Planning Policy Commission

Thursday, February 26, 2026

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Topics tracked across meetings:

Title 18 Land Use Code: Clarifying Amendments AB 9182 ››››››››› 3/10

Planning Policy Commission · Feb 13, 2025 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 27, 2025 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 2, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 12, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 26, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · Apr 9, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · May 14, 2026 → Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Jun 2, 2026 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 29, 2026

◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 27, 2025 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 2, 2026 ▶

Issaquah Climate Action Plan Update ›››››››››››››› 10/15

Environmental Board · Jul 14, 2021 → Economic Vitality Commission · Jul 21, 2021 → Environmental Board · Sep 21, 2021 → Environmental Board · Nov 10, 2021 → Environmental Board · Apr 13, 2022 → Environmental Board · Jan 8, 2025 → Park Board · Oct 27, 2025 → Park Board · Feb 24, 2026 → Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026 → Environmental Board · Mar 11, 2026 → Environmental Board · Mar 25, 2026 → Environmental Board · Apr 22, 2026 → City Council Committee of the Whole · Jun 8, 2026 → Environmental Board · Jun 10, 2026

◀ Prev: Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 View full lifecycle → Next: Environmental Board · Mar 11, 2026 ▶

Student Intern Presentations ›››››› 3/7

Park Board · Feb 24, 2026 → Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026 → Environmental Board · Mar 25, 2026 → Environmental Board · Apr 22, 2026 → City Council Committee of the Whole · Jun 8, 2026 → Environmental Board · Jun 10, 2026

◀ Prev: Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 View full lifecycle → Next: Environmental Board · Mar 25, 2026 ▶

ICAP Targets and Actions Review (D) 2 hrs ››› 3/4

Park Board · Feb 24, 2026 → Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026 → Environmental Board · Mar 25, 2026

◀ Prev: Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 View full lifecycle → Next: Environmental Board · Mar 25, 2026 ▶

Issaquah Climate Action Plan Proposed Policies & Actions COM 0251 ›› 2/3

Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 26, 2026 → Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Mar 17, 2026

◀ Prev: Transportation Advisory Board · Feb 25, 2026 View full lifecycle → Next: Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Mar 17, 2026 ▶

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 22, 2026

packet pp.3–5

Previously discussed: Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Feb 3, 2026

▶ Watch from 0:41 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, January 22, 2026

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Issaquah Climate Action Plan Update

Stacy Vynne-McKinstry, Sustainability Manager · packet pp.7–13

Topics: Climate

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

▶ Watch from 1:50 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

To discuss an update to the Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP) and seek input on transportation & land use related policies.

Title 18 Clarifying Amendments: Introduction (D)

Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Andrew Love, Associate Planner · packet pp.15–22

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:09:25 Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

The January 26 meeting will be the start of the Planning Policy Commission’s (PPC) annual review of the proposed clarifying updates to the Title 18, Land Use Code. Staff will provide an overview of the anticipated review process for the 2026 Clarifying Code Amendments, and the PPC will review two of the seven proposed amendments.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.23–25

▶ Watch from 2:17:00 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change) 1/9/26 1/22/26

3499 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ Good evening, planning policy. Great to

0:06 ↗ see everybody. We're going to call the J

0:09 ↗ January. I apologize. This is February

0:11 ↗ 26th. We're going to call the February

0:13 ↗ 26th Planning Policy Commission meeting

0:15 ↗ to order and it currently is 6:30 p.m.

0:20 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:22 ↗ Planning Policy Commission is in person,

0:24 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

0:26 ↗ be attending virtually or in person. Uh

0:29 ↗ Kristen, do we have a quorum this

0:30 ↗ evening?

0:32 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:33 ↗ >> All right. And I'd also just like to

0:35 ↗ mention that we do have two excused

0:36 ↗ absences, Commissioner Adair and

0:39 ↗ Commissioner Mulberu.

0:41 ↗ Let's begin with the approval of minutes

0:43 ↗ that were provided in your agenda

0:45 ↗ packet.

0:47 ↗ Those were for the January 22nd

0:51 ↗ meeting.

0:53 ↗ January 8th. Do we have two sets of

0:55 ↗ minutes?

0:58 ↗ No, we have

0:58 ↗ >> We should just have January 22nd.

1:00 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that might have just been

1:02 ↗ a spelling mistake. Okay.

1:05 ↗ >> Yes, there's just a spelling mistake.

1:07 ↗ So, okay. This is for the January 22nd

1:10 ↗ meeting. Uh, any questions, concerns,

1:13 ↗ anything that the commissioners would

1:14 ↗ like to point out?

1:17 ↗ Meeting minutes. We're good with them.

1:20 ↗ Okay. Seeing a bunch of head nods. Uh,

1:22 ↗ those meeting minutes are approved. Our

1:25 ↗ next order of business is public

1:27 ↗ comment. While we don't have anyone in

1:30 ↗ chambers this evening, we may have

1:32 ↗ somebody online. Amanda, do we have

1:34 ↗ anyone that would like to make general

1:36 ↗ public comments at this time?

1:38 ↗ >> No, chair, we do not.

1:40 ↗ >> Okay. Well, then I will not waste all of

1:43 ↗ our time by talking about a bunch of

1:45 ↗ general rules.

1:47 ↗ What we are going to do right now is

1:50 ↗ move into regular business.

1:53 ↗ And it looks like we're going to kick

1:55 ↗ this off with the Isiqua climate action

1:58 ↗ plan update. So this is our first item

2:00 ↗ of regular business as stated. Stacy Vin

2:03 ↗ McKinstry, our sustainability

2:06 ↗ sustainability manager, will be

2:08 ↗ presenting this evening. So St. Stacy,

2:10 ↗ when you're ready, please go ahead with

2:12 ↗ your presentation.

2:15 ↗ Try and say that five times fast. Wow.

2:18 ↗ >> All right. Thank you. Give me one moment

2:20 ↗ just to bring up the presentation. Don't

2:23 ↗ use WebEx as often.

2:39 ↗ Okay.

2:45 ↗ Need to adjust.

2:54 ↗ Good. Okay, great. Well, thank you very

2:57 ↗ much for having me this evening. Uh, as

2:59 ↗ mentioned, Stacy Vin McKinstry. I'm the

3:00 ↗ sustainability manager with the city,

3:02 ↗ and it's great to be back after visiting

3:05 ↗ with you all in the fall. Um I'll

3:08 ↗ debrief a little bit on what we

3:09 ↗ discussed at that last meeting, but

3:11 ↗ essentially I'm here to bring back uh

3:14 ↗ some of the concepts for consideration

3:16 ↗ in the update to Isaqua's climate action

3:19 ↗ plan.

3:20 ↗ So tonight I'll pro provide a bit of a

3:24 ↗ progress update on where we are with

3:25 ↗ updating the plan and then really

3:28 ↗ tonight we're jumping um into a few

3:30 ↗ policy considerations and I apologize

3:33 ↗ there's a error on there. We are looking

3:35 ↗ at transportation, land use policies,

3:37 ↗ but also some potential policies for the

3:40 ↗ built environment around buildings and

3:42 ↗ energy.

3:44 ↗ Um, so tonight we're really uh seeking

3:47 ↗ that feedback from you all um and really

3:50 ↗ focused in on those policies that may be

3:52 ↗ considered in the the plan update.

3:56 ↗ Just as a brief refresher, uh the Isiqua

3:59 ↗ climate action plan is really our staff

4:01 ↗ guidance and the community's guidance

4:03 ↗ and the work that we're doing to reduce

4:05 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions in the city. It

4:07 ↗ was adopted in 2021 after extensive

4:11 ↗ community engagement uh working with

4:13 ↗ focus groups and different interest

4:14 ↗ groups. Um, this year is our five-year

4:18 ↗ update and we've been really focused on

4:20 ↗ refining actions within the plan and

4:23 ↗ there's a few targets we've also been

4:24 ↗ looking at improving to make sure um

4:27 ↗ they best reflect the work that we need

4:29 ↗ to do to um make progress on our

4:32 ↗ emissions reduction. Um I'll speak about

4:35 ↗ this a little bit more later, but um

4:38 ↗ tonight we're also bringing a number of

4:41 ↗ policies that may seem a little out

4:44 ↗ there. Uh we were asked by a council

4:46 ↗ committee to really take a look at what

4:50 ↗ policies or actions could be taken to um

4:53 ↗ significantly move the needle on

4:56 ↗ reducing climate emissions. And so we

4:58 ↗ really did look at other communities

5:00 ↗ across the state and in North America to

5:02 ↗ pull some of those ideas for uh initial

5:05 ↗ discussion this evening.

5:07 ↗ Um, as mentioned tonight, we'll be

5:09 ↗ really focusing in on transportation

5:11 ↗ land use related policies and then also

5:13 ↗ that those that impact the built

5:15 ↗ environment.

5:17 ↗ So, what are we trying to achieve with

5:19 ↗ these policies as well as the actions in

5:21 ↗ the plan? Um, I'll focus on the areas of

5:25 ↗ transportation, land use, and the built

5:26 ↗ environment tonight. Those are just two

5:28 ↗ sections of the plan. Um but for our

5:32 ↗ transportation and land use that section

5:34 ↗ is really focused on increasing um uh

5:38 ↗ car pooling non single driver uh use of

5:42 ↗ vehicles and then also decreasing the

5:45 ↗ number of miles that we're treat

5:47 ↗ traveling in our vehicles. Uh this is

5:50 ↗ done as the plan states through actions

5:52 ↗ related to decreasing auto reliance

5:55 ↗ through uh land use planning, overall

5:58 ↗ auto use reduction by offering

6:00 ↗ alternative ways to get around the

6:02 ↗ community and then looking at the

6:04 ↗ transition to electric vehicles to

6:06 ↗ reduce our emissions

6:09 ↗ in the built environment. This section

6:11 ↗ of the plan um has targets focused on

6:13 ↗ decreasing our energy use. uh looking at

6:16 ↗ no new greenhouse gas emissions and new

6:19 ↗ buildings and then reducing uh natural

6:22 ↗ gas and other fossil fuel use. The plan

6:25 ↗ includes actions and policies um that

6:28 ↗ are really focused on uh decreasing the

6:31 ↗ building energy use and increasing

6:34 ↗ energy resilience uh advancing

6:36 ↗ decarbonization or the and the

6:38 ↗ transition away from fossil fuels.

6:44 ↗ So, that is what we are trying to

6:45 ↗ achieve. I'll just speak briefly about

6:47 ↗ kind of where we are in the um process

6:50 ↗ to update the plan. Um we uh as a

6:54 ↗ reminder, last summer we had several

6:57 ↗ committees that met to really hone in on

6:59 ↗ certain sections of the plan, members of

7:01 ↗ the um PPC uh participate in that

7:04 ↗ process. We then took that input from

7:06 ↗ the committees and we uh visited several

7:09 ↗ of our boards and commissions this fall

7:11 ↗ to provide some of that initial feedback

7:13 ↗ and get your input. We took all that

7:16 ↗ input, presented it to the environmental

7:18 ↗ board. They provided um their uh

7:21 ↗ feedback and now we are coming back to

7:23 ↗ several of our boards and commissions

7:25 ↗ for a second round of review.

7:28 ↗ Um what we will be doing next is taking

7:30 ↗ the input from our boards and

7:32 ↗ commissions and returning back um to the

7:34 ↗ planning development uh and environment

7:37 ↗ council committee. Um so here's where I

7:40 ↗ just wanted to note that we did meet

7:42 ↗ with that committee a few weeks ago and

7:45 ↗ um as mentioned earlier they did ask us

7:47 ↗ to look at what actions might have the

7:50 ↗ greatest impact in reducing our

7:52 ↗ emissions.

7:53 ↗ In response to that request, um, we

7:56 ↗ looked at some of the, uh, most

7:57 ↗ progressive actions we could find around

7:59 ↗ the country, um, and have pulled out

8:01 ↗ some of those policies for initial

8:03 ↗ consideration.

8:05 ↗ Those policies have not yet been vetted

8:08 ↗ or right-sized for Isiqua. um we're

8:10 ↗ really bringing to you tonight for a

8:12 ↗ first consideration and your input on

8:15 ↗ whether they are something that we

8:16 ↗ should explore and um further assess if

8:20 ↗ they're appropriate for Isiqua.

8:23 ↗ Um and one thing I did want to note that

8:26 ↗ for any policies we do identify in the

8:29 ↗ update to the climate action plan, our

8:32 ↗ intent is to um include language in

8:34 ↗ there that talks about evaluating the

8:37 ↗ feasibility of those policies first. We

8:39 ↗ are not going to commit the city to

8:41 ↗ implementing a policy without really

8:44 ↗ going through a a um review and making

8:48 ↗ sure it's appropriate and what the cost

8:50 ↗ might be to implement as well as the

8:52 ↗ impact on our greenhouse gas emissions.

8:58 ↗ Wanted to first um before we dig into

9:01 ↗ the proposed policies, just a refresh of

9:04 ↗ what we talked about last fall and the

9:06 ↗ feedback that you all provided us. Um

9:09 ↗ just a brief summary that um some of our

9:12 ↗ discussion back in the fall talked about

9:15 ↗ grid capacity with electrification and

9:18 ↗ making sure that we could handle um

9:20 ↗ transition to um electric appliances and

9:22 ↗ equipment. We talked about uh with

9:25 ↗ multifamily housing really focusing in

9:28 ↗ more on technical support for electric

9:30 ↗ vehicle charging or offering options for

9:33 ↗ kind of shared charging location.

9:36 ↗ Um, we talked about uh maybe focusing

9:40 ↗ more on kind of the carrots versus the

9:43 ↗ requirements. So, offering more

9:44 ↗ incentives and again that technical

9:46 ↗ support.

9:48 ↗ Um, other items we talked about were

9:51 ↗ around storage for ebikes and scooters.

9:54 ↗ Um, the need to really assess how we're

9:56 ↗ doing in terms of adding bike lanes to

9:58 ↗ our community. Um, and also making sure

10:01 ↗ that the IAAP isn't too redundant with

10:04 ↗ the mobility action plan.

10:07 ↗ Um, and then some of the other items we

10:09 ↗ talked about was really continuing to

10:11 ↗ promote and support the programs that

10:13 ↗ Fugit Sound Energy has um, such as their

10:16 ↗ flex programs and other ones that reduce

10:19 ↗ uh, demand on the grid.

10:24 ↗ So be well actually I'll share one more

10:26 ↗ thing and then pause if there's any

10:28 ↗ questions. Um, so what I did want to

10:31 ↗ just walk through, and I think we

10:33 ↗ touched on this back in the fall, is a

10:35 ↗ wedge analysis. Um, so this is really

10:38 ↗ just a representation of where we would

10:41 ↗ be if we didn't do any work to reduce

10:44 ↗ um, our greenhouse gas emissions and

10:47 ↗ then um, where our target is and then

10:50 ↗ all the contributing factors that can

10:52 ↗ help get us towards our target.

10:56 ↗ Um, so the business as usual emissions

10:58 ↗ scenario is that black line up top. Um,

11:01 ↗ our target is that lower red dash line.

11:05 ↗ And then the solid colors are the

11:07 ↗ federal, state, and regional policies

11:08 ↗ that are currently in place and how far

11:11 ↗ they're anticipated to reduce our

11:13 ↗ emissions.

11:15 ↗ Those dotted or shaded areas is um the

11:19 ↗ action that can help help more at the

11:21 ↗ local level.

11:24 ↗ And um the blue and green shaded areas

11:27 ↗ represents that work on buildings and

11:29 ↗ transportation including work we can do

11:32 ↗ around energy efficiency um reducing BMT

11:35 ↗ in the transition to electric vehicles.

11:38 ↗ These wedge analysis are not meant to be

11:41 ↗ prescriptive. They're really meant to be

11:43 ↗ a guiding light to help us understand

11:45 ↗ where we should be focusing our efforts.

11:47 ↗ Um and so that is why we really focus

11:50 ↗ looking at those big policies uh that

11:52 ↗ get at transportation as well as uh

11:55 ↗ emissions reduction in the built

11:56 ↗ environment.

11:58 ↗ Um so I'll move into the policies in

12:00 ↗ just a minute, but I do want to say um

12:03 ↗ there's nine of them. That's a lot. We

12:05 ↗ can see how far we get tonight. Um you

12:08 ↗ don't have to like any of them. You can

12:10 ↗ say no to them. Um you can propose

12:14 ↗ alternatives to what's on the screen. Uh

12:16 ↗ this is really just to start that

12:18 ↗ conversation and get your feedback so we

12:20 ↗ can then share that with our council

12:22 ↗ committee um and get some more direction

12:25 ↗ from them on where they would like to

12:27 ↗ go.

12:28 ↗ So I will pause there before I move into

12:30 ↗ the policies and just see if there's any

12:33 ↗ questions on that background

12:35 ↗ information.

12:38 ↗ Okay.

12:40 ↗ All right.

12:42 ↗ So moving into the first one. Um, so

12:45 ↗ this policy looks at reducing or

12:48 ↗ removing parking minimums. Uh, there's

12:51 ↗ kind of two options we've posed here.

12:53 ↗ One would be removing parking minimums

12:56 ↗ as long as a multifamily building is

12:59 ↗ near transit. Um, and in working with

13:02 ↗ our planning team, we use the term

13:03 ↗ frequent transit. Um, which is a term

13:06 ↗ used at the state level, meaning it's

13:08 ↗ regular and reliable transit. Um the

13:11 ↗ alternative to this is removing parking

13:14 ↗ minimums regardless of that current

13:17 ↗ access to transit. Um I did discuss this

13:21 ↗ policy with TAB last night. They were

13:24 ↗ generally supportive of removing the

13:26 ↗ minimums and really letting the market

13:29 ↗ um drive the number of parking places um

13:32 ↗ that are installed.

13:33 ↗ um they did have a lot of considerations

13:35 ↗ about what a feasibility study should

13:38 ↗ include um if we move this forward. So I

13:41 ↗ wanted to open it up to feedback

13:43 ↗ considerations for this policy.

13:46 ↗ >> Thank you Commissioner Kra.

13:48 ↗ >> Hello. Thank you for also uh hitting on

13:52 ↗ the the point that it's a costbenefit

13:54 ↗ analysis. And some of these things may

13:56 ↗ sound great if you only look at through

13:58 ↗ one lens, but you have to look at it not

14:00 ↗ just feasibility, but what's the other

14:03 ↗ thing that happens. Um this one for

14:05 ↗ example um I'll I'll come to a scenario

14:08 ↗ and I'd like people's feedback on but I

14:11 ↗ do have a broader question which will

14:12 ↗ hit on all of these is um the thought

14:16 ↗ process of why we would want to exceed

14:18 ↗ what the state requires which the state

14:20 ↗ already has fairly stringent things and

14:22 ↗ Washington state is super progressive

14:25 ↗ and I think as we look through all these

14:27 ↗ things I think we have to have really

14:28 ↗ good rationale of why we want to exceed

14:31 ↗ that and understand that the the the

14:35 ↗ unintended consequence um would be on

14:38 ↗ that. On this one specifically, um I do

14:42 ↗ think that the question about if you if

14:44 ↗ you take away all minimums

14:47 ↗ um how would we feel if like the Atlas

14:50 ↗ apartments for example were built with

14:53 ↗ zero parking spaces and what do you do

14:55 ↗ when you have a couple hundred units in

14:58 ↗ zero parking spaces and what does that

14:59 ↗ do? So I I um I guess the question it's

15:03 ↗ more of a statement I guess than a

15:05 ↗ question is um things that sound good on

15:08 ↗ paper but in reality like communism may

15:11 ↗ sound great on paper but when you it

15:13 ↗ doesn't work. We all read Animal Farm

15:14 ↗ when we were in eth grade. Um so I it

15:18 ↗ would be interesting to to to look at

15:21 ↗ the extreme but then what's the reality

15:23 ↗ of what some of these things are. I

15:25 ↗ guess it's more of a statement than a

15:26 ↗ question.

15:28 ↗ And I sorry if I interrup I can share

15:30 ↗ one anecdote um around a development and

15:32 ↗ um our planning team may have more but

15:35 ↗ um in one of our recent multifamily

15:37 ↗ permitting process they were um required

15:41 ↗ to put in a certain amount of parking.

15:43 ↗ It was actually below some of the

15:45 ↗ requirements and the developer chose to

15:46 ↗ build more parking because they knew

15:49 ↗ they wouldn't be able to rent um the

15:52 ↗ apartments without adequate parking. And

15:54 ↗ so in some ways where uh communities

15:58 ↗ that are removing parking minimums,

16:00 ↗ you're seeing just that market demand,

16:03 ↗ uh the developers are still putting in

16:05 ↗ the parking. Um but I'll definitely

16:07 ↗ defer to our planning team since that's

16:09 ↗ what they look at every day.

16:10 ↗ >> So then the question is, do you want to

16:12 ↗ take that risk?

16:12 ↗ >> Yeah.

16:13 ↗ >> Or do you want to handle it with

16:15 ↗ exceptions

16:16 ↗ >> versus policy? That's the that's the

16:19 ↗ thing I would be scared about. And

16:21 ↗ >> um so something to consider. Yeah,

16:23 ↗ >> there there are several cities around

16:25 ↗ the region who have eliminated all

16:26 ↗ parking requirements. And what they're

16:28 ↗ finding is is that like Stacy said, the

16:32 ↗ market needs them. So, it's really the

16:33 ↗ market that drives parking. And in some

16:36 ↗ cities, they're actually considering now

16:38 ↗ putting maximums on parking where

16:40 ↗ they've removed all parking

16:41 ↗ requirements. And that's something that

16:42 ↗ our city already has is parking

16:44 ↗ maximums.

16:46 ↗ >> Yeah.

16:48 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

16:50 ↗ >> I want to take off from um Commissioner

16:52 ↗ Krauss's comment about parking. So, I

16:55 ↗ used to live in Northwest Portland,

16:56 ↗ which has no parking. It's basically all

16:59 ↗ street parking. So, I think when you

17:01 ↗ start building a lot and in cases like

17:04 ↗ where a few policies down, you're saying

17:07 ↗ that they have to put EV ready on every

17:09 ↗ and so they may decide I don't want to

17:11 ↗ pay for that. We're not going to put any

17:13 ↗ parking. So now we have fierce competiti

17:16 ↗ competition for parking on the street

17:18 ↗ and we in Isqua currently don't have a

17:21 ↗ lot of parking to handle any kind of

17:24 ↗ overflow and especially when you have

17:26 ↗ one parking ride that's always full. So

17:28 ↗ you can imagine what it would be like

17:30 ↗ when you start putting two policies back

17:32 ↗ to back, one requiring EV ready

17:34 ↗ everywhere plus no minimums. You could

17:38 ↗ create a lot of push back from the

17:40 ↗ community at some point saying this is

17:42 ↗ not working. So, kind of like what

17:44 ↗ Commissioner Krauss was saying, maybe

17:45 ↗ you just especially ones that are more

17:48 ↗ than 0.25 miles away that you know the

17:50 ↗ alternative policy

17:52 ↗ >> that might be something where you may

17:54 ↗ just reduce the minimums and you know

17:56 ↗ just for a safeguard.

17:58 ↗ >> Yeah.

17:59 ↗ >> Thank you.

17:59 ↗ >> Great.

18:03 ↗ >> Okay. Any other feedback?

18:05 ↗ >> Any other comments?

18:08 ↗ >> Uh Commissioner Oler.

18:11 ↗ Um just like to echo uh both what uh

18:15 ↗ Commissioner Crass and uh and others

18:17 ↗ have said here. Um I I think it also to

18:21 ↗ me depends on what your target market is

18:26 ↗ for the development of of housing. So

18:30 ↗ for example, affordable housing becomes

18:33 ↗ much more affordable if you don't have

18:34 ↗ to build structured parking.

18:37 ↗ But unless the

18:40 ↗ um frequent transit is very close by,

18:43 ↗ you're going to have very unhappy

18:45 ↗ tenants regardless. So, I

18:49 ↗ I think the the policy needs to be, as

18:52 ↗ it's been suggested by um Commissioner

18:54 ↗ Matthews as well, um that it needs to be

18:57 ↗ nuanced, that making a blanket statement

19:01 ↗ of all development just does not capture

19:04 ↗ all of the conditions that may vary.

19:12 ↗ >> Further comments?

19:15 ↗ Uh, Chair Voice, I'm just going to echo

19:16 ↗ my comm fellow commissioners over here.

19:19 ↗ Um, to me it seems like it would be more

19:21 ↗ responsible at least until the

19:22 ↗ feasibility study comes out. It's one

19:25 ↗ thing to reduce minimums. It's another

19:26 ↗ thing to completely get rid of them.

19:29 ↗ >> And I would be more interested to see,

19:30 ↗ you know, it's one thing if we're

19:32 ↗ talking about quarter mile from a

19:34 ↗ frequent transit. Okay. I could even

19:36 ↗ maybe then you can make the argument

19:37 ↗ that they're not necessary in this

19:39 ↗ particular area, but I'm thinking of

19:41 ↗ redevelopment down in Old City. And if

19:44 ↗ you were to try to do that, you would

19:45 ↗ put a burden on the streets where people

19:48 ↗ already park.

19:49 ↗ >> Yeah.

19:49 ↗ >> So it's like anything in Isiqua, we have

19:52 ↗ very different neighborhoods with

19:54 ↗ different needs. Um so again, I to just

19:58 ↗ take it away. I I really don't like

20:00 ↗ alternative policy one. Um I don't know

20:02 ↗ why we just couldn't reduce the minimums

20:04 ↗ versus just completely getting rid of

20:06 ↗ them.

20:06 ↗ >> That would be my thoughts, too.

20:12 ↗ >> Yep. Vice Chair Patterson,

20:14 ↗ >> you triggered a thought in my brain. Uh

20:16 ↗ maybe there's an opportunity to also do

20:19 ↗ um you know if that alternative policy

20:22 ↗ of eliminating parking minimums in like

20:24 ↗ central Isiqua

20:25 ↗ >> but then keep it for everywhere else or

20:27 ↗ something along those lines like some

20:28 ↗ sort of phased approach or something

20:30 ↗ where you know to encourage development

20:33 ↗ and also because we're hoping to get

20:35 ↗ some additional you know multimmodal

20:37 ↗ transportation in that area maybe that's

20:39 ↗ an opportunity to you know pilot that

20:42 ↗ there or what have you but may maybe

20:43 ↗ kind of take that approach to

20:45 ↗ Great.

20:47 ↗ >> Great. So, hearing concerns for overall

20:49 ↗ blanket removal of minimums, but maybe

20:52 ↗ there's some options for certain

20:54 ↗ neighborhoods or maybe the city could

20:56 ↗ offer waiverss for certain developments,

20:58 ↗ make some exceptions. I think someone

21:00 ↗ mentioned um but that we really need to

21:02 ↗ consider the risk and further assess

21:05 ↗ through feasibility.

21:06 ↗ >> Seem like a fair statement,

21:08 ↗ commissioners. Yeah, proceed with

21:09 ↗ caution.

21:10 ↗ >> Okay, great.

21:12 ↗ >> All right. Uh moving on to number two.

21:15 ↗ Um this one is looking uh referenced

21:18 ↗ earlier looking at increasing

21:19 ↗ multifamily charging requirements above

21:22 ↗ state requirements. And I know we

21:24 ↗ discussed this one back in the fall. Um

21:26 ↗ there were some uh concerns around this,

21:28 ↗ but we wanted to bring it back. Um and I

21:31 ↗ can share a little bit about what TAB

21:33 ↗ said last night. Um the alternative is

21:36 ↗ looking at that 100% EV ready parking

21:39 ↗ stalls and multifamily developments and

21:41 ↗ redevelopment. Um, so TAB did discuss

21:44 ↗ this last night. Um, they actually had

21:47 ↗ general support for the 100% EV ready.

21:50 ↗ Uh, given that Redmond has moved this

21:52 ↗ forward and did so without hearing

21:55 ↗ significant concerns from, uh,

21:57 ↗ developers. However, they were very

21:59 ↗ interested in looking further into the

22:01 ↗ analysis that Redmond did before moving

22:03 ↗ it forward and um engaging with our

22:06 ↗ development community um and uh further

22:10 ↗ assessing whether it's something that

22:11 ↗ they would be amendable to. So, wanted

22:13 ↗ to bring this one back for discussion on

22:16 ↗ whether uh there would be interest to at

22:18 ↗ least looking at whether we should

22:20 ↗ increase multifamily or further

22:22 ↗ evaluating uh the approach that Redmond

22:25 ↗ took.

22:26 ↗ >> Thank you. I I feel like we just went

22:29 ↗ through this like what a year two years

22:30 ↗ ago with the EV ready. So I feel like

22:32 ↗ it's coming back again like a Groundhog

22:34 ↗ Day.

22:36 ↗ >> Commissioner Krauss,

22:37 ↗ >> hello again.

22:38 ↗ >> Yeah.

22:39 ↗ >> Um so the interesting

22:43 ↗ thing this this has a huge dependency

22:46 ↗ that could stop everything in its tracks

22:48 ↗ and that is Puget Sound Energy or

22:50 ↗ whoever the

22:51 ↗ >> the who would bring that in. uh example

22:55 ↗ uh there's a like really nice condo

22:58 ↗ right next to our our place. I think

23:00 ↗ there's 50 units and they looked at

23:04 ↗ converting like two or three spaces to

23:08 ↗ have EV charging stations. This is not

23:10 ↗ 100% of all their stock. This is just

23:12 ↗ three spaces.

23:14 ↗ >> And the quote came back at like

23:16 ↗ $100,000.

23:19 ↗ And um and it was going to take a long

23:22 ↗ time. And if we put if you look at time

23:24 ↗ and cost

23:26 ↗ um this is just will never happen until

23:29 ↗ that dependency is understood. And I

23:31 ↗ would be afraid to even bring this up to

23:33 ↗ someone because then what'll happen is

23:36 ↗ um no one will redevelop. I mean then

23:38 ↗ the question like they're going to just

23:40 ↗ let things crumble because they're going

23:41 ↗ to be afraid of this thing that's un

23:43 ↗ unattainable. So I think understanding

23:45 ↗ more what is the logistics on something

23:48 ↗ like this before I could even you know

23:50 ↗ give a nod to having this type of

23:52 ↗ requirement um that's

23:57 ↗ >> um let's go with commissioner

24:00 ↗ I'm drawing a blank cut

24:03 ↗ off thank you call

24:07 ↗ >> um well to me it's we also have a very

24:10 ↗ big conversation about the affordability

24:12 ↗ of housing

24:14 ↗ And every time when we are talking about

24:16 ↗ new uh like parking, new EV 100% EV

24:22 ↗ ready, uh it makes it way and way less

24:25 ↗ affordable for people. So we should be

24:28 ↗ considering that uh because the more we

24:30 ↗ put on the developers, the more

24:31 ↗ requirements we put on them, the longer

24:34 ↗ is permitting process going to be, the

24:37 ↗ more it's going to cost, the more things

24:40 ↗ they going to be have they're going to

24:42 ↗ have to do. So, I cannot really be uh on

24:46 ↗ the same page with a tab on this.

24:48 ↗ >> So, sorry.

24:51 ↗ >> No, no apologies here. Did I see

24:53 ↗ Commissioner Holer?

24:54 ↗ >> Yes. Thanks. Um

24:58 ↗ I think if we're if we're trying to

25:01 ↗ encourage development uh in the city, we

25:04 ↗ should be thinking about um some

25:06 ↗ offsetting uh cost savings, whether it

25:09 ↗ be, you know, direct payments or working

25:12 ↗ with PSSE to reduce the cost of install

25:15 ↗ installation and and maintenance of

25:17 ↗ these u EV uh chargers. Um but uh I mean

25:24 ↗ I I I think it's a fine goal. I I think

25:27 ↗ we want to move toward electric vehicles

25:29 ↗ in the future. I think the when we had a

25:32 ↗ discussion about this several months

25:34 ↗ ago, I had raised the question of of

25:37 ↗ these u you know where these charging

25:40 ↗ stations would be concentrated

25:42 ↗ >> and if they're all in one area then you

25:46 ↗ create deserts throughout the rest of

25:47 ↗ the city. So again, I I would argue in

25:50 ↗ terms of flexibility and also

25:53 ↗ considering ways in which to offset the

25:55 ↗ costs, whether it's, you know,

25:57 ↗ incentives to to build higher uh greater

26:00 ↗ density. Um but uh I I echo the the

26:06 ↗ concerns about uh about the cost and and

26:09 ↗ the the impact on u on uh creating

26:12 ↗ affordable housing in the city.

26:17 ↗ Thank you, Commissioner Oler. Uh,

26:19 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin.

26:22 ↗ >> Thank you.

26:24 ↗ >> Turned off my mic. Thank you very much.

26:27 ↗ So I am in support of this policy from

26:30 ↗ the standpoint of uh development uh

26:34 ↗ specifically for um uh medium to large

26:37 ↗ scale homeowner associations because

26:39 ↗ it's a challenge in that environment um

26:42 ↗ to have already ready EV charging

26:45 ↗ station capabilities. Um

26:48 ↗ the counter however is in older

26:51 ↗ communities and I think the comment that

26:53 ↗ I'm making now is one that I made back

26:54 ↗ in the fall which is um older

26:57 ↗ communities are very challenged with the

26:59 ↗ changing demographics of their

27:00 ↗ communities and the higher demand for EV

27:04 ↗ charging stations. So um I think this is

27:07 ↗ great for new development but I think

27:09 ↗ also there needs to be some study in

27:11 ↗ terms of how do you bring along older

27:13 ↗ communities to support their need as

27:16 ↗ well. to have EV charging stations

27:18 ↗ installed.

27:20 ↗ >> Great.

27:23 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Miller Irwin.

27:26 ↗ Anyone else like to speak?

27:32 ↗ >> Uh, Chair Voice, to me, this is one area

27:34 ↗ where I think this is where incentives

27:36 ↗ work. I think carrots are what we need

27:38 ↗ here. Mhm.

27:39 ↗ >> Um I don't think it's any secret that

27:42 ↗ again we're moving in that direction,

27:44 ↗ but to me it, you know, to use a rough

27:46 ↗ analogy, it's kind of like your phone,

27:47 ↗ right? Most people do their phone

27:49 ↗ charging at home, but you still need the

27:51 ↗ infrastructure in case your phone runs

27:53 ↗ out of batteries when you're out and

27:54 ↗ about. Um so I think it is what we're

27:57 ↗ aspiring to, which is what Commissioner

27:58 ↗ Olner Ner said.

28:00 ↗ >> But like I said, this one feasibility

28:02 ↗ makes sense. um incentives here make

28:05 ↗ sense to me

28:06 ↗ >> uh to try and push it, but I think

28:08 ↗ requirements probably were not there

28:10 ↗ yet. I'm looking at Safeway and those

28:13 ↗ beautiful charging stations that are

28:14 ↗ completely empty all the time. And but

28:17 ↗ again, I do get it. Most people are

28:18 ↗ charging their EVs at home and they're

28:20 ↗ able to do that because they have their

28:22 ↗ parking stalls and they're ready and

28:23 ↗ wired for it. But again, I think here

28:26 ↗ here I think the incentives and carrots

28:28 ↗ would probably be more appropriate at

28:30 ↗ least right now. M

28:31 ↗ >> um it's kind of the way I I I wish if we

28:35 ↗ could go back in the way back machine,

28:36 ↗ we kind of looked at some of that uh

28:38 ↗ either for for large box stores or

28:41 ↗ commercial spaces because again we might

28:43 ↗ be jumping ahead of our skis at the

28:45 ↗ moment.

28:46 ↗ >> Um until that demand is there.

28:49 ↗ >> Okay.

28:49 ↗ >> So I like the idea of uh carrots at the

28:52 ↗ moment.

28:52 ↗ >> Uh yes, Commissioner Cass.

28:55 ↗ >> I like carrots much better than sticks

28:57 ↗ as as most people do. the um I wonder if

29:00 ↗ there's a nuance cuz another example

29:02 ↗ there's some new town I think we talked

29:04 ↗ about this in the same topic is there's

29:05 ↗ some new town homes being built two

29:08 ↗ different set two like one at 19 and one

29:10 ↗ at 29 units and I know one of them they

29:13 ↗ advertise that there's EV charging in

29:16 ↗ their garages

29:17 ↗ >> um and I think there's a difference in a

29:20 ↗ new development of if you have your own

29:21 ↗ garage running 240 to that garage in

29:25 ↗ your own structure is a much different

29:28 ↗ then you have a giant garage and each

29:30 ↗ each one has to have something

29:32 ↗ >> uh and then tie back to that somehow

29:34 ↗ meter to that unit. So I wonder if

29:36 ↗ there's something in between as you look

29:38 ↗ at new developments of if you have your

29:41 ↗ own sole garage, this may be a bridge to

29:43 ↗ get to some of these.

29:45 ↗ >> There may be some

29:47 ↗ >> um uh requirements or maybe maybe we

29:49 ↗ just use incentives to do that. um where

29:52 ↗ that that starts taking into

29:54 ↗ consideration the logistic ability to do

29:56 ↗ that versus you have 50unit building and

29:59 ↗ everyone has a parking spot and then you

30:02 ↗ know how do you meter it back to that

30:03 ↗ individual unit versus your own

30:05 ↗ individual garage so there's something

30:06 ↗ to be thought of on when you have your

30:08 ↗ own unit your own your own parking space

30:11 ↗ >> vice trip

30:13 ↗ >> thank you chair uh I also want to bring

30:15 ↗ up a a point that you actually shared

30:18 ↗ earlier which is why not let the market

30:19 ↗ drive the demand of this I mean, I think

30:21 ↗ that if people really want EV charging

30:24 ↗ and that's something that's desirable

30:25 ↗ for them, then people will start

30:26 ↗ building it. Um, I do like incentivizing

30:29 ↗ though. I mean, obviously, this is a

30:30 ↗ forward thinking motion and and

30:32 ↗ environmentally it makes sense. But, um,

30:35 ↗ I think in, you know, when you start

30:36 ↗ using requirement and things like that

30:38 ↗ and adding cost to our developers, like

30:40 ↗ maybe there's another way to go about

30:43 ↗ moving that forward, I guess.

30:46 ↗ >> Thank you, vice chair. Yeah, I just one

30:49 ↗ of the things that caught my eye did not

30:50 ↗ face major push back. So

30:53 ↗ >> clearly I don't know what that means,

30:55 ↗ >> but I'd like to know like who were the

30:57 ↗ developers, how many were there.

30:59 ↗ >> Um doesn't really tell the full story.

31:02 ↗ So but I

31:03 ↗ >> there on any

31:05 ↗ >> Yeah.

31:05 ↗ >> Right. But I also like I said I I

31:07 ↗ appreciate what Milan Commissioner

31:08 ↗ Miller Irwin has said as well. I mean we

31:10 ↗ have different different parts of the

31:11 ↗ city that are different places. Yes. To

31:13 ↗ vice chair Patterson's point, it is

31:15 ↗ forward thinking. It is pushing it

31:16 ↗ forward, but I don't know if we're quite

31:18 ↗ there in 2026.

31:19 ↗ >> Mhm.

31:20 ↗ >> So,

31:21 ↗ >> great.

31:23 ↗ >> Any other word?

31:26 ↗ >> All right.

31:26 ↗ >> Great. That was a great summary. And

31:29 ↗ yeah, the other the state is also

31:31 ↗ discussing whether they'll have be

31:33 ↗ increasing requirements. Those could be

31:35 ↗ amendments that we adopt in the future

31:37 ↗ or we may see them go through the state

31:38 ↗ building code. So, there could be some

31:40 ↗ additional leadership at the state level

31:42 ↗ on this one.

31:44 ↗ All right. Um, oh, and the one other

31:46 ↗ thing I will add is um, absolutely the

31:49 ↗ incentive piece. I think what we will be

31:51 ↗ looking at in the plan is in ensuring

31:53 ↗ that we're including actions around um,

31:55 ↗ incentives, technical support, better

31:58 ↗ outreach to multifamily to support those

32:00 ↗ that um, do want to increase multifamily

32:03 ↗ uh, charging in their parking stalls.

32:05 ↗ So,

32:07 ↗ all right. Um, the next one also looks

32:09 ↗ at multifamily development and

32:12 ↗ redevelopment. Um this one it would be

32:15 ↗ an update to one of the current actions

32:18 ↗ that talks about ensuring that our land

32:20 ↗ use code had um what it previously start

32:24 ↗ over. Previously in the IAP or in the

32:27 ↗ existing IAP we had an action around um

32:30 ↗ updating our land use code to include um

32:33 ↗ covered secure parking for bikes for

32:36 ↗ example. Um and what this one what this

32:39 ↗ proposed revision would do is um include

32:44 ↗ access for charging for ebikes and e-

32:46 ↗ scooters. We have already updated the

32:48 ↗ land use code to include a lot of that

32:50 ↗ covered secure uh bike um storage at

32:53 ↗ multifamily. So this is just that

32:55 ↗ addition to the charging access. Um TAB

32:59 ↗ did discuss this one last night. They

33:01 ↗ actually thought it probably wasn't

33:04 ↗ necessary. um they really wanted us to

33:07 ↗ focus more on the covered secure um

33:10 ↗ parking uh for bikes and scooters and

33:13 ↗ then also working with um businesses or

33:17 ↗ places of employment to make sure that

33:19 ↗ there are options there for bikes to be

33:22 ↗ stored, covered, and even charged. Um

33:24 ↗ but they felt like it wasn't a necessary

33:27 ↗ uh focus for the ICAP. and um many of

33:31 ↗ the ebikes, scooters, the batteries can

33:33 ↗ be removed and charged in the apartment.

33:35 ↗ I think we also saw from public comment

33:37 ↗ some concerns around um safety. So, um

33:41 ↗ just wanted to see if there are other uh

33:43 ↗ thoughts, considerations from PPC on

33:45 ↗ this action.

33:48 ↗ >> I've never ridden one, so

33:50 ↗ >> they're fun, right?

33:51 ↗ >> They look fun. Um Commissioner Zach,

33:55 ↗ >> thank you. I would like to use a chair

33:57 ↗ voices example and say I'm also here on

34:00 ↗ a position of carrots. So, uh I would

34:04 ↗ love to have this in a policy but only

34:06 ↗ as an incentive and not as a like ruling

34:10 ↗ that any kind of property has to have a

34:12 ↗ secured parking because again it's an

34:14 ↗ additional cost on the um builders and

34:17 ↗ yeah that's not what we need right now.

34:20 ↗ Thank you. Great.

34:24 ↗ >> Commissioner Oler.

34:26 ↗ >> Um, going to the safety issue. Um, I

34:29 ↗ don't think um, we've caught up with

34:32 ↗ what are the best fire suppression

34:34 ↗ techniques for ebikes and and uh,

34:37 ↗ electric vehicles in general. Um, but I

34:40 ↗ imagine that a different kind of fire

34:42 ↗ suppression system is probably going to

34:44 ↗ be required in covered areas where bikes

34:47 ↗ are charged. So again, it's an

34:50 ↗ additional cost to to the developer that

34:53 ↗ you know needs to be considered.

34:56 ↗ >> I guess one question I have is so the is

34:58 ↗ the concern that with ebikes and e-

35:01 ↗ scooters that the rider walks away and

35:04 ↗ then there could be a malfunction with

35:06 ↗ the battery and it starts a fire. Is

35:08 ↗ that the concern? What I as far as I

35:11 ↗ understand if you buy a ebike e- scooter

35:14 ↗ at a authorized retailer um there is a

35:19 ↗ very very low likelihood of any um fire

35:23 ↗ issue happening. I think what some folks

35:25 ↗ are buying them online or maybe kind of

35:27 ↗ building their own. That's my

35:28 ↗ understanding. And then that might be

35:31 ↗ more at risk.

35:32 ↗ >> So it's kind of a

35:34 ↗ >> So it's like they get it like a for lack

35:36 ↗ of a better word like a knockoff

35:37 ↗ battery. the battery sparks and the

35:41 ↗ rider's gone and

35:42 ↗ >> yeah, they're hard to put out.

35:43 ↗ >> Cell phone chargers on airplanes,

35:45 ↗ >> right? Yeah, there's bad cell phone. All

35:47 ↗ the ones in the gas stations they tell

35:48 ↗ you not to use your phone with to start

35:50 ↗ a fire. Okay. Yeah, like I said, no real

35:54 ↗ understanding of these things. So

35:56 ↗ curious. Vice Chair Patterson actually

35:59 ↗ have a question. Um this one might be

36:00 ↗ for Kristen. Um when it says update land

36:03 ↗ use codes for ebike and escooter

36:05 ↗ charging, what what is the current code?

36:07 ↗ like what would we be updating like to

36:09 ↗ allow that or is that I don't know who

36:12 ↗ would be best to answer this.

36:14 ↗ >> We don't have anything right now in our

36:15 ↗ code regarding parking and ebike and e-

36:19 ↗ scooters. So yes, that would be updating

36:21 ↗ our parking.

36:22 ↗ >> Got so it would not be allowed to have

36:25 ↗ something like this currently or

36:26 ↗ >> Well, if we're uh No, you could

36:28 ↗ absolutely you could do this.

36:30 ↗ >> Okay.

36:30 ↗ >> Yeah. But we would be saying it's like a

36:33 ↗ >> But if you want to incentivize it, then

36:35 ↗ we would say if you do this, then here's

36:38 ↗ what you get.

36:39 ↗ >> Got it. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

36:41 ↗ >> So it' be something like putting outlets

36:43 ↗ in if they have a bike storage unit,

36:46 ↗ putting outlets in there so they could

36:47 ↗ be charged.

36:49 ↗ >> Okay.

36:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Chair Voice, I guess I don't

36:55 ↗ really have a dog in this fight. Um yeah

36:58 ↗ if if I understand it we build storage

37:00 ↗ that's that is a requirement but it's

37:03 ↗ just the charger component that is not

37:06 ↗ is that correct

37:08 ↗ >> right we do we do currently have yes if

37:10 ↗ you build so I guess I was sort of wrong

37:12 ↗ um we don't anyway yes we do have

37:16 ↗ requirements that you have bike storage

37:18 ↗ and scooter storage when you build

37:19 ↗ multif family developments um there is

37:22 ↗ nothing in any of our commercial parking

37:25 ↗ that requires this kind of thing any of

37:27 ↗ our single family residential. So

37:29 ↗ >> for the charging component

37:30 ↗ >> for the charging. Yeah, I guess we do

37:32 ↗ have for storage. You do need it for

37:35 ↗ multif family.

37:36 ↗ >> Okay.

37:36 ↗ >> But you know, you just have like you do

37:38 ↗ have to have bike spaces for retail

37:41 ↗ stores if you're going to ride your bike

37:42 ↗ there and spend two hours or something.

37:43 ↗ >> This is strictly the charging component.

37:45 ↗ >> Yeah.

37:46 ↗ >> Okay.

37:48 ↗ >> Yeah. I I just I don't know. Like I

37:50 ↗ said, I I do see them around the city.

37:51 ↗ They're usually younger people using

37:53 ↗ them.

37:55 ↗ I would assume that they probably charge

37:56 ↗ them at home.

38:00 ↗ >> Commissioner CR

38:00 ↗ >> and you mentioned a lot of them now the

38:02 ↗ batteries you remove them to charge them

38:04 ↗ which which solves that.

38:07 ↗ >> Yeah.

38:08 ↗ >> Question for Kristen.

38:09 ↗ >> Can a builder

38:12 ↗ put outlets in the bike storage if they

38:15 ↗ just choose to do so? Or is that against

38:17 ↗ some other type of building code or is

38:19 ↗ it

38:20 ↗ >> as far as land use goes? Yes, they can

38:23 ↗ put them in there and there's probably

38:24 ↗ something in the building code that

38:25 ↗ would address it, but I'm that

38:27 ↗ >> because they could do I mean it sounds

38:28 ↗ like if if it's allowed they could just

38:31 ↗ >> have Well, let people fight it out for

38:34 ↗ those few

38:35 ↗ >> spots. But

38:36 ↗ >> again, I don't own one. Is this Are we

38:38 ↗ talking like a typical outlet?

38:40 ↗ >> Yeah, the 110.

38:40 ↗ >> Yeah, I

38:42 ↗ >> that's what I use mine. Well, and I for

38:44 ↗ I think Tab talked about the removable

38:47 ↗ batteries like some of them the

38:48 ↗ batteries built inside. like mine, I

38:50 ↗ can't remove the battery and carry it up

38:52 ↗ to an apartment. So, yeah, it's a

38:55 ↗ regular outlet, but I think that's a

38:57 ↗ great suggestion. We could look at our

38:59 ↗ building code, too, and make sure

39:00 ↗ there's nothing that would restrict an

39:02 ↗ outlet going in um to a bike storage

39:04 ↗ unit.

39:06 ↗ >> Yeah, definitely. Nothing should

39:07 ↗ restrict it. So, okay, everybody good on

39:11 ↗ policy question three?

39:13 ↗ >> Okay.

39:14 ↗ >> Okay, great. Um, I will take the moment

39:16 ↗ to plug uh our sustainability fair.

39:19 ↗ April 25th, we'll have ebike test rides

39:21 ↗ there if you've never ridden one. And

39:23 ↗ then um we do have a grant for ebike

39:26 ↗ rebates that we'll be launching this

39:28 ↗ summer. So keep an eye out for that.

39:30 ↗ >> What date was that again?

39:32 ↗ >> We'll have a rebate for ebikes. Um

39:34 ↗ >> what was the date? Uh, sorry. The

39:36 ↗ sustainability fair is April 25th at

39:38 ↗ Pickering Barn and we'll have test rides

39:41 ↗ from two uh local uh bike stores if you

39:44 ↗ want to try out a ebike. Um, and then

39:47 ↗ the city will be uh issuing rebates for

39:50 ↗ ebikes probably early summer.

39:54 ↗ >> Yeah, I left dirt bikes a long time ago.

39:56 ↗ I don't know if I'm ready to get back on

39:57 ↗ another bike. Um, okay. Commissioner,

40:01 ↗ >> just just one further comment. I mean,

40:02 ↗ promoting ebikes is great, but when I

40:05 ↗ was sitting out in my car waiting to

40:06 ↗ come inside, a kid rode on the sidewalk

40:10 ↗ in an ebike and he was going at least 35

40:13 ↗ miles an hour on a pedestrian pathway.

40:16 ↗ And I think before we jump in full boore

40:20 ↗ to promote ebikes, we need to have

40:23 ↗ traffic regulations that keep pace with

40:26 ↗ that.

40:26 ↗ >> Yeah. And the city has passed an

40:28 ↗ ordinance um where Yeah. So that would

40:31 ↗ that's probably a class 3 ebike which

40:34 ↗ technically are not allowed on the

40:36 ↗ sidewalks. They have to be riding with

40:37 ↗ traffic. So that is a focus of the city

40:39 ↗ this year will be on ebike e motorcycle

40:42 ↗ safety.

40:43 ↗ >> Yeah. And there's probably some public

40:45 ↗ outreach that should go along with that.

40:47 ↗ >> Absolutely.

40:49 ↗ Great. All right. Um our next policy

40:53 ↗ might be a little out there. Again, this

40:55 ↗ was looking for kind of those big bold

40:57 ↗ ideas. Um this was one Vancouver BC

41:01 ↗ actually um passed and then they've

41:04 ↗ pulled back so it actually hasn't been

41:06 ↗ implemented but interesting concept and

41:09 ↗ this was requiring fueling stations to

41:12 ↗ put in electric vehicle charging or else

41:14 ↗ that fueling station was charged a

41:17 ↗ higher uh BNO tax. Um discussed this

41:21 ↗ with TAB last night. They appreciated

41:23 ↗ the concept. um they did not think it

41:26 ↗ was really necessary, especially for um

41:29 ↗ a community of our size and our location

41:31 ↗ where folks aren't necessarily traveling

41:33 ↗ several hundred miles and passing

41:35 ↗ through. Um what they did recommend was

41:39 ↗ really focusing again on those

41:40 ↗ incentives, but really more in our

41:42 ↗ retail areas. So thinking about um the

41:45 ↗ chargers that are next to Starbucks are

41:47 ↗ really well used because folks are

41:48 ↗ popping in for 20 to 40 minutes at

41:50 ↗ Starbucks or the ones at Target. Um, so

41:52 ↗ maybe focusing more on encouraging and

41:55 ↗ incentivizing more fast charging near

41:58 ↗ retail areas.

42:00 ↗ Open it up for other feedback.

42:03 ↗ >> Yes, Commissioner Matthews.

42:05 ↗ >> I know that Philip 66 was looking at

42:08 ↗ testing this out in Houston,

42:10 ↗ >> but this is like are you saying for new

42:13 ↗ stations because I doubt that we're

42:15 ↗ going to have any new stations in Philip

42:16 ↗ or in Isiqua, right? We're pretty

42:18 ↗ saturated. So, is this something you're

42:20 ↗ saying they have to would have to

42:22 ↗ implement in an existing station?

42:24 ↗ >> That's how the Vancouver policy was

42:26 ↗ passed that all gas stations had to

42:29 ↗ install charging or else they would be

42:32 ↗ taxed at a higher level.

42:34 ↗ >> So, yeah, it doesn't really make sense

42:36 ↗ like what you've already said. Plus,

42:37 ↗ some of the stations are so tiny. Where

42:39 ↗ would you even park a bank of cars? It

42:42 ↗ doesn't seem to make sense unless you

42:43 ↗ had a really big station with a lot of

42:46 ↗ area to park in.

42:48 ↗ >> Yeah. I feel like 20 years ago, this

42:51 ↗ would have been great to see like one

42:53 ↗ stall,

42:54 ↗ >> you know, as they were retrofitting gas

42:56 ↗ fueling stations. Um, I think to Tab's

42:59 ↗ point, very interesting. This, like I

43:00 ↗ said, this one was like, whoa. And then

43:02 ↗ you see Vancouver going pulling back and

43:03 ↗ it's like, oh,

43:04 ↗ >> yeah.

43:05 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Zacharov,

43:07 ↗ >> thank you. So my position is if we are

43:11 ↗ uh requiring any kind of fee, if we're

43:13 ↗ imposing any fee on a uh gas station, if

43:16 ↗ we're imposing any tariff, tariff will

43:18 ↗ then goes to the customer. So it will

43:21 ↗ just make the gas in Isqua in general

43:23 ↗ more expensive and it doesn't matter if

43:25 ↗ we if the station will be paying an

43:27 ↗ extra fee or if they will have to

43:29 ↗ remodel the station and to put an extra

43:31 ↗ electric charging facility. So they will

43:34 ↗ just simply make a guess for all of us

43:36 ↗ more expensive. So yeah, I I don't see

43:39 ↗ it visible. Thank you.

43:40 ↗ >> Thank you.

43:42 ↗ >> Uh, one quick question. Did you said

43:44 ↗ Vancouver is pairing it back? Are they

43:46 ↗ pairing back the BNO draconian

43:48 ↗ requirement or what what are they doing

43:50 ↗ to pair it back?

43:51 ↗ >> They've actually they have did not move

43:53 ↗ to the phase of implementing the policy

43:56 ↗ with the um the statement I read spoke

44:00 ↗ to just lack of enough infrastructure to

44:03 ↗ actually for the gas stations to be able

44:05 ↗ to comply. That's what I saw. I don't

44:06 ↗ know if it'll be reconsidered in the

44:08 ↗ >> interesting. I just wondered if anyone

44:10 ↗ just took them up or if it was a

44:12 ↗ >> if it was a threat of a higher tax that

44:14 ↗ stalled out. Uh Commissioner Cass,

44:16 ↗ >> hi. Um so totally agree that doesn't

44:19 ↗ make sense for fuel stations but retail

44:22 ↗ but it opens up a question and do you do

44:24 ↗ you have data on the utilization of the

44:26 ↗ places that we already have now? Not

44:28 ↗ just anecdotal like you have Starbucks,

44:30 ↗ you've got Target. There's a whole bunch

44:32 ↗ that were put in. I'm not sure if

44:33 ↗ they're live uh at Barnes & Noble. No,

44:35 ↗ they're not. I've unfortunately

44:38 ↗ >> there's a few different the ones that

44:39 ↗ are Fred Miles. So, it'd be good to see

44:41 ↗ what the utilization of those are now

44:43 ↗ because then that helps push the

44:45 ↗ conversation along because that's you're

44:47 ↗ right, that's when someone goes into

44:48 ↗ some place for 20 30 minutes, that's

44:50 ↗ when they're going to do it,

44:51 ↗ >> right?

44:51 ↗ >> Um and if it's super low um utilization,

44:55 ↗ then understanding why. Mhm.

44:57 ↗ >> Um, and if it's already built out, then

45:01 ↗ that says you have a different set of

45:02 ↗ actions to figure out what is what's the

45:04 ↗ next place that you would want to have

45:06 ↗ those type of banks.

45:07 ↗ >> Um, yeah, the Barnes & Noble one was

45:09 ↗ built and it's just sad. But

45:11 ↗ >> well, I think that's interesting is like

45:12 ↗ you said, it's it's hard to make policy

45:14 ↗ without any data. You're right, the

45:15 ↗ Starbucks ones do seem to get used. I

45:17 ↗ think there's like two or three, at

45:18 ↗ least the one in Gilman that I'm

45:20 ↗ thinking of.

45:21 ↗ >> And I don't know if the ones by Barnes &

45:23 ↗ Noble are live, but if they're if they

45:25 ↗ are, they're not. No.

45:26 ↗ >> Okay. So, that is why they are

45:28 ↗ completely dead

45:29 ↗ >> and they took the chain link fence down.

45:31 ↗ So, that's why I assume they were dead.

45:32 ↗ You live. Um, but yeah, like you said,

45:36 ↗ kind of hard to make a a Ford pass when

45:39 ↗ we don't have the data on what's already

45:40 ↗ being currently used. Like you said, now

45:42 ↗ that I think about Yeah. Starbucks, few

45:44 ↗ different areas. I see cars there. I

45:46 ↗ mean, they're usually not full, but

45:47 ↗ >> but the data is

45:51 ↗ Yeah. No, it's a good point.

45:53 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a great question. They're

45:54 ↗ private. A lot of the fast chargers are

45:56 ↗ all privately owned, but we could reach

45:58 ↗ out, see if they'd be willing to share

45:59 ↗ that. The city owns um the level two

46:02 ↗ chargers that are by the community

46:03 ↗ center and then some that are up in the

46:05 ↗ Isqua Highlands. We can definitely pull

46:07 ↗ that data. Community center ones um are

46:11 ↗ heavily heavily used. Um but yeah, be we

46:15 ↗ can reach out and see if they'd be

46:17 ↗ willing to share any of that

46:18 ↗ information. That's a great suggestion

46:20 ↗ because that could be used as an

46:21 ↗ incentive for other retailers then to to

46:23 ↗ put them in. So

46:25 ↗ >> yeah, I'd definitely like to hear more

46:26 ↗ because yeah, I appreciate Commissioner

46:28 ↗ Kra bringing that up

46:29 ↗ >> again. I I didn't know that the Barnes &

46:31 ↗ Nobles ones weren't live. Uh

46:32 ↗ Commissioner Miller Urban, did I see

46:35 ↗ >> I I love Barnes & Nobles and I I always

46:37 ↗ see it empty. I also love Chipotle, so

46:39 ↗ they're constantly.

46:42 ↗ >> Now, I just had a a comment that I think

46:43 ↗ is probably going to echo the sentiment

46:46 ↗ of um my fellow commissioners. Um but my

46:49 ↗ general thought from this conversation

46:51 ↗ is that it's really about intention when

46:53 ↗ development is being done and um I too

46:56 ↗ have seen all the the bank of um EVs by

47:00 ↗ what is it uh the Safeway in um the Isco

47:03 ↗ Highlands and I don't think I've ever

47:04 ↗ seen more than maybe one car there. So,

47:07 ↗ I don't know if during the development

47:09 ↗ it was a incentive for the developer in

47:12 ↗ order to install those, but perhaps

47:15 ↗ because of the housing mix in the the

47:17 ↗ Highlands, uh the majority of the people

47:20 ↗ that live in that area may very well

47:21 ↗ already have EV charging stations either

47:24 ↗ that they've installed on their own or

47:25 ↗ maybe it was a incentive by the

47:27 ↗ developer when their homes were built.

47:29 ↗ So, the overall intention about where

47:32 ↗ these stations go and if they're going

47:34 ↗ to be utilized, um, I do see the ones by

47:38 ↗ Starbucks being used quite often. So, I

47:40 ↗ think before any of these decisions are

47:42 ↗ made, it's really about the data and the

47:45 ↗ intention. So, thank you.

47:47 ↗ >> Thank you.

47:48 ↗ >> Yeah.

47:51 ↗ >> All right. Thank you, commissioners. Um,

47:53 ↗ any other comments or questions?

47:56 ↗ >> We're going to get through all nine.

47:58 ↗ Yeah, absolutely. All right. Poor poor

48:00 ↗ Andrew here. Great. Well, great

48:02 ↗ feedback. Um, and definitely not going

48:05 ↗ in the direction of how this is stated,

48:06 ↗ but looking at those uh trying to gather

48:09 ↗ more data on the usage, the need, and

48:12 ↗ then um looking at opportunities where

48:14 ↗ we can provide incentives around other

48:16 ↗ retail or high use, high utilized

48:18 ↗ spaces.

48:21 ↗ All right, this one's a little

48:22 ↗ different, too. Um, and then we'll be

48:24 ↗ moving next into buildings and energy.

48:27 ↗ Um this concept comes out of Berkeley.

48:31 ↗ They have passed what they call a

48:32 ↗ transit first policy. It is really about

48:36 ↗ ensuring government leadership is fully

48:39 ↗ behind um promoting transit first

48:42 ↗ through all of their projects. Kind of

48:43 ↗ using a transit lens when they're

48:46 ↗ looking at their priorities and budget

48:48 ↗ and infrastructure projects. Um, this

48:51 ↗ could really be whatever is needed to

48:54 ↗ promote transit or maybe it's even

48:56 ↗ multimodal. In talking talking with TAB,

48:59 ↗ I think just trying to wrap our heads

49:02 ↗ around what this actually would mean. um

49:04 ↗ they really felt that this wasn't the

49:07 ↗ intent of the mobility action plan and

49:10 ↗ that instead of looking at something

49:12 ↗ new. Um looking back at our mobility

49:15 ↗ action plan, see how we can better

49:17 ↗ elevate that as really a priority for

49:19 ↗ the city and even review the mobility

49:22 ↗ action plan to ensure that it's meeting

49:25 ↗ this need where it's really um moving

49:27 ↗ the city to consider and prioritize

49:30 ↗ transit and multimodal mobile movement.

49:34 ↗ So, welcome. Any additional feedback on

49:37 ↗ that one?

49:40 ↗ >> Commissioner Zacharov,

49:41 ↗ >> thank you. Well, to uh to prioritize

49:44 ↗ transit first, we need to make sure that

49:45 ↗ we have a reliable transit here in

49:47 ↗ Isqua. And again, right now we have

49:50 ↗ conversations about a light link and

49:52 ↗ hopefully everything comes to fruition

49:54 ↗ there. And also the local

49:56 ↗ transportation, the micro transportation

49:58 ↗ or the all of the buses that we have in

50:00 ↗ a city, they have to be reliable because

50:01 ↗ having a bus that comes uh only from a

50:04 ↗ certain hour to a certain hour, it's not

50:06 ↗ a reliable, it's existing, but it's not

50:08 ↗ a reliable transportation. So that

50:10 ↗ that's what is important to me. And yes,

50:13 ↗ the mobility action plan is actually

50:15 ↗ there. And I think I here I would be

50:18 ↗ totally on the same page with with the

50:20 ↗ tab. So thank you.

50:26 ↗ That's great. Uh, Commissioner Oler,

50:29 ↗ >> just a personal anecdote. I'm I'm taking

50:32 ↗ a course at Udub and I I drive my EV to

50:35 ↗ the South Kirkland park and ride and

50:37 ↗ then I hop on the 255 bus. It is always

50:40 ↗ on time, uh, 15 minutes apart. It's very

50:44 ↗ short waiting time. Uh, the buses are

50:47 ↗ clean. Um, they're they're

50:50 ↗ wellmaintained. the bus drivers are

50:52 ↗ friendly and courteous. Um, so I I think

50:56 ↗ I think we have a good at least bus

50:59 ↗ system here and uh I just you know I I

51:04 ↗ think as long as we maintain that the

51:07 ↗ reliability of it um I would I would

51:10 ↗ support uh policy along these lines but

51:13 ↗ again if it's in the mobility uh

51:16 ↗ component might as well keep it there.

51:22 ↗ Any further comments?

51:27 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

51:28 ↗ >> I also have an anecdote. I noticed that

51:30 ↗ there's a new bus route that go or a new

51:32 ↗ I guess it's a new route. It's 203 and

51:34 ↗ it goes along Newport Way, which I was

51:36 ↗ really excited about cuz I could go to

51:38 ↗ the trail head without driving if I

51:41 ↗ could get my dog on there, you know. But

51:43 ↗ it's like it's if they maintain that

51:45 ↗ route cuz now nobody really knows it's

51:47 ↗ there cuz the road just opened. So a lot

51:49 ↗ of people are not aware that this bus is

51:52 ↗ regular and what the schedule is. But I

51:54 ↗ think over time it probably will be

51:57 ↗ used, especially once the link opens for

52:00 ↗ Mercer Island to Seattle and you could

52:02 ↗ start taking the bus to the baseball

52:05 ↗ games cuz paying 50 bucks every time you

52:07 ↗ want to park or find parking, you know,

52:09 ↗ I if people could start getting used to

52:11 ↗ using it just for events like that, I

52:14 ↗ think they'll start using transportation

52:17 ↗ or much more often, especially once the

52:19 ↗ link opens. So, I think it is important

52:21 ↗ to to stick with this policy and where

52:25 ↗ it is. Um,

52:27 ↗ >> the train is when you're sitting in

52:28 ↗ traffic and you see the train go

52:30 ↗ >> I know it's like

52:31 ↗ >> Yeah, it's exciting to see it now. It's

52:33 ↗ like it does pass you faster. It's like

52:36 ↗ one day.

52:38 ↗ >> Great. Next one.

52:40 ↗ >> Uh, any other comments?

52:42 ↗ >> Vice Chair Patterson.

52:43 ↗ >> Thank you. I think with the policy on

52:45 ↗ the screen right here, it's just of all

52:46 ↗ the ones we've seen tonight is the

52:48 ↗ broadest stroke. like it's very broad in

52:50 ↗ what it's trying to say. And so I think

52:52 ↗ that's where it's a little tough to kind

52:53 ↗ of start to pick it apart. Um I think

52:55 ↗ some of it probably is addressed in some

52:56 ↗ of our existing policies that maybe we

52:58 ↗ can like lean into those a little bit

52:59 ↗ more.

53:00 ↗ >> Um I I personally kind of agree with the

53:03 ↗ concept of this. I think it's just how

53:05 ↗ it gets interpreted or put into place is

53:08 ↗ is maybe the missing piece here.

53:12 ↗ >> Yeah. No, thank you, Vice Chair

53:13 ↗ Patterson. I'm going to piggyback on

53:15 ↗ him. I I agree. I mean, again, it sounds

53:17 ↗ right. Um but Isizakiqua as a government

53:20 ↗ I mean we are very focused on mobility.

53:23 ↗ We have as as everybody knows we have

53:26 ↗ congestion problems in one part of the

53:27 ↗ city. We've got regional problems that

53:29 ↗ are um I forget where Seattle area lands

53:33 ↗ in terms of just traffic. So I know the

53:36 ↗ city already kind of uses that lens when

53:38 ↗ we talk about any of these things. I

53:40 ↗ don't really know what this does in

53:41 ↗ terms of a transit lens per se. Um, I

53:45 ↗ kind of feel like we spend a lot of time

53:47 ↗ on mobility things already. I mean, I

53:50 ↗ don't think it really necessarily hurts,

53:52 ↗ but I kind of agree with Tab. I mean,

53:54 ↗ these are these are our mobility

53:56 ↗ experts. These are the guys that look at

53:57 ↗ it with a bigger uh magnifying glass

53:59 ↗ than us. So, if they feel like, hey, we

54:02 ↗ have a plan uh the mobility action plan.

54:04 ↗ Let's stick with this and flush it out.

54:06 ↗ If we need upgrades, great. Um, again, I

54:09 ↗ don't necessarily see anything wrong

54:11 ↗ with it. Um, but like I said, I think

54:13 ↗ I'll I think I'll tip my hat to them as

54:15 ↗ they spend a lot more time on it than us

54:17 ↗ and we spend quite a bit of time on it

54:18 ↗ as it is. So,

54:21 ↗ >> okay,

54:23 ↗ that was a great summary again. Thank

54:25 ↗ you.

54:26 ↗ All right, we are going to transition to

54:29 ↗ buildings and energy.

54:31 ↗ Um all right. So the next one, um this

54:35 ↗ recommendation is coming out of that

54:39 ↗ council committee directive to think

54:41 ↗ big. Um so this looks at um energy

54:47 ↗ benchmarking. Uh just to back up, the

54:50 ↗ state has in place a clean um

54:54 ↗ uh clean energy a building performance

54:56 ↗ standard uh that applies to buildings

54:59 ↗ that are 20,000 square ft and above,

55:01 ↗ commercial buildings, multifamily. Um

55:04 ↗ what this policy would be looking at is

55:08 ↗ having buildings that are not covered um

55:11 ↗ under that state law, so those that are

55:13 ↗ under 20,000 report on their energy use.

55:17 ↗ Um it's been shown in lots of other

55:20 ↗ communities if you have buildings report

55:21 ↗ on energy use they tend to reduce energy

55:24 ↗ because they're now tracking data um and

55:28 ↗ looking to conserve energy. Um what the

55:30 ↗ alternative option is doing is taking

55:33 ↗ more of an approach that's been done in

55:35 ↗ Seattle where they have put in place a

55:38 ↗ energy standard that goes above and

55:40 ↗ beyond the state standard. Um they

55:43 ↗ require their buildings to report to

55:45 ↗ them. um they have energy efficiency

55:47 ↗ targets they have to meet and those will

55:49 ↗ become um stronger and stronger harder

55:52 ↗ and harder over time. Um so that first

55:55 ↗ option again is just uh looking to the

55:58 ↗ buildings that aren't currently covered

55:59 ↗ by the state requirement. The other

56:01 ↗ would be actually putting in place

56:04 ↗ stronger standards than the state. Um,

56:07 ↗ what I did want to note is that, uh,

56:10 ↗ with the current state law, uh, the city

56:13 ↗ of Isiqua has had in place for the last

56:15 ↗ couple of years an incentive program

56:18 ↗ where we've had a a vendor on contract

56:21 ↗ and we go out and work with our comm

56:23 ↗ commercial building partners to help

56:26 ↗ them meet the state compliance

56:28 ↗ requirement and secure incentive

56:30 ↗ dollars. It has been even offering a

56:33 ↗ free service where we're saving them

56:35 ↗ money. we're helping them access money.

56:37 ↗ It's been very challenging to get

56:40 ↗ commercial buildings to participate in

56:42 ↗ our program even though we're helping

56:44 ↗ them get um on the pathway to

56:46 ↗ compliance. So, this would be a big lift

56:50 ↗ um for the city to do, but it's probably

56:53 ↗ one of the most impactful programs we

56:55 ↗ could put in um to reduce commercial

56:58 ↗ energy, large building energy use.

57:02 ↗ So, welcome your feedback. At 5,000 and

57:04 ↗ above, would that also include single

57:06 ↗ family homes, any structure?

57:08 ↗ >> Yeah, usually this is Yeah. What they

57:10 ↗ call covered what the state does is call

57:13 ↗ covered buildings. And they're uh the

57:15 ↗ current law just looks at 20,000 square

57:17 ↗ feet and above. Um which includes multif

57:20 ↗ family, commercial, but that also is uh

57:22 ↗ public and nonprofit owned. This would

57:25 ↗ be maybe a 5,000. We could set it where

57:28 ↗ we wanted, but 5,000 to 20 probably

57:30 ↗ excluding single family. Yeah. So five

57:33 ↗ 5,000 single family residents, which we

57:35 ↗ do have estate lots, those would be

57:37 ↗ exempt.

57:38 ↗ >> Yes, I think we we would not want to

57:40 ↗ include um every homeowner in the city

57:43 ↗ reporting on their energy use. There is

57:45 ↗ actually another um policy. We'll talk

57:47 ↗ about that in a minute with the home

57:49 ↗ energy score. But yes, this would just

57:51 ↗ be for commercial nonprofit uh publicly

57:54 ↗ owned buildings.

57:55 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Oler.

57:59 ↗ So PSSE um as a homeowner I get a a

58:02 ↗ monthly report from PSSE. How do I

58:05 ↗ compare with my my neighbors? Um and

58:08 ↗ it's obviously not especially accurate

58:11 ↗ but um so there is in in some ways a

58:15 ↗ benchmarking program already in place

58:17 ↗ for single family residences. I guess

58:19 ↗ the question that I would have is um so

58:22 ↗ we have a benchmarking program that's

58:24 ↗ being proposed but what uh what

58:27 ↗ incentives or penalties would go along

58:30 ↗ with that or is that just information

58:32 ↗ data for the city to collect?

58:35 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, at

58:36 ↗ the state level, for buildings that are

58:39 ↗ um 50,000 square feet and above, there

58:42 ↗ are energy targets set they have to meet

58:44 ↗ and there will be penalties put in uh

58:46 ↗ there are penalties that will come into

58:48 ↗ play if um the buildings don't meet them

58:50 ↗ for those 20 to 50,000 as part of the

58:53 ↗ state program. There's not yet targets

58:56 ↗ they have to meet. They just have to

58:57 ↗ report. Um they have some other

58:59 ↗ requirements, but no target to meet and

59:01 ↗ no penalties. If the city was to put

59:03 ↗ something like this in place, um what

59:06 ↗ was envisioned for this first one is

59:08 ↗ really just reporting. So there wouldn't

59:11 ↗ necessarily be a target. Um the city

59:13 ↗ would need to decide if we would fine a

59:17 ↗ building owner if they did not report,

59:20 ↗ but yeah, we haven't that has not been

59:22 ↗ discussed. We wanted to see if there was

59:24 ↗ any general con uh support for the

59:26 ↗ concept. Does that help answer?

59:30 ↗ Yeah, I I think it does. I mean, I I

59:33 ↗ think the other question is if you've

59:34 ↗ got a 50-year-old building, it's clearly

59:37 ↗ not going to be energy efficient. And

59:39 ↗ would they be penalized for not being

59:42 ↗ energy efficient and be forced to

59:44 ↗ upgrade or in some cases just sell the

59:47 ↗ building because they can't afford to do

59:49 ↗ it?

59:50 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a great question. That would

59:52 ↗ depend on um how the program was

59:54 ↗ designed. If they meet those state

59:56 ↗ thresholds, then yes, they do have to

59:58 ↗ meet the energy efficiency requirements.

1:00:01 ↗ But um we'd have to design that as part

1:00:04 ↗ of the city program and consider all

1:00:06 ↗ those things. Good question.

1:00:08 ↗ >> Great. Um Commissioner Zachro,

1:00:10 ↗ you guys relate to high.

1:00:14 ↗ >> So um my again my thing is currently u

1:00:19 ↗ any kind of property is very expensive.

1:00:23 ↗ It's very expensive to rent. It's very

1:00:24 ↗ expensive to lease. It's like I'm both

1:00:27 ↗ I'm now the homeowner, but uh I also a

1:00:29 ↗ small business owner and it's extremely

1:00:33 ↗ hard to find a property that I can

1:00:34 ↗ afford as a small business and I'm and I

1:00:37 ↗ have a pretty good small business. But

1:00:40 ↗ um to me, if we are aiding any

1:00:42 ↗ initiatives without incentives, if we

1:00:45 ↗ adding any requirements, there's a

1:00:47 ↗ reporting requirement. Reporting already

1:00:49 ↗ costs money. So you uh the um building

1:00:53 ↗ owner will have to hire consultants of

1:00:56 ↗ some sort and this costs will go into

1:00:59 ↗ the tenants of the building. Doesn't

1:01:01 ↗ matter if this is people who live there

1:01:02 ↗ or people who do business there. So this

1:01:06 ↗ will make it even less affordable for

1:01:09 ↗ people to both live in a city and do

1:01:12 ↗ business in a city. So to me it kind of

1:01:15 ↗ works a little bit against leave work

1:01:18 ↗ and play rule that we have or kind of

1:01:21 ↗ like some not a rule but what we have

1:01:24 ↗ here. Um so yeah I cannot support that.

1:01:30 ↗ >> Yeah. Thank you.

1:01:32 ↗ >> Uh Commissioner Krafts.

1:01:34 ↗ >> Hello. Um, so I'll start with kind of

1:01:37 ↗ showing my bias of I I think it's a

1:01:41 ↗ pretty high bar if we want to exceed the

1:01:42 ↗ what the state requires period. Um, so I

1:01:45 ↗ think going above and beyond I there has

1:01:48 ↗ to be a lot of consideration uh on the

1:01:50 ↗ reporting aspect of it. Um, going back

1:01:54 ↗ to like we I get I get the same things

1:01:56 ↗ from future energy and I'm always

1:01:59 ↗ disappointed. Um, so I've got room for

1:02:01 ↗ improvement. Um, instead of putting the

1:02:04 ↗ burden on the property owners,

1:02:07 ↗ hug energy can do this.

1:02:10 ↗ >> If it's if if if it's really about

1:02:11 ↗ reporting and benchmarking,

1:02:13 ↗ >> they should do two things. They should

1:02:15 ↗ be giving this data to the um building

1:02:19 ↗ owners

1:02:20 ↗ because it's their incentive to use less

1:02:23 ↗ energy because let market forces take

1:02:25 ↗ take effect and um and then at the same

1:02:29 ↗ time they could you work out the details

1:02:32 ↗ but the same information can come to the

1:02:34 ↗ city for benchmarking. So adding that

1:02:36 ↗ requirement to the the owners, let's see

1:02:40 ↗ if we can push that to the people who

1:02:41 ↗ actually should be already tracking this

1:02:43 ↗ thing. Giving it to both parties

1:02:45 ↗ >> with the um because sometimes data is

1:02:50 ↗ power on these things and you know if if

1:02:52 ↗ I have the chance to to reduce by a

1:02:54 ↗ little bit it's as actual dollars if I

1:02:57 ↗ own a building. Um but you're right,

1:02:59 ↗ some old buildings it's going to be a

1:03:00 ↗ big retrofit issue. But let's start with

1:03:03 ↗ the reporting and also um going back to

1:03:06 ↗ my bias of not exceeding what the state

1:03:08 ↗ is already probably pretty stringent

1:03:10 ↗ already. So um I wouldn't want us to to

1:03:14 ↗ exceed that.

1:03:15 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:03:17 ↗ >> Commissioner Zach.

1:03:19 ↗ >> Thank you. Well, I actually I would like

1:03:21 ↗ to support Commissioner Cross and uh

1:03:23 ↗ back at the um climate action plan

1:03:26 ↗ committee. I was also mentioning that

1:03:28 ↗ Puget Sound energy right now has uh

1:03:30 ↗ several programs that several incentive

1:03:33 ↗ programs that they uh question why are

1:03:36 ↗ they not working. So maybe there should

1:03:37 ↗ be something worked with together with

1:03:39 ↗ uh Puget Sound Energy as partners and

1:03:42 ↗ they can offer us something way better

1:03:44 ↗ than what we are trying to create here.

1:03:46 ↗ So that's my idea. Thank you.

1:03:54 ↗ other comments.

1:03:58 ↗ So, I also get those same things from

1:04:00 ↗ PSSE and I always kill it because I do

1:04:02 ↗ like the flex events and everything and

1:04:04 ↗ I always I get to see my Yeah, I do. I

1:04:07 ↗ do. And it always shows me and my

1:04:08 ↗ neighbors and I always crush it. Um, so

1:04:11 ↗ that's funny. Um, I will say it's it's

1:04:15 ↗ very hard to argue with the premise.

1:04:16 ↗ Let's look into the feasibility. So you

1:04:19 ↗ kind of it's already set up like okay

1:04:22 ↗ >> um I kind of and I think we'll get this

1:04:26 ↗ into the other two policies because I am

1:04:28 ↗ going to agree um our state is a leader.

1:04:32 ↗ It's one of the legacies of Governor

1:04:34 ↗ Eninsley. So I'm going to need to be

1:04:36 ↗ convinced why is needs to go further.

1:04:38 ↗ Having said that um reporting knowledge

1:04:41 ↗ is power.

1:04:43 ↗ >> Maybe that's where we start. Again I I

1:04:45 ↗ don't see think there's anything wrong

1:04:46 ↗ with it. I think to Commissioner Oler

1:04:48 ↗ and Commissioner Crass, yeah, you're

1:04:51 ↗ going to have some 50-y old buildings.

1:04:52 ↗ And then to Commissioner Zach's point,

1:04:55 ↗ we also are renters in the city of

1:04:56 ↗ Isiziqua over by Bows. I know that

1:04:59 ↗ building's at least 40 years old.

1:05:00 ↗ >> And yeah, that cost would be kicked over

1:05:02 ↗ to us and because you are dealing with

1:05:04 ↗ consultants and energy departments, but

1:05:06 ↗ having said that, I mean, this is where

1:05:08 ↗ we want to move to. So, I'm not against

1:05:09 ↗ it. But I think reporting would be the

1:05:11 ↗ first step. M

1:05:12 ↗ >> first step would actually be the other

1:05:14 ↗ thing too is you mentioned this is a

1:05:16 ↗ heavy lift for the city.

1:05:18 ↗ >> What type of resources would this take

1:05:20 ↗ from city staff in order to get this

1:05:22 ↗ type of reporting? Do you guys have the

1:05:24 ↗ infrastructure to get it to do it?

1:05:27 ↗ >> Sounds like a great idea. Is it

1:05:28 ↗ something that should be tabled? I mean

1:05:30 ↗ I guess I'm just asking questions.

1:05:33 ↗ >> Those are great questions. um to run

1:05:36 ↗ especially a beeps having our own

1:05:38 ↗ standards that exceed the state

1:05:40 ↗ standards I think is a pretty massive

1:05:42 ↗ lift. Seattle has an entire team

1:05:44 ↗ dedicated it to it. Granted they have a

1:05:46 ↗ lot more buildings. Um but I think there

1:05:49 ↗ were some really interesting ideas

1:05:51 ↗ generated here that we'll probably look

1:05:54 ↗ in around um working with PSC to see how

1:05:58 ↗ they can uh really focus on

1:06:01 ↗ communication around reporting the

1:06:03 ↗ energy data but then promoting their

1:06:06 ↗ incentives with it. I was also getting

1:06:08 ↗ some nuggets of idea around maybe a

1:06:11 ↗ voluntary reporting program and then we

1:06:13 ↗ would work directly with those buildings

1:06:15 ↗ to connect them to incentives or

1:06:18 ↗ something like that. So I think there's

1:06:19 ↗ some variation um coming out of here

1:06:22 ↗ that could be a good first step and then

1:06:24 ↗ we see where we go.

1:06:26 ↗ >> Great feedback.

1:06:27 ↗ >> Great. Any other comments on policy six?

1:06:33 ↗ >> Okay.

1:06:33 ↗ >> Okay. How are we doing on time? We got

1:06:36 ↗ three left. Just keep going. Okay. All

1:06:39 ↗ right.

1:06:39 ↗ >> We haven't met in a month.

1:06:43 ↗ >> All right. Great. Um, this one we

1:06:46 ↗ started to get into this uh a little bit

1:06:48 ↗ in some of the discussion. Um, uh,

1:06:51 ↗ there's two options here. The first one

1:06:54 ↗ is a little bit simpler. Um, this is the

1:06:58 ↗ concept of a home energy score. Um so uh

1:07:02 ↗ home energy score has been discussed at

1:07:05 ↗ the Washington state level. It's been um

1:07:08 ↗ uh uh initiated in the state legislature

1:07:11 ↗ the last couple of years. It's not yet

1:07:13 ↗ move forward. Um Oregon is implementing

1:07:16 ↗ this. Uh the city of Tom Water is

1:07:19 ↗ actually considering their council's

1:07:20 ↗ discussing whether to put this in place.

1:07:22 ↗ But it would basically be at the time of

1:07:25 ↗ sale, you report out kind of a score of

1:07:28 ↗ how you're doing, how your home is doing

1:07:30 ↗ in terms of home energy just for

1:07:31 ↗ awareness. Um I have a lot of questions

1:07:35 ↗ around that and um equity and and

1:07:38 ↗ there's a lot of questions to go with

1:07:40 ↗ that. Um but that is a concept that's

1:07:43 ↗ been really promoted by one of our

1:07:45 ↗ strong climate partners and again has

1:07:47 ↗ been considered at the state level. The

1:07:51 ↗ alternative option here um is taking

1:07:54 ↗ this quite a bit further. Um the city of

1:07:57 ↗ Berkeley has a program in place called

1:07:59 ↗ their building emission saving ordinance

1:08:02 ↗ that actually requires at the time of

1:08:04 ↗ sale for um the seller to meet certain

1:08:09 ↗ uh weatherization or energy improvements

1:08:11 ↗ in their home. They have to uh hit six

1:08:14 ↗ points. So like a heat pump for example,

1:08:17 ↗ that's your full six points. if you

1:08:19 ↗ replace windows and do some

1:08:20 ↗ weatherization work, that would get you

1:08:22 ↗ to your six points. It's a pretty

1:08:25 ↗ extensive program. Um, but it is uh put

1:08:28 ↗ in place at the time of sale.

1:08:31 ↗ Um, so wanted to share these concepts

1:08:34 ↗ with you all. See if you have feedback

1:08:36 ↗ on they're a little bit different but

1:08:38 ↗ related. So included them in the same

1:08:40 ↗ slide.

1:08:42 ↗ >> Uh, let's go. Commissioner Crass.

1:08:45 ↗ >> Hello again. Um so energy score is this

1:08:48 ↗ energy usage or is this something is

1:08:50 ↗ this a set of metrics that is different

1:08:52 ↗ than what just you just give your energy

1:08:54 ↗ bills and that's what it's all about.

1:08:56 ↗ >> It's um typically as I understand it is

1:08:59 ↗ there is actually an assessment done on

1:09:01 ↗ the home like a weatherization

1:09:02 ↗ assessment and you would receive a score

1:09:05 ↗ um on that home.

1:09:06 ↗ >> So um once again I would not do anything

1:09:09 ↗ that's above and beyond the state

1:09:12 ↗ >> period. um Berkeley, which

1:09:16 ↗ um my wife went to school there, so I

1:09:18 ↗ know how that one's the extreme extreme

1:09:20 ↗ on some of these things. Um I'm I'm not

1:09:23 ↗ for the draconian of having to have

1:09:26 ↗ something done before you sell a house

1:09:27 ↗ because otherwise it would it would just

1:09:29 ↗ it would just it would Yeah, it would

1:09:31 ↗ just have huge huge implications. Um, I

1:09:35 ↗ do wonder,

1:09:38 ↗ um, going back to just what that energy

1:09:41 ↗ score is. When people get a home

1:09:44 ↗ inspection, they kind of go through this

1:09:46 ↗ kind of stuff already.

1:09:48 ↗ >> I haven't bought a house in 10 years,

1:09:49 ↗ and it was a new house, so they probably

1:09:51 ↗ I don't think I even did an inspection

1:09:52 ↗ on that one. But the one before that,

1:09:55 ↗ >> they do go through all of those types of

1:09:57 ↗ things. So, how is this any different

1:09:58 ↗ than a home inspection when someone buys

1:10:01 ↗ it and then they have the information?

1:10:03 ↗ >> If it's not doesn't have great weather

1:10:05 ↗ stripping or it's got an old furnace,

1:10:08 ↗ it's up to them. I mean, that's it's not

1:10:11 ↗ a requirement that they have a better

1:10:12 ↗ furnace, but they're going to want a

1:10:13 ↗ better furnace. So,

1:10:14 ↗ >> yeah, absolutely. And that first one,

1:10:16 ↗ um, I think, as I understand it, is

1:10:18 ↗ going above and beyond what you would

1:10:20 ↗ get in a normal inspection. You'd

1:10:21 ↗ actually receive a score, whether that's

1:10:24 ↗ a poor, good, very good score. Um it

1:10:27 ↗ could be designed however we wanted but

1:10:29 ↗ um it would rate your home in terms of

1:10:31 ↗ energy use and that's looking both at

1:10:34 ↗ equipment weatherization etc. Um

1:10:38 ↗ I lost my train of thought. You had a

1:10:40 ↗ sec other part of your question.

1:10:42 ↗ >> Well first of all the state or if our

1:10:43 ↗ state is not requiring this I don't even

1:10:46 ↗ know why we're spending a lot of energy

1:10:47 ↗ on this one. No no pun intended.

1:10:49 ↗ >> Yeah the yeah

1:10:51 ↗ >> got to work that one in there. Um, and

1:10:55 ↗ it's kind of a known thing if a house is

1:10:58 ↗ probably pretty efficient or not. This

1:11:00 ↗ is like regulating obvious

1:11:04 ↗ um, which is just adds more cost, time,

1:11:07 ↗ tax, etc. So,

1:11:09 ↗ >> yes. Yes. So, that's where Thank you. I

1:11:11 ↗ was going to go was um, there's nothing

1:11:14 ↗ necessarily to be done with the score.

1:11:16 ↗ It is meant to be information to the

1:11:19 ↗ buyer. Um, hence my note. I have lots of

1:11:22 ↗ questions about this in terms of equity

1:11:25 ↗ and making sure those older homes um uh

1:11:29 ↗ would be penalized. Um so there's a lot

1:11:32 ↗ of questions around this, but I guess um

1:11:35 ↗ what's before us is this is something we

1:11:37 ↗ would want to explore. Should we wait

1:11:39 ↗ and see if the state takes this up

1:11:41 ↗ again? Um or do we want to even think

1:11:44 ↗ beyond that and have some requirements

1:11:46 ↗ at at time of sale um for energy

1:11:49 ↗ efficiency improvements?

1:11:52 ↗ >> We got hands. Let's go to the end of the

1:11:54 ↗ table. Commissioner

1:11:55 ↗ >> Millinder win.

1:11:56 ↗ >> Thank you. Um the the first thought that

1:11:59 ↗ I had was this has some farreaching

1:12:01 ↗ equity um implications in terms of

1:12:04 ↗ people that have older homes. Um, and my

1:12:08 ↗ concern is that um, having these types

1:12:11 ↗ of ratings, they absolutely do have an

1:12:13 ↗ effect on the ability of someone to sell

1:12:16 ↗ their home. It's going to stick out if

1:12:18 ↗ someone may have a older and thus uh,

1:12:20 ↗ more inefficient home. So, I think this

1:12:22 ↗ is a great big idea, but I think that

1:12:25 ↗ the unintended consequences of this as a

1:12:29 ↗ an actual ineffect

1:12:31 ↗ um, uh, program would be problematic. Um

1:12:35 ↗ unless and I I don't even like my own

1:12:38 ↗ own unless so I'll say that um there

1:12:41 ↗ would have to be a counterbalance in my

1:12:43 ↗ opinion which would be what type of

1:12:45 ↗ program would be put in place to address

1:12:47 ↗ the equity implications which is is the

1:12:50 ↗ intent to bring someone up to a

1:12:52 ↗ particular standard if they have a

1:12:54 ↗ particular score that's not seen as um

1:12:58 ↗ helpful. So um I have concerns.

1:13:01 ↗ >> Great. Yeah.

1:13:01 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you,

1:13:03 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

1:13:06 ↗ >> Uh, my question or my comment was on the

1:13:08 ↗ same lines. And actually, I think it's

1:13:10 ↗ even worse when you think about

1:13:12 ↗ homeowner associations that have

1:13:14 ↗ standards on windows. So, now you're

1:13:16 ↗ going in and you're digging up a, you

1:13:18 ↗ know, a can of worms here. You got to

1:13:20 ↗ replace your windows because it does

1:13:22 ↗ stay in the state in the policy that

1:13:25 ↗ >> they would have to implement changes at

1:13:26 ↗ the time that they sell their home. So,

1:13:29 ↗ that could be a very big problem. And

1:13:31 ↗ again, when you have a downturn, so like

1:13:33 ↗ now home prices are low, now you're

1:13:36 ↗ killing it. Somebody who wants to move

1:13:39 ↗ up to a bigger home is not able to do

1:13:40 ↗ that because they have large costs. So,

1:13:43 ↗ it it seems like a good idea, but I

1:13:46 ↗ think it could be painful depending on

1:13:48 ↗ the upturn or downturn of housing

1:13:50 ↗ prices.

1:13:51 ↗ >> Um, and especially like first-time

1:13:53 ↗ buyers, this just could be a big problem

1:13:56 ↗ to or hurdle for them to overcome.

1:14:00 ↗ It's funny. I I have a little note that

1:14:02 ↗ just uses different language than the

1:14:03 ↗ two of you. I said maybe not a bad idea.

1:14:07 ↗ So, but anyway, um Commissioner

1:14:10 ↗ Zacharov,

1:14:11 ↗ >> thank you. Well, um I've had a quite a

1:14:14 ↗ time working on a climate action plan uh

1:14:17 ↗ update and also talking to people about

1:14:19 ↗ this. And what I found is uh well, first

1:14:21 ↗ of all, our community is very green and

1:14:24 ↗ people in general, they not against it.

1:14:26 ↗ they like people want to leave green but

1:14:29 ↗ at the very same time they cannot afford

1:14:30 ↗ it and so uh this is not just in

1:14:34 ↗ relation maybe to this policy but all

1:14:36 ↗ the policies that we've been looking

1:14:37 ↗ through today uh it makes it makes it

1:14:40 ↗ less and less affordable and so my thing

1:14:44 ↗ here with any any of this policies is we

1:14:47 ↗ need to have incentives we need to offer

1:14:51 ↗ people to make go turning green easier

1:14:54 ↗ for them but we cannot put it as a

1:14:56 ↗ requirement

1:14:58 ↗ >> because right now it's it's a very

1:14:59 ↗ simple situation. People cannot afford

1:15:01 ↗ it. So we have to start there. So thank

1:15:04 ↗ you.

1:15:10 ↗ >> Would anyone else like to weigh in?

1:15:14 ↗ >> Vice Chair Patterson.

1:15:15 ↗ >> Yeah, nothing too different than what's

1:15:16 ↗ been shared, but um I I'm out on

1:15:20 ↗ alternative policy here for sure. Uh but

1:15:22 ↗ the policy itself like I'm kind of

1:15:23 ↗ interested in the idea of a score if it

1:15:26 ↗ was more of like an FYI like like just

1:15:28 ↗ so you know kind of like Commissioner

1:15:30 ↗ Craft was saying is like yeah it might

1:15:31 ↗ be nice to know and it's usually obvious

1:15:33 ↗ like oh you have single pane windows or

1:15:35 ↗ you know like you know there's an

1:15:37 ↗ opportunity to update that uh maybe by

1:15:39 ↗ establishing a score and then taking a

1:15:41 ↗ step towards where Commissioner Zachro

1:15:43 ↗ was going of like if you were to upgrade

1:15:46 ↗ your furnace you could save X amount of

1:15:48 ↗ dollars a year or reduce your energy you

1:15:50 ↗ know like giving incentives or even just

1:15:53 ↗ uh people understanding of what it could

1:15:56 ↗ mean to upgrade in some of those areas.

1:15:58 ↗ Um, so it does become more of an FY, an

1:16:01 ↗ incentive, you know, something that

1:16:02 ↗ encourages people of like, oh, you know,

1:16:04 ↗ this could be a good long-term

1:16:05 ↗ investment, uh, versus like requiring

1:16:08 ↗ any upgrades or punishing them for, you

1:16:10 ↗ know, not being a certain level. Like I

1:16:12 ↗ I think we should avoid that, uh,

1:16:14 ↗ particularly for the equity standpoint.

1:16:16 ↗ But, um, I think there's there's

1:16:19 ↗ something in here, uh, just not quite

1:16:21 ↗ this.

1:16:22 ↗ >> Yeah, Commissioner.

1:16:23 ↗ >> So, it goes back to the role of Isiqua

1:16:26 ↗ and Puis Energy. I thought Pugan Energy

1:16:28 ↗ has services like that where they will

1:16:30 ↗ give you a energy audit and all those

1:16:33 ↗ things. They don't

1:16:34 ↗ >> they don't anymore unfortunately. Um

1:16:36 ↗ >> so all the people that should do it is

1:16:38 ↗ them and then if they don't want to do

1:16:40 ↗ it then I then I'm I'm confused why

1:16:43 ↗ other So do you have any history of why

1:16:46 ↗ they stopped doing that or is it

1:16:48 ↗ >> um I don't know. I think it was sort of

1:16:51 ↗ during the pandemic and then now you can

1:16:54 ↗ go on and request consultation with the

1:16:57 ↗ energy advisor, but it's not necessarily

1:16:59 ↗ the service they had before where they

1:17:00 ↗ were coming out to your home kind of

1:17:02 ↗ doing a big assessment and providing

1:17:04 ↗ specific recommendations. Um, we have I

1:17:08 ↗ was going to talk about this a bit with

1:17:10 ↗ the next policy. We have a very um

1:17:13 ↗ well-developed heat pump program right

1:17:16 ↗ now where we offer incentives and

1:17:17 ↗ rebates. We're about to expand that with

1:17:20 ↗ some additional PSSE funding uh where

1:17:22 ↗ we'll be also uh doing uh supporting

1:17:25 ↗ weatherization. So going out doing some

1:17:27 ↗ of those assessments and then um

1:17:29 ↗ providing some incentives for upgrades.

1:17:31 ↗ So we're trying to help fill fill that

1:17:34 ↗ gap. But um yeah, I

1:17:37 ↗ sounded like it was a very popular

1:17:39 ↗ program. Unfortunately, I'm not sure

1:17:41 ↗ more history there.

1:17:42 ↗ >> Vice Chair Patterson,

1:17:44 ↗ >> that was kind of a follow-up comment. um

1:17:46 ↗ as we kind of go down the path if we do

1:17:48 ↗ start to evaluate some kind of approach

1:17:49 ↗ like this um you know questions that pop

1:17:51 ↗ into my head are like who's going to do

1:17:53 ↗ the evaluation you know like how how is

1:17:55 ↗ it going to get delivered like where is

1:17:56 ↗ it tracked you know some of the more

1:17:58 ↗ administrative burdens of a program like

1:18:00 ↗ this um you know you mentioned like the

1:18:02 ↗ city having a staff to do that um

1:18:05 ↗ starting to break it down in that thing

1:18:07 ↗ of like if we got to a point where a

1:18:09 ↗ score made sense how would we even

1:18:10 ↗ implement it and what would the

1:18:11 ↗ administrative burden be for that so I

1:18:13 ↗ think those are important you know

1:18:14 ↗ considerations for if this were to go

1:18:16 ↗ further beyond evaluation.

1:18:18 ↗ >> Great. Yeah, great comment.

1:18:21 ↗ >> Uh, Chair Voice, that first of all, I

1:18:24 ↗ think all of the commissioners had

1:18:25 ↗ fantastic comments. So, again, I'm in

1:18:27 ↗ agreement with all of you guys. Again,

1:18:29 ↗ when it comes to homeowners, I'm pretty

1:18:31 ↗ sensitive at the moment. I think

1:18:33 ↗ everybody knows the situation. Uh,

1:18:35 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin, you're right

1:18:36 ↗ for people that, you know, what what's

1:18:38 ↗ that look like? If you get a score and

1:18:41 ↗ it's you're trying to sell versus your

1:18:42 ↗ neighbor. Um, Vice Chair Patterson,

1:18:46 ↗ again, FYI, knowledge is power. Uh, my

1:18:49 ↗ concern again is is we're just we're

1:18:51 ↗ going through a time when I think I

1:18:52 ↗ heard last the other day like the

1:18:54 ↗ national average to buy a home is 40

1:18:56 ↗ years now.

1:18:57 ↗ >> And anything that moves that number up

1:18:59 ↗ to 41, I'm going to be against. Anything

1:19:01 ↗ that gets it down to 39, I'm going to be

1:19:03 ↗ four. This one, in my mind, moves that

1:19:05 ↗ up to 41. Uh, Commissioner Zacharov

1:19:08 ↗ mentioned added costs. uh with interest

1:19:11 ↗ rates high, with construction costs and

1:19:13 ↗ housing costs being high right now for

1:19:14 ↗ multitude of reasons, this one to me

1:19:17 ↗ moves the needle the wrong way.

1:19:19 ↗ >> Okay, great.

1:19:21 ↗ >> So,

1:19:21 ↗ >> great, great feedback. Um, we'll also

1:19:23 ↗ track Tumb Water as their council

1:19:26 ↗ debates the potential for putting uh

1:19:29 ↗ this in place in their community and see

1:19:31 ↗ what we learn from that and have further

1:19:33 ↗ discussion if there seems to be added

1:19:35 ↗ benefit or it moves us in would move us

1:19:37 ↗ in the right direction.

1:19:37 ↗ >> Let's let Tum Water be the guinea pig.

1:19:39 ↗ Yeah, Washington getting big.

1:19:42 ↗ >> Okay.

1:19:42 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:19:43 ↗ >> All right. Um I think that's it for this

1:19:45 ↗ policy question.

1:19:47 ↗ >> All right. Getting close. Okay. Um so

1:19:49 ↗ this next one, as I mentioned, the city

1:19:51 ↗ has a extensive heat pump program we've

1:19:54 ↗ had in place for uh three plus years. Uh

1:19:57 ↗ we run that in partnership with five

1:19:59 ↗ other neighboring cities. Uh Energy

1:20:01 ↗ Smart East Side. Um, we offer incentives

1:20:04 ↗ and rebates and education, uh,

1:20:07 ↗ incentives at all income levels. Um, so

1:20:10 ↗ we will be continuing to run that

1:20:12 ↗ program and, uh, as I mentioned, it's

1:20:14 ↗ extending to weatherization. This year,

1:20:16 ↗ we're looking at, um, electric and heat

1:20:18 ↗ pump water heaters in the future. Um,

1:20:21 ↗ what these policies are proposing is to

1:20:23 ↗ go more the requirement route versus the

1:20:27 ↗ incentive education. There's so far we

1:20:29 ↗ can get with incentives and educations.

1:20:32 ↗ um where this concept came up from a

1:20:35 ↗ council member where could we have in

1:20:37 ↗ place any kind of requirement. Uh again,

1:20:40 ↗ don't know how this would be tracked,

1:20:41 ↗ but um where contractors when they're

1:20:45 ↗ providing quotes, they at least have to

1:20:47 ↗ provide one quote for a heat pump uh

1:20:50 ↗ versus a gas furnace replacement, for

1:20:53 ↗ example. Um so uh having the contractors

1:20:58 ↗ um at least provide the homeowner with

1:21:01 ↗ those options in front of them. The

1:21:03 ↗ alternative is going a direction more um

1:21:06 ↗ that Vancouver has put in place where

1:21:08 ↗ there would be um a required energy

1:21:11 ↗ efficiency standard at time of

1:21:14 ↗ replacement. So, um, if your gas furnace

1:21:16 ↗ goes out, you'd be required to install a

1:21:20 ↗ gas furnace, um, or a, uh, heat pump

1:21:24 ↗ that hits a certain energy efficiency

1:21:26 ↗ threshold. So, those are kind of

1:21:28 ↗ options, either kind of going the

1:21:30 ↗ contractor education route, again,

1:21:32 ↗ providing that data to the homeowner at

1:21:34 ↗ time of replacement or looking at a

1:21:37 ↗ requirement, energy efficiency

1:21:39 ↗ requirement at time of replacement.

1:21:44 ↗ All right, let's go. Commissioner Olner,

1:21:48 ↗ >> there are uh some buildings with systems

1:21:51 ↗ that do not lend themselves to heat

1:21:53 ↗ pumps. Our house has radiant heat floor

1:21:56 ↗ in the floors.

1:21:58 ↗ >> There's no way. So, we have no ducts.

1:22:01 ↗ >> And other than putting in many splits,

1:22:03 ↗ there's really no way to utilize a heat

1:22:05 ↗ pump. Um, and we're certainly not going

1:22:08 ↗ to rip out all of the the radiant

1:22:10 ↗ heating and put in ducts after the the

1:22:13 ↗ house is has been completed. So, um, I I

1:22:17 ↗ think there are some alternatives here

1:22:18 ↗ that need to be considered like perhaps

1:22:21 ↗ gas fired boilers that are very

1:22:24 ↗ efficient, for example. I and I know the

1:22:28 ↗ state is trying to move us toward total

1:22:30 ↗ electrification, but there are these

1:22:33 ↗ stumbling blocks.

1:22:37 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov,

1:22:40 ↗ >> I think uh Commissioner already went

1:22:42 ↗ ahead and kind of I I have a very

1:22:45 ↗ similar similar idea. So yeah, not every

1:22:48 ↗ building can be turned from gas to uh

1:22:51 ↗ electrifi electrified

1:22:53 ↗ heating and yeah that's that's kind of

1:22:57 ↗ yeah it's good if the information will

1:22:59 ↗ be provided by whoever is exchanging the

1:23:02 ↗ equipment but it's not always possible.

1:23:05 ↗ Thank you.

1:23:06 ↗ >> He stole your thunder.

1:23:11 ↗ >> Um uh yes Commissioner Matthews.

1:23:15 ↗ Um, I think it's a good idea to have the

1:23:17 ↗ contractors provide a quote, but I think

1:23:19 ↗ I mean I've had two water heaters

1:23:20 ↗ replaced and that each time they were

1:23:22 ↗ like, "Hey, this is a better model. This

1:23:24 ↗ will give you this much savings." I

1:23:26 ↗ think a lot of them are already doing

1:23:28 ↗ that.

1:23:29 ↗ >> So, um, maybe it's redundant because I

1:23:31 ↗ think a lot of contractors are pushing

1:23:33 ↗ the better models, you know,

1:23:35 ↗ >> when they when they're out there.

1:23:37 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:23:38 ↗ >> So, maybe just a little more education.

1:23:39 ↗ Maybe there's some that aren't. But

1:23:41 ↗ yeah, I think it I think it's a good

1:23:42 ↗ idea to give homeowners an option

1:23:44 ↗ because they may not think of it at the

1:23:46 ↗ time. They're just more concerned about

1:23:47 ↗ replacing their equipment and getting it

1:23:49 ↗ all running.

1:23:50 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:23:50 ↗ >> So, yeah.

1:23:52 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:23:52 ↗ >> There was a comment, I think, in one of

1:23:54 ↗ our uh letters that kind of made that

1:23:56 ↗ that same thing. Um, you know, I

1:23:58 ↗ actually replaced my water heater last

1:24:00 ↗ year. I had a ream. It went 15 years.

1:24:02 ↗ Never had a problem. Just just very

1:24:04 ↗ quick showers, but that was it. But, uh,

1:24:07 ↗ you're right. They give you they're

1:24:09 ↗ like, "Hey, this is the model. this is a

1:24:10 ↗ more energy efficient, this is a better

1:24:12 ↗ model.

1:24:13 ↗ >> Um, I think again knowledge is power.

1:24:16 ↗ Um, definitely don't like the

1:24:17 ↗ requirement. Again, I don't think it's

1:24:18 ↗ the season at the moment for any type of

1:24:21 ↗ requirements that are going to add

1:24:22 ↗ burdens and cost to homeowners or, you

1:24:25 ↗ know, selling between homeowners, but or

1:24:27 ↗ or businesses for that matter. But

1:24:30 ↗ again, I I kind of agree, knowledge is

1:24:32 ↗ power. I think what I'd be interested to

1:24:34 ↗ hear is a little bit more about what

1:24:36 ↗ contractors are doing now and what they

1:24:38 ↗ think of this you know, maybe reach out

1:24:40 ↗ to a couple of locals and ask, I mean,

1:24:42 ↗ is this a big burden for you guys to

1:24:44 ↗ provide a quote or a little bit of

1:24:45 ↗ education? I wouldn't think it is. Um,

1:24:48 ↗ you know, this is all stuff they could

1:24:49 ↗ do pretty much on the fly.

1:24:50 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:24:51 ↗ >> But again, as far as requiring anything

1:24:53 ↗ at the moment, again, when when the

1:24:55 ↗ economy is humming and housing is

1:24:56 ↗ humming, it's one thing. Right now, it's

1:24:58 ↗ on its back.

1:25:00 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Crass.

1:25:02 ↗ >> So, I think um like Bobs or some of the

1:25:04 ↗ other ones you see around town, um

1:25:07 ↗ you're right. when they come out,

1:25:08 ↗ they'll say, "Here's like two or three

1:25:10 ↗ options. You have a whole like cost

1:25:12 ↗ benefit." Um, if we insist that they do

1:25:15 ↗ a heat pump, they may say, "Oh, this one

1:25:17 ↗ costs four times as much to do this."

1:25:19 ↗ It's kind of wasting everybody's time.

1:25:21 ↗ >> Um, if a heat heat pump is something

1:25:24 ↗ that's beneficial, they're already doing

1:25:26 ↗ it. Um, I would assume like I have a

1:25:29 ↗ furnace and I have an outdoor air

1:25:31 ↗ conditioner. So, if I had to change to a

1:25:33 ↗ heat pump, I'm not even sure what that

1:25:34 ↗ would mean. And I'm like, would I rip

1:25:36 ↗ and replace everything out for something

1:25:37 ↗ that's probably four times the cost to

1:25:39 ↗ do that? I don't know. Um,

1:25:41 ↗ but I think if it's in the realm of the

1:25:43 ↗ things that are are potential, they're

1:25:46 ↗ already doing it. Um, but I do like the

1:25:49 ↗ idea of talk to some of the like what's

1:25:52 ↗ the one with the guy on the side? He's

1:25:54 ↗ always waving south oh

1:25:57 ↗ >> plumbing one.

1:25:58 ↗ >> Southwest plumbing or Bobs or whatever.

1:26:00 ↗ They'll probably give you some good good

1:26:02 ↗ feedback of what they're already doing

1:26:03 ↗ in different scenarios. Scenario one is

1:26:06 ↗ someone has this type of setup, scenario

1:26:08 ↗ two, and how they handle that. And that

1:26:10 ↗ may help shape I I I you know, you know

1:26:13 ↗ where I'm going to go with this. I don't

1:26:14 ↗ want to have any requirements of that,

1:26:16 ↗ but even the the the quote aspect that

1:26:19 ↗ may help tune the language and the ask

1:26:23 ↗ to something that's beneficial for

1:26:24 ↗ everybody in the value chain.

1:26:26 ↗ Yeah, that's great feedback. Through our

1:26:28 ↗ heat pump existing heat pump program, we

1:26:30 ↗ have a pretty extensive network of

1:26:32 ↗ contractors, but it's the contractors

1:26:35 ↗ that work with certain equipment. And

1:26:36 ↗ so, one thing we could do is look at by

1:26:39 ↗ the um permits that are being pulled,

1:26:41 ↗ look at those contractors that were not

1:26:43 ↗ part of our existing program and maybe

1:26:45 ↗ do some outreach or connect with them

1:26:47 ↗ and understand what they're what what

1:26:49 ↗ they've already incorporated. It's good

1:26:51 ↗ feedback.

1:26:51 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. I saw a hand. Vice

1:26:53 ↗ Chair Patterson. Thank you, sir. Um,

1:26:56 ↗ just one more kind of to add on to what

1:26:57 ↗ Commissioner Crest was saying is there

1:26:59 ↗ might also be certain scenarios where

1:27:01 ↗ different policies could come into play.

1:27:04 ↗ Meaning there's like new development,

1:27:05 ↗ redevelopment, and then emergency

1:27:08 ↗ replacement or repair. U, I think the

1:27:10 ↗ public comment we got was very focused

1:27:11 ↗ on like when you're in the middle of a

1:27:13 ↗ replacement, it's kind of an emergency

1:27:14 ↗ and you're just doing what you can to

1:27:16 ↗ get business back up or get your house

1:27:17 ↗ back to normal. Um, so that's probably

1:27:20 ↗ maybe an outlier that we don't want to

1:27:22 ↗ consider in that situation. Um, but

1:27:24 ↗ maybe there's an opportunity to find a

1:27:25 ↗ middle ground. I still don't like

1:27:27 ↗ requiring too much, but uh I do

1:27:30 ↗ understand like if we're trying to pull

1:27:32 ↗ the right levers to find a balance

1:27:33 ↗ between development of environmental

1:27:36 ↗ sustainability, you know, all those

1:27:37 ↗ different things, affordability, u maybe

1:27:39 ↗ there's some middle ground of either new

1:27:41 ↗ or redevelopment where um you know, we

1:27:44 ↗ we get that that quote for the, you

1:27:48 ↗ know, more energy efficient one or

1:27:50 ↗ something along those lines.

1:27:51 ↗ >> Great. Awesome.

1:27:54 ↗ Yeah. Like I said, it's really hard to

1:27:55 ↗ argue with evaluate the feasibility.

1:27:58 ↗ Kind of sets you up for that way. Right.

1:28:00 ↗ Right. It's like, okay, of course.

1:28:03 ↗ >> Um, any other comments as far as policy

1:28:06 ↗ 8?

1:28:08 ↗ >> You get everyone?

1:28:10 ↗ >> Commissioner Miller.

1:28:11 ↗ >> Okay, great.

1:28:12 ↗ >> Um, all right. Let's go for uh the dark

1:28:15 ↗ sky.

1:28:15 ↗ >> Last one. Uh, this is a little

1:28:18 ↗ different, too. Um, so what this one is

1:28:22 ↗ looking at is a dark sky ordinance

1:28:26 ↗ specifically focused on commercial

1:28:28 ↗ buildings. We have quite a bit of dark

1:28:30 ↗ sky language in our code. We really

1:28:33 ↗ strive to reduce that light pollution.

1:28:35 ↗ Um, this one came out of the

1:28:38 ↗ environmental board where they have a

1:28:41 ↗ particular interest in focusing in on

1:28:43 ↗ some of the big commercial buildings in

1:28:46 ↗ the city that are lit up all hours of

1:28:48 ↗ the day. So, they were interested in

1:28:50 ↗ seeing if there are any um restrictions

1:28:54 ↗ that could be put in place um really

1:28:56 ↗ focused on that commercial se sector.

1:29:01 ↗ >> All right. I just real quickly I feel

1:29:03 ↗ like we just talked about dark sky

1:29:05 ↗ within the last year

1:29:07 ↗ >> so I maybe it's fresh for everybody. Um

1:29:10 ↗ but yeah let's give it a go.

1:29:12 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov

1:29:15 ↗ >> thank you. Well to me it's again it's an

1:29:17 ↗ incentive not a requirement. So if the

1:29:21 ↗ building is currently working and the

1:29:23 ↗ light is currently there, uh maybe

1:29:26 ↗ incentifies and offer the building owner

1:29:29 ↗ to change the lighting when they can or

1:29:33 ↗ when it stops working to more efficient

1:29:35 ↗ one. But everything that we require then

1:29:39 ↗ goes to the tenant of that building and

1:29:42 ↗ it makes it again affordability of well

1:29:46 ↗ I I said the word affordable today more

1:29:48 ↗ times than I have ever said that. So

1:29:50 ↗ yeah so that's what it that's what it is

1:29:53 ↗ to me. Thank you

1:29:56 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

1:29:58 ↗ >> Um I had to work with the city of Malibu

1:30:00 ↗ on their dark sight. So this is extreme

1:30:03 ↗ on their dark dark sky ordinance. And

1:30:05 ↗ some of the things that came up that I

1:30:07 ↗ think it's important to keep in mind is

1:30:08 ↗ safety is one of the big ones. So

1:30:11 ↗ >> you have these big commercial parking

1:30:13 ↗ lots or whatever and they have huge like

1:30:15 ↗ big bright lights. But when they asked

1:30:17 ↗ them to change the color like the Kelvin

1:30:19 ↗ to a warm very low light, the safety

1:30:24 ↗ went down. So I think considering

1:30:26 ↗ shielding versus like bringing down the

1:30:29 ↗ looms or the Kelvin um and also there's

1:30:32 ↗ spillover issues like at gas stations

1:30:36 ↗ because of the safety issues. They do

1:30:38 ↗ have light that spills into the streets.

1:30:40 ↗ So

1:30:41 ↗ >> keeping some of those issues in mind

1:30:43 ↗ around safety um is something that's

1:30:47 ↗ important with the dark dark sky

1:30:48 ↗ ordinance. And some of the best places

1:30:50 ↗ probably to do it is actually on city

1:30:52 ↗ streets where you don't have lights that

1:30:55 ↗ aim up. They're actually focused down. I

1:30:58 ↗ think they have a couple on Newport Way

1:31:00 ↗ um on the walkways and that really helps

1:31:02 ↗ to reduce kind of the spill up of the

1:31:05 ↗ lighting. So that that was just and you

1:31:08 ↗ know they're ordinance. They actually

1:31:09 ↗ have a whole thing that you can look at

1:31:11 ↗ to see um what the public comments and

1:31:14 ↗ commercial ones so you don't have to

1:31:16 ↗ rebuild from scratch just to get an

1:31:17 ↗ idea. Okay, thanks.

1:31:20 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Olner.

1:31:22 ↗ >> So, um,

1:31:25 ↗ fairly new, uh, commercial buildings

1:31:27 ↗ typically have occupancy sensors

1:31:30 ↗ >> and they're controlled on a roomby room

1:31:32 ↗ basis, but slightly older buildings have

1:31:36 ↗ an entire floor. So, if somebody shows

1:31:39 ↗ up to their office and there's a 20,000

1:31:42 ↗ square foot floor plate, uh, all 20,000

1:31:45 ↗ square feet are going to light up. And I

1:31:49 ↗ I can't imagine that they would retrofit

1:31:51 ↗ their electrical system. They would

1:31:54 ↗ >> Well, they they might they would they

1:31:56 ↗ would, but I I I think it's, you know,

1:31:58 ↗ it's a costbenefit uh thing. So, I'm not

1:32:01 ↗ I'm not quite sure what the ordinance

1:32:04 ↗ would have. Uh, you know, where where

1:32:07 ↗ are the teeth in that? Again, is it an

1:32:10 ↗ incentive? Is it a a penalty? Um, but uh

1:32:14 ↗ I mean, I think we're all in favor of

1:32:16 ↗ not being blinded uh in the middle of

1:32:18 ↗ the night by buildings.

1:32:20 ↗ >> Great. Great points.

1:32:22 ↗ >> Just for and Kristen can let me know if

1:32:24 ↗ I'm wrong. I mean, talk about so many

1:32:26 ↗ things. I feel like dark sky last time

1:32:28 ↗ it was more about some of the standards,

1:32:30 ↗ what we meant by it. We weren't really

1:32:32 ↗ talking necessarily about I mean I think

1:32:34 ↗ we were talking about where things were

1:32:35 ↗ pointed, how they were pointed for the

1:32:37 ↗ most part.

1:32:41 ↗ >> I I'm going to be frank. I don't recall

1:32:43 ↗ those discussions.

1:32:45 ↗ >> Like I said, I have a general idea of

1:32:47 ↗ what we talked about and I want to say

1:32:49 ↗ it was it really had a lot more to do

1:32:51 ↗ with like, okay, where's this shining?

1:32:53 ↗ You know, like colors. Um, I think the

1:32:55 ↗ point being to me it would be in the

1:32:57 ↗ self-interest of these commercial

1:32:58 ↗ buildings to turn and use less energy.

1:33:01 ↗ >> It's a lot of savings. Yeah.

1:33:03 ↗ >> I mean, would is that a fair statement?

1:33:05 ↗ >> It's a lot of energy cost savings,

1:33:07 ↗ >> right? So, I mean, to me, I I would

1:33:09 ↗ assume if we all took a field trip and

1:33:10 ↗ did some homework and went by Costco

1:33:12 ↗ later tonight at 12:00, I'm going to

1:33:14 ↗ guess most of those lights are going to

1:33:15 ↗ be off. So, um, again, kind of a

1:33:18 ↗ self-interest thing.

1:33:21 ↗ Um, I do think Commissioner Matthews

1:33:23 ↗ brings up really good points. I mean, as

1:33:25 ↗ long as it's not encumbering safety. Uh,

1:33:28 ↗ you know, there's definitely some other

1:33:29 ↗ metrics that have to be looked at in

1:33:31 ↗ order, but I mean, I who doesn't love

1:33:33 ↗ the idea of, you know, an Arizona sky

1:33:36 ↗ being able to look up and and see the

1:33:38 ↗ galaxy. So, I I don't

1:33:42 ↗ >> Right. I mean, but but you know what I

1:33:44 ↗ mean? 2 am. Like I I get it, but I would

1:33:46 ↗ assume that would be in the

1:33:47 ↗ self-interest of the the buildings

1:33:49 ↗ themselves.

1:33:50 ↗ >> I would assume.

1:33:51 ↗ >> So again, I I think or maybe Vice Chair

1:33:54 ↗ Patterson can remind Kristen and me, but

1:33:57 ↗ I I feel like it was more again about

1:33:59 ↗ kind of what we we we're talking a lot

1:34:01 ↗ about lumens, which lumens, and it was

1:34:04 ↗ less about like where and how. It was

1:34:06 ↗ more about, okay, we wanted to see this

1:34:07 ↗ and that. Now I'm interested. Now I'm

1:34:09 ↗ going to have to go back into the the

1:34:10 ↗ vault and see that video.

1:34:13 ↗ I think

1:34:14 ↗ >> Oh, yeah. Please.

1:34:15 ↗ >> I I think we did cover this in title 18

1:34:18 ↗ and we talked I I was trying to do the

1:34:20 ↗ research as we were talking, but there's

1:34:22 ↗ like outdoor lighting standards in

1:34:24 ↗ chapter 18 uh 610.

1:34:27 ↗ >> And it talks about uh let's see uh some

1:34:30 ↗ commercial

1:34:31 ↗ >> like dark sky hours from 10 p.m. to 6:00

1:34:33 ↗ a.m. 30 minutes after business closes or

1:34:36 ↗ 30 minutes before it opens. uh

1:34:38 ↗ commercial sites must reduce total

1:34:40 ↗ outdoor lighting by at least 30%. So I

1:34:43 ↗ think I guess what what is this policy

1:34:44 ↗ trying to do beyond what we already

1:34:46 ↗ have? I think is probably the the

1:34:48 ↗ summary of the question.

1:34:49 ↗ >> Yeah, I think it was trying to go a step

1:34:51 ↗ further. I think there's concerns for a

1:34:54 ↗ certain large building along I90 that is

1:34:58 ↗ pretty lit up at night or some of the

1:35:00 ↗ concerns raised by the environmental

1:35:02 ↗ board in particular.

1:35:04 ↗ But one thing we could do is take

1:35:06 ↗ another look at the current ordinance

1:35:09 ↗ current ordinance um and see if there

1:35:12 ↗ are opportunities for improvement. This

1:35:14 ↗ is something that's also been raised by

1:35:16 ↗ the Snowquali tribe. They were um

1:35:18 ↗ interested in seeing if there's

1:35:20 ↗ opportunities to improve the code. So

1:35:23 ↗ >> have we just talked to the people who

1:35:25 ↗ own that building and see what they say

1:35:26 ↗ and that may solve this without a policy

1:35:28 ↗ or more discussion?

1:35:30 ↗ >> Yes. Yeah. Do that.

1:35:33 ↗ They're definitely great friends of our

1:35:35 ↗ city. So, okay. Um, any other comments

1:35:37 ↗ about policy? Let me ask, did you get

1:35:39 ↗ what you needed for policy 9?

1:35:41 ↗ >> Yes.

1:35:41 ↗ >> Okay. Does anyone have any more comments

1:35:43 ↗ about policy 9?

1:35:45 ↗ >> Okay.

1:35:46 ↗ >> All right. Well, I want to thank you,

1:35:48 ↗ Stacy. Um, let me ask just your

1:35:50 ↗ totality. Did you get everything you

1:35:52 ↗ needed?

1:35:52 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you for the last hour and a

1:35:55 ↗ half, most of your meeting. I appreciate

1:35:58 ↗ it. It has been um incredibly helpful.

1:36:00 ↗ We'll be taking all of that info input

1:36:03 ↗ as we share out to the plane development

1:36:06 ↗ and environment council committee. Um,

1:36:08 ↗ and then bringing that all together as

1:36:10 ↗ we share a draft draft final list of

1:36:14 ↗ actions and uh targets with the

1:36:17 ↗ environmental board in March and April.

1:36:20 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you very much.

1:36:22 ↗ Um, yeah, we came to play, huh? So, see

1:36:24 ↗ what happens when Kristen doesn't let us

1:36:26 ↗ meet. It's only once a month.

1:36:28 ↗ We're going to keep you guys here till

1:36:30 ↗ 10. Um, okay. Well, thank you again,

1:36:33 ↗ Stacy. Appreciate the presentation.

1:36:35 ↗ We're going to move along to our next

1:36:37 ↗ item of business. This is the title 18

1:36:40 ↗ clarifying amendments introduction. Um,

1:36:43 ↗ now

1:36:45 ↗ Kristen Leon, our senior planner, along

1:36:48 ↗ with Andrew Love, our associate planner,

1:36:50 ↗ will be presenting tonight. So, Kristen

1:36:52 ↗ and Andrew, when the two of you are

1:36:54 ↗ ready, please go ahead.

1:37:08 ↗ You demoted me.

1:37:11 ↗ >> You did.

1:37:16 ↗ >> It's okay. I'll forgive you. Um, well, I

1:37:19 ↗ moved this to the top and it didn't go.

1:37:26 ↗ Well,

1:37:35 ↗ let's try this again.

1:37:43 ↗ That's bizarre.

1:37:46 ↗ Okay.

1:37:51 ↗ I apologize. One second.

1:38:06 ↗ Okay.

1:38:25 ↗ Okay, there we go. I apologize. My

1:38:27 ↗ PowerPoint just suddenly turned black

1:38:29 ↗ and I had two screens. I couldn't get

1:38:30 ↗ there.

1:38:32 ↗ So, poor Andrew. I'm going to let him go

1:38:36 ↗ in just a minute here.

1:38:38 ↗ Um, but yes, we sent Kate off tonight to

1:38:44 ↗ go Washington State is currently

1:38:46 ↗ traveling around the state to talk about

1:38:48 ↗ their potential their wildfire

1:38:50 ↗ mitigation and wildfire plans and Kate

1:38:52 ↗ will be bringing those amendments to you

1:38:54 ↗ at some point during the year, we hope.

1:38:56 ↗ Um, so she we found out that that was

1:38:58 ↗ tonight, so she went there and I am

1:38:59 ↗ here. I am Kristen Leon, planning

1:39:02 ↗ manager. Um,

1:39:05 ↗ and we are we're going to start kicking

1:39:07 ↗ off our Title 18 amendments.

1:39:10 ↗ Um, there we go. So, uh, just to review,

1:39:14 ↗ we're kicking this off and we want to

1:39:17 ↗ make sure that you all I think you've

1:39:19 ↗ all been through before, but just want

1:39:20 ↗ to remind you of the process. Tonight,

1:39:22 ↗ you're going to get you're going to talk

1:39:24 ↗ about three proposed amendments, all

1:39:26 ↗ regarding signs that Andrew, as soon as

1:39:28 ↗ I'm done here, will uh, present to you.

1:39:36 ↗ There we go.

1:39:38 ↗ So, most cities do this. You look at

1:39:40 ↗ your codes and you know, we're sitting

1:39:42 ↗ there in a staff meeting and realized,

1:39:44 ↗ you know, this doesn't make sense, so we

1:39:46 ↗ need to update it. Or a developer comes

1:39:48 ↗ to us and says, um, this isn't working

1:39:50 ↗ for me and here's why. Here's why it

1:39:52 ↗ doesn't pencil out and it won't be just

1:39:54 ↗ me. So, we revisit and we say, okay. So,

1:39:55 ↗ we update it. Most cities do this. Um,

1:39:59 ↗ as usual, we're going to present these

1:40:00 ↗ to you in batches and then after you

1:40:03 ↗ look at all these, we'll bring you the

1:40:04 ↗ final version just for a final review

1:40:06 ↗ and then we'll have a public hearing.

1:40:10 ↗ Right now, there are 1 2 3 seven on this

1:40:14 ↗ list, eight. Um, pending our March 9th

1:40:18 ↗ meeting, there should be about 10 more

1:40:21 ↗ on here.

1:40:23 ↗ Some will be completed in June. Some of

1:40:27 ↗ those will be a little bit longer. I

1:40:29 ↗ need to put the timeline together. Some

1:40:31 ↗ of those will take about a year and a

1:40:32 ↗ half, but you will be seeing most of

1:40:35 ↗ them. Uh right now, we have three sign

1:40:38 ↗ amendments that you'll talk about

1:40:39 ↗ tonight. We're going to talk about the

1:40:42 ↗ definitions of development and

1:40:44 ↗ development permits and site. And right

1:40:48 ↗ now, we have some conflicting

1:40:50 ↗ information in there that we need to

1:40:51 ↗ clear up. So, we're going to fix that.

1:40:53 ↗ talk about how we are recording plat

1:40:55 ↗ procedures because that's been an issue

1:40:57 ↗ sometimes with developers and what comes

1:41:00 ↗ when um sorry I've got this thing in the

1:41:02 ↗ way um temporary uses we've had some

1:41:07 ↗ issues with donation bins and that kind

1:41:09 ↗ of thing operation standards and then

1:41:11 ↗ some other definitions about residential

1:41:13 ↗ we have two definitions of multif family

1:41:15 ↗ residential so we need to fix that

1:41:22 ↗ Okay. So, tonight um you're just going

1:41:24 ↗ to learn about uh the code amendment

1:41:26 ↗ proposals and provide input to us and

1:41:30 ↗ then eventually make a recommendation.

1:41:32 ↗ Um some of these will come to you like

1:41:34 ↗ they have tonight. Some will come in

1:41:36 ↗ already come code format. Some of these

1:41:38 ↗ will come to you as ideas sort of like

1:41:40 ↗ they did when you were talking about IAP

1:41:42 ↗ tonight. And then we'll back based on

1:41:44 ↗ your

1:41:46 ↗ on the discussion and feedback. We'll

1:41:47 ↗ come back with code amendments and then

1:41:49 ↗ they'll come back to you for final

1:41:50 ↗ review.

1:41:52 ↗ Um, what we look at is when we say what

1:41:54 ↗ when we're doing these, what does the

1:41:55 ↗ code say now? Um, why is the amendment

1:41:58 ↗ proposed? And feel free to ask us that

1:42:01 ↗ question if we don't tell you and are

1:42:03 ↗ the proposed changes clear or are there

1:42:04 ↗ additional changes needed or do we not

1:42:07 ↗ need this amendment at all? Does it seem

1:42:08 ↗ fine? Why are we changing this? Um, so

1:42:13 ↗ as I mentioned, we're coming through

1:42:14 ↗ with the batch of proposals. We'll come

1:42:16 ↗ here through April. We need to have the

1:42:18 ↗ public hearing in April by the by the

1:42:21 ↗ end of April to make sure that this

1:42:22 ↗ count gets through council in June for

1:42:25 ↗ council action.

1:42:28 ↗ So any questions on the process or

1:42:30 ↗ what's coming to you?

1:42:33 ↗ Okay. All right. Then I am going to hand

1:42:35 ↗ it over to Andrew Love, our um one of

1:42:38 ↗ our associate planners.

1:42:42 ↗ >> It's acting up.

1:42:44 ↗ >> Oh, is it?

1:42:44 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:42:45 ↗ >> Hello. Uh my name is Andrew Love. I'm a

1:42:48 ↗ relatively new associate planner with

1:42:49 ↗ the city of Isiqua. Very happy to be

1:42:51 ↗ here and um meet all of you. I've been

1:42:54 ↗ here for almost six months now. So

1:42:56 ↗ pretty exciting. Um sign code not quite

1:42:59 ↗ as exciting as the last uh discussion,

1:43:03 ↗ but uh I will do my best. So uh so there

1:43:07 ↗ were a total of three kind of more minor

1:43:11 ↗ housekeeping items related to the sign

1:43:13 ↗ code that we identified. I do want to uh

1:43:16 ↗ before I dive into the proposed

1:43:19 ↗ amendments, I do want to acknowledge

1:43:20 ↗ that um some people on the staff have

1:43:23 ↗ felt that the sign code really needs a

1:43:26 ↗ more of an overhaul. But um right now

1:43:28 ↗ this is just kind of focusing on um what

1:43:30 ↗ temporary fixes may uh may we need um

1:43:33 ↗ while we kind of strategize and you know

1:43:35 ↗ it's kind of up to council as well. uh

1:43:38 ↗ because as you may know there's always

1:43:40 ↗ so many different code amendments that

1:43:42 ↗ are required and kind of trying to fit

1:43:45 ↗ in an overhaul of the sign code is um I

1:43:48 ↗ find that a lot of communities find it

1:43:50 ↗ challenging because it it is a big lift

1:43:53 ↗ with you know questionable reward. So

1:43:57 ↗ let me just dive into the first one is

1:43:59 ↗ mostly related to well it is related to

1:44:02 ↗ balloons. though right now this was

1:44:05 ↗ brought up by the code enforcement

1:44:07 ↗ officer because uh it's a little unclear

1:44:09 ↗ as to what types of balloons or balloon

1:44:12 ↗ like objects are prohibited in the city.

1:44:15 ↗ So the currentit

1:44:18 ↗ large inflatable objects uh things that

1:44:21 ↗ that could uh be considered is perhaps a

1:44:24 ↗ giant inflatable elephant on top of a

1:44:27 ↗ car wash or one of those like wacky, you

1:44:30 ↗ know, armwaving things that could be

1:44:32 ↗ distracting to motorists.

1:44:34 ↗ the and then a separate section of the

1:44:37 ↗ prohibited signs uh code is prohibits

1:44:41 ↗ balloons although it only states myar

1:44:44 ↗ specifically.

1:44:46 ↗ So this amendment would um kind of be

1:44:50 ↗ more

1:44:52 ↗ it would more clearly restrict um

1:44:54 ↗ different types of balloons or

1:44:56 ↗ balloon-like objects because they find u

1:44:59 ↗ the things that you can see on the

1:45:00 ↗ screen. They're they look like balloons,

1:45:03 ↗ but they are I guess technically

1:45:08 ↗ not be considered balloons depending on

1:45:10 ↗ um who you may ask. And

1:45:15 ↗ really more than for the aesthetic

1:45:17 ↗ purposes, the objects like these could

1:45:19 ↗ result in obscuring um the vision of

1:45:21 ↗ motorists, which is uh I think the main

1:45:24 ↗ reason why it was brought to our

1:45:25 ↗ attention um by the code enforcement

1:45:27 ↗ officer.

1:45:32 ↗ Um the second uh Oh yeah, we can do

1:45:35 ↗ that. Yeah.

1:45:37 ↗ >> Yeah, I'm good with that.

1:45:39 ↗ >> Yeah. Do you want to do it one by one?

1:45:41 ↗ >> Sure.

1:45:41 ↗ >> One by one.

1:45:42 ↗ >> I'm happy to take questions or

1:45:45 ↗ >> Commissioner Craftoon

1:45:48 ↗ go without all that was about.

1:45:51 ↗ >> I've been waiting all night for the

1:45:53 ↗ balloon. No, I think it's kind of cool.

1:45:55 ↗ The myar thing I I understand because it

1:45:57 ↗ gets caught up in power lines and that's

1:45:59 ↗ a big issue. So I understand why those

1:46:01 ↗ have been banned. Um the only question I

1:46:04 ↗ have on this is is this really a

1:46:06 ↗ problem? Um going back to the is like

1:46:10 ↗ one person saw it could be a problem but

1:46:12 ↗ is this ever shown to really be a

1:46:13 ↗ problem that needs to be addressed? Do

1:46:15 ↗ we think understand myar because it

1:46:17 ↗ causes power issues. Um, but if these

1:46:21 ↗ don't fly away, they're just I mean

1:46:23 ↗ essentially

1:46:25 ↗ balloon like objects or so. So So I'm

1:46:28 ↗ just curious if we've if we've actually

1:46:30 ↗ had an accident or any other thing

1:46:32 ↗ that's ever happened because of these

1:46:33 ↗ things that would warrant us to want to

1:46:35 ↗ address it.

1:46:36 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you for your question. It's

1:46:38 ↗ not something that I have heard. Um, and

1:46:41 ↗ I also to preface this, um, she is in

1:46:44 ↗ our department, but I don't have as much

1:46:47 ↗ crossover with the code enforcement

1:46:48 ↗ officer. Um, I do know that they find

1:46:52 ↗ that she finds uh numerous examples of

1:46:55 ↗ balloons being tied to sandwich boards

1:46:57 ↗ and um and examples like you can see on

1:47:00 ↗ the screen. Um, as far as whether or not

1:47:04 ↗ they are a problem is, I guess,

1:47:08 ↗ subjective. Uh, I know some cities they

1:47:11 ↗ do make exceptions for having balloons

1:47:14 ↗ say in residential areas. Um that's

1:47:17 ↗ something that you know is important to

1:47:19 ↗ consider too. Uh people having um

1:47:23 ↗ balloons for uh special events like

1:47:25 ↗ graduation. Um so I think um

1:47:31 ↗ I can say that it seems as if the city

1:47:34 ↗ lately has been strict about not

1:47:37 ↗ allowing balloons. So if we wanted to

1:47:40 ↗ continue down that route, then this

1:47:42 ↗ proposed amendment would do that. um if

1:47:45 ↗ we wanted to steer another direction,

1:47:47 ↗ I'm also happy to entertain um any idea

1:47:51 ↗ like that.

1:47:54 ↗ >> Commissioner Zacharov,

1:47:56 ↗ >> thank you. So, are we talking uh only

1:47:58 ↗ about balloons that are closer to the

1:48:00 ↗ road or any balloons anywhere?

1:48:05 ↗ >> The proposed amendment, I don't have it

1:48:08 ↗ in front of me right now. I apologize,

1:48:10 ↗ but it is it does specifically say that

1:48:12 ↗ it if it is interfering with the line of

1:48:16 ↗ sight um that is causing some sort of

1:48:19 ↗ vision disturbance uh for vehicles um is

1:48:23 ↗ should be in one of the exhibits.

1:48:26 ↗ >> So in the rideway

1:48:28 ↗ >> not necessarily it could even actually

1:48:30 ↗ be outside of it.

1:48:32 ↗ >> Interesting.

1:48:33 ↗ >> Can I follow up

1:48:34 ↗ >> please? Um, okay. So, and if we're like

1:48:38 ↗ if we're talking about those that are

1:48:39 ↗ like on the right of way or can distract

1:48:41 ↗ the driver, do we have any data on the

1:48:44 ↗ number of road accidents that happen

1:48:47 ↗ because of balloons specifically? Like,

1:48:51 ↗ >> not that I'm aware of. No.

1:48:53 ↗ >> So then I would also agree with

1:48:55 ↗ Commissioner Cross as like why is that a

1:48:57 ↗ problem? And my other thing is even if

1:49:00 ↗ we are enforcing something closer to the

1:49:02 ↗ road because it distracts drivers, we

1:49:05 ↗ need to have we need to establish a

1:49:08 ↗ distance that it needs to be away from

1:49:09 ↗ the road. It cannot be just this broad

1:49:11 ↗ kind of thing broad phrase that uh in a

1:49:15 ↗ like on a on a right of way or in like

1:49:18 ↗ can distract cuz what can distract one

1:49:21 ↗ person will not distract the other

1:49:23 ↗ person. So yeah, so we need to establish

1:49:25 ↗ a distance and I don't think it should

1:49:28 ↗ be enforced anywhere.

1:49:30 ↗ Well, maybe closer to the road, maybe if

1:49:33 ↗ we had accidents, but if it's not closer

1:49:37 ↗ to the road, so I I don't think we have

1:49:39 ↗ any right to do that.

1:49:40 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. And

1:49:42 ↗ >> I I feel like Vice Chair Patterson is uh

1:49:45 ↗ doing some research right now over here

1:49:47 ↗ on his phone. Um I I Kristen, remind me

1:49:50 ↗ if I'm wrong. I believe the sign code

1:49:52 ↗ kind of does that, right? It's all about

1:49:54 ↗ distances and feet. I mean, it's not

1:49:56 ↗ like we're talking about in a park where

1:50:00 ↗ somebody's having a party. We're not

1:50:01 ↗ talking about balloons out there in the

1:50:03 ↗ back 40. This is mostly for, to Andrew's

1:50:06 ↗ point,

1:50:07 ↗ >> it would be closer to the rideway to

1:50:09 ↗ anything that's going to distract, you

1:50:11 ↗ know, somebody's riding their bike down

1:50:12 ↗ the street and the balloons blow in

1:50:13 ↗ front of their faces and, you know, or a

1:50:16 ↗ car, you know, turns right and didn't

1:50:18 ↗ realize that they're left and didn't

1:50:19 ↗ realize there was a car there cuz they

1:50:20 ↗ couldn't see past the balloons. But this

1:50:22 ↗ is absolutely something that we can go

1:50:24 ↗ back and talk with our code enforcement

1:50:26 ↗ officer just to get a better idea of. I

1:50:29 ↗ mean, she doesn't she doesn't ask for

1:50:30 ↗ changes lightly. So, um, we can

1:50:32 ↗ certainly go back and talk to her and

1:50:34 ↗ see get more information about how many

1:50:36 ↗ how many incidents have there been and

1:50:38 ↗ how many complaints have there been and

1:50:39 ↗ where have those balloons been located

1:50:42 ↗ um when these complaints have taken

1:50:44 ↗ place.

1:50:44 ↗ >> Yeah, that might be a great place to

1:50:45 ↗ start.

1:50:46 ↗ >> Yeah, let me go to Commissioner Miller

1:50:48 ↗ Irwin first.

1:50:49 ↗ >> No, I I thank you very much, Kristen. I

1:50:51 ↗ appreciate that additional information.

1:50:53 ↗ I my uh first inclination was, is this a

1:50:56 ↗ solution looking for a problem? Um

1:50:59 ↗ metrics are always good. Um I think that

1:51:02 ↗ any well-intentioned uh um amendment uh

1:51:05 ↗ should be easily supported by uh metrics

1:51:09 ↗ on on this uh sort of issue. So thank

1:51:12 ↗ you

1:51:14 ↗ >> um Commissioner Krauss.

1:51:15 ↗ >> And I think it's I mean balloons is I

1:51:18 ↗ think the heart of it is we want to have

1:51:19 ↗ things that aren't distracting or

1:51:20 ↗ dangerous, right?

1:51:23 ↗ And balloons is one thing. I mean, so I

1:51:25 ↗ think it's we're going to be whackable

1:51:27 ↗ because then someone will take it down

1:51:28 ↗ and then they'll have flamingos and then

1:51:31 ↗ are we going to have a flamingo code? So

1:51:32 ↗ I think there's some type of as I mean

1:51:36 ↗ for code enforcement if things are

1:51:37 ↗ blocking views that make something

1:51:39 ↗ dangerous that is no matter whether it's

1:51:42 ↗ a balloon or a velvet Elvis that's up

1:51:44 ↗ there or or whatever. Um, I I think

1:51:48 ↗ that's really the point and whether we

1:51:50 ↗ have the right rules or not for that is

1:51:52 ↗ is the question and um that's all I have

1:51:57 ↗ to say. So I think it's really more

1:51:58 ↗ about that.

1:51:59 ↗ >> Uh, Vice Chair Patterson.

1:52:01 ↗ >> Yeah, I think Kristen and I are about to

1:52:02 ↗ do the same thing, but I I think there's

1:52:05 ↗ one important distinction here. Andrew,

1:52:06 ↗ for the record, this is the level of

1:52:08 ↗ detail we tend to get into, but there's

1:52:10 ↗ an important distinction here. Uh,

1:52:12 ↗ balloons are already in the code. It's

1:52:14 ↗ part of a the the code itself is

1:52:16 ↗ prohibited signs and it's strings of

1:52:18 ↗ pennants, ribbon streamer, spinners,

1:52:19 ↗ balloons. What's being changed here is

1:52:23 ↗ uh is uh it had originally said myar

1:52:26 ↗ balloons. So it it was almost too

1:52:28 ↗ specific and now it's being expanded to

1:52:31 ↗ say balloons in general or balloon like

1:52:34 ↗ structures or objects. Sorry.

1:52:38 ↗ >> Question is what's the reason?

1:52:40 ↗ Um well I think I mean the reason is

1:52:43 ↗ also being added. So the reason is uh

1:52:46 ↗ interfering with sight lines or creating

1:52:47 ↗ a safety hazard which in itself is broad

1:52:50 ↗ but that's the new part of the code is

1:52:51 ↗ it's saying it's removing myar to be

1:52:53 ↗ less specific and saying balloons are

1:52:55 ↗ balloonlike objects and saying because

1:52:56 ↗ there is a sighteline issue or a safety

1:52:58 ↗ issue and my I'm guessing that requires

1:53:01 ↗ someone to report on it. Meaning like if

1:53:02 ↗ you have a graduation party and you have

1:53:04 ↗ balloons on your mailbox, no one's

1:53:06 ↗ probably likely to report you. However,

1:53:08 ↗ if they're at the corner of your block

1:53:10 ↗ and you know somebody's trying to turn a

1:53:12 ↗ corner and they they can't get around,

1:53:14 ↗ then they call in and say, "Hey, city of

1:53:16 ↗ Isqua or cops or whatever, uh, I can't

1:53:18 ↗ see around this corner cuz there's a

1:53:19 ↗ big, you know, 40 balloon

1:53:22 ↗ uh up style house, you know, kind of

1:53:24 ↗ setup going on. Can you do something

1:53:26 ↗ about this?" So, that's my that would be

1:53:30 ↗ my interpretation of like what's

1:53:31 ↗ happening here. Um, and maybe why they

1:53:33 ↗ asked for that is is uh to do that.

1:53:37 ↗ And we were going the same direction I

1:53:39 ↗ was going.

1:53:39 ↗ >> I thought you were.

1:53:44 ↗ >> Okay. Um,

1:53:47 ↗ further discussion on balloons.

1:53:50 ↗ All right. No, I appreciate that, Vice

1:53:52 ↗ Chair Patterson. Um, so do you want to

1:53:54 ↗ sum it up? I guess bests

1:53:59 ↗ ultimately I think it's less about

1:54:00 ↗ including balloons and more about

1:54:02 ↗ expanding the definition of balloons.

1:54:04 ↗ So, it's going from myar balloons to

1:54:06 ↗ balloons in general. And then the reason

1:54:08 ↗ why is because all of those prohibited

1:54:10 ↗ objects can increase or interfere with

1:54:13 ↗ sight lines or or safety create safety

1:54:15 ↗ hazards.

1:54:16 ↗ >> Yeah. And I guess the only thing I would

1:54:17 ↗ say to add on to that is yeah, as as far

1:54:19 ↗ as Kristen mentioned, maybe take it back

1:54:21 ↗ to the enforcement officer and see if

1:54:23 ↗ she agrees with Vice Patterson uh

1:54:25 ↗ summary right there. And if that is what

1:54:27 ↗ she was looking for, I don't think

1:54:28 ↗ anybody here has a problem with that. I

1:54:30 ↗ personally hate the little guy that does

1:54:32 ↗ the thing. So I I think those are tacky.

1:54:35 ↗ I would hate to see those in Isiqua

1:54:36 ↗ myself. So I think we're good. Okay.

1:54:42 ↗ Okay. Thank you. Um the next one uh

1:54:45 ↗ second out of three uh this one is uh

1:54:49 ↗ regarding illumination with specifically

1:54:52 ↗ monument signs also known as ground

1:54:54 ↗ signs in some cities. So the description

1:54:57 ↗ of the changes uh right now it um

1:55:00 ↗ specifies that grandfathered monument

1:55:03 ↗ signs in central Isiqua, Isiqua

1:55:06 ↗ Highlands, Talis and the CBD zone uh may

1:55:11 ↗ keep interior illumination if replacing

1:55:13 ↗ a legally established non-conforming

1:55:16 ↗ sign. The reasons for the change would

1:55:19 ↗ be that the current monument sign

1:55:21 ↗ standards are a bit unclear when it

1:55:23 ↗ comes to uh legal non-conforming

1:55:26 ↗ interior illumination. Meaning um the

1:55:30 ↗ monument sign is in place and it was uh

1:55:35 ↗ approved under the previous code and now

1:55:37 ↗ we no longer allow interior illumination

1:55:40 ↗ of monument signs. Um, this would also

1:55:44 ↗ clarify standards um assisting with uh

1:55:48 ↗ or I'm sorry, this would clarify

1:55:50 ↗ standards to assist in addressing the

1:55:52 ↗ numerous instances where we do have

1:55:54 ↗ these signs still um all around central

1:55:57 ↗ Isiqua and the other neighborhoods.

1:56:00 ↗ So you can see that um a sign like and

1:56:04 ↗ these are not taken from the city. Uh

1:56:07 ↗ but you could see how something like the

1:56:09 ↗ sign in the middle would be kind of hard

1:56:11 ↗ to um be adequately illuminated without

1:56:15 ↗ using the interior illumination. Um

1:56:18 ↗ whereas some of the other signs they may

1:56:21 ↗ be able to get by with using exterior

1:56:24 ↗ illumination.

1:56:26 ↗ Some other considerations for this would

1:56:28 ↗ be that um multi-tenant signs like I

1:56:31 ↗ showed on the previous slide uh could

1:56:34 ↗ have challenges uh using other methods

1:56:36 ↗ of lighting um and there could be an

1:56:39 ↗ option to uh allow exemptions for

1:56:42 ↗ multi-tenant signs uh but

1:56:46 ↗ u but requiring monument signs uh for

1:56:50 ↗ single tenants to conform with the

1:56:52 ↗ lighting uh exterior lighting

1:56:54 ↗ requirement that is um in the code right

1:56:57 ↗ now.

1:57:01 ↗ >> Are we good?

1:57:02 ↗ >> Yep.

1:57:02 ↗ >> Okay. I saw Commissioner Matthews.

1:57:06 ↗ Um in your definition of replacement,

1:57:08 ↗ are you just talking about face

1:57:09 ↗ replacement? You're not actually talking

1:57:11 ↗ about they're changing a cabinet out.

1:57:14 ↗ So, say that they have five tenants, but

1:57:16 ↗ they're going to two, so they have to

1:57:18 ↗ replace the entire cabinet system. Is

1:57:21 ↗ that considered a replacement or is that

1:57:24 ↗ >> I mean

1:57:25 ↗ >> Right. Yeah, I see where you're going.

1:57:27 ↗ So, um this would be the proposed

1:57:33 ↗ amendment as it's currently written

1:57:35 ↗ would be for both the face of the sign

1:57:39 ↗ replacing for a different tenant for

1:57:40 ↗ example or if they were to reconstruct

1:57:43 ↗ the sign like for like

1:57:47 ↗ >> but certainly we can we could make

1:57:48 ↗ adjustments to it.

1:57:50 ↗ >> Okay.

1:57:52 ↗ Great question, Commissioner Zachro.

1:57:55 ↗ >> Thank you. So, the word affordability

1:57:58 ↗ comes another time. Um, this is actually

1:58:01 ↗ like signs in general are very

1:58:03 ↗ expensive, very expensive. So when if we

1:58:07 ↗ are requiring a uh and usually it's done

1:58:09 ↗ by the landlord if we're requiring a

1:58:11 ↗ landlord to refresh the whole sign it's

1:58:16 ↗ again it goes to the tenant and it like

1:58:20 ↗ I'm not sure how well signs are in tens

1:58:23 ↗ of thousands of dollars like this. Uh so

1:58:26 ↗ yeah I kind of like I think that the

1:58:29 ↗ sort of like grandfathered rule should

1:58:31 ↗ be in place. So if the sign already

1:58:33 ↗ exists in a certain way, it should

1:58:34 ↗ continue existing in a certain way. Uh

1:58:37 ↗ and if the new sign is built, well,

1:58:39 ↗ yeah, we can have any well, we can have

1:58:41 ↗ requirements cuz there's a choice there.

1:58:44 ↗ But with old signs, my position is it

1:58:47 ↗ has to stay as is. Thank you. And

1:58:51 ↗ Andrew, correct me if I'm wrong, but

1:58:52 ↗ this amendment is not requiring people

1:58:54 ↗ to change existing illumination. It's

1:58:57 ↗ just if they come in and they are

1:58:58 ↗ changing a sign.

1:59:00 ↗ We're not requiring signs that already

1:59:02 ↗ have illumination to go in and change

1:59:04 ↗ it. We're just So, it's only if they if

1:59:06 ↗ it's only if they are planning on

1:59:08 ↗ changing their sign. We're not requiring

1:59:10 ↗ anybody to go in and make changes.

1:59:13 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass.

1:59:14 ↗ >> So, is a new tenant considered changing

1:59:17 ↗ the sign or is that just changing the

1:59:20 ↗ information on the sign?

1:59:21 ↗ >> You'd be changing the monument, right?

1:59:22 ↗ It's that's just swapping out a slide.

1:59:24 ↗ So, as long as you're not changing out

1:59:26 ↗ the monument itself.

1:59:27 ↗ >> Well, I'm asking.

1:59:28 ↗ >> Yeah. Well, it's a good point because

1:59:30 ↗ the actually the picture on the left is

1:59:33 ↗ what brought this up. There wasn't a

1:59:35 ↗ there wasn't a question by the property

1:59:37 ↗ owner, but it was a question I had. Um,

1:59:40 ↗ what what do we consider? Because if the

1:59:42 ↗ code says we don't allow interior

1:59:45 ↗ illumination for new monument signs,

1:59:47 ↗ then is the change of the face from one

1:59:51 ↗ tenant to the other, is that considered

1:59:53 ↗ a change or not? Can they still use the

1:59:55 ↗ same method of interior illumination?

1:59:58 ↗ And I know it's kind of splitting hairs,

2:00:00 ↗ but I just um it was just something that

2:00:02 ↗ I noticed and it could be useful to have

2:00:05 ↗ a clear answer um especially since you

2:00:08 ↗ also have similar the similar question

2:00:11 ↗ of what does what constitutes as a

2:00:14 ↗ change?

2:00:16 ↗ >> Yeah, good point. Did you want to follow

2:00:17 ↗ that up? Did you want to follow that up?

2:00:20 ↗ >> I mean, I think it's it's I think he

2:00:22 ↗ just re reiterated it's a question.

2:00:25 ↗ like G.I. Joe's

2:00:28 ↗ changes to Dick Sporting Goods. Same

2:00:30 ↗ square sign. They just change the the

2:00:32 ↗ illuminate. I'm just making this one up

2:00:33 ↗ because that's the change. Is that a

2:00:36 ↗ different sign? So, they have to or is

2:00:37 ↗ that just a name plate change? So,

2:00:38 ↗ understanding what the what what the it

2:00:41 ↗ is

2:00:42 ↗ >> um kind of defines it's a big no.

2:00:46 ↗ >> Would that be fair to say the structure

2:00:47 ↗ itself? I mean,

2:00:50 ↗ >> right. So could that particular person

2:00:53 ↗ on the left if they were to maybe take

2:00:56 ↗ the top part off but kept the square? I

2:00:59 ↗ mean I guess that's what Andrew is

2:01:00 ↗ asking is you know um there could be an

2:01:02 ↗ option to

2:01:03 ↗ >> that one's a little hard. That one's in

2:01:04 ↗ the middle, right? That was talking

2:01:05 ↗ about like you have a square sign that's

2:01:07 ↗ a monument. It's it's lit. Different

2:01:09 ↗ tenant. Same square. Different one in

2:01:12 ↗ there.

2:01:13 ↗ >> Is that a new sign or just same sign but

2:01:15 ↗ with it?

2:01:16 ↗ >> That's what I That's what I want to

2:01:18 ↗ confir.

2:01:20 ↗ So it so not to um

2:01:24 ↗ what I'm hearing is that um it might be

2:01:26 ↗ there might be a

2:01:29 ↗ a greater appetite for allowing this uh

2:01:32 ↗ grandfathered situation for just simply

2:01:35 ↗ like kind of face changes to the sign.

2:01:39 ↗ Whereas if you were to reconstruct uh

2:01:41 ↗ the sign then you would have to conform

2:01:43 ↗ with the new standards.

2:01:46 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

2:01:48 ↗ >> I think it might be easier to just

2:01:49 ↗ modify the language a bit so that if

2:01:52 ↗ you're doing a full structural change so

2:01:54 ↗ that you take everything off the

2:01:55 ↗ foundation, then then you would have to

2:01:58 ↗ go with external illumination. But if

2:02:00 ↗ you're changing the cabinet cuz somebody

2:02:01 ↗ could crash into your sign and then you

2:02:03 ↗ have a dent that you have to replace

2:02:04 ↗ that cabinet, that may just be, you

2:02:07 ↗ know, like for like replacement on a

2:02:09 ↗ grandfathered sign cuz you're not

2:02:12 ↗ changing the entire structure. So I

2:02:14 ↗ think maybe just how the language is

2:02:16 ↗ stated on replacement

2:02:18 ↗ um it might simplify for everybody else

2:02:21 ↗ like a face change, internal lighting

2:02:23 ↗ change to LED or you know that those

2:02:26 ↗ type of things might help simplify the

2:02:28 ↗ language a bit so it's not confusing.

2:02:32 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah. So what I'm hearing is um

2:02:34 ↗ greater specificity for what exactly it

2:02:38 ↗ means with um you know

2:02:41 ↗ keeping the nonconformity. Um uh total

2:02:45 ↗ replacement may not warrant the keeping

2:02:48 ↗ the internal elimination. Uh but

2:02:51 ↗ something simple like um repairing after

2:02:54 ↗ you know uh damage or uh new tenant um

2:02:59 ↗ just changing out the face of the sign

2:03:01 ↗ would be acceptable to keep the the

2:03:03 ↗ interior illumination.

2:03:07 ↗ Uh any other questions for this one?

2:03:13 ↗ >> Anything?

2:03:14 ↗ >> Okay. So sounds like some more um word

2:03:18 ↗ smithing for that. Um but thank you for

2:03:19 ↗ your feedback. And then the last one is

2:03:22 ↗ uh kind of what I what I kind of see as

2:03:24 ↗ a win for new businesses is that right

2:03:27 ↗ now, believe it or not, the the sign

2:03:29 ↗ code um in its 101 pages um is not super

2:03:34 ↗ specific on um

2:03:37 ↗ uh new tenants or new businesses that

2:03:40 ↗ want to come to the city, they usually

2:03:43 ↗ will want to have something some sort of

2:03:45 ↗ graphics on their windows while it's

2:03:47 ↗ under construction. And while we do have

2:03:50 ↗ uh a route an avenue for having a

2:03:52 ↗ temporary sign agreement that is more

2:03:55 ↗ for geared towards businesses that are

2:03:58 ↗ open and want a temporary sign for up to

2:04:00 ↗ like 30 days for maybe a special event.

2:04:03 ↗ Whereas for this this that could be

2:04:06 ↗ under construction for longer than 30

2:04:07 ↗ days. So I saw the need to have a

2:04:12 ↗ um kind of very clear you um well at my

2:04:18 ↗ proposal is that it is just exempt from

2:04:21 ↗ needing a signed permit. So the business

2:04:23 ↗ owners I mean signs to your point are

2:04:25 ↗ expensive um especially with all the

2:04:28 ↗ inflation. So, this would give the

2:04:30 ↗ businesses permission to use

2:04:34 ↗ uh what we're calling uh temporary

2:04:36 ↗ window signs associated with

2:04:38 ↗ construction while they may be, for

2:04:41 ↗ example, working on um you know, hiring

2:04:44 ↗ a sign consultant or um saving up money

2:04:47 ↗ to for the permanent signs while they're

2:04:49 ↗ while the building is under

2:04:50 ↗ construction. Um, so

2:04:54 ↗ just to reiterate, the sign code does

2:04:56 ↗ not clearly exempt um, signs like this

2:04:59 ↗ from needing a permit. And the change

2:05:01 ↗ would make it easier for new businesses

2:05:03 ↗ to install these types of signs um, in

2:05:06 ↗ advance of uh, obtaining permits for

2:05:09 ↗ whatever permanent sign or signs they

2:05:11 ↗ may want.

2:05:15 ↗ Are there any questions or feedback

2:05:17 ↗ regarding this proposed item?

2:05:19 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Zachro.

2:05:21 ↗ Thank you. As you can imagine, I'm in

2:05:23 ↗ total agreement with this. Yes. Yeah.

2:05:26 ↗ So, any uh temporary sign uh for

2:05:29 ↗ whatever period of time because it

2:05:31 ↗ depends on a business. Some businesses

2:05:33 ↗ are open within a week. Some businesses

2:05:35 ↗ are open within a year. Um so, but any

2:05:39 ↗ temporary sign should be uh like the

2:05:42 ↗ right should be given to a business to

2:05:44 ↗ install it without any permit. That's my

2:05:47 ↗ opinion. Thank you. Any

2:05:52 ↗ other comments, opinions?

2:05:55 ↗ I I think Andrew, my only ask would that

2:05:59 ↗ would be that they're not tacky, right?

2:06:02 ↗ I don't want to see I don't want to see

2:06:04 ↗ like, you know, high school car wash

2:06:06 ↗ type sign up for two weeks, two months.

2:06:09 ↗ These all three of these examples work

2:06:10 ↗ for me. Um, just not tacky, right?

2:06:14 ↗ Because it it could hurt businesses are

2:06:16 ↗ next to it. I mean again I think that

2:06:18 ↗ would be my only ask.

2:06:21 ↗ >> What's that?

2:06:23 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean I guess you have to define

2:06:24 ↗ tacky for us but uh

2:06:26 ↗ >> driven as a face of the business,

2:06:28 ↗ >> right? But I mean again that the one

2:06:30 ↗ from the Apple store I mean again all

2:06:32 ↗ three of them those look great. I again

2:06:34 ↗ just want to avoid like high school

2:06:36 ↗ signs with magic marker stuff like that.

2:06:40 ↗ That would be my ask.

2:06:41 ↗ >> So no handwritten signs.

2:06:42 ↗ >> No not really into the handwritten signs

2:06:44 ↗ with the bubble letters and stuff like

2:06:45 ↗ that. No. No. Not at all.

2:06:47 ↗ >> So tacky is kind of subjective, right?

2:06:51 ↗ >> Sure.

2:06:52 ↗ >> Um but uh but I think that's a great

2:06:55 ↗ idea to specify that they are um you

2:06:59 ↗ know professional signs rather than

2:07:02 ↗ handwritten. Um but just to be clear,

2:07:06 ↗ the the methods of obscuring the

2:07:10 ↗ construction, um for example, the middle

2:07:13 ↗ image shows paper being used to obscure

2:07:17 ↗ the construction. So um is that

2:07:19 ↗ something that would be acceptable to

2:07:23 ↗ CPC?

2:07:24 ↗ >> Any thoughts on that? I I mean I'd

2:07:27 ↗ prefer the one on the left. I prefer the

2:07:29 ↗ one on the right, but you know, again, I

2:07:31 ↗ I don't want to make this difficult for

2:07:32 ↗ people that are are under the building

2:07:34 ↗ process. I mean, again, the one in the

2:07:35 ↗ middle works. That doesn't really bother

2:07:38 ↗ me. Commissioner Zacharov,

2:07:40 ↗ >> thank you. Well, as someone who again

2:07:43 ↗ knows exactly like I'm looking at this

2:07:45 ↗ window, I know how much they cost. Um

2:07:48 ↗ to me just covering the window with

2:07:51 ↗ paper any kind of material is actually

2:07:54 ↗ it's important because sometimes when

2:07:56 ↗ there is a construction there's some

2:07:58 ↗ equipment inside and you don't want

2:08:01 ↗ people to come in the middle of the

2:08:02 ↗ night and take it away from you. There

2:08:04 ↗ are some people like that too sometimes.

2:08:06 ↗ So uh I think that is permissible and

2:08:09 ↗ again you know any business when they

2:08:12 ↗ build even while they built especially

2:08:14 ↗ if that's a front street they are

2:08:16 ↗ thinking that their customers are

2:08:18 ↗ walking around and they're thinking that

2:08:20 ↗ they already kind of like trying to

2:08:22 ↗ express themselves and bring new

2:08:24 ↗ customers to their business once they

2:08:26 ↗ are done building it. uh and they want

2:08:29 ↗ people to expect something good, right?

2:08:32 ↗ So, it's in an it's definitely in the

2:08:35 ↗ interest in the best interest of any

2:08:36 ↗ business to look nice even while you're

2:08:39 ↗ in a construction kind of period. Uh

2:08:43 ↗ yeah, I've been there several times. So,

2:08:45 ↗ yeah, I can say that that's should not

2:08:48 ↗ be a problem. And yes, businesses will

2:08:52 ↗ do everything in their power to uh make

2:08:55 ↗ it like as cost-saving as possible at

2:08:57 ↗ the very same time um to present

2:09:00 ↗ themselves as good as possible. So I

2:09:02 ↗ think it's market driven and we should

2:09:04 ↗ kind of like let it go with with the

2:09:06 ↗ business owner.

2:09:08 ↗ >> Thank you,

2:09:09 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

2:09:10 ↗ >> So how about if as long as they can

2:09:12 ↗ obscure the window with paper, but as

2:09:14 ↗ long as it's neat. So say that there

2:09:17 ↗ somebody drops something and rips the

2:09:18 ↗ paper. Don't just leave it all tattered.

2:09:21 ↗ So just neat and pres presentable during

2:09:24 ↗ the duration of construction might be a

2:09:27 ↗ way to put it.

2:09:30 ↗ >> Commissioner.

2:09:31 ↗ >> Yeah, that was pretty much what I was

2:09:32 ↗ going to s say that, you know, the the

2:09:34 ↗ signs should be durable uh and replaced

2:09:37 ↗ if damaged.

2:09:40 ↗ >> Yeah, I I Yes. I mean, the one thing I

2:09:45 ↗ would say is I'm glad Commissioner

2:09:46 ↗ Zacharov brought up Front Street. There

2:09:48 ↗ were two

2:09:50 ↗ residents that moved in probably uh in

2:09:53 ↗ the last year and a half and I think you

2:09:55 ↗ know some of them use like the the foam

2:09:57 ↗ spray paint and stuff like that. I

2:10:00 ↗ here's where I actually kind of think

2:10:02 ↗ yeah we could probably tighten this up a

2:10:03 ↗ little. So again um for what it's worth

2:10:07 ↗ I I think you heard our comments. My

2:10:09 ↗ mind would be to actually see stuff more

2:10:12 ↗ like this that's more inviting. Again I

2:10:14 ↗ don't think the cost is a whole lot. I'm

2:10:17 ↗ trying to avoid, like I said, the the

2:10:18 ↗ the foam spray paint and and things like

2:10:20 ↗ this. And I think both of the ones that

2:10:22 ↗ I'm thinking about actually did use,

2:10:26 ↗ you know, color board that you get at

2:10:28 ↗ Michaels and like I said, that weird

2:10:30 ↗ foam. So anyway, I I think that could be

2:10:33 ↗ done a little bit better myself.

2:10:37 ↗ Any other comments as far as the uh

2:10:39 ↗ temporary window signs?

2:10:41 ↗ >> Sparkles.

2:10:42 ↗ >> No sparkles. No sparkles. And just to

2:10:46 ↗ just to um be clear, this is for the the

2:10:50 ↗ case. Basically, this would have they

2:10:52 ↗ would have to be taken down before

2:10:53 ↗ business opens. And if the business

2:10:55 ↗ wanted a an act like a window sign

2:10:58 ↗ that's permanent, um they would still

2:11:00 ↗ have to apply for all like you can apply

2:11:03 ↗ for a signed permit but have multiple

2:11:06 ↗ signs in the permit. So that would be

2:11:08 ↗ reviewed um against the sign code for

2:11:10 ↗ when the business opens.

2:11:12 ↗ >> Right. to your point, this is literally

2:11:14 ↗ just the temporary ones.

2:11:15 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:11:15 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. I think we're all in

2:11:17 ↗ agreement.

2:11:17 ↗ >> Yeah.

2:11:18 ↗ >> On that part.

2:11:20 ↗ >> Okay.

2:11:21 ↗ >> Okay. Well, Andrew, did uh Pleasure to

2:11:23 ↗ meet you. Um looking forward to working

2:11:25 ↗ with you in the future. Did you get

2:11:27 ↗ everything that you needed?

2:11:28 ↗ >> Yeah, thank you so much. Um I'm hap

2:11:31 ↗ happy to take any additional questions

2:11:33 ↗ or

2:11:35 ↗ feedback.

2:11:36 ↗ >> Commissioners, anything else for Andrew

2:11:38 ↗ before we cut them loose?

2:11:41 ↗ >> All right. hearing none. I will um step

2:11:43 ↗ aside. Thank you so much. It's uh it was

2:11:45 ↗ a pleasure meeting all of you.

2:11:47 ↗ >> I'll see you around.

2:11:48 ↗ >> Thank you, Andrew.

2:11:50 ↗ >> Okay, that takes care of regular

2:11:53 ↗ business for this evening.

2:11:55 ↗ Um

2:11:57 ↗ we're going to move into the last parts

2:11:59 ↗ and we're looking for reports. Kristen,

2:12:05 ↗ city council updates.

2:12:06 ↗ >> City Council updates. You'll recall last

2:12:09 ↗ time we met, we talked about uh traffic

2:12:13 ↗ fee waivers for early learning

2:12:16 ↗ facilities

2:12:17 ↗ and we you all recommended doing 80%

2:12:21 ↗ traffic impact fee waivers for those

2:12:23 ↗ facilities. We took them to planning

2:12:25 ↗ development and environment committee I

2:12:28 ↗ don't know a few weeks ago and they

2:12:30 ↗ actually are recommending to do both 80%

2:12:32 ↗ fee waivers and 100% waivers and the

2:12:35 ↗ 100% fee waivers of course come with

2:12:37 ↗ conditions that 25% of the enrolled

2:12:40 ↗ students and families must be eligible

2:12:41 ↗ for state subsidies and that if at any

2:12:44 ↗ time during that year they fall below

2:12:45 ↗ that 25% they are required to pay 20% of

2:12:48 ↗ the waved impact fee back to the city

2:12:50 ↗ within 90 days. So that is what the

2:12:54 ↗ council is recommending. We will see

2:12:56 ↗ what happens on that goes back on March

2:12:57 ↗ 2nd, so next Monday.

2:13:01 ↗ Okay. Thought I saw questions. Okay. Um

2:13:04 ↗ that's that's all I have for council

2:13:06 ↗ right now. Of course, I'm going to

2:13:07 ↗ remind you one more time that on March

2:13:09 ↗ 9th, we're going back to council for

2:13:11 ↗ what is now called investing in building

2:13:14 ↗ development or something like that. Um

2:13:16 ↗ it was uh removing barriers to

2:13:18 ↗ development. Now, it's investing in

2:13:20 ↗ building development on the 9th to talk

2:13:22 ↗ about what our work program will be, but

2:13:24 ↗ we're coming forward with several

2:13:25 ↗ recommendations about what we're going

2:13:27 ↗ to do. Um, that's all the those are all

2:13:30 ↗ the council.

2:13:32 ↗ >> Uh, okay. Then, how about just any

2:13:36 ↗ updates, staff updates, city updates? We

2:13:38 ↗ had a big uh I saw Vice Chair Patterson

2:13:42 ↗ the other night. We had a lot of people

2:13:44 ↗ in this room for uh a very exciting

2:13:46 ↗ event that I believe the mayor and

2:13:49 ↗ >> our very own Thomas Valdz

2:13:52 ↗ >> um and a couple others were hosting on

2:13:54 ↗ light rail. Maybe that's part of the

2:13:55 ↗ update.

2:13:56 ↗ >> Heard it was huge.

2:13:57 ↗ >> It was a big turn. I mean Jesse was up

2:13:59 ↗ on the stairwell.

2:14:01 ↗ >> I mean I I I got there like 529 and

2:14:04 ↗ there's standing room only.

2:14:06 ↗ >> Right. This place was packed. Thomas was

2:14:08 ↗ over here, I guess, against this wall.

2:14:10 ↗ And all of a sudden, he sees this just

2:14:12 ↗ hand reaching around the corner going,

2:14:14 ↗ "Hello, I have a question." So, it was

2:14:16 ↗ it was pretty crowded. Um,

2:14:18 ↗ >> and Katya was here, too. Kati was also

2:14:20 ↗ >> Yeah, raise your Who was?

2:14:21 ↗ >> She got great seating.

2:14:22 ↗ >> She was next to the former mayor.

2:14:24 ↗ >> Who who was there that night?

2:14:26 ↗ >> The three of you. Okay, great. That's

2:14:28 ↗ great. Um, I just wanted to say great

2:14:31 ↗ conversation tonight. Thank you for

2:14:32 ↗ sticking around for um all of it. I

2:14:34 ↗ mean, not like you had a choice, but

2:14:35 ↗ thank you.

2:14:37 ↗ But it was it was a good conversation

2:14:39 ↗ and I think I think all of us uh Stacy

2:14:41 ↗ and Andrew got some good feedback

2:14:43 ↗ tonight. And lastly, you all are really

2:14:45 ↗ good at this, but just one last

2:14:46 ↗ reminder, if you are if you know that

2:14:49 ↗ you're going to be away, try and let us

2:14:51 ↗ know at least a week before because

2:14:52 ↗ that's when we get our packets out and

2:14:54 ↗ we'd like to know. We want to be sure

2:14:55 ↗ that we have a quorum. So, it just I

2:14:58 ↗ know things come up, but if you're able

2:14:59 ↗ to do that, that would be very helpful.

2:15:00 ↗ Thank you. Yes.

2:15:03 ↗ Um should we talk a little bit about the

2:15:05 ↗ light link quickly

2:15:06 ↗ >> about the light

2:15:07 ↗ >> just uh the light link and the thing

2:15:10 ↗ that we have around it just to remind

2:15:12 ↗ people to that we have the program to

2:15:14 ↗ save the link and to use the camera time

2:15:18 ↗ for that and that um the CT website

2:15:21 ↗ right now has the information that you

2:15:24 ↗ can kind of look into and uh you can

2:15:27 ↗ just Google the light link is safe light

2:15:30 ↗ link uh CTF Visiqua and you will go to

2:15:33 ↗ the website with the meeting and it has

2:15:36 ↗ all of the links where you can submit

2:15:38 ↗ your public testimony or just send an

2:15:41 ↗ email and everybody's talking about this

2:15:44 ↗ now and this is very important even

2:15:46 ↗ though we are expecting a link in 2044.

2:15:50 ↗ It's the preparation is now the time is

2:15:53 ↗ now and the South Sun transit board will

2:15:56 ↗ be discussing this in March. So by March

2:15:59 ↗ they have to make sure that we are as a

2:16:03 ↗ school residents that we are very

2:16:05 ↗ interested in having a link in the city.

2:16:07 ↗ This is extremely important cuz they're

2:16:10 ↗ really looking into kind of eliminating

2:16:12 ↗ us there. So we should make sure that

2:16:15 ↗ they are not eliminating us and if you

2:16:17 ↗ didn't check check on uh Mayor Mullet

2:16:20 ↗ information he is like the council is

2:16:23 ↗ now really discussing how to make it

2:16:25 ↗ more affordable even for Sound Transit

2:16:27 ↗ to partner with Sound Transit. So, it's

2:16:28 ↗ a big deal.

2:16:30 ↗ >> And so, thank you for doing that. And

2:16:32 ↗ and Mayor Mullet and council members

2:16:35 ↗ Jiang and Nichols

2:16:37 ↗ >> uh joined together to write an article

2:16:39 ↗ in the urbanist about Sound Light Rail

2:16:42 ↗ here in Isiqua and us and how much we

2:16:45 ↗ want to have it. So, it would be an

2:16:46 ↗ interesting article for you all to

2:16:48 ↗ Google and and take a look.

2:16:51 ↗ >> That's Yeah, I actually read it the

2:16:52 ↗ other day. Great article. Um, I guess

2:16:55 ↗ that's fair since I stole Katya's

2:16:57 ↗ thunder because I the next thing on my

2:16:59 ↗ list was other businesses and

2:17:00 ↗ announcements. So, Commissioner Oler.

2:17:02 ↗ >> Well, just to to piggyback on that,

2:17:04 ↗ Thomas was kind enough to send out a

2:17:06 ↗ couple of uh suggested texts

2:17:09 ↗ >> to send to the Sound Transit board. Um,

2:17:11 ↗ and I I did send a letter to them. So, I

2:17:14 ↗ I would encourage others to do the same.

2:17:16 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think Mayor Mullet that

2:17:18 ↗ evening also said that the form letters

2:17:20 ↗ are not as good as your own personal

2:17:22 ↗ handwritten letters. So again, stick

2:17:24 ↗ stay away from the form letters. Um, not

2:17:26 ↗ that they're not helpful, but the the

2:17:28 ↗ other ones that actually move the needle

2:17:29 ↗ or when you guys write, even if it's

2:17:32 ↗ brief, it it's more impactful when it's

2:17:34 ↗ your actual language. So that was

2:17:36 ↗ something I learned. Um, so yeah.

2:17:40 ↗ How about any other B? Great plug. Thank

2:17:42 ↗ you, Commissioner Zacharov. Um, any

2:17:44 ↗ other business or announcements?

2:17:47 ↗ >> A quick question.

2:17:48 ↗ >> Yeah, please.

2:17:48 ↗ >> Uh, Kristen, anything on the Pioneer

2:17:50 ↗ plan lately or Pioneer project? I just

2:17:52 ↗ >> nothing. There was there was a project

2:17:55 ↗ that we were discussing and they backed

2:17:57 ↗ out. So no

2:18:00 ↗ >> bummer. Bummer.

2:18:04 ↗ Okay. Um let's talk schedule. Upcoming

2:18:08 ↗ PPC schedule.

2:18:11 ↗ >> It it seems a little empty right now,

2:18:13 ↗ but it won't be. Um so

2:18:18 ↗ what what did they say in the movie?

2:18:19 ↗ Gird your loins. I think that's what it

2:18:22 ↗ is. We're getting getting ready to go.

2:18:24 ↗ Yes.

2:18:25 ↗ >> All right. Just getting warmed up. Um

2:18:28 ↗ All right. Well, again, thank you

2:18:29 ↗ everybody for a great evening. Any other

2:18:32 ↗ final comments? Anything for the good of

2:18:34 ↗ the order, the commission, for the city.

2:18:39 ↗ Okay. Well, you all have a great evening

2:18:42 ↗ and we will adjourn this meeting of the

2:18:43 ↗ planning policy commission at 8:49 p.m.

2:18:47 ↗ Thank you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Andrew Love, Associate Planner Stacy Vynne-McKinstry, Sustainability Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of January 22, 2026 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3

Recommendations & actions (3)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of January 22, 2026 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved.
Vynne-McKinstry replied that when purchased from an authorized retailer, there is a very low likelihood of any fire issues, but that the concern is regarding purchases online or self-building being more at risk.
COMMISSIONER KRASS asked if there is a reason energy auditing stopped and Vynne-McKinstry replied that timing was during the Pandemic, and that now a consultation with an energy advisor can be requested but is not the…