Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, July 9, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 25, 2026

packet pp.3–7

▶ Watch from 1:31 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, June 25, 2026

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Promoting Building Investment in Issaquah: Project Update (D)

15 min · Mark Mullet, Mayor · packet pp.9–36

▶ Watch from 1:53:37 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the July 9 Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to review and discuss proposed draft amendments intended to (1) meet state parking requirements in SB 5184: The Parking Reform and Modernization Act and HB 1183 Washington State Building Code and Development Regulation Reform, and (2) allow certain residential uses in the UV-COM/RET zones in compliance with SB 6026 Residential Development in Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones.

Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments Review: Proposed Parking Reform and Updates to Urban Village- Commercial/Retail (UV-COM/RET Zones), (D)

40 min · Andrew Love, Associate Planner Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner · packet pp.37–56

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 1:54:22 Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the July 9 Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to review and discuss proposed draft amendments regarding transparency and natural context area requirements.

Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments Review: Proposed Transparency and Natural Context Area Updates (D)

40 min · Emily Medina, Senior Planner Yeyi Chen, Associate Planner

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:56:21

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.57–60

▶ Watch from 1:58:19 Open packet at p.57 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change)

2907 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ Are we ready? Yeah. What time is it?

0:16 ↗ >> What's that?

0:17 ↗ >> Hey everybody.

0:19 ↗ >> Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.

0:22 ↗ >> Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.

0:23 ↗ Hello.

0:26 ↗ >> We are going to get started.

0:30 ↗ We might have might have.

0:34 ↗ >> Hello.

0:35 ↗ >> All right.

0:36 ↗ >> Check check.

0:43 ↗ >> All right. Well, good evening everyone.

0:44 ↗ Welcome to this evening's planning

0:46 ↗ policy commission. Want to say thank you

0:49 ↗ for everybody showing up. It's not often

0:51 ↗ our audience outnumbers the commission.

0:54 ↗ And I want to thank all of our

0:56 ↗ commissioners here. We have a few

0:57 ↗ excused absences. Um, we did ask them to

1:00 ↗ do some heavy lifting. They were here

1:02 ↗ two weeks ago during the US men's team.

1:04 ↗ Today's 80°. I get it. I get it. We're

1:09 ↗ going to begin this meeting at 6:31 p.m.

1:12 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

1:14 ↗ planning policy commission is in person,

1:16 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

1:18 ↗ be attending virtually or in person this

1:20 ↗ evening.

1:22 ↗ Kate, do we have a quorum this evening?

1:25 ↗ Or Amanda?

1:27 ↗ Uh, yes we do.

1:28 ↗ >> Excellent. Okay, we'll begin with the

1:31 ↗ approval of minutes. Our first item of

1:33 ↗ business is to take action to approve

1:35 ↗ the minutes for the June 25th PPC

1:37 ↗ meeting. Are there any corrections or

1:39 ↗ concerns in the minutes that were

1:41 ↗ provided in your packet?

1:45 ↗ Seeing none, those minutes are approved.

1:48 ↗ We're going to move on to public comment

1:50 ↗ for this meeting. We're holding a

1:52 ↗ general public comment at this time for

1:54 ↗ all general topics discussed by the

1:56 ↗ commission for the public. There is no

1:58 ↗ public hearing this evening. So we will

2:00 ↗ skip that stuff. But um has anyone

2:03 ↗ signed up first and foremost?

2:05 ↗ >> Yes, chair. They have.

2:07 ↗ >> Okay. So we do have a few boilerplate

2:10 ↗ items to go through before we invite our

2:12 ↗ speakers up. Um we do ask that all

2:14 ↗ speakers speak clearly, pause

2:16 ↗ frequently. Please state your name

2:18 ↗ before you speak. And if you are

2:20 ↗ attending virtually by computer or by

2:21 ↗ phone and would like to speak during

2:23 ↗ public comments, in addition to the

2:25 ↗ above, please mute your microphone when

2:27 ↗ not speaking. And if you're having any

2:29 ↗ technical issues, please try joining the

2:31 ↗ meeting using a different device such as

2:33 ↗ a smartphone or tablet. You can also use

2:35 ↗ the call-in information in the meeting

2:37 ↗ invite to call into the meeting. Public

2:40 ↗ comments are an important part of the

2:42 ↗ public process. We take them seriously

2:44 ↗ and they are factored into the decisions

2:46 ↗ that we make. Comments may be general at

2:50 ↗ this time or related to the regular

2:52 ↗ business items in the agenda.

2:55 ↗ Please note that we ask that comments

2:57 ↗ are limited to 5 minutes or less. Okay.

3:00 ↗ Who's first up?

3:03 ↗ >> Taylor Haynes.

3:05 ↗ >> Okay.

3:10 ↗ >> Okay.

3:24 ↗ Creda, thank you. Thank you, mayor. Uh,

3:26 ↗ Creda, the Commercial Real Estate

3:28 ↗ Development Association, formerly known

3:30 ↗ as NAOP. We just want to take the time

3:33 ↗ here tonight to thank Mayor Mullet, um,

3:36 ↗ city staff, and you, the commission, for

3:38 ↗ the work that you're undertaking.

3:39 ↗ Communities across the region are facing

3:42 ↗ growing challenges around housing

3:44 ↗ affordability, economic competitiveness,

3:46 ↗ infrastructure needs, and accommodating

3:48 ↗ growth. We appreciate your willingness

3:51 ↗ to think strategically about how to

3:53 ↗ remain a great place to live, work, and

3:56 ↗ invest. While continuing to create

3:58 ↗ opportunities for current and future

4:01 ↗ residents and businesses, the

4:03 ↗ development community has a strong

4:05 ↗ interest in being a partner in that

4:06 ↗ effort. The people we work with and

4:09 ↗ represent want to invest in Isiqua. We

4:11 ↗ want to build housing, create jobs, and

4:13 ↗ contribute to the long-term success of

4:15 ↗ this community. We appreciate the

4:17 ↗ leadership being shown by the mayor, by

4:19 ↗ you, the commission, and staff, and we

4:21 ↗ really look forward to continuing to be

4:23 ↗ part of that discussion. Thank you.

4:33 ↗ I don't show anyone else.

4:37 ↗ first comment.

4:38 ↗ >> Would anyone else like to speak?

4:41 ↗ >> Okay. Well, we do have someone else in

4:44 ↗ the audience tonight who would like to

4:46 ↗ speak and we're going to ask Mayor

4:48 ↗ Mullet to come on up and Mayor Mullet's

4:52 ↗ going to be discussing the promoting

4:53 ↗ building investments in Isiziqua

4:55 ↗ project. So, Mr. Mayor, when you are

4:57 ↗ ready, please go ahead.

4:58 ↗ >> All right. Thank you very much,

5:00 ↗ commission. and I will I think we're

5:02 ↗ going to try to I'll make some comments

5:04 ↗ uh and then I want to turn it over to

5:07 ↗ kind of have you guys be able to ask any

5:09 ↗ questions you want and we'll go from

5:11 ↗ there. But I'd say that my first opening

5:14 ↗ remark is thank you. I think if you look

5:16 ↗ at the boards and commissions and their

5:19 ↗ workload they have in the year ahead, I

5:22 ↗ I think you guys have more than

5:24 ↗ everybody else. That's a simple

5:25 ↗ mathematical fact. and uh and there are

5:28 ↗ some boards and commissions that on

5:29 ↗ average end up meeting once every two or

5:31 ↗ 3 months. You guys meet twice a month.

5:35 ↗ So just the sheer frequency of of volume

5:37 ↗ you're getting through shows, you know,

5:40 ↗ how important it is to have people who

5:41 ↗ are willing to volunteer their time to

5:43 ↗ make Isizakqua a better place to live.

5:44 ↗ And you guys have all signed up to do

5:46 ↗ that and I sincerely appreciate those

5:49 ↗ efforts. And I would like to kind of go

5:52 ↗ next into sort of you guys might feel

5:56 ↗ for some who've been on this commission

5:57 ↗ for a while could feel a little kind of

5:59 ↗ whips in the sense that you know three

6:02 ↗ or four years ago you did a lot of

6:04 ↗ changes around the title 18 process and

6:06 ↗ then all of a sudden a new mayor comes

6:07 ↗ in and all a sudden it's like hey what

6:09 ↗ we're supposed to do all these changes

6:11 ↗ all over again. And so I think my goal

6:13 ↗ tonight was kind of just explain I guess

6:15 ↗ my background of where I'm coming from

6:17 ↗ and some of the proposals that are

6:18 ↗ coming forward from this administration.

6:20 ↗ And I would say going back to my 12

6:24 ↗ years in the state senate, my primary

6:26 ↗ role in the Senate was I did chair our

6:28 ↗ state construction budget. Uh, and I

6:30 ↗ vividly remember in December of 2022

6:34 ↗ going into that 23 legislative session.

6:37 ↗ I actually sent an op-ed that was in the

6:39 ↗ New York Times to every member of the

6:41 ↗ Senate Democratic Caucus. It was called

6:43 ↗ a liberalism that builds. It was written

6:45 ↗ by Ezra Klene. And the theme of that

6:47 ↗ op-ed was kind of blue states need to be

6:51 ↗ aware that when they make it really

6:53 ↗ difficult to build, people can't afford

6:55 ↗ to live in those states anymore. And it

6:57 ↗ was kind of this analysis by Ezra Klein

6:59 ↗ of the things that blue states say they

7:02 ↗ want, which was more housing, more clean

7:04 ↗ energy infrastructure, all these things.

7:06 ↗ And then it literally went down and said

7:08 ↗ all of the things that the blue states

7:09 ↗ say they want is actually being built in

7:11 ↗ red states solely because the permit

7:14 ↗ process in those states is easier and

7:15 ↗ more reliable to navigate. And so I sent

7:18 ↗ that to my colleagues and we actually I

7:20 ↗ felt made a lot of progress in the 23

7:22 ↗ legislative session on things like the

7:24 ↗ middle housing bill and a lot of other

7:26 ↗ things around you know permits and and

7:28 ↗ sea and all these other things that I

7:29 ↗ think with a simple goal of trying to

7:31 ↗ make it easier to build. So that was

7:33 ↗ sort of my mentality of where I had

7:35 ↗ arrived as a chair of our state

7:36 ↗ construction budget of trying to find

7:38 ↗ ways that we can make sure that if we're

7:41 ↗ driving up the cost of building

7:42 ↗ something that we're really thoughtful

7:44 ↗ about that thing being really important

7:47 ↗ to us if we've actually put it in the

7:48 ↗ code as as something that we know is

7:50 ↗ going to drive up the cost of building.

7:52 ↗ I think you then fast forward to uh last

7:55 ↗ year in 2025 as I was kind of

7:58 ↗ doorbelling this community and in in the

8:02 ↗ mayor's race, our oldest two kids

8:04 ↗ actually graduated from college. So

8:05 ↗ Isabelle graduated from Western and

8:07 ↗ Davis graduated from Montana State. And

8:09 ↗ so for the first time in our lives, my

8:11 ↗ wife and I were going through the

8:12 ↗ process of our two oldest kids actually

8:15 ↗ looking for housing in Isiqua, which you

8:18 ↗ know, I build the house we live in 20

8:21 ↗ years ago. So that was a parcel in the

8:23 ↗ Highlands I purchased, you know, way

8:25 ↗ back in 2006 and have been there ever

8:27 ↗ since and will probably be carted out of

8:29 ↗ there at some point, hopefully more than

8:31 ↗ 30 years from now. We'll see. Uh I'm 53.

8:33 ↗ But uh so it was a wakeup call as our

8:36 ↗ kids graduated from college that they

8:38 ↗ were coming back to me saying, "Dad, we

8:40 ↗ can't afford to live in the town that

8:42 ↗ you love more than any other place in

8:44 ↗ the state." And uh and so it really made

8:47 ↗ me once again kind of go back to the

8:49 ↗ same themes I dealt with in the Senate

8:51 ↗ and uh and kind of say, okay, well, if

8:53 ↗ this election works out, I would love to

8:56 ↗ kind of go through to look at the things

8:57 ↗ we have in our code and and try to go

9:00 ↗ through and say which ones of these are

9:01 ↗ essential that we have to keep, which

9:03 ↗ ones may be unnecessarily driving up

9:05 ↗ costs that we may want to revisit

9:07 ↗ discussions on. And I think that's

9:09 ↗ what's prompted these kind of 17 items

9:12 ↗ you see that staff has kind of broken

9:14 ↗ out. I think in a very thoughtful

9:15 ↗ manner, you know, quarter by quarter of

9:17 ↗ things we can get through and and just

9:19 ↗ to look at the ones you guys have

9:21 ↗ already done. Uh I mean this is a case

9:25 ↗ study of it. I think the the

9:26 ↗ recommendation you made around saying

9:28 ↗ not everything has to have a balcony.

9:29 ↗ 30% could have a balcony. You could also

9:31 ↗ meet that with general open space

9:33 ↗ requirements. I think that's

9:35 ↗ fundamentally changed what people look

9:36 ↗ at who want to build homes in our

9:38 ↗ community now look at those projects

9:40 ↗ differently because of you know that

9:42 ↗ proposal that you guys put forward. I

9:44 ↗ think that's meaningful progress. It

9:46 ↗ doesn't mean we've said we don't think

9:48 ↗ outdoor space is important. It's just we

9:50 ↗ provided I think some flexibility to

9:51 ↗ people want to build homes here. I think

9:53 ↗ the the step back issue that you guys

9:55 ↗ also addressed, you know, this came

9:57 ↗ directly from the King County Housing

9:59 ↗ Authority who basically came to us with

10:00 ↗ a spelled out very detailed cost

10:03 ↗ estimate of a requirement we had put in

10:05 ↗ place that was going to change the price

10:06 ↗ of their affordable housing project by

10:08 ↗ $1.2 million. And so once again, I think

10:11 ↗ the recommendation you made on that step

10:13 ↗ back, I I've looked at it. I think

10:16 ↗ having flexibility whether you want to

10:17 ↗ do it right above the parking level like

10:19 ↗ at the second or third floor versus

10:21 ↗ higher up I don't think it changes the

10:22 ↗ aesthetics of the building at all but we

10:25 ↗ know that we have lowered the cost of

10:26 ↗ the project by seven figures and so to

10:29 ↗ me the work you guys are doing is

10:32 ↗ actually very important and very

10:34 ↗ meaningful and and so I think this is

10:36 ↗ why I know it's a lot of work but I also

10:39 ↗ feel like this is essential to make sure

10:41 ↗ that our town doesn't fall into what I

10:43 ↗ call kind of the blue state trap. of

10:45 ↗ just saying here's all the rules and

10:47 ↗ regulations. If you don't like it, not

10:49 ↗ our problem. You don't have to build

10:50 ↗ here. And and I think we're just trying

10:52 ↗ to kind of have this collaborative

10:54 ↗ balanced approach as we go forward. And

10:57 ↗ and I think I'll end before we go to Q&A

11:00 ↗ of one kind of tweak you'll probably see

11:03 ↗ coming forward. Uh it was a little bit

11:05 ↗ different than maybe the first couple

11:07 ↗ proposals and this comes directly from

11:09 ↗ our council president's request. Uh I

11:12 ↗ think everyone wants to see all the

11:13 ↗ options now. And so basically, you look

11:16 ↗ at all 17 of these things. Every one of

11:18 ↗ them will have an option to say we're

11:20 ↗ going to keep what we're doing right

11:21 ↗ now. We're not making any changes.

11:22 ↗ That'll always be an option that, you

11:24 ↗ know, you guys can choose to go down.

11:26 ↗ The second will be what I think you'll

11:28 ↗ probably see from the administration,

11:29 ↗ which is here are some thoughtful

11:31 ↗ changes we think we can make that we

11:33 ↗ think will make it easier for people to

11:34 ↗ invest and build homes here. And the

11:36 ↗ third option will be we don't regulate

11:39 ↗ this space at all. And so take the you

11:42 ↗ guys will have the parking minimum

11:44 ↗ discussion in front of you and uh

11:46 ↗ basically the administration proposal is

11:48 ↗ there's a state law that goes in effect

11:49 ↗ in 2028 that says you know you can't

11:52 ↗ have more than the 0.5 half a parking

11:54 ↗ space requirement per home. Uh we have

11:57 ↗ members I know on the council who would

11:59 ↗ rather that just be zero. And so I think

12:01 ↗ that discussion is going to happen I

12:03 ↗ think and and I want you guys to know

12:05 ↗ you have choices in front of you. And I

12:07 ↗ I think I I value the input that this

12:10 ↗ commission puts forward and and in that

12:13 ↗ parking example that's like you could

12:14 ↗ keep the current parking requirements we

12:16 ↗ have up until the state law forces us to

12:18 ↗ change. You could implement the state

12:20 ↗ law early in which you would go to that

12:22 ↗ lower.5 threshold or you could say we're

12:25 ↗ not going to have any requirements

12:26 ↗ whatsoever in certain parts of Isiqua.

12:28 ↗ And I think those are the decision trees

12:30 ↗ you're going to find yourself having on

12:32 ↗ all these issues. And I think the

12:34 ↗ message from council president Martz was

12:36 ↗ even if you choose the middle option,

12:38 ↗ he's going to support the middle option

12:40 ↗ if you had the full range of options in

12:43 ↗ front of you. So I think you're going to

12:44 ↗ see a wider range of options as we

12:46 ↗ navigate the remaining items on the

12:48 ↗ list. And I did want to explain that

12:50 ↗ change as well. Uh and like I said is us

12:53 ↗ kind of listening to the council to make

12:55 ↗ sure you know that you guys aren't kind

12:58 ↗ of pigeonholed into which direction

12:59 ↗ you're you're going to take on these

13:01 ↗ issues. And with that, I would love to

13:03 ↗ be able to answer any questions people

13:05 ↗ might have.

13:06 ↗ >> Well, thank you, Mayor Mullet. And yes,

13:08 ↗ this commission does love work. That's

13:10 ↗ why we show up. We show up on US men's

13:12 ↗ teams. We show up on 80° days.

13:15 ↗ At least most of us.

13:17 ↗ >> Um, and I also did want to reiterate,

13:19 ↗ Mayor Mullet's not under a time

13:20 ↗ constraint. So, please, if you want to

13:21 ↗ keep going,

13:23 ↗ >> I'm done.

13:24 ↗ >> Okay, fair enough. And, um,

13:26 ↗ >> let's keep it on topic, everybody. But

13:28 ↗ I'm sure we have a lot of questions we'd

13:30 ↗ love to ask Mayor Mullet with his time.

13:32 ↗ But as far as the presentation that he

13:33 ↗ just laid out, does anyone have any

13:35 ↗ questions for the mayor?

13:37 ↗ >> And you can ask me questions on

13:38 ↗ anything.

13:41 ↗ >> Uh, Commissioner Holm.

13:42 ↗ >> Yeah, I think the 17 items are great.

13:44 ↗ Uh, and I'm wondering is there more

13:48 ↗ suggestions coming after that or

13:50 ↗ >> Well, and that's where I'd look to you

13:52 ↗ guys. I mean, I'll be honest. uh you

13:55 ↗ know we have we're a city of roughly

13:57 ↗ 42,000 people so we have the staff that

14:01 ↗ I love but we also aren't going to

14:03 ↗ double the size of our staff in the next

14:05 ↗ couple years and so I think it is trying

14:07 ↗ to manage priorities but acknowledging

14:10 ↗ like hey we we have to actually while

14:13 ↗ we're doing all this have to keep

14:14 ↗ processing the permits that are getting

14:16 ↗ submitted on a weekly basis and make

14:17 ↗ sure they do get back with the answers

14:19 ↗ they deserve in a timely manner. So, but

14:22 ↗ I think when you get through this, if

14:23 ↗ there's other items that you would like

14:25 ↗ us to address, like that's what I'm here

14:28 ↗ to be like. I'm I'm open to these

14:30 ↗ suggestions. I find the the ideas that

14:32 ↗ come out of boards and commissions

14:33 ↗ extremely helpful. And our current park

14:36 ↗ bond proposal that's going to be on the

14:38 ↗ ballot was basically driven and I mean,

14:41 ↗ majority of that proposal just came out

14:43 ↗ of the park commission and so the park

14:45 ↗ board. So, I think that yes, the answer

14:47 ↗ is if you guys have other things you

14:49 ↗ think we should be looking at

14:51 ↗ addressing, I 100% want to hear about

14:53 ↗ them and then we'll figure out like what

14:56 ↗ the timing looks like for those.

14:59 ↗ >> Commissioner Derek,

15:01 ↗ >> yeah, I think uh for me, one concern I

15:04 ↗ have is we're hearing a lot from the

15:05 ↗ developers, which is great. We're not

15:08 ↗ getting a lot of hard numbers from them

15:11 ↗ in terms of how much like you just said

15:13 ↗ seven fig the step back saves us seven

15:15 ↗ figures. One thing that was really

15:16 ↗ helpful is when we get the letter

15:18 ↗ breaking down the cost of adding

15:20 ↗ additional stepbacks, right? So

15:23 ↗ sometimes we get these things of well we

15:26 ↗ want it reduced from 45% to 15%

15:29 ↗ transparency for example. That's a huge

15:31 ↗ jump. So if we could get more idea of

15:34 ↗ like well in the big scheme of things

15:37 ↗ how much money is this going to save how

15:39 ↗ much of an impact is this going to have

15:41 ↗ versus other changes versus for example

15:44 ↗ reducing it to 30% or something like

15:46 ↗ that and then on top of that I would

15:48 ↗ love if we could hear more from the

15:51 ↗ people who are living here right because

15:53 ↗ I do think the aesthetics and the people

15:55 ↗ who are staying here you know we should

15:56 ↗ be listening to them as well and I know

15:58 ↗ we're here to represent them but I I do

16:01 ↗ feel very

16:02 ↗ >> no

16:04 ↗ I think that's an excellent point. I

16:05 ↗ would say in my senate role sometimes

16:08 ↗ there were some changes that were easier

16:10 ↗ for people to quantify other changes

16:12 ↗ they were just like well you're driving

16:13 ↗ up the cost but to us sometimes to give

16:15 ↗ you an answer how much like we'd

16:17 ↗ actually have to spend money to

16:18 ↗ determine ex so I think it's uh it's

16:21 ↗ that balancing act I think that's a very

16:24 ↗ valid question though I I think

16:26 ↗ commissioner dare to basically say to

16:29 ↗ the people who are trying to build homes

16:30 ↗ here saying hey we want flexibility on

16:32 ↗ this it would really help I think for

16:35 ↗ you guys and everybody else to

16:36 ↗ understand well what is the rough cost

16:39 ↗ of of those things that we're saying we

16:41 ↗ need to look at again and and I can't so

16:44 ↗ that's helpful to know going forward we

16:45 ↗ can try to do the best job we can of

16:48 ↗ trying to get those estimates in terms

16:50 ↗ of uh I mean everything we do here I

16:53 ↗ think we want citizen input and and I've

16:55 ↗ explained

16:57 ↗ you know I think going back to the

16:59 ↗ parking example like the proposal

17:01 ↗ administration is just adopt the state

17:03 ↗ law early I actually think if you remove

17:05 ↗ all parking requirements that there will

17:07 ↗ be a lot of people in the city of Isqua

17:08 ↗ will say well that seems like you're

17:10 ↗ just going too far and even even the

17:13 ↗ people trying to invest and build homes

17:15 ↗ here say you don't have to go that far

17:16 ↗ cuz I've asked them this exact question

17:18 ↗ is do you have to go all the way to zero

17:20 ↗ and they say no they're like it would be

17:23 ↗ hard for them to sell a home in Isiqua

17:25 ↗ without providing at least one parking

17:27 ↗ spot like it would be really hard or to

17:29 ↗ rent a home in Isqua without providing

17:30 ↗ at least one parking spot so I think

17:32 ↗ it's one of those things where do you

17:34 ↗ want to as you're listening to community

17:37 ↗ feedback sometimes that's going to be

17:39 ↗ the challenge of saying we're not going

17:40 ↗ to regulate the space at all is you're

17:42 ↗ really going to make the community

17:43 ↗ uncomfortable versus I think in this

17:46 ↗ example we're saying the community well

17:47 ↗ this is going to be state law in a

17:49 ↗ couple years it's just a question of do

17:51 ↗ we want to adopt it now to see if it

17:53 ↗ sparks any interest between now and then

17:55 ↗ of somebody starting a project sooner

17:57 ↗ rather than later and uh but 100% the

18:01 ↗ feedback from all residents of Isiqua is

18:03 ↗ going to be extremely valuable and and

18:06 ↗ this is and this is our balancing out. I

18:08 ↗ don't know the solution to this. There's

18:09 ↗ no silver bullet is my kids who have

18:13 ↗ grown up in a house with somebody in

18:15 ↗ elected office, they wouldn't even come

18:18 ↗ to things like this. It's like the

18:20 ↗ challenge I find is the people who tend

18:22 ↗ to show up a lot with very vocal

18:24 ↗ feelings sometimes are people who have

18:26 ↗ owned a home in this community for a

18:28 ↗ very long time and this issue isn't

18:30 ↗ really impacting like where they're

18:33 ↗ going to live next. And and so that's my

18:37 ↗ challenge as mayor is how do you get the

18:40 ↗ people who are graduating from college

18:42 ↗ to engage in this discussion at the same

18:44 ↗ level of energy as somebody who's lived

18:47 ↗ here for 30 years and owned a home for a

18:49 ↗ long time and and is in a different

18:51 ↗ perspective I guess. And so I think

18:54 ↗ we've heard a lot from that latter

18:56 ↗ category during my time on the city

18:57 ↗ council and the last 15 years. And I

19:00 ↗ think our challenge as a city is how do

19:03 ↗ we get this this younger generation to

19:06 ↗ engage on this topic with with their

19:08 ↗ city council and their city commissions.

19:10 ↗ And I don't know the answer of how to do

19:12 ↗ that because I have a hard time to get

19:14 ↗ my kids out of bed sometimes on the

19:15 ↗ weekends before 10 a.m. So I don't have

19:18 ↗ any magic wand on that front.

19:22 ↗ >> All right. Any other questions for the

19:24 ↗ mayor?

19:27 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you, Mayor

19:28 ↗ Mullet. That was great. Um,

19:31 ↗ >> well, thanks again for your guys'

19:33 ↗ commitment to this community and for

19:35 ↗ your level of volunteer service. It's

19:37 ↗ really appreciated and thank you very

19:40 ↗ much from the bottom of my heart and I'm

19:41 ↗ sorry you're missing this 80°ree

19:43 ↗ weather.

19:45 ↗ It is nice and air conditioned in here.

19:46 ↗ That's one thing that has not failed in

19:48 ↗ City Hall South yet is the AC. So,

19:50 ↗ that's good. Okay. Hey, thanks a lot.

19:51 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, Mayor Mullet.

19:53 ↗ Appreciate it.

19:57 ↗ >> Okay.

20:00 ↗ Moving along, our first well, our first

20:03 ↗ item of business was um Mayor Mullet's

20:06 ↗ remarks. So, our second item of business

20:08 ↗ this evening is a presentation from

20:10 ↗ associate planner Andrew Love and

20:12 ↗ principal planner Kate Kaney on two

20:15 ↗ proposed code amendments related to the

20:16 ↗ promoting building investments project.

20:19 ↗ Specifically, changes to parking

20:21 ↗ requirements and updates to the urban

20:23 ↗ village commercial retail zone, also

20:26 ↗ known as the UV-COM

20:29 ↗ slash ret zone. Andrew and Kate, please

20:33 ↗ go ahead when you are ready.

20:41 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh Kate will lead uh or start

20:44 ↗ the presentation off.

20:48 ↗ Thank you, Andrew.

20:50 ↗ So, um, Andrew is going to be speaking

20:53 ↗ about the parking requirements and the

20:55 ↗ changes to the UV Comrade zone. But

20:57 ↗ before he does, I thought I'd take a

20:58 ↗ minute to, uh, provide some introduction

21:01 ↗ to this overall briefing process for

21:03 ↗ these proposed amendments. So, um,

21:06 ↗ wanted to share some goals. Today is

21:08 ↗ really a work session and the work

21:10 ↗ session is aimed at helping you prepare

21:12 ↗ for the public hearing which is going to

21:14 ↗ be at your next meeting on July 23rd. Um

21:17 ↗ you know our goals for you is that you

21:19 ↗ can uh go back and review the guidance

21:22 ↗ that we have from city council um on the

21:25 ↗ PBI or promoting building investment uh

21:28 ↗ project that the mayor was just speaking

21:30 ↗ about. Um the speakers will review um in

21:34 ↗ detail what that guidance was on each of

21:36 ↗ the amendments. uh we'd like you to

21:39 ↗ fully uh familiarize yourselves and

21:41 ↗ understand what is being proposed in the

21:43 ↗ amendments that was that were in your

21:45 ↗ packet and ask clarifying questions for

21:47 ↗ us. We also want to walk through and

21:50 ↗ confirm sort of this review and

21:51 ↗ recommendation process because there are

21:53 ↗ a few differences uh between this

21:55 ↗ process and what you um did the last

21:58 ↗ round of PBI amendments. So these are

22:02 ↗ just some FYI. Um, the amendments that

22:04 ↗ are in the meeting packet for tonight

22:07 ↗ are the same amendments that will be

22:09 ↗ used at the public hearing. Um, I don't

22:11 ↗ know if you're on the public hearing

22:12 ↗ calendar, but you may have gotten the

22:14 ↗ message that these were posted

22:15 ↗ yesterday. Uh, you know, generally, uh,

22:18 ↗ a couple weeks before public hearing,

22:20 ↗ um, it there's a notice, uh, that we

22:22 ↗ provide to the public and a chance to

22:25 ↗ look at these amendments. So, um the

22:30 ↗ goal again for tonight is to talk about,

22:32 ↗ you know, those proposals. Um but no

22:34 ↗ changes that you may talk about tonight

22:37 ↗ will be made to the amendment uh that

22:40 ↗ you have in your packets because again,

22:42 ↗ those are for the public hearing. Um of

22:45 ↗ course, if you want changes to be made,

22:47 ↗ that is always your prerogative. And as

22:50 ↗ part of the public hearing, there's the

22:51 ↗ del deliberation process. Motions can be

22:54 ↗ made and votes can be held. So, um, one

22:58 ↗ thing that is a little bit different

22:59 ↗ this time is as we understand it, city

23:02 ↗ council would like to, um, better

23:04 ↗ understand the perspective of the

23:06 ↗ commission on each of the items that,

23:09 ↗ um, have been identified as part of

23:10 ↗ these amendments. Um, they're listed as

23:14 ↗ possible actions and again, the

23:16 ↗ presenters will go over what those

23:18 ↗ possible actions that council wanted you

23:20 ↗ to consider um, when they uh, do your

23:22 ↗ briefings. Um and so as part of the

23:27 ↗ public hearing afterwards your

23:28 ↗ deliberations wherever you land on votes

23:31 ↗ um I believe we will work to try to

23:33 ↗ understand a little bit flesh out um the

23:35 ↗ rationale behind um your

23:37 ↗ recommendations. So just wanted to give

23:39 ↗ you an FYI on that. So um lastly just

23:42 ↗ want to confirm again what the work is

23:44 ↗ today and then also um how the the uh

23:47 ↗ public hearing will go. So again,

23:48 ↗ tonight um we want to review the PBI

23:51 ↗ goals and outcomes guidance with you. We

23:54 ↗ want to give you a full chance to

23:55 ↗ understand the proposed amendment

23:56 ↗ language. And we heard from some of the

23:58 ↗ commissioners when they noticed there

24:00 ↗ were some new things in the packet that

24:02 ↗ you guys had already talked about and

24:04 ↗ maybe made recommendations about and um

24:06 ↗ you might be wondering what those are.

24:08 ↗ Um in the parking requirements, the

24:11 ↗ commission had already spoken about um

24:14 ↗ remov eliminating parking minimums in

24:17 ↗ central Isiqua's urban core and mixed

24:19 ↗ use central Isiqua zones. Um there had

24:22 ↗ been some feedback that uh you'd you

24:24 ↗ know that you'd already given those

24:26 ↗ proposals that elimination is in the

24:29 ↗ parking code that is going to be

24:31 ↗ reviewed at the public hearing um for

24:34 ↗ comment. So we just wanted to make sure

24:35 ↗ you understand that. Andrew will talk

24:37 ↗ about that a little bit in his

24:38 ↗ presentation as well. Um opportunity

24:40 ↗ tonight for you all to give some

24:42 ↗ feedback on, you know, your thoughts on

24:44 ↗ that, whether they've changed or not, uh

24:46 ↗ since the last time you talked about it.

24:48 ↗ Additionally, um there's a discussion

24:50 ↗ about um potentially removing

24:53 ↗ transparency requirements from town

24:55 ↗ homes, something that was kind of talked

24:58 ↗ about a little bit um and heard some uh

25:01 ↗ feedback on that. So, want to give it

25:03 ↗ give uh an opportunity to talk about

25:05 ↗ that, too. um in that presentation. So

25:08 ↗ um again, this is you know your meeting,

25:12 ↗ your work session um and there will be

25:14 ↗ opportunities to uh discuss and provide

25:16 ↗ additional feedback as you'd like. Just

25:18 ↗ a reminder of what happens at the public

25:19 ↗ hearing. You will hear public testimony.

25:22 ↗ You'll deliberate over the proposals.

25:23 ↗ Again, if you want to make motions to

25:26 ↗ propose changes, that is uh something

25:28 ↗ that can be done then. um as well as

25:30 ↗ that vote and that little new um uh

25:32 ↗ opportunity to um share your feedback on

25:35 ↗ specific PBI items so that council can

25:37 ↗ fully understand where you where you

25:39 ↗ your what your opinions are uh and your

25:41 ↗ recommendations. So with that, I'm going

25:44 ↗ to go ahead and turn the presentation

25:46 ↗ over to Andrew. So thank you.

25:50 ↗ >> Thank you.

25:52 ↗ Um good evening, commissioners. Uh my

25:55 ↗ name is Andrew Love and I'm an associate

25:57 ↗ planner here. Um so the purpose of this

26:00 ↗ portion of the meeting is to uh is

26:03 ↗ presenting an uh discussion of the

26:04 ↗ proposed amendments to parking in

26:06 ↗ addition to the proposed or the um the

26:10 ↗ permitted uses in the urban village

26:12 ↗ commercial and urban village retail

26:13 ↗ zones um in preparation for the public

26:16 ↗ hearing. So first we will start with the

26:21 ↗ parking reform updates.

26:23 ↗ So the table that you're about to see is

26:26 ↗ uh just setting the stage um for um more

26:30 ↗ of a formal response to the possible

26:32 ↗ actions that you see on the far hand the

26:34 ↗ far right hand side. Um the this is

26:37 ↗ taken from the goals and outcomes work

26:39 ↗ plan that was developed uh in the

26:41 ↗ council meetings. Um, and the possible

26:45 ↗ actions being adopting minimum parking

26:48 ↗ required uh per Senate Bill 5184,

26:51 ↗ eliminating or keeping current maximum

26:53 ↗ parking requirements, um establishing

26:55 ↗ minimum accessible parking requirements

26:57 ↗ prior to guidance from the state

27:00 ↗ building code council, and then lastly,

27:02 ↗ um potentially looking at eliminating

27:04 ↗ parking minimums in central Isiqua,

27:06 ↗ specifically the urban core and mixed

27:08 ↗ use central isqua zones.

27:12 ↗ And uh this kind of uh hopefully

27:14 ↗ accurately recaps feedback that we have

27:16 ↗ heard from to date um from the PPC. So

27:20 ↗ uh in relation to the uh four possible

27:23 ↗ actions that were on the previous slide

27:25 ↗ and this slide. So for adopting the

27:28 ↗ minimum parking we did discuss uh

27:31 ↗ complying with the Senate bill 5184

27:34 ↗ um which is known as the parking reform

27:36 ↗ and modern modernization act. uh in

27:39 ↗ addition to complying with uh House Bill

27:41 ↗ 1183 which is the technically called the

27:44 ↗ building code and development

27:45 ↗ regulations but it's uh also addresses

27:47 ↗ residential parking standards and we're

27:50 ↗ including it since it is uh also

27:52 ↗ addressed in the commerce uh checklist

27:54 ↗ that staff relied on um a lot when they

27:57 ↗ were drafting when I was drafting the

27:59 ↗ code amendments. Um next is eliminating

28:02 ↗ or keeping current maximum parking

28:04 ↗ requirements. Uh we discussed this last

28:07 ↗ time and um it was uh recommended that

28:10 ↗ it was an anonymous um motion to

28:13 ↗ maintain the current maximum parking

28:15 ↗ requirements. Next we have eliminating

28:18 ↗ the parking minimums and at um the last

28:20 ↗ meeting it was uh discussed to not move

28:22 ↗ forward at this time. uh we and to wait

28:25 ↗ to understand a more you know fuller

28:28 ↗ effects of um the parking bill

28:30 ↗ compliance and we do want to discuss

28:32 ↗ this more at this meeting um and it was

28:37 ↗ incorporated into the code um because

28:39 ↗ it's easier to get rid of something

28:40 ↗ after publishing it for public hearing

28:42 ↗ or SEPA than it is to add it back later.

28:44 ↗ So, um, and then lastly, establishing

28:47 ↗ minimum accessible parking requirements.

28:49 ↗ Um, we can also discuss this more later

28:51 ↗ in the slides.

28:54 ↗ So, I'm going to jump right into the

28:55 ↗ code amendments. Um, I apologize, it's a

28:58 ↗ lot of text, but it's a little kind of

29:00 ↗ technical. So, um, the code amendments

29:02 ↗ start with, um, changes to propo uh, to

29:05 ↗ the provision of required vehicle

29:07 ↗ parking. Uh there is an a proposed

29:09 ↗ amendment to subsection G which

29:12 ↗ addresses changes in use and this is to

29:14 ↗ comply with Senate Bill 5184.

29:17 ↗ And then the new proposed um sub

29:20 ↗ subsection K that is on the same slide

29:22 ↗ is to remove parking minimums for ground

29:25 ↗ level non-residential spaces in mixeduse

29:27 ↗ buildings which is also meant to comply

29:30 ↗ with Senate Bill 5184.

29:34 ↗ And then in the same section there are

29:37 ↗ new subsections L and M. And there was

29:41 ↗ subsection L was crafted based on draft

29:44 ↗ uh commerce guidance that recommends

29:46 ↗ specifying certain categories that are

29:49 ↗ applied before less specific categories.

29:52 ↗ For example, the type of building

29:53 ↗ construction or the size of a particular

29:56 ↗ residential unit or whether or not the

29:58 ↗ unit is affordable um may mean there are

30:01 ↗ no parking minimums which takes

30:02 ↗ precedence when determining how much

30:04 ↗ parking is required. The less specific

30:07 ↗ categories would be things like single

30:09 ↗ family housing, whether it's meets

30:10 ↗ middle housing, multif family housing,

30:12 ↗ or certain um non-residential uses. Um

30:16 ↗ the state law also requires no more than

30:19 ↗ X amount of parking. So when determining

30:22 ↗ if there's like say 11 multif family

30:26 ↗ units and there's 0.5 parking spaces

30:29 ↗ required um the com the draft commerce

30:31 ↗ guidance does say that it is to require

30:34 ↗ no more than therefore there is that

30:36 ↗ added subsection M to round down in the

30:40 ↗ case of determining parking.

30:44 ↗ Next we're going to move on to the

30:47 ↗ parking table which has quite a few

30:49 ↗ different changes. Um and again we can

30:52 ↗ uh happy to discuss things. Uh so I did

30:55 ↗ want to um shout out to the vice chair

30:58 ↗ for catching a scrivener's error which

31:00 ↗ will be corrected um in one of the code

31:01 ↗ references. But um no parking minimums

31:05 ↗ uh would be for the current amendments.

31:08 ↗ No parking minimum would be uh a part

31:12 ↗ I'm sorry in order to meet both Senate

31:14 ↗ Bill 5184 and House Bill 1183. there

31:19 ↗ would be no minimum parking requirements

31:21 ↗ for affordable housing. Um, and then

31:26 ↗ related to specifically Senate Bill

31:28 ↗ 5184,

31:30 ↗ no minimum parking required for any

31:32 ↗ dwelling unit under 1,200

31:35 ↗ uh square ft of gross floor area.

31:38 ↗ Um, let's see here. And then lastly, um

31:43 ↗ the last row starts to talk about what I

31:46 ↗ like to call as um innovative housing

31:48 ↗ types. So we kind talked a little bit

31:50 ↗ about this last time, but um for this on

31:53 ↗ this slide, there's passive house

31:54 ↗ requirements, which means the uh

31:57 ↗ criteria for certification as a passive

31:59 ↗ house by either FIAS or the

32:01 ↗ international passive house institute.

32:04 ↗ So that would also see no required

32:08 ↗ minimum parking uh to meet the state

32:11 ↗ law.

32:14 ↗ And this kind of continues with um two

32:16 ↗ additional uh what I would call

32:18 ↗ innovative housing types. So we also see

32:21 ↗ residential projects utilizing modular

32:23 ↗ construction methods um specifically as

32:26 ↗ it's outlined in the section of RCW and

32:28 ↗ then in addition residential projects

32:30 ↗ utilizing mass timber construction. Um

32:33 ↗ these in addition would see no minimum

32:35 ↗ parking requirements as uh

32:39 ↗ in order to meet state law. Um and then

32:42 ↗ we move on to single family housing. So

32:46 ↗ uh currently if you are on a lot uh

32:48 ↗ greater than 6,000 square ft and you

32:50 ↗ want to build a detached single family

32:52 ↗ residence, you are required to put in at

32:54 ↗ least two parking spaces. Uh but if it's

32:57 ↗ smaller than 6,000 ft, it's just one.

33:00 ↗ So, the proposed amendment is to lower

33:02 ↗ this to one regardless of the size of

33:04 ↗ the lot to meet state law.

33:08 ↗ Um, and then we move into middle

33:10 ↗ housing. So, um, I think when the middle

33:13 ↗ housing guidance originally came out,

33:15 ↗ you could separate it based on this

33:17 ↗ 6,000 ft lot size, you could require two

33:20 ↗ per unit. Um, if it's more than that,

33:22 ↗ but if it's less than that, um, it's one

33:24 ↗ per unit. Um, however, in order to meet

33:28 ↗ the middle housing bill as well, you

33:30 ↗ can't have regulations that are more

33:32 ↗ strict for middle housing than they are

33:34 ↗ for single family housing. So, in

33:36 ↗ essence, we also have to reduce the

33:38 ↗ middle housing. At least it's staff's

33:41 ↗ interpretation that we would have to

33:44 ↗ require no more than one space for

33:46 ↗ middle housing. Um, since the same is

33:48 ↗ being asked of single family housing. So

33:52 ↗ that is reflected in the first two rows

33:54 ↗ that you see on the screen. Um the third

33:56 ↗ row would be multif family and livework

33:58 ↗ units. So our code currently um has a

34:02 ↗ minimum of 0.75 spaces per unit and tier

34:06 ↗ one parking. And in the tier 2 parking

34:08 ↗ area it's full parking space per unit.

34:11 ↗ Um in both cases this would need to be

34:13 ↗ reduced to 0.5 spaces per um per unit to

34:18 ↗ meet the state law. And then lastly on

34:20 ↗ this slide is senior housing which um

34:22 ↗ under the proposed or under the law is

34:25 ↗ um would have no parking minimum.

34:29 ↗ Um next we move into um office. So

34:33 ↗ office is particularly called out as

34:35 ↗ meeting the definition of commercial um

34:38 ↗ which is not you don't wouldn't

34:41 ↗ typically think of office as being a

34:42 ↗ commercial use but in the state law they

34:44 ↗ specifically call out office as meeting

34:46 ↗ this term of commercial. So, um, in

34:49 ↗ 5184,

34:51 ↗ so in this in the law, it there's no

34:55 ↗ parking minimum if it's under 3,000

34:58 ↗ square ft of gross floor area. Um, and

35:01 ↗ if it's above that size, then it's one

35:03 ↗ space per 500 square ft of gross uh

35:06 ↗ floor area. Um, so there are proposed

35:09 ↗ changes there. And then in addition,

35:12 ↗ daycare operations would have no parking

35:14 ↗ minimums in order to meet state law.

35:19 ↗ Um, and then continuing on, this slide

35:21 ↗ is um mostly just kind of housekeeping

35:24 ↗ changes, moving personal service,

35:26 ↗ keeping the same requirements, but

35:27 ↗ moving it from overnight lodging

35:30 ↗ category to general service just so it's

35:32 ↗ a little easier for staff or applicants

35:34 ↗ to navigate the parking table. And then

35:37 ↗ since office is called out um as its own

35:40 ↗ use uh we are proposing to remove the

35:45 ↗ separate medical office category. Um

35:47 ↗ even if we were to keep it, it would

35:49 ↗ have to meet the same uh requirements as

35:51 ↗ the the office category uh we talked

35:53 ↗ about in the last slide. And then um the

35:57 ↗ last uh bit of the table uh the proposed

36:00 ↗ changes to the table would be um

36:02 ↗ restaurants and retail sales also fit

36:05 ↗ into that definition of commercial in

36:07 ↗ the state code. Um so you would see no

36:09 ↗ minimum for spaces that are less than

36:12 ↗ 3,000 of gross floor area. And then if

36:15 ↗ it's 3,000 or greater, it would be one

36:17 ↗ space per every 500 square ft of gross

36:20 ↗ floor area. And then um you can see that

36:22 ↗ the maximums were kept the same. And if

36:25 ↗ the minimums for some of the tiers were

36:27 ↗ higher than what's required by the

36:28 ↗ state, then we just or I'm sorry were

36:31 ↗ less restrict restrictive than what was

36:33 ↗ asked by the state. We tried to do the

36:36 ↗ lightest touch, if you will, but in but

36:40 ↗ still trying to meet the state law.

36:45 ↗ Um, next we move into the flexible

36:47 ↗ parking tools section. So essentially

36:49 ↗ this was about tandem parking uh for

36:52 ↗ strictly residential uses. uh should be

36:55 ↗ allowed for up to 100% of the parking

36:57 ↗ per RCW 367A622.

37:01 ↗ This was a part again of the commerce's

37:03 ↗ uh residential parking checklist um that

37:06 ↗ helped guide the proposed code

37:07 ↗ amendments which is why these changes

37:09 ↗ are also being included.

37:12 ↗ And um tandem parking for retail and

37:15 ↗ commercial uses is addressed in

37:17 ↗ subsection K of this same section and no

37:20 ↗ amendments are proposed to tandem

37:22 ↗ parking for retail and commercial uses.

37:26 ↗ And then this last section of the

37:28 ↗ parking amendments is um more of a

37:30 ↗ cleanup. So again, single family

37:32 ↗ residential uses are not required to

37:35 ↗ pave and stripe parking and circulation

37:37 ↗ areas. They can also use grass block

37:39 ↗ pavers if they would like to meet

37:41 ↗ minimum parking. Therefore, we are

37:43 ↗ simply adding proposing to add and

37:45 ↗ middle housing um after single family

37:48 ↗ residential in order um to make sure

37:50 ↗ that we're compliant with the middle

37:51 ↗ housing bill.

37:54 ↗ Um so to kind of circle back on what we

37:59 ↗ had previously kind of talked about and

38:01 ↗ um we can definitely open up the

38:02 ↗ discussion again. Uh we previously

38:04 ↗ talked about potentially oops um

38:06 ↗ eliminating parking minimums in within

38:09 ↗ central Isiqua specifically the urban

38:11 ↗ core and mixeduse central Isiqua zones.

38:14 ↗ the urban core zone you can see in kind

38:16 ↗ of a salmon color um fittingly and then

38:19 ↗ um the purple uh the one with the the

38:24 ↗ thicker purple lines is mixeduse central

38:27 ↗ is

38:29 ↗ um so the just a friendly reminder the

38:31 ↗ PPC feedback to date um has been uh to

38:34 ↗ not move forward at this time um and to

38:38 ↗ wait um to understand the effects of the

38:42 ↗ state parking bill and I um would like

38:45 ↗ to ask if you have any changes or

38:48 ↗ additions or further comments on that.

38:51 ↗ Um we would still like to hear that as

38:54 ↗ part of the public hearing process. Um

38:56 ↗ since yeah, since I think

39:00 ↗ Yeah, we would still like to hear it as

39:02 ↗ part of the public hearing, but I'm

39:03 ↗ opening it up for discussion if you

39:05 ↗ would like to um discuss it more

39:07 ↗ tonight. And if I may just add, um, it's

39:10 ↗ just an opportunity. We wanted to let

39:12 ↗ you just feel free if you wanted to

39:14 ↗ provide us more feedback. Now, if you

39:15 ↗ want to wait and provide feedback at the

39:17 ↗ public hearing, it's your choice. Just

39:19 ↗ wanted you to use the work session as as

39:20 ↗ you felt, you know, appropriate.

39:23 ↗ >> Well, thank you both. Um, Kate and

39:26 ↗ Andrew. And again, the public hearing

39:29 ↗ that has this all on the agenda has

39:31 ↗ already gone out. So, nothing we do

39:33 ↗ tonight is going to have any effect. we

39:35 ↗ would have to basically have this

39:36 ↗ conversation or that vote um at the

39:38 ↗ following PPC meeting, but it is an

39:40 ↗ opportunity to flush this out as Kate

39:42 ↗ mentioned earlier to kind of get uh the

39:44 ↗ idea to again uh it's good to see this

39:47 ↗ the second and third time. Um I had the

39:50 ↗ opportunity to talk to a couple

39:51 ↗ developers, you know, and again I'm I'm

39:53 ↗ proud to say that my mind also is never

39:55 ↗ set in stone. I like to learn from lots

39:57 ↗ of people and um so I'm interested to

40:00 ↗ hear what all you have to say. Again,

40:02 ↗ originally, as you can see, and thank

40:03 ↗ you, Andrew, for such a this is a great

40:05 ↗ shot.

40:07 ↗ You know, our last discussion, if you

40:10 ↗ remember, was kind of about the chicken

40:12 ↗ and egg. You know, do we want to go

40:13 ↗ first? We don't really have the transit,

40:15 ↗ but at the same time, as Mayor Mullet

40:17 ↗ said, we want to spark development. We

40:19 ↗ want to do what we can to help

40:20 ↗ developers. Um, parking is one of those

40:23 ↗ things, and ultimately, we want to get

40:26 ↗ to less parking in the city to utilize

40:29 ↗ our land better. So, we have those goals

40:31 ↗ and outcomes. I think that was one of

40:32 ↗ the things is we did want to see where

40:34 ↗ that state bill landed, but we know

40:36 ↗ where it's going in 2028. And the

40:39 ↗ question is, as you all heard, is do we

40:42 ↗ want to stay where we are now? Do we

40:45 ↗ want to jump ahead and go to 2028 now or

40:51 ↗ as you can see, do we just get rid of

40:52 ↗ the minimums completely? And hopefully,

40:55 ↗ amongst other things, that would be one

40:57 ↗ tool for developers. So, that's kind of

40:59 ↗ it. I mean, again, there's other options

41:01 ↗ in between, but those are kind of the

41:02 ↗ big three. Looking for questions,

41:05 ↗ comments, feedback as we go. Um,

41:08 ↗ Commissioner Adair's got her microphone

41:10 ↗ on, so I'm going to guess she's got

41:11 ↗ something to say. Yeah. No. So, I

41:14 ↗ actually I'm not opposed to jumping to

41:16 ↗ the 2028 because if we feel like that's

41:19 ↗ where things are going, we might as well

41:22 ↗ lay the groundwork now and start to see

41:24 ↗ what the results are. I would like to

41:28 ↗ kind of see what the impacts of those

41:30 ↗ are before going getting rid of minimums

41:33 ↗ entirely, but I'm not emotionally

41:35 ↗ opposed to getting rid of minimums, if

41:37 ↗ that makes sense. Like I'm like, yes, I

41:39 ↗ can see us gradually moving to a place

41:42 ↗ where we have no parking minimums, but

41:45 ↗ it we don't maybe want to dump the

41:47 ↗ general populace in ice water and be

41:50 ↗ like swim swim.

41:51 ↗ >> It might be a bridge too far right now.

41:54 ↗ Um, Commissioner Holmstrom.

41:56 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean, seeing how these state

41:59 ↗ laws are coming in 2028,

42:01 ↗ developers, anybody building anything's

42:03 ↗ just going to they're designing for

42:06 ↗ those right now. So, if we say we want

42:09 ↗ to hold on to our current in the

42:12 ↗ meantime, it's not really going to

42:13 ↗ matter. They're not I don't think it

42:15 ↗ it's takes so long to get a building

42:17 ↗ permit uh for especially for a bigger

42:20 ↗ project that it's it's not really going

42:22 ↗ to be applicable in a way with that

42:25 ↗ they're because they're just going to

42:26 ↗ design for those laws as soon as they

42:28 ↗ hit 2028 would be my feeling.

42:31 ↗ >> Yeah, probably not many projects are

42:33 ↗ going to be able to sneak in before

42:34 ↗ that.

42:34 ↗ >> Yeah,

42:36 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

42:37 ↗ >> Um I also agree with you. It's going to

42:39 ↗ take a while for them to break ground

42:41 ↗ and everything else, so it makes sense

42:42 ↗ to adopt it now. But I think at the same

42:44 ↗ time, we need to prep for the reality of

42:46 ↗ people having cars. I mean, I know that

42:49 ↗ developers were they're not going to

42:50 ↗ build with no parking spots, but we

42:53 ↗ would definitely want to put a permit

42:54 ↗ process in in place for parking in

42:58 ↗ established neighborhoods and around

43:00 ↗ like the parking ride so people are not

43:02 ↗ doubling into those areas. So, I just

43:05 ↗ think we need to prep as a city knowing

43:06 ↗ that that this is coming that we need to

43:08 ↗ put a parking permit process overall.

43:13 ↗ In by permit, what do you mean?

43:15 ↗ >> Um, just like in Seattle where the

43:17 ↗ neighborhoods have like parking permits

43:19 ↗ to in your neighborhood because

43:21 ↗ everybody street parks, right?

43:22 ↗ >> Yeah. Got it.

43:23 ↗ >> Sorry.

43:23 ↗ >> Nope. No problem.

43:28 ↗ Anyone else like to add?

43:33 ↗ >> And I do have a few more slides on

43:34 ↗ parking. I just wanted to give you some

43:36 ↗ time to kind of noodle on this

43:38 ↗ particular question.

43:40 ↗ Well, let's Yeah, let's stay here while

43:41 ↗ we're here. Um,

43:44 ↗ I could probably be sold either way if

43:47 ↗ there was a strong enough argument to

43:48 ↗ get rid of them now. Um, I'd like to see

43:51 ↗ build development sparked.

43:54 ↗ I also am not opposed to just leaving uh

43:57 ↗ going with the 2028 laws. I mean, again,

43:59 ↗ these are all things it

44:02 ↗ I would assume that again, the

44:04 ↗ developers want a viable project. They

44:06 ↗ want to be able to sell. They know if

44:08 ↗ they have absolutely zero parking that

44:09 ↗ actually does not uh help them um for a

44:12 ↗ car centric state and nation and city.

44:16 ↗ But

44:18 ↗ at the other time, you know, at the

44:19 ↗ other hand, any correct, anything that

44:22 ↗ we do that we overshoot can always be

44:25 ↗ looked at again and corrected. Now, the

44:28 ↗ only question I have for Andrew is again

44:30 ↗ with the exceptions of certain

44:32 ↗ areas like you said about the GFA,

44:35 ↗ basically when we say getting rid of all

44:37 ↗ the minimums, you're talking about

44:38 ↗ everything unless it's state required

44:40 ↗ like the ADA, certain things like that.

44:43 ↗ Correct?

44:43 ↗ >> Yes. Only the minimum.

44:46 ↗ >> From my understanding, the council never

44:48 ↗ wanted to get rid of parking minimums

44:50 ↗ for the citywide. it was specifically to

44:52 ↗ explore the idea of only doing it in

44:54 ↗ these the two zones that are on the

44:56 ↗ screen.

44:57 ↗ >> Um whereas the rest of citywide it would

45:00 ↗ be

45:01 ↗ >> basically what was just presented in the

45:04 ↗ table

45:05 ↗ >> um would apply citywide but specifically

45:08 ↗ just these two zones basically that

45:10 ↗ table doesn't matter because there are

45:12 ↗ there is no minimum

45:13 ↗ >> right

45:13 ↗ >> if that makes sense.

45:14 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

45:15 ↗ >> Okay.

45:16 ↗ >> Okay.

45:17 ↗ >> Shall I continue or would you like to

45:19 ↗ >> discuss anyone else? Like I said, at

45:21 ↗ this point,

45:21 ↗ >> we can also come back to it, too.

45:23 ↗ >> Yeah. No, at this point, like I said, I

45:24 ↗ could probably be sold on either getting

45:26 ↗ rid of it completely or going with the

45:28 ↗ 2028. I don't really see any utility in

45:32 ↗ keeping us right where we are today.

45:34 ↗ That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

45:38 ↗ >> Put a cap in it. We'll come back to it.

45:39 ↗ >> Okay.

45:42 ↗ Um, and just uh thank you Kate for

45:44 ↗ making this. Uh, this basically is a

45:46 ↗ visual I'm a very visual person. a

45:48 ↗ visual graphic of basically what which

45:51 ↗ um this is only focused on the no

45:54 ↗ parking minimum uh uses um not the ones

45:57 ↗ where it's like 0.5 spaces but um this

46:00 ↗ shows like these are um applicable for

46:04 ↗ the Senate Bill 5184. Um the middle

46:07 ↗ column is for what's being addressed in

46:09 ↗ House Bill 1183. Uh for whatever reason

46:12 ↗ affordable housing is in both. Um and

46:14 ↗ then the last column uh is basically

46:17 ↗ checking the box. Yes, we're looking at

46:19 ↗ this right now. So

46:21 ↗ um and I did want to bring up the

46:24 ↗ question of accessible parking spaces

46:27 ↗ since this was partic this was in the um

46:30 ↗ golden outcomes chart or the work plan

46:32 ↗ developed by council. So currently

46:34 ↗ parking for individuals with um

46:36 ↗ disabilities is regulated um by the

46:39 ↗ federal ADA, the building code, and um

46:43 ↗ and other standards. And the number of

46:46 ↗ accessible parking spaces uh currently

46:48 ↗ uh for Isiqua and I'm pretty sure all

46:51 ↗ the other cities in Washington um are

46:54 ↗ not really it's not really a land use

46:56 ↗ matter as much as it is a building code

46:58 ↗ um matter. So the Senate bill 5184 does

47:02 ↗ not change the what's required for ADA

47:05 ↗ parking. It's still based on the amount

47:07 ↗ of parking that is ended up being

47:09 ↗ provided. And I'll I have an example

47:11 ↗ after this slide. Now, I will say that

47:14 ↗ it does the draft commerce guidance does

47:17 ↗ point that local government should be

47:20 ↗ aware of potential updates to

47:22 ↗ requirements for accessible parking

47:23 ↗ spaces resulting from a study which um

47:26 ↗ is being done by the Washington State

47:28 ↗ Building Code Council. Um and that uh

47:32 ↗ it's either the guidance is either

47:33 ↗ coming out in 2027 or that's when

47:35 ↗ they're starting the guidance. Um but uh

47:38 ↗ there's more to come on that.

47:41 ↗ And so this is the table that we would

47:43 ↗ reference. This is the currently adopted

47:46 ↗ 2021 IBC. And you can see that if one to

47:50 ↗ 25 parking spaces are proposed for any

47:53 ↗ facility, excuse me, um a required one

47:57 ↗ parking space of out of those would be

48:00 ↗ required to be accessible. And it goes

48:02 ↗ up. The more parking you provide, the

48:04 ↗ more ADA spaces you need. And as an

48:07 ↗ example, we have um the Trailhead North

48:10 ↗ building. So, for example, they uh had

48:13 ↗ to provide or opted to provide 162

48:16 ↗ parking stalls total, meaning that they

48:18 ↗ fell in the what was that? Uh 150 151 to

48:24 ↗ 200 um spaces. So, they on paper they

48:28 ↗ had to provide six ADA stalls. They

48:30 ↗ ended up providing seven.

48:32 ↗ Uh so another possible action that I

48:36 ↗ said we would come back to is um in the

48:39 ↗ work plan it was establish minimum

48:41 ↗ accessible parking requirements prior to

48:44 ↗ the guidance from the state building

48:45 ↗ code council. Um this is up for further

48:49 ↗ discussion. Uh personally um you know

48:52 ↗ staff really felt like we um needed to

48:56 ↗ wait until further guidance comes out

48:58 ↗ before determining what the best course

49:01 ↗ of action would be. Um it kind of falls

49:04 ↗ a little bit outside of my own area of

49:07 ↗ expertise for determining um how many

49:10 ↗ accessible stalls should be required.

49:12 ↗ Um, but I guess the right now it's the

49:16 ↗ proposal is to wait and see and monitor

49:19 ↗ and um, happy to hear any thoughts you

49:23 ↗ may have on that.

49:25 ↗ >> No shame there, Andrew. I'm in the same

49:27 ↗ boat. So, again, I couldn't tell you

49:29 ↗ what the magic number is.

49:31 ↗ >> Any comments, feedback for Andrew

49:34 ↗ regarding accessible parking units?

49:38 ↗ >> Commissioner D. Hypothetical question

49:41 ↗ for Andrew.

49:42 ↗ >> Yes.

49:43 ↗ >> If we were to say we want to get rid of

49:46 ↗ parking minimums in spirit but still

49:48 ↗ make sure that there is ADA parking

49:50 ↗ available, could we say every

49:53 ↗ residential must have at least one

49:55 ↗ parking spot so that we can make sure

49:58 ↗ there is ADA accessible parking for that

50:01 ↗ building? Would that be possible?

50:05 ↗ >> I

50:07 ↗ don't know. Wouldn't that kind of run up

50:10 ↗ against the whole no minimum though?

50:18 ↗ >> The idea would be we don't want to

50:20 ↗ dictate how many spots you have, but we

50:22 ↗ would like to make sure there's at least

50:23 ↗ one spot for somebody who has a

50:25 ↗ disability. I mean, just having worked

50:28 ↗ in a pediatrics office, there's a lot of

50:30 ↗ people who who need the that parking.

50:34 ↗ And if I can just jump in, I think that

50:36 ↗ was as staff was talking about. Okay. Um

50:40 ↗ where where would we start? What kind of

50:42 ↗ analysis would be necessary? Um and this

50:45 ↗ is part of the building code, part of

50:47 ↗ the federal law. Um there are these

50:49 ↗ potential conflicts with what was in the

50:51 ↗ bill. Um we heavily rely on what we hear

50:54 ↗ from the Department of Commerce and um

50:56 ↗ in the bill they talk about having um

50:58 ↗ this building council look specifically

51:00 ↗ at this issue. So, not a clear answer

51:04 ↗ from them at this point. And again, you

51:05 ↗ know, the study is set to start in 2027.

51:08 ↗ Um, it just kind of opens up a question.

51:12 ↗ So, I don't think we do have an answer

51:14 ↗ for you right now. Um, on that,

51:18 ↗ >> uh, Commissioner Zachro,

51:19 ↗ >> thank you. Well, I can bring kind of

51:21 ↗ like a personal example. Out of over 150

51:25 ↗ parking spaces in my building, there are

51:27 ↗ like six or seven ADA parkings and they

51:30 ↗ all taken

51:32 ↗ all of them are being used and used not

51:34 ↗ by the guest but by the people who live

51:35 ↗ in the building. So it's kind of like

51:37 ↗ it's seems like it's needed more than

51:39 ↗ like one space perund

51:42 ↗ 162.

51:50 ↗ I think for me it's just easier to

51:51 ↗ compartmentalize and let the brain trust

51:53 ↗ figure out the ADA requirements and just

51:56 ↗ focus on my narrow perspective of

51:59 ↗ parking minimums as just you know the

52:02 ↗ bigger vision of do we want to require

52:04 ↗ certain amount of parking for pro uh

52:07 ↗ different projects different

52:08 ↗ developments around the city and again I

52:11 ↗ can still be convinced of no minimums

52:12 ↗ and let uh again the brain trust figure

52:14 ↗ out the the federal federal guidelines,

52:17 ↗ you know, the building codes, Department

52:19 ↗ of Commerce, all of that stuff, and I

52:20 ↗ could still sleep well at night. Maybe

52:23 ↗ until you get back to us, then I might

52:25 ↗ not.

52:26 ↗ >> That help you out, Andrew?

52:28 ↗ >> Yeah, I think that there's probably more

52:30 ↗ to be discussed at the public hearing,

52:32 ↗ but appreciate your your thoughts. Um so

52:35 ↗ just to double check um the feedback

52:38 ↗ that we've received to date uh on these

52:41 ↗ I won't read them out again but um would

52:44 ↗ you like to discuss further um any of

52:47 ↗ these the possible actions um we kind of

52:52 ↗ went into the last two but um open happy

52:56 ↗ to open it up for discussion any of

53:00 ↗ those four

53:04 ↗ >> commissioner Matthews,

53:05 ↗ >> I kind I had a question just popped into

53:07 ↗ my mind and it was actually we talked

53:09 ↗ about a little earlier about how many

53:11 ↗ parking spots corporate uh corporations

53:14 ↗ need. So, I'm thinking of Costco and how

53:17 ↗ many parking spots they take in this

53:19 ↗ entire city. So, they have two huge

53:21 ↗ parking lots or garages and they also

53:24 ↗ park at um what is that? The the barn.

53:30 ↗ >> Oh,

53:30 ↗ >> Pickering Barn. And they park in other

53:32 ↗ places in the city. So is that going to

53:35 ↗ be viable if you know we have another

53:37 ↗ say another corporate headquarters comes

53:40 ↗ in here is that going to be viable or

53:43 ↗ are they going to be like Expedia and

53:45 ↗ parking at Lake Samameish and taking up

53:47 ↗ park space parking spaces too. I guess

53:50 ↗ that's something to think about cuz I

53:52 ↗ just noticed today when I was walking my

53:54 ↗ dog is like wow there's a lot of Costco

53:56 ↗ parking everywhere. There's Expedia that

53:58 ↗ takes up that huge lot at Lake

54:00 ↗ Samameish. So that's where the overflow

54:04 ↗ is going into our parking our park

54:06 ↗ spaces.

54:07 ↗ >> If I need to think about

54:08 ↗ >> if I understood the the um

54:12 ↗ one of those slide panels correctly,

54:14 ↗ commercial projects are still required

54:16 ↗ by the GFA to have a certain amount.

54:17 ↗ We're not talking about getting rid of

54:18 ↗ those minimums. Correct.

54:21 ↗ uh if it's under if it's under 3,000

54:23 ↗ gross square feet.

54:25 ↗ >> But but that even when we say we're

54:27 ↗ getting rid of parking minimums and in

54:30 ↗ the urban core and the retail area, it's

54:32 ↗ it's still dependent on what you're

54:34 ↗ building and how big. It's not like

54:36 ↗ Costco could just build their office

54:38 ↗ space today and wouldn't have any

54:40 ↗ parking minimums.

54:40 ↗ >> Correct. It would be one space per 500

54:43 ↗ square ft,

54:43 ↗ >> right?

54:44 ↗ >> Which is about a size of a, you know,

54:46 ↗ small one-bedroom apartment. So, you

54:50 ↗ know, probably could fit more than one

54:51 ↗ person in that same space, but um it's

54:54 ↗ not telling them you can't have more

54:56 ↗ than that.

54:57 ↗ >> Uh unless, you know, a max there's

55:00 ↗ maximums, but uh

55:02 ↗ >> yeah. So,

55:03 ↗ >> yeah, for the purpose of our

55:04 ↗ conversation, when we're talking about

55:06 ↗ minimums, we're really talking about

55:07 ↗ those specific line items, which mostly

55:09 ↗ have to do with a lot of multif family,

55:12 ↗ um things near transit, all of this

55:14 ↗ stuff. I don't think we're necessarily

55:16 ↗ talking about Costos or big retail

55:18 ↗ giants getting away with not having

55:19 ↗ parking. And again, I want to make sure

55:21 ↗ I'm saying that correctly so you guys

55:23 ↗ can tell me if I'm interpreting it

55:24 ↗ wrong.

55:26 ↗ >> Uh, as far as what Costco would fall

55:29 ↗ under, it's could be retail,

55:33 ↗ commercial. So, I think that they would

55:35 ↗ fall under the new category, but

55:38 ↗ certainly, I mean, they're they want to

55:40 ↗ add more parking. So, I don't think we

55:42 ↗ would have concerns about them wanting

55:44 ↗ to get rid of their parking because they

55:46 ↗ I mean, you can't go to Costco and

55:48 ↗ generally you're not going to go to

55:49 ↗ Costco and like lug your groceries back

55:52 ↗ on the bus unless you have a big wagon.

55:55 ↗ Um, so yeah.

56:06 ↗ >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. So, if you are if

56:08 ↗ you're um kind of If you're talking

56:11 ↗ about specifically the question of do we

56:14 ↗ do we still want parking minimums in

56:16 ↗ those two specific zones the one option

56:20 ↗ would be

56:21 ↗ >> no they would not have any minimum

56:23 ↗ parking requirement. It would be up to

56:25 ↗ them to decide.

56:26 ↗ >> But the offices if for example another

56:29 ↗ office were to come outside of those two

56:31 ↗ zones they would be held to the state

56:33 ↗ standard which is one space for per 500

56:36 ↗ square ft of space. But for those two

56:38 ↗ zones, we are talking about a blanket

56:41 ↗ absolutely no minimum

56:42 ↗ >> if that was the recommendation from PPC.

56:45 ↗ >> No, that's perfect.

56:46 ↗ >> It is written that way in the current

56:48 ↗ code that will be in the public hearing,

56:50 ↗ but it's completely fine to, you know,

56:53 ↗ it's up to the PPC to make a motion to

56:56 ↗ >> um to change it. And

56:58 ↗ >> it hasn't shaken my faith any. I mean I

57:00 ↗ like as you said Costco is going to do

57:03 ↗ what Costco wants to do in order to

57:04 ↗ better service their so again it hasn't

57:06 ↗ shaken my faith I just want to make sure

57:08 ↗ I'm understanding it correctly. So when

57:10 ↗ we talk about those two zones we're

57:11 ↗ talking about a blanket absolutely no

57:14 ↗ minimums for anybody who builds in these

57:16 ↗ two areas.

57:16 ↗ >> Correct.

57:18 ↗ >> Thank you.

57:18 ↗ >> Yes.

57:18 ↗ >> And thank you.

57:20 ↗ >> Oh Commissioner uh let's go to

57:22 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin. Okay.

57:23 ↗ >> Thank you. I just had a question in

57:25 ↗ terms of the early adoption of the uh

57:27 ↗ the requirements in um 5184. Do we have

57:30 ↗ any similar cities like um Redmond or

57:33 ↗ Belleview that are somewhat similar to

57:35 ↗ us that have done any early adoption of

57:38 ↗ this particular Senate bill?

57:40 ↗ >> Yeah, that's a great point. Um so in the

57:43 ↗ last I can't remember off the top of my

57:45 ↗ head, but I know that there are some

57:46 ↗ examples. Um want to say

57:50 ↗ it wasn't was it Kirkland?

57:53 ↗ It was I know that Belleview and Brenton

57:55 ↗ are actually working on these code

57:56 ↗ amendments. I don't know their

57:58 ↗ timelines, but I imagine other cities

58:00 ↗ are as well. We can find that

58:02 ↗ information if

58:03 ↗ >> Thank you.

58:04 ↗ >> Yes, I will definitely circle back on

58:07 ↗ that. Commissioner Dair.

58:09 ↗ >> So, could we theoretically amend the no

58:12 ↗ minimums to just be residential and

58:15 ↗ mixed use and omit so that we can

58:18 ↗ maintain minimums for commercial because

58:21 ↗ I mean obviously Costco is going to have

58:23 ↗ parking etc. But I'm thinking there are

58:25 ↗ small businesses like hair salons that

58:28 ↗ see really high traffic for prolonged

58:30 ↗ periods of time and we do want to make

58:32 ↗ sure they have parking available.

58:36 ↗ That is definitely an option. Um to meet

58:39 ↗ the state law early, we would need to

58:42 ↗ have the standards that are basically in

58:44 ↗ the table that was presented in the

58:46 ↗ packet tonight. Um, but the line in

58:48 ↗ front of the parking table that says

58:50 ↗ unless you're in central Isiqua, mixed

58:53 ↗ use central Isiqua, or I'm sorry, unless

58:56 ↗ you're in urban core or mixed use

58:58 ↗ central Isiqua, that part could be there

59:01 ↗ could be a motion made to only um to get

59:06 ↗ rid of parking minimums in those two

59:07 ↗ zones, but only for these X zones. Is

59:11 ↗ that what you were getting at?

59:13 ↗ >> Yes. So we can make a motion to get rid

59:15 ↗ of minimums for residential and mixed

59:18 ↗ use within the urban core and uh the

59:22 ↗ other zone.

59:23 ↗ >> Yes, that is absolutely an option.

59:25 ↗ >> Okay, great.

59:29 ↗ >> Be for great debate in two weeks.

59:33 ↗ >> Okay.

59:34 ↗ >> Okay, now I have one more section. This

59:37 ↗ one is a little bit more straightforward

59:39 ↗ hopefully, but this is um allowing

59:41 ↗ multif family housing in the urban

59:43 ↗ village commercial and urban village

59:45 ↗ retail zones. Um so just to kind of

59:50 ↗ display go back to the golden outcomes

59:52 ↗ chart um or the goals and outcomes work

59:54 ↗ plan. So the possible action on the far

59:57 ↗ right is to allow multif family in the

59:59 ↗ urban village commercial and retail

1:00:01 ↗ zones while not losing retail

1:00:03 ↗ requirements.

1:00:07 ↗ And just to uh refresh everybody's

1:00:10 ↗ memory, um the PPC feedback to date uh

1:00:13 ↗ has been to comply with um Senate Bill

1:00:17 ↗ 6026 to allow multif family use in all

1:00:20 ↗ commercial zones. And also um we

1:00:23 ↗ discussed um allowing transitional

1:00:25 ↗ housing, permanent supportive housing

1:00:27 ↗ and co-living in the UV commercial

1:00:29 ↗ retail zones to also ensure compliance

1:00:32 ↗ with House Bill 1220 um which was

1:00:36 ↗ adopted in uh 2021 and then House Bill

1:00:39 ↗ 1998 which was adopted in 2024.

1:00:44 ↗ And uh here is um a snippet of the table

1:00:48 ↗ of permitted uses. Um, I did remove any

1:00:50 ↗ of the rows that were not being um,

1:00:52 ↗ amended this time. The one in the packet

1:00:54 ↗ has all of the residential uses just so

1:00:57 ↗ um, it's a little easier to understand

1:00:59 ↗ maybe, but um, you can see in green the

1:01:02 ↗ cells that are proposed to be changed

1:01:04 ↗ would be uh, permitting uh, multif

1:01:06 ↗ family dwellings, meaning five or more

1:01:08 ↗ units in those two zones. Transitional

1:01:11 ↗ housing and permanent supportive housing

1:01:13 ↗ are already permitted in the UV

1:01:15 ↗ commercial zone. However, um

1:01:19 ↗ uh transitional housing and permanent

1:01:21 ↗ supportive housing have to be allowed in

1:01:23 ↗ any zones that allow multif family or

1:01:28 ↗ hotels. And since we are proposing to

1:01:30 ↗ allow it kind of has a trickle effect

1:01:34 ↗ since we're proposing to meet one state

1:01:37 ↗ law to allow multif family in these both

1:01:40 ↗ of these zones. Therefore, we have to um

1:01:42 ↗ we're proposing to permit uh

1:01:45 ↗ transitional housing and permanent

1:01:46 ↗ supportive housing in these two zones as

1:01:48 ↗ well. Similarly, um co-l livingiving,

1:01:51 ↗ there's a separate bill that addressed

1:01:52 ↗ co-living in Washington to make it

1:01:54 ↗ easier for developers to build um

1:01:57 ↗ boarding houses which were a more

1:02:00 ↗ old-fashioned style of building but more

1:02:02 ↗ affordable for people since you don't

1:02:04 ↗ have your own bathroom or kitchen

1:02:06 ↗ necessarily. Um, so that separate bill

1:02:09 ↗ says in all zones you allow multif

1:02:11 ↗ family, you have to allow co-living. So,

1:02:13 ↗ um, I guess the scope got a tiny bit

1:02:16 ↗ bigger, um, than just simply allowing

1:02:18 ↗ multif family in the two zones, but

1:02:19 ↗ that's also being proposed, um, to

1:02:22 ↗ change.

1:02:24 ↗ Uh, so any questions regarding the um

1:02:28 ↗ before I move on to that next slide,

1:02:30 ↗ regarding this in particular? Yes.

1:02:34 ↗ What's the time frame on that law

1:02:36 ↗ kicking in?

1:02:38 ↗ >> That is a great point or a great

1:02:40 ↗ question. Um, so early compliance in

1:02:43 ↗ particular with the allowing multif

1:02:46 ↗ family in zones that are primarily zoned

1:02:48 ↗ for commercial or mixed use. Um, that is

1:02:51 ↗ not due until from what I understand

1:02:54 ↗ December 2027. So we would be early

1:02:56 ↗ adopters of that as well.

1:03:00 ↗ I think the co-l livingiving and the

1:03:01 ↗ transitional housing and permanent

1:03:02 ↗ supportive housing are already in

1:03:04 ↗ effect. So once we would allow the

1:03:06 ↗ multif family, we would then have to

1:03:08 ↗ allow the other three.

1:03:10 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:03:14 ↗ And sorry I called on you. That was not

1:03:16 ↗ my job. But

1:03:19 ↗ >> luckily I'm secure, Andrew.

1:03:20 ↗ >> Okay.

1:03:23 ↗ Uh then lastly, I did want to um I

1:03:26 ↗ didn't want to ignore the questions that

1:03:28 ↗ I put in the memo. So, uh in the memo,

1:03:30 ↗ we had posed these questions. They're

1:03:32 ↗ definitely still up for your

1:03:34 ↗ consideration and up for potential

1:03:35 ↗ discussion tonight. Um however, we are

1:03:38 ↗ not able to make changes to the code

1:03:40 ↗ amendments at this time as we already

1:03:42 ↗ published the public hearing packet, but

1:03:45 ↗ certainly motions can be made and um at

1:03:48 ↗ the public hearing. Um,

1:03:51 ↗ so are there any questions

1:03:56 ↗ before I turn it over to the next

1:03:57 ↗ presenters?

1:03:59 ↗ >> Yeah, ultimately right now is a great

1:04:00 ↗ time for questions because again, we're

1:04:02 ↗ going to have the entire debate in front

1:04:04 ↗ of the camera and the public next

1:04:07 ↗ meeting and then it sounds like, you

1:04:09 ↗ know, a very formal declaration of why

1:04:11 ↗ we want to go this way for the council

1:04:13 ↗ so they have a better understanding of

1:04:14 ↗ our thinking.

1:04:16 ↗ So, no need to wear yourselves out

1:04:18 ↗ tonight by fleshing it all out, but that

1:04:20 ↗ ultimately will be our goal at the

1:04:22 ↗ public hearing. So, any questions?

1:04:28 ↗ I have a question. I'm trying to figure

1:04:30 ↗ out the best way to to frame it. It's a

1:04:32 ↗ couple of slides back in regards to

1:04:34 ↗ multifamily being included in this area

1:04:37 ↗ that we'd be that we're discussing

1:04:39 ↗ having the minimums in. If you have

1:04:42 ↗ multifamily in that area, you're

1:04:44 ↗ increasing the number of people that

1:04:47 ↗ would thereby have vehicles. So, it

1:04:48 ↗ seems like the two ideas might be

1:04:51 ↗ struggling against each other. You're

1:04:53 ↗ putting multifamily housing in an area

1:04:56 ↗ that you're reducing parking minimums or

1:04:59 ↗ removing them all together. I'm just

1:05:00 ↗ kind of wondering about the what I'm

1:05:03 ↗ picking up as a conflict between those

1:05:04 ↗ two ideas.

1:05:08 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, definitely a good point. Um,

1:05:12 ↗ as far as the conflicts, I think that it

1:05:16 ↗ would it it would still be up to the

1:05:18 ↗ developer um to provide the amount of

1:05:21 ↗ parking if they wanted to do more than

1:05:23 ↗ the minimum. It would do if it was

1:05:25 ↗ market rate. Um theoretically if we

1:05:28 ↗ let's just say we fast forward and we're

1:05:31 ↗ already meeting the men the the state

1:05:33 ↗ guidance um then it would be 0.5 parking

1:05:37 ↗ spaces per unit unless the units are

1:05:40 ↗ less than 1,200 ft which would be like a

1:05:43 ↗ studio apartment um potentially

1:05:46 ↗ one-bedroom apartment then there would

1:05:48 ↗ be no parking required. So that's

1:05:51 ↗ definitely a valid concern. Um but at

1:05:54 ↗ this point we are trying to meet the

1:05:58 ↗ state um the state law early and

1:06:03 ↗ not yeah

1:06:06 ↗ anything

1:06:08 ↗ >> no I I appreciate that feedback and I do

1:06:10 ↗ remember from a couple of months ago

1:06:11 ↗ when we had a uh a joint meeting I'm

1:06:13 ↗ forgetting with the uh I think it was

1:06:15 ↗ economic vitality

1:06:17 ↗ >> um probably about a month or two ago um

1:06:20 ↗ and we had some developers speak with

1:06:22 ↗ us. They were very uh adamant that

1:06:25 ↗ development in Isqua was very important,

1:06:27 ↗ but they were looking at market rate um

1:06:31 ↗ um housing. So, I'm sure that would be a

1:06:33 ↗ a uh consideration for them in terms of

1:06:36 ↗ uh making sure they can rent market rate

1:06:39 ↗ and maintain the parking that's going to

1:06:41 ↗ attract folks willing to pay market. So,

1:06:44 ↗ thank you.

1:06:45 ↗ >> Yeah, no problem.

1:06:49 ↗ Commissioner Zachro

1:06:51 ↗ >> wanted sorry I just wanted to make a

1:06:53 ↗ little point,200 square ft. So we

1:06:55 ↗ understand it's actually two to

1:06:57 ↗ threebedroom apartment.

1:07:00 ↗ >> Okay.

1:07:01 ↗ >> It is two to threebedroom. So so two to

1:07:04 ↗ two to threebedroom technically can be

1:07:06 ↗ four people and all of them can be

1:07:08 ↗ adults driving a car or needed needing

1:07:12 ↗ to drive a car. So that's what we're

1:07:15 ↗ talking about.

1:07:20 ↗ Okay. Uh, Commissioner Matthews,

1:07:23 ↗ >> I just had a general question. So, the

1:07:25 ↗ area that we're looking at for the um

1:07:28 ↗ the urban village, that's pretty much in

1:07:30 ↗ the Highlands, right? So,

1:07:31 ↗ >> yes,

1:07:32 ↗ >> the Highlands was built under like an

1:07:34 ↗ HOA or some kind of development

1:07:35 ↗ agreement. That is over now, right? So,

1:07:38 ↗ are they going to change like the

1:07:40 ↗ building heights or anything to

1:07:41 ↗ accommodate the change in adding

1:07:44 ↗ residents? the development agreement has

1:07:47 ↗ sunset and uh I'm not super fluent in

1:07:50 ↗ what that development agreement was, but

1:07:52 ↗ the code that is current um is basically

1:07:56 ↗ was modeled after that development

1:07:58 ↗ agreement. So, whatever the heights were

1:08:01 ↗ um it's is likely what the maximum

1:08:03 ↗ heights are in the zoning. Um and that's

1:08:07 ↗ not something that we took a look at. Um

1:08:09 ↗ but I think that they're they're

1:08:11 ↗ probably pretty high um in that zone.

1:08:15 ↗ I'm not sure.

1:08:16 ↗ >> Yeah, not that I was around at the time

1:08:17 ↗ when that development agreement

1:08:19 ↗ happened, but wouldn't they have had to

1:08:20 ↗ upzone and also change all the land uses

1:08:23 ↗ to accommodate that land use agreement,

1:08:26 ↗ the development agreement? So, to your

1:08:28 ↗ point, they probably for the most part

1:08:30 ↗ are very similar, if not the same.

1:08:33 ↗ >> Yeah. So, when the development agreement

1:08:35 ↗ sunset, the city adopted regulations

1:08:37 ↗ they call and it was called replacement

1:08:39 ↗ regulations u which then got folded into

1:08:41 ↗ the title 18 update. Um, so with this

1:08:44 ↗ change that's in front of you, we're not

1:08:47 ↗ changing the height or anything like

1:08:48 ↗ that. That's already in the code. Um,

1:08:51 ↗ but I think maybe your question was how

1:08:53 ↗ is it consistent with the previous

1:08:56 ↗ standards under the development

1:08:57 ↗ agreement? We're not sure, you know,

1:09:00 ↗ that must have been looked at during the

1:09:02 ↗ replacement regulations,

1:09:04 ↗ but regardless, any development in the

1:09:05 ↗ Highlands has to get approval from uh

1:09:08 ↗ Highlands Council. Um and so they have

1:09:11 ↗ their own design bylaws and guidelines.

1:09:13 ↗ So there but our requirement in our code

1:09:16 ↗ is you have to get their approval first

1:09:18 ↗ before you apply to the city.

1:09:21 ↗ Yeah. But this uh while I have the mic

1:09:23 ↗ um I think this point about the 1200

1:09:27 ↗ square ft doesn't have to have any um

1:09:32 ↗ there are no minimum uh requirements for

1:09:34 ↗ that. I don't know if the commerce

1:09:37 ↗ guidance is that for each individual

1:09:39 ↗ unit or is it the overall size of the

1:09:42 ↗ unit is 1,200

1:09:43 ↗ >> each individual unit.

1:09:44 ↗ >> So you could have a 200

1:09:46 ↗ >> 200 units that are all 1,000 square

1:09:49 ↗ feet. They would not technically have a

1:09:51 ↗ parking minimum

1:09:52 ↗ >> required.

1:09:53 ↗ >> That's the guidance from commerce. Okay.

1:09:55 ↗ I you know sometimes these bills get

1:09:58 ↗ passed so quickly in the guidance

1:10:00 ↗ sometimes um wanted to make sure the

1:10:02 ↗ legislative intent was

1:10:05 ↗ I I mean it is encouraging smaller units

1:10:08 ↗ um for sure but you're right 1,200

1:10:11 ↗ square f feet could be three-bedroom

1:10:13 ↗ apartments

1:10:17 ↗ and if I could just jump into I looked

1:10:18 ↗ on the um in the code for the UV comrade

1:10:22 ↗ zones and they do have a split for

1:10:24 ↗ building height Um, if you're a

1:10:26 ↗ commercial project, it's 85 ft. If

1:10:28 ↗ you're a retail project, it's 40 feet at

1:10:31 ↗ this point.

1:10:36 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews.

1:10:37 ↗ >> So, if you mix those, use say they want

1:10:39 ↗ to like these buildings aren't that old,

1:10:42 ↗ but I'm just thinking ahead. If they

1:10:44 ↗ want to build retail on the bottom and

1:10:46 ↗ go up with apartments on the top, they

1:10:49 ↗ wouldn't be able to if it's at 40 feet,

1:10:51 ↗ right? That'd be kind of limiting.

1:10:54 ↗ And I mean my understanding is at this

1:10:56 ↗ point the building heights that are in

1:10:58 ↗ the codes are what we would use. So

1:11:01 ↗ generally around 10 feet of of uh floor.

1:11:04 ↗ So 40 would be maybe allowing you know

1:11:06 ↗ four stories um for your mix use or

1:11:09 ↗ whatever. Um and then maybe eight eight

1:11:11 ↗ stories for uh if you had a commercial

1:11:14 ↗ use as defined in in that specific part

1:11:16 ↗ of the code.

1:11:22 ↗ Okay.

1:11:24 ↗ Any final comments for Andrew or Minnie?

1:11:29 ↗ Okay. Thank you, Andrew.

1:11:31 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:11:35 ↗ >> Okay.

1:11:37 ↗ Moving along. Our next item of business,

1:11:41 ↗ you guessed it, more proposed code

1:11:44 ↗ amendments.

1:11:46 ↗ And this is also related to the propo

1:11:47 ↗ the promoting building investments

1:11:49 ↗ project. But right now we have senior

1:11:52 ↗ planner Emily Medina and associate

1:11:55 ↗ planner Yay Yi Chen who will present the

1:11:58 ↗ natural context area and transparency

1:12:00 ↗ code amendments.

1:12:02 ↗ It looks like Emily's up first.

1:12:04 ↗ >> I am. Thank you chair. So I will do the

1:12:07 ↗ transparency and then ye will do the um

1:12:10 ↗ natural context area.

1:12:14 ↗ So purpose just like the other one,

1:12:15 ↗ present and discuss proposed amendments.

1:12:18 ↗ Um this time for transparency and

1:12:19 ↗ natural context area to prepare for the

1:12:22 ↗ public hearing and get any questions you

1:12:24 ↗ have for staff figured out now so we

1:12:26 ↗ have a clear idea of um what's being

1:12:29 ↗ presented and you have an idea of your

1:12:30 ↗ stance going into the public hearing.

1:12:35 ↗ So this is what the PBI work plan

1:12:37 ↗ approved by council is for the topic of

1:12:39 ↗ natural context area and transparency

1:12:41 ↗ requirements. So this is the guidance

1:12:43 ↗ that was received um by staff of the

1:12:45 ↗ issues that they see um which is the

1:12:48 ↗ difficulty of meeting the energy code

1:12:50 ↗ and the issue with the 30% on uh for

1:12:52 ↗ over 30% on the facade as well as the

1:12:55 ↗ possible action items from that work

1:12:57 ↗ plan about how to fix the issue.

1:13:06 ↗ Sorry, it's I clicked forward.

1:13:11 ↗ All right. Um, so tonight just really

1:13:14 ↗ focusing on what those amendments are,

1:13:17 ↗ that track changes document, the

1:13:19 ↗ examples document. Not really going to

1:13:20 ↗ delve into the background and the why

1:13:22 ↗ and how we got here because we've had

1:13:24 ↗ multiple meetings on this. So, um, we

1:13:28 ↗ will dive in. So feedback we've heard

1:13:31 ↗ thus far from the planning policy

1:13:34 ↗ commission that we've taken into account

1:13:36 ↗ is um eliminating transparency along the

1:13:40 ↗ natural context area which you will

1:13:41 ↗ touch on reducing transparency

1:13:43 ↗ requirements for commercial uses um and

1:13:46 ↗ maintaining those current percentage

1:13:48 ↗ requirements for multifamily um the

1:13:50 ↗ urban core zone in so much as that it's

1:13:52 ↗ pulling that 70% retail percentage um

1:13:55 ↗ and then not doing any changes to the

1:13:58 ↗ oldtown sub

1:13:59 ↗ And then tonight we will be revisiting

1:14:01 ↗ the transparency requirements for town

1:14:03 ↗ homes in particular as well as um two

1:14:06 ↗ new code proposals um regarding

1:14:09 ↗ measurement and deviations. Um those

1:14:13 ↗ will be the new ones to discuss. So my

1:14:17 ↗ slide layout here, the the top one, the

1:14:20 ↗ colored one is um the proposal that was

1:14:23 ↗ brought to you on June 11th and then the

1:14:25 ↗ one below that the July 9th is related

1:14:27 ↗ to that top one, but it's how we've

1:14:29 ↗ either amended it or revised it, refined

1:14:31 ↗ it further.

1:14:33 ↗ So in looking at this um the first one

1:14:37 ↗ was grouping commercial uses with retail

1:14:40 ↗ for purposes of require um transparency

1:14:42 ↗ requirements in line with best

1:14:43 ↗ practices. Um now we have removed the

1:14:47 ↗ word retail altogether for clarity as

1:14:50 ↗ retail is a commercial use. They're

1:14:52 ↗ typically grouped together. Other cities

1:14:54 ↗ um in the area always group them

1:14:55 ↗ together. The commission did have um a

1:14:58 ↗ discussion about do we want to break up

1:15:00 ↗ commercial uses farther? Do we want to

1:15:02 ↗ have like services and offices and all

1:15:04 ↗ those different types of commercial uses

1:15:06 ↗ to um have different requirements for

1:15:09 ↗ each of those? Um staff discussed it.

1:15:12 ↗ Our stance is that having just a

1:15:14 ↗ commercial transparency requirement is

1:15:17 ↗ clear for implementation and for the

1:15:19 ↗ developer. Um, and it also

1:15:22 ↗ helps limit creating nonconformity. So,

1:15:25 ↗ if there is a TI, if something changes

1:15:27 ↗ from a retail to an office use and then

1:15:29 ↗ all of a sudden their windows don't meet

1:15:31 ↗ our standards. Um, so it's either

1:15:33 ↗ creating a non-conformity use or we're

1:15:35 ↗ making them change out their windows

1:15:37 ↗ just because the use within the building

1:15:39 ↗ changed, which is costly and not maybe

1:15:42 ↗ something we want to do. Um, as well as,

1:15:45 ↗ you know, like we talked about, um, when

1:15:48 ↗ mixeduse buildings come in for their

1:15:50 ↗ land use approval, which is when we're

1:15:51 ↗ looking at do you meet these

1:15:53 ↗ requirements, they oftentimes don't know

1:15:56 ↗ what they're what's going in on the

1:15:57 ↗ bottom floor. They don't know what that

1:15:59 ↗ commercial aspect is. So it would be

1:16:00 ↗ very hard to tell them, hey, you have to

1:16:02 ↗ do this percentage for ser if it's

1:16:03 ↗ service and this percentage for retail

1:16:05 ↗ when they don't know who their tenant is

1:16:06 ↗ going to be. So for those reasons,

1:16:09 ↗ keeping commercial broad. Um moving on

1:16:13 ↗ to we discussed separating the multif

1:16:16 ↗ family and commercial ground level

1:16:17 ↗ transparency requirements and we have

1:16:19 ↗ further clarified those to state that

1:16:22 ↗ commercial is not um does not include

1:16:25 ↗ industrial light industrial. So

1:16:26 ↗ transparency is not applicable to that

1:16:28 ↗ as well as town homes. Um so before the

1:16:32 ↗ meeting commissioner sent a question and

1:16:34 ↗ I'm sure you all looking at this as well

1:16:35 ↗ exempting town homes a little bit

1:16:37 ↗ different than what we talked about last

1:16:39 ↗ meeting. At the last meeting the

1:16:40 ↗ commission showed um interest in

1:16:42 ↗ separating out different types of multif

1:16:45 ↗ family. So kind of the apartment style

1:16:46 ↗ multif family versus the town home

1:16:48 ↗ style. We had a lot of discussion about

1:16:50 ↗ how the forms of those buildings are

1:16:52 ↗ just very different um and how they're

1:16:54 ↗ designed. Um, and so staff went back and

1:16:57 ↗ we were looking into what do other

1:17:00 ↗ cities do, what's best practice, um, how

1:17:02 ↗ does it, how would this be implemented,

1:17:04 ↗ how would it work? Um, and we looked at

1:17:06 ↗ five different cities and um, instead of

1:17:10 ↗ having a different percentage for town

1:17:11 ↗ homes, most of them don't have a

1:17:12 ↗ percentage for town homes. So in some

1:17:15 ↗ cities, town homes are either are

1:17:16 ↗ considered middle housing and thus

1:17:18 ↗ they're exempt from transparency

1:17:20 ↗ requirements, so no transparency for

1:17:22 ↗ town homes. or in two or three of the

1:17:24 ↗ other cities, um, town homes weren't a

1:17:26 ↗ permitted use in the areas that they had

1:17:29 ↗ transparency requirements. So, no

1:17:32 ↗ transparency requirements for town homes

1:17:34 ↗ just from the fact that they're not

1:17:35 ↗ allowed. Um, so for those reasons, the

1:17:39 ↗ code in front of you tonight for

1:17:40 ↗ discussion is to exempt the town homes

1:17:43 ↗ from the transparency requirements.

1:17:47 ↗ Okay, next big one. So again top is what

1:17:51 ↗ we talked about last time which is that

1:17:52 ↗ we were clarifying measuring um how to

1:17:54 ↗ measure and calculate transparency

1:17:56 ↗ because it for the residential use there

1:17:58 ↗ was some uh inconsistency about the like

1:18:01 ↗ above 6 ft 5 ft to whatever. Um and the

1:18:04 ↗ commission had asked for real life

1:18:06 ↗ examples and I told you I'd get my tape

1:18:08 ↗ measure out and hit up Front Street and

1:18:10 ↗ I did it. Um, and it was actually well I

1:18:15 ↗ might have freaked a lot of people out

1:18:16 ↗ when I was out there taking a lot of

1:18:17 ↗ pictures, but it was super super

1:18:19 ↗ helpful. And so those are the pictures

1:18:21 ↗ that are in that transparency example

1:18:22 ↗ sheet that you all got. So one thing I

1:18:24 ↗ noticed when I was um out there

1:18:26 ↗ measuring is that most the windows start

1:18:29 ↗ 2 ft above the ground. And currently how

1:18:32 ↗ we measure transparency is from the

1:18:34 ↗ ground. So 0 feet up to 5 ft. Um whereas

1:18:37 ↗ the windows were frequently starting at

1:18:40 ↗ 18 in 2 ft and then up and higher. And

1:18:43 ↗ that is also when looking at other

1:18:45 ↗ cities how most cities measure

1:18:46 ↗ transparency. They don't start at the

1:18:48 ↗ ground. They start at 18 in to 30 in and

1:18:51 ↗ then go up to like 7 or 8 ft. Some of

1:18:54 ↗ them up to 10 ft. Um so taking those two

1:18:58 ↗ items into consideration as well as the

1:19:01 ↗ intent of um I've lost my slide.

1:19:05 ↗ Um,

1:19:20 ↗ >> so we'll have to wait a moment. Uh,

1:19:22 ↗ >> are we having a moment?

1:19:23 ↗ >> We reboot this screen.

1:19:25 ↗ >> Okay. So, maybe we take a fivem minute

1:19:26 ↗ break.

1:19:27 ↗ >> Sounds great.

1:19:27 ↗ >> Is that okay? Great. Thank you.

1:21:29 ↗ Okay, it looks like the technical issue

1:21:32 ↗ has been um addressed.

1:21:44 ↗ Uh our five minute break is up. That was

1:21:48 ↗ a quick five minutes. Okay. Well, thank

1:21:49 ↗ you tech team, all the wizards up there

1:21:51 ↗ who helped us out. Emily, please go

1:21:54 ↗ ahead with your presentation.

1:21:55 ↗ >> Yes. So, measuring windows, front

1:21:59 ↗ street, taking pictures. Um, so when we

1:22:04 ↗ were comparing

1:22:07 ↗ measuring from zero to 5t, 2 to 8, um,

1:22:10 ↗ and how that at that time not to date,

1:22:13 ↗ but considering what that meant and how

1:22:14 ↗ does that impact the pedestrian

1:22:16 ↗ experience and what's the intent of the

1:22:17 ↗ code? And you know, you're thinking of

1:22:19 ↗ the average height of adults and only

1:22:21 ↗ measuring up to 5t, a lot of people

1:22:23 ↗ taller than that. And the pedestrian

1:22:24 ↗ experience is all about seeing inside

1:22:26 ↗ the windows and providing this kind of

1:22:27 ↗ transparency. So, um, reviewing the

1:22:30 ↗ other cities, looking at our own city as

1:22:32 ↗ an example, um, staff's recommendation

1:22:34 ↗ is to change how we measure transparency

1:22:36 ↗ to better encapsulate, um, the intent of

1:22:39 ↗ the code and creating that pedestrian

1:22:40 ↗ experience. And this was um a great

1:22:42 ↗ example of that um out on Front Street

1:22:44 ↗ measuring from 0 to 5 ft 58% um

1:22:48 ↗ transparency but measuring from 2 to 8

1:22:50 ↗ ft it's 81% transparency um with the

1:22:53 ↗ note that all these windows are

1:22:54 ↗ transparent now um they're not covered.

1:22:57 ↗ Um so that is the recommendation around

1:23:00 ↗ that. Um we did have a question from a

1:23:02 ↗ commissioner prior to the meeting about

1:23:05 ↗ how would the measurement um change

1:23:07 ↗ impact the percentage that is being

1:23:10 ↗ recommended. Um and staff still feels

1:23:12 ↗ that 45% for um the commercial areas

1:23:16 ↗ makes sense. Um it's in the kind of in

1:23:18 ↗ that middle area of all the other cities

1:23:20 ↗ around and actually a lot of other

1:23:22 ↗ cities have a higher percentage on those

1:23:24 ↗ high pedestrian areas. Um so we do feel

1:23:27 ↗ like 45% remains a good place to be even

1:23:30 ↗ with the change in measurement.

1:23:34 ↗ Um so June 11th we talked about the

1:23:38 ↗ changes um in percentages for what was

1:23:41 ↗ retail and is now commercial reducing

1:23:43 ↗ that from 70 to 45%. Um and that is

1:23:46 ↗ still the code amendment in your packet

1:23:48 ↗ tonight. There was no further changes to

1:23:50 ↗ that. And then same with the the 70%

1:23:53 ↗ requirement that was for retail, moving

1:23:55 ↗ that just to the urban core zone which

1:23:57 ↗ is in central Isiqua and just along

1:23:59 ↗ streets. Um maintaining that

1:24:01 ↗ recommendation. No changes uh to that

1:24:03 ↗ tonight either.

1:24:06 ↗ And then lastly, maintaining removing

1:24:09 ↗ the transparency standard that was

1:24:10 ↗ really a signed standard. No changes to

1:24:12 ↗ that. Um but last meeting we said no

1:24:15 ↗ changes to deviations. Um, and we got

1:24:18 ↗ some great public comments and we were

1:24:20 ↗ talking about it. Um, and we have now

1:24:22 ↗ proposed, staff has proposed a deviation

1:24:24 ↗ for buildings that would be required to

1:24:26 ↗ meet ground flooror transparency

1:24:27 ↗ standards on more than two sides. Um, so

1:24:30 ↗ we saw that with trail head coming in.

1:24:32 ↗ There's a road on one side, a road on

1:24:35 ↗ the other side, a natural context area

1:24:36 ↗ on the other side. Um, and that means

1:24:38 ↗ under current code, they'd have to meet

1:24:40 ↗ ground flooror transparency on three

1:24:41 ↗ sides of the building. So that um

1:24:45 ↗ creates issues of where do you put your

1:24:47 ↗ garbage, where do you have access, you

1:24:49 ↗ know, you can't have transparency on

1:24:52 ↗ four sides of a building. Um so we

1:24:54 ↗ created a deviation around that to

1:24:56 ↗ propose to the commission about um if

1:24:59 ↗ you if a building is going to require on

1:25:01 ↗ more than two sides reducing that to

1:25:03 ↗ just two sides and creating a hierarchy

1:25:05 ↗ of what two sides matter the most to get

1:25:08 ↗ that transparency on the street side um

1:25:10 ↗ primarily and then on the other sides

1:25:13 ↗ where it would have been required but it

1:25:15 ↗ now isn't under the deviation having

1:25:17 ↗ different design elements there instead.

1:25:22 ↗ So, just kind of a summary of how we

1:25:24 ↗ clarified and reduced and combined our

1:25:27 ↗ transparency requirements. Um, we used

1:25:29 ↗ to have three citywide standards and

1:25:31 ↗ that's been reduced to two. The central

1:25:33 ↗ isqua standard used to be in the natural

1:25:35 ↗ context area. Ye. We will touch on that

1:25:37 ↗ more, but that is um recommended to be

1:25:39 ↗ removed and instead the central isqua

1:25:42 ↗ transparency standard will just be the

1:25:44 ↗ urban core zone and just be abuing

1:25:46 ↗ streets. As a reminder for the citywide

1:25:48 ↗ ones, it's streets, threeblock passages,

1:25:50 ↗ natural context areas, but the urban

1:25:52 ↗ core zone is that pedestrian priority

1:25:54 ↗ area which is along streets. So that is

1:25:56 ↗ where the highest percentage is

1:25:58 ↗ recommended.

1:26:01 ↗ So a couple questions from the memo and

1:26:03 ↗ that are just up for consideration

1:26:04 ↗ tonight um so that the commissioners can

1:26:07 ↗ have discussions about it and um ask

1:26:09 ↗ staff any clarifying questions is do we

1:26:12 ↗ support the change? Do you support the

1:26:14 ↗ change of how transparency is measured?

1:26:17 ↗ Um, how does commission feel about

1:26:19 ↗ exempting the town homes from the

1:26:21 ↗ transparent requirements? And then just

1:26:22 ↗ generally, are the code amendments

1:26:24 ↗ clear? Do you have any clarifying

1:26:25 ↗ questions that staff can help answer for

1:26:27 ↗ you? Um, or is any additional

1:26:29 ↗ information desired prior to the

1:26:32 ↗ hearing?

1:26:35 ↗ >> Excellent. Thank you, Emily. Great

1:26:37 ↗ presentation. Thank you for the photos

1:26:38 ↗ and thank you for the hard work of going

1:26:40 ↗ out there with that tape measure. I'm

1:26:42 ↗ sure you did get a lot of odd looks. Um

1:26:45 ↗ let's take it apart one by one. We'll

1:26:47 ↗ start with question one. Do

1:26:49 ↗ commissioners support the change in how

1:26:51 ↗ transparency measured? Again, we're

1:26:53 ↗ going to have this entire conversation

1:26:54 ↗ in two weeks, but always good to flush

1:26:57 ↗ it out a little bit more. Uh please,

1:26:59 ↗ Commissioner Zacharov.

1:27:01 ↗ >> Thank you, Chase. Uh question one more

1:27:04 ↗ time. So, how do we can you please

1:27:06 ↗ repeat how exactly do we measure it now?

1:27:09 ↗ Thank you.

1:27:10 ↗ >> Of course. Yeah, it's from the finished

1:27:12 ↗ floor, the first um floor. So

1:27:14 ↗ essentially it's from 0 feet from the

1:27:15 ↗ ground up to 5T and then the

1:27:17 ↗ recommendation is from 2 feet up to 8 ft

1:27:23 ↗ >> between 2 and 8 ft. Correct. Yes.

1:27:24 ↗ >> I mean I'm going to phone a friend but

1:27:26 ↗ Commissioner Holmstrom who's a developer

1:27:28 ↗ and I I know myself I work I mean that

1:27:31 ↗ makes more sense. That's going to be a

1:27:32 ↗ lot easier because if you're building

1:27:34 ↗ windows and transparency down to the

1:27:36 ↗ ground that is more expensive. That's a

1:27:38 ↗ lot more expensive I would assume.

1:27:40 ↗ >> Yeah this makes a lot more sense. And it

1:27:42 ↗ also addresses egress for getting out of

1:27:45 ↗ a bedroom window. Those have to be a

1:27:47 ↗ certain height off the ground. I mean,

1:27:49 ↗ this I couldn't wrap my head around the

1:27:51 ↗ 0 to5 measurement before. I just could I

1:27:55 ↗ really struggle with that one. So, I

1:27:56 ↗ think this is uh much more logical.

1:27:59 ↗ >> Yeah, it makes sense to me. I mean, just

1:28:01 ↗ the way I'm just thinking of stick

1:28:03 ↗ framed houses and, you know, again, much

1:28:06 ↗ more cost effective and it would help

1:28:08 ↗ actually bump up those transparency

1:28:10 ↗ numbers as well. So, I'm all in favor

1:28:12 ↗ for it.

1:28:13 ↗ >> You still seem high.

1:28:17 ↗ >> Fair enough. But I am as far as the

1:28:19 ↗ measuring, I'm I'm completely Yeah. I

1:28:21 ↗ Any questions or comments when it comes

1:28:24 ↗ to measuring?

1:28:26 ↗ >> Commissioner Miller.

1:28:27 ↗ >> Um my comment is um in regards to uh

1:28:30 ↗ folks that are watching us at home. I've

1:28:32 ↗ been told that there is no audio.

1:28:34 ↗ >> They can see us, but they can't hear us.

1:28:37 ↗ >> Oh, how it's been a while. How does that

1:28:40 ↗ work?

1:28:43 ↗ Um, just Oh, no.

1:28:46 ↗ >> Um,

1:28:48 ↗ I there's I know there's a requirement,

1:28:50 ↗ right?

1:28:51 ↗ >> Okay.

1:28:52 ↗ >> Just

1:28:52 ↗ >> Sure.

1:28:53 ↗ >> Just

1:29:01 ↗ >> Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

1:29:03 ↗ >> Um, pardon me. Do you know if this is

1:29:05 ↗ just since the the reboot of the system?

1:29:08 ↗ Okay. So maybe if we can take another uh

1:29:10 ↗ break so we can try to figure this out.

1:29:13 ↗ >> I'm gonna blame it on the squirrel

1:29:14 ↗ again.

1:29:40 ↗ Hello. Hello.

1:30:12 ↗ Hello.

1:30:14 ↗ That might be it.

1:30:27 ↗ Testing one, two, three. Testing.

1:30:31 ↗ Testing.

1:30:34 ↗ >> Testing. Hi. Can you hear me?

1:30:38 ↗ It's not working.

1:32:21 ↗ This one too.

1:32:26 ↗ Two.

1:32:55 ↗ Hello. Testing, testing.

1:33:00 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:33:11 ↗ Thank you.

1:33:13 ↗ All right, we're back.

1:33:16 ↗ We're back.

1:33:19 ↗ >> Okay, I think we So, we didn't really

1:33:21 ↗ capture question one. Um, do

1:33:23 ↗ commissioners support the change in how

1:33:25 ↗ transparency is measured? I feel like

1:33:28 ↗ overall we do.

1:33:30 ↗ I believe we can go to question two. Do

1:33:32 ↗ commissioners support exempting town

1:33:34 ↗ homes from the transparency

1:33:36 ↗ requirements?

1:33:38 ↗ Okay, let's hear a little bit of

1:33:39 ↗ feedback. Anybody like to go first?

1:33:44 ↗ Commissioner Dair.

1:33:47 ↗ >> Yeah. One thing is when I was

1:33:48 ↗ researching transparency, you know,

1:33:50 ↗ there's more than glazing to it. So, I

1:33:53 ↗ think obviously there's a lot of privacy

1:33:55 ↗ concerns and structural concerns with

1:33:57 ↗ town homes that makes them a unique type

1:34:00 ↗ of business. I mean, not business, but

1:34:03 ↗ building. So I think if there we

1:34:05 ↗ obviously have other codes and design

1:34:07 ↗ standards to make sure they have porches

1:34:09 ↗ and other attractive things going on. I

1:34:12 ↗ think then that's fine.

1:34:15 ↗ >> Excellent.

1:34:17 ↗ Any other comments about exempting?

1:34:19 ↗ That's a big question.

1:34:21 ↗ >> Commissioner Matthews,

1:34:22 ↗ >> sorry I was about to start talking. I

1:34:23 ↗ also I also agree with that because most

1:34:26 ↗ mostly town homes are narrow and they

1:34:29 ↗ have their doorway there and it's really

1:34:31 ↗ hard to get to that glazing percentage

1:34:33 ↗ if they have a garage and a doorway. So

1:34:35 ↗ on the ground floor I think that it's

1:34:37 ↗ probably a good idea. Um there's a town

1:34:39 ↗ homes right across the big tree trail

1:34:41 ↗ head in Isiqua that has glass doors and

1:34:45 ↗ windows and everybody covers them

1:34:46 ↗ because it's they don't want people

1:34:49 ↗ looking right into their house. It's not

1:34:51 ↗ like downtown as well, but you still

1:34:53 ↗ have some privacy concerns. So, I think

1:34:55 ↗ that's a good idea to exempt it.

1:34:58 ↗ >> Great.

1:35:00 ↗ Any other feedback regarding the town

1:35:02 ↗ homes?

1:35:05 ↗ >> I think Commissioner Matthews brings up

1:35:06 ↗ a good point. You know, nobody's

1:35:08 ↗ building ramblers anymore. Isqua does

1:35:10 ↗ not have the land to build that way.

1:35:12 ↗ They're building up. These are going to

1:35:13 ↗ be two to three floors. And I'm want to

1:35:17 ↗ say thank you to Commissioner Zachar. We

1:35:19 ↗ had a nice coffee the other day and she

1:35:21 ↗ showed me a few buildings around um the

1:35:23 ↗ Highlands and there's so many different

1:35:25 ↗ unique ways to build whether it's

1:35:26 ↗ Pacific Northwest Lodge, whether it's

1:35:28 ↗ something much more modern and

1:35:30 ↗ contemporary. Um, having a requirement

1:35:33 ↗ for transparency on a town home seems

1:35:36 ↗ pretty tough and I don't think you're

1:35:38 ↗ going to get the different variety

1:35:41 ↗ of aesthetics and I think it would be

1:35:43 ↗ very tough for developers to have to get

1:35:45 ↗ to that transparency requirement if

1:35:48 ↗ they're trying to build town homes that

1:35:49 ↗ are typically going to be more narrow

1:35:51 ↗ and upward focus. So, at this point,

1:35:54 ↗ again, we'll have the conversation in

1:35:56 ↗ two weeks, but I'm okay with exempting

1:35:59 ↗ them.

1:36:02 ↗ Okay. Question three. Are the code

1:36:05 ↗ amendments clear?

1:36:10 ↗ >> I think so too.

1:36:12 ↗ Is there any additional information that

1:36:14 ↗ the commissioners need for the public

1:36:16 ↗ hearing?

1:36:18 ↗ >> Commissioner Dair,

1:36:20 ↗ >> I think a lot of us understand this, you

1:36:23 ↗ know, that there's more than Excuse me,

1:36:26 ↗ I'm just still articulating my thought.

1:36:28 ↗ Um, it would be great, I think, for

1:36:31 ↗ public comment and for the people coming

1:36:34 ↗ if there was maybe a little sidebar that

1:36:37 ↗ did highlight other aesthetic

1:36:40 ↗ requirements that town homes will still

1:36:41 ↗ have to meet just so people know that

1:36:43 ↗ they're not getting

1:36:45 ↗ a straight garage door when we say no

1:36:49 ↗ transparency. I just think for general

1:36:51 ↗ public,

1:36:51 ↗ >> what we're saying, Emily, is more

1:36:53 ↗ photos.

1:36:54 ↗ >> Happy to.

1:36:55 ↗ >> Okay.

1:36:57 ↗ Um, I think that's it. Unless anyone

1:37:00 ↗ else has anything for Emily.

1:37:02 ↗ All right. I believe Y is up next. Thank

1:37:05 ↗ you Emily.

1:37:21 ↗ All right. Good evening, commissioners.

1:37:23 ↗ E Chen, associate planner of CPD here

1:37:26 ↗ and tonight my part of the proposal will

1:37:28 ↗ be for natural context areas.

1:37:35 ↗ So just a little bit of a recap on the

1:37:37 ↗ PBI goals and outcomes and the overall

1:37:40 ↗ goal for natural context areas code

1:37:42 ↗ update is to reduce the burden of

1:37:44 ↗ transparency requirements when facing

1:37:46 ↗ said natural context areas.

1:37:52 ↗ So from the previous meetings, staff has

1:37:54 ↗ taken PPC feedback into consideration of

1:37:57 ↗ eliminating transparency requirements

1:37:59 ↗ along natural context areas. In addition

1:38:01 ↗ to that with providing more

1:38:03 ↗ clarification and refining other natural

1:38:05 ↗ context area requirements.

1:38:11 ↗ So just a little bit of a recap on the

1:38:13 ↗ background. Um within central Isiqua,

1:38:16 ↗ natural contact areas include regulated

1:38:18 ↗ streams, wetlands, city park, city open

1:38:21 ↗ space, private open space, as well as

1:38:23 ↗ natural storm ponds. So the goal within

1:38:25 ↗ city plan policies and code regulations

1:38:27 ↗ is to have developments prioritize

1:38:29 ↗ resource management and integration of

1:38:31 ↗ Isiqua's natural features while ensuring

1:38:33 ↗ they remain accessible to the public.

1:38:38 ↗ A new definition is being proposed to

1:38:41 ↗ clarify natural context areas and what

1:38:43 ↗ they entail. The new definition outlines

1:38:46 ↗ natural context areas to mean regulated

1:38:48 ↗ streams and wetlands, city parks, city

1:38:51 ↗ open space, private open space,

1:38:53 ↗ permanently regulated, and natural

1:38:55 ↗ appearing storm ponds. Please also note

1:38:57 ↗ that this definition has been taken

1:38:59 ↗ directly from a diagram from within our

1:39:01 ↗ code. So, it's kind of what we've been

1:39:03 ↗ directing people to utilize already.

1:39:10 ↗ So staff is proposing to remove the

1:39:12 ↗ provision of buildings must be designed

1:39:15 ↗ with doors and windows making up 50% of

1:39:17 ↗ the walls oriented towards natural areas

1:39:19 ↗ to blur the transition between outdoor

1:39:22 ↗ and indoor spaces along natural areas

1:39:24 ↗ and this is uh done in order to meet PBI

1:39:27 ↗ goals. However, city-wide transparency

1:39:30 ↗ standards will still apply.

1:39:35 ↗ So no changes are being proposed to the

1:39:38 ↗ previously discussed removal of code

1:39:40 ↗ specifying natural materials which is

1:39:42 ↗ illdefined and likely in conflict with

1:39:44 ↗ upcoming state law changes. Uh but based

1:39:47 ↗ on the June 11th staff also proposed

1:39:50 ↗ amendment to eliminate sections that are

1:39:52 ↗ vague and are better implemented uh by

1:39:54 ↗ more specific sections of the same code.

1:39:56 ↗ So with our most recent revision, this

1:39:59 ↗ includes adding a specific definition

1:40:01 ↗ for natural context areas, revising

1:40:03 ↗ subsection A to clearly divide it into

1:40:05 ↗ intent and applicability statements, and

1:40:08 ↗ reorganized code to clearly identify

1:40:10 ↗ building and site requirements along

1:40:12 ↗ with a revision to clarify applicability

1:40:15 ↗ when a site is bifurcated by streets.

1:40:21 ↗ So you might be asking what changed

1:40:23 ↗ exactly? Uh to sum it up, here's the

1:40:26 ↗ track changes. Um but site orientation

1:40:28 ↗ and natural context area integration

1:40:30 ↗ into site design and development has

1:40:32 ↗ been clarified along with an addition of

1:40:35 ↗ language to take into consideration when

1:40:36 ↗ a site is bifurcated by a public or

1:40:39 ↗ private street.

1:40:44 ↗ So we have an example for existing code

1:40:47 ↗ conflicts. This is a project um that's

1:40:51 ↗ in design currently, but it's located

1:40:53 ↗ within central Isiqua on Reineer

1:40:55 ↗ Boulevard North. Uh the proposal

1:40:57 ↗ currently consists about 16 town homes

1:41:00 ↗ uh designed in two rows. One will be

1:41:02 ↗ facing Reineer Boulevard North and the

1:41:04 ↗ other uh road will be facing the alley.

1:41:07 ↗ So the natural context and area across

1:41:09 ↗ the street is Reineer Trail.

1:41:13 ↗ Um, and this kind of shows how street

1:41:15 ↗ and engineering standards could

1:41:16 ↗ potentially conflict with land use

1:41:18 ↗ regulations since original provision 10

1:41:21 ↗ of um, our existing codes provides

1:41:23 ↗ prohibits driveway access off of natural

1:41:26 ↗ context areas, but sites in their uses

1:41:28 ↗ should still be entitled to access. The

1:41:31 ↗ new updated code will allow sites to

1:41:33 ↗ have access wherein there is bifurcation

1:41:35 ↗ via public or private streets while

1:41:37 ↗ maintaining the natural context area

1:41:39 ↗ intentions are still adhered to.

1:41:46 ↗ So here we have some lovely examples

1:41:48 ↗ from other cities. So please note that

1:41:50 ↗ we're not um saying that these adhere

1:41:55 ↗ perfectly to our code sections um and

1:41:58 ↗ provide all the amenities. However,

1:42:00 ↗ they're great examples of what we want

1:42:01 ↗ our codes intentions to kind of um you

1:42:06 ↗ know convey. So this development is

1:42:09 ↗ Thornton Place located in Seattle and

1:42:12 ↗ this is a project that daylighted

1:42:14 ↗ Thornton Creek. This is what natural

1:42:15 ↗ context area code intends to do when not

1:42:18 ↗ bifurcated by public or private roadway.

1:42:21 ↗ The natural context area is incorporated

1:42:23 ↗ into the site design and is integrated

1:42:25 ↗ as a site design feature to connect

1:42:27 ↗ residents and pedestrians alike to our

1:42:29 ↗ natural resources.

1:42:34 ↗ So, next is Blue and Belleview. Blue is

1:42:38 ↗ a mixeduse residential building located

1:42:40 ↗ within downtown Belleview. Right across

1:42:42 ↗ the street is Belleview downtown Park

1:42:44 ↗ with the implementation of provisions 1

1:42:46 ↗ and five in the code amendment. This

1:42:49 ↗ example shows how even when a

1:42:50 ↗ development is bifurcated by a public

1:42:52 ↗ street, site design can have facads that

1:42:54 ↗ are oriented towards a natural context

1:42:56 ↗ area with amenities such as balconies,

1:42:58 ↗ transparency and design details to

1:43:01 ↗ seamlessly blend development and natural

1:43:03 ↗ context areas together to create harmony

1:43:05 ↗ and then a sense of place.

1:43:08 ↗ Um and this is pertinent because

1:43:09 ↗ especially in central Isiqua, our

1:43:11 ↗ regional growth center where buildings

1:43:13 ↗ are required to build between 0 to 10

1:43:15 ↗ feet um in the front without

1:43:18 ↗ consideration of bifurcation by public

1:43:20 ↗ and private street into consideration.

1:43:22 ↗ This could create conflict between

1:43:23 ↗ development and the amenities that the

1:43:25 ↗ building and you should be entitled to.

1:43:30 ↗ So some questions for tonight. Um

1:43:37 ↗ again we will be you know requesting

1:43:40 ↗ changes after the public hearing and

1:43:42 ↗ your feedbacks in particular like you

1:43:44 ↗ guys did in the beginning. However um we

1:43:47 ↗ did want to come with some questions for

1:43:48 ↗ you to stew on tonight in preparation

1:43:50 ↗ for said public hearing. Um and the

1:43:52 ↗ first one is going to be do

1:43:54 ↗ commissioners support the exceptions

1:43:55 ↗ allowed in E1 through E5 in the track

1:43:58 ↗ changes that up on the screen. um if a

1:44:00 ↗ building is separated from a natural

1:44:02 ↗ context area by a public or private

1:44:04 ↗ street. Second is are the code

1:44:06 ↗ amendments clear and the third is is any

1:44:09 ↗ additional information needed for the

1:44:11 ↗ public hearing.

1:44:15 ↗ >> Okay, thank you. Ye um

1:44:19 ↗ looking for comments. This one's a

1:44:22 ↗ little less clear to me.

1:44:25 ↗ So, one question I did have for you, Yi,

1:44:28 ↗ if you could go back on your slides.

1:44:32 ↗ >> Yes.

1:44:38 ↗ >> One more, I think.

1:44:39 ↗ >> Okay.

1:44:41 ↗ This

1:44:42 ↗ >> was it. This one.

1:44:45 ↗ >> No, that one makes That one's perfectly

1:44:47 ↗ fine. I think it was one more before.

1:44:49 ↗ >> Okay.

1:44:52 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah, that's where I wanted to

1:44:54 ↗ start. Mhm.

1:44:55 ↗ >> So, as far as the natural context areas,

1:44:57 ↗ we're talking about

1:44:59 ↗ what I understood we're talking about is

1:45:01 ↗ right now is just transparency. Again,

1:45:03 ↗ the same issue we were just talking

1:45:05 ↗ about. We're talking about windows,

1:45:07 ↗ glass in order to have harmony with the

1:45:09 ↗ natural context area.

1:45:11 ↗ >> Yes. What does it mean when it says I

1:45:14 ↗ don't recall that we said we were going

1:45:15 ↗ to eliminate standards and then I don't

1:45:19 ↗ quite understand where it says citywide

1:45:21 ↗ transparency standards will still apply.

1:45:24 ↗ Help me get past these because that's

1:45:26 ↗ the part that's getting me a little

1:45:27 ↗ upside down.

1:45:28 ↗ >> Yeah. So, uh, within the transparency,

1:45:32 ↗ um, changes that Emily has implemented,

1:45:36 ↗ um, and presented on, we're just trying

1:45:38 ↗ to confirm that while the overall facade

1:45:41 ↗ transparency when facing natural context

1:45:43 ↗ areas will be eliminated, if a area or

1:45:47 ↗ let's say a site faces um, a street and

1:45:50 ↗ then there's also a natural context area

1:45:52 ↗ on the side, right? because there's

1:45:54 ↗ still two sides that faces the street

1:45:56 ↗ frontage and the natural context area,

1:45:58 ↗ they wouldn't qualify for the deviation

1:46:00 ↗ of having less transparency for sides

1:46:04 ↗ beyond that. Um, and so we're just

1:46:06 ↗ confirming that if natural context area

1:46:10 ↗ is still a consideration for the

1:46:13 ↗ project, city-wide transparency

1:46:15 ↗ standards will still apply to that side.

1:46:17 ↗ >> I don't know if that helped me or not

1:46:20 ↗ being full transparency. full

1:46:22 ↗ transparency.

1:46:23 ↗ >> I can give it a whirl since I presented

1:46:25 ↗ on it on the 11th. I'll um so this

1:46:29 ↗ essentially is saying so currently in

1:46:31 ↗ the natural context area code you have

1:46:34 ↗ to have 50% of your entire facade that

1:46:37 ↗ face the natural context area be

1:46:39 ↗ transparent. And that was kind of the

1:46:40 ↗ original trigger of the PBI um code

1:46:43 ↗ amendment is that anything over 30 is

1:46:45 ↗ really difficult to meet. Um, and so

1:46:47 ↗ when I presented on this on the 11th, we

1:46:49 ↗ talked about how we're removing the

1:46:51 ↗ transparency standard from the natural

1:46:52 ↗ context area code and kind of

1:46:55 ↗ consolidating all of our transparency

1:46:56 ↗ code into one section, which is what I

1:46:58 ↗ presented on earlier. So, it's removing

1:47:00 ↗ the 50% transparency standard that

1:47:03 ↗ specifically speaks to natural context

1:47:05 ↗ areas. And instead, let's say a building

1:47:08 ↗ faces a natural context area, it has to

1:47:10 ↗ meet that um 45% if it's commercial on

1:47:13 ↗ ground floor or 40% if it's multif

1:47:15 ↗ family on ground floor or if it's in the

1:47:17 ↗ urban core, 70% along the street. So,

1:47:20 ↗ it's just having the building's still

1:47:21 ↗ having to follow all those other

1:47:22 ↗ transparency standards. It's just

1:47:25 ↗ eliminating this one specific one that

1:47:27 ↗ just has to do with natural context

1:47:29 ↗ areas,

1:47:30 ↗ >> right? And you mentioned something else,

1:47:31 ↗ too. So, the ground floor stays within

1:47:34 ↗ citywide context. When you're talking

1:47:36 ↗ about the 50%, you're talking about the

1:47:38 ↗ entire facade. We're talking about all

1:47:40 ↗ four, five, six floors.

1:47:41 ↗ >> Correct. Whatever have you.

1:47:43 ↗ >> Correct. So, it's still going to have to

1:47:44 ↗ meet the ground floor that every that

1:47:45 ↗ all the other ones did that I presented

1:47:47 ↗ on. We're just removing that suggesting

1:47:49 ↗ we remove the 50% for the entire facade.

1:47:52 ↗ >> Right. because I I think we all felt

1:47:54 ↗ that developers would take advantage of

1:47:56 ↗ a natural context area and we didn't

1:47:57 ↗ need to regulate that to death.

1:47:59 ↗ >> I remember the conversation.

1:48:01 ↗ >> That is how I remember the conversation

1:48:02 ↗ as well and that this this this removal

1:48:04 ↗ at the time commissioners appear to

1:48:07 ↗ support it since we saw the other

1:48:08 ↗ transparency standards that were still

1:48:10 ↗ applicable to the building.

1:48:11 ↗ >> Right? because again it was more about

1:48:12 ↗ the pedestrian friendly area where

1:48:14 ↗ pedestrians and people are using it on

1:48:16 ↗ the ground floor still getting what they

1:48:17 ↗ need and again most developers are going

1:48:19 ↗ to take advantage of you know views and

1:48:22 ↗ things of of that nature by all means so

1:48:25 ↗ okay I thank you

1:48:26 ↗ >> no problem

1:48:27 ↗ >> and thank you ye I just like I said

1:48:29 ↗ sometimes is the old mind doesn't go as

1:48:31 ↗ quick as it used to

1:48:31 ↗ >> and no you're

1:48:33 ↗ >> okay having said that is that was that

1:48:35 ↗ clear enough for everybody I guess is

1:48:36 ↗ the next point because I know that's one

1:48:38 ↗ of our questions too

1:48:40 ↗ I feel like It's clear now.

1:48:43 ↗ >> So,

1:48:45 ↗ Commissioner Holmstrom,

1:48:47 ↗ >> so essentially we're going to go from

1:48:49 ↗ 50% to 40 or 45

1:48:52 ↗ on the ground floor.

1:48:53 ↗ >> On the ground floor.

1:48:54 ↗ >> So, yeah, it was whole facade before.

1:48:56 ↗ Now, it'll be just ground floor,

1:48:59 ↗ >> right? But it's still where I kind of

1:49:03 ↗ back to a point I made in a previous

1:49:05 ↗ meeting like where does the garbage room

1:49:08 ↗ go? Where does all this stuff go? That's

1:49:10 ↗ addressed in the prior one where they

1:49:12 ↗ had they only have to do two sides now.

1:49:18 ↗ >> So this is this is

1:49:21 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:49:22 ↗ >> Right. There's now a primacy a list of

1:49:24 ↗ like you they I understand correctly

1:49:26 ↗ right where there's now a list of you

1:49:30 ↗ >> of kind of priorities and they can pick

1:49:32 ↗ two sides that will meet the 45% and

1:49:35 ↗ they don't have correct. So let's say a

1:49:38 ↗ building is street on one side, natural

1:49:40 ↗ context area on the other, and not

1:49:42 ↗ either any of those things.

1:49:44 ↗ >> Yeah. Like trail heads like three

1:49:45 ↗ streets.

1:49:46 ↗ >> So it's just two sides. It's going to

1:49:47 ↗ have to meet the ground floor

1:49:48 ↗ transparency on the natural context side

1:49:49 ↗ and the street side. But for

1:49:53 ↗ correct on the ground floor instead of

1:49:55 ↗ 50 for the whole facade. And it still

1:49:56 ↗ has to meet the other natural context

1:49:58 ↗ area standards like balconies and

1:50:00 ↗ orienting towards that and those other

1:50:01 ↗ ones. It's just it's just eliminating

1:50:03 ↗ that whole facade 50% requirement.

1:50:07 ↗ Okay.

1:50:12 ↗ >> You know, also wanted to provide a

1:50:14 ↗ little context of where where this um

1:50:17 ↗ requirement or was added to the list.

1:50:20 ↗ It's the conflict between the energy

1:50:22 ↗ code um and which is very strict and and

1:50:26 ↗ people are were having a hard time

1:50:27 ↗ meeting um their energy because you lose

1:50:30 ↗ heat. you're trying to be more energy

1:50:33 ↗ efficient and and you know the modeling

1:50:35 ↗ that you have to run for the building

1:50:37 ↗ code. Um we understood from the that it

1:50:41 ↗ was 30% was the max and if you went be

1:50:43 ↗ for the whole facade. Now we're talking

1:50:45 ↗ about the whole facade. if it was more

1:50:47 ↗ than 30% people had a hard time uh

1:50:50 ↗ complying with the energy code. And so

1:50:52 ↗ that that was a fix that was trying to

1:50:54 ↗ be you know we were trying to attempting

1:50:56 ↗ to and of course once you get into it uh

1:50:59 ↗ you know staff has done a great job of

1:51:01 ↗ like all finding all these conflicts and

1:51:02 ↗ other things um but that that was the

1:51:05 ↗ intent initially um to eliminate that

1:51:08 ↗ that uh conflict of 50% versus 30% on

1:51:12 ↗ the energy good.

1:51:14 ↗ >> No that's okay. Wonderful. Yeah,

1:51:16 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

1:51:17 ↗ >> I guess I would just recommend that when

1:51:19 ↗ you approach this subject is to um to

1:51:23 ↗ say it just like you did before where

1:51:25 ↗ it's like this is already going to be

1:51:29 ↗ discussed in the natural context area.

1:51:32 ↗ We're moving transparency to blah, you

1:51:35 ↗ know, so it's just a little more clear

1:51:36 ↗ because like him, I was like, wait, what

1:51:38 ↗ does that mean? So maybe and we've

1:51:40 ↗ discussed this many times. So maybe just

1:51:42 ↗ making it really clear so that the

1:51:44 ↗ audience understands that too because

1:51:45 ↗ that was very clear.

1:51:47 ↗ >> Yeah. No, and I I think like I said, I

1:51:49 ↗ think staff's looking for constructive

1:51:50 ↗ criticism and order to present this on

1:51:52 ↗ the public hearing evening. Um I'm all

1:51:55 ↗ in favor for it. I just like I said,

1:51:57 ↗ just took me a moment to catch up. So

1:51:59 ↗ >> no, you're totally fine. It's equipment

1:52:01 ↗ malfunction. It was me malfunction. So

1:52:03 ↗ >> no, not at all. Okay. Uh can we go back

1:52:06 ↗ to those questions?

1:52:08 ↗ >> Yes.

1:52:10 ↗ All right, let's make sure we answered

1:52:12 ↗ them well enough for you. So, do

1:52:15 ↗ commissioners support the exceptions

1:52:16 ↗ allowed E1 E5. If a building is

1:52:19 ↗ separated from a natural context area by

1:52:20 ↗ public or private street

1:52:25 ↗ and again, we'll we'll debate this.

1:52:28 ↗ Um, is the code amendments clear? We

1:52:30 ↗ just covered that. And any additional

1:52:33 ↗ information needed for the public

1:52:34 ↗ hearing? I think Commissioner Matthew

1:52:37 ↗ spoke to that.

1:52:41 ↗ Please.

1:52:41 ↗ >> I would also add pictures just like

1:52:43 ↗ Commissioner Adair suggested because

1:52:44 ↗ nothing says easiness to us than photos.

1:52:48 ↗ >> Absolutely.

1:52:48 ↗ >> Noted. Thank you.

1:52:49 ↗ >> More pictures. Eie.

1:52:51 ↗ >> I will also go out there. Sorry about

1:52:52 ↗ that.

1:52:56 ↗ >> Excellent.

1:52:56 ↗ >> If I could just jump in.

1:52:57 ↗ >> Yeah. And I mean, not just picture, I'm

1:52:59 ↗ not saying like you have to take

1:53:00 ↗ pictures of everything, but I'm just

1:53:01 ↗ saying that if there's like a little

1:53:03 ↗ bullet point list even in the corner

1:53:05 ↗ that says people still have to have

1:53:07 ↗ balconies, landscaping, you know, things

1:53:10 ↗ so that people aren't thinking that, oh

1:53:12 ↗ my god, we're looking at a single

1:53:15 ↗ concrete wall. No, we still have codes

1:53:17 ↗ elsewhere to handle aesthetic things.

1:53:20 ↗ It's just not as much glass. Yeah.

1:53:25 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:53:26 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. Well, thank you Yi and thank

1:53:28 ↗ you Emily. You guys both good. We're

1:53:32 ↗ good.

1:53:32 ↗ >> Yes.

1:53:33 ↗ >> Okay. Excellent.

1:53:34 ↗ >> Thank you guys.

1:53:35 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:53:37 ↗ That concludes our regular business for

1:53:40 ↗ this evening. I want to thank uh our

1:53:42 ↗ audience and obviously our great uh

1:53:46 ↗ staff who continues to help us along

1:53:49 ↗ with this. And now we are looking to I

1:53:52 ↗ believe Kate for city council updates.

1:53:56 ↗ or Minnie

1:53:58 ↗ >> and I'm wondering if Minnie wouldn't

1:54:00 ↗ mind coming up or I mean what I can

1:54:03 ↗ share that um um well actually um I

1:54:08 ↗ believe there was a city council meeting

1:54:10 ↗ where the PBI amendments were discussed

1:54:12 ↗ um oh and also the PTE meeting um which

1:54:15 ↗ maybe um director Dollywal can

1:54:18 ↗ >> sure so the two items that um planning

1:54:22 ↗ and policy commission recommended were

1:54:23 ↗ the stepbacks that Mayor Mullet talked

1:54:26 ↗ about and um the B the open space. So

1:54:30 ↗ those were discussed by planning

1:54:31 ↗ development and environment committee.

1:54:33 ↗ There was a split vote um 2 to1 um for

1:54:38 ↗ the uh the point that was debated was

1:54:41 ↗ whether there should be a complete

1:54:42 ↗ elimination of stepbacks um and whether

1:54:46 ↗ that was vetted out or discussed at the

1:54:48 ↗ planning and policy commission. Um so so

1:54:51 ↗ that went with the planning development

1:54:53 ↗ environment committee's recommendation

1:54:55 ↗ to full council and council passed it

1:54:58 ↗ with two nays and the rest of them

1:55:00 ↗ saying yes uh and the two nays were

1:55:03 ↗ primarily the feedback was that we

1:55:05 ↗ should look at all options. So if it was

1:55:08 ↗ uh stepbacks were to be discussed as a

1:55:10 ↗ menu of options and things like that and

1:55:13 ↗ those two started off before we had the

1:55:15 ↗ conversation about goals and outcome um

1:55:18 ↗ uh discussion with planning development

1:55:19 ↗ and environment committee. So because we

1:55:22 ↗ have an ambitious work plan we got

1:55:24 ↗ started on it uh and in the meantime

1:55:26 ↗ started this goals and outcome

1:55:28 ↗ conversation. So for the other ones like

1:55:30 ↗ tonight's you actually see that chart

1:55:32 ↗ that kind of lays out some of the

1:55:34 ↗ framework for that that can help you do

1:55:36 ↗ during your deliberations. Um the other

1:55:39 ↗ feedback I think um that may mull talked

1:55:41 ↗ about today is um we want to be clear in

1:55:44 ↗ your recommendations as we take them

1:55:46 ↗ forward uh that if there is if you

1:55:49 ↗ disagree with certain thing why you know

1:55:52 ↗ we capture that clearly uh and the and

1:55:55 ↗ then we can assist you in making motions

1:55:56 ↗ and other things. And so having the

1:55:59 ↗ public uh hearing draft out if you are

1:56:01 ↗ going to propose amendments, you know,

1:56:03 ↗ reach out to us. We can help you craft

1:56:05 ↗ motions and and help you frame uh what

1:56:07 ↗ you're thinking um so that you can make

1:56:09 ↗ a motion and then decide on it and then

1:56:12 ↗ it gets captured. If some of you agree

1:56:14 ↗ or disagree, then we can actually lay it

1:56:16 ↗ out and explain it to council your

1:56:19 ↗ reasons behind your thought process. So

1:56:22 ↗ if you if for instance if for parking

1:56:24 ↗ you decide to uh not eliminate parking

1:56:27 ↗ minimums um then why are you thinking

1:56:31 ↗ that um you make a motion to take it out

1:56:34 ↗ of the code or you make a motion to only

1:56:37 ↗ eliminate for residential what wherever

1:56:39 ↗ your discussion is that we actually

1:56:41 ↗ capture it well for the legislative

1:56:43 ↗ process you know as it moves forward.

1:56:46 ↗ >> They'd like us to show our homework.

1:56:48 ↗ >> Yeah. But um both of those uh were uh

1:56:51 ↗ approved and have became you know uh so

1:56:54 ↗ those are done uh these two are on the

1:56:56 ↗ way uh other I mean this is lot of

1:56:59 ↗ meteor topics um and then some other

1:57:02 ↗ stuff is coming your way so thank you

1:57:04 ↗ all for all your work uh one t one item

1:57:08 ↗ which was self-certification of uh

1:57:10 ↗ detached accessory dwelling units

1:57:12 ↗ because it was amendments to title 16

1:57:15 ↗ didn't have to come through a policy

1:57:17 ↗ discussion and that was just uh changing

1:57:19 ↗ our processes to say if someone has an

1:57:22 ↗ detached ADU of thousand square feet or

1:57:24 ↗ less um and it's stamped by a registered

1:57:27 ↗ architect, we're not going to do

1:57:29 ↗ building plan review on it. We'll still

1:57:31 ↗ review it for geotech critical areas um

1:57:34 ↗ you know utility connections and so on.

1:57:36 ↗ Uh but not for building plan review. So

1:57:38 ↗ life safety stuff under the IBC or IRC

1:57:42 ↗ um will be will rely on the reg

1:57:45 ↗ registered architect to do that. So that

1:57:47 ↗ went to planning, development, and

1:57:48 ↗ environment committee and that is going

1:57:51 ↗ to get passed on to full council for

1:57:53 ↗ action on July 20th.

1:57:55 ↗ So we're making good progress. Thank you

1:57:57 ↗ all for your work and missing World Cup,

1:57:59 ↗ two nice summer days. Uh sorry.

1:58:06 ↗ >> Yeah, Jesse. Yeah. No, John told me the

1:58:09 ↗ score. Yeah. Uh

1:58:11 ↗ >> oh. Anyway, it's okay.

1:58:14 ↗ >> No spoilers, John.

1:58:17 ↗ Thank you, Minnie.

1:58:19 ↗ Okay. Um, finally, any other business or

1:58:23 ↗ announcements? Anything going on in the

1:58:25 ↗ city? I know the city actually has a lot

1:58:26 ↗ of things going on this summer. Um, I

1:58:29 ↗ could hear it the other night from my

1:58:31 ↗ porch. We've got concerts in the green

1:58:33 ↗ again. Thursdays, they're doing uh what

1:58:36 ↗ is that? Gas station blues. We've got

1:58:39 ↗ some more

1:58:39 ↗ >> wonderful Fourth of July parade. I don't

1:58:41 ↗ know how many of you I saw some of you

1:58:43 ↗ participating in it. It was great. uh

1:58:46 ↗ farmers market was on the veterans uh

1:58:49 ↗ field. Um you know the counter counted

1:58:52 ↗ about 5,000 folks. So it was a big

1:58:54 ↗ community uh pride event. So um

1:58:59 ↗ >> yeah what else? Um there's going to be

1:59:01 ↗ um Siri which is summer employee

1:59:04 ↗ recognition event coming up. I should

1:59:06 ↗ know the date. And does anyone know the

1:59:08 ↗ date?

1:59:10 ↗ >> August or July 26?

1:59:15 ↗ We we will send that information to you.

1:59:17 ↗ But um

1:59:19 ↗ >> um and that's a event that the city

1:59:21 ↗ hosts for employees. Uh public works

1:59:24 ↗ makes big barbecues and it's at the

1:59:26 ↗ Flint off um little

1:59:29 ↗ >> Is it closed to just the city employees?

1:59:31 ↗ >> Are you going to find out? Yeah,

1:59:32 ↗ >> I think anyone's welcome. There's plenty

1:59:34 ↗ of u folks in there.

1:59:36 ↗ >> City has amazing employees. Some of them

1:59:38 ↗ who obviously we've never get to meet

1:59:40 ↗ but uh yeah, Mizqua is very fortunate.

1:59:45 ↗ Okay. And then then I noticed something

1:59:47 ↗ else. Are something August 13th through

1:59:50 ↗ 16th some type of

1:59:53 ↗ is it like an art and music type

1:59:55 ↗ situation

1:59:57 ↗ festival? Is it trying to compete with

1:59:58 ↗ salmon days? Is that's what's going on?

2:00:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Our communications department does

2:00:04 ↗ a great job. Do you guys get the

2:00:06 ↗ communications email that goes

2:00:07 ↗ >> I just see it on the banner when I'm

2:00:08 ↗ stuck in traffic. No, but we our

2:00:11 ↗ communications department pushes out the

2:00:13 ↗ events to community members.

2:00:15 ↗ >> Do you don't get it?

2:00:16 ↗ >> I don't think so.

2:00:17 ↗ >> We'll make sure all of our planning

2:00:18 ↗ commissioners are added to their list.

2:00:20 ↗ So,

2:00:21 ↗ >> okay. Yeah. A lot of fun around the

2:00:24 ↗ city. So, that's wonderful. Okay. Um,

2:00:28 ↗ going once, going twice. Anything for

2:00:30 ↗ the good of the order, staff,

2:00:32 ↗ commissioners?

2:00:35 ↗ Okay, let's get out of here. Uh, we will

2:00:38 ↗ close. Uh, we will adjourn this meeting

2:00:40 ↗ of the planning policy commission at

2:00:42 ↗ 8:30 p.m. Good evening everyone.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.