0:20
I'll call to order the October 17th regular council meeting and ask those of the
0:25
audience who would like to join the council and myself in the Pledge of Allegiance
0:29
to please stand.
0:35
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
0:40
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
0:46
liberty and justice from all.
0:52
Our first order of business this evening under special business is agenda bill 7267,
1:00
Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week Proclamation.
1:12
And I would ask our Code Enforcement Officer, Michelle
1:17
Forkner, to join me at the microphone.
1:25
And you know, whereas's have a lot of where as's, but they've also got a
1:29
lot of good words in it. And as I read this before signing it, I
1:33
just ask for those that are watching on TV or in the audience to listen
1:37
to all of the things that our code enforcement officer does on a daily basis.
1:44
Whereas code enforcement officers provide for safety, health, and welfare of
1:50
the citizens in the communities throughout the state of Washington, through the enforcement of local
1:55
codes or ordinances dealing with the various issues of building, zoning, housing,
2:01
animal control, environmental health and life safety. And
2:07
whereas code enforcement officers often have a challenging and demanding role and often
2:13
do not receive recognition for the job that they do in improving
2:19
living and working conditions for residents and businesses of local
2:25
communities, and whereas the role of many code enforcement officers has expanded
2:31
in recent years with the increased number of foreclosed and abandoned homes in
2:36
communities impacted economically, and whereas code enforcement
2:42
officers are dedicated, highly qualified professionals who share
2:48
the goals of preventing neighborhood deterioration, enhancing and ensuring safety,
2:54
and preserving values through knowledge and application of housing, zoning,
3:00
and nuisance codes and ordinances. And whereas code enforcement officers
3:06
often have a highly visible role in the communities they serve and
3:12
regularly interact with a variety of state, county, first responders, and
3:18
legislative boards, commissions, agencies, and bodies within the
3:23
capacity of their role in the community. And whereas code enforcement officers are called
3:29
upon to provide quality customer service and excellence to residents and
3:35
businesses of the communities in which they serve. And whereas the Washington
3:41
Association of Code Enforcement wants to recognize and honor
3:47
code enforcement officers and professionals all across the state of Washington and bring
3:52
awareness of the importance of code enforcement to the communities of the state of Washington.
3:59
And whereas the Washington Association of Code Enforcement was established in 1988
4:05
for the purpose of providing ongoing training and support for code
4:11
enforcement professionals working in the state of Washington. Now,
4:17
therefore, I, Fred Butler, Mayor of the City of Issaquah, do hereby proclaim the week
4:22
of October 24th through 28th to be Code Enforcement
4:28
Appreciation Week in the City of Issaquah. And I call upon all citizens
4:34
of Issaquah to join in recognizing and expressing their appreciation for the
4:40
dedication and service by the individuals who serve as our code enforcement
4:46
officers. In witness, I here unto set my hand and seal of the City of
4:52
Issaquah the 17th day of October, 2016. And so, Michelle, it is a
4:58
real pleasure for me to present this certificate of
5:03
appreciation, this proclamation, rather, for the good work that you do on a daily basis
5:08
and You are a great asset for our community. And if you'd like
5:14
to say a few words, we would be delighted to hear from you. Thank you.
5:19
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I just would like to say that this is
5:23
a great honor to have this happen. I have police officers who carry guns, by
5:29
the way, tell me they would never want to do my job. So this is
5:34
a great honor. And also as president of the Washington Association of Code Enforcement,
5:40
I've asked every jurisdiction in the state of Washington to make this proclamation for their
5:44
code enforcement officers. And I want to say thank you to Mayor Fred Butler for
5:48
being the first jurisdiction to do this for us. So thank you. Thank you, Michelle,
5:52
for the good work of the president.
6:12
Our next order of business is audience comments. There are two opportunities this
6:18
evening to speak under audience comments. There will be a public hearing
6:24
later in the meeting around agenda bill 7258,
6:30
temporary moratorium related to certain permit applications. So if you're here to speak to that
6:36
agenda bill, the appropriate time would be when I open the public hearing.
6:43
And there should be two sign-up sheets back there. And if you have not signed
6:48
up to speak for the public hearing, the sign-up
6:54
sheets are in the back of the council chambers. So guidelines for public
6:59
participation, and this pertains both to audience comments of a general nature
7:05
and also those testifying at the public hearing.
7:11
Citizen comments are an important part of the public process. We take them seriously and
7:16
factor them into the decisions we make. Anyone from the public who wishes to comment
7:22
will have the opportunity to do so. Please direct your comments to the whole council
7:28
and not individuals. While this is not a question and answer session, we will
7:34
contact you to follow up if needed. If you did not have an opportunity to
7:39
include your email address on the sign in sheet, you may leave that
7:45
information on the clipboard at the front table after speaking.
7:52
And our city clerk is, putting that sign up sheet and so once you testify,
7:58
just pull up a chair there and provide that information. And recognize,
8:04
use the lectern and speak into the microphone, state your name, address and any relationship
8:09
to the city. Please limit your comments to five minutes. Submit any
8:15
written comments to the city clerk. Visual timer has been placed on the lectern.
8:21
When it turns yellow, you are within the last minute of your comment period. If
8:25
you use the full five minutes, the timer will sound to indicate the end of
8:30
your allotted comment time. As a reminder, personal attacks, obscene language,
8:35
derogatory remarks, and disruptive behavior will not be permitted. If the speaker is out of
8:40
order, I will direct the speaker to return to his or her seat. If the
8:44
speaker does not comply, I will ask him or her to leave the council chambers.
8:51
Again, citizen comments, written and verbal, are an important aspect of the public
8:56
process. We take those comments seriously and we thank members of the
9:02
public for taking the time to address us during our meeting. And with that, I
9:07
would ask if anyone has signed up to speak under audience comments.
9:12
Yes, Joshua Sher.
9:27
Good evening, Mayor, Council, members of the viewing public. If Councilmember Martz is watching
9:33
this later, I send him my warmest regards as well. I haven't provided any comments
9:38
at a meeting these past 10 months, and I don't plan to make a habit
9:42
of it. But this meeting is significant because of one, the upcoming election,
9:48
and two, the public hearing coming up later tonight. My remarks at the moment concern
9:53
the first issue, specifically the ballot measures dealing with transportation. My
9:59
address for the record is 13555 Southeast 36th Street, Suite 300 in Bellevue.
10:05
That's my office. And I think you know my relationship to the city. As you
10:10
may know, if you read my column in the Esquad Press, I don't support the
10:14
local transportation bond package. And I hope the result will be a resounding no.
10:21
So there is no doubt about the outcome. It is not the right set of
10:26
projects at the right time. If they were right, I would be there championing the
10:31
cause. But these projects will not produce meaningful congestion relief, which I will remind you
10:37
was the whole point of requesting a voter approved bond in the first place. I
10:42
remember those conversations very, very well. We wanted a transportation bond to
10:48
address traffic in the city. Now these projects are not in the central area
10:54
where additional growth is supposed to be concentrated. And the projects are all notably close
10:59
to large new developments, which creates the perception that you're asking citizens to pay out
11:05
of their own pocket for the impacts of others. Now you've pivoted to safer streets
11:10
as the reason for the bond, probably because no one can be anti-safety. You can
11:16
never be against things that are safe. But safety should be just a part of
11:21
how you determine which capital projects are built, not a primary justification for hiking up
11:26
everyone's taxes. I'm here tonight because I believe you've lost sight of how to prioritize
11:31
what's important to the people you represent. First of all, the number one concern expressed
11:37
by the public here in this city on any issue overall is traffic. The survey
11:43
which was presented to the traffic task force showed overwhelming support for fixing the intersection
11:49
near Target and Trader Joe's and worked towards the quote centerpiece of the central area
11:53
plan, my favorite, a freeway crossing near 12th Avenue. Neither of these is part of
11:59
the bond. This fact alone ignores popular opinion. Secondly, the
12:05
four projects identified on the ballot have not been considered high priority on the CIP
12:10
or the CFP. Obviously, different things are important to different people. If you live in
12:16
South Cove, you will likely care more about the pinch point near the state park
12:19
than the Providence Point intersection, and of course, vice versa. But that is why we
12:24
used to rank transportation items to inform the budget process. And I strongly recommend that
12:30
whether or not this bond passes, that you not only return to this practice, but
12:34
also create a set of metrics for those annual determinations. Years ago, I suggested a
12:40
system where committee members would add up objective scores for congestion relief, safety, cost, et
12:46
cetera, while leaving room for a smaller subjective score in the calculation. Then you take
12:52
the aggregate and derive a list and you plan what should be done in upcoming
12:56
years based on what you hope to be able to afford. You don't have to
13:00
follow this precise approach, but really, really, anything's better than stuffing the ballot measure with
13:06
projects to boost its chances of success rather than paying attention to what the broader
13:10
public prefers. Third, you need to also look ahead long term as well. Now, I
13:16
would have preferred that each sub-area pay for its own share of sound transit expansion
13:21
on timetables that make sense for those communities. But assuming this measure, which I frankly
13:26
think is awful, I call it Issaquah last instead of Issaquah first, assuming it passes
13:32
anyway, because we're going to get outvoted by the west side, Please begin to work
13:37
with relevant landowners today. Please listen to what residents need for effective transit service.
13:43
Do we really expect everyone to drive to a light rail station? Because most of
13:47
us don't live behind QFC. And keep in mind that a 500 stall park and
13:52
ride with no expansion capability will be full on day one. And day one is
13:58
at best 2041. when autonomous cars and ride share companies like Uber and Lyft may
14:03
be the future of local transportation. I encourage you once again to be innovative in
14:08
your planning and look beyond just this region, this state, or even this country if
14:14
you have to. It's great to be with you here this evening, and in a
14:18
little while I'll be back up to focus on development and the proposed moratorium. Thank
14:22
you very much. Thank you. Is anyone else signed up?
14:29
Is there anyone else who would like to speak during audience comments? I said
14:35
previously the public hearing will begin. And
14:41
Ms. March, I see you edging your way towards the microphone. Ms. Through the crowds.
14:47
I like crowds. My name is Connie March and I have a store at 1175
14:54
Northwest Gilman Boulevard, Suite B11. I also live in Issaquah. And
15:00
I'm actually here to talk to you about Planning Policy Commission, because I went to
15:03
the committee meeting the other night, and they're doing the updates for the
15:09
year. And some of the things that concern me are that we still don't have
15:14
a capital improvement plan or a CFP, CIP, whatever you want to call it now.
15:19
And so basically most of the decisions that are being made are being made on
15:24
old information. And it's very hard to plan a city which is sort of a
15:30
turning point on old information. And I just don't think we should make those decisions
15:36
without good information. So why don't we have this information? I
15:42
think is an interesting question. It seems like we've been asking for this information for
15:46
a very long time, about two years. And I think it's just
15:52
the city is overwhelmed. There's not enough time in a day. People can't get
15:58
everything done that they need to do. And so things are dropping through and
16:04
we're making decisions on old information. So this brings me to the next thing is,
16:10
How do we just slow down? It's all moving very fast. We got more
16:16
development than we expected from the Central Issaquah Plan. We're moving too fast toward our
16:21
growth targets. We aren't able to build our infrastructure as we need to to
16:27
accommodate that growth. Even with the moratorium, which I'm not really talking about the moratorium,
16:34
In the pipeline, we have a tremendous number of projects that we are going to
16:37
be doing within the next two years. And with those projects, we have not yet
16:43
figured out how to get those projects built even more closely to our vision than
16:49
the past ones that we all know people don't like. So PPC tried
16:55
to ask this question. They're saying, aren't we growing too fast? What can we do?
17:01
Can we add language to our comp plan to help us determine not just how
17:06
we should grow, but how quickly we should grow? And I got to say,
17:16
it didn't gain traction because staff didn't let it.
17:23
And I don't know why. I don't understand why we aren't turning around and looking
17:28
at that, like the crux of the matter and trying to figure out how to
17:33
put the language in place where we can start managing the speed and the quantity
17:38
and why there's pushback. So I guess as we go through the next conversation
17:44
and you get to look at the comprehensive plan updates for this year, you start
17:49
asking yourselves that sort of, How fast do we need to grow? How do
17:55
we make it grow where the public can support it and the work can get
18:00
done and we have the proper information? And try to figure out the language to
18:05
make that happen. Thank you. Thank you. Is anyone else signed up?
18:12
Is there anyone desiring to speak under audience comments who has not signed up?
18:18
Anyone desiring to speak under audience comments? Third and final call. Audience comments
18:24
are closed and we'll now move to committee and regional reports beginning with
18:30
Mariah Batiste. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Unfortunately, I was not able to
18:36
attend the Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee last week because we were in budgeting
18:42
sessions. I did just want to give a
18:48
couple updates based on the draft minutes that came back.
18:54
I did send an email ahead of time talking about Issaquah's support of the low
19:00
income housing tax credit that we discussed at our last meeting. The legislative agenda
19:06
positions for the Public Issues Committee Legislative Committee were also discussed and
19:11
included adjusting the property tax cap, investing in public health services and addressing housing
19:19
and the homelessness crisis, and we'll be talking more about that. A reminder that the
19:24
regional board and committee nominations for the Public Issues Committee for Sound Cities Association,
19:30
I'm sorry, for Sound Cities Association, are due 10-26-16, and you do not need
19:36
to be a member of the Public Issues Committee to serve as an appointee, so
19:41
if you're interested in that, to take a look. The next, Sound Cities Association
19:46
PIC meeting is November 9th, 7 p.m. at Renton City Hall. There are just a
19:52
couple of events that they wanted to let everyone know about as well.
19:58
The Sound Cities Association annual meeting is November 30th. There are two caucus
20:04
meetings coming up as well in December, on December 7th and December 15th.
20:11
and the AWC regional meeting is 11-10. And then just a couple of
20:17
updates regarding the Eastside Human Services Forum, just a few events that
20:23
are going on that I just wanted to share. The King County is looking for
20:27
community input on the vets and human services levy. There are two, you can go
20:33
to King County Gov to find more information, but on Tuesday, October 25th at Blakely
20:38
Hall at 1.30, there will be a meeting for King County to get input and
20:44
Redmond City Center Thursday, October 20th, 6.30 to 8.30. In addition, there are
20:50
several meetings going on, community conversations on the topic of homelessness, And those are
20:56
both at the Redmond Library on November 3rd at 6.30 and Tuesday, October 18th at
21:02
6 p.m. That concludes my report. Thank you. Council Member Bill Ramos. Thank you.
21:09
Last Friday the 14th, I attended the Eastside Transportation Partnership. The main thing that happened
21:14
there was as part of the legislative committee, we had
21:20
brought our draft proposal forward for review and it was accepted fairly well with changes
21:25
so we'll work on that to finalize that next month. The other discussion that was
21:30
of interest was talking about VMT or vehicle miles traveled.
21:37
Some of you may be aware Oregon has a pilot program doing that looking at
21:41
substituting gas tax as another way of collecting paying for our roads and so a
21:46
way of measuring vehicle miles traveled. State of Washington is in the process of implementing
21:52
a pilot program as well to take place next year and see how that goes
21:57
and be watching that. So just looking at a long-term way since gas tax is
22:02
not finding a way to keep our roads maintained as they were in the past.
22:07
So that's a new method that people are looking at. Next thing is the Regional
22:12
Transit Committee work session is this coming Wednesday the 19th. The Sound City
22:18
Association Caucus will meet beforehand, and the difference in that is usually we meet in
22:21
King County Council Chambers, but we're gonna be meeting in Kirkland City Hall instead for
22:26
that session. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Council Member Winterside.
22:32
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Council Infrastructure Committee met here in the Council
22:38
Chambers last October 11th at 6.30. Those Council Committee meetings are now televised live if
22:43
you want to see them. We didn't have any audience members join us, so perhaps
22:48
everybody's watching on TV. There were a number of items that we discussed, three major
22:53
items. We got a briefing on the coming garbage rate increases that are gonna take
22:56
effect January 1st. The kind of the typical 32 gallon garbage can plus yard
23:02
waste and recycling, that rate, WHICH IS CHARGED BY RECOLOGY IS GOING TO GO UP
23:07
BY 5.7 PERCENT AS OF JANUARY 1ST. SO THAT CURRENT RATE IS $14.37
23:15
A MONTH. THAT WILL BE GOING UP TO $15.19 A MONTH. THE
23:21
PRIMARY DRIVER WAS A 12 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE COST FROM KING COUNTY FOR THE
23:26
COST OF RECOLOGY TO DUMP THEIR TRUCKS AT THE TRANSFER STATIONS. WE ALSO DISCUSSED
23:34
A WATER TREATMENT LONG TERM OPTION STUDY. THAT IS AN ITEM FOR OUR COUNCIL'S
23:40
SAKE. IT WAS ON A TRACK. IT IS STILL ON ITS OWN AGENDA BILL BECAUSE
23:45
THERE IS SOME KIND OF POLICY AND PROCEDURAL RELATED ISSUES WE WILL BE DISCUSSED. WE
23:50
WILL FOLD THAT INTO THE FORMAL 2017 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. EARLIER THIS YEAR
23:56
WE SET ASIDE OR ASKED THE IDENTIFIED $100,000 TO CONDUCT A STUDY FOR A LONG
24:01
TERM WATER TREATMENT STUDY OPTIONS AND WE'LL BE DELIBERATING THAT IN DETAIL AS FAR
24:07
AS PART OF THE FULL COUNCIL BUDGET DELIBERATIONS THAT ARE COMING UP. WE ALSO HAD
24:11
A GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FORMATION OF A TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY BOARD AS WAS ORIGINALLY
24:17
SUGGESTED BY THE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE. THIS COUNCIL SUGGESTED TO THE
24:22
ADMINISTRATION, WE'D LIKE TO CONSIDER PROPOSALS FOR FORMING A STANDING TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY BOARD. A LOT
24:28
OF DISCUSSION. THAT WHOLE TOPIC WILL BE COMING BACK IN FRONT OF THE FULL COUNCIL
24:34
AT A FUTURE WORK SESSION. THEN ON OCTOBER 13, THE EAST
24:39
SIDE FIRE AND RESCUE BOARD MET. It was a big meeting, a lot of good
24:45
action was taken. We adopted the 2017 revenue and expense budget to
24:51
the city of Issaquah. Our contribution will be going up 4.21% from 2016 to 2017.
24:59
We also adopted the first ever budget management and reserves policy, we would
25:05
maybe call them financial policies. So now Eastside Fire and Rescue has written and
25:10
very good financial policies that it will be following and we can hold them accountable
25:14
to those policies. And then we also adopted the Eastside Fire and
25:20
Rescue's 2017-2021 strategic plan. And
25:27
maybe I had a copy of it, I don't have it in my bag, but
25:31
You have a copy, Mary Lou, you can show that? A copy of this? So
25:37
I think the agency spent about six months. This is an early printed copy, I
25:42
think, a final copy. There's some cleanup that has to go to this, but this
25:47
is about six months' worth of effort led by Chief Clark, his staff, and many
25:53
other community members throughout the entire Eastside Fire and Rescue Area of service,
25:59
so I was very proud to be you know part of the adoption of that
26:02
strategic plan and One other point of note is that the chief did mention that
26:07
they are collaborating with our city and the Samanis Plateau water and sewer district on
26:13
the on the on a memorandum of understanding for the investigation into PFAS and our
26:18
next board meeting will be on Thursday November 10th that concludes my report Thank You
26:23
councilmember Barber no report this evening councilmember Pauling Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
26:30
Cascade Water Alliances Resource Committee met on October 12. There were two items for discussion.
26:36
One was an update on an Army Corps of Engineer fish ladder project down in
26:40
the Lake Taps area. And the other was property disposition. Council Land and
26:45
Shore. I kind of misplaced with this. Council Landon-Shore met on
26:51
October 6 here in Council Chambers, also a televised committee meeting. There were four items
26:57
that night. The first was an open item called Development Moratorium, which I am suggesting
27:02
stays on our agenda until the moratorium is lifted. And it allows the
27:08
public to provide comments on the moratorium. Written comments are taken by staff and made
27:12
part of the And the written comments that were submitted at that
27:18
meeting were made part of the material that is in our packet this evening for
27:21
the hearing. The second item was Agenda Bill 7196. It's a draft development
27:27
agreement with Silverado. The staff presented the draft of the development agreement and discussion occurred
27:33
relating to a bridge on site, affordable lots and trails.
27:39
There were some committee edits and additions that were recommended to staff and that will
27:44
be returning to committee in November. There will also be a revised exhibit that provides
27:49
a figure showing developable areas, trails, critical areas and open space.
27:55
The third item was Agenda Bill 7122, amendments to stormwater management regulations within municipal
28:01
code and central Issaquah development and design standards. This agenda bill had been moved through
28:06
committee and recommended to come to the full council. However, there was a couple of
28:11
items that had to be fixed up that were related to fines for violations
28:17
and also an indication of where LID practices have been attempted in the city. This
28:22
information was received and reviewed by the committee. There were a few questions and it
28:27
will be coming to the full council for presentation at the November 7th council meeting.
28:32
Agenda Bill 7050, amending development services department permit fees. Staff provided a
28:38
worksheet identifying how different projects would fare under the 2016 and proposed 2017
28:45
fee schedules. For the next Land Insurance Meeting, there will be some additional information
28:51
regarding some projects that have occurred recently within the last year or so and how
28:56
those fees would be calculated differently under this new proposal.
29:02
I think the major policy decision or policy question that was on the table was
29:06
at what level should the cost recovery be and some values were discussed at the
29:11
meeting. This will be coming back again to the entire council as
29:17
part of the 2017 budget discussion since it has budget impacts as well. The next
29:22
Land and Shore Committee meeting is scheduled for the Thursday, the 3rd of November, 2016
29:27
in these chambers and that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Council President Goodman.
29:32
No report. Thank you. For the mayor's report, there will not be an executive session
29:37
held this evening. I attended Bellevue College's 50th anniversary
29:43
celebration on October the 10th and presented a proclamation recognizing and expressing
29:49
our appreciation for the role Bellevue College has served in our community. On October the
29:55
11th, I hosted the University House hosted A Meet the Mayor event.
30:02
The main topic was the potential for a new hotel on Black Nugget Road.
30:07
Deputy Council President Mary Lou Pauly, staff and I met with the Issaquah Valley Senior
30:12
Center Board on October 12th to discuss senior services.
30:18
I attended the October 13th Pugetstown Regional Council Transportation Policy Board meeting
30:25
and we reviewed the 2016 Transit Integration Report. and received a briefing on
30:31
the state of the regional economy. Of interest, in 2015,
30:37
the region surpassed two million jobs. Since 2010, more than 294
30:44
people were added to the region, an 8% increase. And this year,
30:50
up to last month, 86,000 people were added to
30:57
the region. I chaired the Sound Transit Capital Committee on October 13th. We received a
31:03
briefing on the proposed 2017 Transit Improvement Plan. Next year's annual
31:09
spending highlights include a,
31:15
or the budget was just based on ST2 and
31:21
did not include ST3 as that has not been,
31:27
acted on by the voters. Getting next year, the peak of
31:32
construction for the ST2 plan will
31:38
begin. System expansion is 90% of the $1.2 billion budget
31:45
and includes construction on Northgate Link, East Link, Linwood Link, Tacoma Trestle,
31:51
and I-90 Stage 3. On July the 18th, the council requested that
31:57
administration evaluate low cost interim improvements for the
32:03
Trader Joe's target Maple intersection that are consistent
32:09
with the city's pedestrian crossing study. But greater
32:15
than that was, that was
32:22
planned for 2016 and While continuing to work with the property owner toward a permanent
32:28
solution, staff from Public Works Engineering Economic Development have connected
32:34
with the property owner, updating them on a potential interim improvement as well as
32:40
continuing a dialogue related to their desire for a permanent solution.
32:46
Staff from Public Works Engineering will provide a more detailed update at the November Council
32:52
Infrastructure Meeting. And finally, Issaquah's comprehensive plan
32:58
recently received national recognition from the American Planning
33:03
Association. Our plan earned bronze recognition in the APA's comprehensive
33:09
plan standards for sustaining places recognition program.
33:15
Nationwide, only eight communities received recognition through the program.
33:22
And that concludes the mayor's report. We'll now move to the consent
33:28
calendar. And I would ask if the payables and payroll for October 17th
33:34
have been reviewed. They have. Thank you. I would now
33:40
ask the clerk to read into the record the consent calendar. The consent
33:46
calendar was distributed to Council in advance for study. If authorized, Council action will occur
33:50
by single motion regarding the following items. Item A seeks approval of the accounts payables
33:55
and payroll of October 17th. Items B and C seeks approval of the minutes of
33:59
the Committee of the Whole Council of September 27th and the regular meeting of October
34:04
3rd. Item D, AB 7001, amendments to IMC 1810 Wetland Rating
34:10
System, seeks referral to Council Land and Shore Committee. Item E, AB 7241,
34:17
2017 through 2018 waste reduction and recycling grant seeks authorization of submittal an item F
34:22
AB 7253 human services grant recommendations 2017 through 2018 seeks
34:28
referral to council services and safety committee this concludes the reading Thank You does any
34:34
council member desire to move any item from the consent calendar and consider it under
34:39
regular business Council President Goodman I would
34:46
move to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in
34:51
favor of approving the consent calendar as submitted signify by saying aye. Aye. Those
34:57
opposed, that carries unanimously. Moving now to the
35:03
public hearing that I referenced previously, agenda bill 7258,
35:10
temporary moratorium related to certain permit applications.
35:17
With that, I would invite our Development Services Director, Keith Niven,
35:23
for a brief presentation on that topic.
35:37
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. I'm going to try and speak loud enough so
35:41
that the people in the back and up the stairs can hear me without blowing
35:45
you all out of this room. So kind of keep doing this if I'm too
35:49
loud or too quiet, but I'll try and be loud enough that everybody can hear.
35:53
So what I'm going to do is kind of go through the
35:59
the the moratorium ordinance just briefly and talk about a proposed work
36:05
plan to address each of the items and then move into some overall comments that
36:10
we received from the community. So the moratorium ordinance basically
36:17
set up a six month moratorium. It identified areas of concern.
36:23
It covers the entire city. Unless specifically excluded, it keeps new development
36:30
from city review and permitting, and it does not stop vested projects. The specific
36:36
exclusions that are listed in the ordinance are development agreements, transit-oriented
36:41
development, essential public facilities, that would be like hospitals and fire stations,
36:48
public schools and the Village Theater, city land and capital projects,
36:54
remodels and tenant improvements, single-family homes on already platted
37:00
parcels, affordable housing where at least 40% of the project
37:06
meets our definition for affordable, and then emergency repairs.
37:12
So these are the areas of concern that were identified in the ordinance. The first
37:17
is architectural fit. The second is urban design. The third is vertical mixed use.
37:23
The fourth is affordable housing. The fifth is parking and the sixth
37:29
is district vision. Central Issaquah plans actually divided into 10
37:35
districts or neighborhoods and part of the discussion that we had with the council on
37:40
July 11th identified that there were maybe some discrepancies between the visions in the
37:46
plan and what was actually being built out in the community. So
37:52
Item number one, architectural fit. So I think some of the feedback
37:58
that the council received from some of the early projects that were being developed in
38:03
central Issaquah were that they didn't seem like they fit in with the vision for
38:09
Issaquah or what people thought of when they thought of Issaquah. So the work plan
38:14
would include what's being proposed by the administration is to basically
38:20
send out a request for proposals to hire a consultant to write architectural guidelines for
38:25
central Issaquah. This is a level of technical expertise that we do not have on
38:30
staff, and so we would have to go out to get somebody to do that
38:34
for us. Once those draft guidelines are put together, we envision
38:40
some sort of outreach with the development commission and or the community
38:46
so that we could talk through what that looks like and how this would be
38:50
implemented. And then because it would likely be a code revision,
38:57
this would need to go through the planning policy commission and then it would ultimately
39:02
be adopted by the city council. The second item that was identified was urban design.
39:09
And what we would first want to do here is to take a look at
39:12
the projects that had already been permitted in central Issaquah and try to assess where
39:17
we felt like there were some misses in urban design. And from there,
39:23
we would then draft maybe some additional requirements or guidelines as necessary.
39:30
Again, review those with the Development Commission because they have a lot of experience talking
39:35
about those types of details with development projects. bring it through planning policy commission and
39:41
then ultimately have it reviewed and adopted by the city council. The third item
39:47
was or is vertical mixed use. So basically
39:53
we would take the information that was presented by Eco Northwest at the
40:01
Committee of the Whole meeting at the end of September and basically turn that into
40:06
some proposed code amendments. We would review those with Planning Policy Commission
40:12
and incorporate as needed into the revision on the district visions and then
40:18
ultimately it would come before the council in terms of either code
40:24
amendments or plan amendments. Number four, affordable housing.
40:31
Again, we would utilize the information that was provided by Eco Northwest on our existing
40:37
housing stock and what our housing stock might look like in the future. And then
40:42
discuss policy direction with a regional coalition for housing or arch and the city council.
40:50
which would ultimately then translate into either code amendments
40:56
and what we had talked about with our housing strategy is actually come up with
41:01
some kind of action items where we could be more targeted in delivering
41:07
affordable housing to the community. Number five was parking. So this
41:12
is, there's like There's two parts to this particular one, at least the way I
41:17
understand it. The first is, and you see it listed under the first bullet, is
41:22
review existing requirements for right-size parking. So what that really means is
41:28
taking a look at the parking requirements that are in the code right now, because
41:33
the ideal is you provide the right number of parking, not too few or too
41:37
many. Too many, you're burdening the property, and too few, then you have parking spillover
41:42
into the neighborhoods. And so part of looking at this is
41:48
the parking requirements for central Issaquah are actually lower than they are in the rest
41:53
of the city. And part of it was this expectation for a more urban kind
41:57
of development fabric. And if we're not there yet, and if we don't have transit
42:02
supporting that, the question is, do we not have enough parking? And I think the
42:06
first part of this is looking at the projects that are out there and seeing
42:10
if that was dialed down too tight or not. The second part is looking at
42:15
whether or not we should actually mandate a certain portion of the parking in
42:21
these new developments to be in structures, parking garages or tuck under existing
42:27
buildings. And so obviously there's costs associated with that and part of this would be
42:32
talking to multifamily developers and seeing what their perspective is on us taking those kind
42:37
of actions. And then again, like some of the other work items, we would be
42:42
bringing something in front of Planning Policy Commission, and then ultimately to the Council for
42:47
adoption. And the last item was, as I mentioned earlier, there's 10
42:53
neighborhoods or districts within central Issaquah. And what we talked about was kind of
42:58
going back and either vetting the existing vision for each neighborhood or
43:04
proposing revisions based on either one, the projects that are coming through or
43:10
changes in ownership or maybe how these things, these neighborhoods want to function
43:16
together as a sub area. So those would ultimately go through planning policy commission as
43:21
well and then be adopted by the council at the end. So
43:29
there's been a number of comments that the city has received and then a number
43:34
of requests from different property owners and developers. So the comments,
43:40
many of them have come in through social media, through the city's Facebook page. So
43:46
I've summarized some of those comments on the left side here. So support the moratorium,
43:50
keep the moratorium for a long period. Traffic is the biggest concern. Expand
43:56
infrastructure. Dislike the size and scale and architecture of one particular project, Atlas.
44:04
might as well call it out. And then question whether central Issaquah plan vision fits
44:10
with the residents vision. So those are the comments in general we've received. Now some
44:14
of the requests we've had from different property owners and developers are lift the
44:20
moratorium, it's not a surprise, allow all residential to resume, and there's
44:27
There's reasons for each of these, and we can go into those later if you'd
44:30
like. Shrink the coverage of the moratorium just to central Issaquah. Number
44:36
four, allow Issaquah businesses to relocate in town. So we have businesses that are wanting
44:42
to expand that can't because they can't get a land use permit for a new
44:46
location. And then the last one would be allow projects with identified mobility contributions to
44:52
move forward. So those are some of the specific requests we've had that have come
44:57
into my departments. And so that's the
45:03
extent of kind of my overview. And I think unless you have any questions now,
45:08
I'll step aside and let the public comment. Thank you.
45:17
So Keith, in the previous slides that you had, most of the things that were
45:21
going to be worked on were specific CIP vision and code issues.
45:28
Yes. So what are the items in the moratorium that support a citywide
45:34
moratorium? So in my opinion, the one item
45:39
that was the cause for citywide was affordable housing.
45:45
So affordable housing is a citywide issue, not just a central Issaquay issue. And so
45:50
I think part of the concern that the council expressed was we have plats going
45:56
through citywide that really aren't helping us meet our affordable housing targets. And
46:02
do we need to put all of them on hold to address that issue? Thanks.
46:06
Are there any other questions before I open the public hearing? Seeing none then, I
46:15
previously provided guidelines for both audience and the public hearing, and I will open the
46:21
public hearing at 746 and ask if
46:27
anyone has signed up to speak. Yes, and may I ask that the next person
46:32
up move near the mic so that they can quickly start speaking when the
46:38
previous person's time is up. So first we have Dawn Pickens followed by Nick Gill.
47:02
My name is Don Pickens. I represent Silverado. My
47:08
address is 2018 156th Avenue Northeast
47:14
in Bellevue. That's an office address. Silverado was mentioned earlier
47:20
by Councilman Polly. We were at the October Land and Shore
47:26
Committee meeting. We've been working for this month two years. on
47:32
a project that is on SR 9900 across from Talos.
47:39
We spent considerable time and effort and money on this property. We are finally at
47:44
the point where hopefully we have something that is satisfactory to the city. It has
47:50
a number of attributes that I think warrant discussion of exemption from the moratorium,
47:56
which is really our goal so that we can move forward. We are outside of
48:00
the central Issaquah plan. Our development agreement that is under review
48:06
presently is a clustered housing plan. It provides for
48:12
affordable housing lots to be dedicated to the city, so it addresses the very concern
48:16
of the moratorium. It provides for a significant portion of the property to remain in
48:22
open space. And it also provides for trail easements for future expansion of your
48:28
trail system. We've worked very hard to work with the city in all of its
48:31
objectives. And we would like to see that those residential
48:37
developments such as this that are outside of the Central Issaquah Plan significantly along in
48:42
the process can move forward and we would like to hope that we can get
48:47
our development agreement before the council approved and at that point that we could move
48:51
directly on to a preliminary plat review and application and not be
48:57
stopped at that point. So that really represents our overall comment
49:03
on our situation as it relates to the moratorium. and ask for the city to
49:09
consider equitable resolutions to certain issues for residential development such as
49:16
ours. Thank you, Mr. Pickens.
49:22
Nick Gill, followed by Ron and Lisa Humphrey. Yes,
49:29
my name is Nicholas Gill and I've been working on the Bass property for just
49:34
about the last three years. I don't know if you're familiar with the Bass property,
49:39
but it's a special case in that it's been adversely affected by the Costco
49:45
development agreement. And currently, one eminent domain on East Lake
49:50
Sammamish has already taken place and another one is going through, which is affecting Mr.
49:56
Bass's business and causing him to try to figure out over the last three years
50:02
what to do. And, you know, Basically, I think the
50:08
bottom line for that property is if the moratorium was happening and there
50:14
was no eminent domain, he'd be happy because he doesn't really want to do anything.
50:20
But because of this eminent domain and the issues caused by the Costco
50:25
development agreement, it creates a special case. And so I'd like to ask counsel to
50:31
consider making him a special case and exempting him from the moratorium. at least the
50:37
property to get back and allow him to plan for a way to
50:42
take care of his family going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gill.
50:49
Ron and Lisa Humphrey followed by Joshua Scher. My name is
50:55
Ron Humphrey. It's my wife, Lisa Humphrey. We're residents of Issaquah here. I've had a
51:00
business for the last 20 years in Issaquah here.
51:07
This is pretty informal to us. We are people that are business
51:13
people, but also we have a piece of property in Issaquah here for the last
51:17
15 years over on 2nd Avenue. Right behind Gilman Village,
51:24
the house burnt down and it's zoned for light commercial, I mean zoned for
51:31
light commercial and multiple family. And so because of insurance reasons,
51:38
we decided to develop it. And we have sunken our heart
51:44
and soul into this. We have put our house up, you know, for
51:50
collateral. We've dropped about $50,000 in plans. And now
51:56
this moratorium has shut it down. And so...
52:02
We're at the point now where we don't know what to do. We're replanning because
52:06
there's only one house allowed now. There was three. And so now we're going all
52:11
back through the whole stage. And it's been about a year and a half.
52:18
And so my wife has worked really hard on this. And I
52:24
would really appreciate the council, mayor, you would lift the moratorium or exempt us from
52:29
that. because we have put in a lot
52:35
into this financially and we're gonna lose a lot financially if this doesn't go
52:41
through. This is
52:47
pretty simple. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Humphrey, thank you
52:52
very, very much for coming this evening. Joshua Scherer followed by
52:59
Bob Power. Good evening again. Joshua Sher, 13555,
53:05
Southeast 36, Suite 300. My family and I live in Tallis. I used to be
53:10
a council member. That's my connection to the city, in case anyone was wondering. I'll
53:14
try to speak up because I understand some people are having a hard time hearing
53:17
back there. I read through the citizen comments regarding this moratorium, and the common theme
53:22
that I noticed was that, like myself, there is a prevailing belief that growth is
53:27
outpacing infrastructure, specifically roads. Secondarily, there was a concern over the cost of
53:33
housing. And third, there were aesthetic or design related comments, mostly
53:38
pointed as Keith mentioned, the wonderful floodplain near Safeway, the paragon of giving
53:44
developers a free hand in our city, the mighty or more accurately mighty ugly Atlas
53:49
development. And Keith does a fantastic job and he's really got his work cut
53:55
out for him on this one. And it was a pleasure to work with him
53:59
for so long. But you know the tools and the detailed prescriptions that we
54:04
created in the central area plan are not working. Maybe it's because there's not a
54:09
strong enough incentive to cluster development in that area. After all, if a proposal can
54:14
suddenly emerge for a mega hotel on the steep slope behind Fred Meyer, there are
54:19
market forces at work which are clearly at odds with the vision. I understand there
54:24
are good reasons for wanting to be a bigger growing city. There's more tax revenue,
54:29
there's more regional which apparently didn't do us any good on ST3, and there's more
54:34
funding opportunities to pay for the things that we need. But enough is enough. Everywhere
54:40
one looks, another piece of land is being gobbled up, especially to feed the insatiable
54:45
demands of housing construction. Now, I know some of you cast blame on pass-through traffic
54:50
as a cause of our congestion woes, but every new house, every new office, every
54:56
new store in Issaquah is another trip that must either originate or terminate
55:01
here. And it's easy to say, well, this is just another 10 houses, another 10
55:06
houses here, 10 houses there, and so on. By themselves, each development is
55:12
insignificant to a traffic model run. But cumulatively, this city's policies are
55:18
clogging the roads, increasing carbon emissions, and reducing residents' quality of life. It has
55:24
to pause. And you have to target the roads that need help the most. It
55:28
is ridiculous trying to cross the 90 at exit 15. Yet there's no progress. Like
55:34
someone will figure out something to do about it some other day. the current rapid
55:40
pace of new construction continues, it will make the necessary solutions impossible by the time
55:46
that day comes. Now, I saw a comment earlier about having the moratorium just in
55:51
the central area, and I would say quite the opposite. That is where development is
55:54
supposed to be targeted under the plan. I understand individual property owners have a
56:00
desire to develop their properties, build them out to the highest and greatest extent economically
56:04
possible. But it is the cumulative effect of doing that on various parcels around the
56:09
city that is causing the congestion and the traffic that we all despise so much.
56:14
You have an opportunity with this moratorium, which frankly doesn't stop very many things that
56:19
are already vested, but you have an opportunity for however long it's in place to
56:23
use sound public policy, zoning incentives, et cetera, to engage your constituents and move us
56:28
in the right direction while still accepting the urban growth that we are required to
56:33
take. Use a portion of the general fund ending balance if you have to to
56:37
fix traffic. I recently heard a quote that may be applicable here, and it came
56:42
from watching, of course, Star Trek, which is something you can do when you're not
56:46
on the council and you have lots of free time. Anyway, in this scene, the
56:50
captain, Captain Picard, meets a man allegedly from the future who refuses to offer him
56:55
guidance in a tense situation based on the idea that it could alter his known
56:59
history. And the captain responds, and you have to imagine Patrick Stewart saying this instead
57:03
of me, he says, quote, a person's life, their future, hinges on each of a
57:07
thousand choices. Living is making choices. Now, you asked me to believe that if I
57:11
make a choice other than the one that appears in your history books, your past
57:14
will be irrevocably altered. Well, you know, perhaps I don't give a damn about your
57:17
past. because your past is my future. And as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't
57:21
been written yet." End quote. My friends, the future residents of this city will look
57:26
back 15, 25 plus years hence at the decisions you make, and these decisions cannot
57:32
be changed at that time, and they must live with those decisions. But you are
57:36
the writers of history. You are the shapers of the future at every committee, every
57:40
council, every budget meeting with every vote you take. And I urge you to extend
57:45
this moratorium for the longest possible period that you can until you find a way
57:49
to restore some semblance of balance between infrastructure and growth. Listen to the public,
57:54
prioritize where help is needed, enhance our commitment to the environment through things like green
57:59
building, and let's focus on how to make the kind of future we want to
58:02
see instead of the present we have. Again, it's been a pleasure to return this
58:07
evening. I'm happy to meet with anyone and offer my perspective or have you tell
58:11
me why I'm wrong at any time. And I'm actually going to leave because I
58:16
don't have to say through the whole meeting anymore. Thank you very much. Thank you,
58:21
former Council Member Scherer. Bob Power followed by
58:26
Emily Brockwater. My name is Bob Power and my business address is 165
58:33
Northeast Juniper Street, Suite 100 in Isquah. And I'm here representing Gilman Point
58:39
Partners and Seacon. A brief history, we are currently the
58:44
developer of the project to the west of Pogaccia's restaurant, we're under
58:50
construction on a self-storage project. We have a vested ASDP permit with the city
58:56
to construct that project and to put onto the front lot a 11,000
59:02
square foot tire store or retail center. Over the past,
59:08
four or five months we've looked at the front parcel differently and we have been
59:13
working with staff to change the use of the front lot and the vested permit
59:18
and and one of the conditions of our ASDP permit will require us to put
59:23
a C curb into Gilman Boulevard which will restrict all traffic to a right-hand
59:29
turn in right-hand turn out in front of Pogaccia's and all the businesses located to
59:33
the east we've looked at some other options and we've been working
59:39
with staff and we have proposed what is a artist studio work loft
59:45
for the front parcel and we had been working with staff over the past months
59:50
to to work on a partnering agreement that allow would allow us to move forward
59:55
with changing the c-curb into a fully signalized interchange at that location moving
1:00:01
the pedestrian signal that's currently in front of the clock tower for a better definition
1:00:06
of it, in front of our property and will resolve the current problem that exists
1:00:12
with the three trails crossing. And so we were making some good headway with that
1:00:17
and the moratorium has come into effect. And I appreciate all the challenges that you
1:00:22
face as council members in dealing with the sense of community but
1:00:27
keeping growth possible. Some of the advantages of the project that we believe
1:00:33
is again, we're going to eliminate the C-curb, we're going to meet the majority of
1:00:37
the concerns that have been identified in the moratorium. We are not proposing any living
1:00:43
units. We are proposing a multi-storied structure with structured parking underneath
1:00:49
with retail on the first floor with a strong connection to the pedestrian trails.
1:00:56
And what we're asking for at this point, because we're all asking for something special,
1:01:00
we would like you to amend the moratorium to exempt projects which voluntarily contribute beyond
1:01:06
permit requirements to mitigate and improve current traffic congestion
1:01:12
in the area. And I'd like to just drop something off with the clerk if
1:01:15
I could. Well, we do have a number of petitions signed of people that were
1:01:19
interested in this. Thank you, Mr. Power.
1:01:26
Emily Brockwater followed by Terry James. Hi, it's actually Axel Bookwalter. We represent Melanie,
1:01:32
well, she's my mother, but I'm here as well, so. Sorry. We represent Melanie Pritt
1:01:37
on a cottage project here. And once again, our kind of concern here is that
1:01:43
we do understand that There are serious concerns about development, traffic
1:01:49
and other issues around infrastructure. But we feel that the moratorium as it is construed
1:01:54
today punishes projects that fit within what the city would like to
1:02:00
eventually have happened. Specifically, we are here proposing a small residential
1:02:06
multifamily development of four units for townhomes, really. But they
1:02:12
are in the cottage style that is a custom everyone is used to here in
1:02:16
Issaquah. Unfortunately, the way that this moratorium is currently structured, that project doesn't have any
1:02:21
success of continuing. And if everyone here is probably aware, you know, six months, I
1:02:26
feel like, is an optimistic timeline for developing new standards for the city to implement.
1:02:32
So our client is looking at a significant timeframe before she can move forward with
1:02:36
her project. And at this point, it's going to be a decision between deciding whether
1:02:41
or not she feels that the city of Issaquah is going to be able to
1:02:43
develop a proposal that's going to be implemented within a year or longer
1:02:49
or going back and choosing to build a single-family home. So what this moratorium is
1:02:54
actually doing in our situation is stopping development which we would like to say meets
1:02:58
the image and meets the requirements of what you guys think you want here and
1:03:02
instead we're going back to building large single-family homes for individual families. So at
1:03:08
this point I think we would like to request some sort of some sort of
1:03:12
exemption for these kind of smaller residential projects or at least some sort of design
1:03:17
review board so you can take a direct look at every single project that is
1:03:20
being submitted to the city and decide which one conforms to the ideas that you
1:03:24
think you want. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ed Waller. Yes.
1:03:32
Terry James followed by Jennifer Anderson.
1:03:38
Mr. Mayor, Council, thank you for allowing for public comments. My name is Terry James,
1:03:44
my address is 12951 Bell Red Road, Suite 150 in
1:03:50
Bellevue, Washington. Though I am not a resident of the city of Esquad, my
1:03:56
roots here go back many years. My wife was a high school teacher here back
1:04:02
in the early 2000s before we had children. She was a high school softball coach
1:04:06
here. I run a real estate company and am a small builder and developer.
1:04:12
We've been helping families move here to the city of Issaquah for many years over
1:04:17
the last decade and a half. We love the city of Issaquah and have been
1:04:21
excited to help with this continued progress and growth. When our team saw an
1:04:27
opportunity to continue to help in that progress and development here earlier this year,
1:04:33
There was a property on Darst Street, 300 Southeast Darst Street is the project that
1:04:40
I own. And that project was a physical blight to the community. It
1:04:46
hadn't been lived in in a number of years. It was a property in really,
1:04:51
really poor condition. It gave us another opportunity as we had done on many other
1:04:56
occasions to take an older property and bring it up to current standards. Also done
1:05:02
in the city of Issaquah as we've done through many years. This property though was
1:05:06
not one that we could salvage and the zoning allowed us the opportunity to tear
1:05:10
that down and build a very small two unit, two home development on Darst and
1:05:16
Donnelly. We worked closely with the city for the last 10 months since we purchased
1:05:21
the property working with our landscape architects, our geos, our structural engineers,
1:05:27
to make sure that everything that we were doing was in accordance with how you
1:05:31
guys intended us to follow. We followed the plans that other properties that had already
1:05:36
been approved within blocks of us on both Third Court Northwest
1:05:41
and on Dogwood. So we were following that same plan, following your guidance and instruction,
1:05:47
and gone through the entire process, had gotten an approval for a building, for a
1:05:52
demolition permit, and were about to submit for our short plat and then get hit
1:05:57
out of the blue with moratorium. Now I understand that there are some real needs
1:06:02
and some real concerns regarding growth and development and traffic concerns that are real serious
1:06:06
issues. that will continue regardless of whether the moratorium is in place or not, is
1:06:12
one of the subsects of growth that continue to happen. But the unintended consequence are
1:06:17
families like us. I'm a small guy, I'm not a big builder. This is what
1:06:23
I've done my entire life, to save the resources to be able to do small
1:06:27
projects like this, to provide for my family, no different than this family over here,
1:06:32
or many other families that are trying to continue to help the growth in the
1:06:36
right proper way. We felt we did the right things, we followed the right steps,
1:06:40
we got the right advice and guidance and got hit out of the blue. Six
1:06:44
months or a longer moratorium for small builders like us really, really impact us
1:06:50
financially. We've already invested tons of resources. We felt we've done things the right way.
1:06:57
So we would like to get an exemption for a small development that's like
1:07:03
ours, that's taking out a property that has the impact the
1:07:09
physical blight that's there and existing right now and replacing that with something that is
1:07:13
already approved of what you guys have done in and around the corner. And the
1:07:17
unintended consequence of making us last longer and having to carry continued interest payments and
1:07:23
costs and all of the 50,000, $100,000 plus we've already put into the property, that
1:07:28
goes nowhere. For small guys like us, the impact is too large. And we want
1:07:32
to continue to be a part of the Esquad community as we have been for
1:07:35
the last 16 plus years. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. James.
1:07:45
Next we have Jennifer Anderson, followed by Terry Fellin. Good evening, Mayor Butler,
1:07:51
Councilmembers. My name is Jennifer Anderson. I'm with the Master Builders Association of King and
1:07:55
Snohomish Counties, 335 116th Avenue Southeast in Bellevue 98004.
1:08:01
I'm here to just summarize a few points that I made in my comment letter
1:08:06
that was previously submitted. The concerns of the council are valid and definitely need to
1:08:11
be addressed. However, the moratorium as adopted by the city council reaches beyond development that
1:08:16
can achieve the vision for the central Issaquah plan. Therefore, I would encourage this council
1:08:23
to revisit the language of the adopted moratorium and narrow the scope to apply
1:08:29
solely to those districts in the CIP where the city's vision is not being met
1:08:34
rather than applying it citywide. In addition, I would also ask the council to consider
1:08:39
excluding single family development from the moratorium, including subdivisions and short subdivisions.
1:08:45
The six main concerns still up here on the screen cannot be met by
1:08:51
new single family development. Therefore, we believe it should be excluded. I would also like
1:08:57
to add that each new single family home built in Issaquah is subject to impact
1:09:01
fees to offset the demand on public facilities, services, and infrastructure. These impact
1:09:07
fees total more than $20,000 per new single family home. Thank you
1:09:13
for the opportunity to comment and your consideration. Thank you, Ms. Anderson.
1:09:21
Terri Fellin followed by Alec Rowell
1:09:29
Hi, my name's Terry Phelan and my address is 380 Newport Way Northwest here in
1:09:34
Issaquah. I've lived in Issaquah for a little over 20 years now. And I am
1:09:40
generally in support of the moratorium. I think
1:09:47
the growth in Issaquah is inevitable. It's a beautiful place. It's ideally located, the
1:09:53
historic charm of the downtown area is a real treasure. And I think
1:09:59
the Central Issaquah plan of creating density at the core
1:10:05
is really gonna help keep the rest of the city focused on
1:10:11
historic preservation and residential scale. Now the Central Issaquah plan
1:10:18
was a brilliant and very inclusive process. And I think the work plan to revisit
1:10:24
that is very important. I do agree that it looks like it's gonna be longer
1:10:29
than six months to get all that work done. There's a lot to be done.
1:10:35
And the things that were lost in implementation of the plan, I think, are really
1:10:40
important to include mixed use and affordable housing or two that ring very true for
1:10:45
me. So I think the moratorium on the Central Ezaquah Plan related
1:10:51
projects is really important to slow down the process and identify and
1:10:56
codify the lost elements that were really important to the
1:11:02
communities here and the support that they gave. However, I do
1:11:08
think that the moratorium on areas that were not within the CIP seems misplaced.
1:11:15
As someone asked earlier when Keith was giving his
1:11:22
outline of the work plan, there seemed to be a question of what here is
1:11:28
really appropriate, what
1:11:34
of these areas of concern is really addressed. in the rest of the city. And
1:11:39
it seems like while affordable housing could be addressed more clearly, it's a minor
1:11:45
element or it's only one of the six elements.
1:11:52
So change is really hard when it comes too fast and infrastructure's not in place.
1:11:56
So I think revisiting infrastructure is very important, but that's a different element than what
1:12:03
the moratorium is addressed. So again, I think codifying
1:12:09
the lost elements that the community supported is important, but
1:12:15
removing the moratorium in areas that were not part of the Central Issaquah Plan would
1:12:20
be my request. Let the current rigorous zoning codes
1:12:26
be our guide for the rest of the city. Thank you very much.
1:12:32
Thank you, Ms. Phelan. Alec Rowell followed by Richard
1:12:38
Winnick.
1:12:44
Hello. Thanks to the City Council and the Mayor for this opportunity to
1:12:50
officially register our comments about the moratorium. My name's Alec Rowell.
1:12:56
My family moved to Issaquah about 14 years ago. We rented an older,
1:13:02
rather drafty little house on the corner of third place in Dogwood. my daughter started
1:13:08
school at Isquale High then. In 2007, our wonderful landlord, Mr.
1:13:14
Pinkley, kindly accepted our offer to buy the house we'd been living in for four
1:13:18
years. We immediately secured the Holmberg engineering firm to draw up a short plat
1:13:24
so we could split up the property, keeping a portion where we'd hoped to build
1:13:29
a small home for our retirement. Shortly after receiving Holmberg's preliminary plat drawing,
1:13:36
the venerable Wall Street firm Bear Stearns surprised the world and declared it insolvency. That,
1:13:42
of course, was the beginning of the 2008 meltdown and the end of the opportunity
1:13:46
we'd planned for. Seven years later, the market turned around.
1:13:53
Our circumstances had changed too. But since the city had just granted waivers to our
1:13:58
southern neighbor, allowing their short plat on a creek side property, And since that neighbor
1:14:03
had built a large duplex abutting our property to the south, and since three nice
1:14:08
homes had been just built across the street from us on dogwood and sold, we
1:14:14
decided we should once again be able to sell our property. That was about a
1:14:17
year ago. We received quite a few offers, and we
1:14:23
eventually chose Urban Edge, a small developer out of Bellevue.
1:14:29
We were impressed with their track record, their designs, and their open approach to
1:14:35
negotiations. We were sure these people would do right by us, our
1:14:40
property, and Issaquah. We inked our contract with Urban Edge in May
1:14:46
this year. Naturally, they wanted a period to explore feasibility of their development
1:14:52
before they made a complete commitment to the project and filed a plat request with
1:14:56
the city. Everything went well. And two weeks before their final commitment and filing, the
1:15:02
City Council declared this moratorium. It would not be an exaggeration to say that
1:15:08
we were stunned by this horrible timing and bad luck.
1:15:14
Once we looked at the reasons for the moratorium, we could see that there was
1:15:19
really no reason for it to apply to our property at all. a project that
1:15:22
furthers the important goals of the Issaquah City Vision and does not negatively impact any
1:15:28
of the six areas of concern called out in the declaration of the moratorium.
1:15:34
Specifically, our short plaid doesn't offer any opportunity for addressing affordable housing, as laudable a
1:15:39
goal as that is. The designs proposed by Urban Edge, copies on file with
1:15:45
the City Planning Office, incorporate contemporary urban design elements and conform very closely to the
1:15:51
architectural fit with the community as exemplified by the houses, new houses across the street
1:15:56
from us. There is no opportunity for zoning in our area that would allow for
1:16:02
vertical mixed use. Dogwood has gone through extensive revamping
1:16:08
over the past two years and there's ample sheltered street parking there. The designs proposed
1:16:13
for the urban edge homes would include garages and parking for at least two cars.
1:16:18
Parking is therefore not an issue. There is no specific vision document on
1:16:24
file that pertains to our area in Newport, bordering on Old Town. Therefore, it's difficult
1:16:29
to assess what the visions for each district would mean exactly. However, we believe
1:16:35
that the urban edge plans for the single family homes are very much within the
1:16:40
desired scope of the development of our part of downtown Issaquah.
1:16:46
Our observations and experience gives us confidence that the
1:16:52
city council will consider these facts and act fairly and accordingly.
1:16:58
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rowell.
1:17:05
Richard Winnick, followed by Joe Noturangelo.
1:17:14
Good evening, my name is Rich Winnick. I live at 790 Second Avenue Northwest,
1:17:21
just down the street from Gilman Boulevard. My wife and I bought a condo on
1:17:27
Second Avenue about four years ago, four and a half years ago, and it's a
1:17:32
duplex, and it's one of three. And in back of our condo is an alley,
1:17:41
and the Elks Club, you may all familiar with the former Elks Club, excuse me.
1:17:47
Recently we discovered that there was a proposal to
1:17:54
build, I believe it was over 40 unit apartment building where
1:18:00
the Elks Club property is. The Elks Club probably
1:18:05
occupies roughly maybe a third of the lot and the rest of it is just
1:18:10
grassy area. And much to our surprise and
1:18:16
dismay, this proposal which no longer appears active for some
1:18:22
reason we know why was going to dump all their traffic from the apartment
1:18:28
complex into our alley where kids play and dogs are walked and
1:18:34
is generally very quiet. It was it was wholly out of character
1:18:40
with the surrounding condominiums and some modest
1:18:45
apartments that that you know are placed along that alley.
1:18:52
I would like to personally congratulate the City Council on the moratorium.
1:18:58
When you're driving down I-90 at 65 miles an hour and ahead of you you
1:19:03
see congestion or some kind of traffic problem you put the brakes on and I
1:19:08
think that's exactly what you've done and you've You've given yourself some opportunity
1:19:14
to get the lay of the land, understand what is appropriate, what is
1:19:20
necessary, what is valuable to the city, and I think you did the right thing.
1:19:26
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wenick. Joe
1:19:31
Notarangelo followed by Joseph Amidson. Mr. Mayor,
1:19:37
Council Members, my name is Joe Notarangelo. I'm with Urban Edge Homes. My address is
1:19:43
50 116th Avenue Southeast Suite 111, Bellevue. That's our office
1:19:49
address. And we are the developers for the Rowell property. Mr. Rowell spoke just a
1:19:54
little while ago. Our proposal is to build four single family homes
1:20:00
on the Rowell property. We are an infill developer. Primarily we have worked
1:20:06
in Seattle and this was to be our first project in Issaquah. We
1:20:12
specialize in modern design and most of our homes have been four
1:20:18
star built green. We're very excited about Issaquah and the project. Obviously
1:20:24
the moratorium has a big effect on what our plans were. I'm
1:20:30
sure it was a very difficult decision to put the moratorium on. Clearly
1:20:36
at a minimum it is postpones many of the citizens of Issaquah's property rights
1:20:42
and that is not something I'm sure that you took lightly But I think what
1:20:48
we've heard tonight is many of the people who have projects here especially smaller
1:20:54
developers and smaller landowners This moratorium is
1:21:00
going to have a could have a very large impact for
1:21:06
those people in the short term. Today, our real estate market in the area is
1:21:12
doing extremely well. But all of us who have any experience over the last 10
1:21:17
years know that this is a cyclical business. And six months,
1:21:23
I think other people have said, and it seems to me as well, It'll be
1:21:26
your judgment, but it's very unlikely that you'll be able to accomplish everything that you
1:21:30
would like to in six months. It's likely to be longer. And although
1:21:36
I cannot predict, and I don't believe anybody can, how long the market will say
1:21:41
good and how long this cycle will go, you may condemn some of these projects
1:21:46
to miss this cycle. And that may have long-term effects for
1:21:53
some of the citizens that you represent. I guess I would also say our particular
1:21:57
project is outside of the Central Osteco District. I believe that
1:22:03
our architectural fit and urban design is exactly what you would like to see in
1:22:07
this city. Vertical mixed use has no application. And I think the, and
1:22:13
as I was already mentioned, parking, we have, it's a requirement to have off street
1:22:17
parking. And as far as the vision for the district, we think we're gonna fit
1:22:22
in exactly with where current development has gone. The problem with a
1:22:27
moratorium is that it was such a wide net and I think that the council,
1:22:33
what I would encourage the council to do is to strongly consider narrowing the scope
1:22:39
in the ways that have been discussed. First, narrowing it to the central Issaquah district.
1:22:43
Second, Exempting single family homes, which
1:22:49
clearly will not help with affordable housing. They're not the right product type for affordable
1:22:55
housing. And also exempting small projects so that you will not impact some of
1:23:01
the other small landowners who have spoken before me. So thank you very much for
1:23:05
your time. Thank you, Mr. Norengelo.
1:23:10
Norengelo. Thank you for helping me out there.
1:23:16
Joseph Amundsen followed by Jeff Williams. Good afternoon. My name is Joseph
1:23:22
Amundsen and I lived in Issaquah since 1986. I had a
1:23:28
project which everybody is familiar with it, you know, near the
1:23:33
TALIS and SR 900. It was about 14.5 acres that I
1:23:39
started in 1998 and the moratorium hits me and me behind
1:23:45
about seven eight years and about three years ago that project was approved and
1:23:51
right now I have the lower part which is about giving me four more lots
1:23:57
and at that time I obtained enough traffic water and also
1:24:04
all the utilities after the motor term was left it so now
1:24:10
After about a year and a half, I spent time with the engineers and all
1:24:15
the wetland biologists and others, spent thousands of dollars. We were ready
1:24:21
to submit the application for another four lot, which is part of the same
1:24:27
park, same 14 and a half acres. I noticed that the moratorium is
1:24:34
being put on the property on my property and few others.
1:24:41
I hope the council and the mayor consider exempting the short plants
1:24:47
and small lots. Most of us are small owners here,
1:24:53
not the big developers, and we are not gonna put that much impact on the
1:24:57
traffic. And as far as the previous person that was complaining about the traffic on
1:25:03
I-90, We should do a traffic count on SR 900 in the morning
1:25:09
and also is a whole boat road and some manage that are congesting the I-90
1:25:16
is not just the is a car. I guess if you do that is much
1:25:20
less numbers of cars going to I-90 then you know from from
1:25:26
is a quarter and neighboring you know neighboring cities. Thank you very much. Thank you
1:25:31
Mr. Amundsen. Jeff Williams followed by Elizabeth Ma
1:25:36
Pen. Good evening. My name is Jeff Williams with
1:25:42
Moran & Company. My office address is 601 Union Street, Suite 3216 in
1:25:48
Seattle, Washington. And I represent onward investors who are the owners of what's commonly
1:25:54
known as the Space Lab, former Space Lab buildings. They're on 51st
1:26:00
Street and 222nd Avenue Southeast across from also where the Microsoft
1:26:06
campus is. These properties have been vacant for some years as office use and
1:26:12
they were actually foreclosed by the lender, the bank, because they weren't really feasible. And
1:26:17
the plan for them have been to go through redevelopment. The current owners onward invested
1:26:26
tens of millions of dollars in purchasing the property from the bank. And
1:26:32
while we support some of the issues and areas of concerns that the council has
1:26:37
and some of the citizens have, and I do think that you need a plan
1:26:42
to resolve some of these issues in terms of to create a really terrific long-term
1:26:46
vision. My guess is when that plan is now restructured and rethought is
1:26:52
that plan won't be perfect either because no plan will be perfect with the onset
1:26:56
of technology, driverless cars, all types of things. We'll be wondering what we're gonna do
1:27:00
with garages in the next five to 10 years. And so those will be new
1:27:04
challenges we have. So no plan will be perfect. But our sites are located
1:27:11
in the East Lake neighborhood where there's really only six primary landowners. and I think
1:27:16
ours is really the only one that is contemplating any current development. So it's an
1:27:21
interesting site, but unlike or like many others and many of the small
1:27:27
developers and small owners, people have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, I think, sort
1:27:32
of with the anticipation of being able to develop and see the vision of their
1:27:37
investment and project based on the plans that were set out. So there's a certain
1:27:40
level of sort of trust that's created among the communities and investors and landholders and
1:27:46
citizens. And the moratorium, unfortunately, the blanket moratorium as it's written is really
1:27:52
adversely affecting an awful lot of people. and I think ultimately adversely affects a lot
1:27:56
of the citizens. Now again, we really respect and support
1:28:03
the efforts to try to fix the plans. What I'd suggest is an awful lot
1:28:07
of people have come up and said, look for a specific exemption on their property
1:28:12
or a type of property. One of the things I'd recommend is for the city
1:28:15
to create a process in order to hear requests for a waiver or exemptions
1:28:22
in addition to the ones that you've listed in the moratorium. In our site in
1:28:27
particular, we're working with a developer and we believe that an awful lot of money
1:28:31
and time and effort's been spent to create a project that meets the plan, medium
1:28:36
density housing or office in the East Lake neighborhood, creates a
1:28:42
connection and a sense of community, connection to the lake and a connection to the
1:28:46
community, a sense of community as well. and that really ties in with its surroundings.
1:28:52
So the greatest concern that I have is like
1:28:58
the gentleman before me with the urban edge, it's easier to pronounce in his very
1:29:03
interesting name unlike my name, but the concern
1:29:09
that the moratorium could create is an increased cost to the citizens of housing and
1:29:14
services, because ultimately the cost delaying a lot of these developments, increased cost
1:29:21
of carry cost, increased direct cost, and that's ultimately passed on to the citizens of
1:29:26
Issaquah. And then also that investors and stakeholders may move to other communities developing
1:29:32
that where they can believe in the plan that's been set forth. And again,
1:29:38
potentially missing that real estate market. I mean, again, I've been in this business for
1:29:43
an awful lot of years. I sometimes call myself the Doogie Howser of the real
1:29:46
estate business because I started at such a young age, but these things do work
1:29:51
in cycles. And a recession is predicted for 2018,
1:29:58
which will change an awful lot of people's plans and opportunities. So thank you very
1:30:03
much. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Elizabeth
1:30:09
Maupin, followed by Ryan Croupton. Hello, my name is Elizabeth
1:30:15
Maupin. I live at 100 Big Bear Place, Northwest in Issaquah. And
1:30:22
I am becoming aware of how this moratorium is
1:30:28
creating pain for a number of people with small projects.
1:30:35
And yet, I feel that it is important that we
1:30:42
long enough to be sure that we are developing what we
1:30:48
really need in the city, what fits our vision of the
1:30:54
city. Perhaps a process of
1:31:00
granting particular exemptions is in order, but I wouldn't
1:31:07
terribly narrow the moratorium because
1:31:13
particularly in the area of affordable housing, you haven't gotten any so
1:31:19
far in the Central Issaquah Plan. And even if you begin to get some
1:31:25
now, not all of the affordable housing should be in one
1:31:31
location. It needs to be somewhat distributed through the community. will
1:31:37
do very well if we even meet the target that we've set for the Central
1:31:42
Issaquah Plan. So that's part of my concern. I
1:31:48
also would like to see things that are an architectural fit and have some vertical
1:31:54
mixed use and I'm excited that some people are at least talking about
1:32:00
putting parking underneath buildings so that we make better use of the
1:32:06
space. I'm going to leave a few charts with you
1:32:13
that show how much
1:32:18
affordable housing we've lost. And
1:32:25
we can't count on this cycle of the future bringing the cost of housing down
1:32:31
in 2018, although that would cheer me up considerably.
1:32:37
I really hope that we'll use this time to get
1:32:44
what the community really longs for and at the same time show
1:32:50
some compassion to the people who have invested a lot and need some
1:32:58
relief at the moment. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Maupan.
1:33:06
Ryan Cropden followed by Lori Rowell.
1:33:13
Good evening, everyone. I want to thank you all for allowing all of us to
1:33:16
talk tonight. It's a really important part of the civic process to have this kind
1:33:21
of open discussion. So thank you. I am here. Please identify
1:33:27
yourself. Oh yeah sorry I'm Ryan Crompton I live in North Issaquah over in the
1:33:32
Overdale Park neighborhood. I moved into Issaquah almost three years ago. Love it here it's
1:33:38
an amazing place and I just kind of want to speak in favor of the
1:33:43
moratorium as well as just kind of a couple ideas or points that
1:33:49
I have on all of this. So I have a lot of understanding and a
1:33:54
lot of sympathy for a lot of people who spoke here tonight about all the
1:33:58
investments that they made and about the projects that they're planning. A lot of them
1:34:03
sound, at least from a three minute snippet, to be really what we are looking
1:34:06
for. But I think the concern, you know, when talking about projects
1:34:12
that are inside versus outside of the Central Issaquah project, is that there are still
1:34:16
huge projects that are planned outside of the Central Issaquah project, like the ones in
1:34:20
the Highlands, like High Street, that's 1,800 units, I think is what it's planned for
1:34:25
now. And then still ones that are down here, you know, living in the Overdale
1:34:30
Park area, we just saw the thing on the Marriott Hotel on the hillside right
1:34:36
behind Fred Meyer and that was kind of terrifying because we know that hill has
1:34:40
slides and so so anyways the point being that you know there's a there's a
1:34:45
lot of areas all throughout that it's not just small units and I think small
1:34:49
is again kind of the small duplexes and townhomes cottages is a lot of what
1:34:54
the idea was but giant projects like Atlas that don't really in as
1:35:00
well or really working what we currently have as far as transportation infrastructure
1:35:06
parking etc. is I think why it's very important that we do take this
1:35:12
pause and think about how are we going to work with what we have right
1:35:15
now. You know I think that the idea that you know we may get sound
1:35:20
transit 3 and we may have light rail in 25 years is is great but
1:35:25
we don't have it now and we aren't going to have it for 25 years
1:35:28
if it arrives on schedule. And so that's a real difficulty because if we end
1:35:34
up with, you know, 6000, 7000, 8000 more units over the next couple of years,
1:35:39
you know, where how do we get those people around? How do we get people
1:35:41
around in the interim? And even then, you know, light rail only comes to the
1:35:46
edge. It doesn't necessarily circulate people, so I think there's a lot of concerns with
1:35:51
regards to how do we deal with the traffic? How do we deal with the
1:35:53
parking that that aren't currently well addressed in the central Issaquah plan? I think it's
1:35:58
a good vision for the future, future is a long ways away and just need
1:36:03
to kind of figure out how do we get there incrementally and so I think
1:36:07
this pause is good and I think you know trying to moderate the growth a
1:36:11
little bit is is probably something that we really should look at at least in
1:36:15
my opinion anyways I appreciate you allowing me to talk thank you thank you mr.
1:36:20
Crompton Laurie Rowell followed by Carl Pinner
1:36:32
Hi, my name is Lori Rowell. My husband spoke earlier, Alec Rowell.
1:36:38
We live at 375 3rd Place Northwest. That's on the corner of Dogwood and 3rd
1:36:44
Place. And that is a property about which we're concerned
1:36:51
because it's slated to be short-platted and the process was not
1:36:57
finished. We love the city. and we wholeheartedly support responsible
1:37:02
development. But I want to talk this evening just briefly about
1:37:08
exemptions because I think they're important and it is the exemptions to the moratorium
1:37:15
that allow the City Council to direct growth
1:37:22
rather than just stop it altogether. And I do think that they should
1:37:28
grant exceptions beyond those listed in the moratorium document,
1:37:35
when they support the vision of Issaquah as an increasingly livable, sustainable,
1:37:42
and balanced urban community. For example, if the moratorium
1:37:48
was to be limited to just central
1:37:54
Issaquah, there could be a number of benefits to the city. The smaller geographical
1:37:59
area should mean a shorter moratorium because it should take less time to
1:38:05
develop what's needed before we move forward to other areas. And a
1:38:11
shorter moratorium should reduce workload in the planning office, which is always slammed.
1:38:18
And a shorter moratorium could limit damage to neighborhoods caused by preventing development,
1:38:24
such as buildings and land left empty.
1:38:30
Narrowing the scope of the moratorium with regard to short plats and
1:38:36
exempting those could also make some important differences.
1:38:43
One of those is our housing shortage. The area wide housing
1:38:48
shortage is serious enough that it's often referred to as a crisis.
1:38:54
Making exemptions for desired residential options such as short plats
1:39:00
would limit the effects of the moratorium on that housing shortage by selecting
1:39:08
projects that create the kind of housing that Issaquah needs.
1:39:18
Furthermore, short plats are often small holders. And while
1:39:25
the moratorium says it exempts vested projects, Let me assure you that as a small
1:39:31
holder, I am very vested in this project already.
1:39:39
Presumably the purpose of the Council's action is not to halt development in Issaquah but
1:39:44
to direct it. Limiting the moratorium is not only important for those
1:39:50
of us caught up in the gears, but it can define future growth. Exceptions
1:39:56
can help ensure that we achieve all the important aspects of the city's vision,
1:40:02
keeping our architectural feel, maintaining our urban design, managing parking and traffic
1:40:08
without exacerbating a housing shortage, at least not unnecessarily,
1:40:15
that undermines the ability of people to continue to live and work and find their
1:40:21
home in Issaquah. As thoughtful and committed citizens
1:40:27
as well as property holders. We ask the city council to work together with
1:40:33
administration to limit the moratorium and to encourage appropriate
1:40:39
development across the city with the exemptions you grant. Thank you.
1:40:45
Thank you, Ms. Rowell. Carol Pinner followed by Anoush
1:40:51
Bansal. Good evening, Mayor.
1:40:58
My name is Carol Pinner. I'm with Barghousen Consulting Engineering. I am the project manager
1:41:03
and designer for Jackson's Food Stores. And I have been hearing about housing this evening
1:41:08
and I thought I should at least speak on a commercial project that we've had
1:41:13
ongoing for at least a year and a half. And it's the, we rebuilt the
1:41:19
one downtown and I hope the city's happy with that. We would like to continue
1:41:24
to do the one out at 1605 Gilman. We've been working very hard with the
1:41:30
city planning and engineering on traffic considerations. The
1:41:36
plan out there would be to demolish that old nasty 1960s metal building
1:41:42
and its 1980 car wash and put up a similar but much larger building to
1:41:47
the Jacksons here down here on the corner. The plan would be to add a
1:41:52
couple of MPDs, which are fuel dispensers, which that's what we're working with
1:41:58
engineering on, showing them that it's gonna pull traffic in off of Gilman farther rather
1:42:03
than having them back out onto Gilman trying to get in. And this moratorium
1:42:09
kind of took us all by shock too because of course we've been working very,
1:42:13
very hard as I said, trying to get traffic concerns worked out with engineering. We've
1:42:19
got a very nice building plan there with the same awnings, the same look, and
1:42:23
again, to bring traffic off of Gilman as quickly as possible, we can stack them
1:42:28
on site. And I just ask that you have that as a consideration and
1:42:34
exemption in this moratorium because it's stopping us in our
1:42:39
tracks and we'd like to continue on with this. So I thank you very much.
1:42:45
Thank you, Ms. Penner. Anuj Bansal.
1:42:52
Yeah, hi. My name is Anuj Bansal. And me and my wife live in Sammamish.
1:42:56
And we recently bought a property on 55 First Place in Issaquah, which is behind
1:43:02
the library. And we have been working with the city to, we are not a
1:43:07
developer. We are husband, wife. My wife is a dentist. So we are trying to
1:43:12
put a dental practice in that area. We bought the property for that. And we
1:43:17
have been working with the city over the last year. eight months to a year
1:43:21
to figure out all the rules and regulations and working with the architect to get
1:43:26
some design going. Now, with this moratorium in place, it sounds like we are
1:43:32
resetting the clock. So my biggest fear is whatever investment that we have made so
1:43:37
far is all going to go because we'll have to redesign everything. We'll have to
1:43:42
work with the architect again, come up with new plans. And it's a lot of
1:43:46
money for us. My request is that
1:43:53
I understand that the city needs time to put more
1:44:00
structures in place, put more policies in place, but we cannot halt business and
1:44:07
say for six months we are not going to do anything and then come back
1:44:10
and say whatever you did before, you have to wipe that clean and restart.
1:44:16
That's very expensive and all the plans that we made, and we are going to
1:44:22
lose six months on that plan and yet another six months because we'll have to
1:44:26
redo all the things that we did for the last year. And my request is
1:44:30
that we lift the monitorium and figure out a way that we can
1:44:36
apply more rules and policies as we move along in the business. We cannot just
1:44:40
halt the business and ask us to start over again.
1:44:48
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bansal. No one further has signed up to speak.
1:44:57
Is there anyone else desiring to speak this evening? Ms. Lynch.
1:45:05
My name is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest of Crest Drive, Issaquah,
1:45:09
Washington. And I'm here to talk about the existing citizens and
1:45:15
that we need to be protected. Somebody just spoke of housing crisis.
1:45:22
We're already 75% of our way to our 2030 plan in housing. The crisis we
1:45:27
have is what Elizabeth said earlier, is affordable housing. We don't have that. In every
1:45:33
new house that's being built or in everyone that's being torn down, another affordable housing
1:45:38
gets taken away. All the stuff we have in the pipeline is not affordable.
1:45:45
Some of the studios that are opening up here, you're talking $1,800 a month. That
1:45:50
doesn't include parking. That's not affordable for most of us that live here in the
1:45:54
city. Connie mentioned earlier the comp plan. I've been listening to the budget talks. I've
1:46:00
been attending the policy meetings and also the land and shores.
1:46:06
When we first saw the first rev of the policy, you won an award. It's
1:46:11
great. You've got a form, but the answers aren't there. the studies on which you
1:46:17
make your decisions and your policies are 2006, 2008.
1:46:23
As I pointed out to the Policy and Planning Committee, the 2006 traffic
1:46:30
on which you look at hiring policemen doesn't include the traffic cameras.
1:46:36
So there's a level of service that we're not getting right now as citizens. And
1:46:42
if you don't stop and change the policies, change the
1:46:48
baseline on which you have impact fees. I heard last week that we haven't even
1:46:53
paid 75 percent or 70 percent of our development fees are
1:46:59
paid for the developer. The rest of it has been paid by existing citizens. Is
1:47:03
that right? I even question that because I really haven't even seen the real numbers.
1:47:09
And I also read audits where the city's having trouble doing the audits and getting
1:47:14
the numbers out. I asked over six months ago to see where the comp plan
1:47:19
was for this year. I was told it would be in October. We now are
1:47:23
looking through the CIP. We are now looking through the comp plan. You are doing
1:47:28
budgets. I see no CIP and that is required. I heard someone come and
1:47:34
give you a presentation earlier this year that that is required to be done every
1:47:39
year. The City has not done it since 2014. You are out of
1:47:44
compliance. So how can you be making decisions for future residents to come in when
1:47:50
you don't know where you baseline is for the existing residents
1:47:55
infrastructure roads. We already know that we're way behind on fixing the roads. We don't
1:48:00
have the traffic calming that most of us have asked for. I haven't heard one
1:48:05
word mentioned about school districts. Every time you subdivide a house or a lot and
1:48:11
bring in another house, you're bringing in more families. Right now our schools are bursting
1:48:17
at the seams. They're also discussing bell time changes. that would
1:48:22
make the high schools go later and the elementary schools go. So that you would
1:48:28
need to require up to 20 more school bus drivers and routes to meet that.
1:48:34
And what's gonna happen there when you delay the high school start, you're gonna be
1:48:38
pouring the high school traffic with buses, with your drivers, with your parents
1:48:44
on at the peak hours of your traffic. And you already have problems with traffic.
1:48:50
Yet in the comp plan I see nothing about regional or local bus systems
1:48:56
and doing anything to encourage that I know we've hired a regional Ombudsman to
1:49:02
go out and talk but have we gone out and really work with our county
1:49:06
residents that don't pay transit tax to get them to pay transit tax so that
1:49:11
they can help for it and maybe not use our park and rides but have
1:49:16
park and rides down in their territory. The existing infrastructure is broke. You don't know
1:49:22
where your baseline is. So how can you continue to add and add without doing
1:49:27
your homework first and show us the numbers. Take care of us first before you
1:49:33
look at adding more people here, please. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lynch.
1:49:40
Is there anyone else desiring to speak who has not signed up? Yes, sir.
1:49:47
Hi, my name is Willie Jeevers. I own a business in town called Jeevers Wealth
1:49:51
Management. Thanks for letting me speak here today. I'm a long-time resident of Issaquah. My
1:49:56
family and I have been here for 17 years, four kids, all at Issaquah High
1:49:59
School in sports, and been very active in the community. Love this place. Being part
1:50:04
of this meeting tonight kind of reminds me how much I like this squad. You
1:50:06
see a lot of different opinions, but very respectful, intelligent people speaking. It's a great
1:50:10
community. I'd love to be part of it. And this kind of reminds me again
1:50:12
of why it's so nice to live here. A prevalent theme I think we're hearing
1:50:16
tonight is that there's a lot of maybe unintended consequences or small property owners that
1:50:22
are being pinched or hit or or affected by this moratorium and that
1:50:28
describes my wife and I. So I wanna quickly share our story and again I
1:50:32
think it's a common cord for everybody here or for many of us here at
1:50:35
the room. I've owned a business here for a number of years. We're leasing a
1:50:39
space in this quad. I've been wanting to buy a little house for years and
1:50:42
years to house my office in. I'd looked on and off for a house,
1:50:48
found a neat place in August on Front Street, went down to meet with the
1:50:52
nice folks at the city planning department, checked the zoning, checked the permitting, checked the
1:50:56
house, hired an architect, everything looked great, wrote an offer on the property, we had
1:51:00
the offer accepted, we were kinda getting the ball rolling to have our architect apply
1:51:06
for the ASDP, and then I picked up my copy of the Isquad Press, and
1:51:09
to my great distress and dismay and surprise, I found out about the moratorium. It
1:51:15
was especially distressing because one of the conversations I had with the folks at the
1:51:18
zoning department, I said, is there anything coming up I should be concerned about as
1:51:22
I'm thinking about buying this property and putting a lot of my own hard-earned money
1:51:25
and savings in this? Is there anything coming up that might change or impact zoning
1:51:29
or impact the regulations? And I was told by the folks here, no, nothing coming
1:51:34
up. Again, I see some head shaking there. We all had the same experience. So
1:51:37
anyway, fast forward to today. My wife and I, are kind of deep into a
1:51:42
very expensive property. It's a lovely house. It lays out perfectly for an
1:51:48
office. Little sidebar talking about my company. We have four full-time employees. We're kind of
1:51:54
geeky people. We sit at our office and sit at our computers and talk on
1:51:58
the phone. We have clients come in just a few days a week and we
1:52:01
have maybe one car visit every two hours. We're very, very low traffic. I think
1:52:05
the neighbors might not even see us. The folks that we beat out for the
1:52:09
offer in the house was a family with multiple kids. So I'm thinking our little
1:52:13
quiet company will have much less impact in the neighborhood than the other kids. We're
1:52:17
nothing against kids. I've got four kids, but just for a traffic impact, I think
1:52:21
we would have been a much more attractive, we will be a much more attractive
1:52:24
use there. But anyway, so if you look at my place, we've got an architect.
1:52:29
We've got plans to improve the property. I love to fly fish and backpack and
1:52:34
mountain bike, and I would make the house look very attractive and fit in with
1:52:38
this theme of outdoors and salmon and make it look very, very nice. We'd be
1:52:42
very low impact, we'd fit the vision. My understanding from reading the previous comments
1:52:48
and talking to the folks at the planning department is that old is qua where
1:52:52
our house is where we're planning to do this project that would fit in very
1:52:55
nicely with the neighborhood. So all the things that Keith mentioned here, I think we
1:52:59
kind of fit in very amenable to. So again, same story as a lot of
1:53:04
you have. I'm just asking and appealing, you know, I think there's small people like
1:53:08
me that have a lot of their life savings, their risk, and we just like
1:53:11
to appeal, you know, could there be some kind of design exception? Can there be
1:53:15
a review process? Can we ask for an exception or an exemption from the moratorium
1:53:19
for small projects like this that fit the theme of the goals we have here
1:53:24
that work with the neighborhood that aren't contradictory to some of these points that we
1:53:29
have here, so. That's my appeal and that's my request. Thanks so much for your
1:53:33
time, appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Jeebers. Anyone else desiring to speak? Yes, sir.
1:53:46
Hi, Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Steve Pereira. I live at 170 Northeast Dogwood
1:53:51
Street here in Issaquah for about nine years now. So a couple thoughts go through
1:53:56
my head as I stand up here. One is just share fear and panic, that
1:54:00
aside. First of all, thanks to City Council President
1:54:06
Goodman for putting forward the moratorium and for the council unanimously approving that. You deserve
1:54:12
a thank you. You probably on that side of the dais, you hear the complaints
1:54:16
more than you hear thank you, so just wanted to call that out especially. Thank
1:54:19
you. I've listened to people speak today and there's been a lot of people who
1:54:24
have proposed the idea of some type of exemption or exception policy and
1:54:31
Unfortunately, we are where we are today where we've gotten to the position of growth
1:54:34
because we've allowed exemptions and not looked at it holistically enough to decide
1:54:40
this is the type of city we want to be and this is the type
1:54:42
of policies and planning we need to have in place to make that happen. Everybody
1:54:46
can come forward with some exception or exemption story of why this should not apply
1:54:50
to me. I think we need to take this opportunity for what it is an
1:54:55
opportunity to say we need to have policies and planning in place to plan the
1:54:58
growth where we want it to happen and have the infrastructure in place to make
1:55:04
that happen. So as much as I hear these stories of people, I think we
1:55:08
need to keep the moratorium in place citywide and put those policies in
1:55:14
place. Until we have that, the moratorium should go forward as
1:55:20
it is written. If anything, I'd like to see it even be strengthened further than
1:55:24
it is, not just a permit process, but a building process. So one of the
1:55:30
things I look up here on the board of the goals is number four, affordable
1:55:34
housing. One of the things it seems like in the
1:55:40
Development Commission, the Public Policy Commission needs to look at is when a development comes
1:55:44
forward, it needs to state as part of what the policy is, what number of
1:55:49
units it has that are affordable and what affordability level as part of the public
1:55:53
process for approval, not just some concept that they're gonna have it, but what level
1:55:58
of involvement and engagement and who allows to move in to that site.
1:56:05
I think of a similar example with the Silverado development approval. There are two, at
1:56:11
least in the plans, two lots that are planned for donated, to be donated to
1:56:15
the city if that gets approved. Yet it just seems maybe a better usage would
1:56:21
be to, or way incorporate the affordable housing would be to maybe have those built
1:56:28
as regular homes that have the sales returned as revenue to the city to plan
1:56:34
for more accessible affordable housing.
1:56:43
Another example I guess is I was at the recent proposal for the apartment building
1:56:49
on the 7th Avenue complex. It seems like people brought up three
1:56:55
causes for concern. One was not enough parking in the space, one was
1:57:01
the tree rates being reduced and a third was
1:57:07
the number of peat moss that would have to be removed, a new infill brought
1:57:11
in. These are examples of impacts of development that we're not considering and maybe don't
1:57:16
have exact accommodations for zoning or policy
1:57:21
that need to be included for why development does or does not go forward.
1:57:29
So I think we need to look more at not just these things but at
1:57:32
zoning as a whole and down zone some areas to allow or direct the
1:57:38
types of housing we want in certain places. If the development doesn't meet
1:57:45
the exceptions or the things we want then we simply don't allow that to happen
1:57:49
until that's in place. When I hear a lot of the people speak today, I
1:57:54
hear people talk about coming and spending time with the Planning and Economic Development Commissions
1:57:59
or staff and maybe that revenue is not being recouped by the city for covering
1:58:04
that and that's revenue that could be used for things like roads and infrastructure that
1:58:09
isn't being accomplished by the city. wanting to do
1:58:16
development today, so that needs to be looked at as part of the policy where
1:58:18
we're only recouping 70 or less than 75% of the revenue for the development.
1:58:26
That needs to be looked at as a policy and a way to get what
1:58:30
Issaquah needs for its infrastructure. Yellow light tells me I should stop, so thank you.
1:58:37
Thank you, Mr. Pereira. Ms. Marsh.
1:58:46
Hi, my name is Connie Marsh again, store at 1175 Northwest Gilman Boulevard. And I
1:58:51
actually want a genie, is what I want. I want to go back three years
1:58:55
and I want to change the conversation where we said we could implement policy. And
1:58:59
then I would change our design guidelines and I would require some of the things
1:59:05
that we're going back and looking at now. Because in your information it
1:59:11
says already vested, We have 859 residential units and 131 950
1:59:20
square feet of non-residential that can still be built using the same rules
1:59:25
and regulations that we have in place right now that frankly have
1:59:31
not turned out as best as one would have hoped. So second Jeannie in a
1:59:37
bottle moment. I want the rules and regulations changed for the vested development.
1:59:43
I want to push for the very best that we can get instead of compromising
1:59:48
for what we must get.
1:59:54
I want to push to up the ante for that so we can have the
1:59:58
quality that the community expects. What seems to be missing this concept of quality
2:00:04
of life for not only the people who are here but the people who are
2:00:07
moving in. They also expect that they're going to be able to have great maintained
2:00:12
parks, schools where people can actually have their kids not in portables,
2:00:18
services and transit that we can actually use to get to and from. And I'm
2:00:23
going to pause on transit for a moment because this seems to be one of
2:00:27
the things that's most missing and not very well addressed in this moratorium, and
2:00:32
that is we need the ability to move people if we are going to get
2:00:37
more dense outside of cars. And we have to convince them that this is the
2:00:40
new way of life and that we are going to have the service from early
2:00:45
in the morning to late at night where they can actually easily use this. Without
2:00:50
that structure, we will be immobilized with this growth, even just the growth that is
2:00:56
in the pipeline. And we are not investing in that in a visible way for
2:01:01
the community. Now, if I had my third wish, It would be that all of
2:01:06
the little people who wanted to do their great things who say now that they
2:01:10
could adhere to the vision would go and basically convince all of those people that
2:01:16
have the 859 units and the other commercial that they want to actually
2:01:22
adhere to the vision too. And they could come to the city and say, wow,
2:01:26
we agree. We need to do all of these things voluntarily. and then we could
2:01:31
let everybody build because we would be getting the awesome city that we deserve. Now
2:01:36
I don't know if all these small people in the audience can influence all the
2:01:40
big people who are already vested, but it has to happen because we cannot just
2:01:44
continue to grow and grow and grow and not get the quality that we deserve.
2:01:52
We all know development is risky. You might get it, you might not. You might
2:01:56
get a moratorium, you might not. I'm not a particular fan of surprise moratoriums. I
2:02:01
think it creates a difficulty within the city.
2:02:08
But until we get the rules in place to provide what this community
2:02:14
deserves, we have to stop and we have to make it better every day
2:02:21
Y'all as a whole council and the administration need to show staff that you are
2:02:27
behind them upping the ante and requiring those people in the pipeline to adhere as
2:02:32
closely as possible with the division of the Central Issaquah Plan and the
2:02:38
community as you can get them to do. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.
2:02:43
Marsh. Anyone else who has not spoken desiring to speak this evening? Anyone else?
2:02:50
and final call. Audience comments are
2:02:56
closed at, well, I think we're gonna take
2:03:02
a 10 minute break to 9.15 since we've been
2:03:08
at this for actually a little bit more than 10 minutes, but
2:03:14
we are in recess until 9.15.
2:15:10
So we are back in session and just
2:15:16
to clarify, the public hearing per se was closed at what time was that? 9.04.
2:15:24
And now is time for council discussion or
2:15:30
deliberation in any direction that you would like to provide to the administration. And
2:15:38
I thought Stacy had raised her hand. You were just scratching your head. I can
2:15:44
raise my hand. No, no, I'm joking. Sorry.
2:15:54
So I'm going to make a motion and then we can
2:16:00
discuss if it gets a second and then we can maybe discuss. I would move
2:16:05
to direct the administration draft recommendations regarding the moratorium to be brought to the city
2:16:11
council at its first meeting in November. Second. CHAIRMAN BRYANTLEY E. Moved and seconded. Questions
2:16:17
or discussion? MS. I can talk about. So
2:16:23
the agenda bill, as you can see, does not have any
2:16:30
recommendations from the administration, which is unusual.
2:16:36
And my understanding from the administration that the reason it doesn't have
2:16:42
recommendations is because it's a little bit difficult to make a recommendation if you haven't
2:16:48
gone through the public hearing and heard what the feedback is, hear what people are
2:16:51
thinking, citizens, property owners, people who are affected, and also if you haven't
2:16:57
heard any, haven't finished the comment period leading up to the public hearing, and also
2:17:03
haven't, had any substantive discussion
2:17:09
by the council. And at the same, so
2:17:15
I put the motion on the table because we're now at that point having
2:17:22
in here, you know, had the moratorium in place since September 6th and had feedback
2:17:27
and gathered information and had the public hearing that if there are going to be
2:17:32
any I've recommended changes to it, or now is probably the time to start talking
2:17:37
about that. And I don't know that I would be, and I know that I'm
2:17:43
not prepared to recommend anything myself tonight, because I'm in the same place.
2:17:48
Recommend anything specific in terms of changes, possibly, to the language of the moratorium,
2:17:54
because I'm in the same boat as administration, as I'm still digesting and hearing from
2:17:59
people and getting through the public hearing.
2:18:06
So that's why I made the motion that I did. And
2:18:14
go ahead. Council Member Pawley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one thought on that recommendation.
2:18:18
If something were to come to November 7th, would the council as a whole have
2:18:24
a touch at it before November 7th? Or would that be the first time council
2:18:28
would be discussing a work session? Certainly talk about it. I'm not sure how the
2:18:32
others feel about that, but I feel like it's a pretty significant, it could be
2:18:37
a pretty significant amount of information to process and go ahead within one night in
2:18:42
one touch. So is there a question? Okay,
2:18:49
and we'll come back to your question of what we might be able to do.
2:18:54
Okay. Council member, I just like. Just clarification on the process then of the motion
2:18:58
that's on the table. So what's the intent of the motion to
2:19:04
actually have, take action on November 7th? It would, there would be, that
2:19:10
would be part. Sometimes it could be a referral. I think that's what that would
2:19:12
be. Yeah, that would be part of the recommendation. Typically. Okay, so the action is,
2:19:19
I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Typically, the administration makes a
2:19:24
recommendation and typically it's referred to a council committee.
2:19:32
or to a council work session. And that could be a
2:19:38
part, that would be a part of the administration's recommendation.
2:19:45
Okay, that answered my question, thank you. Go ahead. So one option, probably
2:19:51
borrowing from you, is I don't have the calendar right in front of me, but
2:19:56
we have, we're getting together A COUPLE MORE TIMES
2:20:02
BETWEEN THE FIRST, BETWEEN NOW AND THE FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER. PROBABLY HAVE A COUPLE
2:20:08
BUDGET SESSIONS. MAYBE WE DO, MAYBE WE DON'T. WE COULD LOOK AT THE
2:20:13
CALENDAR. WE COULD PIGGYBACK ON THAT
2:20:19
OR WE COULD CUT BUDGET DISCUSSION DOWN FROM THREE HOURS TO TWO AND HAVE A
2:20:23
MORATORIUM DISCUSSION FOR AN HOUR OR JUST IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION, DIGEST.
2:20:31
the administration time to digest and then come back and discuss. Just an idea.
2:20:39
Council member Ramos. So I too need some time to digest this as everyone else
2:20:44
does obviously. You heard a lot of things tonight, got to process those. And I
2:20:50
read a lot of comments, a couple of pages of comments we've gotten as well.
2:20:53
What I saw earlier, what Keith presented to us earlier was basically kind of a
2:20:57
work plan. moratorium. So that to me is like the good start, right? That's like,
2:21:02
okay, we haven't approved that, but that looks like a good start of a proposed
2:21:06
work plan and maybe add some scheduling and so forth to that. So I'm assuming
2:21:10
that will be a part of also what we're looking at in this process, correct?
2:21:16
I mean, that's the plan of what to do next and how to go forward,
2:21:20
correct? Council President Goodman. I would envision tonight that, you know, any thoughts that you
2:21:25
have floating around in your head, any questions you have, any information you need or
2:21:30
any thoughts on the work plans, any kind of sort of free
2:21:36
information, anything you can, any helpful direction that you can give the administration.
2:21:42
You know, if we were to ask them to come back with a recommendation, anything
2:21:46
that we can do to help them along would be valuable. That would be very,
2:21:52
very helpful. 22 people spoke this evening. You heard a wide variety of comments from
2:21:59
from those who have an interest in the moratorium. We have spent some work and
2:22:04
laid out a six, 12, or 18 month schedule and some of
2:22:10
that has budget implications. It will take the administration some time
2:22:16
to develop recommendations based on what we heard and any guidance you provide
2:22:22
this evening. So. Mariah had her hand up.
2:22:30
Raya? Just in general, just to reiterate what some of us have been talking about
2:22:36
is that there just is a lot to read through and digest, and it was
2:22:40
so nice to have the opportunity to hear from everyone this evening. But I
2:22:46
do feel like it, I think we talked a little bit about land and shore,
2:22:49
and we've got A PORTION OF THE MEETING DEVOTED TO THAT, BUT I THINK IT
2:22:53
WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE FULL COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS TOGETHER
2:22:57
BEFORE COMING BACK IN NOVEMBER. COUNCIL MEMBER,
2:23:03
POLLIE. JUST A COMMENT ON SOMETHING THAT BILL SAID. I THINK THERE ARE TWO THINGS
2:23:07
THAT WE COULD DO TONIGHT, AND THE WORK PLAN IS ONE OF THEM. AND I
2:23:10
HAD A COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS THAT I WAS JUST GOING TO SHARE WITH STAFF
2:23:13
ON THE WORK PLAN. The other piece that I think we should talk about is
2:23:17
different than the work plan, and that is if we want the moratorium to change
2:23:22
or not. And to me, that one is time sensitive. And that while we have
2:23:27
a lot of different things to look at, including the work plan, I think the
2:23:30
very first thing we should talk about is have we got the right scope for
2:23:33
the moratorium. And for me, after hearing the testimony tonight, I can tell you that
2:23:38
I think we need to talk about that first and as soon as we can.
2:23:43
and with the whole council, and I think we need to make a decision on
2:23:46
that. And so that's my opinion on the schedule of how we should, where I
2:23:51
think we should be on approaching, from a time point of view, the scope of
2:23:55
the moratorium. On the work plan itself, I think that's really good that you brought
2:23:59
that up, Bill, because I had written some notes too. The first version of the
2:24:03
work plan we see in the agenda bill tonight, and there are a list of
2:24:08
items that could get done in six months, urban design, vertical mix use, and parking.
2:24:13
And again, like the mayor said, that's tied to budget. Dollars to some of that,
2:24:17
and we don't know that yet. But if we're working on that over the next
2:24:19
month, we should have time to incorporate that into the budget. Then we move into
2:24:23
the longer ones where we talk about the 12-month items and the 15-month items. And
2:24:28
I had just some thoughts on that. Both of the architectural review and
2:24:34
housing strategy listed as being accomplished in 12 months also had an option to do
2:24:39
six months. And I felt very strongly that the six-month option was not desirable. these
2:24:44
were, you were either eliminating public touches, and I'm not sure that
2:24:50
that's appropriate, and on the 15-month one, the district vision, the same thing. I was
2:24:54
not in favor of the reduced time frames of getting things done faster with fewer
2:24:59
touches and following an abbreviated process. I think these are all that were
2:25:05
listed up here, all six, and I think they deserve to have the normal amount
2:25:09
of or increased public input and comment and touches at committee. And also,
2:25:15
I would hope that by budget, by the time we are looking at our final
2:25:18
version of the draft budget, that we do have dollar values associated. So I think
2:25:22
it's important tonight that you have feedback like that about the time frames that you
2:25:26
saw, because we were given options, feel free to give it. And if you don't,
2:25:29
because we're completely overwhelmed with the amount of information that came, and that's okay. But
2:25:34
anyway, that was my thought. I was gonna echo that
2:25:40
thought. The same thing with that is tightening time frame, or speeding
2:25:46
things up and losing public input and public involvement is not a trade-off I'd like
2:25:52
to make. This is a big thing, choice we decided to do. A lot of
2:25:55
it is bringing folks in, that's public trust, that's their input that is absolutely critical.
2:26:02
So yeah, plans that would shortcut that piece, I would not be in favor of.
2:26:07
If there are other ways we can speed it up, that's one thing, but that
2:26:10
piece I would not be interested in wanting to let go of either.
2:26:17
I agree with Bill. I think it's important that we, I mean, we found by
2:26:22
speeding this process up or trying to push this process through where we ended up
2:26:26
at, and tonight was just a very long evening understanding what we
2:26:32
have created. I think it's important that we actually make sure that we're touching and
2:26:37
making sure that every citizen that has an opportunity or wants an opportunity have the
2:26:43
ability to come and make sure that they're doing getting the information to us that
2:26:48
we need. I think we need to step back, take a look at this, begin
2:26:54
maybe with November 7th. I think it needs to be the entire council for at
2:27:00
least some beginning processes of this and see where it goes and perhaps then back
2:27:05
to a committee. But I don't want to lose touch with what's going on with
2:27:11
this particular process by giving it to one particular committee and not having the input
2:27:16
and understanding of all of the rest of the council members.
2:27:30
I want to talk about the scope as well. And I think shortly after we
2:27:36
adopted the moratorium, some of the immediate
2:27:42
communications we started getting that had an impact on me were, I think,
2:27:49
I would now put in the unintended consequences category. I have the original ordinance in
2:27:55
front of us, and right in the first line, IF YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT'S
2:28:00
UP THERE, ARCHITECTURAL FIT, URBAN DESIGN, VERTICAL MIX USE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARKING AND DISTRICT, WITH
2:28:05
THE EXCEPTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EVERY ONE OF THOSE HAS TO DO WITH THE SUB
2:28:08
AREA PLAN THAT IS THE CENTRAL ISSAQUA AREA PLAN. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T READ
2:28:14
THE ORDINANCE BEFORE, READ THE ORDINANCE. I THINK IT'S VERY GOOD. IT EXPLAINS THE INTENT
2:28:20
OF THE COUNCIL VERY WELL. And nothing entered my mind when
2:28:26
I read that and voted in favor of that. Thought to myself, okay, I'm a
2:28:31
small landowner who wants to take it from one unit to two, we gotta stop.
2:28:36
Never entered my mind and it was never my intent. And so I think we've
2:28:42
heard a lot of testimony here that about the very specific
2:28:48
impacts of this legislation to that, particular landowners
2:28:54
in here. And I think it is, there's a different economy, there's a different kind
2:28:59
of pro forma and kind of overall resources available to a,
2:29:06
to a, those small landowners and
2:29:12
small subplats that I think are different than what we were trying to address here.
2:29:21
I mean, our language is about changing potentially the development and design standards.
2:29:27
That's architectural fit and having a new enforcement mechanism. Same with the urban design, I
2:29:33
think those are similar. A vertical mixed use is completely, we're not only,
2:29:40
I mean, it's clearly outside of the central area, that is not at issue.
2:29:47
like we heard about residential or properties that are currently zoned for
2:29:54
residential use only. And so, I mean, that's the scope of the issue I definitely
2:29:59
wanna discuss and I'd like to consider, I'd like to hear the thoughts of the
2:30:05
rest of my council members, even this evening as possible, even if you don't have
2:30:08
a feeling on that, because if there really is momentum here and a will of
2:30:13
this council, then, I THINK EVEN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD COME
2:30:20
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE NEAR TERM SHOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING IF THAT IS
2:30:26
THE WILL OF THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE COUNCIL. I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION
2:30:32
AND MAKE SURE IF I AM UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY. MY SUGGESTION WAS THAT WE MIGHT
2:30:37
HAVE SOMETHING ACTIONABLE ON NOVEMBER 7TH, WHICH MEANS WE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE FOLLOWING THE
2:30:42
NORMAL PROCESS THAT THE MAYOR LAID OUT. I'M ACTUALLY THINKING THAT OR I WANT TO
2:30:48
UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE TALKING THE SAME THING. I'M THINKING THAT THIS COUNCIL WOULD DECIDE TONIGHT
2:30:52
THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE A WORK SESSION ON IT PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 7TH. AND
2:30:57
IT MIGHT GO TO A COMMITTEE FROM THERE IF IT NEEDS MORE WORK, BUT ON
2:31:00
NOVEMBER 7TH WE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING ACTIONABLE. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE THINKING?
2:31:06
I'm thinking more in general, not necessarily the process forward. But
2:31:13
I think, do I think there is a sense of urgency around this element? Yes.
2:31:20
Did you just outline a possible way that we could do something about this? Yes.
2:31:31
So I'm looking at the list on page 75 of
2:31:37
the packet that says October 2016 pipeline projects. And
2:31:45
I would agree that it's never an intended consequence that you have
2:31:50
people who have, who are hurt by an
2:31:56
action. That's not an intent. The consequence,
2:32:03
it's unfortunate. But I'm looking at this and
2:32:09
you have vested projects. The first list says non-vested projects and there are 22.
2:32:16
Those are the projects that are currently halted. And then you have another list of
2:32:20
vested projects and that has 53 projects and those are not,
2:32:26
those are vested. So those will continue. And then if you further break down those
2:32:31
lists, you have the non-vested,
2:32:37
projects, ones that are halted, 10 are in the Central Issaquah Plan
2:32:43
area and 12 are outside the Central Issaquah Plan area. And the
2:32:49
vested projects, the 53, 13 are in the Central Issaquah Plan area and 40 are
2:32:54
outside. And I point this out just because the
2:33:00
statistic startled me. I THINK WHEN YOU,
2:33:07
WHEN WE HEAR THE CONCERNS AND THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AND
2:33:13
GROWTH AND THE TALKS THAT WE'VE HAD AND THE AGENDA BILL TALKS ABOUT
2:33:19
CENTRAL ISSUQUA PLAN AREA, AND I REALIZE THAT WE FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON LMS THAT ARE
2:33:24
IN THE CENTRAL ISSUQUA PLAN AREA, NOT SURE WE'VE CAPTURED ALL OF THE CONCERNS.
2:33:32
SO THEN IF YOU GO BACK UP TO THE NON-VESTED PROJECTS, was keeping account of
2:33:37
the comments we heard tonight, I counted 12 of the 22 that won
2:33:42
exemptions. So
2:33:50
that's an interesting, that would be an interesting thing to try to grant all those
2:33:56
exemptions. Because, you know, every one of them has a reason
2:34:03
and it's all a personal story and I
2:34:10
An action in moratorium is not for the purpose of creating
2:34:16
negative situations for people. It's a natural consequence, it happens. So I point that out
2:34:21
only because I found that data interesting.
2:34:27
As far as the length of the moratorium, I too am
2:34:34
at this point, IT VERY DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD HAVE A SIX-MONTH
2:34:39
MORATORIUM WHERE WE ARE IN NOVEMBER AUTHORIZING FUNDS TO
2:34:46
DO THE WORK WE NEED TO DO THAT PROBABLY THE COUNCIL WOULDN'T SEE UNTIL
2:34:52
AT LEAST LATE JANUARY AND THEN IT HAS TO BE READY FOR PRIME TIME AND
2:34:56
LIFTING A MORATORIUM AT THE END OF MARCH. I JUST FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE
2:35:00
THAT WE COULD DO A THOROUGH JOB. THAT'S what my thoughts
2:35:06
are on that one. And I also agree that
2:35:12
removing public outreach, condensing processes, particularly with something that's this important, I would,
2:35:20
don't envision I could support that, but that's my, that's one of my thoughts right
2:35:23
now. Can you say that last part again? I don't envision I could support short,
2:35:29
you know, condensing processes and removing public outreach, that just, just, doesn't make
2:35:35
any sense to me.
2:35:45
Mariah. So... I'm trying to capture the
2:35:50
notes of what I'm hearing and comments because they're actually very, very helpful. So,
2:35:56
Mariah? And I wanted to echo what... President
2:36:02
Goodman had said in terms of this, definitely the
2:36:08
moratorium, not the intent of causing hardship
2:36:14
for some of the residents and landowners and people that are trying to move
2:36:20
forward with some of the small projects that we talked about. And I do need
2:36:24
to really have some time to digest and think about the scope.
2:36:30
In regard to the timing, just one small thing, there
2:36:36
was a lot in regard to the timing that really stood out to me when
2:36:39
I was thinking about the work plan. But something in particular, it was talking about
2:36:45
being able to do the housing strategy in six months, and it talked about
2:36:51
the community outreach for the needs of the assessment phase would be reduced and
2:36:57
staff would need to conduct that outreach in the next two months in order to
2:37:02
prepare recommendations in January 2017. So that would mean that staff would
2:37:08
be working over two months on the needs assessment, which is just something
2:37:15
in my background we had talked a lot about and it's over the holidays. And
2:37:19
so I just, I'm trying to point out one specific
2:37:26
piece of this that seems really condensed. And so when we get
2:37:32
into the details of that, that would probably be one of my questions about is
2:37:35
that even doable? So I just wanted to throw
2:37:41
that out as an example. It's nothing that we need to talk about probably right
2:37:45
now. This is all, excuse me, go ahead Mary Lou.
2:37:51
So this is more of a question for Stacey. I wondered if you could read
2:37:54
the motion again, because I'm confused as to we're providing a lot of input tonight
2:37:59
to the administration. But how would the public be able to stay engaged and understand
2:38:04
what the next steps are based on your motion? If you could read the motion,
2:38:07
please, maybe I can. I'll pick it out from there. So I said
2:38:14
to direct the administration to draft recommendations regarding the moratorium. TO THE CITY
2:38:20
COUNCIL AT ITS FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER. MY THOUGHT ABOUT FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER IS
2:38:25
BECAUSE IT DOES TAKE A
2:38:31
LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS OR MAYBE THERE AREN'T ANY. MAYBE THE RECOMMENDATION
2:38:35
IS NO CHANGES TO THE MORATORIUM AND WE RECOMMEND NO EXTENSION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
2:38:41
WILL COME BACK. STAYING ENGAGED.
2:38:51
I didn't have anything implied in here about engagement or no engagement, only that that
2:38:55
would be the next opportunity that we have a meeting for a recommendation. I was
2:38:59
picking the first next regular meeting. That motion, as stated,
2:39:05
is something that the administration can work on based on
2:39:10
the discussion here. I heard public engagement is important.
2:39:17
I heard that six months is probably too short. I
2:39:23
heard a lot. I heard with respect to vested, not non-vested, some
2:39:29
interest in a process perhaps to review
2:39:34
and act on individual ones. And then I heard that no,
2:39:41
the moratorium is a moratorium. Well, we need the administration needs time to
2:39:46
digest what we heard in this conversation, but we can certainly work with the
2:39:52
direct the administration to prepare draft recommendations returning November 7th.
2:39:59
And I think I have heard enough that in order to drive
2:40:05
that effort. Paul? Yeah, thank you for that.
2:40:11
Yeah, we heard, we were, request to, you know, additional exemptions or create some type
2:40:17
of review process. It seems to me if we could create criteria that any type
2:40:21
of hearing person or group could apply to,
2:40:27
then we should just be able to state that as policy and not require a
2:40:31
review process, it seems to me. MS. Can you elaborate a little bit? MR. Well,
2:40:37
I mean, just there was, there was, we, tonight we heard a couple requests to
2:40:42
give me an exception. or put a process in place where my application for an
2:40:47
exception can be heard and you can make a determination. Just put some process in
2:40:51
place to get people kind of a judgment on whether or not they can get
2:40:54
an exception to the moratorium or not. It seems to me if we could create
2:40:58
criteria that would be used in a review process, then we can just apply that
2:41:02
ourselves. And kind of a case by case review,
2:41:10
I would want to, I wouldn't, think that would be a good approach a case-by-case
2:41:13
review um i think we're very formulaic very empirical and what we did now you
2:41:18
you're vested or not and it depends and it was a very clear line of
2:41:21
where you had to cross to be vested or not um um so in term
2:41:26
you know and we have exceptions which are are kind of categorical exceptions as well
2:41:31
so i i think i think if MY INTEREST IN PARTICULAR FOR THE SMALL
2:41:37
LAND OWNER, I GUESS I'M TALKING ABOUT CREATING A CLEAR EXCEPTION AND
2:41:43
JUST ADDING IT TO THE MORATORIUM AS AN EXCEPTION. THAT'S A METHOD THAT I'D BE
2:41:48
INTERESTED IN SEEING A DETAILED PROPOSAL ON.
2:41:56
I just want to follow up on one thing. One thing I didn't hear on
2:41:59
your list is that I think there's a distinction between what next steps are during
2:42:02
a moratorium and whether or not there's going to be an additional exception. And I
2:42:06
think the point that I was making is that I think those are two different
2:42:09
things. And I think we, the time sensitive one is the exception one. That's what
2:42:14
we heard tonight. And I, what I'm, I think I'm hearing is that on November
2:42:20
7th will be the first time council will talk about it again, which means that
2:42:24
It'll be the first time we may consider an exception and it'll be the only
2:42:29
time we'll have had a chance to talk about it. It also means that it
2:42:32
might go to committee at that point and come back to council, which would mean
2:42:36
maybe the end of November or December. So I'm not hearing any sort of time
2:42:39
sensitivity in that piece of an exception. And I'm not sure if any of you
2:42:44
have commented on that or not, because I didn't hear it in the mayor's list.
2:42:50
She was talking to you. No, I was just talking. You seconded the motion, so.
2:42:53
are you not in favor of the motion? Well. I'm in favor of the motion,
2:42:58
but if the council tonight feels like there is a reason to take the
2:43:03
exception list out and make it the top priority moving forward, I would amend the
2:43:08
motion to add additional language that says I would like it to come to a
2:43:13
meeting of the entire council and potentially a committee before November 7th. Do you want
2:43:18
touches on it before November 7th for that one thing, exceptions?
2:43:25
is sort of the question. So kind of to take what you said and put
2:43:29
my twist on it. So I don't want to use the word time sensitive so
2:43:34
much. The way I heard more so is the bigger moratorium time frame work
2:43:40
plan is one thing. If we're gonna make some exceptions, that would be first.
2:43:46
And maybe I look at that as time sensitive, two weeks is, you know, I
2:43:51
don't wanna shortchange that process anymore than the longterm process to make sure we do
2:43:56
it right. So I wanna say time sensitive. I said we could move that up
2:44:00
and do that first. We could take our time to do that right. If it
2:44:03
takes, I don't think two weeks is a reasonable amount of time. If it takes
2:44:07
six weeks, whatever, I think most of these projects I heard, that would be very
2:44:11
acceptable to most of these folks that they find that out in a much less
2:44:15
than six month time period. I think that would be very time sensitive for them.
2:44:19
And that's just guessing but again my problem with Trying to look at the exception
2:44:25
is I don't know where to draw that line right we heard you know I
2:44:28
know we didn't get much detail on most of projects people talked about You know
2:44:32
one said 14 acres. You know I said it's short plot well you're a lot
2:44:35
of range in size and so forth so somewhere to be able to draw that
2:44:39
line into something that can say this fits this doesn't is it meet the intent
2:44:44
of what the moratorium trying to achieve or not is complicated and it takes
2:44:50
some discussion I think amongst the whole thing. So I think it's gonna take a
2:44:53
few discussions. I'm not in a rush that it has to happen to November 7th.
2:44:57
That's just our next meeting that we can start getting into more of the details
2:45:00
of that. That's what I would like to ask the administration to do is get
2:45:04
with these folks that know those projects, see those kinds of ones that the type
2:45:09
of ones that you think would fit to be able to proceed without
2:45:15
going against what we're trying to achieve. AND SOME WAY HELP US DEFINE THAT LINE
2:45:20
WITH WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD, THE SAME THING WE HAVE, RIGHT? SO WHAT WOULD
2:45:25
YOU PROPOSE IN THAT TO GET US STARTED AND THEN WE CAN PLAY WITH IT
2:45:27
A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. A RANGE OF PROJECTS WE'VE HEARD HERE TONIGHT
2:45:32
AND I THINK SOME OF THEM MAY FIT NICELY FOR ME AND SOME MAY NOT.
2:45:36
I DON'T KNOW THAT. THAT'S A TECHNICAL QUESTION WE WANT SOME HELP ON. DOES THAT
2:45:39
MAKE SENSE? PERFECT. SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT
2:45:46
WE COULD JUST COME BACK ON THE 7TH AND GET THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR WE COULD
2:45:51
RIGHT NOW FIGURE OUT IF THERE IS A TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THEN THAT WE
2:45:55
CAN COME BACK TOGETHER AS A COUNCIL EITHER AS PART OF ONE OF OUR BUDGET
2:46:00
MEETINGS AND ONLY TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL EXCEPTIONS OR EXEMPTIONS. THEN
2:46:06
COME BACK. AND IF THE COUNCIL THEN AT THAT MEETING
2:46:12
DECIDES TO GET THEM TO THE MESSAGE TO THE
2:46:18
ADMINISTRATION THAT WE MIGHT BE READY TO VOTE ON THAT ON NOVEMBER 7. WE COULD
2:46:22
DO THAT. WE COULD GO ONE OF TWO WAYS. SHOULD I MAKE A MOTION? I
2:46:26
WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AND THEN. AND THEN EVERYBODY
2:46:29
GETS TO TALK ABOUT IT. THAT MAKES WAY MORE SENSE. I MOVE TO MAKE AN
2:46:33
AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. CAN I SEE THE ORIGINAL MOTION?
2:46:53
So the original motion moved to direct the administration to draft recommendations about the more,
2:46:59
already the more return to be brought to the, you do shorthand, to the
2:47:05
council at its first meeting in November and to,
2:47:16
and for the council to, and for the, and prior to the November 7th, prior
2:47:21
to the first meeting in November, The whole city council
2:47:27
will conduct a work, will discuss in a work session, you can help me
2:47:33
if you want. Consider exceptions. Consider exceptions at a
2:47:39
council work session prior to the
2:47:45
council meeting in November. God, that's really awkward. That's
2:47:51
just it. If somebody seconds it or doesn't, we can talk about it. That's why
2:47:54
we're doing it. So that everybody can weigh in. Second, because I want to discuss
2:47:59
it. There you go. So now I can discuss it and maybe I'll try and
2:48:01
write something down. So now. Let me see if I captured this correctly,
2:48:07
Mary Lou. Prior to the first meeting in November,
2:48:14
consider exemptions in a full A
2:48:18
MEETING OF THE FULL COUNCIL. A MEETING OF THE FULL
2:48:24
COUNCIL. YOU DID WAY BETTER THAN WHAT I SAID. WELL. WAY BETTER.
2:48:34
OKAY. THEN I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM BILL AND I. BILL AND I
2:48:40
BOTH HAD A SAY ON THAT. SO THE OTHERS HAVE A. SO MY THAT SOUNDS
2:48:46
LIKE TRYING TO GET the recommendation for exemption in one week, which seems
2:48:52
not realistic. So I agree in the concept, but I think the timing of the
2:48:58
amendment is not realistic. You guys gotta sit down and sort through this stuff. If
2:49:02
I was trying to do it, it would take a little longer than that. So
2:49:04
I don't think it's realistic for us to discuss an exemption before the November 7th
2:49:10
date. That's just, that's two weeks away. That means it must be. It depends on
2:49:13
what's, I mean, you can discuss it. I'M NOT SURE
2:49:19
HOW PREPARED THE STAFF GIVEN THE WORKLOAD AND WHETHER
2:49:26
THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF STAFF INPUT FOR THAT
2:49:31
DISCUSSION. I'M LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR. OF COURSE WE HAVE ONE TOMORROW
2:49:37
AND THEN OUR OTHER ALREADY PLANNED MEETING IS WEDNESDAY THE 26TH. THOSE ARE THE LAST,
2:49:42
THOSE ARE THE ONLY EXISTING SCHEDULED WORK SESSIONS BETWEEN NOW AND THE first regular business
2:49:48
meeting in November. Nothing's going to happen tomorrow. And so,
2:49:58
I mean, that would, if we use our existing schedule, that's it. So then that
2:50:02
is, today's the 17th, that gives, that would be nine days to prepare something.
2:50:09
But I'm gonna, so that's just the fact of the matter. I think, I agree
2:50:14
with Bill that, And as I said earlier, I do believe that
2:50:20
there is, from a sequencing position, I want to address
2:50:26
this question of exemptions first, and I wanna do it in a timely manner.
2:50:33
And if we do it in, if we were to be able to complete some
2:50:38
legislation in three plus four weeks from now, that's a timely manner.
2:50:46
three weeks from now is basically the seventh. Four weeks from now is roughly two
2:50:52
business meetings after that. So I think we're looking at a timeline of
2:50:58
maybe, well, I guess I could count it a little bit more specific. I'm looking
2:51:01
at a pretty small calendar on my phone. But so in regard
2:51:07
to the amendment of I think whose intent is to take action on the
2:51:13
7th of November, I don't, MS. We don't allow for the possibility to take action.
2:51:19
It doesn't mean we would. It allows for the possibility. MR. And so the amendment
2:51:24
says, which I second, basically it says we're going to use the 26th
2:51:30
to consider a proposal and for possible
2:51:37
action on the 7th. MR. Well, there
2:51:43
is an amendment before you, Mariah.
2:51:49
I agree. I think it's too fast. And
2:51:55
I believe we need more time. And
2:52:01
one of the things that I was going to ask about too is that when
2:52:05
we're talking about possible exceptions, if there is a way to categorize
2:52:12
what we've heard and the letters that have come in and that kind of thing,
2:52:16
that there's way to sort of look at that statistically or
2:52:23
categories. So meaning that this grouping are all short
2:52:29
plats and there are this many. Just more information that I think
2:52:34
would be helpful when we're thinking about and looking at exceptions, which is
2:52:40
probably adding to me saying that I think we need a little more time. Not
2:52:45
a lot more time, but maybe to push that out a week, a couple of
2:52:50
weeks. Thank you. Speaking to the amendment.
2:52:59
I'm here on right, because discussion of the amendment, I almost proposed an amendment to
2:53:04
the amendment. Oh, sorry. I just want to
2:53:10
make sure that we're allowing enough time for staff and for the
2:53:16
AND I FEEL THAT WE'RE ALREADY BEGINNING TO PUSH THIS FAST AGAIN
2:53:22
AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET OURSELVES RIGHT BACK INTO THE SAME SPOT THAT WE
2:53:25
WERE, THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING ALL OF THE INFORMATION, THAT WE HAVEN'T PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY
2:53:31
FOR INPUT, AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWING STAFF TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT
2:53:36
WE'RE ASKING OF THEM IN THIS SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. SO, YOU KNOW,
2:53:42
IT'S THE OLD HANDS OF THEM. if you want it bad, you're gonna get it
2:53:45
bad kind of a comment. So, and I don't wanna go back backwards.
2:53:51
Stacey? Is it possible to find out
2:53:57
how complicated it is to bring that information forward on the
2:54:04
26th? There's a finite number of requested exemptions.
2:54:15
And I don't know. Please look over your shoulders. I'm not behind the scenes. I
2:54:18
don't know what we've already gathered. Oh, look, the red light's on.
2:54:24
So, you know, obviously part of this is translating what I'm hearing you guys ask
2:54:29
for. And, you know, as you guys talked about, what you were hoping to get
2:54:33
out of kind of dissecting the numbers a little bit finer grain is, so, for
2:54:38
example, let's assume that one of the recommendations were to put the
2:54:44
scope from citywide to just central Issaquah. Okay, I think what I'd want to know,
2:54:49
and that's hypothetical, what I would want to know then is how many of those
2:54:54
that got caught would now be able to move forward. So starting to know, like
2:54:59
as we start to look at, if you were to change, like let's just say
2:55:03
you wanted to let short plats go. So we'd count up the number of short
2:55:06
plats that got caught and there'd be, okay, so of the 12 that got caught,
2:55:12
now only four are left in the net. So it'd be giving you that kind
2:55:16
of information about what each of the levers would do so that when you guys
2:55:22
started to talk about how that would affect the moratorium, you'd know what the outcome
2:55:27
would be. I think we could do that because it's,
2:55:34
not that big a list. I mean, you know, there's, we've got it already quantified
2:55:37
in terms of what's in, what's out, and what's in central Issaquah and what's not.
2:55:41
And so I think giving you kind of a spreadsheet on what kind of, how
2:55:46
all those modifications, at least the ones that I've heard, now some of them are
2:55:51
kind of, just to make sure. So, So this right column here
2:55:58
is potentially some of those levers that you could pull. There might be a few
2:56:03
others that we might want to add to that list on the right-hand column. And
2:56:07
if you guys are thinking any now that you don't see, then let's kind of
2:56:12
give those to me either tonight or in the next few days. And what we
2:56:15
can do is start to kind of dial up what that looks like. If that's
2:56:18
what you're asking for, I don't think that is that difficult to provide.
2:56:27
So to add to that, I guess I want everybody to realize that looking at
2:56:31
this non-vested list of projects of 22 is only a small piece of the picture
2:56:37
because if you open an exemption, that opens everyone and that could be 50 or
2:56:42
100 more could come right in to try to fit into that exemption. So it's
2:56:46
not a list of 10 or 20 or whatever. It's allowing for the whole time
2:56:50
of the moratorium to open up a piece of something. That takes a little more
2:56:55
consideration. So my push is to look at some of this and maybe come back
2:57:01
November 7th to talk about this when city staff can take their time, get some
2:57:06
things together, some options so we can see some things in black and white. If
2:57:09
you say short plat, that means this. If you say this, it means that. And
2:57:15
really give us some good examples of the details of what those things are. then
2:57:19
that makes no sense and wait till November 7th. I just do not feel there's
2:57:23
any need to have any action in less than three weeks here. We've taken something
2:57:28
that says six months, we're gonna look at it and all of a sudden a
2:57:31
push to make a decision in three weeks that is gonna be possibly a year
2:57:37
or 18 month decision. It's much bigger than just what's here.
2:57:43
Mary Lou followed by Stacy. I guess the reason that I'm pushing for it is
2:57:48
that the moratorium came into effect in September. And you have the right
2:57:54
under the regulations or law, whatever it is, to amend whenever you see fit and
2:57:58
amend in any way you see fit. And I am not treating this like regular
2:58:03
business. This is an emergency moratorium. This action has had unintended
2:58:09
consequences. And to treat it like regular business and put it through the regular committee
2:58:14
structure and stretch this out means we've talked about this twice, once in September and
2:58:20
tonight. And now we'll talk about it again in three weeks. That's treating an emergency
2:58:24
like regular business. And that really, really concerns me. So while I'm hearing no support
2:58:30
for the motion, I'm not wanting to take the motion off the table. I wanna
2:58:34
leave the motion and I wanna have us vote on it. I can see value
2:58:39
in having another patch between now and November 7th.
2:58:46
That's three weeks away. So I can see value in having another conversation on October
2:58:51
26th that may not be just restricted to
2:58:58
bring us your possible proposed exceptions. I just heard some things
2:59:04
from Keith that I hadn't thought about in terms of what something might look like
2:59:08
without sending any signal that I support any of that. It's that there are conversations
2:59:12
that we need to have. So the reason that I would support that additional discussion
2:59:18
is because we do have limited opportunities to talk and another three weeks goes by
2:59:23
and all of a sudden we have just all new information. And so the
2:59:29
touches, the public touches that we can have and the conversations that we can have
2:59:33
I think are valuable in the meantime. Public conversations.
2:59:38
additional
2:59:39
discussion
2:59:46
on the amendment. Could you read me? We're really bogging down in process here. I
2:59:51
mean, you know, it may be great. You got some information on the 26th, love
2:59:55
to hear it. Are we gonna try to take action on the 7th? I think
2:59:57
that's what we're trying to decide. Me. Right? And so
3:00:04
we're spending a lot of time on process here. What's the amendment saying? The amendment
3:00:09
says prior to the first meeting in November, consider
3:00:14
exemptions prior to November the
3:00:20
7th through a meeting of the full council. Now that's... Pretty good. I
3:00:27
worked it a little bit. And so that, so are you ready to act?
3:00:35
I'll say it again. So have a conversation about exemptions
3:00:41
on the 26th? Is that one?
3:00:44
Okay. All right. I
3:00:49
get it. I just want to make sure, I don't have any problem with, I
3:00:53
mean, a conversation as soon as possible. What I was concerned with is forcing a
3:00:57
decision on the 7th. It's an option on the 7th. As long as we're not
3:01:01
doing that, we can start talking about. The original motion asks, bring back draft recommendations,
3:01:07
not to take action on the seventh because those drafts, that's only one touch.
3:01:13
Typically there are two touches either through the full council or through a council committee.
3:01:20
Are you ready to act on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment
3:01:24
signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that carries unanimously. Back to the.
3:01:37
Additional discussion on the main motion. I think we want to have more conversation. Do
3:01:42
you want more, before we take this action, should we talk more about some input
3:01:48
to give you feedback? Or do we want to just handle this and then have
3:01:52
a kind of a large conversation? You've discussed this. I have
3:01:57
jotted down a lot of input and I have heard a lot of input from
3:02:04
those who spoke at the public hearing. And there has been extensive outreach through a
3:02:10
variety of medians. All of that input is in the agenda bill,
3:02:16
and it's about this thick. So
3:02:23
I think, is there anything else, Keith, that we need to develop
3:02:28
recommendations, Emily, Bob? I'm looking at the team here.
3:02:36
I'm not seeing any adverse reaction. I believe we
3:02:42
have the input that we need, but any additional that you've got, I
3:02:48
will gladly accept. Bill? I just want to be the second one to reiterate Stacy's
3:02:53
comment, because I saw the same thing on in and outside the CIP. Because I
3:02:57
heard a lot of requests of things just being in there, but majority of projects
3:03:03
are outside of there. So I don't wanna kinda, just that alone, using that as
3:03:09
a boundary is not looking like a good thing to me. I wanna look at
3:03:12
those projects as a whole, wherever they are, and I don't see that as a
3:03:16
boundary that's gonna help us much, because by default it doesn't do it. There's more
3:03:21
happening outside the CIP than in. I just wanna reiterate, since you're the only one
3:03:25
that said it. Okay, thanks for reiterating that.
3:03:31
Yeah, so I still had other comments that I want you to consider. And so
3:03:38
I want you to know what I think about the proposed work plan. I'm not
3:03:42
sure if that would be come back as the seventh, but you know, Keith, your
3:03:45
proposal tonight, I kept track and every single item would have to go through PPC.
3:03:50
It's not gonna happen in six months. So don't try to make it happen. I
3:03:55
mean, that would just be a pretty, would be not a good work product. So
3:04:00
I'm not in favor of all of those accelerations, because I just don't see how
3:04:06
we could get that done. And it would not be a good work product.
3:04:12
I do agree with Bill as well at this point, limiting it to
3:04:18
the central area. Though that is clearly what the
3:04:27
that we cited a moment earlier as I said you know I mentioned that as
3:04:33
well we were we were really looking at the central area and I and I
3:04:36
meant my point was that it was not our intent to
3:04:42
to have the kind of consequences that we are hearing about on the small property
3:04:47
owners that that was the purpose of that but still one of the things that
3:04:52
did not come out in the public comment tonight which you got through the first
3:04:56
hundred pages of material we got in tonight's packet. What was the predominant
3:05:02
theme there? It was about traffic. We didn't hear much
3:05:08
about that tonight at all. And so that's the real difficult part, because this is
3:05:13
a development moratorium. It's not an edict that we got to go fix traffic. And
3:05:19
they sound like they are the different sides of the same coin. But
3:05:25
when it comes to doing the right thing for the city and for the
3:05:30
residents,
3:05:36
we have work plans in place. We have many initiatives that
3:05:42
are traffic related. And we now have
3:05:48
this moratorium work. in front of you, like that we're talking about, even if it's
3:05:54
just to, well, not the community feedback, but the kind of the other,
3:06:00
the architectural fit, the parking, actually resolving those issues that are already in the moratorium.
3:06:07
What I haven't seen yet is kind of a more holistic
3:06:12
look at how can we, how can we, can
3:06:18
our plans for traffic help
3:06:25
do its part to contribute to the same type of
3:06:32
improvements and directional improvements that we're seeking with this moratorium. You know, it
3:06:38
is about quality of life. It is about, you know, the word fit up there.
3:06:43
It says architectural fit, but it is about just fit within the community. And so
3:06:50
I know that a lot of our citizens really view this as really an edict
3:06:56
on growth and transportation. And so we didn't hear a lot of comments about that
3:07:02
tonight. And I feel that it's inevitable that we have ongoing
3:07:07
conversations about this moratorium. If we check through these things, and let's say we were
3:07:12
to get them done in six months, would we really still be addressing what I
3:07:18
know a great number of our citizens think is the major issue? And I agree
3:07:22
with you, Keith. We haven't painted that picture yet. So it seems to me that
3:07:27
we have to go forward and develop that plan and that narrative.
3:07:33
We've talked about, we put it on the shelf before to do a mobility plan
3:07:39
for the city. And that's more work, right? I
3:07:45
know I suggested a couple months back that we do, and I think Mayor Butler,
3:07:50
you have made some comments that there is something regarding kind of regional traffic
3:07:57
summit in the works. I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad that suggested. And so
3:08:03
I just think that, you know, the,
3:08:10
I don't think a, A PROPOSAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATION TO GET THIS DONE IN SIX
3:08:16
MONTHS IS, WOULD SERVE OUR OBJECTIVES HERE, AND IT
3:08:22
CERTAINLY DOESN'T GIVE US TIME TO CREATE A MORE COMPLETE
3:08:28
STRATEGY FOR TRAFFIC THAT IS ALSO NEEDED.
3:08:38
VERY SHORT. IT IS. I MEAN, I TOTALLY AGREE. I have some
3:08:44
notes and words written down and I'm trying to figure out how do we address
3:08:49
that problem at the same time. So I totally agree. I'm
3:08:55
not sure exactly what the, how we put it in a perfect
3:09:01
question. But yes, I mean, needs to be dealt
3:09:07
with at the same time in some way. Let me provide an
3:09:13
update. It looks like we've settled on November the 22nd for a
3:09:18
transportation summit to talk about impacts of regional traffic.
3:09:24
King County Executive Dow Constantine has agreed to be a
3:09:30
part of that as has mayors of the surrounding cities to
3:09:36
begin that discussion about how working
3:09:42
together can we address what is really killing us and
3:09:48
that's a regional traffic passing through our city that complicates life so
3:09:54
planning for that we are very very close to providing a save the date
3:10:00
for that that conversation and we
3:10:07
that will be a facilitated conversation in the process of selecting a facilitator to
3:10:13
lead that effort. You said the 22nd?
3:10:19
Looks like the 22nd. It's either 21st or 22nd. We picked the 22nd.
3:10:25
Today, both of those dates, the King County Executive is available
3:10:32
and committed. Okay, so are you
3:10:38
ready to act on the amended motion? I'm not going
3:10:44
to attempt to read it, but the clerk has captured that and I
3:10:50
checked with her just a couple of minutes ago and she
3:10:56
says that she has it and I believe that the work session, the
3:11:02
preference is October the 26th. to have the discussion around
3:11:08
exemptions. 26th. 26th. I mean the 26th. I was thinking of November the 22nd, I
3:11:13
guess. 26th. So all those in favor of the
3:11:19
amended motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That
3:11:25
carries unanimously. That concludes our
3:11:31
discussion and action on agenda bill 7258.
3:11:37
We'll now move to good of the order. Does anyone have anything
3:11:43
under good of the order this evening? Seeing none then, there is
3:11:49
no need for an executive session. Without any
3:11:55
objection, we are adjourned.
3:12:03
of baking sausage.