Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, November 13, 2025 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 23, 2025

packet pp.3–6

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, October 23, 2025

4. PUBLIC HEARING

IMC 18.606 Proposed Landscaping Amendments (A)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.7–30

Topics: Land UseTrees

Previously discussed: Transportation Advisory Board · Dec 4, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Jan 22, 2025 Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Feb 11, 2025 Planning Policy Commission · Oct 23, 2025

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Hold a public hearing for the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.606 of the Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC), Landscaping and make a

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.31–39

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 6, 2021

▶ Watch from 21:54 Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

To discuss an update to the Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP) and seek input on natural systems related actions.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.41–42

▶ Watch from 1:31:26 Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Christen Leeson 4/10/25 4/24/25 ▪ Chairs Election ▪ Tree Code

2229 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ Well, hello planning policy people.

0:13 ↗ Welcome to this evening's planning

0:14 ↗ policy commission meeting. We're going

0:17 ↗ to bring this meeting to order and it

0:19 ↗ currently is 6:32 p.m. Tonight's meeting

0:23 ↗ is a hybrid meeting. The planning policy

0:25 ↗ commission is in person. one of our

0:27 ↗ commissioners is joining us uh via

0:30 ↗ online, but also for staff or members of

0:33 ↗ the public, they also might be attending

0:35 ↗ virtually or in person. Kristen, uh do

0:38 ↗ we have a quorum this evening?

0:40 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:42 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. We're going to move

0:44 ↗ along and we are going to start with

0:47 ↗ approving last meeting's minutes. and I

0:50 ↗ was not here. But if anyone has any

0:52 ↗ concerns,

0:54 ↗ any corrections, please now

0:58 ↗ let us know.

1:01 ↗ All right. By unanimous unanimous

1:03 ↗ consent, those meeting minutes are

1:05 ↗ approved. And that was for the October

1:07 ↗ 23rd meeting. We are now going to move

1:10 ↗ on to public comment. And for this

1:12 ↗ meeting, we're going to hold general

1:14 ↗ public comment right now. If you do wish

1:17 ↗ to speak about the public hearing

1:18 ↗ topics, we ask that you hold on to those

1:20 ↗ comments for just a little bit longer.

1:22 ↗ This right now is just for general

1:24 ↗ public comments for the good of the PPC

1:27 ↗ and general comments um city business,

1:29 ↗ city issues,

1:31 ↗ but uh we'll start by asking has anyone

1:34 ↗ signed up to make general public

1:36 ↗ comments this evening?

1:38 ↗ >> No, chair, they have not.

1:40 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you, Amanda. So, I'm going

1:43 ↗ to read the public comment stuff when we

1:46 ↗ get to it.

1:51 ↗ Okay. Does anyone want to speak

1:54 ↗ generally at this time?

1:58 ↗ All right. So, it looks like everyone's

1:59 ↗ here for the public hearing.

2:03 ↗ Good news. The next thing on the topic

2:05 ↗ is our public hearing. This are the

2:07 ↗ proposed amendments to title 18 section

2:10 ↗ 18.606. 606 landscaping of the Isiziqua

2:15 ↗ Municipal Code. This will be our first

2:17 ↗ item of business and this is to hold a

2:19 ↗ public hearing regarding the proposed

2:21 ↗ amendments. The purpose of this public

2:24 ↗ hearing is to provide a formal

2:25 ↗ opportunity for public comment

2:30 ↗ on the proposed amendments.

2:32 ↗ We'll open the public hearing which will

2:34 ↗ be followed by a presentation from

2:35 ↗ staff. Then I'd ask the PPC to follow up

2:39 ↗ with any questions that you may have.

2:42 ↗ We'll take public testimony, then close

2:44 ↗ the public hearing, and then the

2:45 ↗ planning policy commission will have an

2:47 ↗ opportunity to make a recommendation on

2:49 ↗ this item. John Mortonson, the

2:52 ↗ transportation engineering manager, will

2:55 ↗ be presenting this evening. So, John,

2:57 ↗ when you are ready, please go ahead with

2:59 ↗ your presentation.

3:03 ↗ >> All right. Thank you very much. I'm John

3:05 ↗ Mortonson. I am the city's

3:06 ↗ transportation engineering manager. I

3:08 ↗ want to make sure you guys can hear me.

3:10 ↗ Okay.

3:12 ↗ >> Yes, we can.

3:13 ↗ >> Okay. I will share my screen in just a

3:16 ↗ minute.

3:31 ↗ All

3:45 ↗ right.

3:46 ↗ Thank you for having me here again

3:48 ↗ tonight. I am here to talk about the

3:51 ↗ landscaping standards for streets. The

3:54 ↗ purpose of tonight's topic is to hold a

3:57 ↗ public hearing on the proposed

3:58 ↗ amendments to chapter 18.606

4:03 ↗ of the Isiqua Municipal Code

4:06 ↗ Landscaping.

4:09 ↗ Some background on this information that

4:12 ↗ I'm presenting tonight are the street

4:15 ↗ standards are the standards that the

4:17 ↗ city has when streets whether privately

4:21 ↗ owned or publicly owned are um the

4:26 ↗ standards for design and construction.

4:29 ↗ And inside the street standards right

4:32 ↗ now the landscaping requirements. It

4:35 ↗ requires a planner strip and also

4:38 ↗ references Escoan municipal code 18.606

4:42 ↗ for a lot of the details. And when you

4:45 ↗ combine the two requirements right now

4:48 ↗ the current standard is a landscape

4:50 ↗ planter strip that is 5 ft wide with

4:52 ↗ street trees that goes in between the

4:54 ↗ travel lanes and the sidewalk. Right

4:57 ↗ now, the only allowable deviation to not

5:01 ↗ construct the 5-ft planter strip for

5:03 ↗ streets is for a safety risk. Usually,

5:06 ↗ that would be associated with sight

5:09 ↗ distance, not get driveways. Um,

5:13 ↗ however, the administration's done some

5:15 ↗ research and believes this is

5:16 ↗ inconsistent with the comprehensive plan

5:18 ↗ and critical areas code, which the

5:20 ↗ comprehensive plan talks about tree

5:22 ↗ preservation and the critical areas code

5:25 ↗ talks about avoiding and minimizing

5:26 ↗ impacts to critical areas.

5:29 ↗ And so the administration worked with

5:32 ↗ the mobility and infrastructure

5:33 ↗ committee and the transportation

5:34 ↗ advisory board to create guard rails to

5:39 ↗ revise these standards which were

5:41 ↗ presented to the planning policy

5:44 ↗ commission at the October meeting, the

5:46 ↗ second October meeting.

5:50 ↗ And just to put some visuals behind what

5:52 ↗ I had talked about, this is Northwest

5:56 ↗ Dogwood and you can see a landscape

5:58 ↗ planter strip. It has street trees and

6:01 ↗ it's in this case there's on street

6:03 ↗ parking but basically between where the

6:06 ↗ cars are and the pedestrians there is a

6:08 ↗ landscaped liner strip with street

6:10 ↗ trees. When the administration was

6:13 ↗ working on a preferred concept for the

6:15 ↗ Squawk Mountain sidewalk project, one of

6:18 ↗ the things that really stood out is in

6:21 ↗ order to construct the sidewalk to city

6:24 ↗ code that required the 5-ft planter

6:26 ↗ strip which made the

6:29 ↗ roadway section wider and would have had

6:33 ↗ significant impact on trees. And in

6:36 ↗ addition to the comprehensive plan,

6:38 ↗ really talking about pre-preservation,

6:42 ↗ also just knowing this community and the

6:45 ↗ values that it would not be very popular

6:48 ↗ with the community to cut down a bunch

6:51 ↗ of 60-year-old burned cedar trees in

6:54 ↗ order to put in decorative landscaping

6:56 ↗ trees.

6:57 ↗ Um, and so the proposed standards have a

7:01 ↗ deviation process to preserve trees.

7:06 ↗ The

7:07 ↗ critical areas code in title 18 really

7:11 ↗ talks about avoiding and minimizing

7:14 ↗ impacts to critical areas like wetlands

7:16 ↗ and streams and their buffers. And so

7:20 ↗ the administration is proposing changes

7:23 ↗ to the landscape standards to reduce or

7:25 ↗ eliminate the landscape planner strip in

7:28 ↗ situations where a project or

7:30 ↗ development is trying to avoid impacts

7:32 ↗ to critical areas.

7:36 ↗ This next photo is a photo along

7:38 ↗ Northwest Seamish Road. This is an area

7:41 ↗ where the it the city is designing a

7:44 ↗ project that will construct a 12 to 14

7:48 ↗ foot wide multi-use path for pedestrians

7:52 ↗ and bicycles. In addition, the road will

7:54 ↗ be shifting a little bit towards

7:57 ↗ Interstate 90. Uh but one of the things

8:01 ↗ that this proposed street standards have

8:05 ↗ are a deviation process to not make

8:09 ↗ steep driveways steeper in situations

8:12 ↗ where the property that's served by the

8:14 ↗ driveway is not being redeveloped.

8:20 ↗ And finally, there's a deviation that's

8:24 ↗ being proposed to reduce or eliminate

8:27 ↗ the planner strip when it comes to

8:30 ↗ impacting section 4F properties. These

8:32 ↗ are recreational properties and this

8:35 ↗ really applies to city projects with

8:37 ↗ federal funds

8:40 ↗ and this would be very context

8:43 ↗ sensitive. So this is the Harvey Manning

8:45 ↗ Park on the left and of course this is a

8:48 ↗ situation where you'd want to preserve

8:50 ↗ trees and not construct a planter strip.

8:53 ↗ And actually in this case we're not even

8:55 ↗ proposing sidewalk but um it also if it

8:58 ↗ was a city park with a playground then

9:01 ↗ it might make sense to

9:03 ↗ put in a landscape planter strip.

9:06 ↗ And also the administration is proposing

9:09 ↗ a deviation process for

9:12 ↗ rehabilitation or not deviation process

9:14 ↗ an exemption to the landscape standards

9:17 ↗ for rehabilitation projects so the city

9:20 ↗ can take care of its aging

9:21 ↗ infrastructure. On the left is a

9:24 ↗ retaining wall on Black Nugget Road that

9:27 ↗ needs to

9:29 ↗ be replaced and on the right is 190th.

9:33 ↗ This is up the hill from Cougar Mountain

9:36 ↗ Zoo and the pavement

9:40 ↗ has been and the roadway has been

9:42 ↗ sliding down and so the administration

9:44 ↗ needs to come up with the fix and that

9:48 ↗ is in the capital improvement plan.

9:50 ↗ There's also a proposed exemption for

9:54 ↗ non-motorized gaps. On the left is a

9:57 ↗ picture of Second Avenue Northwest. This

10:01 ↗ is a sidewalk gap in front of three

10:03 ↗ parcels of land. It connects Gilman

10:06 ↗ Village and Confluence Park and it's

10:08 ↗ something that the the community has

10:11 ↗ asked for for the city to eliminate the

10:13 ↗ sidewalk gap and

10:16 ↗ right now it's a really expensive

10:18 ↗ sidewalk gap with all the requirements

10:20 ↗ to build it to full standard without any

10:22 ↗ exemptions.

10:24 ↗ major things that we

10:25 ↗ >> So what the administration is proposing

10:29 ↗ is

10:31 ↗ standards that were developed with

10:33 ↗ feedback from the transportation

10:34 ↗ advisory board in the mobility and

10:36 ↗ infrastructure committee which create a

10:38 ↗ deviation criteria for tree preservation

10:42 ↗ protection of critical areas driveway

10:44 ↗ access advisory board in the mobility

10:46 ↗ and properties or section 4f

10:50 ↗ as they're called And uh it would be

10:55 ↗ based on the pedestrian level of traffic

10:57 ↗ stress. That's a metric that comes from

11:01 ↗ the washout design manual where one

11:04 ↗ being the most ideal situation for a

11:06 ↗ pedestrian where anyone people young

11:10 ↗ children, people with disabilities,

11:12 ↗ elderly and everyone in between would

11:14 ↗ feel comfortable walking along that

11:16 ↗ corridor to

11:19 ↗ four, which is a very s stressful

11:22 ↗ situation for any pedestrians and that

11:25 ↗ the standard would be two or better with

11:28 ↗ one exception and that's on the 40 mph

11:33 ↗ straights but where the applicant would

11:36 ↗ need to do a much more in-depth

11:38 ↗ analysis. It would also be based on an

11:41 ↗ arborous tree health and condition

11:43 ↗ assessment because there's no point in

11:46 ↗ preserving a tree if after the proposed

11:49 ↗ action the tree isn't going to survive.

11:53 ↗ And so it's really important to make

11:55 ↗ sure that

11:57 ↗ The deviation process considers the

11:59 ↗ health and condition of a tree. It

12:01 ↗ utilizes existing definitions in title

12:05 ↗ 18

12:07 ↗ >> to help simplify things for the

12:08 ↗ applicant.

12:10 ↗ The critical areas report would be an

12:12 ↗ important piece of the review process.

12:16 ↗ Obviously, for driveways, the actual

12:19 ↗ grade, how steep the dragway is, and for

12:21 ↗ recreational properties, the

12:23 ↗ recreational use.

12:27 ↗ I mentioned earlier that the pedestrian

12:29 ↗ level traffic stress would need to be

12:31 ↗ two or better in order to have a

12:33 ↗ deviation approved. Um

12:37 ↗ and that the deviation process would

12:40 ↗ include land use context such as are

12:43 ↗ there a lot of pedestrian generators in

12:45 ↗ the area or not? The needs for

12:48 ↗ multi-modal users, the roadway

12:51 ↗ characteristics, equity and costs.

12:55 ↗ A 20 foot

12:58 ↗ or longer full length planner strip

13:01 ↗ would be required. And on the next

13:03 ↗ slide, I'll show you a picture of what

13:04 ↗ this would look like. This was really

13:06 ↗ based on the city's standards and code

13:10 ↗ for a minimum planning area is 100

13:12 ↗ square ft. If the planning strip is 5 ft

13:15 ↗ wide, that means we need 20 ft of

13:18 ↗ planner strip. And of course, I talked a

13:22 ↗ lot about the exemptions for

13:23 ↗ rehabilitation projects to help the city

13:26 ↗ maintain its existing infrastructure

13:28 ↗ where the use of the street would not be

13:30 ↗ changing. and the interim pedestrian and

13:33 ↗ bicycle connections to help the

13:36 ↗ community get

13:38 ↗ more immediate connections while waiting

13:40 ↗ for the city or developers to

13:44 ↗ fully develop frontage.

13:47 ↗ So I mentioned the a planter strip needs

13:51 ↗ to be 20 ft long. And so this top this

13:55 ↗ image on the top you can see a situation

13:57 ↗ where with smooth transitions

14:01 ↗ you can fit in a 20tx 5 ft landscape

14:07 ↗ planter strip. So in this situation

14:09 ↗ where the project was trying to preserve

14:13 ↗ trees, the sidewalk would have a little

14:15 ↗ bit of meandering or jogging in order to

14:18 ↗ get the planting strip in as many areas

14:21 ↗ as possible. On the bottom of this

14:24 ↗ picture though, there's more trees and

14:27 ↗ that the sidewalk would stay next to the

14:29 ↗ curb.

14:32 ↗ The administration's recommendation is

14:34 ↗ to approve the chapter

14:37 ↗ 18.606 landscaping amendments as

14:40 ↗ presented

14:42 ↗ and timing and next steps are this item

14:45 ↗ is scheduled to go before the mobility

14:48 ↗ and infrastructure committee on November

14:50 ↗ 24th and tenatively scheduled for the

14:54 ↗ full council on January 5th.

14:59 ↗ And that concludes my presentation.

15:04 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you, John.

15:06 ↗ Appreciate the presentation. We're going

15:08 ↗ to open it up right now for the

15:09 ↗ commissioners to ask any questions that

15:12 ↗ you may have at this point. Are there

15:15 ↗ any takers?

15:23 ↗ >> Commissioner Dair.

15:25 ↗ >> Uh, so I have a question. For example,

15:27 ↗ in the second street example you had

15:30 ↗ where you're basically bridging the gap

15:32 ↗ across those three parcels, would that

15:35 ↗ need

15:36 ↗ um to have that 20x 5 ft square planting

15:40 ↗ area because it looks like it should

15:42 ↗ just go straight down

15:45 ↗ logically.

15:45 ↗ >> Yeah.

15:47 ↗ So the

15:50 ↗ interim pedestrian and bicycle

15:51 ↗ connections would actually be an

15:53 ↗ exemption not a deviation. So in this

15:56 ↗ case there would not be a landscape

15:58 ↗ planner strip.

15:59 ↗ >> Great.

16:00 ↗ >> Because it's not trying to it's a

16:03 ↗ different mechanism. So it's I guess did

16:06 ↗ I answer your question?

16:07 ↗ >> Yes.

16:08 ↗ >> Okay.

16:13 ↗ >> Any other questions?

16:20 ↗ Okay,

16:23 ↗ seeing as there's no more questions,

16:25 ↗ thank you, John. Uh, we will open the

16:27 ↗ public hearing at 6:48 p.m.

16:33 ↗ Um, in one moment I'll ask, it does

16:35 ↗ appear we have some people that would

16:36 ↗ like to speak. So, just real quickly,

16:39 ↗ let me read some boilerplate.

16:42 ↗ Uh comments at tonight's meeting may be

16:45 ↗ made in person or virtually. For all

16:47 ↗ those who would like to speak during

16:49 ↗ public comments, we ask that you speak

16:51 ↗ clearly and pause frequently and please

16:54 ↗ state your name. Uh before you begin to

16:57 ↗ speak, if you're attending virtually by

17:00 ↗ computer or by phone and would like to

17:02 ↗ speak during the public comments, please

17:04 ↗ mute your microphone until you have been

17:06 ↗ called to speak. If you're having any

17:08 ↗ technical issues, you can try joining in

17:10 ↗ on another's device such as a smartphone

17:13 ↗ or tablet. We do ask people that you

17:15 ↗ keep your comments to 5 minutes or less.

17:19 ↗ All right,

17:21 ↗ staff, do we have I know we have. Who's

17:24 ↗ first up to speak?

17:28 ↗ >> Chair, no one has signed up to speak.

17:31 ↗ >> Oh, okay. Well, I imagine we have some

17:33 ↗ people in the room that would like to

17:34 ↗ speak. Would anyone like to speak that's

17:37 ↗ in the room?

17:42 ↗ >> Sure. By all means, please.

17:55 ↗ >> My name is Mike Bailey. I live at 275

17:58 ↗ East Sunset Way.

18:00 ↗ question isn't necessarily about the

18:02 ↗ street parts landscaping we're talking

18:04 ↗ about tonight. I have some other

18:06 ↗ questions about landscaping. When it

18:07 ↗ just said landscaping code, I didn't

18:09 ↗ understand that was just for street. I

18:10 ↗ thought it was going to cover the whole

18:12 ↗ landscaping thing. So, I may hold my

18:15 ↗ comments until later at the end. Is that

18:17 ↗ possible or are you only taking comments

18:19 ↗ at this time?

18:20 ↗ >> We're only taking comments right now,

18:21 ↗ but at the end of the meeting, you're

18:23 ↗ more than welcome to reach out to staff

18:25 ↗ and talk to them about the issues that

18:27 ↗ you have with landscaping.

18:28 ↗ >> Thank you.

18:28 ↗ >> By all means. Thank you.

18:32 ↗ Anyone else in the room? Going once,

18:33 ↗ going twice. How about virtually? Do we

18:36 ↗ got any takers virtually?

18:37 ↗ >> No, chair.

18:38 ↗ >> Okay.

18:43 ↗ Setting records.

18:45 ↗ Okay. We are going to close the public

18:47 ↗ hearing at 6:50 p.m. Now, there is a

18:51 ↗ formal action requested on this agenda

18:53 ↗ item. Is a member of the commission

18:56 ↗ willing to make the motion to begin uh

18:59 ↗ deliberations?

19:03 ↗ Chair Patterson.

19:06 ↗ >> Thank you, Chair Voice. I would like to

19:08 ↗ move to approve the chapter 18606

19:11 ↗ landscaping amendments as presented.

19:15 ↗ >> All right. Do we have a second?

19:18 ↗ >> Second.

19:19 ↗ >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Oler.

19:21 ↗ It's opened up. The floor is yours. Who

19:23 ↗ would like to speak on this particular

19:25 ↗ topic?

19:29 ↗ >> Commissioner Moberu.

19:35 ↗ >> I think the lack of public comment

19:37 ↗ indicates the support for this for

19:40 ↗ voting for this measure.

19:44 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Walburu. Um,

19:46 ↗ Commissioner Crass.

19:48 ↗ >> Uh, thank you, Commissioner Crass. I

19:50 ↗ think John did an excellent job both

19:52 ↗ today as well as we went through it at

19:54 ↗ the end of October and kind of talked

19:57 ↗ through a lot of the scenarios. So I

19:59 ↗ feel very comfortable moving forward the

20:00 ↗ way we have it.

20:03 ↗ >> Uh Commissioner Dair.

20:04 ↗ >> Yeah, just to it all seems very logical

20:07 ↗ to me and I think it's pretty

20:09 ↗ straightforward.

20:11 ↗ >> Thank you commissioners and I'm getting

20:13 ↗ a couple headshakes from other

20:14 ↗ commissioners. Uh yeah, what? Oh, I'm

20:18 ↗ sorry. Commissioner Zachro. Yes, yes,

20:21 ↗ yes. Commissioner Zacharov, please.

20:23 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you guys. I would like

20:25 ↗ to say a special thank you to John for

20:27 ↗ excellent presentation. This was very

20:29 ↗ like u it's great. It's great to see the

20:32 ↗ visuals and to understand where exactly

20:35 ↗ everything should go and how it's going

20:37 ↗ to work. Uh that's probably one of the

20:41 ↗ reasons why there are not that many

20:42 ↗ questions and people are in agreement

20:44 ↗ because thank you. Thank you for great

20:46 ↗ presentation. That was my only comment.

20:50 ↗ Great comment. Thank you, Commissioner

20:52 ↗ Zachar. And I'm sure John likes to hear

20:53 ↗ from all of us, too.

20:55 ↗ Anything else?

20:58 ↗ Yeah, I think to uh Commissioner Molber,

21:01 ↗ Commissioner Crass, Commissioner Zachro,

21:03 ↗ Commissioner Adair, uh all seems pretty

21:05 ↗ logical stuff. These exemptions seem

21:07 ↗ needed, makes sense to me. Um just a

21:10 ↗ list of priorities. So, I want to say

21:12 ↗ thank you. Now, there is a motion on the

21:15 ↗ floor. So right now there's no changes

21:18 ↗ to that motion.

21:20 ↗ So I can just ask for a vote.

21:24 ↗ Phone a friend. All in favor of the

21:28 ↗ motion on the floor. All in favor say I.

21:32 ↗ >> I.

21:34 ↗ >> Thank you Commissioner Zacharov. And

21:35 ↗ thank you all of you. So that was

21:36 ↗ unanimous. That can pass and move along.

21:41 ↗ Did you get what you wanted? Good. Okay.

21:47 ↗ All right. Thank you, John, again for

21:49 ↗ the presentations. Appreciate it.

21:52 ↗ And we are now going to move along to

21:54 ↗ our next item of regular business.

21:58 ↗ And this tonight, we have Stacy Vin

22:01 ↗ McKinstry, sustainability manager, and

22:03 ↗ she's going to walk us through the isa

22:05 ↗ climate action plan. This is an update

22:09 ↗ uh with proposed amendments and proposed

22:11 ↗ actions. So when Stacy when you are

22:14 ↗ ready uh please go ahead. Looks like we

22:18 ↗ got some it over there.

22:27 ↗ >> Right. Good evening. Thank you very

22:29 ↗ much. Uh my name is Stacy Vin McKinstry.

22:31 ↗ I'm the sustainability manager with the

22:34 ↗ city. Um and tonight we are doing a

22:37 ↗ first touch with you all. Um we are in

22:40 ↗ the process of updating the climate

22:41 ↗ action plan and would like to get some

22:43 ↗ initial feedback um to bring back to the

22:46 ↗ environmental board as we begin working

22:48 ↗ on uh revisions to this plan. Um tonight

22:52 ↗ I'll provide a little bit of background

22:54 ↗ as well as an update on the climate

22:56 ↗ action plan progress and how we're doing

22:58 ↗ in terms of implementation and then I

23:00 ↗ will review some proposed revisions to

23:03 ↗ the land use actions that came out of a

23:05 ↗ committee process held this summer.

23:09 ↗ Um so following overview of the IAAP

23:11 ↗ implementation I'll talk give you a

23:13 ↗ little bit more detail around uh the

23:16 ↗ process we're using for our update. Um I

23:19 ↗ will go through the recommendations that

23:21 ↗ came out of committee meetings and I'll

23:23 ↗ describe how those committee meetings

23:25 ↗ worked as well. Um and that's where we

23:27 ↗ really want your feedback. We have, I

23:29 ↗ believe it's six actions um that we

23:31 ↗ received feedback on related to land use

23:34 ↗ and that's where we're really looking

23:35 ↗ for your initial input this evening.

23:39 ↗ Um it's some of you were probably

23:41 ↗ involved in the climate action plan

23:43 ↗ process back in 2021. It was uh quite a

23:46 ↗ long time ago, but I'm sure some of you

23:48 ↗ are probably new to the commission as

23:50 ↗ well. So, I wanted to provide a little

23:51 ↗ bit of a background. Um, the plan was

23:55 ↗ adopted back in December of 2021. Uh, it

23:58 ↗ went through about a 9-month process

24:01 ↗ around community engagement, a pretty

24:03 ↗ intensive process, all done virtually

24:05 ↗ during COVID.

24:07 ↗ Um, the work that was undertaken was

24:10 ↗ really meant to be as inclusive as as

24:13 ↗ possible. Uh, given the virtual nature,

24:15 ↗ there were many community listening

24:17 ↗ sessions. There were focus groups,

24:19 ↗ meetings held with youth and businesses

24:21 ↗ and environmental leaders. Um, and it

24:24 ↗ was really meant to try and represent

24:26 ↗ the voices across Isiqua and um, the

24:29 ↗ priorities for climate mitigation as

24:32 ↗ well as uh, resilience or climate

24:34 ↗ adaptation.

24:36 ↗ Um, it was really a great achievement

24:38 ↗ for the city. It was our first climate

24:40 ↗ action plan and it held the city to some

24:43 ↗ very bold and ambitious um priorities

24:46 ↗ around reducing our greenhouse gas

24:48 ↗ emissions and preparing for change.

24:51 ↗ We have a number of targets within the

24:54 ↗ plan. Some are short-term, some are

24:56 ↗ longer term uh that we are implementing

24:59 ↗ actions to make toward progress towards

25:01 ↗ those targets.

25:03 ↗ Um

25:06 ↗ so and then I did want to just show you

25:08 ↗ all um this graphic. This is called a

25:11 ↗ wedge analysis. Um this particular one

25:14 ↗ was produced through a King County

25:17 ↗ report and it's become very common in

25:20 ↗ terms of looking at how we're doing um

25:23 ↗ and where we need to go. Um what this

25:25 ↗ represents

25:27 ↗ is um a climate emission scenario. kind

25:30 ↗ of the track that we're on right now is

25:32 ↗ shown in that black dotted line. Um it

25:35 ↗ shows where our targets are, which is

25:37 ↗ that red dashed line at the bottom. And

25:40 ↗ then the solid colors are showing how

25:43 ↗ far we can get from reducing our

25:45 ↗ missions with just federal, state, and

25:47 ↗ regional policies.

25:49 ↗ What's really important for us at the

25:51 ↗ city level are those um shaded or dotted

25:54 ↗ areas that's showing where we really

25:57 ↗ need to be taking action and focusing

25:59 ↗ our efforts in terms of reducing

26:02 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions. Um this is not

26:05 ↗ meant to be prescriptive. It's meant to

26:07 ↗ give us a sense of where we should be

26:08 ↗ focusing our priorities. Um and for us

26:12 ↗ in Isiqua, a lot of that area is around

26:15 ↗ um transportation um which uh is

26:19 ↗ impacted quite a bit by our land use

26:21 ↗ decisions and then buildings looking at

26:23 ↗ energy use and buildings. So we use this

26:27 ↗ um type of graphic as a bit of a guiding

26:29 ↗ uh force as we start to think about our

26:31 ↗ plan update and where we want to focus

26:33 ↗ our actions.

26:37 ↗ Um so just a little bit of where we are

26:39 ↗ right now uh with the plan and

26:42 ↗ implementing it uh almost four years

26:44 ↗ into that process. Um the plan has kind

26:48 ↗ of six focus areas within it uh where we

26:51 ↗ have goals, targets and actions within

26:54 ↗ each of those areas. So the first one is

26:56 ↗ called overarching actions that um

26:59 ↗ encompasses a lot of our city

27:00 ↗ operations. There's actions around

27:02 ↗ education and then we have a section

27:05 ↗ focused on transportation and land use,

27:07 ↗ natural systems and water resources,

27:10 ↗ buildings and energy, materials and

27:12 ↗ resources and then community well-being

27:14 ↗ and resilience.

27:17 ↗ We have a very small team working on

27:19 ↗ implementation. um started with one

27:21 ↗ person, we now have a two-person

27:23 ↗ full-time team and then we work with a

27:25 ↗ number of interns from Gibson and um as

27:29 ↗ well as fellows through Americanore to

27:30 ↗ work to implement all of the the

27:32 ↗ actions. Um we also work very closely

27:36 ↗ across departments at the city to get

27:38 ↗ that work done. Um we are proud to share

27:41 ↗ that we have about 90% of the actions

27:43 ↗ that were identified in that climate

27:45 ↗ action plan um they're on track or in

27:48 ↗ progress. So they're underway. Maybe

27:50 ↗ some slight hurdles or barriers, but for

27:52 ↗ the most part, we are able to move

27:54 ↗ forward. Um a number most of those

27:56 ↗ actions that were in the plan. We have a

27:59 ↗ lot of projects and programs underway

28:02 ↗ that are helping to reduce emissions in

28:04 ↗ our city operations. Um we have a couple

28:06 ↗ solar projects that'll be happening

28:08 ↗ before the end of the year and next

28:10 ↗ year. Um we're increasing energy

28:12 ↗ efficiency in our buildings. Um we're

28:14 ↗ replacing a lot of our gas heating and

28:18 ↗ cooling systems with um heat pumps or

28:21 ↗ electric systems. Um and then we're

28:23 ↗ helping green our fleet at the city. Um

28:26 ↗ we're helping the community to do

28:28 ↗ similar. Um we have a number of

28:30 ↗ community programs looking at um

28:33 ↗ providing significant rebates for heat

28:35 ↗ pumps. We've run solar campaigns. Um,

28:38 ↗ and we work with our commercial

28:39 ↗ buildings to help them meet energy

28:42 ↗ efficiency requirements.

28:45 ↗ So, we're doing all this work, um, which

28:47 ↗ is great, and we've been able to secure,

28:50 ↗ uh, quite a bit of money, uh, primarily

28:52 ↗ from the state and the state's climate

28:53 ↗ commitment act. Um, but our progress in

28:58 ↗ terms of how we're doing at reducing

28:59 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions is showing that

29:02 ↗ we're not on track to meet those targets

29:04 ↗ that we set. Um, so we had some uh

29:07 ↗ really great actions in that first plan,

29:09 ↗ but they may not have taken us far

29:11 ↗ enough to really make progress at

29:13 ↗ reducing emissions. So that is something

29:15 ↗ that we're looking at um are very

29:17 ↗ focused on for this next iteration of

29:19 ↗ the climate plan.

29:24 ↗ So as we approach um the 5-year mark of

29:27 ↗ the climate plan, um it is due for an

29:30 ↗ update in 2026. We've started that

29:33 ↗ process early. Uh we had some grant

29:35 ↗ funding that we could use back in the

29:38 ↗ spring that was able to bring on some

29:40 ↗ facilitation support.

29:42 ↗ Um and we also knew that we wanted to

29:45 ↗ finish this update ahead of the city's

29:47 ↗ next budget cycle uh which really kicks

29:49 ↗ off um by next summer. Um so we've

29:52 ↗ started this process a little bit early

29:54 ↗ with the goal of having an updated

29:55 ↗ climate plan by June of 26. Um and our

29:59 ↗ approach approach for the update is

30:01 ↗ really three-fold.

30:03 ↗ Um we're looking back at our experience

30:05 ↗ implementing the plan over the last few

30:06 ↗ years. Um identifying what types of

30:09 ↗ actions um and policies we think can

30:12 ↗ really help us uh make greater progress

30:14 ↗ towards our targets. Uh we're reviewing

30:17 ↗ other jurisdictions plans. So Belleview

30:20 ↗ is currently going through a climate

30:21 ↗ plan update. Um Redmond as well. Um,

30:24 ↗ other jurisdictions such as Bellingham

30:26 ↗ and King County have just uh wrapped up

30:29 ↗ some their plan updates. So, we have a

30:31 ↗ lot of great lessons to learn from them.

30:34 ↗ And then we knew there was a couple

30:36 ↗ areas of the climate plan that we wanted

30:37 ↗ to dig in deeper. And one of those was

30:40 ↗ around land use actions. And so, we

30:42 ↗ formed a number of committees back in

30:45 ↗ the spring to bring in subject matter

30:47 ↗ experts and really help advise us on how

30:50 ↗ we might revise those actions.

30:54 ↗ um those committees

30:56 ↗ uh were focused on land use and

30:58 ↗ transportation

31:00 ↗ um and natural systems and water

31:02 ↗ resources.

31:04 ↗ So we brought in members of our boards

31:06 ↗ and commissions um staff from across

31:10 ↗ multiple departments um in the snowcom

31:12 ↗ tribe also participated.

31:15 ↗ Uh there were only two meetings. One of

31:17 ↗ the meetings the committees met together

31:20 ↗ and then split uh in the middle of that

31:22 ↗ meeting to talk about their priorities

31:24 ↗ and then in the second meeting um the

31:27 ↗ committees met just to focus on their

31:29 ↗ area of expertise.

31:31 ↗ They shared goals um objectives for

31:35 ↗ updating the actions in that area of the

31:37 ↗ plan. Um they looked at what the current

31:39 ↗ actions were in the plan. They looked at

31:42 ↗ uh other plans and examples our

31:44 ↗ consultants had pulled in. um and then

31:47 ↗ they provided back feedback.

31:51 ↗ Um so this is just a snapshot of those

31:53 ↗ committee members. Again, this is um or

31:55 ↗ this is the combined between those two

31:58 ↗ groups, the land use and transportation

32:00 ↗ and the natural systems. So we had um

32:02 ↗ quite a few folks participating across

32:05 ↗ those and we did have um Katya

32:07 ↗ representative of the planning policy

32:09 ↗ commission participate.

32:15 ↗ So next I wanted to just provide a

32:17 ↗ highlevel summary of the recommendations

32:20 ↗ that came out of the land use and

32:22 ↗ transportation

32:24 ↗ committee. Um and then what I'll move

32:26 ↗ into is I would um really appreciate

32:29 ↗ kind of a reflection on what you all um

32:32 ↗ heard um or or what the committee shared

32:35 ↗ um and your own thoughts or reactions

32:37 ↗ and reflection on that. and then we'll

32:40 ↗ move into specific actions where there

32:42 ↗ was a recommendation coming out of the

32:44 ↗ committee discussion and we would like

32:46 ↗ your feedback on those recommendations.

32:50 ↗ So for our land use it was a combined

32:52 ↗ land use and transportation committee.

32:55 ↗ Um they looked at the actions in the

32:58 ↗ plan related mostly around adoption of

33:01 ↗ ebikes, electric vehicles and land use.

33:05 ↗ They really stressed a desire for

33:07 ↗ flexibility in terms of implementation.

33:10 ↗ Um looked at a stronger focus on

33:12 ↗ pedestrian safety and wanted um more

33:15 ↗ outcomebased metrics in the climate

33:17 ↗ plan. They felt that many of the land

33:20 ↗ use related actions had already been

33:22 ↗ covered through the recent or semi-reent

33:25 ↗ title 18 land use code update. Um as

33:28 ↗ well as implementation of the mobility

33:30 ↗ action plan. There was some concerns

33:33 ↗ voiced in the committee about too many

33:36 ↗ actions in the climate plan um also

33:38 ↗ existing in the mobility action plan and

33:40 ↗ other plans across the city.

33:44 ↗ They did express a real strong support

33:46 ↗ for expanding bike and ebike

33:48 ↗ infrastructure

33:50 ↗ um ensuring community engagement to

33:52 ↗ understand barriers to bike adoption. uh

33:55 ↗ tracking uh vehicle mile miles traveled

33:58 ↗ impacts and ensuring that any plans for

34:03 ↗ expanded biking infrastructure were

34:05 ↗ really forward-looking and aligning with

34:07 ↗ our unique community needs.

34:10 ↗ They supported incentivizing EV

34:12 ↗ infrastructure, particularly within

34:14 ↗ multifamily dwellings, and we'll talk

34:17 ↗ about that in a moment. um and uh really

34:21 ↗ wanted to see the city play a role in um

34:24 ↗ helping connect our utility um with a

34:27 ↗ multifamily developments or dwellings um

34:30 ↗ to ensure that there is capacity to

34:32 ↗ address uh uh increasing EV charging

34:35 ↗ needs. So there was a lot of focus on

34:38 ↗ transportation um but of course uh

34:40 ↗ that's very directly related to our land

34:42 ↗ use.

34:45 ↗ So um as mentioned what I would like to

34:49 ↗ do now with that kind of history of the

34:51 ↗ IAP where we are um hearing a little bit

34:54 ↗ about what came out of those committee

34:56 ↗ discussions was first just get some

34:58 ↗ general feedback on what are your all

35:00 ↗ priorities for land use actions in the

35:03 ↗ updated climate plan and then we'll go

35:06 ↗ through a few specific actions uh where

35:09 ↗ we have a recommendation and we would um

35:12 ↗ appreciate your reflection.

35:15 ↗ Um, again, this is just a first review.

35:18 ↗ Um, what we will do then is take any of

35:21 ↗ your feedback we hear tonight to the

35:22 ↗ environmental board. They'll digest that

35:25 ↗ a bit. We'll continue to revise the

35:27 ↗ actions and then we would likely come

35:29 ↗ back to you all in early 26 with any

35:32 ↗ actions that have a policy implication

35:35 ↗ around land use. So, it's a bit of a

35:37 ↗ iterative process.

35:40 ↗ So any questions before we move to

35:42 ↗ general feedback?

35:45 ↗ >> Okay, great. All right, let's jump in.

35:48 ↗ So yeah, again, we just really really

35:51 ↗ appreciate any of your feedback um from

35:53 ↗ the summary of the committee input as

35:55 ↗ well as in general any priorities you

35:57 ↗ have for updates to land use actions in

36:00 ↗ the climate plan.

36:02 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you uh Miss

36:05 ↗ McKinstry. We'll begin with uh general

36:08 ↗ feedback. So again, just ultimate

36:10 ↗ feelings about um the process about IAP

36:13 ↗ in general and then we'll get to a

36:14 ↗ little bit more

36:16 ↗ uh specifics here momentarily. Yeah,

36:20 ↗ there we go.

36:21 ↗ >> Is that a hand I see?

36:22 ↗ >> Yes.

36:23 ↗ >> Okay. Two hands.

36:24 ↗ >> Mulberu.

36:25 ↗ >> Okay. First, um we attempted to bring an

36:29 ↗ EV charging station to Gilman Village.

36:32 ↗ What we found, and I don't know if

36:34 ↗ you're aware of it, yes. In the older

36:36 ↗ part of town, there is a lack of

36:37 ↗ electric capa electricity capacity.

36:41 ↗ Puget

36:42 ↗ power, I think it is

36:44 ↗ >> Puget Sound, PSSE, I I don't live in

36:46 ↗ Isiqua, sorry. PSSE uh said it was very

36:50 ↗ clear they did not and they attempted to

36:53 ↗ they they required the the uh provider

36:57 ↗ we were working with to do a major uh

37:00 ↗ infrastructure and it killed the deal.

37:02 ↗ So just so you understand PSSE does not

37:06 ↗ have the capacity in the bulk of Isiqua

37:08 ↗ for electric charging stations.

37:11 ↗ So um and this is critical and they seem

37:15 ↗ disinterested in doing anything. They

37:17 ↗ don't have the money. The second

37:19 ↗ question I have is what is the plan B?

37:24 ↗ the uh the previous governor sort of saw

37:27 ↗ himself as the environmental that was

37:29 ↗ his um take on who he wanted to be and

37:34 ↗ our state uh even before the federal

37:37 ↗ cuts was facing I think was an enormous

37:41 ↗ budget deficit.

37:43 ↗ It uh it appears the current governor

37:46 ↗ has a very different um list of of

37:50 ↗ things he sees as important. what is

37:52 ↗ your plan B for dealing with that?

37:55 ↗ >> Yeah. So, I think um in terms of there's

37:59 ↗ a bigger picture, but in terms of

38:01 ↗ funding city work and doing projects in

38:03 ↗ Isiqua, we're um very fortunate that the

38:06 ↗ Climate Commitment Act was um upheld.

38:10 ↗ And so that provides not only a lot of

38:12 ↗ funding for city projects, partner

38:15 ↗ projects, but also will be providing

38:18 ↗ additional um rebates and incentives to

38:22 ↗ um community members. And so we partner

38:25 ↗ as much as we can, whether that's with

38:26 ↗ departments or the school district or

38:29 ↗ the library to uh work on pursuing those

38:31 ↗ grant opportunities so that we can bring

38:33 ↗ projects to our community. So what

38:36 ↗ happens if you the grants don't exist in

38:40 ↗ the in the next bienium there are going

38:42 ↗ to be severe cuts to most services. What

38:45 ↗ do you guys intend to do if those things

38:48 ↗ simply if there are no if there are no

38:50 ↗ funds available?

38:51 ↗ >> Right. Yeah. So we will as um our city

38:54 ↗ budget allows we'll continue to fund

38:56 ↗ projects and prioritize those within uh

38:59 ↗ the funds that our program um has a say

39:02 ↗ in. Um, a lot of what we are likely

39:04 ↗ going to be focusing on for this plan

39:07 ↗ update is work continuing to work with

39:09 ↗ the community business owners to help

39:11 ↗ change behavior, access rebates and

39:13 ↗ incentives through the utility um, and

39:16 ↗ pursue um, making sure that the

39:19 ↗ community understands this is a

39:20 ↗ communitywide plan. The city can't be

39:22 ↗ doing this alone, but really working

39:23 ↗ with our communities to to take that

39:25 ↗ action. Um, and that's what we would um,

39:28 ↗ appreciate feedback on is how how do we

39:31 ↗ reflect that in the plan um, and

39:34 ↗ identify actions where we can really see

39:36 ↗ that behavior change. Um, and did want

39:38 ↗ to just recognize the concerns around

39:40 ↗ the electrical capacity and grid and we

39:43 ↗ will be acknowledging those concerns in

39:46 ↗ the plan and calling on that strong

39:48 ↗ partnership with PSSE.

39:53 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner

39:55 ↗ Millander Irwin, is that a red mic? Is

39:57 ↗ that a hot mic?

39:58 ↗ >> It is. It is. Chair Voice. Um, I just

40:01 ↗ have a a perspective um as a manager in

40:04 ↗ a multifamily uh community, specifically

40:07 ↗ a large scale uh condominium property.

40:10 ↗ The PSC process for EV for multifamilies

40:14 ↗ is very um cumbersome

40:16 ↗ >> and with an older established community,

40:19 ↗ without a doubt, we do have a challenge

40:21 ↗ with electrical capacity. So in my

40:24 ↗ estimation it appears that there are

40:26 ↗ probably two tracks to be considered for

40:29 ↗ EVs in multifamily. So one would be

40:32 ↗ directly to uh developers. So as they're

40:35 ↗ developing a um a community that

40:38 ↗ electrical capacity is being addressed

40:40 ↗ immediately

40:41 ↗ um as the community is being built and

40:45 ↗ um EV is made as part of that that

40:47 ↗ entire process. Um that seems to be the

40:50 ↗ easier lift. I think the challenging

40:52 ↗ aspect are older larges scale

40:54 ↗ communities or even smaller scale

40:56 ↗ communities that are wanting to have um

40:59 ↗ EV in their communities but simply don't

41:01 ↗ have the wherewithal. So I think a uh I

41:04 ↗ think a wholesome kind of a a plan to

41:07 ↗ address that to make um EV more

41:10 ↗ accessible for multifamily communities

41:13 ↗ um beyond what uh PSSE offers is is

41:16 ↗ really I think a need that should be

41:18 ↗ addressed.

41:19 ↗ >> Great. Great. That's great feedback. We

41:22 ↗ do have a specific action. We can talk a

41:24 ↗ little bit more about that, but I'm

41:25 ↗ hearing kind of those two tracks for new

41:27 ↗ development and existing.

41:29 ↗ >> Thank you.

41:30 ↗ >> Um, let's move on to let's let everybody

41:32 ↗ speak. Uh, Commissioner Zachro.

41:36 ↗ >> Thank you. Well, I would like to support

41:38 ↗ Commissioner Milinder Irvin because I'm

41:40 ↗ also representing a multif family uh

41:43 ↗ community and we also had a

41:45 ↗ communication with PSC and this is

41:47 ↗ something that I have mentioned at the

41:49 ↗ IAP meetings as well. Uh some of the

41:51 ↗ programs that PSE is offering uh they

41:55 ↗ are not getting very popular and not

41:58 ↗ getting very popular because we actually

42:00 ↗ we touched them twice and those were

42:02 ↗ programs that would not really work for

42:04 ↗ communities. So there's some more

42:06 ↗ communication has to be uh taken with

42:10 ↗ the PSE regarding what programs they're

42:12 ↗ offering and what actually those

42:13 ↗ programs doing for existing communities

42:16 ↗ uh not just newly built communities. So

42:18 ↗ we actually need the upgrade of our grid

42:20 ↗ in the community and we kind of like

42:24 ↗ there there might be different

42:25 ↗ initiatives that I made. Uh that is the

42:28 ↗ first thing. Another thing is of course

42:29 ↗ I've had a lot of conversations in the

42:31 ↗ past months about our climate action

42:33 ↗ plan and the uh education of the major

42:38 ↗ contributors to our emissions which are

42:42 ↗ the residents of the city and uh well

42:45 ↗ cars and uh buildings are the major

42:48 ↗ major contributors. So residents need to

42:51 ↗ understand what role they're actually

42:52 ↗ playing and not many people really think

42:55 ↗ about that and not many people know what

42:57 ↗ they can do uh to make things better.

43:01 ↗ And then another thing that I would

43:03 ↗ really like us to think about, it's not

43:07 ↗ only rebates or tax rebates that are

43:10 ↗ important because many people cannot

43:12 ↗ simply afford uh upgrading their uh

43:18 ↗ upgrading their buildings or upgrading

43:19 ↗ their cars. So there's some programs

43:22 ↗ should be there for grants. And going

43:24 ↗ back to uh uh Commissioner Maul's

43:28 ↗ comment, we do not currently probably

43:30 ↗ have uh funds for that. So we need to be

43:34 ↗ uh creative. So those are my comments

43:37 ↗ and those comments. I think I had very

43:39 ↗ similar comments during the IP meeting.

43:41 ↗ So I just wanted to repeat that one for

43:43 ↗ the commission. Thank you.

43:45 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Zack Ruff.

43:46 ↗ Commissioner Kra.

43:48 ↗ >> Hi. Um u mine's I have a question. Um

43:51 ↗ there's two projects being built. Um

43:55 ↗ they're both town houses. One's 19

43:57 ↗ units, one's 29 units. They're both down

44:00 ↗ near the Safeway

44:01 ↗ >> and they're nice. They're all between a

44:03 ↗ million and a million and a half

44:04 ↗ dollars. So do we have any learning? Do

44:06 ↗ we know if they're doing EV charging in

44:08 ↗ those? And if so, what learnings do we

44:11 ↗ have that um tipped the developers to

44:16 ↗ say yes, it's worth building this into

44:18 ↗ the cost structure? Um, I think one of

44:21 ↗ them even had it on a sign saying EV

44:23 ↗ ready. I wasn't sure if that meant they

44:24 ↗ just put a plug in there or they did

44:26 ↗ something special. So, any learnings

44:28 ↗ that we have of the things that are kind

44:29 ↗ of currently in the process, albeit at

44:31 ↗ the higher end, may help understand what

44:34 ↗ what the market will take care of um or

44:37 ↗ how that that process works so far.

44:39 ↗ >> That's a good question. I don't know

44:40 ↗ specific to that project. I'll look to

44:43 ↗ >> your staff leaison. Yeah, that's over on

44:45 ↗ over on seventh.

44:47 ↗ >> Um and one on seventh.

44:49 ↗ >> There's one on seventh and then there's

44:51 ↗ one right near the school. The one in

44:52 ↗ the school is 29 units, right?

44:54 ↗ >> And then the one um on seventh I think

44:57 ↗ is 19. Yeah.

44:58 ↗ >> Wow. They move fast, too. I'm very

45:00 ↗ impressed.

45:01 ↗ >> Yeah, they did. They they move very

45:02 ↗ fast. Um they are required. There are

45:05 ↗ two different levels of EV,

45:07 ↗ >> and I can't recall. One is to be EV

45:10 ↗ ready. So you can go in and just plug it

45:11 ↗ in. You're you're ready to go. And the

45:13 ↗ other we had a long conversation about

45:15 ↗ this.

45:16 ↗ >> But the EV I'm curious.

45:18 ↗ >> And then there's the EV.

45:20 ↗ >> Is EV ready? Give some definitions if

45:22 ↗ you can. Does that mean a plug a 240

45:24 ↗ plug or is that

45:25 ↗ >> one? One means that you can come and

45:27 ↗ it's it's set up so that you can come

45:28 ↗ and install the plugs. The other one

45:30 ↗ actually installs the plug for you. It's

45:32 ↗ ready to go. But I believe that right

45:34 ↗ now our multif family projects, our new

45:36 ↗ multif family projects are required to

45:37 ↗ be the ones that you can in you can set

45:40 ↗ it up. It doesn't have the plug in

45:43 ↗ there.

45:43 ↗ >> You'd be ready,

45:44 ↗ >> but you'd be ready,

45:45 ↗ >> right? It's like the the plugs and all

45:47 ↗ the the conduit and everything's already

45:49 ↗ in the walls.

45:50 ↗ >> And then like you said, the there's like

45:52 ↗ three tiers from what I remember and

45:54 ↗ then the actual one where the plug is in

45:56 ↗ the wall.

45:56 ↗ >> Exactly. So they're not required to have

45:58 ↗ the plug in the wall. They're required

45:59 ↗ to be EV ready.

46:00 ↗ >> Right. I'm just curious, not just what's

46:02 ↗ required, but what they're doing because

46:04 ↗ it'd be interesting to see if they say,

46:05 ↗ "Wow, our customers want this. We're

46:07 ↗ building this in. Sure, it may cost an

46:09 ↗ extra $500 when we're building out the

46:12 ↗ garage to have the two

46:13 ↗ >> the city had really high requirements

46:17 ↗ that exceeded the state. The state got

46:19 ↗ ahead for the EV ready and then we've

46:22 ↗ caught up to the state. And so I think

46:24 ↗ that will be a question. Um and we have

46:26 ↗ a proposed action is do we increase even

46:29 ↗ further the requirement for multifamily

46:32 ↗ in particular to get at that new

46:34 ↗ development. Um and that could be either

46:37 ↗ um EV ready which is you just need to

46:40 ↗ install the charger. There's also the

46:41 ↗ third um option which is EV capable um

46:45 ↗ where I believe just the conduit is in.

46:47 ↗ Uh Redmond passed a 100% EV ready

46:51 ↗ requirement. Uh I believe it went into

46:54 ↗ effect in July. So, we're curious to see

46:56 ↗ lessons learned from that. So, I don't

46:58 ↗ know those two projects how far they've

47:00 ↗ exceeded the state and city requirement,

47:02 ↗ but

47:03 ↗ >> we can look. There are requirements. But

47:05 ↗ your second question is interesting. You

47:07 ↗ know, you're wondering if they're EV

47:08 ↗ capable, how many have actually gone in

47:10 ↗ and and employed that. And our code

47:12 ↗ hasn't been in place long enough to be

47:14 ↗ able to go back and and find out. But I

47:16 ↗ think that's a really interesting

47:17 ↗ question.

47:17 ↗ >> If you don't mind, a couple other

47:19 ↗ questions on this topic because it help

47:20 ↗ with our learning.

47:22 ↗ >> Can I continue? Can I can I speak?

47:24 ↗ >> Oh, this is just a follow. This is this

47:26 ↗ is related to that same question.

47:27 ↗ >> All right. And then I want to make sure

47:28 ↗ we get to Commissioner Matthews and

47:30 ↗ Commissioner Mayor before we start.

47:31 ↗ >> I think it's valuable to say yes, we

47:33 ↗ understand what the requirements are. I

47:35 ↗ think the things we it'd be great to

47:37 ↗ find out from the from the city talking

47:40 ↗ to the developers are what are they

47:42 ↗ doing? Are they doing above on that? And

47:45 ↗ then

47:46 ↗ >> are they um and if they can give any

47:49 ↗ information of what the extra cost was.

47:50 ↗ So I think those are help influence when

47:52 ↗ we start making decisions of what we

47:54 ↗ require a developer either for um multif

47:58 ↗ family or single family understanding

48:00 ↗ what's already been happening what the

48:01 ↗ costs and the decisions I think that

48:03 ↗ would be helpful.

48:07 ↗ >> Thank you Commissioner Crass. I want to

48:08 ↗ make sure everybody gets the opportunity

48:10 ↗ to talk. Clearly there's some people

48:11 ↗ that are very passionate about this but

48:12 ↗ let's make sure we get everybody in the

48:14 ↗ conversation. Commissioner Oler,

48:17 ↗ Commissioner Matthews, Commissioner

48:18 ↗ Derek. We haven't heard any of you

48:19 ↗ speak. Would any of you like to speak on

48:21 ↗ this?

48:22 ↗ >> All right, we see Commissioner Derek

48:24 ↗ grabbed it first. She's got a hot mic.

48:26 ↗ >> So, this is not EV related, but I just

48:28 ↗ wanted to uh ask and maybe bring to your

48:30 ↗ attention the adoption of solar by

48:33 ↗ commercial. Uh, one thing from when I

48:36 ↗ moved, we had in LA a lot of commercial

48:40 ↗ buildings putting solar panels over

48:43 ↗ their parking lot, which kind of served

48:45 ↗ a double service, right? They provided

48:47 ↗ energy and they also protected from the

48:49 ↗ rain and the elements. So, and it just

48:51 ↗ occurs to me there's a lot of commercial

48:53 ↗ buildings with a lot of flat roofs. So,

48:55 ↗ that just might be something to look at

48:57 ↗ and investigate and see if we can

48:59 ↗ explore.

49:00 ↗ >> Yeah. And not only the protection from

49:02 ↗ the elements, they're a great cooling

49:04 ↗ mechanism and help reduce that urban

49:06 ↗ heat island. So, yeah, that's something

49:08 ↗ we're definitely interested in. So,

49:09 ↗ yeah.

49:11 ↗ >> All right. Uh let's go with Commissioner

49:12 ↗ Matthews and we'll round it out with

49:14 ↗ you, Commissioner. Um, I'm going to go

49:16 ↗ off of uh Milner, Commissioner Milner

49:19 ↗ and Zagarov regarding the multif family

49:22 ↗ existing units. The electrical capacity

49:25 ↗ may not be the only limitation. They may

49:27 ↗ not have spots.

49:28 ↗ >> You know, there may be visitor spot

49:31 ↗ limitations. Um, since there's so many

49:33 ↗ condo units or multi-family housings

49:37 ↗ close together, I was wondering if there

49:39 ↗ was a way where they could share like

49:41 ↗ cuz they obviously these HOAs probably

49:44 ↗ don't talk to each other, but it may be

49:46 ↗ an opportunity to use shared street

49:50 ↗ frontage or something where they could

49:51 ↗ actually share in the cost because it

49:54 ↗ can be very expensive to bring,

49:57 ↗ you know, sorry, extra electrical into

50:01 ↗ an existing complex but may not on the

50:03 ↗ street. So that might be something to to

50:05 ↗ think about is having them share cost

50:07 ↗ and actually do it street frontage

50:09 ↗ instead of within a complex.

50:11 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a great suggestion.

50:13 ↗ >> Thank you.

50:14 ↗ >> Yeah,

50:15 ↗ >> thank you Commissioner Eer. Uh just to

50:19 ↗ build on uh Commissioner Matthews

50:21 ↗ comment, I I think geographical

50:23 ↗ distribution is essential. And so, you

50:27 ↗ know, we don't want to have three or

50:29 ↗ four developments within a very tightly

50:32 ↗ uh tight geographical area all with EVs

50:35 ↗ and then have another portion of the

50:37 ↗ city where it's basically an EV desert.

50:41 ↗ Um the other point I wanted to make was

50:44 ↗ just from an anecdotal standpoint. I

50:46 ↗ read recently that EV sales have started

50:49 ↗ to taper off and I don't know whether

50:51 ↗ that's something that we are able to

50:53 ↗ measure locally but generally on a

50:57 ↗ national basis when the uh tax credits

51:01 ↗ go away

51:02 ↗ >> um it's important I I think to not get

51:05 ↗ ahead of ourselves and have so many

51:08 ↗ charging stations and so few cars or

51:11 ↗ trucks that are actually using them.

51:14 ↗ >> Great.

51:14 ↗ >> Thank you. Yeah, that's a great point.

51:16 ↗ And there is data from the state. We can

51:18 ↗ track sales um and by zip code. So, I

51:22 ↗ haven't looked at it since the federal

51:23 ↗ rebate ended at the end of September,

51:25 ↗ but that's something we'll keep a close

51:26 ↗ eye on. Thank you. Yeah, great point.

51:32 ↗ >> All right. And Chair Patterson, we

51:34 ↗ haven't heard from you. Would you like

51:35 ↗ to speak?

51:37 ↗ >> Vice Chair, don't try and give me your

51:38 ↗ your role.

51:41 ↗ Uh thank you so much, Chair Voice. Uh

51:44 ↗ couple of things. one on the EV one that

51:46 ↗ you just kind of pinged me my brain on

51:48 ↗ was um I have noticed an increase in

51:50 ↗ charging station banks across Isqua like

51:53 ↗ parking lot uh where there's multiple

51:55 ↗ charging stations that might be

51:56 ↗ something to take into consideration is

51:59 ↗ uh maybe distance from one of those

52:00 ↗ larger installments based on how we

52:02 ↗ would judge the criteria for for

52:05 ↗ charging units at maybe a multif family.

52:08 ↗ Um the other thing I want to bring up is

52:10 ↗ also a little bit anecdotal uh but it's

52:12 ↗ regarding uh 2.4 for and uh land use

52:16 ↗ codes to promote multimmodal

52:17 ↗ transportation. Uh one thing I've

52:20 ↗ recently observed is in multif family

52:22 ↗ developments in Newcastle and Redmond is

52:26 ↗ >> um condos, town houses, uh apartments

52:29 ↗ that have a bike storage room. So if you

52:31 ↗ imagine you go in, there's like two

52:32 ↗ racks stacked on top of each other with

52:34 ↗ multiple uh slots to park a bike. Um, as

52:37 ↗ someone that lives in a condo with mine

52:39 ↗ mounted on a wall, I think that having

52:41 ↗ the opportunity to store them in a room

52:43 ↗ meant for that where they're not only

52:45 ↗ secure but easily accessible and not in

52:47 ↗ your living space, uh, would be a great

52:50 ↗ opportunity. Um, and one thing that I

52:52 ↗ thought from a land use perspective is I

52:54 ↗ believe we recently discussed the need

52:56 ↗ for shared recreational space, if that's

52:59 ↗ correct. Uh maybe that's an opportunity

53:02 ↗ to make those part of that um area

53:05 ↗ square footage that's required for that.

53:09 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, Vice Chair

53:11 ↗ Patterson.

53:12 ↗ >> And I'll just briefly say that uh yeah,

53:14 ↗ I know these are a little bit it seems

53:16 ↗ we've zeroed in on our favorite topic,

53:18 ↗ but uh we'll be getting Yeah, we'll

53:19 ↗ we'll definitely get there. But I know I

53:21 ↗ applaud the work you guys are done and

53:23 ↗ and again I I know a lot of work has

53:25 ↗ gone into IAP. Um, yeah, I'll I'll have

53:28 ↗ a little bit more to say when we

53:29 ↗ actually start going down the list.

53:31 ↗ >> But again, I applaud all the work you

53:32 ↗ guys have done and I'm looking forward

53:34 ↗ to even more conversations. Now, we're

53:36 ↗ going to I'll go around the horn again

53:38 ↗ to uh let anybody else continue to

53:40 ↗ speak. Again, we're trying to keep these

53:42 ↗ general. Uh we're going to get all the

53:44 ↗ opportunity in the world to drill down

53:45 ↗ on this, but general. And then I would

53:48 ↗ ask that when you are done speaking,

53:49 ↗ please turn off your microphone. That

53:51 ↗ way when I don't have to hear people

53:52 ↗ breathe. Okay. Commissioner Mu.

53:56 ↗ >> Okay. When we talk about capacity,

53:58 ↗ there's another point to be made here.

54:00 ↗ And that is when we had the extreme heat

54:02 ↗ about two years ago. Gilman Village was

54:06 ↗ shut down, we had no power on two

54:09 ↗ Sundays. Now, I believe that it was

54:12 ↗ because of the amount of air

54:15 ↗ conditioning that was used in that part

54:17 ↗ of the grid.

54:19 ↗ I believe that with all of the

54:21 ↗ additional electrical requirements that

54:24 ↗ we run the risk of damaging the amount

54:27 ↗ of commerce that's being done and I can

54:29 ↗ tell you the city of Isiqua loses a fair

54:32 ↗ amount of sales tax when businesses

54:35 ↗ cannot operate on a Sunday

54:37 ↗ >> and I think that needs to be considered.

54:45 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Molber. Uh

54:47 ↗ again, any other general comments and

54:49 ↗ then we'll start drilling down on

54:51 ↗ everything.

54:54 ↗ That's okay, Commissioner there.

54:58 ↗ >> Okay, this might not be the

54:59 ↗ jurisdiction, so feel free to correct

55:01 ↗ me, but I just want to put on the radar.

55:03 ↗ I love electric bikes. My husband loves

55:06 ↗ his electric bike, but there is a lot of

55:09 ↗ misuse of electric bikes right now.

55:11 ↗ Also, just to put on the radar that we

55:12 ↗ should also be concurrently developing

55:15 ↗ perhaps regulations around the use of

55:18 ↗ electric bikes and perhaps the age of

55:21 ↗ people riding electric bikes. That's

55:23 ↗ all.

55:24 ↗ >> You are not alone. That was quite a

55:27 ↗ discussion both at TAB and the

55:28 ↗ environmental board and incorporating a

55:31 ↗ saf safety aspect into any actions

55:33 ↗ around ebikes and there's language

55:35 ↗ working its way through council as well

55:37 ↗ around that. Yeah, I feel like we had a

55:39 ↗ conversation about ebikes and we were

55:41 ↗ talking a little bit about how you

55:42 ↗ regulate these things. Again, they're

55:44 ↗ they're new phenomena, but yeah, having

55:46 ↗ people, you know, going 15 miles per

55:48 ↗ hour, people are walking, uh, you know,

55:51 ↗ could be quite dangerous. And then also

55:52 ↗ people leaving them areas, you know,

55:54 ↗ leaving them inappropriately. How do you

55:55 ↗ keep them? You see some of the line

55:57 ↗ bikes in Seattle that have been

55:58 ↗ vandalized. So, yeah, clearly that's

56:01 ↗ going to end up being on staff's work

56:03 ↗ plate one day.

56:04 ↗ >> Yep. Just anecdotally, someone almost

56:06 ↗ hit my 5-year-old going like 25 miles

56:09 ↗ per hour in front of the community

56:11 ↗ center and then it happened to someone

56:12 ↗ else's 5-year-old, too. So, it's

56:15 ↗ >> Yeah.

56:16 ↗ >> Yeah.

56:18 ↗ >> It's not even just the ebikes. That's

56:19 ↗ right. Some of those uh What are the

56:21 ↗ other things? The scooters and the other

56:22 ↗ things that

56:23 ↗ >> Yeah. No, they they move pretty quick.

56:25 ↗ >> Yeah.

56:26 ↗ >> So, agreed. All right. any other general

56:31 ↗ um conversation point points to offer

56:35 ↗ now I believe we're going to get into

56:37 ↗ some specifics.

56:38 ↗ >> Great. You all have teed up most of what

56:40 ↗ we're going to discuss the rest of the

56:42 ↗ night and again this is kind of a first

56:44 ↗ touch getting those initial reactions

56:46 ↗ feedback um and then any actions related

56:50 ↗ to policy code change we would be

56:53 ↗ bringing those back for further review.

56:55 ↗ Um so what we've done here is we prevent

56:58 ↗ presented kind of a summary of what the

57:00 ↗ current action is and then what the

57:02 ↗ recommendation or potential

57:03 ↗ recommendation is for a change. Um so

57:06 ↗ the first action that focused on kind of

57:09 ↗ land use transportation was looking at

57:12 ↗ incentivizing dense mixeduse transit

57:14 ↗ oriented development. I think a lot of

57:16 ↗ the committee discussion felt that um

57:19 ↗ this had been accomplished in some ways

57:21 ↗ in the title 18 update and there was a

57:24 ↗ recommendation to maybe step back and

57:27 ↗ instead have some more general language

57:30 ↗ that looked across um not just uh these

57:35 ↗ specific topics currently identified in

57:37 ↗ the action, but across city code in

57:39 ↗ general and making sure that there's

57:41 ↗ kind of a climate advocate um or lens

57:45 ↗ that's applied to those city codes. So,

57:47 ↗ it'd be a little bit more of a general

57:49 ↗ statement about ensuring that climate,

57:52 ↗ sustainability, environmental protection

57:53 ↗ are considered in those city codes um

57:56 ↗ and holding staff accountable to working

57:58 ↗ with our planning department and other

58:00 ↗ departments to ensure that um happens.

58:03 ↗ So, that that was a recommendation to

58:05 ↗ kind of take a step back um not a step

58:08 ↗ back, but a step up I guess and look a

58:10 ↗ little more broadly at what this action

58:12 ↗ was. So just curious for any reactions

58:16 ↗ to that concerns.

58:18 ↗ >> All right. Again, we want to try and do

58:19 ↗ a roundroin, but uh Okay, let's let's go

58:21 ↗ this way, right? So, let's start with uh

58:24 ↗ Commissioner Crass. We can come back to

58:26 ↗ >> Okay,

58:27 ↗ >> I'll be

58:29 ↗ um so I agree with the view, but I do

58:33 ↗ have a question on how you measure.

58:36 ↗ >> So, you went from things that are

58:37 ↗ measurable to words that are not

58:40 ↗ measurable, or maybe you have some ideas

58:41 ↗ on that. So, if you could share how you

58:44 ↗ could say, "Yeah, we did a good job

58:46 ↗ because we hit A, B, and C." What are

58:48 ↗ your thoughts on that?

58:49 ↗ >> Yeah, great question. Um, we are

58:51 ↗ actually going to have another committee

58:52 ↗ forming that's going to be focused on

58:54 ↗ metrics. Um, and one thing we've talked

58:57 ↗ about is for each of the focus areas

59:00 ↗ such as land use and transportation,

59:02 ↗ instead of having a metric tied to each

59:05 ↗ individual action, we may be considering

59:08 ↗ a set of metrics that looks overall at

59:10 ↗ how those actions are being implemented.

59:13 ↗ Um but for this one in particular, it

59:16 ↗ could look at if um title 18 is updated,

59:20 ↗ were there specific actions that

59:23 ↗ strengthened the climate lens such as um

59:26 ↗ when we revisit the um sustainable

59:29 ↗ building requirements and kind of what

59:31 ↗ that process and and progress that we

59:33 ↗ made in those updates would be one way

59:35 ↗ to measure this. But we will be um

59:38 ↗ developing those metrics uh in the

59:41 ↗ coming months as we shape the actions.

59:46 ↗ >> Commissioner Olner,

59:49 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

59:51 ↗ Commissioner Millander,

59:53 ↗ Commissioner Adair, Commissioner

59:56 ↗ Molberu,

59:58 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson.

1:00:03 ↗ I know that was a co-chair.

1:00:13 ↗ All right, Vice Chair Patterson,

1:00:15 ↗ nothing.

1:00:17 ↗ >> See what happens when you miss one

1:00:18 ↗ meeting.

1:00:20 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Um, were you able to

1:00:23 ↗ get what you needed?

1:00:24 ↗ >> Yeah, I think Stacy,

1:00:25 ↗ >> just potentially some concern that it

1:00:27 ↗ might not be measurable, maybe too

1:00:29 ↗ general. So, just being cautious if we

1:00:31 ↗ do look at revising this um and that we

1:00:34 ↗ have something that we could show

1:00:35 ↗ progress on essentially. So, yeah.

1:00:38 ↗ >> Oh, and I apologize, Commissioner

1:00:41 ↗ Zacharov. I I you know, you're this big

1:00:44 ↗ on my screen and so I often miss miss to

1:00:49 ↗ call on you, but did you want to mention

1:00:50 ↗ anything? I know you don't have the

1:00:52 ↗ Simpson hand up. Okay,

1:00:54 ↗ >> no problem. No problem.

1:00:56 ↗ >> Okay, thank you, Katya. Uh okay, let's

1:00:59 ↗ move on to the next point.

1:01:00 ↗ >> Great.

1:01:02 ↗ >> All right. And then um the next action

1:01:05 ↗ was very focused on um incorporating

1:01:08 ↗ sustainable design standards in city

1:01:10 ↗ code. We did that through the title 18

1:01:12 ↗ update. Uh we incorporated a lead

1:01:15 ↗ platinum requirement for buildings of a

1:01:17 ↗ certain size. Um there is a commitment

1:01:20 ↗ by the city to revisit that. um that's

1:01:22 ↗ on the work plan where I think in

1:01:24 ↗ particular we're looking at expanding

1:01:27 ↗ certification opportunities recognizing

1:01:30 ↗ lead is one way to certify a sustainable

1:01:33 ↗ building. There are others some that are

1:01:34 ↗ less expensive than that process. So

1:01:37 ↗ we'll be um having those discussions in

1:01:40 ↗ the new year. Um and so we felt that

1:01:42 ↗ this had been essentially accomplished

1:01:46 ↗ um and is already planned for

1:01:47 ↗ improvements next year. Um and so one of

1:01:50 ↗ the recommendations was that the if we

1:01:52 ↗ were to generalize that previous action

1:01:56 ↗ um this would be considered as part of

1:01:58 ↗ that. So as we're going through any

1:02:01 ↗ other additional improvements to title

1:02:03 ↗ 18 we'd be making sure that there's a

1:02:05 ↗ strong climate sustainability uh lens

1:02:07 ↗ applied to those updates.

1:02:12 ↗ >> All right we can start at the other end

1:02:13 ↗ of the bench this time. Commissioner

1:02:15 ↗ Malberu.

1:02:18 ↗ Okay. Commissioner Adair, Commissioner

1:02:21 ↗ Miller Irwin.

1:02:23 ↗ >> All right. Commissioner Matthews,

1:02:25 ↗ >> Commissioner Oler. There we go. There's

1:02:27 ↗ a comment.

1:02:28 ↗ >> There we go. Uh I I support the notion

1:02:31 ↗ of having alternative uh measures other

1:02:34 ↗ than lead

1:02:35 ↗ >> uh platinum. We're going through this

1:02:37 ↗ with the food bank now and it's, you

1:02:40 ↗ know, we're nonprofit uh trying to

1:02:42 ↗ develop a property and serve clients in

1:02:45 ↗ the community. uh and lead is uh an

1:02:48 ↗ expense a significant one given the the

1:02:51 ↗ scale of the project. So I I support

1:02:53 ↗ that notion.

1:02:54 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:02:56 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Oler. Uh

1:02:58 ↗ Commissioner Crass, Vice Chair

1:03:00 ↗ Patterson.

1:03:04 ↗ >> Okay, I'll just double down on uh

1:03:06 ↗ Commissioner Oler's comment. Yeah,

1:03:07 ↗ there's there's different avenues to get

1:03:09 ↗ where we want to go. So again, having an

1:03:11 ↗ expanded uh template that people can

1:03:14 ↗ choose different ways to get that

1:03:15 ↗ certification or get a similar

1:03:18 ↗ certification makes sense to me.

1:03:19 ↗ >> Mhm. Great.

1:03:20 ↗ >> So

1:03:21 ↗ >> I know you all just want to get to EV

1:03:23 ↗ charging and multif family and ebikes.

1:03:25 ↗ >> There's more. There's more to

1:03:26 ↗ >> almost there.

1:03:28 ↗ Okay.

1:03:29 ↗ >> Um I think this one and then we'll we'll

1:03:31 ↗ get into those. Um so we have a current

1:03:34 ↗ action 2.4 that's focused. Uh oh, I I

1:03:39 ↗ think I actually skipped one. Sorry. Um

1:03:41 ↗ that's focused on implementing the

1:03:42 ↗ missing middle housing ordinance. Um

1:03:45 ↗ there was a recommendation to maybe

1:03:48 ↗ consider that a little bit more broadly

1:03:51 ↗ around language that cons improves

1:03:53 ↗ density walkability

1:03:55 ↗ um as it relates to uh benefiting uh

1:03:58 ↗ climate mitigation.

1:04:00 ↗ And then or another option would be just

1:04:03 ↗ to continue to emphasize the need to

1:04:05 ↗ implement the current ordinance. So,

1:04:07 ↗ kind of mixed uh mixed feelings uh mixed

1:04:11 ↗ reactions that we had to any revisions

1:04:13 ↗ to this this action, but curious if you

1:04:15 ↗ all feel like um we should continue to

1:04:18 ↗ advance an action around implementing

1:04:19 ↗ missing building missile missing middle

1:04:22 ↗ housing um or if you think there's an

1:04:24 ↗ improvement we could make on that

1:04:25 ↗ action.

1:04:28 ↗ All right,

1:04:30 ↗ send it back the other way if Vice Chair

1:04:32 ↗ Patterson

1:04:35 ↗ and you can you can always come back if

1:04:36 ↗ you don't have something when we

1:04:37 ↗ >> Yeah, go ahead and come back to me. I'm

1:04:38 ↗ thinking how to phrase this for sure.

1:04:41 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Crass, Commissioner

1:04:44 ↗ Oler, Commissioner Matthews,

1:04:47 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin,

1:04:49 ↗ >> Commissioner Dair.

1:04:51 ↗ >> Yeah. So, just I agree with the idea

1:04:54 ↗ that we should be um prioritizing

1:04:56 ↗ walkability over the missing middle

1:04:59 ↗ housing because I feel like we're we've

1:05:01 ↗ covered middle housing pretty well a

1:05:03 ↗ lot. So, anything we can do to improve

1:05:06 ↗ safety and walkability is great.

1:05:10 ↗ >> Commissioner Molaru

1:05:13 ↗ Commission, I I support Commissioner

1:05:15 ↗ Dar's position.

1:05:16 ↗ >> Okay.

1:05:18 ↗ Uh, anyone like the opportunity to go?

1:05:20 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson.

1:05:22 ↗ >> All right. I'm going to try and say this

1:05:24 ↗ eloquently. Uh, obviously, as you

1:05:26 ↗ mentioned, we're big fans of missing

1:05:28 ↗ middle here. We've talked about a lot in

1:05:29 ↗ the last couple years. Um, personally, I

1:05:32 ↗ feel like in this document and this

1:05:34 ↗ topic, it feels a little out of place to

1:05:36 ↗ get to to that level. I think when we're

1:05:39 ↗ talking about missing middle in this

1:05:40 ↗ context, we're talking about

1:05:42 ↗ sustainability, walkability. I feel like

1:05:44 ↗ that's covered in other places. like

1:05:46 ↗ that should apply to all of our housing,

1:05:48 ↗ not just mi the middle housing. Um, so I

1:05:52 ↗ don't know if there's a way to combine

1:05:53 ↗ that. Like I think middle housing has

1:05:55 ↗ more to do with like affordability and

1:05:58 ↗ um the volume of housing available

1:06:01 ↗ versus specifying middle housing in the

1:06:05 ↗ climate action plan. So I think in

1:06:08 ↗ summary, I guess uh being able to just

1:06:11 ↗ fold that into the other actions as like

1:06:13 ↗ another type of housing that we want to

1:06:16 ↗ apply those uh sustainability and and

1:06:19 ↗ other requirements versus separating it

1:06:21 ↗ out.

1:06:22 ↗ >> Okay, great. Yeah, that's helpful.

1:06:25 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you, Vice Chair Patterson. I

1:06:26 ↗ I kind of agree with Vice Chair

1:06:28 ↗ Patterson. I I don't really know how to

1:06:30 ↗ express what I feel, but it seems to me

1:06:33 ↗ that unless you copy

1:06:36 ↗ the housing goal or or action almost

1:06:39 ↗ verbatim, it almost seems like they they

1:06:41 ↗ kind of

1:06:42 ↗ >> this is where people start getting

1:06:43 ↗ confused, right? At least I I do. When

1:06:45 ↗ you start looking at two different

1:06:46 ↗ documents and going, how do these fit

1:06:48 ↗ together? So whether or not you you take

1:06:50 ↗ their language and you incorporate it

1:06:52 ↗ into IAP or whether you just

1:06:56 ↗ kind of walk around it, maybe not even

1:06:58 ↗ bring up middle housing, I don't know

1:06:59 ↗ how to say it eloquently,

1:07:01 ↗ >> but again, I think this is where people

1:07:03 ↗ start getting confused when they start

1:07:05 ↗ looking at two different plans. They're

1:07:06 ↗ both talking about something, but

1:07:07 ↗ they're coming at it from different

1:07:08 ↗ areas. I feel that's where people that

1:07:11 ↗ are using these codes and actually

1:07:12 ↗ trying to build around it, that's where

1:07:14 ↗ they start getting frustrated. Okay,

1:07:16 ↗ >> so Anyone

1:07:19 ↗ else like to go one more time for number

1:07:22 ↗ three?

1:07:24 ↗ Okay,

1:07:27 ↗ Commissioner Molaru. Um, I live in

1:07:28 ↗ Seattle and one of the things that we

1:07:31 ↗ see because Seattle is so concerned both

1:07:34 ↗ about climate action and about uh

1:07:37 ↗ affordability for housing, one of the

1:07:40 ↗ things that we see is conflicts

1:07:42 ↗ constantly because the more one focuses

1:07:46 ↗ in general on

1:07:48 ↗ uh on on climate action,

1:07:53 ↗ it becomes expensive.

1:07:55 ↗ And I don't know how you guys get around

1:07:57 ↗ it, but I can tell you the amount of

1:08:00 ↗ money just in rehabbing a garage, the

1:08:03 ↗ amount of money that it was required

1:08:05 ↗ because of climate um action was

1:08:08 ↗ substantial. And I don't know how you

1:08:10 ↗ can how you can address the the

1:08:12 ↗ differences.

1:08:17 ↗ >> Yeah, fair point.

1:08:18 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:08:20 ↗ >> Okay. Is is that all the comments for

1:08:22 ↗ number three?

1:08:24 ↗ Okay.

1:08:25 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. All right. Um the

1:08:28 ↗ next one is uh number 2.4 and the

1:08:32 ↗ current action was focused on updating

1:08:34 ↗ the land use codes to promote multimodal

1:08:36 ↗ transportation.

1:08:38 ↗ Um we did feel like uh in some ways this

1:08:41 ↗ was covered through the title 18 update

1:08:43 ↗ through the update to the mobility

1:08:46 ↗ action plan. And so there was interest

1:08:49 ↗ in either having this sort of embedded

1:08:52 ↗ in that first action that's a little

1:08:54 ↗ more overarching or ensuring a climate

1:08:56 ↗ lens in city plans and codes or an

1:09:00 ↗ alternative would be we just make sure

1:09:02 ↗ that we include the same language here

1:09:05 ↗ that is in the updated mobility action

1:09:07 ↗ plan um and just ensure it has that kind

1:09:11 ↗ of climate lens and it has a reason for

1:09:13 ↗ being in the the climate plan.

1:09:19 ↗ All right. Uh, I'm going to start with

1:09:21 ↗ Commissioner Zackov because I feel like

1:09:23 ↗ I missed her just a second ago.

1:09:26 ↗ Okay. Nope. Uh, Commissioner

1:09:28 ↗ >> Molaru

1:09:30 ↗ in Seattle. Again, multimodal

1:09:34 ↗ >> multimodal dealing with multimodal

1:09:36 ↗ transportation. I also happen to work in

1:09:37 ↗ a part of South Lake Union where we have

1:09:39 ↗ every vehicle known to man going past

1:09:41 ↗ us, including people on feet. And two of

1:09:44 ↗ the things I would suggest, one, before

1:09:47 ↗ a bike lane is added, make sure it's

1:09:49 ↗ needed because I can tell you from the

1:09:51 ↗ people who live on 75th

1:09:54 ↗ that they lost a traffic lane to u a

1:09:58 ↗ bike lane and they needed that traffic

1:10:01 ↗ lane and the bike lane never gets used.

1:10:03 ↗ This is over on Northeast 35th. The

1:10:06 ↗ other thing is that when you introduce

1:10:09 ↗ many different vehicle, many different

1:10:13 ↗ modes of transportation and you're

1:10:15 ↗ crossing in front of cars, make sure

1:10:18 ↗ that what you do is you when those are

1:10:21 ↗ built, allow for many different rates of

1:10:24 ↗ movement, perhaps having stop lights for

1:10:27 ↗ pedestrians crossing because I'm sure

1:10:30 ↗ somebody's going to get killed um

1:10:32 ↗ leaving leaving the our parking lot at

1:10:34 ↗ my office. It's only a matter of time.

1:10:38 ↗ Maybe not killed, maybe just severely

1:10:40 ↗ injured.

1:10:42 ↗ Thanks,

1:10:43 ↗ uh, Commissioner

1:10:44 ↗ >> Adair,

1:10:48 ↗ Commissioner Miller Win,

1:10:52 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

1:10:56 ↗ >> always come back. Uh, Commissioner Oler.

1:11:00 ↗ Yeah, just getting back to um um

1:11:05 ↗ vice chair's comments on the previous uh

1:11:08 ↗ point. Um I I think we want to try to

1:11:11 ↗ avoid redundancy and and confusion. Um

1:11:15 ↗ and I I think if you know if the

1:11:18 ↗ requirement is in one portion of our

1:11:20 ↗ code, does it really need to you know

1:11:23 ↗ bleed over into others?

1:11:26 ↗ >> That's helpful.

1:11:28 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner

1:11:29 ↗ Crafts,

1:11:31 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson,

1:11:33 ↗ anyone else before we turn it over to

1:11:36 ↗ number five? Yeah. And again, I it's I

1:11:38 ↗ kind of go back to the last one. I I

1:11:40 ↗ know you guys have to put language into

1:11:41 ↗ this stuff. I just for me it it seems

1:11:44 ↗ like Yeah, you got to be real careful

1:11:46 ↗ just to confuse people. I think that's

1:11:48 ↗ my only problem.

1:11:49 ↗ >> So, and I know I I appreciate the fact

1:11:51 ↗ that you said climate lens because again

1:11:54 ↗ the IAP's going to mirror a lot of stuff

1:11:56 ↗ in other plans. Uh but the less that you

1:11:58 ↗ can do to confuse people I think is

1:12:00 ↗ helpful. So that'd be my only concern.

1:12:05 ↗ >> All right.

1:12:06 ↗ >> Um and then the next two focus on EV

1:12:08 ↗ infrastructure. Um I did want to there

1:12:11 ↗ was discussion around the bike storage

1:12:13 ↗ room. I think maybe Commissioner

1:12:14 ↗ Patterson you brought that up. Um I did

1:12:16 ↗ want to mention that actually came up at

1:12:17 ↗ the environmental board last night. Um

1:12:20 ↗ coming out of the TAB discussion, they

1:12:22 ↗ had discussed having potentially some

1:12:24 ↗ requirements for uh bike storage or

1:12:28 ↗ scooter storage and charging in

1:12:29 ↗ multifamily. Um that's something we

1:12:32 ↗ might consider looking at in terms of

1:12:34 ↗ increasing requirements and there were

1:12:38 ↗ some concerns around safety battery

1:12:40 ↗ fires. Um and so just having to weigh

1:12:43 ↗ kind of all those considerations. But uh

1:12:46 ↗ it was great to hear your input on that

1:12:48 ↗ because that's something too that we may

1:12:50 ↗ consider looking at in terms of an

1:12:52 ↗ action. So wanted to mention that before

1:12:54 ↗ we move into the last two that are

1:12:56 ↗ focused on EV infrastructure. Um so

1:12:58 ↗ there is a current action that's focused

1:13:00 ↗ on increasing

1:13:02 ↗ or having requirements for single family

1:13:05 ↗ EV infrastructure. Um the state has uh

1:13:09 ↗ code requirements now around uh new

1:13:12 ↗ single family residences having EV

1:13:14 ↗ infrastructure. Um so we uh were

1:13:18 ↗ proposing or the committee discussed um

1:13:20 ↗ removing this since it's already covered

1:13:22 ↗ in state code or maybe refocusing on

1:13:25 ↗ multifamily which I have another slide

1:13:27 ↗ around that. So wanted to see if there

1:13:30 ↗ was any additional input on uh single

1:13:32 ↗ family uh requirements for charging.

1:13:38 ↗ See if anybody has anything to say about

1:13:39 ↗ that.

1:13:42 ↗ Start with Vice Chair Patterson.

1:13:47 ↗ >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Crass,

1:13:51 ↗ Commissioner Oler,

1:13:53 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

1:13:58 ↗ Commissioner Miller, Irwin. Um, I'll

1:14:01 ↗ just repeat that I I support a focus on

1:14:04 ↗ um EV in multifamily uh specifically in

1:14:08 ↗ older communities that are probably the

1:14:10 ↗ most challenged with that. Um, so

1:14:13 ↗ without a doubt I I support

1:14:16 ↗ >> Commissioner Adair,

1:14:19 ↗ Commissioner Mulberu.

1:14:23 ↗ Okay. Commissioner Zacharov.

1:14:32 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that was a no. Okay. Um,

1:14:34 ↗ if I understand this correctly, Stacy,

1:14:37 ↗ this is this is the idea that um they

1:14:39 ↗ actually want to see action on single

1:14:42 ↗ family

1:14:42 ↗ >> that there was an action to pursue

1:14:46 ↗ requirements around EV charging in

1:14:48 ↗ single family residents that has been

1:14:51 ↗ done at the state level. their state

1:14:53 ↗ code around that now. Um, so we feel

1:14:55 ↗ like that action's completed

1:14:58 ↗ essentially. Um, and I know there's

1:15:01 ↗ limitations on what the city can impose

1:15:04 ↗ on um, single family.

1:15:05 ↗ >> I think this one to me, similar to the

1:15:07 ↗ multif family, I I think we just stay

1:15:09 ↗ with the state, especially with the

1:15:10 ↗ housing industry right now being flat.

1:15:13 ↗ >> U, this is something that we could

1:15:14 ↗ always look back. I mean, obviously this

1:15:16 ↗ is going to be a plan that gets updated

1:15:17 ↗ along the way.

1:15:19 ↗ >> Um, but yeah, no new burdens at the

1:15:21 ↗ moment. Okay,

1:15:23 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass.

1:15:24 ↗ >> Hi. So, in single family, there's I

1:15:27 ↗ agree that let's not add any burdens,

1:15:29 ↗ but then let me flip it the other way is

1:15:31 ↗ like are there any carrots that we that

1:15:34 ↗ we would want to look at? For example,

1:15:37 ↗ speedier permits or less, you know, you

1:15:40 ↗ know, just uh cheaper permits if they do

1:15:43 ↗ certain things. Once again,

1:15:46 ↗ um help push that farther without

1:15:49 ↗ putting more burdens on there. So, um I

1:15:52 ↗ agree adding more

1:15:54 ↗ um for single family, someone building

1:15:56 ↗ or remodeling is hard, but maybe let's

1:15:59 ↗ look at carrots as well.

1:16:03 ↗ >> And that was around single family or is

1:16:05 ↗ that multif family as well? Okay.

1:16:09 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Crest.

1:16:11 ↗ That was something I actually had in my

1:16:12 ↗ notes is like for certain things right

1:16:14 ↗ now just with how flat the economy is

1:16:16 ↗ and especially one of the backbones of

1:16:19 ↗ uh one of the pillars of the American

1:16:20 ↗ economy is the housing industry now

1:16:23 ↗ seems like a better time to incentivize

1:16:25 ↗ >> rather than require or regulate. So

1:16:28 ↗ where we can I I still think you know we

1:16:30 ↗ move forward with our goals but uh I

1:16:33 ↗ like what you said. Yeah, carrots right

1:16:35 ↗ now.

1:16:36 ↗ >> Sticks can come later.

1:16:37 ↗ >> Okay.

1:16:38 ↗ >> Um Okay. Great.

1:16:41 ↗ >> And that I think we've discussed this

1:16:43 ↗ quite a bit tonight. Um that feeds it to

1:16:46 ↗ the or carries over from the last

1:16:47 ↗ conversation. Um I think what I have

1:16:50 ↗ been hearing around any input around um

1:16:53 ↗ for strengthening requirements for

1:16:56 ↗ multifamily charging is um potentially

1:17:00 ↗ for existing multifamily focusing on

1:17:03 ↗ education outreach probably technical

1:17:05 ↗ support um and then maybe consider more

1:17:09 ↗ incentive based actions for new

1:17:12 ↗ multifamily to go above and beyond

1:17:14 ↗ requirements

1:17:15 ↗ um is what I've heard so far tonight.

1:17:18 ↗ But yeah, curious if there's any other

1:17:20 ↗ reflections. Of course, if we were to

1:17:22 ↗ propose an action that looked at

1:17:25 ↗ increasing

1:17:26 ↗ requirements for multif family, we would

1:17:28 ↗ bring you a lot more of the research

1:17:30 ↗ especially that Redmond uh did leading

1:17:32 ↗ up to their code change as well as

1:17:34 ↗ implications since they've um

1:17:36 ↗ implemented that. But um if there's

1:17:38 ↗ other thoughts around increasing

1:17:40 ↗ multifamily development um or haven't

1:17:43 ↗ reflected back what I heard tonight,

1:17:45 ↗ would appreciate any of those comments.

1:17:47 ↗ Yeah. No, thank you. I think that was a

1:17:49 ↗ great summary and again I I like what uh

1:17:52 ↗ Stacy had to say because it's kind of my

1:17:53 ↗ feeling about it, but let's definitely

1:17:55 ↗ uh let's kick it around the room one

1:17:57 ↗ more time. Um Commissioner Zacharov,

1:18:02 ↗ Vice Chair Patterson,

1:18:04 ↗ uh just a quick clarifying question and

1:18:06 ↗ apologies if I missed it, but are there

1:18:08 ↗ any state requirements for either new or

1:18:10 ↗ existing multif family EV? Yes, for new

1:18:15 ↗ um I believe it's I would have to look

1:18:16 ↗ up the numbers. I want to say 10%.

1:18:19 ↗ Um

1:18:21 ↗ and forgive me, I don't remember if

1:18:22 ↗ that's EV ready or EV capable. Um we can

1:18:26 ↗ follow up and provide you that

1:18:27 ↗ information, but there is a there is a

1:18:29 ↗ requirement. I believe it's 10%. Okay.

1:18:31 ↗ For new for existing buildings, I don't

1:18:34 ↗ think there's anything we can post

1:18:36 ↗ there. We um recommend the PSSE upandgo

1:18:40 ↗ program which I know has its significant

1:18:43 ↗ challenges. Um Belleview is

1:18:45 ↗ experimenting right now with uh

1:18:47 ↗ providing technical support to multi

1:18:49 ↗ existing multifamily to support them

1:18:52 ↗ pursuing um EV charging. So we'll be

1:18:55 ↗ tracking that and see how that process

1:18:57 ↗ goes and the the interest from

1:19:00 ↗ multifamily but no requirements for

1:19:02 ↗ existing multif family.

1:19:04 ↗ I kind of like the idea of letting

1:19:05 ↗ Belleview stick their neck out there.

1:19:08 ↗ Let's see how they do and let's take

1:19:10 ↗ their information. You know, they're a

1:19:12 ↗ very wealthy city. So, again, I'm I'm

1:19:14 ↗ okay with that. Commissioner Crass,

1:19:17 ↗ >> I guess I'm still puzzled. Um, we're

1:19:19 ↗ taking a to do this right. We have a

1:19:21 ↗ hard dependency on Puget Sound Energy,

1:19:23 ↗ and if they don't have a shared goal,

1:19:26 ↗ then I don't know how this moves

1:19:28 ↗ forward. So, I don't understand or know

1:19:31 ↗ enough about why they don't think this

1:19:33 ↗ is important. Um, I have my own

1:19:36 ↗ anecdotal. There's right near my house

1:19:38 ↗ there are some condos. They wanted to

1:19:39 ↗ have two EV spots and I talked to the

1:19:42 ↗ woman who runs the HOI and the HOA and

1:19:44 ↗ they had to scrap it because it was so

1:19:46 ↗ exorbitantly expensive. It was just not

1:19:49 ↗ worth doing. So, that just says the

1:19:50 ↗ actions of of Pugan Energy, they don't

1:19:52 ↗ care or it's not a priority. So unless

1:19:56 ↗ this changes, I think we're just going

1:19:58 ↗ to continue to be frustrated. Um, and

1:20:01 ↗ there's only so much we can do. So I'm

1:20:03 ↗ not sure where that goes. And any

1:20:06 ↗ insights into why that's not a priority

1:20:10 ↗ >> because unless that's changed, we're

1:20:11 ↗ just going to be talking about this

1:20:13 ↗ every year.

1:20:14 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, and PSSE has their own

1:20:16 ↗ requirements for decarbonization. Um,

1:20:19 ↗ they have clean energy requirements.

1:20:21 ↗ they'll be um coal free by the end of

1:20:23 ↗ this year, but they have a number of

1:20:25 ↗ requirements for decarbonizing the grid

1:20:28 ↗ and funding projects. So, we've worked

1:20:30 ↗ really well with them on a number of

1:20:32 ↗ projects. The grid capacity has

1:20:35 ↗ definitely been a challenge. Um

1:20:38 ↗ Belleview and Redmond right now are

1:20:40 ↗ working on a assessment of where they

1:20:42 ↗ anticipate their cities going with

1:20:44 ↗ electrification and what the gap is in

1:20:46 ↗ terms of grid capacity. So again, we'll

1:20:48 ↗ be kind of looking to those studies

1:20:50 ↗ because I'm sure it'll be somewhat

1:20:51 ↗ reflective of Isiqua. Um, but I do know

1:20:54 ↗ it has been a priority of Mayor Paulie

1:20:56 ↗ to be working with ESC, PSSE, raising

1:20:58 ↗ the concerns, raising the issue that

1:21:01 ↗ happened with Gilman Village and the um

1:21:04 ↗ the falling through of a a big charging

1:21:07 ↗ project there as an example. Um, and so

1:21:10 ↗ that's something we'll be working with

1:21:11 ↗ the the new mayor too to build that

1:21:13 ↗ relationship and be um continuing to uh

1:21:17 ↗ encourage PSSE and work with PSSE to

1:21:19 ↗ build out that capacity. Yeah.

1:21:22 ↗ >> Thank you. And I want to give I'm going

1:21:24 ↗ to do something a little odd. I'm going

1:21:26 ↗ to jump over to Commissioner Malberu

1:21:27 ↗ because Gilman Village was brought up.

1:21:29 ↗ Do you have anything you want to say?

1:21:31 ↗ >> It was mentioned earlier. Yeah.

1:21:33 ↗ >> One one other one other thought. Um,

1:21:36 ↗ would the city perhaps create a

1:21:39 ↗ voluntary times to charge your EVs?

1:21:43 ↗ Because I am very concerned again with

1:21:45 ↗ the increase in heat uh temperatures

1:21:51 ↗ >> that there's going and and air

1:21:53 ↗ conditioning systems. When I was growing

1:21:55 ↗ up, nobody had an air conditioner and

1:21:57 ↗ now they're fairly common. And I'm very

1:22:00 ↗ concerned that we hit these peak peak

1:22:03 ↗ periods

1:22:04 ↗ um where the system blacks out which is

1:22:08 ↗ what happened. You can look at the dates

1:22:11 ↗ and it and and perhaps it is best done

1:22:16 ↗ in a shared system so there's no not too

1:22:19 ↗ much strain all at once

1:22:21 ↗ >> during the day.

1:22:22 ↗ >> Great question. Um PSSE has a couple of

1:22:25 ↗ programs both for uh home heating and

1:22:28 ↗ cooling as well as charging where uh

1:22:30 ↗ residents can enroll in the program.

1:22:33 ↗ They have to connect their equipment and

1:22:35 ↗ then during um major electrical demands

1:22:38 ↗ PSSE can lower your thermostat for

1:22:41 ↗ example or maybe not have you charging

1:22:43 ↗ your vehicle then and then it will start

1:22:45 ↗ charging in time when the the grid isn't

1:22:47 ↗ at a uh being hit so hard. um those are

1:22:50 ↗ programs they can run as the utility,

1:22:53 ↗ but that's something we can help

1:22:54 ↗ promote. But also considering where

1:22:56 ↗ there's other education around the

1:22:58 ↗ conservation or other kind of programs,

1:23:01 ↗ policies, incentives we can um put in

1:23:04 ↗ place for that the conservation. But

1:23:06 ↗ yeah, it's a it's a really great

1:23:07 ↗ question you raised and we can look and

1:23:09 ↗ see what other cities are doing to

1:23:11 ↗ outside of what the utility has control

1:23:13 ↗ of.

1:23:16 ↗ All right, Commissioner Dair,

1:23:20 ↗ Commissioner Millander Irwin,

1:23:22 ↗ >> I just want to say thank you for a great

1:23:24 ↗ presentation, very comprehensive, and um

1:23:27 ↗ also allowing us to give uh uh a comment

1:23:30 ↗ on the uh EV charging stations and

1:23:33 ↗ multif family. It's something I'm pretty

1:23:34 ↗ passionate about. Um so, thank you very

1:23:37 ↗ much.

1:23:39 ↗ >> I second that. Uh Commissioner Matthews.

1:23:43 ↗ >> Okay. Commissioner Eer. Okay.

1:23:46 ↗ I think Commissioner Crass had already

1:23:48 ↗ went. So, um, yeah, I kind of concur

1:23:51 ↗ with the rest of the group. Um, I I'd

1:23:54 ↗ like to see the multifamilies kind of

1:23:55 ↗ stay at the state level until things

1:23:58 ↗ simmer down. Uh, but I think that's it,

1:24:02 ↗ Stacy. And hopefully you got what you

1:24:04 ↗ were looking for

1:24:05 ↗ >> and enough information that you can take

1:24:07 ↗ back and and continue to work on um,

1:24:10 ↗ what you guys are doing with the IAP.

1:24:13 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you very much. um very

1:24:15 ↗ helpful feedback. We'll be taking all

1:24:17 ↗ the input tonight and sorting through

1:24:19 ↗ it, working on a summary for the

1:24:22 ↗ environmental board and then the revised

1:24:24 ↗ actions. As I mentioned, I think we'll

1:24:26 ↗ probably try and come back in 2026 with

1:24:29 ↗ any actions that have a policy

1:24:31 ↗ implication related to um land use. Um

1:24:35 ↗ and so you'll have a chance to see those

1:24:36 ↗ before anything moves to council. Um,

1:24:39 ↗ and then in the meantime, if there are

1:24:41 ↗ other ideas you have, um, feel free to

1:24:44 ↗ to send those um, our way or any

1:24:47 ↗ followup from tonight and what we

1:24:48 ↗ shared. That was a real small snapshot

1:24:50 ↗ of the the IAP, but the ones that we

1:24:52 ↗ felt was most relevant for this group.

1:24:54 ↗ So, thank you.

1:24:56 ↗ >> Excellent. Well, thank you again for the

1:24:58 ↗ presentation. Like Commissioner

1:24:59 ↗ Millander said, fantastic job. Very

1:25:02 ↗ comprehensive. And I'm sorry did

1:25:04 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov I I did ask

1:25:08 ↗ >> I can only join the rest of the team and

1:25:11 ↗ uh thank you for the great presentation

1:25:13 ↗ and yeah thank you.

1:25:16 ↗ >> All right. All right. Well, thank you.

1:25:20 ↗ Okay, that concludes our regular

1:25:22 ↗ business for this evening. Uh we are now

1:25:25 ↗ going to move along to council updates

1:25:27 ↗ and I'm looking to Kristen to provide

1:25:29 ↗ any if you have any.

1:25:32 ↗ Good evening. I I actually have quite a

1:25:34 ↗ few updates tonight.

1:25:36 ↗ Um council related and other. So, first

1:25:41 ↗ of all, we had a big night at council

1:25:42 ↗ the other night. Uh I think we took four

1:25:44 ↗ or five items from our department to

1:25:46 ↗ council. Uh we did just recently update,

1:25:50 ↗ we try and do this annually, updated our

1:25:52 ↗ land use application and permit fees

1:25:54 ↗ that was approved. Uh updated fire fees

1:25:56 ↗ were approved. Our comprehensive plan

1:25:59 ↗ and the food bank reszone were approved

1:26:01 ↗ on consent. There was sort of a

1:26:03 ↗ congratulations and a a pull out from

1:26:06 ↗ that. They highlighted it.

1:26:08 ↗ They also approved I think that many

1:26:11 ↗ talked to you all about the Belleview

1:26:12 ↗ College development agreement and the

1:26:14 ↗ potential extension and council after a

1:26:18 ↗ very long discussion voted to extend the

1:26:21 ↗ development agreement for the 19 acre

1:26:23 ↗ parcel for two more years which gives

1:26:26 ↗ and in those two years the college is

1:26:28 ↗ required to go out and do community

1:26:31 ↗ outreach to figure out what they can do

1:26:33 ↗ on that site. Had the development

1:26:34 ↗ agreement not happened, they would not

1:26:36 ↗ be able to do residential out there. And

1:26:39 ↗ right now, they may be able to do it

1:26:40 ↗ still with council approval, but they're

1:26:42 ↗ going to go out and do outreach and see

1:26:43 ↗ what the community really wants. There

1:26:45 ↗ was some information misinformation out

1:26:47 ↗ there that that was where the high

1:26:49 ↗ school wanted to go and that was cleared

1:26:50 ↗ up that that was that was not the issue.

1:26:52 ↗ This is this was not about putting the

1:26:54 ↗ high school there. It was about

1:26:55 ↗ extending their development agreement.

1:26:58 ↗ We don't have anything else going to

1:27:00 ↗ council again this year. So those that

1:27:03 ↗ is my council update.

1:27:07 ↗ >> All right, sounds good. Uh are there any

1:27:10 ↗ other updates to provide?

1:27:12 ↗ >> Yes.

1:27:14 ↗ >> All right.

1:27:15 ↗ >> So we as a reminder, we do not have our

1:27:18 ↗ second meetings in November and December

1:27:21 ↗ because of Thanksgiving and Christmas

1:27:24 ↗ holiday. We may not have our first

1:27:29 ↗ meeting in December. We were supposed to

1:27:31 ↗ be talking about the light rail criteria

1:27:35 ↗ and that came back to us and it's not

1:27:38 ↗ exactly what we wanted. So, we're

1:27:40 ↗ working on it and not sure if we can

1:27:43 ↗ make it in time for the December

1:27:44 ↗ meeting. So, I keep your keep checking

1:27:46 ↗ your emails and we will let you know as

1:27:48 ↗ soon as we know whether or not that is

1:27:49 ↗ coming.

1:27:50 ↗ >> So, it's a possibility this might be our

1:27:52 ↗ last meeting of the year.

1:27:53 ↗ >> It is a possibility that this might be

1:27:54 ↗ the last meeting. Yes.

1:27:56 ↗ >> Wow. The last thing I think that I have

1:27:59 ↗ is um we now have a new principal

1:28:02 ↗ planner.

1:28:03 ↗ >> Hey,

1:28:03 ↗ >> it is Kate Kaney right here. And hey,

1:28:08 ↗ Kate, do you want to say hi and

1:28:10 ↗ introduce yourself real quick? Okay.

1:28:20 ↗ >> Okay, great. Thank you.

1:28:22 ↗ Um, my name is Kate Kaney and I just

1:28:26 ↗ started last Monday. So, this is week

1:28:28 ↗ two and I um am extremely happy to be

1:28:33 ↗ here. I have worked as a planner in this

1:28:35 ↗ region for over 20 years primarily in

1:28:38 ↗ two cities. Um, a little bit in city

1:28:40 ↗ Seattle and mostly for 18 years in city

1:28:43 ↗ of SeaTac. Um I uh left city of SeaTac

1:28:47 ↗ as principal planner after managing the

1:28:50 ↗ uh major comprehensive plan update there

1:28:53 ↗ and uh we did a lot of things that I

1:28:57 ↗ think you all went through. Um so I'm

1:28:59 ↗ very familiar with Washington state's

1:29:01 ↗ requirements uh PSRC King County and you

1:29:05 ↗ know that overall context of growth and

1:29:07 ↗ equity in this region. Um I also um am

1:29:12 ↗ familiar with um station area planning

1:29:15 ↗ um in SeaTac. There are actually three

1:29:17 ↗ light rail stations that um serve that

1:29:19 ↗ city and I was there long enough to see

1:29:22 ↗ um them all built. So that was pretty

1:29:24 ↗ exciting. Um so doing I know that this

1:29:26 ↗ city uh is waiting for and preparing for

1:29:29 ↗ um a new light rail station. really

1:29:32 ↗ excited to uh start helping um this city

1:29:36 ↗ uh you know bring any knowledge that I

1:29:37 ↗ can to uh expanding um access and and

1:29:41 ↗ opportunity um and just maximizing you

1:29:45 ↗ know the great things that can come from

1:29:46 ↗ from stationary planning. I I know that

1:29:48 ↗ I'm not the transportation planner but

1:29:50 ↗ so much land use goes on in that that

1:29:52 ↗ it's really great. Um I also spent a

1:29:54 ↗ long time working on a city center plan.

1:29:57 ↗ Um, CATAC had a plan from 1999 that we

1:30:00 ↗ were updating and um, looking at central

1:30:02 ↗ Isqua and um, you know, the issues and

1:30:05 ↗ opportunities there. Uh, it's really

1:30:07 ↗ exciting for me to look at that. Um, so

1:30:10 ↗ so much great work here and it's so

1:30:11 ↗ beautiful in Isukqua. I don't live here.

1:30:13 ↗ I actually live in Ballard. Maybe uh,

1:30:15 ↗ one of your commissioners does or is

1:30:16 ↗ around there. Um, so um, I I uh I've

1:30:22 ↗ just enjoyed being here. Uh Kristen has

1:30:24 ↗ been amazing showing me around the city

1:30:26 ↗ and uh just I I'm really wowed by all

1:30:30 ↗ the plans and and

1:30:32 ↗ action plans that you have and

1:30:33 ↗ strategies. And so my hope is to uh come

1:30:37 ↗ up to speed as fast as I can and to help

1:30:39 ↗ supporting you and the city um as you do

1:30:42 ↗ this important work. Uh my favorite

1:30:44 ↗ thing is to go out into communities and

1:30:46 ↗ work on visions and implementing those

1:30:49 ↗ visions to maintain and enhance the

1:30:52 ↗ places people love. So really excited to

1:30:55 ↗ um do that work with you all.

1:30:57 ↗ >> That's it.

1:31:00 ↗ >> All right. Well, welcome Kate. Uh that's

1:31:03 ↗ fantastic. And it is Kate with a T,

1:31:04 ↗ correct?

1:31:05 ↗ >> Yes.

1:31:05 ↗ >> Okay. I thought I heard that. Um yeah.

1:31:07 ↗ Well, welcome. Isqua is very fortunate.

1:31:09 ↗ We have a deep bench of tremendous

1:31:11 ↗ talent on our staff. Uh, you know, I'm

1:31:13 ↗ sitting next to two fantastic people and

1:31:15 ↗ again, uh, welcome to the city and

1:31:18 ↗ that's great. You bring a lot of

1:31:19 ↗ knowledge and yes, we are going to need

1:31:20 ↗ some help with that light rail they keep

1:31:22 ↗ talking about. Um, okay. I believe that

1:31:26 ↗ is it for announcement. Does anybody

1:31:28 ↗ have anything for the good of the order

1:31:30 ↗ they'd like to present before we close

1:31:32 ↗ this out?

1:31:35 ↗ Nothing. All right. We're going to

1:31:37 ↗ adjourn this meeting of the Planning

1:31:39 ↗ Policy Commission this evening at 8:03

1:31:42 ↗ p.m. Have a good night.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (9)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Krass

Matthews

Millender-Irwin

Mohl-Barouh

Oliner

Zakharoff (virtual)

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of October 23, 2025 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3