Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. There being no remaining speakers for the community forum portion of the meeting, that portion of the meeting is now closed, which takes us then gracefully into the first public hearing on our agenda. So, the role of the planning commission is to review and analyze proposed ordinances, comprehensive plan amendments, zoning changes, and other land use related issues. We follow a public process, including holding hearings during which the public has an opportunity to provide additional perspectives and information. In legislative matters, the role of the commission is advisory.

City Council will hold separate hearings, consider our recommendations, and make a final determination. The Planning Commission will conduct a hearing tonight and take public testimony. Community members may register online or submit a speaker request form in person. The chair will call upon you during the public testimony portion of the hearing. If you are in person, when you are called, please come to the microphone.

If you have joined remotely, you'll be promoted to a panelist. And when you are called, unmute your phone or microphone. For all those testifying, please state your name for the record. If you are providing the formal recommendation of a neighborhood association or other group, tell us when the association voted on the matter as well as how many people were for and against. We ask you to keep remarks brief and to the point and direct them to the planning commission as a body, not the audience or staff.

Please do not repeat testimony that has already been provided in print or verbally. As a reminder to my colleagues, please indicate to the chair when you want to be recognized. At the conclusion of public testimony, the commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to counsel. Would anyone on the planning commission like to disclose any conflicts of interest with the items before us this evening?

Okay.

Please show respect for the people testifying tonight whether you agree with their comments or not. So the first public hearing item that we have is on the downtime design guidelines updates. Deputy Director Kennedy, would you like to give us some context to that?

Sure. I'll just give a quick introduction. So this is the third or fourth time we've been here on this, And, you know, I appreciate that the planning commission has provided a lot of feedback on the process. Jason and Greg will sort of walk through how that feedback has been responded to. I just wanted to touch a note on process though.

So we are holding the planning commission public hearing tonight. You may have noticed that a SIPA checklist was not published for this item. The reason for that is is that while we're holding your hearing to get your recommendations so we can kind of wrap up this process, the council will not actually adopt these until they adopt the full code update. So it'll be covered under the SEEP, the FEIS for the comp plan. And that's because we're not gonna try to, like, integrate these with existing code and then six months later with a new right?

Like, we're just gonna wait. But we did want to get a recommendation for you so from you and wrap up the process so we're able to communicate that to the council. So just wanted to make a note that that's where there was no see the checklist for this item. And with that I'll turn it over to Greg Turner, Land Use Planning Manager and Jason Nords, who's our Development Review Division Manager and I believe Chris Senseig is on the phone as well. All

right. Good evening Chair, Edouweh and fellow commissioners, Jason Nortz, Development and Review Manager. Also presenting this evening is the City's Design Consultant, Kristin Senning with Raymond Associates who's joining us virtually. And Greg Turner, our Land Use Program Manager is also available to answer questions this evening. So as Rebecca said, tonight we'll be presenting on the city's update to the Downtown Design Guidelines Manual.

I want to clarify that this is an update to the existing Downtown Design Guidelines Manual, which is adopted by reference into the code. So technically, this qualifies as a code text change, which is why it has the same approval criteria that is required as part of a Title 20 text change. So I just wanted a point of clarification there. So why the need for the update? The existing guidelines are outdated.

They're from 1995. The pace and scale of development in the downtown has dramatically increased, as you know, and we need a better tool for both staff and developers that help the overall design review process. We previously excuse me. We previously reviewed this item with both the Planning Commission and the City Center Redevelopment Authority at workshops in October 2024 and March 2025. We also held numerous stakeholder outreach meetings in 2024, as referenced in the fact sheet attachment in the staff report.

After the March Planning Commission workshop, we presented the guidelines update to City Council as a workshop item in April. Council was supportive of the update and asked that we proceed to the Planning Commission for the Seating's public hearing. Feedback received from the City Council included making sure pedestrian friendly design components extended beyond the Heritage Overlay District to give consideration for additional material types and to provide better direction on how the intent of the guidelines are being met. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to our consultant, Kristin Senning, who will review the update in greater detail. Kristin

Sorry. I have my headset set up on. But thank you, Jason. I'm happy to be here. And first, I would like to review the purpose and goals for the project.

The first thing was to provide a set of guidelines that are easy to understand and administer to ensure the compatibility of new development within the existing historic character of downtown, maintain quality design and materials, ensure ground floors include interest creating features that contribute to an active downtown environment and ensure that building designs complement each other and contribute to a cohesive sense of place. Next slide. We worked with the city and stakeholders to develop a set of design elements to amplify. We call this the more of this list. It include includes creating active ground floors, providing human scale details, quality windows that provide visual interest in shadow lines, create a vertical rhythm and pattern to building facades, and maintain high quality materials, particularly at the ground floor.

Next slide. We also identified what the city would like to see less of. That includes ground floors dominated by parking and utilities, overly flat facades and excessive horizontally oriented glass facades. Next. This manual is fundamentally an update to the 1995 design guideline manual.

The 1995 manual is referenced in the code, and so as Jason pointed out, this is a text amendment updating the design guideline manual. At the beginning of this project, we worked with staff to understand what is working and not working with the existing document. Issues identified in the 1995 document were that staff felt that the design guidelines were difficult to administer and evaluate evenly across applications. They were not organized by design topics. They did not focus on the types of buildings Vancouver has been seeing over the last ten or so years.

And they included guidance in areas no longer needed, like the public realm and in the R9 District. So the key goals of the 2025 update are really to improve administration and include a checklist to make it easier for staff to review projects and provide more consistency, provide more detailed and verifiable design guidelines and focus on more common higher density building types. They also include new guideline topics like ground floor design, high rise massing, and window detailing. Next. And here, you see the overall table of contents of the document.

The design guidelines include the following topics: Building and Design covers massing, facade design, building modulation, and also includes special design guidelines for high rises. The building design section also includes guidelines on fenestration, building materials, green roofs, and bird safe design. There's a section on active ground floors, which covers how the building meets the street and guidance for creating active frontages like ground floor retail space, ground floor office, ground floor residential, and the design of building entries. This section also provides additional guidance for weather protection. The lighting section gives guidance for exterior building lighting, and the signage section is meant to complement the sign code, giving high level guidance on the location and quality of the sign, but the sign code is what will govern the size and other standards.

The document also includes guidance on integrating utilities and service areas into the building design and guidance on the location and design of parking, making sure that active ground floors are maintained. Lastly, the document provides guidance for new buildings and alterations within the Heritage Overlay District Number 2. Next. After issuing the public draft, we heard feedback on the financial feasibility of projects and worked with developers, architects, and other stakeholders to understand the impact of the draft guidelines. After consultation, we presented staff with some recommendations, that would change the draft standards to make buildings more cost effective while maintaining high quality facades.

And here are some of those changes. In relation to window design, the following changes were made. One, we reduced the minimum recess of windows from the facade from three inches to two inches, but maintained restrictions on disallowing, lush window designs. We also reviewed feedback on the cost implications of bird safe design and have some small edits to be more in line with other cities and make implementation more cost effective. We believe that this will ensure the guidelines still meet the goal to improve overall building quality and design while also being cost effective.

Next. In relation to material design, the following changes were made. One, we changed we retained sorry, we retained the requirement for higher quality materials for the ground floor throughout the design guideline area. We changed to only require high quality materials on the upper floors within the historic Overlay District, and we added language to expand the list of materials. And that language is for other durable materials with human scale textures or patterns to provide a wider range.

Next. In response to concern that the lighting requirements were too onerous, we talked with a few lighting consultants and made some changes. This includes requiring a lighting plan as part of submittal and also lessening the light restrictions, moving the residential recommendation moving from what was the residential recommendation, for dark skies to the commercial standards. And this better aligns with the downtown location and expected light levels. Next.

In working with staff, we also decided to revise the Main Street Heritage Overlay District Number two guidance. Next slide. And this is a new strategy that for nonhistoric projects within the overlay District number two, the design guideline manual will be used for the design review. Existing code sections will be updated to refer to the VDDG manual for most buildings at the time of the zoning code update later this year. Historic buildings will be referred to the state and federal standards as they are used now.

For buildings using downtown design guidelines for review, we integrated the relevant existing standards and guidelines from the code into this manual, and then provided some new design guidelines that are generally consistent with the intent of the code. And there are some pieces of the code that we didn't bring over because staff thought they were no longer relevant. Additional guidelines include maintaining a historic rhythm and pattern to the facade designs designing buildings to have a distinct base, middle and top and guidance on materials, as mentioned earlier and guidance on making alterations and addition to nonhistoric buildings as well as guidance for new buildings. Next. Lastly, the Vancouver Downtown Design Guideline Manual includes a comprehensive checklist for applicants to fill out and to make staff review easier and more consistent.

Applicants are required to address each guideline as a requirement for design approval. This form and process requires the applicant to state how each guideline is met and then reference the appropriate drawings for review. And that concludes my overview Kuhns: of the

design guidelines. I'll pass it back on to Jason to conclude.

So we're here tonight as part of the public hearing asking the Planning Commission to consider recommending approval of the updated Downtown Design Guidelines before proceeding to the City Council for public hearing and decision. The guidelines update will be included as part of the Title 20 code update and comp plan update that will be before council later this year. And that concludes our presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Cabell, any questions?

No questions. I'm glad to see some greater flexibility incorporated into some of these recommendations. Hopefully, that kinda make things easier for developers as we, you know, try to spur development in that area. So glad to see that. And, yeah, no further comments.

Vice chair Powell, any questions?

Yeah. Two questions. One, I saw that the there are a couple of workshops with the city center redevelopment authority. Were their comments incorporated into these changes as well?

Yes. They were. And they were generally they were receptive of the proposed guideline update, and we did meet with them on two separate occasions. And this current manual reflects their comments.

Great. And then maybe a slightly technical detail or question, but regarding the skyline and the beacon lighting, the street lighting guidelines, will that apply to, you know, the I presume that will apply to, like, the public right of way lighting standards moving forward. I I know that the heritage light fixture, I think, aligns more with the the non cutoff diagram than the than the full cutoff.

Well, the the guidelines are addressing what's on the property itself. So are you talking about the street lights?

Correct. I'm asking, yeah, specifically will will these apply to public right of

way in addition to private property? No. This would just be on private property. Gotcha.

Okay. That's it. Sure. Thanks.

Okay. Commissioner Liddell. Just comment over the years on planning commission, a lot of these things that have been addressed have been earmarked to be addressed at some point. So really glad to see the culmination of all this work and happy that you worked with the people that are going to be complying with the guidelines. So thank you.

Commissioner Beck, any questions?

Darn mute button disappears on me. No questions. Just really happy to see the guidelines are a little bit more flexible than we first looked at them. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Wheeler?

No questions for me. I appreciate the work put into this. I know it's not an easy thing to balance flexibility and ease of development with creating guidelines that create spaces that people wanna be. I think the intents behind a lot of these rules are good. Sometimes I think we could use maybe a little more flexibility, but ultimately I'm happy with the way this looks and I think it'll help contribute to a great downtown. Thank you.

Commissioner Jay?

Thank you both for taking the time to present to us,

and thank you to all the staff that worked on this. No questions for me?

I really just have one out of morbid curiosity. If it wasn't organized in the way that's in the table of contents that you presented today, I mean, how was it organized before?

Not well. The

well, the the guidelines that we're proposing tonight provide more specificity to, you know what what it mean, what those guidelines mean. The old guidelines were more general and didn't really really didn't have a lot of meat to them. There were it was only a I think it'd be a 15 page document that had some pictures that were old. So, know, the updated guidelines have newer photos of what we're really trying to achieve and really kind of tie the guidelines in with those photos.

Very good. Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up for public testimony for this hearing item?

No one signed up for public testimony.

Okay. Well, there being no further comments from the public, that would conclude the public testimony part of that hearing and move us into discussion. So I guess we can start with commissioner Beck. What are your thoughts regarding this hearing item?

I'm fine with moving forward.

Okay. Commissioner Wheeler, your thoughts?

No. I agree. Like I said, there's, you know, a few places where I could see us using more flexibility, allowing for more flexibility, but ultimately I think this is a step in the right direction.

Commissioner Jay?

I'm very glad in some of the photograph examples that the Sears Tower is allowed as a building in Downtown Vancouver. Jokes aside though, I'm in favor of moving ahead.

Yeah. I mean, I'll echo the the sentiments stated previously. I mean, I think, you know, I think it's good that we've been responsive from some comments in the development community, especially regarding I think the window depth need to be lowered because that's not standard. So, yeah, hopefully, I think this allows us to meet the various goals we hope to accomplish with this and look forward to moving forward.

Vice chair Powell, your thoughts?

Yeah. I would just I would generally say that just thank you and would encourage staff to continue to present, particularly council, the incremental cost increases. I you know, there was a lot of response to the to to those potential cost impacts, but that combined with, you know, the green building policy and other new initiatives that they they will stack up. So not to lose sight of that even though there was a, in my view, positive reduction in potential cost impacts, that there are still some out there with with these updates. And then second of all, I kind of alluded to it, but that the public right of way would be held to similar or the same standards.

Particular, the street lighting was the one that jumped out to me. I can't think of another one off the top of my head, but I think if we're gonna hold private development to a certain standard, the public, infrastructure should be as well.

Commissioner Liddell? No further comment.

Okay. Does anyone feel the need for more discussion to help with cementing their thoughts? Okay. In that case, the chair will entertain a motion. Could we take a look at slide, which one was that? Slide 15 again.

Can I make motion? Absolutely. Sure. I move to recommend that the Planning Commission approve or recommendation of approval to the city council to approve the updated downtown guidelines that referenced in VMC 20 dot two six five.

Motion has been offered. Is there a second?

I'll second. Yep. Second.

Motion has been offered and seconded. Please call the vote.

Commissioner Dre?

Aye.

Commissioner Wheeler? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Cavill?

Aye.

Commissioner Liddell? Aye. Vice chair Pyle?

Aye.

And chair Ottovamy?

Aye. The motion passes. So the Planning Commission officially recommends approval to council.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. So that would take us into the second hearing item on our agenda this evening. On the impact fee payment timeline and proposed changes to it. Any introductory remarks, deputy director Kennedy, that you wanted to

This is the wrong presentation. That's the design guidelines one. We need the next one. Yes. I would like to make some introductory comments.

So a couple things. As you're aware, this is part of a package of sort of short term housing changes we're making to try to facilitate housing in very tough development environment. We recently brought through changes to some parking requirements for affordable and attainable housing, also made some adjustments to our review timelines and processes and to the payment for the fee in lieu piece of the multifamily tax exemption program to push that out a little bit. So this is another piece of that. Again, we're in a very tough development environment and so we're trying to, you know, provide do small things that can get projects that are kind of on the edge moving.

The more we we don't, you know the the the more that we can say this slow, the the bigger our housing deficit gets. Also wanna note that Sam Whitley is here. She's our housing manager. Brian Monroe had brought this to you for workshop. He had a bit of an accident this weekend, so Sam is here. And then I know that there may be some questions about public subsidies versus between affordable and private development. Chim Chun Kho is supposed to join us, but we are very much ahead of schedule. And so I've let him know and he'll be joining us, but he's the one who's gonna answer those questions. So just hold them till we get them on. And with that, I'll turn it over to Sam and Brian.

Hi. Thank you. Good evening. Well, thanks for having us, and we'll talk about what our current incentives are for affordable housing and multifamily unit production. We'll talk about the incentives that Rebecca just briefly covered that we are putting forward, and then I'll pass it over to Brian to talk about how the impact fees might work under this proposed amendment to the code, and then the next steps after that.

So right now, we have the multifamily tax exemption. We just implemented the construction sales tax deferral program. My team also works with the affordable housing fund, and then we get HUD funds, CDBG and home program each year so far. We're got them for 2025. And then there's zoning code flexibilities that that we use to incentivize new housing, especially for affordability.

I think you're probably all familiar with a lot of these programs. So right now, we as Rebecca also mentioned, we are in a very sad state of development. This shows the permits that were issued and projects that were completed in 2025. Brian actually gave me these updated numbers this afternoon as of June 30. We've completed 484 projects and issued 408 permits.

Those are for you those are units, and our goal is 2,000 units per year. And so we're halfway through the year and less than a quarter of the way of our goal for housing production. So we are proposing several small items that can hopefully spur some more development. We've you've already looked at the parking minimums, and that that was that went through council and was approved. Last night, we talked to the council about MFTE fee in lieu deferral as well as we've waived the application fees for the MFTE program.

So those were that was approved last night. We also will be talking about deferring the system development charge fees and permits. Review timelines will be hopefully shortened and expedited a little bit for housing. And then tonight, we're talking again about the impact fee payment deferrals. So oh, thanks, Brian.

So just looking at the at the specific change before you tonight, just briefly to recap impact fees in general as addressed by the city zoning code. I think the commission is familiar with this, but just to recap and for the record, it's a one time fee for new development. Under law, it's proportionate share of the impacts or what the fee is to cover based on a preset level of service standard. We have these fees for parks, traffic and school. The changes tonight are just limited to parks and traffic, the city provided services.

They're calculated at the time of of permit application, paid currently upon issuance of the permit, and that's they vest to that point. And they're then placed interest bearing accounts until they're encumbered. And under state law, they have the money has to be refunded to the the project proponents, the developers if it's unspent after ten years. So this lays out on the timeline for a hypothetical building hypothetical development application. There's a land use permit as you see at the start, then through building permit application, building permit issuance, again, is the current point of payment of the fee investing.

Construction might typically last eighteen year and a half to three years. And the proposed new point for collection of the fees is at the occupant essentially at occupancy or the request for occupancy. And then shortly thereafter, you'd have the issuance of the temporary permit. So just to give a broad ballpark sense of what this might cost, this is probably a little bit conservative estimate assuming a thousand units per year and assuming that the deferral period is thirty six months, sort of at the longer end. But in this case, looking at about a little bit less than a million dollars a year is sort of the very roughly estimated cost involved.

But if to the extent there are fewer permits issued and less development activity, there would would this number would be less. And this is similar estimate. The this isn't something the city has invented of of whole cloth. There are other jurisdictions in in the state that have that have done this. Spokane or doing this.

Spokane, Olympia, and Washoula are two of the or three of the more notable ones. In terms of the specific changes to the zoning code, there are two spots essentially. There would be creation of there's already in the current code. There's an allowance for this kind of deferral for single family houses, which form the the now the clear minority of of new permits going forward. Most permits are are multifamily.

So create a new section to allow the deferral for multifamily, and then there'd be elsewhere in 21915, just a a sort of a reference to that. There'd be a limit to a thirty six month deferral. That's as as far as it could go. At that point, the building permit would have to be recalculated. It does require applying for each of the parcels involved and the enforcement will via lien that then is released when the fees are paid.

And so a sample motion for you here. The findings are as indicated in the staff report where it ties it to some of the strategic and comprehensive plan policies and the overall public interest in terms of facilitating the development in the face of the slowdown and some sample motion language for you. So with that, I'll turn it back to the commission.

Thank you. Commissioner Beck, any questions?

No questions.

Okay. Commissioner Wheeler?

No questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Jay?

One quick question. I love the updated graph since you guys now have both the permits as well as the actual construction line as possible. I think we only have permits on it. Really love that updated information, very powerful graph. My only question now is that what is the ratio I guess of permits granted versus construction completed? It's just sort of a random question I have but none it's what that led me to but aside from that I'm in very much in favor of this proposal. Thank you.

In terms of the ratio, don't know off the top

of my

head. Could perhaps go back to that graphic. It might hint at what it might be.

Ratio, what do you mean?

Like per permits issued, per construction projects completed ratios.

I believe I believe this graph is saying that there have been permits issued for 307 units. Correct. And we've delivered to market I mean, mark delivered to market 461 units. So I don't know what like the size of I think you're asking about the size of projects that we're seeing.

No. Just that every time the city permit issues a permit, is there anything else like ultimately, I'm wondering if anything gets in the way of the actual completion of the projects. But

Oh, oh, oh, I see the relationship between

completed projects is the ratio that I was curious of with the success rate or

There's obviously a bit of a timeline here. So this Yeah.

And I know it's on the graph.

What's happened. So some of the permits that are completed would have been applied for not that year. In fact, most in most cases, not, it's a year before. Sometimes it's two years before. As part of the annual reporting that the city does to the office of financial management, which then they use produce their population estimates for us. We have to give them some of this data. And my general impression is that if you wait long enough, most of the building permits are going be if that's your question, most building permits applied for where a permit has been received are then finalized. Not all, but I think a strong majority of them appear to be. That's my impression.

Got it.

Yeah. I will add that it does depend a bit on the ongoing economic conditions. The harder the market, the more likely we are to see projects that have been permitted not finished construction. So, I think we saw that in 2008 and then again in 2015. So, I think given the current economic condition where it is, think I there's a chance that we may see the number of completions decrease relative to the number of permits. So, obviously with the lag that Brian already mentioned. Great. Thank you, Chu Chu.

Commissioner Cavill?

The cities that have already kind of implemented this policy, I don't know how long it's been, but has enough time elapsed there that we can kind of get like a read on what impact it's had?

I I don't have any information for you. I don't know if if Kim Chun or Rebecca or perhaps you do Sam.

Brian did mention that he did talk to one of the cities and they had only had two projects that had applied for impact fee for deferrals. Okay. Yeah.

I did actually some of the research on this when we were looking into it, and I think it's all relatively new. Again, I think I think the experience of 02/2010 is jurisdictions are trying to do the small things that are within their control to move projects forward or being a little more aggressive with it. But, so I I think it's pretty new in all the other jurisdictions as well. It's like the only way did this research.

Yeah. And it's probably impossible to separate it out from everything else that's going on.

So Yeah. And I would can speak to this too, but I would say that's true. Like, what what tips you over the edge? Right? Is it your your impact fee, payment deferral? Is it your MFTE, fee in lieu deferral? Is it the you have to do less part. Right? Like, there I don't think it's hard to tease these things out.

Yeah. It does sound worth a shot, though. Man, no further questions. Thanks.

Vice chair Powell?

Yeah. So my question is around and I'm looking kinda back at the the first couple of slides that state the current incentives and that then state the proposed incentives. And there's a little bit of a mix and match between what incentives apply just to affordable housing or regulated affordable units and which apply to market rate units. And I was just hoping to hear a little bit about the difference between those and specifically how much the city or we, the public, invest, like, per unit with these incentives to get a unit of affordable housing Mhmm. Versus get a unit of market rate?

So the multifamily tax exemption is the only program that offers both either market rate or income based, and the income based is at 80% of AMI which is really close to market. The construction sales tax deferrals also 80% for ten years and well, saves about 7% of the construction costs since they're not paying sales tax. Affordable housing fund, we invest about 75,000 per unit and those are deeply affordable at for tenants that are at 50% of area median income or below. Then And our CDBG and home funds, we tend to target those at really low income between 5060% of AMI as well. They have more flexible funding funding per unit, but our our entitlement funds are so limited and we use them for rental assistance in different program activities as well.

So, there's they don't have a big impact on on housing units on a year to year basis. And then most of the zoning code flexibilities, there's there's they allow affordable housing in a commercial zone, and so there's not not really a cost, but it's just just greater flexibility in where you can develop Part of that. And there's there's other Yeah. Zoning flexibilities as well. Yeah.

And I can add that at least data from the states indicates that typically about 10% of funding for affordable projects comes from the local level which equates to about 55,000 per unit. So, that was 2024 data. I think we're still waiting on 2025 data but I think and with federal funding changing that need for the local components may increase. But, yeah, historically around 10% project costs come from local sources. And

then a big a big piece of our local funding is is a small piece of the project funding, but then it leverages either LITEC or state housing trust fund dollars that really pull the project together.

And then, Shimshun, we talked briefly about this. So if you're saying about 10% of the cost of an affordable housing unit is local. I mean, do you have a sense based on all the things we're doing and proposing to do, what percentage cost per unit that is moving on the private side? I mean, my sense is it's pretty low, but do you have like a sense of that?

Yeah. For are you for market rate

For market rate. Yeah.

Yeah. For market rates, I mean, even with all these things together, I think we're not even breaking 1%. So, it's it's pretty the the deferrals are helpful and I think a lot of the benefit from them isn't purely financial. It's more on how the deal is structured and when investors and other money in the deal needs to be spent and less straight financials. So the straight financial benefit is probably less than half a percent but there's other benefits that make the project more easily achievable.

Okay.

That's the best we could do on a twenty four hours notice.

That's right. You. Commissioner Liddell?

Is the application take a long time to fill out? Or is it trying to be simplified and make it more attractive?

I don't know if any other staff can speak to our experience. We we have this for single family permits now, or a deferral option. It's not exactly the same, but certainly the goal is going to be to make it easily applied for.

So an applicant wouldn't be put off by owner's paperwork, I assume.

No. Certainly, strive for that not to happen.

Thank you.

Okay. Just one for me. That graph that was updated from last time that we'd seen it, is that year to date or year to the date of the update for the record?

The number of permits issued?

Yeah. Is that, like, the first six months of the year? I guess what?

I I I think Sam gave a verbal update on the twenty twenty five numbers that bumped them up just a little bit to to bring them to June 30, basically. But otherwise, the the others should be complete.

Great. And then just to touch back on, I think, looking at the projected value of the deferral and interest of the the impact there, Can you just sort of touch back on that point about what that really represents?

Yeah. Let me just speak to this because I think I think this is a really important one. So so there's a there's a there's a sort of potential value of the deferral to the development. The other side of that is the the sort of lost revenue to the city in the interest that we would have made on that revenue in the time between when we would have collected it to when we're gonna collect it now. And I I think, you know, our our biennial budget is $2,100,000,000, so we're talking about a few $100,000 relative to so not not a huge impact, but I mean, surely that's a big number for a regular person.

I do wanna just point out though that that it's not like that interest revenue is guaranteed. If a project doesn't make make a move forward, it doesn't pay impact fees. If we don't get impact fees, we don't earn any interest on those impact fees. And so, yes, this is a sense like there is some opportunity cost here on behalf of the city, but the other side of not doing anything right is is is not nothing. The likelihood you know, we're trying to move those projects that are on the edge to being able to move forward in a very difficult development environment.

For a lot of those projects, if if they don't have these tools to move forward in that in in that challenging environment, then then they just don't and we don't get any impact fees or any interest. So I I just I think it's important for people to realize that that lost potential revenue is not guaranteed. It's not like general fund, right? Like that's coming from the development moving forward.

Perfect. Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking to underscore. I appreciate that. Okay. I think that takes us to is there anyone signed up to give public testimony on this hearing item?

No. There is no one signed up.

Okay. There being no further comments then, that concludes the public testimony part of this hearing. So that moves us into discussion. Commissioner Cavill, what are your thoughts?

I think pretty much what's been

said in this year

already. I don't know practically how much this will move the needle, but I think there's some reason to think it could, and it seems worth trying. So sounds like it's good initiative, you know, throw our hat in the ring on.

Vice chair Powell, what are your thoughts?

Yeah. I agree with my fellow commissioner here that it's it's incremental and and a positive direction for housing production. I my kind of comment is that, you know, we've got two scenarios here, you know, one at earning potential 6% interest, one at earning potential four, and that, of course, depends on the federal funds rate and interest rates at a national and international level. But one way I think about this is that construction lending costs are about double what these two options are. And so the there is a a proportionally greater benefit to the developer than a loss to the public in with this initiative.

So it's almost like you're getting your public dollar matched rather than just giving it away for every, you know, for every dollar that we defer or is lost revenue through lost interest, the housing production side is is gaining $2, if that makes sense. So it's not an equal trade off. We're actually getting a beneficial trade off just because construction lending rates are so much higher than the city could earn at this interest rate. And I think that that type of program is things that we should be looking for is how do we find things where $1 from from public goes $2.03, $45 towards housing production. So anyway, all this to say, I like it.

Commissioner O'Dell?

I'm in support and I think it's a really good reflection on staff that you recognize the dynamics of the housing market and the economy and come up with creative ideas to spur that housing development when we face these kinds of adversities. So, I appreciate the initiative and that's one reason I support it. I'm ready to go.

Commissioner Beck, what are your thoughts?

I support him also. I think it's a great move and I like the structure of

it.

Commissioner Wheeler.

I'm very much in support of this and I'm very grateful for the city's effort to try to push as many projects forward as we can.

Commissioner Jay?

I'm also very much in support

of this, a half a percent is

still half a percent and if

we can twist as many knobs and pull

as many levers as we can to help make it easier to build, then let's do it on especially any proposals that impact the supply side of the market. Look forward to voting on this. Thank you both and thank you to all the staff for working on this.

My comments really just are constituted of saying, I think, that this graph and this downward trend are impactful in ways that I think far exceed any discussion of lost revenue from deferment, which, again, to underscore deputy director Kennedy's point, isn't even revenue that's guaranteed in the first place. And so if we can do anything to to give that little graph the upswing it it needs, then I'm I'm all in favor of that. Do any of my fellow commissioners feel like they need further discussion to come to a resolution on that item? I'm getting the sense that they don't. In that case, the chair will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion. Okay. That based on findings in the staff report in 07/08/2025 public hearing, the planning commission recommends approval of proposed changes to VMC 20 dot nine one five providing for impact fee deferral.

A motion has been offered. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion has been put forth and seconded. Please call the vote.

Commissioner Dre? Aye. Commissioner Wheeler? Aye. Commissioner Beck?

Aye.

Commissioner Cavill? Aye. Commissioner Liddell? Aye. Vice chair Pyle?

Aye.

Chair Otto Gwame?

Aye. The motion passes and the planning commission recommends approval of the changes as proposed.

Thank you.

Closes us out of that item and moves us into staff and commissioner communications. Everyone's favorite part. Are there any staff communications this month?

I just have one and wanted to let you all know that the biannual budget passed last night at council. It was adopted. In it is a long range planning manager position, which, as you know, has been vacant since I left it, and I've essentially been doing that job. And others, Brian, have been picking up the slack. So that will be a new position we'll be hiring for that will be overseeing the long range planning and equitable development teams, which and and we'll be engaging with the planning commission.

So just wanted to let you know that that's a kind of long sought big win for us. Also, super important in terms of succession planning for the day. Brian will never retire. And so just wanted to let you know that that was in the budget and and it would be important and the person that will end up engaging with you all when once we get someone on board. So

Excellent. Thank you. I was momentarily worried you were going to say that we were going to be handed off to them and we would no longer to have your presence here. That's I

haven't said that yet.

Well, As far as chair communications go or sorry. Other commissioner communications go, are there any communications from my fellow commissioners? Does anyone have anything to share with this body?

I just wanna thank Kale Hibbs for serving us for these few months. The food has been really good. But even better than the food is how you capture the discussions that we have in the minutes, and I've been around a while on this commission and there's a little variance, but these are really really good. So thank you for your expertise as well.

Yeah. And I sorry. I should say one more thing. I wanna welcome Marixa Acosta to the team and to the planning commission. So, yes, we have had a a long period of transition, post Julie transition, and it's been very hard on everyone. Kale has filled in amazingly and miraculously and probably done it for longer than they wanted. So very appreciative, and we're super excited to welcome Marixa. She brings tons of experience. She's already managing me very well and getting me to manage my time better. So anyway, it's gonna be great, and we're super excited to have you.

I'm glad you're here. And yeah. So Marksa will be around going forward and will be sort of consistently restaffed. So, yes, thank you for the reminder, Marjorie, as always.

Excellent. Welcome, Marixa. Any further communications from the other commissioners? Okay. Then I think that being all of the items on our agenda, the 07/08/2025 meeting of the City of Vancouver Planning Commission is hereby adjourned.