City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, October 17, 2016 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week Proclamation Hear Presentation AB 7267

packet pp.5–7

Topics: Public Safety

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, Oct. 17

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.2016

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2016 ↗

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Committee of the Whole, Sept. 27, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.9–10

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 09-27-16 Committee-of-the-Whole Council Minutes Page 7820

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Oct. 3, 2016

Carried 6-0

Approve · packet pp.11–16

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 19, 2016

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 10-03-16 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7822

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Amendments to IMC 18.10 Wetland Rating System AB 7001

Carried 6-0

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.17–44

Topics: Land UseCritical Areas

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 23, 2015

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7001 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Oct 2016 Calendar

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

2017-2018 Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant AB 7245

Carried 6-0

Authorize Submittal · packet pp.45–48

Open packet at p.45 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Office of Sustainability:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Human Services Grant Recommendations (2017-2018) AB 7253

Carried 6-0

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.49–68

Topics: Public SafetyEquity

Open packet at p.49 ↗

Staff report:

POLICY & BUDGET INFO Expenditure Required Comp Plan Policy Nos. HS1, HS2, HS3, HS5, HS 5.2, HS5.5 $ 371,500

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

8. PUBLIC HEARING

Temporary Moratorium Related to Certain Permit Applications AB 7258

Conduct Public Hearing; Direct · packet pp.69–293

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.69 ↗

Staff report:

CITY COUNCIL NEW AGENDA BILL AB 7258 - City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Oct 2016 Public Hearing

1961 segments

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.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Tola Marts

Motions and votes (3)

Direct the Administration to draft recommendations regarding the moratorium and bring to Council at its first meeting in November [7, 2016].

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Amended the motion to add: Consider exemptions at a meeting of the full City Council prior to November [Budget Work Session, Oct. 26, 2016]. . . REGULAR BUSINESS – None.

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Accounts: Payables and Payroll, October 17, 2016; Approved $ 3,793,881.93. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK NUMBERS AMOUNT Accounts Replacement Check 164272 to 164295 118,200.99 Accounts Payable Checks 164296 to 164561 2,127,353.55 Municipal Court Checks 4322 to 433…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 6-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein