Tim, are we ready to start the meeting?
>> Great.
Welcome everyone. I, Council Member Jen,
call the February 3rd, 2026 City Council
Planning, Development, and Environment
Committee to order. There are no excused
absences. And the next item on the
agenda is public comment. Um, so we do
have some members of the public with us
in the audience today. Public comment.
This is an opportunity to provide
general comments. There will also be an
opportunity for public comments on each
agenda item after the presentation and
the committee's question and answer
period. Comments can be made in person
or virtually. Those who have signed up
in advance will be called on first. If
you're joining us virtually and would
like to make comments, please raise your
virtual hand or send the host a chat
message. If you're on the phone, press
star three. If you have joined by
computer or smartphone, look for hand
icon. Uh, if you are in the room and did
not sign up, there will be an
opportunity for you to raise your hand
if you'd like to speak before I close
this portion of the meeting. Clerk, has
anyone signed up to speak or indicated a
desire to speak this evening?
>> Yes, chair.
>> Great.
Um, okay. So, for those of you who are
here to make comments, we welcome
comments related to Isiqua's programs,
projects, services, or events. Comments
related to political campaigns are not
permitted when you're called on. For
virtual attendees, unmute your
microphone. For inerson attendees, step
up to the lectern and turn on the button
on the microphone. So, there's a button
at the bottom which will display a red
light. So, that turns the microphone on.
State your name and address or
relationship to the city. Speak clearly
and limit your comments to 3 to 5
minutes. And we're thankful for everyone
for sharing their input with us. So,
clerk um who's the first commenter?
>> Uh I have uh and I apologize if I say
this wrong. Uh Mahesh. Uh, Rebecca, were
you here to speak tonight for general
public comment or for an agenda item?
>> An agenda item. Okay. Um,
Verender Ma man, were you also here to
speak in general um tonight or to an
agenda item?
>> Agenda item. Okay. Then chair, I have uh
no one here to speak for general public
comment.
>> Great. Um
if there's no general comments then uh
the comments and specific agenda items
will be after the council's question and
answer period. Um so the next item on
the agenda is approval of the minutes.
The minutes were distributed to the
committee advance in advance. Are there
any corrections?
If no hearing none the minutes are
approved as presented.
Uh, the next item of business is COM
0213, early learning facilities fee
waver. And I'll hand it over to Kristen
Leon, planning manager, to present this
item,
>> Kristen, take it away.
>> All right. Thank you for your patience
while I got set up. My name is Kristen
Leon. I'm the planning manager for
community de community planning and
development department. and we're here
to talk about potentially waving traffic
impact fees for early learning centers.
So we have two questions
and issues to talk about tonight. Is one
does the committee agree with waving
traffic impact fees for early learning
centers? And the other is is the
committee interesting interested in
expanding fee waiverss to parks and fire
impact fees as well.
So, just a reminder that an impact fee
is a one-time payment against a
development or redevelopment that is
used to pay for public services such as
roads, parks, fire, and fire services
and schools. Um, it is proportional to
the amount of the impact that the
development will have on the city
system.
And lastly, when it comes to traffic
impact fees, any previous trips are
excluded from calculations from new
development.
So what we have found lately and the
reason we are bringing this to you is
that traffic impact fees have found to
be have been found to be a can be a
financial impediment or burden toward
the development of early family earning
early family or I'm sorry early learning
facilities in the city.
And as an example, we have here some of
the sample fees. So the one on the top
was a daycare center that opened in
2025. Its traffic impact fees were about
120,000. Its park fees were $2,200 and
its fire fees were $410.
In contrast, the a proposed development
that we have in place is for 180
students. The other one was for 60, but
the traffic impact fees would be almost
$380,000.
Parks are similar, about $2,300, and
fire would be just over $11,000. So, as
you can see, the traffic impact fees are
significantly more than the fire and
park fees that are charged toward
developments.
Thankfully, the state waves allows for
fee waivers for these. So, there are two
different options here for the fee
waivers. You can either do an 80% fee
waiver of the impact fees, which is
simple. It's just a flat simple 80%
wave. That's it. The other option is
that you can do a 100% fee waiver. If
that is done, um again, just like the
other one, it's simple. No public fees
are required to repay the 20, you know,
20%. Typically, if you wave 100 for for
affordable housing, if you wave 100% of
the fees, the city or the government has
to use public funds to repay 20% of
that. That doesn't that is not the case
with early learning facilities.
However, if you wave 100% of the fees, a
covenant is required to be recorded with
the property ensuring that 25% of the
enrolled students and families qualify
for state subsidized child care. If this
use is converted to another use, then
all of the impact fees that apply to
this property must be repaid to the
city. And if anytime during the year if
the required number of 25% of the
families and students falls below 25%
then 20% of what would have been the
total impact fees also has to be repaid
to the city.
So we have three options here. Uh the
first one is to just not wave the fees
and keep it as it is. The second is to
wave 100% of the traffic impact fees,
which then becomes a financial burden on
the city and that we have to find public
funds to repay 20% of that. And the
other option, which staff is
recommending, is to wave 80% of the fees
and just keep it clean and simple.
If the committee chooses to expand that
and move it to park and fire impact fees
as well, then option one, again, clean
and simple.
Option two, wave 100% of the parks and
impact fire fees. And again, you have to
repay 20% of that from public funds. And
option three, which is the one that this
administration recommends, is to just
not wave the parks and impact fees
because it's com relative to the traffic
impact fees, it's much much smaller.
So, the administration's recommendation
is to exempt early learning facilities
from 80% of traffic impact fees and move
this item forward to a regular council
meeting for consideration.
And if the committee opts to move it
forward tonight, it would go to the
February 23rd regular council meeting
for consideration.
And that is that is my presentation.
Have any answer any questions?
>> Are there any questions from the
committee on this item?
>> Uh, council member Martz.
>> Thank you. Uh, did this go before any
boards or commissions for review?
>> It did not.
>> All right. Thank you.
Uh, first just a clarifying question.
Uh, do I need to be called on? Sorry.
Okay, good. Sorry. Um, I'm new here. Um,
I think you I think you said the city
would be liable for or would be uh
required to pay back something under the
100% fee waiver situation. I don't see
that in the slides though. So, can you
elaborate on that?
>> Yes.
So,
I didn't spell it out. It's It's spelled
out a little bit more in the memo, but
might There we go. It says no public
under the 100% fee waiver, it says no
public funds are required for exempted
fees. So, under affordable housing fee
waivers, if you wave a 100% of the fees,
I probably just shouldn't have included
this at all because it's moot for both
examples, but if if you wave 100% of the
affordable housing fees, jurisdictions
are required to repay, you're allowed to
wave 80% free and clear, but the city
has to repay 20%
out of public funds other than capital
funds back to itself to cover that other
20%.
Pardon me.
>> No, the the No, I I'm talking Yes. Yes.
So, you're you're asking about what does
the city have to do if we wave 100%.
Correct. And the city would if we waved
100% under affordable housing would have
to repay 20% of the waved fees back to
ourselves. And I, like I said, I should
have just left it out of this because in
neither situation does the city have to
repay itself any fees. So that's just
moot here. So I apologize for the
confusion.
>> Okay. Could So it does not the city
would not in any situation have to repay
the fees. Is that what you're saying?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Any other questions?
>> I guess I have I guess I have to call
myself. Sorry, I'm new here as chair. Um
so my question is are there other
jurisdictions that have done um these
early learning facility fee wavers? I
know that you know in I believe in
Isiquan and many other cities there's
fee wavers for affordable housing
>> there are um let's see
I put that in here.
Uh yes so uh De Moines has a 50% waiver.
Blaine and Tacoma have an 80% waiver.
Shoreline has a 100% waiver of fees and
Mount Lake Terrace has a 100% waiver or
whatever is proportionate to the number
of enrolled students. So if 50% apply,
they would comply with you know are
eligible for um services then they would
wave a 50% fee.
>> Um okay, one more random question. So on
the slide where you showed the breakdown
in fees between the two different
facilities, it seemed like the traffic
fee was, you know, roughly proportionate
to the number of students. Like, you
know, it's three times as high for 180
students versus 60 students. Why is the
fire fee so drastically different
between these two? And why is parks the
same?
>> Fire impact fees, if I'm correct, went
way up this year.
>> Yeah.
>> And that's why because the other one,
their building permit was issued prior
to the new impact fee
>> schedule.
>> Yeah.
>> So it was a lot lower. We did talk about
the fire impact fees last year. So that
make makes sense that it's just due to
timing issue. Okay. Thank you.
>> Council member Martz.
>> So, uh, I'm going to ask you to
speculate, and if you're not comfortable
speculating, you can phone a friend, but
why don't any other cities on the east
side do anything like this? Why don't
our our friends to the north that we
tend to model ourselves on, Redmond and
Kirkland? You know, this this wasn't
adopted for early learning facilities
until 2023.
>> And my guess, I am going to speculate,
is that a lot of people just don't know
about it.
>> We're just cooler than they are.
>> We are so cool.
>> Okay. Yes,
>> I like that answer. Thank you.
>> Any other questions from the committee?
Council member Nichols.
>> Uh, one more. What did the the center
request as far as a waiver? What
percentage?
>> All right. What is the
>> what did I assume they requested a
waiver of some kind. What percentage did
they did they request?
>> The applicant is here tonight and
they're going to speak to that but they
they are going to request 100% fee
waiver.
>> Great. Any other questions?
Uh
if there's no more questions from the
committee, the committee will now accept
public comments about this agenda item.
As stated earlier, comments can be made
in person or virtually. Those who have
signed up in advance will be called on
first. Um, if you're joining virtually
and would like to make comments, please
raise your virtual hand or send the host
a chat message. If you're on the phone,
press star three. If you've joined by
computer, smartphone, look for hand
icon. Um, if you are in the room and did
not sign up, there will be an
opportunity for you to raise your hand
if you'd like to speak before I close
this portion of the meeting, but it
seems like the people in this room have
signed up. Um so clerk has anyone signed
up to speak this evening on this agenda
item?
>> I I believe so shar.
>> Okay great
>> come up.
>> Uh first I have uh Mahesh
>> Raaka.
Great. Thank you.
>> Okay.
Good evening council members. Uh my name
is Mahesh Raaka and I have been a
Washington state resident for over 16
years and Ishaka has a special place in
my life. This is where I had my first
job in the United States.
Uh I'm here today as a childare operator
and as uh as a someone who wants to
invest back into supporting the working
families.
I'm proposing a building kids care
childcare center in Ishakwa focused on
infants, toddlers, preschoolers and
low-income families and young parents.
This center would also create stable
jobs for more than 20 local families.
And childare is not a luxury. It is an
essential infrastructure. When families
have childare, parents can work,
business can retain employees and
children start school early to succeed.
So the data shows a clear shortage in
Ishakwa. Within a 5 milesi radius there
are over 9,000 childrens under six but
only about 4,000 licensed childcare
seats available in Isakwa. So it clearly
says like you know half of the
children's doesn't have the access to
the child care
even before affordability or the weight
list are considered. So the biggest gap
is actually infant and toddler care.
Many centers don't offer it at all which
which drives the cost up and puts care
out of reach for young parents early in
their careers. Ishakqua may be seen as
high income but school data tells a
different story. In the Ishaka school
district about 15% of students are
economically disadvantaged.
These families already live here and
their needs starts way before the
kindergarten.
At building kids uh Lenwood center we
have like you know 30% of the families
we serve our lowincome households and we
choose to serve infants and toddlers
even though it's the hardest and most
expensive care to provide. That reflects
who we are at the corporate level. The
building kids franchiser donates 25% of
its profits to support the under
underprivileged children. That mission
guides how we operate locally. The
challenge in Ishakqua is the impact fee
which for this project are close to
$400,000.
Child care centers cannot absorb cost
like this and they goes straight into
the tions. So making access harder for
the families who need it most.
That's why we are respectfully asking
the council to consider a 100% impact
fee reduction. Uh this is not a
giveaway. It is a targeted policy
decision that treats child care as
critical community infrastructure by
supporting the families creating the
jobs and helping children succeed from
very beginning. So thank you for your
time and your thoughtful consultations.
We sincerely hope the council will
consider 100% impact fee reduction for
this project. And thank you council
members for your service.
Thank you.
Um,
uh, clerk, is there anyone else signed
up to speak? I guess
>> you're here. So, uh, I'll I'd like to
invite you up to, uh, speak.
>> Good evening, council members. This is
Virinder Man.
I'm the one of the coowner for this new
preschool we are trying to open. And I'm
here tonight
because we are converting a office
building which has not been used for
last one and a half year in our city and
we are going to convert into a
preschool.
However, I hit a wall. That wall is
$400,000 wall
and that is a remaining impact fees
assessment after making a change of use
grades as well. While I I do understand
the need for infrastructure funding, I'm
asking the council to view child care
not as a standard commercial
development, but as essential social
infrastructure our city truly needs.
Isaku is already doing incredible work
with housing, especially with the
affordable housing. We see a trail head
project and our partnership,
but housing is only half of the
affordability equations.
If the family has a rent restricted
apartments but cannot find accessible
care, they are not truly living
affordably.
A $400,000 impact fees on an adaptive
reuse project such as is kind of entry
tax for the young families. This massive
upfront cost is a single greatest hurdle
in preventing us from offering the below
market rate slots for our new generation
what they need. The precedent for relief
is already exist under Isakua municipal
code 3.72. We wave the fees for
affordable housing because it served the
broad purpose for the public.
Under RCW82.02.60,
the state has granted you explicit
authority to do the same for early
learning facilities
without needing to backfill from our
current city budget.
I'm asking for a waiver for this balance
in exchange for a binding community
covenant. We are ready to sign and we
will commit to prioritize those families
in our city for affordable housing
initiative. We are not asking for a
gift. We are asking for an investment in
the families who make Isakua work.
Every dollar saved on this project from
the impact fees will directly go to our
communities to our families and which
will lower the barrier to entry for the
Isakqua working parents. Let's make sure
Isakqua is not just a place where family
can afford to sleep but a place where
they can afford to live, work and grow
together. Thank you for your time and I
look forward to discussing how we can
create a specific waiver pathway for
early learning in our city. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much
clerk. Are there any more speakers
signed up to speak?
>> No, chair. Not at this time.
>> Great. Um,
council member Jang, may I make one
correction?
>> Yes.
>> I stand corrected on the fire impact
fees. Fire impact fees. The impact piece
did incre did increase last year due
just to inflation. But the bigger
difference is that the
daycare center or early learning
facility that was constructed previously
was only 2,000 square feet. The proposed
facility here is just over 11,000 square
feet. And that is where the difference
comes from.
>> Great. Thank you.
Um,
okay. At this point, is it more uh
question answer? Or is it just uh
committee discussion?
Committee discussion. Okay.
Uh Council Member Nichols, you look like
you would like to speak.
Also, just process-wise, this is
deliberative. Just any comments? Okay.
Um
so, I have some thoughts on daycare in
Isiqua and what the community will
benefit from and what these types of
fees may prevent. So, I have two kids.
um when they were little um we would we
were a part of traffic that would take
them to child care. The interesting bit
about that though is that we drove about
a half an hour south to try to get less
expensive child care because childcare
in Isqua is quite expensive. Um had
there been more readily available lowerc
cost childare in Isqua we would have not
done that and we would have had a lower
impact on our traffic. Um, and
I think that's probably a generalizable
concept. If we can put more tra if we
can put more childcare within Isiqua, it
I struggle to understand how our impact
fees
basically gel with that concept. Like
this is something that if we put more of
it in a squat, we will have less people
having to go elsewhere. Um
I don't think we are at a situation
where we will have enough people going
into Isqual where this is a traffic
increase. So while I I can see many
situations where traffic fees make
sense, this in particular just frankly
does not to me. Um so if we're if we
have a situation where the applicant is
requesting a 100% fee waiver um there's
there if I understand correctly um there
is no impact on the city's fund has to
compensate for that except for not
getting the impact fees in its in its uh
budget. um and they are willing to
commit to these requirements that say um
that that are quite beneficial to the
community as far as uh requiring 25% of
the children to qualify for state
subsidized childare. This is this is
something that's hard and it's hard to
find in our community. So, I would I
would support a 100% fee waver and I
think it's a uh it also raises broader
questions as to our fee structures
overall as to whether we are
appropriately calculating what a traffic
impact is relative to the benefit to a
community of something like this
facility.
Well, um, so that argument I think it's
also true about hair salons and grocery
stores and convenience stores. I think
if you have them closer, you don't have
to go as far away to get the things that
you need. So, I'm not sure
um
I'm not sure about that particular
argument. Bottom line is we don't have
enough uh daycare options for working
families in our city. Uh I'm in favor of
at least 80%. Um I don't know if I'm in
favor of 100%.
Um I think that these fees are there
because businesses do have an impact and
we have $350 million of uh unadressed
infrastructure. um because the growth
that's occurred in our city over the
last 30 years, um we've not been able to
recoup the costs of that growth. So, I'm
I'm
a little skeptical of of of going to the
point where businesses don't have to pay
for any of the uh infrastructure that
their that their uh traffic generates.
So, I got to think about it. I'm in
favor of at least 80. Uh I'm I'm
probably not there for 100% yet.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council Member MZ. Am I
allowed to ask a question in this
section? Um, okay. So, um, it says for
the 100% fee waiver, there is a required
covenant assuring 25% of the children
and families qualify for state
subsidized child care. Who is in charge
of enforcing and um, compliance with
this covenant?
>> Very good question. Uh, the Department
of Children, Youth, and Families
monitors that. I believe the daycarees
are required to submit their
information. They monitor that and if
they fall below um I would have to check
on this. I don't know if we check
annually to see if they still comply or
if DCF informs us. I'm not sure which
way that goes.
>> Okay. And so, you know, if they were to
fall out of compliance, then there would
be some mechanism by which then, you
know, we would potentially collect that
waved impact fee. Correct. Okay.
Thanks. That's good to know because I
think part of my concern with the 100%
fee waiver was like, you know, are we
going to have to go check every year to
make sure they're in compliance and that
seems like
quite an additional cost for us. Um, is
the policy decision today whether to
grant a fee waiver to this specific
facility or is it about whether we want
to grant fee waivers to like childcare
facilities at large?
>> This would be for all childcare
facilities. It would be in the It would
be a change to the title three the code
and would apply to all facilities.
>> Okay.
Um any other discussion?
>> Yeah, I actually have one more question.
I I thought of it before and I just uh I
just missed it or I just I didn't come
back to it. So if we choose the 100%
people can only do the 100% option. They
can't do the 80% option.
That's a question.
I realize that I'm thinking we've had
affordable housing in place for so long.
We've never done no one's ever asked for
a different one.
>> I I don't see why we couldn't if
somebody wants to pay some.
>> The the reason that I ask is there's I
have a particular concern. So scenarios
that you were going through, you were
talking about if somebody wanted to go
use a diff do a different use later for
that land. Let's say you you go you have
a business uh you have a daycare huzzah.
It works great. 20 years an entire
generation of kids come up. Uh then at
the end of that you go to sell and you
and somebody wants to do something else
with the land. They have a $400,000
bill. Right. So that 100% one has the
potential to create um sort of a golden
handcuffs on the property. Right.
>> Correct.
>> So that's why I was asking about whether
if we chose the 100% if somebody if
somebody else wanted to come in I
understand why this particular applicant
would like it to be the full 100%. I
could see an applicant who would come in
who would say, "No, I want to do the
80%." Because down the road, I want to
keep my options open for what I do with
this extremely valuable piece of
property. And you're saying they would
be able to do that if they were so
inclined?
>> I would have to double check with
finance. I don't see why not.
>> I think you have a a helper.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. I mean, we can certainly write the
ordinance that way. we would have to
bake it into our you know what how the
waiver works. So at at applicant's
discretion if they just want to do an
80% and not have to do the monitoring uh
then we would just take that they would
pay their 20%. And the other option I
think uh the questions about who
monitors and who doesn't monitor you
know earlier we were talking uh to the
applicant um DC um the state agency that
issues them a license for running the
daycare has a different program by which
they have some incentives for the
daycare operators to serve more
low-income families. So if they
participate in that program they that
will be the responsibility of the state
agency to to get some of that
documentation from the families of what
is their income you know all that will
go into um make documenting that
criteria there's still going to be a
responsibility with the city and we'll
have to come up with a program how that
will function you know annual reports
that they give us maybe it's a report
from DCYF or it's that the actual
enrollment of the students. If it falls
below the 25% then the applicant would
be responsible for paying the 20%. It'll
be up to the city to collect that money
and we would have to come up with a
program of how we go after applicants
after the permit has been issued. And so
I think those logistics of
implementation if council chooses to go
the path of 100% will need to be worked
out.
>> Thank you. I have I have one more
thought on the percentage and that um I
think it was Shoreline or it's Mont Lake
who does 100% or proportionate. So we do
have the flexibility according to the
state to write that into code. Yes.
>> Uh council member Nichols.
>> Okay. I want to clarify what that means
on the proportionate side of things. So
um my understanding but I I think I was
wrong here so please help me with this.
Um, if this for for if this goes into
code, is there a way to do this where
the 100% fee waver only applies if a an
applicant is willing to commit to the
affordable affordability side of things?
>> Yes. And that is the state law if they
choose to do
>> Yes. That that is how it would be.
Would you restate your question, please,
because I think I misheard it.
If this goes into code,
>> would the 100% fee waiver apply to every
early learning center, no matter what,
or would it only apply if they were
willing to commit to the 25%
um subsidized
there's a variety of things here, but
basically the afford I'll just summarize
it as the affordability side of things.
>> If they wanted to do the 100% then they
would be required to do the 25%. They
can't do it without that,
>> but the 80%. So then if they don't then
it falls back to the 80%. Is that
correct?
>> If the city chooses to do one or the
other and adopt 80% into the code then
yes they could opt for the 80%.
>> Okay. So they could do either.
>> Yes.
>> Um so it doesn't require all early
learning centers to be 100%.
>> Right. But it it depends on how the
code's written. So if if we put just one
of those in there that the city waves
100% but you have to do these things
then that's in the code. The city could
say we wave we wave 80% for everything.
The city could also write in code we
wave 80% or we wave 100%. It's the
applicant's pick.
>> Okay. So just to be extra certain both
ways. So we could write this as 100% fee
waiver if you have the 25%
affordability, 80% fee waiver if you do
not.
>> Okay. And then to council member Mart's
question, so or point um on the um
guess what happens after the land is
sold? What happens when they they try to
sell it? So um
what does happen? So if if a 100% fee
waiver if if an applicant with a 100%
fee waiver um goes to sell that land
what happens I guess in two situations.
One where let's go three um one where
the the purchaser wants to maintain
those 25% affordability requirements.
two where they want to remain an early
learning center but do not want to
maintain those 25% requirements and
three where they want to do something
completely different.
>> If they want to be completely something
completely different they have to repay
all of the impact fees that would have
been that would have been assessed had
the exemptions not been allowed had not
been in place. if they want to change it
to a continue using an early learning
center that but they don't want the fees
waved. I can't imagine that happening.
Oh, but they don't want to comply but
they don't want to do the 25% then they
would I would imagine and again I would
have to check with finance but I would
imagine that they would have to pay a
portion of the fees back.
>> Okay.
>> Do you know any different?
>> Do you know any different? We want to
make sure we understand your question.
Um, I understood you're saying if the ch
if there's a change of use, so if you
have a daycare and they, you know,
decide to do some other business and
some other business takes over the
building. Is that your first scenario?
>> Right. And they have to pay back.
>> Yeah.
>> So then we would just uh look at the new
use, whoever is going to occupy the
building and then determine what their
impact fees are. if it converts back
into an office use, you know, what what
does the delta change? Um, so anytime
there's a change of use, it's the delta
difference of the new impact fees that
our code allows us to charge.
>> I I think I'm asking a little more okay
than that. So basically, is this um is
the fee waiver baked into the change of
use no matter what or do you just do you
just assess impact fees based on the new
>> correct use? the new new would apply. I
mean, we are not going to go back. If
the use ceases to exist, it's no longer
a daycare over the life of the building,
then we don't go back and collect the
daycare fees because it's no longer a
daycare anymore.
>> So, it's it's not it's it's not baked in
as
>> for as long as they are operating it as
a daycare. If they fall below that
threshold, then they owe the the
difference.
>> Okay,
>> that's our understanding of how it
works. Council member Martz,
>> still confused. So, um, on slide that
happens to be page 17 of 126 in the page
pages of the packet, the state fee
waiver slide where it's got 80% fee
waiver at the top and 100% fee waiver
below that. There's a sentence in the
100% fee waiver that says if converted
to another use, owner must pay the
impact fees in effect at the time of
conversion. Is that really also true for
the 80%? Should that also be is that
what I heard you say a minute ago?
No, for 80 for 80%. No.
>> So, so in the hypothetical, if I if I
open the 200 uh spot daycare and I would
normally have to face a $400,000 impact
fee and I go for the 80 and and they
have an option of the 80% fee waiver.
So, I pay uh uh why am I blanking on it?
Uh 10 $100,000, right? Um no, $80,000%.
Yeah, sorry. Uh, yeah, 20 the percent.
Um, and then I go to sell it later, does
the person who take it over, do do they
have to pay the the difference back up
to 400k if they're if they're open in a
bowling alley or whatever,
>> whatever the use is. So, if it remains a
daycare, then then those provisions will
continue to to be in.
>> So, that sentence is in effect for the
80% fee waiver.
>> What you just said,
>> you want us to pull up the slide?
>> Yes, please do. I I think you're saying
that that that item is also true for the
80% fee waiver. That it's true in both
cases.
>> If converted to another use, owner must
pay the impact fees in effect at the
time of conversion. I think that's what
you just said for the 80% scenario. Yes.
>> Correct. So that comes directly from the
state law.
>> I understand. I'm just trying to
understand the slide because you've got
it under the 100% but you don't have it
under the 80%. I'm just trying to
understand.
>> Yeah. Let let's pull up the slide
because
let's understand it doesn't let me move.
There we go. Because my concern about
people tying their hands about potential
financials of the future use of their
property is different if if it's also
true for the 80%.
>> Um so my question is I mean I think
>> can we finish that one first?
>> So I this is pulled directly from state
law and so what I'm saying is that's a
really good question because this is
exactly how it was written under the
RCW. So that I think is going to require
a little bit more research on our part.
Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Um, okay. So, my understanding is if
converted into another use, owner must
pay the full impact fees related to
other use that is not daycare at the
time of conversion. Right? So, that's
essentially it's the same thing as you
know converting an office to a daycare.
You have to pay the impact fee when
you're converting use for any if you
convert it back to an office then you'd
have to pay the impact fee and that's
the case if you're doing any kind of
change of use, right? So, it would apply
whether or not there's a fee waiver,
>> right? Right. So essentially it means
that the the fee waiver isn't in
perpetuity. If the use changes you have
to pay the impact fee that would be in
time at the place place at the time of
conversion. Yeah.
>> And similar with the 80% fee waiver that
would only apply for child care. Like we
shouldn't say oh well if you had a if
there was a childare at some point in
the past then you can have an 80% fee
waver into perpetuity.
>> So we would write that third bullet
point into the 80% fee waiver as well.
That's that is correct. So I think what
you're asking is are the number three
and number four applicable to the a
bullet points applicable to the 80% fee
waiver. So are are it's it's like yes
the answer with that would be yes except
for number fourth bullet point is
talking about 20% payback. So that would
not be applicable. But the third bullet
point applies in the 80% fee waiver. And
that's just generally how impact fees
work. Whenever there's a change of use,
not unrelated to daycare, if there's any
change of use, you pay the delta
difference.
>> Great. Thank you. Any other discussion,
questions, comments?
Uh, Council Member Nichols,
>> I think you just answered Council Member
Mars's question.
Is that on whether bullet point three
applies to 80%. It sounded like before
you said you needed more time. Was that
answered or do you still need more time?
And did I understand correctly that the
your question was answered?
>> So basically what happens there, let's
pretend there are no fee wavers in
place. When an off when a use converts
to another use, you are required to pay
the impact fees that are in place at
that time
whether or not there are fee wavers. And
that would be the situation here too. So
if the daycare center leaves, whether we
give them an 80% or 100%.
Whatever use comes in after that, if it
is not a daycare center, they are
required to pay whatever impact fees
would be in place at that time
for any development, fee waver or not. K
is I'm sorry to be blunt, but is that a
yes or a no? Like
>> I think it's a yes. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So I guess we didn't answer your
question, did we? Okay.
>> Any other council discussion?
Um if not, so I think the two questions
in front of us are I guess the question
is does the committee agree with waving
traffic impact fees for early learning
facilities? The sub question of that is
whether we should do 80%, 100% or both.
Um so let's tackle that first question
first. Council member Marts.
>> Yeah. Um I'm probably going to be a no
this evening. If if the motion is to
where where I think it's heading, which
is I if if if the motion winds up being
for 100% I'm going to say no just
because I want to bring it back to full
counsel and have a little bit more time
to think about it. I hate to be
indecisive. I try not to be indecisive
but on this one. Um so a no for me is
not a no on the idea of um providing
some subsidy for uh daycare. It would be
I'm not ready to to say that uh a
daycare doesn't have to provide any
impact fees.
Council
>> member Nichols
>> are you asking to split these is from
from a discussion standpoint as first
are we in favor of anything and then
second what are the options?
Yeah, I think the first question is
basically do we agree with the concept
of waving traffic impact fees for
learning early learning facilities and
then the next question is do we want to
offer 80% 100% or both?
>> So I'll answer the first one first. Uh
yes, I agree with the concept of waving
some impact fees for early learning
centers.
>> Great.
And it sounds like council member Marks
is in favor of 80%.
>> I'm in I am in favor of the general idea
of providing subsidies to daycarees.
>> Okay, great. Uh I I think all three of
us agree on this point. Um and then the
next question is do we want to offer 80%
waivers, 100% waivers, or both?
Remember Nichols?
>> My preference would be both. I think
it's uh if if we can incentivize
affordable child childcare where we have
businesses that are willing to take on
that commitment and run with it. Um I
think that's a wonderful thing and we
should try to do whatever we can to
incentivize it. Um the only I'll leave
it at that. Um I I think otherwise if
they're not able to then fall back to
80% and it's still something that it's
it's something that we should be
incentivizing within our community that
is sorely lacking.
Council member Martz.
>> So, and my earlier understanding of the
difference between the 80 and the 100% I
could I could see an a case where
somebody would go for the 80%. Now that
we understand that there's a conversion
fee if it's sold for a non-daycare use,
then I don't see anybody choosing the
80% over the 100%. Because there they
don't bind themsel there's no there's no
upside to the 80%. um it's just money
that you don't get until you um sell the
property, right? So, what business
wouldn't want that cash now uh to be
able to be on their business? So, with
that, I I just don't see the the dual
use um as
something that anybody would take. So,
um, I, you know, like I said, I'm I'm at
this point more inclined towards 80%
than I am towards 100, but I'm I'm
willing to revisit it when this come if
this comes back to full council.
>> Thank you, Council Council Member
Nichols. Uh just on that point, I I do
see a situation where someone would want
the 80% and that's if they don't want to
re to accept the 25% affordability
requirements um which I could imagine
would have quite a substantial negative
impact on the um revenue of a of a
daycare center and um would be something
that would not be by default be
something that certainly the higher cost
daycare centers that are out there would
want to go for.
Yeah, I think for that reason, you know,
I think we should provide I agree with
the rest of the committee that we should
provide subsidies to childcare
facilities. Um, and also we should
provide extra subsidies to childcare
facilities that are serving low-income
families. And I think, you know, if that
additional 20% of fee waiver makes it so
that, you know, some of these childcare
facilities are then able to serve that
population. I think honestly like a
onetime $80,000 subsidy to provide and
you know for 180 kids 45 of them are
going to be subsidized slots. That's
pretty like for the value that we're
getting I I actually think it's pretty
good value. So I think um my approach or
my preferred approach would be we can
put both of them in code. I do think
though since we um did not have the
chance to review any ordinance language
um I think uh I guess
is would this come back to the full
council on consent or regular business?
I I do think this is something worth
discussing on
>> you can read.
>> Okay. Oh, I can
>> you can ask them what they
>> Yeah. And okay,
>> the ordinance was included in the packet
as exhibit A.
>> Okay. Um
I guess I did see that. Um so this
ordinance is just for the 80%, right? So
if we're going to do the um 100% fee
waiver, then
uh
that would be different ordinance
language.
>> Yes, that would be need that would need
to be revised.
>> Okay. Then in that case, I mean, I don't
want to keep I don't want to like drag
this on forever. So,
>> oh, Council Member Mart.
>> Well, at the risk of of seeming uh
flaky, I uh and and reversing myself one
more time, I have actually been
convinced by the two of you, and so I
now support the idea of moving forward
with both. So, my recommendation would
be that we move forward with a 3 to 0
and ask the administration to revise the
language for um full council regular
business would be my recommendation.
>> Great. Thank you, Council Member Martz.
You're so much more uh experienced and
know all the different ways that things
can go. Um great. Um Council Member
Nichols, do you have any thoughts on
Council Member Mark's proposal?
>> Uh no. Oh, I would just hope that we can
move it quickly so that uh the the
business that wants to bring the service
to our community can uh have certainty
as to what its cost will be as quickly
as possible.
>> Great. Then I think uh I would request
that the administration revise the
ordinance to reflect our the committee's
preference to have an option both for
80% or 100% fee wavers um and bring it
back on regular business in the March
2nd council meeting.
>> I apologize. Did you all discuss the
parks and impact fee?
>> Oh, we didn't. We did not. Okay. Um
Okay.
>> Sorry about that. So, okay. The parks
and fire impact fees. What are our
thoughts on that? And oh, go ahead,
Council Member M.
>> Sure. So, the recommendation is to not
uh offer a uh
uh in or I'm blanking on the word,
right? To to keep the waiver to offer
waiver, right? Because the amounts are
so small.
>> So, I support the administration's
recommendation.
>> Great.
Council
member Nichols,
>> I
agree. I think we should support that
administration's recommendation. The
parks recom park parks difference is the
same. Um the fire is significantly
larger, but it's also in the context of
overall larger fire costs that I don't
think we can really tackle as a part of
this conversation.
>> Agreed. And council member Nichols, I
think out of the three of us, I was the
one who was on this committee when we
talked about fire impact fees last year.
So, it is essentially a pass through fee
that we collect and then pay directly to
Eastside Fire and Rescue. So, if we wave
the fee, we as a city still have to pay
it, unfortunately. So, um I agree with
the I mean, you know, $2,000 for park
impact fees seems fine. And
unfortunately, uh just the way that our
fire services are structured, we do have
to pay that fee regardless of whether we
want to or not. So, um,
uh, I agree with the administration's
direction not to wave the parks and fire
impact fees as well, especially just
given how much the the magnitude of
those is so much lar so much smaller
than for the, uh,
uh, traffic impact fees. So, um, with
that, I think, as I mentioned earlier,
the, uh, the committee would like to
bring this back on regular business at
the March 2nd council meeting with an
ordinance that allows for both the 80%
and 100% fee wavers.
>> Okay. And would you like this to be on
regular or consent?
>> Uh, regular business?
>> Regular.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Because it's a pretty significant policy
change, so we should have the discussion
with the full council.
>> Great. Thank you.
Okay, that was quite the media uh agenda
item. So, the next item of business is
COM 0194, the 2026 docket of proposed
comprehensive plan amendments. Uh, and
I'll hand it over to Kate Kaney,
principal planner, to present this item.
Thank you.
Okay, sorry about that. Took me a little
while to catch up with the uh
technology. So, um thank you. My name is
Kate Kaney and I am principal planner
here. Uh today is my the end of my third
month. So, uh it's been wonderful to be
here. Um I'm here to present uh to you
on the 2026 docket of proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Um
really I have uh two requests of the
committee. First is that uh you will
review the uh proposed amendments as I
uh brief you and then second we'd like
your guidance on uh which of the
proposals to move forward to full
council for establishment on the final
docket uh which will then be uh more
fully analyzed and uh drafted into
amendments over the next year.
So, a major consideration um as you're
thinking of the proposals when we do
that review is whether you would
recommend moving all of the docket items
as presented or if any refinements are
needed to um the docket items.
So, I wanted to start with just a little
background um on the comprehensive plan,
the amendment process kind of globally
and then uh more procedurally here in
Isiqua. So there are really two types of
amendment processes uh to change the
comprehensive plan. There's the major
update called the periodic update. The
state requires that every 10 years. Um
there are requirements from the growth
management act that cities and counties
actually update their visions, their
growth policies that includes targets
for population and jobs. There's a lot
of analysis. There's a lot of community
engagement to uh put together the city's
vision for a 20-year period. So isqua's
last periodic update and this was part
of the overall region um all cities um
updated their plans to meet the state's
requirements in 2024 for the period of
2019 through 2044. So that major update
happened pretty recently. Now cities do
annual amendment processes. Some even do
every other year, but ISQUAD chooses
also to open up the comprehensive plan
every year to the public. And um
internally um in ter in terms of this
type of update, they're really looking
at u minor amendments uh because of the
understanding that you know huge changes
were just done when the the growth
strategies and and policies were reset
as part of a periodic update process. Um
so it is important that um in these
amendment processes that the changes
align and implement the existing
comprehensive plan.
A little more on process. Um the state
uh is interested in uh continuous uh
public participation and so requires
cities and counties to open up their
comprehensive plans and to establish
procedures for doing amendments to the
plan. This is often called a docket
process or a docketing process. Um,
amendments to the comprehensive plan are
only allowed once a year. There are some
special circumstances, but by and large
it is once a year. Um, in the city, uh,
the city's municipal code establishes
those pre procedures and criteria for
amending the comprehensive plan. Um,
including the need for docket proposals
to be reviewed prior to initiating a
full amendment process.
uh some of the criteria that is in the
code um talks about this kind of
two-step process for proposals. So
proposals must meet one of this first
set of criteria. Um for example, if it's
a sightsp specific thing where a
property owner wants to change a land
use. Um the questions uh that would need
to be met are whether the property is
suitable for development and whether the
change conforms with adjacent land uses
um or uh whether a state law or legal
order is requiring a change whether
that's a map amendment or a text
amendment or if there are technical
errors in the existing comprehensive
plan. Now if none of the criteria in
that first set are met then um the
second uh uh set of criteria um has to
be met. All all items have to be met or
all four criterion. So proposed
amendments uh would have to uh show that
the matter is being appropriately
addressed to the comprehensive plan that
they demonstrate public benefit enhance
public health safety safety and the
welfare of the city that uh the issue
would not more appropriately be
addressed through a city work program.
Um that the uh issue uh addresses uh
significantly changed circumstances
since the last comprehensive plan update
or amendment. um and that it that also
the proposal is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and the city regional
and state goals and policies um that
also exist and guide policies in the
city.
So that was a summary of the criteria um
for any proposal. Um this slide shows
the five proposed items on this year's
docket. They were all city initiated
proposals. This text is really small.
We're just showing you um all of them at
once. I will be going through each of
the pro proposals one by one so you get
a sense of what they are. This docket is
um by law posted um publicly and it's on
the city's website.
So wanted to start with an overview of
the first proposed amendment. So this
amendment um would really increase
alignment between the comprehensive plan
and the uh uh development regulations in
the land use code. um that this has to
do with land use designations and what
is proposed is that descriptions be
added to land use designations in the
comprehensive plan and that also
information be added that identifies the
zones that implement each land use
designation. So what you're seeing on
the right of your screen are the list of
the city's nine land use designations.
Not sure how much you can read. Um the
land use designations are really
important policy tools because they
establish the type of development that
is allowed in the city. That's why
fuller descriptions are necessary to
help kind of round that out um for the
for the public and for development
development community as well as um the
city itself. So the map to the right is
the comprehensive plan map also known as
the land use map. And that map is also
very important because it illustrates
where each land use designation, each
type of use is allowed. So for example,
if you look at the very bottom that of
the list, you've got your mixed use in
red. That's the land use designation
that would allow um higher intensity um
apartments with commercial uses or
office uh residential mixes. Um and also
the brown urban village. You can see
that clustered where um the central
Isiqua plan is and the city's regional
growth center. So these map that these
land use maps these comprehensive plan
maps illustrate where and how the city
wants to grow. They illustrate where the
land use designations
um are established and those land use
designations um also establish where
different types of zones are allowed to
be. So that although it's just
descriptions of land uses that we are
talking about, it's important because
the land use designations are as I said
a really important policy tool. So this
next slide I is um an example of a table
that shows the land use designations and
the comparable zones or the zones that
implement those land use designations.
The city used to have a table like this.
We'd like to add back that table just
for clarity. This information is
available in different places in the um
comp plan right now, but having it in
one place uh just makes it easier to
find um and and clarifies things for
users of those policies. So that's the
proposal in amendment number one. The
second proposal uh is one uh that was on
the docket last year, but because of a
lack of staff resources um it was uh
taken out of consideration. So last year
the proposal was named something
different, something like uh change the
name of single family zones. And when we
went back we decided to write a little
bit fuller description because uh this
proposal would not only clarify the
names of of the single family zones and
you can see those listed and there are
multiples of them with SF uh starting
them but would also clarify the land use
designations that help implement those
zones. And in fact, as we were looking
at the lowdensity and multif family land
use designations, the zones that
implemented them, our goal was to make
it clear where middle housing types are
allowed because it's not so clear from
the name. So what staff is proposing to
do is to go back and and look at whether
name changes should happen not only in
the zones but also in land use
designations for both lowdensity
residential, multif family residential
and the zones that you can see uh in
this table here under comparable zones.
So that is the second proposal.
Okay. Proposed amendment number three.
This proposal would update policies for
the central isa regional growth center.
under the RGC regional growth centers
are designated by the Puget Sound
Regional Council. Uh Isqua's uh RGC was
designated in 2015 and those are areas
around the region. I think they're more
than 30 in the 4ount region. Um where
the highest intensity growth is assumed
to happen and there need to be policies
and codes that support that growth
mostly transit oriented um type
development. um apartments, mixed use,
office, a variety of retail uses and
amenities and social infrastructure that
uh supports higher populations. So,
Puget Regional Council updated their uh
requirements for regional growth
centers. And while the city did some of
those updates as part of uh the major
periodic update in 2024, um we are
needing to come back to address um all
of the uh change requirements that PSRC
has. Um it's something a lot of cities
are doing right now. PSRC right now is
redesating
uh the uh older regional growth centers.
There are a bunch of new ones that uh
were uh created with this new set of
criteria that um has been developed. But
this is the opportunity now for uh the
city to complete the updates to uh
comply with all the PSRC's updated RGC
requirements.
>> Quick question, what's an example of uh
regional growth center policy update
that we would need to do?
>> Um that's a really good question. Um,
one of the, uh, requirements is to make
sure the population, job, and housing
targets for just the regional growth
center implement the updated targets in
the Isiqua 2024 major comprehensive plan
update. Um, the uh, that work wasn't
quite completed uh, during the last
update. So, that's one of the things we
need to pick up to get to the the
alignment that we need.
>> Thank you.
Okay. Uh the fourth out of the five uh
proposals is to uh undertake policy
updates uh to uh make sure there's
consistency between the comprehensive
plan and the 2024 park system plan
update. Uh the park staff ident
identified a few amendments that are
needed to uh really align. Well, um by
the way, there's state law that requires
that um the policies are consistent,
implementation strategies are consistent
with policies and that codes also um are
consistent with all of the above. So, we
often do these iterative update cycles
where um you know the policies might
change and the strategies then have to
change or in strategic updates there's
um feedback that some policy refinements
are needed. So, this is one of those
cycles. So, some of the changes that
have been identified by park staff
include some simple things like some
name changes. The 2024 parks plan is
called the systems plan. It was a
different name before, so we'll be
updating that. Um, the name of the uh
green necklace in the central isqua plan
is being updated to the city citywide
creeks to peaks uh trail uh name. And
one of the meteor uh updates is a change
of the um level of service for parks
facilities. Currently there's a
quantitative process that helps guide um
level of service for parks and the park
staff wants to look at a more
qualitative approach. So they will be
bringing those through um as part of
this amendment process.
So, the last proposal um has to do with
updates from this year's ISUA climate
action plan update, which I think you
will be hearing about shortly. And this
is one of those um strategic plans that
helps implement a lot of the policies in
the comprehensive plan. They're going
through their update process now. And
this uh proposal is really a placeholder
in case there are some policy
refinements that need to occur to help
uh maintain that alignment and
consistency between the comprehensive
plan and this uh the IAP um strategic
plan. So those are the five proposals.
Um now just have a couple of slides uh
to talk about the process moving forward
um and what happened actually on January
22nd. So, the planning policy commission
actually uh had two meetings where they
reviewed these proposals. On January
22nd, they held a public hearing um and
they made a recommendation uh to uh to
you to council to move forward with all
docket items um on the final docket and
into amendment processes. Uh today, as
you can see, is uh your review. We're
asking for you to give us direction on
uh moving these uh docket items forward.
And actually though it says February
3rd, we're looking at your first meeting
in March for council action uh where the
full council would establish the final
docket.
So a few more um just two more slides on
next steps. Um so what would happen
after the final docket is established?
um that action must happen per the the
IMC the municipal code um by the end of
March. So after that um staff would take
all of the final docket items do further
analysis and begin the process of
drafting amendments then we would move
forward into a review process the
planning policy commission PTE and final
council with adoption before the end of
this year.
So just some reminders um this uh
recommendation that we would like for
you is not recommending approval of any
of these uh proposals but it is a
recommendation about moving the
proposals forward onto the final docket
so that they can be more uh fully
considered.
So that was my last slide and again the
question we wanted to leave you with was
about recommending approval of the
docket as presented and moving that to
the full council or if any refinements
were uh something that you wanted to
talk about.
>> Great. Thanks Kate. Looks like council
member Marts has a question.
>> Yes, I do. If we if we were going to
t-shirt these five, one, two, and four
would be smalls, three would be a
medium, and five would be a large,
right? basically,
>> you know, it it depends because um
some of the for example, the land use
designation and code work uh requires a
lot of uh just hours of going through
code and making sure we're um being
thorough about changing a name of a land
use designation or a zone. And so it's
not, you know, uh it it is an a task
that takes a lot of time, but maybe not
as much thought as what you were
suggesting. So maybe if I said the
public process associated with these
five, right,
>> would be small, small, medium, small,
large.
>> And are you saying five is the IAP?
>> Yes.
>> Proposal. Um well, and I'm just going to
say luckily for me, most of that work
will be done by our amazing
sustainability staff. So um the ideas
that they will bring out in terms of
potential policy changes, I believe
would be part of the process that they
are undertaking to update the IAP as
well. I I guess where I'm going with
that is 1 2 3 and four seem like they
are all pretty I mean there may be a
bunch of work to to search things and
make changes but they they're all pretty
deterministic right maybe maybe three
has a little bit more but five is
different right five is the one that has
public policy gates and you know forks
in the road and stuff like that right
unlike the other four
>> well and I'm not sure and um that and
I'm not sure and Maybe we will let uh
the sustainability manager talk about
this because the focus of the IAAP
update is really on the the strategies
that um are really almost project
specific that move the city forward in
terms of uh you know climate change uh
actions where the policies actually that
uh provide the basis for the IAP are
actually in the comprehensive plan. Um
they're in the land use and
sustainability element. they're in the
environment and climate element as well.
And so they are using those existing
policies as guidance for the changes
they're making. So, and I don't mean to
speak out of turn, um, but they may find
that, oh, we need to tweak this policy.
You know, right now we have this policy
on trees or whatever it is, and we want
to either tweak it or we think we should
do a big change for it. I'm not sure.
and we we did have a meeting earlier
that there are a lot of policies that
would change out of out of that work. Um
I think their their work is more focused
on implementing those policies. So um I
again I I would have to work with the
sustainability team to really figure out
um the you know the magnitude of changes
that that may emerge. Was that fair or?
>> We'll see.
>> Thanks,
>> Council Member Nichols.
>> Thank you. Uh my question is on the
opportunity cost of except of going with
this basically. Um
first I'll say um I mean looking at all
of these none of them seem problematic.
I'm not debating any of them in
particular, but I also I genuinely don't
understand a lot of these. There's not
enough information presented to really
know. For example, on the regional
regional growth center, I I don't
understand what that's about, frankly.
Um
if if there's a low lift to do that and
we get more information, that's
potentially different than if we
seed a docket with things that will
block other things that may become
council priorities. Um I don't
understand exactly where this fits in
with the other things that are
essentially on the table um for council
to take up that may eventually come back
and require staff time in related areas.
Um we had a a retreat recently that
where we had lots of topics that came
up. Um, is this
what is the overall workload required on
on these and will it end up essentially
what's what are the could it block other
things we might want to do? I don't I
know that's a hard question to answer
but um
>> yeah and um so I was a planner for the
city of CEK for 18 years and for most of
that time I was handling annual
amendment processes and um this number
of amendments and the scale of these
amendments seemed to me pretty average.
So nothing is a major lift at this point
in my opinion and I haven't been in
Isqua so I don't know but I will say
that um there are some that are really
important uh to do the regional growth
center uh amendments are important
because PSRC is the city's or is is yeah
uh is the region's what are they called
no metropolitan planning organization
they receive federal funding for
transportation
If cities don't align with their
policies, they may not get grants for
there's a lot of trans, you know,
transportation grants, other grants from
that body. That's that's a huge um
benefit to have regional growth center
designation. Again, they're going
through a redesation process and they're
just wanting to make sure that uh we are
fully compliant with the changes that
they made. So there's actually a list of
uh you know uh policies that all
regional growth centers are going to
have to comply with since the 2018 uh
RGC framework was updated by PSRC. And
again, while the city has a lot of those
completed, uh we want to make sure we're
fully compliant. So any grant that the
city goes after for transportation
funding, the city will be competitive
for. So that's one example.
>> Excuse me. I'm going to jump in here.
Uh, real quick, Kristen Leon, planning
manager. So, this goes in part to
council member to uh Mart's question and
in part to council member Nichols
question. The first one about the land
use designations and number two, those
bring us more into compliance with the
middle housing requirements that were
done last year. One of the one of the
recommendations and asks of the state
was that we do take away all the single
family references and change these to
make them more residential. That one is
fairly important to be more in
compliance with what the state is
looking for. As for the regional growth
center, most of those are not required
to be done until 2028. However, the asks
could be bigger as they come along. So,
right now, we're reaching for
lowerhanging fruit to update the targets
and any other any other lowhanging
fruits that we can find that are not
public intensive that don't require a
lot of time. Does that help at all?
Um, can I also just provide a comment?
So, this is my second year on PTE. So,
for context, the docket, this basically
just means like if you don't put
something on this list, then the staff
is not allowed to work on it as far as
comprehensive plan amendments go. So,
for example, and there's things on here
that could get deprioritized due to
staff commitment to other things. For
example, this renaming single family
zones things was on the list last year
and did not happen because it was not a
priority. And so I think approving this
list doesn't necessarily mean that all
of these things are going to be done
tomorrow and that we can't like you know
it it basically means they're allowed to
work on it but it doesn't mean they have
to work on it. Does that help Council
Member Nichols?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And I think the question about
other things that council's discussing
and Mayor Mullet's priorities for the
upcoming years uh are more on the
implementation side of things not so
much as a policy discussion. If through
that work of work plan and setting up
work plan and a lot of it is code
updates, incentives, prioritization, all
of that, if there are policies that get
teased out that maybe seem to be need
need to be relooked at. We do this every
year and so they would get back on the
uh the docket at that point. But
majority of the the conversations were
related to implementation pieces, not so
much as the comprehensive 20 20 year
plan. But if things do come up during
that work plan and removing barriers for
development conversation,
um that required policy reook, then we
would add it to the next year's docket.
>> Does that answer your question?
>> Sorry. You said you would add it to the
next year's docket if things come up.
>> We we have Well, this is a annual
process. So, yeah. So, this docket has
to be approved by March. So, and it's
going to council for approval March 2nd.
>> Yeah. So, essentially the process for
doing comprehensive plan updates, which
it's basically like once a year there's,
you know, minor updates that can be
made. And so, we, you know, there's a
list of these five. Now, this five
basically means staff can work on these
five updates. They can't work on other
updates to the comprehensive plan that
are not on this list of five right now.
But if there's other, you know,
comprehensive plan updates that come
out, you know, from some of the other
work that we're doing, they can kind of
put it on the bike rack, as it were, for
next year's docket of comprehensive plan
updates. So
great. Um, any other discussion?
If not, oh, were you going to say
something?
>> Well, I don't have questions. Have we
moved to the deliberation? Yes. With
that, I think we can move on to
deliberation.
Council member Marts.
>> Yes.
>> I'm answering the question.
>> Perfect. Thank you, Council Member
Marts. Council member Nichols.
>> I'll I'll take that Q and be brief. Uh,
yes.
>> Great. Yes. So, I believe 300 we
recommend approval of the docket as
presented as additional refinements that
are needed. And I believe um does anyone
have objections to bringing it back to
council on consent?
No. Okay. So, let's bring it back to
council on what day is it? March 2nd. Uh
on consent. Perfect. Great. Thank you so
much, Kate.
Um well
uh the last item on our agenda, speaking
of uh number five on that list is COM
0204, the 2024 greenhouse gas inventory
and 2026 climate plan update. And I'd
like to welcome Stacy Vin McKinstry,
sustainability manager, and David Ree,
sustainability coordinator, to the
lectern to present.
Thank you. Good evening, members of the
committee. Um, I'm Stacy Vin McKinstry,
our sustainability manager, and joined
with me tonight is David Rei, our
sustainability coordinator.
This evening, we have two primary
reasons for meeting with you. First,
we'll be sharing the results of our
latest greenhouse gas emissions
inventory. And secondly, we will talk
through our proposed process for
updating the IAAP and seek your input on
a pathway for council review and
approval. I did want to note that we
have an image on this slide of our
endofear 2025 report. Um we are not
going to talk about the report in
detail. It is included in your packet.
We'll highlight a few results um at the
beginning of this presentation as we
talk about program implementation.
So again tonight um the direction that
we are seeking from you is a pathway for
IAP update review and approval. Uh
whether we should proceed with review
through the PTE committee or if we
should work through the committee of a
whole.
Before we jump into the 2024 greenhouse
gas inventory results, we wanted just to
uh refresh your memory of the IAP and
talk a bit about background and process
and progress. Um, as a reminder, the
IAAP was adopted by council in December
of 2021. It was built on very extensive
community engagement uh that occurred
during COVID. While it was the city's
first climate plan, it followed decades
of active engagement and sustainability
initiatives.
We had a limited implementation budget
in 2022, but we were able to expand that
budget and staffing in 2023.
We report to council twice a year on
implementation status and more
frequently as needed, while also
maintaining a dashboard that is updated
quarterly with our progress.
As a brief summary of implementation
over the last four years, the 2021 IAP
really laid out that roadmap for
implementation and we have been
following that focusing on near-term
actions um prioritizing actions that
needed early advancement um for
resulting in a larger impact. In some
cases, we've been a bit opportunistic
where we've pursued grant opportunities
or partnerships when they became
available. And we've really worked over
the last three years or four years to be
creative with building our capacity and
partnerships to expand.
Um, as noted, uh, we did prepare a
endofear 2025 report on our progress
that was intended both for council as
well as the committee. Uh, that was
included as attachment A. We are making
great progress in implementing the
actions as laid out in the 2024 or 2021
plan um and securing funds for programs
and projects. We partnered across
departments to make improvements in our
buildings and fleet. partnered with
youth to bring new voices to our
programming, implemented multiple
residential and commercial building
programs, conducted extensive waste
education,
and expanded our climate resilience
efforts by building networks with our
emergency management staff and community
partners.
We have also been successful in securing
grants both on our own and through our
regional partnerships.
We're excited about the work that's
coming in 2026. We have a number of new
projects happening at city facilities
um as well as expansion and new uh
programs for our community.
So while we have been very successful at
implementing programs and projects as
they were laid out in the in the climate
action plan um we really need to
understand the results of that work and
especially how they're impacting
emissions reductions. Um I will turn it
over to David. He is going to talk
through the results of our 2024
greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
Thank you all so much. Um David Rei,
sustainability coordinator with the
city. So I'm going to dig into the
results of our 2024 greenhouse gas
inventory. Um this speaks directly to
the overarching goals and targets within
the 2021 climate action plan. Um before
I dig into these numbers though, I do
also just want to mention that as this
rolls into the conversation of the IAAP
update, there are targets and goals in
the 21 um IAP that uh go beyond
greenhouse gas uh emissions and talk
more towards climate resilience uh and
making sure that we have a a resilient
and livable city. So um these greenhouse
gas inventory numbers are really
important as we think about updating our
climate action plan. um but they don't
speak to um every single action within
the within the ICAP.
All right. So, just as some context
setting for our uh greenhouse gas
inventories, um we uh the last in
inventory we did was two years ago in
2022.
Um and both the 2022 inventory and the
2024 inventory were conducted in
partnership with our east side climate
uh partnership cities uh Belleview,
Redmond, Kirkland, and Mercer Island.
And this was uh done to create
efficiencies in the process uh as well
as make sure that the east side cities
had um uh inventories that had similar
um or the same methodologies and
therefore were easily um evaluated
against each other and um provided an
easier uh understanding for our
residents across the east side. We work
with a regional environmental consulting
firm, Cascadia Consulting, to conduct
these inventories.
And these inventories really represent a
snapshot in time understanding of where
we are with our greenhouse gas emissions
um using the best available
methodologies
uh and practices available at the time
that we are doing these inventories.
The 2024 inventory represents the sixth
greenhouse gas inventory the city has
done. um but our fourth inventory that
uses the same methodology. So um as far
back as 2017, all of the the four
inventories since then use the same
methodology.
This inventory also represents our
second government operations inventory.
So we actually start to get to see
trends uh and uh changes over time there
as well.
I also want to mention that this is the
first uh wedge analysis that the city
has done uh since the IAAP adoption. And
the wedge analysis, which I will go into
in a little bit, um really forecasts out
what are our emissions uh uh forecasts
looking like uh between now and 2050
where the IAP targets uh go out to.
So putting our uh inventory in context
uh it is important to recognize that uh
the city has experienced uh significant
population and business growth uh
between 2007 which is our baseline
greenhouse gas inventory year and uh
2024 our most recent inventory year.
Um
the uh inventory as we have conducted it
uh gets to inform our IAP update process
as well as municip municipal targets and
actions in the climate action plan. The
inventories are based off of a wide
range of data that includes direct
activity reporting. So uh for instance
the uh exact uh electricity and natural
gas use in city operations models such
as uh Puget Sound Regional Council's
models for um vehicle miles traveled can
uh in the city in 2024 and then a number
of different assumptions um that uh that
we have to make based on when when data
is not fully available. And so an
example of that uh is some assumptions
based on solid waste uh data uh that we
use at for our government operations
inventory.
Some top takeaways from the 2024
inventory is that uh consistent with
previous assessments, the largest
sources of our communitywide and
government operations emissions are
those associated with the built
environment and transportation. There's
not a surprise there. That is what we
expected and we continue to see that uh
in our inventories moving forward.
Existing city actions through the
climate action plan are in line with the
uh largest sources of our greenhouse gas
emissions with a focus on uh built
environment and transportation.
And really meeting our ICAP targets and
goals requires continued and expanded
local, state, utility, and federal
action and investment. As you'll see
when I talk about the wedge analysis, um
we're not quite on track to reach our
IAP targets. And so, um we need to
continue to advocate for uh the
continued implementation of programs and
policies, but also think about how we
can expand those in the future.
Um the final thing I want to mention
here is that um over the course of 2017
to 2024 which represents the period
where we had the same methodology in our
greenhouse gas inventories uh the
majority of the emissions reductions uh
has come from uh reductions in the uh
fuel intensity uh of Puget Sound
Energy's fuel mix. Despite that being
the case, uh, between 2022 and 2024,
that is actually not the driver of the
the reductions that we've seen. And I'll
get into that a little bit in the next
slide.
So now we're starting to look at our
graphs and numbers around where we are
with our emissions.
The highle number here is that we've had
a 2% decrease in greenhouse gas
emissions since 2022.
We remain higher than our baseline in
2007 but we are continuing a downward
trajec trajectory since 2017 which was
the last inventory with the same
methodology.
The decrease uh over the last two years
were driven between uh mainly between
the built environment and
transportation.
uh within the built environment uh there
was a drop a fairly significant drop in
fossil fuel use natural gas use in
commercial and residential buildings
about 11% over two years. Um unlike in
previous years uh Puget Sound Energy's
grid uh has had a higher fuel uh fossil
fuel intensity um over the last two
years and so electricity emissions
actually increased. However, the the
decrease in natural gas emissions um
drove an overall reduction in built
emissions. Uh
>> uh Council Member Mart had a question.
>> Can I ask a question on this uh on the
built environment uh greenhouse gas?
Does that is that just um heating or is
that also uh electricity used in
cooling? both uh electricity used in in
any building at all and similar with
natural gas use in buildings at all.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh the decrease we saw in transportation
emissions um was actually quite
interesting in that we saw uh a return
to more uh prepandemic levels of
transportation habits. And so the
vehicle miles traveled within the city
of Isiqua significantly increased
compared to 2022. However, our our
transportation emissions actually
decreased slightly and that speaks a
little bit to the improved fuel economy
of the vehicles that are on the road as
well as increased adoption of electric
vehicles.
Um there was a slight increase in
refrigerant and wastewater emissions and
uh those those will continue to be
monitored um as they play a larger role
in our emissions moving forward.
So looking ahead as we think about what
these emissions are really telling us.
This is uh an image of our updated wedge
analysis.
Uh we don't do this every year. Um but
especially we wanted to do this uh prior
to our 2026 IAP update um to help inform
uh that update and think about where
where we are at and where we are
currently going. So what this graph is
showing is the historic greenhouse gas
emissions and forecasts out what our
potential emissions could be depending
on the implementation of state,
regional, and federal programs and
policies.
The dotted red line at the bottom of the
graph represents the ICAP greenhouse gas
reduction targets of 50% by uh 2030 and
95%
uh and net zero by 2050.
The top line of the graph represents the
historic emissions estimate if we were
to do uh nothing and make no changes
with our greenhouse gas emissions
trajectory.
The pink pink line uh represents uh
where our emissions would be uh if all
of the uh included federal, state, and
uh regional programs and policies were
fully implemented um based on how they
were written.
And then finally, the gray area between
our uh the the uh pink line and the
target line represents the emissions
gap. And the emissions gap really uh
speaks to um the anticipated emissions
in the city of Isiqua that are not
addressed through state, federal, and lo
and regional policies uh that that are
currently on the books.
So the wedge is showing that uh with uh
state, federal and regional policies,
we'll have a 42% reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions by 2030 and a 62%
reduction by 2050.
Importantly, these numbers are based on
the implementation of federal and state
policies and at this time there is uh a
fair amount of uncertainty on the full
implementation of some of these
policies.
Despite this gap, it can get a lot
larger if some of these programs and
policies are not implemented to their
full extent.
through the 2026 IAP update process and
and post adoption. We are looking to
evaluate a handful of our um IAP actions
that we anticipate will have the biggest
impact on this emissions gap to
understand what those actions will
actually do to this wedge and how much
closer they will bring us towards our
targets.
However, to address this gap that still
exists, um we do understand that we will
continue to have to focus on the built
environment and transportation and
specifically some of the harder to
decarbonize
uh um sectors such as uh natural gas use
in in our buildings as well as um medium
and heavy duty transportation.
Switching over to our government
operations, uh we have had a 4% decrease
in government operations emissions
compared to 2022. It's the first time we
get to make a comparison to a baseline
for our government operations, which is
very exciting.
Uh the largest increase decrease here is
driven by our electricity sector where
we're able to connect more of our
electric accounts to the Puget Sound
energy green direct and green power
programs which allow the city to connect
our electricity usage to renewable
energy generated uh in Western
Washington and uh and the West.
We did have an increase in
transportation related emissions. Um
that reflects uh a uh a return to work,
an increased number of days in office,
more activity at the city. Um and then
we also saw um a small increase in a
couple of different areas of our
emissions, specifically those related to
composting, um diesel use and uh
off-road fleet, specifically from the
bomb cyclone when we had to use much
more uh generator fuel and where we uh a
significant amount of compost material
was um a result of of the storm.
We do anticipate using the results of
the 2022 and 2024 government operations
inventory to help develop
recommendations for city operations
targets for the IAAP AR update.
Currently, there's only one uh IAP
target related to city operations. And
so, now that we have better data, we can
uh dig into more uh more concrete uh
targets moving forward.
I do also want to mention that this this
um inventory is for 2024 and we do have
many exciting projects that have been
ongoing and that are currently ongoing
uh specifically to help us reduce
natural gas use, increase renewable
energy generation and electrify the city
fleet. So, um we do anticipate seeing
those uh projects start to impact our
government operations uh emissions
moving forward.
On this slide, I just want to highlight
some specific programs uh that are
helping us address uh specifically the
the uh largest sources of our greenhouse
gas emissions both communitywide and in
government operations. So, I'm not going
to go through all of these, but um
specifically some of the some of the
programs to highlight are Energy Smart
East Side, which is helping us and our
community um electrify uh residents and
um and buildings across Isiqua by
implementing heat pump solutions. We
have our GLE clean buildings incentive
program which is helping our commercial
buildings and our nonprofits and our
schools uh improve the energy efficiency
of their facilities cutting down on
emissions that way. We have uh land use
changes in title 18 that have been
implemented and that are ongoing that
will help us uh reduce emissions through
um the way that people are moving about
in our in our community and how uh
development continues. On the government
operations side, we have as I mentioned
many exciting facilities upgrades from
um heat pumps at our own facilities and
solar systems at our own facilities. Um
we have uh EV transition where we've
added electric vehicles to our fleet and
we're continuing to uh build out the
infrastructure to continue that uh
change uh as um we can
turning now towards the IAP update.
What do we need to do to advance
progress? And the first two here really
continue to focus on uh the built the
emissions in the built environment and
the emissions in transportation. We need
to accelerate electrification,
connecting more folks to green power and
improving energy efficiency both in our
commercial and our residential
buildings. We need to continue to invest
in creative alternatives to single
occupancy vehicles and make EV charging
more accessible.
Allowing ourselves to uh allowing our
community members different options to
get around our community as well as
making uh low uh low emissions vehicle
travel easier and more accessible.
The third third one here uh is less
related to our greenhouse gas emissions
specifically
um and is less reflected in our
greenhouse gas inventory but speaks to
the importance of addressing greenhouse
gas emissions in a way that prepares our
city and our community for current and
future climate impacts.
Fourth, we want to make sure that we're
continuing to expand waste a diversion
programming and policies that'll help us
um in many ways and and one of those is
to address some of those emissions
specifically related to landfill. And
fifth, um we believe it's still
important to continue to lead by
example. Um although the city operations
remain a small part of our overall
greenhouse gas emissions in the
community, we can continue to lead by
example, addressing our own greenhouse
gas emissions while modernizing our
buildings, making healthier and cleaner
offices and community spaces, improving
transportation across the city, and
inspiring our community members to take
further action.
And now that we've seen where we are
with our greenhouse gas emissions and
where we're falling short, um I'm going
to turn this over to Stacy to talk about
how that's influencing uh and helping us
think through our 2026 IAP update.
>> Thanks, David. Um if appropriate, we can
pause at this time to answer any
questions about the inventory as we are
planning to transition now and talking
about our 2026 update process.
Council member Marks,
>> there was a point where you showed um
greenhouse gases by year and you had
like five sample years.
>> Mhm.
>> So, how do you uh keep going back? There
were there was a bar.
>> Yeah.
>> Sorry. There. There we go.
>> Um how do you normalize for weather
differences across those years?
different numbers of heating days and
cooling days because we have some of
those years had some extraordinary hot
days and some of those years had
extraordinarily long cold winters. Yeah.
So this data does not normalize across
weather differences. Um there are
certain programs. So for instance the um
state clean buildings program when that
looks at efficiency of buildings that
program specifically does weather
normalize um where buildings need to be
based on the weather. But this is really
just looking at overall emissions and
does not take into account uh what the
weather is doing. And um you know on the
government operations side that leads to
things like uh bump in emissions because
of what we did for the bomb cyclone
>> in response to that.
>> Thank you.
>> No, I don't think there's any other
questions from the committee. So I think
we can move on to the 2026 IAP update.
>> Right. Apologies back. Okay, great.
Well, thank you very much. Um, so next
we wanted to walk through the process,
highlight a few of the major changes
we're anticipating and talk through the
review process for council.
So the 2026 plan update we are
approaching as a light update um given
the extensive engagement that occurred
through the 2021 plan development.
However, as we have been working to
implement the plan over the last few
years, um talking with our boards and
commissions, we've identified a number
of areas where we do want to strengthen
the plan. A few of these major changes
are highlighted here. Um first is around
improving connections between the
actions and targets. We have some areas
of the plan such as our natural systems
focus area that has a target around tree
canopy, but there's very few actions
associated with enhancing tree canopy.
So, we want to improve some of those
connections. We also want to tie back to
the update of the comprehensive plan and
make sure we're in alignment with the
plan. As we talked about earlier, it's a
bit of an iterative project process. Um,
the comprehensive plan caught up to the
2021 plan. Now, uh we want to catch up
um and get ahead of the comprehensive
plan um so it can then be updated.
Um, and in particular, this area uh that
we're looking at is incorporating some
actions around wildlife or habitat
resilience to really align with one of
the new sections of the comprehensive
plan.
We're also looking to broaden or expand
some of the descriptions that were in
the 2021 plan in order to provide some
more flexibility in terms of the
programs and projects that were
implementing um over the duration of the
plan. So for instance in the 2021 plan
there was a very specific campaign
called out. We did implement that. It
was pretty time intensity
intensive um financially intensive and
we didn't see it result in a big impact.
So we want to provide some more um
broadening of the type of work to allow
that flexibility for staff to um pick
the projects and programs that we
believe will have the biggest impact.
We're also looking at improving our
metrics and how we report to make sure
that we're sharing information that is
the most meaningful around plan
implementation.
And then lastly, um one of the biggest
uh potential changes that we're
considering is proposing a 10-year plan
compared to a five-year plan. We believe
this would reduce the capacity impact on
staff for updating the plan,
particularly when we know the areas that
we need to be focusing in. Um
specifically as David highlighted around
buildings and transportation
um the longer plan we would propose to
have regular check-ins and um even a
formal midpoint review to make sure that
we're still on the right track and
determine whether or not an earlier
update is necessary. So that proposal is
something we are talking through the
environmental board um if they are
supportive of it and if so we'll be
bringing that to council for
consideration.
Um, this outlines our pathway for uh the
update and review. Um, this will end up
being about a 14-month process. We
kicked it off last spring. We brought
together subject matter experts from our
boards and commissions and the
Snowqualami tribe to dive deep into a
few subsections of the plan and provide
their input. Um during the spring
summer, we were also tracking updates to
the Redmond and Belleview climate action
plan so we could where appropriate um be
in alignment with their plan. In the
fall of 2025, we held an event with
former mayor Paulie um where we sought
input from the community and we at that
time also began vetting subsections of
the plan with our boards and
commissions.
Right now, we are in the process of
working through sections of the plan
with staff um and we'll be taking back
the plan for review to all of our boards
and commissions um that have subject
subject matter experts related to the
IAP at the end of this month. We are
also working with students on a student
survey to bring in youth voice for
priorities for the plan update.
Uh last night also we kicked off a
process with a metrics committee so they
could help inform how we are tracking
and reporting um on the plan going
forward.
As we move into the spring, we'll be
completing a final review of the plan
with the environmental board and then
following the process as determined uh
by council council for final review and
approval.
So, um, this slide outlines two proposed
processes for reviewing and approving
the plan that we worked through with our
clerk's office. Uh, we are seeking your
input on whether we work through the
council of a whole um or excuse me,
committee of the whole or through this
uh committee um prior to going to the
full council. Uh I'll just note that one
of the um the recommendation for going
through committee of the whole was the
feeling that the IAP touches so many
aspects of our community and so many of
our committees that it may be um one
option for a pathway to meet with the
full council um for discussion and
deliberation on the plan.
Um so tonight uh we are just seeking
that direction on which pathway forward
reviewing the 2026 IAP review whether we
go through committee the whole or the
PTE committee.
Moving forward uh we have a number of
programs uh projects and policies uh
that we have planned for 2026. So, we'll
be advancing that implementation while
at the same time working through the
updates to the plan uh with the
expectation to bring that to council uh
late in the spring and early summer.
That I will move it over to the
direction that we need is um on whether
to move the plan review process through
committee of the whole or the PTE
committee.
Can I ask one more question before I get
to deliberation? And you may have
explained this and I' I've been trying
to get some data as we've been talking.
Um,
why in so many categories is 2022 the
most recent data that we have.
>> Uh, can you so 22 2022 is um our most
recent data is 2024. Um 2022 represents
the most recent uh or the first
government operations inventory and is
is kind of the um comparison year to
look for you know what was the change
between uh towards the most recent
inventory which we did in 2024.
>> But but in so many of the categories in
the report when you talk when you talk
about you talk about 2017 versus 2022.
>> Yes. So, the the 2025
uh year-end report, the 2024 inventory
wasn't completed until the very end of
2025. It even actually went a little bit
into early January. So, at the time that
the report was created, the numbers for
2024 weren't done yet.
>> I see.
>> And sorry, what did they tell us about
2024 versus 2022?
>> The what are the greenhouse gas
inventory numbers? So that was um uh the
most of the numbers I talked about
tonight were 2024 numbers. Um and so
that was showing we had a 2% decrease in
communitywide emissions um over the last
two years mostly driven by a reduction
in fossil natural gas use in our built
environment as well as some efficiencies
in transportation. Um and then in the
government sector, we had about a 4%
decrease in government operations
inventory or emissions.
>> Again, between 2022,
>> between 2022 and 24. And for government
operations, those are the only two
inventories we have. Whereas for uh
communitywide uh inventories, we have
that data over a longer period, although
2017 is the oldest year that uses the
same methodology.
>> Thank you.
Um, okay. I have a few questions. So, I
guess this is kind of more of a global
question, but I wonder if in terms of
like council direction. I've often felt
like, you know, we're kind of brought in
at the very end versus, you know,
earlier in the process where, for
example, with like the metrics, right?
might be things that we would like to
see that maybe you should be aware of
before you've like written the whole
thing and you don't want to go back and
change the whole thing. So, I'm curious.
I mean, like is would there be a way for
some of us to get engaged a bit earlier
in the process, you know, given like
where you are with the draft now and
then potentially bring it back to like
the whole committee or whole council to
review in May or whenever that may be.
Um,
I think from a staff perspective, we
could do that. I don't I don't know if
there's any limitations.
>> Well, I think that's part of the
question for this evening is that as we
move forward, how was the council wish
to do this? If you'd like to be involved
as a full council, then we're asking you
to go through the committee the whole or
if you'd like the this as a committee to
be steering this. That's really the
question before you.
>> Yeah. And we we can add additional touch
points. Right now we have two proposed
either through committee of the whole
and then to full counsel or PTE to full
counsel. If you all wish to see more
touch points there's a you have a
calendar right?
>> Yeah.
>> Um
I will note so why we are aiming for a
June adoption was our goal was to get
ahead of the budget cycle so that we
have an updated plan that will then
inform our budget requests. Um, this
planning process could go through the
end of the year if if needed. Um, but
really our aim was to have at least a
pretty solid foundation of the actions
that we wanted um over the next two
years outlined by this summer. So, we
can absolutely add in additional touch
points where possibly starting in May as
a first touch point and then we have two
additional after that if needed. um or
if there's other um ways for the
committee or council to be involved in
the process, we are open to those
suggestions.
>> And could you also speak to the touch
points the environment board's going to
have?
>> Yes, the environment board has been uh
had many touch points and has several
more. So, we have over the last 6 months
or so been reviewing each section of the
plan section by section.
um we are finishing that up next week
and then they will have at least two
additional opportunities to review all
of the um the full updated draft of the
plan. Similarly, the park board PPC and
um TAB will have had at least two touch
points um to review the relevant
sections of the plan. plus many members
of their uh board or commission were
involved in our initial committee review
where they provided initial input.
>> Cool. Thank you.
>> Um in terms of the actions like my sense
is to date our actions have mostly been
programmatic
and less so on the policy side other
than you know having like you know
requiring all new buildings to be lead
certified or whatever. Is there going to
be a discussion about, you know, what
types of policies we could potentially
pursue to because I think, you know, the
two biggest issues we have is fossil
fuel use in buildings and vehicle miles
traveled. And so I mean then what we
need to do is reduce fossil fuel use in
buildings through electrification and
reduce vehicle mile traveled by having
people travel by other modes. So I think
you know vehicle miles travel that's
very much like falls squarely within
transportation whereas the fossil fuel
building use I think squarely falls
under sustainability. Mhm.
>> So I'm curious like
you know right now we have Energize East
Side which is great but it's like okay
you know we can give incentives to some
people we're never going to have enough
money to give incentives to everyone.
you know, how are we think and and this
just popped into my mind while um during
the presentation, but like do we have
data on what proportion of new heating
systems are like heat pumps versus, you
know, furnaces and how that's changing
over time and you know, what policies
can we consider to kind of get that
moving in the direction that we needed
to be going cuz I think that to me is
one of the areas where I think there may
need to be some policy changes beyond
just, you know, having some programs
that are great. Like I'm all in favor of
having solar and batteries on the senior
center, but that is not going to get us
to where we need to be in terms of
emissions as a city.
>> Yeah. To answer the last part of your
question first, yes, we are tracking
permit data and so we have the
trajectory over since 2022 of where we
are with um heat pump versus furnace
replacements and our energy smart east
side program has goals in place of where
we need to be over certain timelines and
is seeking the funds for um offering the
incentive and rebates to get there.
Regarding the policies, um what we are
currently reviewing with boards and
commissions are a number of new policies
where we would um however we're framing
the language as a kind of assessing the
feasibility and implementation pathway
for those policies to ensure that they
can be um have a strong costbenefit
analysis that we can vet any draft
policies with council and not get um
ahead of ourselves around those specific
policies.
uh laid out in a potentially 10-year
plan, but at least have the concept
there that we can then work through what
the best uh approach for the policy will
be in the right fit for Isiakqua. Um so
we've looked to Redmond Plan, Belleview
Plan, other plans as well to see where
they've proposed some policies that we
might be able to pull in and have some
regional alignment. So yeah, I would
expect to see uh a proposal for several
new policies in this plan.
That's great to hear,
>> Council Member Marts. and then council
member Nichols.
>> Oh, sorry, just Council Member Nichols.
>> So, specifically on those policies
versus programmatic, could you um maybe
elaborate on what that means to you? Um
I guess
>> broadly.
>> Sure. Yeah. So, some of the language
that we're looking at with boards and
commissions, again, this is all going
through vetting, so we don't have any
recommended actions that we're bringing
tonight, but some of those would be
putting in place requirements. um uh or
uh a new program. Well, it would be
requirements essentially. So, I don't
want to um assume which ones might kind
of make it out the end of the review
process. Um, so I know council member
Jen mentioned in a comment uh earlier uh
or yesterday around potential policies
for heat pump replacements, whether
that's a contractor offering at least a
heat pump uh quote along with a furnace
quote. Um that could be something that
is considered in this plan. Um there's
been a policy proposed by some of our
nonprofit partners around a home energy
score requirement where a home would be
required to report on their energy use
or energy efficiency at time of sale. Um
those are the types of policies that
potentially could be um considered in
this plan and some of the ideas that
have come forward. Um, programmatically
that would be more uh in line with what
we've been running with our energy
smarty side program where we offer
rebates and incentives for heat pump
installations. We're expanding that
program um to include weatherization and
to work with rental homes. So, that'd be
more on the programmatic side.
Answer your question.
>> Yeah, that was good. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thanks.
>> Great. Any other questions or comments
that come?
>> Again, questions comments are different
than questions, right?
Are we in the are we in the uh
deliberation phase or are we still I
think we're still in the question phase,
right?
>> Yes. Sorry about that. I for me
sometimes with the comments then they
invite new questions and so in the
deliberation phase there can sometimes
be more questions that arise. But yes, I
I think we're still officially in the
question phase.
Any questions? Okay. Uh, I guess moving
on to the deliberation and council or
committee discussion phase.
Okay, council member Nichols.
I think the um the the point that
council member Jang brought up about
what what are the biggest buckets here
is important towards the question you're
asking which is where does this go PD or
or committee the whole um the biggest
buckets here I think are policy related
um and for that reason I think would
best be served through a PTE discussion
where we can vote and give clear
recommendation
so my preference would be PTE
Uh I think if if anthropogenic climate
change
is a singular threat then I do not think
the course we are on is sufficient. I
think if you look at the data of our uh
carbon emissions over the since 2007
um I don't think a betting person would
possibly that any any money at any odds
that we are going to be down 50% by
2030.
So what we've been doing has been
insufficient.
If we keep doing what we've been doing,
we're going to keep getting what we've
been getting.
um that data does not there's no uh plot
through that those columns of data that
that tells a story that we like. So I
think it should come back to this
committee because I think it needs a
complete retooling. Um I think we should
have a plan that we think I mean it it
may be impossible to get to 50% by 2030
because it's only uh four years away.
then maybe it's getting to the 70% 75%
by 2040. I think we should have a plan
that we think works. And if that plan is
too painful to execute, so be it. Um or
if we can't execute it because the
community doesn't want to make the kinds
of changes that are going to be
necessary. But I think that this council
for at least the last five or six years
has viewed anthropogenic climate change
as a unique threat. And so I think we
should have a plan that we believe will
get us to the targets that we have
accepted. So bring it back here because
it needs substantial retooling. Thank
you.
>> Yeah, I I definitely agree. I think our
plan probably needs a lot of work and
there probably needs to be a lot more
policy discussion than what we've had in
past years. Um and I do think I mean
given the importance I do think there
probably is value in having at least one
committee of the whole meeting
especially given that you know one of
the big buckets is the whole
transportation aspect of things and we
are having special council meeting on
transportation. So I think you know
elevating this to that same level of
importance in my opinion is important
but I do think there's probably a lot
more work that needs to be done on the
climate action plan. Um you know and I
think the earlier that we're able to
take a look at it and kind of shape
where that goes I think the better cuz I
know that there's already been a ton of
work that's gone into it. Um, and you
know, I think the policy actions that
have been proposed, like home energy
scores, I don't think there's that much
data saying that that does much of
anything. Like I, you know, building
energy is like my professional line of
work. It's basically like, okay, well,
essentially the main thing that needs to
happen is when people replace a piece of
equipment, it cannot, you cannot be
putting in new gas equipment that's
going to be burning natural gas for
another 15 or 20 years. So, how can we
like change the trajectory on that? And
I think we really are going to have to
think hard about you know what are the
types of policies that we can consider
to you know move things forward while
also making it because this is there's
going to be some cost associated with
it. So it's like how are you going to
make sure that you know the low-income
residents of our city who are already
struggling are not bearing the costs of
these green mandates that we might like
to espouse from our seats high up here
on the dis like how can we make that
transition as simple as possible? How
can we make, you know, the
environmentally friendly choice the
default and easiest choice instead of
something that we must all collectively
suffer through together? I think there's
a lot there. transportation. I mean,
there's just so much more that goes into
that than what can just be addressed by,
you know, our small but mighty
sustainability team. Really, it touches,
you know, everything we do in government
land use, you know, transportation,
uh, community planning. And so, how do
we kind of bring that all together?
Because, you know, as council member
Mart said, the way that we're going is
not like even before the most recent
federal election, we were not really on
track to meet any of our climate goals
and now it's just, you know, it's even
worse. So, I think from a city
perspective, I think we need to do
everything that we can, but, you know,
also within reason. So, I I do think it
would be good for us to review like
where we are, what kind of policies
we're considering
and um review that as PTE sooner rather
than later and then potentially bring it
back to committee of the whole but after
we've had the chance to work through it
a bit more as a committee.
>> Okay. Yeah. I think what I'm hearing is
probably one to two PTE meetings where
maybe we'd bring kind of the major
policies that are being proposed and
review those with you all and then a
committee of the whole and then council.
But we can kind of maybe assess the
process as we go and see if additional
meetings and discussion are needed.
Great.
I think that sounds great to everyone.
So, um, yeah, we'll see you again here
hopefully soon.
>> And and chair, uh, could you then report
this out? We won't put this on an
agenda,
>> but if you could report out under
committee reports, this discussion so
your colleagues know what the plan is,
that'd be great.
>> So, the next meeting or the following
meeting?
>> Yep. I can report this in the next
meeting in the committee reports.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Great. Thanks, Stacy.
Okay, that is our last item of regular
business. Um, and so the next item is
announcements. Do any of my fellow
committee members have any announcements
to make?
Seeing none, my only announcement is
that the next planning de development
and environment committee meeting is on
Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026.
So, four weeks from today at 6:30 p.m.
in council chambers and there being no
further business at the meeting.
>> I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt.
Um, we currently have no pending
business.
>> Oh, okay.
>> For the meeting. Um, unless there's
something specific on your mind. One of
the challenges is that the council is
going to be having a meeting the
following week to talk about uh uh
permitting and uh um
>> planning housing studies
likely many of which will come back to
this committee.
>> Uh but those decisions have yet to be
made. So
>> just confirming with many that there we
have no we we have no pending business.
No, nothing on the agenda for the March
PTE meeting, but council discussion on
March 9th,
>> right?
>> Okay. Um, would it make sense to discuss
some of these climate policy ideas in
the next PTE meeting?
>> Yeah, I was just
>> Okay.
discussions.
I just feel like
>> um
either of you have any thoughts?
>> Um I I would be up to consider having an
off cycle. um if we could consider
having a meeting a couple weeks later,
which would give you time to to get the
results from those uh committees rather
than uh waiting a whole month, but
>> I leave that up to greater minds than
mine.
>> Yeah, I'll say I agree with that. I
don't know what the implications of that
are exactly and if it's possible, but in
principle, I agree.
>> Yep, I agree with that. I didn't I
didn't know that that that was something
we were able to do with committee
meetings.
>> Potentially.
>> Potentially. Okay.
>> If possible.
>> Clerk, are you able to determine if that
would be possible? Because I know we
have three committees. So,
theoretically, there should be at least
one free Tuesday.
>> Madam Chair, why don't we uh take that
idea under advisement? We're looking at
the calendar for March. Um, services,
safety, and parks also does not have any
pending items and so there's a March
17th date.
>> Um, so that might be something. Would
that be a better date?
>> All right. And you know for everyone
>> and you know for a fact that two of the
three services and safety members are
available at that time because they're
on that committee.
>> Ah, well there you go.
>> Excellent. Great. Um, so the next
committee meeting date is TVD. Um, and
there being no further business, this
meeting is adjourned at 8:42 M.