Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Arsene, we're ready when you are.

We are live. Good evening, everyone. We're gonna call the June 11th Planning Policy Commission to order. Let me get my phone. It is currently 6.35 p.m. 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.

Great. OK. So you guys all heard about the squirrel, right? So the squirrel apparently got into some type of fuse box, ate a bunch of wires. That's why we don't have recordings of our last meeting. And it's also why we do not have meeting minutes to approve this evening. So we will try and get those provided to the Planning Policy Commission at our next meeting on June 25. But if you were wondering. We're gonna open right now with public comment, and this is for general public comment for all topics that we discuss here at the Planning Policy Commission. Yeah, so do we have anyone that would like to speak online?

No, we do not.

Okay. I was looking at Genevieve's children, but they didn't look interested in speaking either, so. Maybe next time, okay. regular business we'll move on to these two items which will be presented relating to projects on the promoting building investments work plan we'll start with an update from senior planner emily medina on the natural context area and transparency code amendments so it says emily but i see kristen and kate looking at me Ah, okay. So Kristen, our planning manager is going to go first. So Kristen, when you are ready, please go ahead.

Hello, Kristen Lisa and planning manager. And this really, it's not a big item. Um, just wanted to do an intro. I mentioned to you all that the, Planning Development and Environment Committee was working on establishing goals, objectives, outcomes for us to help us guide our decision making for the promoting business in Issaquah amendments. And just want to let you know that for each one of the amendments that comes forward in the future, we will include this as a reminder at the top of the information sheet, at the top of the memo, this will be in there. So the first one that we have, I just want to do the first three just to talk about those. are the natural context areas and transparency requirements. We know what the issues are. We've been through that before, but developers have said it's difficult to meet the energy code requirements. We've become aware of this as well, staff has, that it is difficult to meet the energy code requirements when you have significantly large windows and lots of transparency. So the goal is to provide some flexibility in the transparency requirements along natural context areas and along street frontage. and to eliminate and reduce transparency requirements along natural context areas. This is a possible action identified by PDE. And add flexibility for transparency along the street frontage. But as you also know, we're going a little above and beyond in looking at natural context areas themselves and the standards that are currently required there. And we talked about that at our last meeting, so we've included those as well. The next ones are the parking requirements. And our intent really is just to meet the state mandates through bills 5184 and 1183 before they're actually due. And those are all outlined. But the council, the issues are parking is not a parcel's highest and best use, which we all know that. We want to, parking can generate negative impacts. such as dirty stormwater and dead zones. When we did this Central Issaquah study, we found that 75% of Central Issaquah was surface parking lots, and we want to get rid of that. We didn't want that anymore. So initially, we required structured parking. State no longer has allowed structured parking for multi-family residential properties. We also found that that was a deterrent to development because Parking can go anywhere from, say, $20,000 on the surface space per space up to about $100,000 per space if you're going to go underground with structured parking. So it does get expensive. Apparently, the parking requirements are arbitrary. And therefore, some areas are over-parked. And parking lots create barriers for non-car users. So our goals are to establish right size parking requirements to, as I mentioned, do early adoption of 5184 and eliminate. Council would like you all to consider eliminate parking minimums in central Issaquah, specifically the urban core and the mixed use central Issaquah zone. I just want to go over what council has directed. And yes, Andrew is going to be talking specifically about parking tonight. The last one I just wanted to go over you, again, these are just council objectives and goals, is to allow multifamily in the UV Urban Village commercial retail zone. If you ever want to know the history behind it and why that is, I can tell you, but probably don't need to now. But this Bill 6026 requires that multifamily be allowed in all commercial zones, so we just need to meet that. And the goal is to achieve a balance of multifamily housing across the city while not losing retail requirements. That's something we've tried really hard to do in Central Issaquah. You may recall, Chair Voice, when we did the Central Issaquah standards and redid them into divisions, we had a developer obligation in there to sort of try and replace jobs one for one. So if a job was lost due to housing, replace that job one for one. We found that it's really hard to do by code, but we'd still like to try and accomplish it somehow. So, anyway, that is the action as to allow multifamily in UV-COMRAD. That is all I have tonight, unless you all have any questions and want to talk about some of these. And I do have them all here. Otherwise, we can talk about them as they come up when the topics come up.

Okay.

Okay?

All right.

That's all I have. Thank you.

All right. Okay. Now we're going to get to Emily Medina. Okay, Emily, when you are ready, please go ahead with your presentation.

Great. Good evening, commissioners. Am I good to go? Okay, perfect. I'm sorry. I'm used to DC. I have to be sworn in first and I probably forget that I can just talk here. Um, Emily Medina, senior planner here to talk to you tonight about the transparency and the natural context area requirements. Um, if you'll remember our associate planner, ye presented about this last meeting, um, we're kind of tag teaming it, um, to, you know, multiple minds on it and because we both missed one of the meetings, so it worked out. As a reminder, kind of the purpose of this that, sorry. Sorry, I forgot my notes. As Kristen said, when it comes to these amendments, the goal is to provide flexibility for transparency requirements along natural context areas and along street frontages. So we're gonna review staff's proposed amendments and some questions staff has for the commissions to get feedback tonight. And just a reminder, this is where we're at in our schedule of amendments. And the first one we will discuss is transparency. So Yi presented all the background on it. So I'm just going to breeze through these as it's more of a reminder. Transparency, we're using windows and doors to break up buildings, break up walls, activate the ground floor, engage the pedestrian. walkability, pedestrian-friendly environment. That's the goal behind transparency. We have varying transparency requirements in the city currently. So we have city-wide requirements and then neighborhood level requirements in both Old Town and in Central Issaquah. Those existing requirements have presented, developers have informed of some issues and some issues that staff has seen as we review projects. Costly when it comes to all the windows, conflicts between the land use code and the building code and the energy efficiency, privacy concerns when it comes to residential transparency on the ground floor, as well as some inconsistency between our internal land use code sections. So what are our current regulations? As a reminder, our citywide regulations currently are 40% transparency on the ground floor for multifamily and commercial and 70% transparency on the ground floor for retail. In Old Town, which is the map on your screen there, we have 15% of the entire facade for multifamily and 45% or 25%, depending on what street the property is located on, for ground floor in the CBD zone, which is the red on your screen along Front Street. And then in Central Issaquah, it's currently required to have 50% of the entire facade be transparent when facing a natural context area. And then the other part of our current regulation is how it's measured and what it's measured from. So just same as last one, Old Town has the entire facade for multifamily, CBD for ground floor. Central Issaquah is all walls oriented towards natural areas. And then citywide, it's that six feet or higher or five feet below, depending on how the developer opts to measure that, which... Commissioner Adair provided good visuals of that for the last meeting. So kind of just breezed through that as that was last time's presentation and moving into our recommendations. So that is in your packet. We have the memo that goes over all of city staff's recommendations as well as the track changes of what that would actually look like in the code for transparency. Our recommendations are separating multifamily and commercial ground floor transparency requirements. Right now those are grouped together and staff believes just from our own use of the code as well as developer feedback that it makes more sense for those to be separate, different uses. Clarifying the options for measuring and calculating ground floor level transparency for residential uses, the whole process. five foot, six foot. It was different in different portions of code. We realized how confusing it was, especially when Commissioner Adair sent us those and we were talking about it internally and we were like, oh boy, this could use some help. And then the next one is grouping commercial uses with retail instead of the commercial with the multifamily, similar uses. Reducing citywide transparency requirement for retail and commercial, the new grouping we're proposing from 70%, which is what's current for retail, to 45%, which is what is required in the CBD district along Front and Sunset. And then maintaining the 70% transparency requirement, but only applying it to the urban core zone, which is our high priority pedestrian area. And then lastly, there was a transparency standard about window signs, and that's already covered in our sign chapter. So removing that entirely, we don't need sign regulations in our building design chapter. And then you'll note that there's no changes proposed to the allowed deviation section when it comes to transparency or to the Old Town CBD or multifamily transparency standards. So with that, That is staff's recommendation before you. But with that comes questions for the commission. The first is about the multi-family transparency requirement. Staff is looking for commission's input on if multi-family should be further broken down into two categories, which is multi-story, multi-family. So think apartment buildings versus townhomes. So think connected townhomes, front doors and windows on the ground floor. That's number one. Number two is does it make sense for commercial and retail to be grouped together as now proposed instead of commercial grouped with multifamily as currently exists? Number three is does reducing the citywide retail and commercial transparency standard to 45% Instead of the general 70 for retail achieve the code amendment and the citywide goals and then additionally related to that one does applying the 70% transparency standard Just to that high priority growth and pedestrian area, which is the urban core Achieve the city's visions and goals or should it stay as it is this today and apply 70% transparency more generally across the use The second one is natural context area. Yeah. Do you want to talk about the questions before we launch the next one?

I think that'll be a little easier for all of us. Yes.

Okay. Through a lot your way.

Well, thank you Emily. Uh, let's start with some questions. Commissioner Adair, is that a microphone that's on?

Yeah, just to clarify. So three and four kind of, am I understanding correctly that they're kind of linked? So you're saying that instead of having 70% across everything, we would just say 70% in high priority zones, 45% everywhere else?

Correct. And then just to further clarify, so correct is that it's 70% retail right now and we're suggesting combined retail and commercial, lower it to 45 and just put the 70% in the urban core along street frontages.

Okay. And with follow up question, have any commercial or retail builders asked or requested this or is that just like what was the origin of wanting to lower this?

Generally speaking, the developers wanted the standard lowered overall, all the way down to 15%. for multifamily all the way down to 15%. And then when we were looking within the transparency requirements, um, since this 70% is within that as well, and there's been concerns about the meeting, the energy efficiency and the, um, conflict between the IBC and, uh, I MC is a municipal code. Um, staff took it one step farther to recommend this.

Okay. Uh, commissioner grass.

Hi, thanks. So I have a clarifying question. So retail, I understand what retail is. You walk down the street, you see stores, you want to have a lot of glass and all of that. Define commercial, because they could be very different. And by combining them, I'm not sure if I agree of combining them until I have a better understanding what falls within that bucket.

Sure, and Kate, you can help me out here too. Kate, help me write the code. Part of the issue is that in our current code, it says retail needs 70% transparency, and we don't have a definition for retail in our code. So when in doubt of a definition, we look to the dictionary definition of what's retail, but that was part of what initially triggered this amendment is that we don't define exactly what retail is. So who exactly this applies to, that obviously creates a hurdle. But in answer to your question, commercial is far more reaching than retail is. Commercial would include things like personal services, typical retail shopping stores.

So Dairy Gold, who's on Front Street, is that considered commercial? that'd be weird of having a lot of windows there, but on the stores on front street, you want to have a lot of windows. So I think they could be very different things.

And I apologize. I have a little clarification because when we face this on, we did this on front street that we required, if you're on front street, the first floor had to be commercial or retail. And in our permitted uses table, it is broken up by categories in there and that you actually do have retail, medical office, food and beverage, that kind of thing. So if we were to do something like that, we could specify food and beverage retail as identified in the permitted uses table.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's easy to identify, as you just mentioned, what retail is, food and beverage and things like that. Commercial As I said, I just grabbed an example of the Dairy Gold plant. If that's considered commercial, it's such a different thing. And I wouldn't want to impose having to have windows on a factory where a bike shop or a restaurant makes sense to have that from a walkability standpoint. So I think just having the clarity. So I'm not sure about combining. To answer your question, combining those depends on what they are.

Sure.

And right now, since I don't know what they all are, it's hard for me to agree with the recommendation of combining them.

And if you wouldn't mind, I actually don't know what the dairy gold plant is identified in our use tables as. What is it?

Mineral use. Mineral use. Just as an example.

Something that's not retail. So I think what Kristen was saying, so where you have areas that are high, anticipated to be of high pedestrian interest, then you're really looking at street level design, which includes that transparency level. So right now on Front Street, it is 45% for all of Front Street, including where Dairy Gold is. I have a feeling that building is legal nonconforming. I'm sure it was there before that standard was put in place. There are townhouses coming in that are activating their frontage with more transparency than they might have to do elsewhere. So it depends on what the intent of the code is and the sub area plan for Old Town probably talks about activating Front Street and so the code is written to implement that plan and those goals. Just as in Central Issaquah the idea is the urban core you know we've been talking about the Regional Growth Center that is you know the heart of the Regional Growth Center that is where we want the most mixed-use activity. We want ground floors that are active. We want the 18-hour city where people can be walking day and night. And we want the uses to be retail or commercial. You could be a bank. You could be a dentist. You could be a shop, a clothing store. We want the transparency there. And we want your lobby to be there to be activating the street where your office uses could be elsewhere in the building. But that street frontage, for whatever that amount is, That's what that transparency, that 70% is looking at.

I totally agree with all that. What is commercial was my question. It seems like a lot of things can fit in that, and I'm not sure if it just needs more definition to what you're, based on what you just explained. Okay, thank you.

happy just happy to specify it more it was um just as it exists now in code it says multifamily commercial needs 40 ground floor so we just moved that and commercial from the multifamily commercial down to retail but happy happy to define it more yeah

Yes. Thank you. Because you're already redoing all this, it gives you the great opportunity to put the definitions that you really want in there that will not have these questions in three more years from the same group of people.

Commissioner Zakharoff.

Thank you. Regarding the commercial and retail, the kind of, well, as a business operator, I exist in a world where retail is more like a store. Industrial would be something that is Dairy Gold is. And commercial is, let's say, my dance studio. It's commercial property. So, like, I don't sell for retail, but we do services. So that's commercial. So maybe we can kind of clarify that. kind of in that direction.

I'm just going to reiterate again. With Front Street, we had the same conversation because it said commercial. And you don't want a dentist office to be, you know, 70%, you know, Whoops, sorry. Transparent. The reason we didn't include those is because that's not an activation of the front street. But that was how we did it. Like I said, we have categories in our permitted uses table. And so you can say specifically, we actually took the definition of retail out of our code when we did the overhaul because retail uses change daily. I mean, something that we've never heard of comes up. And so we just did a general definition of it. But if we say we have grocery stores, we have restaurants, we have food and beverage as a category, we have services as a category, and then we also have medical offices. So services don't equal medical offices. Those are two different things. So we can be very, very specific with it that way if that's something that you want to do. Thank you.

My question is regarding the number one. Did we get any requests from developers to divide multifamily from multi-story multifamily and townhomes? Did we get any questions on that?

We did not get that request from developers. That is from my own implementation of the code. And when you're implementing an apartment building versus townhomes, when apartment buildings have lobbies and community space on the ground floor usually versus a townhome that has their front door and their living room windows on the ground floor, I think that's potential that those should be viewed differently, which is why we're coming to you for input if you agree.

Okay, we also have condos, and condos have no any kind of space on the ground floor except for living space.

Condos aren't a use in the city. That's a legal mechanism. So townhomes could be condos or apartment buildings could be condos. So that one kind of falls outside of the division of that line.

Yeah, but we don't have offices and condos. We have just...

Oh, you mean in apartment building condos, there's units on the ground floor?

Yes. Yeah. Sure.

Commissioner Holder.

Up in the Highlands, I'm not sure what regulations were in effect when, for example, BevMo was built or the so-called retail areas. further up the hill where there's now a dental office. The dental office has essentially floor-to-ceiling windows, and they have to be obscured because patients are right there. And BevMo has covered over, I would say, 80% of its window space because that's where they want their shelving for their goods. And so, I mean, I think Our regulations have good intentions, but they don't necessarily, at least in those two instances, did not provide the leeway for the developer to have some deviation from the transparency requirements. I'm not sure where to go with that. I'm just saying I think it's difficult to, without any flexibility, to say, you know, this is what retail is. I mean, BevMo is a retail establishment. Safeway is a retail establishment, but three-quarters of the perimeter of the Safeway building have no windows. So, you know, I think we just have to be careful about how we apply Any desires for transparency?

And we're just talking about along street frontages as well. So it's not wrapping all the way around the building. It's just the street frontages.

For the 70%. Yeah. The 70% urban core is just street frontages. The 45% would be the street frontages through block passages and natural context areas, which would be a reduction.

Commissioner Holmstrom? Holmstrom.

Yeah, I mean, 70 and 45% still seem really high to me. And I would think, like, somebody that's building a new building, they don't know if the tenant on the ground floor is going to be a commercial use or a retail use when they're designing that building. They don't know if it's a professional service or a restaurant that's going to come in. So that wouldn't be decided until the building's complete, almost, or real close. So it would... To me, it makes sense to have one percentage for a newer building that would be coming in.

That is a great point, because that is something I've had to deal with. So that is part of what's really hard about having the retail separate from the commercial as it is now, and the commercial looped in with multifamily. For instance, the townhomes going in next to Dairy Gold have retail on Front Street. But it's retail. They had to design to the highest transparency required because they didn't know what use was going to go in there. So they had to design to whatever the highest was because under the current code, retail is 70%, but commercial is 40%. So it's a great point.

And I would say I'm building a house over here right now, and I measured the front of mine for what I had. And it's a 36-foot-wide house. I've got seven windows and a glass door on the front. And that comes up to like 33%, 34% transparency. And you couldn't hang a piece of anything on the walls inside. I mean, it's just windows. So I don't even know how they're building those townhomes with that level of transparency requirement. I mean, it's got to be quite cost-effective. And it's just going to be solid glass, pretty much, or the bulk of it. Those numbers are high in my opinion. Great.

Thank you. Commissioner Matthews.

I just had a general question. Uh, when you're building a multifamily, uh, development in central Issaquah, can they put parking on that ground floor floor unit? Like the ground floor? I noticed in the trailhead they do have parking apart, like the first floor is parking. So how, if that's allowed, how do you deal with the, transparency rules. Do they have to get a deviation?

Well, that happens to be coming up later. And another amendment. But no, that's OK. Trailhead was given. I think we may have told you this. I'm not sure. But they, through the state, are allowed to get deviations through a contract with the city from some of the design requirements that might make their building more expensive. One of the things we require in Central Issaquah is that if you have ground floor structured parking, it is wrapped on the street facades with storefronts. And so trailheads not having to do that, typically they would. But that is also one of the amendments that we're looking at early next year.

I thought I had seen somewhere in the packet we had that the state had a law that you could not force them to have retail on the bottom. Is that true, or did I misread that?

No. That's a whole other long thing. But you can require it that 40% of your zoned properties, commercially zoned properties, outside of your transit-oriented development or your station area can require mixed use on the ground floor.

OK.

But only 40% of it. Yeah, so we don't have a station area right now, so we're not actually looking at that part yet. We're trying to address what we can first, and then, yeah. So the other part of that is the requiring multifamily and commercial areas.

Okay, thank you.

I love that you all read your packets. This is good.

Commissioner Adair.

Yeah, so just to give my input on some of the questions, I do agree that multi-story family and townhomes serve kind of a different purpose and a different market. And I think it's okay to kind of separate them in terms of requirements, right? Because yes, multifamily homes will by and large have a lobby at the base and townhomes won't. And townhomes will likely have garages. Yes, I had another comment, but my kids distracted me, so I'll be back in a second.

Commissioner Matthews.

I also agree that the multifamily and the townhome should be separate because, again, I mean, they are different. They'll have more narrow frontage, and the apartments, they might have entrances in different areas or a central zone that you enter into. So I do think it would probably be best to separate those two.

Did everybody feel comfortable trying to do one, two, three, four? See where everybody's standing? Okay.

May I offer up another option? Sure. I'll just throw them all out there. But to Commissioner Zacharoff's point, you're going through New York or any other city that has them, you have condos on the first floor. If you've got stacked flats, condos, those will be on the first floor. So another option is to say that any ground floor residential units have to meet the 15% and then the rest of it has to meet something else.

Can we say ground floor but not specify the 15% yet? Because that's more fixed.

OK. Who's comfortable with question one as far as should multifamily be further broken down to a multi-story multifamily and townhomes? So I think that these are informal, but I think you got the idea. Okay, does it make sense for commercial to be grouped with retail as now proposed instead of with multifamily residential as currently exists? I think we're probably looking for more information about how we define those, at least I am. Yeah.

Probably yes, but more information.

More information. does reducing the citywide retail and commercial transparency standard to 45% achieve the code amendment and city goals? And then just, this is a clarifying question for me. So the developers were looking for 15. We're currently at 70 and we're trying to go meet them halfway around 45.

Around 45%, and also part of the reason that's selected halfway, but also because that's the current standard in our CBD zone along Front Street and Sunset, which is arguably one of our most commercial stretches in the city. And so if that's being applied there currently and it's working, that feels like a good consistent standard to apply throughout.

Okay, rather than raising an additional 25%. Okay. minding what Commissioner Holmstrom said as well. But I'll ask the question as it's stated. Again, is everyone comfortable with the citywide retail transparency standard to 45% to achieve the code amendment and city goals?

Okay.

I think you've got about half of us convinced. That's okay.

Right? I just have three.

I think everybody could, going back to the meeting two weeks ago, it's hard to pinpoint that number. I take Commissioner Holmstrom's comments, you know.

I would love to see some examples though of what it would look like for 45 versus 50, you know, just some, kind of like I did the ones on my own, but, and I think too, Holmstrom's thing, were you looking at the six foot and above number or the five foot and the balloon? So he was looking at the whole facade. so that also introduces another thing because in our code we have up to six feet for retail and then i mean up to five feet for retail and six feet and above for multi-family so i mean i'm just saying it it's different when you're looking at things based on how the windows are arranged the purpose examples yeah examples would be great uh vice chair patterson add to

I guess just some thoughts on that too is, I mean, you brought up the idea that old town and front street is currently 45%. And I think personally, I think that's probably our most pedestrian friendly, walkable, like enjoyable area in terms of like walking down the street. And so when I think about like how I would want the rest of the city to develop in a pedestrian friendly way, I feel like that is a great example of somewhere in our city that has that. And so that's what makes me think 45 is probably okay. I don't, Given 70 is way too high, I think I could be convinced lower potentially. Definitely not 15%. But I think 45 is a good starting out point as we continue to look at examples and such. Excellent point. Commissioner Crafts?

So when you said 45 in Old Town, that is what the rule is. But I'm curious what the actuals are. So that's by looking at each one. They may be the rule of 45, but they may be at 70. so that what you like may be higher than 45. So it'd be great on your examples of true actual buildings and then picture, and then what that would actually be in terms of the percentage. And I think that would be a lot more, that would be very informative. Because we may find that the ones on Front Street are all exceedingly higher than the 45. So then we'll have a better sense of what 45 really means, or what 60 means, or what 55 means, or whatever.

Come back with some examples. When you see me on Front Street with a measuring tape, you'll know what I'm doing.

that's excellent i was kind of thinking yeah if the examples could actually use our city yeah some real life examples i think it sounds like it would be helpful i'm just thinking of like fisher's meat that's probably quite a lot of glass and then you go over to uh las margaritas not a lot of glass so again to commissioner crass's point um so again i think we're split there want some examples but i think ultimately you could probably convince us 45 isn't it well at least to start from i i'm i'm in agreement with uh Vice Chair Patterson, I think 15 is way too low. And I think 70 is way too high. So it's trying to find the porridge that's just right. Okay. Additionally, does applying the 70% transparency standard to just high priority growth in pedestrian areas achieve the city's visions and goals? Or should they stay as it exists today and apply 70% transparency more generally across the use? Um, okay. I'm going to questions. Yes. Commissioner Matthews.

I kind of think that if you keep it at 70, it's kind of like we've been discussing before. You're not thinking about what use is going in there. So what, yeah, at 70 is nice, but if somebody is going to put a bunch of shelving in front of it, I'd rather not see that. So maybe when we're looking at the transparency and you know, we have commercial and retail And services is completely different. A dentist office, you don't want 70. So maybe it comes down to services versus retail. I'm not sure. Because you do want to give them flexibility on how much wall space they can hang their merchandise on and how much you want the transparency obscured at some point because it doesn't fit the future use of that building. I hope that makes sense.

Yeah, absolutely. I think it kind of goes to Kristen's point about the difference. Like you said, my question is, doesn't that make a ton more work for all of you?

To just apply the 70% to UC?

No, no, the exact opposite. To have the different permitted uses, and okay, this is your permitted use, and this is, okay, now you're a dentist's office, now you're a veterinarian, now you're an art shop, now you're this. And I get it, because I agree. Nobody wants to see people getting worked on their teeth on Front Street.

Commissioner Grass. Sorry. So I also am curious, if you think from a longer-term view, is it better to have a building that has glass but inside's wrapped because they have other shelving or something like that, just from the view from the outside versus just a wall? And I have a belief set, and once again, when we look at examples, it still may feel better when you're walking down a street if you see a bunch of glass, even though they may have, like BevMo has... some opaque things in there versus just brick walls. So I'm just, even though uses may change, there's ways of handling that and maybe still having a requirement that may seem a little stricter, but it gives a better vibe what we're trying to do from a walkability for the pedestrian. So understanding what that... So once again, go back to the real life examples. I think, you know, pictures, a thousand words? Is that right?

There you go. Pictures worth a million. A thousand.

I would just, if I could just add one permitting thought as we're talking about examples, just... just specifically because this is just in our code, if you are required to have this level of transparency, that sign standard that's in the sign, you can't cover the windows in signs. There's actually a specific percentage that windows are allowed to be covered in signs, and I want to say it's 25%. You can't cover more than 25% of your windows in signs. So you could, to Commissioner Kras's point, dentist office put in blinds to cover up the windows, but then if a retail shop comes in, those blinds can be removed. But when it comes to like the BevMo example or that kind of thing, like we've had to have other retailers remove opaque window signs because you have to maintain a certain percent of transparency.

So is a sign, so if I use a, no words on it, but a... a window film on the inside, is that considered a sign? It doesn't say anything. So what is the definition of a sign, then?

You're not going to love my answer if it depends.

I'm just saying, I live on a busy street. And on my front door, I had one of those windows, just a film put in, so you can't really kind of see inside. It's still glass and has a nice vibe.

Correct. Not a sign.

OK.

Yeah, but I was just to the sign portion. But to your point, yes, if a dentist office goes in that doesn't want to see people, they can put up blinds and that kind of thing, and that's allowed. But the signage itself and the mud bay putting up their signs across every window is not allowed.

And can I just add that some cities do not allow you to darken your window if there's a transparency requirement.

We also have a dark tent prohibition on ours as well.

Commissioner Adair.

So are we kind of on a detour then from number four? Because this is kind of how I understood the question. Because how I understand number four, and correct me if I'm wrong, is some cities have higher activation streets where they have different transparency levels than lower activation streets. So I'm not opposed to that, but I would worry that if our goal was to simplify code, this might be going in the opposite direction. And like, let's say right now we're expecting the light rail to go to location A, but something happens and it gets put in location B. How do we adjust? If we do the street activation, would we then have to go in and adjust the code as our use of the city evolves and changes in the future.

To answer the first point, yes, we did go on a detour. That is the intention of it. To answer the second point, potentially, yes. I might throw the mic to Kate because she loves this topic. But that's what our sub-area and our long-range plans are for, is this is what we want to see this area become. And right now, urban core is what we want to see become our pedestrian priority, our growth center, or where we want this type of activation to occur, which is why staff has proposed the 70% just there.

Great. Commissioner Matthews, did you have your hand up?

Well, I might be going off topic, but the one thing I think we forget is that there's other options besides transparency. You could have living walls with greenery to take in cases like that, or you put artwork up that, for example, those cases where you have a service that doesn't need a 70% transparency. And maybe the developers would be not happy with having to add a seat or something for pedestrians, but those are other options to look at besides the 70% that may be nice to add more artwork, more living walls in the city, because that's kind of nice, too, to see a lot more greenery.

Yeah, I was thinking of an exception. and brick and buildings and everywhere so yeah no I was thinking of a example that I believe you guys provided two weeks ago which kind of had like you know the buildings are modulated they had brick and they almost had like it was like framed in and then the brick was set back like six inches and they had IV or something in there I mean that looked great that was nice so Commissioner Holmstrom

I think we're all pretty focused on the visual aspects of transparency, which is a fine conversation to have. And I hate to ask for more information because I know you're all so busy. But part of me is that developers have brought up the added construction costs with the new state building codes. And I can tell you it's significant just in what I do. I mean, it's dramatic. And I know there's another building code update coming that's going to be even more stringent. if there is there any information we could get on kind of what that looks like compared to what it was, the chain bars windows go to what's being required now, which may be required in the future. I don't know, maybe there's not, but I feel like that's a conversation we probably need to address before we pick a percentage on how expensive this is for anybody trying to build a new building.

The, um, to clarify the change to the bill, the change to the building code.

Yeah. The Washington state building, you know, the requirements for energy efficiency and all that.

Okay.

You would like to see what those numbers are.

I'm just wondering if there's any information that might be available that or feedback from somebody on the costs that are being incurred trying to meet all this glass requirement.

I feel like some cities have adopted it already. We can look and see and try. We can talk to our building official.

That one's outside my land use code scope, but I'm happy to talk to our building official.

I know this is a problem for anybody trying to build something, so I'm just wondering if we could get any, if there is any information to kind of put that in focus. Thanks.

Vice chair Patterson.

Yeah, I think that's a good point is that, you know, we are kind of still arbitrarily putting numbers out there where we're like, well, this one doesn't work. This one doesn't work. I think what would be helpful is like data driven decision making, right? Like we're hearing from developers and this is, as you mentioned, like part of this whole conversation is like how we make it easier for them to build or more cheaper or affordable. And so that's the reason for bringing it down, right? And we're all trying to maintain it for the community perspective of like the walkability and how it looks and how it feels. So I think to try and focus this in, to Crass's point earlier, it's trying to understand what it looks like, right? Like what does 40% look like? What does 70% look like? What does 15% look like in our town today? And then from a developer standpoint, what does it cost to do those things? What does 15%, you know, going from 70 to 40 to 15 look like from a dollars and cents perspective and trying to understand like where we can land amongst that because we are trying to balance those things, right? Those are truly the two things that were brought to us is the developers say it's too expensive to do X amount and we're saying we don't want to go too far in one direction and have big blank walls. So I think if we get the data that both of you have kind of brought up, That'll help us kind of get to where we want to go in terms of feeling better about a number or a percentage.

Any other comments? I don't feel like we did too well on question four, but that's okay.

I have a whole long list of assignments for question four.

Okay. Got a lot of homework for question four. Yes.

I will be coming back with this before the public hearing.

Okay. Yeah, I think that'd be great. I think everyone would feel better. Again, I took Vice Chair Patterson's point earlier. 15 seems way too low. 70 seems unreasonably high.

If I may ask a more general question? Absolutely. Let's not talk percentages, but how does the commission feel about our urban core having a different, probably higher percentage than the rest of the city? Just on the face of that in general.

The question's been put to all of you. I'm okay with it.

Okay. Do we have statistics of pedestrian flow of urban core versus other areas? Or expectations, I should say?

Yeah.

Because that will help drive it. Where there's more people walking and being, yes, you should have more. That's the idea of the 18-hour.

No to statistics, yes to upcoming expectations, that that's where our growth will be.

But that is the idea of the regional growth centers. Yes. That's where we want. Right. So I think. In generally, I think people are okay with the higher number.

Yeah, because for me, one concern I have is I don't want people, we build this beautiful light rail station and then people get off and then there's towering prison-like buildings and then they never want to come visit here, right? And also though, you have a higher desirability of land that's near the light rail so we can increase costs in other ways like transparency and get away with it.

So to Emily's point, is everyone comfortable with the urban core area having a higher standard.

Great, thank you.

I don't think you're gonna get a solid yes out of any of us.

That was good enough, I appreciate it.

Yes. Okay. All right, so I think we're ready to move on to number two.

All right. Second amendment related natural context areas. Just again, the history that you went over, these are generally areas in the city that are regulated streams, wetlands, but also city parks, open space, private open space. And the goal is to have developments that prioritize resource management and integrate Issaquah's natural features while ensuring they remain accessible to the public. And a reminder of the goal from the council level is to provide flexibility in our transparency requirements. So again, issues around natural context areas, multifamily project sites, when natural contact areas have challenges meeting those regulations, and this is focused within central Issaquah. The current regulations, the buildings need to be oriented towards these natural areas. The site area between the building and the natural area needs to help connect it, natural materials, native plants, designing buildings with things like balconies and stoops facing the natural areas, public walkways connecting to it, and if adjacent to water, having water-oriented features. So recommendations around the natural context area. Sorry, my notes. Around the natural context area code is amendments to eliminate sections that are vague or better implemented by more specific sections within the same code. Removing code specifying natural materials as that's ill-defined and very likely in conflict with upcoming state law changes. And then lastly, to remove the transparency requirement to reduce code redundancy, since we have a whole transparency section, it doesn't need to exist in this one as well. And since that's already addressed, remove that here. so main question for the commission um for this section of code building orientation to natural areas in central issaquah should the applicability be changed to just address sites that directly adjoin a natural contact zone so in this case it would mean if there was a street separating the building site from the natural context area they wouldn't need to be oriented towards the zone. Right now as it reads, anything in the natural context zone has to orient towards it. So our question is, should that remain or should we change that to only require ones that directly adjoin the natural context zone?

Great, thank you, Emily. Hands up, Vice Chair Patterson.

Remind me on that distance. It's 150 feet, is that correct? Correct. Okay. I'm just gonna get straight to a personal opinion on this one. I think that part makes sense to not apply for street or parcel with the carve out that if it's a trail or a pedestrian path, then it should apply. Meaning if there's a trail or a pedestrian path, they should have to face that. So natural context area, trail or path, house, it should face that still.

Okay, so if it's a vehicular street, it doesn't need to then orient the natural context area on the opposite side of the vehicular street, but if it's a pedestrian trail and there's a natural context area on the opposite side, it should? Yes. Got it.

I think Commissioner Ollner, I can see him over there.

He brings up a good point. I mean, bicycle paths sort of bridge that question of vehicle versus pedestrian, so I'm not sure how you address that. I think You know, with a street in between, clearly you don't want maximum transparency. And I think depending on how busy that path would be, whether it's a bicycle or pedestrian path, you might have similar transparency visibility issues. So I hate to keep muddying the waters here. But I think we have to define what street is versus path.

I would like to refocus this question that it's not just about transparency. It's about the whole building being oriented that way. Just make sure we're on the same page.

Commissioner Matthews. Oh, I'm sorry. You sure? Okay.

Well, I was just thinking of the Confluence Park and how that's just a small residential street, and it does face the context area, and I think they should be oriented. I don't want to see the back of somebody's building in that natural environment. So I think there's a difference between a residential street and maybe like a four-lane or a three, whatever it is, on Gilman. That may be completely different. Or if there's a parcel that's going to be built on, I think that would be separate, too. But a residential street, I think, it should face the natural context area. Because they're usually pretty narrow, one and a half car to two car lane.

No, these are great points. Like I said, it's great discussion. So Commissioner Adair.

I think it kind of is introducing some confusion because we also say in the code that if you're like along water, you need to create a pathway. So then if we're saying you don't have to orient towards a pathway, but you have to create an orient towards a pathway, or another example would be if you have a street, frankly, quite frequently you also have pedestrian walkway along that street. So then if most places also have to be oriented towards their pedestrian walkway, do you see what I'm saying?

It's like, do we create, I am definitely seeing that. I did not phrase this question as well as I could have. Um, the intent behind this was an actual street, not a trail, not a pedestrian pathway, but a two lane, vehicular street.

Right. But a two-way vehicular street oftentimes would have a sidewalk. Sure. Right. And so in that case, does the sidewalk supersede or do you see what I'm saying? Because they're going to have to be oriented towards the sidewalk anyways, wouldn't they? Or would it depend?

May I? Yeah. Okay. So trailhead. Trailhead.

I'm sorry, did I miss it? No, I just was like, she could just see my brain whirling.

Trailhead. Trailhead has four streets around it, right? Well, okay. Anyway, there are two buildings. They came across an issue. They have a natural context area to one side. They have a critical area to one side. And then they have two regular streets. But on the south side, where they're going to build that building, they are not going to have to build an additional sidewalk, even though it's adjacent to a natural context area, because they already have that sidewalk. They are having to build... Oh, I had a better thought before I started this. But they are having to build...

I'm going to pick it up when you put it down. I know where you're going. The garages? Yeah.

Yeah, they're having to build the garages on the street. Now, we would rather have those garages along that other street than along the natural context areas. And Emily, you're going to have to pick it up now. Sorry, I had a very long time.

I think what she's getting at is that Trailhead does face this exact conundrum. It has a natural context area on one side, it has a three block passage on the other side, and it has a street on the other side. And so how are they oriented in the building towards all three of those? Is that where you're getting at?

They're orienting it. You don't want the garage. The garage has to go somewhere. You don't want the garage oriented towards the next natural. They're naturally going to do that.

But my question is, I think I misspoke then, because my question is kind of like, okay, here you have beautiful natural context area. Here you have a street. The street has sidewalks. here you have an apartment going in, right? So I'm assuming that the situation then, you want it oriented towards the sidewalk anyways. So then whether or not there's a street there is kind of irrelevant, right? Or whether or not, yes. Do you see what I'm saying?

So it's like it's always- Yes, the building is gonna orient towards the street anyways, because that's where they get their pedestrian access from. Yes. Generally speaking, that will most likely be the case is even if it is building street natural context area, it's going to face the natural context area because it's going to face the street. However, natural context area in requiring the building to be oriented towards that has other requirements as well, like having the stoops and the porches and the balconies. So that's part of saying if it's directly adjoined first, just adjacent to if it's just adjacent to across. Right now, even if it's across the street, there's above and beyond. So even if it's even if it's just next to the street right now in the natural context areas on the other side, it has to meet this whole menu of options. We're saying, do we want them to have to meet all that if they're across the street or do we want them to only have to meet all that code if they're directly adjoining it?

Got it. I think directly adjoining, but that's I'm still listening.

Commissioner owner. I mean, I think if you've got a natural context area, you'd want to have your apartments face that, regardless of whether there's a street in between or not. So is it possible to uncouple the requirements for balconies and various other amenities when you have a street, but still require the buildings to orient towards the natural context, regardless of whether there's a street there or not? So maybe I would ask a different question than what you were asking. We have a lot. The map that Sandra requested showed a huge amount of our city as having natural context areas. So this isn't, it's not a minor question. For future development, it's kind of very important and central to how you orient your buildings. Am I not making myself clear?

No, I'm having a hard time picking the question out of that that you want me to respond to.

I'm not sure that there is a question. I think my opinion is, based on your question in the previous slide, that I think they should be oriented towards the natural context, whether there's a street there or not. The other implications of that aren't necessarily compatible with having a street there. You don't want to necessarily have a patio right next to a two-lane road. So is there a way to uncouple that orientation requirement from the other requirements that now fall under that category.

Okay, I apologize. I am following you now. Yes, so just having it, the building, even if it doesn't adjoin but is adjacent to, be oriented towards it, but perhaps not require the other items unless it directly adjoins. Yes. That, you know, we write the code. It's always possible.

It just makes it more complicated.

I want to get to, I also want to give our other commissioners a chance to speak before we, Commissioner Holmstrom, Commissioner Zacharoff.

Yeah, it's just strikes like buildings are always going to face the street. It's like houses face the street. I mean, my opinion. So to require it face two different things, which may not even align in any way, just seems strange to me. I mean, it seems like a lot. I agree. If it's across the street, then I don't think it should have to be facing that, that direction as well. But, As an architect, I couldn't imagine trying to solve this riddle. It seems like it can be extremely challenging.

Commissioner Zakharov?

Well, to me, once we started talking about apartment buildings, I'm not sure if it's possible that all of the apartments in the same building will be facing or have at least one window pointing in the same directions. Because I mean, I live in condos and apartments for the past 22 years. Yeah, all of my windows are always facing one side unless it's a corner unit. But it's either one side or the other side. So it's not possible. Like if I see the natural context area, then my neighbor across the hallway doesn't see the natural context area. And what kind of like if...

Yeah, so the requirement isn't that all of it has to face that way. It's just that side of the building has to have porches and stoops and balconies. Not that every single unit has to be oriented that way. It's just making requirements of the building facade that does face that way.

But if we're saying we're not adding stuff, I'm just trying to figure out Commissioner Ollinare's point.

It's all very valid, again. That's why they ask us to keep coming back. So, Commissioner Adair.

I have another follow-up question. Okay, so as I'm understanding this, under the current code, you could have a plat of land Here's a natural context area, a plot of land, and another plot of land within 150. And if you're building on this, you can orient towards the natural context area, but then have somebody build something between you. you're trying to eliminate that possibility because it does, it doesn't make sense to me to have to orient towards another building that's blocking your view of the natural context area anyways. So to those ends, yes, I agree if we have a plat separating you or a parcel that is going to be built on either in the future or currently, they shouldn't have to orient towards a view that is ultimately gonna be blocked, right?

Great point. Great point. Commissioner Ahler. I guess I'm stuck on the question of the definition of orientation. My house faces the street in terms of the front door being facing the street, but we have western views which are in the opposite direction. So as far as I'm concerned, my house faces two different, orients to two different directions. And so I think the question of orientation has to be better defined.

We're actively working on better. Showing an example of that right now.

Just give us one second. Sure. So just the way a lot of and I'm sorry I'm still a bit new here in terms of what the code looks like but in most codes and I believe here you identify a front and your entrance is on the front and usually it's the highest level street classification. If you're on an arterial and a local street, by classification, we would say the front is your arterial. And we will need to get a little more familiar. I think this is a great thing to talk about. So these guys might be able to tell you straight up, but we can bring more information about that. I can say that we did look at some other cities' codes, and they did use the language adjoining rather than some of the other language that would require things in case another parcel gets developed or if it's across the street. But I think we have a lot to think about and options to bring based on the things that you said so far.

Yeah, no, and I appreciate that, Kate, because that's my understanding, at least it's been on my understanding too, is that's when we're talking about orientation, it's really more of the front features such as doors and access. But I think our wizards are over there trying to figure out some pictures for us.

Well, we just wanted to show you this picture again, because orienting doesn't mean putting the front of your building there. It doesn't mean that your entryway to the hotel is facing the natural area. It simply means that there are features that are oriented toward that side of the building. So this, what you're seeing right here, the front entrances are on the other side, by the street side. It is open, and the backsides are oriented toward and can view the natural areas. There are no blank walls. And I think that's all we're trying to say.

OK. Well, that's definitely helpful. Yeah, Commissioner Matthews.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here about the street. I totally agree that if there isn't a plant between that you're going to build on, you shouldn't have to orient balconies there. An example is that Monahan building on Newport Way that faces 90. It has Newport Way. But the views are to Lake Sammamish. So you're automatically going to put balconies there because who would not do that? I mean, a developer would not do that. That's like the obvious. People are going to want to orient because that's going to be the highest priced unit in a condo or an apartment. So I think it's natural that you would If you have a street, it may be worthwhile doing that. But a plat between where it's going to be built, it may not make sense to require that.

The other thing that we're trying to, I'm not pushing anything out there. But the other thing that came to mind when we're talking about this is in that situation that Emily has up there, you've got the street on the front side. You don't want loading docks or anything on that street side. But you also don't want people to put a driveway in the back and put all of your garages back there. And that's what orients to the natural areas. I think we're trying to find a way. Unless you say, okay, you can put them back there, but you have to put up these huge green walls that cover it so nobody else can see it. You know, I just don't want big blank garage walls or anything back there. And that is easily something somebody could do is provide access to go around to the back of the building from the front. And that's just what we're trying to avoid here. How it happens is you guys make the recommendation. We're just throwing stuff out there.

OK. So maybe we try and take this apart by as far as can we all agree that properties that are adjoining a natural context area should be orientated to that area? And again, with Kristen's definition as the building is working with that area. It's not necessarily the front features like doors, but it is taking that area, funny enough, into context. Is everyone okay? I mean, if not, that's fine. I'm just trying to get a feel so we can move this along too. All right, everybody put their hands up if they agree with that. Okay, making some headway. Okay, Commissioner Adair. Oh, I thought you just wanted to speak. Got it, okay. Fair enough, fair enough. No, no, no, that's fantastic.

I honestly thought you had a question.

So, okay, so I think we all agree with that. As far as the adjoining of a natural context area, yes, the building should take that into context and orient. the building that way. So, and again, most likely those developers will take that into context, but how you can write that in a way that you avoid what Kristen brought up is loading docs. Yeah, that's tough. That's why you guys write the code, we just recommend. Are we willing to go a little bit farther and talk about if there is a road? Because I think Commissioner Adair brings up a great point. If you have enough land, so is the 150 foot, is that even something they should consider? Or is that less considerable? Meaning if there's a plot of land or if there's a highways, does that make more sense than just some arbitrary 150 foot rule? I would say so. Myself, 150 feet. Again, if you have a parcel in front of you that can be built on, it doesn't really matter. So to me, it's really about more what's in front What's between what's between. Yeah. That to me makes more sense. Emily has a question.

I feel like I want to add a piece of context as we're debating, like if the street really has, you are debating whether the street between it really separates because, um, there's different types of natural context areas, right? So if it's a wetland or a stream or like a true natural area, nothing's getting built in the 150 feet. So that is going to remain natural. So where this is really coming into question, the adjoining versus the adjacent is city parks and public open space and things that aren't critical areas because that has the potential to be built in between. And I can't speak to whether market rate always wants the balconies facing out towards the soccer fields versus towards a wetland or a stream, which there's definitely not going to be anything built in between them. So there's a little bit of a, let me just throw another wrench in here of a farther dividing line that the type of natural area it is adjoining or adjacent to could impact what could actually happen in between.

I mean, I feel better with Kristen's working definition as far as orientating a building. They still have options as far as egress, ingress. It's really just more about are they taking advantage or are they blocking out to use it as loading docks? I mean, not that they would. Is that where they're putting all the air conditioners? You know what I mean? Are they taking advantage of it? That's the way I see it, kind of after Kristen's nice definition of it. Okay, I think that's about all you're going to get out of us.

I've stunned you into silence.

I think we'll quit while we're ahead. So, yes, I think when it comes to adjoining, there you go.

Adjoining, yes. Adjacent.

Adjacent. Surprise you. TBD. TBD.

Okay, it depends.

Need more data.

So with that in mind, because we do have some, it depends, let's get some more information. I will be coming back. The potential third review sounds like it's going to be a definite third review. So I will go measure Front Street and we will be back on July 9th. for a third review of the code with some more of the requested data to hopefully help the commission make another decision. And then we will have our public hearing in PD and council following that.

Excellent.

Well, thank you, Emily. Definitely appreciate it. And to some of the commissioner's points, I mean, these are big decisions that are going to help the development of our city or hinder it. So, I mean, again, having another meeting and going over it again, that's completely appropriate, so. again i think we're getting closer though it sounds like i appreciate the feedback okay well thank you emily um we have another item of regular business and where am i there we go the last item tonight is an introduction to two more code amendments parking reform and allowing multi-family uses in the uv commercial retail zones associate planner andrew love will lead this discussion for this evening. So Andrew, when you're ready with your presentation, please go ahead.

Thank you. I'm here to present on additional Title 18 code amendments. Specifically, this relates to the promoting building investment code amendments, or PBI for short, and specifically updates to parking requirements, and then secondly, we'll be discussing allowing multifamily uses in the UV Comrette Zone, or Urban Village Commercial Retail, for sure. is the full title smaller okay I got it sorry about that so here is the overview of the schedule on the screen so we are in the yellow color, so parking requirements allowing multifamily and UV com ret. So first, let's talk about parking. So the background of this is key objectives from state legislation. Multiple state parking bills have been passed recently aimed at reducing parking requirements for new housing. And actually the city has already done a lot of parking code amendments last year. From what I understand, I'm not sure if all of you were on the PPC at that point, but it's time to do some more. So less parking allows for more housing to be built, freeing up land by reducing areas that must be provided for private vehicle storage. Not to say that parking is not important, but it's just one piece of the puzzle. Washington cities that have reformed parking already, such as Bellingham, have seen projects develop with more dwelling units than would have been permitted under the previous parking minimums due to greater site development potential. And a 2024 study of urban areas in Colorado found that reducing the minimum off-street parking spaces required had the potential to allow for the development of 73% more homes near high capacity transit. That's almost double. and 41% more homes in areas further from transit. So key objectives of the promoting building investments would be to accelerate the implementation of the state laws to help reduce potential barriers to development and promoting more housing opportunities. And really, you'll hear the term parking reform a lot. That really just refers to Senate Bill 5184. However, we're also going to be talking about House Bill 1183, which has additional parking requirements that we hope to address with this suite of code updates. So passed in just this past year, in 2025, it requires cities with populations over 30,000, which is a well within that range, to adopt by July of 2028. So we're getting a head start. We have a couple years, but establishes maximum number of off-street parking spaces that a community may require for different types of residential units. For example, multifamily, even single-family is included. Residences under 1,200 square feet. Affordable housing and senior housing Also, certain limitations for off-street parking for commercial uses. So just to go bullet by bullet, it's going to be no more than 0.5 spaces per multifamily unit, no more than one stall for single family, no more than two stalls per 1,000 square feet of commercial space, or it's easier for me to understand it as no more than one stall per 500 square feet. In addition, and some of this may be a little shocking, but no parking may be required for residences under 1,200 square feet. You may be asking yourself, what if it's a multifamily unit, but it's under 1,200 square feet? Is it half a space or is it zero spaces? And the least restrictive apply. So in this case, if an apartment building goes up and all the spaces are under 1,200 square feet, that would be zero spaces for all the units. Next, commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet. I'm glad we kind of had that retail commercial conversation earlier because in this case, the definition of commercial use in the state code means is actually quite, it's basically any non-residential use. So we'll need to be careful that we're not, we may need to define commercial in a different way in the parking chapter or maybe perhaps just refer to it as non-residential. because commercial use in the state code means use for non-residential purposes, including retail office, believe it or not wholesale, general merchandise and food services. Next affordable housing, um, senior housing, childcare centers, ground level, non-residential spaces and mixed use buildings and buildings changing use, which I'm actually happy about that last one. Cause it's a little bit of a pain when we're doing tenant improvements and it's like, well, can be challenging for new businesses as well. So that was the parking reform bill. Next, I'm gonna talk about the House Bill 1183. The full name of it is Building Code and Development Regulation Reform. This was also passed last year and it's required sometime in 2029. It's actually six years after our first implementation progress report. So I don't know the exact date, but it's sometime in 2029. and that's the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Progress Report that's due five years after it's, from the deadline of the comp plan update that was done in 2024, hence 2029. So it prohibits, the separate bill prohibits jurisdictions planning under the GMA, which we are, from requiring any off-street parking spaces for the following uses. Now, the affordable housing piece is kind of a duplicate from the last one, But additionally, it's regulating no minimum off-street parking for new or retrofitted buildings, meeting passive house requirements, modular housing, and housing constructed with mass timber. You may be asking yourselves, what does passive house requirements mean? I'm glad you asked that because we have a table. We have a table on the next slide. In this case, affordable housing, as well as that other bill that we just looked at, affordable housing in this case means where your monthly costs, where housing costs are not over 30% of your monthly gross income. For rental households, it's earning up to 60% of the area median income. For owner households, it's earning up to 80%. The next one is, um, and I'm still learning about this, uh, but, um, for the newer retrofitted buildings that meet passive house requirements in this case, it's passive house requirements. It's any housing that is meeting the criteria for certification as a passive house by Fias or the international passive house Institute. Um, and, um, You're welcome to explore those websites. Like I said, I'm still learning about this, but passive houses are basically a way to design residential buildings to drastically reduce energy consumption methods through insulation, solar energy, and other methods. Modular housing would be a multi-story residential building constructed of standardized components produced offsite, which are then transported and assembled at a final location And then housing constructed with mass timber would be a building with structural components primarily made of mass timber products. And I'm not gonna read them all, but you can see them on the screen. So it is important to kind of take a step back. I know that we're really trying to make it easier for housing to come to Issaquah, but we do have existing parking guidance and many different policy documents. Notably, the comprehensive plan talks about parking. We have the central Issaquah plan, Old Town plan, mobility action plan. So some of the differing policies would be, on one hand, we do want to recognize that there are legacy neighborhoods in Issaquah. You're not going to, I mean, getting up on the top of Squawk Mountain, you need a car if you live there, right? It's different from if you live in a future multi-story building next to a light rail station. Or maybe if you live in Old Town, it might be easier to catch a bus. So we do have some documents that talk about understanding the importance of providing enough parking. But then on the other hand, we have other policy documents that want to give more flexibility. For example, the central Issaquah plan. So it's about trying to strike a balance. And Issaquah is a little unique in that we have two different tiers when it comes to the parking regulations. The parking table and the parking chapter has different requirements depending on if you're in tier one or tier two. And from what I understand, this was a way to make it a little bit easier for development to occur in the central Issaquah area because it is a regional growth center designation, meaning that we are trying to We want housing and employment to come to Issaquah, but we specifically are looking at that section of the city, especially since we are, fingers crossed, getting light rail there one day. And then parking, tier two is basically any area outside of central Issaquah, Issaquah Highlands, commercial areas, and Old Town. So this is just a snapshot of the actual tables longer and actually in the packet materials, but just a snapshot of the residential standards. So you can see that in this case, the differences between Tier 1 and Tier 2 are pretty negligible. The only difference being multifamily and live work. It's 0.75 per unit for Tier 1, and then the minimum for Tier 2 It goes up to one per unit. All the other ones are the same. And going for commercial retail, the differences start to become a little more apparent between Tier 1 and Tier 2. So these are some of the things that would need to be updated with the code amendments that will follow, that will come to you in a future meeting. So we also looked at what are some cities doing around here, especially our nearby piers, but also some other cities in the state. So for example, cities all the way from Port Townsend to Spokane have looked at reducing parking minimums already ahead of the legislation. Bothell did eliminate off-street parking requirements citywide to reduce housing costs, spur economic development, and encourage a more walkable, less car-dependent city. Kirkland recently passed an ordinance to eliminate minimum parking requirements in a specific area, similar to what we're thinking about for Central Issaquah. However, it is important to note that they either have or will soon have bus rapid transit in this station area, whereas we still are lacking rapid transit. It also is waiving minimums for certain commercial expansions And then red Redmond is also eliminating, uh, has eliminated off street parking for, uh, most commercial uses. And then Bellevue and Renton are in the process of working through this as well. So right now staff is recommending updating the parking code, uh, or at least to bring draft code updates back to PPC to comply that would comply with recent state legislation in particular, accelerating the compliance with the state parking legislation, which is part of that set of promoting building investments in Issaquah. So we got Senate Bill 5184, the Parking Reform Act, and then the other one was the House Bill 1183, which is more, has to do with the type of residential construction. And the other recommendation would be to, in order to bolster construction of the desired development in Central Issaquah and Urban Core Regional Growth Center, potentially looking into eliminating parking minimums in those two zones. And just for some context, the mixed-use Central Issaquah zone is shown with the diagonal purple lines, and then the Urban Core zone that we're talking about is in the salmon color. And there is a second there. So there's the one that's further South has the lines are closer together. That's actually a separate zone. So it's not, that isn't included in the mixed use central is a closet. That's mixed mixed use residential, I believe. So some additional considerations that we would like to know from, uh, from PPC is, Are the commissioners wanting to keep the parking maximums? For example, if we have a business going in that is choosing to not provide any parking and then another business is coming next door to it and they're already concerned about the lack of parking, is it still fair to say that you can't have X amount of parking spaces because it's over the maximum when other people may not be supplying parking anymore? And I did want to note that I believe the parking maximum thing is potentially less of a concern as it may have been in the past with the market. You would have these big box retailers coming in and just putting as much parking just to be safe. And I feel like it's possible that it's becoming less of an issue with the tighter market with development. And I'm sorry, do we usually go one by one or just? Okay. Second, do you agree that urban core and the mixed-use central Issaquah zones could be the right areas to remove parking minimums, more areas on that or potentially fewer? Is there interest in doing more than the minimum required by state law? For example, Bothell and Bellingham and Spokane have looked to reduce parking requirements even more than the state is requiring. And lastly, should staff investigate requiring more temporary or time restricted parking? So we already do have certain requirements for off street loading spaces, but if we're not going to require parking for some of these uses, should staff be looking more into potentially amending that section of the parking code to have requirements for temporary parking. So parking for like loading or moving in and moving out or delivery driving, that kind of stuff. So I will open it up to discussion before moving it on to the next code amendment. Okay. Questions.

Commissioner Matthews.

I'm just out of curiosity. We don't really have any street parking on Gilman or around that area. Is there a future where we're redesigning the streets so that when the areas are redeveloped, kind of like Bothell, where they added street parking in that neighborhood?

Did the reverse. There is not a plan that I am aware of to add parking on existing streets. In fact, some is going to go away on Newport when that road is done. but there are plans to put in new streets in Central Issaquah, like 14th Avenue Northwest, which is going next to Trailhead. And when those streets go in, they do require parking.

Commissioner Kress. Thanks. So just a quick clarifying. This is just doing what the state has already told us. So this is not a lot of nuance here. Is that correct? This is just like whether we do it earlier. Is that the real main question?

Yes, except for the recommendation to potentially look at... Getting rid of minimums. Removing them in the central Issaquah, mixed-use central Issaquah zone and the urban core zone. Those were suggested by the elected officials to... Planning, Development, and Environment Committee.

Okay, so...

To look at it, not... So there's certain things like you have to match the state. The question is when. I think there's a chicken and the egg. If we don't have robust transit, these things are going to be a disaster because there's... You may face what... I think it was San Jose. I read somewhere where they had No parking and they have a 60 some percent Vacancy rate because people don't want to move in this thing. So the person who built it sold the building They're out and all of a sudden now there's something that's an undesirable thing left. So I do wonder whether we want to accelerate until until we have some other real transit, or we're just making the problem worse. I mean, eventually we have to do some of these things. So I don't know if I'd want to do even stricter taking minimums because of that. And then I would question even the timing that's not tied to the ability for people to get around if you don't have places for them to park.

It is important to note too that Central Issaquah currently doesn't have a lot of street parking, which I think one of you had alluded to. So that's definitely something to consider.

And then also I think the city needs to enforce its parking as part of any of these decisions because they don't. And I'm not sure, this doesn't fall within your guys, but it ties back to the city where there's RVs parked for weeks at a time taking up parking spots. So I do think all of these things have to be looked at a whole of what happens if a building is put here and there's no parking for the building and there's no parking on the streets and there's no transit. So we should go through that category. So that's my question plus two cents.

You got a little extra there. I will add, and I won't take credit for it. Kristen told me this or talked to me about this, or maybe it was Kate. But there is a lenders, I guess, will not. It's not just like you can propose, oh, I'm not going to do parking anymore. I want to build this huge multifamily building in Issaquah. I'm only going to. I'm going to construct it using mass timber, so I'm not going to provide any parking. And it's not saying that if we were to move, I mean, some of them are required. Like, we have to meet them, whether it's now or two years from now. But in some cases, the market will determine how many parking spaces. It won't necessarily, even though there will be no minimum, it's not necessarily saying there will be no parking spaces. And I guess I'm not an economist, but, or whatever the Professionals but basically like with the way that the lending works it might be harder for them to get To get the funding the financing together if they all if a developer were to all the sudden propose a giant development with zero parking maybe I mean you're then you're you're your plan is Market economy and you it's gonna take care of itself versus so that's so some of these things as you said it's like you have to do them the question is when and

And then, do you want to be more strict? And I would say no, but that's one of many opinions. That was a third cent.

Commissioner Matthews.

I just wanted to give a little, before I moved here, I lived in northwest Portland where there's no parking in any building. And parking was a nightmare. Sometimes I parked a mile away and I could never remember where I parked my car. I'd have to take a picture. But The thing to think about is if you start looking at that, it's kind of like Commissioner Krause said, you have to implement a parking requirement, like people having stickers on their car and parking zones. That would really need to be implemented at the same time that you start, because people will probably park in Old Town. They'll park wherever they could find a spot. So you start going into the neighborhoods and making everybody unhappy with people just leaving their cars around.

That's a huge.

Yeah. So it's just an issue, just like Ballard. You're going to have a parking nightmare, and you really want to think about having other programs in place at the same time that you start taking parking away.

No, I did. Thank you. I'm imagining, just to make this real simple, imagine salmon days every day in your neighborhood. That would be awful. So that would terrify me. Anybody else? Mr. Zakharov.

Thank you. I'm basically on a verge because one thing is, yes, for new developments, it's really hard with all of the parking standards, but at the same time, like I'm 100% agreeing with Commissioner Kress that we are not ready as a city. We don't have enough transit options. We're not ready as a city for minimizing or eliminating any parking standards. So I think like if we go through points, do we want to keep parking maximums? We probably want to do that because you are right. If one business takes too many parking spaces, another business doesn't have enough parking spaces there. So we still, like people still using cars. Do I agree that we have to remove parking minimums? I don't. I don't agree that we need to remove them completely. I think that we have to stick to the state requirements and just stay there for now because compared to other cities, we don't have enough transit. And then another thing, is there interest in doing more than the minimum required by the state law? To me, it's a no. And should staff investigate requiring more temporary or time-restricted parking I would think so. I would think so. Because if we're trying to kind of like eliminate like parking, I mean, we're not trying, but we have to eliminate parking. There will be an issue there. And again, if we have businesses, let's say we have Old Town, businesses need to somehow like, I don't know, bring stuff in. And yeah, so I think there should be investigation there.

Thank you. And just to clarify, you did talk about parking maximums. but I wasn't sure if it was you were in favor of removing the parking maximums or keeping them. Keeping. Keeping the parking maximums. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Commissioner O'Leary. Here to muddy the waters further. You know, we were previously talking about other issues where we were struggling with the notion that developers, for example, would naturally want their new buildings to face natural areas to take advantage of the views. And here we're again facing the question of do we let the market determine how much parking is being built or not? Are we over-regulating or are we opening the door for sort of unscrupulous development? And I think it's a very delicate balance. I'm not sure what the answer is. I also, and I know this has been passed, but I don't understand the relationship between mass timber and parking. It's nice to encourage developers to use ecologically sound and energy efficient methods. But tying that to parking just seems like, you know, seems manipulative in a way that's not necessarily productive. But that's a fait accompli. I think in terms of these four questions, I think keeping the parking maximum makes sense. We don't want structured parking six stories high anywhere in the city. I think that the urban core and MUCI are probably the best areas where parking requirements could be reduced, but I'm not sure that, back to Commissioner Cross's argument, that we don't have the transit. We have a letter from some developers asking to reduce bicycle storage areas. I mean, what are we leaving people with without cars, without bicycles, and without transit? It just, I think going too far in this.

Yeah, that's right.

Yeah. A supply every six months, new pair of shoes. Anyway, that's just my perspective. Thank you.

And I know that with the middle housing bill, they ended up having to do a fix it bill later. So that's another thing to consider that I didn't put in the slides, but if we do everything two years early and then all of a sudden, issaquah doesn't require any parking but then the state says oh well actually um you can require parking for these so that's another thing just to keep in the back of our minds but i feel like they're going to be quite a few fix-it bills um yeah i mean i guess in general uh this my experience with this commission is with a lot of these state mandates if you will uh we've typically tried to

meet that mandate, but not go further. Um, because I find, I think we've discussed at times that they're typically pretty restrictive as they, as they are. And they going beyond them is probably even too, too far. Um, one particular anecdote I wanted to mention on number two regarding, you know, removing parking minimums for UC and MU was, um, I had emailed Kristen about this and it had to do with the ADA parking spaces. And I was honestly a little shocked to find out that if you have zero parking minimums, that means also no ADA parking is required. It's only if the developer decided to put parking in, then those ADA requirements kick in. Again, that's probably something that market-driven would figure itself out, but I also think it's just another consideration of being careful as we're discussing those things. I think that's it for now.

That's great. Just one anecdotal point. ADA is a federal requirement and I could see that there could be a conflict between state requirements and federal requirements. You can't have a doctor's office with zero parking and zero ADA spaces. That's just totally impractical.

We would all hope so. Okay, let's go ahead and try to answer some questions for Andrew. Again, just real quickly, I think Vice Chair Patterson and Commissioner Kraft said it pretty well, so I won't repeat it. Yeah. How about question one? Does the Commission want to keep parking maximums at this point?

Okay.

Do you agree that UC and MU-CI are the right areas to remove parking minimums or to reduce parking minimums? I'm more in favor of reduce. Yeah, I don't want to get rid of minimums either. Yeah, and I agree with Vice Chair Patterson. I think to his point, again, the state came out. It's kind of like Kristen's point about the big box stores down. You guys all know their names. I won't say their names here. But just amounts of parking is insane. But at the same time, we know the state swings completely the opposite way. And somehow we're trying to find our way and make it right for our city. And Commissioner Kras mentioning the transit problem. So I think, is it fair to say we rewrite question two as those are the right areas to reduce parking minimums?

Is that fair?

So just to clarify the state, we would need to meet the state requirements for the whole city. So at that point, it's kind of a yes, should we reduce them further for these two areas or just do the minimum? Okay, thank you for the clarification. So I think we stick with the state standards for question two. Okay, thank you, that's helpful.

Is there interest in doing more than the minimum required by state law? I think we just answered that for you. And should staff investigate requiring more temporary or time-restricted parking? I think it was Commissioner Krasa brought up

Was it Commissioner Allender?

I'm giving the credit to the wrong person, but it seems like a lot of resources would have to be used in the city to have enforcement. Okay.

And, you know, that would obviously be staff's time to look into that and what does that look like.

It was Commissioner Matthews. Yes. And have, yes, the Portland example. So as far as having stickers and what's that look like and who's enforcing this. So definitely something staff should probably look into.

Okay. Yeah. We looked, we focused our efforts in looking at the parking requirements in general for like different communities around the state, but we can look more into the best practices regarding like the time restricted parking, um, to make sure that if we are allowing these more flexible parking requirements, that at least that's a backup, like, well, at least there's some spaces for more temporary parking. So we can look further into that before coming back. Yeah. Yeah. Vice chair Patterson.

um yeah just to comment on that last one uh the temporary or time restricted parking like i think if you're in a situation where you're creating you know less cars less parking more pedestrian friendly typically people are ordering delivery or getting things delivered more and so having those like loading zone parkings i think becomes almost a requirement like i think about i work in bellevue and you're constantly getting deliveries right and so they need somewhere to go if there's not ample parking or somewhere for them to go i think being able to you know, have that temporary or time-restricted parking, like a 30-minute loading zone, whatever, three-minute loading zone, I think becomes like a hard requirement for something like, especially like urban core or something like that where there's not, you know, higher density area, lower parking area.

And for that, it would be more looking at the off-street-like space as far as like curb management strategies go. That kind of falls outside the scope of the parking requirements. But I think both are important.

Yes, Commissioner Crafts. This is more of a broader zoning question. So central Issaquah, if there's going to, let's fast forward to 2050, some of us will still be alive, most of you guys. So there's a bunch of buildings, not a lot of parking. In the code, is it going to allow, because there may be a need to have a private high story parking

parking garage.

Are those going to be allowed or not allowed in the future? or I don't know, it's probably may not pencil out, but I'm not sure if there's gonna be the economies of that, but cars will have to go somewhere. And whether it's in the buildings themselves or in like you go into Seattle and there's private parking garages. Imagine trying to go to downtown Seattle and there's no parking garages. That's what I'm wondering what would happen. So does the code allow or would there be future incentives to want those?

So I'm not going to provide opinion. And I don't have my crystal ball with me. I forgot it. But as part of our getting light rail, we gave up our light rail parking station. So we don't have garage parking at our station when it comes here, which would lead me. The logistics are then there would need to be some kind of parking. And our code allows parking garages. Yes.

Yeah.

So. They're not probably economically feasible to build now. Right. But they could be built via code. It could be built, yes. And maybe with incentives.

Yes, there was discussion a while ago about building one in between Central Esquan and Old Town. So it's been discussed before.

Any other comments, questions on? Yeah, of course.

going back to I think Commissioner Ulner mentioned the bike parking reform came up in a developer letter it's not in scope tonight I understand but I was just curious if it will be at some point the bike parking reform

we can talk about that one and see if we have time to do it. It's, it's not on our, it's not on our agenda right now. If, if council directs us to do that at some point, or if you guys request us to look into it, we can, we just based on our workload right now, we'd prefer to wait on that one. Gotcha.

Yeah. I wasn't sure where it came from. It kind of, it was new to me.

So I didn't know if it had been discussed in another, I feel like the developers got success and now they're just, yes exactly seriously i mean again they got a home run and they're like okay let's keep going back for more okay uh any other comments questions on these first four all right and did you get what you needed on this particular amendment yes thank you okay and that's a hot hot topic but this one maybe not quite as exciting but allowing multi-family housing in uv com commercial retail zones

So what, where is the UV commercial retail zone? Um, on this map it's shown as in the dark orange, it's basically, uh, centered around the, um, Grand Ridge Plaza area. And why are we adding, why are we proposing to add multifamily uses to this, these zones? So Senate Bill 6026, residential development and commercial and mixed use zones, it's passed last year with a lot of these, requires any city planning under the GMA, such as Issaquah, to allow residential uses in areas currently zoned for commercial or mixed use development. Additionally, the bill, it basically indirectly requires cities to allow for co-living and permanent supportive housing and transitional housing within those zones as well because separate laws basically say if you allow, you have to allow those in zones where you allow residential, I'll get to that in a slide or two, but it also limits the ability of cities to require ground floor commercial uses. So this is a closer up map, the dark orange, the red orange color is the zone that we're talking about. It's basically, Right now it functions as one zone. Um, but back when there was a development agreement, it was kind of two separate ones as far as I know. Um, so Senate bill 60 26 and then also step housing and co-living. So since multifamily dwellings, uh, meaning five or more units, uh, need to be permitted in these zones, some of the step housing types are therefore triggered. For example, House Bill 1220 required jurisdictions to update development regulations in respect to emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing. Some of that may sound familiar to you. So essentially, since two of those types of the step housing, permanent supportive and transitional housing, are required where any residences or hotels are required, then essentially if we're being required to allow multifamily in these zones, then those other two residential types kick in. Sorry, it's a little confusing. And then further, I apologize, I don't have this on the slide, but RCW, separately, RCW 3670A535, that is related to co-living, or think of your, a lot of people are more familiar with the term boarding house. So those used to be a more popular type of living style, especially as we have this kind of loneliness epidemic going on. We have less people having kids. People may want to live with other people. People's living situation no longer may be your typical American dream of white picket fence with two and a half kids. Not that that's bad, but. So co-living, that bill, the RCW 3670A535, co-living has to be required on any lot that allows six or more residential units. So in addition to those two types of step housing, then the co-living essentially is also triggered to be implemented.

May I jump in here for half a second for an educational moment? I just want to know if everybody knows what RCW is. Okay, it's the revised code of Washington, so every time a bill is passed, it is then codified and put into our revised code of Washington, and I don't know that I've ever brought that up before, and I just heard it, and I thought I should bring it up now. Okay, back to the regulation.

And so we do have policies that are in support of this, even though it's a requirement from the state, such as several goals from the housing element. I won't bore you with reading them one by one, but So our recommendations for this is to update the table of permitted uses located in Section 18.402.020 of the IMC, the Squaw Municipal Code, I'm sure you knew that one, to allow multifamily residential, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and co-living uses in the UV-COM and UV-RET zones. And then secondly, the recommendation would be to further review new limitations to the ground floor commercial requirements and assess whether additional amendments are necessary to fully comply with the legislation. So the consideration for this is, does the Planning Policy Commission have enough information to support a staff recommendation on changing the permitted uses in the UV commercial retail zones? Or are there any questions regarding what we went over?

I think it'd probably be helpful to put up that last slide before that one. But the question before everyone is, as you saw, do you have enough information? OK. Let's kick around the dais. Commissioner Zakharoff.

I'm familiar with that shopping plaza very well. I live next door. I'm just thinking, where is it possible to live there in TJ Maxx in Safeway or any of the restaurants there? So it's kind of like... But I saw that also across the street, it's still a grand reach, so something is getting built there.

So... Yeah, I believe there's a senior housing?

Senior housing, yeah. So I'm just kind of... If we're thinking about the future.

Yeah, way into the future.

Yeah, well, maybe at some point, yes. We won't need stores anymore, and people will have deliveries all the time.

There is still one undeveloped parcel behind Grand Ridge Plaza.

Oh.

Yeah, okay. So, well, yes, I guess then it's understandable. But, okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Adair.

So this is just putting us into compliance with the state law, basically. So I don't see the point of going against state law.

Is that a fight we want to fight? That was funny. Anybody else? Vice Chair Patterson.

Kind of a follow-up question. I know we talked about this state law. We kind of have to do it, right, more or less. But because it's in the Highlands, it does have the covenants of the, what would you call it? Development agreement. No, not the development agreement. It's like the HOA. Or what is it called? It's the covenants, right?

It's kind of like their CC&Rs. They have the Issaquah Highlands Architectural Review Committee, and then they also have the Issaquah Highlands Council.

Right.

They regulate residential properties, single-family residential properties, and not commercial and multifamily.

Gotcha. So in this case, us making this required change, something could be built, essentially, without their approval? Correct. Okay, cool. Thank you.

Any other further comments, questions? Okay. so um back to your question andrew the next slide does commission have enough information to support the staff recommendation on changing the uv com retail zones okay and then as far as okay if you go back to the other slide now as far as uh the updates from review new limitations to ground floor that's also part of the requirement correct Okay. I throw up my hands. All right.

So essentially I, I did what I thought was beating the code and then Kate was like, well, maybe we need to take a look at this too. So we will make the code amendments, uh, the proposed, we will bring back draft code amendments meeting the, um, uh, updating the permitted uses table to include multifamily residential transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and co-living uses in this zone, these two zones. in addition to further reviewing whether there's additional implications for the second part.

Okay. Well, thank you, Andrew. Appreciate the presentation. You have everything you need?

Yeah, thank you. And then I just had a slide on the timeline and then another final slide in case there were lingering questions on the parking stuff. So June, we're here June 11 reviewing. July 9th will be a second review, so I expect to bring back draft code amendments at that point. I'm sure there will still be a ton of questions that I will welcome, and we can talk it out and have fun with the parking and the other stuff. And then in August, it's to be determined, but we're thinking that would be when the public hearing is. I mean, I would expect there's potentially a small chance. We may need just an extra meeting for the parking, if anything. But I'm remaining optimistic that everything will go smoothly. And then if that does happen, then September 22nd would be when we would like to take it to the PDE, the Planning Development and Environment Committee. Lastly, are there any additional questions I can answer?

All right, I think that's it. Okay, thank you so much. Okay, well, thank you, Andrew. So that takes care of regular business for us this evening. Let's move into reports. Am I looking at Kristen or Kate?

I don't have any council reports. I do have a question. May I? She's going to give us homework. So council takes August off. And we have never done that in the past. But this year, it was just automatically put onto our calendar that we would take August 27th off. And I went to our clerk's office the other day and said, do we really have to? Because we have a pretty big workload. And I think we need more review time on some of these items than we're currently giving ourselves if we take August 27th off. Technically, we're actually going to PDE, Planning Development Environment Committee, on September 1st. So if we hold our meeting on August, our public hearing on August 27th, that doesn't give us enough time because the packet is actually due before that. So I want to see, first of all, raise your hand if you'd be willing to have a meeting on August, an additional meeting on August 20th. Not an additional, but a special. Okay. Well, and that's my second question, is can we get a quorum that night?

Commissioner Millinder-Irwin is our only absence today.

Correct. So if you all...

Okay. Let's try that again. Okay. August 20th?

If you are able to be here, if you believe that you are able to be here on August 20th, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six. We got a quorum. Great, then you will get a meeting notice about August 20th from Cassidy. Okay, thank you. That's all I have.

Commissioner Lawler?

The 27th will be canceled. It'll just be rescheduled to the 20th instead. It initially was canceled, and then I asked to get it back, and then I asked to switch it to the 20th.

Oh, so you don't want to do three meetings at all? No, just two. We're just moving one up for more time for you guys to put it together for PDE.

Exactly. And actually it gives us, because 27th was originally canceled, this gives us an additional meeting to review amendments. Because everything that's come through tonight has been pretty big and we need more time.

Sure. No, I follow. Okay. Okay, well now you don't have any horse trading since we all know you got the 27th off. We're just moving our Thursday up a week. So, okay.

I just had one. Any other business? I had one comment. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Muller. I had just one comment. Included in our packet was a report from Eco Northwest, which I found very interesting in terms of what efforts we're trying to make and how effective or not they may be. So if you haven't had a chance to go through that Eco Northwest report, it's worth doing.

And we will be discussing that a lot further on our June 25th meeting. We'll be talking about that a lot more.

Yeah, no, it's always fun seeing what the city pays for in terms of reaching out to professionals in those fields so yeah they are good reading okay any other business or announcements commissioners all right let's get out of here it's uh we will close this meeting at the planning policy commission at 8 40 p.m good night everybody