City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, May 7, 2018 · City Council Digest

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of May 7, 2018, $ 2,649,173.15 ID 0214

Carried 7-0

packet pp.7–112

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 1:06:10 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Pursuant to 42.24.080 RCW, I, Jennifer Olson, Auditing Officer for the City of Issaquah, Washington, present all claims against the City by persons furnishing materials, rendering services or performing labor, or for any other full or partial contractual purpose and obligation. Such claims have been prepared for audit and payment on an authenticated form and in the manner prescribed by the state auditor. The claims are just, due and unpaid obligations against the City of Issaquah and are certified to be paid after approval of the Issaquah City Council.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, April 16, 2018

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.113–120

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 2, 2018

▶ Watch from 1:06:30 Open packet at p.113 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 04-16-18 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8017

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: Council Committee-of-the-Whole, April 24, 2018

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.121–122

▶ Watch from 1:06:50 Open packet at p.121 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 04-24-18 Committee-of-the-Whole Council Minutes Page 8025

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

2018 Curb Ramp Enhancement Project AB 7558

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Infrastructure Committee · packet pp.123–128

▶ Watch from 1:07:09 Open packet at p.123 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

2018 Stormwater Rehabilitation Project AB 7559

Carried 7-0

Award Bid · packet pp.129–133

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 1:07:29 Open packet at p.129 ↗

Staff report:

returning to the full Council on June 4, 2017. [

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Interfund Loan Extension for Roadway Improvements AB 7565

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.135–138

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 1:07:49 Open packet at p.135 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Finance Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Amendment to Salary Ordinance AB 7595

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.139–157

Topics: Land UsePublic Safety

▶ Watch from 1:08:09 Open packet at p.139 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Human Resources Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

2019-2024 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) AB 7599

Carried 7-0

Set Public Hearing; Refer to Council · packet pp.159–258

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:08:29 Open packet at p.159 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Eastside Fire & Rescue Memorandum of Understanding AB 7601

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.259–262

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 1:08:49 Open packet at p.259 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Parks & Recreation Department:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

8. PUBLIC HEARING

First Major Amendment to the Costco Development Agreement Conclude Public Hearing; Approve Resolution AB 7533

Carried 7-0

packet pp.263–295

Open packet at p.263 ↗

Staff report:

CITY COUNCIL UPDATED AGENDA BILL AB 7533 - City Council Regular Meeting - 07 May 2018 Public Hearing

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Water Use Efficiency Goals AB 7604

Conduct Public Hearing · packet pp.297–312

Topics: Water

Open packet at p.297 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Engineering Department:

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Amendments to IMC and Central Issaquah Standards Regarding Inclusionary Zoning Requirements for Central Issaquah AB 7507

Carried 5-2

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.313–366

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 26, 2017

▶ Watch from 1:00:54 Open packet at p.313 ↗

Staff report:

On Sept. 18, 2017, after much work by Planning Policy Commission, Human Services Commission, Economic Vitality Commission, focus groups and community outreach, City Council adopted Issaquah’s Housing Strategy Work Plan. The Strategy describes how the City intends to, over the next 5 years, actively and positively influence the existing housing stock as well as that being built in the City through nine strategies. The purpose of the Strategy is to improve the likelihood that the City will be successful in meeting the long-term aspirations of the Comprehensive Plan; and, the needs and housing desires of those choosing to live in Issaquah.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Stacy Goodman, Chris Reh

Amendments considered (2):

Amend the motion to add: "; and direct City staff to bring the Bylaws before the City Council for approval." (Opponent: Winterstein). Carried 6-1

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh

Opposed: Paul Winterstein

Amend IMC 18.22.100(B)(3)(d) as follows: " except the Director of the Development Services Department may approve an over- height pole of up to 55 60 feet provided all of the following criteria are met:" (Opponents: Goodman, Hunt, Ramos). Carried 4-3

Moved by MARTS · seconded by REH

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos

Creating the Visit Issaquah Organization AB 7522

Carried 7-0

Approve Resolution · packet pp.367–380

Topics: Tourism

▶ Watch from 1:02:39 Open packet at p.367 ↗

Staff report:

In 2014, LTAC and the Greater Issaquah Chamber of Commerce partnered in the hiring of Roger Brooks International, an international expert on tourism, to conduct a case study for a Tourism Organizational Plan for the City of Issaquah. The plan called for establishing an independent destination marketing organization and for the hiring of an executive director to run the organization.

Roll call:

Moved by REH · seconded by BETTISE

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Amendments to IMC 18.07.505 and IMC 3.64 regarding Wireless Communication Facilities, including Small Cell Design Guidelines AB 7535

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.381–423

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 15, 2018

▶ Watch from 1:04:24 Open packet at p.381 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7535 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 07 May 2018 Business

Roll call:

Moved by RAMOS · seconded by REH

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

10. GOOD OF THE ORDER

10a

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 3:28:00

2659 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ Welcome everyone. I call the May 7th regular City Council meeting to order.

0:25 ↗ All those who would like to join the Council and myself in the Pledge of

0:28 ↗ Allegiance, please stand. I pledge allegiance to the

0:34 ↗ flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

0:40 ↗ one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

0:50 ↗ First item on our agenda this evening is special business AB 7585. It's an

0:56 ↗ affordable housing week proclamation and I would like to call Elizabeth Mopan and Marnie Manaldo

1:02 ↗ up to the lectern.

1:17 ↗ I'll go first. then i will give you guys some time to talk oh hi

1:21 ↗ brianne and brianna thank you for coming tonight

1:27 ↗ whereas all people should have access to safe healthy and affordable homes within communities of

1:33 ↗ opportunity and whereas studies have found that each hundred dollar increase in median rent

1:39 ↗ results in a 15 increase in homelessness in metro areas and a 39%

1:44 ↗ increase in homelessness in nearby suburbs and rural areas. And whereas there have been 94

1:51 ↗ students identified as homeless during the 2017-2018 school year by the

1:56 ↗ Issaquah School District, and whereas everyone benefits from affordable housing, including the people

2:02 ↗ who reside in these properties, their neighbors, businesses, employers, and the community as a whole,

2:08 ↗ And whereas we are united in an effort to raise public awareness, communities throughout King

2:13 ↗ County are participating in local affordable housing week efforts to inform the public of the

2:18 ↗ critical need to preserve and increase affordable housing in our communities. Now therefore, I,

2:24 ↗ Mary Lou Pauly, Mayor of the City of Issaquah, do hereby proclaim May 14th to

2:29 ↗ 18th, 2018 to be affordable housing week in the City of Issaquah. and endorses the

2:34 ↗ goals, objectives, and purposes of Affordable Housing Week, and in doing so, recommits itself to

2:40 ↗ ensuring that our community thrives with opportunity and that all people in it live with

2:45 ↗ dignity in safe, healthy, and affordable homes. Thank you guys for

2:50 ↗ accepting us. Thank you. And would you let the clerk take a

2:56 ↗ picture? Thank you, ladies.

3:03 ↗ I'd like to invite you guys up for some comments. Go ahead.

3:12 ↗ Hi, my name is Marnie Miraldo, and with me is Elizabeth Mopin.

3:19 ↗ And I'm a member of the Eastside Human Services Forum. I'm its coordinator. And Elizabeth

3:24 ↗ is a member of our work group. And we thank you for proclaiming May 14th

3:28 ↗ through 18th as Affordable Housing Week and for your recognition of the urgent need for

3:32 ↗ affordable homes in our community. As your proclamation states, too many families in our city

3:37 ↗ are struggling just to stay housed and too many students in our classrooms do not

3:40 ↗ have a stable place to call home. Picture if you would, 15 big yellow buses

3:46 ↗ coming to a stop and children of all ages flowing out of those

3:49 ↗ buses. 50 to 60 kids on each bus. This represents the number of homeless students

3:55 ↗ residing in urban and rural East King County. Our goals for Affordable

4:00 ↗ Housing Week are not only to call attention to the level of need, but also

4:05 ↗ to highlight policy solutions and important work that is currently being done to make a

4:09 ↗ difference and to share our appreciation of the efforts of East Side Cities to address

4:14 ↗ this pressing regional issue. Funding support by you, and by other councils in East King

4:19 ↗ County has resulted in assistance totaling over $63 million from funding fee

4:25 ↗ waivers and land donations for over 3,600 homes for families, seniors, individuals, and

4:31 ↗ persons with special needs, including projects such as Issaquah's

4:37 ↗ 144-unit YWCA Issaquah Family Village and the 28-unit Mine Hill.

4:44 ↗ Other cities such as Kirkland, Bellevue, Newcastle, Redmond and Sammamish have also shared the

4:49 ↗ responsibility and contributed to provide for this regional issue. In a

4:55 ↗ number of cities, surplus and underutilized public land has been made available for affordable housing

5:00 ↗ development, including two home sites for Habitat for Humanity.

5:10 ↗ utilizing city regulatory tools such as linking increased zoning

5:16 ↗ capacity with the provision of affordable housing and local affordable housing

5:22 ↗ multifamily property tax exemption programs have resulted in the incorporation

5:28 ↗ affordable houses, homes into market rate developments.

5:35 ↗ The developments include in Issaquah, adopting land use

5:41 ↗ requirements in its master plan developments and the central issaquah plan

5:47 ↗ and a multi-family property tax exemption program for a downtown property

5:53 ↗ resulting in affordable units being completed or possibly in development

6:00 ↗ and there are things going on in other cities too we hope The council will

6:06 ↗ join us for some of the events that we have planned for this week. Most

6:10 ↗ of them are in Seattle, but we specifically invite you to the difference a

6:16 ↗ home makes, a special event put on by Attain Housing, Congregations for the

6:22 ↗ Homeless, Imagine Housing, LifeWire, and Sophia Way. This

6:27 ↗ opportunity will be held at 6 p.m. on May 17th.

6:34 ↗ at the Bellevue First Congregational Church. Beyond the week,

6:41 ↗ we hope you will continue to support affordable homes with all the tools available to

6:45 ↗ you and maybe create some new ones. Thank you again for taking the time

6:51 ↗ to issue this proclamation and for your declaration and dedication on this

6:57 ↗ issue. Thank you very much. Thank you, Elizabeth.

7:04 ↗ I'm a family development case manager with HopeLink. So I work with a lot of

7:09 ↗ families in the Issaquah area as well, and helping them, low-income families, to work towards

7:14 ↗ self-sufficiency. And so affordable housing is arguably one of the biggest

7:20 ↗ barriers that we help these families work through and help them towards self-sufficiency. So glad

7:25 ↗ to be a part of this proclamation and taking a bigger look at affordable housing.

7:29 ↗ So thank you guys for having us, and thank you ladies for your comments.

7:50 ↗ So we have a large audience today. Thank you very much for all coming. We're

7:56 ↗ going to move into audience comments, which is a time for audience members to address

8:00 ↗ the Council. There are guidelines for speaking to the Council on the meeting agenda, and

8:05 ↗ those who signed up first will be called forward to speak first. If you did

8:10 ↗ not sign up, at the end of those who have signed up, I will ask

8:13 ↗ if there are any others in the audience that would also like to speak. When

8:17 ↗ your name is called, please use the lectern over there and speak into the microphone.

8:22 ↗ Get your name and address and relationship to the city. And we'll be limiting comments

8:27 ↗ tonight to three minutes. If you have written comments, please submit them to the clerk.

8:33 ↗ And if you're here representing a group and you have a spokesperson, that would be

8:37 ↗ great to have the spokesperson come up and speak on behalf of the group. And

8:42 ↗ the audience can raise their hand to indicate those that are here in support of

8:46 ↗ the speaker. There are also two public hearings tonight, the first major amendment to the

8:51 ↗ Costco development agreement and water use efficiency goals. If you would like to make comments

8:56 ↗ on these two topics, you'll have an opportunity to do so later in the meeting.

9:02 ↗ Thank you for taking the time to address us. Both the council and I appreciate

9:06 ↗ that you've come to speak this evening. And I'm gonna ask if there's anyone that

9:09 ↗ signed up to speak. Yes, Sochi Makovic.

9:22 ↗ And actually, I'm going to get you to go to the microphone over there where

9:25 ↗ I speak early. Thanks, Sochi. Hi, my name is

9:31 ↗ Sochi Makevich. I'm the political director for Washington Community Action Network. We're a grassroots organization

9:36 ↗ with 44,000 members throughout the state and 1,500 here in Issaquah. I'm here because I

9:41 ↗ know that Imagine Housing, a nonprofit housing developer, has been promoting affordable housing week.

9:49 ↗ Well, unfortunately, and it's so ironic that in that proclamation they talk about rent

9:55 ↗ increases because Imagine Housing has been doubling many, many

10:01 ↗ tenants' rent. So I've been approached by many Imagine Housing tenants, several of whom

10:07 ↗ are here today to share their stories with you, who have faced unjust evictions, egregious

10:12 ↗ rent increases, and harassment. Many nonprofit housing providers such as Imagine Housing, present

10:17 ↗ themselves as good stewards of public money. Unfortunately, Imagine Housing in particular is

10:23 ↗ abusing the inherent trust the community places in nonprofit housing providers. They contract

10:29 ↗ with a private management company called FBI Management that seems to hire inexperienced managers who

10:35 ↗ have been treating tenants with surprising disrespect. For instance, I myself personally witnessed

10:42 ↗ one of the property managers give a list of homeless shelters to a tenant who

10:47 ↗ was trying to address problems around an eviction, and the eviction was over parking,

10:53 ↗ slightly over the parking line. So with little notice and no justification

10:59 ↗ during the worst housing crisis our region has faced, this institution is doubling tenants' rents

11:04 ↗ with only 30-day notice. And as I'm sure you can appreciate, individuals' incomes do not

11:10 ↗ double in 30 days. The city of Issaquah has a responsibility to its constituents to

11:14 ↗ ensure that landlords, especially nonprofit landlords, are not abusing their tenants. We have

11:20 ↗ requested a meeting with Imagine Housing and FPI Management. That request has been ignored.

11:26 ↗ They have not even responded to an email. And we're asking the city to urge

11:30 ↗ Imagine Housing and FPI Management to meet with the tenants to discuss their egregious eviction

11:34 ↗ practices. Further, the state legislature has failed to create state laws that protect tenants, but

11:40 ↗ the city council does not have to follow suit. We urge the city council to

11:43 ↗ take the concerns of renters seriously and to work with us to develop policies to

11:47 ↗ prevent these types of abuses of power. Specifically, we seek policies that will prevent short

11:53 ↗ notice rent increases and arbitrary evictions. If the city council does not take action, our

11:58 ↗ housing crisis will worsen and more people will be pushed onto the streets in Issaquah.

12:03 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Sochi. Erin

12:07 ↗ Fenner.

12:16 ↗ Hello, my name is Erin Fenner. I'm here with Washington Cannes, but I am speaking

12:19 ↗ on behalf of a domestic violence survivor who can't appear publicly because she has a

12:23 ↗ protection order from her abuser that protects the confidentiality of her address. She lived at

12:28 ↗ an imagined housing property in Issaquah since December 2006, and she is willing to meet

12:33 ↗ with the council members privately to further discuss these issues. So here's her words.

12:39 ↗ I've been grateful to live in Issaquah for the past 12 years, raising my children

12:42 ↗ in a community where they could prosper and give back. I moved to Issaquah after

12:46 ↗ domestic violence pushed me and my children into homelessness. We found a home in a

12:51 ↗ low-income building owned by Imagine Housing, and we were able to put down roots and

12:55 ↗ find stability. My children are active community members. One is an Eagle Scout, another is

13:00 ↗ volunteering at the hospital, and another at the Village Theater. But my youngest children have

13:04 ↗ major medical issues. I have great benefits at work and an environment that helps achieve

13:09 ↗ work-life balance. Imagine Housing has been advertising for their fundraising campaigns off of families like

13:15 ↗ mine. They say they can help single income families. I know this because they asked

13:18 ↗ me to share my story with their contributors. Yet they are issuing severe rent increases

13:23 ↗ in arbitrary 10 day notices over minor issues. For instance, they gave me a 30

13:28 ↗ day notice to pay my new rent, which will take me two paychecks each month

13:33 ↗ to pay. That means my rent has increased from 425 to $1,270.

13:40 ↗ My property manager insisted this is fair because she said I qualify for state health

13:44 ↗ insurance, ignoring that I still have burdensome health costs and other bills to pay. The

13:48 ↗ problem with 30-day notices for rent increases is that many low-income families are restricted by

13:53 ↗ how much they can be in the bank. We are not allowed to save. Public

13:57 ↗ assistance cuts off if there is more than $1,000 on average in your account per

14:01 ↗ month. Anyone on Social Security can't have an average of more than $2,000 per month.

14:06 ↗ Because of the economic situation my family is in, due to these rent increases, my

14:11 ↗ 17-year-old with severe anxiety has been hospitalized. I can't even move if I wanted. Going

14:16 ↗ to a place where rent is the same as my new income would increase my

14:20 ↗ expenses or put me into a location where daycare teachers have lower wages. I will

14:24 ↗ have to get a second job to afford this rent increase. That's why I'm appealing

14:28 ↗ to you today to make sure low-income tenants in Issaquah are treated fairly. We have

14:32 ↗ asked to meet with Imagine Housing and FPI management, but they have ignored our requests.

14:36 ↗ We are asking you, City Council, to encourage them to meet with us. Further, we

14:40 ↗ are asking that you take steps toward protecting renters in this city by passing tenant

14:45 ↗ protection legislation to prevent unreasonable eviction practices, short rent increase notice times, and

14:51 ↗ other harms tenants like me have faced. Thank you, Erin.

14:59 ↗ Kim Allen. Good evening,

15:05 ↗ Mayor Pauly and Council Members. My name is Kim Allen. I'm with the Wireless Policy

15:08 ↗ Group on behalf of Verizon Wireless to speak to Item 9C on your agenda this

15:13 ↗ evening. First, we want to thank you and staff for allowing the wireless industry to

15:18 ↗ participate in the process of developing a code that will address a very exciting... I'm

15:23 ↗ just going to hold it up for a second. I just want to make sure.

15:26 ↗ Are you going to speak also at the public hearing on this issue? My understanding,

15:30 ↗ Mayor, is that there is no public hearing on this tonight. Okay, sorry. I'm sorry,

15:34 ↗ Kim. Go ahead. No worries. But we want to thank... the council, we want to

15:38 ↗ thank the council committee and staff for working with the wireless industry to try to

15:42 ↗ get a good path forward on the code. We've resolved a number of issues before

15:47 ↗ it gets to you this evening on first reading, but there is one that I

15:50 ↗ want to address that is an impediment to bringing small cell technology to Issaquah.

15:57 ↗ And this technology is going to benefit the city by bringing reliable and seamless wireless

16:02 ↗ connections for your citizens and businesses that are using their cell phones for more and

16:07 ↗ more functions than ever before. The particular code provision that I'd like to address

16:14 ↗ is the height cap for replacement utility poles. The code before you proposed has

16:23 ↗ allows no attachment to any city-owned poles. So there is an enormous group of

16:29 ↗ poles that are completely off limits to wireless attachment to begin. What remains are

16:34 ↗ replacement utility poles, because if we attach a small cell facility to an existing utility

16:40 ↗ pole we need to raise the height of that by the amount that the pole

16:45 ↗ owner requires to achieve a safety clearance or to provide additional space that the pole

16:49 ↗ owner requires so that that amount that we must increase the pole height is not

16:54 ↗ in our hands it's in the pole owner's hands so replacement utility poles are very

16:58 ↗ important having all the city-owned assets off the table and if we can't attach realistically

17:03 ↗ to utility poles, then our only option is to place brand new

17:08 ↗ poles in the right of way where you don't have any today. So what we're

17:12 ↗ asking for, the council committee discussed a height cap for replacement utility poles. And nobody

17:18 ↗ could really come up with what the right height would be. And the reason for

17:22 ↗ that, I think, is that the poles are all different heights. We went and we

17:26 ↗ sent a surveyor out to take a look and found in our initial look at

17:30 ↗ utility poles in the Squawk neighborhood, eight poles that exceed, if we add the required

17:35 ↗ 15 feet would exceed the 50 and 55 feet that are proposed here tonight. So

17:41 ↗ what we're asking is for you to follow suit that Redmond has in Kirkland and

17:46 ↗ Bellevue and not have a height cap, but require us to provide evidence that we

17:51 ↗ are proposing a height increase that's the minimum necessary to meet the poll owner requirements.

17:57 ↗ We don't wanna make the poles any taller than they need to be. So if

18:01 ↗ we could just add that language, the minimum height needed to meet the poll owner

18:05 ↗ requirements to that new proposed section, we would have a workable code that would provide

18:11 ↗ a clear path forward to bring this very important technology to the city of Issaquah.

18:15 ↗ Thank you. Kim? Joanna Olivier.

18:31 ↗ Good evening. I'm here tonight representing my sister Violeta Cialer. She's not

18:37 ↗ available tonight. She had a prior commitment and she's out of town. So I'm going

18:42 ↗ to read this letter on behalf of Violeta Cialer. Joanna, can I get you to

18:46 ↗ state your full name and address for the record? Yes. I'm Joanna Olivier and my

18:52 ↗ sister Violeta lives on Rose Crest Apartments here in Issaquah.

19:00 ↗ and I can start anytime, okay? My name is Violeta Cialair. I am a bus

19:05 ↗ driver for the Issaquah School District. I am a widow with two children, one of

19:10 ↗ my daughter almost done with college, and my son is in high school. I've lived

19:16 ↗ here for nine years, and I'm very thankful. I

19:19 ↗ have this home so I can provide

19:25 ↗ for my kids. I have been part of this community for the last

19:31 ↗ nine years, and I never had any problems before. But over the past three months,

19:38 ↗ me and other tenants at this building have many problems. Last month, the

19:44 ↗ property management wanted to repaint the parking lot, but did not give

19:49 ↗ anyone any notice. She went to my teenager's son,

19:57 ↗ while I was at work and demanded that he move the car within a few

20:01 ↗ hours notice on the same day. And she was threatening my son

20:08 ↗ that if he doesn't move the car, that he was going to tow the car.

20:13 ↗ The next day, when someone was parked in my spot, my son went to tell

20:18 ↗ the property manager that the car was in her space. asking why the property manager

20:24 ↗ was not towing the car yet, threatening to tow the car again. The property manager

20:30 ↗ reacted by calling the police on my son, Craig. The police did not cite my

20:36 ↗ son, Craig, because there was nothing to cite him for. Soon after, because

20:42 ↗ I know property managers have a lot of power over my life,

20:49 ↗ because I'm living in these apartments and I need these apartments, My mother-in-law and I

20:54 ↗ went to smooth things over. So we wanted to talk to the property manager and

20:59 ↗ kind of go over and kind of smooth things out. The property manager demanded that

21:04 ↗ my high school son move out and started to yell at us. So we were

21:08 ↗ not able to get anywhere with her. After the meeting with the property manager,

21:16 ↗ I got four 10-day notices in one day. What are there for,

21:22 ↗ I asked myself, and I asked the property manager. She says that because the car

21:28 ↗ was parked outside the spot, it's supposed to be a specific line that

21:34 ↗ the car's supposed to be parked. Technically, I'm out to- Diana, I sort of got

21:39 ↗ you off to a slow start. I'll give you about another half a minute if

21:42 ↗ you could wrap up and summarize. Yes, I will. I'm going to speak on behalf

21:45 ↗ of my sister. My sister, she drives buses for the- Issaquah School District. She's been

21:51 ↗ living in this area for over nine years. Her son moved to this apartment when

21:55 ↗ he was a child. He lost his father in fourth grade, so my sister is

21:59 ↗ a single mother. She's been provided for two of her children. She never had any

22:02 ↗ problems in this apartment, but recently she's been harassed about

22:09 ↗ moving out of this apartment. And not only that, she have an 18-year-old that she's

22:14 ↗ trying to make him graduate, and she doesn't have any other place to take her

22:19 ↗ son. So we are very concerned because I have my own son, and if someone

22:23 ↗ would do that to me or to you guys, that's so hard for a single

22:28 ↗ mother who is trying to work, who is trying to bring her son, to have

22:33 ↗ a regular life in this area. They don't want to be homeless. They don't want

22:37 ↗ to be out there. And it's very unfair that they have not responded after so

22:42 ↗ many times that they've been asking to go ahead and talk about it, figure out

22:47 ↗ what solutions can be done for her to be able to stay. Thank you so

22:50 ↗ much for tonight. Joanna? Yes. Matt Russo?

23:07 ↗ Good evening. I'm Matt Russo, 5119 Northeast 187th Street, Lake Forest Park,

23:13 ↗ Washington. So I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the proposed wireless

23:19 ↗ facility code under consideration by the council on behalf of T-Mobile. I work for

23:25 ↗ T-Mobile as in the site development and engineering department. I work to

23:31 ↗ deploy sites across the Pacific Northwest. I first want to thank the

23:37 ↗ city and the staff for working with the industry on some of our concerns with

23:42 ↗ the proposed code. I'm here tonight to go on the record to say that T-Mobile

23:46 ↗ cannot support the code as it's written. We have continuing concerns listed on the

23:52 ↗ top of page two of the staff memo. Number one, the first

23:58 ↗ concern that was raised was the no access to municipal polls. This

24:04 ↗ is contrary to the vast majority of other jurisdictions around the Puget Sound and puts

24:09 ↗ Issaquah at odds with local jurisdictions. It limits our deployment options

24:16 ↗ for the right-of-way, resulting in decreased service and speeds for your residents.

24:22 ↗ Issue number three in the staff memo, changing the code to discourage macro sites in

24:28 ↗ single-family zones. puts capacity restraints again on our network,

24:34 ↗ resulting in decreased speeds and quality for consumers and the community.

24:40 ↗ This will force us to put new poles in the right of way, which is

24:45 ↗ more visually obtrusive than if we were allowed to collocate in

24:52 ↗ single family residential areas on schools or buildings where we could we could

24:58 ↗ enclose in a stealth enclosure so it's not as visually obtrusive.

25:04 ↗ And point number four, no new poles on Front Street. When you talk about 5G

25:10 ↗ and the small cell rollout, these are the areas that are most important to deploy.

25:15 ↗ And if we can't deploy small cells on Front Street, residents in the community will

25:20 ↗ face decreased speeds, lower service on their phone service.

25:27 ↗ This will force us to move on to buildings or PSE poles in the area

25:32 ↗ if it's cost effective or even feasible to do so. So I want to finish

25:37 ↗ just by stating that addressing industry concerns and promoting flexibility within the

25:43 ↗ wireless code allows for technological innovation, better service for your residents and the

25:49 ↗ community, and faster emergency response times. Thank you.

25:56 ↗ Thank you. Ken Lyons.

26:03 ↗ Good evening, Mayor Hawley and council members. My name is Ken Lyons with Wireless Policy

26:07 ↗ Group. I'm here on behalf of AT&T. Thank you. Especially thank the council for all

26:11 ↗ their work on this topic, certainly the council committee. Thank you also to Director Niven

26:15 ↗ and the staff who have put so much time into trying to find the right

26:20 ↗ balance for being able to allow for quality wireless services and also protect the important

26:25 ↗ aesthetic considerations that the city values so highly. And just a couple of comments.

26:33 ↗ It's really important to take a step back and just understand that we are in

26:36 ↗ a moment of tremendous demand in the community for wireless service. AT&T has experienced a

26:42 ↗ 250,000% increase in demand on its wireless network for data

26:48 ↗ since 2007. So that basically tells you the advent of the iPhone. That's the kind

26:52 ↗ of moment that changed the way that we do communicate. And if you look actually

26:57 ↗ over the last 10 to 15 years, we were a landline society for effectively 100

27:01 ↗ years. And we've gone rapidly wireless in the last 15 to 20. And that has

27:06 ↗ very, very important implications for policy. policy in terms of how these things are actually

27:12 ↗ provided. Because, you know, more than 60% of residents no longer have

27:18 ↗ a home phone at all. They're relying on their wireless phones in order to be

27:23 ↗ able to communicate with each other. So with that as a backdrop, it's important to

27:27 ↗ note that this is critical infrastructure. It is stuff that people really do depend on.

27:32 ↗ And it becomes even more important in the case of emergencies. You know, over 70%

27:38 ↗ of 911 calls come over wireless phones. These people really do reach for their wireless

27:44 ↗ device in the event of an emergency or a power outage or things of that

27:47 ↗ nature. So with that as a backdrop, I do want to focus on just a

27:51 ↗ couple of things in the code. I certainly support what my counterpart,

27:57 ↗ Kim Allen, mentioned about the concern about height for utility poles. I think that is

28:01 ↗ an important point of flexibility that we would appreciate the council's consideration on. I think

28:07 ↗ the, I'm going to just speak though, this code doesn't just address small sales. It

28:12 ↗ also addresses macro facilities, and it does put a new prohibition of macro facilities in

28:17 ↗ residential areas. So keep in mind, the city of Issaquah is mostly residential areas and

28:22 ↗ at a point where demand is increasing at a tremendous rate. And I think that

28:27 ↗ what we would suggest and ask the council to consider is allow macro facilities in

28:33 ↗ residential zones on non-residential uses, places like water tanks or churches or places like that

28:38 ↗ where they could be integrated and stealth. It's important to recognize small cells don't have

28:43 ↗ a battery backup. So if power goes out, the services associated with that also go

28:47 ↗ out. The network really is depending on those macro facilities to provide the baseload coverage

28:53 ↗ that everyone's depending on. It's important to not foreclose the possibility of those being placed

28:59 ↗ in near residential zones in appropriate locations. Not everywhere, but just a few important

29:04 ↗ locations. If you could wrap up, Ken, that would be great. Yeah, absolutely. So we

29:08 ↗ just ask that you consider that in table B. Table B is where that is

29:13 ↗ located. We appreciate all your work on this, and we look forward to hearing the

29:16 ↗ discussion tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

29:19 ↗ Amy Pellegrini. Hi,

29:25 ↗ my name is Amy Pellegrini. I'm also with Wireless Policy Group representing AT&T. Just would

29:30 ↗ like to echo the comments that the wireless representatives have made tonight and let you

29:35 ↗ know we're here if you have any questions during discussion. Also, one thing that AT&T

29:39 ↗ would like to volunteer is we heard some comments that during some public hearings that

29:45 ↗ there may be an opportunity to revisit this code amendment once it's adopted after 18

29:50 ↗ months to examine what's working and what could maybe use some improvement and

29:57 ↗ look at maybe making some improvements at that point too. Thank you. Thank you, Amy.

30:05 ↗ Tara Knight.

30:13 ↗ My name is John Knight. I'm speaking for my wife, Tara. She's just had surgery,

30:17 ↗ so she's a little under the weather. We live in 341 Shangri-La Way up

30:23 ↗ in Rosecrest Apartments, which is owned by Imagine Housing and managed by

30:29 ↗ FPI Management. My wife moved into low-income housing owned by Imagine Housing 11 years ago.

30:37 ↗ She has two children, including a son with autism, and We've been able to make

30:43 ↗ do financially when we're still kind of budgeting one paycheck to the

30:49 ↗ next. So we're literally living paycheck to paycheck. Because we live in a federally subsidized

30:54 ↗ apartment building, we were fortunate to pay 687 in rent. That meant we were able

30:59 ↗ to pay our bills on time, pay for groceries without having to rely on other

31:04 ↗ state programs or any other assistance. Recently, I was laid off. But of course, that

31:10 ↗ doesn't mean the bills go away. They're still gonna come in. My wife just had

31:14 ↗ major surgery, so she's not able to make any money until she's cleared to return

31:19 ↗ to work, whenever that may be. And while all this was happening

31:25 ↗ to us, we got a shocking notice of, 30-day notice of rent increase

31:31 ↗ of well over 100%, going from 687 to 1,407 a month.

31:38 ↗ This is supposed to be affordable housing. We

31:44 ↗ understand rent increases are expected from time to time and 20%, 25%, 30%

31:50 ↗ would be a reasonable increase, but over 100%, that's not fair or reasonable. And this

31:56 ↗ is what Imagine Housing has been doing to several of the tenants up on our

32:01 ↗ apartment complex. That means we don't have enough money to pay for school for the

32:06 ↗ kids. My stepdaughter who's in college right now, we barely have money to buy any

32:12 ↗ groceries anymore, so now we have to rely on the Issaquah Food Bank to subsidize

32:16 ↗ our food, our nutritional needs in our home for us and our children.

32:23 ↗ In essence, what they're doing is they're setting up low-income tenants to fail. Instead of

32:26 ↗ putting them in a position to be successful and to improve their quality of life

32:31 ↗ for their families, They're really setting up for failure now. People can't afford these homes.

32:38 ↗ They're going to have more issues with mischief now in the summertime when the kids

32:41 ↗ are bored and the parents are going to be working two jobs now and who's

32:44 ↗ going to be watching their kids? So that's going to create a whole other set

32:48 ↗ of problems along those lines as well. But clearly imagine housing is not prioritized

32:53 ↗ low income tenants. The manager declined in appeal to lower the rent saying that in

32:58 ↗ her opinion the family does not have enough of a hardship to justify it and

33:04 ↗ stated this is Issaquah is what is a cost

33:10 ↗ and many of the neighbors who wanted to come speak tonight too they're all afraid

33:14 ↗ of retaliation from FPI management and imagine housing so they which is a very understandable

33:20 ↗ thing I would and I can we've seen a retaliation in the past from them

33:24 ↗ so we could definitely understand that fear you john thank you very much for your

33:29 ↗ time no one further has signed up to speak

33:36 ↗ you want to come up to the microphone and name and address

33:48 ↗ good evening my name is margarita mayoral Again, my

33:53 ↗ address is 341 Changri Laway. I live in Rose Crest apartment in

33:58 ↗ Issaquah. I'm sorry, unfortunately, I don't speak good English.

34:05 ↗ I will speak in Spanish and she will translate me. La

34:11 ↗ razón por la que yo estoy en este lugar es porque yo he recibido muchas

34:16 ↗ injusticias de parte de Rose Crest. porque no hablo inglés, ellos

34:22 ↗ toman ventajas de mí, ellos constantemente cambian de managers, ellos no hacen las recertificaciones

34:27 ↗ anuales a tiempo y ponen la culpa en los que viven ahí.

34:33 ↗ También he recibido tres noticias de desalojo. En febrero del 2016,

34:39 ↗ ellos me cobraron $10,000, según ellos, por renta atrasada. Desafortunadamente,

34:46 ↗ En ese tiempo yo no estaba aquí, estaba en México cuidando a mi padre, que

34:51 ↗ estaba muy enfermo. Y mi esposo estaba sin trabajo, tenía una infección en su

34:57 ↗ rodilla y mi hija Ciara en ese tiempo era menor de edad y ella tuvo

35:02 ↗ que firmar y empezar a firmar un acuerdo para empezar a pagar 500

35:09 ↗ dólares por dos años. Ella tuvo que agarrar un trabajo para ayudar

35:15 ↗ a mi esposo a pagar ese dinero, porque si no, nos iban a correr del

35:19 ↗ apartamento. También ellos nunca arreglan nada en el

35:24 ↗ apartamento y he tenido muchos problemas, me han tratado muy mal.

35:31 ↗ Ellos no tienen ética profesional para tratar a las personas que viven ahí. Y

35:37 ↗ por favor, yo quiero que Imagine Housing me regrese ese dinero.

35:46 ↗ So

35:51 ↗ the reason why I'm here today is

35:56 ↗ because I've been having a lot of issues with the managers at Rosecrest. Since I

36:00 ↗ don't speak English, they take advantage of my family and I. At Rosecrest, they constantly

36:05 ↗ change managers, and every time there's a new manager, they say I haven't finished my

36:09 ↗ annual recertification on time. I received three eviction notices, one time for having dogs even

36:15 ↗ though she had dogs for several years, another time for changing the carpet even though

36:19 ↗ they gave permission, and then the last one was for not completing the recertification on

36:24 ↗ time. But it was not my fault because the managers are not doing things correctly

36:29 ↗ and they do not have consistent office hours. In February of 2016, they charged us

36:35 ↗ $10,000 on back rent because they said they miscalculated the rent.

36:41 ↗ Unfortunately, I wasn't in the country at the time. I was in Mexico taking care

36:45 ↗ of my parents. So my husband and my daughter, who at that time was only

36:50 ↗ 17 years old, had to sign an agreement to pay the $10,000 in two years.

36:55 ↗ And if we did not pay in time, we had to leave the apartment. They

36:58 ↗ never fix anything, not even when you turn in a work notice weeks in advance.

37:03 ↗ I would like Imagine Housing to pay back the $10,000 that my daughter began paying

37:07 ↗ in $500 per rent on top of my normal rent because her

37:13 ↗ daughter got a second job. I would like Imagine Housing to hire managers who are

37:18 ↗ trained to do a good job with tenants at Rosecrest, and I would like them

37:23 ↗ to respond to a request to meet with us. And I'm going to give you

37:27 ↗ all my cards. You can get to the clerk, would be great. And I'll follow

37:30 ↗ up with all of you so we can talk about how to fix this. Thank

37:34 ↗ you. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to provide comment for

37:38 ↗ council? Well, first of

37:44 ↗ all, I guess when I started coming here about nine months ago, ten months ago,

37:49 ↗ whatever it was, had a little few issues in the beginning um still need to

37:52 ↗ give your full name and address thank you and we still have issues uh my

37:56 ↗ name is robert swanson i live at 826 fourth avenue isquale washington up in the

38:01 ↗ highlands thank you mayor um so anyway i feel like i just want to let

38:05 ↗ you guys know i want to thank you i i really feel like um as

38:10 ↗ far as i don't know the fairness is the right word but i think one

38:12 ↗ thing that you did uh three weeks ago i i just wanted to send an

38:16 ↗ email but i wanted to thank you in person is afterwards if it's okay to

38:20 ↗ say to the mayor, you afterwards, you said, we heard tonight, blah, blah, blah. We

38:25 ↗ heard about this. We heard about that. I felt like afterwards, I go, wow, that

38:28 ↗ was really a great way to do it because I really felt heard. And I

38:31 ↗ felt like everybody else had shared. You're not going to win every battle, as I

38:35 ↗ know, you know, now that, and you have a tough job. But for you to

38:39 ↗ be able to repeat all that, I just thought that was, To me, I thought

38:43 ↗ that was one of the best things I've heard since I've been coming down here.

38:45 ↗ I've learned a lot, but I really felt like it was a way for you

38:49 ↗ to express you've heard what people have to say. Sometimes they'll win, sometimes they'll lose,

38:54 ↗ but it really felt like we were heard. The other thing, about a week and

39:00 ↗ a half ago, I wasn't able to go to it, but the superintendent of the

39:06 ↗ schools had a meeting and the next day or two days later I got an

39:09 ↗ email basically stating what happened at the meeting and I just want to be able

39:14 ↗ to give this and I know you all probably heard about this but I want

39:17 ↗ to the recording here and the people here is that the school they want to

39:23 ↗ build a school and cut down a hill and put on top of it on

39:28 ↗ top of that hill of the school but they say referring to the safety of

39:32 ↗ the children the Isquad School Board decided to hold off that night on voting for

39:37 ↗ resolution 1113, which would have directed the superintendent to pursue the purchase of sale agreement

39:43 ↗ of the land so they can build a school on it. Well, basically over the

39:46 ↗ last nine, 10 months, what I've been talking about is the four things. These are

39:51 ↗ the reasons, These are the reasons the city council and the school board have said

39:56 ↗ that they have concerns. Traffic, which I believe is traffic because of the school and

40:00 ↗ the neighborhood, I mean the hospital and the neighborhood. Tree retention, slope stability and the

40:05 ↗ view shed. All those they have concerns on, the superintendent said. Also,

40:12 ↗ Lisa Callen said, I am in support of holding off the resolution. And they said,

40:18 ↗ we have reasons to believe that we need more information before we can proceed. I

40:22 ↗ just want to let you know everything that we've talked about, they pretty much just

40:25 ↗ nailed it right on the head. If they have real reasons to hold off, and

40:30 ↗ one of their main reasons is safety of the children, I really want us to,

40:34 ↗ it's just a, I know you all probably heard this and know it, but I

40:37 ↗ really want to express this is really, if they say it, it really has, meaning

40:43 ↗ behind it. And so I'm just once again, I'm not giving up because they do

40:47 ↗ say at the end, we may revisit this or whatever. So I will not stop

40:51 ↗ visiting this until they say done. And I'm done. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Is

40:56 ↗ there anyone else who would like to address council and mayor this evening? Julie, come

40:59 ↗ on up.

41:13 ↗ Mayor Polly and council members. My name is Julie Clark. I live at 915

41:19 ↗ Bear Ridge Court Northwest in Issaquah. And I am here representing Save

41:25 ↗ Cougar Mountain. And I just want to share that we have heard that the price

41:30 ↗ for the Bergsma property is high, although no one from the city of Issaquah has

41:35 ↗ shared with us exactly how high the price take is. It should not be

41:41 ↗ surprising that the price for the Berksma 46-acre property is high. On the

41:47 ↗ east side, there is more and more demand for our commercial and residential properties, our

41:52 ↗ land. Properties in the greater Seattle area have seen a dramatic increase in market

41:58 ↗ value, as illustrated in our real estate market. The

42:04 ↗ Seattle Times, on March 27, 2018,

42:10 ↗ stated, quote, the hottest real estate markets in the country with no slowing down,

42:16 ↗ end quote. If we decide that the price for the Berksma property is

42:22 ↗ a showstopper, that it is too high, then it seems unlikely that

42:28 ↗ we, as the city of Issaquah, will purchase another piece of property on Issaquah's hillside.

42:36 ↗ The city's comprehensive plan will be considered a propaganda piece. Just nice words

42:41 ↗ describing a situation that will never be realized. Just to entice people to move here

42:47 ↗ and increase the tax base. Or offer a glimmer of hope to those who already

42:53 ↗ live here. Hope that the city they moved to will maintain its characteristic,

42:59 ↗ its charm. Hope that the city will retain the natural beauty of the Issaquah Alps.

43:06 ↗ outdoor recreational opportunities within walking or biking distances. Save

43:12 ↗ Cougar Mountain has circulated a petition during just the past eight weeks. We have

43:17 ↗ collected over 1,400 signatures from people who have signed their names,

43:23 ↗ asking that the city of Issaquah work with King County and other local organizations to

43:29 ↗ acquire the entire 46-acre Bergsma Windward property and preserve it as open space.

43:36 ↗ These people are speaking up

43:45 ↗ and asking you to show that you are not just writing enticing thoughts in the

43:49 ↗ form of plans, but that you are willing to translate those thoughts into tangible action.

43:55 ↗ We, over 1,400 of us, are asking you tonight, the

44:01 ↗ City of Issaquah, to please purchase these 46 acres. Thank you.

44:07 ↗ Thank you, Julie. And there are some hands and some Save Cougar Mountain signs.

44:14 ↗ Is there anyone else who would like to address? I see Ken coming up.

44:21 ↗ Ken Eastman, 2473 Northwest Stoney Creek Drive.

44:28 ↗ So the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan says that we value and will protect our

44:33 ↗ forested hillsides and we're gonna build in the central Issaquah area. Yet

44:39 ↗ city staff is working with the Bergsma property owner to clear cut 20 plus acres

44:45 ↗ of Cougar Mountain and build 50 plus homes. City staff says they don't use the

44:51 ↗ Com Plan in making development decisions, but rather they use the Issaquah Municipal Code.

44:58 ↗ So that makes the Com Plan nothing more than an aspirational document with no teeth.

45:04 ↗ So my question tonight is when are we gonna start the work to

45:09 ↗ translate that comprehensive plan into the city code so that we can

45:15 ↗ achieve that goal and that vision. Thank you. Thank you, Ken.

45:21 ↗ Some hands and signs in the air. Anyone else wishing to speak this evening? Steve.

45:26 ↗ Stephen

45:34 ↗ and Elizabeth. I generally always want to defer to Elizabeth, so

45:40 ↗ thank you, Elizabeth. So a couple thoughts. The first was thanks to all those

45:46 ↗ who showed up to help with the cleanup Issaquah event the recent Saturday. I wasn't

45:49 ↗ one of them. Sorry about that. My nephew's kidnapped me and forced me to take

45:52 ↗ them to the go have fun. So thanks to all those. The second thought was

45:58 ↗ this gray pallor has kind of been hanging over Issaquah. It's glad to see that

46:01 ↗ gone. We can see our beloved Issaquah hillsides again looking green like they're supposed to

46:05 ↗ instead of gray. So thanks for that. I noticed as we're walking down Front Street,

46:10 ↗ I kind of saw the cherry, the blossomed pink blossoms were actually looking pink, so

46:14 ↗ that was cool. It reminded me though, when we're gonna get the trees back on

46:17 ↗ Front Street that we were promised years ago. Next topic, when

46:24 ↗ Mayor Paul, you read a comment about the Preserve Providence Point, I was glad to

46:29 ↗ hear the city make a statement on that. I identify with the city wanting to

46:35 ↗ avoid a potential lawsuit, What I don't understand though is why it's taken to this

46:39 ↗ point to kind of hear from the city what the city's view on that was

46:44 ↗ when there's been all kinds of evidence where the city and the school district have

46:49 ↗ been communicating while people have been fighting to try to get the city of Issaquah

46:53 ↗ to recognize Providence Point as a landmark status and it only gets put in the

46:59 ↗ appendixes for the treasured sites of Issaquah and yet Issaquah is again delaying the treasured

47:06 ↗ our Issaquah Treasures until next year as part of the PPC plan.

47:13 ↗ I don't really want to look at what the next steps are, but I think

47:15 ↗ there's still a good chance of preserving Providence Point. I'd like those to be our

47:19 ↗ issues going forward. I'd be looking at that and focus on those. Next topic was

47:25 ↗ the Issaquah plans, and there's been some discussion about whether or not the language that

47:32 ↗ A lot of folks have worked with the PPC to develop that includes things like

47:35 ↗ shall have amendments. I think those need to be included with the idea of not

47:40 ↗ specific municipal code but get those part of municipal code and to respect the people

47:44 ↗ who have fought to get that in there and I don't think that's too much

47:48 ↗ of a burden to put on development. If we don't tell development what they expect

47:55 ↗ or what they're expected to build, we're not gonna get that and we're putting too

47:58 ↗ much emphasis and focus on We wanna get big, but not big in a certain

48:03 ↗ way to become a regional growth center, but we're not gonna have the regional growth

48:06 ↗ center that we want. We're just gonna have something big because we prioritize big over

48:09 ↗ how we want to become big and grow. So please keep that in mind going

48:14 ↗ forward. I'll do it for now. I reserve the balance of my time to Elizabeth.

48:20 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Thank you.

48:26 ↗ Elizabeth Mopin, 100 Big Bear Place, Northwest.

48:32 ↗ I've heard with horror what's happening at Rosecrest.

48:40 ↗ I understand that the city can't do anything to control rents

48:46 ↗ because the state doesn't allow it. But you have a lobbyist

48:53 ↗ who could push for something to happen at the state level. We've

48:59 ↗ said that we want to preserve affordable housing, but if we allow

49:05 ↗ the rents to go up by 100% or more, there's no way that

49:11 ↗ we're preserving affordable housing.

49:18 ↗ And yes, we have lovely comprehensive plans,

49:25 ↗ but too often we don't seem to have the teeth to make them realities.

49:31 ↗ And you, the city council, are the ones who can put teeth into things. So,

49:39 ↗ I'm begging you, in addition to the money that you put forward for

49:46 ↗ regional affordable housing and local affordable housing, put some teeth

49:52 ↗ in legislation that will allow us to keep what's here and,

49:59 ↗ with my friend Steve. It isn't Providence

50:05 ↗ Point that's in danger of disappearing. It's Providence Heights

50:11 ↗ campus right next door. And it does have

50:17 ↗ dormitories that would house over 500 people and a structure that would

50:23 ↗ allow additional levels to be built Above

50:29 ↗ that, we could have a lot more affordable housing.

50:35 ↗ It's there, and yes, I know, it would be nice to have the millions to

50:40 ↗ buy it. Anything you can do to help me find a buyer, I would most

50:45 ↗ appreciate. Thank you, Elizabeth. Hands raised. Anybody

50:51 ↗ else wishing to speak to the council mayor this evening? Want to come up to

50:57 ↗ the podium?

51:11 ↗ K. Haynes, 2830 Northwest Pinecone Drive in Issaquah. And

51:17 ↗ I've had the opportunity to be out in the community with a petition gathering campaign

51:21 ↗ for Save Cougar Mountain, and it has been really, really revealing. Even I

51:27 ↗ had no idea how much passion and energy and anger and frustration there is

51:33 ↗ out there around the issue of the loss of our hillsides. And there is an

51:38 ↗ incredible amount of support for our efforts that was beyond anything I expected.

51:44 ↗ I brought you 257 minor comments from our committee. from

51:50 ↗ our petition, our electronic petition on the web. We get, in addition to this, we

51:54 ↗ get letters, we get phone calls, we get constant messages from people talking about what

52:00 ↗ this means to them. I wish you could have the exposure that we have. You

52:03 ↗ only have a few of us talking with you. But what we've seen out there

52:07 ↗ is really remarkable, and I hope that you can share it at least in part.

52:12 ↗ I'm gonna read a few comments in absentia from people who, of

52:17 ↗ Save Cougar Mountain and the desire for the city to acquire the property.

52:26 ↗ I was extremely saddened to hear of the proposed development in Cougar Mountain. Places like

52:31 ↗ Cougar Mountain are why people like me love Issaquah and spend almost every weekend in

52:35 ↗ and around Issaquah. As a conservation scientist and outdoor enthusiast, I adamantly

52:41 ↗ oppose this proposal and hope the Issaquah City Council sees the immense value for people,

52:46 ↗ nature, and the economy in keeping Cougar Mountain as a shared open space for its

52:51 ↗ residents. Even if I never set foot

52:57 ↗ on the Cougar Mountain hillside, I will defend the rights of those who do, now

53:02 ↗ and in the future. The highest and best use of land is not impermeable surfaces

53:07 ↗ surrounded by houses. We need land free of housing and development so

53:13 ↗ humans can connect with nature. Habitat conservation is critical to maintaining biodiversity, and the

53:19 ↗ cost of repairing a damaged ecosystem is so much higher than the cost of preserving

53:23 ↗ a natural ecosystem. Cougar Mountain is precious land, and we must protect it.

53:30 ↗ Growth is inevitable, but let's be smart about it. The decisions we make now will

53:34 ↗ last for generations. Let's preserve the beauty and character of our corner of the world,

53:39 ↗ even if it costs a little more. I'm a property owner

53:45 ↗ in downtown Issaquah. I and my tenants love the rural surround and walkable downtown. The

53:51 ↗ Bergsma Windward Hillside is in full view as you approach Issaquah. To lose it to

53:55 ↗ a housing tract would be short-sighted. The forested hillside is Issaquah. Please preserve it.

54:01 ↗ for us and our future generations. Between the large cities, this is a respite, one

54:07 ↗ of the only large places for youth to see untrammeled nature. Our future depends on

54:12 ↗ their opinion of preserving natural landscapes and ecological balance that comes from trees versus cities.

54:19 ↗ I moved to this area for the green hills, not a concrete jungle. Cougar Mountain

54:23 ↗ is a gem. a local, easily accessed place to exercise and connect with nature. I

54:29 ↗ also love seeing the lush hillside from I-90 and knowing that it's there, a place

54:34 ↗ to go to feel restored and refreshed. Thank you, Kay. I'll just read one last

54:38 ↗ one. Think of a time in history when we regretted preserving some

54:44 ↗ natural beauty. Yeah, that's never happened. Thank you, Kay.

54:52 ↗ And some signs waving. Anybody else like to address the council and mayor this evening?

54:57 ↗ So I'll ask two more times before I close audience comments. Is there anyone else

55:01 ↗ that would like to address the council this evening? And the last call for public

55:05 ↗ comments this evening. Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public comments,

55:11 ↗ audience comments portion of our meeting. I did want to thank you all for coming

55:16 ↗ tonight. This is a very large crowd and Council and myself all understand how hard

55:21 ↗ it is to stand up in front of a business meeting like this and express

55:26 ↗ your comments. We heard about issues at Rosecrest at Tallis. We heard from various

55:31 ↗ wireless service providers about code that Council will be considering this evening. Talked about,

55:37 ↗ heard about school siting issues. The Bergsma development on Cougar Mountain, some comments on our

55:43 ↗ comp plan versus our Issaquah Municipal Code, questions about when trees might be put back

55:49 ↗ on Front Street, and comments on the Providence Heights development. Thank you all for

55:54 ↗ participating tonight. While it is awkward that Council does not get to engage with you,

55:59 ↗ I feel fortunate that I do and can summarize for you, but you have their

56:03 ↗ ears and they're listening to you tonight when you come in and make your comments.

56:08 ↗ So thank you very much for doing that. We'll move to committee and regional reports

56:13 ↗ and we'll start with Council Member Hunt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I attended

56:19 ↗ the Cascade Water Alliance board meeting on April 25th with Mayor Pauly. We heard updates

56:25 ↗ about Lake TAPS, which is the Cascade Water Alliance reservoir. And

56:31 ↗ we heard updates on infrastructure projects associated with Lake TAPS, as well as a

56:36 ↗ natural yard care and septic system maintenance and education program that they're launching called TAPSWISE.

56:42 ↗ We also talked about earthquake preparedness and preparedness for repairs to wholesale

56:48 ↗ distribution lines associated with an earthquake. And of interest, I

56:54 ↗ think, to this group, Cascade Water Lines is considering a two-year rate increase as a

56:59 ↗ number of cities are moving to two-year budgets. So more information will be coming on

57:04 ↗ that. They're currently considering that. And we also discussed reclaimed

57:10 ↗ water. And key to the reclaimed water issue is that storage is an issue for

57:15 ↗ our region, but not the total quantity of water. So they're working on the best

57:19 ↗ ways to deal with reclaimed water. The

57:25 ↗ next regular board meeting of Cascade Water Alliance will be on May 23rd. And I

57:30 ↗ also attended the RIA 8 Management Committee meeting on May 1st. The management

57:36 ↗ committee made recommendations on two things. One is on the proposed work plan, which we

57:41 ↗ approved, as well as an increase to the 2019 RIA 8 budget. There's

57:47 ↗ a 5.7% increase in the RIA 8 budget, and the

57:53 ↗ management committee will be making the recommendation to approve an increase to the interlocal cost

57:59 ↗ share to cover that increase at the next salmon recovery council meeting. Salmon

58:05 ↗ Recovery Council meeting will be on May 17th. This concludes my report. Thank you. Councilmember

58:10 ↗ Ray. Thank you, Mayor Pauley. Note the Services and Safety Committee is going to meet

58:16 ↗ on May 9th at 6.30 p.m. in Council Chambers. Note this is not our typical

58:20 ↗ day. We have pushed it back one day this week.

58:26 ↗ Things that we're going to have on our agenda, we will be addressing agenda bill

58:30 ↗ 7595, which is an amendment to the salary ordinance creating two new classifications,

58:36 ↗ a procurement and contract specialist and a management analyst. Agenda bill 7565, which

58:42 ↗ is an extension of the inter-fund loan between fleet services

58:49 ↗ and roadway improvements. The loan was approved by the council in

58:55 ↗ November of 2016. Agenda Bill 7596, which is a

59:01 ↗ property tax reduction request via the King County Public Benefits Rating System. So

59:07 ↗ there's a piece of property in Esquad that has historical significance and they are looking

59:13 ↗ for a property tax reduction. And then we will be addressing agenda bill 7601,

59:20 ↗ which is a memorandum of understanding with Eastside Fire and Rescue related to the

59:27 ↗ maintenance of city-owned fire facilities. And then just again to reiterate, services and safeties

59:33 ↗ will be meeting on Wednesday, May 9th, not Tuesday, May 8th, as we typically would.

59:40 ↗ Eastside Fire and Rescue Board will meet on May 10th at 4 p.m. Councilmember Goodman

59:45 ↗ and I will be attending the meeting via telephone to permit us to participate in

59:49 ↗ the upcoming Council retreat. Likely items on the agenda include an update from the

59:55 ↗ Fire Chief on PFAS and an update on Labor Management Retreat.

1:00:01 ↗ The Board will be considering a modification to the Director's Roles and Responsibility Policy

1:00:07 ↗ ironically to permit board members to participate via telephone. And

1:00:13 ↗ then finally, we're going to be taking up the discussion on implementing a Brycer compliance

1:00:19 ↗ engine, which is a software package that allows fire inspectors to more effectively

1:00:25 ↗ and quickly complete their inspections. Additionally, on

1:00:31 ↗ April 30th, I attended the Park Strategic Planning Meeting that was held in the Eagle

1:00:34 ↗ Room at City Hall. We had a great turnout and a really spirited discussion with

1:00:38 ↗ the people who attended. And that concludes my report this evening. Thank you, Council Member

1:00:43 ↗ Ray. Council Member Ramos. Thank you, Mayor. Council Infrastructure Committee, the next

1:00:49 ↗ meeting is on May 17th at 6.30 here. Agenda has not been set yet. We

1:00:54 ↗ have one item on the regular business today coming from our last meeting. We'll discuss

1:00:57 ↗ that later. Coming up meetings, I have Emergency Management Advisory Council on Wednesday the 9th.

1:01:04 ↗ the Regional Transit Committee meeting on the 16th of this month, and I will be

1:01:09 ↗ missing the Eastside Transportation Partnership meeting this Friday because of Council meeting conflict. I'll be

1:01:15 ↗ here on that. It concludes my report. Thank you, Council Member Ramos. Council Member Winterside.

1:01:19 ↗ Thank you, Madam Mayor. I attended the Growth Management Policy Board of the Puget Sound

1:01:24 ↗ Regional Council meeting last Thursday, May 3rd. The major item on the agenda was the

1:01:30 ↗ setting of the scope for the Vision 2040 update. The Growth Management Policy Board, or

1:01:36 ↗ GMPB, and the Executive Board must adopt the scope before the two-year update process can

1:01:42 ↗ begin in earnest. The GMPB did not have a vote on the scope as proposed

1:01:47 ↗ by PSRC staff. The major issue of contention is the regional growth strategy, which is

1:01:53 ↗ a critical part of vision. A number of jurisdictions outside King County led by

1:01:59 ↗ Pierce County, wanted another month to better debate whether the current regional growth strategy should

1:02:04 ↗ just be updated or perhaps go through a more extensive overhaul. A subcommittee was formed

1:02:10 ↗ to further discuss this matter and a vote on the possible updated scope is expected

1:02:15 ↗ at our next meeting in June. That concludes my report. Thank you, Council Member Winterstein.

1:02:19 ↗ Council Member Goodman? Thank you, Mayor Pawley. I'm going to report on the

1:02:25 ↗ May, out on the May 3rd Land and Shore Committee meeting, and then Council

1:02:30 ↗ President Martz will report on the meeting Land and Shore prior to that, which happened

1:02:34 ↗ to be April 19th because I couldn't attend, but because my reporting comes before him,

1:02:38 ↗ it's kind of an awkward, awkward situation. Anyway, Land

1:02:44 ↗ and Shore last met on May 3rd, and we had three items on our agenda.

1:02:49 ↗ Two were informational only. One was to give Land and Shore a very brief presentation,

1:02:55 ↗ just in case we had some questions that staff might consider regarding an upcoming

1:03:01 ↗ agenda bill that is being created regarding timber ridge easement modifications. There were a couple

1:03:07 ↗ of questions, but it was a very briefly presented item. The next item was agenda

1:03:12 ↗ bill 7533, first major amendment to the Costco development agreement. That also was informational

1:03:18 ↗ only because procedurally we had already passed that agenda bill out of committee

1:03:25 ↗ because it is before us tonight. And so we will be hearing from the director

1:03:30 ↗ of development services tonight about that sort of a last minute proposed amendment that was

1:03:35 ↗ made to the agreement. And the last item was agenda bill 7344 central Issaquah district

1:03:41 ↗ divisions. And that's regarding the development moratorium. And we spent several hours on that and

1:03:46 ↗ we were having a special meeting.

1:03:53 ↗ May 15th, a special meeting so that we can, the goal is to finish that

1:03:58 ↗ item so that we can get it back before the full council so that we

1:04:01 ↗ can in June, perhaps lift the moratorium.

1:04:08 ↗ And that's my report. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Goodman. Deputy Council President Batiste.

1:04:14 ↗ Thank you, Madam Mayor. On May 2nd, I attended the Puget Sound

1:04:20 ↗ Regional Council Economic Development Board. There was one action item, which

1:04:26 ↗ was an adoption of a regional aviation baseline study. Discussion items of

1:04:34 ↗ The Director of Government Affairs for Forterra gave a presentation on cross

1:04:40 ↗ laminated timber efforts in the Puget Sound region. And then the meeting ended by

1:04:47 ↗ an overview of the Amazing Place update, which is really the strategic plan for the

1:04:52 ↗ group, the 2050 forecast of people and jobs, and the Vision 2050 scope of

1:04:58 ↗ work. The next meeting will be July 11th. And that concludes my report. Thank you.

1:05:04 ↗ Council President Martins. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I realize that by going in reverse

1:05:08 ↗ order back through these land and shore, it's almost like the Christopher Nolan movie Inception,

1:05:12 ↗ which occurs going backwards in time, sort of an elected official version of that.

1:05:18 ↗ The Council Land and Shore Committee met on Thursday, April 19th. We had six items,

1:05:23 ↗ one informational, five for action. The informational item was a moratorium update from Economic Development

1:05:29 ↗ and Services Director Niven. The first action item is agenda bill 7533, first major amendment

1:05:34 ↗ to the cost code development agreement. We unanimously recommended approval and it is up for

1:05:41 ↗ hearing this evening. Next was agenda bill 7507 regarding inclusionary

1:05:46 ↗ zoning requirements. We unanimously recommended approval of this agenda bill and it is

1:05:53 ↗ on regular business for this evening. Agenda Bill 7577, standards

1:05:59 ↗ amendment limiting hotels, motels, timeshare, lodging, conference centers, and self-storage units in

1:06:04 ↗ specific zones. We did not recommend approval of the AB and suggested returning it to

1:06:10 ↗ council under the consent calendar, even though it was not recommended to get closure on

1:06:15 ↗ it. And I believe according to our planning calendar, it is coming up in some

1:06:20 ↗ form on the 21st. Then agenda bill 7344, Central Issaquah District

1:06:26 ↗ Visions. This was part of a multi-step review at Land and Shore.

1:06:32 ↗ And we had a first review of the current language and then moved it

1:06:38 ↗ back forward, requesting additional information that then went to the meeting that council member Goodman

1:06:44 ↗ chaired. And then I believe it is also coming back, I think you already said

1:06:48 ↗ for the third- May 15th, that's right, for a special Land and Shore

1:06:54 ↗ Committee meeting. Then agenda Bill 7576, amendments to the IMC regarding

1:07:00 ↗ accessory dwelling units. We recommended unanimously approval of the proposed amendments and suggested it come

1:07:06 ↗ back to the city on May 21st under regular business. Then that's all I have

1:07:12 ↗ on the Land and Shore Committee, but I want to mention that Sound Cities Association

1:07:17 ↗ Public Issues Committee will be meeting this week, Wednesday, May 9th. The 6 p.m. pre-pick

1:07:22 ↗ is, I think, particularly useful and germane to our city, which is tackling the affordable

1:07:27 ↗ housing crisis. This is going to be a report out from the King County Regional

1:07:31 ↗ Affordable Housing Task Force, which is headed up by Mayor Baker from Kenmore

1:07:38 ↗ and King County Council Member Balducci. So we're very eager to see the work that

1:07:43 ↗ they've been doing. And those are, those prepick sessions are open to everyone. It isn't

1:07:47 ↗ just for PIC members. So, you know, if seven of us showed up, we could,

1:07:51 ↗ we just couldn't talk city business while we were there. Then in the main meeting,

1:07:57 ↗ there are a couple of items that I want to point out. If you want

1:07:59 ↗ more information, I believe everybody has a copy of the packet for the PIC meeting.

1:08:05 ↗ The first is that we're going to be, and these are both discussion items, not

1:08:09 ↗ potential action items, but first is a discussion of the Medic 1 EMS 2020 to

1:08:13 ↗ 2025 levy, which is going to be coming up soon. And anybody who's seen like

1:08:18 ↗ radio levies and some of the other levies that come along, there's an amazing amount

1:08:21 ↗ of money involved in these pieces of infrastructure. So that's going to be an important

1:08:26 ↗ topic. And then the second is that we're going to be discussing one table,

1:08:30 ↗ which is the sort of broad effort to address

1:08:36 ↗ homelessness at the root causes that is sort of jointly

1:08:42 ↗ the brainchild of King County Executive Constantine, Mayors Backus from Auburn and Durkin from

1:08:48 ↗ Seattle. And so we're going to, we've had two pre-pick meetings by the One Table

1:08:54 ↗ folks and we're going to be discussing it further again. There isn't action anticipated to

1:08:58 ↗ occur, but I think it's an opportunity to provide some feedback from the

1:09:04 ↗ municipalities on what we've seen at the One Table presentation so far. This concludes my

1:09:09 ↗ report. Thank you, Council President Martz. On to the mayor's report, there will be an

1:09:14 ↗ executive session held this evening to discuss property acquisition per RCW 42.30.110

1:09:21 ↗ paren 1 paren B. This item is expected to last 15 minutes and no action

1:09:26 ↗ is anticipated. During the last few weeks, on April 25th, I attended the Cascade Water

1:09:32 ↗ Alliance board meeting with Council Member Hunt, which she reported out on, and the Mountains

1:09:37 ↗ of Sound Greenway Trust board meeting. On April 26th, I attended Fortara's annual breakfast in

1:09:43 ↗ Seattle. And on May 1st, I attended the Friends of the Isquah Salmon Hatchby board

1:09:47 ↗ meeting and facilitated a strategic plan outreach meeting in a box. So for those that

1:09:53 ↗ are here this evening or council members on the dais who have not yet filled

1:09:56 ↗ out a survey, we are doing a strategic planning process. We do have a survey

1:10:01 ↗ online and it would be great to have as many folks fill it out as

1:10:04 ↗ possible. On May 2nd, I attended a road usage charge steering committee meeting. And

1:10:10 ↗ on May 4th, I toured Lake Tops with Council Member Hunt, as earlier mentioned. Some

1:10:15 ↗ community outreach activities. I was the guest speaker at University House in Issaquah on April

1:10:20 ↗ 17th and participated in the annual Arbor Day celebration on April 21st at Lake Sammamish

1:10:26 ↗ State Park. I issued a proclamation for Arbor Day, April 21st, 2018,

1:10:31 ↗ and received a 25-year tree city flag from Washington State Lands Commissioner Hilary Frans.

1:10:38 ↗ On April 26th, I provided the opening remarks at the YWCA Stand Against Racism event,

1:10:43 ↗ including issuing a proclamation for Stand Against Racism Week, April 23rd through 29th, 2018.

1:10:51 ↗ A couple of issues to update you on. You've heard a few of the items

1:10:55 ↗ coming in and out of land and shore. There are two moratorium items remaining, inclusionary

1:11:00 ↗ requirements, AB 7507. which is under regular business this

1:11:05 ↗ evening, and the Central Isquah Visions, AB 7344, which will be going

1:11:11 ↗ to a special meeting this month before it returns to Council on May 21st. Should

1:11:16 ↗ the Council approve both the Central Isquah Visions and the inclusionary zoning items this month,

1:11:23 ↗ the moratorium enacted in September 2016 may be lifted in June of this year.

1:11:29 ↗ I have no update tonight on the Cougar Mountain or Bergsma development. Ending of development

1:11:35 ↗ agreement for TALIS, the Planning Policy Commission will be meeting May 10th to consider

1:11:41 ↗ one item that Council referred back, which is the proposed zoning designation for parcel night.

1:11:49 ↗ Proceeding to the consent calendar. The consent calendar was distributed to Council in advance.

1:11:55 ↗ If authorized, The items on the consent calendar will be considered together and approved in

1:12:00 ↗ one motion. Have the payables and payroll for May 7th been reviewed? They have. Thank

1:12:05 ↗ you. Does any council member desire to remove any item from

1:12:11 ↗ the consent calendar and consider it under regular business this evening?

1:12:17 ↗ Any motion? I move we adopt the consent calendar as listed in this evening's agenda.

1:12:21 ↗ Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

1:12:27 ↗ Aye. Those opposed? That passes unanimously. The next item on the agenda this

1:12:33 ↗ evening is our first public hearing, AB 7533, first major amendment to the

1:12:39 ↗ Costco development agreement. This item is coming out of the Council Land and Shore Committee.

1:12:44 ↗ The public hearing was continued from February 20th and April 16th. Before I

1:12:50 ↗ reopen the public hearing, I'd like to invite Keith Niven, Economic and Development Services Director,

1:12:54 ↗ to make a presentation. Keith Niven, Economic and Development Services Director, Thank you, Madam

1:13:00 ↗ Mayor. Good evening, City Council, Keith Niven. This evening

1:13:06 ↗ is a continuation of the public hearing for the first major amendment for the Costco

1:13:12 ↗ development agreement. What we're talking about is we're asking to delay

1:13:18 ↗ what's called Project 3 out of the development agreement, which is the improvement slated for

1:13:24 ↗ the intersection of 12th Avenue and SR 900. We're talking about a delay until April

1:13:30 ↗ of 2019, which gives us just shy of a year to do a traffic study.

1:13:35 ↗ And that traffic modeling will look at the delay and impacts of potentially moving the

1:13:39 ↗ entrance of the state park closer to that intersection of 12th and SR 900.

1:13:46 ↗ It will also potentially identify a certain number of trips that will be incorporated into

1:13:51 ↗ the EIS and the future development agreement with state parks for Lake Sammamish State Park.

1:13:58 ↗ We have talked about a model run, traffic model run for 2024, and Costco

1:14:04 ↗ has agreed to pay for that since that was a request that they had asked

1:14:09 ↗ for. And then there will also be a model run of 2040, which will be

1:14:13 ↗ done by the city's consultant, which is CH2M Hill or Jacobs Engineering at this point.

1:14:19 ↗ The parties agree that proposed uses listed in the partnering agreement with state parks,

1:14:25 ↗ which is exhibit one to the proposed resolution, are representative of the uses currently envisioned

1:14:32 ↗ by the city and state parks. I'll touch on that a little bit briefer after

1:14:37 ↗ I go through the last two slides. So project three is basically

1:14:44 ↗ what's outlined here in these numbers. At the westbound leg of the

1:14:50 ↗ intersection, constructing double left turns westbound to southbound SR 900, adding

1:14:55 ↗ bicycle lanes in both directions, reconstructing six-foot-wide sidewalk on either side with no additional

1:15:01 ↗ landscaping. And at the northbound leg of the intersection, adding a northbound to eastbound turn

1:15:06 ↗ lane. Okay. That project was scheduled to be in design now

1:15:12 ↗ with right-of-way and acquisition being acquired and the project being constructed in 2020

1:15:19 ↗ with an estimated cost of about $3.1 million. And what we're talking about is delaying

1:15:24 ↗ that by up to a year. And then just to give you a visual

1:15:30 ↗ understanding of what we're talking about, this is the intersection right here at 12th and

1:15:35 ↗ SR 900. This is the Holiday Inn right here. City Hall Northwest is just off

1:15:40 ↗ the map. This is the ARCO and the IHOP and the Motel 6. The entrance

1:15:46 ↗ to the park right now is right here. And one of the things that state

1:15:50 ↗ parks has expressed is a desire to have a more prominent entrance location to the

1:15:55 ↗ state park, hoping to get it closer to this busier traffic intersection for people visiting

1:16:01 ↗ from out of the region. As Councilmember Goodman identified earlier, there

1:16:07 ↗ was an informational item at Land and Shore last week. And what

1:16:13 ↗ came up was a concern raised by Costco as they talked internally about this

1:16:19 ↗ proposed amendment that there could be land uses

1:16:25 ↗ identified for the state park, which would create a very big traffic impact and something

1:16:29 ↗ beyond the scope of what we outlined in this amendment. And so we added some

1:16:35 ↗ additional language. There's a request for one final edit to

1:16:42 ↗ add some additional language that ties those envisioned land uses to the partnering agreement

1:16:48 ↗ that the city executed with state parks. That's actually exhibit one of the resolution.

1:16:54 ↗ And those edits have been reviewed by the city attorney. And that concludes my presentation.

1:17:01 ↗ Thank you. Are there any questions for Keith? House member Goodman? Thank you. Two

1:17:06 ↗ questions. It had been reviewed, the proposed new language has been reviewed from by the

1:17:12 ↗ city attorney. So I wanted to know if there were any concerns or comments about

1:17:16 ↗ that language. You know, as I

1:17:22 ↗ understand the language as I read it, it simply says that if

1:17:29 ↗ one of the uses that is in the catch-all that is not listed specifically in

1:17:33 ↗ the partnering agreement, that if some use comes up that is not listed in the

1:17:38 ↗ partnering agreement, Costco has the ability to terminate this agreement if they don't like that

1:17:43 ↗ use. And that would, as I understand it, simply require the city to go ahead

1:17:49 ↗ and begin the design of face-to-face of the project number three. So if the city

1:17:55 ↗ is agreeable to that, I don't have a concern about the language. Thank you. And

1:17:59 ↗ then the second question I had was more of a request, and that was for

1:18:04 ↗ folks here and folks watching. I was wondering if you could put this project in

1:18:08 ↗ context, because we just talked about this project. I don't think we talked about the

1:18:15 ↗ the master financing transportation agreement that we have with Costco and why this intersection and

1:18:21 ↗ the delay is important to both the city and Costco. It's not just another intersection

1:18:27 ↗ project. Okay. So the Costco development agreement identified three

1:18:33 ↗ transportation improvement projects that would add capacity to this part of town, kind of the

1:18:38 ↗ Pickering area. The first one was improvements to East Lake Sammamish Parkway, and that was

1:18:44 ↗ adding a lane in the southbound direction. And those improvements

1:18:50 ↗ are completed. Those were done a while ago. Both Sheldon Lynn, Public Works

1:18:55 ↗ Engineering Director, and David Markley from TSI are here if we need to get into

1:19:00 ↗ a finer grain of detail. The second project is under construction right

1:19:06 ↗ now, and that is the extension of 62nd Street over 4th

1:19:12 ↗ Avenue, which is why 4th Avenue has been closed from Gilman to 221st. But

1:19:18 ↗ 62nd Street extension over Issaquah Creek will provide another way in in and out

1:19:24 ↗ of the Pickering Place shopping center and the Costco headquarters. That

1:19:30 ↗ is, I believe, expected to be done by the end of the year. Sheldon's

1:19:36 ↗ nodding yes. And so this third project is kind of the West End improvement.

1:19:45 ↗ And part of the reason why this is important for both the city and Costco

1:19:50 ↗ is it adds capacity to the side of the community. Costco is,

1:19:58 ↗ in exchange for Costco funding about half of the cost of all of these three

1:20:02 ↗ road improvements, their development agreement gives them the ability to grow by an additional 1.5

1:20:07 ↗ million square feet of office space, of which they're in permitting right now for their

1:20:13 ↗ first building. And so as they grow and add employees, the need for transportation

1:20:19 ↗ improvements is necessary. And so I wanna,

1:20:25 ↗ take this opportunity to say, you know, the city appreciates Costco's willingness to

1:20:30 ↗ explore this request with state parks because it could potentially impact

1:20:36 ↗ their ease of getting in and out of their campus area as they continue to

1:20:40 ↗ grow. So that is, this request was initiated by the city.

1:20:46 ↗ Thank you, Keith. That's a good summary. Other questions? For a motion.

1:20:55 ↗ Public hearings still open. Sorry, sorry. We'll go to the hearing. No further questions. So

1:21:00 ↗ the guidelines for the citizen comments also apply to those under public hearing, and they

1:21:06 ↗ are on the agenda this evening. So I will reopen the public hearing at 822.

1:21:12 ↗ And has anyone signed up to speak this evening? No. Is there anyone who would

1:21:16 ↗ like to speak this evening during the public hearing? I'm asking a second time, would

1:21:21 ↗ anybody like to speak to Council this evening on the public hearing on the first

1:21:26 ↗ major amendment to the Costco development agreement? Last time, anyone wishing to speak this evening?

1:21:33 ↗ Thank you. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing at 823.

1:21:41 ↗ And would someone like to make a motion? Council Member Goodman. Thank you. I would

1:21:45 ↗ move to approve resolution number 2018-06.

1:21:49 ↗ Approving the first major amendment to the Costco development agreement.

1:21:55 ↗ Second. It's been moved and seconded. Council discussion.

1:22:03 ↗ Council Member Goodman. I just want to echo Keith's comments. Very much appreciate

1:22:09 ↗ the thoughtfulness of the parties and the thoroughness and Costco's willingness to be

1:22:16 ↗ great partners. And I support this. Thank you. Any other council members wishing to make

1:22:21 ↗ comments? None. Okay.

1:22:27 ↗ If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of approving resolution number 2018-06,

1:22:34 ↗ approving the first major amendment to the Costco development agreement, signify by saying aye. Aye.

1:22:40 ↗ Those opposed? The resolution passes unanimously. Thank you.

1:22:48 ↗ The next item on our agenda this evening is AB 7604, water use efficiency

1:22:54 ↗ goals. This item is part of the water system plan update currently being reviewed by

1:22:59 ↗ the Council Infrastructure Committee. And before opening the public hearing, I'd like to invite Bob

1:23:04 ↗ York, engineering manager and consultant Jeff Hansen from HDR to make a presentation.

1:23:12 ↗ Thank you, Mayor Pauly. And good evening, council members. As you know, this

1:23:18 ↗ City staff and our consultant tonight, here tonight, produced the draft 2018 water system

1:23:24 ↗ plan. The water system plan has been referred to the Council Infrastructure Committee

1:23:30 ↗ for review. One of the first considerations in the water system planning process

1:23:36 ↗ is adopting water use efficiency goals. Tonight's public hearing is an opportunity for the

1:23:42 ↗ public to comment on the draft water use efficiency goals. no particular

1:23:48 ↗ action is required tonight as a result of this public hearing.

1:23:54 ↗ The opportunity for public comment is a requirement of the

1:24:00 ↗ Washington Administration Code for water system planning purposes, and so tonight's hearing is the opportunity

1:24:06 ↗ for public to comment on our goals. So to introduce you to the

1:24:12 ↗ draft goals and the framework of the process, we have tonight our consultant project manager,

1:24:17 ↗ Jeff Hansen. Jeff's with HDR engineering and he's worked on many

1:24:23 ↗ more of these projects than the one here at ISSAQUA tonight. So without further

1:24:29 ↗ ado, I'll put Jeff up. Thank you, Bob. Thanks, Bob.

1:24:35 ↗ Good evening, council.

1:24:36 ↗ This presentation.

1:24:45 ↗ As Bob said, I have a presentation to provide a preamble for the public hearing

1:24:49 ↗ on the topic of your water use efficiency program and specifically the establishment of your

1:24:54 ↗ water use efficiency goals. Outline for the presentation this evening,

1:25:00 ↗ give a little bit more in-depth explanation of the purpose for the public hearing and

1:25:05 ↗ then provide a summary history of water conservation activities within the city of Issaquah. spell

1:25:11 ↗ out in more detail the water use efficiency rule requirements that the state has established,

1:25:17 ↗ talk a little bit about the conservation measures and activities that the city currently implements,

1:25:23 ↗ we'll take a look at your historical water savings, and then at the end we'll

1:25:27 ↗ focus on your current and into the future water use efficiency goals.

1:25:34 ↗ So water use efficiency goals or water conservation goals are one component of

1:25:40 ↗ your overall water use efficiency program, which in turn is but one component

1:25:46 ↗ of your overall water system plan. Water use efficiency goals are a required component of

1:25:52 ↗ the plan and they must be discussed in a public forum per state law so

1:25:57 ↗ that consumers and the public can comment. Now while that has to be a public

1:26:03 ↗ venue or forum, state law does not specifically require that that's a public hearing, but

1:26:07 ↗ that's what the city has elected to do, and that's why we're here tonight. Public

1:26:11 ↗ notice for this hearing was provided on April 20th, which is more than the required

1:26:15 ↗ two week of public notice duration by state law under the water use efficiency rule.

1:26:21 ↗ Again, as Bob noted, purpose tonight is for council to hear comment. but you are

1:26:26 ↗ not required to act. In fact, there will be continued and further discussions on conservation

1:26:32 ↗ and the water system plan as a whole throughout the coming months and council workshops

1:26:37 ↗ prior to you adopting the water system plan. So a summary

1:26:43 ↗ history of water conservation activities within the city. really began back in the late 80s,

1:26:49 ↗ 1989, when the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan put forth regional

1:26:55 ↗ conservation objectives. This then led to, in 1996, the city developing

1:27:01 ↗ its first formal water conservation program, which was then formally updated five years later in

1:27:06 ↗ 2001. In 2004, the Cascade Water Alliance, which the city was and is a member

1:27:12 ↗ of, initiated its regional conservation program. And then that took another step

1:27:18 ↗ in 2007, which is when the state passed the water use efficiency rule and adopted

1:27:24 ↗ that rule, which really formalized a lot of the planning guidelines around water conservation.

1:27:29 ↗ And so ongoing, the city since then has continued to participate in Cascades

1:27:35 ↗ regional water conservation program and implementing your own local programs in support of that regional

1:27:41 ↗ effort. So what does the water use efficiency rule require? There's a lot

1:27:47 ↗ to it. This is kind of a summary. The city is in compliance with all

1:27:50 ↗ of the requirements set forth by the rule. This includes metering, meaning tracking of water

1:27:56 ↗ production from your own groundwater well supplies and the supplies coming in from the Cascade

1:28:01 ↗ regional supply, but also customer metering to understand water consumption. You must

1:28:07 ↗ track production and consumption, and you must forecast water demand with and without

1:28:13 ↗ the effects of conservation considered. You must maintain distribution system leakage

1:28:19 ↗ at less than or equal to 10% of your overall water production, which you do.

1:28:24 ↗ For a community this size, you must implement at least six conservation measures. You implement

1:28:29 ↗ well more than that. And then annually, you submit a report to the State Department

1:28:33 ↗ of Health tracking your water conservation efforts. Some of the measures and activities that the

1:28:39 ↗ city has participated in first at the regional level. The things on the

1:28:45 ↗ screen here are items and programs that Cascade Water Alliance implements, including free

1:28:51 ↗ conservation devices. Examples are shown there. Device installation at commercial

1:28:56 ↗ customers, so water use efficient, shower heads and faucet aerators. A wide variety of

1:29:02 ↗ educational programs, some of which are listed there. Water audits, and then irrigation system upgrade

1:29:08 ↗ rebates. These are all programs that the city supports, but that are implemented

1:29:14 ↗ by Cascade. Here locally within the city, steps that you have taken

1:29:21 ↗ with respect to water conservation include establishing conservation-based rate structures,

1:29:27 ↗ what we refer to as inclining block rates. So as one uses more water,

1:29:33 ↗ the cost per unit volume of water increases, so it sends a conservation signal.

1:29:39 ↗ You have focused interaction with commercial customers to assist those customers on their irrigation settings

1:29:45 ↗ and best practices for water consumption. You participate in the National Mayor's Water Conservation

1:29:51 ↗ Challenge, getting residents to pledge conservation. And then there

1:29:57 ↗ are various elements of your green building program that encourage and support conservation, such as

1:30:02 ↗ permit incentives, the landscape code, soil amendment standards, et cetera. So this is not a

1:30:07 ↗ comprehensive list, but it's meant to paint the picture of the variety of things that

1:30:12 ↗ the city's involved in with respect to water conservation.

1:30:18 ↗ This table summarizes some of the historical water savings that the city has realized as

1:30:24 ↗ a result of implementing water conservation. Table is organized to show

1:30:30 ↗ water usage on a per unit basis by different customer classes. So single family residences,

1:30:36 ↗ multi-family residential units, and then commercial consumption on a square footage

1:30:42 ↗ basis. What you'll see here as you go from 1996 to 2016,

1:30:48 ↗ you will see a trend in reduced water consumption on a per unit basis. For

1:30:54 ↗ example, single family residential homes on average over the course of a year in 1996

1:31:01 ↗ were consuming 228 gallons per day per home. In 2016,

1:31:07 ↗ that value was at 141 gallons per day. I'm also highlighting here in the far

1:31:13 ↗ right-hand column what we refer to as the planning value. This is the value that

1:31:18 ↗ we utilize in the water system plan to project future water demand associated with growth

1:31:24 ↗ or new customers. will see those numbers are higher than what you're currently experiencing in

1:31:29 ↗ 2016. The rationale for using higher values is to be conservative in our

1:31:34 ↗ planning efforts. When we are looking at water demand and comparing that against supply capacities,

1:31:41 ↗ it is prudent to take a conservative approach.

1:31:47 ↗ This table provides a regional comparison of the city's current water consumption patterns

1:31:52 ↗ as compared with others in King County. Really just for sake of comparison, again,

1:31:59 ↗ the first column there are the city's observed 2016 water consumption

1:32:04 ↗ characteristics, followed by the planning values, and then you'll see the values for Sammamish Plateau

1:32:09 ↗ water, cities of Bellevue, and Redmond. What you will note is that Issaquah's values

1:32:16 ↗ are on the low end or below the range of those for the other cities

1:32:21 ↗ depicted. Further rationale for being conservative and mindful that future development may

1:32:27 ↗ or may not trend with exactly what water consumption is right now today. So the

1:32:32 ↗ selection of the planning values being within the ranges that we typically see throughout the

1:32:36 ↗ region. So finally, water use

1:32:42 ↗ efficiency goals. In 2013, the city adopted Cascade Water

1:32:48 ↗ Alliance's regional goal as your own formal goal. And this is the consistent approach that

1:32:53 ↗ has been taken by all of Cascade's members, and it was approved at the time

1:32:57 ↗ by the State Department of Health. As a reminder, those goals in 2013, which are

1:33:03 ↗ still in effect, are to reduce water use by 2020 by the following amounts. On

1:33:09 ↗ an annual average basis, 0.6 million gallons per day. So that's not for the city,

1:33:14 ↗ that's for the region as a whole, all of Cascade's membership. And then on the

1:33:18 ↗ peak season in the summer, a reduction of 1 million gallons per day from 2013

1:33:24 ↗ to 2020. Progress towards that goal as monitored and

1:33:30 ↗ documented by Cascade, as of the end of 2016, Cascade estimates that they've

1:33:36 ↗ saved approximately 260,000 gallons per day. as compared to the 0.6 million gallons, so

1:33:42 ↗ the 43% of the goal. So moving forward now, as a part of this current

1:33:48 ↗ water system plan update, the city is proposing for your formal water use efficiency

1:33:53 ↗ goal to maintain the adoption of Cascades regional goal, which in

1:33:59 ↗ turn the Cascade Water Alliance board will be revisiting next year, 2019 and 2020, to

1:34:05 ↗ adopt a new goal to extend into the future. So there's no change here in

1:34:10 ↗ terms of the city proposing to adopt Cascade's regional goal.

1:34:17 ↗ However, in addition to the establishment of that formal goal, which you will be measured

1:34:22 ↗ against, we've also developed and are proposing establishing water use efficiency

1:34:27 ↗ targets. So these would be informal, longer range targets to extend beyond

1:34:33 ↗ the current regional goal timeframe in which the city can use to track continued water

1:34:39 ↗ conservation efforts. The proposed targets are shown here in this table

1:34:45 ↗ relative to the 2016 water usage characteristics. So for example, you will

1:34:51 ↗ see for single family residential, we are depicting a reduction from 141

1:34:57 ↗ gallons per day per home to 134 in 10 years. That's reflecting a 5%

1:35:03 ↗ reduction in that water use characteristic. And you will see similar reductions in

1:35:09 ↗ multifamily residential and commercial, although at a slower amount. And the rationale

1:35:15 ↗ for that is that you have seen such significant declines in water consumption in those

1:35:20 ↗ sectors that continued decline at that rate is likely unreasonable given

1:35:26 ↗ existing conservation program. So again, these are not proposed as formal adopted goals. That would

1:35:31 ↗ be the Cascade regional goal, but these are just city specific targets. So what would

1:35:36 ↗ that mean, applying those targets to your projected water demand

1:35:42 ↗ forecast? This chart comes from the draft water system plan. The top solid line

1:35:48 ↗ is what we refer to as the baseline water demand forecast, average day

1:35:54 ↗ demand. And it's based on those planning values that I showed you previously. The dash

1:35:59 ↗ line reflects those additional savings associated with the targets.

1:36:08 ↗ Those targets, if realized, would see a reduction in average day usage citywide, 228,000

1:36:14 ↗ gallons per day in approximately 10 years in 2027.

1:36:23 ↗ So again, next steps. Purpose of the public hearing tonight is to receive comment. You

1:36:28 ↗ have also, the city has afforded the public an opportunity to provide written comments up

1:36:33 ↗ through this afternoon. Additionally, when the draft plan is sent out for external review, you'll

1:36:39 ↗ receive comment from the state, from the county, and adjacent water utilities, and that will

1:36:44 ↗ occur by later in the summer. And then, as I mentioned previously, council will continue

1:36:48 ↗ to consider the water system plan, including conservation, through the council infrastructure committee and various

1:36:54 ↗ council workshops throughout the summer. And then again, this is all leading up to the

1:36:59 ↗ planned adoption of your water system plan update. with that, that's the

1:37:05 ↗ conclusion of the presentation. Thank you, Jeff. Council have any questions of Bob or

1:37:11 ↗ Jeff before I open the public hearing? Council Member Wray. Just a point of clarification.

1:37:16 ↗ So the goals are targets. Does the water system plan

1:37:22 ↗ then provide the detail on how we would accomplish those in improvements in

1:37:28 ↗ additional conservation? So these targets are predicated on the city's existing conservation

1:37:34 ↗ program. And so the water system plan does outline what those measures and activities are

1:37:39 ↗ that the city is continuing to fund and implement. So the answer is yes.

1:37:45 ↗ Any other questions before we open the public hearing?

1:37:51 ↗ Seeing no further questions, the guidelines for citizen comments during the Public hearing are the

1:37:57 ↗ same as made under earlier audience comments today. They are located on your agenda. I

1:38:02 ↗ now open the public hearing at 837. Has anyone signed up to speak this

1:38:08 ↗ evening? No. Would anyone like to speak this evening? Second call.

1:38:14 ↗ Anyone like to address the council this evening? Last call. Water use

1:38:20 ↗ efficiency goals. Anyone wanting to speak during the public hearing this evening? Being none.

1:38:27 ↗ We'll close the public hearing at, when did I open it up? 838.

1:38:35 ↗ So there's no council action requested on this item this evening. There'll be more opportunities

1:38:40 ↗ for discussion and input on the water system plan at the council infrastructure committee and

1:38:44 ↗ council committee work sessions over the coming months. Adoption of the plan is expected in

1:38:48 ↗ November. Next item on the agenda this evening is regular business. Thanks very much, Jeff

1:38:53 ↗ and Bob. AB 7507, amendments to the

1:38:59 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code and Central Issaquah Standards regarding inclusionary zoning requirements for Central Issaquah.

1:39:05 ↗ This is one of the moratorium work items. It was last before the full council

1:39:09 ↗ in January, where it was referred back to the council land and shore committee for

1:39:13 ↗ further analysis. I'd like to invite Keith Niven, Economic and Development Services Director, to make

1:39:18 ↗ a presentation. KEITH NIVEN, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. GOOD EVENING

1:39:22 ↗ AGAIN, CITY COUNCIL. So agenda bill 7507, this was

1:39:28 ↗ originally brought to the city council in December at the last

1:39:34 ↗ council meeting of the year. And there were some concerns raised at that time. And

1:39:39 ↗ so we did some additional analysis and we're bringing that back to you this evening.

1:39:45 ↗ We spent a long time at land and shore, 80 minutes or something talking this

1:39:50 ↗ through. So hopefully, Between myself and Arthur Sullivan from Arch, we can do a good

1:39:55 ↗ job navigating this conversation this evening. As part of the

1:40:02 ↗ moratorium work items last year, we worked on a housing strategy work plan.

1:40:08 ↗ And out of that plan identified six, or not six, nine different strategies

1:40:14 ↗ for increasing the amount of affordable housing and housing diversity in the city. Strategy six

1:40:19 ↗ was increase the developer provided affordable housing in central Issaquah. And 6.1 is

1:40:25 ↗ really what we're talking about now, which is the city should look to increase the

1:40:29 ↗ inclusionary requirements in Central Issaquah, evaluate how many units this could create, and

1:40:35 ↗ would there be unintended consequences? So as part

1:40:41 ↗ of looking at adding to the existing inclusionary

1:40:47 ↗ provisions of central Issaquah, what we looked at was where would it make sense.

1:40:53 ↗ And we really identified the vertical mixed use area, which is the yellow,

1:41:00 ↗ the core, which is the red, and then the purple, which is the mixed use

1:41:04 ↗ area. The reason why we didn't include the orange is the orange is covered under

1:41:09 ↗ the Rowley development agreement. And the here in the far west end of

1:41:15 ↗ Central Issaquah is mostly built. It's currently where you see

1:41:21 ↗ all the construction for the gateway apartments. And then this part of Central Issaquah down

1:41:26 ↗ at the southeast corner, we call this confluence area. This area,

1:41:32 ↗ through the conversations with Planning Policy Commission, was really viewed as being kind of a

1:41:38 ↗ quiet part of Central Issaquah and not necessarily appropriate for for increasing

1:41:44 ↗ density, which is what you have to do as part of the inclusion area. So

1:41:48 ↗ this is, of a summary of those three zones. And to

1:41:54 ↗ add an inclusionary requirement, you actually have to give the developers something as well. So

1:42:00 ↗ this is a table showing what we're proposing in terms of increasing

1:42:06 ↗ the base floor area ratio and the base height in the urban core and the

1:42:11 ↗ mixed use area for vertical mixed use. And the reason why this is showing up

1:42:15 ↗ differently is you guys increased the base FAR and the base building height

1:42:21 ↗ as part of the vertical mixed use discussion. So what we're talking about is

1:42:29 ↗ right now, as I mentioned earlier, the core has a 10% inclusionary requirement now.

1:42:35 ↗ And what we're talking about, because of increasing these bases, going up to 12.5%,

1:42:42 ↗ and for vertical mixed use, because the increase was so much more dramatic, that would

1:42:47 ↗ justify going up to 15%. And then right now, the mixed use zone,

1:42:53 ↗ is zero, and we're suggesting increasing that to 7.5%.

1:42:59 ↗ The other code revision is to include a definition for low-moderate income affordable housing, which

1:43:05 ↗ didn't exist prior to this work. So one of the questions from the strategy was

1:43:11 ↗ how many units would this potentially generate? And using the 8,500 housing

1:43:17 ↗ units that was part of the Central Issaquah Plan planned EIS, sorry, too many

1:43:23 ↗ plans in there. we forecasted out where those 85 units would locate, and

1:43:29 ↗ based on the proposed affordability coming out of the inclusionary code, you'd basically end

1:43:34 ↗ up with a delta of 288 additional affordable units. Now, that doesn't

1:43:40 ↗ seem like a ton when you're talking about 8,500 units to get an additional nearly

1:43:46 ↗ 300 units, but as we talked about with the housing strategy to really get the

1:43:51 ↗ affordable housing that we're trying to accomplish in this community, It's gonna take a number

1:43:57 ↗ of different approaches, and this is just one, as I mentioned earlier, of nine different

1:44:01 ↗ approaches that we're talking about, including breaking down some of the barriers for accessory dwelling

1:44:06 ↗ units, as well as looking at some other actions. So

1:44:13 ↗ we employed Eco Northwest to do a study, and they

1:44:19 ↗ created a model with a 50,000 square foot site. They looked at really just

1:44:25 ↗ impacts to land value because as with any development project, there can be so many

1:44:30 ↗ different variables that it can make the model very complicated very quickly. And really what

1:44:35 ↗ we were looking at was what would the inclusionary requirement do to the

1:44:41 ↗ residual land value? And so they tried to narrow the model to really just look

1:44:46 ↗ at that as a variable. How does development feasibility under the new proposed code

1:44:52 ↗ compare to the current code? What are the differences vary by zone? And as I

1:44:56 ↗ mentioned earlier, there's three zones we're looking at, mixed use, urban core, and vertical mixed

1:45:01 ↗ use. Oops, sorry. And how does development feasibility under the new proposed code improve or

1:45:06 ↗ not in future development environment and rent scenario? So here's

1:45:12 ↗ kind of looking at it, the three columns are three different zones, mixed use, urban

1:45:17 ↗ core, and vertical mixed use. They looked at a project under the current base

1:45:24 ↗ which would be under mixed use, a 1.7 FAR and four stories. That would get

1:45:29 ↗ you 90 units, and it gives you kind of what that project looks like. Under

1:45:34 ↗ the urban core, same FAR of 1.7, four stories, 90 units, and vertical mixed

1:45:40 ↗ use. Once you go to the proposed new base, The FAR goes up to 2.5

1:45:46 ↗ and five stories, which then gets you 125,000 square foot building and 133 units. And

1:45:52 ↗ you can see how this table works in terms of looking at these different. And

1:45:56 ↗ then when you go to the maximum, you know, seven stories, 10 stories, and 10

1:46:00 ↗ stories, that's what the code would allow at max. At that point, you're not only

1:46:05 ↗ doing the inclusionary provision, but you're also buying density bonus, which once you get above

1:46:11 ↗ the five stories, that's what you would need to do. So, okay,

1:46:17 ↗ here's how it works. So this is where we spent a lot of time at

1:46:21 ↗ committee. So under the current base

1:46:27 ↗ code, this project of 90 units would be five affordable, 85 market

1:46:33 ↗ rate. That's under the proposed remember under mixed use, we currently have

1:46:39 ↗ no requirement for inclusionary, but under the proposed code, it would increase to

1:46:45 ↗ five. Under urban core, there is a 10% now,

1:46:51 ↗ and that would go to the same number of units, but at a lower AMI.

1:46:58 ↗ And so part of that is we're giving the developer a choice, a part of

1:47:02 ↗ the code, and Arthur can explain, how this works is there's

1:47:09 ↗ an option that the developer can choose to either provide more units at a higher

1:47:14 ↗ AMI or less units at a lower AMI. But economically, they work out to be

1:47:19 ↗ equivalent. And then under, you know, the vertical

1:47:25 ↗ mix use, again, it's going from 9 at 70 AMI to 9 at 50.

1:47:31 ↗ And those likewise change under the proposed base and then the max. But this is

1:47:37 ↗ what the model runs that Eco Northwest did for us. So

1:47:43 ↗ bottom line, where this headed to was, you know, You can see

1:47:49 ↗ for mixed use urban core and vertical mixed use at the lowest densities, adding another

1:47:55 ↗ regulation like inclusionary requirements is a negative impact to the

1:48:00 ↗ residual land value. I mean, you're basically taking something and adding another regulation. So that's

1:48:06 ↗ why you're seeing these first lines of each zone being negative. But

1:48:12 ↗ what you do see as you get into higher densities is that those numbers actually

1:48:17 ↗ turn the corner and become an asset to the developer because right now what we've

1:48:24 ↗ provided in the proposed inclusionary by adding another

1:48:30 ↗ elevation, another story under the base allowance, they can go up to five stories now

1:48:36 ↗ and not have to buy density bonus as opposed to what the current code says,

1:48:41 ↗ which is why you're seeing like Atlas and Gateway. Those tallest buildings are

1:48:47 ↗ four stories if you count the windows. So what you're gonna see here is actually

1:48:53 ↗ it gets more advantageous the denser you go. Now, one of the comments that came

1:48:58 ↗ out of committee was, well, gee, if this is really so advantageous here at the

1:49:03 ↗ highest FAR, then are we just gonna get 10-story buildings if we adopt this code?

1:49:08 ↗ And the answer, and this is why I provided some of this information down here

1:49:11 ↗ below, is no, because this This

1:49:17 ↗ formula is where land costs per unit and construction costs and profit all

1:49:23 ↗ have to balance out to what they can charge in rent is a balanced equation.

1:49:28 ↗ And as you can see, if I'm going to build a three or four story

1:49:31 ↗ wood frame building, it's going to cost me about $140 a square foot. If I

1:49:36 ↗ go to a five story or five over one, it's increasing to 180. But if

1:49:41 ↗ I go to steel construction, which is seven plus floors, the square footage

1:49:47 ↗ So, and I did provide what

1:49:53 ↗ we're getting now at Atlas. So the average rent right now is running about 293

1:49:58 ↗ a square foot. And at Timberlake Apartments, which is on Northwest Sammamish

1:50:04 ↗ Road, it's also fairly new. It's renting out right now at $2.04 a square foot.

1:50:08 ↗ So, Here's the key findings. So the proposed

1:50:14 ↗ inclusionary code produces greater development feasibility for higher density projects that, if built today,

1:50:20 ↗ would be subject to the current density bonus affordability requirements. The break even point at

1:50:25 ↗ which the proposed inclusionary code starts to produce greater development feasibility than the current code

1:50:31 ↗ is at a density greater than 2.15 FAR. And I gave you some example FARs

1:50:37 ↗ in our city so that you can see kind of where we're at. So Atlas

1:50:41 ↗ 1.2, Timberlake 1.1, Discovery Heights, which is up in the highlands, is a one. Those

1:50:46 ↗ were all permitted and constructed like two to three years ago. The one that's under

1:50:51 ↗ construction right now on 7th, which is Vail, That's at two FAR. And so I

1:50:57 ↗ think what you're seeing is we're getting really close to this tipping point already. And

1:51:03 ↗ what I think you're going to see is that, you know, with this adoption of

1:51:08 ↗ the inclusionary requirement, we will see projects that are more in the two plus FAR

1:51:12 ↗ range. So quick summary, the proposed code changes

1:51:18 ↗ will result in more affordable housing. The proposed code changes are legally defensible. The proposed

1:51:24 ↗ code changes improve the economics for building five-story housing. The proposed code changes

1:51:30 ↗ disincent the construction of three to four-story residential, which I think is something we might

1:51:35 ↗ want to Five to six story buildings are close if they're not

1:51:41 ↗ already here from a market standpoint. And then the seven plus story construction is still

1:51:45 ↗ a ways off. So that is a quick summary of kind of a very

1:51:51 ↗ meaty topic. And like I said, myself and Arthur are here to answer questions. I

1:51:56 ↗ know that the council had posed some questions prior to the

1:52:02 ↗ the meeting and if we want to go through those, I have those here and

1:52:05 ↗ can put them up. So it's at this point I'm going to stop talking. Great.

1:52:11 ↗ Thanks. Do you want to, I'm not sure, Keith, when you say the council

1:52:17 ↗ has posed some questions, you received some before the meeting tonight. Did. Okay, so we

1:52:22 ↗ can start with those because we're gonna be in Q&A now and if you have

1:52:26 ↗ extra that you wanna add on, we'll just do that, that's okay. Council President? Yes,

1:52:31 ↗ let's start with the ones you've got. So I'm gonna let Arthur go through these

1:52:36 ↗ since he helped me with the responses, he actually did the responses. And I don't

1:52:40 ↗ know if you want me to put the table up first. That might make the

1:52:44 ↗ most sense.

1:52:53 ↗ leave it there and not touch it. So Arthur, after you introduce yourself, if you

1:52:57 ↗ could just give us a brief update on the question before you start on the

1:53:01 ↗ table would be awesome. Okay. Mayor. And one

1:53:06 ↗ request. There's a, I was going to request if maybe we could, there's a

1:53:13 ↗ tape, one slide I think that was presented at Land and Shore that gives the

1:53:17 ↗ amendment summary. You have that slide? We haven't seen anything tonight about, I don't think,

1:53:23 ↗ what's being proposed. Specifically what percentage of what affordability and what we require now

1:53:29 ↗ in the urban core to compare.

1:53:47 ↗ Yeah, I might need that one. I might need to go back and get it

1:53:49 ↗ though. on page 341 of the packet, if

1:53:55 ↗ that helps at all. I can pull up 341 of the packet. Would

1:54:01 ↗ that be helpful?

1:54:26 ↗ Actually, I think it's pretty sure it's in here. There it is.

1:54:33 ↗ Nope. Is that the table? Keep going.

1:54:43 ↗ These tables? No? It looks like this one. Well, the problem is I

1:54:49 ↗ don't, it's not coming. Oh yeah, keep going. Almost there. This one? Nope. It's blue.

1:54:54 ↗ It's blue. That one? No. One

1:55:02 ↗ more. That one? There we go. Okay. So was it, were you requesting that they

1:55:06 ↗ explain or go through the table prior to starting in on the questions? Yes, because

1:55:11 ↗ I think we should, you should explain what our requirement is now, percentage, affordability,

1:55:17 ↗ and where, and then what the proposed changes would be. You want to do that?

1:55:23 ↗ Yeah. the mayor and council, Arthur

1:55:29 ↗ Sullivan, program manager of Arch. So the first question is to

1:55:34 ↗ clarify the changes on the affordability requirements. The changes are

1:55:40 ↗ different in each of the three overlay areas. The first, and I wanna see what,

1:55:46 ↗ in the urban core, and for each of them too, there's sort of a, or

1:55:51 ↗ for two of them, there's a two tier system up to the base, and then

1:55:56 ↗ above the base. And what has been, and so under the urban core before it

1:56:01 ↗ was 10% of the base had to be up to the 1.7

1:56:07 ↗ FAR, had to be affordable at 70% of median

1:56:13 ↗ income, and then 20% of anything above the base FAR needed

1:56:19 ↗ to be affordable at 50% of median income. The proposal

1:56:25 ↗ with the shift is you now have a higher base and up to the base,

1:56:29 ↗ 12 and a half percent would be affordable at 60 percent of median

1:56:35 ↗ income. And then above would be the same formula. So above the new

1:56:41 ↗ base, you'd have 20 percent at 50 percent of median. Now, one of the things

1:56:46 ↗ we tried to do in all of these proposals, as Keith was mentioning, is trying

1:56:51 ↗ to provide an option in which a builder can choose to do fewer units under

1:56:57 ↗ the base, but they would have to be at a lower AMI. So the choice

1:57:02 ↗ is that they could do 10% up to the new base at 50% of median.

1:57:09 ↗ So that's the first area. Is that what you're looking for, Council Member Goodman? Okay.

1:57:14 ↗ And the second area, which is the vertical mixed use overlay, starts out very similar.

1:57:21 ↗ the rest of the because part of the urban core wasn't it right so it

1:57:24 ↗ had the original requirement for 10 of the old base at 1.7 at the 70

1:57:31 ↗ level and then above 20 at 50. here you went to a higher base so

1:57:36 ↗ therefore you were giving more so that's why the formula is slightly different for outside

1:57:41 ↗ or for the vertical mixed use area there there is a 15 requirement but that

1:57:46 ↗ is a combination of five percent at low and ten percent at 60 percent of

1:57:50 ↗ median or i'm sorry ten percent at 70 percent of median or an option to

1:57:56 ↗ also have ten percent at 50 which is up to again up to the base

1:57:59 ↗ and then above the new base which is f 5.0 far up to the maximum

1:58:04 ↗ allowed and there were no shifts in any of the maximums in the zones it's

1:58:07 ↗ just shifting where your base cutoff point is in each area That's the second area.

1:58:13 ↗ The third area was different, which is the mixed use, because that had no affordability

1:58:18 ↗ requirement to start with. And its base was also at 1.7. So you had

1:58:24 ↗ no affordability requirement up to 1.7, and then above 1.7, the same 20% at 50%

1:58:31 ↗ of median. The shift is to give a new base FAR

1:58:37 ↗ of 2.5, and so you don't have any of that existing base. So they're the

1:58:40 ↗ requirement. is only at 7.5% up to the base at 70% of

1:58:45 ↗ median, or 5% at 60% of median. And then if they go above the new

1:58:51 ↗ base, then it's the same, this formula stays the same with 20 at 50. So

1:58:55 ↗ their numbers are lower because you start with zero, where before in the other areas,

1:58:59 ↗ you started with something. Question? Clarification.

1:59:05 ↗ So make sure my understanding's So for the urban core prior, we did have

1:59:11 ↗ a requirement, but only in the urban core. Correct. In the other areas, there wasn't

1:59:17 ↗ a requirement. It was part of the density bonus. Okay.

1:59:21 ↗ Thanks. Okay. So then we

1:59:26 ↗ received the question, and the question was sort of the experience in other jurisdictions with

1:59:31 ↗ other programs. Did you have those questions? Yeah. You want the questions or the chart?

1:59:36 ↗ Oh, the chart. them this chart yep okay so i believe you

1:59:42 ↗ received this chart it's small numbers but i'm just going to sort of give you

1:59:45 ↗ some of the highlights from this basically the question the first couple questions were related

1:59:51 ↗ to what has been the experience in other jurisdictions that we had referenced in an

1:59:56 ↗ earlier conversation that there are around 250 units under 60 that had been created the

2:00:02 ↗ clarification there is yeah it was around 260 units last year Those are only

2:00:08 ↗ units created through land use incentive programs. So these are not programs that receive direct

2:00:13 ↗ assistance like the trust fund or land donations. This was only a unit count where

2:00:17 ↗ it's part of a private development. The question was, where were they being built? So

2:00:22 ↗ this list shows you the different cities in which those provision, where those projects. And

2:00:26 ↗ as you can see, I think last year we had four or five different cities

2:00:31 ↗ in which developers built projects under land use programs. Bellevue, Issaquah, yourselves under the

2:00:37 ↗ polygon, Kirkland, Newcastle, Redmond, and Sammamish are all different cities that had different programs.

2:00:45 ↗ What was the affordability breakdown? Different cities have developed different formulas over the years. So

2:00:50 ↗ the chart here tries to show you affordability level ranges for anywhere from 50% of

2:00:55 ↗ median all the way up to 120% for some ownership units. Those are in Issaquah.

2:01:01 ↗ Most of the other cities, the highest level, I think Kirkland goes up to 90%

2:01:04 ↗ of median. for their ownership units. But you can also see that there are units

2:01:10 ↗ being created at 50% of median income under certain re-zones where there were relatively

2:01:16 ↗ significant affordability provision or density increases associated with those properties.

2:01:23 ↗ And then were there other contributions to the developer? What we have done is shaded

2:01:27 ↗ those rows, and that's not showing up very well. But there are two projects in

2:01:31 ↗ Bellevue that they have a fee waiver that they received, relatively small amounts, under 50,000.

2:01:38 ↗ And then in Sammamish, they also have a fee waiver provision built into their program,

2:01:42 ↗ so they get exempted from a portion of the impact fees for the affordable units.

2:01:48 ↗ In the lower half, I did also include a couple projects that were just We

2:01:52 ↗ were working on them last year, they started construction last year, for whatever reason, the

2:01:55 ↗ agreements didn't get started. And part of the reason I included those is that you

2:01:58 ↗ will see here, when you look at the ones here in the bottom half, number

2:02:02 ↗ of these projects have units at 50 and 60 percent of median income. That's because

2:02:06 ↗ Redmond did some recent rezones in which they sort of looked at their old formula,

2:02:11 ↗ they looked at the amount of the increase, and they said, no, we want units

2:02:13 ↗ at 50 or 60 percent of median. And then also there is, the city started

2:02:18 ↗ an MFTE program in several different neighborhoods, and a couple of the projects there used

2:02:24 ↗ them. And also in Kirkland, they've had an MFTE program for a number of years,

2:02:29 ↗ and they have a couple larger projects which are using a combination that are 50%

2:02:33 ↗ of median 10% of the units that are using a combination of multifamily tax exemption

2:02:38 ↗ and the city's land use program. So that's sort of a summary of the last

2:02:43 ↗ year. There was also a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Councilman Goodman. Thank you.

2:02:49 ↗ That's helpful. Also, you can't see it very well. And in your answers, you say

2:02:54 ↗ that the vast majority of the units created are at 80%.

2:03:03 ↗ Right, so that's in Redmond, and that's why I showed you some of the new

2:03:06 ↗ projects in Redmond. Sure. Because we are seeing builders who are at, through land use

2:03:12 ↗ alone, are providing units at 50% of median. Plus in Kirkland, you'll see a number

2:03:16 ↗ of projects are at 50% of median. So we do have a number of cities,

2:03:20 ↗ and we also have, if you look at some, Newcastle, their rental units are at

2:03:25 ↗ 70% of median. So it's a little different, and what we have seen is more

2:03:30 ↗ cities are trying to get a little bit lower in that income range. What I

2:03:34 ↗ would point out is that in Redmond, the ones that are using the

2:03:40 ↗ MFTE, the way the Redmond program worked is they started with the land use requirements

2:03:44 ↗ at 80, And if they wanted to use an eight year property tax exemption, they

2:03:49 ↗ had to lower their affordability down to 60% of median. There are three or maybe

2:03:54 ↗ four builders who are opting into that program late in their development process that

2:04:00 ↗ we're negotiating with currently. So we don't have an MFTE program. so right i

2:04:06 ↗ think there's probably a reason that you get the vast majority at 80 percent because

2:04:11 ↗ that way more easily pencils out for developers that's my understanding so but yet in

2:04:16 ↗ order to get lower than 80 percent there needs to be um other

2:04:23 ↗ other subsidies so what we did here and what you'll see redmond did in the

2:04:28 ↗ recent rezones is they looked at the amount, the value of the increase in the

2:04:33 ↗ land values that went with the affordability. And they determined that there are

2:04:39 ↗ some projects that have 10% at 50 without MFTE in Redmond that were agreed to

2:04:44 ↗ by the builders based on the ratio of how much their density increases were. The

2:04:50 ↗ approach that we used in doing your formulas is very, very similar, and that's where

2:04:54 ↗ I think the analysis that's showing is that you can ask for fewer at a

2:04:59 ↗ greater level of affordability. And in fact, in Redmond, what's interesting is Redmond has always

2:05:04 ↗ had a provision. If you do look in Redmond, they have had 45 units in

2:05:10 ↗ the past created at 50% of median because the city of Redmond has always had

2:05:15 ↗ on the books an option to do half as many at 50% of median than

2:05:20 ↗ you would have had to do at 80. So if you had a project that

2:05:22 ↗ was required to do 10% of units at 80% of median, they can do five

2:05:27 ↗ at 50. There have been four or five or maybe more projects over the years

2:05:31 ↗ who have chosen that option. And that's sort of, looking at the math, that's how

2:05:37 ↗ it worked. And so when we worked on your provisions and the consultant looked at

2:05:41 ↗ that, that was accounted for in terms of how are you impacting the general value.

2:05:47 ↗ And so the ratios we did were because we were trying to achieve affordability levels

2:05:51 ↗ that you were asking for. If you had been at 80, you could have potentially

2:05:55 ↗ asked for a higher percentage. I mean, it's a sort of a math equation, which

2:05:58 ↗ is sort of what we're showing and what Keith showed earlier, in that we gave

2:06:03 ↗ each builder the choice of the 15% at one level or 10% at another level.

2:06:09 ↗ It's sort of a mathematical kind of formula thing. So, Council Member Goodman, I'm not

2:06:14 ↗ sure I understand your question. Are you getting the answer to your question or do

2:06:17 ↗ you want to rephrase it? Well, I don't think I got an answer. I was

2:06:21 ↗ just wondering. My understanding is that it's a lot easier to get 80%,

2:06:28 ↗ which is shown in this chart here, because it way more easily pencils out.

2:06:34 ↗ Anything below that affordability level requires some sort of subsidy.

2:06:42 ↗ it's an mfte or an or even for lower levels it's mfte plus something

2:06:48 ↗ else plus other public funds either from a city or from another agency so that's

2:06:53 ↗ so i think um that was my question whether that's accurate or not that's my

2:06:59 ↗ understanding based on what i've been studying up on and that's why we tried to

2:07:04 ↗ show you these more recent examples where we are getting units at below 80 without

2:07:09 ↗ adding other subsidies, and then some cities are actually getting even lower by combining together.

2:07:15 ↗ But we look at the value of land the same as we look at the

2:07:18 ↗ value of MFTE when developing these local programs. The lower ones in this chart, the

2:07:24 ↗ lower than 80% affordability, have no other subsidies. It's

2:07:30 ↗ just, we require this and you have to build it. Some of them do, correct?

2:07:36 ↗ Some of them do combine, but they didn't get as big a zoning increase. So

2:07:40 ↗ whenever we're proposing, whatever's being proposed affordability-wise, we look at the total value

2:07:47 ↗ of the public incentives, which can be land density and or MFTE.

2:07:53 ↗ When we did the math for yours, we only looked at the value of the

2:07:56 ↗ increased densities that were being proposed on top of the requirements you have currently.

2:08:10 ↗ That's okay, we can move on. Council Member Batiste. If I

2:08:16 ↗ could just get clarification just to make sure that I understand the last comment. So

2:08:23 ↗ in Redmond, there were some that were below 80%

2:08:29 ↗ that did not have any additional subsidies? There were some.

2:08:35 ↗ Correct. Okay. Thank you. More questions?

2:08:44 ↗ Nope. Okay. I would

2:08:50 ↗ like to get a motion. Mayor, I think we're still we're going to go to

2:08:55 ↗ the questions that had been. I thought that was the question. Sorry, you're right. Are

2:08:59 ↗ there more questions, Keith? Yes. Let's go on the list. So and I

2:09:05 ↗ probably covered half of these. There was a question specifically about the experience in Redmond

2:09:10 ↗ and I probably touched in the follow up questions. Most of those. The first was

2:09:15 ↗ we had made a comment, I think earlier in presentations to council that often after

2:09:20 ↗ a plan is adopted, we don't see housing development right away. And that was the

2:09:25 ↗ case in Redmond. Now, Redmond adopted their plan in the early, mid 1990s.

2:09:31 ↗ They did finally start seeing development of housing probably the late 1990s.

2:09:37 ↗ And the question was, did they not see affordable units before MFT

2:09:43 ↗ was provided and the answer is Redmond now has 600 units that have been created

2:09:49 ↗ through their land use programs. The vast majority are at 80, but they do also,

2:09:53 ↗ as we've already discussed, have units at below. It also includes ownership

2:09:59 ↗ units. I believe there's about 80 units or ownership units. And until

2:10:06 ↗ The city of Redmond only adopted their MFTE program last summer. And as we mentioned,

2:10:11 ↗ there are already one builder has signed an agreement and three others are looking at

2:10:16 ↗ doing that. And then also, as I mentioned, some builders have opted and used the

2:10:21 ↗ option where they do half as many at 50% of median. That's resulted in 45

2:10:26 ↗ units under that option in the city of Redmond. So I think that might've covered

2:10:31 ↗ the questions about Redmond.

2:10:37 ↗ Thank you. I have a question. Maybe it's for Keith. I'm not sure. One of

2:10:41 ↗ the key findings in Econor Northwest report

2:10:48 ↗ said that increased FAR in residential units results in increased parking and overall higher costs

2:10:54 ↗ to construct. And it also says that the increased density doesn't always offset the cost

2:11:00 ↗ of affordability due to these higher construction costs. And

2:11:07 ↗ report and also on your slides talk about the in

2:11:12 ↗ increased feasibility but that's different than

2:11:18 ↗ saying it is now feasible so I wondered if somebody could touch

2:11:24 ↗ on and I and I watched Land and Shore and there were several times the

2:11:28 ↗ comment you will get you will get these units that's not the way I read

2:11:32 ↗ this report and it's not the way I read the summary

2:11:39 ↗ in your slides. I just wondered if somebody could touch on why you think we

2:11:45 ↗ are going to get these units when we are increasing the percentage of the

2:11:50 ↗ requirement and we are lowering the affordability levels, which by

2:11:57 ↗ everything I've read up on increases the chance that we won't get them. because we

2:12:02 ↗ haven't gotten any with our current requirement. So I'm wondering,

2:12:08 ↗ I'm still not convinced. And so I'm wondering if somebody wants to try to further

2:12:13 ↗ explain how you think we're gonna get these based on what I just said.

2:12:19 ↗ So right now, besides the core, which has

2:12:25 ↗ a 10% inclusionary requirement already, Anything outside the core

2:12:31 ↗ in central Issaquah has no requirement. But

2:12:37 ↗ once you go above a certain height, you then are in the density bonus

2:12:43 ↗ program. And at that point, there is an inclusionary requirement if you go above a

2:12:48 ↗ certain height or FAR. Actually, Vale has

2:12:55 ↗ purchased in the density bonus program But they are the only ones so far. And

2:13:01 ↗ so what I would say is I think you're going to get them because we're

2:13:05 ↗ mandating that they are part of any residential development in the

2:13:11 ↗ urban core, the vertical mixed use, or the mixed use zones in central Issaquah, which

2:13:17 ↗ is most of central Issaquah. And so I think right now when you look at

2:13:22 ↗ the what it does to, you know, I

2:13:28 ↗ think that the fascinating thing for me was kind of the tipping point, which is

2:13:33 ↗ the evaluation that Eco Northwest did that kind of the 2.15 FAR gets you

2:13:39 ↗ to a more positive outcome as it relates to higher

2:13:45 ↗ densities, being able to absorb the cost of the inclusionary requirement

2:13:51 ↗ And the fact that we're approaching two right now with bail and knowing

2:13:57 ↗ that the rents just continue to go up in our community, leads me to

2:14:02 ↗ believe that we're pretty close to reaching that point where the 2.15 FAR is

2:14:08 ↗ not going to be something that's unheard of. I think what you're going to not

2:14:12 ↗ have happen anymore is those three-story walk-ups that Gateway has provided

2:14:18 ↗ for a majority of their site, that's not going to happen anymore. And I think

2:14:22 ↗ the conversation we should be having is, is that okay? And I think that from

2:14:26 ↗ a density perspective and with the amount of housing that we want to get in

2:14:31 ↗ Central Issaquah, We shouldn't be expecting three-story Woody walk-ups anymore. I

2:14:37 ↗ think it needs to be five-story apartment buildings. So I think we're going to get

2:14:42 ↗ there. I think we're almost there. I think the market's almost there anyway. And I

2:14:47 ↗ think what the analysis done by Eco Northwest, and I think some of the information

2:14:52 ↗ provided by Arch tells me that this is not going to an impediment

2:14:58 ↗ to housing developers looking at central Issaquah currently. So I have a follow-up.

2:15:04 ↗ So one of the, oops, I just spilled something. And so one of the questions

2:15:09 ↗ too was about unintended consequences. And so if we adopt something

2:15:15 ↗ like this and it is cost prohibitive, then we

2:15:24 ↗ one of the unintended consequences be that we don't get any affordable

2:15:30 ↗ housing in central Issaquah, perhaps unless we have other public subsidies like MFTE.

2:15:37 ↗ And instead we get pressure outside, more residential housing outside

2:15:43 ↗ central Issaquah plan area, and that doesn't have affordable housing. So we push the

2:15:49 ↗ pressure out because we've created and possibly greater impediment to building them in central

2:15:55 ↗ Issaquah? Sure. So the zoning capacity for housing outside of central

2:16:01 ↗ Issaquah is low. There's just not that many units that we can

2:16:06 ↗ accommodate outside of our villages, which have a

2:16:11 ↗ certain kind of capacity left and not for residential. And so I think, I mean,

2:16:19 ↗ Is there unintended consequences for pushing housing development demand outside of Central?

2:16:26 ↗ You know, you're talking, when you're looking at Silverado and Mallard Bay and

2:16:32 ↗ Bergsma and whatever else, those are all single family product. What we're talking about in

2:16:38 ↗ Central is stacked flats. And I think that anybody looking to build stacked

2:16:44 ↗ flats is gonna be building it in Central Issaquah. I think Arthur wants to

2:16:50 ↗ say something. I think what I would add to that,

2:16:56 ↗ because I think that is a concern or should be a concern, is you have

2:17:02 ↗ that pressure now with your existing system. That what you're seeing with the examples that

2:17:07 ↗ Keith gave you is that developers will go to that higher FAR in general. Keep

2:17:13 ↗ in mind 80 to 90% of the product is still going to be market rate.

2:17:17 ↗ and we've seen this in Redmond, we've seen it in almost all the communities we

2:17:20 ↗ work, is that buildings will have a tendency over time to want to increase their

2:17:24 ↗ FAR. If you're gonna buy a piece of land in general, you're gonna want to

2:17:29 ↗ maximize that. And the market is going there, and you see it in the examples

2:17:33 ↗ that Keith showed you. And what we're showing you here is if a building is

2:17:36 ↗ at 2.15 or greater, or wants to be, which when you look at all the

2:17:41 ↗ other communities on the east side and you look at their central areas, A pretty

2:17:47 ↗ large portion of their buildings are at much higher than 2.15. It's not uncommon to

2:17:52 ↗ have 2.5 for wood frame. So if you take your existing rules, they would have

2:17:58 ↗ to provide more affordability than what we're proposing now. What we're trying to do through

2:18:03 ↗ this system is level the playing field that everybody does something, that they don't maybe

2:18:07 ↗ try to keep it artificially low for that one factor. But this system is also

2:18:11 ↗ designed that where the market tends to want to be going on the east side,

2:18:15 ↗ this system does not penalize someone for doing that compared to today.

2:18:25 ↗ Any other questions? So not being familiar with the list

2:18:31 ↗ that was. I have one for you. Sure, I won't close it yet. Was that

2:18:34 ↗ all that was on the type list? Can I just go now to. Arthur, did

2:18:38 ↗ we get through the type list? Other questions? Okay, great, thanks. We got through the

2:18:40 ↗ type list. Okay, so we're moving on to new questions. Council Member Ray. So I'm

2:18:45 ↗ gonna pick up on where Council Member Goodman was going, I think. And that is,

2:18:50 ↗ if I look at the table, we found on page 4

2:18:56 ↗ whatever. 423. That table? Yeah.

2:19:03 ↗ So what we're talking about is using or moving to

2:19:10 ↗ mid-modern income to low moderate, which is 60% AMI because I'm assuming we're talking rental,

2:19:16 ↗ right? Yes. And then if I look at the table that Arthur just had up

2:19:21 ↗ there and what I see in the 2017 recorded agreements,

2:19:28 ↗ there were exactly 10 60% AMI units built

2:19:35 ↗ out of all of them. And those were the ones that we built in Issaquah

2:19:38 ↗ and that had additional subsidies. So I guess my question is,

2:19:45 ↗ The data would suggest that if we were to impose these kind of AMIs

2:19:50 ↗ and inclusion requirements, the data would suggest people are not going to be building.

2:19:58 ↗ At least in 2017 they wouldn't, without subsidies.

2:20:12 ↗ I think That's the reason we are seeing that the private market is willing and

2:20:17 ↗ able to do housing at below 80% of median with city incentive programs, land

2:20:24 ↗ use alone, or combined with other incentives. And we are seeing

2:20:29 ↗ builders do that. We are seeing builders in choosing to take voluntary

2:20:35 ↗ levels above the mandatory level in certain cases. So again,

2:20:41 ↗ If we were asking for 15 to 20%, given how much bonus you're giving, that

2:20:46 ↗ might be the case. What we have done is kept the percentages low relative to

2:20:50 ↗ the affordability, to the bonus, the value of the land increase you're

2:20:56 ↗ doing in your base zoning to accommodate that. So it's really a math thing. And

2:21:02 ↗ as I pointed out, there's two projects under construction in Redmond with nothing else that

2:21:06 ↗ are doing 10% of the units at 50% of meeting with no MFTE. and it

2:21:10 ↗ was because they looked specifically at that zoning at the time. And these were, the

2:21:14 ↗ re-zones were done within the last three years. So we are seeing that trend that

2:21:19 ↗ cities, okay, I've been doing this for 25 years. We started out at 80% of

2:21:24 ↗ median because that's what GMA said to do. What started to happen is cities started

2:21:28 ↗ to look at needs in their communities and they say, wow, needs are at 60

2:21:33 ↗ and 70 and lower, what can we do to get there and still give the

2:21:36 ↗ same type of benefit to builders that we were using when we did 80% of

2:21:40 ↗ media? We're using the same approach. We're just either sometimes combining or we're giving a

2:21:46 ↗ bigger bonus for every affordable unit. We used to get one unit per affordable unit.

2:21:52 ↗ So the 80% rule was based on one for one. Now we're giving three or

2:21:56 ↗ four to one bonus. every time we ask for an affordable units, and that's how

2:22:00 ↗ we get to 60 or 70%. It's not that we're asking more from the builder,

2:22:04 ↗ we're just playing with that formula some. But back when I first started doing it,

2:22:08 ↗ it was a one-to-one ratio. We are now doing the math based on three to

2:22:12 ↗ one, you know, giving them three market rate for every affordable or four market rate

2:22:15 ↗ for every affordable, depending on how affordable you try to be. just that's sort of

2:22:21 ↗ the history there of because we keep bringing up the 80 percent it's just because

2:22:24 ↗ that's where we started because we didn't know any better when we first were starting

2:22:28 ↗ now the councils are asking us for what are the real needs in the community

2:22:32 ↗ and when we've seen that we've played with the formula to try to get at

2:22:35 ↗ levels that the councils have been interested in trying to achieve but still using the

2:22:39 ↗ same principles as in the past let's move right did that answer your question i

2:22:44 ↗ think so i think so I mean, there really is a lot to process here.

2:22:49 ↗ I mean, this is dense material. Councilman

2:22:55 ↗ Ramos. Yeah, back to Keith here a little bit, I think. And I forget what

2:23:01 ↗ slide it was. But what I think I hear you saying on this, and I

2:23:05 ↗ just want to verify, is that the three to four-story wood

2:23:10 ↗ frame would no longer be

2:23:18 ↗ the preferred item to build for a builder because with the increased. Amount of

2:23:24 ↗ affordable units put in there. There wouldn't be enough to make that formula

2:23:30 ↗ that the others are about to balance it out. So it's it's pushing into the

2:23:35 ↗ five story building because then you can spread that out over more units. So your

2:23:39 ↗ prediction is that the three to four story building would we wouldn't get more of

2:23:43 ↗ those. with the added requirement because it just doesn't pencil out as

2:23:49 ↗ well as the five does. Not unless the landowner was willing to take a haircut

2:23:55 ↗ on the property. I mean, you know, if somebody was bound to build a three-story

2:24:00 ↗ product and demanded a property owner sell the property at below market value, maybe,

2:24:06 ↗ but otherwise, no. And I don't know many property owners in Issaquah that are willing

2:24:11 ↗ to take a haircut on the sale of property. Any other

2:24:17 ↗ questions? Seeing any.

2:24:24 ↗ Last call. Put a motion. Yes, Madam Mayor, I'd like to move to

2:24:30 ↗ adopt ordinance number. 2832. Adopting by reference amendments to the

2:24:35 ↗ Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards Chapter 4, Zoning Standards and Uses in Issaquah Municipal

2:24:41 ↗ Code Chapter 18.21. housing including clarifying the requirements for

2:24:47 ↗ affordable housing in the urban core and mixed use zoning district and the vertical mixed

2:24:52 ↗ use overlay and adding a definition of low moderate income affordable housing. Second.

2:24:58 ↗ Second. And thank you. That's what President Martz. To speak to the motion,

2:25:04 ↗ a couple of things to try to maybe untie this Gordian knot a little bit.

2:25:10 ↗ One involves prognostication and We are in the moratorium that we

2:25:16 ↗ are in today because we adopted a central Issaquah plan and we wanted to accomplish

2:25:22 ↗ certain things in that central Issaquah plan and we weren't accomplishing them, right? We got

2:25:27 ↗ an accounting from the city and we found that all we were getting was housing

2:25:31 ↗ of a certain type and we wanted to see something different so we entered the

2:25:34 ↗ moratorium and here's where we are. So I think that there is an argument, I

2:25:39 ↗ think, one can reach a certain point where one says, well, let's give it a

2:25:44 ↗ try. Now, if we think something is doomed to failure, we shouldn't just try it

2:25:48 ↗ because we can. But if we think that it is better than where we are

2:25:53 ↗ at and we give it a try for a certain amount of time, this does

2:25:56 ↗ not, any action we take here this evening does not set in stone the future

2:26:00 ↗ of the valley for all time. The second thing I want to mention is this

2:26:06 ↗ topic of density in the valley. And you know, higher buildings in the

2:26:12 ↗ valley. We are so incredibly lucky that we have the valley that we have

2:26:18 ↗ to respond to the population pressures that the whole county is facing. You know, I

2:26:23 ↗ have friends in Shoreline and when you talk to people about single family housing being

2:26:28 ↗ ripped out to make way for transit oriented development and the pain that that causes

2:26:32 ↗ a community, we don't have any of that here because we have a valley that

2:26:37 ↗ can potentially absorb the kind of growth we're gonna see. And let's talk about that

2:26:40 ↗ growth. So I'm gonna live here, my guess is another 15 years, or I moved

2:26:45 ↗ to Orcas, hopefully. And so at 2% growth rate, which is what King County is

2:26:51 ↗ currently experiencing, which is a ferocious growth rate, but doesn't seem to be any end

2:26:56 ↗ in sight, that's about a 35% growth or another 12,000 people. So the

2:27:02 ↗ question is where are those people are gonna go and how does that look? You

2:27:05 ↗ know, I think we have, you know, people fixate

2:27:11 ↗ on the 10-story stuff, but that doesn't represent a large amount of the valley. I

2:27:16 ↗ think we want it higher density in the places that it is in the valley

2:27:19 ↗ because I think we don't want it to be, you know, two-story condos spread out

2:27:24 ↗ across the entire valley. I think we want some concentration to allow the valley to

2:27:28 ↗ have the kind of living wage jobs and the kind of services and the kind

2:27:34 ↗ of parks that we want to see for our city. So I'm not afraid of

2:27:38 ↗ that. that side of it. I think if done right, it's actually the right response

2:27:42 ↗ for our community to respond to the ongoing pressures that our entire county

2:27:48 ↗ is facing and will be facing for the foreseeable future. So those are kind of

2:27:53 ↗ a couple thoughts of mine. I'm interested to hear what everybody else thinks, but that's

2:27:56 ↗ why I was interested in moving this bill forward tonight and why I'm supporting it.

2:28:02 ↗ Thank you. Councilmember Goodman. Councilmember Goodman Thanks for your comments, Tola.

2:28:08 ↗ So I'm gonna spill again.

2:28:14 ↗ So I was concerned in December, which is why we're here talking about this tonight,

2:28:21 ↗ because I was concerned about residual land value.

2:28:27 ↗ I don't think I can support this because as Council Member

2:28:33 ↗ Ray put it more, distinctly than I did, the data

2:28:39 ↗ indicates that we wouldn't get what we're asking for

2:28:47 ↗ without other subsidies. I think the next conversation we would be having is you've got

2:28:52 ↗ to have an MFTE. And so I would like us before adopting this

2:28:58 ↗ to have a conversation about financing affordable housing because I don't

2:29:04 ↗ think we've had that. We haven't had that conversation since I've been on council and

2:29:08 ↗ I think it's a very important part of the conversation to have when making these

2:29:12 ↗ decisions. My concern is what I stated earlier, that we will create something

2:29:18 ↗ that makes us feel good about what we adopted and what we require, but that

2:29:22 ↗ it doesn't yet pencil out in the valley in Issaquah. We have a different

2:29:29 ↗ construction cost here. We have a floor that creates

2:29:34 ↗ incredible costs. And I don't think that this market bears really tall buildings,

2:29:40 ↗ which is what this code is predicated on, this proposed code. So

2:29:47 ↗ I know this has been a lot of work, and I know we had somebody

2:29:51 ↗ study it. I think that the words that I read in the report

2:29:57 ↗ indicate to me that this helps. it does not

2:30:03 ↗ yet pencil out. It does not say anything other than

2:30:09 ↗ this makes the residual land value better.

2:30:17 ↗ I also don't, well, I'll leave it at that. I can't support it.

2:30:24 ↗ I would be in favor of working on it some more. not at all to

2:30:30 ↗ delay the moratorium lifting because I don't think that at this point, once

2:30:36 ↗ we get visions done, that that should go on any longer.

2:30:42 ↗ Thank you. Other council members?

2:30:48 ↗ Council member Hunt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think that there

2:30:54 ↗ is a growing need for affordable housing in this region. I agree with Council

2:31:00 ↗ President Martz on many of the statements he made. And one thing I

2:31:06 ↗ wanted to add was that a couple years ago in 2016, there was

2:31:13 ↗ another economic analysis also done by Eco Northwest that looked into the feasibility of the

2:31:17 ↗ vertical mixed use. And I was not on council, but I...

2:31:23 ↗ and the feasibility of vertical mixed use in Issaquah as a member of the Planning

2:31:27 ↗ Policy Commission. And those projections that were made in that economic

2:31:33 ↗ analysis had feasibility for vertical mixed use at five to 10 years out, and that

2:31:38 ↗ was in 2016. And I think when we are talking about these buildings that will

2:31:44 ↗ last 100 plus years, I think that if our projections are saying that

2:31:51 ↗ market will be there in five to ten years, I think that we need to

2:31:55 ↗ try to get ahead of the ball. And I also think that some of the

2:32:01 ↗ conditions that are conducive to affordable housing that we are changing with this

2:32:07 ↗ agenda bill will also, my understanding is that they will also make it more feasible

2:32:11 ↗ for that vertical mixed use, which is another component of the vision in central Issaquah

2:32:16 ↗ that we want to achieve going forward. So I don't think this is the only

2:32:22 ↗ solution to acquire or to add more affordable housing for our city because it

2:32:28 ↗ is this very real, very serious and growing need. I don't think it's the only

2:32:33 ↗ tool, but I do think it's a step in the right direction. And for these

2:32:38 ↗ reasons, I am in support of the agenda bill. Thank you. Other council members? Council

2:32:44 ↗ member Ray. So I'm struggling with this. I THINK

2:32:50 ↗ IT'S BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT WE AS A CITY HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE, TARGETED,

2:32:55 ↗ WELL-CRAFTED VISION ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THIS FEELS A BIT TO ME LIKE

2:33:01 ↗ WE'RE CHASING AFTER DIFFERENT THINGS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE GET

2:33:08 ↗ WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET IN A COMPREHENSIVE, COORDINATED MANNER. IT FEELS LIKE THIS IS

2:33:13 ↗ A way to get something, but I'm not sure that I understand how this

2:33:19 ↗ fits into a larger strategy around affordable housing in the city of Issaquah, and how

2:33:25 ↗ do we balance this with the needs of the people who are living here today

2:33:31 ↗ who may have some different views on how best to do this? So I'm still,

2:33:37 ↗ I'm very torn on this because I think, A, I'd like to attend the moratorium.

2:33:41 ↗ I think that's the right thing to do. B, I think we need to have

2:33:43 ↗ a means to provide affordable

2:33:49 ↗ housing in the city but it it feels disjointed to me right now

2:33:55 ↗ thank you other council members council member ramos yes thank you um

2:34:02 ↗ i i'm at a little bit different spot i i wish the math could come

2:34:07 ↗ out better and i understand talking about a math problem here because the that's what

2:34:12 ↗ building is. But only getting 288 units to me does not sound like as many

2:34:17 ↗ as I'd like to get. I wish we could make this number, push it higher

2:34:22 ↗ personally. So that's where I am. I'd like to push it even harder, but I

2:34:28 ↗ understand you have to do the math on it. So with that in mind, as

2:34:32 ↗ I look at that, I look at the moratorium that's been in place for a

2:34:36 ↗ long time. We say we have to do something. We're at a place of doing

2:34:39 ↗ something. Is it perfect? No, but I think it's taken us in the right direction.

2:34:46 ↗ And I think that is where we have to go at this point to get

2:34:52 ↗ moving in this right direction and get some more affordable housing. There are other tools

2:34:57 ↗ we're gonna use and we're gonna add more along the way and different things we're

2:35:01 ↗ gonna do, I hope, and continue to work on. And I think this is gonna

2:35:06 ↗ be a piece of it. And so I'll be supporting it. Thank you. Council Member

2:35:12 ↗ Batiste. Thank you, Madam Mayor. You know, I just,

2:35:19 ↗ years sitting on the Human Services Commission and then on Council and being able to

2:35:24 ↗ talk about an affordable housing strategy, it's so incredibly

2:35:30 ↗ important and so needed in our community. But it's also

2:35:36 ↗ very complicated and there's a lot of of different moving pieces to

2:35:42 ↗ this. I see this as, this has been difficult because I don't feel

2:35:48 ↗ like it's perfect. And I think we have some outstanding questions for sure. But I

2:35:54 ↗ do feel like it is one of the tools that we could use. And I

2:35:59 ↗ would like to see us, I will be supporting this this evening, but I would

2:36:03 ↗ like to see us continue to move forward. I think we have a lot more

2:36:06 ↗ work to do on looking at what the other tools are and checking back

2:36:12 ↗ in and making sure this is really working the way that we intend it to

2:36:17 ↗ work. I think that this is one tool in the toolkit and

2:36:22 ↗ something that would allow us to go forward and in the moratorium if that's

2:36:28 ↗ what we choose to do. So again, I don't think that this is perfect, but

2:36:33 ↗ I think to Councilmember Ramos,

2:36:39 ↗ I think it's a step in the right direction. Councilmember Wintersheim. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

2:36:46 ↗ I also am going to support this. Earlier, Councilmember Ray

2:36:52 ↗ scratched his head, figuratively, and said, boy, at the smaller sizes, at the lower

2:36:58 ↗ density, this seems like a disincentive compared what we have today. I

2:37:04 ↗ struggled with that same question when we first addressed it in Land and Shore, but

2:37:09 ↗ I'll circle back around to that. One reason I'm gonna support this

2:37:16 ↗ is it does increase the areas. Now we're out into this zone called mixed

2:37:22 ↗ use, so it's that little purple area, if you can still see the map up

2:37:26 ↗ there. So that's beyond where we had it required before. or

2:37:32 ↗ where we sit today, it's just in that red and the core and VMU areas

2:37:37 ↗ where we had any requirement at all. We weren't seeing it,

2:37:45 ↗ even though we already had inclusionary requirement in that area. We've spread it to the

2:37:51 ↗ mixed use zone. We've increased the requirement in the core up to

2:37:57 ↗ at least 12.5%. And where it was zero, we now have 7.5%.

2:38:05 ↗ And so those are definitely steps in the direction we were seeking, making it to

2:38:11 ↗ required where it wasn't required before. So the question is, and this is, and Council

2:38:16 ↗ Member Goodwin was the first one to really articulate that, yes, but does this math

2:38:19 ↗ work against us? that actually cause a disincentive. And the Eco Northwest

2:38:25 ↗ analysis does show a lower residual land value at those lower FARs.

2:38:31 ↗ And yet, and so still, I'm going to support this for the

2:38:37 ↗ reasons actually that were stated earlier. And that

2:38:44 ↗ even if things were built at the lower levels right now, at the lower densities,

2:38:51 ↗ we'd be falling further and further behind on our goals for

2:38:57 ↗ overall numbers of units of affordable housing within the central area.

2:39:03 ↗ This program does improve the residual land value when you

2:39:09 ↗ get above that 2.1, roughly, FAR. And

2:39:16 ↗ because of the data that we've seen that was provided to us, that our

2:39:21 ↗ neighboring cities are also getting the kind of results that we seek with those

2:39:27 ↗ type of numbers. Still, we

2:39:33 ↗ can't be absolutely certain that this is gonna get the affordable housing

2:39:39 ↗ units that we seek. And as it's been mentioned already this evening,

2:39:46 ↗ we may require additional tools to be brought to bear, such as the

2:39:52 ↗ multifamily tax exemption. And though we have it tied to

2:39:58 ↗ only one project now, I, for one, am very interested in

2:40:04 ↗ looking further at that opportunity should this land use zone, these changes that we are

2:40:09 ↗ considering tonight prove not to be... as

2:40:15 ↗ we desire. If we have to bring in something like MFTs to move that along,

2:40:21 ↗ as has being seen now in some of our other neighboring cities, then I'll be

2:40:26 ↗ open to that conversation when that time comes. But for those reasons, I will be

2:40:30 ↗ supporting this bill tonight. Thank you, Councilmember Brunerstein. So we've heard from all Councilmembers. Does

2:40:35 ↗ anybody need a second crack at it? Councilmember Goodman. So,

2:40:43 ↗ I'M WRONG. THIS IS A VOTE IN WHICH I HOPE I'M WRONG. BECAUSE I HOPE

2:40:48 ↗ I'M WRONG THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR FAIRLY SOON THAT WE NEED TO

2:40:54 ↗ CONSIDER OTHER BREAKS IN ORDER TO

2:41:01 ↗ HELP BRING THE HOUSING THAT WE WANT TO CENTRAL ISAQUA AREA. AND I HOPE I'M

2:41:05 ↗ WRONG ALSO BECAUSE we don't see that this creates an incentive to

2:41:10 ↗ build multi-family residential units outside Central Issaquah, which is

2:41:17 ↗ not where we're trying to create the momentum to build those units. Not only outside,

2:41:23 ↗ we're trying to get the density inside the Central Issaquah area and create affordable housing

2:41:29 ↗ in that area for all the reasons that are mentioned in the Central Issaquah plan.

2:41:32 ↗ So it would be not good to push that development outside the central Isquah area

2:41:38 ↗ and maybe further up on the hillsides and in Sammamish and elsewhere. So again, I

2:41:43 ↗ hope I'm wrong, but I just do not find the certainty that I

2:41:49 ↗ need in the analysis that was done to make me comfortable

2:41:57 ↗ that this is done. Anyway. Thanks.

2:42:04 ↗ Anyone else wishing to add final comments? None.

2:42:10 ↗ With no further discussion, all those in favor of adopting Ordinance Number 2832, Adopting by

2:42:15 ↗ Reference Amendments to the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards Chapter 4, Zoning Standards and

2:42:21 ↗ Uses in Issaquah Municipal Code Chapter 18.21, Affordable

2:42:27 ↗ Housing, including clarifying the requirement for affordable housing in the urban core and mixed-use zoning

2:42:32 ↗ district and the vertical mixed-use overlay, and adding a definition of low-moderate income affordable

2:42:38 ↗ housing, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. Nay.

2:42:44 ↗ Five in favor. Goodman and Ray opposed. Before leaving this, I just

2:42:50 ↗ wanted to thank you for the conversation that you've just had. This is something you've

2:42:54 ↗ been looking at for over a year, and it is one of the last two

2:42:58 ↗ items remaining under the moratorium. I did want to let you know that I hear

2:43:03 ↗ the concerns that code alone will not build housing and that your expectation is that

2:43:08 ↗ we will get housing stock, affordable housing stock out of this. I wanted to remind

2:43:13 ↗ you that we do have the affordable housing scorecard, which we did not do last

2:43:17 ↗ year during the moratorium, but we will be doing this year, as well as the

2:43:20 ↗ Central Issaquah Annual Report, where you will be able to see whether or not you

2:43:24 ↗ are actually getting the stock that you are hoping and planning to build. But I

2:43:28 ↗ wanted to thank you so much. This was a great conversation and a year's worth

2:43:33 ↗ of work. And also thanks to staff and to Arthur. Thank you.

2:43:40 ↗ THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING IS AB 7522, CREATING THE VISIT ISSAQUA

2:43:45 ↗ ORGANIZATION. THIS ITEM IS COMING OUT OF COUNCIL SERVICES AND SAFETY COMMITTEE AND THE MARCH

2:43:50 ↗ COUNCIL WORK SESSION. I'D LIKE TO INVITE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER TIM DUTTER TO MAKE THE

2:43:55 ↗ PRESENTATION.

2:44:06 ↗ THANK YOU, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. presentation will not be as complicated as

2:44:12 ↗ inclusionary zoning we're here to discuss agenda bill 75 to 22

2:44:18 ↗ creation of the destination marketing organization what I've tried to do

2:44:24 ↗ tonight is to kind of just simplify the process and where we are at in

2:44:27 ↗ it this began in October with the LTAC deciding that they wanted to create the

2:44:32 ↗ destination marketing organization and they requested it in the 27 in back in October in

2:44:38 ↗ 2017 in the budget it was adopted by the City Council in December of 2017.

2:44:44 ↗ we're still over here on the bottom left seeking to file the articles of

2:44:49 ↗ incorporation once the articles of incorporation are in place the second step is to create

2:44:54 ↗ the board of directors and we've talked service and safety several times what that's going

2:45:00 ↗ to look like and we're trying to create a time frame here the panel discussed

2:45:05 ↗ in services and safety that would pick this board of directors it was decided that

2:45:09 ↗ would consist of five members a rep from the Chamber of Commerce a rep from

2:45:13 ↗ the downtown Issaquah Association Hotel number one Hotel number two and then a mayor appointed

2:45:19 ↗ rep so from there we move to the third step which would be the higher

2:45:23 ↗ lead executive director the board would create that rfp and do that nationwide search

2:45:32 ↗ the altac did meet recently and made suggestions for board criteria to recommend to this

2:45:38 ↗ panel and they're fairly simple suggestions and these aren't mandatory they're just suggestions the first

2:45:44 ↗ would be a two-year limit initially and the terms would be staggered for the board

2:45:49 ↗ and then at some point suggested and decided it was a good idea at a

2:45:53 ↗ two-year mark to do an analysis almost a reset to step back and decide where

2:45:56 ↗ this organization's at are they accomplishing the things that they want to accomplish and how

2:46:01 ↗ they're adhering to their metrics and measurables the industries not necessarily industries

2:46:07 ↗ the ideas that came to mind for representation on this board were hotels restaurants or

2:46:12 ↗ the food and beverage industry and then attractions and amenities and then marketing professionals

2:46:19 ↗ The reason that attractions and amenities are underlined is the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee didn't

2:46:24 ↗ want to create a box of certain individuals or certain industries or certain businesses or

2:46:29 ↗ certain companies that should fit inside that box. They wanted to leave that up to

2:46:32 ↗ the panel to be creative. And I'll give you an example of that.

2:46:38 ↗ Under amenities and attractions, we didn't want to silo, like I said, a certain industry

2:46:43 ↗ And it was addressed and came up at the last services meeting. We want to

2:46:46 ↗ make sure that there's somebody from Parks and Recs represented on that. want this panel

2:46:51 ↗ to determine if that's necessary and where it takes priority on this board. And for

2:46:55 ↗ example, they'll have to ask a question, does that consist of our city parks and

2:46:59 ↗ recs? Or is it somebody from the state parks and recs? Or is it somebody

2:47:03 ↗ from the bike club? And ideally, the thinking is that you'd like to, we're in

2:47:06 ↗ startup mode, that you'd like to kill two birds with one stone. So maybe you

2:47:10 ↗ have somebody who works in the restaurant industry or owns a restaurant here that is

2:47:15 ↗ an avid biker and is involved with one of those nonprofits. And where do they

2:47:19 ↗ fall on that precedence? We don't want, the LTAC's not trying to determine that. They're

2:47:23 ↗ trying to leave it to the panel to determine that. And where would they take

2:47:26 ↗ precedence in comparison over something like the Village Theater or Fish or the Zoo?

2:47:32 ↗ So that's the LTAC's recommendation, recommendations for criteria.

2:47:38 ↗ And again, we're back to just that initial concept, trying to move this organization forward.

2:47:43 ↗ And right now we're requesting that the city council approve the resolution authorized staff and

2:47:49 ↗ staff time to file these articles of incorporation.

2:47:56 ↗ And are there any questions? Thank you, Tim. Any questions for Tim? Council members?

2:48:05 ↗ Council member Goodman. Thank you. What is the

2:48:12 ↗ city's role in a in this proposed DMO, both now

2:48:18 ↗ and after the, I guess the bylaws, I think, is the next step.

2:48:24 ↗ The city's role is to help in assisting file the Articles of Incorporation. So I

2:48:28 ↗ would assist in working with an attorney to file the Articles of Incorporation. Depending on

2:48:32 ↗ whether that board decides they want a city rep, to serve on that board as

2:48:37 ↗ an ex officio or not will be up to that panel to determine if that

2:48:40 ↗ city rep. Similar to the way that I said on the downtown Issaquah Association as

2:48:45 ↗ an ex officio, the panel will decide if that's necessary. But once this board is

2:48:50 ↗ in place, and that's pretty much where I start to walk away from it, the

2:48:54 ↗ city starts to step back and it becomes an independent organization that governs itself, much

2:48:58 ↗ like most of our other nonprofits. And then after that,

2:49:04 ↗ my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, the city's role would be one

2:49:08 ↗ of providing funding that the DMO requests annually

2:49:15 ↗ through the LTAC funds? So the LTAC always needs to request through the city council

2:49:20 ↗ approval of the appropriation of funding. And that would be the city's

2:49:26 ↗ involvement at that point would be funds. Yes. And do you,

2:49:33 ↗ what other sources of funds would there be? And the reason I'm asking is because

2:49:39 ↗ I was looking at other DMOs and so Walla Walla, for example, I think their

2:49:43 ↗ annual budget is $1.2 million. And that's not what we have available in LTAC funds

2:49:48 ↗ annually currently. And so I wondered what the thought was for other funds.

2:49:55 ↗ fund sources of course not needing 1.2 million dollars initially and who knows what the

2:50:00 ↗ budget might be i just wondered what the other sources of funds might be so

2:50:05 ↗ initially it's it's mostly going to be supported directly just by the ltac but the

2:50:10 ↗ idea is that that executive director will do some business development they can look for

2:50:14 ↗ sponsorship opportunities at some point that board could consider some type of membership and like

2:50:19 ↗ we discussed at the last lodging tax advisory committee Maybe it's certain entities that are

2:50:24 ↗ outside the area that want to be members that are in the region, but not

2:50:27 ↗ necessarily in the city. Maybe they're charged a small fee. And the other idea would

2:50:31 ↗ be that if they're doing their job, they should be increasing the lodging tax and

2:50:36 ↗ the hotel stays, so their budgets should increase. And it has been increasing by $20,000

2:50:39 ↗ to $40,000 over the last four or five years. Thank you. And then there's always

2:50:44 ↗ an opportunity for another hotel or an expansion of a hotel. But a

2:50:50 ↗ good example of that remember if it's south side seattle for southwest seattle where they

2:50:56 ↗ started with 70 000 and they're a multi-million dollar demo at this point will we

2:51:02 ↗ ever get there i don't know but we have to start somewhere with the budget

2:51:07 ↗ does that answer your question thank you thank you tim uh council member hunt followed

2:51:11 ↗ by council member wright thank you um the i have two questions the first one

2:51:17 ↗ is a clarification the um The committee recommended that there be a city seat on

2:51:23 ↗ the board, and based on what you just said, it sounds to me that there

2:51:29 ↗ may be somebody from the city on the board, but it will depend on the

2:51:34 ↗ panel. So it's, okay. Yeah, the lodging tax advisory committee would recommend a

2:51:39 ↗ city seat as an ex officio, but it'd be up to that panel to ultimately

2:51:42 ↗ decide. And then my other question is, we

2:51:48 ↗ have had a lot of public comments and a lot of feedback about the importance

2:51:52 ↗ of outdoor recreation. I know that there will be somebody, and also the LTAC's recommendation

2:51:57 ↗ was there is somebody who will represent attractions and events. But more

2:52:02 ↗ specifically, is there anything to...

2:52:10 ↗ that those attractions and amenities and also the marketing representative that those actually will be

2:52:16 ↗ or is it again up to the panel it's up to the panel the recommendations

2:52:21 ↗ me personally I'd love to see outdoor rec represented but in what capacity I think

2:52:24 ↗ that that panel needs to sit and make those decisions especially during their startup year

2:52:29 ↗ what people they want represented from what industry again if they can kill two birds

2:52:32 ↗ with one stone and get people from two different areas that'd be the ideal

2:52:39 ↗ Member Ray. So the destination marketing organization

2:52:45 ↗ isn't a marketing organization for the hotels. It is a marketing

2:52:51 ↗ organization for the city of Issaquah. Absolutely. So what are we

2:52:57 ↗ doing to take, recognizing that we're using LTAC funding as

2:53:04 ↗ our seed money and getting us off the ground. What are the thoughts around how

2:53:07 ↗ we move towards broader inclusion of our other stakeholders that make this such an amazing

2:53:13 ↗ place to visit? Well, can you give me an example of stakeholders? Outdoor

2:53:19 ↗ recreation, the triple X root beer place, you know, offenders

2:53:25 ↗ on Front Street. Sure. I mean, if you look right, that's why I included the

2:53:28 ↗ mission statement. And the mission statement kind of covers right there in it. That's their

2:53:32 ↗ job is to market these entities. We didn't specifically list them. I did in

2:53:38 ↗ one slide earlier. I guess I wasn't, I was looking for something more like how

2:53:44 ↗ is, how do we see it evolving? Because as we start to put together the

2:53:47 ↗ articles of incorporation, there's a question here, Mayor. I promise you. As we put

2:53:53 ↗ together the articles of incorporation and the bylaws, how are we going to go about

2:53:58 ↗ making sure that those are structured in such a way that we, this

2:54:04 ↗ this this broader broader mission they could do it through their metrics and their measurables

2:54:10 ↗ they could do it through surveys to the non-profits they could do it through surveys

2:54:13 ↗ to the businesses outreach to see if they are seeing an increase and from what

2:54:17 ↗ events and they can track all of that that is that answering your

2:54:23 ↗ question i'm good okay any other council member oh council member patisse um thank

2:54:29 ↗ you tim could you go back a couple slides to the um the group that

2:54:34 ↗ will be choosing the board. Yeah. That's the middle one here. Right. So

2:54:41 ↗ the panel formed to create the board of directors. Was there a discussion around,

2:54:47 ↗ we've got two hotelier spots on

2:54:53 ↗ there. Was there some discussion as you were building this out about putting a marketing

2:54:59 ↗ person in in addition to that board? No.

2:55:05 ↗ Or that panel? We're hoping that those people choose marketing professionals.

2:55:12 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. So everyone, what'd you say? Actually, I can add a little

2:55:17 ↗ bit to that answer. I do know two of the selection panel representatives from the

2:55:23 ↗ hotel representatives that have stepped forward do have event and marketing

2:55:31 ↗ experience, it's part of what they're doing within

2:55:38 ↗ their jobs today. Okay. Thank you. Any other council questions?

2:55:46 ↗ Member Goodman? I have a question about services and safety

2:55:52 ↗ committee's recommendation.

2:55:59 ↗ But maybe we're going to speak to that later. Well, we actually haven't had a,

2:56:04 ↗ if I remember correctly, we haven't had a motion and we haven't had a committee

2:56:07 ↗ report out on it. Would you like to get the chair to do a committee

2:56:11 ↗ report out now before we make a motion or? When y'all are ready. Okay. If

2:56:15 ↗ there are no more questions. Actually, I had thought to ask that as a question.

2:56:19 ↗ So I think it would be appropriate to understand, given that it's just part of

2:56:23 ↗ the history of the bill, what went down in committee. Okay.

2:56:29 ↗ We, and I will start and you rest of the committee, please help me. We

2:56:35 ↗ had a really spirited discussion. I think we evolved this

2:56:40 ↗ concept a fair bit during the committee process. The

2:56:46 ↗ biggest issues that came forward in my mind around breadth of the

2:56:52 ↗ marketing organization since it was coming out of LTAC and since it was being primarily

2:56:56 ↗ funded by LTAC. It had a LTAC flavor to it and we were concerned about

2:57:02 ↗ that and we pushed and had discussion around how do we get more inclusion. I

2:57:06 ↗ think the selection of the board originally was going to be an LTAC activity and

2:57:12 ↗ we thought that was probably not right and so this panel of two hoteliers, Dia

2:57:19 ↗ chamber and a mayoral appointee was a nice way to broaden the reach.

2:57:27 ↗ Also what we found is when we had public comment around this, there was a

2:57:31 ↗ huge amount of public support from all sorts of different places. It wasn't just

2:57:38 ↗ the hotel industry in town saying we want more of this. There was also a

2:57:42 ↗ fair amount of other tourism industry that said

2:57:49 ↗ we could benefit from that. And then finally, there were people from the public who

2:57:53 ↗ said, yeah, I think this is a great place to live. This is a great

2:57:55 ↗ place to visit. And we'd like to encourage more people to do that and leave

2:58:00 ↗ their money behind. What I do. Okay. Well said.

2:58:05 ↗ Thank you. Are there any questions about the committee report? It's member Goodman.

2:58:11 ↗ Did the committee talk about, I see that there's a motion about filing articles of

2:58:16 ↗ incorporation. Was there discussion or a committee recommendation regarding bylaws?

2:58:22 ↗ Well, yes there was. And we,

2:58:28 ↗ because we wanted to ensure that the council had an

2:58:34 ↗ opportunity to ensure that we had proper representation on the board of directors,

2:58:41 ↗ this not-for-profit,

2:58:48 ↗ we wanted to see the bylaws before they were finalized and have the opportunity to

2:58:52 ↗ approve them so that we could ensure that we had all of our stakeholders, all

2:58:58 ↗ the way from our person who runs the paragliding

2:59:04 ↗ activities at Poo Point to the drive-in, to the Village Theater, to all of the

2:59:12 ↗ organizations that would buy into this, there was a breadth of

2:59:17 ↗ representation. Again, I think from the committee's

2:59:24 ↗ review of this, the idea of a marketing organization made sense, getting it started with

2:59:30 ↗ LTAC money made sense, Seeing that it could grow bigger than just the $180,000

2:59:37 ↗ of LTCH funding made sense. But for that all to happen, we needed to have

2:59:42 ↗ it a solid platform in that it represented all of the tourism and all of

2:59:48 ↗ the destinations that are in Issaquah. And so we were pushing for that.

2:59:54 ↗ Council Member Ray, was that part of the conversation at the committee or is that

2:59:59 ↗ something tonight that you want staff to comment on as well? Is that new information?

3:00:05 ↗ Because I know we're talking about potentially doing another motion. Yeah, so I think there

3:00:10 ↗ was some lack of clarity coming out of the meeting on exactly what our expectations

3:00:15 ↗ were. I think in conversations I've had with Council Member Batiste and Council Member Hunt,

3:00:21 ↗ we all thought it was coming back to Council for finalization. Okay. Did you have

3:00:27 ↗ a discussion about that in committee or could we ask staff for some input on

3:00:31 ↗ that this evening? We could ask staff for some input on that this evening. Okay.

3:00:34 ↗ Let's do that. Thank you. So since I was the staff

3:00:40 ↗ member at that committee meeting, I figured I'd, and because I haven't spoken enough this

3:00:45 ↗ evening, I thought I'd come back. So this did come up. There was a lot

3:00:50 ↗ of concern raised two service committees ago

3:00:56 ↗ about the focus of the DMO and that it was gonna be somehow, these are

3:01:02 ↗ my words, not theirs, a puppet of LTAC. And so what we talked about at

3:01:06 ↗ committee was there was a lot of conversation about making it a

3:01:11 ↗ broader board and making sure that it represented the entire community and not just the

3:01:17 ↗ hoteliers. And so because Tim and I didn't feel like we were comfortable speaking

3:01:23 ↗ for whether that was gonna rub LTAC the wrong way, we said, well, let's go

3:01:27 ↗ back to LTAC and have a conversation at the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee about the

3:01:33 ↗ concerns raised by the council committee and see if that was going to be a

3:01:36 ↗ problem. And so we did that. And the good news is I think LTCH was

3:01:42 ↗ very receptive of that idea that the DMO is going to market Issaquah.

3:01:47 ↗ And the hoteliers are going to benefit from that. But they're not working for the

3:01:51 ↗ hotels. They're working to market Issaquah as a destination for different types

3:01:57 ↗ of events. And so We talked about that. What came up at the

3:02:03 ↗ last meeting that I was substituting for Tim is concern over how the board was

3:02:09 ↗ going to get picked and who was going to sit on the board. And so

3:02:14 ↗ the commitment that I made at the last committee meeting, and maybe it was not

3:02:17 ↗ as clear as it needed to be, good news it's on video, we could all

3:02:21 ↗ watch it, is that I said we would bring that back and have a conversation

3:02:26 ↗ at committee about those draft bylaws to make sure if there was, and have a

3:02:32 ↗ public conversation. I mean, the intent here is that this is gonna be an opportunity

3:02:37 ↗ to talk about the bylaws. Staff will be writing and drafting the bylaws. I think

3:02:41 ↗ we've heard very clearly from the council, at least at services, and it seems like

3:02:46 ↗ it might be reflected by the entire council, that the DMO represents broader than just

3:02:52 ↗ the hotels, represents the entire community as a destination place. And so I think with

3:02:57 ↗ that understanding, that would be the intent by which we would draft the bylaws is

3:03:02 ↗ to make sure that that broader reach got represented. And

3:03:09 ↗ that's hopefully. Council Member Wright, does that answer your question or do you need more

3:03:14 ↗ from staff? Because I believe that your motion actually has to do with council approving,

3:03:19 ↗ potentially approving the bylaws. Well, I don't know if there was a question that I

3:03:25 ↗ asked. So I don't know if it answered it. And Council Member Hunt, Council Member

3:03:31 ↗ Batiste, you were there too. So if I'm, my understanding is we wanted to have

3:03:37 ↗ a final thumbs up, thumbs down on whatever was put forth

3:03:44 ↗ before releasing funding to make this organization happen. Which means council approval of the bylaws?

3:03:49 ↗ Yes. Okay, great. Just wanted to clarify that. I'm seeing nods. Well, I think in

3:03:54 ↗ the committee meeting, we discussed it and it was presented that as an

3:04:00 ↗ option that we would, that once the, have

3:04:06 ↗ been drafted, it would come back to committee. I don't think it was explicitly stated

3:04:11 ↗ whether it would be informational or for approval, but then in this latest staff memo

3:04:16 ↗ that we received, it was specified that it was informational. And so my understanding from

3:04:22 ↗ our meeting and our discussions was that this would be an opportunity for feedback both

3:04:26 ↗ from the council on the draft bylaws and also from the public to make changes.

3:04:31 ↗ And so my feeling is that the best way to ensure that we would be

3:04:36 ↗ able to make changes on a draft would be that approval would follow that

3:04:42 ↗ conversation that would occur at the council. Okay.

3:04:48 ↗ Council Member Batiste? I would echo Council Member Hunt's comments.

3:04:53 ↗ That was my understanding coming out of the meeting as well. Great.

3:05:00 ↗ Any other questions? I have someone who would like to make a

3:05:06 ↗ motion. I'd like to make a motion. And Council Member Wray. I move to approve

3:05:11 ↗ resolution number. 2018-07.

3:05:17 ↗ Directing staff to file the articles of incorporation to create the Visit Issaquah organization.

3:05:24 ↗ And a second? Second. Thank you. Is

3:05:30 ↗ there any council discussion? I think I

3:05:36 ↗ already covered this, but I'm just going to cover it again. When we started working

3:05:40 ↗ through the destination marketing organization concept, the breadth and

3:05:46 ↗ depth of support from the community was quite overwhelming.

3:05:53 ↗ You know, you've all been to services and safety committee meetings, and we don't get

3:05:57 ↗ very many people there. And when we were discussing the the marketing

3:06:03 ↗ organization, we had a pretty full council chamber. So there's a lot of interest in

3:06:08 ↗ it. There's a lot of support for it. I think it is a great idea.

3:06:12 ↗ But like everything else, I want to make sure we do it right and then

3:06:15 ↗ we get it launched on a solid footing and that we

3:06:22 ↗ give it what it needs to thrive and to grow and to become more than

3:06:26 ↗ just a little thing and more like Walla Walla. Never thought I'd say that.

3:06:33 ↗ Council Member Baptiste and then Goodman. So I agree. We had

3:06:38 ↗ definitely done a fair amount of work on the destination marketing

3:06:44 ↗ organization, and I just wanted to thank all of the people that came out from

3:06:49 ↗ the community to speak to us. It was really, really interesting meetings, and it was

3:06:55 ↗ great to see all that excitement. And thank you to staff for working way

3:07:00 ↗ through all of the questions and going back to LTAC and to the LTAC board

3:07:08 ↗ to work with us so we could get to this final place. Could you

3:07:14 ↗ pull up the board criteria again? I think it's the next slide. And so

3:07:20 ↗ I think so much of the conversation really was around this and being able to

3:07:26 ↗ expand and add and THE ATTRACTIONS AND THE AMENITIES. SO I'M

3:07:32 ↗ JUST I'M FEELING SO MUCH BETTER AS WE'VE TALKED THROUGH EVERYTHING FOR

3:07:38 ↗ THE DMO. AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE BYLAWS

3:07:44 ↗ COME BACK. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS GOING FORWARD.

3:07:50 ↗ THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER GOODMAN. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO SUPPORT THIS AS WELL. I DO

3:07:55 ↗ HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE there's a second motion on the

3:08:01 ↗ bylaws. I too would like the bylaws to come back. And so,

3:08:09 ↗ but we still have to have that discussion. And so I'm wondering if the bylaws.

3:08:15 ↗ Oh, maybe I can clarify. I did discuss with the clerk earlier if we could

3:08:20 ↗ do two motions instead of putting them together, but you also have the option to

3:08:25 ↗ put them together. You can amend the motion that Council Member Ray to add approval

3:08:30 ↗ of the bylaws or you can deal with them one motion at a time. It's

3:08:34 ↗ up to you. Because one of the possible outcomes is approval for articles of incorporation,

3:08:40 ↗ but then separate outcome for bylaws, which if I would

3:08:45 ↗ support one, but if I would support the articles of incorporation if the bylaws came

3:08:51 ↗ back. So What you can do is see if you have support for that by

3:08:56 ↗ making an amendment to the original motion to add and directing staff to bring the

3:09:02 ↗ bylaws before Council for approval and see if you get a second.

3:09:10 ↗ I think it would best if someone else amended the motion. Okay. I'll amend the

3:09:14 ↗ motion. Council Member Hunt is making the amendment. I'd like to make an amendment to

3:09:18 ↗ move the move to direct the administration to provide the draft bylaws

3:09:24 ↗ of the destination marketing organization to City Council for approval. Second.

3:09:30 ↗ Okay. I moved and seconded discussion of the amendment only.

3:09:35 ↗ Council Member Hunt. So as I mentioned earlier, I think that this was discussed

3:09:42 ↗ broadly in committee meeting that we wanted to see the come back because I think

3:09:48 ↗ the bylaws are so important to the direction that this takes the whole destination marketing

3:09:53 ↗ organization. And I think we have a lot of really special attractions and amenities in

3:09:58 ↗ the city. And right now, while I do think this destination marketing organization has huge

3:10:04 ↗ potential, some of those questions that we have been working through a committee are still

3:10:09 ↗ unresolved. So this would give a little bit more another opportunity

3:10:15 ↗ for the council to provide feedback on the direction that this organization is taking.

3:10:21 ↗ And I think it would also give more opportunity for public comment to be incorporated

3:10:26 ↗ into the bylaws. And we have seen, as both Councilmember Ray and Batiste have said,

3:10:30 ↗ we've seen huge interest in this and many different business owners and members

3:10:36 ↗ of the community come out and speak to this. So I think for both those

3:10:40 ↗ reasons, this would be a good opportunity for more feedback. Thank you.

3:10:46 ↗ Speaking to the amendments, Council President Martz. I have a question for

3:10:52 ↗ Committee Chair Ray, which is, does this amendment

3:10:58 ↗ address all of the major remaining questions to come out of committee?

3:11:04 ↗ if we move forward with this amendment, are there any other large questions associated with

3:11:09 ↗ the parent bill that wouldn't be addressed by this amendment? I don't think so. I

3:11:14 ↗ mean, I, you know, my belief is this is the right direction to

3:11:20 ↗ go. And going back to what I said earlier, we just want to make sure

3:11:23 ↗ we launch this on the right foot. And this provides us another checkpoint to make

3:11:29 ↗ sure we are on the right foot. Thank you. Council Member Goodman? I agree with

3:11:34 ↗ what Council Member Ray said and also what Council Member Hunt said. Articles of incorporation

3:11:38 ↗ are just basically have no substantive information about an organization. The bylaws contain all of

3:11:44 ↗ the meat. And so if you want to know what the organization is

3:11:51 ↗ really up to, really what they're planning on,

3:11:56 ↗ which direction they're taking, and all that information is in the bylaws. Councilmember Richardson,

3:12:02 ↗ Councilmember Ray. All right. Thank you. Good discussion. However,

3:12:09 ↗ I'm not in agreement with the Council approval of the bylaws, and I'll explain myself.

3:12:17 ↗ The intention for the DMO is to be an independent nonprofit

3:12:23 ↗ organization, and the seed funding for which would come from LTAC.

3:12:30 ↗ LODGING TAX IS NOT A CITY TAX. IT'S ONE THAT THE HOTELIERS

3:12:35 ↗ COLLECT FOR FROM THEIR GUESTS. AND SO

3:12:41 ↗ IN A SENSE, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS YOU SEE SUCH A SKUING TOWARD THE

3:12:45 ↗ HOTELS BECAUSE IN A SENSE THEY'RE THE FUNDERS. So,

3:12:51 ↗ it's not money from our general fund. It's like a, though the city is the

3:12:57 ↗ administrator of those funds, those are restricted funds whose use

3:13:03 ↗ is defined by the RCWs. And the council's

3:13:09 ↗ responsibilities begin and end with approving the fund use as

3:13:15 ↗ recommended by the LTAC. And so

3:13:23 ↗ they're kind of mixed there, but again, I think it's really important of where the

3:13:27 ↗ funds come from. They're actually not city funds. We cannot use them in any other

3:13:32 ↗ way, shape or form. But there are also, there are quite a few nonprofits in

3:13:36 ↗ town. We have quite a bit of experience with them. Just a couple of weeks

3:13:39 ↗ ago, we gave approval for entering into a lease with a teen cafe, the

3:13:45 ↗ place called The Garage. We're providing a pretty significant of our own money

3:13:51 ↗ and resources in the form of a building and other support to that

3:13:57 ↗ nonprofit that picked its own board and defined its own bylaws. There are many other.

3:14:03 ↗ We helped with some seed money to get another local

3:14:09 ↗ nonprofit off the ground. the Save Lakes of Mammish group.

3:14:15 ↗ Again, that organization, the leaders of that picked their own board and defined

3:14:21 ↗ their own bylaws, and we were a funder of our own general funds on that

3:14:25 ↗ one, and we didn't have a say or expect to have a say on the

3:14:30 ↗ definition of their bylaws. And so it's for this reason, because it's an independent

3:14:36 ↗ nonprofit, envisioned to be an independent nonprofit organization, FUNDED BY

3:14:41 ↗ THE MONEY COLLECTED BY THE HOTELS, AND YET,

3:14:48 ↗ city's staff resources are required for the

3:14:53 ↗ ongoing because we administer LTAC and we see the first few

3:14:59 ↗ certainly to start and for some period going forward that LTAC would continue to

3:15:07 ↗ look to the performance and the results of the DMO and consider the question of

3:15:12 ↗ recommending TAC money to, as funds for the DMO.

3:15:19 ↗ So the city's involvement will remain through that operation

3:15:25 ↗ of the LTAC. And so that's certainly a critical, that's one of the reasons to

3:15:30 ↗ seek and need, get support from the council is that city resources would be involved

3:15:36 ↗ in an ongoing, ongoing manner. So, and I did watch very

3:15:41 ↗ carefully the services and safety meeting where the last one where the conversation about the

3:15:47 ↗ board came up and I agree with Councilmember Hunt. It was like I watched that,

3:15:52 ↗ I listened to it, I replayed it again. I go, okay, that was like completely

3:15:55 ↗ noncommittal. What exactly the expectation for the bylaws out of that wasn't actually very clear

3:16:01 ↗ from that meeting and I was I was kind of hoping that there would be

3:16:06 ↗ some clarity. And my own interpretation was that it was okay, as

3:16:12 ↗ Steph Niven has said already this evening, is that he did

3:16:18 ↗ offer to kind of bring those back for review.

3:16:25 ↗ And so this step of saying, well, actually we want this city council to approve

3:16:30 ↗ the bylaws of a nonprofit being funded by

3:16:36 ↗ not our funds, I think is a step too far. And those are the reasons

3:16:40 ↗ why I'm not going to support the amendment. And I believe I still have to

3:16:45 ↗ hear from Council Member Ramos or Batiste, if you're interested in coming in. Oh, is

3:16:49 ↗ Member Batiste?

3:16:55 ↗ Well, I did speak earlier that the My understanding of what

3:17:02 ↗ the safety and services was asking for was to look at those

3:17:07 ↗ bylaws and be able to review that before it went forward.

3:17:13 ↗ And so I'll just leave it there.

3:17:20 ↗ Also, President Martz. Actually hadn't stated an opinion yet. I just asked a question, but

3:17:24 ↗ that's fine. I understand and appreciate Council

3:17:30 ↗ Member Winterstein's concerns, particularly as the Council's representative to LTAC, but

3:17:36 ↗ I'm gonna support this amendment because this bill has We have

3:17:42 ↗ spent a lot, there's a lot of mileage on this bill. Reading the bill itself,

3:17:47 ↗ all the various times it's been to services, and I really want to respect

3:17:53 ↗ that the services committee has basically said this is the piece that needs to get

3:17:58 ↗ it through the goalposts, so to speak, and with that in mind, I'm going to

3:18:03 ↗ support the amendment. Thank you. Sorry for missing you. Everybody has spoken once. Would anybody

3:18:09 ↗ like to speak or are we ready for the vote and the amendment? Councilmember Winterstein.

3:18:13 ↗ I just want to make a closing comment. It deals with the bylaws and I

3:18:17 ↗ appreciate what Councilmember Winterstein has said. And I believe once

3:18:23 ↗ this organization is operational and we have the structure in place and a board of

3:18:28 ↗ directors and an executive director, then they own their future. But I think that

3:18:36 ↗ This is, in my view of this organization, this is not in the long run

3:18:43 ↗ a solely LTAC funded organization. If we do this correctly, LTAC

3:18:49 ↗ will become a smaller and smaller funding entity over time as this organization becomes

3:18:54 ↗ broader in scope and starts to have a bigger impact on ISQA as a destination.

3:19:00 ↗ So I wanna make sure we set it up so that that vision can be

3:19:04 ↗ realized. That's the vision that I heard people in the public saying, that's what we

3:19:09 ↗ want. That's what I want. Thank you. I'm just going to call a clerical friend

3:19:15 ↗ here. We're going to vote on the amendment first. Okay. So the amendment was to

3:19:21 ↗ add on to the original motion and directing staff to bring the bylaws before council

3:19:26 ↗ for approval. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? in favor winterstein

3:19:32 ↗ opposed any more discussion of the main motion are ready for the vote uh council

3:19:37 ↗ president martz i just i want to mention that uh committee chair ray said we

3:19:41 ↗ don't get many people there at services and as someone who who remembers the senior

3:19:47 ↗ center uh discussions that happen in services i'm going to keep this little quote handy

3:19:52 ↗ going forward and uh we'll see if you still feel that way at the end

3:19:56 ↗ of the year chris thank you awesome There's no further discussion. All those in favor.

3:20:01 ↗ Oh, sorry. Council Member Winterstang. A few comments. I wanted to actually, I want to

3:20:07 ↗ thank publicly all the members of LTAC. And this process has been

3:20:13 ↗ interesting. When it went in front of the services and

3:20:18 ↗ safety staff brought that information back. And some of us even watched

3:20:24 ↗ those meetings and we discussed that a number of times. I'm very proud of all

3:20:30 ↗ the staff members when the question was raised about the constitution of the board. Staff

3:20:34 ↗ came forward with the recommendation, no, I tell you what, let's do this differently. Let's

3:20:38 ↗ put together a selection committee and we have a really good conversation about what that

3:20:43 ↗ representation ought to be. And again, we're suggesting for that selection committee to hoteliers because

3:20:48 ↗ they're the primary funders. I explained that earlier. But it made a lot of sense

3:20:53 ↗ because the Chamber of Commerce represents a very diverse set of businesses within the city

3:20:57 ↗ and let them pick somebody who should be that voice in the establishment of a

3:21:03 ↗ board. And the Downtown Issaquah Association has a similar but a different type of

3:21:09 ↗ set of membership and a different view on a certain part of town, which is

3:21:14 ↗ very key to, I think, Issaquah's vitality. So they should have a voice in helping

3:21:18 ↗ us in panel a board. And then it just made, and then in the interest

3:21:24 ↗ of the city with a capital C, the corporation, it made sense to let's ask

3:21:28 ↗ our mayor to pick somebody at large. So you had five people that would then

3:21:34 ↗ come together and go through a process of soliciting and interviewing

3:21:40 ↗ and selecting the initial board. And I think that was a better outcome and

3:21:46 ↗ as a result of what the discussion that happened at Services and Safety. Then when

3:21:52 ↗ after the most recent meeting it came back again and I should have said earlier

3:21:57 ↗ during our regional and committee reports that I talk about the LTAC meeting during this

3:22:01 ↗ part of the bill. We had an LTAC meeting a week before last

3:22:07 ↗ and we talked quite a bit about how the selection panel would

3:22:14 ↗ What criteria would they use? And it's somewhat, that's why this is summarized here. But

3:22:19 ↗ again, it was a very spirited conversation. People were very

3:22:25 ↗ amenable and glad to have that input from the council

3:22:31 ↗ committee. Talked about it at length for about an hour. And this idea

3:22:37 ↗ that there would be representatives from this board, they should consider people with

3:22:44 ↗ who are from either the hotel or the food and beverage and local amenities and

3:22:50 ↗ attractions such as amenities that embrace our outdoor places, our existing facilities and or

3:22:56 ↗ meeting halls. That they should use selection criteria that identified people with marketing and or

3:23:01 ↗ branding and contemporary social media experience. We should look for people that have

3:23:07 ↗ board experience, especially experience on nonprofits. It would be a real plus for a member

3:23:14 ↗ any board member to have experience in the tourism industry. It would be a real

3:23:19 ↗ benefit for a board member to have experience and demonstrated experience with their high level

3:23:24 ↗ kind of organizational planning, especially when you're starting with a blank page.

3:23:31 ↗ And then finally the other criteria that wasn't mentioned up there, but I'll add, is

3:23:35 ↗ that the idea of let's talk to people about their experience of drafting and amending

3:23:41 ↗ bylaws, which It doesn't happen, but it's pretty common if you've been a board member

3:23:45 ↗ before. So, you know, the sense was with the so LTAC embraced where

3:23:51 ↗ this was going and wanted to always be one step in front to always come

3:23:56 ↗ back to this body or that committee with one more another value added

3:24:02 ↗ step to consider. It started, I think, with that selection committee and now with these

3:24:06 ↗ criteria. to do that, always being very responsive to the process

3:24:12 ↗ that we did go through there. And I think that we didn't get a lot

3:24:18 ↗ of conversation this evening. There was a lot of conversation about metrics, so LTCH talked

3:24:22 ↗ quite a bit about metrics and about reporting back. And

3:24:28 ↗ I think the attitude was that, and I think this will be conveyed to whatever

3:24:33 ↗ leadership comes to be around this organization, that just like with any

3:24:39 ↗ entity that's dependent upon funding from another entity,

3:24:45 ↗ and yes, it's LTAC, but it's always approved by this council. Yeah, just like we

3:24:50 ↗ get, we get those nonprofits that we fund coming back and telling us about what

3:24:56 ↗ happened and getting expressing their gratitude and maybe giving us a report upon operations. So

3:25:01 ↗ through that, so I think you should see, I would expect a cadence develop that's

3:25:07 ↗ very similar to our relationship with other nonprofits within the area through that kind of

3:25:13 ↗ showing up here and giving us that type of report. That's at least what I

3:25:16 ↗ would expect of a real professional organization. And then finally, I'll just admit, you know,

3:25:23 ↗ I've done business travel before where I've gone to a conference in some remote remote

3:25:27 ↗ city, remote, outside of King County. And

3:25:33 ↗ I've considered whether or not I'm gonna go to this conference or gonna go to

3:25:36 ↗ this activity, part about where it is. And those that are promoting this activity or

3:25:41 ↗ this conference or what it is often would provide a package of what are the

3:25:44 ↗ local amenities, what else is there to do? And I remember vividly

3:25:50 ↗ considering whether or not to go to Nashville, Tennessee for a conference once. And the

3:25:54 ↗ location of where we were going to go was so good because of its proximity

3:25:59 ↗ to certain nearby amenities relating to the music industry that, you know what, I'm going

3:26:04 ↗ to that one. And I think that's what I kept going back to is that

3:26:09 ↗ maybe someone's going to say, you know what, I've always wanted to jump off a

3:26:12 ↗ mountain and do some parasailing. Or, you know what, I've always wanted to try kayaking.

3:26:17 ↗ or I've always wanted to try mountain biking, or I've always wanted to, you know,

3:26:20 ↗ I wanted to go to a candy factory, or I've wanted to hear, I wanted

3:26:24 ↗ to go to a theater that's probably the best off-Broadway theater in the United States.

3:26:30 ↗ And so, and that's how these people who, Council Member Ray mentioned earlier, will come

3:26:36 ↗ here and leave their money here. They're gonna look at considerations to maybe come to

3:26:39 ↗ Issaquah. They're gonna look at what's here and they're gonna say, you know, this is

3:26:42 ↗ why I'm coming here. And so a successful organization is gonna be, marketing those, is

3:26:48 ↗ going to be making a promise to those who consider to come here, you know,

3:26:51 ↗ what their experience could be. And Issaquah actually does have its own unique set of

3:26:57 ↗ experiences to offer. And so kind of going, you know, so that's what I'm looking

3:27:02 ↗ forward to this this organization to be

3:27:08 ↗ creating those type of opportunities which will help our small businesses, will help our

3:27:13 ↗ business owners, and will help our local economy, and it will help all the citizens

3:27:19 ↗ of Issaquah because we all thrive when our small businesses and our local amenities thrive.

3:27:25 ↗ And this is one way to help assure that. So I'm excited that we can

3:27:29 ↗ take this step. Any other council members wanting to comment before we vote? Thanks.

3:27:36 ↗ no further discussion. All those in favor of approving resolution number 2018-07,

3:27:42 ↗ directing staff to file the Articles of Incorporation to create the Visit Issaquah organization

3:27:48 ↗ signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously.

3:27:56 ↗ I was going to ask if anybody wanted to have a five-minute break because we

3:28:00 ↗ still have one item plus good of the order and executive session tonight.

3:28:07 ↗ Recess? Very good. Recess? I'm going to step

3:28:13 ↗ away to get a glass of water. Yes. Yes, for recess. Okay, we'll take a

3:28:17 ↗ five minute recess. We'll be back in at 1035. Thank you.

3:34:32 ↗ So we are back from recess. And before we move to the next AB, I

3:34:35 ↗ do just want to make one clarification. The resolution that Council voted on, both parts

3:34:41 ↗ of it, the main motion as well as the amendment reads, directing

3:34:47 ↗ staff to file the Articles of Incorporation to create the Visit Issaquah organization and directing

3:34:53 ↗ staff to bring the bylaws before Council for approval. SO IT'S CLEAR WHAT WAS VOTED

3:34:58 ↗ ON. LAST ITEM UNDER REGULAR BUSINESS, AB 7535 AMENDMENTS TO

3:35:05 ↗ IMC 18.07.505 AND IMC 3.64 REGARDING WIRELESS

3:35:10 ↗ COMMUNICATION FACILITIES INCLUDING SMALL CELL DESIGN GUIDELINES. THIS ITEM IS COMING OUT OF THE COUNCIL

3:35:16 ↗ INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE AND I'D LIKE TO INVITE KEITH NEVIN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR TO MAKE

3:35:21 ↗ A PRESENTATION. Thank you, Madam Mayor, City Council. I promise this will be my last

3:35:26 ↗ agenda bill for this evening. So I'd like to thank the wireless providers for

3:35:33 ↗ being the last item on regular business and still being here. So there has been

3:35:38 ↗ a lot of collaboration between the city and the providers. And I think

3:35:45 ↗ you're going to see a list of things that we didn't agree on. What you're

3:35:48 ↗ not going to see is all the things we did agree on. And I think

3:35:51 ↗ we actually agreed on quite a bit. So I'm gonna quickly go through this. So

3:35:56 ↗ really what we're talking about is new facilities being

3:36:02 ↗ planned in our community. And these are called small cell. And they are,

3:36:10 ↗ structurally very different than the macro cell towers that our code currently

3:36:16 ↗ is designed to allow. And right now, where these things can locate is they can

3:36:22 ↗ locate on existing light fixtures in the right-of-way. They can locate on the sides of

3:36:28 ↗ buildings or on rooftops of buildings. They can locate in city parks. And so there's

3:36:33 ↗ a lot of different places that they can locate. And part of it is they're

3:36:37 ↗ smaller. And so the need for the structures is more

3:36:43 ↗ frequent. And so here's some photos of what they look

3:36:49 ↗ like. You know, you've heard about some concealment techniques where the

3:36:54 ↗ antennas can actually be put in a housing. And, you know, they also come

3:37:00 ↗ with kind of a radio transmitter. This is kind of the hardware. It sits down

3:37:05 ↗ here on the pole. And they can be on a pole that was created just

3:37:10 ↗ for them, or they can be located on an existing utility or light pole.

3:37:18 ↗ One of the complications of Issaquah is we have a lot of different poles. And

3:37:22 ↗ we have a lot of different, I could, we could play a game, figure out

3:37:28 ↗ where all these are. But all these are different light fixtures located in town, highlands,

3:37:34 ↗ Gillman, Front Street, South Cove, Old Town, and Squawk.

3:37:41 ↗ But there are a lot of different polls currently in our community. And so

3:37:46 ↗ really, here's a list of what we didn't see eye to eye on with the

3:37:52 ↗ providers. Right now, the proposed code has a notification requirement for a level

3:37:58 ↗ two permit. That's any basically new poll that would go in. It's required

3:38:04 ↗ pre-application meeting. Staff feel that that's actually beneficial to the applicant, and so we're

3:38:10 ↗ recommending that as part of the process. The proposed fee schedule for

3:38:16 ↗ these permits, the providers thought that they were too high. As you heard earlier, we

3:38:22 ↗ are taking away a provision that's currently allowed, which is for macro

3:38:28 ↗ towers to be in single-family zones. Our perspective on this was

3:38:34 ↗ they had the opportunity to put them in single-family zones in the city. They didn't

3:38:39 ↗ do that. Therefore, I don't know that they need to be in single-family zones. What

3:38:45 ↗ you heard earlier, like water tanks, AND SCHOOLS, OUR CITY DOES NOT HAVE,

3:38:51 ↗ THOSE ARE ACTUALLY SEPARATE ZONES FOR THOSE, WHICH IS COMMUNITY FACILITIES FACILITIES. SO IT WOULD

3:38:57 ↗ NOT PRECLUDE CITY WATER TOWERS OR SCHOOL SITES. SMALL

3:39:03 ↗ CELL, WE PROHIBITED NEW POLLS ON FRONT STREET. WE ARE

3:39:08 ↗ PROHIBITING ON MUNICIPAL POLLS. WE ARE PROHIBITING ON DECORATIVE POLLS.

3:39:15 ↗ We also limited the new poles to 30 feet, and we have citing

3:39:21 ↗ criteria which includes discouraged locations, and there was a request to modify those.

3:39:27 ↗ The one thing, and why it's in red at the bottom, this came up at

3:39:31 ↗ Infrastructure Committee, and was the question came up of, you know, right now on an

3:39:37 ↗ existing utility pole, the code would allow an extension of 15 feet,

3:39:44 ↗ or a replacement pole that would be up to 15 feet taller than the existing

3:39:49 ↗ pole. And so the question came up, well, how tall are our existing wood and

3:39:53 ↗ utility poles in town? And the answer is, the answer then was I didn't know.

3:40:00 ↗ The answer now, and I appreciate Verizon went out and did, as you heard earlier,

3:40:05 ↗ survey a number of the poles in our community. Most of the polls

3:40:11 ↗ are generally 32 to 35 feet tall. There are some that are taller than that.

3:40:18 ↗ I appreciate our council member who helped with some visual analysis.

3:40:25 ↗ Thank you, Tola. And then the providers provided some imagery of some existing polls with

3:40:31 ↗ what an extension would look like on top. And so

3:40:37 ↗ When we talked about this, and what I want to say is,

3:40:45 ↗ the request we got from the providers was to allow that to be up to

3:40:48 ↗ 60 feet. And when we looked at the existing poles, what

3:40:54 ↗ we have drafted as an alternative motion, if the council does want to limit small

3:40:59 ↗ cell or replacement pole height, would be to allow 50 feet, with

3:41:05 ↗ the director being able to approve an over-high poll of up to 55 feet.

3:41:12 ↗ So it doesn't get them quite to where they want it to go. We think

3:41:16 ↗ that this will accommodate almost all the locations in town.

3:41:23 ↗ And, you know, I think at the end of the day, if there are a

3:41:29 ↗ number of places that this doesn't work, I'm sure the providers will let us know.

3:41:33 ↗ But they do have course, they could provide a separate poll. So what this

3:41:39 ↗ does, so this is part of this conversation for us is, you know, if these

3:41:44 ↗ criteria won't allow for them to provide their facilities on an existing wooden poll with

3:41:50 ↗ an extension, it would mean they'd have to install a new poll in the vicinity

3:41:56 ↗ of the existing wooden poll. So this is where I'm going to stop talking. And

3:42:02 ↗ Daniel Kenney from Ogden Murphy-Wallace is also here representing us in terms of kind

3:42:08 ↗ of small cell expert, technical expert, legal technical expert.

3:42:15 ↗ So. Thank you, Keith. Questions? So President Martz.

3:42:21 ↗ I'm still a little spotty. How did you come up with 55 feet as the

3:42:25 ↗ extension beyond 50? So

3:42:32 ↗ right now, the poles, the existing wooden poles range

3:42:38 ↗ somewhere between 32 to maybe like 37 feet tall. So when you add 15

3:42:44 ↗ feet to like a 37, it puts you over 50. And so

3:42:49 ↗ the 55 feet will give you level of flexibility,

3:42:55 ↗ will give them some level of flexibility if they can meet the criteria listed to

3:43:01 ↗ get up to 55 feet. That additional five feet, consider that, you know, if you

3:43:06 ↗ had the choice of something that's maybe five feet taller or putting in a separate

3:43:11 ↗ 30-foot pole next to the existing wooden pole, which of those two would you choose?

3:43:15 ↗ And so, again, if the council wants to limit it 50, you Where that

3:43:21 ↗ comma is at 50 feet, we could just stop it there. If you

3:43:27 ↗ like this language, then the 55 can stand. And if you want to support what

3:43:31 ↗ the providers recommended, just change the 55 to 60. I think those are some choices

3:43:36 ↗ that you have as you deliberate on this. And I apologize this isn't better baked,

3:43:41 ↗ but this came up at infrastructure. And so we said we committed that we would

3:43:45 ↗ kind of work through this tonight. So I apologize that it's like 20 to 11.

3:43:51 ↗ your question? It does. Any other questions? So,

3:43:58 ↗ Council Member Ramos, do you want to give a committee report out at this time?

3:44:02 ↗ Yes, I would. So there's some technical questions on this. It took us a little

3:44:07 ↗ bit of work. So the first meeting that came to infrastructure, I'd just like to

3:44:12 ↗ thank our staff and industry as well. It looked like they worked really well together.

3:44:19 ↗ came together with basically a list of things they didn't agree on, but a whole

3:44:22 ↗ bunch of things they're already taken care of and agreed to. So that first meeting,

3:44:26 ↗ we had a lot of discussion of these areas, which we're still talking about today

3:44:30 ↗ and you heard earlier. After long discussion on that, the decision was to

3:44:36 ↗ keep it in committee one more month. We requested that staff and industry

3:44:42 ↗ folks go back and talk about this a little more and see if there could

3:44:45 ↗ be any more agreement, any areas where we could round things up a little bit

3:44:50 ↗ more. So we kept in committee an extra month on doing that. Came back the

3:44:56 ↗ next month and we talked about these things and pretty much it stayed the same.

3:45:01 ↗ I'm not sure if there was any changes or not, but after discussions and so

3:45:04 ↗ forth, city staff came back with pretty much the same recommendations. So we were getting

3:45:10 ↗ near on that, you know, gonna pass that forward to you when we got one

3:45:14 ↗ more question that came up and that was what's the maximum height of a pole

3:45:19 ↗ when basically the decision, you need 15 feet on top of an existing pole to

3:45:24 ↗ make the technology work. So whatever that pole is, you need to get above the

3:45:30 ↗ infrastructure that's there 15 feet. So we said, what are their poles now?

3:45:36 ↗ because we thought we were some pretty tall ones on squawk and some things like

3:45:39 ↗ that that we could end up maybe having a 70-foot pole or whatever kind of

3:45:43 ↗ thing. So we had that question. We couldn't answer it because it was just off

3:45:47 ↗ the top. So we had a choice of keeping in another month in infrastructure with

3:45:51 ↗ one more question to answer or to bring it all to you here with 95%

3:45:57 ↗ of the questions answered with Keith here coming back with this one, item 10. and

3:46:03 ↗ say, okay, our average pole heights are 30 to 35 feet. Most of them, there's

3:46:07 ↗ a couple go over 35 feet. So where there might be a little bit over

3:46:10 ↗ 50 feet, this is what he's coming back with us with. So kept that at

3:46:15 ↗ 50 feet, which is in the concept of what we asked him to do, give

3:46:18 ↗ us that number. And then he's also come up with this additional piece of, okay,

3:46:23 ↗ for those few times when it's gonna be a little over, wouldn't it be better

3:46:27 ↗ to add a couple more feet to a pole than add a whole new pole?

3:46:30 ↗ And to give, He's got a nice criteria here. There's three criteria to meet, and

3:46:35 ↗ then at his discretion, he could go over that extra five feet to 55 feet.

3:46:41 ↗ Our committee has not talked about that final question. You need to know that. So

3:46:46 ↗ here is my opinion. I like that option to give them more, but that's just

3:46:50 ↗ my opinion. It's not a committee position on that. we're here with 95%

3:46:56 ↗ done 5% more done that we'd have an open debate versus keeping it in committee

3:47:00 ↗ another month and delaying all this so that was kind of a mini decision so

3:47:04 ↗ that's history where we are I I like what you've done thank you very much

3:47:09 ↗ and thank you all of you for all the work you've done appreciate all that

3:47:13 ↗ as well would you like to make a motion everybody's ready then oh wait I'm

3:47:17 ↗ sorry I have a question before you make the motion yes please um do Do

3:47:21 ↗ we have an understanding or do we think we have an understanding of what the

3:47:25 ↗ impact to providers would be between 50 or 55 or 60?

3:47:32 ↗ Well, in other words, we're talking about going from 50 to 55, we think based

3:47:36 ↗ on our own assessment, 37 foot, therefore 55 should be sufficient. Do we, have we

3:47:41 ↗ talked to providers about this 55 number versus 60? Do we understand the

3:47:47 ↗ implications of what that number is exactly? talk

3:47:53 ↗ about that basically go ahead we've heard what their request is so there's um so

3:47:57 ↗ there's they they did a limited survey up on squawk i mean you know you'd

3:48:02 ↗ have to survey the pole height of every wooden pole in in town to know

3:48:07 ↗ the answer to your question council member um my recollection is um you know that

3:48:13 ↗ the ones that that wouldn't work at 55 is is of the ones

3:48:19 ↗ they surveyed would be like percent or less. So of the maybe 15

3:48:26 ↗ that they looked at, maybe two, one to two, were over 40 feet. So

3:48:32 ↗ I mean, it's not a big number. And I think that,

3:48:40 ↗ again, without having a full inventory of all the wooden poles in

3:48:46 ↗ town, I think that that's a hard question to answer. what's the scope

3:48:52 ↗ of the number of poles that would fall in the 55 to 60 foot range?

3:48:56 ↗ Don't know. But your question maybe was a little more than that.

3:49:02 ↗ Was it also whether or not even just eliminating some of the poles affects their

3:49:07 ↗ business? Or was it just? No, it was really just if we understood

3:49:13 ↗ where the pain point is between north of 50. The 55 would get

3:49:21 ↗ most of them, at least the ones that they surveyed.

3:49:31 ↗ So the industry would like 60 feet. Is that what I was led to believe?

3:49:37 ↗ Yes. Why 60 feet? What's the... rationale for 60 feet from the

3:49:43 ↗ industry perspective. Versus like 70 or 80 or 90? Yeah, whatever. I mean, why that's,

3:49:48 ↗ I mean, it's just funny. We're sort of quibbling over five or 10 feet. We

3:49:53 ↗ are. So it was so. And I'm just trying to understand why. So the issue

3:49:57 ↗ was a view impact issue from committee. You know, the higher the polls get, the

3:50:02 ↗ more they could end up blocking views or becoming, you know, a visual eyesore for

3:50:08 ↗ a neighborhood. And that's where these polls are, located.

3:50:16 ↗ There's a certain height that the small cells, once they get too

3:50:21 ↗ high, they become ineffective because they need to get down to the ground, which is

3:50:27 ↗ where all our phones are. there's a certain height

3:50:33 ↗ that becomes less effective for them. And so I believe that 60 feet,

3:50:39 ↗ and we've heard different heights from different providers, so I'm not sure it's exactly the

3:50:44 ↗ same for all three, four providers. And so, you know,

3:50:52 ↗ I can't answer why the proposal from the providers was 60 feet.

3:50:58 ↗ If you would like, I can ask them to address that if it's important. Do

3:51:03 ↗ you want to hear from the providers? Yeah, I would love to hear. I mean,

3:51:06 ↗ what the rationale for 60 feet is. Thank you, Council Member Ray. Kimberly

3:51:12 ↗ Allen, Wireless Policy Group for Verizon. We actually had our site acquisition consultant go out

3:51:17 ↗ and do a survey of the Squawk neighborhood because that was the neighborhood that the

3:51:20 ↗ committee members expressed some concern about visual impacts for. We surveyed 24 polls and eight

3:51:27 ↗ of them came back in a range that was over 35 feet some of them

3:51:33 ↗ the highest of those polls surveyed was 45.8 feet

3:51:40 ↗ and the lowest was 37.6 of the eight that were over the 35

3:51:46 ↗ feet so we looked at the neighborhood of concern and found a third of the

3:51:49 ↗ polls would be taken off out of service for us if we were capped at

3:51:54 ↗ 55 feet because we need to be able to get into that 55 to 60

3:51:58 ↗ foot range to be able to accommodate the required 15 feet that the the pole

3:52:04 ↗ owners require they require that we extend the pole 15 feet above the existing power

3:52:09 ↗ lines to achieve the required safety clearances that's how we arrived at the 60 feet

3:52:14 ↗ it would accommodate all that we found up there thank you else member hunt i

3:52:19 ↗ have a Can I ask a follow-on question? Thank you for that. So

3:52:25 ↗ I just wanted to clarify the numbers. There was eight out of 24 poles that

3:52:30 ↗ were above 35 feet. Yes. And okay, so how

3:52:36 ↗ many though were between 35 and 40 feet? Because those would still be allowed with

3:52:41 ↗ the provisions. Let's see. How many are more than 40 feet?

3:52:48 ↗ Actually, all but two of them, of the eight

3:52:57 ↗ that were over 35 feet, two of those eight were above 40 feet. Okay. So

3:53:02 ↗ it's two out of 24 would not be covered by this code. Right.

3:53:08 ↗ On Squawk. More questions? Councilmember Winterstein. I

3:53:14 ↗ know we don't have a motion yet, but I like the line of questionings. What's

3:53:18 ↗ the net effect if a poll is too tall and you

3:53:24 ↗ can't place something on top?

3:53:33 ↗ So I guess it's another way of why are we having this conversation? What's the

3:53:36 ↗ net effect if they can't do it? A

3:53:36 ↗ new poll?

3:53:43 ↗ So I think the, I think the, So

3:53:50 ↗ if there is not a maximum pole height in our code, then they get 15

3:53:56 ↗ feet on an existing wooden pole no matter how tall it is. Got it.

3:54:03 ↗ And if they can't put one on our pole, what's the effect to the

3:54:09 ↗ service or what's the overall? What's the effect?

3:54:14 ↗ Nothing. They have to install a separate pole. service, the,

3:54:21 ↗ the, I mean, it's a, it's a cost impact to the providers. Don't get me

3:54:24 ↗ wrong. I'm not blind to that. There's, so there's a cost impact to them because

3:54:29 ↗ they have to, they have to install a new facility as opposed to using an

3:54:33 ↗ existing facility, which for them is a preferred choice. All right. Thank you.

3:54:39 ↗ Thank you. Council member Batiste. Thank you. So just to follow up,

3:54:45 ↗ So in regard to where poles would be

3:54:51 ↗ prohibited, like on Front Street or discouraged locations, then would

3:54:57 ↗ those areas get a new pole?

3:55:03 ↗ So those are two different things. So the prohibited,

3:55:09 ↗ like on Front Street, on top of an existing like Issaquah Highland Streetlight or on

3:55:14 ↗ a Front Street post and Globe. Those aren't allowed, period.

3:55:20 ↗ And so on Front Street, if the providers wanted to provide an

3:55:26 ↗ antenna on Front Street, it would need to be on the side of a building,

3:55:30 ↗ on a roof of a building, or on something outside of the right-of-way, right?

3:55:39 ↗ answer your question? It did. It did. Thank you. Any more questions?

3:55:45 ↗ There's no more questions. I'd be looking for a motion. There are a couple of

3:55:49 ↗ options for the motion. One is to do the original motion, which does not have

3:55:53 ↗ a height limit in it, or to modify the motion that's in the packet and

3:55:58 ↗ include the height limit in it. So it would be your choice. No, what you

3:56:03 ↗ said is not quite right. The motion will have a height limit. THE ADDITION PART

3:56:08 ↗ WOULD HAVE A VARIATION TO THE VARIATION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT. VARIATION TO THE HEIGHT

3:56:12 ↗ LIMIT. SO I'M NOT, I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE WHOLE THING AS A PACKAGE

3:56:17 ↗ DEAL AND SEPARATE IT IF WE NEED TO. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE TO ADOPT

3:56:21 ↗ ORDINANCE NUMBER. 282 sorry 2833 2833

3:56:28 ↗ amending imc 3.64.010 fees for applications for

3:56:33 ↗ subdivisions and land use actions repealing imc 18.07.505

3:56:40 ↗ wireless communication facilities and adding new chapter 18.22 wireless

3:56:46 ↗ communication facilities and add to that amend ordinance

3:56:53 ↗ sub paragraph to imc 18.2 to 100 paren b paren three replacement poles

3:56:59 ↗ to read d either the installation of a replacement pole or pole extender

3:57:05 ↗ shall or a pole extender shall oh bad word the overall

3:57:11 ↗ pole height shall be allowed be allowed to be increased to over 50 feet except

3:57:16 ↗ by the director of the development services department may approve an over height pull up

3:57:21 ↗ to 55 feet provided all the following criteria are met one existing pole is greater

3:57:26 ↗ than 35 feet in height two the network provider can demonstrate for technical or

3:57:32 ↗ safety reasons that the pole must be taller than 50 feet and the network provider

3:57:36 ↗ provides the shortest pull possible and provides the director with technical documentation to support the

3:57:41 ↗ proposed over height whole height second second

3:57:50 ↗ Okay, I'll do Ray a second. Discussion?

3:57:56 ↗ Council President Mertz. I'd like to propose an amendment, and I would like to propose

3:58:01 ↗ changing 55 feet to 60 feet. Second. Second.

3:58:10 ↗ So that was Mertz, and second was? I believe Council Member Ray. Ray.

3:58:17 ↗ So I'll speak to that amendment. So as Director Niven mentioned, a

3:58:23 ↗ couple of pictures in there were mine and actually went out after checking the appropriate

3:58:27 ↗ IMCs and talking to Chief Beerbaum, took my drone and flew over some of the

3:58:33 ↗ poles to get accurate heights. And again, because I've been flying my drone a lot

3:58:38 ↗ lately, most of the trees in the valley are somewhere between 30 and 40 meters,

3:58:43 ↗ which is about 100 to 140 feet. So I'm think 55 versus 60

3:58:50 ↗ feet is a very reasonable way to um i don't think it fundamentally changes

3:58:56 ↗ the impact of these polls with respect to the lots of trees that we have

3:59:01 ↗ in the valley and it clearly matters to the providers so this is why i've

3:59:05 ↗ proposed this amendment the

3:59:09 ↗ discussion council member goodman followed by council member hunt

3:59:15 ↗ uh well i was just going to Directed question to Councilmember. Is this what you

3:59:21 ↗ mentioned earlier about the number of poles that were affected? It was a different

3:59:27 ↗ question. Well, my understanding was that the

3:59:33 ↗ providers did a survey of Squawk Mountain and identified 24 poles that they

3:59:39 ↗ surveyed and two would not be, so 8% of Squawk Mountain, which I think has

3:59:44 ↗ some of the highest poles, tallest poles. 8% would not be covered.

3:59:50 ↗ So basically you would have to find one of the other 92% of polls. That's

3:59:55 ↗ my understanding. But it's not related to what Council President Mart's survey. Okay. Thank

4:00:01 ↗ you. It's late. Sorry. Discussion? Ms. Brent.

4:00:11 ↗ I am not in favor of the amendment. I think that we have a lot

4:00:16 ↗ of changes that have been made to meet the requirements of the providers. And I

4:00:22 ↗ think that in this particular case, we are allowing almost all of the

4:00:28 ↗ polls and I think that there are many other potential

4:00:33 ↗ creative ways to address the needs for capacity with the small cells.

4:00:40 ↗ that this code does put a cap i think it's a reasonable reasonable cap and

4:00:44 ↗ so i would not be in favor of the amendment council member ramos

4:00:51 ↗ um i agree with council member hunt we work through this a lot it gives

4:00:55 ↗ it gives the city a way to control what's going on there's

4:01:01 ↗ always a new poll option as a way to work with things. So it's not

4:01:06 ↗ like saying you can't do anything. There's always that new poll option. And there's very

4:01:11 ↗ few polls that will hit this. But I think allowing that extra five feet versus

4:01:17 ↗ a 50-foot cutoff is flexible enough to make things work and still

4:01:24 ↗ leave it with our director there to make that call if it needs to go

4:01:28 ↗ to a new poll because that doesn't work. reason or another the area specific that

4:01:33 ↗ we don't know when we're looking at all these when we're looking at citywide thing

4:01:36 ↗ versus uh like the first time we did this franchise agreement it was very specific

4:01:40 ↗ we already knew the polls it was going up on it was very specific now

4:01:44 ↗ we're saying this work anywhere in the city so we don't know what those specifics

4:01:48 ↗ are going to be and and i think this is plenty uh flexible to make

4:01:52 ↗ it work additional discussion councilmember what

4:01:58 ↗ you're saying thank you the measure knowing what the typical height

4:02:04 ↗ of trees is. I appreciate that. I think a relative

4:02:10 ↗ difference of five feet of potentially 50 or 55 to 60

4:02:15 ↗ in light of the height of the nearby trees is a good consideration to make.

4:02:24 ↗ One of the comments made earlier earlier during audience comments was language that actually said

4:02:30 ↗ minimum height needed, which we haven't really discussed. I'm not sure how that would play

4:02:35 ↗ any different here, but

4:02:41 ↗ I think a few poles that are above 55 feet versus an

4:02:47 ↗ all-new pole is still a better option. I'm going to support the amendment.

4:02:56 ↗ that heard from four council members. Councilmember Goodman followed by Batiste. I'm not going to

4:03:01 ↗ support an amendment for the reasons that Councilmember Hunt and Councilmember Ramos talked about.

4:03:07 ↗ And we also talked in committee as Keith discussed, I can't remember, I think

4:03:13 ↗ maybe tonight, maybe not, that we, you know, can keep an eye on this and

4:03:17 ↗ if it's not working, we can amend. Thank you.

4:03:24 ↗ Okay, so we've heard from everybody. Would anybody else like to have final additional comments?

4:03:30 ↗ What we'll be voting on first is just the amendment to 60 feet, and then

4:03:34 ↗ we'll vote on the main longer version of the motion that Council Member Ramos made.

4:03:39 ↗ All those in favor of changing the height to 60 feet, say aye. Aye. Opposed?

4:03:44 ↗ Nay. Nay. Okay, can I do hands on the opposed? So

4:03:49 ↗ that's four to three. Committee. Committee. So the

4:03:55 ↗ amendment passes to 60 feet. And now I'll read the full motion.

4:04:03 ↗ Go down here.

4:04:13 ↗ to adopt ordinance number 2833 amending imc 3.64.010

4:04:19 ↗ fees for applications for subdivisions and land use oops land use actions

4:04:25 ↗ repealing imc 18.07.505 wireless communication facilities and adding a new

4:04:31 ↗ chapter 18.22 wireless communications facilities And

4:04:37 ↗ amend the ordinance by adding a new subparagraph to IMC 18.22, 100, paren B, paren

4:04:43 ↗ 3, replacement poles to read D, either through the installation of a replacement pole or

4:04:48 ↗ a pole extender, shall the overall pole height be allowed to be increased to over

4:04:52 ↗ 50 feet, except the director of the Development Services Department may

4:04:57 ↗ approve an overheight pole of up to 60 feet, provided all of the following criteria

4:05:03 ↗ are met. The existing pole is greater than 35 feet in height. provider can demonstrate

4:05:08 ↗ for technical or safety reasons that the pole must be taller than 50 feet and

4:05:12 ↗ the network provider provides the shortest pole possible and provides the director with technical documentation

4:05:17 ↗ to support the proposed over height pole height all those in favor

4:05:22 ↗ questions all those in favor say aye aye opposed

4:05:29 ↗ the motion passes unanimously The last

4:05:35 ↗ item under regular business for good of the order. Do council members have anything for

4:05:40 ↗ good of the order? Council President Martz. I have something

4:05:46 ↗ for good of the order. And it's late here tonight, but I wanted to just

4:05:51 ↗ take a brief moment of your time. Tomorrow will be the 10th anniversary

4:05:57 ↗ of my mother passing away. SHE WAS A HEALTH NUT. SHE WALKED EVERY DAY. SHE

4:06:03 ↗ WORKED OUT OF THE GYM. SHE PUT TOFU IN EVERYTHING. IT USED TO DRIVE ME

4:06:06 ↗ NUTS. BUT SHE SMOKED. AND SHE SAID, WELL, I NEVER KNEW ANYBODY THAT

4:06:12 ↗ DIED FROM SMOKING. WELL, IN FEBRUARY OF 2007, SHE GOT DIAGNOSED WITH

4:06:18 ↗ PANCREATIC CANCER.

4:06:50 ↗ anybody out there, if you feel like you don't know anybody who has ever died

4:06:57 ↗ from smoking, please come talk to me and I'll tell you about my mom. Thanks.

4:07:02 ↗ Thank you. I have a couple items as well, but I'll wait to see. Does

4:07:06 ↗ any other council member have anything for good of the order? The clerk has asked

4:07:11 ↗ me to clarify that under the consent agenda tonight, the motion in the agenda bill

4:07:14 ↗ to authorize AB 7601, Eastside Fire and Rescue, Memorandum of Understanding, was incorrect.

4:07:21 ↗ The correct motion at this time is to refer this item to the May 9th

4:07:24 ↗ Council Services and Safety Committee, returning to the full council on May 21st, 2018.

4:07:30 ↗ If there's no objections, the minutes will show the correct motion. items. I

4:07:36 ↗ just wanted to give a little bit of a look ahead about what's coming up

4:07:39 ↗ in the next couple of weeks. May 10th and 11th we will be having our

4:07:43 ↗ council retreat. That will be the council, the mayor and our senior leadership team.

4:07:50 ↗ At the May 14th council work session we have three items on the agenda right

4:07:54 ↗ now. The park strategic plan, transit-oriented development project and a status update on the city

4:07:59 ↗ parcel with Issaquah school district interest. And The next regular council meeting will be on

4:08:05 ↗ May 21st, and four items, three items on business that night will be a

4:08:11 ↗ public hearing on property tax reduction request by King County Public Benefit Rating

4:08:17 ↗ System, Central Issaquah District Visions, which is a moratorium item, and amendments to the IMC

4:08:22 ↗ regarding accessory dwelling units. And I will need some language for the

4:08:28 ↗ executive session. Awesome.

4:08:39 ↗ Okay. We'll be going into executive session this evening to discuss property acquisition per

4:08:45 ↗ RCW 42.30.1110 paren 1 paren B. This

4:08:51 ↗ item is expected to last 15 minutes and no action is anticipated.

4:22:39 ↗ We are back in regular session at 1124. There being no further regular business, the

4:22:44 ↗ meeting is adjourned at 1124.

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Bill Ramos

Chris Reh

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (9)

Approve Resolution No. 2018-06, approving the first major amendment to the Costco Development Agreement.

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2832, adopting by reference amendments to the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards Chapter 4.0, Zoning Standards and Uses and Issaquah Municipal Code Chapter 18.21, Affordable Housing including clarifying the requirement for affordable housing in the urban core and m…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 5-2

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Stacy Goodman, Chris Reh

Approve Resolution No. 2018-07, directing staff to file the Articles of Incorporation to create the Visit Issaquah Organization.

Moved by REH · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Amend the motion to add: "; and direct City staff to bring the Bylaws before the City Council for approval." (Opponent: Winterstein).

Moved by HUNT · seconded by REH

Carried 6-1

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh

Opposed: Paul Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2833, amending IMC 3.64.010 Fees for Applications for Subdivisions and Land Use Actions; repealing IMC 18.07.505 Wireless Communication Facilities; and adding a new Chapter 18.22 (Wireless Communications Facilities); and amend the ordinance by adding a new subparagraph to IMC 18.…

Moved by RAMOS · seconded by REH

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Moved by MARTS · seconded by REH

Carried 4-3

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Opposed: Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Bill Ramos

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Main motion as amended: Approve Resolution No. 2018-07, directing staff to file the Articles of Incorporation to create the Visit Issaquah Organization.

Moved by REH · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein

Main motion as amended: Adopt Ordinance No. 2833, amending IMC 3.64.010 Fees for Applications for Subdivisions and Land Use Actions; repealing IMC 18.07.505 Wireless Communication Facilities; and adding a new Chapter 18.22 (Wireless Communications Facilities); and amend the ordinance by adding a new…

Moved by RAMOS · seconded by REH

Carried 7-0

In favor: Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Bill Ramos, Chris Reh, Paul Winterstein