he says you
Madonn okay we're going to start the
it's across city council land and shore
committee Thursday July 6 and we have
several items on our agenda what I will
say in terms of public comment is that
on a Genda items B C and D and E we will
take a bit comment after each of those
brief public comment after each of those
so I will announce that after we're done
with our questions and also I'll
introduce ourselves I'm Stacy Goodman
and to my left is Mary Lou Pauline to my
right is Paul Winter Stein and F at the
podium
it's Keith Niven director of development
services department and economic element
and the first item on our agenda is
moratorium update thank you so the six
moratorium work items we're moving them
all forward there's that there's none on
tonight actually that's a well there is
amending parking so later on in the
agenda we'll deal with parking which is
coming back from PPC and the others are
kind of trekking along so the next
check-in point for the council is going
to be August 7th whatever the council
meeting is in August so what I'm
planning to do for y'all is to give you
a memo that will talk about the progress
made on each of the work items and
what's left to do including whatever
touch points there may be Monday of this
month is district visions so that'll be
your first opportunity to have a
conversation with staff about where we
are in the process and what we've
learned about the neighborhood's that
comprise central Issaquah and I think at
the end of this month at the cow is
affordable housing so so you'll get that
the tools that we've identified for
affordable housing and there'll be a
conversation about that and our approach
that we've come up with working through
a Joint Commission with planning policy
commission Human Services Commission and
economic vitality Commission oh and you
guys are also going to get the big
presentation from our consultant
architecture and urban design we've got
a draft manual we're going through that
with DC this month so to DC meetings to
kind of work through the nuts and bolts
3 DC meetings so 3 DC meetings you can
tell them a little bit I'm a little bit
detached and then you guys get kind of
the big presentation at the end of the
month so that's that's our stuff so you
mentioned August 7th it says on the
calendar council public hearing on
moratorium that's to what consider so at
that point that's your decision point to
either lift extend or something in
between so I thought that another counts
recent council meeting we talked about
when the moratorium actually expired and
wasn't that early October so the six
months will be September but we have to
have the hearing before and because we
canceled the second meeting in August
typically I'm assuming that's happening
this year it has to be the first meeting
in August so it's just it's the last
touch point that we have with you guys
before a September point that when it
expires in early September I thought
okay okay so with that in mind it looks
like the calendar has the following a
schedule for adopt for the council to
consider adopting the different elements
architectural fit and urban design is
October 16th
as is vertical mixed use affordable
housing is September 18th our King is
July 17th the strict visions November
20th
um and so you know what the talk is
about what's coming forward in early and
the recommendation you know what that is
yet or that preliminary we should know
just say no it's not I don't know what
the recommendation is from the
administration yet I would guess that
the mayor would like for you to lift the
moratorium in August I'm not sure that
we can get you there but we'll we'll
have a conversation about that okay okay
the questions about that moratorium
calendar in the next item on the agenda
is agenda bill 74 52 transit oriented
development a memoranda P oh sorry
transit oriented development memorandums
of understanding I was referred tonight
yes yeah you probably just heard about
this though hi my name is Jenna Davis
Hayes work in economic development and a
project manager for the transit orient
we are here tonight to talk about the to
mo use that are non-binding but very
important for us to move on next steps
with this project as you probably
remember such an tonight we're going to
talk a little bit about the project give
you a reminder of the components and
talk about the progress we've made to
date and the upcoming timeline when the
decision points are for council and then
get into more details about the mo use
and then our next steps and we have our
development partners here from King
County Housing Authority and spectrum
development solutions which will be
joining me at the mic as well so any
questions ok so just as a reminder our
transit oriented project site is here in
orange and it's next to the Transit
Center which is the white across the
street from Tibbets Valley Park
currently CenturyLink business as
operations site is located here and
working with them to relocate to the
King County roads property site which we
purchased and putting new locks on next
week so the city is in full possession
at this time and we will be talking
about the annexation part of that in the
annexation proof presentation later
today
so again a reminder of the components of
the transitory development and part of
these were required suggested or
required in our request for proposals
that we put out so there it's a vertical
mixed-use building which is a great
thing to see that as far as the building
type we're looking at both affordable
and market rate housing and if you've
been looking at past presentations the
number of affordable units has actually
gone up and so again that's as when you
create a concept and then you kind of
work through the details you're able to
find ways to provide more and adjust
things and so King County Housing
Authority Canon talked a little more
about that during their presentation
there will be ground floor commercial
space so some of that will be private
and some will be publicly owned we we
anticipate and then the connection to
the area amenity so again looking that
it's an across the street from the park
we have we have will have a plaza on
that side on Newport and then also a
mid-block crossing that connects
directly into where the sidewalk is for
the Transit Center so as the multiple
blocks as we look here you can see that
blue dotted line does multiple blocks
develop over time they'll have that mid
block all the way through that blue line
there next to the project site is what
is defined in the central Issaquah plan
for a core street and so the de this
development will build a little more
than half the site of the street and so
again that will help to create that grid
system that we want to see to break up
the blocks in central Issaquah any
questions okay so in general and again
this is a high low high level this is
subject to change and we you know of
course will want to get things open as
quickly as possible but we're looking at
tonight again reviewing the mo yous
getting any feedback and coming back in
August to finalize and hopefully get a
recommendation to adopt those at August
7th full council meeting in September
and that's one of the reasons we need to
have that in order to for King County
Housing Authority is actually the
applicant to the King County Tod fund
and so that happens in September by
December we'll know of that ten million
dollar
location how much is allocated this
project and then in the fall of this
year and continuing to 2018 our
development team will be working on the
design and permitting and and during
that time we'll be touching base again
with Council to talk about more of the
details again so tonight's mo us are
non-binding so it doesn't commit to
anything we're but it has an intention
to go forward and do that so during that
that timing that process of the design
and permitting will will come forward
with an agreement that will come to as
much of a will be a development
agreement or just an agreement that
outlines all the details of the project
and make sure that we're all on the same
page so the other funding you know
securing other funding and doing
community out which outreach will also
happen in 2018 and this site is you know
different than just moving forward and
building affordable housing they
actually have to build the other site
for the relocation and then demolish and
start so the reality is that the Tod the
residential component and the mixed-use
component will be open anticipating in
2021 so sounds like far away but it's
actually not too bad
any questions and general timeline and
then I taught here this slide talked
about so where the decision points for
the city so so we actually already
finalized purchase and thank you for the
King County roads property we did talk
to the Finance Committee in May and
we're going to come back to full council
talk in the fall to talk about the
multifamily tax exemption and at that
time we'll have a full analysis of what
that means and and as we are suggesting
for this to be a pilot site to adopt it
so I'm not looking at a larger scope so
here we are tonight at Landon Shore
again once the finalization for the MOU
is in August 7th and etc so the the
decision points are then starred there
so annexation will be a decision point
for you and I believe it's September and
and then if if they are successful in
getting funding from arch the council
approved that during their
normal process of that arch funding in
2018 so okay okay okay
and so how fares from spectrum
development solutions will come up and
talk about EMI use so can how do we go
back to the schedule okay so just to
hello again and good to see you all
it's good to see you I know you get it
recorded that way most people can hear
me so that's not a problem
I wanted to just resize the schedule
this we the King County who has the Tod
funds they have set a set up a schedule
to make the funds available for
different set-aside areas is cause a
set-aside area bell red corridors to set
aside the Northgate areas of set-aside
there's a set aside for the des moines
area and then one around the pac med
hospital in king county realized that if
they put all of those set asides out on
the market at once they didn't have
enough bond cap 4% tax credits to be
able to support all those projects so
they had to go back in and look at their
schedule and stretch them out and Jen
and I went to a meeting where they were
looking at doing that and we said we
will have s qua will have land control
for this site in July we said and so we
will be ready for your application so
they said let's go with this quote let's
put them first on the docket so so
that's that's why does a push no it's
always was always the plan and we were
lucky that just didn't get delayed as
some of the other set asides did and so
what's what's real important is for us
to the RFP is supposed to come out this
month probably next week and it has to
be submitted on September 13th and we
submit for that and then we as the
collective we hear we have to have land
control so your annexation which is
supposed to be finalized on September 6
is really important because it's hard to
have land control when it's not even
part of this COIs yet and second these
the mo use which will which I will talk
about now we originally we're going to
have just one tri-party agreement with
Century Link the housing authority
ourselves in the city but we realized
there was a whole bunch of parts
agreement that century really didn't
have to get involved in they don't
really care how many affordable units
we're going to put on their site or what
are the amenities going to be or whether
we're building a core street so we
separated them into just two agreements
one that just dealt with the things that
were specific to CenturyLink and the
other ones which were a greater interest
to the city of what we are going to
develop on the Tod site itself so that's
why there's two agreements so that we
didn't have to drag CenturyLink through
all the other pieces
so this first agreement which is the MoU
between which is MOU there's two
agreements which I just spoke of one is
with CenturyLink it's focused on the
relocation site so as a reminder you're
annexing this piece of property that
you're going to talk about later today
but out of that there's a small piece
three acres out of the 20-some acres
that you're annexing that will be used
to relocate CenturyLink to that location
so we as the developer need to build
them their new facility and so we have
to reach an agreement with them that
they will agree to both what we're going
to build and the timing and when that's
going to get done on top of which
CenturyLink wants to make sure that
they're getting full value of their
property they entered into this with the
city and said hey we were supportive of
cities goals but that didn't mean that
they were willing to donate some leave
some value on the table they want to get
politely so we are in the process so
part of that whole thing which it says
in that MOU in the end we'll use we need
to get an appraisal done on their
existing site the Tod site so that they
know what the value their property is
that they're going to be leaving and
then we would get an appraisal done on
their new location after you know suing
that we built a new building on it so
the prese will look at our drawings and
say it's going to be about a thirty
thousand square building it meets all
these criteria and then there'll be two
values and they want to make sure that
if the value their land is worth more
than what they're getting then we would
pay them the difference the developer
would pay them the difference so the
city isn't you know is involved in that
but they need to they need to make sure
the gate
equal dollars there's no contribution
intended on their part and the city is
involved because they the city owns the
land and we spectrum actually buy the
land from the city or take possessions
out from the city before we can build a
new facility we can't build a new
facility on land somebody else owns you
know so we have to take possession of it
from title build a new building on it
and then we would give the completed
facility to CenturyLink after it's all
done and they approve our drawings and
all those so that's what the first MOU
is all about okay so one of the things
again
timing-wise is in a ladder keep on to
that schedule of 2021 even though it
seems far away you know many steps along
the way is that spectrum needs to do
some environmental assessment on the
property and CenturyLink isn't
comfortable coming having them come in
and dig holes until they have an MoU in
place right so so that's also an
important piece of the timing so they
can in the fall start to do that and not
delayed further so essentially has given
us approval we're doing right now as a
survey and the level 1 environmental but
they won't let us do the destructive
drill holes or take samples until this
MOU is complete so if we have the MOU
signed in August by the city then and
CenturyLink then we can do that work
before the application goes in on
September 13th so there's again a
tightness of the timeframe that has to
come together because we the the
application that's due on September 13th
requires that we have geo technical
information and environmental
information as part of that application
let's do on September 13th so there
isn't any kind of wiggle room in that
timeframe then the second agreement is
that the MOU that's between the city
spectrum and the King County Housing
Authority it's focused on the Tod site
what's being developed there how many
affordable units the length of
affordability the street improvements
building the core street the mid-block
crossing the other other amenities that
goes that goes into that and how that
all comes together so that's kind of
detailed in that and then just a over
you again for against to allow them to
apply for the King County Tod fund to
show that there that we
committed to providing them the site so
that shows side controls opposed to them
having to purchase it first so we took
both of the to mo use and we the what
sections are highlighted in red are the
ones that we thought you guys would want
to put your most attention on and the
first one is a city's acquisition of the
county property which the staff is
briefed on you'll hear a little more
about that today it's pretty getting
pretty well completed at that point and
then our expectrum Zach juez ition of
the replacement site you know and that
you you don't want to have us purchase
that until we've made a commitment of
what we're going to build on the Tod
site and and that's what the second MOU
does so the second MOU actually pulls
the first MOU in as a condition but we
did it that way so that CenturyLink
wouldn't have to get caught up in those
pieces the rest of them are a lot of
more formal communications exclusivity
we do have exclusivity agreement because
we didn't want to do all this work and
then have CenturyLink sell you know site
to somebody else comes in and you know
offers them ten percent more just out of
the blue so once they sign this then
they're locked into working with us all
the way through the Tod grant process
they can't you know pull the rug out
from underneath us at the last minute
and so you do have a copy of both MOU so
and if you have questions about those
other sections were more than willing to
talk about that but again we just
thought these might be the ones that you
that are most impactful to the city and
the decisions you'll be making so I did
read them and they're largely the same I
have a question about section number
nine and as you've mentioned the
agreements are non-binding except for
Section six and seven above section 6 is
investigation of the project site which
I understand but number seven is
communications and one of them in the
communications section requires
coordination on communication about the
project and it obligates the city all
the parties including the city to
accurately describe in public statements
that the Tod project is various
component components and present to the
public in a consistent thoughtful and
positive manner
so I don't have any issue with that with
regard to the city big sea but I just
wanted somebody to at some point maybe
before this comes before the council to
address whether the City Council would
be hot within that as well
I would think no but I think that's I've
not I've not only went our agreements
safe city capital C that include that
you guys and and typically when we are
if we're talking about the
administration it would be clear that
it's either the administration or the
city administration but what aagama
Murphy Wallops have said in the past as
if it says City Big C that's that's you
guys says the city of Issaquah that's
you guys so um I would like for somebody
to address that because that needs to be
I mean if that if the City Council is
bound by this communication vision and I
think that needs to be highlighted your
preference just to be clear would be
that's the city administration is fine
and maybe more appropriate given that we
munication typically come out from the
administration
when I read it popped out okay okay
I would agree with Keith when I read
this and I do interpret the capital C as
being the city but just like you said he
stration has a communications discipline
n staff and it's not too common that
council would be leadership or anybody
is okay we're going to do press release
let's sit down and talk about that
language I just in tight so I say that
because I assumed that this was the
administration and their communications
we can we can clarify okay that's all
I'm asking I mean we can all sit around
talk about how we read it but it doesn't
really mean much we need somebody to
tell us what that intent is general that
we are clear okay thank you okay okay
comment on that at a different comment
okay right okay so far as the documents
go in the content in the schedule I
don't have any particularly detailed
comments about that except the schedule
is hugely tight and requires us to do
things in really soft manner but the
documents themselves seem like you're
asking us to move through some
administrative processes so that we keep
on track so we get things done and find
with all thoughts my bigger concern is
that it's a complex project it's
different from all the other kinds of
projects as far as I know that we've
tried to do that give us affordable
housing and you're going to be coming to
a council of seven you guys are great
tag team by the way you really seem to
get this new understanding we do not we
have not looked in our housing strategy
and we have never actually
comprehensively as a council even
discussed what our strategy ought to be
towards housing if you want to make sure
this moves through with one touch you're
going to have to give us some sort of
primer in here about why this project is
different I heard this project compared
a week ago to the TDR request by polygon
which is entirely different type of
project and this was just the same kind
of thing and that's from a council
person so we don't know exactly what you
have on the table so we need that
information so that we all see that
kind of project this is and how does it
compare and I have some ideas I can
share with you Jen and what that
information might look like because we
need to be educated on this otherwise
you're going to have people getting
stuck and it's going to be hard for us
to make all of your deadlines right now
that's that would be a tragedy so just
FYI we did offer other council members
briefings before August understanding
that for them it's OneTouch for you is
too but so I'm thinking more than
briefings I'm actually think I'd like to
talk to you about what I think might be
some suggested content you might want to
include to get us all in place to get us
all understanding what we see here and
how is it different from what we've seen
before
but not having seen the draft housing
strategy yet how does this second eye in
and that was this meeting the mark good
so that was my next point and so I'm
actually working with Trish on the
housing strategy and said this is
actually one of the six points of that
addresses affordable housing and so you
guys are again come at the end of July
then that it'll be here so it's a
discrete project and again it talks
about this as a pilot for MFE
but it talks about the T of the
transitory development project so
there'll be more discussion around that
project in that context as well that's
great and the Eiffel 106 I think that
preliminary descriptions we got of the
project we're good but I don't think
council has a full understanding of what
this project is and so coming with the
tight timeline and this has to move on
this date and not having a housing
strategy I feel like we might be at a
bit of a disadvantage okay I can provide
you submit perfect comments thank you we
do have an all dan come up talk about
the housing authority the we do have
what's unusual in this is this
requirement to just to be able to submit
for the funding from King County and
part of we don't go into the full
details of all the nuts and bolts
because if if we were to get three
million dollars instead of the ten
million dollars a project probably isn't
going anywhere and so we can't fully
design this thing and put it all
together without really knowing what
funding support from the county will be
so that's why we're doing this MOU so
it's that's why it's non-binding why
it's really a policy document that says
this is how we're going to work together
and then once that application goes in
we can then start to develop the more we
will already his requirement of the prey
of the application we have to get the
site appraised so we will know more
information by the time we submit the
site will the little start to show more
of the cards on how it all lays out and
then we can work on the detail and the
staff can work to bring the rest the
council long on you know what is a city
really contributing in all the different
ways in which they contribute to make
the project work so this is really
approving a policy document knowing that
you get to see the nuts and bolts of it
later but right about making sure that
all of our that our council has a good
understanding of the basic form of the
project so we don't get hung up on what
the project is and that we do move and
follow this time fragile okay okay I
would just so I may make a comment I
think the mo used do a really good job
of laying out the basics of this we
understand the the land that's involved
who and their roles or agreeing with one
another or in between parties even
though it's interesting their three-way
mo use and yet there's very there
sections in there that just include two
parties right and but but I did find
that reading them I think does give a
very good picture of the moving parts so
I just that the kudos I do have I will
have when we at the Rope appropriate
time some very specific quaint questions
about some of the language so I want to
continue with you what your plan was and
we'll make time for that okay then we
were going to move to the next agreement
which is the agreement between the city
spectrum and King County Housing
Authority and we've highlighted those
sections all at Dan talk a little bit
about that agreement how it ties in the
affordable units and how those are
intermixed as well I'm Dan Watson I'm
the deputy director for the King County
Housing Authority we're excited to be a
part of this project but what's
important to understand is that there is
the affordable component of this is
obviously part of the vision that
was originally given to us but it's also
critical in terms of attracting the
funding from the county and we've also
put in other levels of subsidy I think
that gets it the question about your
ultimate strategy why this is different
than other projects because it's it's
the targeting it's the interplay between
the levels of affordability and the
funding and so we are really targeting a
workforce population at what is called
you know 60% of the area median income
and that's also attractive to find
getting the funding from the county we
were the recipient of three other fund
funding grants last year out of this
particular Tod fund so that's one thing
that made it particularly attractive to
us to work on this project in Issaquah
because it was well positioned to take
advantage of the funding that's being
provided through the county so what
we're looking at we originally
envisioned a hundred and twenty five
affordable units but some of the
feedback we got was that well let's look
at that per unit subsidy if you divide
that into ten million dollars and I
thought well the county sort of the
informal feedback was seems a little
high so we think we can actually make it
a little more efficient use of the site
and the podium deck by maybe bumping
that up to one hundred and fifty five
units slightly smaller units maybe a
little bit different bedroom mix but
that'll get our per unit subsidy down
and position us better but the creek the
critical elements is gaining site
control before September 13th getting
our whole application together with all
the various appraisals and environmental
work and that's absolutely crucial to to
getting the ten million dollars which is
crucial to making this project work so
it all kind of interplays amongst itself
and certainly we can get into a lot more
detail as to how that's all going to lay
out but this MOU doesn't get into those
specifics but talks about just the fact
that this is affordable and market rate
housing in one project with lots of
other public amenities and
infrastructure one we've been working
trying to make our application more
competitive and this is the application
for the king county funds and we
realized our cost per unit was too high
for that when we allocate everything
else
increase we looked at our building
efficiency the podium maximizing the use
of the podium so we can really take what
we're sunk costs or fixed costs like
building the roads doesn't change based
on how many units we're building putting
the mid-block crossing doesn't change
even building the podium itself doesn't
change if we can get more units on that
same podium we are able to spread those
costs over more units when we were last
with here giving you the general
overview
on the spectrum side we had twenty
percent of our units were affordable
between seventy and eighty percent of
area median income and but just for the
12 year period of the tax exemption
that's going to go with it and that that
wasn't wasn't playing out as well as we
would like so we went back and looked at
our numbers and said we can make ten
percent of our units affordable
permanently affordable that adds 20
units on top floor the housing authority
is doing and that gets us up into that
hundred and eighty affordable units and
then really starts bringing that cost
down per unit so we have that mix we
always had a mix of affordable units and
market rate on the spectrum side but now
we've been able to look at those and
reduce the number but make them
permanently affordable to help really
make it a long-term affordable project
so that's how the application will be
presented put forth going into it and I
think you know this is probably well
beyond anything in your housing strategy
in one site it's largely gained by both
the Housing Authority's significant
participation in the project a lot of
their own money their own loan that's
going into this this is not just your
regular not-for-profit coming in as a
partnering on this they're putting a
substantial amount of their own
resources into this but also the
set-aside which is making it happen so
anyway it's said well I might add to the
one thing we are going you normally do
is we will put in an additional layer of
rental subsidies on a small number of
units um between 20 and 40 units that
will serve very low-income families
primarily it's part of an overall
strategy to get more lower income
families in areas of high opportunity
such as is a cloth that have jobs
services and good schools so that's
that's something we will do with our own
resources
so the
Jen skipped ahead here but the the MoU
between the city the housing authority
and spectrum the items you highlighted
our first replacement site agreement
that was the first MOU we just talked
about those ones then we have the
project site agreement itself where we
have the description the open space
community space the sensitive areas and
buffers around the site residential
units and density and the portability
that we just talked about the commercial
unit use is on the ground floor we still
have a continued strong interest from
the Bright Horizons daycare and the
northwest kidney center that want to go
into the into this facility and some
people aren't as enthused about the
kidney center and they remind us that
one in six Americans will have kidney
disease in their life so it's a
significant advantage for Issaquah to
have that kind of resource here to serve
your constituents we have the site
design standards which we'll get into
your design criteria parking
requirements which we're right now
meeting your code all of our parking is
structured parking on this site so it's
beyond what you're talking about later
today it does we are a little bit
concerned about this parking requirement
as it applies to the CenturyLink
replacement site which is in your urban
core and making sure that the parking
we're building there counts of
structured parking because if we have to
build their service facility on top of
parking or something it would not open
core that right right yeah so as you
talked about so council still has yet to
decide whether or not the Century Link
site will be and so the parking concern
has not yet been right okay I was just
reading ahead in your agenda I was like
yeah the infrastructure requirements are
spelled out what will ultimately go
spelled out in terms of what we're
having to do that's one of the big
challenges because as you develop the
Issaquah itself you don't have the
infrastructure roads sewers all those
kind of things are in place so that
makes the cost high and then our
schedule
we talked about the multifamily tax
exemption which Jen's says will come up
later to the council but that'll be
important part for this project to make
it work to be able to adopt that even if
it's a pilot project for this project
and I think she's going to get into that
later with the council not today but
another time and then the impact these
most of those are called out in your
current regulations already the impact
fees that are waived as a result for
those that apply to the affordable units
the market rate units still have to pay
the impact fees but the affordable units
are in your current regulations many of
them you do not and then we do know that
the core the street improvements we make
to the core street those can offset the
traffic impact fees that otherwise would
be paid because that's one of your
identified capital projects and that
when you it will be important for the CD
to identify we can help you do that is
is what is the city really contributing
with the waiver of all those impact fees
because it's part of this application
going into the county we have to show
they want to see that the city is
contributing as well that this isn't
happening just by the housing
authorities participation in the
county's participation and so waving of
impact fees is not consistent of all
around our Eastside cities Redmond
doesn't waive impact fees so the fact
that miss quad does can show as a
essentially a contribution being made by
the city is that it's a cause financial
contribution is the waving of the this
end MF to the land the segregate right
the MFT all those would count okay
but again humans we're doing that
announcement them will survive again
that information so you're aware of that
but that's something those are for the
impact fees is there a Inland code so
we're not asking for anything gift no
right so we would get a cost per unit
which is made up of whatever the MFT
contribution is whatever the impact fee
waivers is the land that's donated or
cash the city puts in we would know well
the city has contributed per unit
perfect okay I think that's all the
overview were having and then if there
are specific questions that we can't
answer for comment question okay so um I
know it's ahead on the agenda but how
significant of it of an impact to the
project requirements is that whether or
not the parcel the new centrelink parcel
is in or out of the central Issaquah
area in terms of impact to there the
cost of the project ever we I went
through your the intense commercial
zoning in the standards of design
standards applied to that looking to see
if there's things in there that really
don't fit given its location I mean it's
it's up there you know behind your
maintenance for the city's maintenance
facility behind the trailer park you
know those kind of things
in as a whole they weren't I
I was expecting to see a lot more
requirements that really weren't
applicable and I was it wasn't it wasn't
that extensive we're still allowed to
have chain-link fence is still allowed
within intent commercial you can put
barbed wire on top of it not that we are
intending on doing the Hatters I don't
think that means CenturyLink I don't
think they have that now so I don't see
why they would want that it does require
landscape screening if you have a
chain-link fence so there we might say
but you know that's applicable for the
frontage that faces when you come up to
it but when you get back in the woods
there you know is that is that a that
important so we had a provision in the
MOU that we would go through and look at
those and identify those kind of things
that maybe aren't applicable to come
back and ask for
exceptions to some of those standards
not having identified everyone we are we
are concerned as you were if you were to
adopt this into central Issaquah and
then add the structured parking
requirement and we don't we Centrelink
wants to have the parking we're
providing for them covered and secured
I mean walls all around or the roof over
it like a service facility like they
have now and we don't think we think
that would meet the definition of
structured parking as compared to a
carport
but that would be important to us
because we this would make sense to
build a service facility and have it
look like an urban project worth you
know underground parking or anything
like that
Thanks I mean they have five or seven
thousand square feet it's like locker
rooms for their crew you know and little
T 500 square foot office and all the
rest of it is for parking their service
vehicles that's what the building is
about so so those that we don't know
what we're I guess what our concern is
is what new provisions might be added
that we're not aware of that would it be
apply to this we don't know what that
those might be yeah well I guess we will
be talking about parking but later on
and even what's listed in there the idea
that such a yard would be classified as
office because the parking that we're
considering is only regarding office and
residential at least as currently
represented so doesn't strike me as
office yeah we'll get to that you know I
did the second MOU so I'm going to go
down to some of the language here and
make sure I understand sure that's what
this is really about is if you got
concern on language we are going to be
very a suggestion sir yeah okay I think
some of these are going to be easy and
down in there and paragraphs see it does
say in the second last sentence it does
say including destination businesses
just give me what's a what's a
destination business that would be the
it could be a lot of things so I did
definition I wasn't familiar with a
destination businesses as opposed to not
a destination I would say as compared to
something where you're driving by you
know old customers you know just
convenience so people might go from more
than just a immediate vicinity to get to
it so the kidney center would definitely
fit into that category where you're
going to draw from a catchment area from
Snoqualmie to they have a facility in
Bellevue so it's going to draw from a
larger area to come to that facility I
think it's an economic developer and
that's typically correctly so it's
neighborhood serving versus the
destination so even the daycare could be
destination because it's maybe people
from the highlands coming down so it's
not just serving that particular
neighborhood like a coffee shop may do
that so all right thank you for that
clarification onion paragraph II has an
odd comment in there it says even that
part of that first sentence it says
sure so the affordable housing will be
would be rent restricted or income
regulated so that would be fordable to
people making 40% of area median income
60% market rate workforce is not rent
restricted so that but it's targeted in
our case we call workforce workforce
doesn't really have a heart and fixed
definition but it generally goes from
60% to a hundred percent of area median
income is that is the income group
you're trying to target for that so but
it's not right restricted when it says
market rate that generally means not
rent restrict or not income restricted I
should say to who can live there so
people don't have to come in and say I'm
making sixty thousand dollars a unit or
making eighty thousand a year and I want
to rent this unit people can rent that
unit regardless of how much income okay
okay so if it said affordable and a
market rate housing I didn't change it
by down being the word workforce at all
is anything that's the same thing thank
you al you you you said earlier how
essential you said that the maybe you
use the word essential for the MFT e how
essential is it I don't think we
mentioned down in paragraph H by the
right we we submitted in our application
they we were asked to say you know how
important is this and if the city were
not to pass it what what would that mean
it's about a seven million dollar you
know economic present value of that tax
exemption not that's the whole that's
not the city's portion that's the entire
tax exemption the city's portion I think
we calculated is about a million to over
million dollars over twelve years is the
city's portion of that tax exemption and
that's a rough estimate
my part but that's that's really
important to us we we can't make the
market rate side of this work without
that multifamily tax occasion and and
just to be clear that the housing
authorities Kapoor Shammi this already
tax exempt so we're really just talking
about the market rate component here we
are under state law exam from local
property taxes housing authorities and
we can get into this detail later but
currently there are no property taxes
being collected on the CenturyLink
operation site so when it's more of an
opportunity cost of missing out on over
12 years but at the end of 12 years the
city would then start to collect that on
the residential the blandest will still
be taxed so actually there'll be some
additional money we still pay the market
rate side still the portion of the
project not owned by the Housing
Authority still pays property taxes on
the land it's only the improvements that
are exempt and the daycare pays taxes on
the improvements it's not exempt from
that I believe the north is kidney
center is exempt from property taxes
because of what they do and the adult
family home if they were to go in
there's probably also property tax
exempt regardless of you passing the
multifamily tax exemption they would be
exempt anyway so Jen the regarding MFT
II good question that will come in front
of the council in the future will be the
applicability of it to market rate
housing this project meaning you're
saying that's what we need to
communicate
I'm sorry question for you is because
yes the call conversations I've been
part of about MFT E was about an
incentive to actually for to obtain a
affordable housing gotcha
right this context it's not it's it's
basically the residential so it kind of
helps to pay for right and so it's
giving you a tax exemption all the
residential portion of the market rate
again King County aside so therefore you
get your they're able to provide the
affordable housing and then the market
rate part of us they would be able they
would be
they wouldn't be able to afford the
affordable housing if they didn't have
that tax exemption on the whole thing so
I'm trying to figure out how to answer
that different accident' dan I thought
you said earlier that the units that you
would own if I'm saying this correctly
are already tax exempt there's no well
we don't really don't know what I'm
trying to say is that the MFT ordinance
wouldn't be essential to our component
of it but the the concept here is that
to be able to do an affordable housing
project if you will that has both market
and affordable oftentimes requires an
exemption on the whole of the whole
parcel that's the way the MFT ordinances
have worked in other jurisdictions where
that it provides an incentive to do both
provides so that works I understand now
I understand now it's the entire project
that would apply there would be a mix
your units would be tax exempt ins as
but this so coming forward would be an
EM FTE proposal for this entire probably
exactly so we don't have to rely on any
one type of exemption that the entire
project would would receive that so and
it's absolutely critical like like house
said in order to be able to even make
economics of this work and even then
it's going to be quite challenging some
of the you see a lot of the mixed-use
projects being built all around our
greater community all the cities and why
why it's a challenge here in this coin
why you haven't seen that action here in
central Issaquah there's two big things
one we have to build structured parking
to make this transit project look the
way it's going to look and to maximize
the units on the site and people don't
pay to park in Issaquah they pay very
little to park in Issaquah so if you are
actually building structured parking
you'd have to be able to get $250 to
$300 a month for each parking stall just
to pay for the cost to build that but in
insta Club I mean we especially given
where this one's located as soon as we
start charging people to park which we
will they're going to go find someplace
where it's free to park
which is on the street or in the parking
right next door so we the rents of the
unit's above are basically subsidizing
the structured parking and that's
something you have to always think about
as you add structured parking
requirements is the rent that people are
charging is what's subsidizing that
parking so that's one what's one
challenge here in Issaquah where
downtown Bellevue that people pay a lot
more to park downtown Seattle a lot more
in the park in our concrete cost just as
much here as it does in both cities the
other thing is we in in the valley of
Issaquah you have really soft soils the
ground is bearing soil is 55 to 75 feet
deep we have to support this structure
on auger cast piling or with a mat slab
and that adds to this site it adds about
two million dollars to the site
development costs that you would not
have on the highlands for example where
they have bearing soil that is upgrade
so you have an economic burden that
you're at that is requirement a building
in it in the valley floor that isn't in
the areas when you get away from the
valley and they have to we can't charge
more for rent unless people are willing
to pay it
which that isn't necessarily the case so
we have to make it up you know somehow
and those are the challenge some of the
challenges we face on this project you
need to Issaquah what we've heard so
thank you that's interesting for about
the soils so what we keep hearing is
that the market isn't right yet to
support that you know the kind of units
that were wanting with the housing and
so I don't know what that seems to be
the soils issue seems to be something
that I don't know what market is going
to I mean this is a I don't remember a
better market right so if we're not
going to get what we want now when will
we get it it sounds like that soils
issue isn't just on your site you're
saying it's in the valley but that
sounds like something that we haven't
actually addressed yet about how we're
going to actor that into how we get what
we want on the valley floor when we have
that unique circumstance right I mean
it's a it is a challenge everybody's
going to face how as they move forward
with their developments and they need
that's major that's brand new and that's
huge new information that we've never
heard not going to build on the valley
floor it's more expensive to build on
the bike and the retailers you require
we are fortunate that we were able to
attract two good quality tenants that
can take out most of the commercial
space and so if you have commercial
requirements this otherwise is isn't a
great retail location because you know
during the day there aren't a lot of
people buzzing around they're coming in
to buy things where people can pay rent
so as you require commercial on the
ground floor that you can't find the
economic anybody willing to pay it makes
it a challenge to develop so Atlas for
example doesn't have any retail so what
do you say it adds nine dollars what is
it two million dollars to your site to
our site what did you have like a square
foot yeah it's a 15 to 20 dollars per
square foot for the fund
it added premium for the foundation cost
the other factor you have to think about
is sometimes the land value itself can
be less right because of it right so
it's not like you're going to pay the
same amount here in Issaquah as you
might say somewhere else it has varying
soil rate so it's it's a kind of a more
complicated mix of economic factors but
I think the good news is or we have kind
of what's called a catalyst project I
mean it's why you have all of these
different incentives to get this started
and we hope that that will kind of start
to lead the way for the kind of
development that you want to see here
and as a qualm and you know and then the
land values at all kind intermix but I
think you just from what I've seen is
close got great opportunities for
residential development and for
affordable housing something you don't
see in too many other Eastside cities
frankly well I don't need to go down
that rabbit hole I just wanted to point
out that that was significant so I took
the floor from Paul because he had
questions consumer needs questions on
the n will you thank you and impact fees
and number five paragraph five it does
let the the IMC's at list cover school
traffic park and
fire you specifically call out traffic
so is the intent to waive all of those
school arc and fire as well as traffic
it's currently the IMC currently does
that yes they we specifically call out
the for affordable units so not the
market rate so we will still be getting
impact fees for the market rate units in
spectrums development but we called out
the traffic one because again it's in
this ti P so to kind of address that
because it's not so that so the traffic
impact fees for the market rate let's
say I'm just making up numbers and maybe
I shouldn't but if it's a million
dollars to build the road and they would
have to pay a million dollars into
traffic in fees that means they get a
credit and they don't to pay anything in
back seat if it's oxide to do their way
then they actually pay more you know pay
into the fund but less - the cost of
building the core Road so we just
pointed it out because that's again put
in our t IP currently okay again so so
fire schools and park you're
anticipating waving those as well those
are currently in the imce s for the
affordable units hold on huh yeah
so the IMC says at that 50 70 80 that's
what all of those all those references
to the IMC 3 69 71 72 and 73 so they are
are they affordable at 50 70 and 80% of
them right so our for the affordable
that in spectrum for instance is only if
we do the MFT is at 80 and the ones in
King County are lower lower 40 and 60 so
those do meet below those yeah okay so
maybe that's why I was not yeah get it
good answer yourself fall for that
all right thank you that was the extent
of my questions on the language thank
you this is definitely the type of
information and feedback we want to get
so that we are able to come back in
August with a more formal we're
anticipating we'd make red lines to this
document you got a draft of we have to
get sent we have not received
CenturyLink comments yet we have a Jen
and I have a call with them next week
and we hope to get their comments in
time also I mean we hat we need their
comments to this MOU before we come back
on the third because you go from there
to the seventh and we can't you know we
you can sign it we can sign it but if we
really get there find it we're not
getting very far so their questions oh
okay thank you I'm going to a call
thanks very much copper uh public
comment I think it has any comment this
is the time honey
so Connie Marsh and be way easier if you
had the public on board with this
because they knew it was happening but
the community outreach is active made
most of the decisions and typical for
the town but entirely inappropriate
because every time you all decide you
want to do something and then you
surprise the public with it then you
have to explain it all to them and they
get outraged that gee you guys decided
that you're going to use our money and
provide a tax break and we never heard
about it and now you're telling us in
retrospect that you already did it we
didn't know anything because you didn't
tell us so I think yet again you've got
it backwards
and it'll probably hit the fan again
which is too bad because this is one of
those things that would be nice to
happen we've just got to get out of the
habit of leaving the public behind when
we make these these deals I don't I
don't know how many times I have to say
that I don't know I'll leave the rest of
my comments to the later item thank you
next Steve
under pen steeper era 170 northeast
dogwood Street so a couple thoughts one
is I guess it's the proposed spot of
where the transfer development would
grow to and zoning of that which seems
to be at the base of sloped area has
some concern for me I'd very much like
the affordable housing some kind of way
those don't have a definitive answer yet
I think there's also an opportunity here
in when these things get presented
there's an educational opportunity for
anybody who reads the documentation to
talk about things like affordable
housing and 60 80 100 20 percent to
include that documentation and inclusion
so that folks don't get taken for
granted in can be informed of the
subject so I would like to see more of
that and documentation going forward
part of this I guess also and it's
looking ahead the structured parking
concern I would like to see structured
parking as part of this any time we will
lose trees or tree canopy that's kind of
what we're talking about is sprawl and I
would like to see that constrained
thanks thank you
anyone else in the public okay seeing
none we are supposed to be being action
on this I'm making a recommendation okay
yeah I'm waiting comments I mean I'm a
question question for you guys yeah I
have a question too okay
so we're going to be taking action so
now would be time for additional
questions and comments on the committee
okay let's start
start so Keith or Jen what is the plan
for community outreach and actually I'm
going to bring Hale back up as well and
we talked about this briefly but we are
planning to create a website that has
some basic information and it's helpful
to hear some of these questions so we
can address it we're getting actually
linked to show what is 60 and 80 percent
area median income is and then as far as
the design process I love how talk about
that and thinking the the timing of this
King County grant kind of interrupts how
we normally would have gone about doing
this and I respect what comment made and
not just about the economics of it but
just the physical attributes as well and
so we would normally ourselves host a
number of open houses to talk about what
the development is going to be and we
still intend on doing that we are still
at a conceptual design kind of a masking
density capacity kind of phase just to
make this application in we for our
submission for the to the city you know
we went kind of further with
embellishing what it might look like but
we really like to get input from the
community about what are the amenities
what how does it work how does it fit
into the community you know what does it
look like
and we're responsive to that so we would
we would given where we are in the
summer and when this application goes in
for King County we would probably start
that right after that goes in on the
13th of September and then we would hold
a number of open houses from without
knowing how much money we're getting yet
but just so that we have that input from
them because we would like to go if we
find we get the funding as we would hope
for in December you know we're going to
want to go certainly with the design of
the new replacement facility and so to
the extent we can get public input prior
to that then we can coorporate their
comments into what we're doing as we
move forward so I would say this fall we
would take that up between the 13th of
September and the middle of December
when we get the you know the reward or
the award identification from them
great thank you their comments or
questions so the so the action is is
just approving going forward with the mo
use break finding mo use I'm sorry said
a last part the act the question for us
the legislative question is approval to
go forward with the mo use yes to
recommend to the full council for
approval yes true yes and so we do have
the opportunity to come back and on an
August 3rd but if you feel comfortable
enough we'll make the adjustments you
mentioned that could move forward oh
yeah yeah feel very very comfortable
with everything that you presented and
House answer to when the public
engagement might start my what it might
look like would be good still think we
need to have some sort of primer for the
four council members are not here I'm
not sure that just reaching out and
asking them as how questions is good
enough they actually think there has to
be more material in the package and also
the question about how is this different
than other projects we have improved is
very important I think for the council
to understand even though all we're
talking about is the MOU I think it's
important that they get that information
now the presentation tonight was great
you're really very very clear and
concise and I love the answer on the
public outrage in yoga what's one
huh yeah I'm comfortable with moving
boys yeah okay you know regular agenda
mm-hmm oh yeah where it says August 7th
but I mean are you regular or nothing
it's a regular yeah keep question that
I'm like check my understand now I think
they were looking at each other because
they're not sure okay
today again alright on vacation huh
it'll be me and a wig in hell all right
so whoever's their regular agenda thank
you very much thanks to Helen diem for
coming okay next item on the agenda
agenda bill 73 45 amending parking
requirements in the central list clause
development and design standards this is
also to be acted on tonight Lucy Foreman
hey where did you oh I know what
happened I'm going to start over
[Music]
okay good evening Lucy Sloman land
development manager so just to give you
a little bit of a summary I realized as
I was sitting here tonight that a year
ago we were doing the centralist claw
evaluation which led to all of this so
at that time we you know we evaluated a
selection of projects and seven
residential projects had structured
parking and all but one of the
commercial projects didn't have
structured parking the moratorium was
approved on September 6th and parking
was one of six items and that resulted
on the RFQ had two questions as his club
parked right or not and should
structured parking be required in March
we hired a consultant team Farren peers
and with a sub consultant of eco
Northwest on June 7th we were before you
and you present after our presentation
and based on the consultant work you
recommended leaving the parking
standards unchanged in implementing
structured parking requirement asked us
some questions we went off and wrote
code and presented that to PPC Planning
Policy Commission on June 22nd and they
recommended approval with some
adjustments to those requirements so
that's the big overview so just to take
a step back to what happened on June 7th
we had presentations by our two teams
Farren peers saved a lot just in case
faces triggered memories for you like me
so Farren peers said that the based on
their evaluation parking minimums were
set appropriately developers were
building Ward
and the minimum they thought there was a
low risk of parking spillover and that
we were going to see um on-street
parking utilization grow partly but
mostly because of convenience
Eco Northwest found that structured
parking greater than fifty percent will
be a challenge structured parking is
impacted by the type of construction and
development and that unique site
character is a characteristics sorry I
can't even read can it more easily
accommodate structured parking so
different kinds of sites can handle
structured parking more easily so we
brought you a very broad brush
recommendation last time which was for
office 33% structured parking over 5,000
square feet for residential 33%
structured parking and retail no
requirement it would remain encouraged
and the Planning Policy Commission so
the orange highlights where things
changed after their discussion they
recommended 50% for office same sized
buildings 50% residential they did not
have a requirement on retail that was a
big big discussion and they would like
the staff to return in a year to have
further discussion and we were
recommending with PPC and EB C to have a
more complete conversation so that's the
and the administration supported that
recommendation yes so this is the slide
we spent a lot of time on last time and
will likely tonight as well I've added
some things to it so we're done
never mind Oh so staff so the basis of
this
staff did an analysis of many structured
parking projects or many parking many
projects to see what kind of amounts of
structured parking there were looking at
office residential and retail the
percentages I think just to focus on
there's a high and a low which is I
think what we brought to you before
averages were 43% for office median of
31 residential average 45 median 31
retail average 21 percent median 12
percent so at the same time eco
Northwest did their analysis looking at
our market and they were in general
seeing that somewhere between 25% and
50% whereas where projects 25 percent to
50 percent structured parking in that
range was where projects became
infeasible a lot of what we're you're
discussing is how to achieve the
Issaquah central squad vision and
avoiding unintended consequences I think
a big piece the policy decisions are a
big piece of what was kind of underlying
the conversation at PPC the
administration's recommendation of 33%
you can see that is closely aligned with
the median that we were seeing in
projects it falls between the range in
the range that eco Northwest had
identified and so it was a somewhat
conservative recommendation PPC was
interested in a more aspirational number
and so instead of being closer to the
median they're more at the average on
the public who spoke and the
commissioners felt that we should be
taking a bigger step
I think the administration and staff
felt that 33% was a more incremental
step that could be revisited you know in
the same way that we're visiting central
is claw out every three years with a
report that that would be an opportunity
to revisit that and see if we needed to
take another step
PPC as part of that aspirational
approach was recommending a bigger
initial step oh I have a question well
there's the recommendation is no change
in that sorry no change in the retail
now so no change in the retail I think
that there was um so from the
administration's perspective that there
was so if you looked at eco North's West
range was 20 somewhere between 25 and 50
percent which was like the other uses
but when you look at the projects that
have been built there's a much lower
average and a much lower median there
was uncertainty about how to not impact
local small businesses and how to not
favor say national chains over local
businesses so with that uncertainty at
this point there was an unwillingness on
the administration's part to put a
recommendation forward and I think
because of the information we had PPC
although they really wanted to establish
a percentage understood the uncertainty
associated with doing that and that's
why they asked us to return for a
conversation next year what does that
mean that I like a redevelopment with
retail then we just are going to
continue to get strip mall small retail
no I think that there well I think first
of all we are I think the central is
cause standards even before we put this
in place we're seeing
more structured parking we haven't seen
it with retail those have all been
pretty small projects in some of our
discussions with potential builders we
are seeing structured parking associated
with retail so I think as our land
values go up and to make moderate to
larger size projects make sense where
you're getting enough value for the land
to go through the cost and effort of
redeveloping structured parking is
likely but that is that is still we're
recommending encouraged which you're
right there is a risk there so could it
not be something like the recommendation
for office so for retail if it's over a
certain amount it's a certain size then
struck some sort of structured parking
some percentage would be required yes I
don't think we felt like we had enough
numbers to give us the same level of
confidence in establishing that what
would it take to get those numbers so
that so that so retail is a much harder
thing you know the as Lucy mentioned you
know even the tolerances on office how
many office projects we had to pick from
to look for what is the tolerance level
for structured parking retails it's way
different and so I know the concern that
you're expressing and that is and it's
the one off you know when we're talking
about bigger projects like the Commons
redeveloping or with a vertical
mixed-use project coming that will come
with structured parking it's the what
about the small remnant parcels that are
maybe on East Lake Sammamish or you know
what that's going to come with
structured parking they don't require it
because the only way that you can fit
additional development say on a fully
developed parcel like the Commons would
be to add structured parking because
you're taking surface parking lots to
build buildings with a verdict any
standalone vertical mixed-use project
you know you will to accommodate the
wired parking for all that density it
needs to be in a structure you just
nobody would build a big surface parking
lot with a five over one or five over
two so it's it's the small stuff it's
the could we get a another car dealer a
car part store or a you know fast-food
restaurant yes we could and I think if
we were going to go down that path of
saying how would we address retail and
those stand-alones I think you know we
would want to bring in probably a retail
consultant to help us understand that so
in in your package eco Northwest and I
can reference the page if you're
interested but they they they had a kind
of interesting discussion about so
they're you know they're they talk about
between twenty-five and fifty percent is
where the infeasibility happens but the
model that they were using was based on
twenty five thousand square feet of
retail and you know we're seeing
projects like you know the Taco Time
project or the corner bakery those are
significantly smaller than that and so
to get to the economy of scale where you
can build it is larger than most of the
projects that we've had and then to
factor in the kinds of the differences
in the market between the number of
projects that we have to look at for
office versus the retail which are all
these small ones that aren't doing it is
where we're really hesitant because
retail is such an important part of our
community and our character we know it's
a high priority but I think we're just
to avoid the unintended consequences we
just feel we aren't quite there to make
that recommendation yet
thank you for having this slide up I'm
going to ask something about office so
though it says between 25% and 50%
structure parking and office projects
becomes infeasible that tells me that's
a pretty wide range by the way right
that would tell me that some pro forma
stay at 26% it doesn't work and so to go
all the way to 50% with a recommendation
seems like we're pushing up against most
projects not being feasible if I
interpret the word that's on there so
one of the things that eco Northwest
pointed out is they are of course basing
it on all the information that they've
collected locally and there are a number
of variables construction type you know
the size of the site the type of the
soils you know all those many factors
that we see and I think that so part of
what they pointed out was that there was
a validity and then also looking at the
projects that we're seeing on the ground
as a way of sort of balancing their
their model against the realities of
Issaquah I mean that's one of the
challenges with looking at other
jurisdictions and other projects in
attempting to you know pick up code or
judge from that there are so many
variables and so what there's
essentially I think saying is there's
this wide range and when we look at
projects in Issaquah what we're seeing
is you know based on historical
information of the projects that have
built is that that the that they're
coming out at an average of 45 percent
and so while I understand your concern
and that's why we started at a 33%
conservative position the the Commission
was hoping for a more aspirational
number which is not unlike some of the
or many of the projects that we saw
to make sure I understand when we're
saying 25% or whatever these percentages
we're saying that the parking
requirement or the the total number of
stalls that a project is going to
require they require one hundred fifty
fifty percent are going to have
minimally have to be in structured we
actually would think that someone would
do a mix so typically there is a mix at
least some because you know you have
your you have your convenience drop-offs
you have like places where people want
to pull right up to the front go in and
do something really fast and come out
where as employees they can tuck into a
garage you know when you look at the
office that that's happened recently so
we have an application and now for
Costco it's going to be a hundred
percent in garage the office building
that was built on fort which is a
medical office building it's got its all
in grow well it's got a little bit out
on the surface but most of its in garage
the Gilman lofts project that you guys
just approved through a development
agreement it's all tuck under so it's
considered structured so so when you
look at and there's also a component
with office that you know if you're
trying to really if you say well you
know we don't have that much office
getting built in Issaquah period and
that that is getting built you know if
you want it to be you know Class A
office it's going to be structured
parked that's just part of the
requirement from Velma
it's part of the definition of class a
is it has structured parking so so I'm
not you know again I think whether you
have 30 or 50 I think either way is a
clause going beyond our pure
jurisdictions in terms of what we're
asking developers to do which is great
whether you want to take a more
conservative approach or a more
aspirational approach or something
in-between I think there's not a right
answer here I don't think that if
there's not a right answer I don't think
there's I don't think there's an answer
at least within the range that you guys
are talking about that would cause
developers to stop
if you go beyond 50 I think that that
that could be the case people would
choose to build either outside central
as a co-op or build other land uses that
aren't falling into this requirement
okay that's an interesting analysis it
does make me question the value of e
cone or sweats analysis if they're
saying between 25 and 50 it becomes
unfeasible and we're not seeing any of
that it does make me question that
entire analysis my other point would be
retail Lucy I think you characterized
the administration's initial proposals
at 33 percent as like incremental or
forget how you characterize that well I
said it was conservative and that we
could treat it incrementally where for
instance every three years as we do our
monitoring so why not do that with
retail because we're less confident of
that number I know you're not as
competent I mean you've just
communicated your concerns about office
but I think we felt that there was there
was less on-the-ground information to
back up the range that they were showing
between 25 and 50 percent okay thank you
and to be perfectly clear my uncertainty
has to do we have an analysis that says
one thing we have data from the field
that says another and we're leaning
toward the data on the field that's what
I'm questioning the value of the
analysis we have I I think eco Northwest
is a respected company and we're not I
think that I think one of the things
that we said to PPC and I think it is
one of the challenges they are a rather
data-driven body and would have liked to
have a very specific number and I think
what we're trying to get a sense of is
the ball
mark this is a something of an art and
not a science and so I'm not sure that
even if we had had a significantly
larger contract with eco Northwest that
they would have been able to say 33% is
perfect
35% is not perfect so I think that we're
using a number of factors to try and get
us in that ballpark but because we are a
leader on in the in the region on this I
think that we are having to sorry we're
trying to make an educated guess okay
I'll just summarize it does feel like
guesswork and I don't know that we can
do any better than that right now
questions
ready for public comment the comments
time you have to you have to sing it
like that too if you're going to talk
about okay
ice-t Pereira so I guess this
conservative versus versus aspirational
concept is really kind of at the core
and these two things really banging
heads here it seems it's easier to
decide upfront what we want to be and
grow as a city versus later criteria
development to draw down what the city
that we want to become so I guess I lean
towards two things one is in studies
I've seen we're not going to be we're a
couple years out from you at the price
value where we get structured parking
and the fact that I heard today was that
and the soil type being different in
Issaquah Valley is different than other
places it seems easier to say wait and
put an aspirational goal on development
and so why not go towards the hundred
percent now before we build out and have
strips of parking strip structures it's
easier to say that now and put that
aspirational goal and build towards that
aspirational goal with policy it allows
us to have it if we don't get it in this
construction cycle 11 miles from sale
we're going to get that why are we
rushing it to make that wait the other
thing another thing anyway this seems
relevant is when we're looking at the
moratorium one of the things we saw that
caused us to put in place was not having
I guess we try to get development and it
was happening outside of the CIP and
another things happened to be happen
here that maybe we could put zoning
heightened restrictions aren't part of
the moratorium and I think zoning height
needs to be pardon moratorium
conversation and maybe downs on other
places so we restrict the sprawl needs
to be part of that conversation as well
and I also think that there does need to
be some retail structured parking
considered as part of this if that means
we need more fine-tuned numbers then we
need to have part of that otherwise
we're not going to get it where we need
it and we're going to have people
parking in residential zones or other
places if it doesn't come as part of
this if the structure is too small maybe
they pay some additional funds into a
into a kitty that gets used to build
structured parking not just having
sprawl of existing smaller construction
sites thanks honey
so I interrupted Lucy - sorry Lucy
because I actually wanted to see the
exact language of what these people were
asked to do and they were asked to tell
you about the feasibility of structured
parking right now and our CIP is a long
document and the whole reason at the
moratorium was because you didn't like
what was happening right now and so if
you if they are saying these are the
these are the percentages that would
allow people to do basically the same
thing that they're doing right now well
we don't like what's happening right now
and so what we want to do is get what we
envisioned which means that you would
raise those percentages even if it takes
a few years because we want a different
is equal we don't want a strip mall is
equal and so when people say
aspirational you know I want to just
spit because what does that really even
mean and it's such a good word to spit
on but if you look at our goals for the
central Issaquah plan it is clear that
we are envisioning something different
so I think you must go with a higher
percentage even at the cost of saying no
because we are terrible at saying no to
things even if we don't like them we
just say yes now Steve has a course if
we say no in the central is quad area
and we say yes everywhere else then we
are still not getting what we want and
that conversation has still not happened
within Council
so with this moratorium you do have a
magic moment with council to start
saying how are we going to deal with
strategically creating the central is a
quiet area that we want without just
having a doughnut hole and the rest of
town growth and that is a conspicuous
absence in your policy planning and so
yes I realize that is outside of poor
Lucy's presentation
I think the core of what Paul was saying
is no we don't want what you can do now
we want better than that and the
community expects you to go for better
and put the rules in place to make it so
thank you any other comments okay seeing
none any members a little bit question
sure so some of these comments provoked
a a question for maybe you see you said
it was a year ago that we gave the
report card that started all of this how
many office projects if there were six
that we could look at for the basis of
this analysis and residential there were
14 in retail there were four today what
was it a year ago what what what what
has changed what would those numbers
have looked like a year ago we know and
maybe not just the count of the projects
but what type of what person we probably
weren't calculating I don't know if you
have your we selves across all types
this is this is in the city these are
not limited to central is Squa so for
instance residential projects are
probably evenly split or close to evenly
split between urban village and or is
kua highlands and central is quad there
I think there was one project that was
outside of either of those areas retail
was I have a retail had one project that
was before central is claw 2 projects
from central is Quan one from the urban
villages office
one of the projects is so one of the
office projects was under central
Issaquah some of the other ones are two
of them are in the urban villages and
several of them one was old town and the
other ones were prior to Central's cost
so we were looking over a range of years
and a range of areas to try and look at
what was happening in Issaquah not just
in centralist car so I you know if we go
back and look there were seven
non-residential projects that would have
been a combination of office and retail
and only one of those which was the
storage building had any structured
parking and of the residential projects
which of course we're all under central
is cloth all of them had some portion
and actually I think if I look at them
they ranged from about 30% with Gateway
senior that was the lowest one Gateway
was the second at about 35 and then they
ranged all the way up to 100% in
central's cloth
so um office yes of the six projects
looked at average in structured parking
43% of the parking was in structured
parking right so dozens of the six
projects three of them did not have any
structured parking one of those is a
fairly large building the other two
would have fallen outside below this
5000 square foot threshold so I don't I
didn't do that cocky I did a calculation
for how much the percentage of
structured parking for the projects that
were structured but not for the projects
that would have been about 5,000 that
would have made sense but I didn't think
of that recommendation would be to up at
57% basically from the median be percent
17% well from 4300 oh I see important
what did I say you use that you said the
right thing I was going from 33 to 50
instead of 43 at 50 um I'm uncomfortable
I guess I'm with a retail and that just
seems to not get us where we're trying
to go don't know what the answer is
because told we don't have the data
information we need so I don't know what
that means unless we grab some number
but
so if you think it's a retail just spend
a few minutes and see if you guys get
comfortable or you can handle the other
two and then end in retail I mean so
think about retail and how you shop and
right now you know where where do you
have retail experiences with structured
parking so grand rich Plaza so fairly
big l-square any of the other malls you
know they're structured parking but most
of the retail experiences we all have we
go to Target we go to you know Trader
Joe's we do these things their surface
parked right now and so what we don't
have a comfort level with is by
mandating um structured parking with
retail what does that do to our retail
market and our retail market is
obviously important to the economic
vitality of our community and so that
one is seems perilous without having
more information to make a good decision
I think the likelihood that we could
have an unintended consequence with
retail is a lot bigger than the other
two land uses or you put a number on it
you put a requirement on it now that's
no somewhere between 25 and 50 percent
and it has the effect of slowing while
you study that further oh I mean we have
to waste it on yeah but so I don't know
that it needs to be zero between zero
and 100 and I don't know if it's a no I
think cool what we heard in what Steve
said you know why do I rush to get what
we don't want I mean that's for my heart
furnace
so and of course I found it the first
time you know I think that the that what
eco Northwest was saying was that it's
on page 98 in your packets was that what
they were evaluating for the 25 to 50
percent that where that came from was a
twenty five thousand square foot retail
space and then the projects that were
looking at you know only two of them
fell above that one was grand Ridge
Plaza which had about 25 percent
structured parking and then over lake
had about 12 percent structured parking
so I think there are things with that I
think there are things that we can
probably do to know maybe its retail
over certain size but again this is one
of those things where this is not my
does not my wheelhouse this is not my
profession and so I'm uncomfortable just
you know creating language that sounds
reasonable to me when I don't have that
information that I need to make that
decision sure what's wrong with going
back to eco Northwest and saying council
wants to know what could go wrong if
they picked a 50% requirement for retail
over 25,000 eco Northwest is not a
retail expert and so I wouldn't use them
yeah you know there are companies like
real retail that would be a better
measure for that you know I guess I
would say that this was debated for a
long time at PPC and I think at the end
of the day they felt uncomfortable and
your staff is uncomfortable putting a
number on
because I think that it will have some
unintended consequences and you know
obviously the council can do what they
want to do but the recommendation coming
both from PPP and the administration is
zero for retail are there other places
in that Fugit sound reason other
jurisdictions that require structured
parking to some degree on detail of
certain size perhaps or so not in that
way so right now so there is a
structured parking requirement I believe
of some sort coming out of spring
district but right now Federal Way has
had proposed legislation that is still
pending and doesn't seem to be moving
and that's just that's only for
multifamily Federal Way it's supposed to
be our big competition who was bring
down Drake and Dahlia maybe we need to
find out what one just a question - so
you've had some small retail projects
redevelop and I have to say I actually
think the work that you did with Corner
Bakery and Donald - coorporate and Taco
Time anyone to incorporate some of those
elements of site design and I think
they're good I think it worked I guess
I'm kind of stuck in this place is that
we're not going to from what Steve said
we're not going to go from where we are
to you know something really quickly
that is that looks exactly like the
stuff that's that's the end of the
central plan so I'm I'm sort of stuck in
the places we can put something in it
still allows the smaller retails to go
ahead and get their permits and do their
upgrades great I'm kind of still
shell-shocked by what's happened over
the first three years and and I'm I'm
not convinced that being aspirational is
a bad thing we could just be
aspirational for a year you can ask for
more money to go out and do a resale
study like I'm not I'm not sure when I
look at what what I think we've lost in
terms of our opportunity in centralist
across I'm not sure I convinced I want
to lead something that limsa game
because I think we've not done or not
allowed it to develop in a way that the
community path is going to develop
I'm kind of leaning on the sides
something in there based on larger
stores and they have to provide that
much structured parking and we'll look
at it me or if you need money fine-tune
that number then aspirin and a budget
cycle pretty gun-shy right now so I'm
kind of even though staff and PPC is
saying they don't have enough
information
I'm just looking down the road and
saying we're going to somebody's retail
it's going to redo itself a couple of
times at least once maybe before we get
maybe to look we're looking forward so
I'm just I don't know I'm not feeling
zero I'm going there what number what
number where would you go
let me have us I think if based on the
kind of stock that has been coming in
the projects that you're looking at
they're coming in if they're not hanging
the 25,000 mark and you're not thinking
that we have we're going to get out it's
more time and people are going to go
look what they just did
then then let's start with the larger
store let's start with the 25,000 it
just I just I don't want anymore
antennae want anymore you know as I
guess where I'm going with it so I just
don't feel like leaving English goal is
an avoidant ending consequences and
we've had a lot of them so I'm not super
concerned about an intended consequence
of someone developing elsewhere right
now because we asked for we require what
we want that's where we are we on the
other office and residential leave did I
like fifty fifty fifty so we either you
have questions about that no I like to
see an action just like mixed comment
that it sounds being sounds like it was
long at PPC and involved I probably
won't get a chance to watch it it sounds
impressive sounds like they really dig
down and they really were trying to
listen to it the community it said about
the moratorium and what we built that's
awesome that is really good
well and it's the kind of conversation
that when you are trying to lead
something that you're talking about how
to use
what are the criteria you using to make
a community decision and that's that you
know conservative versus aspirational
incremental versus big steps I mean
that's the kind of conversation that
needed to happen I would propose that we
have to picture I'm sorry
I wouldn't propose that we have to put
in some sort of percentage for retail
and that it should be related to the
square footage before the so then the
question is do we come up with that now
or do we ask us to come back this time
back to them I guess the first have to
come back with it you've already kind of
got a recommendation and without any
more data or any more dollars to ask
questions of the members
what would you come back with it's
different than what you have nothing so
I mean you know so there's there's two
variables that you guys are debating on
retail how big is the building that
would be exempt and then with the
percentage of required structured
parking so you know I think that that's
a whole kind of spin off work project in
and of itself that we would ask you guys
for a budget appropriation for 2018 if
that's what you want to do so you
wouldn't come back with a different
number but council putting in that
recommendation would generate a project
with some touch it up okay fair enough
so just to get it started 25,000 square
feet 50%
that stab in the dark I haven't heard
staff say you know there you want to
kill retail do this and and and that's
probably the wrong way to phrase it but
to that and because it assumes that you
just you know that you know now is the
time
I haven't yet you haven't said anything
that you said will absolutely you know
create economic you know education
stagnation or dead zones it's okay you
just need work we'll do it so what'll
happen we can always remember what we've
had a central Issaquah plan it was oh
but we can Kearney can work on it we can
change the code and so we could do the
same thing so put something in here and
then we come and then we study it and in
a year if you want to change it yeah so
what would happen is most and I'm just I
don't have a crystal ball right so what
would happen is whatever you set that
number at twenty-five thousand square
feet and thousand square feet somebody
wanting to build something will pick a
thousand square feet less than that not
do the structured parking that's that's
what will happen the market will drive
that decision well you could say that
about any clinician we pick and so
that's exactly what happened what's
going on in the office one two and we're
going to pick five thousand square feet
inside had five thousand one right so I
don't understand why I don't understand
why it's such a rate of Horrible's with
the retail well because I think with
office we are we've seen projects that
when it was voluntary we're doing this
and so we that not every project it so
there are small projects that are not
doing it there are you know last century
projects that are not doing it you know
probably Pro Alliance up it we didn't
evaluate Swedish that's too complicated
because it's mo B and hospital and so
there are certain uses we aren't
involved with in this but ProLiant is
probably the biggest building that
didn't provide any structured parking
and
I think we all think that would probably
have been better if it you know did have
that and it's a fifty thousand square
foot building
so I think that what we what we're
seeing is that we have some we have both
eco Northwest data and on boots on the
ground and it's a quad data that make us
feel more comfortable making that
recommendation than we would with retail
and I understand your concern and but
that's just why we have less certainty
about that
what's the cycle the twenty five so give
me an example of a twenty five thousand
square foot retail so here's here's a
great example right so this is why this
is this is the unintended consequences
so Front Street Market is empty it's
about and it's probably about hey Jen
how many square feets Front Street
fourteen so let's just so let's assume
that somebody wants to come in and take
over Front Street Market a new grocery
store and for them because there are new
grocery store they want to do in
addition on the front and it takes it to
twenty thousand so now they have to do
50% structured parking they would not
fit a wide parking well good point so
but if it was in central Issaquah so so
take sports authority yes okay so it's
sports - how many square feet were
already down so that's 40 okay
so if if somebody came in and wanted to
do some revisions on Sports Authority
that would add some square footage now
they have to do half of their parking as
structured and that is parking for
retail is four thousand I think then is
the maximum and so required parking the
minimum required is two per thousand
so one per thousand would have to be
structured to have a forty stall parking
garage okay
I'll not sign the damn oh yeah not
seeing it yeah on it okay
I think perhaps there's a there's a dual
hat thing here DSD and Edie and we're
coming at it I'm only wearing one okay
so yeah so I I would
I'm definitely talking with my DD head
on in case you guys are kidding yeah I
would prefer go easy on you yet so the
only way I would be for comfortable
moving forward is to add some sort of a
percentage and minimum square footage on
the retail and then with the caveat that
we look at it in the next year and see
if we hit the sweet spot that well that
you know that's a budget question right
but also he doesn't have to have the
Council's approval the mayor has
authority to execute contracts are up to
fifty thousand dollar study this kind of
work so it doesn't actually you know
have to come through budget but I I just
drove all we played the game now for
four years and no no don't want to play
that game anymore so what's going to
make you comfortable
what do you need to say well the only
one that sticks up sticks in my mind is
the twenty five thousand four feet and
fifty percent and because I don't know
any different that's the number that
equal Northwest looked at your keep
tossing about 50 percent or somebody is
and so that's the recommendation and so
I don't know any different so if we're
going to use those numbers just just for
discussion purposes and I and I know
you're thinking aspirational and that
would be 50 percent the somewhat more
conservative would be to stick with the
25 percent and 25 thousand because at
that that was they were showing that
it's between 25 and 50 so 25 percent I
bet that make sense
oh right
I feel like I'm we're just operating
with a lot of big gaps of information
yeah retail you someone has to put in
structure and their customers we talked
about housing and whether or not the
housing units have to subsidize if as
long as we don't parking is free the
housing units have to subsidize the
parking what subsidizes the structured
parking for retail others even it's
probably even easier for customers to
parks elsewhere
especially in central area because
there's so much parking right now so
that that would that's a concern of mine
that it's it's like we're really
focusing on one small thing but I think
there's a larger context that we don't
we still understand the forces at play
and I gotta say as well to this whole
parking thing for the moratorium it
looks like it's coming down to going
from voluntary to fifty percent for
office fifty percent for residential on
shore about retail so that's the entire
parking element of the moratorium but no
change in the standards in terms of how
much parking whether it's instruction
right right this is just about
structured okay so and so this is this
is it feels like a bit of guesswork it's
bent and I can accept the
recommendations where they are for
office and residential we also consider
punted back what was it closer to
Anderson so I I would be comfortable
adding twenty five thousand square feet
and fifty percent and recommending that
to the full council and then there made
the administration made up comments
between now and full council I'm
planning on reading all the information
again to see if I can glean anything
else that might help me I'm also going
to look at some other jurisdictions I
guess I have to go do my own homework
and find out if what I can about the
spring district and see if there's
something else that feels more
comfortable to me I you know I made a
commitment a year ago to works come as
we needed to work to get the Merlion
lifted so I'm willing to put more work
into it without just punching it back
because I know the information that I
want to try to get but I'm not
comfortable with recommendation come see
but my feeling about what the retail
could be or should be might change this
is just sort of a 5050 few percent I
could support you on that
all right so let's run it up the
flagpole one more comment I related to
them and I would have would think that
maybe hoping that staff help with that
more information gathering really in
turn is a code to use maybe that
districts yeah yeah see if twenty five
and fifty is you know those need to be
changed for good reasons the last
comment has to do is something that
Connie had mentioned and that is that I
believe this is our opportunity move the
different direction with a central
square plan and it's code and make sure
that we actually get the product that we
expect to get the second piece of this
was back to a landing short question
from last year and that is that we know
that in terms of growth of residential
units that we are seeing as much growth
outside of Central Africa as we are in
Saito Central's class some of the things
that we're going to propose in these
work items they have the unintended
consequence a game of making land
outside of Santos club more desirable
that goes completely against our comp
plan vision of focus and growth hair
completely dismissed so the piece of
information that I asked for last year
that I don't think we've seen is did
come up with a figure that has said even
though we meet our growth management
target in 2018 approximately for
residential we saw the capacity to build
11th or 11,000 more housing units I've
never talked about where those are and
for me for each of these moratorium
items if what we're doing is tightening
up this code and in the end we end up
building the doughnut I don't know if
Connie or Steve or somebody talked about
we've made a mistake again
so in order for me to get through this I
have to know where that capacity is and
that when we get out of this moratorium
we act on whatever other land issues we
have to so that we don't push the growth
up to the
again talking about things like requests
up in the highlands or up zoning
requests down a state route 904 changing
land-use that's happening anyway before
we do this and this could just make it
worse and so well I think this might get
at the product 50 years that we want in
central its class we may see the donut
grow up first
and that would be travesty I need that
piece in order to actually vote on stuff
like that it's as more time thank you
when I add a couple comments and I
misspoke earlier as far as it changes
that we it's not just adding these
percentage minimum requirements for
there are actual amendment and it's in
the packet as well so including so
there's language there's proposed
amendments rational recommendation that
came from PPC that had to do for example
with the and no administrative
adjustment may be made to reduce the
required provision for structured
parking like adding that example there's
a couple language changes like that
there on page 57 of the packet there's
another one amend the definition of
parking structure to clarify the carport
is not considered structure parking and
add a new definition of carport so these
are part of these are part of it as well
and then there's a third one which is is
just the all residential uses and office
uses over 5,000 gross feet square feet
to use structured parking to meet a
portion of the minimum parking
requirement and to establish okay that's
the one that actually adjusts it says
that mean this is the language we've
been talking about
it's the third amendment that actually
addresses what we've been discussing
there are these other changes right and
and we didn't focus on that I mean it is
part of our recommendations page that
there were no exemptions in terms of
certain uses that were excluded that was
in our memo also that for instance
affordable housing isn't excluded
from that and in terms of adjustments I
think the message that we have gotten
from counsel is if this is our
expectation this is our expectation and
so it was added to the list where it is
not available for adjustment now that is
contrary to what eco Northwest
recommended they recommended a variance
process which would you know adjustment
is if you have a better way to get their
variances hardship and we discussed that
and felt that that was not really what
we were hearing from counsel and PPC in
the community and so we did not
establish that or propose that so are we
all in agreement to move to the board
with the recommendation is what we
discussed okay okay
ha ha ha ha but it's not that you want
separate essential changes that I think
there may be something later on the
agenda we can do eventually which time
we can keep swinging all right thank you
an item on the agenda agenda bell 74 33
annexation of King County Island and
establishment of pre-annexation zoning
fish Hyneman yes
any policy manager okay we have two
annexations before you tonight the first
one is the King County Island potential
annexation area and tonight we want to
go over the schedule review some of the
specifics on this parcel I'm talk about
the proposed pre-annexation zoning I
have a committee discussion I think
they'll probably some audience comments
tonight related to this issue and then
we'll talk about the next steps the
process timeline for both annexations
you met on june 5th on this agenda bill
you passed a resolution
of intent to annex we set to public
hearing dates for the pre-annexation
zoning 230 days apart and you all asked
for additional information to be
presented in the packet for tonight and
that's in your packet and that was
existing zoning proposed owning what
community facilities zones included some
different topo maps so those are all in
your packet tonight on June 6th the day
after you did their resolution to move
forward we finalized they're submitted
to the state boundary Review Board they
should be done with their review July
14th which is the 45-day timeline that
they have tonight July 6 is you're
reviewing this before it goes
July 17th to the first of the two public
hearings on that proposed pre-annexation
zoning the next one then it's September
5th which if you're comfortable with
everything then you can not only make
your decision on the pre-annexation
zoning but you can also make your
decision on whether to annex the parcel
or not are there questions on the
schedule and as you heard from Jen
previously the September 5th timeline
fits really well with the Tod timeline
for their grant application this is the
parcel it's over by our King count our
shop site is it busy it you just said
parcel yeah good only something clear it
there are multiple parcels yeah it's
just all in unincorporated King County
right now right right it's better called
an island because it's three three
parcels and a part of a parcel that's
already in the city so even though even
though there's way more than three
listed in this table is in our packet as
well right there one two three four four
parcels right of way that's not
considered a parcel and part of a parcel
that's already in the city okay thank
you so it's a plethora of pieces in the
parcel the cons land
they the big piece that we find out we
just closed man is zoned mineral that
wash that parcels are different sorts of
residential which I thought was very
interesting and the little teeny piece
of the Burgess property is is considered
intensive commercial other questions on
the existing zoning and the whole we
don't zone right-of-way so the part to
the west of the yellow even though
that's in this island it doesn't get
zoning because it's right-of-way and
those are stormwater ponds questions on
an existing zoning proposed zoning and
we're not completely sure with how it
all is where the dashed lines go on the
parcel that we just purchased the bottom
part would be intensive commercial so
that we could move CenturyLink the
middle portion which is the slope would
be community facilities open space and
as you know we're still working with the
school district to try and figure out
the smallest possible parcel to which
they could put the urban elementary
school so that that boundary line is
fluid so far we still haven't quite
figured out what that line is but we're
working together to figure out what the
smallest site would be are there any
questions on oh and all that wash that
parcels would be community facilities
facilities we don't want them to be
residential already go back here you
again you just said we just purchased a
person the King County Road site so that
is of which one on this map is it it's
easier to show you on this it's the blue
one and it has at the bottom you can
sort of see the shadow where the shop
site is now it's a big loop-d-loop and
the big shed with parking but they owned
they used to own all of the blue so
that's what we purchased and yet the
entire island
this is zoning for the entire island
even though we just own
parcel right right we would like to put
pre-annexation zoning on all of it even
the land that we do not own which is
customary when you do annexation like
with South Cove with Kalani that we
didn't get but we put pre-annexation
zoning on it so that when they came in
it would have the zoning that we wanted
instead of comparable zoning the flip to
your next map so what you are proposing
zoning you're actually splitting certain
parcels into multiple types tones again
it we're we're trying to stay on our
parcel it's just the way that the map is
drawn but we would process a short plat
along concurrently with the zoning and
the annexation so that it would actually
create three parcels potentially
assuming the council wants to zone that
upper parcel of our new property CFS
that's still a conversation point in the
process right so if not we could create
two so at the end of the day the ISEE
parcel to create an Icee parcel at the
bottom which can then be part of the
conversation about Tod and giving that
to spectrum to give to CenturyLink you
know so that needs to be its own parcel
and then we've talked about at least
having a forested hillsides that's part
of mounts to sound so that's the fos and
then if the council wants to keep the
top of the property forested you could
just do basically two parcels and make
the whole thing at the from the middle
to the top
the fos if on the other hand the council
wants to create the opportunity for a
school site up at the top then you would
want to create three parcels and that
top one would then be zoned CSS
hopefully that helped and I think what
Trish was saying is that that rectangle
right now that says CSS that likely does
not represent the dimensions of the
property if at the end of the day you
guys feel like that could be a school
site it would be
you wallow than that I believe all right
something we're working with ISD on
right now
he said the planning would be done
concurrently with what with the
annexation process right now so we own
the property so we can do basically
start working on the platting and then
once it's in our jurisdiction and the
short plat can actually occur without
having to go asking County to do this
permitting oh the annexation were
actually served first right just because
that yeah the body doesn't have anything
to do with the annexation process right
right officially it would have to happen
first but since we would own it no
annexation annexation first but behind
the scenes we would know what we would
hope for for the short plat um anymore
Oh keep going you go back one slide
please mm-hmm so um the wash dots that
are residential that you're proposing to
be cff yes not CFL because it's the
state and they are talking about maybe
there might be some facilities there
like either a stormwater or water
reservoir or something like that and
they weren't in favor of of it being
open space
by the other the first item we discussed
this this evening the I think we call it
the property no way what was it called
in your packet Tod replacement property
yes so go back to the picture Oh
it's harder to see shows that it show it
would be very helpful to see an overlay
and I realize so but thank you for the
numerous Maps that you put in we have a
couple I'm not sure what the red one is
the lidar I'm not sure what I learned
from that I certainly see the the
topographic map and you can see what
steep and what isn't it's also the
letter from the school district which
draws a seven-acre roughly a seven-acre
box as well and and this idea of zoning
we we an administration is laying out
potential uses different uses for this
parcel and it's I think we're very close
to being able to imagine what that would
look what the proposal would look at
like at potential build-out great to
have that kind of overlaid especially on
the so you could see you know you know
does it fit within the flatland that's
there right now as any of this have to
get into steep slope where there's
forest today and also the school part
potential school part on the top how
much of that and this might be premature
but I would try to understand is that if
that if if we zoned it see a CF F and
then did this short flat and then what
followed through with the school
district would like to know what what we
think the impact in terms of what would
be developed what what trees would have
to come down how much soil roughly are
we talking about nning needs to go out
we just had a big conversation about
that I'm bergamot how much how much
material I was going to leave the site
and that raised a lot of concerns
and and I know it's all very early right
now but I would like to have a better
idea of at from what all the uses that
you are putting on the table for us to
consider what would it look like on this
land that is ours today so I can I'll
address the relocation site for sentry
like at the bottom so it is not going to
go into the slope this keeps up we
remained within the area they are
currently using and so so where you see
kind of that roundabout road is
approximately and so it's about a three
acre site so we actually you know I had
a had the survey and that's that's the
work that our development partners are
working off of and that CenturyLink is
aware of and and sees you know again in
concept plan that can fit on that so
there's no going in and you know into
the steep slope at all for the
CenturyLink there's you know again well
we'll gather more information about the
upper you'll get more information about
the CS s site so I don't know that we
have all the details of how much dirt is
going to be moved and cetera so that but
I'm just saying for right now I know the
answer to that for the relocation of
century of the potential relocation of
Century Link so before we get to the
hearing the you know the map that you
asked for showing the three parcels as
proposed we could do that map right
before the seventeenth you talked a
little bit about the code proposal
that's going to come forward regarding
urban schools and that's going to public
hearing next week at PPC that would that
affect this site if it's approved okay
so
wouldn't that need to be proof is this
cart before the horse
no I because that's a citywide change
and there's a process associated with
evaluating that you know at the end of
the day you guys you guys can decide
either C F F or not C F F here even if
you decide CF f you could wait and
decide what happens with that code
amendment to influence whether or not
you decide to sell that property to the
school district because it C F F doesn't
mean you've automatically made that
decision to sell it to the school
district that's a whole other process
right and leaving it having it be yeah
I'm gonna be CFO you can change it to
see a house later
so um so so you could do that that's
obviously a choice and I think the
school district would have some want to
weigh in on that if that is ultimately
where the committee thinks they would
like to go I think if you think that
this is a valid school site I want to
say that seems disingenuous to go ahead
and down it OS now and then do it s
later it seems like if you today feel
like this could be a good spot for
school and let's get you the information
that you need to feel comfortable that
that's the right zone to put on this
piece of and so I guess we can do it
either way you know you guys can choose
to go down either path but if part of
your hesitation about apps is issues
about building heights
we've already flown a balloon from the
top of the property at 60 feet to see if
it was where it would be visible from so
we have some of that data that we can
give you help you either feel
comfortable or not paulus mentioned
trees I think we can talk about if that
code amendment goes through as proposed
you know what would that do to the trees
on that site and how much would be
retained as the property owner you also
have the ability to make some other
stipulation when you sell that property
so if there's certain pieces of the code
that you don't like potentially put
restrictions on that as part of the sale
of the property so there's I mean
there's ways to get at maybe the
concerns that you might be having about
that but you had the choice
later something else
I don't think our councils particularly
appoint in tonight in particular
familiar with how to cite schools or you
know this person might be available but
if you're looking at the city as a whole
is this the right location is this why I
know that people can touch it
but it feels like we're being asked
tonight to make a decision that could
come back in two years it says well you
already went down the path you know
council already decided it's CFS and so
that was the first step towards making a
school site I thought I have no idea and
I don't know tonight that I can get
enough information to say I didn't do
and I don't think you need to do that
tonight I think part of what the ask is
you know and Trish let me know if I'm
wrong so so things are happening is the
BRB right now in terms of the doughnut
hole multiple parcels and I think at
some point you guys are going to have to
make a decision about our property and
whether it's two parcels or three
parcels and how its zoned that doesn't
happen tonight that doesn't happen I
think even I mean until September 5th is
the second public hearing on the
pre-annexation zoning so you have until
then to gather information ask us for
information because the first hearing is
the 17th of July I believe in that and
the second of two is September 5th so
that's when you would have to if you
chose to set the pre-annexation zoning
for all the parcels and choose whether
or not to annex the whole property to
the city so there's still time tonight
it was just a work session to get you
more familiar with the parcels before
the first public hearing on the
pre-annexation zoning so actually
tonight was for action on whether we're
evac whether we are recommending whether
we want to recommend to the full council
that we that we what zoning we want
whistles that's what the it wasn't it's
not a work session to France well I mean
I'm using that term loosely because you
had asked us a lot of questions on June
5th that you wanted to work on
informally tonight before the actual
public hearing on the pre-annexation
pre-annexation zoning you wanted to know
the adjacent uses you wanted to know so
that's why we had this session before
the public hearing for you Bob I just a
quick question not and you are Bob
Harrison to the administrator thank you
the chair so from our standpoint I think
kind of what's driving this piece is the
commitment with the Century Link parcel
because we need that applicant needs to
really have a well-defined understanding
that this use can move there if the
other portion was undecided at this
point could we go to the boundary review
board can we do the property split first
go to the boundary review board with
those pieces that we know and if we got
it spend three months or four months
with the school district to finalize
what their site would kind of look like
and we'd be able to go back to the BRB
for that remaining portion or no you
don't like so we don't have to go to we
don't so BRB doesn't care on those
yes so we can put so as long as we have
doning and you know it can be OS if
that's a more comfortable decision you
know what what happened then is if that
zoning gets put in place as an annex
that way and then they're wanting to be
a conversation about rezoning it to cff
and that's fully executed within the
city right yes I get that so but the
other option is if you just leave a
portion in the county and do the
annexation later you could do that right
yeah we don't want to do that I know
what was the reason why we bought all
these County parcels was to get them out
but if I was it desire to have more
detail which I kinda heard that would be
another option it's not the greatest
option and it would be another option I
don't think the ARB would approve it if
we left part of it in there it's left it
in the county with understanding okay
right cuz then it's there and the
question yeah
provide services and I think King County
wouldn't want that either I think the
other piece too I just wanted to raise
was what we've talked about the upper
bench as being because we we definitely
the administration has a preference
that'd be school site but there is the
other zoning that you could put on the
site to alright put single family or you
could put other uses on the site so when
Council is looking at those options well
right I'm just saying that when we look
at reselling that up a bench though you
know zoning and all those things end up
rolling into the final price I suspect
in terms of what the appraisal might be
that was very helpful and I guess my
concern goes back to having a community
comment every nope my question would be
when did the community get to join the
conversation care so maybe we'll let
some comments some public happen and see
where they are and if it feels like to
me like we're walking down the path and
I haven't aware of what we're doing the
schools were also here they wanted to
present some information to that
committee tonight as well more questions
good does the committee mind if before
we go to public comment
I invite district representatives to
that what they would like to present we
have put some map back for Intendant
here and
aunty Lee and Steve Crawford welcome
thanks for coming thank you for having
us I couldn't think of a place I'd
rather be on a sunny july night my
favorite I can't think about in ten
other places that I would like to be in
say whether mr. Crawford does have a few
PowerPoint slides we'd like to walk you
through as we talk about the potential
use of this property at by Swedish
hospital let's see here this nice light
show Steve go one more day go from
beginning all the way left there you go
never felt so so I guess I would only
ask that because we're not deciding
about a school that we keep it on the
briefer side we can see the slides but
we're not just we're not going to be
deciding about a school yeah a little
kind of roll through and quickly thank
you you still hit the Return button
Steve oh there we go all right so why is
it a good site for an elementary school
Clark elementary is going to have a
projected enrollment in 2017 18 of 808
students it's our largest elementary
school we've added more classrooms there
than we have in any other school it's
still going to open with ten portable
classrooms Grand Ridge Elementary
projected to add 735 students there's
125 kindergarten students that are
currently transported to Challenger and
endeavour Elementary School's
grand rodol Grand Ridge also has ten
portable classrooms this just shows you
what the attendance area boundaries are
for Grand Ridge doesn't quite get down
to Highlands Drive and the Clark
elementary serves the rest of the
surrounding area including considerable
area just a little bit larger scale map
of the grandage attendance in case there
was any questions there this shows how
the Grand Ridge attendance area is split
with the pink area kindergarten kids
going to Challenger and kindergarten
kids that
the green area going to endeavor
endeavors off of duty Hill Road
challengers in the kahani subdivision
area Valley takes care of the
valley core area with the Clark area
coming just to Front Street so 2016 2017
there's 80 grand Ridge kindergarten
students that are transported to
challenger there's 45 Grand Ridge
kindergarten students transferred to
transported to endeavor
there's 337 Highlands elementary
students that are transported to Clark
there's 173 elementary students in the
black nugget over Dale area that are
transported to Clark five hundred and
ten students are transported out of the
area to Clark well that's from the
Highland specifically and if you include
the over Dale black nugget area at 635
students they're transported to Clark
and I say transported because we provide
bus service but there are some that get
transported by their parents so if you
look at the trip generation numbers per
student from our Clark traffic study
those students generate 82 a.m. peak
trips 173 afternoon peak trips and the
p.m. peak is another 107 trips to and
from Clark so there's 362 trips every
day of trips related to those students
being transported to Clark elementary
that are coming through the urban core
second Avenue Front Street etc reducing
enrollment at Clark is critical to
accommodate core area growth at both
ieve and Clark we need capacity down
here for the growth that's coming Grand
Ridge Elementary is on a 10 acre site
going to an urban school plan a
three-story building
this compacted footprint reduced surface
parking including structured parking and
smaller play areas allows reducing the
proposed footprint to about seven acres
OSPI recommends ten acres for an
elementary school get into seven acres
as condensing things pretty much as far
as it can go this is a conceptual plan
of the site and this is the northwest
corner of the king county parcel that
you've required and basically you're
there is Swedish parking in this area
currently Swedish hospital is in this
area there's new residential development
that's under construction in this zone
so basically accessing off the north end
coming in structured parking to reduce
the surface area there we're proposing
this would be a three-story building and
that allows us to compact the footprint
pretty much as far as we can go in kind
of realistic sense and we have some hard
surface play area around the west and
south side of the building to covered
play areas which is typical for new
elementaries and provision for 300 we
generally go with for future portables
to accommodate flex growth patterns and
the sand play field on the south end
here topography of the area such that
there's kind of a hump on the north end
there's a valley a low spot in the
middle and another hump down in this
area so yes there would be some grading
that would tend to level out those areas
the admin area and the part of the
parking would be sat down in to grade
the admin area would be at the mid level
of the three-story building which then
steps down as the sites going downward
reduces the overall height and the sand
play field is kind of a balance in this
area so we're really showing here is
that the western side of this footprint
would pretty well correspond to the west
leg of the dogleg of the parcel that he
acquired and that sort of follow a
contour level from there back on around
to the southeast and yes there'd be some
grading on the top the trees around the
west and the south side would remain in
place and those trees are going to
screen the building from views from the
south and from the westerly areas the
school building will be compatible with
existing Highlands residential and
commercial development a neighborhood
school serves the local community
reduces transportation and enhances
sustainability goals it's a great spot
for a school thank you Steve
I also wanted to thank Gale Morgan our
director of transportation she put a lot
of those numbers together for us
one comment too about the obviously the
advantage of not having to transport
that many kids down off down to the
valley floor you're not simply replacing
those trends transit trips with other
transit trips because a good chunk of
this school would ultimately be a
walking school as well so you literally
could take cars out of circulation you
know when I've gone around over the
years and done bond presentations and
talked about building schools one of the
things that I've always told people is
because the first question they always
ask me where you going to put them we're
going to put the schools well we we
never know that in a bond campaign
because we have to purchase the land and
all that but one thing I always say is
we try to put them as close to where the
kids are as we can because we believe
that's the most sustainable it we
recognize the impact that we have on
traffic and so forth so just the idea of
this site is very very appealing to us
for all the reasons that Steve just
mentioned I'm sure it would be very
popular in that community as well thank
you
so it's it's very tempting for me to say
let's ask questions but we're not we're
not we're not having discussions about
the merits of your proposal and so I'm
I'm really hesitant to do that so let's
you know
we could ask a whole lot of questions if
that's really not what's on the agenda
make sense yes I would like to just make
a brief comment thank you for the
information especially the the layout
and the numbers said it is part of the
we do have a large decision to make it's
got multi pieces to it so thank you for
preparing that thank you and bringing it
forward this evening so as you're
available to thanks for the opportunity
we appreciate it you then we're going to
go to public comments bigger than we
expected originally and so that's why
there's a desire for a second site
bigger than the master
I mean vector yes so and that's for two
reasons
so one there everything that could
convert to residential converted to
residential there was also additional
enhancement units and then TDRs but also
a big function of that is there's more
kids turning up in apartment complexes
than what was originally envisioned we
knew the old school of thought was that
apartments generally don't generate a
big kid population it's good yeah okay
thanks
all right public comment Connie
so what is remarkable about the zoning
here is when you look at the forest and
smoke but you can basically see how much
of it is zoned
CFF the wash dot parcel cff which means
they could develop large buildings on
those slopes and the trees would be gone
and be intensive commercial not so bad
we aren't going to see it I'm for that
section so don't get me wrong I'm loving
that section the steep slope area that
we're calling CFO is unbuildable anyway
so that's going to stay forested no
matter what we do and then the top of
the hill which you can actually see the
development already of the equivalents
through the fringe of trees so the
Highlands would then become visible if
you cut the trees at the top of that
slope so now when we look at the
different zoning capacities and are
duking it out policies and our
comprehensive plan right now in our
land-use segment of our comprehensive
plan we are very strong in protecting
our forests until size it is in our
vision statement as a priority concern
and so well I believe that Issaquah
Highlands for example would need a
school I don't think that what we want
to do is create a zoning that would
allow for the main one of our main
visions and our plan to be compromised I
think would be better to go with a open
space zoning intensive commercial and
then I would like to understand exactly
what wash dot is intending with their
CFS zoning on those parcels and what
impacts that that might have because if
their current zoning is residential I
don't know why we wouldn't transfer it
over as residential except for they say
they don't want it so there seems to be
some information missing out of those
zones that I don't understand
the rationale for entirely so maybe if
they had an argument as to what their
future was that would be appropriate so
competing uses for land and also mr.
Harrison talked about selling the top
parcel which was interesting if indeed
you were looking at this to maximize
funding you would indeed put zoning on
that where you would get the most amount
of money so as soon as you put CSF you
are very much limiting the amount of
money that you could get by selling the
parcel as soon as you turn it into a
zoning that allows commercial or
residential if money making is your
primary concern then you get the money
so I think there's a lot of
considerations here how much would it be
worth if it was zoned in different areas
and seems that we already have cleared
land in other parts of the acquirements
that could potentially accommodate a
school what what are those areas so that
you can understand your zoning concerns
more completely and again I'm going to
reiterate tents of commercial less than
C F F for wash dot and clearly an
overwhelmingly open space for the top
parcel thanks thank you
you
hi so I largely won't repeat Connie's
comments because she started articulated
quite well just I again Division four is
equal was the slopes the cities area
would be maintained not developed I mean
more toward CFO not towards the other
building use on the site so I do
understand physical Highlands wiring to
school in that area I'm not sure that
this site is the best site for that so I
think that at this point isn't part of
the equation again what's the best use
of the land it's within the vision of
our treed slopes thanks thank you sorry
Corey Christensen I'd like to echo the
other people's comments about how these
parcels should be zone open space and
actually I think they should be
permanently protected open space and
maybe be a transfer of development
rights holder receiving site as far as
the entire Tod project briefly back to
the multifamily exemption people in my
neighborhood when I talk about when they
talk to me about this they're they're
rather ambivalent about this entire
project and when they start hearing
about the tax extension they don't like
it because when you talk about a city
share that's only a little bit in the
property tax their schools there's parks
there's all this other stuff and so it's
actually a fairly big ask of the
citizens now the part that's not the
part that actually pushes people over
the part that pushes people over is
seeing these upper three parcels
potentially stripped of their trees and
the people in Issaquah have been very
clear very consistent about protecting
the environment
open-space large part of our park bonds
we vote to buy open space and I've lived
in my house for 23 years 23 years ago
there there were just trees treed
hillsides was Lea Sukhois Highlands
treat hillsides was talus and we
remember that we didn't fight the
Issaquah Highlands we didn't fight
taliss and but now people are upset
about Bergsma people are upset about
talus 9 because talus 9 one of the the
contributing factors there were trees
being taken down and the mud slide down
talus drive and so on and so forth this
is just another example of more the same
and this treed area is actually the last
stand it's not just one little parcel in
you know that you can just say that that
that is the it's the last stand I just
drew it I'm gonna loss for words because
I can't actually believe you are even
considering taking the trees down on
this parcel that's how I feel about it
lastly when you when you put up your
timeline through September people have
been asking me how do we fight this and
we're not waiting till September to
start fighting this we're going to start
fighting it now and I don't mean to
sound threatening but the fight it will
not be just those trees it's the entire
project and so if you really like the
entire affordable housing concept if you
like moving centurylink I think you have
to ask yourself what is the public
benefit and actually more what is the
public takeaway you know you've got your
ask you're making a large ask in taxes
for the public
you're asking a large ask for the public
as far as accommodating a lot more cars
and not contributing anything to
infrastructure you're asking us again to
accommodate a lot more people for our
parks and no money for that and you're
asking for people more people pour it on
the Newport way that it already is
gridlocked and on top of that you're
asking us to give up our trees our last
stand
so no
Corie anybody else would comment being
then take back to the committee so our
specific ask tonight Patricia is whether
we want to recommend for the full
council that we annex the area right
we've already done the resolution right
so I'm sorry forward is it just a zoning
right it's - we've already advertised
for the public here in the first of the
two for the 17th so I think the asked
was do you have any more questions that
you would want us to try to answer for
the 17th so do we not make a recommend
so everything's already rolling this is
just I think it's so what we're trying
to do I think is to give you guys
whatever additional information you
would find helpful to have a pre
annexation conversation or conclusive
than this conversation that I desperate
for action the does say of our action
information and as I recall when it was
at the council when we've heard it here
I specifically said this is coming to
land and Shore will have more discussion
there plus it says action so I'm a
little bit confused yeah I see that
there's an a on the land and Shore but I
had always thought this was just for you
to gain more information and discuss
what you had asked for on June 5th
because everything else is rolling as
east side but it's not because it's
quasi-judicial we don't make a
recommendation it is that okay so - I am
- because we technically didn't have to
have the this in the middle of the two
public hearings but you had asked on
June 5th you thought it would be a good
idea to have sort of a discussion with
more information before you went to the
first public hearing so I don't think we
asked that
that's I have zero recollection of that
I figured that it was the regular
process to get referred to Landon Shore
for recommendation out we didn't even
discuss that it was causing a judicial
at the time that we talked about this at
full council so my confusion is when it
means it's rolling what action did we
take on this maybe on June 5th you
approved the resolution to move forward
if you look on the cover of the agenda
bill it says the proposed resolution
declared the city's intent to annex the
King County Island you included the
boundaries you stated the annexation
area will assume the proportionate share
of indebtedness as of the effective date
you set to public hearing dates for
considering the pre-annexation zoning
and you set a public hearing for the
actual annexation hearing and you
authorized the administration to proceed
with the annexation by submitting the
Notice of Intent to the boundary Review
Board that was all done on June 5th yes
but if you go to the last two lines
refer to the July 6 council linden short
committee for review and recommendation
am I missing something now you're right
that's what it says Oh Oh city
administrator what do we what's the what
is the process what so well so I think
the question is really about you know is
this inconsistent with what we're
supposed to do with quasi-judicial are
we supposed to make a recommendation it
was not my understanding that we were
just going to chat about it and provide
more questions so you know having read
the agenda bill I guess what I would say
is the agenda Bill's looking for a
recommendation coming out of this
committee for establishing the pre
patient illumining mm-hmm so if the
committee is ready to make that
recommendation then that would be the
action that would be taken is evening
okay if the committee's not ready it can
stay in committee because we're having
more land and short meetings before
September 5th okay sure we can
I'm not concerned about whether we're
ready or not I'm guessing that we are
that's what we were told in our agenda
Bella you're going to be doing so that's
what I was thinking about when I was
reading it but my concern is are we
doing something that out that is outside
what should be done if it's a closeted
judicial process right I won't be my
concern right your gender bill talks
about the two public hearings that the
first one the public may offer testimony
and you can talk about it but you don't
have to make any action at the first
public hearing I think the intent is to
keep an open mind see if there's any
questions that come up that you'd like
us to research which is why the state
requires 30 days in between the two
hearings on pre-annexation zoning so
that there's a time that you can get we
can gather information to help you make
the decision so here's what I would like
so if you will give me one more
opportunity so for me it seems in a
appropriate for you guys to make a
recommendation without during the public
comment mcdowell are right okay I mean
because you're basing it based on the
three comments you've heard tonight and
you may get you know a hundred people
from the Highlands I don't know what
you'll get but it seems like making a
recommendation is premature in advance
of the hearings that's the reason why
you have a hearing is to help inform
ultimately the council decision so there
it wouldn't come back so we have a time
sensitivity do we not so if we have two
public hearings one on July 17th and one
on September 5th it wouldn't be
appropriate then based on your rationale
for us to make a recommendation at all
before September 5th so so I guess what
maybe what we do is we hold off and no
no I would agree that that would be most
prudent because you haven't had your
public hearings yet on the zoning would
it be appropriate then to make comments
shouldn't mean concerned we have about
the proposed zoning sure and then that
gives us a chance to research or provide
more information or whatever before the
17th that not give you all a chance to
research it well as well what land is
yours rule should be in this right
clarify
are there more questions that you want
us to research other than I had a few
from Paul what would all of the uses be
and how would it be built out with a
short plat and I have the one what would
what is wash that thinking about for the
future of their land uses those are the
two that I have that I heard
Agatha that second when I wash that is
that I'm a little uncomfortable with
that zoning so so Allah I'll speak up
for my peer who decided you want to go
home and have dinner so when we when we
purchase Park point we basically took
off so the way our water reservoirs work
is reservoirs have to be a certain
elevation to serve a certain portion of
the city when so the water plan that we
have showed a 297 reservoir on Park
Point and when we bought Park point and
preserved as open space it displaced a
critical piece of our infrastructure
necessary to serve water on the valley
floor and so as you as you go around the
city and look for another parcel that's
at the 297 band
he's wonder at the 297 band so Sheldon
has have been having conversations with
washed-out about whether or not the city
could purchase the water utility could
purchase one of these properties a lot
of reservoir conversation then turn from
washed out to mountains to sound how
could you do that and not have it
visible from the freeway so that's kind
of where this is but I guess and I don't
know what conversations have been had
with washed out about the pre-annexation
zoning it could be similar to I mean so
you know you could do it CFO and then
come in later and change it to CF app if
the city bought for a water reservoir
you know that's bad options there too I
don't know why all of it is showing up
as BFF because you only need one of them
for a water reservoir and I don't know
what else would happen on the rest of
them so here's where I think we are I
think the committee members should
provide some comments if you're
comfortable doing that now or if you
have additional questions and then I
think we need to move on to the next
agenda bill okay
so common was to start every class if
you want I think the thing that drives
me absolutely crazy is that none of that
if I'm a citizen follow those is just
new transcript in terms of what these
parcels might be used for whether it's a
school whether it's a water tower and it
it makes the whole thing so difficult
and so I don't know with our rules if
you can amend your agenda bill or
whatever but what is missing here is
some sort of narrative that would put
any context or transparency and this is
public it doesn't make any sense so it's
not just what might they use it for that
whole story you just told us no we're
not that that's what it's going to be
maybe it's not a water tower but there
it's just this is completely hidden from
the public and their opportunity to join
in on any of the conversation they'll
come to the public hearing and they'll
see what we thought tonight and unless
they watch the tape and hear you say
what you said in here the school
districts presentation this is just
hidden it's just totally hidden so I
don't know how you fix that but that's
just the way it comes across it's not
very transparent
well I would agree with those comments
and at this point I don't understand at
all why we don't leave everything CF
have everything be CFO except the IC
because there's a there does seem to be
a real-time sensitivity on that one and
that we've at least talked about before
but my comments about CFO at this point
have nothing to do with the merits of
the site as a potential school site
there's just I just don't have enough
information to even know whether whether
that would be an appropriate site and so
I don't want my comments to be
misconstrued by our good friends of the
school district as me not supporting
that for a school I just it's I just
don't think it's appropriate this time
to do CFS at least I don't that's my
comment tonight and same thing with the
wash not oh no I think the answer washed
out wants it is just it we fall short
for reasoning for me and the fact that
we're already working on something that
we know nothing about but oh but just do
CFS because they might be thinking about
something just yeah that's really
concerning I mean we keep hearing that
we make decisions before it's out in the
public and this is a perfect example of
why some people feel that way seems like
I've heard talk about a water tower for
a couple years
am I remembering that correctly yeah
they said they are been out there for a
long time but and but I was never clear
about the location and I remember
fearing that it would interfere kind of
the open space that it's already used by
the public on the west side of Highlands
Drive where there is the footpath that
might go into that area but I think I
asked that once and it was dispelled no
it wouldn't go there is that that that
is this the water tower that the same
water tower yes okay so it's kind of in
that it has to be in that elevation yeah
understood understand
of course the packet does have the
information from the letter from the
school district and the location that
they even kinda drew a seven-acre box
around the location so that that we knew
that the concept of a school was that's
there and I think the whole Tod project
as well said it did specify this
location for for that maintenance yard
for or whatever it's called for
CenturyLink so those those uses are out
there not allowed detail yet but
sufficient to know what the potential
land uses are and the so I'm glad to
know to learn more now about the other
potential use a water tower would be it
would be good to add that in there so
the so coming into this meeting I
thought the same thing that this is a
pre we're going to have a pre have to
set the annexation prior to the airing
and the administration has made a
proposal that's the way I look at this
it's I see and then the CFO and CFF and
and I came here wondering why CF f was
anywhere other than what the school
district identified as a location that
maybe they could use so then I see as
proposed makes sense the CFO makes a
sense where it is the the but the c FF
beyond what beyond what the school
district identified is what they're
interested didn't make any sense and and
now we hear that maybe there's a it
might be in one of those areas that a
water tower but that's not what was said
earlier so what the wash dot might want
is there something else being referred
to then something separate than a water
tower that we need not wash dot wants I
do not know of anything other than the
conversation between pwe and watch dot
about a reservoir so I don't know why
the other parcels
I think I think there's there's like
actually an existing bench on one of
those that's the right spot for the
reservoir it it will be screened from
the freeway it's perfect so I don't know
why the rest of it cff and I don't know
if washed odd if that was their ask to
make it CFS yes what Sheldon I'm don't
going with what Sheldon told Madden no
we need to write that down clearly um
you know but part of that is is a
necessity of our water utility expansion
that would be so I think one of the
things that I think we need to provide
you all before the hearing is I'll be a
land plan for all the property with the
stuff that we know that's coming even if
it's conceptual to show it what it's
going to look like it once been you
what's potential what's been discussed
you said he was coming with our
potential and that way you can see what
at least we believe is going to be the
outcome of that assuming you make the
zoning consistent with what the
administration is recommending that part
you know when Trish summarized I also
heard an expectation of understanding
grading impacts if this school were to
move forward and that's another piece we
can see we can provide some of that
technical information because then you
guys can understand make a better
decision on on what to do with the
property
hey so the only thing that I would
recommend or we want to see different is
is keeping the potential school area at
a pre-annexation level of CFS I mean I
see everything's CFO and then just that
seven acres
Thank You Bernard for the confusion okay
next I guess this one may be simpler
hahaha
cuz we're all tired no it is a good yeah
because it is agenda bell seven four
four two
Thank You Gail Steve and Ron for coming
you know before that last picture that
you had up there yeah you said it thank
you that showed the potential cff where
the school district indicated their
interest mm-hmm that drawing isn't even
that up in the upper right that's in the
upper right oh this that's not even
close to the seven acres at the school
district yes what is his big drama in
June before we even know what right so
my my message is that that information
can face something that's not even close
to what we're discussing that's that and
so that was out there yeah right well
it's pretty easy to look at that go oh
my gosh
Rice's this is this is quite different
right it's evolved a lot since beginning
of June but also to we tried to do that
once we heard from that and what their
idea was we tried to figure out how to
draw it on the contours because before
that the map you said that are just the
stick dash lines was just to get it to
bound review board with there's an idea
that there might be three different
zones within the parcel okay we might
learn Thank You agenda bill seven four
four two fish here Suzanne this is very
similar it'll be easier than the
previous one because this is a very very
small parcel less than two acres owned
by the City of Bellevue it is already
the site of a reservoir we took it over
in the assumption that you all approved
that would became effective January 1st
of this year and now that we've assumed
it as a utility now we get to bring it
into our
jurisdiction and it's completely
surrounded by the city limits this is it
this teeny tiny little gray parcel it
already has a reservoir on it yes though
there's no potential development they
rounded by trees which is a I couldn't
even get an aerial picture of it because
it just is so beautifully surrounded by
trees
what is the lid what is the landowner
what there we go you all you little
people with you so we could notice that
we're taking it over so this also gets
the two public hearings it gets all the
same thing but not the intrigue that the
previous annexation had on the tree are
there questions about the tiny little
utility site not even two acres it was
just the same thing only if we have any
questions or comments yes okay so I have
no there's no questions Paul no
questions push it out okay then so um
that's it yes I need to a public comment
what kind of you know what I'm missing
no okay we need evidence of that just
joking it's late I'm still here right
yes yes I'm so in our Issaquah PFF zone
are we going to keep the trees are we
going to cut the trees down from around
the reservoir so that we can see it
that's pretty jaded but you know it's I
I think we we probably could because I I
walked around a reservoir all the time
and they've carefully cut all the trees
out from around the reservoir that I
walk around all the time so I would ask
that question in all seriousness so can
we get that answer answer that Negresco
yeah that's question
okay maintenance around tax authorities
okay that's okay if there's nothing else
and we are adjourned
you