Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, March 26, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 12, 2026

packet pp.3–7

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, March 12, 2026

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Title 18 Clarifying Amendments: Residential Use Definitions and Day Care Standards (D)

Yeyi Chen, Associate Planner · packet pp.9–16

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 2, 2026

▶ Watch from 13:54 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

On March 26, staff will brief the PPC on the third and final package of Clarifying Code Amendments identified as part of the CPD Department’s annual “housekeeping” updates to the Title 18, Land Use Code. Amendments to be discussed include proposed changes to residential definitions and day care center standards.

Promoting Building Investment In Issaquah: 2026-2027 Work Plan (D)

Christen Leeson, Principal Planner · packet pp.17–31

▶ Watch from 18:54 Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the March 26, 2026 meeting is to review and discuss the 2026-2027 Work Plan with the Planning Policy Commission (PPC).

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.33–35

Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

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

1207 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ All right, good evening everybody. Thank

0:14 ↗ you for joining us on this sunny

0:15 ↗ Thursday. I would like to call the March

0:18 ↗ 26 Planning Policy Commission meeting to

0:20 ↗ order at 6:32 p.m. Today's meeting is a

0:24 ↗ hybrid meeting. The planning policy

0:26 ↗ commission is in person, but staff or

0:28 ↗ members of the public may be attending

0:30 ↗ virtually or in person. Staff, do we

0:33 ↗ have a quorum this evening?

0:35 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:38 ↗ >> Excellent. We will now move on to

0:40 ↗ minutes. Uh in our packet, we had our

0:43 ↗ first item of business night, which is

0:44 ↗ approval of our minutes. Uh we want to

0:47 ↗ take action to approve them from the

0:49 ↗ March 12th PPC meeting.

0:52 ↗ Uh PPC, are there any corrections to the

0:55 ↗ minutes from the March 12th meeting?

0:58 ↗ Head shakes. All right?

1:01 ↗ Hearing none, the minutes are approved.

1:04 ↗ We will get into our next item of

1:06 ↗ business, which is public comment. Uh

1:08 ↗ for this meeting, we're holding general

1:10 ↗ public comment at this time for all

1:13 ↗ general topics uh being discussed by the

1:15 ↗ commission. Staff, has anybody signed up

1:17 ↗ to make public comment?

1:20 ↗ >> No, they have not.

1:22 ↗ All right, then I will skip our

1:25 ↗ guidelines for that for now and we will

1:28 ↗ move on to our next item on the agenda,

1:31 ↗ uh, which will be our title 18

1:32 ↗ clarifying amendments for residential

1:34 ↗ use definitions and daycare standards.

1:38 ↗ Um, Kate Kaney, our principal planner,

1:40 ↗ and Yayi Chen, our associate planner,

1:43 ↗ will be presenting tonight. K and Yi,

1:45 ↗ please go ahead.

1:56 ↗ Hold on just one moment.

2:03 ↗ >> We're rolling right along with those uh

2:05 ↗ intros. So, [laughter]

2:07 ↗ sorry to put you on the spot so quickly.

2:23 ↗ the beach ball where it just keeps

2:24 ↗ rolling there. So, hold on one second.

2:26 ↗ I'm not sure why.

2:46 ↗ Sorry about that.

2:48 ↗ We just failed. So, give me just one

2:50 ↗ moment.

2:50 ↗ >> Yeah, no worries. In the meantime, I

2:52 ↗ might approach to tilt the TVR direction

2:54 ↗ a little bit if you don't mind.

3:58 ↗ Sorry about

4:00 ↗ everyone seeing the PowerPoint now.

4:02 ↗ Thank you. Um again, my name is Kate

4:04 ↗ Katy. I'm sorry for the delay. Um, I'm

4:07 ↗ the city's principal planner and I'm

4:09 ↗ here today uh with my colleague Y Chen

4:12 ↗ to uh continue the review of the

4:15 ↗ clarifying code amendments that the

4:17 ↗ commission has been reviewing over the

4:18 ↗ past few meetings.

4:20 ↗ Um, as always as you're listening to our

4:24 ↗ proposals, uh, these are some

4:26 ↗ considerations we have for you. Um, we

4:28 ↗ would like you to think of, you know,

4:29 ↗ what does the code say now? Are you

4:31 ↗ understanding that? Why are we proposing

4:33 ↗ the amendment? and are the proposed

4:35 ↗ changes clear? Um do you think any other

4:38 ↗ changes might be um helpful?

4:42 ↗ This slide gives you a sense of where we

4:44 ↗ are in this process of review. Um

4:46 ↗ tonight, March 26th, we are going

4:49 ↗ through the last um new briefing for

4:53 ↗ you. And tonight um once again, it's um

4:56 ↗ anformational briefing. It's your

4:58 ↗ opportunity to ask questions. There's no

5:00 ↗ action requested.

5:02 ↗ um the meeting following this um on the

5:05 ↗ 9th um of April, we will bring all of

5:08 ↗ the amendments back to you that you've

5:10 ↗ seen. Um some may have changed a little

5:12 ↗ bit. We will share that based on the

5:14 ↗ input we get from you or that we have

5:16 ↗ gotten from you. So now I am going to go

5:19 ↗ ahead and hand over the mic to Y Chen to

5:22 ↗ present the new proposal.

5:32 ↗ Good evening, commission. My name is Yi

5:34 ↗ Chen and I'm an associate planner of the

5:36 ↗ city and I'm here tonight with a couple

5:38 ↗ of simple and short code amendments for

5:41 ↗ you all. And please feel free to ask me

5:43 ↗ questions as I present.

5:49 ↗ So our first amendment tonight will be M

5:53 ↗ definitions and we're proposing to

5:56 ↗ repeal the definition of multif family

5:58 ↗ residential. The reason for this change

6:00 ↗ is because we have currently two multif

6:02 ↗ family definitions within the IMC. The

6:04 ↗ first one being multif family

6:06 ↗ residential and the second one being

6:08 ↗ dwelling multif family. With the

6:10 ↗ implementation of middle housing into

6:12 ↗ our land use code, we currently have

6:14 ↗ dwelling middle housing is defined as

6:16 ↗ two to four units. In addition to

6:18 ↗ dwelling multif family as five plus

6:21 ↗ units. So with these new definitions,

6:23 ↗ the multif family residential definition

6:26 ↗ is now outdated and the amendment aims

6:29 ↗ to decrease confusion while navigating

6:30 ↗ our land use code.

6:35 ↗ Any questions before I move on to the

6:37 ↗ next proposed? Thank you. All right. So

6:40 ↗ then our second amendment is going to be

6:42 ↗ increasing clarity by adding references

6:44 ↗ to definitions. We are proposing to add

6:47 ↗ references to the definitions

6:48 ↗ specifically for daycare center. daycare

6:51 ↗ center family in addition to adult

6:53 ↗ family home. The reason for this change

6:56 ↗ is because the land use code currently

6:57 ↗ does not provide direct direct

6:59 ↗ references to the definitions for each

7:01 ↗ of these uses. And this is important

7:04 ↗ because the definitions outline the

7:06 ↗ number of individuals that can be under

7:08 ↗ care in addition to applicable state

7:10 ↗ regulations.

7:14 ↗ Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, and this

7:18 ↗ is pretty important for applicants to

7:20 ↗ know as they're going through the

7:21 ↗ process.

7:23 ↗ In addition to this proposed amendment,

7:25 ↗ we're also asking for a minor wording

7:27 ↗ update pertaining to family daycare

7:29 ↗ center criteria. This change will be

7:32 ↗ updating terminology from family

7:35 ↗ childcare center to family daycare

7:37 ↗ center for cohesion within the whole

7:38 ↗ code section. The goal of this amendment

7:41 ↗ is to provide clear navigation through

7:43 ↗ the code for the specific uses I've just

7:45 ↗ described.

7:47 ↗ Any questions before I move on? Yes.

7:51 ↗ Just a quick hopefully easy one. Um, so

7:53 ↗ when I was looking at the code, they

7:54 ↗ said that you could have six residents

7:57 ↗ in an adult daycare. Does that include

7:59 ↗ the carers in addition to the people

8:02 ↗ being taken care of when they say and is

8:04 ↗ that like for people who are living

8:05 ↗ there overnight? Is that the definition

8:07 ↗ of resident? I'm just curious. Uh from

8:09 ↗ the re Oh, from the research and looking

8:13 ↗ at the definition, the six person limit

8:15 ↗ is um limited to the

8:19 ↗ individuals under care. So caregivers

8:21 ↗ aren't accounted for.

8:25 ↗ Moving on to the next one.

8:28 ↗ All right. So our next proposed

8:30 ↗ amendment in relation to the last slide,

8:32 ↗ but slightly different will be for

8:34 ↗ daycare center standards. and we are

8:36 ↗ proposing to add in a new provision

8:38 ↗ pertaining to traffic impact fee

8:40 ↗ waiverss. The reasons for this change is

8:42 ↗ because of since March 2nd, 2026, city

8:46 ↗ council has adopted ordinance number

8:48 ↗ 3134,

8:49 ↗ which offers options of 80 and 100%

8:52 ↗ traffic impact fee waiverss for early

8:54 ↗ learning facilities, which are

8:56 ↗ applicable to daycare center uses. So,

8:58 ↗ just a little bit of background for all

8:59 ↗ of you guys. Um, for the ordinance, the

9:02 ↗ 80% reduction will automatically apply

9:04 ↗ for all early learning facility uses,

9:07 ↗ but if the 100% fee waiver is chosen,

9:10 ↗ the facility is required to record a

9:12 ↗ covenant with the city to outline how

9:14 ↗ the enrollment requirement will be met.

9:16 ↗ In addition to what the 20% waved impact

9:19 ↗ fee is in case it needs to be repaid.

9:21 ↗ And part of what the covenant needs to

9:23 ↗ outline is the state subsidized

9:25 ↗ childcare enrollment needs to be at

9:26 ↗ minimum 25% and it needs to be verified

9:30 ↗ by CCYF.

9:31 ↗ This amendment will provide necessary

9:33 ↗ guidance on when the covenant should be

9:35 ↗ recorded with the city in the case the

9:36 ↗ 100% impact fee waiver is being

9:38 ↗ requested.

9:40 ↗ Any questions on that one?

9:43 ↗ >> Questions?

9:45 ↗ >> I do I have one on that one.

9:47 ↗ >> Okay.

9:47 ↗ >> Um I guess a couple actually.

9:50 ↗ Um, are operators informed about the

9:53 ↗ timing of covenant records? Meaning, uh,

9:56 ↗ are they flagged up front to know when

9:58 ↗ they need to apply so they can plan for

10:00 ↗ that? Because I know it's between the

10:02 ↗ building permit and I think the

10:03 ↗ certificate of occupancy. Yes. So, like

10:05 ↗ are they is it very clear to them like

10:07 ↗ they need to do that? This will be the

10:09 ↗ goal for this amendment specifically for

10:11 ↗ when operators are doing their um

10:14 ↗ research for their building permit

10:16 ↗ application that the traffic impact fee

10:18 ↗ waiverss will be upfront in the code so

10:20 ↗ then they can prepare and let us know.

10:22 ↗ Um but there will hopefully be a lot of

10:24 ↗ conversation with operators through the

10:26 ↗ building process just to confirm.

10:28 ↗ >> Awesome. And then one followup is does

10:30 ↗ the covenant expire if the property is

10:32 ↗ sold and it's not used as a daycare?

10:36 ↗ >> Yes. Okay. Any other questions?

10:40 ↗ >> Okay, thank you.

10:42 ↗ >> Thank you. All right. And then our last

10:44 ↗ proposed amendment will be the removal

10:48 ↗ of daycare operation or yeah, daycare

10:51 ↗ operation references from the home

10:53 ↗ business standard section. And we are

10:55 ↗ proposing to omit a sentence that

10:57 ↗ outlines outside storage or display

10:59 ↗ requirements for daycare operations. And

11:01 ↗ the specific sentence we're asking to

11:04 ↗ omit is play equipment for daycare

11:06 ↗ operations is considered outdoor storage

11:08 ↗ display. The reasons for this change is

11:10 ↗ because this is a residual language that

11:13 ↗ was originally there because daycare

11:15 ↗ operations were originally a part of our

11:17 ↗ home business standard section of the

11:19 ↗ code, but it is no longer applicable

11:22 ↗ since the daycare operation use has

11:24 ↗ since been moved to a different section

11:25 ↗ within the IMC.

11:30 ↗ All right, this about wraps up my

11:32 ↗ proposed code amendments for tonight.

11:34 ↗ Um, can I ask if any commissions have

11:36 ↗ any questions for me?

11:40 ↗ Seeing a lot of head shakes. [laughter]

11:43 ↗ Uh, I do have kind of one one I guess

11:46 ↗ kind of follow comment would be

11:48 ↗ regarding the uh dwelling uh dwelling

11:51 ↗ unit definition.

11:53 ↗ >> Yes. Um are there any like permits,

11:56 ↗ covenants or prior approvals with the

11:58 ↗ old definition that we would need to

12:00 ↗ consider um how to resolve those with

12:03 ↗ this update? Like any

12:06 ↗ >> um per my research, it seems like the

12:08 ↗ definition for multif family residential

12:10 ↗ is the only kind of residual point that

12:13 ↗ might have been overlooked during the

12:16 ↗ implementation of middle housing and

12:18 ↗ tour code. So I think we're good on

12:20 ↗ that.

12:21 ↗ >> Awesome. Cool. Any other questions,

12:23 ↗ comments?

12:26 ↗ Commissioner,

12:26 ↗ >> just a point of clarification following

12:28 ↗ up on Jesse's uh question. Um, so I'm

12:32 ↗ assuming that uh once a project is sort

12:35 ↗ of vested and the permit is approved

12:38 ↗ that they're kind of grandfathered under

12:40 ↗ the existing code at that time,

12:44 ↗ not not necessarily having to change

12:46 ↗ anything based on these these code

12:48 ↗ changes.

12:50 ↗ >> Oh yes.

12:50 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you all so

12:54 ↗ much.

13:01 ↗ >> So, I will just go over a couple more

13:03 ↗ slides and let you know next steps in

13:05 ↗ our process. Um, I believe the

13:07 ↗ commission has seen this slide before.

13:09 ↗ Um, just letting you know um what we

13:12 ↗ will be doing uh over the next quarter.

13:14 ↗ Um and that is again on April 9th to

13:17 ↗ review all of the code amendments and

13:19 ↗ then uh there will be a public hearing

13:21 ↗ that will be in May and uh we will be

13:25 ↗ asking you for your recommendation at

13:27 ↗ that time. So uh council action still

13:30 ↗ anticipated in June. Lastly um I know ye

13:34 ↗ asked you if you had any final

13:36 ↗ questions. We wanted to ask you one more

13:37 ↗ time just in case uh before closing out.

13:41 ↗ Any other comments?

13:43 ↗ >> Going once. going twice.

13:45 ↗ >> Great.

13:45 ↗ >> I think we're all set. Do you get what

13:47 ↗ you need from us?

13:48 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you so much.

13:49 ↗ >> Thank you so much.

13:51 ↗ >> Excellent. Uh that will take us to our

13:54 ↗ second item of regular business tonight,

13:56 ↗ which is to discuss the uh promoting

13:58 ↗ building investment in Isaakiqua 2026

14:01 ↗ 2027 work plan. So, we're now going to

14:04 ↗ have Kristen Leon, our planning manager,

14:06 ↗ to present tonight.

14:09 ↗ Kristen, when you are set up and ready,

14:11 ↗ you may steal the show.

14:48 ↗ There we go. Thank you. Yep. Kristen

14:50 ↗ Leon, uh, planning manager.

14:53 ↗ [clears throat] So, I've told you this a

14:55 ↗ few times, but I thought you'd I'd

14:57 ↗ present it to you all as well. We're

14:59 ↗ selling our plan. So, um, Oops, that

15:02 ↗ didn't happen.

15:04 ↗ There we go. So yes, we are on a mission

15:08 ↗ to promote building particularly housing

15:10 ↗ investments in Isiqua

15:13 ↗ and so we um have come up with ways that

15:16 ↗ hopefully will work um to do that and

15:18 ↗ we're just looking for your feedback

15:19 ↗ tonight. We have presented this to

15:20 ↗ council. It's also been presented to the

15:22 ↗ master builders association and now it's

15:25 ↗ you guys because you are the first step

15:26 ↗ to getting these things approved.

15:28 ↗ So there are a lot of factors in

15:31 ↗ development and the easiest one to see

15:33 ↗ is land use regulations, right? Um we

15:36 ↗ don't have control over construction

15:37 ↗ costs. We don't have control over the

15:39 ↗ market, taxes, tariffs, land costs. We

15:42 ↗ can't control those things. So we are

15:45 ↗ focused right now on the land use

15:46 ↗ regulations to do with those what we can

15:48 ↗ to help the process and also on

15:50 ↗ partnerships with our builders, our

15:52 ↗ developers, our legislators to make

15:55 ↗ these things happen.

15:57 ↗ So, we're going to be proactive with our

15:59 ↗ builder outreach and community

16:02 ↗ participation

16:04 ↗ um or community perception, I'm sorry.

16:06 ↗ So, our goal is to create momentum in

16:09 ↗ building and change our perceptions, but

16:11 ↗ right now there's not necessarily a

16:13 ↗ positive perception about how we how

16:15 ↗ permitting is and how development is

16:16 ↗ here in the city. So, we need to get the

16:18 ↗ positive stories out there and let

16:19 ↗ people know. So, our economic

16:22 ↗ development and housing manager is out

16:25 ↗ there meeting one-on-one with

16:26 ↗ developers,

16:28 ↗ uh, finding specific contacts with these

16:30 ↗ people. We're starting to have roundt

16:31 ↗ discussions with different developers in

16:33 ↗ the master builders association in the

16:35 ↗ area, and we're getting our success

16:37 ↗ stories out there. Um, making sure, you

16:40 ↗ know, when we get pro projects completed

16:42 ↗ on time or um, un, you know, help them

16:46 ↗ do it, you know, under budget or within

16:48 ↗ budget, that kind of thing. We want to

16:49 ↗ get those success stories out there.

16:52 ↗ We also want to um build more

16:54 ↗ relationships and Whoops,

16:58 ↗ there we go. Um so we're going

17:01 ↗ specifically to some of the larger home

17:03 ↗ builders, some of the smaller ones as

17:04 ↗ well, but since our focus is on central

17:06 ↗ Isiqua, we are working for some of the

17:08 ↗ bigger developers. Um but our our goal

17:11 ↗ is we want to increase volume. So we

17:13 ↗ want to improve speed at which we get

17:16 ↗ these things permitted, predictability

17:18 ↗ and ironically flexibility at the same

17:21 ↗ time um clarity and design support. We

17:23 ↗ want to just help walk them through the

17:24 ↗ process.

17:29 ↗ Come on.

17:34 ↗ There we go.

17:36 ↗ So we the council had a retreat on

17:38 ↗ January 31st and they identified things

17:40 ↗ that they want to focus on this year and

17:42 ↗ most of it was housing also

17:44 ↗ transportation but mostly housing as I

17:47 ↗ mentioned we've also talked with

17:48 ↗ different home builders in the area

17:49 ↗ different developers um who came up with

17:52 ↗ a list for us as well about three pages

17:54 ↗ long and staff every time we go through

17:58 ↗ projects we identify things that need to

17:59 ↗ be fixed or we talk with developers and

18:01 ↗ developers say this is hard or this

18:02 ↗ doesn't make sense and we go oh you're

18:04 ↗ right it doesn't we can reook at that.

18:06 ↗ And also from when we did our title 18

18:08 ↗ update, we had a whiteboard and there

18:10 ↗ were things items that were too big to

18:12 ↗ address at the time that we said we

18:14 ↗ would try and get back to later. So,

18:15 ↗ some of those are on our list as well.

18:18 ↗ I'm not going to go through all of

18:20 ↗ these, but I think there were

18:23 ↗ 19 things on the council list. We're

18:24 ↗ proposing to do most of those and one

18:26 ↗ has already been done. It's the tree

18:28 ↗ code. And I'll go through these a little

18:30 ↗ bit later um in a little bit more

18:32 ↗ detail. The homebuilders, they had two

18:34 ↗ lists. the primary list to secondary

18:36 ↗ list. They had 27 things total. And

18:38 ↗ again, we're doing most of those. We

18:39 ↗ already allow binding site plans, so we

18:41 ↗ don't need to address that. Secondary

18:43 ↗ list, I think there were seven things.

18:44 ↗ We're only not proposing to do one. Um,

18:48 ↗ which is to transfer from parcel base to

18:50 ↗ district zone based parking.

18:53 ↗ Our title 18 upboard, we had title 18

18:56 ↗ upboard whiteboard. We have uh nine

18:59 ↗ different items on here that we're

19:01 ↗ trying to do, but we have a list of

19:03 ↗ about 27 or something like that, 17 that

19:05 ↗ we're not that we just can't get to yet.

19:08 ↗ So, um and then we also have our

19:12 ↗ non-code updates. Everything else that

19:13 ↗ you guys are going to see, we have the

19:14 ↗ track uh we're required to do our

19:16 ↗ shoreline master program update uh by

19:18 ↗ the end of 2027. We have wildfire

19:21 ↗ regulations that we're going to have to

19:23 ↗ get put into place soon. our

19:25 ↗ comprehensive plan updates. We have

19:27 ↗ regional growth center reertification

19:29 ↗ coming through you all. Um legislative

19:31 ↗ updates. They keep coming out with new

19:33 ↗ updates and we keep having to get those

19:35 ↗ done. We wanted to start neighborhood

19:37 ↗ plans. I don't think that's going to

19:38 ↗ happen. We also have big projects that

19:41 ↗ some point I'd like to go with the

19:42 ↗ through these with you all to see what

19:44 ↗ your decisions what effect they have on

19:46 ↗ the ground. I was thinking about that

19:47 ↗ today. I'd like to go through some of

19:48 ↗ those with you sometime or maybe even do

19:50 ↗ a tour. We'll talk about it later. But

19:52 ↗ um but we have current projects. So, we

19:54 ↗ have nine, I think, different projects

19:57 ↗ coming up in High Street in Isiqua. We

19:59 ↗ have our trail head to which is hoping

20:01 ↗ to break ground in June. We have the

20:03 ↗ Isiqua High School. We have um some

20:06 ↗ multif family conversions, uh commercial

20:08 ↗ to multif family conversions. We have

20:10 ↗ different town homes going up all over

20:11 ↗ the place. And Costco is putting in a

20:13 ↗ new fuel station. So, there's there's a

20:15 ↗ lot going on.

20:17 ↗ Um I this I this one the council asked

20:20 ↗ for it and I wasn't sure where to throw

20:22 ↗ it in but they said what are both and

20:24 ↗ Woodenville doing that's so right? Why

20:26 ↗ are they getting so much development

20:27 ↗ right now and we're not and both needed

20:32 ↗ to increase their zoning and their

20:34 ↗ capacity

20:36 ↗ because they didn't have enough to meet

20:38 ↗ their growth targets their housing

20:40 ↗ growth targets that have been to

20:41 ↗ assigned to them. [clears throat]

20:43 ↗ So excuse me. So about 75% of their land

20:46 ↗ was zoned for single family and they've

20:48 ↗ gone in and they've reszoned a lot of

20:50 ↗ that. They have set minimums as to what

20:53 ↗ they can develop on these properties and

20:55 ↗ it may go up to 25 units minimum and up

20:57 ↗ to 80% maximum. They removed all of

21:01 ↗ their parking requirements and now

21:03 ↗ they're reooking at it going, "Huh,

21:05 ↗ whoops." Now they're talking about

21:07 ↗ putting maximums on there. [laughter] So

21:10 ↗ um they created a very simple

21:11 ↗ development bonus program. We have one,

21:13 ↗ but ours is comp complicated. It's kind

21:15 ↗ of convoluted. So, we're going to fix

21:17 ↗ that. Um, they also though, I think one

21:19 ↗ of the biggest pieces is that land is

21:20 ↗ the most expensive piece of development.

21:23 ↗ And they had four parcels of land for

21:25 ↗ one and a half to two acres each. Two of

21:28 ↗ those they've already negotiated, given

21:29 ↗ away, and those have been developed.

21:30 ↗ One's mixed use, one is affordable

21:32 ↗ housing. They have two other properties

21:34 ↗ about the same size that are being

21:36 ↗ cleaned up right now. They were

21:37 ↗ contaminated, and those are also being

21:40 ↗ cleaned up. and then they will start

21:41 ↗ negotiations for those properties. We

21:43 ↗ simply don't have those properties right

21:45 ↗ now. So,

21:47 ↗ um the other one that they wanted to

21:48 ↗ look at was Woodenville and quite

21:50 ↗ frankly, they've done nothing to change

21:52 ↗ their code in about 15 years. So,

21:54 ↗ they've just gotten lucky and the market

21:55 ↗ found them. They have a lot of green

21:57 ↗ space and that we don't have green

21:59 ↗ fields that we don't have. And so,

22:01 ↗ they've they've just been discovered and

22:03 ↗ it's pretty and as we keep pointing out,

22:05 ↗ they have wine so it doesn't hurt. So,

22:10 ↗ So here's where we're going. We are have

22:13 ↗ decided to focus on central Isiqua

22:15 ↗ because that's where as you know for

22:16 ↗ years we've wanted our growth to go.

22:19 ↗ So here is I'm going to go over these

22:21 ↗ but these are 17 items that we are going

22:23 ↗ to address. 14 14 of these will be

22:26 ↗ coming through you. Okay.

22:29 ↗ So in the first actually the second

22:31 ↗ quarter the ones that we've already

22:32 ↗ talked about that we've already started

22:34 ↗ are outdoor amenity space requirements

22:36 ↗ stepback requirements and

22:38 ↗ self-certification of ADUs. So the third

22:40 ↗ one won't be coming to you but what that

22:42 ↗ is is pre-approved plans that the

22:45 ↗ building you know it's certified by

22:47 ↗ architects that the building works the

22:49 ↗ building works the way it is. It has all

22:51 ↗ the required ADA so forth things that it

22:53 ↗ needs. it would still have to get land

22:54 ↗ use approval but it's whole program you

22:57 ↗ can go on to a website pick the one you

22:58 ↗ want say this is it I want to put it on

23:00 ↗ this parcel and then you have to go

23:02 ↗ through the land use process step back

23:04 ↗ requirements

23:06 ↗ we have um

23:09 ↗ we currently require depending on where

23:11 ↗ you are that you step back your

23:14 ↗ building anywhere between the fourth

23:16 ↗ floor and above you know fourth floor

23:19 ↗ and sixth floor something like that and

23:22 ↗ uh developers say that this is more

23:24 ↗ expensive. So, we're looking at how to

23:26 ↗ adjust that and have been talking to

23:28 ↗ people to make it a little less

23:29 ↗ expensive. But the purpose of the

23:30 ↗ stepback requirements is to make it more

23:33 ↗ pedestrian friendly and also to allow

23:35 ↗ more light to come through on those

23:36 ↗ streets so that you don't get a canyon

23:37 ↗ effect. So, we want them, we just don't

23:40 ↗ know how to make it work with the

23:41 ↗ developers. The other one, I'm going

23:43 ↗ backwards here. Um, outdoor amenity

23:45 ↗ space requirements. We currently, you

23:47 ↗ may recall, we did an amendment for our

23:50 ↗ outdoor amenity space requirements. And

23:52 ↗ if you have 22 units or more, you're

23:54 ↗ required to do 100 square ft of outdoor

23:57 ↗ common amenity space, 48 space, 48

24:01 ↗ square ft per unit

24:04 ↗ with the unit and then an additional 400

24:07 ↗ square f feet and we changed it and

24:10 ↗ every unit had to have this 48 square

24:12 ↗ feet attached to it. And we came back

24:14 ↗ and we said, "Okay, we'll reduce that.

24:16 ↗ You can do just 50% of your units have

24:18 ↗ the 48 square feet. Now, you're going to

24:20 ↗ keep that same amount, 148 square feet

24:22 ↗ for every unit, but the rest of those

24:24 ↗ can all be into a common space to

24:25 ↗ hopefully make it easier, but they're

24:27 ↗ still saying, "Ah, not enough." So, and

24:29 ↗ a a um developer pointed out to me the

24:32 ↗ other day that with what he wants to put

24:35 ↗ on a site and the size of the site, it

24:38 ↗ would take the open space amenity is

24:40 ↗ more than half of the site and he

24:42 ↗ wouldn't be able to do the development.

24:43 ↗ So, clearly there's there's an issue

24:45 ↗ there. So, we're going to take a look at

24:46 ↗ that.

24:48 ↗ That's our next meeting.

24:51 ↗ Um, these were just other things that

24:53 ↗ are other annual updates that we're

24:54 ↗ working on right now that you already

24:56 ↗ know about. So, I won't talk about those

24:57 ↗ because you've seen them all. After that

25:00 ↗ is floor area ratio. Same developer I

25:02 ↗ was just talking about can go in. We

25:04 ↗ have a

25:06 ↗ maximum height maximum F floor area

25:09 ↗ ratio of two in one of our zones. And

25:15 ↗ the I do this wrong every time. Uh

25:19 ↗ that's the Oh, but the height so two F

25:22 ↗ but the height is 65 ft. Well, he can

25:26 ↗ hit that max F at two stories ra or at

25:30 ↗ 40 feet rather than 65 feet. So, he's

25:32 ↗ really not getting to use the full site

25:35 ↗ to its to its highest and best use. So,

25:37 ↗ we're going to go back and look at some

25:38 ↗ of our floor area ratios to make sure

25:40 ↗ that developers are actually use being

25:42 ↗ able to use them the way we want to be

25:43 ↗ able to use them. We're not talking

25:45 ↗ about increasing height though at this

25:46 ↗ time because that doesn't increase

25:48 ↗ density the way F does. Uh,

25:51 ↗ statemandated parking requirements is a

25:53 ↗ bill I think it's 5184. We haven't done

25:55 ↗ those yet. We promised that we would get

25:56 ↗ all those are due by 2027 2028. We said

26:00 ↗ we'd get them done now. Um, natural

26:02 ↗ context areas and transpar transparency

26:05 ↗ requirements.

26:06 ↗ We have transparency requirements that

26:09 ↗ in central Isiqua, if you are on a

26:11 ↗ street and you are a retail or a um

26:15 ↗ multif family development, the 40% of

26:17 ↗ your facade on that street side has to

26:18 ↗ be transparent starting above six feet

26:21 ↗ so that people can't see in your

26:23 ↗ windows. Could use curtains, but that's

26:24 ↗ our rule. Um that also said that if

26:27 ↗ you're retail, 70% if you're on a 70% of

26:31 ↗ the facade that faces a street has to be

26:33 ↗ transparent. And if you're next to a

26:34 ↗ natural context area which is you know

26:37 ↗ like a wetland or something like that

26:39 ↗ 50% of it has to be transparent. And

26:41 ↗ again we have found with developers that

26:43 ↗ is very difficult to do. So we're going

26:44 ↗ to look at that. Um the last one is to

26:47 ↗ allow multif family in

26:51 ↗ uh urban village commercial retail

26:53 ↗ development. It may get bigger than this

26:56 ↗ but right now all we're proposing to do

26:57 ↗ is to allow multif family there. That

26:59 ↗ came up during title 18.

27:04 ↗ Q4, wait till you see your schedule when

27:06 ↗ I show it to you at the end. Q4 um one

27:09 ↗ is to provide flexibility. So our

27:12 ↗ design, our architectural design

27:13 ↗ standards currently say

27:16 ↗ um

27:18 ↗ here's the intent and you must include

27:20 ↗ every single one of these items to get

27:23 ↗ approved. What it should like should

27:25 ↗ what it should probably say is here's

27:27 ↗ the intent and to meet the intent you

27:29 ↗ need to pick three or four of these

27:31 ↗ items and then that may that'll make

27:33 ↗ this pencil out more for the developers

27:35 ↗ which is what we're going for as long as

27:36 ↗ they still meet the intent and hit the

27:39 ↗ character what we're looking for.

27:40 ↗ Variances and departures will kind of do

27:41 ↗ the same thing. Through block corridors

27:44 ↗ we currently require um they used to be

27:47 ↗ 40 foot minimum we've taken them down to

27:49 ↗ a 10-ft minimum. What they do is they

27:52 ↗ go, we have blocks that are 1,000 feet

27:55 ↗ long, especially in central Isiqua. The

27:58 ↗ idea is to get blocks that are near

27:59 ↗ anywhere between 250 and 300 feet long.

28:03 ↗ So, you use three block corridors

28:06 ↗ instead of doing a whole street. And

28:07 ↗ that way, pedestrians when they're

28:08 ↗ walking, it's easier to go. But some of

28:10 ↗ these, we just kind of mapped them out

28:12 ↗ and said, you just have to do it. And

28:14 ↗ you know, if you hit that 250, 300 foot

28:17 ↗ mark and it's not working everywhere

28:19 ↗ because you might have a threeb block

28:20 ↗ corridor that goes to another building

28:21 ↗ that's not going anywhere or you might

28:23 ↗ have a threeb block corridor that's

28:24 ↗ going to an alley and you don't want

28:26 ↗ those. So, we need to revisit that to

28:29 ↗ make it more practical for people to do.

28:31 ↗ Although we still want the smaller block

28:33 ↗ sizes, we just need to find out a more

28:35 ↗ practical way to do it. The last one

28:37 ↗ that you all will not see is peer

28:39 ↗ review.

28:41 ↗ uh we take we have to take things like

28:43 ↗ critical area studies, geotechnical

28:45 ↗ reports, landscape reviews. We have to

28:47 ↗ take those all out to peer reviewers

28:48 ↗ because we don't have it in-house. We

28:50 ↗ need to figure out and it that's getting

28:51 ↗ pretty costly for developers,

28:53 ↗ particularly the smaller developers. So,

28:55 ↗ we need to figure out how to reduce that

28:57 ↗ cost. I can slow down if you guys have

28:59 ↗ any questions so far. Sorry.

29:02 ↗ [cough]

29:04 ↗ Commissioner Adair,

29:06 ↗ >> I had a question about the transparency

29:08 ↗ standards if you don't mind going back.

29:10 ↗ >> Yeah.

29:10 ↗ >> So, when this is being explained, I'm

29:12 ↗ kind of confused. So, somebody's doing a

29:15 ↗ multif family unit, right, on a street,

29:18 ↗ they have to have 40% of the street

29:20 ↗ frontage as windows or is it that they

29:23 ↗ need something windows over a certain

29:26 ↗ height? I'm I was just confused.

29:28 ↗ >> It's 40% has to be windows and doors.

29:30 ↗ Okay. But the ground floor level that

29:32 ↗ doesn't start until 6 ft or above where

29:35 ↗ that counts.

29:36 ↗ >> Okay.

29:36 ↗ >> Because

29:37 ↗ >> so it doesn't count on the ground floor.

29:40 ↗ It counts basically on the first the

29:43 ↗ second story going.

29:44 ↗ >> It starts on the first story but not

29:45 ↗ your feet.

29:46 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

29:47 ↗ >> Yeah. It started about right here.

29:48 ↗ >> Okay. At about six feet. And so they're

29:50 ↗ having problems because it means that we

29:52 ↗ can everyone can stare into somebody's

29:54 ↗ house.

29:54 ↗ >> Right. That's the intent of the six

29:55 ↗ feet.

29:56 ↗ >> Would an example of that, sorry guys, to

29:58 ↗ keep talking. be the town homes on

30:00 ↗ Newport A, right? Like how they have

30:02 ↗ windows going into their garages.

30:04 ↗ >> That is exactly one of the examples.

30:05 ↗ Yes, that was that's okay. Thanks. I was

30:07 ↗ wondering about that.

30:08 ↗ >> And then we had a recent one with

30:10 ↗ natural context areas too and they were

30:12 ↗ doing town homes and very very difficult

30:13 ↗ to get that 50% in there.

30:15 ↗ >> Yeah.

30:17 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

30:20 ↗ >> Commissioner,

30:21 ↗ >> I had a question about the through block

30:23 ↗ uh connectors. Um, I may have

30:26 ↗ misunderstood, but I thought you said we

30:27 ↗ had narrowed those down to 10 feet,

30:30 ↗ >> the width of the connector.

30:32 ↗ >> So, it was supposed to be 40 feet and

30:34 ↗ we've narrowed that down to 10 feet,

30:35 ↗ hoping that that would help and provide

30:37 ↗ more, you know, land for development and

30:39 ↗ so forth, but it's still not helping

30:40 ↗ because it the placement of these is can

30:44 ↗ be really, really odd.

30:45 ↗ >> And 10 feet sounds more like an alley

30:47 ↗ than a connector, you know? It's not the

30:50 ↗ generosity isn't there.

30:52 ↗ >> It's true.

30:53 ↗ >> It's true. Yeah.

30:58 ↗ All right. Moving into 2027, uh we have

31:01 ↗ found in central Isiqua there are

31:02 ↗ critical areas there and there are

31:04 ↗ wetlands that you wouldn't know are

31:05 ↗ there because they're paved over. Um we

31:08 ↗ are finding that with trail head right

31:10 ↗ now and that it's it's entire parking

31:12 ↗ lot is sitting over a wetland, but we

31:14 ↗ still want people to be able to develop.

31:15 ↗ So what do you do if you want to protect

31:18 ↗ the wetland and re you know mitigate and

31:21 ↗ revive? I'm not using the right words

31:23 ↗ here, revive that wetland but still

31:25 ↗ allow development to happen there. So we

31:27 ↗ are trying to figure out ways to sort of

31:29 ↗ come to a compromise there where you

31:31 ↗ still get the wetland back, you improve

31:33 ↗ the wetland and you protect it but you

31:35 ↗ still allow for the development.

31:37 ↗ Um we're also work as you know um the

31:42 ↗ climate action plan is going under is

31:45 ↗ being updated right now. So, as a part

31:47 ↗ of that, we're going to try and find

31:49 ↗ more options for developers to meet

31:51 ↗ sustainable development standards than

31:53 ↗ what we use right now.

31:57 ↗ Pretty high standards.

31:59 ↗ >> Question about that. Um, does that

32:01 ↗ include uh lead platinum being reviewed?

32:06 ↗ >> Yes.

32:08 ↗ >> Good.

32:13 ↗ We also require

32:16 ↗ um structured parking. I mean, I'm

32:19 ↗ sorry. We require a retail or office use

32:22 ↗ on the ground floor of parking

32:24 ↗ structures

32:26 ↗ because you don't want to stare at blank

32:28 ↗ walls. You don't really want to stare at

32:29 ↗ parking structures. But, as you can see

32:31 ↗ from the picture on on the slide,

32:33 ↗ they're getting better looking. And so

32:36 ↗ and it's really you require developers

32:39 ↗ to put in these and they only have to be

32:41 ↗ 25 foot deep. So you require them to put

32:43 ↗ in these 25 foot deep storefronts that

32:45 ↗ really nobody wants and they sit there

32:47 ↗ vacant and it's going to be less

32:49 ↗ attractive than an attractive garage. So

32:52 ↗ again something to revisit. We don't

32:53 ↗ have answers to any of these yet. We're

32:55 ↗ just thinking through things. Um, then

32:58 ↗ you may remember that we did our North

33:01 ↗ Eco Northwest report and what they did,

33:05 ↗ I don't know if you remember that or

33:06 ↗ not. I'm not sure most of you were here

33:07 ↗ when we talked about it. We asked Eco

33:09 ↗ Northwest, a consultant, to implement

33:12 ↗ three of our

33:14 ↗ housing action plan strategies. One was

33:18 ↗ to expand inclusionary zoning.

33:21 ↗ Two was to help us increase the

33:23 ↗ diversity of housing. and three was to

33:26 ↗ help us um mitigate for development for

33:30 ↗ condominiums. That one is really a state

33:32 ↗ issue. They keep passing laws, but

33:34 ↗ there's liability in building

33:35 ↗ condominiums because anything happens

33:38 ↗ and the developer can get sued within

33:39 ↗ the first four years and they just they

33:41 ↗ can't get insurers to cover them. So,

33:44 ↗ that's kind of more at a state level.

33:46 ↗ Um, however, inclusionary zoning and the

33:50 ↗ uh diversity of housing, we've we've

33:52 ↗ kind of solved for the diversity of

33:54 ↗ housing. we allow it, but we'd still

33:56 ↗ like to get some of that in other zones.

33:57 ↗ So, what we're going to do are the

34:00 ↗ consultant said, "You need to redo

34:03 ↗ inclusionary zoning, redo your

34:05 ↗ development bonus program, and consider

34:08 ↗ using multif family tax exemptions and

34:10 ↗ adjust those levers so that they are

34:12 ↗ just right and developers code. That is

34:14 ↗ the sweet spot. I will come in and I

34:16 ↗ will do this and you will get affordable

34:17 ↗ housing." So, that's our goal there.

34:21 ↗ Um, last, you won't see either one of

34:23 ↗ these. One is to rightsize our impact

34:24 ↗ fees which our transportation impact fee

34:27 ↗ in particular is relatively high

34:29 ↗ compared to other cities

34:31 ↗ and

34:33 ↗ also the potential use of AI to aid in

34:36 ↗ permitting. We have a one one person

34:38 ↗ committee who's looking into that.

34:40 ↗ Belle's just started it but they're

34:41 ↗ using it for very very simple things. It

34:44 ↗ hasn't made a huge difference from what

34:45 ↗ I understand so far but it's new so

34:48 ↗ we'll see. Okay. Those are the last of

34:51 ↗ the amendments. But do you all have any

34:53 ↗ more questions about those?

34:56 ↗ >> Questions, comments

34:59 ↗ down.

35:00 ↗ >> Okay. It's a lot.

35:01 ↗ >> A lot.

35:02 ↗ >> Yeah. So, look at this. So, um

35:07 ↗ um so these are all your public hearings

35:09 ↗ and in between these are just the public

35:11 ↗ hearings. So, in between each of these,

35:13 ↗ you will you will see them, you will

35:14 ↗ talk about them, we will bring them back

35:16 ↗ again, and then you'll have the public

35:17 ↗ hearing. And so I'm just putting this up

35:20 ↗ here to let you know it's going to be

35:22 ↗ busy. So try to be here for the

35:24 ↗ meetings. And if you can't be here, then

35:26 ↗ watch it or come in and talk to us

35:28 ↗ afterwards because it's a lot. Um but

35:30 ↗ you can do it. We did title 18. We can

35:32 ↗ do this. Promise. Okay. Um so that's it.

35:37 ↗ And then I just had Do you have any

35:38 ↗ questions? So there we go.

35:40 ↗ >> Anybody? I have a couple comments

35:43 ↗ um general comments on this one. One is

35:45 ↗ um lot going on here. Very cool to see.

35:48 ↗ I'm excited after kind of a slower last

35:50 ↗ six months or so. Uh we'll be busy for

35:52 ↗ sure. Um one thing that might be helpful

35:55 ↗ as I'm thinking about is, you know, I'm

35:57 ↗ looking at, you know, summarizing this

36:00 ↗ is you guys had some meetings with some

36:02 ↗ developers. You listen to their feedback

36:03 ↗ and this is kind of like the next step

36:04 ↗ of that like proposals based on what

36:06 ↗ they've shared. And I think at first

36:10 ↗ glance putting my like community member

36:12 ↗ hat on, you're like, whoa, what are they

36:13 ↗ doing? Like you're you're like, is this

36:15 ↗ a good thing? like it seems like it like

36:17 ↗ we want development, we want growth,

36:18 ↗ we've been planning for it like and it

36:20 ↗ hasn't happened in the way we thought

36:22 ↗ and so it makes sense that we're trying

36:23 ↗ to figure out how to make it work. But I

36:25 ↗ think from a community member

36:26 ↗ perspective, you're like why are like

36:27 ↗ this seems like a big shift. So my

36:30 ↗ suggestion um to try and help kind of

36:33 ↗ bridge that gap a little bit and be

36:35 ↗ offer some transparency to the public in

36:37 ↗ an easy to understand way that's like oh

36:39 ↗ this is why this development isn't

36:41 ↗ happening would be to somehow categorize

36:43 ↗ some of those changes with like labels

36:45 ↗ or tags and I what comes to mind for me

36:48 ↗ is is is essentially you're answering

36:50 ↗ the question like why are we doing this

36:52 ↗ like if somebody from the community

36:53 ↗ member was like why are we doing you

36:54 ↗ know this uh this certain uh change

36:58 ↗ there would be a very Easy answer said

37:01 ↗ this will help increase units or this

37:03 ↗ will help lower costs for development or

37:06 ↗ this will help increase efficiency in

37:09 ↗ the processes to get permits or get you

37:11 ↗ know get things done whatever it may be.

37:13 ↗ But if there's some way that we can kind

37:14 ↗ of like

37:16 ↗ make a a kind of funnel it down to a tag

37:19 ↗ or label that's like this is why these

37:20 ↗ changes are happening. it might be good

37:23 ↗ for the community to easily understand

37:25 ↗ and it's not because I think a lot of

37:27 ↗ people their red flags will go up and be

37:28 ↗ like wait

37:29 ↗ >> but what about the environment or what

37:32 ↗ about the you know the parking or that

37:34 ↗ they'll start to question more about

37:36 ↗ like what like are we going too far in

37:38 ↗ the other direction you know we're

37:39 ↗ talking about pulling levers and stuff I

37:41 ↗ think as best we can we always try and

37:43 ↗ pull all the levers at once in a a

37:45 ↗ beautiful partnership which is a

37:47 ↗ incredibly hard thing to do but um I

37:49 ↗ think just having that transparency to

37:51 ↗ say this is why we're pulling this

37:53 ↗ developer level and our our city staff,

37:55 ↗ you know, levers is to try and make it

37:58 ↗ better for the community. So, it's it's

38:00 ↗ funny you bring that up because we

38:01 ↗ actually just had a conversation about

38:02 ↗ this um with the group yesterday

38:05 ↗ and that so and it also kind of came up

38:08 ↗ at council as well because at council

38:10 ↗ they we were talking about character

38:13 ↗ and I think we need to take a step back

38:18 ↗ too and say we have these plans and we

38:21 ↗ have these visions and every single

38:23 ↗ neighborhood in central Isiqua because

38:26 ↗ there are seven different neighborhoods

38:27 ↗ in central Isiqua They each have their

38:30 ↗ own vision. And so we're trying what

38:32 ↗ we're doing is trying to make all this

38:35 ↗ happen within those visions. And the

38:38 ↗ character character is not the right

38:40 ↗ word these days, but I'm sorry that's

38:42 ↗ what I that's that's what I'm using

38:43 ↗ right now. I know. Um within the um you

38:48 ↗ know what we want it to look like. We're

38:50 ↗ trying to make sure that this all

38:51 ↗ happens within that. So we were talking

38:53 ↗ about you know putting up there here's

38:54 ↗ the vision for this area. here's why

38:57 ↗ we're making this change. Here's how we

38:59 ↗ will meet it. But we're also talking

39:00 ↗ about pros and cons because you're

39:02 ↗ right, there will be negatives. So, yes,

39:04 ↗ we're going to do this and here's what

39:05 ↗ we'll get from it. Here's what we might

39:07 ↗ have to here's what we might have to not

39:09 ↗ here's what we might not get out of

39:11 ↗ that. So, I think I think that's a

39:14 ↗ really good point and I like the idea of

39:16 ↗ sort of the labels.

39:17 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Some something, you know, I

39:18 ↗ think uh compromise was a word that

39:20 ↗ comes to mind. It's like at the end of

39:21 ↗ the day, no one's going to get

39:22 ↗ everything they want. So, it's like

39:23 ↗ finding like the right compromise that

39:25 ↗ everyone's willing to make to get, you

39:26 ↗ know, the ultimate outcome, right?

39:28 ↗ >> Um, and we're fortunate that you guys do

39:30 ↗ a great job of juggling all of those uh

39:33 ↗ things, but I know um trying to

39:35 ↗ represent our PPC, work with the staff,

39:38 ↗ and u you know, represent the community.

39:41 ↗ It's just kind of that helping find that

39:43 ↗ peculiar balance.

39:45 ↗ Uh, Commissioner Adair.

39:49 ↗ >> Yeah. And just along those lines, going

39:51 ↗ forward, I think what would help me is

39:52 ↗ um I'm just going to say I'm very

39:54 ↗ skeptical of for-profit corporations and

39:57 ↗ how we can make sure we're balancing

39:59 ↗ their needs with the community's needs

40:02 ↗ and desires to live in a nice place. So,

40:04 ↗ the more hard examples, like the more

40:07 ↗ concrete examples, the better for me.

40:09 ↗ Like seeing something about, for

40:11 ↗ example, the 40% transparency and then

40:13 ↗ knowing that the result was the Newport

40:16 ↗ where you know you're looking in the

40:17 ↗ garage. Yeah. Okay. I understand now why

40:19 ↗ that's a problem. Um that would be very

40:22 ↗ helpful. And also like when they see but

40:24 ↗ one of the things that like raises my

40:26 ↗ skepticism alarm for lack of a better

40:29 ↗ word is when I read things like oh

40:30 ↗ they're saying paint is more expensive

40:32 ↗ in a different color. Right? that

40:35 ↗ immediately I I would like to see an

40:38 ↗ example of like oh so you know this is

40:39 ↗ kind of what the cost differential would

40:41 ↗ be and this is why they're saying this

40:43 ↗ is expensive and just to answer me cuz

40:47 ↗ you know I'm not out here building a 200

40:49 ↗ unit apartment maybe the paint color

40:51 ↗ does really add up right so something

40:54 ↗ along those lines and I want to you know

40:57 ↗ I want to be informed and I want to know

40:58 ↗ what we're talking about I also want to

41:00 ↗ get affordable housing in and more

41:02 ↗ housing but okay I want to, you know,

41:05 ↗ look good and be nice.

41:07 ↗ >> Commissioner Olner.

41:09 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, I just following that

41:11 ↗ thread, um, having have been on the

41:13 ↗ developer side and the homeowner side

41:16 ↗ and, uh, etc., uh, I, you know, there's

41:19 ↗ a sense out there, I I believe the

41:22 ↗ public is very suspicious of developers.

41:25 ↗ Uh, they think they come in and they do

41:27 ↗ stuff and then they leave and, you know,

41:30 ↗ what's left is for the community to

41:32 ↗ figure out. And I I think that's that's

41:35 ↗ something that needs to be addressed in

41:37 ↗ the in the sort of public expectations

41:39 ↗ and communications process. Um I just

41:42 ↗ wanted to respond uh to the paint

41:44 ↗ question because um

41:49 ↗ when we built our house, we had a number

41:53 ↗ of different paint colors that we

41:55 ↗ wanted. Blues in the bed in the

41:57 ↗ bathrooms, more sort of peachy white in

42:00 ↗ bedrooms. and and we were told, you

42:03 ↗ know, if I if I if the painter can't go

42:05 ↗ out and buy, you know, 30 gallons of one

42:08 ↗ paint and he's got to do this and this

42:10 ↗ and this, uh, and he's got to keep track

42:13 ↗ of it, that that adds perceptibly at

42:16 ↗ least to their costs. Um, it's it it's

42:20 ↗ not a it's not a big number and I and I

42:23 ↗ think some of the the the requests from

42:25 ↗ developers sort of fall into that

42:27 ↗ category as well. It would be great if X

42:31 ↗ and you know would lower our cost by

42:33 ↗ 20%. Well, yeah, but there's there's

42:36 ↗ costs to be paid by the community for

42:39 ↗ that uh in terms of blank walls or

42:41 ↗ whatever the the issue is. Um so I think

42:44 ↗ you know um you're walking a fine line

42:47 ↗ by having developer roundts and and you

42:50 ↗ know trying to to uh meet what they

42:54 ↗ believe are essential requirements so

42:56 ↗ that they can build and at the same time

42:58 ↗ protect the community from kind of

43:02 ↗ [clears throat] being perceived as as

43:04 ↗ falling over for the developers. So it's

43:07 ↗ a tough balance.

43:10 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

43:12 ↗ >> I actually had kind of the same comment

43:14 ↗ about when um one of the questions or

43:18 ↗ one of their comments was about the

43:20 ↗ natural context area and how you had to

43:22 ↗ have glazing facing the natural context

43:24 ↗ and how that'd be too expensive. And I

43:26 ↗ kind of had the same feeling. It's like,

43:28 ↗ okay, if I bought or rented a place that

43:31 ↗ was against the woods, I would like to

43:33 ↗ have a view of that area, you know,

43:36 ↗ that's makes it appealing to me. So, I'm

43:38 ↗ not sure why. So, I was under the same

43:40 ↗ impression. It's like, oh, they're just

43:42 ↗ kind of throw one over on you that it's

43:44 ↗ more expensive, but we don't have an

43:46 ↗ example

43:48 ↗ that tells me, you know, it increase

43:50 ↗ their cost by 15, 20% or whatever it is.

43:53 ↗ So, it would be nice to actually get

43:55 ↗ physical concrete

43:57 ↗ um numbers or examples for some of these

44:01 ↗ really um things that I think would

44:03 ↗ actually benefit a community that they'd

44:05 ↗ like to remove or have us reanalyze.

44:09 ↗ Thanks.

44:16 ↗ >> Other questions?

44:18 ↗ Um, I'll just add one more thing on the

44:21 ↗ AI thing. I know we're a couple years

44:22 ↗ out from it, but is a hot topic. It's

44:24 ↗ moving very fast. Uh, I would just

44:26 ↗ suggest to that one person that's

44:28 ↗ working on it currently. Um, just think

44:30 ↗ about what specific problem that they're

44:32 ↗ trying to solve, right? So, is it um is

44:36 ↗ it like consistency of review? Is it the

44:39 ↗ speed of the review? Is it uh you know

44:42 ↗ staff capacity and what they trying to

44:44 ↗ basically keep up if you will. Um I

44:47 ↗ think you know hopefully Belleview's

44:48 ↗ experience. I know it's new, but

44:49 ↗ hopefully they'll be able to glean some

44:51 ↗ things over time by the time we get

44:53 ↗ around to it. But um that's one thing I

44:55 ↗ see currently with my day job being in

44:58 ↗ the IT tech area is like everyone's like

45:00 ↗ throw AI at it and they don't really

45:02 ↗ think about why or what they're throwing

45:04 ↗ it at. So I think you got to start with

45:05 ↗ like what's the problem and kind of peel

45:07 ↗ back the layers before you go like let's

45:09 ↗ just AI.

45:12 ↗ So anyway anecdotal any other questions

45:15 ↗ or comments?

45:17 ↗ Uh Commissioner Zacharov

45:19 ↗ >> I'll also comment on the AI

45:20 ↗ implementation. Last year I had a lot of

45:23 ↗ meetings about that and I believe

45:25 ↗ Cologne BC has implemented AI and it

45:28 ↗ takes them now 10 days for simple permit

45:31 ↗ processes. It was already a year ago was

45:34 ↗ taking them 10 days to go through simple

45:36 ↗ permits with AI. So hopefully we can get

45:39 ↗ there. And I'm actually this was also

45:41 ↗ something I was talking about and I'm so

45:43 ↗ glad to hear that a lot of things that

45:46 ↗ was were very important to me like a

45:48 ↗ year ago that we now work on them

45:50 ↗ including the AI. [laughter]

45:53 ↗ So thank you for that.

45:58 ↗ >> On that note, I am a big proponent of

45:59 ↗ AI. I think it does have its benefits.

46:01 ↗ You just got to figure out what they

46:02 ↗ are. [laughter]

46:04 ↗ Cool. Uh any last comments? Anything for

46:07 ↗ Kristen?

46:09 ↗ You get what you need from us for now?

46:11 ↗ >> I did. Thank you.

46:12 ↗ >> Awesome.

46:17 ↗ >> All right. Well, that takes us to our

46:19 ↗ next item on the agenda, which is

46:20 ↗ reports. Uh, city council updates. Is

46:23 ↗ there anything to update us on?

46:29 ↗ >> I don't have any updates today.

46:32 ↗ >> No updates. All right. any other

46:33 ↗ business

46:35 ↗ besides that?

46:37 ↗ >> No. Um, but I I really am starting to

46:40 ↗ think harder about the tour. Either a

46:42 ↗ tour um Yeah. or a somehow a tour here.

46:47 ↗ But if you all are up for it, maybe we

46:48 ↗ can go do that sometime.

46:51 ↗ >> Yeah.

46:51 ↗ >> Okay.

46:52 ↗ >> Love a good field trip tour.

46:53 ↗ >> Yeah.

46:54 ↗ >> What's that?

46:56 ↗ >> Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Only

46:58 ↗ >> it's been about

47:03 ↗ >> [laughter]

47:04 ↗ >> I think it's been about a year or so

47:05 ↗ from our last field trip when we did the

47:07 ↗ middle housing walking tour, which was a

47:09 ↗ lot of fun to see. So,

47:15 ↗ >> are are you thinking of Mine Hill?

47:18 ↗ >> Ah, yes.

47:20 ↗ Eventually that will be 20 new homes

47:23 ↗ back there in a cluster development.

47:26 ↗ Yeah, but the two homes that are on the

47:28 ↗ street right now will stay there. They

47:30 ↗ may be torn down at some point, but

47:33 ↗ yeah.

47:40 ↗ >> All right. Uh, any further business from

47:43 ↗ the commission? All good. Right. If

47:47 ↗ there's nothing else, then we will

47:49 ↗ adjourn this meeting at 7:19 p.m. Thank

47:53 ↗ you very much.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (5)

Vice-Chair Patterson

Commissioners Adair

Matthews

Oliner

Zakharoff

Staff (1)

Yeyi Chen, Associate Planner Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of March 12, 2026 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3