City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, July 7, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Special Meeting, May 19, 2026

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-19-26 City Council Planning, Development & Page (01) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. May 19, 2026 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee Regular Meeting, June 2, 2026

packet pp.7–8

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 29, 2026

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 06-02-26 City Council Planning, Development & Page (01) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. June 2, 2026 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Issaquah Climate Action Plan Review COM 0288

15 min · Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.9–80

Topics: Climate

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Jun 10, 2026

▶ Watch from 2:42 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Over the last 14 months, staff have worked with committees, Council, Boards, Commissions and the community to update the Issaquah Climate Action Plan (ICAP). During this time, staff met with the Planning, Development and Environment Committee (February, March) and the Committee of the Whole (May, June) to present draft content and receive feedback. The Committee of the Whole provided written and verbal comments at the June 8 meeting that staff worked to incorporate into the ICAP. The final draft plan with proposed changes is included as

Self-Certification Program for Detached Accessory Dwelling COM 0291

30 min · James Gray, Building Official · packet pp.81–98

Topics: Housing

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 31, 2026

▶ Watch from 4:34 Open packet at p.81 ↗

Staff report:

Advance the proposed ordinance to allow self-certification of DADU structures to the City Council for consideration and adoption.

1318 segments .txt ↗

1:12 ↗ Arony, we will look for the light,

1:17 ↗ which is different from looking at the

1:19 ↗ light. Anyway, uh, welcome everyone. I,

1:23 ↗ Council Member Walsh, call the July 7th,

1:27 ↗ 2026 City Council Planning, Development,

1:29 ↗ and Environment Committee to order. All

1:32 ↗ members are present. I am joined by

1:35 ↗ Deputy Council President Jiang and

1:37 ↗ Council Member Nichols. Um, as a

1:39 ↗ reminder, we continue to have a remote

1:41 ↗ aspect to our meeting, so members of the

1:44 ↗ public and staff may be participating in

1:46 ↗ tonight's meeting remotely via WebEx.

1:49 ↗ There's no one in person here. Checking

1:53 ↗ in with the clerk, see if there's

1:54 ↗ anybody online. Okay. Well, then anybody

1:58 ↗ can email us. Um, get all seven of us by

2:01 ↗ emailing city councsilis isquawa.gov.

2:05 ↗ Um, next item on our agenda would be

2:07 ↗ public comment, but there's nobody here,

2:10 ↗ so I'm going to skip that one. Um,

2:14 ↗ and then

2:16 ↗ let's see, we've got approval of

2:19 ↗ minutes. So, we've got two sets of

2:21 ↗ minutes which I am fine to approve

2:24 ↗ together as one. They are from the

2:26 ↗ meeting of May 19th and June 2nd. Um,

2:31 ↗ are there any corrections?

2:35 ↗ Okay, that was not you pulling that over

2:36 ↗ to make a correction. Got it. Hearing

2:38 ↗ none, the minutes are approved as

2:40 ↗ presented.

2:42 ↗ And so we've got two agenda items. COM

2:44 ↗ 0288 is climate action plan review and

2:48 ↗ COM 0291 self-certification program for

2:52 ↗ detached accessory dwelling units. We

2:55 ↗ will start with the IAP is climate

2:58 ↗ action plan presented by Stacy Vin

3:00 ↗ McKinstry our sustainability manager and

3:03 ↗ David Rei our sustainability

3:05 ↗ coordinator. Thank you.

3:08 ↗ >> Thank you. Good evening members of the

3:10 ↗ committee. Uh this evening we're here to

3:12 ↗ present the final draft of the ISOqua

3:14 ↗ climate action plan that incorporates

3:16 ↗ input from the June meeting of the

3:18 ↗ committee of the whole. We're requesting

3:21 ↗ your input on the final draft IAP and

3:24 ↗ direction for approval and adoption by

3:26 ↗ council.

3:28 ↗ As you're aware, we've worked for over a

3:30 ↗ year to update the 2021 climate action

3:33 ↗ plan. And over the last four meetings

3:35 ↗ with PTE and committee of the whole,

3:38 ↗ we've shared background on the 2021 plan

3:41 ↗ development. We've shared the approach

3:43 ↗ and process to update the plan, draft

3:46 ↗ actions, policies, and a full draft

3:48 ↗ narrative. At the June 8th committee of

3:51 ↗ the whole meeting, we received written

3:53 ↗ and verbal feedback from council that

3:55 ↗ we've incorporated into the draft plan.

3:59 ↗ The major changes that we've made since

4:00 ↗ that meeting are as follows. We have

4:03 ↗ included additional language on

4:05 ↗ partnering with utilities in recognition

4:08 ↗ of the challenge to meet the needs of

4:10 ↗ the clean energy transformation.

4:12 ↗ This includes language in the narrative

4:14 ↗ as well as additional language that

4:16 ↗ we've incorporated into proposed actions

4:18 ↗ for energy storage. We have one

4:21 ↗ additional change that we made yesterday

4:23 ↗ that was not included in the packet and

4:25 ↗ this is per communication with PSSE.

4:28 ↗ We've corrected the language about the

4:30 ↗ Transalta coal plant. Uh while the coal

4:32 ↗ plant remains open per the federal

4:34 ↗ mandate, no coal has been burned since

4:37 ↗ December and PSSE is no longer

4:39 ↗ purchasing coal. Uh that was on page 18

4:41 ↗ of the plan. That change will be

4:44 ↗ included in the final draft presented to

4:46 ↗ council. We incorporated an additional

4:49 ↗ reporting measure for heat pump

4:50 ↗ installations that captures

4:52 ↗ communitywide installs supplementing the

4:54 ↗ other measures for those installed

4:56 ↗ directly through our programs.

4:59 ↗ We revised the target for community

5:01 ↗ resilience and well-being for personal

5:03 ↗ preparedness. We've changed this from

5:05 ↗ 100% to 85%.

5:08 ↗ This aligns with our target that

5:10 ↗ captures satisfaction of the city's

5:12 ↗ preparedness, recognizing that there's

5:14 ↗ some members of our community that just

5:16 ↗ may never feel prepared. There are also

5:19 ↗ additional minor corrections uh that

5:21 ↗ we've made throughout the plan that were

5:23 ↗ presented in your packet and track

5:25 ↗ changes.

5:27 ↗ On June 10th, the environmental board

5:29 ↗ voted to approve the final draft plan

5:31 ↗ and provide a a letter of recommendation

5:33 ↗ for ICAP approval to council. That

5:36 ↗ letter will be shared later this month

5:37 ↗ with the full council.

5:40 ↗ We appreciate all the time and feedback

5:42 ↗ that council has provided on the draft

5:44 ↗ IAP. We believe that this plan update

5:47 ↗ provides a roadmap for the next 10 years

5:49 ↗ that will support progress towards our

5:51 ↗ climate mitigation and resilience

5:53 ↗ targets while also improving the quality

5:55 ↗ of life for the Isiqua community.

5:58 ↗ Tonight, we're welcoming any additional

6:00 ↗ feedback from council on the draft plan

6:02 ↗ and that feedback will help inform our

6:04 ↗ budget requests and our two-year work

6:06 ↗ plan for 2027 and 2028.

6:10 ↗ Tonight, we're also seeking your

6:11 ↗ direction on how to proceed with council

6:13 ↗ approval and adoption of the plan. We

6:16 ↗ have put forward a couple of options

6:18 ↗ before you. The first is that staff will

6:21 ↗ incorporate any input that you have

6:23 ↗ tonight and bring that to the July 20th

6:26 ↗ council meeting either on the consent

6:28 ↗ agenda or regular agenda. And the other

6:31 ↗ option is um to follow your direction uh

6:35 ↗ as provided by the committee tonight.

6:37 ↗ So, thank you again for all your support

6:39 ↗ and input on the plan. Uh we're open uh

6:42 ↗ to discussion and any additional

6:44 ↗ feedback that you have on revisions for

6:46 ↗ the plan.

6:48 ↗ >> Thank you. Starting with any questions?

6:52 ↗ None. This is we've touched this a few

6:54 ↗ times, so I'm not too surprised at that.

6:57 ↗ Uh checking in with the clerk. See,

6:59 ↗ there's nobody online still.

7:02 ↗ >> No, chair.

7:02 ↗ >> Okay, then I don't need to ask for

7:04 ↗ public comment in that way. Um any

7:07 ↗ feedback from the committee?

7:12 ↗ Okay, go ahead.

7:15 ↗ >> Um yeah, thank you so much Stacy and

7:17 ↗ David for all your work on this. I know

7:19 ↗ it's been a very long and arduous

7:20 ↗ process to get here. Um and I just want

7:23 ↗ to say I could not be happier with how

7:25 ↗ this has turned out. you know, you've

7:26 ↗ taken into account a lot of feedback

7:28 ↗ both from, you know, this committee,

7:29 ↗ from the full council, from the

7:31 ↗ community, and I think this will serve

7:32 ↗ as a really great document to guide us

7:34 ↗ forward as we, you know, move from the

7:38 ↗ paper pushing and, you know, planning

7:41 ↗ aspect of this to the actual

7:42 ↗ implementation of getting more, you

7:45 ↗ know, electric vehicles, electric bikes,

7:48 ↗ um, heat pumps and all sorts of things

7:51 ↗ like that out in the community so that

7:52 ↗ we can, you know, make the progress on

7:54 ↗ our climate that the world needs and

7:57 ↗ that our community uh wants to do. Um

8:00 ↗ and so I'm really excited to uh I I

8:04 ↗ guess I I wanted to say I'm excited to

8:06 ↗ be voting yes, but we're not technically

8:08 ↗ voting on this today. Um but I think

8:11 ↗ it's uh I'm looking forward to having

8:14 ↗ our vote on this on July 20th. And as

8:17 ↗ for your question on you know consent

8:19 ↗ versus regular business I think since

8:21 ↗ it's largely the same you know just with

8:23 ↗ some minor edits as when we had touched

8:26 ↗ it previously in committee the whole I

8:27 ↗ think personally I'm fine having it on

8:29 ↗ consent.

8:32 ↗ >> Great. Any comments? Go ahead.

8:34 ↗ >> Sure. Uh very briefly. Yeah thank you

8:36 ↗ very much. I think this is great. I

8:38 ↗ think you've uh accurately taken in all

8:39 ↗ of the comments that you've gotten um

8:41 ↗ from many many many different

8:42 ↗ stakeholders. So thank you for that and

8:44 ↗ thanks for all the good work. And uh I'm

8:46 ↗ also good with this on consent if that's

8:47 ↗ the uh preferred approach.

8:50 ↗ >> Thank you. And just confirming there

8:53 ↗ wasn't anything in the planned

8:55 ↗ environmental committees um or

8:58 ↗ commission's uh letter that is seeking

9:02 ↗ any changes or anything like that?

9:04 ↗ >> No, that's correct. It's mostly

9:06 ↗ summarizing the process and the

9:07 ↗ recommendations going forward.

9:08 ↗ >> Fantastic. Yeah, because they would be

9:10 ↗ the last stakeholder that I would be

9:12 ↗ looking for sign off on that. Um I agree

9:15 ↗ with uh my fellow council members that

9:17 ↗ this has done a great job of hearing the

9:19 ↗ perspectives from um all of the

9:22 ↗ stakeholders taking that in making

9:24 ↗ adjustments. Um it was supposed to be a

9:26 ↗ quick process. It has taken longer

9:29 ↗ because the environment is very

9:30 ↗ important to our community and so I

9:32 ↗ appreciate the effort that's gone into

9:34 ↗ that and the results that we are now

9:37 ↗ going to see as we implement this. So I

9:39 ↗ am also fine with uh putting this on

9:41 ↗ consent. I think we've done a good job

9:43 ↗ of highlighting this to the community as

9:45 ↗ as it has gone through several different

9:47 ↗ stages and so I'm comfortable with that

9:50 ↗ and supporting moving it forward.

9:53 ↗ >> Great. Do you have need anything else

9:54 ↗ from us?

9:56 ↗ >> No. Thank you so much.

9:58 ↗ >> Fantastic. Thank you. Okay. After that

10:02 ↗ quick item um which does not say that it

10:06 ↗ is not important to us because we have

10:07 ↗ seen that many many times. Um we are

10:11 ↗ going to move on to COM 0291

10:14 ↗ which is selfcertification program for

10:17 ↗ detached accessory dwelling units or

10:19 ↗ DADUs

10:21 ↗ presented by Mini Dollywal our director

10:24 ↗ of community planning development. Um

10:27 ↗ and as you get everything set up there,

10:30 ↗ just saying that we are excited to take

10:32 ↗ this next step um for the promoting

10:36 ↗ building investments in Isiqua and

10:40 ↗ looking forward to a presentation on

10:42 ↗ this.

10:44 ↗ >> Good evening um council members. Let me

10:47 ↗ see. I have way too many tabs open, so

10:50 ↗ hopefully it'll launch me into the right

10:53 ↗ one.

10:54 ↗ Um

11:10 ↗ okay. Um so I'm covering for James Gray,

11:13 ↗ our building official tonight. Um I will

11:17 ↗ try and walk this through

11:20 ↗ slideshow

11:22 ↗ from beginning.

11:28 ↗ All right. Um so this is one of the 17

11:31 ↗ items that council approved for our work

11:34 ↗ plan um tied to the promoting building

11:37 ↗ investment um in Isiqua. Um, and all of

11:42 ↗ this came from, you know, it started

11:43 ↗ with the January retreat where council

11:46 ↗ came up with your wish list and detached

11:49 ↗ accessory dwelling units, short form

11:51 ↗ daddos were on that list um to achieve

11:54 ↗ the goal. We originally came to this

11:57 ↗ committee um were exploring a couple of

11:59 ↗ options. One was to um come up with uh

12:03 ↗ pre-approved plans versus

12:04 ↗ self-certification. got feedback that we

12:06 ↗ should probably pursue

12:07 ↗ self-certification because of low usage

12:09 ↗ of the other program by our um

12:12 ↗ neighboring um cities. Um so that's

12:16 ↗ what's in front of you today um to uh

12:19 ↗ for us to start accepting

12:21 ↗ self-certification of these detached

12:24 ↗ ADUs um which is allowed by House Bill

12:27 ↗ 1353.

12:28 ↗ Um the direction we're seeking from you

12:32 ↗ is if you have any feedback on the

12:34 ↗ proposed ordinance and if you recommend

12:37 ↗ advancing this to council should it go

12:39 ↗ on consent or regular business. Um I

12:42 ↗ think I kind of went over this uh real

12:45 ↗ quickly but the council retreat then the

12:48 ↗ May 2026 PTE committee discussed those

12:51 ↗ two strategies pre-approved versus

12:54 ↗ self-certification.

12:56 ↗ Um and then um this house bill which

12:59 ↗ allows gives us the uh the authority to

13:03 ↗ not do um to accept a certification if

13:06 ↗ stamped by a registered architect. Um

13:09 ↗ you had also expressed an interest in

13:11 ↗ knowing what are some other barriers um

13:13 ↗ to um you know having more ADUs built in

13:18 ↗ our community. In the memo we sort of

13:20 ↗ outlined uh top five things that we

13:22 ↗ think are uh part of it. Uh one of the

13:25 ↗ biggest things uh is the utility

13:27 ↗ connection um fees and the complexity of

13:31 ↗ sometimes figuring out shared meters

13:34 ↗ upsizing. There are choices here uh but

13:37 ↗ a lot of times uh it's driven by how

13:39 ↗ many fixtures you have and once you trip

13:41 ↗ the fixture count uh you're looking at a

13:44 ↗ separate meter and separate connection

13:46 ↗ charges. Uh in addition, King County

13:48 ↗ sewer capacity charge. We provided a

13:50 ↗ link for you which can be uh you know

13:53 ↗ amvertised over 15 years. So it's um um

13:57 ↗ smaller payment uh and your monthly

13:59 ↗ charge that you pay, but it but

14:02 ↗ cumulatively it is a larger amount. Um,

14:05 ↗ and so what's in front of you, I mean,

14:08 ↗ the council's gone through the utility

14:09 ↗ connection charges, the rate studies and

14:11 ↗ all of that, but I think there was a

14:13 ↗ desire to to see that uh how it looks

14:16 ↗ for ADUs. So that's why we added that

14:18 ↗ information or on the slide. Um, but

14:21 ↗ that's not in front of you today. Today,

14:23 ↗ we're just asking for you to um review

14:27 ↗ this ordinance, give us feedback on the

14:29 ↗ ordinance, and then um to allow

14:31 ↗ self-certification.

14:33 ↗ um

14:35 ↗ or if you want an alternate direction

14:38 ↗ retaining current code or doing the

14:40 ↗ self-certification. I should also note

14:42 ↗ that you received via email uh from

14:46 ↗ master builder association. They're glad

14:48 ↗ that ISU is considering um the

14:51 ↗ self-certification. Uh when we asked

14:53 ↗ around there are not very many cities

14:55 ↗ that have done this. Um and partly there

14:58 ↗ is an administrative burden um you know

15:01 ↗ to to kind of do this audit to maintain

15:03 ↗ these lists and other things but also um

15:07 ↗ um you know nobody's taken the list the

15:11 ↗ the action because it's so new. Um so

15:13 ↗ we're sort of leading this effort in

15:16 ↗ Isukqua. Um our administration

15:19 ↗ recommends advancing this uh to city

15:21 ↗ council for consideration. Um, and we

15:24 ↗ believe it will meet the minimum

15:26 ↗ requirements and still allow for all the

15:29 ↗ site development and utility review in a

15:31 ↗ more um speedier way.

15:34 ↗ So, if you um want to give us feedback,

15:38 ↗ we can bring this and and agree to pass

15:40 ↗ it on to city council. We can put it on

15:42 ↗ July 20th council agenda. I think that's

15:46 ↗ pretty much it. It's a short short

15:49 ↗ topic.

15:50 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Um questions starting

15:53 ↗ with council member Nichols.

15:55 ↗ >> So uh followup question to my uh email

15:57 ↗ question earlier on um the uh lot the

16:01 ↗ the size limits. So the just in summary

16:03 ↗ so I was asking uh what's driving the

16:05 ↗ the 1000 square foot uh max how can I

16:09 ↗ put this the 1000 square foot size

16:12 ↗ that's in this ordinance as proposed. Um

16:15 ↗ just to restate what I I believe you

16:17 ↗ said just to make sure I understand it

16:18 ↗ and you can correct me. Um the that's

16:21 ↗ based on the title 18 amendments that

16:23 ↗ were con that were uh discussed as as a

16:26 ↗ a part of the middle housing up updates.

16:29 ↗ Is that basically correct?

16:30 ↗ >> That is correct. So the city went

16:32 ↗ through uh the implementation of um ADUs

16:37 ↗ which was House Bill 1337 and House Bill

16:40 ↗ 1110. Um that was a year-long process

16:43 ↗ with a lot of community conversation. Uh

16:45 ↗ and we the the city adopted uh the

16:48 ↗ rules. There was discussion around

16:51 ↗ what's the right size for ADU. Um, and

16:54 ↗ like I said in my email, some of the

16:56 ↗ considerations why council landed on a

16:58 ↗ thousand square foot were, you know, we

17:00 ↗ looked at floor plans of how much, you

17:02 ↗ know, can you build a two-bedroom unit?

17:04 ↗ Uh, what does an apartment look like

17:06 ↗ that is,000 square ft? And they felt

17:09 ↗ like that give gave a plenty of

17:10 ↗ flexibility for a for that type of a

17:13 ↗ dwelling unit. Um and also because the

17:16 ↗ the co you know we we do allow two ADUs

17:20 ↗ on a lot uh they felt like there was a

17:22 ↗ competition between the primary house

17:23 ↗ and these units. The thousand uh seemed

17:26 ↗ okay. We looked at what people had

17:28 ↗ applied in the years past that was also

17:31 ↗ you know uh not more than that. There

17:33 ↗ was some testimony um from one

17:36 ↗ individual desiring about 1,200 square f

17:38 ↗ feet from what I recall at the time. Um

17:42 ↗ but in the end after a thoughtful debate

17:44 ↗ and discussion um the city landed on

17:46 ↗ thousand square feet.

17:48 ↗ >> Okay.

17:52 ↗ And then I I guess a follow up to that

17:54 ↗ um if we were

17:56 ↗ hypothetically if we were to amend any

17:58 ↗ of this ordinance as is to increase or

18:00 ↗ decrease that would title 18 still take

18:03 ↗ precedence as far as what somebody could

18:06 ↗ how if like let's say they conflicted

18:08 ↗ what would happen?

18:09 ↗ >> Yeah. when it conflicts then just

18:11 ↗ general language and I think IMC the

18:13 ↗ more restrictive applies um but um title

18:18 ↗ 18 has to go through a process for

18:19 ↗ amendment which includes PPC

18:21 ↗ recommendation that's just state law so

18:23 ↗ planning and policy commission has to

18:25 ↗ make a recommendation on land use

18:26 ↗ regulations because this is in title 16

18:29 ↗ so we put it on a speedier path to just

18:32 ↗ uh come come to you directly with this

18:34 ↗ amendment so if if if we were to add

18:38 ↗ more square footage to this one. There's

18:41 ↗ still title 18 would apply. Nobody could

18:43 ↗ build more than thousand square.

18:45 ↗ >> Okay, got it. Thank you.

18:48 ↗ >> Questions? Go ahead. Um, yeah, quick

18:51 ↗ question. Um, I guess one thing I would

18:54 ↗ like to see from this change is, you

18:56 ↗ know, some data on like did this

18:58 ↗ actually move the needle in terms of ADU

18:59 ↗ construction? Did it speed up permitting

19:01 ↗ timelines? Things like that. Is that

19:03 ↗ something that like would you be able to

19:05 ↗ provide data on this, you know, at some

19:07 ↗ point later this year?

19:08 ↗ >> Sure. Um you know when we did the code

19:10 ↗ amendments for ADU council also asked us

19:12 ↗ to keep track of ADUs uh primarily for

19:16 ↗ like impact fee waiverss like how much

19:18 ↗ are we losing from that um also frontage

19:22 ↗ improvements are not required um there's

19:25 ↗ no parking requirement here so uh all of

19:28 ↗ those I think um and there's not like a

19:31 ↗ big amount of um units obviously we want

19:33 ↗ to see more of this go in but uh it'll

19:36 ↗ happen over a longer period of time um

19:40 ↗ but we are required to collect data for

19:42 ↗ housing for a variety of forums. So yes

19:45 ↗ we will be you know and especially for

19:48 ↗ this one we have to send a report to

19:50 ↗ department of commerce if we adopt this.

19:53 ↗ So yes we will collect data we can share

19:55 ↗ all that information.

19:56 ↗ >> Awesome. Thank you. Um, and then on the

19:59 ↗ slide about the water connection fee.

20:01 ↗ So, is potentially

20:05 ↗ revisiting what these connection fees

20:08 ↗ look like something that we might do? I

20:10 ↗ mean, I guess it seems like the main

20:13 ↗ issue is that if you have to do an

20:15 ↗ upsizing of the uh meter or what have

20:19 ↗ you, that's when the really high amounts

20:21 ↗ would kick in.

20:23 ↗ Um so you know we we just adopted those

20:27 ↗ um things and then the guidance from

20:30 ↗ department of commerce was folded in by

20:32 ↗ the consultant during that that study. A

20:34 ↗ lot of some of these costs are actually

20:36 ↗ passed through Cascade Water Alliance

20:38 ↗ gets the um RGFC's so it isn't all

20:43 ↗ staying with the city so there's limited

20:45 ↗ ability to kind of pass through. Um the

20:48 ↗ fire stuff also catches sometimes people

20:50 ↗ by surprise because they require

20:53 ↗ sprinklers if there is low pressure for

20:56 ↗ instance or there's not you know it's an

20:58 ↗ and that has come up in the um South

21:02 ↗ Cove uh neighborhood uh as well um and

21:07 ↗ so it

21:09 ↗ in terms of council taking action to

21:11 ↗ reduce the fees um it's not on the work

21:14 ↗ plan at this point is my understanding

21:16 ↗ but the this was handled

21:18 ↗ uh recently um I believe last year is

21:21 ↗ when council adopted the rates.

21:24 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

21:26 ↗ >> So to follow up on that, a lot of the

21:29 ↗ charges on those water connection fees

21:31 ↗ are GFC's that we collect but pass

21:35 ↗ through.

21:36 ↗ >> Rional uh connection charges are passed

21:38 ↗ through. So

21:40 ↗ >> So are they the ones on that slide that

21:42 ↗ say RCFC?

21:44 ↗ >> Yes.

21:45 ↗ >> Okay. So the city is still on like

21:49 ↗ scenario 2B. The city is still connect

21:52 ↗ collecting $21,000

21:54 ↗ because

21:56 ↗ someone needed to upsize to a 1 in.

22:00 ↗ >> Correct.

22:01 ↗ >> And so that's the cost to the city. So

22:03 ↗ you actually have to go do a meter

22:05 ↗ setter, you have to put a new meter and

22:08 ↗ then also all of that. So that was

22:10 ↗ funded through the study and the how

22:12 ↗ much does it cost the city and how much

22:14 ↗ do we collect from it?

22:15 ↗ >> Okay. And what what leads the

22:19 ↗ requirement to move up to a 1 in driven

22:24 ↗ by fixture count? I if somebody is

22:26 ↗ willing to have, you know, say that

22:30 ↗ they, you know, you can't have all

22:32 ↗ fixtures on at a time in a house um or

22:36 ↗ multiple showers running would

22:39 ↗ >> Yeah, this comes from the plumbing code

22:42 ↗ um as well. So, it isn't meant to be

22:44 ↗ whether they're on at the same time.

22:46 ↗ There there's a whole analysis that

22:48 ↗ establishes the the threshold.

22:52 ↗ >> Um,

22:53 ↗ >> but do we have control?

22:54 ↗ >> That's not unique to Isiqua. That's sort

22:56 ↗ of pretty much anywhere.

22:58 ↗ >> Yeah. But do we have control over

23:01 ↗ whether we're saying that somebody needs

23:03 ↗ to upsize to a 1 inch versus a 3/4 inch?

23:07 ↗ >> Uh, not really. If the fixture count is

23:10 ↗ the thing that triggers it, we have the

23:12 ↗ thing about um from one in if it's a

23:16 ↗ sometimes that you know like 2A

23:18 ↗ sometimes the fire sprinkler trips it.

23:21 ↗ The incentive there is that we don't

23:22 ↗ charge them

23:24 ↗ >> um one of the fees so you get a little

23:28 ↗ bit of a break. So that's a policy

23:29 ↗ choice that the council made during the

23:32 ↗ the code update but that was in the in

23:34 ↗ place before as well. I'm just trying to

23:36 ↗ determine who who says legally if you

23:40 ↗ have a certain number of fixtures you

23:42 ↗ have to have a 1 in

23:44 ↗ >> meter. It comes from the uniform

23:46 ↗ plumbing code. So that is established

23:50 ↗ through

23:52 ↗ years of study and every city has

23:54 ↗ >> so because we've adopted the uniform

23:56 ↗ plumbing code we have to follow that.

23:59 ↗ Correct.

24:00 ↗ >> And it won't work. So your water

24:02 ↗ pressure won't work. So, so there are a

24:05 ↗ few things that it gets complex quickly.

24:08 ↗ So, it's the number of fixture counts.

24:10 ↗ It's also how far from the meter is your

24:12 ↗ farthest fixture. There are a few other

24:15 ↗ levers that then established

24:17 ↗ >> at what point you got to upgrade it.

24:21 ↗ >> Okay.

24:21 ↗ >> Yeah. And then I think sometimes people

24:23 ↗ want a separate meter anyways because

24:25 ↗ they're trying to either do a sale or

24:28 ↗ try to create a condo. Um,

24:31 ↗ okay.

24:32 ↗ >> We're trying to at least share this

24:33 ↗ information with people up front so they

24:35 ↗ know and they're not surprised when they

24:37 ↗ get the bill.

24:39 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. Um, you mentioned that the

24:42 ↗ county amortizes or allows people to

24:44 ↗ amortize the connection cost. Is that

24:47 ↗ something that we could ever consider?

24:50 ↗ >> You know, it's a good question. I don't

24:52 ↗ know if that came up during the rate

24:54 ↗ studies. Yeah.

24:55 ↗ >> Yeah. We'll have to coordinate with

24:56 ↗ public works because this is going into

24:58 ↗ a separate fund that funds the

25:01 ↗ infrastructure investments in. just a

25:04 ↗ question of, you know, if if somebody is

25:07 ↗ much like a mortgage, people don't

25:10 ↗ >> pay for the entire build um cost most of

25:14 ↗ the time. They get a mortgage for a new

25:18 ↗ DADU. And so any of those ideas,

25:20 ↗ >> most cities though, I think do collect

25:22 ↗ that issuance because it's it's an

25:25 ↗ administrative, you know, hassle. Sure.

25:27 ↗ Then people don't pay their bill, then

25:28 ↗ it goes to collection, then how do we

25:30 ↗ collect that? I mean, kind of gets

25:32 ↗ >> complicated. Still a policy choice, but

25:33 ↗ yes. Okay. So, um, my questions for

25:38 ↗ this, can you walk us through what the

25:41 ↗ process would be for a homeowner or

25:44 ↗ builder? Um,

25:47 ↗ I I I get the idea that there's going to

25:52 ↗ be a an architect who's going to present

25:57 ↗ a plan and self-certify and sign off on

26:00 ↗ that. I still I don't understand

26:06 ↗ quite

26:08 ↗ what they then wouldn't have to do with

26:11 ↗ the city and what things they still

26:14 ↗ would have to do.

26:15 ↗ >> Sure. Sure. No. Um I think we'll um the

26:19 ↗ first time we implement it, we'll

26:20 ↗ obviously learn and tweak as we go uh to

26:24 ↗ the with the idea that we streamline it

26:25 ↗ to the extent to the maximum extent we

26:28 ↗ can. Um the way you know this bill is

26:31 ↗ written and the way it makes legal sense

26:33 ↗ is the waiver is from architectural life

26:37 ↗ safety requirements. So the building

26:39 ↗ review looks at whether you have

26:41 ↗ appropriate size windows, you have a

26:43 ↗ handrail, nobody's going to trip and

26:45 ↗ fall. Structurally it's sound. It's not

26:47 ↗ going to, you know, the roof can

26:49 ↗ withstand the snow loads, what not,

26:50 ↗ right? That level of review will not

26:53 ↗ occur at the city level. um we will

26:57 ↗ depending on where they locate this. If

26:59 ↗ they're putting it on a cliff and you

27:00 ↗ have a slope, we still would need to get

27:03 ↗ a soils report to make sure that the

27:05 ↗ foundation design, you know, that that

27:07 ↗ it the soils aren't liquefaction and

27:10 ↗ it's going to slide down the hillside or

27:11 ↗ anything like that. So, so in those

27:14 ↗ cases, if it's close to a steep slope,

27:16 ↗ we would be looking at a geotechnical

27:19 ↗ analysis. Um then uh if you

27:25 ↗ the connection to the utilities where is

27:27 ↗ your water line where's your sewer line

27:28 ↗ how are you connecting are you doing you

27:31 ↗ know a connection that will still be the

27:34 ↗ case. So in essence you we would be

27:36 ↗ looking at mostly their site plan

27:39 ↗ but most of their architectural plans

27:41 ↗ and things like that would be stamped by

27:43 ↗ the architect and we would u not spend

27:46 ↗ as much time you know we won't we won't

27:48 ↗ be doing that review there waving the

27:50 ↗ right uh we would then ask for a

27:52 ↗ self-certification

27:54 ↗ form that holds the city uh harmless. So

27:57 ↗ that's part of this bill and so we would

27:59 ↗ have some sort of a hold harmless which

28:01 ↗ is a pretty standard thing for other

28:03 ↗ building permits too. So there's some

28:04 ↗ additional little bit of paperwork we

28:06 ↗ would give them early on that if you

28:08 ↗ want to choose this path then submit

28:10 ↗ this signed form uh as part of your

28:12 ↗ file. Um

28:15 ↗ okay so somebody would still need to

28:22 ↗ get a permit. They would still need to

28:24 ↗ notify the city that they're going to be

28:26 ↗ building. We would still do building

28:28 ↗ inspections,

28:30 ↗ >> all of those things, and there would be

28:33 ↗ a, you know, certificate of occupancy

28:35 ↗ and all of those pieces would still

28:38 ↗ happen as expected.

28:39 ↗ >> We generally don't do certificate of

28:41 ↗ occupancies on small residential

28:43 ↗ buildings like that. It's usually

28:44 ↗ passing this final inspection.

28:47 ↗ >> Uh the law didn't really wave the

28:49 ↗ inspection piece and that's usually not

28:51 ↗ a burdensome thing. I think most people

28:53 ↗ just want to make sure another, you

28:54 ↗ know, thing is handled well. And so

28:57 ↗ that'll probably fall under audit

28:59 ↗ provision. So if anything comes up

29:01 ↗ during inspection is we would keep track

29:03 ↗ of that.

29:05 ↗ >> Okay. And so you've mentioned um there's

29:08 ↗ a burden for the city and in your email

29:12 ↗ responding to council member Nichols

29:13 ↗ questions, you mentioned, you know,

29:17 ↗ there are things that are going to have

29:18 ↗ to happen in order to implement this.

29:20 ↗ You're going to need to create a system

29:22 ↗ for audits. You're going to need to

29:23 ↗ track um what those look like. You're

29:25 ↗ going to need to update our permit

29:26 ↗ applications. You're going to need to

29:28 ↗ figure out what the penalties are and

29:30 ↗ how to do all of that.

29:33 ↗ If council adopts this on July 20th and

29:37 ↗ it goes into effect 5 days later, do we

29:40 ↗ feel like we're going to have all of

29:42 ↗ those things in

29:45 ↗ less than 20 days?

29:46 ↗ >> We'll we'll be ready. Um Okay. Yeah. I

29:49 ↗ you know I mean the the penalty pieces

29:52 ↗ probably not um because I think that'll

29:55 ↗ come through the audit piece but if

29:57 ↗ someone is ready to apply we will have

29:59 ↗ the form of self-certification holding

30:01 ↗ us harmless

30:03 ↗ >> and all of that stuff will be in place.

30:06 ↗ >> Okay.

30:07 ↗ >> Yeah. We don't you know in terms of

30:08 ↗ numbers it's not like we see a floodgate

30:11 ↗ of them. So yes it's a burden but it's

30:13 ↗ not really

30:15 ↗ >> if a huge thing. uh you know, we do $4

30:19 ↗ million worth of construction permits. I

30:21 ↗ mean, I what's the percentage of these?

30:23 ↗ Probably not a significant amount of

30:25 ↗ those, right? And so, at the moment, we

30:27 ↗ obviously want to use these tools to

30:29 ↗ encourage and spur that more. Um, but it

30:34 ↗ it's more work, but it's not to a point

30:36 ↗ where it's can't be sustained.

30:40 ↗ >> Yeah.

30:41 ↗ >> Okay. I'm going to ask an off-the-wall,

30:43 ↗ maybe silly question here. Um,

30:48 ↗ could we allow self-certification on

30:52 ↗ single family homes?

30:55 ↗ >> Uh, not the not under the state law.

30:57 ↗ >> Okay. So, it's a state law that allowed

31:00 ↗ this and does not allow any other

31:05 ↗ levels. Okay. Just kind of trying to

31:08 ↗ understand as we look at what the costs

31:11 ↗ are to build. First of all, I want to

31:13 ↗ make sure we're incentivizing the right

31:15 ↗ type of building. And so, um, something

31:18 ↗ like this as an ADU, um, makes sense.

31:22 ↗ But I also want to understand, you know,

31:24 ↗ what portion of the costs and permitting

31:29 ↗ costs are related to, you know, the

31:32 ↗ building inspection versus, you know,

31:35 ↗ delays and other pieces of that. And so

31:37 ↗ if we find something that is working to

31:41 ↗ reduce our permit timelines,

31:44 ↗ then what are our options to expand it?

31:46 ↗ But it sounds like it's state. So yeah.

31:48 ↗ >> Yeah. Excellent. Okay. Other questions?

31:51 ↗ Council member Nichols.

31:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Um I want to dig into the plumbing

31:56 ↗ fix here question a little bit more. Um,

31:59 ↗ I I looked at this a a while ago when I

32:02 ↗ I was speaking to somebody that had

32:03 ↗ spent something like $100,000 on

32:05 ↗ plumbing upgrades for a ADU that they

32:07 ↗ were trying to build on um on Squawk,

32:10 ↗ the on top of Squawk. Um my I'm I'm

32:14 ↗ quickly looked this up and my my look

32:17 ↗ what I saw at the time was that it

32:18 ↗ looked like in addition to the plumbing

32:19 ↗ codes, we had also adopted um some some

32:23 ↗ more modern codes that referred to peak

32:26 ↗ water demand calculations. And so this

32:27 ↗ is getting at the point that not

32:29 ↗ everybody is turning on all of their

32:30 ↗ faucets at all at the same time. Like

32:31 ↗ this is just obvious and there some of

32:33 ↗ this is in building code. Um I don't I

32:36 ↗ don't want to push you on this at the

32:37 ↗ moment because this is kind of this is

32:40 ↗ pretty in the weeds. But uh I I am

32:43 ↗ interested in since you said that this

32:45 ↗ is this table is based on

32:50 ↗ plumbing code and we have adopted

32:52 ↗ plumbing code and I think it's title 16

32:54 ↗ somewhere. Yeah. Um, we also have stuff

32:56 ↗ in title 13 on

33:00 ↗ the right way. Um,

33:03 ↗ anyway, I'm going to get some of the

33:04 ↗ details wrong, but I it would be my my

33:07 ↗ request is um it it it would be useful

33:11 ↗ information to have

33:13 ↗ um details on very very precisely what's

33:18 ↗ driving the upcharge from say $7,000 to

33:22 ↗ $50,000 because I mean that's you know

33:25 ↗ 20% of the cost of some of these ADUs,

33:27 ↗ right? So that's that's a big difference

33:28 ↗ of whether somebody buys it or not. Um I

33:30 ↗ I appreciate that's not on the work plan

33:32 ↗ for the current year, but uh that would

33:34 ↗ it would be useful to understand that to

33:36 ↗ know if that's something that we should

33:37 ↗ potentially revisit in the future to

33:38 ↗ help decrease barriers to ADUs since it

33:42 ↗ is such a big increase in the percentage

33:46 ↗ increase in the cost.

33:47 ↗ >> Yeah. You know, uh we do communicate

33:49 ↗ with Matt Ellis in public works um

33:52 ↗ because he's the utilities engineer.

33:54 ↗ when few things come up like this um

33:57 ↗ especially the one that was like a fire

34:00 ↗ uh sprinkler requirement by the fire

34:02 ↗ department I really wanted to understand

34:04 ↗ what's triggering that because with the

34:06 ↗ scope of the work that they were showing

34:07 ↗ and and you know we we engaged with the

34:10 ↗ fire epher uh in that to understand

34:12 ↗ their perspective on why that was being

34:14 ↗ triggered because that itself was a

34:16 ↗ $50,000 value cost to the homeowner and

34:20 ↗ then the 20 grand for the meter upgrade

34:23 ↗ and Um then Matt reached out to Cascade

34:26 ↗ Water Alliance and and we clarified that

34:29 ↗ RCFC's didn't apply and so Matt is

34:32 ↗ keeping a rolling list of the things

34:34 ↗ that come up and I don't know his

34:35 ↗ timeline of when that'll come in front

34:37 ↗ of council but after the last rate study

34:41 ↗ um there are a few little things that

34:44 ↗ come up that um maybe it's just language

34:46 ↗ clarification, maybe it's more um

34:49 ↗ scenario playing of what happens in this

34:51 ↗ case and that case Um, and you're you're

34:54 ↗ right that those things start with title

34:57 ↗ 12 or 13 because it's based on the water

35:00 ↗ system plan for the whole city and then

35:04 ↗ then they refer to the plumbing code for

35:07 ↗ the fixture count piece. It gets

35:10 ↗ complex. Um, we're actually have a

35:12 ↗ process improvement effort uh going on

35:14 ↗ with uh we asked Dale to help lead that

35:17 ↗ because there was there is the issue of

35:20 ↗ utility billing part of this. There is

35:22 ↗ the water planning and then there's the

35:25 ↗ CPD piece that's uh really getting into

35:28 ↗ the complexity of which fees apply

35:30 ↗ where. Okay.

35:31 ↗ >> Uh and how we do this is so we are

35:34 ↗ working behind the scenes on some of

35:35 ↗ these improvements.

35:36 ↗ >> So that all understood and I I won't

35:38 ↗ push on anymore tonight. It would be

35:40 ↗ nice if we can add that to a parking lot

35:42 ↗ to assess in the future because I I

35:45 ↗ could easily see something like that

35:46 ↗ being a bigger barrier than the

35:49 ↗ permitting change is the word debate.

35:51 ↗ >> Yeah. Then and that was our feedback to

35:53 ↗ the state legislators when they were

35:55 ↗ asking for our feedback on ADUs was you

35:58 ↗ know King County metro sewer capacity

35:59 ↗ charge and those kind of things but

36:01 ↗ they're all tied to money for

36:02 ↗ infrastructure. So maybe the state's

36:05 ↗ help in funding some of that

36:06 ↗ infrastructure is is a good way to to

36:09 ↗ look at this picture.

36:13 ↗ >> Go ahead.

36:14 ↗ >> Yeah. And just on the plumbing code

36:15 ↗ thing, this is definitely not an area

36:17 ↗ where I've done enough deep diving to

36:19 ↗ really be able to speak too much about

36:22 ↗ it. Um but I mean if we're really going

36:24 ↗ off fixture count as the thing that

36:27 ↗ triggers upgrades, I feel like I mean I

36:29 ↗ understand you know if you have more

36:30 ↗ fixtures you need more water, etc. I

36:32 ↗ wonder if this potentially could be an

36:34 ↗ opportunity for us to actually

36:36 ↗ incentivize water efficiency by saying

36:37 ↗ like if you have more fixtures but

36:39 ↗ they're more efficient, maybe you don't

36:41 ↗ need to upgrade your um you know

36:44 ↗ connection. So I mean I don't know if

36:46 ↗ that's even something that's allowed

36:47 ↗ under the uniform plumbing code but

36:48 ↗ something that we should definitely

36:49 ↗ explore cuz $50,000 to connect to water

36:52 ↗ is a lot a lot of money. Yeah. And I

36:56 ↗ think that's what it comes down to is

36:58 ↗ all of us sitting here are not experts

37:00 ↗ on this, but we look at this and say

37:02 ↗ there's got to be a way to make this be,

37:06 ↗ you know, work for people because if you

37:08 ↗ are spending that much more money when

37:12 ↗ you're just putting in a little bit, it

37:13 ↗ it feels wrong. So, yeah. So, um yes,

37:18 ↗ Council Member Nichols,

37:19 ↗ >> one more followup on that. Um, and I I

37:21 ↗ think that's actually worth worth

37:22 ↗ pushing on too because what my

37:24 ↗ recollection of this and I I didn't I

37:25 ↗ was able to find this quickly. So this I

37:27 ↗ I think we actually we we do have some

37:29 ↗ flexibility in my understanding of this

37:32 ↗ from a fixture count and that we also

37:34 ↗ adop there's the a peak water demand

37:35 ↗ calculator that I'm looking at right now

37:37 ↗ in 1640 80. Um so I think we have some

37:43 ↗ flexibility there. We just I'm not sure

37:45 ↗ if it's being applied. So that would be

37:47 ↗ useful to understand as well. We'll

37:48 ↗ >> look at that. Yep.

37:49 ↗ >> Yeah.

37:52 ↗ >> Yeah. And just one other thing in my

37:56 ↗ very brief Googling this um what a PM O

38:01 ↗ I don't know some association of

38:02 ↗ plumbers they basically are like the

38:04 ↗ actual observed peak flow rate for

38:06 ↗ plumbing is something like you know less

38:09 ↗ than half of what the amount that's

38:11 ↗ calculated using the water demand

38:13 ↗ calculator for like 99% of buildings.

38:17 ↗ So, and I think it's they're probably

38:19 ↗ trying to argue to have, you know, lower

38:20 ↗ amount, but definitely all that to say,

38:23 ↗ I think we should explore, you know,

38:25 ↗ what are some ways of right sizing our

38:29 ↗ infrastructure and not doing unnecessary

38:31 ↗ upgrades that cost a lot of money if we

38:33 ↗ can help it.

38:35 ↗ And that gets back to all of the things

38:37 ↗ we're trying to do with the promoting

38:40 ↗ build building investments is try and

38:42 ↗ understand the areas of efficiency and

38:44 ↗ the areas that you know we can reduce

38:47 ↗ the costs. Um and I think it's great

38:50 ↗ that we are taking a look at that. So,

38:52 ↗ um, on this idea of self-certification

38:55 ↗ of DADUs, do we have any feedback or

39:00 ↗ anything that we feel like needs changes

39:04 ↗ before it goes to council?

39:09 ↗ Yes. Yes. That's a good point because we

39:12 ↗ don't have any public. We do have a

39:15 ↗ member of the public online.

39:17 ↗ >> Correct, chair.

39:18 ↗ >> Okay. Then before we go to comments,

39:21 ↗ um giving that person an opportunity to

39:24 ↗ raise their hand or press star three if

39:26 ↗ they are on a phone um or send a message

39:32 ↗ uh to the host if you are looking to

39:35 ↗ make a public comment on this item. We

39:38 ↗ are addressing the self-certification

39:40 ↗ program for detached accessory dwelling

39:43 ↗ units. And so I will give a moment see

39:45 ↗ if we have anybody online. Our one lone

39:48 ↗ caller indicating a desire to make a

39:52 ↗ public comment.

39:58 ↗ >> Chair, I'm not seeing a virtual hand at

40:00 ↗ this time to uh indicating a willingness

40:02 ↗ to speak.

40:03 ↗ >> Okay, fantastic. Well, always welcome to

40:06 ↗ send us an email.

40:07 ↗ >> Yeah, and actually this is uh Matt Hate

40:10 ↗ from Master Builder Association. He did

40:12 ↗ send you an email.

40:13 ↗ >> Okay, fantastic. Yes, we received the

40:16 ↗ emailed letter of support in that way.

40:19 ↗ Okay. So, feedback. Council member

40:20 ↗ Nichols.

40:23 ↗ >> This is more for discussion for the

40:24 ↗ committee. So, I wanted I I'm curious

40:26 ↗ what you guys think about um the square

40:29 ↗ footage limits and if we should push on

40:33 ↗ that. I'm I'm coming at this from the

40:34 ↗ perspective that we should try to get

40:36 ↗ out of the way of blocking these

40:38 ↗ wherever possible. the square footage

40:40 ↗ limit is it it's not a I don't it

40:42 ↗ doesn't look like it's a big deal but

40:44 ↗ looking at what other cities have done I

40:45 ↗ mean there there's lots of cities around

40:47 ↗ us that have limits at 800 square feet

40:49 ↗ so there's nothing above that there's

40:51 ↗ lots of cities that have square footage

40:52 ↗ limits at 1,000 square feet so there's

40:54 ↗ nothing above that looking at some

40:56 ↗ cities that have pushed that higher they

40:59 ↗ don't get much bigger than that they go

41:00 ↗ up to like 1,200 and we have one example

41:02 ↗ it sounds like of somebody that was

41:04 ↗ trying to do that it it feels to me like

41:06 ↗ it's one thing that might encourage a

41:08 ↗ few more it's it's an edge case, but it

41:09 ↗ might encourage a few more ADUs to get

41:12 ↗ built. Um,

41:15 ↗ within the context of this discussion

41:16 ↗ tonight, this doesn't solve that. So, I

41:18 ↗ mean, at most this would be if these are

41:21 ↗ in conflict, it would have to be

41:22 ↗ something that we would consider

41:23 ↗ addressing maybe next year in some title

41:26 ↗ 18 minor updates, something like that.

41:28 ↗ I'm not sure what the best way to

41:29 ↗ approach that would be, but just I I

41:31 ↗ suppose first, just this is a question.

41:33 ↗ Does this seem like something that is

41:35 ↗ worth pushing on a little bit on the

41:37 ↗ square footage max um that applies to

41:40 ↗ both ADUs overall, which would be a

41:42 ↗ separate discussion, but ADUs within the

41:44 ↗ context of this now and as long as we're

41:46 ↗ talking about this now, if we did want

41:47 ↗ to have that discussion about increasing

41:49 ↗ ADU max sizes, let's fix this one first

41:52 ↗ and then come back to it later because

41:54 ↗ the other one still stands for the the

41:55 ↗ time being anyway. Any

41:59 ↗ comments?

42:00 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean I think I'm open to that. I

42:02 ↗ think what you see in some other places,

42:04 ↗ I mean there's kind of this concern

42:05 ↗ about the ADU being bigger than the

42:07 ↗ primary house type of situation. What

42:11 ↗ I've seen in some places like Smamish,

42:13 ↗ they say something that's like an

42:14 ↗ attached ADU can be up to 50% of the

42:16 ↗ size of the single family residence or

42:18 ↗ 1,000 square feet, whichever is larger.

42:20 ↗ And so you could imagine some of these

42:23 ↗ homes in Sam could have very very large

42:25 ↗ ADUs because they're very large to begin

42:27 ↗ with. Um so I think you know offering a

42:29 ↗ bit more flexibility is good. I actually

42:31 ↗ to uh went and looked at this ADU on

42:34 ↗ Andrew Street uh the other week which is

42:37 ↗ a new construction ADU which I think is

42:39 ↗ actually slightly over 1,000 ft. I just

42:42 ↗ looked it up so I'm actually interested

42:43 ↗ to see how they maybe they got a

42:46 ↗ variance or something. I think it's

42:47 ↗ 1080. Um, but it's really nice because

42:50 ↗ it's a three-bedroom house in a very,

42:53 ↗ very compact space. And I think that's

42:56 ↗ really great because, you know, for me

42:57 ↗ as someone who wants to have a family in

43:00 ↗ Isiqua, having more options where you

43:02 ↗ can have multiple kids, I think is

43:05 ↗ really important and great. So you know

43:06 ↗ to the extent that we can enable that by

43:09 ↗ just you know increasing the size of it

43:11 ↗ slightly and you know addressing the

43:13 ↗ concern of what if the AD becomes bigger

43:14 ↗ than the primary house okay then let's

43:16 ↗ limit it to 50% of the size of the

43:17 ↗ primary house so it kind of like scales

43:19 ↗ accordingly. Um that makes a lot of

43:21 ↗ sense to me. Um so yeah I'm definitely

43:25 ↗ interested in exploring you know

43:27 ↗ changing that number.

43:30 ↗ So, I was on the committee and voted to

43:35 ↗ support the thousand square foot limit.

43:38 ↗ And it was quite honestly a tossup

43:42 ↗ because and the only reason it came down

43:44 ↗ to that was we were also talking about,

43:47 ↗ you know, if you build a house and two

43:50 ↗ ADUs on it versus building a triplex,

43:54 ↗ like what the costs of the impact fees

43:57 ↗ would be because the only thing that we

44:00 ↗ were considering at that point was that

44:03 ↗ ADUs had limited impact fees. that was

44:07 ↗ the kind of only real difference um in

44:11 ↗ concept for us. So now hearing that

44:14 ↗ there are potentially other um

44:16 ↗ differences, I would be interested to

44:18 ↗ pursue that, but I would want to do it

44:21 ↗ in context of our overall conversation

44:24 ↗ about impact fees. Um because I think if

44:28 ↗ we are reducing impact fees on all

44:33 ↗ levels of building that to me

44:37 ↗ eliminates one of the concerns about

44:41 ↗ treating ADUs differently because as I

44:45 ↗ said one of the big elements of ADUs is

44:48 ↗ that they aren't charged the impact fees

44:51 ↗ or whatever. So, I would also be

44:54 ↗ interested in looking at that. Um, but I

44:58 ↗ I don't I don't like the idea of

45:01 ↗ updating one area of our code to 1,200

45:04 ↗ and leaving another at a,000. I think I

45:07 ↗ would be more interested in putting that

45:10 ↗ in as part of a conversation on impact

45:13 ↗ fees, understanding what those are, and

45:16 ↗ then going back and doing the title 18

45:18 ↗ and title 16 updates at the same time.

45:21 ↗ Deputy Council President.

45:23 ↗ >> Yeah, I guess I wonder I I feel like

45:25 ↗ whenever you have things in two

45:27 ↗ different parts of the code, then it

45:28 ↗ starts to get messy because you could

45:30 ↗ update one but not the other. So I

45:32 ↗ wonder if in this change we could say,

45:35 ↗ you know, detached ADUs are eligible for

45:37 ↗ self-certification up to the size limit

45:40 ↗ that is in title 18 so that we don't

45:42 ↗ have this confusion if we, you know,

45:44 ↗ choose to update the size limit later.

45:48 ↗ >> Sure, we can do that. I mean there's a

45:50 ↗ balance between if you send people from

45:52 ↗ here to here to go see that then your

45:54 ↗ code becomes a little bit of like you do

45:56 ↗ five clicks to get your answer. So I

45:58 ↗ think there's just but that's not a

46:00 ↗ problem when we could reference the the

46:02 ↗ standard from title 18 here. We

46:04 ↗ generally but each title is it's

46:08 ↗ standalone thing. So you generally you

46:10 ↗ know those kind of references work

46:12 ↗ within each title. How many city clerk

46:14 ↗ would and our codifying people will say

46:17 ↗ you can't just go refer to title three

46:20 ↗ and then you know do here by each title

46:23 ↗ is generally preferred is my

46:24 ↗ understanding but it doesn't change I

46:27 ↗ mean if we if we're going to change it

46:28 ↗ in in the future then we would change it

46:30 ↗ in both places.

46:32 ↗ Yeah, I I like that idea because we're

46:34 ↗ not listing everything out that defines

46:37 ↗ an ADU in this title 16 code. And so I

46:40 ↗ think eliminating the one piece that

46:43 ↗ does feel a little bit odd to be in this

46:47 ↗ area um versus the building code I think

46:50 ↗ makes sense. Council member.

46:51 ↗ >> Yeah, I like it too. as long I um

46:55 ↗ again I mean if assuming it's if there's

46:57 ↗ actually some legal reason not to do it

46:58 ↗ then that's that should overrule but I

47:00 ↗ I'll defer on that. Um the other

47:03 ↗ question for me is just to make sure

47:05 ↗ that we have a mechanism to make sure

47:06 ↗ that we do address this. I don't think

47:08 ↗ this is urgent. Um this like my my look

47:12 ↗ at this is just anytime I see you know

47:17 ↗ round big round numbers I'm skeptical

47:19 ↗ that they are arbitrarily chosen because

47:21 ↗ we have a a digit preference for big

47:22 ↗ round numbers. So I wanted to just

47:24 ↗ question that a little bit. Um and it

47:27 ↗ looking at some other cities it does

47:28 ↗ look like if if there cities that have

47:31 ↗ slightly broad or that have no

47:33 ↗ restrictions on size at all up to fairly

47:35 ↗ large sizes. I I I emailed some data on

47:38 ↗ Portland. I there there's I I dug after

47:40 ↗ that as well. Uh it doesn't get much

47:42 ↗ bigger than like 1,200. That's where

47:44 ↗ things start to max out. But I I I I

47:46 ↗ question whether we might have cut off a

47:48 ↗ little bit too early or a little bit too

47:50 ↗ small and whether it would be worth

47:51 ↗ revisiting that if it would perhaps spur

47:53 ↗ a few more of these to be built. So

47:56 ↗ that's that's that's why I'm pushing a

47:57 ↗ little bit. But it's the the the process

48:00 ↗ is I I appreciate a little bit messy

48:02 ↗ since this is multiple titles

48:03 ↗ interacting with each other. I like the

48:05 ↗ idea if if it's possible of just

48:07 ↗ referencing titles

48:10 ↗ going to title 18 max in this um and

48:14 ↗ then just try asking staff if we can

48:19 ↗ perhaps next year if we do another set

48:20 ↗ of minor title 18 updates to have a

48:23 ↗ discussion on it then um or at some

48:26 ↗ point when it's appropriate just to add

48:27 ↗ it to for a future discussion.

48:30 ↗ >> Yeah, sure. You know, I mean it's not

48:32 ↗ too long ago we did the middle housing.

48:34 ↗ So if we we have to give it a little bit

48:36 ↗ more time to see what kind of demand

48:38 ↗ we're we're hearing from people. So we

48:40 ↗ committed to monitoring, keeping track

48:43 ↗ of, you know, what people want to build,

48:45 ↗ how many actually get built and all of

48:48 ↗ that. So in that conversation as we

48:50 ↗ report back to council of here's the

48:52 ↗ status, we got two more, we got four

48:54 ↗ more or whatever the the number ends up

48:56 ↗ being and what the sizes were. The last

48:58 ↗ time we did this analysis of sizes, you

49:01 ↗ know, thousand was what it was. We there

49:04 ↗ wasn't a big community

49:06 ↗ um you know, request to increase the the

49:09 ↗ the size. Uh and it was new because it

49:12 ↗ was allowing two ADUs. So I think that

49:14 ↗ was part of the factor of um and I think

49:17 ↗ I looked up Seamish. Uh there they have

49:20 ↗ a th00and square feet if it's detached.

49:22 ↗ If it's attached to a home, they go by

49:25 ↗ the size of the home. um or,000 ft

49:28 ↗ whichever is larger. So they they

49:30 ↗ treated those two sizes slightly

49:32 ↗ differently. So there's different ways

49:33 ↗ to do it. Um but I think we didn't hear

49:36 ↗ from the community that there was a need

49:38 ↗ to do to go above thousand square feet.

49:41 ↗ Now if we start hearing more demand for

49:43 ↗ more than thousand, we can speed up that

49:46 ↗ the conversation with council or we keep

49:48 ↗ track of the reporting. we come back to

49:50 ↗ you on some cadence and then

49:52 ↗ >> practically speaking though how would we

49:53 ↗ hear like if if we've got this in code

49:56 ↗ that it's limited to a thousand I I

49:58 ↗ would expect that to be limiting in what

50:00 ↗ people ask because they would just look

50:02 ↗ up the code and not bother to ask

50:03 ↗ >> I think we get requests from from comm

50:06 ↗ if if people want to build bigger they

50:08 ↗ will ask what's the process uh to go

50:11 ↗ larger than that because sometimes we

50:13 ↗ have deviations we have all of those

50:14 ↗ kind of things too.

50:18 ↗ Deputy Council President.

50:19 ↗ >> Um, just as one point of demand from the

50:22 ↗ community for larger ADUs. So, I

50:24 ↗ mentioned, you know, I toured this ADU,

50:26 ↗ which was 1,080 ft, which actually I

50:28 ↗ think if we were in the metric system,

50:30 ↗ that's just about 100 square meters. So

50:34 ↗ maybe that would have been allowed, but

50:36 ↗ this one I mean so they the um builder

50:39 ↗ said they got five tours in 12 hours and

50:43 ↗ they went pending they got five tours in

50:45 ↗ the first 12 hours and the property went

50:47 ↗ pending in 12 hours which I think shows

50:49 ↗ that there's very high demand from the

50:52 ↗ community of people who wish to live in

50:54 ↗ isqua for exactly that type of thing

50:56 ↗ which is an ADU that is slightly larger

50:58 ↗ than 10,000 ft and so I think you know

51:02 ↗ to the extent that we can enable a

51:03 ↗ little more of that. I think it's great.

51:07 ↗ >> Okay, one point of feedback over there.

51:10 ↗ >> All right.

51:11 ↗ >> Um, so the direction needed, you said,

51:13 ↗ does the committee have any feedback on

51:14 ↗ the proposed ordinance allowing

51:16 ↗ self-certification of DADUs? I think we

51:18 ↗ had feedback asking to if it's possible

51:21 ↗ to remove the thousand square foot and

51:23 ↗ then we can potentially revisit that at

51:25 ↗ a title 18 conversation. Um, anything

51:28 ↗ else there? No. Okay. And does the

51:31 ↗ committee recommend advancing this item

51:33 ↗ to the July 20th city council meeting?

51:36 ↗ And if so, placing it on consent or

51:38 ↗ regular business?

51:45 ↗ Um, yeah, I support advancing it to the

51:47 ↗ city council meeting. I'm kind of

51:50 ↗ agnostic on consent versus regular

51:52 ↗ business. So, curious to hear what other

51:53 ↗ folks have to say. Council member,

51:55 ↗ >> I definitely support the ordinance and I

51:58 ↗ support re furthering it to the full

52:00 ↗ council. I I kind of I actually think we

52:03 ↗ if

52:05 ↗ if we have a super PAC meeting, I don't

52:07 ↗ want to push this, but if we don't, I

52:08 ↗ think this is an this is an interesting

52:10 ↗ thing where we're trying to push

52:13 ↗ and go a little bit further than some

52:15 ↗ other uh municipalities are going

52:18 ↗ sooner. And I think it's worth getting

52:20 ↗ the full council to at least understand

52:22 ↗ that. Um,

52:27 ↗ so for that reason, I would support

52:29 ↗ putting it on the regular agenda, but

52:33 ↗ it's not I I'm not super hung up on

52:36 ↗ that. So,

52:39 ↗ >> I think my perspective tends to be

52:42 ↗ nobody watches city council meetings.

52:44 ↗ Their lives are really busy. And so I

52:47 ↗ think this is a great, you know,

52:50 ↗ potential article out there on ways that

52:54 ↗ we are trying to improve um building. Uh

52:58 ↗ but I'm not sure that there is anything

53:01 ↗ necessarily in a presentation that is

53:05 ↗ going to be I mean you saw the

53:06 ↗ presentation today. It was not anything

53:10 ↗ particularly spectacular for meeting

53:13 ↗ format. Yeah, I think it could be a

53:15 ↗ quick presentation, but just getting

53:16 ↗ everybody to acknowledge that this is

53:18 ↗ one thing that we're doing that is going

53:20 ↗ a little bit that we're we're trying to

53:22 ↗ be forward here. That can be the same

53:25 ↗ three sentences that were stated

53:27 ↗ tonight, more or less. Um, but to be

53:29 ↗ explicit about that and to help set the

53:31 ↗ tone for other things that we're trying

53:33 ↗ to do.

53:35 ↗ >> Yeah, I would agree with that. And I

53:36 ↗ think also, you know, presenting the

53:39 ↗ plumbing connection costs as a potential

53:42 ↗ future area, I think is worth having an

53:43 ↗ actual presentation. And, you know, I

53:46 ↗ mean, I did not think we were going to

53:47 ↗ spend 45 minutes today talking about

53:49 ↗ plumbing codes, but here we are.

53:52 ↗ Um, so I do think that that's also worth

53:54 ↗ surfacing as something as an area of

53:56 ↗ future investigation.

54:00 ↗ Okay. I don't have a problem with it

54:03 ↗ being on regular business. Um, director

54:06 ↗ or city administrator Bob Quitz looking

54:09 ↗ at the meeting. I know we've got the

54:12 ↗ ALPR camera use policy.

54:15 ↗ Um, and then we've got a street

54:17 ↗ standards frontage improvements for

54:19 ↗ public utility

54:21 ↗ projects.

54:25 ↗ >> It's up to the committee. You know, I

54:26 ↗ think the the council depends on the

54:28 ↗ committee to deal with the kind of

54:29 ↗ details you're dealing with. And you

54:31 ↗ know certainly I get feedback from other

54:33 ↗ of your colleagues saying you know why

54:35 ↗ are we talking about this at full

54:36 ↗ council isn't that supposed to be talked

54:38 ↗ about at committee. So there's certainly

54:40 ↗ time on this meeting but uh from time to

54:43 ↗ time I do hear from council members

54:44 ↗ asking that question. So whatever that

54:47 ↗ >> and the answer is we're doing really

54:49 ↗ exciting things. And so um I think let's

54:54 ↗ put this on regular business. See how it

54:56 ↗ goes um with all of that and any other

55:01 ↗ comments questions concerns?

55:05 ↗ Okay. Um looking at our meeting, uh any

55:09 ↗ announcements?

55:11 ↗ If not, we are adjourned at 7:24 p.m.

55:15 ↗ Thank you.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.