City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, July 17, 2017 · City Council Digest

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, July 17

Approve · packet pp.2017

Topics: Budget

Open packet at p.2017 ↗

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, June 10, 2017

Approve · packet pp.7–25

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 10, 2017

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 06-10-17 City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page [0000]

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, July 6, 2017

Approve · packet pp.27–29

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 12, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 19, 2017

Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

Due to the holiday schedule, the Regular Council meeting of July 3 has been rescheduled to 5:30 PM on July 6. (This meeting precedes the Council Land & Shore Committee meeting which begins at 6:30 PM.)

LED Street Lights, Department of Commerce Grant AB 7112

Accept Grant · packet pp.31–33

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.31 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Operations Department:

Wildwood Reservoir Rehabilitation AB 7128

Accept Project · packet pp.35–36

Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

2016 Water Main Rehabilitation Project AB 7133

Accept Project · packet pp.37–38

Topics: Water

Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

Transportation Benefit District AB 7250

Confirm · packet pp.39–68

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.39 ↗

Staff report:

City Council / Stacy Goodman, Council President:

Additional 2017 Staffing Request AB 7456

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.71–79

Topics: Public Safety

Open packet at p.71 ↗

Staff report:

memorandums that provide an update on those two positions (Exhibits A and B).

7. PUBLIC HEARING

Annexation of Bellevue Utility Island and Establishment of Pre-Annexation Zoning (Zoning Element is QUASI-JUDICIAL) AB 7442

Conduct Public Hearing; Direct · packet pp.435–445

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.435 ↗

Staff report:

CITY COUNCIL UPDATED AGENDA BILL AB 7442 - City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Jul 2017 Public Hearing

8. REGULAR BUSINESS

Amending Parking Requirements in the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards AB 7345

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.447–518

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 15, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 22, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 22, 2017

Open packet at p.447 ↗

Staff report:

In September 2016, the Issaquah City Council enacted a six-month moratorium on certain types of development to ensure future development meets the vision for Central Issaquah. The council has since extended the temporary moratorium until September 6, 2017.

Citizen Survey Results Hear Presentation AB 7407

packet pp.519–678

Open packet at p.519 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7407 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 17 Jul 2017 Business

4417 segments

0:16 ↗ I'll call to order the July 17th 2017

0:23 ↗ city regular council meeting and ask

0:25 ↗ those in the audience would like to join

0:28 ↗ the council and myself and the pledge of

0:30 ↗ allegiance to please stand of the United

0:38 ↗ States of America and to the Republic

0:40 ↗ for which it stands one nation

0:43 ↗ indivisible authority is

0:52 ↗ with that our first item of business

0:55 ↗ this evening is audience comments

1:01 ↗ citizen comments are an important part

1:04 ↗ of the public process we take them

1:07 ↗ seriously and factor them into the

1:09 ↗ decisions that we make I just point out

1:13 ↗ this evening that in addition to

1:15 ↗ audience comments there are three public

1:19 ↗ hearings scheduled for later in the

1:22 ↗ meeting and those are for the capital

1:25 ↗ improvement plan the annexation of the

1:30 ↗ King County Island and establishment of

1:32 ↗ pre-annexation zoning and annexation of

1:36 ↗ Bellevue utility island and

1:39 ↗ establishment of pre nxs Owen so if you

1:43 ↗ want to speak to one of those three that

1:47 ↗ would be the appropriate time and just

1:50 ↗ as a preview I'm guessing that we will

1:53 ↗ move pretty quickly to those three items

1:56 ↗ following audience comments for those

1:59 ↗ that want to speak on other issues so

2:02 ↗ anyone from the public who wishes to

2:04 ↗ comment on tonight's agenda items or

2:06 ↗ other topics should do so at this time

2:08 ↗ please direct your comments to the whole

2:11 ↗ council and not individuals while this

2:14 ↗ is not a question and answer session we

2:16 ↗ will contact you to follow up if needed

2:18 ↗ you did not have an opportunity to

2:21 ↗ include your email address on the

2:23 ↗ sign-in sheet

2:24 ↗ you may leave that information on the

2:26 ↗ clipboard at the front table after

2:29 ↗ speaking and recognize please use the

2:33 ↗ lectern and speak into the microphone

2:35 ↗ state your name address and any

2:37 ↗ relationship to the city limit your

2:39 ↗ comments to 5-minutes if you have

2:42 ↗ written comments please submit them to

2:44 ↗ the city clerk it's a visual timer at

2:49 ↗ the lectern what it turns yellow you are

2:51 ↗ within the last minute of your comment

2:53 ↗ period if you use the full five minutes

2:56 ↗ the timer will sound to indicate the end

2:58 ↗ of your allotted

3:00 ↗ at time personal attacks I've seen

3:03 ↗ language derogatory remarks and

3:05 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

3:07 ↗ permitted again citizen comments written

3:11 ↗ and verbal are an important aspect of

3:13 ↗ the public process the city takes these

3:15 ↗ comments seriously and we thank members

3:17 ↗ of the public for taking the time to

3:20 ↗ address us during our meetings and with

3:23 ↗ that I would ask if anyone has signed up

3:25 ↗ to speak this evening yes Liz Toby min

3:41 ↗ good evening for the record my name is

3:44 ↗ Liz Tye diamond and I now live in

3:46 ↗ Issaquah when I have spoken to you

3:48 ↗ before I was a bellevue resident and my

3:51 ↗ interest in Issaquah was that my parents

3:53 ↗ lived here and i'm here today as a

3:57 ↗ private citizen to give you information

3:59 ↗ about two things first there's an event

4:03 ↗ coming up at the Issaquah Public Library

4:06 ↗ on July 29th at 11:30 a.m. that would be

4:11 ↗ of interest to family caregivers it is a

4:15 ↗ film and a discussion and the film is

4:19 ↗ called the Sandwich Generation my

4:22 ↗ experience from 2006 and my parents

4:24 ↗ moved here until they passed away within

4:27 ↗ the last couple years was as a member of

4:30 ↗ the Sandwich Generation being involved

4:32 ↗ in bringing up my own son and helping to

4:36 ↗ look out for the interests of my aging

4:38 ↗ parents and anyone who has been in that

4:40 ↗ situation while certainly speaking from

4:43 ↗ my experience I benefit from the

4:45 ↗ opportunity to have conversations with

4:48 ↗ other people having the same experience

4:51 ↗ so I've been asked to be one of the

4:54 ↗ panelists at the Issaquah event because

4:57 ↗ I live here in Issaquah and I have the

4:59 ↗ experience so number one is to give you

5:02 ↗ information about that event and I have

5:06 ↗ a flyer from the sponsoring organization

5:09 ↗ and I've written the event details

5:11 ↗ second I'd like to give you the facts

5:14 ↗ that on July 1st a new state law went

5:18 ↗ into effect

5:18 ↗ it's our cw18 dot 390 and it relates to

5:24 ↗ continuing care retirement communities

5:26 ↗ and there is one such entity here in

5:28 ↗ Issaquah Timber Ridge after my parents

5:32 ↗ were shopping for a place to live and

5:34 ↗ they chose to help finance and then live

5:37 ↗ at timber Ridge during those years we

5:40 ↗ came to understand that there wasn't a

5:43 ↗ lot of clarity about the difference

5:45 ↗ between a continuing care retirement

5:46 ↗ community and an assisted living

5:49 ↗ facility so that clarity in the senior

5:54 ↗ living and services landscape starts

5:57 ↗ with having a chapter of state law 18.3

6:02 ↗ 90 applicable to continuing care

6:04 ↗ retirement communities so they're no

6:06 ↗ longer confused with assisted living

6:09 ↗ facilities which are governed by 18 20

6:13 ↗ of the Revised Code of Washington and I

6:16 ↗ have a fact sheet about continuing care

6:20 ↗ retirement communities and the new law

6:24 ↗ so those are the two pieces of

6:25 ↗ information I wanted to inform the City

6:28 ↗ Council about because they're things

6:29 ↗ that interest me thank you

6:31 ↗ IQ lives no one further has signed up to

6:37 ↗ speak is there anyone else in the

6:41 ↗ audience who has not signed up and

6:43 ↗ desiring to speak general under general

6:46 ↗ audience comments again

6:56 ↗ my name is Ken easement I reside at to

6:59 ↗ 473 Northwest Stoney Creek Drive in

7:03 ↗ Issaquah in the talus community first

7:07 ↗ off I want to thank City Council for

7:10 ↗ their vote to fund the infrastructure

7:14 ↗ repairs on shangri-la way that were

7:19 ↗ impacted by the talus hill slide the

7:23 ↗ work is started there's construction

7:25 ↗ equipment out there there's hope in the

7:27 ↗ community that were this is the first

7:29 ↗ step to a more permanent solution so I

7:34 ↗ want to thank the council I want to

7:36 ↗ thank city engineering for having staff

7:38 ↗ out there there's a member of Sheldon's

7:42 ↗ team out there who's supervising and

7:45 ↗ answering questions and looking

7:47 ↗ officials so thanks for that I am

7:51 ↗ hopeful that this will spur the property

7:53 ↗ owner to take care of their part of the

7:56 ↗ problem but thank you city for taking

7:59 ↗ care of our part of it I'd also like to

8:03 ↗ express my thanks to counsel for the

8:05 ↗ Bergsma development agreement decision I

8:09 ↗ think it's a wonderful piece of property

8:12 ↗ that could be preserved for the public

8:15 ↗ good and I would encourage council and

8:18 ↗ administration to work diligently on

8:22 ↗ that it is a unique piece of property in

8:25 ↗ that it contains mature forests but that

8:29 ↗ is unflattering at the top there and

8:32 ↗ that's somewhat unique we have lots of

8:35 ↗ forested open space but oftentimes

8:38 ↗ they're steep and it's difficult for

8:40 ↗ young families and people that are not

8:43 ↗ great hikers to navigate so that's a

8:47 ↗ nice piece of land and then it's mostly

8:48 ↗ flat on the top so thank you again thank

8:53 ↗ you can anyone else was not signed up to

8:56 ↗ yes

9:01 ↗ thank you for the record Justin Walsh to

9:03 ↗ 196 shy bear away and candidate for

9:06 ↗ counsel position three I wanted to speak

9:08 ↗ briefly on a bee

9:09 ↗ 7250 regarding the establishment of

9:12 ↗ transportation benefits district I

9:14 ↗ definitely agree with the recommendation

9:17 ↗ that this is needed however I've just

9:19 ↗ urge the council as we go forward to be

9:22 ↗ very wary of how we implement these new

9:25 ↗ revenue models specifically tying any

9:28 ↗ new revenue to additional sales tax this

9:31 ↗ is as we all know places the burden on

9:34 ↗ those least able to afford it any use of

9:37 ↗ sales tax to fund any transportation

9:39 ↗ project should be looked at with a very

9:41 ↗ critical eye as we go forward with this

9:45 ↗ if this does go forward I'd recommend

9:47 ↗ looking closely to maybe graduated

9:50 ↗ Bisons fees with a floor or utilization

9:53 ↗ of property levies which don't have the

9:55 ↗ same disproportionate impact thank you

9:58 ↗ thank you anyone else desire to speak

10:02 ↗ who has not signed up to speak under

10:04 ↗ general comments Mary Lynch

10:12 ↗ my name is Mary Lynch and I recited to

10:14 ↗ 6/9 own Northwest Oak Crest Drive aqua

10:16 ↗ Washington I just wanted to come and

10:19 ↗ reintroduce a topic that we spoke of

10:22 ↗ back in November December and into

10:24 ↗ January about mitigation fees and I

10:27 ↗ really think going forward the city

10:29 ↗ needs to take a much more serious look

10:31 ↗ at mitigation fees especially for

10:32 ↗ developers and the impact back then they

10:36 ↗ was identified that staff time is not

10:38 ↗ covered by fully burden cost and in most

10:42 ↗ capital projects staff time is covered

10:45 ↗ by fully burden cost and I really think

10:47 ↗ we need to do that because I at this

10:50 ↗ point we are not paying the developers

10:53 ↗ are not paying their fair share with

10:54 ↗ development and what's been identified

10:56 ↗ also as the cost of land is going up and

10:58 ↗ with something such as the school's the

11:01 ↗ land value or the land to build those

11:03 ↗ schools are going up and I really think

11:05 ↗ we need to look at all of our mitigation

11:07 ↗ fees with development and make sure that

11:09 ↗ we are increasing those impact fees and

11:12 ↗ that we're also looking at other ways we

11:14 ↗ can work with developers to come up with

11:18 ↗ solutions I grew up in Indiana where

11:20 ↗ developments were formed around the

11:22 ↗ schools and developers contributed a

11:25 ↗ large percentage of the land for the

11:27 ↗ schools and just two weeks ago was back

11:30 ↗ in a neighborhood where this elementary

11:33 ↗ was in the center of that school or of a

11:36 ↗ development that was built around the

11:37 ↗ elementary school so no blessing was

11:39 ↗ needed

11:40 ↗ no carpooling was needed kids could walk

11:42 ↗ to school and the developer paid for the

11:45 ↗ land and then the school system built

11:47 ↗ the school on top of it and we have that

11:50 ↗ opportunity still to do that if we work

11:53 ↗ with staff to get them to understand the

11:55 ↗ impact that developers have the need to

11:59 ↗ establish more public mounted schools

12:01 ↗ other public buildings and going forward

12:04 ↗ I would hope especially with the central

12:05 ↗ area plan we do a much better and

12:07 ↗ earlier job of engaging with the schools

12:10 ↗ and Fire Department and everybody in

12:13 ↗ deciding what we need going forward to

12:16 ↗ handle the growth that we have now and

12:17 ↗ into the future thank you thank you Mary

12:22 ↗ anyone else

12:23 ↗ who has not signed up desiring to speak

12:27 ↗ anyone else third and final call and

12:30 ↗ with that audience comments are closed

12:33 ↗ and will now move to committee and

12:36 ↗ regional reports beginning with Mariah

12:39 ↗ Thank You mr. mayor on July 12th I

12:43 ↗ attended the town Cities Association

12:45 ↗ public issues committee no action was

12:48 ↗ taken or votes taken but several updates

12:52 ↗ we had a long discussion regarding

12:54 ↗ regional affordable housing the regional

12:57 ↗ affordable housing task force which is

12:59 ↗ now been set up and the SCA board has

13:04 ↗ nominated and put four representatives

13:07 ↗ there the basically what we talked about

13:14 ↗ were getting all of the the needs that

13:19 ↗ we might need per city out on the table

13:23 ↗ so that could be documented and

13:25 ↗ forwarded on to the task force so mostly

13:28 ↗ we just focused on the kinds of things

13:30 ↗ that are of concern and needs that we

13:33 ↗ have in our city there was also an

13:36 ↗ update on regional centers

13:38 ↗ I would imagine all might be talking a

13:41 ↗ little bit more about this but the GMP

13:43 ↗ be focused on three primary policy areas

13:46 ↗ in July

13:48 ↗ how large military installation should

13:50 ↗ be incorporated into planning for

13:52 ↗ centers the minimum eligibility criteria

13:55 ↗ for manufacturing industrial centers and

13:57 ↗ reviewing and standardizing regional

13:59 ↗ growth center designations they are

14:02 ↗ looking for feedback for their September

14:06 ↗ 7th upcoming meetings the veterans

14:10 ↗ senior and Human Services Levy was also

14:14 ↗ discussed mostly just an update in that

14:16 ↗ area and then an update on the state

14:20 ↗ legislative session and that concludes

14:23 ↗ my report I do you know Thank You mr.

14:26 ↗ mayor um the Infrastructure Committee

14:29 ↗ will meet this Thursday at 6:30 here in

14:31 ↗ Council Chambers we have three items on

14:33 ↗ the agenda transportation benefit

14:35 ↗ District transportation advice

14:37 ↗ three board and project updates so those

14:39 ↗ interested please come the Regional

14:43 ↗ Transit Committee I met last June

14:45 ↗ meanwhile since reported here in June

14:48 ↗ and 21st we we approved the Metro work

14:52 ↗ plan so that was a good thing to get

14:54 ↗ done and then just a note there zero

14:57 ↗ emission bus purchase program is in full

14:59 ↗ swing their plan is basically to go

15:02 ↗ almost 100% to that they've got one

15:04 ↗ contract out now for sixty buses with it

15:07 ↗ that able to expand I think to close to

15:09 ↗ 300 buses so they're pretty much the

15:10 ↗ replacement fleets going to be going to

15:12 ↗ through emission electric buses from

15:14 ↗ here on out so that's some good news

15:16 ↗ there then this Wednesday in two days on

15:21 ↗ 19th we have a another regional transit

15:23 ↗ committee meeting and that one will be

15:24 ↗ working on metros report on speed and

15:26 ↗ reliability so then them and the 22nd

15:32 ↗ June I was at the Washington city's

15:35 ↗ Convention for Association of Washington

15:38 ↗ City excuse me

15:39 ↗ convention down in Vancouver

15:40 ↗ representing the city so I attended the

15:42 ↗ board meeting and did some voting there

15:44 ↗ for new board members and and that

15:46 ↗ nature and presented us there that was

15:50 ↗ June 22nd on the 12th last week I was

15:54 ↗ the emergency management advisory

15:55 ↗ committee meaning nothing of a note on

15:57 ↗ the agenda many updates there the

16:00 ↗ Eastside Fire and Rescue I was at last

16:02 ↗ week on the 13th - I Tamar note on the

16:05 ↗ agenda we established two systems one is

16:08 ↗ a pay-for-performance

16:09 ↗ method for the chief so now there's an

16:12 ↗ established system for the chief on how

16:14 ↗ he gets paid for performance and you

16:16 ↗ know better performance and so forth and

16:18 ↗ the other item was establishing a method

16:20 ↗ for adding new partners to yfir so

16:22 ↗ there's actual process and criteria that

16:25 ↗ people can look at versus just

16:27 ↗ considering it so there's some methods

16:29 ↗ decided there which is nice um I've

16:32 ↗ tended a couple of workshops last week

16:33 ↗ one for affordable housing with the

16:34 ↗ county and another one for

16:35 ↗ suburbanization of poverty and tomorrow

16:39 ↗ I will be represented city again at the

16:41 ↗ commute trip reduction meeting that's at

16:44 ↗ PSR C be there

16:47 ↗ and that concludes my report thank you

16:49 ↗ thank you Bill Paul Thank You mr. mayor

16:53 ↗ on July 6 I attended the meeting of the

16:55 ↗ growth management policy board and as

16:57 ↗ council member batiste mentioned the the

17:01 ↗ topics covered were the consideration of

17:05 ↗ military installations as regional

17:07 ↗ centers and then the manufacturing

17:09 ↗ industrial centers as well as the

17:11 ↗ regional growth centers the conversation

17:14 ↗ is very much dominated by military

17:16 ↗ installations it's a new concept and and

17:20 ↗ the the GMP B was really all over the

17:23 ↗ place I didn't really have much of a

17:25 ↗ comment because it it was really

17:26 ↗ dominated by people who were affected by

17:30 ↗ the existing military installations but

17:32 ↗ one thing of note that has changed and

17:37 ↗ whiskey was clarified by the intent of

17:40 ↗ those that are pushing for military

17:41 ↗ installations to become regional centers

17:43 ↗ is that they do expect them to compete

17:46 ↗ for the regional funding which was

17:49 ↗ something I think I said differently

17:50 ↗ last time I reported on this so it's

17:52 ↗ definitely would be a concern for any

17:55 ↗ regional center that wants to remain

17:57 ↗ competitive for limited funds with no

17:59 ↗ new sources of funds but more

18:01 ↗ competitors for funding the

18:05 ↗ manufacturing industrial centers was

18:07 ↗ talked again at length in it and and it

18:10 ↗ really only left a few minutes to talk

18:12 ↗ about regional growth centers which is

18:13 ↗ our primary concern that was really

18:15 ↗ unfortunate we probably ended up with

18:18 ↗ just a few minutes of talking about what

18:21 ↗ I know the FDA caucus was most concerned

18:23 ↗ about and they had posed a number of

18:26 ↗ questions and our caucus did was able to

18:29 ↗ address them in the brief time that we

18:32 ↗ were able to make comments one was

18:34 ↗ should the criteria recognize some

18:36 ↗ centers are vastly different in size and

18:39 ↗ function are expected to evolve at

18:40 ↗ different rates

18:42 ↗ that's a criteria there has been no real

18:45 ↗ kind of size or function or growth rate

18:47 ↗ criteria before and we were in favor of

18:51 ↗ that there there was a question of

18:53 ↗ whether or not the performance of a

18:55 ↗ growth center should be measured and lot

18:58 ↗ the conversation about that as well

19:00 ↗ and we were in favor of that not

19:02 ↗ necessarily as a punitive tool but there

19:06 ↗ really is no standard y method today to

19:09 ↗ measure the employment and population

19:12 ↗ objectives and and their performance

19:14 ↗ towards reaching those goals and what

19:17 ↗ other factors either helping or

19:19 ↗ hindering their performance so we did

19:22 ↗ have a short conversation about that and

19:23 ↗ then the last piece that we got in had

19:25 ↗ to do with whether or not the framework

19:28 ↗ should include new criteria such as the

19:30 ↗ availability of transit service and it's

19:36 ↗ amazing thing so regional growth centers

19:38 ↗ today there's no criteria to address

19:40 ↗ whether or not they're served by transit

19:42 ↗ which is kind of unthinkable if you

19:46 ↗ think about it so I so the with that the

19:50 ↗ ESRC staff will be providing preparing

19:53 ↗ their first draft to complete draft from

19:55 ↗ staff for us to consider and begin

19:57 ↗ discussing and starting in September

19:59 ↗ that concludes my report

20:01 ↗ thank you Cola Thank You mr. mayor

20:05 ↗ mystical City Council services and

20:07 ↗ Safety Committee did not meet this month

20:09 ↗ our next meeting will be held Tuesday

20:11 ↗ August 8th at 6:30 p.m. here in chambers

20:14 ↗ you already heard a report Mariah

20:17 ↗ thank you so much for sitting in for me

20:19 ↗ while I was out on vacation with my

20:21 ↗ family I appreciate it

20:23 ↗ King County growth management policy

20:26 ↗ Council will next be meeting Wednesday

20:28 ↗ September 27th at 4 p.m. and that

20:32 ↗ concludes my report thank you

20:35 ↗ Eileen thank you on the this Thursday xx

20:40 ↗ I will be attending the why were eight

20:42 ↗ that's the water resource inventory area

20:44 ↗ we're still working on our planned

20:46 ↗ update for the Chinook conservation plan

20:49 ↗ received some updates in regards to

20:51 ↗ what's been going on with the Ballard

20:52 ↗ Locks and the repair is necessary for

20:54 ↗ that the 30 to 60 million dollar bill

20:57 ↗ that comes along with those recoveries

20:59 ↗ yes and just some concerns in regards to

21:06 ↗ the warmer summer and some of the water

21:08 ↗ levels so hopefully this fall

21:12 ↗ water will return and the salmon will be

21:13 ↗ coming back up our streams thank you

21:15 ↗ thank you Mary Lou Thank You mr. mayor

21:18 ↗ just two items first off thanks to

21:21 ↗ council member Ramos for sitting in for

21:23 ↗ the u4 board meeting for me last week

21:24 ↗ and reporting out the next efore meeting

21:27 ↗ will be a Finance and Administration

21:29 ↗ Committee meeting on Wednesday July 26

21:32 ↗ at 12:30 at headquarters and I do not

21:34 ↗ have agenda items for that thank you

21:36 ↗ Thank You Stacy Thank You mr. mayor it's

21:41 ↗ across city council Landon Shore

21:43 ↗ committee met on July 6th we had four

21:45 ↗ items arm on our agenda three of those

21:48 ↗ items are on our agenda tonight so I to

21:53 ↗ the extent that I have reporting out to

21:55 ↗ do I on those I can do that at the time

21:57 ↗ at that time the one item I wanted to

22:01 ↗ talk about briefly is agenda bill 74 52

22:04 ↗ transit oriented development

22:06 ↗ we had you'll recall that the meeting on

22:10 ↗ July 6 we had a special council meeting

22:12 ↗ right before landed Shore and on the

22:14 ↗ consent agenda was that Tod agenda bill

22:17 ↗ that was referred to when ensure the

22:20 ↗ very next hour so we had a presentation

22:24 ↗ that included health fairs from spectrum

22:28 ↗ and spectrum development solutions and

22:32 ↗ spectrum is one of the parties that

22:36 ↗ would be involved in the Tod project and

22:39 ↗ just to recap the Tod project its

22:43 ↗ proposed to be a three party

22:45 ↗ public/private partnership between the

22:47 ↗ city spectrum development solutions King

22:50 ↗ County Housing Authority combo there and

22:54 ↗ CenturyLink and it would propose it

22:57 ↗ would be to redevelop the site that

22:59 ↗ currently functions functions and

23:01 ↗ operates for CenturyLink truck parking

23:06 ↗ and material storage is over by the

23:08 ↗ Transit Center on SR 900 it's sort of

23:13 ↗ just next door east of the Transit

23:16 ↗ Center and the proposal would be a 325

23:20 ↗ multifamily mix

23:22 ↗ youth development and 110 to 165

23:27 ↗ affordable units 36,000 square feet of

23:29 ↗ non-residential space a portion to be

23:32 ↗ deeded to the city to allow for

23:33 ↗ nonprofit services and a quarter-acre

23:35 ↗ Plaza open to the open to the public

23:39 ↗ we haven't had a lot of public

23:41 ↗ conversation about this we are about to

23:45 ↗ the landed shore was asked to look at

23:47 ↗ two memorandums of understanding and the

23:51 ↗ reason we were looking at those prior

23:54 ↗ before prior to when we might have a lot

23:56 ↗ more community conversation about this

23:58 ↗ is because there's a deadline to apply

24:00 ↗ for funding from the King County Tod

24:03 ↗ fund

24:04 ↗ Landon Shore recommended to bring that

24:07 ↗ forward to the full council for the

24:09 ↗ consideration of the mo youth and that

24:12 ↗ will be at our council meeting on August

24:14 ↗ 7th one of the questions that was asked

24:20 ↗ to how Farris when he was there

24:22 ↗ presenting from spectrum and we had

24:26 ↗ their work a couple of concerns raised

24:29 ↗ from the community about the fact that

24:31 ↗ we haven't had any we would normally

24:33 ↗ have open houses or we have more of a

24:35 ↗ community conversation and how so these

24:38 ↗ well aware of that and normally would

24:41 ↗ host a number of open houses and is

24:43 ↗ planning to doing that getting a lot of

24:45 ↗ input from the community starting in

24:47 ↗ mid-september assuming the sole council

24:50 ↗ approves the mo use which would be even

24:52 ↗ before knowing if if there would be a

24:55 ↗ grant for this project and what that

24:59 ↗ grant amount might be so that so this is

25:03 ↗ the beginning of the public conversation

25:06 ↗ not the end of it and we will I'm sure

25:09 ↗ get a fairly in-depth presentation on

25:12 ↗ the project like we did it landed short

25:14 ↗ there wasn't one piece of interesting

25:16 ↗ information that howl mentioned that I

25:20 ↗ wanted to just mention and that was

25:23 ↗ we've heard particularly in the months

25:28 ↗ that we've since we've had a moratorium

25:29 ↗ in place about economic conditions being

25:35 ↗ the right having the right economic

25:39 ↗ conditions for getting the kind of

25:41 ↗ developed development that that we want

25:43 ↗ and we've talked about in particular

25:46 ↗ mixed-use and that having mixed-use on

25:51 ↗ one hand requires that we have the right

25:53 ↗ economic market conditions and that we

25:57 ↗ don't have that that times not right now

25:58 ↗ that maybe in five or six years we'd

26:00 ↗ have that and how said I'd I've never

26:03 ↗ heard this before I don't think anybody

26:04 ↗ on the committee had either that the

26:06 ↗ soils in the valley

26:08 ↗ I'm are such that it adds fifteen to

26:11 ↗ twenty dollars per square foot for

26:13 ↗ foundation costs so I think one of the

26:17 ↗ questions that we probably would have is

26:21 ↗ you know how does that affect market

26:23 ↗ conditions and and is that going to

26:27 ↗ always affect market conditions we

26:29 ↗ didn't have that conversation because we

26:30 ↗ weren't there from there to talk about

26:32 ↗ that that night at Lehman sure but it is

26:34 ↗ a piece of information that I thought

26:37 ↗ was significant enough that I wanted to

26:39 ↗ let the entire council know that that's

26:40 ↗ what how Faris a spectrum said next

26:45 ↗ Landon Shore meets on August third at

26:47 ↗ 6:30 here in Council Chambers and the

26:49 ↗ agenda has not been set yet report thank

26:52 ↗ you there will not be an executive

26:55 ↗ session this evening I have some sad

26:59 ↗ news to share with the community tonight

27:02 ↗ longtime community member

27:04 ↗ Dorothy knitter asked away on July the

27:07 ↗ 6th at age 92 she dedicated thousands of

27:12 ↗ volunteer hours serving our community

27:14 ↗ she also helped create the asuka farmers

27:18 ↗ market and rana ran salmon days for many

27:21 ↗ years he was inducted into our Hall of

27:24 ↗ Fame in 1995 and was recognized as

27:28 ↗ volunteer of the year in 1991 horse our

27:33 ↗ thoughts are with Dorothy's family at

27:37 ↗ this time I attended the July 13th Puget

27:42 ↗ Sound Regional Council transportation

27:44 ↗ policy board meeting where we

27:47 ↗ approved a draft financial strategy for

27:50 ↗ the transportation 2040 update and I

27:55 ↗ chaired the July 13th sound transit

27:58 ↗ capital committee meeting where we

28:00 ↗ approved a number of action items

28:01 ↗ related to East link I 405 bus rapid

28:06 ↗ transit and the Lynwood link extension

28:09 ↗ that concludes the mayor's report this

28:14 ↗ evening and with that I would ask if the

28:19 ↗ accounts payable and payroll have been

28:22 ↗ reviewed yeah thank you and I would now

28:27 ↗ ask the clerk to read into the record

28:29 ↗ the consent calendar the consent

28:32 ↗ calendar was distributed to council in

28:34 ↗ advance for study if authorized council

28:36 ↗ action will occur by single motion

28:37 ↗ regarding the following items item a

28:40 ↗ seeks approval of the accounts payable

28:41 ↗ in payroll of July 17th items B C and D

28:45 ↗ seeks approval of the minutes of the

28:46 ↗ special meeting of June 9th June 10th

28:49 ↗ and July 6th item e a b7 1 1 2 LED

28:52 ↗ streetlights Department of Commerce

28:54 ↗ grant seeks to accept grant item F a B 7

28:57 ↗ 1 2 8 Wildwood reservoir rehabilitation

29:00 ↗ project seeks to accept project item G a

29:03 ↗ B 7 1 3 3 2016 water main rehabilitation

29:07 ↗ project seeks to accept project item H a

29:10 ↗ B 7 2 5 0 transportation benefit

29:13 ↗ district seeks referral to Council

29:15 ↗ Infrastructure Committee item I a B 7 4

29:18 ↗ 5 5 Human Services Commission midterm

29:21 ↗ appointment seeks to confirm item J a B

29:24 ↗ seven four five six additional 2017

29:27 ↗ staffing request seeks referral to

29:29 ↗ council services and Safety Committee

29:31 ↗ this concludes the reading Thank You

29:33 ↗ tisha and with that I would ask does any

29:39 ↗ council member desire to remove any item

29:42 ↗ for separate consideration Stacey I move

29:49 ↗ to adopt the consent calendar as

29:50 ↗ presented second

29:55 ↗ in fact all approval all in favor of

30:00 ↗ approving the consent calendar is

30:02 ↗ submitted signify by saying aye

30:04 ↗ hi as opposed at carries unanimously

30:08 ↗ I'm moving now to the first of three

30:11 ↗ public hearings this evening the first

30:14 ↗ agenda bill seven three one three

30:17 ↗ capital improvement plan including

30:19 ↗ transportation 2018 to 2022 with that

30:25 ↗ Jen Olsen our director of finance for a

30:28 ↗ brief introduction before I opened up on

30:32 ↗ the queue

30:32 ↗ Thank You mayor Butler tonight is a

30:35 ↗ continued discussion about the proposed

30:36 ↗ capital improvement plan for 2018

30:39 ↗ through 2022 the council's have had a

30:42 ↗ number of different discussions about

30:44 ↗ the proposed capital budget per council

30:48 ↗ policy the capital improvement plan

30:50 ↗ seeks to achieve the objectives in our

30:54 ↗ financial policy including a vision for

30:56 ↗ growth and levels of service ensuring

30:58 ↗ that planning efforts are changing with

31:01 ↗ the demand financial responsibility and

31:05 ↗ maintaining a high quality service

31:06 ↗ infrastructure the proposed five-year

31:09 ↗ plan have identified projects in a

31:12 ↗ variety of different asset categories

31:14 ↗ with a total five-year CIP dollar amount

31:18 ↗ of about 165 million dollars funding

31:23 ↗ sources are come from a variety of

31:25 ↗ different places from special revenue

31:29 ↗ funds or special funding sources such as

31:31 ↗ REIT or mitigation funds grants

31:33 ↗ developer contributions utility funding

31:35 ↗ the general fund and other cash on hand

31:40 ↗ there are some unfunded projects that

31:43 ↗ the council is in the process of

31:45 ↗ discussing along with all of those you

31:48 ↗ can see primarily those projects that

31:51 ↗ have a debt requirement as part of the

31:53 ↗ funding are for mainly park improvement

31:56 ↗ projects or transportation related

31:58 ↗ projects for a total unfunded piece of

32:01 ↗ the five-year plan of about a fifty

32:04 ↗ eight million dollars

32:06 ↗ there have been a number of discussions

32:08 ↗ about the proposed plan we started back

32:11 ↗ in May of 2017 where we say console

32:15 ↗ conducted their first council work

32:17 ↗ session starting the public hearing in

32:20 ↗ on June 5th some additional council work

32:23 ↗ sessions tonight is a continuation of

32:25 ↗ the public hearing there at the last

32:28 ↗ council work session it was identified

32:31 ↗ that additional discussion was necessary

32:33 ↗ so there are some new meetings you can

32:36 ↗ see down the bottom of the screen we

32:37 ↗ have a new council work session

32:40 ↗ identified for August 17th

32:42 ↗ I believe it's August 10th actually I

32:45 ↗ think it's left 14th the 14th okay we'll

32:47 ↗ get that corrected and we'll make sure

32:49 ↗ that that's online and we got that after

32:52 ↗ three tries and then of course proposed

32:55 ↗ continued public hearing and

32:59 ↗ consideration and adoption of the

33:01 ↗ proposed plan so with that I wanted to

33:04 ↗ keep it brief to hand it back to you

33:07 ↗ mayor Butler Thank You Jen and with that

33:13 ↗ reminder the same same comments that I

33:18 ↗ made early about earlier about

33:21 ↗ guidelines for public participation

33:26 ↗ apply to this and I will open the public

33:30 ↗ hearing at 7:30 8:00 and ask if anyone

33:36 ↗ has signed up to speak no one has signed

33:39 ↗ up honey would you like to speak to this

33:43 ↗ item

33:51 ↗ square okay hi my name is Connie Marsh

33:55 ↗ I live on squawk Mountain here and

33:57 ↗ Issaquah so I have been going to two CIP

34:03 ↗ meetings for at least I know maybe 18

34:07 ↗ years and my favorite and I think this

34:11 ↗ should be the process for next year is

34:12 ↗ where each of the sort of chapters gets

34:16 ↗ put out to a committee for in-depth

34:18 ↗ conversation where the community can

34:21 ↗ engage in a more personable way work

34:25 ↗ sessions are difficult because the last

34:28 ↗ one was very long and public comment

34:31 ↗ would have made it onerous so this is a

34:35 ↗ way where the community can actually

34:36 ↗ discuss it in advance of the public

34:39 ↗ hearing when everybody has done all of

34:41 ↗ the work and we have the ability to

34:43 ↗ change it in our interest so now in an

34:47 ↗ attempt to change it in our interest now

34:50 ↗ dog park not splash park everybody wants

34:53 ↗ a dog park has been delayed forever just

34:56 ↗ do it for goodness sake put it in the

34:58 ↗ CIP with funding we need to allocate

35:01 ↗ dollars to help Metro build parking

35:04 ↗ rights outside of the city limits and

35:07 ↗ that has not been addressed anywhere on

35:09 ↗ any plan ever but we need to keep people

35:12 ↗ from needing to come through our town

35:13 ↗ they don't have options they don't have

35:16 ↗ funding and we can help them with that

35:18 ↗ you can see from the community survey

35:20 ↗ that you're going to be talking about

35:22 ↗ this evening the community still wants

35:25 ↗ land we need our hillsides protected so

35:28 ↗ we need to buy our forested land and we

35:30 ↗ need a trail Creekside to go from the

35:32 ↗ outside of town down to Lake Sammamish

35:33 ↗ State Park that needs to be a priority

35:36 ↗ because the community deserves a little

35:38 ↗ more we've been sort of slapped without

35:40 ↗ and the last thing is we have oddly a

35:43 ↗ very expensive public square area in the

35:47 ↗ central Issaquah plan that the community

35:49 ↗ has never discussed what that might look

35:51 ↗ like or what that could do for them and

35:53 ↗ so I think that needs to pop back out

35:55 ↗ outside of pro stew or whatever we're

35:58 ↗ calling this City thing in a in a

36:00 ↗ conversation of its own because if this

36:03 ↗ is going to be

36:03 ↗ core area of our core we need a lot of

36:06 ↗ input thank you very much

36:08 ↗ Thank You Connie or anyone Mary I see

36:13 ↗ you moving towards the lectern my name

36:20 ↗ is Mary Lynch and I reside at 2 6 9 own

36:22 ↗ Northwest Oak Crest Drive Issaquah

36:24 ↗ Washington I'm back again tonight I

36:26 ↗ spoke with the first public hearing and

36:27 ↗ I also spoke last week at the City

36:31 ↗ Council sub meeting and I went to

36:35 ↗ formally again submit my comments about

36:37 ↗ the central area or excuse me the

36:40 ↗ capital improvement plans I glad that it

36:43 ↗ is out earlier than it was last year

36:46 ↗ I want to support what Connie says is I

36:48 ↗ really think it needs to have more

36:50 ↗ public review and as well as City

36:53 ↗ Council review the 7 points that I made

36:55 ↗ last week and I'll make again is I want

36:58 ↗ to know why the s900 to South 54th

37:01 ↗ funding scheme is not moved up further

37:04 ↗ so that any work that's done by

37:06 ↗ developers can be done concurrently

37:09 ↗ we've heard from Public Works that it

37:12 ↗ saves money if they can do this and go

37:14 ↗ and work with the same contractors

37:16 ↗ it also has left I think disruptive to

37:18 ↗ the people and not only we live there

37:20 ↗ but also all the high amount of food

37:22 ↗ traffic that uses our road so that's not

37:25 ↗ been addressed I also mentioned that the

37:29 ↗ South 54th to Lake Mont Boulevard

37:32 ↗ Parshin has been pulled out of here it's

37:35 ↗ been in there for 30 years and now it's

37:37 ↗ out of there and I believe the last

37:39 ↗ concurrency that was done as far as the

37:41 ↗ central area plan that portion had to be

37:44 ↗ done because of center turn lane is

37:46 ↗ needed for concurrency so that's not

37:49 ↗ been addressed anywhere that I can see

37:51 ↗ also I would like to see that detailed

37:55 ↗ assumptions on the portion of these

37:57 ↗ projects that the developers are going

37:59 ↗ to pay for should be part of the back-up

38:02 ↗ plan so that you know what the entire

38:04 ↗ project is going to cost so for some

38:07 ↗ reason something happens with a

38:08 ↗ developer they get half way through you

38:10 ↗ need to know what the entire project is

38:12 ↗ going to be and also that hopefully you

38:15 ↗ can fund those at the same time not only

38:16 ↗ just

38:17 ↗ for a Newport way another one is the

38:21 ↗ mountain sound Greenway because conni

38:22 ↗ kind of looted to is there's no money in

38:25 ↗ here to build the rest of the mountains

38:27 ↗ to sound Greenway which is part of the

38:28 ↗ green necklace and that should be

38:30 ↗ identified in here and how that's going

38:32 ↗ to be funded and what city funds the

38:35 ↗ water-filtration purchase system to

38:37 ↗ replace the existing lease system for

38:39 ↗ Pia fault that's not identified in here

38:41 ↗ and then the other one that came up at

38:43 ↗ the last land ensures meeting that I

38:44 ↗ heard is as a water tower slated and

38:47 ↗ needed apparently for growth at the

38:48 ↗ Highlands and they're identifying that

38:51 ↗ they need land and that's part of what

38:52 ↗ this annexation is going to be talked

38:54 ↗ about tonight well where is the funding

38:56 ↗ for that and if it's known now even if

38:58 ↗ it is six years that should be part of

39:00 ↗ this plan so that you know when it's

39:03 ↗ needed and where it's going to go so

39:06 ↗ hopefully going forward we'll have

39:07 ↗ discussions with the public and also at

39:10 ↗ the City Council sub meetings that we

39:12 ↗ can also participate in but hopefully

39:14 ↗ public meetings do also bid this later

39:16 ↗ for public records thank you thank you

39:19 ↗ Mary anyone else

39:21 ↗ desire to speak often Thank You mayor

39:28 ↗ Butler again Justin Walsh to a 96

39:29 ↗ Scheiber

39:30 ↗ I just have a couple comments regarding

39:32 ↗ the CIP the first is in regards to EQ

39:35 ↗ double-oh-seven

39:36 ↗ the server replacement I was a bit

39:39 ↗ surprised in looking at a bit in the

39:40 ↗ details in this that it utilizes several

39:44 ↗ servers moving to a physical server

39:46 ↗ using virtual servers as opposed to a

39:49 ↗ cloud-based solution looks like we're

39:52 ↗ looking at 2008 technology to solve a

39:55 ↗ 20-17 problem in 2022 as opposed to

39:59 ↗ looking to the cloud-based solutions

40:01 ↗ that we have now in the future ones that

40:03 ↗ are going to reduce costs increase

40:05 ↗ resiliency increase data portability and

40:07 ↗ increase redundancy and set something

40:10 ↗ keep in mind as we move forward with

40:12 ↗ that project regarding the splash park

40:15 ↗ we're also creating a pool I have issues

40:20 ↗ saying that those are separate projects

40:21 ↗ when they're both water based projects

40:23 ↗ we combine them and create a truly

40:25 ↗ innovative indoor/outdoor space using

40:28 ↗ less money and

40:29 ↗ or some of those funds for things such

40:31 ↗ as a dog perk

40:32 ↗ my other problem with the CIP is it

40:35 ↗ currently stands is we're not I'm not

40:36 ↗ seeing anything related to

40:38 ↗ telecommunications or our energy utility

40:41 ↗ at specifically working with PSC or

40:43 ↗ telecommunications companies we're going

40:46 ↗ to be quickly behind the curve when as

40:48 ↗ we develop our urban core unless we

40:49 ↗ start putting projects in the CIP that

40:52 ↗ bring fiber in to remedy that missed

40:54 ↗ opportunity that we had when fiber went

40:56 ↗ in in the highlands we won't be able to

40:59 ↗ use our tech talented residents in the

41:01 ↗ urban core unless we have clean power

41:04 ↗ and high-speed Internet for them to work

41:06 ↗ with and start looking at projects that

41:09 ↗ maybe tap off the BPA lines as opposed

41:11 ↗ to going past as a quat and then

41:13 ↗ rerouting through Bellevue which leaves

41:15 ↗ us open to catastrophic failures these

41:19 ↗ are gaps and I think we need to make

41:20 ↗ sure those are included in the future

41:21 ↗ thank you Thank You Justin

41:27 ↗ anyone else desiring to speak on this

41:30 ↗ item

41:32 ↗ anyone else third and final call with

41:36 ↗ that then I will call on make a motion

41:46 ↗ that's the time I make motion that this

41:48 ↗ would be the perfect time okay is our

41:51 ↗ time for let me after that okay I would

41:55 ↗ move to continue the public hearing to

41:57 ↗ September 5th 2017 and refer agenda bill

42:00 ↗ 73 13 to the August 14th 2017 council

42:04 ↗ committee work session for additional

42:06 ↗ review and recommendation returning to

42:08 ↗ the full Council on September 5th 2017

42:10 ↗ second moved and seconded questions or

42:14 ↗ discussion Stacy I just wanted to make a

42:18 ↗ comment that we remind the council that

42:22 ↗ there are the work session that we're

42:25 ↗ gonna have on August 14th if for the

42:26 ↗ purpose of going through the projects

42:29 ↗ again now that we've gotten to know the

42:31 ↗ nuts and bolts of the new CIP plan then

42:37 ↗ it was a interest but the last work

42:40 ↗ session for us to go back to the project

42:41 ↗ list and Jen has sent us all a list it's

42:45 ↗ a starting point and it pulls together

42:48 ↗ the comments that like council members

42:52 ↗ have made so far about that projects and

42:54 ↗ if there are there's a place for you to

42:58 ↗ think you might actually looked at it so

43:01 ↗ yes I think there's a place for comments

43:04 ↗ for you to make to send back to Jen and

43:06 ↗ also an opportunity for you to provided

43:08 ↗ additional comments which would be great

43:11 ↗ if you wanted staff to be prepared at

43:13 ↗ that work session the other tasks to be

43:15 ↗ completed is that risk assessment and

43:18 ↗ the four of us that were at the work

43:20 ↗ session last week had not completed our

43:22 ↗ risk assessment so I'm assuming that all

43:24 ↗ seven of us has not completed our risk

43:26 ↗ assessment so we she extended that I

43:29 ↗ believe it's maybe the 31st so I was

43:31 ↗ just gonna remind everybody you come

43:33 ↗ complete those tasks Thanks thank you

43:37 ↗ other questions or discussion

43:39 ↗ Mary Lou hi Christian I guess for the

43:41 ↗ mayor and the council president to

43:43 ↗ comment from Connie this evening about

43:46 ↗ breaking this into smaller chunks does

43:48 ↗ that fit into the schedule for this year

43:49 ↗ uh I don't think so we we used to break

43:58 ↗ it into smaller chunks and refer to

44:00 ↗ committee that would prior to prioritize

44:03 ↗ those and bring them back but I'm

44:07 ↗ guessing that at this we had a little

44:13 ↗ bit of so I think I know the answer but

44:16 ↗ I'm going to let guess city

44:18 ↗ administrator respond to that question I

44:20 ↗ think it has to do with scheduling thank

44:23 ↗ you new this year and through the

44:27 ↗ council's new capital budget policy in

44:31 ↗ the financial management policy is the

44:34 ↗ shift to biennial capital budgeting for

44:37 ↗ the capital piece and so what's exciting

44:40 ↗ is actually for next year will be the

44:42 ↗ opportunity for those breakout sessions

44:45 ↗ in the capital budget schedule to have

44:48 ↗ those conversations about potential

44:50 ↗ projects

44:51 ↗ a larger public engagement effort on the

44:55 ↗ actual capital budget for this year

44:58 ↗ timing wise there has not been a

45:01 ↗ scheduled separate breakout sessions by

45:04 ↗ the asset categories and so that is

45:08 ↗ essentially what would be on the on the

45:12 ↗ schedule for next year's continued to

45:15 ↗ you capital budget cycle very soon I

45:20 ↗ think the other part that we heard at

45:23 ↗ the work session is that the timing is

45:26 ↗ tight for hopefully passing the CIP and

45:31 ↗ we're in early September because budget

45:35 ↗ preparing the proposed budget will be in

45:38 ↗ full swing and not having that piece

45:42 ↗ makes it not having the CIP adopt it

45:44 ↗ makes it much more difficult for the

45:45 ↗ administration to prepare the draft

45:47 ↗ budget I think that's the other piece

45:49 ↗ that we heard that is exactly correct is

45:52 ↗ to break out the different components of

45:54 ↗ the overall budget is to have those

45:56 ↗ discussions about the capital budget

45:58 ↗ prior to so that we're we're giving more

46:03 ↗ opportunity to have discussions on the

46:06 ↗ full operating budget and start at the

46:09 ↗ beginning of the year on the capital

46:10 ↗ asset piece thank you

46:17 ↗ like that Nancy question great Paul and

46:22 ↗ there were two comments tonight related

46:23 ↗ to water one of them was the pee Faust

46:25 ↗ treatment the other one the water tower

46:26 ↗ that we did discuss at a committee

46:29 ↗ meeting earlier this month I know we're

46:32 ↗ doing a water systems water system study

46:35 ↗ or whatever that called and that

46:37 ↗ conversation hasn't come into this the

46:40 ↗ CIP development what and I guess it's

46:44 ↗ entirely possible

46:46 ↗ I don't Sheldon is here that it would

46:48 ↗ inform the CIP because I know that

46:53 ↗ something like water treatment you know

46:55 ↗ could be hypothetically it'll be part of

46:58 ↗ that so yeah thank you if you could

47:00 ↗ address that for me and because based

47:02 ↗ upon the answer i'm i think that that's

47:04 ↗ those are valid issues to raise and

47:07 ↗ question why they wouldn't be in this

47:08 ↗ CIP yes I'm Sheldon Len director public

47:12 ↗ works engineering I to respond to the

47:15 ↗ question about the treatment of the P

47:17 ↗ Foss and the replacement of the system

47:20 ↗ that's currently leased there is a

47:22 ↗ capital improvement project in the

47:24 ↗ program for water treatment plant that

47:27 ↗ is the facility that will combine all

47:30 ↗ the water treatment needs of the utility

47:32 ↗ as well as replacement of the P Foss

47:35 ↗ treatment so it will it's in there it's

47:38 ↗ and right now we are currently underway

47:41 ↗ with the water system Plan Update and we

47:43 ↗ expect a draft out excuse me

47:46 ↗ by the end of this year for councils

47:48 ↗ consideration and moving through the do

47:50 ↗ H approval process as well as King

47:52 ↗ County approval process okay that

47:58 ↗ addressed the the P Foss thank you what

48:00 ↗ about the water tower that came up at I

48:02 ↗ think was the book session or is it land

48:05 ↗ in short earlier this month there there

48:07 ↗ is in the capital program a reservoir

48:10 ↗ pump station transmission main project I

48:13 ↗ where the transmission main and pump

48:16 ↗ station is known as the spar water

48:20 ↗ facilities that is to provide a

48:23 ↗ redundant way up the hill for services

48:26 ↗ on because right now the services all go

48:29 ↗ up

48:30 ↗ so the water mains all go up one

48:32 ↗ geologic hazard so we want to create a

48:34 ↗ redundant one through another area so

48:37 ↗ hopefully if you have problem in one

48:39 ↗ geologic hazard you don't get it in the

48:40 ↗ other geologic hazard so we're trying to

48:42 ↗ provide some redundancy of supply up to

48:44 ↗ the Highlands the reservoir is needed

48:47 ↗ not specifically for the Issaquah

48:49 ↗ Highlands but it is actually needed for

48:51 ↗ the central Issaquah plan with the

48:54 ↗ increase in population that's expected

48:56 ↗ with the central Issaquah development

48:58 ↗ there is a need for additional

48:59 ↗ equalizing and operating storage for the

49:02 ↗ valley floor so that's the purpose

49:04 ↗ behind that reservoir and its elevation

49:07 ↗ is the same elevation as the elevation

49:09 ↗ of the city's West Side reservoir and

49:11 ↗ Cemetery reservoirs which provide the

49:13 ↗ valley floor of water as well thank you

49:17 ↗ other questions or discussion KC Oh

49:23 ↗ Sheldon I didn't so you said you would

49:26 ↗ explain the reservoir but did you

49:27 ↗ actually say it's in the CIP it is in

49:31 ↗ the CIP it's in the center its in the

49:33 ↗ capital improvement plan right now the

49:35 ↗ pump station and transmission main is

49:38 ↗ within the five-year period with the

49:40 ↗ reservoir being out I believe it's 8 to

49:42 ↗ 10 years or something like that other

49:46 ↗ questions or discussion seeing none then

49:50 ↗ all those in favor of continuing the

49:52 ↗ public hearing to September 5th 2017 and

49:55 ↗ referring the agenda bill to the August

49:59 ↗ 14th council work session for additional

50:04 ↗ review and recommendation returning to

50:06 ↗ the Council on September 5th signify by

50:09 ↗ saying aye hi I was opposed that carries

50:14 ↗ unanimously

50:15 ↗ I'm so thank you thank you can I depart

50:19 ↗ here and say that at Core shooter I

50:21 ↗ missed something important in my

50:23 ↗ committee reports and that is that

50:24 ↗ Landon Shores special meeting for

50:26 ↗ tomorrow night has been cancelled

50:27 ↗ because that kid became clear this

50:29 ↗ morning that we didn't have anything on

50:31 ↗ the agenda that necessitated a special

50:33 ↗ meeting on a sunny summer evening

50:38 ↗ I'm not seeing much disappointed among

50:41 ↗ Catholics about translate that vision

50:45 ↗ moving now to agenda bill 743 annexation

50:50 ↗ of King County Island and establishment

50:52 ↗ of pre-annexation zoning Trish Hayden

50:57 ↗ from Development Services Division to

51:02 ↗ provide some background information and

51:05 ↗ to set up a public hearing mr. Olson

51:09 ↗ Thank You mr. mayor the first public

51:12 ↗ hearing on the first panic station is

51:14 ↗ called the King County Island it's known

51:17 ↗ as the King County Island PA a potential

51:19 ↗ annexation area it's been the

51:21 ↗ Comprehensive Plan forever and we are

51:24 ↗ attempting at this point to annex it

51:26 ↗ into the city this is a big picture of

51:29 ↗ where it's located

51:30 ↗ we met with backing up a bit you all met

51:34 ↗ on June 5th when you first saw this

51:36 ↗ annexation proposal and you move forward

51:39 ↗ with the ordinance resolution to move

51:41 ↗ forward to send it to the boundary

51:43 ↗ Review Board to set up the two public

51:45 ↗ hearings for pre-annexation zoning I

51:48 ↗ wanted to touch a little bit on why you

51:51 ↗ wanted to do the pre-annexation zoning

51:53 ↗ is that if we usually do annexations

51:56 ↗ with pre-annexation zoning when the

51:59 ↗ comparable zoning with King County isn't

52:01 ↗ what the city would like to see there

52:03 ↗ and in this instance the king county

52:06 ↗ parcel that the city has purchased to

52:08 ↗ work on the transit eld that parcel now

52:13 ↗ is owned mineral and we wouldn't be able

52:15 ↗ to have that land use there at this

52:18 ↗ point we would have to actually rezone

52:20 ↗ it to an IC to move that Tod forward so

52:24 ↗ we're doing that pre-annexation zoning

52:26 ↗ now so that when it comes in we'll be

52:29 ↗ ready to go with the Tod application I

52:32 ↗ just wanted to give you that reference

52:34 ↗ and we also met at Landon Shore to

52:37 ↗ answer a lot of the questions that came

52:39 ↗ out of council June 5th and part of that

52:41 ↗ helped us to realize that we wanted a

52:44 ↗ different pre-annexation zoning

52:47 ↗ categories for for the parcels and

52:50 ↗ we'll show you that in just a second

52:51 ↗ these are the surrounding zones it's

52:55 ↗ right up near the you Orban village zone

52:57 ↗ of the highlands it's community

52:59 ↗ facilities facilities to the north and

53:01 ↗ then it's right up against i-90 to the

53:04 ↗ south this is the new map and Tola right

53:10 ↗ away goes yes North is that way which is

53:13 ↗ unusual for a map but it helps us show

53:15 ↗ what land insure asked for is to see

53:18 ↗ what the projects would look like as

53:21 ↗ much as we know at this point with sort

53:23 ↗ of general site plans none of them have

53:25 ↗ been adopted none of them are officially

53:28 ↗ the last site plan but it was sort of to

53:31 ↗ give land inshore and the full council

53:32 ↗ an idea of what land would be used for

53:35 ↗ these future projects and as you can see

53:38 ↗ the zoning changed the proposed zoning

53:40 ↗ change from Landon Shore you see at the

53:43 ↗ south is still icy and that's where

53:46 ↗ CenturyLink would be moved the middle

53:49 ↗ part of the King County shopsite area

53:51 ↗ would still be open space and to the

53:53 ↗ north a smaller parcel is community

53:56 ↗ facilities facilities and that's

53:58 ↗ potentially for elementary school coming

54:02 ↗ south and the west it's such a weird way

54:08 ↗ to head north that way community

54:10 ↗ facilities facility is the reservoir

54:12 ↗ site that Sheldon just spoke of with the

54:14 ↗ pump station coming this way to the

54:17 ↗ south leaving more of the King County

54:20 ↗ shaft site area open space to the north

54:24 ↗ and then the two washed-out parcels to

54:27 ↗ the south are both open space in this in

54:31 ↗ the new proposal and so also the three

54:35 ↗ that are OS that are are the two that

54:38 ↗ are OS of washed out and the CFS that

54:41 ↗ are washed out those would all be

54:43 ↗ considered down zones because they're

54:44 ↗ currently zoned residential and

54:47 ↗ according to Sheldon he's spoken with

54:49 ↗ wash that and they're okay with the down

54:52 ↗ zone that was a question that came up

54:53 ↗ and Landon Shore was to make sure that

54:55 ↗ washed out was okay with that you also

55:01 ↗ asked about how

55:03 ↗ which forest would be left and again

55:06 ↗ this is generally because we don't have

55:07 ↗ site plans for all three projects and so

55:10 ↗ we had our our geniuses and Public Works

55:14 ↗ test out what the parcels would be left

55:17 ↗ would be left forested and what what

55:20 ↗ would be left as projects and they did a

55:22 ↗ little generalized map for us in a

55:24 ↗ little chart at the top but that's to

55:27 ↗ sort of get that in your head on what

55:29 ↗ would be left yes

55:32 ↗ so zoning is quasi-judicial so I can

55:36 ↗ only ask if if a question has been asked

55:39 ↗ previously in the best in the review of

55:43 ↗ this right I can I ask for new

55:46 ↗ information and it quasi-judicial oh I

55:50 ↗ think you can and what do ya - please

55:55 ↗ yes this is an open record hearing so

55:58 ↗ you can ask for any information you want

56:00 ↗ during this hearing okay thank you

56:01 ↗ six point seven acres is small for an

56:04 ↗ elementary school footprint is it not

56:07 ↗ yes it is the smallest to date that it's

56:11 ↗ a qua School District done it's just a

56:13 ↗ little over seven also the schools has

56:16 ↗ done something and right grande Ridge I

56:19 ↗ think is seven or something but it

56:21 ↗ usually ten is what they use so they

56:23 ↗ were really doing a good job when they

56:25 ↗ did it with seven so we're still trying

56:28 ↗ to Grand Ridge is approximately seven

56:31 ↗ correct yeah ten I thought it was seven

56:34 ↗ something oh I apologize

56:37 ↗ I thought they had already gone below

56:40 ↗ ten notches I know I know

56:43 ↗ but this is this is something that is

56:47 ↗ within the bounds of possibility for

56:49 ↗ something that the school district would

56:51 ↗ consider as a sufficient footprint for

56:53 ↗ Nala correct we're working with them to

56:55 ↗ try to figure out what's the smallest

56:57 ↗ site that could still have a appropriate

56:59 ↗ school on it yes thank you

57:04 ↗ thank you did you ever have a question

57:07 ↗ there's call it a companion piece 'let's

57:11 ↗ coming forward at some point I

57:13 ↗ understand which is in the code change

57:17 ↗ that any policy commissioned discussed

57:21 ↗ at a meeting a couple of weeks ago

57:24 ↗ Thursday night and it's my understanding

57:27 ↗ that maybe that code change needs to

57:31 ↗ happen as well as a CFS zoning for this

57:34 ↗ upper parcel that we're talking about

57:36 ↗ for a possible school site so what is

57:39 ↗ the status of that code because the

57:42 ↗ council have not seen that in any

57:44 ↗ document yet right planning policy

57:47 ↗ Commission had their public hearing on

57:48 ↗ Thursday night and they are recommending

57:51 ↗ it forward to you all and you all should

57:53 ↗ see it in August I think it comes to

57:57 ↗ Landon Shore because we couldn't because

58:00 ↗ of the last part of the their hearing we

58:04 ↗ couldn't make at the beginning meeting

58:06 ↗ in August so I think it comes to you all

58:07 ↗ at that in September comes to the

58:11 ↗ council to be referred to landed Shore

58:13 ↗ in September right but I think there's

58:15 ↗ an informal from what I remember in the

58:18 ↗ schedule there's an informal review of

58:20 ↗ Landon Shore just to try to work out

58:23 ↗ anything beforehand so that you get try

58:27 ↗ to get two touches at it so I don't

58:31 ↗ understand what you mean by informal so

58:33 ↗ the agenda bill wouldn't be completely

58:36 ↗ it's not put two it's not it the agenda

58:39 ↗ bill didn't meet the dick can't meet the

58:40 ↗ deadline because we just had the public

58:42 ↗ hearing I'm just trying to figure out

58:43 ↗ when the council's going to see that

58:44 ↗ code change that I think is a companion

58:46 ↗ to what the school district would need

58:47 ↗ so the code change is something that is

58:51 ↗ came out of joint City Council and

58:55 ↗ school board conversation in January of

59:00 ↗ 16 where we talked about code issues

59:04 ↗ that the city had in its current zoning

59:06 ↗ code sorry Keith Niven director of

59:08 ↗ economic development and development

59:09 ↗ services so so there was identified

59:13 ↗ basically year and a half ago that we

59:15 ↗ had some existing code problems

59:17 ↗ that we really needed to rectify to help

59:20 ↗ the school district build the four

59:22 ↗ schools that they had gotten approved

59:25 ↗ through their successful levy the the

59:29 ↗ coincidence that that's happening it

59:31 ↗ generally is the same time that we're

59:34 ↗ talking about annexing this property and

59:36 ↗ putting zoning on this property that

59:37 ↗ would apply for a school I think is its

59:40 ↗ mere coincidence so what I would tell

59:42 ↗ you is right now the cff zone basically

59:46 ↗ limits the the density and Heights of

59:50 ↗ that zone to the adjacent most

59:52 ↗ restricted property and because the only

59:57 ↗ land use that's occupied next to this

1:00:00 ↗ property is East so right yes sorry this

1:00:05 ↗ maps going the other direction is East

1:00:07 ↗ that's urban village that's Issaquah

1:00:10 ↗ highlands which allows a building height

1:00:12 ↗ of 85 feet so so I think I think I don't

1:00:15 ↗ think they're connected so I think the

1:00:17 ↗ the concern that you raised that the

1:00:19 ↗ code revision needs to be reviewed in

1:00:22 ↗ companion with this is not I don't I

1:00:25 ↗ guess I don't share that perspective I

1:00:28 ↗ think this can happen in advance or in

1:00:33 ↗ parallel so to the school just be built

1:00:38 ↗ on this site without that code change I

1:00:41 ↗ believe it could but it would require

1:00:45 ↗ similar administrative adjustment of

1:00:48 ↗ standards as we have process for other

1:00:51 ↗ schools within the city and one of the

1:00:54 ↗ reasons why we've requested some of the

1:00:59 ↗ changes to the standards in cff for

1:01:01 ↗ schools is because basically the

1:01:04 ↗ administration was being asked to amend

1:01:06 ↗ standards for things like impervious

1:01:09 ↗ surfaces and others so part of it is you

1:01:12 ↗ know as you shrink the footprint of the

1:01:14 ↗ parcel itself the amount of impervious

1:01:19 ↗ goes up because the buildings in the

1:01:22 ↗ parking lot take up a certain amount of

1:01:24 ↗ space and so the current cff standards

1:01:29 ↗ for impervious which limited

1:01:31 ↗ fifty percent would need to be revised

1:01:33 ↗ but there are provisions in the existing

1:01:35 ↗ code that allow that so it's just it's

1:01:37 ↗ just another process to go through okay

1:01:42 ↗ so what I'm hearing is either

1:01:43 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

1:01:45 ↗ which is that administrative Lea or the

1:01:46 ↗ new code change would work but one of

1:01:48 ↗ those needs to happen in order for

1:01:49 ↗ school to be built here and when exactly

1:01:51 ↗ is the agenda bill coming for a first

1:01:54 ↗ touch before the Council on the code

1:01:56 ↗ amendment yeah sorry September okay

1:02:03 ↗ thanks

1:02:06 ↗ any other questions on oh okay but I

1:02:14 ↗ heard a question Chris no process yeah

1:02:17 ↗ sure question answered scandalous thank

1:02:20 ↗ you hey Mary Lou I'm so Trish evening

1:02:25 ↗ this is the public hearing

1:02:26 ↗ the first of two and there is a

1:02:28 ↗ recommendation in here that that council

1:02:30 ↗ provides some direction tonight about

1:02:33 ↗ revising what came out of the landed

1:02:36 ↗ Shore on it are we just doing the public

1:02:39 ↗ hearing this evening or are you asking

1:02:41 ↗ us to make a decision on whether or not

1:02:44 ↗ the language should be revised this

1:02:45 ↗ evening because there's two public

1:02:48 ↗ hearings we're asking you to at least

1:02:51 ↗ have us write draft the ordinance for

1:02:54 ↗ you all and

1:02:56 ↗ and ask for any more information that

1:02:59 ↗ you would like to have before the second

1:03:00 ↗ public hearing which is September 5th so

1:03:03 ↗ that's what this this part is to to hear

1:03:05 ↗ public comment get more questions from

1:03:08 ↗ you all before we come to the next

1:03:10 ↗ public hearing so we'll have an

1:03:11 ↗ opportunity tonight to talk about the

1:03:13 ↗ proposed revision and whether or not we

1:03:15 ↗ want to direct staff to do that sure

1:03:17 ↗ mm-hmm not seeing any additional

1:03:24 ↗ questions or discussion I will remind

1:03:28 ↗ those that have signed up to speak on

1:03:31 ↗ agenda ville 7 4 3 3 that the

1:03:35 ↗ same guidance for our public

1:03:37 ↗ participation applies and I will open

1:03:40 ↗ the public's Tremayne I'm sorry to

1:03:42 ↗ interrupt point point of order there's

1:03:44 ↗ more to the presentation is there not

1:03:46 ↗ there was just one more slide oh sorry

1:03:49 ↗ but and I'll be quick we received a lot

1:03:53 ↗ of public comments as you know you I

1:03:57 ↗ think I there was at least 10 of them

1:03:59 ↗ perhaps and this was one of the pictures

1:04:02 ↗ that was in one of them one of the

1:04:04 ↗ public comments and I think it shows

1:04:06 ↗ it's a really good picture from the

1:04:08 ↗ valley floor with you can see the little

1:04:10 ↗ Swedish building poking out over on the

1:04:14 ↗ on the side there but I just wanted this

1:04:16 ↗ I just knew it would look really great

1:04:18 ↗ on the big screen that's that's it so

1:04:23 ↗ now you can open up that thank you I'll

1:04:28 ↗ open the the public hearing at 8:05 and

1:04:33 ↗ ask if anyone has signed up to speak

1:04:35 ↗ No

1:04:44 ↗ khadi welcome again okay Connie marsh

1:04:48 ↗ again Levon squawk Mountain so I'm going

1:04:54 ↗ to start out with what I think should

1:04:55 ↗ happen I think that all of the parcels

1:05:01 ↗ except for the intensive commercial and

1:05:03 ↗ the one cff parcel for Sheldon's water

1:05:07 ↗ tower should be community facilities

1:05:13 ↗ open space

1:05:14 ↗ Sheldon's water tower should have some

1:05:19 ↗ guidance to it indicating that it shall

1:05:22 ↗ not be visible and then it could be

1:05:26 ↗ built because and this is the big segue

1:05:29 ↗ in our comprehensive plan in our land

1:05:32 ↗ use vision we have a very very

1:05:37 ↗ straightforward sentence saying that we

1:05:39 ↗ are going to protect our forested

1:05:41 ↗ hillsides and you can see from the

1:05:43 ↗ statistics that were provided we are

1:05:46 ↗ clearly not doing that and when you look

1:05:49 ↗ at this picture you can see that the top

1:05:52 ↗ line of trees is paramount in protecting

1:05:57 ↗ us from looking at yet more of Issaquah

1:06:01 ↗ Highlands so when you ask the community

1:06:03 ↗ whether they should say yes we we want

1:06:07 ↗ to cut those trees because a school

1:06:10 ↗ needs to be put in place you are asking

1:06:13 ↗ us to take down something that will

1:06:16 ↗ never be come back you are taking it

1:06:19 ↗ away there are other places that schools

1:06:21 ↗ could be built there always is they

1:06:24 ↗ might cost more money it might not be a

1:06:25 ↗ heck of a deal but in this situation

1:06:28 ↗ this is a community value that your own

1:06:30 ↗ comprehensive plan emphatically puts as

1:06:34 ↗ a top priority so community facilities

1:06:37 ↗ open space on all of the parcels except

1:06:40 ↗ for the intensive commercial and the

1:06:42 ↗ dubbed Sheldon's

1:06:44 ↗ water tower thank you Thank You Connie

1:06:52 ↗ Steve I see you moving

1:06:55 ↗ at election followed by this request

1:06:59 ↗ school district superintendent welcome

1:07:02 ↗ to hold Steve Crawford director camper

1:07:05 ↗ projects of square School District Ron

1:07:08 ↗ nealy superintendent is squad school

1:07:10 ↗ district and we would like to share some

1:07:13 ↗ information about the potential use of

1:07:16 ↗ this site first of all Thank You mayor

1:07:18 ↗ Butler Thank You council for allowing us

1:07:21 ↗ this opportunity we do have a short

1:07:22 ↗ presentation to you need to use that

1:07:32 ↗ slide first so I think it would be best

1:07:36 ↗ to have mr. Crawford kind of share some

1:07:37 ↗ of our thinking around how the potential

1:07:39 ↗ use of this site would occur and then we

1:07:41 ↗ would certainly be available for any

1:07:42 ↗ questions as well so to start with since

1:07:53 ↗ this slide is up you're looking at a

1:07:56 ↗ view from the middle basically of i-90

1:07:58 ↗ at 900 and yes you can see a bit of the

1:08:01 ↗ hospital these dead trees here are off

1:08:05 ↗ of the property to the west and that the

1:08:08 ↗ trees behind there would basically

1:08:11 ↗ remain all the way across the ridge so

1:08:14 ↗ that the site would not be the building

1:08:16 ↗ would not be visible from the West or

1:08:18 ↗ from the south

1:08:44 ↗ look I think I lost it

1:09:04 ↗ so why is the Highland site a great

1:09:06 ↗ location or a new neighborhood

1:09:07 ↗ Elementary the projected 2017-2018

1:09:15 ↗ enrollment at Clark elementary will be

1:09:17 ↗ eight hundred and eight students Clark

1:09:19 ↗ will be our largest elementary school

1:09:21 ↗ constructed with the largest number of

1:09:23 ↗ classrooms and it was still open with

1:09:25 ↗ ten portable classrooms grand Rogell and

1:09:28 ↗ entry will be at 735 students there's

1:09:31 ↗ 125 kindergarten students in the Grand

1:09:34 ↗ Ridge attendance area that are

1:09:35 ↗ transported to Challenger and endeavour

1:09:36 ↗ elementary schools due to the lack of

1:09:39 ↗ classroom space at Grand Ridge Grand

1:09:42 ↗ Ridge Hall excuse me also has ten

1:09:44 ↗ portable classrooms you can see that

1:09:47 ↗ there's a pretty small area of

1:09:49 ↗ attendance and the Highlands that fills

1:09:50 ↗ Grand Ridge Clark has a pretty large

1:09:52 ↗ attendance area just a little bit more

1:09:55 ↗ detail there in case there was any

1:09:57 ↗ questions about specifics this shows

1:10:00 ↗ that within the Grand Ridge attendance

1:10:01 ↗ area how the Grand Ridge kindergardens

1:10:03 ↗ are split to Challenger and endeavour

1:10:10 ↗ Issaquah Valley Elementary basically

1:10:13 ↗ serves west of Front Street on a valley

1:10:17 ↗ floor 2016-17 Highland area students 80

1:10:23 ↗ grand Ridge kindergarten students are

1:10:25 ↗ transported to challenge your Elementary

1:10:26 ↗ we provide busing but there will be some

1:10:30 ↗ that get transported by their parents 45

1:10:33 ↗ Grand Ridge kindergarten students are

1:10:35 ↗ transported to endeavour off of duty

1:10:37 ↗ Hill Road

1:10:37 ↗ there's 337 elementary students and the

1:10:41 ↗ Highlands that are transported to Clark

1:10:43 ↗ elementary there's another hundred and

1:10:46 ↗ seventy-three Elementary students in the

1:10:48 ↗ black nugget over Dale area that are

1:10:50 ↗ transported to Clark there's 510

1:10:54 ↗ students that are transported to Clark

1:10:56 ↗ there's 635 students that are

1:10:59 ↗ transported out of the area so using the

1:11:02 ↗ trip generation numbers per this per

1:11:04 ↗ student from the final Clark traffic

1:11:06 ↗ study

1:11:07 ↗ students transported to and from Clark

1:11:09 ↗ elementary generate in the am peak 82

1:11:12 ↗ trips in the afternoon peak 173 trips

1:11:16 ↗ and in the PM peak 107 trips it's 360

1:11:20 ↗ trips every day that we use to transport

1:11:23 ↗ students in and out of the downtown area

1:11:28 ↗ reducing enrollment at Clark elementary

1:11:31 ↗ is critical to accommodate core area

1:11:33 ↗ growth growth at fisic while Valley and

1:11:35 ↗ Clark elementary schools Grand Ridge is

1:11:40 ↗ on a 10-acre site going to an urban

1:11:43 ↗ school plan a three storey building with

1:11:44 ↗ a compacted footprint reduced surface

1:11:47 ↗ parking smaller play areas and reducing

1:11:49 ↗ the proposed footprint allows reducing

1:11:52 ↗ the proposed foot to about seven acres

1:11:54 ↗ so SPI recommends ten acres for an

1:11:57 ↗ elementary school site Grand Ridge is on

1:12:00 ↗ a ten acre site at Landon Shore we

1:12:06 ↗ brought a site plan it was a seven point

1:12:08 ↗ one acre parcel at the top of the hill

1:12:11 ↗ basically taking into comments and

1:12:15 ↗ considerations that we've heard we've

1:12:16 ↗ sort of relooked at that again we're

1:12:19 ↗ still dealing with concept site plans

1:12:21 ↗ but this basically reduces the footprint

1:12:26 ↗ down to six point two five acres

1:12:29 ↗ there's actually five point eight five

1:12:31 ↗ acres that are within the proposed

1:12:33 ↗ annexation area and we've sort of

1:12:36 ↗ scrunched a little bit of area from the

1:12:39 ↗ north area there in an area that's

1:12:41 ↗ already been cleared between the

1:12:43 ↗ boundary of the annexation and the

1:12:45 ↗ existing trail around the detention pond

1:12:50 ↗ so the existing trees will remain

1:12:52 ↗ outside the footprint area and will

1:12:54 ↗ screen the building from South and

1:12:56 ↗ westerly views school will be compatible

1:12:58 ↗ with existing highlands residential and

1:13:00 ↗ commercial development the option Plan B

1:13:03 ↗ also preserves a forty foot strip of

1:13:05 ↗ trees along the eastern section of the

1:13:07 ↗ property it's another point four acres

1:13:09 ↗ of trees that would remain a

1:13:14 ↗ neighborhood school serves the local

1:13:16 ↗ community reduces transportation and

1:13:18 ↗ enhances sustainability goals I think

1:13:21 ↗ another thing

1:13:21 ↗ keep in mind is that an elementary

1:13:23 ↗ school our soft sand play field areas

1:13:25 ↗ are about an acre plus in size when you

1:13:31 ↗ start talking about other school

1:13:33 ↗ facilities that gets even larger when

1:13:35 ↗ you're talking about a football field

1:13:36 ↗ and track and a football field and track

1:13:38 ↗ the softball field in the baseball field

1:13:39 ↗ for high schools but even at the

1:13:41 ↗ elementary level that acre that's that's

1:13:44 ↗ getting that 17 to 20 percent range of

1:13:49 ↗ the total site area which is basically

1:13:52 ↗ open area used for recreational purposes

1:13:56 ↗ but again it's considered impervious so

1:13:58 ↗ I just wanted to add a couple of things

1:14:06 ↗ first of all Toula earlier you had a

1:14:08 ↗ question about the the size and can we

1:14:11 ↗ do a school on this site and I'll be

1:14:14 ↗ honest when these plans were first

1:14:17 ↗ brought my way I had some concerns we've

1:14:19 ↗ never built a school on this small of a

1:14:21 ↗ site but as I go back to the

1:14:23 ↗ conversation that the law school

1:14:25 ↗ district board and the council had Oh a

1:14:27 ↗ year and a half or so ago we talked a

1:14:31 ↗ lot about how can we reduce footprints

1:14:34 ↗ we know the property is a very expensive

1:14:36 ↗ and rare commodity we want to try to

1:14:39 ↗ preserve as much as we can so I commend

1:14:41 ↗ Steve and his team for really crunching

1:14:45 ↗ this site down even since the last land

1:14:48 ↗ and Shore meeting and again I keep

1:14:50 ↗ asking questions well what does that do

1:14:51 ↗ to the cost of the building is it going

1:14:54 ↗ to feel like our other schools is there

1:14:55 ↗ going to be equity in this school he's

1:14:59 ↗ convinced that that's the case and he's

1:15:00 ↗ working hard to convince me as well

1:15:03 ↗ and I've seen what he's been capable of

1:15:06 ↗ in the past so I do have a lot of

1:15:07 ↗ optimism but I would point out that this

1:15:10 ↗ school just from the get-go would would

1:15:13 ↗ save over 30% of the land that we would

1:15:16 ↗ normally use for a school so we we took

1:15:21 ↗ that conversation very seriously and

1:15:23 ↗ we're trying to implement some design

1:15:25 ↗ features to this school that well we'll

1:15:28 ↗ preserve those views and things as well

1:15:31 ↗ more importantly we've had a lot of

1:15:34 ↗ conversations

1:15:35 ↗ about traffic in this community we just

1:15:37 ↗ showed you a way to take hundreds of car

1:15:40 ↗ trips off coming from the highlands down

1:15:43 ↗ to the valley floor I think that's

1:15:46 ↗ pretty significant and I would also

1:15:48 ↗ point out that many of those car trips

1:15:50 ↗ aren't going to be just displaced to

1:15:52 ↗ another place they'll actually become

1:15:55 ↗ walkers so I think there's a benefit

1:15:57 ↗ there as well does that conclude your

1:16:05 ↗ comments

1:16:06 ↗ let's have any questions yes it does

1:16:08 ↗ thank you thank you both as anyone else

1:16:13 ↗ signed up to speak yes Lisa

1:16:18 ↗ I wasn't signed up to speak but I'm Lisa

1:16:25 ↗ Callan I am live at three one five three

1:16:27 ↗ Northeast Marquette Way in Issaquah and

1:16:30 ↗ I'm also on the Issaquah school board so

1:16:32 ↗ I won I just wanted to thank the board

1:16:37 ↗ the council the board the council you

1:16:40 ↗ can see what's in my brain for the

1:16:41 ↗ consideration of the zoning and giving

1:16:43 ↗ the school district the opportunity

1:16:45 ↗ should the zoning go forward to do a

1:16:48 ↗ much deeper dive in the planning and

1:16:50 ↗ what that means for getting a school

1:16:52 ↗ built where the growth and the demand is

1:16:55 ↗ right next to where the students are in

1:16:57 ↗ the city of his claw I know as a

1:16:59 ↗ Highlands resident and having my son

1:17:02 ↗ going through Grand Ridge knowing the

1:17:04 ↗ density of that area with children and I

1:17:07 ↗ think you'll probably hear it more

1:17:09 ↗ frequently school gets back into play

1:17:11 ↗ and people are paying attention more to

1:17:13 ↗ council agendas hopefully you'll get a

1:17:16 ↗ chance to hear too from the community

1:17:18 ↗ members at large of the impacts of the

1:17:22 ↗ schools and the growth and what they're

1:17:23 ↗ doing so I think that we are looking at

1:17:26 ↗ all kinds of sites that we're doing deep

1:17:28 ↗ dives as a district on what each way

1:17:30 ↗ those sites brings to the table not only

1:17:33 ↗ for our education mandate but also from

1:17:37 ↗ a community facilities perspective and

1:17:39 ↗ from a land-use perspective and all of

1:17:41 ↗ the municipalities that we deal with we

1:17:44 ↗ have five across the AC across school

1:17:46 ↗ district and certainly the growth that's

1:17:48 ↗ right here in the city of Issaquah is

1:17:50 ↗ paramount to the needs that are taking

1:17:52 ↗ place if you have questions on land use

1:17:56 ↗ outside of a quasi-judicial and the

1:17:59 ↗ zoning I want to make sure and offer up

1:18:02 ↗ anybody in the school district as well

1:18:03 ↗ as myself this resource to answer

1:18:06 ↗ questions and to go into detail with you

1:18:09 ↗ about that so make sure you have that as

1:18:11 ↗ well as to the community we certainly

1:18:13 ↗ would love to hear from anybody in the

1:18:14 ↗ community about your concerns of what

1:18:17 ↗ the school district might be planning in

1:18:18 ↗ that arena and the other aspect I wanted

1:18:24 ↗ to also just point out was that in any

1:18:26 ↗ school that we're building not only is

1:18:29 ↗ it a educational resource for

1:18:31 ↗ educational purposes which is its

1:18:33 ↗ primary point but it is a community

1:18:35 ↗ facility in a community resource so the

1:18:38 ↗ play fields and that open space that's

1:18:40 ↗ out there will be used by the community

1:18:42 ↗ as we well know from having

1:18:44 ↗ conversations with our little league

1:18:46 ↗ teams and our various community

1:18:50 ↗ organizations that borrow our resources

1:18:51 ↗ and use those resources all the time so

1:18:53 ↗ this would be an addition and a support

1:18:55 ↗ to the community that way too

1:18:56 ↗ thank you thank you Lisa anyone else

1:19:00 ↗ desiring to speak

1:19:05 ↗ Susan beat you to it and you're next I'm

1:19:10 ↗ Susan de ville and I met 28 25 Northwest

1:19:14 ↗ pine cone drive-in scuse me it's really

1:19:18 ↗ hard to go up against the school

1:19:20 ↗ district and say why are we building the

1:19:23 ↗ school on the side of the mountain

1:19:25 ↗ I just heard all the reasons why we need

1:19:30 ↗ it we all agree we need it but why this

1:19:32 ↗ land and that's why I'm here today to

1:19:35 ↗ talk about the it's called comp land put

1:19:39 ↗ us on a path to fix the past rezoning so

1:19:41 ↗ we've gone through and the mistakes then

1:19:44 ↗ forever scarred our hillsides and I'm

1:19:49 ↗ looking at another proposal to also may

1:19:56 ↗ have this happen to us again we don't

1:19:59 ↗ have a clear

1:20:02 ↗ development to look at to say this will

1:20:06 ↗ be protected we think it's going to be 8

1:20:09 ↗ acres but once you get up there and

1:20:12 ↗ start to build you don't know what the

1:20:14 ↗ side of the mountain is going to do I

1:20:18 ↗ believe that and I'm here to support

1:20:21 ↗ Connie in her decision to rezone at this

1:20:25 ↗ point today for open space and to

1:20:29 ↗ consider when there's more proposals in

1:20:34 ↗ place to view and decide is this the

1:20:37 ↗ right thing to do for this part of our

1:20:39 ↗ visual hillside there's we have a lot of

1:20:43 ↗ land we have a lot of money we have a

1:20:46 ↗ lot of support for our schools and I

1:20:49 ↗ just don't know if this is the right

1:20:50 ↗ answer

1:20:52 ↗ City Council recently really stepped up

1:20:56 ↗ and voted to protect cougar mountain

1:20:58 ↗ with the birds m'a development agreement

1:21:03 ↗ reversal and I'm really hoping that

1:21:06 ↗ they'll take the time and really look at

1:21:08 ↗ this closely it like I said it's really

1:21:10 ↗ difficult we all agree we need schools

1:21:13 ↗ we don't want to put our education on

1:21:16 ↗ the back burner but it's the right thing

1:21:18 ↗ to do

1:21:18 ↗ thank you Thank You Susan and yes sir

1:21:25 ↗ all right Matthew Myer one zero nine

1:21:29 ↗ five northeast Park Drive in Issaquah I

1:21:32 ↗ had a concern that that particular area

1:21:35 ↗ of land the best I can tell in overlays

1:21:37 ↗ is identified by the King County land

1:21:40 ↗ side risk assessment as an extreme

1:21:42 ↗ hazard and I'm concerned about building

1:21:45 ↗ an elementary school in an area of

1:21:47 ↗ extreme landslide hazard and E with the

1:21:50 ↗ limited footprint as I've heard tonight

1:21:54 ↗ I would also be concerned that any kind

1:21:56 ↗ of abatement of that land side hazard

1:21:58 ↗ would probably shrink the footprint a

1:22:00 ↗ great deal for setbacks and retaining

1:22:02 ↗ walls that might be required to secure

1:22:04 ↗ the hillside and I would just think that

1:22:07 ↗ as much as we need schools I have a

1:22:09 ↗ young daughter who would most likely be

1:22:12 ↗ attending that school given our

1:22:14 ↗ geography

1:22:15 ↗ I understand the need for schools and

1:22:19 ↗ but I'd just be would worried about kind

1:22:22 ↗ of putting our next generation on the

1:22:24 ↗ side of a hill and I know they would

1:22:26 ↗ never get that far in construction but

1:22:28 ↗ I'd worry we'd go down a path that might

1:22:31 ↗ not be very easily panned out based on

1:22:34 ↗ the geography thank you thank you Matt

1:22:38 ↗ anyone else desiring to speak Mary my

1:22:49 ↗ name is Mary Lynch and I recited 2:16 I

1:22:51 ↗ know

1:22:51 ↗ Northwest Oak Crest Drive Issaquah

1:22:53 ↗ Washington and I just want to support

1:22:55 ↗ what Connie and Susan has already said

1:22:58 ↗ and really think this should go forward

1:23:00 ↗ especially this parcel as open space

1:23:03 ↗ that's what our goals and our policy has

1:23:06 ↗ said that's what the central area plan

1:23:08 ↗ said is that we're supposed to the

1:23:10 ↗ reason for the central area plan if

1:23:11 ↗ density is supposed to be on the valley

1:23:14 ↗ floor and or where we've already cut our

1:23:16 ↗ trees down I think the city in the

1:23:18 ↗ school district needs to work more

1:23:20 ↗ openly with the developers and look at

1:23:23 ↗ what is possible within the city that

1:23:26 ↗ could be used looking at smaller

1:23:28 ↗ footprints looking at different types of

1:23:30 ↗ schools I question the transportation

1:23:32 ↗ some of there because only those that

1:23:35 ↗ are on the west side of Highlands and

1:23:39 ↗ ninth I believe would probably walk to

1:23:43 ↗ school because with the amount of

1:23:45 ↗ traffic that goes through the Highlands

1:23:48 ↗ through traffic I don't see that as a

1:23:50 ↗ safe Avenue to allow podesta students to

1:23:54 ↗ walk to and from an elementary school so

1:23:56 ↗ I think when you look at the overall

1:23:58 ↗ long-term effect of the traffic and

1:24:00 ↗ whether they might be coming from other

1:24:03 ↗ areas of the plateau that it may switch

1:24:06 ↗ shift the traffic from Highlands but

1:24:09 ↗ that doesn't mean that it's not going to

1:24:11 ↗ put it someplace else so I think an

1:24:13 ↗ overall traffic flow needs to be done

1:24:15 ↗ for this as also some of the other new

1:24:18 ↗ schools that are done and I would hope

1:24:20 ↗ going forward that we would when I was

1:24:22 ↗ on the central area task force we asked

1:24:24 ↗ then that we start working more closely

1:24:27 ↗ with the city that was in 2000

1:24:29 ↗ and 10 11 and 12 it wasn't until last

1:24:33 ↗ year that the City Council sat down with

1:24:36 ↗ the school board and again that was with

1:24:37 ↗ me pushing I would hope that that

1:24:40 ↗ discussion is more Oakland and that's

1:24:42 ↗ what we heard last week at some of the

1:24:44 ↗ meetings is working with the PTAs and

1:24:46 ↗ the parents they could put pressures on

1:24:48 ↗ the developers we have some major

1:24:51 ↗ developers that are here locally that

1:24:53 ↗ might be able to help us we might be

1:24:55 ↗ able to locate some schools here and we

1:24:57 ↗ also have other communities that need to

1:24:59 ↗ step up to the plate

1:25:01 ↗ Newcastle King County and Sammamish need

1:25:05 ↗ to step up to the plate to help us we're

1:25:07 ↗ not the only city and piece of land

1:25:10 ↗ holder in Issaquah so I would hope that

1:25:13 ↗ we save this these trees up here because

1:25:16 ↗ the other thing we haven't done is a

1:25:18 ↗ tree canopy the last tree canopy study

1:25:21 ↗ we did for Issaquah was in 2006 that was

1:25:24 ↗ an estimate we still have not done a

1:25:27 ↗ tree canopy to NOAA for anyways near

1:25:29 ↗ close to our 50 percent goal and I would

1:25:32 ↗ say that we're not if you look just

1:25:34 ↗ right now and Exce off the Mount of

1:25:36 ↗ trees that have gone even in the school

1:25:39 ↗ district property that have gone we

1:25:41 ↗ haven't replaced those and we don't have

1:25:43 ↗ any good accountability when we put tree

1:25:47 ↗ money into the tree fund to make sure we

1:25:49 ↗ replace those trees I've not seen any

1:25:51 ↗ accounting on that so I would hope that

1:25:53 ↗ going forward with this one we make it

1:25:56 ↗ open space if it comes back and

1:25:58 ↗ justifies and though the due diligence

1:26:01 ↗ is done for this parcel of land and it

1:26:04 ↗ justifies you can always change the

1:26:06 ↗ annex or the the code so please thank

1:26:10 ↗ you save our trees thank you Mary anyone

1:26:15 ↗ else designed to speak this evening

1:26:16 ↗ Steve

1:26:26 ↗ Steve Pereira 117 northeast dogwood

1:26:29 ↗ Street so a couple of preliminary things

1:26:31 ↗ the first was I think this was not

1:26:34 ↗ communicated well there was three I

1:26:37 ↗ understand there are 3000 letters that

1:26:38 ↗ were sent out to folks to live within

1:26:40 ↗ 300 feet of currently zoned cff facility

1:26:44 ↗ this issue kind of affects all Issaquah

1:26:47 ↗ so needs to be broadened and

1:26:48 ↗ communicated in a way that kind of

1:26:50 ↗ involves community so I would urge to go

1:26:53 ↗ back and look at a way that that does

1:26:55 ↗ that the second piece is this is the

1:26:59 ↗ second time I've heard of a zoning issue

1:27:01 ↗ come up the first was the planned or

1:27:05 ↗ proposed idea of moving the what's

1:27:07 ↗ called the staples lot out of the old

1:27:09 ↗ town area this is a design area and I

1:27:14 ↗ mentioned this in context of the quote

1:27:16 ↗ unquote permit or building moratorium so

1:27:18 ↗ my point is I think we need to look at

1:27:20 ↗ zoning as part of the building

1:27:21 ↗ moratorium as a whole issue not as

1:27:25 ↗ separate pieces so I would throw that

1:27:28 ↗ back to the council for consideration on

1:27:30 ↗ this particular issue I know when I

1:27:32 ↗ moved here nine and a half years ago I

1:27:33 ↗ didn't have any kids all the wood above

1:27:35 ↗ my nephews who have talked about before

1:27:36 ↗ I've been counseled to good is a

1:27:38 ↗ classical district but I liked that the

1:27:41 ↗ community supported its kids so I'm

1:27:43 ↗ making a distinction between supporting

1:27:45 ↗ this cloth school district and is this a

1:27:48 ↗ good zoning policy and it doesn't seem

1:27:50 ↗ to be a good policy to me to change that

1:27:53 ↗ zoning I would concur with the c-fos as

1:27:57 ↗ a designated except for the reservoir

1:27:58 ↗ lot I know that I've come before council

1:28:04 ↗ and talked about not enough time for the

1:28:06 ↗ plan and policy Commissioner plant time

1:28:08 ↗ and resources to look about the 14

1:28:12 ↗ issues

1:28:13 ↗ I'm sorry 16 issues that they had to

1:28:15 ↗ look at they've only looked at 7 of

1:28:17 ↗ those 16 one of which was the tree

1:28:18 ↗ canopy issue and here we're talking

1:28:21 ↗ about changing and removing trees

1:28:24 ↗ further that's one of the core things

1:28:28 ↗ that as was known for is that tree

1:28:30 ↗ canopy so I don't get why we're talking

1:28:32 ↗ about removing further

1:28:37 ↗ this seems to be a whole scale coding

1:28:40 ↗ change that keeps the letters but

1:28:42 ↗ changes where we didn't want bourbon

1:28:44 ↗ development to be I'm all for or than

1:28:47 ↗ the development in those places where

1:28:48 ↗ we've designated to be this seems

1:28:51 ↗ outside of that so my thought is again

1:28:53 ↗ we're not there that this is the best

1:28:56 ↗ way to accomplish that thank you thank

1:29:02 ↗ you Steve yes sir

1:29:15 ↗ hi Jim Cory I'm a I'm a 13 month

1:29:17 ↗ resident at West Highlands Park so I

1:29:19 ↗ actually get some some local input here

1:29:22 ↗ I appreciate you guys coming tonight too

1:29:24 ↗ mostly because I I do understand the

1:29:27 ↗ significance of a of a sustainable

1:29:30 ↗ significant school in the area and I

1:29:32 ↗ consider it an asset the wishes and

1:29:35 ↗ concerns that I came up with for for

1:29:38 ↗ this location you talked about walkers

1:29:42 ↗ and a lot of walkers that are they're

1:29:45 ↗ going to be accessing this location and

1:29:48 ↗ I just see those from West Highland Park

1:29:50 ↗ in the West Ridge proposed the West

1:29:54 ↗ Ridge stuff that's being constructed now

1:29:57 ↗ so I'm not really sure if we'll have a

1:30:00 ↗ lot of walking people from from outside

1:30:02 ↗ those areas just because of the the

1:30:05 ↗ commercial areas that let's separate

1:30:07 ↗ that site from from the other air so I

1:30:10 ↗ think it's just those two communities

1:30:11 ↗ I'm curious if there's been a road study

1:30:14 ↗ done thirteen months that I've been here

1:30:16 ↗ we've had one unfamiliar driver in a

1:30:19 ↗ cement truck over turn right at the

1:30:21 ↗ intersection where you'd be be bringing

1:30:23 ↗ kids and where buses would be bringing

1:30:25 ↗ kids in so that location is a concern

1:30:28 ↗ for me and buses are bigger than cement

1:30:31 ↗ trucks so a little harder to maneuver

1:30:37 ↗ yeah the roads an extra traffic a I

1:30:40 ↗ envisioned especially big events and if

1:30:42 ↗ it's a sustainable significant school

1:30:45 ↗ there's going to be great community

1:30:47 ↗ events around there getting people in

1:30:50 ↗ and out of there I think any smart GPS

1:30:53 ↗ anybody's coming from the north is going

1:30:56 ↗ to suggest the cars come down 4th Avenue

1:30:59 ↗ and 5th place which are actually pretty

1:31:02 ↗ tight to navigate as it is now not sure

1:31:05 ↗ what they're going to look like after

1:31:06 ↗ polygons done with it which is really

1:31:10 ↗ borderline of what they're what they're

1:31:11 ↗ working on now so those roads are a

1:31:14 ↗ concern of mine either I actually try to

1:31:16 ↗ turn that road and there's kids that are

1:31:17 ↗ there and I Drive extra slow because

1:31:20 ↗ they're they're always there

1:31:23 ↗ I'm concerned and then just that the

1:31:28 ↗ amount of parking on a site like that

1:31:31 ↗ I'm not envisioning that parking is

1:31:34 ↗ going to be sufficient I it just sounds

1:31:38 ↗ like an obvious thing to me I think

1:31:39 ↗ anybody that looks at it is going to be

1:31:41 ↗ like when a school does that and and you

1:31:45 ↗ want softball baseball tournaments or

1:31:48 ↗ soccer tournaments or anything but that

1:31:49 ↗ parking bleeds out on the street if

1:31:51 ↗ you've tried to park on 4th Avenue and

1:31:53 ↗ West silence Park after 5:00

1:31:55 ↗ on a week to errand basically on the

1:31:58 ↗ weekend it's not there and people get to

1:32:01 ↗ get it all the time because the

1:32:03 ↗ neighbors want their parking so one one

1:32:08 ↗ suggestion actually for that is to maybe

1:32:10 ↗ work with Swedish to ask for use of

1:32:14 ↗ their lot for some overflow parking not

1:32:17 ↗ sure how you discourage people that are

1:32:19 ↗ from out of the area to not use the the

1:32:22 ↗ community parking which is text already

1:32:24 ↗ in the thirteen months I've been there

1:32:25 ↗ I've had three people Park in my

1:32:27 ↗ reserved spot I don't call the tow

1:32:29 ↗ people I'm I'm a little more neighborly

1:32:31 ↗ than that so I go that direction and

1:32:34 ↗ then I'm not sure I got the estimated an

1:32:36 ↗ enrollment of what you were talking

1:32:37 ↗ about and then you talked a lot about

1:32:40 ↗ how many kids are being transported now

1:32:42 ↗ but how many are going to be transported

1:32:44 ↗ I'm just throwing questions up how many

1:32:47 ↗ would be transported to this location

1:32:50 ↗ something just thought points my last

1:32:55 ↗ one it is serious but wondering if the

1:32:59 ↗ the proposed site is a thousand feet

1:33:01 ↗ from the pot shop it's down calm down

1:33:04 ↗ the rich from there those are my

1:33:07 ↗ concerns Jim thank you very very much

1:33:13 ↗ and M M be helpful to get your contact

1:33:26 ↗ information cause of any follow-up so

1:33:30 ↗ anyone else desiring to speak anyone

1:33:38 ↗ else third and final call seeing no one

1:33:43 ↗ then that will conclude a public comment

1:33:49 ↗ on this agenda bill and are there

1:33:57 ↗ questions or discussion hallo

1:34:03 ↗ I have a question for the school

1:34:06 ↗ superintendent and a question for Trish

1:34:09 ↗ Trish first there was a lot of public

1:34:14 ↗ comment that the council receives

1:34:15 ↗ through email as well and I'm wondering

1:34:18 ↗ how that gets incorporated into the

1:34:19 ↗ agenda bills so that somebody reading

1:34:22 ↗ the agenda bill can see all of the

1:34:23 ↗ information that was submitted right the

1:34:25 ↗ information the public comment that you

1:34:27 ↗ received at Landon Shore is an exhibit

1:34:29 ↗ in the updated agenda bill that you

1:34:31 ↗ would have received for tonight and then

1:34:33 ↗ all that came after the 7th we're

1:34:35 ↗ starting another document of all those

1:34:38 ↗ emails in the public comment and that

1:34:40 ↗ would go into the next update and when

1:34:42 ↗ folks ask questions in those emails how

1:34:44 ↗ do they get the answers good question

1:34:49 ↗ because a lot of the questions are you

1:34:51 ↗ know all over the the board I think

1:34:54 ↗ we're trying to either answer them in

1:34:55 ↗ presentations or we'll go through and

1:34:57 ↗ try to answer them individually

1:34:59 ↗ depending on the comment did you have a

1:35:04 ↗ question of wrong I'm supposed to not

1:35:07 ↗ follow up to what Mary Lou asked we've

1:35:11 ↗ we have received a fair amount of

1:35:13 ↗ comments in email

1:35:17 ↗ I think it's on I think a lot of it the

1:35:20 ↗ majority of it is on the

1:35:23 ↗ the code change that Keith was speaking

1:35:25 ↗ to earlier so see I don't know the

1:35:31 ↗ answer to that but I don't know the

1:35:33 ↗ answer to the question of what do we do

1:35:34 ↗ with that because if they're commenting

1:35:36 ↗ about a school site I think a lot of

1:35:40 ↗ people are commenting actually on the

1:35:41 ↗ proposed the code change that PPC had

1:35:44 ↗ the hearing on right and those questions

1:35:47 ↗ those questions are in the agenda bill

1:35:49 ↗ for the school the urban school agenda

1:35:52 ↗ bill and we're trying to separate the

1:35:53 ↗ ones that are actually asking about the

1:35:55 ↗ annexation and the zoning of that we're

1:35:58 ↗ trying to keep them separate because as

1:36:00 ↗ Keith said they're really not they're

1:36:02 ↗ similar but they're not the same they're

1:36:03 ↗ they don't rely on each other so I just

1:36:06 ↗ wanted to point that out so that maybe

1:36:09 ↗ were potentially generous with the

1:36:11 ↗ inclusion of the comments that we the

1:36:15 ↗ comments in this agenda in this agenda

1:36:17 ↗ bill even if there may be duplicates for

1:36:19 ↗ a future agenda bill having to do with a

1:36:21 ↗ code change in September okay so you're

1:36:24 ↗ saying you want the ones on urban

1:36:25 ↗ schools in this agenda bill as well I'm

1:36:27 ↗ thinking that we should I'm suggesting

1:36:29 ↗ that we looked at them with an eye

1:36:33 ↗ towards there's a possibility they might

1:36:35 ↗ be and someone might be involved okay

1:36:38 ↗ it's all our own sir and to Trish the

1:36:42 ↗ information that Keith gave tonight

1:36:43 ↗ about being able to build the school

1:36:45 ↗ anyway isn't in the agenda bill so I'm

1:36:49 ↗ not sure how the public would know that

1:36:50 ↗ whether or not there's an urban school

1:36:52 ↗ standard or not that this zoning request

1:36:55 ↗ means that the school could be built

1:36:57 ↗ anyway under existing code how does that

1:36:59 ↗ get included in each end right we can do

1:37:01 ↗ that that would be in there urban

1:37:02 ↗ schools agenda bill but we could put an

1:37:05 ↗ update in this agenda bill as well I

1:37:08 ↗ think that they have that pretty big

1:37:10 ↗ dead zone that came up but the process

1:37:12 ↗ it's not relying on the urban schools

1:37:14 ↗ agenda bill for them for the school to

1:37:17 ↗ be built and a question for Ron Ron

1:37:22 ↗ you're up

1:37:24 ↗ Marilu not a detailed numbers question

1:37:27 ↗ but just on the slide that talked about

1:37:29 ↗ the trips and the students and it guess

1:37:33 ↗ what confused me is the numbers seem

1:37:35 ↗ high I recognize how many students there

1:37:37 ↗ are that are moving around but aren't

1:37:39 ↗ they on school buses why are the numbers

1:37:40 ↗ in the hundreds when we're talking about

1:37:42 ↗ saving trips is that parents driving

1:37:45 ↗ kids and picking kids up versus blessing

1:37:47 ↗ I I believe what I heard Steve say was

1:37:52 ↗ it was based off the generation data

1:37:54 ↗ that was used off of Clark the recent

1:37:57 ↗ motorist traffic impact analysis for the

1:37:59 ↗ Clark element document icon we had to do

1:38:02 ↗ a traffic impact analysis for the new

1:38:03 ↗ Clark elementary school and that

1:38:06 ↗ determines the number of trips per

1:38:09 ↗ student in attendance so it's using that

1:38:12 ↗ same criteria I guess my question is

1:38:15 ↗ that is it parents driving their kids to

1:38:18 ↗ school that we're counting on doing or

1:38:20 ↗ is it busing it's both okay now if you

1:38:25 ↗ look at the number of buses it's a

1:38:27 ↗ pretty insignificant number compared to

1:38:29 ↗ the total and I guess I'll just throw it

1:38:34 ↗ out there maybe this is a comment is

1:38:36 ↗ that somehow that seems to not follow an

1:38:39 ↗ urban school sustainable design thing

1:38:41 ↗ when the majority of the volume of

1:38:42 ↗ traffic we're talking about is people

1:38:43 ↗ driving in cars versus using busing or

1:38:46 ↗ walking that's part of what happens when

1:38:49 ↗ you have a large attendance area that's

1:38:51 ↗ remote from the school they attend now

1:38:53 ↗ if you look at the fact that the site

1:38:55 ↗ would provide for the ability for a

1:38:58 ↗ great number of students to walk to

1:39:00 ↗ school that changes the picture there's

1:39:02 ↗ 72 homes under construction immediately

1:39:04 ↗ adjacent to the site there's another 400

1:39:07 ↗ on the west side that are coming there's

1:39:09 ↗ probably another hundred that are

1:39:10 ↗ already built and then you've got the

1:39:12 ↗ whole Lakeside properties at the North

1:39:14 ↗ End that would add to that so by the

1:39:16 ↗ time you're done on the Westside

1:39:19 ↗ Highlands Drive you're going to come

1:39:20 ↗ pretty close to fill in at school I

1:39:22 ↗ actually just think that be important

1:39:24 ↗ piece when you're presenting a proposal

1:39:25 ↗ for the property is to understand what

1:39:28 ↗ is car what is bus what is walk would be

1:39:30 ↗ important Marylou I would just add to

1:39:33 ↗ that we do a lot to encourage families

1:39:36 ↗ to put their children on the

1:39:38 ↗ our board recently had a linkage with

1:39:41 ↗ the city of Sammamish this was the hot

1:39:43 ↗ topic as well

1:39:45 ↗ I know grande ridge elementary does

1:39:47 ↗ participate in the Metro carpooling

1:39:51 ↗ program that they try to do we do have

1:39:54 ↗ one of the highest bus ridership s-- in

1:39:56 ↗ the state as well but it still only

1:39:58 ↗ represent represents about fifty percent

1:40:00 ↗ of our students so you know since I've

1:40:04 ↗ got this microphone I want to encourage

1:40:05 ↗ all parents if you have a buzz available

1:40:08 ↗ they're wonderful buses they're safe put

1:40:11 ↗ your children on them I think it is one

1:40:13 ↗ way to address our traffic issues but

1:40:15 ↗ again as you look at that site now it's

1:40:18 ↗ may be hard to envision predominantly

1:40:20 ↗ walking school but as Steve just

1:40:23 ↗ mentioned you've got hundreds of more

1:40:25 ↗ homes and dwellings to be built right

1:40:28 ↗ adjacent to where that site is that I

1:40:30 ↗ don't believe will ever be all walking I

1:40:33 ↗ actually agree that if we have to cut a

1:40:36 ↗ boundary on the other side of Highlands

1:40:38 ↗ Drive we would like to have to bus kids

1:40:39 ↗ across that that busy thoroughfare so it

1:40:43 ↗ will not be all walking if we have to

1:40:45 ↗ bring kids from some of the other

1:40:46 ↗ communities just to the north at least

1:40:49 ↗ in the beginning to populate the school

1:40:51 ↗ we would have some bus transit there as

1:40:54 ↗ well but certainly putting at school

1:40:57 ↗ that close to where all the housing is

1:40:59 ↗ in our other communities where we have

1:41:02 ↗ that intro six and Kalani those are and

1:41:05 ↗ grand rates for that matter those are

1:41:07 ↗ predominantly walking schools it helps

1:41:12 ↗ to provide capacity at Clark and I ve on

1:41:15 ↗ the valley floor which is going to be

1:41:16 ↗ necessary to accommodate the growth

1:41:18 ↗ that's coming out of the central area

1:41:20 ↗ plan oh I'm still a little murky on what

1:41:26 ↗ if any decision making we're doing this

1:41:28 ↗ evening because I have both opinions and

1:41:30 ↗ questions and I don't know whether the

1:41:32 ↗ when and if to share opinions or whether

1:41:35 ↗ to just limit myself to questions so the

1:41:38 ↗ proposed motion which has not been made

1:41:43 ↗ is to direct administration to prepare

1:41:46 ↗ an ordinance establishing annex

1:41:49 ↗ dr. King County Island pre-annexation

1:41:52 ↗ zoning consisting of a mixture of

1:41:55 ↗ various zoning to include facilities cff

1:42:01 ↗ zoning is presented in Exhibit D which

1:42:05 ↗ is potential future land uses and

1:42:08 ↗ updating so many proposals and which you

1:42:12 ↗ saw on a slide that so you're just

1:42:17 ↗ directing us to prepare the ordinance

1:42:20 ↗ and we will return following at the

1:42:28 ↗ September 5th regular council meeting

1:42:31 ↗ for a final decision on that and the

1:42:35 ↗ purpose of this is to gather public

1:42:38 ↗ input and questions and concerns on the

1:42:44 ↗ administration's proposal does that help

1:42:47 ↗ it does Thank You mr. mother question

1:42:54 ↗ mr. mayor just just to follow up on that

1:42:57 ↗ this is quasi-judicial as you know and

1:43:00 ↗ you're going to have a second public

1:43:02 ↗ hearing on September 5th

1:43:04 ↗ so no final decision should be made

1:43:06 ↗ about anything tonight the only decision

1:43:09 ↗ I think that was put forth in the packet

1:43:12 ↗ was more of a procedural one as to

1:43:14 ↗ whether staff should proceed with the

1:43:16 ↗ preparation of an ordinance but you

1:43:18 ↗ should not be making decisions and

1:43:20 ↗ deliberating what the zoning should be

1:43:23 ↗ since the hearing is not concluded or at

1:43:27 ↗ least the second hearing is not

1:43:28 ↗ concluded you're required by law to have

1:43:32 ↗ two public hearings and this is the

1:43:34 ↗ first of two

1:43:39 ↗ No so follow-up to that question then

1:43:44 ↗ again process so this motion here is to

1:43:49 ↗ direct the administration is that going

1:43:52 ↗ to be voted on today as is or that's

1:43:54 ↗ just so there's going to be an actual

1:43:56 ↗ vote on that movement of directing the

1:43:58 ↗ administration to do as stated there

1:44:00 ↗ there can the actual vote because it

1:44:02 ↗ sounded like directing ministry I had a

1:44:04 ↗ hard time today trying to figure out

1:44:05 ↗ what exactly we're going to do here

1:44:07 ↗ because that is kind of a direct order

1:44:09 ↗ and it says the exact type of zoning to

1:44:11 ↗ be in there so it seems pretty

1:44:14 ↗ pre-decisional to me so I'm not sure

1:44:16 ↗ what we're going to do next from a legal

1:44:21 ↗ perspective you cannot make the final

1:44:23 ↗ decision and you cannot make a decision

1:44:25 ↗ on the zoning until after the public

1:44:27 ↗ hearing is concluded if you wish to make

1:44:30 ↗ a procedural determination tonight to

1:44:33 ↗ direct staff to prepare an ordinance and

1:44:35 ↗ bring it back so that you can take

1:44:38 ↗ action after the next public hearing

1:44:41 ↗ that you can do but making the

1:44:45 ↗ substantive decision on the the zoning

1:44:50 ↗ itself is something you should not do

1:44:52 ↗ tonight until after the second public

1:44:54 ↗ hearing years ago okay and just clarify

1:44:59 ↗ but it has the zoning listed in there

1:45:01 ↗ and I understand what you just said but

1:45:03 ↗ to me it looks like I'm agreeing with

1:45:05 ↗ the zoning if I voted on that the way

1:45:07 ↗ it's written tonight and that that's

1:45:09 ↗ what I have a problem with so I'm just

1:45:11 ↗ trying to be as fair as it says with all

1:45:13 ↗ these zoning direct administration to do

1:45:15 ↗ that I know it's not official yet after

1:45:17 ↗ the second public hearing but if I vote

1:45:19 ↗ to direct that it looks like I'm voting

1:45:22 ↗ to establish that zoning so I'm feeling

1:45:25 ↗ kind of caught in the middle here

1:45:27 ↗ because this whole quasi-judicial thing

1:45:29 ↗ is kind of a little awkward here it's

1:45:34 ↗ with the developer and be one on

1:45:38 ↗ Malachor

1:45:41 ↗ yeah perhaps that you know that motion

1:45:45 ↗ was put forth by staff to see if the

1:45:48 ↗ council wished it to bring back an

1:45:50 ↗ ordinance at the next meeting if you

1:45:53 ↗ don't make a motion directing that what

1:45:57 ↗ will happen is that the next meeting

1:45:58 ↗ there will just simply be in ordinance

1:46:00 ↗ or excuse me there will simply be a

1:46:02 ↗ public hearing and then we will wait

1:46:05 ↗ direction from the City Council after

1:46:08 ↗ the close of that public hearing in

1:46:10 ↗ order to provide direction as to what

1:46:13 ↗ direction you want to go

1:46:14 ↗ well you shouldn't make a decision on

1:46:16 ↗ the zoning see he defected back if thank

1:46:20 ↗ you if I could offer maybe a suggestion

1:46:23 ↗ it seems like the only public comment

1:46:26 ↗ that was received this evening was

1:46:28 ↗ surrounding the parcel that's right now

1:46:32 ↗ identified as CF F at the north east

1:46:36 ↗ corner and I guess the question is I

1:46:38 ↗ hear what you're saying and you could

1:46:40 ↗ potentially solve that issue by having

1:46:45 ↗ an ordinance for both so basically the

1:46:49 ↗ other parcels are I don't know that

1:46:51 ↗ there's issues or concerns that I've

1:46:56 ↗ heard about any of the other parcels and

1:46:58 ↗ there's a timeline associated with this

1:47:00 ↗ associated with the icy parcel which I

1:47:03 ↗ don't think anybody has any concerns

1:47:05 ↗ over because that one is associated with

1:47:08 ↗ the Tod project and I guess I don't want

1:47:11 ↗ that to run this timeline but also if we

1:47:14 ↗ if we don't do the ordinance at the next

1:47:18 ↗ meeting at the conclusion of the public

1:47:20 ↗ hearing and it actually comes two weeks

1:47:22 ↗ later I think there's some time issues

1:47:25 ↗ associated with the Tod project with

1:47:28 ↗ that delay so so one way to get past

1:47:32 ↗ that would be to either write the

1:47:34 ↗ ordinance and leave the we've we've

1:47:37 ↗ created kind of a land-use map here so

1:47:39 ↗ we could either leave all of them blank

1:47:42 ↗ and fill them in as part of the

1:47:45 ↗ conversation at the next at the close of

1:47:48 ↗ the public hearing or we could populate

1:47:51 ↗ the portions of this

1:47:54 ↗ in the ordinance that are less

1:47:56 ↗ controversial so I don't I don't know

1:47:59 ↗ that there's I think I hear I'm trying

1:48:03 ↗ to get you past the concern that you

1:48:04 ↗ have by maybe either providing multiple

1:48:08 ↗ ordinances or leaving the final

1:48:11 ↗ land-uses maybe as a fill-in-the-blank

1:48:13 ↗ that we could do maybe at after the

1:48:16 ↗ hearing and the council makes the

1:48:17 ↗ decision so just a suggestion because

1:48:21 ↗ you know I have an opinion right oh

1:48:23 ↗ sorry

1:48:25 ↗ inside joke Marilu you can do sit for

1:48:28 ↗ second statutory so isn't it as simple

1:48:31 ↗ as we can actually make a motion tonight

1:48:33 ↗ for to prepare an ordinance with

1:48:36 ↗ whatever language we want vote on that

1:48:38 ↗ but it doesn't mean the ordinance passes

1:48:39 ↗ it doesn't and we amend can we make it's

1:48:43 ↗ just to make the ordinance it's not to

1:48:45 ↗ vote on it you could do that tonight I

1:48:49 ↗ don't have any issues with the process I

1:48:51 ↗ mean I've this is the way that I'm a

1:48:54 ↗ custom seeing it done this is the way

1:48:56 ↗ it's typically brought forward it is

1:48:59 ↗ directing the administration to prepare

1:49:01 ↗ an ordinance that will be deliberated on

1:49:05 ↗ later that's that's what the direction

1:49:07 ↗ is that it's as simple as that

1:49:09 ↗ I understand what the concern what you

1:49:12 ↗ think it looks like or what you feel

1:49:15 ↗ that but that's not what that's not what

1:49:17 ↗ it is it's the it's so that we are

1:49:18 ↗ prepared to deliberate on September 5th

1:49:22 ↗ the other option is to don't direct

1:49:25 ↗ administration to do anything and then

1:49:27 ↗ we made when we wouldn't have an

1:49:30 ↗ ordinance to deliberate over next time

1:49:32 ↗ all followed by Mary Lou and then Cola

1:49:37 ↗ I'm thank you mr. mayor and thank you

1:49:41 ↗ for those comments Stacey you know

1:49:42 ↗ having been through an annexation

1:49:44 ↗ process once before a couple years ago I

1:49:46 ↗ do remember the process

1:49:47 ↗ I view what's in front of us as a

1:49:50 ↗ proposal and that as was stated earlier

1:49:53 ↗ it'll be at the conclusion of the second

1:49:55 ↗ hearing on September 5th where we will

1:49:57 ↗ actually debate and and drive toward

1:50:01 ↗ some type of council a majority excuse

1:50:05 ↗ me of of what the zoning should be

1:50:07 ↗ I parcel so this is a proposal some of

1:50:11 ↗ it I agree with and have no question

1:50:15 ↗ about some I'm uncertain with I'm I'm

1:50:18 ↗ uncertain at this time of whether or not

1:50:20 ↗ I agree but but the process I think

1:50:24 ↗ we're going to follow is bring a

1:50:26 ↗ proposal forward continue the public

1:50:29 ↗ conversation which is a really good

1:50:30 ↗ conversation this is there's very good

1:50:33 ↗ points made about forested hillsides

1:50:36 ↗ schools density land use in still over

1:50:43 ↗ impact this is a very good public

1:50:46 ↗ conversation to have and I want to

1:50:47 ↗ continue to have that and and I do

1:50:50 ↗ accept the driver that we have in terms

1:50:52 ↗ of timing we have the benefit at the

1:50:55 ↗ landed shore committee to see a timeline

1:50:57 ↗ on the Tod project and one of the

1:51:00 ↗ requirements for the funding from King

1:51:03 ↗ County is that the applicant has control

1:51:06 ↗ of the land and and establishing this

1:51:11 ↗ type of zoning is just once it doesn't

1:51:14 ↗ doesn't give them control of the land

1:51:16 ↗ but it does it is a necessary step in

1:51:19 ↗ that process and I and I do so I accept

1:51:23 ↗ that timing driving particularly for

1:51:25 ↗ that particular parcel the one in the

1:51:27 ↗ northwest quadrant or the bottom-left on

1:51:28 ↗ this diagram so I'm comfortable it's a

1:51:32 ↗ proposal we will deliberate it we may

1:51:34 ↗ change the proposal and and and so I'm

1:51:39 ↗ going to if no one else does I am going

1:51:41 ↗ to feel free to I get my computer back

1:51:44 ↗ to to make a motion to prepare the

1:51:48 ↗ ordinance but I think there's going to

1:51:50 ↗ be some more comments first thank you Oh

1:51:53 ↗ Mary Lou

1:51:54 ↗ Toula um I agree with some of that but I

1:52:01 ↗ disagree that while it's a proposal I

1:52:06 ↗ actually believe that the council

1:52:08 ↗ tonight can do what Keith said which is

1:52:10 ↗ suggest that a blank be left in a

1:52:13 ↗ certain spot or that the community

1:52:15 ↗ facilities facilities be listed as

1:52:17 ↗ community facilities open space have no

1:52:20 ↗ issue having

1:52:21 ↗ then bring that back and during after

1:52:24 ↗ the second public hearing if we decide

1:52:26 ↗ that there is compelling reasons to do C

1:52:29 ↗ F F F we will

1:52:31 ↗ so I actually I'm in favor of changing

1:52:34 ↗ motion this evening

1:52:35 ↗ oh so I don't know in regards to

1:52:41 ↗ annexations but we often are given a a

1:52:46 ↗ set of options to look at as I recall

1:52:48 ↗ with polygons and some of our other

1:52:49 ↗ recent options so it seems like there's

1:52:52 ↗ sort of there's sort of two things that

1:52:54 ↗ we want to take a look at right one is

1:52:57 ↗ the option that's in front of us right

1:52:58 ↗ now and the other option would be with

1:53:00 ↗ the two CFS as CFOs and then I don't

1:53:04 ↗ know how the I don't know how the the

1:53:06 ↗ water tank works if that CF f is CFOs

1:53:09 ↗ and that'd be something the

1:53:11 ↗ administration would have to come back

1:53:12 ↗ on but that seems like the two options

1:53:13 ↗ we're talking about right now

1:53:14 ↗ and so I would suggest a further

1:53:17 ↗ modification and rather than just a

1:53:19 ↗ blank slate direct the administration

1:53:21 ↗ can come back with two options that we

1:53:24 ↗ could look at in detail and after

1:53:25 ↗ further public comment hopefully make a

1:53:28 ↗ decision between those two options and

1:53:29 ↗ we'd print that which I think would

1:53:31 ↗ address council member Ramos is Jason um

1:53:39 ↗ I'm unclear I'm unclear so two separate

1:53:42 ↗ ordinances no um leave two blanks no

1:53:46 ↗ create two options an option a and an

1:53:48 ↗ option B just like we did with polygon

1:53:50 ↗ and just like we did with Bursa yeah so

1:53:52 ↗ um I'll I think I think I've got this

1:53:57 ↗ figured out I don't have the heartburn

1:53:58 ↗ that some are especially about directing

1:54:01 ↗ the administration to prepare a proposed

1:54:03 ↗ ordinance because to me they're all

1:54:06 ↗ they're all blank spots that are filled

1:54:08 ↗ in with proposals so that doesn't bother

1:54:09 ↗ me but I'm it doesn't everyone do

1:54:15 ↗ all I'd like to make a motion we could

1:54:19 ↗ direct the administration to prepare an

1:54:21 ↗ ordinance establishing annexation of

1:54:22 ↗ King County Island and pre-annexation

1:54:24 ↗ zoning consisting of a mixture of

1:54:26 ↗ intensive commercial community

1:54:28 ↗ facilities open space and communities

1:54:30 ↗ facilities facilities zoning as

1:54:32 ↗ presented in Exhibit D for consideration

1:54:36 ↗ at the September 5th 2017 regular

1:54:38 ↗ council meeting followed following the

1:54:40 ↗ scheduled public hearing okay

1:54:43 ↗ moved and seconded I think Stacy eight

1:54:50 ↗ inches by a fraction of a second so

1:54:55 ↗ discussion additional discussion or

1:54:57 ↗ questions on the motion Mary Lou sure

1:55:01 ↗ I'm I'm still struggling I am not

1:55:03 ↗ comfortable with this motion at all and

1:55:05 ↗ for lots of different reasons one the

1:55:09 ↗ biggest one is I think one of the most

1:55:12 ↗ shocking memories I have of living in

1:55:16 ↗ town this time was when the trees came

1:55:18 ↗ down for a sickle island and that whole

1:55:21 ↗ ridge line was exposed and that is what

1:55:23 ↗ it is for good now and I am Not sure

1:55:27 ↗ that we figured out how to do this right

1:55:29 ↗ now and no argument that we need to have

1:55:31 ↗ schools but I would rather have no CFS

1:55:34 ↗ zoning in here right now until I

1:55:35 ↗ understand what those parcels are going

1:55:37 ↗ to look like we've made mistakes and we

1:55:39 ↗ haven't figured out how to do it better

1:55:41 ↗ so I would propose that the I would like

1:55:43 ↗ to make a motion to amend that motion to

1:55:46 ↗ remove any reference to CFS at this time

1:55:51 ↗ second so there's an amendment to the

1:55:56 ↗ motion questions or discussion on the

1:56:02 ↗ amendment Stacy oh I'm I'm going to

1:56:09 ↗ support the amendment like I said

1:56:11 ↗ because it to me it doesn't really

1:56:13 ↗ matter what is in the proposed ordinance

1:56:16 ↗ because that makes it what we're doing

1:56:19 ↗ here almost makes it like one out

1:56:20 ↗ deliberating that's the part that

1:56:21 ↗ troubled me but by supporting putting

1:56:25 ↗ CFS in the in the first motion or

1:56:28 ↗ changing this to see

1:56:29 ↗ Oh OS I don't I think it's I don't think

1:56:35 ↗ it matters but I would support the

1:56:36 ↗ change that makes others feel

1:56:37 ↗ comfortable or aya I I would just echo

1:56:46 ↗ what council president Goodman has

1:56:48 ↗ talked about I think that we had the

1:56:50 ↗ opportunity to to make these changes

1:56:53 ↗ down the road that I actually thought

1:56:56 ↗ that one of the best options that I had

1:56:59 ↗ heard was from was from Tola in terms of

1:57:04 ↗ presenting two options and a and a B and

1:57:07 ↗ it seemed like that would have the

1:57:09 ↗ capability to get everyone asked this

1:57:15 ↗ all I want to make sure I understand the

1:57:19 ↗ proposed amendment it says remove all

1:57:21 ↗ references the C F F so that is so it

1:57:25 ↗ doesn't replace that with another zoning

1:57:28 ↗ designation is that the intent

1:57:37 ↗ that's your understanding no and and I'm

1:57:44 ↗ I could do this or I think I might

1:57:46 ↗ prefer told us method a little better

1:57:48 ↗ but I could do it either it comes to me

1:57:51 ↗ when you have one proposal you have no

1:57:54 ↗ alternative

1:57:54 ↗ then that's pre-decisional for me I mean

1:57:57 ↗ all environmental document I've ever

1:57:59 ↗ written you have to have a no action

1:58:00 ↗ alternative is required to have at least

1:58:02 ↗ two and when you have only one and it's

1:58:06 ↗ all it looks like it's all decided

1:58:07 ↗ whether you say it is or not that's what

1:58:09 ↗ it feels like and that's what I can't

1:58:11 ↗ not support that I want to support going

1:58:13 ↗ forward and working on those keeping our

1:58:15 ↗ timing on everything keep it open for

1:58:17 ↗ looking at schools but don't have enough

1:58:18 ↗ information to to do that yet so I could

1:58:21 ↗ live with this one or two alternatives

1:58:24 ↗ or whatever but I couldn't go with the

1:58:28 ↗ original motion hello I think tons of

1:58:32 ↗ member Barbara's first oh I'm sorry I

1:58:36 ↗ mean back here in the local yeah um I'm

1:58:40 ↗ also in agreement that I could go with

1:58:43 ↗ Toula

1:58:44 ↗ at and it doesn't mean that we can't

1:58:46 ↗ even at the next meeting this comes

1:58:49 ↗ forward there can still be some changes

1:58:51 ↗ going forward so it's not like we're

1:58:53 ↗ locking ourselves into anything that's

1:58:55 ↗ being said or or here this evening we

1:58:58 ↗ can change this next councilman meeting

1:59:01 ↗ when we look forward to this so I'm not

1:59:04 ↗ having a problem with anything specific

1:59:07 ↗ this evening so therefore I'm gonna not

1:59:14 ↗ support the amendment and intend to

1:59:16 ↗ offer an alternate amendment after if

1:59:19 ↗ this amendment fits there's no

1:59:27 ↗ discussion on the amendment Oh

1:59:31 ↗ on September 5th we're going to debate

1:59:34 ↗ parcel by parcel what the zoning should

1:59:36 ↗ be that's when it's going to come down

1:59:37 ↗ to and I'm sure that this can be

1:59:39 ↗ prepared in such a way that we can

1:59:41 ↗ debate and

1:59:42 ↗ and we can we can there can be a initial

1:59:45 ↗ proposal people can offer amendments so

1:59:49 ↗ so procedural eyes I think we're making

1:59:50 ↗ this more complex than we need to and

1:59:54 ↗ and as the suit lawyers said earlier

1:59:58 ↗ actually debating where I actually want

2:00:01 ↗ to do on a point of clarification Jim

2:00:02 ↗ you said one of the things we're not

2:00:04 ↗ doing this evening is debating the

2:00:06 ↗ zoning but that sounded a little bit odd

2:00:08 ↗ to me because this is actually a

2:00:10 ↗ different proposal than what we saw at

2:00:11 ↗ land and Shore a couple weeks ago so if

2:00:13 ↗ you could clarify that comment I would

2:00:15 ↗ appreciate it well but the statement I

2:00:20 ↗ was trying to make is that you cannot

2:00:22 ↗ make a final decision on this and cannot

2:00:25 ↗ cannot debate the the actual issue

2:00:29 ↗ underlying issue of what should the

2:00:31 ↗ zoning be because you haven't completed

2:00:32 ↗ the public hearing at this point per se

2:00:35 ↗ so this is a this is a procedural

2:00:36 ↗ question and we're not this is not a

2:00:38 ↗ question about zoning this is a question

2:00:41 ↗ about process only okay thank you

2:00:47 ↗ there's no questions on the amendment

2:00:50 ↗ being none then all those in favor of

2:00:54 ↗ the amendment to remove all reference to

2:00:56 ↗ see ff8 apply by saying aye I oppose the

2:01:04 ↗ amendment carries a to the original no

2:01:11 ↗ vote oh wait excuse me I did that I

2:01:14 ↗ think for the consent calendar at the

2:01:16 ↗ last meeting all those opposed no okay

2:01:23 ↗ so the amendment passes by a vote of

2:01:25 ↗ five to two with faylene are three one

2:01:32 ↗ two three one two okay

2:01:37 ↗ or deface your hand okay

2:01:42 ↗ I got her I get it so the amendment

2:01:47 ↗ passes by a vote of order three and Paul

2:01:56 ↗ so I think we should be making some

2:01:58 ↗ decision on September 5th and again the

2:02:01 ↗ really the conversation about all of the

2:02:03 ↗ proposed zoning I do appreciate the

2:02:05 ↗ public comments we've got this evening

2:02:07 ↗ there's different points of view were

2:02:09 ↗ offered this is this is the right

2:02:11 ↗ conversation to be having it is it is I

2:02:14 ↗ think you know indicative of our times I

2:02:19 ↗ value the the forested hillsides and the

2:02:22 ↗ view quite a bit I think it's

2:02:23 ↗ appropriate to note that you know

2:02:26 ↗ further north of here that the that the

2:02:28 ↗ ridge line is been has been cut down you

2:02:31 ↗ can see the buildings that are there so

2:02:33 ↗ this community needs to have this

2:02:34 ↗ conversation I look forward for that

2:02:36 ↗ continuing and I'm going to be also

2:02:40 ↗ expecting to make a final decision on

2:02:43 ↗ the zoning and the ordinance at our

2:02:46 ↗ September 5th meeting olá so on

2:02:54 ↗ in September I hope to get to yes I

2:02:57 ↗ think there's I think a second Highland

2:02:59 ↗ School is desperately needed I think

2:03:01 ↗ that the community and and homeowners

2:03:04 ↗ and condo owners have responded to the

2:03:08 ↗ Highlands hugely and so I understand why

2:03:12 ↗ the school district wants to put a

2:03:13 ↗ school there and having been involved in

2:03:15 ↗ several boundary reviews I understand

2:03:17 ↗ the the appeal of it I think the city

2:03:20 ↗ has a long-standing relationship strong

2:03:23 ↗ relationship with the school district

2:03:25 ↗ and as long as I've been on council

2:03:26 ↗ we've had either yearly or by yearly

2:03:29 ↗ meetings with the school district and

2:03:31 ↗ one of the things that we've been

2:03:32 ↗ talking about for a long time is sort of

2:03:34 ↗ an urban site design and trying to

2:03:36 ↗ design the school that would more

2:03:38 ↗ reflect the higher density that our

2:03:41 ↗ community is evolving to and I'm excited

2:03:42 ↗ about this potential design I have to

2:03:45 ↗ say though there's three things that I'm

2:03:47 ↗ going to need to see in September before

2:03:49 ↗ I could possibly get to you

2:03:51 ↗ one is there's this question about

2:03:54 ↗ landslide zones and the stability of the

2:03:57 ↗ hillside I I think that particular

2:04:00 ↗ property itself is relatively flat but

2:04:02 ↗ I'm going to want to hear back from the

2:04:04 ↗ city on that question the second is

2:04:07 ↗ around the marijuana shop that's in the

2:04:09 ↗ valley and it's distance from the school

2:04:11 ↗ although it's a very steep and forested

2:04:14 ↗ hillsides but it's still as one of the

2:04:17 ↗ people that was involved in crafting

2:04:18 ↗ that that policy it's important to me

2:04:20 ↗ and the third and absolutely most

2:04:22 ↗ important is the tree line and so

2:04:25 ↗ Richard the third

2:04:26 ↗ in Shakespeare's Richard the thirty said

2:04:27 ↗ a horse a horse my kingdom for a horse

2:04:29 ↗ and two rows of trees in front of the

2:04:33 ↗ Highlands

2:04:34 ↗ right now it north of there would make

2:04:37 ↗ such a difference visually and so when

2:04:39 ↗ we talked about the remaining forest

2:04:42 ↗ that would be in the CFOs property I

2:04:45 ↗ want to understand what that tree line

2:04:47 ↗ would look like because if it's true

2:04:50 ↗ that it would do a nice job of of

2:04:54 ↗ covering the school that's really

2:04:57 ↗ important and that's very very different

2:04:59 ↗ for me than expanding the open space

2:05:02 ↗ that exists to the north of there and so

2:05:04 ↗ those are the three things that I'm

2:05:06 ↗ going to need to understand better when

2:05:08 ↗ we make a final decision on this

2:05:09 ↗ ordinance Mary Lou okay

2:05:13 ↗ I just want to reiterate again about the

2:05:17 ↗ ridge line I think the clearing of the

2:05:19 ↗ ridge line for the Highlands was one of

2:05:20 ↗ the saddest times around here it

2:05:22 ↗ absolutely changed the way town looked

2:05:25 ↗ and it used to be you didn't want to

2:05:27 ↗ look that way coming into town because

2:05:28 ↗ of the gravel pit and then it became

2:05:30 ↗ they took the whole hillside down and it

2:05:32 ↗ was devastating you know it feels a game

2:05:37 ↗ like we're being pushed into this tiny

2:05:40 ↗ little corner because we need to have a

2:05:41 ↗ school no doubt no argument not a single

2:05:44 ↗ person here said we didn't need to have

2:05:46 ↗ a school but we haven't talked about the

2:05:48 ↗ fact that we have god-knows-what another

2:05:52 ↗ thousand units that could be built up

2:05:54 ↗ there and seven thousand more that could

2:05:55 ↗ be built filled on the floor and this is

2:05:57 ↗ going to come up over and over and over

2:05:58 ↗ again again it just feels like it's at

2:06:00 ↗ the eleventh hour and instead of being a

2:06:02 ↗ good decision the community can support

2:06:04 ↗ if you're going to take down the trees

2:06:06 ↗ you're going to build a school I mean

2:06:07 ↗ again it's a bad bad place to be I think

2:06:12 ↗ since Landon sure we've seen this design

2:06:15 ↗ evolve and I think this is tied to the

2:06:18 ↗ urban school design even though they are

2:06:20 ↗ set in separate ones I think what breaks

2:06:23 ↗ my heart most about this is that the

2:06:25 ↗ first time we're talking about doing a

2:06:27 ↗ model like this we have to DeForest a

2:06:29 ↗ piece of land to do it that is that's

2:06:34 ↗ unbelievable to me

2:06:35 ↗ unbelievably sad and short-sighted and

2:06:37 ↗ we have four or five more schools to

2:06:39 ↗ build what's next and find a place for

2:06:41 ↗ this one where the other four going to

2:06:43 ↗ go being we just we have not figured

2:06:46 ↗ this out I don't think we have worked as

2:06:48 ↗ closely with the school district as we

2:06:49 ↗ should have I don't think we've thought

2:06:51 ↗ five years down the line or ten years

2:06:52 ↗ down the line they've got the money but

2:06:55 ↗ they can't afford the land and so we're

2:06:56 ↗ going to do for us a piece of property

2:06:57 ↗ and I think that and this is not an

2:07:02 ↗ argument about what it should be zoned

2:07:05 ↗ no matter what it is zoned councils

2:07:08 ↗ hands are not tied to not to to a

2:07:11 ↗ particular design we can wait and see a

2:07:13 ↗ design and change the zoning when we

2:07:15 ↗ want to so yes we should make a decision

2:07:17 ↗ in September but this is not a do-or-die

2:07:19 ↗ decision we need to be way more

2:07:21 ↗ thoughtful about this and we need to

2:07:23 ↗ think about the next four or five

2:07:24 ↗ schools that are coming so I I don't

2:07:29 ↗ know I find the whole conversation very

2:07:32 ↗ disheartening and we are known for our

2:07:35 ↗ school district but we're growing like

2:07:37 ↗ crazy and we're not making any plans to

2:07:39 ↗ accommodate the schools at all very

2:07:41 ↗ discerning visceral discussion or

2:07:48 ↗ questions on the amended motion poll

2:07:52 ↗ last comment before the vote at least

2:07:55 ↗ for me it actually has to do with this

2:07:58 ↗ that proposed change the cff I know it's

2:08:02 ↗ not part of the question today and I

2:08:03 ↗ would like for the administration's

2:08:05 ↗ consideration to perhaps create a new

2:08:08 ↗ designation CFS school zone or something

2:08:10 ↗ because as a change to cff actually then

2:08:14 ↗ and that's why the letter went out to so

2:08:16 ↗ many people everybody who is in 300

2:08:18 ↗ it was pointed out earlier during public

2:08:20 ↗ comment everybody who was in within 300

2:08:23 ↗ feet of a cff zone got this letter and

2:08:25 ↗ it had no context it really with no

2:08:28 ↗ backstory and do we really as a city

2:08:31 ↗ need to change CFS and maybe should we

2:08:33 ↗ be considering creating a news zone

2:08:36 ↗ specifically for schools for this

2:08:39 ↗ purpose so that's a that's a sidebar

2:08:41 ↗ comment it's not related to the question

2:08:43 ↗ in front of us but I wanted to get it

2:08:44 ↗ out there thank you well and I just want

2:08:48 ↗ a second that I'd like to see a separate

2:08:49 ↗ zone zoning versus modifying the one so

2:08:54 ↗ that would make me more comfortable as

2:08:55 ↗ we go ahead I just want to make sure

2:08:57 ↗ that's her well heard I've heard both

2:09:02 ↗ Paul and bill so it was well heard

2:09:05 ↗ Mariah and I just wanted to echo what

2:09:10 ↗ councilmember Mart's talked about he

2:09:13 ↗ asked for three different things that he

2:09:15 ↗ would like to see coming up in September

2:09:18 ↗ and I just want to echo that I would

2:09:20 ↗ like to see that as well

2:09:24 ↗ any additional discussion all those in

2:09:29 ↗ favor of directing administration to

2:09:32 ↗ prepare an ordinance establishing

2:09:33 ↗ annexation of the King County Island and

2:09:36 ↗ pre-annexation zoning consisting of a

2:09:39 ↗ mixture of intensive commercial

2:09:42 ↗ commercial facilities open space

2:09:56 ↗ let me let me start over direct

2:09:59 ↗ administration prepared more nets

2:10:00 ↗ established in annexation and the King

2:10:03 ↗ King Kelly and pre-annexation zoning

2:10:06 ↗ consisting of mixture of intensive

2:10:08 ↗ commercial and community facilities open

2:10:12 ↗ space or consideration at December

2:10:16 ↗ September 5th 2017 regular council

2:10:19 ↗ meetings signify by saying aye aye those

2:10:22 ↗ opposed that carries unanimously

2:10:29 ↗ okay moving now to agenda bill 744 -

2:10:43 ↗ annexation of bellevue utility island

2:10:47 ↗ and establishment of pre-annexation

2:10:49 ↗ zoning paren zoning element is

2:10:53 ↗ quasi-judicial for the staff set up and

2:10:58 ↗ background issue you're on again here's

2:11:02 ↗ the next one I think this was a lot

2:11:03 ↗ easier to think about this is the job

2:11:06 ↗ hopefully I must be because a lot of

2:11:10 ↗ here's the room

2:11:11 ↗ this is implementing part of you the

2:11:15 ↗ water assumption that took place January

2:11:18 ↗ 1st of this year this is the site of the

2:11:21 ↗ Lake Sammamish water reservoir that we

2:11:24 ↗ took over from the City of Bellevue and

2:11:27 ↗ so now we're able to annex this property

2:11:30 ↗ into the city limits we are proposing

2:11:33 ↗ that the zoning be community facilities

2:11:35 ↗ facilities it already has the water

2:11:38 ↗ reservoir on it and a beautiful stand of

2:11:41 ↗ trees around it that are not going

2:11:44 ↗ anywhere and it's just a little less

2:11:47 ↗ than two acres any questions sorry the

2:11:53 ↗ question ah what is your bakery

2:11:56 ↗ make a motion and then like any first me

2:12:00 ↗ excuse me I will carry first for

2:12:02 ↗ demotion yeah fine so any questions of

2:12:09 ↗ Trish seeing none then we will conduct

2:12:16 ↗ the public hearing same comments apply

2:12:20 ↗ and open the public hearing at 9:14 is

2:12:26 ↗ anyone signed up to speak now anyone

2:12:30 ↗ desiring to speak on this issue seeing

2:12:36 ↗ none then the public hearing is closed

2:12:39 ↗ at 9 14 and a half up and questions or

2:12:47 ↗ discussion motion mr. mayor I moved to

2:12:54 ↗ direct the administration to prepare an

2:12:56 ↗ ordinance establish annexation of the

2:12:58 ↗ bellevue utility island and

2:12:59 ↗ pre-annexation zoning consisting of

2:13:01 ↗ community facilities facilities for

2:13:04 ↗ consideration at the september 5th 2017

2:13:06 ↗ regular council meeting following the

2:13:09 ↗ scheduled public hearing ii moved in

2:13:11 ↗ seconded questions or discussion Mary

2:13:13 ↗ Lou I'm Trish there was a question from

2:13:16 ↗ I think it was Connie at the landed

2:13:18 ↗ shore meeting as to what the clearing

2:13:20 ↗ and grading was in CF FF and even though

2:13:23 ↗ there's trees there now are there any

2:13:26 ↗ restrictions on the amount of trees that

2:13:28 ↗ could be removed for future expansion on

2:13:30 ↗ the site hi there

2:13:37 ↗ so my remember like haha so Keith Niven

2:13:40 ↗ director of development services and

2:13:42 ↗ economic development still temporarily

2:13:45 ↗ so my recollection of the question was

2:13:48 ↗ just a wee bit different and it was more

2:13:50 ↗ of a question of operations and how

2:13:53 ↗ close what their tree trimming or

2:13:57 ↗ cutting policy is around city facilities

2:14:01 ↗ with kind of a implication that maybe

2:14:04 ↗ the city took a harder stance that maybe

2:14:08 ↗ volunteer trees around

2:14:10 ↗ new facilities and that maybe this

2:14:11 ↗ reservoir was going to receive similar

2:14:13 ↗ attention so I have not had a chance to

2:14:16 ↗ connect yet with Brett Heath we've

2:14:18 ↗ exchanged phone messages I will get that

2:14:21 ↗ answer and get that out to you all

2:14:23 ↗ before we get to September other

2:14:27 ↗ questions our discussion seeing none

2:14:30 ↗ then all those in favor of the motion

2:14:32 ↗ signify by saying aye

2:14:34 ↗ aye as opposed that carries unanimously

2:14:40 ↗ how's everyone doing take five I think

2:14:45 ↗ we're going to take five please be back

2:14:47 ↗ in your seat at twenty minutes after

2:14:49 ↗ 9:00

2:15:11 ↗ you

2:20:43 ↗ we are back after a short recess

2:20:47 ↗ our next item this evening is agenda

2:20:52 ↗ bill seven three four five amending

2:20:56 ↗ parking requirements in the central

2:21:01 ↗ squad development and design standards

2:21:04 ↗ and the kicked things off loose Lucy's

2:21:07 ↗ Sloman from Development Services

2:21:11 ↗ Division for the introduction all right

2:21:19 ↗ I'm sorry we're having a little

2:21:21 ↗ technical problem no it's the notes you

2:21:30 ↗ don't want them where you want them I

2:21:32 ↗ don't want it like that okay

2:21:40 ↗ sorry

2:21:45 ↗ Oh

2:21:50 ↗ okay

2:21:52 ↗ all right

2:22:02 ↗ are we rolling overcoming the technical

2:22:05 ↗ difficulties I just a reminder that July

2:22:09 ↗ 27th the city will be celebrating its

2:22:11 ↗ one hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary

2:22:14 ↗ at confluence park and it promises to be

2:22:19 ↗ an enjoyable and exciting evening with a

2:22:25 ↗ very few speeches a band lots of

2:22:29 ↗ activities for kids food trucks and what

2:22:35 ↗ promises to be a fun evening celebrating

2:22:38 ↗ our new confluence park improvements and

2:22:43 ↗ with that Lucy are you ready yes I will

2:22:46 ↗ be speaking without notes so that will

2:22:49 ↗ be interesting so this evening Lucy

2:22:52 ↗ Sloman land Development Manager from DSD

2:22:55 ↗ and Chris Breeland from Theron peers are

2:22:57 ↗ here to both give you a summary and some

2:23:02 ↗ background as we're attempting to

2:23:05 ↗ conclude the first of the moratorium

2:23:07 ↗ work planned items so just as a sort of

2:23:11 ↗ item history to kind of give a summary

2:23:14 ↗ of the work we've done about a year ago

2:23:16 ↗ we did the centralization which showed

2:23:20 ↗ that seven projects residential projects

2:23:23 ↗ all had structured parking but almost

2:23:25 ↗ none of the non-residential projects had

2:23:27 ↗ structured parking moratorium was

2:23:30 ↗ approved on September 6 last year

2:23:33 ↗ parking was one of the moratorium work

2:23:36 ↗ plan items in the resulting RFQ we asked

2:23:40 ↗ two questions is it's called right

2:23:42 ↗ parked or not and should structured

2:23:45 ↗ parking be required a consultant team

2:23:48 ↗ was hired in March this year it was fair

2:23:51 ↗ and peers with Echo Northwest as a sub

2:23:54 ↗ consultant on June 7th we had presented

2:23:58 ↗ to Landon Shore recommending that the

2:24:01 ↗ parking standards be unchanged and

2:24:04 ↗ implement a structured parking

2:24:06 ↗ requirement that was supported by Landon

2:24:08 ↗ Shore so we proceeded to take proposed

2:24:12 ↗ code changes to PPC

2:24:14 ↗ and then on to land and Shore I want to

2:24:18 ↗ get closer so at this point what we're

2:24:27 ↗ going to do is now take a step back and

2:24:31 ↗ kind of run through the background

2:24:33 ↗ material that got us to the point where

2:24:36 ↗ we're bringing forward something for

2:24:38 ↗ approval with for you tonight primarily

2:24:41 ↗ for the public and the council members

2:24:43 ↗ who haven't had a chance to hear this

2:24:46 ↗ research all right Thank You mayor

2:24:52 ↗ Butler and the council again my name is

2:24:54 ↗ Chris Braley and I'm a principal at fair

2:24:56 ↗ and piers in Seattle and we were hired

2:24:58 ↗ to evaluate the parking a moratorium

2:25:00 ↗ work item and so I'm going to step

2:25:02 ↗ through this at a pretty high level I'd

2:25:04 ↗ be happy to answer questions since we're

2:25:08 ↗ going at a pretty pretty high level the

2:25:12 ↗ main question that Lucy mentioned that

2:25:14 ↗ we were slated to ask was is taqwa'

2:25:16 ↗ right parked principally from the lens

2:25:18 ↗ of multifamily parking and this is

2:25:20 ↗ somewhat of an outcome of the

2:25:22 ↗ developments that have come online in

2:25:24 ↗ central Issaquah and as perceived

2:25:26 ↗ parking issues related to those and to

2:25:29 ↗ answer that question our firm and myself

2:25:31 ↗ personally had been involved with

2:25:32 ↗ right-size parking this is an effort led

2:25:34 ↗ by King County Metro which they were

2:25:37 ↗ asking a similar question on a

2:25:38 ↗ countywide basis and we've been looking

2:25:41 ↗ at this data for a number of years and

2:25:43 ↗ for a number of different communities

2:25:44 ↗ and we sort of have been advancing that

2:25:46 ↗ along so to do the analysis here in

2:25:50 ↗ central Issaquah we looked at the right

2:25:52 ↗ sized parking database from 2012 2017 we

2:25:57 ↗ did some field visits in Issaquah in the

2:26:00 ↗ central Issaquah area as part of this

2:26:03 ↗ work plan earlier this spring and we

2:26:06 ↗ also looked at parking regulations and

2:26:07 ↗ other cities just to sort of get a sense

2:26:08 ↗ as to how does this a clause stack up

2:26:11 ↗ with its current sort of tier cities and

2:26:14 ↗ also where central is squads heading how

2:26:16 ↗ does it look compared to areas that are

2:26:19 ↗ denser and more urban than

2:26:21 ↗ aqua is central Issaquah is today so you

2:26:24 ↗ can ask me points on any part of that

2:26:26 ↗ data the core of our work looked at

2:26:30 ↗ right-size parking which is field

2:26:32 ↗ collected data in other words King

2:26:35 ↗ County Metro works with develop property

2:26:37 ↗ developers to get permission to go on

2:26:39 ↗ site and see what the actual parking

2:26:41 ↗ utilization is they do this in the

2:26:43 ↗ middle of the night they pay college

2:26:45 ↗ students in pizza to basically look

2:26:49 ↗ through the the parking lots and garages

2:26:50 ↗ to see how many vehicles there are per

2:26:53 ↗ occupied dwelling units that we're

2:26:55 ↗ making an apples-to-apples comparison in

2:26:58 ↗ 2014 240 sites across the county were

2:27:02 ↗ surveyed three of which were in Issaquah

2:27:03 ↗ they're currently doing a new updates to

2:27:06 ↗ this and as part of that lucy managed to

2:27:09 ↗ work with brian Manford over at King

2:27:11 ↗ County Metro to make sure that we got

2:27:13 ↗ three new sites in Issaquah one of which

2:27:17 ↗ is in central Issaquah the other two up

2:27:18 ↗ in the highlands this is just an example

2:27:21 ↗ of the 2012 data that we were

2:27:25 ↗ particularly focused on mostly on the

2:27:28 ↗ east side and in some suburban centers

2:27:31 ↗ there were 71 sites that we looked at

2:27:35 ↗ closely for this piece the 2017 data

2:27:39 ↗ that we've spent some time digging

2:27:41 ↗ through is shown here on the screen and

2:27:44 ↗ the point being here that the site's

2:27:49 ↗ there are shown in terms of the number

2:27:51 ↗ of units the the chart there to the

2:27:54 ↗ right of say site one says 344 units 54

2:27:58 ↗ percent of which are currently occupied

2:28:00 ↗ so again we're looking at the occupied

2:28:02 ↗ units and how much parking there is

2:28:05 ↗ there are 396 parking stalls and that

2:28:08 ↗ development that were constructed 169 of

2:28:11 ↗ which were occupied at the time of the

2:28:12 ↗ survey so slightly lower parking

2:28:15 ↗ occupancy then there is unit occupancy

2:28:19 ↗ pretty common phenomenon everywhere you

2:28:21 ↗ go in the county and the parking ratio

2:28:24 ↗ is there at point nine parking stalls

2:28:27 ↗ per occupied dwelling unit and you can

2:28:29 ↗ see for the other stall sites that we

2:28:32 ↗ looked at were around one point one four

2:28:35 ↗ stalls per occupied dwelling in this big

2:28:38 ↗ background data was then compared

2:28:40 ↗ against the the parking code in central

2:28:45 ↗ Issaquah in addition to that 2017 data

2:28:49 ↗ that King County collected we went out

2:28:52 ↗ on the week they were collecting the

2:28:53 ↗ data just to make sure everything looked

2:28:55 ↗ pretty typical at the site so we're out

2:28:59 ↗ at night did some field observations a

2:29:03 ↗ couple of things to note while the

2:29:06 ↗ parking lot was not heavily used almost

2:29:09 ↗ every single on street stall around the

2:29:11 ↗ Atlas apartment complex was utilized and

2:29:15 ↗ we can conveniently sort of spot who's

2:29:18 ↗ using that if they're an atlas resident

2:29:20 ↗ or not because I give it a hang tag and

2:29:23 ↗ we can confirm essentially who's there

2:29:24 ↗ and I should be be taking questions now

2:29:26 ↗ or what's the procedure here no yeah so

2:29:32 ↗ I have a question so when when you're

2:29:34 ↗ looking at this like Atlas charges for

2:29:36 ↗ parking and they're you know half full

2:29:39 ↗ now so there's plenty of street parking

2:29:40 ↗ and nobody's using that versus paying

2:29:42 ↗ for parking I'm assuming so it kind of

2:29:44 ↗ gets as at as they fill up occupancy

2:29:46 ↗ that might might change I would imagine

2:29:48 ↗ so we did talk to them about that Atlas

2:29:51 ↗ is a somewhat unique situation where

2:29:53 ↗ they have free surface parking and you

2:29:57 ↗ granted access to that with those hang

2:29:59 ↗ tags or you can pay to purchase a spot

2:30:02 ↗ in the underground garages is what we

2:30:05 ↗ had an interview with the with the

2:30:07 ↗ property manager there at the time one

2:30:10 ↗ thing that I would keep in mind is that

2:30:12 ↗ when we've looked at the sites across

2:30:14 ↗ the county the paid whether or not the

2:30:18 ↗ parking is costs money to to lease the

2:30:21 ↗ parking space or not does have an effect

2:30:23 ↗ on utilization but it's not quite as

2:30:26 ↗ strong as we actually thought it would

2:30:28 ↗ be initially so there is a relationship

2:30:29 ↗ there but in Atlas a lot of those folks

2:30:32 ↗ have the option to not pay and park on

2:30:35 ↗ site or to pay in park on site but still

2:30:37 ↗ a lot of people are confusing to park on

2:30:39 ↗ streets because it is generally the most

2:30:42 ↗ convenient place to park it's closer to

2:30:44 ↗ their door they can see if it's there or

2:30:47 ↗ not they don't have to

2:30:48 ↗ I ranted a lot to see if that spot is

2:30:50 ↗ open if they see a spot on the street

2:30:52 ↗ they're just going to grab it that's

2:30:54 ↗ pretty typical of how a lot of people

2:30:56 ↗ Park so again that what we saw here was

2:30:59 ↗ that the most convenient parking is used

2:31:03 ↗ first it doesn't sound like rocket

2:31:06 ↗ science but a lot of times it's it's

2:31:08 ↗ surprising when you actually see it in

2:31:09 ↗ action which is the on spaces that it

2:31:13 ↗ get used first and all these pieces that

2:31:15 ↗ we saw were confirmed with the interview

2:31:17 ↗ of the property manager that they would

2:31:19 ↗ like to have more people park in the

2:31:21 ↗ garage but they don't because it's on

2:31:24 ↗ street is available and even their free

2:31:28 ↗ on-site parking is not utilized and they

2:31:31 ↗ confirm that even though they would

2:31:32 ↗ again prefer people to to park on the

2:31:35 ↗ site I have information on Prague an

2:31:40 ↗ audit essentially of what we looked at

2:31:42 ↗ for a few in progress

2:31:44 ↗ projects that are in the development

2:31:46 ↗ review stage right now and what their

2:31:50 ↗ ratios look like and whether or not

2:31:52 ↗ they're providing an appropriate amount

2:31:53 ↗ of parking I'd be happy to get into if

2:31:56 ↗ you'd like but given the time I thought

2:31:58 ↗ I'd sort of just go to the conclusions

2:32:00 ↗ here that in our opinion the parking

2:32:04 ↗ minimums for residential parking within

2:32:07 ↗ central Issaquah are generally

2:32:09 ↗ appropriate in other words that they're

2:32:10 ↗ in that Goldilocks zone of parking where

2:32:12 ↗ it's not too much parking which drives

2:32:15 ↗ up the cost of housing and it's not too

2:32:17 ↗ little little which results in spillover

2:32:20 ↗ parking and so there other undesirable

2:32:23 ↗ effects in general developers are

2:32:26 ↗ building just a bit more than the

2:32:28 ↗ minimum parking requirements for

2:32:30 ↗ residential developments again that's

2:32:34 ↗ fairly typical across the county

2:32:36 ↗ people often Park just a little bit over

2:32:38 ↗ that and that's a lot of times the

2:32:40 ↗ minimums are somewhat calibrated to the

2:32:42 ↗ demand developers would much rather

2:32:45 ↗ provide a little bit more parking than

2:32:47 ↗ risk not having a an apartment get

2:32:50 ↗ leased up so there's a strong financial

2:32:52 ↗ incentive for them to provide just over

2:32:54 ↗ the minimum parking parking spillover

2:32:58 ↗ risks in central Issaquah are lower than

2:33:01 ↗ what we

2:33:01 ↗ didn't see when we do these sorts of

2:33:03 ↗ studies and we've done them all over the

2:33:04 ↗ county and it has a lot to do with sort

2:33:07 ↗ of the geography of central Issaquah

2:33:08 ↗ being set lower topographically than a

2:33:11 ↗ lot of the surrounding neighborhoods

2:33:13 ↗ there are a few areas where it does

2:33:14 ↗ touch and the freeways and other large

2:33:17 ↗ roads that sort of make it harder for

2:33:18 ↗ parking spillover to creep into the most

2:33:21 ↗ sensitive areas that that are concerned

2:33:24 ↗ about parking spillover so because of

2:33:27 ↗ that we don't really recommend any

2:33:29 ↗ changes to the parking minimums nor do

2:33:31 ↗ we recommend was a question that we got

2:33:33 ↗ asked sort of along the way here should

2:33:35 ↗ there be higher minimums around the edge

2:33:37 ↗ of central Issaquah we also do not think

2:33:39 ↗ that's appropriate in some interviews

2:33:43 ↗ that we had with with a developer and

2:33:45 ↗ talking with other developers on

2:33:46 ↗ unrelated projects if you lowered the

2:33:49 ↗ minimums you could incentivize shared

2:33:52 ↗ parking more readily than it's currently

2:33:55 ↗ done and I can get into there's a whole

2:33:56 ↗ bunch of caveats around that but if you

2:33:59 ↗ don't provide a reason for people to

2:34:01 ↗ share and they have to build the parking

2:34:04 ↗ on site they tend to not take advantage

2:34:06 ↗ of the retail parking across the street

2:34:08 ↗ because they have to build it anyway and

2:34:10 ↗ they're going to build it at about the

2:34:11 ↗ minimum so there there has to be a

2:34:14 ↗ stronger incentive if we want to see

2:34:16 ↗ sharing between say commercial and

2:34:18 ↗ residential uses and as central Issaquah

2:34:21 ↗ grows the on street parking demand is

2:34:24 ↗ guaranteed to grow from multifamily

2:34:26 ↗ projects regardless of how they're

2:34:28 ↗ parked because that's the most

2:34:29 ↗ convenient parking that will be

2:34:32 ↗ available and people will use that

2:34:34 ↗ unless there's some other regulations in

2:34:35 ↗ place to prevent that so I'll transition

2:34:40 ↗ over to Lizzie well do you want to ask

2:34:42 ↗ questions now of this part of the

2:34:45 ↗ research all the way to the end do you

2:34:47 ↗ flip back to the previous slide real

2:34:48 ↗ quickly and just tell us for just well

2:34:51 ↗ what the minimum is and you say

2:34:53 ↗ developers are building more than

2:34:54 ↗ minimum what is that what are they

2:34:56 ↗ building was the average well the

2:34:57 ↗ minimum how it may be loosely chimed in

2:35:00 ↗ a little bit it's not completely

2:35:01 ↗ straightforward because there are it's I

2:35:04 ↗ think nominally one unit per dwelling or

2:35:06 ↗ excuse me one parking spot stall for

2:35:08 ↗ dwelling unit quickly if I'm wrong but

2:35:10 ↗ there are some ways to tick that down

2:35:13 ↗ through a variety of

2:35:15 ↗ if we provide electric vehicle spaces

2:35:17 ↗ there's ways to to move that down what

2:35:21 ↗ we did see for the Vail and Ennis wood

2:35:24 ↗ projects is that the developers are

2:35:27 ↗ building around 10% five to ten percent

2:35:30 ↗ more than the minimum requirement

2:35:32 ↗ because that's where they see the market

2:35:34 ↗ demand is today almost every developer

2:35:37 ↗ that we've talked to and if you look

2:35:39 ↗ over the past 20 years the trend has

2:35:41 ↗ been for a slight decrease in amount of

2:35:43 ↗ parking demanded per unit per year

2:35:45 ↗ across the county as people choose to

2:35:48 ↗ own slightly fewer cars and family sizes

2:35:51 ↗ are a little bit smaller so a lot of

2:35:54 ↗ folks build it for today expecting that

2:35:56 ↗ they're going to have some vacant spaces

2:35:57 ↗ in the future thank you other questions

2:36:06 ↗ at this time you're also alright

2:36:14 ↗ so I'm going to give a streamlined

2:36:17 ↗ version of the presentation that was

2:36:20 ↗ given to land and shore by Eko Northwest

2:36:26 ↗ so this question is tied to or

2:36:31 ↗ requirement for structured parking but

2:36:33 ↗ the important thing to remember about

2:36:34 ↗ structured parking is it's not just

2:36:36 ↗ about parking partly it's about urban

2:36:40 ↗ form and urban design which is why this

2:36:42 ↗ has come up it's how we use our land are

2:36:45 ↗ we using it efficiently and those

2:36:48 ↗ questions impact other moratorium work

2:36:50 ↗ plan items so it's good that this one's

2:36:52 ↗ coming through first in another way

2:36:56 ↗ parking drives everything from an

2:36:58 ↗ economic perspective which is that the

2:37:02 ↗ generally the way parking works

2:37:03 ↗ especially in suburban areas the primary

2:37:06 ↗ use residential office retail etc has to

2:37:09 ↗ subsidize the parking especially if it's

2:37:12 ↗ structured which can be quite expensive

2:37:14 ↗ so there's a desire to try and be as

2:37:18 ↗ efficient as possible especially in a

2:37:20 ↗ community like Issaquah where land is

2:37:22 ↗ becoming quite valuable the market is

2:37:25 ↗ pivoting away from suburban building and

2:37:30 ↗ large Lots to urban more structured

2:37:34 ↗ parking with more density and that trend

2:37:36 ↗ appears to be continuing so the question

2:37:39 ↗ is what we can do to push to make it

2:37:42 ↗ either more parking more structured

2:37:45 ↗ parking or to ensure that it's done even

2:37:49 ↗ beyond what the market would do for

2:37:50 ↗ itself what eco Northwest did was look

2:37:55 ↗ at different uses and different

2:37:56 ↗ construction types and see where how

2:38:00 ↗ that impacted feasibility some of the

2:38:03 ↗ things to keep in mind is that for the

2:38:07 ↗ construction type it's not only about

2:38:10 ↗ the building itself but about the

2:38:11 ↗ parking so when you have a stick-built

2:38:15 ↗ townhome it's structured parking as

2:38:18 ↗ around $7,000 install when it's concrete

2:38:21 ↗ it's $35,000 install and if it's

2:38:25 ↗ underground it's 50,000 install

2:38:28 ↗ which goes up even more when you're

2:38:30 ↗ dealing with the high water table such

2:38:31 ↗ as we have in in supply so all of these

2:38:35 ↗ tested different rates and what they

2:38:38 ↗ were seeing and you know the low cost of

2:38:40 ↗ for instance stick-built structured

2:38:42 ↗ parking you can see being indicated

2:38:44 ↗ because the tuck under stick built

2:38:47 ↗ townhomes could have a hundred percent

2:38:50 ↗ structured parking and that would be

2:38:52 ↗ economically feasible when you get into

2:38:55 ↗ the concrete parking of the other three

2:38:57 ↗ scenarios which is residential podium

2:39:01 ↗ construction retail with a separate

2:39:04 ↗ structure or office with a separate

2:39:06 ↗ structure you can see that between 25

2:39:08 ↗ and 50 percent is where they move from

2:39:12 ↗ feasible to infeasible in Morgan's

2:39:17 ↗ presentation and I think because of its

2:39:18 ↗ relevance to our discussions as this has

2:39:21 ↗ evolved some of the things that he

2:39:24 ↗ pointed out specifically related to

2:39:26 ↗ retail is that right now it is very auto

2:39:31 ↗ oriented and very auto reliant and that

2:39:35 ↗ as we try and encourage it to move

2:39:37 ↗ towards structured parking a certain

2:39:40 ↗ economy of scale is necessary small

2:39:43 ↗ individual retail can't functionally or

2:39:45 ↗ financially make it work so there's this

2:39:47 ↗ certain minimum size that it has to get

2:39:50 ↗ to to be successful the implications and

2:39:56 ↗ kind of conclusion of this is that you

2:40:01 ↗ know our vision and centralized for

2:40:03 ↗ structured parking and that's the

2:40:05 ↗ community's expectations which is of

2:40:07 ↗ course why we're working on this that

2:40:10 ↗ structured parking has to address

2:40:13 ↗ parking minimums but also urban design

2:40:16 ↗ in the marketplace so they're just a

2:40:18 ↗ number of factors that are getting

2:40:19 ↗ folded into this some flexibility is

2:40:23 ↗ necessary and appropriate because

2:40:25 ↗ they're variations in site

2:40:27 ↗ configurations and site constraints like

2:40:29 ↗ high water table slopes soils all those

2:40:32 ↗ various factors that we've discussed and

2:40:35 ↗ obviously differences in construction

2:40:37 ↗ costs and techniques depending the kind

2:40:40 ↗ of use the height

2:40:41 ↗ density and so it's difficult to come up

2:40:44 ↗ with a perfect percentage we're seeing a

2:40:49 ↗ signal from the market that structured

2:40:52 ↗ parking is appropriate and yet we're

2:40:56 ↗ trying to set it at a level where the

2:40:57 ↗ market will not retreat from building in

2:40:59 ↗ this community and so we tested this the

2:41:04 ↗ tolerance through both projects and the

2:41:08 ↗ model so after that presentation we went

2:41:17 ↗ through a series of recommendations so I

2:41:20 ↗ tried to reformat some of the

2:41:22 ↗ information not giving you before to

2:41:24 ↗ make it a little easier to see so we

2:41:28 ↗ looked at three primary uses office

2:41:31 ↗ residential and retail how much should

2:41:34 ↗ be required to be in a structure how

2:41:37 ↗ much parking should be required in the

2:41:39 ↗ structure and what's the minimum

2:41:41 ↗ building size our threshold at which

2:41:43 ↗ that would apply that evolved going from

2:41:48 ↗ the administration recommendation to PPC

2:41:50 ↗ from PPC to land and shorn from land and

2:41:53 ↗ surety Council I've highlighted on the

2:41:56 ↗ the ones in yellow are where changes

2:41:58 ↗ took place from the previous

2:42:00 ↗ recommendation PPC recommended moving to

2:42:06 ↗ 50% for both office and residential and

2:42:10 ↗ land and Shore recommended moving to 50%

2:42:13 ↗ for retail with a minimum threshold of

2:42:17 ↗ 25,000 square feet so let's look at some

2:42:22 ↗ of the bases that we use to arrive at

2:42:25 ↗ some of these numbers from eco Northwest

2:42:29 ↗ you know we talked about this this is

2:42:32 ↗ just a summary of the information that I

2:42:33 ↗ presented that generally between 25 and

2:42:36 ↗ 50 percent is where we move from

2:42:39 ↗ feasible to infeasible but there are

2:42:43 ↗ other kind of goals that we're trying to

2:42:45 ↗ achieve or policy decisions that we

2:42:49 ↗ discuss the administration's original

2:42:52 ↗ recommendation was fairly conservative

2:42:55 ↗ to try and avoid negative consequences

2:42:59 ↗ while also communicating to the building

2:43:04 ↗ builders and developers that we wanted

2:43:07 ↗ this to be a part of our community and

2:43:14 ↗ PPC said no and the residents that spoke

2:43:19 ↗ at PPC said no that they thought we

2:43:22 ↗ should be making a larger step and

2:43:24 ↗ something more aspirational

2:43:27 ↗ so our original recommendation matched

2:43:31 ↗ the median of all the research that

2:43:34 ↗ staff had done while PPC was more at the

2:43:41 ↗ average of the structured parking

2:43:43 ↗ research that we had done within the

2:43:45 ↗ community this helped us focus in

2:43:49 ↗ between the polls of twenty five and

2:43:52 ↗ fifty percent that eco Northwest had

2:43:54 ↗ presented I do want to point out that in

2:44:00 ↗ making this step we are going to be

2:44:05 ↗ leaders and I know that's an important

2:44:08 ↗ thing for us it does mean though that we

2:44:12 ↗ are using the research that we have both

2:44:17 ↗ that the staff and eco Northwest has

2:44:20 ↗ performed and we don't have other models

2:44:23 ↗ within the community to look at we

2:44:26 ↗ shared the research that or the

2:44:29 ↗ description that Mike Brennan provided

2:44:32 ↗ to us I did check back with Federal Way

2:44:36 ↗ my understanding is that they have

2:44:38 ↗ adopted a 25% requirement for

2:44:42 ↗ residential projects over a hundred

2:44:45 ↗ units all the other communities that

2:44:49 ↗ were included in eco Northwest report

2:44:54 ↗ were using incentives for structured

2:44:57 ↗ parking or credits for on street parking

2:44:59 ↗ and the incentives were related to

2:45:02 ↗ density and height bonuses but we're not

2:45:07 ↗ really seeing other communities using

2:45:09 ↗ requirements so I'm not saying that as a

2:45:13 ↗ disincentive for the actions that we're

2:45:16 ↗ taking I'm simply saying that that being

2:45:20 ↗ on the leading edge is challenging

2:45:21 ↗ because we don't have other models to

2:45:23 ↗ look at there were a couple other

2:45:33 ↗ opposed changes oh um thank you um it

2:45:39 ↗ you mean the handout that you got this

2:45:40 ↗ evening

2:45:41 ↗ no like definitions in there's this

2:45:48 ↗ being proposed like you mean in the edit

2:45:52 ↗ of the vote okay

2:45:54 ↗ so there yes the full range of edits

2:46:00 ↗ that were proposed included some changes

2:46:04 ↗ to definitions we were trying to make

2:46:07 ↗ sure that the definition of structured

2:46:09 ↗ parking what counted what didn't count

2:46:11 ↗ was clear so for instance carports would

2:46:15 ↗ not count other kinds of structures

2:46:17 ↗ would count another important point to

2:46:21 ↗ draw attention to is that based on

2:46:26 ↗ conversations with it primarily with the

2:46:29 ↗ council there are not exceptions and

2:46:31 ↗ adjustments included as part of this so

2:46:35 ↗ for instance schools are not left out

2:46:38 ↗ affordable housing are not left out we

2:46:41 ↗ felt that if this was an important part

2:46:43 ↗ of the community it would be important

2:46:48 ↗ to include them in the same way we're

2:46:50 ↗ already seeing the school district using

2:46:52 ↗ parking decks so proposing parking decks

2:46:56 ↗ as several of their projects so we don't

2:46:59 ↗ anticipate this being an issue for them

2:47:03 ↗ and then the handout that tisha gave you

2:47:07 ↗ and we have some for the public if

2:47:09 ↗ people are interested was tisha actually

2:47:13 ↗ read what we wrote and noticed an

2:47:16 ↗ inconsistency in a piece of language one

2:47:19 ↗ of the intent statements and we

2:47:22 ↗ corrected it in the piece of materials

2:47:24 ↗ that you receive hola can you go back to

2:47:30 ↗ the slide that should administrate there

2:47:32 ↗ we go

2:47:33 ↗ so the language that's in the agenda

2:47:35 ↗ bill in front of us which would have

2:47:38 ↗ resulted which column it is the land and

2:47:41 ↗ shore recommendation thank you

2:47:46 ↗ and so if a landed shore recommendation

2:47:56 ↗ is is move tonight does that require an

2:48:03 ↗ additional public hearing yeah mr. mayor

2:48:11 ↗ it's my opinion that it does this is an

2:48:15 ↗ issue that as I understand it the the

2:48:22 ↗ requirements which land in Shore is

2:48:25 ↗ suggesting were not among the range of

2:48:27 ↗ alternatives that were considered by the

2:48:29 ↗ PPC and because that's the case in order

2:48:34 ↗ to consider that recommendation the

2:48:36 ↗ council would have to hold its own

2:48:38 ↗ public hearing in order to consider that

2:48:45 ↗ thank you

2:48:49 ↗ Ola was the land insurer decision

2:48:52 ↗ unanimous I that's yes there's no

2:49:02 ↗ questions or discussion I'll make a

2:49:06 ↗ motion we'll see what happens

2:49:09 ↗ I move to adopt a dog ordinance number

2:49:12 ↗ two seven nine nine adopting by

2:49:16 ↗ reference amendments to the central

2:49:17 ↗ Issaquah development and design

2:49:19 ↗ standards including clarifying the

2:49:21 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

2:49:22 ↗ the definition of parking structure and

2:49:25 ↗ carport and requiring structured parking

2:49:27 ↗ for new residential uses office uses

2:49:30 ↗ above 5,000 gross square feet and retail

2:49:32 ↗ uses above 25,000 gross square feet

2:49:36 ↗ moved and seconded any discussion all

2:49:41 ↗ right Lou comment and maybe ask for a

2:49:45 ↗ clarification comment is that the

2:49:48 ↗ background work that was done by the

2:49:50 ↗ consulting firms and staff was really

2:49:52 ↗ detailed a lot of data that really

2:49:55 ↗ supported the conclusions and

2:49:57 ↗ recommendations you made the one piece

2:49:59 ↗ if you want to clarify a bit Lucy as the

2:50:02 ↗ retail piece there was a difference

2:50:05 ↗ between land and shore and staff and

2:50:07 ↗ same policy and I you can clarify what

2:50:10 ↗ that was and I have a comment about wine

2:50:12 ↗ I at least land each or supported the

2:50:15 ↗ change so are you asking why my staff

2:50:22 ↗ recommended zero and then what condition

2:50:26 ↗ and policy said would apply to that zero

2:50:29 ↗ oh it's at the bottom of the slide that

2:50:33 ↗ planning policy Commission committee

2:50:35 ↗ Commission sorry I was interested some

2:50:41 ↗ of the members were ready to put a

2:50:45 ↗ square footage or a percentage on retail

2:50:49 ↗ others felt like there wasn't enough

2:50:52 ↗ information and so they recommended

2:50:59 ↗ staff combat they asked that staff come

2:51:01 ↗ back and do after they've done for their

2:51:03 ↗ research staffs intention if they were

2:51:08 ↗ going to proceed with that was to hold a

2:51:11 ↗ joint meeting of PPC EVC and potentially

2:51:16 ↗ with a retail consultant I guess the

2:51:19 ↗ question for that was then if land

2:51:23 ↗ insurers recommend to council to do

2:51:24 ↗ something different if the meeting still

2:51:26 ↗ occur and if there's still the pencil

2:51:29 ↗ that a year from now we could actually

2:51:30 ↗ be coming back and revisiting the 25,000

2:51:33 ↗ square foot number we certainly could I

2:51:39 ↗ I don't know I don't know if since if if

2:51:44 ↗ if I'm tracking what you're asking me

2:51:50 ↗ the if council chooses to adopt land and

2:51:57 ↗ Shores recommendation I don't know that

2:51:59 ↗ we would need to do that on the other

2:52:02 ↗ hand that doesn't mean that we wouldn't

2:52:04 ↗ choose to hire a consultant and do more

2:52:08 ↗ research because that was certainly part

2:52:10 ↗ of the land in short discussion that's

2:52:11 ↗ something staff would decide before

2:52:13 ↗ budget whether or not to pursue that

2:52:15 ↗ depending on what we vote on this

2:52:17 ↗ evening I'm not sure it's a staff

2:52:19 ↗ decision it is something that we could

2:52:22 ↗ discuss with the administration all

2:52:27 ↗ thank you Lucy the 25,000 square feet

2:52:32 ↗ clearly the administration was

2:52:35 ↗ uncomfortable with that at Landon Shore

2:52:37 ↗ I came away with the impression that

2:52:39 ↗ maybe you were going to take another

2:52:42 ↗ look and do to have a few more

2:52:44 ↗ conversations and then when it came back

2:52:46 ↗ in front of us as it is this evening

2:52:49 ↗ maybe you'd have some additional

2:52:50 ↗ commentary on the 25,000 square feet

2:52:54 ↗ like and do you have anything like that

2:52:57 ↗ or is there anything additional do you

2:53:00 ↗ want to share with the council because

2:53:03 ↗ so first of all I did watch the PBC

2:53:06 ↗ meeting I was aware of the conversation

2:53:07 ↗ that happened there I know how I got to

2:53:10 ↗ the recommendation hate study

2:53:11 ↗ come back it was Lyndon Shore we said

2:53:15 ↗ hey put 25,000 you guys were clearly

2:53:17 ↗ uncomfortable with that I'm just

2:53:18 ↗ wondering if you have anything that any

2:53:21 ↗ more to share with the council this

2:53:23 ↗ evening about your feeling about 25,000

2:53:31 ↗ well I I would say that 20 so 25,000 was

2:53:35 ↗ in the was the basis of the work that

2:53:39 ↗ eco Northwest did when they ran their

2:53:42 ↗ model so beyond that I will defer to the

2:53:46 ↗ economic development so the conversation

2:53:53 ↗ that we had at Landon Shore was that a

2:53:57 ↗ lot of so so eco Northwest did some

2:54:02 ↗ modeling and basically they ran a couple

2:54:04 ↗ model runs inside you know at this level

2:54:07 ↗ it was fine at this level it broke but

2:54:10 ↗ it really there was really not a lot of

2:54:11 ↗ resources spent on trying to dial that

2:54:14 ↗ down to an exact number so we spent a

2:54:17 ↗ lot of time looking at the projects that

2:54:19 ↗ have been built recently and there's

2:54:21 ↗ been quite a few commercial like office

2:54:24 ↗ and residential projects for us to pull

2:54:26 ↗ from and as Lucy mentioned earlier to

2:54:29 ↗ determine those market tolerances you

2:54:33 ↗ know when it came to retail you know

2:54:36 ↗ what we could find in the marketplace is

2:54:39 ↗ really big projects have structured

2:54:41 ↗ parking so things like belt square any

2:54:44 ↗ of the malls Grand Ridge Plaza anything

2:54:47 ↗ that smaller is really generally not

2:54:50 ↗ going to have structured parking and so

2:54:53 ↗ as we talked about that you know the the

2:54:55 ↗ number that was picked by Landon Shore

2:54:58 ↗ the 25,000 square feet that's a big

2:55:01 ↗ retail building that one you know I

2:55:05 ↗ think we're where we're sitting is how

2:55:09 ↗ many of those are we going to have in

2:55:10 ↗ our community I think part of why the

2:55:13 ↗ administration didn't provide additional

2:55:15 ↗ analysis here is because the intent of

2:55:18 ↗ Landon Shore was not fully understood

2:55:21 ↗ so we're where we are is if if the

2:55:25 ↗ council really does not want surface

2:55:28 ↗ parking to happen with new buildings and

2:55:31 ↗ and we have to include something for

2:55:33 ↗ retail you know getting that that

2:55:38 ↗ threshold of if there is if the project

2:55:41 ↗ is a certain size you know it's a harder

2:55:45 ↗ it's a harder so harder metric to pick

2:55:48 ↗ because there aren't examples out there

2:55:51 ↗ that we feel comfortable knowing what

2:55:54 ↗ that will do to our retail market

2:55:56 ↗ frankly so so it it's why if if if the

2:56:01 ↗ council wants a better number than the

2:56:03 ↗ twenty five thousand square feet it's

2:56:05 ↗ probably resources beyond what we have

2:56:08 ↗ within our administration to give you

2:56:10 ↗ that information it was a really long

2:56:14 ↗ answer sorry Thank You Stacy can you

2:56:20 ↗ give an example of a twenty five

2:56:21 ↗ thousand square foot building in the

2:56:23 ↗ case that we have now we will research

2:56:30 ↗ so there we are staples is about 27,000

2:56:36 ↗ square feet and Petsmart over in

2:56:39 ↗ Pickering is about 25,000 square feet so

2:56:42 ↗ those are two examples I don't know what

2:56:48 ↗ the intent of the other two members of

2:56:50 ↗ landed char what their intense were mine

2:56:54 ↗ were just concerned about losing

2:56:57 ↗ opportunities if we don't require any

2:56:59 ↗ structured parking for retail otherwise

2:57:03 ↗ we not required very expensive not going

2:57:09 ↗ to get it so it's possible to start off

2:57:11 ↗ with a number and maybe have that

2:57:13 ↗ reviewed over the next year

2:57:22 ↗ there

2:57:25 ↗ their questions or discussion all thank

2:57:31 ↗ you for that comment Stacy and the point

2:57:33 ↗ of my question was that it's somewhat

2:57:38 ↗ it's somewhat of a guess and I agree

2:57:42 ↗ with Stacy that we should do something

2:57:46 ↗ but this is not a very exact science to

2:57:50 ↗ me my intent in supporting this going

2:57:54 ↗ forward would include that this is

2:57:56 ↗ something that we're need to watch

2:57:58 ↗ carefully it should become part of our

2:58:00 ↗ regular report out whether it be at the

2:58:03 ↗ dashboard level or activity with a city

2:58:04 ↗ wide or within the central area let's

2:58:07 ↗ watch this closely because this is not a

2:58:09 ↗ real scientific number but I agree with

2:58:11 ↗ Stacy in that it's doing something it's

2:58:15 ↗ it's worth putting a minimum in there

2:58:18 ↗ because the downside is also something

2:58:21 ↗ we don't want

2:58:22 ↗ and that would be development that just

2:58:25 ↗ did surface parking and then that's very

2:58:28 ↗ hard to undo Moriah I just had a

2:58:33 ↗ question about whether the 25% for

2:58:38 ↗ retail was was discussed okay because I

2:58:44 ↗ it just seems like we're going all the

2:58:46 ↗ way from zero to 50 and and if the 25%

2:58:50 ↗ was feasible I just wanted to see if

2:58:52 ↗ there was a discussion surrounding that

2:59:01 ↗ every number

2:59:05 ↗ maybe mm-hmm your next comment if you

2:59:08 ↗ want my recollection from the committee

2:59:10 ↗ meeting was that that presented all of

2:59:14 ↗ the data and landed on what they

2:59:16 ↗ consider to be a conservative number and

2:59:18 ↗ the committee decided to not be

2:59:22 ↗ conservative that actually be more

2:59:24 ↗ aggressive in acquiring it and so went

2:59:27 ↗ with something that was within the range

2:59:29 ↗ but at the higher end of the range in

2:59:31 ↗ the staff recommendations at the lower

2:59:33 ↗ in the range but we talked about it

2:59:34 ↗ quite a bit okay other questions or

2:59:40 ↗ discussion yeah okay different question

2:59:47 ↗ go ahead the update to the ordinance

2:59:52 ↗ today was to just correct the language

2:59:56 ↗ that tisha had seen in the agenda bill

2:59:58 ↗ that was different than you were in his

2:59:59 ↗ circuit no subs than anything out

3:00:01 ↗ changed that basically went back to the

3:00:05 ↗ comment that Jim Haney had earlier if if

3:00:11 ↗ the council were to adopt the 25,000

3:00:15 ↗ square foot retail what's the next then

3:00:18 ↗ what is required to happen or do we have

3:00:22 ↗ to send it back before you vote on it I

3:00:24 ↗ guess it that that is my recommendation

3:00:26 ↗ let me well let me let me explain like

3:00:28 ↗ my earlier statement when you are going

3:00:36 ↗ to change a recommendation that has been

3:00:38 ↗ made after the PBC has held its public

3:00:42 ↗ hearing when you were going to change

3:00:43 ↗ the regulation if the regulation changes

3:00:47 ↗ significantly you need to hold an

3:00:50 ↗ additional public hearing prior to

3:00:52 ↗ making the change if the change which

3:00:57 ↗ you're proposing to make was within the

3:00:59 ↗ range of the alternatives which were

3:01:02 ↗ considered by the PPC then you can make

3:01:05 ↗ the change without holding

3:01:08 ↗ additional public hearing my

3:01:09 ↗ understanding from Keith is that the

3:01:13 ↗ 25,000 square feet and the idea of

3:01:17 ↗ applying a 50% structured parking to

3:01:21 ↗ retail uses above 25,000 square feet was

3:01:25 ↗ not one of the alternatives considered

3:01:28 ↗ by the BBC therefore in order to make

3:01:32 ↗ your consideration of that change valid

3:01:35 ↗ you need you would need to hold an

3:01:37 ↗ additional public hearing prior to

3:01:39 ↗ adopting that change so just to make I

3:01:43 ↗ hope I'm being clear about that but

3:01:45 ↗ that's what the GMA requires I think you

3:01:48 ↗ misspoke and you said 50% we were

3:01:50 ↗ considered we are proposing here 25% yes

3:01:57 ↗ 50 it's oh the the landing short cannot

3:02:02 ↗ e recommendation was 50 at 25,000 square

3:02:07 ↗ feet

3:02:08 ↗ - okay um this would be the first on the

3:02:20 ↗ first a list of tasks to be completed

3:02:26 ↗ regarding the moratorium we care for

3:02:28 ↗ what I say because it doesn't mean we

3:02:30 ↗ have to do all of the bills but so I

3:02:33 ↗ don't I don't know what I would I'm

3:02:36 ↗ guessing we're not going to lift the

3:02:38 ↗ moratorium or entertain that and just

3:02:41 ↗ guessing based on adopting just the new

3:02:44 ↗ parking proposal but so really my

3:02:48 ↗ question is we have time then to go back

3:02:51 ↗ to PPC for a hearing and come back in a

3:02:54 ↗ timely manner and save in September I

3:02:57 ↗ heard Jim say that you could hold the

3:03:00 ↗ hearing here at Council I don't know

3:03:01 ↗ that you have to go back to PPC oh sorry

3:03:03 ↗ I thought that's what we were no you

3:03:06 ↗ could hold the hearing here at Council

3:03:08 ↗ if you wish to do that all that's

3:03:09 ↗ required is a public hearing prior to

3:03:12 ↗ making the change so we could make a

3:03:15 ↗ motion to do the direct administration

3:03:17 ↗ to

3:03:19 ↗ have a organize a hearing for us right

3:03:29 ↗ okay so there is a motion on the floor

3:03:35 ↗ so the way to do that I believe would be

3:03:41 ↗ by an amendment not emotion or

3:03:46 ↗ substitute motion I think it would be

3:03:48 ↗ rad

3:03:49 ↗ yeah I was going to ask if I can with

3:03:52 ↗ dry you can need a second I'm going to

3:04:01 ↗ make a second motion then move to

3:04:04 ↗ schedule a public hearing for what date

3:04:09 ↗ would that be okay seventh is our next

3:04:12 ↗ regular council meeting or this is I'm

3:04:14 ↗ sure okay we don't know this provides

3:04:18 ↗ our this provides our notice doing it in

3:04:21 ↗ the meeting so I news paper publication

3:04:24 ↗ notice would be shorter than then is our

3:04:29 ↗ than is our practice but because we're

3:04:32 ↗ setting the hearing the public meeting

3:04:40 ↗ so we wouldn't be able to meet our

3:04:44 ↗ conservative publication so we could

3:04:47 ↗ meet we could notice the hearing a week

3:04:49 ↗ in advance in the newspaper our practice

3:04:51 ↗ is to provide two-week advance notice so

3:04:55 ↗ that would if August 7th wasn't a

3:05:00 ↗ possibility the next hearing option

3:05:02 ↗ would be September 5th

3:05:03 ↗ just to note that the moratorium public

3:05:05 ↗ hearing will be held on August 7th to

3:05:09 ↗ consider extension or modification so in

3:05:15 ↗ terms of noticing I have to look to

3:05:16 ↗ clerk some legal to tell me what date to

3:05:18 ↗ suggest in the motion my suggestion

3:05:22 ↗ would be September 5th because that

3:05:24 ↗ enables the full publication of the

3:05:26 ↗ notice okay start again move to schedule

3:05:30 ↗ a public hearing for September 5th 20

3:05:32 ↗ tene in order to consider the

3:05:33 ↗ recommendation of the land and shore

3:05:35 ↗ committee to require that retail uses

3:05:37 ↗ above 25,000 square feet provide 50% of

3:05:42 ↗ parking and structured parking okay

3:05:45 ↗ moved and seconded discussion on the

3:05:48 ↗ motion

3:05:49 ↗ question mr. mayor nope that means that

3:05:51 ↗ the public hearing and the vote would

3:05:53 ↗ occur on the same night hood oh I'm

3:05:59 ↗ going to again talk about what it would

3:06:02 ↗ take to get me to YES on this because

3:06:04 ↗ I'm not a guest right now and here's

3:06:07 ↗ what might here's what I want to

3:06:08 ↗ understand I feel that pretty much since

3:06:13 ↗ the moratorium was enacted we we've seen

3:06:17 ↗ a bawling of concern about housing

3:06:22 ↗ prices in the in the on the east side of

3:06:25 ↗ King County and I'm a little concerned

3:06:27 ↗ about mechanisms that induce an

3:06:31 ↗ increased price on residential property

3:06:35 ↗ in Issaquah knowing how hard it is to to

3:06:40 ↗ you know come up with affordable housing

3:06:43 ↗ so what I want to understand is what

3:06:45 ↗ this gets us at the end of the day if I

3:06:48 ↗ look at the valley and I think about

3:06:51 ↗ where the valley is today I think we've

3:06:54 ↗ talked about something like

3:06:56 ↗ three-quarters of the property

3:06:58 ↗ three-quarters of the land areas parking

3:07:00 ↗ in the valley or three-quarters of the

3:07:04 ↗ impervious maybe his parking so III

3:07:07 ↗ would it will help me to consider doing

3:07:10 ↗ this if on the 5th of September I have

3:07:13 ↗ some idea of what the impact of going

3:07:16 ↗ with the land and Shore recommendation

3:07:20 ↗ is compared to the baseline I realized

3:07:22 ↗ that's a lot to ask but I'm telling you

3:07:25 ↗ what would make me make it an easier

3:07:27 ↗ decision for me because I'm so sensitive

3:07:30 ↗ right now to the incredible escalation

3:07:32 ↗ of prices and concerns that the King

3:07:35 ↗ County area is just experiencing you

3:07:38 ↗ know I'm worried that 10 years from now

3:07:40 ↗ will be as expensive as San Francisco

3:07:42 ↗ and I don't want to see that happening

3:07:44 ↗ so I want to

3:07:45 ↗ understanded benefit that I would get

3:07:47 ↗ from inducing this this extra fee on on

3:07:49 ↗ development thanks other comments or

3:07:58 ↗ questions

3:07:59 ↗ I have learned that if a public notice

3:08:07 ↗ is submitted tonight which is possible

3:08:10 ↗ we can make the August would like be no

3:08:19 ↗ meant emotions information my man I'm

3:08:22 ↗ I've said the information that I would

3:08:24 ↗ like to know to be comfortable with

3:08:26 ↗ yesterday regardless of video today yeah

3:08:30 ↗ so I'd like to amend the motion to

3:08:33 ↗ switch the date from September 5th to

3:08:35 ↗ August 7th 2017 second consecutive

3:08:38 ↗ discussion on the amendment being done

3:08:42 ↗ then all those in favor of the amendment

3:08:48 ↗ signify by saying aye aye

3:08:50 ↗ as opposed the case unanimously and now

3:08:54 ↗ back to the original motion any

3:08:57 ↗ additional discussion on the original

3:08:59 ↗ motion being done then all those in

3:09:02 ↗ favor of the original the amended motion

3:09:07 ↗ signify by saying aye aye

3:09:10 ↗ as opposed that carries unanimously

3:09:14 ↗ moving now to our final item under

3:09:21 ↗ regular business agenda bill seven 4:07

3:09:28 ↗ citizens survey results Ramone deputy

3:09:34 ↗ administrator for the staff presentation

3:09:39 ↗ good evening welcome back from vacation

3:09:44 ↗ thank you

3:10:00 ↗ all right

3:10:01 ↗ last but not least this is the fun stuff

3:10:06 ↗ all right I am very happy to be here to

3:10:09 ↗ talk about our second edition of our

3:10:13 ↗ National Citizen survey and before I

3:10:16 ↗ launch into the results and how we

3:10:19 ↗ conducted the survey I just want to say

3:10:21 ↗ thanks thanks for authorizing us to

3:10:25 ↗ conduct the survey for a second time I

3:10:27 ↗ also want to say thank you to community

3:10:29 ↗ members that participated and it's

3:10:31 ↗ incredibly valuable feedback for us so I

3:10:34 ↗ want to make sure that we express that

3:10:35 ↗ gratitude first and foremost I also want

3:10:41 ↗ to say that the survey results continue

3:10:43 ↗ to demonstrate a high level of

3:10:45 ↗ satisfaction with and pride in our

3:10:48 ↗ community so organizations that are

3:10:53 ↗ focused on continuous improvement and

3:10:56 ↗ the delivery of high quality services

3:10:58 ↗ aren't afraid to ask questions and to

3:11:00 ↗ dive a little bit deeper into how

3:11:02 ↗ they're doing in our city's mission and

3:11:05 ↗ value statement emphasizes that approach

3:11:07 ↗ to public engagement communication and

3:11:10 ↗ service excellence so the survey is just

3:11:13 ↗ another avenue for us to connect with

3:11:17 ↗ our community and one of the ways one of

3:11:19 ↗ the many ways that we measure how we're

3:11:21 ↗ doing and a great way to better

3:11:25 ↗ understand our customers needs and

3:11:27 ↗ desires so this was the second time we

3:11:31 ↗ conducted the National citizen survey

3:11:33 ↗ which is a survey instrument at the

3:11:35 ↗ National Research Center and is endorsed

3:11:38 ↗ by the International City and County

3:11:40 ↗ Management Association 3,000 households

3:11:44 ↗ were randomly selected that was a bigger

3:11:46 ↗ sampling than in 2014 and this year we

3:11:52 ↗ had a option to complete the survey

3:11:56 ↗ either on paper or online and then in

3:11:59 ↗ addition to that we

3:12:01 ↗ had a new option that opened up the

3:12:03 ↗ survey instrument and a separate online

3:12:05 ↗ link to anyone in the community who

3:12:08 ↗ wanted to participate and we kept those

3:12:10 ↗ datasets separate that kind of

3:12:12 ↗ scientific survey selection and then the

3:12:15 ↗ opt-in option on line seven we also

3:12:20 ↗ broke the information down into southern

3:12:22 ↗ Geographic subgroups and the online

3:12:27 ↗ opt-in version was available for two

3:12:29 ↗ weeks so survey methodology didn't

3:12:34 ↗ change send out a postcard hey you've

3:12:36 ↗ been the lucky one you've been chosen

3:12:38 ↗ watch for your paper copy of the survey

3:12:41 ↗ instrument and then those households had

3:12:44 ↗ three weeks to complete it our I'm sorry

3:12:47 ↗ it had six weeks to respond we use a

3:12:50 ↗ method called the birthday method just

3:12:52 ↗ to try to get a better random sampling

3:12:54 ↗ within the household so we asked the

3:12:57 ↗ person that had the most recent birthday

3:12:59 ↗ to complete the survey and hopefully

3:13:00 ↗ that balances out male/female age all of

3:13:04 ↗ that and then we weight the results

3:13:09 ↗ according to US census data

3:13:11 ↗ don't know responses were recorded you

3:13:15 ↗ may have seen that in the appendices but

3:13:18 ↗ they're not included in the table and

3:13:20 ↗ charts of responses in the reports that

3:13:22 ↗ you got from NCS so I want to make sure

3:13:25 ↗ that that's understood we had a great

3:13:31 ↗ response rate in our survey 25% is a

3:13:35 ↗ very very good response rate for a

3:13:37 ↗ mailed survey instrument that is just

3:13:41 ↗ percentage higher than we had in 2014

3:13:44 ↗ and we had 251 participants in the

3:13:49 ↗ non-scientific opt-in online survey and

3:13:53 ↗ that's a great first attempt to get

3:13:56 ↗ participation in our online survey so we

3:14:00 ↗ had a grand total of nine hundred and

3:14:01 ↗ ninety one survey participants and again

3:14:05 ↗ we have those online results in a

3:14:07 ↗ separate report in your packet the

3:14:11 ↗ response rates varied by geography so

3:14:15 ↗ on some areas had a 22 response rate and

3:14:18 ↗ somewhere as high as 34 percent response

3:14:21 ↗ rate that's important to understand it's

3:14:23 ↗ also important to know that the minimum

3:14:27 ↗ response rate that we saw in a

3:14:29 ↗ particular geography increased

3:14:31 ↗ significantly this year over 2014 we had

3:14:34 ↗ as low of 12 percent participation in

3:14:37 ↗ one of our areas in 2014 also it's

3:14:40 ↗ important to understand margin of error

3:14:42 ↗ varies on each question it also varies

3:14:45 ↗ as you whittle down what your comparison

3:14:48 ↗ group is so if you're just looking at a

3:14:49 ↗ smaller geography your margin of error

3:14:51 ↗ will go up all right the questions on

3:14:58 ↗ the survey are grouped roughly into

3:15:01 ↗ these three categories in addition we we

3:15:06 ↗ do always have the opportunity to ask

3:15:08 ↗ customized questions this year we asked

3:15:10 ↗ questions to help our efforts with the

3:15:12 ↗ parks plan or Prost - and also some

3:15:17 ↗ questions about our neighborhood

3:15:19 ↗ engagement program we continue to ask a

3:15:22 ↗ custom question about sources of sources

3:15:24 ↗ of information and that helps us just to

3:15:27 ↗ track trends so we asked questions about

3:15:33 ↗ these major themes in our community

3:15:37 ↗ these are attributes of livability

3:15:39 ↗ community characteristics governance and

3:15:43 ↗ participation and community engagement I

3:15:48 ↗ just want to focus on that for a second

3:15:49 ↗ because the terminology that national

3:15:52 ↗ citizen survey uses for community

3:15:54 ↗ engagement is a little different than

3:15:55 ↗ how we talk about it as a community and

3:15:58 ↗ so here on the survey instrument that

3:16:00 ↗ includes things like participation in

3:16:03 ↗ social events opportunities to volunteer

3:16:06 ↗ and how how people felt about the nape

3:16:11 ↗ that neighborhood connections that they

3:16:13 ↗ have in the community so it's a little

3:16:15 ↗ different than I think traditionally we

3:16:17 ↗ think about that how does the city

3:16:19 ↗ engage residents this is much broader

3:16:21 ↗ than that as we did in 2014 we

3:16:28 ↗ paired to national benchmarks there were

3:16:31 ↗ over 400 in our data set and this year

3:16:35 ↗ we also asked NRC to give us regional

3:16:39 ↗ comparisons they picked 20 communities

3:16:43 ↗ and on the west coast that had similar

3:16:47 ↗ household incomes and we're in

3:16:48 ↗ metropolitan areas that we concurred

3:16:51 ↗ would be good fits and we get a lot of

3:16:57 ↗ great data looking at those benchmarks

3:16:59 ↗ the survey produces a ton of data it

3:17:01 ↗ takes quite a bit of time to sort of

3:17:03 ↗ synthesize it pull out the pieces that

3:17:05 ↗ are most meaningful but here's one that

3:17:09 ↗ that at a glance helps us to understand

3:17:11 ↗ how our community compares to others and

3:17:16 ↗ helps us understand whether we're just

3:17:19 ↗ in the ballpark of what the norm is so

3:17:24 ↗ overall quality of life is a very good

3:17:27 ↗ indicator of the overall health of our

3:17:29 ↗ community and I'm happy to say again was

3:17:33 ↗ rated very favorably ninety percent of

3:17:36 ↗ our respondents rated overall quality of

3:17:38 ↗ life in Issaquah as excellent or good

3:17:41 ↗ with often call that combined score the

3:17:43 ↗ positive score so you'll hear me use

3:17:45 ↗ that term and 92 percent of our

3:17:48 ↗ residents rated Issyk was an excellent

3:17:50 ↗ or good place to live

3:17:55 ↗ this chart breaks down some of the

3:17:59 ↗ questions that were asked about quality

3:18:00 ↗ of life overall quality of life

3:18:02 ↗ approximately 9 out of 10 residents gave

3:18:04 ↗ positive ratings to their neighborhoods

3:18:06 ↗ the city is a place to raise children

3:18:09 ↗ it's a cause of overall appearance the

3:18:12 ↗ city's cleanliness air quality feelings

3:18:15 ↗ of safety in K through 12 education

3:18:18 ↗ here's a few that I put on this chart I

3:18:21 ↗ want to give you an indication of how

3:18:23 ↗ they relate to the national benchmark so

3:18:26 ↗ the up arrow means we were higher if

3:18:28 ↗ it's left-right arrow it means we were

3:18:30 ↗ similar

3:18:31 ↗ these were stable trends - from 2014 to

3:18:36 ↗ 2017 overall yeah

3:18:41 ↗ the comparison here is to our previous

3:18:44 ↗ 2014 or to the cross the national its

3:18:47 ↗ comparison to the national benchmark

3:18:50 ↗ second right but when I said that they

3:18:52 ↗ were stable trends it means wherever you

3:18:55 ↗ see an up arrow it was it was up last

3:18:57 ↗ time too we were also higher in 2014 so

3:19:02 ↗ of the hundred and thirty-four items

3:19:04 ↗ that we asked our survey respondents to

3:19:07 ↗ rate this year 105 of those items were

3:19:11 ↗ rated similarly to 2014 24 got lower

3:19:16 ↗ marks than they did in the previous

3:19:18 ↗ survey most of those were in the

3:19:21 ↗ categories dealing with development

3:19:23 ↗ housing mobility cost of living and

3:19:26 ↗ Trust and 5 were increased over 2014

3:19:30 ↗ those were around engagement

3:19:32 ↗ participation health and wellness we

3:19:38 ↗ asked respondents to state the most

3:19:40 ↗ important in focus areas for the city

3:19:43 ↗ for the next two years and and their

3:19:46 ↗ given choices they named safety mobility

3:19:49 ↗ and the natural environment as the three

3:19:52 ↗ that the city should focus on in the

3:19:54 ↗ next two years

3:19:55 ↗ overall residents gave ratings that were

3:19:58 ↗ positive in each of these categories and

3:20:00 ↗ similar to other communities on safety

3:20:08 ↗ the city got very positive ratings for

3:20:10 ↗ overall safety safety and respondents

3:20:14 ↗ neighborhoods safety and s across

3:20:16 ↗ downtown and commercial areas in natural

3:20:22 ↗ environment city residents continued to

3:20:24 ↗ rate features in the natural environment

3:20:26 ↗ category very highly

3:20:28 ↗ this included overall quality of the

3:20:30 ↗ natural environment the cleanliness of

3:20:32 ↗ this aqua air quality in the city in one

3:20:35 ↗ of our custom questions we also asked

3:20:37 ↗ some feedback on priorities for parks

3:20:41 ↗ and 62% of residents said that Issaquah

3:20:44 ↗ parks trails and open space were

3:20:45 ↗ essential to the quality of life in our

3:20:48 ↗ community and 34 percent said these

3:20:50 ↗ attributes were very important they also

3:20:53 ↗ expressed a high level of support for

3:20:54 ↗ environment

3:20:55 ↗ stewardship and protection mobility was

3:21:00 ↗ a mixed bag traffic flow overall ease of

3:21:05 ↗ travel travel by car we're all rated

3:21:08 ↗ lower than the national benchmark buts

3:21:10 ↗ similar to the regional benchmark so you

3:21:14 ↗ can extrapolate west coast cities a lot

3:21:17 ↗ of them are growing and experiencing the

3:21:20 ↗ same sort of difficulties that we are

3:21:22 ↗ the exception to this is that our

3:21:25 ↗ overall traffic flow rating was lower

3:21:28 ↗ than the regional benchmark other

3:21:31 ↗ aspects though in this mixed bag

3:21:33 ↗ category like paths and walking trails

3:21:36 ↗ bus and transit services and the use of

3:21:38 ↗ alternative transportation and

3:21:40 ↗ carpooling had favorable ratings and

3:21:43 ↗ we're all higher than math benchmarks

3:21:49 ↗ survey also asked residents to assess

3:21:51 ↗ how well the city government does in

3:21:53 ↗ meeting their needs and expectations and

3:21:55 ↗ more than eight and ten participants

3:21:57 ↗ gave positive ratings for their overall

3:22:00 ↗ quality of city services and the city's

3:22:02 ↗ customer service we have specific

3:22:09 ↗ questions about the quality of city

3:22:12 ↗ services and more generically

3:22:14 ↗ governmental or public services and

3:22:18 ↗ survey respondents rated over thirty of

3:22:20 ↗ these types of services and amenities

3:22:23 ↗ bus or transit service yard waste pickup

3:22:26 ↗ health services wellness K through 12

3:22:28 ↗ education overall economic health and

3:22:30 ↗ storm drainage were rated higher than

3:22:32 ↗ the national benchmark there were some

3:22:37 ↗ slight changes in this list from 2014

3:22:40 ↗ and I can answer those questions if you

3:22:44 ↗ have them now or later these were the

3:22:48 ↗ ratings that services and amenities that

3:22:50 ↗ had lower ratings than in 2014 the women

3:22:53 ↗ stood out to me with Street repair and I

3:22:56 ↗ think it's really really important than

3:22:58 ↗ I stood this with NRC we posed our

3:23:01 ↗ survey at a different time of year than

3:23:04 ↗ we did in 2014 and that does tend to

3:23:07 ↗ make a difference

3:23:08 ↗ that's been my experience that's been

3:23:10 ↗ theirs so we actually ask these

3:23:13 ↗ questions before we did our annual

3:23:15 ↗ pavement program and and we had we had a

3:23:18 ↗ difficult winter so that's one that

3:23:22 ↗ we'll continue to watch to see if we get

3:23:24 ↗ a trend there General government's

3:23:29 ↗ approximately half of the city's scores

3:23:33 ↗ were lower this year in this category

3:23:35 ↗ than in 2014 however all of the general

3:23:40 ↗ government scores were rated similarly

3:23:42 ↗ to the national and regional benchmarks

3:23:45 ↗ well I find these lower scores to be

3:23:50 ↗ disappointing at least and why I know

3:23:54 ↗ we're committed to continue to analyze

3:23:56 ↗ those we don't get a lot of information

3:23:59 ↗ about why people felt the way that they

3:24:02 ↗ did and why they answered these

3:24:04 ↗ questions the way that they did on the

3:24:05 ↗ survey and what action we might be able

3:24:07 ↗ to take to correct that course so it's

3:24:11 ↗ it's also important to note that NRC has

3:24:13 ↗ told us that this trend mimics what they

3:24:18 ↗ see in other communities usually around

3:24:20 ↗ post election major election or

3:24:23 ↗ significant change which we did have and

3:24:27 ↗ so I'm trying to balance our data input

3:24:30 ↗ on this with that finding they said a

3:24:33 ↗ more a better more productive question

3:24:36 ↗ to pose when you get results like this

3:24:37 ↗ is where there are any results that we

3:24:41 ↗ weren't expecting and that's what I'm

3:24:43 ↗ hosing to staff now what do you see in

3:24:45 ↗ here that work was a surprise to you and

3:24:49 ↗ let's have a conversation about that

3:24:52 ↗ also we have two years worth of data so

3:24:56 ↗ two data points don't necessarily make a

3:24:58 ↗ trend so we'll want to watch that in a

3:25:00 ↗ future year so in the section about

3:25:03 ↗ participation engagement we capture

3:25:06 ↗ residents opinions about social

3:25:07 ↗ connectivity community participation and

3:25:10 ↗ the results this year again we're mixed

3:25:12 ↗ in this category so in some areas such

3:25:15 ↗ as stockpiling supplies for emergencies

3:25:18 ↗ using public transportation and car

3:25:19 ↗ pools or recycling at home

3:25:21 ↗ our residents are participating at

3:25:22 ↗ higher levels than the national

3:25:25 ↗ benchmark there are other places though

3:25:27 ↗ where we are lower than the regional or

3:25:30 ↗ national benchmark those categories

3:25:33 ↗ changed a little bit from 2014 as well

3:25:36 ↗ participation statistics also revealed

3:25:39 ↗ that residents had spent more time in

3:25:42 ↗ this past 12 months campaigning for an

3:25:44 ↗ issue or a candidate no surprise there

3:25:47 ↗ and that they done a favor for a

3:25:49 ↗ neighbor attended a local public meeting

3:25:51 ↗ and watched a local public meeting and

3:25:54 ↗ it's acquire residents tend to do these

3:25:55 ↗ things at levels that are similar to

3:25:57 ↗ residents nationwide and in our regional

3:26:01 ↗ comparison group this was one place

3:26:06 ↗ where we saw some significant changes

3:26:08 ↗ when we compared to our last survey more

3:26:12 ↗ people are now turning to electronic

3:26:15 ↗ media sources social media sources for

3:26:19 ↗ information instead of local media I

3:26:21 ↗ think there's an obvious reason for that

3:26:23 ↗ in our community with its quad press not

3:26:27 ↗ being here to serve the community

3:26:28 ↗ anymore but also I think we were on that

3:26:31 ↗ trend line for a while now so we saw

3:26:35 ↗ significant decreases in the sources of

3:26:37 ↗ information of local media the Parks and

3:26:39 ↗ Rec quarterly guide talking with staff

3:26:42 ↗ and our local government cable channel

3:26:46 ↗ so clearly a shift to use of social

3:26:50 ↗ media and online resources for

3:26:52 ↗ information and that's helpful for us to

3:26:55 ↗ understand I told you that we ran a new

3:27:00 ↗ report on demographic information remind

3:27:05 ↗ you that the margin of error increases

3:27:07 ↗ we talk about the results here I'm also

3:27:11 ↗ going to speak very broadly about the

3:27:14 ↗ results here while there were

3:27:17 ↗ differences in opinions residents who

3:27:19 ↗ earned less than $50,000 or who had

3:27:22 ↗ lived in Issaquah for 20 years or more

3:27:24 ↗ or less likely than other residents to

3:27:27 ↗ give positive ratings and broadly

3:27:31 ↗ speaking again residents who were aged

3:27:33 ↗ 18 to 34

3:27:35 ↗ and who has lived in this aquifer or had

3:27:37 ↗ loads in this across for five years or

3:27:39 ↗ less tended to give more positive

3:27:41 ↗ ratings to aspects of mobility natural

3:27:45 ↗ environment built environment and

3:27:46 ↗ community characteristics these same

3:27:50 ↗ people also tended to feel more positive

3:27:52 ↗ about city leadership and governments

3:27:54 ↗ than counterparts generally residents

3:27:58 ↗ who had lived in Issaquah for more than

3:27:59 ↗ 20 years we're age 55 or more or who had

3:28:03 ↗ children in the home were more likely

3:28:06 ↗ than other respondents to indicate that

3:28:07 ↗ they felt connected to their neighbors

3:28:09 ↗ and their neighborhood so while another

3:28:15 ↗ another thing that we look at is how

3:28:17 ↗ results varied by the the race that the

3:28:21 ↗ respondent selected for the census

3:28:25 ↗ purposes and we found that more often

3:28:28 ↗ non-whites gave more favorable ratings

3:28:31 ↗ and that was interesting to see this

3:28:33 ↗ year geographically this was the

3:28:38 ↗ distribution of our sampling response

3:28:41 ↗ rates in each area as I said range from

3:28:44 ↗ 22 to 34 percent and squawk in Old Town

3:28:48 ↗ had the highest level of participation

3:28:50 ↗ 90 Newport Tibbets area and north is

3:28:53 ↗ akua's Providence Point had the lowest

3:28:56 ↗ and yet responses work weighted to

3:29:01 ↗ correlate with each areas percentage of

3:29:03 ↗ our total population and again the sense

3:29:06 ↗ of salmon graphics so NRC you may have

3:29:10 ↗ seen in the report noted some

3:29:12 ↗ variability in the readings across

3:29:13 ↗ geographic areas but they were reluctant

3:29:17 ↗ to kind of opine what those differences

3:29:19 ↗ were and they said that the reason for

3:29:22 ↗ that was because you may have on one

3:29:26 ↗ particular survey variable very high the

3:29:29 ↗ highest response in a geographic area

3:29:31 ↗ and then on the very next question that

3:29:33 ↗ same geographic area would have had the

3:29:35 ↗ lowest and so those differences tended

3:29:38 ↗ to count cancel out however I was still

3:29:42 ↗ interested in seeing if we could find

3:29:44 ↗ any trends or information we glean from

3:29:47 ↗ this and so

3:29:49 ↗ I put together in kind of over

3:29:51 ↗ simplified way of looking at the

3:29:53 ↗ geographic differences in responses to

3:29:57 ↗ see if we could gather the general tone

3:29:59 ↗ of residence or tenor of residents in

3:30:01 ↗ each of those areas and so I looked at

3:30:03 ↗ the number of times that each

3:30:05 ↗ neighborhood had a tally mark in the

3:30:08 ↗ column for having the highest score on

3:30:10 ↗ that particular variable or I put a

3:30:14 ↗ tally mark where that neighbor had had

3:30:16 ↗ the lowest score so this chart totals up

3:30:19 ↗ if you you look at the blue bar for

3:30:22 ↗ Issaquah Highlands on the left there

3:30:23 ↗ they had the greatest number of positive

3:30:28 ↗ responses throughout the survey

3:30:31 ↗ conversely they had the fewest number of

3:30:34 ↗ lowest ratings in the survey so my next

3:30:43 ↗ steps are to continue to talk to

3:30:46 ↗ departments about the results that are

3:30:48 ↗ meaningful in the survey to them and use

3:30:53 ↗ these results to inform our other

3:30:55 ↗ planning efforts that we have going on

3:30:56 ↗ and made that pitch to you when I asked

3:30:59 ↗ for funds for the survey that it not

3:31:01 ↗ only does it help us with our

3:31:02 ↗ benchmarking and performance measurement

3:31:04 ↗ programs but it also would would help us

3:31:07 ↗ to gather some information to then base

3:31:10 ↗ our strategic planning effort or to help

3:31:13 ↗ our parks planning effort the other

3:31:18 ↗ thing that I repeat is that I in 2014

3:31:23 ↗ said it would be helpful for us to

3:31:24 ↗ repeat the survey every two or three

3:31:26 ↗ years we'd like to continue to do that

3:31:28 ↗ so you won't hear requests from me next

3:31:31 ↗ year on this and the last point of

3:31:35 ↗ interest for me is that NRC said that

3:31:39 ↗ our results on the opt-in online survey

3:31:41 ↗ we're so similar to our scientific

3:31:44 ↗ nobody likes to talk about America both

3:31:48 ↗ the world scientific talker base version

3:31:51 ↗ that in future years we should look at

3:31:54 ↗ just combining those results and not

3:31:56 ↗ keeping them separate so what that tells

3:31:58 ↗ me is that going forward when we think

3:32:02 ↗ about collecting data about the public's

3:32:06 ↗ desires we can trust our online results

3:32:12 ↗ to be fairly accurate representations of

3:32:17 ↗ public sentiment so that's very good

3:32:20 ↗ information for us to have as we think

3:32:22 ↗ about future efforts to kind of pull the

3:32:25 ↗ community olá ask about something that

3:32:30 ↗ you said earlier you said something to

3:32:32 ↗ the effect of being concerned with some

3:32:35 ↗ of the scores related to governance and

3:32:36 ↗ I'm looking at the governance figure two

3:32:39 ↗ aspects of governance and we're on all

3:32:42 ↗ of them were at least similar if not

3:32:44 ↗ higher mostly similar to the benchmark

3:32:47 ↗ cities but there aren't actually

3:32:48 ↗ anywhere in that aspect where we're

3:32:50 ↗ lower than our than our benchmark cities

3:32:53 ↗ so what about that is concealer lis

3:32:56 ↗ concerned so I'm not concerned about how

3:32:58 ↗ we relate to the national and regional

3:33:00 ↗ benchmarks and as I hope I said we are

3:33:04 ↗ similar what's concerning to me is our

3:33:08 ↗ trends over time on those measures so we

3:33:12 ↗ had lower scores in those areas in 2017

3:33:15 ↗ than we did in 2014 so is Aguada is

3:33:19 ↗ squad results on about half of those

3:33:24 ↗ variables so we need to continue to look

3:33:28 ↗ at that you know two years does not make

3:33:29 ↗ the trend but we should have some

3:33:32 ↗ conversations around that and then

3:33:34 ↗ continue to monitor and you can you

3:33:37 ↗ mention anywhere there were there was

3:33:40 ↗ the largest difference between the 2014

3:33:44 ↗ and 2016 no numbers I can certainly do

3:33:48 ↗ I'm not sure if I can pick it out

3:33:49 ↗ tonight the largest difference over the

3:33:55 ↗ two years but I can I can get you that

3:33:58 ↗ information that you will be able to

3:34:00 ↗ pick that out by looking at the trends

3:34:03 ↗ report which is the year-to-year

3:34:05 ↗ comparison what always makes it tricky

3:34:09 ↗ is

3:34:10 ↗ the governance variables show up in a

3:34:13 ↗ lot of different categories so I don't

3:34:18 ↗ have a quick way of assessing the

3:34:20 ↗ biggest difference by looking at this

3:34:22 ↗ chart but there are some that dropped

3:34:29 ↗ enough to be significant statistically

3:34:32 ↗ significant and that's what I would be

3:34:35 ↗ concerned about a couple of them were

3:34:37 ↗ value of services for taxes paid and

3:34:41 ↗ overall direction of the city confidence

3:34:45 ↗ and city government so those are those

3:34:49 ↗ are a few to give you an idea yeah and

3:34:54 ↗ it just at a glance the change

3:34:57 ↗ there's not one that pops out they had

3:34:59 ↗ similar amounts of change it's very

3:35:04 ↗ interesting that you said approximately

3:35:05 ↗ half of them are lower than they were in

3:35:07 ↗ 2014 that is it's important that would

3:35:09 ↗ be something to investigate make sure

3:35:14 ↗ there's no questions right Emily I

3:35:23 ↗ wondering internally with the

3:35:28 ↗ administration and staff are there work

3:35:31 ↗ plans that sort of develop as a result

3:35:33 ↗ of some of the survey information and

3:35:37 ↗ things that can be worked on yeah

3:35:41 ↗ absolutely so our practice is to sit

3:35:45 ↗ down with every department and talk

3:35:46 ↗ about their results so Parks Department

3:35:49 ↗ is interested in certain variables on

3:35:51 ↗ the survey those might be different than

3:35:52 ↗ development services and so we have

3:35:57 ↗ conversations first to say what do you

3:35:58 ↗ see anything surprising why do you think

3:36:04 ↗ we got the numbers that we did and then

3:36:07 ↗ what are we doing now what are what are

3:36:11 ↗ the reasons perhaps we got higher scores

3:36:13 ↗ what have we done what have you changed

3:36:14 ↗ do some assessment around that and then

3:36:17 ↗ where we have lower ones do we have

3:36:19 ↗ something than work so we think we might

3:36:20 ↗ be able to move the needle for next time

3:36:24 ↗ and I think the policy questions the

3:36:28 ↗ custom questions that we ask we spend

3:36:30 ↗ more time on those incorporating those

3:36:32 ↗ into work plans that we had some around

3:36:34 ↗ the neighborhood engagement program

3:36:36 ↗ you'll see that data play out as we

3:36:39 ↗ evaluate that program and as we bring

3:36:42 ↗ the parks plan for what I would expect I

3:36:45 ↗ use that that data to help provide their

3:36:49 ↗ priorities and their recommendations to

3:36:51 ↗ you and and it sounds good to take this

3:36:58 ↗ information I guess a to to your

3:36:59 ↗ departments and really get into the

3:37:01 ↗ nitty-gritty of it there's a couple

3:37:02 ↗ points that come our that the overall

3:37:05 ↗ trends that we had 24 items decreasing

3:37:08 ↗ in five increasing so that's that's like

3:37:11 ↗ that kind of caught me off a little bit

3:37:13 ↗ and the ones that obviously know people

3:37:15 ↗ traffic and those kinds of those kind of

3:37:17 ↗ things in there but that that felt kind

3:37:20 ↗ of offered you know all the favorable

3:37:22 ↗ ratings but 24 items went down only five

3:37:25 ↗ went up so that an overall negative

3:37:27 ↗ increase to me yeah

3:37:29 ↗ I'm sorry we can explain those numbers

3:37:31 ↗ when overall it looks like a positive

3:37:33 ↗ increase right right and and I think you

3:37:36 ↗ know the it's important to look at it in

3:37:39 ↗ a very detailed way I have given you

3:37:41 ↗ top-level just at a glance what the

3:37:45 ↗ numbers are saying but when you factor

3:37:47 ↗ in margin of error on each of those it

3:37:49 ↗ kind of shave some of that away and then

3:37:53 ↗ again we have some differences in this

3:37:58 ↗ year's dynamics I will say community

3:38:01 ↗ wise and nationally so I'm not too

3:38:08 ↗ fearful about that imbalance between the

3:38:10 ↗ ones that decreased and the ones that

3:38:12 ↗ increased I think when we do this two

3:38:15 ↗ years from now we can see if that's

3:38:16 ↗ really a trend or not but it is just one

3:38:20 ↗ way to talk about the data as overall

3:38:21 ↗ results I hope you get a lot of good

3:38:23 ↗ work out of this but as you would

3:38:25 ↗ implement okay I guess I'm good idea

3:38:28 ↗ thank you other questions or discussion

3:38:34 ↗ seeing none then we will now move to

3:38:37 ↗ good of the order does anyone have

3:38:40 ↗ anything for sort of the order this

3:38:43 ↗ evening at 10:40 Lera fie that will you

3:38:49 ↗ I see none then there is no executive

3:38:55 ↗ session we are adjourned

3:39:10 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (7)

Continue the public hearing to Sept. 5, 2017; and refer AB 7313 to the Aug. 14, 2017 Council Committee Work Session for additional review and recommendation, returning to the full Council on Sept. 5, 2017. . b)

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 7-0

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

Direct the Administration to prepare an ordinance establishing annexation of the King County Island and pre-annexation zoning consisting of a mixture of Intensive Commercial (IC), Community Facilities - Open Space (CF-OS), and Community Facilities - Facilities (CF-F) zoning as presented in Exhibit D…

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by GOODMAN

Amend the motion to remove any reference to Community Facilities - Facilities (CF-F) zoning. It was clarified that this amendment would leave those areas currently proposed CF-F blank in the proposed ordinance. . (Dissenting: Barber, Bettise, Marts.) AS AMENDED, 7-0. c)

Moved by PAULY · seconded by RAMOS

Carried 4-3

In favor: Stacy Goodman, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Barber, Bettise, Marts

Direct the Administration to prepare an ordinance establishing annexation of the Bell evue Utility Island and pre-annexation zoning consisting of Community Facilities - Facilities (CF-F) for consideration at the Sept. 5, 2017 Regular Council meeting following the scheduled public hearing. .

Moved by PAULY · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. , adopting by reference amendments to the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards including clarifying the administrative adjustment of standards; the definition of parking structure and carport; and requiring structured parking for new residential uses, office uses abo…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Schedule a public hearing for Sept. 5, 2017 in order to consider the recommendation of the Land & Shore Committee to require that retail uses above 25,000 square feet provide 50% of its parking as structured parking.

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Amend the date of the public hearing to Aug. 7, 2017. . AS AMENDED, 7-0. b)

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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