← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Regular Meeting Auto captions

Monday, March 19, 2018

7:00 PM · 4h 16m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
Lakeside Transfer of Development Rights AB 8890 1/4
Updated Water System Plan AB 7538 1/3
Olde Town Subarea Plan Update AB 7326 10/14
King County Cooperative Watershed Management Grant for Lower Issaquah Creek Enhancement AB 7573 1/2
Vacation of a Portion of NE Gilman Blvd AB 7485 2/3
End of Talus Development Agreement AB 7524 4/4
End of Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement AB 7523 3/3
City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 11, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 19, 2018
Expedited Traffic Enforcement AB 7563 2/2
Short-term Funding Request for Budget Process Improvements AB 7562 2/2
Section
Topic
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
6c
Olde Town Subarea Plan Update Remand to Planning Policy Commission AB 7326
Carried 6-0
packet pp.129–298
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
D. Response to Council Questions E. Revised Plan as of July 2017
Roll call:
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by RAMOS
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
6d
Administrative Staff Association AB 7398
Carried 6-0
Approve · packet pp.299–324
Staff report:
Administration / Human Resources Department:
Roll call:
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by RAMOS
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
6e
Updated Water System Plan AB 7538
Carried 6-0
Approve · packet pp.325–563
Topics: Water
Staff report:
NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7538 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Mar 2018 Calendar
Roll call:
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by RAMOS
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
6g
Amendment to Salary Ordinance AB 7561
Carried 6-0
Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.575–590
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
Administration / Human Resources Department:
Roll call:
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by RAMOS
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
6h
King County Cooperative Watershed Management Grant for Lower Issaquah Creek Enhancement AB 7573
Carried 6-0
Authorize Submittal · packet pp.591–595
Topics: Water
Staff report:
Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:
Roll call:
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by RAMOS
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
7. PUBLIC HEARING
7a
Vacation of a Portion of NE Gilman Blvd. Continue Public Hearing AB 7485
Carried 6-0
packet pp.597–611
Staff report:
Council Infrastructure Committee / Bill Ramos, Chair:
Roll call:
Moved by RAMOS · seconded by BETTISE
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
8. REGULAR BUSINESS
8a
Expedited Traffic Enforcement AB 7563
Carried 6-0
Authorize · packet pp.613–622
Topics: Transportation
Staff report:
At the Feb. 20, 2018 Council meeting, Council authorized three additional Police Officer positions, including two traffic enforcement officers (AB 7552). As part of that proposal, Administration introduced an interim option to allow for increased enforcement until the newly authorized positions are fully operational and assigned to traffic enforcement in Spring 2019. Council directed the Administration to draft a separate agenda bill addressing the interim option for consideration at the March 12 Work Session.
Roll call:
Moved by REH · seconded by RAMOS
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
8b
End of Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement AB 7523
Carried 4-2
Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.623–813
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7523 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Mar 2018 Business
8c
End of Talus Development Agreement AB 7524
Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.815–970
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7524 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Mar 2018 Business
8d
Short-term Funding Request for Budget Process Improvements AB 7562
Carried 5-1
Authorize · packet pp.971–988
Topics: Budget
Staff report:
UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7562 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Mar 2018 Business
Roll call:
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by REH
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
Opposed: Ramos
9. GOOD OF THE ORDER
9a
Upcoming Council Meetings
0:10 Good evening and welcome everyone. I am calling the March 19th
0:15 regular City Council meeting to order. Council President Martz has an
0:21 excused absence this evening. I'd like to ask those of you
0:26 who would like to join the Council and myself in the
0:32 Pledge of Allegiance to please stand. I pledge allegiance to the
0:37 flag of the United States of America, the flag for which
0:43 it stands, for liberty and
0:48 justice for all. Before I get to the
0:54 first item on the agenda, I did just want to let our audience know, we
0:59 have a large audience this evening, that we have a long business meeting and many
1:05 important topics that will require a lot of conversation and dialogue between council tonight. I
1:10 just also wanted to say that the 800-page packet that if anybody chose to go
1:15 through it, as the council members had to, is something we are trying to change.
1:20 We are working actively with the city clerk and some council members and council leadership
1:25 to try and present our information in a briefer, more compact, more understandable format. Thank
1:31 you. I see Joe clapping. So the first item on regular business today is audience
1:36 comments. We have many different groups and individuals here this evening. The guidelines for audience
1:41 comments are on the meeting agenda. If you got a chance to sign up on
1:46 the sign-up sheet you will get to speak first. If you did not sign up
1:51 I will ask for other speakers before closing the portion of the meeting. When you
1:56 are recognized please come up to our lectern and speak into the microphone. State your
2:00 name, address and relationship to the city. Limit your comments to three minutes and if
2:05 you have written comments that you would like to submit please bring them over to
2:09 the clerk. If you are with a group that is here this evening and you
2:15 have a common message and you've been communicating with Council, we would appreciate it during
2:19 the business meeting for you to have a spokesperson or several spokespersons, spokespeople, as long
2:24 as you keep reiterating some new points. So if you find that there is a
2:28 speaker speaking and they are saying something that resonates with you, please feel free to
2:33 wave your hand so the Council then can understand who came here to support that
2:37 issue tonight. Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up? I'm
2:43 not surprised. Yes, Joe Verner. Good evening. The name
2:49 is Joe Verner and the address is 1230 Oakwood
2:55 Place, Northwest. It's alongside the Newport Way Northwest Corridor.
3:01 Just two quick items tonight. One of the topics
3:07 is AB 7485 about the vacating of an easement.
3:13 When you do present that or discuss it, could
3:19 the audience receive a one paragraph, easy to understand,
3:25 non-obfuscated version explanation of what it's about, why it's
3:30 there, who benefits, and when does it happen? Secondly,
3:36 the trash and garbage and shoot-up needles that have
3:42 been along Newport Way Northwest West of sr
3:47 900 on the bergsma property was miraculously cleaned up today,
3:53 so if the city had some facilitation efforts or encouragement
3:59 Kudos to the city and I say thank you
4:05 Thank you, Joe. I'd just like to point, because Joe is pointing out I'm saying
4:10 something here. We do have a public hearing this evening and it is related to
4:15 the vacation of a portion of Northeast Gilman Boulevard. You can provide comments now if
4:20 you would like, but there will be a time in the meeting when you can
4:25 provide input on that specific item. So thank you, Joe. Next. Bruce Semple, followed by
4:30 Gary Young and Tia Haim.
4:36 Thank you. My name is Bruce Sample. I live at 100 Timber
4:42 Ridge Way, North West and I'm a resident of Issaquah. Timber Ridge
4:47 residents have been repeatedly sharing their comments here and in emails, etc.
4:53 and concerns with you about the fate of AB7524 and about any
4:59 potential changes in zoning that would impact both the type and any
5:04 development on parcel 17B and the character of Tallis. The type of
5:10 land use naturally raises concerns about any impacts on daily living for our
5:16 nearly 500 residents and 250 staff, such as traffic congestion on SR 900,
5:22 Tallis Drive, and particularly on Falcon Way. Falconway is already heavily
5:28 utilised for to and fro resident use of garages, for suppliers' trucks
5:34 accessing the delivery bay, for emergency vehicle use and for on-street parking
5:39 by residents, staff and guests. But a significant counterbalance to all this
5:45 busyness and hassle is the calming and health benefiting effects of the
5:51 beauty of the Timber Ridge site with its expansive architecture and its landscaping
5:57 all framed by the mountainside forests. This is not just the biased opinion
6:02 of us residents. Timber Ridge was awarded runner up out of over 80
6:08 nationwide competitors in the 2017 Continuing Care Retirement Community category of the Senior
6:14 Housing News Architecture and Design Awards being especially recognised for its green
6:20 construction strategy being in harmony with the environment and I'll have a copy
6:26 of that award for the Clerk later. Timber Ridge is a major contributor
6:31 to the envisioned character of Tallis and adds to the inspiring aspects of
6:37 the southern gateway to Issachar. We also share the concerns of Tallis homeowners
6:43 for the future of Parcel 9. and we hope that any future
6:49 construction there will be similarly acknowledged for design excellence and compatibility with the envisioned mountain
6:55 village character of Tallis. So we have attended tonight, all 30 of us from Timber
7:01 Ridge, to encourage you to end the Tallis Development Agreement with all due speed so
7:07 that we and all of Tallis residents have an opportunity to add our full voice
7:13 to any future development of Parcel 17B and indeed of Parcel 9. We want
7:19 to ensure that their zoning and land use remain as originally approved and we all
7:24 hope that any development will be in harmony with the planned envisioning of Tallis and
7:30 be an embellishment of our southern gateway. I have a final shout out from our
7:36 staff, including many college students. They are mostly commuters and they are significantly
7:42 impacted by the roadways congestion and it is noteworthy that those who missed out on
7:47 the previous petition gathering have asked to be recognized by adding their names. Their additional
7:53 signatures have been attached to my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. At least the
7:58 30 hands of the people that came with Bruce are up, if not about 40.
8:09 Mayor Pauly, Council, Gary Young with Shelter Holdings 11624, Southeast 5th, Suite 210,
8:14 Bellevue, Washington, 98005. I never really thought I'd be coming before you tonight
8:20 and saying what I'm going to say tonight. It's very disappointing. But in
8:26 all our 40 years of business, and many of those are 40 years
8:31 of business here in the City of Issaquah, we have never sued a
8:37 city or any jurisdiction. But in all our 40 years, we've never
8:43 been treated quite as poorly as we're being presently treated by the
8:48 City of Issaquah. This is a difficult thing to be dealing with.
8:54 I know it's not popular in Issaquah to acknowledge that property owners
9:00 and developers are valued as part of the community, but we are
9:05 your constituents. We are a family-owned business, deep roots in this community, way
9:11 back. We have built many neighborhoods in the community that have been very well received,
9:17 all types of development throughout this region. We support our local residents, local businesses, our
9:23 nonprofits, Leo, Eastside Baby Corner, Art East, the Esquire School Foundation, many more. And we
9:29 care very deeply about what happens in this city. Two weeks ago we
9:34 delivered the City a notice of default under the development agreement that outlines the pattern
9:40 of egregious behavior, just basically means really bad, by the City with respect to our
9:46 applications. This was not a step that we took lightly. This is the last thing
9:51 we really wanted to do. I would expect that the facts in that notice of
9:57 default were shocking to you. It should be shocking to you that the City would
10:03 refuse to abide by the terms of an agreement to which it is bound. Regardless
10:09 of how you feel about us or our specific development proposals, as every resident in
10:14 Issaquah and yourselves, you should be extremely concerned that the City of Issaquah would act
10:20 in the manner that we have described to you. It is your duty as Council
10:26 members to investigate and remedy this situation. The city has scheduled a meeting
10:31 with our attorneys that will be later this week to discuss the notice of
10:37 default. It makes no sense whatsoever for you to take action tonight before that
10:43 meeting has occurred. Furthermore, I urge you to just to do the right thing
10:48 and table the adoption of the replacement regulations until at least these defaults under
10:54 the development agreement have been investigated and resolved. Thank you. Thank you, Gary.
11:00 Tia Heim, followed by Karen Lee and Susan
11:05 Haas. Good evening. I'm Tia Heim, also with
11:11 Shelter Holdings and IHIF Commercial. We keep hearing the
11:17 statement that we should have acted sooner because we knew the development agreement was coming
11:22 to an end. So I wanted to address that to you tonight. The development agreement
11:27 remains in effect until it's terminated. That means all of the parties to the development
11:32 agreement are required to abide by its terms. We relied on that happening. However, the
11:37 city improperly chose not to fulfill its obligations under the development agreement. As property owner,
11:42 how could we possibly have anticipated that that would happen? We had no choice but
11:47 to rely on the development agreement. It is the land use code that applies within
11:53 Issaquah Highlands right now. There was no other set of land use regulations or review
11:58 timeframes that we could have elected to use. It's also important to remember that we
12:03 began discussions regarding our plat and vesting of our applications with the city over 14
12:09 months ago. The initial collaborative meeting for our plat was
12:14 held on March 21st, 2017. We began diligently pursuing the specific site development permits
12:20 as soon as the plat application was deemed complete. We now have applications for
12:25 plat and three SDPs or ASDPs that have been deemed complete and are vested
12:31 to the development standards including mitigation per the terms of the development agreement. Any
12:37 attempt to refuse to recognize this will create needless controversy. We've provided extensive
12:42 comment on the specific problems with the replacement regulations including the proposed minimum FAR and
12:48 structured parking requirements and we hope that you have reviewed the record on these points.
12:54 These proposed regulations are a radical change for Issaquah Highlands and will result in very
13:00 little to no new development happening. The minimum FAR proposed by the administration
13:06 demands a minimum density that is significantly more than the original Microsoft proposal. It
13:12 exceeds the target FARs in the development agreement and ignores the fundamental differences between
13:17 retail and commercial development. In effect, it prohibits retail development. The Land and Shore
13:23 Committee recommended to you that you should not adopt the structured parking requirement in Issaquah
13:28 Highlands and we hope that you follow this recommendation. A vote in favor of either
13:33 or both the minimum FAR or structured parking sends a very clear message to the
13:38 community that you do not support any additional retail or services being added to Issaquah
13:43 Highlands, despite that being the number one request from the people that actually live there.
13:48 We're disappointed with the recommendations from the administration and hope that the City
13:54 Council approaches this with fresh eyes, requiring fair and equal treatment for all
14:00 and pursuing investigation and resolution of the defaults under the development agreement prior
14:06 to charging forward with termination and new regulations. Simply adding provisional status does
14:12 not solve any of the problems that have been identified. Thank you. Thank
14:18 you, Tia. My name is Karen Lee. My address is 582-240th Avenue, Southeast
14:24 Sammamish. I lived in Issaquah for seven years, and then we
14:29 bought a house, and it became Sammamish at that point. I'm
14:35 here on behalf of Preserve Providence Heights. I'm the new vice
14:41 president. We became a nonprofit in December, so now we're a
14:46 501 , and we're still trying to save Providence Heights. And
14:52 I'm here to update you that-- We would like for you to
14:57 remove the meditated determination of non-significance because we feel that the land and the buildings
15:03 are very significant. If they weren't so significant, there would not be a landmark status
15:09 on them right now. And we ask that you keep the landmark status on them.
15:15 We have plans to build something really wonderful there. which will be
15:21 addressed in another speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Karen.
15:27 Next is Susan Haas followed by Fran Pope. Good
15:32 evening, staff, mayor and city council. My name is
15:38 Susan Haas and I live at 1952 Forest Southeast
15:44 24th Place in Sammamish. And my connections to Issaquah,
15:49 one is that I'm a weekly volunteer at the
15:55 Issaquah Food and Clothing Bank And also my second connection
16:01 is that I'm a board member of Preserve Providence Heights. So that's
16:07 what I'm interested in talking about. Yes, as Karen Lee mentioned, we
16:12 still feel very strongly that there could be a really, really good
16:18 future for Issaquah through preservation of that place. And while the property
16:24 owners did not have a landmark status attached to it in the
16:30 past, The community showed so much input and so much
16:36 interest that now they do. And I'm just really interested in
16:41 conveying that Preserve Providence Heights, like so many other people, is
16:47 so committed to kids and so committed to children's education and
16:53 schools and there being space and adequate educational facilities. And we don't
16:59 see this as a divisive battle between kids and trees or kids and
17:05 historic preservation. We see it as incredibly synergistic. All these goals can be
17:11 met, we feel. So many people do feel that way. And also it's
17:16 not a battle between Preserve Providence Heights and the property owner either and
17:22 Church Home. Yes, there is a legal suit right now. and
17:28 Preserve Providence Heights is a party in this suit, as is the
17:34 city and the county and Church Home. But we have every best
17:39 intention to cooperate with Church Home and seek alternative solutions that really
17:45 do work for everybody. So that's our PR
17:51 campaign. We're totally pro-kids. We're totally pro-cooperation. We
17:57 are not in a legal battle for fun.
18:03 We'd love to not be spending time on
18:08 that anymore, actually. So whatever you can do
18:14 to facilitate that would be wonderful. Thank you.
18:20 Thank you, Susan. Fran Pope, followed by Christine
18:26 Soule. Sure.
18:33 Hello, I'm Fran Pope, resident of Issaquah since 1974,
18:39 living at 625 Mount Fury Circle Southwest. To assure transparency,
18:44 I am a member of Sammamish Symphony where I play second violin and serve as
18:50 secretary of the board. I'm also a violinist with Kirkland Civic Orchestra. Both are volunteer
18:55 community orchestras. I am employed as a substitute reference librarian with King County Library System.
19:00 I'm also vice president of Preserve Providence Heights. This evening I am not representing any
19:06 of these organizations in any official capacity, but I am making comments on my own.
19:12 Playing in these orchestras has raised us to an entirely new level of
19:18 education as adults and as adult learners. Today, Kirkland Civic Orchestra has grown
19:23 from about nine members to 86. Sammamish has grown to 60. One of
19:29 our biggest challenges is rehearsal and performance space. Imagine, if you will, fitting
19:35 60 Sammamish players in an unventilated space about the size of these council
19:41 chambers. Both orchestras have performed with acclaim in Benaroya Hall, where our actual sound
19:46 can be heard. Our usual venues, Northwest University Chapel in Kirkland, Maiden Bower Theater in
19:52 Bellevue, and Eastlake High School Auditorium in Sammamish are less than optimal because they were
19:58 designed for stage plays rather than symphonic works. If you notice, our upcoming concert is
20:04 only at Maiden Bower because we could not find another venue in the area.
20:10 At least two other orchestras and several choirs in the area face the same challenge.
20:15 Yet the chapel at Providence Heights seats 500 and has acoustics far more suitable to
20:21 music because it was designed for it. There are also rooms on the site that
20:26 could accommodate rehearsals Secondly, as a librarian, I am very
20:32 well acquainted with the great need for meeting rooms. KCLS can only accommodate a
20:38 limited number of people for study groups, adult education classes, tutoring, and public meetings.
20:43 Private rooms are, or private rooms for supervised parent-child visits. The libraries are
20:49 also in default care center for the homeless. This can sometimes rightly or wrongly make
20:55 library patrons uncomfortable in using the library. We are not immune to the issue of
21:01 opioid and drug addiction. There simply is a critical need for these people to go
21:06 for help, transitional housing and treatment. Yet Providence Heights is a great opportunity to serve
21:12 these underserved and needy in our community. Using the existing campus as a community resource
21:18 could change life and perhaps save life for many. As a member of Providence
21:23 Heights, I'm extremely concerned about the loss of the historic landmark. I feel that the
21:29 determination of cultural non-significance is greatly in error given its possible uses as cited above.
21:35 The campus is an enormous community to solve many of the community's problems and provide
21:41 residents of all ages. Thank you. Thank you very much, Fran. Christine Soule followed by
21:47 Paul Dean.
22:01 I wasn't sure you'd be able to see me over this. I'm honored to
22:07 be here. I am passionate about Providence Heights. Christine, can I get you
22:13 to give your address? Yes, I live in Woodinville. It's 16434 246 Avenue, Northeast. That's
22:18 in Woodinville. And my relationship with Providence Heights is that I had gone to Church
22:24 Home for 18 years. I invested heavily in the purchase of that building for Church
22:30 Home, as well as we have a great relationship with Church Home. We currently go
22:36 to Eastridge in Issaquah, so we do have a great connection and heart for Issaquah.
22:42 But what I really felt that I was to tell you guys today was a
22:46 story that changed my life about two weeks ago. I had heard that the Plateau,
22:50 or that we called it Plateau Campus, didn't actually sell. I was surprised about four
22:54 years ago I thought it had sold. And so I heard the whole story of
22:58 everything that had taken place. About three days later, I was driving down the road
23:02 and I found, I saw a homeless woman. And I decided to pull over and
23:06 chat with her and I had approached her and said, "How can I help you?"
23:10 And as we began to talk, she started to share her story with me. And
23:14 she shared things like when she was 19, she had her first daughter. Well, when
23:17 I was 18, I had my first daughter. When two years later, she had twin
23:21 boys. Well, two years later, I had twin boys. And she shared with me that
23:25 as a young mom with three children, she was a drug addict. She wanted to
23:29 be a great mom, but she really didn't know how to. Well, I was a
23:33 drug addict, and I wanted to be a great mom, and I really didn't know
23:36 how to. So as we continued to talk, I was amazed by everything. We talked
23:41 for about an hour and a half, and it was like she was reading my
23:45 story. And as I sat there and listened to her, she even chose to tell
23:49 me that one of her daughters was born without her esophageal flap not developed. How
23:54 many of you guys have heard of that? Well, my daughter, yes. I hate to
23:57 interrupt you because it's a very compelling story, but can you address the council with
24:01 your comments? Oh, yes, I'm so sorry. I know it's really hard when there's an
24:05 audience of people. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to look. These are your guys.
24:09 Please forgive me. No, you're great. Thanks. So anyways, so we go and, you know,
24:12 my daughter as well, her esophageal flap was not developed and I thought, wow. So
24:16 I got to my car and I just began to weep. And I thought, you
24:20 know, what is it that separated us? That I get to go home to where
24:23 I go home to, and she goes to bed at night in a tent, concerned
24:27 that she's going to get caught. And so instantly, I thought about the Providence Heights.
24:32 And I thought, why on earth are there hundreds of dorms vacant, and there's people
24:36 that have nowhere to sleep at night? Well, then I was quickened with the fact
24:41 that I teach a class. And in that class, we're doing a kindness project. And
24:46 I kept staring at my kids. And throughout the entire conversation, I was pointing my
24:51 finger at them. And I said, you be the difference that you want to see
24:56 in the world. You be it. you go be the difference that you want to
25:01 see. So with that, we have, can I keep going or does that? You can
25:06 wrap it up. That would be great. Okay. So we have a plan. We have
25:10 the ability. We have even talked with Pastor Leon Sandberg from Church Home and he
25:15 is willing to work with us. If the eminent domain can be lifted, we would
25:19 like to build a facility, a training center, not a homeless shelter, a training center
25:24 to equip these women, give them the opportunity, and have someone to believe in them.
25:29 We have a full plan. We have apartment buildings that we would like to build,
25:33 and we would like to do low-income housing. So I would love to discuss that
25:38 more at some point, but really it comes down to the fact that we need
25:43 to love them if we want to lead them. And I think that's what's going
25:47 to bring the success in homelessness. Thank you very much, Christine. Mm-hmm. Paul Dean, followed
25:52 by Brookie Scholl.
26:03 Thank you for hearing my comments. My name is Paul Dean. I reside at 2525.
26:08 My time is already up. You're done. Didn't even get through my address. 2525 Northeast
26:13 North Star Lane in Issaquah. I'm also the pastor of Selma Eastside Church and I'm
26:19 a local historian. I'm here with the group talking about Providence Heights and I'm going
26:24 to make my comments short and in regard to me being a historian and me
26:30 being a pastor. First, as a historian, I encourage you to ask you to
26:35 oppose the mitigated determination of non-significance in that it fails to give adequate consideration
26:41 of the historic significance of Providence Heights. When visitors to our city search for
26:47 historic attractions, they find a list of well-preserved sites including our railroad depot, town
26:53 hall, Pickering barn, a ginkgo tree, a historic gas station with a very quaint
26:58 cigar sign on the back. If we preserve Providence Heights, we would add
27:04 to that list a world-class chapel that could host beautiful concerts and events. As proud
27:09 citizens, we could inspire visitors with the story that in the turbulent 60s, this site
27:15 was built to give young women of all races equal education. As a pastor, preserving
27:20 Providence Heights and letting nonprofit organizations repurpose it to serve the poor and vulnerable means
27:25 that we'll have options the next time a homeless woman asks our church for help.
27:30 I could tell her that Issaquah cares about her situation and wants to walk with
27:35 her through this challenging chapter of her life. I'd tell her that thanks to concerned
27:39 citizens and government officials, she has a place where she can go for shelter, for
27:44 training, and to get back onto her feet again. Right now the shelters are full
27:49 and the life and job training options are well-meaning but inadequate. If we act now,
27:55 make hard decisions and partner with nonprofits, the community could come together, repurpose Providence Heights
28:00 and make a difference in the lives of the poor and vulnerable around us. I'm
28:06 aware that it is a complicated issue. However, I ask you to oppose the mitigated
28:11 determination of non-significance in that it fails to give adequate consideration to the
28:17 historical significance of Providence Heights campus. I ask for the sake of our
28:23 history, our citizens, and the poor and vulnerable among us. Thank you for
28:28 listening. Thank you, Paul. Had a dozen hands raised. Brookie Schull. 13 hands
28:34 raised. Brookie Schull followed by Karen Porterfield.
28:40 Hello. Thank you for listening to my comments this evening. My name is Brookie Scholl.
28:46 I'm at 522 Timber Creek Drive, Northwest in Issaquah. I'm the president of the TALIS
28:51 Residential Association. There are a couple of us tonight that will be speaking, but really
28:57 our main theme are two things. Excuse me. Number one, we're in favor of ending
29:03 the development agreement this evening. And number two, in all of the individual decisions
29:09 that need to be made, we really care that all decisions keep with the
29:14 original intent of the development agreement. And tonight I'll speak just really briefly on
29:20 two things. One is Parcel 17B, which is just below Timber Ridge. we really
29:26 um do not want that to be split up into residential and commercial we
29:32 really want that to just remain as it was in the original development agreement
29:37 as as all commercial and in addition i wanted to address vesting we are
29:43 in favor of vesting to be consistent with state law and those are my
29:49 comments thank you thank you brookie
30:00 Good evening and thank you for providing this time for us to speak to you
30:06 this evening. My name is Karen Porterfield and I live at 2498 Northwest Stoney Creek
30:12 Drive and I too am a member of the TALIS Residential Association Board. I'm here
30:18 tonight to speak about AB 7524 but the focus will be on parcel 9 in
30:24 TALIS. When City staff presented to the Tallis residents on the 23rd
30:29 of January the proposed new zoning for all Tallis parcels, they indicated that
30:35 they supported our desire that parcel 9 should continue to be developed as
30:41 individually townhomes and had been identified by such as the owner. Staff never
30:47 indicated that they were doing multi-family zoning that will allow five
30:52 to six story apartment buildings such as the Gateway to be built on
30:58 that land. We as an HOA and a community were shocked when it
31:04 came to light that this was possible if this multi-family zoning is going
31:10 to be enacted. We are distressed that this important piece of information was
31:15 not effectively communicated to us during the public meeting. Failing to disclose this
31:21 possible land use that could have a significant impact on our community is
31:27 close to lying. You can be factual but not truthful, and I think
31:33 that is what we saw. The Dallas community does not have confidence that
31:39 city staff is looking out for the community's best interests, and this lack
31:44 of transparency further erodes our trust in the city. We have been very
31:50 clear about parcel 9. It is the heart of our community. We support what the
31:56 developer had proposed and the preliminary plat showed of 90 homes, townhomes on that site.
32:01 We are not asking you to prohibit the owner of parcel 9 from building those
32:06 townhomes or developing that site. What we are asking is that you will support what
32:12 had currently been planned and had been communicated to the community through this entire process.
32:19 Had we not discovered this complete lack of judgment by city staff when
32:24 they were assigning designations to TALIS parcels, including multifamily designation for parcel nine,
32:30 we would probably be sitting here in two to three years listening to
32:35 gateway style apartments be built on that piece of property. We have
32:41 one chance to ensure that we do this right, and I really, really am asking
32:47 you to consider how we achieve that goal. Like many of our neighbors, we want
32:52 to end the TALIS Development Agreement as quickly as possible, but we cannot accept the
32:58 current replacement regulations that include zoning parcel nine as multifamily. We are requesting that you
33:04 amend the replacement regulations and apply proper zoning to this parcel. This zoning
33:09 will allow the developer to build what was intended and
33:15 would protect our community. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. About
33:21 30 to 40 hands raised in the room. Kirsten Tucker
33:27 followed by Bob Swanson. Hello, my name is Kirsten Tucker-Kuhman.
33:32 I live at 2390 Northwest Harmony Way. I'm an owner
33:38 and I definitely have an interest in the parcel 9
33:44 discussion as well. It's about beauty, it's about integrity, and it's about consistency. And
33:49 I have to say, like our friends at Timber Ridge, the reason we live there
33:54 is because of the beauty of that area. You come up, you leave Issaquah, you're
33:58 shopping, you're at Target, you drive up, you drive through 900, you come up the
34:03 hill and you see this beautiful, incredible structure. All of our friends at Timber Ridge.
34:07 Then you drive up a little further and it's beautifully landscaped and it's done a
34:12 great job and you feel like you're in a mountain retreat. That's why I moved
34:17 into that neighborhood. That's why I wanted to be a member and an owner in
34:21 Tallis. And you kept driving, and this is way back when, before the big white
34:25 mountain came to town. But when it was trees, and you just drove up, and
34:29 it's like all of a sudden you were somewhere else. You weren't in a city,
34:34 you weren't in the suburbs, you were in a very special, special place. But that's
34:38 changed a lot. And I just am here to say I hope it doesn't change
34:42 anymore. From what I understand, and Karen illustrated it quite vividly, there's a chance that
34:47 we could build Atlas style apartments in that area. And for those of you that
34:52 haven't been up that particular road, you drive up Talus Way, it's beautiful, and then
34:57 you get to Shangri-La, and each resident hits that Shangri-La. And even if you're at
35:01 Timber Ridge, you see Shangri-La Way and you see the White Mountain behind it. So
35:06 it's for every single resident that lives in that community. It's the center of our
35:11 community. And so for that to become multi-level apartment buildings. When we bought and invested
35:16 in that neighborhood, we were told that they were going to be town homes. So
35:21 it sounded like it was going to integrate well. It would keep the integrity of
35:26 the neighborhood, of the landscape and everything that we bought into, not just as neighbors,
35:31 but as investors. And, you know, being a neighbor and an investor, I'm concerned what
35:37 it will do to our investment and to our quality and experience of coming home
35:42 every day to a wonderful neighborhood that we all love and enjoy. So right now,
35:47 it's an eyesore. Please don't make it worse than permanent. Please don't give them that
35:52 opportunity. Please preserve the character of our beautiful neighborhood. Do what is right for the
35:57 people of our community. We're very, very passionate about that. It's a special place. and
36:03 I ask you to really consider carefully when you make your final decision, how valuable
36:08 are these little jewels throughout our community? And if you haven't had the opportunity to
36:14 drive up there, please do so, because it truly is one in a million type
36:19 of a place, and we hope to maintain the integrity and the beauty and the
36:25 magical environment in which we're all privileged enough to live in. Thank you. Thank you,
36:30 Kirsten. Oh, sorry. At least two-thirds of the audience raised their hand. Bob, go ahead.
36:35 My name is Bob Swanson. I live up in 826 4th Avenue Northeast, Issaquah Highlands.
36:39 Excellent to see you, Mayor and City Council. So I have just a few distinctions
36:44 in my life. I get to be the husband of my wonderful wife and I
36:48 get to be the father of my two kids. And I think I'm the person
36:52 that has probably talked to my neighbor, all my neighbors, most of my neighbors than
36:56 anybody else. I think I met Just about all of them. I hold that distinction,
37:01 I believe. So I can just say there's two things about in my neighborhood people
37:05 don't like to visit us. We're kind of in the bottom. Nobody comes down there.
37:09 And all the people I've visited, I've only met three people that want the school
37:14 built there. And one of them happens to work for the school district. And that's
37:18 good. I'm very happy that they want that built there. Two, just a little asterisk,
37:23 not one person in my entire neighborhood I met yet have actually, I guess nobody
37:29 comes and asks us to vote, but nobody wants more retail, I guess what you'd
37:35 say. And I don't mean that against anybody else. It just was a funny thing
37:39 when they said, number one, I guess nobody comes and knocks on our doors or
37:44 whatever, but nobody wants any more retail. Matter of fact, people have told me specifically,
37:48 no, we don't want any more retail, but that's just an asterisk. So anyway, I've
37:53 just found out some, I'm not doing the video for tonight because we have a
37:57 lot of people. But the one thing I found out, the school, not only do
38:01 you guys zoned it, okay, so that's good, but now what they, and they say
38:05 you gotta have trees, you have to have certain trees lined up, but I just
38:09 found out that they wanna build a road around the school. Okay, found this about
38:13 a week ago, I guess. So that puts a lot of little fireworks going off
38:17 my head in a way that's at least, at least a 20 foot wide. You're
38:21 gonna have a road going one way. I'm assuming it's going one way, it could
38:25 go the other, you know, so, but at least 20 feet. So now you got
38:29 20 more feet around the school for a dumb place to put a school. Now
38:33 you're gonna cut down 20 more feet of trees and put it that much closer
38:38 to the edge. I just can't believe and it just gets, I'm not saying that's
38:42 against you guys by any means, because it's not your job to build the school,
38:47 it's the superintendent's job to build the schools. You guys approve them. So even though
38:52 he said the reverse before, but that's another subject. So the point is it's still
38:57 a dumb place to put a school. It's even dumber when you start cutting down
39:01 another road 20 feet wider. It just gets worse and worse. Anyway, thank you for
39:06 that. Next week I'll be looking forward to, or two weeks from now, looking forward
39:11 to doing the video premiere. And thank you very much. Thank you, Bob. Tish, is
39:15 there anyone else signed up? No. So if your comments that you wish to
39:21 share with the council tonight have already been have not been expressed, please come
39:27 up to the podium and I see a gentleman right back there. Hello members
39:33 of the council. My name is Rich Hill and I'm counsel for Resmark, the
39:39 owner of parcel 9. I have to admit I'm quite shocked that the
39:44 issue of down zoning parcel 9 has come up at the very last council
39:50 meeting of a multi-month process of considering changes to the development regulations. On behalf
39:56 of Resmark, I want to say that Resmark is delighted at the community support
40:01 for its vested plat. Resmark has been spending millions of dollars for to
40:07 deal with the infrastructure issues associated with the plat, fully intends to develop
40:13 it as intended. With that said, however, the property under the development agreement
40:19 is zoned multifamily. The proposal is to zone at multifamily. That is consistent with
40:25 the original intent of TALIS. So that the argument that, oh, we need to change
40:30 it down to single family to go with that original intent is just not valid.
40:36 Having a legislative determination of this at the very last moment is not the way
40:42 to do planning. Had Resmark known that this might come up tonight, Resmark would have
40:48 had an opportunity to submit a letter, discuss with council the need to meet standards
40:54 for down zones, had an opportunity to discuss with council members. This is just too
40:59 late in the process. I do want to emphasize it's Resmark's intent to proceed with
41:04 the preliminary plat. That's what they've been spending months working on and that's the point.
41:09 There isn't a rush to down zone. This zoning is intended to be provisional, an
41:14 opportunity to take another look and if really the council thinks it's important to do
41:20 something to the zoning other than what has been on the table the entire time
41:25 through this process, the provisional zoning process is the time to do that. Just in
41:30 a nutshell, site-specific down zone is not a type of action that should be
41:36 done at the last minute in a legislative process. Thank you. Thank you, Rich.
41:42 Is there anyone else who would like to speak this evening? Jamie? Steve? After
41:48 Jamie? Good evening, Jamie Rosen. I live at 1395 Northeast
41:53 Park Drive in Issaquah in the Issaquah Highlands. I did not know we were going
41:58 to be shortening to three minutes. I went with the five but I'll do my
42:03 best to speak quickly. So good evening to all here. My comments tonight pertain to
42:07 AB 7523, end of Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement. I wanted to share my support of
42:12 the adoption of AB 7523. I appreciate the additional time that has been spent during
42:17 the first part of 2018 on helping the public better understand what's being proposed as
42:22 well as making some adjustments along the way. After listening to lots of dialogue and
42:27 public input, I do think it makes sense for the city to do its best
42:32 to adopt replacement regulations at this point in time that adhere to the original intent
42:37 of Issaquah Highlands when it was laid out 20 years ago and when Port Blakely
42:41 was managing the development directly. In the absence of the strong oversight that Port Blakely
42:46 provided, we need strong replacement regulations that allow us to keep true to the original
42:51 intent. With that said, much has changed over the course of 20 years in the
42:56 Highlands and in the region at large. As the Highlands gets ready to celebrate its
43:01 20th anniversary, I feel strongly that the time is right to engage the roughly 10,000
43:06 residents of the Issaquah Highlands community in a revisioning exercise to ensure that the remaining
43:11 undeveloped parcels and the final build out of the community best reflects what our community
43:16 would like to see in the coming 20 years, whether that's commercial office space, retail
43:21 amenities, housing or some combination thereof. This same community could very much be part of
43:26 the solution given the influence and connections many of the Highlands residents have in the
43:31 commercial sector. In addition, I know there is a strong desire by some in our
43:36 community and administration to further develop the work aspect of live-work-play here in Issaquah and
43:40 in the Highlands specifically. In fact, much of the passion around the end of this
43:45 DA is rooted in a strong desire to remain steadfast to the original intent of
43:49 a large employer being housed in the Highlands, giving residents the opportunity to truly live
43:54 in the same community where they work. While I too would love to have high
43:58 value work opportunities right here in Issaquah, I do think it is time for us
44:03 to take stock of the current market situation regionally and within our own city and
44:07 develop targets and associated tactics grounded in fact-based data and research. I'm not suggesting we
44:12 give up on our dream of attracting major employers, but I do think if we
44:17 are going to be successful at it, we need a cohesive plan that is based
44:21 in reality and is aligned with regional developments, allowing us the opportunity to develop a
44:26 plan and strategy to tactfully market our city and associated assets. We should not be
44:30 looking at the Highlands or Talus or Central Issaquah in isolation when it comes to
44:35 our desire to develop gainful employment opportunities in our city. Each area provides current and
44:40 potential commercial assets that can be utilized when attempting to attract major employers. But we
44:45 need a plan, a holistic plan that takes into account the trends we are seeing
44:49 around the Puget Sound region, the current utilization of commercial space, The current busing of
44:54 employees from suburbs like our own and commercial centers, the development of technology clusters and
44:59 the list goes on and on. In closing, the data is out there. We need
45:03 to start looking at it comprehensively and develop a plan that drives us toward our
45:08 end objective and allows us to thoughtfully and intelligently preserve commercial parcels today and in
45:12 the future. Unfortunately, I don't think Kevin Costner's quote from Field of Dreams, "If you
45:16 build it, they will come," applies in this situation. We need to do more. I
45:20 just want to say thank you to the city staff and the Land and Shore
45:24 Committee for all the time and effort they have put in over the last few
45:29 months to do their best to explain this situation and the DAs to the public
45:33 and give us the opportunity to provide comment into the wee hours of the night.
45:37 So thank you very much. Thank you, Jamie. If you could
45:42 hand those in, that'd be great. Is there anyone else who
45:48 would like to speak this evening? Quite a few. Cynthia. My
45:54 name is Cynthia, excuse me, my name is Cynthia Lessford. I
45:59 live at 630 Timber Creek Drive in Talus and I am
46:05 on the Talus Residence Homeowners Board, but tonight I'm, well, tonight
46:11 I am representing the board and myself. My two concerns are
46:16 the buffer, the 100-foot buffer that was specified in the development agreement.
46:22 My understanding is the city is trying to shorten that for developers use. And the
46:28 second is the satellite communities, Bergsma, and my understanding there's another piece of property that
46:34 is to the east of Timber Ridge. I would like to not allow a road
46:40 coming in from Bergsma. If Bergsma is to be built, that it will go down
46:45 to Newport Way and the other property instead of coming along Falcon
46:51 Way, which would be the busy intersection that was already talked about for
46:57 Timber Ridge, that it has its entrance and exit off of 900. Thank
47:02 you. Thank you. Next. Mayor Pauly, I have a comment on. I'm going
47:08 to actually go. Yeah, let me go once first through everybody and then
47:13 we'll see where we are with time. Thanks very much. Next.
47:23 CAROL HAAS: Hello. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, staff. Thank you, city council
47:28 members. My name is Carol Haas. My last name is H-A-S-S. I live
47:34 in Sammamish. I live at 19524 Southeast 24th Place. This used to be
47:39 Issaquah. And I was very proud as an Issaquah resident. Didn't want even
47:45 the name change to Sammamish. I'm here to talk
47:51 about the City of Issaquah's MD&S designation of Providence Heights Campus,
47:57 and I would like to object to this designation. I'm gonna
48:03 give you seven reasons why I'm objecting. Number one, the City
48:09 of Issaquah has offered no new information for this MD&S designation
48:15 of 3/12/18. Providence Heights campus was granted
48:20 LAMBART status in 2017. This MD&S designation does not give
48:26 adequate consideration to the historical significance of the Providence Heights
48:32 campus. Number three, the MD&S classification is entirely contrary to
48:38 the City of Issaquah's policy B3. It is impossible to
48:44 understand how the city's stated policy, which is to support efforts
48:49 to secure space for preservation of Issaquah's heritage, fits into the
48:55 decision to demolish this campus. 4. The MD&S states that
49:00 the City of Issaquah must obtain the Landmark Commission's permission in
49:06 a certificate of appropriateness to demolish this property. It makes no
49:12 sense that the Landmark Commission would choose to give permission to
49:17 demolish this property after having unanimously voted to designate it Landmark
49:23 status. 5. The City of Issaquah does not address the embodied issue,
49:29 excuse me, the embodied energy issue. Number six, the City of Issaquah cites
49:35 no other sources than the applicant's own opinions which are completely one-sided and
49:40 lacking substantiation. Number seven, It appears that the City of
49:46 Issaquah is clearly biased in its decision to grant an
49:51 MD&S designation. Why would it not otherwise require a full
49:57 EIS, Environmental Impact Statement? In conclusion, to show evidence that
50:02 the City of Issaquah is not biased and to be
50:08 completely full in its reestablishment of this MD&S, A
50:13 full EIS should be required by the city.
50:19 Thank you. Thank you, Carol. Steve? Hi, Steve
50:25 Pereira, Old Town for about 10 years. So
50:30 I'll try to be brief. First of all,
50:36 I reject the premise of reducing citizen comments
50:42 to three minutes instead of five minutes.
50:48 Stupid sorry respectfully Getting to point there are a couple events that I think were
50:53 good recently one was The Friends of Issaquah library sponsored a outlander party Thing at
50:57 the Issaquah library. I'm not a big fan of the series. I'm okay. I like
51:02 it, but I don't talk about that I just think the Friends of Issaquah library
51:06 do a good job. So a good community plug for people to reach out for
51:11 that the other is in recent Wine art walk the rogue gallery had a
51:17 chance to have some brews breweries Establish and it was a library. I think it
51:22 was the first time that a local establishment was so sponsored and honored So I
51:27 just think that was a good outreach to the local business opportunity. So thanks for
51:33 that there or I go next the I'm glad to see that the Old Town
51:38 will go back to PPC for discussion. I just think there's so much in there,
51:42 but I'd like to talk about from the prospect of, we talk about development plans
51:47 or for development agreements for the Highlands and the Talus. They have kind of outreach,
51:51 but nobody, I think people who live in Old Town need to have some idea
51:55 of a weighted average to their input is more bespoken and considered. I don't think
52:00 that aspect has ever been considered. I think we need to consider that aspect more
52:05 deeply. I also want to know what specifically is going to go back to the
52:09 PPC. Is it the E in Old Town? Is it the boundaries for Old Town?
52:14 Is it the height limit? Is it the density? What are we talking about so
52:19 that people have idea? I want people to be reached out to more so they
52:23 know about in advance when it's going to be discussed and how it's going to
52:28 be reached. The idea of the vacation next is the vacation of Gilmore Boulevard. I
52:33 know it's a separate topic, but I think there's a whole development looking at Gilman-Bulbright,
52:38 I would like to see that completed before we have an agreement on vacating that
52:43 part of public roadways to see how that fits into the whole. I don't think
52:47 we've looked at that holistically enough. Too often we look at things piece by piece.
52:52 I'm sure I've forgotten something, but that's it for now. Thanks. Thank you, Steve. Is
52:57 there anyone else who'd like to speak this evening? I'm sorry, I still have a
53:02 couple of things to... I know, I think you're out of time. Okay, so the
53:07 Providence Heights, I think there's so many things that have been said and I support
53:12 them all. I'm not a member of PPH, just to be clear. But the idea
53:17 of a judge ruled that the City of Issaquah was not following its own code
53:22 needs to be looked at. I think the idea of vacating that property without following
53:27 a full EIS needs to be looked at. I think the idea of in the
53:32 Issaquah School District presented its argument. There were a number of statements in there that
53:37 said there was communication between the ISD and the City Council. I'd like to see
53:41 some transparency of the government that says what that communication was. I think there's, I'm
53:46 hesitant to say collusion, but I just think that needs to be further looked at.
53:50 Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Mr. Hill, it's not typical during public comments for us
53:56 to have repeats. So I'm going to ask you if you would submit your additional
54:02 comments in writing to our clerk or by email. This is on behalf of Regency
54:07 and Safeway and others. Yeah. I'll look at the clerk and see if it's... And
54:13 we'll be 30 seconds. Is this normal? Not typical? Council, okay?
54:19 Up to you. What's the question? Do you want to hear some additional
54:25 testimony from public comment from someone who's already spoken tonight on a different
54:30 subject, which is not our normal practice. Seems like a dangerous precedent. I
54:36 could have my client speak. That would be more appropriate. Thank you. And
54:42 if you could state your name and address for the record, that'd be
54:48 great. Thank you, Chris. David Morse, 1011 Northeast High Street, Issaquah. On behalf
54:54 of Regency, Safeway, We are proponents of the whole live work concept. We
54:59 want to see this in Nisico Highlands. We want to see this preserved. We've
55:05 got everything but the work concept up here. It is actually going to enhance
55:11 the retail component up there by emphasizing the strong employment base up there.
55:16 Additional retail is not necessarily bad, but it should be
55:22 more of the side dish and not the entree in
55:28 future development up there. I believe that the, I won't
55:33 get into particulars and numbers, but there's plenty of retail
55:39 that's allowed in the old existing plan. And to replicate
55:45 or or to try to mirror what has gone on in the north
55:51 side of nine street is is just not the proper way forward not
55:56 the best way forward for us all we support the vesting as as
56:02 the city attorney and recommended. Anything less than that is inconsistent
56:08 with standard protocols in the industry, and certainly vesting at a pre-op is almost
56:13 irresponsible. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. You're welcome. Is there anyone else
56:19 that would like to speak this evening? Come on up. Julie.
56:34 Good evening. My name is Julie Clark. I live at 915 Bear Ridge
56:40 Court, Northwest in Issaquah, and that is in Tallis. And I just wanted
56:46 to support and reiterate what the other members of Tallis have stated with
56:52 respect to the ending of the development agreement. In addition, I am also
56:58 a representative of Safe Cougar Mountain, and I just wanted to Thank
57:04 you, Mayor Pauly, for I think it was at the last meeting in your mayor's
57:09 report that you had stated that the city of Issaquah is working with TPL in
57:14 the looking into the acquisition of the Berksma property. And I want to also let
57:20 you know that we have received quite a large amount of support in
57:26 our request of asking the city to work with King County and any
57:32 other local organizations in the acquisition of the full 46 acres. During the
57:38 last two weeks we've received well over 500 signatures on a petition that
57:44 we have started which is specifically asking the city of Issaquah to acquire
57:50 the 46 acres. So thank you. Thank you Julie. Is there anyone else?
57:55 Oh, that was not Steve wanting to speak again, that's Steve supporting. Is there anyone
58:01 else that would like to address Council this evening? Second call. A last call if
58:06 anybody would like to address Council this evening. On behalf of Council myself, I'd like
58:12 to thank the almost over 70 people who came tonight and provided us some comments
58:18 on the ending of the Issaquah Highlands and Talas Development Agreement, preserving Providence Heights, school
58:23 siting issues, the vacation of Gilman Boulevard, displeasure with the three-minute timing of public comments,
58:28 and our last speaker who I thought we might have a Council meeting where we
58:34 didn't talk about Bergsma. We talked a bit about Bergsma. So thank you very much.
58:40 We'll be moving on now to Committee and Regional Reports and we'll start with Council
58:45 Member Hunt. Thank you Madam Mayor. There was a RIAA 8 Salmon Recovery Council meeting
58:51 on March 15th At that meeting there was a discussion of that council's leadership,
58:57 budget and work plan. Also presentations about the Bear Creek stormwater watershed plan, Kokanee recovery
59:03 and also water systems teacher fellows program presented by sustainability ambassadors and Cascade Water Alliance.
59:09 And the next meeting of the RIAA 8th Sam & Recovery Council will be May
59:15 17th. at City of Kirkland City Hall. And this concludes my report. -
59:20 Thank you. Council Member Ray. - Thank you, Mayor Pauley. Services and Safety
59:26 Committee met on March 13th. We received an update on the 2017 Human
59:32 Services Grants and Contract Performance and Monitoring. We also discussed the Visit Issaquah
59:37 organization that came back from the Council Work Session on March 12th. The
59:43 staff has been directed to meet with the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and
59:48 discuss governance and mission of the DMO and bring it back to the April 10th
59:54 Services Safety Committee. We discussed agenda bill 7494, amending IMC chapter 16.4, construction codes
1:00:00 and permit fee. That is on tonight's consent agenda. We also discussed agenda bill 7562,
1:00:06 short-term funding request for the budget process, and that will be discussed later during regular
1:00:11 business. The next meeting of services and safety is scheduled for April 10th. Eastside Fire
1:00:17 and Rescue met last on March 8th. I attended with Council Member Goodman. We
1:00:23 talked about authorizing the fire chief to enter into an interlocal agreement for
1:00:29 automatic aid for firefighters. The board reviewed a draft special ordinance aimed at
1:00:35 including Eastside Fire and Rescue in planning and approval of special events in
1:00:40 the 73 service areas that EFER provide support for. And then finally, the
1:00:46 EFRA Board approved the assignment to the FAC Committee to discuss the Bracer
1:00:52 Compliance Software Engine, which will assist with fire prevention. The next Eastside Fire
1:00:58 and Rescue Board meeting is on April 12th. Sound City's Public Issues Committee
1:01:04 met on March 14th. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but we'll update the council
1:01:10 with the proceedings as soon as I receive the minutes from them. And the next
1:01:16 meeting, Council President Martz will be attending, hopefully, on April 11th. And that concludes my
1:01:22 report this evening. Thank you, Council Member Ray. Council Member Ramos? Thank you, Mayor.
1:01:28 The Council Infrastructure Committee met last Thursday on the 15th. Items of topic were first
1:01:33 one was Isco Hobart Road corridor study. It was the first presentation to the public.
1:01:38 Note that this is a not decision document but options document and so it will
1:01:43 come again to the public at the Committee of the Whole on April 24th. Between
1:01:48 now and then it's out to people look at if they're interested take a look.
1:01:53 Emily has it been on a posted on the website yet? but it will
1:01:59 be hopefully soon posted onto the website so you can take a look as well
1:02:04 if not but it's under our minutes our package there for now um second item
1:02:10 is ab7535 amendments to even a small cell infrastructure and that is going to stay
1:02:16 in committee until next meeting there's more work to do on that one uh next
1:02:22 one is ab7554 which is the salmon recovery plan where i wrote eight that is
1:02:27 going to be on a consent calendar next meeting i just encourage people to take
1:02:30 a look at that it tells you a little bit about what we've been doing
1:02:34 in the past 10 15 years to help salmon recovery and what we're going to
1:02:38 do in the next 10 years so if you're interested in summer recovery take a
1:02:42 look um AB 7485, vacation of Gilman Boulevard. It's been brought up a
1:02:48 couple of times. It's a public hearing tonight, so we'll just have that open tonight
1:02:53 and it'll continue into the next council meeting. And then our last item, AB 7553,
1:02:59 amendment to the Greenwood Point Assumption. That was mainly a legal description error that was
1:03:04 being corrected. No major change from when we passed it the first time. So it's
1:03:10 a minor correction there. I attended the Eastside Transportation Partnership on the 9th and in
1:03:16 that meeting we submitted five projects for PSRC funding through that competitive cycle. So
1:03:21 EDP gets to submit five and we had only five and we submitted those
1:03:27 five. None for Mizuquah. The Emergency Management Advisory Committee met on the 14th and
1:03:33 we're continuing to deal with setting priorities for how to plan our emergency management
1:03:39 Set up for when things happen because funding for those things is going down from
1:03:44 the current administration. So how do we keep those programs running with in times of
1:03:49 decreased funding and this Wednesday the 21st I'll be attending the Regional Transit Committee meeting
1:03:54 We're going to have presentations on the community connections, which we're going to have a
1:03:58 piece of that here in Issaquah also how performance measures for operations for Metro Transit
1:04:04 as well as one center city. And then one last thing I forgot was the
1:04:09 next infrastructure committee meeting is not at its normal time. It's going to be on
1:04:13 April 11th. So if you're interested in that one next month, it is not its
1:04:18 normal scheduled date, same time, but on April 11th. That concludes my report. Thank you,
1:04:24 Council Member Ramos. Council Member Winterside. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have two quick reports.
1:04:29 The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, we haven't met recently, so there isn't anything new to
1:04:33 report. However, we are scheduled to meet on March 30th to address the issues concerning
1:04:38 the proposed establishment of a nonprofit destination marketing organization, also known as Visit Issaquah. That
1:04:43 arose during the Council's Services and Safety Committee meeting on March 13th and as reported
1:04:48 earlier by Council Member Wray. And then the Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management Policy
1:04:53 Board, we have not met since our last council meeting and where we're reported last
1:04:58 reported on the board's meeting from March 1st. The next board meeting is Thursday April
1:05:03 5th and the agenda for that is not yet set. Thank you, Councilmember Murchison. Councilmember
1:05:09 Goodman? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Land and Shore will, I just wanted to report Land
1:05:14 and Shore, which typically meets the first Thursday, is not meeting April 5th. Instead, we'll
1:05:20 meet April 19th, 6:30 here in Council Chambers. And the agenda has not yet been
1:05:25 set, but I will report that agenda at the first meeting in April. Thank you.
1:05:31 Councilmember, Deputy Council President Batiste. Thank you, Madam Mayor. No report on
1:05:37 my typical regional roles for tonight, but I am going to just
1:05:43 give a quick report on our last work session because we did
1:05:49 have an action that was postponed, and we've mentioned it a couple
1:05:55 of times. But AB 7522, they're creating the Visit Issaquah project, The committee
1:06:00 basically had further questions and they have decided to delay a decision and it's
1:06:06 going to go back to LTAC to have additional information and that was something
1:06:12 that was coming forward so I just wanted to make it clear where that
1:06:17 is sitting right now. We also discussed AB 7563 which was expedited traffic enforcement
1:06:23 and that is on the agenda for this evening. So we'll be discussing that
1:06:29 further and I had a budget process review session to talk about the upcoming
1:06:35 budget. thank you that concludes my report thank you next item on the agenda is
1:06:40 the mayor's report it was issued earlier today but i will warn you it's really
1:06:45 long there are a lot of issues going on in town to start off there
1:06:51 was a special meeting held this evening at 6 15 p.m to hold an executive
1:06:56 session to discuss pending and potential litigation for rcw 42.30.110 paren one print i the
1:07:01 item is expected to take approximate was it The item was expected to take approximately
1:07:06 30 minutes. No action was anticipated to follow an open session. I attended a couple
1:07:11 of meetings since our last council meeting. March 8th I attended the PSRC, the Puget
1:07:17 Sound Regional Council Transportation Policy Board meeting. The board reviewed the public comments on the
1:07:22 draft regional transportation plan. Some of the comments submitted referenced Issaquah or impacts to Issaquah
1:07:28 and surrounding areas, including requesting information on the timing of the construction build out of
1:07:33 Highway 18 from I-90 to Issaquah Hobart Road, concerns over trucks currently using the county
1:07:38 roads instead of highways to move goods and materials south of Issaquah, concerns over discussion
1:07:43 in Issaquah about possibly tolling Front Street, and a lack of park and rides at
1:07:48 Highway 18 and Issaquah Hobart Road and a lack of transit service to this area.
1:07:54 March 8th I also attended the Cascade Water Alliance Resource Management Committee meeting. There were
1:07:59 no items to report from that meeting. In consultation with Council President Martz, I'm happy
1:08:04 to say I'm appointing Council Member Hunt as the City of Issaquah alternate to the
1:08:09 board. Her committee assignment has yet to be determined. A couple of community and
1:08:15 outreach events. On March 6th I walked the Providence Point Laughing Japes Creek Hill with
1:08:21 residents of Forest Ridge neighborhood and the members of Providence Point Residents Board looking at
1:08:26 some potential trail connections and on May 7th I attended the ribbon-cutting for a business,
1:08:32 not new business to Issaquah but Boogan had relocated onto Front Street and had their
1:08:37 opening on of their Front Street location last week. A couple announcements to share. Doug
1:08:43 Levy of Outcomes by Levy has been working as the city's lobbyist for seven years.
1:08:48 As of May 1st, he will be taking a new career path and retiring from
1:08:53 legislative lobbying and working more in a consultant role with the City of Renton. Doug
1:08:58 will be attending the April 16th Council meeting to give a 2018 legislative session summary
1:09:03 report and we will take that moment in time to recognize Doug's many accomplishments on
1:09:08 the city's behalf. 2018 legislative legislature has finished its work for the session
1:09:14 and there were a couple of items I wanted to bring to the public's attention.
1:09:19 Some appropriations that were approved that affect Issaquah was a $50,000 allotment for Issaquah's work
1:09:25 as an innovation partnership zone in the sports medicine focus. This money is to be
1:09:31 used as seed money to trying to attract a convention or activity around sports
1:09:36 medicine. Also $200,000 was allotted for the Lake Sammamish State Park environmental impact statement
1:09:42 and $206,000 was allotted for the additional investigation of PFOS in Issaquah on the
1:09:48 valley floor. Our project partners are Eastside Fire and Rescue, Sammamish Plateau Water District
1:09:54 and the Department of Ecology. I'm very excited to announce that the City is getting
1:10:00 underway with the City's strategic planning process. The Citywide strategic plan, which we are calling
1:10:05 Our Issaquah, will be a first for our community. The goal of Our Issaquah is
1:10:11 to affirm the community's vision for Issaquah to establish community-based priorities and to develop a
1:10:16 framework for aligning resources and decision-making to address those priorities. Through a competitive process, the
1:10:21 City has selected a consultant team to provide technical expertise in this endeavor. BDS Planning,
1:10:27 along with the support from Econ Northwest, have been hired and are beginning to work
1:10:32 this month. It's critical that this work is driven by the community. As work gets
1:10:37 underway, we are planning engagement through a variety of methods including not only surveys and
1:10:42 focus groups, but also finding ways to get outside, ways to go to our residents,
1:10:48 hear from our businesses, and talk with our community groups. We expect to have pop-up
1:10:53 engagement stops out in the community and are developing resources such as meeting in a
1:10:58 box to facilitate neighborhood dialogue and input. Residents can find information about our Issaquah and
1:11:03 the strategic planning process on the City's website. This content will continue to build as
1:11:09 the planning process progresses and residents can find a link to subscribe to email updates.
1:11:14 We plan to have a brief presentation and overview of the strategic planning approach and
1:11:20 schedule at the April 2nd City Council meeting. Gilman Boulevard. Our city staff team
1:11:26 had a Gilman corridor kickoff event last week. If you look up at the
1:11:32 screen, you'll see the output from the kickoff meeting, which was a freewheeling brainstorming
1:11:38 session before they went out to walk the corridor as a group. They
1:11:43 got a lot of valuable input and we're using this to create the online map
1:11:49 and survey tool and to influence the design framework. Next steps include firming up the
1:11:54 public outreach approach, beginning reach out to the residents, businesses and updating the council. There
1:12:00 were a couple of issues that the community brings up quite often in public comments
1:12:05 that I like to address in the Mayor's report as well. There are two items
1:12:10 remaining to be completed under our moratorium. Inclusionary requirements. Staff is working with Eco Northwest
1:12:16 to evaluate the impact of the proposed inclusionary requirements that requirements would have had on
1:12:22 the Atlas project using Atlas as a case study. It is expected a report and
1:12:27 presentation will be made to Land and Shore at the community's April meeting. Inclusionary zoning
1:12:32 is a way that cities are able to require a percentage of built units to
1:12:37 be affordable at different levels and the council is considering looking at a case study
1:12:42 to determine if we are headed in the right direction. The last work item under
1:12:47 the moratorium was the Update of the visions. The visions document the Central Esquid neighborhoods
1:12:53 and it is currently in the City Council Land and Shore Committee and will be
1:12:58 discussed at the committee's April meeting. An update on Cougar Mountain and Berksmoor. Our Development
1:13:03 Services Department is continuing to process the current plot application proposed for this property. The
1:13:08 City is partnering with the Trust for Public Lands and exploring options for purchasing all
1:13:13 or a part of the property. Some updates on Talus Parcels 7, 8 and 9.
1:13:18 Palace Parcel 7 and 8. The City Geotechnical Consultants have finished their first review of
1:13:23 the new critical area study for Parcel 7 and 8. The property's owners consultants are
1:13:28 currently working through the City comments. Palace Parcel 9. The property owner is continuing to
1:13:33 work on stabilizing the property. By the end of the month, it's expected they will
1:13:38 be three quarters done with the construction of the first wall system. The City expects
1:13:43 stabilization efforts will continue through the end of 2018. I also wanted to take a
1:13:49 moment to talk about the Transit Orient Development Project and provide you an update. The
1:13:54 City has partnered with Spectrum Development and the King County Housing Authority to create a
1:13:59 mixed-use Transit Orient Development Project next to the Issaquah Transit Center. This privately owned project
1:14:05 will create 355 affordable and market rate housing commercial uses, including a potential medical
1:14:11 and dental facility and public amenities in the city's urban core. The complex project,
1:14:17 which the developer is calling Trailhead, requires relocating a business, complicated financing from multiple
1:14:23 sources, and building a first-of-its-kind mixed-use project in central Issaquah. The details of
1:14:28 the project have not been finalized but important milestones have been reached in the past
1:14:34 few months and they include securing 12 million dollars in public funding from King County's
1:14:40 TOD fund and ARCH our regional housing coalition as well as the city's pilot multi-family
1:14:45 tax exemption designation for this project. A public meeting will be held in the second
1:14:51 quarter of the year where project information will be provided and input will be sought
1:14:56 on how to enliven the city required public plaza and building frontages at this project.
1:15:02 The city will negotiate development agreements for this project which will require City Council approval
1:15:07 and give additional opportunities for public comment. More information about this project can be found
1:15:13 on our website at www.isikwawa.gov/tod. Providence Heights was also talked about in public comment
1:15:18 this evening. On March 14th, property owners Church Home filed a motion in the Providence
1:15:24 Heights litigation seeking entry of a judgment declaring the landmark designation invalid as a violation
1:15:30 of their First Amendment rights. Consistent with the settlement agreement between the City and Church
1:15:36 Home, the City will not be opposing entry of the judgment. Preserve Providence Heights may
1:15:41 oppose the motion. The motion is currently scheduled to be heard without oral arguments this
1:15:47 Thursday, March 22nd by Judge Julie Spector. And the last item on the Mayor's report
1:15:52 tonight is an exciting update on the Teen Cafe. This is a project you may
1:15:57 have heard discussed at committee and in council. The Teen Cafe project has now been
1:16:02 rebranded as the Garage, a Teen Cafe. The next step and this project would be
1:16:06 located over next to our current our community center. The next steps for this project
1:16:12 include finalizing the lease agreement with the city's Parks and Recreation Department and presenting to
1:16:17 the City Council in an April meeting. The Teen Cafe project has raised the funds
1:16:21 for the renovation and for operating costs through the end of the fiscal year which
1:16:26 for the Teen Cafe is June 30th. And that concludes the Mayor's report. Citing to
1:16:31 the consent calendar, have the payables and payroll for March 19th been reviewed? They have.
1:16:36 thank you i now ask the clerk to read the consent calendar into the record
1:16:41 the consent calendar was distributed to council in advance for study if authorized council action
1:16:46 will occur by single motion regarding the following items item a seeks approval of the
1:16:51 accounts payables and payroll of march 19th item b seeks approval of the city council
1:16:56 regular meeting minutes of march 5th item c ab7326 old town sub area plan update
1:17:01 seeks to remand to Planning Policy Commission. Item D, AB 7398, Administrative Staff Association
1:17:07 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Seeks approval. Item E, AB 7538, Updated Water System
1:17:13 Plan. Seeks referral to Council Infrastructure Committee. Item F, AB 7553, Second
1:17:19 Amendment to South Cove Greenwood Point Assumption Interlocal Agreement with Bellevue. Seeks
1:17:25 approval. Item G, AB 7561, Amendment to Salary Ordinance. seeks to adopt
1:17:31 ordinance. If adopted the ordinance will be assigned number 2829 and item H AB
1:17:37 7573 King County Cooperative Watershed Management Grant for Lower Issaquah Creek enhancement seeks to
1:17:42 authorize submittal. This concludes the reading. Thank you. Does any council member desire to
1:17:48 remove any item from the consent calendar and consider it under regular business? Would
1:17:54 you like to make a motion? Yes. I would move to approve all
1:18:00 of the items presented on the consent calendar this evening. Second. It's been moved and
1:18:06 seconded to approve all the items on the consent calendar as submitted. All those in
1:18:12 favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Next item on the agenda is
1:18:17 a public hearing. AB 7485, Vacation of a Portion of Northeast Gilman Boulevard.
1:18:23 This is the beginning or the continuation of the
1:18:29 public hearing? The beginning. Okay, it says continue. Got
1:18:35 it. Okay. We'll be having a public hearing this
1:18:41 evening. This was heard as an informational item in
1:18:46 the Council Infrastructure Committee. Before I open the public
1:18:52 hearing, I'd like to invite Interim City Administrator Emily
1:18:58 Moum to briefly present this item. Great. Thank you
1:19:04 very much. I'm here to present this item in advance of
1:19:10 the hearing. Our intent is to have the hearing continued over to the April 2nd
1:19:16 regular meeting. At that point in time, we'd be able to entertain more discussion, deliberations
1:19:21 on this item, and we'd seek action at that point. So for tonight, I'm just
1:19:27 going to give a brief overview of this item, and this is one of two
1:19:33 then opportunities for public comment. So our
1:19:38 city municipal code state law allows for the vacation of
1:19:44 public right-of-way. Vacation of public right-of-way simply means that the
1:19:50 city would remove some portion of the public interest or
1:19:56 all of the public interest on a piece of public
1:20:01 infrastructure such as a roadway. and then that would cease
1:20:07 to be, in this case, a public road. However, the agenda bill
1:20:13 also specifies that both the city and the state's Department of Transportation
1:20:19 would retain easements on this property in order to maintain underground infrastructure
1:20:25 and the support wall structure for I-90. So
1:20:31 state law and the city's code allows for an abutting property owner
1:20:36 that has an interest in a street, for example, to ask for
1:20:42 the vacation for either part or all of that public right-of-way. And
1:20:48 then it's council's determination whether or not to approve that vacation of
1:20:54 the public right-of-way. City Council also can initiate the vacation of
1:21:00 public right-of-way and sometimes chooses to do so when there's a desire to
1:21:06 reduce the burden on the municipality for maintaining that public infrastructure, particularly if
1:21:11 that infrastructure isn't needed for its original intent. So in this case we
1:21:17 have a property owner who has approached the city and asked for the
1:21:23 vacation of a portion of Gilman Boulevard. and this portion is right
1:21:29 next to I-90 at the end of Gilman on the east side
1:21:35 of Gilman. The property here is shown in yellow, kind of greenish
1:21:40 yellow, and we've indicated the property owners holdings in blue there. So
1:21:46 you can see right now this segment of road really serves as
1:21:52 a driveway into this property owners properties. This
1:21:57 is a very engineering level picture that also shows the limits of
1:22:03 that property. The property has to be valued in order for the
1:22:09 city to sell it. That work has been done. This has been
1:22:15 valued at $140,000. As I mentioned before, City and WSDOT would retain
1:22:20 easements. and the city's Public Works Engineering Department has determined
1:22:26 that this land is no longer needed as public right-of-way for the purpose
1:22:32 of a road. The vacation may allow the property owner to increase the
1:22:38 number of parking spots that serve these properties and may also allow for
1:22:44 slightly larger redevelopment size due to the additional land area under their control.
1:22:52 So with that, I know there were questions at the committee meeting. We'll be prepared
1:22:57 to answer those in full and any others that may come up through the public
1:23:02 hearing at the April 2nd regular council meeting. Tonight, the motion that we're asking you
1:23:08 to approve is to continue that public hearing until April 2nd. And ultimately, the motion
1:23:13 as it reads in your packet would be to approve this vacation. Thank you. Questions?
1:23:20 There's no questions. Then I will move to open the public hearing. Guidelines for citizens
1:23:26 comments that were mentioned earlier and on the agenda also apply to those made under
1:23:32 this public hearing. And I now open the public hearing at 8:24. And has anyone
1:23:38 signed up to speak this evening? Yes. Sam Kyle.
1:23:48 Good evening, Mayor, Council. I was asked by the
1:23:53 staff to come in and clarify some of this.
1:23:59 I don't think that it's been identified on this.
1:24:05 It's actually not an extension of Gilman Boulevard, never
1:24:10 was an extension of Gilman Boulevard. In approximately 1963,
1:24:16 the state had defined a... frontage road. The city staff
1:24:22 has all this documentation in file. But in 1963, approximately the original I-90
1:24:27 was defined and had an entire frontage road. You don't have the map
1:24:33 up there, but it went across the entire front from Front Street out
1:24:39 to the city limits. And then in approximately 19...
1:24:46 76 68 I think it was. They redefine redesign the roadway and and
1:24:51 made a determination of what they now call the fr 4 line. Because
1:24:57 that piece that's looking and being asked to be vacated. This was not
1:25:03 a piece of if this was done under a taking by the state.
1:25:08 I didn't have anything to do with the city so they were widening
1:25:14 and the family Schultz family contested it and they
1:25:20 ended up finally Deeding over through a court action and stuff in
1:25:26 in this taking This property was solely for the exclusive use
1:25:32 of all of the property coming into the back. It was all owned
1:25:37 by one entity at that time. I've since bought all of that and
1:25:43 the resident family that this property had joined. And in the warranty deed, it states
1:25:49 in part, it says, "As part of the consideration of this transaction, the state agrees
1:25:54 to construct a right-of-way of the frontage service road along the southwesterly side of said
1:26:00 highway and to which frontage service road only the grantor's or its assessors are assigned
1:26:06 to reserve the right of reasonable access." So the entire driveway was exclusively for the
1:26:11 purpose of the property that it serves presently. And then in 1999, the state came
1:26:17 back and did the flyover to Sammamish and they depleted all the parking. They reduced
1:26:22 it almost in half. That used to have parking on both sides of the street
1:26:28 out there. And then they came back and gave it back to the city after
1:26:33 they completed the flyover. The state has signed off on the easement and agreement as
1:26:39 far as the vacation process. So if there's any questions, I'm available for them. So
1:26:44 thank you. Thank you, Sam. Has anyone else signed up to speak? No. Would anyone
1:26:50 like to speak to this topic this evening on the vacation at Gilman Boulevard? Asking
1:26:56 once, asking twice, asking three times. So we will close the public hearing. Is there
1:27:01 a motion to continue to hear. Thank you Council Member Ramos. Second? Second.
1:27:07 So it's been moved and seconded. The motion is to continue the public
1:27:13 hearing to the City Council regular meeting of April 2nd, 2018. Council discussion?
1:27:19 If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of continuing the public
1:27:25 hearing to the City Council regular meeting of April 2nd, 2018 signify by
1:27:30 saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. The next item
1:27:36 on the agenda is regular business. First item under
1:27:42 regular business is AB 7563 expedited traffic enforcement. This
1:27:48 item is coming out of the March 12th work
1:27:53 session. I'd like to invite Police Chief Scott Beerbaum
1:27:59 to make a presentation. Good evening, Council. I am Chief Scott
1:28:05 Barabon with Issaquah Police Department. This agenda bill is a follow-up conversation started originally back
1:28:10 in February during the authorization of funding for three police officer positions. It carried on
1:28:16 to the March 12th Council work session to have a further discussion about filling the
1:28:22 gap of the interest in traffic enforcement while the positions for the Police Department are
1:28:27 getting up and running. During the March 12th During the March 12th
1:28:33 work session conversation about an alternative to provide that additional enforcement.
1:28:39 The alternative that was presented was a limited term three-month traffic
1:28:44 enforcement focused on the downtown core around Northwest Gilman, Front Street,
1:28:50 and State Route 900 to address certain driving behaviors. It was going
1:28:56 to be accomplished through overtime, through the police department, and through partnering with
1:29:02 Washington State Patrol and contracting for their services. Continue on through this. In
1:29:08 addition to the enforcement, we are going to be utilizing Peak Democracy to
1:29:13 have citizen and community input about driving behaviors in those locations before and
1:29:19 after to address the effectiveness of this limited term. program. And at the
1:29:25 end of the pilot project, we would then come back to council and
1:29:31 report out on the amount of traffic enforcement and the impact that the
1:29:37 enforcement had to include that follow up on the community surveys and the
1:29:42 input that was collected through it. This is really as part of the
1:29:48 alternatives. We provided them. The alternative 1A at the top of the graph
1:29:54 was provided to council as a short term. project to provide
1:30:00 39 shifts of enforcement for about 234 hours of total emphasis with the
1:30:05 expected outcome of approximately over 700 traffic stops. The expenditure would be a
1:30:11 maximum of $34,000 and down to a minimum of a little over $18,000 depending upon
1:30:17 the ratio of overtime utilized by Issaquah traffic emphasis versus Washington State Patrol traffic emphasis.
1:30:23 And again, this was short term with opportunity to determine the effectiveness and to hopefully
1:30:29 fill that gap until the staffing is up and running by the end of 2019.
1:30:36 really brought this along because we had a longer conversation about it on march 12th
1:30:41 but this is really the um the really the nuts and bolts of it here
1:30:46 thank you chief i'm going to see if deputy council president patis would like to
1:30:50 add some comments from the work session Thank you, Madam Mayor. At the
1:30:56 work session with our discussion regarding this topic, there was general
1:31:01 support of the administration's recommendation, which was alternative 1A, which was
1:31:07 the three shifts per week for 13 weeks with an expenditure
1:31:12 of $34,125. The committee expressed the desire to limit the number of shifts to
1:31:18 the 39 for the pilot program with an understanding that the expenditure could be lower
1:31:24 than the requested amount. This would be dependent, of course, on the ratio of the
1:31:30 Issaquah Police Department versus the Washington State Patrol staffing given the difference in the rates.
1:31:36 The committee was supportive of using the peak democracy tool for the community pre and
1:31:41 post project engagement. to determine the project's effectiveness. The committee had also asked, during the
1:31:47 committee session, there was also a question about using the school zone safety fund
1:31:53 for the project. And as stated in the agenda bill, With this last
1:31:59 update, that project does not satisfy the requirements for the school safety zone
1:32:04 fund as the expenditures are not associated with the school zone speed enforcement
1:32:10 program nor are they related to the capital improvements. So to wrap back
1:32:15 around the alternative 1A for the three shifts per week at the 13
1:32:21 weeks was what the committee talked about and was supportive of. Thank
1:32:27 you very much. Does council have any questions? Council Member Hunt. Thank
1:32:32 you, Chief Baerbaum. In this table, the expenditure and the number
1:32:38 of shifts, which one would be used to the full extent?
1:32:44 I was under the impression that it would be, the expenditure
1:32:49 would be $34,000 approximately, and then the number of shifts could
1:32:55 vary depending on the ratio of IPD versus State Patrol. Right. So part
1:33:01 of that conversation, if we had to utilize Washington State Patrol for all shifts, we
1:33:06 would be using 39 shifts. In order to kind of just determine the effectiveness based
1:33:12 on that three shifts per week, that's why we stayed at the conversation circled around
1:33:18 39 shifts total and recognizing that the funding could be maximum of $34,000,
1:33:24 but depending upon the utilization of Issaquah Police Department employees, it would then be
1:33:30 lower. So if it was filled by all Issaquah Police Department employees, it would
1:33:35 be closer to a little over $18,000. of expenditure. Really what the focus was on,
1:33:41 as opposed to on the dollar amount, we were looking at the amount of shifts
1:33:46 and the amount of emphasis hours that we're going to be applying towards it. And
1:33:50 then we'd be able to determine what the effectiveness was based on that. Thank you.
1:33:55 Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Winterstein. Thank you. Scott, one of the
1:34:01 outcomes listed is to the, well, there's four. There are four outcomes, right? One is
1:34:06 the increased presence at the traffic emphasis locations. The other one is increased traffic stops.
1:34:12 A third one is reduction in driver behaviors that impact traffic flow and local mobility.
1:34:17 I can guess how a change in behavior will be measured just if there's fewer
1:34:22 drivers. over time, people will be making the same mistakes. The fourth one
1:34:28 is increased mobility in traffic emphasis locations. Is this gonna be measured and
1:34:34 if so, how? That was going to be utilizing the peak democracy
1:34:39 of kind of getting that before and after snapshot from our community members of that
1:34:45 feeling of movement from the increase of proper driving behaviors. It's going to be difficult
1:34:50 to acquire through pure sheer traffic counts because there's a dependent on some variables on
1:34:55 that, but we're going to be utilizing the peak democracy to get more of that
1:35:01 feedback on perception of that increased mobility. Okay, all right, all right, thank
1:35:07 you. I think that's important. I don't think we talked about that at the work
1:35:12 session. If we did, I forgot, I apologize. But it will be based upon kind
1:35:17 of perception. We're not going to have empirical data. Correct. Okay, thank you. Are there
1:35:21 any other questions? Council Member Ray, would you like to make a motion? I would,
1:35:26 thank you. I'd like to move to authorize funding for Expedited Traffic Enforcement Pilot Project,
1:35:31 Alternative 1A, three shifts per week from April 1st through June 30th, 2018. Number two,
1:35:37 authorize the mayor to enter into an execute contract with the Washington State
1:35:43 Patrol for enhanced traffic enforcement. And three, direct the director of finance to
1:35:49 include the necessary funds not to exceed $34,125 in a subsequent 2018 budget
1:35:55 amendment utilizing the general fund. - Second. - Thank you. It's been moved
1:36:00 and seconded. Is there any council discussion? Council Member Ramos. - Yes.
1:36:07 Chief, I really want to thank you for putting this together with the detail that
1:36:12 you've done. So we have very clear expenditures and outcomes and really appreciate that after
1:36:18 much discussion getting to something very specific. I think our goal here is to to
1:36:24 change behaviors. Our goal is not to find people and collect money. It is to
1:36:28 change driving behavior so it's safer and actually flow better because people are doing the
1:36:33 right things. And this is going to give us a nice shot at what that's
1:36:38 going to feel like because our traffic enforcement has been slowly decreasing because of staffing
1:36:43 and so this is going to boost that back up and hopefully get that so
1:36:47 thank you very much for this and I will be supporting it. One last thing
1:36:52 just as you mentioned that the dollar amount there I mentioned for them it's about
1:36:56 $48 per per stop if anybody's interested in cost. Thank you councilmember Ramos deputy council
1:37:01 president to tease. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I just wanted to
1:37:07 echo the sentiment that Councilmember Ramos spoke of. Chief, I really appreciate
1:37:12 all of the information that came forward and the detail and also
1:37:18 having the different options. And I would be supportive of going forward with
1:37:24 1A. And I also appreciated this being looked at as a pilot program
1:37:30 so we could better understand all of the information coming about and having
1:37:35 peak democracy doing that work. And so it was very thoughtful and I
1:37:41 appreciate that. Thank you. Any other? Oh, Council Member Winterson. Thank you.
1:37:48 This only says three months. I know that it'll be a partial covering of the
1:37:54 gap between perhaps when all staff are online by the end of 2019. So that's
1:37:59 obviously more than three months away. And as I said during the work
1:38:05 session, I was in favor of this shorter duration because I felt
1:38:11 it was sufficient time to actually get a measure, especially in terms
1:38:16 of the number of citations. And as such, I'm looking forward to
1:38:22 seeing that data and should it say that this is, an
1:38:28 essential program that should continue, that maybe we should cover the gap until you
1:38:34 have with the rest of your officers online. I'll be interested in entertaining discussion
1:38:40 to extend it at that time. Thank you, Council Member Winterstein. Are there any
1:38:46 other comments or discussion? Council Member Hunt. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and
1:38:51 thank you again, Chief Baerbaum, for your presentation. I am in
1:38:57 support of Alternative 1A. I think, though, that my support is
1:39:03 based on the Focus on shifts because I think that adding number
1:39:09 of shifts as we've talked about with the police staffing Request earlier. There's
1:39:14 increasing calls for service. There's increasing need for police presence. And so I
1:39:20 think that this will fill in the the gap until we reach the
1:39:26 until we reach the full staffing of police officers and I would also
1:39:32 like to add there's a question in our packet about one of the policy questions
1:39:37 is, is there a desire to have non-IPD officers enforcing traffic laws in the city?
1:39:42 And for me, I do not. Agree with that particular statement and so my hope
1:39:48 is that this will be a stopgap solution and then once we reach the
1:39:53 full staffing of police then That will cover not only our traffic needs but
1:39:59 also our calls for service needs as our population grows Thank you. Any other
1:40:05 councilmember Goodman. Thank you. I So I too am supportive. Thank you,
1:40:11 Chief Beerbaum, for providing us with much more clarity and details around this
1:40:16 proposal which was not as clear during our budget session. And to echo a little
1:40:22 bit of what Council Member Hunt said about full staffing that we are expecting, I'm
1:40:28 looking forward to the full staffing and my expectation is that when we are full
1:40:34 staff that we will have traffic enforcement efforts that our community expects we should have
1:40:39 and that I'm hoping and expecting that we're not going to have to have any
1:40:44 more any stop, you know, any interim stopgap proposals that we'd be able to do
1:40:49 that with our full police force. Thank you. Are there any other comments? I just
1:40:54 would like to say, oh, Paul, did you have your hand up? I
1:41:00 would just like to add in a couple of things. We hear the request for
1:41:05 the data, that it's not just survey data, but some empirical data that the council
1:41:09 is expecting to see back after the pilot. So thank you for emphasizing that. And
1:41:13 I did want to give some credit to Chief Beerbaum. This is an example of
1:41:18 what I would consider an agenda bill that really told the story well. And I
1:41:23 think his presentation was good and full credit due, this was his idea. This wasn't
1:41:28 something I had asked him to do. So well done, Chief. Thank you. So if
1:41:33 there is no further discussion, All those in favor of authorizing funding for the expedited
1:41:39 traffic enforcement pilot project alternative 1A, three shifts per week from April 1st to June
1:41:44 30th, 2018, authorizing the mayor to enter into and execute a contract with Washington State
1:41:49 Patrol for enhanced traffic enforcement and directing the finance director to include the necessary funds
1:41:55 not to exceed $34,125 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment utilizing the general fund
1:42:01 signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you, Chief. Thank
1:42:06 you. I have a question for Council before we go on to the
1:42:12 next item. Typically around the two-hour mark we take a short break. We
1:42:18 can do that now or we can move to AB 7523 and take
1:42:24 a break after. Yes? We'll take a five-minute recess and we'll come back
1:42:29 in at 8:00
1:43:52 order.
1:45:03 agenda
1:45:23 evening
1:45:53 7523,
1:46:23 Issaquah
1:46:34 Highlands
1:46:44 Development
1:46:54 Agreement.
1:47:34 coming
1:48:15 Council
1:48:45 Shore
1:48:55 Committee,
1:49:45 invite
1:50:06 Development
1:50:16 Manager
1:50:36 Sloman
1:51:16 presentation.
1:51:26 Thank
1:51:47 Madam
1:51:57 Mayor.
1:52:09 So this evening we're focused on the things that have happened since mid-December when
1:52:14 we last saw you, which was when we had committed to dividing this into
1:52:20 two separate agenda bills, going back to the community, back through land and shore,
1:52:26 and then returning to the council. So for Issaquah Highlands, the community meeting was
1:52:31 held on February 7th. The primary topics, as you may have seen in your
1:52:37 packet, was the minimum non-residential density and structured parking. You may
1:52:43 see some edits in the ordinance, the replacement regulations. That was
1:52:48 done because we have decided to retain those as two separate
1:52:54 standalone documents. We had originally anticipated synthesizing them back into a
1:53:00 single chapter and we have determined not to do that. And
1:53:06 so the rest of my presentation will really be a summary of the
1:53:11 topics that we discussed at Land and Shore as part of bringing this
1:53:17 back to the full council. So the first was a recommendation to make
1:53:22 these provisional. It is not interim. Interim is related to a moratorium. We
1:53:28 have had a year-long enactment process. This would not have any kind of
1:53:33 automatic sunset. But we're hoping to conclude this piece of the process
1:53:39 and then revisit the vision and any remaining community questions in 2019.
1:53:49 Minimum non-residential density, which Land and Shore also made an
1:53:54 affirmative recommendation on, was based on the significant amounts of
1:54:00 unbuilt entitlement, the traffic analysis that assumed a certain amount
1:54:06 of internalization, the importance of jobs, and using our land
1:54:12 wisely. Structured parking had a negative recommendation from Land
1:54:17 and Shore. The administration continued with their recommendation so that
1:54:23 the provisions of the Central Issaquah Standards are still in
1:54:29 the recommendation from the administration. This was not a standalone recommendation.
1:54:35 This was part and parcel of all the elements that came from
1:54:40 central Issaquah, which as you may remember, began with the urban villages.
1:54:46 And part of that is an expectation that over the course of
1:54:52 the build out of the development agreement, that structured parking would become
1:54:57 part of the landscape. One item that we
1:55:03 discussed and delayed to the provisional process was transfer of development
1:55:09 rights. One thing that is going into place right now is long-range
1:55:14 planning is currently updating the maps so that the TDR map for the city
1:55:20 will be altered in the Issaquah Highlands area and the non-residential properties within a
1:55:26 quarter mile of the park and ride will be designated for use by TDRs.
1:55:32 As it stands right now, that requires council action. What the provisional process
1:55:38 will, one of the things that we will explore is a two-tier zoning
1:55:43 cap in which there's a certain amount that's maybe allowed outright and that
1:55:49 TDRs would be allowed to take it above that. But that is just
1:55:54 an initial place to start a conversation. Vesting. Vesting. There were
1:56:00 three options laid out in your packet in the vesting
1:56:06 options memo. One is state law. which would require no action
1:56:12 if you decide to carry that forward as it matches the language that is
1:56:17 currently in the replacement regulations. Option two would be the Issaquah Municipal Code, which
1:56:23 has some nuance that's slightly different than state law, kind of explaining how we
1:56:29 will do it in Issaquah, but essentially is state law. To implement option two,
1:56:34 you would simply remove that section. of the replacement regulations. Option three is most
1:56:40 similar to what was enacted with the moratorium. And to do that, you
1:56:46 would replace the current language with the language from the March 15th memo.
1:56:54 We also just wanted to note that you received a communication, a letter
1:56:59 from the IHIF commercial. And we just want to go on the record
1:57:05 that we feel that there are elements of that that are incorrect or
1:57:11 we would take issue with. And we won't go into that tonight unless
1:57:16 asked to do so, but we just wanted to note that. That's the
1:57:22 end of my presentation. Thank you, Lucy. Does Council have any
1:57:28 questions? Council Member Goodman, Council Member Winterstein, Council Member Wray. Okay.
1:57:34 Council Member Winterstein. Thank you. Lucy, regarding that last letter you
1:57:40 said, could you just, just so for the sake of transparency,
1:57:45 could you tell us what the issue is regarding the letter?
1:57:51 There were several issues highlighted in the letter, including
1:57:57 breach of contract that we have defaulted and that
1:58:02 staff has stated that they have no intention of
1:58:08 following the development agreement that we are blocking lawful
1:58:13 development that we have deemed permits incomplete without cure
1:58:19 there are many elements to it Okay,
1:58:24 so just in general, it's calling into question the
1:58:30 processing of those applications? Yes. Thank you. Council Member
1:58:36 Goodman. Thank you. I just wanted to, for my
1:58:42 own clarity here, it's my understanding that the motion
1:58:48 that's in the packet to adopt the new chapter
1:58:53 includes the recommendations that came from Land and Shore,
1:58:59 also including the structured parking, which still is, which even though Land
1:59:05 and Shore was a one to two against, it's still the administration's
1:59:11 recommendation and also would include the vesting. So in short, the recommendations
1:59:17 plus the administration's, all of the administration's recommendations are included in the
1:59:23 ordinance and attached new code because it's a little bit
1:59:29 confusing. So let me run through this list since these were the topics that
1:59:34 came up at Land and Shore. So the provisional recommendations were supported by the
1:59:40 Land and Shore Committee and they appear in the ordinance. The minimum
1:59:46 non-residential density was supported by Land and Shore, it remained unchanged.
1:59:52 Structured parking was not recommended by Land and Shore. The administration
1:59:57 took the opposing position and retained that element. Transfer of development
2:00:03 rights was deferred to the provisional process, so I just included
2:00:08 it as part of the discussion. Vesting had no recommendation from Land
2:00:14 and Shore, and so the language in the replacement regulations remained unchanged.
2:00:20 Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Wray. Just a couple of clarifying questions.
2:00:26 How many parcels on the Highlands are not vested at this time?
2:00:31 Well, that would be a legal question. I believe there is one.
2:00:37 Let me try that again, because that's fair pushback. Does a
2:00:42 preliminary plat vest a property? Yes, for the elements that are within
2:00:48 the plat. Can you say more about that? Yes, so elements that
2:00:54 components of a plat that are necessary to process the plat such
2:00:59 as road standards would be vested. Elements that are not necessary or
2:01:05 not part of the plat are not vested, for instance landscape. Okay.
2:01:11 Deputy Council President Petit. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Lucy, could you go back to
2:01:17 the slide on vesting and I was hoping you could just run through one
2:01:23 more time the difference between option one and option two. So they're very similar.
2:01:29 There are, as I understand it, and it may be more appropriate for the
2:01:35 city attorney to speak to this, It would also be building permits, long and
2:01:40 short plats and development agreements, but certain components such as the element that I was
2:01:46 just speaking to Council Member Ray about of a plat of permits that are being
2:01:51 vested to the things that are required to process that permit. For instance, that is
2:01:57 in our city code. I don't know if that's in state law. There may be
2:02:02 some elements like that, that are part of how we explain those kinds
2:02:08 of permits being vested in the city. So just if I
2:02:13 could recap from my own understanding, option two would take everything
2:02:19 under option one. Yes. And then it would add some procedural
2:02:24 elements of how the city of Issaquah looks at vesting. That's
2:02:30 how I would explain it. I get a nod. Thank you.
2:02:41 That's generally correct. Pardon my voice. I'm sorry. Option
2:02:47 number two would basically -- option number one limits
2:02:52 the vesting specifically to state law. And that would
2:02:58 be building permits, short plats, plats, development agreements. Option
2:03:03 two eliminates reference to that, but State law would
2:03:09 still apply as would the Issaquah municipal code section
2:03:15 on vesting Questions councilmember hunt and that the preliminary
2:03:20 plat is Vested is that is it vested under
2:03:26 any option that we would take? Yes, and what
2:03:31 other? Permits are vested under any options that we
2:03:37 would take in in this area
2:03:43 Are you asking what other kinds of permits would be vested if we went
2:03:49 with option three? No, I'm asking if there other than the preliminary plat, if
2:03:55 there are other permits that have definitely vested. Oh, I'm sorry. So building permits
2:04:01 are definitely vested. That is a complete building permit submittal is vested under state
2:04:07 law. A complete long or short plat submittal permit submittal is vested
2:04:13 and an adopted development agreement is vested. Have the developers made any
2:04:19 of those for these, for this plan? So you're asking are there
2:04:24 other people who have vested using those particular types of permits? I'm
2:04:30 asking if the developer in this case has any other, any of
2:04:36 those permits that would also be vested other than the preliminary plat.
2:04:43 So, there are many builders of unbuilt property. There
2:04:49 are some who have building permits. For instance, Sumitomo
2:04:55 has submitted a building permit. Polygon Homes has a
2:05:01 development agreement for affordable housing. At this time, Shelter
2:05:07 Holdings has a plat. Thank you. Any other questions?
2:05:13 I just have to clarify. I'm still kind of
2:05:18 a little bit baffled by this. So if I
2:05:24 have an approved plat, that means that roads are
2:05:29 vested to the previous standard. What else is vested
2:05:35 to the previous standard? Parcel sizes, potential uses, infrastructure,
2:05:40 those the standards that are related to establishing
2:05:46 the parcels and the blocks. So what isn't vested
2:05:51 then? So things that you wouldn't show in a
2:05:57 plat, so for instance, landscape and buffer sizes, parking
2:06:03 standards, potentially building heights and setbacks, those would not
2:06:08 be critical areas standards would be vested if that applied it doesn't in the
2:06:14 area we're talking about. And so things such as building height and parking and
2:06:20 things that are not vested to the plat, those would require a building permit?
2:06:26 Yes. Okay. Councilmember Winterstein, did I see your hand up?
2:06:32 This is a question about the state statute regarding vesting. Sorry, Jim.
2:06:38 I know your voice sounds tired. I may ask you to talk
2:06:44 again. In Issaquah, we have an administrative requirement that an applicant complete
2:06:50 and obtain a site development permit. This is an administrative requirement before
2:06:56 getting a building permit. Does state law... address any, does
2:07:01 it define what a building permit is? Is that assumed somewhere
2:07:07 or any conditions like we practice here in Issaquah, are they
2:07:13 addressed in helping determine status. State statute says that the requirements
2:07:19 for a complete building permit application are to be defined by the
2:07:25 local jurisdiction. So it leaves it up to the local jurisdiction to
2:07:30 define that. The City of Issaquah's code says that you can file
2:07:36 a building permit application at any time. You don't need to
2:07:42 have a site development permit approval prior to filing a building
2:07:48 permit. But the local jurisdiction is given the authority to define
2:07:53 what's necessary for a complete building permit application. Is there any
2:07:59 other questions? If not, I would like to give Council Member
2:08:05 Goodman an opportunity as chair of Land and Shore to provide
2:08:11 some comments on the Land and Shore Committee meeting.
2:08:17 My comments are that it has been, we have spent many hours, many,
2:08:23 many hours. I don't know that I have any other comments other than
2:08:29 what has already been presented by Lucy and that I presented a fairly
2:08:34 comprehensive report after Landon Shore met on how the committee, each of the
2:08:40 committee members voted on each item. If there aren't any other questions, I
2:08:45 would make a motion. Great. I will move to adopt
2:08:51 ordinance number 2830. Say that again. 2830. Thank you. Adopting by reference
2:08:57 a new chapter 18.19c of the Issaquah Municipal Code, providing urban village
2:09:03 replacement regulations for the areas formerly governed by the Issaquah Highlands Development
2:09:09 Agreement and the Highlands Drive Transit Oriented Development, TOD Development Agreement, revising
2:09:14 the boundaries of the area governed by the WSDOT TDR Development Agreement.
2:09:20 Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded.
2:09:26 Is there any council discussion? Council Member Winterstein. Thank you, Madam
2:09:32 Mayor. And though I try really hard to be paperless, it
2:09:37 does make me dependent upon the electronic format and my machine
2:09:43 is completely locked up right now. So I apologize. Is there
2:09:48 something I could pull up for you? I've got the agenda bill open. Oh,
2:09:54 do you have my notes? You didn't send them. I'd be glad to bring
2:10:00 them. Well, I do want to and I do appreciate one of the things
2:10:05 that we have here up on council is some hard copy of some potentially
2:10:11 alternative language to the ordinance and its attachments. And the first, we
2:10:17 have hard copy. I don't think they were in the
2:10:22 packet. And the first one, and I appreciate what's already
2:10:28 been mentioned this evening about structured parking that that
2:10:34 the language that just was seconded does not include
2:10:39 the majority opinion of the Land and Shore Committee.
2:10:45 I'm looking at Chris because he sat in on
2:10:50 that. And so what this language that's in this
2:10:55 does say, well, parking,
2:11:01 Actually, so the language that's in this ordinance has to do with,
2:11:07 like you said, matching the central Issaquah area structured parking standards, which
2:11:13 were recently adopted as part of the moratorium. Correct. And Lucy, could
2:11:19 you just, I'm sorry, I don't have it with me, so could
2:11:25 you... Tell us quickly what those requirements are. Yes. So
2:11:30 50 percent of residential parking has to be in a structure.
2:11:36 For office, the threshold is 5,000 square feet. Above that, 50
2:11:42 percent of required parking has to be in a structure. For
2:11:47 retail, above 25,000 square feet, 50 percent has to be in
2:11:53 a structure. Okay. All right. Thank you. And one of those
2:11:59 standards, if I recall, when the Council adopted those for the
2:12:04 central area, we, at that time, did not go with the
2:12:10 administration's recommendation at that time or that of the consultant, especially
2:12:16 as it related to retail. And... So I'm just that's
2:12:21 just that's what happened. Mm-hmm. You said tonight In your in
2:12:27 your slide about structured parking. I think you made it made
2:12:33 the comment. Oh, yeah use Central is across standards started with
2:12:38 urban villages. So the DA Does it have any? Requirements for
2:12:44 structured parking correct. And what are those? I'm sorry, I
2:12:50 misunderstood what you said. It does not have a requirement, it has
2:12:56 a goal. Okay, and so the central IZUKWA standards have gone beyond
2:13:01 what the original urban village development agreements did when it came to
2:13:07 structured parking. - In terms of making it a requirement, yes. - Okay,
2:13:13 all right. So I understand the argument, hey, let's use what we developed
2:13:18 for central area because we think it applies to the urban villages. But
2:13:24 two things, I think, and as part of that policymaking, when I was
2:13:30 on the council last year. It was not part of my thinking at all, nor
2:13:35 was it, I recall being discussed that those standards, because they were part of the
2:13:40 moratorium and only applied to the central area, that those standards would be looked at
2:13:45 to be applied in other parts of the city. Secondly, and as you just
2:13:51 said, because they go beyond what was in, even though the central standards
2:13:57 were based upon as a starting point, the development agreements for the urban
2:14:02 villages, but it goes beyond what the urban villages had specified. And so
2:14:08 I think, you know, for those two reasons and some more, I'm very...
2:14:14 I get the policy argument that, and also
2:14:20 kind of the goal and the vision of
2:14:26 an urban development that doesn't that has considerably less surface parking
2:14:31 compared to say structured parking and I've understood I understand that I've
2:14:37 been thinking about that quite a bit but what I what I
2:14:43 don't accept and that's why I voted against it in committee was
2:14:48 the application of these for the structured parking for these replacement regulations
2:14:55 And so I just want to make sure that all the other
2:15:01 council members who weren't on land and shore can kind of hear
2:15:07 that. And so I actually would like to make a motion to
2:15:13 amend the motion regarding structured parking. And I'm going to read from
2:15:18 the literature provided to us. Oh, there, my machine just woke up.
2:15:24 Provided us by staff. And
2:15:31 And so I'm going to move to make sure I understand this correctly. Did you
2:15:36 author this? Make sure I understand this. Okay. - I touched it at one point.
2:15:42 - If you're on page two, Paul, in the middle section, I think you could
2:15:47 move to add a new subsection to section 18. - Okay, it's add. It's add.
2:15:52 Thank you for that. Thank you for that, Mayor. So I'm going to,
2:15:58 I'm moved to add a new subsection to section
2:16:03 18.9.C.140.D, district standards as follows. Paragraph D, structured parking.
2:16:09 The requirement to build structured parking in 18.19A, the
2:16:15 CIDDS, Central Elizabeth standards, Chapter 8, Section 8.18.B does
2:16:20 not apply to Issaquah Highlands. Second. It's been moved and seconded.
2:16:26 Is there discussion? Councilmember Ray. I just have a couple comments and I've been
2:16:32 doing a lot of thinking about this and Paul, you're correct. At Land and Shore,
2:16:36 I was more aligned with you than I am right now and I'm still trying
2:16:40 to figure out where I am. But I find that the requirements for structured parking
2:16:44 at 50% residential makes a lot of sense to me because we don't want a
2:16:48 lot of street parking in our residential areas. It is my belief that for office
2:16:53 space, particularly class A office space, which is what we would likely be building
2:16:59 up here, that to be competitive, you have to have structured parking. That's generally
2:17:05 an expectation. And Lucy, it's 25,000 square foot threshold for retail, for structured parking.
2:17:11 So that would only be the largest of retail areas. So
2:17:17 is that by building or by development, the 2,500? So if I'm building a
2:17:22 number of buildings and each one is 20,000 square feet, so collectively more than
2:17:28 25, would that require structured parking? - They'd have to put them on separate
2:17:34 parcels, I think. - They'd have to be on separate parcels. - So it's
2:17:40 really 25,000 square feet of retail per parcel, more than that would require structured
2:17:46 parking. - Yes. I have to do
2:17:52 some math. Mm-hmm. Councilmember Goodman, Councilmember Ramos. Thank you. I just wanted to
2:17:57 offer a few of the reasons that I would not support the amendment.
2:18:03 Missisquoi Highlands is always was expected to be very pedestrian oriented and is
2:18:09 very pedestrian oriented. Surface parking lots, no matter how well they are designed
2:18:14 and landscaped, are not pedestrian oriented. As we all know, the valley floor is
2:18:20 littered with surface parking lots, which of course we're trying to get away from. And
2:18:25 getting rid of surface parking lots is the primary motivation for the standards in Central
2:18:30 Issaquah. And so it's curious to me why we would want, allow more of Issaquah
2:18:36 to be consumed by surface parking lots. And I believe that if we allow the
2:18:41 market to determine what is built, Without consideration, we will be
2:18:46 disappointed in the outcome. I do recall Grand Ridge
2:18:52 Plaza. They're being negotiated the the structured parking lot that's up
2:18:58 there next to the theater. And that was something that the administration and
2:19:04 I do not recall that that came to council. But I know that
2:19:09 there was significant interest in the groups that reviewed that proposal that structured parking
2:19:15 was wanted and needed and it's it's not enough we hear all the time it's
2:19:20 not enough parking up there even with the structured parking so that's why i don't
2:19:25 that's why i support the the proposed structured parking regulations and wouldn't support support the
2:19:30 amendment That's never almost you had a question when you talked about retail so the
2:19:35 requirements for structure parking it at 25,000 retail and then 5,000 square feet for office
2:19:40 office space. OK so that's office or commercial or anything is 5,000 so commercial fits
2:19:45 in their office and services I think is that the way it's described in this
2:19:49 is a 5,000 square foot requirements and yes, it's what I want to clarify. Thank
2:19:54 you. um councilmember hunt this is a clarifying question if you
2:20:00 have a multi-level parking lot such near parking structures such as grand ridge
2:20:06 plaza does that contribute towards the far of one no that was a
2:20:12 significant discussion at the beginning of central issaquah whether structured parking would count
2:20:18 or not after consideration of several different property owners
2:20:23 making arguments it was decided that in central is a quad
2:20:29 to not count structured parking towards the floor area ratio. Thank
2:20:35 you any other councilmember Ramos. I want to clarify that to
2:20:41 not counted. explain what it means to not count it. So when you're
2:20:47 calculating far, how do you not counting it? So how does that math work? If
2:20:52 you had a one acre site and you were required to build an acre of
2:20:58 building, your occupied space would count towards that one acre, but your structured parking would
2:21:04 not. so i'm still
2:21:10 trying to get there um so if you have a two-story building on half
2:21:15 of that lot and a structured parking lot on the other half of that
2:21:21 lot that would meet your far because the structure parking wouldn't be counted i
2:21:27 just want to clarify the math thank you council president patis so i just
2:21:32 in regard to the structured parking uh conversation i i just I
2:21:38 feel like we've spent a lot of time talking about what we
2:21:44 would do in the central Issaquah area. We've talked a lot about
2:21:49 trying to get away from the surface parking. I would not be
2:21:55 voting for the amendment as it stands. I do think that we
2:22:00 need to focus on that. and hopefully keep that aligned as
2:22:06 we're going forward in the Highlands. Additional discussion or questions? Council Member
2:22:12 Winterstein. Another point for me is we have had, and it's stated
2:22:18 very clearly throughout this entire process, trying to establish replacement regulations
2:22:24 that kind of capture the spirit of the original development agreement and
2:22:30 and I mean you you said it yourself there were not goals
2:22:36 there were no requirements for structured parking in the original development agreement
2:22:41 and I think that's an important consideration I I want my colleagues
2:22:47 on the council who stated their preferences otherwise understand I I understand
2:22:53 very well this goal of reducing surface parking and yet this issue along with
2:22:59 some others I think we're going to still talk tonight for me are bigger
2:23:04 than just that simple issue because it's a it's an overall body of regulation
2:23:10 that we're putting in place and what that does to the cost of development, but
2:23:16 more importantly, the cost of living in Issaquah and what that's gonna mean for us
2:23:21 long term. That's the major theme that I'm gonna go back to perhaps a couple
2:23:27 times this evening still. And I do wanna mention that structured parking is definitely a
2:23:32 much higher expense. It definitely drives up, they'll then drive up the expenses really for
2:23:37 all of us But first and foremost though, if we're gonna be true to the
2:23:43 development agreement, then since it did not have a requirement, I'm not sure why, I
2:23:48 don't think we should be proposing this. - So I'm gonna have one more go
2:23:53 around and if we're ready after that, we'll vote on the motion. So Council Member
2:23:58 Ray. - I'm gonna kind of back it up a little bit. So this is
2:24:03 and was a very difficult decision and has profound effect. So when I was, I've
2:24:08 been wrestling this, I've been looking at really two things. One is really what is
2:24:13 it in the best interest of the community. So in some ways I don't really
2:24:18 care what the development agreement said because it's 20 years old and this community has
2:24:22 changed a lot in 20 years. But what I do really care about is what
2:24:27 the community and that we should be putting together goals and regulations that drive to
2:24:31 what the community wants today. And I don't think we know what that is. One
2:24:36 of the reasons that I was supportive of the provisional regulations was to give us
2:24:41 the ability to say, we're gonna end the DA 'cause we need to do it,
2:24:46 and we need to put regulations in place that will allow us to move forward,
2:24:51 but we want to recognize that we're gonna come back and true these up
2:24:57 when we have found out what's important to the community. My biggest concern is we
2:25:02 can much more easily a year from now, loosen regulations and it is much more
2:25:08 difficult a year from now to tighten regulations. So I am inclined to go with
2:25:13 a what are the most reasonable regulations we can put in place that we, if
2:25:19 they seem to be inappropriate or drive the wrong behavior, we can loosen them up
2:25:24 a year from now, six months from now, whatever, so that we can achieve the
2:25:29 community's goals. So that's kind of my philosophical approach to this decision making and how
2:25:34 we, how we vet these things. Thank you, Council Member Ray. I saw Council
2:25:39 Member Hunt's hand up, and then we'll go back and give the last three another
2:25:45 chance as well. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have also found this topic to be
2:25:51 very complicated, and the impacts, I think, are potentially huge. I think that
2:25:57 for the community, one thing that I keep coming back to is the
2:26:02 use of space and that really we have all of this open space
2:26:08 in Issaquah that's so important and we really do want to at least
2:26:13 in the urban villages there's the goal for concentrating the density and
2:26:19 having that live work play vision. I think that the, I think that
2:26:25 in the original, in the original development plan, there was a goal for
2:26:31 having structured parking, but without, without something stronger than a goal, I don't
2:26:37 know that we would get it. And so I have wrestled with this
2:26:43 topic. I think ultimately that the, the, smart use of the space
2:26:49 is to more than just encourage structured parking but to put
2:26:54 some requirements on structured parking. Thank you, Council Member Hunt. Three
2:27:00 more. Council Member Ramos, Goodman or Batiste. Anyone interested? Council Member
2:27:06 Ramos. Yeah, as everyone else struggling with what we have to
2:27:11 do here, it's It's difficult because there's things that we would
2:27:17 love to do and there's things that we are able to do. And one of
2:27:22 the things we're doing with Central Issaquah, we've gone and took a whole chunk of
2:27:27 our central core and decided we're going to do something different with that and unique
2:27:32 and do that. And that's a whole piece of our core. And to me the
2:27:37 problem being here is we're taking essentially a very small piece It's left after 20
2:27:42 years of development and people going along with all these previous standards and then and
2:27:47 then changing them fairly quickly because I read just it seemed like we talked for
2:27:53 a long time as a council as a city that we were going to basically
2:27:58 put on when we did put the zoning on the end development agreement, it would
2:28:04 be the same as what we had. And that's what I felt I heard for
2:28:09 a long time and then then this came about the of the far in the
2:28:13 structure parking which we're talking about right now and so it was a change it
2:28:18 was a shift. And so I'm trying to deal with that where where that line
2:28:22 gets drawn and ideally I think it'd be great to have it, but I'm just
2:28:27 not sure yet that that's really we've taken the adequate steps to require that at
2:28:32 this point we can always still continue to encourage it i don't know if we
2:28:37 can require it i'm still on the fence on that one thank you councilmember goodman
2:28:42 so if you uh What we still hear from, if you're
2:28:48 talking about vision and what the community expects and what the community appreciates
2:28:54 about the development that's up there right now, we still hear from Issaquah
2:28:59 Highlands folks that while yes, we shop at Grand Ridge Plaza, the suburban
2:29:05 style was not envisioned. What we wanted was the the urban style and it was
2:29:10 not surface parking lots and that style. So we have heard from the community many
2:29:16 times over the years since that was built that that's not what they envisioned. I've
2:29:21 had many community members tell me that they wish that we would not have approved
2:29:26 that, that we would have been tougher and that we would have held out for
2:29:31 something that was more in line with the original vision. So again, I'm
2:29:37 not going to support the amendment, but I do believe
2:29:43 that approving replacement regulations right now that will allow development
2:29:49 similar to Grand Ridge Plaza is not what the community
2:29:55 has wanted. And last but not least, Deputy Council President
2:30:01 Bautiste. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I guess I would
2:30:07 a couple of things that we've talked about were the goals and
2:30:12 the goals not necessarily being developed and to echo a little bit
2:30:18 of some of what my fellow council members have talked about you
2:30:24 know when 20 years have gone by and we've gotten public feedback
2:30:30 regarding surface parking and regarding density and protecting neighborhoods and our hillsides
2:30:36 and that kind of thing and moving away from um as we're as we've been
2:30:42 talking about central isaac which is which seems like a perfect thing to to to
2:30:48 draw over to because that is the the density that we've been talking about and
2:30:54 and the most recent work um and the most recent conversations regarding what
2:30:59 surface parking would actually look like and we don't have everything clearly defined
2:31:05 in regard to the urban some of the urban villages and and in
2:31:11 regard to the end of the development agreement because that was many years
2:31:17 ago so I I think that we've gotten so
2:31:23 much feedback over the years regarding how people were feeling,
2:31:28 especially in the Highlands, about surface parking and Grand Ridge
2:31:34 Plaza. So it seems to make sense to me to
2:31:39 go forward and have those central Issaquah provisions as part
2:31:45 of what we're thinking about. Thank you. So I will
2:31:51 read through the motion again. The amendment is to move to add a
2:31:56 new subsection to section 18.19 C.14 OD district standards as follows. The structured
2:32:02 parking, the requirement to build structured parking in 18.19 A of the SIDS,
2:32:08 Chapter 8, Section 8.18.B does not apply to Issaquah Highlands. All those in
2:32:13 favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. I
2:32:19 guess I forgot to tell you what to say. So the amendment fails. Winterstein
2:32:25 and Ramos voting for the motion and Hunt, Ray, Goodman and Batiste against the
2:32:31 motion. Coming back to the main motion, are there any, is there any other
2:32:37 discussion or any other amendments prior to proceeding to the vote on the motion?
2:32:43 Yeah, thank you Madam Mayor. I want to talk about vesting and the
2:32:49 I think it's really important that we have a good conversation about this.
2:32:54 Thank you, Lucy, for putting that up. This is an area, you guys
2:33:00 said earlier, these are kind of complex and difficult questions. So you spend
2:33:06 a lot of time on them and absolutely true for me as well.
2:33:12 And in particular, this one, what's in the proposed ordinance is option number
2:33:17 one up there. specifically repeats the language that's in
2:33:23 the RCWs. I understand that. But one of the,
2:33:29 I don't have a lot of experience with vesting
2:33:34 outside of what's currently in effect for the central
2:33:40 area. And the, just only in the central area
2:33:46 regarding to the moratorium. um the and um that that
2:33:52 vesting standard um draws the line uh option number three there there's a bunch
2:33:58 of things listed up there but basically um we we are considering under the
2:34:04 moratorium in the central area anybody who has a basic completed site development permit
2:34:10 application is that i saying that correct yes that's right all right thanks as
2:34:16 well as a pre-app Right. And those are two steps that
2:34:21 we require in order to get a building permit? So as our
2:34:27 city attorney said, the code says that anyone can submit a building
2:34:33 permit at any time. Okay, we administratively require those?
2:34:39 We encourage that because to go to the effort of submitting
2:34:45 a complete building permit and then processing a land use permit
2:34:51 makes for a very complicated and difficult process. but they absolutely
2:34:57 have the right to submit a building permit. Okay, all right. Well, thank
2:35:02 you for that. And I understand that. I know it's been mentioned that
2:35:08 we have the site development permit line on the moratorium because the moratorium
2:35:14 was an emergency that it caught people off guard. And I dove into
2:35:20 this because Well, I wanted to know and I couldn't find any any
2:35:26 anything in the record that said that was the reason that we did this in
2:35:31 fact all i could find was mention how we thought that in this because of
2:35:36 what you say we encourage what i said administratively what have you because of we
2:35:42 encourage those uh those pre-apps in the site development pit we felt that that was
2:35:47 uh you know um a sufficient uh burden and and therefore we would vest there
2:35:53 It is interesting during the moratorium and so in the original ordinance and all
2:35:59 the ordinances since that have updated or extended the moratorium, there was a time
2:36:04 when we considered, and this was back in October 26 of 2016, an alternative
2:36:10 to the proposed vesting and that alternative was to actually make it even
2:36:16 more lenient than this level and the council at that
2:36:22 time didn't even want to hear about it. We just
2:36:27 stuck with exactly what was already in the language that
2:36:33 was in the ordinance, which is the ASDP/SDP. And so,
2:36:39 this idea that we don't want to use the precedent
2:36:45 that we have in place for the moratorium, the argument
2:36:50 that It is unwarranted because the moratorium people off guard is, so
2:36:56 I can't accept that because I never, that didn't come about during the
2:37:02 moratorium. I never could find anything in the record that said that that
2:37:08 was a special case. The moratorium was about temporarily stopping development so that we
2:37:14 could change regulations and update the vision for the central area to make sure we
2:37:19 started getting what we want, not just what we could get. And the vesting reflected
2:37:25 what was felt was fair given our administrative prerequisites for the building permit. I took
2:37:30 it then and I still see it as that the standard as being
2:37:36 fair. So there's that. Now I also understand that in the development agreement,
2:37:42 Lucy, do you have this, does it actually say in there, does it
2:37:47 address vesting? Does it specifically about what happens when the development agreement expires?
2:37:55 I can pull that up. It has a provision that says that
2:38:01 we will, that when the, how long the build out period is
2:38:07 and that when the development agreement is terminated, the replacement regulations will
2:38:13 be the law of the land. I am paraphrasing. Right. So it's
2:38:18 our interpretation, it's your interpretation that that then would apply to the
2:38:24 vesting as well. And that doesn't.
2:38:30 And so we've been, we have
2:38:36 received counsel that in our particular
2:38:42 circumstances where a development agreement is going to terminate and it says
2:38:47 in that agreement that the replacement regulations are now in effect that there isn't precedent
2:38:53 it does this law is silent on that there isn't precedent in case law so
2:38:58 in then it and then it truly does come to this body if we choose
2:39:03 to address it - we get to choose and whether or not we make it
2:39:11 proposal as proposed now or something to align with the moratorium that's fully within the
2:39:16 discretion of this legislative body and that was a concern of mine we we all
2:39:22 did talk about that and i um i understand i think it's okay there and
2:39:27 so that that That's the highlighted section? Right. Upon such adoption, this agreement shall
2:39:32 terminate and thereafter the UGA portion of the property shall be governed by the adopted
2:39:38 city zoning and related development regulations. Okay. So I'm just kind of summarizing this pathway
2:39:44 we've gone through and I was very concerned about Vesting already being established by the
2:39:49 DA and there's nothing we can do about that that seems to indicate well No,
2:39:55 that's gonna go away. It's about what we adopt So now I know that we
2:40:00 have that latitude with less concern about whether or not we're consistent with state law
2:40:05 or not And so I appreciate the effort that's been given to help us understand
2:40:10 that and As was already said today, according to the city attorney, we are free
2:40:15 to choose the vesting regulations as long as they're not more restrictive than state law,
2:40:20 but they can be less restrictive like we're doing with the moratorium. In other words,
2:40:24 we can go either way and not be violating the rights of current developers who
2:40:29 happen to be in the middle of trying to develop the property in the Highlands.
2:40:33 So what I'd like to do with that is kind of, you know, my just
2:40:38 my reasoning and my thinking I'd like to make a motion regarding to vesting which
2:40:43 basically says and we had again we have another thank you Keith and we have
2:40:49 a piece of paper that is not available to the public
2:40:55 right now. It basically says, we would vest at the site
2:41:00 development permit because of, and for the reasons that I gave
2:41:06 earlier. So Lucy, do you have that language? - Yeah, that's
2:41:11 what I'm looking for right now. - So as soon as
2:41:17 she puts that up, oh yeah, okay, that's right. I think
2:41:22 that is in the packet, that's right. Oh, you had it.
2:41:28 - I know. - Tab. Sorry, I was trying to make
2:41:34 it bigger. You can. I can. There it is. I was using the wrong end.
2:41:39 You can also collapse the panel on the left. Those are our bookmarks, so if
2:41:44 I have to find something quickly, I'm going to keep that. and you can always
2:41:49 call them back just for reference so i'm going to make a motion that
2:41:55 that deletes section 18.19.c.280 vesting of permits and replaces it with that language right
2:42:00 there which is the same thing that we have on this paper in front
2:42:06 of us which basically aligns the vesting similar to what we have under the
2:42:12 moratorium for the central area So I really need to either have you read it
2:42:17 into the record or I can, Paul, so that the council members are clear on
2:42:22 the exact language that they're voting on. So would you like me to read it
2:42:26 into the record? Can I? Mary Lou, if I can comment, we did design this
2:42:31 handout so if needed the council member can move adoption of the amendment and reference
2:42:35 the title in bold, so vesting option three in this case to avoid reading the
2:42:40 code itself. That was my intent. I'm making a motion
2:42:45 to amend the ordinance and adopt vesting option number three. Is there
2:42:51 a second? It's been moved and there is no second, so the
2:42:57 motion does not proceed to a vote. Back to the main motion,
2:43:02 which we have not voted on yet. Are there any other items
2:43:08 to discuss or any other amendments to consider? Councilmember Wray. This is
2:43:14 more of a procedural question. Should the motion fail, What happens? Great
2:43:19 question. I'm going to go to the team. Are you asking if the main motion
2:43:25 to adopt the ordinance fails? So the ordinance would not, the new code would not
2:43:31 be adopted and as to the implications of that, Lucy would be best able to
2:43:37 respond. Lucy or Keith. You can't kick that over here fast. Yeah. So the development
2:43:43 agreement would still be in place. Okay. any other questions or discussion
2:43:49 if not i will read the me oh there we go three p i saw
2:43:53 three hands councilmember ramos and i'd like to get back to council members ray um
2:43:58 question previously and i'm not seeing it here so i'm not following but we talked
2:44:03 about the provisional and and i don't understand you know there's there's something and then
2:44:08 they're saying there's provisional and that means we're gonna give it a year do more
2:44:12 research mean it's not final and in a year we, you know, six months to
2:44:17 a year, whatever that takes, we may back that down, we may keep it, we
2:44:21 have choices, we're going to do some more research, more discussion with developers and see
2:44:25 where we can go with that. I'm not sure, explain to me for sure all
2:44:28 the ins and outs of that because I have ideas in my head but I'm
2:44:32 not sure I'm following them and I haven't, because I haven't seen anything writing in
2:44:36 that, what difference that makes. So the provisional aspect of these regulations would
2:44:42 be in the ordinance only. If you adopt them this evening, they
2:44:48 would be permanent. But the ordinance makes a commitment that the administration
2:44:54 will follow through in 2019 with a visioning process in the community.
2:45:00 to determine if there are properties certain elements certain regulations change
2:45:06 of use that the community feels while distinct from the way
2:45:12 we closed out the development agreement would be more appropriate in
2:45:17 building out the rest of the development so clarifying that so
2:45:23 you're saying in 2019 we would go through that process and
2:45:29 So that mean we're barely in 18 here. So that's your way then you go
2:45:34 through that process in the meantime for a year plus the new regulations would be
2:45:40 in place. Yes, it would stop anything that didn't meet these new regulations for your
2:45:46 pleasant at that point they may get changed or may not right so for all
2:45:52 intents and purposes are really adopted. They are really adopted. So it's revisionals kind of
2:45:58 a. misnamed thing because we can always change regulations, I guess. Sure.
2:46:04 And it's an important point to be clear about. I think You're absolutely right. They
2:46:10 are permanent. If we did nothing, they would remain in place. I think it is
2:46:16 more of a commitment because of all the conversations that we've had in each of
2:46:21 the urban villages and questions about whether X or Y is the right thing to
2:46:27 do, whether certain regulations are the right thing to do. we made a commitment to
2:46:33 go back to the community and figure out what those elements are and focus
2:46:39 on them and have a conversation rather than talking about the whole replacement regulations,
2:46:45 have a more focused conversation on the specific elements that may be of concern
2:46:50 or where there's a desire to shift the vision of the community. - So
2:46:56 that would be on? just the two pieces that are new, which would
2:47:02 be the FAR and the structured parking, basically? - No, it could include transfer development
2:47:08 rights, it could include uses, it could be, as Council Member Ray said, that in
2:47:13 a year we decide we want to revisit structured parking. There are a number of
2:47:19 things that we could talk about and we are not setting particular limits on that
2:47:25 conversation. right then one more for clarifying is that so i'm not seeing that anywhere
2:47:30 so that's not what's before us in this in the ordinance it's in the ordinance
2:47:35 that it says section eight of the organization okay all right so it so this
2:47:41 is what we're voting on has that provisional agreement yes in the ordinance okay i
2:47:46 saw a couple more hands councilmember goodman comment okay um i view the provisional as
2:47:51 um the comment was made we can change our codes anytime, go all
2:47:57 the way back to adopting the Central LISQA plan when the council was told,
2:48:03 yes, we can change the codes anytime if we're not getting what we wanted.
2:48:08 And it took four or five years later in a moratorium in order to
2:48:14 force that effort. And so the provisional section eight in the ordinance provisional regulations
2:48:19 commits us to the review which I think is very important
2:48:25 and wish we would have had that for Central Issaquah. Thank
2:48:31 you. Anymore? Council, go to Battiste and then Winterstein. Thank you.
2:48:37 I just wanted to, there, This decision is a very
2:48:43 large decision. There's so many pieces to a development agreement ending and I
2:48:48 just wanted to, regardless of the outcome, thank staff and the Land and
2:48:54 Shore Committee for all the hard work that's been put into this. This
2:49:00 is not easy. It's very complicated and just a very large body of work.
2:49:06 But for that reason, I was one of the outcomes of having that provisional
2:49:12 status and the commitment to the neighborhood visioning public process, I think was so
2:49:17 incredibly important to me as I was looking at this and I just wanted
2:49:23 to thank the Land and Shore committee and staff for bringing that forward.
2:49:29 Thank you. Council Member Winterson. Regarding section 8 of the ordinance,
2:49:34 the provisional regulations, last sentences, and subject to further review through
2:49:40 the 2019 process. So that language, you do say up here
2:49:46 that there's no automatic sunset. It does say in here that
2:49:52 these are permanent. So I'm just wondering, is this Is
2:49:58 this strong enough in terms of committing the city
2:50:04 to actually act in a timely manner? It just,
2:50:10 I just, the intent as stated, and I kind
2:50:16 of agree with Council Member Ramos that provisional
2:50:22 What this statement really does, it doesn't do anything to
2:50:27 the regulations. It just commits us to review elements of
2:50:33 the development of these regulations and all this says is
2:50:39 following a review process through 2019. Is that good enough?
2:50:50 A little bit of silence, maybe I'll weigh in. I think the administration is well
2:50:55 aware not only just the property owners who have not yet developed their sites, but
2:51:00 also the community's strong and vocal request to do this, that this is happening in
2:51:05 2019. If you would like to change the wording to make it stronger, but I
2:51:11 think we would be silly if we didn't think that this was desired by all
2:51:16 sides in the Highlands, undeveloped and residential. Well, thank you for that. I appreciate that.
2:51:21 We could always wordsmith things, but I think that's the intent, and I appreciate you
2:51:26 saying that publicly, and we're all, you know, that's what I was hoping for. Thank
2:51:32 you. I have two more council members who have an opportunity to speak. Council Member
2:51:37 Ray, Council Member Hunt. If there are no other questions. Wait, Vicky was going to
2:51:43 talk. Sorry. Oh, sorry, Vicky. Council Member Hunt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is
2:51:49 a very complicated issue. I strongly feel that for the
2:51:55 best use of our, basically for the best use of
2:52:01 the space that these changes, these updates, the regulation, replacement
2:52:07 regulations, they're striving to get closer to the original vision
2:52:13 and i think that they are potentially different than some of the other areas in
2:52:18 the highlands but i think that closer not only to the original vision but to
2:52:24 the current vision based on what i am hearing from the community and so i
2:52:30 think that there are a number of complex parts i am also glad for the
2:52:36 provisional status that will allow us to revisit revisit this in time I
2:52:41 knew I couldn't let it go. What I think, and this is to
2:52:47 Councilmember Winterstein's comment, I think that the provisional regulations just publicly don't allow
2:52:53 us to, they require us to come back and revisit this. And without
2:52:58 the provisional stipulation, it would be very difficult for me to move forward
2:53:04 with this because there is so much uncertainty that still remains. And we
2:53:10 have... We have a drive to wrap up this development agreement and at the
2:53:16 same time we still have work to do to really understand what the what the
2:53:21 revised vision of our community, particularly in the Highlands looks like. And so I'll just
2:53:26 restate what I said before. We need to put regulations in place that allow us
2:53:32 to become more flexible over time if that is what's in the best interest and
2:53:38 the needs of the community. Thank you, Council Member Ray. Council Member Winstein, last comment?
2:53:44 No, I think it's just you. Thank you. Most of my previous comments had to
2:53:49 do with specific issues. I do want to acknowledge the body of work that's been
2:53:55 done to bring this to this. This is our first expiring 20-year development agreement.
2:54:01 And there has been, and I know there's some of the staff people involved, perhaps
2:54:06 yourself as well, Lucy, were even involved in the drafting of the original development agreement
2:54:11 itself, as well as the central area standards, and as well as these replacement regulations.
2:54:16 And I agree generally with the comments from my colleagues on the council about things
2:54:21 evolving And I do think also that our commitment requirement, as
2:54:27 Councilmember Ray said, that we revisit some of these and
2:54:32 that for the purpose of really garnering the true interests
2:54:38 of the citizens, I think there's an excellent comment tonight. We're still kind of
2:54:44 doing it just for the Highlands and that may be a greater context within the
2:54:50 context of the whole city. I think it merits consideration as well. I think more
2:54:55 or less we've done these regulations to what we set out to do in many
2:55:01 of those circumstances. I've raised a couple that I don't agree with this evening.
2:55:07 And I think that, and kind of the overall thing that's motivating
2:55:13 me, just like we said before, is what is best for Issaquah?
2:55:18 And we have, you know, that's what I think about all the
2:55:24 time. These regulations, however, in a couple areas to me are, and
2:55:30 I'm including, I think, the minimum floor area ratio density, a requirement
2:55:36 um that's new i think the structure parking is new we have certainly adopted a
2:55:42 footing a kind of a footing here in isaac where it's just we're going to
2:55:47 regulate regulate regulate add regulations we've we've done it in other parts of the city
2:55:53 we have some pretty now pretty substantive substantive regulations now in these replacement regulations and
2:55:59 that's unfortunate because so much of the work is very very good But but
2:56:05 as a result I am actually not going to support this motion this evening because
2:56:10 of the overbearing regulations on some of the aspects There's a lot that I like
2:56:15 and it's done very well I think this is an important topic that we're gonna
2:56:21 have to continue to address any other comments? If there's no further
2:56:27 discussion, all those in favor of adopting ordinance number 2830, adopting by reference
2:56:32 a new chapter 18.19C of the Issaquah Municipal Code providing urban village replacement
2:56:38 regulations for the areas formerly governed by the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement and
2:56:43 the Highlands Drive Transit Oriented Development, TOD Development Agreement and revising the boundaries
2:56:49 of the area governed by the WASHDOT TDR Development Agreement Signify by
2:56:55 saying aye. Aye. Opposed? In opposition was Council Member Ramos and Council Member
2:57:01 Winterstein and four in favor. Thank you and I think you're still up.
2:57:07 Next item of business is AB 7524, end of the TALIS Development Agreement.
2:57:13 This item is also coming out of the Council Land and Shore Committee.
2:57:19 We will again hear from Land Development Manager Lucy Sloman to present this
2:57:25 item. Welcome back. Welcome back. So this is, you will remember that I've
2:57:30 tended to do a consolidated presentation, but because it is a decision on two separate
2:57:36 agenda bills, I'm doing two separate, but there will be a little bit of a
2:57:41 groundhog day here. So again, in December, we separated this into two agenda bills. We
2:57:47 were asked to go back to the community. which we did January 23rd for the
2:57:52 Taos community. The primary topic at that time was parcel 17B and the land
2:57:58 uses and heights and potential impacts. Again, we have edited the document
2:58:04 to be standalone and not to anticipate consolidation after adoption. There
2:58:10 were a few additional new players at Land and Shore, so
2:58:16 we will revisit those. Provisional, I think you're all familiar with,
2:58:21 and that was an affirmative recommendation from Land and Shore. Buffers,
2:58:27 that topic came up tonight. The Staff
2:58:33 had proposed their buffers along SR 900 and Cougar Mountain. All
2:58:38 the discussion in the community and at Land and Shore focused
2:58:44 on the SR 900 buffer. There was a new exception proposed
2:58:50 by staff which Land and Shore voted against. Now the language
2:58:55 which you see on the right with the colors and strikeouts,
2:59:01 is the exemptions remain unchanged. Most of the changes are to
2:59:07 clarify that we're going to only allow existing facilities within that
2:59:13 buffer, not that there would be new constructed ones. We define what existing is. We
2:59:18 do note that with the drainage retention detention ponds that before the city accepts them,
2:59:24 we have to make sure that they are fully functioning and that may require some
2:59:29 rebuilding or some action and we want to ensure that there is an
2:59:35 opportunity for that to take place. I have discussed these provisions
2:59:41 with Public Works Operations Director Heath and these were acceptable to
2:59:47 him. Sorry, I forgot I had to keep going. Residential
2:59:53 parking, we were asked by some of the council members to look more
2:59:59 closely at the parking regulations and to make sure that we were
3:00:04 not losing or putting something in place with unintended consequences. What we
3:00:10 noticed was that the way the parking regulations are in the urban
3:00:15 villages in Central Issaquah, there is a minimum required and a maximum
3:00:21 allowed. The minimum required at Tallis is the maximum allowed in
3:00:27 central Issaquah. We concurred that given Tallis' more suburban nature and
3:00:33 the fact that it is on the hillside where putting in
3:00:39 parking is a challenge, we're unlikely to end up with big
3:00:44 surface parking lots. but we also don't end up with a lot of on-street
3:00:50 parking. And so we felt that it was not appropriate to cap parking in the
3:00:55 way we had in Central Issaquah. And so the language that's before you reverts back
3:01:01 to the language that is in the development agreement for residential parking.
3:01:07 Talos parcel 9 at Land and Shore, we had quite a discussion
3:01:13 and then that item was withdrawn. I just provided this slide to
3:01:19 help give the history of parcel 9 because that was part of
3:01:25 the discussion. When the development agreement was originally adopted, And it was
3:01:31 in this configuration. It was in the high density category, which only
3:01:36 allowed attached and multifamily up to 85 feet high and a density
3:01:42 of 23 to 150 dwelling units. When the preliminary plat for
3:01:48 parcel 789 came in, the proposal for parcel 9 did not
3:01:54 fall within the required density range for high density and so
3:02:00 the developer elected to go to medium density, which was allowed
3:02:06 within the development agreement. That added both detached residential to the
3:02:12 other two classifications of allowed residential. It reduced the height and it reduced
3:02:17 the density. At that time, they had an entitlement of 90 dwelling units.
3:02:23 With the proposed replacement regulations, there are two components that you can see
3:02:29 here. One is that it's shown as multifamily, which is this purple color,
3:02:34 and then it was given a medium density residential.
3:02:40 One of the challenges with going between the development agreement
3:02:46 and zoning was that we moved away from ranges and
3:02:52 a broad set of flexible standards to more specific standards.
3:02:58 And staff felt that the medium density multifamily category was
3:03:03 most like the one that was used in
3:03:09 the preliminary plat. I know that there are questions and concerns with that
3:03:15 and I'm sure we'll discuss it tonight. Just wanted to provide that history.
3:03:21 Again, minimum FAR was affirmatively recommended by the committee as was structured parking.
3:03:27 Vesting, there was no, again, no recommendation and the same options have been
3:03:33 put forward. Thank you. I have some additional information that I wanted
3:03:39 to read into the record. During last week, Council Member Ray had submitted various questions
3:03:44 and had discussions with our city staff and legal staff and I wanted to provide
3:03:49 some of that information on the record today for other Council Members who may not
3:03:55 have been aware of it and for the public. The Council Land and
3:04:00 Shore Committee met on March 1st, 2018 to discuss the ending of the TALIS-DA and
3:04:06 the adoption of replacement regulations. During their discussion, the three committee members discussed the various
3:04:11 options for replacement zoning on unbuilt parcels in TALIS. The committee recommended that the bill
3:04:16 be moved to the March 19th Council Meeting for Action and that additional discussion could
3:04:21 occur as to the options for zoning for unbuilt parcels. Since the committee meeting,
3:04:27 additional questions have been asked by Council members of our City Attorney and DSD staff.
3:04:32 The information below answers the questions and is being provided to Council for consideration during
3:04:38 deliberations. The information describes the zoning designations for Council and provides additional background information on
3:04:43 parcel 9, which was the subject of the committee questions. there are several options
3:04:49 that can be considered for the unbuilt parcels multi-family zoning this zoning would allow the
3:04:54 dwelling unit entitlements assigned to a parcel to be used for multi-family or single family
3:04:59 development for parcel 9 this multi-family zoning would permit both townhouses or apartment buildings regardless
3:05:05 of the building form the maximum height would be 60 feet Single-family zoning this zoning
3:05:10 would allow the entitlements assigned to a parcel to be used for single-family development For
3:05:16 parcel 9 this zoning is a lower density category than originally assigned to the property
3:05:21 under the DA This zoning would reduce the building height allowance to 45 feet single-family
3:05:26 This zoning would permit a townhouse building form and would be buildable under the existing
3:05:31 approved preliminary plat for parcel 9 Parcel 9 was originally designated as high density on
3:05:37 a 3.57 acre parcel. This would have permitted the development of the entitled 90 dwelling
3:05:42 units to be in a building or buildings up to 85 feet tall. Subsequently, the
3:05:47 parcel was re-designated as medium density and the parcel's footprint was expanded to over 5
3:05:53 acres under the current development agreement. This allowed for the 90 unit entitlement to be
3:05:58 built in a building or buildings up to 60 feet in height. If the developer
3:06:03 of parcel 9, which has an approved preliminary plat for 90 single family attached lots
3:06:08 that are townhomes, does not wish to or cannot construct what is shown on the
3:06:14 preliminary plat, then the developer would need to propose the subsequent development that meets the
3:06:19 requirements of the replacement regulation City Council adopts. If the council chooses to proceed with
3:06:24 the staff recommendation from the AB, the process tonight would be to move, second, deliberate
3:06:30 and vote on the motion in the AB. If the council chooses to consider assigning
3:06:35 single-family medium density zoning instead of multifamily medium zoning to any parcels, The process would
3:06:41 be to move and second the motion to discuss the proposal to reconsider the recommended
3:06:45 zoning designations and to request a public hearing at a council meeting at a date
3:06:50 certain to allow for discussion of this change to the administration's recommendation. The vote on
3:06:55 the motion may be considered after the public hearing. There would be no vote on
3:06:59 the main motion at the council meeting tonight. The council may wish to consider the
3:07:04 following when reviewing their options. at the december 4 city council meeting council reviewed the
3:07:09 goals for ending of the das in both highlands and talus they were to retain
3:07:14 the character of each urban village create as few non-conforming situations as possible and replace
3:07:20 and update the 15 to 20 year old standards use standards use current and city
3:07:25 regulations to the greatest extent possible except where it will significantly impact character So
3:07:31 that was delivered to Council on the weekend via email and I just wanted to
3:07:37 make sure that the public was also aware of this information. Any questions for Lucy?
3:07:43 Councilmember Winterstein. Thank you. Earlier Lucy when you had this slide up when you were
3:07:49 presenting you said that these proposed regulations for parcel 9 were difficult. I
3:07:54 think you used that word, which, but I look up there and I remember
3:08:00 the same thing when we were in committee at Land and Shore and the
3:08:06 currently kind of what's allowed there per the revised preliminary plat looks exactly like
3:08:12 the proposed replacement regulations. So that seems pretty straightforward to me. What, am I
3:08:18 missing anything? So I think the two sides to this coin
3:08:24 are that in terms of where the parcel is right now and
3:08:29 the regulations that were in place with the preliminary plat and the
3:08:35 proposed regulations, they match. What I think the concern is that if
3:08:41 the preliminary plat had gone to final plat, and it had been
3:08:47 platted into those 90 lots, we would have applied single family zoning to
3:08:53 that completed parcel. And so I think that is the concern is do
3:08:59 we zone it based on where it is right now and carry
3:09:04 forward with more flexibility, or do we carry forward what would have
3:09:10 been if it hadn't slid and if it moves to final plat?
3:09:16 - Okay, thank you. - Member Ray. - I still have a
3:09:22 lot of questions. And so if you all would indulge me for a couple minutes,
3:09:26 I mean, I have a lot of questions. And part of the reason I wanna
3:09:31 go through these questions is there's a lot of uncertainty about the evolution of parcel
3:09:35 nine. There's a lot of information that has been presented in ways that have been
3:09:40 difficult to understand for both the council and for the public. And I wanna make
3:09:44 sure that we have all the pertinent information daylighted before we make this decision that
3:09:50 really could have significant impact, and we heard it today from the public,
3:09:56 significant impact on the community. So I'm going to take us back to
3:10:02 ground zero. So work with me here. How's parcel nine currently zoned? Urban
3:10:07 Village. So what's that mean? Right of development agreement. How was, and you
3:10:13 talked about this one, so I've got my notes here. That's okay. I'll walk with
3:10:17 you again. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that a lot, Lucy. How was Parcel 9
3:10:22 originally designated in terms of density in the DA? So it was high density. It's
3:10:26 this left-hand column, and I'm just pointing to it. to help guide us through it.
3:10:31 High density residential, which did not allow single family detached, only attached and multifamily,
3:10:37 85 feet in height, 23 to 150 dwelling units per acre. Awesome. And the
3:10:43 changes that were made to the development agreement that changed it into medium density
3:10:48 and expanded the size of the parcel, that was done The change in
3:10:54 the size of the parcel was, I believe, a lot
3:11:00 line adjustment that was made prior to the preliminary plat.
3:11:06 I'm so impressed that you think I remember everything. The
3:11:12 parcel 7, 8, and 9, you can see how, for
3:11:17 instance, the road alignment changed. between the original adopted development agreement and the platting
3:11:23 for parcel 9. And so in adjusting to create the three parcels that would be
3:11:29 platted, there was a lot line adjustment. Then when they were ready to do the
3:11:35 preliminary plat and we were going through the sort of preliminary discussions, we recognized that
3:11:40 based on the number of units that they had purchased and the size of the
3:11:45 property, they could not meet the minimum density, which is the 23 dwelling units per
3:11:51 acre for high density. So there's an election process within the uh development
3:11:57 agreement which allows them to shift down one density category without anything other than just
3:12:02 saying we want to do that which is what they did which took them to
3:12:08 medium density residential which added detached residential as a use reduce the height and reduce
3:12:14 the density and they had purchased as their entitlement 90 dwelling units - And
3:12:19 those changes were approved by the master developer and the city, so that became
3:12:25 the new law of the land in the DA. So when the preliminary plat
3:12:31 for nine was filed, how was the land identified in the preliminary plat? Was
3:12:37 it single family, multifamily? That is a level, that is a kind
3:12:43 of zoning approach that isn't used within the development agreement. So it just was classified
3:12:48 as medium density residential, which had this range of residential uses that were allowed. And
3:12:54 as long as it fell within that range of uses, the ones I've shown here
3:12:59 in the middle, and was within the density met, fell between the density minimum and
3:13:05 maximum, it was allowed. So we did not classify it as one thing or
3:13:11 the other. And the platform nine showed individual property lines, which would be consistent
3:13:16 with single family, not multifamily? Single family attached. Right. So I was just looking
3:13:22 at, a couple of neighboring neighborhoods, so Ascent and Sentara, which both
3:13:28 have attached townhomes that show individual property line and are being designated or
3:13:34 zoned. Proposed zoning on them is single family. Right. And I think you're
3:13:40 touching on the point of being in this kind of purgatory between preliminary
3:13:46 and final plat was the was how we ended up in between. - Yeah, I'm
3:13:52 just trying to get to intent 'cause where I sit is we're trying to balance
3:13:58 two things, neighborhood expectations, we heard those earlier today, and property owner intent. And so
3:14:03 I'm trying to establish what really is the intent. So let me go ask you
3:14:09 some questions that I bet you won't know the answer to. If I go to
3:14:14 the King County Assessor's parcel viewer, how would this parcel be identified as its current
3:14:20 use? I don't know. Single family. If I were to go down and read the
3:14:26 thing that said what's the highest and best use of vacant on this property? Councilmember
3:14:31 Ray, just read her the answers. I don't think you have to make her say
3:14:36 no each time. Thank you. I only had the two. So it's highest and best
3:14:41 use right now is single family. So I'm moving on. So when you presented to
3:14:46 the TALIS community on January 23rd, you indicated that this was going to be Oh,
3:14:51 your table showed adopted density on parcel nine was high with an 80 foot cap
3:14:57 and that we were down zoning to get to medium density. So I was just
3:15:03 curious why you didn't disclose that we'd already done that down zone. Actually, that was
3:15:09 a discussion item, I believe, at that meeting. And what I identified wasn't that we
3:15:15 were down zoning it, that over the course of property development, well, In thinking
3:15:21 back, there was one parcel that was up zoned through the process and so we
3:15:27 talked about how the table represented what had happened as the parcels were being developed
3:15:33 and those changes mostly of down dropping to the next lower level and the one
3:15:39 example of it being going to a higher level had all happened during its development.
3:15:45 It was not part of the replacement regulation process. Okay. So recognizing that
3:15:50 the parcel nine will be vested under our vesting rules, our most restrictive
3:15:56 vesting rules, and it could be built as currently plotted as single family
3:16:02 attached homes. Would it also be possible on that property with a multi-family
3:16:07 designation, 60 foot to put in a five to six story apartment buildings
3:16:13 on that parcel? You know, I thought about
3:16:19 that. While some of that is true, but the hillside
3:16:25 designation or the hillside regulations that have been added in
3:16:31 the urban villages would be more restrictive than typical multifamily
3:16:37 parcels because of the limitations on regrading and walls and
3:16:42 stepping through the site. So there would be the ability to put
3:16:48 in stacked flat apartments. The form of the building might be different than a traditional
3:16:54 apartment building. We could put in fairly large apartment buildings. I mean, I guess that's
3:17:00 not a good question. Apartment buildings would definitely be a form factor we could put
3:17:06 into that parcel. Yes. And they could be-- and you told me about this. So
3:17:12 on the-- Because it's on a slope, it would
3:17:17 be-- the bottom could be 60 feet tall? So it's-- no.
3:17:23 I think that the diagram that is here-- sorry, I'm using
3:17:29 a PDF because I thought it would work better. So
3:17:35 from the road, the maximum building height would be fixed. It would not
3:17:41 be able to average the grade. So the topmost level would be the
3:17:47 60 feet, but the building would be required to step its roof line
3:17:53 following the grade, which would therefore restrict it from being 60 feet at
3:17:59 the street. 40 feet at the street? unless I evaluated. Yeah, okay. But
3:18:05 tall and also because there's multifamily, no setback, so it could be right at
3:18:10 the street? Right, so could single family. No, single family has a five-foot setback.
3:18:16 Okay. So when you were talking to the community, did you share the fact
3:18:22 that we could be building apartment buildings on this parcel with them? We, Councilmember
3:18:27 Ray, the question might be was whether or not building forms were discussed because
3:18:33 I'm not sure - No, I think it's more than form because it's
3:18:39 also use. I think there's a difference between single family individual ownership and multifamily
3:18:45 rental. And it has a significance not only in the form of the building,
3:18:50 but in the quality of the neighborhood. So I think it's significant, and I think
3:18:56 it's something that would have been very important for the public to understand at that
3:19:00 time to provide some feedback. And what I have heard from the community is, wow,
3:19:05 we felt like we were getting kind of partial information, and we didn't really understand
3:19:10 all of this, 'cause it's very technical and very jargony, and they were feeling very
3:19:15 much like they, I'm gonna use the word bums rush, but they weren't getting complete
3:19:20 information so that they could react to it. So I'm gonna kind of stop there
3:19:26 and kind of summarize. And the reason that I brought this up is if
3:19:31 we designate this property as a single family, we can build exactly what is
3:19:37 entitled or what is currently envisioned on that plat as designated by the current
3:19:43 plat on nine. So the developer can build exactly what is currently envisioned on
3:19:49 that plat with a single family designation. If we designate it as
3:19:54 multifamily, then the community is at risk of that parcel being turned into
3:20:00 apartment buildings, which is something that I've heard pretty loud and clear from
3:20:05 the community is not something that they... think is appropriate. My incredibly succinct fear is
3:20:11 if we don't zone this thing as multifamily, we're back here three years from now,
3:20:17 we're having a quasi-judicial proceeding, and we're gonna have to go ahead with something we
3:20:22 know is wrong. So Councilmember Ray, I don't think we've made a motion yet. Okay.
3:20:27 So what I'm going to do... I'm done with my questions. Thank you. And you
3:20:32 can, you can deliberate more after the motion is made. Are there any other Councilmembers
3:20:37 who have questions? Oh, Councilmember Ramos, then Councilmember Hunt. I just have one question on
3:20:42 height because I, I know went from 85 to 60, but then I heard
3:20:47 that it's 45, but I haven't seen 45 anywhere So I'm trying to figure where
3:20:53 the 45 came from. So I believe the 45 came up because single-family zoning would
3:20:59 limit the Development to 45 feet. So the current current
3:21:05 - The plan is a 45 foot limit. - No, the current
3:21:10 proposal is 60 feet, which is multifamily zoning. and that was the concern that was
3:21:16 raised. Now, the other possibility, I don't remember exactly when 45 feet was mentioned. It
3:21:21 may be partly because the townhouses would likely have been built at 45 feet. I
3:21:27 believe, Council Member Ramos, that was part of the information I gave in answer to
3:21:32 Council Member Ray's questions this weekend. It was about single family versus multifamily. That is
3:21:37 when the 45 foot was said. It's not on the slide because it's new information
3:21:42 from this weekend. Council Member Hunt. Actually, I have a
3:21:48 question about the buffer. It's a different topic. The buffer allows for
3:21:54 the existing buildings that are in the buffer, which makes good sense.
3:21:59 Does it allow for redevelopment of buildings that are in the buffer
3:22:05 if you wanted to change? The only structure in the buffer is
3:22:10 a small public operations shed that's associated with the Other
3:22:16 than that, other than several ponds, there
3:22:22 is the entry monument and the SR
3:22:27 900 walls and potentially some trails. And
3:22:33 so there are a few buildings, but those are outside of the buffer. So I
3:22:38 can pull up GIS. There is one parcel along the frontage of TALIS that is
3:22:43 not actually part of TALIS, so that may be the one you're thinking of. There
3:22:49 is also an expansion parcel that is commonly called the EMERIC that was brought under
3:22:54 the development agreement a few years ago. I believe the house, the foundation is still
3:22:59 there, but the house isn't. And that is within the 100 foot buffer.
3:23:05 Okay. And so this would not allow so by allowing that to
3:23:11 be there it doesn't allow for somebody to develop something else there
3:23:17 with these regulations. And then my other question is about one of
3:23:23 Councilmember Ray's questions regarding rental and I just wanted to clarify that
3:23:29 rental versus ownership is not part of any of these regulations
3:23:35 that we're choosing. No. Thank you. Councilmember Winterstein. Thank you. Lucy,
3:23:41 you haven't said anything about parcel 17B. So just for my
3:23:46 own clarity, I think you've done the same, so I'm
3:23:52 gonna try to state it and you can fill in, that this,
3:23:58 the proposed zoning on 17B is-- - Office. - Sorry? - Office.
3:24:03 - Which matches current, The entitlement that they currently own is
3:24:09 being converted to a zoning cap and a zone that matches that.
3:24:15 So they currently have 516,000 square feet of office entitlement. on a
3:24:21 parcel that was intended for office uses. And we are converting that
3:24:26 to 516,000 square feet of zoning cap on a parcel zoned for
3:24:32 office. Okay. And what's the question? Is there a question about 17B
3:24:38 in front of us at all today other than that? No.
3:24:43 but and but the the there's a lot of other things going on that aren't
3:24:49 in front of you related to 17b right and so this action tonight doesn't end
3:24:55 any it doesn't decide any of those other questions it doesn't end any proceedings on
3:25:01 those other questions that that's that's my point the there if there's a perception that
3:25:07 should we end the development agreement tonight along with the details about the zoning
3:25:13 and the land use on parcel 17 B that that would settle the question and
3:25:18 maybe even give the the owner these chains that they've asked for but in fact
3:25:23 it does not at all and that's a question that we as a city and
3:25:28 as a council would be addressing under a completely separate track Right. An appeal
3:25:34 has been filed on the decision requesting an administrative minor--denying it as an
3:25:39 administrative decision and stating that it would be a council action. We have
3:25:45 received some other permits associated with that parcel. Okay. Thank you. And just
3:25:51 a point for this line of question, just to make clear for everybody
3:25:56 that tonight we are not addressing that question about 17 at all.
3:26:02 That's on a completely separate track. Any more questions? Council
3:26:08 Member Goodman. Can I ask a procedural question? Probably need
3:26:14 to enlist Jim. So there were a couple of options
3:26:19 in your comments, Mayor Pauley, that regarding the current proposed
3:26:25 recommendation, if the Council wanted to deliberate and vote on
3:26:31 that. Another option if they wanted to consider this parcel 9
3:26:37 different zoning single-family but not instead of them SFMF then not
3:26:43 vote tonight. Could there is there another are there any other
3:26:48 options? Could there be for example could the council deliberate and
3:26:54 vote on everything but the zoning, replacement zoning for parcel nine
3:27:00 and then have the public hearing process? My feeling is no because
3:27:06 you have to either terminate the development agreement or not terminate the
3:27:12 development agreement. That would be a partial termination of the development agreement.
3:27:17 So I think you have to either adopt the package as it
3:27:23 stands or continue this If you adopt the package as it stands
3:27:29 you could still initiate a rezone process for parcel 9. That is you could
3:27:35 terminate the development agreement in total and then immediately initiate a rezone process for
3:27:41 parcel 9 which would go to the policy planning commission for recommendation and then
3:27:47 come back to the city council after that, or you could just not
3:27:53 adopt the package, continue this on, and allow for notice to be given
3:27:58 specifically relating to parcel nine and any other changes you wanted to make,
3:28:04 and hold a new public hearing yourself at the council level. So either
3:28:10 way, it sounds like that's, I'm guessing that schedule would be the same. What does
3:28:15 that schedule look like if we were to either defer this to a later meeting
3:28:20 until we consider that, have a public hearing, go to PPC, have a public hearing,
3:28:26 or do a rezone? What is that, what would a proposed schedule look like?
3:28:31 Well, we would have to write a staff report, advertise for the public hearing,
3:28:37 whether it was the advertising, I believe it's the same, whether it's at PPC
3:28:43 or at council. So I would guess that we are maybe six to eight
3:28:49 weeks out just to give ourselves enough time to assemble materials, advertise, get comments,
3:28:55 come forward with a complete and thought out package. six to eight
3:29:01 weeks out from coming back to council or going to PPC?
3:29:07 What my phone friend said is back, the motion is back
3:29:12 to full council on or before July 16th. Where are you
3:29:18 reading that, Lucy? On the second, on our addendum, which I
3:29:23 can pull up. This one? Is there one also for Talish?
3:29:29 There's a Talish one and an Issaquah Highlands one. Got it.
3:29:38 That's now up on screen. If there are no more questions, I'd be looking for
3:29:43 some. Oh, there's more questions. Council Member Hunt. I have another question on the buffer.
3:29:47 Why is one of the buffers 50 feet and the other is 100 feet? That's
3:29:51 the way the development agreement was originally adopted. I think it's a reflection of differing
3:29:57 purposes. The intent of the buffer along SR 900 was to be more of a
3:30:03 screen. The buffer along Cougar Mountain Wildland Park was to, I think, ensure that trees
3:30:09 did not fall from the park onto homes and that the county would therefore face
3:30:15 some kind of liability. And 50 feet was determined
3:30:20 to be adequate for that purpose. I would assume so.
3:30:26 So there's no change in the dimensions. We were retaining
3:30:32 the same dimensions. Questions? Are we ready for a motion?
3:30:38 Ms. Member Goodman. So I'm going to start with the
3:30:43 alternative motion, Amanda PPC and see where that takes us and I'll
3:30:49 state my reasons why. I move to remand agenda bill 7524 to the Planning Policy
3:30:55 Commission and the Council Land and Shore Committee for consideration of redesignating the map for
3:31:00 parcel 9, figure 2A from urban village multifamily to urban village single family returning to
3:31:06 the full council honorary board before July 16, 2018. Is there a second? Second. Moved
3:31:12 and seconded. Is there discussion? -Member Goodman. -Thank you. I'm
3:31:17 making this motion because I'm uncomfortable just for so
3:31:23 many reasons. Again, approving something that needs to immediately
3:31:29 be reviewed. I would just rather do it right
3:31:35 the first time and I think consideration of full
3:31:40 consideration, opportunity to consider what the zoning options are on that
3:31:46 parcel and the implications I think are important. I mean, this
3:31:52 is the the parcel that had the slide. It's a parcel that's
3:31:58 at the top of the hill that everybody sees that you heard about.
3:32:03 And the notion there could be an apartment building there, how close to
3:32:09 the street, no matter how tall it is. I just think that that
3:32:15 needs to be talked about. Other discussion? it's member ray um
3:32:21 i appreciate that and i'm trying to really understand why we would send
3:32:27 it to planning policy commission versus just doing public um public hearing
3:32:33 and bringing it back to the council. My primary concern is just the additional time
3:32:38 that that adds to the cycle and I know we are all anxious to put
3:32:44 the development agreements to bed and this just will extend that. Can we ask that
3:32:50 as a question now and have Mr. Haney respond to whether or not that's a
3:32:55 good way to go? What the drawbacks would be? Sure, let's do that.
3:33:01 So, Mr. Haney, what are the relative pros and cons of going to
3:33:07 PPC versus doing a public hearing and bringing it directly back to council?
3:33:13 Well, I think the obvious con is not being able to get the
3:33:19 recommendation of the PPC. You know, the code does allow you, or excuse
3:33:25 me, the law does allow you to hold the additional public hearing at the
3:33:30 council level and to act on this yourself but by doing so you do not
3:33:36 go to the PPC and allow people to make their case in front of the
3:33:41 PPC and you don't get a recommendation from your primary planning body. So And
3:33:47 I don't know if Mr. Niven has any additional comment on that. So I
3:33:53 haven't looked at this section of city code for a while. I do believe
3:33:59 that the standard process for a rezone is PPC recommendation and council decision. By
3:34:04 sub, by avoiding PPC, we're following the process that's more like the moratorium, which which
3:34:10 was seen more as an emergency action. I think procedurally you have to go to
3:34:15 commission, but I'm going to defer to the city attorney. I haven't looked at this
3:34:20 section of code in a while. I think the standard level six process is commission
3:34:26 and then council decision, which is why we take all of our level six things
3:34:31 either to PPC or UVDC if it's a UVDC thing. So I don't think you
3:34:36 can bypass commission. That's my non-legal opinion. I think it depends on
3:34:42 what we're doing with the development, whether this is still part of
3:34:48 terminating the development agreement or... I think that's true. You know, that
3:34:53 if this is still part of the terminating the development agreement in
3:34:59 the entire package, you don't necessarily have to go back to the
3:35:04 PPC, although I would recommend that given the issues involved and given
3:35:10 the process. Certainly if you were to adopt the
3:35:16 package and then separately to initiate a rezone of the parcel,
3:35:21 that would require going back to the PPC under the code.
3:35:27 No question about that. Question. Other comments on the motion? That's
3:35:33 Member Winterstein. Just thinking out loud as much as anything.
3:35:39 I understand the single family element to this, I believe, because that is
3:35:45 what had been. It was the route that the owner and the developer
3:35:51 was pursuing. That didn't happen. But that didn't happen. And we had a
3:35:56 representative from the owner say something during comments tonight that, yeah, that they
3:36:02 would wanted to retain the multifamily option.
3:36:13 - This is a different version of the slide
3:36:19 that includes the elements that were in, I believe,
3:36:25 Mayor Pauly's-- - Thanks. - Okay. - There's that
3:36:31 45 feet. - So you interrupted my train of thought. What
3:36:37 are you doing with this? - I'm sorry, I thought that would be helpful because
3:36:43 you were talking about how that was being processed, single family versus multifamily. I apologize
3:36:49 if it was distracting. - Yeah, okay. So I was just making the point that,
3:36:55 yeah, it was going down the path of being developed as single family, even though
3:37:01 it retained the ability to do this medium density multifamily. Well, the
3:37:07 single family didn't happen. And so I don't know why I
3:37:12 don't know why we would consider anything other than what stills
3:37:18 with the land. Councilmember Ray. Um, multifamily didn't happen either. I
3:37:24 think we have a choice here and it to me it's
3:37:29 really pretty straightforward. It's um, I mean, there's um,
3:37:35 There's the property rights of the developer, which I think are well established in the
3:37:40 fact that they filed a plat that says we're going to build attached and detached
3:37:45 single family townhomes. And that's their intent. And then there's an expectation of the community
3:37:50 that we're going to have attached and detached single family townhomes. And we can accomplish
3:37:55 both of those things with a single family designation for zoning. If we go multifamily,
3:38:01 we might get that. But you know what? We might get big old apartment buildings
3:38:07 and that is not what I think And what I heard tonight, the community thinks
3:38:12 is the best use of that piece of land. And we have an opportunity here
3:38:17 to say, we think this is the best use of that piece of land in
3:38:22 a way that meets the expectations of the community and aligns the intent of the
3:38:27 developers. So I feel very strongly that we need to go through a process to
3:38:31 vet whether or not single family is the appropriate way to go. I personally think
3:38:36 it is, but I think we need to go through a process. I think we
3:38:40 have to go through public hearing. I think we need to do due process. And
3:38:44 I think Council Member Goodman's motion to send this to PPC is fine. I think
3:38:49 the time is of the essence because we need to close down the DA. And
3:38:54 so if we don't need to go to PPC, that just adds more cycles to
3:38:59 this deliberation that I don't know is going to increase the we have into what's
3:39:05 in the best interest of the community. And I would rather just move this thing
3:39:10 into a public hearing, do that work and then bring it back to the council
3:39:15 for final adjudication or final resolution. - Thank you, council member Ray. A couple of
3:39:20 suggestions. We'll let the remaining council members who haven't spoken yet discuss it. You can
3:39:25 propose an amendment to the motion that Councilmember Goodman put on the table as
3:39:31 well and we could vote on that, can we not? I can chair. Yes.
3:39:37 So we have not heard from Councilmember Ramos, Batiste or Hunt on this particular
3:39:42 issue. So I guess the question, we keep using the word rezone and I
3:39:48 guess that's bothering me because we didn't zone it to multifamily. we're not
3:39:54 rezoning it back to single family what we're doing is taking the development agreement and
3:40:00 put zoning on it and staff had one opinion And so we're saying we're not
3:40:05 sure that was the right opinion because there already was an agreement to change that
3:40:09 from the original D.A. So we're going with the original D.A. or the agreement that
3:40:13 occurred afterwards, which was a change to the D.A. and this piece of land. And
3:40:17 it's not just for me that that it wasn't just on a piece of land.
3:40:21 It was changed the whole shape. It took a larger piece of land. So there's
3:40:25 a whole bunch of stuff involved, not just said this piece of land, you know,
3:40:29 we're just going to build less on it. actually combined it reshaping from three and
3:40:33 a half to five something acres, right? So to make it work and that made
3:40:38 it work this way. So there's a lot in that process of that agreement. So
3:40:43 I think we need to go back and look at that and do it right.
3:40:48 I would tend to agree with the less steps we need. I think is that
3:40:53 because it's not a rezoning who's rezoning. Yes, we got to go through PVC and
3:40:58 all that kind of stuff. I don't know as we have to because we're just
3:41:03 it's a staff interpretation here. So I might leave I would lean for the other
3:41:09 motion. So member but it's so again in regard to the end of the development
3:41:14 agreement there. It's a very large body of work. There's a lot of moving
3:41:20 pieces and I don't think that it's a bad idea to have
3:41:25 just go back to the commission and get more information and another look
3:41:31 at one particular issue in regard to the end of the development agreement
3:41:37 and also get the public comment. I understand that time is of the
3:41:43 essence. So I can see both sides of this. But now that I'm
3:41:49 thinking it through in terms of just how much work has
3:41:55 been done around the end of development agreements and having
3:42:01 that have another look and it sounds like that is
3:42:07 also the recommendation. I would support that. Ms. Hunt.
3:42:12 I see this as part of ending the development agreement
3:42:18 and so for that reason because the Planning Policy Commission
3:42:24 has looked at the ending of the development agreements, I
3:42:30 am comfortable with the public hearing and going back to
3:42:36 council's steps. I'm un-clarified. Do you mean to go
3:42:42 to PPC and then come to council or no? No. As
3:42:48 Council Member Batiste or Deputy President Batiste said, This has been looked at
3:42:54 extensively. I came down on the issue the other side though because I think that
3:42:59 they have looked at the ends of the development agreements and I think that this,
3:43:04 I am comfortable with not going through that because I see this as part of
3:43:10 our deliberations on ending the development agreements app, taking into account their previous recommendations. Thank
3:43:15 you for your comments. We have heard from everybody now. I'm looking over at Council
3:43:20 Member Ray to see if he's going to. Council Member Goodman wants to say. So
3:43:26 I hear there's interest in not going to PPC. I would like our... Mr. Haney
3:43:31 to weigh in on whether that is it is a is it prudent
3:43:37 to Not go to PPC because I heard initially he said he does
3:43:43 not recommend that. Yeah, so here's the here's my view on this is
3:43:49 that Councilmember hunt is correct that this entire package of ending the development
3:43:55 agreement and establishing the zoning went to the PPC and The rules are
3:44:01 that once something has gone to the PPC and the PPC has made a recommendation
3:44:06 that in order to change that the Council has the option of either remanding it
3:44:12 back to the PPC for an additional public hearing or holding the public hearing itself.
3:44:17 So that is an option. I do recommend, however, as I've said, going
3:44:23 back to the PPC, particularly when you're looking at an individual property as
3:44:29 opposed to looking at the entire package or some more specific policy issue
3:44:35 that maybe applies beyond that. I recommend going back to the PPC. But
3:44:41 again, I think legally, because you've already received a recommendation from the PPC,
3:44:47 on the zoning across the entire area. I think it is an option to keep
3:44:53 the hearing at the city council level. Thank you, Jim. That's very helpful. So we
3:44:58 have a motion and a second. It was Goodman and Batiste. Two options here. Council
3:45:04 Member Ray could propose an amendment to that motion. No, I don't think I can.
3:45:09 I don't know how to amend that in such a way that it would. I
3:45:15 mean, the motion that's on the table, which is a valid motion, is to send
3:45:20 it to PPC before coming back. So it's actually PPC and Land and Shore. Right.
3:45:26 So I can't amend that motion because I would completely, I can propose an alternative
3:45:30 motion, but I think we need to deal with the one that's on the table.
3:45:34 That's what I'm given. I would agree. We'd probably have to vote and see if
3:45:39 it fails. I will ask Mr. Haney another question. Is it necessary to go to
3:45:43 land and shore? No, it is not. So I think the motion was
3:45:49 to have it go through the process that we just talked about and then come
3:45:55 back July, whatever that is. So you can shorten up that process and leave Land
3:46:00 and Shore out. It doesn't have to be mid-July. It could be sooner than that.
3:46:06 Is your suggestion to have us vote on the motion as you originally read it?
3:46:12 Well, I would... Can I amend my own motion?
3:46:18 If your second agrees. Can I amend my own motion?
3:46:23 Yes. Okay. So, can you put the, could you put
3:46:29 the motion back up there, please? Yes. I would amend
3:46:34 the motion as follows. Remand agenda bill 7524 to the
3:46:40 Planning Policy Commission for consideration of redesignating the map for
3:46:45 parcel 9, figure 2A from urban village multifamily to urban
3:46:51 village single family, returning to the full council. no
3:46:56 later than July 16, 2018. Second. The motion is to
3:47:02 amend AB 7524 to the Planning Policy Commission for consideration
3:47:08 of re-designing the map for parcel 9, figure 2A from
3:47:13 UVMF to UVSF returned to the full council no later
3:47:19 than July 16, 2018. Discussion? - Mr. Mayor Bernstein? -
3:47:25 Just a point of order. Is this an amendment or is it an already
3:47:31 amended main motion? So we only have one vote. - So we have an
3:47:37 amendment to the main motion that was then changed. And so you are voting
3:47:42 on an amendment to the main motion. - Main motion never ended. - Yeah,
3:47:48 technically you could ensure there was consensus around the modified amendment either by
3:47:54 a vote or by unanimous consent and then go ahead and vote on
3:48:00 the amendment. So there's two votes here. Voting on the amended language and
3:48:05 then voting on the motion. Session? I have a question. The original plan
3:48:11 was to go to Planning Policy Commission and then Council Land and Shore.
3:48:17 Then Council Land and Shore was removed in the process but the date
3:48:23 on or before date has not changed. So I'm wondering what the
3:48:28 expected on or before date would change to with that. May,
3:48:34 June. And that relative to going only to Council Land and
3:48:40 Shore, what is the time difference that that would be? I
3:48:46 think you're asking us to parse something that we have
3:48:54 We haven't worked it out at that level of detail, so. Okay. Thank you. That's
3:48:59 Mayor Goodman. I think that the intent was to provide an opportunity to shorten that
3:49:04 schedule up as best we could without putting any dates on there because we don't
3:49:09 have calendars in front of us and staff availability and meetings. And what else, not
3:49:14 only the calendar, but what else they may already have on the agenda. Right. The
3:49:19 motion before you now still has it going to planning policy, or sorry, still has
3:49:24 it Going to planning policy before returning to council. Only
3:49:30 Land and Shore Committee was removed. Discussion? Are you ready
3:49:35 for the vote? We're just seeing head nods. We're voting
3:49:41 on the amended language. Correct. Before we vote on the
3:49:46 motion. The amendment reads. Mayor Pauly, I'm sorry. So technically
3:49:52 this vote should be on whether to strike and the
3:49:57 council Land and Shore Committee from the amendment. Okay.
3:50:03 So the amendment that we're voting on is whether or not to strike
3:50:09 land and shore, council land and shore committee from the amendment. Understood? All
3:50:15 in favor? Aye. Opposed? That change passes unanimously. Tisha, the next one is
3:50:21 on the wording of the amended motion. So now you are voting on
3:50:27 the and actually I'm sorry it's not an amendment it's our main motion at this
3:50:32 point correct so I apologize for any confusion so as the motion as amended okay
3:50:38 So this next vote will be on the motion as amended. And the motion
3:50:44 reads: remand AB7524 to the Planning Policy Commission for consideration of re-designing the map
3:50:50 for parcel 9, figure 2A from UV-MF to UV-SF, returning to the full Council
3:50:56 no later than July 16, 2018. All in favor? Would you put your hands
3:51:02 up so the clerk can see? That is Batiste, Goodman and Winterstein
3:51:08 in favor. Opposed? -Aye. -Ramos, Boyd and Hunt opposed. And just to
3:51:14 ask an opinion, Tisha, for is this a vote that the mayor
3:51:20 would participate in as tiebreaker? Thanks, Jim. Since it's purely procedural, I'd
3:51:26 say yes, that the mayor can break the tie on this even
3:51:32 though it's not a vote on the ordinance itself.
3:51:40 So I'm voting in favor of it going to Plain
3:51:46 Policy Commission and coming back to Council. And that is
3:51:52 the end of this agenda bill for this evening. The
3:51:57 last item under regular business this evening is AB 7562,
3:52:03 short-term funding request for budget process improvements. This item is
3:52:09 coming out of the March 12th work session and the
3:52:14 Council Services and Safety Committee And I'd like
3:52:20 to invite... Mayor? I think we've lost the
3:52:25 council. I noticed. Well, they're just kind of...
3:52:31 Maybe we should take five. ...grabbing a refreshment.
3:52:36 They're back. Here we go. I would like
3:52:42 to invite Finance Director Jennifer Olsen to the
3:52:47 lectern. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good evening, Council.
3:52:53 This agenda bill is returning from the Council Services and Safety Committee. The administration
3:52:59 is requesting staff resource funding for budget process improvements. Council should have found in
3:53:05 the agenda packet the administration has modified the staffing proposal due to receiving council
3:53:10 feedback on a proposal to transition to a biennial budget, but
3:53:16 this is not going to be anticipated until Council would consider this
3:53:22 mid-2020 for a biennial cycle to start 2021 through 2022. This change
3:53:28 came along with a reduced amount of time to put in place staffing
3:53:34 resources from previous overall period of a March to December timeframe, shifting it to an
3:53:39 April-May to December timeframe to supplement budget staff. The revised proposal requests funding for a
3:53:45 combination of an LTE position as well as a contractual position. The revised number of
3:53:51 hours and the equivalent staffing has been identified for this funding request. A fair amount
3:53:57 of discussion has been put into and around the number of hours and the cost
3:54:03 per hour in the staffing proposal by the type of staffing that has been requested.
3:54:08 Finance staff has identified that the budget development tasks have encumbered over, or currently and
3:54:14 historically encumbered over 7,000 hours of staff time. And so for budget transition, for the
3:54:20 year of transition, it's anticipated to take over 10,000 hours, of which the
3:54:25 new budget analyst roles would cover about 3,500 hours. And this would reduce
3:54:31 existing staff time from over 7,000 hours to about 6,500 hours so that existing
3:54:37 staff are able to focus on tasks that are and have been traditionally delayed
3:54:43 or not accomplished. Those are things like financial modeling and financial procedure improvements that
3:54:49 are a critical framework to put in place for the city organization.
3:54:55 So the future budget development year number of hours, which is identified
3:55:00 as approximately 6,000 hours, anticipates a likely request for continued budget analyst
3:55:06 work staff to ensure that the budget development process is continually improved
3:55:12 and that the division of the finance department is not long-term encumbered
3:55:17 from other core financial services and working towards those continual budget process
3:55:23 improvements. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions on
3:55:29 the revised staffing proposal that was included in your packet. It is redlined to
3:55:35 show what changes were made to the proposal. I'd be happy to answer those
3:55:41 questions now. Thank you, Jen. Questions? No questions. Oh, there we go. Councilmember Ramos.
3:55:47 So I've gotten confused following the numbers through all this thing. I guess
3:55:53 I have a number of questions because I can't follow the numbers logically. So
3:55:59 I'm going to go to page 977 of the packet. There you have the
3:56:04 first table that has current, transition, and future. The finance department budget phase level
3:56:10 of effort. I know where I'm talking about. If you want to look, especially
3:56:16 you know which one I'm talking about. You're on page two of the revised staffing
3:56:21 proposal? Correct, yes. All right. So under current budget related hours, 7,000. I'll use round
3:56:27 numbers. In the transition, you need 10,000, right? That's the addition of basically 3,000 additional
3:56:32 hours. for this transition, right? That's correct. It's for an enhanced level of effort
3:56:38 towards the budget development process. Okay. And in the future then, we're going to need
3:56:43 about 6,000 hours. So between 7,000-- in the future, we'd be saving about 1,000 hours
3:56:48 a year because once we get this system running, that should decrease our workload, right?
3:56:52 Did I read that? You're reading that correctly, that we would have a system-based versus
3:56:57 manual-based system of data. Jen, can I just get you to add some information? While
3:57:02 the budget process takes less, there's not an expectation that there is an overall
3:57:08 savings in time because there are some services right now that finance cannot adequately
3:57:14 staff. That is correct. There would be a refocus of financials or -
3:57:20 The effort level. - Finance department staff effort towards other initiatives that need to get
3:57:26 underway. - Okay, so you anticipated one of my questions, but let me get to
3:57:31 them. So 3,000 additional hours to me, that's one and a half FTE. - It's
3:57:37 actually 1.7. - 2,000 hours is an FTE to me. - 2,080. - 2,080, okay,
3:57:43 2,000 hours is one FTE. So that's 3,000 hours, which is one and a half.
3:57:50 Okay. I'm rounding here a little bit, a week or two off. So that's only
3:57:55 one and a half FTE additional. And so I'm trying to find that we went
3:58:00 from three to, and some places it still says three, some places it says two.
3:58:04 So I'm trying to follow it, all the numbers all the way through. And so
3:58:09 I have a problem there. Going to the last one that you asked the question
3:58:14 was, so I'm assuming we have this then then we should reduce our effort because
3:58:19 if we go through all this extra effort and we aren't saving ourselves time or
3:58:24 money in the future I'm not sure why we're going through this effort but you
3:58:29 made that statement but then I flip to the next page I'm gonna hit a
3:58:34 couple because I'm it's all consistent with numbers here so the next page three cost
3:58:40 analysis for enhanced staffing you show employees that 2890 all use full numbers for you
3:58:45 because you know I rounding so 20 90 but consultant of 1410 and 195
3:58:51 which is only like you know do Matthew 15 1600 hours approximately 1605 and
3:58:57 we're showing 4400 you know 4495 hours. So I'm confused on that were consultants
3:59:02 are only at a small amount a lot of that's already existing employees.
3:59:08 So I'm trying to figure out where the cost is coming from because you're talking
3:59:13 $300,000 and that's a lot of cost, which is my fear. So that, you know,
3:59:17 I guess that's where I'm trying to get to because that $1,500 is only to
3:59:22 me, sorry, three quarters of an FTE. So I'm seeing places where there's three quarters
3:59:27 of an FTE, one and a half of an FTE, up to three of an
3:59:32 FTE. and i'm just not following the numbers and which makes me very unsure of
3:59:37 the dollar request because i'm not seeing the numbers add up to me consistently throughout
3:59:42 this proposal dan do you want to take a chance to explain what the total
3:59:47 dollar amount is and what kind of flexibility you've built in there for whether or
3:59:52 not you're using contract stuff or lt stuff because i think you've given yourself some
3:59:57 flexibility to to tool this team the best way you can. - That's
4:00:02 correct. The revised amount of our funding is 296,424 thousand. Of that
4:00:08 includes some FF&E and contingency dollars for So with that,
4:00:14 the request is $292,110 for a combination of
4:00:19 perhaps an in-house or on-staff person, typically referred
4:00:25 to as an LTE, and then to use
4:00:31 a consultant or a temporary agency in a budget
4:00:37 analyst role. And the flexibility that is built into this proposal is that the
4:00:42 estimated number of hours for each of those types of positions should be flexible
4:00:48 because of the ability to ramp up quickly. We may have more of an
4:00:54 opportunity to ramp up with a consultant or a temporary agency than we do
4:01:00 have with getting someone in-house. So that is the reason for the
4:01:06 revised ask of what looks to be two positions. It is a
4:01:11 combination so that the administration can remain flexible to ensure that we
4:01:17 have maximum effort towards the budget analyst role. Is that an
4:01:23 up to $290,000 plus then? That's correct. It is up to. No,
4:01:29 exactly where we're going to be. Because we're not sure how quickly
4:01:35 that we can get someone on board, and so that would be
4:01:40 the maximum amount. More questions, Councilmember Ramos? Other questions from other councilmembers?
4:01:46 Okay. I'm going to pitch this to Councilmember Ray. Make a motion.
4:01:52 One just a minute. Questions? I'm having Paul's problem with my computer. We have
4:01:58 better internet in here now according to IT. We can move over to Council Member
4:02:03 Batiste, or Deputy Council President Batiste to make a motion if that would help. That
4:02:08 would be great. Otherwise, I'm just, I'm hung right now. You're just going to keep
4:02:13 us up until midnight? Okay. Yeah. Anything you need. Yeah. So I would
4:02:18 like to make a motion to authorize funding for
4:02:24 the two budget analyst positions as proposed in the
4:02:29 revised staffing proposal and direct the finance director to
4:02:35 include $296,424 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment utilizing
4:02:40 the general fund. Is there a second? Second. Moved
4:02:46 and seconded. Is there discussion? Councilmember Hunt. i just wanted
4:02:52 to thank you um for clarifying a number of of the issues that i had
4:02:57 with the previous version i think that there's more realism reflected in in this in
4:03:03 terms of the um after we changed from a biennial after we dropped that goal
4:03:08 of switching also to a biennial there was um that was removed from the staffing
4:03:14 proposal as well as the update as far as the actual time that will
4:03:19 be available to make these changes. And so I appreciate those updates to the
4:03:25 amounts, dollar amounts, also the hours. And I also appreciate the table, when this
4:03:31 was in committee, the table that has the crosswalk between the dollar amount table and
4:03:37 the current transition and future time. Because when we were talking about this in committee,
4:03:43 that got very confusing and I appreciate the the crosswalk, I have a
4:03:48 much better idea now of what is actually being asked. And so for all
4:03:54 those reasons, I do support this. And I also just wanted to again thank
4:04:00 you for providing more information and also updating to address some of the changes
4:04:06 that have happened in recent weeks. Thank you, Council Member Hunt. Deputy Council President
4:04:12 Batiste. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted
4:04:18 to echo Councilmember Hunt's information. Thank you, Jen,
4:04:23 for we had a fair amount of time to talk this
4:04:29 through and asked a lot of questions. We had some changes and what we decided
4:04:35 to do with budgeting going forward and then had an opportunity to see all of
4:04:41 the revised information come back and understanding that within those amounts that there can be
4:04:46 some flexibility in terms of the kinds of staffing that you would need to
4:04:52 roll out all of the work that needs to be done, both with software
4:04:58 updates and budgeting. So I would be supporting this this evening. Thank you for
4:05:04 your presentation, Jen. Thank you. Other council members? Council Member Goodman, followed
4:05:09 by Council Member Winterstein. I just want to echo the comments made so
4:05:15 far. Thank you for the clear presentation. I'll be supporting. Council Member Winterstein.
4:05:21 Yeah, two things. It does include the additional information that I was asking for
4:05:27 last time. There is an estimate of the hours. I can see where the dollar
4:05:33 values, the amount comes from, except I'm not sure what Mo cost is. Could you?
4:05:39 It's the rightmost column in there, $32,457. What is that? Monthly. That's okay. Or it's
4:05:45 Mo money. Mo money. Mo cost. Mo cost. I wasn't really sure about that one.
4:05:50 Okay. It wasn't added in there anyway. Then the other point too is in this
4:05:56 one is this is the first I've seen it was it was at our work
4:06:02 session where we had the conversation about the biennial budget and so I've seen in
4:06:08 this that you guys have on FAP since then and made that decision to defer
4:06:14 that for a couple years and I really hope that that's the right decision. I
4:06:19 think it certainly relieves. I know there's advantages to our organization, at least proposed, you
4:06:24 know, for a biennial budget. But I do believe from everything that I've seen and
4:06:29 know that we're trying to do that this is more people have a greater chance
4:06:34 at succeeding with this plan than when we were trying to put the biennial in
4:06:39 there before. Thank you. We will get there. I've got a couple left. Council Member
4:06:44 Ray Oramos. I guess I'm still just having trouble here. It's
4:06:50 you know, it's $300,000 which which can definitely be spent somewhere
4:06:56 that we have a lot of needs for infrastructure and other
4:07:02 things in particular. And I just
4:07:07 I guess you're just not convincing me of this kind of money needed for
4:07:13 additional budget analyst positions that we haven't been doing prior to. And I understand
4:07:19 there's some changes and so forth, but it just seems like a very high
4:07:25 cost. Considering last year we took the finance department and we let it be totally
4:07:29 organized that we're supposed to take care of all these problems and the way it
4:07:33 was supposed to be we added FTE to that and so now we're adding additional
4:07:37 stuff. So it just seems like I'm putting a lot of money into the finance
4:07:41 department which doesn't do our citizens any good. It may help our system run a
4:07:45 little better, but what they see on the ground and looking for our parks and
4:07:50 rec and everything else that we do, traffic control, whatever, you know, that's, I'm just,
4:07:55 it's a lot of money going to something that I have a hard time supporting
4:08:00 without seeing something when we've made all these changes already to this department and
4:08:06 and uh and spending additional funding so i i will not support this thank you
4:08:11 council member ramos council member ray um i just wanted to note well two things
4:08:15 i wanted to note i want to thank council member hunt for getting me on
4:08:20 the right page because i'm looking at the wrong numbers so so thank you um
4:08:25 and and i um i appreciate the um that you took the feedback from services
4:08:30 and um reflected that in this final document and the numbers foot and they tick
4:08:34 and I think we have a lot of work to do and I I might
4:08:39 have to disagree with my esteemed colleague to the left that I think that there
4:08:43 is a lot of work particularly when you put in a new system there's gonna
4:08:48 be all sorts of things that we haven't anticipated and and they're going to be
4:08:52 quite busy chasing things down so I will support this tonight Thank You council member
4:08:57 Goodman I ask a question there are comments that We took steps to make changes
4:09:03 in the department that should have handled all of this or corrected all
4:09:09 this. So can we get some responses to that? So we're all on
4:09:14 the same page, the understanding at least. Sure. I'll be brief about
4:09:20 that. The reorganization that we presented at first services and then through
4:09:26 budget deliberations with the full council reflected a few different pieces. One
4:09:32 that we asked to implement through budget deliberations in 2018 and then
4:09:37 other future needs that we weren't asking for at the time in
4:09:43 2018. The major purpose of the reorganization step one of
4:09:49 2018 was to make a change from sort of the deputy director
4:09:54 kind of appointment to more of a divisional division head structure to provide
4:10:00 better purview over distinct operations within the department. But at that point in time,
4:10:06 we also highlighted we have quite a bit of work still left to do
4:10:12 to revamp our budget processes We talked about implementing the new budget software and
4:10:18 Jen had highlighted through services and then on to council that there would be
4:10:24 future steps to take to reorganize the department around the needs and this was
4:10:30 one of them. Thank you. Just checking one last time to see if there's
4:10:36 any more discussion. Oh, there's a bit. Council Member Winterstein followed by Council Member
4:10:42 Hunt. If it helps everybody, you can go back
4:10:48 to the Council Committee work session from last October 30th. And in that
4:10:54 packet is the org chart for the finance reorganization. and in it it
4:11:00 clearly marks the new position that was requested as part of the 2018 budget
4:11:06 and it shows one, two, three, four, five, six other potential future positions spread
4:11:11 across this new organization including one within the budget and forecasting group of a
4:11:17 budget analyst and with our action tonight I view this as us, you
4:11:23 coming back and saying, okay, here's the position we have to fill. Here's my justification
4:11:29 for that. And another position to help us with the implementation of the budgeting software.
4:11:34 So that's the context that I see this in. And just for your benefit. Thank
4:11:40 you. And that was Council Member Hunt. Thank you. I wanted to... Expand in the
4:11:46 bigger picture of why I support this. I think that the budget is an important
4:11:51 way that we express our priorities and I really just think that it is important
4:11:57 to get it right and this has been justified as the way that we go
4:12:01 forward this year to make sure that we are addressing our priorities in the budget
4:12:06 and that's in the bigger picture that's why I support this. Thanks Council Member Hunt.
4:12:10 Is there anyone else who would like to comment before we go to the vote?
4:12:17 There's no further discussion. All those in favor of authorizing funding for the
4:12:23 two budget analyst positions as proposed in the revised staffing proposal and directing
4:12:29 the finance director to include $296,424 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment utilizing
4:12:35 the general fund signify by saying aye. Opposed? Nay. Councilmember Ramos in opposition.
4:12:41 The next order, thank you Jen, the next order of business is
4:12:46 for good of the order. Do council members have anything for good
4:12:52 of the order? Deputy Council President Batiste. I just wanted to say
4:13:00 Councilmember Martz is excused this Wednesday for leadership and so we would be great
4:13:05 to have another councilmember join us on Wednesday. I believe it's myself and Councilmember
4:13:11 Ray that will be at leadership. So if there is someone else that would
4:13:17 like to join us, let me know after the meeting. Thank you. Are there
4:13:23 any other items? I have two items. As part of our typical practice during the
4:13:29 last four years of Council, the consent agenda has been read in during the meeting.
4:13:33 That is a preferential practice. I'm checking with you to find out. I talked with
4:13:38 Council President Martz about it. He doesn't have a strong opinion on it one way
4:13:43 or the other. It's an option for us to actually remove that part from the
4:13:47 meeting if it's we are not hearing from others that is adding benefit to the
4:13:52 meeting. just wanted to get your thoughts on it you can throw it out there
4:13:56 tonight and you can either email me or i can check back at another for
4:14:00 good of the order it's just the request just to think about whether we want
4:14:04 to actually do the reading into the record reading into the record so you still
4:14:08 vote on it you just wouldn't read the whole thing yep most councils typically just
4:14:12 vote On behalf of your request, if anything needs to be brought down, of course.
4:14:17 And the second item was looking forward to the April 2nd meeting. There are a
4:14:22 couple of items that are currently heading towards committee amending IMC Chapter 1604, construction codes
4:14:27 and permit fees, creating the Visit Issaquah organization. And so if they make it through
4:14:32 committee, you'll be seeing them at the April 2nd meeting or I think I actually
4:14:37 might have to revise the one on. Boats is already through. Which one? The revised
4:14:43 building codes, I think? Is it the permit fees? It's on committee for -- it's
4:14:47 on Council, sorry, for April 2nd. Is it through committee? Yes. Thanks. And then the
4:14:52 last item is the introduction of the citywide strategic plan, and we'll be having a
4:14:56 presentation at the Council meeting. Is there anything else for good of the order? There
4:15:00 was an executive session this evening. It was held during a special Council meeting prior
4:15:05 to tonight's regular meeting, and there was no action -- there is no action needed
4:15:09 at this time. There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned at 11:15.

Attendance

Council / Members (6)
Mariah Bettise
Stacy Goodman
Victoria Hunt
Bill Ramos
Chris Reh
Paul Winterstein
Excused
Tola Marts

Motions and votes (9)

Continue the public hearing to the City Council Regular meeting of April 2, 2018. .
Moved by RAMOS · seconded by BETTISE
Carried 6-0
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
Authorize funding for the expedited traffic enforcement pilot project Alternative 1A (three shifts per week) from April 1-June 30, 2018; 2) Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute a contract with Washington State Patrol for enhanced traffic enforcement; and 3) Direct the Finance Director to in…
Moved by REH · seconded by RAMOS
Carried 6-0
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
Adopt Ordinance No. 2830, adopting by reference a new Chapter 18.19C of the Issaquah Municipal Code providing Urban Village Replacement Regulations for the areas formerly governed by the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement and the Highlands Drive Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Development A…
Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by REH
Carried 4-2
Amend the ordinance to add a new Subsection to Section 18.19C.140 District Standards, as follows: “D. Structured Parking. The requirement to build structured parking in IMC 18.19A (CIDDS), Chapter 8, Section 8.18.B, does not apply to Issaquah Highlands.” . (Proponents: Ramos, Winterstein) . (Opponen…
Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by RAMOS
Failed 2-4
In favor: Ramos, Winterstein
Opposed: Ramos, Winterstein
Remand AB 7524 to the Planning Policy Commission and the Council Land & Shore Committee for consideration of redesignating the map for Parcel 9 (Figure 2a) from UV-MF (Urban Village-Multifamily) to UV-SF (Urban Village-Single Family), returning to the full Council no later than July 16, 2018.
Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE
Amend the motion to strike “and the Council Land & Shore Committee.” . MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED, TIE VOTE, 3-3. (Proponents: Bettise, Goodman, Winterstein; Opponents: Hunt, Ramos, Reh) MAYOR PAULY VOTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED, 4-3. e)
Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE
Carried 6-0
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
Authorize funding for the two budget analyst positions as proposed in the revised staffing proposal; and direct the Finance Director to include $296,424 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment utilizing the General Fund. . (Opponent: Ramos)
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by REH
Carried 5-1
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
Opposed: Ramos
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) ID 0191 – Accounts: Payables and Payroll of March 19, 2018, $ 7,345,591.63; Approved. b) Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, March 5, 2018; Approved. c) AB 7326 – Olde Town Subarea Plan Update; Remanded AB 7326 back to the Planning Policy Commission for…
Moved by BETTISE · seconded by RAMOS
Carried 6-0
In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein
Main motion as amended: APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) ID 0191 – Accounts: Payables and Payroll of March 19, 2018, $ 7,345,591.63; Approved. b) Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, March 5, 2018; Approved. c) AB 7326 – Olde Town Subarea Plan Update; Remanded AB 7326 back to the Planni…
Moved by (main motion as amended) · seconded by
Carried 4-3