City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, November 1, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 6, 2022

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-06-22 City Council Planning, Development & Page 1 Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 6, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Eastside Cities Interlocal Agreement for Climate Programs Stacy Vynne-McKinstry, Sustainability Manager ID 1282

15 min · packet pp.7–29

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 0:41 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends the Committee forward the Interlocal Agreement to the City Council for approval.

2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Christen Leeson, Senior Planner ID 1237

90 min · packet pp.31–184

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 22, 2022 Planning Policy Commission · Sep 29, 2022 Planning Policy Commission · Oct 27, 2022

▶ Watch from 0:41 Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission is proposing the following: • Parcel 2024069119, “Newport Area”: Approve the request to amend the land use designation from “Community Facilities” to “Multifamily Residential” and change the zoning designation from “Community Facilities – Recreation” to “Village Residential.” • Parcel 3324069117, “Wildwood”: Do not approve the requested redesignation and rezone. • Parcel 3424069217, “Our Savior Lutheran Church”: Planning Policy Commission (PPC): The PPC recommends denial of the requested redesignation and rezone. However, they also recommend discussing with the City Council the possibility of entering into a development agreement.

1444 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ foreign

0:07 ↗ welcome everyone I councilmember hunt

0:10 ↗ called the November 1st 2022 city

0:12 ↗ council Planning Development and

0:13 ↗ environment committee meeting to order I

0:17 ↗ am council member Victoria hunt and I

0:19 ↗ serve as the committee chair and I am

0:20 ↗ joined today by council president Walsh

0:22 ↗ council member Ray is a member of this

0:24 ↗ committee but he has an excused absence

0:26 ↗ this evening we have two items on the

0:29 ↗ agenda ID 1282 East Side City's

0:32 ↗ interlocal agreement for climate

0:34 ↗ programs and id1237 2022 comprehensive

0:37 ↗ plan amendments and before we get to

0:41 ↗ those agenda items we will start this

0:44 ↗ meeting with public comments so I have

0:47 ↗ some information for public comments

0:49 ↗ there are multiple public comment

0:51 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:53 ↗ is a general public comment opportunity

0:54 ↗ at the beginning of the meeting or you

0:56 ↗ can make comments after the presentation

0:58 ↗ and counsel a question and answer a

1:00 ↗ period on tonight's agenda items

1:02 ↗ members of the public May address

1:04 ↗ council at this time in person or

1:06 ↗ virtually and those who signed up in

1:08 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

1:09 ↗ on first if you are joining us virtually

1:11 ↗ and would like to make comments please

1:13 ↗ raise your virtual hands if you are on

1:15 ↗ the phone press star 3 and if you have

1:17 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone look

1:19 ↗ for the hand icon this varies by device

1:22 ↗ one option may be to go to the

1:24 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

1:26 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

1:29 ↗ corner and if you're in the room and did

1:31 ↗ not sign up I will ask for other

1:32 ↗ speakers before closing this portion of

1:34 ↗ the meeting so I will wait for a moment

1:35 ↗ to see if anyone has signed up to speak

1:39 ↗ clerk has anyone signed up to speak

1:42 ↗ chair hunt no one has signed up for the

1:44 ↗ general comment period at the beginning

1:46 ↗ of the meeting and I see no virtual

1:48 ↗ hands raised at this time

1:52 ↗ okay I'll check in would anyone like to

1:56 ↗ make comments okay

1:57 ↗ um

1:58 ↗ uh then I will read the comments I will

2:02 ↗ read the it

2:03 ↗ information about public comments when

2:05 ↗ it comes to

2:07 ↗ that time so we will get into the agenda

2:09 ↗ the first item on our agenda is approval

2:12 ↗ of the minutes these are the minutes

2:13 ↗ from the October 6th meeting do we have

2:16 ↗ any questions concerns changes no there

2:19 ↗ being none I move approval of the

2:21 ↗ October 6 2022

2:24 ↗ meeting minutes

2:26 ↗ hi hi

2:27 ↗ all right so that passes and we will get

2:30 ↗ into our agenda items for this evening

2:32 ↗ the first item on our agenda is id1282

2:35 ↗ East Side cities interlocal agreement

2:37 ↗ for climate programs this will be

2:39 ↗ presented by Stacy Vin mckinstry

2:41 ↗ sustainability manager Stacy please take

2:43 ↗ it away

2:57 ↗ all right good evening members of the

2:59 ↗ committee uh my name is Stacy Van

3:01 ↗ mckinstry I'm the sustainability manager

3:03 ↗ with the city

3:05 ↗ tonight I am here to talk to you about a

3:07 ↗ proposed interlocal agreement with the

3:09 ↗ East Side cities to formalize a

3:12 ↗ partnership on climate initiatives we've

3:15 ↗ provided you with a very early draft of

3:17 ↗ the Ila in your packet but do want to

3:19 ↗ emphasize that it is still undergoing

3:21 ↗ review however we felt comfortable

3:23 ↗ providing you with the draft since

3:25 ↗ Rachel was the one that prepared the

3:28 ↗ initial draft

3:29 ↗ um towards the end of the presentation

3:31 ↗ I'll speak more about the timeline for

3:32 ↗ review

3:38 ↗ so tonight we're looking for feedback on

3:40 ↗ the proposed interlocal agreement with

3:42 ↗ East Side cities for climate initiatives

3:45 ↗ and we're looking for feedback on

3:48 ↗ whether to proceed with the Ila to

3:50 ↗ counsel for approval

3:54 ↗ the administration is recommending that

3:56 ↗ the committee forward the Ila to city

3:58 ↗ council for approval

4:00 ↗ this is because we feel the Ila

4:02 ↗ increases efficiency and effectiveness

4:04 ↗ of our joint climate initiatives through

4:07 ↗ the sharing of resources sharing of

4:09 ↗ Staffing and also providing additional

4:11 ↗ opportunities for funding for our

4:13 ↗ climate initiatives

4:18 ↗ Issaquah has been a long time

4:20 ↗ collaborator on Regional climate

4:22 ↗ initiatives

4:23 ↗ the King County City's climate

4:25 ↗ collaboration or k4c

4:27 ↗ interlocal agreement allows for shared

4:30 ↗ coordination and pooling of funds from

4:33 ↗ k4c dues for joint projects

4:36 ↗ the East Side cities have also begun to

4:39 ↗ coordinate on joint programs including

4:41 ↗ the Energy Smart East Side heat pump

4:43 ↗ Campaign which we envision as a

4:46 ↗ long-term program as well as the climate

4:48 ↗ action challenge

4:50 ↗ we have currently been Distributing the

4:53 ↗ administrative and Contracting duties

4:54 ↗ across the cities in order to balance

4:57 ↗ the workload

4:58 ↗ given the direction that we're going in

5:01 ↗ anticipation of these long-term

5:02 ↗ Partnerships on the programs we feel it

5:06 ↗ is necessary to formalize our

5:08 ↗ partnership

5:12 ↗ as mentioned we provided a very early

5:14 ↗ draft of a proposed interlocal agreement

5:16 ↗ and we are working on Final edits with

5:20 ↗ legal teams

5:22 ↗ the proposed Ila would help acknowledge

5:25 ↗ the threat that climate change poses and

5:27 ↗ the importance of participation by local

5:30 ↗ governments and initiatives to combat

5:31 ↗ climate change

5:33 ↗ it would provide collaborative help

5:35 ↗ provide collaborative oversight to Joint

5:38 ↗ climate initiatives and the

5:40 ↗ formalization of a board that would help

5:42 ↗ make decisions on the programs

5:45 ↗ it would enable the parties to apply for

5:47 ↗ Grants together and coordinate

5:49 ↗ administration of those grants

5:51 ↗ it would allow for Cooperative

5:53 ↗ Contracting and purchasing to maximize

5:55 ↗ the efficiency and reduce the

5:57 ↗ administration administrative burden

5:59 ↗ across the cities

6:00 ↗ so for instance instead of all five

6:04 ↗ cities needing to enter into an

6:05 ↗ agreement with one contractor it would

6:08 ↗ allow for one city to enter into that

6:09 ↗ contract

6:11 ↗ it would also enable us to bring on a

6:14 ↗ shared staff position if we determine

6:16 ↗ that's the best process forward to

6:18 ↗ support management of the energy smart

6:20 ↗ east side and other joint initiatives

6:24 ↗ the Ila would also allow for eight uh

6:27 ↗ latecomers to join with a board that

6:30 ↗ would establish criteria for who can

6:32 ↗ join in the future

6:34 ↗ the cities feel that we don't want uh

6:37 ↗ too many members as we believe that will

6:39 ↗ be much more effective with a smaller

6:41 ↗ group and be able to get things done

6:42 ↗ quickly but we do want to bring on any

6:44 ↗ of their Partners or cities that are

6:47 ↗ committed to advancing this work with us

6:50 ↗ the Ila is not intended to replace the

6:53 ↗ existing k4c Ila but instead supplement

6:56 ↗ it to allow for this more in-depth

6:59 ↗ sharing of resources personnel and

7:01 ↗ administration of programs on a smaller

7:02 ↗ level

7:03 ↗ it does not create a new or separate

7:05 ↗ legal or administrative entity to

7:07 ↗ administer provisions of the agreement

7:09 ↗ does not preclude the parties from

7:12 ↗ pursuing grants or programs on their own

7:16 ↗ with the Ila there are no fees or costs

7:19 ↗ associated with joining it however the

7:22 ↗ board and members of the Ila May

7:24 ↗ determine that we want to pursue joint

7:26 ↗ initiatives that could have resulting

7:28 ↗ costs

7:30 ↗ um the Ila we feel will benefit the city

7:32 ↗ through the sharing of resources and

7:34 ↗ ensuring that we can be most effective

7:36 ↗ with our programs

7:38 ↗ no City would be forced to participate

7:40 ↗ in a program that they are not

7:42 ↗ interested in participating in so they

7:44 ↗ can opt out of certain elements

7:47 ↗ and it also allows for the parties to

7:49 ↗ with for parties to withdraw from the

7:51 ↗ Ila or to terminate the Ila by agreement

7:54 ↗ of all parties

7:58 ↗ we provided three options before you

8:02 ↗ tonight the first is support forwarding

8:04 ↗ the Ila on to city council for approval

8:08 ↗ the second is requesting more

8:10 ↗ information or modifications to the Ila

8:14 ↗ and the third is not recommending

8:16 ↗ advancement of the Ila to city council

8:19 ↗ for approval

8:21 ↗ as mentioned our recommendation tonight

8:23 ↗ is for the committee to forward on the

8:26 ↗ interlocal agreement to city council

8:31 ↗ we recognize that we're providing this

8:33 ↗ to you a bit early having not the having

8:37 ↗ not the finalized the Ila at this time

8:40 ↗ that is due to our November and December

8:43 ↗ schedules other cities are undergoing

8:45 ↗ the process to initiate review both by

8:48 ↗ legal teams as well as their councils

8:50 ↗ this month

8:51 ↗ each of the cities is aiming to have

8:54 ↗ final review of the Ila no later than

8:57 ↗ early December or excuse me early

8:59 ↗ January

9:01 ↗ and that is so that we can begin to

9:03 ↗ enter into the shared agreements as well

9:06 ↗ as begin the process for hiring a shared

9:08 ↗ staff if we determine that's the best

9:10 ↗ path forward we do anticipate that we

9:13 ↗ would have a final Ila for your review

9:16 ↗ within the next couple of weeks

9:20 ↗ so at this time we're looking for any

9:22 ↗ direction that you have either feedback

9:25 ↗ on the draft Ila and feedback on whether

9:29 ↗ or not to proceed to council

9:32 ↗ um and I guess I would ask Rachel too if

9:34 ↗ she has any

9:35 ↗ anything to add

9:40 ↗ I mean to add but I'm happy to answer

9:42 ↗ any questions

9:44 ↗ council president Walsh yeah thanks

9:47 ↗ Stacy um if you talked about none of the

9:51 ↗ Cities would be required to participate

9:53 ↗ in a program

9:55 ↗ um so let's say we

9:57 ↗ um the interlocal agreement cities

10:00 ↗ through that staff board had decided to

10:03 ↗ participate in something and one of the

10:05 ↗ Cities didn't want to would the contract

10:08 ↗ just be written up in that way but it

10:12 ↗ would still be managed by the interlocal

10:15 ↗ agreement board correct yes I think one

10:19 ↗ example of that would be the climate

10:20 ↗ action challenge that currently four of

10:22 ↗ those are cities are participating in

10:24 ↗ Kirkland has opted not to participate in

10:27 ↗ that time so we would still be using our

10:29 ↗ shared agreements and resources for

10:32 ↗ those four cities through the Ila with

10:34 ↗ Kirkland not providing any of the funds

10:38 ↗ or participating in the agreements

10:40 ↗ exactly I would I would just anticipate

10:42 ↗ then that the the cost would just spread

10:45 ↗ among the members that were

10:47 ↗ participating

10:49 ↗ and that's my second question how for

10:52 ↗ anything where there is an interlocal

10:54 ↗ agreement that does the

10:58 ↗ um

10:58 ↗ does something that requires cost how do

11:01 ↗ those costs get allocated out and what

11:05 ↗ what is that process or timeline I would

11:08 ↗ assume it would come to each of the

11:10 ↗ city's city council for Budget approval

11:13 ↗ before the contract is agreed upon with

11:16 ↗ whatever the provider correct

11:18 ↗ right now it's written really generally

11:20 ↗ so that it doesn't necessarily have to

11:23 ↗ do that because each City might want to

11:25 ↗ handle it differently they can request

11:28 ↗ that their own staff member their

11:30 ↗ liaison do that if that's what they want

11:32 ↗ or if they don't really care and they

11:35 ↗ know that they can

11:37 ↗ you know

11:39 ↗ replace their stop liaison if they're

11:41 ↗ not acting in the council's best

11:44 ↗ interest or fulfilling their wishes then

11:46 ↗ they don't you know they I guess could

11:48 ↗ give them that discretion too

11:51 ↗ to uh to to leave it up to them I guess

11:54 ↗ to bring it to make sure that the onus

11:56 ↗ is on them to bring those proposals to

11:58 ↗ the council so it's not I don't have it

12:01 ↗ specifically written in the agreement

12:02 ↗ that each Council will approve each

12:06 ↗ budgetary uh expenditure for that for

12:10 ↗ for each item I think it would just be

12:12 ↗ based on a city by City practice of how

12:15 ↗ they wanted to handle it

12:16 ↗ how we wrote it was to

12:21 ↗ because we didn't want to set it up

12:24 ↗ where everybody had to come up with a

12:28 ↗ budget and put a bunch of funds in in

12:31 ↗ advance we wrote it so it's a invoicing

12:34 ↗ for costs expended model so essentially

12:38 ↗ one city would act as like the lead

12:40 ↗ Agency for the collaboration and they

12:44 ↗ would sort of front the costs and then

12:47 ↗ they would invoice each of the city's

12:50 ↗ their proportionate share of the total

12:54 ↗ costs of that initiate that contract or

12:57 ↗ that staff person if it's the shared

13:00 ↗ staff person or whatever or the product

13:04 ↗ if it's a if it's a product and not a

13:07 ↗ service contract that kind of thing does

13:09 ↗ that make sense

13:10 ↗ yeah thanks

13:16 ↗ I don't have any questions so at this

13:18 ↗ time we will go to public comments on

13:20 ↗ this item clerk Grabowski is there

13:22 ↗ anyone online that has indicated or

13:24 ↗ signed up

13:26 ↗ um to speak on this item

13:28 ↗ and if so I have some guidelines to read

13:33 ↗ chair hunt no one has indicated a desire

13:35 ↗ to speak to the committee on this agenda

13:37 ↗ item okay I will look to the audience

13:40 ↗ no okay then we will move into Council

13:43 ↗ discussion and a recommendation has been

13:46 ↗ requested on this item

13:48 ↗ would you like to start it off sure

13:52 ↗ two thumbs up

13:54 ↗ thanks for trying to save everybody

13:55 ↗ money and collaborate

13:58 ↗ um I think you guys have already one of

14:01 ↗ the reasons I'm confident in moving

14:03 ↗ forward on this is you've already been

14:05 ↗ doing this and so you've demonstrated

14:07 ↗ the ability to work well together

14:09 ↗ otherwise I might have a little bit of

14:11 ↗ heartburn over that idea but you've

14:13 ↗ really demonstrated that this is a

14:15 ↗ process that is working you've chosen

14:17 ↗ Partners who have already come to the

14:21 ↗ table and have an interest in working

14:22 ↗ and so I think this is just a fantastic

14:26 ↗ example of an extension of the k4c as

14:31 ↗ all of these cities working together

14:33 ↗ toward shared goals so I'm totally in

14:36 ↗ favor thanks

14:40 ↗ similar comments for a thumbs up between

14:43 ↗ the two of us I think it's great

14:45 ↗ um I one of the questions I had which

14:48 ↗ you responded by email was about which

14:51 ↗ about how these cities were the ones why

14:54 ↗ these cities were the ones that were in

14:55 ↗ the interlocal agreement I think the

14:57 ↗ reasoning that these are in existing

14:59 ↗ coordination for Energy Smart east side

15:02 ↗ and also climate action challenge

15:04 ↗ programs makes a lot of sense I just

15:06 ↗ wanted to note also that it does that

15:08 ↗ you did right that potentially Sammamish

15:11 ↗ might be interested in the future and

15:13 ↗ there is a clause about

15:14 ↗ additional parties that might join the

15:16 ↗ Ila at a later date so that would also

15:19 ↗ be great if that works out but I think

15:21 ↗ that these five makes sense for this

15:24 ↗ initial interlocal agreement and I also

15:28 ↗ noted that we're the first city to

15:30 ↗ discuss this in a public setting so just

15:32 ↗ wanted to say I think it's great and I'm

15:35 ↗ enthusiastic about it I hope that the

15:37 ↗ other cities are likewise but yes seems

15:40 ↗ like it saves US money and helps us

15:41 ↗ better or

15:43 ↗ be more efficient in the implementation

15:45 ↗ of our climate action plan and lastly I

15:48 ↗ am the representative for the city on

15:50 ↗ several interlocal agreements

15:52 ↗ um while we're eight salmon Recovery

15:54 ↗ Council Kokanee interlocal agreement for

15:57 ↗ management of funds for conservation of

16:00 ↗ Kokanee as well as the king Conservation

16:01 ↗ District and all of those do the cost

16:05 ↗ share differently so I think

16:08 ↗ I think the way you describes the cost

16:11 ↗ share makes sense and look forward to

16:15 ↗ seeing how this works and I would

16:16 ↗ definitely be in support of recommending

16:18 ↗ this to the full Council for approval

16:22 ↗ all right so

16:24 ↗ um if we're in agreement on that

16:26 ↗ we can take a formal vote so all those

16:28 ↗ in favor say aye aye aye

16:31 ↗ that will be recommended to the full

16:33 ↗ Council for approval

16:35 ↗ thank you thank you very much do you

16:37 ↗ have everything you need from us on this

16:38 ↗ item

16:42 ↗ one additional item is just being

16:44 ↗ consent for the full Council I think it

16:46 ↗ can be on consent yes thank you

16:50 ↗ all right great thank you again so with

16:53 ↗ that we will move to our second and

16:54 ↗ final item which is id1237 2022

16:58 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments

17:01 ↗ this will be presented by Kristen Leeson

17:03 ↗ senior planner

17:53 ↗ there we go good evening I'm Kristen

17:55 ↗ Leeson senior planner with Community

17:57 ↗ planning and development department and

17:59 ↗ tonight we're going to talk about the

18:01 ↗ proposed 2022 comprehensive plan and

18:03 ↗ Zoning Mount amendments

18:05 ↗ so our Direction needed tonight is that

18:07 ↗ we are looking for you all

18:10 ↗ just administer or seeking Direction on

18:12 ↗ the Amendments themselves and the staff

18:15 ↗ recommendation is that you all move

18:17 ↗ these forward to the full council at the

18:19 ↗ November 21st meeting

18:24 ↗ excuse me

18:26 ↗ so the purpose of tonight's marketing is

18:28 ↗ to one review the proposed rezones and

18:32 ↗ redesignations for three parcels and the

18:36 ↗ recommendations that have been made by

18:38 ↗ the administration and the planning

18:39 ↗ policy commission and second is for you

18:42 ↗ all to deliberate and provide

18:43 ↗ recommendations to the full Council

18:47 ↗ a little background as a reminder

18:50 ↗ comprehensive plans can be done once a

18:52 ↗ year so we are asked to do a docket that

18:55 ↗ lists all of the proposed amendments

18:56 ↗ that we are going to be looking at so

18:58 ↗ they are looked at holistically

19:00 ↗ and together and not randomly

19:05 ↗ it's made this year Council approved

19:07 ↗ a docket in February of 2022 and it

19:11 ↗ includes three rezones that we will be

19:14 ↗ talking about tonight

19:16 ↗ also it's a background there are two

19:18 ↗ different rezone types one they could be

19:20 ↗ processed anytime throughout the year

19:22 ↗ they do not require comprehensive plan

19:24 ↗ amendments the type that we are looking

19:26 ↗ at tonight you're looking at them

19:27 ↗ because they came from PPC because they

19:30 ↗ do require comprehensive plan amendments

19:32 ↗ at the same time and can only be

19:34 ↗ processed once a year

19:36 ↗ some of the criteria that we consider

19:39 ↗ that we're required to consider by code

19:41 ↗ when we are looking at these as

19:43 ↗ does it bear a substantial relation to

19:46 ↗ Public Health and public benefit have

19:48 ↗ the growth management act housing

19:50 ↗ targets been met if if not then you

19:54 ↗ could be approved have circumstances

19:56 ↗ their reasonable development that can

19:58 ↗ occur on the site under the new Zone

20:00 ↗ is it material will it be materially

20:02 ↗ detrimental to adjacent properties and

20:05 ↗ are there you know probable adverse

20:07 ↗ environmental impacts that can be

20:10 ↗ um mitigated and if not are they

20:13 ↗ acceptable

20:14 ↗ so there are 10 those are a few

20:17 ↗ we also look

20:19 ↗ at the highest and best use so if

20:20 ↗ someone is proposing wants to do

20:22 ↗ something specific on that site we don't

20:24 ↗ consider that because so often a permit

20:27 ↗ may be issued for a bill something may

20:29 ↗ be issued for a building permit they are

20:31 ↗ far through the process and it falls

20:32 ↗ through so you need to consider what

20:34 ↗ happens if this falls through so we look

20:35 ↗ at the highest and best use on the site

20:38 ↗ we also look at development standards

20:40 ↗ what are the existing development

20:42 ↗ standards and what would the development

20:43 ↗ standards be under the proposal

20:48 ↗ so the first one we're going to consider

20:51 ↗ you kind of throw all that out the

20:52 ↗ window this is a technical rezone that

20:55 ↗ we need to make

20:57 ↗ so in

21:00 ↗ 2021

21:02 ↗ we did a comprehensive plan Amendment

21:04 ↗ and

21:07 ↗ for this parcel it was dedicated to the

21:09 ↗ city in 2019 as part of the Anthology

21:12 ↗ development

21:13 ↗ they were required to dedicate Parkland

21:15 ↗ so this is one of the parcels that they

21:17 ↗ dedicated here outlined in blue

21:19 ↗ and

21:21 ↗ we took it to city council city council

21:23 ↗ approved it and now it is community

21:25 ↗ facilities Recreation but what we

21:26 ↗ discovered after approval was that also

21:29 ↗ in 2019 or 2020 even

21:32 ↗ um this little part that's outlined here

21:34 ↗ in Orange without our knowledge had

21:37 ↗ actually there had been a lot line

21:39 ↗ adjustment and it was now included in

21:41 ↗ part of this bigger parcel so

21:43 ↗ technically it's no longer part of this

21:44 ↗ parcel that instant 107 it's part of the

21:46 ↗ parcel that ends in 119. so this is a

21:49 ↗ correction that needs to be made here

21:50 ↗ and I will say I checked with this

21:53 ↗ clerk's office I checked with the state

21:54 ↗ and I checked with the city attorney and

21:56 ↗ now said no you need to go through a

21:57 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment process so

21:59 ↗ here we are

22:00 ↗ this is what it looks like from above

22:02 ↗ the aerial view

22:05 ↗ and as you can see it serves as the

22:07 ↗ entrance to Anthology this box right

22:10 ↗ here the big box contains all of their

22:13 ↗ utilities and the rest of it serves as a

22:17 ↗ storm water Vault for the site so it's

22:18 ↗ not likely that this will be changing in

22:20 ↗ the future so this would go from

22:22 ↗ Community facilities Recreation to

22:24 ↗ Village Residential and that is what the

22:27 ↗ staff recommends the land use

22:28 ↗ designation would go from multi from

22:31 ↗ Community facilities to multi-family

22:34 ↗ residential

22:37 ↗ moving on to Wildwood this is our second

22:39 ↗ request it's a private property owner

22:41 ↗ request

22:42 ↗ it's about four acres it sits on

22:44 ↗ Wildwood Drive

22:46 ↗ it is the parcel right here

22:49 ↗ pardon my mouse isn't cooperating very

22:51 ↗ well it is currently the land use

22:54 ↗ designation is low density residential

22:56 ↗ they are requesting multi-family

22:58 ↗ residential the existing zoning is

22:59 ↗ single family small lot the requested

23:02 ↗ zoning is multi-family medium

23:04 ↗ and you have single-family houses here

23:07 ↗ and here

23:09 ↗ and multi-family Condominiums and

23:11 ↗ apartments are here and mostly single

23:14 ↗ family housing is here

23:16 ↗ you can see from the aerial view that it

23:18 ↗ is heavily forested and no structures

23:22 ↗ exist on the property and on the

23:24 ↗ Wildwood side is this trail that runs

23:27 ↗ along the property it's not on the

23:28 ↗ property it runs adjacent to

23:32 ↗ Wildwood uses include single-family

23:34 ↗ duplexes adult family homes trailheads

23:36 ↗ additional uses would be

23:39 ↗ a much denser housing on the site up to

23:42 ↗ multi-family Funeral Home Library it

23:46 ↗ includes a high school and college with

23:47 ↗ single family small lot does not include

23:49 ↗ in a grocery store up to 4 000 square

23:51 ↗ feet

23:53 ↗ the standards it would double the

23:55 ↗ density the potential density allowed on

23:57 ↗ this site

23:58 ↗ it reduces the minimum lot size and it

24:01 ↗ increases the height right now in single

24:03 ↗ family small hot and single family small

24:05 ↗ lot the maximum height is 30 feet in

24:09 ↗ multi-family medium the base height is

24:10 ↗ 40 feet but they can go up to 50 feet

24:12 ↗ with conditions

24:15 ↗ they're also environment many

24:17 ↗ environmental constraints on this site

24:18 ↗ what you see here in the green

24:21 ↗ is

24:22 ↗ steep slopes 40 percent and the brown

24:26 ↗ are the 50 50 foot buffers that are on

24:28 ↗ either side in addition to that there is

24:30 ↗ a 15 foot setback for any buildings

24:33 ↗ on the right hand side right here is a

24:37 ↗ dam access stream it is a class 3 stream

24:41 ↗ which has a 50 foot buffer and here is

24:43 ↗ Issaquah Creek which has a hundred foot

24:45 ↗ buffer it's a class one

24:47 ↗ stream and again

24:49 ↗ there is a 15 foot setback from those

24:51 ↗ and I should note too that on the

24:53 ↗ streams we are marking this on GIS from

24:55 ↗ the center line of the creek in

24:57 ↗ actuality it would be from the high

24:58 ↗ water mark

25:00 ↗ and which is which is further out so to

25:02 ↗ extend the buffer

25:04 ↗ also our Shoreline Management program

25:07 ↗ identifies this part of Issaquah Creek

25:10 ↗ as an Issaquah Creek Urban Conservancy

25:13 ↗ so it's more protected and there is a

25:16 ↗ 200 foot buffer for that where

25:18 ↗ multi-family is not allowed

25:20 ↗ again it's marked from the center line

25:22 ↗ and not the high water marks so once you

25:24 ↗ add in the hillsides and their buffers

25:26 ↗ the streams their buffers and the Irving

25:28 ↗ Issaquah Creek Urban Conservancy

25:30 ↗ designation what is here in the green is

25:33 ↗ what is left over as developable

25:35 ↗ and it would highly it would likely be

25:37 ↗ less because of the high water mark

25:39 ↗ judgment

25:41 ↗ so yes

25:42 ↗ when this comes back to full Council

25:45 ↗ would it be possible to actually show it

25:47 ↗ with the high water mark as you've

25:48 ↗ mentioned on the maps

25:51 ↗ I'll check I will try I don't I don't

25:54 ↗ know how that's come up several times

25:55 ↗ that it's not actually where the the

25:58 ↗ line would be so that would be helpful

26:01 ↗ for Council okay

26:05 ↗ so the administration recommends not

26:07 ↗ approving the land use and Zoning

26:09 ↗ designation changes because it doesn't

26:11 ↗ meet criteria number four which has have

26:13 ↗ there been significant changes or has

26:15 ↗ there been changed circumstances and can

26:17 ↗ it can is reasonable development

26:19 ↗ possible on the proposed Zone and we say

26:22 ↗ no

26:23 ↗ and the PPC agreed but also recommends

26:26 ↗ not approving because they also cite

26:28 ↗ criteria number three which says that if

26:31 ↗ the growth management act targets grant

26:34 ↗ grant growth management Act

26:36 ↗ housing targets have

26:39 ↗ not been met then it can be approved

26:41 ↗ they have been met that and can't be

26:44 ↗ approved so they cited that one as an

26:45 ↗ additional reason

26:48 ↗ lastly the last request made was for Our

26:51 ↗ Savior Lutheran Church

26:54 ↗ it's almost three and a half acres sits

26:57 ↗ on Front Street South

26:58 ↗ it is currently low density

27:00 ↗ residentially in land use designation

27:02 ↗ they are seeking multi-family

27:03 ↗ residential the zoning is single-family

27:06 ↗ small lot and they are requesting

27:08 ↗ multi-family High

27:10 ↗ multi-family High it sits on about three

27:13 ↗ sides of the property to the east side

27:15 ↗ has apartments and Condominiums to the

27:17 ↗ South as a nursing home to the West is

27:19 ↗ multi-family medium which also has

27:21 ↗ condominiums on most of it to the north

27:23 ↗ is an open space owned by the city

27:27 ↗ you can see in the aerial the church it

27:30 ↗ takes up about half the site and

27:31 ↗ includes

27:34 ↗ driveways and parking and then they also

27:36 ↗ own this

27:38 ↗ piece right here which is currently done

27:41 ↗ multi-family high and services parking

27:42 ↗ for the church and there's just a street

27:44 ↗ view

27:46 ↗ so same thing additional uses that would

27:48 ↗ be allowed would include Driving Range

27:50 ↗ golf range grocery store up to 4 000

27:53 ↗ square feet I believe office up to

27:54 ↗ square four thousand square feet and a

27:56 ↗ high school and a college would be some

27:58 ↗ additional uses

28:00 ↗ development standards it more than

28:02 ↗ triples what would be allowed on the

28:04 ↗ site now as far as dwelling units it

28:07 ↗ goes from 7.26 to 29 dwelling units per

28:09 ↗ acre there's no minimum lot size the

28:12 ↗ height would go from they would be

28:15 ↗ allowed to go to a 40-foot base and up

28:17 ↗ to a 65 foot maximum with conditions

28:21 ↗ conditions include things like

28:23 ↗ increasingly pervious service on the

28:25 ↗ site so it would go from 50 to 60

28:27 ↗ percent and doing 25 step backs once you

28:31 ↗ read a certain reach a certain level in

28:33 ↗ the building

28:36 ↗ the Enviro the environmental constraints

28:38 ↗ I won't get too much into it but just

28:41 ↗ like the other side this is Issaquah

28:43 ↗ Creek they have 100 foot buffer not much

28:45 ↗ in the way of steep slopes here

28:47 ↗ surrounded by the green line they are

28:49 ↗ also part of the Issaquah Creek Urban

28:52 ↗ Conservancy designation but on this site

28:54 ↗ it also means that commercial users

28:57 ↗ would not be allowed within 100 feet and

28:59 ↗ multi-family within 200 feet

29:01 ↗ in that designation

29:03 ↗ the administration recommends approval

29:05 ↗ of the land use and Zoning designation

29:07 ↗ changes that have been requested

29:09 ↗ the planning policy commission has a

29:11 ↗ different recommendation they do not

29:12 ↗ recommend approval rather they recommend

29:14 ↗ the applicant engage in discussions with

29:16 ↗ city council about a development

29:18 ↗ agreement

29:21 ↗ so these are here tonight

29:23 ↗ they are proposed for Action at the city

29:26 ↗ council November 21st city council

29:28 ↗ meeting and then any changes would go

29:30 ↗ into effect five days later on November

29:32 ↗ 26th

29:35 ↗ so again the direction needed is we're

29:37 ↗ just seeking direction from you all

29:38 ↗ regarding these amendments

29:46 ↗ questions

29:50 ↗ I do okay

29:52 ↗ all right great so my first question is

29:56 ↗ um you you went through the third

29:59 ↗ amendment and describes the property can

30:02 ↗ you explain why that one is recommended

30:06 ↗ for approval and not the Wildwood one

30:10 ↗ the third site Our Savior Lutheran

30:13 ↗ Church I'm just going to say our savior

30:14 ↗ it's it's flat it's developable it has

30:18 ↗ more opportunity for development it

30:21 ↗ meets the criteria that are listed the

30:24 ↗ Wildwood site does not meet in our

30:27 ↗ opinion does not meet the criteria of

30:30 ↗ reasonable development

30:32 ↗ which is criteria number four and

30:34 ↗ therefore we couldn't recommend approval

30:38 ↗ okay thank you now number three criteria

30:41 ↗ number three was cited by PPC as a

30:45 ↗ reason for both

30:46 ↗ not approving

30:49 ↗ the Second Amendment and the third

30:51 ↗ amendment

30:52 ↗ and I had sent in an email about that

30:57 ↗ criteria and I wondered if we could get

30:58 ↗ a legal explanation of which growth

31:02 ↗ Target we're talking about for criteria

31:03 ↗ three that's the one about if growth

31:06 ↗ targets has been met then

31:08 ↗ um this way if not then this way if you

31:11 ↗ could talk about which growth Target

31:12 ↗ we're talking about and if it has been

31:14 ↗ met that would be helpful because I

31:16 ↗ think that

31:17 ↗ just we have criteria that we need to

31:20 ↗ follow and that one it seems that it

31:22 ↗ seems that in ppc's conversation they

31:24 ↗ were operating under a certain

31:26 ↗ assumption about what that criteria

31:28 ↗ meant but I would like you to explain

31:31 ↗ your legally defensible

31:34 ↗ um interpretation of that criteria

31:38 ↗ I believe that

31:40 ↗ that

31:41 ↗ you may have there might have been a

31:43 ↗ little bit of a confusion first of all

31:45 ↗ because the the growth

31:48 ↗ Target criteria

31:50 ↗ that is referenced in the IMC doesn't

31:54 ↗ specify which

31:56 ↗ which growth targets specifically we are

32:00 ↗ referencing I think that's the initial

32:02 ↗ cause for uh

32:04 ↗ confusion here however from contextual

32:08 ↗ Clues

32:09 ↗ in the reference to the GMA I think it's

32:12 ↗ pretty clear that

32:14 ↗ the reference is to the the counties

32:18 ↗ growth targets so we're looking at you

32:21 ↗ know the the 2044 county-wide growth

32:25 ↗ targets as far as

32:28 ↗ ppc's

32:30 ↗ opinion that

32:35 ↗ that the

32:38 ↗ the targets had been met I mean I I

32:40 ↗ can't really I I didn't advise them on

32:43 ↗ the specific issues so I can't really

32:44 ↗ speak to why exactly they thought that's

32:46 ↗ the old that's the only reason that I

32:47 ↗ can I can speculate that that's where

32:50 ↗ they were coming from but in my opinion

32:53 ↗ the appropriate Target to look at would

32:56 ↗ be the county the king County's growth

32:59 ↗ targets which have not been met

33:02 ↗ is that

33:04 ↗ answer that question yes and I um and I

33:07 ↗ did watch the ppc's meeting and they

33:09 ↗ also interpreted it to

33:12 ↗ to mean or that they interpreted that

33:15 ↗ the capacity would also be a factor

33:17 ↗ which I understand is not actually

33:20 ↗ the criteria not correct doesn't matter

33:23 ↗ if we have capacity or not correct okay

33:26 ↗ thank you

33:27 ↗ um so one other

33:30 ↗ question I had

33:32 ↗ um well no a couple other questions

33:35 ↗ um

33:37 ↗ so if you could just go over if this has

33:41 ↗ been if this recommendation on all three

33:43 ↗ is um but especially the third one is

33:46 ↗ consistent with how our past actions

33:49 ↗ have been taken on rezones that would be

33:51 ↗ helpful because

33:53 ↗ um and the and the reason for this whole

33:54 ↗ line of questioning is that this is a

33:57 ↗ rezone to add density outside of central

34:01 ↗ Issaquah outside of the regional growth

34:03 ↗ Center and so and that is cited as a in

34:08 ↗ the con of the pro and con in our

34:10 ↗ materials but it's not

34:12 ↗ um cited as a Reason by the

34:15 ↗ administration anyway for rejecting the

34:18 ↗ reason request so I'm just wanting to

34:20 ↗ know how consistent this sort of line of

34:22 ↗ reasoning has been for similar

34:25 ↗ applications in the past

34:28 ↗ so since the time that Central Issaquah

34:30 ↗ was adopted

34:31 ↗ plan was adopted in 2012 the standards

34:33 ↗ in 2013 and we didn't have a regional

34:35 ↗ growth Center until 2015 June of 2015.

34:39 ↗ we have only had

34:41 ↗ three requests go through the process

34:44 ↗ one was denied because it would have

34:46 ↗ been a spot Zone another was a down Zone

34:48 ↗ and the other one was an up Zone it was

34:51 ↗ directly across the street from

34:54 ↗ Central Issaquah

34:55 ↗ and the reason for approving it was that

34:59 ↗ Circumstances had changed

35:01 ↗ and that density made sense on that site

35:10 ↗ okay so would you say that this would be

35:13 ↗ consistent with those even though

35:16 ↗ there's three only three so it's not a

35:18 ↗ huge number of previous cases but would

35:20 ↗ you say this is consistent because of

35:22 ↗ the sort of unique circumstances and in

35:24 ↗ each case

35:26 ↗ you've looked at unique circumstances

35:28 ↗ and sometimes it's approved and

35:29 ↗ sometimes it's not outside of

35:30 ↗ centralized yes they've all been very

35:32 ↗ different properties very different

35:33 ↗ sites and I those just to be clear those

35:35 ↗ aren't the only reasons that have

35:36 ↗ happened all of the others were City

35:38 ↗ initiated and were Community facilities

35:41 ↗ so very different circumstances yeah

35:45 ↗ um okay

35:46 ↗ thank you for that

35:48 ↗ um

35:52 ↗ and then yeah the other question is very

35:54 ↗ related but I wondered if this would set

35:56 ↗ a precedent for a request to Epson and

35:59 ↗ if you could speak to that about

36:00 ↗ requests to app Zone outside of central

36:02 ↗ Issaquah and again this is because I

36:04 ↗ know we've talked about wanting and and

36:06 ↗ it's in our plans to that we are hoping

36:10 ↗ it also says I think something about

36:11 ↗ preferred

36:13 ↗ um have the growth in the regional

36:15 ↗ growth Center and within Central

36:16 ↗ Issaquah um so if you could speak to how

36:19 ↗ we interpret that and how we interpret

36:21 ↗ this how we can best interpret this as a

36:24 ↗ precedent going forward certainly let me

36:27 ↗ grab my computer

36:30 ↗ reference the specific comprehensive

36:33 ↗ plan policy that we're talking about

36:35 ↗ here

36:37 ↗ and this is also one of the ones by

36:39 ↗ email I just wanted to have it as a

36:41 ↗ conversation and so when Council watches

36:43 ↗ this they can hear that this is part of

36:44 ↗ our discussion but I thought you did a

36:46 ↗ great job explaining it in your email as

36:48 ↗ well I'm glad

36:51 ↗ I'm glad so here

36:52 ↗ I'm not worried about setting a

36:54 ↗ precedent for a couple of reasons here

36:56 ↗ first

36:58 ↗ as Kristen has already mentioned each of

37:01 ↗ these rezone applications are very fact

37:04 ↗ specific and we're looking at the very

37:09 ↗ unique

37:11 ↗ characteristics of each property and how

37:14 ↗ they meet the specific criteria in the

37:17 ↗ code I think the chances of

37:21 ↗ a property and an application being so

37:25 ↗ similar that you would have to follow a

37:28 ↗ precedent would be really unusual I I

37:32 ↗ have yet to see that in my career

37:34 ↗ there's just no two properties that are

37:37 ↗ so alike that have that I've ever seen

37:41 ↗ make resume requests like this another

37:44 ↗ thing I think you should keep in mind at

37:45 ↗ least as the code is written now this is

37:47 ↗ a legislative decision which I think

37:49 ↗ gives you a little more discretion as

37:52 ↗ far as making those determinations go

37:54 ↗ however even if for instance in the

37:57 ↗ title 18 update if this if these all

38:00 ↗ these decisions do end up becoming all

38:04 ↗ quasi-jitial I still don't foresee this

38:06 ↗ being an issue because like I just said

38:09 ↗ we're dealing with very specific facts

38:12 ↗ and circumstances and

38:15 ↗ well I mean we I don't think it would be

38:17 ↗ fair to

38:19 ↗ I don't think it would be prudent to say

38:23 ↗ to take really any sort of hard line

38:25 ↗ approach of we don't unless you want to

38:28 ↗ put it specifically in your criteria but

38:31 ↗ to say

38:32 ↗ we will not approve a rezone that

38:36 ↗ results in increased density outside of

38:39 ↗ the central Issaquah because that's not

38:43 ↗ specifically one of the the criteria

38:45 ↗ right now

38:46 ↗ and that

38:49 ↗ would be a very

38:53 ↗ that would be a very

38:56 ↗ black and white approach to take when

38:58 ↗ you're dealing with what is it 10

39:00 ↗ different criteria that are all pretty

39:04 ↗ uh intricate and

39:08 ↗ specific to the various facts of a

39:11 ↗ situation you're also dealing with

39:14 ↗ um interpretation of comprehensive plan

39:17 ↗ policies which are a lot different than

39:20 ↗ rules and regulations and codes and the

39:24 ↗ even the language in the policy that's

39:26 ↗ at issue here is

39:29 ↗ um it's just it's looser it's looser

39:32 ↗ than a regulation it simply says that

39:34 ↗ the

39:35 ↗ that the goal is to focus and promote

39:39 ↗ office housing and Retail development in

39:42 ↗ the urban core regional growth Center so

39:45 ↗ that language on its face doesn't

39:47 ↗ preclude growth elsewhere it's just a

39:50 ↗ policy that you're trying to focus and

39:53 ↗ promote it in one particular region so I

39:56 ↗ I think to try to read that as

39:59 ↗ precluding it elsewhere would be a

40:03 ↗ too strong of a reading I mean of course

40:08 ↗ you the council as a policy body can can

40:13 ↗ come up with its own rezone criteria but

40:15 ↗ I think if you wanted to have take such

40:18 ↗ a take that approach you'd probably want

40:20 ↗ to revise the code accordingly before

40:22 ↗ you did so

40:25 ↗ great thank you

40:29 ↗ that's president thank you

40:31 ↗ um where did the criteria come from is

40:35 ↗ it in the comprehensive plan

40:37 ↗ all of them

40:39 ↗ all of the criteria yeah where does the

40:41 ↗ list

40:42 ↗ um well it's it's in the land use code

40:44 ↗ right now in the procedure section under

40:46 ↗ rezones

40:48 ↗ and they've existed most of them

40:52 ↗ for a very long time

40:57 ↗ are they getting touched with the title

40:59 ↗ 18 rewrite yes they are

41:02 ↗ okay I'll have to email and see what

41:05 ↗ that new piece looks like

41:07 ↗ um okay so other than that

41:12 ↗ um I want to ask about criteria for the

41:15 ↗ change circumstances or reasonable

41:17 ↗ development I'm trying to understand

41:21 ↗ that as it relates to the environmental

41:26 ↗ and critical areas that might be on a

41:30 ↗ site

41:32 ↗ um

41:33 ↗ because I understand when

41:36 ↗ like looking at a site if it has

41:40 ↗ critical areas you can't build there and

41:43 ↗ so you can only build in the other areas

41:45 ↗ I'm trying to understand how that

41:46 ↗ relates to a rezone request when if that

41:52 ↗ is what is on the site

41:55 ↗ they could build say a single family

41:57 ↗ home in that area that is the allowed

42:00 ↗ development

42:02 ↗ why does that criteria talking about

42:06 ↗ reasonable development only apply in the

42:09 ↗ case of basically an up zone or a more

42:13 ↗ dense type situation

42:16 ↗ I guess I'm just trying to understand

42:17 ↗ why why would this be something we would

42:20 ↗ talk about at the Zone time rather than

42:22 ↗ when a building permit or site

42:25 ↗ development plan is applied for

42:30 ↗ if I understand the question correctly

42:31 ↗ it would be because if you're going to

42:34 ↗ do an up Zone more intensive uses can go

42:37 ↗ there which means more traffic more

42:41 ↗ impact to the environment

42:43 ↗ um if you're going to do a down Zone

42:45 ↗ it's likely the uses will be less

42:47 ↗ intensive on that site so different

42:50 ↗ considerations are made

42:52 ↗ why would it be more

42:55 ↗ intensive impact on the environment if

42:59 ↗ you're at a limited area that could be

43:02 ↗ developable land anyway

43:07 ↗ if you are in a single family small lot

43:10 ↗ zone

43:12 ↗ you might be able to do you can do up to

43:15 ↗ duplexes right you can't do anything

43:17 ↗ tall

43:18 ↗ it can't go above 30 feet and you are

43:21 ↗ limited to the number of units that you

43:23 ↗ can put on there

43:24 ↗ so it won't have the impact the

43:26 ↗ environment

43:27 ↗ but if you up Zone it to multi-family

43:30 ↗ medium and you decide that you're going

43:31 ↗ to go up and you're going to have more

43:33 ↗ people who live on that property more

43:34 ↗ cars that enter that property

43:37 ↗ um everything that comes with density

43:40 ↗ in an environmentally

43:43 ↗ critically I I'm not thinking with lots

43:45 ↗ of environmental constraints it's just

43:47 ↗ it's just by the fact that it is more

43:49 ↗ dense and more comes with that more

43:51 ↗ people more everything that comes with

43:53 ↗ it that's going to have more of an

43:55 ↗ impact

43:59 ↗ okay I I'm still having a hard time with

44:04 ↗ the concept but I guess that might

44:07 ↗ swerve into comment um rather than

44:09 ↗ questions

44:11 ↗ yeah yeah true and if you approve it and

44:16 ↗ you look at it as Rachel just pointed

44:18 ↗ out you could also be setting them up

44:19 ↗ for failure sure we'll let you put

44:22 ↗ 14.52 units on the site but really

44:24 ↗ you've only can do maybe two or three

44:26 ↗ and so it does set them up for failure

44:29 ↗ they can't do any more than the zoning

44:30 ↗ but it's it's worthless they can't do

44:32 ↗ any more than they can do now

44:35 ↗ okay yeah I'm just trying to yeah I

44:39 ↗ guess get at that concept of

44:42 ↗ if you've got a situation where not much

44:45 ↗ can be developed where is the

44:48 ↗ appropriate point to

44:51 ↗ be able to say no based on criteria

44:55 ↗ um so okay

44:58 ↗ um

44:58 ↗ thank you you

45:01 ↗ just in in the hopes that this is

45:03 ↗ helpful I was just thinking of like if

45:05 ↗ you have a very small parcel where you

45:06 ↗ can really only realistically build a

45:08 ↗ duplex and you were to because you had

45:11 ↗ so much critical area so it's really

45:13 ↗ it's a large area but it's all steep

45:15 ↗ slope so there's only one small part

45:17 ↗ that is buildable even if you approved

45:19 ↗ multi-family High you wouldn't be able

45:21 ↗ to physically put that on the site so

45:23 ↗ that was just that was the point that I

45:25 ↗ was just gonna make but um just to use a

45:27 ↗ sort of extreme example you can imagine

45:29 ↗ if it's all critical area even if you

45:31 ↗ Zone it you can't it's just can't fit

45:33 ↗ very much on there

45:43 ↗ okay I think we're good for questions at

45:45 ↗ this point so we will move then to um

45:48 ↗ public comments on this item I do

45:49 ↗ believe we have individuals looking to

45:52 ↗ make Pueblo comments so I will read the

45:53 ↗ guidelines for public comment at this

45:55 ↗ time

45:56 ↗ um citizen comments are an important

45:57 ↗ part of the public process we take them

45:59 ↗ seriously and Factor them into decisions

46:01 ↗ we make please direct comments to the

46:03 ↗ whole committee and not individuals and

46:05 ↗ while this is not a question and answer

46:06 ↗ session we will contact you to follow up

46:08 ↗ if needed when recognized please unmute

46:10 ↗ the microphone or step out to the

46:12 ↗ lectern and there's a little button on

46:13 ↗ there to turn it on in a light up red

46:15 ↗ please state your name address in

46:18 ↗ relationship to the city please speak

46:19 ↗ clearly and pause frequently and please

46:21 ↗ limit your comments to five minutes and

46:23 ↗ if you are attending virtually and do

46:25 ↗ not respond after your name or phone

46:26 ↗ number is called or if your connection

46:28 ↗ is lost the meeting will need to proceed

46:30 ↗ and you are encouraged to rejoin the

46:32 ↗ meeting if able Claire Grabowski can you

46:34 ↗ please identify the first person who

46:36 ↗ assigned up to speak

46:38 ↗ yes chair hunt uh Mr Ken koenig's mark

46:41 ↗ would like to address the committee

46:46 ↗ good evening

46:47 ↗ um Ken koenigs Mark I'm representing 745

46:51 ↗ Front Street South was which is Our

46:53 ↗ Savior Lutheran Church I live in

46:54 ↗ Issaquah as well

46:56 ↗ um and I want to start with a brief

46:58 ↗ update to our attorney's letter that you

47:01 ↗ received which indicated that the food

47:03 ↗ bank had opted to not move and relocate

47:06 ↗ to our site

47:07 ↗ but I want to

47:09 ↗ just mentioned that this partnership may

47:11 ↗ not be over it ain't over till it's over

47:13 ↗ there are some things some discussions

47:16 ↗ going on where I cannot say that it will

47:19 ↗ happen but I can also not say that it

47:22 ↗ won't happen so

47:25 ↗ um there is some possibility it could

47:26 ↗ happen as further information unfolds

47:28 ↗ and I just wanted to emphasize that and

47:31 ↗ tell you that the church remains open

47:33 ↗ and enthusiastic about such a

47:35 ↗ possibility

47:37 ↗ and the church's priority remains and

47:41 ↗ focus remains to create a beneficial

47:44 ↗ social impact project that would be good

47:47 ↗ for the community good for the city

47:50 ↗ good for those in need and for our

47:52 ↗ church a win-win-win-win-win we hope

47:56 ↗ this may still be possible with the food

47:58 ↗ bank and or with other social service or

48:00 ↗ social impact partners

48:02 ↗ and we welcome Council and City

48:04 ↗ assistance in identifying what any of

48:07 ↗ those Partners may be or grant

48:09 ↗ opportunities

48:11 ↗ what we have is a high priority valuable

48:15 ↗ not in terms of money but location and

48:18 ↗ buildability piece of land what the city

48:22 ↗ social impact Partners need is land

48:25 ↗ let's figure out how to best use it on

48:28 ↗ such a perfect site

48:29 ↗ in regards to the rezone request the

48:32 ↗ church requests and believes this rezone

48:34 ↗ is Justified for several key reasons

48:37 ↗ number one

48:38 ↗ just logically per the zoning map and

48:41 ↗ the surrounding multi-family usage on

48:44 ↗ all sides except for Ingy Johnson Park

48:46 ↗ this parcel should legitimately be zoned

48:49 ↗ mfh

48:51 ↗ I would also add that the scenario that

48:54 ↗ would be least beneficial to the city

48:56 ↗ and to the goals of what everybody's

48:59 ↗ trying to accomplish is for an isolated

49:01 ↗ island of multi-million dollar

49:03 ↗ single-family homes to get built on that

49:06 ↗ high value parcel

49:09 ↗ um let's we don't want that I don't

49:11 ↗ think the city would want that number

49:13 ↗ two as mentioned while the food bank

49:15 ↗ opted not to commit to a relocation thus

49:18 ↗ far there may still be a possibility for

49:21 ↗ this and a rezone would help to enable

49:24 ↗ this

49:25 ↗ either for the food bank and or other

49:27 ↗ partners number three

49:30 ↗ as I mentioned our church wants to

49:32 ↗ support a social impact project on our

49:34 ↗ site and the mfh zoning provides more

49:38 ↗ flexibility and opportunities for

49:40 ↗ potential Partners food bank or

49:42 ↗ otherwise

49:44 ↗ number four why is planning requires

49:49 ↗ that the city not only meet its housing

49:51 ↗ goals as per the comp plan and and the

49:54 ↗ King County goals but also goals of the

49:57 ↗ Human Services strategic plan and the

49:59 ↗ type of what we'll call social

50:01 ↗ infrastructure that makes a city livable

50:04 ↗ vibrant compassionate and successful

50:08 ↗ and a rezone helps us and the city

50:10 ↗ achieve these goals

50:12 ↗ number five and lastly your city staff

50:15 ↗ your professional planners recommended

50:18 ↗ approval of this rezone and documented

50:20 ↗ that this application meets all of the

50:23 ↗ 10 criteria

50:24 ↗ so uh it should be very valid for a

50:29 ↗ reason

50:30 ↗ I'm going to comment specific to

50:31 ↗ criteria three

50:33 ↗ and thank you for the interpretation

50:35 ↗ the city has in fact not met its 2044

50:39 ↗ growth Target so an interpretation

50:41 ↗ saying the city had met it and therefore

50:44 ↗ should deny this rezone is a

50:46 ↗ misinterpretation

50:48 ↗ and

50:49 ↗ clearly not a justifiable reason to deny

50:52 ↗ the rezone there may be a plan there may

50:54 ↗ be a capacity but it's a fact that the

50:58 ↗ city has not yet met its growth Target

51:00 ↗ and staff verified that in the staff

51:02 ↗ report

51:05 ↗ and while we believe this rezone is

51:07 ↗ Justified as is if necessary the church

51:10 ↗ potentially remains open to considering

51:12 ↗ a development agreement if counsel

51:15 ↗ insists on that understanding that this

51:18 ↗ approach however would add cost

51:19 ↗ complexity and other possible negative

51:22 ↗ impacts to our efforts to facilitate a

51:25 ↗ beneficial social impact project

51:28 ↗ so like your planning staff we are

51:30 ↗ convinced that this rezone request meets

51:32 ↗ all the criteria

51:34 ↗ that justifies a rezone that there are

51:37 ↗ logical and compelling reasons to

51:39 ↗ support this and like your planning

51:41 ↗ staff we recommend your enthusiastic

51:44 ↗ approval of this rezone request thank

51:47 ↗ you

51:48 ↗ thank you Ken

51:50 ↗ Grabowski is there anyone else

51:53 ↗ um that would like to comment on this

51:54 ↗ item online

51:57 ↗ chair hunt there is no one online at the

52:00 ↗ moment okay and I will just note that

52:02 ↗ there is no one no other members of the

52:04 ↗ public in the audience so I will close

52:06 ↗ the public comment and we will begin

52:08 ↗ Council discussion on this item and we

52:11 ↗ have three items to

52:14 ↗ discuss

52:15 ↗ should we go through an order okay the

52:17 ↗ first one is a technical correction I

52:20 ↗ see no reason not to approve this

52:24 ↗ technical correction

52:26 ↗ the second one is Wildwood this is

52:31 ↗ um my opinion is this is a site with

52:33 ↗ many environmental constraints and

52:35 ↗ um as was mentioned in the staff report

52:38 ↗ it's not appropriate for rezoning

52:42 ↗ um so I would agree with that and would

52:45 ↗ not would agree with the recommendation

52:47 ↗ the only and would agree with sap

52:49 ↗ recommendation I don't agree with

52:51 ↗ criteria three being used in that case

52:54 ↗ because I um I believe that we are

53:00 ↗ so I think we should adhere to City

53:03 ↗ attorney turpin's interpretation of

53:05 ↗ criteria three which means uh we have

53:07 ↗ not yet met the growth Target so we're

53:09 ↗ not using that one but the environmental

53:10 ↗ constraints criteria is still a reason

53:13 ↗ not to do this one

53:17 ↗ so um on the Wildwood one

53:20 ↗ um

53:21 ↗ I had the questions about reasonable

53:24 ↗ development because it feels like if

53:27 ↗ there's a development that could occur

53:29 ↗ um then the environmental criteria I

53:33 ↗ think could come in at a later stage but

53:36 ↗ I appreciate the discussion over it not

53:41 ↗ making sense to do a rezone and put an

53:46 ↗ applicant and a developer in a position

53:48 ↗ of having a certain zoning and not being

53:51 ↗ able to

53:52 ↗ um be able to actually develop that

53:56 ↗ so I agree that it does not meet

54:00 ↗ criteria for for that reason I also

54:04 ↗ disagree on both of these cases whether

54:08 ↗ the growth controls should be considered

54:11 ↗ an issue and a reason to disapprove the

54:15 ↗ rezone request

54:17 ↗ I think considering that King County has

54:20 ↗ already adopted the 20

54:22 ↗ 2044 standards that

54:26 ↗ recognize that

54:28 ↗ the region is growing and that we have

54:31 ↗ opportunity to grow as well

54:34 ↗ so I think I am in agreement on that

54:40 ↗ okay great um and I'll also just mention

54:43 ↗ Wildwood is also surrounded by single

54:45 ↗ family and um so it would be different

54:48 ↗ than the surrounding areas that's

54:51 ↗ correct right

54:53 ↗ okay

54:54 ↗ um so so we agree on Wildwood and then

54:57 ↗ we will move to the third item which is

55:00 ↗ the one that is recommended for approval

55:03 ↗ would you like to start off comments on

55:04 ↗ this one okay go ahead yeah I think

55:06 ↗ using the same

55:07 ↗ um reasoning and criteria the growth

55:11 ↗ controls again

55:13 ↗ criteria number three is not an issue

55:15 ↗ for me when looking at this particular

55:18 ↗ or looking at any of the properties this

55:21 ↗ year and then I think there is

55:24 ↗ absolutely the ability to do reasonable

55:27 ↗ development this is absolutely about

55:30 ↗ zoning Conformity because of the other

55:33 ↗ part of their property that is already

55:35 ↗ multi-family high and this just gives us

55:38 ↗ uh gives an opportunity to create

55:44 ↗ [Music]

55:45 ↗ whatever it is that comes from that I

55:48 ↗ would say housing but there are a

55:49 ↗ multitude of uh potentials

55:52 ↗ um but this is a an excellent

55:55 ↗ opportunity

55:56 ↗ um and it meets the criteria so I would

55:58 ↗ agree with staff for approval

56:02 ↗ great um I did have one question that

56:06 ↗ came to me during public comment do you

56:09 ↗ does the administration have a position

56:11 ↗ on the development agreement

56:15 ↗ suggestion that PPC made your response

56:18 ↗ to that suggestion

56:30 ↗ good evening council members on the

56:32 ↗ development agreement you know it is a

56:34 ↗ voluntary agreement with the church and

56:36 ↗ so we've had a couple of meetings with

56:39 ↗ the the church uh to discuss what would

56:42 ↗ be the terms if they were interested

56:45 ↗ um like the testimony that you heard

56:47 ↗ tonight they are concerned about

56:49 ↗ potential costs complexities and uh so

56:56 ↗ um therefore you know we cannot mandate

56:58 ↗ a development agreement on any private

57:00 ↗ property owner that's a position

57:04 ↗ okay thank you okay

57:07 ↗ um so one comment I had is I did watch

57:12 ↗ the PPC meeting and the criteria are

57:15 ↗ complicated especially in their current

57:17 ↗ form I think they're going to be

57:18 ↗ hopefully easier to read and interpret

57:21 ↗ in the next round because we will be

57:24 ↗ using next time the updated title 18

57:26 ↗ which will have easier to interpret

57:28 ↗ criteria however I do think that it

57:31 ↗ would be great if the PPC could benefit

57:34 ↗ from the same help in interpreting these

57:38 ↗ because ultimately they make

57:39 ↗ recommendation they want to make you

57:41 ↗ know they work hard to make

57:42 ↗ recommendations that are useful to us

57:43 ↗ and so they should have the same benefit

57:46 ↗ of interpretation help especially for

57:49 ↗ something like criteria three where it's

57:51 ↗ not clear from the code which growth

57:54 ↗ Target it actually refers to and they

57:56 ↗ seem to interpret it that it was an

57:58 ↗ earlier growth Target and so for for

58:02 ↗ complex situations like that it would be

58:04 ↗ great if they could benefit from the

58:06 ↗ same kind of Legally defensible

58:08 ↗ interpretation that we then can benefit

58:10 ↗ from because then we're on the same you

58:14 ↗ know we have the same information and

58:15 ↗ then they can make a recommendation

58:16 ↗ that's ultimately more useful to us

58:19 ↗ so that would be a request going forward

58:22 ↗ um on on the specific item that we're

58:26 ↗ talking about our Savior Lutheran Church

58:28 ↗ I do believe it meets the criteria I

58:32 ↗ think

58:32 ↗ um whenever we're looking at these

58:34 ↗ criteria we do have to look at the

58:36 ↗ specifics of the site and in the

58:37 ↗ specific case I think it does meet the

58:39 ↗ all of the criteria so I would also

58:42 ↗ agree with recommending approval of this

58:45 ↗ one

58:47 ↗ um and we received a number of public

58:49 ↗ comments on this as well as the other

58:51 ↗ reasons wanted to

58:53 ↗ let the public know that we did receive

58:56 ↗ those at the end of the day it's really

58:58 ↗ about how it meets the criteria and I

59:01 ↗ think that this one did meet them so I

59:03 ↗ would recommend approval as well

59:08 ↗ all right I think we're in agreement

59:11 ↗ um would it help to make a formal motion

59:13 ↗ for these um to have it and then it will

59:15 ↗ go forward to the Council on November

59:17 ↗ 21st yes I think with the two different

59:20 ↗ recommendations it would be helpful to

59:21 ↗ have Clarity in that

59:36 ↗ do you mean the two different

59:38 ↗ recommendations because there are three

59:39 ↗ amendments

59:43 ↗ foreign

59:45 ↗ there are three amendments and the three

59:47 ↗ that you all have agreed upon are all

59:49 ↗ staff recommendations

59:53 ↗ to to concur to redesignate

59:59 ↗ and rezone

1:00:02 ↗ the is this in the packet because it's

1:00:04 ↗ not unfortunately I I redesignate a

1:00:08 ↗ reason it's in there but it's three

1:00:10 ↗ separate ones I believe okay excuse me

1:00:13 ↗ Madam chair members of the committee

1:00:15 ↗ good evening

1:00:16 ↗ um perhaps it could just be a simple uh

1:00:18 ↗ City attorney that concurred the

1:00:20 ↗ recommendations of

1:00:23 ↗ and leave it at that

1:00:27 ↗ all right

1:00:29 ↗ um I move to

1:00:31 ↗ recommends the city council that we

1:00:33 ↗ concur with the staff recommendations on

1:00:36 ↗ this item

1:00:40 ↗ those in favor say aye aye

1:00:42 ↗ aye

1:00:46 ↗ all right do you have what you need from

1:00:47 ↗ us on this item

1:00:50 ↗ okay great

1:00:51 ↗ um that is our second and final item are

1:00:54 ↗ there any announcements

1:00:57 ↗ all right there being no uh

1:00:59 ↗ no further business this meeting is

1:01:01 ↗ adjourned at 7 31 pm thank you all

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF