welcome everyone I'd like to call to
order the May 21st regular City Council
meeting you've joined me in the pledge
I'd like to ask those who'd like to join
the council myself in the pledge of
allegiance is to please stand thank you
the first item on the agenda tonight is
special business it's a be seven five
nine three is the Hall of Fame
recognition I would like to ask Fred
Butler and David Kapler to please join
me at the lectern for this presentation
so a few weeks ago our community members
nominated some amazing people for our
Hall of Fame and many of you in the Hall
of Fame are already here this evening
and listed up on the plaques that we
have over there thank you so much for
joining us from Ruth's Keys to Harvey
Manning the impressive list of Isikoff
Hall Fame of inductees truly embodies
the best of our community over the years
and through their many contributions to
so kua members of the Hall of Fame have
raised the bar with their x-pyr
inspiring examples of service leadership
and civic mindedness and tonight I'm
proud to add two to our Hall of Fame
Dave Kapler first I'd like to honor the
affectionately known great trail maker
David Kapler for the past four decades
David has made a lasting impact on his
sequest sustainability including our
people prosperity and environment
David's happy place is the great
outdoors and his passion for open space
is infectious as an original founder of
the Issaquah albs Trail Club and
mountains to sound Greenway
he has helped preserve countless
forested areas throughout the Issaquah
Alps region-wide is the cause known as
trailhead City and many of the trails
that inspired that nickname are thanks
to David's tireless work David also
served on the quest City Council for
almost two decades and during a pivotal
time in our history when two master
planned communities were formed each
development preserved massive amounts of
open space today David continues to work
oftentimes behind the scenes to advocate
for public lands at the local state and
regional level as one community member
said David is an inspiring example to
all of us in portraying how one person
can effectively engage in and make their
community stronger and better thank you
for your service to you next I'd like to
recognize our former mayor Fred Butler
fred is a true public servant he first
served for 27 years in the US Army Corps
of engineer engineers and then became
Seattle City Lights chief engineer
besides his lovely wife
Rosemarie who's here this evening fred
has one other true love and that is is
aqua fred has served this community for
more than two decades first as a council
member for 14 years and then as a squiz
mayor from 2014 to 17 Fred's passion for
mass transit is known throughout the
region as a member of the Sound Transit
board Fred successively ensured that
light rail to Issaquah was included in
the st3 package Fred was also
instrumental in welcoming swedish to
Issaquah creating the costco development
agreement renovating Julie's bone pool
and building the new skateboard park on
Newport by State Route 900 his
widespread influence was very clear in
2017 when he called a regional
transportation summit and successfully
brought together the King County
Executive ten mayors state legislators
King County Council members washed out
Metro and Sound Transit to one event
Fred truly cares better
citizens and is known for walking around
the town to check in with community
members including local business owners
young families at the playground and
members of our Senior Center there's not
too many folks around town who haven't
met Fred at least once Thank You Fred
for all of your service so just to make
sure everyone is aware the Hall of Fame
past recipients and the two were
honoring tonight are all displayed on
our plaques here and we're so proud of
the long list of people and our two new
inductees so let's all give them one
more hand and at this time I'd also like
to have a five-minute recess so that we
can all go out in the hall and
congratulate them and thank them before
we begin our business meeting
you
we are back in session thank you very
much for participating in our Hall of
Fame celebration and coming out to
celebrate with our former and current
Hall of Fame members next item on our
agenda this evening is audience comments
audience members may address the council
at this time there are guidelines on the
meeting agenda and those who signed up
on the sign-in list will be called
forward to speak first if you did not
sign up I will still ask for other
speakers before closing that portion of
the meeting when you are recognized to
speak please come up to our Dyess use
the lectern and speak into the
microphone
state your name and address and
relationship to the city limit your
comments to three minutes please and
submit any written comments to the city
clerk there's also a public hearing this
evening property tax reduction request
by a King County public benefit rating
system and if you'd like to make
comments on that topic you will have an
opportunity to do so later in the
meeting thank you very much for coming
tonight and taking time to address your
council has anyone signed up to speak
this evening yes Deb Lawrence
my name is Deb Lawrence I live at 236
southeast Bush Street in Issaquah have
been a residence therefore it's been a
residence there for many years
I'm coming today because three months
ago I attended a City Council where I
presented a petition requesting a yellow
flashing pedestrian light at the
intersection of 2nd Avenue south east
and southeast Bush Street the petition
was signed by over 90% of the available
residents living east of 2nd Avenue
South East this petition was
notification to the city of an existing
serious safety issue for pedestrians
trying to cross 2nd Avenue southeast via
the existing crosswalks I have
personally been nearly hit by a vehicle
on four occasions and I was not alone at
least 22 others have had similar
experiences and practically everyone
expressed safety concerns with this
crossing to date there has been no
action on this request there was some
minor questions and recognition of the
problem in the first week or so but
nothing since I'm here again requesting
the action be taken I would also
appreciate the courtesy of a timely
written response to this request
pedestrian safety should be a major
concern
there are numerous experts in this field
who are willing to assist as well as
numerous literature and recognized
national studies there's no need for
extensive studies surveys or pilot
projects this wheel has already been
invented
excellent resources include the manual
of uniform traffic control devices and
the Federal Highway Administration step
program which stands for safe
transportation for every pedestrian
there are many via there have been many
vehicle pedestrian accidents in Issaquah
and pedestrians are no match against a
vehicle and the results are often very
serious the remedies that exist are well
within our financial capabilities and
are far less than a serious injury
please respond in a positive manner and
have yellow flashing pedestrian lights
installed on Second Avenue southeast
this is for our safety and welfare safe
roads for a safe future thank you Thank
You Deb can you hand your comments in to
the city clerk as well next
no one further has signed up to speak is
there anyone that would like to address
Council this evening thank you come on
up hi my name is Denise Darnell and I
live in Sammamish at 21-21 200,000 new
southeast I feel that Sammamish and if
Sequoia are very interrelated and
connected and I'd love to see our two
City Council's working closer together I
think with both City Council's getting
new people it's exciting to see that
collaboration we all know that everyone
from Sammamish comes to Issaquah and
who's even it Sequoia it heads towards
Sammamish so I think we all also really
care deeply about the developments that
are happening in our areas we have a lot
of people up in Sammamish that are very
concerned and are really happy about our
moratorium and wanting to keep it longer
to look at planning and seeing here and
one of the things that drew us all here
was the beautiful mountains I've lived
here since 2003 we purposely bought an
old home so that we wouldn't be part of
cutting down trees and I'm part of a
group that I got involved with called
save Cougar Mountain and everyone in
green are not quite in green but wearing
a tag is part of our group and we just
represent a very large amount of people
in our area who don't want to see Cougar
Mountain get developed and I have a
flyer that I'll give to our city clerk
as well but we have the birds my
development that's threatening the
beauty of our whole area I know I'm
probably not the only one in agreeing
with me when I now drive down i-90 and I
see those huge apartments they're all
being built in that big pasture land I
feel really sad and so I don't want to
feel even more sad when I look at Cougar
Mountain and see this horrible eyesore
the developement smack dab in the middle
I'm work at a school I work at Discovery
Elementary and I recently was reading a
book to some first graders about Teddy
Roosevelt and I don't know if you're
aware of this very quick story I'll tell
you that Teddy Roosevelt ended up
meeting John Muir and John Muir wanted
to show him this beautiful land that he
loved so he took Teddy Roosevelt on a
camping trip and there's a really
wonderful picture book about it and
Teddy Roosevelt was astounded by this
beautiful land and John Muir said you
know it's going to be gone pretty
soon I'm really sad I hope you can do
something about it and Teddy Roosevelt
did and thanks to him we have our
national parks and as we all know Teddy
Roosevelt was a president that really
saved these areas and made national
parks we're at that same crossroads I
can't feel any more strong about this
that we can't keep allowing these
developments it's getting so terrible
for all of us and the more people I talk
to you I have yet to find someone who
disagrees except the developers and we
want our cities to care about their
families and the citizens not the
developers so I just ask of you that you
will really look at the possibility of
saving this area Cougar Mountain working
with King County to create some funding
where you can buy that land and allow us
to continue having that beauty and I
know that you'll feel very proud to be
doing something that Teddy Roosevelt did
a long time ago thank you Thank You
Denise lots of hands in the air I should
now but I should by now know what my
comments are before public audience
comments but I forgot a couple of things
I can see a lot of badges out there
tonight and so we do have a large
contingent from say Cougar Mountain
again if there is a spokesperson that
would like to get up and speak that
would be great and if there are members
that would like to add new information
to that we would appreciate that as well
is there anyone else willing to speak
since we have nobody signed up this
evening okay doesn't have to be yep come
on over to the microphone
my name is Mike Mike Abraham I live and
is a call for about 14 years so I'm just
up in the highlands I believe there's
something on today's calendar for can
you state your address to for the
officers the clerk does record it with
the address okay thanks yeah two three
eight one eight southeast 59th Street
Issaquah my name is iridar
thank you so there's something today
regarding an Adu so there's gonna be a
reduction
from something a little bit bigger to
just a limit of a thousand square feet
so I don't think that's gonna serve the
purpose of an ad you because if you're
going to go through the hassle and the
cost of building you should build
something that's gonna be a good size
that's going to accommodate the family
as far as like in previous surface and
driveway almost everything is gonna be
the same except just the square footage
is not gonna be the same so I just
against the thousand square feet limit
on the whole edu thing so that's all
thank you Mike yep anyone else willing I
wanted to come up and talk to council
this evening Elizabeth
my name is Elizabeth mopin I live at 100
Big Bear place on squawk Mountain in
Issaquah I wanted to share with you
something that came to my attention this
week or last week there's a woman who
fled domestic violence and became
homeless and who has been helped by
people from a number of different faith
communities in this area over the last
month or so she has a service animal and
that kind of limits places she can go
she's been trying to find some long-term
housing because she has a job that she
does by telephone and she needs a place
that's quiet and steady where she can
carry on conversations on the phone
shelters don't do it for her tent city
doesn't do it for her we don't have a
lot of housing around here that's
affordable for people who are on very
low income and as I thought about the
dormitories that sat unused at
Providence Heights for four years and
may now be demolished that kind of
housing it's small you know they were
designed for just two people but this
would be wonderful shelter for people
like this woman the faith community
can't afford to put her up in a hotel
forever we did because she was sick but
there needs to be some place that people
who are recovering can go and be safe
and get on their feet and we also need
some kind of shelter for couples we have
stuff for single men and single women
and families and youth but nothing for
couples those dorms would have been
great
so keep thinking creatively we have
stuff in this community that could be
used to house even our poor residents
thank you thank you Elizabeth
my hands in the air anyone else I came
to speak this evening to Council
money is making her way over
so I'm Connie Marsh and I live up on
squawk Mountain I'm gonna start with
Elizabeth comments which are we're
looking at him a subsidy of a
substantial amount of public dollars for
new development to get affordable
housing and I'm talking about the
transit oriented development whole ball
of puzzled wax reimagining that money if
you were to use it toward affordable
housing why aren't we investing in
places that already exists and turning
those into low-income housing where
those who really really need it can find
a safe place to stay that to me seems to
be more of a priority than continuing to
try to create a new housing for those
who at least can exist now second you
could use a lot more money to purchase
forested land which we also need in this
town so when you're looking at where you
invest the dollars it seems like we need
to have a public conversation about what
the community wants to do with our money
I don't think that the council has the
luxury of just saying well we're going
to decide without talking to us because
there's so many voices that need to have
this conversation this is the same
conversation with transportation people
are cranky with congestion yet every we
have a split town as to how to solve
congestion if it is solvable and we need
to have the community conversation to
educate people and help them to
understand the decisions that everybody
is trying to make for a long term it's a
call now the last one is the visions
that you have in your packet and whether
I like them or not
so the visions are better they have the
potential to get us more of what we want
I am
concerned that the implementation is not
in place and unless staff is totally on
board with this we will not get anything
different than we had before because
really they don't give us the code
language to say you shall do something
and so until a process is established
that brings staff to the table with a
developer before anything is done we're
gonna get the same old thing again
otherwise go forth and conquer Thank You
Connie Mary my name is Mary Lynch and I
recited to 6 9o Northwest Oak Crest
Drive Issaquah Washington
I just want to ditto what Elizabeth said
and also what Connie said specifically
I'll start with the vision portion of it
this is the second go-round that I've
spent many many of my volunteer hours
trying to rewrite the visions as time my
concern like Connie is I don't see that
we have the staff or that we've seen any
idea of what the code is going to look
like and I would take it one step
further than what Connie said I think
when the next time we sit down with a
developer in the city if this moratorium
is lifted we need to have a panel of
those of us that have served as
volunteers and contributors to these
vision statements because what I saw go
forth the last two development
commission meetings we didn't get what
we thought we were going to get out of
that new development and I think that's
partly because the city staff wasn't
fully on board with what some of the
concerns were so until we hire and we
really integrate what those visions are
put it to code I question whether we're
going to be able to get it and I've
wasted my time again which I'm not going
to do it again I will serve on an
overview site panel though that being
said would like to I've written a letter
to the mayor and have talked to parks
board about tree canopy and I and
several people have talked many times
about tree canopy just on Friday we got
another email notice that with driven
for some reason they're going to want to
cut down trees on our
the Southside a Newport way that is part
of native growth protection easement as
well as a screening easement that were
commitments made with those developments
and the property owners on that side of
the road
all of a sudden via little email we get
oh those trees are going no why when and
what's going to be replaced as far as
the number of trees that are being
removed because those are large maple
trees that are being removed I would
like some feedback on that
the last thing since it's short on time
I also want to talk about hopefully some
of the money that we are spending
towards traffic can go to actually
having a police officer standing at
intersections
I was almost run over trying to cross
that's 900 on Friday coming in tonight
there was a bicyclist who decided to get
off his bike and use the crosswalk on
Newports way to cross new Parkway at
s900 we had people speeding up behind me
turning right and almost hit that
bicyclist had I not honked and he not
done one last check he would have been a
dead person at the speed that was going
I also trying to get home tonight the
intersections all along Front Street are
consistently blocked by through traffic
I'm trying to get home and I could not
turn left off of Front Street on two sec
or on sunset because of people trying to
cut onto Front Street and blocking the
entire intersection we need to have
police officers present to teach
behaviors not to block intersections not
to cross block crosswalks and as a part
the first one about the crosswalk on
bush we need that thank you Mary
anyone else like to discounsel is
evening Julie oh no your support
there's hands of support anyone else who
would like to address Council this
evening
second call anyone like to address
Council last call seeing no one else
audience comments are closed and we will
move to committee and regional reports
and we will start with councilmember
hunt thank you madam mayor on May 17th I
attended the Huayra eight salmon
recovery council meeting and I'd like to
provide two
highlights from that meeting firstly we
reviewed the project subcommittees 2018
grant recommendations supporting
conservation education and outreach and
one project that was discussed was the
lower s quad cream Creek stream and
riparian restoration design this is a
city of Issaquah project and the salmon
recovery Council voted to unanimously
approve the project subcommittees
recommendations the grants are not yet
fully approved because it still has
another step it will also need to be
approved by the King County Flood
Control District and that will happen
that review process will happen later in
the summer and we also heard about the
city of Kirkland's yard smart rain
rewards residential retrofit program
this is a program that provides
incentives for homeowners to reduce the
volume and pollution levels of
stormwater and the next meeting of the
salmon recovery council will be Thursday
July 19th and that concludes my report
Thank You councilmember Wray Thank You
mayor poly the services and Safety
Committee met on May 9th here in council
chambers there are a number of issues we
took out many of them are on tonight's
consent agenda we took up agenda bill 75
95 to amend the salary ordinance we took
up agenda bill 75-65 an interfund loan
extension for the roadway improvement
and agenda bill 70601 East Side Fire and
Rescue Memorandum of Understanding
related to maintenance of city-owned
facilities all of those were moved to
consent for this evening the committee
also received an update on the 2019 2020
applications for services funding and
then finally we took up agenda bill 75
96 property tax reduction request via
King County public benefits rating
system that's a mouthful and that is on
regular business day and we will be
having a public hearing about that
shortly the next meeting will be on June
12th at 6:30 here in Council Chambers
Eastside Fire and Rescue Board met on
May 10th at 4 o'clock councilmember
Goodman and I attended via telephone
kind of breaking some new ground
that allowed us to participate in the
council retreat key things on the agenda
was an update from the chief on P Foss
and the water supply the Board
considered modifications to director
roles and responsibilities to remit
board members to participate via
telephone and finally we looked at the
implementation of a new compliance
engine to help with our fire marshal
function the next East Side Fire and
Rescue meeting will be on June 14th at 4
o'clock and that concludes my report
this evening Thank You councilmember a
council member Ramos thank you
the councillor structure committee met
last Thursday the 17th a couple items of
note one is on consent agenda tonight
the curb ramp enhancement project that's
on consent the other one note is there's
discussion on the traffic coming in Old
Town and it appears that that has been
very successful in many ways but there
is one part of it that was not
successful and there was a group of filk
so that the chicane zhan Andrews are
very troublesome for the neighbourhood
as a whole in their area because of
parking and other things that kind of
came together in that one spot so it was
a request that we removed those as soon
as possible because they're causing
major problems and have the neighborhood
Street functions but all the other ones
seem to be doing the job and the report
on that is that the speeds have reduced
through that part of town and it's
working those things have done what they
want except for the chicane so just let
those folks know there have been
discussions following that meeting I've
discussed these things with the mayor
and and of the engineers as well and
those discussions are continuing to
consider there requested actions that
concludes my report
that's remember we're interesting thank
you madam mayor the growth management
policy board has not met since our last
council meeting our next meeting for the
GMP B is May excuse me June 7th and the
primary issue or agenda will be take
item will be the establishing the scope
for the vision 2040 update and then
lodging tax advisory committee has not
met since our last meeting and we have
our next
isn't planned either so that concludes
my report you go thank you
councilmember Goodman thank you madam
mayor Landon sure had a special meeting
last week may 15 and there was one item
on the agenda and it's on a regular
business for tonight it's agenda bell 73
44 central Issaquah district visions
it's the last item to be completed under
the moratorium and the next Landon Shore
meeting will be the first Thursday of
June I believe that's June 7th and the
agenda has not been set that's my report
Thank You deputy council president
batiste
thank you madam mayor no report this
evening Thank You council president
Mertz thank you madam mayor the sound
cities association public issues
committee met on Wednesday May 8th at 7
p.m. in Renton City Hall there was no
discussion of proposed action and the
King County growth management Policy
Council GMP C will next be meeting on
Wednesday May 30th at 4 p.m. in PSR C
chambers they will be considering a
school siting motion unfortunately I am
going to be in Vancouver BC for a
meeting involving microneedles for drug
delivery for my other job so I will not
be able to attend but we will pick gia
SCA will be well covered Thank You
council president thank you very much
for all your work out in the region and
your reports back tonight the next item
on the agenda is the mayor's report I
have a series of community activities
and then some issue updates to give this
evening so on may May 8th I facilitated
a meeting in the box for our strategic
plan with about 20 seniors at our Senior
Center and we followed that with a
question and answer session I also
attended the 39th annual Community
Awards and hosted by the chamber is
greater escort chamber of commerce where
we announced fred butler and david
Kapler as our 2018 city visca Hall of
Fame Award recipients on May 10th I
supported the walk to school event along
with superintendent Ronnie Lee and
greeted students on foot and on bike as
they headed to school in the morning
I made 12th I was the guest speaker at
the Amir
association of universities women's
Issaquah chapter regular meeting and on
the 15th at the Issaquah youth advisory
boards regular meeting I attended the
YWCA YWCA inspire luncheon in Seattle on
May 15 and also facilitated a meeting in
the box with a neighborhood group on
that day on May 17th I attended a
ribbon-cutting ceremony for adhara
Surgical Institute in Issaquah and May
16th I was the guest speaker at an event
with the Issaquah Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center on Front Street on
May 18th I led a mayor's forum at the
Senior Center with is quest former
mayors Hansen hyeon's Fry sander and
Butler I thought I'd provide a couple of
updates on some issues that we've been
talking about over the last few months
moratorium as you heard this evening
central Issaquah visions ab7 three four
four is on regular business this evening
as councilmember Goodman mentioned
earlier during her report the committee
met twice in May to conclude its
deliberations on the proposed changes to
the central is why visions and the item
will be discussed this evening if the
council approves the central square
visions the moratorium enacted in
September 2016 will be lifted I did not
have an update on the Cougar Mountain
Bergsma development this evening the
ending of development agreements for
talus the Planning Policy Commission
held a public hearing on May 10th for
consideration of the proposed zoning
designation for parcel 9 that was at
referral from the council the PPC heard
a snap presentation and took testimony
from the public the Commission concurred
with the administration's original
recommendation that tells person 9
should be designated a map and this item
will return to City Council on June 4th
the southeast 62nd Street which is the
project connecting East Lake Sammamish
Parkway into the development with Costco
there will be some activity this week
prefabricated arch sections for the
under crossing on the East Lake
Sammamish Trail are being delivered on
Tuesday and Wednesday the 29th and 30th
deliveries will occur approximately
every half hour between 9:30 and 3:30
p.m. each day using oversized wide loads
the truck haul road is i-90 to SR 900
fifteen going north on across i-90 to
Northwest Sammamish Road to East Lake
Sammamish Parkway the trucks will then
travel south along East Lake Sammamish
Park Rita southeast sixty-seven where
they will exit the road to make the
delivery
this will cause some delays and drivers
should expect slow-moving vehicles this
is an important piece of our completion
of this project where we can create the
separation between the trail and our new
streets in there we are also looking our
we are also starting our North West
Gilman Boulevard project there is a need
to improve Northwest Gilman Boulevard
from state-run 900 to Front Street for
pedestrians cyclists and transit users
and drivers together with this acquire
residents quarter users and local
business owners the city is developing a
plan this year they will document the
community's vision for the corridor and
strategize on how to implement that
vision our community engagement phase of
this project is now underway the online
survey is live and we hope to hear from
everyone who works plays or lives in
Issaquah the purpose of the survey is to
document the project goals and identify
the range of possible improvements for
Gilman Boulevard the survey is open
until July 13 2008 teen there will also
be business workshops and a community
open house scheduled for July 11th at 6
p.m. at the Pickering burn the as the
events get closer we'll have additional
details to announce you can visit the
project's website page at itzik wha-wha
gov slash Gilman and you can take the
online survey sign up to receive updates
or learn more about the project that
concludes the mayor's report this
evening proceeding to that consent
calendar the consent calendar was
distributed to council in advance if
authorized the items on the consent
calendar will be considered together and
approved by one motion first have the
pay payables and payroll for May 21st
been reviewed yes thank you does any
councilmember desire to remove any items
from the consent calendar and consider
it under regular business councilmember
Goodman yes I would wish to bring down
agenda Belle 75-77 central Issaquah
development and design standards
amendment limiting new hotels mode
tells timeshare lodging conference
centers and self storage units and
specific zones within central Issaquah
to the regular agenda is there a second
second
you don't need a second okay all those
in favor oh just do it that will be
moved to item a under regular business
is there anything any other items that
council would like to move down from the
consent calendar the motion madam mayor
I move we adopt the consent calendar as
amended thank you that needs a second
again so it was moved and seconded to
approve the consent calendar as amended
all those in favor signify by saying aye
as opposed that passes unanimously the
next item on the agenda this evening is
the public hearing for a B seven five
nine six property tax reduction requests
by a King County public benefit rating
system this item is coming out of
council services and Safety Committee
and it the recommendation this evening
is to approve the resolution before I
open the public hearing
I'd like to invite David favor
development services manager and bill
Baron Stein King County public benefit
rating systems program manager to make a
presentation thank you thanks yeah I'll
kick this off and then turn it over to
bill Bernstein King County program lead
this is a request for property tax
reduction through a King County program
and provides an incentive to help
preserve certain public benefits and in
this case it's a historic landmark
structure upon squawk Mountain in a
single-family house at 350 Mount Jupiter
Drive as you mentioned the services and
Safety Committee reviewed this May ninth
then supported the project 300 this
requires a two-step process through
local government city action which is on
your agenda tonight and then council
action that bill takes and bundles with
King County so I'm gonna turn over a
bill to talk a little about the program
and the proposal briefly Thanks
in terms of well thank you for having me
I'll try to keep this brief when we have
the landowners present who would be
great to hear from them after I have a
few words they could speak much more
interestingly about their property
probably than I can but in terms of the
program as Dave was mentioning it's a
two-step process and so we're here
hopefully seeking your approval for this
property's enrollment and then I'll take
it back to the county but essentially
the program is all about a property tax
reduction in exchange for resource
protection or in this case historic
landmark status and protection as it's
listed here we do have a process that we
must follow which is dictated by state
law RCW 84 34 in this case and then also
our program is defined within king
county code chapter 2036 typically it's
a essentially a six-month process from
application receipt to final action
which must occur in this case by July
1st in terms of both city and county
approval this properties qualification
is very straightforward
the program is based on a point system
we have about 25 or so different
resource categories of properties can
qualify for one of those happens to be
property designated as a historic
landmark as this property was designated
back in 2017
so by that designation it opens the door
for the Millers to apply to the programs
and seek a property tax reduction for
the 0.28 acres of the property that I'm
recommending be enrolled in the program
as we've kind of already stated we're
holding this public hearing and then
these various steps including the
recommendations from from
giving recommendation to you and then
taking it to the county again with
regard to this property it's fairly
straightforward the designation is in
place it's recorded on title and so
therefore the qualification is pretty
straightforward I'm happy to answer any
questions you have just about how the
program works or how the tax savings are
implemented and I'll just leave it there
and with the council like me to have the
property owners come up now to providing
for more information or wait till you've
done with questions reference how about
now
if mark and Beth Lynn would like to come
up and provide some addition here not
required to but you can if you would
like to state your name and address for
the record 350 you know we are mark in
Beslan miller i'm mark we live at 350 ml
Jupiter Drive Southwest in a home that
was built actually collaboratively with
skip rally and William can Rory I don't
you remember it skip but your historic
this house is representative of what is
known as mid-century modern architecture
it is built after a design by the
architect Eichler so it is an eichler
home which consists of post-and-beam
construction so each beam that runs
laterally through the house has three
posts that hold it up the entire back of
the home for the most part is glass and
looks out over well it used to look out
over the valley now it just looks at in
large trees and so but the property is
interesting in that it has not really
been modified as we understand it I
think bill it's one of the few
unmodified or unmodeled mid-century
modern around in that it is the basic
architecture is still intact we have a
bomb shelter so it won't fit all of you
but
I'll be selling tickets afterward if
anyone wants to purchase one but it's
it's really an amazing place and we
learned that once we filed it as a
landmark and it was approved we we
learned that there was an opportunity to
get some tax relief and so that's kind
of the basis of why we're here anything
else you would add about it probably why
it was built the way it was
that's mr. Kinnaird worked for the for
the General Accounting Office in in
concert with the Atomic Energy
Commission and he had seen structures
like this in Japan he lived in an
Eichler home in Bellevue before he came
here and had this house built and he
strategically placed it at a point that
was exactly it placed the mountain right
between McChord Air Force Base and his
home and his studies indicated that if
there was ever a nuclear assault in the
area it probably would be a McCord and
Fort Lewis and so he figured that he was
placing the house in a place that was
strategically the least exposed to a
nuclear attack
hence the bomb shelter which today is
just a large storage thank you very much
mark that's very helpful I'm gonna ask
the council now if they have any
questions any questions from anyone who
was up speaking today
councilmember hunt thank you I have a
question regarding the program in
general not the specific property but
could you explain what happens regarding
back taxes when a property owner leaves
the program or sells the property and
the new owner decides that they would
like to leave the program absolutely so
it's important to know there's there's
no end date to an open-space enrollment
and typically what happens when a
property changes ownership is that a
buyer will elect to continue the open
space designation at that time if they
elect to continue the open space
designation they carry they continue
with the open space agreement but they
also carry
the history in terms of any potential
financial ramifications of coming out of
the program there is something called a
compensating tax bill that comes into
play if any property is withdrawn or
removed from the program and that
essentially is made up of a seven-year
past savings plus interest and potential
penalty and so if the Millers were to
sell and a buyer for some reason to not
want to continue with the designation
they would be subject to that
compensating tax bill and that again
never goes away there's no end date to
that calculation or that potential
removal cost any other questions okay
you no further questions the guidelines
for citizens comments also apply to
those made under the public hearing and
I now open the public hearing at 7:55
p.m. has anyone signed up to speak this
evening no thank you
would anyone like to speak this evening
second call for anyone wishing to speak
during the public hearing the third and
final call public hearing is closed at
8:56 and councilmember Rea I'd like to
move to approve resolution number 2018 -
Oh 8 approving the public benefit rating
system open space classification of the
Miller property located at 350 Mount
Juniper Drive Southwest 2nd it's been
moved and seconded is there any
discussion I just like to speak to it
just briefly often in committees we have
to deal with some some hard and thorny
issues and when this one came to the
services and Safety Committee it was
probably the most fun I think any of the
committee members have ever had in
listening to the stories about the house
I think this is a an amazing piece of
architecture it's clearly qualified
under the the county laws and and I
think it's something that we as a
community will benefit
from by preserving so I am really
excited about this you any other
discussion
if there's no further discussion all
those in favor of approving resolution
number two zero one eight zero eight
approving the public benefit rating
system open space classification of the
Miller property located at 350 Mount
Juniper Drive Southwest signify by
saying aye hey as a post that passes
unanimously thank you very much for
coming this evening next item on the
agenda is regular business and we'll be
starting with a be seven five seven
seven central Issaquah development and
design standards amendment limiting new
hotels motels timeshare lodging
conference centers and stealth self
storage units in specific zones within
central Issaquah this item was moved
down from the consent calendar this
evening and it is coming out of the
landing shore committee I'd like to
first invite Keith Niven economic and
development services director to make a
presentation thank you madam mayor city
council good evening so this agenda bill
is proposed code amendments for central
Issaquah and really it's I think coming
out of a sense that the current zoning
and the land uses they're allowed in
central Issaquah are possibly too broad
and because there's not a lot of
limitations in terms of what can be
placed in central Issaquah there was a
proposed code amendment brought about by
the administration to limit the location
for hotels and self storage and so this
went to the Planning Policy Commission
and then it came to Landon Shore and so
what was proposed was to limit the limit
new hotels to the Pickering neighborhood
and to limit new storage to to 21st and
East Lake Sammamish Parkway and so part
of this was looking at the distribution
of the existing storage facilities that
we have
those are shown with the black squares
and also the existing hotels which are
the red stars the Pickering neighborhood
is north of i90 and includes kind of the
area around the Costco corporate campus
and as you can see basically our hotels
are located right now in Raleigh - in
Pickering this is the motel 6 and the
Holiday Inn and then the new Marriott is
down on Maple as for the storage units
you can see they're kind of spread
throughout central is aqua we also have
them up in the highlands but this was
really a conversation about central
Issaquah so I did not show that on the
map as we talked about hotels and why we
have hotels in the city part of I think
trying to understand it a little bit
better is looking at hotel stays and
just kind of the break out between
leisure and business-related stays and
so this is information unfortunately we
couldn't get in from data from all of
our hotel yers but we did from Hilton
Garden Inn Homewood Suites and Marriott
and as you can see the Marriott is is
tipped a little bit more leisure than
business but both the Hilton brands
Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood Suites is
much more business than leisure and my
guess is Holiday Inn would be similar
because of its proximity to Costco which
is what generates a lot of our hotel
stays and then from a storage
perspective and I apologize if this is
hard to see what we did is we did an
inventory of storage units on the east
side to kind of get a sense for kind of
dispersion and whether or not we were
getting a disproportionate share of
storage units you know so here's
information from our what we consider
our East Side Pier City
some information at the bottom relates
to percentage of households that rent
storage units it's about just shiet 10%
and that 75% of those are either within
2 miles of where people live or where
they work so there's definitely a kind
of a proximity for use of storage so so
this is this is kind of the end of my
presentation it went through Planning
Commission Planning Commission talked
about I have to kind of break these into
two very different topics because they
they dealt with these two land uses very
differently for for the hotels the sense
coming out of Planning Commission was
that hotel your's will locate where it
makes sense for them to locate and they
didn't feel like we needed to
necessarily regulate the location of
hotels they also saw hotels because they
can range anywhere from large hotels to
small boutique hotels could really
locate in in many neighborhoods within
central Issaquah and be successful on
the flip side storage storage was a much
more divided debate and there were some
members on PPC that felt that storage
was not a vibrant land use and should
not be allowed at all in central
Issaquah and others felt like it wasn't
our place to regulate so it actually
came out of planning policy commission
without a recommendation because they
voted twice and it's split 3-3 both
times so it was actually dead locked out
of Planning Commission so then this made
it to land and Shore and that land and
Shore the recommendation was also to not
approve these code limitations so that's
that's kind of the history and and where
we are and if you have questions I'm
here to answer questions let's remember
Goodman thank you so Keith my
understanding is
that for storage units that they could
be built anywhere in central Issaquah
except isn't mixed-use residential yes
so if somebody wanted to when the
moratorium is lifted make an application
for putting up for a permit to put a
storage unit anywhere along Gilman
Boulevard could happen right yes or in
multiple adjacent properties so
basically all of this except for this
neighborhood down here okay and I also
heard in the I can't remember it was an
insurer planning policy that there's a
pretty huge demand for storage unit
businesses so as you know so one of the
things about you know this statistic if
this is accurate you know basically ten
percent so as you think about us adding
thousands of more housing units to
Central Issaquah in theory there's there
will be an increased demand for
additional storage assuming the
statistics state accurate given well
anyway now the question questions are
coming there was no other if there's no
other questions questions councilmember
ahead so the in the proposed amendment
there is allowed locations in central
Issaquah which would be parcels fronting
East Lake Sammamish Parkway southeast
and 220 first place southeast and I
could you explain why those are the
proposed allowed locations I think
partially because of the prevalence of
storage now so right now and if you
think about kind of across the street
from the Fred Meyer shopping center you
have a low-density single-story
storage facility there now that's that's
this particular one there's a also
another couple parcels towards the north
end of East Lake Sammamish that from a
distribution
damn point you could potentially see
maybe another one up here so that made
sense for East Lake Sammamish and and
221st is the street with the brown bear
carwash there's also a storage unit on
221st and so because it's kind of an
out-of-the-way Street I think that was
one of the reasons why that was proposed
as an OK location for storage Council
deputy council president Patti's Thank
You Keith
we're when talking about having the
discussion about the storage units were
[Music]
trying to think of my question here was
it taken into consideration that a lot
of newer developments have their own
internal storage units so that was
discussed at planning policy Commission
you know what's happening
for the most part is that storage and
apartments are so new apartments are
generally not providing storage and so
except they are providing garages and
some of the tenants to use their garages
for storage which then is a parking
issue and that's a whole other
conversation but most of it is actually
happening separately so most multifamily
builders are not providing a like like
rentable storage units on their site
they could and but they but that's not
what we've seen in either Atlas or
gateway thank you yeah account summary
can you come back in a slider to where
you show the comparison with the other
cities yes that's this direction I think
that one I want yeah so and it's pretty
small but I count 10 in Bellevue and 7
and this was that sound about right yes
so Bellevue has 140,000 people so that's
4
thousand people for her place and we
have stayed 35,000 just to make my math
easy and that's about five thousand per
place I'm just kind of curious because
we seem to have a higher density of
storage units here in Issaquah then some
of our similar cities any any insights
into why that might be so no I you know
the thing that's not telling here is
number of units within each complex and
I could not get that information online
and this was an awful lot of phone calls
to have to make so so I don't know the
absolute comparison in terms of like
units some of the ones in Bellevue are
older and smaller but I so you know I
don't I can't answer that question what
I know is based on one of the developers
that's looking to develop one in
Issaquah that there is still I think in
an active market for additional storage
units in Issaquah my second question
deals with with property crime is do you
I mean this is really sort of an unfair
question spring on you right now but I'm
just kind of curious if if we've seen
any kind of crime statistics property
crime statistics around around storage
units as opposed to other commercial
uses I have not heard of any and and
that was not something that came up
either at PPC or Landon Shore any other
questions
the councilmember Goodman brought this
down from consent so I was going to give
her some time to explain her reasoning
for bringing it down this evening they
make a motion an explainer
I would make a motion to adopt ordinance
number 28 37 amending table 4.3 be the
central Issaquah development and design
standards to limit self storage units to
the mixed-use zoning district and strike
all references to limits in the
ordinance other than self storage is
there a second second
it's been moved and seconded can you
reread that for me read it is it's not I
have another I don't I do not have John
one I just wrote it sorry to adopt
ordinance number whatever you said 28 37
amending table you can have this too
when I'm done 4.3 be of the central
Issaquah development and design
standards to limit self storage units to
the mixed use zoning district and strike
all references to limits in the
ordinance other than self storage
[Applause]
okay so the reason I brought it down is
twofold number one it's for the same
reason we received an email from Steve
prior today who talks about the I don't
know if it appropriate is the right word
but the preference for whether we put
things on consent that are recommending
denial and particularly when a minority
of the councilmembers have seen the
presentation at a committee meeting so I
think the preference my opinion the
preference would be to recommend denial
but put it on the regular regular
consent agenda so that the majority of
the council can see the presentation and
deliberate so that's one reason and the
second reason is because I as my motion
indicates I favor limiting the the
storage units the hotel part of it and I
realized that PPC and also landed Shore
because I watched them
devided fought i think there was maybe a
suggestion that it maybe could have been
two agenda bills but they were very
distinct hotels and self-storage I don't
I am at this point don't favor limiting
the hotels I don't think that that
agenda bill was very strong in in the
way that it suggested we for the reasons
that I don't think the reasoning was
very strong for why we needed to limit
the traffic just didn't resonate with me
there may be other reasons but I don't
think it was those reasons we're not
presented I don't know what those
reasons would be but the the storage
units I'm concerned about not limiting
storage units as I as my questioning
indicated they're allowed and Keith said
they're allowed anywhere in central
Issaquah they're no limitations and I'm
concerned about coming out of a
moratorium and unintended consequences
and because of the demand and allowing
the market to dictate where they might
go we would immediately get some
applications for storage units in
undesirable locations particularly where
we're looking to build vibrant areas in
central Issaquah along Gilman Boulevard
we already have one there now and there
were a lot of comments I heard in the
community about wow that's really one of
the first things we're getting in
central Issaquah that's that's not what
we envisioned and I've been talking to
folks in the last couple of weeks and
they had no idea that our land use
tables allow us to have storage units
anywhere and that we don't have any
limits on them in the central Issaquah
area so I think we should limit them I
think if we come out of the moratorium
and we get that type of proposal you
know I've concerned about credibility
we've had this moratorium for all this
long time and we haven't considered
something that we should have considered
and I just think we ought to limit them
that's why I'm that's why I made the
motion and that's those are my reasons
thank you additional discussion council
member Ramos followed by councilmember
hunt yeah
I just want some clarification because
we didn't have quite all this there when
you say limited to mix use though you
had to see that I want to see what that
do you have a slide or anything show
that where that is I don't have it up I
can do that really quickly
I believe that mix use is olive Eastlake
and this piece of of the Gilman
neighborhood may I point out that it's
page 206 of the packet thank yous a map
there's a map with it Keith page 206
while he's doing that comes from I
promise are you okay if I get
councilmember hunts question or comment
I had a very similar question which is
that in the agenda bill there is the
proposed allowed locations in central
Sequoia and then it has the central a
zoning district as mixed-use and my
understanding is that that the motion
does limit to the proposed allowed
locations in central Issaquah is that we
know it's another question okay so I
need more clarity on both of those and
we have a figure up so mixed uses is the
purple okay so it's mostly on the north
side of 90 so here's 90 mostly north
side here's where Microsoft's office
buildings are here's the Fred Meyer
shopping center but it does it does
spill onto the south side of 90 a wee
bit what kind of clarify sure so just to
make sure I understand Keith the
administration's recommendation was to
limit it to mix the mixed use but there
is a footnote that says not only is it
limited to mixed use it's limited to the
East Lake Sam 221st
yes and so in the motion I made its the
proposed that table 4.3 B which includes
the footnote so my motion is the same as
the administration's recommendation so
it doesn't limit it
to the entire mix juice gotcha zone it's
exactly what the administration proposed
or because the Eastlake Sam to 21st so
provide clarity
councilmember hunt and kind of my Ramos
you sent the figure did anymore exercise
so just to clarify so Eastlake Sam
coming down basically north of i90 on
East Lee exam or to 21st right
I think Cummings out of that and of
course to 21st stops quite a bit of a
ways before right there just okay I just
wanted to have the boundaries question
any other discussion
council president Mertz thanks Betty
mayor first let me speak to the process
the reason that this bill was moved the
way that it was is the mayor's office
and I have been having discussion about
how to move bills forward and full
council is going to see a proposal on
that subject very very very soon but in
the meantime I think it's important when
bills come back to the full council that
there be someone on council on the dais
who was an advocate for it and we did
not come out of that subcommittee
meeting with such a person and so I and
this is all part of the reasoning that
we set in committee basically it was to
do what exactly we did this evening
which is put it on consent and if
somebody felt strongly about it they
would move it down and here we are so I
think the process worked well in terms
of storage facilities I'm troubled by
exclusionary or prescriptive activities
like this I think it's one thing to be
aspirational and to say here's what we
want to see and here's the things that
we're going to try to do to encourage
what we want to see but I don't think
that storage facilities rise to the
level of something you know I always did
the joking thing that I always used is a
tire shredding facility right we don't
we don't want to see a tire shredding
facility in the central area and I don't
believe storage facilities rise to the
level of tire shredding I think that
there were there are definitely
arguments actually in favor of them that
came out of BBC including the fact that
for the tax revenue that they provide
they actually have a pretty small
traffic footprint compared to other
other potential uses of the land and so
I just think that my my gut is to not
prescribe how people can use their land
unless there's a compelling reason to do
so and I don't find a compelling reason
to do so this evening and this is why I
opposed it in committee and why I will
oppose this amendment this evening Thank
You council president Mertz I and
council members Ramos and Hunt ask
questions so I would like to give you
guys all an opportunity to discuss if
you want to council member right no I
just want to make a point and and when I
think about the vision and the future of
central Issaquah which is we're going to
spend a lot of time talking about this
this later this evening
and we want a a vibrant community or
part of the community we want a place
that is a live-work-play we want a place
that is walkable community we want
mixed-use and I I kind of like the idea
of moving our storage units into a
region because I think that they will
take space in central Issaquah that
could have a use that would would
further our vision of that mixed-use
high-density central urban area so I'm
I'm very supportive of this amendment
thank you
that's a member hunt thank you I am also
in support of the motion in committee I
I was in support of this part of the
agenda bill the part regarding storage
units I think that as council member ray
articulated storage units are not
they're not a pedestrian oriented
land-use and so I think if we have a
vision for the future to be walkable
than
limiting them makes good sense to me so
I'm in support thank you additional
comments
I have councilmember winter Stein
councilmember Ramos all right thank
thank you
good discussion interesting discussion
I'm struck with how much space is
actually in the central area and the
actual footprint for any given building
that if those national figures do
continue to hold and then there is is
demand having that service in proximity
where people are living I don't see
anything wrong with that I don't I don't
I don't also have a problem with the I
heard of the whole idea of vibrancy and
walkability you know if we're gonna get
the people and the jobs and we've
created the land use zoning we've
created the development and design
standards including the architecture and
urban design we've got quite a pile of
regulations to help us get what we want
I'm what if if if the market is saying
and we also need you know the people who
live there also need this type of
service then I would consider it
overreach on our part to deny the
delivery of that service you know where
it's where it's needed so I'm not going
to support just this bill tonight Thank
You councilmember Stern if to the City
Council member Ramos and then deputy
counts press impetus yes so previously
discussions out if we're changing zoning
or coding that there's often
consequences with that that we are
liable for if we take something and say
you can no longer use it for this
purpose so my question to you is that it
seems like that discussion hasn't
happened at all in this case when you
say okay we're disallowing use of land
for what you may have desired to do
we've had no discussion of what those
consequences could be no that's you
understand my question just a
clarification legal or legal and other
concepts legal I know so basically yeah
and I have someone someone had been in
the planning stages of a unit in these
areas that are now disallowed then what
would those kind of legal consequences
be so I'm not gonna address the legal
consequences but I'll address the land
use ones so so with what the market
would tell you is if there's demand in
our community for storage and we're
gonna take we're gonna create a doughnut
hole basically that doesn't allow it
it's gonna go somewhere else
so this somewhere else right now without
doing an in-depth land-use analysis
would be Issaquah Highlands talus and
the service area that we're taking out
of central Issaquah so those would be
the areas that would potentially be ripe
for getting attracting a new storage
facility and for the legal part we'll
have our attorney answer so with respect
to any existing business and existing
facility obviously they are a legal
non-conforming use so it would be
continued to be allowed to continue
for anyone who has filed a building
permit application for such a facility
they would be vested and would have the
right to build such a facility and do
that use the use would be legally
non-conforming for anybody who is simply
planning but has not yet filed a
building permit application the new
zoning ordinances would would Trump that
and they would not be allowed to proceed
forward you would have to have filed a
building permit in order to vest your
rights to a particular use in order to
be allowed to do it and the city always
retains the right to change its zoning
regulations and unless you
impinged upon a vested right or a or
prohibited use which you can't do
because it's legally non-conforming
there are no real legal consequences in
terms of damages or anything like that
that a property owner can bring eh you
does that help yes I totally understand
what you said I'm doing there seems like
other places it seems like that's not
that clear-cut answer when we've talked
I think I'm saying it's within your
purview to do it without legal
ramifications that makes sense
it just seems like we've had that
discussion differently and other topics
I'm ok I need is it ok if I go to
council member account deputy on space
it's just a follow up to follow up
remember sure I think that we have had
conversations similar conversations
there's a difference between zoning and
land use and and so we may you may that
that went to the confusion the
conversations that there would be
different types of consequences thank
you attentional consequence deputy
council president batise thank you madam
mayor I the the first thing that I
wanted to talk about was just the fact
that I'm really glad that this came down
off the consent calendar I this is a
turned into a little bit of it's it's
complicated and there's two pieces to it
and so it's something that I'm I'm happy
that we are talking about as a whole
council so I was glad to see that that
came down off of consent I this is just
one of those agenda bills that I really
can see both both sides I have the same
concerns that council president Mart's
has in terms of prescribing where things
can go within the city but I think when
I look at the hotel issue bringing that
back to no restriction makes sense to me
but when I think about the central
Issaquah plan
and the vision for that plan then it
really does take me down the pathway to
to be able to support that going in
still providing places for the storage
units to go but outside of that core so
I'll be supporting the amendment thank
you
everyone has spoken once would anybody
like additional discussion time or are
we ready for the vote yeah single more
this is this is a tough balance here
because and I've heard the story of some
towns up north of Seattle or when one
town basically said no storage units in
the next town just got new applications
for like eight storage units all at once
because they have to go somewhere they
are a money-making business and it seems
like people have a lot of stuff to store
I'm not sure why but that's way it is
yeah so it's interesting but I do think
that there can be better use of some
land in some places and some other
things in others so we want to wait to
the last second here any other comments
or should we go to the vote okay
it was moved and seconded to adopt
ordinance number two 837 amending table
4.3 B of the central s square
development and design standards to
delete to limit self storage units to
the mixed use zoning district strike all
and this is editorial right or no this
president to strike all references in
the ordinance other than self storage
thank you is that clear or do you need
me to read it again that's good okay
all those in favor aye Anse thank you
those opposed no the motion is approved
five in favor with marts and winter
Stein opposed
thank you very much Madame mayor and
councilmember Goodman so I have a second
motion that I would like to make and it
has to do with revisiting the land-use
tables in central Issaquah development
and design standards and the reason I'm
going to make this motion is because
I've been on the council since the time
that we were deliberating the central
Issaquah plan and the council has never
and I was also in Landon Shore at the
time council has never discussed that I
can never recall the land use the land
use table and I did ask Keith about that
earlier and he thinks my recollection is
correct so now that we've had the
central Issaquah plan in place for
several years and we have seen
unintended consequences and went into a
moratorium so that we could deal with
some issues and we're about ready to
hopefully come out of the moratorium I
think it's probably time for the
administration to take a look at that
table for point 3b and evaluate whether
any additional changes are needed based
on what we've learned so far so that's
why I'm gonna make the motion I would
move to direct the administration to
reevaluate after the moratorium is
lifted to reevaluate table 4.3 B of the
central Issaquah development and design
standards and make recommendations to
the City Council at City Council about
whether changes are needed is there a
second second thank you so again it's
just aria okay it's been moved and
seconded to move to direct the
administration to reevaluate table 4.3 B
of the central is squid development
design standards and make
recommendations to the City Council
about whether changes are needed after
the more after the moratorium is listed
belongs at the beginning of it is there
a discussion that's a member Goodman I
just I just wanted to reiterate that it
doesn't direct any specific changes to
be made
doesn't try to point to anything that
needed to be changed I just think it's
time once we have the moratorium lifted
like I said with everything that we've
learned just take a you know with a
focused eye look at that table and see
if there's anything that we might think
about changing and then come back to the
council and let us know and then we can
have another discussion that's the
president Mertz so I appreciate the idea
behind this my concern is that we have
as a council shown a sensitivity to how
much the administration has on its plate
in 2018 and I would like to understand
before considering supporting this
motion what the impact of this would be
in the context of you know we decided to
not move to the two-year finance this
year because it was just you know
there's we wanted to take things off the
plate that were not essential so that
would eat the essential work done and I
would like to have a better confidence
about whether the administration feels
like this would be something that would
be relatively easy to accommodate so we
can ask staff that question but I can
also if it's okay council president Mart
see if anybody else has questions of
staff and we can bundle them together
are there any other questions for staff
about this motion besides the two that
are on one having to do with time timing
of this and the other way is the impact
on the work fun any other questions
we look at at the table for just a
minute do you have it Keith ah the table
yes I can find it
slowly apparently um each one 96 of the
packet but they're gonna help you I'm
working and I mean I just I just pulled
it up it's a fairly extensive extensive
table and I worry a little bit about
they shouldn't say that what's the
likelihood if you went through it that
we would create more problems than we
saw them you know I I worry about the
unintended consequences of kind of
moving things around so you know the
table as as you all can see is is multi
pages the way that it works is it lists
particular uses and then says where
they're permitted within its own you
know if if we were going through it with
a specific lens like we like for example
we talked about storage being a non
vibrant use if we I think if we had
criteria to go through it with you know
I'd want to have edges to the box right
and then that would go to PPC we'd have
conversation there'd be a public process
associated with that and then we come
back with any proposed code amendments
you know it it's it could be manageable
I don't know the answer to that I don't
I don't know because we haven't gotten
into it yet what that would look like
but you know my guess is most of these
uses are going to not fall off the plate
but I don't know how many might work
their way into that you know these are
the ones that are of for a conversation
I mean the first step would be to shrink
down all these uses into the ones that
we think meet whatever criteria it is we
think we're wanting to judge them
against the Keith could you also go to
council president Mart's questions about
timing and where
even without having edges on the box
adding to the work plan for this year my
boss is glaring at me so you know I have
a hard time saying no so I'm gonna defer
to my boss who might have a better
comprehension of my work plan I
certainly would love a little bit of
time to contemplate this outside of this
meeting before we are able to respond in
a thoughtful way I I have similar
concerns about what criteria is being
applied and we haven't had a
conversation around that so it's very
hard to decide what the scope of work
will look like and how much time and
effort that will entail I I think also I
can foresee a need for a lot of data
collection in order to back up any
recommendations that we might make so I
would love to defer comedy on what it's
going to take until we have a bit more
conversation about what is desired then
I know how to apply the right staffing
resources to get you what you want they
ask a question both of staff and of
councilmember Goodman so you did not
include an actual deadline on here
you just said after the moratorium and
would it be possible for the council to
vote on this motion today without a
specific timeline but then to have it
referred to a work session this year
where just the discussion on scoping
could happen is that a possibility of
what could come out of this evening or
councillor Goodman it's just a
procedural question is it possible to
I'm looking at Jim is it possible to
table motions like to the next meeting
and so there could be maybe a response
before so for example I'm thinking of
what I think about this I
think of the areas in central Issaquah
where we have talked about vibrancy when
we've talked about Wall Street we've got
a new you know the mix vertical makes
you say hey we've got all along Gilman
we're talking about visioning you know
Gilman and you know just for example
looking through that lens to see if you
think about Gilman you could go down the
list pretty easily and go there there
either is and there isn't something that
you think Wow with that shouldn't be on
Gilman and so I was thinking of that
kind of a pass-through and so and I
realized that administration and Keith
hasn't had an opportunity to think about
how you might do this in a manageable
way and I appreciate the fact that you
haven't so so the reason I'm asking is
whether there's an opportunity whether
you can table a motion then come back to
the next meeting or something I think
tabling usually is to just place
something on the table and it takes a
motion to bring it back off the table if
you the appropriate subsidiary motion
here would be a motion to postpone the
motion until the next meeting but that
that is proper that's a proper
subsidiary motion is it a move in a
second to postpone does it have to be
the originator or can it be something it
can be anyone you did this bone I would
move to postpone to the next meeting is
there a second second okay but it's been
moved and seconded to postpone the
motion for consideration at the next
council meeting on favor any discussion
councilmember Winston yeah just one
point it's an interesting topic and we
it is probably time that we all became a
little bit more familiar especially
those of us on land in Shore we also
have our and the perhaps on the verge of
coming out of the moratorium and we've
added quite a bit I mean to
the regulations on what can happen and
what must happen and what cannot happen
and how it can happen and how it should
look and what color it should be and
whether it should have lighting and
covering and all these type of things
we've done actually quite a bit and and
I think the idea of allowing the
ramifications of all of these new
regulations to take hold and see give
that some time it would be appropriate
and whether or not further changes to
allowed land uses within specific land
uses within specific zones
I think is a good discussion but for
another day I know this is about
tabeling it but I just think that when
it comes to all the rest of our work
work plan and all the other things we
have to do and the fact that we're just
coming out of a moratorium I don't see
the urgency or the on this though I do
think it's a good exercise any other
discussion aye councilmember Goodman so
I just want to respond to councilmember
winter Stein's comment about urgency and
I I appreciate that and I know we've got
a lot of changes coming out of the
moratorium and I just want to go back to
when we had when we adopted the central
Issaquah plan and again there was the
discussion about whether we should
require vertical makes deuce and that
didn't get any traction and I talked
about it for a long time and the very
first the very first application we got
within a week or two of passing the
central Issaquah plan was the apartments
and the city said what we we love
vertical mixed-use and they said well
then you should have required it so I
guess the my message is that we need to
be deliberate and we need to be careful
about what we allow and don't allow and
that's the reason for looking at the
table with everything that we've learned
to see if there is something that
presents itself as a potential
unintended consequence and
the reason that I consider it to be
fairly urgent is because those
unintended consequences can happen
anytime within a week after the more
terms lifted so I actually do consider
it a fairly urgent task that should be
done fairly soon not next week but not
in two years and not waiting for many
many many more projects or an unintended
consequence to happen I just think we
have to be very careful to be very
deliberate we have to make good on the
promise that we made to our community to
develop thoughtfully and I actually do
think it's fairly urgent um but I'm will
be supporting obviously the postponing
it and will be anxious to hear the
response and what we might be able to do
and hopefully that will get sparked
Thanks that's the president Mertz
so I guess the thing I want to say about
this is that we have a lot of things
that are coming into effect as we exit
the moratorium and I personally as one
of seven and getting a diminished
appetite for ongoing regulatory activity
I think that whatever fixes we wanted to
have critical things we identified in
the moratorium and eight up and seven
down and the eighth we're about to hit
and so I understand that we should make
sure that this table reflects the work
that we've done over the last couple
years and I think that's a good activity
but I also think that I personally want
to start see as seeing us slowing down
on what we tell land unders they can and
can't do with their property because I
think there's been a lot of that of the
over the course of this moratorium excu
any other comments before we take a vote
all those in favor of postponing
consideration of this motion to the June
4th council meeting say aye as opposed
motion carries unanimously
next item on our
agenda this evening is a b7 three four
four we've allotted five minutes for the
discussion this is a moratorium work
item and I am kidding we have not put a
time limit on it this is the last of the
moratorium work items this agenda bill
was previously before council in
December when it was remanded to the
Planning Policy commission for
additional work as recommended by the
council Landon Shore committee the
Planning Policy commission forwarded a
revised district vision proposal to
Council in March the land insure
committee has been reviewing the revised
proposal at their April and May
committee meetings I'd like to invite
Keith Niven to stay at the podium
economic and development services
director to make a presentation thank
you madam mayor and city council tonight
we're going to talk about the sixth and
final moratorium work item agenda bill
73 44 central Issaquah visions I'm going
to take you back to the genesis of the
moratorium which was a presentation that
staff made before the City Council at a
work session and we provided some
information to the council and and what
you see here is some of those pieces of
information that were provided as you
can see at the time we had 936
residential units in the pipeline that
was Atlas and Gateway and Vale and Ennis
wood those projects that we all kind of
know today and zero of those 936 units
were going to be affordable and the
council kind of said how can that be our
comprehensive plan says we're supposed
to be getting affordable housing and so
we talked about inclusionary housing we
talked about what was in the central
Issaquah plan at that time we also kind
of went through the visions and we
talked about we use Western gateway as
an example since it had had a lot of
permitting happening and we looked at
whether or not we were getting what the
visions described and and the answer was
kind of not really and you know we did
this was called the chiclet chart
and you know with what this was was
basically going through the different
topics and talking about the projects
that were in and you can see the green
indicated we were getting what we wanted
and the red was showing that we weren't
and as you can see by the X's over here
on the side there were a number of
things that were included in the
moratorium that specifically related to
this chart and the things that we were
not getting that we were expecting to
get and right now tonight we're going to
talk about visions which is the green
star over on the left so visions so
vision for a sub-area plan presents a
shared image of what the community wants
the area to become over the next 20
years and the questions were this is
kind of what we were trying to do was
rewrite the visions for each district to
be clear and predictable we wanted to
rewrite the visions to make them more
than just aspirational suggestions some
of the comments that came out of those
moratorium conversations with the
council was were wanting things to
happen we're encouraging things but
we're not making things happen and that
wiggle room we're losing what we want
and the third item was ensure the
visions can be used with the codes and
the policies of this sub-area plan to
give us a more predictable future so
that was kind of that was our guideposts
and here are the changes so basically
what we did is we took some some land
out of central Issaquah when we looked
at old route 10 which is bombs and xxx
and when we looked at the service
neighborhood which was the area over by
the Public Works Operations shop those
really didn't feel like central Issaquah
and so as we talked this through we said
you know what let's just take those
areas out and so we also condense the 10
districts into five neighborhoods and
and we looked at a map earlier tonight
of what those five neighborhoods look
like the existing central Issaquah plan
has a definition for the green necklace
it also has some policies for the
green necklace but what we heard is
there really wasn't a good visual of
what the green necklace was and one of
the things through the drafting of the
park strategic plan was they spent some
time actually crafting a subset of that
plan which they called the green
necklace and so one of the things that
we did is is brought in an image to help
us with that the old the old visions the
old description of the neighborhood or
the districts basically had a vision
statement listed out primary uses key
environmental factors and mobility and
connectivity what's being proposed in
the current version is what we call
developer obligations city implementing
actions and then what would be measures
of success so structurally it's
completely redo so we saw it you know I
think this is my opinion hopefully
Landon Shore would resonate this we
sought a reasonable approach one of the
things that was asked of staff during
the land and shore review was take a
look at Atlas you know take a look at a
project that existed and apply the
proposed developer obligations to that
to to really see you know what would
this mean how much change would actually
be would be warranted and and would that
be reasonable you know we spent most of
our time really working on the developer
obligations because as their name
implies they would be obligations they
would be required and there's two code
amendments that go along with the
visions that actually make them a
required part as applicable item number
two clear and required item number three
you know what we could have spent
another five years talking about visions
and we probably would continue to polish
this so there might be some things we
might have missed and I'll be the first
one to admit that but we went through an
awful lot of planning policy Commission
meetings we went through an awful lot of
land inshore meetings and awful
a lot of commissioners council committee
members public and we tried to get as
many central Issaquah Task Force members
back together as possible to try and
give and DC we invited DC thanks mal to
to kind of give us their input so that
we could get as good a product as we
could but you know even having said all
of that there's there's at least four
things that I wanted identified to the
council as a whole that we either didn't
have consensus on or that we felt like
we needed some more work to unpack the
first one is job loss one of the
proposals that came out of PPC was that
for three of the neighborhood's East
Lake Gilman and Pickering that there
really should be no job loss no no
removing retail or office space to just
put solely residential back in its place
and even though that didn't come out of
committee with a majority recommendation
it came out with a split recommendation
and some of the concerns are about the
loss of jobs you know we this is our
core of our city this is where and we
seem to be very prone to getting more
residential units and so the concern
that kind of was woven through all of
the conversations was should there be
something in the developer obligations
about employees or square footage and so
so that one I'm just kind of putting it
on the shelf for now historic
preservation we talked about this one
came about because a Gilman village
specifically and you know Gilman village
is is a very iconic part of our city and
there's nothing that would preserve that
today and we had drafted actually some
language about preserving Gilman village
and I think rightly so the committee
thought you know what that seems very
selective you know if we're gonna have a
bigger conversation about Gilman village
and other historic properties in our
city then let's do that and maybe this
isn't the tool to try and somehow put a
lock and key
on Gillman village wayfinding signs
there was a lot of talk about how
wayfinding signs are really something
that helped neighborhoods kind of click
and we have so many trails wandering
through our city that we really need to
kind of progress that that evolution or
that on that development of a wayfinding
plan for the city it's something that we
don't have yet but there's a number of
things that point to you know
participation in wayfinding signs and
then the last one and this one was one
that you know at the end of the day I'm
not sure we got completely solved and
it's it's it's how do you how do you so
we require private projects to provide
gathering spaces and whether those
gathering spaces feel open to the public
or feel like you're trespassing if you
happen to walk through them I'm not sure
we solved that puzzle but that was
something that we talked about quite a
bit and you know that I think what I
heard was there was a request at least
coming out of the committee that we
should spend some more time thinking
about those the public access to
privately provided gathering spaces so
so that's a short presentation tonight
but I am here to answer questions that
you might have not sure there's any
questions okay we have questions
councilmember Winters thank thank you
madam mayor
you've number four up there job loss I
didn't it's not it's not part of what's
proposed in front of us this evening it
is not part of what's proposed it was a
minority recommendation coming out of
committee okay so it's not currently
there and I didn't see it in there so I
it got struck out of the last draft okay
and then historic preservation actually
I thought the you just said lock and key
but I remember that as just some type of
signage acknowledging what had been here
previously it wasn't to deny so we kind
of we kind of moved back and forth
between
something that would require them to
have a conversation with the city to
just getting a plaque to requiring some
reuse of some of the buildings so that's
not in their way fine but you do have a
lot of wayfinding we do and and I'll add
to is it was actually came out of the
Roger Brook study from 2014 and LTAC has
has recommended that along with the
branding actually i'll Takas has some
reserves to help move that forward as a
citywide effort and I'll speak a little
bit more to that but just for
everybody's benefit when we I think
we're gonna talk more about these
developer obligations that's in there
and I think you have a caveat in there
as well once the city has a plan yes and
I think that's very critical thing to
understand is that there needs to be
there needs to be a design and a plan
before you start building that out
movies that has been the LTAC and the
Roger Brooks recommendation for a while
thank you yes questions fence member a
but can we talk about historical
preservation and and I'm you certainly
piqued my interest with Gilman village I
mean I I can't imagine that we would be
okay with Gilman village being raised to
put up a an apartment building but based
on what I thought I heard you say that's
that's a possible outcome you tell me
about kind of what we're thinking with
historical preservation and what that
would look like and how that would be
good for Gilman village if it would
cancel memories so it's not in the
package tonight so I think what Keith
was putting up there was a list of
issues that are still would be addressed
that are open so I don't believe you
have a recommendation this evening on
anything to do with historical
preservation I don't I think I think
what we were suggesting is there needs
to be a work item if the council the
council has concern about that then we
need to put together a work plan item to
address to at least actively address it
because right now we're not so it's not
addressed in the
replacement rare the regulations that
we're looking at not not the version
that's up for motion this evening it was
there was an item in the confluence
neighborhood for Gillman village we
struck it out because of concern that it
seemed like we were cherry-picking on
one project so so so let me let me ask
this really directly sure so if we adopt
the ordinance that in front of us are
the ordinances in front of us and I can
go in tomorrow and mow down Gillman
village and put up back flats yes as
currently drafted
what's a prisoner Mart's so I'm gonna
speak to this because I was one of the
people that discussed it in committee
here's where my concern was at I think
the city should have if if we think that
Gillman village rises to the level of
something that we want to take special
consideration at before we let stack
flats go up I think that there's a
number of properties in the city we
should do that for I think that in
retrospect I'm not sure that we took
proper historical context to count into
account when we disposed of properties
for instance with confluence park and I
think that the city has a number of
properties that deserve potential
consideration around you know special
activities towards trying to you know
what we want to do with it and we as a
council did move forward a year year and
a half ago when we said that I believe
that when we are gonna dispense with
properties of ours that we would make
sure that they had been evaluated for
historical significance we added that as
a council and so I would like to see a
comprehensive historical property
consideration in this city and so what I
objected to was just picking
cherry-picking Gilman village in
particular and saying that's worthy of
consideration and that we don't have
other properties in the same set of
lands that are also worth consideration
additional questions I do deputy counts
president Batista followed by
councilmember Goodman I guess I guess I
just had a follow-up question about when
we're talking about the historic
preservation and Gilman village if we if
we would need to look at it as both
sides of the coin in terms of could we
have something that talked about Gilman
village within the vision and still go
forward and do an overview of historic
preservation throughout the city in the
future and was that it was that part of
the I'm was that part of the
conversation I'm checking checking what
we wrote so so right now so the way that
the so we stripped it out of a developer
obligation but right now the way that
the kind of the introduction to
confluence neighborhood there is a
section called there's we created a
objectives and one is distinctive which
is in each neighborhood and for for
confluence bullet number two and this is
on page 419 of 42 Gilman village remains
a local and regional destination so we
have that as an aspirational goal for
confluence we just took out the
developer obligation that they can't
redevelop their property so right now we
have it listed as an aspirational goal
for the neighborhood but there's no
teeth in in the actual developer
obligations now because of the
conversation that council president
Mart's alluded to earlier so did that
help I think I think so I'm still a
little stuck on whether there would be
the opportunity to
keep the teeth and the developer
obligation in regard to Gillman village
and still go forward with a future
overview of historic preservation
throughout the rest of the city so to
kind of break I mean I guess I'm asking
if there was discussion around breaking
that apart that way it sounds like it
was on the table and then it came back
off the table and I'm just trying to
understand it was on the table and came
back off the table thank you I've noted
that down is maybe something we could
get all the council members to comment
on at some point councilmember Goodman
thank you I so I think we should go back
to what was originally proposed in a
developer obligation was something about
requiring there be some sort of historic
link maintained regarding Gillman
village which is very ambiguous and
nobody on the committee understood what
that meant and so Keith agreed to rework
that and back at the last commit and
that's last week and it was wrecked me
if I'm wrong but it was something in
there a change to requiring the property
owner to have a conversation with the
city before there was any redevelopment
which of course has no teeth the
conversation is we don't want you to put
stacked flats in and the property owner
says well that's too bad and so that's
when we turn to historic preservation or
a larger conversation the other thing
that came out that I think is really
important is there's been no
conversation with the owner of Gillman
village about what's in the developer
what was in the developer obligations
and so my opinion when that was picking
out one property and without any kind of
a conversation with that property owner
about the historic significance and
trying to create some sort of
obligations without even a conversation
I thought was inappropriate so there's
also there's also one of the city
implementing actions within confluence
it's bullet number two is work with the
property owner to preserve the character
of Gillman village so we have
we have something that we cast ourselves
with in terms of this neighborhood and
the success for this neighborhood so and
then as a measure of success we list it
as preserved is one of the measures of
success for this neighborhood so so the
thing that's missing is is how to how to
get there I think we're clear on what we
want to achieve but we kind of took out
any obligation of the developer at this
time I think for the reasons that you
heard you know we really have not spent
that much or any time talking to the
property owner about whether this is
going to be a big lift or something
that'll be reasonable to get to sorry
I'm scrolling through like 8,000 pages
but it's all listed so this is it's
under the distinctive column on for the
confluence neighborhood okay any more
questions
did you have a question Paul I do but
this is a big topic and when and I do
have a question about Keith's
presentation if I can just do that Keith
could you go back to your changes slide
yes whose titled changes it was two or
three from the end maybe just yeah one
right there I thought so that's this the
first time I've seen that I don't know
if he showed it at committee I hadn't
seen that before but I found that kind
of interesting because I think you sure
it changed the proposed a little bit
because the in under existing the last
line the last row in your table you say
it has visions and primary uses and key
environmental factors and mobility and
connectivity then you just and then you
say in the new one you're proposing
developer obligations and all the rest
you can read that but in fact there's a
lot more in there right in the in the
existing vision for each of the five
neighborhoods we have a statement about
what's there today what we see it as the
future and then categorically we have a
bulleted lists about livability
distinctiveness connected and
sustainable and those are pretty
significant and they're beyond what are
in the original visions so it's not just
what it's not just these developer
obligations
thank you yes so so these consider this
the set up so each neighborhood has kind
of a description of what it looks like
today what it is today
the future where we want it to go and
then as councilmember winter Stein
mentioned you know each of the four
goals are kind of bulleted underneath it
as far as aspirational end points and
then we get into how do you then how do
you get there
the developer obligations the city
implementing actions and then what would
be measures for success so so really you
know all of this is this so one of the
things the reasons why this moratorium
work item took a year and a half is
because we blew up what was in the plan
and basically kind of started over again
and and I think the amount of detail
that's here is a lot more specific to
each area whereas I think the prior
language was very generic and very broad
based so so in terms of one of if we go
back to those goals I mentioned at the
beginning of the PowerPoint you know
make it more predictable I think that by
providing clearer vision for each
neighborhood I think we've done that
thank you thank you
any more questions there's no questions
I'd like to get a motion mr. information
ocean Larsen I would move to adopt
ordinance number 28 38 relating to
central Issaquah amending sections 1
point 1 point c and 1 point 1 point D
point 2 of the central Issaquah
development and design standards and
adopting by reference several amendments
to the central Issaquah plan a sub area
plan with in Issaquah comprehensive plan
by updating the district visions
changing district boundaries and chain
boundaries of central is Squa okay it's
been moved in second it is there any
council discussion being none you guys
councilmember winter saying followed by
councilmember Goodman all right thank
you I really appreciate all the time and
effort that so many people put in to
bring it to this point
no none less than mr. Niven himself
Thank You Keith to you and all the
shepherding that you've done and I think
you really took a difficult challenge
we kind of punted on this one we focused
on the other ones and you and early on
during the moratorium you said let's and
and and we're going to do this other
thing before the visions and because it
was maybe less clear and I too share the
desire for the central area and all of
Issaquah to retain what makes us special
and as we grow and evolve within a
region that's experiencing high growth
it's very interesting there's a sentence
in the current plan that I wanted to
highlight it's on page nine of the
current plan now we're actually going to
strike it out it gets replaced by some
of this which is unfortunate it's and
and it's in the policy balance section
it's being replaced and it says the
district visions are a glimpse of the
area's future the visions are
implemented through zoning development
and design standards as well as maps of
Park trail and circulation improvements
so that's that's that's part of what's
in there now and so when we but but that
language in there there's you go to one
more page where you're right at the top
it says this the content on your page
and the next one is going to replace
that which is really unfortunate I think
that's a really good statement that the
visions are implemented through zoning
perhaps also land-use development and
design standards as well as maps of the
park trail and circulation improvements
and we enacted the memoriam because we
weren't getting what we envisioned and
and this was because we didn't have the
regulations in place to assure we
achieve the vision and so real quickly I
want to take a look at what
done since the moratorium to remedy the
shortcomings of the regulations right
for in zoning
we added vertical mixed-use I that that
is a that's an overlay somebody there
certain parcels of land if you're going
to develop them guess what you're going
to develop them as vertical mixed-use
that was a very important change that we
made recently we added inclusionary
zoning which requires affordable housing
throughout most of the central area I
want to note that in your assessment of
Atlas that you just looked at developer
obligations and you really didn't I
didn't see in the document I haven't had
a chance to watch the the committee
meeting as well if it was discussed I
apologize but didn't mention the
affordable housing but affordable
housing would have been part of Atlas
and when that was handled through our
inclusionary zoning change nothing about
we're considering this evening and in
further in regard to affordable housing
we created a trial run for the
multifamily tax exemption and and that
would be something it's not really
zoning but it's a way to hack get some
more affordable housing which was an
important part of the whole moratorium
and in now even tonight the council took
land took a land-use action that removed
where self storage units can be located
so in terms of what that original
statement says the visions are
implemented through zoning we've done
quite a bit and even more this evening
with an additional land use one that
statement goes on to say development and
design standards so we've done quite a
bit we've added an entire architecture
and urban design they originally were
two different items in the moratorium
they were combined into one this is
hundreds of pages long and establishes
protocol and many specifications
including a color palette and you know
how I feel about a color palette and and
so that's quite a bit there's there's
there's oh there's there's there's a
finite type of designs that can be built
based upon an update we made to these
development and design standards and I
also noted in the assessment of Atlas
that those weren't addressed either I
didn't see okay what would the new
architecture and
urban design standards have done to
change that lists and I think I think
that would be significantly different
the roofline would be different for sure
colors would be different architecture
would be significantly different as well
and I want to point that out because
because so much so often outlet atlases
pointed out or as we didn't get what we
wanted and yet even before any action
tonight things we've already done with
inclusionary zoning x' and architectural
and urban design regulations that we've
added would have resulted in something
significantly different just right there
and then as far the last part of that on
the that we're about to replace that
language that says as well as maps of
Park trail and circulation improvements
and we have those we do have the the
street grid and the green necklace has
evolved significantly I think the
entrance that you're suggesting that
we've reviewed that we added this
evening just a reference and then the
more details in the park strategic plan
are all pretty significant that's a
pretty significant change as well so so
even before you know these developer
obligations the action we've already
taken would have well if there had been
in place before the moratorium we would
there be significantly different outcome
than we already have today and and I do
I think it's very important that we go
make sure that we're remind ourselves
about what the language in the
moratorium says I know you had some
language up there this evening but very
specifically in the in the ordinance
that that established the moratorium it
says we should consider whether the
vision for some of the districts
parenthetical neighborhoods may need to
be modified based upon development and I
really liked what you said earlier in
response to my question that the vision
part of what's here separate from the
developer obligations is actually
significantly more
what we had before and and I would say
for my own interpretation when I voted
in favor of the moratorium when we said
we this line that says consider whether
the visions may need to be modified I
think what you showed earlier again
prior to the developer obligations all
those vision statements for each
neighborhood including the bulleted
lists about their livability
distinctiveness connectedness
sustainability those are all very
significant and I think per the intent
as far as I'm concerned those meet the
intent of that component of of the
moratorium language as far as
considering updating the the the visions
so so I go through all of this because I
think that we're going a step too far
with our developer obligations and Keith
you've heard me say that before you know
that I feel I've said this publicly from
the diets before as well that we had a
understanding about visions and I think
we've got that and the developer
obligations many of which I think maybe
should be formal considered as central
Issaquah development of design standard
updates as opposed to this other
extension to visions and so I point all
that out like I said earlier in the
comments about the the self storage
units and I've been trying to iterate
here we have made significant changes if
if you're listening to this and you're
thinking and and previously you thought
you know Atlas was the thing I just
became a shape in color and a feel that
said something needed to be done we
don't even have to take any action
tonight and we've already prevented the
next step if those are the that's really
what your concern is those are very very
significant I think these vision updates
are very significant as well
and it would be my preference that we go
forward and adopt these visions
including
all the sections today future livable
connected all of those and go forward
with adopting those but hold off on the
developer obligations part of this thank
you additional discussion council member
Ramos councilmember Goodman followed by
councilmember hunt so the question for
me is as you stated in when the lines up
there was purpose of the vision vision
to be used with codes and policies to
make it happen and in our key discussion
that you and I have had previously to
this
I felt that oftentimes we talked about
things and you said you didn't have the
things to make it happen right so just
went over a whole bunch of things that
have happened the test for me is do you
think you have everything you need at
this point in time so one of the things
I'm going to answer this a little bit
differently and then I can go back if
you want me to actually answer that that
way so one of the things that we did at
Landon Shore one of the questions that
was asked was are the developer
obligations duplicitous to other things
that are in the code or recently adopted
through the moratorium work items and I
went through and I read them and judge
them against code and there was a little
bit of overlap but my sense was it was
okay to have a little bit of overlap
because sometimes saying something twice
is that much clearer so so my take on it
these are different these are a new tool
these aren't the center in a second
hammer these are you know these were
screwdriver and hammer so this is a new
tool for us for a toolbox and it will
get us closer to I think what everybody
expects we should be getting within
central so I think this gets us even
further towards the goal line is this
everything don't know yet I think what's
going to happen is we're gonna have to
get a couple projects under our belt and
then we're gonna have to sit down with
all of these tools again and see which
ones are working and which ones aren't
gonna make some calm
it's to where do you have another
question good what for now okay so I
think I had Goodman followed by Hunt um
I actually do have a question the
adopting this would what would be the
what needs to happen to lift the
moratorium when would that be
and then when would this ordinance take
effect so my understanding I'll look to
the city attorney with my one good eye
I believe that based on the ordinance
the moratorium ordinance that when the
final work item is completed that the
moratorium is lifted technically this
code amendment doesn't go into effect
because what we're doing is we're
amending code but we're also removing a
number of properties from central
Issaquah by adopting this and so there's
a 90-day kind of effective date from the
date of publishing so that puts us into
like August so right now the moratorium
would be lifted but this wouldn't altima
be into effect I think until August and
I'll look to Jim for any clarifications
he might want to offer
then like Saturday and I think depending
on Jim's interpretation I think the
question is what would happen in those
90 days so my sense would be nothing so
in those 90 days what happens is
property owners or developers would
start to then put together their plans
for coming in the first step is to
schedule a pre-application meeting with
development services right now I believe
were two months out just because of
staff availability and things that are
happening in the villages they are still
called the villages and so you know so
my sense is we might be able to sit down
with with a property owner or two before
August and then you know somebody would
come in with their application so so if
there's a concern about a gap before
it's enacted just our backlog right now
within development services it's not a
concern of mine I think that I think
that's part of it I think what you might
want to find I think the answer we might
want to give is not whether or not we
have the capacity to do it but whether
or not projects that come through would
be processed under old cold or new code
I think so as you heard from the city
attorney earlier I think it was on this
topic it might have been on the hotels
you don't vest to a building permit and
nobody would be able to get to a point
of a building permit in 90 days you just
you can't it's not it doesn't move that
fast so even if you came in even if you
could come in with an application you
know quickly you wouldn't get there in
time plus as councilmember winter Stein
mentioned all those other things are
already in force this is just the last
piece
and Jim did you have some clear fire yes
the the current moratorium ordinance
provides that the moratorium runs until
11:59 59 p.m. on June 6th unless the
council extends it or unless the council
has passed all amendments that the
council deems necessary to fulfill the
goals of the moratorium so if you've
passed all of the ordinances the
moratorium ends but even if even if one
could say that you still had some work
to do it would end June 6th in the in
any event but the passage of all of
these ordinances which you identified
including the central is Agua visions
ordinance which is the last piece who
will lift the moratorium I mean like
midnight or immediately or what what
what does that mean well it says passage
as opposed to effective date so I would
say it's lifted as of when you pass the
ordinance my Brent thank you
firstly I wanted to echo the thanks for
everybody who's worked so hard on the
visions and I think that they do set
really clear expectations in a lot of
the text and will be a good tool in the
future to help us achieve the vibrant
future for its quad that we all want so
thank you for all the hard work and I
have one sort of outstanding issue that
I would like to talk about which is the
balance of Employment and that was
brought up as something for future
future use but I would like to propose a
change an amendment though the amendment
would be to amend the proposed ordinance
by adding the following developer
obligation language to the Pickering
Gilman and East Lake neighborhood
visions and that is
the languages ensure the amounts of
non-residential square footage or a
non-residential square footage based on
ite equivalents is not reduced during
redevelopment second it's been moved and
seconded and it's not the language I
have in front of me though tisha which
is allowed thank you
the motion is to amend the proposed
ordinance by adding the following
developer obligation language to the
Pickering Gilman and East Lake
neighborhood visions ensure the amount
of non-residential square footage or or
non-residential square footage these
days by ninety equivalents thank you
he's not reduced during redevelopment
okay I'll try it one more time ensure
the amount of non-residential square
footage or non-residential square
footage based on ite equivalents is not
reduced during development redevelopment
it's been moved and seconded discussion
councilmember interests and
councilmember Goodman oh sorry but
councilmember where you go first all
right sorry driver hunter aren't you
saying Goodman thanks thanks we
discussed this language previously in a
similar developer obligation previously
in committee and the previous language
referred to not losing job opportunities
for me I couldn't really wrap my head
around what that meant I think that
residential developments may provide job
opportunities in a lot of ways
residential can support nearby
businesses they can support other they
can support jobs in many ways and so I
think that job creation and job loss job
retention those are all very complicated
processes for me it was easier to think
about this from the point of view of not
wanting to lose the rest
the non-residential space and to have
where where there is currently
non-residential uses to retain some of
that for a balance of land uses so that
we do have some jobs and that we do not
completely lose jobs during the
redevelopment process I think that this
will get us some mixed use and that will
lend itself to the neighborhood vibrancy
potentially it could also internalize
some of the traffic and car trips and I
also just wanted to add that the ite
equivalents that's has to do with the
fact that you might have a very large
building that takes up a lot of space
but only only employs a few people and
so if you were to redevelop such a
property you wouldn't necessarily to
have the same nerve of jobs you wouldn't
necessarily have to come back with that
same use and that ite equivalents is
something that was discussed in
committee and is just part of trying to
avoid an unintended consequence with
this developer or obligation so those
are those were my reasons for the
amendments and really it comes down to
wanting to achieve a balance of jobs
with residential Thank You councilmember
had I have councilman or inter sign
followed by councilmember Goodman when I
think this was first raised during a PPC
meeting when one of the commissioners
said he heard Bellevue is doing this we
should look at this as well there wasn't
a lot of conversation at that point in
that meeting or much about it really
afterwards when we brought it here it
did come up here in this hall maybe
during a committee meeting we have staff
so what do you what do you know about
this is is this been implemented
elsewhere
what would be the kind of the economic
impact or can we make some type of
assessment do these type of policies
work and basically Keith you and your
staff said we don't know anything about
this yet we've never we've not studied
it and and we really don't know if this
would work as it may as simply stated as
it
but its goal is whether or not would
achieve that and to my knowledge there's
really been no work on it since then is
that true
so there's and so this I mean I
appreciate everything that councilmember
hunt just said and and but there was a
key phrase in there she said I think we
don't really we don't know there are
certain cycles of how certain properties
throughout their over time they're gonna
go through there there's going to be
economic cycles there's gonna be
different market demands the truth is we
really don't know what the impact of
this would be and I I urged caution an
abundance of caution is saying I'm gonna
put a restriction we put a vertical a
mixed-used overlay and on certain land
and we did that with full knowledge of
an economic assessment that said you
know we may still not get that for a
while because the numbers aren't there
but we did it anyway very aspirational
and I think that's a very significant
regulation that we added so so the so I
think the the lack of familiarity you
know with the implications of such a
regulation the the and the fact that the
vertical mixed-use that we've already
adopted fully aware that the economics
may not work for vertical makes use at
this time I think it would be unwise for
us to proceed at this point with such a
proposal
thank you counts memory Stan
councilmember Goodman so I think that we
do know what some of the what some of
the outcome could be first of all we
know that there is a huge demand for
residential and particularly multifamily
developments right now and if we just
let the market completely dictate what
we get in redevelopment in the central
Issaquah area or development then we
will get what the market demands and
is residential and not necessarily jobs
right now
I totally agree that we need to be
deliberate about how we balance not how
we balance sorry for what make sure
we're we're deliberate about how we're
planning for the central Issaquah area
and that if we want to have a job Center
and not just a residential center then
we're going to have to figure out some
ways to preserve those opportunities
because if we just develop residential
then we are not going to we're going to
be taken out prime space or for
employment centers and as council member
said it alluded to traffic this could be
exactly the traffic that we're trying
not to create which is everybody leaves
just like everybody's coming through
here in the morning everybody leaves and
then everybody comes back at night we're
out of balance right now the report that
we've gotten on the central Issaquah
plan so far is housing not jobs so I I
do think we need language in here and I
support them and then council president
Mertz four points the first is that we
wind this moratorium because we're only
getting housing so I want us to not only
get housing this will help assure it
second point is I want more living wage
jobs third point is I want more living
wage jobs and the fourth point is that I
want more living my chips
thank you and counsel deputy US
president batiste
so I I support this amendment I had some
pause and and wanted to talk a little a
little bit about this in terms of is
this something that we can do and and go
forward with but when we talk about the
vision and and what we're trying to
accomplish I just want to echo what
councilmember Mart's just talked about
in terms of being able to support that
and
being able to bring in employment
centers and living wage jobs and not
have it all focused on residential thank
you let's member ray so my thinking on
this is very similar to my thinking when
we were talking about storage units and
for us to recognize the vision that we
have for central Issaquah it is going to
be both commercial and it's going to be
residential and as much as I would like
to think that the market will drive the
what we want I'm pretty certain that the
market will not drive what we want and
so we have to put up some bumpers to
guide it into the right direction so I
think that this amendment makes a lot of
sense seeing councilmember we're
interesting when I add another point
that I'm sorry I was looking through my
GMP be data and I haven't found it so I
can't cite the specific thing there of
all of the regional growth centers and
now it is so so Pickering and Gilman
neighborhoods basically make up our
regional growth center we had
conversations and PSR C showed us some
data there's one regional growth center
regional growth center within the entire
four County area that is 100% jobs and
zero dwelling units you know which one
that is tech Willa Issaquah yeah right
100% jobs zero dwelling units now we
know that's changing there's a well
something coming here balance
suggests that we'll get a lot more you
know PSR C recommendation is there there
should be like at least 2080 they don't
expect any but thing to really be 5050
but if you can get 2080 either way 20%
housing 80% jobs 20% jobs 80% housing
then that is would be a good achievement
I don't know how this proposal is going
to get us living wage jobs necessarily
what kind of job that doesn't really
kind
to that point so but I think that's
really important for us to know right
now that you know we have like no
housing and housing affordability is
very in in this area especially in the
regional growth center which is not not
all the entire central area but a
significant portion of it is that I
think this will have more likely have
the effect of negating getting the
housing and the affordable housing that
we know that we need as well I'm not in
favor of this the other discussion so I
will read the motion before the vote
move to amend the proposed ordinance by
adding the following developer
obligations language to the Pickering
Gilman in East Lake neighborhood visions
ensure the amount of non-residential
square footage or non-residential square
footage based on ite equivalents is not
reduced during redevelopment all those
in favor say aye
it passes six to one with winter Stein
opposed I've kept track of a few of the
issues before the motion was put on the
table some of the things that still
required discussion there was a proposal
to keep the developer obligation that
was removed by committee dealing with
Gilman village property there was a
proposal from councilmember winter sign
to consider striking out not to strike a
part of the vision implementation
language and there were questions about
the gap between the ending of the
moratorium and the implementation are
the effect effective date of code
continued deliberations and we'll see
what other questions come up council
double counts present Bateses
so I just wanted to echo now that we're
back to the to the main motion I just
wanted to thank you and staff and the
Commission's and everyone who has worked
on this very very long project and being
able to see these visions come to light
something that we were talking about
years ago and
the Economic Development Commission and
and seeing things more boiled down to
where we started with all of the
different districts I think makes a lot
of sense and they're there's so many
good good pieces to this and and so much
information and and being able to look
at what the future vision is I think is
incredibly important so I just wanted to
give that thanks to to you and everyone
who's worked on this I do have one
question and maybe another point that we
wanted to talk about could you talk a
little bit about the addition of the
light rail the sound transit map and
stations and just I know that that came
up as something that potentially needed
to be added and I just want to make sure
I understand it being a part of this
agenda bill so try and answer that
question so right now the central
Issaquah plan has a map in it with kind
of a bunch of dots and something that
looks like a slug they caught the slug
map and because we didn't know where
that we still don't know where this
Sound Transit station is going to be as
we talked about this with planning
policy commission there was a lot of
conversation about a desire for the
location really to be somewhere in the
vicinity of Pickering and Gilman and the
new crossing of i90 and so there's a
there there are conversations about
creating a hub kind of an activity hub
around the station as it talks about it
within the regional growth center and
specifically within the Pickering and
Gilman neighborhoods the idea was that
it it it made sense to be somewhere
kind of in this vicinity and that both
neighborhoods should really feed into
that state that future station location
you know the unfortunate thing for us is
we're not going to know where that
station is going to be until I think
2026 I think is the date when they start
doing that sighting location study we
started having conversations with Sound
Transit about trying to move that
earlier and in the process and I think
that's still an outstanding question
between the city and Sound Transit so so
not knowing where it is yet the visions
have identified a desirable location in
terms of being within the regional
growth center and kind of shared between
the two sides of the freeway whether
that happens or not you know we're gonna
have to work on that with Sound Transit
and if ultimately it locates somewhere
else then we might have to modify our
visions a little bit so could I put it
in this way that these are some ideas to
consider in the future yes okay I do
remember this a similar map coming
before Landon Shore a few years ago and
discussion around this is this is a
really big topic it's gonna need a lot
of conversations so I just wanted to
point that out in terms of this being
part of the agenda Bell thank you
council president Mertz it's interesting
you think it looks like a slug because I
think it looks like a blocked intestine
to each their own
so first off I want to I want to add
that to thank everybody for all their
hard work and if in fact if this if we
move forward with this bill this evening
I think there's a lot of things that
we're doing that we our actual regional
leaders in I think for instance like our
housing plan has been something that SCA
everybody's like what's this if we want
to do what's hissing was thoughts
because I knew that we had a
comprehensive answer as part of
addressing the moratorium so but I I
also want to point out that one of the
reasons I'm supportive this evening
because because there are questions I
think councilmember winter Stein has
brought up some some very serious
concerns
I think we have an opportunity to do
this and I and I suspect that in you
know three ish years we're gonna take a
look I suspect you're gonna get asked to
do again what you got asked to do 20
months ago and so I suggest you keep
your dance card for 2021 and 2022 open
because I think we'll probably come back
and look and see what the effects have
been of the decisions that we've made
during the moratorium and see what we
want it to further some of those things
may occur sooner but this this process
is healthy and and we did it after we
passed the central Issaquah plan and
it'll happen again
I still have three council members some
who have asked questions but not
actually participate in deliberations
and council member raised one of them
yeah I am so I to think that the work
that's been done here is pretty
spectacular and I really do like the
calling out developer obligations and
being very overt about what what the
expectation is I am really having a
difficult time around Gilman Village and
I have talked to too many people who say
you know what's going on down in central
Issaquah we're losing all of the charm
and character of the city and part of
that is Gilman village and as much as
I'd like to believe that we could have a
good outcome I have too much historical
data that says if we don't have
something that that spells this out then
we will not get the outcome that we hope
to and I recognize that Gilman village
is one of many historical sites we have
in our city but it is one very
significant historical site that is a an
overt topic to be covered in this plan
and having measured measurable measures
of success and you know City actions is
all fine and well but I think if we
leave this question unanswered and we
get an outcome that starts to erode the
charm of Issaquah the thing that people
really love about this town it will be
very difficult for us to explain our
actions tonight Thank You councilmember
race so that is not currently included
in the package of four units I'd like
you to
I understand that but it is not included
in the package than formed in me tonight
and so it is not going to be part of
what we are going to be voting on and so
unless you make a motion that's true
that's all I wanted to point out you can
while you're listening to the last
couple comments decide if you want to
make a motion councilmember hunt I I
wanted to speak to councilmember raised
comments on Gillman village and give my
perspective from the committee so
previously there was language that that
was in there regarding connecting
Gillman a developer obligation
connecting Gillman villages something
like retaining its connection to its
akua's past or retaining its connection
to a sequester arm and I think that that
those are and in my opinion was that
those would be very difficult to enforce
because we're basically requiring
somehow to retain a connections to charm
and I think that I think that what I
thought would be a good outcome was if
the city had a conversation with the
Gillen village owners and that doesn't
actually have to be a developer
obligation that can be a proactive thing
that the city does and I think that the
place for that should be in the city
implementing actions and I support the
language as it is currently regarding
Gillman village because it puts the it
puts the need for action on to the city
and the city will be the one to reach
out to the owners of Gillman village and
try to try to make sure that Gillman
village does stay a special place and I
totally agree with councilmember Ray's
comments about it being a very special
part of its equai I just don't think
that assuming that there will be a major
change and assuming that the developer
basically assuming that and then putting
a developer obligation I don't think
that that's the right way to approach it
I think the city being proactive is the
right way to approach it
Thank You councilmember hats
remaining first round deliberation
comments
councilman Ramos sir Goodman did you
have anything to add I just marked you
down his questions earlier without
actually giving you an opportunity to
make statement not right now any other
so a couple things now we have in in
deliberations for a while if anyone is
proposing to make another motion this
would be the time to do it otherwise
I'll be asking for council to vote on
the main motion
deputy council president so I just I
have another comment I really wanted to
come in on what council member ray
talked about because this is something
that I feel incredibly passionately
about in regard to Gillman village and
I'm really trying to listen to all of
the different comments and what came out
of committee and what I would really
like to see going forward and I I will I
will just talk about this right now
because maybe it will help is that I
really do think that we need to move
forward very quickly in terms of
historic preservation and Gillman
village being at the very top of that
list I'm not positive after hearing
everything that I've heard tonight that
it is workable to include a developer
obligation around Gillman village in in
the a B this evening I guess I have some
question about that but I but I am
incredibly supportive of going forward
and looking into this right away that's
a good question hmm yes thank you
what was the developer obligation that
was in the original text
let me try try that one
confluence be the blue one retained
Gilman villages property connection to
is akua's historic past that's where we
started and I think that's why council
member hunt said that seems really hard
to enforce so we started there let me
see if I have it I don't have it on this
oh oh hey look at this
so here were so we started with 2.3 and
then I offered a couple different
alternatives to 2.3 one was prior to
pursuing any development permits for
Gilman village discuss opportunities for
preservation or reuse with the city that
would have been a developer obligation
and the other was two point three point
two incorporates some of the existing
historic buildings into any
redevelopment project obviously when
you're thinking about spectrums that one
would be kind of the most significant so
these were the things we talked about a
committee at the end of the day we kind
of focused on the middle one which then
really became more of a City action for
us to initiate and that's where we
landed so that's what's coming out of
committee thank you you look puzzled did
that help or make it no I mean I know
those are not clearly I mean that's why
the committee didn't come forward that
is those are not the right obligations
and and I'm struggling with what that is
- that's why I wanted to see them you
know as I was trying to figure out what
the words are and what we were trying to
accomplish sure so the problem is I mean
if you if you really want to if part of
it is what's what's a win and if a win
is to preserve Gilman village as is then
really it would be
probably the city coming forward and
purchasing the development rights off
that property and and then it gets it
gets retained as a historic designated
property within the city but that would
be something that I think the
councilmember marches position
well Gilman village is truly an
important piece but so is the village
theater you know and and then what about
the dairy I mean so you know so the
thing is you know bones chocolates I
mean so so the question is how do you
start that conversation and do you start
it with Gilman village and I think what
came out of committee is we need to have
that conversation it maybe shouldn't
start with Gilman village it should
start with the inventory to let's let's
see what we've got and then let's
strategically talk about how do we talk
to those property owners to try and make
sure that the things that we do find
unique to our community that we're not
just lucky that they just happen to kind
of ride along with us for for our life
here I don't that was helpful so so the
hard part about this and I say this
having no idea who owns Gilman village
and having never talked to that person
once in my life is we've been in this
moratorium for eighteen months and I
don't what you said is that we haven't
had any conversations with a person who
owns a Gilman village if that person
were here and asking us to do something
and I would totally be with you come to
my beret and because I consider it like
wonderful I you know I eat at analyst
and I eat it
Bangalore I think that's what they call
it now and you know love that that's
part of our city and feel that that's
sort of an extension of old town so I
I'm with you on that but we just don't
have anything to grasp it on right now
and you know the alternative is to go
back in for another six months of
moratorium and try to figure it out and
without evidence that the person
involved once is is as actively engaged
with us on as itten to do that
so looking to see if anybody wants to
make an additional motion or we'd like
to move to vote on the main motion
that's a member interesting well I don't
want to make a motion I don't want what
I don't want to do that it was
interesting to hear debate about a
motion that wasn't made yeah that was
good it's a really good conversation and
I appreciate the points that were made I
think the next thing that's gonna happen
you're gonna call the question and I
earlier this evening I specifically that
the the redid the redone visions and the
elements that are there I think are very
significant I think they in total meet
the what my expectation was when we
adopted that portion of the moratorium
and that that because of all of the
regulations we've added and kind of
repeating this myself a little bit that
we've done a significant amount of work
we've highly regulated the central area
and that pan I think that the developer
obligations are a step too far for me
and and so and so this is for me
difficult to support when I think a
portion of it is a little bit of
legislative overreach we've reached very
far we're making a big difference
already with what's in place should it
be lifted immediately and so I'm gonna
vote against the proposal it's not a
vent it's not against the visions as
you're showing up here for each of the
neighborhoods but it's against the idea
of the inclusion of the developer
obligations and then require them with
code I think they're going to be very
problematic and I think they're a little
bit too far for us to be going thank you
your comments are ready for the main
motion more last one is minutes
he's going to talk about all the work
that's been gone on and that has gone on
and we have made tremendous tremendous
progress I just want to not acknowledge
that it's it this has been
extraordinarily challenging for a lot of
people not just staff and all of the
people who volunteered their time to
work on this for countless hours but
also the community folks who have
properties that they wanted to redevelop
and develop it's just been really very
very challenging we've had some
unfortunate consequences that you know
that resulted from the moratorium that
tends to happen people got caught up in
it and it's not a it's not a happy
occasion it's not a happy tool I think
it's very unfortunate that we got pushed
into a corner where we had to take this
action so I want to thank everybody for
their patience I also want to stress
that even though we've put a lot of work
into it that you know it's it's
certainly by far from you know perfect
and as you heard Keith he expects to
revisit this and I fully expect that to
happen too but it's been very
challenging so I just want to thank
everybody for their patience and I just
want to acknowledge that I'm sure we all
realize how challenging this has been
for the entire community thank you no
other hands going up if there's no
further discussion all those in favor of
adopting ordinance number two eight
three eight relating to central is quo
amending sections 1.1 1.1 C and 1.1 the
point two of the central Issaquah
development and design standards and
adopting by reference several amendments
to the central square plan a sub area
plan within its comprehensive plan by
updating the district visions changing
district boundaries and changing
boundaries of central is quo and
as amended signify by saying aye I was
opposed nay vote carries six to one with
councilmember winter Stein opposed I
just like to do a check with Council
right now we're approaching 10 o'clock
would you like a five-minute recess yeah
I've been at recess
you
we are back from our recess and the last
item under regular business this evening
is a b7 576 amendments to the IMC
regarding accessory dwelling units this
item is coming out of the council and in
short committee I would like to continue
to invite Keith and at the p.m. our
director of development services and
economic development and Keith for a
presentation thank you madam mayor City
Council I was gonna bring another jacket
so I could at least look a little
different for this third one but I
didn't get that motivated so agenda bill
75 76 accessory dwelling units so to set
a little context here for you all we one
of the one of the things that we did
last year was we adopted a housing
strategy work plan and within that we
identified nine different strategies
dealing with both affordable housing and
housing diversity and both of those
things were identified we we got
together our Planning Commission our
economic vitality Commission and our
Human Services Commission we set them
all in this room and we had a number of
meetings where we talked about housing
and what as a community we were really
trying to get to and diversity and
affordability were a couple of the big
items so strategy number one was to
remove barriers to facilitate the
construction of accessory dwelling units
the idea here was we we don't have that
many as an overall percentage of our
total housing units and you know part of
it was trying to look at why why why
were we not getting as many per
residential unit as some of our peer
cities and so as we went through our
codes we identified a number of things
that basically drove the cost of
providing accessory dwelling units up
and so what really we're trying to do
with our code amendments that are being
proposed this evening is to try and
remove some of those
obstacles that are keeping us from
getting more accessory dwelling units so
I'm just gonna go through this list very
quickly and if you want to ask questions
I'm happy to pause during any of these
so ad use will not be charged school
impact fees ad use will not pay traffic
or parking packed fees we cleaned up
definition within our code that an Adu
is not a duplex because different
regulations apply to duplexes we did a
clarification for pre-existing ad use
how you can bring them on to the books
and make them legal we have
clarifications sorry councilmember
Lambert
we have clarifications for removing an
ad you and you might say well why would
somebody want to remove an accessory
dwelling unit and the problem is is they
have to pay an individual payment to
metro sewer and so it becomes a cost as
soon as the homeowner no longer gets
benefit from that that additional sewer
charge becomes a cost prohibit a ssin
and we actually just took an ad you off
the books in our community for that
specific purpose the next one was size
so what the code that's in front of you
is proposing is that we limit the size
of an ad you to a thousand square feet
with the director being able to increase
it to 1300 square feet if it meets
specific criteria and there was a
conversation about that a committee and
we might talk about that a little bit
later would be my guess fire wants a
four foot walkway to the entrance of the
ad use so the ad you gets a separate
address and they need to be able to find
that front door because if somebody's
having an emergency inside an ad you
they don't want to knock on the main
residence it doesn't help they need to
be able to find the front of the ad you
we are talking about removing the land
use permit fee so that's a $500 charge
right now it's a level one review and so
basically which requires an
administrative site development permit
and what we're suggesting is making it a
level zero which
means you can just come in with a
building permit to create your ad you so
that's our code proposed code revisions
that's the end of my very brief
presentation and just to remind you all
because it's been three plus hours we
did have one public enter comment during
public comment and expressed concern
over the limitation of size so I just
wanted to remind y'all that that
happened earlier this evening thank you
key questions as the president Mertz
there is a proposed amendment to deal
with that exact question that is in the
language of the bill and you tell us
about that yes I think one assumes you
wrote it I did I'm just trying to find
it's it's it's a couple of paragraphs up
from the recommendation from the
official recommendation in the front of
the in the front of the packet I am not
seeing it I've been standing here too
long my apologies so what it says is in
response the committee's request staff
has provided an amendment to the
ordinance which would increase the
allowed size of it attached basements if
council wishes to propose the amendment
the following motion can be made right
so so the so here's this here's what
came up at committee in a very I'm going
to say indirect way because I think it
was fairly indirect so right now we
proposed the thousand square feet and
then the 1,300 max and so take it so if
you had let's assume you had like a
split-level house and the footprint was
1500 square feet
you had 1500 with 1500 above what this
says is that you could not create an ad
you out of half of your house you
couldn't split it in half and create
half because that would be too big
you'd have to somehow demise that one of
those floors into smaller pieces to not
exceed the 1,300 square feet so I think
so what what this this alternative
motion would do would be to basically
get rid of the max cap right okay tuning
on living as a thousand square may allow
increased size if the creation of the ad
you so basically so if you read the last
sentence it basically doesn't it gets
rid of the thirteen hundred square foot
cap is what it does so there's still a
thousand but if you can if you can
demonstrate that it basically it happens
within the structure it could be it
could be fourteen hundred it could be
thirteen fifty or 1400 square feet it
could be bigger than what we originally
proposed which was a 1,300 square foot
max so that's what this is saying thank
you that's the alternative motion
included in the packet yes it's an
amendment it's it's the amendment a
possible amendment comes my ramos yeah
so a couple questions so the thousand
square feet is pretty large I live in
Old Town that's bigger than many of the
houses in my neighborhood that are eight
to nine hundred square feet you know and
and so I'm trying to I'm trying to
figure out all the the conversation that
happened to get to this and you started
to limit on some of that if you have a
three thousand square foot house 1500
1500 excuse me and you really want to
split that into is that really an Adu or
is that a duplex now is my question
because 1500 is you know it an accessory
dwelling unit to me is small I tell you
I grew up in a house like that it was a
two-story house and the address was 1831
and a half because he literally put the
house and two upstairs and downstairs
and I looked upstairs right so I've seen
that done
and that makes sense but we really have
two full homes it's not a unit which to
me is tends to be smaller so that that's
the question I mean what that
conversation was with that and how that
went because fifteen hundred to me is no
longer unit that's pretty darn big so so
you're getting so we're definitely
blurring the line between Adu and duplex
right it's getting closer we're still I
think have a distinction in that an Adu
has to have an owner property owner has
to live either in the ATU or in the main
unit so there has to be a property owner
on-site in one of the two units whereas
a duplex you could just rent them both
out to two unrelated families so so I
think there is still a little bit of
separation but you're right I mean one
of the reasons why and and if you look
at so one of the things that we provided
as an attachment to the agenda bill is
comparison of a number of other cities
and so there's a table it's Exhibit C to
the agenda bill and basically there's
only one other city that doesn't have a
max square footage in all the cities
that were inventoried for accessory
dwelling units so so this is pretty if
if the council wants to pursue the
amendment or the alternative motion
which would not set a cap it puts this
kind of out there ad as you know is one
of the more liberal accessory dwelling
unit provisions so the issues that come
up you know could be things like once it
gets bigger you know it does accommodate
more people
but that could there could be parking
issues associated with that right now
you know our accessory dwelling units
require one parking space so so there's
it starts to you know there's definitely
some complexities
if the council wants to go with
they all turn to motion and I'm gonna
stop just finish that it because because
one of the things you're doing here is
eliminating some you know fees traffic
back fees parties you know school impact
fees and if you're really adding the
fifteen hundred square foot house then
you know to 215 square foot house versus
one 3,000 square foot house you're
probably adding a fair amount of people
probably which starts getting beyond
that thing where those fees that's why
I'm trying to be where you want to waive
those fees I see that as a much smaller
unit you're waving those fees because
you're not having the impact that those
fees are supposed to cover did you did
you want keep the comment on the
question or was that just a comment it's
kind of a guy I don't think he needs to
it's kind of my own question that I
stated and answered myself is there any
other questions for Keith before we go
to a motion questions okay I'll look for
a motion that's all president marks no
you can't madam mayor I move to adopt
ordinance number 28 39 relating to
accessory dwelling units amending
Issaquah Municipal Code chapters 3.6 3
school impact fees 3.6 for fees for
applications for subdivisions and land
used actions 3.7 1 traffic impact fees
and 3.7 - park impact fees in order to
exempt accessory dwelling units from the
payment of impact fees and in order to
establish a pre application fee for
review of accessory dwelling units and
amending various sections of physical
and Municipal Code title 18.0 land use
in order to regulate accessory dwelling
units second it's been moved and
seconded
is there any council discussion
okay I got people point in both ways
okay council member reassigned from the
Goodman okay we're interesting is great
tonight we know we just completed a
conversation about a amendment that
wasn't made yet even before the main
motion so it's been an interesting
evening these are proposed to help us
create more housing especially housing
that's affordable to more people and
it's a key part of our strategy size is
important because you we don't want to
matically change an existing
neighborhood a characteristic of a
neighborhood and and yet but at the same
time we also need to have more dwelling
units available to people who want to
live in proximity maybe to where they
work maybe they don't have the type of
income or household income that allows
them to otherwise you know live with in
Issaquah unless there was an Adu
available I think there's also some
other shifts that are happening within
the art community socially I know that
there are more three generation homes
households in Issaquah than before
that's anecdotal data just based upon
you know going door to door and I think
the cost of living here is is very
significant and of course those many
many young people are getting a great
start in life and if they may they pair
up with a partner and have a greater
household income they can get started
with something maybe something new
that's coming onto the market with in
Issaquah but there's still a significant
portion of people that are here now and
our own children in the years in the
future where it's only going to be
opportunities they with such as
accessory dwelling units that's going to
allow them to get
there there a place of their own and and
so I think this is very important part
about I think keeping families together
and helping Issaquah grow while
spreading out the burden of that growth
it's one thing to be talking about
adding a you know 350 units by a transit
center it's another thing of draw
sprinkling the capacity throughout
existing more established neighborhoods
such as squawk Mountain for example
where the impact will be very difficult
to ever notice but we can actually
accommodate more people and and so I
think this is very important about
Parshin of our of our strategy so I'm
definitely going to support this motion
and I've also want to make an amendment
proposed an amendment
so I move to amend the ordinance to
strike the language in IMC 1807 450 c4
and replace it with the following item
number for size the square footage of
the ad you shall not exceed one thousand
square feet
excluding any non living areas such as
garage storage sheds or decks unless the
excluded area is in the location of the
proposed ATU the development services
director or designated appointee may
allow increased size if the creation of
the ATU does not necessitate an exterior
expansion of the residents except for
minimal alterations necessary for the
Adu to be a functionally separate
residence okay
it's been moved in second Paul could you
pass down the is it on your computer
it's in the bill no I just unlike others
I depended on people to write it for me
so you already have it okay thank you
very much okay a motion to amend the
ordinance by increase the allowed size
of attached basement has been moved in
second is there any council discussion
I'll really the exact wording when we
get to them Wow okay let's go this way
councilmember hunt ray I almost wonder
Stein thank you i I think that ad use
are one of the strategies in the housing
work plan that do really lend themselves
to preserving the character of the
neighborhood while adding opportunities
for more people to live there and so I
am really in favor of making it easier
to have ad use and I think that I think
that the amendment helps will help make
it easier for some people in some
situation
to have a tea use and so I am in support
I also when I was looking through the
table of what other cities in our region
are doing as far as a tea use I was
struck by how specific and how
complicated there are so many different
options for sizes and for attached and
detached and I think that I think that
cities are making those those decisions
based on specific characteristics of
their city and in our case we do have
these daylit basements and I live on
squawk Mountain so I'm familiar with
this and I think that giving the
flexibility to have one floor of a house
that's about the size of a thousand
square feet for that attached or sorry
for that accessory dwelling unit I think
it makes good sense for our particular
situation and for that reason I am in
support I also just wanted to add that
there was some discussion about is it a
duplex or not and I think that if since
since the size limit are greater than a
thousand square feet is on those is only
when it doesn't change the exterior of
the structure you won't have the two
doors at the front you won't have the
appearance of a duplex and so that's
another for me that's another critical
difference is that it it isn't allowing
for two buildings to be next to each
other of the same size that's saying
that if you have a building of above a
certain size you can still make it a you
can still have an accessory dwelling
unit inside if you don't change the
exterior and so I don't see how this so
I think that this allows for more
housing without changing the character
of the neighborhood Thank You
councilmember right no I try to like the
idea of accessory dwelling units it's a
way in our more established
neighborhoods to create create higher
density with with our existing property
I just have one question about the
amendment and it is that there's no
limit
to the size of an Adu as long as it
doesn't change the size of the residents
is that is that a correct interpretation
of what I'm reading yes so okay so I
could have a four thousand square foot
house I could cut it in half and I can
have I could live upstairs in 2000 and
have a need of you downstairs for two
thousand yes and then we think that that
whoever moves into that 2,000 square
foot house is probably not going to have
an impact on you know they're not gonna
have kids so they wouldn't have an
impact on schools and they wouldn't
wouldn't have an impact on traffic or
parks so I guess one of the things that
I'm kind of binding up on this is a guy
I liked and the idea but when I start to
look at we're not going to charge impact
fees for schools or parks or traffic
that makes a lot of sense to me when
it's small because it's more likely that
the person living in the smaller
dwelling is not going to use city
services but when I start talking about
a larger situation I can see many
situations where they would have impacts
on our schools on our roads and in our
parks thank you
council member Ramos yeah I am a hundred
percent supporter of ad use and maybe
you know where I grew up in East Oakland
my family we had five units on our
property because just build anymore as
you go and everybody kept spreading out
and we are there's last one there and we
just kept bringing out the other ones in
my family family was fighting I mean one
the other four I'll run it up so I know
that structure and how it works and it's
it's it's it is good but I think there
is a limit on size on when you when you
want to make that work and that's what's
what's holding me up right here is is
that unlimited size actor I well I'm
asked a question now okay so actually
saw there's a house on fifth between
bush and Andrews and it was a single
level house with a basement and they
raised it up a little bit and they had a
full floor underneath and it turned out
that they were in and out of it and they
did turn it my mind into a duplex um it
didn't change us the footprint at all a
matter of fact
I rented the bottom basement for quite a
while but but so and I saw that happen
and how they changed that and it I think
that would fit in an ad you hear but it
really made two houses on the lot I
don't know what permitting process they
went through back then this was quite a
while ago but so you couldn't you
couldn't raise so like one of the excuse
me back they didn't raise it it was
almost a day like basement I take that
so so like you know for example if this
was originally just a single-story
garage and they built a second floor
above it the footprint doesn't change
but the building envelope has changed
and what this is saying is that you
could you could create an ad you it's
it's kind of most similar to this photo
where they basically turn their daylight
basement into a separate residential
unit any of the situations where you've
added structure either elevation or
outward you couldn't go past the
thousand square feet if you were gonna
do that
it's an elevation as well yeah thank you
that's my register let's make it thank
you
the its I think it's important that this
amendment is is is working within the
existing capacity of the home and that's
the I think that's the way I view this
may be to use the example of a 4,000
square foot which is a large home my
house isn't that large so maybe I'll use
my example 3,400 square feet and and
that has a certain capacity right now
those houses have a certain capacity all
what we're saying is that without adding
capacity you can at you can you can
actually make add an additional dwelling
unit you give another family whether
that be just a couple or it could be an
individual it could be a couple or it
could be a family but it but it's not
adding any capacity obviously people are
always free today even now to do
remodels and maybe add a bedroom or
something but but if you're putting that
this happens quite a bit around here
there's a lot of capital going into
existing homes
to expand them but as soon as you start
pushing the walls out you your a tu is
gonna be limited to a thousand feet and
and and so I'm I agree with the concern
this with the the impact fees by not
charging that because most of the
examples of most ad use that we see
appear you're adding capacity somewhere
but you're adding a limited capacity and
we and and we think that type of housing
is going to be important but it's good
and but to help encourage it we're gonna
you know reduce the costs by removing
the impact fees this amendment is not
about adding capacity and I think it
creates options for people to live with
in Issaquah and at the same time retain
retain the character of existing
neighborhoods that's right that's why
I'm gonna that's why I made the motion
the amendment thank you I I support the
amendment I think the 1,300 square foot
that was in the original proposed
changes to the code is arbitrary I think
there are some natural controls here
that will keep the the concern that
they're going to be just you know a
whole bunch of huge houses that are
divided in half I think that's very
unlikely number one as you've said the
property owner has to live there so this
isn't about creating whole bunch of
spaces that extra spaces are you know
twice as many houses that people are
going to rent out they have to live
there so for that reason I'm comfortable
I think it does create I guess I don't
know what the definition of capacity is
even though you're not expanding the
walls you are adding people capacity I
just don't think it's a measurable
impact and if we see that there are some
unintended consequences ORS are some
measurable measurable impact and we can
revisit I think it's a great tool and I
support the amendment Thank You deputy
council president forties I too am very
supportive of 80 use in general and I
will support the
and I think that the the one question
that I had coming into this was the
1,300 square feet because I could
definitely see exceptions that we're
falling right outside of that that would
make it difficult and I think being able
to expand the language and give some
discretion to the director but not have
that expand actually expand the
residence and the way that the amendment
is written makes really good sense so
I'll be supporting this this evening
thank you
council president emeritus any comments
is your councilman Romo so so I probably
don't have fear of this really being
over used and abused because it hasn't
been historically but I guess I just
want to ask you one more question and
that is so the extreme example that you
that 4,000 square-foot house the owner
would have the option to split that into
a duplex and and go through that at all
or that's not an option it depends it
depends on the zone so some of our
residential zones allow for duplexes and
some do not
they all allow for accessory dwelling
units so if if it was a 4,000 square
foot and he wanted to create an Adu
there's a covenant on the property for
that they couldn't basically create a
duplex so that in the zone unless the
zone allowed it and then they could they
could request to turn into a duplex okay
and then just might just and again we're
talking extreme examples here and I
don't think the ad you has been used
enough we'd like to use it a lot more
most cities would and to provide much
more housing and at different affordable
rates
so I'd say that as well thank you
council member aog this is um this may
be a nonsensical question but can I have
more than 180 you and a parcel no okay
unless you moved to Oakland apparently
yes
that explains a lot
questions or comments before we go to
the vote on the amended motion being
none wait I'm sorry point of point of
order are we voting on the amendment or
I'm seeing a head nod from the clerk's
office we're not voting we're not voting
on the amended motion just the amendment
yes
we're voting on an amendment computers
I'll read it
what you're voting on move to amend the
ordinance to strike the language in IMC
18-point no 7.45 over NC print four and
replace it with the following number
four size the square footage of the ad
you shall not exceed a thousand square
feet excluding any non living areas such
as garage area storage sheds or decks
unless the excluded area is the location
of their proposed ad you the development
services director or designated
appointee may allow increased size if
the creation of the edu does not
necessitate an exterior expansion of the
residents except for minimal alterations
necessarily edu to be a functional
separate residence all those in favor of
the amendment most amendment passes
unanimously
the main motion as a president merits so
you know I spoke earlier about places
where although this isn't this was not a
requirement on lifting the moratorium I
consider this work part of what came out
of the moratorium and out of the good
housing work that we did this is an area
if if we're getting ahead of some other
cities I'll tell you that
everybody's talking to a to use when
we've had these meetings at SCA about
what can we do about housing what can we
do about housing ad user and everybody's
lips so if we're good if we're getting
to be a pathfinder in that area then
that's awesome and hopefully and I'm
quite confident that down the road when
I list greatest hits of things that I'm
proudest of assuming this passes this
evening then this is gonna be one of
them so I'm very much I'm very much in
favor of the motion that I make
other comments on the main motion before
we go to the main motion any other
comments okay this is a motion to adopt
ordinance number two eight three nine
relating to accessory dwelling units
amending its qua Municipal Code Chapter
three point six three school impact fees
three point six for these four
applications for subdivisions and
land-use actions three point seven one
traffic impact fees and three point
seven two park impact fees in order to
exempt accessory dwelling units from the
payment of impact fees and in order to
establish a pre application fee for
review of accessory dwelling units and
amending various sections of fiscal
municipal code that'll 18 point no land
use in order to regulate accessory
dwelling units all in favor say aye
I'll put any opposed motion passes
unanimously
the last item today is the good of the
order do council members have anything
for the good of the order I have a
couple of quick little things our next
regular council meeting will be June 4th
the agenda at this time will include a
public hearing on the six-year
transportation improvement program they
vote on the end of the talus development
agreement with the remaining discussion
item being the rezoning designation for
talus parcel 9 and the opportunity
Center resolution for transit oriented
development on June 5th council will
have a special meeting a strategic plan
Charette at the senior center from 5:30
to 8:30 p.m. where we will we'll be
looking at the input we have received
during our public process on our
strategic plan anything else to share
that's president Mertz yeah so 2018 is
turning out to be quite the year in the
Martins household so one of the three
Bromberg brothers my mom's little
brothers my uncle Rick is in Hospice at
the Baths VA in bath New York and so I
just want to say Uncle Rick I love you
very much
and
all the marx's are with you thank you
anything else for good of the order
there is no executive session this
evening and there being no further
business this meeting is adjourned at
10:37 how are you sir
you