Welcome everyone. I call the March 9th
special city council meeting to order.
There are no excused absences tonight. I
know deputy council president Martz is
on his way. This meeting was originally
scheduled as a committee of the whole
meeting with a focus on promoting
building investment in Nzqua, but given
the resignation of council president
Barb Michelle on March 2nd, we have
added two items were added to the
agenda. This meeting was suggested to be
a special city council meeting so the
council could take action on them. And
we are going to start this evening with
public comments. And for those who
signed up to an advance, you will be
called on first. If you're on virtually,
raise your virtual hand. If you're on
the phone, hit star three. And if you're
in the room, we will go through and just
ask people to be respectful in their
dialogue. And I will now go
to our city clerk, Tisha, to see if
anybody has signed up to speak today at
public comments.
>> All right. I left the signup sheet in
the back, so I'm looking to see if
anyone in the audience uh would like to
make public comments. We do have a few
people with us virtually.
And if you're with us virtually and
would like to make comments, please
raise your virtual hand
or enter a chat. I'm just
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Keeping my eye out here.
>> Not seeing anything. I'm trying to think
how we can
I mean, I guess we could also just Oh,
perfect.
>> Yeah. No one online is indicating a
desire to speak.
Okay, public comments are now
going once, going twice,
and public comments are now closed. We
will now go to the next item, which is
special business. Agenda Bill 9168,
election of council president and deputy
council president. So, the January 5th
council meeting, the city council
elected council member Barbie. Michelle
as council president and council member
Tolamarz as the deputy council
president. Council member D. Michelle's
resignation. The council is being asked
to go through the election process.
Again, a summary of the leadership
responsibilities were provided in
tonight's agenda packet. The following
process will be used to elect the
officers. First, we will call for
nominations. When all nominations have
been made, we will close nominations and
council members will then be provided
the opportunity to discuss said
nominees. We'll then ask council to cast
votes on the nominees in the order they
were nominated. Council members may vote
for themselves. The first council member
receiving the majority of the votes is
declared council president. We will then
repeat that process to elect a deputy
council president. So we'll begin with
the nominations
for council president. Are there any
nominations? Council member Walsh.
>> I would like to nominate council member
Martz.
>> All right. Council member Martz been
nominated. Are there any other
nominations?
Hearing none. The nominations are now
closed. Is there any discussion on the
nominee? Council member Walsh. Thank
you. Yes, I've worked with uh Council
Member Marts for many years. I
appreciate that this was not the role
that he intended to serve on, but um the
fact that he is willing to do so and
step in is very important. And having
served in this role, I can see that he
will be a good voice um to help work the
council forward for this year.
>> All right. Excellent.
Not seeing any further discussion, the
council will now vote to elect Council
Member Tolarts as a 2026 council
president. All those in favor, please
say I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed, nay. And that passes
unanimously.
Congratulations. Uh, Council President
Mark said, you have some comments.
>> I I would like to just make a quick
comment. I I want to thank my fellow
council members for uh this vote of
confidence. Um this is as uh council
member Walsh said not at all the way uh
one wants to find oneself in a in a
leadership role. Um I had been, as I've
said before, I'd been very much looking
forward to learning a lot um from
Council Member D. Michelle and she has
very large shoes to fill. Um so I will
work very hard with all of you and with
the administration um to advance the
issues that are important to the whole
council um in addition to uh you know
keeping the spirit of uh what Barb was
looking to do uh for the council in
terms of our commitment to human
services and to the institutions in the
community that give meaning to people's
lives. Um, I'm going to I'm going to
work hard to continue to advance that
with all of your assistance and with the
assistance of the administration. So,
thank you.
>> Excellent. All right. We're now going to
open nominations for deputy council
president and council member Nichols.
>> I'd like to nominate Council Member
Jang.
>> Council member Jen has been nominated.
Are there any other nominations?
Not seeing any, the nominations are now
closed. Is there any discussion?
Council member Nichols.
>> Uh I'll still keep this brief, but I
think Council Member Jang will be an
excellent addition to council leadership
uh and enthusiastically support her. Uh
her attention to detail, strategic
thinking, and love for our city uh will
make her an excellent um addition to the
leadership team. Um as with council
president Martz, um this is not a
situation I'm sure anyone that will be
on council leadership wanted to see. Uh
but I'm happy to see excellent people
step up.
>> All right. Excellent. Not seeing any
further discussion. Council now vote on
whether to elect Council Member Kelly
Jang as a 2026 Deputy Council President.
All those in favor, please say I.
>> I.
>> All those opposed, nay. And that passes
unanimously. Congratulations, Deputy
President Council Member Jen. And do you
want to make some comments?
>> Um, I want to echo what everyone has
said that, you know, this is not really
the way that we would have wanted this
year to go. And you know, stepping into
this leadership position,
I feel like like many of us, you know,
we want to see um a lot of the care that
uh former council member D. Michelle
brought to the community. We want to
continue that and I will aim to do my
best uh in that as our deputy council
president for this year. So, thank you
all for your support.
>> All right. I would now like to take the
chance to congratulate uh council
president Martz and deputy president Jen
on their new roles.
Now we have to reshuffle seats. So we
will be at ease for seat reshuffleling.
Arc, it looks like our seat shuffling is
complete. We will wait for your Oh,
there's the magic red light. Okay, seat
shuffling is complete. We're now back to
regular business. Agenda bill 9167 is a
city council vacancy process council
position number three. I'd like to
invite city clerk Tisha Geyser to
introduce the item.
>> Hi city council. Tisha Geyser. City
clerk here
with another vacancy process. Something
we didn't expect so soon.
All right, I'm trying something new
tonight. See if I can get my slides to
advance. Tested this. That worked
beautifully.
Ah,
>> I know. Who do Who does a city clerk ask
for help? Because normally everyone asks
the city clerk for help.
>> Oh, I know, Molly. Turn it on.
Come on. Come on.
Uh, so per the city council's rules, um,
there are a couple things that you all
do before we kind of launch this
process. So, you approve the timeline,
you review the application,
you provide any direction on specific
outreach or approach, and then uh we'll
quickly talk about the verbal
presentations in Q&A session in case
you'd like to make any adjustments to
either of those steps.
All right. So, under state law, the city
council has 90 days to fill a vacancy to
the city council. And as I said, you
have a process established in your rules
of procedure that you have been
fine-tuning over the years. Uh the
person who's appointed to council
position number three will serve until
certification of the general election in
2027. Then someone will be elected to
fill the unexpired term. So just wanted
to clarify that.
All right. So this is a potential
timeline that you saw in your packet. Um
this is uh I would say a little bit of a
uh consolidated timeline from what we've
done in the recent past. Though
interestingly I was looking at some past
vacancy periods and I see when uh the
mayor left the city council we had a
twoe application period to fill his
seat. So it this is not unprecedented in
any way. Um but again just like the last
vacancy we have a kind of a target date
of that May believe it's the sixth or
the 9th um retreat the early May retreat
um that we'd like to get someone seated
for. So this timeline proposes a 2 and a
half week application period foregoing
the elected information session elected
official information session that you've
had for the last two vacancies and which
has been really successful but again one
was just held in mid December. Um it
would have uh council presentation
presentations to the city council by the
applicants on April 7th. That is a
Tuesday. You have a committee of the
whole on Monday the 6th. And this would
be taking the night that the PTE
committee would typically meet and uh
turning that into a special council
meeting for uh individual presentations.
And then as you know there's usually
that second step which is the question
and answer period and the potential
appointment. And again, we're proposing
the April 20th council meeting and we'll
be looking for your input on this
timeline.
The swearing in would then could then
occur on April 20th.
Okay. So, a couple more things. Um, we
I'm not going to read through these. Um,
they were in your packet, but uh if you
recall for the last vacancy, you did
make some adjustments to the questions
on the online application. I included
those in the materials tonight. Uh there
are
six five of them. Thank you. Um and so
would be looking for any uh of your
input tonight on if you'd like to see
changes to those questions as you saw in
the timeline. Um the application would
go live this Friday. So we'd be looking
for any input on those tonight. Um we
have realized that we are not collecting
the demographic information on this
application that we are on our um our
positions at the city and also our board
and commission application. So we are
proposing including a few pieces of
demographic information which we would
redact um from the published version of
the applications.
So as you know uh kind of the first big
step after the applications come in is
getting those verbal presentations by
the applicants. Um the current rules say
that council leadership will determine
the duration of those after kind of
finding out the number of applicants
that we have. The last application
period we had 13W I think we ended up
with 12 interviews. I think we had about
14 applicants. So we had a few people
withdraw and so council leadership went
with that 3 to five minute period. Um
and then the presentations are
determined by random drawing. They stand
here to present to you and again looking
for direction if you'd like anything
differently done moving forward. Just
wanted to give a quick refresher on that
second step that question and answer
period. So, for the last vacancy, uh,
council leadership was delegated, uh,
the, uh, position to determine the
questions. The questions were also
included in your packet and then the
council kind of weighed in on those a
little bit before the questions were
asked of the applicants. Each applicant
was given 20 minutes to respond. Um, I I
did note that that no one used that
time. Uh, you likely noted that, too.
And then as you recall, we did make
arrangements and requested the other
applicants be in a separate room prior
to their interview.
Almost done here and then look forward
to your input. Um so next steps would be
posting the application and beginning
our outreach. I included kind of our
typical outreach in the packet. Um
certainly because we've had two
vacancies fairly recently, uh we would
be outreaching to those folks in case
they were interested in reapplying and
then kind of doing our standard um
information that is aquat insider, some
outreach to the HOAs, uh city partners,
um nonprofits and all the usual social
media channels and whatnot.
With that, um I am just looking for your
input on any of the steps of that
process. Changes to some of those could
require suspending your rules, but
there's some flexibility particularly in
that timeline. And then looking for a
motion uh sort of to direct staff to
move forward with this process.
>> Thank you.
>> I see council member Nichols and then
Walsh then a dare.
>> Thank you. Um on the elected official
information session, if we added that
back in, would that affect the rest of
the timeline? I was I was struggling a
bit with where to put it in with the 2
and 1 half week application window. If
you wanted to stretch out the
application window to something like
four weeks and have applications due
midappril, I see a couple of Saturdays
that would fall near the beginning or
middle of that process and would work
really well. I think with the 2 and 1/2
weeks it could be it could be
challenging. Um certainly if you'd like
to propose something we could take
>> that. So maybe why I don't why is it
challenging? There are Saturdays there.
So, are there are there other city
events that would block it or
>> Let me let me grab my calendar.
>> Okay, thank you.
Let me pull up the calendar to look at
that. And I guess I'm assuming that we'd
want something um prior to the
applications, but you're right, it
wouldn't necessarily I mean it could be
as soon as next Saturday. I suppose.
So, why don't I pop that open? But
you're right. I'm I'm sure we could
accommodate uh something
before the April 1st deadline. So, if
that's something that council would like
to see, I'm sure we could figure out a
date. And it does not have to be on a
Saturday. Could also be a weekn night
evening.
>> Yeah. I'll just finish out with my I'm
not sure how we if we vote on this or
not given what this is, but um uh I
think it would be a good idea to add it
back in. Um even if we can't all attend
and it's short notice, etc. I think we
should be doing this is one of the most
important things we do. So any extra
touch point even just to advertise a
little bit more I think is a is a good
use of time.
>> Could I I mean one Saturday is March
28th. I know some of us are going to the
light rail opening that morning, but I
don't know midday that day if I don't
know. I'm just looking for a
a sense of
or the 21st is also an option.
>> And I'm weighing back in here real
quick, not that the council can't do
this, but the 21st is the one of the
Bahigh holidays that we typically don't
schedule meetings on. However, that is,
you know, it's a policy that we do our
best. It doesn't mean we can't schedule
something. So, um, the mayor's right,
those appear to be both be options.
>> Council member Dair,
>> my comment was going to be to this same
thing that I felt that theformational
session as someone who just did this was
very instrumental in my thing. It was my
way to kind of take a step into this as
to try and figure out if it made sense
for me. Though, I understand the
shortened timeline. And so the other
what I was also going to propose today
was if it if we couldn't fit it in even
just having something informal that's
like open hours that some council set
members will be at you know uh you know
blazing bagels or something for two
hours on a weekend if people want to
stop by and ask questions would be
something. But I would like us to have
some equivalent of this involved. And
then for me I mean any weekend any day
we can we could be made to work whatever
works with the city calendar whatever
spaces we need to use.
Uh, Council Member Walsh, then President
Mart,
>> are we just doing questions or
>> We can do whatever you want.
>> Okay. Um, the schedule adds a meeting on
April 7th rather than utilizing the
April 6th um, date. Was there a reason
for that?
>> Yeah, there are a few agenda items
scheduled for the April 6th committee of
the whole related to facilities. There
might be one other topic.
>> Yeah, I noticed there were two items on
the planning calendar. So that was the
reason
>> we felt like it was better to have a
whole separate meeting for
>> presentations and all of that. Okay. Um
I don't have a strong opinion between
the two, but I wanted to point it out
and see if any other council members had
thoughts on that. Um
>> I I can say council member Walsh I think
we were we were expecting the
presentation that night to be somewhere
between 90 minutes and
I don't know say 90 minutes to two hours
kind of for the regular meeting. So I
think our question was
>> it was open if the council wanted to do
like a longer like four or five hour
meeting it could happen. So I think it
was up for debate.
>> Yeah that's really good feedback then no
I think I would prefer a se a separate
meeting.
Um I think I agree with the idea that we
should be able to fit in an outreach um
meeting. I do also think that the
presentation that was given at that
meeting was particularly useful and so
linking that off of anyformational
um pieces whether we have a website or
the application would be really good.
Obviously changing any relevant dates um
on that. I think with the Q&A session,
um, I really liked the upgraded process
that we put in for this last year. Um,
but I do note that those questions are
now out there. So, I would request that
council leadership come up with five new
questions um, for that. Um, and
obviously ask to see if there are any
others, but that you would do it in
private rather than us recommending it
um, on the dis. And then I would also
note we continue to see applicants who
do not reach out to council members. Um
I've talked with many of them who've
said, "I didn't think it was my place. I
didn't I thought you guys were too busy
or anything like that. I wonder if
there's just a way that we could put it
in big bold letters or something like
that um that council members welcome
your outreach." Um, so I think that
would be great and otherwise I'm very
much in favor of all of this.
>> You know, we're like a high school
chemistry teacher. We got to change the
test up now. So can't be passed on from
one year next. Council President Marks,
>> absolutely emphatic plus one on
theformational session. Um, you know,
this we live and breathe by the quality
of the applicants that we get in this
process. We had earlier in the week um
or last week discussed a full 3 weeks
and um extending the session extending
the um the uh application through
Wednesday through Friday the 3rd. Is
that not possible? Did we decide that
that was too too close to the meeting on
the 7th?
>> Yes. I need about 48 hours to connect
with King County Elections and verify
the residency and election status. And
so I just couldn't figure out how to do
that.
>> Okay.
>> Um maybe we could do Thursday the 2nd,
but I think that's as far as we could
go.
>> Okay. Can we if we can do Thursday the
second, I appreciate giving people as
much opportunity as possible. I hear the
five new questions loud and clear. Um
so, uh council leadership will draft and
discuss with the rest of the council. um
five new questions and then uh yeah the
the other piece you know we have this
thing where people don't necessarily
realize that they can contact us the
other thing they don't necessarily
realizes they can submit references and
I don't know I think we need to
emphasize that more because I feel like
we've gotten a mix we've had some
applicants who have absolutely embraced
that and we've had some applicants who
haven't embraced it at all and that's
certainly they're right but I would like
to see a little bit more you know let's
let's put that front and center that
that that um they are those are welcome
and and will be read. Thank you.
>> Maybe mentioned Hollywood actors help on
the references. Uh the Okay, I'm looking
at the council. I don't know if it's
worth trying to kind of
pencil in the afternoon of the 28th or
not or just revisit another time the
exact date. I'm trying to think of C
deputy president Jen. Um, I feel like
March 28th is a bit too late in the
process. I mean, that's like 4 days
before the deadline. I feel like the
earlier the better. So, you know, you I
mean, maybe this weekend is too soon.
>> But I feel like either this weekend,
sometimes sometime next week or next
weekend is like the absolute latest I
would do because otherwise it only it
gives people like four days to do the
whole application. Well, I think we'll
plan. We have leadership Wednesday
morning. So, we'll plan at leadership to
try to figure out the best date, I
think, so we can go public with it
hopefully by close of business on
Wednesday. Are there any other questions
for our city clerk? There are no other
questions. This is the time of the
meeting where I look for motions.
Council President Martz.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I move to
approve the process and timeline for
filling the 2026 council vacancy at
position number three as amended.
>> Second.
>> There's been a motion and there has been
a second. Is there any further
discussion?
Council President Marks,
>> you know, earlier when we were talking
about leadership opportunities, it was
sort of a somber moment and and it it's
still a somber moment, but it's also a
really exciting moment. Um, you know,
I've, as everybody knows, I keep saying,
I've been doing this for 17 years. I
mean, seeing the opportunity to engage
three members of the public in the space
of a year um is has will really wind up
having had a transformative effect on
this council. almost a majority of the
council will have come through the
appointment process which was never I
mean we never had anything else like
that in 17 years. I think that um this
process
uh I think that we worked hard to make
improvements to the process from a year
ago. And so um I and I I think what
we're hearing tonight is the council
that's generally very uh happy with the
process as it was most recently. So, I
want to thank the clerk's office for the
hard work that they did um in helping us
iterate this most recently. And the fact
that we're not making substantive
changes this time around um is is is
really impressive and and a mark of how
I think this process works and we're
excited about um the public. So, so if
you're thinking about applying out
there, this is an exciting time to think
about uh being appointed to the council.
That's my thoughts on the process. Thank
you.
>> Excellent. Okay. Not seeing any other
further discussion. The motion before
the council was to approve the process
and timeline for filling the 2026 city
council vacancy of position number three
as amended. As amended means the
deadline would now be Thursday, close of
business on April 2nd and that we will
have kind of anformational session that
will get announced later on this week.
All those in favor, please say I. I.
>> I.
All those opposed? Nay.
And that passes unanimously.
Okay. We are now going to the next item
which is item number COM 0215formational
update on the permit process
improvements.
And
we're going to I'm trying to think. Am I
going first or are you going first?
Mindy,
>> you you can go first. Uh
Okay.
So, my portion here is fairly brief. I
think I was just going to give a short
background before we turn it over to
staff to kind of walk through tonight's
items. I think it starts, I think, from
my own personal lived history. I've
dealt with the permit department as a
restaurant owner. So I have restaurants
in Seattle, Kirkland, Belleview,
Seamish, and Isiqua. So I kind of
learned how different cities have
different processes. And I think through
that, I have learned that there are some
things in there that drive up cost and
I'm not sure are 100% essential, and
there's a lot of things in there that
may drive up cost, but are essential. So
I think this whole process we've been
working on with staff is trying to
figure out what are the essential items
that we need to have and what are the
ones that may be driving up cost but not
necessarily adding a lot of value in the
process. And so that's one element of
that lived experience. I think the se
second element is during my time in the
state senate when I chaired the state
construction budget, I witnessed how
laws that we would pass in the
legislature would actually drive up the
cost of of doing construction at the
same time as we try to then build
government buildings. And this, you
know, prime example is a a very new
large building going up in the Bellev
College campus right now. And it was
kind of challenges dealing with the
local permit department in the city of
Belleview that the state of Washington
was facing through a community college
lens that actually drove up the cost of
that building by roughly 50%. And so I
think those lived experiences brought me
in this role to the idea of in the first
term in office here right out of the
gate just saying what do we have to look
at from our city codes of things that
could be unnecessarily driving up the
cost. I think the final perspective that
drives this discussion is council member
Martz and I joined this body together
back in 2009.
We then did a central Isqua plan and
that was you know 15 years ago now. And
during that time the portion of Isiziqua
that we really highlighted that we
wanted to see people building homes.
Here we sit 15 years later and a lot of
homes have been built in Isiqua but not
in that area that we really wanted to
see homes getting built. And so I think
tonight's discussion comes from that
lens of saying what do we have to do for
this one specific part of isquad to
really look at to say how do we make it
so we can actually have homes built in
this part of town. And I think the
vision is a very positive one. Our our
hope obviously through other meetings is
to get light rail to end right in the
middle of I90 in this exact area that
sits smack in the middle of the the land
use discussion we're having tonight. And
I think there is a vision for a very
walkable, vibrant retail village
atmosphere in this section of Isiqua
that I think we could help create
through thoughtful, you know, changes to
how we do things here. And I think the
whole idea is to try to be open-minded.
I think that the decisions we make in
this space also will influence
our odds of getting light rail to come
to Isiqua. I think they are looking for
communities that are making investments
that will help ensure that around
stations you actually have a lot of
homes being built to create that
vibrancy. And I think we've seen other
other places on the network right now
that haven't been as aggressive in that.
And I think the cities that are showing
leadership in that space, I think they
are more likely to to get the
infrastructure investment through sound
transit that we are looking for in the
community right now. So, I think it's a
combination of those three things that
that bring the items before you today.
And I will say I think I've been
extremely impressed with staff these
last couple months. I think they've come
into this conversation listening to
items we heard at the council retreat
way back in January and then actually
taking all those items and and really
diving in to come back with ideas and
suggestions which you will see before us
tonight. With that, our mini dial dollar
will take it over from here.
Thank you, Mayor Mallet. Uh, good
evening, council and members of the
community. Um, I'm Mini Daliwal,
director of community planning and
development. We're going to break it up
into two parts. The first part um that's
on your agenda as comm um the first item
which is permit process improvements. Um
so on that topic um over the past year
um our team community planning and
development has been working diligently
to streamline permit processes. Uh it
started with an uh comprehensive audit
um by refellis a national consulting
firm uh that also included uh getting
feedback from all our customers. um
based on their 12 recommendations uh we
created a dedicated uh permit
coordinator role uh to further enhance
efficiency. So um today um I'm pleased
to announce um our permit coordinator
Eronia McClean. uh she's going to give
you a quarterly update on the progress
we've made, the performance metrics um
uh because remember we didn't have how
to measure things and then we had had
that conversation with council about how
to measure what we what we measuring. So
now we're set up where we can actually
measure if we're making progress, if
you're moving in the right direction. So
with that, I'm going to turn it over to
Aronia to walk you through the quarterly
update.
Yeah. So, like Minnie just said, I'm
Aronia McClean. Um, hello council
members. Mayor Mullet. I'm the permit
coordinator for the community panic
development department, joined here by
Minnie, the director, Kristen Leon,
planning manager, and James Gray,
building official as well. And like
Minnie just said, the quick refresher,
the background is that Rafelis, the
company we consulted with, um, generated
12 permit process improvement
recommendations for the city. And those
were with the goal to work towards
compliance with SB5290 timelines. And so
we're here to go over some of that
today. Um,
oh, there we go. So the last time this
was in front of you was in September of
2025 where we provided a status update
on Rough Talis's 12 recommendations as
well as provided some data on land use
permits, building permits, and just
overall metrics that we have. And that
was to get a look into one, the city's
performance, two, our progress and
process improvements. And three, what
the city has been dealing with
permitting wise in terms of quantity.
And so today again, we're going to
provide that update on Rafelis'
recommendations, but we're also going to
provide some information on our next
steps since all these recommendations
have now been addressed with several
undergoing ongoing improvements. So
we're going to be taking a look at what
what's next for process improvements for
the city. And we'll also be sharing some
data regarding timelines and
performance.
Okay, we'll start by taking a look at
the status update for Ref Telles's 12
recommendations on permit process
improvements.
So the first recommendation was for
submittal guidelines and this is key
information to the applicant when they
are getting ready to submit an
application and this recommendation is
undergoing ongoing improvements. The
second recommendation was for
completeness review which is the review
by which staff determine the
completeness of an application and this
recommendation is complete. There are
three scenarios for completeness review
that were identified and made
application communication template. This
is a crucial communication to the
applica applicant and this
recommendation is also complete. We've
implemented next step communication
letters, peer review, which are items
needed that need consultant review and
the priority here is to be able to
identify the need for a consultant
review earlier in the process in order
to streamline it. And so this
recommendation is also complete. The
process uh for completeness review has
been finalized. Then internal
collaboration meetings. This is our
internal department meetings and the
priority here is to enhance support
among across departments especially for
those that have city projects and work
on collaboration. And so this
recommendation is in progress. We're in
the process of creating a joint
collaboration meeting with public works
and parks
high volume mailing. So this
recommendation is complete as well. We
determined it was not financially
feasible to have a third party do our
mailing and so we continue to use
in-house um mailing for large services.
And then permit coordinator, this is a
budgeted position that was identified as
a critical need um within our department
for managing projects, being a liazison
both internally across departments as
well as externally with applicants and
ensuring that we meet our required
timelines. And so this recommendation is
complete. The position has been filled
as of September 1st by me. Um and then
we've got performance measures which are
related to key elements of the permit
review process and this recommendation
is also undergoing ongoing improvements.
Uh SOPs which refers to updating
outdated standard operating procedures.
This re recommendation is implemented in
ongoing quarterly improvement review.
This refers to our quarterly department
meetings where all staff come together
and we dedicate several hours to working
on permit process improvements. And so
this recommendation is undergoing
ongoing improvements.
And then we have comprehensive training
programs. So this is implementing
training programs to standardize
procedures and improve our review
process. this recommendation is
implemented and ongoing, especially with
all the new staff that we have now.
We're able to identify a lot of the gaps
that we might have had with just
training materials and so we're working
on that, updating the SOPs and
checklists. And then lastly, the last
recommendation, contract with software
developer. This recommendation is uh was
to fix long-standing software issues. Uh
we ended up closing this recommendation.
Uh it's not being pursued at this time.
We actually ended up pivoting uh from
the original intent with this one and we
worked with a consulting firm and an I
and our IT department to evaluate a
potential software replacement uh
solution via doing vendor demos. In
addition, during this time, a budget
request for an MBP rebuild was
submitted. And finally, we've
implemented the pass through credit card
fees for MBP as of February 2026.
And before we head to the next segment,
I will pause here for any questions. Uh
the next segment is going to be on land
use data.
>> Ronnie, just for members of the public,
MVP, my building permit, right? So, just
for folks out there wondering what the
acronym is, mybuildingpermit.com is a
joint collaboration we do with some of
our neighboring cities. Yes.
Hearing no questions, we will move on.
So, this is our 2025 closed land use
permit data. So, during 2025, we had 48
total permits closed, of which seven
were past deadline. Comparatively in
2024, we had 15 out of 57 permits that
were passed timelines. So, we're moving
in the right direction. We're we had we
saw an approximately 11 percentage point
improvement from 2024 to 2025.
This is our active land use permit data
as of February 20th, 2026. We have 25
total permits that we're working on.
three are past deadlines. And just for
some context, the three that are past
deadlines are legacy projects. So,
they've been with the city for several
years. Um, and so as we progress and
close out these projects, you'll be able
to see that reflected in the data. Um,
as well,
this is an excerpt from the RFPs report
and we updated the data for 2024 and
2025. This reflects the average number
of days permits are taking to get
approved. And you can see that for most
permit types, there is a decline as we
go through the years.
Council member Nichols,
>> thank you. Um,
just digging into the slide a little
bit, I'm really surprised at the
variability here, both the extremes on
the low and the high end. I was
wondering if you could walk us through
what causes, for example, landscape to
be the highest and plumbing to have zero
days of delay.
>> Yeah, plumbing is an example of like an
over-thecounter permit. So, some of them
will require plan review versus some
that don't. So, you're seeing it kind of
apples to oranges comparison, but it's
just reflective of the different permit
timelines.
>> Okay. And then on the high side, so why
landscape at 100 days as as kind of an
outlier?
Yeah, land landscape is one of our land
use ones. Um, do you have any additional
commentary?
>> Sure. We're trying to dig into the
landscaping permits. Sometimes uh, you
know, they're associated with other
applications as say like site
development permit for getting the
actual building um, approved by
development commission, but those come
in, but we can't really approve them.
So, they've been kind of falling through
that. Other times we require a bond and
so they were sitting in a void waiting
for the bond process to be complete for
the applicant. So we're we're trying to
stream figure out, you know, how best to
uh get the landscape permits moving
along faster. Uh but they're a little
bit of an outlier that tended to fall
through because PE, you know, people
don't really care for the landscaping
permit. take care for the building
permit first and then this one sort of
uh trailed behind.
>> Deputy President Jane.
>> Um so I know that the purpose of this is
mostly to talk about building permits,
but do we have data on tenant
improvement permits at all?
>> That would be a metric we would have to
either create or dig around for. We
don't have it on hand as of right now.
If that's something that council is
interested in looking at, we could take
a look if you kind of specify exactly
what you mean when you're saying look at
TI's. Yeah, I guess my perspective, you
know, like going around town, you see
all these businesses that take forever
to open. And so even like friends that I
have who are very casual like there must
be something slow in the programing
department of the city. So I'd like to
see, you know, is that actually the case
and track that alongside, you know,
building permits. Anecdotally, I've also
heard a city to our north that got
recognized by the state department of
commerce for how quickly they were
getting through their building permits
was like they were like, "Well, we're
focusing on that." And basically just
abandoned tenant improvement permits.
Um, and those were taking forever. So, I
just want to make sure that, you know,
we're making sure that we're doing all
those, especially because tenant
improvements is such a key thing for our
small businesses here in Isqua.
Okay.
Um, all right.
And then this is data looking uh more at
building permits in terms of how many
were applied for, how many were issued,
how long they took to get approved on
average. And then from that, we also
looked at those that exceeded our
internal 60-day target timeline. It's an
internal target timeline because as of
um July 2025, HB1935 clarified that
building permits aren't um need to
adhere to the same timelines as our land
use permits would. So that's why we have
an internal 60-day target timeline for
them. And so we can see here that
building and site work, which are
typically permits that take longer to
issue in comparison to something that
like plumbing permit, which is over the
counter.
Okay. Now, we'll take a look at some of
our other metrics.
Sorry, I got dejumbled with my slides.
Um
so in the top two panels we have our
workload metrics and then the bottom two
we have our efficiency.
Yes. And then in 2025 we completed over
8,000 plan reviews and um this is about
a 41% increase since 2024. And then in
2025, CPD completed uh 7,815
inspections, which is about a 27%
increase since 2024. And then between
2024 to 2025, the percent of all land
use and all construction permits
approved by second review increased by
14 and 8% respectively. And then
finally, in that bottom right panel,
you'll see the how we're tracking
currently for our current workload for
land use and construction permits.
Council member Walsh.
>> Thank you. Aronia, can you talk to me
about the difference between the number
of plan reviews and the number of
permits? Because when I'm looking at
2024 versus 2025, I'm seeing the number
of permits decrease. Yet, we're showing
the number of plan reviews
increase quite dramatically. Our permit
did increase from 2024 to 2025. So 2024
we saw um 1,500 permits or so and then
in 2025 that number rose to around
1,800.
>> Okay.
>> I was looking at number of days and
doing that as a count. So thank you.
>> Okay. And then now we'll dive into next
steps.
So with all the RFP recommendations
having been addressed and several that
are undergoing ongoing improvements, we
wanted to provide clarity as to what
CPD's next steps look like for process
improvements. And so we've categorized
them into three main groupings now,
next, and future. now being items that
were discussed earlier in today's
presentation which are Rafelis's
recommendations that are ongoing
improvements and those are slated to be
completed between Q1 and Q2 next which
are new improvement initiatives that
staff have identified and those are
slated to be completed between Q3 and Q4
and then future also new improvement
initiatives slated to be completed 2027
and beyond
and then if there Are any additional
questions about any of one of these? I
can get into the details for that.
>> Council member Walsh.
>> Thank you. Um I noticed that several of
these uh like the submitt guidelines,
the applicant communication regarding
next steps and the flowcharts are
something that are probably there for
many other cities around the area. Have
we talked to builders about which city
does it best and how they might want to
see that looking? Um, it seems like
something that somebody's got to have
done it really well and we don't have to
reinvent the wheel on that.
We haven't to my knowledge talked to any
builders about that of like what
comparatively what city is doing it
better but that could be something we
could explore in terms of engaging them
as we look into starting these projects
can add that
>> I might have Alexis our economic
development director Alexis do you want
to weigh in really quick on the most
recent builder round table
>> hi Alexis Fitz Simmons economic
development housing manager um we
recently did engage uh with builders um
at a roundt discussion on February 26th
to talk to them about what they're
seeing, what their challenges are um and
you know where are things being done
well and uh we talked to a few
communities as well and we'll cover some
of that in a later in our later
presentation with Kristen and Minnie and
I. Um but the gist of what we're hearing
from them is that they need
predictability and efficiency to reduce
their risk. um one of the biggest
challenges they have um in working in
Isiqua has been the time cost of money
and the the the length of time it takes
to get through the process. And so all
of the changes and all the updates that
that Aronia are going is going through
and what uh Kristen and Minnie will talk
about are steps in the direction of
reducing that time. Um and that's what
the focus of our conversations with
these builders have been. Um, so I
wouldn't say we're quite there all the
way yet, but we're getting there.
>> Yeah. And I'm just looking at this and
thinking if I was submitting a project
and a permit, the submittal guidelines,
the communication regarding next steps,
and the flowcharts would be the most
accessible to a builder about how can
they change what they're doing, how
they're doing it, when they're doing it
in order for us to not have a second and
third review, in order for them to know
what the process is. And so again, I
would say there is likely a city that
does this really, really well that a
builder is going to know, oh yeah, I
always get great responses from or the
documentation from City X um is really
helpful.
>> I I 100% agree uh with that assessment.
Um I think that um
transparency is high on the list of
things that we are working on and need
to work on. Um, one of the things that
I'll talk about in my slides is having a
single point of contact um, and a
nonbudsman for advocacy for projects.
Um, and not not just um, kind of saying,
"Oh, you've got a project. Okay, I'm
going to send you off into the abyss of
um, you know, of the process, but
understanding maybe having a
pre-conference conversation with them
um, about the process and what their
plans are and what their anticipated
timeline is and what that project looks
like and what their um what uh metrics
they're trying to meet um and moving
from a place of enforcement to uh
proactive engagement um is really the is
really what we're moving towards and
creating some of the tools like um you
know process and and flowcharts and
things like that I think is a part of
that
>> council member Adair and then council
president Marts.
>> Yeah. So I mean obviously you know we've
all been talking in terms how to get
building and all stuff with that the
codes there's a lot of a factors but you
brought up in your comment how you said
that for them like the time of this is a
huge factor and maybe one of the large
factors in terms of this building. So
you're clearly working on that and
that's appreciated. Are there spec any
specific resources holding you back in
this process that would be helpful or is
it just simply that you have to work
through all these steps to get there? Is
there like basically is there something
of from us as a council that would help
this process go faster some resource or
something like that or is it just you
have to work through it as you're going?
>> We haveordinator we have to work through
it as we're going. So it's important for
us to remember you know we want to meet
the needs of the builder community to
help drive investment to drive private
investment in the community but we also
are approaching this as stewards of the
community stewards of safety and
stewards of development. And so it's
important that we balance both sides of
that and sometimes that takes a little
bit of work on the back end.
>> Council President Marts,
>> thank you. Um I I might ask that
question about other municipalities
slightly differently, which is I feel
like on almost everything I can think
of, one of the things I always want to
know is how do we compare to Redmond and
Kirkland and Belleview? And um
competition improves the breed. And I
think and all this information is good
and it's good that we know where we
stand versus state standards. I mean
that's all that's all really essential.
But I also feel like um you know I would
love us to measure ourselves against
some of the other cities in our region
that are that are comparators even
though they're bigger. Like I have a
vision for the future where we get to
the point where people are like, "Yeah,
Belle's bigger and you know they have
this that and the other thing, but like
Isiqua is so much easier to work with,
right? Like wouldn't that be great?
Wouldn't that be great if people thought
that about our city? Like we're small
but mighty in this area and so much
better to work with than other big
cities. And I love Belleview and I love
Redmond. I love Kirkman. Kirkland, you
know, but like let's let's be better
than everybody else.
>> I like it."
Council member Joe
Thank you. Um perhaps you missed it or I
missed it during your presentation, but
could you talk about the effectiveness
measure that you have for percent of
approved second review permits? It's
page nine of your presentation.
>> Yeah, let me go back.
>> We're seeing improvement there between
2004 and 2024 and 2025 for all land use
permits.
>> Mhm. going from 69% to 77%
and all construction permits uh 83% to
85%.
Um I'll give you a chance to highlight
the uh good work you've been doing
there. Yeah, I probably blitzed through
this kind of fast, but yeah, we did see
improvements for 2024 and 2025 um in
terms of getting those applications
through quicker.
>> And is the standard of having approval
by a second review something that all
cities kind of try to aspire to have a
high mark on those that measure? Yeah, I
I haven't taken a look at other cities
since that is something that is echoed
among other council members that that's
something of interest. So, we can start
taking a look and seeing that from other
cities on what their metrics are looking
at. Um, but that naturally once you get
three plus reviews, then you're going to
have to pay extra. So, that is something
that is valued across everyone both
internally and externally.
>> Good. Looks like we've got
>> James Gray. You've phoned a friend.
>> I know. Uh, council uh, President,
congratulations. Vice President,
congratulations. First of all, I wanted
to say that to you. Uh, it's it's
wonderful to see a new group up. Um, a a
couple of pieces uh, that that I'm
hearing I'd like to respond to. So, we
we are on the management committee and a
member of mybuildingpermit.com, which is
a multi
>> Hey, James, could you introduce yourself
and your role? So, for the general
public, who's
>> James Gray, a building official with
community planning and development. I
work for director Dollywal. Thank you,
mayor. Um, so we're we're a member of
this multi-ity mybuildingpermit.com
and as part of that we interface with
building officials uh permit
coordinators uh all sorts of staff
across multiple multiple cities and on
top of that we have shared uh uh details
and and common details that are on
mybuildingpermit.com that you can use
for permitting process. So, it's doing a
lot to uh create consistency amongst all
these cities. Um to to the comment uh do
do other cities do it better and do the
do the contractors hear about it better?
Uh one of my favorite comments I've
heard is um is uh uh uh gosh I it just
sails through in the city of Seattle or
it sails through in the city of
Belleview. There's a lot of ane
anecdotal comments that come out of the
both the contracting community and the
permitting community. Um and and I think
that everybody's working to lower that
threshold when these things get
approved. Um the la the last piece that
I I wanted to put in with that is uh
through director Dollywal's direction
what the managers have been doing is
trying to help find this balance between
this public safety piece uh approving
things in accordance with you know this
high standard that the code set which is
a pretty pretty high standard getting
higher all the time and using some uh
what we say common sense right how much
how much do we how many hoops do we put
an architect through to get something
approved on a set of plans, how many
details have to be there cuz it can get
painful and and we recognize that. So,
we've been working very diligently with
our plans examiners, with our planners
who are here in the group, our engineers
to to figure out what that balance is
and and get it better. And the managers
are all watching that and doing regular
staff meetings with folks to make sure
that we get that balance right.
>> Okay. Um, thank you for that, Mr. Gray
Aronia, could you talk about my question
in terms of percent approved with second
review and why it's so important to have
that as a high measure?
All right, I'll give you the answer to
that. In the in the in the industry for
development, um uh the gold standard is
just have two reviews and then get it
done. So, I'm trying to compliment your
department at having 83% of your all
construction permits in in 2024 going up
to 85% in 2025. That's a good number and
it's one that I think to answer some of
the other questions about comparisons to
other cities is one that uh one metric
that can be used to compare across
cities that you'll be able to find
pretty easily as you go forward too. So,
good job. Thank you for doing that and
I'd like to see the improvement there.
>> Thank you.
Council member Nichols.
>> Thank you. Um before I ask my question,
I just want to frame it uh by talking
about what I think our goals for all of
this really are. And it's it's about
affordability really, right? Um we want
to bring down the price of housing. We
want to bring down the price of doing
business because all those things just
get passed on to our residents, right?
Um I I like all the tracking that's
being done here. Um we're bringing down
the time to permitting. That looks
that's great. Seems like we're on the
right track there. We're tracking those
numbers. Um those are all kind of
implicit as far as
costs go though like implicitly if we
bring down the time we will things will
cost less. I think that's that's why
we're doing this. That's the main
reason. Um and I think that's great. I
also want to ask if we are tracking and
considering tracking the actual direct
costs that are associated with some of
these things. um how much and also try
to bring those down things like peer
review for example um are there ways
that we can bring down the cost of that
uh without
hurting the the the true need that's
there um and can we try to track that in
some way not for that not just for that
in particular but as a broader bigger
picture question um the goal is
affordability
um we are trying to bring down the time
but the purpose of that that that
that quest is to improve affordability
overall. How else can we track
affordability and make sure that we're
on the right track?
>> Well, and I think part of that will be
in the second presentation when Kristen
gets to it, like specifically your one
on peer review. I don't know, Minnie,
did you want to
>> Sure. Uh so peer review made the list of
things we want to look at uh for next
year as well as part of the work plan
that mel is talking about. But
definitely the the cost of doing
business is you know we always manage to
monitor that as part of our annual fee
updates uh and and looking at
inflationary costs. Labor costs go up
and so these fees aren't taxes on top of
uh development. They're really to pay
for the the amount of time the city
staff take to review it. And if there's
efficiencies built into that, the time
for peer review and others, then those
are cost savings for everybody involved
for sure. Um, yeah,
>> just as like a point of clarification,
these weren't designed with the mindset
of the cost savings first. It was with
the mindset of the SB5290
timelines that we're meeting. So that's
why th these metrics aren't going to
really be reflective of that. uh if
that's something we want to look forward
to. Um I think Kristen will probably be
able to speak more to that as well.
>> Council member Joe, thank you. Um
talking about SB 5290 just um sparked
another question for me. Um HB24182418
um just passed the Senate and is on its
way to the governor's desk. Uh it
requires uh entities such as water
districts like Seamish Water District to
comply with 5290 type timelines and
completeness check offs. And I don't
necessarily want an answer tonight, but
I was curious how that impacts our
projects here. In other words, has
Seamish Water and Sewer been a positive
or a negative on our timelines overall?
have their delays or things that they
put into the process lengthened out the
the review for us or made it longer for
projects to get delivered and raising
costs. Um so it's just a question to to
you. I don't need need an answer tonight
but a curious question that I had. Thank
you.
>> Manny, did you want to speak to that
really quick?
>> Sure. Um so some of the outside agencies
that we um include our sessions, our
permit review sessions are Eastside Fire
and Rescue and U Water and Shore
District. Uh we were tracking, you know,
initially when we started this journey
to see by division, by reviewer, by
entities, you know, where the root cause
was. Uh we found some some of the mixed
things. Uh sometimes it was the delay
based on fire or uh water and sewer. Uh
but they've been responsive. You know,
we try and reach out to them. Um they
also issue their own permits, especially
water and sewer district. So we don't
know what that timeline looks like for
them, but uh we engage them early during
the design process. So it's not a
surprise for applicants. Um it's a
little clunky because we have to send
them an email. Here's a review line for
you and you need to see it. So, are
there efficiencies perhaps uh to improve
in that? Uh but it's um you know, I'm
glad that um that these timelines apply
to everybody because it doesn't help
builders if they get through the city
process, but they get hung up in other
areas. So,
>> thank you very much. I appreciate that.
>> All right. I think Aronia, I think we're
all set. Thank you very much. And uh you
know we were expecting all the questions
on the the next presentation. So
>> everyone's fired up where to go and
James great to give me a tour last week
of all 300 town homes currently under
construction in the city of Isiqua and
there is a lot and they were spread all
over different parts of town and so
there is a lot of current activity. So
the next item is COM 0210 promoting
building investments in Isqua and we're
going to have Minnie take it over again.
Thank you, Mayor Mullet. Um, and good
evening again. Um, so as Mayor Mullet um
gave in his preamble, we are here to
present um and receive feedback from
council on our 2026 2027 work plan um
with a big focus on promoting building
investment in Isiqua. Um as you've seen
outlined in your agenda bill, uh this
represents the next phase in a journey
that began as Mayor Mullet said in 2012
with the adoption of Central Isiqua
Plan. Following that, the city saw some
housing outside the urban growth
boundary um outside the urban core. Um
and then subsequently worked on some key
design principles and standards. Um more
recently we undertook an economic
evaluation of the housing strategies um
by Eco Northwest which highlighted some
areas that needed uh some more work or
adjustments. Um, now with the overhaul
of title 18 complete, much of the heavy
lifting is done. We have a consolidated
code with much more streamlined
processes. Um, but since 2023, we've
also committed to making annual
amendments. So, we don't make the same
mistake of having decades to go by
without updating a code and it again
becomes a patchwork of ordinances. So
council has approved uh amendments in
2042 25. Um but with these major
undertakings behind us, the city's now
positioned to focus on transforming its
900 acre commercial core into a vibrant,
sustainable, walkable urban center that
Mayor Mull has made it his priority. And
the I'm actually going to share my
screen, which I forgot. Um
just bear with me for a second.
All right,
to do a slideshow.
So, the direction we're seeking today is
really, do you concur with the work
plan? Uh are you okay with the
timelines? Um and any additional
feedback on the builder outreach? Um as
we all know there are multiple factors
in development. Um that u but today our
focus is at the local level what can we
do about land use regulations and how
can we spur some of this uh development
by promoting investments through
partnerships and builder outreach. Um
and the key strategies you've uh just
finished um hearing Ironia about
improving permit processes um will um
with Alexis uh you'll hear about builder
outreach creating incentives and then um
uh Kristen Leon our planning manager
will uh walk through the work plan for
the planning team. And I want to
recognize the planners that are here in
the audience who will have a stake in
each one of these uh code amendments. Um
and we'll bring forth that we have uh
Kate Keaney our principal planner,
Andrew Love, our uh associate planner,
Kristen Harveier, assistant planner, and
Ye um our uh associate planner. So we
have an engaged uh planning team. Uh
they have ramped up their knowledge of
Isiqua uh considering they started last
year um and are ready to dive into some
of uh some of this exciting work uh
ahead of us. Um, so I don't want to take
up too much time. Uh, I will turn over
uh to Alexis to walk through uh the the
the two strategies about public outre uh
builder outreach.
Thank you, Manny. Again, I'm Alexis
Spitz Simmons, the economic development
and housing manager.
I want to talk a couple about a couple
of different things. Um, I have two
slides, so I will probably talk more
than there will be slides. Um, but the
approach that I want to take when it
comes to builder outreach and the
proposal that I'm making, I believe will
strengthen Isqua's relationship with the
homebuilding community and improve the
way our community is seen um as a
partner and create efficiency,
predictability, improve our processes,
and reduce the risk to drive investment
with our private sector.
So, we'll focus on three things.
Engagement, again, predictability and
communication.
We want to increase direct engagement
with builders and meet them where they
are.
That includes meeting builders with
builders one-on-one
at attending industry events and being
present in spaces where development
decisions are being made and discussed.
We also want to host roundt uh
discussions which we have already
started to do. Uh this year we planned
four roundt discussions. We hosted the
first one on February 26th. There will
be a second one on April 1st, another
one in June or July and another in the
fall. Our goal with this is to have a
continuous conversation and multiple
touch points across the board with home
builders and developers uh in our
community and in the region. Having
multiple touch points um and creating
those relationships will build trust
with that community and help increase
transparency
um and their ability to
access um our staff and our access our
processes and feel comfortable with
that.
We are looking to go from having a
mindset as I said before of enforcement
to problem solving. And a lot of that um
happens in the processes and process and
zoning improvements and code
improvements that Kristen uh will talk
about uh that that will be implemented
uh with the work plan uh for the rest of
the year next year.
Another thing that we want to do is
really start to talk about what we're
doing right. There's a big problem with
perception for the city of Isiqua and
what it's like to do business with the
city of Isiqua when it comes to
building. It's really important to share
the story about what we're doing. So, as
we meet one-on-one with builders, as we
are we attend events where they are and
as we network and communicate with them,
we want to share the story about how
we're evolving as a community and how
doing business with Isqua is improving.
We need to brag a little bit. Isqua is a
great community. We need to highlight
things like success stories, permitting
timelines that have gone quickly. Uh we
need to ask our uh builders for um
statements of, you know, I enjoyed
working with the city of Isiqua because
of this. I really enjoyed working with
James Gray. He was um an advocate for me
in the process and helped me work
through it and problem solve some
issues. um we really need to get them to
speak for us in ways that we can put on
our website or put out on LinkedIn,
highlight stories um to show that we
can't we don't just um say that we're
we're doing these things, but we're
actually putting our our money where our
mouth is, right? So, uh success stories
and execution of those um changes that
were being made.
Those testimonials will continue to be
important as we move through these
improvements.
The other thing that I want to talk
about is building
in addition to building relationships is
also creating efficiency and
predictability. One of the big things
that we heard in the most recent builder
round table was that when they don't
know how their permit's going to be uh
worked on or what problems they might
come up with creates an elongated
timeline that costs them money in the
end. We've had uh recent housing
projects that have taken multiple
spanned multiple years. Um and the time
cost of money is what's preventing
homebuilders from really choosing to
invest in Isiqua.
We need to understand what builders
actually need. Um, and that comes with
being in the room with them and talking
with them. And so these continued
builder builders roundts will allow us
to build those direct relationships.
We want to build relationships with not
just the smaller home builders, but the
larger home builders in the region. Um,
those that have access to greater
capital. Um, that will allow projects
larger projects and projects to move
faster. Um there's been some legislative
changes last year that will maybe allow
for condominium um building um
legislation passed last year uh and
signed by the governor in July reduces
some of the risk uh of building
condominiums. So hopefully we'll
continue to see improvement on that end.
One of the things that still is a
challenge for builders in the building
of condominiums is uh getting them
getting them insured. Um, and that that
will continue until the underwriting
process takes into account the changes
that are legislative and I think that
will be an ongoing evolving situation
over the next year or so.
So with that um building trust,
building momentum, changing perceptions,
those are really the core tenants of
what is the start of this evolution for
Isiqua. Um and as we move forward
economic development um myself as a
housing manager um being the single
point of contact um for projects and
being an advocate through that process.
Um the CPD department um Minnie Kristen
uh Kate um we all work seamlessly
together and our goal is to continue
that for the benefit of these projects
and to move the needle for development
in the community.
I'm happy to ask answer any questions.
Great. Thank you.
>> Excellent. And I just want to say before
Kristen comes up that
I have 100% confidence that the CBD team
you see in front of you tonight is the
right team to lead us forward through
these challenges. I cannot be more
impressed in the last two months with
their efforts in this process and
they're I mean Minnie is sort of like a
little Rainman of land use codes. It's
like she's got an amazing knowledge and
you know spending time with James last
week going to all the sites and Kristen
was here when Tol and I we're back here
today and so the wealth of knowledge I
think you see in front of you is is
impressive and I think this is the right
team to lead us through this process. I
just wanted to get that out there. But
Kristen, go ahead.
>> Good evening. Yes, I'm Chris Kristen
Leon, planning manager. And to continue
on that, back up to the permitting
process, how the numbers improve from 20
from 2024 to 2025. For a part of last
year,
thank you. I brought it this time.
For a part of last year, we were down to
one current planner and one long range
planner. So, sort of one and a half
current planners. And the numbers still
went up. In August, Yei started with us
and then the other four the other three
>> three came on. Um Emily was promoted to
senior planner and these guys have
caught up so well and done such a good
job of coming up to speed that yes,
they'll be able to do this. So kudos to
them.
So I'm going to talk a little bit about
what we're proposing to do. So we took
input from the council retreat, from
home builders, from ourselves, from what
we see with working developers, with
developers and builders, and from the
title 18 whiteboard. There were two of
you who were here for the title 18
update, and there was a whiteboard
created with 21 different items on it.
So some of those were pulled as well.
I'm not going to go through all of
these, but at the city of council
retreat, you all came up with 19
different items. Two of those have
already been done. We are proposing to
do 11 more and are putting proposing to
put six on hold.
With the homebuilder list, they came up
with two primary lists. The f primary
list or two lists. The primary list had
11 items. Nine are being proposed. One
has already been done.
their secondary list. They had seven
items on it. Two have already been done
and most of those are being proposed to
be done.
As I mentioned before, the whiteboard
from the title 18 update. There were 21
items. We've done four of those. Five of
those are being proposed and there are
quite a few that are still going to
remain on the to-do list for us in the
future.
There are also non-code updates that we
have going on. So, our planners are all
current planners and long range
planners. So, while they're doing these
updates, they're also doing the
comprehensive plan updates. They're also
doing reviewing plans that come in. So,
long range, we have the shoreline
program, shoreline master program
update, which is due in 2027.
We have wildfire regulations that are
about to be um done through the state to
us down to us. Comprehensive plan
updates. I mentioned we have regional
growth center reertification process
where there are recommendations for the
city and things that we need to have
done by 2028. There are ongoing
legislative updates that we are required
to adopt and we're hoping to start
neighborhood plans in 20 2027 as well.
Current projects, there are some big
ones. We have all of the high street
developments that are coming through.
Trailhead, the TOD project is coming
through right now. the high school uh
commercial, we have two commercial to
multif family conversions coming.
Boardwalk Town Homes has been a time
consuming, not a huge, but a
time-consuming project. And Costco as
well.
I didn't know where else to put this
next slide, so I'm slowing it. I'm
throwing it in there right here. So, we
were asked Oh, Deputy President Jen,
>> um quick question. You mentioned two
potential uh multif family conversions.
Are you able to share what those are?
Um, one,
no, not yet. Neither one has been
submitted. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. I was just curious.
>> You're welcome.
>> Well, one of them is a motel sex
conversion into apartments, and we got a
tour of their Belleview facility where
they did the similar conversion.
>> Yeah. And they haven't submitted yet.
They're going to convert all of their
units to it'll be 103
uh multif family units or Yeah. 103
units.
Great. And the other one not allowed to
share.
>> The other one I can't share yet.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> Okay.
All right. So, I wasn't sure where to
put these. It's a It's a bit of a turn.
Um, but we were asked recently by
council members, what what are both
Woodenville doing, right? They've seen a
lot of development come lately, and what
are they doing that we're not doing? So,
there are a few factors. We did talk to
uh planners and economic development
folks over there. And in both they had a
situation where they needed to increase
their capacity. They didn't have enough
capacity in within their zoning to meet
their targets. So they needed to find
ways to do that. So they developed
minimum development standards for
dwelling units per acre and they have um
maximums as well. But about 75% of their
land was zoned for single family and
that has all been upzoned sort of to
allow for more development. They um had
lots of developer timeline time
facetime. They talked to them to see
what's right, what's wrong, what do we
need to change. So they did that, which
is something we're planning on doing.
They created a simple development bonus
program and it's simply if you want to
do two additional floors above the base
height, go ahead. It's just that 10% of
that has to be affordable
at 80%. They removed all parking
requirements there. I think I mentioned
this last time I saw you. They're now
considering stepping it back and putting
maximums on there. Um, but they reduced
their parking requirements. They also
had four pe four parcels of land that
they donated. They were anywhere from
1.5 to two acres of land. They've given
two away. Two are being developed and
two are currently being cleaned up. They
were contaminated and as soon as those
are done, they will start negotiations
for developments on those properties.
>> Woodenville just got lucky.
>> Council President Marts.
>> Thanks. I have a question. So on both,
it's interesting that the increasing the
maximum units per acre and establishing
minimum units per acre was considered
part of the story because this is an
area that we've specifically said we're
not going to hit right now. So what's
why if we think it was part of their
success, why are we not going to be
looking at it? uh they did that in it's
harder to do with floor area ratio and
we've just our focus right now is in
central Isiqua we we are going to look
at floor area ratios and and doing that
most of this for them was done in single
family areas so where they said you can
have currently you can have eight
dwelling units per acre now you can have
up to 80 dwelling units per acre with a
minimum of 20 and that was that's mostly
in single family
but it is something we're going to look
at just in a different way.
>> Okay. Thank you,
Council Member Nichols.
>> I just want to clarify that. So, is it
Are you saying that we it's harder to
have both a maximum unit per acre metric
and floor area ratio metrics? You said
it's harder to do with floor area ratio.
So, what does that mean?
units are
you can actually you can count the
number of units right number of units
per acre floor area ratio it it's based
on the envelope of the building you want
to step in
>> okay it's based on the envelope of the
building so it's you can build all the
way out to here and you can squeeze as
many units of stair as you want to but
with we actually have maximum dwelling
units per acre so in our multif family
high zone you're only allowed to do 29
units per acre whereas is I I don't know
if I'm did you have it?
>> No, I was just um sorry I'm just going
to sort of answer your question about
comparison with Bottle at a different
level. So what you consider success in
Bottle is the stuff the development you
see along Bottle Way as 5 over2 sort of
development. The other stuff that
they've done they didn't they had to do
it because their growth target was
12,000 units. So they didn't have land
capacity to accommodate that many units.
So they upzoned their single family
zones in certain key areas to get that.
I'm not sure how much of that
development is what you were asking us
to compare with because the other stuff
that they've built along both way is
older. That's where some of this uh city
uh owned lot strategy worked in their
favor of getting some of and then face
toface time with the other developers in
terms of 75% of their land being single
family and getting that upon. That's
basically what uh this missing middle uh
you know legislation was targeting for
some of the cities where a lot majority
of the land was zoned single family.
Isukqua is a little bit in a unique
position because um we used to have a
statistic you remember it um 50% of our
residential zoned lot land already had
allowed multif family and so town homes
and other things. So uh how much
>> 49%
>> 49%. So we weren't like those other
cities that had majority of the land
zone single family. So it's it's hard to
compare apples to apples but we just you
know I wanted to share what we found out
through our conversations with bottle as
a comparison point. I don't know if that
answers your question but floor area
ratio that Kristen was explaining is
really looking at the the bulk of the
building that can go in. We don't
regulate how many units because you can
have more units if you go smaller units
but as long as you meet the floor ratio
for aqua f of five is allowed in our
urban core which is a pretty high uh
standard if and equivalent to uh the
dwelling units per acre is going to be
pretty darn high. Um over 40 dwelling
units per acre maybe. Right.
>> Right. Because so with the with trail
head that site is 2 acres two acres it's
two acres and they're putting in over
300 units on two acres
>> whereas Yeah.
>> So that Yeah. So so F is not our
problem.
>> Yeah. Whereas multif family you get 58
units in two acres. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Council member Walsh and then Jane
>> I want to take this from maybe a
different standpoint. Um I know a lot of
the council members from both. They were
very impressed that their uh city is
being highlighted here as a good place
um to do business. But um I know they in
order to hit their targets and also to
make sure that their land is um used
efficiently
um they were very concerned about town
houses um being the replacement for
single family rather than something that
maybe is a more efficient use, provides
smaller um homes that then can be more
affordable. So, I want to talk a little
bit about that idea of yes, they got
five ones, but they're not town houses.
>> And that's been a hard push for them. We
did talk about that. And so, some of the
ways that they've been able to do it is
maybe half of their development is town
homes because that's what they want to
do and the other half is stacked. So,
they're they're getting a mix of things
because yes, they were afraid of town
homes. They're trying to figure out not
how to not just get town homes there.
Yeah, we did talk about that for a
while.
Deputy President Jen.
>> Um I wanted to go back to your previous
comment about floor area ratio. So
currently in Isiqua, do we have limits
for the number of dwelling units per
acre in our urban core? Those types of
zones
>> in only in urban core we do there's a
minimum number of units that you can do
per acre in the urban core and that's
the only place in central Isqua where we
have a minimum number of units.
>> Okay. So it's minimum units per acre. Do
we have a maximum or is it just the No,
just the minimum.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
anymore. Okay. So, as I mentioned, uh,
Woodenville just got lucky. So,
Woodenville hasn't done any major code
updates aside from the statemandated
regulations in about 15 years. They have
a lot of green fields and the market
discovered them. So, that's that's their
rationale for what's going on there.
>> And they have good wine.
>> We don't have
>> Wine helps.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, wine helps. Um, but we
don't have many green fields. Those were
taken up by Anthology and Reva and
Revel. Those were our green fields. So,
ours is mostly going to be
redevelopment, which is a little
tougher.
Okay, moving on. As I mentioned a minute
ago, we decided to focus because because
when we did the central Isiqua plan,
part of the focus was to
part of part of the idea was to focus
all of our growth in this area. We
upzzoned it for that reason so that we
could meet our growth targets. So,
that's where we want it to happen. And
so that's where we're focusing our
efforts this time. So you don't need to
squint on this one. I will go through
each one of these. Uh you've seen it. We
have a work plan for the next year and a
half. There are 17 items that are on
there. They are broken out hopefully by
quarter. This team's up to it. Um and
these are the ones that were developed
from staff, state, city council, and
developers
starting in Q1 or Q2. Sorry. We're
already done. We're almost done with Q1.
Yes. Sorry.
>> Council member Nichols,
>> uh before we go through these
individually, could you speak to uh what
sort of prioritization was put into the
time sequencing?
>> A lot of it was just on how much time
it's going to take us to do. So, the
first ones that are listed on here,
we've given it some thought previously.
Maybe they were initiated by staff. We
kind of have a pretty we have a pretty
good idea of where we want to go with
those. Uh some of these such as the
impact fees are which are at the very
end those require funding. So we need to
get funding for that first and then it
requires hiring of consultants and just
takes a much longer time to do. There's
lots of lots of background work to be
done there. Threeb block connectors for
example those seem like they might be
easy but there's not really an easy
solution. Just it kind of it really
depended on how much work and research
it's going to take us to do.
So, just to clarify, you you want to do
the
>> the harder you want to do the harder
ones later. Is that what I'm getting?
>> Yes. C
>> can you explain why?
>> Because they're going to require more
research and we just need more time to
figure out the right answer.
I would say before I go to President
Marts like
the items you see in the second quarter
that means going to PPC next month going
back to deputy president Jen's committee
and then coming before full counsel in
June. So that process like it's hard to
like whatever you're doing there has to
be ready to go to PPC like pretty fast.
And so I think to Kristen's point those
were how those items made that very
first block of time. President Marts,
>> two just nerdy questions. Um, this
initiated by, C, S, C, and D. What do
those stand for?
>> U, so the C is council, city council. D
is developers, S is staff.
>> Ah, okay. And then the other question
is, um, and this is just a weird little
thing. So, I pulled this presentation
down this afternoon and it had 16 items
on it. Um is are we and there there was
also earlier a slide that was not in the
public um materials for tonight's
meeting that is in your presentation. So
is it was it updated? I guess it's been
updated since Friday
>> because I'm looking I'm looking at the
I'm literally looking at this slide and
it has 16 items, not 17.
>> I haven't updated it since Friday. This
is the last version I had in there. So
I'm I'm not sure.
>> Well, that is just a mystery then.
>> Okay. It is indeed. Yeah. All right.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Council member Walsh.
>> So, um, toward Council Member Nichols
point, um, is there any sense of which
of these areas we think are going to be
the most effective, the most efficient,
um, have the biggest impact. For a while
now, developers have been talking about
stepback requirements and outdoor
amenity space requirements. Those are
first, and I think those would have a
big impact.
floor area ratio. We have been talking
with the developer who wants us to look
at that. Um it was one site specifically
in the mixeduse residential area, but we
will look at two different zones really
and that should that could potentially
have a big impact. Architectural design
standards definitely those will have a
big impact and that's not that far off.
It's Q4 so hopefully they'll all have an
impact but those
pretty immediate ones I think.
>> Thanks. a mixeduse residential the floor
ratio is not five. It is currently two
and so that's why that one would be
adjusted to a different number. Okay,
let's want to go through the quarterly
slits. Let's
>> deputy president J.
>> Um quick question. So with the floor
area ratios, my understanding is we also
currently have height limits in a lot of
zones. Are we moving towards only doing
floor area ratio instead of height? Is
that
>> Yes.
>> Good point.
>> Yes. And I can go more I can go more
into that when I get to that slide if
you like.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Okay.
Okay. So Q2 which is coming up June. A
lot of these um we have six others that
are going along with these that were
staff initiated but the first one is the
out uh outdoor amenity st state space
requirements. So we did our our current
regulations for multif family housing
with 22 units or more is that each unit
has 100 square ft of outdoor common
space,
48 square ft of individual outdoor space
and then an additional just 400 square
feet of indoor or outdoor community
space. In July, we amended that and we
said, "Okay, so if you want to do you
can you can only have only maybe only
50% of your units have to have
individual outdoor space and you take
the rest of that space that would be say
either patios or balconies, whatever
that total would be, that can just go
into common space instead." So, we made
amendments to that, but it still doesn't
seem to be enough. So, we are going to
revisit that and see what we can do.
step back requirements.
>> We think 30% could be closer to a rough.
We don't know exactly, but that's our
rough sense right now is the 50% might
become closer to third
>> step back requirements developers just
simply don't like them. So, uh we've
tried revisiting that. We're going to do
it again. We did make a clarification.
There was some confusion during the
title 18 update uh where standards
requirements outside of central Isiqua
were accidentally
included in central Isiqua. So
developers thought that there were a lot
of additional regulations that needed to
be done if they wanted to go up higher,
but that wasn't the case. We fixed that
and now we're going to revisit stepbacks
in just central Isiqua again.
Um
let's see. uh self-certification of ADUs
actually does not require a code
amendment. It's simply a process
amendment. So, we've already started
looking into that. We know that there
are several other cities that do it.
Kirkland, Tacoma, Belleview, Seattle.
So, we're talking to them. Kirkland has
a really good program. Uh we are talking
about the easiest and most efficient way
to get that done. So, we're we've
started that process already. As I
mentioned, there are six other
amendments that are also coming in June
to you. It's clarify final plat
procedures. Clarify definition of
development and site development
permits. Develop uh develop donation bin
requirements, update family care park
uses regarding parking, fix residential
use definitions um that didn't get fixed
last time. And there's some sign code
amendments that we're going to do as
well
in Q3. Were there any questions? I think
any more questions on those those last
ones. Okay,
floor area ratio. So, we had a developer
come to us who wants to develop in
mixeduse residential area
has a perfectly square lot. And if this
developer wants to
the F there is 1.0 zero. The maximum is
two. And if this developer wants to go
to max F
can do that actually within the two sto
within a um within the height limit,
but he he can't go up. If he wants to go
up then then he's going to exceed the F.
So what we would need to do in that case
is exceed the F is make the F higher so
that he could actually get more in
there. Um,
what was I gonna say?
>> Pardon me.
>> Yeah. Yes. So, yes. So, we would get the
way he wants to. We wouldn't get any
affordable housing out of this because
he wouldn't be going well, we would he'd
be exceeding the F, so we'd still get
it. But, um, anyway, we need to find
that. The reason that we did, we're not
looking at the heights right now is
because when we did the central plan,
you need buffers. You can't have 85 100
foot buildings next to single single
story houses and that's what's in MUR
right now. So you step it up. Um so MUR
is adjacent to single family. So MUR
right now their max height 65. The next
one goes up to 85. The next one goes up
to 125. The further you the further away
you get from single family. That's why
we're not looking at it right now. Um
maybe if council wanted to head that
direction we could but we think that F
could possibly fix this. And one of the
things too is uh MUR there
>> council member Walsh sorry
>> I guess what I would say is as we are
looking at this as kind of a
comprehensive plan and idea. I think
what you've just presented is there's
some tradeoffs. If we go with floor area
ratio, look at heights, you know,
minimum units per acre, maximum units
per acre. Um, I would like us to look at
all of those or at least tell us why
you're not doing each of those and you
selected the one and how it's going to
solve the problem when we get to that
point. And I'm not saying right now, but
just so that our conversation isn't just
council said to look at floor area ratio
when really what we want to do is make
sure that we are being as effective as
possible
>> um in making those changes.
>> Yeah.
>> Deputy President Chang,
>> can you explain a bit more? So you said
something like you can't have single
singlestory homes next to, you know, 125
foot highrises. Can you explain like
why?
>> Well, you can. It's you can if that's
what the city council decides it wants.
I lived in Houston and it's not lovely.
Um I live very very near to a very very
tall building and it was not lovely. Um
it hated it. Um it just kind of goes
like this. But um you you can increase
the height. I think what we're trying to
do though is keep the character of the
city um without we're trying to find the
best ways to let it develop to its
maximum capacity while still keeping the
character of the city. And if we just
automatically raise the heights of all
the buildings, that doesn't do it.
Especially when you're right next to
Oldtown and that's where mixeduse
residential is. So, as Council Member
Walsh just mentioned, we're just going
to try and look at the whole envelope.
What can we do to get maximum density
here and still keep our character?
>> Thank you,
>> Council Member Nichols.
>> I think uh character can mean a lot of
different things to lots of different
people. Um it it seems like you've got
some of your own opinions here that
you're bringing to this. Will you also
be bringing us the full spectrum of
possibilities here so that we don't get
those filtered out to one particular um
inherently subjective definition like
character?
>> Sure. Um when you say full spectrum of
possibilities, you just mean height
versus floor area ratio versus dwelling
units per acre when we're looking at F.
>> It's a pretty high level question. um
how you you built into that the response
to a a technical question a pretty
subjective
um word which is the character um that
has lots and lots of different meanings.
Um how to what extent is that filter and
you know you're comparing this to other
cities etc going to filter what is
presented to us.
>> Okay. Okay. And that that's you're
saying that's what you'd like to see is
that filter and how it compares.
>> Let me
a stab at this. Um what you're hearing
tonight is is sort of tactical ways to
address the issues that you're raising.
Um but you go back to other documents.
We have a strategic plan. We have a a
general plan. All of those things talk
about character and nature. And so what
you're hearing tonight is the staff uh
putting forward tactical ways to help
build more housing, but also keeping in
mind these other plans that we have that
I think talk more about character. If
the council wishes to amend some of
those additional plans, then I think we
would go back into title 18 and make
those changes. But I think certainly
those documents talk a lot about
character. They they identify what that
is and those plans have been talked
about with the community, have been
approved by the city council, and those
are the guiding posts that we're using.
If through this conversation you say
that those guideposts have changed or
need to be adjusted, uh we would like to
hear that because if you're looking at
amending the strategic plan, you're
looking at amending the comprehensive
plan to change some of the uh main
points of development that have been
used by this community for a long time,
absolutely within your right. Uh but we
would need to go through that process.
So it's not Kristen's opinion. what
she's doing is taking uh the documents
and the plans that this council and
previous councils have approved and
using these as tactics to implement them
as to how you see fit. And
>> and I would say as I've talked to the
Isqua community about this change uh I
often say I think our neighborhoods
whether you're in South Cove or whether
you're in Talis whether you're in Squawk
or the Highlands are going to if I think
we get it right will probably look very
similar 15 years from now how they look
now. I think Oldtown will actually, if
we get it right, maintain the character
of historic Front Street. It to me, the
real focus is this area in the central
Isqua plan both south and north of I90.
I mean, I continue to go back to the
area directly west of Costco's global
headquarters that I honestly feel was
more vibrant 20 years ago when I moved
to Isiqua than it is today. And so I
think my guidance to staff is to really
focus on this part of Isaqua that I feel
hopefully light rail is coming and when
it comes we want it to be a vibrant a
vibrant walkable village retail type
scene and that I think has been the the
emphasis to staff is to really focus on
those areas not to necessarily try to
have the tallest buildings we can on
historic Front Street. is definitely
gearing it more towards we think around
this I90 corridor both north and south
where I think there is huge
opportunities.
Okay.
So
moving on we have statemandated parking
requirements. Those are required to be
done by 2028. We're going to go ahead
and get those all done this year.
Natural context areas and transparency
requirements. So I'm just going to put
it out there. We have natural context
areas that are identified in our central
standards and the requirements for those
are a little are a little odd. So, and
not always doable. So, we found that out
through a few developments that have
come through. So, we're going to revisit
those. We found from developers that
those are difficult. We've seen that
it's difficult. Part of that is the
transparency requirements. So, when you
face a natural area, 50% of your facade
that faces that area is supposed to be
transparent. They're either doors or
windows. And when you're building a
residential development, you don't
necessarily want that, especially if
you're going to have a path going right
by there. You don't you may not want 50%
transparency in your facade. And then
transparency also comes into play along
the street. So when you are building a
res a
development, the street frontage part of
that if you are retail, 75% has to be
transparent. All other commercial office
uses and residential uses have to be 40%
transparent. If you're residential, that
40% transparency has to take place at or
above the six foot mark of that
building. So these have proven to be
difficult for developers to do. It can
these what we're trying to achieve can
be achieved in other ways. So we are
going to revisit that and look and see
what other cities do and try and resolve
that.
I mean, I would say this item too came
out of the builder round table where the
blue fern condos there on Newport by IV
were saying like they had to do 50%
transparency facing an area where was
walking by and it wasn't necessarily
something the future homeowners want and
the people walking by don't really want.
So, but council member Nichols, go
ahead.
>> Question on five. So, that it's framed
as statemandated parking requirements.
Will you be bringing again at kind of a
full spectrum beyond just statemandated
parking requirements as things to
discuss?
>> Not at this time. No.
>> Okay.
>> The last one on for Q3 2026 is to allow
multif family in UV urban village
commercial retail. This one's a bit odd
as well. We have UVC com UV commercial
retail is not one zone. It's actually
two different zones and you can have two
different zones on one parcel that
actually have two different permitted
uses tables for each one. So, we're
going to revisit that. Um, see if we can
fix that. It gets very confusing when
developers come in and say, "Can I
expand my property or can I build on
this property?" Uh, so we're going to
revisit that as well. But the first one
that came up is from a developer asking
asking us to allow multif family
residential technically in the
commercial part of this.
Okay. Moving on to Q4 2026. The first
one is to provide flexibility uh to meet
the intent of the architectural design
standards that we have right now.
They're say you're required to do the
intent is this, but you're required to
do every single one of these elements.
And what we're looking to do is say
here's the intent. Here are the
different things. Pick three of these
things to do to meet the intent of this.
That would be preferred by developers.
Variances and departures kind of fall
into the same area outside of already
looking at the architectural standards.
What else can we do? Where else can we
allow variances that are reasonable and
still meet the intent of the code?
Through block corridors, connectors,
these we used to require
up to 40 ft throughblock connectors
which go from one block between
buildings to the other block. And during
the title 18 update, we we reduced these
down. They're about 10 feet now. And it
still doesn't always make sense. The
intent is the intent is awesome. The
intent is to have shorter blocks. We've
got blocks that are 1,000 feet long and
you want to have blocks that are
anywhere from 250 to 300 feet. So that
is the intent of the corridor is to
break that down. But you can't always do
it because if you're going from a
building to another building, that
doesn't get you anywhere. Going to a
building to an alley, that's doesn't
really serve a purpose. So, we're going
to revisit that and see what kind of
deviations or al alternatives we can
find to those. And the last one that
we've already talked about is peer
review. So, there are a few options here
that we're looking at as well. Um trying
to figure out we don't have certified
state certified people to do some of
these reviews, critical areas reviews,
geotechnical reviews. Um we we don't
have some of those. So, in most
circumstances right now, we need to go
out to peer reviewers. geotechnical
reviewers I don't think will change but
when we look at critical areas there are
some possibilities there um in
limiting we have some options I'm not
going to go through all the options now
we've talked a few about a few things
there liability issues with some of what
things we've talked about so I don't
want to throw it out there yet so um but
we're looking at that as well that would
reduce costs and developers would be
very appreciative
>> oh council member dair
>> uh yeah and I'm sure this is to your
earlier point of that the time involved
to me like I feel like the whole point
of This is the intent versus letter of
the law. The intent of what our codes
were meant to do, the intent of our
central isqua plan and trying to
actually achieve that intent intent. So
I'm just curious to me like eight and
nine are kind of the real point of all
of this, but is it just there just
because the timing to actually develop
this will take that time or is you know
to me that's like one of the high
importance items. So I'm just curious in
terms of the timing for that.
>> So it seems like it's really far out
there but it's not. um the architectural
standards, the overlay standards,
they're kind they're in a several
different places in the code. And while
it says Q4, which is December of this
year, they would actually have to be at
our planning policy commission by
September. So that really doesn't give
us that much time considering the other
two quarters we have in front of it. So
it's it's pretty fast.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> And and I would say I think this slide
there's a lot of I these are big things
on this slide. I mean eight is a big
item. Nine is a big item. 11 is a big
item. I mean, these are big items that
we're saying we will deliver in this
calendar year.
All right. Starting next year, the first
one that we would look at are ways to
mitigate redevelopment if close to or
within paved buffers. And what we found,
particularly with the trail head
development, is that we have most of
most of Central College is paved. It's
just paved over. and we've paved over
wetlands and we've paved over buffers
and it makes development really really
difficult. So we need to find ways to if
they're going to improve the buffers, do
we let them develop in part of that? We
we need to figure out how to make this
easier for developers rather than saying
you simply can't build in that area
period. So that's one we're going to
look at. Another one is more options to
meet sustainable development standards.
We're watching the IAAP update, climate
action plan to see where that goes. And
we're working with them as they move
along. We're working with them to make
updates as well, but that'll be toward
the end of the year.
Q2, hang in there, we're almost done. Um
Q2, structured parking, retail frontage
requirement. This isn't a huge deal, but
we do require that if you put in
structured parking in central Isiqua
that the face of the building 20 ft deep
is has some sort of use in it so that
you have 20 ft deep spaces for retail or
offices or something like that. This is
cumbersome. You often times also wind up
with vacant buildings sitting there that
nobody can fill because the space isn't
right. So, or the market isn't there at
the time. So, we are looking at uh
adjusting that, maybe removing that. The
Eco Northwest report we've talked about
several times. That was
>> Oh, council member Joe.
>> Uh Kristen Le, if I could comment on uh
that point that you just made in terms
of retail on the first floor in some of
the parking lots. Um would that be made
easier if the governor signs Senate bill
6026 which is um loosening up the
requirement that um there can be housing
commercial zones
uh and the mix can be a little bit
different. Is that going to help us at
all with this particular problem? Or the
second part of the question is if this
passes, does that interfere, mess up, uh
will we have to do some work on the
planning side that will need to be in
some of this plan delaying some other
pieces of it and I don't necessarily
know the answer to it and we might not
know the answer right now, but I'm
throwing the question out.
>> So, we already requcept
for intensive commercial. Um, so no,
it's 620. It doesn't that doesn't affect
anything. Um, the one that we've talked
about is the requirement of um
commercial,
which I think they're the same bill. Are
they the same bill? They're the same
bill.
>> I I think where the bill was headed last
time we checked was the the cities were
making comments about having some
flexibility to have commercial. Uh,
rightfully so, because uh you do need a
mix of uses. Um, and it was a certain
percentage of your area could have
commercial ground floor requirement for
>> there are number of carveouts and I
think the one that's that I'm thinking
of that will be important will be the
carveout that's allowed for transitory
development areas. Yes,
>> i.e. our
>> terminus station. So correct
>> I'm just thinking of that as well as I'm
going through these different thoughts.
some work on our part will be needed
where we want uh that kind of required
mandate for mixed use versus um not so
>> thank you very much.
>> Okay. So the uh Eco Northwest report was
done it was finished in 2023 to
implement three of our housing strategy
plan pieces uh to remove barriers to
condominium development to expand
inclusionary zoning and to increase the
diversity of housing. And what came out
of that report was nope, can't do it.
You need to work on what's existing
first. So they said, relook at
inclusionary zoning, reook at think
about doing it uh multif family tax
exemptions, revisit your development
bonus, revisit your parking
requirements, which has kind of been
taken care of by the state, but this is
requiring a consultant to go through and
help us adjust all of these levers based
on their recommendations to see what is
going to help get development in there.
Last one. So, uh, Q3 2027, the first
one, we've talked about this a few
times, is to rightsize the impact fees.
We do know that some of our impact fees
are higher. We do know that some of our
just land use fees are higher. Um, some
of them are just fine. So, again, hiring
a consultant, getting getting money in
the budget, hiring a consultant to go
through and work through those numbers
with us is a big is a big ask, is a big
do. Um, the last one is potential use of
AI to aid in permitting. Belleview has
just started doing this, but very, very,
very little. They're the first ones that
I know of. We do have an AI team of, I
think, one right now who is
investigating how other cities do it.
And I think it's a little bit of a wait
and see um what's what's working with
other cities and what's not,
particularly Belleview. But that is
something that we can look into.
>> But but that one is Dale. She counts as
three. So
>> mighty Dale.
Okay. So as many mentioned, uh the that
is all I have the three things. Council
member Joe,
>> thank you. Um, wanted to talk about the
impact fee item there a little bit. Um,
in the developer comments, it indicated
that those levels that we have
significantly impact
uh and inflate the total development
costs. Um, so much so that many housing
providers cannot make projects pencil.
And I interpret that as, you know, when
you're looking just at the first blush
at a piece of land and you've got the
impact fee number there, um, you're
doing the calculations before you're
even venturing into pre-application or
doing any designs. And they're saying
that that is an impediment right from
the start for them to totally for them
to just completely take that isqua piece
of land off and to go look somewhere
else. Um, I know that you said that
impact fees would be a significant lift.
Um, and I don't disagree with that. I I
know that my fellow council member, Mh
Council Member Nichols here asked why
the hardest ones were were at the end.
Could you just give a little brief
summary in terms of the the small pieces
that a consultant needs to do to come
in, look at the comparative impact fees,
look at the the capital plans are
involved just to give us a flavor of
kind of the the workload that's involved
there.
>> I'm going to phone my expert to my left,
Miss Mini Dolly. Well, and before many
comes up and I would also say you have
to figure out what's in your like our
CIP right now has $120 million vehicular
overcrossing over I90 that would raise
the height of Gilman by up to 25 ft. So
right now that's part of the so part of
it is takes a lot of time and effort to
figure out what project should be going
into that CIP as well which is a process
that we really have to put some time
into but go ahead Minnie. Yeah. So, um,
you know, I think I emailed the
different impact fees we have. The
school district does their own student
generation rate. We adopt them every
year. The the large items for that we
hear from developers are traffic and
parks. Uh, so it makes sense to do
traffic impact fees after we've done the
concurrency update, a new traffic model
update. Then we know what the levels of
service are and where we the community
is willing to go with those level of
service. And you know as a council you
could decide what's acceptable level of
service what's needs to be on the tip
and the capital improvement plans that
feeds into some of that information. Um
the methodology of how do you calculate
is pretty canned. uh but it's still
those numbers you know those inputs need
to be established through some technical
work that needs to occur before but even
the me the other the reports we have to
have adopted reports that base that are
used as basis for establishing the fees.
So it gets pretty technical
uh and they have to be legally
defensible studies uh that need to be
done. Uh same thing with the parks uh
impact fees. Um the community needs to
decide what the park plan looks like and
get that adopted in order to feed the
information into establishing what the
impact from this development is relative
to what their prora share for uh their
impact is. You still have to establish
what their impact is. So it gets
technical. Um you know there are a few
consultants out there. We would have to
do an RFP solicit uh the right
consultant to help us with this work.
It's going to cost money. So, it'll
probably be a budget ask as part of the
budget process for next year uh to get
this on the work plan.
>> I think it's roughly could be up to
$200,000 to do.
>> Okay. So, if we wanted to move it up on
the work plan, obviously some pieces
would be kicked further down the work
plan and we think it's about $200,000 to
have a consultant to come in and look at
the impact fees. and we'd have to look
at our capital improvement plan and our
parks improvement plan uh to make sure
that they're right size for the impact
fee that we might want to have.
Moreover, taking it even a step back
further from there, we would have to
address the park plan because that was a
plan that we put in place that had a
vision for what our parks wanted to look
like. We'd have to take a look at our
transportation plan as well to see if
that vision is still appropriate before
we adjusted those impact fees down or
up.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> That that would be the better way to do
it. Uh if you Yeah.
>> Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, members of the
council, Andrea Leonard, who's on uh uh
remotely indicated that in discussions
with the public works staff as recently
as today, their numbers are quite much
higher for the work. they there's thing
the transportation uh uh plan would be
another $400,000. So we I think when
we'll need to go back and and double
check these all these numbers, but it
could be as much as 400,000 just for the
transportation piece of this.
>> Thank you for that information. I
appreciate giving that background when
we uh are looking at this plan.
>> Yeah, there's a reason I stay away from
impact fees if I can.
All right. Uh so that's all I have. We
just are as mention many many mentioned
in the beginning. We want to know do you
do you agree with the proposed list of
amendments? Do you agree with the
timeline and the prioritization of these
amendments? And do you concur with the
proactive builder outreach approach? And
do you have any other ideas for that? So
we are all three here to answer
questions.
>> Council member Walsh.
>> Thank you. So first I want to start with
the positive which is that I am thrilled
that we are looking at all of this. I'm
thrilled at the timeline. I think these
present a lot of opportunities um so
that students and you know young people
can look at Isiqua as a place that they
can continue um to live. Um I think
these can have very big impacts on
affordability.
What I would like council to do though
as we are looking at this
is take a little bit of a step back and
particularly on the both slide you said
their goal was to maximize units. I
don't think we've come up with a stated
goal here. Nor do I think we've come up
with a way to measure if any of these
individually or as a group are
effective.
And so I I want to make sure that as we
move forward with this that we are
moving toward a single goal
that we will know if they are effective
and we know what the most impactful
change we could make. I think that's
really important when we are setting a
work plan. Uh Kristen, I really
appreciate the explanation of some of
the things that I might think are very
impactful like the um impact fees do
have some of the requirements that might
even though they're more impactful get
pushed down the timeline, not the
importance. And so I think I would want
to make sure that we are talking on that
level so that we can really help
evaluate whether or not these things
will be effective. I will also say my
concern as we go through and make permit
improvements and, you know, make other
changes is that
builders have been very familiar
recently with building town homes and
duplexes.
And we might not have a lot of green
fields, but we do have a lot of parking
lots that could turn into townous.
And I want to make sure that when we are
making changes that we are not making it
entirely just more effect more cost
effective to build town houses
particularly in the area of central
Isiqua because we're looking at transit
in that area and we want a very walkable
area. So I'd like to make sure that we
are also
flashing all kinds of things around
here. That's super fun. Um,
oh, that's usually just the screen turn
off or something. Um,
though I will say it's also our screens
as well. So, I don't know if it's just
the TV.
>> There we go. Um
just to make sure that we are not making
changes to just make changes that we
have a goal toward it and that we are
not going to suffer unintended
consequences.
One of which being
we would either get more single family
or more duplexes built in an area that
we think could be much denser.
>> Yeah. No, I think that's a good point
and I
>> and like everything you see on this list
tonight is going to planning policy and
then going to CPD. So I mean I think
deputy president I think it's yourself
council member Nichols council president
Martz right is that the so I think a lot
of this I think our thought was a lot of
the nuances of how you do a lot of this
like we're these are a set of ideas and
what we think is a a rough timeline of
how you could aggressively kind of move
forward but a lot of that work we do
expect to happen at both the PPC and the
committee level from the council uh as
it goes through those processes.
>> Well, then I would just say from my ask
to staff is that as we are evaluating
things that we keep in mind um some of
our concern areas of we want to make
changes but we want to be mindful of
some unintended consequences. And one of
which where this could make things
worse, um, is to get a lot of
development, yes, but development in a
way that precludes us from getting
smaller units that are more affordable,
that create more of a walkable area. And
so for each proposal that we are putting
forward, if we can explain how this is
not going to get us the unintended
consequences, I think that would do a
lot to
um alleviate some of the concerns that I
might have.
>> Council member Dare beat Deputy
President by like half a second. I'm
sorry. Uh mine is in response to that
statement and then I agree cuz I think
when you get into the weeds of something
like this it has a lot of detail and a
lot of stuff that you know the getting
to the intent of it and the why and what
our view as a council is and I'm curious
how and this might be for leadership to
discuss and just saying how we as a
council get to that answer of what is
the real meat of this so that we can
then make the decisions at each of these
quarterly points and not lose sight of
that because obviously uh city will be
doing its work but then how do we do our
outside of that work to get that answer
and know where we're how we're attacking
each of these quarterly moments.
>> Okay. Council member, Deputy President
Jay and then President Morts.
>> Yeah. Um I have a few things. So first
of all, I think in terms of you know the
vision of what we want the future of
isqua to look like. I think you know
isqua right now in the eco northwest
report it says we actually do have a
very good diversity of housing types
compared to our peer jurisdictions. I
think that's a very good thing and
that's something that you know is unique
about us that we should aim to continue
and so I think a lot of these changes it
does you know make it I basically right
now it's you know as we saw with the
transit oriented development it's like
very difficult to build just about
anything and we our code can do things
like drive up the cost of building an
apartment building by $1.2 million
because of the stepbacks that we
require. So, I think these are, you
know, kind of like, okay, we can get rid
of some of these things that like truly
make no sense. But I think in terms of,
you know, the long-term goal of, you
know, we want to have a diverse range of
housing types so that people can age in
place, so that, you know, young people
can buy their first condo and get into,
you know, home ownership in and put down
roots in our community. I think there's
a lot more that can be done that might
not necessarily be on the code change
side. I think it might be more, you
know, Alexis on the um economic
development side of, you know, working
with builders and saying like, hey, you
know, and um I personally live in a town
home. Um so, you know, in terms of the
trash talking of town homes, I got to
say I think they can make sense in a lot
of cases. Um but also I think they also
don't make sense for everyone cuz what
you see now is it's all these, you know,
fourstory town homes. Half the space is
taken up by stairs. Some of them are,
you know, better than others, but it's
not necessarily the type of home that
works for everyone, right? Like, if
you're old and you can't do stairs, it's
just not going to work for you. And so,
how can we, you know, build more
diversity of housing types? How can we
build, you know, smaller apartment
buildings that actually fit with the
character of Oldtown Isqua? I think
that's something that is like a personal
like passion area for me. And you've
seen I've seen some very very
interesting ones, you know, like
forplexes or six plexes in Spokane that
actually like they look like they could
belong in a historic neighborhood, but
they're totally new. And so I would love
to see how we can encourage some of
those things um you know, whether it's
through the code, through um talking
with home builders and things like that
cuz I do think that type of eclectic
feel is what isqua had. And I think
that's something that we should actually
put a lot of effort into continuing
because it's something that's in our
strategic plan. It's something that our
community says they really value. Um I
also,
you know, I want to say I'm very happy
with uh the timeline to hear that some
of these things are going to be going to
PPC next month and just the sheer volume
of things that are going to be done uh
in this calendar year is very exciting.
Um but also, you know, to the point of
town homes, you know, I live in town
home. I enjoy living there. I think it's
not necessarily the most efficient land
use in every case. And there's also
other reasons that, you know, with
residential versus commercial building
codes that, you know, the most
cost-effective thing for builders to
build is town homes. So, I'm also, you
know, just flagging for the rest of the
council that there could be things in
the state legislature on topics that
help encourage more condominium
construction um that I think we should
consider putting on our legislative
agendas like top priorities if this
really is cuz it seems like this housing
area is a huge priority for us as a
city. And you know, maybe we should be
lobbying for elevator reform or um you
know, great, you know, allowing some of
these smaller uh apartment buildings
that are basically the same form factor
as a single family home to use
residential building codes rather than
commercial building codes, which are a
lot more expensive and also have higher
fire permit fees. The two things are
related. So,
>> all right. And Council President Marts,
>> so obviously we're not going to figure
it all out this evening. Um I I think
this question of what are we really
looking for out of all this is important
and there's going to be a lot of work
done and you know 17 different areas
over over the next couple of years um
want to make sure that at the end of it
um I think the I think the seven of us
know broadly speaking what we're looking
for right which is missing middle and
workforce and more vibrant housing
options more or you know um age in place
housing options. We've heard various
things here tonight, but I think it is
it will be important to get a little bit
more clarity on that going forward. Um
in parallel to some of the the block and
tackling things we see here, I'm not
sure how we got to town homes being the
villains this evening. Um I've I've
lately been somewhat convinced by my
fellow council member Nichols that
market that adding market rate housing
um helps for workforce housing. I'm
slowly but surely coming around to this
idea. And so it seems to me like, um, if
you turn parking lots into town homes,
that's not a bad thing. Um, you know,
don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
I, you know, I want to see four over two
or five over one because I want to see
more retail around where people live. I
want to see, you know, bedas. Like,
wouldn't it be great if we had bedas in
our city? My, my daughter has a bed
every block in Manhattan, and it's just
great. You just walk down to the bed and
get what you need. Um, so you know,
okay, we're not going to have bedas, but
we can get more retail where people
live.
>> Don't give up already. We could still
get a couple,
>> right? Get started. But but my my my
point is just that um let you know,
let's make town homes the enemy here,
right? Like I said, converting parking
lots into town homes would be a good
thing. And like I said, um I'm I'm
grudgingly coming around to the idea
that could probably help us with our
workforce housing issues as well. Thank
you,
>> Council Member Walsh.
>> I'm going to defend my statements of or
clarify that town homes are lovely.
Where I don't think that we want to be
encouraging their build is right near
where we could get a light rail transit
station. both because I think that could
discourage light rail from locating
there because it doesn't have the
density of population to enable use for
it. It also means that fewer people can
walk to transit. Um the other thing that
I do think is important for us to
consider as we are getting development
is many of these buildings are going to
be here for 50 years. And so if we are
truly trying to find a walkable area in
central Isiqua, which may be the only
area with open parking lots that could
be redeveloped into something um as big
as these units, that that is an
important consideration of
trying to avoid a negative outcome in
particular areas. Um, so that is my
defense.
>> And for deputy president, for council
leadership, we're going to look into
Town Home USA to see if there's a
designation the city could apply for for
No, I'm just kidding. Council member
Nichols.
Um,
I I I will second all of or third or
fourth or fifth, whatever the the number
are on now, the uh the statement that I
think having good goals is very
important. Um, I think it's also very
hard. I can imagine it's very hard for
the staff to work if there aren't good
goals. Um, so that's that's up to us to
probably set better. Um, I hope we can
figure out a process to do that and make
some sort of clear goal statement for
the what we're doing going forward. I
think that will help a lot. Um, I do
while while we get there, we still have
to get stuff done though. Um, and I
don't want that to impede things that we
know we want to do or that we know we
want to make progress on quickly. Um,
tactically speaking, um,
I I alluded to this in one of my my my
previous comment, but I I would I it
would be very helpful, I think, if
especially in the absence of a perfect
goal, we are presented with a broad set
of options that we can go and and debate
and discuss. Um so as an example um on
the the parking requirements for example
um I don't know what the optimal parking
requirements are for Isiqua uh but I
think it would be interesting to be able
to
follow or at least uh follow the path of
looking at one of the the few concrete
goals that we were offered in this
discussion which was there's areas of
central Isiqua in particular that we
would like to look more like the
development that's occurred in both um
some of the one of those bullet points
for both is removed all parking
requirements. I think it's at least
worth discussing and understanding that.
Um I don't know what the right answer
is, but I think it's worth discussing.
So if we if if we filter was the word I
was trying to use out some of those
options too early in the process I think
we will limit ourselves from from
finding what could be better optimal
solutions especially for central
>> and then Kristen the the state bill
around transit gyro does remove I mean
you can't have any parking requirements
if you adopt the state is that correct
or
>> correct I know with middle housing if
you're within a quarter mile of transit
Tood major transit stop you're not
allowed to require residential parking
uh the tod bill itself can you require
can you require parking in the in the
within the to do you recall
>> I don't recall but I think there are
some
quarter mile
>> I'll I'll have to look but I do know
with quarter within a quarter mile of
those things you cannot require it
>> but it's citywhere
Should
we repeat that? Is that here on the
microphone?
>> Yeah. My understanding of the bill um
you know it's it's the state we have
till 2017 but we uh 2028 or 27 but we
are prioritizing early adoption of that.
Uh the idea is it's it's going to apply
citywide. Uh so um multifamilies 0.5
parking spaces per unit. So anywhere in
the city half the multif family units
have to show that they meet parking
requirements on their property. It
probably makes sense in central Isiqua,
but we have other areas that are either
on a steep hillside with no on-site
parking. Um, and then the idea behind
the bill is that the market will
determine how much they, you know,
someone's not going to build a project
that with no parking if it's not going
to work. Uh, and nobody's going to want
to live there. And so, so some of that
uh dynamic will shift. Um, but to answer
your question about the TOD, I believe
there is a certain amount of distance
within uh a major transit stop that you
can't require any parking. Um, but we'll
look into that.
>> Yeah. And my my clarification on that is
um I I don't think all of central Isiqua
is covered by that um especially
depending on where future
>> development transit developments may go.
So at least from for discussion if we if
we've identified that areas within both
are similar to how we would like um
areas within central Isiqua at least to
look um if that's one of the key things
that allowed that to happen and reduced
the the cost of some of that housing.
Again I I agree with your statement. I
don't think that the there there's no
situation that I can imagine in Isqua
where a a home builder would decide to
not have parking. Um they're but are
they are they required what is the what
is the amount we require them to have
above which um residents in smaller
apartments that are going to be transit
accessible um might not want to have to
pay for that as an amenity. And uh
knowing exactly what that map looks like
would be helpful and and thinking
through that at the same time where
otherwise thinking through parking plans
seems like it would be a wise use of
time instead of having to potentially
revisit that at a not too distant future
date. Sure.
I mean um you know in terms of answering
your question of whether we look at
other options. I mean if you want us to
have policy you know pros and cons of a
policy of lifting any parking minimums
anywhere in the city as an option and
what the pros and cons would be with the
planning and policy commission. I mean
we could do that. I think it it's just
given the amount of work we have to do
and and creating those options that may
not be realistic for Esiqua. Um you know
a lot of conversations occurred when the
major transit stop definition in Oldtown
because we have one bus that takes you
to Seattle and comes back. And so with
this missing middle at one point there
was the idea that within mile or half a
mile you had to have zero parking. But I
think the the what the feedback or the
information we were getting from the
community members is it won't work
because it's you know people still rely
on cars um to get from point A to point
B in Isiqua. So it's it's a matter of in
central Isiqua with a future light rail
station what's the that that's a
different comparison comparing to some
of the other areas. And so if our focus
is central Isiqua here, you the quick
and easy thing is to get the the state
mandates adopted quickly and then um
come back and have a conversation about
do we want to have zero parking minimums
or we bundle those two conversations
together. Um but it's it's going to take
more time if we want to go back to no no
parking requirements even in central
Isukqua.
Yeah.
A couple of other things. One is one is
I think we need to give the state
mandated requirements a chance to see if
they work first before we go removing
parking requirements from other places
too. It would be a lot of extra time to
come up with all those options. And the
third I think I mentioned this last week
when I was here is that both did remove
all their parking requirements but they
still find that most people most
developers are putting in 1.5 to one
1.75 parking spaces per complex per
development. And that's why they're
looking at putting maximums on there
because they're leaving it up to the
market. They've really found that what
they might need is 1.25 spaces per unit.
>> Yeah. So, I I'll just say on all those
things, I I appreciate that those
perspectives that perhaps it is perhaps
we would as a council want to wait and
see what the effects of the state uh
mandates will be. Perhaps we don't um
especially in central Isiqua uh if we
have data that as you mentioned the
market is going to almost certainly
create and require more parking anyway.
So it's it's at least I think
potentially useful to have a discussion
and uh if that's one of the things that
is identified as one of the higher
priority
uh cost reducers that was identified in
one of the the peer cities we're looking
at. Um I think it's it would be very
wise for us to take a look at that
sooner rather than later.
>> Sure. I mean some of the amendments
we've made on the parking site uh you
know the code used to require 50% of the
parking needs to be structured parking
and that was a big barrier at least
through the Eco Northwest report uh came
up as um as an issue. So that's no
longer in play. Um I think in in to
answer your question about how many
options we want to bring forth and
evaluate as part of this um
you know there's only two one is the
statemandated u path and the other one
would be you know no um parking space
have have no standards our current code
has maximums so we are also trying to
not have someone build too much parking
uh which is what bottle is trying to
regulate that so we would eliminate the
maximums if in order to comply with the
state bill. So it gets complex. It it
will have nuances of different options
and paths. But if council direction and
consensus is to go uh do what other
cities are doing with the parking
reform, I think it would be helpful for
us to know now if that should be part of
the discussion with PPC because that
that could you know we need to budget
more time for those
conversations to occur in a thoughtful
way.
>> Well, and I think this is the starting
point of those conversations. Like I
said, there's going to be a lot of back
and forth between both PPC and the and
the planning policy, the community
development committee. And uh I think
our what's really interesting to me, I
guess the perspective from the
legislature is so different than here
because here you're really only
constraint of what you do is making sure
your community supports what's
happening. Because in the legislature,
it's all about here's the minimum things
you're trying to force cities to have to
do. whereas we're kind of in charge of
our own zoning at the local level. And
so our opportunity here is pretty broad
and I think it's upon us to execute on
something that we think is thoughtful
that matches kind of the character and
vision of Isiqua. And I think that is
something that we want to make sure we
get right. And so I think we've kind of
tried to find this balance between
having an aggressive timeline but also
understanding that these are big
decisions that really impact the
character of our city and we want to
make sure we're getting them right. But
I think as we go through this process
like it's an open dialogue I think
between the council and the
administration to make sure we are
finding that balance. Uh
I remain optimistic that it can be
found. I will reiterate my confidence in
the staff we have here in the room
tonight. I think it's the right group of
people to get this job done and uh I
think it's a great opportunity. Council
member Walsh.
>> Thanks. So, I think what I was hearing
from council member Nichols was an ask
to look at other um parking uh
adjustments other than just the state
requirement. I appreciate staff's
perspective that we should let the state
requirements go that it would be a big
lift. This is ultimately a policy um
decision. So, I'd like to hear from
other council members to see if that is
something that we would like to have
included because ultimately what we are
doing right now is adopting a work plan
and understanding what our work levels
would be. And if our ask is yes, let's
look at larger parking requirements,
then staff needs to be able to respond
and say, "Okay, that's going to take x
amount of time rather than y," which is
perfectly acceptable. I would be
interested in looking at that. I don't
know if I would put it at the same
priority level as implementing the
states. Um, but I would be interested in
that aspect.
>> Council President Marts,
>> thanks. Um, you know, I'm still I still
haven't heard in this whole conversation
and I'm I'm I'm trying to answer um
Council Member Walsh's question. I'm
still I still haven't heard in this
conversation necessarily the smoking
gun, right? Like I think we have a
perception that there must be something
that um we must have some poison uh pill
in here somewhere if we haven't gotten
what both and Woodenville have had. Um
and I don't know this this housing thing
hearing that when you remove all the
limits they go with 1.5 to 1.75 units
anyhow sort of makes me think if I was a
betting person I mean part of it is it's
hard to tease out if you change 10
things and you get a change in the
outcome. It's really hard to tease out
which one of those 10 things did what,
right? But if I was a betting person, I
I wouldn't necessarily bet that, you
know, the the reason that both is where
they are and we're not where both is for
density in our in our valley is because
of parking.
But I don't know. Um, and I'm certainly
willing to have a conversation about um
less parking. this whole question of
what amenities people want to pay for,
what they don't want to pay for is
really really interesting, right? And
and we're seeing we've had conversations
before about um the lessons that you can
learn from other nearby developments.
So, I'm I'm not opposed to looking at
the parking piece, but I I don't think
that's a smoking gun. what I you know I
still want to hear
from either experts or the market
you know
what is I still haven't heard what it is
right that um that where we're at is it
I mean I've heard people say it's just
we're more expensive right there are
people who will say we're more expensive
in Isiqua I don't know if that's true
compared to both or Woodenville if
that's the case and that isn't you know
we're we're digging around at the edges
of of macroeconomic things that are
going on. So, just to come back to what
Council Member Walsh asked, you know, I
think that we should look at the big
knobs. Um, you know, there there are big
knobs on the stereo that you can turn
the volume, the tuner, the whatever. We
should look at the big knobs and we
should run them through the range,
right? We should not say, well, you
know, we've picked two points on the
knob and so we're going to that's what
we're going to look at, right? If we
think um collectively if we think the
big movers are far and set back and uh
you know whatever else uh we should we
should exercise those intensively to
figure out what the right answer is for
us going forward because we've done this
several times before right and I I I I
don't I really don't want to do it every
five years right so let's let's really
exercise this Um, like I said, I suspect
there's a half dozen things here that
most people will agree are are the
biggest impactors and we can find out
from the builders and we can find out
from our experts and then just really go
work those to Council Member Nichols
point. Um, work them thoroughly rather
than just um sort of uh
superficially. Thank you. If I could
just input two things. Um, sorry. Um, to
your comment about a smoking gun,
there's there's not a single smoking
gun. Um, it is a combination of factors
that create an environment that prevents
development and there is no silver
bullet, no one single silver bullet
that's going to solve the problem. Um,
the outreach to the builders, the
continuous conversation,
um, that's how we learn and how we
evolve and that's what this game is.
It's an evolution to make ourselves step
by step better so that we can respond to
market needs and we can respond to
community needs at the same time. Um the
other thing that I would also add is
that with both um one of the things that
they had working in their favor is that
the school district had a significant
portion of land that they were wanting
to divest divest of and the city
purchased that land at well below market
value and so they controlled that land
um and used that uh to help facilitate
development as well. And so that uh
reduced cost of land also puts them at
put them at a a serious advantage when
it comes to building.
>> Okay, we're going to go to Council
Member Walsh and then Council Member
Adair.
>> Thank you. So
I think I have two things I want to
express. First is as we're going through
this, it would be really great to be
able to pinpoint the things that we
think in our code that were preventing
development from happening altogether.
things where we, you know, we had a
developer who came in that said the um
natural area context or the critical
area buffers or things like that made it
so that they couldn't
make a project pencil out on a
particular parcel. And so those are
things where if we make a change, we
enable development. That's really
important to me. The other thing is
there may be things that we are doing
that just drive up the cost of each of
these homes. And so that might be
something like the impact fees where you
could argue looking at it, hey, we've
had all of these town home projects come
through or we had all of these
apartments come through. So the traffic
impact fee isn't keeping a development
from happening, but we do know it adds x
amount to the cost, which can make
things very unaffordable. So I think
those are two stories for us to tell
about what the changes are that we're
making and why we're making them. And
that goes back to what is our goal. And
so my goal if I'm looking at making
changes to housing um code and the way
that we approach it is to enable more
smaller homes. These are going to be
something that creates more natural
affordability. It's something that we
might not see in a town home situation.
And so that's another reason why I want
to make sure that we do have something
that enables a situation where a larger
set of smaller homes is available and is
uh achievable by a homebuilder.
I want to make sure that we are creating
efficient land use so that we create a
walkable environment. That we are not
sacrificing something where we are not
going to have the density that could
create something that where bodeas could
happen that we are not creating
something where we have too low of
density and so transit isn't going to
happen. That's the promise of central
Isiqua and really important. And then
the third piece of my goal is that
we achieve more affordability either in
bringing down the speed of increasing
prices or by creating smaller homes
through cost efficiency and lowering
barriers. So those would be the three
buckets I'm looking at to make sure that
we are making changes that aren't having
unintended consequences and that are
driving us forward particularly for this
central isqua area. And so I would like
to be able to see some sort of stats or
metrics where we could start to measure
those things. I'd also like to know what
metrics we might look at as far as
pre-application meetings or something
that's early in the pipeline so that we
can start to see as we make these
changes. Are we starting to see more
inquiries from um builders? Are we
starting to see more pre-application
meetings happen? more permits coming
through etc.
>> Yeah. And I think before we go to
council member I will say that to me the
beauty of this process is we can kind of
tailor those density bonus like if you
can go to 65 ft but 85 ft you can go to
if you do X Y and Z. And this is the
beauty of the situation we're in right
now is we get to kind of pick what X Y
and Z is. And to your point, Council
Member Walsh, I think smaller units
could be one of the things that lets
people go from 65 to 85 ft and and that
is completely within our purview is
something we could decide. Council
member Adair. Um, I wanted to just be
kind of verbally like support this work
plan and the speed of it because I feel
when I've had conversations about it
that I do think to the earlier
presentation that a lot of it is
perception that there's a perception
that it's hard to build an isiqua that
it's expensive to build an isiqua and
then when I've talked to some you know
business owners and stuff like that
there was you know struggles in just the
length of the permit process and stuff
like that and that
perception is a big part of this and
thus moving quickly on making some
really concrete changes directly with
developers who have said oh this is
difficult for me I can't build and we
did something about it quickly is I
think a really key thing to get out
there to get the stories out to say hey
yeah look we recognized there were there
were these roadblocks for these guys
there was these cause for these guys and
we went and quickly turned around and we
got it done and that can change the
story and because also with a lot of
these cities when we've talked about
like why did you do it? A lot of times
there's been it's not that they made one
code, it's that something exciting
happened. And I think we were talking at
you know shoreline and it was like well
we got the light rail station so now
everything's booming and so it's not
just a co a single code it's not a
silver bullet you know it's not there's
not a single answer and thus I think
it's all about creating perception so I
think us moving quickly at some of these
that are concrete that are helpful while
still honoring the intent of the you
know the city and the strategic plan are
good and that's why I want to just kind
of verbally support this plan and the
speed of it because I think that's the
key to this is just showing that we're
here. We're working with people and we
want to get something done.
>> All right. And I'm looking around. Oh,
got Deputy President Jay.
>> Yeah. And one thing I also want to
acknowledge is, you know, I think we're
all very with this with this set of
updates. It's very laser focused on
enabling building things in central
Isiqua, which is a regional growth
center. And I think, you know, we've
gotten some emails and there's like
concern in the community that, you know,
we're we're giving away the whole house
and, you know, we're just going to let
developers run rough shot rough shot
over rest of the city. I think all the
things that we're proposing addressing
in this work plan are really things
where it's like we are driving up costs
for like very little benefit to
basically anyone, right? Like we are not
proposing getting rid of all of our
environmental requirements. We're just
giving more options of different types
of certifications that you could do
beyond just lead platinum, which is
great. you know, we're not necessarily
proposing, oh yeah, we should let people
like build over the creek. Well, a lot
of them are already paved over and so,
you know, we want to make it so that
it's actually easier to get in a new
development that improves the riparian
buffer. And so, I think, you know, with
this, we're not abandoning our
environmental commitments. We're just
trying to be smart about it. And
ultimately, one of the big things, I
mean, like I think a there's a lot of
history with how, you know, Talis and
the Isqua Highlands were developed.
Originally they were both zoned for like
five acre lots and the whole concept
with them was that development was more
concentrated in a smaller portion and so
you know when we look at how we can
develop Isiqua in the future you know
we're not going to be apparently at one
point there was a proposal to like build
a golf course on tradition plateau.
we're not doing that. But if we are
going to grow as a city, it's got to go
somewhere. And putting it on like half
empty strip malls is like one of the
best environmental things that we could
be doing. So I think, you know, I really
want to emphasize that this is a
long-standing priority of the city to
have environmentally friendly
development and this gets us closer to
where we want to go.
>> Yeah. And I think on that note, and I
think going back to the vision, cuz I've
heard the vision talked about a lot. I
think from my perspective, the vision is
if you're an Isqua resident, you want to
remodel your kitchen or bathroom, you go
through our permit department, and you
find it to be a very collaborative
process. If you're a small business
owner trying to do a tenant improvement,
you go through our permit department.
Once again, you find it to be a very
collaborative, like transparent,
understand, easy to navigate process.
And uh Deputy President Jane's point, I
think there is Council Walsh, I think
the vision is definitely around this
area of I90 both north and south where
you're creating this kind of vibrant
walkable village retail feel to that
section of town that no matter where you
live in Isiqua, that area right there
both north and south happens to be
central. It's central to South Cove,
Talis, the Highlands, Squawk, everyone
can kind of get to that part of our town
in roughly 5 or 10 minutes. And to me,
this is the opportunity we have in front
of us is how to take a part of Isqua
that was more vibrant 20 years ago when
I moved here than it is today right
there north of I90 and make it into
something vibrant that we can be really
proud of and excited about. And I think
that is the ultimate vision. I think
what we're trying to achieve here and I
agree with what Deputy President Jen
just said is we're we're not trying to
throw everything out here. We're trying
to do it thoughtfully. We're trying to
find the right balance in this pendulum
that swings back and forth from one side
to the other. And it's not easy to find
that balance, but like I said, I think
we have a council that's willing to do
the work. We have staff that's willing
to do the work. And I do appreciate
everyone being here tonight as we start
on this journey. And looking for any
final comments. Uh, okay. This is
officially our longest council meeting
of the year cuz it is 9:07. I'm trying
to think, city clerk, if I have any
other uh there is no executive session
tonight and we do appreciate everyone's
feedback and and we did hear the the
comments on the parking and so that is
something obviously we can look at it to
make sure it comes back in front of a
council committee to see if there's
other things they want to do besides
just the state parking requirements. Uh
deputy uh President Mart,
>> are you going to do for good of the
order this evening?
>> Let's do for good of the order. what the
council president wants, the council
president gets. Is there any go to the
order tonight?
>> Well, actually, I I I do have something
I want to point out to council um which
is Sound Cities Association Public
Issues Committee is likely uh to be
considering emergency action uh at this
Wednesday's meeting and it revolves
around the transportation benefit
district sales tax. And I believe
everyone got an email on this subject.
Um but basically
um the punchline on this is that uh
I'm trying to find it but maybe I can
just remember it from memory. I think it
is that uh cities provide something like
96% of the input to uh sales tax that
would uh be going for transportation.
The uh tenative plan is for this to all
be unincorporated. Uh so the the spend
on this would be 100% um in
unincorporated King County which again
provides 4% of the uh input and is
something like 20% of the need. Um and
that's where I apologize. I thought I
had the number. Oh, there we go.
Attachment A. Okay. Sorry. Um it is
uh did it did it? Yes. Um 90% 95% of
sales tax collection occurs in in
incorporated cities. Uh sharing revenue
from a countywide CT uh KCTC revenue
proposal is not unprecedented. 2014
sales tax proposal included 40% for King
County roads services division in cities
based on population. Um so the the
punchline on all this is that um SCA is
going to be considering putting forward
a position that just says any countywide
revenue proposal for KCTCT
should include funding for cities to the
extent permissible under uh governance
cities should be involved in the
decision-making process for allocating
funds generated by a King County
transportation district sales tax. So
it's not setting specific numbers. It's
not saying we should get 95% of the
number. It's just saying the number
shouldn't be zero. So, um, some cities
will be taking this up again as an
emergency action, which means a
one-touch. So, it's a it's a one it it's
likely to be a oneanddone. Um,
considering supporting or I should say
technically considering recommending
that the board take this position is how
is how pick always works is a
recommendation to the board. So, I would
love to get any thoughts that people
have tonight on the subject. Um, I would
love to be be able to say my council
feels this way about it. Um, but I am
also willing if people uh if the hour is
late and people want to get back to me
between now and Wednesday afternoon,
that's fine also, but I I'd be happy to
take any thoughts right now on this. of
Ross.
>> Yeah. I I would say from an isiqua
perspective, it I don't think it would
be beneficial for us to be pushing
against uh pushing for city rights of
revenue versus county considering how
much of our traffic impact is due to
county road backup. Um so I think our
benefit would be if the county roads
were better, particularly going south. I
think the idea that city folk don't
drive on county roads and it the idea
that
our money should only be paying for our
city roads just doesn't make a whole lot
of sense to me. Um we pay taxes that pay
into state roads and um federal roads
and things like that. The idea that we
would also pay for county roads that we
also drive on, I think makes a lot of
sense. Um, and I think particularly from
an isiqua perspective, there is a lot of
benefit to us if the county roads are um
more effectively paid for.
>> U Mr. President, uh, just so I
understand what you're proposing, are
you trying to make sure that the cities
have the option to pursue this by
putting in our our our argument against
this or or what's the what's the main
purpose?
>> The proposed um position for SCA is that
in the knob between like complete equity
on our money or zero equity on the
money, it shouldn't be at zero equity on
our money. should not be that the 95% of
the payers get 0% of the of the uh
outlay.
>> So, we're fighting to have the option to
potentially use this as a tool in the
future. Is that what we're trying to
>> I think it would just be a revenue
share. Yeah.
>> I think when I talked to council member
Dunn today, I think the the way that
conversation was is you get 95 million a
year from this.1% sales tax. the city's
getting 20 to 25% of that to him even
did not seem unreasonable. He was like
to me that seems reasonable because the
county is still getting 75 to 80%. And
at the same time to council member
Walsh's point I said it'd be really nice
if that proposal had roundabouts at May
Valley and Cedar Grove and he agreed.
And so I think the ideal perspective in
this process is I think President Marx
is hitting on a very very fair point
which is 20 to 25% of this revenue of
the 95 million being programmatically
sent back to cities is not crazy and
they can still do a lot of really good
stuff with 70 to $75 million at the
state levels. I mean the county level.
So I think there is a balance that right
now in the current proposal I think
maybe just doesn't exist. So
>> I would support your position then on on
this when you go to vote.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I al I personally also
support the concept of having you know
city folks somehow involved in the
governance whether it's like through
recommendations or things like that so
that we can formally recommend the
roundabouts on Isqua Hovar Road as a
priority for the city of Isqua
>> and that has historically been a really
strong SCA always makes that argument
right that municipal um elected should
be involved in the outlays of large
expenditures when we have these large um
bonds and levies. Um, we have always
argued that they that there should be a
governance board that is composed of
electeds.
>> Oh, Council Member Joe,
>> I have another good of the order item.
Um, thank you. Um, the annual conference
for AWC, the Association of Washington
Cities is June 23rd, 24th, and 25th in
Spokane. Uh I'm announcing this early
because if you don't register, you end
up in a hotel that's miles and miles
away from the conference center. Um so
if you are interested in going, uh it's
a great opportunity to meet other
electeds from around the state, find out
what they're doing on housing, what
they're doing on transportation and
impact fees. All the uh ideas that that
get passed around at that conference are
are are fantastic. So, um, talk to
Wall-E and, uh, our city clerk if you're
interested in going and they can talk
about how to get registered and all the
other fine details. Thank you.
>> Okay, with that, I know we started a
half hour early, but we're finishing the
latest. We finished, I think, in a
council meeting this year, but at 9:15,
we are now officially adjourned.