City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, June 19, 2017 · City Council Digest

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

King County Prop. 1, Access for All Program to Support Cultural Organizations, Aug. 1 2017 Ballot Item Hear Presentation; Direct Administration AB 7450

packet pp.5–71

Topics: Arts & CultureElections

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7450 - AGENDA BILL Special City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Jun 2017 Business

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, June 19

Approve · packet pp.2017

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2017 ↗

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, June 19, 2017

Approve · packet pp.73–78

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 8, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · May 10, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · May 15, 2017

Open packet at p.73 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 06-05-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7850

Discuss Creation of a Transportation Mobility Board Proceed 87 - 103 AB 7436 - King County Roads (aka Issaquah d) Pit) Property Remediation AB 7249

Award Bid · packet pp.79–85

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.79 ↗

Staff report:

In late 2015, Mayor Butler appointed volunteers to serve on an interim Traffic Task Force, which issued a final report in April 2016. One

Transportation Advisory Board AB 7440

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.105–111

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.105 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

8. PUBLIC HEARING

2017 Second Budget Amendments AB 7352

Conduct Public Hearing; Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.113–122

Topics: Land UseBudget

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

Open packet at p.113 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Finance Department:

9th Major Amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Two Party Development Agreement - Polygon Northwest Requesting Major Modification for Transfer of Development Rights AB 7215

Conduct Public Hearing; Approve · packet pp.123–274

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.123 ↗

Staff report:

H. Utility Memo I. Traffic Analysis J. Revised Affordable Housing Proposal K. Traffic Analysis Clarification L. Staff Memo Q&A (new) M. Revised Affordable Housing Proposal dated June 1, 2017 (new)

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Windward/Bergsma Development Agreement AB 7110

Approve Contract; Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.313–584

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Development Commission · Apr 19, 2017

Open packet at p.313 ↗

Staff report:

D. Alternative Preliminary Site Plan (new) E. Staff Presentation to Committee (6/1/2017) (new) F. Applicant Presentation to Committee (6/1/2017) (new) G. Briefing Response Memo (new) H. Development Impacts Comparison (new) I. Table of Deviations (new) J. Open Space Comparison (new) K. Financial Comparison (new) L. Updated Applicant Proposal (new)

Count Us In 2017 Report Hear Presentation AB 7332

packet pp.727–859

Open packet at p.727 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Office of Sustainability:

Citizen Survey Results Hear Presentation f) Eastside Fire & Rescue for Tactical Emergency Medical Support AB 7407

Authorize · packet pp.861–1021

Topics: Public Safety

Open packet at p.861 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7407 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Jun 2017 Business

3170 segments

0:19 ↗ I'll call to order the Monday, June 19th,

0:25 ↗ 2017 City Council regular meeting and ask those

0:31 ↗ in the audience who would like to join

0:37 ↗ the council and myself in the Pledge of

0:42 ↗ Allegiance to please stand. I pledge allegiance to

0:48 ↗ the flag of the United States of America.

0:54 ↗ And to the republic for which it stands,

1:00 ↗ one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

1:06 ↗ justice for all. Our first item of business

1:12 ↗ is under special business this evening, agenda bill

1:18 ↗ 7450. This is a presentation by Let's

1:24 ↗ see, I've got her name but I see she knows who she

1:30 ↗ is. Deb Tversky who has approaching her way to the mic who's

1:36 ↗ going to provide the council information on King County Prop 1 access

1:41 ↗ for all programs to support cultural organizations. This is an informational report

1:47 ↗ to the council. No action or direction will be provided this evening.

1:53 ↗ So with that, Deb. Thank you so much, Mayor and Council. I'm

1:59 ↗ Deborah Torski. I'm the funding programs manager for 4Culture. And 4Culture is

2:04 ↗ King County's cultural service agency. We provide funding for arts, for heritage

2:10 ↗ and preservation, and we manage the county's public art programs and have

2:16 ↗ done so for the past 20 years. I'm here today to talk

2:22 ↗ about a program called Access for All that is going to be on the

2:27 ↗ August 1st ballot, the primary ballot, as Proposition 1. I sent you some advance

2:33 ↗ materials that you received in your packet. I hope you've had a chance to

2:39 ↗ review those and I'm happy to answer any questions. What I'd like to do is

2:44 ↗ just give a five minute presentation sort of about Access for All. I can walk

2:49 ↗ you through the finances of it. It is a complex piece of legislation and then

2:54 ↗ answer any questions that you have. I know you have a full agenda tonight so

2:59 ↗ thank you for putting me first on the agenda. I appreciate that. Access for

3:04 ↗ all stems from state legislation that was passed by the legislature

3:10 ↗ in 2015 called Cultural Access Washington. And that is legislation that

3:16 ↗ derived from the prosperity partnership of the Puget Sound Regional Council.

3:22 ↗ They began talking about the ideas that would bring jobs and

3:28 ↗ prosperity to this region in the mid-2000s, so around 2006 or

3:34 ↗ so. So they realized that the discussion about having a vibrant cultural sector was coming

3:39 ↗ up more and more as people were talking about what kind of employees they wanted

3:44 ↗ to have, what kind of businesses they wanted to attract to the region. And

3:49 ↗ so they started looking at other parts of the country and discovered that

3:55 ↗ in Denver, the Denver Scientific and Cultural District had been enacted in the

4:01 ↗ 1990s, has been reenacted several times since then, and provides funding, a robust

4:07 ↗ source of funding for cultural and scientific organizations there. And they decided to

4:13 ↗ create Cultural Access Washington, modeled it on the Denver model. It took nearly

4:19 ↗ 10 years to get through the legislature. What was thought to work in King

4:25 ↗ County is very different than legislators thought might work in Walla Walla or in other

4:31 ↗ parts of the state. And so the legislation was modified quite a bit. It

4:36 ↗ does require a tax levy. And so the discussion was, could it be sales

4:42 ↗ tax or property tax, one or the other? And it was determined that in

4:48 ↗ King County, only sales tax would be eligible. And it would be the minimum

4:54 ↗ tax raise, which is one-tenth of 1%. The legislature passed Cultural

5:00 ↗ Access Washington in 2015, as I mentioned. King County, during that time,

5:05 ↗ had twice passed ordinances or passed resolutions, I guess, in support of

5:11 ↗ the matter. And so in early 2016, the executive asked for culture

5:17 ↗ as the county's cultural service provider to take a look at what

5:22 ↗ it would mean to enact Act, Cultural Access Washington in King County.

5:28 ↗ Renamed Access for All. We began a series of outreach last

5:34 ↗ spring and summer, met with a number of groups throughout the

5:39 ↗ summer and over the fall to draft an ordinance and present

5:45 ↗ it and transmit it to the King County exec and council.

5:50 ↗ And that ordinance was further revised as council members became very active in

5:56 ↗ determining what they wanted to see happen in King County and it was

6:02 ↗ passed on May 1st of this year. Access for all was placed on

6:07 ↗ the ballot. So what does it contain? It contains three basic parts

6:13 ↗ and every piece of Access for All is designed to increase

6:19 ↗ every citizen's access to educational programs that are about arts, heritage,

6:25 ↗ preservation, and science to support the work of nonprofits in bringing

6:30 ↗ their programs to the public to people young and old across the county.

6:36 ↗ The three pieces of the legislation are its public school access program and

6:42 ↗ then awards distributed to very large cultural institutions throughout King County, many of

6:48 ↗ whom are centered in Seattle, one of whom is just down the street

6:54 ↗ here, Village Theater, and very small organizations throughout the county. 4Culture

7:00 ↗ is noted as the organization that would provide the oversight and

7:05 ↗ the distribution of the funds, we would expand our mission to to

7:11 ↗ encompass the support of nonprofit science organizations like the Friends of the

7:17 ↗ Hatchery here so that they could also receive support. Science and environmental

7:23 ↗ organizations throughout King County would be added to the arts and heritage

7:29 ↗ and preservation support. So I think maybe the instructive way to go through this

7:35 ↗ is just to look very quickly at the dollars you have in the materials that

7:40 ↗ were distributed, a revenue estimate and sort of a description of how the funds would

7:46 ↗ be used. If you think that would be useful, I can spend a couple minutes

7:51 ↗ on that. Yes, Deb, that would be great. And if you can focus on Issaquah.

7:58 ↗ potential grantees, that would be great. Sure. The one-tenth of 1%

8:04 ↗ sales tax would produce countywide. We estimate in 2018 about $68

8:10 ↗ million. Out of that, there's a small amount that comes off

8:16 ↗ the top for administration, that goes to 4Culture. That's 1.25%. And

8:22 ↗ then the public school access program receives 10% of the money. and

8:28 ↗ that is to provide free transportation for schools who want to be able to take

8:34 ↗ field trips to cultural organizations throughout the county. We hear over and over again from

8:39 ↗ teachers, from school administrators that one of the biggest blocks to access, barriers, is the

8:45 ↗ cost of transportation. So Cultural Access Washington would then pay for the bus

8:51 ↗ transportation and for the drivers and for the funds for students that need

8:56 ↗ to have parents back in the classroom or need to have chaperones come

9:02 ↗ with them. All that would be handled as part of this program, and

9:08 ↗ there'd be a central sort of booking service for teachers to be

9:14 ↗ able to use to get their classrooms to cultural

9:19 ↗ activities, whether they're near here in Issaquah or in

9:25 ↗ Bellevue or into Seattle. Then the next, and

9:31 ↗ that provides about $6.7 million. The next level of

9:36 ↗ support is regional organization support, and those grants provide

9:42 ↗ funds for regional organizations. OUT OF THOSE FUNDS, THEIR DISTRIBUTION IS

9:48 ↗ CAPT AT 15%. MOST LARGE REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE ZOO, THE SCIENCE

9:54 ↗ CENTER, VILLAGE THEATER HERE IN ISSAQUAH WILL RECEIVE CLOSER TO 10%, 8

9:59 ↗ OR 9% OF THEIR BUDGET, THEIR OVERALL OPERATING BUDGET. AND OF THAT,

10:05 ↗ HALF IS USED FOR THEIR BOTTOM LINE, FOR THEIR OPERATIONS, AND HALF

10:10 ↗ MUST BE USED TO INCREASE ACCESS. That's 20% that they have to spend on

10:16 ↗ that school program I mentioned, paying for their services to all those schools or going

10:22 ↗ out to the schools to give programs. And another 30% has to be spent on

10:28 ↗ taking their programs out to schools or to regions of the county that do not

10:33 ↗ have any cultural organizations or don't have any large organizations. or to make access

10:39 ↗ free, free for seniors or free for low income residents in their

10:45 ↗ communities. The remaining funds from Access for All are distributed to what

10:51 ↗ we call community-based organizations. And that's anyone with a budget smaller than

10:57 ↗ $1.25 million. That was the cutoff at which an organization was determined

11:03 ↗ to be either a community-based or regional-based, okay? The community-based groups throughout

11:09 ↗ King County, 4Culture right now supports about 350 organizations, and that's in

11:15 ↗ arts and heritage and a few preservation groups. We know that when

11:20 ↗ we expand to encompass the nonprofit science organizations, we'll be adding many

11:26 ↗ more organizations that we don't currently support. So they will all receive

11:32 ↗ about 15% of their operating budgets. again with the idea that they're going to be

11:38 ↗ able to do educational programs to make their programs free and reduced and to track

11:43 ↗ all of that because we will be reporting all of that every year. Some

11:49 ↗ of these dollars will go to facilities, building facilities, to supporting programs

11:55 ↗ that are done by Boys and Girls Clubs and other social service

12:00 ↗ organizations that are like after school computer labs and other kinds of

12:06 ↗ arts and heritage programs. In Issaquah, Four Culture currently, over the

12:12 ↗ last 10 years, has provided $1.3 million. And that's to Village

12:17 ↗ Theater, to Art East, the Master Chorus Eastside, Sammamish Symphony, the

12:23 ↗ Issaquah Historical Society, Under access for all, it is possible that the Cougar Mountain

12:29 ↗ Zoo could also be eligible for some support. We know that probably the friends

12:35 ↗ of the hatchery will be and other arts and science small organizations here. And

12:40 ↗ we anticipate that the support going to Issaquah would be about $1.2 million every

12:46 ↗ year. So that's about a tenfold, that's an exponential increase. But it's not

12:52 ↗ really even the money that goes to those organizations, it's what they do, right, with

12:58 ↗ those programs. So questions from any of you? Are there questions?

13:05 ↗ Well, thank you very, very much for such a comprehensive overview of

13:11 ↗ King County Prop 1. Thank you for coming all the way to

13:17 ↗ Issaquah during the evening. Sometimes traffic can be a little tough. Thank

13:23 ↗ you very much. Bye-bye. We'll move now to audience comments. A few

13:29 ↗ words about audience comments this evening. Citizen comments are an important part

13:35 ↗ of the public process. We take them seriously and factor them into the

13:40 ↗ decisions that we make. Anyone from the public who wishes to comment on

13:46 ↗ tonight's agenda items or other topics should do so at this time. Please

13:52 ↗ direct your comments to the whole council and not individuals. While this is

13:58 ↗ not a question and answer session, We will contact you to follow up if needed.

14:04 ↗ If you did not have an opportunity to include your email address on the sign-in

14:10 ↗ sheet, you may leave that information on the clipboard which will appear on the table

14:16 ↗ in front of me. When recognized, please come to the lectern and speak into the

14:22 ↗ microphone. State your name, address, and relationship to the city. Limit your comments to five

14:27 ↗ minutes. Submit any written comments to the city clerk. A visual timer has been placed

14:32 ↗ on the lectern. When it turns yellow, you are within the last minute of your

14:37 ↗ comment period. If you use the full five minutes, the timer will sound to indicate

14:43 ↗ the end of your allotted time. Personal attacks and obscene language, derogatory remarks and

14:48 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Again, citizen comments written and verbal are an

14:54 ↗ important aspect of the public process. The city takes those comments seriously and we

15:00 ↗ thank members of the public for taking the time to address us this evening.

15:06 ↗ And with that, I would imagine some folks have signed

15:12 ↗ up to speak. Yes, first is Tim Kimball. My name

15:18 ↗ is Tim Kimball and I live on Pinecone Drive. I'm

15:23 ↗ a resident of 21 years. Thank you members of the

15:29 ↗ City Council and the public for all being here this

15:35 ↗ evening. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I wanted

15:41 ↗ to speak, I am speaking specifically to the proposed Bergsma development as

15:47 ↗ I'm assuming that a lot of folks are going to do this

15:52 ↗ evening. And I do have a presentation. I hate to go first,

15:58 ↗ but I promise I'll keep to it within my allotted time and

16:04 ↗ I'll try to make this informative and enjoyable as soon as I

16:09 ↗ bring up my presentation. Okay.

16:17 ↗ Over the last several months that we've been gathering for these meetings, you know, I've

16:22 ↗ kind of gotten to know a lot of my neighbors here in Issaquah, and many

16:26 ↗ of us have gotten to know one another, what we're all about, and talk about

16:31 ↗ the challenges we face as a thriving community. And it occurred to me that what's

16:36 ↗ missing from this discussion, in my view at least, is the voice of some of

16:40 ↗ our neighbors who simply can't be here this evening. Some of our neighbors are simply

16:45 ↗ unable to tell us the importance that this parcel of land plays in our lives.

16:51 ↗ I would invite you to look at this gem of

16:56 ↗ a park system that we have in our midst and

17:02 ↗ some of what it has to offer. Cougar Mountain Regional

17:07 ↗ Wildland Park with 3,115 acres of forested wilderness offers easy

17:13 ↗ access to residents of Bellevue, Issaquah, the Eastside, and its

17:18 ↗ 38 miles of hiking trails, streams, creeks, waterfalls, An abundance

17:24 ↗ of lush vegetation, maple, cedar, alder, fern, Sitka spruce, Douglas fir,

17:30 ↗ and many that I won't mention. I'll name just a few.

17:36 ↗ And the home either full-time or part-time to a diversity of

17:41 ↗ residents who are unable to speak today. Some are small, like

17:47 ↗ Anna's hummingbird, an iridescent bronze to green species that breeds in

17:53 ↗ the Pacific Northwest. Too large, like the red-tailed hawk, the bald

17:58 ↗ eagle that roosts in the treetops. or the

18:04 ↗ osprey that relies on fish from nearby Lake Sammamish or Issaquah

18:10 ↗ Creek or the occasional small mammal. The ubiquitous squirrel, rabbits who

18:15 ↗ tend to be rather shy and admittedly can be a little

18:21 ↗ pesky, hence our need for the raptors, the coyotes to maintain

18:27 ↗ some balance. Coyotes are kind of shy too. These elusive creatures,

18:32 ↗ they I can hear their presence by their mournful howls or

18:38 ↗ their playful yips. I can only take credit for some of these photographs,

18:44 ↗ by the way, though these are all Issaquah photos. They're not stock images.

18:50 ↗ And I did see a bobcat, much like this, walk past my office

18:55 ↗ window just on Saturday. And just this morning, I was surprised to see

19:01 ↗ a black bear lumber by Bobcat. Absolutely true. Maybe some of my neighbors saw

19:07 ↗ it. Sniffing around, peering in my windows. I went and grabbed my camera and I

19:12 ↗ was just so excited. I was snapping, snapping. And I went and played it back.

19:17 ↗ I got nothing. But it looked very much like this one here. I haven't seen

19:22 ↗ one in years. Maybe it was because it was garbage day. I don't know. But

19:27 ↗ they're gentle giants and it just wasn't bothering anyone. We have silent, graceful creatures. Amphibians

19:33 ↗ that are well suited to the damp, cool, mossy bogs. These guys

19:38 ↗ produce quite a chorus on a rainy night. Bees,

19:44 ↗ butterflies, and a great many kind of feathered creatures.

19:49 ↗ Brightly colored, drab, domestic and migratory, common and uncommon.

19:55 ↗ Photographed this owl that was part of a, there

20:00 ↗ were two owls that were hanging around my house

20:06 ↗ for several days. Catching mice too, by the way,

20:11 ↗ which I kind of liked. Wrens and finches. and year-round

20:17 ↗ birds like the grosbeak. Many of these are shy creatures. You might not see them,

20:22 ↗ but they're out there in our neighborhoods, our backyards. Tim, I'm going to ask you

20:28 ↗ to summarize in the next five or ten seconds or so. I will. This is

20:33 ↗ a critical time in our community's future. If we continue to sacrifice land that we

20:38 ↗ need to thrive, we can't expect them to be part of our world. They don't

20:44 ↗ mix well with cars, trucks, and machinery. These creatures need trees to nest

20:50 ↗ and roost and raise their young. Thank you very, very much. And thank

20:55 ↗ you for that tutorial on the wildlife and our Cougar Mountain Park. All

21:01 ↗ right. Thank you. Next, we have Susan Neville. While Susan is approaching that,

21:07 ↗ I did neglect to announce that we have two public hearings this evening

21:13 ↗ that will be combined. And these public hearings are-- I related to

21:19 ↗ request a polygon. Where to go, Tim? Susan Neville, Pine Cone Drive. I'm

21:25 ↗ a 21-year resident of Issaquah. And if you've been following the progress of

21:30 ↗ the Bergsma-Winward DA agreement, you know the process has taken longer than usual

21:36 ↗ due to the complexity and location of the property. Over the last four

21:42 ↗ months, residents, city staff, and committee experts put a lot of time into

21:48 ↗ various meetings over 75 documented public comments, letters, and numerous emails.

21:54 ↗ During this time, the city planners have not changed their position regarding the

22:00 ↗ proposed DA agreement, and in addition, the Cluster DA, the city are still

22:06 ↗ advocating a thorough way access from TALIS to Newport Way. Today, you are

22:12 ↗ making the final decision. You, the city council, represent the checks and balances

22:18 ↗ in our system. The responsibilities are many. You have to be

22:24 ↗ the stewards of our forests and wetlands, uphold the Issaquah vision,

22:29 ↗ including responsible development, and be the main advocate for the Issaquah

22:35 ↗ residents. A few key issues to consider in the next few

22:40 ↗ hours regarding the proposal are honoring the Issaquah comp plan by

22:46 ↗ protecting our forested hillsides, the impact to Newport Corridor, TALIS, and

22:51 ↗ all Issaquah residents, and advocating responsible development. I would

22:57 ↗ like to show you the slide up here that

23:02 ↗ depicts the DA agreement exhibit 12 viewshed analysis. The

23:08 ↗ shot was taken from SR 900 and I-90 overpass

23:13 ↗ and the circle represents the proposed development as outlined

23:19 ↗ by the developer. What you didn't see in the

23:24 ↗ agreement is this slide. We took the specifications from the DA and

23:30 ↗ superimposed of development within the circled area. Some have said we were pretty generous

23:36 ↗ with the depiction of the green area, especially near Newport Way. I don't know,

23:42 ↗ does this work? Yeah. What is missing is the storm vault that would run

23:47 ↗ along the road across the length of the property and also the road that

23:53 ↗ will be coming from Newport Way all the way up to the development.

24:01 ↗ When you're considering this de-aggravement, ask yourself if this follows the

24:07 ↗ ESCOA comprehensive plan. The plan outlines provisions such as limiting clearing

24:12 ↗ and grading, protecting and preserving the tree canopy, and limiting the

24:18 ↗ size of development and number of buildings. Is the clearing and

24:24 ↗ grading in line with the comp plan? This area will displace

24:30 ↗ 134,000 cubic yards of soil and vegetation. It's

24:36 ↗ going to take 8,000 trucks to remove the soil

24:42 ↗ or in better terms one truck every seven minutes

24:47 ↗ over a six-month period. Is building on steep slope

24:53 ↗ in critical areas such as this sufficiently being reviewed?

24:58 ↗ The 45 acres consisting of this area cover include

25:04 ↗ an Alderwood and Everett formations for 51%. This

25:09 ↗ formation is categorized as a very steep rapid runoff, high erosion

25:15 ↗ hazard with severe slippage potential. We do not know, based on

25:21 ↗ the DA agreement, if any part of the proposed 78 homes

25:27 ↗ are being built on these extreme alderwood or everett formations. Issaquah

25:32 ↗ cannot afford to use our hillsides as testing grounds anymore.

25:38 ↗ The geotech survey given for parcel 9 in TALIS said risk of slide

25:44 ↗ was slight and we are still dealing with the ramifications of that decision.

25:49 ↗ During the last four meetings, four experts in the field including three council

25:55 ↗ members voted no on passage of this DA agreement. And if the road

26:01 ↗ was to be rebuilt, all eight members voted no on a thorough way,

26:06 ↗ citing emergency use only. As I mentioned, the city council

26:12 ↗ members are our checks and balances. Picking the less of two

26:18 ↗ wrongs is not the answer. A vote of no on the

26:24 ↗ agreement is the right decision. Thank you. Thank you, Susan.

26:30 ↗ To be really clear that the people that are

26:36 ↗ representing the opposition to the road and the DA

26:42 ↗ agreement, if they would just raise their hand for

26:48 ↗ city council, because I don't know if everyone can

26:54 ↗ stay. And so that's a great way to share

27:00 ↗ your opinion. I'd ask that you not break into

27:05 ↗ applause. And if you really agree, you can raise

27:11 ↗ both hands. Next, we have Ted Gamelin. My name's

27:17 ↗ Ted Gamelin. I've had a condo up at Providence

27:23 ↗ Point, 4117, 221st Place. And as a chair of a

27:29 ↗ homeowners association standing committee, I represent some 1,400 senior citizens

27:34 ↗ who live at Providence Point. And I'll be followed by

27:40 ↗ somebody else who's in charge of my constituency at Providence Point,

27:45 ↗ or my purview. We are concerned about the project for realignment and signalization of

27:51 ↗ the intersection at Providence Point and Drive and 43rd Way, which is our main

27:57 ↗ entrance. And we appreciate the support that we've gotten from the City of Issaquah

28:03 ↗ through the bond proposal on the November ballot. And we note that of the

28:09 ↗ three proposals on that ballot, Our project was the only one receiving overwhelming

28:15 ↗ support from neighbors of the project. The safety at our main entrance has been

28:21 ↗ a major concern at Providence Point residents since the 1990s. At that time, King

28:27 ↗ County worked with a committee of residents of Providence Point on a series of

28:32 ↗ stopgap measures to improve safety. If you've been there, one outcome was

28:38 ↗ the construction of a rockery that improved the sight line for downhill traffic

28:44 ↗ to meet minimum county standards. At our entrance, you'll see the rockery on

28:50 ↗ the right, so the cars coming barreling down the road have at least

28:55 ↗ minimum sight line. Over the past 20 years, the

29:01 ↗ traffic along 228th Avenue and 43rd Way between Sammamish

29:07 ↗ and Issaquah has increased dramatically. That's a major corridor

29:13 ↗ between Sammamish and Issaquah. We average about two accidents

29:19 ↗ each year in the stretch of 43rd right in

29:25 ↗ front of our entrance. And recently one of these entailed a

29:31 ↗ serious injury. That may not sound by much, but what above and beyond

29:36 ↗ the accidents, I think what really is the problem here is that many

29:42 ↗ of our senior citizens find that entering 43rd Rue and seeing the traffic

29:47 ↗ coming barreling down on them is a frightening experience, a really frightening experience

29:53 ↗ for senior citizens. We continue to seek infrastructure support for the

29:59 ↗ upgrading of the traffic corridor between Sammamish and Issaquah. We urge the city

30:05 ↗ council to update the engineering design work already done for the intersection and

30:10 ↗ to seek other funding options for completion of the project. We appreciate the

30:16 ↗ resolution passed by this council on December 19th last year calling for the

30:22 ↗ Providence Point realignment and signalization project to quotes, be brought back to

30:28 ↗ the council along with analysis for options as well as recommendations.

30:34 ↗ And we are concerned that there seems to be no trace

30:39 ↗ of that resolution in the current budget proposal. We are hopeful

30:45 ↗ for the future. Thank you. Ed, thank you very, very much.

30:51 ↗ Jen Gray.

31:03 ↗ I'm not as tall as Ted. Jen Gray, 22417 Southeast 36th Lane,

31:09 ↗ Providence Point. I am the president of the Umbrella Association for Providence

31:15 ↗ Point, which is the master association for seven different villages with over

31:20 ↗ 1,400 residents. And we are a 55 plus community and many, many younger people are

31:26 ↗ moving in who are still working and trying to get out of the Providence Point

31:32 ↗ to go to work and can't because of the traffic. And I just want to

31:37 ↗ say too that going up you have the sign that tells you how fast people

31:42 ↗ are going. It is unusual and rare to see somebody going 40 miles an hour.

31:48 ↗ It is not unusual to see somebody going 65 miles an hour. And that

31:54 ↗ increased traffic from Sammamish is just getting more and more difficult to get out.

32:00 ↗ And if you want to make a left turn, you are making a life

32:06 ↗ decision right there, making a left turn. At any rate, that being said,

32:12 ↗ In 2004, the city first worked on trying to find out what would

32:17 ↗ it take to put in a traffic signal. In 2007, there was completed

32:23 ↗ drawings for that traffic signal and alignment. And at that point, the consulting

32:29 ↗ engineer projected that it would cost $3.3 million. As we fast forward to

32:35 ↗ last year, we know that the bond issue failed and we were sorely

32:41 ↗ disappointed. That being said, it was my understanding that this year,

32:46 ↗ or this last year after the bond issue failed, that the first quarter

32:52 ↗ was going to be spent talking about the intersection between Target and Trader

32:58 ↗ Joe's. Okay, and the second quarter was going to be spent looking at

33:04 ↗ funding proposals for our traffic signal. And so I am here trying to figure

33:10 ↗ out where we're at now and what the proposal might be and when we

33:15 ↗ might expect to hear from the City Council and the City of Issaquah on

33:21 ↗ where we are headed for that traffic signal that is so dearly needed. Thank

33:27 ↗ you. Thank you very, very much. Fred

33:32 ↗ Nystrom. I can't wait to hear what's

33:38 ↗ in the box. Please introduce yourself. Good

33:43 ↗ evening. I'm Fred Nystrom. I'm the Executive

33:49 ↗ Director for Life Enrichment Options, or LEO.

33:54 ↗ And for the past 33 years, I've

33:59 ↗ lived at 391 Southeast Sycamore Creek Lane

34:05 ↗ in Issaquah. For most of you on

34:10 ↗ the council, you recognize that I have

34:16 ↗ a bias. And I have a heartfelt conviction

34:21 ↗ that we as a community must do more to create

34:27 ↗ the infrastructure that allows for low-income and working-place housing within

34:33 ↗ our community. We cannot just be a city for the

34:38 ↗ privileged. Like traffic, we have had endless debates about traffic.

34:44 ↗ housing and what can be done about creating a balance in the

34:50 ↗ housing program and yet we have not reached a conclusion on anything.

34:56 ↗ Tonight you have a proposal from Polygon Homes to add low-income housing

35:02 ↗ and perhaps a home like we provide for those with developmental disabilities.

35:07 ↗ And I say hooray for the Polygon proposal. We can debate

35:13 ↗ the merits of this program or this proposal rather for months and we

35:19 ↗ may at the end come up with some fine-tuned nuances to the whole

35:24 ↗ thing but I say why bother? Why bother doing that? As I recall

35:30 ↗ in our own municipal history, We developed a subcommittee program because you are all

35:36 ↗ basically overwhelmed with information that came to you weekly. So you decided we're going

35:41 ↗ to create some experts and they're going to serve on these subcommittees. Well, I

35:47 ↗ think that's a great idea. So now you have the Land and Shore Committee,

35:53 ↗ the subcommittee that did deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, dig deep into this proposal.

35:59 ↗ And in the end, when it came to a vote by the members,

36:04 ↗ the polygon proposal was approved, and it's here for your discussion tonight. I

36:10 ↗ urge you to keep within the established procedures and approve the work that

36:16 ↗ the subcommittee has already done on this proposal, and let's get it approved

36:22 ↗ and moving toward a solution. Now, Fred, this box, it is full.

36:28 ↗ of applications from families within this community that are looking for a

36:34 ↗ home for their child. Now you have the opportunity within your grasp

36:40 ↗ tonight to grant that wish for housing to five or six more

36:46 ↗ families. Please do it. Thank you very, very

36:51 ↗ much, Fred. And although there's a public hearing later

36:57 ↗ on your topic, we will take that into consideration.

37:02 ↗ Thank you. Justin Walsh. Thank you, Justin Walsh, 2196

37:08 ↗ Shiber Way. And full disclosure, a candidate for city

37:13 ↗ council position three currently unopposed. I am mindful with regards to

37:19 ↗ the Berksmouth development of the need to balance affordable housing and lack of housing in

37:25 ↗ this community with the need to keep our green spaces. I know it's a very

37:30 ↗ tough balancing act and I'm sure the council is considering that. I decided to speak

37:36 ↗ tonight on a different issue related to that development and it's related to the potential

37:42 ↗ for slides. In reviewing the development agreement, one thing I am not seeing is a

37:47 ↗ strong indemnification and a hold harmless clause within that development agreement to apply the lessons

37:53 ↗ we learned from TALIS to this new development. I would like to see something within

37:58 ↗ that development agreement that puts the onus back on the developer and allows a strong

38:04 ↗ recoupment of any costs for development. As we've seen in TALIS, the city has had

38:10 ↗ to expend additional funds to remedy the Thales situation and we'll probably have to

38:16 ↗ expend funds in the future to fully remedy the situation and whether we're able

38:22 ↗ to recoup those costs or not essentially is going to be left up to the

38:27 ↗ lawyers to battle it out under the TALIS agreement as it stands. So I think

38:32 ↗ a strong indemnification clause or working something into that to put that on us back

38:38 ↗ in the developer would be appropriate in this case to take the lessons we learned

38:43 ↗ from TALIS and apply it to this new development agreement. Thank you very much. Thank

38:49 ↗ you, Josh. Yes. You know. Justin, my apologies.

38:54 ↗ Thank you very, very much, and

39:00 ↗ thank you for stepping forward to

39:06 ↗ comment. David Boyce. Thank you for

39:12 ↗ letting me speak here. My name

39:18 ↗ is Dave Boyce, 496 Lingering Pine

39:24 ↗ Drive, Northwest. And what I am

39:30 ↗ here to talk about is the

39:36 ↗ Bergsma project and specifically emergency access. Living up in

39:42 ↗ Tallis and I see the new developments coming in at the

39:47 ↗ top and the remainder of the people are all forced to

39:53 ↗ exit with only one road. Even recently we found that there

39:59 ↗ was a reason to have that closed because of an accident

40:04 ↗ down on 900 and My questions would be even if

40:10 ↗ we get a road put in, are able to get

40:16 ↗ a road put in through the Bergsma project, then who

40:21 ↗ is it that handles that emergency access? Who's the gatekeeper?

40:27 ↗ What are their instructions? Who makes that decision? And if

40:32 ↗ we have something more cataclysmic, in the area and you've got

40:38 ↗ your police and your fire department and all of these different ones are committed

40:44 ↗ to what they need to do to resolve those issues. Who is it that

40:50 ↗ makes the decision and how does the, whether it's a key or electronic device,

40:56 ↗ I don't know what would be planned for that, but who is it that

41:02 ↗ makes the decision? What rules are they governed by? in trying

41:08 ↗ to make that decision. And first and

41:14 ↗ foremost is the import on the people

41:20 ↗ living in TALIS if they can't get

41:25 ↗ out. So anyway, that's my only comments.

41:31 ↗ Thank you very, very much. No one

41:37 ↗ further has signed up to speak. Ken

41:43 ↗ followed Geraldine. Ken Eastman, 2473 Northwest Stony

41:49 ↗ Creek Drive. I wanted to talk about Bergsma as

41:54 ↗ well tonight. I would comment that development agreements have a place as Sequoia

42:00 ↗ has some good ones, some successful examples. But I don't believe that the

42:06 ↗ development agreement for the Bergsma property is one of them. And I think

42:12 ↗ it's in the best interest of the city and the residents to pass

42:18 ↗ on that. For a variety of reasons, we get very little out of

42:23 ↗ the deal. We get a road to Talus that few want that

42:29 ↗ will destroy a quiet little neighborhood on the north side of our community.

42:35 ↗ It's claimed that there'll be acreage that'll be protected, but it's going to

42:41 ↗ be protected anyway because it's unbuildable, undevelopable. It's critical areas. We get sidewalks

42:47 ↗ that don't connect to anything. And we get a tiny amount of affordable

42:53 ↗ housing. And in exchange, we give environmental variances We double the housing

42:58 ↗ density from 40 to 80. We put more traffic on Newport Way and

43:04 ↗ already tangled up mess. So at the end it just seems to me

43:10 ↗ like this development agreement is a one-way deal. Little benefit to the city

43:16 ↗ and the residents. It develops on steep slopes where we have landslide exposures.

43:22 ↗ It's potentially another risky project that the city might have to jump in

43:28 ↗ and bail out. like we're seeing up at talus as a

43:33 ↗ previous speaker discussed it puts a huge scar on the side of northeast

43:39 ↗ cougar mountain our gateway our issaquah alps 88 000 cubic yards of export

43:45 ↗ have to be trucked through our streets that's statistic about the truck every

43:51 ↗ six minutes for six months we live through that in talus with a

43:57 ↗ lesser amount of export and it's miserable So at the end, this

44:03 ↗ really does look like a sweetheart deal for the developer with no regards to the

44:09 ↗ wishes or the better interest of our residents. It looks like another Talus Parcel 789

44:15 ↗ debacle, another Atlas, another Gateway. Same old, same old. Doesn't seem to fit the vision

44:21 ↗ of the city where we develop on the valley floor and we leave the hills

44:26 ↗ alone. If you vote for this, it'll be a vote. It will be viewed as

44:32 ↗ a vote for affirmation that you support the development on

44:38 ↗ these slopes. So I would just ask that you

44:44 ↗ reject the DA and let's work together for a

44:49 ↗ better use of this property. Thank you. And thank

44:55 ↗ you very, very much. Just for the TV audience

45:01 ↗ who can't see, there were two hands raised by

45:07 ↗ about a third of the audience here this evening.

45:12 ↗ Anyone else desiring to -- Geraldine? Okay. And Geraldine,

45:18 ↗ after her. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. members of

45:23 ↗ the council, fellow citizen. Thank you for the opportunity to stand. Could

45:29 ↗ you identify yourself, please? Yes, I will. First, thank you for the

45:35 ↗ opportunity to stand here in front of you today. My name is

45:41 ↗ Evelyn Galazo. I live in 2495 25th Avenue Northeast up at the

45:47 ↗ Highlands. I've been a resident of Issaquah for the last 15 years.

45:53 ↗ and I live at the Highland the last five years. Sorry, I have a cold.

45:59 ↗ I am the care provider at one of the adult family homes or group homes,

46:05 ↗ as many of you may know, that Life Enrichment Options owns called the Angela House.

46:11 ↗ I've been a provider of this home since 2012 with the help of my husband,

46:17 ↗ Paul, who is here tonight with me. We are currently caring for five young adults

46:22 ↗ with special needs who's been with us since we started. In fact, Mayor

46:28 ↗ Butler and some of the members of the City Council have been to our

46:34 ↗ home and met them. All five residents receive Medicaid funding from the Department of

46:40 ↗ Social and Health Services, or DSHS, where I get paid every month. Just so

46:45 ↗ you all know, this funding comes from both federal and state budget. The amount

46:51 ↗ that DSHS pays to care for, to a care provider like me is based

46:57 ↗ on the level of care that a resident needs. Higher needs equal higher pay.

47:02 ↗ In my case, all of my residents only require minimal care because some of

47:08 ↗ them are capable of doing things on their own. and yet they

47:14 ↗ are unable to live on their own. So as a result, I don't get paid

47:20 ↗ much for taking care of them, but I love doing my job, or I love

47:26 ↗ my job. I can't even afford to hire an everyday help such as someone to

47:32 ↗ clean our house or to cook, so I do it myself. So it's me and

47:38 ↗ my husband running this home, and it is a 24/7 job because we live in

47:43 ↗ the home with the residents. Now think about this for

47:49 ↗ a moment. If we're paying the rent for that house

47:55 ↗ up at the Highland, if we're paying the market rent

48:00 ↗ for that house, plus the cost of utilities, we would

48:06 ↗ have not been able to provide care and services to

48:11 ↗ these five residents that we have today at the rate

48:17 ↗ that DSHS pays. So where would they go and where would they live?

48:23 ↗ They would be with their families. This is the reason why to this day there

48:28 ↗ are still a great number of people with disabilities still living with their aging parents

48:34 ↗ at home. In the last 10 years, an average of about 20 kids graduating from

48:39 ↗ the transition class just in Issaquah district alone. And here's the fact, there's not a

48:45 ↗ lot of adult family homes or group homes out there that would accept them because

48:50 ↗ care providers will not be able to make a living caring for people with disabilities.

48:55 ↗ They would rather take elderly because they have higher needs. I know this because as

49:01 ↗ a member of Adult Family Home Council, I talk to many providers on a daily

49:07 ↗ basis who only accept elderly residents. And yet there's a lot of providers out there

49:12 ↗ that would rather care for people with disabilities. Thank goodness that there is an organization

49:18 ↗ such as Life Enrichment Options who stepped up to the plate, saw the problem, and

49:23 ↗ created a solution. It is founded and ran by parents with special needs kids

49:29 ↗ who work tirelessly advocating for the special needs population. My husband and I are grateful

49:35 ↗ that we got one of their homes because of LEO. They made it possible for

49:41 ↗ us to make a living caring for these residents that require minimal care by subsidizing

49:47 ↗ our rent, pays for utilities, and maintenance of the home. Currently LEO have three homes

49:53 ↗ serving a total of 15 residents who are all young adults that have

49:59 ↗ that are high functioning who would still be living with their families if

50:04 ↗ they didn't get accepted in the leo home so i'm asking the city

50:10 ↗ to to um require a group home in any of the options that

50:16 ↗ you guys are reviewing thank you so much everyone thank you very very

50:21 ↗ much and for your commitment to help those with disabilities geraldine

50:38 ↗ My name is Geraldine Carey. I want to thank the council again and the members

50:43 ↗ and the public for allowing public comment on things around the city. I'm up here

50:49 ↗ frequently and I'm addressing the Bergsma development because- Geraldine, did you introduce yourself? I'm sorry.

50:54 ↗ And your address please. Okay, my name is Geraldine Carey and I am a resident

50:59 ↗ of Issaquah for 40 years, lived in the same place. My driveway is

51:05 ↗ off Newport Way and my address is 955 17th Avenue, Northwest

51:11 ↗ Issaquah. I sent a letter to the City Council and the

51:17 ↗ Land and Shores Committee about the geological or geotechnical studies that

51:23 ↗ were done on the Bergsma property. And my concern is I'm

51:29 ↗ a... I'm not knowledgeable about a lot of things, but what I read was

51:34 ↗ that this property has a lot of potential for landslide, and it says the land

51:40 ↗ is stable as it is forested and a lot of old growth. And if you

51:46 ↗ remove all this old growth and the underlying root system that is on this property,

51:51 ↗ it says there's a lot of potential for a lot of earth movement. However, if

51:56 ↗ you do the right thing, you can probably prevent it. And I'm wondering what the

52:01 ↗ right thing is. I mean, what do the developers, what are they going to invest

52:06 ↗ in trying to stabilize the hill once they destabilize it? You know, one of

52:12 ↗ the things I read in the April 15, 2015 study was

52:18 ↗ it says RGI, which is Riley Group, reviewed the City of

52:23 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code's critical areas regulation. The review indicates that the

52:29 ↗ site is mapped as landslide hazard area and steep slope hazard

52:35 ↗ area due to site topography, soil conditions, and slope gradients on

52:41 ↗ site. The site is subject to severe erosion and potential landslides when slopes

52:47 ↗ are cleared. And then another thing it says is much of the slope

52:53 ↗ is heavily vegetated with mature trees and undergrowth, reducing the potential of shallow

52:59 ↗ debris flow failures. And it says that this based on our observations,

53:04 ↗ the slopes appear to be stable in their current configuration and conditions.

53:10 ↗ So I urge the city council again to protect the city from

53:16 ↗ another condition like it tell us, we can't afford to use our

53:22 ↗ money to cover the developers and the land once they've made their

53:28 ↗ profit and run in the other direction. So I hope you will seriously check

53:33 ↗ out the slopes. Thank you. Meryl Dean, thank you very, very much. And for

53:39 ↗ those watching on TV at home, a dozen and a half or so double

53:45 ↗ hands went up for that. Is there anyone else who has not signed up

53:51 ↗ to speak who would like to speak this evening?

54:03 ↗ I believe I saw the person next to you desiring

54:08 ↗ to speak. So Tina, if you would work your way

54:14 ↗ up also so we can keep the flow going. Good

54:19 ↗ evening. My name is Julie Clark. I live at 915

54:25 ↗ Bear Ridge Court Northwest in Tallis. I would like to

54:31 ↗ start off by submitting 144 additional signatures on a petition that I have been

54:37 ↗ circulating opposing the connector road between Newport Way and Tallis which will bring the

54:43 ↗ total to 219 signatures to date. I will set this here and hand it

54:49 ↗ over when I'm done. Okay, I'd like to start by thanking the Land and

54:55 ↗ Shore Committee for all of the time they put forth in reaching and a

55:00 ↗ unanimous decision to recommend that if a road is built connecting Tallis with Newport

55:06 ↗ Way that it be for emergency use only. I'd also thank Land and Shore

55:12 ↗ for recommending not to approve the development agreement on the Bergsma property.

55:18 ↗ I, as others have stated, am concerned about the slide issues

55:24 ↗ and I received today an email from the City of Issaquah

55:29 ↗ that states this summer the City of Issaquah plans to make

55:35 ↗ repairs to Northwest Talis Drive and Shangri-La Way Northwest following the

55:41 ↗ Parcel 9 hillside movement in late 2015. The City of Issaquah

55:47 ↗ is going to be apparently paying for these repairs and moving utilities and

55:52 ↗ hoping to perhaps be reimbursed at some point. I know a number of

55:58 ↗ citizens had been opposed to the development of Parcels 7, 8 and 9

56:04 ↗ due to landslide concerns. It's interesting to me that today The email

56:10 ↗ is referring to this landslide as hillside movement. When in the

56:16 ↗ past I thought we had identified it as a landslide and

56:21 ↗ the Riley Group in the letter dated June 17, 2016 referred

56:27 ↗ to Tallis lot 9 landslide as a relatively large landslide. with

56:33 ↗ affected areas over 400 feet wide and 300 feet long and up

56:39 ↗ to 50 feet deep. And this was an area that had a

56:45 ↗ risk assessment of slight for landslides or erosion. Now we are looking

56:50 ↗ at a hillside for the Bergsma property with a hillside 40% grade

56:56 ↗ where we've already heard that there are There are areas

57:02 ↗ that have a high risk assessment for erosion and

57:08 ↗ slides. And so as I stated earlier, I would

57:13 ↗ like to oppose the development agreement. I would like

57:19 ↗ to ask the city council this evening to give

57:24 ↗ a no to the development agreement and And

57:30 ↗ after considering all of the time and efforts that have been

57:36 ↗ put forth by the SEPA hearing and the hearing examiner, the

57:41 ↗ more than five hours that the Development Commission where they also

57:47 ↗ said that there were concerns. And then the many, there were two

57:53 ↗ meetings of land and shore where they said no to the development agreement.

57:59 ↗ And so I urge the remainder of you, city council people to also

58:05 ↗ say no this evening. Thank you. Julie, thank you very, very much. And

58:11 ↗ you can drop the additional signatures off. Tina and little over a dozen.

58:17 ↗ People are getting tired perhaps. No? Oh my goodness. Orphists of

58:23 ↗ the House. Tina, you're on. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you,

58:28 ↗ City Council. My name is Tina Conforti, and I live on

58:34 ↗ 1220 Oakwood Place, northwest Issaquah. I think tonight we hear both

58:40 ↗ sides, Tullis and Newport Way. We are very disagree

58:45 ↗ on this development, the Bergasma. It causes so many

58:51 ↗ problems in traffic impact. There is no roadway, so

58:56 ↗ the roadway will be the only one, the main

59:02 ↗ road on Newport Way. Newport Way has already an

59:08 ↗ impact traffic, enormous. Friday night, I was getting out from

59:14 ↗ my own residence area. It took me 10 minutes to make a

59:19 ↗ left turn. Cars were all the way past 54, almost up to

59:25 ↗ Mo 9, the apartment building over there. The traffic was all the

59:31 ↗ way down from almost Mo 9 to 9 Under. So how can

59:37 ↗ you see a project development without an alternative roads? I really

59:43 ↗ think the city of Issaquah before it makes a promise on a

59:48 ↗ new project, it needed to study first the safety for the landslide.

59:54 ↗ We have a beautiful month and the wildlife is really destroying the

1:00:00 ↗ wildlife once this development goes up there. We want to preserve the

1:00:05 ↗ wildlife. It's important to the city. It's important to the territorial. I

1:00:11 ↗ have a deep feeling. For what I leave, it's a beautiful view

1:00:17 ↗ of the mountains. Why taking away the view, why take the territorial way from

1:00:23 ↗ the wider life? I know they can't talk for themselves, but we do. So

1:00:29 ↗ I hope you take in consideration. Please vote no on this project. Nina, thank

1:00:35 ↗ you very, very much. And just about all of the hands went up and

1:00:41 ↗ a little bit of waving back there. Is it Susan?

1:00:54 ↗ Hi, thank you so much Mr. Butler, Mayor, Mr. Mayor Butler and

1:01:00 ↗ staff and city council. I really appreciate your listening. My name is

1:01:06 ↗ Susan Haas and I live at 19524 Southeast 24th Place in Sammamish

1:01:11 ↗ which is pretty close to Issaquah. It was also a legal clear

1:01:17 ↗ cut. That's how it started. And And my relationship to Issaquah is

1:01:23 ↗ I volunteer at the Issaquah Food and Clothing Bank and bagging snacks up

1:01:28 ↗ on Thursdays and I also am a vendor for the Recology Cleanscape store

1:01:34 ↗ in Gelman Village in Issaquah. So I think that, you know, I'm just

1:01:40 ↗ really encouraging you to block a couple of things. One is the Bergsma

1:01:46 ↗ development and one is the proposed demolition on Providence Heights, in whatever way

1:01:51 ↗ you can do. Because I think that climate change, I've noticed the effects

1:01:57 ↗ of climate change here in the past 20 years. It used to be

1:02:03 ↗ a sort of misty rain and now it's raining harder and harder.

1:02:09 ↗ and the soils are drying out a bit and the moss is not as, you

1:02:14 ↗ know, it's dying in some places. And I think that all those things if you

1:02:20 ↗ look out in the next hundred years or so, your decisions become so much easier

1:02:25 ↗ because you put it in perspective and you say oh well, boy if this is

1:02:30 ↗ a landslide issue now, wait for a hundred more years of climate change because even

1:02:36 ↗ if we turn around the greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them less, the amount that's

1:02:41 ↗ already in the atmosphere is still going to, even if that changed today, it's

1:02:47 ↗ still going to create quite a bit of climate change, unfortunately. So I think you

1:02:53 ↗ have a really amazing job of making diamonds. That's what I think. Because Issaquah has

1:02:58 ↗ a cool past. And my grandpa actually has a cool past. He was an he

1:03:04 ↗ worked for a froth coal company in Chicago. And right around the time I was

1:03:10 ↗ born in '69, that coal company folded because Chicago said, "We need clean air here.

1:03:16 ↗ We can't have coal burning anymore." That was a really hard decision they made. But

1:03:21 ↗ they did it, and that led to my grandpa spending a lot of time with

1:03:27 ↗ me, so that's great. I think some of the quiet things in this

1:03:33 ↗ like there is this Townsend's big eared bat who lives four miles from Providence

1:03:38 ↗ Heights campus. He's got the hugest ears, she too. You've ever seen, they're just

1:03:44 ↗ hilarious and that bat is a candidate for the state listing and so when

1:03:50 ↗ it's considered by the state it will either go on the sensitive list, the

1:03:56 ↗ threatened or endangered. The things we do, the things you do,

1:04:01 ↗ you have the hardest job in the world I think. Benefit the Mosses,

1:04:07 ↗ the Likens, the Townsends, Bigger, Bad and all the people who are in

1:04:13 ↗ support of you making these hard decisions. The development pressures are strong and

1:04:18 ↗ it's important to just funnel development exactly where you want it and just

1:04:24 ↗ say no to the rest. And I brought up diamonds because I think all these

1:04:30 ↗ different forces coming together, the need for public education, the need for the towns and

1:04:35 ↗ bigger bat to survive and provide us with biodiversity. you know it's like biodiversity is

1:04:41 ↗ like the structure that supports us. If we were sitting here meeting and people started

1:04:46 ↗ taking out the 2x4s and the you know rafters we'd sort of go whoa like

1:04:52 ↗ that matters. So it's the same with all these quieter things and I just want

1:04:57 ↗ to know you have I just want to say you have a lot of support

1:05:02 ↗ and I can use all these forces to to create a great diamond

1:05:08 ↗ of a town. Thanks. Susan, thank you very, very much and

1:05:14 ↗ thank you for your volunteer efforts at the Food and Clothing

1:05:20 ↗ Bank. Is there -- I guess I'll try sitting down. I'm

1:05:26 ↗ Bill Bergsma. I'm part of the Bergsma family. I've lived here

1:05:31 ↗ nearly 80 years. I live right now at Southeast Issaquah Falls

1:05:37 ↗ City Road. My grandfather came here in 1911 with four kids and ended up with

1:05:43 ↗ five more, a family of nine that grew up here in Issaquah. When his wife

1:05:48 ↗ died in 1946, he remarried to a lady who lived 50 years with the first

1:05:53 ↗ wife and over 25 with the second. She died at 99, he died at 96.

1:05:58 ↗ The kids that lived here, including my father, were in business here for many, many

1:06:03 ↗ years. He was the town milkman. He was the silent Santa Claus. He was kind

1:06:08 ↗ of Mr. Issaquah. You can see his life-size standing portrait on the poster over at

1:06:13 ↗ the museum. When he passed away in 1976, my grandfather, he

1:06:19 ↗ had sold the property on the valley to Rowley Enterprises and kept

1:06:24 ↗ the property on the hill for his kids. Well, after grandpa died,

1:06:30 ↗ all his kids have now passed away and the property's been for

1:06:36 ↗ sale since 1988 or late 1989. There was a sale in 1989

1:06:42 ↗ to a Chinese corporation who made an initial payment and then disappeared i don't

1:06:48 ↗ know if they talked with a planning council or they found a better deal somewhere

1:06:53 ↗ else Ever since that time, there's been battles with new people who wanted to come

1:06:58 ↗ in and buy and build some homes up there or townhouses or something. And this

1:07:03 ↗ is the first time we've been able to get past the planning department. But I

1:07:07 ↗ can tell you from my almost 80 years living or traveling down Newport Way there

1:07:12 ↗ to take care of my folks' house and my grandparents' house that was in the

1:07:16 ↗ middle of the three across the street from the development area. The only time there

1:07:22 ↗ was ever water that came off that hill and ran across the road was in

1:07:25 ↗ 1996. And the only reason it did was because I think the city let a

1:07:29 ↗ gas line company come through and they put a crimp in the big corrugated culvert

1:07:33 ↗ that ran under the road so none of the water coming down the ditch over

1:07:37 ↗ there could get across. So it rolled over the road. I can remember as a

1:07:41 ↗ kid when they were cutting trees and rolling them down the hill and that wasn't

1:07:46 ↗ even a clear cut. We used to get the water for the farm out of

1:07:50 ↗ just a runoff and a holding tank up there. Well, I think the ground up

1:07:55 ↗ there would be very stable. I've hiked up there and I can remember a family

1:07:59 ↗ living in a little hole in the ground now where the landscaping company has been

1:08:04 ↗ for years. build a fort up there. There used to be a fortress up there

1:08:09 ↗ with cages and second story building. So I spent a lot of time running around

1:08:14 ↗ up there. The property is somewhat difficult and has all that slope, but there's never

1:08:19 ↗ been a drainage problem. There's never been a slide problem. The building project would never

1:08:24 ↗ be near as high as the one up at Talus. By the way, I discovered

1:08:29 ↗ a family who said they knew the Tallis family who had a small farm, Finnish

1:08:34 ↗ family. I never knew that growing up here, and I thought I knew all the

1:08:38 ↗ Finnish farmers and valley people up in that area. Well, I think that the family's

1:08:43 ↗ been here so long and has done so much, and it was tried for so

1:08:47 ↗ many years to get somebody to get something that would be approved that I kind

1:08:52 ↗ of feel like the last Indian on the totem pole here getting shot down at

1:08:56 ↗ every angle. But if we could have had something to get through the project 25

1:09:01 ↗ years ago, it would have been all done. And then I guess Taliesin, all of

1:09:06 ↗ us, 500 more going down the road a half mile would all be newcomers and

1:09:11 ↗ we could argue about them. But anyway, we lost two real estate agents to cancer

1:09:15 ↗ over these years trying to get something done through the city planning department. We've been

1:09:20 ↗ paying taxes on that for about 70 years. And it's getting more and more difficult

1:09:25 ↗ to do that. I was hoping at one time when the city was looking for

1:09:29 ↗ a cemetery that they would maybe want to make a little deal on that hill

1:09:33 ↗ and put a cemetery there. But they've got the other addition above the current one,

1:09:37 ↗ the old one, and that's fine. The wildlife will be there. If not, they'll move

1:09:41 ↗ up to my neighborhood on Issaquah Falls City Road because I have all those plus

1:09:45 ↗ cougar coming through my property and just had two fawns born the other day in

1:09:50 ↗ about an hour's period and took the two little ones, went running up the driveway

1:09:54 ↗ to stretch their legs. It's like living in a rainforest up there. I really think

1:09:58 ↗ that that property cannot do much damage. There's going to be traffic because all the

1:10:03 ↗ traffic we have problems with here for the last three decades is because the county's

1:10:07 ↗ let everybody build south of us. So everything is coming through. People from Maple Valley

1:10:11 ↗ and Enumclaw and everywhere. Heck, I've got relatives living in Cle Elum that moved over

1:10:16 ↗ there and still worked in Seattle because it was easier to drive from Cle Elum

1:10:20 ↗ or Easton to their work in Seattle and to navigate traffic

1:10:26 ↗ around here. I don't think that will change much in the near

1:10:31 ↗ future. Well, I guess enough of that. Thank you for your consideration.

1:10:37 ↗ We'd hope that we can do something. Thank you. Bill, thank you

1:10:43 ↗ very, very much for that little bit of history. Is there anyone

1:10:49 ↗ else desiring to speak this evening? Yes, please. Kaye Haynes, 2830 Northwest

1:10:55 ↗ Pinecone Drive.

1:11:02 ↗ Thank you for all that you've done in exploring this issue of the

1:11:07 ↗ development agreement so thoroughly. I really appreciate it enormously. I want to address

1:11:13 ↗ something that Mr. Bergsma said. I have tremendous respect for the Bergsma family

1:11:19 ↗ and I know their history in trying to develop this property. I know

1:11:25 ↗ they have certain rights and I respect that. I don't think the

1:11:31 ↗ development agreement is one of those rights and I'd like to say why I

1:11:36 ↗ oppose it. But I would like to raise a question for the city and

1:11:42 ↗ for future owners of property such as the Bergsma property. And my question is

1:11:48 ↗ why do we, if we are so committed to the comprehensive plan, and to

1:11:54 ↗ not developing the hillsides. And I sat through hours and hours of meeting with the

1:11:58 ↗ Central Issaquah Plan where we said build on the valley floor. We won't build on

1:12:03 ↗ the hillsides. That's where we need to build. I sat through so many months of

1:12:07 ↗ those meetings. And here we're building on the valley floor. Enormous number of units for

1:12:12 ↗ the people that live along Newport Way and we're building on the hillsides. We're destroying

1:12:17 ↗ hillsides. There must be a way out of this quandary that is a win-win situation

1:12:22 ↗ for everyone. Is there not a way the city and owners can get together and

1:12:27 ↗ take the vision of the city and work on alternatives when you have a parcel

1:12:32 ↗ of land as beautiful and as fragile as the Bergsman property? Is there not a

1:12:37 ↗ way to explore working with King County, City of Issaquah, the Trust for Public Land,

1:12:42 ↗ conservation groups. There are so many groups that are interested in conserving beautiful land. Can

1:12:47 ↗ we not find a way that serves the needs of the Bergsma family, serves the

1:12:52 ↗ needs of the city, serves the needs of the people of Tallis, and serves the

1:12:57 ↗ needs of the people along Newport Way? That would be my most fervent

1:13:03 ↗ hope. And that's the alternative to what we are planning to do in terms of

1:13:08 ↗ the destruction of 40% slopes, 12% grades that we're going to build, an enormous desecration

1:13:14 ↗ of the hillside. I know that is not the legacy the Burisma family wants. I

1:13:20 ↗ personally would like to see that known as the Burisma Parkland and not the Burisma

1:13:25 ↗ Cut. Okay, thank you very,

1:13:31 ↗ very much. And about two-thirds or more folks raised their hand.

1:13:37 ↗ Anyone else who is desiring to speak this evening? Steve, come

1:13:43 ↗ on down. Hi,

1:13:49 ↗ Steve Pereira, 170 Northeast Dogwood Street, about nine and a half years. So a couple

1:13:53 ↗ quick hits first. When I was walking here past the Issaquah Trolley at Rainier, I

1:13:57 ↗ saw somebody taking pictures of the trees and they told me that in the 1970s

1:14:01 ↗ when they got planted, the gardener was taking international trees. And I just thought that

1:14:05 ↗ was kind of a cool fact that maybe a lot of people don't know of.

1:14:09 ↗ So I just thought I'd kind of share that. It'd be great to get that

1:14:13 ↗ kind of information out there as part of public information. Second, the community needs the

1:14:18 ↗ assessment that is working on. I think that's a great thing. Please keep up the

1:14:22 ↗ great work. Appreciate that. Third thing, I think there was a great communication effort on

1:14:27 ↗ the East Lakes Mammish closure, both in advance and when it got completed early, so

1:14:32 ↗ kudos to that. Fourth thing was I went to the Issaquah, the fenders on Front

1:14:36 ↗ Street and I heard a couple people talk about how they didn't know this was

1:14:40 ↗ such a big deal and how they came like 7:30 or 8:00, tried to park

1:14:44 ↗ their car and found most of the good parts, spots already gone. So kudos for

1:14:49 ↗ leading that effort to all those who were involved. more lengthy topics. The Bergsmere property

1:14:54 ↗ for all the topics, all the reasons that have been listed, steep slope, loss of

1:14:58 ↗ habitat, I think should be shot down. I don't want to repeat and drag that

1:15:03 ↗ out further, but I have concerns with that. I also have some concerns. There doesn't

1:15:07 ↗ seem to be, or at least I can't recall an issue where it seems like

1:15:11 ↗ administration or would people have to come back to the city council as the post

1:15:16 ↗ of last resort to say why is this happening? I don't understand why the proposal

1:15:21 ↗ got put forward when it seems to be so strongly opposed. I don't know if

1:15:26 ↗ there's some way of the administrative and legislative branches working together to try to address

1:15:31 ↗ issues like that, but it just seems, I don't understand why when residents seem so

1:15:35 ↗ opposed to something, how something got this far along, got citizens so riled up. FEATURE

1:15:41 ↗ THOUGHT. LAST ISSUE WAS -- SO IT HAS

1:15:47 ↗ TO DO WITH THE DEVELOP -- NOT DESIGN

1:15:53 ↗ STANDARDS, BUT THE -- WHAT DO I WANT

1:15:59 ↗ TO CALL IT? THE ENERGY PLANNING FOR DESIGN

1:16:05 ↗ -- NOT DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT SO I GUESS

1:16:11 ↗ I'M PUNNING A BIT ON THIS. SO THE

1:16:17 ↗ CLEAN ENERGY STANDARDS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BUILDING,

1:16:23 ↗ I DON'T THINK THEY GO FAR ENOUGH, AND

1:16:29 ↗ I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD JUST TALK ABOUT

1:16:37 ↗ trying to encourage them, but I think we should require energy savings in development of

1:16:42 ↗ both public buildings and private buildings, and we need to be more thorough in requiring

1:16:47 ↗ them. One thing I haven't heard is how we benchmark about other cities that are

1:16:53 ↗ trying to do this, and are we as strong in the requirement side? if

1:16:59 ↗ we just try to encourage folks in doing the right thing. I think we're going

1:17:03 ↗ to get the same thing with housing, affordable housing. We're not going to get what

1:17:07 ↗ we want unless we require that to happen. So please be more thorough in requiring

1:17:12 ↗ something more substantive. I absolutely love the benchmarking that they're talking about doing and developing

1:17:16 ↗ design standards, not design standards, but energy policies because that natural environment seems to be

1:17:20 ↗ a big thing that is about and I think that's a big piece of this.

1:17:25 ↗ With that, I think we also need to talk about canopy cover,

1:17:31 ↗ tree retention, which does take out a lot of the carbon that's

1:17:37 ↗ in the environment. Part of the policy also talks about connection to

1:17:43 ↗ the environment. So I think that there's some connection that we need

1:17:48 ↗ to put more tree retention in considerations as part of energy retention

1:17:54 ↗ policies. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Anyone else desiring to speak? Dave

1:18:00 ↗ Kapler. Thank you. David Kapler, 255

1:18:06 ↗ Southeast Andrew Street. My first note, which I wrote before, it says 28 years, and

1:18:10 ↗ that's how long the Bergsma family, most of them well represented in the front row

1:18:15 ↗ here, have been trying to deal with this property. We all expected that we're involved

1:18:21 ↗ with the Talus, East Village Talus issue that there would be, this would be part

1:18:26 ↗ of that and the road would come down and Talus developers decided they didn't need

1:18:32 ↗ the additional units, were not justified by the cost of developing that road down to

1:18:38 ↗ Newport. In those days, they most probably could have done it with a 15% grade.

1:18:43 ↗ Now it's a 12% grade, which means a longer road and/or lowering the

1:18:49 ↗ site even more and that's why you get to get the housing site down

1:18:55 ↗ to the top of the road is where the 88,000 cubic yards is. Much

1:19:01 ↗ of that comes from that just lowering the property to match the road. The

1:19:06 ↗ property is a designated sending site which should tell us something about what should

1:19:12 ↗ happen at that site. So we're looking at current zoning allowing 40. The

1:19:18 ↗ development agreement doubles the number of units, goes to almost 80 or 80 really.

1:19:24 ↗ So we got a designated sending site and we're doubling the zoning or doubling

1:19:30 ↗ the number of units at least. I mean, I've been a big advocate of

1:19:35 ↗ trying to get things from this development if it happens, trails, natural growth protection

1:19:41 ↗ easement, likely some land dedication. But the whole concept is counter

1:19:47 ↗ to the Central Issaquah plan. There's going to be trucking impacts not only

1:19:53 ↗ in the city but for miles and miles of unincorporated King County potentially.

1:19:59 ↗ View impacts on our forested hillside assumption over the long term of a

1:20:05 ↗ steep slope stability issue. I would urge you to explore non-development

1:20:11 ↗ options, park options of that or far less options which could be

1:20:17 ↗ served by a different road than coming up from Newport. Thank you.

1:20:22 ↗ Thank you, David. And there's still quite an audience here and most

1:20:28 ↗ of them supportive of that. Connie. So my

1:20:34 ↗ name is Connie Marsh and I live on Squawk Mountain and I think our best

1:20:40 ↗ city use for the Burisma property is to get it put into conservation. Use number

1:20:46 ↗ two would be to understand if we have some sort of small access where

1:20:52 ↗ we could provide an extremely small number of larger parcels that potentially Talus

1:20:58 ↗ would be willing to accept having passed through their land I don't think

1:21:03 ↗ that's been considered this particular development agreement is too far off of the

1:21:09 ↗ mark so I would say no but what I don't understand is whether

1:21:15 ↗ their traditional plat is and that was not addressed in the agenda bill.

1:21:21 ↗ So it would be nice to have some clarification on whether they are

1:21:27 ↗ in the moratorium or not if the DA is not approved. Thanks. Thank

1:21:33 ↗ you, Connie. Brian?

1:21:44 ↗ Hi, my name is Brian Weinstein. I live at 285 Southeast Bush Street. I've

1:21:50 ↗ lived in Issaquah since the year 2000. It's rare that the brass ring of

1:21:56 ↗ opportunity comes along on the carousel of life here at Issaquah City Council Chambers.

1:22:02 ↗ And yet, that's what's happening this evening. I wish that the council could look

1:22:07 ↗ ahead on the agenda to the community survey about Issaquah because if you get to

1:22:13 ↗ that point, which unfortunately is after all the agenda bills and after all the public

1:22:18 ↗ comment this evening, you'll see that the number one thing that is valued above all

1:22:23 ↗ else in the city of Issaquah are our treasures and the number one treasure

1:22:29 ↗ is our forested hillsides, the trees and the environment. That's why we're all

1:22:34 ↗ here. And everything that I've heard tonight is also flavored by the fact

1:22:40 ↗ that we have already met our 2030 population goal, decades ahead of schedule.

1:22:45 ↗ So when I look at something like the Bergsma property, and we all

1:22:51 ↗ know, we all know It is not the place of the council to prohibit

1:22:57 ↗ somebody from doing what they would like to do with their private property. But it

1:23:02 ↗ is the place of council to come up with a policy of what is appropriate

1:23:07 ↗ use for that property. And I think like Connie said, something much, much smaller, maybe

1:23:12 ↗ less than a dozen homes on that piece of property might be something that maybe

1:23:18 ↗ the TALIS people would tolerate. And I use the word tolerate generously. Um, the other

1:23:24 ↗ thing that you're going to be discussing tonight is the transit orient development and

1:23:29 ↗ I've been looking at and quite honestly, that is a Rubik's Cube of land

1:23:35 ↗ deals that has as part of what it does is obliterating the last forested

1:23:41 ↗ grove of hillside on the plateau. It's going to go away. We won't

1:23:47 ↗ see it from Old Town. People who live on Squawk won't see it. People who

1:23:52 ↗ live over on Talus won't see it. It will be gone forever. And I think

1:23:57 ↗ that probably a better use for that treasure, rather than splitting it or selling it

1:24:01 ↗ or doing whatever you want to do to get transit-oriented development, would be to put

1:24:06 ↗ that into protected open space. So we can have trails there and look at Camp

1:24:12 ↗ Creek and we can continue to look at our trees like we've been promised, which

1:24:17 ↗ are our treasures in Issaquah. The fact that it's a sweetener in a transit-oriented development

1:24:22 ↗ is not needed because we already know the Polygon deal in the Highlands was done

1:24:26 ↗ without any of those concessions. And we're getting affordable housing and low-income housing and a

1:24:31 ↗ group home up there. So I think the city could probably go back and negotiate

1:24:36 ↗ that a little better The other thing that I'm afraid that Talus doesn't know that

1:24:41 ↗ is on an agenda bill this evening is the two and a half million dollars

1:24:45 ↗ of a gift that we're going to give potentially a developer for where the landslide

1:24:50 ↗ is. Um, and I use gift obviously in the broadest sense of the word, if

1:24:56 ↗ we're going to be looking at having to pay $2.5 million for the landslide remediation

1:25:01 ↗ up there, that really ought to become sort of like Issaquah's property and no longer

1:25:06 ↗ the developer's property because that's a big gift and that's going to be borne by

1:25:11 ↗ all of the taxpayers here. So what we're really saying, council, and here we all

1:25:17 ↗ are, is transparency before trust and slow down. What's the rush with all these decisions?

1:25:23 ↗ Allowing staff more time to think carefully about how these decisions benefit the people is

1:25:28 ↗ important. Allowing council the opportunity to consider policy implications of the ramifications and the cost

1:25:34 ↗ to residents. As my friend Ruth Keys used to say, the cumulative effects of how

1:25:39 ↗ you're changing our community. These should be your highest priorities. We all seek

1:25:45 ↗ transparency in what the city does for us, and here's a great opportunity to slow

1:25:49 ↗ down and understand all of this. You've been saying for a long time, wouldn't it

1:25:54 ↗ be nice if we had more community engagement? Well, here they are. They're all here.

1:25:59 ↗ And what we've been saying to you for a very long time is, do you

1:26:04 ↗ hear what we are saying? Do you hear us? And do you listen to us?

1:26:08 ↗ I think this is that opportunity where the brass ring is right here in your

1:26:13 ↗ grasp, and I sure hope you don't let it pass you by. Thank you.

1:26:19 ↗ Thank you, Brian, and that resonated with the

1:26:25 ↗ audience very much. Final call. Anyone else desiring

1:26:31 ↗ to speak this evening? Yes, sir. And then

1:26:37 ↗ following the gentleman, you're up. Notice he didn't

1:26:43 ↗ know who I was, and none of you

1:26:48 ↗ do. You're Bill's brother. I'm Bill's cousin. I'm

1:26:54 ↗ sorry. So I'm one of 22 cousins.

1:27:00 ↗ My name is Jerry Hendrickson. I currently live in Olympia, Washington. Interesting side

1:27:06 ↗ note, we came into town tonight, my wife and I, on Hobart Road.

1:27:12 ↗ And I was commenting as we were driving in. This road is no

1:27:18 ↗ different than it was 60 years ago. No, I hate this. I didn't

1:27:24 ↗ catch your name. Jerry Hendrickson. There's an email somewhere buried somewhere-- OK, Jerry.

1:27:30 ↗ And your address? --in your paperwork. My address, 3316. 29th

1:27:35 ↗ Avenue, Northeast Olympia, Washington. So being from Olympia, I grew up

1:27:41 ↗ here in the valley, graduated from high school, class of 60,

1:27:47 ↗ went to Washington State, go Cougs, and I lived in a

1:27:53 ↗ variety of places since then, but currently live in Olympia. And

1:27:58 ↗ in an ideal world, I would like to see that show

1:28:04 ↗ of hands that's been occurring behind me In the

1:28:10 ↗ 1990s, it really would have been nice if there was a big

1:28:16 ↗ show of hands at the ballot box to preserve all of this

1:28:22 ↗ land on the hillside. I hear people talking about our hillsides and

1:28:28 ↗ our land and our wildlife, and I agree with all of that,

1:28:34 ↗ except it's really not yours. It's not mine either, except I have

1:28:40 ↗ to pay taxes on it. And... So, you

1:28:46 ↗ know, I don't have all the answers. I agree with what an awful lot of

1:28:52 ↗ the speakers have come up and said tonight. But to say that we're only going

1:28:58 ↗ to build on the valley floor and we're not going to touch the hillsides is

1:29:04 ↗ a wonderful idea. But what about the people who own and are having to pay

1:29:10 ↗ taxes on that ground? I have 22 cousins. Five of them have already passed away.

1:29:16 ↗ I just... Again, in an ideal world,

1:29:21 ↗ I would like what most of you would like for the Issaquah Valley,

1:29:27 ↗ even though I no longer live here. But if the thing you value

1:29:33 ↗ the most, as the previous speaker, I think, said, was the ecological surroundings

1:29:39 ↗ that you have, and I have to say they're nothing like what they

1:29:45 ↗ were when I was a kid. When I was a kid, you could ride

1:29:51 ↗ your bicycle down Newport Way on a whim and not worry about being picked off

1:29:56 ↗ because there were hardly ever any cars on it. But if that would be your

1:30:01 ↗ number one choice in an ideal world, there would be a bond in the city,

1:30:07 ↗ county, state, or someone would purchase these hillsides and they would stay the way they

1:30:12 ↗ are. That would be great, in my opinion. But in the real world... The money

1:30:18 ↗ for the things that we really want doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

1:30:23 ↗ So the capital system has to end up playing a part, unfortunately.

1:30:29 ↗ But that's the reality, as I see it, as sort of an

1:30:35 ↗ old-timer here, but yet sort of an outsider now. Final statement, as

1:30:40 ↗ one of the Bergsmans, I'd like to get out of the real

1:30:46 ↗ estate business. Jerry, thank you very, very much for coming all the

1:30:51 ↗ way from Olympia to... to share that with us. Final call, oh,

1:30:57 ↗ come on up please. - My name is Rachel Carrie Ryerson. I live

1:31:03 ↗ at 955 17th Avenue, Northwest Issaquah, Washington. And I've lived there for 36

1:31:09 ↗ years, all my life. And I'm here tonight to speak about the proposed

1:31:15 ↗ BRSMA development agreement. And my first point is that I think that the proposed cluster

1:31:20 ↗ housing development goes against what the City of Issaquah has laid out in their cluster

1:31:25 ↗ housing standard. The standard states, I'm sure you guys know, but I'll just reiterate, it

1:31:29 ↗ achieves the most, the maximum allowed density as established on the district standard table on

1:31:34 ↗ developable land while preserving critical areas and other pervious surfaces through lot size reduction. But

1:31:39 ↗ under the current proposed design, they're seeking variances because they're destroying critical areas. So I'm

1:31:44 ↗ not sure how that's in line with that. Secondly, it states it encourages affordable housing

1:31:49 ↗ through the provision of smaller lots. But as I understand it, with the proposed housing

1:31:54 ↗ development, there are only four units which are set aside as cottage, it's only two

1:32:00 ↗ cottage duplexes which are set aside for affordable housing. And my second point is that

1:32:05 ↗ I'd like to reiterate section six of the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan. which states under impacts

1:32:10 ↗ regarding neighborhoods, the proposed cluster of development will not have a substantial adverse

1:32:16 ↗ impact on adjacent properties, the character of neighborhood or community, traffic conditions, parking,

1:32:22 ↗ utilities, facilities, parking, utility facilities, and other elements affecting public health and safety

1:32:28 ↗ and general welfare. And I think that you can see by

1:32:33 ↗ the community's turnout who opposes this development that this isn't negative, this isn't

1:32:39 ↗ something that the community wants. And second, under that, under environmental impacts, the proposed

1:32:45 ↗ cluster development will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of any scenic corridor

1:32:50 ↗ or Issaquah treasure as identified by the city's comprehensive plan. And when you read that,

1:32:56 ↗ it states that it's the lush, open, tree-covered mountaintops of Issaquah Alps, and that they

1:33:01 ↗ should be left in their natural state. And that's one of the treasures. And so

1:33:06 ↗ I'm not sure how stuffing a bunch of houses into something that's, the irregular code

1:33:11 ↗ for everyone else is in line with that city comprehensive plan. So in summary, it's

1:33:17 ↗ my belief that this cluster housing, excuse me, it's my belief that the cluster housing

1:33:21 ↗ standard is set forth as a compromise which is meant to benefit the city's growth

1:33:26 ↗ and the community that lives here. But as I see it, this cluster housing only

1:33:30 ↗ benefits the developers who are going to make a ton of money off cramming multiple

1:33:34 ↗ houses on a small piece of fragile land which has wetlands, critical areas, and steep

1:33:38 ↗ slopes at the cost of disregarding all the things set forth in the comprehensive plan.

1:33:44 ↗ Would you repeat your name again for the clerk and for me? I missed

1:33:50 ↗ it. I'm sorry. Rigel Carey. Did you get that, Patricia? Great. Thank you very

1:33:56 ↗ much. Mary? And my name is Mary Lynch. I reside at 2690 Northwest Oakcrest

1:34:02 ↗ Drive, Issaquah, Washington. And I just want to thank all the people that turned

1:34:07 ↗ out and spoke tonight, including the Berksmiths. I want to say is I hope you're

1:34:13 ↗ looking at the process and some points by both sides were brought up very clearly,

1:34:19 ↗ but what was really also to me is very clear is the city has not

1:34:24 ↗ been following its comprehensive plan. A lot of us for many years have been asking

1:34:29 ↗ for a good post for it to be done. had it been done this

1:34:35 ↗ piece of parcel would have been identified very early because if you go back and

1:34:40 ↗ look at the history this parcel was identified as a sending site for development rights

1:34:46 ↗ yet when they came to city staff this last go around what did city staff

1:34:51 ↗ do to encourage them to look elsewhere or do something different besides development because that

1:34:57 ↗ should have been an immediate flag that went up and say hey this

1:35:03 ↗ is a receiver a transferring site we should be looking at something different besides development

1:35:08 ↗ and that was not done nor have we done the post or do we follow

1:35:14 ↗ I don't really see that city staff clearly understands what the comprehensive plan do they

1:35:19 ↗ or do they use it as a litmus test or a guideline when they're planning

1:35:25 ↗ development and that's one of the major things and the reasons why I supported the

1:35:30 ↗ moratorium because I think there were flaws in it but I don't even think we've

1:35:34 ↗ been following it. So I can see why the Berks were frustrated. They go to

1:35:39 ↗ city staff and they're not getting the direction that they should be. But we are

1:35:43 ↗ a whole community and the whole community needs to benefit when we're going forward, not

1:35:48 ↗ just a few people. I've lost a lot of money in the stock market over

1:35:53 ↗ the years. Bad investment. Does anybody, does the city come and bail me out for

1:35:58 ↗ a bad investment? I would love to have some money for the stock that I've

1:36:03 ↗ lost. And I feel sorry, but that's what you're doing with a gamble. Land is

1:36:08 ↗ just the same gamble as a stock market. And you need to consider that going

1:36:13 ↗ forward. But please look at the process, please improve it, make sure city staff is

1:36:18 ↗ included early on, and please listen to the public. We spent a lot of hours

1:36:23 ↗ and have come to a lot of the meetings to get even a little bit

1:36:28 ↗ heard. And it's frustrating because we ought to be having more community meetings early on

1:36:32 ↗ in the process. And I was at the original one almost two and a half

1:36:37 ↗ years ago. and we stated these same things there. But it took us going to

1:36:42 ↗ the recent Land and Shores Committee to get heard. Because even when I went to

1:36:47 ↗ the other subcommittees, the commission meetings, they were frustrated because they really did not feel

1:36:53 ↗ that this development agreement was properly put together and reviewed. If you look at the

1:36:58 ↗ hearing examiner's report, they also said that the process was not really done like it

1:37:03 ↗ should and that's why there's problems with the hearing examiner report which i still haven't

1:37:09 ↗ heard any analysis from that on how the city's interpreting it differently than the hearing

1:37:15 ↗ examiner thank you mary thank you very very much yes please

1:37:20 ↗ My name is Mary Hammerly. I live at 1230 Oakwood

1:37:26 ↗ Place Northwest, which is in Summerhill. Summerhill is the first

1:37:32 ↗ development west of SR 900 on Newport Way. My request

1:37:37 ↗ to the council is this. We have zoning laws in

1:37:43 ↗ Issaquah. We have an Issaquah comprehensive plan. I have sat

1:37:48 ↗ through many, many of these meetings in the last several years and it seems

1:37:54 ↗ like we are the city of Issaquah is permitting development agreement after development agreement

1:38:00 ↗ that is not in compliance with the plan or our zoning laws. Why are

1:38:06 ↗ those laws there? Why are we are is the council granting variances to each

1:38:12 ↗ one of these developers? I'm sympathetic to where the Berks are coming from, but

1:38:18 ↗ they are not coming to you and saying, I want to build property that is

1:38:24 ↗ consistent with the current zoning laws that is consistent with anything else. They're coming and

1:38:29 ↗ saying they want a variance. Everybody wants a variance. Why does this city even bother

1:38:35 ↗ with zoning laws if we're not going to follow them? Thank you. Thank

1:38:41 ↗ you, Mary. And some folks are waving their hands back there.

1:38:47 ↗ Anyone else? Final call. Seeing no one, then audience comments are

1:38:52 ↗ closed. And we'll move now to council committee and regional reports,

1:38:58 ↗ beginning with Mariah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a short report

1:39:04 ↗ tonight. There is An upcoming meeting on Wednesday, June 21st for the

1:39:10 ↗ King Conservation District Advisory Committee. And on the agenda will be a review

1:39:16 ↗ and discussion of the 2016 annual report. And most of the time will

1:39:21 ↗ be spent on the program of work for 2018. And that concludes my

1:39:27 ↗ report. Thank you. Bill? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First report is on the Council

1:39:33 ↗ Infrastructure Committee. And what we covered mostly the last time was an update on projects.

1:39:38 ↗ And I want to share all those with you because there's some that I want

1:39:43 ↗ to make sure the information is shared, what's going on. First of all, I'd like

1:39:49 ↗ to thank that our WSDOT closure of East Lakes of Mammoth took five days rather

1:39:54 ↗ than seven. And that was excellent, although because it was not fun for those five

1:39:59 ↗ days. And other things with WSDOT was that on June 29th, there will be a

1:40:04 ↗ public meeting held with Tibbetts on the I-90 shoulder work. So again, encourage the public

1:40:09 ↗ to understand what's going on on the I-90 expansion of shoulder lane. That's June 29th

1:40:14 ↗ at Tibbetts Manor. Traffic calming. Some people have talked about that before. Just want to

1:40:20 ↗ let you know what's going on in a number of neighborhoods, not just have it

1:40:24 ↗ about Old Town, but we also talked about Highlands, Tallis, Black Nugget. There's other neighborhoods

1:40:28 ↗ where traffic calming is going on. And a lot of talk here about Newport Way.

1:40:33 ↗ There were two public meetings in the last few weeks. They were very well attended

1:40:37 ↗ and I think the public felt that they got a lot of ideas across and

1:40:42 ↗ a lot of sharing of ideas and they seemed to go very well and I

1:40:47 ↗ thank everybody who took their time. There was two three hour meetings. That's a lot

1:40:52 ↗ of time out of the public's time to attend those and so this shows they

1:40:57 ↗ really care and put a lot of work into those. Big one is we're working

1:41:02 ↗ on the Trader Joe's Maple Street Roundabout. Sharing some information here. Right now

1:41:08 ↗ it's in about 75% design and it's getting ready to go out to bid and

1:41:13 ↗ they're working on it about 75% and just they wanted to let us know that

1:41:18 ↗ currently it looks like at that point it's going to be over budget. So they

1:41:22 ↗ want to keep this project moving and we told them to keep it moving but

1:41:27 ↗ as they do that that will could probably cause mainly one touch with the council.

1:41:32 ↗ So the tentative schedule is that we advertise in the project on July 11th with

1:41:36 ↗ bids open July 25th. And to act on that fairly quickly after that, when we

1:41:41 ↗ get bids to find out what the bid actually comes in at, the council has,

1:41:45 ↗ of course, the option to do whatever they need. But a warning that it looks

1:41:50 ↗ like it might be over budget. We don't know how much yet. So sharing that

1:41:54 ↗ information as much as possible because it's kind of a one touch. Also, the next

1:41:59 ↗ thing I was talking about was Shangri-La. We talked about it a little bit on

1:42:04 ↗ TALIS. That project has expanded in scope because of some of the concerns of really

1:42:09 ↗ making it secure for our utilities, both dry and wet, that are under that road,

1:42:15 ↗ including some shoulder wall pilings and so forth. So the price of that has gone

1:42:20 ↗ up dramatically, like about $1.3 million. And that is currently out to bid. And the

1:42:25 ↗ bids are gonna be opened on the 22nd of June here. So the plan is,

1:42:30 ↗ again, we don't have time. If we wanna get that accomplished this year, there's not

1:42:35 ↗ a lot of time to go back and forth with, so it ends up a

1:42:39 ↗ one touch. It would then come back to council, I believe, the 6th of July

1:42:44 ↗ with how things are going from the 22nd to the next council meeting with 4th

1:42:49 ↗ of July and everything in there. So the main thing is to let everyone know

1:42:54 ↗ that that might be an increased cost by quite a substantial amount, and they'll keep

1:42:59 ↗ leadership informed of Curtis and myself. So we'll share that information as much as we

1:43:03 ↗ can as soon as we know it, but official time with council will be less

1:43:08 ↗ than normal. So that takes care of council report, infrastructure report. Then a few other

1:43:14 ↗ things I've been involved in these last few weeks. On the sixth, I was

1:43:20 ↗ at affordable housing issue symposium in Bellevue, as were some other folks. Eastside Fire

1:43:25 ↗ and Rescue, I was there for Eileen on the 8th of June. And then working

1:43:31 ↗ not only as a council person but also for SCA and EMAC, I was at

1:43:36 ↗ the Cascade Water Alliance Earthquake Resiliency. Again, some other folks were at too, really talking

1:43:42 ↗ about the things we need to prepare for in case of those major catastrophic events,

1:43:47 ↗ particularly serious earthquake. Trying to get folks to work on the planning stages now so

1:43:53 ↗ we're ready when if and when those things happen um also on the 13th of

1:43:58 ↗ june as the regional transportation system initiative and as many others and again working to

1:44:02 ↗ get the region involved and working together to work on some of our traffic problems

1:44:07 ↗ on regional roads so we hopefully can get some of the traffic off our local

1:44:12 ↗ roads and every city has that same concern not just isaac on the 14th i

1:44:17 ↗ was at the emergency management advisory committee meeting. What's happening there is interesting enough is

1:44:22 ↗ not super important, but their funding, a lot of which comes from the federal government,

1:44:26 ↗ we thought we had a budget for that. It was reduced. And now when we

1:44:31 ↗ finally got final dollars, reduced again. So the items that are being spent worked on

1:44:35 ↗ keep getting reduced from the federal level. And so that just brings less money to

1:44:40 ↗ all of us locally to our planning efforts for emergency management. Again, ties back to

1:44:45 ↗ some other things. So just want some support on that and be aware of that.

1:44:50 ↗ Also on the 14th, the Eastside Human Services Forum on Opiate and work on that.

1:44:55 ↗ And then this Wednesday the 21st, I'll be at the Regional Transit Committee working on

1:45:00 ↗ their development work plan and also looking at some of their on-time performance issues as

1:45:05 ↗ well as their zero emission buses that they're getting more of. And on the 22nd

1:45:11 ↗ Thursday, I'll be at the Associated Cities of Washington as ISQA rep for their general

1:45:16 ↗ meeting. So I'll be on all that day down in Vancouver and I'll represent as

1:45:21 ↗ well. Ends my report, thank you. Thank you, Bill. Paul? Bill did all

1:45:27 ↗ my work. I have no report. No report either. You were at many of

1:45:33 ↗ those things that I was at, right? Pola? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Council

1:45:39 ↗ Services and Safety Committee met Tuesday, June 13th, and we had... We had a

1:45:45 ↗ senior center update, then we had three bills, all three of which are

1:45:50 ↗ back on regular business here this evening. Agenda Bill 7352, 2017 second budget

1:45:56 ↗ amendments. Agenda Bill 7419, interlocal agreement with Eastside Fire and Rescue for tactical

1:46:01 ↗ emergency medical support. And Agenda Bill 7438, PSE Green Direct Power Service Agreement.

1:46:07 ↗ The Sound Cities Association Public Issues Committee met last Wednesday,

1:46:13 ↗ sorry, yes, and we discussed, had a lively discussion on

1:46:18 ↗ a number of topics, but of particular interest was the

1:46:25 ↗ Transmitted Veterans, Seniors and Human Services levy. It was transmitted from the executive's office

1:46:31 ↗ at 12 cents per thousand. There is discussion on whether the county council will

1:46:37 ↗ go with that recommendation or go with a different number. There's been discussion of

1:46:42 ↗ 10 cents per thousand. So there was both a pre pick meeting and then

1:46:48 ↗ a discussion in pick this one is coming through fast enough, it has to

1:46:54 ↗ be fully ready to go, I believe August 1 which actually precludes pick taking

1:47:00 ↗ a formal position on it. but we have asked our member cities

1:47:05 ↗ to have any feedback that they want to transmit forward

1:47:11 ↗ to SCA staff. That can be in turn forwarded to to

1:47:17 ↗ the right folks at the county. So if fellow council members have any particular feedback

1:47:23 ↗ on that one that they would like me to send back up through the SCA

1:47:29 ↗ mechanism, please do let me know. Then we discussed other things, but nothing that quite

1:47:35 ↗ had the, and interest of that particular measure. GMPC is still

1:47:40 ↗ a ways off, but the E911 Strategic Plan Scoping Leadership Group is

1:47:46 ↗ meeting tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. when we will receive the draft

1:47:52 ↗ of the technology group report and also consider various leadership or oversight

1:47:58 ↗ options going forward for the new technology rollout. This concludes my report.

1:48:04 ↗ Thank you. Mayor Liu. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The June 8th Cascade Water Alliance Resource

1:48:10 ↗ Committee meeting was canceled. On June 8th, there was an Eastside Fire and Rescue Board

1:48:16 ↗ meeting. We had a legislative update and some information on an upcoming King County Medic

1:48:22 ↗ 1 levy. Most of the other items were dealing with financial matters and the budget

1:48:28 ↗ for next year. The Finance and Admin Committee for Eastside Fire and Rescue will meet

1:48:34 ↗ on June 28th. There is no agenda yet. The next Eastside Fire and Rescue Board

1:48:39 ↗ Meeting will be July 13th and there will be no August Board Meeting. On June

1:48:44 ↗ 16th, I attended the Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting at in the Eagle Room at

1:48:49 ↗ City Hall, and most of the updates I provided that day had to do with

1:48:54 ↗ mobility and also the large culvert project that Council Member Ramos was speaking about, and

1:48:59 ↗ an update on some of the moratorium work items. And that concludes my report. Thank

1:49:05 ↗ you. Council President Goodman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Land and Shore Committee had a

1:49:10 ↗ special meeting on June 7th. And the one item that we took

1:49:16 ↗ action on that night was a sustainable building action strategy, which

1:49:21 ↗ is on the regular agenda for tonight and with a recommendation

1:49:27 ↗ to approve. And then we had our typical standing item on

1:49:32 ↗ moratorium and we had a brief peek inside the tent regarding

1:49:38 ↗ the parking analysis and That will be coming back through various channels. And

1:49:44 ↗ then we also talked about the Old Town Sub Area Plan and that we

1:49:49 ↗ had a lot of questions and that is staying in committee. The Land and

1:49:55 ↗ Shore meets again on July 6th, Thursday, 6:30 p.m. here in Council Chambers and

1:50:01 ↗ the agenda has not been set yet. Thank you. For the mayor's

1:50:06 ↗ report, there will be an executive session held this evening for

1:50:12 ↗ the purpose of discussing pending and potential litigation for RCW 42.30.110,

1:50:18 ↗ one, I. This item is expected to take approximately 45 minutes.

1:50:24 ↗ No action is anticipated to follow an open session. Bill

1:50:30 ↗ commented on the Regional Transportation System Initiative. A

1:50:35 ↗ little more background on that. I also attended

1:50:41 ↗ that with Mary Lou. And in early 2017, the--

1:50:47 ↗ I'm just going to call it the RTSI-- was launched by

1:50:53 ↗ King County and Sound Cities Association with support from the Puget

1:50:59 ↗ Sound Regional Council to develop partnerships to address our regional transportation

1:51:05 ↗ challenges. Monthly meetings are being held this year with technical experts

1:51:11 ↗ to define the regional road network and--

1:51:16 ↗ This was our first meeting of the group with

1:51:22 ↗ elected officials. At last week's meeting, local elected officials

1:51:28 ↗ reviewed their work done to date by the RTSI

1:51:34 ↗ Technical Committee, developed a better understanding of regional transportation

1:51:39 ↗ priorities, in each community and confirm that

1:51:45 ↗ we should work together on these challenges

1:51:51 ↗ moving forward. Issaquah will remain engaged in

1:51:56 ↗ this process and period. Bill mentioned that,

1:52:02 ↗ Bill mentioned that. Bill mentioned that. Bill attended many

1:52:07 ↗ meetings that I attended and has already reported, so there is

1:52:13 ↗ no need for me to comment further. So with that, Committee

1:52:18 ↗ and Regional Reports is complete and we'll now move to the

1:52:24 ↗ consent calendar. Have the accounts payables and payroll for June the

1:52:29 ↗ 19th, 2017 been reviewed? They have. Thank you. I'd ask the city

1:52:35 ↗ clerk to read the consent calendar into the record, please. The consent calendar

1:52:41 ↗ was distributed to council in advance for study. If authorized, council action will occur by

1:52:46 ↗ single motion regarding the following items. Item A seeks approval of the accounts payables and

1:52:51 ↗ payroll of June 19th. Item B seeks approval of the minutes of the regular meeting,

1:52:56 ↗ and here the agenda should read of June 5th. Item C, AB 7249,

1:53:02 ↗ discuss creation of a transportation mobility board, seeks direction to proceed.

1:53:07 ↗ Item D, AB 7436, King County roads property remediation, seeks to

1:53:13 ↗ award bid. Item E, AB 7440, transportation advisory board, seeks referral

1:53:18 ↗ to council infrastructure committee. This concludes the reading. Thank you. Does

1:53:24 ↗ any council member to desire to remove any item from the consent

1:53:30 ↗ calendar and consider it under regular business?

1:53:36 ↗ Council President Goodman. I would move to adopt the consent calendar

1:53:42 ↗ as presented. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor signify

1:53:48 ↗ by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, the consent calendar is approved

1:53:54 ↗ unanimously. Before we open the public hearing, a change to the

1:54:00 ↗ order on our regular business. We're moving up item Agenda

1:54:05 ↗ Bill 7419, interlocal agreement with Eastside Fire and

1:54:11 ↗ Rescue for tactical emergency medical support. That will

1:54:17 ↗ be, I'm guessing, a relatively short presentation. And

1:54:22 ↗ so here we go. Commander Bob Porter and

1:54:28 ↗ representing Eastside Fire and Rescue. DEPUTY CHIEF RICHARD

1:54:33 ↗ BURKE: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City

1:54:39 ↗ Council and community members. My name is Bob Porter. Like he said, I'm

1:54:45 ↗ a support services commander for the Issaquah Police Department. I'm also the Special

1:54:51 ↗ Operations Team Commander, which is a tactical team that we operate. Currently, our

1:54:57 ↗ interlocal agreement with Eastside Fire is operating very well. We have a

1:55:03 ↗ strong partnership with Eastside Fire and we've worked with them for many years. We work

1:55:08 ↗ with these guys on a daily basis and we really appreciate the strong partnership that

1:55:14 ↗ we have with them. The police department, like I just mentioned, has a special operations

1:55:19 ↗ team which is comprised of officers from our department who respond to emergency situations including

1:55:25 ↗ search warrants, barricaded subjects, and other high-risk situations. Eastside Fire has firefighters

1:55:30 ↗ that are currently practice and train and respond to these incidents with our

1:55:36 ↗ team. They are embedded into our team for monthly training and other operations.

1:55:42 ↗ This allows for a quicker response for medical aid than the standard practice

1:55:48 ↗ of having an aid car respond from a station. This new interlocal agreement

1:55:54 ↗ that was prepared is a housekeeping issue. After reviewing our current

1:55:59 ↗ ILA, we observed that the role of the Eastside Fire Tactical EMS

1:56:05 ↗ Firefighters was not identified. This agreement outlines protocols for training, incident response,

1:56:11 ↗ planning, and is clear on mutual aid protocol. By its creation, this

1:56:16 ↗ will strengthen our liability stance. It protects both agencies because it identifies

1:56:22 ↗ roles and responsibilities of each agency. Also by doing

1:56:28 ↗ so, Eastside Fire will be able to provide and identify their paperwork including L&I,

1:56:33 ↗ insurance, and other documents required when their firefighters are in the role for training

1:56:39 ↗ and response planning. In addition, there are no additional costs to the City of

1:56:45 ↗ Issaquah or Eastside Fire. It's a standalone agreement and each agency is responsible for

1:56:51 ↗ its own costs. And the bottom line for us is

1:56:57 ↗ that it further strengthens our partnership between the City of Issaquah and Eastside Fire

1:57:03 ↗ and Rescue. Does anyone have any comments? Are there questions? Is this coming back

1:57:09 ↗ from the Services and Safety Committee? Tola? Thanks, Mr. Mayor. With that, I'd like

1:57:15 ↗ to move to authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute the interlocal agreement

1:57:21 ↗ with Eastside Fire and Rescue for tactical emergency medical support as presented. Second.

1:57:26 ↗ It's moved and seconded. Discussion or questions? Tola. So as already stated, there

1:57:32 ↗ isn't any change in financial responsibility. There's no liability change. We don't incur

1:57:38 ↗ any additional liability for the city. The committee wanted to bring this back

1:57:43 ↗ to the full council merely because we consider it an important feature of

1:57:49 ↗ the public safety here in the city. Thank you. Additional questions or discussion?

1:57:55 ↗ Seeing none, then all those in favor of approving Agenda Bill 7419, the

1:58:01 ↗ interlocal agreement between the City of Issaquah and Eastside Fire and Rescue signify

1:58:07 ↗ by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that carries unanimously. Thank you very much.

1:58:13 ↗ Thank you. We will now move to the next item. Move to

1:58:18 ↗ a public hearing on agenda bill 7352. Those, the

1:58:24 ↗ same rules apply that I read for audience comments

1:58:30 ↗ earlier in the evening. Jen Olsen, our director of

1:58:36 ↗ finance for the staff report. Thank you Mayor,

1:58:41 ↗ Council Members. Tonight's public hearing is a continuation from an earlier meeting in June

1:58:47 ↗ with regards to the second budget amendments for 2017. the budget appropriation adjustments

1:58:53 ↗ necessary to cover expenditures and revenues were not anticipated at the time of

1:58:58 ↗ the adoption of the 2017 budget, nor in the first amended 2017 budget

1:59:04 ↗ ordinance. Public hearings are required for budget amendments when there is a change

1:59:10 ↗ in the ending fund balance or anticipated change in the ending fund balance,

1:59:15 ↗ and so this public hearing is continued tonight. The current level of

1:59:21 ↗ budget appropriations are a little over $136 million that is proposed to increase

1:59:27 ↗ to $142 million. Exhibit A included with the ordinance provides a level of

1:59:33 ↗ detail about the funds affected and the anticipated ending fund balances. There is

1:59:39 ↗ a proposed decrease in all of the ending fund balances of about $3.8

1:59:45 ↗ million. Over the course of A few months there are identified

1:59:51 ↗ adjustments to appropriations that either come through council directed agenda bills

1:59:56 ↗ as well as the administration identifies operating revenues and expenditures that

2:00:02 ↗ had not been anticipated. So, with that, I would

2:00:08 ↗ be happy to answer any questions about the proposed budget

2:00:13 ↗ amendments. They include operating revenues and expenditures. They include adjustments

2:00:19 ↗ to the scope in capital projects. They include adjustments to

2:00:24 ↗ professional services. And in the public or the budget amendments

2:00:30 ↗ were referred to the council services and safety committee on June 13th. There was some

2:00:35 ↗ additional information that was requested from the committee which included a comparison to current financial

2:00:41 ↗ policy reserve targets and that was provided as an addition with the agenda bill for

2:00:47 ↗ your review. With that I would be happy to answer any questions about the budget

2:00:52 ↗ amendment. Are there any questions at this time? Mayor Lue. A clarification and

2:00:58 ↗ a question. So tonight we had heard about some other expenditures that might be

2:01:04 ↗ coming. They're not included in this adjustment. So the funding for the additional amount

2:01:09 ↗ to repair TALIS infrastructure and create the wall, that is not in here. That's

2:01:15 ↗ correct. It's not included. I think somebody also had asked about Providence Point earlier this

2:01:20 ↗ evening, and that is not in here. That's correct. If there's any additional amendments, they

2:01:25 ↗ would be coming to the council in a third budget amendment. Okay. And then the

2:01:30 ↗ question was, on the line item that says professional services DSD, there are... There are

2:01:35 ↗ two listed that way. One is $375,000 which has to do with the development agreement

2:01:41 ↗ and is that our contribution to the installation of the light at that location? That

2:01:46 ↗ is correct. Okay. And then the second one, contracted limited term services for planning, building

2:01:51 ↗ and engineering divisions. Is that contracted assistance that we use for the permitting department that

2:01:57 ↗ we recoup through permitting? There could be parts of it that would be recouped.

2:02:03 ↗ Okay. So it's not all recoverable? That's correct. Do you know roughly if it's majority

2:02:08 ↗ of it's recoverable or is that extra -- is that consultant time that's not recoverable?

2:02:14 ↗ I don't have an answer to your detailed question. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Bill? One more

2:02:19 ↗ question. Just keep the numbers straight for me. Because I see 6 million, but it

2:02:25 ↗ looks like 4 because that's because 2 million in revenue has gone up. Is that

2:02:30 ↗ correct? So it's a $4 million difference, but -- Because of that balance? Am I

2:02:36 ↗ reading that correctly? What document are you referring to in the numbers specifically? On the

2:02:41 ↗ agenda bill itself, it goes from $136 million to $142 million. There's a $6 million

2:02:46 ↗ difference. And you said that, and then you said there's a $4 million difference. And

2:02:50 ↗ so I'm looking at revenues look like they went up $2 million as well. So

2:02:55 ↗ I'm trying to So it's a $4 million difference from in the any

2:03:01 ↗ fund balance. That's correct, 3.8 million is approximately. Approximately 4 million because revenues

2:03:07 ↗ have gone up as well. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

2:03:13 ↗ Seeing none, then I'll open the public hearing at 9:04 and ask if

2:03:19 ↗ anyone has signed up to speak. I will point out that two

2:03:25 ↗ Two previous speakers under audience comments. No, that

2:03:31 ↗ was not this one. Excuse me. Anyone desiring

2:03:37 ↗ to speak to the second budget amendments?

2:03:45 ↗ Are you okay? Well, he's big. But

2:03:51 ↗ he's bruised now, so it'll be fine.

2:03:57 ↗ No, I'm kidding. So... Frankly, there's not much

2:04:02 ↗ point in speaking to try to change anyone's mind because I think that these are

2:04:08 ↗ fairly well approved already. But I do want to express a concern with the consistent

2:04:14 ↗ overruns. And I haven't really heard how we're going to solve the consistent overrun problem.

2:04:20 ↗ Is there a plan or do we have adjustments we're making that are

2:04:26 ↗ department by department so that these changes aren't so big and consistent. Every

2:04:32 ↗ time you come to a meeting there's an overrun. And so what's the

2:04:38 ↗ plan, man? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mary? And my name is Mary

2:04:43 ↗ Lynch and I reside at 2690 Northwest Oak Crest Drive, Issaquah, Washington. And

2:04:49 ↗ I just want to support what Connie was saying and also remind you it's been

2:04:55 ↗ at least two years ago they attended some of the budget planning meetings and what

2:04:59 ↗ city staff said especially on construction projects and when it comes to transportation that those

2:05:04 ↗ bids need to get out early in January and that's when the best dollars are

2:05:08 ↗ if you wait till the end of the year they're going to be bigger and

2:05:13 ↗ so I don't see that reflective in the cost estimates that are going forward And

2:05:18 ↗ so what I heard revealed at the meetings last week, well, we got it out

2:05:22 ↗ late so it's higher than planned. Well, if you know you're gonna issue it late,

2:05:26 ↗ you know it's gonna be higher and that ought to reflect the cost. We also

2:05:30 ↗ know we're in a construction boom around here. That ought to be reflected in the

2:05:35 ↗ cost. I've done capital planning, and when I worked for my managers and the president

2:05:41 ↗ of the companies, I wasn't allowed cost overruns. We had to project it correctly with

2:05:46 ↗ a contingency, and we were not... very ever rarely allowed to go back. And we

2:05:51 ↗ had, we were talking multi-million dollar projects and big things going on and environmental things

2:05:55 ↗ going on. So we need to get a better handle on how we plan things.

2:06:00 ↗ And the thing that bugs me is I also heard some other ones last week.

2:06:04 ↗ The 62nd one's probably gonna go over. We don't know how we're gonna fund that.

2:06:08 ↗ Trader Joe's I think is over even what you're seeing here in this amendment. We

2:06:13 ↗ haven't identified the skate park and how we're going to provide for the roads and

2:06:17 ↗ the sidewalks that need to bend there. And so there are a lot of things

2:06:21 ↗ that were cut out of this year's budget that we already know we need for

2:06:25 ↗ next year's. So we're going to need a lot of that expenditure or a lot

2:06:29 ↗ of the extra revenue that we're making. And we're spending it without really prioritization. So

2:06:33 ↗ as Connie was saying is I think we need to really get a handle on

2:06:37 ↗ where we're going to overrun. What we're going to approve and what may need to

2:06:41 ↗ be delayed because it's really lower on the priority list than our infrastructure that we

2:06:46 ↗ really need right now. And I still haven't seen anybody address the PFAS capital budget

2:06:50 ↗ that we need from that system. I've sent in, it's been over a month ago

2:06:54 ↗ and I've not seen that come up in any meetings. So there's other projects that

2:06:59 ↗ we know we're going to have to do and I haven't seen it on a

2:07:03 ↗ line item and anybody address it. So I'm really concerned about. Yeah, we maybe need

2:07:09 ↗ to approve this tonight, but where are all the other spendings

2:07:15 ↗ that we have to do or capital infrastructure that we have

2:07:20 ↗ to do and haven't done and identified? Thank you. Anyone else

2:07:26 ↗ desiring to speak? Anyone else? Third and final call. Seeing no

2:07:32 ↗ one then, the public hearing is closed at 9:08. This is

2:07:38 ↗ coming back from Services and Safety, TOLA. Yes, thank you Mr.

2:07:44 ↗ Mayor. I move to adopt ordinance number 2798 amending the 2017 budget

2:07:49 ↗ as set forth in ordinance number 2791 and amended in ordinance number

2:07:55 ↗ 2795 concerning revenues, expenditures, and fund balance for various funds for the

2:08:00 ↗ year 2017 and authorizing the finance director to make the necessary adjustments

2:08:06 ↗ and approving prior expenditures. Second. Moved and seconded. Questions or discussion?

2:08:14 ↗ Seeing none, all those in favor of adopting

2:08:20 ↗ ordinance number 2798 signify by saying aye. Aye.

2:08:25 ↗ Opposed? That carries unanimously. Moving now to our

2:08:31 ↗ next public hearing. This public hearing is for

2:08:37 ↗ the ninth major amendment to the Issaquah Highlands

2:08:42 ↗ two-party development agreement and first amendment to the

2:08:48 ↗ WSDOT Park Point TDR Development Agreement. Keith

2:08:54 ↗ Niven, Director of Development Services Division and

2:09:00 ↗ Economic Development will be making a presentation

2:09:05 ↗ on both of those agenda items. So

2:09:11 ↗ Keith, welcome. Thank you Mr. Mayor, City Council, Keith Niven, Development Services and

2:09:17 ↗ Economic Development. So this evening we have two different agenda bills but they're connected so

2:09:22 ↗ we're going to talk about them together. It's a public hearing for both so I'm

2:09:26 ↗ going to do a quick presentation and then we'll allow for any public comment that

2:09:31 ↗ there might be. So I wanted to kind of go through the conversations. These agenda

2:09:37 ↗ bills have been in process for quite some time. And so kind of giving kind

2:09:43 ↗ of the structure for what we're talking about tonight, I think would be helpful for

2:09:48 ↗ those who haven't been following it quite so closely. So Polygon Northwest, who's the applicant,

2:09:54 ↗ purchased 100 transfer development rights, TDRs that were left over from Park Point. So

2:10:00 ↗ the city made a concerted effort to preserve property on Tiger Mountain that was

2:10:06 ↗ called Park Point. And from that, we then transferred the development rights to other

2:10:12 ↗ places within the city. And these 100 TDRs are the final pieces of that

2:10:18 ↗ land preservation project. Polygon asked the city, once they purchased the TDRs, to allow those

2:10:24 ↗ TDRs to be located in Issaquah Highlands on property that they own. That action,

2:10:30 ↗ per the development agreement for Issaquah Highlands, requires council action and council approval. And that's

2:10:35 ↗ really why we're here this evening, is to see if the council will support that

2:10:40 ↗ request. So the city reviewed the impacts of those additional units and determined that they

2:10:45 ↗ can be accommodated by the existing infrastructure. That was the first hurdle to get over.

2:10:51 ↗ Once we cleared that hurdle, the second conversation, the second part of the conversation was

2:10:56 ↗ about whether or not there would be any affordable housing that would come with these

2:11:02 ↗ additional housing units that would go into the Highlands. And Polygon Northwest, the applicant agreed

2:11:08 ↗ that they would provide some affordable housing. And so that's really where we started having

2:11:13 ↗ conversations about what would be the right amount and level of affordability should those units

2:11:19 ↗ be. And so tonight I'm here to kind of mostly walk through those two

2:11:25 ↗ proposals. There's two proposals that were discussed fairly at length at committee. So

2:11:30 ↗ proposal number one is Polygon would build 38 affordable housing units and a group

2:11:36 ↗ home in Westridge. And Westridge, I'm going to find my mouse here, there we

2:11:42 ↗ go. So Westridge is this neighborhood right here. Ninth Avenue sits right here. That's

2:11:48 ↗ the Safeway. Swedish Hospital sits here. This subdivision is under construction right now. And

2:11:54 ↗ so this is the property that they own, which is the Westridge neighborhood. And this,

2:11:59 ↗ and it does show up good. So this blue area right here is the area

2:12:05 ↗ that they have proposed to put those 39 affordable housing units. So when you

2:12:10 ↗ break out those affordable housing units, 14 of them would be at

2:12:16 ↗ 80%. And AMI stands for area median income. 17 would be at

2:12:22 ↗ 100%, 7 would be at 120%, and 1 would be at 80%.

2:12:28 ↗ So that's the construct of the 39 units under proposal number one.

2:12:34 ↗ So because these taking out this land which they had intended for

2:12:40 ↗ market rate units. would take some land away from the builder. They had actually proposed

2:12:45 ↗ then to move the units that would have been here and there were 11 single

2:12:51 ↗ family homes that were originally planned for this area. Those would then be placed on

2:12:56 ↗ property that the city owns called Parcel D and that would be in exchange for

2:13:01 ↗ the value of all this affordable housing that would come with it. So there's quid

2:13:06 ↗ pro quo there. And that is summary of proposal one proposal to basically the the

2:13:12 ↗ council committee said well let's you know parcel D and putting that into the mix

2:13:18 ↗ makes things fairly confusing and so and complicated and so what would a proposal look

2:13:24 ↗ like if we took partial D off the table and the city retained partial D.

2:13:31 ↗ until it decided what it wanted to do with that property. And so what Polygon

2:13:36 ↗ offered as a second proposal was to put 10 affordable housing units units in what

2:13:42 ↗ they're calling Westridge North, which is this blue area right here, which was

2:13:48 ↗ a townhouse project that they're currently working on. It was originally slated for

2:13:54 ↗ 100 units. And so under this proposal, they would bump that number up

2:14:00 ↗ to 110 and the additional 10 units they proposed at 60 percent AMI

2:14:06 ↗ for the affordability level of those 10 units. So Here we've got

2:14:12 ↗ two proposals. They're both good. You know, it's it's we're going to get some

2:14:17 ↗ affordable housing, maybe more at different varying levels, or we can get maybe less

2:14:23 ↗ at a lower level and not include a city on piece of property. So

2:14:29 ↗ There's not a bad choice. I think there's two good choices and I think the

2:14:34 ↗ council will probably have some comments over which one of these two proposals might seem

2:14:40 ↗ like a better option ultimately. So when we get to a motion, and I've kind

2:14:45 ↗ of put these together, because the agenda bills, the motions are actually connected. So depending

2:14:50 ↗ on which proposal you want, we'll need to then go back through this and figure

2:14:56 ↗ out which of these two motions we want to make at the end,

2:15:01 ↗ assuming that you guys want to make a motion. So with that, I'm

2:15:07 ↗ going to go ahead and stop. And if you have any questions before

2:15:13 ↗ I leave. Stacy. Thanks. And there's at the committee level and in the

2:15:19 ↗ materials, there was information about the value of parcel D. Yes. So yes.

2:15:24 ↗ So this is an excerpt from a memo. One of the questions that

2:15:30 ↗ was asked was, what's the value of parcel D and parcel D is approximately

2:15:36 ↗ 1.1 acres of land. It's relatively flat for Izaquah standards and so what we

2:15:42 ↗ did was we basically looked at some comps that are in the market right

2:15:47 ↗ now. So some are for sale, some we contacted some builders who we have

2:15:53 ↗ relationships with to see what they were paying for raw land and so The

2:15:59 ↗ summary is basically, you know, the range here, which is listed at the

2:16:05 ↗ bottom. You know, it's basically, you know, it can be anywhere up to

2:16:10 ↗ like 1.7 million per acre for raw land. But generally the median on

2:16:16 ↗ this sample that we proposed was a million dollars an acre. So that

2:16:22 ↗ would make the value of parcel D somewhere around 1.1 million dollars.

2:16:34 ↗ Other questions of Keith at this time? This is coming back from

2:16:39 ↗ Land and Shore. I have a question actually. Is that okay for

2:16:45 ↗ a question? Call for questions. So Keith, just back in the city's

2:16:51 ↗ history then, so we're talking about a $1.65 million parcel. Before you,

2:16:56 ↗ city land as part of one of these deals, or is this

2:17:02 ↗ the first time we're putting city land on the table? We almost

2:17:08 ↗ always put city land on the table. So we put city-- we own the

2:17:13 ↗ property that the Y is on and that Z home was on. And it

2:17:19 ↗ actually has affordable housing. It's one of the 10 units of Z home. We negotiated

2:17:25 ↗ in talus for a buy down on the property where rosecrest sits so

2:17:31 ↗ typically we've negotiated a discount on the land that's part of the way

2:17:37 ↗ you get to the affordability piece. besides putting money into kind of

2:17:42 ↗ the development to help bring the price down. So it's usually

2:17:48 ↗ a land and money beyond that, depending on the level of

2:17:54 ↗ affordability. So sometimes When the the rental for rental at like

2:17:59 ↗ 80%, typically there's not much that needs to go into that to achieve

2:18:05 ↗ that that's that's closer to market to start with. But when you get

2:18:11 ↗ ownership at 80% so all of these things. Because we're talking ownership on

2:18:17 ↗ either of these two proposals, it's really a rare thing to get from

2:18:23 ↗ an affordability standpoint. We did achieve that with a habitat project up in

2:18:28 ↗ the Highlands and with some condo projects that D.R. Horton built up in

2:18:34 ↗ the Highlands, but there's really not many. And a second question.

2:18:40 ↗ Did the city consider or go out for proposals for track D with any of

2:18:45 ↗ the housing groups or nonprofits that are out there? We have not yet. So part

2:18:50 ↗ of it is, you know, we need to make a decision about what we want

2:18:56 ↗ to get there. If it's to go test the market, without any additional public subsidies

2:19:02 ↗ with just the land, that will get us one set of proposals,

2:19:07 ↗ right? If on the other hand, we want to get something that

2:19:13 ↗ is similar to a habitat project, which is more at 50% AMI,

2:19:19 ↗ information that we got through this conversation showed that there was approximately

2:19:24 ↗ $70,000 from ARCH that helped get that affordability down to that 50% per unit.

2:19:30 ↗ So if we wanted to get say that lower level of affordability, then we would

2:19:36 ↗ have to make a decision to also put some, get some cash to put in

2:19:41 ↗ with the land. - From the city or from other sources? Just to make the

2:19:46 ↗ deal work. - Either or, right? So either the city separately or from ARCH. -

2:19:52 ↗ Okay, thanks. - Paul followed by Mariah. Keith, the map you're

2:19:57 ↗ showing here, you've got it color coded where the -- this is proposal 1

2:20:03 ↗ with the 38 plus 1. Did you go to the next map, proposal 2?

2:20:09 ↗ So where are you showing the 110 units? That parcel is not included in

2:20:15 ↗ the first map. Right. So what happens is, um, so under

2:20:20 ↗ proposal one, this area of yellow, um, that represents those 11 homes that

2:20:26 ↗ polygon has said, if we put affordable housing there, they would like to

2:20:32 ↗ move those units up to parcel D. Under this proposal, then that strip

2:20:38 ↗ of land reverts back to being those single those 11 single family homes. And

2:20:43 ↗ what they've done is the density on this townhouse project gets a little denser

2:20:49 ↗ to get those additional 10 units into the same footprint as the other. Could

2:20:55 ↗ you go back one slide? So proposal one does not

2:21:01 ↗ include the development of that where the 110 units are in

2:21:06 ↗ proposal two? So proposal one is just putting affordable units here.

2:21:12 ↗ There will still be 100 market rate units here.

2:21:18 ↗ Okay, so your diagram, it's not just the color-coded areas

2:21:24 ↗ that are being developed. No. It's the yellow, the blue,

2:21:29 ↗ and the grids. Thank you, yes. Sorry for the lack

2:21:35 ↗ of legend. Thank you. Mariah? So with proposal number one,

2:21:40 ↗ the affordable units, they are all together, clustered together, and

2:21:46 ↗ do they share, are they part of a larger group

2:21:52 ↗ area or do they share amenities? Are they completely separated? I

2:21:58 ↗ just wanted to know more about Blue area on the affordable

2:22:04 ↗ units. Absolutely. So so, you know this this area here this block Is part

2:22:10 ↗ of a neighborhood. It's all part of Issaquah Highlands. They will all be part

2:22:15 ↗ of the Issaquah Highlands Community Association At least that's my understanding and so, you

2:22:21 ↗ know, they they share by being part of that HOA they then share the

2:22:27 ↗ amenities across the whole urban village and So so it is it is it will

2:22:33 ↗ have its own identity. So it will be a stacked flat building and except for

2:22:38 ↗ the Leo House, which will be Leo House next to a stacked flat building in

2:22:44 ↗ this neighborhood. But it's really, you know, the whole goal of intermixing affordable housing within

2:22:49 ↗ Issaquah Highlands. is that they are in a neighborhood surrounded by market rate units,

2:22:55 ↗ and their kids will play with the kids across the street, and that's the

2:23:01 ↗ intent. And we've done that elsewhere in the Highlands. You know, Lauren Heights is

2:23:07 ↗ a great example on 24th. which is basically has market rate units

2:23:12 ↗ all the way around it. But it's a 50 unit affordable housing

2:23:18 ↗ project that us and Arch helped put together with shelter resources. So

2:23:24 ↗ I don't know if I answered your question. Okay, awesome. Stacey? Heath,

2:23:30 ↗ can you clarify that you said the city almost always gives land

2:23:35 ↗ as, donates land as part of, development that has

2:23:41 ↗ affordable you can you list those? Um so the so

2:23:47 ↗ it's either so the city is either giving land or has

2:23:52 ↗ negotiated the rights to those projects as part of a development agreement. So, for example,

2:23:58 ↗ with the Highlands and Talas, there was an obligation for a certain number of units

2:24:04 ↗ to be at a certain AMI. Okay. And so as part of that, we negotiated

2:24:10 ↗ that as one of the community benefits that we get out of the development agreement

2:24:16 ↗ and in exchange, the developers got higher densities or other things for that. So the

2:24:22 ↗ city, we are not always the landowner in the case of the why we were.

2:24:28 ↗ We actually negotiated that piece of property from Port Blakely communities. But for

2:24:34 ↗ most of the other times, we're negotiating some other

2:24:40 ↗ development benefit to get that affordable housing in at

2:24:46 ↗ a lower level than it otherwise might come in

2:24:52 ↗ at. Okay, thanks. Other questions? So this is coming

2:24:58 ↗ back from Land and Shore. Stacy? Yes. It's

2:25:03 ↗ coming back from your committee. It is. I wasn't at the committee last

2:25:09 ↗ time that I was at that committee. So, um, and, um, so the

2:25:15 ↗ recommendation that's in the packet, um, the, the recommendation that came from Land

2:25:21 ↗ and Shore two to one, um, is not one that I'm going to

2:25:26 ↗ be supporting. So I won't actually make that motion.

2:25:32 ↗ You didn't hear it? No. So I wasn't at Land and Shore the last time

2:25:37 ↗ that this, so I was at the last Land and Shore meeting, which is a

2:25:41 ↗ special meeting, the time before when the Polygon's proposal was before Land and Shore and

2:25:46 ↗ the recommendation came out of the committee without me there as a two to one

2:25:51 ↗ support. I actually don't support that recommendation, so I'm not gonna make the motion. If

2:25:56 ↗ somebody else wants to make a motion. I have a question. We haven't held a

2:26:01 ↗ public hearing yet. Oh, sorry. There we go. We're going to need to make a

2:26:07 ↗ motion. So if there are no additional questions, we'll open the public-- I'm sorry. I

2:26:12 ↗ have one. Oh, go ahead. Keith, can you help me? Sorry. I thought I snuck

2:26:18 ↗ away. One last question. Can you help me just with the math? What's bigger, 39

2:26:23 ↗ or 10? I believe I can answer that one. So I want to

2:26:29 ↗ be clear. So 39 seems bigger than 10 by a lot. But I

2:26:35 ↗ want to be clear that If we go with the 10, at some

2:26:41 ↗ point we can dial up another project on parcel D. And there was a sketch

2:26:46 ↗ that I provided to the committee for consideration. So just to see land capacity, given

2:26:52 ↗ the fact that basically all of this is single family housing. So doing a four-story

2:26:58 ↗ apartment building on top of parking garage seemed like that was probably not going to

2:27:04 ↗ make us a lot of friends so what I looked at was what about duplexes

2:27:09 ↗ so these this is about the intensity of the habitat proposal so under a land

2:27:15 ↗ plan like this maybe another 14 can come out of that so so maybe it's

2:27:20 ↗ 24 to 39 but it still seems like 39 is more thank you

2:27:28 ↗ And then just one more. If an area like the 39 is stacked flat, you're

2:27:33 ↗ talking about affordable housing units. So I assume when we get an agreement like that

2:27:38 ↗ with a developer that we use ARCH or one of those that work for us

2:27:43 ↗ to assure that those units would be, you know, well built up to the standard

2:27:48 ↗ of everything else and not look like affordable housing units and that kind of nature.

2:27:52 ↗ So it's It's not, right? So I'm assuming that. I'm assuming that too. Would

2:27:58 ↗ you like to hear from Arthur Sullivan? He is here if you would like some.

2:28:04 ↗ Sure. Arthur, are you hiding around the corner? This is my trick to get away.

2:28:09 ↗ Did you hear Council Member Ramos' question? Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. To

2:28:15 ↗ your question about how these are monitored. Would you introduce yourself, Arthur? We all know

2:28:20 ↗ who you are. I'm sorry, Arthur Sullivan, program manager. You're on TV also. Okay, Arthur

2:28:25 ↗ Sullivan, program manager of ARCH. I would comment that the city has been using ARCH

2:28:30 ↗ for 20 plus years to administer all the affordable housing programs in your city, both

2:28:34 ↗ through funding as well as through land use provisions. Up in Issaquah Highlands, you have

2:28:39 ↗ design guidelines that need to be followed by any development. In addition to the properties

2:28:44 ↗ that Keith mentioned, there are several ownership projects that have been built by market rate

2:28:48 ↗ builders that have a very large portion of their units as affordable units, and I'm

2:28:53 ↗ not sure you would be able to tell the difference unless someone pointed them out

2:28:58 ↗ to you. And then we'll be there to enforce the affordability provisions and resales and

2:29:03 ↗ going into the future to income-qualified buyers. Thank you.

2:29:09 ↗ Additional questions of Keith or Arthur? Seeing none then, I'll open

2:29:15 ↗ the public hearing at 9:29 and ask if anyone has signed

2:29:21 ↗ up to speak. The individual who signed up to speak spoke

2:29:27 ↗ under audience comments. So we actually had

2:29:32 ↗ two individuals that spoke to this topic

2:29:38 ↗ under audience comments, which indeed is permissible

2:29:43 ↗ because you can speak at any topic

2:29:49 ↗ under audience comments. Anyone desiring to speak

2:29:55 ↗ this evening? Yes. Elizabeth? Elizabeth Mopin, 100

2:30:00 ↗ Big Bear Place, Northwest. I don't

2:30:06 ↗ see 120% of area median income or 100% as

2:30:12 ↗ being really affordable housing. I'm not sure what definition

2:30:18 ↗ we're using here. And even 80% doesn't happen to

2:30:23 ↗ be in the area where we have the greatest

2:30:29 ↗ need. The greatest need, the area where we

2:30:35 ↗ have one house for every four people needing

2:30:40 ↗ housing in that category is between 60% and

2:30:46 ↗ the bottom. So keep that in mind as

2:30:51 ↗ you're balancing how much affordable housing you're getting.

2:30:56 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Anyone else desiring

2:31:02 ↗ to speak? Yes. Justin. uh thank

2:31:08 ↗ you mayor butler again for the record justin walsh 2196 scheiber and council candidate for

2:31:13 ↗ position three i'm happy to see the integration of affordable housing within the neighborhood i

2:31:19 ↗ think that goes a long way to reducing the cycle of poverty my question is

2:31:24 ↗ more designed to keith and a consideration for council is whether there were any options

2:31:30 ↗ considered that would provide both 60 percent ami along with the leo house um i

2:31:35 ↗ i think you know i echo the concern that we really need to make affordable

2:31:40 ↗ housing units affordable not just to those that can hit 100 or 120 percent of

2:31:45 ↗ ami i also have a question as to what the financial breakdown is between the

2:31:50 ↗ two options i.e the dollar value of what we're getting versus what we're giving up

2:31:55 ↗ in the parcels i don't think that's been adequately addressed with those two things i'll

2:31:59 ↗ leave that for council to consider thank you Thank you. Connie,

2:32:05 ↗ I see you slipping around the corner. Nobody

2:32:10 ↗ was in the way this time. Connie Marsh

2:32:16 ↗ again, Squawk Mountain. The pot is not sweet

2:32:21 ↗ enough yet. It is close. Without taking parcel

2:32:27 ↗ D, they would go for 14 at 60%

2:32:32 ↗ in a Leo style house. If

2:32:38 ↗ you include parcel D, you need to have, say,

2:32:44 ↗ 80% of the affordable housing, 80% and under, and

2:32:50 ↗ 20% 60 and under, because you have too high

2:32:55 ↗ of affordable housing, I don't know, value in there.

2:33:01 ↗ So we need more affordable housing for lower incomes.

2:33:07 ↗ on either of those. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Anyone else, uh, desiring to speak? David.

2:33:13 ↗ David Kepler, 255 Southeast Andrews. I wasn't going to speak, but I think Connie's suggestion

2:33:19 ↗ makes a lot of sense. It seems like there's room for that, um, in the,

2:33:25 ↗ uh, the western parcels because they were going to do more than that before. But,

2:33:30 ↗ uh, Leo House is important and I think a few more of the 60% would

2:33:36 ↗ be justified. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else desiring to

2:33:42 ↗ speak? Yes please. My name is Julie Adamek and I live

2:33:48 ↗ at Laurin Heights Apartments up in the Highlands at 1667 24th

2:33:53 ↗ Place NE. And I've been working for the school district for about five years

2:33:59 ↗ and I would love to be able to buy a home up in the Highlands.

2:34:05 ↗ And I'm just here to say I would love to see more of the 60%

2:34:10 ↗ rather than the higher numbers because I, like I said, I work for the district.

2:34:16 ↗ I am not a teacher. I'm like a teacher's aide, but I do know many

2:34:22 ↗ teachers who can't even afford to live in the east side, Issaquah, Bellevue. So I'm

2:34:27 ↗ just here to support more of the more affordable. And also I'm curious, I read

2:34:33 ↗ in an article somewhere that the HOA dues on these would be the same as

2:34:38 ↗ all the other homes in the Highlands, which is $340 a month. I

2:34:44 ↗ would love to see those HOA dues a little bit lower than that, if

2:34:50 ↗ possible, to make it even more affordable. But I would just be grateful to

2:34:56 ↗ see more. And if it can't be lower, I'm just grateful to see that

2:35:02 ↗ they're even considering putting in the affordable units to buy. Thank you. Thank you,

2:35:08 ↗ Julie. Anyone else this evening? Yes, sir. Good evening, Council, Mayor. Nick Abdel-Nor, Polygon

2:35:14 ↗ Northwest. You can get a sense in just 10 minutes, there's-- A

2:35:19 ↗ lot of pieces, a lot of opinions. I'd like to say that working with the

2:35:24 ↗ administration Land and Shore Committee for the last nine months, We have earnestly tried to

2:35:30 ↗ put our best foot forward and tried to address everyone's needs, objectives. We

2:35:36 ↗ provided three options in total, just so we're all on the same page.

2:35:41 ↗ There was one that included building on parcel 39 and then also track

2:35:47 ↗ D and we provided a third option for you. We're here this evening

2:35:53 ↗ for your consideration, ultimately a decision this evening. hopefully from the

2:35:59 ↗ full council to move this forward and also

2:36:04 ↗ to fulfill the TDRs that are originally from

2:36:10 ↗ Park Point. So here for any questions as

2:36:16 ↗ well in addition to Keith. Thank you. Thank

2:36:21 ↗ you. Anyone else desiring to speak? Geraldine. Geraldine

2:36:27 ↗ Carey, 955 17th Avenue, Northwest Issaquah.

2:36:33 ↗ I guess I agree with the people who say 60%, although I don't know

2:36:39 ↗ what that means because years ago we bought our house for $62,000. And I

2:36:45 ↗ can't imagine people trying to move here who have to pay 400, 500, 600,

2:36:50 ↗ $700,000 for a place to live. I want to know why you can't build

2:36:56 ↗ affordable housing that has less in it so that people who want to live here,

2:37:02 ↗ who work here, can live in it. I mean, to me, I just don't get

2:37:07 ↗ it. I think the builders ought to take into consideration that a lot of people

2:37:12 ↗ can't afford $300,000 because they don't have the income. And I think that this city

2:37:18 ↗ needs to start saying to the developers, you need to lower the cost of your

2:37:23 ↗ building costs. developments because it's just outrageous. You know,

2:37:28 ↗ I mean, I, I think it's a shame that

2:37:34 ↗ you, the developers think that $600,000 is affordable. I

2:37:39 ↗ mean, it's, to me, it's just, it's a crime.

2:37:45 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one

2:37:50 ↗ else, this public hearing is closed at 9:38 and

2:37:55 ↗ with that,

2:38:07 ↗ Additional questions of Keith? What is your pleasure?

2:38:13 ↗ Keith, what you put up there is different

2:38:18 ↗ than what I see in the packet. So

2:38:24 ↗ this is the motion that's connected between the

2:38:29 ↗ two agenda bills, not the two different alternatives

2:38:35 ↗ within each agenda bill. So there's actually a

2:38:40 ↗ pair in each agenda bill that covers both

2:38:46 ↗ proposals. So hopefully it's the same if you pieced them

2:38:52 ↗ together from the two agenda bills. I see. Which is why

2:38:58 ↗ I did this because it's not very easy to make a

2:39:03 ↗ motion that covers both pieces. Okay. So this one, so just

2:39:09 ↗ to be clear, this one, proposal one is the 39 and

2:39:15 ↗ parcel D. Motion, or proposal two is the 10 units and

2:39:21 ↗ no parcel D. Understood.

2:39:27 ↗ And because we really only take action on one motion at a

2:39:32 ↗ time, even though you've got two within the proposal, we're going to

2:39:38 ↗ be addressing one at a time, I assume, as a matter of

2:39:44 ↗ point of order. Okay. I think that's really the appropriate way to

2:39:50 ↗ do it. Okay. Okay. So I'm going to make -- I'd like

2:39:55 ↗ to make a motion. I'd like to approve resolution 2017-08. Exhibit

2:40:01 ↗ D-1.1, approving the ninth major amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement to

2:40:07 ↗ conditionally allow 100 TDRs to be constructed in Issaquah Highlands with 38 affordable

2:40:13 ↗ units plus one group home with the city conveying Tract D to Polygon

2:40:19 ↗ Northwest. Second. Moved and seconded. Discussion? Mary Lou. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

2:40:25 ↗ In Land and Shore Committee I was the dissenting vote on this and so I

2:40:29 ↗ wanted to just kind of jump in with some general comments maybe to start the

2:40:34 ↗ discussion off. In looking at this proposal and in looking at the second option that

2:40:39 ↗ was prevented I really wanted to make sure that we were in line with what

2:40:44 ↗ our comp plan said in terms of affordable housing and the intent that was shown

2:40:49 ↗ in the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement. And the issues that I just could not overcome

2:40:55 ↗ with this proposal in the current motion was that I really believe that the city

2:41:01 ↗ and its citizens and its residents want to see integrated, not separated, affordable housing. And

2:41:07 ↗ this option creates two buildings or one or two buildings of affordable housing in one

2:41:13 ↗ area And the other option, which we're not considering right now, integrated 10

2:41:19 ↗ units at 60% AMI throughout the buildings. And so I just don't think

2:41:24 ↗ that this current proposal does that. Our comp plan also talks about up

2:41:30 ↗ zones, and it's In reading that language, it says that the council can consider requiring

2:41:36 ↗ it within the up zone. It doesn't say in addition to the up zone. It

2:41:41 ↗ really states in the up zone. And so for me to say, Yes, it's okay

2:41:47 ↗ to up zone by 100 TDRs and we'll get affordable housing by up zoning the

2:41:51 ↗ up zone. That just doesn't meet what the intent of our comp plan is at

2:41:56 ↗ all. I agree with some of the comments that I heard here earlier from citizens

2:42:00 ↗ that it should be in the requirements for the development and it's not in addition

2:42:05 ↗ to it. There is already a 10% requirement in the urban core of the central

2:42:10 ↗ Issaquah plan, and there was a 30% requirement in the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement. To

2:42:15 ↗ me, within the 100 TDRs, the range of what should be affordable is between 10

2:42:21 ↗ and 30%. So the other option that we're not considering, to me, is the low

2:42:26 ↗ bar that we would go for, because that is currently what we have. But Issaquah

2:42:31 ↗ Highlands Development Agreement said 30%. I'm really stuck on the city contribution and the

2:42:37 ↗ 1.65 million dollar parcel. Just doing a little bit of simple math, it shows that

2:42:42 ↗ for each of those units we would be getting in the up zone to the

2:42:48 ↗ up zone, we're contributing $47,000. We are not getting it at our greatest need. We

2:42:53 ↗ are getting it at 80, 100, 120, which also you could argue is a need.

2:42:58 ↗ There is a chart that was included in the agenda bill. I'm not sure if

2:43:03 ↗ Arch prepared it or staff prepared it, but it showed where our need is and

2:43:08 ↗ it's at 30 and 60, just like it was stated tonight. And so if we're

2:43:13 ↗ really going to tackle this problem, if we're really going to build a balanced housing

2:43:18 ↗ stock, we need to remember that when we're looking at what these proposals are. I

2:43:23 ↗ support the second proposal, which was 10 units at 60% AMI. This is a needed

2:43:28 ↗ category in a housing stock that is really hard to get, and it's integrated. The

2:43:34 ↗ one thing I would ask is that we have a builder who has been successful

2:43:39 ↗ in town with his projects and also with partnering with the city and community groups.

2:43:43 ↗ i would ask that maybe consideration in the second proposal if the council decides to

2:43:48 ↗ go that way we have the land and we have a good builder if there

2:43:53 ↗ is a way to partner with an organization and polygon and the city to construct

2:43:58 ↗ at least one group family home on track d and allow the city to retain

2:44:03 ↗ ownership and go out for proposals on the rest i think that would be a

2:44:08 ↗ a better deal than either of the ones we're looking at and I think

2:44:14 ↗ it would meet what we're trying to achieve in our comp plan and in

2:44:20 ↗ other policy language that we have in the city. So that's where my head

2:44:25 ↗ is right now. Thank you. So this is I think a tough one because

2:44:31 ↗ as you already heard earlier, the little preview, I won't support the motion, but

2:44:37 ↗ it's not because I -- have an issue with affordable housing or a Leo

2:44:43 ↗ house. I mean, we need affordable housing. We need it badly and we need more

2:44:48 ↗ Leo houses, more accommodations like Leo houses. And those are fantastic accommodations. I've got both

2:44:54 ↗ affordable housing units and a Leo house just one block from my house. And I'm

2:45:00 ↗ thrilled that we're all neighbors. I have three reasons that I have an

2:45:06 ↗ issue with this, however. The first one is one of the things that Mary

2:45:12 ↗ Lou mentioned, and that is the subsidy that's in the form of the parcel

2:45:18 ↗ D, track D. And it's not just land, it's a subsidy. And

2:45:24 ↗ it's, as you heard, depending on how many units there are,

2:45:30 ↗ is something over $40,000 subsidy per unit. And this is new

2:45:35 ↗ for us, as you've heard tonight from Arthur and also from

2:45:41 ↗ Keith, that maybe there's one property that the city has donated

2:45:47 ↗ the land And I'm not sure exactly how that happened if

2:45:53 ↗ we negotiated it from Port Blakely. But the rest of the affordable

2:45:58 ↗ housing that we've gotten in Issaquah has been through other partnerships with

2:46:04 ↗ ARCH. I think this would create a very, very concerning policy if

2:46:10 ↗ we decided that we were going to subsidize each unit of affordable

2:46:16 ↗ housing by over $40,000. if not thousands more affordable housing units

2:46:21 ↗ in Issaquah. And if that was our policy, 500 units subsidizing

2:46:27 ↗ at what I calculated was $43,000 a unit, that's $21.5 million.

2:46:33 ↗ That's not sustainable. And I'm very concerned about setting precedent that

2:46:39 ↗ we are going to subsidize affordable housing units directly from the

2:46:45 ↗ city of Issaquah by that much. That would be the standard

2:46:51 ↗ and that's very concerning to me. The second concern I have is

2:46:56 ↗ that the WSDOT agreement specifically says we're supposed to be marketing this

2:47:02 ↗ land. That's the contract that we signed with WSDOT and we haven't.

2:47:08 ↗ And also of a but a little bit lower of a concern is that increasing

2:47:13 ↗ the density in the highlands, that's not where we have said that we want to

2:47:17 ↗ increase the density. So we would be adding many more units in an area which

2:47:21 ↗ is not where we've said that we want the density. I don't have an issue

2:47:26 ↗ with the 100 TDRs. I think that is the final part of a deal, a

2:47:30 ↗ very good deal that we made years and years and years ago. I don't have

2:47:34 ↗ an issue with that. I would support the second one,

2:47:40 ↗ the 10 affordable housing units at 60%, but

2:47:45 ↗ I would also like to see a Leo

2:47:51 ↗ House included in some fashion. Thank you, Mr.

2:47:56 ↗ Mayor. this has been on a very interesting journey

2:48:02 ↗ back in january nobody wanted the 100 tdrs so it's a pretty

2:48:08 ↗ big step for us now to be talking about the difference between

2:48:13 ↗ 39 or 38 single family homes for sale plus the group home

2:48:19 ↗ the leo home versus potentially 10 and then maybe 14. And so

2:48:25 ↗ I actually enjoy this conversation because we're, and though there are different levels of affordability,

2:48:31 ↗ we all know, we've heard 60, we know about 80, 100 and 120. There is

2:48:36 ↗ need across the entire spectrum. There's no doubt about that. and and uh for

2:48:42 ↗ uh for me to come forward initially in in favor of this option to get

2:48:48 ↗ the uh 39 units really was uh that numbers game that that that the the

2:48:53 ↗ 39 as as um my uh Councilmember colleague to my left, you know asked about

2:48:59 ↗ that question which is larger 39 or 10 I mean the point being that we

2:49:05 ↗ are we now that we Seem to generally accept that the hundred additional TDR units

2:49:11 ↗ do fit In terms of in the highlands in terms of their their impact Is

2:49:17 ↗ can be handled by the infrastructure. There's a few minor changes Regarded to transportation now

2:49:22 ↗ that we've accepted that and the question comes down to is there are there

2:49:28 ↗ terms for 39 units or 10 units and I did find compelling we haven't talked

2:49:34 ↗ too much this evening yet about the financial analysis done by by Arthur from Arch

2:49:40 ↗ regarding the we saw the number up here Keith you put it up there your

2:49:45 ↗ own assessment came up with the value of of that land of parcel D

2:49:51 ↗ or track D, whichever we want to call it, as around $1.65 million. I don't

2:49:57 ↗ know that you put up there as well also the assessment of the public benefit

2:50:03 ↗ for the additional nine, the additional affordable homes. that Arthur had done. I don't know

2:50:08 ↗ if you have that information. I just wanted to be very clear that part of

2:50:13 ↗ my own assessment was that there was a, okay, so you have it. You haven't

2:50:18 ↗ worked out the numbers there. It's not accumulated here. So when we talked about this

2:50:23 ↗ committee, remember we were just talking about the delta of nine units. And did the

2:50:28 ↗ nine units work out to be an adequate swap for the land? But now that

2:50:33 ↗ we're talking about, it's not it's not 39 or nine its 39 or 10

2:50:39 ↗ so now you could look at all these and do the math to figure out

2:50:45 ↗ okay so so for those who are unfamiliar with how this works because these are

2:50:50 ↗ for sale units You know, a for sale unit at 80% AMI, that's $180,000

2:50:56 ↗ below what that market rate unit would sell for. So if you look at

2:51:02 ↗ that and say, okay, that's value that somebody who can't afford that unit can

2:51:08 ↗ now afford that unit because it's discounted substantially below what market offers. None of

2:51:14 ↗ these homes would be affordable for the people that are moving in them if

2:51:19 ↗ they get built. So these are satisfying a need for people looking to live in

2:51:25 ↗ this community that cannot afford these units at market. Okay so thank

2:51:31 ↗ you and thanks for that filling that in. The point I was making was that

2:51:36 ↗ there is an analysis of the value of the land versus the public value of

2:51:42 ↗ the affordable units and you'd have to work out the numbers up there but based

2:51:48 ↗ upon what you just said Keith it's some number it's not maybe not

2:51:54 ↗ the full 14 maybe it's 10 at 80 ami at 100 180 000 per um

2:52:00 ↗ that's that's the public value of of those units and then so we can continue

2:52:05 ↗ and and add those numbers up and get a public value so so the idea

2:52:11 ↗ uh so that was part of the that's part of my assessment as well

2:52:17 ↗ is that by including track nine or parcel D, excuse me, parcel D or track

2:52:23 ↗ D as we sometimes call it, that there is a public, there's a demonstrable public

2:52:29 ↗ benefit in terms of the value of the affordable homes. And so that played heavily

2:52:34 ↗ in my mind. The other thing too is that the potential of maybe getting 14

2:52:40 ↗ units on track D if we don't go with this option, There definitely would

2:52:46 ↗ be some required public subsidy to get those done as well. And I've learned over

2:52:52 ↗ the years that when we do have a developer who's willing to do it without

2:52:58 ↗ any additional public monies, then that's a unique opportunity. And the proposals as they are

2:53:03 ↗ shaped, something interesting is happening here this evening as well. It sounds like we're even

2:53:09 ↗ starting to think we can horse trade. We've come this far, there's been so many

2:53:15 ↗ committee meetings and there's been these proposals coming and new ones evolving. And yet here

2:53:20 ↗ at the time we're supposed to take action, we're even now considering, I'm not saying

2:53:26 ↗ that's bad. We're now considering maybe some other terms of maybe getting the group

2:53:32 ↗ home, the LEO home in the second option. I like that conversation

2:53:37 ↗ because the LEO home component was very important to me as well.

2:53:43 ↗ And just like I said in the committee meeting back then, earlier

2:53:49 ↗ in the month, if we could have got in the option B

2:53:55 ↗ that we're considering or what you're calling proposal one, units

2:54:01 ↗ at lower levels of affordability like 60%, it would look even better. But

2:54:06 ↗ the number of 38 plus one and including that plus one being the

2:54:12 ↗ Leo home and believing also that there's a, in the financial analysis that

2:54:18 ↗ shows the value of Track D versus the public value of the affordable

2:54:24 ↗ housing with no additional subsidy. Those are the reasons I'm in support of

2:54:29 ↗ this proposal. - Bill followed by Tola. - Thank you. So it

2:54:35 ↗ sounds like we're all talking a little more than just the item above. We're

2:54:41 ↗ all sharing items. You're sharing across the two proposals. So I'm gonna start at

2:54:46 ↗ my base thought, which is that the 100 TDRs coming in. And so that's

2:54:52 ↗ perfectly good place to start. As itself, it would be, 100 but affordable housing

2:54:58 ↗ would have to be part of that and if you went by the Issaquah Highlands

2:55:03 ↗ thing it would be 30% which I would see that coming in as a 70-30

2:55:07 ↗ 100 units 70 market rate 30 at affordable and that's that's the way I would

2:55:12 ↗ look at it. So what happens after that is that's my baseline okay then we

2:55:16 ↗ start changing the picture a little bit and we start looking at what else we

2:55:21 ↗ can do on top of that okay so that changes the Now you're in a

2:55:26 ↗ negotiation and you're trading things, you're paying for things and you're getting different values and

2:55:32 ↗ it gets complicated when you start doing that. And when you put in track B,

2:55:38 ↗ which is cash value that's that has a cash value to it that is a

2:55:44 ↗ piece of city of isaac wild property and we're saying we're willing to trade that

2:55:48 ↗ for something and we haven't done 100 appraisal on it and so forth we've gotten

2:55:52 ↗ some approximate you know realtor comparisons and so forth but so so we gave it

2:55:57 ↗ a value of 1.6 not the the best way to do things but okay so

2:56:01 ↗ if we start there um and then we look at the two options you know

2:56:06 ↗ and i think neither of them are quite good enough of a deal are we

2:56:11 ↗ getting enough public benefit from either one? And that's the question to us right now

2:56:15 ↗ is it's proposed A or B, you know, which one is better than the other

2:56:19 ↗ one and where is the city and the community getting the best benefit? And I

2:56:23 ↗ think both of them are heading in the right direction, but they're not quite good

2:56:27 ↗ enough because there's a whole lot more units being added here into the mix, right,

2:56:31 ↗ as well as the city property. So as I try and So as I try

2:56:37 ↗ to look at all these things and weigh them, what makes things important? Ownership, different

2:56:42 ↗ than rental. Ownership is a big deal. We don't have a lot of ownership in

2:56:47 ↗ the affordable housing side. So that is a definite benefit to me. Having not to

2:56:52 ↗ work a big deal like Arch does to get affordable units built where they have

2:56:57 ↗ to find the land, find how many different partners they have to put together, different

2:57:01 ↗ grants, different tax credits, all these things that take time and a lot of willing

2:57:06 ↗ partners to make that work. A question I have, how long we been sitting on

2:57:10 ↗ track D and we haven't built the 14 units on there yet? So it's not

2:57:14 ↗ an easy thing to accomplish. It takes a lot of effort and a lot of

2:57:18 ↗ supporting partners. So we're not getting there by ourselves very easy. Here's an advantage of

2:57:23 ↗ someone who would do it now without having to bring in all those other partners

2:57:28 ↗ and so forth. That's an advantage for me as well. And there's other things that

2:57:33 ↗ maybe aren't so great, but I would hesitate to say I would put these two

2:57:39 ↗ together and that would sweeten the pot for me And as someone mentioned, it's over

2:57:44 ↗ $40,000 a unit if you get 39 units of the $1.6 million for track D,

2:57:50 ↗ and you subsidize the 39 units. That's about $40,000 a unit, someone said. If you

2:57:56 ↗ put the two together, which means you do the 39 units as proposed on that

2:58:01 ↗ piece there, you build the 110 on the other piece, so you get 10 at

2:58:07 ↗ 60%. and you get your 38 at 80, 100, 120 plus Leo House. We're supposed

2:58:13 ↗ to get all of this, and then that makes, to me, more sense in that

2:58:18 ↗ trading of parcel track B, and that, to me, comes down to about $34,000 a

2:58:24 ↗ unit of subsidy from the city. Now, I don't know if Arthur could mention this,

2:58:29 ↗ but I don't know how many places you can get affordable housing built for $34,000

2:58:35 ↗ a unit of subsidy with that. So with all that weighed

2:58:41 ↗ and still keeping it as is and trying to keep it simple,

2:58:47 ↗ not too much more complicated, I would like to say let's put

2:58:53 ↗ the two together and require both instead of just one or the

2:58:58 ↗ other. So I want to talk about the difference between affordable housing

2:59:04 ↗ and workforce housing. There's been some talk about what does 80 to

2:59:10 ↗ 120 percent of AMI mean. My understanding is AMI currently is

2:59:16 ↗ about $96,000 for 2017. So to my calculations, and I'm

2:59:22 ↗ but a mechanical engineer, not a realtor, but that looks

2:59:27 ↗ something like between 77 and $115,000 a year, which using

2:59:33 ↗ a reasonable threshold is something like 370 to 560 as

2:59:38 ↗ a price point. There's about 25 pieces of property, well,

2:59:44 ↗ 25 homes for sale currently in the city at that

2:59:50 ↗ price point. So 38 is a non-trivial increase in what's

2:59:56 ↗ currently available on the market. And to my way of

3:00:02 ↗ thinking, that's, a cop and a teacher or a teacher

3:00:08 ↗ and a painter at Boeing, or it's an engineer. That

3:00:13 ↗ to me really feels like workforce housing. It's a conversation

3:00:19 ↗ we've been having for a long time, and you get

3:00:25 ↗ to a point where I I get that there are folks that can't afford

3:00:31 ↗ that 80% point, but I just feel like there's not a lot that's currently available

3:00:36 ↗ in the city for folks where you've got a teacher and a cop or an

3:00:42 ↗ engineer or somebody like that because our price point now on the east side, the

3:00:47 ↗ average house value is $880,000. I mean, when we were talking about Bergsma and we

3:00:52 ↗ were talking about, or when we are talking about the potential for this cluster development,

3:00:58 ↗ we're talking about, well, instead of having houses at 1.5 to 1.8, you might get

3:01:03 ↗ some houses at 1 million. And that's considered a success at market rate. And that

3:01:08 ↗ is the unfortunate reality of where we're living. So for me, getting 39 units at,

3:01:13 ↗ you know, between, let's say, 370 and 560, that's a big deal. that really substantially

3:01:18 ↗ improves the ability of working families to get access to all the things

3:01:24 ↗ that we love about issaquah so that's why i'm going to be supporting

3:01:30 ↗ this bill tonight thank you uh so i would agree with uh paul

3:01:35 ↗ when he talks about this has come a long ways since we first

3:01:41 ↗ started talking about this on on land and shore just in regard to

3:01:46 ↗ the tdrs uh This is a really difficult one

3:01:52 ↗ for me because how strongly I feel about more affordable

3:01:58 ↗ housing coming in, the Leo home, and to Tola's point

3:02:03 ↗ in regard to the workforce housing and the need for

3:02:09 ↗ that. But I am very concerned about Track D and

3:02:15 ↗ the what was talked about in terms of the subsidy or

3:02:20 ↗ potential policy that might be a precedent. So I think that that's something

3:02:26 ↗ that we'll have to look at. But I think that in terms of,

3:02:32 ↗ and also there's been so many great comments like the combination of the

3:02:38 ↗ two which that were feasible, that sounds like a great benefit, but I'm

3:02:44 ↗ going to support this evening because while

3:02:50 ↗ it is complicated and I can see both sides, just

3:02:56 ↗ having that affordable housing and workforce housing is just something

3:03:01 ↗ that we very much need. - Any additional discussion or

3:03:07 ↗ questions? - I guess I'd like to propose an amendment

3:03:13 ↗ if you could put those parts back up there. Can

3:03:19 ↗ we do that? It always proposed an

3:03:25 ↗ amendment. So I would like to combine proposal

3:03:30 ↗ one and proposal two. Or-- So you want

3:03:36 ↗ me to suggest? Sure. You can do that.

3:03:41 ↗ Combine proposal one and proposal two. It's not

3:03:46 ↗ going to let me do it that way.

3:03:52 ↗ So it could read-- Conditionally allowing 100 TDRs to be

3:03:58 ↗ constructed in Issaquah Highlands with 38 affordable units plus one group home with the city

3:04:04 ↗ conveying Track D to Polygon Northwest and an additional 10 units at 60 percent AMI.

3:04:10 ↗ So you're basically adding the 10 on top of the 39, right? Yes. And we

3:04:16 ↗ don't need to state where they are or whatever. So that's going to be in

3:04:22 ↗ a separate agreement. Yeah. Okay. You want me to read this whole thing?

3:04:30 ↗ Legal counsel

3:04:35 ↗ and can

3:04:39 ↗ we do

3:04:44 ↗ this? I

3:04:49 ↗ believe it

3:04:53 ↗ can be

3:04:58 ↗ done. heard the city administrator say we're good so there

3:05:04 ↗ was uh that's what we had a quick conversation there was more uh development rights

3:05:09 ↗ on that track d um than so i wanted to make sure that those 10

3:05:14 ↗ units could be incorporated without you want to speak to that quickly so right now

3:05:19 ↗ doing the math um you've got 39 plus 10 is 49 there's 50 units on

3:05:24 ↗ track d so we think we have one left over right There is an

3:05:30 ↗ amendment proposed. I've not heard a second. Second. I'll second.

3:05:36 ↗ So, Mariah, you came up first. So discussion on the

3:05:41 ↗ amendment. Mary Lou? Thank you. Bill, I like what you're

3:05:47 ↗ doing. And I know you've spoken frequently about we leave

3:05:53 ↗ too much on the table. So I understand why you're

3:05:58 ↗ doing what you're doing. We are currently at about 10 percent affordable housing units

3:06:04 ↗ in the city according to the chart that was in the agenda bill and our

3:06:09 ↗ our aspirational goal is 40 percent. We're not going to get there if we subsidize

3:06:13 ↗ every single one of those units. In order to get to 40 percent now we'd

3:06:18 ↗ have to build six the next 6 000 housing units in town almost two times

3:06:23 ↗ the size of Highlands and we'd have to contribute to it to get there. So

3:06:27 ↗ for me I agree with Councilmember Goodman It's precedent setting. If this city wants to

3:06:33 ↗ change direction and get this housing stock, we're going to have to do it with

3:06:39 ↗ developers, not for developers and not subsidizing developers. So I... I think what you're doing

3:06:44 ↗ is a good idea, but I can't support it because it ought to be coming

3:06:49 ↗ out of the allocation they already have. We shouldn't be paying into this pot. I

3:06:55 ↗ disagree with giving them Track D and I disagree with upzoning and upzone. Both of

3:07:00 ↗ those I'm still stuck on. So I won't be supporting the amendment. Mayor Redekop: Stacey?

3:07:05 ↗ I agree with Mary-Lou. In terms of the subsidy, we have

3:07:11 ↗ talked about the multifamily tax exemption and had one, I

3:07:16 ↗ think, fairly substantive conversation. I can't remember if it was

3:07:22 ↗ land and shore work session, but I think it was

3:07:28 ↗ work session, where I thought it was encouraging because it

3:07:34 ↗ doesn't cost as much as one might intuitively think. And so

3:07:39 ↗ the idea that we would be setting this sort of a precedent

3:07:45 ↗ by subsidizing with land valued at 1.65 million dollars before we finished

3:07:50 ↗ our housing strategy, which includes affordable housing, I just can't support. We

3:07:56 ↗ should be looking at the other ways that we could sweeten

3:08:01 ↗ the pot, make it happen, subsidize in other ways. And

3:08:07 ↗ to me, this just doesn't work. It doesn't, it just

3:08:13 ↗ doesn't pencil out in the long run. Additional discussion on

3:08:19 ↗ the amendment. Paula. So I am generally loath to do

3:08:25 ↗ things quickly at the last minute. And one of the

3:08:31 ↗ questions I have is whether This stated, I mean it's not

3:08:37 ↗ a bad idea. I just I normally like to measure twice and cut once

3:08:42 ↗ and we're sort of cutting and potentially and seeing how it goes and so

3:08:48 ↗ my question would be whether the applicant would Build at our suggestion. This suggestion has

3:08:54 ↗ been made something that we'd like to see. So one of the pieces of information

3:08:59 ↗ that I'd want to know. I mean, it's no good as if we're offering something

3:09:03 ↗ that somebody wouldn't actually build at. So that would help me understand this a little

3:09:08 ↗ bit better. I don't know if I'm ready to vote for it in favor of

3:09:12 ↗ it, but it's certainly a piece of information that is necessary, if not sufficient. Keith.

3:09:18 ↗ I don't even know how you speak to this. This is

3:09:24 ↗ the problem with building the airplane as you were flying the

3:09:30 ↗ airplane through the air, which is not normally how it's done

3:09:36 ↗ for many reasons. So he's checking. Yeah. So if -- so

3:09:41 ↗ this is an if/then. If the council is willing to support

3:09:47 ↗ the proposal 1+2, the applicant is willing to do that as

3:09:53 ↗ an outcome. But there were they want to get an outcome

3:09:59 ↗ tonight, I think is part of it's been I think Councilmember Batiste was on

3:10:05 ↗ Land and Shore when we started this conversation with Polygon. And so it's been

3:10:10 ↗ a while. So I think trying to get conclusion on this tonight is definitely

3:10:16 ↗ a goal for the applicant. That is very helpful. Thank you. So say again

3:10:22 ↗ what you began with. What I began with is

3:10:28 ↗ it's an if-then. If the council's willing to

3:10:33 ↗ support a resolution this evening, the applicant's willing

3:10:38 ↗ to agree to the additional 10 units as

3:10:44 ↗ was proposed by Councilmember Ramos. So discussion on

3:10:49 ↗ the amendment. Any additional discussion? All followed by,

3:10:55 ↗ I think, Bill to Eve Wannekens. I'm assuming

3:11:00 ↗ that the 10 would still be added to

3:11:05 ↗ that same that you had up in your

3:11:11 ↗ slide four, if you can just go to slide four.

3:11:17 ↗ - Yes, I got a nod from the applicant, yes.

3:11:23 ↗ So going now, which, so not that one. So that

3:11:28 ↗ one would have the 39 and this one here would

3:11:34 ↗ have the 10. So it's truly a merge of the

3:11:40 ↗ two proposals. - Thank you. - And so,

3:11:47 ↗ Would you read the proposed amendment one

3:11:53 ↗ more time?

3:12:09 ↗ Okay, so the suggested amendment to the motion is approve resolution 2017-08,

3:12:15 ↗ approving the ninth major amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement to

3:12:21 ↗ conditionally allow 100 TDRs to be constructed in Issaquah Highlands with 38

3:12:26 ↗ affordable units plus one group home with the city conveying Track D

3:12:32 ↗ to Polygon Northwest plus an additional 10 affordable units at 60% AMI.

3:12:40 ↗ Okay. Bill? So I wanted to answer Tola's question. Is 49 bigger than

3:12:46 ↗ 39? But I guess I want to address more so your two concerns

3:12:52 ↗ over there because I think that they're legitimate and it's how you look

3:12:58 ↗ at that. And so do you back off and do the 110 in

3:13:04 ↗ which, according to things you said, Mary Lou, that's still upzoning the upzone?

3:13:09 ↗ No, it's 10 within. 10 within, which we don't have a proposal

3:13:15 ↗ for. Yeah, we do. The second proposal is 10 within the 100. No, it's

3:13:21 ↗ 10 plus. It's 10 plus? It was 10 plus. Yeah, so both these proposals

3:13:27 ↗ are upzoning the upzone. So we don't have anything that stays within. Our comp

3:13:33 ↗ plan or our vision or our Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement philosophy. Right. So we're

3:13:39 ↗ not... What's gotten to the council through committee has never gotten to staying within the

3:13:45 ↗ zone, yep zone, and not going beyond it. - We're not doing what we say

3:13:50 ↗ we're gonna do. - So with that, that's not an option unless we really drop

3:13:55 ↗ back and regroup and really start at scratch again, okay? And then the other thing,

3:14:00 ↗ I'm not quite sure I'm understanding the subsidizing stuff because I think cities and all

3:14:05 ↗ the various nonprofits, all affordable housing is subsidized in one way or another, 'cause you

3:14:11 ↗ have to pay for it some way. And I think it's been done various ways,

3:14:16 ↗ and this is one, and this is really saying to me, it's a deal. It's

3:14:21 ↗ a proposal, and now a counter proposal, is that 49 units worth the $1.6

3:14:27 ↗ million? I mean, that's to me, it's a simple cash transaction. And how

3:14:33 ↗ is that benefiting the community? And this is something that we could get

3:14:39 ↗ now. It would come quickly. And I'm afraid that if we sit on

3:14:45 ↗ track D, We'll be sitting on track D for quite a while and it'll be

3:14:50 ↗ not being utilized and we use some other subsidies to build on it because we're

3:14:53 ↗ not the city is not going to build units on there out of our own

3:14:57 ↗ money. So somehow some money is going to come from somewhere from arts or you

3:15:00 ↗ know, the various habitat and manage some things going to have to come to do

3:15:04 ↗ that and that's going to take a while. Meanwhile, we're not having housing. So that

3:15:08 ↗ is worth a lot of benefit to me. And so I hear your

3:15:14 ↗ concerns and I just I'm getting to the point of that benefit of

3:15:20 ↗ 49 now starts to take me to the other side. So that's that's

3:15:25 ↗ so we've got an amendment. There's been a lot of spirited discussion on

3:15:31 ↗ that space. Final round of comments and unless there's Yeah. And so,

3:15:37 ↗ um, so yes, I have concerns about the subsidy and for the precedent that

3:15:43 ↗ that sets. And again, um, if you were to subsidize, first of all, the

3:15:49 ↗ city has never directly subsidized affordable housing. with that kind of money.

3:15:55 ↗ That is a lot of money. We need hundreds, if not thousands

3:16:00 ↗ more. Like I said before, that's tens of millions of dollars. There

3:16:06 ↗ are other ways to bring affordable housing. And also it adds what

3:16:11 ↗ looks close to be 50 more units in the Highlands. I don't

3:16:17 ↗ think that was part of the study. And maybe it's a minimal

3:16:23 ↗ difference. But it's 100 TDRs plus, what is this now, 50 more, 49

3:16:28 ↗ plus one? So those units, remember, are part of the wash pot. They're not

3:16:34 ↗ added. They were already up there. We've just moved them. So they're not more.

3:16:40 ↗ They've just moved. Hold on. Right. So, so I hadn't stated whether I was going

3:16:45 ↗ to be supporting this amendment or not. Uh, I will be supporting this amendment. I

3:16:50 ↗ think that, uh, eight years ago I said what propelled me as a politician. We

3:16:54 ↗ don't like to talk about being politicians, but we are, we're not. And, and, uh,

3:16:59 ↗ we have visions for this city. And what has always been center for me is

3:17:03 ↗ workforce housing and living wage jobs, always from the beginning for eight years to today.

3:17:08 ↗ And it still is. And getting 48 workforce housing units here in the city, I

3:17:12 ↗ think is important. I think it'll have an effect. It'll allow working families that otherwise

3:17:17 ↗ wouldn't be able to afford to live in Issaquah to be able to live in

3:17:22 ↗ Issaquah. That's a win and I'm going to support this.

3:17:30 ↗ Thanks. So to be able to get all the paperwork done that

3:17:36 ↗ meets the council's intent, if you made an addition to your motion

3:17:42 ↗ that would direct the staff to effectuate the changes in the development

3:17:48 ↗ agreements and the resolutions as reflected if this motion passes, then we would

3:17:54 ↗ be able to make sure that we would get the work and reflect the legal

3:17:58 ↗ documents such that would accomplish your goals this evening. So if that was added to

3:18:03 ↗ that, we would be able to do that. Otherwise, I don't think we would be

3:18:07 ↗ able to get that done tonight. We're looking at the resolutions and the agreements and

3:18:12 ↗ want to make sure that they're correct and that they reflect the

3:18:18 ↗ council's intent. So if it could be part of your motion that

3:18:23 ↗ you simply, you approve this and direct the staff to make the

3:18:29 ↗ appropriate changes in the resolution and the development agreement drafts, we will

3:18:34 ↗ make sure that that gets done to effectuate

3:18:40 ↗ that intent so that the

3:18:46 ↗ mayor can sign the resolution

3:18:51 ↗ and get the-- - So

3:18:57 ↗ read what that would look

3:19:03 ↗ like. - Can you get

3:19:08 ↗ Keith to type it in

3:19:14 ↗ there? - Yeah, I'll type

3:19:20 ↗ it. Let me get rid

3:19:26 ↗ of something we don't need

3:19:31 ↗ maybe. Jim, is this saying

3:19:37 ↗ kind of what you want

3:19:43 ↗ it to? - Listener and

3:19:49 ↗ develop. - Keith, if we're

3:19:54 ↗ taking the two things as

3:20:00 ↗ separate motions, then in the

3:20:06 ↗ top one, you've already You've already

3:20:11 ↗ changed it to the 38 affordable units plus one group home and the

3:20:17 ↗ additional 10 affordable units, correct? Yes. So that reflects what the council's intent

3:20:23 ↗ is. And the second one I upped it from 38 to 48. So

3:20:28 ↗ in the first one, I would suggest, since we're taking these as separate

3:20:34 ↗ motions, sorry to be drafting at the- in the

3:20:39 ↗ first one to put your, to say

3:20:45 ↗ and direct up in the first one.

3:20:50 ↗ - Oh, you want it up here?

3:20:56 ↗ - Yeah, and direct the staff to

3:21:02 ↗ make the appropriate changes in the resolution

3:21:07 ↗ and development agreement to reflect this motion.

3:21:13 ↗ - Mr. Mayor, can I ask Keith

3:21:18 ↗ a question? - Yeah, hold off just

3:21:24 ↗ a second, please, because-- - Jim, did

3:21:29 ↗ I get that? - I read the

3:21:35 ↗ amendment - Well, the development agreement's in the separate agenda bill.

3:21:40 ↗ So the development agreement is actually in the next agenda bill, not in this

3:21:46 ↗ one? Is that? - Well, there's the ninth major amendment. - So right, the

3:21:52 ↗ ninth major amendment, 72-15, and then the development agreement's actually in 74-17, right?

3:21:59 ↗ So this what this would say I believe is approving the ninth major amendment to

3:22:05 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement to conditionally allow 100 TDRs to be constructed in Issaquah

3:22:10 ↗ Highlands with 38 affordable units plus one group home with the city conveying track D

3:22:16 ↗ to Polygon Northwest plus an additional 10 affordable units at AMI and direct the administration

3:22:22 ↗ to effect the appropriate changes in the resolution to reflect this motion. Thank

3:22:28 ↗ you. Did you have a question, Marilyn? Yeah, a

3:22:34 ↗ question on the development agreement language itself. Is there

3:22:39 ↗ a scheduling on how the build-out occurs and when

3:22:45 ↗ the affordable housing units get built? Yes. What is

3:22:50 ↗ it? It's -- Arthur, are you still here?

3:22:57 ↗ Do you remember the timing sequence or Nick, do you remember the timing sequence without

3:23:03 ↗ me looking it up for building the affordable units?

3:23:09 ↗ It's in the packet. I just have to figure out where it is in the

3:23:14 ↗ 300 pages that I sent you guys. Sorry. I guess my concern is whether or

3:23:18 ↗ not the motion, I would want to amend the motion to state how and when

3:23:23 ↗ they're built so that they're not the last pieces built. It says that now. So

3:23:28 ↗ it says they're in step with the rest of the neighborhood and that basically parcel

3:23:33 ↗ D goes last. So the conveyance of D basically comes at the end. So what

3:23:38 ↗ way the discussion that we have is amended the amendment

3:23:44 ↗ and we've not voted on either one. So would someone

3:23:50 ↗ amend the amendment to reflect the language that was added

3:23:55 ↗ up there? I move to amend the amendment language as

3:24:01 ↗ added and just stated by Keith. Second. Second.

3:24:07 ↗ All those in favor of approving? Oh,

3:24:13 ↗ Mariah. I'm sorry. So I have another

3:24:18 ↗ question. Go ahead. Keith, could you address

3:24:23 ↗ what both Council President Goodman spoke about

3:24:29 ↗ in terms of the subsidy of housing

3:24:34 ↗ and precedent? Could you speak to that?

3:24:40 ↗ So it's a conversation that's coming to you guys soon. As we

3:24:46 ↗ bring forward the housing strategy, part of that is going to be

3:24:52 ↗ a for lack of better terminology, a group of tools that the

3:24:57 ↗ commissions and the staff and Arthur have worked together to bring forward because there's no

3:25:03 ↗ one solution for affordable housing that basically the brunt of getting more affordable housing has

3:25:09 ↗ to be borne by everybody has to be borne by developers. And part of that

3:25:15 ↗ will be to increase maybe the inclusionary zoning that we have currently within the city.

3:25:20 ↗ Part of that may be would be the city and the city might streamline

3:25:26 ↗ permitting for accessory dwelling units or something like that. And then part of

3:25:32 ↗ it might be on the existing taxpayers, which it is already in that

3:25:38 ↗ we are an arch city. We pay annually into arch to get more

3:25:44 ↗ affordable housing in the arch communities, which includes the city. but there

3:25:50 ↗ will be a subsidy to get affordable housing and and the city if the city

3:25:55 ↗ wants a bigger share of affordable housing we're going to have to do that in

3:26:00 ↗ one way or another sometimes we can negotiate that so a developer might want something

3:26:05 ↗ and the city can negotiate that and it may not cost us anything out of

3:26:10 ↗ pocket but other times we'll actually have to make a contribution to get either the

3:26:16 ↗ land bought down or to get the cost of the construction to go down and

3:26:20 ↗ that may be multifamily tax exemption. There's but there's a number of tools that I

3:26:25 ↗ think we're coming forward to the council to talk about because you guys have expressed

3:26:30 ↗ a desire to get more effective in providing more affordable housing. But it's going to

3:26:35 ↗ come at a cost both to the public sector and the private sector most likely

3:26:40 ↗ if we're going to be successful. I don't know if I answered your question. I

3:26:46 ↗ think you did. And so we're voting on what we're voting on today. And then

3:26:51 ↗ we're going to be looking at a variety of different tools of how we would

3:26:57 ↗ go forward. And I did just want to make a statement to Councilmember Goodman's point,

3:27:02 ↗ because I think it was on target. And that is, so these numbers that were

3:27:08 ↗ provided by ARCH that show, you know, $180,000 of benefit or $70,000 of benefit, you

3:27:13 ↗ have to take into account the subsidy for parcel D. So the $43,000 and change

3:27:18 ↗ or whatever that number is, these numbers really should go down by that. But there's

3:27:24 ↗ still a value there for each of these units. It's just not as big as

3:27:29 ↗ this because we're putting in a piece of property, if that makes sense. Just

3:27:35 ↗ a second. Mariah. Thank you, Keith. You're welcome. Yes. So

3:27:40 ↗ in the draft housing strategy which we haven't seen yet,

3:27:46 ↗ is there proposals to use up zoning, up zoning to

3:27:52 ↗ get housing, meaning that we are looking at that as

3:27:57 ↗ an option? I don't think that that is one of the tools that

3:28:03 ↗ we are suggesting because I think right now we believe that there's enough zoning capacity

3:28:08 ↗ in the city to accommodate our housing for quite some time. So up zoning, it's

3:28:14 ↗ hard to up zone when you already allow a 10 story building, right? And most

3:28:20 ↗ of what we're talking about is central Issaquah. So the mechanism we're talking about

3:28:25 ↗ tonight isn't even one we're considering in our proposed housing strategy? It is not.

3:28:31 ↗ Okay and then I guess the second question would be is the housing strategy

3:28:37 ↗ looking at options to fill in the most needed market sectors? Meaning it does

3:28:42 ↗ matter where we have the bigger gaps. It's not just get anything you can

3:28:48 ↗ get. It's where is the greatest need? So yes, so

3:28:54 ↗ there is the greatest need, but there's

3:28:59 ↗ need across all income strata. Yeah. Thanks.

3:29:05 ↗ Okay. Sure. Trying to find in the paperwork are the

3:29:11 ↗ 10 units that just got added were those for sale units or

3:29:17 ↗ they did it for sale. So they specify that in the in

3:29:23 ↗ the development agreement. Yes. Thank you. All those in favor of amending

3:29:29 ↗ the amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed. Nay. That

3:29:34 ↗ Passes four to two with

3:29:40 ↗ Goodman and Pauley voting in

3:29:46 ↗ the negative. So now back

3:29:52 ↗ to the amended motion. So

3:29:58 ↗ now back to amended amendment.

3:30:04 ↗ All those in favor signify

3:30:10 ↗ by saying aye. Aye. Right.

3:30:16 ↗ Now back to The amended,

3:30:22 ↗ excuse me, all, and those opposed?

3:30:28 ↗ Carries, four to two with Polly

3:30:34 ↗ and Goodman voting in the negative.

3:30:40 ↗ Now back to the amended resolution.

3:30:46 ↗ All those, Paul, you want to

3:30:52 ↗ speak to that? I do.

3:30:58 ↗ A couple points of clarification, good conversation. Keith, it's my understanding that the city donated

3:31:03 ↗ the land to the construction of the Y, right? Yes, we did. So the idea

3:31:08 ↗ of subsidizing affordable housing through a land is, we have done that before, so this

3:31:14 ↗ isn't completely precedent setting. We did it at TALUS as well with half price. I

3:31:19 ↗ think that's important. I want to make sure that that dialogue is out there and

3:31:25 ↗ that that's correct. And the other thing is that I think the development agreement

3:31:31 ↗ in the Highlands doesn't specify like per transaction that there has to be a

3:31:37 ↗ 30 percent. The development agreement in the Highlands says that of the applicable units

3:31:42 ↗ that 30 percent of total in total has to be affordable. And you provided

3:31:48 ↗ some data. that shows that before the polygon consideration

3:31:54 ↗ at all of the additional 100 TDRs that using the

3:32:00 ↗ base number of 3250 housing units that Highlands was already

3:32:05 ↗ above the 30%, just slightly above that. And I just

3:32:11 ↗ did a quick calculation that you add these additional TDRs

3:32:20 ↗ the 100 units plus these affordable units. And it takes the

3:32:25 ↗ Highlands and that base level will be at about 31% affordable

3:32:31 ↗ as a result of this change. - Of total housing stock?

3:32:37 ↗ - I didn't do the calculation. - No, I'm just using

3:32:42 ↗ the numbers that were provided in the agenda bill. The total

3:32:48 ↗ number of the Iskwala Highlands base There apparently were a

3:32:54 ↗ couple amendments to this that for some reason affordable housing was excluded, which I don't

3:33:00 ↗ understand. So I just wanted to make those points that where this takes us in

3:33:06 ↗ terms of the development agreement, both in terms of percent of homes that are affordable

3:33:11 ↗ and also the precedents related to using land. Paula? Mr. Mayor, I move for a

3:33:17 ↗ five-minute recess for a bio break.

3:33:20 ↗ I

3:33:33 ↗ don't

3:33:45 ↗ know

3:33:58 ↗ how

3:34:11 ↗ long

3:34:23 ↗ this

3:34:36 ↗ process

3:34:49 ↗ is

3:35:01 ↗ going

3:35:14 ↗ to

3:35:27 ↗ take.

3:35:39 ↗ It

3:35:52 ↗ seems

3:36:05 ↗ like

3:36:17 ↗ it's

3:36:30 ↗ taken

3:36:43 ↗ a

3:36:55 ↗ while.

3:37:08 ↗ So

3:37:21 ↗ I

3:37:33 ↗ would

3:37:46 ↗ really

3:37:59 ↗ appreciate

3:38:11 ↗ a

3:38:24 ↗ second

3:38:37 ↗ for--

3:38:49 ↗ Second.

3:39:02 ↗ Why

3:39:15 ↗ don't

3:39:27 ↗ we

3:39:40 ↗ take

3:39:53 ↗ 10

3:40:05 ↗ minutes

3:40:18 ↗ and

3:40:31 ↗ please

3:40:43 ↗ be

3:40:56 ↗ back

3:41:09 ↗ in

3:41:21 ↗ your

3:41:34 ↗ seats

3:41:47 ↗ at

3:42:00 ↗ quarter

3:42:12 ↗ till

3:42:25 ↗ 11:00.

3:42:38 ↗ Lights

3:42:50 ↗ come

3:43:03 ↗ back

3:43:16 ↗ on.

3:43:28 ↗ We

3:43:41 ↗ are

3:43:54 ↗ back

3:44:06 ↗ after

3:44:19 ↗ a

3:44:32 ↗ short

3:44:44 ↗ recess.

3:44:58 ↗ And we are considering an amended resolution that

3:45:03 ↗ is up on the board. And Keith, read

3:45:09 ↗ it since we took a little break and

3:45:15 ↗ just refresh our memories what the amended resolution

3:45:21 ↗ is. So Mr. Mayor, since it's been a while, can you remind me, are

3:45:27 ↗ you referring to 72-15 or 74-17? I'm referring to the one that we vote on

3:45:33 ↗ first. Okay, so the one we've already voted on was 72-15. And that one. Oh,

3:45:38 ↗ we haven't voted on. On the main, we've only voted on. On the main motion.

3:45:44 ↗ Oh, you just voted on the amendments. Amendments. Now I'm tracking.

3:45:49 ↗ It's late. All right. So the main motion is move to

3:45:55 ↗ approve resolution 2017-08, I believe. Thank you. Exhibit D, well, it's

3:46:01 ↗ going to change. Exhibit D-1-1 as amended. Approving the ninth major

3:46:07 ↗ amendment to the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement to conditionally allow 100 transfer development rights

3:46:13 ↗ to be constructed in Issaquah Highlands with 38 affordable units plus one group home

3:46:19 ↗ with the city conveying track D to Polygon Northwest plus an additional 10 affordable

3:46:25 ↗ units at 60% AMI and direct the administration to effect the appropriate changes in

3:46:31 ↗ the resolution to reflect this motion. Thank you. Discussion on the amended Just

3:46:37 ↗ to sum up where I am this evening, I actually appreciate Councilmember Ramos' effort greatly.

3:46:43 ↗ And I think at the end of the day we will end up with a

3:46:49 ↗ good project, with a good outcome and with good benefits. My concern still is that

3:46:55 ↗ this is not in alignment with our comp plan. And yes, it's something good, but

3:47:00 ↗ I wonder if the housing strategy that we adopt in several months if the

3:47:06 ↗ scenario would fit under there or not or would still considered be not good enough.

3:47:11 ↗ And so even though I think you've come up with a much better deal than

3:47:16 ↗ what was originally on the table, and I thank you for that, I'm still not

3:47:21 ↗ sure that I can support this tonight. - Additional discussion.

3:47:27 ↗ With that, all those in favor of approving

3:47:32 ↗ Resolution 2017-08 as amended, signify by saying aye.

3:47:37 ↗ Aye. Opposed? Nay. The motion carries 4-2 with

3:47:43 ↗ Pauline Goodman voting in the negative. Now, Keith,

3:47:48 ↗ what's next? So next is the companion agenda bill, which is 7417,

3:47:54 ↗ which is the amendment to the wash dot agreement and the specific

3:48:00 ↗ development agreement for Polygon Northwest for affordable housing. So the way this

3:48:06 ↗ motion reads now would be approved resolution 2017, I assume, dash 08,

3:48:12 ↗ 09, 09. I can do the math. and it will be

3:48:18 ↗ Exhibit C as amended, conditionally approving the first major amendment to WSDOT

3:48:24 ↗ Development Agreement, transferring the affordable housing benefit to Issaquah Highlands in conjunction

3:48:30 ↗ with the ninth major amendment to that agreement and conditionally conveying parcel

3:48:35 ↗ D to Polygon Northwest and approve resolution 2017-10.

3:48:42 ↗ Exhibit D as amended, directing the administration to execute the affordable housing development

3:48:48 ↗ agreement with Polygon Northwest for the construction of 48 affordable housing units plus

3:48:54 ↗ one group home and direct the administration to effect the appropriate changes in

3:49:00 ↗ the resolutions. There's two to reflect this motion. So moved. Second. And a

3:49:06 ↗ second. Discussion? All those in favor

3:49:12 ↗ of approving resolution 20.09.2017-10 signify by saying

3:49:17 ↗ aye. Aye. Those opposed? Mary Lou, did

3:49:22 ↗ you? Yeah, nay, sorry. Motion carries four

3:49:27 ↗ to two with Pauli and Goodman voting

3:49:33 ↗ in the negative.

3:49:41 ↗ I have good news for everyone that came this

3:49:47 ↗ evening to see what happens on the Bergsma development.

3:49:53 ↗ And let me, and we are going to move

3:49:58 ↗ up following that the agenda bill 7332 count us

3:50:04 ↗ in 2017 report because we've got King County here

3:50:10 ↗ to help us with that one. So

3:50:16 ↗ now moving to agenda bill 7110

3:50:21 ↗ the Windward-Bergsma development agreement. Keith, I

3:50:26 ↗ think you're still up. I'm still

3:50:32 ↗ here. So, okay. Thank you, Mr.

3:50:37 ↗ Mayor, City Council. Switching sides of

3:50:43 ↗ the city. So Bergsmah Windward Development

3:50:48 ↗ Agreement I have a fairly short presentation. So for those of

3:50:54 ↗ you who are not that familiar with the proposal, it's to develop 46

3:51:00 ↗ acres with 78 single family homes and eight affordable cottages. They have asked

3:51:06 ↗ to use the city's clustered housing development allowance which is IMC 1807-420.

3:51:12 ↗ There's road improvements on Newport beyond that required for the traditional

3:51:18 ↗ plot. Open space land is being suggested to be given to

3:51:24 ↗ King County to include in the Cougar Mountain Wildland Park connection

3:51:29 ↗ to regional trails And we've talked a lot about whether or not there's a

3:51:35 ↗ street connection to TALIS. It's been quite the lightning rod. Development Commission talked about it

3:51:41 ↗ as emergency access only. And Land and Shore Committee also voted 3-0 that if there

3:51:47 ↗ is a connection, it should be emergency access only. So that's kind of the

3:51:53 ↗ highlights. I apologize for this map. I was hoping to have two that actually look

3:51:59 ↗ the same so you could tell what's different as opposed to one that's colored and

3:52:04 ↗ one that's black and white. So the one that's colored on the left is what

3:52:10 ↗ this property would look like under a traditional plat. And what's on the right is

3:52:15 ↗ what it would look like under the clustered approach. So there's some nuances. The applicants

3:52:20 ↗ provided a table of differences in terms of the amount of open space and some

3:52:26 ↗ of that's speculative on whether you could actually build these lots that are out here

3:52:31 ↗ on the edge. But this part of it, where this yellow part, pretty much matches

3:52:37 ↗ up where this area is. So in terms of the footprint of the subdivision, whether

3:52:43 ↗ it's clustered or not, it's probably going to be about the same footprint. The difference

3:52:48 ↗ is you've got twice as many lots. And so that was a conversation that we

3:52:54 ↗ had at Land and Shore, which was, all right, well, they've asked for a development

3:52:59 ↗ agreement, and kind of the scale seems a little bit out of balance. It seems

3:53:04 ↗ like they're getting another 40 lots, and what we're getting didn't seem like it balanced

3:53:09 ↗ out. So that's my assessment of why it kind of ended up where it

3:53:15 ↗ did at Land and Shore, which was a vote of three

3:53:21 ↗ to zero to deny it. This is that chart. It's in

3:53:26 ↗ your packet. Talks about differences between the traditional plat and the

3:53:32 ↗ clustered plat. This is one of the pieces that didn't get a lot of

3:53:38 ↗ attention, but it's worth a conversation. So under the proposed development agreement, and I hope

3:53:43 ↗ the graphic shows it does, good. So what the staff have negotiated with the applicant

3:53:49 ↗ is actually quite an extensive amount of improvements on Newport Way. We've negotiated what's typical

3:53:55 ↗ with the development and you can see the property boundaries are this white

3:54:00 ↗ dashed line. So basically from here to here, what's traditional in platting says

3:54:06 ↗ that you build your half street of improvements. So they would normally just do

3:54:12 ↗ their half street on the south side of Newport. What we've talked to them about

3:54:17 ↗ is we have needs for more than that. And so what they've agreed to do

3:54:23 ↗ is to actually build the full half street improvements on the north side, which connects

3:54:29 ↗ to Riva. So you can see Riva's right here. So Riva would then extend those

3:54:34 ↗ further to the west. and they would build a sidewalk on the south side. So

3:54:40 ↗ from all the way from SR 900 to the King County Trailhead, which includes their

3:54:45 ↗ access point, which is somewhere in here, there would be a sidewalk on the south

3:54:51 ↗ side of Newport as well. So this is a significant amount of benefit to the

3:54:56 ↗ city if the city were to want to support this development agreement. I'm not saying

3:55:01 ↗ we do, I'm just saying there's things to think about. One of the things that

3:55:07 ↗ the applicant provided after the Land and Shore Committee meeting, because they heard some of

3:55:13 ↗ the concerns expressed by Councilmember Pauley, and that was that really all they're proposing is

3:55:19 ↗ really expensive houses on the hillside and that's not consistent with the intent of the

3:55:25 ↗ clustered provisions. And so they made an effort to try and address that and that's

3:55:31 ↗ what this table is, is basically they've agreed to you know, because price points

3:55:37 ↗ are hard thing to necessarily regulate, especially if ultimately they're not going to be the

3:55:43 ↗ builder and they may or may not be is to actually condition the sizes

3:55:48 ↗ of the homes that would be put so they basically have a maximum building

3:55:54 ↗ envelope within each lot that would correspond to a commitment that they might make

3:56:00 ↗ as part of the development agreement. So this is something that they propose. The

3:56:06 ↗ council hasn't seen this before the packet on Friday. And so this is it's

3:56:12 ↗ I think what it what it shows is a commitment from the

3:56:18 ↗ developer that they're willing to have a conversation about trying to improve the

3:56:23 ↗ balance of the development agreement if the council wants to continue having that

3:56:29 ↗ conversation. And so even though I think we heard from quite a number

3:56:34 ↗ of community members that they would like this to just be done. I think

3:56:40 ↗ part of what understanding what that means is it doesn't mean that that that

3:56:46 ↗ land stays forested hillside. It means that tomorrow the applicant comes in with this

3:56:52 ↗ plat on the left because they can. And so I think one of the

3:56:59 ↗ one of the reasons why we do development agreements is because there's a way to

3:57:05 ↗ potentially look for opportunities for community benefit beyond what standard development gives you. And I

3:57:10 ↗ don't know if we'll ever get there, but one thing that I think the administration

3:57:16 ↗ is going to ask the council to consider is to send this back for some

3:57:22 ↗ more conversations to see if maybe a better

3:57:27 ↗ deal can be struck. So that's

3:57:33 ↗ the extent of my presentation. I'm

3:57:38 ↗ happy to answer questions if you

3:57:44 ↗ have any. I'm going to stop

3:57:50 ↗ talking. Questions? A very thorough briefing

3:57:55 ↗ of all of the issues related

3:58:01 ↗ to this. This is coming back

3:58:07 ↗ from Land and Shore. So I

3:58:13 ↗ can introduce this one. This was at the Land and Shore Committee that our committee

3:58:18 ↗ chair, Council Member Goodman, could not attend. So the three committee members listened to some

3:58:24 ↗ public comment and the staff presentation and 3 and 0 voted to deny the development

3:58:30 ↗ agreement. The reasons were varied. So when we get to moving the motion, the committee

3:58:36 ↗ members that were there can weigh in. The proposal

3:58:41 ↗ that Keith just mentioned in his presentation is new information. The committee

3:58:47 ↗ did not have that, did not discuss it, and so maybe once

3:58:53 ↗ the motion has been made, it might be appropriate for the council

3:58:59 ↗ members to weigh in on whether or not they want to consider

3:59:05 ↗ the new information. With that, I'll make a motion. I'm going to

3:59:11 ↗ move to approve resolution number 2017 - 11 denying

3:59:16 ↗ the proposed windward Berks my development agreement Second, which I

3:59:22 ↗ will just clarify is not the staff recommended motion Paul

3:59:28 ↗ so in an evening of precedence have we ever Approved

3:59:34 ↗ a resolution to deny something that is it seems like

3:59:39 ↗ this this I guess it's a question It's a point

3:59:45 ↗ of order question. We don't have a resolution denying in

3:59:51 ↗ the packet so interesting set of, I'm

3:59:57 ↗ sorry. Interesting circumstances. And then. And Keith, I

4:00:03 ↗ do appreciate the additional information that you provided.

4:00:09 ↗ It's, I think there's a lot more to

4:00:14 ↗ it as well, but the speaking for myself

4:00:20 ↗ to deny. Yes, there's currently a resolution to

4:00:26 ↗ deny in the agenda materials. Yeah. Oh, the

4:00:32 ↗ one I'm reading says adopt. It's exhibit A-2. What number

4:00:38 ↗ in the packet is that? Page in the packet? 316.

4:00:44 ↗ No, no, no, no, no, no. So we'll get that

4:00:50 ↗ figured out. I will, since I have the floor real

4:00:56 ↗ quickly, I will say that I don't know that anything

4:01:02 ↗ on the left is going to happen. I do know

4:01:08 ↗ that if we approve it tonight that a lot of

4:01:14 ↗ land would be pulled off the hillside and, and,

4:01:21 ↗ Back in 2015 when we had movement elsewhere on Cougar Mountain, at that

4:01:26 ↗ time I began to think why would we ever build any of our

4:01:32 ↗ steep slopes again? The public risk and the public cost is pretty high.

4:01:38 ↗ So that was a major part of my consideration in not approving this

4:01:44 ↗ going forward. Stacy. I have a question for Keith. So you said the

4:01:50 ↗ one on the left, the traditional, this is denied. the applicant

4:01:56 ↗ can turn around and apply for traditional. And what's that

4:02:02 ↗ process? So that process ultimately goes to the hearing examiner

4:02:08 ↗ for approval. And so right now, I mean, so we actually pushed them to develop

4:02:14 ↗ a plan for the traditional plat. They didn't have one. So we basically so they've

4:02:19 ↗ got an application that's pretty close to being ready to submit if they wanted to.

4:02:24 ↗ So that's so that one on the left, you know, whether it would come in

4:02:29 ↗ that way or not, they could submit it basically whenever they were ready to submit

4:02:34 ↗ it. And that goes to the hearing examiner, not to the

4:02:40 ↗ development commission, not to the city council. Just to the hearing

4:02:46 ↗ examiner for approval. Paula. So the applicant has the right to

4:02:51 ↗ build what's on the left in the same way that the

4:02:57 ↗ people that built Talus built Talus. Three quarters-- Talus is what

4:03:03 ↗ it is, and this plot is what it is, because three

4:03:08 ↗ times that land got saved in perpetuity as green.

4:03:15 ↗ We should dispense with the idea that there's something else we can do with this.

4:03:20 ↗ This is the something else and it's because we preserved a large amount of Cougar

4:03:25 ↗ Mountain and amen to that. In terms of whether we consider I continue to

4:03:30 ↗ believe that there is not enough here to justify that development agreement. I

4:03:36 ↗ think that I agree with members of the public who think that the

4:03:42 ↗ cluster would look denser and I think that You know it puts more

4:03:47 ↗ traffic on the street where we've heard a lot of concerns about all the development

4:03:53 ↗ that's going up and down Newport and for four parcels with a total of eight

4:03:59 ↗ clustered houses, it just doesn't rise to the level of community benefit that would require

4:04:04 ↗ a development agreement. There were questions in the public about Why do we

4:04:10 ↗ do all these development agreements? We don't. Most development that occurs in the city just

4:04:15 ↗ occurs under zoning, and we have good zoning. But sometimes we... agree to do something

4:04:20 ↗ because there's community benefit and and the three of us on a particular day in

4:04:25 ↗ Landon Shore decided that for the three of us there wasn't the the benefit here

4:04:29 ↗ and I continue to not believe that there is I appreciate that the developer talked

4:04:33 ↗ a little bit about what some of the distribution might be like on some of

4:04:38 ↗ the other pieces but that's still all going to be You know, I mentioned earlier

4:04:42 ↗ the average house on the east side is $880,000, and I don't believe a single

4:04:48 ↗ one of these is going to go less than 880,000, except for maybe the eight

4:04:54 ↗ clustered units, right? So, you know, I continue to not support making a development agreement

4:05:00 ↗ here, but I'm at peace with the idea that if somebody wants to put 40

4:05:05 ↗ units in that property, that's certainly within their legal rights. That's how we do things.

4:05:11 ↗ Other questions or discussion? Mary Lou? So this one has been before committee for quite

4:05:16 ↗ a long time and it has generated a lot of community interest so I'm in

4:05:21 ↗ agreement with the other two committee members from that night. My primary reason for not

4:05:26 ↗ supporting the development agreement is that I believe that that tool in our toolbox was

4:05:31 ↗ meant to get us affordable housing not just a couple of units of affordable housing

4:05:35 ↗ but affordable housing similar to a cottage standard where you build smaller units on smaller

4:05:40 ↗ lots so I So I don't think it's an appropriate use of that standard. And

4:05:46 ↗ it does come with a series of negatives that we have heard over

4:05:52 ↗ and over about in terms of traffic. Okay, Siri's recording me. That's interesting.

4:05:57 ↗ In terms of traffic, in terms of impacts to forested hillsides, slide hazards.

4:06:03 ↗ So I am not in support of the development agreement at all. Additional

4:06:09 ↗ questions or discussion? Mariah? So I am also not in

4:06:15 ↗ support of the development agreement. And for many of the

4:06:21 ↗ reasons that Councilmember Pauley just pointed out in terms of

4:06:27 ↗ the cluster housing, I think that this is not what

4:06:33 ↗ we have on the right is not the intent.

4:06:38 ↗ And even as we look at the chart that talks about the sizing

4:06:44 ↗ of the houses, that still didn't help me think about that in a

4:06:50 ↗ different way. And so I won't be supporting this this evening. Additional

4:06:55 ↗ questions or discussion? Tola? I have a question. So the council

4:07:01 ↗ has been amply clear that whatever gets built needs to have

4:07:07 ↗ no more than emergency access coming off of TALIS. So where

4:07:13 ↗ is the process if tonight this development agreement goes away, as

4:07:19 ↗ it appears? How does that feedback from the council regarding having only

4:07:25 ↗ emergency access, how does that propagate forward through the approval process if

4:07:31 ↗ they go build what's on the left? So as you can see,

4:07:36 ↗ so here's the connection to TALIS on the clustered version, and here's

4:07:42 ↗ what they're proposing under the traditional plat, which is no connection to

4:07:48 ↗ TALIS. So it will stub at their property line right here. Well,

4:07:53 ↗ there we go. Follow-up on what Tola had said. So the

4:07:59 ↗ TALIS development agreement will also expire shortly and it did include a provision in

4:08:05 ↗ it that there could be a future possible road connection. So is there no legal

4:08:11 ↗ way to make sure that that provision continues with council's intent in some form other

4:08:16 ↗ than just them not showing it on a drawing? So they're going to, well, okay.

4:08:21 ↗ Let me make sure that I understood what you said because I'm probably going to

4:08:27 ↗ answer something different. So they're going to stub a street here, right? And then we

4:08:32 ↗ own this property. Yeah. This is city owned. And then here's Talus and here's public

4:08:38 ↗ street. Right. So if you want if council ever wanted to connect these for

4:08:44 ↗ emergency access or for non emergency access, it's building a capital project through on

4:08:49 ↗ city property. So we would we would control that outcome. And we just

4:08:55 ↗ have to decide if we want to take that sign down

4:09:01 ↗ that says future street connection that every now and then gets

4:09:07 ↗ overgrown by bushes, so to speak. Thanks. That does help. Other

4:09:12 ↗ questions or discussion? All those in favor of adopting resolution number

4:09:18 ↗ 2017-11 denying the proposed Windward-Bergsman development agreement signify by saying aye.

4:09:24 ↗ Aye. Those opposed? That carries unanimously. I

4:09:29 ↗ think that wraps things up

4:09:35 ↗ for you this evening. We're

4:09:40 ↗ now going to move to

4:09:45 ↗ agenda bill 7332, count us

4:09:50 ↗ in 2017 report. And. This

4:09:55 ↗ one? I see. Okay. You

4:10:00 ↗ are set. Cool. Yeah, you

4:10:06 ↗ bet.

4:10:08 ↗ Yep.

4:10:15 ↗ Yeah,

4:10:23 ↗ let's

4:10:30 ↗ push

4:10:38 ↗ it.

4:10:46 ↗ Okay,

4:10:50 ↗ agenda

4:10:54 ↗ bill

4:10:59 ↗ 7316,

4:11:03 ↗ sustainable,

4:11:07 ↗ no. One

4:11:13 ↗ count. I'm sorry. That's okay. Mark, how are you this evening? I'm good. Thank you.

4:11:19 ↗ I can see you want to get started, so we're going to do that. Great.

4:11:25 ↗ This is taking a comprehensive look at regional homelessness in Seattle, King County. You're on.

4:11:31 ↗ All right. Thank you very much, Council. I have to say I appreciate the dedication

4:11:37 ↗ of of city councils when I go across this county and on Monday nights, I

4:11:41 ↗ know across the county people are meeting and there are lots of citizens that are

4:11:45 ↗ dedicated as well, but thank you for all that you do. I wanted to talk

4:11:50 ↗ tonight and I'll sort of be fairly brief and kind of get to questions knowing

4:11:55 ↗ that the night has gone on long. So each year in King County we do

4:12:01 ↗ a count of people experiencing homelessness. This is a requirement of HUD but more importantly

4:12:06 ↗ it's a sort of a wake up call to everybody each year to see this

4:12:12 ↗ number and see how many people are living outside and a call to action as

4:12:17 ↗ well around the responsibilities that we all have to make change and to solve homelessness.

4:12:22 ↗ And so I want to talk both about the issues and the scale and the

4:12:26 ↗ scope and how regional it is, but then also some of the solutions. And again,

4:12:31 ↗ I'll be brief. We changed some of our methodology this year to be more comprehensive.

4:12:36 ↗ We tried to get boots on the ground or cars with volunteer teams in the

4:12:42 ↗ middle of the night or in the early dawn hours as it was here in

4:12:47 ↗ Issaquah. in each of the census tracts. The county has 398 census tracts. We got

4:12:51 ↗ into 396 of them. We didn't cover every inch, but we're going to look to

4:12:55 ↗ improve next year. We think we have one of the most comprehensive counts in the

4:13:00 ↗ country. And we do a general street count. That's that team's out in the middle

4:13:04 ↗ of the night. We also do some specialized counts and try to attract places where

4:13:09 ↗ we might get some youth and young adults to come and we can do some

4:13:13 ↗ surveying with them. We also count the number of people in shelter and in transitional

4:13:17 ↗ housing, which is temporary housing that's considered, people are still considered to be homeless. And

4:13:22 ↗ then we did an extensive survey this year. And so I'm just going to highlight

4:13:26 ↗ some of the top level, top level results that we found. I guess I'll say

4:13:31 ↗ one more thing about the methodology changes. We hired people who had experienced homelessness to

4:13:35 ↗ lead the teams and paid them $15 an hour to do that. And then we

4:13:40 ↗ also paid them to do surveying of the we ended up surveying eleven hundred

4:13:46 ↗ other other people experiencing homelessness throughout the county. So we had a team out from

4:13:51 ↗ from Izaquah. I know some of you were involved in that. I appreciate that you

4:13:56 ↗ did that. We had people out really all over. We had seven different formal headquarters

4:14:01 ↗ and then some smaller ones in Vashon and here and and even out in like

4:14:06 ↗ Black Diamond and Maple Valley up to Skykomish. We counted all over. We counted 11,643

4:14:11 ↗ people experiencing homelessness that night in January. More than half of them, 5,485, were living

4:14:17 ↗ unsheltered. And I'll share a little bit more about the different circumstances that they were

4:14:22 ↗ in. You can see that many people were in shelter and transitional housing, more than

4:14:28 ↗ 6,000. And that number stayed about the same. It's really kind of a They're full

4:14:34 ↗ and so what we do is we're really counting the people that are in those

4:14:39 ↗ shelter beds and transitional units. We did have an increase in the number of emergency

4:14:45 ↗ shelter beds last year countywide of 350 or something. This is a further

4:14:51 ↗ breakout. You just saw the numbers there on the left side in orange. And then

4:14:56 ↗ in the unsheltered, I think it's important to note that of that 5,485, 2,300 were

4:15:02 ↗ in vans, cars, and RVs. We actually did some surveying in the month after of

4:15:07 ↗ the count to find out sort of on average how many people were in an

4:15:12 ↗ RV, a car. a van or in a tent and then use that multiplier went

4:15:17 ↗ back to the overnight count where we're not often able to see how many people

4:15:23 ↗ are in those situations. This is the way we broke

4:15:29 ↗ out the county into six different regions. And Issaquah was in the northeast

4:15:34 ↗ there. You probably know exactly where you put the pin dot. And you

4:15:40 ↗ can see that homelessness was really throughout the county. really in almost every census

4:15:46 ↗ tract throughout the county and that the majority were in Seattle. The second largest section

4:15:52 ↗ was really in Southwest County, kind of along I-5 toward the south part of the

4:15:58 ↗ county. And then 119 in the northeast part of the county. And really the northeast

4:16:03 ↗ and the southeast we hadn't counted in any significant way before, just in a really

4:16:09 ↗ spotty way. This is also sort of a breakout

4:16:15 ↗ of different subpopulations. So we look at how chronic homelessness is people with disabilities

4:16:21 ↗ that have been longer term homeless. About a quarter of the people experiencing homelessness

4:16:27 ↗ are longer term homeless and different strategies are really necessary for different populations. About

4:16:33 ↗ 11% had served in the military, were veterans in our community and living in

4:16:38 ↗ our community. And then 24% were families, about 900 families with about 2,800 people. And

4:16:44 ↗ then 13% were unaccompanied youth, so they were either under 18 or they were in

4:16:50 ↗ the 18 to 25 age range. I'm gonna jump now to just some of the

4:16:56 ↗ survey results. So we did this survey, something like 20 questions that we asked after.

4:17:02 ↗ And again, we paid people experiencing homelessness to go out and do these surveys. These

4:17:07 ↗ are some of the numbers that we saw. I think it's important to note that

4:17:13 ↗ most people, 77%, had been in housing here in King County when they became homeless.

4:17:18 ↗ So the myth that people are moving here for the services or people are moving

4:17:23 ↗ here, but yet they are moving here for a lot of different reasons. Yes, sir.

4:17:28 ↗ So King County is what about a third of the state's overall population 40% something.

4:17:33 ↗ I'm not sure it's about 2.3 million for the county. I'm not sure what the

4:17:38 ↗ state is. Sure. Let's say it's a third for the sake of argument. But it's

4:17:43 ↗ 77% of the generated homelessness. Why? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me restate what this data

4:17:49 ↗ shows. So of the 1,100 people that we asked, where were you housed when you

4:17:55 ↗ became homeless? 77%. They were housed here in King County when they became homeless. And

4:18:00 ↗ then the other 14% were from elsewhere in the state. As far as overall homelessness

4:18:06 ↗ numbers, I'd have to go and look at that. But King County is 45% to

4:18:11 ↗ 50% of our homelessness population. census statewide. I see. Does that make sense? This wasn't

4:18:17 ↗ a count statewide. It was just a King County count. And it was just a,

4:18:21 ↗ yeah, this count was. The State Department of Commerce collects the counts from each county

4:18:26 ↗ and then rolls that up and they release those numbers about a month ago. A

4:18:30 ↗ related question is the City of Seattle is about a third of King County and

4:18:35 ↗ yet it was about, from your earlier slides, about 75% of the homeless population. That's

4:18:39 ↗ right. So what are the factors that lead to that? Yeah, the factors that lead

4:18:45 ↗ to that are multiple, I think. It's a very, very complex issue

4:18:51 ↗ that requires complex, I think, solutions. Seattle is the least affordable in the

4:18:57 ↗ end you had a lot of discussion about sort of land use tonight and very

4:19:02 ↗ little land very little land very little housing supply and people are as far as

4:19:06 ↗ vacancies like the all the units are really are really full and all the land

4:19:11 ↗ is really most of the land is really occupied So I think land and housing

4:19:16 ↗ costs really factors in. One of the things that we've seen is that

4:19:22 ↗ in 2008, 2009, 2010, across King County, as the housing market vacancy rates

4:19:28 ↗ went up and costs, rental costs sort of plateaued, homelessness plateaued as well.

4:19:33 ↗ We didn't see increases in homelessness. We saw slight decreases. Big cities have

4:19:39 ↗ higher rates of homelessness as well. I think that's true nationwide. I'll get a little

4:19:45 ↗ bit more into the solutions and happy to have that discussion. Further results are that

4:19:51 ↗ homelessness disproportionately impacts people of color. We've known this. I think it's always important to

4:19:56 ↗ point it out. It's something that we are also looking at really closely at AllHome

4:20:02 ↗ where we're focused on homeless response once someone does become homeless. Do our programs have

4:20:08 ↗ equal outcomes once a person comes in? Are we able to get people housed at

4:20:14 ↗ the same rate whether they're black or white or Native American? And we're looking really

4:20:19 ↗ closely at that. Our rates are pretty similar, but we are seeing that Native Americans

4:20:24 ↗ are the least likely to get into housing as well. And so that's something that

4:20:30 ↗ we're focused on. When asked if they would take affordable housing, this is a question

4:20:35 ↗ that was asked to people that were living in shelter or unsheltered, 92% said they

4:20:40 ↗ would take safe, affordable housing if it were offered. They need to get back into

4:20:45 ↗ the market the most important thing and as I said 77% had been in housing

4:20:49 ↗ here in King County So they have been housed in this county for the most

4:20:53 ↗ part and then about 75% said rental assistance or affordable housing was the solution so

4:20:57 ↗ it sounds real obvious but those those are the those are things that we always

4:21:01 ↗ like to point out people have been in housing and they want they want to

4:21:05 ↗ get back and As far as solutions and where we're headed, we last

4:21:11 ↗ year in King County, 7,500 households that were homeless at some point during the year

4:21:17 ↗ moved into permanent housing, into some kind of housing. It could have been with their

4:21:23 ↗ friends or family. It could have been a shared housing situation if they were a

4:21:28 ↗ single adult or a young adult. they got back into housing. Sometimes that was in

4:21:34 ↗ another place. It wasn't necessarily here in King County. And that was a 50% increase

4:21:39 ↗ in 2013 and that's because we're really focused countywide, our nonprofits and funding entities on

4:21:44 ↗ really providing more flexible rental assistance, getting people the, what they're saying is they need

4:21:49 ↗ rental assistance. We're trying to get that to them. Building more shelter is important. We

4:21:54 ↗ need to have shelter. We also need to have places for people to go to

4:21:58 ↗ get out of shelter. And so that's what we've been focused on. And that's getting

4:22:02 ↗ us to some better results. But the simple math of it is the 11,000 people

4:22:07 ↗ experiencing homelessness last year and I mean on January 2017 a year before that it

4:22:12 ↗ was it was ten thousand six hundred or so we're seeing that number go up

4:22:18 ↗ even as we're housing more and more people and the costs of housing stagnant wages

4:22:24 ↗ even though we've seen increases in the minimum wage that that gap between what people

4:22:29 ↗ earn and the cost of housing is leading to people experiencing homelessness and then statewide

4:22:35 ↗ we have we have some of the the lowest levels of funding for behavioral health

4:22:40 ↗ services in the country and and that's having an impact day to day in the

4:22:45 ↗ streets particularly I think in places like Seattle where you have the mental hospital, you

4:22:51 ↗ have the emergency room, you have the King County Jail, all of those things are

4:22:56 ↗ there and really part of that. I would say that and I just would love

4:23:02 ↗ any questions or comments that you have at this at this late hour. But you

4:23:07 ↗ know, the solution really involves all of all of King County and involves the decisions

4:23:12 ↗ that you made tonight and discussions that you had tonight about affordable housing. It involves,

4:23:17 ↗ you know, residents really supporting when when when communities aim to put a shelter in

4:23:22 ↗ a community, supporting that, embracing it, trying to make it work. trusting that it can

4:23:27 ↗ work if they get involved. There's a lot of different things that entities can

4:23:33 ↗ do. We've seen recently some really inspiring action from the corporate sector, from Paul

4:23:39 ↗ Allen supporting a $35 million housing project for homeless families in King County, I

4:23:44 ↗ mean in Seattle, in South Seattle, as well as Amazon offering up and building

4:23:50 ↗ office space for shelters for homeless families. lots of good things happening and lots

4:23:56 ↗ more work to do in order to really address the scope and the scale

4:24:02 ↗ of this problem so that I'm not back here next year in June 11

4:24:08 ↗ o'clock at night talking about this again. So thank you and welcome any questions.

4:24:14 ↗ Questions? Mary Lou followed by Paul. So this was a change in the process from

4:24:19 ↗ the year before so Count Us In will be it will be using the same

4:24:23 ↗ format next year to collect the data and present it like you've done this year?

4:24:28 ↗ We do intend to we we're looking to make a couple of improvements we want

4:24:32 ↗ to make sure that the teams that we have enough volunteers out there to count

4:24:37 ↗ the areas we know that including here in Issaquah some of the the areas that

4:24:41 ↗ the teams needed to count were pretty large and there wasn't enough time to get

4:24:44 ↗ out there and it's a it's a we want to make sure we we have

4:24:48 ↗ good coverage throughout the county um we think with this year we had a little

4:24:52 ↗ bit less time to kind of pull it all together and make the switch than

4:24:55 ↗ we had in years past and there was the switch where people that people needed

4:24:59 ↗ a lot of information and communication about so we we do intend to stick with

4:25:02 ↗ overall the same methodology i just wanted to say i've I did it this year

4:25:07 ↗ and a couple years ago, and I thought that the format in this last year

4:25:13 ↗ was awesome. Oh, great. It would be great to move forward with that again and

4:25:19 ↗ get comparable data. I thought the way you collected it was really interesting. Thanks for

4:25:24 ↗ participating. Yeah. Paul? Could you explain the hire on your slide right there? Yeah. Yeah.

4:25:31 ↗ So we say that the most important thing that somebody can do as they listen

4:25:36 ↗ to a presentation like this is they want to know how to take action is

4:25:42 ↗ to rent to somebody or to hire somebody. Many people are landlords. They're not just

4:25:48 ↗ the big property owners, but they might, many of you perhaps own another unit. Renting

4:25:53 ↗ to somebody who's experienced homelessness or to a young adult, we have a host home

4:25:58 ↗ program where families in Seattle and across King County are on the east side, Friends

4:26:04 ↗ of Youth is operating this program. are taking in someone who has been homeless. That's

4:26:09 ↗ a condition that they're in, not necessarily who they are, and bringing them into their

4:26:15 ↗ home for a short period of time to rent to them to get them stabilized.

4:26:20 ↗ So that's one thing. As far as hiring, 30% of people in this survey said

4:26:26 ↗ that job loss was the thing that led to their homelessness, it was their primary

4:26:31 ↗ reason. And then another 30% said that they were working uh living unsheltered and working

4:26:37 ↗ um and actually two-thirds had worked or had worked or were currently working or had

4:26:42 ↗ worked in the last few months and so people need need jobs they need they

4:26:47 ↗ need a foothold to get out of of the situation that they're in i will

4:26:52 ↗ say um you know a large percentage um of folks have some significant barriers to

4:26:58 ↗ getting into jobs and getting into housing and some of it is some of it

4:27:03 ↗ is chemical addiction. Some of it is behavioral health issues. There are some real reasons

4:27:09 ↗ and some real issues. Sometimes people need to get a lot of help before they're

4:27:14 ↗ ready to take on that that next step. You mentioned the disproportional representation of

4:27:20 ↗ people of color in particular. And you just kind of hinted around that. I

4:27:26 ↗ mean, people are noting that. They've said that. But what actions are being taken

4:27:32 ↗ to try to deal with that in particular if it's such an obvious thing

4:27:37 ↗ from all around and not just this area as well? Yeah, we're trying to...

4:27:43 ↗ really raise awareness around it. I think that from my purview, what we're focused on

4:27:49 ↗ is if once somebody is homeless, how can we get them housed? And so I

4:27:54 ↗ think there are many causes of homelessness that that lead to higher rates of homelessness

4:28:00 ↗ among African Americans and Native Americans that are historical and are embedded in our institutions.

4:28:06 ↗ What we're trying to do within the homeless services system is not be another one

4:28:11 ↗ of those systems. We're trying to ensure that African Americans have as good of outcomes

4:28:17 ↗ as whites in our system. And they actually do, they have better exit rates to

4:28:21 ↗ permanent housing in King County. Native Americans have worse outcomes than whites, and so we're

4:28:26 ↗ really focused on that population and trying to figure out why and what we can

4:28:31 ↗ do better. - Great, thank you. I appreciate you continuing that work in that arena.

4:28:36 ↗ - Thank you. Mark, I

4:28:42 ↗ want to thank you for hanging with us

4:28:48 ↗ this evening and for providing that update. You

4:28:54 ↗ bet. Thanks a lot. Thank you much. Bye-bye.

4:28:59 ↗ Moving now to Sustainable Building Action Strategy, Agenda

4:29:05 ↗ Bill 7316. David Fujimoto, Director of our Office

4:29:11 ↗ of Sustainability. While David is getting set up,

4:29:17 ↗ We are not going to be talking this

4:29:23 ↗ evening about the citizen survey results. We'll push

4:29:29 ↗ that out to our next meeting. Great. Hold

4:29:35 ↗ them. All right. So I know. Thank you. I'll try and be quick. I'll roll

4:29:40 ↗ through my slides pretty fast since I know we're starting to get to that. Everyone's

4:29:44 ↗ excited to hit that golden hour and carry us over to the next day. But

4:29:47 ↗ I'll see if I can avoid that outcome as much as possible or at least

4:29:51 ↗ not contribute to it. Um, again, David Fujimoto, director of the office of sustainability, um,

4:29:56 ↗ the sustainable building action strategy, uh, is arose out of a council goal, uh, about

4:30:01 ↗ a year and a half ago, uh, where the city council in, I think thinking

4:30:06 ↗ forwardly about the development that was coming down the road, uh, asked us to consider,

4:30:11 ↗ um, how the performance of the buildings as the community grows. And so they asked,

4:30:16 ↗ set this council goal and set the wheels in motion. So we've been following a

4:30:21 ↗ process through the last about year and a half. working with an interdepartmental team doing

4:30:26 ↗ a body of work looking at our policies and our codes. We brought on a

4:30:31 ↗ consultant. We have an internal team across different departments. We checked in with stakeholders and

4:30:36 ↗ partners in the region, took a look at how we stood relative to some of

4:30:41 ↗ the best practices that are out in the area. We did some work with some

4:30:46 ↗ developers and received some feedback about some of the initial strategies and ideas. And we

4:30:51 ↗ also checked in with council through several points of contact with Land and Shore as

4:30:56 ↗ well as a work session. So we're now at that very last end stage, hopefully,

4:31:00 ↗ should you choose to adopt this strategy to be able to move forward. And then

4:31:06 ↗ this is a slide I shared with the Land and Shore Committee, but just thinking

4:31:11 ↗ about and stepping back a little bit and thinking about the context of the strategy

4:31:16 ↗ is really putting thinking about sustainable building as kind of looking at the performance of

4:31:21 ↗ the built environment. So generally there's not a lot. You all spoke tonight about one

4:31:26 ↗ of the few remaining green space development projects left in the city. Barring that and

4:31:30 ↗ maybe a few other small pieces of land. There's not a whole lot more in

4:31:35 ↗ terms of green space and the city's done a ton of work on thinking about

4:31:39 ↗ how to protect and preserve natural open spaces. So turning to thinking about the built

4:31:43 ↗ environment and how we do that and lining up a number of these pieces about

4:31:48 ↗ good architecture and design, high performing buildings, heard some conversation about equity and affordable housing,

4:31:54 ↗ infrastructure to meet those needs. And so really about design that's responsive to the community.

4:32:00 ↗ And sustainable building is really about good design. It's really about addressing the performance of

4:32:05 ↗ the building itself At the same time, the context of development and the moratorium is

4:32:10 ↗ an opportunity to align some of these community goals. And this is that piece about

4:32:15 ↗ building performance. Our comprehensive plan also speaks to this. This is a

4:32:21 ↗ piece that's been a part of our comprehensive plan for a number of years. And

4:32:26 ↗ it talks about regional leadership and it talks about that notion of economic and social

4:32:31 ↗ and environmental and balancing and tying those pieces together, looking to exceed standards and really

4:32:36 ↗ trying to achieve some of those benefits of growing in a sustainable way. And the

4:32:41 ↗ comprehensive plan language actually even talks about putting in place measures to ensure that we're

4:32:47 ↗ achieving at a minimum levels of sustainability. The development of the Sustainable Building Action Strategy

4:32:53 ↗ involved a whole variety of steps, some of which I spoke to before, taking a

4:32:59 ↗ look at this notion of regional leadership and what does it mean for us as

4:33:05 ↗ a jurisdiction and how do we contribute and operate in a regional context. Because a

4:33:10 ↗ lot of times we don't like to reinvent the wheel, we can see what works

4:33:15 ↗ in other communities and vice versa. And so Issaquah has been at that forefront in

4:33:19 ↗ a number of areas in the past with some demonstration projects and some leadership in

4:33:23 ↗ codes and policies. And so this is really an intent to carry that forward. We've

4:33:28 ↗ also took a look at a number of our existing plans and strategies to make

4:33:33 ↗ sure that this lined up and didn't create new, wasn't necessarily recommending the creation of

4:33:38 ↗ new but actually better implementation of existing. meeting some of those goals, and then also

4:33:44 ↗ this approach about using a variety of different components. There's education and marketing and there's

4:33:49 ↗ some incentives and a broad range of different approaches in order to move the marketplace

4:33:55 ↗ forward. And then also think specifically about Issaquah and some of the key building typologies.

4:34:00 ↗ So ultimately there's five themes and 21 actions that were identified through the strategy.

4:34:06 ↗ These are some of the things that it ultimately addresses when it comes down to

4:34:12 ↗ it. Thinking about transportation associated with the built environment, greenhouse gas emissions is a really

4:34:17 ↗ important topic and one that we know needs to be addressed more and more at

4:34:22 ↗ the local level. And so there's a whole range of things, some tied directly to

4:34:28 ↗ our identity as a community, whether that's our forested hillsides or our streams in our

4:34:34 ↗ Lake Sammamish here in town. But it's really kind of tying these pieces together.

4:34:40 ↗ And ultimately, I think you've seen this slide before, it's about an action-oriented roadmap. So

4:34:45 ↗ it's about this strategy itself lays out a number of measures that would be implemented

4:34:50 ↗ over time in order to get us to realize some of those benefits of a

4:34:55 ↗ sustainable building approach. So it talks about leadership, it talks about building some of our

4:35:00 ↗ internal capacity, improving our processes, lining up with the public sector so that we have

4:35:05 ↗ common goals wherever possible. using a variety of approaches as I mentioned before. So there's

4:35:11 ↗ incentives as well as new measures that can be incorporated and also just some basic

4:35:17 ↗ pieces about improving information or access to information to help motivate changes to our building

4:35:23 ↗ stock. Through our conversations with Land and Shore,

4:35:28 ↗ there were and through some feedback from council as well as from the community members

4:35:33 ↗ and developers, we received a number of different comments and we worked through those. I'm

4:35:38 ↗ not going to go through these in detail, but those are addressed in the memo

4:35:43 ↗ that's also attached to the agenda bill.

4:35:49 ↗ And then also as a part of the packet is a proposed resolution. It does

4:35:54 ↗ basically three things. It adopts the action strategy itself, talks about some early actions, which

4:35:58 ↗ I'll cover briefly, and then it also provides for a report on progress so we

4:36:03 ↗ can do that check-in and refinement as needed within the first year and a half

4:36:07 ↗ of adoption of the strategy. Some of the early actions that were identified were the

4:36:13 ↗ city's sustainable building policies. This is the municipal policy that applies to our own buildings

4:36:18 ↗ and sets in place a pretty, sets a good bar for our work and uses

4:36:24 ↗ that as a foundation for thinking about how do we work with others in our

4:36:29 ↗ community to align with those some of those policies. That's the essentially the next two

4:36:34 ↗ pieces. City itself doesn't have a lot of projects coming down the pipe, but there

4:36:39 ↗ are a lot more from the public and private sector. We're also looking at the

4:36:45 ↗ design criteria as a part of the sub area planning work that's underway. And then

4:36:50 ↗ there's also a piece on looking at our existing code on transportation management plans, which

4:36:55 ↗ could use some tweaks and adjustments and some additional clarity as well. And then finally

4:37:01 ↗ one piece that's not here but was incorporated into the strategy was renewable energy for

4:37:06 ↗ municipal facilities. And that actually is an early action that we're able to take some

4:37:11 ↗ steps forward on. It's actually the next coming agenda bill about the power purchasing agreement.

4:37:16 ↗ So that's actually a good news measure that we're able to jump on right away.

4:37:23 ↗ And with that, oh, and real quick, so some of the benefits, you know, there's

4:37:28 ↗ a whole range of things that are, that sustainable buildings offer to our communities, from

4:37:34 ↗ comfort to improved amenities, also applies to the building trades themselves as they're constructing the

4:37:39 ↗ buildings. There's these connections to locally sourced materials I had mentioned previously. For Terra talks

4:37:45 ↗ a lot about cross-laminated timber and the connection of kind of rural economies that are

4:37:50 ↗ more, kind of forestry based and how we can in the urban environment

4:37:56 ↗ start to incorporate new technologies into our building construction and provide for that

4:38:02 ↗ local economy as well. I spoke before about some of the climate impacts

4:38:08 ↗ and then also just looking at aligning and building partnerships with others in

4:38:14 ↗ our community. And with that, let's see if there's any questions. - Love

4:38:20 ↗ that picture. This is... Coming back from land

4:38:25 ↗ and shore and so with that, Stacy.

4:38:31 ↗ I would move to approve resolution number

4:38:36 ↗ 2017-12, adopting the sustainable building action strategy.

4:38:41 ↗ Second. Moved and seconded. Questions or discussion?

4:38:48 ↗ Bill. I'd just like to compliment you on particularly addition and listening to the council

4:38:53 ↗ on some of the suggestions, particularly in the area of solar and renewable resources. And

4:38:58 ↗ the next thing we'll be talking about, getting those early movements and stuff on there.

4:39:02 ↗ I really appreciate the work you did on that and working with me. And so

4:39:07 ↗ thank you. Other questions or discussion? All those in favor of

4:39:13 ↗ approving resolution number? Sorry. I just wanted to echo what Councilmember Ramos

4:39:19 ↗ talked about in terms of all the hard work that's gone into

4:39:25 ↗ this. I had one question about, so is 18 months, was that

4:39:30 ↗ the first time that you'll do sort of a check-in on

4:39:37 ↗ where everything is at and what you might want to change. So that's that was

4:39:43 ↗ incorporated into the resolution just to ensure that we had a check-in point. Certainly we

4:39:48 ↗ could come and provide an update at Land and Shore or another committee as time

4:39:53 ↗ progresses and agendas allow but we want to ensure that as we start to get

4:39:58 ↗ into early actions and kind of kind of the first steps that we did have

4:40:03 ↗ a place to say okay well how are we doing on the overall strategy are

4:40:08 ↗ we still pursuing the right approaches uh have things changed as the moratorium lifts for

4:40:13 ↗ example uh so that's uh it seemed like you know a year might be a

4:40:18 ↗ little bit too soon but you know within the first year and a half so

4:40:23 ↗ great thank you a question and a comment uh question david when this was proposed

4:40:28 ↗ as a council goal I know one of the motivations at the time by

4:40:34 ↗ the proposer was that Issaquah demonstrate leadership and I wondered if you could just

4:40:40 ↗ in your own words just kind of summarize how this plan does that.

4:40:46 ↗ um sure so i think you know part of the council goal was demonstrating leadership

4:40:51 ↗ in the region and that's going to be kind of a fuzzy thing to define

4:40:56 ↗ and you know the strategy by itself doesn't demonstrate leadership but the actual adoption of

4:41:01 ↗ the different measures collectively will for the vast majority of them they've been implemented in

4:41:06 ↗ some shape or form by various jurisdictions and so it's really the collection of them

4:41:11 ↗ and thinking about how they all fit together which you know, provides kind of an

4:41:16 ↗ opportunity for saying, "This is how a community is choosing to move forward and to

4:41:20 ↗ identify some of those benefits." So I think it really does do that. It connects

4:41:24 ↗ with a lot of the regional efforts, whether it's the King County Cities Climate Collaboration

4:41:29 ↗ or the Regional Code Collaboration, some of the work that's happening at the state level

4:41:33 ↗ with the Department of Commerce. There's a lot of kind of pieces that tie into

4:41:37 ↗ work that's being done by others that helps to reinforce some of those benefits. All

4:41:43 ↗ right, thank you. And I wanted to comment that I think the breadth

4:41:48 ↗ of this material, its depth, it's very comprehensive. I think you and your

4:41:54 ↗ staff deserve recognition for this full body of work. And I think the

4:42:00 ↗ way you've prepared it and presented it to us, while we've been having

4:42:06 ↗ so much fun with all these land use actions, you and your team

4:42:11 ↗ just stayed right abreast and continued working on this. It

4:42:17 ↗ is very comprehensive. It is actionable. much of it is measurable

4:42:23 ↗ I'm really looking forward to think certain parts of it I know that a lot

4:42:28 ↗ of it is voluntary and I think where there are some ways of getting people

4:42:34 ↗ especially homeowners involved one particular piece in here that just that is interesting to me

4:42:39 ↗ is is this idea of benchmarking it's just one of the many different things but

4:42:44 ↗ I know that it takes a while to build up a database like that and

4:42:49 ↗ going in and actually getting measures and then be able to

4:42:55 ↗ compare your results with maybe a larger body of work can result in very, you

4:43:01 ↗ know, people taking direct action. And I look forward to seeing just, and that's just

4:43:06 ↗ one element of this plan. I look forward to see how that evolves and how

4:43:11 ↗ I think that that's, again, just one of many ways that we can have, this

4:43:17 ↗ will have a real impact. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Mary

4:43:22 ↗ Lou. Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you to the team. I think

4:43:28 ↗ you really met the intent of the goal that the Council set, maybe even

4:43:34 ↗ exceeded it. It's a really great document, and you had to compete with a

4:43:40 ↗ lot of other items. So thank you for being patient with us. All those

4:43:46 ↗ in favor of approving Resolution Number 2017-12, Adopting the Sustainability Action Strategy, signify by

4:43:52 ↗ saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously. Our last action item

4:43:58 ↗ this evening, Agenda Bill 7438, PSE Green Direct Power Service

4:44:04 ↗ Agreement. David? Oh, okay. So likewise, I'll try and go

4:44:09 ↗ quickly on this one. So as I mentioned before, there

4:44:15 ↗ was a strategy for renewable energy for municipal facilities. And

4:44:21 ↗ this is an action that's all about actually moving that

4:44:26 ↗ piece forward. so green direct is a program of puget sound energy it's a

4:44:32 ↗ new tariff it's one of very few that exists in the country probably about a

4:44:37 ↗ dozen or so or half a dozen or so and it's actually been vetted through

4:44:43 ↗ the washington state utilities and transportation commission and it basically is a new power op

4:44:48 ↗ or power supply option for electricity only um it only changes that piece of it

4:44:53 ↗ so it doesn't affect anything else related to our relationship with puget sound energy they

4:44:58 ↗ continue to provide our services per usual and and you might be familiar with something

4:45:03 ↗ like green power which is more of a residential product there's a commercial version of

4:45:08 ↗ it as well this is very different from that that's that's technically uh kind of

4:45:12 ↗ a surcharge or additional charge you might pay for uh in order to kind of

4:45:17 ↗ buy into a renewable power source this is as I said before, it's actually a

4:45:22 ↗ charge and a credit. So it's actually, if you look at the portion of your

4:45:27 ↗ bill that is associated with the energy supply, this is simply replacing that energy supply

4:45:31 ↗ with kind of a standard market supply with one that we're designating from a renewable

4:45:36 ↗ energy source. So it does differ quite a bit, provides an opportunity for taking a

4:45:41 ↗ look at pricing a little bit differently because it's a long-term contract. And longer term,

4:45:46 ↗ this is kind of the first offering, but longer term we believe that there's going

4:45:51 ↗ to be opportunities for actually thinking about the resource where it comes from. So in

4:45:56 ↗ this particular case it's coming from a wind farm in southwest Washington and Thurston and

4:46:01 ↗ Lewis counties. In the future it could be large-scale solar, for example. So a

4:46:07 ↗ little bit about why this is important. The electricity fuel mix for Puget Sound

4:46:13 ↗ Energy, this is from 2015. And again, this, apologies, this happened in services as

4:46:19 ↗ well. And I did fix it. But so the gray part is actually coal.

4:46:25 ↗ The blue is hydro and red is natural or the kind of lighter red

4:46:30 ↗ is natural gas. And so coal is actually about 36, 37% of the electricity fuel

4:46:36 ↗ mix. So the kind of the power supply or the source of fuel to generate

4:46:41 ↗ electricity is primarily coal. And so in the Northwest, we generally think about hydros being

4:46:47 ↗ our predominant source. And that's actually not true when you look at our utility providers.

4:46:52 ↗ So PSE provides about just over a third from coal. And from an overall carbon

4:46:58 ↗ pollution and emission standpoint, that's pretty significant. So

4:47:03 ↗ as I mentioned before, there's both a charge and a credit. This is a char-

4:47:09 ↗ it's this particular project is in southwestern Washington. We are looking at a basically a

4:47:14 ↗ longer term power purchase agreement with Puget Sound Energy. And so what we're talking about

4:47:20 ↗ in as I'll talk about more is our recommendations for a 10-year contract. It starts

4:47:25 ↗ with a fixed price in 2019 and has a 2% escalator on it. And there

4:47:31 ↗ are some other pieces related to it. There's something called renewable energy certificates. Those are

4:47:36 ↗ basically the kind of the green attributes of the power because that's what we're seeking.

4:47:40 ↗ They're going to retire them for us. And it's unique in that we can choose

4:47:45 ↗ the accounts where we want this to apply. So we can say we want to

4:47:50 ↗ apply to building A and infrastructure B. And we do it on an account by

4:47:55 ↗ account basis, which is very unique. There's There's not an upfront capital cost that we

4:48:00 ↗ incur. We're basically able to kind of pick and choose and substitute the supply. So

4:48:05 ↗ also equally important, it doesn't include any of the other kind of service costs associated

4:48:10 ↗ with the utility service, whether it's transmission, billing, meter reading, customer service, and those types

4:48:16 ↗ of pieces. So there's the charge for the renewable option, and then there's the credit,

4:48:21 ↗ which is kind of the standard PSE fuel mix, which is the pie chart I

4:48:26 ↗ showed before. This is kind of a mock-up of an example. Don't

4:48:32 ↗ pay too much attention to the numbers because they're not -- they don't actually reflect

4:48:36 ↗ this current offering. But as you can see, there's basically different components to the utility

4:48:41 ↗ costs that we see. And so what happens in this case is you see both

4:48:45 ↗ that credit and that charge. So we actually get the credit back from the kind

4:48:50 ↗ of standard fuel mix, and then we get charged for the renewable fuel mix in

4:48:54 ↗ this case. Because we're taking a look at a long-term purchasing

4:49:00 ↗ agreement, part of how this plays out is depends on what the scenarios look like

4:49:05 ↗ in terms of the future energy cost for the standard fuel mix versus the energy

4:49:09 ↗ cost for this. We know that this is fixed starting in 2019 with a 2%

4:49:14 ↗ escalator. The part that we don't know is what happens to electricity fuel prices, in

4:49:19 ↗ part that depends on whether you're bullish or bearish about what's going to happen. We've

4:49:23 ↗ seen renewable energy costs go down quite dramatically over time. But then for kind of

4:49:29 ↗ standard fuel mix, there's a variety of different things to look at. Puget Sound Energy

4:49:35 ↗ has something called the integrated resource plan, which looks out into the 20-year horizon. That

4:49:41 ↗ has about a 6% increase. There's also something called the energy information plan. Association, which

4:49:47 ↗ looks similarly, comes at about a 2.4 percent increase. If you look backwards over

4:49:53 ↗ the last 15 years, the average price increase for PSE has been about 2.4

4:49:58 ↗ percent. In thinking about some of

4:50:04 ↗ those rate comparisons, there are kind of three different options here, plus the --

4:50:10 ↗ or, excuse me, four, plus the green direct. Green direct is kind of the

4:50:16 ↗ dashed green line up here. And basically, the point is, is that, The rate would

4:50:22 ↗ start out a little bit higher, but then depending on how it performs relative to

4:50:27 ↗ market prices, you could be above or below the market and actually be in a

4:50:32 ↗ cost saving, if you will, relative to the market. Puget Sound Energy also produces

4:50:38 ↗ from Puget Sound Energy over a longer time frame of about 20 years. Green Direct

4:50:44 ↗ is the green line. And they use different projections here, 1.5, 2.5, and 4% increase.

4:50:50 ↗ And so, you know, if rates were to go up by 4% on average, there'd

4:50:56 ↗ be a substantial savings actually with Green Direct in this case.

4:51:03 ↗ As I said before, we're allowed to kind of pick and choose based on our

4:51:07 ↗ different facilities, but because it's a long-term agreement, we would want to make sure that

4:51:12 ↗ those facilities are in place in 10 years. And so we took a look at

4:51:17 ↗ those accounts and worked with parks and public works operations and took a look at

4:51:21 ↗ kind of those facilities that met those criteria. It is important to note that Puget

4:51:26 ↗ Sound Energy is very flexible about the program actually. And so if we were to

4:51:30 ↗ have a building, for example, to go offline or a signal, we could actually transfer

4:51:35 ↗ that account to a different account. They just want to make sure that we have

4:51:39 ↗ total accounts in place. If we implement energy efficiency measures, those actually don't count against

4:51:44 ↗ us either or onsite renewables. So a lot of flexibility built into the program. When

4:51:49 ↗ we look at some of the numbers on this, this is for as it starts

4:51:54 ↗ in 2019, The rate would be the green direct charge that's indicated here,

4:52:00 ↗ the 0.05111 per kilowatt hours. The energy credit is estimated because we

4:52:06 ↗ don't know exactly where prices will be in 2019, but that's an

4:52:11 ↗ estimate. So in that first year, estimated net costs are 0.00181 per

4:52:17 ↗ kilowatt hour. The city in total uses about 400 or spends about

4:52:23 ↗ $471,000 per year on electricity. We're proposing that we would designate

4:52:29 ↗ this for about 99 accounts, which is about 70% of our

4:52:34 ↗ total electricity demand. And the net cost of that is between

4:52:40 ↗ $6,300 and $8,500 in that first year.

4:52:46 ↗ Real quickly, there's a variety of public and private folks who are working on

4:52:52 ↗ renewable energy and see this as important to their future plans and overall portfolios.

4:52:58 ↗ It's a pretty wide-ranging group. The key to all of this is the utility-based

4:53:04 ↗ programs, which like Green Direct, and so we're seeing some more engagement on that

4:53:09 ↗ front. And also by a number of cities. This is a limited offering. I don't

4:53:15 ↗ think I mentioned this before, but they can, Pew, Pew's Energy has about 75 average

4:53:20 ↗ megawatt hours through this program. It's about the electricity of about 30,000 homes. So they

4:53:24 ↗ have a limit. that they're going to be reaching so we're coming in really close

4:53:29 ↗ to kind of the finish you know they're kind of tying that up it looks

4:53:33 ↗ like we'll be in a good position if we're able to move this forward but

4:53:37 ↗ a number of other folks that are participating several that are considering So

4:53:43 ↗ just to wrap it up, our recommendation is that we focus on our existing buildings

4:53:48 ↗ and infrastructure, about 99 accounts. It's about 70% of our total electricity. We do, we

4:53:53 ↗ did not include a number of buildings that we have question marks about, but those

4:53:58 ↗ could be assessed in the future. And we could also assess some buildings that are

4:54:03 ↗ better, have better disposition potentially for solar, which would be something we want to take

4:54:08 ↗ a look at and see if we could secure funding. um, and i

4:54:13 ↗ think that's it oh so benefits real quick renewable power from the northwest we talked

4:54:19 ↗ about some of our climate and carbon goals this helps us to get some of

4:54:24 ↗ those pieces in place there are very low administrative costs associated with this particular supply

4:54:30 ↗ because it's all going through puget sound energy's transmission and also provides some options to

4:54:35 ↗ incorporate solar in the future and then finally it's a first action step for our

4:54:40 ↗ sustainable building strategy And I spoke a bit

4:54:46 ↗ about timing. Thank you, David. This is coming back to us from Services and Safety.

4:54:52 ↗ Tola. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to authorize the Mayor to enter into and

4:54:58 ↗ execute the Green Direct Service Agreement with Puget Sound Energy for a 10-year term for

4:55:04 ↗ the referenced City accounts. Second. Moved and seconded. Questions or discussion?

4:55:12 ↗ No. Yeah, I just I really like this as a first step. It's we just

4:55:18 ↗ passed the action strategy and and this is like, you know, immediate action after that.

4:55:23 ↗ If this is looking at two thirds of our electricity use into renewable power, that's

4:55:28 ↗ an amazing chunk to take off right at the bat. And with the other goal

4:55:33 ↗ we have in that of 15% or greater in solar, it leaves us a window

4:55:38 ↗ there to that goal of getting all renewable by 2025. We're moving right there for

4:55:43 ↗ it. So I want to be a leader again in this field, and this is

4:55:48 ↗ a great first step in doing that. Good. Other questions or comments?

4:55:54 ↗ Paul. Real quick, and if we act fast, we can get

4:56:00 ↗ both taken care of in the same day. All those in

4:56:06 ↗ favor of Authorizing the Mayor to enter to and execute the

4:56:11 ↗ Green Direct Service Agreement with PSE Energy for a 10-year term for

4:56:17 ↗ the reference to the account signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That

4:56:23 ↗ carries unanimously. Anything for the good of the order?

4:56:28 ↗ Seeing

4:57:30 ↗ none

4:58:31 ↗ then,

4:59:32 ↗ we'll

5:00:33 ↗ now

5:01:35 ↗ move

5:02:36 ↗ into

5:03:37 ↗ executive

5:04:39 ↗ session

5:05:40 ↗ which

5:06:41 ↗ will

5:07:43 ↗ take

5:08:44 ↗ about

5:09:45 ↗ 15

5:10:47 ↗ minutes.

5:11:48 ↗ We

5:12:49 ↗ are

5:13:50 ↗ back

5:14:52 ↗ in

5:15:53 ↗ regular

5:16:54 ↗ session

5:17:56 ↗ after

5:18:57 ↗ extending

5:19:58 ↗ the

5:21:00 ↗ existing

5:22:01 ↗ 15

5:23:02 ↗ minutes

5:24:04 ↗ to

5:25:05 ↗ 25.

5:26:07 ↗ Is there any other business to come before the council? Then we are adjourned.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.