City Council Special Meeting · Monday, March 9, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Election of Council President and Deputy Council President AB 9168

Conduct Election · 10 min · packet pp.3–4

Topics: Elections

▶ Watch from 2:35 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

On January 5, 2026, the City Council elected Councilmember Barb de Michele as Council President and Councilmember President Marts as Deputy Council President for 2026. On March 2, 2026, Council President de Michele resigned.

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

City Council Vacancy Process, Council Position No. 3 AB 9167

Approve · 20 min · packet pp.5–19

Topics: Boards & Commissions

▶ Watch from 8:54 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Councilmember Barbara de Michele resigned effective March 2, 2026, due to ongoing health issues.

Informational Update: Permit Process Improvements COM 0215

Receive Report · 30 min · packet pp.21–46

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 10:45 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this report and presentation is to provide an update on the ongoing permit process improvements.

Promoting Building Investments in Issaquah Make Recommendation COM 0210

60 min · packet pp.47–87

▶ Watch from 13:31 Open packet at p.47 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration is seeking input regarding the proposed work plan, timeline, prioritization and methods of outreach regarding the 2026-2027 Proposed Planning Work Plan.

5. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Executive Session - Property Acquisition per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) ID 1992

20 min

▶ Watch from 2:37:14

4228 segments .txt ↗

0:41 ↗ Welcome everyone. I call the March 9th

0:43 ↗ special city council meeting to order.

0:48 ↗ There are no excused absences tonight. I

0:50 ↗ know deputy council president Martz is

0:53 ↗ on his way. This meeting was originally

0:54 ↗ scheduled as a committee of the whole

0:56 ↗ meeting with a focus on promoting

0:58 ↗ building investment in Nzqua, but given

0:59 ↗ the resignation of council president

1:01 ↗ Barb Michelle on March 2nd, we have

1:03 ↗ added two items were added to the

1:04 ↗ agenda. This meeting was suggested to be

1:07 ↗ a special city council meeting so the

1:08 ↗ council could take action on them. And

1:11 ↗ we are going to start this evening with

1:15 ↗ public comments. And for those who

1:17 ↗ signed up to an advance, you will be

1:18 ↗ called on first. If you're on virtually,

1:20 ↗ raise your virtual hand. If you're on

1:22 ↗ the phone, hit star three. And if you're

1:24 ↗ in the room, we will go through and just

1:27 ↗ ask people to be respectful in their

1:29 ↗ dialogue. And I will now go

1:34 ↗ to our city clerk, Tisha, to see if

1:37 ↗ anybody has signed up to speak today at

1:39 ↗ public comments.

1:41 ↗ >> All right. I left the signup sheet in

1:44 ↗ the back, so I'm looking to see if

1:45 ↗ anyone in the audience uh would like to

1:47 ↗ make public comments. We do have a few

1:49 ↗ people with us virtually.

1:52 ↗ And if you're with us virtually and

1:53 ↗ would like to make comments, please

1:54 ↗ raise your virtual hand

1:58 ↗ or enter a chat. I'm just

2:02 ↗ >> Okay.

2:03 ↗ >> Okay.

2:04 ↗ >> Keeping my eye out here.

2:06 ↗ >> Not seeing anything. I'm trying to think

2:09 ↗ how we can

2:12 ↗ I mean, I guess we could also just Oh,

2:15 ↗ perfect.

2:16 ↗ >> Yeah. No one online is indicating a

2:19 ↗ desire to speak.

2:21 ↗ Okay, public comments are now

2:25 ↗ going once, going twice,

2:28 ↗ and public comments are now closed. We

2:32 ↗ will now go to the next item, which is

2:35 ↗ special business. Agenda Bill 9168,

2:38 ↗ election of council president and deputy

2:40 ↗ council president. So, the January 5th

2:42 ↗ council meeting, the city council

2:44 ↗ elected council member Barbie. Michelle

2:45 ↗ as council president and council member

2:47 ↗ Tolamarz as the deputy council

2:49 ↗ president. Council member D. Michelle's

2:51 ↗ resignation. The council is being asked

2:52 ↗ to go through the election process.

2:54 ↗ Again, a summary of the leadership

2:55 ↗ responsibilities were provided in

2:57 ↗ tonight's agenda packet. The following

2:59 ↗ process will be used to elect the

3:00 ↗ officers. First, we will call for

3:02 ↗ nominations. When all nominations have

3:03 ↗ been made, we will close nominations and

3:05 ↗ council members will then be provided

3:06 ↗ the opportunity to discuss said

3:09 ↗ nominees. We'll then ask council to cast

3:12 ↗ votes on the nominees in the order they

3:14 ↗ were nominated. Council members may vote

3:16 ↗ for themselves. The first council member

3:17 ↗ receiving the majority of the votes is

3:19 ↗ declared council president. We will then

3:21 ↗ repeat that process to elect a deputy

3:23 ↗ council president. So we'll begin with

3:25 ↗ the nominations

3:27 ↗ for council president. Are there any

3:30 ↗ nominations? Council member Walsh.

3:32 ↗ >> I would like to nominate council member

3:34 ↗ Martz.

3:35 ↗ >> All right. Council member Martz been

3:36 ↗ nominated. Are there any other

3:37 ↗ nominations?

3:39 ↗ Hearing none. The nominations are now

3:41 ↗ closed. Is there any discussion on the

3:44 ↗ nominee? Council member Walsh. Thank

3:46 ↗ you. Yes, I've worked with uh Council

3:48 ↗ Member Marts for many years. I

3:50 ↗ appreciate that this was not the role

3:52 ↗ that he intended to serve on, but um the

3:55 ↗ fact that he is willing to do so and

3:57 ↗ step in is very important. And having

4:00 ↗ served in this role, I can see that he

4:02 ↗ will be a good voice um to help work the

4:05 ↗ council forward for this year.

4:07 ↗ >> All right. Excellent.

4:10 ↗ Not seeing any further discussion, the

4:12 ↗ council will now vote to elect Council

4:14 ↗ Member Tolarts as a 2026 council

4:17 ↗ president. All those in favor, please

4:19 ↗ say I.

4:20 ↗ >> I.

4:23 ↗ >> Those opposed, nay. And that passes

4:27 ↗ unanimously.

4:31 ↗ Congratulations. Uh, Council President

4:34 ↗ Mark said, you have some comments.

4:36 ↗ >> I I would like to just make a quick

4:38 ↗ comment. I I want to thank my fellow

4:40 ↗ council members for uh this vote of

4:42 ↗ confidence. Um this is as uh council

4:46 ↗ member Walsh said not at all the way uh

4:49 ↗ one wants to find oneself in a in a

4:52 ↗ leadership role. Um I had been, as I've

4:55 ↗ said before, I'd been very much looking

4:56 ↗ forward to learning a lot um from

4:58 ↗ Council Member D. Michelle and she has

5:01 ↗ very large shoes to fill. Um so I will

5:04 ↗ work very hard with all of you and with

5:06 ↗ the administration um to advance the

5:09 ↗ issues that are important to the whole

5:10 ↗ council um in addition to uh you know

5:14 ↗ keeping the spirit of uh what Barb was

5:17 ↗ looking to do uh for the council in

5:19 ↗ terms of our commitment to human

5:20 ↗ services and to the institutions in the

5:23 ↗ community that give meaning to people's

5:25 ↗ lives. Um, I'm going to I'm going to

5:27 ↗ work hard to continue to advance that

5:29 ↗ with all of your assistance and with the

5:31 ↗ assistance of the administration. So,

5:33 ↗ thank you.

5:34 ↗ >> Excellent. All right. We're now going to

5:36 ↗ open nominations for deputy council

5:39 ↗ president and council member Nichols.

5:42 ↗ >> I'd like to nominate Council Member

5:43 ↗ Jang.

5:46 ↗ >> Council member Jen has been nominated.

5:47 ↗ Are there any other nominations?

5:50 ↗ Not seeing any, the nominations are now

5:52 ↗ closed. Is there any discussion?

5:55 ↗ Council member Nichols.

5:58 ↗ >> Uh I'll still keep this brief, but I

6:00 ↗ think Council Member Jang will be an

6:01 ↗ excellent addition to council leadership

6:03 ↗ uh and enthusiastically support her. Uh

6:05 ↗ her attention to detail, strategic

6:06 ↗ thinking, and love for our city uh will

6:08 ↗ make her an excellent um addition to the

6:11 ↗ leadership team. Um as with council

6:12 ↗ president Martz, um this is not a

6:14 ↗ situation I'm sure anyone that will be

6:17 ↗ on council leadership wanted to see. Uh

6:18 ↗ but I'm happy to see excellent people

6:20 ↗ step up.

6:22 ↗ >> All right. Excellent. Not seeing any

6:24 ↗ further discussion. Council now vote on

6:26 ↗ whether to elect Council Member Kelly

6:28 ↗ Jang as a 2026 Deputy Council President.

6:30 ↗ All those in favor, please say I.

6:33 ↗ >> I.

6:35 ↗ >> All those opposed, nay. And that passes

6:38 ↗ unanimously. Congratulations, Deputy

6:40 ↗ President Council Member Jen. And do you

6:43 ↗ want to make some comments?

6:45 ↗ >> Um, I want to echo what everyone has

6:48 ↗ said that, you know, this is not really

6:49 ↗ the way that we would have wanted this

6:52 ↗ year to go. And you know, stepping into

6:54 ↗ this leadership position,

6:56 ↗ I feel like like many of us, you know,

7:00 ↗ we want to see um a lot of the care that

7:05 ↗ uh former council member D. Michelle

7:07 ↗ brought to the community. We want to

7:08 ↗ continue that and I will aim to do my

7:09 ↗ best uh in that as our deputy council

7:12 ↗ president for this year. So, thank you

7:13 ↗ all for your support.

7:15 ↗ >> All right. I would now like to take the

7:16 ↗ chance to congratulate uh council

7:18 ↗ president Martz and deputy president Jen

7:20 ↗ on their new roles.

7:26 ↗ Now we have to reshuffle seats. So we

7:28 ↗ will be at ease for seat reshuffleling.

8:43 ↗ Arc, it looks like our seat shuffling is

8:46 ↗ complete. We will wait for your Oh,

8:48 ↗ there's the magic red light. Okay, seat

8:51 ↗ shuffling is complete. We're now back to

8:54 ↗ regular business. Agenda bill 9167 is a

8:56 ↗ city council vacancy process council

8:58 ↗ position number three. I'd like to

9:00 ↗ invite city clerk Tisha Geyser to

9:02 ↗ introduce the item.

9:07 ↗ >> Hi city council. Tisha Geyser. City

9:10 ↗ clerk here

9:12 ↗ with another vacancy process. Something

9:14 ↗ we didn't expect so soon.

9:18 ↗ All right, I'm trying something new

9:20 ↗ tonight. See if I can get my slides to

9:21 ↗ advance. Tested this. That worked

9:24 ↗ beautifully.

9:26 ↗ Ah,

9:26 ↗ >> I know. Who do Who does a city clerk ask

9:29 ↗ for help? Because normally everyone asks

9:30 ↗ the city clerk for help.

9:31 ↗ >> Oh, I know, Molly. Turn it on.

9:37 ↗ Come on. Come on.

9:49 ↗ Uh, so per the city council's rules, um,

9:52 ↗ there are a couple things that you all

9:54 ↗ do before we kind of launch this

9:56 ↗ process. So, you approve the timeline,

9:59 ↗ you review the application,

10:01 ↗ you provide any direction on specific

10:04 ↗ outreach or approach, and then uh we'll

10:07 ↗ quickly talk about the verbal

10:08 ↗ presentations in Q&A session in case

10:10 ↗ you'd like to make any adjustments to

10:12 ↗ either of those steps.

10:16 ↗ All right. So, under state law, the city

10:19 ↗ council has 90 days to fill a vacancy to

10:22 ↗ the city council. And as I said, you

10:24 ↗ have a process established in your rules

10:26 ↗ of procedure that you have been

10:27 ↗ fine-tuning over the years. Uh the

10:30 ↗ person who's appointed to council

10:31 ↗ position number three will serve until

10:34 ↗ certification of the general election in

10:36 ↗ 2027. Then someone will be elected to

10:39 ↗ fill the unexpired term. So just wanted

10:42 ↗ to clarify that.

10:46 ↗ All right. So this is a potential

10:48 ↗ timeline that you saw in your packet. Um

10:51 ↗ this is uh I would say a little bit of a

10:54 ↗ uh consolidated timeline from what we've

10:56 ↗ done in the recent past. Though

10:58 ↗ interestingly I was looking at some past

11:00 ↗ vacancy periods and I see when uh the

11:02 ↗ mayor left the city council we had a

11:04 ↗ twoe application period to fill his

11:06 ↗ seat. So it this is not unprecedented in

11:08 ↗ any way. Um but again just like the last

11:11 ↗ vacancy we have a kind of a target date

11:14 ↗ of that May believe it's the sixth or

11:17 ↗ the 9th um retreat the early May retreat

11:21 ↗ um that we'd like to get someone seated

11:22 ↗ for. So this timeline proposes a 2 and a

11:24 ↗ half week application period foregoing

11:27 ↗ the elected information session elected

11:30 ↗ official information session that you've

11:31 ↗ had for the last two vacancies and which

11:34 ↗ has been really successful but again one

11:36 ↗ was just held in mid December. Um it

11:38 ↗ would have uh council presentation

11:41 ↗ presentations to the city council by the

11:43 ↗ applicants on April 7th. That is a

11:46 ↗ Tuesday. You have a committee of the

11:47 ↗ whole on Monday the 6th. And this would

11:49 ↗ be taking the night that the PTE

11:51 ↗ committee would typically meet and uh

11:53 ↗ turning that into a special council

11:55 ↗ meeting for uh individual presentations.

11:58 ↗ And then as you know there's usually

12:00 ↗ that second step which is the question

12:02 ↗ and answer period and the potential

12:04 ↗ appointment. And again, we're proposing

12:06 ↗ the April 20th council meeting and we'll

12:08 ↗ be looking for your input on this

12:09 ↗ timeline.

12:11 ↗ The swearing in would then could then

12:12 ↗ occur on April 20th.

12:16 ↗ Okay. So, a couple more things. Um, we

12:18 ↗ I'm not going to read through these. Um,

12:20 ↗ they were in your packet, but uh if you

12:22 ↗ recall for the last vacancy, you did

12:24 ↗ make some adjustments to the questions

12:27 ↗ on the online application. I included

12:29 ↗ those in the materials tonight. Uh there

12:31 ↗ are

12:33 ↗ six five of them. Thank you. Um and so

12:37 ↗ would be looking for any uh of your

12:39 ↗ input tonight on if you'd like to see

12:40 ↗ changes to those questions as you saw in

12:42 ↗ the timeline. Um the application would

12:44 ↗ go live this Friday. So we'd be looking

12:46 ↗ for any input on those tonight. Um we

12:49 ↗ have realized that we are not collecting

12:51 ↗ the demographic information on this

12:53 ↗ application that we are on our um our

12:56 ↗ positions at the city and also our board

12:58 ↗ and commission application. So we are

13:00 ↗ proposing including a few pieces of

13:02 ↗ demographic information which we would

13:04 ↗ redact um from the published version of

13:07 ↗ the applications.

13:12 ↗ So as you know uh kind of the first big

13:14 ↗ step after the applications come in is

13:16 ↗ getting those verbal presentations by

13:18 ↗ the applicants. Um the current rules say

13:20 ↗ that council leadership will determine

13:22 ↗ the duration of those after kind of

13:24 ↗ finding out the number of applicants

13:25 ↗ that we have. The last application

13:28 ↗ period we had 13W I think we ended up

13:32 ↗ with 12 interviews. I think we had about

13:34 ↗ 14 applicants. So we had a few people

13:35 ↗ withdraw and so council leadership went

13:37 ↗ with that 3 to five minute period. Um

13:40 ↗ and then the presentations are

13:42 ↗ determined by random drawing. They stand

13:44 ↗ here to present to you and again looking

13:47 ↗ for direction if you'd like anything

13:49 ↗ differently done moving forward. Just

13:52 ↗ wanted to give a quick refresher on that

13:53 ↗ second step that question and answer

13:55 ↗ period. So, for the last vacancy, uh,

13:57 ↗ council leadership was delegated, uh,

13:59 ↗ the, uh, position to determine the

14:03 ↗ questions. The questions were also

14:05 ↗ included in your packet and then the

14:06 ↗ council kind of weighed in on those a

14:08 ↗ little bit before the questions were

14:10 ↗ asked of the applicants. Each applicant

14:11 ↗ was given 20 minutes to respond. Um, I I

14:14 ↗ did note that that no one used that

14:17 ↗ time. Uh, you likely noted that, too.

14:21 ↗ And then as you recall, we did make

14:22 ↗ arrangements and requested the other

14:24 ↗ applicants be in a separate room prior

14:26 ↗ to their interview.

14:28 ↗ Almost done here and then look forward

14:30 ↗ to your input. Um so next steps would be

14:33 ↗ posting the application and beginning

14:34 ↗ our outreach. I included kind of our

14:36 ↗ typical outreach in the packet. Um

14:38 ↗ certainly because we've had two

14:40 ↗ vacancies fairly recently, uh we would

14:43 ↗ be outreaching to those folks in case

14:45 ↗ they were interested in reapplying and

14:47 ↗ then kind of doing our standard um

14:49 ↗ information that is aquat insider, some

14:51 ↗ outreach to the HOAs, uh city partners,

14:54 ↗ um nonprofits and all the usual social

14:58 ↗ media channels and whatnot.

15:01 ↗ With that, um I am just looking for your

15:04 ↗ input on any of the steps of that

15:06 ↗ process. Changes to some of those could

15:08 ↗ require suspending your rules, but

15:09 ↗ there's some flexibility particularly in

15:11 ↗ that timeline. And then looking for a

15:13 ↗ motion uh sort of to direct staff to

15:15 ↗ move forward with this process.

15:18 ↗ >> Thank you.

15:19 ↗ >> I see council member Nichols and then

15:21 ↗ Walsh then a dare.

15:24 ↗ >> Thank you. Um on the elected official

15:27 ↗ information session, if we added that

15:29 ↗ back in, would that affect the rest of

15:30 ↗ the timeline? I was I was struggling a

15:34 ↗ bit with where to put it in with the 2

15:35 ↗ and 1 half week application window. If

15:38 ↗ you wanted to stretch out the

15:39 ↗ application window to something like

15:41 ↗ four weeks and have applications due

15:42 ↗ midappril, I see a couple of Saturdays

15:45 ↗ that would fall near the beginning or

15:46 ↗ middle of that process and would work

15:48 ↗ really well. I think with the 2 and 1/2

15:50 ↗ weeks it could be it could be

15:52 ↗ challenging. Um certainly if you'd like

15:54 ↗ to propose something we could take

15:58 ↗ >> that. So maybe why I don't why is it

16:00 ↗ challenging? There are Saturdays there.

16:02 ↗ So, are there are there other city

16:03 ↗ events that would block it or

16:04 ↗ >> Let me let me grab my calendar.

16:06 ↗ >> Okay, thank you.

16:19 ↗ Let me pull up the calendar to look at

16:21 ↗ that. And I guess I'm assuming that we'd

16:23 ↗ want something um prior to the

16:25 ↗ applications, but you're right, it

16:27 ↗ wouldn't necessarily I mean it could be

16:29 ↗ as soon as next Saturday. I suppose.

16:36 ↗ So, why don't I pop that open? But

16:37 ↗ you're right. I'm I'm sure we could

16:39 ↗ accommodate uh something

16:43 ↗ before the April 1st deadline. So, if

16:46 ↗ that's something that council would like

16:48 ↗ to see, I'm sure we could figure out a

16:50 ↗ date. And it does not have to be on a

16:51 ↗ Saturday. Could also be a weekn night

16:53 ↗ evening.

16:55 ↗ >> Yeah. I'll just finish out with my I'm

16:57 ↗ not sure how we if we vote on this or

16:59 ↗ not given what this is, but um uh I

17:02 ↗ think it would be a good idea to add it

17:03 ↗ back in. Um even if we can't all attend

17:05 ↗ and it's short notice, etc. I think we

17:06 ↗ should be doing this is one of the most

17:08 ↗ important things we do. So any extra

17:10 ↗ touch point even just to advertise a

17:11 ↗ little bit more I think is a is a good

17:13 ↗ use of time.

17:16 ↗ >> Could I I mean one Saturday is March

17:18 ↗ 28th. I know some of us are going to the

17:21 ↗ light rail opening that morning, but I

17:23 ↗ don't know midday that day if I don't

17:27 ↗ know. I'm just looking for a

17:30 ↗ a sense of

17:34 ↗ or the 21st is also an option.

17:39 ↗ >> And I'm weighing back in here real

17:41 ↗ quick, not that the council can't do

17:42 ↗ this, but the 21st is the one of the

17:44 ↗ Bahigh holidays that we typically don't

17:46 ↗ schedule meetings on. However, that is,

17:49 ↗ you know, it's a policy that we do our

17:51 ↗ best. It doesn't mean we can't schedule

17:52 ↗ something. So, um, the mayor's right,

17:54 ↗ those appear to be both be options.

18:01 ↗ >> Council member Dair,

18:03 ↗ >> my comment was going to be to this same

18:05 ↗ thing that I felt that theformational

18:07 ↗ session as someone who just did this was

18:08 ↗ very instrumental in my thing. It was my

18:10 ↗ way to kind of take a step into this as

18:12 ↗ to try and figure out if it made sense

18:14 ↗ for me. Though, I understand the

18:16 ↗ shortened timeline. And so the other

18:18 ↗ what I was also going to propose today

18:19 ↗ was if it if we couldn't fit it in even

18:21 ↗ just having something informal that's

18:23 ↗ like open hours that some council set

18:25 ↗ members will be at you know uh you know

18:29 ↗ blazing bagels or something for two

18:31 ↗ hours on a weekend if people want to

18:32 ↗ stop by and ask questions would be

18:34 ↗ something. But I would like us to have

18:35 ↗ some equivalent of this involved. And

18:38 ↗ then for me I mean any weekend any day

18:39 ↗ we can we could be made to work whatever

18:41 ↗ works with the city calendar whatever

18:43 ↗ spaces we need to use.

18:46 ↗ Uh, Council Member Walsh, then President

18:50 ↗ Mart,

18:50 ↗ >> are we just doing questions or

18:52 ↗ >> We can do whatever you want.

18:54 ↗ >> Okay. Um, the schedule adds a meeting on

18:57 ↗ April 7th rather than utilizing the

18:59 ↗ April 6th um, date. Was there a reason

19:02 ↗ for that?

19:03 ↗ >> Yeah, there are a few agenda items

19:05 ↗ scheduled for the April 6th committee of

19:06 ↗ the whole related to facilities. There

19:09 ↗ might be one other topic.

19:11 ↗ >> Yeah, I noticed there were two items on

19:12 ↗ the planning calendar. So that was the

19:15 ↗ reason

19:15 ↗ >> we felt like it was better to have a

19:18 ↗ whole separate meeting for

19:21 ↗ >> presentations and all of that. Okay. Um

19:25 ↗ I don't have a strong opinion between

19:27 ↗ the two, but I wanted to point it out

19:29 ↗ and see if any other council members had

19:31 ↗ thoughts on that. Um

19:33 ↗ >> I I can say council member Walsh I think

19:35 ↗ we were we were expecting the

19:37 ↗ presentation that night to be somewhere

19:39 ↗ between 90 minutes and

19:41 ↗ I don't know say 90 minutes to two hours

19:43 ↗ kind of for the regular meeting. So I

19:44 ↗ think our question was

19:45 ↗ >> it was open if the council wanted to do

19:47 ↗ like a longer like four or five hour

19:49 ↗ meeting it could happen. So I think it

19:51 ↗ was up for debate.

19:53 ↗ >> Yeah that's really good feedback then no

19:55 ↗ I think I would prefer a se a separate

19:57 ↗ meeting.

19:58 ↗ Um I think I agree with the idea that we

20:02 ↗ should be able to fit in an outreach um

20:04 ↗ meeting. I do also think that the

20:07 ↗ presentation that was given at that

20:08 ↗ meeting was particularly useful and so

20:11 ↗ linking that off of anyformational

20:15 ↗ um pieces whether we have a website or

20:17 ↗ the application would be really good.

20:19 ↗ Obviously changing any relevant dates um

20:23 ↗ on that. I think with the Q&A session,

20:27 ↗ um, I really liked the upgraded process

20:29 ↗ that we put in for this last year. Um,

20:32 ↗ but I do note that those questions are

20:35 ↗ now out there. So, I would request that

20:37 ↗ council leadership come up with five new

20:40 ↗ questions um, for that. Um, and

20:43 ↗ obviously ask to see if there are any

20:46 ↗ others, but that you would do it in

20:47 ↗ private rather than us recommending it

20:50 ↗ um, on the dis. And then I would also

20:53 ↗ note we continue to see applicants who

20:56 ↗ do not reach out to council members. Um

21:00 ↗ I've talked with many of them who've

21:01 ↗ said, "I didn't think it was my place. I

21:03 ↗ didn't I thought you guys were too busy

21:05 ↗ or anything like that. I wonder if

21:08 ↗ there's just a way that we could put it

21:09 ↗ in big bold letters or something like

21:12 ↗ that um that council members welcome

21:17 ↗ your outreach." Um, so I think that

21:21 ↗ would be great and otherwise I'm very

21:23 ↗ much in favor of all of this.

21:25 ↗ >> You know, we're like a high school

21:27 ↗ chemistry teacher. We got to change the

21:28 ↗ test up now. So can't be passed on from

21:30 ↗ one year next. Council President Marks,

21:33 ↗ >> absolutely emphatic plus one on

21:35 ↗ theformational session. Um, you know,

21:39 ↗ this we live and breathe by the quality

21:42 ↗ of the applicants that we get in this

21:43 ↗ process. We had earlier in the week um

21:47 ↗ or last week discussed a full 3 weeks

21:50 ↗ and um extending the session extending

21:54 ↗ the um the uh application through

21:58 ↗ Wednesday through Friday the 3rd. Is

22:00 ↗ that not possible? Did we decide that

22:03 ↗ that was too too close to the meeting on

22:05 ↗ the 7th?

22:06 ↗ >> Yes. I need about 48 hours to connect

22:09 ↗ with King County Elections and verify

22:11 ↗ the residency and election status. And

22:13 ↗ so I just couldn't figure out how to do

22:15 ↗ that.

22:16 ↗ >> Okay.

22:16 ↗ >> Um maybe we could do Thursday the 2nd,

22:19 ↗ but I think that's as far as we could

22:21 ↗ go.

22:21 ↗ >> Okay. Can we if we can do Thursday the

22:23 ↗ second, I appreciate giving people as

22:25 ↗ much opportunity as possible. I hear the

22:26 ↗ five new questions loud and clear. Um

22:29 ↗ so, uh council leadership will draft and

22:31 ↗ discuss with the rest of the council. um

22:33 ↗ five new questions and then uh yeah the

22:38 ↗ the other piece you know we have this

22:40 ↗ thing where people don't necessarily

22:41 ↗ realize that they can contact us the

22:44 ↗ other thing they don't necessarily

22:45 ↗ realizes they can submit references and

22:47 ↗ I don't know I think we need to

22:48 ↗ emphasize that more because I feel like

22:50 ↗ we've gotten a mix we've had some

22:52 ↗ applicants who have absolutely embraced

22:54 ↗ that and we've had some applicants who

22:56 ↗ haven't embraced it at all and that's

22:58 ↗ certainly they're right but I would like

22:59 ↗ to see a little bit more you know let's

23:01 ↗ let's put that front and center that

23:02 ↗ that that um they are those are welcome

23:04 ↗ and and will be read. Thank you.

23:07 ↗ >> Maybe mentioned Hollywood actors help on

23:10 ↗ the references. Uh the Okay, I'm looking

23:13 ↗ at the council. I don't know if it's

23:16 ↗ worth trying to kind of

23:18 ↗ pencil in the afternoon of the 28th or

23:22 ↗ not or just revisit another time the

23:25 ↗ exact date. I'm trying to think of C

23:28 ↗ deputy president Jen. Um, I feel like

23:31 ↗ March 28th is a bit too late in the

23:33 ↗ process. I mean, that's like 4 days

23:35 ↗ before the deadline. I feel like the

23:37 ↗ earlier the better. So, you know, you I

23:40 ↗ mean, maybe this weekend is too soon.

23:42 ↗ >> But I feel like either this weekend,

23:44 ↗ sometimes sometime next week or next

23:46 ↗ weekend is like the absolute latest I

23:48 ↗ would do because otherwise it only it

23:49 ↗ gives people like four days to do the

23:50 ↗ whole application. Well, I think we'll

23:51 ↗ plan. We have leadership Wednesday

23:53 ↗ morning. So, we'll plan at leadership to

23:55 ↗ try to figure out the best date, I

23:57 ↗ think, so we can go public with it

23:59 ↗ hopefully by close of business on

24:02 ↗ Wednesday. Are there any other questions

24:05 ↗ for our city clerk? There are no other

24:09 ↗ questions. This is the time of the

24:10 ↗ meeting where I look for motions.

24:22 ↗ Council President Martz.

24:23 ↗ >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I move to

24:25 ↗ approve the process and timeline for

24:27 ↗ filling the 2026 council vacancy at

24:30 ↗ position number three as amended.

24:33 ↗ >> Second.

24:35 ↗ >> There's been a motion and there has been

24:37 ↗ a second. Is there any further

24:39 ↗ discussion?

24:41 ↗ Council President Marks,

24:43 ↗ >> you know, earlier when we were talking

24:44 ↗ about leadership opportunities, it was

24:46 ↗ sort of a somber moment and and it it's

24:48 ↗ still a somber moment, but it's also a

24:50 ↗ really exciting moment. Um, you know,

24:52 ↗ I've, as everybody knows, I keep saying,

24:54 ↗ I've been doing this for 17 years. I

24:56 ↗ mean, seeing the opportunity to engage

24:59 ↗ three members of the public in the space

25:00 ↗ of a year um is has will really wind up

25:04 ↗ having had a transformative effect on

25:06 ↗ this council. almost a majority of the

25:08 ↗ council will have come through the

25:09 ↗ appointment process which was never I

25:11 ↗ mean we never had anything else like

25:13 ↗ that in 17 years. I think that um this

25:18 ↗ process

25:19 ↗ uh I think that we worked hard to make

25:23 ↗ improvements to the process from a year

25:25 ↗ ago. And so um I and I I think what

25:28 ↗ we're hearing tonight is the council

25:29 ↗ that's generally very uh happy with the

25:33 ↗ process as it was most recently. So, I

25:35 ↗ want to thank the clerk's office for the

25:36 ↗ hard work that they did um in helping us

25:39 ↗ iterate this most recently. And the fact

25:41 ↗ that we're not making substantive

25:42 ↗ changes this time around um is is is

25:45 ↗ really impressive and and a mark of how

25:47 ↗ I think this process works and we're

25:49 ↗ excited about um the public. So, so if

25:52 ↗ you're thinking about applying out

25:54 ↗ there, this is an exciting time to think

25:56 ↗ about uh being appointed to the council.

25:58 ↗ That's my thoughts on the process. Thank

26:00 ↗ you.

26:01 ↗ >> Excellent. Okay. Not seeing any other

26:04 ↗ further discussion. The motion before

26:06 ↗ the council was to approve the process

26:08 ↗ and timeline for filling the 2026 city

26:10 ↗ council vacancy of position number three

26:12 ↗ as amended. As amended means the

26:15 ↗ deadline would now be Thursday, close of

26:17 ↗ business on April 2nd and that we will

26:20 ↗ have kind of anformational session that

26:23 ↗ will get announced later on this week.

26:26 ↗ All those in favor, please say I. I.

26:29 ↗ >> I.

26:31 ↗ All those opposed? Nay.

26:33 ↗ And that passes unanimously.

26:37 ↗ Okay. We are now going to the next item

26:40 ↗ which is item number COM 0215formational

26:43 ↗ update on the permit process

26:46 ↗ improvements.

26:48 ↗ And

26:49 ↗ we're going to I'm trying to think. Am I

26:52 ↗ going first or are you going first?

26:54 ↗ Mindy,

26:55 ↗ >> you you can go first. Uh

27:02 ↗ Okay.

27:13 ↗ So, my portion here is fairly brief. I

27:16 ↗ think I was just going to give a short

27:18 ↗ background before we turn it over to

27:19 ↗ staff to kind of walk through tonight's

27:22 ↗ items. I think it starts, I think, from

27:25 ↗ my own personal lived history. I've

27:27 ↗ dealt with the permit department as a

27:29 ↗ restaurant owner. So I have restaurants

27:30 ↗ in Seattle, Kirkland, Belleview,

27:33 ↗ Seamish, and Isiqua. So I kind of

27:35 ↗ learned how different cities have

27:37 ↗ different processes. And I think through

27:39 ↗ that, I have learned that there are some

27:41 ↗ things in there that drive up cost and

27:44 ↗ I'm not sure are 100% essential, and

27:46 ↗ there's a lot of things in there that

27:47 ↗ may drive up cost, but are essential. So

27:49 ↗ I think this whole process we've been

27:51 ↗ working on with staff is trying to

27:52 ↗ figure out what are the essential items

27:54 ↗ that we need to have and what are the

27:56 ↗ ones that may be driving up cost but not

27:57 ↗ necessarily adding a lot of value in the

27:59 ↗ process. And so that's one element of

28:01 ↗ that lived experience. I think the se

28:03 ↗ second element is during my time in the

28:06 ↗ state senate when I chaired the state

28:07 ↗ construction budget, I witnessed how

28:10 ↗ laws that we would pass in the

28:12 ↗ legislature would actually drive up the

28:13 ↗ cost of of doing construction at the

28:15 ↗ same time as we try to then build

28:18 ↗ government buildings. And this, you

28:19 ↗ know, prime example is a a very new

28:22 ↗ large building going up in the Bellev

28:23 ↗ College campus right now. And it was

28:25 ↗ kind of challenges dealing with the

28:27 ↗ local permit department in the city of

28:28 ↗ Belleview that the state of Washington

28:30 ↗ was facing through a community college

28:32 ↗ lens that actually drove up the cost of

28:33 ↗ that building by roughly 50%. And so I

28:36 ↗ think those lived experiences brought me

28:39 ↗ in this role to the idea of in the first

28:43 ↗ term in office here right out of the

28:44 ↗ gate just saying what do we have to look

28:46 ↗ at from our city codes of things that

28:48 ↗ could be unnecessarily driving up the

28:49 ↗ cost. I think the final perspective that

28:52 ↗ drives this discussion is council member

28:54 ↗ Martz and I joined this body together

28:57 ↗ back in 2009.

28:59 ↗ We then did a central Isqua plan and

29:01 ↗ that was you know 15 years ago now. And

29:04 ↗ during that time the portion of Isiziqua

29:06 ↗ that we really highlighted that we

29:08 ↗ wanted to see people building homes.

29:10 ↗ Here we sit 15 years later and a lot of

29:12 ↗ homes have been built in Isiqua but not

29:14 ↗ in that area that we really wanted to

29:16 ↗ see homes getting built. And so I think

29:19 ↗ tonight's discussion comes from that

29:21 ↗ lens of saying what do we have to do for

29:24 ↗ this one specific part of isquad to

29:27 ↗ really look at to say how do we make it

29:29 ↗ so we can actually have homes built in

29:31 ↗ this part of town. And I think the

29:33 ↗ vision is a very positive one. Our our

29:35 ↗ hope obviously through other meetings is

29:36 ↗ to get light rail to end right in the

29:39 ↗ middle of I90 in this exact area that

29:41 ↗ sits smack in the middle of the the land

29:43 ↗ use discussion we're having tonight. And

29:46 ↗ I think there is a vision for a very

29:48 ↗ walkable, vibrant retail village

29:50 ↗ atmosphere in this section of Isiqua

29:52 ↗ that I think we could help create

29:54 ↗ through thoughtful, you know, changes to

29:57 ↗ how we do things here. And I think the

29:59 ↗ whole idea is to try to be open-minded.

30:01 ↗ I think that the decisions we make in

30:04 ↗ this space also will influence

30:06 ↗ our odds of getting light rail to come

30:08 ↗ to Isiqua. I think they are looking for

30:11 ↗ communities that are making investments

30:12 ↗ that will help ensure that around

30:15 ↗ stations you actually have a lot of

30:17 ↗ homes being built to create that

30:18 ↗ vibrancy. And I think we've seen other

30:21 ↗ other places on the network right now

30:23 ↗ that haven't been as aggressive in that.

30:25 ↗ And I think the cities that are showing

30:27 ↗ leadership in that space, I think they

30:29 ↗ are more likely to to get the

30:31 ↗ infrastructure investment through sound

30:34 ↗ transit that we are looking for in the

30:36 ↗ community right now. So, I think it's a

30:38 ↗ combination of those three things that

30:39 ↗ that bring the items before you today.

30:41 ↗ And I will say I think I've been

30:43 ↗ extremely impressed with staff these

30:45 ↗ last couple months. I think they've come

30:47 ↗ into this conversation listening to

30:49 ↗ items we heard at the council retreat

30:50 ↗ way back in January and then actually

30:53 ↗ taking all those items and and really

30:54 ↗ diving in to come back with ideas and

30:57 ↗ suggestions which you will see before us

30:59 ↗ tonight. With that, our mini dial dollar

31:04 ↗ will take it over from here.

31:08 ↗ Thank you, Mayor Mallet. Uh, good

31:10 ↗ evening, council and members of the

31:12 ↗ community. Um, I'm Mini Daliwal,

31:15 ↗ director of community planning and

31:16 ↗ development. We're going to break it up

31:17 ↗ into two parts. The first part um that's

31:20 ↗ on your agenda as comm um the first item

31:24 ↗ which is permit process improvements. Um

31:26 ↗ so on that topic um over the past year

31:30 ↗ um our team community planning and

31:33 ↗ development has been working diligently

31:35 ↗ to streamline permit processes. Uh it

31:38 ↗ started with an uh comprehensive audit

31:40 ↗ um by refellis a national consulting

31:43 ↗ firm uh that also included uh getting

31:46 ↗ feedback from all our customers. um

31:48 ↗ based on their 12 recommendations uh we

31:50 ↗ created a dedicated uh permit

31:53 ↗ coordinator role uh to further enhance

31:55 ↗ efficiency. So um today um I'm pleased

32:00 ↗ to announce um our permit coordinator

32:02 ↗ Eronia McClean. uh she's going to give

32:05 ↗ you a quarterly update on the progress

32:07 ↗ we've made, the performance metrics um

32:10 ↗ uh because remember we didn't have how

32:12 ↗ to measure things and then we had had

32:14 ↗ that conversation with council about how

32:16 ↗ to measure what we what we measuring. So

32:18 ↗ now we're set up where we can actually

32:20 ↗ measure if we're making progress, if

32:21 ↗ you're moving in the right direction. So

32:23 ↗ with that, I'm going to turn it over to

32:24 ↗ Aronia to walk you through the quarterly

32:26 ↗ update.

32:35 ↗ Yeah. So, like Minnie just said, I'm

32:37 ↗ Aronia McClean. Um, hello council

32:40 ↗ members. Mayor Mullet. I'm the permit

32:42 ↗ coordinator for the community panic

32:43 ↗ development department, joined here by

32:46 ↗ Minnie, the director, Kristen Leon,

32:48 ↗ planning manager, and James Gray,

32:50 ↗ building official as well. And like

32:53 ↗ Minnie just said, the quick refresher,

32:55 ↗ the background is that Rafelis, the

32:56 ↗ company we consulted with, um, generated

32:59 ↗ 12 permit process improvement

33:01 ↗ recommendations for the city. And those

33:04 ↗ were with the goal to work towards

33:06 ↗ compliance with SB5290 timelines. And so

33:10 ↗ we're here to go over some of that

33:11 ↗ today. Um,

33:17 ↗ oh, there we go. So the last time this

33:19 ↗ was in front of you was in September of

33:21 ↗ 2025 where we provided a status update

33:24 ↗ on Rough Talis's 12 recommendations as

33:27 ↗ well as provided some data on land use

33:29 ↗ permits, building permits, and just

33:31 ↗ overall metrics that we have. And that

33:33 ↗ was to get a look into one, the city's

33:35 ↗ performance, two, our progress and

33:38 ↗ process improvements. And three, what

33:40 ↗ the city has been dealing with

33:41 ↗ permitting wise in terms of quantity.

33:44 ↗ And so today again, we're going to

33:45 ↗ provide that update on Rafelis'

33:47 ↗ recommendations, but we're also going to

33:49 ↗ provide some information on our next

33:50 ↗ steps since all these recommendations

33:52 ↗ have now been addressed with several

33:55 ↗ undergoing ongoing improvements. So

33:57 ↗ we're going to be taking a look at what

33:58 ↗ what's next for process improvements for

34:00 ↗ the city. And we'll also be sharing some

34:02 ↗ data regarding timelines and

34:04 ↗ performance.

34:10 ↗ Okay, we'll start by taking a look at

34:11 ↗ the status update for Ref Telles's 12

34:14 ↗ recommendations on permit process

34:15 ↗ improvements.

34:19 ↗ So the first recommendation was for

34:21 ↗ submittal guidelines and this is key

34:23 ↗ information to the applicant when they

34:25 ↗ are getting ready to submit an

34:27 ↗ application and this recommendation is

34:29 ↗ undergoing ongoing improvements. The

34:32 ↗ second recommendation was for

34:33 ↗ completeness review which is the review

34:35 ↗ by which staff determine the

34:37 ↗ completeness of an application and this

34:39 ↗ recommendation is complete. There are

34:42 ↗ three scenarios for completeness review

34:43 ↗ that were identified and made

34:46 ↗ application communication template. This

34:48 ↗ is a crucial communication to the

34:50 ↗ applica applicant and this

34:52 ↗ recommendation is also complete. We've

34:54 ↗ implemented next step communication

34:56 ↗ letters, peer review, which are items

34:59 ↗ needed that need consultant review and

35:02 ↗ the priority here is to be able to

35:04 ↗ identify the need for a consultant

35:06 ↗ review earlier in the process in order

35:08 ↗ to streamline it. And so this

35:10 ↗ recommendation is also complete. The

35:12 ↗ process uh for completeness review has

35:14 ↗ been finalized. Then internal

35:17 ↗ collaboration meetings. This is our

35:19 ↗ internal department meetings and the

35:22 ↗ priority here is to enhance support

35:24 ↗ among across departments especially for

35:26 ↗ those that have city projects and work

35:28 ↗ on collaboration. And so this

35:30 ↗ recommendation is in progress. We're in

35:32 ↗ the process of creating a joint

35:35 ↗ collaboration meeting with public works

35:37 ↗ and parks

35:41 ↗ high volume mailing. So this

35:43 ↗ recommendation is complete as well. We

35:45 ↗ determined it was not financially

35:47 ↗ feasible to have a third party do our

35:50 ↗ mailing and so we continue to use

35:51 ↗ in-house um mailing for large services.

35:56 ↗ And then permit coordinator, this is a

35:59 ↗ budgeted position that was identified as

36:01 ↗ a critical need um within our department

36:04 ↗ for managing projects, being a liazison

36:07 ↗ both internally across departments as

36:09 ↗ well as externally with applicants and

36:11 ↗ ensuring that we meet our required

36:13 ↗ timelines. And so this recommendation is

36:15 ↗ complete. The position has been filled

36:17 ↗ as of September 1st by me. Um and then

36:24 ↗ we've got performance measures which are

36:26 ↗ related to key elements of the permit

36:28 ↗ review process and this recommendation

36:31 ↗ is also undergoing ongoing improvements.

36:34 ↗ Uh SOPs which refers to updating

36:37 ↗ outdated standard operating procedures.

36:40 ↗ This re recommendation is implemented in

36:42 ↗ ongoing quarterly improvement review.

36:46 ↗ This refers to our quarterly department

36:48 ↗ meetings where all staff come together

36:50 ↗ and we dedicate several hours to working

36:53 ↗ on permit process improvements. And so

36:55 ↗ this recommendation is undergoing

36:57 ↗ ongoing improvements.

37:00 ↗ And then we have comprehensive training

37:02 ↗ programs. So this is implementing

37:04 ↗ training programs to standardize

37:06 ↗ procedures and improve our review

37:09 ↗ process. this recommendation is

37:11 ↗ implemented and ongoing, especially with

37:13 ↗ all the new staff that we have now.

37:15 ↗ We're able to identify a lot of the gaps

37:17 ↗ that we might have had with just

37:18 ↗ training materials and so we're working

37:20 ↗ on that, updating the SOPs and

37:22 ↗ checklists. And then lastly, the last

37:25 ↗ recommendation, contract with software

37:27 ↗ developer. This recommendation is uh was

37:30 ↗ to fix long-standing software issues. Uh

37:33 ↗ we ended up closing this recommendation.

37:35 ↗ Uh it's not being pursued at this time.

37:37 ↗ We actually ended up pivoting uh from

37:40 ↗ the original intent with this one and we

37:42 ↗ worked with a consulting firm and an I

37:45 ↗ and our IT department to evaluate a

37:48 ↗ potential software replacement uh

37:52 ↗ solution via doing vendor demos. In

37:55 ↗ addition, during this time, a budget

37:57 ↗ request for an MBP rebuild was

37:59 ↗ submitted. And finally, we've

38:01 ↗ implemented the pass through credit card

38:03 ↗ fees for MBP as of February 2026.

38:08 ↗ And before we head to the next segment,

38:10 ↗ I will pause here for any questions. Uh

38:12 ↗ the next segment is going to be on land

38:14 ↗ use data.

38:16 ↗ >> Ronnie, just for members of the public,

38:17 ↗ MVP, my building permit, right? So, just

38:20 ↗ for folks out there wondering what the

38:21 ↗ acronym is, mybuildingpermit.com is a

38:24 ↗ joint collaboration we do with some of

38:25 ↗ our neighboring cities. Yes.

38:31 ↗ Hearing no questions, we will move on.

38:36 ↗ So, this is our 2025 closed land use

38:38 ↗ permit data. So, during 2025, we had 48

38:42 ↗ total permits closed, of which seven

38:45 ↗ were past deadline. Comparatively in

38:47 ↗ 2024, we had 15 out of 57 permits that

38:51 ↗ were passed timelines. So, we're moving

38:53 ↗ in the right direction. We're we had we

38:56 ↗ saw an approximately 11 percentage point

38:58 ↗ improvement from 2024 to 2025.

39:06 ↗ This is our active land use permit data

39:09 ↗ as of February 20th, 2026. We have 25

39:13 ↗ total permits that we're working on.

39:15 ↗ three are past deadlines. And just for

39:17 ↗ some context, the three that are past

39:19 ↗ deadlines are legacy projects. So,

39:21 ↗ they've been with the city for several

39:22 ↗ years. Um, and so as we progress and

39:25 ↗ close out these projects, you'll be able

39:27 ↗ to see that reflected in the data. Um,

39:29 ↗ as well,

39:35 ↗ this is an excerpt from the RFPs report

39:38 ↗ and we updated the data for 2024 and

39:41 ↗ 2025. This reflects the average number

39:43 ↗ of days permits are taking to get

39:45 ↗ approved. And you can see that for most

39:47 ↗ permit types, there is a decline as we

39:50 ↗ go through the years.

39:56 ↗ Council member Nichols,

39:58 ↗ >> thank you. Um,

40:01 ↗ just digging into the slide a little

40:02 ↗ bit, I'm really surprised at the

40:03 ↗ variability here, both the extremes on

40:05 ↗ the low and the high end. I was

40:07 ↗ wondering if you could walk us through

40:09 ↗ what causes, for example, landscape to

40:11 ↗ be the highest and plumbing to have zero

40:13 ↗ days of delay.

40:14 ↗ >> Yeah, plumbing is an example of like an

40:17 ↗ over-thecounter permit. So, some of them

40:19 ↗ will require plan review versus some

40:21 ↗ that don't. So, you're seeing it kind of

40:24 ↗ apples to oranges comparison, but it's

40:25 ↗ just reflective of the different permit

40:27 ↗ timelines.

40:29 ↗ >> Okay. And then on the high side, so why

40:31 ↗ landscape at 100 days as as kind of an

40:34 ↗ outlier?

40:36 ↗ Yeah, land landscape is one of our land

40:38 ↗ use ones. Um, do you have any additional

40:41 ↗ commentary?

40:42 ↗ >> Sure. We're trying to dig into the

40:44 ↗ landscaping permits. Sometimes uh, you

40:47 ↗ know, they're associated with other

40:49 ↗ applications as say like site

40:51 ↗ development permit for getting the

40:53 ↗ actual building um, approved by

40:56 ↗ development commission, but those come

40:58 ↗ in, but we can't really approve them.

41:00 ↗ So, they've been kind of falling through

41:02 ↗ that. Other times we require a bond and

41:04 ↗ so they were sitting in a void waiting

41:06 ↗ for the bond process to be complete for

41:08 ↗ the applicant. So we're we're trying to

41:10 ↗ stream figure out, you know, how best to

41:13 ↗ uh get the landscape permits moving

41:15 ↗ along faster. Uh but they're a little

41:18 ↗ bit of an outlier that tended to fall

41:20 ↗ through because PE, you know, people

41:22 ↗ don't really care for the landscaping

41:24 ↗ permit. take care for the building

41:25 ↗ permit first and then this one sort of

41:27 ↗ uh trailed behind.

41:34 ↗ >> Deputy President Jane.

41:37 ↗ >> Um so I know that the purpose of this is

41:39 ↗ mostly to talk about building permits,

41:40 ↗ but do we have data on tenant

41:42 ↗ improvement permits at all?

41:46 ↗ >> That would be a metric we would have to

41:48 ↗ either create or dig around for. We

41:51 ↗ don't have it on hand as of right now.

41:53 ↗ If that's something that council is

41:55 ↗ interested in looking at, we could take

41:57 ↗ a look if you kind of specify exactly

42:00 ↗ what you mean when you're saying look at

42:01 ↗ TI's. Yeah, I guess my perspective, you

42:04 ↗ know, like going around town, you see

42:06 ↗ all these businesses that take forever

42:07 ↗ to open. And so even like friends that I

42:10 ↗ have who are very casual like there must

42:12 ↗ be something slow in the programing

42:14 ↗ department of the city. So I'd like to

42:15 ↗ see, you know, is that actually the case

42:17 ↗ and track that alongside, you know,

42:19 ↗ building permits. Anecdotally, I've also

42:21 ↗ heard a city to our north that got

42:23 ↗ recognized by the state department of

42:24 ↗ commerce for how quickly they were

42:25 ↗ getting through their building permits

42:27 ↗ was like they were like, "Well, we're

42:28 ↗ focusing on that." And basically just

42:30 ↗ abandoned tenant improvement permits.

42:32 ↗ Um, and those were taking forever. So, I

42:34 ↗ just want to make sure that, you know,

42:35 ↗ we're making sure that we're doing all

42:37 ↗ those, especially because tenant

42:38 ↗ improvements is such a key thing for our

42:40 ↗ small businesses here in Isqua.

42:42 ↗ Okay.

42:48 ↗ Um, all right.

42:53 ↗ And then this is data looking uh more at

42:55 ↗ building permits in terms of how many

42:57 ↗ were applied for, how many were issued,

42:59 ↗ how long they took to get approved on

43:00 ↗ average. And then from that, we also

43:03 ↗ looked at those that exceeded our

43:05 ↗ internal 60-day target timeline. It's an

43:08 ↗ internal target timeline because as of

43:10 ↗ um July 2025, HB1935 clarified that

43:14 ↗ building permits aren't um need to

43:17 ↗ adhere to the same timelines as our land

43:18 ↗ use permits would. So that's why we have

43:20 ↗ an internal 60-day target timeline for

43:22 ↗ them. And so we can see here that

43:25 ↗ building and site work, which are

43:27 ↗ typically permits that take longer to

43:28 ↗ issue in comparison to something that

43:30 ↗ like plumbing permit, which is over the

43:32 ↗ counter.

43:41 ↗ Okay. Now, we'll take a look at some of

43:43 ↗ our other metrics.

43:48 ↗ Sorry, I got dejumbled with my slides.

43:51 ↗ Um

43:54 ↗ so in the top two panels we have our

43:57 ↗ workload metrics and then the bottom two

43:59 ↗ we have our efficiency.

44:07 ↗ Yes. And then in 2025 we completed over

44:11 ↗ 8,000 plan reviews and um this is about

44:14 ↗ a 41% increase since 2024. And then in

44:18 ↗ 2025, CPD completed uh 7,815

44:22 ↗ inspections, which is about a 27%

44:25 ↗ increase since 2024. And then between

44:28 ↗ 2024 to 2025, the percent of all land

44:31 ↗ use and all construction permits

44:33 ↗ approved by second review increased by

44:36 ↗ 14 and 8% respectively. And then

44:38 ↗ finally, in that bottom right panel,

44:40 ↗ you'll see the how we're tracking

44:42 ↗ currently for our current workload for

44:44 ↗ land use and construction permits.

44:46 ↗ Council member Walsh.

44:48 ↗ >> Thank you. Aronia, can you talk to me

44:50 ↗ about the difference between the number

44:52 ↗ of plan reviews and the number of

44:56 ↗ permits? Because when I'm looking at

44:58 ↗ 2024 versus 2025, I'm seeing the number

45:02 ↗ of permits decrease. Yet, we're showing

45:05 ↗ the number of plan reviews

45:08 ↗ increase quite dramatically. Our permit

45:11 ↗ did increase from 2024 to 2025. So 2024

45:15 ↗ we saw um 1,500 permits or so and then

45:19 ↗ in 2025 that number rose to around

45:21 ↗ 1,800.

45:22 ↗ >> Okay.

45:23 ↗ >> I was looking at number of days and

45:25 ↗ doing that as a count. So thank you.

45:32 ↗ >> Okay. And then now we'll dive into next

45:34 ↗ steps.

45:37 ↗ So with all the RFP recommendations

45:39 ↗ having been addressed and several that

45:41 ↗ are undergoing ongoing improvements, we

45:44 ↗ wanted to provide clarity as to what

45:46 ↗ CPD's next steps look like for process

45:48 ↗ improvements. And so we've categorized

45:50 ↗ them into three main groupings now,

45:53 ↗ next, and future. now being items that

45:56 ↗ were discussed earlier in today's

45:57 ↗ presentation which are Rafelis's

46:00 ↗ recommendations that are ongoing

46:01 ↗ improvements and those are slated to be

46:04 ↗ completed between Q1 and Q2 next which

46:07 ↗ are new improvement initiatives that

46:10 ↗ staff have identified and those are

46:12 ↗ slated to be completed between Q3 and Q4

46:16 ↗ and then future also new improvement

46:18 ↗ initiatives slated to be completed 2027

46:21 ↗ and beyond

46:23 ↗ and then if there Are any additional

46:25 ↗ questions about any of one of these? I

46:27 ↗ can get into the details for that.

46:30 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

46:32 ↗ >> Thank you. Um I noticed that several of

46:36 ↗ these uh like the submitt guidelines,

46:39 ↗ the applicant communication regarding

46:41 ↗ next steps and the flowcharts are

46:43 ↗ something that are probably there for

46:46 ↗ many other cities around the area. Have

46:49 ↗ we talked to builders about which city

46:54 ↗ does it best and how they might want to

46:57 ↗ see that looking? Um, it seems like

47:01 ↗ something that somebody's got to have

47:03 ↗ done it really well and we don't have to

47:05 ↗ reinvent the wheel on that.

47:08 ↗ We haven't to my knowledge talked to any

47:10 ↗ builders about that of like what

47:12 ↗ comparatively what city is doing it

47:14 ↗ better but that could be something we

47:16 ↗ could explore in terms of engaging them

47:18 ↗ as we look into starting these projects

47:20 ↗ can add that

47:22 ↗ >> I might have Alexis our economic

47:24 ↗ development director Alexis do you want

47:25 ↗ to weigh in really quick on the most

47:27 ↗ recent builder round table

47:32 ↗ >> hi Alexis Fitz Simmons economic

47:34 ↗ development housing manager um we

47:36 ↗ recently did engage uh with builders um

47:39 ↗ at a roundt discussion on February 26th

47:42 ↗ to talk to them about what they're

47:44 ↗ seeing, what their challenges are um and

47:47 ↗ you know where are things being done

47:49 ↗ well and uh we talked to a few

47:51 ↗ communities as well and we'll cover some

47:52 ↗ of that in a later in our later

47:54 ↗ presentation with Kristen and Minnie and

47:55 ↗ I. Um but the gist of what we're hearing

47:59 ↗ from them is that they need

48:01 ↗ predictability and efficiency to reduce

48:03 ↗ their risk. um one of the biggest

48:05 ↗ challenges they have um in working in

48:07 ↗ Isiqua has been the time cost of money

48:09 ↗ and the the the length of time it takes

48:11 ↗ to get through the process. And so all

48:14 ↗ of the changes and all the updates that

48:16 ↗ that Aronia are going is going through

48:18 ↗ and what uh Kristen and Minnie will talk

48:20 ↗ about are steps in the direction of

48:23 ↗ reducing that time. Um and that's what

48:26 ↗ the focus of our conversations with

48:27 ↗ these builders have been. Um, so I

48:30 ↗ wouldn't say we're quite there all the

48:32 ↗ way yet, but we're getting there.

48:35 ↗ >> Yeah. And I'm just looking at this and

48:37 ↗ thinking if I was submitting a project

48:39 ↗ and a permit, the submittal guidelines,

48:42 ↗ the communication regarding next steps,

48:43 ↗ and the flowcharts would be the most

48:47 ↗ accessible to a builder about how can

48:51 ↗ they change what they're doing, how

48:54 ↗ they're doing it, when they're doing it

48:56 ↗ in order for us to not have a second and

48:58 ↗ third review, in order for them to know

49:01 ↗ what the process is. And so again, I

49:04 ↗ would say there is likely a city that

49:07 ↗ does this really, really well that a

49:10 ↗ builder is going to know, oh yeah, I

49:12 ↗ always get great responses from or the

49:14 ↗ documentation from City X um is really

49:18 ↗ helpful.

49:18 ↗ >> I I 100% agree uh with that assessment.

49:21 ↗ Um I think that um

49:24 ↗ transparency is high on the list of

49:26 ↗ things that we are working on and need

49:28 ↗ to work on. Um, one of the things that

49:30 ↗ I'll talk about in my slides is having a

49:32 ↗ single point of contact um, and a

49:34 ↗ nonbudsman for advocacy for projects.

49:38 ↗ Um, and not not just um, kind of saying,

49:41 ↗ "Oh, you've got a project. Okay, I'm

49:43 ↗ going to send you off into the abyss of

49:45 ↗ um, you know, of the process, but

49:48 ↗ understanding maybe having a

49:50 ↗ pre-conference conversation with them

49:52 ↗ um, about the process and what their

49:54 ↗ plans are and what their anticipated

49:55 ↗ timeline is and what that project looks

49:57 ↗ like and what their um what uh metrics

50:00 ↗ they're trying to meet um and moving

50:02 ↗ from a place of enforcement to uh

50:04 ↗ proactive engagement um is really the is

50:08 ↗ really what we're moving towards and

50:10 ↗ creating some of the tools like um you

50:13 ↗ know process and and flowcharts and

50:15 ↗ things like that I think is a part of

50:16 ↗ that

50:19 ↗ >> council member Adair and then council

50:21 ↗ president Marts.

50:22 ↗ >> Yeah. So I mean obviously you know we've

50:24 ↗ all been talking in terms how to get

50:25 ↗ building and all stuff with that the

50:26 ↗ codes there's a lot of a factors but you

50:28 ↗ brought up in your comment how you said

50:30 ↗ that for them like the time of this is a

50:32 ↗ huge factor and maybe one of the large

50:34 ↗ factors in terms of this building. So

50:36 ↗ you're clearly working on that and

50:37 ↗ that's appreciated. Are there spec any

50:40 ↗ specific resources holding you back in

50:43 ↗ this process that would be helpful or is

50:44 ↗ it just simply that you have to work

50:46 ↗ through all these steps to get there? Is

50:47 ↗ there like basically is there something

50:48 ↗ of from us as a council that would help

50:51 ↗ this process go faster some resource or

50:53 ↗ something like that or is it just you

50:55 ↗ have to work through it as you're going?

50:58 ↗ >> We haveordinator we have to work through

51:00 ↗ it as we're going. So it's important for

51:02 ↗ us to remember you know we want to meet

51:04 ↗ the needs of the builder community to

51:06 ↗ help drive investment to drive private

51:08 ↗ investment in the community but we also

51:10 ↗ are approaching this as stewards of the

51:12 ↗ community stewards of safety and

51:14 ↗ stewards of development. And so it's

51:16 ↗ important that we balance both sides of

51:18 ↗ that and sometimes that takes a little

51:20 ↗ bit of work on the back end.

51:24 ↗ >> Council President Marts,

51:26 ↗ >> thank you. Um I I might ask that

51:28 ↗ question about other municipalities

51:30 ↗ slightly differently, which is I feel

51:33 ↗ like on almost everything I can think

51:35 ↗ of, one of the things I always want to

51:37 ↗ know is how do we compare to Redmond and

51:39 ↗ Kirkland and Belleview? And um

51:42 ↗ competition improves the breed. And I

51:45 ↗ think and all this information is good

51:47 ↗ and it's good that we know where we

51:49 ↗ stand versus state standards. I mean

51:50 ↗ that's all that's all really essential.

51:52 ↗ But I also feel like um you know I would

51:55 ↗ love us to measure ourselves against

51:58 ↗ some of the other cities in our region

51:59 ↗ that are that are comparators even

52:02 ↗ though they're bigger. Like I have a

52:03 ↗ vision for the future where we get to

52:05 ↗ the point where people are like, "Yeah,

52:07 ↗ Belle's bigger and you know they have

52:09 ↗ this that and the other thing, but like

52:10 ↗ Isiqua is so much easier to work with,

52:12 ↗ right? Like wouldn't that be great?

52:14 ↗ Wouldn't that be great if people thought

52:15 ↗ that about our city? Like we're small

52:17 ↗ but mighty in this area and so much

52:19 ↗ better to work with than other big

52:21 ↗ cities. And I love Belleview and I love

52:22 ↗ Redmond. I love Kirkman. Kirkland, you

52:24 ↗ know, but like let's let's be better

52:26 ↗ than everybody else.

52:28 ↗ >> I like it."

52:31 ↗ Council member Joe

52:33 ↗ Thank you. Um perhaps you missed it or I

52:36 ↗ missed it during your presentation, but

52:38 ↗ could you talk about the effectiveness

52:39 ↗ measure that you have for percent of

52:42 ↗ approved second review permits? It's

52:45 ↗ page nine of your presentation.

52:49 ↗ >> Yeah, let me go back.

52:50 ↗ >> We're seeing improvement there between

52:52 ↗ 2004 and 2024 and 2025 for all land use

52:56 ↗ permits.

52:57 ↗ >> Mhm. going from 69% to 77%

53:00 ↗ and all construction permits uh 83% to

53:03 ↗ 85%.

53:05 ↗ Um I'll give you a chance to highlight

53:09 ↗ the uh good work you've been doing

53:10 ↗ there. Yeah, I probably blitzed through

53:12 ↗ this kind of fast, but yeah, we did see

53:15 ↗ improvements for 2024 and 2025 um in

53:18 ↗ terms of getting those applications

53:21 ↗ through quicker.

53:22 ↗ >> And is the standard of having approval

53:27 ↗ by a second review something that all

53:29 ↗ cities kind of try to aspire to have a

53:33 ↗ high mark on those that measure? Yeah, I

53:37 ↗ I haven't taken a look at other cities

53:40 ↗ since that is something that is echoed

53:42 ↗ among other council members that that's

53:44 ↗ something of interest. So, we can start

53:45 ↗ taking a look and seeing that from other

53:47 ↗ cities on what their metrics are looking

53:49 ↗ at. Um, but that naturally once you get

53:53 ↗ three plus reviews, then you're going to

53:54 ↗ have to pay extra. So, that is something

53:56 ↗ that is valued across everyone both

53:59 ↗ internally and externally.

54:01 ↗ >> Good. Looks like we've got

54:02 ↗ >> James Gray. You've phoned a friend.

54:04 ↗ >> I know. Uh, council uh, President,

54:07 ↗ congratulations. Vice President,

54:09 ↗ congratulations. First of all, I wanted

54:10 ↗ to say that to you. Uh, it's it's

54:12 ↗ wonderful to see a new group up. Um, a a

54:14 ↗ couple of pieces uh, that that I'm

54:16 ↗ hearing I'd like to respond to. So, we

54:18 ↗ we are on the management committee and a

54:20 ↗ member of mybuildingpermit.com, which is

54:22 ↗ a multi

54:23 ↗ >> Hey, James, could you introduce yourself

54:25 ↗ and your role? So, for the general

54:26 ↗ public, who's

54:27 ↗ >> James Gray, a building official with

54:29 ↗ community planning and development. I

54:30 ↗ work for director Dollywal. Thank you,

54:33 ↗ mayor. Um, so we're we're a member of

54:36 ↗ this multi-ity mybuildingpermit.com

54:38 ↗ and as part of that we interface with

54:42 ↗ building officials uh permit

54:44 ↗ coordinators uh all sorts of staff

54:46 ↗ across multiple multiple cities and on

54:49 ↗ top of that we have shared uh uh details

54:53 ↗ and and common details that are on

54:55 ↗ mybuildingpermit.com that you can use

54:57 ↗ for permitting process. So, it's doing a

55:00 ↗ lot to uh create consistency amongst all

55:03 ↗ these cities. Um to to the comment uh do

55:07 ↗ do other cities do it better and do the

55:09 ↗ do the contractors hear about it better?

55:10 ↗ Uh one of my favorite comments I've

55:12 ↗ heard is um is uh uh uh gosh I it just

55:17 ↗ sails through in the city of Seattle or

55:19 ↗ it sails through in the city of

55:20 ↗ Belleview. There's a lot of ane

55:22 ↗ anecdotal comments that come out of the

55:24 ↗ both the contracting community and the

55:26 ↗ permitting community. Um and and I think

55:28 ↗ that everybody's working to lower that

55:31 ↗ threshold when these things get

55:33 ↗ approved. Um the la the last piece that

55:35 ↗ I I wanted to put in with that is uh

55:38 ↗ through director Dollywal's direction

55:41 ↗ what the managers have been doing is

55:42 ↗ trying to help find this balance between

55:45 ↗ this public safety piece uh approving

55:48 ↗ things in accordance with you know this

55:50 ↗ high standard that the code set which is

55:52 ↗ a pretty pretty high standard getting

55:54 ↗ higher all the time and using some uh

55:57 ↗ what we say common sense right how much

56:00 ↗ how much do we how many hoops do we put

56:02 ↗ an architect through to get something

56:04 ↗ approved on a set of plans, how many

56:06 ↗ details have to be there cuz it can get

56:08 ↗ painful and and we recognize that. So,

56:11 ↗ we've been working very diligently with

56:14 ↗ our plans examiners, with our planners

56:15 ↗ who are here in the group, our engineers

56:18 ↗ to to figure out what that balance is

56:20 ↗ and and get it better. And the managers

56:22 ↗ are all watching that and doing regular

56:25 ↗ staff meetings with folks to make sure

56:27 ↗ that we get that balance right.

56:31 ↗ >> Okay. Um, thank you for that, Mr. Gray

56:33 ↗ Aronia, could you talk about my question

56:36 ↗ in terms of percent approved with second

56:38 ↗ review and why it's so important to have

56:40 ↗ that as a high measure?

56:45 ↗ All right, I'll give you the answer to

56:46 ↗ that. In the in the in the industry for

56:49 ↗ development, um uh the gold standard is

56:53 ↗ just have two reviews and then get it

56:55 ↗ done. So, I'm trying to compliment your

56:57 ↗ department at having 83% of your all

56:59 ↗ construction permits in in 2024 going up

57:02 ↗ to 85% in 2025. That's a good number and

57:06 ↗ it's one that I think to answer some of

57:08 ↗ the other questions about comparisons to

57:10 ↗ other cities is one that uh one metric

57:13 ↗ that can be used to compare across

57:15 ↗ cities that you'll be able to find

57:17 ↗ pretty easily as you go forward too. So,

57:19 ↗ good job. Thank you for doing that and

57:21 ↗ I'd like to see the improvement there.

57:23 ↗ >> Thank you.

57:25 ↗ Council member Nichols.

57:28 ↗ >> Thank you. Um before I ask my question,

57:31 ↗ I just want to frame it uh by talking

57:33 ↗ about what I think our goals for all of

57:35 ↗ this really are. And it's it's about

57:36 ↗ affordability really, right? Um we want

57:39 ↗ to bring down the price of housing. We

57:42 ↗ want to bring down the price of doing

57:43 ↗ business because all those things just

57:45 ↗ get passed on to our residents, right?

57:47 ↗ Um I I like all the tracking that's

57:50 ↗ being done here. Um we're bringing down

57:52 ↗ the time to permitting. That looks

57:54 ↗ that's great. Seems like we're on the

57:55 ↗ right track there. We're tracking those

57:57 ↗ numbers. Um those are all kind of

57:59 ↗ implicit as far as

58:02 ↗ costs go though like implicitly if we

58:04 ↗ bring down the time we will things will

58:06 ↗ cost less. I think that's that's why

58:08 ↗ we're doing this. That's the main

58:09 ↗ reason. Um and I think that's great. I

58:11 ↗ also want to ask if we are tracking and

58:13 ↗ considering tracking the actual direct

58:15 ↗ costs that are associated with some of

58:17 ↗ these things. um how much and also try

58:21 ↗ to bring those down things like peer

58:22 ↗ review for example um are there ways

58:24 ↗ that we can bring down the cost of that

58:26 ↗ uh without

58:28 ↗ hurting the the the true need that's

58:30 ↗ there um and can we try to track that in

58:32 ↗ some way not for that not just for that

58:35 ↗ in particular but as a broader bigger

58:36 ↗ picture question um the goal is

58:39 ↗ affordability

58:41 ↗ um we are trying to bring down the time

58:43 ↗ but the purpose of that that that

58:46 ↗ that quest is to improve affordability

58:49 ↗ overall. How else can we track

58:50 ↗ affordability and make sure that we're

58:52 ↗ on the right track?

58:54 ↗ >> Well, and I think part of that will be

58:55 ↗ in the second presentation when Kristen

58:58 ↗ gets to it, like specifically your one

59:00 ↗ on peer review. I don't know, Minnie,

59:02 ↗ did you want to

59:03 ↗ >> Sure. Uh so peer review made the list of

59:05 ↗ things we want to look at uh for next

59:07 ↗ year as well as part of the work plan

59:09 ↗ that mel is talking about. But

59:11 ↗ definitely the the cost of doing

59:13 ↗ business is you know we always manage to

59:16 ↗ monitor that as part of our annual fee

59:19 ↗ updates uh and and looking at

59:22 ↗ inflationary costs. Labor costs go up

59:24 ↗ and so these fees aren't taxes on top of

59:27 ↗ uh development. They're really to pay

59:29 ↗ for the the amount of time the city

59:31 ↗ staff take to review it. And if there's

59:33 ↗ efficiencies built into that, the time

59:35 ↗ for peer review and others, then those

59:37 ↗ are cost savings for everybody involved

59:39 ↗ for sure. Um, yeah,

59:42 ↗ >> just as like a point of clarification,

59:44 ↗ these weren't designed with the mindset

59:47 ↗ of the cost savings first. It was with

59:49 ↗ the mindset of the SB5290

59:52 ↗ timelines that we're meeting. So that's

59:53 ↗ why th these metrics aren't going to

59:55 ↗ really be reflective of that. uh if

59:58 ↗ that's something we want to look forward

59:59 ↗ to. Um I think Kristen will probably be

1:00:01 ↗ able to speak more to that as well.

1:00:04 ↗ >> Council member Joe, thank you. Um

1:00:07 ↗ talking about SB 5290 just um sparked

1:00:10 ↗ another question for me. Um HB24182418

1:00:15 ↗ um just passed the Senate and is on its

1:00:17 ↗ way to the governor's desk. Uh it

1:00:20 ↗ requires uh entities such as water

1:00:22 ↗ districts like Seamish Water District to

1:00:26 ↗ comply with 5290 type timelines and

1:00:29 ↗ completeness check offs. And I don't

1:00:31 ↗ necessarily want an answer tonight, but

1:00:33 ↗ I was curious how that impacts our

1:00:37 ↗ projects here. In other words, has

1:00:40 ↗ Seamish Water and Sewer been a positive

1:00:42 ↗ or a negative on our timelines overall?

1:00:45 ↗ have their delays or things that they

1:00:48 ↗ put into the process lengthened out the

1:00:51 ↗ the review for us or made it longer for

1:00:53 ↗ projects to get delivered and raising

1:00:56 ↗ costs. Um so it's just a question to to

1:00:58 ↗ you. I don't need need an answer tonight

1:01:01 ↗ but a curious question that I had. Thank

1:01:03 ↗ you.

1:01:04 ↗ >> Manny, did you want to speak to that

1:01:06 ↗ really quick?

1:01:06 ↗ >> Sure. Um so some of the outside agencies

1:01:10 ↗ that we um include our sessions, our

1:01:12 ↗ permit review sessions are Eastside Fire

1:01:14 ↗ and Rescue and U Water and Shore

1:01:17 ↗ District. Uh we were tracking, you know,

1:01:19 ↗ initially when we started this journey

1:01:21 ↗ to see by division, by reviewer, by

1:01:26 ↗ entities, you know, where the root cause

1:01:28 ↗ was. Uh we found some some of the mixed

1:01:30 ↗ things. Uh sometimes it was the delay

1:01:34 ↗ based on fire or uh water and sewer. Uh

1:01:37 ↗ but they've been responsive. You know,

1:01:39 ↗ we try and reach out to them. Um they

1:01:41 ↗ also issue their own permits, especially

1:01:44 ↗ water and sewer district. So we don't

1:01:46 ↗ know what that timeline looks like for

1:01:48 ↗ them, but uh we engage them early during

1:01:51 ↗ the design process. So it's not a

1:01:52 ↗ surprise for applicants. Um it's a

1:01:55 ↗ little clunky because we have to send

1:01:56 ↗ them an email. Here's a review line for

1:01:58 ↗ you and you need to see it. So, are

1:02:01 ↗ there efficiencies perhaps uh to improve

1:02:03 ↗ in that? Uh but it's um you know, I'm

1:02:06 ↗ glad that um that these timelines apply

1:02:09 ↗ to everybody because it doesn't help

1:02:11 ↗ builders if they get through the city

1:02:12 ↗ process, but they get hung up in other

1:02:14 ↗ areas. So,

1:02:16 ↗ >> thank you very much. I appreciate that.

1:02:19 ↗ >> All right. I think Aronia, I think we're

1:02:22 ↗ all set. Thank you very much. And uh you

1:02:24 ↗ know we were expecting all the questions

1:02:26 ↗ on the the next presentation. So

1:02:29 ↗ >> everyone's fired up where to go and

1:02:31 ↗ James great to give me a tour last week

1:02:34 ↗ of all 300 town homes currently under

1:02:36 ↗ construction in the city of Isiqua and

1:02:38 ↗ there is a lot and they were spread all

1:02:41 ↗ over different parts of town and so

1:02:42 ↗ there is a lot of current activity. So

1:02:44 ↗ the next item is COM 0210 promoting

1:02:47 ↗ building investments in Isqua and we're

1:02:50 ↗ going to have Minnie take it over again.

1:02:52 ↗ Thank you, Mayor Mullet. Um, and good

1:02:54 ↗ evening again. Um, so as Mayor Mullet um

1:02:57 ↗ gave in his preamble, we are here to

1:02:59 ↗ present um and receive feedback from

1:03:02 ↗ council on our 2026 2027 work plan um

1:03:06 ↗ with a big focus on promoting building

1:03:08 ↗ investment in Isiqua. Um as you've seen

1:03:12 ↗ outlined in your agenda bill, uh this

1:03:14 ↗ represents the next phase in a journey

1:03:16 ↗ that began as Mayor Mullet said in 2012

1:03:18 ↗ with the adoption of Central Isiqua

1:03:20 ↗ Plan. Following that, the city saw some

1:03:23 ↗ housing outside the urban growth

1:03:25 ↗ boundary um outside the urban core. Um

1:03:29 ↗ and then subsequently worked on some key

1:03:31 ↗ design principles and standards. Um more

1:03:34 ↗ recently we undertook an economic

1:03:36 ↗ evaluation of the housing strategies um

1:03:39 ↗ by Eco Northwest which highlighted some

1:03:42 ↗ areas that needed uh some more work or

1:03:45 ↗ adjustments. Um, now with the overhaul

1:03:49 ↗ of title 18 complete, much of the heavy

1:03:51 ↗ lifting is done. We have a consolidated

1:03:54 ↗ code with much more streamlined

1:03:56 ↗ processes. Um, but since 2023, we've

1:03:59 ↗ also committed to making annual

1:04:01 ↗ amendments. So, we don't make the same

1:04:02 ↗ mistake of having decades to go by

1:04:05 ↗ without updating a code and it again

1:04:07 ↗ becomes a patchwork of ordinances. So

1:04:10 ↗ council has approved uh amendments in

1:04:12 ↗ 2042 25. Um but with these major

1:04:16 ↗ undertakings behind us, the city's now

1:04:18 ↗ positioned to focus on transforming its

1:04:21 ↗ 900 acre commercial core into a vibrant,

1:04:24 ↗ sustainable, walkable urban center that

1:04:26 ↗ Mayor Mull has made it his priority. And

1:04:29 ↗ the I'm actually going to share my

1:04:32 ↗ screen, which I forgot. Um

1:04:35 ↗ just bear with me for a second.

1:04:47 ↗ All right,

1:04:50 ↗ to do a slideshow.

1:05:01 ↗ So, the direction we're seeking today is

1:05:03 ↗ really, do you concur with the work

1:05:05 ↗ plan? Uh are you okay with the

1:05:07 ↗ timelines? Um and any additional

1:05:09 ↗ feedback on the builder outreach? Um as

1:05:12 ↗ we all know there are multiple factors

1:05:14 ↗ in development. Um that u but today our

1:05:18 ↗ focus is at the local level what can we

1:05:20 ↗ do about land use regulations and how

1:05:22 ↗ can we spur some of this uh development

1:05:25 ↗ by promoting investments through

1:05:27 ↗ partnerships and builder outreach. Um

1:05:30 ↗ and the key strategies you've uh just

1:05:33 ↗ finished um hearing Ironia about

1:05:35 ↗ improving permit processes um will um

1:05:38 ↗ with Alexis uh you'll hear about builder

1:05:41 ↗ outreach creating incentives and then um

1:05:45 ↗ uh Kristen Leon our planning manager

1:05:47 ↗ will uh walk through the work plan for

1:05:50 ↗ the planning team. And I want to

1:05:52 ↗ recognize the planners that are here in

1:05:54 ↗ the audience who will have a stake in

1:05:56 ↗ each one of these uh code amendments. Um

1:05:59 ↗ and we'll bring forth that we have uh

1:06:01 ↗ Kate Keaney our principal planner,

1:06:04 ↗ Andrew Love, our uh associate planner,

1:06:07 ↗ Kristen Harveier, assistant planner, and

1:06:10 ↗ Ye um our uh associate planner. So we

1:06:14 ↗ have an engaged uh planning team. Uh

1:06:16 ↗ they have ramped up their knowledge of

1:06:18 ↗ Isiqua uh considering they started last

1:06:20 ↗ year um and are ready to dive into some

1:06:24 ↗ of uh some of this exciting work uh

1:06:26 ↗ ahead of us. Um, so I don't want to take

1:06:29 ↗ up too much time. Uh, I will turn over

1:06:32 ↗ uh to Alexis to walk through uh the the

1:06:35 ↗ the two strategies about public outre uh

1:06:39 ↗ builder outreach.

1:06:45 ↗ Thank you, Manny. Again, I'm Alexis

1:06:47 ↗ Spitz Simmons, the economic development

1:06:48 ↗ and housing manager.

1:06:51 ↗ I want to talk a couple about a couple

1:06:53 ↗ of different things. Um, I have two

1:06:55 ↗ slides, so I will probably talk more

1:06:57 ↗ than there will be slides. Um, but the

1:06:59 ↗ approach that I want to take when it

1:07:01 ↗ comes to builder outreach and the

1:07:04 ↗ proposal that I'm making, I believe will

1:07:06 ↗ strengthen Isqua's relationship with the

1:07:08 ↗ homebuilding community and improve the

1:07:10 ↗ way our community is seen um as a

1:07:12 ↗ partner and create efficiency,

1:07:14 ↗ predictability, improve our processes,

1:07:18 ↗ and reduce the risk to drive investment

1:07:20 ↗ with our private sector.

1:07:23 ↗ So, we'll focus on three things.

1:07:25 ↗ Engagement, again, predictability and

1:07:27 ↗ communication.

1:07:29 ↗ We want to increase direct engagement

1:07:31 ↗ with builders and meet them where they

1:07:33 ↗ are.

1:07:35 ↗ That includes meeting builders with

1:07:37 ↗ builders one-on-one

1:07:39 ↗ at attending industry events and being

1:07:42 ↗ present in spaces where development

1:07:44 ↗ decisions are being made and discussed.

1:07:47 ↗ We also want to host roundt uh

1:07:50 ↗ discussions which we have already

1:07:51 ↗ started to do. Uh this year we planned

1:07:53 ↗ four roundt discussions. We hosted the

1:07:55 ↗ first one on February 26th. There will

1:07:58 ↗ be a second one on April 1st, another

1:08:01 ↗ one in June or July and another in the

1:08:03 ↗ fall. Our goal with this is to have a

1:08:05 ↗ continuous conversation and multiple

1:08:07 ↗ touch points across the board with home

1:08:09 ↗ builders and developers uh in our

1:08:11 ↗ community and in the region. Having

1:08:14 ↗ multiple touch points um and creating

1:08:16 ↗ those relationships will build trust

1:08:18 ↗ with that community and help increase

1:08:20 ↗ transparency

1:08:22 ↗ um and their ability to

1:08:26 ↗ access um our staff and our access our

1:08:30 ↗ processes and feel comfortable with

1:08:31 ↗ that.

1:08:33 ↗ We are looking to go from having a

1:08:36 ↗ mindset as I said before of enforcement

1:08:38 ↗ to problem solving. And a lot of that um

1:08:42 ↗ happens in the processes and process and

1:08:44 ↗ zoning improvements and code

1:08:46 ↗ improvements that Kristen uh will talk

1:08:48 ↗ about uh that that will be implemented

1:08:51 ↗ uh with the work plan uh for the rest of

1:08:52 ↗ the year next year.

1:08:56 ↗ Another thing that we want to do is

1:08:58 ↗ really start to talk about what we're

1:09:00 ↗ doing right. There's a big problem with

1:09:02 ↗ perception for the city of Isiqua and

1:09:04 ↗ what it's like to do business with the

1:09:06 ↗ city of Isiqua when it comes to

1:09:07 ↗ building. It's really important to share

1:09:10 ↗ the story about what we're doing. So, as

1:09:12 ↗ we meet one-on-one with builders, as we

1:09:15 ↗ are we attend events where they are and

1:09:17 ↗ as we network and communicate with them,

1:09:19 ↗ we want to share the story about how

1:09:21 ↗ we're evolving as a community and how

1:09:23 ↗ doing business with Isqua is improving.

1:09:26 ↗ We need to brag a little bit. Isqua is a

1:09:29 ↗ great community. We need to highlight

1:09:30 ↗ things like success stories, permitting

1:09:33 ↗ timelines that have gone quickly. Uh we

1:09:36 ↗ need to ask our uh builders for um

1:09:40 ↗ statements of, you know, I enjoyed

1:09:43 ↗ working with the city of Isiqua because

1:09:44 ↗ of this. I really enjoyed working with

1:09:48 ↗ James Gray. He was um an advocate for me

1:09:50 ↗ in the process and helped me work

1:09:52 ↗ through it and problem solve some

1:09:53 ↗ issues. um we really need to get them to

1:09:56 ↗ speak for us in ways that we can put on

1:09:59 ↗ our website or put out on LinkedIn,

1:10:01 ↗ highlight stories um to show that we

1:10:04 ↗ can't we don't just um say that we're

1:10:08 ↗ we're doing these things, but we're

1:10:09 ↗ actually putting our our money where our

1:10:11 ↗ mouth is, right? So, uh success stories

1:10:14 ↗ and execution of those um changes that

1:10:17 ↗ were being made.

1:10:20 ↗ Those testimonials will continue to be

1:10:22 ↗ important as we move through these

1:10:24 ↗ improvements.

1:10:33 ↗ The other thing that I want to talk

1:10:34 ↗ about is building

1:10:37 ↗ in addition to building relationships is

1:10:39 ↗ also creating efficiency and

1:10:40 ↗ predictability. One of the big things

1:10:42 ↗ that we heard in the most recent builder

1:10:44 ↗ round table was that when they don't

1:10:46 ↗ know how their permit's going to be uh

1:10:49 ↗ worked on or what problems they might

1:10:52 ↗ come up with creates an elongated

1:10:54 ↗ timeline that costs them money in the

1:10:56 ↗ end. We've had uh recent housing

1:10:59 ↗ projects that have taken multiple

1:11:01 ↗ spanned multiple years. Um and the time

1:11:03 ↗ cost of money is what's preventing

1:11:06 ↗ homebuilders from really choosing to

1:11:08 ↗ invest in Isiqua.

1:11:11 ↗ We need to understand what builders

1:11:13 ↗ actually need. Um, and that comes with

1:11:16 ↗ being in the room with them and talking

1:11:18 ↗ with them. And so these continued

1:11:20 ↗ builder builders roundts will allow us

1:11:22 ↗ to build those direct relationships.

1:11:25 ↗ We want to build relationships with not

1:11:27 ↗ just the smaller home builders, but the

1:11:29 ↗ larger home builders in the region. Um,

1:11:31 ↗ those that have access to greater

1:11:33 ↗ capital. Um, that will allow projects

1:11:35 ↗ larger projects and projects to move

1:11:37 ↗ faster. Um there's been some legislative

1:11:41 ↗ changes last year that will maybe allow

1:11:43 ↗ for condominium um building um

1:11:47 ↗ legislation passed last year uh and

1:11:50 ↗ signed by the governor in July reduces

1:11:52 ↗ some of the risk uh of building

1:11:55 ↗ condominiums. So hopefully we'll

1:11:57 ↗ continue to see improvement on that end.

1:11:59 ↗ One of the things that still is a

1:12:00 ↗ challenge for builders in the building

1:12:02 ↗ of condominiums is uh getting them

1:12:05 ↗ getting them insured. Um, and that that

1:12:08 ↗ will continue until the underwriting

1:12:09 ↗ process takes into account the changes

1:12:11 ↗ that are legislative and I think that

1:12:13 ↗ will be an ongoing evolving situation

1:12:15 ↗ over the next year or so.

1:12:19 ↗ So with that um building trust,

1:12:23 ↗ building momentum, changing perceptions,

1:12:26 ↗ those are really the core tenants of

1:12:28 ↗ what is the start of this evolution for

1:12:30 ↗ Isiqua. Um and as we move forward

1:12:33 ↗ economic development um myself as a

1:12:36 ↗ housing manager um being the single

1:12:38 ↗ point of contact um for projects and

1:12:41 ↗ being an advocate through that process.

1:12:43 ↗ Um the CPD department um Minnie Kristen

1:12:46 ↗ uh Kate um we all work seamlessly

1:12:49 ↗ together and our goal is to continue

1:12:51 ↗ that for the benefit of these projects

1:12:53 ↗ and to move the needle for development

1:12:55 ↗ in the community.

1:12:57 ↗ I'm happy to ask answer any questions.

1:13:04 ↗ Great. Thank you.

1:13:05 ↗ >> Excellent. And I just want to say before

1:13:06 ↗ Kristen comes up that

1:13:09 ↗ I have 100% confidence that the CBD team

1:13:12 ↗ you see in front of you tonight is the

1:13:13 ↗ right team to lead us forward through

1:13:16 ↗ these challenges. I cannot be more

1:13:17 ↗ impressed in the last two months with

1:13:19 ↗ their efforts in this process and

1:13:22 ↗ they're I mean Minnie is sort of like a

1:13:24 ↗ little Rainman of land use codes. It's

1:13:26 ↗ like she's got an amazing knowledge and

1:13:30 ↗ you know spending time with James last

1:13:32 ↗ week going to all the sites and Kristen

1:13:34 ↗ was here when Tol and I we're back here

1:13:37 ↗ today and so the wealth of knowledge I

1:13:39 ↗ think you see in front of you is is

1:13:42 ↗ impressive and I think this is the right

1:13:43 ↗ team to lead us through this process. I

1:13:46 ↗ just wanted to get that out there. But

1:13:47 ↗ Kristen, go ahead.

1:13:49 ↗ >> Good evening. Yes, I'm Chris Kristen

1:13:51 ↗ Leon, planning manager. And to continue

1:13:54 ↗ on that, back up to the permitting

1:13:56 ↗ process, how the numbers improve from 20

1:13:58 ↗ from 2024 to 2025. For a part of last

1:14:02 ↗ year,

1:14:04 ↗ thank you. I brought it this time.

1:14:08 ↗ For a part of last year, we were down to

1:14:10 ↗ one current planner and one long range

1:14:13 ↗ planner. So, sort of one and a half

1:14:14 ↗ current planners. And the numbers still

1:14:16 ↗ went up. In August, Yei started with us

1:14:19 ↗ and then the other four the other three

1:14:22 ↗ >> three came on. Um Emily was promoted to

1:14:24 ↗ senior planner and these guys have

1:14:26 ↗ caught up so well and done such a good

1:14:29 ↗ job of coming up to speed that yes,

1:14:31 ↗ they'll be able to do this. So kudos to

1:14:34 ↗ them.

1:14:35 ↗ So I'm going to talk a little bit about

1:14:38 ↗ what we're proposing to do. So we took

1:14:42 ↗ input from the council retreat, from

1:14:45 ↗ home builders, from ourselves, from what

1:14:47 ↗ we see with working developers, with

1:14:49 ↗ developers and builders, and from the

1:14:52 ↗ title 18 whiteboard. There were two of

1:14:54 ↗ you who were here for the title 18

1:14:56 ↗ update, and there was a whiteboard

1:14:58 ↗ created with 21 different items on it.

1:15:00 ↗ So some of those were pulled as well.

1:15:05 ↗ I'm not going to go through all of

1:15:06 ↗ these, but at the city of council

1:15:08 ↗ retreat, you all came up with 19

1:15:09 ↗ different items. Two of those have

1:15:12 ↗ already been done. We are proposing to

1:15:14 ↗ do 11 more and are putting proposing to

1:15:17 ↗ put six on hold.

1:15:22 ↗ With the homebuilder list, they came up

1:15:23 ↗ with two primary lists. The f primary

1:15:25 ↗ list or two lists. The primary list had

1:15:28 ↗ 11 items. Nine are being proposed. One

1:15:31 ↗ has already been done.

1:15:35 ↗ their secondary list. They had seven

1:15:37 ↗ items on it. Two have already been done

1:15:39 ↗ and most of those are being proposed to

1:15:41 ↗ be done.

1:15:44 ↗ As I mentioned before, the whiteboard

1:15:45 ↗ from the title 18 update. There were 21

1:15:47 ↗ items. We've done four of those. Five of

1:15:50 ↗ those are being proposed and there are

1:15:52 ↗ quite a few that are still going to

1:15:54 ↗ remain on the to-do list for us in the

1:15:57 ↗ future.

1:15:59 ↗ There are also non-code updates that we

1:16:01 ↗ have going on. So, our planners are all

1:16:03 ↗ current planners and long range

1:16:05 ↗ planners. So, while they're doing these

1:16:07 ↗ updates, they're also doing the

1:16:08 ↗ comprehensive plan updates. They're also

1:16:10 ↗ doing reviewing plans that come in. So,

1:16:13 ↗ long range, we have the shoreline

1:16:15 ↗ program, shoreline master program

1:16:17 ↗ update, which is due in 2027.

1:16:19 ↗ We have wildfire regulations that are

1:16:22 ↗ about to be um done through the state to

1:16:24 ↗ us down to us. Comprehensive plan

1:16:26 ↗ updates. I mentioned we have regional

1:16:28 ↗ growth center reertification process

1:16:29 ↗ where there are recommendations for the

1:16:32 ↗ city and things that we need to have

1:16:33 ↗ done by 2028. There are ongoing

1:16:35 ↗ legislative updates that we are required

1:16:37 ↗ to adopt and we're hoping to start

1:16:39 ↗ neighborhood plans in 20 2027 as well.

1:16:43 ↗ Current projects, there are some big

1:16:44 ↗ ones. We have all of the high street

1:16:46 ↗ developments that are coming through.

1:16:47 ↗ Trailhead, the TOD project is coming

1:16:50 ↗ through right now. the high school uh

1:16:53 ↗ commercial, we have two commercial to

1:16:54 ↗ multif family conversions coming.

1:16:56 ↗ Boardwalk Town Homes has been a time

1:16:59 ↗ consuming, not a huge, but a

1:17:00 ↗ time-consuming project. And Costco as

1:17:02 ↗ well.

1:17:06 ↗ I didn't know where else to put this

1:17:07 ↗ next slide, so I'm slowing it. I'm

1:17:08 ↗ throwing it in there right here. So, we

1:17:10 ↗ were asked Oh, Deputy President Jen,

1:17:13 ↗ >> um quick question. You mentioned two

1:17:15 ↗ potential uh multif family conversions.

1:17:17 ↗ Are you able to share what those are?

1:17:19 ↗ Um, one,

1:17:21 ↗ no, not yet. Neither one has been

1:17:23 ↗ submitted. Yes.

1:17:25 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. I was just curious.

1:17:26 ↗ >> You're welcome.

1:17:27 ↗ >> Well, one of them is a motel sex

1:17:30 ↗ conversion into apartments, and we got a

1:17:32 ↗ tour of their Belleview facility where

1:17:34 ↗ they did the similar conversion.

1:17:37 ↗ >> Yeah. And they haven't submitted yet.

1:17:38 ↗ They're going to convert all of their

1:17:39 ↗ units to it'll be 103

1:17:42 ↗ uh multif family units or Yeah. 103

1:17:46 ↗ units.

1:17:48 ↗ Great. And the other one not allowed to

1:17:50 ↗ share.

1:17:50 ↗ >> The other one I can't share yet.

1:17:51 ↗ >> Okay, great. Thank you.

1:17:52 ↗ >> Okay.

1:17:54 ↗ All right. So, I wasn't sure where to

1:17:56 ↗ put these. It's a It's a bit of a turn.

1:17:58 ↗ Um, but we were asked recently by

1:18:00 ↗ council members, what what are both

1:18:02 ↗ Woodenville doing, right? They've seen a

1:18:04 ↗ lot of development come lately, and what

1:18:07 ↗ are they doing that we're not doing? So,

1:18:09 ↗ there are a few factors. We did talk to

1:18:11 ↗ uh planners and economic development

1:18:14 ↗ folks over there. And in both they had a

1:18:17 ↗ situation where they needed to increase

1:18:19 ↗ their capacity. They didn't have enough

1:18:21 ↗ capacity in within their zoning to meet

1:18:23 ↗ their targets. So they needed to find

1:18:25 ↗ ways to do that. So they developed

1:18:28 ↗ minimum development standards for

1:18:30 ↗ dwelling units per acre and they have um

1:18:34 ↗ maximums as well. But about 75% of their

1:18:37 ↗ land was zoned for single family and

1:18:39 ↗ that has all been upzoned sort of to

1:18:42 ↗ allow for more development. They um had

1:18:46 ↗ lots of developer timeline time

1:18:48 ↗ facetime. They talked to them to see

1:18:50 ↗ what's right, what's wrong, what do we

1:18:52 ↗ need to change. So they did that, which

1:18:53 ↗ is something we're planning on doing.

1:18:55 ↗ They created a simple development bonus

1:18:57 ↗ program and it's simply if you want to

1:19:00 ↗ do two additional floors above the base

1:19:02 ↗ height, go ahead. It's just that 10% of

1:19:04 ↗ that has to be affordable

1:19:07 ↗ at 80%. They removed all parking

1:19:10 ↗ requirements there. I think I mentioned

1:19:12 ↗ this last time I saw you. They're now

1:19:13 ↗ considering stepping it back and putting

1:19:15 ↗ maximums on there. Um, but they reduced

1:19:18 ↗ their parking requirements. They also

1:19:19 ↗ had four pe four parcels of land that

1:19:21 ↗ they donated. They were anywhere from

1:19:23 ↗ 1.5 to two acres of land. They've given

1:19:26 ↗ two away. Two are being developed and

1:19:28 ↗ two are currently being cleaned up. They

1:19:30 ↗ were contaminated and as soon as those

1:19:31 ↗ are done, they will start negotiations

1:19:33 ↗ for developments on those properties.

1:19:37 ↗ >> Woodenville just got lucky.

1:19:39 ↗ >> Council President Marts.

1:19:41 ↗ >> Thanks. I have a question. So on both,

1:19:43 ↗ it's interesting that the increasing the

1:19:45 ↗ maximum units per acre and establishing

1:19:47 ↗ minimum units per acre was considered

1:19:49 ↗ part of the story because this is an

1:19:52 ↗ area that we've specifically said we're

1:19:54 ↗ not going to hit right now. So what's

1:19:58 ↗ why if we think it was part of their

1:20:00 ↗ success, why are we not going to be

1:20:02 ↗ looking at it? uh they did that in it's

1:20:05 ↗ harder to do with floor area ratio and

1:20:08 ↗ we've just our focus right now is in

1:20:11 ↗ central Isiqua we we are going to look

1:20:13 ↗ at floor area ratios and and doing that

1:20:17 ↗ most of this for them was done in single

1:20:18 ↗ family areas so where they said you can

1:20:21 ↗ have currently you can have eight

1:20:22 ↗ dwelling units per acre now you can have

1:20:25 ↗ up to 80 dwelling units per acre with a

1:20:27 ↗ minimum of 20 and that was that's mostly

1:20:30 ↗ in single family

1:20:32 ↗ but it is something we're going to look

1:20:33 ↗ at just in a different way.

1:20:36 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you,

1:20:39 ↗ Council Member Nichols.

1:20:41 ↗ >> I just want to clarify that. So, is it

1:20:44 ↗ Are you saying that we it's harder to

1:20:46 ↗ have both a maximum unit per acre metric

1:20:50 ↗ and floor area ratio metrics? You said

1:20:53 ↗ it's harder to do with floor area ratio.

1:20:55 ↗ So, what does that mean?

1:20:59 ↗ units are

1:21:01 ↗ you can actually you can count the

1:21:02 ↗ number of units right number of units

1:21:04 ↗ per acre floor area ratio it it's based

1:21:06 ↗ on the envelope of the building you want

1:21:09 ↗ to step in

1:21:10 ↗ >> okay it's based on the envelope of the

1:21:13 ↗ building so it's you can build all the

1:21:14 ↗ way out to here and you can squeeze as

1:21:16 ↗ many units of stair as you want to but

1:21:18 ↗ with we actually have maximum dwelling

1:21:20 ↗ units per acre so in our multif family

1:21:23 ↗ high zone you're only allowed to do 29

1:21:25 ↗ units per acre whereas is I I don't know

1:21:29 ↗ if I'm did you have it?

1:21:30 ↗ >> No, I was just um sorry I'm just going

1:21:33 ↗ to sort of answer your question about

1:21:35 ↗ comparison with Bottle at a different

1:21:36 ↗ level. So what you consider success in

1:21:39 ↗ Bottle is the stuff the development you

1:21:41 ↗ see along Bottle Way as 5 over2 sort of

1:21:45 ↗ development. The other stuff that

1:21:46 ↗ they've done they didn't they had to do

1:21:49 ↗ it because their growth target was

1:21:50 ↗ 12,000 units. So they didn't have land

1:21:53 ↗ capacity to accommodate that many units.

1:21:56 ↗ So they upzoned their single family

1:21:58 ↗ zones in certain key areas to get that.

1:22:02 ↗ I'm not sure how much of that

1:22:03 ↗ development is what you were asking us

1:22:05 ↗ to compare with because the other stuff

1:22:07 ↗ that they've built along both way is

1:22:09 ↗ older. That's where some of this uh city

1:22:12 ↗ uh owned lot strategy worked in their

1:22:15 ↗ favor of getting some of and then face

1:22:17 ↗ toface time with the other developers in

1:22:20 ↗ terms of 75% of their land being single

1:22:23 ↗ family and getting that upon. That's

1:22:24 ↗ basically what uh this missing middle uh

1:22:27 ↗ you know legislation was targeting for

1:22:30 ↗ some of the cities where a lot majority

1:22:32 ↗ of the land was zoned single family.

1:22:33 ↗ Isukqua is a little bit in a unique

1:22:35 ↗ position because um we used to have a

1:22:38 ↗ statistic you remember it um 50% of our

1:22:41 ↗ residential zoned lot land already had

1:22:44 ↗ allowed multif family and so town homes

1:22:46 ↗ and other things. So uh how much

1:22:49 ↗ >> 49%

1:22:50 ↗ >> 49%. So we weren't like those other

1:22:53 ↗ cities that had majority of the land

1:22:55 ↗ zone single family. So it's it's hard to

1:22:57 ↗ compare apples to apples but we just you

1:23:00 ↗ know I wanted to share what we found out

1:23:02 ↗ through our conversations with bottle as

1:23:04 ↗ a comparison point. I don't know if that

1:23:06 ↗ answers your question but floor area

1:23:08 ↗ ratio that Kristen was explaining is

1:23:10 ↗ really looking at the the bulk of the

1:23:13 ↗ building that can go in. We don't

1:23:15 ↗ regulate how many units because you can

1:23:16 ↗ have more units if you go smaller units

1:23:19 ↗ but as long as you meet the floor ratio

1:23:22 ↗ for aqua f of five is allowed in our

1:23:26 ↗ urban core which is a pretty high uh

1:23:29 ↗ standard if and equivalent to uh the

1:23:32 ↗ dwelling units per acre is going to be

1:23:34 ↗ pretty darn high. Um over 40 dwelling

1:23:37 ↗ units per acre maybe. Right.

1:23:39 ↗ >> Right. Because so with the with trail

1:23:42 ↗ head that site is 2 acres two acres it's

1:23:45 ↗ two acres and they're putting in over

1:23:47 ↗ 300 units on two acres

1:23:50 ↗ >> whereas Yeah.

1:23:52 ↗ >> So that Yeah. So so F is not our

1:23:55 ↗ problem.

1:23:56 ↗ >> Yeah. Whereas multif family you get 58

1:23:58 ↗ units in two acres. Yeah.

1:23:59 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:24:00 ↗ >> Council member Walsh and then Jane

1:24:04 ↗ >> I want to take this from maybe a

1:24:05 ↗ different standpoint. Um I know a lot of

1:24:07 ↗ the council members from both. They were

1:24:09 ↗ very impressed that their uh city is

1:24:12 ↗ being highlighted here as a good place

1:24:15 ↗ um to do business. But um I know they in

1:24:19 ↗ order to hit their targets and also to

1:24:21 ↗ make sure that their land is um used

1:24:24 ↗ efficiently

1:24:25 ↗ um they were very concerned about town

1:24:28 ↗ houses um being the replacement for

1:24:30 ↗ single family rather than something that

1:24:34 ↗ maybe is a more efficient use, provides

1:24:37 ↗ smaller um homes that then can be more

1:24:41 ↗ affordable. So, I want to talk a little

1:24:46 ↗ bit about that idea of yes, they got

1:24:48 ↗ five ones, but they're not town houses.

1:24:52 ↗ >> And that's been a hard push for them. We

1:24:53 ↗ did talk about that. And so, some of the

1:24:57 ↗ ways that they've been able to do it is

1:24:58 ↗ maybe half of their development is town

1:25:00 ↗ homes because that's what they want to

1:25:01 ↗ do and the other half is stacked. So,

1:25:03 ↗ they're they're getting a mix of things

1:25:04 ↗ because yes, they were afraid of town

1:25:06 ↗ homes. They're trying to figure out not

1:25:07 ↗ how to not just get town homes there.

1:25:10 ↗ Yeah, we did talk about that for a

1:25:11 ↗ while.

1:25:12 ↗ Deputy President Jen.

1:25:16 ↗ >> Um I wanted to go back to your previous

1:25:17 ↗ comment about floor area ratio. So

1:25:19 ↗ currently in Isiqua, do we have limits

1:25:22 ↗ for the number of dwelling units per

1:25:23 ↗ acre in our urban core? Those types of

1:25:25 ↗ zones

1:25:26 ↗ >> in only in urban core we do there's a

1:25:28 ↗ minimum number of units that you can do

1:25:30 ↗ per acre in the urban core and that's

1:25:32 ↗ the only place in central Isqua where we

1:25:33 ↗ have a minimum number of units.

1:25:34 ↗ >> Okay. So it's minimum units per acre. Do

1:25:36 ↗ we have a maximum or is it just the No,

1:25:38 ↗ just the minimum.

1:25:39 ↗ >> Okay, great. Thank you.

1:25:43 ↗ anymore. Okay. So, as I mentioned, uh,

1:25:46 ↗ Woodenville just got lucky. So,

1:25:48 ↗ Woodenville hasn't done any major code

1:25:50 ↗ updates aside from the statemandated

1:25:51 ↗ regulations in about 15 years. They have

1:25:54 ↗ a lot of green fields and the market

1:25:56 ↗ discovered them. So, that's that's their

1:25:59 ↗ rationale for what's going on there.

1:26:00 ↗ >> And they have good wine.

1:26:02 ↗ >> We don't have

1:26:02 ↗ >> Wine helps.

1:26:03 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. So, wine helps. Um, but we

1:26:06 ↗ don't have many green fields. Those were

1:26:08 ↗ taken up by Anthology and Reva and

1:26:12 ↗ Revel. Those were our green fields. So,

1:26:14 ↗ ours is mostly going to be

1:26:16 ↗ redevelopment, which is a little

1:26:17 ↗ tougher.

1:26:21 ↗ Okay, moving on. As I mentioned a minute

1:26:23 ↗ ago, we decided to focus because because

1:26:26 ↗ when we did the central Isiqua plan,

1:26:27 ↗ part of the focus was to

1:26:30 ↗ part of part of the idea was to focus

1:26:31 ↗ all of our growth in this area. We

1:26:33 ↗ upzzoned it for that reason so that we

1:26:34 ↗ could meet our growth targets. So,

1:26:35 ↗ that's where we want it to happen. And

1:26:36 ↗ so that's where we're focusing our

1:26:38 ↗ efforts this time. So you don't need to

1:26:40 ↗ squint on this one. I will go through

1:26:42 ↗ each one of these. Uh you've seen it. We

1:26:44 ↗ have a work plan for the next year and a

1:26:47 ↗ half. There are 17 items that are on

1:26:50 ↗ there. They are broken out hopefully by

1:26:52 ↗ quarter. This team's up to it. Um and

1:26:56 ↗ these are the ones that were developed

1:26:57 ↗ from staff, state, city council, and

1:27:00 ↗ developers

1:27:04 ↗ starting in Q1 or Q2. Sorry. We're

1:27:06 ↗ already done. We're almost done with Q1.

1:27:08 ↗ Yes. Sorry.

1:27:10 ↗ >> Council member Nichols,

1:27:12 ↗ >> uh before we go through these

1:27:13 ↗ individually, could you speak to uh what

1:27:17 ↗ sort of prioritization was put into the

1:27:20 ↗ time sequencing?

1:27:22 ↗ >> A lot of it was just on how much time

1:27:23 ↗ it's going to take us to do. So, the

1:27:25 ↗ first ones that are listed on here,

1:27:27 ↗ we've given it some thought previously.

1:27:29 ↗ Maybe they were initiated by staff. We

1:27:31 ↗ kind of have a pretty we have a pretty

1:27:32 ↗ good idea of where we want to go with

1:27:33 ↗ those. Uh some of these such as the

1:27:37 ↗ impact fees are which are at the very

1:27:39 ↗ end those require funding. So we need to

1:27:41 ↗ get funding for that first and then it

1:27:43 ↗ requires hiring of consultants and just

1:27:45 ↗ takes a much longer time to do. There's

1:27:46 ↗ lots of lots of background work to be

1:27:49 ↗ done there. Threeb block connectors for

1:27:51 ↗ example those seem like they might be

1:27:54 ↗ easy but there's not really an easy

1:27:55 ↗ solution. Just it kind of it really

1:27:57 ↗ depended on how much work and research

1:27:58 ↗ it's going to take us to do.

1:28:01 ↗ So, just to clarify, you you want to do

1:28:04 ↗ the

1:28:06 ↗ >> the harder you want to do the harder

1:28:07 ↗ ones later. Is that what I'm getting?

1:28:08 ↗ >> Yes. C

1:28:09 ↗ >> can you explain why?

1:28:11 ↗ >> Because they're going to require more

1:28:12 ↗ research and we just need more time to

1:28:14 ↗ figure out the right answer.

1:28:18 ↗ I would say before I go to President

1:28:20 ↗ Marts like

1:28:23 ↗ the items you see in the second quarter

1:28:25 ↗ that means going to PPC next month going

1:28:29 ↗ back to deputy president Jen's committee

1:28:31 ↗ and then coming before full counsel in

1:28:33 ↗ June. So that process like it's hard to

1:28:36 ↗ like whatever you're doing there has to

1:28:38 ↗ be ready to go to PPC like pretty fast.

1:28:41 ↗ And so I think to Kristen's point those

1:28:44 ↗ were how those items made that very

1:28:45 ↗ first block of time. President Marts,

1:28:49 ↗ >> two just nerdy questions. Um, this

1:28:52 ↗ initiated by, C, S, C, and D. What do

1:28:55 ↗ those stand for?

1:28:56 ↗ >> U, so the C is council, city council. D

1:28:59 ↗ is developers, S is staff.

1:29:02 ↗ >> Ah, okay. And then the other question

1:29:04 ↗ is, um, and this is just a weird little

1:29:07 ↗ thing. So, I pulled this presentation

1:29:09 ↗ down this afternoon and it had 16 items

1:29:12 ↗ on it. Um is are we and there there was

1:29:15 ↗ also earlier a slide that was not in the

1:29:17 ↗ public um materials for tonight's

1:29:19 ↗ meeting that is in your presentation. So

1:29:22 ↗ is it was it updated? I guess it's been

1:29:24 ↗ updated since Friday

1:29:26 ↗ >> because I'm looking I'm looking at the

1:29:28 ↗ I'm literally looking at this slide and

1:29:29 ↗ it has 16 items, not 17.

1:29:31 ↗ >> I haven't updated it since Friday. This

1:29:33 ↗ is the last version I had in there. So

1:29:36 ↗ I'm I'm not sure.

1:29:38 ↗ >> Well, that is just a mystery then.

1:29:39 ↗ >> Okay. It is indeed. Yeah. All right.

1:29:43 ↗ Thank you.

1:29:43 ↗ >> Okay.

1:29:44 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

1:29:48 ↗ >> So, um, toward Council Member Nichols

1:29:50 ↗ point, um, is there any sense of which

1:29:54 ↗ of these areas we think are going to be

1:29:56 ↗ the most effective, the most efficient,

1:30:00 ↗ um, have the biggest impact. For a while

1:30:03 ↗ now, developers have been talking about

1:30:05 ↗ stepback requirements and outdoor

1:30:06 ↗ amenity space requirements. Those are

1:30:08 ↗ first, and I think those would have a

1:30:09 ↗ big impact.

1:30:13 ↗ floor area ratio. We have been talking

1:30:15 ↗ with the developer who wants us to look

1:30:17 ↗ at that. Um it was one site specifically

1:30:19 ↗ in the mixeduse residential area, but we

1:30:22 ↗ will look at two different zones really

1:30:24 ↗ and that should that could potentially

1:30:26 ↗ have a big impact. Architectural design

1:30:28 ↗ standards definitely those will have a

1:30:30 ↗ big impact and that's not that far off.

1:30:32 ↗ It's Q4 so hopefully they'll all have an

1:30:35 ↗ impact but those

1:30:38 ↗ pretty immediate ones I think.

1:30:40 ↗ >> Thanks. a mixeduse residential the floor

1:30:42 ↗ ratio is not five. It is currently two

1:30:44 ↗ and so that's why that one would be

1:30:46 ↗ adjusted to a different number. Okay,

1:30:49 ↗ let's want to go through the quarterly

1:30:50 ↗ slits. Let's

1:30:55 ↗ >> deputy president J.

1:30:56 ↗ >> Um quick question. So with the floor

1:30:58 ↗ area ratios, my understanding is we also

1:31:00 ↗ currently have height limits in a lot of

1:31:02 ↗ zones. Are we moving towards only doing

1:31:05 ↗ floor area ratio instead of height? Is

1:31:08 ↗ that

1:31:09 ↗ >> Yes.

1:31:09 ↗ >> Good point.

1:31:10 ↗ >> Yes. And I can go more I can go more

1:31:12 ↗ into that when I get to that slide if

1:31:14 ↗ you like.

1:31:14 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

1:31:15 ↗ >> Okay.

1:31:22 ↗ Okay. So Q2 which is coming up June. A

1:31:27 ↗ lot of these um we have six others that

1:31:29 ↗ are going along with these that were

1:31:31 ↗ staff initiated but the first one is the

1:31:33 ↗ out uh outdoor amenity st state space

1:31:37 ↗ requirements. So we did our our current

1:31:42 ↗ regulations for multif family housing

1:31:45 ↗ with 22 units or more is that each unit

1:31:49 ↗ has 100 square ft of outdoor common

1:31:51 ↗ space,

1:31:53 ↗ 48 square ft of individual outdoor space

1:31:56 ↗ and then an additional just 400 square

1:31:59 ↗ feet of indoor or outdoor community

1:32:03 ↗ space. In July, we amended that and we

1:32:06 ↗ said, "Okay, so if you want to do you

1:32:10 ↗ can you can only have only maybe only

1:32:12 ↗ 50% of your units have to have

1:32:15 ↗ individual outdoor space and you take

1:32:18 ↗ the rest of that space that would be say

1:32:20 ↗ either patios or balconies, whatever

1:32:23 ↗ that total would be, that can just go

1:32:25 ↗ into common space instead." So, we made

1:32:28 ↗ amendments to that, but it still doesn't

1:32:29 ↗ seem to be enough. So, we are going to

1:32:31 ↗ revisit that and see what we can do.

1:32:35 ↗ step back requirements.

1:32:36 ↗ >> We think 30% could be closer to a rough.

1:32:39 ↗ We don't know exactly, but that's our

1:32:40 ↗ rough sense right now is the 50% might

1:32:43 ↗ become closer to third

1:32:46 ↗ >> step back requirements developers just

1:32:48 ↗ simply don't like them. So, uh we've

1:32:51 ↗ tried revisiting that. We're going to do

1:32:53 ↗ it again. We did make a clarification.

1:32:55 ↗ There was some confusion during the

1:32:56 ↗ title 18 update uh where standards

1:33:01 ↗ requirements outside of central Isiqua

1:33:03 ↗ were accidentally

1:33:05 ↗ included in central Isiqua. So

1:33:07 ↗ developers thought that there were a lot

1:33:08 ↗ of additional regulations that needed to

1:33:09 ↗ be done if they wanted to go up higher,

1:33:11 ↗ but that wasn't the case. We fixed that

1:33:13 ↗ and now we're going to revisit stepbacks

1:33:15 ↗ in just central Isiqua again.

1:33:18 ↗ Um

1:33:21 ↗ let's see. uh self-certification of ADUs

1:33:24 ↗ actually does not require a code

1:33:25 ↗ amendment. It's simply a process

1:33:27 ↗ amendment. So, we've already started

1:33:28 ↗ looking into that. We know that there

1:33:30 ↗ are several other cities that do it.

1:33:32 ↗ Kirkland, Tacoma, Belleview, Seattle.

1:33:34 ↗ So, we're talking to them. Kirkland has

1:33:36 ↗ a really good program. Uh we are talking

1:33:38 ↗ about the easiest and most efficient way

1:33:40 ↗ to get that done. So, we're we've

1:33:43 ↗ started that process already. As I

1:33:45 ↗ mentioned, there are six other

1:33:46 ↗ amendments that are also coming in June

1:33:48 ↗ to you. It's clarify final plat

1:33:51 ↗ procedures. Clarify definition of

1:33:52 ↗ development and site development

1:33:54 ↗ permits. Develop uh develop donation bin

1:33:57 ↗ requirements, update family care park

1:34:00 ↗ uses regarding parking, fix residential

1:34:02 ↗ use definitions um that didn't get fixed

1:34:04 ↗ last time. And there's some sign code

1:34:07 ↗ amendments that we're going to do as

1:34:08 ↗ well

1:34:13 ↗ in Q3. Were there any questions? I think

1:34:16 ↗ any more questions on those those last

1:34:17 ↗ ones. Okay,

1:34:20 ↗ floor area ratio. So, we had a developer

1:34:23 ↗ come to us who wants to develop in

1:34:26 ↗ mixeduse residential area

1:34:28 ↗ has a perfectly square lot. And if this

1:34:31 ↗ developer wants to

1:34:34 ↗ the F there is 1.0 zero. The maximum is

1:34:41 ↗ two. And if this developer wants to go

1:34:45 ↗ to max F

1:34:48 ↗ can do that actually within the two sto

1:34:50 ↗ within a um within the height limit,

1:34:54 ↗ but he he can't go up. If he wants to go

1:34:56 ↗ up then then he's going to exceed the F.

1:34:58 ↗ So what we would need to do in that case

1:35:00 ↗ is exceed the F is make the F higher so

1:35:03 ↗ that he could actually get more in

1:35:05 ↗ there. Um,

1:35:10 ↗ what was I gonna say?

1:35:12 ↗ >> Pardon me.

1:35:14 ↗ >> Yeah. Yes. So, yes. So, we would get the

1:35:18 ↗ way he wants to. We wouldn't get any

1:35:19 ↗ affordable housing out of this because

1:35:20 ↗ he wouldn't be going well, we would he'd

1:35:22 ↗ be exceeding the F, so we'd still get

1:35:23 ↗ it. But, um, anyway, we need to find

1:35:25 ↗ that. The reason that we did, we're not

1:35:27 ↗ looking at the heights right now is

1:35:29 ↗ because when we did the central plan,

1:35:31 ↗ you need buffers. You can't have 85 100

1:35:34 ↗ foot buildings next to single single

1:35:37 ↗ story houses and that's what's in MUR

1:35:39 ↗ right now. So you step it up. Um so MUR

1:35:44 ↗ is adjacent to single family. So MUR

1:35:46 ↗ right now their max height 65. The next

1:35:48 ↗ one goes up to 85. The next one goes up

1:35:50 ↗ to 125. The further you the further away

1:35:52 ↗ you get from single family. That's why

1:35:54 ↗ we're not looking at it right now. Um

1:35:57 ↗ maybe if council wanted to head that

1:35:58 ↗ direction we could but we think that F

1:36:00 ↗ could possibly fix this. And one of the

1:36:03 ↗ things too is uh MUR there

1:36:05 ↗ >> council member Walsh sorry

1:36:08 ↗ >> I guess what I would say is as we are

1:36:11 ↗ looking at this as kind of a

1:36:13 ↗ comprehensive plan and idea. I think

1:36:16 ↗ what you've just presented is there's

1:36:19 ↗ some tradeoffs. If we go with floor area

1:36:22 ↗ ratio, look at heights, you know,

1:36:24 ↗ minimum units per acre, maximum units

1:36:27 ↗ per acre. Um, I would like us to look at

1:36:31 ↗ all of those or at least tell us why

1:36:36 ↗ you're not doing each of those and you

1:36:39 ↗ selected the one and how it's going to

1:36:41 ↗ solve the problem when we get to that

1:36:43 ↗ point. And I'm not saying right now, but

1:36:45 ↗ just so that our conversation isn't just

1:36:48 ↗ council said to look at floor area ratio

1:36:50 ↗ when really what we want to do is make

1:36:53 ↗ sure that we are being as effective as

1:36:54 ↗ possible

1:36:56 ↗ >> um in making those changes.

1:36:57 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:36:58 ↗ >> Deputy President Chang,

1:37:00 ↗ >> can you explain a bit more? So you said

1:37:02 ↗ something like you can't have single

1:37:04 ↗ singlestory homes next to, you know, 125

1:37:07 ↗ foot highrises. Can you explain like

1:37:09 ↗ why?

1:37:10 ↗ >> Well, you can. It's you can if that's

1:37:13 ↗ what the city council decides it wants.

1:37:15 ↗ I lived in Houston and it's not lovely.

1:37:17 ↗ Um I live very very near to a very very

1:37:19 ↗ tall building and it was not lovely. Um

1:37:21 ↗ it hated it. Um it just kind of goes

1:37:24 ↗ like this. But um you you can increase

1:37:27 ↗ the height. I think what we're trying to

1:37:28 ↗ do though is keep the character of the

1:37:30 ↗ city um without we're trying to find the

1:37:32 ↗ best ways to let it develop to its

1:37:35 ↗ maximum capacity while still keeping the

1:37:37 ↗ character of the city. And if we just

1:37:39 ↗ automatically raise the heights of all

1:37:40 ↗ the buildings, that doesn't do it.

1:37:42 ↗ Especially when you're right next to

1:37:43 ↗ Oldtown and that's where mixeduse

1:37:44 ↗ residential is. So, as Council Member

1:37:47 ↗ Walsh just mentioned, we're just going

1:37:49 ↗ to try and look at the whole envelope.

1:37:50 ↗ What can we do to get maximum density

1:37:52 ↗ here and still keep our character?

1:37:55 ↗ >> Thank you,

1:37:56 ↗ >> Council Member Nichols.

1:37:58 ↗ >> I think uh character can mean a lot of

1:38:00 ↗ different things to lots of different

1:38:01 ↗ people. Um it it seems like you've got

1:38:03 ↗ some of your own opinions here that

1:38:04 ↗ you're bringing to this. Will you also

1:38:06 ↗ be bringing us the full spectrum of

1:38:09 ↗ possibilities here so that we don't get

1:38:10 ↗ those filtered out to one particular um

1:38:13 ↗ inherently subjective definition like

1:38:15 ↗ character?

1:38:16 ↗ >> Sure. Um when you say full spectrum of

1:38:19 ↗ possibilities, you just mean height

1:38:21 ↗ versus floor area ratio versus dwelling

1:38:23 ↗ units per acre when we're looking at F.

1:38:28 ↗ >> It's a pretty high level question. um

1:38:31 ↗ how you you built into that the response

1:38:34 ↗ to a a technical question a pretty

1:38:36 ↗ subjective

1:38:38 ↗ um word which is the character um that

1:38:42 ↗ has lots and lots of different meanings.

1:38:44 ↗ Um how to what extent is that filter and

1:38:48 ↗ you know you're comparing this to other

1:38:50 ↗ cities etc going to filter what is

1:38:52 ↗ presented to us.

1:38:53 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. And that that's you're

1:38:57 ↗ saying that's what you'd like to see is

1:38:59 ↗ that filter and how it compares.

1:39:03 ↗ >> Let me

1:39:05 ↗ a stab at this. Um what you're hearing

1:39:07 ↗ tonight is is sort of tactical ways to

1:39:10 ↗ address the issues that you're raising.

1:39:12 ↗ Um but you go back to other documents.

1:39:14 ↗ We have a strategic plan. We have a a

1:39:16 ↗ general plan. All of those things talk

1:39:18 ↗ about character and nature. And so what

1:39:20 ↗ you're hearing tonight is the staff uh

1:39:22 ↗ putting forward tactical ways to help

1:39:24 ↗ build more housing, but also keeping in

1:39:27 ↗ mind these other plans that we have that

1:39:29 ↗ I think talk more about character. If

1:39:31 ↗ the council wishes to amend some of

1:39:33 ↗ those additional plans, then I think we

1:39:35 ↗ would go back into title 18 and make

1:39:36 ↗ those changes. But I think certainly

1:39:38 ↗ those documents talk a lot about

1:39:40 ↗ character. They they identify what that

1:39:42 ↗ is and those plans have been talked

1:39:44 ↗ about with the community, have been

1:39:45 ↗ approved by the city council, and those

1:39:47 ↗ are the guiding posts that we're using.

1:39:49 ↗ If through this conversation you say

1:39:51 ↗ that those guideposts have changed or

1:39:53 ↗ need to be adjusted, uh we would like to

1:39:55 ↗ hear that because if you're looking at

1:39:56 ↗ amending the strategic plan, you're

1:39:58 ↗ looking at amending the comprehensive

1:39:59 ↗ plan to change some of the uh main

1:40:02 ↗ points of development that have been

1:40:04 ↗ used by this community for a long time,

1:40:06 ↗ absolutely within your right. Uh but we

1:40:08 ↗ would need to go through that process.

1:40:10 ↗ So it's not Kristen's opinion. what

1:40:13 ↗ she's doing is taking uh the documents

1:40:15 ↗ and the plans that this council and

1:40:17 ↗ previous councils have approved and

1:40:19 ↗ using these as tactics to implement them

1:40:21 ↗ as to how you see fit. And

1:40:23 ↗ >> and I would say as I've talked to the

1:40:26 ↗ Isqua community about this change uh I

1:40:30 ↗ often say I think our neighborhoods

1:40:32 ↗ whether you're in South Cove or whether

1:40:33 ↗ you're in Talis whether you're in Squawk

1:40:35 ↗ or the Highlands are going to if I think

1:40:36 ↗ we get it right will probably look very

1:40:38 ↗ similar 15 years from now how they look

1:40:40 ↗ now. I think Oldtown will actually, if

1:40:42 ↗ we get it right, maintain the character

1:40:44 ↗ of historic Front Street. It to me, the

1:40:47 ↗ real focus is this area in the central

1:40:49 ↗ Isqua plan both south and north of I90.

1:40:51 ↗ I mean, I continue to go back to the

1:40:53 ↗ area directly west of Costco's global

1:40:56 ↗ headquarters that I honestly feel was

1:40:57 ↗ more vibrant 20 years ago when I moved

1:40:59 ↗ to Isiqua than it is today. And so I

1:41:01 ↗ think my guidance to staff is to really

1:41:04 ↗ focus on this part of Isaqua that I feel

1:41:08 ↗ hopefully light rail is coming and when

1:41:11 ↗ it comes we want it to be a vibrant a

1:41:13 ↗ vibrant walkable village retail type

1:41:16 ↗ scene and that I think has been the the

1:41:19 ↗ emphasis to staff is to really focus on

1:41:21 ↗ those areas not to necessarily try to

1:41:22 ↗ have the tallest buildings we can on

1:41:24 ↗ historic Front Street. is definitely

1:41:26 ↗ gearing it more towards we think around

1:41:28 ↗ this I90 corridor both north and south

1:41:30 ↗ where I think there is huge

1:41:31 ↗ opportunities.

1:41:37 ↗ Okay.

1:41:39 ↗ So

1:41:41 ↗ moving on we have statemandated parking

1:41:43 ↗ requirements. Those are required to be

1:41:45 ↗ done by 2028. We're going to go ahead

1:41:46 ↗ and get those all done this year.

1:41:49 ↗ Natural context areas and transparency

1:41:52 ↗ requirements. So I'm just going to put

1:41:53 ↗ it out there. We have natural context

1:41:55 ↗ areas that are identified in our central

1:41:57 ↗ standards and the requirements for those

1:41:59 ↗ are a little are a little odd. So, and

1:42:01 ↗ not always doable. So, we found that out

1:42:04 ↗ through a few developments that have

1:42:05 ↗ come through. So, we're going to revisit

1:42:06 ↗ those. We found from developers that

1:42:08 ↗ those are difficult. We've seen that

1:42:09 ↗ it's difficult. Part of that is the

1:42:11 ↗ transparency requirements. So, when you

1:42:13 ↗ face a natural area, 50% of your facade

1:42:18 ↗ that faces that area is supposed to be

1:42:20 ↗ transparent. They're either doors or

1:42:22 ↗ windows. And when you're building a

1:42:24 ↗ residential development, you don't

1:42:25 ↗ necessarily want that, especially if

1:42:27 ↗ you're going to have a path going right

1:42:28 ↗ by there. You don't you may not want 50%

1:42:30 ↗ transparency in your facade. And then

1:42:33 ↗ transparency also comes into play along

1:42:35 ↗ the street. So when you are building a

1:42:38 ↗ res a

1:42:40 ↗ development, the street frontage part of

1:42:42 ↗ that if you are retail, 75% has to be

1:42:45 ↗ transparent. All other commercial office

1:42:48 ↗ uses and residential uses have to be 40%

1:42:50 ↗ transparent. If you're residential, that

1:42:52 ↗ 40% transparency has to take place at or

1:42:55 ↗ above the six foot mark of that

1:42:57 ↗ building. So these have proven to be

1:42:59 ↗ difficult for developers to do. It can

1:43:02 ↗ these what we're trying to achieve can

1:43:04 ↗ be achieved in other ways. So we are

1:43:06 ↗ going to revisit that and look and see

1:43:07 ↗ what other cities do and try and resolve

1:43:10 ↗ that.

1:43:11 ↗ I mean, I would say this item too came

1:43:13 ↗ out of the builder round table where the

1:43:15 ↗ blue fern condos there on Newport by IV

1:43:18 ↗ were saying like they had to do 50%

1:43:20 ↗ transparency facing an area where was

1:43:23 ↗ walking by and it wasn't necessarily

1:43:25 ↗ something the future homeowners want and

1:43:27 ↗ the people walking by don't really want.

1:43:28 ↗ So, but council member Nichols, go

1:43:30 ↗ ahead.

1:43:32 ↗ >> Question on five. So, that it's framed

1:43:35 ↗ as statemandated parking requirements.

1:43:37 ↗ Will you be bringing again at kind of a

1:43:40 ↗ full spectrum beyond just statemandated

1:43:42 ↗ parking requirements as things to

1:43:44 ↗ discuss?

1:43:44 ↗ >> Not at this time. No.

1:43:47 ↗ >> Okay.

1:43:51 ↗ >> The last one on for Q3 2026 is to allow

1:43:54 ↗ multif family in UV urban village

1:43:57 ↗ commercial retail. This one's a bit odd

1:44:00 ↗ as well. We have UVC com UV commercial

1:44:03 ↗ retail is not one zone. It's actually

1:44:05 ↗ two different zones and you can have two

1:44:07 ↗ different zones on one parcel that

1:44:08 ↗ actually have two different permitted

1:44:10 ↗ uses tables for each one. So, we're

1:44:12 ↗ going to revisit that. Um, see if we can

1:44:15 ↗ fix that. It gets very confusing when

1:44:16 ↗ developers come in and say, "Can I

1:44:18 ↗ expand my property or can I build on

1:44:19 ↗ this property?" Uh, so we're going to

1:44:21 ↗ revisit that as well. But the first one

1:44:22 ↗ that came up is from a developer asking

1:44:25 ↗ asking us to allow multif family

1:44:27 ↗ residential technically in the

1:44:28 ↗ commercial part of this.

1:44:32 ↗ Okay. Moving on to Q4 2026. The first

1:44:35 ↗ one is to provide flexibility uh to meet

1:44:37 ↗ the intent of the architectural design

1:44:39 ↗ standards that we have right now.

1:44:41 ↗ They're say you're required to do the

1:44:43 ↗ intent is this, but you're required to

1:44:45 ↗ do every single one of these elements.

1:44:47 ↗ And what we're looking to do is say

1:44:49 ↗ here's the intent. Here are the

1:44:51 ↗ different things. Pick three of these

1:44:52 ↗ things to do to meet the intent of this.

1:44:55 ↗ That would be preferred by developers.

1:44:59 ↗ Variances and departures kind of fall

1:45:01 ↗ into the same area outside of already

1:45:03 ↗ looking at the architectural standards.

1:45:05 ↗ What else can we do? Where else can we

1:45:06 ↗ allow variances that are reasonable and

1:45:09 ↗ still meet the intent of the code?

1:45:12 ↗ Through block corridors, connectors,

1:45:14 ↗ these we used to require

1:45:17 ↗ up to 40 ft throughblock connectors

1:45:20 ↗ which go from one block between

1:45:21 ↗ buildings to the other block. And during

1:45:24 ↗ the title 18 update, we we reduced these

1:45:26 ↗ down. They're about 10 feet now. And it

1:45:28 ↗ still doesn't always make sense. The

1:45:30 ↗ intent is the intent is awesome. The

1:45:32 ↗ intent is to have shorter blocks. We've

1:45:35 ↗ got blocks that are 1,000 feet long and

1:45:37 ↗ you want to have blocks that are

1:45:38 ↗ anywhere from 250 to 300 feet. So that

1:45:40 ↗ is the intent of the corridor is to

1:45:42 ↗ break that down. But you can't always do

1:45:44 ↗ it because if you're going from a

1:45:46 ↗ building to another building, that

1:45:48 ↗ doesn't get you anywhere. Going to a

1:45:50 ↗ building to an alley, that's doesn't

1:45:52 ↗ really serve a purpose. So, we're going

1:45:53 ↗ to revisit that and see what kind of

1:45:55 ↗ deviations or al alternatives we can

1:45:57 ↗ find to those. And the last one that

1:45:59 ↗ we've already talked about is peer

1:46:00 ↗ review. So, there are a few options here

1:46:02 ↗ that we're looking at as well. Um trying

1:46:04 ↗ to figure out we don't have certified

1:46:08 ↗ state certified people to do some of

1:46:10 ↗ these reviews, critical areas reviews,

1:46:12 ↗ geotechnical reviews. Um we we don't

1:46:14 ↗ have some of those. So, in most

1:46:16 ↗ circumstances right now, we need to go

1:46:18 ↗ out to peer reviewers. geotechnical

1:46:22 ↗ reviewers I don't think will change but

1:46:24 ↗ when we look at critical areas there are

1:46:25 ↗ some possibilities there um in

1:46:28 ↗ limiting we have some options I'm not

1:46:31 ↗ going to go through all the options now

1:46:32 ↗ we've talked a few about a few things

1:46:33 ↗ there liability issues with some of what

1:46:35 ↗ things we've talked about so I don't

1:46:36 ↗ want to throw it out there yet so um but

1:46:38 ↗ we're looking at that as well that would

1:46:40 ↗ reduce costs and developers would be

1:46:42 ↗ very appreciative

1:46:43 ↗ >> oh council member dair

1:46:45 ↗ >> uh yeah and I'm sure this is to your

1:46:47 ↗ earlier point of that the time involved

1:46:49 ↗ to me like I feel like the whole point

1:46:50 ↗ of This is the intent versus letter of

1:46:52 ↗ the law. The intent of what our codes

1:46:54 ↗ were meant to do, the intent of our

1:46:56 ↗ central isqua plan and trying to

1:46:58 ↗ actually achieve that intent intent. So

1:47:00 ↗ I'm just curious to me like eight and

1:47:02 ↗ nine are kind of the real point of all

1:47:04 ↗ of this, but is it just there just

1:47:05 ↗ because the timing to actually develop

1:47:07 ↗ this will take that time or is you know

1:47:11 ↗ to me that's like one of the high

1:47:13 ↗ importance items. So I'm just curious in

1:47:14 ↗ terms of the timing for that.

1:47:15 ↗ >> So it seems like it's really far out

1:47:17 ↗ there but it's not. um the architectural

1:47:20 ↗ standards, the overlay standards,

1:47:22 ↗ they're kind they're in a several

1:47:24 ↗ different places in the code. And while

1:47:27 ↗ it says Q4, which is December of this

1:47:29 ↗ year, they would actually have to be at

1:47:31 ↗ our planning policy commission by

1:47:32 ↗ September. So that really doesn't give

1:47:34 ↗ us that much time considering the other

1:47:36 ↗ two quarters we have in front of it. So

1:47:38 ↗ it's it's pretty fast.

1:47:39 ↗ >> Okay.

1:47:41 ↗ >> Okay.

1:47:42 ↗ >> And and I would say I think this slide

1:47:43 ↗ there's a lot of I these are big things

1:47:45 ↗ on this slide. I mean eight is a big

1:47:47 ↗ item. Nine is a big item. 11 is a big

1:47:50 ↗ item. I mean, these are big items that

1:47:53 ↗ we're saying we will deliver in this

1:47:55 ↗ calendar year.

1:48:01 ↗ All right. Starting next year, the first

1:48:03 ↗ one that we would look at are ways to

1:48:05 ↗ mitigate redevelopment if close to or

1:48:07 ↗ within paved buffers. And what we found,

1:48:10 ↗ particularly with the trail head

1:48:11 ↗ development, is that we have most of

1:48:14 ↗ most of Central College is paved. It's

1:48:16 ↗ just paved over. and we've paved over

1:48:17 ↗ wetlands and we've paved over buffers

1:48:20 ↗ and it makes development really really

1:48:22 ↗ difficult. So we need to find ways to if

1:48:25 ↗ they're going to improve the buffers, do

1:48:27 ↗ we let them develop in part of that? We

1:48:29 ↗ we need to figure out how to make this

1:48:31 ↗ easier for developers rather than saying

1:48:33 ↗ you simply can't build in that area

1:48:34 ↗ period. So that's one we're going to

1:48:36 ↗ look at. Another one is more options to

1:48:38 ↗ meet sustainable development standards.

1:48:40 ↗ We're watching the IAAP update, climate

1:48:42 ↗ action plan to see where that goes. And

1:48:44 ↗ we're working with them as they move

1:48:46 ↗ along. We're working with them to make

1:48:48 ↗ updates as well, but that'll be toward

1:48:49 ↗ the end of the year.

1:48:53 ↗ Q2, hang in there, we're almost done. Um

1:48:56 ↗ Q2, structured parking, retail frontage

1:48:58 ↗ requirement. This isn't a huge deal, but

1:49:00 ↗ we do require that if you put in

1:49:01 ↗ structured parking in central Isiqua

1:49:04 ↗ that the face of the building 20 ft deep

1:49:09 ↗ is has some sort of use in it so that

1:49:12 ↗ you have 20 ft deep spaces for retail or

1:49:15 ↗ offices or something like that. This is

1:49:18 ↗ cumbersome. You often times also wind up

1:49:20 ↗ with vacant buildings sitting there that

1:49:21 ↗ nobody can fill because the space isn't

1:49:23 ↗ right. So, or the market isn't there at

1:49:26 ↗ the time. So, we are looking at uh

1:49:29 ↗ adjusting that, maybe removing that. The

1:49:32 ↗ Eco Northwest report we've talked about

1:49:34 ↗ several times. That was

1:49:35 ↗ >> Oh, council member Joe.

1:49:37 ↗ >> Uh Kristen Le, if I could comment on uh

1:49:41 ↗ that point that you just made in terms

1:49:44 ↗ of retail on the first floor in some of

1:49:46 ↗ the parking lots. Um would that be made

1:49:49 ↗ easier if the governor signs Senate bill

1:49:53 ↗ 6026 which is um loosening up the

1:49:57 ↗ requirement that um there can be housing

1:50:00 ↗ commercial zones

1:50:02 ↗ uh and the mix can be a little bit

1:50:04 ↗ different. Is that going to help us at

1:50:05 ↗ all with this particular problem? Or the

1:50:08 ↗ second part of the question is if this

1:50:09 ↗ passes, does that interfere, mess up, uh

1:50:14 ↗ will we have to do some work on the

1:50:15 ↗ planning side that will need to be in

1:50:18 ↗ some of this plan delaying some other

1:50:20 ↗ pieces of it and I don't necessarily

1:50:22 ↗ know the answer to it and we might not

1:50:23 ↗ know the answer right now, but I'm

1:50:24 ↗ throwing the question out.

1:50:26 ↗ >> So, we already requcept

1:50:30 ↗ for intensive commercial. Um, so no,

1:50:33 ↗ it's 620. It doesn't that doesn't affect

1:50:35 ↗ anything. Um, the one that we've talked

1:50:37 ↗ about is the requirement of um

1:50:40 ↗ commercial,

1:50:41 ↗ which I think they're the same bill. Are

1:50:43 ↗ they the same bill? They're the same

1:50:44 ↗ bill.

1:50:46 ↗ >> I I think where the bill was headed last

1:50:48 ↗ time we checked was the the cities were

1:50:51 ↗ making comments about having some

1:50:53 ↗ flexibility to have commercial. Uh,

1:50:55 ↗ rightfully so, because uh you do need a

1:50:58 ↗ mix of uses. Um, and it was a certain

1:51:01 ↗ percentage of your area could have

1:51:04 ↗ commercial ground floor requirement for

1:51:06 ↗ >> there are number of carveouts and I

1:51:08 ↗ think the one that's that I'm thinking

1:51:10 ↗ of that will be important will be the

1:51:12 ↗ carveout that's allowed for transitory

1:51:15 ↗ development areas. Yes,

1:51:16 ↗ >> i.e. our

1:51:17 ↗ >> terminus station. So correct

1:51:19 ↗ >> I'm just thinking of that as well as I'm

1:51:22 ↗ going through these different thoughts.

1:51:23 ↗ some work on our part will be needed

1:51:25 ↗ where we want uh that kind of required

1:51:28 ↗ mandate for mixed use versus um not so

1:51:32 ↗ >> thank you very much.

1:51:35 ↗ >> Okay. So the uh Eco Northwest report was

1:51:37 ↗ done it was finished in 2023 to

1:51:40 ↗ implement three of our housing strategy

1:51:42 ↗ plan pieces uh to remove barriers to

1:51:46 ↗ condominium development to expand

1:51:48 ↗ inclusionary zoning and to increase the

1:51:50 ↗ diversity of housing. And what came out

1:51:52 ↗ of that report was nope, can't do it.

1:51:54 ↗ You need to work on what's existing

1:51:56 ↗ first. So they said, relook at

1:51:57 ↗ inclusionary zoning, reook at think

1:51:59 ↗ about doing it uh multif family tax

1:52:01 ↗ exemptions, revisit your development

1:52:03 ↗ bonus, revisit your parking

1:52:04 ↗ requirements, which has kind of been

1:52:05 ↗ taken care of by the state, but this is

1:52:08 ↗ requiring a consultant to go through and

1:52:10 ↗ help us adjust all of these levers based

1:52:12 ↗ on their recommendations to see what is

1:52:14 ↗ going to help get development in there.

1:52:17 ↗ Last one. So, uh, Q3 2027, the first

1:52:22 ↗ one, we've talked about this a few

1:52:23 ↗ times, is to rightsize the impact fees.

1:52:25 ↗ We do know that some of our impact fees

1:52:27 ↗ are higher. We do know that some of our

1:52:28 ↗ just land use fees are higher. Um, some

1:52:30 ↗ of them are just fine. So, again, hiring

1:52:33 ↗ a consultant, getting getting money in

1:52:35 ↗ the budget, hiring a consultant to go

1:52:37 ↗ through and work through those numbers

1:52:38 ↗ with us is a big is a big ask, is a big

1:52:41 ↗ do. Um, the last one is potential use of

1:52:44 ↗ AI to aid in permitting. Belleview has

1:52:47 ↗ just started doing this, but very, very,

1:52:49 ↗ very little. They're the first ones that

1:52:51 ↗ I know of. We do have an AI team of, I

1:52:53 ↗ think, one right now who is

1:52:55 ↗ investigating how other cities do it.

1:52:57 ↗ And I think it's a little bit of a wait

1:52:58 ↗ and see um what's what's working with

1:53:01 ↗ other cities and what's not,

1:53:02 ↗ particularly Belleview. But that is

1:53:04 ↗ something that we can look into.

1:53:05 ↗ >> But but that one is Dale. She counts as

1:53:07 ↗ three. So

1:53:09 ↗ >> mighty Dale.

1:53:11 ↗ Okay. So as many mentioned, uh the that

1:53:14 ↗ is all I have the three things. Council

1:53:17 ↗ member Joe,

1:53:19 ↗ >> thank you. Um, wanted to talk about the

1:53:21 ↗ impact fee item there a little bit. Um,

1:53:24 ↗ in the developer comments, it indicated

1:53:27 ↗ that those levels that we have

1:53:30 ↗ significantly impact

1:53:32 ↗ uh and inflate the total development

1:53:34 ↗ costs. Um, so much so that many housing

1:53:37 ↗ providers cannot make projects pencil.

1:53:40 ↗ And I interpret that as, you know, when

1:53:43 ↗ you're looking just at the first blush

1:53:45 ↗ at a piece of land and you've got the

1:53:47 ↗ impact fee number there, um, you're

1:53:50 ↗ doing the calculations before you're

1:53:52 ↗ even venturing into pre-application or

1:53:56 ↗ doing any designs. And they're saying

1:53:58 ↗ that that is an impediment right from

1:54:00 ↗ the start for them to totally for them

1:54:02 ↗ to just completely take that isqua piece

1:54:05 ↗ of land off and to go look somewhere

1:54:07 ↗ else. Um, I know that you said that

1:54:10 ↗ impact fees would be a significant lift.

1:54:13 ↗ Um, and I don't disagree with that. I I

1:54:17 ↗ know that my fellow council member, Mh

1:54:20 ↗ Council Member Nichols here asked why

1:54:22 ↗ the hardest ones were were at the end.

1:54:24 ↗ Could you just give a little brief

1:54:26 ↗ summary in terms of the the small pieces

1:54:29 ↗ that a consultant needs to do to come

1:54:30 ↗ in, look at the comparative impact fees,

1:54:33 ↗ look at the the capital plans are

1:54:36 ↗ involved just to give us a flavor of

1:54:37 ↗ kind of the the workload that's involved

1:54:39 ↗ there.

1:54:40 ↗ >> I'm going to phone my expert to my left,

1:54:42 ↗ Miss Mini Dolly. Well, and before many

1:54:45 ↗ comes up and I would also say you have

1:54:47 ↗ to figure out what's in your like our

1:54:48 ↗ CIP right now has $120 million vehicular

1:54:51 ↗ overcrossing over I90 that would raise

1:54:53 ↗ the height of Gilman by up to 25 ft. So

1:54:56 ↗ right now that's part of the so part of

1:54:59 ↗ it is takes a lot of time and effort to

1:55:01 ↗ figure out what project should be going

1:55:04 ↗ into that CIP as well which is a process

1:55:08 ↗ that we really have to put some time

1:55:09 ↗ into but go ahead Minnie. Yeah. So, um,

1:55:13 ↗ you know, I think I emailed the

1:55:15 ↗ different impact fees we have. The

1:55:16 ↗ school district does their own student

1:55:18 ↗ generation rate. We adopt them every

1:55:20 ↗ year. The the large items for that we

1:55:23 ↗ hear from developers are traffic and

1:55:25 ↗ parks. Uh, so it makes sense to do

1:55:27 ↗ traffic impact fees after we've done the

1:55:29 ↗ concurrency update, a new traffic model

1:55:32 ↗ update. Then we know what the levels of

1:55:33 ↗ service are and where we the community

1:55:36 ↗ is willing to go with those level of

1:55:38 ↗ service. And you know as a council you

1:55:40 ↗ could decide what's acceptable level of

1:55:42 ↗ service what's needs to be on the tip

1:55:45 ↗ and the capital improvement plans that

1:55:47 ↗ feeds into some of that information. Um

1:55:50 ↗ the methodology of how do you calculate

1:55:52 ↗ is pretty canned. uh but it's still

1:55:54 ↗ those numbers you know those inputs need

1:55:56 ↗ to be established through some technical

1:55:58 ↗ work that needs to occur before but even

1:56:01 ↗ the me the other the reports we have to

1:56:03 ↗ have adopted reports that base that are

1:56:06 ↗ used as basis for establishing the fees.

1:56:08 ↗ So it gets pretty technical

1:56:11 ↗ uh and they have to be legally

1:56:12 ↗ defensible studies uh that need to be

1:56:14 ↗ done. Uh same thing with the parks uh

1:56:16 ↗ impact fees. Um the community needs to

1:56:19 ↗ decide what the park plan looks like and

1:56:21 ↗ get that adopted in order to feed the

1:56:23 ↗ information into establishing what the

1:56:25 ↗ impact from this development is relative

1:56:27 ↗ to what their prora share for uh their

1:56:30 ↗ impact is. You still have to establish

1:56:33 ↗ what their impact is. So it gets

1:56:34 ↗ technical. Um you know there are a few

1:56:37 ↗ consultants out there. We would have to

1:56:38 ↗ do an RFP solicit uh the right

1:56:41 ↗ consultant to help us with this work.

1:56:43 ↗ It's going to cost money. So, it'll

1:56:46 ↗ probably be a budget ask as part of the

1:56:48 ↗ budget process for next year uh to get

1:56:50 ↗ this on the work plan.

1:56:52 ↗ >> I think it's roughly could be up to

1:56:54 ↗ $200,000 to do.

1:56:55 ↗ >> Okay. So, if we wanted to move it up on

1:56:58 ↗ the work plan, obviously some pieces

1:56:59 ↗ would be kicked further down the work

1:57:03 ↗ plan and we think it's about $200,000 to

1:57:06 ↗ have a consultant to come in and look at

1:57:08 ↗ the impact fees. and we'd have to look

1:57:11 ↗ at our capital improvement plan and our

1:57:14 ↗ parks improvement plan uh to make sure

1:57:17 ↗ that they're right size for the impact

1:57:19 ↗ fee that we might want to have.

1:57:22 ↗ Moreover, taking it even a step back

1:57:24 ↗ further from there, we would have to

1:57:27 ↗ address the park plan because that was a

1:57:30 ↗ plan that we put in place that had a

1:57:31 ↗ vision for what our parks wanted to look

1:57:33 ↗ like. We'd have to take a look at our

1:57:35 ↗ transportation plan as well to see if

1:57:37 ↗ that vision is still appropriate before

1:57:40 ↗ we adjusted those impact fees down or

1:57:43 ↗ up.

1:57:43 ↗ >> That's correct.

1:57:44 ↗ >> Okay.

1:57:44 ↗ >> That that would be the better way to do

1:57:46 ↗ it. Uh if you Yeah.

1:57:49 ↗ >> Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, members of the

1:57:51 ↗ council, Andrea Leonard, who's on uh uh

1:57:54 ↗ remotely indicated that in discussions

1:57:56 ↗ with the public works staff as recently

1:57:58 ↗ as today, their numbers are quite much

1:58:00 ↗ higher for the work. they there's thing

1:58:02 ↗ the transportation uh uh plan would be

1:58:06 ↗ another $400,000. So we I think when

1:58:09 ↗ we'll need to go back and and double

1:58:12 ↗ check these all these numbers, but it

1:58:13 ↗ could be as much as 400,000 just for the

1:58:15 ↗ transportation piece of this.

1:58:17 ↗ >> Thank you for that information. I

1:58:18 ↗ appreciate giving that background when

1:58:20 ↗ we uh are looking at this plan.

1:58:23 ↗ >> Yeah, there's a reason I stay away from

1:58:24 ↗ impact fees if I can.

1:58:27 ↗ All right. Uh so that's all I have. We

1:58:29 ↗ just are as mention many many mentioned

1:58:32 ↗ in the beginning. We want to know do you

1:58:33 ↗ do you agree with the proposed list of

1:58:35 ↗ amendments? Do you agree with the

1:58:36 ↗ timeline and the prioritization of these

1:58:38 ↗ amendments? And do you concur with the

1:58:40 ↗ proactive builder outreach approach? And

1:58:42 ↗ do you have any other ideas for that? So

1:58:44 ↗ we are all three here to answer

1:58:45 ↗ questions.

1:58:46 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

1:58:49 ↗ >> Thank you. So first I want to start with

1:58:53 ↗ the positive which is that I am thrilled

1:58:56 ↗ that we are looking at all of this. I'm

1:58:58 ↗ thrilled at the timeline. I think these

1:59:01 ↗ present a lot of opportunities um so

1:59:05 ↗ that students and you know young people

1:59:09 ↗ can look at Isiqua as a place that they

1:59:12 ↗ can continue um to live. Um I think

1:59:16 ↗ these can have very big impacts on

1:59:18 ↗ affordability.

1:59:20 ↗ What I would like council to do though

1:59:22 ↗ as we are looking at this

1:59:25 ↗ is take a little bit of a step back and

1:59:29 ↗ particularly on the both slide you said

1:59:33 ↗ their goal was to maximize units. I

1:59:37 ↗ don't think we've come up with a stated

1:59:39 ↗ goal here. Nor do I think we've come up

1:59:43 ↗ with a way to measure if any of these

1:59:46 ↗ individually or as a group are

1:59:51 ↗ effective.

1:59:52 ↗ And so I I want to make sure that as we

1:59:57 ↗ move forward with this that we are

2:00:00 ↗ moving toward a single goal

2:00:04 ↗ that we will know if they are effective

2:00:07 ↗ and we know what the most impactful

2:00:10 ↗ change we could make. I think that's

2:00:12 ↗ really important when we are setting a

2:00:14 ↗ work plan. Uh Kristen, I really

2:00:17 ↗ appreciate the explanation of some of

2:00:19 ↗ the things that I might think are very

2:00:21 ↗ impactful like the um impact fees do

2:00:25 ↗ have some of the requirements that might

2:00:27 ↗ even though they're more impactful get

2:00:28 ↗ pushed down the timeline, not the

2:00:32 ↗ importance. And so I think I would want

2:00:36 ↗ to make sure that we are talking on that

2:00:38 ↗ level so that we can really help

2:00:41 ↗ evaluate whether or not these things

2:00:43 ↗ will be effective. I will also say my

2:00:46 ↗ concern as we go through and make permit

2:00:50 ↗ improvements and, you know, make other

2:00:54 ↗ changes is that

2:00:57 ↗ builders have been very familiar

2:00:59 ↗ recently with building town homes and

2:01:02 ↗ duplexes.

2:01:03 ↗ And we might not have a lot of green

2:01:07 ↗ fields, but we do have a lot of parking

2:01:09 ↗ lots that could turn into townous.

2:01:13 ↗ And I want to make sure that when we are

2:01:16 ↗ making changes that we are not making it

2:01:21 ↗ entirely just more effect more cost

2:01:24 ↗ effective to build town houses

2:01:26 ↗ particularly in the area of central

2:01:28 ↗ Isiqua because we're looking at transit

2:01:31 ↗ in that area and we want a very walkable

2:01:33 ↗ area. So I'd like to make sure that we

2:01:36 ↗ are also

2:01:38 ↗ flashing all kinds of things around

2:01:40 ↗ here. That's super fun. Um,

2:01:44 ↗ oh, that's usually just the screen turn

2:01:46 ↗ off or something. Um,

2:01:51 ↗ though I will say it's also our screens

2:01:53 ↗ as well. So, I don't know if it's just

2:01:55 ↗ the TV.

2:01:56 ↗ >> There we go. Um

2:01:59 ↗ just to make sure that we are not making

2:02:04 ↗ changes to just make changes that we

2:02:07 ↗ have a goal toward it and that we are

2:02:08 ↗ not going to suffer unintended

2:02:10 ↗ consequences.

2:02:12 ↗ One of which being

2:02:14 ↗ we would either get more single family

2:02:16 ↗ or more duplexes built in an area that

2:02:18 ↗ we think could be much denser.

2:02:22 ↗ >> Yeah. No, I think that's a good point

2:02:25 ↗ and I

2:02:26 ↗ >> and like everything you see on this list

2:02:29 ↗ tonight is going to planning policy and

2:02:31 ↗ then going to CPD. So I mean I think

2:02:35 ↗ deputy president I think it's yourself

2:02:38 ↗ council member Nichols council president

2:02:40 ↗ Martz right is that the so I think a lot

2:02:43 ↗ of this I think our thought was a lot of

2:02:45 ↗ the nuances of how you do a lot of this

2:02:48 ↗ like we're these are a set of ideas and

2:02:51 ↗ what we think is a a rough timeline of

2:02:53 ↗ how you could aggressively kind of move

2:02:55 ↗ forward but a lot of that work we do

2:02:57 ↗ expect to happen at both the PPC and the

2:03:00 ↗ committee level from the council uh as

2:03:03 ↗ it goes through those processes.

2:03:05 ↗ >> Well, then I would just say from my ask

2:03:07 ↗ to staff is that as we are evaluating

2:03:11 ↗ things that we keep in mind um some of

2:03:14 ↗ our concern areas of we want to make

2:03:18 ↗ changes but we want to be mindful of

2:03:21 ↗ some unintended consequences. And one of

2:03:24 ↗ which where this could make things

2:03:27 ↗ worse, um, is to get a lot of

2:03:31 ↗ development, yes, but development in a

2:03:35 ↗ way that precludes us from getting

2:03:37 ↗ smaller units that are more affordable,

2:03:40 ↗ that create more of a walkable area. And

2:03:43 ↗ so for each proposal that we are putting

2:03:46 ↗ forward, if we can explain how this is

2:03:50 ↗ not going to get us the unintended

2:03:52 ↗ consequences, I think that would do a

2:03:54 ↗ lot to

2:03:56 ↗ um alleviate some of the concerns that I

2:03:59 ↗ might have.

2:04:01 ↗ >> Council member Dare beat Deputy

2:04:03 ↗ President by like half a second. I'm

2:04:06 ↗ sorry. Uh mine is in response to that

2:04:09 ↗ statement and then I agree cuz I think

2:04:10 ↗ when you get into the weeds of something

2:04:12 ↗ like this it has a lot of detail and a

2:04:14 ↗ lot of stuff that you know the getting

2:04:15 ↗ to the intent of it and the why and what

2:04:17 ↗ our view as a council is and I'm curious

2:04:20 ↗ how and this might be for leadership to

2:04:23 ↗ discuss and just saying how we as a

2:04:24 ↗ council get to that answer of what is

2:04:27 ↗ the real meat of this so that we can

2:04:29 ↗ then make the decisions at each of these

2:04:30 ↗ quarterly points and not lose sight of

2:04:32 ↗ that because obviously uh city will be

2:04:35 ↗ doing its work but then how do we do our

2:04:36 ↗ outside of that work to get that answer

2:04:38 ↗ and know where we're how we're attacking

2:04:40 ↗ each of these quarterly moments.

2:04:44 ↗ >> Okay. Council member, Deputy President

2:04:47 ↗ Jay and then President Morts.

2:04:49 ↗ >> Yeah. Um I have a few things. So first

2:04:50 ↗ of all, I think in terms of you know the

2:04:53 ↗ vision of what we want the future of

2:04:54 ↗ isqua to look like. I think you know

2:04:56 ↗ isqua right now in the eco northwest

2:04:58 ↗ report it says we actually do have a

2:04:59 ↗ very good diversity of housing types

2:05:01 ↗ compared to our peer jurisdictions. I

2:05:03 ↗ think that's a very good thing and

2:05:04 ↗ that's something that you know is unique

2:05:06 ↗ about us that we should aim to continue

2:05:08 ↗ and so I think a lot of these changes it

2:05:10 ↗ does you know make it I basically right

2:05:13 ↗ now it's you know as we saw with the

2:05:15 ↗ transit oriented development it's like

2:05:16 ↗ very difficult to build just about

2:05:17 ↗ anything and we our code can do things

2:05:20 ↗ like drive up the cost of building an

2:05:22 ↗ apartment building by $1.2 million

2:05:24 ↗ because of the stepbacks that we

2:05:25 ↗ require. So, I think these are, you

2:05:27 ↗ know, kind of like, okay, we can get rid

2:05:29 ↗ of some of these things that like truly

2:05:30 ↗ make no sense. But I think in terms of,

2:05:33 ↗ you know, the long-term goal of, you

2:05:34 ↗ know, we want to have a diverse range of

2:05:36 ↗ housing types so that people can age in

2:05:37 ↗ place, so that, you know, young people

2:05:39 ↗ can buy their first condo and get into,

2:05:42 ↗ you know, home ownership in and put down

2:05:44 ↗ roots in our community. I think there's

2:05:46 ↗ a lot more that can be done that might

2:05:48 ↗ not necessarily be on the code change

2:05:50 ↗ side. I think it might be more, you

2:05:51 ↗ know, Alexis on the um economic

2:05:54 ↗ development side of, you know, working

2:05:55 ↗ with builders and saying like, hey, you

2:05:57 ↗ know, and um I personally live in a town

2:06:01 ↗ home. Um so, you know, in terms of the

2:06:03 ↗ trash talking of town homes, I got to

2:06:05 ↗ say I think they can make sense in a lot

2:06:07 ↗ of cases. Um but also I think they also

2:06:11 ↗ don't make sense for everyone cuz what

2:06:12 ↗ you see now is it's all these, you know,

2:06:14 ↗ fourstory town homes. Half the space is

2:06:16 ↗ taken up by stairs. Some of them are,

2:06:17 ↗ you know, better than others, but it's

2:06:19 ↗ not necessarily the type of home that

2:06:21 ↗ works for everyone, right? Like, if

2:06:22 ↗ you're old and you can't do stairs, it's

2:06:25 ↗ just not going to work for you. And so,

2:06:27 ↗ how can we, you know, build more

2:06:29 ↗ diversity of housing types? How can we

2:06:30 ↗ build, you know, smaller apartment

2:06:32 ↗ buildings that actually fit with the

2:06:33 ↗ character of Oldtown Isqua? I think

2:06:35 ↗ that's something that is like a personal

2:06:37 ↗ like passion area for me. And you've

2:06:40 ↗ seen I've seen some very very

2:06:41 ↗ interesting ones, you know, like

2:06:44 ↗ forplexes or six plexes in Spokane that

2:06:46 ↗ actually like they look like they could

2:06:48 ↗ belong in a historic neighborhood, but

2:06:49 ↗ they're totally new. And so I would love

2:06:51 ↗ to see how we can encourage some of

2:06:53 ↗ those things um you know, whether it's

2:06:55 ↗ through the code, through um talking

2:06:57 ↗ with home builders and things like that

2:06:58 ↗ cuz I do think that type of eclectic

2:07:00 ↗ feel is what isqua had. And I think

2:07:03 ↗ that's something that we should actually

2:07:04 ↗ put a lot of effort into continuing

2:07:06 ↗ because it's something that's in our

2:07:06 ↗ strategic plan. It's something that our

2:07:08 ↗ community says they really value. Um I

2:07:12 ↗ also,

2:07:13 ↗ you know, I want to say I'm very happy

2:07:15 ↗ with uh the timeline to hear that some

2:07:17 ↗ of these things are going to be going to

2:07:18 ↗ PPC next month and just the sheer volume

2:07:21 ↗ of things that are going to be done uh

2:07:23 ↗ in this calendar year is very exciting.

2:07:25 ↗ Um but also, you know, to the point of

2:07:27 ↗ town homes, you know, I live in town

2:07:28 ↗ home. I enjoy living there. I think it's

2:07:32 ↗ not necessarily the most efficient land

2:07:33 ↗ use in every case. And there's also

2:07:35 ↗ other reasons that, you know, with

2:07:39 ↗ residential versus commercial building

2:07:40 ↗ codes that, you know, the most

2:07:42 ↗ cost-effective thing for builders to

2:07:44 ↗ build is town homes. So, I'm also, you

2:07:46 ↗ know, just flagging for the rest of the

2:07:47 ↗ council that there could be things in

2:07:49 ↗ the state legislature on topics that

2:07:52 ↗ help encourage more condominium

2:07:53 ↗ construction um that I think we should

2:07:56 ↗ consider putting on our legislative

2:07:57 ↗ agendas like top priorities if this

2:07:59 ↗ really is cuz it seems like this housing

2:08:01 ↗ area is a huge priority for us as a

2:08:03 ↗ city. And you know, maybe we should be

2:08:05 ↗ lobbying for elevator reform or um you

2:08:09 ↗ know, great, you know, allowing some of

2:08:11 ↗ these smaller uh apartment buildings

2:08:12 ↗ that are basically the same form factor

2:08:14 ↗ as a single family home to use

2:08:16 ↗ residential building codes rather than

2:08:17 ↗ commercial building codes, which are a

2:08:18 ↗ lot more expensive and also have higher

2:08:20 ↗ fire permit fees. The two things are

2:08:22 ↗ related. So,

2:08:24 ↗ >> all right. And Council President Marts,

2:08:28 ↗ >> so obviously we're not going to figure

2:08:31 ↗ it all out this evening. Um I I think

2:08:33 ↗ this question of what are we really

2:08:35 ↗ looking for out of all this is important

2:08:37 ↗ and there's going to be a lot of work

2:08:39 ↗ done and you know 17 different areas

2:08:42 ↗ over over the next couple of years um

2:08:45 ↗ want to make sure that at the end of it

2:08:48 ↗ um I think the I think the seven of us

2:08:52 ↗ know broadly speaking what we're looking

2:08:55 ↗ for right which is missing middle and

2:08:57 ↗ workforce and more vibrant housing

2:09:00 ↗ options more or you know um age in place

2:09:04 ↗ housing options. We've heard various

2:09:06 ↗ things here tonight, but I think it is

2:09:08 ↗ it will be important to get a little bit

2:09:09 ↗ more clarity on that going forward. Um

2:09:12 ↗ in parallel to some of the the block and

2:09:15 ↗ tackling things we see here, I'm not

2:09:16 ↗ sure how we got to town homes being the

2:09:18 ↗ villains this evening. Um I've I've

2:09:21 ↗ lately been somewhat convinced by my

2:09:23 ↗ fellow council member Nichols that

2:09:25 ↗ market that adding market rate housing

2:09:27 ↗ um helps for workforce housing. I'm

2:09:29 ↗ slowly but surely coming around to this

2:09:30 ↗ idea. And so it seems to me like, um, if

2:09:34 ↗ you turn parking lots into town homes,

2:09:36 ↗ that's not a bad thing. Um, you know,

2:09:39 ↗ don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

2:09:41 ↗ I, you know, I want to see four over two

2:09:43 ↗ or five over one because I want to see

2:09:44 ↗ more retail around where people live. I

2:09:46 ↗ want to see, you know, bedas. Like,

2:09:48 ↗ wouldn't it be great if we had bedas in

2:09:50 ↗ our city? My, my daughter has a bed

2:09:52 ↗ every block in Manhattan, and it's just

2:09:54 ↗ great. You just walk down to the bed and

2:09:56 ↗ get what you need. Um, so you know,

2:09:59 ↗ okay, we're not going to have bedas, but

2:10:01 ↗ we can get more retail where people

2:10:03 ↗ live.

2:10:03 ↗ >> Don't give up already. We could still

2:10:05 ↗ get a couple,

2:10:06 ↗ >> right? Get started. But but my my my

2:10:09 ↗ point is just that um let you know,

2:10:11 ↗ let's make town homes the enemy here,

2:10:13 ↗ right? Like I said, converting parking

2:10:15 ↗ lots into town homes would be a good

2:10:16 ↗ thing. And like I said, um I'm I'm

2:10:19 ↗ grudgingly coming around to the idea

2:10:20 ↗ that could probably help us with our

2:10:22 ↗ workforce housing issues as well. Thank

2:10:23 ↗ you,

2:10:26 ↗ >> Council Member Walsh.

2:10:27 ↗ >> I'm going to defend my statements of or

2:10:30 ↗ clarify that town homes are lovely.

2:10:34 ↗ Where I don't think that we want to be

2:10:37 ↗ encouraging their build is right near

2:10:41 ↗ where we could get a light rail transit

2:10:44 ↗ station. both because I think that could

2:10:47 ↗ discourage light rail from locating

2:10:50 ↗ there because it doesn't have the

2:10:51 ↗ density of population to enable use for

2:10:55 ↗ it. It also means that fewer people can

2:10:57 ↗ walk to transit. Um the other thing that

2:11:01 ↗ I do think is important for us to

2:11:03 ↗ consider as we are getting development

2:11:05 ↗ is many of these buildings are going to

2:11:07 ↗ be here for 50 years. And so if we are

2:11:10 ↗ truly trying to find a walkable area in

2:11:15 ↗ central Isiqua, which may be the only

2:11:17 ↗ area with open parking lots that could

2:11:20 ↗ be redeveloped into something um as big

2:11:23 ↗ as these units, that that is an

2:11:27 ↗ important consideration of

2:11:30 ↗ trying to avoid a negative outcome in

2:11:33 ↗ particular areas. Um, so that is my

2:11:37 ↗ defense.

2:11:39 ↗ >> And for deputy president, for council

2:11:40 ↗ leadership, we're going to look into

2:11:42 ↗ Town Home USA to see if there's a

2:11:43 ↗ designation the city could apply for for

2:11:46 ↗ No, I'm just kidding. Council member

2:11:47 ↗ Nichols.

2:11:49 ↗ Um,

2:11:53 ↗ I I I will second all of or third or

2:11:56 ↗ fourth or fifth, whatever the the number

2:11:58 ↗ are on now, the uh the statement that I

2:12:00 ↗ think having good goals is very

2:12:01 ↗ important. Um, I think it's also very

2:12:03 ↗ hard. I can imagine it's very hard for

2:12:05 ↗ the staff to work if there aren't good

2:12:06 ↗ goals. Um, so that's that's up to us to

2:12:09 ↗ probably set better. Um, I hope we can

2:12:12 ↗ figure out a process to do that and make

2:12:14 ↗ some sort of clear goal statement for

2:12:16 ↗ the what we're doing going forward. I

2:12:17 ↗ think that will help a lot. Um, I do

2:12:21 ↗ while while we get there, we still have

2:12:23 ↗ to get stuff done though. Um, and I

2:12:25 ↗ don't want that to impede things that we

2:12:27 ↗ know we want to do or that we know we

2:12:29 ↗ want to make progress on quickly. Um,

2:12:34 ↗ tactically speaking, um,

2:12:37 ↗ I I alluded to this in one of my my my

2:12:39 ↗ previous comment, but I I would I it

2:12:41 ↗ would be very helpful, I think, if

2:12:43 ↗ especially in the absence of a perfect

2:12:44 ↗ goal, we are presented with a broad set

2:12:46 ↗ of options that we can go and and debate

2:12:49 ↗ and discuss. Um so as an example um on

2:12:53 ↗ the the parking requirements for example

2:12:55 ↗ um I don't know what the optimal parking

2:12:57 ↗ requirements are for Isiqua uh but I

2:12:59 ↗ think it would be interesting to be able

2:13:00 ↗ to

2:13:02 ↗ follow or at least uh follow the path of

2:13:05 ↗ looking at one of the the few concrete

2:13:07 ↗ goals that we were offered in this

2:13:09 ↗ discussion which was there's areas of

2:13:11 ↗ central Isiqua in particular that we

2:13:12 ↗ would like to look more like the

2:13:14 ↗ development that's occurred in both um

2:13:16 ↗ some of the one of those bullet points

2:13:18 ↗ for both is removed all parking

2:13:19 ↗ requirements. I think it's at least

2:13:21 ↗ worth discussing and understanding that.

2:13:23 ↗ Um I don't know what the right answer

2:13:25 ↗ is, but I think it's worth discussing.

2:13:27 ↗ So if we if if we filter was the word I

2:13:29 ↗ was trying to use out some of those

2:13:31 ↗ options too early in the process I think

2:13:34 ↗ we will limit ourselves from from

2:13:37 ↗ finding what could be better optimal

2:13:39 ↗ solutions especially for central

2:13:42 ↗ >> and then Kristen the the state bill

2:13:44 ↗ around transit gyro does remove I mean

2:13:48 ↗ you can't have any parking requirements

2:13:49 ↗ if you adopt the state is that correct

2:13:51 ↗ or

2:13:52 ↗ >> correct I know with middle housing if

2:13:53 ↗ you're within a quarter mile of transit

2:13:56 ↗ Tood major transit stop you're not

2:13:59 ↗ allowed to require residential parking

2:14:01 ↗ uh the tod bill itself can you require

2:14:03 ↗ can you require parking in the in the

2:14:05 ↗ within the to do you recall

2:14:07 ↗ >> I don't recall but I think there are

2:14:10 ↗ some

2:14:12 ↗ quarter mile

2:14:12 ↗ >> I'll I'll have to look but I do know

2:14:14 ↗ with quarter within a quarter mile of

2:14:15 ↗ those things you cannot require it

2:14:17 ↗ >> but it's citywhere

2:14:21 ↗ Should

2:14:32 ↗ we repeat that? Is that here on the

2:14:34 ↗ microphone?

2:14:35 ↗ >> Yeah. My understanding of the bill um

2:14:37 ↗ you know it's it's the state we have

2:14:40 ↗ till 2017 but we uh 2028 or 27 but we

2:14:45 ↗ are prioritizing early adoption of that.

2:14:47 ↗ Uh the idea is it's it's going to apply

2:14:50 ↗ citywide. Uh so um multifamilies 0.5

2:14:55 ↗ parking spaces per unit. So anywhere in

2:14:58 ↗ the city half the multif family units

2:15:00 ↗ have to show that they meet parking

2:15:02 ↗ requirements on their property. It

2:15:05 ↗ probably makes sense in central Isiqua,

2:15:06 ↗ but we have other areas that are either

2:15:08 ↗ on a steep hillside with no on-site

2:15:10 ↗ parking. Um, and then the idea behind

2:15:13 ↗ the bill is that the market will

2:15:15 ↗ determine how much they, you know,

2:15:16 ↗ someone's not going to build a project

2:15:18 ↗ that with no parking if it's not going

2:15:20 ↗ to work. Uh, and nobody's going to want

2:15:22 ↗ to live there. And so, so some of that

2:15:25 ↗ uh dynamic will shift. Um, but to answer

2:15:28 ↗ your question about the TOD, I believe

2:15:30 ↗ there is a certain amount of distance

2:15:32 ↗ within uh a major transit stop that you

2:15:35 ↗ can't require any parking. Um, but we'll

2:15:37 ↗ look into that.

2:15:38 ↗ >> Yeah. And my my clarification on that is

2:15:41 ↗ um I I don't think all of central Isiqua

2:15:44 ↗ is covered by that um especially

2:15:47 ↗ depending on where future

2:15:49 ↗ >> development transit developments may go.

2:15:51 ↗ So at least from for discussion if we if

2:15:54 ↗ we've identified that areas within both

2:15:57 ↗ are similar to how we would like um

2:16:00 ↗ areas within central Isiqua at least to

2:16:02 ↗ look um if that's one of the key things

2:16:04 ↗ that allowed that to happen and reduced

2:16:06 ↗ the the cost of some of that housing.

2:16:08 ↗ Again I I agree with your statement. I

2:16:10 ↗ don't think that the there there's no

2:16:13 ↗ situation that I can imagine in Isqua

2:16:14 ↗ where a a home builder would decide to

2:16:17 ↗ not have parking. Um they're but are

2:16:20 ↗ they are they required what is the what

2:16:24 ↗ is the amount we require them to have

2:16:26 ↗ above which um residents in smaller

2:16:29 ↗ apartments that are going to be transit

2:16:31 ↗ accessible um might not want to have to

2:16:34 ↗ pay for that as an amenity. And uh

2:16:37 ↗ knowing exactly what that map looks like

2:16:38 ↗ would be helpful and and thinking

2:16:40 ↗ through that at the same time where

2:16:41 ↗ otherwise thinking through parking plans

2:16:42 ↗ seems like it would be a wise use of

2:16:44 ↗ time instead of having to potentially

2:16:45 ↗ revisit that at a not too distant future

2:16:47 ↗ date. Sure.

2:16:49 ↗ I mean um you know in terms of answering

2:16:51 ↗ your question of whether we look at

2:16:53 ↗ other options. I mean if you want us to

2:16:55 ↗ have policy you know pros and cons of a

2:16:57 ↗ policy of lifting any parking minimums

2:17:00 ↗ anywhere in the city as an option and

2:17:03 ↗ what the pros and cons would be with the

2:17:05 ↗ planning and policy commission. I mean

2:17:07 ↗ we could do that. I think it it's just

2:17:09 ↗ given the amount of work we have to do

2:17:11 ↗ and and creating those options that may

2:17:14 ↗ not be realistic for Esiqua. Um you know

2:17:16 ↗ a lot of conversations occurred when the

2:17:19 ↗ major transit stop definition in Oldtown

2:17:21 ↗ because we have one bus that takes you

2:17:23 ↗ to Seattle and comes back. And so with

2:17:25 ↗ this missing middle at one point there

2:17:27 ↗ was the idea that within mile or half a

2:17:31 ↗ mile you had to have zero parking. But I

2:17:34 ↗ think the the what the feedback or the

2:17:35 ↗ information we were getting from the

2:17:37 ↗ community members is it won't work

2:17:39 ↗ because it's you know people still rely

2:17:41 ↗ on cars um to get from point A to point

2:17:44 ↗ B in Isiqua. So it's it's a matter of in

2:17:47 ↗ central Isiqua with a future light rail

2:17:48 ↗ station what's the that that's a

2:17:51 ↗ different comparison comparing to some

2:17:53 ↗ of the other areas. And so if our focus

2:17:56 ↗ is central Isiqua here, you the quick

2:17:58 ↗ and easy thing is to get the the state

2:18:01 ↗ mandates adopted quickly and then um

2:18:05 ↗ come back and have a conversation about

2:18:07 ↗ do we want to have zero parking minimums

2:18:09 ↗ or we bundle those two conversations

2:18:11 ↗ together. Um but it's it's going to take

2:18:14 ↗ more time if we want to go back to no no

2:18:17 ↗ parking requirements even in central

2:18:19 ↗ Isukqua.

2:18:20 ↗ Yeah.

2:18:22 ↗ A couple of other things. One is one is

2:18:23 ↗ I think we need to give the state

2:18:25 ↗ mandated requirements a chance to see if

2:18:27 ↗ they work first before we go removing

2:18:31 ↗ parking requirements from other places

2:18:32 ↗ too. It would be a lot of extra time to

2:18:35 ↗ come up with all those options. And the

2:18:38 ↗ third I think I mentioned this last week

2:18:39 ↗ when I was here is that both did remove

2:18:41 ↗ all their parking requirements but they

2:18:42 ↗ still find that most people most

2:18:44 ↗ developers are putting in 1.5 to one

2:18:47 ↗ 1.75 parking spaces per complex per

2:18:50 ↗ development. And that's why they're

2:18:52 ↗ looking at putting maximums on there

2:18:53 ↗ because they're leaving it up to the

2:18:54 ↗ market. They've really found that what

2:18:55 ↗ they might need is 1.25 spaces per unit.

2:18:59 ↗ >> Yeah. So, I I'll just say on all those

2:19:01 ↗ things, I I appreciate that those

2:19:02 ↗ perspectives that perhaps it is perhaps

2:19:05 ↗ we would as a council want to wait and

2:19:07 ↗ see what the effects of the state uh

2:19:10 ↗ mandates will be. Perhaps we don't um

2:19:13 ↗ especially in central Isiqua uh if we

2:19:15 ↗ have data that as you mentioned the

2:19:17 ↗ market is going to almost certainly

2:19:20 ↗ create and require more parking anyway.

2:19:23 ↗ So it's it's at least I think

2:19:26 ↗ potentially useful to have a discussion

2:19:28 ↗ and uh if that's one of the things that

2:19:30 ↗ is identified as one of the higher

2:19:32 ↗ priority

2:19:34 ↗ uh cost reducers that was identified in

2:19:37 ↗ one of the the peer cities we're looking

2:19:39 ↗ at. Um I think it's it would be very

2:19:41 ↗ wise for us to take a look at that

2:19:43 ↗ sooner rather than later.

2:19:46 ↗ >> Sure. I mean some of the amendments

2:19:48 ↗ we've made on the parking site uh you

2:19:49 ↗ know the code used to require 50% of the

2:19:52 ↗ parking needs to be structured parking

2:19:53 ↗ and that was a big barrier at least

2:19:55 ↗ through the Eco Northwest report uh came

2:19:58 ↗ up as um as an issue. So that's no

2:20:01 ↗ longer in play. Um I think in in to

2:20:04 ↗ answer your question about how many

2:20:05 ↗ options we want to bring forth and

2:20:08 ↗ evaluate as part of this um

2:20:13 ↗ you know there's only two one is the

2:20:15 ↗ statemandated u path and the other one

2:20:18 ↗ would be you know no um parking space

2:20:21 ↗ have have no standards our current code

2:20:24 ↗ has maximums so we are also trying to

2:20:27 ↗ not have someone build too much parking

2:20:30 ↗ uh which is what bottle is trying to

2:20:31 ↗ regulate that so we would eliminate the

2:20:33 ↗ maximums if in order to comply with the

2:20:36 ↗ state bill. So it gets complex. It it

2:20:39 ↗ will have nuances of different options

2:20:41 ↗ and paths. But if council direction and

2:20:44 ↗ consensus is to go uh do what other

2:20:47 ↗ cities are doing with the parking

2:20:49 ↗ reform, I think it would be helpful for

2:20:50 ↗ us to know now if that should be part of

2:20:53 ↗ the discussion with PPC because that

2:20:54 ↗ that could you know we need to budget

2:20:57 ↗ more time for those

2:20:59 ↗ conversations to occur in a thoughtful

2:21:02 ↗ way.

2:21:04 ↗ >> Well, and I think this is the starting

2:21:05 ↗ point of those conversations. Like I

2:21:08 ↗ said, there's going to be a lot of back

2:21:09 ↗ and forth between both PPC and the and

2:21:13 ↗ the planning policy, the community

2:21:15 ↗ development committee. And uh I think

2:21:18 ↗ our what's really interesting to me, I

2:21:20 ↗ guess the perspective from the

2:21:21 ↗ legislature is so different than here

2:21:23 ↗ because here you're really only

2:21:25 ↗ constraint of what you do is making sure

2:21:27 ↗ your community supports what's

2:21:29 ↗ happening. Because in the legislature,

2:21:31 ↗ it's all about here's the minimum things

2:21:32 ↗ you're trying to force cities to have to

2:21:34 ↗ do. whereas we're kind of in charge of

2:21:36 ↗ our own zoning at the local level. And

2:21:38 ↗ so our opportunity here is pretty broad

2:21:41 ↗ and I think it's upon us to execute on

2:21:44 ↗ something that we think is thoughtful

2:21:45 ↗ that matches kind of the character and

2:21:47 ↗ vision of Isiqua. And I think that is

2:21:49 ↗ something that we want to make sure we

2:21:51 ↗ get right. And so I think we've kind of

2:21:53 ↗ tried to find this balance between

2:21:54 ↗ having an aggressive timeline but also

2:21:56 ↗ understanding that these are big

2:21:58 ↗ decisions that really impact the

2:22:00 ↗ character of our city and we want to

2:22:02 ↗ make sure we're getting them right. But

2:22:03 ↗ I think as we go through this process

2:22:05 ↗ like it's an open dialogue I think

2:22:07 ↗ between the council and the

2:22:09 ↗ administration to make sure we are

2:22:10 ↗ finding that balance. Uh

2:22:13 ↗ I remain optimistic that it can be

2:22:15 ↗ found. I will reiterate my confidence in

2:22:18 ↗ the staff we have here in the room

2:22:20 ↗ tonight. I think it's the right group of

2:22:21 ↗ people to get this job done and uh I

2:22:24 ↗ think it's a great opportunity. Council

2:22:26 ↗ member Walsh.

2:22:28 ↗ >> Thanks. So, I think what I was hearing

2:22:30 ↗ from council member Nichols was an ask

2:22:32 ↗ to look at other um parking uh

2:22:37 ↗ adjustments other than just the state

2:22:39 ↗ requirement. I appreciate staff's

2:22:41 ↗ perspective that we should let the state

2:22:43 ↗ requirements go that it would be a big

2:22:46 ↗ lift. This is ultimately a policy um

2:22:48 ↗ decision. So, I'd like to hear from

2:22:50 ↗ other council members to see if that is

2:22:52 ↗ something that we would like to have

2:22:54 ↗ included because ultimately what we are

2:22:56 ↗ doing right now is adopting a work plan

2:22:58 ↗ and understanding what our work levels

2:23:00 ↗ would be. And if our ask is yes, let's

2:23:04 ↗ look at larger parking requirements,

2:23:07 ↗ then staff needs to be able to respond

2:23:09 ↗ and say, "Okay, that's going to take x

2:23:12 ↗ amount of time rather than y," which is

2:23:14 ↗ perfectly acceptable. I would be

2:23:17 ↗ interested in looking at that. I don't

2:23:19 ↗ know if I would put it at the same

2:23:21 ↗ priority level as implementing the

2:23:23 ↗ states. Um, but I would be interested in

2:23:26 ↗ that aspect.

2:23:27 ↗ >> Council President Marts,

2:23:29 ↗ >> thanks. Um, you know, I'm still I still

2:23:33 ↗ haven't heard in this whole conversation

2:23:35 ↗ and I'm I'm I'm trying to answer um

2:23:37 ↗ Council Member Walsh's question. I'm

2:23:40 ↗ still I still haven't heard in this

2:23:41 ↗ conversation necessarily the smoking

2:23:43 ↗ gun, right? Like I think we have a

2:23:46 ↗ perception that there must be something

2:23:48 ↗ that um we must have some poison uh pill

2:23:52 ↗ in here somewhere if we haven't gotten

2:23:54 ↗ what both and Woodenville have had. Um

2:23:57 ↗ and I don't know this this housing thing

2:23:59 ↗ hearing that when you remove all the

2:24:01 ↗ limits they go with 1.5 to 1.75 units

2:24:04 ↗ anyhow sort of makes me think if I was a

2:24:06 ↗ betting person I mean part of it is it's

2:24:08 ↗ hard to tease out if you change 10

2:24:09 ↗ things and you get a change in the

2:24:11 ↗ outcome. It's really hard to tease out

2:24:13 ↗ which one of those 10 things did what,

2:24:14 ↗ right? But if I was a betting person, I

2:24:16 ↗ I wouldn't necessarily bet that, you

2:24:19 ↗ know, the the reason that both is where

2:24:21 ↗ they are and we're not where both is for

2:24:24 ↗ density in our in our valley is because

2:24:27 ↗ of parking.

2:24:29 ↗ But I don't know. Um, and I'm certainly

2:24:32 ↗ willing to have a conversation about um

2:24:36 ↗ less parking. this whole question of

2:24:38 ↗ what amenities people want to pay for,

2:24:40 ↗ what they don't want to pay for is

2:24:41 ↗ really really interesting, right? And

2:24:43 ↗ and we're seeing we've had conversations

2:24:46 ↗ before about um the lessons that you can

2:24:48 ↗ learn from other nearby developments.

2:24:50 ↗ So, I'm I'm not opposed to looking at

2:24:53 ↗ the parking piece, but I I don't think

2:24:54 ↗ that's a smoking gun. what I you know I

2:24:57 ↗ still want to hear

2:25:00 ↗ from either experts or the market

2:25:04 ↗ you know

2:25:06 ↗ what is I still haven't heard what it is

2:25:08 ↗ right that um that where we're at is it

2:25:11 ↗ I mean I've heard people say it's just

2:25:14 ↗ we're more expensive right there are

2:25:15 ↗ people who will say we're more expensive

2:25:17 ↗ in Isiqua I don't know if that's true

2:25:19 ↗ compared to both or Woodenville if

2:25:20 ↗ that's the case and that isn't you know

2:25:22 ↗ we're we're digging around at the edges

2:25:24 ↗ of of macroeconomic things that are

2:25:26 ↗ going on. So, just to come back to what

2:25:29 ↗ Council Member Walsh asked, you know, I

2:25:32 ↗ think that we should look at the big

2:25:34 ↗ knobs. Um, you know, there there are big

2:25:36 ↗ knobs on the stereo that you can turn

2:25:38 ↗ the volume, the tuner, the whatever. We

2:25:40 ↗ should look at the big knobs and we

2:25:41 ↗ should run them through the range,

2:25:42 ↗ right? We should not say, well, you

2:25:43 ↗ know, we've picked two points on the

2:25:45 ↗ knob and so we're going to that's what

2:25:47 ↗ we're going to look at, right? If we

2:25:48 ↗ think um collectively if we think the

2:25:51 ↗ big movers are far and set back and uh

2:25:57 ↗ you know whatever else uh we should we

2:26:01 ↗ should exercise those intensively to

2:26:05 ↗ figure out what the right answer is for

2:26:06 ↗ us going forward because we've done this

2:26:08 ↗ several times before right and I I I I

2:26:12 ↗ don't I really don't want to do it every

2:26:13 ↗ five years right so let's let's really

2:26:16 ↗ exercise this Um, like I said, I suspect

2:26:19 ↗ there's a half dozen things here that

2:26:21 ↗ most people will agree are are the

2:26:23 ↗ biggest impactors and we can find out

2:26:25 ↗ from the builders and we can find out

2:26:26 ↗ from our experts and then just really go

2:26:29 ↗ work those to Council Member Nichols

2:26:30 ↗ point. Um, work them thoroughly rather

2:26:32 ↗ than just um sort of uh

2:26:38 ↗ superficially. Thank you. If I could

2:26:40 ↗ just input two things. Um, sorry. Um, to

2:26:45 ↗ your comment about a smoking gun,

2:26:46 ↗ there's there's not a single smoking

2:26:48 ↗ gun. Um, it is a combination of factors

2:26:51 ↗ that create an environment that prevents

2:26:53 ↗ development and there is no silver

2:26:55 ↗ bullet, no one single silver bullet

2:26:57 ↗ that's going to solve the problem. Um,

2:27:00 ↗ the outreach to the builders, the

2:27:02 ↗ continuous conversation,

2:27:04 ↗ um, that's how we learn and how we

2:27:06 ↗ evolve and that's what this game is.

2:27:07 ↗ It's an evolution to make ourselves step

2:27:10 ↗ by step better so that we can respond to

2:27:12 ↗ market needs and we can respond to

2:27:14 ↗ community needs at the same time. Um the

2:27:17 ↗ other thing that I would also add is

2:27:19 ↗ that with both um one of the things that

2:27:22 ↗ they had working in their favor is that

2:27:24 ↗ the school district had a significant

2:27:26 ↗ portion of land that they were wanting

2:27:28 ↗ to divest divest of and the city

2:27:31 ↗ purchased that land at well below market

2:27:33 ↗ value and so they controlled that land

2:27:35 ↗ um and used that uh to help facilitate

2:27:38 ↗ development as well. And so that uh

2:27:40 ↗ reduced cost of land also puts them at

2:27:43 ↗ put them at a a serious advantage when

2:27:45 ↗ it comes to building.

2:27:47 ↗ >> Okay, we're going to go to Council

2:27:48 ↗ Member Walsh and then Council Member

2:27:49 ↗ Adair.

2:27:51 ↗ >> Thank you. So

2:27:54 ↗ I think I have two things I want to

2:27:55 ↗ express. First is as we're going through

2:27:57 ↗ this, it would be really great to be

2:28:00 ↗ able to pinpoint the things that we

2:28:02 ↗ think in our code that were preventing

2:28:04 ↗ development from happening altogether.

2:28:07 ↗ things where we, you know, we had a

2:28:10 ↗ developer who came in that said the um

2:28:13 ↗ natural area context or the critical

2:28:15 ↗ area buffers or things like that made it

2:28:18 ↗ so that they couldn't

2:28:21 ↗ make a project pencil out on a

2:28:23 ↗ particular parcel. And so those are

2:28:26 ↗ things where if we make a change, we

2:28:29 ↗ enable development. That's really

2:28:31 ↗ important to me. The other thing is

2:28:34 ↗ there may be things that we are doing

2:28:36 ↗ that just drive up the cost of each of

2:28:39 ↗ these homes. And so that might be

2:28:41 ↗ something like the impact fees where you

2:28:43 ↗ could argue looking at it, hey, we've

2:28:45 ↗ had all of these town home projects come

2:28:47 ↗ through or we had all of these

2:28:49 ↗ apartments come through. So the traffic

2:28:52 ↗ impact fee isn't keeping a development

2:28:56 ↗ from happening, but we do know it adds x

2:29:00 ↗ amount to the cost, which can make

2:29:02 ↗ things very unaffordable. So I think

2:29:04 ↗ those are two stories for us to tell

2:29:06 ↗ about what the changes are that we're

2:29:08 ↗ making and why we're making them. And

2:29:10 ↗ that goes back to what is our goal. And

2:29:14 ↗ so my goal if I'm looking at making

2:29:17 ↗ changes to housing um code and the way

2:29:22 ↗ that we approach it is to enable more

2:29:26 ↗ smaller homes. These are going to be

2:29:29 ↗ something that creates more natural

2:29:32 ↗ affordability. It's something that we

2:29:35 ↗ might not see in a town home situation.

2:29:38 ↗ And so that's another reason why I want

2:29:40 ↗ to make sure that we do have something

2:29:42 ↗ that enables a situation where a larger

2:29:46 ↗ set of smaller homes is available and is

2:29:51 ↗ uh achievable by a homebuilder.

2:29:55 ↗ I want to make sure that we are creating

2:29:57 ↗ efficient land use so that we create a

2:30:00 ↗ walkable environment. That we are not

2:30:03 ↗ sacrificing something where we are not

2:30:06 ↗ going to have the density that could

2:30:08 ↗ create something that where bodeas could

2:30:10 ↗ happen that we are not creating

2:30:12 ↗ something where we have too low of

2:30:14 ↗ density and so transit isn't going to

2:30:17 ↗ happen. That's the promise of central

2:30:19 ↗ Isiqua and really important. And then

2:30:22 ↗ the third piece of my goal is that

2:30:25 ↗ we achieve more affordability either in

2:30:28 ↗ bringing down the speed of increasing

2:30:32 ↗ prices or by creating smaller homes

2:30:34 ↗ through cost efficiency and lowering

2:30:37 ↗ barriers. So those would be the three

2:30:39 ↗ buckets I'm looking at to make sure that

2:30:42 ↗ we are making changes that aren't having

2:30:44 ↗ unintended consequences and that are

2:30:46 ↗ driving us forward particularly for this

2:30:49 ↗ central isqua area. And so I would like

2:30:52 ↗ to be able to see some sort of stats or

2:30:55 ↗ metrics where we could start to measure

2:30:58 ↗ those things. I'd also like to know what

2:31:01 ↗ metrics we might look at as far as

2:31:04 ↗ pre-application meetings or something

2:31:06 ↗ that's early in the pipeline so that we

2:31:09 ↗ can start to see as we make these

2:31:11 ↗ changes. Are we starting to see more

2:31:14 ↗ inquiries from um builders? Are we

2:31:17 ↗ starting to see more pre-application

2:31:19 ↗ meetings happen? more permits coming

2:31:20 ↗ through etc.

2:31:23 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think before we go to

2:31:24 ↗ council member I will say that to me the

2:31:26 ↗ beauty of this process is we can kind of

2:31:28 ↗ tailor those density bonus like if you

2:31:31 ↗ can go to 65 ft but 85 ft you can go to

2:31:35 ↗ if you do X Y and Z. And this is the

2:31:36 ↗ beauty of the situation we're in right

2:31:38 ↗ now is we get to kind of pick what X Y

2:31:40 ↗ and Z is. And to your point, Council

2:31:42 ↗ Member Walsh, I think smaller units

2:31:44 ↗ could be one of the things that lets

2:31:45 ↗ people go from 65 to 85 ft and and that

2:31:48 ↗ is completely within our purview is

2:31:50 ↗ something we could decide. Council

2:31:51 ↗ member Adair. Um, I wanted to just be

2:31:54 ↗ kind of verbally like support this work

2:31:57 ↗ plan and the speed of it because I feel

2:31:59 ↗ when I've had conversations about it

2:32:01 ↗ that I do think to the earlier

2:32:03 ↗ presentation that a lot of it is

2:32:05 ↗ perception that there's a perception

2:32:07 ↗ that it's hard to build an isiqua that

2:32:09 ↗ it's expensive to build an isiqua and

2:32:11 ↗ then when I've talked to some you know

2:32:12 ↗ business owners and stuff like that

2:32:14 ↗ there was you know struggles in just the

2:32:16 ↗ length of the permit process and stuff

2:32:17 ↗ like that and that

2:32:20 ↗ perception is a big part of this and

2:32:23 ↗ thus moving quickly on making some

2:32:26 ↗ really concrete changes directly with

2:32:28 ↗ developers who have said oh this is

2:32:30 ↗ difficult for me I can't build and we

2:32:32 ↗ did something about it quickly is I

2:32:35 ↗ think a really key thing to get out

2:32:37 ↗ there to get the stories out to say hey

2:32:38 ↗ yeah look we recognized there were there

2:32:40 ↗ were these roadblocks for these guys

2:32:42 ↗ there was these cause for these guys and

2:32:44 ↗ we went and quickly turned around and we

2:32:45 ↗ got it done and that can change the

2:32:48 ↗ story and because also with a lot of

2:32:50 ↗ these cities when we've talked about

2:32:52 ↗ like why did you do it? A lot of times

2:32:54 ↗ there's been it's not that they made one

2:32:56 ↗ code, it's that something exciting

2:32:57 ↗ happened. And I think we were talking at

2:32:58 ↗ you know shoreline and it was like well

2:33:00 ↗ we got the light rail station so now

2:33:01 ↗ everything's booming and so it's not

2:33:04 ↗ just a co a single code it's not a

2:33:05 ↗ silver bullet you know it's not there's

2:33:06 ↗ not a single answer and thus I think

2:33:08 ↗ it's all about creating perception so I

2:33:11 ↗ think us moving quickly at some of these

2:33:14 ↗ that are concrete that are helpful while

2:33:16 ↗ still honoring the intent of the you

2:33:18 ↗ know the city and the strategic plan are

2:33:20 ↗ good and that's why I want to just kind

2:33:21 ↗ of verbally support this plan and the

2:33:24 ↗ speed of it because I think that's the

2:33:26 ↗ key to this is just showing that we're

2:33:28 ↗ here. We're working with people and we

2:33:29 ↗ want to get something done.

2:33:33 ↗ >> All right. And I'm looking around. Oh,

2:33:36 ↗ got Deputy President Jay.

2:33:38 ↗ >> Yeah. And one thing I also want to

2:33:39 ↗ acknowledge is, you know, I think we're

2:33:41 ↗ all very with this with this set of

2:33:43 ↗ updates. It's very laser focused on

2:33:45 ↗ enabling building things in central

2:33:47 ↗ Isiqua, which is a regional growth

2:33:49 ↗ center. And I think, you know, we've

2:33:50 ↗ gotten some emails and there's like

2:33:51 ↗ concern in the community that, you know,

2:33:53 ↗ we're we're giving away the whole house

2:33:55 ↗ and, you know, we're just going to let

2:33:57 ↗ developers run rough shot rough shot

2:33:59 ↗ over rest of the city. I think all the

2:34:01 ↗ things that we're proposing addressing

2:34:02 ↗ in this work plan are really things

2:34:04 ↗ where it's like we are driving up costs

2:34:06 ↗ for like very little benefit to

2:34:08 ↗ basically anyone, right? Like we are not

2:34:10 ↗ proposing getting rid of all of our

2:34:12 ↗ environmental requirements. We're just

2:34:13 ↗ giving more options of different types

2:34:15 ↗ of certifications that you could do

2:34:17 ↗ beyond just lead platinum, which is

2:34:18 ↗ great. you know, we're not necessarily

2:34:20 ↗ proposing, oh yeah, we should let people

2:34:22 ↗ like build over the creek. Well, a lot

2:34:24 ↗ of them are already paved over and so,

2:34:25 ↗ you know, we want to make it so that

2:34:27 ↗ it's actually easier to get in a new

2:34:28 ↗ development that improves the riparian

2:34:30 ↗ buffer. And so, I think, you know, with

2:34:33 ↗ this, we're not abandoning our

2:34:35 ↗ environmental commitments. We're just

2:34:36 ↗ trying to be smart about it. And

2:34:38 ↗ ultimately, one of the big things, I

2:34:40 ↗ mean, like I think a there's a lot of

2:34:42 ↗ history with how, you know, Talis and

2:34:43 ↗ the Isqua Highlands were developed.

2:34:44 ↗ Originally they were both zoned for like

2:34:46 ↗ five acre lots and the whole concept

2:34:49 ↗ with them was that development was more

2:34:50 ↗ concentrated in a smaller portion and so

2:34:53 ↗ you know when we look at how we can

2:34:55 ↗ develop Isiqua in the future you know

2:34:57 ↗ we're not going to be apparently at one

2:34:59 ↗ point there was a proposal to like build

2:35:02 ↗ a golf course on tradition plateau.

2:35:04 ↗ we're not doing that. But if we are

2:35:07 ↗ going to grow as a city, it's got to go

2:35:08 ↗ somewhere. And putting it on like half

2:35:11 ↗ empty strip malls is like one of the

2:35:13 ↗ best environmental things that we could

2:35:15 ↗ be doing. So I think, you know, I really

2:35:18 ↗ want to emphasize that this is a

2:35:19 ↗ long-standing priority of the city to

2:35:20 ↗ have environmentally friendly

2:35:21 ↗ development and this gets us closer to

2:35:24 ↗ where we want to go.

2:35:27 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think on that note, and I

2:35:31 ↗ think going back to the vision, cuz I've

2:35:33 ↗ heard the vision talked about a lot. I

2:35:34 ↗ think from my perspective, the vision is

2:35:36 ↗ if you're an Isqua resident, you want to

2:35:38 ↗ remodel your kitchen or bathroom, you go

2:35:40 ↗ through our permit department, and you

2:35:42 ↗ find it to be a very collaborative

2:35:43 ↗ process. If you're a small business

2:35:45 ↗ owner trying to do a tenant improvement,

2:35:47 ↗ you go through our permit department.

2:35:48 ↗ Once again, you find it to be a very

2:35:49 ↗ collaborative, like transparent,

2:35:51 ↗ understand, easy to navigate process.

2:35:53 ↗ And uh Deputy President Jane's point, I

2:35:56 ↗ think there is Council Walsh, I think

2:35:58 ↗ the vision is definitely around this

2:35:59 ↗ area of I90 both north and south where

2:36:02 ↗ you're creating this kind of vibrant

2:36:05 ↗ walkable village retail feel to that

2:36:07 ↗ section of town that no matter where you

2:36:09 ↗ live in Isiqua, that area right there

2:36:11 ↗ both north and south happens to be

2:36:12 ↗ central. It's central to South Cove,

2:36:14 ↗ Talis, the Highlands, Squawk, everyone

2:36:16 ↗ can kind of get to that part of our town

2:36:17 ↗ in roughly 5 or 10 minutes. And to me,

2:36:20 ↗ this is the opportunity we have in front

2:36:22 ↗ of us is how to take a part of Isqua

2:36:24 ↗ that was more vibrant 20 years ago when

2:36:26 ↗ I moved here than it is today right

2:36:28 ↗ there north of I90 and make it into

2:36:30 ↗ something vibrant that we can be really

2:36:32 ↗ proud of and excited about. And I think

2:36:34 ↗ that is the ultimate vision. I think

2:36:36 ↗ what we're trying to achieve here and I

2:36:37 ↗ agree with what Deputy President Jen

2:36:39 ↗ just said is we're we're not trying to

2:36:41 ↗ throw everything out here. We're trying

2:36:43 ↗ to do it thoughtfully. We're trying to

2:36:44 ↗ find the right balance in this pendulum

2:36:47 ↗ that swings back and forth from one side

2:36:48 ↗ to the other. And it's not easy to find

2:36:51 ↗ that balance, but like I said, I think

2:36:52 ↗ we have a council that's willing to do

2:36:54 ↗ the work. We have staff that's willing

2:36:55 ↗ to do the work. And I do appreciate

2:36:57 ↗ everyone being here tonight as we start

2:37:00 ↗ on this journey. And looking for any

2:37:05 ↗ final comments. Uh, okay. This is

2:37:07 ↗ officially our longest council meeting

2:37:08 ↗ of the year cuz it is 9:07. I'm trying

2:37:12 ↗ to think, city clerk, if I have any

2:37:14 ↗ other uh there is no executive session

2:37:17 ↗ tonight and we do appreciate everyone's

2:37:20 ↗ feedback and and we did hear the the

2:37:23 ↗ comments on the parking and so that is

2:37:24 ↗ something obviously we can look at it to

2:37:26 ↗ make sure it comes back in front of a

2:37:28 ↗ council committee to see if there's

2:37:29 ↗ other things they want to do besides

2:37:31 ↗ just the state parking requirements. Uh

2:37:33 ↗ deputy uh President Mart,

2:37:35 ↗ >> are you going to do for good of the

2:37:36 ↗ order this evening?

2:37:37 ↗ >> Let's do for good of the order. what the

2:37:40 ↗ council president wants, the council

2:37:41 ↗ president gets. Is there any go to the

2:37:43 ↗ order tonight?

2:37:44 ↗ >> Well, actually, I I I do have something

2:37:46 ↗ I want to point out to council um which

2:37:48 ↗ is Sound Cities Association Public

2:37:50 ↗ Issues Committee is likely uh to be

2:37:53 ↗ considering emergency action uh at this

2:37:57 ↗ Wednesday's meeting and it revolves

2:38:00 ↗ around the transportation benefit

2:38:02 ↗ district sales tax. And I believe

2:38:04 ↗ everyone got an email on this subject.

2:38:07 ↗ Um but basically

2:38:10 ↗ um the punchline on this is that uh

2:38:15 ↗ I'm trying to find it but maybe I can

2:38:17 ↗ just remember it from memory. I think it

2:38:19 ↗ is that uh cities provide something like

2:38:23 ↗ 96% of the input to uh sales tax that

2:38:29 ↗ would uh be going for transportation.

2:38:31 ↗ The uh tenative plan is for this to all

2:38:34 ↗ be unincorporated. Uh so the the spend

2:38:37 ↗ on this would be 100% um in

2:38:40 ↗ unincorporated King County which again

2:38:42 ↗ provides 4% of the uh input and is

2:38:46 ↗ something like 20% of the need. Um and

2:38:49 ↗ that's where I apologize. I thought I

2:38:52 ↗ had the number. Oh, there we go.

2:38:53 ↗ Attachment A. Okay. Sorry. Um it is

2:38:57 ↗ uh did it did it? Yes. Um 90% 95% of

2:39:02 ↗ sales tax collection occurs in in

2:39:05 ↗ incorporated cities. Uh sharing revenue

2:39:08 ↗ from a countywide CT uh KCTC revenue

2:39:12 ↗ proposal is not unprecedented. 2014

2:39:14 ↗ sales tax proposal included 40% for King

2:39:17 ↗ County roads services division in cities

2:39:19 ↗ based on population. Um so the the

2:39:22 ↗ punchline on all this is that um SCA is

2:39:26 ↗ going to be considering putting forward

2:39:28 ↗ a position that just says any countywide

2:39:30 ↗ revenue proposal for KCTCT

2:39:34 ↗ should include funding for cities to the

2:39:36 ↗ extent permissible under uh governance

2:39:39 ↗ cities should be involved in the

2:39:40 ↗ decision-making process for allocating

2:39:42 ↗ funds generated by a King County

2:39:44 ↗ transportation district sales tax. So

2:39:46 ↗ it's not setting specific numbers. It's

2:39:48 ↗ not saying we should get 95% of the

2:39:50 ↗ number. It's just saying the number

2:39:52 ↗ shouldn't be zero. So, um, some cities

2:39:55 ↗ will be taking this up again as an

2:39:57 ↗ emergency action, which means a

2:39:59 ↗ one-touch. So, it's a it's a one it it's

2:40:01 ↗ likely to be a oneanddone. Um,

2:40:03 ↗ considering supporting or I should say

2:40:06 ↗ technically considering recommending

2:40:08 ↗ that the board take this position is how

2:40:11 ↗ is how pick always works is a

2:40:13 ↗ recommendation to the board. So, I would

2:40:15 ↗ love to get any thoughts that people

2:40:16 ↗ have tonight on the subject. Um, I would

2:40:19 ↗ love to be be able to say my council

2:40:21 ↗ feels this way about it. Um, but I am

2:40:23 ↗ also willing if people uh if the hour is

2:40:26 ↗ late and people want to get back to me

2:40:28 ↗ between now and Wednesday afternoon,

2:40:29 ↗ that's fine also, but I I'd be happy to

2:40:32 ↗ take any thoughts right now on this. of

2:40:33 ↗ Ross.

2:40:35 ↗ >> Yeah. I I would say from an isiqua

2:40:38 ↗ perspective, it I don't think it would

2:40:39 ↗ be beneficial for us to be pushing

2:40:42 ↗ against uh pushing for city rights of

2:40:46 ↗ revenue versus county considering how

2:40:48 ↗ much of our traffic impact is due to

2:40:51 ↗ county road backup. Um so I think our

2:40:54 ↗ benefit would be if the county roads

2:40:57 ↗ were better, particularly going south. I

2:41:00 ↗ think the idea that city folk don't

2:41:04 ↗ drive on county roads and it the idea

2:41:08 ↗ that

2:41:10 ↗ our money should only be paying for our

2:41:13 ↗ city roads just doesn't make a whole lot

2:41:15 ↗ of sense to me. Um we pay taxes that pay

2:41:18 ↗ into state roads and um federal roads

2:41:22 ↗ and things like that. The idea that we

2:41:24 ↗ would also pay for county roads that we

2:41:26 ↗ also drive on, I think makes a lot of

2:41:29 ↗ sense. Um, and I think particularly from

2:41:31 ↗ an isiqua perspective, there is a lot of

2:41:34 ↗ benefit to us if the county roads are um

2:41:38 ↗ more effectively paid for.

2:41:42 ↗ >> U Mr. President, uh, just so I

2:41:45 ↗ understand what you're proposing, are

2:41:47 ↗ you trying to make sure that the cities

2:41:49 ↗ have the option to pursue this by

2:41:51 ↗ putting in our our our argument against

2:41:55 ↗ this or or what's the what's the main

2:41:57 ↗ purpose?

2:41:58 ↗ >> The proposed um position for SCA is that

2:42:01 ↗ in the knob between like complete equity

2:42:04 ↗ on our money or zero equity on the

2:42:06 ↗ money, it shouldn't be at zero equity on

2:42:08 ↗ our money. should not be that the 95% of

2:42:12 ↗ the payers get 0% of the of the uh

2:42:16 ↗ outlay.

2:42:16 ↗ >> So, we're fighting to have the option to

2:42:18 ↗ potentially use this as a tool in the

2:42:20 ↗ future. Is that what we're trying to

2:42:22 ↗ >> I think it would just be a revenue

2:42:23 ↗ share. Yeah.

2:42:25 ↗ >> I think when I talked to council member

2:42:26 ↗ Dunn today, I think the the way that

2:42:29 ↗ conversation was is you get 95 million a

2:42:31 ↗ year from this.1% sales tax. the city's

2:42:34 ↗ getting 20 to 25% of that to him even

2:42:37 ↗ did not seem unreasonable. He was like

2:42:39 ↗ to me that seems reasonable because the

2:42:41 ↗ county is still getting 75 to 80%. And

2:42:43 ↗ at the same time to council member

2:42:45 ↗ Walsh's point I said it'd be really nice

2:42:47 ↗ if that proposal had roundabouts at May

2:42:49 ↗ Valley and Cedar Grove and he agreed.

2:42:51 ↗ And so I think the ideal perspective in

2:42:54 ↗ this process is I think President Marx

2:42:57 ↗ is hitting on a very very fair point

2:42:59 ↗ which is 20 to 25% of this revenue of

2:43:01 ↗ the 95 million being programmatically

2:43:04 ↗ sent back to cities is not crazy and

2:43:06 ↗ they can still do a lot of really good

2:43:08 ↗ stuff with 70 to $75 million at the

2:43:10 ↗ state levels. I mean the county level.

2:43:12 ↗ So I think there is a balance that right

2:43:14 ↗ now in the current proposal I think

2:43:17 ↗ maybe just doesn't exist. So

2:43:19 ↗ >> I would support your position then on on

2:43:21 ↗ this when you go to vote.

2:43:24 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. And I al I personally also

2:43:26 ↗ support the concept of having you know

2:43:28 ↗ city folks somehow involved in the

2:43:29 ↗ governance whether it's like through

2:43:30 ↗ recommendations or things like that so

2:43:32 ↗ that we can formally recommend the

2:43:33 ↗ roundabouts on Isqua Hovar Road as a

2:43:35 ↗ priority for the city of Isqua

2:43:37 ↗ >> and that has historically been a really

2:43:39 ↗ strong SCA always makes that argument

2:43:42 ↗ right that municipal um elected should

2:43:44 ↗ be involved in the outlays of large

2:43:46 ↗ expenditures when we have these large um

2:43:48 ↗ bonds and levies. Um, we have always

2:43:51 ↗ argued that they that there should be a

2:43:52 ↗ governance board that is composed of

2:43:54 ↗ electeds.

2:43:59 ↗ >> Oh, Council Member Joe,

2:44:00 ↗ >> I have another good of the order item.

2:44:02 ↗ Um, thank you. Um, the annual conference

2:44:06 ↗ for AWC, the Association of Washington

2:44:09 ↗ Cities is June 23rd, 24th, and 25th in

2:44:12 ↗ Spokane. Uh I'm announcing this early

2:44:15 ↗ because if you don't register, you end

2:44:17 ↗ up in a hotel that's miles and miles

2:44:19 ↗ away from the conference center. Um so

2:44:22 ↗ if you are interested in going, uh it's

2:44:24 ↗ a great opportunity to meet other

2:44:26 ↗ electeds from around the state, find out

2:44:27 ↗ what they're doing on housing, what

2:44:29 ↗ they're doing on transportation and

2:44:31 ↗ impact fees. All the uh ideas that that

2:44:34 ↗ get passed around at that conference are

2:44:36 ↗ are are fantastic. So, um, talk to

2:44:41 ↗ Wall-E and, uh, our city clerk if you're

2:44:44 ↗ interested in going and they can talk

2:44:47 ↗ about how to get registered and all the

2:44:49 ↗ other fine details. Thank you.

2:44:53 ↗ >> Okay, with that, I know we started a

2:44:56 ↗ half hour early, but we're finishing the

2:44:57 ↗ latest. We finished, I think, in a

2:44:59 ↗ council meeting this year, but at 9:15,

2:45:00 ↗ we are now officially adjourned.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Paul Adair

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Kevin Nichols

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator, Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator, Rachel Bender Turpin, City Attorney

Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Motions and votes (1)

Approve the process and timeline for filling the 2026 City Council vacancy of Position No. 3 as amended [to include the Elected Official Information session and extend the application deadline to April 2]. b)

Moved by Council President Marts · seconded by Deputy Council President Jiang

Carried 6-0

In favor: Adair, Jiang, Joe, Marts, Nichols, Walsh