Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, planning policy. Great to see everybody. We're gonna call the January. I apologize. This is February 26. We're gonna call the February 26 Planning Policy Commission meeting to order, and it currently is 06:30PM. Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The Planning Policy Commission is in person, but staff or members of the public may be attending virtually or in person. Kristen, do we have a quorum this evening?

Yes, we do.

All right. And I'd also just like to mention that we do have two excused absences, Commissioner Adair and Commissioner Mulbaru. Let's begin with the approval of minutes that were provided in your agenda packet. Those were for the January 22 meeting. January 8, do we have two sets of minutes?

No, we have one

We should just have January 22.

Yeah. I think that might have just been a spelling mistake. Okay. Yes. There's just a spelling mistake. So, okay. This is for the January 22 meeting. Any questions, concerns, anything that the commissioners would like to point out? Meeting minutes, we're good with them? Okay. Seeing a bunch of head nods. Those meeting minutes are approved. Our next order of business is public comment. While we don't have anyone in chambers this evening, we may have somebody online. Amanda, do we have anyone that would like to make general public comments at this time?

No, Chair, we do not.

Okay. Well, then I will not waste all of our time by talking about a bunch of general rules. What we are going to do right now is move into regular business. And it looks like we're going to kick this off with the Issaquah Climate Action Plan update. So this is our first item of regular business as stated. Stacy Vin McKinstry, our sustainability manager, will be presenting this evening. So Stacy, when you're ready, please go ahead with your presentation. Try and say that five times fast. Wow.

Alright, Thank you. Give me one moment just to bring up the presentation. Don't use Webex as often.

Okay.

Need to adjust. Good. Okay. Great. Well, thank you very much for having me this evening.

As mentioned, Stacy Van McKinstry. I'm the sustainability manager with the city, and it's great to be back after visiting with you all in the fall. I'll debrief a little bit on what we discussed at that last meeting, but essentially, I'm here to bring back some of the concepts for consideration and the update to Issaquah's climate action plan. So tonight, I'll provide a bit of a progress update on where we are with updating the plan. And then really tonight, we're jumping, into a few policy considerations.

And I apologize, there's a error on there. We are looking at transportation land use policies, but also some potential policies for the built environment around buildings and energy. So tonight, we're really seeking that feedback from you all, and really focused in on those policies that may be considered in the the plan update. Just as a brief refresher, the Issaquah Climate Action Plan is really our staff guidance and the community's guidance and the work that we're doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city. It was adopted in 2021 after extensive community engagement, working with focus groups and different interest groups.

And this year is our five year update, and we've been really focused on refining actions within the plan, and there's a few targets we've also been looking at improving to make sure, they best reflect the work that we need to do to, make progress on our emissions reduction. I'll speak about this a little bit more later, but tonight, we're also bringing a number of policies that may seem a little out there. We were asked by a council committee to really take a look at what policies or actions could be taken to significantly move the needle on reducing climate emissions. And so we really did look at other communities across the state and in North America to pull some of those ideas for initial discussion this evening. As mentioned tonight, we'll be really focusing in on transportation land use related policies and then also the those that impact the built environment.

So what are we trying to achieve with these policies as well as the actions in the plan? I'll focus on the areas of transportation land use in the built environment tonight. Those are just two sections of the plan. But for our transportation and land use, that section is really focused on increasing carpooling non single driver, use of vehicles, and then also decreasing the number of miles that we're traveling in our vehicles. This is done, as the plan states, through actions related to decreasing auto reliance, through, land use planning, overall auto use reduction by offering alternative ways to get around the community, and then looking at the transition to electric vehicles to reduce our emissions.

In the built environment, this section of the plan, has targets focused on decreasing our energy use, looking at no new greenhouse gas emissions in new buildings, and then reducing, natural gas and other fossil fuel use. The plan includes actions and policies, that are really focused on, decreasing the building energy use and increasing energy resilience, advancing decarbonization or the and the transition away from fossil fuels. So that is what we are trying to achieve. I'll just speak briefly about kind of where we are in the process to update the plan. As a reminder, last summer, we had several committees that met to really hone in on certain sections of the plan, members of the PPC participate in that process.

We then took that input from the committees, and we visited several of our boards and commissions this fall to provide some of that initial feedback and get your input. We took all that input, presented it to the environmental board. They provided, their feedback. And now we are coming back to several of our boards and commissions for a second round of review. What we will be doing next is taking the input from our boards and commissions and returning back, to the planning development, and environment council committee.

So here's where I just wanted to note that we did meet with that committee a few weeks ago. And, as mentioned earlier, they did ask us to look at what actions might have the greatest impact in reducing our emissions. In response to that request, we looked at some of the, most progressive actions we could find around the country, and it pulled out some of those policies for initial consideration. Those policies have not yet been vetted or rightsized for Issaquah. We're really bringing to you tonight for our first consideration and your input on whether they are something that we should explore and, further assess if they're appropriate for Issaquah.

And one thing I did wanna note that for any policies we do identify in the update to the climate action plan, our intent is to, include language in there that talks about evaluating the feasibility of those policies first. We are not gonna commit the city to implementing a policy without really going through a review and making sure it's appropriate and what the cost might be to implement as well as the impact on our greenhouse gas emissions. Wanted to first, before we dig into the proposed policies, just a refresh of what we talked about last fall and the feedback that you all provided us. Just a brief summary that, some of our discussion back in the fall talked about grid capacity with electrification and making sure that we could handle, transition to, electric appliances and equipment. We talked about, with multifamily housing, really focusing in more on technical support for electric vehicle charging or offering options for kind of shared charging location.

We talked about, maybe focusing more on kind of the carrots versus the requirements, so offering more incentives and again that technical support. Other items we talked about were around storage for e bikes and scooters, the need to really assess how we're doing in terms of adding bike lanes to our community, and also making sure that the ICAP isn't too redundant with the mobility action plan. And then some of the other items we talked about was really continuing to promote and support the programs that Puget Sound Energy has, such as their flex programs and other ones that reduce, demand on the grid. So bef oh, actually, I'll share one more thing and then pause if there's any questions. So what I did wanna just walk through, and I think we touched on this back in the fall, is a wedge analysis.

So this is really just a representation of where we would be if we didn't do any work to reduce, our greenhouse gas emissions, and then, where our target is, and then all the contributing factors that can help get us towards our target. So the business as usual emission scenario is that black line up top. Our target is that lower red dash line. And then the solid colors are the federal, state, and regional policies that are currently in place and how far they're anticipated to reduce our emissions. Those dotted or shaded areas is, the action that can help help more at the local level, and, the blue and green shaded areas represents that work on buildings and transportation, including work we can do around energy efficiency, reducing BMT and the transition to electric vehicles.

These wedge analysis are not meant to be prescriptive. They're really meant to be a guiding light to help us understand where we should be focusing our efforts. And so that is why we really focus looking at those big policies, that get at transportation as well as, emissions reduction in the built environment. So I'll move into the policies in just a minute, but I do wanna say, there's nine of them. That's a lot.

We can see how far we get tonight. You don't have to like any of them. You can say no to them. You can propose alternatives to what's on the screen. This is really just to start that conversation and get your feedback so we can then share that with our council committee, and get some more direction from them on where they would like to go. So I will pause there before I move into the policies and just see if there's any questions on that background information. Okay. Alright. So moving into the first one. So this policy looks at reducing or removing parking minimums.

There's kind of two options we've posed here. One would be removing parking minimums as long as a multi family building is near transit. And in working with our planning team, we use the term frequent transit, which is a term used at the state level, meaning it's regular and reliable transit. The alternative to this is removing parking minimums regardless of that current access to transit. I did discuss this policy with TAB last night.

They were generally supportive of removing the minimums and really letting the market, drive the number of parking places, that are installed. They did have a lot of considerations about what a feasibility study should include, if we move this forward. So I wanted to open it up to feedback considerations for this policy.

Thank you. Commissioner Krass. Hello.

Thank you for also hitting on the point that it's a cost benefit analysis. Some of these things may sound great if you only look it through one lens, but you have to look at it, not just feasibility, but what's the other thing that happens. This one, for example, I'll come to a scenario and I'd like people's feedback on, but I do have a broader question which will hit on all of these is the thought process of why we would want to exceed what the state requires, which the state already has fairly stringent things, and Washington State is super progressive. And I think as we look through all these things, I think we have to have really good rationale of why we want to exceed that and understand that unintended consequence would be on that. On this one specifically, I do think the question about if you take away all minimums, how would we feel if like the Atlas apartments, for example, were built with zero parking spaces.

And what do you do when you have a couple 100 units and zero parking spaces and what does that do? So I guess the question, it's more of a statement I guess than the question is. Things that sound good on paper, but in reality, like communism may sound great on paper, but when you, it doesn't work. We all read Animal Farm when we were in eighth grade. So I, it would be interesting to look at the extreme, but then what's the reality of what some of these things are? I guess it's more of a statement than a question.

And I sorry if I interrupt, but I can share one anecdote around the development and our planning team may have more, but in one of our recent multifamily permitting process, they were, required to put in a certain amount of parking. It was actually below some of the requirements, and the developer chose to build more parking because they knew they wouldn't be able to rent the apartments without adequate parking. And so in some ways, where the communities that are removing parking minimums, you're seeing just that market demand. The developers are still putting in the parking, but I'll definitely defer to our planning team since that's what they look at every day.

So then the question is, do you wanna take that risk? Yeah. Do you wanna handle it with exceptions versus policy? That's the that's the thing I would be scared about. And something to consider.

There are several cities around the region who have eliminated all parking requirements and what they're finding is that like Stacy said, the market needs them. So it's really the market that drives parking and in some cities are actually considering now putting maximums on parking where they've removed all parking requirements and that's something that our city already has is parking maximums.

Commissioner Matthews.

I'm gonna take off from Commissioner Krause's comment about parking. So I used to live in Northwest Portland, which has no parking. It's basically all street parking. So I think when you start building a lot and in cases like where a few policies down, you're saying that they have to put EV ready on air and so they may decide, I don't want to pay for that. We're not going to put any parking.

So now we have fierce competition for parking on the street. And we, in Isquah, currently don't have a lot of parking to handle any kind of overflow. And especially when you have one parking ride that's always full. So you can imagine what it would be like when you start putting two policies back to back, one requiring EV ready everywhere plus no minimums. You could create a lot of pushback from the community at some point saying this is not working.

So kind of like what commissioner Krause was saying, maybe you just especially ones that are more than point two five miles away that, you know, the alternative policy Mhmm. That might be something where you you may just reduce the minimums and, know, just for a safeguard. Thank you. Great.

Any other feedback?

Any other comments? Commissioner Oliner.

Just like to echo both what Commissioner Krass and others have said here. I think it also to me depends on what your target market is for the development of So for example, affordable housing becomes much more affordable if you don't have to build structured parking. But unless the frequent transit is very close by, you're going to have very unhappy tenants regardless. So I think the policy needs to be as has been suggested by Commissioner Matthews as well, that it needs to be nuanced. That making a blanket statement of all development just does not capture all of the conditions that may vary.

Further comments? Chair voice, I'm just going to echo my fellow commissioners over here. To me it seems like it would be more responsible at least until the feasibility study comes out. It's one thing that will reduce minimums. It's another thing to completely get rid of them.

And I would be more interested to see it's one thing if we're talking about a quarter mile from a frequent transit. Okay, I can even maybe then you can make the argument that they're not necessary in this particular area, but I'm thinking of redevelopment down in Old City. And if you were to try to do that, you would put a burden on the streets where people already park. So it's like anything in Issaquah, we have very different neighborhoods with different needs. So again, to just take it away, I really don't like alternative policy one.

I don't know why we just couldn't reduce the minimums versus just completely getting rid of them. That would be my thoughts, too. Vice Chair Patterson.

You triggered a thought in my brain. Maybe there's an opportunity to also do if that alternative policy of eliminating parking minimums in like Central Issaquah, but then keep it for everywhere else, or something along those lines, like some sort of phased approach or something where to encourage development and also because we're hoping to get some additional multimodal transportation in that area, maybe that's an opportunity to pilot that there or what have you, but maybe kind of take that approach to it.

Great. So hearing concerns for overall blanket removal of minimums, but maybe there's some options for certain neighborhoods or maybe the city could offer waivers for certain developments, make some exceptions, I think someone mentioned. But that we really need to consider the risk and further assess their feasibility.

It seems like a fair statement, commissioners. Yeah, proceed with caution.

Okay. Great. Alright. Moving on to number two. This one is looking referenced earlier, looking at increasing multifamily charging requirements above state requirements. And I know we discussed this one back in the fall. There were some concerns around this, but we wanted to bring it back. And I can share a little bit about what TAB said last night. The alternative is looking at that 100% EV ready parking stalls in multifamily developments and redevelopment. So TAB did discuss this last night.

They actually had general support for the 100% EV ready, given that Redmond has moved this forward and did so without hearing significant concerns from, developers. However, they were very interested in looking further into the analysis that Redmond did before moving it forward and, engaging with our development compute community, and further assessing whether it's something that they would be amenable to. So I wanted to bring this one back for discussion on whether there would be interest at least looking at whether we should increase multifamily or further evaluating the approach that Redmond took.

Thank you. I feel like we just went through this like what a year, two years ago with the EV ready. I feel like it's coming back again like a Groundhog Day. Commissioner Krass.

Hello again.

Yeah.

So the interesting thing, this has a huge dependency that could stop everything in its tracks, and that is Puget Sound Energy or whoever the, who would bring that in. Example, there's a really nice condo right next to our place, I think there's 50 units. And they looked at converting two or three spaces to have EV charging stations. This is not 100% of all their sites, this is just three spaces. And the quote came back at $100,000 and it was gonna take a long time.

And if we put if you look at time and cost, this just will never happen until that dependency is understood, and I would be afraid to even bring this up to someone. Because then what'll happen is no one will redevelop. Mean, then the question, like, they're gonna just let things crumble because they're gonna be afraid of this thing that's unattendable. So I think understanding more what is the logistics on something like this before I could even give a nod to having this type of requirement.

Let's go with Commissioner I'm trying to blank cut. I guess I need to use Sagarov's. Thank you. Well,

to me, it's we also have a very big conversation about the affordability of housing. And every time when we are talking about new like parking, new EV, 100% EV ready, it makes it way and way less affordable for people. So we should be considering that because the more we put on the developers, the more requirements we put on them. The longer is permitting process going to be, the more it's going to cost, the more things they are going to have to do. So I cannot really be on the same page with the tab on this. Sorry.

No apologies here.

Did I

see Commissioner Olinor? Yes, thanks. I think if we're trying to encourage development in the city we should be thinking about some offsetting cost savings, whether it be direct payments or working with PSC to reduce the cost of installation and maintenance of these EV chargers. But I think it's a fine goal. I think we want to move toward electric vehicles in the future.

I think when we had a discussion about this several months ago, I 'd raised the question of these, know, where these charging stations would be concentrated. And if they're all in one area, then you create deserts throughout the rest of the city. So again, would argue in terms of flexibility and also considering ways in which to offset the costs, whether it's incentives to build higher, greater density, but echo the concerns about the cost and the impact on creating affordable housing in the city.

Thank you, Commissioner Olinor. Commissioner Millinder Erwin?

You. Turned

off my mic. Thank you very much. So I am in support of this policy from the standpoint of development, specifically for medium to large scale homeowner associations because it's a challenge in that environment to have already ready EV charging station capabilities. The counter however is in older communities. I think the comment that I'm making now is one that I made back in the fall, which is older communities are very challenged with the changing demographics of their communities and the higher demand for EV charging stations.

So I think this is great for new development, but I think also there needs to be some study in terms of how do you bring along older communities to support their need as well to have EV charging stations installed.

Thank

you Commissioner Mellon Erwin. Anyone else like to speak? Chair voice, to me this is one area where I think this is where incentives work. I think carrots are what we need here. I don't think it's any secret that, again, we're moving in that direction.

But to me, to use a rough analogy, it's kind of like your phone, right? Most people do their phone charging at home, but you still need the infrastructure in case your phone runs out of batteries when you're out and about. So I think it is what we're aspiring to, which is what Commissioner Olinner said. But like I said, this one, feasibility makes sense. Incentives here make sense to to try and push it, but I think requirements probably were not there yet.

I'm looking at Safeway and those beautiful charging stations that are completely empty all the time. But again, I do get it. Most people are charging their EVs at home. They're able to do that because they have their parking stalls and they're ready and wired for it. But again, I think here I think the incentives in carats would probably be more appropriate, at least right now.

Kind of the way I wish if we could go back in the way back machine, we kind of looked at some of that either for large box stores or commercial spaces. Because again, we might be jumping ahead of our skis at the moment until that demand is there. So I like the idea of carrots at the moment. Yes, Commissioner I

like carrots much better than sticks, as most people do. I wonder if there's a nuance, because another example, there's some new town, I think we talked about this in the same topic is, there's some new townhomes being built, two different set, like one at nineteen and one at 29 units. And I know one of them, they advertise that there is EV charging in their garages. And I think there's a difference in a new development. If you have your own garage, running two forty to that garage in your own structure is a much different pop than you have a giant garage and each one has to have something and then tie back to that somehow metered to that unit.

So I wonder if there's something in between as you look at new developments of if you have your own sole garage, this may be a bridge to get to some of these. There may be some requirements or maybe we just use incentives to do that, where that starts taking into consideration the logistic ability to do that versus you have a 50 unit building and everyone has a parking spot and then how do you meter it back to that individual unit versus your own individual garage. So there's something to be thought of when you have your own unit, your own parking space.

Vice Chair Patterson.

Thank you, Chair. I also want to bring up a point that you actually shared earlier, which is why not let the market drive the demand of this? I mean, I think that if people really want EV charging and that's something that's desirable for them, then people will start building it. I do like incentivizing, though. I mean, obviously, this is a forward thinking motion and environmentally, it makes sense. But I think when you start using requirement and things like that and adding cost to our developers, like maybe there's another way to go about moving that forward, I guess.

Thank you, Vice Chair. One of the things that caught my eye, did not face major pushback. So clearly I don't know what that means, but I'd like to know who were the developers, how many were there. It doesn't really tell the full story. I also, like I said, I appreciate what Commissioner Millinder Erwin has said as well. I mean, have different parts of the city that are different places. Yes, to Vice Chair Patterson's point, it is forward thinking. It is pushing it forward, but I don't know if we're quite there in 2026. Mhmm. So Any other word? Alright.

Great. That was a great summary. And yeah, the other the state is also discussing whether they'll be increasing requirements. Those could be amendments that we adopt in the future. We may see them go through the state building code. So there could be some additional leadership at the state level on this one. Alright. Oh, and the one other thing I will add is absolutely the incentive piece. I think what we will be looking at in the plan is ensuring that we're including actions around incentives, technical support, better outreach to multifamily to support those that do want to increase multifamily charging in their parking stalls. Alright.

The next one also looks at multifamily development and redevelopment. This one, it would be an update to one of the current actions that talks about ensuring that our land use code had, what it previously let me start over. Previously, in the ICAP or in the existing ICAP, we had a action around, updating our land use code to include, covered secure parking for bikes, for example. And what this one what this proposed revision would do is include access for charging for e bikes and e scooters. We have already updated the land use code to include a lot of that covered secure bike storage at multifamily.

So this is just that addition to the charging access. Tab did discuss this one last night. They actually thought it probably wasn't necessary. They really wanted us to focus more on the covered secure parking for bikes and scooters, and then also working with businesses or places of employment to make sure that there are options there for bikes to be stored, covered, and even charged. But they felt like it wasn't a necessary focus for the iCap, and, many of the e bikes, scooters, the batteries can be removed and charged in the apartment.

I think we also saw from public comments some concerns around safety. So just wanted to see if there are other thoughts, considerations from PPC on this action.

I've never ridden one, so

They're fun.

They look fun. Commissioner Zakaroff.

Thank you. I would like to use a Chair Voices example and say I'm also here on a position of carrots. So I would love to have this in a policy, but only as an incentive and not as a like ruling that any kind of property has to have a secured parking because, again, it's an additional cost on builders. And yeah, that's not what we need right now. Thank you.

Commissioner Olinor. Going to the safety issue, I don't think we've caught up with what are the best fire suppression techniques for e bikes and electric vehicles in general. But I imagine that a different kind of fire suppression system is probably going to be required in covered areas where bikes are charged. Again, it's an additional cost to the developer that needs to be considered.

I guess one question I have is, so is the concern that with e bikes and e scooters that the rider walks away and then there could be a malfunction with the battery and it starts Is a that the concern?

What I as far as I understand, if you buy a e bike, e scooter at a authorized retailer, there is a very, very low likelihood of any, fire issue happening. Think what some folks are buying them online or maybe kind of building their own, that's my understanding, and then that might be more at risk. So it's kind of a

So it's like they get it like a, for lack of a better word, like a knock off battery. The battery sparks and the and the rider's gone and

Yeah. They're hard to put out.

Yeah. Cell

phone chargers

on airplanes. Airplanes.

Right. Yeah. They're bad cell phones. All the ones in the gas stations, they tell you not to use your phone with. Start a fire.

Okay.

Yeah. Like I said, no real understanding of these things. So curious. Vice Chair Patterson.

Actually, I have a question. This one might be for Kristen. When it says update land use codes for e bike and e scooter charging, what is the current code? Like, what would we be updating like to allow that? Or is that I don't know who would be best to answer this.

We don't have anything right now in our code regarding parking and e bikes and e scooters. So yes, that would be updating our parking

So it would not be allowed to have something like this currently or?

Well, we're no, you could absolutely, you could do this.

Okay. Yeah. But we would be saying it's like a required But

if you want to incentivize it

Oh, okay.

Then we would say, if you do this, then here's what you get.

Got it. Got it.

Okay. Thank you.

So it'd be something like putting outlets in if they have a bike storage unit, putting outlets in there so they could be charged. Okay.

Chair of Board, I guess I don't really have a dog in this fight. Okay. Yeah, if I understand it, we build storage, that is a requirement, but it's just the charger component that is not. Is that correct?

Right. We do currently have yes, if you milled so I guess I was sort of wrong. We don't anyway. Yes, we do have requirements that you have bike storage and scooter storage when you build multifamily developments. There is nothing in any of our commercial parking that requires this kind of thing, any of our single family residential.

For the charging component.

For the charging, yeah. Guess we do have for storage, you do need it for multifamily.

Okay.

But you just have like you do have to have bike spaces for retail stores if you're going to ride your bike there and spend two hours or something.

This is strictly the

charging Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. I I just I don't know. Like I said, I I do see them around the city. There are usually younger people using them. I would assume that they probably charge them at home.

Commissioner Kraft. And you mentioned a lot of them now, the batteries, you remove them to charge them. Which solves that. Question for Kristen. Can a builder put outlets in the bike storage if they just choose to do so? Or is that against some other type of building code? Is it?

As far as land use goes, yes, they can put them in there. There's probably something in the building code that would address it.

I'm okay

with that.

Because they could do mean, it sounds like if if it's allowed, they could just have well, let people fight it out for those few spots, but

Again, I don't own one. Is this are we talking like a typical outlet? Yes.

Yeah. The 100

Yeah.

I Well That's what I use mine. Well, and I for I think Tab talked about the removable batteries. Like, some of them, the battery's built inside. Like, mine, I can't remove the battery and carry it up to an apartment. So yeah, it's a regular outlet. But I think that's a great suggestion. We could look at our building code too and make sure there's nothing that would restrict an outlet going in to a bike storage unit.

Yeah. Definitely nothing should restrict it. So okay. Everybody good on policy question three?

Okay.

Great. I will take the moment to plug our sustainability fair. April 25, we'll have e bike test rides there if you've never ridden one. And then we do have a grant for ebike rebates that we'll be launching this summer. So keep an eye out

for that. What date was that again?

We'll have a rebate for ebikes.

What was the date?

Sorry. The sustainability fair is April 25 at Pickering Barn, and we'll have test rides from two local bike stores if you wanna try out a e bike. And then the city will be issuing rebates for e bikes probably early summer.

I left her bikes a long time ago. I don't know if I'm ready to get back on another bike.

Okay. Commissioner Olinner. Just one further comment. I mean, e bikes is great, but when I was sitting out in my car waiting to come inside, a kid rode on the sidewalk in an e bike and he was going at least 35 miles an hour on a pedestrian pathway. And I think before we jump in full bore to promote e bikes, we need to have traffic regulations that keep pace with that.

Yeah. And the city has passed an ordinance, where yeah. So that would that's probably a class three e bike, which technically are not allowed on the sidewalks. They have to be riding with traffic. So that is a focus of the city this year will be on e bike, e motorcycle safety.

Yeah and there's probably some public outreach that should go along

with Absolutely.

Great. Alright. Our next policy might be a little out there. Again, this was looking for kind of those big bold ideas. This was one Vancouver, BC actually, passed, and then they've pulled back.

So it actually hasn't been implemented, but interesting concept. And this was requiring fueling stations to put in electric vehicle charging or else that fueling station was charged a higher, b and o tax. Discussed this with TAB last night. They appreciated the concept. They did not think it was really necessary, especially for, a community of our size and our location where folks aren't necessarily traveling several 100 miles and passing through.

What they did recommend was really focusing again on those incentives, but really more in our retail areas. So thinking about, the chargers that are next to Starbucks are really well used because folks are popping in for twenty to forty minutes at Starbucks or the ones at Target. So maybe focusing more on encouraging and incentivizing more fast charging near retail areas. Open it up for other feedback.

Yes, Commissioner Matthews.

I know that Phillips sixty six was looking at testing this out in Houston, but this is like, are you saying for new stations? Because I doubt that we're gonna have any new stations in Philip or in Issaquah, right? We're pretty saturated. So is this something you're saying they have to would have to implement in an existing station?

That's how the Vancouver policy was passed that all gas stations had to install charging or else they would be taxed at a higher level.

So, yeah, it doesn't really make sense like what you've already said. Plus, some of the stations are so tiny, where would you even park

Mhmm.

A bank of cars. It doesn't seem to make sense unless you had a really big station with a lot of area to park in. Yeah.

I feel like twenty years ago, this would have been great to see like one stall, you know, as they were retrofitting gas fueling stations. I think to Tab's point, very interesting. Like I said, this one was like, woah. And then you see Vancouver going pulling back and it's like, oh. Commissioner Zakroff.

Thank you. So my position is if we are requiring any kind of fee, we're imposing any fee on a gas station, if we're imposing any tariff, tariff then goes to the customer. So it will just make the gas in Issaquah in general more expensive. And it doesn't matter if the station will be paying an extra fee or if they will have to remodel the station and to put an extra electric charging facility. So they will just simply make a guess for all of us, more expensive. I don't see it feasible. Thank you. Thank you.

One quick question. You said Vancouver is pairing it back. Are they pairing back the B and O draconian requirement or what are what are they doing to pair it back?

They've actually they have did not move to the phase of implementing the policy with the the statement I read spoke to just lack of enough infrastructure to actually for the gas stations to be able to comply. That's what I saw. I don't know if it'll be reconsidered.

Interesting. Just wondered if anyone just took them up or if it was the it was the threat of a higher tax that stalled out. Commissioner Krass.

Hi. So I totally agree that it doesn't make sense for fuel stations but retail. But it opens up a question. Do you have data on the utilization of the places that we already have now, not just anecdotal, like you have Starbucks, you have Target. There's a whole bunch that were put in, I'm not sure if they're live, at Barnes and Noble.

No, they're not Unfortunately, there's a

There's a few different the ones at Fred Meyer. So it'd be good to see what the utilization of those are now because then that helps push the conversation along because that's, you're right, when someone goes into some place for twenty, thirty minutes, that's when they're gonna do it. Right. And if it's super low utilization, then understanding why.

And

if it's already built out, then that says you have a different set of actions to figure out what's the next place that you would want to have those type of banks. Yeah, the Barnes and Noble one was built and it just sat.

What think that's interesting is like you said, it's hard to make policy without any data. You're right. The Starbucks ones do seem to get used. I think there's like two or three, at least the one in Gilman that I'm thinking of. And I don't know if the ones by Barnes and Noble are live, but if they're if they are, they're not. No. Okay. So that is why they are completely dead. And they took the chain link fence down, so that's why I assume they were dead. Now you're live. But, yeah, like you said, kinda hard to make a a Ford pass when we don't have the data on what's already being currently used. Like you said, now that I think about it, yeah, Starbucks, a few different areas, I see cars there. I mean, they're usually not full, but

But the data is like

Right. Yeah. No. It's a good point.

Yeah. It's a great question. They're private a lot of the fast chargers are all privately owned, but we could reach out, see if they'd be willing to share that. The city owns the level two chargers that are by the community center and then some that are up in the Issaquah Highlands. We can definitely pull that data. Community center ones, are heavily, heavily used. But, yeah, we can reach out and see if they'd be willing to share any of that information. That's a great suggestion. Because that could be used as an incentive for other retailers then to put them in.

Yeah. I'd definitely like to hear more because yeah. I appreciate Commissioner Kraft bringing that up. Again, I didn't know that the Barnes and Noble ones weren't live. Commissioner Millinder Erwin, did I see you? I love Barnes and Noble and I always see it empty. I also love Chipotle, so I'm there constantly.

I just had a comment that I think is probably going to echo the sentiment of my fellow commissioners. But my general thought from this conversation is that it's really about intention when development is being done. And I too have seen all the bank of EVs by what is it, the Safeway in Isco Highlands. And I don't think I've ever seen more than maybe one car there. So I don't know if during the development it was a incentive for the developer in order to install those, but perhaps because of the housing mix in the Highlands, the majority of the people that live in that area, they very well already have EV charging stations, either that they've installed on their own or maybe it was a incentive by the developer when their homes were built.

So the overall intention about where these stations go and if they're going to be utilized, I do see the ones by Starbucks being used quite often. So I think before any of these decisions are made, it's really about the data and the intention.

So thank you. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you commissioners. Any other comments or questions? We're going get through all nine.

Yeah, absolutely. All right. Poor Andrew. Great. Well, great feedback. Definitely not going in the direction of how this is stated, but looking at those trying to gather more data on the usage, the need, and then looking at opportunities where we can provide incentives around other retailer high use, high utilized spaces. Alright. This one's a little different too, and then we'll be moving next into buildings and energy. This concept comes out of Berkeley. They have passed what they call a transit first policy.

It is really about ensuring government leadership is fully behind, promoting transit first through all of their projects, kinda using a transit lens when they're looking at their priorities and budget and infrastructure projects. This could really be whatever ISAQA needed to promote transit or maybe it's even multimodal. In topping talking with TAB, I think just trying to wrap our heads around what this actually would mean, they really felt that this wasn't the intent of the mobility action plan and that instead of looking at something new, looking back at our mobility action plan, see how we can better elevate that as really a priority for the city and even review the mobility action plan to ensure that it's meeting this needs where it's really, moving the city to consider and prioritize transit and multimodal mobile movement. Any additional feedback on that one?

Commissioner Zakroff.

Thank you. Well, to to prioritize transit first, we need to make sure that we have a reliable transit here in Esquire. And again, right now, we have conversations about LightLink and hopefully everything comes to fruition there. And also the local transportation, the micro transportation or the all of the buses that we have in the city, they have to be reliable because having a bus that comes only from a certain hour to a certain hour, it's not reliable. It's existing, but it's not a reliable transportation. So that's what is important to me. And yes, the Mobility Action Plan is actually there. And I think here I would be totally on the same page with the tab. So thank you.

That's great. Commissioner Olinor.

Just a personal anecdote. I'm taking a course at UW and I drive my EV to the South Kirkland Park And Ride and then I hop on the two fifty five bus. It is always on time, fifteen minutes apart, very short waiting time. The buses are clean, they're well maintained, the bus drivers are friendly and courteous. So I think we have a good, at least, bus system here and I think as long as we maintain that, the reliability of it, would support policy along these lines.

But again, if it's in the mobility component, might as well keep it there.

Any further comments? Commissioner Matthews.

I also have an anecdote. I noticed that there's a new bus route or a new I guess it's a new route. It's two zero three and it goes along Newport Way, which I was really excited about because I could go to the trailhead without driving if I could get my dog on there, know. But it's like, if if they maintain that road, because now nobody really knows it's there because the road just opened, so a lot of people are not aware that this bus is regular and what the schedule is. But I think over time, probably will be used especially once the link opens for Mercer Island to Seattle and you could start taking the bus to the baseball games because paying $50 every time you wanna park or find parking.

You know, people could start getting used to using it just for events like that, I think they'll start using transportation much more often, especially once the link opens. So I think it is important to to stick with this policy and where it is. The best thing should

about the train is when you're sitting in traffic and you see the train go.

I know, it's like, yeah, it's exciting to see it now. It's like, it does pass you faster. It's like, yeah, one day. Great. Excellent.

Any other comments? Vice Chair Patterson?

Thank you. I think with the policy on the screen right here, it's just of all the ones we've seen today, it's the broadest stroke. Like it's very broad in what it's trying to say. And so I think that's where it's a little tough to kind of start to pick it apart. I think some of it probably is addressed in some of our existing policies that maybe we can, like, lean into those a little bit more.

Mhmm.

I I personally kind of agree with the concept of this. I think it's just how it gets interpreted or put into places is maybe the missing piece here.

Yeah, no, thank you, Vice Chair Patterson. I'm going to piggyback on him. I agree. I mean, again, it sounds right. But Issaquah as a government, I mean, we are very focused on mobility. We have everybody knows, we have congestion problems in one part of the city. We've got regional problems that are I forget where Seattle area lands in terms of just traffic. So I know the city already kind of uses that lens when we talk about any of these things. I don't really know what this does in terms of a transit lens per se. I kind of feel like we spend a lot of time on mobility things already.

I mean, don't think it really necessarily hurts, but I kind of agree with Tab. I mean, these are our mobility experts. These are the guys that look at it with a bigger magnifying glass than us. So if they feel like, hey, we have a plan, the mobility action plan, let's stick with this and flush it out. If we need upgrades, great. Again, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. But like I said, I think I'll tip my hat to them as they spend a lot more time on it than us. And we spend quite a bit of time on it as it is. That

was a great summary again. Thank you. All right. We are going to transition to buildings and energy. Alright.

So the next one, this recommendation is coming out of that council committee directive to think big. So this looks at energy benchmarking. Just to back up, the state has in place a clean, clean energy building performance standard, that applies to buildings that are 20,000 square feet and above, commercial buildings, multifamily. What this policy would be looking at is having buildings that are not covered under that state law. So those that are under 20,000 report on their energy use.

It's been shown in lots of other communities. If you have buildings report on energy use, they tend to reduce energy because they're now tracking data and looking to conserve energy. What the alternative option is doing is taking more of an approach that's been done in Seattle, where they have put in place a energy standard that goes above and beyond the state standard. They require their buildings to report to them. They have energy efficiency targets they have to meet, and those will become, stronger and stronger, harder and harder over time.

So that first option again is just, looking to the buildings that aren't currently covered by the state requirement. The other would be actually putting in place stronger standards than the state. What I did wanna know is that with the current state law, the city of Issaquah has had in place for the last couple of years an incentive program where we've had a vendor on contract, and we go out and work with our commercial building partners to help them meet the state compliance requirement and secure incentive dollars. It has been even offering a free service where we're saving them money, we're helping them access money. It's been very challenging to get commercial buildings to participate in our program, even though we're helping them get, on the pathway to compliance.

So this would be a big lift, for the city to do, but it's probably one of the most impactful programs we could put in to reduce commercial energy, large building energy use. Welcome your feedback.

At five thousand and above, would that also include single family homes? Any structure?

Yeah. Usually this is what they call covered. What the state does is called covered buildings, and the current law just looks at 20,000 square feet and above, which includes multifamily, commercial, but that also is public and nonprofit owned. This would be maybe a 5,000, and we could set it where we want it, 5,000 to 20 probably excluding single family.

So 5,000 single family residents, which we do have a state lots, those would be exempt?

Yes. I think we we would not wanna include every homeowner in the city reporting on their energy use. There is actually another policy, we'll talk about that in a minute, with the home energy score. But yes, this would just be for commercial nonprofit publicly owned buildings.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Olinner. So PSC, as a homeowner, I get a monthly report from PSC, how do I compare with my neighbors? It's obviously not especially accurate, but so there is in some ways a benchmarking program already in place for single family residences. I guess the question that I would have is, so we have a benchmarking program that's being proposed, but what incentives or penalties would go along with that or is that just information data for the city to collect?

Yeah. That's a great question. So at the state level for buildings that are 50,000 square feet and above, there are energy targets set they have to meet and there will be penalties put in there are penalties that will come into play if the buildings don't meet them. For those 20 to 50,000 as part of the state program, there's not yet targets they have to meet. They just have to report.

They have some other requirements, but no target to meet and no penalties. If the city was to put something like this in place, what was envisioned for this first one is really just reporting, so there wouldn't necessarily be a target. The city would need to decide if we would find a building owner if they did not report, but yeah, we haven't that has not been discussed. We wanted to see if there was any general support for the concept. Does that help answer?

Yeah, think it does. I mean I think the other question is if you've got a 50 year old building, it's clearly not gonna be energy efficient, and would they be penalized for not being energy efficient and be forced to upgrade or in some cases just sell the building because they can't afford to do it?

Yeah. It's a great question. That would depend on how the program was designed. If they meet those state thresholds, then yes, they do have to meet energy efficiency requirements. But we'd have to design that as part of the city program and consider all those things. Good question.

Great. Commissioner Zakroff. You guys were like a tie.

So my again, my thing is currently any kind of property is very expensive. It's very expensive to rent, it's very expensive to lease. It's like I'm both I'm now the homeowner, but I also a small business owner. And it's extremely hard to find a property that I can afford as a small business. And I have a pretty good small business.

But to me, if we are aiding any initiatives without incentives, if we're adding any requirements, that's a reporting requirement. Reporting already costs money. So the building owner will have to hire consultants of some sort. And these costs will go into the tenants of the building. It doesn't matter if this is people who live there or people who do business there.

So this will make it even less affordable for people to both live in a city and do business in a city. So to me, it kind of works a little bit against leave work and play rule that we have, or kind of like some not a rule, but what we have here. So yeah, I cannot support that. Okay. Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Krafts.

Hello. So I'll start with kind of showing my bias of I think it's a pretty high bar if we want to exceed what the State requires, period. So I think going above and beyond, there has to be a lot of consideration. On the reporting aspect of it, going back to like, get the same things from Puget Sound Energy, and I'm always disappointed. So I've got room for improvement.

Instead of putting the burden on the property owners, Goose Island Energy can do this. If it's really about reporting and benchmarking, they should do two things. They should be giving this data to the building owners because it's their incentive to use less energy because market forces take effect. And then at the same time they could work out the details, but the same information can come to the city for benchmarking. So adding that requirement to the owners, let's see if we can push that to the people who actually should be already tracking this thing, giving it to both parties with the, because sometimes data is power on these things and you know, if I have the chance to reduce by a little bit, it's absolute dollars if I own a building.

But you're right, some old buildings it's gonna be a big retrofit issue. But let's start with the reporting and also going back to my bias of not exceeding with the state is already probably pretty stringent already. I wouldn't want us to exceed that.

Commissioner Zakrov.

Thank you. Well, I actually would like to support Commissioner Krass. And back at the Climate Action Plan Committee, was also mentioning that Puget Sound Energy right now has several programs that several incentive programs that they question why are they not working. So maybe there should be something worked together with Puget Sound Energy as partners, And they can offer us something way better than what we are trying to create here. That's my idea. Thank you.

Other comments? So I also get those same things from PSC, and I always kill it because I do like the flex events and everything. And I always I get to see my yeah, I do. I do. And it always shows me and my neighbors, and I always crush it. So that's funny. I will say it's very hard to argue with the premise, let's look into the feasibility. So it's already set up, like, okay. Kind of and I think we'll get this into the other two policies because I am going to agree. Our state is a leader.

It's one of the legacies of Governor Inslee. So I'm gonna need to be convinced why Izukawa needs to go further. Having said that, reporting knowledge is power. Maybe that's where we start. Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I think to Commissioner Olinner and Commissioner Krass, yeah, you're going to have some 50 year old buildings. And then to Commissioner Zach Ross' point, we also are renters in the city of Issaquah over by BOEMs. I know that building is at least 40 years old. And yeah, that cost would be kicked over to us because you are dealing with consultants and energy departments. But having said that, this is where we want to move to.

So I'm not against it, but I think reporting would be the first step. The other thing too is you mentioned this is a heavy lift for the city. What type of resources would this take from city staff in order to get this type of reporting? Do you guys have the infrastructure to get it, to do it? Sounds like a great idea. Is it something that should be tabled? I mean, I guess I'm just asking questions.

Those are great questions. To run, especially BEPS having our own standards that exceed the state standards, think is a pretty massive lift. Seattle has an entire team dedicated it to it, granted they have a lot more buildings. But I think there are some really interesting ideas generated here that we'll probably look in around working with PSC to see how they can really focus on communication around reporting the energy data, but then promoting their incentives with it. I was also getting some nuggets of idea around maybe a voluntary reporting program, and then we would work directly with those buildings to connect them to incentives or something like that.

So I think there's some variation, coming out of here that could be a good first step, and then we see where we go. Great feedback.

Great. Any other comments on policy six? Okay.

Okay. How are we doing on time? We got three left. Just keep going. Okay. Alright.

We haven't met in a month. Yeah.

Alright.

Great. This one, we started to get into this a little bit in some of the discussion. There's two options here. The first one is a little bit simpler. This is the concept of a home energy score. So home energy score has been discussed at the Washington state level. It's been initiated in the state legislature the last couple of years. It's not yet moved forward. Oregon is implementing this. The city of Tumwater is actually considering their councils discussing whether to put this in place.

But it would basically be at the time of sale, you report out kind of a score of how you're doing how your home is doing in terms of home energy just for awareness. I have a lot of questions around that and, equity, and and there's a lot of questions to go with that. But that is a concept that's been really promoted by one of our strong climate partners, and, again, it has been considered at the state level. The alternative option here, is taking this quite a bit further. The city of Berkeley has a program in place called their Building Emission Saving Ordinance that actually requires at the time of sale for, the seller to meet certain, weatherization or energy improvements in their home.

They have to, hit six points. So like a heat pump, for example, that's your full six points. If you replace windows and do some weatherization work, that would get you to your six points. It's a pretty extensive program, but it is, put in place at the time of sale. So wanted to share these concepts with you all, see if you have feedback on they're a little bit different but related, so included them in the same slide.

Let's go, Commissioner Kress.

Hello again. So energy score, is this energy usage or is this something is this a set of metrics that is different than what just you just give your energy bills and that's what it's all about?

It's typically, as I understand it, there is actually an assessment done on the home, like a weatherization assessment, and you would receive a score on that home.

So once again, I would not do anything that's above and beyond the state. Mhmm. Period. Berkeley, which my wife went to school there, I know how that one's the extreme extreme on some of these things. Yeah.

I'm not for the draconian of having to have something done before you sell a house because otherwise it would just, would yeah, would just have huge I do wonder, going back to just what that energy score is, when people get a home inspection, they kind of go through this kind of stuff already. I haven't bought a house in ten years, and it was a new house, so they probably, I don't think I even did an inspection on that one. But the one before that, they do go through all of those types of things. So how is this any different than a home inspection when someone buys it? Then they have the information.

If it's not, doesn't have great weather stripping or it's got an old furnace, it's up to them. I mean, it's not a requirement that they have a better furnace, but they're gonna want a better furnace.

Yeah. Absolutely. And that first one, I think, as I understand it, is going above and beyond what you would get in a normal inspection. You'd actually receive a score, whether that's a poor, good, very good score. It could be designed however we wanted, but, it would rate your home in terms of energy use, and that's looking both at equipment, weatherization, etcetera.

I lost my train of thought. You had a second other part of your question.

Well, of all, our state is not requiring this. I don't even know why we're spending a lot of energy on this one. No pun intended.

Yeah.

How did you work that one in there? And it's kind of a known thing if a house is probably pretty efficient or not. This is like regulating obvious, which is just adds more cost, time, tax, etcetera.

Yes. Yes. So that's where thank you. I was going to go was there's nothing necessarily to be done with the score. It is meant to be information to the buyer. Hence, my note, I have lots of questions about this in terms of equity and making sure those older homes, wouldn't be penalized. So there's a lot of questions around this, but I guess, what's before us, this is something we would want to explore. Should we wait and see if the state takes this up again, or do we wanna even think beyond that and have some requirements at at time of sale for energy efficiency improvements?

We got hands. Let's go to the end of the table, Commissioner Millinder Erwin.

Thank you. The first thought that I had was this has some far reaching equity implications in terms of people that have older homes. And my concern is that having these types of ratings, they absolutely do have an effect on the ability of someone to sell their home. It's going to stick out if someone may have a older and thus more inefficient home. So I think this is a great big idea, but I think that the unintended consequences of this as an actual in effect program would be problematic.

Unless, and I don't even like my own unless, I'll say that there would have to be a counterbalance in my opinion, which would be what type of program would be put in place to address the equity implications, which is the intent to bring someone up to a particular standard if they have a particular score that's not seen as helpful. So I have concerns. Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Matthews.

My question or my comment was on the same lines. And actually I think it's even worse when you think about homeowner associations that have standards on windows. So now you're going in and you're digging up a can of worms, you gotta replace your windows. Because it does stay in the state in the policy that they would have to implement changes at the time Mhmm. That they sell their home.

So that could be a very big problem. And again, when you have a downturn, so like now home prices are low, now you're killing it. Somebody who wants to move up to a bigger home is not able to do that because they have large costs. So it seems like a good idea, but I think it could be painful depending on the upturn or downturn of housing prices, and especially like first time buyers, this just could be a big problem or a hurdle for them to overcome.

It's funny, I have a little note that just uses different language than the two of you. I said maybe not a bad idea. But anyway, Commissioner Zakarov.

Thank you. Well, I've had quite a time working on a climate action plan update and also talking to people about this. And what I found is well, first of all, our community is very green. And people in general, they not against it. Like people want to leave green, but at the very same time they cannot afford it.

And so this is not just in relation maybe to this policy, but all the policies that we've been looking through today. It makes it less and less affordable. And so my thing here with any of these policies is we need to have incentives. We need to offer people to make turning green easier for them, but we cannot put it as a requirement. Because right now it's a very simple situation. People cannot afford it. So we have to start there. Thank you.

Would anyone else like to weigh in? Vice Chair Patterson?

Nothing too different than what's been shared, but out on alternative policy here for sure. But the policy itself, like, I am kind of interested in the idea of a score if it was more of like an FYI. Like, like, just so you know, kinda like commissioner Kraft was saying, it was like, yeah, it might be nice to know, and it's usually obvious, like, oh, you have single pane windows or, you know, like, you know, there's an opportunity to update that. Maybe by establishing a score and then taking a step towards where Commissioner Zakroff was going of like, if you were to upgrade your furnace, you could save X amount of dollars a year or reduce your energy cost. Like giving incentives or even just people understanding of what it could mean to upgrade in some of those areas.

So it does become more of an FY, an incentive, something that encourages people of like, oh, this could be a good long term investment versus requiring any upgrades or punishing them for not being a certain level. I think we should avoid that, particularly for the equity standpoint. But I think there's something in here, just not quite this. Yeah, commissioner.

So this goes back to the role of Issaquah and Puget Sound Energy. I thought Puget Sound Energy has services like that where they will give you a energy audit and all those things. They don't?

They don't anymore, unfortunately.

So all the people that should do it is them. And then if they don't wanna do it, then I under then I'm I'm confused why other so do you have any history of why they stopped doing that?

Or did

you say

I don't know. I think it was sort of during the pandemic, and then now you can go on and request consultation with the energy adviser, but it's not necessarily the service they had before where they were coming out to your home, kind of doing a big assessment and providing specific recommendations. We and I was gonna talk about this a bit with the next policy. We have a very, well developed heat pump program right now where we offer incentives and rebates. We're about to expand that with some additional PSC funding where we'll be also doing supporting weatherization.

So going out and doing some of those assessments and then providing some incentives for upgrades. So we're trying to help fill fill that gap. But, yeah, I sounded like it was a very popular program. Unfortunately, I'm not sure. More history there.

Vice Chair Patterson? It was kind of a follow-up comment. As we kind of go down the path, if we do start to evaluate some kind of approach like this, you know, questions that pop into my head are, like, who's gonna do the evaluation? You know? Like, how how is it gonna get delivered? Like, where is it tracked? You know? Some of the more administrative burdens of a program like this. You know, you mentioned, like, the city having a staff to do that. Starting to break it down in that thing of like, if we got to a point where a score made sense, how would we even implement it? And what would the administrative burden be for that? So I think those are important considerations for if this were to go further beyond evaluation.

Chair Voigt, first of all, I think all of the commissioners had fantastic comments. So again, I'm in agreement with all of you guys. Again, when it comes to homeowners, I'm pretty sensitive at the moment. I think everybody knows the situation. Commissioner Millinder Erwin, you're right for people that what's that look like if you get a score and you're trying to sell versus your neighbor? Vice Chair Patterson, again, FYI, knowledge is power. My concern again is we're going through a time when I think I heard the other day the national average to buy a home is forty years now. And anything that moves that number up to 41, I'm going to be against. Anything that gets it down to 39, I'm going to be four. This one, in my mind, moves that up to 41.

Commissioner Zakarov mentioned added costs. With interest rates high, with construction costs and housing costs being high right now for multitude of reasons, this one to me moves the needle the wrong way.

Great. Great feedback. We'll also track Tumwater as their council debates the potential for putting this in place in their community and see what we learn from that and have further discussion if there seems to be added benefit or it moves us would move us in the right

direction.

Let's let Tumwater be the guinea pig.

Yeah. Washington guinea pig.

Okay. Alright. I think that's it for this policy question.

Alright. Getting close. Okay. So this next one, as I mentioned, the city has an extensive heat pump program we've had in place for three plus years. We run that in partnership with five other neighboring cities, EnergySmart Eastside. We offer incentives and rebates and education, incentives at all income levels. So we will be continuing to run that program. And as I mentioned, it's extending to weatherization this year. We're looking at electric and heat pump water heaters in the future. What these policies are proposing is to go more the requirement route versus the incentive education.

There's so far we can get with incentives and educations, where concept came up from a council member where could we have in place any kind of requirement? Again, don't know how this would be tracked, but, where contractors, when they're providing quotes, they at least have to provide one quote for a heat pump, versus a gas furnace replacement, for example. So, having the contractors, at least provide the homeowner with those options in front of them. The alternative is going a direction more, that Vancouver has put in place where there would be, a required energy efficiency standard at time of replacement. So, if your gas furnace goes out, you'd be required to install a gas furnace, or a heat pump that hits a certain energy efficiency threshold.

So those are kind of options, either kind of going the contractor education route, again, providing that data to the homeowner at time of replacement or looking at a requirement, energy efficiency requirement at time of replacement.

Alright. Let's go Commissioner Olinner.

There are some buildings with systems that do not lend themselves to heat pumps. Our house has radiant heat in the floors. There's no way, so we have no ducts. And other than putting in mini splits, there's really no way to utilize a heat pump. And we're certainly not going to rip out all of the radiant heating and put in ducts after the house has been completed.

I think there are some alternatives here that need to be considered like perhaps gas fired boilers that are very efficient for example. And I know the state is trying to move us toward total electrification but there are these stumbling blocks.

Commissioner Zakrov.

I think Commissioner O'Connor already went ahead and kind of I have a very similar idea. So yeah, not every building can be turned from gas to electrified heating. And yeah, that's kind of yeah, it's good if the information will be provided by whoever is exchanging the equipment, but it's not always possible. Thank you.

He stole your thunder. Yes, Commissioner Matthews.

I think it's a good idea to have the contractors provide a quote, but I think I mean, I've had two water heaters replaced and that each time they were like, hey, this is a better model. This will give you this much savings. I think a lot of them are already doing that. So maybe it's redundant because I think a lot of contractors are pushing the better models when they're out there. So maybe just a little more education, maybe there's some that aren't. But yeah, I think it's a good idea to give homeowners an option because they may not think of it at the time. They're just more concerned about replacing their equipment and getting it all running. Thank you.

There was a comment I think in one of our letters that kind of made that same thing. I actually replaced my water heater last year. I had a ream. It went fifteen years, never had a problem. Very quick showers, but that was it. But you're right, they give you like, hey, this is the model, this is a more energy efficient, this is a better model. I think, again, knowledge is power. Definitely don't like the requirement. Again, I don't think it's the season at the moment for any type of requirements that are going to add burdens and costs to homeowners or selling between homeowners or businesses for that matter. But again, kind of agree, knowledge is power.

I think what I'd be interested to hear is a little bit more about what contractors are doing now and what they think of this. Maybe reach out to a couple of locals and ask, is this a big burden for you guys to provide a quote or a little bit of education? I wouldn't think it is. This is all stuff they can do pretty much on the fly. But again, as far as requiring anything at the moment, again, when the economy is humming and housing is humming, it's one thing. Right now, it's on its back. Commissioner Krass?

So I think like Bob's or some of the other ones you see around town, You're right, when they come out, they'll say here's like two or three options. You have a whole like cost benefit. If we insist that they do a heat pump, they may say, this one costs four times as much to do this. It's kind of wasting everybody's time. If a heat pump is something that's beneficial, they're already doing it.

I would assume, like I have a furnace and I have an outdoor air conditioner. So if I had to change to a heat pump, I'm not even sure what that would mean. Like would I rip and replace everything out for something that's probably four times the cost to do that? I don't know. But I think if it's in the realm of the things that are potential, they're already doing it. But I do like the idea of talk to some of the, like, what's the one with the guy on the side? He's always waving. South.

Plumbing one.

Southwest plumbing or Bob's or whatever. They'll probably give you some good feedback of what they're already doing in different scenarios. Scenario one is someone has this type of setup, scenario two, and how they handle that. And that may help shape, you know where I'm going to go with this. I don't want to have any requirements of that, but even the quote aspect that may help tune the language and the ask to something that's beneficial for everybody in the value chain.

Yeah, that's great feedback. Through our heat pump, existing heat pump program, we have a pretty extensive network of contractors, but it's the contractors that work with certain equipment. And so one thing we could do is look at by the permits that are being pulled, look at those contractors that were not part of our existing program and maybe do some outreach or connect with them and understand what they're what they've already incorporated. Great,

thank you. I saw a hand.

Vice Chair Patterson. Thank you, sir. Just one more, kind of to add on to what Commissioner Kress was saying is, there might also be certain scenarios where different policies could come into play, meaning there's like new development, redevelopment, and then emergency replacement or repair. I think the public comment we got was very focused on like when you're in the middle of a replacement, it's kind of an emergency and you're just doing what you can to get business back up or get your house back to normal. So that's probably maybe an outlier that we don't wanna consider in that situation.

But maybe there's an opportunity to find a middle ground. I still don't like requiring too much, but I do understand, like, if we're trying to pull the right levers to find a balance between development of environmental sustainability, you know, all those different things, affordability, maybe there's some middle ground of either new or redevelopment where, we get that quote for the more energy efficient one or something along those lines. Awesome.

Yeah, like I said, it's really hard to argue with evaluate the feasibility. It's like, of course. Any other comments as far as Policy eight? Did you get everyone? Mr. Millinder, everyone? Okay. Great. Alright. Let's go for the dark sky.

Last one. This is a little different too. So what this one is looking at is a dark sky ordinance specifically focused on commercial buildings. We have quite a bit of dark sky language in our code. We really strive to reduce that light pollution. This one came out of the environmental board, where they have a particular interest in focusing in on some of the big commercial buildings in the city that are lit up all hours of the day. So they were interested in seeing if there

are

any restrictions that could be put in place really focused on that commercial sector.

Alright. Just real quickly, I feel like we just talked about dark sky within the last year. So maybe it's fresh for everybody. But yeah, let's give it a go. Commissioner Zakroff.

Thank you. Well, to me, again, it's an incentive, not a requirement. So if the building is currently working and the light is currently there, maybe incentivize and offer the building owner to change the lighting when they can or when it stops working to a more efficient one. But everything that we require then goes to the tenant of that building. And it makes it, again, affordability of I said the word affordable today more times than I have ever said that. So yeah. So that's what it is to me. Thank you.

Commissioner Matthews.

I had to work with the city of Malibu on their dark site. This is extreme on their dark sky ordinance.

And

Some of the things that came up that I think it's important to keep in mind is safety is one of the big ones. So you have these big commercial parking lots or whatever and they have huge, like big bright lights. But when they ask them to change the color, like the Kelvin to a warm, very low light, the safety went down. So I think considering shielding versus like bringing down the looms or the Kelvins, and also there's spillover issues like at gas stations because of the safety issues, they do have light that spills into the street. So keeping some of those issues in mind around safety is something that's important with the dark sky ordinance.

And some of the best places probably to do it is actually on the city streets where you don't have lights that aim up. They're actually focused down. I think they have a couple on Newport Way, on the walkways, and that really helps to reduce kind of the spill up of the lighting. So that that was just and, you know, they're ordering they actually have a whole thing that you can look at to see what the public comments and commercial ones, so you don't have to rebuild from scratch just to get an idea. Thanks.

Commissioner Older.

Fairly new commercial buildings typically have occupancy sensors and they're controlled on a room by room basis, but slightly older buildings have an entire floor. So if somebody shows up to their office and there's a 20,000 square foot floor plate, all 20,000 square feet are going to light up. And I can't imagine that they would retrofit their electrical system. Well they would. They would, but I think it's a cost benefit thing.

So I'm not quite sure what the ordinance would have. Where are the teeth in that? Again, is it an incentive? Is it a penalty? But I mean I think we're all in favor of not being blinded in the middle of the night by buildings.

Okay. Great points.

Just for and Kristen can let me know if I'm wrong. Mean talk about so many things. I feel like dark sky last time it was more about some of the standards, what we meant by it. We weren't really talking necessarily about I mean, think we were talking about where things were pointed, how they were pointed for the most part.

I'm gonna be frank, I don't recall those discussions.

Like I said, I have a general idea of what we talked about, and I wanna say it really had a lot more to do with like, okay, where's this shining, like colors. I think the point being, to me, it would be in the self interest of these commercial buildings to turn and use less energy.

A lot of savings.

I mean, is that a fair statement?

It's a lot of energy cost savings.

Right. So I mean, to me, would assume if we all took a field trip and did some homework and went by Costco later tonight at 12:00, I'm going to guess most of those lights are going to be off. So again, kind of a self interest thing. I do think Commissioner Matthews brings up really good points. I mean, as long as it's not encumbering safety, there's definitely some other metrics that have to be looked at in order. But who doesn't love the idea of an Arizona sky being able to look up and see the galaxy? So I don't Right, but you know what I mean? At two a. M, I get it. But I would assume that would be in the self interest of buildings themselves.

I would assume. So again, I think maybe Vice Chair Patterson can remind Kristen and me, but I feel like it was more, again, about kind of what we we're talking a lot about lumens, with lumens, and it was less about like where and how. It was more about, okay, we wanted to see this and that. Now I'm interested. Now I'm going have to go back into the vault and see that video.

Think we did cover this in title 18, and we talked I was trying to do the research as we were talking about. There's like outdoor lighting standards in chapter eighteen, six one zero. And it talks about, let's see, some commercial, like, dark sky hours from 10PM to 6AM, thirty minutes after business closes or thirty minutes before it opens. Commercial sites must reduce total outdoor lighting by at least 30%. So I think I guess what what is this policy trying to do beyond what we already have? I think is probably the the summary of the question.

Yeah. I think it was trying to go a step further. I think there's concerns for a certain large building along I 90 that is pretty lit up at night or some of the concerns raised by the environmental board in particular. One thing we could do is take another look at the current ordinance current ordinance and see if there are opportunities for improvement. This is something that's also been raised by the Snoqualmie tribe. They were interested in seeing if there's opportunities to improve the code.

We just talked to the people who own that building and see what they say, and that may solve this without a policy or more discussion?

Yes. They're definitely great friends of our city. Any other comments about Policy nine? Let me ask, did you get what you needed for Policy nine?

Yes.

Does anyone have any more comments about Policy nine? All right. Well, I want to thank you, Stacy. Let me ask just your totality. Did you get everything you needed.

Yes. Thank you for the last hour and a half, most of your meeting. I appreciate it. It has been incredibly helpful. We'll be taking all of that input as we share out to the Planning Development and Environment Council Committee and then bring that all together as we share a draft final list of actions and targets with the Environmental Board in March and April.

All right.

Well, you very much. Yeah, we came to play, So see what happens when Kristen doesn't We're let us meet once a gonna keep you guys here till ten. Okay. Well, thank you again, Stacy. Appreciate the presentation. We're gonna move along to our next item of business. This is the Title 18 clarifying amendments introduction. Now, Kristen Leeson, our senior planner, along with Andrew Love, our Associate Planner, will be presenting tonight. So Kristen and Andrew, when the two of you are ready, please go ahead.

You demoted me. You did. It's okay. I'll forgive you. Well, I moved this to the top and it didn't go. Well, Let's try this again.

That's bizarre. Okay.

I apologize. One second. Okay. Okay. There we go.

I apologize. My PowerPoint just suddenly turned black and I had two screens. I couldn't get there. Poor Andrew, I'm gonna let him go in just a minute here. But yes, we sent Kate off tonight to go Washington State is currently traveling around the state to talk about their potential their wildfire mitigation and wildfire plans.

Kate will be bringing those amendments to you at some point during the year, we hope. So she we found out that that was tonight, she went there, and I am here. I am Kristen Leeson, planning manager. And we are we're gonna start kicking off our title 18 amendments. There we go.

So just to review, we're kicking this off and we wanna make sure that you all I think you've all been through before, but just wanna remind you of the process. Tonight, you're gonna talk about three proposed amendments, all regarding signs that Andrew, as soon as I'm done here, will present to you. There we go. So most cities do this, you look at your codes and we're sitting there in the staff meeting and realize this doesn't make sense, so we need to update it. Or a developer comes to us and says, this isn't working for me and here's why.

Here's why it doesn't pencil out and it won't be just me. So we revisit and we say, so we update it. Most cities do this. As usual, we're gonna present these to you in batches and then after you look at all these, we'll bring you the final version just for a final review and then we'll have a public hearing. Right now there are seven on this list, eight. Pending our March 9 meeting, there should be about 10 more on here. Some will be completed in June. Some of those will be a little bit longer. I need to put the timeline together. Some of those will take about a year and a half, but you will be seeing most of them.

Right now we have three side amendments that you'll talk about tonight. We're gonna talk about the definitions of development and development permits and site, and right now we have some conflicting information in there that we need to clear up, so we're gonna fix that. Talk about how we are recording flat procedures because that's been an issue sometimes with developers and what comes when. Temporary uses, we've had some issues with donation bins and that kind of thing, day care operation standards and then some other definitions about residential. We have two definitions of multi family residential, so

we need to fix that.

Okay, so tonight you're just gonna learn about the code amendment proposals and provide input to us and then eventually make a recommendation. Some of these will come to you like they have tonight, some will come in already come with code format, some of these will come to you as ideas, sort of like they did when you were talking about iCAP tonight, And then we'll come back based on your on the discussion and feedback, we'll come back with code amendments, and then they'll come back to you for final review. What we look at is when we say what when we're doing these, what does the code say now? Why is the amendment proposed? Feel free to ask us that question if we don't tell you.

And are the proposed changes clear or are there additional changes needed? Or do we not need this amendment at all? Does this seem fine? Why are we changing this? So as I mentioned, we're coming through with a batch of proposals, we'll come here through April. We need to have the public hearing in April by the April to make sure that this count gets through council in June for council action. So any questions on the process or what's coming to you? Okay. Alright, then I am going to hand it over to Andrew Love, one of our associate planners.

Oh, is it? Yeah. Hello. My name is Andrew Love. I'm a relatively new associate planner with the city of Issaquah.

Very happy to be here and meet all of you. I've been here for almost six months now, so pretty exciting. Sign code, not quite as exciting as the last discussion, but I will do my best. So, there were a total of three kind of more minor housekeeping items related to the sign code that we identified. I do want to, before I dive into the proposed amendments, I do want to acknowledge that some people on the staff have felt the sign code really needs more of an overhaul, but right now, this is just kind of focusing on what temporary fixes may we need while we kind of strategize, it's kind of up to counsel as well.

Because as you may know, there's always so many different code amendments that are required, and kind of trying to fit in an overhaul of the signed code is, I find that a lot of communities find it challenging, because it is a big lift with questionable reward. So, let me just dive into the first one, is mostly related to, well, is related to balloons. So, right now, this was brought up by the code enforcement officer because it's a little unclear as to what types of balloons or balloon like objects are prohibited in the city. So the current large inflatable objects, things that that could be considered as perhaps a giant inflatable elephant on top of a car wash, or one of those like wacky, you know, arm waving things that could be distracting to motorists. And then, a separate section of the prohibited signs code prohibits balloons, although it only states Mylar, specifically.

So, this amendment would kind of be more, it would more clearly restrict different types of balloons or balloon like objects, because they find the things that you can see on the screen. They look like balloons, but they are, I guess, technically, not be considered balloons, depending on who you may ask. And, really more than for the aesthetic purposes, the objects like these could result in obscuring the vision of motorists, which is, I think, the main reason why it was brought to our attention by the code enforcement officer. The second Oh, yeah, we can do that. Yeah.

Yeah, I'm good with that. Yeah, do you want to do it one by one? Sure. One by one.

I'm happy to take questions or

Commissioner Krausz, can't let a balloon go by without

That was all that was about. I've been

waiting all night for the balloon. No, I think it's kinda cool. The Mylar thing I understand because it gets caught up in power lines and that's a big issue. So I understand why those have been banned. The only question I have on this is, is this really a problem? Going back to the, like one person saw it could be a problem, but is this ever shown to really be a problem that needs to be addressed? Do we think understand Mylar because it causes, power issues. But if these don't fly away, they're just, I mean, essentially balloon like objects. So I'm just curious if we've actually had an accident or any other thing that's ever happened because of these things that would warrant us to not Yeah, want to address

thank you for your question. It's not something that I have heard. I also, to preface this, she is in our department, but I don't have as much crossover with the code enforcement officer. I do know that they find, that she finds numerous examples of balloons being tied to sandwich boards, and examples like you can see on the screen. As far as whether or not they are a problem is, I guess, subjective.

I know some cities, they do make exceptions for having balloons, say, in residential areas. That's something that, you know, is important to consider, too. People having balloons for special events, like graduation. So, I think I can say that it seems as if the city lately has been strict about not allowing balloons. So, if we wanted to continue down that route, then this proposed amendment would do that. If we wanted to steer another direction, I'm also happy to entertain any idea like that.

Commissioner Zakaroff.

Thank you. So are we talking only about balloons that are closer to the road or any balloons anywhere?

Proposed amendment, I don't have it in front of me right now. I apologize. But it is It does specifically say that it if it is interfering with the line of sight that is causing some sort of vision disturbance for vehicles is should be in one of the exhibits.

So in the right of way?

Not necessarily.

It could even actually be outside of it. Interesting. Can

I follow-up? Yep, please. Okay. So and if we are talking about those that are on the right of way or can distract the driver, do we have 80 data on the number of road accidents that happened because of balloons specifically?

Not that I'm aware of, no.

So then I would also agree with Commissioner Cross as like why is that a problem? And my other thing is even if we are enforcing something closer to the road because distracts drivers. We need to establish a distance that it needs to be away from the road. It cannot be just this broad kind of thing, broad phrase that like on a right of way or in like can distract, because what can distract one person will not distract the other person. Yeah, so we need to establish a distance and I don't think it should be enforced anywhere Well, maybe closer to the road, maybe if we had accidents.

But if it's not closer to the road, so I don't think we have any right to do that.

Okay. Thank you for

your comments. I feel like Vice Chair Patterson is doing some research right now over here on his phone. Kristen, remind me if I'm wrong. I believe the sign code kind of does that, right? It's all about distances and feet. I mean, it's not like we're talking about in a park where somebody's having a party. We're not talking about balloons out there in the back 40. This is mostly for, to Andrew's point.

It would be closer to the right of way to anything that's going to distract. Somebody is riding their bike down the street and the balloons blowing in front of their faces and or a car turns right and didn't realize that they're left and didn't realize there was a car there because they couldn't see past the balloons. But this is absolutely something that we can go back and talk with our code enforcement officer just to get a better idea of. I mean, she doesn't ask for changes lightly. We can certainly go back and talk to her and see get more information about how many incidents have there been and how many complaints have there been and where have those balloons been located when these complaints have taken place?

Yeah, that might be a great place to Thanks for question. Yeah, let me go to Commissioner Miller Erwin first.

No, you very much, Kristen. I appreciate that additional information. My first inclination was, is this the solution looking for a problem? Metrics are always good. I think that any well intentioned amendment should be easily supported by metrics on on this sort of issue. So thank you.

Commissioner Krausz.

And I think it's I mean balloons is this I think the heart of it is we're have things that aren't distracting or dangerous. Right? And balloons is one thing. I mean, so I think it's we're gonna be whackable because then someone will take it down and then they'll have flamingos. And then are we gonna have a flamingo code? So I think there's some type of I mean, for code enforcement, if things are blocking views that make something dangerous, that is no no matter whether it's a balloon or a velvet Elvis that's up there or or whatever. I I think that's really the point and whether we have the right rules or not for that is the question. And that's all I have say. So I think it's really more about that.

Vice Chair Patterson.

Yeah, I think Kristen and I are about to do the same thing. But I think there's one important distinction here, Andrew, the record, this is the level of detail we tend to get into. But there's an important distinction here. Balloons are already in the code. It's part of a the code itself is prohibited signs, and it's strings of pendants, ribbon streamers, spinners, balloons.

What's being changed here is it had originally said Mylar balloons. So it was almost too specific, and now it's being expanded to say balloons in general or balloon like structures or objects. Sorry. Well I think, I mean, the reason is also being added. So the reason is interfering with sight lines or creating a safety hazard, which in itself is broad.

But that's the new part of the code is it's saying, it's removing mylar to be less specific and saying balloons are balloon like objects and saying because there is a sight line issue or a safety issue. And I'm guessing that requires someone to report on it, meaning like if you have a graduation party and you have balloons on your mailbox, no one's probably likely to report you. However, if they're at the corner of your block and, you know, somebody's trying to turn a corner and they they can't get around, then they call in and say, hey, city of Isquah or cops or whatever, I can't see around this corner because there's a big, you know, 40 balloon up style house, you know, kind of setup going on. Can you do something about this? So that's my that would be my interpretation of, like, what's happening here and maybe why they asked for that is is to do that.

And we were going the same direction I was going

to. Okay. Further discussion on balloons? All right. And I appreciate that, Vice Chair Patterson. So do you want to sum it up? I guess, best?

I mean, yeah, ultimately, think it's less about including balloons and more about expanding the definition of balloons. So it's going from mylar balloons to balloons in general. And then the reason why is because all of those prohibited objects can interfere with sight lines or create safety hazards.

Yeah, and I guess the only thing I would say to add on to that is, yep, as far as Kristen mentioned, maybe take it back to the enforcement officer and see if she agrees with Vice Chair Patterson's summary right there. And if that is what she was looking for, I don't think anybody here has a problem with that. I personally hate the little guy that does the thing. So I think those are tacky. Would hate to see those at Isoquat myself. So I think we're good.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. The next one, second out of three. This one is regarding illumination with specifically monument signs, also known as ground signs in some cities.

So, the description of the changes right now, it specifies that grandfathered monument signs in Central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, Thales, and the CBD zone may keep interior illumination if replacing a legally established nonconforming sign. The reasons for the change would be that the current monument sign standards are a bit unclear when it comes to legal nonconforming interior illumination. Meaning, the monument sign is in place, and it was approved under previous code, and now we no longer allow interior elimination of monument signs. This would also clarify standards assisting with, or I'm sorry, this would clarify standards to assist in addressing the numerous instances where we do have these signs still all around Central Issaquah and the other neighborhoods. So, can see that a sign like, and these are not taken from the city, but you could see how something like the sign in the middle would be kind of hard to be adequately illuminated without using the interior illumination.

Whereas, some of the other signs, they may be able to get by with using exterior illumination. Some other considerations for this would be that multi tenant signs, like I showed on the previous slide, could have challenges using other methods of lighting. And there could be an option to allow exemptions for multi tenant signs, but requiring monument signs for single tenants to conform with the exterior lighting requirement that is in the code right now.

Are we good? Yep. Okay. I saw Commissioner Matthews.

In your definition of replacement, are you just talking about face replacements? You're not actually talking about they're changing a cabinet out? So say that they have five tenants, but they're going to two, so they have to replace the entire cabinet system. Is that considered a replacement or is that?

I mean Right,

yeah. I see where you're going. So, would be the proposed amendment as it's currently written would be for both the face of the sign replacing for a different tenant, for example, or if they were to reconstruct the sign like for like. But certainly we can make adjustments to it.

Great Okay. Question. Commissioner Zakarov.

Thank you. So the word affordability comes another time. Is actually like, signs in general are very expensive, very expensive. So when if we are requiring a and usually it's done by the landlord. If we're requiring a landlord to refresh the whole sign, it's again, it goes to the tenant.

And it I'm not sure how well, the signs are in tens of thousands of dollars like this. So yeah, I kind of like I think that the sort of like grandfathered rule should be in place. So if the sign already exists in a certain way, it should continue existing in a certain way. And if the new sign is built, well, yeah, we can have any we can have requirements because there is a choice there. But for old signs, my position is it has to stay as is.

Thank you. And Andrew correct me if I'm wrong, but this amendment is not requiring people to change existing illumination. It's just if they come in and they are changing a sign. We're not requiring signs that already have illumination to go in and change We're just so it's only if they if it's only if they are planning on changing their sign. We're not requiring anybody to go in and make changes.

Commissioner Grass.

So is a new tenant considered changing the sign or is that just changing the information on the sign? You'd be changing the monument, right?

That's just swapping out a slide. So as long as you're not changing out the monument itself. I don't know.

I'm asking.

Yeah. Well, it's a good point because actually the picture on the left is what brought this up. Wasn't a there wasn't a question by the property owner, but it was a question I had. What what do we consider? Because if the code says we don't allow interior illumination for new monument signs, then is the change of the face from one tenant to the other, is that considered a change or not?

Can they still use the same method of interior illumination? And I know it's kind of splitting hairs, but I just it was just something that I noticed, And it could be useful to have a clearer answer, especially since you also have similar question of what constitutes as a change.

Yeah, good point. Do you want to follow that up? Did you want to follow that up?

I mean, I think he just reiterated it's a question. So like G. I. Joe's changes to Dick's Sporting Goods, same square sign, they just change the I'm just making this one up because that's the change. Is that a different sign or is that just a nameplate change? So understanding what the it is kind of defines it's a big no.

Would that be fair to say the structure itself? Right. Could that particular person on the left, if they were to maybe take the top part off but kept the square. I mean, I guess that's what Andrew's asking is, there could be an option to

That one's a little hard, that one's in the middle, right? Was sort like you have a square sign that's a monument, it's lit, different tenant, same square, different one in there. Is that a new sign or just same sign, but with it? That's what I That's what I wanna So

not to What I'm hearing is that there might be a greater appetite for allowing this grandfathered situation for just simply face changes to the sign. Whereas if you were to reconstruct the sign, then you would have to conform with the new standards.

Commissioner Matthews.

I think it might be easier to just modify the language a bit so that if you're doing a full structural change so that you take everything off the foundation, then you would have to go with external illumination. But if you're changing the cabinet, because somebody could crash into your sign and then you have a dent that you have to replace that cabinet that may just be, you know, a like for like replacement on a grandfathered sign because you're not changing the entire structure. So I think maybe just how the language is stated on replacement, it might simplify for everybody else, like a face change, internal lighting change to LED, you know, that those type of things might help simplify the language a bit so it's not confusing.

Okay. Yeah, so what I'm hearing is greater specificity for what exactly it means with keeping the nonconformity. Total replacement may not warrant keeping the internal elimination. But something simple like repairing after damage or new tenant, just changing out the face of the sign would be acceptable to keep the interior illumination. Any other questions for this one?

Okay.

So, sounds like some more, wordsmithing for that. But thank you for your feedback. And then, the last one is, kind of what I've what I kinda see as a win for new businesses is that, right now, believe it or not, the sign code, in its 101 pages, is not super specific on, new tenants or new businesses that wanna come to the city. They usually will want to have something, some sort of graphics on their windows while it's under construction. And while we do have a route, an avenue for having a temporary sign agreement, That is more geared towards businesses that are open and want a temporary sign for up to like thirty days for maybe a special event.

Whereas for this, this could be under construction for longer than thirty days. So, I saw the need to have a kind of very clear, you, well, my proposal is that it is just exempt from needing a signed permit. So the business owners I mean, signs, to your point, are expensive, especially with all the inflation. So this would give the businesses permission to use, what we're calling, temporary window signs associated with construction, while they may be, for example, working on hiring a sign consultant or saving up money for the permanent signs while the building is under construction. So, just to reiterate, the sign code does not clearly exempt signs like this from needing a permit.

And the change would make it easier for new businesses to install these types of signs in advance of obtaining permits for whatever permanent sign or signs they may want. Are there any questions or feedback regarding this proposed item?

Commissioner Zakarov.

Thank you. As you can imagine, am in total agreement with this. Yes, yeah. So any temporary sign for whatever period of time, because it depends on the business. Some businesses are open within a week, some businesses are open within a year. So but any temporary sign should be like the right should be given to a business to install it without any permit. That's my opinion. Thank you.

Any other comments, opinions? I think, Andrew, my only ask would be that they're not tacky, Right? I don't wanna see high school car wash type sign up for two weeks, two months. All three of these examples work for me. Just not tacky. Right? Because it could hurt businesses that are next to it. Mean, again, I think that would be my only ask. What's that? Yeah, mean, guess you have to define tacky for us, but But

market driven is the face of the business.

Right. But I mean, again, the one from the Apple store I mean, again, all three of them, those look great. Again, just want to avoid like high school signs with magic marker, stuff like that.

That would be my ask. So no handwritten signs?

No, not really into the handwritten signs with the bubble letters and stuff like that. Not at all.

So tacky is kind of subjective, right? Sure. But I think that's a great idea to specify that they are, you know, professional signs rather than handwritten. But just to be clear, the methods of obscuring the construction, for example, the middle image shows paper being used to obscure the construction. So is that something that would acceptable to PPC?

Any thoughts on that? I mean, I'd prefer the one on the left. I'd prefer the one on the right. But, you know, again, I don't want to make this difficult for people that are under the building process. I mean, again, the one in the middle works. That doesn't really bother me. Commissioner Zakroff.

Thank you. Well, as someone who, again, knows exactly like I'm looking at this window, I know how much they cost. To me, just covering the window with paper or any kind of material is actually it's important because sometimes when there is a construction, there is some equipment inside, and you don't want people to come in the middle of the night and take it away from you. There are some people like that too sometimes. So I think that is permissible.

And again, any business when they built, even while they built, especially if that's a front street, they are thinking that their customers are walking around. And they're thinking that they already kind of like trying to express themselves and bring new customers to their business once they are done building it. And they want people to expect something good, right? So it's definitely in the interest, in the best interest of any business to look nice even while you're in a construction kind of period. I've been there several times.

So yeah, I can say that that should not be a problem. And yes, businesses will do everything in their power to make it like as cost saving as possible at the very same time to present themselves as good as possible. So I think it's market driven and we should kind of like let it go with the business owner. Thank you.

So how about if as long as they can obscure the window with paper, but as long as it's neat. So say that there somebody drops something and rips the paper, don't just leave it all tattered. So just neat and presentable during the duration of construction might be a way to put it. Commissioner Holder.

Yeah, was pretty much what I was going to say that the signs should be durable and replaced if damaged.

Yes. I mean the one thing I would say is I'm glad Commissioner Zakroff brought up Front Street. There were two residents that moved in probably in the last year and a half. And I think some of them use the foam spray paint and stuff like that. Here's where I actually kind of think we could probably tighten this up a little.

So again, for what it's worth, think you heard our comments. Mine would be to actually see stuff more like this, that's more inviting. Again, I don't think the cost is a whole lot. I'm trying to avoid, like I said, the foam spray paint things like this. And I think both of the ones that I'm thinking about actually did use color board that you get at Michaels and, like I said, that weird foam. Anyway, I think that can be done a little bit better myself. Any other comments as far as the temporary window signs? No sparkles. No sparkles.

And just to be clear, this is for the the case basically, this would have to they would have to be taken down before the business opens. Mhmm. And if the business wanted an act like a window sign that's permanent, they would still have to apply for all like, you can apply for a signed permit, but have multiple signs in the permit. So that would be reviewed, like, in the sign code for when the business opens. Right.

To your point, this is literally just the temporary ones. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think we're all in agreement on that part. Okay. Okay. Well, Andrew, pleasure to meet you. Looking forward to working with you in the future. Did you get everything that you needed?

Yeah. Thank you so much. I'm happy to take any additional questions or feedback.

Commissioners, anything else for Andrew before we cut him loose?

Right. Hearing none, I will step aside. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure meeting all of you. I'll see you around.

You, Andrew. Okay. That takes care of regular business for this evening. We're gonna move into the last parts and we're looking for reports. Kristen, City Council updates.

City Council updates. You'll recall last time we met, we talked about traffic fee waivers for early learning facilities, and you all recommended doing 80% traffic impact fee waivers for those facilities. We took them to Planning Development and Environment Committee a few weeks ago, and they actually are recommending to do both 80% fee waivers and 100% waivers. And the 100% fee waivers of course come with conditions that 25% of the enrolled students and families must be eligible for state subsidies, and that if at any time during that year they fall below that 25%, they are required to pay 20% of the waived impact fee back to the city within ninety days. So that is what the council is recommending.

We will see what happens on that goes back on March 2, so next Monday. Okay. Thought I saw questions. Okay. That's that's all I have for council right now. Of course, I'm gonna remind you one more time that on March 9 we're going back to council for what is now called investing in building development or something like that. It was removing barriers to development, now it's investing in building development on the night to talk about what our work program will be, but we're coming forward with several recommendations about what we're gonna do. That's all those are all the council.

Okay. Then how about just any updates? Staff updates, city updates. We had a big I saw Vice Chair Patterson the other night. Had a lot of people in this room for a very exciting event that I believe the mayor and our very own Thomas Valdez and a couple others were hosting on light rail. Maybe that's part of the update.

I heard it was huge.

Was a big turn. Jesse was up on I the mean, got there at, 05:29, and there was standing room only. Right. Thomas thought this place was packed.

Thomas was over here, I guess, against this wall, and all of sudden, he sees this just hand reaching around the corner going, hello, I have a question. So it

was it

was pretty crowded.

And Katya was here too. Katya was

also Yeah.

Rejar, who was

there? She got great seating. She was next to the former mayor.

Who who was there that night? The three of you? Okay. Great. That's great. I just wanted to say great conversation tonight. Thank you for sticking around for all of it. I mean, not like you had a choice, but thank you. But it was a good conversation and I think all of us, Stacy and Andrew, got some good feedback tonight. And lastly, you all are really good at this, but just one last reminder, if you are if you know that you're going to be away, try and let us know at least a week before because that's when we get our packets out and we'd like to know we wanna be sure that we have a quorum. So it just I know things come up, but if you're able to do that, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Yes.

Should we talk a little bit about the LightLink quickly? About the what? Just the LightLink and thing that we have around it just to remind people to, that we have the program to save the link and to use the And camera time that the CT website right now has the information that you can kind of look into and you can just Google the light link, Issaquah safe light link, city of Issaquah, and you will go to the website with the meeting and it has all of the links where you can submit your public testimony or just send an email. And everybody is talking about this now, and this is very important, even though we are expecting a link in 2044. It's the preparation is now, the time is now, and the Sun Transit Board will be discussing this in March.

So by March, they have to make sure that we are as school residents, that we are very interested in having a link in the city. This is extremely important because they're really looking into kind of eliminating us there. So we should make sure that they are not eliminating us. And if you didn't check on Mayor Mullet information, he is like the council is now really discussing how to make it more affordable and for Sound Transit to partner with Sound Transit. It's a big deal.

Stan, so thank you And for doing Mayor Mullet and council members Zhang and Nichols joined together to write an article in The Urbanist about sound light rail here in Issaquah and us and how much we wanna have it. So it would be an interesting article for you all to Google and and take a look.

Yeah. I actually read it the other day. Great article. I guess that's fair since I stole Katya's thunder because the next thing on my list was other businesses announcements. So Commissioner Older.

Well, just to piggyback on that, Thomas was kind enough to send out a couple of suggested texts to send to the Sound Transit Board, and I did send a letter to them. So I would encourage others to do the same.

Yeah, and I think Mayor Mowlett that evening also said that the form letters are not as good as your own personal handwritten letters. So again, stay away from the form letters. Not that they're not helpful, but the other ones that actually move the needle are when you guys write. Even if it's brief, it's more impactful when it's your actual language. That was something I learned.

Great plug. Thank you, Commissioner Zakaroff. Any other business or announcements?

Yeah, please. Kristen, anything on the Pioneer plan lately, your Pioneer project?

Nothing. There was a project that we were discussing, and they backed out. No.

Bummer. Bummer. Okay. Let's talk schedule, upcoming PPC schedule.

It seems a little empty right now, but it won't be. So what did they say in the movie, Gird Your Loins? I think that's what it is. We're getting ready to go. Yes.

All right. Just getting warmed up. Alright, well again thank you everybody for a great evening. Any other final comments, anything for the good of the order, the commission, for the city? Okay, Well, you all have a great evening and we will adjourn this meeting of the Planning Policy Commission at 08:49 p. M. Thank you.