Arony, we will look for the light,
which is different from looking at the
light. Anyway, uh, welcome everyone. I,
Council Member Walsh, call the July 7th,
2026 City Council Planning, Development,
and Environment Committee to order. All
members are present. I am joined by
Deputy Council President Jiang and
Council Member Nichols. Um, as a
reminder, we continue to have a remote
aspect to our meeting, so members of the
public and staff may be participating in
tonight's meeting remotely via WebEx.
There's no one in person here. Checking
in with the clerk, see if there's
anybody online. Okay. Well, then anybody
can email us. Um, get all seven of us by
emailing city councsilis isquawa.gov.
Um, next item on our agenda would be
public comment, but there's nobody here,
so I'm going to skip that one. Um,
and then
let's see, we've got approval of
minutes. So, we've got two sets of
minutes which I am fine to approve
together as one. They are from the
meeting of May 19th and June 2nd. Um,
are there any corrections?
Okay, that was not you pulling that over
to make a correction. Got it. Hearing
none, the minutes are approved as
presented.
And so we've got two agenda items. COM
0288 is climate action plan review and
COM 0291 self-certification program for
detached accessory dwelling units. We
will start with the IAP is climate
action plan presented by Stacy Vin
McKinstry our sustainability manager and
David Rei our sustainability
coordinator. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Good evening members of the
committee. Uh this evening we're here to
present the final draft of the ISOqua
climate action plan that incorporates
input from the June meeting of the
committee of the whole. We're requesting
your input on the final draft IAP and
direction for approval and adoption by
council.
As you're aware, we've worked for over a
year to update the 2021 climate action
plan. And over the last four meetings
with PTE and committee of the whole,
we've shared background on the 2021 plan
development. We've shared the approach
and process to update the plan, draft
actions, policies, and a full draft
narrative. At the June 8th committee of
the whole meeting, we received written
and verbal feedback from council that
we've incorporated into the draft plan.
The major changes that we've made since
that meeting are as follows. We have
included additional language on
partnering with utilities in recognition
of the challenge to meet the needs of
the clean energy transformation.
This includes language in the narrative
as well as additional language that
we've incorporated into proposed actions
for energy storage. We have one
additional change that we made yesterday
that was not included in the packet and
this is per communication with PSSE.
We've corrected the language about the
Transalta coal plant. Uh while the coal
plant remains open per the federal
mandate, no coal has been burned since
December and PSSE is no longer
purchasing coal. Uh that was on page 18
of the plan. That change will be
included in the final draft presented to
council. We incorporated an additional
reporting measure for heat pump
installations that captures
communitywide installs supplementing the
other measures for those installed
directly through our programs.
We revised the target for community
resilience and well-being for personal
preparedness. We've changed this from
100% to 85%.
This aligns with our target that
captures satisfaction of the city's
preparedness, recognizing that there's
some members of our community that just
may never feel prepared. There are also
additional minor corrections uh that
we've made throughout the plan that were
presented in your packet and track
changes.
On June 10th, the environmental board
voted to approve the final draft plan
and provide a a letter of recommendation
for ICAP approval to council. That
letter will be shared later this month
with the full council.
We appreciate all the time and feedback
that council has provided on the draft
IAP. We believe that this plan update
provides a roadmap for the next 10 years
that will support progress towards our
climate mitigation and resilience
targets while also improving the quality
of life for the Isiqua community.
Tonight, we're welcoming any additional
feedback from council on the draft plan
and that feedback will help inform our
budget requests and our two-year work
plan for 2027 and 2028.
Tonight, we're also seeking your
direction on how to proceed with council
approval and adoption of the plan. We
have put forward a couple of options
before you. The first is that staff will
incorporate any input that you have
tonight and bring that to the July 20th
council meeting either on the consent
agenda or regular agenda. And the other
option is um to follow your direction uh
as provided by the committee tonight.
So, thank you again for all your support
and input on the plan. Uh we're open uh
to discussion and any additional
feedback that you have on revisions for
the plan.
>> Thank you. Starting with any questions?
None. This is we've touched this a few
times, so I'm not too surprised at that.
Uh checking in with the clerk. See,
there's nobody online still.
>> No, chair.
>> Okay, then I don't need to ask for
public comment in that way. Um any
feedback from the committee?
Okay, go ahead.
>> Um yeah, thank you so much Stacy and
David for all your work on this. I know
it's been a very long and arduous
process to get here. Um and I just want
to say I could not be happier with how
this has turned out. you know, you've
taken into account a lot of feedback
both from, you know, this committee,
from the full council, from the
community, and I think this will serve
as a really great document to guide us
forward as we, you know, move from the
paper pushing and, you know, planning
aspect of this to the actual
implementation of getting more, you
know, electric vehicles, electric bikes,
um, heat pumps and all sorts of things
like that out in the community so that
we can, you know, make the progress on
our climate that the world needs and
that our community uh wants to do. Um
and so I'm really excited to uh I I
guess I I wanted to say I'm excited to
be voting yes, but we're not technically
voting on this today. Um but I think
it's uh I'm looking forward to having
our vote on this on July 20th. And as
for your question on you know consent
versus regular business I think since
it's largely the same you know just with
some minor edits as when we had touched
it previously in committee the whole I
think personally I'm fine having it on
consent.
>> Great. Any comments? Go ahead.
>> Sure. Uh very briefly. Yeah thank you
very much. I think this is great. I
think you've uh accurately taken in all
of the comments that you've gotten um
from many many many different
stakeholders. So thank you for that and
thanks for all the good work. And uh I'm
also good with this on consent if that's
the uh preferred approach.
>> Thank you. And just confirming there
wasn't anything in the planned
environmental committees um or
commission's uh letter that is seeking
any changes or anything like that?
>> No, that's correct. It's mostly
summarizing the process and the
recommendations going forward.
>> Fantastic. Yeah, because they would be
the last stakeholder that I would be
looking for sign off on that. Um I agree
with uh my fellow council members that
this has done a great job of hearing the
perspectives from um all of the
stakeholders taking that in making
adjustments. Um it was supposed to be a
quick process. It has taken longer
because the environment is very
important to our community and so I
appreciate the effort that's gone into
that and the results that we are now
going to see as we implement this. So I
am also fine with uh putting this on
consent. I think we've done a good job
of highlighting this to the community as
as it has gone through several different
stages and so I'm comfortable with that
and supporting moving it forward.
>> Great. Do you have need anything else
from us?
>> No. Thank you so much.
>> Fantastic. Thank you. Okay. After that
quick item um which does not say that it
is not important to us because we have
seen that many many times. Um we are
going to move on to COM 0291
which is selfcertification program for
detached accessory dwelling units or
DADUs
presented by Mini Dollywal our director
of community planning development. Um
and as you get everything set up there,
just saying that we are excited to take
this next step um for the promoting
building investments in Isiqua and
looking forward to a presentation on
this.
>> Good evening um council members. Let me
see. I have way too many tabs open, so
hopefully it'll launch me into the right
one.
Um
okay. Um so I'm covering for James Gray,
our building official tonight. Um I will
try and walk this through
slideshow
from beginning.
All right. Um so this is one of the 17
items that council approved for our work
plan um tied to the promoting building
investment um in Isiqua. Um, and all of
this came from, you know, it started
with the January retreat where council
came up with your wish list and detached
accessory dwelling units, short form
daddos were on that list um to achieve
the goal. We originally came to this
committee um were exploring a couple of
options. One was to um come up with uh
pre-approved plans versus
self-certification. got feedback that we
should probably pursue
self-certification because of low usage
of the other program by our um
neighboring um cities. Um so that's
what's in front of you today um to uh
for us to start accepting
self-certification of these detached
ADUs um which is allowed by House Bill
1353.
Um the direction we're seeking from you
is if you have any feedback on the
proposed ordinance and if you recommend
advancing this to council should it go
on consent or regular business. Um I
think I kind of went over this uh real
quickly but the council retreat then the
May 2026 PTE committee discussed those
two strategies pre-approved versus
self-certification.
Um and then um this house bill which
allows gives us the uh the authority to
not do um to accept a certification if
stamped by a registered architect. Um
you had also expressed an interest in
knowing what are some other barriers um
to um you know having more ADUs built in
our community. In the memo we sort of
outlined uh top five things that we
think are uh part of it. Uh one of the
biggest things uh is the utility
connection um fees and the complexity of
sometimes figuring out shared meters
upsizing. There are choices here uh but
a lot of times uh it's driven by how
many fixtures you have and once you trip
the fixture count uh you're looking at a
separate meter and separate connection
charges. Uh in addition, King County
sewer capacity charge. We provided a
link for you which can be uh you know
amvertised over 15 years. So it's um um
smaller payment uh and your monthly
charge that you pay, but it but
cumulatively it is a larger amount. Um,
and so what's in front of you, I mean,
the council's gone through the utility
connection charges, the rate studies and
all of that, but I think there was a
desire to to see that uh how it looks
for ADUs. So that's why we added that
information or on the slide. Um, but
that's not in front of you today. Today,
we're just asking for you to um review
this ordinance, give us feedback on the
ordinance, and then um to allow
self-certification.
um
or if you want an alternate direction
retaining current code or doing the
self-certification. I should also note
that you received via email uh from
master builder association. They're glad
that ISU is considering um the
self-certification. Uh when we asked
around there are not very many cities
that have done this. Um and partly there
is an administrative burden um you know
to to kind of do this audit to maintain
these lists and other things but also um
um you know nobody's taken the list the
the action because it's so new. Um so
we're sort of leading this effort in
Isukqua. Um our administration
recommends advancing this uh to city
council for consideration. Um, and we
believe it will meet the minimum
requirements and still allow for all the
site development and utility review in a
more um speedier way.
So, if you um want to give us feedback,
we can bring this and and agree to pass
it on to city council. We can put it on
July 20th council agenda. I think that's
pretty much it. It's a short short
topic.
>> Great. Thank you. Um questions starting
with council member Nichols.
>> So uh followup question to my uh email
question earlier on um the uh lot the
the size limits. So the just in summary
so I was asking uh what's driving the
the 1000 square foot uh max how can I
put this the 1000 square foot size
that's in this ordinance as proposed. Um
just to restate what I I believe you
said just to make sure I understand it
and you can correct me. Um the that's
based on the title 18 amendments that
were con that were uh discussed as as a
a part of the middle housing up updates.
Is that basically correct?
>> That is correct. So the city went
through uh the implementation of um ADUs
which was House Bill 1337 and House Bill
1110. Um that was a year-long process
with a lot of community conversation. Uh
and we the the city adopted uh the
rules. There was discussion around
what's the right size for ADU. Um, and
like I said in my email, some of the
considerations why council landed on a
thousand square foot were, you know, we
looked at floor plans of how much, you
know, can you build a two-bedroom unit?
Uh, what does an apartment look like
that is,000 square ft? And they felt
like that give gave a plenty of
flexibility for a for that type of a
dwelling unit. Um and also because the
the co you know we we do allow two ADUs
on a lot uh they felt like there was a
competition between the primary house
and these units. The thousand uh seemed
okay. We looked at what people had
applied in the years past that was also
you know uh not more than that. There
was some testimony um from one
individual desiring about 1,200 square f
feet from what I recall at the time. Um
but in the end after a thoughtful debate
and discussion um the city landed on
thousand square feet.
>> Okay.
And then I I guess a follow up to that
um if we were
hypothetically if we were to amend any
of this ordinance as is to increase or
decrease that would title 18 still take
precedence as far as what somebody could
how if like let's say they conflicted
what would happen?
>> Yeah. when it conflicts then just
general language and I think IMC the
more restrictive applies um but um title
18 has to go through a process for
amendment which includes PPC
recommendation that's just state law so
planning and policy commission has to
make a recommendation on land use
regulations because this is in title 16
so we put it on a speedier path to just
uh come come to you directly with this
amendment so if if if we were to add
more square footage to this one. There's
still title 18 would apply. Nobody could
build more than thousand square.
>> Okay, got it. Thank you.
>> Questions? Go ahead. Um, yeah, quick
question. Um, I guess one thing I would
like to see from this change is, you
know, some data on like did this
actually move the needle in terms of ADU
construction? Did it speed up permitting
timelines? Things like that. Is that
something that like would you be able to
provide data on this, you know, at some
point later this year?
>> Sure. Um you know when we did the code
amendments for ADU council also asked us
to keep track of ADUs uh primarily for
like impact fee waiverss like how much
are we losing from that um also frontage
improvements are not required um there's
no parking requirement here so uh all of
those I think um and there's not like a
big amount of um units obviously we want
to see more of this go in but uh it'll
happen over a longer period of time um
but we are required to collect data for
housing for a variety of forums. So yes
we will be you know and especially for
this one we have to send a report to
department of commerce if we adopt this.
So yes we will collect data we can share
all that information.
>> Awesome. Thank you. Um, and then on the
slide about the water connection fee.
So, is potentially
revisiting what these connection fees
look like something that we might do? I
mean, I guess it seems like the main
issue is that if you have to do an
upsizing of the uh meter or what have
you, that's when the really high amounts
would kick in.
Um so you know we we just adopted those
um things and then the guidance from
department of commerce was folded in by
the consultant during that that study. A
lot of some of these costs are actually
passed through Cascade Water Alliance
gets the um RGFC's so it isn't all
staying with the city so there's limited
ability to kind of pass through. Um the
fire stuff also catches sometimes people
by surprise because they require
sprinklers if there is low pressure for
instance or there's not you know it's an
and that has come up in the um South
Cove uh neighborhood uh as well um and
so it
in terms of council taking action to
reduce the fees um it's not on the work
plan at this point is my understanding
but the this was handled
uh recently um I believe last year is
when council adopted the rates.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> So to follow up on that, a lot of the
charges on those water connection fees
are GFC's that we collect but pass
through.
>> Rional uh connection charges are passed
through. So
>> So are they the ones on that slide that
say RCFC?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So the city is still on like
scenario 2B. The city is still connect
collecting $21,000
because
someone needed to upsize to a 1 in.
>> Correct.
>> And so that's the cost to the city. So
you actually have to go do a meter
setter, you have to put a new meter and
then also all of that. So that was
funded through the study and the how
much does it cost the city and how much
do we collect from it?
>> Okay. And what what leads the
requirement to move up to a 1 in driven
by fixture count? I if somebody is
willing to have, you know, say that
they, you know, you can't have all
fixtures on at a time in a house um or
multiple showers running would
>> Yeah, this comes from the plumbing code
um as well. So, it isn't meant to be
whether they're on at the same time.
There there's a whole analysis that
establishes the the threshold.
>> Um,
>> but do we have control?
>> That's not unique to Isiqua. That's sort
of pretty much anywhere.
>> Yeah. But do we have control over
whether we're saying that somebody needs
to upsize to a 1 inch versus a 3/4 inch?
>> Uh, not really. If the fixture count is
the thing that triggers it, we have the
thing about um from one in if it's a
sometimes that you know like 2A
sometimes the fire sprinkler trips it.
The incentive there is that we don't
charge them
>> um one of the fees so you get a little
bit of a break. So that's a policy
choice that the council made during the
the code update but that was in the in
place before as well. I'm just trying to
determine who who says legally if you
have a certain number of fixtures you
have to have a 1 in
>> meter. It comes from the uniform
plumbing code. So that is established
through
years of study and every city has
>> so because we've adopted the uniform
plumbing code we have to follow that.
Correct.
>> And it won't work. So your water
pressure won't work. So, so there are a
few things that it gets complex quickly.
So, it's the number of fixture counts.
It's also how far from the meter is your
farthest fixture. There are a few other
levers that then established
>> at what point you got to upgrade it.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. And then I think sometimes people
want a separate meter anyways because
they're trying to either do a sale or
try to create a condo. Um,
okay.
>> We're trying to at least share this
information with people up front so they
know and they're not surprised when they
get the bill.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um, you mentioned that the
county amortizes or allows people to
amortize the connection cost. Is that
something that we could ever consider?
>> You know, it's a good question. I don't
know if that came up during the rate
studies. Yeah.
>> Yeah. We'll have to coordinate with
public works because this is going into
a separate fund that funds the
infrastructure investments in. just a
question of, you know, if if somebody is
much like a mortgage, people don't
>> pay for the entire build um cost most of
the time. They get a mortgage for a new
DADU. And so any of those ideas,
>> most cities though, I think do collect
that issuance because it's it's an
administrative, you know, hassle. Sure.
Then people don't pay their bill, then
it goes to collection, then how do we
collect that? I mean, kind of gets
>> complicated. Still a policy choice, but
yes. Okay. So, um, my questions for
this, can you walk us through what the
process would be for a homeowner or
builder? Um,
I I I get the idea that there's going to
be a an architect who's going to present
a plan and self-certify and sign off on
that. I still I don't understand
quite
what they then wouldn't have to do with
the city and what things they still
would have to do.
>> Sure. Sure. No. Um I think we'll um the
first time we implement it, we'll
obviously learn and tweak as we go uh to
the with the idea that we streamline it
to the extent to the maximum extent we
can. Um the way you know this bill is
written and the way it makes legal sense
is the waiver is from architectural life
safety requirements. So the building
review looks at whether you have
appropriate size windows, you have a
handrail, nobody's going to trip and
fall. Structurally it's sound. It's not
going to, you know, the roof can
withstand the snow loads, what not,
right? That level of review will not
occur at the city level. um we will
depending on where they locate this. If
they're putting it on a cliff and you
have a slope, we still would need to get
a soils report to make sure that the
foundation design, you know, that that
it the soils aren't liquefaction and
it's going to slide down the hillside or
anything like that. So, so in those
cases, if it's close to a steep slope,
we would be looking at a geotechnical
analysis. Um then uh if you
the connection to the utilities where is
your water line where's your sewer line
how are you connecting are you doing you
know a connection that will still be the
case. So in essence you we would be
looking at mostly their site plan
but most of their architectural plans
and things like that would be stamped by
the architect and we would u not spend
as much time you know we won't we won't
be doing that review there waving the
right uh we would then ask for a
self-certification
form that holds the city uh harmless. So
that's part of this bill and so we would
have some sort of a hold harmless which
is a pretty standard thing for other
building permits too. So there's some
additional little bit of paperwork we
would give them early on that if you
want to choose this path then submit
this signed form uh as part of your
file. Um
okay so somebody would still need to
get a permit. They would still need to
notify the city that they're going to be
building. We would still do building
inspections,
>> all of those things, and there would be
a, you know, certificate of occupancy
and all of those pieces would still
happen as expected.
>> We generally don't do certificate of
occupancies on small residential
buildings like that. It's usually
passing this final inspection.
>> Uh the law didn't really wave the
inspection piece and that's usually not
a burdensome thing. I think most people
just want to make sure another, you
know, thing is handled well. And so
that'll probably fall under audit
provision. So if anything comes up
during inspection is we would keep track
of that.
>> Okay. And so you've mentioned um there's
a burden for the city and in your email
responding to council member Nichols
questions, you mentioned, you know,
there are things that are going to have
to happen in order to implement this.
You're going to need to create a system
for audits. You're going to need to
track um what those look like. You're
going to need to update our permit
applications. You're going to need to
figure out what the penalties are and
how to do all of that.
If council adopts this on July 20th and
it goes into effect 5 days later, do we
feel like we're going to have all of
those things in
less than 20 days?
>> We'll we'll be ready. Um Okay. Yeah. I
you know I mean the the penalty pieces
probably not um because I think that'll
come through the audit piece but if
someone is ready to apply we will have
the form of self-certification holding
us harmless
>> and all of that stuff will be in place.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. We don't you know in terms of
numbers it's not like we see a floodgate
of them. So yes it's a burden but it's
not really
>> if a huge thing. uh you know, we do $4
million worth of construction permits. I
mean, I what's the percentage of these?
Probably not a significant amount of
those, right? And so, at the moment, we
obviously want to use these tools to
encourage and spur that more. Um, but it
it's more work, but it's not to a point
where it's can't be sustained.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'm going to ask an off-the-wall,
maybe silly question here. Um,
could we allow self-certification on
single family homes?
>> Uh, not the not under the state law.
>> Okay. So, it's a state law that allowed
this and does not allow any other
levels. Okay. Just kind of trying to
understand as we look at what the costs
are to build. First of all, I want to
make sure we're incentivizing the right
type of building. And so, um, something
like this as an ADU, um, makes sense.
But I also want to understand, you know,
what portion of the costs and permitting
costs are related to, you know, the
building inspection versus, you know,
delays and other pieces of that. And so
if we find something that is working to
reduce our permit timelines,
then what are our options to expand it?
But it sounds like it's state. So yeah.
>> Yeah. Excellent. Okay. Other questions?
Council member Nichols.
>> Yeah. Um I want to dig into the plumbing
fix here question a little bit more. Um,
I I looked at this a a while ago when I
I was speaking to somebody that had
spent something like $100,000 on
plumbing upgrades for a ADU that they
were trying to build on um on Squawk,
the on top of Squawk. Um my I'm I'm
quickly looked this up and my my look
what I saw at the time was that it
looked like in addition to the plumbing
codes, we had also adopted um some some
more modern codes that referred to peak
water demand calculations. And so this
is getting at the point that not
everybody is turning on all of their
faucets at all at the same time. Like
this is just obvious and there some of
this is in building code. Um I don't I
don't want to push you on this at the
moment because this is kind of this is
pretty in the weeds. But uh I I am
interested in since you said that this
is this table is based on
plumbing code and we have adopted
plumbing code and I think it's title 16
somewhere. Yeah. Um, we also have stuff
in title 13 on
the right way. Um,
anyway, I'm going to get some of the
details wrong, but I it would be my my
request is um it it it would be useful
information to have
um details on very very precisely what's
driving the upcharge from say $7,000 to
$50,000 because I mean that's you know
20% of the cost of some of these ADUs,
right? So that's that's a big difference
of whether somebody buys it or not. Um I
I appreciate that's not on the work plan
for the current year, but uh that would
it would be useful to understand that to
know if that's something that we should
potentially revisit in the future to
help decrease barriers to ADUs since it
is such a big increase in the percentage
increase in the cost.
>> Yeah. You know, uh we do communicate
with Matt Ellis in public works um
because he's the utilities engineer.
when few things come up like this um
especially the one that was like a fire
uh sprinkler requirement by the fire
department I really wanted to understand
what's triggering that because with the
scope of the work that they were showing
and and you know we we engaged with the
fire epher uh in that to understand
their perspective on why that was being
triggered because that itself was a
$50,000 value cost to the homeowner and
then the 20 grand for the meter upgrade
and Um then Matt reached out to Cascade
Water Alliance and and we clarified that
RCFC's didn't apply and so Matt is
keeping a rolling list of the things
that come up and I don't know his
timeline of when that'll come in front
of council but after the last rate study
um there are a few little things that
come up that um maybe it's just language
clarification, maybe it's more um
scenario playing of what happens in this
case and that case Um, and you're you're
right that those things start with title
12 or 13 because it's based on the water
system plan for the whole city and then
then they refer to the plumbing code for
the fixture count piece. It gets
complex. Um, we're actually have a
process improvement effort uh going on
with uh we asked Dale to help lead that
because there was there is the issue of
utility billing part of this. There is
the water planning and then there's the
CPD piece that's uh really getting into
the complexity of which fees apply
where. Okay.
>> Uh and how we do this is so we are
working behind the scenes on some of
these improvements.
>> So that all understood and I I won't
push on anymore tonight. It would be
nice if we can add that to a parking lot
to assess in the future because I I
could easily see something like that
being a bigger barrier than the
permitting change is the word debate.
>> Yeah. Then and that was our feedback to
the state legislators when they were
asking for our feedback on ADUs was you
know King County metro sewer capacity
charge and those kind of things but
they're all tied to money for
infrastructure. So maybe the state's
help in funding some of that
infrastructure is is a good way to to
look at this picture.
>> Go ahead.
>> Yeah. And just on the plumbing code
thing, this is definitely not an area
where I've done enough deep diving to
really be able to speak too much about
it. Um but I mean if we're really going
off fixture count as the thing that
triggers upgrades, I feel like I mean I
understand you know if you have more
fixtures you need more water, etc. I
wonder if this potentially could be an
opportunity for us to actually
incentivize water efficiency by saying
like if you have more fixtures but
they're more efficient, maybe you don't
need to upgrade your um you know
connection. So I mean I don't know if
that's even something that's allowed
under the uniform plumbing code but
something that we should definitely
explore cuz $50,000 to connect to water
is a lot a lot of money. Yeah. And I
think that's what it comes down to is
all of us sitting here are not experts
on this, but we look at this and say
there's got to be a way to make this be,
you know, work for people because if you
are spending that much more money when
you're just putting in a little bit, it
it feels wrong. So, yeah. So, um yes,
Council Member Nichols,
>> one more followup on that. Um, and I I
think that's actually worth worth
pushing on too because what my
recollection of this and I I didn't I
was able to find this quickly. So this I
I think we actually we we do have some
flexibility in my understanding of this
from a fixture count and that we also
adop there's the a peak water demand
calculator that I'm looking at right now
in 1640 80. Um so I think we have some
flexibility there. We just I'm not sure
if it's being applied. So that would be
useful to understand as well. We'll
>> look at that. Yep.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And just one other thing in my
very brief Googling this um what a PM O
I don't know some association of
plumbers they basically are like the
actual observed peak flow rate for
plumbing is something like you know less
than half of what the amount that's
calculated using the water demand
calculator for like 99% of buildings.
So, and I think it's they're probably
trying to argue to have, you know, lower
amount, but definitely all that to say,
I think we should explore, you know,
what are some ways of right sizing our
infrastructure and not doing unnecessary
upgrades that cost a lot of money if we
can help it.
And that gets back to all of the things
we're trying to do with the promoting
build building investments is try and
understand the areas of efficiency and
the areas that you know we can reduce
the costs. Um and I think it's great
that we are taking a look at that. So,
um, on this idea of self-certification
of DADUs, do we have any feedback or
anything that we feel like needs changes
before it goes to council?
Yes. Yes. That's a good point because we
don't have any public. We do have a
member of the public online.
>> Correct, chair.
>> Okay. Then before we go to comments,
um giving that person an opportunity to
raise their hand or press star three if
they are on a phone um or send a message
uh to the host if you are looking to
make a public comment on this item. We
are addressing the self-certification
program for detached accessory dwelling
units. And so I will give a moment see
if we have anybody online. Our one lone
caller indicating a desire to make a
public comment.
>> Chair, I'm not seeing a virtual hand at
this time to uh indicating a willingness
to speak.
>> Okay, fantastic. Well, always welcome to
send us an email.
>> Yeah, and actually this is uh Matt Hate
from Master Builder Association. He did
send you an email.
>> Okay, fantastic. Yes, we received the
emailed letter of support in that way.
Okay. So, feedback. Council member
Nichols.
>> This is more for discussion for the
committee. So, I wanted I I'm curious
what you guys think about um the square
footage limits and if we should push on
that. I'm I'm coming at this from the
perspective that we should try to get
out of the way of blocking these
wherever possible. the square footage
limit is it it's not a I don't it
doesn't look like it's a big deal but
looking at what other cities have done I
mean there there's lots of cities around
us that have limits at 800 square feet
so there's nothing above that there's
lots of cities that have square footage
limits at 1,000 square feet so there's
nothing above that looking at some
cities that have pushed that higher they
don't get much bigger than that they go
up to like 1,200 and we have one example
it sounds like of somebody that was
trying to do that it it feels to me like
it's one thing that might encourage a
few more it's it's an edge case, but it
might encourage a few more ADUs to get
built. Um,
within the context of this discussion
tonight, this doesn't solve that. So, I
mean, at most this would be if these are
in conflict, it would have to be
something that we would consider
addressing maybe next year in some title
18 minor updates, something like that.
I'm not sure what the best way to
approach that would be, but just I I
suppose first, just this is a question.
Does this seem like something that is
worth pushing on a little bit on the
square footage max um that applies to
both ADUs overall, which would be a
separate discussion, but ADUs within the
context of this now and as long as we're
talking about this now, if we did want
to have that discussion about increasing
ADU max sizes, let's fix this one first
and then come back to it later because
the other one still stands for the the
time being anyway. Any
comments?
>> Yeah, I mean I think I'm open to that. I
think what you see in some other places,
I mean there's kind of this concern
about the ADU being bigger than the
primary house type of situation. What
I've seen in some places like Smamish,
they say something that's like an
attached ADU can be up to 50% of the
size of the single family residence or
1,000 square feet, whichever is larger.
And so you could imagine some of these
homes in Sam could have very very large
ADUs because they're very large to begin
with. Um so I think you know offering a
bit more flexibility is good. I actually
to uh went and looked at this ADU on
Andrew Street uh the other week which is
a new construction ADU which I think is
actually slightly over 1,000 ft. I just
looked it up so I'm actually interested
to see how they maybe they got a
variance or something. I think it's
1080. Um, but it's really nice because
it's a three-bedroom house in a very,
very compact space. And I think that's
really great because, you know, for me
as someone who wants to have a family in
Isiqua, having more options where you
can have multiple kids, I think is
really important and great. So you know
to the extent that we can enable that by
just you know increasing the size of it
slightly and you know addressing the
concern of what if the AD becomes bigger
than the primary house okay then let's
limit it to 50% of the size of the
primary house so it kind of like scales
accordingly. Um that makes a lot of
sense to me. Um so yeah I'm definitely
interested in exploring you know
changing that number.
So, I was on the committee and voted to
support the thousand square foot limit.
And it was quite honestly a tossup
because and the only reason it came down
to that was we were also talking about,
you know, if you build a house and two
ADUs on it versus building a triplex,
like what the costs of the impact fees
would be because the only thing that we
were considering at that point was that
ADUs had limited impact fees. that was
the kind of only real difference um in
concept for us. So now hearing that
there are potentially other um
differences, I would be interested to
pursue that, but I would want to do it
in context of our overall conversation
about impact fees. Um because I think if
we are reducing impact fees on all
levels of building that to me
eliminates one of the concerns about
treating ADUs differently because as I
said one of the big elements of ADUs is
that they aren't charged the impact fees
or whatever. So, I would also be
interested in looking at that. Um, but I
I don't I don't like the idea of
updating one area of our code to 1,200
and leaving another at a,000. I think I
would be more interested in putting that
in as part of a conversation on impact
fees, understanding what those are, and
then going back and doing the title 18
and title 16 updates at the same time.
Deputy Council President.
>> Yeah, I guess I wonder I I feel like
whenever you have things in two
different parts of the code, then it
starts to get messy because you could
update one but not the other. So I
wonder if in this change we could say,
you know, detached ADUs are eligible for
self-certification up to the size limit
that is in title 18 so that we don't
have this confusion if we, you know,
choose to update the size limit later.
>> Sure, we can do that. I mean there's a
balance between if you send people from
here to here to go see that then your
code becomes a little bit of like you do
five clicks to get your answer. So I
think there's just but that's not a
problem when we could reference the the
standard from title 18 here. We
generally but each title is it's
standalone thing. So you generally you
know those kind of references work
within each title. How many city clerk
would and our codifying people will say
you can't just go refer to title three
and then you know do here by each title
is generally preferred is my
understanding but it doesn't change I
mean if we if we're going to change it
in in the future then we would change it
in both places.
Yeah, I I like that idea because we're
not listing everything out that defines
an ADU in this title 16 code. And so I
think eliminating the one piece that
does feel a little bit odd to be in this
area um versus the building code I think
makes sense. Council member.
>> Yeah, I like it too. as long I um
again I mean if assuming it's if there's
actually some legal reason not to do it
then that's that should overrule but I
I'll defer on that. Um the other
question for me is just to make sure
that we have a mechanism to make sure
that we do address this. I don't think
this is urgent. Um this like my my look
at this is just anytime I see you know
round big round numbers I'm skeptical
that they are arbitrarily chosen because
we have a a digit preference for big
round numbers. So I wanted to just
question that a little bit. Um and it
looking at some other cities it does
look like if if there cities that have
slightly broad or that have no
restrictions on size at all up to fairly
large sizes. I I I emailed some data on
Portland. I there there's I I dug after
that as well. Uh it doesn't get much
bigger than like 1,200. That's where
things start to max out. But I I I I
question whether we might have cut off a
little bit too early or a little bit too
small and whether it would be worth
revisiting that if it would perhaps spur
a few more of these to be built. So
that's that's that's why I'm pushing a
little bit. But it's the the the process
is I I appreciate a little bit messy
since this is multiple titles
interacting with each other. I like the
idea if if it's possible of just
referencing titles
going to title 18 max in this um and
then just try asking staff if we can
perhaps next year if we do another set
of minor title 18 updates to have a
discussion on it then um or at some
point when it's appropriate just to add
it to for a future discussion.
>> Yeah, sure. You know, I mean it's not
too long ago we did the middle housing.
So if we we have to give it a little bit
more time to see what kind of demand
we're we're hearing from people. So we
committed to monitoring, keeping track
of, you know, what people want to build,
how many actually get built and all of
that. So in that conversation as we
report back to council of here's the
status, we got two more, we got four
more or whatever the the number ends up
being and what the sizes were. The last
time we did this analysis of sizes, you
know, thousand was what it was. We there
wasn't a big community
um you know, request to increase the the
the size. Uh and it was new because it
was allowing two ADUs. So I think that
was part of the factor of um and I think
I looked up Seamish. Uh there they have
a th00and square feet if it's detached.
If it's attached to a home, they go by
the size of the home. um or,000 ft
whichever is larger. So they they
treated those two sizes slightly
differently. So there's different ways
to do it. Um but I think we didn't hear
from the community that there was a need
to do to go above thousand square feet.
Now if we start hearing more demand for
more than thousand, we can speed up that
the conversation with council or we keep
track of the reporting. we come back to
you on some cadence and then
>> practically speaking though how would we
hear like if if we've got this in code
that it's limited to a thousand I I
would expect that to be limiting in what
people ask because they would just look
up the code and not bother to ask
>> I think we get requests from from comm
if if people want to build bigger they
will ask what's the process uh to go
larger than that because sometimes we
have deviations we have all of those
kind of things too.
Deputy Council President.
>> Um, just as one point of demand from the
community for larger ADUs. So, I
mentioned, you know, I toured this ADU,
which was 1,080 ft, which actually I
think if we were in the metric system,
that's just about 100 square meters. So
maybe that would have been allowed, but
this one I mean so they the um builder
said they got five tours in 12 hours and
they went pending they got five tours in
the first 12 hours and the property went
pending in 12 hours which I think shows
that there's very high demand from the
community of people who wish to live in
isqua for exactly that type of thing
which is an ADU that is slightly larger
than 10,000 ft and so I think you know
to the extent that we can enable a
little more of that. I think it's great.
>> Okay, one point of feedback over there.
>> All right.
>> Um, so the direction needed, you said,
does the committee have any feedback on
the proposed ordinance allowing
self-certification of DADUs? I think we
had feedback asking to if it's possible
to remove the thousand square foot and
then we can potentially revisit that at
a title 18 conversation. Um, anything
else there? No. Okay. And does the
committee recommend advancing this item
to the July 20th city council meeting?
And if so, placing it on consent or
regular business?
Um, yeah, I support advancing it to the
city council meeting. I'm kind of
agnostic on consent versus regular
business. So, curious to hear what other
folks have to say. Council member,
>> I definitely support the ordinance and I
support re furthering it to the full
council. I I kind of I actually think we
if
if we have a super PAC meeting, I don't
want to push this, but if we don't, I
think this is an this is an interesting
thing where we're trying to push
and go a little bit further than some
other uh municipalities are going
sooner. And I think it's worth getting
the full council to at least understand
that. Um,
so for that reason, I would support
putting it on the regular agenda, but
it's not I I'm not super hung up on
that. So,
>> I think my perspective tends to be
nobody watches city council meetings.
Their lives are really busy. And so I
think this is a great, you know,
potential article out there on ways that
we are trying to improve um building. Uh
but I'm not sure that there is anything
necessarily in a presentation that is
going to be I mean you saw the
presentation today. It was not anything
particularly spectacular for meeting
format. Yeah, I think it could be a
quick presentation, but just getting
everybody to acknowledge that this is
one thing that we're doing that is going
a little bit that we're we're trying to
be forward here. That can be the same
three sentences that were stated
tonight, more or less. Um, but to be
explicit about that and to help set the
tone for other things that we're trying
to do.
>> Yeah, I would agree with that. And I
think also, you know, presenting the
plumbing connection costs as a potential
future area, I think is worth having an
actual presentation. And, you know, I
mean, I did not think we were going to
spend 45 minutes today talking about
plumbing codes, but here we are.
Um, so I do think that that's also worth
surfacing as something as an area of
future investigation.
Okay. I don't have a problem with it
being on regular business. Um, director
or city administrator Bob Quitz looking
at the meeting. I know we've got the
ALPR camera use policy.
Um, and then we've got a street
standards frontage improvements for
public utility
projects.
>> It's up to the committee. You know, I
think the the council depends on the
committee to deal with the kind of
details you're dealing with. And you
know certainly I get feedback from other
of your colleagues saying you know why
are we talking about this at full
council isn't that supposed to be talked
about at committee. So there's certainly
time on this meeting but uh from time to
time I do hear from council members
asking that question. So whatever that
>> and the answer is we're doing really
exciting things. And so um I think let's
put this on regular business. See how it
goes um with all of that and any other
comments questions concerns?
Okay. Um looking at our meeting, uh any
announcements?
If not, we are adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
Thank you.