City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, October 7, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Meeting, September 9, 2025

packet pp.5–6

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 6, 2025

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-09-25 City Council Planning, Development & Page (0000) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. September 9, 2025 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Fire Code Permit Fee Increase and EF&R Budget COM 0173

60 min · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director of Community Planning & Development Jeromy Hicks, Fire Marshal, Eastside Fire & Rescue · packet pp.7–38

Topics: Land UsePublic SafetyBudget

▶ Watch from 1:07 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Eastside Fire & Rescue (“EFR”) is a partnership among the Cities of Issaquah, Sammamish, and North Bend, and King County Fire Districts 10 and 38. Through this governance model, EFR provides fire protection, suppression, fire inspection, and plan review services on behalf of partner agencies. EFR also provides contracted fire services to Mercer Island, the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, and Woodinville Fire & Rescue. As one of EFR’s five partner agencies, the City of Issaquah contributes annual partner funding to support regional fire protection, suppression, and prevention services. Upon completion of fire inspection and plan review services by EFR, the City issues fire permits. Currently, revenue from the fees assessed for fire permits are collected and retained by the City. In 2024 (through September 18), the City collected approximately $78,062 in fire permit fees. Consistent

2025 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Rezone COM 0177

30 min · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.39–96

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Hearing Examiner · Sep 10, 2025 Planning Policy Commission · Sep 11, 2025

▶ Watch from 35:34 Open packet at p.39 ↗

Staff report:

Every year, staff prepare, and City Council adopts a docket of proposed amendments for the Comprehensive Plan. The docket includes items for staff to consider as part of the amendments that year. A public hearing is held in January, and the Council makes the final decision in March. This year’s docket is included as Exhibit A. The following topics were included in this year’s docket.

1943 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ All right, welcome everyone. I'm Council

0:10 ↗ Member Zach Hall and I'm calling the

0:12 ↗ October 7th, 2025 City Council Planning,

0:15 ↗ Development, and Environment Committee

0:17 ↗ meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. I'm joined

0:21 ↗ by Council President Walsh and Council

0:22 ↗ Member Jen. Um, really quickly to run

0:25 ↗ through the agenda, we've got public

0:26 ↗ comment at the top. We're going to

0:27 ↗ approve our minutes from our previous

0:29 ↗ meeting. We have COM 0173 fire code

0:32 ↗ permit fee increase in Epher budget and

0:35 ↗ COM 0177 the 2025 comprehensive plan

0:38 ↗ amendments and reszone. Um and then

0:41 ↗ we'll do announcements. So the first

0:44 ↗ item on our agenda is public comment.

0:46 ↗ And I'll just check in with our clerk. I

0:49 ↗ don't see any members of the public who

0:50 ↗ would want to comment in the room with

0:53 ↗ us. Uh is there anyone online? No chair.

0:57 ↗ >> No one online. All right. Well, I'll

0:58 ↗ just remind folks that we have public

1:00 ↗ comment opportunities um throughout the

1:03 ↗ agenda tonight after the council

1:05 ↗ question and answer period for each

1:07 ↗ agenda item. So, we'll come back to that

1:09 ↗ in case anyone has joined us. Um with

1:12 ↗ that, we'll move on to our next item,

1:13 ↗ which is approval of the September 9th,

1:15 ↗ 2025 meeting minutes, which were

1:17 ↗ distributed in advance. Any corrections

1:20 ↗ by the committee?

1:22 ↗ All right. Hearing none, the September

1:24 ↗ 9th, 2025 meeting minutes are approved

1:26 ↗ as presented by unanimous consent. Um,

1:30 ↗ the next item on our agenda is COM 0173,

1:34 ↗ fire code permit fee increase in East

1:36 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue Budget, presented

1:38 ↗ by, and I believe James Gray instead of

1:40 ↗ director Dolly Wall is here with us

1:41 ↗ today, our building official, and Jeremy

1:43 ↗ Hicks, the fire marshall from East Side

1:44 ↗ Fire and Rescue. So, feel free to take

1:46 ↗ it away.

1:48 ↗ >> Thank you so much, Chair Hall. And I'm

1:50 ↗ going to just open up today and uh start

1:54 ↗ the presentation then turn it over to to

1:56 ↗ Chief AO

2:11 ↗ again. So we are here tonight to talk

2:14 ↗ about uh fire permit fees. And with

2:17 ↗ that, um, we've got a a couple of

2:19 ↗ things. Uh, uh, council member Jen sent

2:22 ↗ a question forward. So, we had a

2:24 ↗ correction that we sent forward on one

2:26 ↗ of the one of the tables. Um, percentage

2:29 ↗ was calculated incorrectly. Thank you

2:31 ↗ for for spotting that and uh, we sent

2:34 ↗ the sent the correction forward to you.

2:36 ↗ We can um, chat about that at when that

2:38 ↗ point in the presentation comes up if

2:39 ↗ you'd like to further. And with that, I

2:41 ↗ will turn it over to Chief Po.

2:48 ↗ Well, good evening. Uh Will Ao,

2:50 ↗ assistant chief with East Side Fire. Um

2:53 ↗ thank you for the opportunity to come

2:54 ↗ and uh speak to you uh tonight on uh the

2:58 ↗ uh permit fees. Uh uh following uh my

3:03 ↗ portion of it, we'll have Fire Marshall

3:05 ↗ Hicks that will also come up and get

3:07 ↗ into more of the nitty-gritty and the

3:08 ↗ detail associated with it.

3:12 ↗ So ultimately what we're end up uh

3:14 ↗ looking for is some direction from this

3:17 ↗ committee um as far as recommending uh

3:22 ↗ the fire permit fees uh that are shown

3:26 ↗ in it and then uh the have a

3:28 ↗ conversation related to the pass through

3:30 ↗ of uh the fire permit fees uh directly

3:33 ↗ to East Side Fire. So, a little bit of

3:36 ↗ East Side's background. Uh, just as a

3:39 ↗ reminder, we are a governmental

3:40 ↗ nonprofit uh organization, which means

3:43 ↗ that we have no ability uh to uh

3:46 ↗ directly levy any kind of taxes. Um so,

3:50 ↗ the bulk of our revenue sources come

3:52 ↗ from our contributions from our partner

3:54 ↗ agencies and any contracts uh for

3:57 ↗ services that we have out there. Uh so

3:59 ↗ east side is again made up underneath an

4:03 ↗ interlocal agreement which is a

4:04 ↗ partnership of uh five core partners

4:08 ↗ which is three cities uh city of Samish

4:10 ↗ Isiqua and city of North Ben and then

4:13 ↗ two fire districts fire district 10 fire

4:14 ↗ district 38. Uh leveraging our

4:18 ↗ regionalization and our partnerships we

4:20 ↗ also maintain four contracts for

4:22 ↗ service. one with the city of Mercer

4:24 ↗ Island uh for fire and EMS uh

4:26 ↗ Woodenville fire and rescue uh which

4:30 ↗ incorporate encompasses fire district 38

4:32 ↗ and the city limits of Woodenville

4:35 ↗ um and then uh King County Fire District

4:38 ↗ 45. So those are all contract agencies

4:42 ↗ and it'll be important as we get into it

4:44 ↗ a little bit more when we talk a little

4:46 ↗ bit more on the funding side of it.

4:50 ↗ So when we worked on our 2526 budget

4:53 ↗ process, uh our fire marshall's office

4:55 ↗ was looking at a couple different ways

4:57 ↗ that we can better support the growth

5:00 ↗ that is going on within our uh uh cities

5:04 ↗ in particular. So when we look at how uh

5:08 ↗ just taking a step back and take a look

5:10 ↗ at how we are funded um it is a uh uh

5:16 ↗ formula that shares the cost among each

5:19 ↗ of the five partner agencies. Now the

5:21 ↗ contracts they pay 100% of their own um

5:24 ↗ uh costs associated with it. So within

5:27 ↗ east side uh the growth that occurs

5:31 ↗ within the cities um is also paid for by

5:35 ↗ all the partners meaning that fire

5:37 ↗ district 10 and fire district 38 they

5:39 ↗ also pay their proportional share but

5:42 ↗ there is no uh legal obligation no uh

5:46 ↗ legality that we have any um say what

5:50 ↗ happens within the district that all

5:51 ↗ falls under the purview of uh King

5:53 ↗ County Fire Marshall's office and fire

5:55 ↗ marshal Hicks can get into that a little

5:57 ↗ bit deeper. So when we looked at the

6:00 ↗ growth within the cities, we wanted to

6:03 ↗ come up with a plan to make sure that we

6:05 ↗ are doing our diligence to support um

6:08 ↗ that growth. Uh one of it was

6:11 ↗ standardizing our fee structure across

6:13 ↗ all of our east side partners. Um again

6:16 ↗ excluding the fire districts because we

6:19 ↗ have no say in uh what occurs within the

6:22 ↗ fire districts.

6:24 ↗ uh and also uh including our um our

6:28 ↗ contract agencies outside of the

6:30 ↗ Snowqualami tribe. Again, we don't have

6:32 ↗ any uh legal authority within uh

6:35 ↗ Snowquali tribal lands.

6:38 ↗ Uh so by standardizing those fees um

6:41 ↗ leads to good transparency for everybody

6:44 ↗ that is looking into development. uh it

6:48 ↗ maintains that consistency and it's

6:50 ↗ predictable for any of the developers

6:52 ↗ that are uh moving forward to uh to

6:54 ↗ develop within these areas. So part of

6:58 ↗ the growth you know we were project

7:00 ↗ we're looking at the the growth

7:02 ↗ projections within um our cities uh we

7:06 ↗ had gone back and asked for the addition

7:08 ↗ of a fire marshall um to be paid for

7:12 ↗ from our partners. So our current

7:15 ↗ partner uh only pay for three fire

7:19 ↗ marshals um three of the six within the

7:22 ↗ fire marshals division.

7:24 ↗ So there was uh as part of the

7:27 ↗ conversation with that um

7:30 ↗ we

7:32 ↗ uh needed to look at some budget

7:34 ↗ reductions because of the pressures that

7:35 ↗ were um looking at for our cost

7:39 ↗ increases.

7:41 ↗ So because the cost increases uh

7:44 ↗ exceeded what our partners were uh

7:47 ↗ comfortable with, we lost that uh fire

7:50 ↗ marshall ask which would have been uh

7:54 ↗ allowed us to better support the growth

7:56 ↗ within the area. So we need to get

7:59 ↗ creative as to how can we try to uh uh

8:02 ↗ cover the costs knowing that our job is

8:05 ↗ to support the cities and the partners

8:08 ↗ uh which came to this uh cost um pass

8:13 ↗ through approach uh from each of the

8:16 ↗ partners again mainly focused on the

8:19 ↗ cities.

8:22 ↗ So the current staffing model we have uh

8:25 ↗ our fire marshall's office has a is

8:27 ↗ totally

8:28 ↗ a total staffing of six people. Three

8:31 ↗ are paid for by the east side partners.

8:35 ↗ Um that is the same staffing level that

8:37 ↗ we've had since 1999.

8:39 ↗ Uh two are provided from Woodenville

8:43 ↗ Fire and Rescue. And uh just for context

8:47 ↗ uh Woodenville added recognizing that

8:49 ↗ there is growth that has occurred and

8:51 ↗ anybody that's been up in Woodenville

8:53 ↗ has seen the amount of growth that has

8:54 ↗ gone up there. They are they added the

8:58 ↗ second fire marshall um in Woodenville

9:01 ↗ in 2024. So that helps to support that.

9:05 ↗ uh with the addition of Mercer Island,

9:08 ↗ they are paying for 100% of the cost of

9:12 ↗ uh in this case Fire Marshall Hicks. Um

9:15 ↗ so again, the the team, the Fire

9:17 ↗ Marshall team has got six people in

9:19 ↗ there. Um and it's divided in half

9:22 ↗ between the contract agencies and what

9:25 ↗ East Side is being able to provide.

9:29 ↗ Now everybody is able to uh receive the

9:33 ↗ benefit of having that team of six. So

9:36 ↗ there is some workload sharing that does

9:39 ↗ occur on that one. What our concern is

9:41 ↗ that uh

9:44 ↗ being able to keep up with having a

9:47 ↗ sustainable model to keep up with the

9:48 ↗ the growth um that is occurring within

9:51 ↗ each of these divisions or in within the

9:54 ↗ the cities. uh we pride ourselves in

9:57 ↗ being able to help support our

9:59 ↗ communities uh by high level of customer

10:02 ↗ service to each of the builders and

10:04 ↗ developers uh that are coming before us.

10:08 ↗ So that is a brief look as to how we are

10:12 ↗ structured, how we're funded and what

10:14 ↗ our staffing levels look like. Um any

10:18 ↗ questions for me right now?

10:21 ↗ Okay, I will turn this over to Fire

10:24 ↗ Marshall Hicks. Thank you.

10:29 ↗ >> Thanks, Chief. Evening, council. Um, I'm

10:34 ↗ going to take us through a a little ride

10:36 ↗ here and we're going to talk about um

10:39 ↗ fire permit fees and do a little compare

10:41 ↗ and contrast and then discuss how we

10:44 ↗ kind of got to the point where you're at

10:46 ↗ right now. Um, one of the things that

10:49 ↗ we're we'll talk a little bit about is

10:51 ↗ um total cost compensation and then uh

10:55 ↗ analytics that we use to determine the

10:57 ↗ work that needs to be done compared to

10:59 ↗ what it costs.

11:01 ↗ U when we started looking at these

11:03 ↗ different um

11:06 ↗ different matrix of how this could move

11:08 ↗ forward, we wanted to bring uh an

11:11 ↗ approach to it that when we explain it

11:13 ↗ makes sense. So hopefully at the very

11:15 ↗ end of this you'll go awesome awesome

11:18 ↗ job Jeremy. Um and it it will make

11:22 ↗ sense. If not please ask questions. I

11:23 ↗ got a couple slides here. You stop me

11:25 ↗ whenever you want or when we're done we

11:27 ↗ could we could answer questions. Your

11:28 ↗ your choice. Um looking at the fire

11:31 ↗ permit challenges. We came up with uh

11:33 ↗ you know problem statement and in the

11:35 ↗ objectives. So one of the big things was

11:38 ↗ customer transparency. Uh, East Side

11:40 ↗ Fire provides services to seven

11:42 ↗ different city jurisdictions and one of

11:45 ↗ the things that came up was the fee

11:46 ↗ levels were different in all the

11:47 ↗ different cities. Doesn't mean the

11:49 ↗ amount of work's different on the

11:51 ↗ different cities. It just means the fee

11:52 ↗ schedules weren't aligned. So, what we

11:54 ↗ wanted to do is make sure that we had

11:56 ↗ the customer transparency by aligning

11:58 ↗ these standardizing these across the

12:00 ↗ contract uh cities. Number one, the

12:02 ↗ naming convention for the permits and

12:05 ↗ then the fees for the permits. So when a

12:08 ↗ contractor comes into Isiqua, they're

12:09 ↗ seeing the same permit types that are in

12:11 ↗ Woodenville, that are in Mercer Island,

12:13 ↗ that are in um

12:17 ↗ Carnation, Duvall, all those different

12:19 ↗ areas because the contractors don't just

12:21 ↗ work in Isiquar, they don't just work in

12:23 ↗ in Mercer Island. Uh we also went for

12:25 ↗ 100% cost recovery. Um a lot of

12:28 ↗ jurisdictions have adopted kind of that

12:31 ↗ um recovery method of the work that

12:33 ↗ needs to be done, what does it cost?

12:35 ↗ What we did a good job with is analyzing

12:37 ↗ what it costs the person to do the job

12:39 ↗ and using our analytics that we collect.

12:41 ↗ We do 2164

12:44 ↗ permit reviews. Last year we did

12:46 ↗ somewhere around 1,600 fire inspections.

12:49 ↗ So we have a lot of analytics that we

12:51 ↗ can look at to determine how much time

12:54 ↗ it takes to do these different tasks.

12:57 ↗ Um and then you know the new laws and

12:59 ↗ and regulations. I I received a question

13:02 ↗ earlier today. Thanks for the question.

13:04 ↗ like what is more complex about these

13:06 ↗ laws? Um, and I want to break that down

13:09 ↗ into two different categories. One is

13:11 ↗ legislative mandates and the second is

13:14 ↗ systems. So, legislation mandates, we've

13:17 ↗ seen a couple of them recently. Middle

13:19 ↗ housing is one that um, you know, we're

13:22 ↗ talking about internally with your

13:23 ↗ building staff team and your planning

13:26 ↗ team on how we're going to recognize

13:27 ↗ those different things in the fire code.

13:30 ↗ And then on the fire systems, they're

13:32 ↗ just getting more complex. Technolog is

13:34 ↗ evolving. They need to be integrated.

13:36 ↗ Um, fire alarm systems need to be

13:38 ↗ integrated with HVAC systems. They need

13:40 ↗ to be integrated with elevators. And and

13:43 ↗ the same with fire sprinkler systems.

13:44 ↗ These systems are just becoming more

13:46 ↗ complex. And as the uh different code

13:50 ↗ technology changes, we have to keep up

13:52 ↗ with that. Now, that's not to say that

13:53 ↗ everything's going to get harder moving

13:55 ↗ down the road. I mean, things will get

13:56 ↗ easier, too. Um, and we anticipate that

14:00 ↗ as new technology comes out that plan

14:03 ↗ review and inspections may change times.

14:05 ↗ And that's another one reason we're

14:07 ↗ using these analytics now. So next year

14:09 ↗ when we come, we can say, well, hey, the

14:11 ↗ review time for this project went down.

14:14 ↗ Let's look at that review fee and and

14:16 ↗ figure that out our inspection fee. And

14:19 ↗ uh, we'll be able to produce that data

14:20 ↗ almost instantaneously.

14:28 ↗ So right here um is one of my examples.

14:31 ↗ Um this shows all the different

14:33 ↗ jurisdictions that we serve. Um and

14:37 ↗ essentially this is comparing a

14:39 ↗ residential fire sprinkler system. We

14:41 ↗ call it a 13D system. It's the basic

14:44 ↗ fire sprinkler system that you would put

14:46 ↗ inside a residence that requires it.

14:48 ↗ Isqua does not have a sprinkler

14:50 ↗ ordinance. So these are not required in

14:53 ↗ all residences. However, they are used

14:55 ↗ to mitigate fire deficiencies, whether

14:58 ↗ it's fire flow, hydrant location,

15:00 ↗ access, uh grade, some of those things.

15:04 ↗ If uh they don't have that, then the

15:06 ↗ mitigation would be installing a

15:07 ↗ sprinkler system or building a bigger

15:09 ↗ road or installing a hydrant, which is

15:11 ↗ extremely cost prohibitive for for a

15:14 ↗ single family resident. So, this is very

15:16 ↗ commonly used nationwide as a

15:18 ↗ mitigation. That's why I selected it.

15:20 ↗ Here at the top you can see that uh

15:22 ↗ isqua um currently and there's a range

15:25 ↗ there uh current permits $381 to 544 and

15:30 ↗ it depends on the number of heads.

15:32 ↗ You'll see in our new algorithm we took

15:34 ↗ the number of heads out. The number of

15:36 ↗ heads the number that stick out of your

15:38 ↗ ceiling don't take any longer to review

15:41 ↗ than a simple system. So we tried to

15:44 ↗ simplify that and then provide a cost

15:46 ↗ for that. Um the new cost for that would

15:49 ↗ be $728.

15:51 ↗ As you can see lowered on the screen, um

15:55 ↗ Seamish is the next city we're currently

15:57 ↗ working with. All the other cities have

15:59 ↗ taken that fee schedule and adopted the

16:01 ↗ fee schedule and they're aligned now.

16:07 ↗ So we're really big into the data driven

16:10 ↗ analysis on this. Historically, fire

16:13 ↗ permits or I would say probably any

16:15 ↗ permit in jurisdictions

16:18 ↗ um were assessed and assigned a value.

16:22 ↗ How that value was assigned, I wasn't

16:24 ↗ here back in the day when the first

16:26 ↗ value was assigned uh for any of our

16:28 ↗ cities. Uh so what we wanted to do is

16:31 ↗ make sure that when as I told you

16:33 ↗ earlier when we explained this, we want

16:34 ↗ to be able to say, well, here's the

16:35 ↗ reason why that fees the fee. So we

16:37 ↗ looked at the time on task. So, we took

16:39 ↗ all the permits that we have and we

16:41 ↗ looked at how long it takes us to do

16:42 ↗ them on an average. Then, we developed

16:45 ↗ time estimates for the ones that we

16:47 ↗ don't have a lot of analytics on or ones

16:50 ↗ that we have a lot of analytics and we

16:52 ↗ want to round the edges off so they're

16:54 ↗ not uh you know up and down jagged. Um

16:58 ↗ then we also want to provide uh permit

17:01 ↗ variability. So, right now, um,

17:04 ↗ sometimes there's just a permit and if

17:07 ↗ you if somebody wants to put in a

17:08 ↗ permit, and I'll use, uh, portable or

17:12 ↗ power generators. Not something we see a

17:14 ↗ lot of anymore, but occasionally you get

17:17 ↗ a homeowner that wants to put in a power

17:18 ↗ generator. The code requires a permit

17:21 ↗ for it. So, we wanted to make sure that

17:22 ↗ we put that into our system so there's a

17:25 ↗ spot for it to go in versus, well, I

17:27 ↗ don't know where this goes. We'll just,

17:29 ↗ you know, do an hourly fee or something.

17:31 ↗ So, we put that stuff in there. Um, so

17:33 ↗ the permits line up with the fire code

17:35 ↗ and the required permits that are out

17:37 ↗ there. We also looked at the total cost

17:40 ↗ compensation. So, not only the time it

17:41 ↗ takes to do it, but what's that that

17:43 ↗ time equate to the number of hours that

17:45 ↗ we're spending on both for plan review

17:48 ↗ and inspections. And this allows us to

17:51 ↗ make annual adjustments. So, the queue

17:53 ↗ that you guys have in your packet there

17:55 ↗ shows all our permit categories and the

17:57 ↗ fees, what they are now, what we're

17:58 ↗ proposing. Well, we have that same

18:00 ↗ document that shows how many hours it

18:03 ↗ takes. So, when we go in there next year

18:07 ↗ at a permit um fee review, we could take

18:10 ↗ our analytics, put it into the, you

18:13 ↗ know, uh the computer, right, the Excel

18:15 ↗ document, and that could change all the

18:17 ↗ information. So, we'll have it right

18:19 ↗ away versus going, historically, it was

18:21 ↗ a cost of living increase that was

18:23 ↗ attached to it. And as you can only

18:26 ↗ imagine, a cost of living covers one

18:28 ↗ factor of the whole total cost

18:30 ↗ compensation of what it takes to do the

18:32 ↗ work. So um and then we use regional

18:35 ↗ benchmarking. So we could quickly look

18:37 ↗ at a permit that is um out there for any

18:41 ↗ of our service areas and compare it to

18:43 ↗ another service area and go, okay, we're

18:45 ↗ we're in line and we are in line. We're

18:47 ↗ actually below where other cities are

18:49 ↗ right now in our permit costs and we're

18:51 ↗ doing that. Uh, you know, some would

18:53 ↗ say, well, why don't you make your

18:55 ↗ permits comparable with other cities?

18:57 ↗ Well, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

18:59 ↗ We could go, this is the time it takes

19:00 ↗ us to do the work. This is what it takes

19:03 ↗ to finish the job. Here's what the

19:04 ↗ permit fee should be. And, uh, I'm I'm

19:08 ↗ very happy where we are with the

19:09 ↗ communities.

19:12 ↗ So, I'm going to show you three

19:13 ↗ different slides here. Um, this this

19:15 ↗ worked well with our other cities and

19:16 ↗ just a comparison of kind of where we're

19:18 ↗ at, where we're want to go. This first

19:21 ↗ slide's a little busy, so I'm going to

19:22 ↗ explain it. Um, at the top, this is a

19:25 ↗ single family residence with a sprinkler

19:27 ↗ system. Roughly 3,000 square feet,

19:30 ↗ roughly 40 heads. Why I had to put those

19:32 ↗ metrics in there is because that's what

19:34 ↗ the fee schedule shows right now. So, I

19:36 ↗ had to put that metric in there to show

19:38 ↗ you what it will be. Um,

19:42 ↗ below are the the review fee and the

19:44 ↗ sprinkler system fee. Below that is a

19:46 ↗ seal the city building plan review fee

19:49 ↗ and the city building permit fee. Those

19:51 ↗ are two two fees that would be paid by

19:54 ↗ the the contract or the homeowner or the

19:56 ↗ contractor or the developer to get a a

19:58 ↗ city building permit. And why that's

20:01 ↗ important is because we'll talk about a

20:03 ↗ percentage of those. And then down below

20:05 ↗ I just gave a definition. So the fire

20:07 ↗ plan review feed deals with the

20:09 ↗ structure, the house, the residence.

20:11 ↗ When we review that house, we look at

20:13 ↗ where it's sitting on the property, what

20:15 ↗ the access is, where the fire hydrants

20:18 ↗ are, what the distance from the fire

20:20 ↗ hydrants is, what the fire flow of the

20:21 ↗ hydrants. We we have a lot of

20:23 ↗ information that we look at to make sure

20:25 ↗ that they'll comply with the code when

20:27 ↗ they put in the building permit. And

20:29 ↗ then uh the fire sprinkler permit is

20:32 ↗ basically system permit. fire alarm

20:34 ↗ systems, fire sprinklers, smoke control,

20:37 ↗ um hood suppression systems, HVAC, duct

20:42 ↗ detectors, those are all systems that

20:44 ↗ are on the fee permit schedule right

20:45 ↗ now. Uh the the generator would be an

20:47 ↗ example of that. So, up above currently,

20:51 ↗ um a fire plan review fee for any

20:53 ↗ residence is $210.

20:57 ↗ The fire sprinkler permit is $544. This

21:00 ↗ brings you a total of $754.

21:04 ↗ The proposed fee would be $864

21:07 ↗ for the building review fee. That's

21:09 ↗ basically 15%

21:12 ↗ of the building plan review fee. So,

21:15 ↗ we're comparing apples to apples. The

21:17 ↗ city uses the building uh plan review

21:20 ↗ fee. We want to use that and take and do

21:22 ↗ a percentage of that. Those numbers that

21:25 ↗ you see below are based off of a adopted

21:28 ↗ matrix. They all go off valuation.

21:31 ↗ So uh the s city permit permit fee would

21:34 ↗ be a representation of 100% in your fee

21:38 ↗ schedule for the city building plan

21:40 ↗ review is 65% of the permit fee. That's

21:42 ↗ how it comes out. Then of that 65% the

21:46 ↗ fire review fee would be 15%.

21:50 ↗ We use that number because the average

21:52 ↗ amount of time it takes we start to

21:54 ↗ compare it to the amount of work.

21:56 ↗ Obviously, when building does a plan

21:58 ↗ review, they're looking at plumbing,

22:00 ↗ mechanical, all sorts of things. We're

22:02 ↗ taking a small component of that and

22:04 ↗ it's 15%. That's that's what we think is

22:06 ↗ a fair number and that's also being used

22:09 ↗ regionally uh for that 15%. So, that's

22:13 ↗ where that that number comes from. And

22:15 ↗ then if you start to compare it to hours

22:17 ↗ that we do the work divided by the

22:19 ↗ hourly rate, it comes out good. And this

22:22 ↗ transfers to commercial projects, town

22:25 ↗ homes, all the way across the board

22:26 ↗ because again, this goes off valuation.

22:29 ↗ The less value of the project, one would

22:31 ↗ think the the smaller project, the more

22:34 ↗ valuation, the more complex project. And

22:36 ↗ I'll show you a couple slides. Let's

22:38 ↗ read that. So, the difference in this

22:40 ↗ permit um is is simply the, you know, A

22:45 ↗ minus B there uh would be $838

22:48 ↗ difference for a house. I believe this

22:51 ↗ this house that we pulled up was about

22:54 ↗ $1.2 million valuation roughly.

23:00 ↗ And uh just for information

23:04 ↗ again I mentioned that not all homes

23:05 ↗ require sprinkler systems. So we use the

23:08 ↗ evaluation and we added a sprinkler

23:10 ↗ house to a fictitious house here to show

23:12 ↗ you this the system permit is static.

23:16 ↗ It's a static place.

23:19 ↗ Moving on to a town home unit. Um, this

23:22 ↗ one has about a $24

23:25 ↗ million valuation if I remember right.

23:28 ↗ And I picked some of these um not to

23:32 ↗ show um so much the difference, but like

23:36 ↗ this is what would go into a s a house

23:38 ↗ or a building that would require the

23:40 ↗ system. So, um, depending on the town

23:43 ↗ homes or how many units there are,

23:46 ↗ there's a bunch of code that

23:47 ↗ automatically requires sprinkler systems

23:49 ↗ and then if they have deficiencies, then

23:50 ↗ they have to install a sprinkler

23:51 ↗ systems. I use that kind of analogy here

23:54 ↗ so I could show you what a real case

23:55 ↗ would look like. So, this is a 4-unit

23:58 ↗ town home. Um, this is a fire alarm

24:01 ↗ system and a full sprinkler system would

24:04 ↗ be installed. Currently, it would be

24:06 ↗ about $2,738.

24:09 ↗ uh this would increase to $4,146.

24:13 ↗ So a difference of $1,400.

24:16 ↗ Now this is for four units, too. This

24:18 ↗ isn't per unit. So we've talked um I

24:21 ↗ heard earlier we're talking about

24:23 ↗ affordable housing and some other things

24:25 ↗ um to incentivize people to build. Um

24:29 ↗ this is for the building itself. So it's

24:32 ↗ not if you had a 10 unit or a 12 unit or

24:36 ↗ a 14 unit, this price would look roughly

24:39 ↗ the same. Now the the the one variable

24:42 ↗ in there would be the building or the

24:44 ↗ fire plan review for the building

24:45 ↗ because it goes off the valuation of the

24:47 ↗ building, but the systems would stay

24:49 ↗ static. So it's not apartment A is going

24:52 ↗ to get this value, you know, this system

24:54 ↗ and then apartment B is going to get

24:55 ↗ that system. We could do the whole

24:57 ↗ building in its entirety of this which

24:59 ↗ helps when people build these larger

25:02 ↗ multif family buildings.

25:04 ↗ And you can see it's uh $4,100

25:07 ↗ um total. Uh and then below is what the

25:12 ↗ building plan review.

25:17 ↗ And then the last one is a commercial

25:19 ↗ TI. It's a tenant improvement. This was

25:22 ↗ a very large tenant improvement. That's

25:24 ↗ why I picked this one. Um it took um a

25:27 ↗ lot of time to do this and the just the

25:31 ↗ remodel of the building was about $2.9

25:35 ↗ million to remodel the building and they

25:38 ↗ had to include fire sprinkler systems

25:40 ↗ and fire alarm systems because it was

25:42 ↗ the use that they're going to be using

25:44 ↗ the building for. I also picked this

25:46 ↗ building because they had to put a fire

25:48 ↗ underground system in which is um

25:50 ↗ basically the pipe. It goes from the

25:52 ↗ conveyance system or the m municipal

25:54 ↗ system to the fire sprinkler system. Um

25:58 ↗ those are very labor intensive in review

26:01 ↗ and inspections. It takes about seven

26:03 ↗ inspections to get those signed off and

26:06 ↗ it takes quite a few hours

26:08 ↗ specially restrained. They have to have

26:10 ↗ thrust blocks. They have to be

26:12 ↗ connected. You have to make sure all the

26:14 ↗ water utilities are on site. You have to

26:15 ↗ flush them. There's just a lot of work

26:17 ↗ in them. Um, you know, roughly I would

26:20 ↗ say, well, here we're we're accounting

26:22 ↗ for nine hours worth of work and I would

26:24 ↗ say it's all of nine hours worth of work

26:26 ↗ at the door. Um, before we were getting

26:30 ↗ $283 for that nine hours

26:33 ↗ was not not in line with what the the

26:36 ↗ timeout task was.

26:38 ↗ Um the plan review fee again you saw

26:42 ↗ earlier that a residential was like

26:44 ↗ $236,

26:47 ↗ commercial was 273 was one or the other.

26:49 ↗ That's how we fit these into a box. This

26:52 ↗ easily took

26:54 ↗ 10 hours of building plan review time

26:58 ↗ and we understand that some buildings

26:59 ↗ are going to be more, some are going to

27:01 ↗ be less and we're going to try to round

27:02 ↗ out those corners a little bit. But this

27:04 ↗ took a lot of time to do and a lot of

27:06 ↗ working with the architect and on this

27:09 ↗ fire sprinkler system needed to be

27:11 ↗ installed and the fire alarm system.

27:13 ↗ This would be what I would consider the

27:15 ↗ worst case scenario. Someone would ask,

27:17 ↗ Jeremy, why do you put the worst case

27:18 ↗ scenario in there? Is transparency. This

27:21 ↗ is this is what it's going to be if

27:22 ↗ somebody does it. And there's no sense

27:24 ↗ of trying to find the the cheapest

27:26 ↗ building to show you all because you'll

27:28 ↗ eventually see it. So this is this is

27:31 ↗ exactly what it would be. There's about

27:33 ↗ a $4,400 increase in here. Um, and

27:36 ↗ mainly it's due to the underground

27:38 ↗ system that goes in. Um, I think we're

27:40 ↗ going to see a lot more of these

27:42 ↗ commercial TI. Um, maybe not to this

27:45 ↗ extreme, but you have a lot of buildings

27:47 ↗ here that people are repurposing and

27:49 ↗ doing other things. So, if that happened

27:52 ↗ and it was the worst case scenario, this

27:56 ↗ also has a really high fire plan review

27:59 ↗ fee on it. Again, I alluded to the fact

28:01 ↗ that it definitely took more than 10

28:03 ↗ hours to do this, but if you look at

28:05 ↗ that, it's roughly around 10 hours worth

28:07 ↗ of work there. So,

28:12 ↗ um any questions on those three slides?

28:18 ↗ Okay.

28:20 ↗ Um you want to check on this slide? This

28:23 ↗ is this is just a comparison of the

28:26 ↗ historical fire fees.

28:35 ↗ Yeah.

28:36 ↗ >> Uh, full disclosure, this was provided

28:39 ↗ by my partner in crime, James, here. Um,

28:41 ↗ so, u, I want to make sure that this,

28:44 ↗ uh, you know, if you have questions, we

28:46 ↗ could definitely answer them, but this

28:47 ↗ is just historical fire permit related

28:50 ↗ fees collected starting back in 2020 to

28:53 ↗ 2025. And that's the, you know, every

28:57 ↗ year you've looked at fire permit fees

29:00 ↗ and they've uh and there's a slide in

29:01 ↗ here, but kind of goes up by a

29:03 ↗ percentage. Usually a cost of living

29:05 ↗ percentage is what's been proposed.

29:08 ↗ Again, none of that was tied to time or

29:12 ↗ the amount of hours it actually took to

29:13 ↗ do the work. But these are how those

29:15 ↗ fees are developed. You probably look at

29:17 ↗ 2021 because I did the same thing and I

29:20 ↗ say, well, you had a lot of growth that

29:21 ↗ year. Uh, you had the permits come in.

29:24 ↗ Um, and also know that when a when a

29:26 ↗ builder does applies for a permit and

29:29 ↗ that money comes in, they may not be

29:32 ↗ seeing inspections for two years or

29:34 ↗ three years. I just did a permit uh

29:37 ↗ inspection today and we were talking

29:39 ↗ about and it was a 2018 permit. So, um,

29:44 ↗ those takes a while to build some of

29:46 ↗ these buildings.

29:48 ↗ Um next slide is essentially showing the

29:52 ↗ difference of what was collected uh

29:55 ↗ proposed and the difference. So in 2024

30:00 ↗ for just the fire review building

30:02 ↗ permits. So that would be that $236

30:06 ↗ number or the $273 number. $19,198

30:10 ↗ was collected and 43,813

30:14 ↗ was collected on the fire system side or

30:17 ↗ fire permit side. Using uh some some

30:20 ↗ numbers, some magic of getting uh all

30:23 ↗ these permits, we went through last

30:25 ↗ year's permits and we tied them to what

30:28 ↗ the new value would be in a in an Excel

30:31 ↗ document. That would go to $45,786

30:35 ↗ for the plan review. And that's

30:37 ↗ basically using

30:39 ↗ um taking the building review fees and

30:42 ↗ doing 15% is how that number came out.

30:44 ↗ And then the fire systems is the one

30:46 ↗ that we compared on the list and went

30:47 ↗ through and said this is a 13D system.

30:50 ↗ This is a fire alarm system. This is a

30:54 ↗ smoke control system. And that would go

30:56 ↗ to $25,98.

31:00 ↗ That's the difference between those two.

31:05 ↗ And James, at the bottom here, you put

31:06 ↗ anticipated total annual fees after the

31:09 ↗ increase. Um, it would go to 110 to 125

31:16 ↗ from 76,000.

31:19 ↗ Is that

31:25 ↗ Well, that number looks like it's pretty

31:26 ↗ big. That 238%

31:28 ↗ number.

31:32 ↗ >> Well, that Well, that number looks

31:33 ↗ pretty large. that 238% number. As the

31:36 ↗ chief has pointed out, um when his staff

31:39 ↗ are working on these these projects,

31:42 ↗ like a $2.9 million tenant improvement,

31:45 ↗ when he says 10 hours, 10 10 hours, that

31:48 ↗ might even be conservative. They put a

31:50 ↗ lot of time into it, and that was a $238

31:53 ↗ fee. So, it was way way out of the

31:55 ↗ portion of of where it needed to be. and

31:58 ↗ 15% of the plan review. Um, we agree it

32:02 ↗ much more accurately reflects their

32:05 ↗ labor that they put into that to to put

32:07 ↗ into that job.

32:13 ↗ So, where we're at right now is here

32:16 ↗ today, October 7th, speaking to you all.

32:19 ↗ Um, we're hoping to move this forward to

32:22 ↗ council reading and final adoption on

32:25 ↗ November 10th. Uh there's the questions

32:27 ↗ that we brought up at the beginning of

32:29 ↗ the

32:31 ↗ PowerPoint presentation. Does the

32:33 ↗ committee recommend increasing the fire

32:34 ↗ permit fees as shown in the in your

32:37 ↗ packet? And does the committee recommend

32:40 ↗ passing the proposed fire permit fees

32:41 ↗ through fire rescue

32:45 ↗ that I'll answer any questions.

32:49 ↗ >> Great. Thank you for the presentation.

32:51 ↗ Uh both of you for the present. U go to

32:54 ↗ committee. Any questions?

32:57 ↗ >> Yeah, Council President, go ahead.

33:00 ↗ >> I have like six or seven questions, so

33:02 ↗ bear with me.

33:03 ↗ >> Okay.

33:04 ↗ >> Um, in this situation, you're proposing

33:07 ↗ the fire plan review fees changing to a

33:10 ↗ percentage rather than kind of the

33:13 ↗ previous static amount. How does this

33:16 ↗ compare to any other municipalities or

33:18 ↗ fire services?

33:20 ↗ >> So, it's actually

33:22 ↗ an adopted practice. So, in all our

33:25 ↗ municipalities that this has been

33:26 ↗ adopted, we've been using the 15%. Um,

33:30 ↗ and there's a couple reason why that

33:32 ↗ 15%'s used is one, fees are collected at

33:35 ↗ permit submitt. So, doing an hourly cost

33:40 ↗ >> is hard to come back to because then you

33:41 ↗ do your review and then you have to go

33:44 ↗ back and charge the applicant. Uh, and

33:46 ↗ then just the philosophy that it makes

33:49 ↗ sense. You know, that the review time

33:52 ↗ that takes it, it's about 15% of what

33:54 ↗ the building site would do. And if you

33:56 ↗ run those numbers out on a project,

33:58 ↗ those three examples are prime examples,

33:59 ↗ which I didn't even do until after I put

34:01 ↗ the slides in, they come out to the the

34:04 ↗ amount of hours that we would put into

34:05 ↗ those. So, um, and also know that that

34:09 ↗ time covers like pre-application

34:11 ↗ meetings, the numerous phone calls we

34:14 ↗ get. Very rarely do you have somebody

34:16 ↗ permit file a permit and never call the

34:19 ↗ fire marshall's office. That that just

34:21 ↗ doesn't happen. As much as we try to get

34:23 ↗ the information out and the design

34:24 ↗ standards, all that. People still have

34:25 ↗ questions and definitely happy to answer

34:28 ↗ them because we want to start the stage

34:30 ↗ with everything right because nothing uh

34:34 ↗ is as frustrating for everybody involved

34:36 ↗ as when they get to the end they're

34:37 ↗ like, "Oh, by the way, you got to do

34:38 ↗ this." So, we put a lot of forward time

34:39 ↗ into the front end of this.

34:42 ↗ >> Okay. Um, you had mentioned something

34:43 ↗ about not being able to standardize the

34:45 ↗ fees within the fire districts and the

34:48 ↗ snowcoming tribe. Um, why is that and

34:53 ↗ how can Epher ensure that they're also

34:56 ↗ paying appropriate fees?

34:58 ↗ >> Um, so I'll take a stab at that. I'm not

35:00 ↗ the King County Fire Marshal, but I I've

35:03 ↗ uh I played in the county realm for a

35:04 ↗ little bit. Um,

35:07 ↗ in in the fire marshall's office there's

35:09 ↗ something called authority having

35:10 ↗ jurisdiction. uh you guys have

35:13 ↗ designated the Epher as your authority

35:15 ↗ having jurisdiction when it relates to

35:16 ↗ fire code. So when we come forward to

35:20 ↗ you, we provide code amendments or um

35:24 ↗ you know the code information or fire

35:26 ↗ fees, we're doing that on behalf of the

35:28 ↗ authority having jurisdiction to have

35:30 ↗ you guys codify that within your

35:32 ↗ municipal standards.

35:34 ↗ In King County, we're not the authority

35:37 ↗ having jurisdiction. The King County is

35:39 ↗ the authority having jurisdiction. King

35:41 ↗ County Fire Marshall works for the

35:42 ↗ county. So they develop their standards

35:45 ↗ and their amendments and their fee

35:47 ↗ schedules based on the you know the

35:49 ↗ greater uninccorporated King County. So

35:52 ↗ we do have input when it comes to um

35:56 ↗ some of the review stuff or you know uh

35:59 ↗ especially in our response areas the

36:00 ↗ fire marshall we have a great working

36:02 ↗ relationship but we don't standardize

36:05 ↗ their permit fees. it's it's not our

36:07 ↗ lane to be in um when it comes to how

36:11 ↗ they set up their fees.

36:12 ↗ >> So then is it the county fire marshall

36:16 ↗ that is doing the work on those?

36:19 ↗ >> Yeah, we don't do Yeah. Sorry,

36:21 ↗ >> I got you. Yep.

36:23 ↗ >> Is is that where you were going?

36:26 ↗ >> Yeah.

36:26 ↗ >> Yeah. We don't do the work in the county

36:27 ↗ agencies um outside of some minor

36:30 ↗ consultant work on if they have a

36:33 ↗ question about how we respond. Yeah.

36:36 ↗ Okay. Um I believe there was something

36:38 ↗ in there about like a 10% additional fee

36:42 ↗ that gets kept by the city. And so I

36:46 ↗ guess director Dolly Wall, I might be

36:49 ↗ calling you up for that one, but is that

36:52 ↗ additional fee kept by the city? Does

36:54 ↗ that cover the cost that we have for

36:57 ↗ coordinating the permits and working

36:59 ↗ with um Epher?

37:02 ↗ >> Sure. For the record, Mini Dolly,

37:04 ↗ community planning and development

37:05 ↗ director. I don't think anyone in the

37:07 ↗ community is here, but uh good evening.

37:10 ↗ Um that's correct. The 10% is covering

37:14 ↗ just the intake, the routing, the fee

37:17 ↗ collection, the payment and issuance.

37:19 ↗ There's a fair amount of work that the

37:20 ↗ permit techs do uh to get it processed

37:23 ↗ through the system, but it doesn't apply

37:26 ↗ to building permits because we have to

37:27 ↗ do that anyways. Um so the 15% that is

37:31 ↗ going to apply to the building permit

37:33 ↗ category it's not we're not applying

37:35 ↗ additional 10% to that. So only to the

37:38 ↗ sprinkler systems the alarm systems the

37:40 ↗ specialty fire permits that are only

37:43 ↗ going to fire department for review

37:45 ↗ because we the other work is going to

37:47 ↗ occur anyways for the other ones. So

37:49 ↗ hence the anticipated revenue for those

37:53 ↗ would probably be in the range of 4 to

37:55 ↗ 5,000 because overall it may be 100k of

37:58 ↗ new fees coming in but only a portion of

38:01 ↗ it is for the fire uh permits. The

38:03 ↗ remainder is for the building permits

38:05 ↗ that um the 15% goes to um fire review.

38:11 ↗ >> Okay. I've got another city related

38:13 ↗ question. Um, so as we've talked about

38:16 ↗ permitting, one of our city goals is to

38:18 ↗ streamline permitting and making sure

38:20 ↗ that we're not creating any delays in

38:22 ↗ that permitting process. And so I'd like

38:26 ↗ to understand how the East Side Fire and

38:28 ↗ Rescue portion is currently working, how

38:31 ↗ we anticipate these fees allowing us to

38:35 ↗ potentially streamline and um, speed

38:37 ↗ things up in the future. Is that

38:40 ↗ something you can talk on?

38:41 ↗ >> Sure. It's a partnership. Um so you know

38:43 ↗ we have a great working relationship

38:45 ↗ with um East Side and Fire in terms of

38:47 ↗ the plan review piece. If they are

38:50 ↗ running behind you know James calls them

38:53 ↗ up and says where are these and so you

38:55 ↗ know they get right to it and get back

38:56 ↗ to us because sometimes things happen

38:59 ↗ you know vacations time off sick time

39:01 ↗ whatever that case may be. But now that

39:03 ↗ we are running monitoring our reports we

39:06 ↗ have a good sense of we can run those by

39:09 ↗ division. You know are engineers taking

39:11 ↗ longer? house the fire department but

39:14 ↗ ultimately um you know we have we don't

39:16 ↗ control as the city uh so some of these

39:19 ↗ mandates from the state uh that require

39:22 ↗ the cities to establish uh in you know

39:25 ↗ are contingent on our partner agencies

39:28 ↗ whether it's east side fire and rescue

39:30 ↗ or uh samplat water and sewer district

39:34 ↗ um because we do route it to them um so

39:37 ↗ uh I think it's all everyone working

39:39 ↗ together but in terms of having

39:41 ↗ authority to approve a fire. We do not.

39:44 ↗ So, we do need the fire marshall to to

39:46 ↗ be timely uh with their review basically

39:48 ↗ to meet the state mandated timelines.

39:52 ↗ Okay. Now, back to

39:56 ↗ um is there then how does this relate

40:00 ↗ into the East Side Fire and Rescue

40:02 ↗ budget and the ability to potentially

40:04 ↗ hire that additional staff person for

40:10 ↗ this area as we were talking about?

40:12 ↗ >> Can I phone a friend? Okay,

40:16 ↗ >> Chief, you want to handle that?

40:17 ↗ Whichever one of you want to. There you

40:18 ↗ go.

40:22 ↗ Yeah, great question. So, uh, the way

40:24 ↗ this happened, uh, way we're approaching

40:26 ↗ this is because we're looking having

40:28 ↗ these conversations with all the cities.

40:30 ↗ Uh, Windville has already approved it.

40:32 ↗ Again, we already talked that they're a

40:33 ↗ contract agency, but there's a pass

40:35 ↗ through already in place. Uh, Carnation

40:37 ↗ has approved that, which is part of fire

40:39 ↗ district 10. So, we got a pass through

40:42 ↗ associated with that. North Ben has

40:44 ↗ already approved this. Uh, is a quan for

40:47 ↗ the last two. So the way we're looking

40:50 ↗ at it is everybody by uh leveraging the

40:53 ↗ relationship the partnership everybody

40:55 ↗ contributes a little bit to be able to

40:57 ↗ pay and fully fund that FTE to bring in

41:00 ↗ that uh fourth assistant fire marshall

41:04 ↗ uh to add that capacity that we are

41:07 ↗ needing within uh the fire marshall's

41:09 ↗ office. So everybody pays a little

41:11 ↗ piece. My question is more when is that

41:15 ↗ happening and is that a like destined

41:21 ↗ thing by us and Samish passing that or I

41:24 ↗ guess that relies on the east side fire

41:27 ↗ and rescue board to make that type of

41:29 ↗ decision. Correct.

41:30 ↗ >> That is correct. Yeah. Once we are able

41:33 ↗ to demonstrate that the revenue is

41:34 ↗ coming in from everybody. Obviously here

41:36 ↗ we are in October and we're just having

41:39 ↗ an opportunity to meet with Isakiqua.

41:40 ↗ still need to get it through some amish.

41:43 ↗ Uh so if if I'm answering it what you're

41:47 ↗ looking for, we're not in a position

41:49 ↗ today to be able to hire that person. We

41:52 ↗ have to demonstrate we got the revenue

41:53 ↗ in to go back to the board say

41:55 ↗ >> do we have authority to hire now?

41:57 ↗ >> Okay.

41:58 ↗ >> Can I jump in on that one? Um I imagine

42:01 ↗ there would be surplus from uh cities

42:04 ↗ that are paying or that are doing the

42:06 ↗ pass through funds for this too. Is

42:07 ↗ there a plan yet? This is with my Isaqua

42:09 ↗ hat on, by the way. Uh, is there a plan

42:11 ↗ yet for the fund balance for kind of

42:13 ↗ remaining whatever is left over from

42:15 ↗ fire permit fees that are passed over to

42:17 ↗ ESA Fire and Rescue? Is that a

42:19 ↗ conversation to come?

42:20 ↗ >> Yeah, it's a conversation yet to come.

42:24 ↗ You want to jump in?

42:28 ↗ >> Yeah, I guess um it would be good if you

42:30 ↗ could speak to this. I guess what I

42:31 ↗ would be interested in is would any of

42:34 ↗ these monies be envisioned for use

42:36 ↗ outside of um fire marshall office

42:39 ↗ resources or other things or is that a

42:42 ↗ kind of a broader conversation that we

42:44 ↗ need to have?

42:46 ↗ >> Good evening, Ben Lane, fire chief. I

42:47 ↗ wanted to find a way to get up here

42:48 ↗ because I'm not going to have many

42:49 ↗ opportunities to do that. Uh so to

42:52 ↗ answer the question around the the fee

42:55 ↗ collection, we would treat that as the

42:57 ↗ revenue side into our budget process.

42:59 ↗ And so when you look at revenue coming

43:00 ↗ in, it reduces the cost for all of the

43:03 ↗ partners involved. Um the goal here is

43:06 ↗ to earmark the the cost recovery that's

43:10 ↗ being proposed in front of you today

43:12 ↗ specific to the fire marshall's office.

43:15 ↗ We find ourselves in an excess and might

43:18 ↗ put uh east side fire and rescue

43:20 ↗ leadership coming back to the board to

43:22 ↗ discuss with the partners where they

43:25 ↗ would like that um revenue applied.

43:30 ↗ Um, and toward all of these ideas, if we

43:33 ↗ choose to do this and pass these fees

43:37 ↗ through to East Side Fire and Rescue,

43:40 ↗ does that lower our annual contract

43:43 ↗ expense? Is it additive? How does it

43:46 ↗ relate to the fees that we are already

43:47 ↗ paying to East Side Fire and Rescue?

43:50 ↗ >> It would not lower the contract expense.

43:53 ↗ Um these fees specifically

43:56 ↗ uh arrived from a very very tough budget

43:59 ↗ process and we had at the time only two

44:02 ↗ proposals to add FTEEs. One was a an

44:05 ↗ additional assistant fire marshal and

44:07 ↗ the other was a public educator which

44:10 ↗ also plays a very important prevention

44:12 ↗ role within um our service area which I

44:15 ↗ would also consider that underneath our

44:17 ↗ fire marshall umbrella. So excess

44:19 ↗ revenues could be applied to trying to

44:22 ↗ bring that position uh underneath East

44:25 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue Structure in the

44:26 ↗ future.

44:29 ↗ >> I think I have one more.

44:32 ↗ Um what is the plan if we adopt this to

44:35 ↗ keep these fire permit fees aligned with

44:38 ↗ your cost in the future? I know you

44:39 ↗ talked about how you've got the Excel

44:41 ↗ sheet and you understand all of that,

44:43 ↗ but obviously it would require coming

44:45 ↗ back to us. So is there a sense of plan

44:48 ↗ to do that annually or um how do you

44:52 ↗ envision that?

44:53 ↗ >> Yeah, great question. It would be

44:54 ↗ annually. Right now you look at your

44:56 ↗ fire permit fees actually you know

44:57 ↗ probably a majority of your fees

44:59 ↗ annually usually around the October

45:01 ↗ November time. So what we would propose

45:04 ↗ is we collect these analytics again

45:05 ↗ almost real-time data and then we would

45:08 ↗ modify as needed the different B

45:11 ↗ structures or different permit types and

45:13 ↗ bring that to you for adoption. uh leave

45:16 ↗ it alone, decrease, any of those any of

45:19 ↗ those options would be available when we

45:21 ↗ do the the data. So instead of a simple

45:26 ↗ cola increase, we could say here's the

45:28 ↗ reason these permit fees are changing

45:30 ↗ based on the analytics that we have.

45:40 ↗ All right. Uh any other questions from

45:42 ↗ committee?

45:44 ↗ Um,

45:46 ↗ all right. And I know some questions

45:47 ↗ were asked and answered over email as

45:49 ↗ well. So, thank you for that. Uh, all

45:51 ↗ right. Then we'll move out of Q&A and,

45:53 ↗ um, I'll just ask the clerk if there's

45:55 ↗ anyone, uh, from the public with us.

45:58 ↗ >> Not at this time, chair.

46:02 ↗ >> Are you interested in providing public

46:05 ↗ comment?

46:07 ↗ >> Okay. If not, we're going to move then

46:09 ↗ into um Oh, I'll just remind members of

46:12 ↗ the community that are watching that we

46:14 ↗ have one more opportunity for public

46:16 ↗ comment after the next item. And of

46:18 ↗ course, you can email us with your

46:19 ↗ thoughts at any time at city council

46:21 ↗ iswah.gov.

46:23 ↗ Um so now we'll move into direction

46:26 ↗ needed, which I think the two questions

46:27 ↗ are. Does the committee recommend

46:29 ↗ increasing the fire permit fees as shown

46:31 ↗ in exhibit A? And do we recommend

46:34 ↗ passing proposed fire permit fees as

46:36 ↗ pass through to East Side Fire and

46:38 ↗ Rescue? So, who'd like to kick us off

46:40 ↗ with comments?

46:43 ↗ >> Council President, go for it.

46:45 ↗ >> I'll just dominate this meeting. That's

46:48 ↗ fine. Um, you know, as I look back to

46:52 ↗ how we have approached um, some of our

46:54 ↗ building fees and our impact fees and

46:56 ↗ everything, um, one of the things that

46:58 ↗ we have started to do with some of our

47:01 ↗ partner organizations such as the school

47:03 ↗ district is trying to standardize across

47:07 ↗ different jurisdictions um, that they

47:09 ↗ might serve. and so being responsive to

47:12 ↗ what their needs are to cover their

47:14 ↗ costs to make sure that there are

47:17 ↗ standards across um different

47:19 ↗ organizations. So I see that in here. Um

47:23 ↗ we've also when we've looked at our own

47:25 ↗ permit fees, we've given our

47:27 ↗ organization the goal of having at least

47:30 ↗ I believe an 85 to 90% um cost recovery.

47:34 ↗ And so I see in here the idea of trying

47:38 ↗ to approach and make sure that there is

47:40 ↗ cost recovery on this um and that the

47:45 ↗ not just the cities that are having the

47:50 ↗ growth are paying for it, but the actual

47:53 ↗ building developer homeowner permit um

47:57 ↗ is the one that's paying those fees. So

47:59 ↗ I appreciate the alignment there with

48:02 ↗ the costs. um to the particular person

48:06 ↗ who is receiving the service and the

48:08 ↗ idea of making sure that there is cost

48:10 ↗ recovery. I also appreciate that we have

48:12 ↗ looked at our own cost and ensured that

48:16 ↗ you know if we are the coordinating

48:18 ↗ agency that somebody is doing a building

48:20 ↗ permit through um ensuring that we are

48:22 ↗ not going into the hole while um doing

48:27 ↗ this type of organization um of the

48:29 ↗ permit coordination. I appreciate that.

48:31 ↗ So, I think this is going in the right

48:35 ↗ direction. I think as a city, we are

48:39 ↗ going to need to determine, hey, if

48:41 ↗ we're seeing a loss of revenue here, how

48:46 ↗ do we approach that? And how do we

48:48 ↗ approach that for our budget period?

48:51 ↗ Because that is a a real situation and

48:54 ↗ something that um we need to take into

48:57 ↗ account. But I think these fees being

49:01 ↗ directly aligned with East Side Fire and

49:03 ↗ Rescue so that there can be the

49:06 ↗ appropriate number of fire marshals to

49:08 ↗ make sure that permits are happening

49:10 ↗ quickly and um anybody who is going

49:12 ↗ through one of these situations has the

49:15 ↗ ability um to get something happening

49:18 ↗ swiftly and streamlined. So I see a lot

49:20 ↗ of alignment here and I appreciate that

49:22 ↗ this has been brought to us. Thanks.

49:26 ↗ Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead, Council

49:27 ↗ Member J.

49:28 ↗ >> Yeah, I want to um echo Council

49:30 ↗ President Walsh's comments. Uh you know,

49:32 ↗ generally I think it's always good to be

49:34 ↗ standardized and similar with other

49:35 ↗ cities within our jurisdiction. So, it

49:37 ↗ was good to see that, you know, all the

49:38 ↗ cities other than Isquan Seamish are

49:40 ↗ already uh on the proposed speed

49:41 ↗ schedule. And so, I think, you know, we

49:43 ↗ should definitely be aligned with that.

49:45 ↗ Um I also think it's great that, you

49:46 ↗ know, there's actually a lot of

49:47 ↗ justification in terms of, you know, the

49:49 ↗ amount of time that it takes. And, you

49:50 ↗ know, we want to make sure that we're

49:52 ↗ covering the costs and that applicants

49:54 ↗ are covering the cost of having their

49:55 ↗ systems inspected. So that's great. Um,

49:58 ↗ and also I'm definitely very interested

50:00 ↗ to see kind of what data uh you come

50:02 ↗ back with next year in terms of, you

50:03 ↗ know, what's the actual amount of time

50:04 ↗ spent on these inspections. It was good

50:06 ↗ to hear that, you know, as some of these

50:07 ↗ technologies improve and you get more

50:09 ↗ familiarity with them, potentially over

50:10 ↗ time the time spent could be less. Um,

50:13 ↗ so I think that would be really great

50:14 ↗ and I'm very I'm very much looking

50:15 ↗ forward to uh hearing back from you next

50:17 ↗ year.

50:21 ↗ >> Same here. I don't think it's a surprise

50:23 ↗ that I'm going to um support this as

50:25 ↗ well and recommend passage up to the

50:27 ↗ city council. Um agree that um it's good

50:31 ↗ to have uniformity and consistency. It's

50:33 ↗ good to reflect true cost. Um um good to

50:37 ↗ be mindful of um sustainable growth

50:39 ↗ going into the future. I think it's also

50:41 ↗ important to acknowledge this is a

50:42 ↗ fairly large increase too. So, um, you

50:44 ↗ know, just as the city tracking whether

50:48 ↗ this becomes a barrier development and

50:50 ↗ and also a hardship for residents and

50:52 ↗ then also our just our own impact on our

50:54 ↗ own revenue needs as well. But again, I

50:56 ↗ think we've done our due diligence and

50:57 ↗ this is a good step forward. Um, you've

50:59 ↗ talked about um using the analytics to

51:02 ↗ do like that annual review of fees and

51:04 ↗ stuff like that. I wonder if you would

51:06 ↗ be open to providing some sort of report

51:08 ↗ to the cities on that every year when

51:10 ↗ the fees are updated just for

51:12 ↗ transparency with the partners as well.

51:14 ↗ And I imagine that was something that

51:16 ↗ that would happen anyways, but I thought

51:17 ↗ I'd throw that out there. And um thanks

51:20 ↗ for all the I mean I know for sure how

51:23 ↗ hard and diligently you all have been

51:24 ↗ working on this, especially with the

51:26 ↗ other cities. Um so um I appreciate you

51:29 ↗ very much. So, I think you're hearing

51:31 ↗ yes, we recommend increasing and yes, we

51:34 ↗ recommend passing

51:36 ↗ it over to Epher. And when does this

51:41 ↗ come back to the council? I think we

51:42 ↗ have it here. Any other comments real

51:44 ↗ quick before we kind of start to talk

51:46 ↗ about next steps? Yeah, council member

51:47 ↗ Jack. Yeah, I agree with the point that

51:49 ↗ you mentioned about, you know, this is a

51:51 ↗ big increase. And I think part of it is

51:52 ↗ that, you know, we were essentially

51:54 ↗ undercharging for a long time. And so

51:56 ↗ that is something that's important to

51:57 ↗ acknowledge. You know, from the

51:59 ↗ perspective of, you know, folks that

52:01 ↗ have to get the fire inspections, it

52:02 ↗ appears like it's a big increase. But

52:03 ↗ ultimately, it's like if we have to, you

52:06 ↗ know, fund our fire services, if it's

52:08 ↗ not, if we're not funding these

52:09 ↗ inspections from, you know, folks that

52:11 ↗ require them, then we're funding it out

52:12 ↗ of, you know, everyone else's, like the

52:15 ↗ general fund. So I do think this

52:16 ↗ ultimately is more fair especially

52:18 ↗ because there is a justification of you

52:19 ↗ know it is the amount of time that the

52:21 ↗ staff um hardworking staff at Eastside

52:23 ↗ Fire and Rescue have to spend on this.

52:25 ↗ So I think it makes sense even though

52:26 ↗ you know it does

52:29 ↗ it is kind of a sticker shock to go from

52:32 ↗ you know whatever $700 or $200 for the

52:35 ↗ fee originally to like $800. It's like

52:38 ↗ 4x.

52:39 ↗ >> Yeah.

52:41 ↗ >> Well said. Thanks. Um yeah. Okay. So,

52:44 ↗ November 10th is when we go to the

52:46 ↗ council. Is it the administration's

52:47 ↗ position to have it on regular business

52:49 ↗ or do we have to? I I'm not sure.

52:52 ↗ >> We'd love to hear from the committee on

52:53 ↗ that tonight.

52:54 ↗ >> Okay. Does the administration have a any

52:57 ↗ position on that before we talk about

53:01 ↗ >> Maybe let's just go to committee first.

53:03 ↗ Um, you have your hand on the mic. Do

53:05 ↗ you have a thought, Council President?

53:06 ↗ >> I was just looking at um where we're at.

53:10 ↗ We do have the 2026 school impact fees

53:13 ↗ coming back that day and I believe they

53:15 ↗ are sitting on regular business. So I

53:18 ↗ think this would be appropriate then for

53:20 ↗ regular business um as alignment.

53:23 ↗ >> I'm fine with that too. You good?

53:25 ↗ >> Yep.

53:26 ↗ >> All right then. Let's place it on

53:27 ↗ regular business.

53:28 ↗ >> All right. Thank you all very much. I

53:31 ↗ appreciate it and thank you for being

53:32 ↗ with us in person um this evening as

53:35 ↗ well. Uh with that to the next item on

53:39 ↗ our agenda and I see Thomas is with us

53:42 ↗ here in the back. So we'll give you just

53:44 ↗ a minute to come and get set up. Um

53:47 ↗ it is COM 0177 the 2025 comprehensive

53:51 ↗ plan amendments and reszone presented by

53:54 ↗ Thomas Valdez our senior transportation

53:56 ↗ planner. Um do you want us to take a a

53:58 ↗ break for a quick minute or you get set

54:01 ↗ up? Okay, great. I think we'll be okay.

54:14 ↗ Well, good evening and thanks for having

54:16 ↗ me today. I'm Thomas Vrez, senior

54:18 ↗ transportation planner. Uh, today I'll

54:20 ↗ be presenting on the 2025 comp plan

54:23 ↗ amendments.

54:25 ↗ The purpose is to seek this committee's

54:26 ↗ input and recommendation to council.

54:30 ↗ So, I do have two questions tonight. Uh

54:32 ↗ first, are the proposed changes clear

54:35 ↗ and reasonable or are there additional

54:37 ↗ changes needed? And second, does the

54:39 ↗ committee uh recommend proceeding with

54:41 ↗ the proposed amendments at the November

54:43 ↗ 10th council meeting?

54:47 ↗ So, just uh some background for anybody

54:49 ↗ watching this online. Um every year,

54:53 ↗ staff compiles comp plan amendment

54:55 ↗ requests. Um these come internally from

54:57 ↗ staff, uh from council as well as the

55:00 ↗ public. uh we develop a docket or list

55:02 ↗ of proposed amendments for the comp plan

55:05 ↗ that uh council then agrees to consider

55:07 ↗ for the year. Uh this is considered a

55:11 ↗ to-do list uh which kind of helps the

55:13 ↗ city manage our workload and prioritize

55:15 ↗ policy issues and ensure that we're

55:17 ↗ compliant with state law. So being on

55:20 ↗ the docket doesn't necessarily mean uh

55:22 ↗ that it's guaranteed for final adoption,

55:24 ↗ but we're uh just saying we're going to

55:26 ↗ analyze it, take a look at it, do some

55:28 ↗ public review, and see if it makes

55:30 ↗ sense.

55:32 ↗ Typically in January, we hold the public

55:34 ↗ meeting and then council makes a

55:36 ↗ decision on what goes on the docket in

55:38 ↗ March.

55:41 ↗ So for this year, the docket included

55:43 ↗ five items. Exhibit A contains the five

55:47 ↗ items. The call was made to defer to the

55:50 ↗ items. Uh we had some staffing

55:52 ↗ constraints as well as complexities for

55:55 ↗ making uh to the amendments uh were

55:57 ↗ going to be challenging to do this year.

55:58 ↗ So those have been uh temporarily

56:00 ↗ deferred. Um so today the discussion is

56:03 ↗ really just around those three items uh

56:04 ↗ in the red box. Um so this is to add a

56:08 ↗ policy allowing for co-living uh to

56:11 ↗ change the land use designation of the

56:13 ↗ food bank property as well as to update

56:15 ↗ the transportation element.

56:20 ↗ So I'm just going to run through um all

56:22 ↗ the proposed amendments and then I'll

56:24 ↗ take a pause at the end.

56:27 ↗ So amendment one is to uh add H policy

56:32 ↗ B6. This is to create um a new policy

56:36 ↗ that allows for market rate nons nons

56:39 ↗ subsidized co-living housing in all

56:41 ↗ zones which allow for multif family

56:43 ↗ housing. This amendment allows the city

56:46 ↗ to to stay compliant with house bill uh

56:49 ↗ 1998

56:51 ↗ which requires cities to allow co-living

56:54 ↗ housing in all zones that allow for at

56:56 ↗ least six units including mixed use

56:58 ↗ zones.

57:01 ↗ The second amendment is for the uh

57:04 ↗ Isiqua food bank property. So this

57:07 ↗ property was recently sold by the city

57:08 ↗ to the food bank and its current zoning

57:11 ↗ is for community facilities uh which is

57:14 ↗ intended for publicly owned properties.

57:16 ↗ So given that there was a recent selling

57:18 ↗ of this property, we need to therefore

57:20 ↗ update the zoning to match. So this next

57:23 ↗ slide here shows uh what is proposed. Um

57:27 ↗ so the property would just match the

57:29 ↗ existing land use conditions um which is

57:31 ↗ all retailing

57:37 ↗ on through here. Uh third amendment is

57:40 ↗ uh related to the transportation

57:42 ↗ element. Um so these are a set of

57:43 ↗ amendments that I will briefly go

57:45 ↗ through. Um these are to ensure

57:48 ↗ consistency between the mobility action

57:50 ↗ plan and the transportation element and

57:52 ↗ they ensure compliance with house bill

57:54 ↗ 1181 which requires us to develop uh

57:57 ↗ multimodal concurrency standards. Um so

58:02 ↗ just for for context for folks uh

58:03 ↗ multimodal concurrency standards are uh

58:06 ↗ to ensure that we have transportation

58:08 ↗ performance metrics uh for all modes. Um

58:11 ↗ so this is for walking, biking, transit

58:13 ↗ and driving. Um this ensures that when

58:16 ↗ we do have growth that it is aligned

58:19 ↗ with our needs uh to ensure that we are

58:21 ↗ not uh overloading our transportation

58:24 ↗ system.

58:29 ↗ So this first policy is D1.

58:31 ↗ Um this amendment is to expand these

58:33 ↗ sidewalk tiers from beyond just the

58:35 ↗ central Isqua regional growth center to

58:39 ↗ uh all of central Isqua. And this is

58:41 ↗ just uh to you know under understand

58:44 ↗ that uh that the network is just is more

58:46 ↗ than just uh the regional growth center

58:48 ↗ itself and uh having uh connections to

58:51 ↗ that regional growth center is also very

58:53 ↗ important. This amends sidewalk tiers

58:55 ↗ and allows for the possibility of more

58:57 ↗ sidewalks.

59:02 ↗ Next one is policy D3. Um so this second

59:06 ↗ amendment is to allow the leading

59:09 ↗ pedestrian interval. Um, so, uh, many

59:11 ↗ folks may not know what this is, um, but

59:13 ↗ it's basically adding 3 seconds of

59:16 ↗ additional walk time in advance of

59:18 ↗ vehicles in select intersections. So,

59:21 ↗ the intersections we are talking about

59:23 ↗ are for tier one, which is central

59:25 ↗ Isiqua, Highlands, and Oldtown. These

59:28 ↗ are areas that we uh see higher

59:30 ↗ densities of pedestrians um, where

59:33 ↗ there's higher density of jobs and

59:35 ↗ housing. So leading pedestrian interval

59:37 ↗ will help make sure the pedestrians get

59:39 ↗ a little head start. They're more

59:41 ↗ visible in the intersections and um

59:43 ↗ it'll actually allow for a lot of better

59:47 ↗ functionality for um for some uh parts

59:50 ↗ of the intersection. And we also

59:52 ↗ acknowledge that if there are any um

59:54 ↗ challenges that this would add uh for

59:56 ↗ cars that we would take a look at that

59:58 ↗ and make sure we're not overloading. So

1:00:01 ↗ studies have shown that this is a really

1:00:03 ↗ great and very cost-effective way to

1:00:05 ↗ enhance safety. Um so staff is very

1:00:07 ↗ excited about this. Um implementation uh

1:00:10 ↗ isn't expected to degrade intersections

1:00:12 ↗ too bad. Um and it wouldn't degrade

1:00:16 ↗ anything below our adopted uh service

1:00:18 ↗ levels. So something that is in line

1:00:20 ↗ with our policies and um seems like a

1:00:22 ↗ great uh opportunity to do.

1:00:28 ↗ This next one is for goal E. So this uh

1:00:31 ↗ is just making some minor updates to the

1:00:34 ↗ bicycle uh goal area. This provides

1:00:37 ↗ additional context and definitions for

1:00:40 ↗ our existing bike facilities.

1:00:43 ↗ This next one is related to transit

1:00:47 ↗ level of service. Um so previously last

1:00:51 ↗ year we had um a level of service

1:00:54 ↗ standard that was based on the bus stops

1:00:55 ↗ amenities which are things that we

1:00:57 ↗ acknowledge that we have uh pretty good

1:00:59 ↗ control over um relative to other

1:01:01 ↗ things. So this new standard is a more

1:01:04 ↗ comprehensive tiers based approach. Um,

1:01:08 ↗ so this expands on our community's

1:01:10 ↗ desire to have more than just bus stop

1:01:11 ↗ amenities, but also to uh have better

1:01:15 ↗ transit service and access to transit.

1:01:18 ↗ So, we took a look and we specifically

1:01:21 ↗ designed these standards to align with

1:01:23 ↗ King County Metro standards. Um, this

1:01:25 ↗ can help us advocate for better service

1:01:28 ↗ in the future. Um, using their exact

1:01:30 ↗ standards, we can therefore say, "Hey,

1:01:32 ↗ look, this meets your standards. why not

1:01:35 ↗ like do stuff for us? Um so it's a

1:01:39 ↗ little bit more difficult than that, but

1:01:41 ↗ um that's essentially the idea.

1:01:44 ↗ We're really trying to beef up our

1:01:45 ↗ ability to advocate. So this goal F

1:01:48 ↗ section um talks about ways that we

1:01:51 ↗ would advocate for enhanced service um

1:01:53 ↗ ways that we work together for improving

1:01:55 ↗ uh planning and operations. Um, as an

1:01:58 ↗ aside, this morning, uh, John Mortonson

1:02:00 ↗ and I, we took a ride along with King

1:02:03 ↗ County Metro staff. We have a new 203

1:02:06 ↗ bus, uh, that we're trying to work a

1:02:08 ↗ little bit. Um, so just imagine I think

1:02:12 ↗ there were like 8 to 10, uh, folks in

1:02:14 ↗ like safety vests on a private bus, 40

1:02:17 ↗ foot bus just cruising around Costco

1:02:20 ↗ campus area. So um just keep that in

1:02:23 ↗ your mind's eye when we're thinking

1:02:24 ↗ about that's one of the ways that we try

1:02:26 ↗ to improve operations. We actually work

1:02:27 ↗ with them and we try to make these

1:02:30 ↗ incremental uh changes and that specific

1:02:33 ↗ picture isn't codified in this document

1:02:35 ↗ but that's just sort of like the flavor

1:02:37 ↗ of like things that we do to um every

1:02:40 ↗ time there's a service change we try to

1:02:41 ↗ improve it.

1:02:46 ↗ This next section is goal F. And

1:02:50 ↗ uh lastly, yeah, it just basically talks

1:02:52 ↗ about um additional updates to transit

1:02:54 ↗ level of service. Um we added a table

1:02:57 ↗ and um just more policy language.

1:03:02 ↗ So to get here, we did work with TAB. Um

1:03:05 ↗ we brought uh specifically the

1:03:07 ↗ transportation element parts um over

1:03:10 ↗ four meetings. So in April, May, July,

1:03:13 ↗ and August. Um, TAB had a lot of touch

1:03:16 ↗ points. We really vetted a lot of these

1:03:18 ↗ uh topics. Um, the planning policy

1:03:21 ↗ commission then reviewed TAB's

1:03:23 ↗ transportation element updates and um

1:03:26 ↗ the remainder of the other updates that

1:03:29 ↗ we talked about related to land use. Um,

1:03:31 ↗ they they saw those in two meetings in

1:03:33 ↗ September and after reviewing uh they

1:03:36 ↗ then unanimously recommended approval.

1:03:40 ↗ The mobility and infrastructure

1:03:41 ↗ committee also real quick. So just to

1:03:44 ↗ clarify this did go to tab tab did

1:03:46 ↗ review or the transportation element

1:03:48 ↗ part of it

1:03:49 ↗ >> right so to clarify um part of it went

1:03:52 ↗ to tab just the transportation element

1:03:54 ↗ part um and then the PPC saw both

1:03:58 ↗ >> okay thank you yeah it's a little bit

1:03:59 ↗ confusing um and to add to that

1:04:02 ↗ confusion hopefully I'll try to clarify

1:04:03 ↗ in real time mobility and infrastructure

1:04:05 ↗ committee saw what tab saw um so they

1:04:09 ↗ they did not see the the land use uh the

1:04:11 ↗ two land use items that you are seeing

1:04:13 ↗ tonight.

1:04:15 ↗ Um mobility and infrastructure committee

1:04:18 ↗ uh did unanimously approve uh to place

1:04:21 ↗ on consent um specifically the

1:04:23 ↗ transportation element um section.

1:04:30 ↗ So in terms of impacts uh there's no

1:04:31 ↗ financial uh you know direct impacts. Um

1:04:34 ↗ this change should help us comply with

1:04:37 ↗ state law. Um it'll enhance clarity

1:04:39 ↗ throughout uh the mobility action plan

1:04:42 ↗ and the transportation element um for

1:04:44 ↗ that portion. It'll also strengthen uh

1:04:47 ↗ multimotal transportation planning

1:04:49 ↗ outcomes. And uh lastly in terms of like

1:04:52 ↗ the land use uh component um Isqua Food

1:04:55 ↗ Bank has been a vital contributor to

1:04:57 ↗ this community. So um you know the the

1:04:59 ↗ selling of that property uh and the the

1:05:01 ↗ the land use uh change for that is uh

1:05:04 ↗ really going to help um that

1:05:05 ↗ organization.

1:05:08 ↗ So timings and next steps we are in

1:05:10 ↗ October and in November uh hoping to

1:05:14 ↗ take this to council for adoption.

1:05:17 ↗ So I'll pause here and these are the two

1:05:19 ↗ questions that staff has. Thanks.

1:05:22 ↗ >> Thank you very much. Questions from

1:05:24 ↗ committee council president.

1:05:27 ↗ Yeah. Um,

1:05:29 ↗ really appreciate the leading pedestrian

1:05:31 ↗ interval, but that brings up questions

1:05:33 ↗ for me about why that and not other

1:05:36 ↗ things. So, can you talk a little bit

1:05:38 ↗ about how you decided

1:05:41 ↗ what what were the things that we needed

1:05:44 ↗ to include um in this transportation

1:05:47 ↗ element?

1:05:49 ↗ Yeah, a lot of the concerns that the

1:05:51 ↗ community has given is around safety and

1:05:54 ↗ pedestrian access um specifically not

1:05:57 ↗ only to transit um but also just like

1:06:00 ↗ making it easier to walk around um but

1:06:02 ↗ also not impacting traffic which can be

1:06:05 ↗ uh challenging in those particular

1:06:07 ↗ neighborhoods in general. Um so we

1:06:10 ↗ wanted to see if we could do both. um so

1:06:13 ↗ not degrade intersections from like a

1:06:16 ↗ car perspective um but also just make it

1:06:18 ↗ easier to get around without a car. Um

1:06:21 ↗ so leading pedestrian interval um can do

1:06:24 ↗ both. It's really great. Uh it it's used

1:06:28 ↗ in a lot of major cities and it people

1:06:31 ↗ love it. Um so it's a great way I think

1:06:34 ↗ that you know there's a crash reduction

1:06:36 ↗ factor which is saying like you know how

1:06:39 ↗ how much uh you know value we can get

1:06:42 ↗ from something like this. It's it's

1:06:44 ↗ something like 15%. Um so it's it's

1:06:46 ↗ really great and um I the community's

1:06:49 ↗ really been excited about this.

1:06:52 ↗ Um, another one that I'm personally very

1:06:55 ↗ excited for and I think the community

1:06:56 ↗ would be if it was a little bit more

1:06:58 ↗ wellknown, but is the idea of continuous

1:07:01 ↗ sidewalks

1:07:03 ↗ um for biking and walking instead of

1:07:05 ↗ having bikers and walkers come down to

1:07:08 ↗ road level through curb cuts at

1:07:10 ↗ driveways or um certain intersections?

1:07:13 ↗ Have we considered that as an

1:07:15 ↗ opportunity to improve safety and make

1:07:18 ↗ the more um vulnerable road user um more

1:07:22 ↗ visible and require the cars to slow

1:07:26 ↗ down?

1:07:27 ↗ >> Yeah, these are all great ideas and um

1:07:29 ↗ definitely included in this plan. Um we

1:07:31 ↗ we have a bike tiers system uh that

1:07:34 ↗ really speaks to that. So we we want to

1:07:35 ↗ uh encourage uh not only having but also

1:07:39 ↗ building a bike infrastructure where it

1:07:41 ↗ makes sense. Um so part of this update

1:07:44 ↗ was to sort of uh look at the top

1:07:46 ↗ topology topography of the community. We

1:07:50 ↗ have lots of hills and valleys. Um so

1:07:52 ↗ you know obviously uh it's it's much

1:07:55 ↗ less effort to bike on a flat versus a

1:07:59 ↗ hill. Uh so we we take that into

1:08:02 ↗ consideration and this exercise really

1:08:05 ↗ just helped us um prioritize where a lot

1:08:07 ↗ of these projects can be built and a lot

1:08:09 ↗ of that has to do with just like feeling

1:08:10 ↗ comfortable and all that. So those are

1:08:12 ↗ all um really important factors that we

1:08:14 ↗ included in this update.

1:08:19 ↗ >> Council member Jen, go ahead.

1:08:21 ↗ >> So on the pedestrian thing, one

1:08:23 ↗ complaint that I've heard from some

1:08:24 ↗ folks is you and I think maybe this just

1:08:26 ↗ goes to the definition of level of

1:08:28 ↗ service for pedestrians. It's basically,

1:08:29 ↗ you know, is it safe to walk, not how

1:08:32 ↗ and whereas the definition of level of

1:08:34 ↗ service for cars is how long do you have

1:08:36 ↗ to wait? and it could be safe to walk,

1:08:38 ↗ but there's a lot of crosswalks in Isuka

1:08:39 ↗ where you have to wait for a very, very

1:08:41 ↗ long time. So, I'm curious if that's

1:08:42 ↗ something that we might, you know, the

1:08:44 ↗ level of in terms of level of service

1:08:45 ↗ incorporating that wait time thing

1:08:47 ↗ because I know, you know, in the

1:08:48 ↗ highlands there's some intersections

1:08:49 ↗ where just the lights don't even respond

1:08:50 ↗ to you pressing them and even if there's

1:08:52 ↗ no cars, you have to wait for like 5

1:08:53 ↗ minutes and that's I feel like that's

1:08:55 ↗ something that we should be addressing

1:08:56 ↗ and, you know, wouldn't necessarily be

1:08:58 ↗ in this amendment or but I'm curious,

1:09:01 ↗ you know, is that something that we'd

1:09:02 ↗ consider for future complaint

1:09:03 ↗ amendments?

1:09:05 ↗ Yeah, we definitely want to make walking

1:09:08 ↗ a, you know, great option. Um, yeah, I

1:09:11 ↗ know that our traffic engineering staff,

1:09:13 ↗ um, looks at intersections to sort of

1:09:15 ↗ make those value judgments. Um, but we

1:09:17 ↗ can certainly look into that. Um, if

1:09:19 ↗ there's specific areas that, uh, you're

1:09:22 ↗ you're finding that you're you're

1:09:23 ↗ waiting and it's kind of like a

1:09:25 ↗ ridiculous amount of time, um, I think

1:09:26 ↗ we'd love to like kind of know more

1:09:28 ↗ about that and we can try to tweak that

1:09:32 ↗ >> front and sunset.

1:09:35 ↗ That's a classic example. Yeah.

1:09:38 ↗ >> Yeah. Front and sunset. And also I think

1:09:40 ↗ I mean I had a friend who lived in

1:09:41 ↗ Discovery West who complained about you

1:09:43 ↗ know the sidewalks to cross Highlands

1:09:45 ↗ Drive to be able to go to Safeway and it

1:09:48 ↗ he basically said it was so bad that he

1:09:50 ↗ would just drive to Safeway even though

1:09:51 ↗ it was like half a mile and that's not

1:09:55 ↗ what our residents should necessarily be

1:09:57 ↗ doing. So

1:09:59 ↗ >> yeah.

1:10:01 ↗ Any other questions from Kitty? Um, I

1:10:04 ↗ don't know if I've ever thought to ask

1:10:05 ↗ this, but the land use change for the

1:10:07 ↗ food bank site doesn't change any of the

1:10:09 ↗ like redevelopment limitations based on

1:10:12 ↗ the historic um, preservation nature of

1:10:15 ↗ that particular building, right?

1:10:17 ↗ >> I don't believe so. No,

1:10:24 ↗ >> good question. Kristen would know. Um,

1:10:27 ↗ so I'm going to guess uh, you know, I

1:10:29 ↗ think it's um, it has the designation

1:10:31 ↗ from the historic register. So that

1:10:34 ↗ designation still remains, but as we

1:10:36 ↗ work with food bank on terms in terms of

1:10:38 ↗ what the redevelopment will look like,

1:10:41 ↗ it may come up um in terms of uh, how

1:10:45 ↗ how that designation

1:10:48 ↗ um, what what are the limitations and

1:10:50 ↗ what cannot be done.

1:10:52 ↗ >> Okay. Um, might not necessarily be that

1:10:55 ↗ we need to have all that information

1:10:57 ↗ when this goes to full counsel, but

1:10:59 ↗ might be nice to have a little bit more

1:11:00 ↗ clarity on kind of what are those

1:11:02 ↗ tension

1:11:03 ↗ >> potential tension points there um for

1:11:05 ↗ the rest of the council. All right, any

1:11:07 ↗ other questions?

1:11:08 ↗ >> Not seeing any. No members of the public

1:11:10 ↗ with us in the room. Um, clerk, anyone

1:11:14 ↗ online with us?

1:11:15 ↗ >> No, chair, not at this time.

1:11:18 ↗ >> All right. Well, um, as always, um, to

1:11:21 ↗ those of you that are watching live on

1:11:23 ↗ YouTube or, um, during your commute

1:11:26 ↗ watching this isqua committee,

1:11:30 ↗ um, you can email us anytime at city

1:11:32 ↗ council isquawwah.gov with any thoughts

1:11:34 ↗ or questions you might have. So, we will

1:11:36 ↗ now move into deliberation of the

1:11:39 ↗ committee. Uh, the questions are, are

1:11:41 ↗ they clear and reasonable? additional

1:11:43 ↗ changes needed and are we ready to

1:11:45 ↗ recommend proceeding to um moving the

1:11:48 ↗ amendments to the November 10th council

1:11:50 ↗ meeting? So, who'd like to get us

1:11:51 ↗ started?

1:11:53 ↗ >> Sure, Council President.

1:11:54 ↗ >> Um I just realized I have one more

1:11:56 ↗ question. Um, for the two items that

1:12:00 ↗ were delayed due to um, staffing and

1:12:03 ↗ things like that, are those things that

1:12:07 ↗ we envision have uh, coming on the comp

1:12:10 ↗ plan docket for this year? Um, or are we

1:12:14 ↗ still facing some of those challenges?

1:12:21 ↗ >> Yeah, you know, as we started digging

1:12:22 ↗ into them, they were not that

1:12:24 ↗ straightforward. So, in addition to the

1:12:26 ↗ staffing challenge, they're just more

1:12:28 ↗ complicated matters. Um, primarily the

1:12:31 ↗ the ownership because they're not just

1:12:33 ↗ all city-owned properties that have the

1:12:35 ↗ CFF zoning. It's also the school

1:12:37 ↗ district. It's also the Sam Plat water

1:12:40 ↗ and sewer district. So, it became more

1:12:43 ↗ complicated. And the number of lots that

1:12:46 ↗ have this designation also is

1:12:48 ↗ significant. So, it isn't a small task.

1:12:51 ↗ Um, but there's a lot of history to each

1:12:53 ↗ one of these things, too. So, we we

1:12:56 ↗ haven't put it on the docket at this

1:12:58 ↗ point. I think these are some of the

1:13:00 ↗ things that we do is the periodic update

1:13:02 ↗ because these are not one-off things.

1:13:04 ↗ You know, you're looking at

1:13:05 ↗ comprehensively the whole thing. Um,

1:13:08 ↗ same thing with changing the residential

1:13:10 ↗ zones because there was, you know, other

1:13:13 ↗ things at play right now. So, it was

1:13:15 ↗ just a name change. it was just a text

1:13:17 ↗ change, but it may have as we implement

1:13:20 ↗ um middle housing, we may learn a few

1:13:22 ↗ things. So, I think they're they're not

1:13:24 ↗ on the docket for 2025

1:13:28 ↗ um because we're getting or 2026, I

1:13:30 ↗ mean, um we're getting staff geared up

1:13:34 ↗ for other things. And this one will

1:13:36 ↗ probably be tagged along with more of a

1:13:39 ↗ comprehensive if construction slow. We,

1:13:42 ↗ you know, we have a lot of construction

1:13:43 ↗ permits at this point and so that's sort

1:13:46 ↗ of a priority to meet those timelines

1:13:48 ↗ and get those processed, but we're open

1:13:51 ↗ to if council wants us to continue to

1:13:53 ↗ put this on, we can certainly um keep it

1:13:57 ↗ on.

1:13:58 ↗ Can you talk a little bit about the why

1:14:02 ↗ this came up in the first place and what

1:14:04 ↗ the pros and cons of especially I know

1:14:08 ↗ the community facilities facilities came

1:14:10 ↗ up because of um the uh food and

1:14:14 ↗ clothing bank and all of that. Yeah,

1:14:15 ↗ that was the only reason I think the

1:14:17 ↗ Christian was thinking that, you know,

1:14:19 ↗ instead of having to do these reszones

1:14:22 ↗ uh um to whenever the city's trying to

1:14:25 ↗ surplus because it happened with the

1:14:27 ↗ city hall northwest, now with the food

1:14:28 ↗ bank, is there a way to just not have to

1:14:31 ↗ do the reszone?

1:14:32 ↗ >> Um but it's not, you know, I think the

1:14:35 ↗ city surplusing probably in the short

1:14:38 ↗ term we're not looking at any more sales

1:14:40 ↗ unless, you know, it comes out of the

1:14:42 ↗ public uh the facilities planning. So

1:14:44 ↗ this is already done. So the problem we

1:14:46 ↗ were trying to solve was not having to

1:14:48 ↗ do reszones, but every time the city

1:14:50 ↗ wanted to sell a property, we had to do

1:14:52 ↗ a reszone request. That's that's the

1:14:54 ↗ real issue we were trying to solve.

1:14:55 ↗ >> And how about the single family zoning

1:14:57 ↗ naming?

1:14:58 ↗ >> Uh that was just kind of a leftover

1:15:00 ↗ thing from a middle housing uh piece

1:15:03 ↗ that it's not really intuitive to call

1:15:06 ↗ it single family estate and single

1:15:08 ↗ family small lot. Um, but it it it

1:15:12 ↗ doesn't change any of the development

1:15:13 ↗ standards or anything. It was more of a

1:15:15 ↗ naming thing I think that was on it. I'm

1:15:18 ↗ not sure why we that that could that

1:15:20 ↗ could be done.

1:15:21 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:15:21 ↗ >> Um,

1:15:22 ↗ >> that's kind of what I was thinking is

1:15:24 ↗ that seems to be the easier idea for

1:15:26 ↗ something to put on a 2026 docket. And

1:15:30 ↗ then um what is uh what's the process

1:15:33 ↗ and timeline for docket um items for

1:15:37 ↗ 2026? Um, I don't believe we have

1:15:40 ↗ received any requests from the public.

1:15:43 ↗ Um, so there's really nothing on the

1:15:44 ↗ docket at this point other than um,

1:15:47 ↗ whatever the city chooses to put or

1:15:49 ↗ council wants us to put on the docket.

1:15:52 ↗ Um, but I believe the deadline is

1:15:54 ↗ September 15 for anyone to submit a

1:15:58 ↗ request for any of the changes and we

1:16:00 ↗ did not receive them.

1:16:01 ↗ >> And how about for internal? When is kind

1:16:03 ↗ of that timeline? Um, I think we have to

1:16:06 ↗ we take the docket to planning and

1:16:08 ↗ policy commission, bring it to council.

1:16:10 ↗ I have to look at the exact dates.

1:16:12 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:16:12 ↗ >> Um,

1:16:13 ↗ >> okay. So, that's still something that we

1:16:16 ↗ could, you know, weigh in on a little

1:16:18 ↗ bit as we're kind of looking through and

1:16:20 ↗ I imagine as we're looking at the

1:16:22 ↗ budget. Um,

1:16:24 ↗ >> just trying to understand what our

1:16:26 ↗ staffing and resources are to take on

1:16:29 ↗ um, things like this.

1:16:30 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean it won't have any you know

1:16:32 ↗ it won't make any difference in terms of

1:16:34 ↗ what the community will experience or

1:16:37 ↗ feel about it. It's more of a internal

1:16:39 ↗ thing than an external thing.

1:16:42 ↗ >> Okay. Thanks.

1:16:45 ↗ >> Did you have a follow-up question or do

1:16:47 ↗ you want to get started on comments?

1:16:51 ↗ >> Oh, go ahead. Yeah, sure.

1:16:53 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean I think these all, you

1:16:55 ↗ know, generally seem to be pretty

1:16:56 ↗ simple. Um I don't really understand why

1:17:00 ↗ like what the complexities were around,

1:17:01 ↗ you know, renaming the single family

1:17:02 ↗ zones because what I've seen other

1:17:03 ↗ cities do is basically just rename it to

1:17:05 ↗ neighborhood residential. Um so I'm I

1:17:08 ↗ hope that we can, you know, get that on

1:17:10 ↗ in uh 2026,

1:17:13 ↗ which I mean it's literally just, you

1:17:14 ↗ know, renaming. So I don't think it

1:17:16 ↗ should be too complicated. Um but, you

1:17:18 ↗ know, generally I think especially on

1:17:20 ↗ the transportation policy changes, I

1:17:22 ↗ think those are all great, especially

1:17:23 ↗ the leading pedestrian intervals. So,

1:17:24 ↗ you know, excited to see us

1:17:26 ↗ acknowledging those in our comprehensive

1:17:27 ↗ plan. Um, and I'm also looking forward

1:17:30 ↗ to see how we actually implement them in

1:17:32 ↗ our implementation.

1:17:34 ↗ That's it for me.

1:17:37 ↗ Less one to everything that she said.

1:17:38 ↗ Those were all of the items that came

1:17:41 ↗ up. Um, I appreciate the process that

1:17:44 ↗ we've gone through with the food and

1:17:45 ↗ clothing bank and understanding um, what

1:17:48 ↗ their needs are as this comes through a

1:17:50 ↗ docket um, and what our needs are to

1:17:53 ↗ surplus property and kind of um, go

1:17:56 ↗ through that requirement. I like the

1:17:58 ↗ changes that we're proposing for the

1:18:00 ↗ transportation element. I appreciate

1:18:01 ↗ that you mentioned that it had gone

1:18:03 ↗ through the transportation advisory

1:18:05 ↗ board because that was one of my

1:18:07 ↗ questions. Um was, hey, why didn't they

1:18:09 ↗ uh look at that. Um so yeah, I see no

1:18:14 ↗ problems with this. Thank you.

1:18:17 ↗ >> Yeah, double thumbs up here as well. Um

1:18:20 ↗ I think you know when we were first

1:18:23 ↗ approving the docket back in March um we

1:18:25 ↗ had kind of a preliminary conversation

1:18:26 ↗ that some of these items might be we

1:18:29 ↗ might find them challenging as we go

1:18:31 ↗ through it. And so kind of that's what

1:18:33 ↗ we found here. So um you know and we've

1:18:36 ↗ got to be responsive of your whole

1:18:37 ↗ department, right? You've got to kind of

1:18:39 ↗ flex depending on the whole the entire

1:18:41 ↗ workload of things coming in. So I

1:18:42 ↗ totally get that. So what council

1:18:44 ↗ president brings up is really important.

1:18:46 ↗ We've got to consider this during

1:18:47 ↗ budget, right? So, um I hope we can have

1:18:50 ↗ that conversation and then um otherwise

1:18:53 ↗ everything seems in order here. So, I

1:18:57 ↗ appreciate that. Um oh, except for it

1:19:00 ↗ would it would be nice when this comes

1:19:02 ↗ to council to have a little bit more

1:19:03 ↗ details about the historic registry

1:19:05 ↗ stuff.

1:19:06 ↗ >> All right. How do you what you need?

1:19:08 ↗ >> Um one last thing. I do have a

1:19:10 ↗ recommended motion for you to consider.

1:19:14 ↗ >> All right. Um, I move to approve the

1:19:16 ↗ 2025 comprehensive plan amendments as

1:19:18 ↗ presented. I have a second.

1:19:22 ↗ >> Second.

1:19:23 ↗ >> All right. Any other.

1:19:26 ↗ >> All right. All those in favor, please

1:19:27 ↗ say I.

1:19:28 ↗ >> I.

1:19:29 ↗ >> I. Any opposed? Any opposition or any

1:19:32 ↗ abstensions? All right. That passes

1:19:34 ↗ unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.

1:19:38 ↗ Um,

1:19:39 ↗ all right. Then we'll move on to the

1:19:41 ↗ next item on our agenda which is

1:19:43 ↗ announcements. Any announcements from

1:19:45 ↗ committee? Oh,

1:19:48 ↗ >> is that on consent or regular business?

1:19:50 ↗ >> Oh, consent.

1:19:53 ↗ >> I think so.

1:19:54 ↗ >> Let's do consent on that one. Yeah.

1:19:55 ↗ Sorry. Thank you.

1:19:57 ↗ >> So, we'll move on to announcements then.

1:19:59 ↗ Any announcements from committee. Um, we

1:20:02 ↗ do not have a meeting scheduled for

1:20:04 ↗ November if I'm right. And we do have

1:20:06 ↗ one scheduled for uh December 2nd, but

1:20:08 ↗ nothing's on the agenda for that meeting

1:20:10 ↗ yet. So stay tuned on that. And there

1:20:14 ↗ being no further business for the

1:20:16 ↗ committee, we are adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF