'll see on

1:32:54 ↗ that meeting and then you'll have the

1:32:56 ↗ public mir public

1:32:58 ↗ hearing

1:32:59 ↗ um in october i believe in that first

1:33:01 ↗ meeting in october on the comp plan

1:33:03 ↗ amendments

1:33:09 ↗ any further comments

1:33:12 ↗ all right well thank you everyone for

1:33:13 ↗ joining us if that is it we're going to

1:33:16 ↗ go ahead and adjourn this meeting

1:33:17 ↗ tonight at 8 06 p.m

1:33:20 ↗ thank you everyone

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

Commissioners Bader

Lewis

Milligan Absence: None

Staff (3)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning 2. Approval of Minutes a) CHAIR VOISS asked for corrections or concerns regarding the August 11, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. b) CHAIR VOISS asked for corrections or concerns regarding the August 25, 2022 Minutes. There were none

the Minutes were approved. 3