City Council Regular Meeting

Monday, May 21, 2018

7:00 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Topics tracked across meetings:

Recognition of Hall of Fame Recipient Fred Nystrom ID 2035 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 15, 2026

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 15, 2026 ▶

Central Issaquah Zoning for Old Route 10 (East Gilman Blvd.) and Intensive Commercial Areas AB 7643 ›››››› 1/7

City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Jun 26, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Jun 28, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 28, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 24, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018

View full lifecycle → Next: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 28, 2018 ▶

King County Flood Control District Flood Reduction Grant (East Lake Sammamish Parkway Conveyance Improvements) AB 7607 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 1, 2018

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 1, 2018 ▶

Amendments to IMC regarding Transfer of Development Rights resulting from end of Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement AB 7612 ››› 3/4

Planning Policy Commission · Apr 26, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 18, 2018

◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 18, 2018 ▶

Central Issaquah District Visions AB 7344 ›››››››››››› 13/13

Planning Policy Commission · Mar 9, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Nov 30, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 18, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Jan 25, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 15, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 22, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 28, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 8, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 22, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 2, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 2, 2018 View full lifecycle →

Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards Amendment limiting new Hotels, Motels, Time Share Lodging, Conference Centers and Self Storage Units in specific zones within Central Issaquah AB 7577 ›› 3/3

Planning Policy Commission · Mar 22, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 16, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 16, 2018 View full lifecycle →

Department of Ecology Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance Grant AB 7382 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 2, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 2, 2018 View full lifecycle →

2018 Curb Ramp Enhancement Project AB 7558 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 View full lifecycle →

Interfund Loan Extension for Roadway Improvements AB 7565 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 View full lifecycle →

Amendment to Salary Ordinance AB 7595 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 View full lifecycle →

Eastside Fire & Rescue Memorandum of Understanding AB 7601 › 2/2

City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 View full lifecycle →

3. SPECIAL BUSINESS

Hall of Fame Recognition Hear Presentation AB 7593

packet pp.5

▶ Watch from 1:00 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, May 14, 2018

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.147

▶ Watch from 35:39 Open packet at p.147 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the special meeting was to allow the City Council to recess into Executive Session to discuss acquisition of real estate and the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease.

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 Committee Work Session, May 14, 2018

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.149–150

▶ Watch from 35:42 Open packet at p.149 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR d) 05-14-18 Council Committee Work Session Page [0000] Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH Council Committee Work Session 6:30 PM Council Chambers May 14, 2018 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Department of Ecology Local Solid Waste Financial Assistance Grant AB 7382

Carried 7-0

Accept Grant; Authorize Additional Funding · packet pp.151–170

Topics: BudgetCritical Areas

▶ Watch from 35:45 Open packet at p.151 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7382 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 21 May 2018 Calendar

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 Sewer Rehabilitation Project AB 7556

Carried 7-0

Award Bid · packet pp.171–175

Topics: Water

▶ Watch from 35:48 Open packet at p.171 ↗

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 Curb Ramp Enhancement Project AB 7558

Carried 7-0

Award Bid · packet pp.177–183

▶ Watch from 35:52 Open packet at p.177 ↗

Staff report:

UPDATED CITY COUNCIL AB 7558 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 21 May 2018 Calendar

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

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.185–188

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 35:55 Open packet at p.185 ↗

Staff report:

Council Services & Safety Committee / Chris Reh, Chair:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.189–214

Topics: Land UseTourism

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 22, 2018

▶ Watch from 35:58 Open packet at p.189 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2018. After completing the public hearing, PPC:

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Houston-Galveston Area Council Buy (H-GACBuy) AB 7589

Carried 7-0

Authorize · packet pp.301–305

▶ Watch from 36:01 Open packet at p.301 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Operations 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

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.307–325

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 36:04 Open packet at p.307 ↗

Staff report:

Council Services & Safety Committee / Chris Reh, Chair:

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

Authorize · packet pp.327–330

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 36:08 Open packet at p.327 ↗

Staff report:

about the current systems at Station 72, the Committee unanimously recommended approval of the MOU. The

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

King County Flood Control District Grant (East Lake Sammamish Parkway Conveyance Improvements) AB 7607

Carried 7-0

Authorize Submittal · packet pp.331–337

Topics: ParksWater

▶ Watch from 36:11 Open packet at p.331 ↗

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

State Building Code Fee Administrative Code) AB 7608

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.339–348

Topics: Land UseBudget

▶ Watch from 36:14 Open packet at p.339 ↗

Staff report:

As mandated by RCW 19.27.085, the City currently collects a fee on every construction permit and remits the collected amount to the state. This fee, referred to as the State Building Code Fee, is appropriated to the State Building Code Council (SBCC). The SBCC is responsible to establish the state building code. On March 22, 2018, HB 1622 was signed into law, increasing the amount the City must collect and remit. The new law will be effective July 1, 2018.

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

Amendments to IMC regarding Transfer of Development Rights resulting from end of Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement AB 7612

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.349–358

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 26, 2018

▶ Watch from 36:17 Open packet at p.349 ↗

Staff report:

The Issaquah Highlands was developed under a form of contract called a development agreement. The Development Agreement dictated the rules and entitlements associated with each neighborhood and was in effect for a limited period of time, with a termination date of 2017. The City Council voted to end the Development Agreement and approve regulations that would replace the Development Agreement on March 19, 2018 (Ord. 2830).

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

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

9. REGULAR BUSINESS

Central Issaquah District Visions AB 7344

Carried 6-1

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.385–436

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Nov 30, 2017

▶ Watch from 36:20 Open packet at p.385 ↗

Staff report:

In 2012 — to protect Issaquah's existing neighborhoods and natural environment — the City adopted the Central Issaquah Plan (effective April, 2013) to guide the long-term evolution of our community's existing commercial core into an urban center. The Plan includes 10 Districts within Central Issaquah, each with a specific vision. During a July 2016 check-up on the Plan, the City assessed whether projects that have been built, approved or are currently under review, met the community's vision for Central Issaquah.

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE

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

Opposed: Paul Winterstein

10. GOOD OF THE ORDER

10a

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 3:36:27

4385 segments .txt ↗

0:23 ↗ welcome everyone I'd like to call to

0:25 ↗ order the May 21st regular City Council

0:28 ↗ meeting you've joined me in the pledge

0:32 ↗ I'd like to ask those who'd like to join

0:33 ↗ the council myself in the pledge of

0:35 ↗ allegiance is to please stand thank you

0:57 ↗ the first item on the agenda tonight is

1:00 ↗ special business it's a be seven five

1:03 ↗ nine three is the Hall of Fame

1:05 ↗ recognition I would like to ask Fred

1:07 ↗ Butler and David Kapler to please join

1:10 ↗ me at the lectern for this presentation

1:24 ↗ so a few weeks ago our community members

1:29 ↗ nominated some amazing people for our

1:32 ↗ Hall of Fame and many of you in the Hall

1:34 ↗ of Fame are already here this evening

1:36 ↗ and listed up on the plaques that we

1:38 ↗ have over there thank you so much for

1:40 ↗ joining us from Ruth's Keys to Harvey

1:43 ↗ Manning the impressive list of Isikoff

1:45 ↗ Hall Fame of inductees truly embodies

1:48 ↗ the best of our community over the years

1:51 ↗ and through their many contributions to

1:53 ↗ so kua members of the Hall of Fame have

1:55 ↗ raised the bar with their x-pyr

1:57 ↗ inspiring examples of service leadership

2:00 ↗ and civic mindedness and tonight I'm

2:03 ↗ proud to add two to our Hall of Fame

2:06 ↗ Dave Kapler first I'd like to honor the

2:10 ↗ affectionately known great trail maker

2:13 ↗ David Kapler for the past four decades

2:16 ↗ David has made a lasting impact on his

2:19 ↗ sequest sustainability including our

2:21 ↗ people prosperity and environment

2:23 ↗ David's happy place is the great

2:25 ↗ outdoors and his passion for open space

2:28 ↗ is infectious as an original founder of

2:31 ↗ the Issaquah albs Trail Club and

2:33 ↗ mountains to sound Greenway

2:35 ↗ he has helped preserve countless

2:36 ↗ forested areas throughout the Issaquah

2:39 ↗ Alps region-wide is the cause known as

2:41 ↗ trailhead City and many of the trails

2:44 ↗ that inspired that nickname are thanks

2:46 ↗ to David's tireless work David also

2:49 ↗ served on the quest City Council for

2:51 ↗ almost two decades and during a pivotal

2:53 ↗ time in our history when two master

2:55 ↗ planned communities were formed each

2:57 ↗ development preserved massive amounts of

3:00 ↗ open space today David continues to work

3:03 ↗ oftentimes behind the scenes to advocate

3:05 ↗ for public lands at the local state and

3:08 ↗ regional level as one community member

3:10 ↗ said David is an inspiring example to

3:13 ↗ all of us in portraying how one person

3:15 ↗ can effectively engage in and make their

3:18 ↗ community stronger and better thank you

3:20 ↗ for your service to you next I'd like to

3:32 ↗ recognize our former mayor Fred Butler

3:35 ↗ fred is a true public servant he first

3:39 ↗ served for 27 years in the US Army Corps

3:41 ↗ of engineer engineers and then became

3:44 ↗ Seattle City Lights chief engineer

3:47 ↗ besides his lovely wife

3:49 ↗ Rosemarie who's here this evening fred

3:51 ↗ has one other true love and that is is

3:54 ↗ aqua fred has served this community for

3:57 ↗ more than two decades first as a council

3:59 ↗ member for 14 years and then as a squiz

4:01 ↗ mayor from 2014 to 17 Fred's passion for

4:05 ↗ mass transit is known throughout the

4:07 ↗ region as a member of the Sound Transit

4:10 ↗ board Fred successively ensured that

4:13 ↗ light rail to Issaquah was included in

4:15 ↗ the st3 package Fred was also

4:18 ↗ instrumental in welcoming swedish to

4:20 ↗ Issaquah creating the costco development

4:22 ↗ agreement renovating Julie's bone pool

4:24 ↗ and building the new skateboard park on

4:26 ↗ Newport by State Route 900 his

4:29 ↗ widespread influence was very clear in

4:31 ↗ 2017 when he called a regional

4:33 ↗ transportation summit and successfully

4:36 ↗ brought together the King County

4:37 ↗ Executive ten mayors state legislators

4:40 ↗ King County Council members washed out

4:43 ↗ Metro and Sound Transit to one event

4:45 ↗ Fred truly cares better

4:48 ↗ citizens and is known for walking around

4:50 ↗ the town to check in with community

4:52 ↗ members including local business owners

4:54 ↗ young families at the playground and

4:56 ↗ members of our Senior Center there's not

4:58 ↗ too many folks around town who haven't

5:00 ↗ met Fred at least once Thank You Fred

5:03 ↗ for all of your service so just to make

5:13 ↗ sure everyone is aware the Hall of Fame

5:15 ↗ past recipients and the two were

5:17 ↗ honoring tonight are all displayed on

5:19 ↗ our plaques here and we're so proud of

5:22 ↗ the long list of people and our two new

5:24 ↗ inductees so let's all give them one

5:26 ↗ more hand and at this time I'd also like

5:33 ↗ to have a five-minute recess so that we

5:35 ↗ can all go out in the hall and

5:36 ↗ congratulate them and thank them before

5:38 ↗ we begin our business meeting

5:53 ↗ you

14:51 ↗ we are back in session thank you very

14:55 ↗ much for participating in our Hall of

14:58 ↗ Fame celebration and coming out to

15:00 ↗ celebrate with our former and current

15:03 ↗ Hall of Fame members next item on our

15:13 ↗ agenda this evening is audience comments

15:16 ↗ audience members may address the council

15:18 ↗ at this time there are guidelines on the

15:20 ↗ meeting agenda and those who signed up

15:23 ↗ on the sign-in list will be called

15:25 ↗ forward to speak first if you did not

15:28 ↗ sign up I will still ask for other

15:30 ↗ speakers before closing that portion of

15:33 ↗ the meeting when you are recognized to

15:35 ↗ speak please come up to our Dyess use

15:37 ↗ the lectern and speak into the

15:39 ↗ microphone

15:40 ↗ state your name and address and

15:42 ↗ relationship to the city limit your

15:44 ↗ comments to three minutes please and

15:46 ↗ submit any written comments to the city

15:49 ↗ clerk there's also a public hearing this

15:52 ↗ evening property tax reduction request

15:54 ↗ by a King County public benefit rating

15:56 ↗ system and if you'd like to make

15:58 ↗ comments on that topic you will have an

16:00 ↗ opportunity to do so later in the

16:01 ↗ meeting thank you very much for coming

16:04 ↗ tonight and taking time to address your

16:06 ↗ council has anyone signed up to speak

16:08 ↗ this evening yes Deb Lawrence

16:29 ↗ my name is Deb Lawrence I live at 236

16:33 ↗ southeast Bush Street in Issaquah have

16:36 ↗ been a residence therefore it's been a

16:39 ↗ residence there for many years

16:42 ↗ I'm coming today because three months

16:45 ↗ ago I attended a City Council where I

16:48 ↗ presented a petition requesting a yellow

16:52 ↗ flashing pedestrian light at the

16:55 ↗ intersection of 2nd Avenue south east

16:57 ↗ and southeast Bush Street the petition

17:01 ↗ was signed by over 90% of the available

17:03 ↗ residents living east of 2nd Avenue

17:05 ↗ South East this petition was

17:09 ↗ notification to the city of an existing

17:12 ↗ serious safety issue for pedestrians

17:15 ↗ trying to cross 2nd Avenue southeast via

17:18 ↗ the existing crosswalks I have

17:21 ↗ personally been nearly hit by a vehicle

17:24 ↗ on four occasions and I was not alone at

17:28 ↗ least 22 others have had similar

17:30 ↗ experiences and practically everyone

17:33 ↗ expressed safety concerns with this

17:36 ↗ crossing to date there has been no

17:39 ↗ action on this request there was some

17:42 ↗ minor questions and recognition of the

17:45 ↗ problem in the first week or so but

17:47 ↗ nothing since I'm here again requesting

17:51 ↗ the action be taken I would also

17:55 ↗ appreciate the courtesy of a timely

17:58 ↗ written response to this request

18:03 ↗ pedestrian safety should be a major

18:05 ↗ concern

18:06 ↗ there are numerous experts in this field

18:09 ↗ who are willing to assist as well as

18:12 ↗ numerous literature and recognized

18:14 ↗ national studies there's no need for

18:17 ↗ extensive studies surveys or pilot

18:20 ↗ projects this wheel has already been

18:23 ↗ invented

18:24 ↗ excellent resources include the manual

18:27 ↗ of uniform traffic control devices and

18:29 ↗ the Federal Highway Administration step

18:32 ↗ program which stands for safe

18:34 ↗ transportation for every pedestrian

18:37 ↗ there are many via there have been many

18:40 ↗ vehicle pedestrian accidents in Issaquah

18:43 ↗ and pedestrians are no match against a

18:46 ↗ vehicle and the results are often very

18:48 ↗ serious the remedies that exist are well

18:54 ↗ within our financial capabilities and

18:57 ↗ are far less than a serious injury

19:00 ↗ please respond in a positive manner and

19:03 ↗ have yellow flashing pedestrian lights

19:06 ↗ installed on Second Avenue southeast

19:09 ↗ this is for our safety and welfare safe

19:13 ↗ roads for a safe future thank you Thank

19:17 ↗ You Deb can you hand your comments in to

19:19 ↗ the city clerk as well next

19:28 ↗ no one further has signed up to speak is

19:32 ↗ there anyone that would like to address

19:33 ↗ Council this evening thank you come on

19:35 ↗ up hi my name is Denise Darnell and I

19:44 ↗ live in Sammamish at 21-21 200,000 new

19:47 ↗ southeast I feel that Sammamish and if

19:51 ↗ Sequoia are very interrelated and

19:53 ↗ connected and I'd love to see our two

19:55 ↗ City Council's working closer together I

19:58 ↗ think with both City Council's getting

19:59 ↗ new people it's exciting to see that

20:01 ↗ collaboration we all know that everyone

20:03 ↗ from Sammamish comes to Issaquah and

20:05 ↗ who's even it Sequoia it heads towards

20:07 ↗ Sammamish so I think we all also really

20:09 ↗ care deeply about the developments that

20:11 ↗ are happening in our areas we have a lot

20:13 ↗ of people up in Sammamish that are very

20:15 ↗ concerned and are really happy about our

20:17 ↗ moratorium and wanting to keep it longer

20:19 ↗ to look at planning and seeing here and

20:22 ↗ one of the things that drew us all here

20:24 ↗ was the beautiful mountains I've lived

20:25 ↗ here since 2003 we purposely bought an

20:28 ↗ old home so that we wouldn't be part of

20:31 ↗ cutting down trees and I'm part of a

20:33 ↗ group that I got involved with called

20:35 ↗ save Cougar Mountain and everyone in

20:37 ↗ green are not quite in green but wearing

20:39 ↗ a tag is part of our group and we just

20:41 ↗ represent a very large amount of people

20:43 ↗ in our area who don't want to see Cougar

20:46 ↗ Mountain get developed and I have a

20:48 ↗ flyer that I'll give to our city clerk

20:50 ↗ as well but we have the birds my

20:52 ↗ development that's threatening the

20:53 ↗ beauty of our whole area I know I'm

20:56 ↗ probably not the only one in agreeing

20:57 ↗ with me when I now drive down i-90 and I

21:00 ↗ see those huge apartments they're all

21:01 ↗ being built in that big pasture land I

21:04 ↗ feel really sad and so I don't want to

21:07 ↗ feel even more sad when I look at Cougar

21:09 ↗ Mountain and see this horrible eyesore

21:12 ↗ the developement smack dab in the middle

21:14 ↗ I'm work at a school I work at Discovery

21:16 ↗ Elementary and I recently was reading a

21:18 ↗ book to some first graders about Teddy

21:20 ↗ Roosevelt and I don't know if you're

21:22 ↗ aware of this very quick story I'll tell

21:23 ↗ you that Teddy Roosevelt ended up

21:25 ↗ meeting John Muir and John Muir wanted

21:27 ↗ to show him this beautiful land that he

21:30 ↗ loved so he took Teddy Roosevelt on a

21:32 ↗ camping trip and there's a really

21:33 ↗ wonderful picture book about it and

21:35 ↗ Teddy Roosevelt was astounded by this

21:37 ↗ beautiful land and John Muir said you

21:40 ↗ know it's going to be gone pretty

21:41 ↗ soon I'm really sad I hope you can do

21:43 ↗ something about it and Teddy Roosevelt

21:45 ↗ did and thanks to him we have our

21:47 ↗ national parks and as we all know Teddy

21:50 ↗ Roosevelt was a president that really

21:51 ↗ saved these areas and made national

21:54 ↗ parks we're at that same crossroads I

21:57 ↗ can't feel any more strong about this

21:59 ↗ that we can't keep allowing these

22:01 ↗ developments it's getting so terrible

22:04 ↗ for all of us and the more people I talk

22:07 ↗ to you I have yet to find someone who

22:08 ↗ disagrees except the developers and we

22:11 ↗ want our cities to care about their

22:13 ↗ families and the citizens not the

22:15 ↗ developers so I just ask of you that you

22:18 ↗ will really look at the possibility of

22:20 ↗ saving this area Cougar Mountain working

22:23 ↗ with King County to create some funding

22:25 ↗ where you can buy that land and allow us

22:28 ↗ to continue having that beauty and I

22:30 ↗ know that you'll feel very proud to be

22:32 ↗ doing something that Teddy Roosevelt did

22:33 ↗ a long time ago thank you Thank You

22:36 ↗ Denise lots of hands in the air I should

22:40 ↗ now but I should by now know what my

22:42 ↗ comments are before public audience

22:45 ↗ comments but I forgot a couple of things

22:46 ↗ I can see a lot of badges out there

22:48 ↗ tonight and so we do have a large

22:50 ↗ contingent from say Cougar Mountain

22:52 ↗ again if there is a spokesperson that

22:55 ↗ would like to get up and speak that

22:56 ↗ would be great and if there are members

22:58 ↗ that would like to add new information

22:59 ↗ to that we would appreciate that as well

23:01 ↗ is there anyone else willing to speak

23:04 ↗ since we have nobody signed up this

23:05 ↗ evening okay doesn't have to be yep come

23:10 ↗ on over to the microphone

23:19 ↗ my name is Mike Mike Abraham I live and

23:23 ↗ is a call for about 14 years so I'm just

23:29 ↗ up in the highlands I believe there's

23:31 ↗ something on today's calendar for can

23:35 ↗ you state your address to for the

23:36 ↗ officers the clerk does record it with

23:38 ↗ the address okay thanks yeah two three

23:41 ↗ eight one eight southeast 59th Street

23:44 ↗ Issaquah my name is iridar

23:46 ↗ thank you so there's something today

23:50 ↗ regarding an Adu so there's gonna be a

23:54 ↗ reduction

23:55 ↗ from something a little bit bigger to

23:59 ↗ just a limit of a thousand square feet

24:01 ↗ so I don't think that's gonna serve the

24:06 ↗ purpose of an ad you because if you're

24:10 ↗ going to go through the hassle and the

24:11 ↗ cost of building you should build

24:14 ↗ something that's gonna be a good size

24:17 ↗ that's going to accommodate the family

24:21 ↗ as far as like in previous surface and

24:25 ↗ driveway almost everything is gonna be

24:27 ↗ the same except just the square footage

24:29 ↗ is not gonna be the same so I just

24:33 ↗ against the thousand square feet limit

24:36 ↗ on the whole edu thing so that's all

24:39 ↗ thank you Mike yep anyone else willing I

24:42 ↗ wanted to come up and talk to council

24:44 ↗ this evening Elizabeth

24:56 ↗ my name is Elizabeth mopin I live at 100

24:59 ↗ Big Bear place on squawk Mountain in

25:03 ↗ Issaquah I wanted to share with you

25:07 ↗ something that came to my attention this

25:11 ↗ week or last week there's a woman who

25:18 ↗ fled domestic violence and became

25:20 ↗ homeless and who has been helped by

25:25 ↗ people from a number of different faith

25:28 ↗ communities in this area over the last

25:30 ↗ month or so she has a service animal and

25:36 ↗ that kind of limits places she can go

25:39 ↗ she's been trying to find some long-term

25:44 ↗ housing because she has a job that she

25:48 ↗ does by telephone and she needs a place

25:50 ↗ that's quiet and steady where she can

25:56 ↗ carry on conversations on the phone

25:59 ↗ shelters don't do it for her tent city

26:04 ↗ doesn't do it for her we don't have a

26:11 ↗ lot of housing around here that's

26:15 ↗ affordable for people who are on very

26:17 ↗ low income and as I thought about the

26:22 ↗ dormitories that sat unused at

26:26 ↗ Providence Heights for four years and

26:28 ↗ may now be demolished that kind of

26:32 ↗ housing it's small you know they were

26:37 ↗ designed for just two people but this

26:42 ↗ would be wonderful shelter for people

26:46 ↗ like this woman the faith community

26:49 ↗ can't afford to put her up in a hotel

26:51 ↗ forever we did because she was sick but

26:57 ↗ there needs to be some place that people

27:02 ↗ who are recovering can go and be safe

27:05 ↗ and get on their feet and we also need

27:09 ↗ some kind of shelter for couples we have

27:13 ↗ stuff for single men and single women

27:15 ↗ and families and youth but nothing for

27:20 ↗ couples those dorms would have been

27:22 ↗ great

27:23 ↗ so keep thinking creatively we have

27:28 ↗ stuff in this community that could be

27:30 ↗ used to house even our poor residents

27:33 ↗ thank you thank you Elizabeth

27:36 ↗ my hands in the air anyone else I came

27:39 ↗ to speak this evening to Council

27:41 ↗ money is making her way over

27:54 ↗ so I'm Connie Marsh and I live up on

27:57 ↗ squawk Mountain I'm gonna start with

28:01 ↗ Elizabeth comments which are we're

28:05 ↗ looking at him a subsidy of a

28:08 ↗ substantial amount of public dollars for

28:11 ↗ new development to get affordable

28:14 ↗ housing and I'm talking about the

28:15 ↗ transit oriented development whole ball

28:19 ↗ of puzzled wax reimagining that money if

28:25 ↗ you were to use it toward affordable

28:27 ↗ housing why aren't we investing in

28:29 ↗ places that already exists and turning

28:33 ↗ those into low-income housing where

28:37 ↗ those who really really need it can find

28:40 ↗ a safe place to stay that to me seems to

28:43 ↗ be more of a priority than continuing to

28:45 ↗ try to create a new housing for those

28:48 ↗ who at least can exist now second you

28:53 ↗ could use a lot more money to purchase

28:56 ↗ forested land which we also need in this

28:59 ↗ town so when you're looking at where you

29:03 ↗ invest the dollars it seems like we need

29:06 ↗ to have a public conversation about what

29:08 ↗ the community wants to do with our money

29:10 ↗ I don't think that the council has the

29:13 ↗ luxury of just saying well we're going

29:16 ↗ to decide without talking to us because

29:19 ↗ there's so many voices that need to have

29:21 ↗ this conversation this is the same

29:25 ↗ conversation with transportation people

29:27 ↗ are cranky with congestion yet every we

29:30 ↗ have a split town as to how to solve

29:32 ↗ congestion if it is solvable and we need

29:36 ↗ to have the community conversation to

29:38 ↗ educate people and help them to

29:41 ↗ understand the decisions that everybody

29:43 ↗ is trying to make for a long term it's a

29:46 ↗ call now the last one is the visions

29:48 ↗ that you have in your packet and whether

29:51 ↗ I like them or not

29:53 ↗ so the visions are better they have the

29:57 ↗ potential to get us more of what we want

30:01 ↗ I am

30:03 ↗ concerned that the implementation is not

30:05 ↗ in place and unless staff is totally on

30:07 ↗ board with this we will not get anything

30:10 ↗ different than we had before because

30:12 ↗ really they don't give us the code

30:14 ↗ language to say you shall do something

30:18 ↗ and so until a process is established

30:21 ↗ that brings staff to the table with a

30:24 ↗ developer before anything is done we're

30:27 ↗ gonna get the same old thing again

30:29 ↗ otherwise go forth and conquer Thank You

30:32 ↗ Connie Mary my name is Mary Lynch and I

30:42 ↗ recited to 6 9o Northwest Oak Crest

30:44 ↗ Drive Issaquah Washington

30:46 ↗ I just want to ditto what Elizabeth said

30:49 ↗ and also what Connie said specifically

30:51 ↗ I'll start with the vision portion of it

30:54 ↗ this is the second go-round that I've

30:56 ↗ spent many many of my volunteer hours

30:59 ↗ trying to rewrite the visions as time my

31:02 ↗ concern like Connie is I don't see that

31:04 ↗ we have the staff or that we've seen any

31:07 ↗ idea of what the code is going to look

31:09 ↗ like and I would take it one step

31:12 ↗ further than what Connie said I think

31:13 ↗ when the next time we sit down with a

31:15 ↗ developer in the city if this moratorium

31:18 ↗ is lifted we need to have a panel of

31:20 ↗ those of us that have served as

31:23 ↗ volunteers and contributors to these

31:25 ↗ vision statements because what I saw go

31:27 ↗ forth the last two development

31:29 ↗ commission meetings we didn't get what

31:32 ↗ we thought we were going to get out of

31:33 ↗ that new development and I think that's

31:35 ↗ partly because the city staff wasn't

31:38 ↗ fully on board with what some of the

31:39 ↗ concerns were so until we hire and we

31:42 ↗ really integrate what those visions are

31:45 ↗ put it to code I question whether we're

31:48 ↗ going to be able to get it and I've

31:50 ↗ wasted my time again which I'm not going

31:53 ↗ to do it again I will serve on an

31:54 ↗ overview site panel though that being

31:58 ↗ said would like to I've written a letter

31:59 ↗ to the mayor and have talked to parks

32:01 ↗ board about tree canopy and I and

32:04 ↗ several people have talked many times

32:05 ↗ about tree canopy just on Friday we got

32:09 ↗ another email notice that with driven

32:12 ↗ for some reason they're going to want to

32:15 ↗ cut down trees on our

32:17 ↗ the Southside a Newport way that is part

32:21 ↗ of native growth protection easement as

32:23 ↗ well as a screening easement that were

32:25 ↗ commitments made with those developments

32:27 ↗ and the property owners on that side of

32:29 ↗ the road

32:30 ↗ all of a sudden via little email we get

32:34 ↗ oh those trees are going no why when and

32:38 ↗ what's going to be replaced as far as

32:40 ↗ the number of trees that are being

32:42 ↗ removed because those are large maple

32:45 ↗ trees that are being removed I would

32:47 ↗ like some feedback on that

32:49 ↗ the last thing since it's short on time

32:51 ↗ I also want to talk about hopefully some

32:53 ↗ of the money that we are spending

32:54 ↗ towards traffic can go to actually

32:57 ↗ having a police officer standing at

32:59 ↗ intersections

32:59 ↗ I was almost run over trying to cross

33:02 ↗ that's 900 on Friday coming in tonight

33:04 ↗ there was a bicyclist who decided to get

33:06 ↗ off his bike and use the crosswalk on

33:08 ↗ Newports way to cross new Parkway at

33:11 ↗ s900 we had people speeding up behind me

33:13 ↗ turning right and almost hit that

33:15 ↗ bicyclist had I not honked and he not

33:18 ↗ done one last check he would have been a

33:20 ↗ dead person at the speed that was going

33:22 ↗ I also trying to get home tonight the

33:25 ↗ intersections all along Front Street are

33:27 ↗ consistently blocked by through traffic

33:30 ↗ I'm trying to get home and I could not

33:32 ↗ turn left off of Front Street on two sec

33:36 ↗ or on sunset because of people trying to

33:40 ↗ cut onto Front Street and blocking the

33:42 ↗ entire intersection we need to have

33:45 ↗ police officers present to teach

33:46 ↗ behaviors not to block intersections not

33:49 ↗ to cross block crosswalks and as a part

33:52 ↗ the first one about the crosswalk on

33:54 ↗ bush we need that thank you Mary

33:56 ↗ anyone else like to discounsel is

33:58 ↗ evening Julie oh no your support

34:01 ↗ there's hands of support anyone else who

34:04 ↗ would like to address Council this

34:05 ↗ evening

34:06 ↗ second call anyone like to address

34:08 ↗ Council last call seeing no one else

34:12 ↗ audience comments are closed and we will

34:15 ↗ move to committee and regional reports

34:16 ↗ and we will start with councilmember

34:18 ↗ hunt thank you madam mayor on May 17th I

34:22 ↗ attended the Huayra eight salmon

34:24 ↗ recovery council meeting and I'd like to

34:26 ↗ provide two

34:27 ↗ highlights from that meeting firstly we

34:31 ↗ reviewed the project subcommittees 2018

34:34 ↗ grant recommendations supporting

34:37 ↗ conservation education and outreach and

34:39 ↗ one project that was discussed was the

34:41 ↗ lower s quad cream Creek stream and

34:44 ↗ riparian restoration design this is a

34:46 ↗ city of Issaquah project and the salmon

34:49 ↗ recovery Council voted to unanimously

34:51 ↗ approve the project subcommittees

34:53 ↗ recommendations the grants are not yet

34:56 ↗ fully approved because it still has

34:58 ↗ another step it will also need to be

35:00 ↗ approved by the King County Flood

35:02 ↗ Control District and that will happen

35:05 ↗ that review process will happen later in

35:07 ↗ the summer and we also heard about the

35:10 ↗ city of Kirkland's yard smart rain

35:12 ↗ rewards residential retrofit program

35:14 ↗ this is a program that provides

35:16 ↗ incentives for homeowners to reduce the

35:18 ↗ volume and pollution levels of

35:19 ↗ stormwater and the next meeting of the

35:22 ↗ salmon recovery council will be Thursday

35:24 ↗ July 19th and that concludes my report

35:27 ↗ Thank You councilmember Wray Thank You

35:29 ↗ mayor poly the services and Safety

35:32 ↗ Committee met on May 9th here in council

35:34 ↗ chambers there are a number of issues we

35:37 ↗ took out many of them are on tonight's

35:39 ↗ consent agenda we took up agenda bill 75

35:42 ↗ 95 to amend the salary ordinance we took

35:46 ↗ up agenda bill 75-65 an interfund loan

35:49 ↗ extension for the roadway improvement

35:50 ↗ and agenda bill 70601 East Side Fire and

35:54 ↗ Rescue Memorandum of Understanding

35:56 ↗ related to maintenance of city-owned

35:58 ↗ facilities all of those were moved to

36:00 ↗ consent for this evening the committee

36:03 ↗ also received an update on the 2019 2020

36:06 ↗ applications for services funding and

36:09 ↗ then finally we took up agenda bill 75

36:12 ↗ 96 property tax reduction request via

36:15 ↗ King County public benefits rating

36:17 ↗ system that's a mouthful and that is on

36:20 ↗ regular business day and we will be

36:21 ↗ having a public hearing about that

36:23 ↗ shortly the next meeting will be on June

36:27 ↗ 12th at 6:30 here in Council Chambers

36:30 ↗ Eastside Fire and Rescue Board met on

36:32 ↗ May 10th at 4 o'clock councilmember

36:35 ↗ Goodman and I attended via telephone

36:37 ↗ kind of breaking some new ground

36:40 ↗ that allowed us to participate in the

36:42 ↗ council retreat key things on the agenda

36:45 ↗ was an update from the chief on P Foss

36:48 ↗ and the water supply the Board

36:51 ↗ considered modifications to director

36:53 ↗ roles and responsibilities to remit

36:55 ↗ board members to participate via

36:57 ↗ telephone and finally we looked at the

37:01 ↗ implementation of a new compliance

37:03 ↗ engine to help with our fire marshal

37:07 ↗ function the next East Side Fire and

37:09 ↗ Rescue meeting will be on June 14th at 4

37:11 ↗ o'clock and that concludes my report

37:13 ↗ this evening Thank You councilmember a

37:15 ↗ council member Ramos thank you

37:17 ↗ the councillor structure committee met

37:19 ↗ last Thursday the 17th a couple items of

37:22 ↗ note one is on consent agenda tonight

37:26 ↗ the curb ramp enhancement project that's

37:29 ↗ on consent the other one note is there's

37:30 ↗ discussion on the traffic coming in Old

37:32 ↗ Town and it appears that that has been

37:36 ↗ very successful in many ways but there

37:39 ↗ is one part of it that was not

37:41 ↗ successful and there was a group of filk

37:43 ↗ so that the chicane zhan Andrews are

37:45 ↗ very troublesome for the neighbourhood

37:48 ↗ as a whole in their area because of

37:50 ↗ parking and other things that kind of

37:52 ↗ came together in that one spot so it was

37:54 ↗ a request that we removed those as soon

37:56 ↗ as possible because they're causing

37:58 ↗ major problems and have the neighborhood

38:00 ↗ Street functions but all the other ones

38:01 ↗ seem to be doing the job and the report

38:04 ↗ on that is that the speeds have reduced

38:06 ↗ through that part of town and it's

38:10 ↗ working those things have done what they

38:12 ↗ want except for the chicane so just let

38:14 ↗ those folks know there have been

38:15 ↗ discussions following that meeting I've

38:17 ↗ discussed these things with the mayor

38:18 ↗ and and of the engineers as well and

38:20 ↗ those discussions are continuing to

38:22 ↗ consider there requested actions that

38:25 ↗ concludes my report

38:26 ↗ that's remember we're interesting thank

38:29 ↗ you madam mayor the growth management

38:31 ↗ policy board has not met since our last

38:32 ↗ council meeting our next meeting for the

38:35 ↗ GMP B is May excuse me June 7th and the

38:38 ↗ primary issue or agenda will be take

38:41 ↗ item will be the establishing the scope

38:44 ↗ for the vision 2040 update and then

38:48 ↗ lodging tax advisory committee has not

38:51 ↗ met since our last meeting and we have

38:52 ↗ our next

38:53 ↗ isn't planned either so that concludes

38:55 ↗ my report you go thank you

38:57 ↗ councilmember Goodman thank you madam

38:58 ↗ mayor Landon sure had a special meeting

39:01 ↗ last week may 15 and there was one item

39:03 ↗ on the agenda and it's on a regular

39:06 ↗ business for tonight it's agenda bell 73

39:08 ↗ 44 central Issaquah district visions

39:10 ↗ it's the last item to be completed under

39:13 ↗ the moratorium and the next Landon Shore

39:16 ↗ meeting will be the first Thursday of

39:18 ↗ June I believe that's June 7th and the

39:20 ↗ agenda has not been set that's my report

39:22 ↗ Thank You deputy council president

39:25 ↗ batiste

39:26 ↗ thank you madam mayor no report this

39:28 ↗ evening Thank You council president

39:29 ↗ Mertz thank you madam mayor the sound

39:32 ↗ cities association public issues

39:34 ↗ committee met on Wednesday May 8th at 7

39:37 ↗ p.m. in Renton City Hall there was no

39:40 ↗ discussion of proposed action and the

39:45 ↗ King County growth management Policy

39:47 ↗ Council GMP C will next be meeting on

39:50 ↗ Wednesday May 30th at 4 p.m. in PSR C

39:52 ↗ chambers they will be considering a

39:55 ↗ school siting motion unfortunately I am

39:58 ↗ going to be in Vancouver BC for a

40:02 ↗ meeting involving microneedles for drug

40:05 ↗ delivery for my other job so I will not

40:08 ↗ be able to attend but we will pick gia

40:13 ↗ SCA will be well covered Thank You

40:16 ↗ council president thank you very much

40:19 ↗ for all your work out in the region and

40:21 ↗ your reports back tonight the next item

40:23 ↗ on the agenda is the mayor's report I

40:25 ↗ have a series of community activities

40:27 ↗ and then some issue updates to give this

40:29 ↗ evening so on may May 8th I facilitated

40:33 ↗ a meeting in the box for our strategic

40:35 ↗ plan with about 20 seniors at our Senior

40:38 ↗ Center and we followed that with a

40:40 ↗ question and answer session I also

40:42 ↗ attended the 39th annual Community

40:44 ↗ Awards and hosted by the chamber is

40:47 ↗ greater escort chamber of commerce where

40:50 ↗ we announced fred butler and david

40:51 ↗ Kapler as our 2018 city visca Hall of

40:54 ↗ Fame Award recipients on May 10th I

40:57 ↗ supported the walk to school event along

40:58 ↗ with superintendent Ronnie Lee and

41:00 ↗ greeted students on foot and on bike as

41:02 ↗ they headed to school in the morning

41:03 ↗ I made 12th I was the guest speaker at

41:05 ↗ the Amir

41:06 ↗ association of universities women's

41:08 ↗ Issaquah chapter regular meeting and on

41:10 ↗ the 15th at the Issaquah youth advisory

41:13 ↗ boards regular meeting I attended the

41:16 ↗ YWCA YWCA inspire luncheon in Seattle on

41:19 ↗ May 15 and also facilitated a meeting in

41:22 ↗ the box with a neighborhood group on

41:24 ↗ that day on May 17th I attended a

41:27 ↗ ribbon-cutting ceremony for adhara

41:29 ↗ Surgical Institute in Issaquah and May

41:32 ↗ 16th I was the guest speaker at an event

41:34 ↗ with the Issaquah Nursing and

41:36 ↗ Rehabilitation Center on Front Street on

41:38 ↗ May 18th I led a mayor's forum at the

41:41 ↗ Senior Center with is quest former

41:42 ↗ mayors Hansen hyeon's Fry sander and

41:45 ↗ Butler I thought I'd provide a couple of

41:48 ↗ updates on some issues that we've been

41:50 ↗ talking about over the last few months

41:52 ↗ moratorium as you heard this evening

41:54 ↗ central Issaquah visions ab7 three four

41:56 ↗ four is on regular business this evening

41:59 ↗ as councilmember Goodman mentioned

42:02 ↗ earlier during her report the committee

42:03 ↗ met twice in May to conclude its

42:05 ↗ deliberations on the proposed changes to

42:07 ↗ the central is why visions and the item

42:09 ↗ will be discussed this evening if the

42:11 ↗ council approves the central square

42:13 ↗ visions the moratorium enacted in

42:15 ↗ September 2016 will be lifted I did not

42:19 ↗ have an update on the Cougar Mountain

42:20 ↗ Bergsma development this evening the

42:24 ↗ ending of development agreements for

42:26 ↗ talus the Planning Policy Commission

42:27 ↗ held a public hearing on May 10th for

42:29 ↗ consideration of the proposed zoning

42:31 ↗ designation for parcel 9 that was at

42:34 ↗ referral from the council the PPC heard

42:38 ↗ a snap presentation and took testimony

42:39 ↗ from the public the Commission concurred

42:42 ↗ with the administration's original

42:43 ↗ recommendation that tells person 9

42:45 ↗ should be designated a map and this item

42:48 ↗ will return to City Council on June 4th

42:49 ↗ the southeast 62nd Street which is the

42:53 ↗ project connecting East Lake Sammamish

42:55 ↗ Parkway into the development with Costco

42:57 ↗ there will be some activity this week

43:00 ↗ prefabricated arch sections for the

43:02 ↗ under crossing on the East Lake

43:04 ↗ Sammamish Trail are being delivered on

43:06 ↗ Tuesday and Wednesday the 29th and 30th

43:08 ↗ deliveries will occur approximately

43:10 ↗ every half hour between 9:30 and 3:30

43:12 ↗ p.m. each day using oversized wide loads

43:14 ↗ the truck haul road is i-90 to SR 900

43:18 ↗ fifteen going north on across i-90 to

43:22 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road to East Lake

43:24 ↗ Sammamish Parkway the trucks will then

43:26 ↗ travel south along East Lake Sammamish

43:28 ↗ Park Rita southeast sixty-seven where

43:29 ↗ they will exit the road to make the

43:31 ↗ delivery

43:31 ↗ this will cause some delays and drivers

43:35 ↗ should expect slow-moving vehicles this

43:37 ↗ is an important piece of our completion

43:38 ↗ of this project where we can create the

43:40 ↗ separation between the trail and our new

43:43 ↗ streets in there we are also looking our

43:47 ↗ we are also starting our North West

43:48 ↗ Gilman Boulevard project there is a need

43:51 ↗ to improve Northwest Gilman Boulevard

43:53 ↗ from state-run 900 to Front Street for

43:55 ↗ pedestrians cyclists and transit users

43:57 ↗ and drivers together with this acquire

43:59 ↗ residents quarter users and local

44:01 ↗ business owners the city is developing a

44:03 ↗ plan this year they will document the

44:06 ↗ community's vision for the corridor and

44:08 ↗ strategize on how to implement that

44:10 ↗ vision our community engagement phase of

44:12 ↗ this project is now underway the online

44:15 ↗ survey is live and we hope to hear from

44:17 ↗ everyone who works plays or lives in

44:19 ↗ Issaquah the purpose of the survey is to

44:21 ↗ document the project goals and identify

44:23 ↗ the range of possible improvements for

44:25 ↗ Gilman Boulevard the survey is open

44:27 ↗ until July 13 2008 teen there will also

44:31 ↗ be business workshops and a community

44:33 ↗ open house scheduled for July 11th at 6

44:36 ↗ p.m. at the Pickering burn the as the

44:38 ↗ events get closer we'll have additional

44:40 ↗ details to announce you can visit the

44:43 ↗ project's website page at itzik wha-wha

44:45 ↗ gov slash Gilman and you can take the

44:48 ↗ online survey sign up to receive updates

44:50 ↗ or learn more about the project that

44:53 ↗ concludes the mayor's report this

44:54 ↗ evening proceeding to that consent

44:57 ↗ calendar the consent calendar was

44:59 ↗ distributed to council in advance if

45:01 ↗ authorized the items on the consent

45:03 ↗ calendar will be considered together and

45:05 ↗ approved by one motion first have the

45:08 ↗ pay payables and payroll for May 21st

45:10 ↗ been reviewed yes thank you does any

45:15 ↗ councilmember desire to remove any items

45:17 ↗ from the consent calendar and consider

45:19 ↗ it under regular business councilmember

45:22 ↗ Goodman yes I would wish to bring down

45:25 ↗ agenda Belle 75-77 central Issaquah

45:28 ↗ development and design standards

45:29 ↗ amendment limiting new hotels mode

45:31 ↗ tells timeshare lodging conference

45:33 ↗ centers and self storage units and

45:35 ↗ specific zones within central Issaquah

45:38 ↗ to the regular agenda is there a second

45:41 ↗ second

45:43 ↗ you don't need a second okay all those

45:51 ↗ in favor oh just do it that will be

45:54 ↗ moved to item a under regular business

45:57 ↗ is there anything any other items that

45:59 ↗ council would like to move down from the

46:01 ↗ consent calendar the motion madam mayor

46:06 ↗ I move we adopt the consent calendar as

46:08 ↗ amended thank you that needs a second

46:11 ↗ again so it was moved and seconded to

46:14 ↗ approve the consent calendar as amended

46:17 ↗ all those in favor signify by saying aye

46:20 ↗ as opposed that passes unanimously the

46:25 ↗ next item on the agenda this evening is

46:26 ↗ the public hearing for a B seven five

46:28 ↗ nine six property tax reduction requests

46:31 ↗ by a King County public benefit rating

46:34 ↗ system this item is coming out of

46:36 ↗ council services and Safety Committee

46:38 ↗ and it the recommendation this evening

46:40 ↗ is to approve the resolution before I

46:42 ↗ open the public hearing

46:43 ↗ I'd like to invite David favor

46:45 ↗ development services manager and bill

46:47 ↗ Baron Stein King County public benefit

46:49 ↗ rating systems program manager to make a

46:51 ↗ presentation thank you thanks yeah I'll

46:55 ↗ kick this off and then turn it over to

46:57 ↗ bill Bernstein King County program lead

47:00 ↗ this is a request for property tax

47:02 ↗ reduction through a King County program

47:05 ↗ and provides an incentive to help

47:08 ↗ preserve certain public benefits and in

47:10 ↗ this case it's a historic landmark

47:12 ↗ structure upon squawk Mountain in a

47:15 ↗ single-family house at 350 Mount Jupiter

47:18 ↗ Drive as you mentioned the services and

47:21 ↗ Safety Committee reviewed this May ninth

47:23 ↗ then supported the project 300 this

47:28 ↗ requires a two-step process through

47:30 ↗ local government city action which is on

47:33 ↗ your agenda tonight and then council

47:34 ↗ action that bill takes and bundles with

47:37 ↗ King County so I'm gonna turn over a

47:39 ↗ bill to talk a little about the program

47:41 ↗ and the proposal briefly Thanks

47:48 ↗ in terms of well thank you for having me

47:55 ↗ I'll try to keep this brief when we have

47:57 ↗ the landowners present who would be

48:00 ↗ great to hear from them after I have a

48:02 ↗ few words they could speak much more

48:04 ↗ interestingly about their property

48:06 ↗ probably than I can but in terms of the

48:09 ↗ program as Dave was mentioning it's a

48:13 ↗ two-step process and so we're here

48:16 ↗ hopefully seeking your approval for this

48:18 ↗ property's enrollment and then I'll take

48:20 ↗ it back to the county but essentially

48:23 ↗ the program is all about a property tax

48:26 ↗ reduction in exchange for resource

48:28 ↗ protection or in this case historic

48:31 ↗ landmark status and protection as it's

48:37 ↗ listed here we do have a process that we

48:40 ↗ must follow which is dictated by state

48:43 ↗ law RCW 84 34 in this case and then also

48:47 ↗ our program is defined within king

48:49 ↗ county code chapter 2036 typically it's

48:52 ↗ a essentially a six-month process from

48:56 ↗ application receipt to final action

48:59 ↗ which must occur in this case by July

49:02 ↗ 1st in terms of both city and county

49:05 ↗ approval this properties qualification

49:10 ↗ is very straightforward

49:11 ↗ the program is based on a point system

49:14 ↗ we have about 25 or so different

49:17 ↗ resource categories of properties can

49:19 ↗ qualify for one of those happens to be

49:21 ↗ property designated as a historic

49:24 ↗ landmark as this property was designated

49:26 ↗ back in 2017

49:28 ↗ so by that designation it opens the door

49:31 ↗ for the Millers to apply to the programs

49:33 ↗ and seek a property tax reduction for

49:35 ↗ the 0.28 acres of the property that I'm

49:38 ↗ recommending be enrolled in the program

49:44 ↗ as we've kind of already stated we're

49:47 ↗ holding this public hearing and then

49:50 ↗ these various steps including the

49:54 ↗ recommendations from from

49:56 ↗ giving recommendation to you and then

49:57 ↗ taking it to the county again with

50:01 ↗ regard to this property it's fairly

50:03 ↗ straightforward the designation is in

50:05 ↗ place it's recorded on title and so

50:09 ↗ therefore the qualification is pretty

50:11 ↗ straightforward I'm happy to answer any

50:13 ↗ questions you have just about how the

50:15 ↗ program works or how the tax savings are

50:17 ↗ implemented and I'll just leave it there

50:19 ↗ and with the council like me to have the

50:22 ↗ property owners come up now to providing

50:24 ↗ for more information or wait till you've

50:25 ↗ done with questions reference how about

50:31 ↗ now

50:32 ↗ if mark and Beth Lynn would like to come

50:34 ↗ up and provide some addition here not

50:35 ↗ required to but you can if you would

50:37 ↗ like to state your name and address for

50:40 ↗ the record 350 you know we are mark in

50:47 ↗ Beslan miller i'm mark we live at 350 ml

50:53 ↗ Jupiter Drive Southwest in a home that

50:57 ↗ was built actually collaboratively with

51:00 ↗ skip rally and William can Rory I don't

51:03 ↗ you remember it skip but your historic

51:10 ↗ this house is representative of what is

51:14 ↗ known as mid-century modern architecture

51:17 ↗ it is built after a design by the

51:22 ↗ architect Eichler so it is an eichler

51:25 ↗ home which consists of post-and-beam

51:28 ↗ construction so each beam that runs

51:31 ↗ laterally through the house has three

51:33 ↗ posts that hold it up the entire back of

51:35 ↗ the home for the most part is glass and

51:38 ↗ looks out over well it used to look out

51:42 ↗ over the valley now it just looks at in

51:44 ↗ large trees and so but the property is

51:49 ↗ interesting in that it has not really

51:50 ↗ been modified as we understand it I

51:53 ↗ think bill it's one of the few

51:55 ↗ unmodified or unmodeled mid-century

51:58 ↗ modern around in that it is the basic

52:01 ↗ architecture is still intact we have a

52:03 ↗ bomb shelter so it won't fit all of you

52:08 ↗ but

52:08 ↗ I'll be selling tickets afterward if

52:11 ↗ anyone wants to purchase one but it's

52:14 ↗ it's really an amazing place and we

52:16 ↗ learned that once we filed it as a

52:19 ↗ landmark and it was approved we we

52:21 ↗ learned that there was an opportunity to

52:23 ↗ get some tax relief and so that's kind

52:26 ↗ of the basis of why we're here anything

52:29 ↗ else you would add about it probably why

52:31 ↗ it was built the way it was

52:33 ↗ that's mr. Kinnaird worked for the for

52:36 ↗ the General Accounting Office in in

52:38 ↗ concert with the Atomic Energy

52:40 ↗ Commission and he had seen structures

52:43 ↗ like this in Japan he lived in an

52:47 ↗ Eichler home in Bellevue before he came

52:49 ↗ here and had this house built and he

52:52 ↗ strategically placed it at a point that

52:54 ↗ was exactly it placed the mountain right

52:59 ↗ between McChord Air Force Base and his

53:03 ↗ home and his studies indicated that if

53:06 ↗ there was ever a nuclear assault in the

53:07 ↗ area it probably would be a McCord and

53:09 ↗ Fort Lewis and so he figured that he was

53:12 ↗ placing the house in a place that was

53:14 ↗ strategically the least exposed to a

53:18 ↗ nuclear attack

53:20 ↗ hence the bomb shelter which today is

53:23 ↗ just a large storage thank you very much

53:28 ↗ mark that's very helpful I'm gonna ask

53:30 ↗ the council now if they have any

53:31 ↗ questions any questions from anyone who

53:36 ↗ was up speaking today

53:37 ↗ councilmember hunt thank you I have a

53:40 ↗ question regarding the program in

53:43 ↗ general not the specific property but

53:46 ↗ could you explain what happens regarding

53:49 ↗ back taxes when a property owner leaves

53:51 ↗ the program or sells the property and

53:53 ↗ the new owner decides that they would

53:55 ↗ like to leave the program absolutely so

53:58 ↗ it's important to know there's there's

54:00 ↗ no end date to an open-space enrollment

54:03 ↗ and typically what happens when a

54:05 ↗ property changes ownership is that a

54:08 ↗ buyer will elect to continue the open

54:12 ↗ space designation at that time if they

54:14 ↗ elect to continue the open space

54:16 ↗ designation they carry they continue

54:20 ↗ with the open space agreement but they

54:21 ↗ also carry

54:22 ↗ the history in terms of any potential

54:25 ↗ financial ramifications of coming out of

54:27 ↗ the program there is something called a

54:29 ↗ compensating tax bill that comes into

54:31 ↗ play if any property is withdrawn or

54:34 ↗ removed from the program and that

54:35 ↗ essentially is made up of a seven-year

54:37 ↗ past savings plus interest and potential

54:41 ↗ penalty and so if the Millers were to

54:44 ↗ sell and a buyer for some reason to not

54:46 ↗ want to continue with the designation

54:47 ↗ they would be subject to that

54:49 ↗ compensating tax bill and that again

54:53 ↗ never goes away there's no end date to

54:55 ↗ that calculation or that potential

54:57 ↗ removal cost any other questions okay

55:05 ↗ you no further questions the guidelines

55:08 ↗ for citizens comments also apply to

55:10 ↗ those made under the public hearing and

55:12 ↗ I now open the public hearing at 7:55

55:15 ↗ p.m. has anyone signed up to speak this

55:17 ↗ evening no thank you

55:19 ↗ would anyone like to speak this evening

55:24 ↗ second call for anyone wishing to speak

55:26 ↗ during the public hearing the third and

55:28 ↗ final call public hearing is closed at

55:31 ↗ 8:56 and councilmember Rea I'd like to

55:36 ↗ move to approve resolution number 2018 -

55:40 ↗ Oh 8 approving the public benefit rating

55:45 ↗ system open space classification of the

55:48 ↗ Miller property located at 350 Mount

55:50 ↗ Juniper Drive Southwest 2nd it's been

55:54 ↗ moved and seconded is there any

55:56 ↗ discussion I just like to speak to it

55:59 ↗ just briefly often in committees we have

56:03 ↗ to deal with some some hard and thorny

56:06 ↗ issues and when this one came to the

56:07 ↗ services and Safety Committee it was

56:09 ↗ probably the most fun I think any of the

56:11 ↗ committee members have ever had in

56:12 ↗ listening to the stories about the house

56:14 ↗ I think this is a an amazing piece of

56:18 ↗ architecture it's clearly qualified

56:20 ↗ under the the county laws and and I

56:26 ↗ think it's something that we as a

56:28 ↗ community will benefit

56:29 ↗ from by preserving so I am really

56:32 ↗ excited about this you any other

56:36 ↗ discussion

56:38 ↗ if there's no further discussion all

56:41 ↗ those in favor of approving resolution

56:43 ↗ number two zero one eight zero eight

56:45 ↗ approving the public benefit rating

56:47 ↗ system open space classification of the

56:50 ↗ Miller property located at 350 Mount

56:53 ↗ Juniper Drive Southwest signify by

56:55 ↗ saying aye hey as a post that passes

57:00 ↗ unanimously thank you very much for

57:01 ↗ coming this evening next item on the

57:04 ↗ agenda is regular business and we'll be

57:06 ↗ starting with a be seven five seven

57:08 ↗ seven central Issaquah development and

57:11 ↗ design standards amendment limiting new

57:14 ↗ hotels motels timeshare lodging

57:16 ↗ conference centers and stealth self

57:18 ↗ storage units in specific zones within

57:20 ↗ central Issaquah this item was moved

57:23 ↗ down from the consent calendar this

57:25 ↗ evening and it is coming out of the

57:26 ↗ landing shore committee I'd like to

57:29 ↗ first invite Keith Niven economic and

57:31 ↗ development services director to make a

57:32 ↗ presentation thank you madam mayor city

57:36 ↗ council good evening so this agenda bill

57:41 ↗ is proposed code amendments for central

57:46 ↗ Issaquah and really it's I think coming

57:50 ↗ out of a sense that the current zoning

57:53 ↗ and the land uses they're allowed in

57:54 ↗ central Issaquah are possibly too broad

57:57 ↗ and because there's not a lot of

58:00 ↗ limitations in terms of what can be

58:03 ↗ placed in central Issaquah there was a

58:06 ↗ proposed code amendment brought about by

58:08 ↗ the administration to limit the location

58:11 ↗ for hotels and self storage and so this

58:15 ↗ went to the Planning Policy Commission

58:17 ↗ and then it came to Landon Shore and so

58:23 ↗ what was proposed was to limit the limit

58:26 ↗ new hotels to the Pickering neighborhood

58:29 ↗ and to limit new storage to to 21st and

58:33 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Parkway and so part

58:37 ↗ of this was looking at the distribution

58:40 ↗ of the existing storage facilities that

58:42 ↗ we have

58:43 ↗ those are shown with the black squares

58:45 ↗ and also the existing hotels which are

58:49 ↗ the red stars the Pickering neighborhood

58:52 ↗ is north of i90 and includes kind of the

58:57 ↗ area around the Costco corporate campus

59:01 ↗ and as you can see basically our hotels

59:06 ↗ are located right now in Raleigh - in

59:10 ↗ Pickering this is the motel 6 and the

59:12 ↗ Holiday Inn and then the new Marriott is

59:15 ↗ down on Maple as for the storage units

59:21 ↗ you can see they're kind of spread

59:22 ↗ throughout central is aqua we also have

59:26 ↗ them up in the highlands but this was

59:28 ↗ really a conversation about central

59:29 ↗ Issaquah so I did not show that on the

59:30 ↗ map as we talked about hotels and why we

59:36 ↗ have hotels in the city part of I think

59:40 ↗ trying to understand it a little bit

59:42 ↗ better is looking at hotel stays and

59:46 ↗ just kind of the break out between

59:49 ↗ leisure and business-related stays and

59:53 ↗ so this is information unfortunately we

59:55 ↗ couldn't get in from data from all of

59:57 ↗ our hotel yers but we did from Hilton

1:00:00 ↗ Garden Inn Homewood Suites and Marriott

1:00:03 ↗ and as you can see the Marriott is is

1:00:07 ↗ tipped a little bit more leisure than

1:00:09 ↗ business but both the Hilton brands

1:00:13 ↗ Hilton Garden Inn and Homewood Suites is

1:00:15 ↗ much more business than leisure and my

1:00:20 ↗ guess is Holiday Inn would be similar

1:00:22 ↗ because of its proximity to Costco which

1:00:25 ↗ is what generates a lot of our hotel

1:00:28 ↗ stays and then from a storage

1:00:32 ↗ perspective and I apologize if this is

1:00:34 ↗ hard to see what we did is we did an

1:00:37 ↗ inventory of storage units on the east

1:00:40 ↗ side to kind of get a sense for kind of

1:00:45 ↗ dispersion and whether or not we were

1:00:48 ↗ getting a disproportionate share of

1:00:49 ↗ storage units you know so here's

1:00:53 ↗ information from our what we consider

1:00:55 ↗ our East Side Pier City

1:00:58 ↗ some information at the bottom relates

1:01:00 ↗ to percentage of households that rent

1:01:05 ↗ storage units it's about just shiet 10%

1:01:08 ↗ and that 75% of those are either within

1:01:15 ↗ 2 miles of where people live or where

1:01:18 ↗ they work so there's definitely a kind

1:01:21 ↗ of a proximity for use of storage so so

1:01:24 ↗ this is this is kind of the end of my

1:01:26 ↗ presentation it went through Planning

1:01:30 ↗ Commission Planning Commission talked

1:01:33 ↗ about I have to kind of break these into

1:01:34 ↗ two very different topics because they

1:01:37 ↗ they dealt with these two land uses very

1:01:39 ↗ differently for for the hotels the sense

1:01:45 ↗ coming out of Planning Commission was

1:01:47 ↗ that hotel your's will locate where it

1:01:50 ↗ makes sense for them to locate and they

1:01:52 ↗ didn't feel like we needed to

1:01:53 ↗ necessarily regulate the location of

1:01:56 ↗ hotels they also saw hotels because they

1:01:59 ↗ can range anywhere from large hotels to

1:02:02 ↗ small boutique hotels could really

1:02:04 ↗ locate in in many neighborhoods within

1:02:07 ↗ central Issaquah and be successful on

1:02:11 ↗ the flip side storage storage was a much

1:02:16 ↗ more divided debate and there were some

1:02:22 ↗ members on PPC that felt that storage

1:02:25 ↗ was not a vibrant land use and should

1:02:28 ↗ not be allowed at all in central

1:02:31 ↗ Issaquah and others felt like it wasn't

1:02:34 ↗ our place to regulate so it actually

1:02:36 ↗ came out of planning policy commission

1:02:39 ↗ without a recommendation because they

1:02:41 ↗ voted twice and it's split 3-3 both

1:02:44 ↗ times so it was actually dead locked out

1:02:46 ↗ of Planning Commission so then this made

1:02:49 ↗ it to land and Shore and that land and

1:02:52 ↗ Shore the recommendation was also to not

1:02:56 ↗ approve these code limitations so that's

1:02:58 ↗ that's kind of the history and and where

1:03:01 ↗ we are and if you have questions I'm

1:03:03 ↗ here to answer questions let's remember

1:03:06 ↗ Goodman thank you so Keith my

1:03:09 ↗ understanding is

1:03:10 ↗ that for storage units that they could

1:03:16 ↗ be built anywhere in central Issaquah

1:03:18 ↗ except isn't mixed-use residential yes

1:03:21 ↗ so if somebody wanted to when the

1:03:23 ↗ moratorium is lifted make an application

1:03:25 ↗ for putting up for a permit to put a

1:03:29 ↗ storage unit anywhere along Gilman

1:03:31 ↗ Boulevard could happen right yes or in

1:03:34 ↗ multiple adjacent properties so

1:03:37 ↗ basically all of this except for this

1:03:40 ↗ neighborhood down here okay and I also

1:03:43 ↗ heard in the I can't remember it was an

1:03:46 ↗ insurer planning policy that there's a

1:03:48 ↗ pretty huge demand for storage unit

1:03:52 ↗ businesses so as you know so one of the

1:03:55 ↗ things about you know this statistic if

1:03:58 ↗ this is accurate you know basically ten

1:04:02 ↗ percent so as you think about us adding

1:04:05 ↗ thousands of more housing units to

1:04:07 ↗ Central Issaquah in theory there's there

1:04:10 ↗ will be an increased demand for

1:04:13 ↗ additional storage assuming the

1:04:14 ↗ statistics state accurate given well

1:04:23 ↗ anyway now the question questions are

1:04:27 ↗ coming there was no other if there's no

1:04:28 ↗ other questions questions councilmember

1:04:30 ↗ ahead so the in the proposed amendment

1:04:34 ↗ there is allowed locations in central

1:04:37 ↗ Issaquah which would be parcels fronting

1:04:39 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Parkway southeast

1:04:41 ↗ and 220 first place southeast and I

1:04:44 ↗ could you explain why those are the

1:04:47 ↗ proposed allowed locations I think

1:04:51 ↗ partially because of the prevalence of

1:04:55 ↗ storage now so right now and if you

1:04:59 ↗ think about kind of across the street

1:05:02 ↗ from the Fred Meyer shopping center you

1:05:05 ↗ have a low-density single-story

1:05:08 ↗ storage facility there now that's that's

1:05:13 ↗ this particular one there's a also

1:05:16 ↗ another couple parcels towards the north

1:05:20 ↗ end of East Lake Sammamish that from a

1:05:23 ↗ distribution

1:05:24 ↗ damn point you could potentially see

1:05:25 ↗ maybe another one up here so that made

1:05:28 ↗ sense for East Lake Sammamish and and

1:05:31 ↗ 221st is the street with the brown bear

1:05:34 ↗ carwash there's also a storage unit on

1:05:37 ↗ 221st and so because it's kind of an

1:05:41 ↗ out-of-the-way Street I think that was

1:05:43 ↗ one of the reasons why that was proposed

1:05:46 ↗ as an OK location for storage Council

1:05:55 ↗ deputy council president Patti's Thank

1:05:59 ↗ You Keith

1:06:01 ↗ we're when talking about having the

1:06:04 ↗ discussion about the storage units were

1:06:08 ↗ [Music]

1:06:09 ↗ trying to think of my question here was

1:06:12 ↗ it taken into consideration that a lot

1:06:15 ↗ of newer developments have their own

1:06:18 ↗ internal storage units so that was

1:06:23 ↗ discussed at planning policy Commission

1:06:26 ↗ you know what's happening

1:06:29 ↗ for the most part is that storage and

1:06:34 ↗ apartments are so new apartments are

1:06:37 ↗ generally not providing storage and so

1:06:40 ↗ except they are providing garages and

1:06:42 ↗ some of the tenants to use their garages

1:06:45 ↗ for storage which then is a parking

1:06:48 ↗ issue and that's a whole other

1:06:49 ↗ conversation but most of it is actually

1:06:51 ↗ happening separately so most multifamily

1:06:55 ↗ builders are not providing a like like

1:06:59 ↗ rentable storage units on their site

1:07:02 ↗ they could and but they but that's not

1:07:06 ↗ what we've seen in either Atlas or

1:07:08 ↗ gateway thank you yeah account summary

1:07:13 ↗ can you come back in a slider to where

1:07:16 ↗ you show the comparison with the other

1:07:18 ↗ cities yes that's this direction I think

1:07:23 ↗ that one I want yeah so and it's pretty

1:07:26 ↗ small but I count 10 in Bellevue and 7

1:07:28 ↗ and this was that sound about right yes

1:07:32 ↗ so Bellevue has 140,000 people so that's

1:07:36 ↗ 4

1:07:36 ↗ thousand people for her place and we

1:07:39 ↗ have stayed 35,000 just to make my math

1:07:41 ↗ easy and that's about five thousand per

1:07:43 ↗ place I'm just kind of curious because

1:07:44 ↗ we seem to have a higher density of

1:07:47 ↗ storage units here in Issaquah then some

1:07:50 ↗ of our similar cities any any insights

1:07:53 ↗ into why that might be so no I you know

1:08:00 ↗ the thing that's not telling here is

1:08:02 ↗ number of units within each complex and

1:08:06 ↗ I could not get that information online

1:08:08 ↗ and this was an awful lot of phone calls

1:08:10 ↗ to have to make so so I don't know the

1:08:13 ↗ absolute comparison in terms of like

1:08:16 ↗ units some of the ones in Bellevue are

1:08:18 ↗ older and smaller but I so you know I

1:08:23 ↗ don't I can't answer that question what

1:08:25 ↗ I know is based on one of the developers

1:08:29 ↗ that's looking to develop one in

1:08:31 ↗ Issaquah that there is still I think in

1:08:34 ↗ an active market for additional storage

1:08:36 ↗ units in Issaquah my second question

1:08:39 ↗ deals with with property crime is do you

1:08:44 ↗ I mean this is really sort of an unfair

1:08:46 ↗ question spring on you right now but I'm

1:08:47 ↗ just kind of curious if if we've seen

1:08:49 ↗ any kind of crime statistics property

1:08:53 ↗ crime statistics around around storage

1:08:56 ↗ units as opposed to other commercial

1:08:59 ↗ uses I have not heard of any and and

1:09:02 ↗ that was not something that came up

1:09:04 ↗ either at PPC or Landon Shore any other

1:09:08 ↗ questions

1:09:10 ↗ the councilmember Goodman brought this

1:09:12 ↗ down from consent so I was going to give

1:09:15 ↗ her some time to explain her reasoning

1:09:17 ↗ for bringing it down this evening they

1:09:21 ↗ make a motion an explainer

1:09:28 ↗ I would make a motion to adopt ordinance

1:09:32 ↗ number 28 37 amending table 4.3 be the

1:09:39 ↗ central Issaquah development and design

1:09:40 ↗ standards to limit self storage units to

1:09:43 ↗ the mixed-use zoning district and strike

1:09:45 ↗ all references to limits in the

1:09:47 ↗ ordinance other than self storage is

1:09:50 ↗ there a second second

1:09:52 ↗ it's been moved and seconded can you

1:09:55 ↗ reread that for me read it is it's not I

1:09:59 ↗ have another I don't I do not have John

1:10:02 ↗ one I just wrote it sorry to adopt

1:10:06 ↗ ordinance number whatever you said 28 37

1:10:09 ↗ amending table you can have this too

1:10:12 ↗ when I'm done 4.3 be of the central

1:10:15 ↗ Issaquah development and design

1:10:16 ↗ standards to limit self storage units to

1:10:19 ↗ the mixed use zoning district and strike

1:10:22 ↗ all references to limits in the

1:10:24 ↗ ordinance other than self storage

1:10:33 ↗ [Applause]

1:10:37 ↗ okay so the reason I brought it down is

1:10:40 ↗ twofold number one it's for the same

1:10:45 ↗ reason we received an email from Steve

1:10:47 ↗ prior today who talks about the I don't

1:10:53 ↗ know if it appropriate is the right word

1:10:54 ↗ but the preference for whether we put

1:10:57 ↗ things on consent that are recommending

1:10:59 ↗ denial and particularly when a minority

1:11:05 ↗ of the councilmembers have seen the

1:11:07 ↗ presentation at a committee meeting so I

1:11:10 ↗ think the preference my opinion the

1:11:12 ↗ preference would be to recommend denial

1:11:14 ↗ but put it on the regular regular

1:11:17 ↗ consent agenda so that the majority of

1:11:19 ↗ the council can see the presentation and

1:11:21 ↗ deliberate so that's one reason and the

1:11:23 ↗ second reason is because I as my motion

1:11:28 ↗ indicates I favor limiting the the

1:11:30 ↗ storage units the hotel part of it and I

1:11:32 ↗ realized that PPC and also landed Shore

1:11:36 ↗ because I watched them

1:11:39 ↗ devided fought i think there was maybe a

1:11:42 ↗ suggestion that it maybe could have been

1:11:43 ↗ two agenda bills but they were very

1:11:45 ↗ distinct hotels and self-storage I don't

1:11:48 ↗ I am at this point don't favor limiting

1:11:53 ↗ the hotels I don't think that that

1:11:56 ↗ agenda bill was very strong in in the

1:12:02 ↗ way that it suggested we for the reasons

1:12:04 ↗ that I don't think the reasoning was

1:12:06 ↗ very strong for why we needed to limit

1:12:07 ↗ the traffic just didn't resonate with me

1:12:09 ↗ there may be other reasons but I don't

1:12:11 ↗ think it was those reasons we're not

1:12:14 ↗ presented I don't know what those

1:12:16 ↗ reasons would be but the the storage

1:12:19 ↗ units I'm concerned about not limiting

1:12:21 ↗ storage units as I as my questioning

1:12:26 ↗ indicated they're allowed and Keith said

1:12:29 ↗ they're allowed anywhere in central

1:12:30 ↗ Issaquah they're no limitations and I'm

1:12:33 ↗ concerned about coming out of a

1:12:34 ↗ moratorium and unintended consequences

1:12:36 ↗ and because of the demand and allowing

1:12:39 ↗ the market to dictate where they might

1:12:41 ↗ go we would immediately get some

1:12:44 ↗ applications for storage units in

1:12:46 ↗ undesirable locations particularly where

1:12:48 ↗ we're looking to build vibrant areas in

1:12:51 ↗ central Issaquah along Gilman Boulevard

1:12:53 ↗ we already have one there now and there

1:12:55 ↗ were a lot of comments I heard in the

1:12:56 ↗ community about wow that's really one of

1:12:59 ↗ the first things we're getting in

1:13:00 ↗ central Issaquah that's that's not what

1:13:02 ↗ we envisioned and I've been talking to

1:13:04 ↗ folks in the last couple of weeks and

1:13:07 ↗ they had no idea that our land use

1:13:10 ↗ tables allow us to have storage units

1:13:12 ↗ anywhere and that we don't have any

1:13:14 ↗ limits on them in the central Issaquah

1:13:16 ↗ area so I think we should limit them I

1:13:19 ↗ think if we come out of the moratorium

1:13:20 ↗ and we get that type of proposal you

1:13:24 ↗ know I've concerned about credibility

1:13:26 ↗ we've had this moratorium for all this

1:13:28 ↗ long time and we haven't considered

1:13:29 ↗ something that we should have considered

1:13:32 ↗ and I just think we ought to limit them

1:13:37 ↗ that's why I'm that's why I made the

1:13:39 ↗ motion and that's those are my reasons

1:13:42 ↗ thank you additional discussion council

1:13:47 ↗ member Ramos followed by councilmember

1:13:49 ↗ hunt yeah

1:13:51 ↗ I just want some clarification because

1:13:52 ↗ we didn't have quite all this there when

1:13:54 ↗ you say limited to mix use though you

1:13:57 ↗ had to see that I want to see what that

1:13:59 ↗ do you have a slide or anything show

1:14:01 ↗ that where that is I don't have it up I

1:14:05 ↗ can do that really quickly

1:14:07 ↗ I believe that mix use is olive Eastlake

1:14:11 ↗ and this piece of of the Gilman

1:14:14 ↗ neighborhood may I point out that it's

1:14:17 ↗ page 206 of the packet thank yous a map

1:14:19 ↗ there's a map with it Keith page 206

1:14:23 ↗ while he's doing that comes from I

1:14:26 ↗ promise are you okay if I get

1:14:27 ↗ councilmember hunts question or comment

1:14:29 ↗ I had a very similar question which is

1:14:34 ↗ that in the agenda bill there is the

1:14:38 ↗ proposed allowed locations in central

1:14:40 ↗ Sequoia and then it has the central a

1:14:42 ↗ zoning district as mixed-use and my

1:14:45 ↗ understanding is that that the motion

1:14:49 ↗ does limit to the proposed allowed

1:14:53 ↗ locations in central Issaquah is that we

1:14:56 ↗ know it's another question okay so I

1:14:58 ↗ need more clarity on both of those and

1:15:00 ↗ we have a figure up so mixed uses is the

1:15:03 ↗ purple okay so it's mostly on the north

1:15:10 ↗ side of 90 so here's 90 mostly north

1:15:14 ↗ side here's where Microsoft's office

1:15:16 ↗ buildings are here's the Fred Meyer

1:15:18 ↗ shopping center but it does it does

1:15:22 ↗ spill onto the south side of 90 a wee

1:15:28 ↗ bit what kind of clarify sure so just to

1:15:33 ↗ make sure I understand Keith the

1:15:36 ↗ administration's recommendation was to

1:15:38 ↗ limit it to mix the mixed use but there

1:15:42 ↗ is a footnote that says not only is it

1:15:45 ↗ limited to mixed use it's limited to the

1:15:47 ↗ East Lake Sam 221st

1:15:49 ↗ yes and so in the motion I made its the

1:15:53 ↗ proposed that table 4.3 B which includes

1:15:57 ↗ the footnote so my motion is the same as

1:16:02 ↗ the administration's recommendation so

1:16:03 ↗ it doesn't limit it

1:16:04 ↗ to the entire mix juice gotcha zone it's

1:16:07 ↗ exactly what the administration proposed

1:16:08 ↗ or because the Eastlake Sam to 21st so

1:16:10 ↗ provide clarity

1:16:12 ↗ councilmember hunt and kind of my Ramos

1:16:16 ↗ you sent the figure did anymore exercise

1:16:18 ↗ so just to clarify so Eastlake Sam

1:16:22 ↗ coming down basically north of i90 on

1:16:24 ↗ East Lee exam or to 21st right

1:16:26 ↗ I think Cummings out of that and of

1:16:28 ↗ course to 21st stops quite a bit of a

1:16:30 ↗ ways before right there just okay I just

1:16:33 ↗ wanted to have the boundaries question

1:16:36 ↗ any other discussion

1:16:39 ↗ council president Mertz thanks Betty

1:16:41 ↗ mayor first let me speak to the process

1:16:43 ↗ the reason that this bill was moved the

1:16:46 ↗ way that it was is the mayor's office

1:16:49 ↗ and I have been having discussion about

1:16:51 ↗ how to move bills forward and full

1:16:53 ↗ council is going to see a proposal on

1:16:56 ↗ that subject very very very soon but in

1:17:01 ↗ the meantime I think it's important when

1:17:03 ↗ bills come back to the full council that

1:17:05 ↗ there be someone on council on the dais

1:17:08 ↗ who was an advocate for it and we did

1:17:10 ↗ not come out of that subcommittee

1:17:12 ↗ meeting with such a person and so I and

1:17:15 ↗ this is all part of the reasoning that

1:17:17 ↗ we set in committee basically it was to

1:17:20 ↗ do what exactly we did this evening

1:17:21 ↗ which is put it on consent and if

1:17:23 ↗ somebody felt strongly about it they

1:17:25 ↗ would move it down and here we are so I

1:17:27 ↗ think the process worked well in terms

1:17:30 ↗ of storage facilities I'm troubled by

1:17:34 ↗ exclusionary or prescriptive activities

1:17:39 ↗ like this I think it's one thing to be

1:17:42 ↗ aspirational and to say here's what we

1:17:44 ↗ want to see and here's the things that

1:17:47 ↗ we're going to try to do to encourage

1:17:48 ↗ what we want to see but I don't think

1:17:52 ↗ that storage facilities rise to the

1:17:53 ↗ level of something you know I always did

1:17:56 ↗ the joking thing that I always used is a

1:17:57 ↗ tire shredding facility right we don't

1:17:59 ↗ we don't want to see a tire shredding

1:18:00 ↗ facility in the central area and I don't

1:18:04 ↗ believe storage facilities rise to the

1:18:06 ↗ level of tire shredding I think that

1:18:09 ↗ there were there are definitely

1:18:10 ↗ arguments actually in favor of them that

1:18:12 ↗ came out of BBC including the fact that

1:18:15 ↗ for the tax revenue that they provide

1:18:19 ↗ they actually have a pretty small

1:18:21 ↗ traffic footprint compared to other

1:18:23 ↗ other potential uses of the land and so

1:18:25 ↗ I just think that my my gut is to not

1:18:32 ↗ prescribe how people can use their land

1:18:35 ↗ unless there's a compelling reason to do

1:18:37 ↗ so and I don't find a compelling reason

1:18:39 ↗ to do so this evening and this is why I

1:18:41 ↗ opposed it in committee and why I will

1:18:44 ↗ oppose this amendment this evening Thank

1:18:47 ↗ You council president Mertz I and

1:18:50 ↗ council members Ramos and Hunt ask

1:18:52 ↗ questions so I would like to give you

1:18:54 ↗ guys all an opportunity to discuss if

1:18:56 ↗ you want to council member right no I

1:18:58 ↗ just want to make a point and and when I

1:19:02 ↗ think about the vision and the future of

1:19:05 ↗ central Issaquah which is we're going to

1:19:06 ↗ spend a lot of time talking about this

1:19:08 ↗ this later this evening

1:19:09 ↗ and we want a a vibrant community or

1:19:13 ↗ part of the community we want a place

1:19:15 ↗ that is a live-work-play we want a place

1:19:18 ↗ that is walkable community we want

1:19:21 ↗ mixed-use and I I kind of like the idea

1:19:26 ↗ of moving our storage units into a

1:19:28 ↗ region because I think that they will

1:19:32 ↗ take space in central Issaquah that

1:19:35 ↗ could have a use that would would

1:19:37 ↗ further our vision of that mixed-use

1:19:41 ↗ high-density central urban area so I'm

1:19:45 ↗ I'm very supportive of this amendment

1:19:49 ↗ thank you

1:19:51 ↗ that's a member hunt thank you I am also

1:19:56 ↗ in support of the motion in committee I

1:20:01 ↗ I was in support of this part of the

1:20:05 ↗ agenda bill the part regarding storage

1:20:08 ↗ units I think that as council member ray

1:20:11 ↗ articulated storage units are not

1:20:16 ↗ they're not a pedestrian oriented

1:20:18 ↗ land-use and so I think if we have a

1:20:21 ↗ vision for the future to be walkable

1:20:24 ↗ than

1:20:25 ↗ limiting them makes good sense to me so

1:20:27 ↗ I'm in support thank you additional

1:20:29 ↗ comments

1:20:30 ↗ I have councilmember winter Stein

1:20:33 ↗ councilmember Ramos all right thank

1:20:34 ↗ thank you

1:20:36 ↗ good discussion interesting discussion

1:20:39 ↗ I'm struck with how much space is

1:20:43 ↗ actually in the central area and the

1:20:46 ↗ actual footprint for any given building

1:20:48 ↗ that if those national figures do

1:20:53 ↗ continue to hold and then there is is

1:20:57 ↗ demand having that service in proximity

1:21:01 ↗ where people are living I don't see

1:21:04 ↗ anything wrong with that I don't I don't

1:21:06 ↗ I don't also have a problem with the I

1:21:11 ↗ heard of the whole idea of vibrancy and

1:21:14 ↗ walkability you know if we're gonna get

1:21:18 ↗ the people and the jobs and we've

1:21:21 ↗ created the land use zoning we've

1:21:25 ↗ created the development and design

1:21:28 ↗ standards including the architecture and

1:21:30 ↗ urban design we've got quite a pile of

1:21:33 ↗ regulations to help us get what we want

1:21:37 ↗ I'm what if if if the market is saying

1:21:41 ↗ and we also need you know the people who

1:21:44 ↗ live there also need this type of

1:21:47 ↗ service then I would consider it

1:21:50 ↗ overreach on our part to deny the

1:21:55 ↗ delivery of that service you know where

1:21:56 ↗ it's where it's needed so I'm not going

1:21:58 ↗ to support just this bill tonight Thank

1:22:02 ↗ You councilmember Stern if to the City

1:22:05 ↗ Council member Ramos and then deputy

1:22:07 ↗ counts press impetus yes so previously

1:22:12 ↗ discussions out if we're changing zoning

1:22:15 ↗ or coding that there's often

1:22:18 ↗ consequences with that that we are

1:22:20 ↗ liable for if we take something and say

1:22:22 ↗ you can no longer use it for this

1:22:24 ↗ purpose so my question to you is that it

1:22:28 ↗ seems like that discussion hasn't

1:22:30 ↗ happened at all in this case when you

1:22:31 ↗ say okay we're disallowing use of land

1:22:35 ↗ for what you may have desired to do

1:22:38 ↗ we've had no discussion of what those

1:22:39 ↗ consequences could be no that's you

1:22:42 ↗ understand my question just a

1:22:43 ↗ clarification legal or legal and other

1:22:46 ↗ concepts legal I know so basically yeah

1:22:49 ↗ and I have someone someone had been in

1:22:51 ↗ the planning stages of a unit in these

1:22:55 ↗ areas that are now disallowed then what

1:22:57 ↗ would those kind of legal consequences

1:22:58 ↗ be so I'm not gonna address the legal

1:23:01 ↗ consequences but I'll address the land

1:23:03 ↗ use ones so so with what the market

1:23:05 ↗ would tell you is if there's demand in

1:23:08 ↗ our community for storage and we're

1:23:10 ↗ gonna take we're gonna create a doughnut

1:23:12 ↗ hole basically that doesn't allow it

1:23:14 ↗ it's gonna go somewhere else

1:23:17 ↗ so this somewhere else right now without

1:23:22 ↗ doing an in-depth land-use analysis

1:23:24 ↗ would be Issaquah Highlands talus and

1:23:27 ↗ the service area that we're taking out

1:23:30 ↗ of central Issaquah so those would be

1:23:32 ↗ the areas that would potentially be ripe

1:23:35 ↗ for getting attracting a new storage

1:23:38 ↗ facility and for the legal part we'll

1:23:42 ↗ have our attorney answer so with respect

1:23:49 ↗ to any existing business and existing

1:23:53 ↗ facility obviously they are a legal

1:23:55 ↗ non-conforming use so it would be

1:23:57 ↗ continued to be allowed to continue

1:24:01 ↗ for anyone who has filed a building

1:24:03 ↗ permit application for such a facility

1:24:06 ↗ they would be vested and would have the

1:24:08 ↗ right to build such a facility and do

1:24:11 ↗ that use the use would be legally

1:24:14 ↗ non-conforming for anybody who is simply

1:24:16 ↗ planning but has not yet filed a

1:24:18 ↗ building permit application the new

1:24:22 ↗ zoning ordinances would would Trump that

1:24:25 ↗ and they would not be allowed to proceed

1:24:28 ↗ forward you would have to have filed a

1:24:31 ↗ building permit in order to vest your

1:24:32 ↗ rights to a particular use in order to

1:24:35 ↗ be allowed to do it and the city always

1:24:38 ↗ retains the right to change its zoning

1:24:41 ↗ regulations and unless you

1:24:44 ↗ impinged upon a vested right or a or

1:24:51 ↗ prohibited use which you can't do

1:24:54 ↗ because it's legally non-conforming

1:24:55 ↗ there are no real legal consequences in

1:24:59 ↗ terms of damages or anything like that

1:25:01 ↗ that a property owner can bring eh you

1:25:03 ↗ does that help yes I totally understand

1:25:08 ↗ what you said I'm doing there seems like

1:25:09 ↗ other places it seems like that's not

1:25:11 ↗ that clear-cut answer when we've talked

1:25:13 ↗ I think I'm saying it's within your

1:25:14 ↗ purview to do it without legal

1:25:16 ↗ ramifications that makes sense

1:25:20 ↗ it just seems like we've had that

1:25:22 ↗ discussion differently and other topics

1:25:24 ↗ I'm ok I need is it ok if I go to

1:25:29 ↗ council member account deputy on space

1:25:31 ↗ it's just a follow up to follow up

1:25:33 ↗ remember sure I think that we have had

1:25:36 ↗ conversations similar conversations

1:25:39 ↗ there's a difference between zoning and

1:25:41 ↗ land use and and so we may you may that

1:25:45 ↗ that went to the confusion the

1:25:47 ↗ conversations that there would be

1:25:48 ↗ different types of consequences thank

1:25:51 ↗ you attentional consequence deputy

1:25:52 ↗ council president batise thank you madam

1:25:55 ↗ mayor I the the first thing that I

1:25:59 ↗ wanted to talk about was just the fact

1:26:01 ↗ that I'm really glad that this came down

1:26:04 ↗ off the consent calendar I this is a

1:26:10 ↗ turned into a little bit of it's it's

1:26:12 ↗ complicated and there's two pieces to it

1:26:16 ↗ and so it's something that I'm I'm happy

1:26:19 ↗ that we are talking about as a whole

1:26:21 ↗ council so I was glad to see that that

1:26:24 ↗ came down off of consent I this is just

1:26:27 ↗ one of those agenda bills that I really

1:26:30 ↗ can see both both sides I have the same

1:26:34 ↗ concerns that council president Mart's

1:26:37 ↗ has in terms of prescribing where things

1:26:40 ↗ can go within the city but I think when

1:26:43 ↗ I look at the hotel issue bringing that

1:26:48 ↗ back to no restriction makes sense to me

1:26:51 ↗ but when I think about the central

1:26:54 ↗ Issaquah plan

1:26:56 ↗ and the vision for that plan then it

1:27:02 ↗ really does take me down the pathway to

1:27:04 ↗ to be able to support that going in

1:27:07 ↗ still providing places for the storage

1:27:11 ↗ units to go but outside of that core so

1:27:15 ↗ I'll be supporting the amendment thank

1:27:20 ↗ you

1:27:21 ↗ everyone has spoken once would anybody

1:27:24 ↗ like additional discussion time or are

1:27:26 ↗ we ready for the vote yeah single more

1:27:32 ↗ this is this is a tough balance here

1:27:34 ↗ because and I've heard the story of some

1:27:37 ↗ towns up north of Seattle or when one

1:27:39 ↗ town basically said no storage units in

1:27:42 ↗ the next town just got new applications

1:27:43 ↗ for like eight storage units all at once

1:27:45 ↗ because they have to go somewhere they

1:27:49 ↗ are a money-making business and it seems

1:27:51 ↗ like people have a lot of stuff to store

1:27:53 ↗ I'm not sure why but that's way it is

1:27:58 ↗ yeah so it's interesting but I do think

1:28:02 ↗ that there can be better use of some

1:28:05 ↗ land in some places and some other

1:28:06 ↗ things in others so we want to wait to

1:28:09 ↗ the last second here any other comments

1:28:14 ↗ or should we go to the vote okay

1:28:20 ↗ it was moved and seconded to adopt

1:28:22 ↗ ordinance number two 837 amending table

1:28:26 ↗ 4.3 B of the central s square

1:28:28 ↗ development and design standards to

1:28:30 ↗ delete to limit self storage units to

1:28:32 ↗ the mixed use zoning district strike all

1:28:35 ↗ and this is editorial right or no this

1:28:39 ↗ president to strike all references in

1:28:41 ↗ the ordinance other than self storage

1:28:44 ↗ thank you is that clear or do you need

1:28:47 ↗ me to read it again that's good okay

1:28:49 ↗ all those in favor aye Anse thank you

1:28:55 ↗ those opposed no the motion is approved

1:29:00 ↗ five in favor with marts and winter

1:29:04 ↗ Stein opposed

1:29:07 ↗ thank you very much Madame mayor and

1:29:12 ↗ councilmember Goodman so I have a second

1:29:19 ↗ motion that I would like to make and it

1:29:22 ↗ has to do with revisiting the land-use

1:29:24 ↗ tables in central Issaquah development

1:29:28 ↗ and design standards and the reason I'm

1:29:31 ↗ going to make this motion is because

1:29:34 ↗ I've been on the council since the time

1:29:36 ↗ that we were deliberating the central

1:29:38 ↗ Issaquah plan and the council has never

1:29:40 ↗ and I was also in Landon Shore at the

1:29:41 ↗ time council has never discussed that I

1:29:46 ↗ can never recall the land use the land

1:29:48 ↗ use table and I did ask Keith about that

1:29:52 ↗ earlier and he thinks my recollection is

1:29:54 ↗ correct so now that we've had the

1:29:56 ↗ central Issaquah plan in place for

1:29:58 ↗ several years and we have seen

1:30:00 ↗ unintended consequences and went into a

1:30:05 ↗ moratorium so that we could deal with

1:30:07 ↗ some issues and we're about ready to

1:30:09 ↗ hopefully come out of the moratorium I

1:30:11 ↗ think it's probably time for the

1:30:15 ↗ administration to take a look at that

1:30:18 ↗ table for point 3b and evaluate whether

1:30:23 ↗ any additional changes are needed based

1:30:24 ↗ on what we've learned so far so that's

1:30:26 ↗ why I'm gonna make the motion I would

1:30:29 ↗ move to direct the administration to

1:30:30 ↗ reevaluate after the moratorium is

1:30:33 ↗ lifted to reevaluate table 4.3 B of the

1:30:36 ↗ central Issaquah development and design

1:30:37 ↗ standards and make recommendations to

1:30:39 ↗ the City Council at City Council about

1:30:42 ↗ whether changes are needed is there a

1:30:45 ↗ second second thank you so again it's

1:30:55 ↗ just aria okay it's been moved and

1:30:59 ↗ seconded to move to direct the

1:31:00 ↗ administration to reevaluate table 4.3 B

1:31:03 ↗ of the central is squid development

1:31:04 ↗ design standards and make

1:31:05 ↗ recommendations to the City Council

1:31:07 ↗ about whether changes are needed after

1:31:09 ↗ the more after the moratorium is listed

1:31:11 ↗ belongs at the beginning of it is there

1:31:13 ↗ a discussion that's a member Goodman I

1:31:16 ↗ just I just wanted to reiterate that it

1:31:17 ↗ doesn't direct any specific changes to

1:31:20 ↗ be made

1:31:21 ↗ doesn't try to point to anything that

1:31:23 ↗ needed to be changed I just think it's

1:31:25 ↗ time once we have the moratorium lifted

1:31:27 ↗ like I said with everything that we've

1:31:29 ↗ learned just take a you know with a

1:31:33 ↗ focused eye look at that table and see

1:31:34 ↗ if there's anything that we might think

1:31:36 ↗ about changing and then come back to the

1:31:38 ↗ council and let us know and then we can

1:31:41 ↗ have another discussion that's the

1:31:43 ↗ president Mertz so I appreciate the idea

1:31:49 ↗ behind this my concern is that we have

1:31:52 ↗ as a council shown a sensitivity to how

1:31:56 ↗ much the administration has on its plate

1:31:58 ↗ in 2018 and I would like to understand

1:32:04 ↗ before considering supporting this

1:32:06 ↗ motion what the impact of this would be

1:32:10 ↗ in the context of you know we decided to

1:32:13 ↗ not move to the two-year finance this

1:32:16 ↗ year because it was just you know

1:32:18 ↗ there's we wanted to take things off the

1:32:20 ↗ plate that were not essential so that

1:32:22 ↗ would eat the essential work done and I

1:32:24 ↗ would like to have a better confidence

1:32:26 ↗ about whether the administration feels

1:32:29 ↗ like this would be something that would

1:32:30 ↗ be relatively easy to accommodate so we

1:32:34 ↗ can ask staff that question but I can

1:32:36 ↗ also if it's okay council president Mart

1:32:38 ↗ see if anybody else has questions of

1:32:39 ↗ staff and we can bundle them together

1:32:40 ↗ are there any other questions for staff

1:32:42 ↗ about this motion besides the two that

1:32:45 ↗ are on one having to do with time timing

1:32:48 ↗ of this and the other way is the impact

1:32:50 ↗ on the work fun any other questions

1:32:52 ↗ we look at at the table for just a

1:32:54 ↗ minute do you have it Keith ah the table

1:32:57 ↗ yes I can find it

1:33:07 ↗ slowly apparently um each one 96 of the

1:33:14 ↗ packet but they're gonna help you I'm

1:33:15 ↗ working and I mean I just I just pulled

1:33:20 ↗ it up it's a fairly extensive extensive

1:33:23 ↗ table and I worry a little bit about

1:33:28 ↗ they shouldn't say that what's the

1:33:31 ↗ likelihood if you went through it that

1:33:33 ↗ we would create more problems than we

1:33:36 ↗ saw them you know I I worry about the

1:33:37 ↗ unintended consequences of kind of

1:33:39 ↗ moving things around so you know the

1:33:46 ↗ table as as you all can see is is multi

1:33:49 ↗ pages the way that it works is it lists

1:33:52 ↗ particular uses and then says where

1:33:54 ↗ they're permitted within its own you

1:33:58 ↗ know if if we were going through it with

1:34:02 ↗ a specific lens like we like for example

1:34:04 ↗ we talked about storage being a non

1:34:08 ↗ vibrant use if we I think if we had

1:34:11 ↗ criteria to go through it with you know

1:34:15 ↗ I'd want to have edges to the box right

1:34:17 ↗ and then that would go to PPC we'd have

1:34:20 ↗ conversation there'd be a public process

1:34:21 ↗ associated with that and then we come

1:34:23 ↗ back with any proposed code amendments

1:34:25 ↗ you know it it's it could be manageable

1:34:32 ↗ I don't know the answer to that I don't

1:34:33 ↗ I don't know because we haven't gotten

1:34:34 ↗ into it yet what that would look like

1:34:36 ↗ but you know my guess is most of these

1:34:40 ↗ uses are going to not fall off the plate

1:34:45 ↗ but I don't know how many might work

1:34:48 ↗ their way into that you know these are

1:34:51 ↗ the ones that are of for a conversation

1:34:53 ↗ I mean the first step would be to shrink

1:34:56 ↗ down all these uses into the ones that

1:34:58 ↗ we think meet whatever criteria it is we

1:35:00 ↗ think we're wanting to judge them

1:35:02 ↗ against the Keith could you also go to

1:35:05 ↗ council president Mart's questions about

1:35:07 ↗ timing and where

1:35:09 ↗ even without having edges on the box

1:35:11 ↗ adding to the work plan for this year my

1:35:16 ↗ boss is glaring at me so you know I have

1:35:30 ↗ a hard time saying no so I'm gonna defer

1:35:32 ↗ to my boss who might have a better

1:35:34 ↗ comprehension of my work plan I

1:35:43 ↗ certainly would love a little bit of

1:35:45 ↗ time to contemplate this outside of this

1:35:48 ↗ meeting before we are able to respond in

1:35:51 ↗ a thoughtful way I I have similar

1:35:54 ↗ concerns about what criteria is being

1:35:57 ↗ applied and we haven't had a

1:35:59 ↗ conversation around that so it's very

1:36:00 ↗ hard to decide what the scope of work

1:36:02 ↗ will look like and how much time and

1:36:04 ↗ effort that will entail I I think also I

1:36:08 ↗ can foresee a need for a lot of data

1:36:11 ↗ collection in order to back up any

1:36:13 ↗ recommendations that we might make so I

1:36:17 ↗ would love to defer comedy on what it's

1:36:20 ↗ going to take until we have a bit more

1:36:23 ↗ conversation about what is desired then

1:36:27 ↗ I know how to apply the right staffing

1:36:30 ↗ resources to get you what you want they

1:36:33 ↗ ask a question both of staff and of

1:36:36 ↗ councilmember Goodman so you did not

1:36:39 ↗ include an actual deadline on here

1:36:42 ↗ you just said after the moratorium and

1:36:44 ↗ would it be possible for the council to

1:36:46 ↗ vote on this motion today without a

1:36:48 ↗ specific timeline but then to have it

1:36:51 ↗ referred to a work session this year

1:36:52 ↗ where just the discussion on scoping

1:36:55 ↗ could happen is that a possibility of

1:36:57 ↗ what could come out of this evening or

1:37:01 ↗ councillor Goodman it's just a

1:37:03 ↗ procedural question is it possible to

1:37:09 ↗ I'm looking at Jim is it possible to

1:37:12 ↗ table motions like to the next meeting

1:37:15 ↗ and so there could be maybe a response

1:37:17 ↗ before so for example I'm thinking of

1:37:21 ↗ what I think about this I

1:37:22 ↗ think of the areas in central Issaquah

1:37:24 ↗ where we have talked about vibrancy when

1:37:28 ↗ we've talked about Wall Street we've got

1:37:30 ↗ a new you know the mix vertical makes

1:37:32 ↗ you say hey we've got all along Gilman

1:37:34 ↗ we're talking about visioning you know

1:37:36 ↗ Gilman and you know just for example

1:37:39 ↗ looking through that lens to see if you

1:37:41 ↗ think about Gilman you could go down the

1:37:43 ↗ list pretty easily and go there there

1:37:45 ↗ either is and there isn't something that

1:37:47 ↗ you think Wow with that shouldn't be on

1:37:49 ↗ Gilman and so I was thinking of that

1:37:57 ↗ kind of a pass-through and so and I

1:38:01 ↗ realized that administration and Keith

1:38:03 ↗ hasn't had an opportunity to think about

1:38:04 ↗ how you might do this in a manageable

1:38:07 ↗ way and I appreciate the fact that you

1:38:09 ↗ haven't so so the reason I'm asking is

1:38:13 ↗ whether there's an opportunity whether

1:38:15 ↗ you can table a motion then come back to

1:38:17 ↗ the next meeting or something I think

1:38:19 ↗ tabling usually is to just place

1:38:21 ↗ something on the table and it takes a

1:38:23 ↗ motion to bring it back off the table if

1:38:25 ↗ you the appropriate subsidiary motion

1:38:27 ↗ here would be a motion to postpone the

1:38:30 ↗ motion until the next meeting but that

1:38:31 ↗ that is proper that's a proper

1:38:33 ↗ subsidiary motion is it a move in a

1:38:36 ↗ second to postpone does it have to be

1:38:39 ↗ the originator or can it be something it

1:38:41 ↗ can be anyone you did this bone I would

1:38:44 ↗ move to postpone to the next meeting is

1:38:46 ↗ there a second second okay but it's been

1:38:51 ↗ moved and seconded to postpone the

1:38:53 ↗ motion for consideration at the next

1:38:56 ↗ council meeting on favor any discussion

1:38:59 ↗ councilmember Winston yeah just one

1:39:01 ↗ point it's an interesting topic and we

1:39:06 ↗ it is probably time that we all became a

1:39:09 ↗ little bit more familiar especially

1:39:10 ↗ those of us on land in Shore we also

1:39:13 ↗ have our and the perhaps on the verge of

1:39:17 ↗ coming out of the moratorium and we've

1:39:20 ↗ added quite a bit I mean to

1:39:23 ↗ the regulations on what can happen and

1:39:25 ↗ what must happen and what cannot happen

1:39:27 ↗ and how it can happen and how it should

1:39:29 ↗ look and what color it should be and

1:39:31 ↗ whether it should have lighting and

1:39:32 ↗ covering and all these type of things

1:39:33 ↗ we've done actually quite a bit and and

1:39:36 ↗ I think the idea of allowing the

1:39:42 ↗ ramifications of all of these new

1:39:46 ↗ regulations to take hold and see give

1:39:51 ↗ that some time it would be appropriate

1:39:55 ↗ and whether or not further changes to

1:39:59 ↗ allowed land uses within specific land

1:40:01 ↗ uses within specific zones

1:40:03 ↗ I think is a good discussion but for

1:40:07 ↗ another day I know this is about

1:40:10 ↗ tabeling it but I just think that when

1:40:12 ↗ it comes to all the rest of our work

1:40:14 ↗ work plan and all the other things we

1:40:16 ↗ have to do and the fact that we're just

1:40:17 ↗ coming out of a moratorium I don't see

1:40:20 ↗ the urgency or the on this though I do

1:40:23 ↗ think it's a good exercise any other

1:40:25 ↗ discussion aye councilmember Goodman so

1:40:29 ↗ I just want to respond to councilmember

1:40:32 ↗ winter Stein's comment about urgency and

1:40:34 ↗ I I appreciate that and I know we've got

1:40:36 ↗ a lot of changes coming out of the

1:40:38 ↗ moratorium and I just want to go back to

1:40:40 ↗ when we had when we adopted the central

1:40:43 ↗ Issaquah plan and again there was the

1:40:46 ↗ discussion about whether we should

1:40:47 ↗ require vertical makes deuce and that

1:40:50 ↗ didn't get any traction and I talked

1:40:52 ↗ about it for a long time and the very

1:40:55 ↗ first the very first application we got

1:40:58 ↗ within a week or two of passing the

1:41:01 ↗ central Issaquah plan was the apartments

1:41:03 ↗ and the city said what we we love

1:41:05 ↗ vertical mixed-use and they said well

1:41:08 ↗ then you should have required it so I

1:41:10 ↗ guess the my message is that we need to

1:41:15 ↗ be deliberate and we need to be careful

1:41:17 ↗ about what we allow and don't allow and

1:41:21 ↗ that's the reason for looking at the

1:41:25 ↗ table with everything that we've learned

1:41:27 ↗ to see if there is something that

1:41:28 ↗ presents itself as a potential

1:41:30 ↗ unintended consequence and

1:41:35 ↗ the reason that I consider it to be

1:41:38 ↗ fairly urgent is because those

1:41:40 ↗ unintended consequences can happen

1:41:43 ↗ anytime within a week after the more

1:41:45 ↗ terms lifted so I actually do consider

1:41:47 ↗ it a fairly urgent task that should be

1:41:50 ↗ done fairly soon not next week but not

1:41:53 ↗ in two years and not waiting for many

1:41:55 ↗ many many more projects or an unintended

1:41:56 ↗ consequence to happen I just think we

1:41:58 ↗ have to be very careful to be very

1:42:00 ↗ deliberate we have to make good on the

1:42:02 ↗ promise that we made to our community to

1:42:04 ↗ develop thoughtfully and I actually do

1:42:10 ↗ think it's fairly urgent um but I'm will

1:42:13 ↗ be supporting obviously the postponing

1:42:15 ↗ it and will be anxious to hear the

1:42:18 ↗ response and what we might be able to do

1:42:20 ↗ and hopefully that will get sparked

1:42:22 ↗ Thanks that's the president Mertz

1:42:24 ↗ so I guess the thing I want to say about

1:42:29 ↗ this is that we have a lot of things

1:42:34 ↗ that are coming into effect as we exit

1:42:36 ↗ the moratorium and I personally as one

1:42:40 ↗ of seven and getting a diminished

1:42:43 ↗ appetite for ongoing regulatory activity

1:42:48 ↗ I think that whatever fixes we wanted to

1:42:54 ↗ have critical things we identified in

1:42:58 ↗ the moratorium and eight up and seven

1:43:00 ↗ down and the eighth we're about to hit

1:43:02 ↗ and so I understand that we should make

1:43:07 ↗ sure that this table reflects the work

1:43:11 ↗ that we've done over the last couple

1:43:12 ↗ years and I think that's a good activity

1:43:14 ↗ but I also think that I personally want

1:43:18 ↗ to start see as seeing us slowing down

1:43:20 ↗ on what we tell land unders they can and

1:43:22 ↗ can't do with their property because I

1:43:24 ↗ think there's been a lot of that of the

1:43:25 ↗ over the course of this moratorium excu

1:43:28 ↗ any other comments before we take a vote

1:43:30 ↗ all those in favor of postponing

1:43:33 ↗ consideration of this motion to the June

1:43:35 ↗ 4th council meeting say aye as opposed

1:43:38 ↗ motion carries unanimously

1:43:40 ↗ next item on our

1:43:43 ↗ agenda this evening is a b7 three four

1:43:46 ↗ four we've allotted five minutes for the

1:43:49 ↗ discussion this is a moratorium work

1:43:53 ↗ item and I am kidding we have not put a

1:43:55 ↗ time limit on it this is the last of the

1:43:58 ↗ moratorium work items this agenda bill

1:44:00 ↗ was previously before council in

1:44:01 ↗ December when it was remanded to the

1:44:03 ↗ Planning Policy commission for

1:44:05 ↗ additional work as recommended by the

1:44:07 ↗ council Landon Shore committee the

1:44:09 ↗ Planning Policy commission forwarded a

1:44:10 ↗ revised district vision proposal to

1:44:12 ↗ Council in March the land insure

1:44:13 ↗ committee has been reviewing the revised

1:44:15 ↗ proposal at their April and May

1:44:17 ↗ committee meetings I'd like to invite

1:44:18 ↗ Keith Niven to stay at the podium

1:44:21 ↗ economic and development services

1:44:22 ↗ director to make a presentation thank

1:44:25 ↗ you madam mayor and city council tonight

1:44:29 ↗ we're going to talk about the sixth and

1:44:31 ↗ final moratorium work item agenda bill

1:44:34 ↗ 73 44 central Issaquah visions I'm going

1:44:38 ↗ to take you back to the genesis of the

1:44:43 ↗ moratorium which was a presentation that

1:44:46 ↗ staff made before the City Council at a

1:44:48 ↗ work session and we provided some

1:44:51 ↗ information to the council and and what

1:44:55 ↗ you see here is some of those pieces of

1:44:57 ↗ information that were provided as you

1:45:00 ↗ can see at the time we had 936

1:45:03 ↗ residential units in the pipeline that

1:45:06 ↗ was Atlas and Gateway and Vale and Ennis

1:45:09 ↗ wood those projects that we all kind of

1:45:11 ↗ know today and zero of those 936 units

1:45:16 ↗ were going to be affordable and the

1:45:18 ↗ council kind of said how can that be our

1:45:21 ↗ comprehensive plan says we're supposed

1:45:23 ↗ to be getting affordable housing and so

1:45:25 ↗ we talked about inclusionary housing we

1:45:27 ↗ talked about what was in the central

1:45:28 ↗ Issaquah plan at that time we also kind

1:45:33 ↗ of went through the visions and we

1:45:35 ↗ talked about we use Western gateway as

1:45:37 ↗ an example since it had had a lot of

1:45:40 ↗ permitting happening and we looked at

1:45:43 ↗ whether or not we were getting what the

1:45:46 ↗ visions described and and the answer was

1:45:48 ↗ kind of not really and you know we did

1:45:52 ↗ this was called the chiclet chart

1:45:55 ↗ and you know with what this was was

1:45:59 ↗ basically going through the different

1:46:03 ↗ topics and talking about the projects

1:46:05 ↗ that were in and you can see the green

1:46:08 ↗ indicated we were getting what we wanted

1:46:10 ↗ and the red was showing that we weren't

1:46:13 ↗ and as you can see by the X's over here

1:46:17 ↗ on the side there were a number of

1:46:19 ↗ things that were included in the

1:46:20 ↗ moratorium that specifically related to

1:46:23 ↗ this chart and the things that we were

1:46:26 ↗ not getting that we were expecting to

1:46:27 ↗ get and right now tonight we're going to

1:46:29 ↗ talk about visions which is the green

1:46:32 ↗ star over on the left so visions so

1:46:37 ↗ vision for a sub-area plan presents a

1:46:39 ↗ shared image of what the community wants

1:46:41 ↗ the area to become over the next 20

1:46:43 ↗ years and the questions were this is

1:46:47 ↗ kind of what we were trying to do was

1:46:49 ↗ rewrite the visions for each district to

1:46:51 ↗ be clear and predictable we wanted to

1:46:54 ↗ rewrite the visions to make them more

1:46:55 ↗ than just aspirational suggestions some

1:46:58 ↗ of the comments that came out of those

1:47:00 ↗ moratorium conversations with the

1:47:01 ↗ council was were wanting things to

1:47:05 ↗ happen we're encouraging things but

1:47:07 ↗ we're not making things happen and that

1:47:09 ↗ wiggle room we're losing what we want

1:47:11 ↗ and the third item was ensure the

1:47:13 ↗ visions can be used with the codes and

1:47:16 ↗ the policies of this sub-area plan to

1:47:19 ↗ give us a more predictable future so

1:47:21 ↗ that was kind of that was our guideposts

1:47:23 ↗ and here are the changes so basically

1:47:28 ↗ what we did is we took some some land

1:47:31 ↗ out of central Issaquah when we looked

1:47:34 ↗ at old route 10 which is bombs and xxx

1:47:39 ↗ and when we looked at the service

1:47:41 ↗ neighborhood which was the area over by

1:47:43 ↗ the Public Works Operations shop those

1:47:46 ↗ really didn't feel like central Issaquah

1:47:47 ↗ and so as we talked this through we said

1:47:50 ↗ you know what let's just take those

1:47:51 ↗ areas out and so we also condense the 10

1:47:55 ↗ districts into five neighborhoods and

1:47:58 ↗ and we looked at a map earlier tonight

1:48:00 ↗ of what those five neighborhoods look

1:48:02 ↗ like the existing central Issaquah plan

1:48:05 ↗ has a definition for the green necklace

1:48:07 ↗ it also has some policies for the

1:48:10 ↗ green necklace but what we heard is

1:48:12 ↗ there really wasn't a good visual of

1:48:14 ↗ what the green necklace was and one of

1:48:16 ↗ the things through the drafting of the

1:48:19 ↗ park strategic plan was they spent some

1:48:23 ↗ time actually crafting a subset of that

1:48:26 ↗ plan which they called the green

1:48:27 ↗ necklace and so one of the things that

1:48:29 ↗ we did is is brought in an image to help

1:48:32 ↗ us with that the old the old visions the

1:48:36 ↗ old description of the neighborhood or

1:48:39 ↗ the districts basically had a vision

1:48:41 ↗ statement listed out primary uses key

1:48:44 ↗ environmental factors and mobility and

1:48:47 ↗ connectivity what's being proposed in

1:48:51 ↗ the current version is what we call

1:48:54 ↗ developer obligations city implementing

1:48:57 ↗ actions and then what would be measures

1:48:59 ↗ of success so structurally it's

1:49:03 ↗ completely redo so we saw it you know I

1:49:09 ↗ think this is my opinion hopefully

1:49:12 ↗ Landon Shore would resonate this we

1:49:15 ↗ sought a reasonable approach one of the

1:49:17 ↗ things that was asked of staff during

1:49:21 ↗ the land and shore review was take a

1:49:22 ↗ look at Atlas you know take a look at a

1:49:25 ↗ project that existed and apply the

1:49:28 ↗ proposed developer obligations to that

1:49:31 ↗ to to really see you know what would

1:49:35 ↗ this mean how much change would actually

1:49:37 ↗ be would be warranted and and would that

1:49:40 ↗ be reasonable you know we spent most of

1:49:43 ↗ our time really working on the developer

1:49:45 ↗ obligations because as their name

1:49:46 ↗ implies they would be obligations they

1:49:50 ↗ would be required and there's two code

1:49:52 ↗ amendments that go along with the

1:49:54 ↗ visions that actually make them a

1:49:57 ↗ required part as applicable item number

1:50:01 ↗ two clear and required item number three

1:50:03 ↗ you know what we could have spent

1:50:07 ↗ another five years talking about visions

1:50:09 ↗ and we probably would continue to polish

1:50:12 ↗ this so there might be some things we

1:50:15 ↗ might have missed and I'll be the first

1:50:16 ↗ one to admit that but we went through an

1:50:19 ↗ awful lot of planning policy Commission

1:50:21 ↗ meetings we went through an awful lot of

1:50:22 ↗ land inshore meetings and awful

1:50:24 ↗ a lot of commissioners council committee

1:50:28 ↗ members public and we tried to get as

1:50:33 ↗ many central Issaquah Task Force members

1:50:36 ↗ back together as possible to try and

1:50:39 ↗ give and DC we invited DC thanks mal to

1:50:44 ↗ to kind of give us their input so that

1:50:46 ↗ we could get as good a product as we

1:50:48 ↗ could but you know even having said all

1:50:51 ↗ of that there's there's at least four

1:50:54 ↗ things that I wanted identified to the

1:50:56 ↗ council as a whole that we either didn't

1:50:59 ↗ have consensus on or that we felt like

1:51:01 ↗ we needed some more work to unpack the

1:51:03 ↗ first one is job loss one of the

1:51:05 ↗ proposals that came out of PPC was that

1:51:08 ↗ for three of the neighborhood's East

1:51:10 ↗ Lake Gilman and Pickering that there

1:51:14 ↗ really should be no job loss no no

1:51:16 ↗ removing retail or office space to just

1:51:19 ↗ put solely residential back in its place

1:51:23 ↗ and even though that didn't come out of

1:51:26 ↗ committee with a majority recommendation

1:51:28 ↗ it came out with a split recommendation

1:51:30 ↗ and some of the concerns are about the

1:51:33 ↗ loss of jobs you know we this is our

1:51:35 ↗ core of our city this is where and we

1:51:39 ↗ seem to be very prone to getting more

1:51:41 ↗ residential units and so the concern

1:51:44 ↗ that kind of was woven through all of

1:51:47 ↗ the conversations was should there be

1:51:49 ↗ something in the developer obligations

1:51:52 ↗ about employees or square footage and so

1:51:55 ↗ so that one I'm just kind of putting it

1:51:58 ↗ on the shelf for now historic

1:51:59 ↗ preservation we talked about this one

1:52:02 ↗ came about because a Gilman village

1:52:04 ↗ specifically and you know Gilman village

1:52:07 ↗ is is a very iconic part of our city and

1:52:12 ↗ there's nothing that would preserve that

1:52:15 ↗ today and we had drafted actually some

1:52:17 ↗ language about preserving Gilman village

1:52:20 ↗ and I think rightly so the committee

1:52:22 ↗ thought you know what that seems very

1:52:24 ↗ selective you know if we're gonna have a

1:52:26 ↗ bigger conversation about Gilman village

1:52:28 ↗ and other historic properties in our

1:52:31 ↗ city then let's do that and maybe this

1:52:34 ↗ isn't the tool to try and somehow put a

1:52:37 ↗ lock and key

1:52:37 ↗ on Gillman village wayfinding signs

1:52:41 ↗ there was a lot of talk about how

1:52:45 ↗ wayfinding signs are really something

1:52:47 ↗ that helped neighborhoods kind of click

1:52:49 ↗ and we have so many trails wandering

1:52:51 ↗ through our city that we really need to

1:52:53 ↗ kind of progress that that evolution or

1:52:57 ↗ that on that development of a wayfinding

1:52:59 ↗ plan for the city it's something that we

1:53:02 ↗ don't have yet but there's a number of

1:53:05 ↗ things that point to you know

1:53:06 ↗ participation in wayfinding signs and

1:53:10 ↗ then the last one and this one was one

1:53:13 ↗ that you know at the end of the day I'm

1:53:15 ↗ not sure we got completely solved and

1:53:18 ↗ it's it's it's how do you how do you so

1:53:22 ↗ we require private projects to provide

1:53:25 ↗ gathering spaces and whether those

1:53:28 ↗ gathering spaces feel open to the public

1:53:31 ↗ or feel like you're trespassing if you

1:53:33 ↗ happen to walk through them I'm not sure

1:53:37 ↗ we solved that puzzle but that was

1:53:40 ↗ something that we talked about quite a

1:53:41 ↗ bit and you know that I think what I

1:53:44 ↗ heard was there was a request at least

1:53:46 ↗ coming out of the committee that we

1:53:48 ↗ should spend some more time thinking

1:53:49 ↗ about those the public access to

1:53:53 ↗ privately provided gathering spaces so

1:53:55 ↗ so that's a short presentation tonight

1:53:58 ↗ but I am here to answer questions that

1:54:02 ↗ you might have not sure there's any

1:54:04 ↗ questions okay we have questions

1:54:06 ↗ councilmember Winters thank thank you

1:54:08 ↗ madam mayor

1:54:09 ↗ you've number four up there job loss I

1:54:11 ↗ didn't it's not it's not part of what's

1:54:14 ↗ proposed in front of us this evening it

1:54:15 ↗ is not part of what's proposed it was a

1:54:17 ↗ minority recommendation coming out of

1:54:19 ↗ committee okay so it's not currently

1:54:21 ↗ there and I didn't see it in there so I

1:54:23 ↗ it got struck out of the last draft okay

1:54:26 ↗ and then historic preservation actually

1:54:29 ↗ I thought the you just said lock and key

1:54:33 ↗ but I remember that as just some type of

1:54:36 ↗ signage acknowledging what had been here

1:54:39 ↗ previously it wasn't to deny so we kind

1:54:44 ↗ of we kind of moved back and forth

1:54:47 ↗ between

1:54:50 ↗ something that would require them to

1:54:52 ↗ have a conversation with the city to

1:54:55 ↗ just getting a plaque to requiring some

1:54:58 ↗ reuse of some of the buildings so that's

1:55:01 ↗ not in their way fine but you do have a

1:55:03 ↗ lot of wayfinding we do and and I'll add

1:55:06 ↗ to is it was actually came out of the

1:55:09 ↗ Roger Brook study from 2014 and LTAC has

1:55:13 ↗ has recommended that along with the

1:55:17 ↗ branding actually i'll Takas has some

1:55:19 ↗ reserves to help move that forward as a

1:55:23 ↗ citywide effort and I'll speak a little

1:55:27 ↗ bit more to that but just for

1:55:28 ↗ everybody's benefit when we I think

1:55:30 ↗ we're gonna talk more about these

1:55:32 ↗ developer obligations that's in there

1:55:34 ↗ and I think you have a caveat in there

1:55:35 ↗ as well once the city has a plan yes and

1:55:39 ↗ I think that's very critical thing to

1:55:44 ↗ understand is that there needs to be

1:55:46 ↗ there needs to be a design and a plan

1:55:48 ↗ before you start building that out

1:55:49 ↗ movies that has been the LTAC and the

1:55:52 ↗ Roger Brooks recommendation for a while

1:55:53 ↗ thank you yes questions fence member a

1:55:57 ↗ but can we talk about historical

1:55:59 ↗ preservation and and I'm you certainly

1:56:01 ↗ piqued my interest with Gilman village I

1:56:03 ↗ mean I I can't imagine that we would be

1:56:08 ↗ okay with Gilman village being raised to

1:56:10 ↗ put up a an apartment building but based

1:56:13 ↗ on what I thought I heard you say that's

1:56:15 ↗ that's a possible outcome you tell me

1:56:18 ↗ about kind of what we're thinking with

1:56:20 ↗ historical preservation and what that

1:56:21 ↗ would look like and how that would be

1:56:24 ↗ good for Gilman village if it would

1:56:26 ↗ cancel memories so it's not in the

1:56:29 ↗ package tonight so I think what Keith

1:56:33 ↗ was putting up there was a list of

1:56:35 ↗ issues that are still would be addressed

1:56:37 ↗ that are open so I don't believe you

1:56:39 ↗ have a recommendation this evening on

1:56:40 ↗ anything to do with historical

1:56:42 ↗ preservation I don't I think I think

1:56:44 ↗ what we were suggesting is there needs

1:56:45 ↗ to be a work item if the council the

1:56:48 ↗ council has concern about that then we

1:56:52 ↗ need to put together a work plan item to

1:56:56 ↗ address to at least actively address it

1:56:59 ↗ because right now we're not so it's not

1:57:01 ↗ addressed in the

1:57:04 ↗ replacement rare the regulations that

1:57:06 ↗ we're looking at not not the version

1:57:09 ↗ that's up for motion this evening it was

1:57:12 ↗ there was an item in the confluence

1:57:17 ↗ neighborhood for Gillman village we

1:57:18 ↗ struck it out because of concern that it

1:57:23 ↗ seemed like we were cherry-picking on

1:57:25 ↗ one project so so so let me let me ask

1:57:33 ↗ this really directly sure so if we adopt

1:57:35 ↗ the ordinance that in front of us are

1:57:38 ↗ the ordinances in front of us and I can

1:57:42 ↗ go in tomorrow and mow down Gillman

1:57:45 ↗ village and put up back flats yes as

1:57:51 ↗ currently drafted

1:57:52 ↗ what's a prisoner Mart's so I'm gonna

1:57:54 ↗ speak to this because I was one of the

1:57:55 ↗ people that discussed it in committee

1:57:56 ↗ here's where my concern was at I think

1:57:59 ↗ the city should have if if we think that

1:58:02 ↗ Gillman village rises to the level of

1:58:05 ↗ something that we want to take special

1:58:08 ↗ consideration at before we let stack

1:58:09 ↗ flats go up I think that there's a

1:58:11 ↗ number of properties in the city we

1:58:13 ↗ should do that for I think that in

1:58:15 ↗ retrospect I'm not sure that we took

1:58:18 ↗ proper historical context to count into

1:58:21 ↗ account when we disposed of properties

1:58:24 ↗ for instance with confluence park and I

1:58:26 ↗ think that the city has a number of

1:58:28 ↗ properties that deserve potential

1:58:30 ↗ consideration around you know special

1:58:33 ↗ activities towards trying to you know

1:58:36 ↗ what we want to do with it and we as a

1:58:38 ↗ council did move forward a year year and

1:58:41 ↗ a half ago when we said that I believe

1:58:44 ↗ that when we are gonna dispense with

1:58:45 ↗ properties of ours that we would make

1:58:49 ↗ sure that they had been evaluated for

1:58:50 ↗ historical significance we added that as

1:58:52 ↗ a council and so I would like to see a

1:58:55 ↗ comprehensive historical property

1:58:59 ↗ consideration in this city and so what I

1:59:01 ↗ objected to was just picking

1:59:03 ↗ cherry-picking Gilman village in

1:59:05 ↗ particular and saying that's worthy of

1:59:08 ↗ consideration and that we don't have

1:59:09 ↗ other properties in the same set of

1:59:11 ↗ lands that are also worth consideration

1:59:15 ↗ additional questions I do deputy counts

1:59:18 ↗ president Batista followed by

1:59:19 ↗ councilmember Goodman I guess I guess I

1:59:22 ↗ just had a follow-up question about when

1:59:25 ↗ we're talking about the historic

1:59:27 ↗ preservation and Gilman village if we if

1:59:35 ↗ we would need to look at it as both

1:59:40 ↗ sides of the coin in terms of could we

1:59:44 ↗ have something that talked about Gilman

1:59:48 ↗ village within the vision and still go

1:59:51 ↗ forward and do an overview of historic

1:59:54 ↗ preservation throughout the city in the

1:59:57 ↗ future and was that it was that part of

2:00:03 ↗ the I'm was that part of the

2:00:05 ↗ conversation I'm checking checking what

2:00:15 ↗ we wrote so so right now so the way that

2:00:20 ↗ the so we stripped it out of a developer

2:00:24 ↗ obligation but right now the way that

2:00:27 ↗ the kind of the introduction to

2:00:30 ↗ confluence neighborhood there is a

2:00:33 ↗ section called there's we created a

2:00:35 ↗ objectives and one is distinctive which

2:00:39 ↗ is in each neighborhood and for for

2:00:41 ↗ confluence bullet number two and this is

2:00:44 ↗ on page 419 of 42 Gilman village remains

2:00:48 ↗ a local and regional destination so we

2:00:51 ↗ have that as an aspirational goal for

2:00:54 ↗ confluence we just took out the

2:00:56 ↗ developer obligation that they can't

2:00:58 ↗ redevelop their property so right now we

2:01:01 ↗ have it listed as an aspirational goal

2:01:03 ↗ for the neighborhood but there's no

2:01:07 ↗ teeth in in the actual developer

2:01:12 ↗ obligations now because of the

2:01:14 ↗ conversation that council president

2:01:16 ↗ Mart's alluded to earlier so did that

2:01:20 ↗ help I think I think so I'm still a

2:01:23 ↗ little stuck on whether there would be

2:01:26 ↗ the opportunity to

2:01:28 ↗ keep the teeth and the developer

2:01:31 ↗ obligation in regard to Gillman village

2:01:33 ↗ and still go forward with a future

2:01:36 ↗ overview of historic preservation

2:01:38 ↗ throughout the rest of the city so to

2:01:41 ↗ kind of break I mean I guess I'm asking

2:01:45 ↗ if there was discussion around breaking

2:01:46 ↗ that apart that way it sounds like it

2:01:48 ↗ was on the table and then it came back

2:01:50 ↗ off the table and I'm just trying to

2:01:52 ↗ understand it was on the table and came

2:01:55 ↗ back off the table thank you I've noted

2:01:57 ↗ that down is maybe something we could

2:01:59 ↗ get all the council members to comment

2:02:01 ↗ on at some point councilmember Goodman

2:02:03 ↗ thank you I so I think we should go back

2:02:06 ↗ to what was originally proposed in a

2:02:09 ↗ developer obligation was something about

2:02:14 ↗ requiring there be some sort of historic

2:02:18 ↗ link maintained regarding Gillman

2:02:20 ↗ village which is very ambiguous and

2:02:24 ↗ nobody on the committee understood what

2:02:26 ↗ that meant and so Keith agreed to rework

2:02:32 ↗ that and back at the last commit and

2:02:34 ↗ that's last week and it was wrecked me

2:02:37 ↗ if I'm wrong but it was something in

2:02:39 ↗ there a change to requiring the property

2:02:41 ↗ owner to have a conversation with the

2:02:42 ↗ city before there was any redevelopment

2:02:45 ↗ which of course has no teeth the

2:02:47 ↗ conversation is we don't want you to put

2:02:49 ↗ stacked flats in and the property owner

2:02:51 ↗ says well that's too bad and so that's

2:02:55 ↗ when we turn to historic preservation or

2:02:56 ↗ a larger conversation the other thing

2:02:59 ↗ that came out that I think is really

2:03:00 ↗ important is there's been no

2:03:02 ↗ conversation with the owner of Gillman

2:03:04 ↗ village about what's in the developer

2:03:06 ↗ what was in the developer obligations

2:03:07 ↗ and so my opinion when that was picking

2:03:11 ↗ out one property and without any kind of

2:03:15 ↗ a conversation with that property owner

2:03:16 ↗ about the historic significance and

2:03:19 ↗ trying to create some sort of

2:03:21 ↗ obligations without even a conversation

2:03:23 ↗ I thought was inappropriate so there's

2:03:26 ↗ also there's also one of the city

2:03:29 ↗ implementing actions within confluence

2:03:33 ↗ it's bullet number two is work with the

2:03:37 ↗ property owner to preserve the character

2:03:38 ↗ of Gillman village so we have

2:03:40 ↗ we have something that we cast ourselves

2:03:43 ↗ with in terms of this neighborhood and

2:03:46 ↗ the success for this neighborhood so and

2:03:49 ↗ then as a measure of success we list it

2:03:52 ↗ as preserved is one of the measures of

2:03:55 ↗ success for this neighborhood so so the

2:03:57 ↗ thing that's missing is is how to how to

2:04:00 ↗ get there I think we're clear on what we

2:04:02 ↗ want to achieve but we kind of took out

2:04:05 ↗ any obligation of the developer at this

2:04:08 ↗ time I think for the reasons that you

2:04:11 ↗ heard you know we really have not spent

2:04:14 ↗ that much or any time talking to the

2:04:16 ↗ property owner about whether this is

2:04:18 ↗ going to be a big lift or something

2:04:20 ↗ that'll be reasonable to get to sorry

2:04:24 ↗ I'm scrolling through like 8,000 pages

2:04:26 ↗ but it's all listed so this is it's

2:04:29 ↗ under the distinctive column on for the

2:04:33 ↗ confluence neighborhood okay any more

2:04:38 ↗ questions

2:04:46 ↗ did you have a question Paul I do but

2:04:50 ↗ this is a big topic and when and I do

2:04:54 ↗ have a question about Keith's

2:04:56 ↗ presentation if I can just do that Keith

2:04:59 ↗ could you go back to your changes slide

2:05:00 ↗ yes whose titled changes it was two or

2:05:05 ↗ three from the end maybe just yeah one

2:05:08 ↗ right there I thought so that's this the

2:05:10 ↗ first time I've seen that I don't know

2:05:11 ↗ if he showed it at committee I hadn't

2:05:13 ↗ seen that before but I found that kind

2:05:16 ↗ of interesting because I think you sure

2:05:17 ↗ it changed the proposed a little bit

2:05:21 ↗ because the in under existing the last

2:05:25 ↗ line the last row in your table you say

2:05:28 ↗ it has visions and primary uses and key

2:05:30 ↗ environmental factors and mobility and

2:05:32 ↗ connectivity then you just and then you

2:05:34 ↗ say in the new one you're proposing

2:05:35 ↗ developer obligations and all the rest

2:05:38 ↗ you can read that but in fact there's a

2:05:40 ↗ lot more in there right in the in the

2:05:42 ↗ existing vision for each of the five

2:05:44 ↗ neighborhoods we have a statement about

2:05:48 ↗ what's there today what we see it as the

2:05:52 ↗ future and then categorically we have a

2:05:54 ↗ bulleted lists about livability

2:05:56 ↗ distinctiveness connected and

2:05:58 ↗ sustainable and those are pretty

2:06:00 ↗ significant and they're beyond what are

2:06:03 ↗ in the original visions so it's not just

2:06:07 ↗ what it's not just these developer

2:06:10 ↗ obligations

2:06:11 ↗ thank you yes so so these consider this

2:06:15 ↗ the set up so each neighborhood has kind

2:06:19 ↗ of a description of what it looks like

2:06:21 ↗ today what it is today

2:06:23 ↗ the future where we want it to go and

2:06:25 ↗ then as councilmember winter Stein

2:06:28 ↗ mentioned you know each of the four

2:06:30 ↗ goals are kind of bulleted underneath it

2:06:33 ↗ as far as aspirational end points and

2:06:35 ↗ then we get into how do you then how do

2:06:37 ↗ you get there

2:06:38 ↗ the developer obligations the city

2:06:40 ↗ implementing actions and then what would

2:06:42 ↗ be measures for success so so really you

2:06:45 ↗ know all of this is this so one of the

2:06:48 ↗ things the reasons why this moratorium

2:06:50 ↗ work item took a year and a half is

2:06:53 ↗ because we blew up what was in the plan

2:06:56 ↗ and basically kind of started over again

2:06:58 ↗ and and I think the amount of detail

2:07:01 ↗ that's here is a lot more specific to

2:07:06 ↗ each area whereas I think the prior

2:07:09 ↗ language was very generic and very broad

2:07:11 ↗ based so so in terms of one of if we go

2:07:14 ↗ back to those goals I mentioned at the

2:07:16 ↗ beginning of the PowerPoint you know

2:07:18 ↗ make it more predictable I think that by

2:07:22 ↗ providing clearer vision for each

2:07:25 ↗ neighborhood I think we've done that

2:07:27 ↗ thank you thank you

2:07:29 ↗ any more questions there's no questions

2:07:35 ↗ I'd like to get a motion mr. information

2:07:39 ↗ ocean Larsen I would move to adopt

2:07:42 ↗ ordinance number 28 38 relating to

2:07:47 ↗ central Issaquah amending sections 1

2:07:49 ↗ point 1 point c and 1 point 1 point D

2:07:53 ↗ point 2 of the central Issaquah

2:07:55 ↗ development and design standards and

2:07:57 ↗ adopting by reference several amendments

2:07:59 ↗ to the central Issaquah plan a sub area

2:08:02 ↗ plan with in Issaquah comprehensive plan

2:08:04 ↗ by updating the district visions

2:08:06 ↗ changing district boundaries and chain

2:08:08 ↗ boundaries of central is Squa okay it's

2:08:11 ↗ been moved in second it is there any

2:08:13 ↗ council discussion being none you guys

2:08:19 ↗ councilmember winter saying followed by

2:08:20 ↗ councilmember Goodman all right thank

2:08:22 ↗ you I really appreciate all the time and

2:08:25 ↗ effort that so many people put in to

2:08:28 ↗ bring it to this point

2:08:30 ↗ no none less than mr. Niven himself

2:08:33 ↗ Thank You Keith to you and all the

2:08:34 ↗ shepherding that you've done and I think

2:08:37 ↗ you really took a difficult challenge

2:08:40 ↗ we kind of punted on this one we focused

2:08:43 ↗ on the other ones and you and early on

2:08:44 ↗ during the moratorium you said let's and

2:08:46 ↗ and and we're going to do this other

2:08:48 ↗ thing before the visions and because it

2:08:50 ↗ was maybe less clear and I too share the

2:08:53 ↗ desire for the central area and all of

2:08:57 ↗ Issaquah to retain what makes us special

2:08:58 ↗ and as we grow and evolve within a

2:09:00 ↗ region that's experiencing high growth

2:09:03 ↗ it's very interesting there's a sentence

2:09:05 ↗ in the current plan that I wanted to

2:09:08 ↗ highlight it's on page nine of the

2:09:10 ↗ current plan now we're actually going to

2:09:11 ↗ strike it out it gets replaced by some

2:09:14 ↗ of this which is unfortunate it's and

2:09:17 ↗ and it's in the policy balance section

2:09:20 ↗ it's being replaced and it says the

2:09:22 ↗ district visions are a glimpse of the

2:09:25 ↗ area's future the visions are

2:09:27 ↗ implemented through zoning development

2:09:31 ↗ and design standards as well as maps of

2:09:35 ↗ Park trail and circulation improvements

2:09:38 ↗ so that's that's that's part of what's

2:09:41 ↗ in there now and so when we but but that

2:09:46 ↗ language in there there's you go to one

2:09:49 ↗ more page where you're right at the top

2:09:51 ↗ it says this the content on your page

2:09:55 ↗ and the next one is going to replace

2:09:57 ↗ that which is really unfortunate I think

2:09:58 ↗ that's a really good statement that the

2:10:02 ↗ visions are implemented through zoning

2:10:03 ↗ perhaps also land-use development and

2:10:06 ↗ design standards as well as maps of the

2:10:08 ↗ park trail and circulation improvements

2:10:10 ↗ and we enacted the memoriam because we

2:10:12 ↗ weren't getting what we envisioned and

2:10:13 ↗ and this was because we didn't have the

2:10:15 ↗ regulations in place to assure we

2:10:17 ↗ achieve the vision and so real quickly I

2:10:20 ↗ want to take a look at what

2:10:21 ↗ done since the moratorium to remedy the

2:10:24 ↗ shortcomings of the regulations right

2:10:26 ↗ for in zoning

2:10:26 ↗ we added vertical mixed-use I that that

2:10:31 ↗ is a that's an overlay somebody there

2:10:34 ↗ certain parcels of land if you're going

2:10:35 ↗ to develop them guess what you're going

2:10:37 ↗ to develop them as vertical mixed-use

2:10:38 ↗ that was a very important change that we

2:10:41 ↗ made recently we added inclusionary

2:10:44 ↗ zoning which requires affordable housing

2:10:47 ↗ throughout most of the central area I

2:10:49 ↗ want to note that in your assessment of

2:10:51 ↗ Atlas that you just looked at developer

2:10:54 ↗ obligations and you really didn't I

2:10:55 ↗ didn't see in the document I haven't had

2:10:58 ↗ a chance to watch the the committee

2:10:59 ↗ meeting as well if it was discussed I

2:11:01 ↗ apologize but didn't mention the

2:11:02 ↗ affordable housing but affordable

2:11:03 ↗ housing would have been part of Atlas

2:11:05 ↗ and when that was handled through our

2:11:08 ↗ inclusionary zoning change nothing about

2:11:10 ↗ we're considering this evening and in

2:11:13 ↗ further in regard to affordable housing

2:11:14 ↗ we created a trial run for the

2:11:16 ↗ multifamily tax exemption and and that

2:11:19 ↗ would be something it's not really

2:11:20 ↗ zoning but it's a way to hack get some

2:11:23 ↗ more affordable housing which was an

2:11:24 ↗ important part of the whole moratorium

2:11:27 ↗ and in now even tonight the council took

2:11:29 ↗ land took a land-use action that removed

2:11:32 ↗ where self storage units can be located

2:11:33 ↗ so in terms of what that original

2:11:36 ↗ statement says the visions are

2:11:38 ↗ implemented through zoning we've done

2:11:40 ↗ quite a bit and even more this evening

2:11:42 ↗ with an additional land use one that

2:11:44 ↗ statement goes on to say development and

2:11:46 ↗ design standards so we've done quite a

2:11:49 ↗ bit we've added an entire architecture

2:11:51 ↗ and urban design they originally were

2:11:52 ↗ two different items in the moratorium

2:11:54 ↗ they were combined into one this is

2:11:56 ↗ hundreds of pages long and establishes

2:11:59 ↗ protocol and many specifications

2:12:01 ↗ including a color palette and you know

2:12:04 ↗ how I feel about a color palette and and

2:12:06 ↗ so that's quite a bit there's there's

2:12:09 ↗ there's oh there's there's there's a

2:12:11 ↗ finite type of designs that can be built

2:12:15 ↗ based upon an update we made to these

2:12:18 ↗ development and design standards and I

2:12:22 ↗ also noted in the assessment of Atlas

2:12:24 ↗ that those weren't addressed either I

2:12:27 ↗ didn't see okay what would the new

2:12:30 ↗ architecture and

2:12:31 ↗ urban design standards have done to

2:12:34 ↗ change that lists and I think I think

2:12:36 ↗ that would be significantly different

2:12:38 ↗ the roofline would be different for sure

2:12:41 ↗ colors would be different architecture

2:12:43 ↗ would be significantly different as well

2:12:45 ↗ and I want to point that out because

2:12:48 ↗ because so much so often outlet atlases

2:12:52 ↗ pointed out or as we didn't get what we

2:12:56 ↗ wanted and yet even before any action

2:12:59 ↗ tonight things we've already done with

2:13:02 ↗ inclusionary zoning x' and architectural

2:13:04 ↗ and urban design regulations that we've

2:13:06 ↗ added would have resulted in something

2:13:09 ↗ significantly different just right there

2:13:12 ↗ and then as far the last part of that on

2:13:17 ↗ the that we're about to replace that

2:13:19 ↗ language that says as well as maps of

2:13:21 ↗ Park trail and circulation improvements

2:13:23 ↗ and we have those we do have the the

2:13:26 ↗ street grid and the green necklace has

2:13:30 ↗ evolved significantly I think the

2:13:32 ↗ entrance that you're suggesting that

2:13:35 ↗ we've reviewed that we added this

2:13:37 ↗ evening just a reference and then the

2:13:39 ↗ more details in the park strategic plan

2:13:41 ↗ are all pretty significant that's a

2:13:45 ↗ pretty significant change as well so so

2:13:48 ↗ even before you know these developer

2:13:51 ↗ obligations the action we've already

2:13:53 ↗ taken would have well if there had been

2:13:58 ↗ in place before the moratorium we would

2:14:00 ↗ there be significantly different outcome

2:14:02 ↗ than we already have today and and I do

2:14:07 ↗ I think it's very important that we go

2:14:09 ↗ make sure that we're remind ourselves

2:14:10 ↗ about what the language in the

2:14:12 ↗ moratorium says I know you had some

2:14:14 ↗ language up there this evening but very

2:14:16 ↗ specifically in the in the ordinance

2:14:20 ↗ that that established the moratorium it

2:14:22 ↗ says we should consider whether the

2:14:25 ↗ vision for some of the districts

2:14:27 ↗ parenthetical neighborhoods may need to

2:14:29 ↗ be modified based upon development and I

2:14:33 ↗ really liked what you said earlier in

2:14:36 ↗ response to my question that the vision

2:14:38 ↗ part of what's here separate from the

2:14:40 ↗ developer obligations is actually

2:14:41 ↗ significantly more

2:14:43 ↗ what we had before and and I would say

2:14:47 ↗ for my own interpretation when I voted

2:14:50 ↗ in favor of the moratorium when we said

2:14:53 ↗ we this line that says consider whether

2:14:55 ↗ the visions may need to be modified I

2:14:59 ↗ think what you showed earlier again

2:15:03 ↗ prior to the developer obligations all

2:15:05 ↗ those vision statements for each

2:15:06 ↗ neighborhood including the bulleted

2:15:09 ↗ lists about their livability

2:15:10 ↗ distinctiveness connectedness

2:15:11 ↗ sustainability those are all very

2:15:13 ↗ significant and I think per the intent

2:15:16 ↗ as far as I'm concerned those meet the

2:15:19 ↗ intent of that component of of the

2:15:23 ↗ moratorium language as far as

2:15:25 ↗ considering updating the the the visions

2:15:31 ↗ so so I go through all of this because I

2:15:35 ↗ think that we're going a step too far

2:15:43 ↗ with our developer obligations and Keith

2:15:45 ↗ you've heard me say that before you know

2:15:47 ↗ that I feel I've said this publicly from

2:15:49 ↗ the diets before as well that we had a

2:15:52 ↗ understanding about visions and I think

2:15:55 ↗ we've got that and the developer

2:15:57 ↗ obligations many of which I think maybe

2:16:02 ↗ should be formal considered as central

2:16:07 ↗ Issaquah development of design standard

2:16:08 ↗ updates as opposed to this other

2:16:13 ↗ extension to visions and so I point all

2:16:17 ↗ that out like I said earlier in the

2:16:19 ↗ comments about the the self storage

2:16:22 ↗ units and I've been trying to iterate

2:16:24 ↗ here we have made significant changes if

2:16:27 ↗ if you're listening to this and you're

2:16:30 ↗ thinking and and previously you thought

2:16:32 ↗ you know Atlas was the thing I just

2:16:34 ↗ became a shape in color and a feel that

2:16:37 ↗ said something needed to be done we

2:16:39 ↗ don't even have to take any action

2:16:40 ↗ tonight and we've already prevented the

2:16:42 ↗ next step if those are the that's really

2:16:45 ↗ what your concern is those are very very

2:16:47 ↗ significant I think these vision updates

2:16:49 ↗ are very significant as well

2:16:52 ↗ and it would be my preference that we go

2:16:54 ↗ forward and adopt these visions

2:16:56 ↗ including

2:16:57 ↗ all the sections today future livable

2:16:59 ↗ connected all of those and go forward

2:17:02 ↗ with adopting those but hold off on the

2:17:07 ↗ developer obligations part of this thank

2:17:10 ↗ you additional discussion council member

2:17:15 ↗ Ramos councilmember Goodman followed by

2:17:17 ↗ councilmember hunt so the question for

2:17:21 ↗ me is as you stated in when the lines up

2:17:24 ↗ there was purpose of the vision vision

2:17:28 ↗ to be used with codes and policies to

2:17:31 ↗ make it happen and in our key discussion

2:17:34 ↗ that you and I have had previously to

2:17:36 ↗ this

2:17:37 ↗ I felt that oftentimes we talked about

2:17:39 ↗ things and you said you didn't have the

2:17:42 ↗ things to make it happen right so just

2:17:46 ↗ went over a whole bunch of things that

2:17:48 ↗ have happened the test for me is do you

2:17:50 ↗ think you have everything you need at

2:17:52 ↗ this point in time so one of the things

2:17:57 ↗ I'm going to answer this a little bit

2:17:58 ↗ differently and then I can go back if

2:17:59 ↗ you want me to actually answer that that

2:18:01 ↗ way so one of the things that we did at

2:18:04 ↗ Landon Shore one of the questions that

2:18:06 ↗ was asked was are the developer

2:18:08 ↗ obligations duplicitous to other things

2:18:12 ↗ that are in the code or recently adopted

2:18:15 ↗ through the moratorium work items and I

2:18:18 ↗ went through and I read them and judge

2:18:22 ↗ them against code and there was a little

2:18:24 ↗ bit of overlap but my sense was it was

2:18:28 ↗ okay to have a little bit of overlap

2:18:29 ↗ because sometimes saying something twice

2:18:31 ↗ is that much clearer so so my take on it

2:18:35 ↗ these are different these are a new tool

2:18:37 ↗ these aren't the center in a second

2:18:39 ↗ hammer these are you know these were

2:18:40 ↗ screwdriver and hammer so this is a new

2:18:43 ↗ tool for us for a toolbox and it will

2:18:45 ↗ get us closer to I think what everybody

2:18:49 ↗ expects we should be getting within

2:18:50 ↗ central so I think this gets us even

2:18:53 ↗ further towards the goal line is this

2:18:56 ↗ everything don't know yet I think what's

2:18:59 ↗ going to happen is we're gonna have to

2:19:00 ↗ get a couple projects under our belt and

2:19:02 ↗ then we're gonna have to sit down with

2:19:03 ↗ all of these tools again and see which

2:19:05 ↗ ones are working and which ones aren't

2:19:08 ↗ gonna make some calm

2:19:10 ↗ it's to where do you have another

2:19:12 ↗ question good what for now okay so I

2:19:16 ↗ think I had Goodman followed by Hunt um

2:19:20 ↗ I actually do have a question the

2:19:27 ↗ adopting this would what would be the

2:19:31 ↗ what needs to happen to lift the

2:19:33 ↗ moratorium when would that be

2:19:34 ↗ and then when would this ordinance take

2:19:37 ↗ effect so my understanding I'll look to

2:19:43 ↗ the city attorney with my one good eye

2:19:47 ↗ I believe that based on the ordinance

2:19:50 ↗ the moratorium ordinance that when the

2:19:52 ↗ final work item is completed that the

2:19:55 ↗ moratorium is lifted technically this

2:19:59 ↗ code amendment doesn't go into effect

2:20:01 ↗ because what we're doing is we're

2:20:03 ↗ amending code but we're also removing a

2:20:05 ↗ number of properties from central

2:20:07 ↗ Issaquah by adopting this and so there's

2:20:11 ↗ a 90-day kind of effective date from the

2:20:17 ↗ date of publishing so that puts us into

2:20:20 ↗ like August so right now the moratorium

2:20:23 ↗ would be lifted but this wouldn't altima

2:20:27 ↗ be into effect I think until August and

2:20:30 ↗ I'll look to Jim for any clarifications

2:20:33 ↗ he might want to offer

2:20:43 ↗ then like Saturday and I think depending

2:20:47 ↗ on Jim's interpretation I think the

2:20:50 ↗ question is what would happen in those

2:20:52 ↗ 90 days so my sense would be nothing so

2:20:59 ↗ in those 90 days what happens is

2:21:01 ↗ property owners or developers would

2:21:04 ↗ start to then put together their plans

2:21:06 ↗ for coming in the first step is to

2:21:09 ↗ schedule a pre-application meeting with

2:21:12 ↗ development services right now I believe

2:21:15 ↗ were two months out just because of

2:21:19 ↗ staff availability and things that are

2:21:21 ↗ happening in the villages they are still

2:21:24 ↗ called the villages and so you know so

2:21:27 ↗ my sense is we might be able to sit down

2:21:30 ↗ with with a property owner or two before

2:21:33 ↗ August and then you know somebody would

2:21:36 ↗ come in with their application so so if

2:21:39 ↗ there's a concern about a gap before

2:21:41 ↗ it's enacted just our backlog right now

2:21:45 ↗ within development services it's not a

2:21:47 ↗ concern of mine I think that I think

2:21:50 ↗ that's part of it I think what you might

2:21:52 ↗ want to find I think the answer we might

2:21:54 ↗ want to give is not whether or not we

2:21:55 ↗ have the capacity to do it but whether

2:21:57 ↗ or not projects that come through would

2:22:00 ↗ be processed under old cold or new code

2:22:02 ↗ I think so as you heard from the city

2:22:05 ↗ attorney earlier I think it was on this

2:22:08 ↗ topic it might have been on the hotels

2:22:10 ↗ you don't vest to a building permit and

2:22:13 ↗ nobody would be able to get to a point

2:22:18 ↗ of a building permit in 90 days you just

2:22:21 ↗ you can't it's not it doesn't move that

2:22:23 ↗ fast so even if you came in even if you

2:22:25 ↗ could come in with an application you

2:22:28 ↗ know quickly you wouldn't get there in

2:22:32 ↗ time plus as councilmember winter Stein

2:22:36 ↗ mentioned all those other things are

2:22:37 ↗ already in force this is just the last

2:22:41 ↗ piece

2:22:43 ↗ and Jim did you have some clear fire yes

2:22:47 ↗ the the current moratorium ordinance

2:22:49 ↗ provides that the moratorium runs until

2:22:52 ↗ 11:59 59 p.m. on June 6th unless the

2:22:58 ↗ council extends it or unless the council

2:23:01 ↗ has passed all amendments that the

2:23:05 ↗ council deems necessary to fulfill the

2:23:08 ↗ goals of the moratorium so if you've

2:23:10 ↗ passed all of the ordinances the

2:23:13 ↗ moratorium ends but even if even if one

2:23:17 ↗ could say that you still had some work

2:23:19 ↗ to do it would end June 6th in the in

2:23:22 ↗ any event but the passage of all of

2:23:26 ↗ these ordinances which you identified

2:23:27 ↗ including the central is Agua visions

2:23:30 ↗ ordinance which is the last piece who

2:23:32 ↗ will lift the moratorium I mean like

2:23:35 ↗ midnight or immediately or what what

2:23:37 ↗ what does that mean well it says passage

2:23:40 ↗ as opposed to effective date so I would

2:23:45 ↗ say it's lifted as of when you pass the

2:23:47 ↗ ordinance my Brent thank you

2:23:56 ↗ firstly I wanted to echo the thanks for

2:23:59 ↗ everybody who's worked so hard on the

2:24:01 ↗ visions and I think that they do set

2:24:04 ↗ really clear expectations in a lot of

2:24:06 ↗ the text and will be a good tool in the

2:24:10 ↗ future to help us achieve the vibrant

2:24:12 ↗ future for its quad that we all want so

2:24:14 ↗ thank you for all the hard work and I

2:24:17 ↗ have one sort of outstanding issue that

2:24:24 ↗ I would like to talk about which is the

2:24:27 ↗ balance of Employment and that was

2:24:29 ↗ brought up as something for future

2:24:32 ↗ future use but I would like to propose a

2:24:36 ↗ change an amendment though the amendment

2:24:42 ↗ would be to amend the proposed ordinance

2:24:44 ↗ by adding the following developer

2:24:47 ↗ obligation language to the Pickering

2:24:48 ↗ Gilman and East Lake neighborhood

2:24:50 ↗ visions and that is

2:24:52 ↗ the languages ensure the amounts of

2:24:54 ↗ non-residential square footage or a

2:24:57 ↗ non-residential square footage based on

2:24:58 ↗ ite equivalents is not reduced during

2:25:01 ↗ redevelopment second it's been moved and

2:25:05 ↗ seconded and it's not the language I

2:25:07 ↗ have in front of me though tisha which

2:25:17 ↗ is allowed thank you

2:25:25 ↗ the motion is to amend the proposed

2:25:27 ↗ ordinance by adding the following

2:25:28 ↗ developer obligation language to the

2:25:30 ↗ Pickering Gilman and East Lake

2:25:31 ↗ neighborhood visions ensure the amount

2:25:34 ↗ of non-residential square footage or or

2:25:42 ↗ non-residential square footage these

2:25:44 ↗ days by ninety equivalents thank you

2:25:47 ↗ he's not reduced during redevelopment

2:25:49 ↗ okay I'll try it one more time ensure

2:25:51 ↗ the amount of non-residential square

2:25:53 ↗ footage or non-residential square

2:25:55 ↗ footage based on ite equivalents is not

2:25:58 ↗ reduced during development redevelopment

2:26:00 ↗ it's been moved and seconded discussion

2:26:05 ↗ councilmember interests and

2:26:06 ↗ councilmember Goodman oh sorry but

2:26:07 ↗ councilmember where you go first all

2:26:09 ↗ right sorry driver hunter aren't you

2:26:12 ↗ saying Goodman thanks thanks we

2:26:16 ↗ discussed this language previously in a

2:26:20 ↗ similar developer obligation previously

2:26:23 ↗ in committee and the previous language

2:26:27 ↗ referred to not losing job opportunities

2:26:31 ↗ for me I couldn't really wrap my head

2:26:35 ↗ around what that meant I think that

2:26:37 ↗ residential developments may provide job

2:26:40 ↗ opportunities in a lot of ways

2:26:41 ↗ residential can support nearby

2:26:43 ↗ businesses they can support other they

2:26:47 ↗ can support jobs in many ways and so I

2:26:51 ↗ think that job creation and job loss job

2:26:56 ↗ retention those are all very complicated

2:26:57 ↗ processes for me it was easier to think

2:27:01 ↗ about this from the point of view of not

2:27:03 ↗ wanting to lose the rest

2:27:04 ↗ the non-residential space and to have

2:27:06 ↗ where where there is currently

2:27:08 ↗ non-residential uses to retain some of

2:27:11 ↗ that for a balance of land uses so that

2:27:16 ↗ we do have some jobs and that we do not

2:27:20 ↗ completely lose jobs during the

2:27:22 ↗ redevelopment process I think that this

2:27:26 ↗ will get us some mixed use and that will

2:27:31 ↗ lend itself to the neighborhood vibrancy

2:27:34 ↗ potentially it could also internalize

2:27:35 ↗ some of the traffic and car trips and I

2:27:40 ↗ also just wanted to add that the ite

2:27:42 ↗ equivalents that's has to do with the

2:27:46 ↗ fact that you might have a very large

2:27:48 ↗ building that takes up a lot of space

2:27:50 ↗ but only only employs a few people and

2:27:54 ↗ so if you were to redevelop such a

2:27:58 ↗ property you wouldn't necessarily to

2:28:01 ↗ have the same nerve of jobs you wouldn't

2:28:03 ↗ necessarily have to come back with that

2:28:04 ↗ same use and that ite equivalents is

2:28:07 ↗ something that was discussed in

2:28:08 ↗ committee and is just part of trying to

2:28:11 ↗ avoid an unintended consequence with

2:28:13 ↗ this developer or obligation so those

2:28:16 ↗ are those were my reasons for the

2:28:18 ↗ amendments and really it comes down to

2:28:20 ↗ wanting to achieve a balance of jobs

2:28:22 ↗ with residential Thank You councilmember

2:28:24 ↗ had I have councilman or inter sign

2:28:26 ↗ followed by councilmember Goodman when I

2:28:30 ↗ think this was first raised during a PPC

2:28:32 ↗ meeting when one of the commissioners

2:28:34 ↗ said he heard Bellevue is doing this we

2:28:36 ↗ should look at this as well there wasn't

2:28:38 ↗ a lot of conversation at that point in

2:28:40 ↗ that meeting or much about it really

2:28:42 ↗ afterwards when we brought it here it

2:28:45 ↗ did come up here in this hall maybe

2:28:49 ↗ during a committee meeting we have staff

2:28:52 ↗ so what do you what do you know about

2:28:54 ↗ this is is this been implemented

2:28:57 ↗ elsewhere

2:28:59 ↗ what would be the kind of the economic

2:29:02 ↗ impact or can we make some type of

2:29:04 ↗ assessment do these type of policies

2:29:06 ↗ work and basically Keith you and your

2:29:07 ↗ staff said we don't know anything about

2:29:08 ↗ this yet we've never we've not studied

2:29:10 ↗ it and and we really don't know if this

2:29:13 ↗ would work as it may as simply stated as

2:29:17 ↗ it

2:29:18 ↗ but its goal is whether or not would

2:29:20 ↗ achieve that and to my knowledge there's

2:29:24 ↗ really been no work on it since then is

2:29:27 ↗ that true

2:29:28 ↗ so there's and so this I mean I

2:29:30 ↗ appreciate everything that councilmember

2:29:32 ↗ hunt just said and and but there was a

2:29:35 ↗ key phrase in there she said I think we

2:29:40 ↗ don't really we don't know there are

2:29:42 ↗ certain cycles of how certain properties

2:29:45 ↗ throughout their over time they're gonna

2:29:48 ↗ go through there there's going to be

2:29:50 ↗ economic cycles there's gonna be

2:29:51 ↗ different market demands the truth is we

2:29:54 ↗ really don't know what the impact of

2:29:55 ↗ this would be and I I urged caution an

2:29:59 ↗ abundance of caution is saying I'm gonna

2:30:01 ↗ put a restriction we put a vertical a

2:30:04 ↗ mixed-used overlay and on certain land

2:30:09 ↗ and we did that with full knowledge of

2:30:13 ↗ an economic assessment that said you

2:30:15 ↗ know we may still not get that for a

2:30:16 ↗ while because the numbers aren't there

2:30:19 ↗ but we did it anyway very aspirational

2:30:21 ↗ and I think that's a very significant

2:30:24 ↗ regulation that we added so so the so I

2:30:27 ↗ think the the lack of familiarity you

2:30:30 ↗ know with the implications of such a

2:30:33 ↗ regulation the the and the fact that the

2:30:39 ↗ vertical mixed-use that we've already

2:30:43 ↗ adopted fully aware that the economics

2:30:49 ↗ may not work for vertical makes use at

2:30:52 ↗ this time I think it would be unwise for

2:30:54 ↗ us to proceed at this point with such a

2:30:57 ↗ proposal

2:30:58 ↗ thank you counts memory Stan

2:30:59 ↗ councilmember Goodman so I think that we

2:31:05 ↗ do know what some of the what some of

2:31:07 ↗ the outcome could be first of all we

2:31:09 ↗ know that there is a huge demand for

2:31:11 ↗ residential and particularly multifamily

2:31:15 ↗ developments right now and if we just

2:31:19 ↗ let the market completely dictate what

2:31:23 ↗ we get in redevelopment in the central

2:31:25 ↗ Issaquah area or development then we

2:31:28 ↗ will get what the market demands and

2:31:30 ↗ is residential and not necessarily jobs

2:31:33 ↗ right now

2:31:34 ↗ I totally agree that we need to be

2:31:39 ↗ deliberate about how we balance not how

2:31:45 ↗ we balance sorry for what make sure

2:31:46 ↗ we're we're deliberate about how we're

2:31:50 ↗ planning for the central Issaquah area

2:31:52 ↗ and that if we want to have a job Center

2:31:57 ↗ and not just a residential center then

2:32:01 ↗ we're going to have to figure out some

2:32:02 ↗ ways to preserve those opportunities

2:32:04 ↗ because if we just develop residential

2:32:08 ↗ then we are not going to we're going to

2:32:10 ↗ be taken out prime space or for

2:32:14 ↗ employment centers and as council member

2:32:17 ↗ said it alluded to traffic this could be

2:32:21 ↗ exactly the traffic that we're trying

2:32:23 ↗ not to create which is everybody leaves

2:32:26 ↗ just like everybody's coming through

2:32:29 ↗ here in the morning everybody leaves and

2:32:30 ↗ then everybody comes back at night we're

2:32:32 ↗ out of balance right now the report that

2:32:35 ↗ we've gotten on the central Issaquah

2:32:36 ↗ plan so far is housing not jobs so I I

2:32:40 ↗ do think we need language in here and I

2:32:43 ↗ support them and then council president

2:32:46 ↗ Mertz four points the first is that we

2:32:49 ↗ wind this moratorium because we're only

2:32:51 ↗ getting housing so I want us to not only

2:32:53 ↗ get housing this will help assure it

2:32:55 ↗ second point is I want more living wage

2:32:57 ↗ jobs third point is I want more living

2:33:00 ↗ wage jobs and the fourth point is that I

2:33:03 ↗ want more living my chips

2:33:04 ↗ thank you and counsel deputy US

2:33:08 ↗ president batiste

2:33:09 ↗ so I I support this amendment I had some

2:33:15 ↗ pause and and wanted to talk a little a

2:33:18 ↗ little bit about this in terms of is

2:33:20 ↗ this something that we can do and and go

2:33:23 ↗ forward with but when we talk about the

2:33:29 ↗ vision and and what we're trying to

2:33:31 ↗ accomplish I just want to echo what

2:33:33 ↗ councilmember Mart's just talked about

2:33:37 ↗ in terms of being able to support that

2:33:40 ↗ and

2:33:41 ↗ being able to bring in employment

2:33:44 ↗ centers and living wage jobs and not

2:33:47 ↗ have it all focused on residential thank

2:33:51 ↗ you let's member ray so my thinking on

2:33:54 ↗ this is very similar to my thinking when

2:33:56 ↗ we were talking about storage units and

2:33:58 ↗ for us to recognize the vision that we

2:34:01 ↗ have for central Issaquah it is going to

2:34:04 ↗ be both commercial and it's going to be

2:34:07 ↗ residential and as much as I would like

2:34:09 ↗ to think that the market will drive the

2:34:11 ↗ what we want I'm pretty certain that the

2:34:13 ↗ market will not drive what we want and

2:34:15 ↗ so we have to put up some bumpers to

2:34:19 ↗ guide it into the right direction so I

2:34:22 ↗ think that this amendment makes a lot of

2:34:25 ↗ sense seeing councilmember we're

2:34:30 ↗ interesting when I add another point

2:34:32 ↗ that I'm sorry I was looking through my

2:34:36 ↗ GMP be data and I haven't found it so I

2:34:39 ↗ can't cite the specific thing there of

2:34:42 ↗ all of the regional growth centers and

2:34:46 ↗ now it is so so Pickering and Gilman

2:34:49 ↗ neighborhoods basically make up our

2:34:51 ↗ regional growth center we had

2:34:54 ↗ conversations and PSR C showed us some

2:34:56 ↗ data there's one regional growth center

2:34:59 ↗ regional growth center within the entire

2:35:01 ↗ four County area that is 100% jobs and

2:35:06 ↗ zero dwelling units you know which one

2:35:09 ↗ that is tech Willa Issaquah yeah right

2:35:13 ↗ 100% jobs zero dwelling units now we

2:35:16 ↗ know that's changing there's a well

2:35:18 ↗ something coming here balance

2:35:21 ↗ suggests that we'll get a lot more you

2:35:24 ↗ know PSR C recommendation is there there

2:35:27 ↗ should be like at least 2080 they don't

2:35:29 ↗ expect any but thing to really be 5050

2:35:32 ↗ but if you can get 2080 either way 20%

2:35:37 ↗ housing 80% jobs 20% jobs 80% housing

2:35:40 ↗ then that is would be a good achievement

2:35:44 ↗ I don't know how this proposal is going

2:35:49 ↗ to get us living wage jobs necessarily

2:35:53 ↗ what kind of job that doesn't really

2:35:54 ↗ kind

2:35:55 ↗ to that point so but I think that's

2:35:58 ↗ really important for us to know right

2:36:00 ↗ now that you know we have like no

2:36:03 ↗ housing and housing affordability is

2:36:06 ↗ very in in this area especially in the

2:36:08 ↗ regional growth center which is not not

2:36:11 ↗ all the entire central area but a

2:36:13 ↗ significant portion of it is that I

2:36:16 ↗ think this will have more likely have

2:36:18 ↗ the effect of negating getting the

2:36:22 ↗ housing and the affordable housing that

2:36:25 ↗ we know that we need as well I'm not in

2:36:29 ↗ favor of this the other discussion so I

2:36:33 ↗ will read the motion before the vote

2:36:35 ↗ move to amend the proposed ordinance by

2:36:38 ↗ adding the following developer

2:36:39 ↗ obligations language to the Pickering

2:36:41 ↗ Gilman in East Lake neighborhood visions

2:36:42 ↗ ensure the amount of non-residential

2:36:45 ↗ square footage or non-residential square

2:36:48 ↗ footage based on ite equivalents is not

2:36:51 ↗ reduced during redevelopment all those

2:36:53 ↗ in favor say aye

2:36:56 ↗ it passes six to one with winter Stein

2:36:58 ↗ opposed I've kept track of a few of the

2:37:01 ↗ issues before the motion was put on the

2:37:03 ↗ table some of the things that still

2:37:06 ↗ required discussion there was a proposal

2:37:09 ↗ to keep the developer obligation that

2:37:11 ↗ was removed by committee dealing with

2:37:13 ↗ Gilman village property there was a

2:37:16 ↗ proposal from councilmember winter sign

2:37:18 ↗ to consider striking out not to strike a

2:37:23 ↗ part of the vision implementation

2:37:25 ↗ language and there were questions about

2:37:27 ↗ the gap between the ending of the

2:37:29 ↗ moratorium and the implementation are

2:37:33 ↗ the effect effective date of code

2:37:36 ↗ continued deliberations and we'll see

2:37:38 ↗ what other questions come up council

2:37:40 ↗ double counts present Bateses

2:37:41 ↗ so I just wanted to echo now that we're

2:37:45 ↗ back to the to the main motion I just

2:37:47 ↗ wanted to thank you and staff and the

2:37:50 ↗ Commission's and everyone who has worked

2:37:54 ↗ on this very very long project and being

2:37:57 ↗ able to see these visions come to light

2:37:59 ↗ something that we were talking about

2:38:01 ↗ years ago and

2:38:03 ↗ the Economic Development Commission and

2:38:06 ↗ and seeing things more boiled down to

2:38:09 ↗ where we started with all of the

2:38:11 ↗ different districts I think makes a lot

2:38:14 ↗ of sense and they're there's so many

2:38:15 ↗ good good pieces to this and and so much

2:38:21 ↗ information and and being able to look

2:38:25 ↗ at what the future vision is I think is

2:38:28 ↗ incredibly important so I just wanted to

2:38:31 ↗ give that thanks to to you and everyone

2:38:34 ↗ who's worked on this I do have one

2:38:37 ↗ question and maybe another point that we

2:38:40 ↗ wanted to talk about could you talk a

2:38:42 ↗ little bit about the addition of the

2:38:45 ↗ light rail the sound transit map and

2:38:49 ↗ stations and just I know that that came

2:38:53 ↗ up as something that potentially needed

2:38:56 ↗ to be added and I just want to make sure

2:38:58 ↗ I understand it being a part of this

2:39:01 ↗ agenda bill so try and answer that

2:39:07 ↗ question so right now the central

2:39:10 ↗ Issaquah plan has a map in it with kind

2:39:14 ↗ of a bunch of dots and something that

2:39:16 ↗ looks like a slug they caught the slug

2:39:18 ↗ map and because we didn't know where

2:39:20 ↗ that we still don't know where this

2:39:22 ↗ Sound Transit station is going to be as

2:39:25 ↗ we talked about this with planning

2:39:27 ↗ policy commission there was a lot of

2:39:30 ↗ conversation about a desire for the

2:39:35 ↗ location really to be somewhere in the

2:39:39 ↗ vicinity of Pickering and Gilman and the

2:39:42 ↗ new crossing of i90 and so there's a

2:39:47 ↗ there there are conversations about

2:39:52 ↗ creating a hub kind of an activity hub

2:39:54 ↗ around the station as it talks about it

2:39:58 ↗ within the regional growth center and

2:40:00 ↗ specifically within the Pickering and

2:40:02 ↗ Gilman neighborhoods the idea was that

2:40:07 ↗ it it it made sense to be somewhere

2:40:13 ↗ kind of in this vicinity and that both

2:40:16 ↗ neighborhoods should really feed into

2:40:18 ↗ that state that future station location

2:40:21 ↗ you know the unfortunate thing for us is

2:40:23 ↗ we're not going to know where that

2:40:24 ↗ station is going to be until I think

2:40:28 ↗ 2026 I think is the date when they start

2:40:31 ↗ doing that sighting location study we

2:40:34 ↗ started having conversations with Sound

2:40:36 ↗ Transit about trying to move that

2:40:37 ↗ earlier and in the process and I think

2:40:42 ↗ that's still an outstanding question

2:40:43 ↗ between the city and Sound Transit so so

2:40:46 ↗ not knowing where it is yet the visions

2:40:50 ↗ have identified a desirable location in

2:40:55 ↗ terms of being within the regional

2:40:57 ↗ growth center and kind of shared between

2:41:00 ↗ the two sides of the freeway whether

2:41:02 ↗ that happens or not you know we're gonna

2:41:04 ↗ have to work on that with Sound Transit

2:41:06 ↗ and if ultimately it locates somewhere

2:41:09 ↗ else then we might have to modify our

2:41:11 ↗ visions a little bit so could I put it

2:41:17 ↗ in this way that these are some ideas to

2:41:19 ↗ consider in the future yes okay I do

2:41:23 ↗ remember this a similar map coming

2:41:26 ↗ before Landon Shore a few years ago and

2:41:29 ↗ discussion around this is this is a

2:41:32 ↗ really big topic it's gonna need a lot

2:41:35 ↗ of conversations so I just wanted to

2:41:37 ↗ point that out in terms of this being

2:41:38 ↗ part of the agenda Bell thank you

2:41:42 ↗ council president Mertz it's interesting

2:41:45 ↗ you think it looks like a slug because I

2:41:47 ↗ think it looks like a blocked intestine

2:41:48 ↗ to each their own

2:41:51 ↗ so first off I want to I want to add

2:41:53 ↗ that to thank everybody for all their

2:41:56 ↗ hard work and if in fact if this if we

2:41:59 ↗ move forward with this bill this evening

2:42:00 ↗ I think there's a lot of things that

2:42:02 ↗ we're doing that we our actual regional

2:42:05 ↗ leaders in I think for instance like our

2:42:07 ↗ housing plan has been something that SCA

2:42:09 ↗ everybody's like what's this if we want

2:42:11 ↗ to do what's hissing was thoughts

2:42:12 ↗ because I knew that we had a

2:42:13 ↗ comprehensive answer as part of

2:42:14 ↗ addressing the moratorium so but I I

2:42:17 ↗ also want to point out that one of the

2:42:19 ↗ reasons I'm supportive this evening

2:42:20 ↗ because because there are questions I

2:42:22 ↗ think councilmember winter Stein has

2:42:23 ↗ brought up some some very serious

2:42:25 ↗ concerns

2:42:26 ↗ I think we have an opportunity to do

2:42:28 ↗ this and I and I suspect that in you

2:42:32 ↗ know three ish years we're gonna take a

2:42:34 ↗ look I suspect you're gonna get asked to

2:42:36 ↗ do again what you got asked to do 20

2:42:39 ↗ months ago and so I suggest you keep

2:42:42 ↗ your dance card for 2021 and 2022 open

2:42:45 ↗ because I think we'll probably come back

2:42:47 ↗ and look and see what the effects have

2:42:50 ↗ been of the decisions that we've made

2:42:52 ↗ during the moratorium and see what we

2:42:53 ↗ want it to further some of those things

2:42:55 ↗ may occur sooner but this this process

2:42:59 ↗ is healthy and and we did it after we

2:43:01 ↗ passed the central Issaquah plan and

2:43:03 ↗ it'll happen again

2:43:06 ↗ I still have three council members some

2:43:09 ↗ who have asked questions but not

2:43:10 ↗ actually participate in deliberations

2:43:12 ↗ and council member raised one of them

2:43:14 ↗ yeah I am so I to think that the work

2:43:17 ↗ that's been done here is pretty

2:43:18 ↗ spectacular and I really do like the

2:43:21 ↗ calling out developer obligations and

2:43:24 ↗ being very overt about what what the

2:43:26 ↗ expectation is I am really having a

2:43:28 ↗ difficult time around Gilman Village and

2:43:31 ↗ I have talked to too many people who say

2:43:34 ↗ you know what's going on down in central

2:43:37 ↗ Issaquah we're losing all of the charm

2:43:40 ↗ and character of the city and part of

2:43:42 ↗ that is Gilman village and as much as

2:43:44 ↗ I'd like to believe that we could have a

2:43:46 ↗ good outcome I have too much historical

2:43:49 ↗ data that says if we don't have

2:43:52 ↗ something that that spells this out then

2:43:54 ↗ we will not get the outcome that we hope

2:43:56 ↗ to and I recognize that Gilman village

2:43:58 ↗ is one of many historical sites we have

2:44:00 ↗ in our city but it is one very

2:44:02 ↗ significant historical site that is a an

2:44:07 ↗ overt topic to be covered in this plan

2:44:10 ↗ and having measured measurable measures

2:44:15 ↗ of success and you know City actions is

2:44:17 ↗ all fine and well but I think if we

2:44:19 ↗ leave this question unanswered and we

2:44:23 ↗ get an outcome that starts to erode the

2:44:25 ↗ charm of Issaquah the thing that people

2:44:27 ↗ really love about this town it will be

2:44:30 ↗ very difficult for us to explain our

2:44:31 ↗ actions tonight Thank You councilmember

2:44:33 ↗ race so that is not currently included

2:44:36 ↗ in the package of four units I'd like

2:44:38 ↗ you to

2:44:39 ↗ I understand that but it is not included

2:44:41 ↗ in the package than formed in me tonight

2:44:42 ↗ and so it is not going to be part of

2:44:45 ↗ what we are going to be voting on and so

2:44:47 ↗ unless you make a motion that's true

2:44:50 ↗ that's all I wanted to point out you can

2:44:54 ↗ while you're listening to the last

2:44:55 ↗ couple comments decide if you want to

2:44:58 ↗ make a motion councilmember hunt I I

2:45:02 ↗ wanted to speak to councilmember raised

2:45:05 ↗ comments on Gillman village and give my

2:45:06 ↗ perspective from the committee so

2:45:09 ↗ previously there was language that that

2:45:13 ↗ was in there regarding connecting

2:45:15 ↗ Gillman a developer obligation

2:45:18 ↗ connecting Gillman villages something

2:45:23 ↗ like retaining its connection to its

2:45:26 ↗ akua's past or retaining its connection

2:45:29 ↗ to a sequester arm and I think that that

2:45:33 ↗ those are and in my opinion was that

2:45:36 ↗ those would be very difficult to enforce

2:45:38 ↗ because we're basically requiring

2:45:40 ↗ somehow to retain a connections to charm

2:45:45 ↗ and I think that I think that what I

2:45:49 ↗ thought would be a good outcome was if

2:45:51 ↗ the city had a conversation with the

2:45:54 ↗ Gillen village owners and that doesn't

2:45:57 ↗ actually have to be a developer

2:45:58 ↗ obligation that can be a proactive thing

2:46:00 ↗ that the city does and I think that the

2:46:02 ↗ place for that should be in the city

2:46:04 ↗ implementing actions and I support the

2:46:08 ↗ language as it is currently regarding

2:46:10 ↗ Gillman village because it puts the it

2:46:13 ↗ puts the need for action on to the city

2:46:17 ↗ and the city will be the one to reach

2:46:18 ↗ out to the owners of Gillman village and

2:46:20 ↗ try to try to make sure that Gillman

2:46:25 ↗ village does stay a special place and I

2:46:28 ↗ totally agree with councilmember Ray's

2:46:29 ↗ comments about it being a very special

2:46:32 ↗ part of its equai I just don't think

2:46:34 ↗ that assuming that there will be a major

2:46:37 ↗ change and assuming that the developer

2:46:41 ↗ basically assuming that and then putting

2:46:43 ↗ a developer obligation I don't think

2:46:45 ↗ that that's the right way to approach it

2:46:46 ↗ I think the city being proactive is the

2:46:48 ↗ right way to approach it

2:46:49 ↗ Thank You councilmember hats

2:46:51 ↗ remaining first round deliberation

2:46:54 ↗ comments

2:46:55 ↗ councilman Ramos sir Goodman did you

2:46:57 ↗ have anything to add I just marked you

2:46:58 ↗ down his questions earlier without

2:47:00 ↗ actually giving you an opportunity to

2:47:01 ↗ make statement not right now any other

2:47:05 ↗ so a couple things now we have in in

2:47:08 ↗ deliberations for a while if anyone is

2:47:10 ↗ proposing to make another motion this

2:47:13 ↗ would be the time to do it otherwise

2:47:14 ↗ I'll be asking for council to vote on

2:47:17 ↗ the main motion

2:47:18 ↗ deputy council president so I just I

2:47:23 ↗ have another comment I really wanted to

2:47:25 ↗ come in on what council member ray

2:47:28 ↗ talked about because this is something

2:47:30 ↗ that I feel incredibly passionately

2:47:33 ↗ about in regard to Gillman village and

2:47:36 ↗ I'm really trying to listen to all of

2:47:39 ↗ the different comments and what came out

2:47:42 ↗ of committee and what I would really

2:47:45 ↗ like to see going forward and I I will I

2:47:47 ↗ will just talk about this right now

2:47:49 ↗ because maybe it will help is that I

2:47:51 ↗ really do think that we need to move

2:47:53 ↗ forward very quickly in terms of

2:47:57 ↗ historic preservation and Gillman

2:48:00 ↗ village being at the very top of that

2:48:02 ↗ list I'm not positive after hearing

2:48:05 ↗ everything that I've heard tonight that

2:48:08 ↗ it is workable to include a developer

2:48:13 ↗ obligation around Gillman village in in

2:48:17 ↗ the a B this evening I guess I have some

2:48:20 ↗ question about that but I but I am

2:48:24 ↗ incredibly supportive of going forward

2:48:27 ↗ and looking into this right away that's

2:48:31 ↗ a good question hmm yes thank you

2:48:35 ↗ what was the developer obligation that

2:48:38 ↗ was in the original text

2:48:55 ↗ let me try try that one

2:49:07 ↗ confluence be the blue one retained

2:49:11 ↗ Gilman villages property connection to

2:49:14 ↗ is akua's historic past that's where we

2:49:16 ↗ started and I think that's why council

2:49:19 ↗ member hunt said that seems really hard

2:49:23 ↗ to enforce so we started there let me

2:49:27 ↗ see if I have it I don't have it on this

2:49:30 ↗ oh oh hey look at this

2:49:34 ↗ so here were so we started with 2.3 and

2:49:38 ↗ then I offered a couple different

2:49:41 ↗ alternatives to 2.3 one was prior to

2:49:45 ↗ pursuing any development permits for

2:49:47 ↗ Gilman village discuss opportunities for

2:49:49 ↗ preservation or reuse with the city that

2:49:50 ↗ would have been a developer obligation

2:49:52 ↗ and the other was two point three point

2:49:55 ↗ two incorporates some of the existing

2:49:56 ↗ historic buildings into any

2:49:58 ↗ redevelopment project obviously when

2:50:00 ↗ you're thinking about spectrums that one

2:50:01 ↗ would be kind of the most significant so

2:50:05 ↗ these were the things we talked about a

2:50:07 ↗ committee at the end of the day we kind

2:50:10 ↗ of focused on the middle one which then

2:50:13 ↗ really became more of a City action for

2:50:15 ↗ us to initiate and that's where we

2:50:17 ↗ landed so that's what's coming out of

2:50:18 ↗ committee thank you you look puzzled did

2:50:23 ↗ that help or make it no I mean I know

2:50:26 ↗ those are not clearly I mean that's why

2:50:27 ↗ the committee didn't come forward that

2:50:30 ↗ is those are not the right obligations

2:50:32 ↗ and and I'm struggling with what that is

2:50:34 ↗ - that's why I wanted to see them you

2:50:36 ↗ know as I was trying to figure out what

2:50:38 ↗ the words are and what we were trying to

2:50:40 ↗ accomplish sure so the problem is I mean

2:50:43 ↗ if you if you really want to if part of

2:50:46 ↗ it is what's what's a win and if a win

2:50:48 ↗ is to preserve Gilman village as is then

2:50:52 ↗ really it would be

2:50:55 ↗ probably the city coming forward and

2:50:57 ↗ purchasing the development rights off

2:50:58 ↗ that property and and then it gets it

2:51:01 ↗ gets retained as a historic designated

2:51:03 ↗ property within the city but that would

2:51:06 ↗ be something that I think the

2:51:07 ↗ councilmember marches position

2:51:09 ↗ well Gilman village is truly an

2:51:12 ↗ important piece but so is the village

2:51:14 ↗ theater you know and and then what about

2:51:18 ↗ the dairy I mean so you know so the

2:51:20 ↗ thing is you know bones chocolates I

2:51:23 ↗ mean so so the question is how do you

2:51:25 ↗ start that conversation and do you start

2:51:27 ↗ it with Gilman village and I think what

2:51:29 ↗ came out of committee is we need to have

2:51:31 ↗ that conversation it maybe shouldn't

2:51:34 ↗ start with Gilman village it should

2:51:35 ↗ start with the inventory to let's let's

2:51:38 ↗ see what we've got and then let's

2:51:40 ↗ strategically talk about how do we talk

2:51:43 ↗ to those property owners to try and make

2:51:45 ↗ sure that the things that we do find

2:51:46 ↗ unique to our community that we're not

2:51:49 ↗ just lucky that they just happen to kind

2:51:52 ↗ of ride along with us for for our life

2:51:54 ↗ here I don't that was helpful so so the

2:52:05 ↗ hard part about this and I say this

2:52:08 ↗ having no idea who owns Gilman village

2:52:11 ↗ and having never talked to that person

2:52:13 ↗ once in my life is we've been in this

2:52:16 ↗ moratorium for eighteen months and I

2:52:18 ↗ don't what you said is that we haven't

2:52:21 ↗ had any conversations with a person who

2:52:23 ↗ owns a Gilman village if that person

2:52:25 ↗ were here and asking us to do something

2:52:28 ↗ and I would totally be with you come to

2:52:31 ↗ my beret and because I consider it like

2:52:34 ↗ wonderful I you know I eat at analyst

2:52:37 ↗ and I eat it

2:52:39 ↗ Bangalore I think that's what they call

2:52:40 ↗ it now and you know love that that's

2:52:44 ↗ part of our city and feel that that's

2:52:46 ↗ sort of an extension of old town so I

2:52:47 ↗ I'm with you on that but we just don't

2:52:50 ↗ have anything to grasp it on right now

2:52:52 ↗ and you know the alternative is to go

2:52:55 ↗ back in for another six months of

2:52:57 ↗ moratorium and try to figure it out and

2:52:58 ↗ without evidence that the person

2:53:01 ↗ involved once is is as actively engaged

2:53:04 ↗ with us on as itten to do that

2:53:08 ↗ so looking to see if anybody wants to

2:53:12 ↗ make an additional motion or we'd like

2:53:13 ↗ to move to vote on the main motion

2:53:16 ↗ that's a member interesting well I don't

2:53:18 ↗ want to make a motion I don't want what

2:53:20 ↗ I don't want to do that it was

2:53:21 ↗ interesting to hear debate about a

2:53:22 ↗ motion that wasn't made yeah that was

2:53:24 ↗ good it's a really good conversation and

2:53:26 ↗ I appreciate the points that were made I

2:53:29 ↗ think the next thing that's gonna happen

2:53:31 ↗ you're gonna call the question and I

2:53:33 ↗ earlier this evening I specifically that

2:53:38 ↗ the the redid the redone visions and the

2:53:42 ↗ elements that are there I think are very

2:53:43 ↗ significant I think they in total meet

2:53:46 ↗ the what my expectation was when we

2:53:50 ↗ adopted that portion of the moratorium

2:53:53 ↗ and that that because of all of the

2:53:57 ↗ regulations we've added and kind of

2:53:59 ↗ repeating this myself a little bit that

2:54:01 ↗ we've done a significant amount of work

2:54:04 ↗ we've highly regulated the central area

2:54:08 ↗ and that pan I think that the developer

2:54:12 ↗ obligations are a step too far for me

2:54:14 ↗ and and so and so this is for me

2:54:20 ↗ difficult to support when I think a

2:54:23 ↗ portion of it is a little bit of

2:54:25 ↗ legislative overreach we've reached very

2:54:29 ↗ far we're making a big difference

2:54:30 ↗ already with what's in place should it

2:54:33 ↗ be lifted immediately and so I'm gonna

2:54:36 ↗ vote against the proposal it's not a

2:54:39 ↗ vent it's not against the visions as

2:54:42 ↗ you're showing up here for each of the

2:54:43 ↗ neighborhoods but it's against the idea

2:54:45 ↗ of the inclusion of the developer

2:54:47 ↗ obligations and then require them with

2:54:49 ↗ code I think they're going to be very

2:54:50 ↗ problematic and I think they're a little

2:54:52 ↗ bit too far for us to be going thank you

2:54:56 ↗ your comments are ready for the main

2:54:59 ↗ motion more last one is minutes

2:55:05 ↗ he's going to talk about all the work

2:55:07 ↗ that's been gone on and that has gone on

2:55:09 ↗ and we have made tremendous tremendous

2:55:12 ↗ progress I just want to not acknowledge

2:55:15 ↗ that it's it this has been

2:55:17 ↗ extraordinarily challenging for a lot of

2:55:20 ↗ people not just staff and all of the

2:55:24 ↗ people who volunteered their time to

2:55:26 ↗ work on this for countless hours but

2:55:30 ↗ also the community folks who have

2:55:33 ↗ properties that they wanted to redevelop

2:55:34 ↗ and develop it's just been really very

2:55:37 ↗ very challenging we've had some

2:55:40 ↗ unfortunate consequences that you know

2:55:45 ↗ that resulted from the moratorium that

2:55:48 ↗ tends to happen people got caught up in

2:55:51 ↗ it and it's not a it's not a happy

2:55:55 ↗ occasion it's not a happy tool I think

2:55:57 ↗ it's very unfortunate that we got pushed

2:56:01 ↗ into a corner where we had to take this

2:56:04 ↗ action so I want to thank everybody for

2:56:07 ↗ their patience I also want to stress

2:56:09 ↗ that even though we've put a lot of work

2:56:13 ↗ into it that you know it's it's

2:56:17 ↗ certainly by far from you know perfect

2:56:20 ↗ and as you heard Keith he expects to

2:56:22 ↗ revisit this and I fully expect that to

2:56:26 ↗ happen too but it's been very

2:56:28 ↗ challenging so I just want to thank

2:56:30 ↗ everybody for their patience and I just

2:56:33 ↗ want to acknowledge that I'm sure we all

2:56:35 ↗ realize how challenging this has been

2:56:36 ↗ for the entire community thank you no

2:56:42 ↗ other hands going up if there's no

2:56:44 ↗ further discussion all those in favor of

2:56:46 ↗ adopting ordinance number two eight

2:56:48 ↗ three eight relating to central is quo

2:56:50 ↗ amending sections 1.1 1.1 C and 1.1 the

2:56:57 ↗ point two of the central Issaquah

2:56:59 ↗ development and design standards and

2:57:00 ↗ adopting by reference several amendments

2:57:02 ↗ to the central square plan a sub area

2:57:05 ↗ plan within its comprehensive plan by

2:57:07 ↗ updating the district visions changing

2:57:10 ↗ district boundaries and changing

2:57:12 ↗ boundaries of central is quo and

2:57:15 ↗ as amended signify by saying aye I was

2:57:19 ↗ opposed nay vote carries six to one with

2:57:23 ↗ councilmember winter Stein opposed I

2:57:25 ↗ just like to do a check with Council

2:57:27 ↗ right now we're approaching 10 o'clock

2:57:29 ↗ would you like a five-minute recess yeah

2:57:31 ↗ I've been at recess

2:57:46 ↗ you

3:04:03 ↗ we are back from our recess and the last

3:04:06 ↗ item under regular business this evening

3:04:08 ↗ is a b7 576 amendments to the IMC

3:04:12 ↗ regarding accessory dwelling units this

3:04:15 ↗ item is coming out of the council and in

3:04:17 ↗ short committee I would like to continue

3:04:20 ↗ to invite Keith and at the p.m. our

3:04:23 ↗ director of development services and

3:04:26 ↗ economic development and Keith for a

3:04:29 ↗ presentation thank you madam mayor City

3:04:32 ↗ Council I was gonna bring another jacket

3:04:33 ↗ so I could at least look a little

3:04:35 ↗ different for this third one but I

3:04:36 ↗ didn't get that motivated so agenda bill

3:04:41 ↗ 75 76 accessory dwelling units so to set

3:04:46 ↗ a little context here for you all we one

3:04:50 ↗ of the one of the things that we did

3:04:52 ↗ last year was we adopted a housing

3:04:54 ↗ strategy work plan and within that we

3:04:57 ↗ identified nine different strategies

3:04:59 ↗ dealing with both affordable housing and

3:05:01 ↗ housing diversity and both of those

3:05:03 ↗ things were identified we we got

3:05:05 ↗ together our Planning Commission our

3:05:07 ↗ economic vitality Commission and our

3:05:09 ↗ Human Services Commission we set them

3:05:11 ↗ all in this room and we had a number of

3:05:13 ↗ meetings where we talked about housing

3:05:14 ↗ and what as a community we were really

3:05:17 ↗ trying to get to and diversity and

3:05:20 ↗ affordability were a couple of the big

3:05:22 ↗ items so strategy number one was to

3:05:26 ↗ remove barriers to facilitate the

3:05:29 ↗ construction of accessory dwelling units

3:05:31 ↗ the idea here was we we don't have that

3:05:36 ↗ many as an overall percentage of our

3:05:39 ↗ total housing units and you know part of

3:05:43 ↗ it was trying to look at why why why

3:05:47 ↗ were we not getting as many per

3:05:50 ↗ residential unit as some of our peer

3:05:52 ↗ cities and so as we went through our

3:05:55 ↗ codes we identified a number of things

3:05:58 ↗ that basically drove the cost of

3:06:02 ↗ providing accessory dwelling units up

3:06:04 ↗ and so what really we're trying to do

3:06:08 ↗ with our code amendments that are being

3:06:10 ↗ proposed this evening is to try and

3:06:13 ↗ remove some of those

3:06:14 ↗ obstacles that are keeping us from

3:06:16 ↗ getting more accessory dwelling units so

3:06:18 ↗ I'm just gonna go through this list very

3:06:20 ↗ quickly and if you want to ask questions

3:06:23 ↗ I'm happy to pause during any of these

3:06:26 ↗ so ad use will not be charged school

3:06:28 ↗ impact fees ad use will not pay traffic

3:06:31 ↗ or parking packed fees we cleaned up

3:06:35 ↗ definition within our code that an Adu

3:06:38 ↗ is not a duplex because different

3:06:40 ↗ regulations apply to duplexes we did a

3:06:44 ↗ clarification for pre-existing ad use

3:06:47 ↗ how you can bring them on to the books

3:06:48 ↗ and make them legal we have

3:06:51 ↗ clarifications sorry councilmember

3:06:55 ↗ Lambert

3:06:55 ↗ we have clarifications for removing an

3:06:57 ↗ ad you and you might say well why would

3:06:59 ↗ somebody want to remove an accessory

3:07:01 ↗ dwelling unit and the problem is is they

3:07:04 ↗ have to pay an individual payment to

3:07:09 ↗ metro sewer and so it becomes a cost as

3:07:12 ↗ soon as the homeowner no longer gets

3:07:15 ↗ benefit from that that additional sewer

3:07:19 ↗ charge becomes a cost prohibit a ssin

3:07:22 ↗ and we actually just took an ad you off

3:07:23 ↗ the books in our community for that

3:07:25 ↗ specific purpose the next one was size

3:07:29 ↗ so what the code that's in front of you

3:07:33 ↗ is proposing is that we limit the size

3:07:34 ↗ of an ad you to a thousand square feet

3:07:36 ↗ with the director being able to increase

3:07:39 ↗ it to 1300 square feet if it meets

3:07:42 ↗ specific criteria and there was a

3:07:46 ↗ conversation about that a committee and

3:07:47 ↗ we might talk about that a little bit

3:07:49 ↗ later would be my guess fire wants a

3:07:52 ↗ four foot walkway to the entrance of the

3:07:53 ↗ ad use so the ad you gets a separate

3:07:56 ↗ address and they need to be able to find

3:07:59 ↗ that front door because if somebody's

3:08:01 ↗ having an emergency inside an ad you

3:08:03 ↗ they don't want to knock on the main

3:08:05 ↗ residence it doesn't help they need to

3:08:07 ↗ be able to find the front of the ad you

3:08:10 ↗ we are talking about removing the land

3:08:13 ↗ use permit fee so that's a $500 charge

3:08:16 ↗ right now it's a level one review and so

3:08:20 ↗ basically which requires an

3:08:22 ↗ administrative site development permit

3:08:23 ↗ and what we're suggesting is making it a

3:08:26 ↗ level zero which

3:08:27 ↗ means you can just come in with a

3:08:29 ↗ building permit to create your ad you so

3:08:32 ↗ that's our code proposed code revisions

3:08:35 ↗ that's the end of my very brief

3:08:38 ↗ presentation and just to remind you all

3:08:41 ↗ because it's been three plus hours we

3:08:43 ↗ did have one public enter comment during

3:08:46 ↗ public comment and expressed concern

3:08:48 ↗ over the limitation of size so I just

3:08:51 ↗ wanted to remind y'all that that

3:08:53 ↗ happened earlier this evening thank you

3:08:54 ↗ key questions as the president Mertz

3:08:58 ↗ there is a proposed amendment to deal

3:09:04 ↗ with that exact question that is in the

3:09:07 ↗ language of the bill and you tell us

3:09:11 ↗ about that yes I think one assumes you

3:09:22 ↗ wrote it I did I'm just trying to find

3:09:24 ↗ it's it's it's a couple of paragraphs up

3:09:36 ↗ from the recommendation from the

3:09:37 ↗ official recommendation in the front of

3:09:39 ↗ the in the front of the packet I am not

3:09:43 ↗ seeing it I've been standing here too

3:09:45 ↗ long my apologies so what it says is in

3:09:48 ↗ response the committee's request staff

3:09:49 ↗ has provided an amendment to the

3:09:51 ↗ ordinance which would increase the

3:09:52 ↗ allowed size of it attached basements if

3:09:54 ↗ council wishes to propose the amendment

3:09:56 ↗ the following motion can be made right

3:09:58 ↗ so so the so here's this here's what

3:10:02 ↗ came up at committee in a very I'm going

3:10:06 ↗ to say indirect way because I think it

3:10:08 ↗ was fairly indirect so right now we

3:10:10 ↗ proposed the thousand square feet and

3:10:13 ↗ then the 1,300 max and so take it so if

3:10:18 ↗ you had let's assume you had like a

3:10:21 ↗ split-level house and the footprint was

3:10:25 ↗ 1500 square feet

3:10:26 ↗ you had 1500 with 1500 above what this

3:10:30 ↗ says is that you could not create an ad

3:10:34 ↗ you out of half of your house you

3:10:36 ↗ couldn't split it in half and create

3:10:38 ↗ half because that would be too big

3:10:41 ↗ you'd have to somehow demise that one of

3:10:44 ↗ those floors into smaller pieces to not

3:10:48 ↗ exceed the 1,300 square feet so I think

3:10:51 ↗ so what what this this alternative

3:10:56 ↗ motion would do would be to basically

3:11:00 ↗ get rid of the max cap right okay tuning

3:11:09 ↗ on living as a thousand square may allow

3:11:14 ↗ increased size if the creation of the ad

3:11:16 ↗ you so basically so if you read the last

3:11:18 ↗ sentence it basically doesn't it gets

3:11:22 ↗ rid of the thirteen hundred square foot

3:11:23 ↗ cap is what it does so there's still a

3:11:27 ↗ thousand but if you can if you can

3:11:31 ↗ demonstrate that it basically it happens

3:11:33 ↗ within the structure it could be it

3:11:36 ↗ could be fourteen hundred it could be

3:11:38 ↗ thirteen fifty or 1400 square feet it

3:11:40 ↗ could be bigger than what we originally

3:11:43 ↗ proposed which was a 1,300 square foot

3:11:45 ↗ max so that's what this is saying thank

3:11:47 ↗ you that's the alternative motion

3:11:49 ↗ included in the packet yes it's an

3:11:53 ↗ amendment it's it's the amendment a

3:11:57 ↗ possible amendment comes my ramos yeah

3:12:01 ↗ so a couple questions so the thousand

3:12:06 ↗ square feet is pretty large I live in

3:12:08 ↗ Old Town that's bigger than many of the

3:12:10 ↗ houses in my neighborhood that are eight

3:12:12 ↗ to nine hundred square feet you know and

3:12:15 ↗ and so I'm trying to I'm trying to

3:12:17 ↗ figure out all the the conversation that

3:12:19 ↗ happened to get to this and you started

3:12:23 ↗ to limit on some of that if you have a

3:12:25 ↗ three thousand square foot house 1500

3:12:28 ↗ 1500 excuse me and you really want to

3:12:31 ↗ split that into is that really an Adu or

3:12:33 ↗ is that a duplex now is my question

3:12:35 ↗ because 1500 is you know it an accessory

3:12:40 ↗ dwelling unit to me is small I tell you

3:12:42 ↗ I grew up in a house like that it was a

3:12:44 ↗ two-story house and the address was 1831

3:12:47 ↗ and a half because he literally put the

3:12:49 ↗ house and two upstairs and downstairs

3:12:50 ↗ and I looked upstairs right so I've seen

3:12:52 ↗ that done

3:12:53 ↗ and that makes sense but we really have

3:12:56 ↗ two full homes it's not a unit which to

3:13:00 ↗ me is tends to be smaller so that that's

3:13:01 ↗ the question I mean what that

3:13:03 ↗ conversation was with that and how that

3:13:06 ↗ went because fifteen hundred to me is no

3:13:08 ↗ longer unit that's pretty darn big so so

3:13:13 ↗ you're getting so we're definitely

3:13:16 ↗ blurring the line between Adu and duplex

3:13:20 ↗ right it's getting closer we're still I

3:13:22 ↗ think have a distinction in that an Adu

3:13:26 ↗ has to have an owner property owner has

3:13:29 ↗ to live either in the ATU or in the main

3:13:31 ↗ unit so there has to be a property owner

3:13:35 ↗ on-site in one of the two units whereas

3:13:38 ↗ a duplex you could just rent them both

3:13:39 ↗ out to two unrelated families so so I

3:13:44 ↗ think there is still a little bit of

3:13:47 ↗ separation but you're right I mean one

3:13:50 ↗ of the reasons why and and if you look

3:13:51 ↗ at so one of the things that we provided

3:13:55 ↗ as an attachment to the agenda bill is

3:13:58 ↗ comparison of a number of other cities

3:14:01 ↗ and so there's a table it's Exhibit C to

3:14:05 ↗ the agenda bill and basically there's

3:14:08 ↗ only one other city that doesn't have a

3:14:12 ↗ max square footage in all the cities

3:14:16 ↗ that were inventoried for accessory

3:14:18 ↗ dwelling units so so this is pretty if

3:14:21 ↗ if the council wants to pursue the

3:14:24 ↗ amendment or the alternative motion

3:14:27 ↗ which would not set a cap it puts this

3:14:31 ↗ kind of out there ad as you know is one

3:14:35 ↗ of the more liberal accessory dwelling

3:14:39 ↗ unit provisions so the issues that come

3:14:42 ↗ up you know could be things like once it

3:14:44 ↗ gets bigger you know it does accommodate

3:14:48 ↗ more people

3:14:49 ↗ but that could there could be parking

3:14:51 ↗ issues associated with that right now

3:14:54 ↗ you know our accessory dwelling units

3:14:56 ↗ require one parking space so so there's

3:15:00 ↗ it starts to you know there's definitely

3:15:01 ↗ some complexities

3:15:03 ↗ if the council wants to go with

3:15:07 ↗ they all turn to motion and I'm gonna

3:15:11 ↗ stop just finish that it because because

3:15:14 ↗ one of the things you're doing here is

3:15:16 ↗ eliminating some you know fees traffic

3:15:19 ↗ back fees parties you know school impact

3:15:22 ↗ fees and if you're really adding the

3:15:24 ↗ fifteen hundred square foot house then

3:15:26 ↗ you know to 215 square foot house versus

3:15:29 ↗ one 3,000 square foot house you're

3:15:31 ↗ probably adding a fair amount of people

3:15:32 ↗ probably which starts getting beyond

3:15:35 ↗ that thing where those fees that's why

3:15:38 ↗ I'm trying to be where you want to waive

3:15:39 ↗ those fees I see that as a much smaller

3:15:42 ↗ unit you're waving those fees because

3:15:43 ↗ you're not having the impact that those

3:15:46 ↗ fees are supposed to cover did you did

3:15:52 ↗ you want keep the comment on the

3:15:53 ↗ question or was that just a comment it's

3:15:57 ↗ kind of a guy I don't think he needs to

3:15:59 ↗ it's kind of my own question that I

3:16:01 ↗ stated and answered myself is there any

3:16:06 ↗ other questions for Keith before we go

3:16:07 ↗ to a motion questions okay I'll look for

3:16:14 ↗ a motion that's all president marks no

3:16:17 ↗ you can't madam mayor I move to adopt

3:16:18 ↗ ordinance number 28 39 relating to

3:16:23 ↗ accessory dwelling units amending

3:16:25 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code chapters 3.6 3

3:16:28 ↗ school impact fees 3.6 for fees for

3:16:31 ↗ applications for subdivisions and land

3:16:33 ↗ used actions 3.7 1 traffic impact fees

3:16:36 ↗ and 3.7 - park impact fees in order to

3:16:39 ↗ exempt accessory dwelling units from the

3:16:41 ↗ payment of impact fees and in order to

3:16:43 ↗ establish a pre application fee for

3:16:45 ↗ review of accessory dwelling units and

3:16:48 ↗ amending various sections of physical

3:16:49 ↗ and Municipal Code title 18.0 land use

3:16:52 ↗ in order to regulate accessory dwelling

3:16:54 ↗ units second it's been moved and

3:16:56 ↗ seconded

3:16:57 ↗ is there any council discussion

3:17:04 ↗ okay I got people point in both ways

3:17:07 ↗ okay council member reassigned from the

3:17:09 ↗ Goodman okay we're interesting is great

3:17:14 ↗ tonight we know we just completed a

3:17:17 ↗ conversation about a amendment that

3:17:19 ↗ wasn't made yet even before the main

3:17:21 ↗ motion so it's been an interesting

3:17:23 ↗ evening these are proposed to help us

3:17:27 ↗ create more housing especially housing

3:17:34 ↗ that's affordable to more people and

3:17:38 ↗ it's a key part of our strategy size is

3:17:44 ↗ important because you we don't want to

3:17:49 ↗ matically change an existing

3:17:52 ↗ neighborhood a characteristic of a

3:17:54 ↗ neighborhood and and yet but at the same

3:17:59 ↗ time we also need to have more dwelling

3:18:04 ↗ units available to people who want to

3:18:08 ↗ live in proximity maybe to where they

3:18:10 ↗ work maybe they don't have the type of

3:18:12 ↗ income or household income that allows

3:18:14 ↗ them to otherwise you know live with in

3:18:17 ↗ Issaquah unless there was an Adu

3:18:18 ↗ available I think there's also some

3:18:20 ↗ other shifts that are happening within

3:18:23 ↗ the art community socially I know that

3:18:27 ↗ there are more three generation homes

3:18:30 ↗ households in Issaquah than before

3:18:32 ↗ that's anecdotal data just based upon

3:18:34 ↗ you know going door to door and I think

3:18:38 ↗ the cost of living here is is very

3:18:41 ↗ significant and of course those many

3:18:46 ↗ many young people are getting a great

3:18:49 ↗ start in life and if they may they pair

3:18:53 ↗ up with a partner and have a greater

3:18:55 ↗ household income they can get started

3:18:56 ↗ with something maybe something new

3:18:57 ↗ that's coming onto the market with in

3:18:59 ↗ Issaquah but there's still a significant

3:19:01 ↗ portion of people that are here now and

3:19:04 ↗ our own children in the years in the

3:19:05 ↗ future where it's only going to be

3:19:08 ↗ opportunities they with such as

3:19:10 ↗ accessory dwelling units that's going to

3:19:12 ↗ allow them to get

3:19:13 ↗ there there a place of their own and and

3:19:18 ↗ so I think this is very important part

3:19:20 ↗ about I think keeping families together

3:19:22 ↗ and helping Issaquah grow while

3:19:25 ↗ spreading out the burden of that growth

3:19:28 ↗ it's one thing to be talking about

3:19:29 ↗ adding a you know 350 units by a transit

3:19:32 ↗ center it's another thing of draw

3:19:34 ↗ sprinkling the capacity throughout

3:19:38 ↗ existing more established neighborhoods

3:19:41 ↗ such as squawk Mountain for example

3:19:43 ↗ where the impact will be very difficult

3:19:45 ↗ to ever notice but we can actually

3:19:48 ↗ accommodate more people and and so I

3:19:51 ↗ think this is very important about

3:19:53 ↗ Parshin of our of our strategy so I'm

3:19:56 ↗ definitely going to support this motion

3:19:59 ↗ and I've also want to make an amendment

3:20:05 ↗ proposed an amendment

3:20:09 ↗ so I move to amend the ordinance to

3:20:13 ↗ strike the language in IMC 1807 450 c4

3:20:18 ↗ and replace it with the following item

3:20:21 ↗ number for size the square footage of

3:20:23 ↗ the ad you shall not exceed one thousand

3:20:25 ↗ square feet

3:20:26 ↗ excluding any non living areas such as

3:20:29 ↗ garage storage sheds or decks unless the

3:20:32 ↗ excluded area is in the location of the

3:20:35 ↗ proposed ATU the development services

3:20:37 ↗ director or designated appointee may

3:20:40 ↗ allow increased size if the creation of

3:20:43 ↗ the ATU does not necessitate an exterior

3:20:47 ↗ expansion of the residents except for

3:20:50 ↗ minimal alterations necessary for the

3:20:52 ↗ Adu to be a functionally separate

3:20:54 ↗ residence okay

3:20:56 ↗ it's been moved in second Paul could you

3:20:58 ↗ pass down the is it on your computer

3:21:00 ↗ it's in the bill no I just unlike others

3:21:04 ↗ I depended on people to write it for me

3:21:08 ↗ so you already have it okay thank you

3:21:31 ↗ very much okay a motion to amend the

3:21:35 ↗ ordinance by increase the allowed size

3:21:37 ↗ of attached basement has been moved in

3:21:38 ↗ second is there any council discussion

3:21:40 ↗ I'll really the exact wording when we

3:21:42 ↗ get to them Wow okay let's go this way

3:21:48 ↗ councilmember hunt ray I almost wonder

3:21:50 ↗ Stein thank you i I think that ad use

3:21:55 ↗ are one of the strategies in the housing

3:21:58 ↗ work plan that do really lend themselves

3:22:02 ↗ to preserving the character of the

3:22:03 ↗ neighborhood while adding opportunities

3:22:05 ↗ for more people to live there and so I

3:22:07 ↗ am really in favor of making it easier

3:22:11 ↗ to have ad use and I think that I think

3:22:16 ↗ that the amendment helps will help make

3:22:20 ↗ it easier for some people in some

3:22:22 ↗ situation

3:22:22 ↗ to have a tea use and so I am in support

3:22:26 ↗ I also when I was looking through the

3:22:28 ↗ table of what other cities in our region

3:22:31 ↗ are doing as far as a tea use I was

3:22:33 ↗ struck by how specific and how

3:22:35 ↗ complicated there are so many different

3:22:37 ↗ options for sizes and for attached and

3:22:39 ↗ detached and I think that I think that

3:22:43 ↗ cities are making those those decisions

3:22:48 ↗ based on specific characteristics of

3:22:50 ↗ their city and in our case we do have

3:22:52 ↗ these daylit basements and I live on

3:22:57 ↗ squawk Mountain so I'm familiar with

3:22:58 ↗ this and I think that giving the

3:23:01 ↗ flexibility to have one floor of a house

3:23:05 ↗ that's about the size of a thousand

3:23:08 ↗ square feet for that attached or sorry

3:23:10 ↗ for that accessory dwelling unit I think

3:23:13 ↗ it makes good sense for our particular

3:23:14 ↗ situation and for that reason I am in

3:23:18 ↗ support I also just wanted to add that

3:23:21 ↗ there was some discussion about is it a

3:23:23 ↗ duplex or not and I think that if since

3:23:28 ↗ since the size limit are greater than a

3:23:32 ↗ thousand square feet is on those is only

3:23:36 ↗ when it doesn't change the exterior of

3:23:38 ↗ the structure you won't have the two

3:23:40 ↗ doors at the front you won't have the

3:23:41 ↗ appearance of a duplex and so that's

3:23:44 ↗ another for me that's another critical

3:23:46 ↗ difference is that it it isn't allowing

3:23:50 ↗ for two buildings to be next to each

3:23:54 ↗ other of the same size that's saying

3:23:55 ↗ that if you have a building of above a

3:23:58 ↗ certain size you can still make it a you

3:24:01 ↗ can still have an accessory dwelling

3:24:03 ↗ unit inside if you don't change the

3:24:04 ↗ exterior and so I don't see how this so

3:24:08 ↗ I think that this allows for more

3:24:10 ↗ housing without changing the character

3:24:12 ↗ of the neighborhood Thank You

3:24:14 ↗ councilmember right no I try to like the

3:24:16 ↗ idea of accessory dwelling units it's a

3:24:19 ↗ way in our more established

3:24:20 ↗ neighborhoods to create create higher

3:24:23 ↗ density with with our existing property

3:24:27 ↗ I just have one question about the

3:24:28 ↗ amendment and it is that there's no

3:24:30 ↗ limit

3:24:31 ↗ to the size of an Adu as long as it

3:24:35 ↗ doesn't change the size of the residents

3:24:38 ↗ is that is that a correct interpretation

3:24:39 ↗ of what I'm reading yes so okay so I

3:24:43 ↗ could have a four thousand square foot

3:24:45 ↗ house I could cut it in half and I can

3:24:48 ↗ have I could live upstairs in 2000 and

3:24:51 ↗ have a need of you downstairs for two

3:24:52 ↗ thousand yes and then we think that that

3:24:55 ↗ whoever moves into that 2,000 square

3:24:57 ↗ foot house is probably not going to have

3:24:58 ↗ an impact on you know they're not gonna

3:25:00 ↗ have kids so they wouldn't have an

3:25:01 ↗ impact on schools and they wouldn't

3:25:03 ↗ wouldn't have an impact on traffic or

3:25:05 ↗ parks so I guess one of the things that

3:25:07 ↗ I'm kind of binding up on this is a guy

3:25:09 ↗ I liked and the idea but when I start to

3:25:12 ↗ look at we're not going to charge impact

3:25:14 ↗ fees for schools or parks or traffic

3:25:16 ↗ that makes a lot of sense to me when

3:25:18 ↗ it's small because it's more likely that

3:25:19 ↗ the person living in the smaller

3:25:21 ↗ dwelling is not going to use city

3:25:23 ↗ services but when I start talking about

3:25:25 ↗ a larger situation I can see many

3:25:29 ↗ situations where they would have impacts

3:25:31 ↗ on our schools on our roads and in our

3:25:33 ↗ parks thank you

3:25:35 ↗ council member Ramos yeah I am a hundred

3:25:39 ↗ percent supporter of ad use and maybe

3:25:42 ↗ you know where I grew up in East Oakland

3:25:44 ↗ my family we had five units on our

3:25:47 ↗ property because just build anymore as

3:25:49 ↗ you go and everybody kept spreading out

3:25:50 ↗ and we are there's last one there and we

3:25:52 ↗ just kept bringing out the other ones in

3:25:53 ↗ my family family was fighting I mean one

3:25:55 ↗ the other four I'll run it up so I know

3:25:58 ↗ that structure and how it works and it's

3:26:00 ↗ it's it's it is good but I think there

3:26:03 ↗ is a limit on size on when you when you

3:26:06 ↗ want to make that work and that's what's

3:26:08 ↗ what's holding me up right here is is

3:26:10 ↗ that unlimited size actor I well I'm

3:26:20 ↗ asked a question now okay so actually

3:26:23 ↗ saw there's a house on fifth between

3:26:28 ↗ bush and Andrews and it was a single

3:26:31 ↗ level house with a basement and they

3:26:35 ↗ raised it up a little bit and they had a

3:26:37 ↗ full floor underneath and it turned out

3:26:38 ↗ that they were in and out of it and they

3:26:39 ↗ did turn it my mind into a duplex um it

3:26:42 ↗ didn't change us the footprint at all a

3:26:45 ↗ matter of fact

3:26:45 ↗ I rented the bottom basement for quite a

3:26:47 ↗ while but but so and I saw that happen

3:26:50 ↗ and how they changed that and it I think

3:26:53 ↗ that would fit in an ad you hear but it

3:26:54 ↗ really made two houses on the lot I

3:26:57 ↗ don't know what permitting process they

3:26:59 ↗ went through back then this was quite a

3:27:00 ↗ while ago but so you couldn't you

3:27:03 ↗ couldn't raise so like one of the excuse

3:27:07 ↗ me back they didn't raise it it was

3:27:08 ↗ almost a day like basement I take that

3:27:10 ↗ so so like you know for example if this

3:27:12 ↗ was originally just a single-story

3:27:14 ↗ garage and they built a second floor

3:27:16 ↗ above it the footprint doesn't change

3:27:18 ↗ but the building envelope has changed

3:27:20 ↗ and what this is saying is that you

3:27:22 ↗ could you could create an ad you it's

3:27:26 ↗ it's kind of most similar to this photo

3:27:28 ↗ where they basically turn their daylight

3:27:31 ↗ basement into a separate residential

3:27:33 ↗ unit any of the situations where you've

3:27:37 ↗ added structure either elevation or

3:27:40 ↗ outward you couldn't go past the

3:27:43 ↗ thousand square feet if you were gonna

3:27:45 ↗ do that

3:27:45 ↗ it's an elevation as well yeah thank you

3:27:52 ↗ that's my register let's make it thank

3:27:55 ↗ you

3:27:55 ↗ the its I think it's important that this

3:28:00 ↗ amendment is is is working within the

3:28:04 ↗ existing capacity of the home and that's

3:28:06 ↗ the I think that's the way I view this

3:28:08 ↗ may be to use the example of a 4,000

3:28:11 ↗ square foot which is a large home my

3:28:12 ↗ house isn't that large so maybe I'll use

3:28:14 ↗ my example 3,400 square feet and and

3:28:20 ↗ that has a certain capacity right now

3:28:22 ↗ those houses have a certain capacity all

3:28:24 ↗ what we're saying is that without adding

3:28:28 ↗ capacity you can at you can you can

3:28:31 ↗ actually make add an additional dwelling

3:28:34 ↗ unit you give another family whether

3:28:37 ↗ that be just a couple or it could be an

3:28:39 ↗ individual it could be a couple or it

3:28:41 ↗ could be a family but it but it's not

3:28:44 ↗ adding any capacity obviously people are

3:28:47 ↗ always free today even now to do

3:28:50 ↗ remodels and maybe add a bedroom or

3:28:52 ↗ something but but if you're putting that

3:28:54 ↗ this happens quite a bit around here

3:28:55 ↗ there's a lot of capital going into

3:28:57 ↗ existing homes

3:28:58 ↗ to expand them but as soon as you start

3:29:01 ↗ pushing the walls out you your a tu is

3:29:05 ↗ gonna be limited to a thousand feet and

3:29:07 ↗ and and so I'm I agree with the concern

3:29:10 ↗ this with the the impact fees by not

3:29:13 ↗ charging that because most of the

3:29:15 ↗ examples of most ad use that we see

3:29:17 ↗ appear you're adding capacity somewhere

3:29:19 ↗ but you're adding a limited capacity and

3:29:21 ↗ we and and we think that type of housing

3:29:23 ↗ is going to be important but it's good

3:29:25 ↗ and but to help encourage it we're gonna

3:29:26 ↗ you know reduce the costs by removing

3:29:30 ↗ the impact fees this amendment is not

3:29:33 ↗ about adding capacity and I think it

3:29:36 ↗ creates options for people to live with

3:29:38 ↗ in Issaquah and at the same time retain

3:29:42 ↗ retain the character of existing

3:29:44 ↗ neighborhoods that's right that's why

3:29:46 ↗ I'm gonna that's why I made the motion

3:29:48 ↗ the amendment thank you I I support the

3:29:52 ↗ amendment I think the 1,300 square foot

3:29:56 ↗ that was in the original proposed

3:29:59 ↗ changes to the code is arbitrary I think

3:30:02 ↗ there are some natural controls here

3:30:03 ↗ that will keep the the concern that

3:30:06 ↗ they're going to be just you know a

3:30:08 ↗ whole bunch of huge houses that are

3:30:09 ↗ divided in half I think that's very

3:30:11 ↗ unlikely number one as you've said the

3:30:15 ↗ property owner has to live there so this

3:30:18 ↗ isn't about creating whole bunch of

3:30:20 ↗ spaces that extra spaces are you know

3:30:23 ↗ twice as many houses that people are

3:30:25 ↗ going to rent out they have to live

3:30:29 ↗ there so for that reason I'm comfortable

3:30:31 ↗ I think it does create I guess I don't

3:30:34 ↗ know what the definition of capacity is

3:30:36 ↗ even though you're not expanding the

3:30:38 ↗ walls you are adding people capacity I

3:30:41 ↗ just don't think it's a measurable

3:30:43 ↗ impact and if we see that there are some

3:30:46 ↗ unintended consequences ORS are some

3:30:48 ↗ measurable measurable impact and we can

3:30:50 ↗ revisit I think it's a great tool and I

3:30:54 ↗ support the amendment Thank You deputy

3:30:58 ↗ council president forties I too am very

3:31:01 ↗ supportive of 80 use in general and I

3:31:04 ↗ will support the

3:31:06 ↗ and I think that the the one question

3:31:11 ↗ that I had coming into this was the

3:31:12 ↗ 1,300 square feet because I could

3:31:15 ↗ definitely see exceptions that we're

3:31:17 ↗ falling right outside of that that would

3:31:20 ↗ make it difficult and I think being able

3:31:23 ↗ to expand the language and give some

3:31:28 ↗ discretion to the director but not have

3:31:32 ↗ that expand actually expand the

3:31:35 ↗ residence and the way that the amendment

3:31:37 ↗ is written makes really good sense so

3:31:40 ↗ I'll be supporting this this evening

3:31:41 ↗ thank you

3:31:42 ↗ council president emeritus any comments

3:31:44 ↗ is your councilman Romo so so I probably

3:31:51 ↗ don't have fear of this really being

3:31:52 ↗ over used and abused because it hasn't

3:31:55 ↗ been historically but I guess I just

3:31:58 ↗ want to ask you one more question and

3:31:59 ↗ that is so the extreme example that you

3:32:02 ↗ that 4,000 square-foot house the owner

3:32:06 ↗ would have the option to split that into

3:32:08 ↗ a duplex and and go through that at all

3:32:11 ↗ or that's not an option it depends it

3:32:14 ↗ depends on the zone so some of our

3:32:16 ↗ residential zones allow for duplexes and

3:32:19 ↗ some do not

3:32:20 ↗ they all allow for accessory dwelling

3:32:22 ↗ units so if if it was a 4,000 square

3:32:25 ↗ foot and he wanted to create an Adu

3:32:27 ↗ there's a covenant on the property for

3:32:31 ↗ that they couldn't basically create a

3:32:34 ↗ duplex so that in the zone unless the

3:32:38 ↗ zone allowed it and then they could they

3:32:40 ↗ could request to turn into a duplex okay

3:32:43 ↗ and then just might just and again we're

3:32:46 ↗ talking extreme examples here and I

3:32:48 ↗ don't think the ad you has been used

3:32:52 ↗ enough we'd like to use it a lot more

3:32:54 ↗ most cities would and to provide much

3:32:57 ↗ more housing and at different affordable

3:33:00 ↗ rates

3:33:00 ↗ so I'd say that as well thank you

3:33:03 ↗ council member aog this is um this may

3:33:06 ↗ be a nonsensical question but can I have

3:33:08 ↗ more than 180 you and a parcel no okay

3:33:12 ↗ unless you moved to Oakland apparently

3:33:15 ↗ yes

3:33:17 ↗ that explains a lot

3:33:20 ↗ questions or comments before we go to

3:33:22 ↗ the vote on the amended motion being

3:33:28 ↗ none wait I'm sorry point of point of

3:33:30 ↗ order are we voting on the amendment or

3:33:32 ↗ I'm seeing a head nod from the clerk's

3:33:35 ↗ office we're not voting we're not voting

3:33:37 ↗ on the amended motion just the amendment

3:33:41 ↗ yes

3:33:42 ↗ we're voting on an amendment computers

3:33:47 ↗ I'll read it

3:33:49 ↗ what you're voting on move to amend the

3:33:52 ↗ ordinance to strike the language in IMC

3:33:54 ↗ 18-point no 7.45 over NC print four and

3:33:58 ↗ replace it with the following number

3:34:00 ↗ four size the square footage of the ad

3:34:02 ↗ you shall not exceed a thousand square

3:34:04 ↗ feet excluding any non living areas such

3:34:06 ↗ as garage area storage sheds or decks

3:34:08 ↗ unless the excluded area is the location

3:34:12 ↗ of their proposed ad you the development

3:34:14 ↗ services director or designated

3:34:16 ↗ appointee may allow increased size if

3:34:18 ↗ the creation of the edu does not

3:34:20 ↗ necessitate an exterior expansion of the

3:34:22 ↗ residents except for minimal alterations

3:34:24 ↗ necessarily edu to be a functional

3:34:26 ↗ separate residence all those in favor of

3:34:29 ↗ the amendment most amendment passes

3:34:34 ↗ unanimously

3:34:35 ↗ the main motion as a president merits so

3:34:40 ↗ you know I spoke earlier about places

3:34:43 ↗ where although this isn't this was not a

3:34:48 ↗ requirement on lifting the moratorium I

3:34:50 ↗ consider this work part of what came out

3:34:52 ↗ of the moratorium and out of the good

3:34:54 ↗ housing work that we did this is an area

3:34:56 ↗ if if we're getting ahead of some other

3:34:59 ↗ cities I'll tell you that

3:35:01 ↗ everybody's talking to a to use when

3:35:03 ↗ we've had these meetings at SCA about

3:35:05 ↗ what can we do about housing what can we

3:35:07 ↗ do about housing ad user and everybody's

3:35:09 ↗ lips so if we're good if we're getting

3:35:12 ↗ to be a pathfinder in that area then

3:35:15 ↗ that's awesome and hopefully and I'm

3:35:18 ↗ quite confident that down the road when

3:35:20 ↗ I list greatest hits of things that I'm

3:35:21 ↗ proudest of assuming this passes this

3:35:23 ↗ evening then this is gonna be one of

3:35:26 ↗ them so I'm very much I'm very much in

3:35:28 ↗ favor of the motion that I make

3:35:32 ↗ other comments on the main motion before

3:35:35 ↗ we go to the main motion any other

3:35:37 ↗ comments okay this is a motion to adopt

3:35:42 ↗ ordinance number two eight three nine

3:35:43 ↗ relating to accessory dwelling units

3:35:45 ↗ amending its qua Municipal Code Chapter

3:35:47 ↗ three point six three school impact fees

3:35:49 ↗ three point six for these four

3:35:51 ↗ applications for subdivisions and

3:35:53 ↗ land-use actions three point seven one

3:35:54 ↗ traffic impact fees and three point

3:35:56 ↗ seven two park impact fees in order to

3:35:59 ↗ exempt accessory dwelling units from the

3:36:00 ↗ payment of impact fees and in order to

3:36:03 ↗ establish a pre application fee for

3:36:06 ↗ review of accessory dwelling units and

3:36:08 ↗ amending various sections of fiscal

3:36:10 ↗ municipal code that'll 18 point no land

3:36:12 ↗ use in order to regulate accessory

3:36:14 ↗ dwelling units all in favor say aye

3:36:16 ↗ I'll put any opposed motion passes

3:36:20 ↗ unanimously

3:36:22 ↗ the last item today is the good of the

3:36:25 ↗ order do council members have anything

3:36:27 ↗ for the good of the order I have a

3:36:30 ↗ couple of quick little things our next

3:36:33 ↗ regular council meeting will be June 4th

3:36:35 ↗ the agenda at this time will include a

3:36:38 ↗ public hearing on the six-year

3:36:39 ↗ transportation improvement program they

3:36:42 ↗ vote on the end of the talus development

3:36:44 ↗ agreement with the remaining discussion

3:36:46 ↗ item being the rezoning designation for

3:36:49 ↗ talus parcel 9 and the opportunity

3:36:54 ↗ Center resolution for transit oriented

3:36:56 ↗ development on June 5th council will

3:36:59 ↗ have a special meeting a strategic plan

3:37:02 ↗ Charette at the senior center from 5:30

3:37:05 ↗ to 8:30 p.m. where we will we'll be

3:37:07 ↗ looking at the input we have received

3:37:09 ↗ during our public process on our

3:37:12 ↗ strategic plan anything else to share

3:37:15 ↗ that's president Mertz yeah so 2018 is

3:37:19 ↗ turning out to be quite the year in the

3:37:21 ↗ Martins household so one of the three

3:37:24 ↗ Bromberg brothers my mom's little

3:37:26 ↗ brothers my uncle Rick is in Hospice at

3:37:30 ↗ the Baths VA in bath New York and so I

3:37:33 ↗ just want to say Uncle Rick I love you

3:37:36 ↗ very much

3:37:37 ↗ and

3:37:38 ↗ all the marx's are with you thank you

3:37:40 ↗ anything else for good of the order

3:37:44 ↗ there is no executive session this

3:37:46 ↗ evening and there being no further

3:37:48 ↗ business this meeting is adjourned at

3:37:50 ↗ 10:37 how are you sir

3:38:04 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Bill Ramos

Chris Reh

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (11)

Approve Resolution No. 2018-08, approving the Public Benefit Rating System Open Space Classification of the Miller property located at 350 Mt. Jupiter Drive SW. .

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2837, amending Table 4.3B of the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards to limit self storage uses to the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district and strike all references to limits in the ordinance other than self storage. . (Opponents: Marts, Winterstei

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 5-2

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

Opposed: Tola Marts, Paul Winterstein

Direct the Administration to reevaluate the Permitted Land Uses (Table 4.3B) of the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards and make recommendations to the City Council as to whether changes are needed after the moratorium is lifted.

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

Postpone the motion to the June 4, 2018 Council meeting.

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. 2838, relating to Central Issaquah, amending sections 1.1.C and 1.1.D.2 of the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards, and adopting by reference several amendments to the Central Issaquah Plan, a subarea plan within Issaquah’s Comprehensive Plan, by updating the distri…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-1

Amend the proposed ordinance by adding the following Developer Obligation language to the Pickering, Gilman, and Eastlake Neighborhood Visions: “Ensure the amount of non-residential square footage or non-residential square footage based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) equivalence is n…

Moved by HUNT · seconded by MARTS

Carried 6-1

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

Opposed: Paul Winterstein

Adopt Ordinance No. 2839, relating to accessory dwelling units; amending Issaquah Municipal Code Chapters 3.63 School Impact Fees, 3.64 Fees for Applications for Subdivisions and Land Use Actions, 3.71 Traffic Impact Fees, and 3.72 Park Impact Fees in order to exempt accessory dwelling units from th…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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

Amend the ordinance to strike the language in IMC 18.07.450(C)(4) and replace it with the following: "4. Size: The square footage of the ADU shall not exceed 1,000 square feet, excluding any non-living areas such as garage area, storage sheds, or decks, unless the excluded area is the location of th…

Moved by WINTERSTEIN · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 7-0

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

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED (see item "i")

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: Adopt Ordinance No. 2838, relating to Central Issaquah, amending sections 1.1.C and 1.1.D.2 of the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards, and adopting by reference several amendments to the Central Issaquah Plan, a subarea plan within Issaquah’s Comprehensive Plan…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 6-1

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

Opposed: Paul Winterstein

Main motion as amended: Adopt Ordinance No. 2839, relating to accessory dwelling units; amending Issaquah Municipal Code Chapters 3.63 School Impact Fees, 3.64 Fees for Applications for Subdivisions and Land Use Actions, 3.71 Traffic Impact Fees, and 3.72 Park Impact Fees in order to exempt accessor…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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