City Council Regular Meeting · Monday, June 4, 2018 · City Council Digest

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of June 4, 2018, $ 3,786,126.36 ID 0232

packet pp.5–87

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 1:17:04 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

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

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, May 10, 2018

Approve · packet pp.89

▶ Watch from 1:35:25 Open packet at p.89 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this special meeting was to allow councilmembers the ability to attend an informal/social team building event and dinner in advance of Council's formal retreat scheduled on May 11, 2018.

Minutes: City Council Special Meeting, May 11, 2018

Approve · packet pp.91–92

▶ Watch from 1:53:46 Open packet at p.91 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this retreat was to develop trust and understanding between the Council and members of the Senior Leadership Team, review our roles and responsibilities, recognize the political and administrative realities in which our team operates, and identify agreement for how to work together going forward.

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, May 21, 2018

Approve · packet pp.93–99

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 7, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · May 14, 2018

▶ Watch from 2:12:06 Open packet at p.93 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR d) 05-21-18 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page [0000]

Parks Strategic Plan AB 7394

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.101–239

Topics: Parks

Previously discussed: Park Board · May 17, 2018

▶ Watch from 2:30:27 Open packet at p.101 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7394 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Regular Meeting - 04 Jun 2018 Calendar

Interlocal Agreement with Dept. of Natural Resources for Maintenance and Use of High Point Trailhead AB 7600

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.431–439

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 2:48:48 Open packet at p.431 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Parks & Recreation Department:

2018 Maintenance Overlay Project, MC18-1 AB 7603

Award Bid · packet pp.441–445

▶ Watch from 3:07:09 Open packet at p.441 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Operations Department:

High Street Conversion, Issaquah Highlands AB 7614

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.447–503

Topics: Land UseTransportation

▶ Watch from 3:25:29 Open packet at p.447 ↗

Staff report:

High Street is an existing fully developed right-of-way built in 2003 as a result of the Issaquah Highlands Town Center plat (PP02-004IH, FP02-006IH). It currently consists of two 9 ft travel lanes, two 5 ft bike lanes, with a planting strip and 5 ft sidewalk on the eastside of the road. To convert High Street and accommodate the various proposed functions, about half of the existing High Street road surface would be removed to accommodate the adjacent recreational amenities. The remaining 15 ft or so of roadway would be resurfaced and preserved as the multi-use trail (Exhibit B). To replace High Street vehicular functions, the applicant proposes to build Street A/6th Pl NE, through the proposed plat, which parallels High Street, and to extend Ellis Drive to connect with West Highland Park. If converted, the design of High Street will preserve City access to maintain existing utilities…

Interagency Agreement with Dept. of Natural Resources for Incident Management Team Participation AB 7617

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.505–513

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 3:43:50 Open packet at p.505 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Public Works Operations Department:

8. REGULAR BUSINESS

Motion Postponed from May 21, reevaluate the Permitted Land Uses (Table and Design Standards and make recommendations to the City Council as to whether changes are needed after the moratorium is lifted." ID 0287

packet pp.907–915

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:07 Open packet at p.907 ↗

Staff report:

Memo To: City Council From: Keith Niven, AICP, CEcD Date: 29 May 2018 Re: ID 0287 – CIDDS Table 4.3B (see attached)

9. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 4:02:11

2652 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the June 4th regular

0:19 ↗ city council meeting and call it to order. First on our agenda

0:24 ↗ this evening is the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'd ask those who'd

0:30 ↗ like to join the council and myself in the Pledge of Allegiance

0:36 ↗ to please stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United

0:42 ↗ States of America, by which it stands, one nation, indivisible, and just.

0:50 ↗ Thank you. We have a very full house this evening. Before we go

0:56 ↗ to audience comments, I'd like to announce that one of our agenda items,

1:01 ↗ item D, the motion that was postponed from the May 21st meeting will

1:07 ↗ be moved as the first item under regular business this evening. So that

1:12 ↗ is the one agenda change that I have. Second note before we start is

1:18 ↗ that due to the extremely high interest in tonight's meeting, we have arranged for overflow

1:24 ↗ seating across the street at the Issaquah Senior Center at 75 Northeast Creek Way. The

1:29 ↗ live feed of the meeting will be showing there. You can also view the meeting

1:34 ↗ live on Channel 21 or online at isqwa.gov/ictv. So if there are folks in the

1:38 ↗ audience tonight who want to observe and listen to the meeting live, you can do

1:43 ↗ that nearby if you aren't getting a chair in our kind of tiny gallery tonight,

1:48 ↗ but you're more than welcome to stay here as well.

1:54 ↗ So for this evening for audience comments. Audience members can address the council during this

1:59 ↗ time. Guidelines for those comments are included on your meeting agenda. Those who signed up

2:03 ↗ on the sign up list will be called up first and if you did not

2:08 ↗ sign up I will ask for others to speak before closing this portion of the

2:13 ↗ meeting. When you're recognized please use the lectern over here and speak into the microphone.

2:17 ↗ State your name, address and relationship to the city. Please limit your comments this evening

2:22 ↗ to three minutes and if you have anything in written form that you'd like to

2:27 ↗ submit please bring it up to our city clerk. There are multiple regular business items

2:31 ↗ tonight of interest to the community and if you are wishing to address the council

2:36 ↗ on any or all of these items please do so in your allotted time.

2:42 ↗ There's also a public hearing this evening the six-year transportation improvement program and if you'd

2:48 ↗ like to make comments on that topic and that topic only you will have an

2:53 ↗ opportunity to do so later in the meeting it will be our first uh first

2:58 ↗ or second item after uh taking audience comments. I wanted to thank you very much

3:04 ↗ for taking your time to come and speak with council this evening and just checking

3:09 ↗ to see who we have signed up.

3:15 ↗ I'm going to announce the next three people who've signed up and if you can

3:20 ↗ please queue up behind the lectern there so we can be efficient with our time.

3:25 ↗ So the first three speakers will be Ken Conigsmark, Mary Hammerly and Jeff Gerard.

3:31 ↗ So Ken, one more thing if I can add. I just wanted to point out

3:35 ↗ since this is an extremely unusual week for us that all of those that are

3:40 ↗ here tonight speaking with regard to AB 7524, the end of the Taos Development Agreement,

3:44 ↗ I wanted to make sure it's clear to everyone that the Council and I have

3:49 ↗ received the emails that have come in over the past few weeks regarding the zoning

3:53 ↗ of Parcel 9. a significant number of emails. And I just wanted to thank you

3:58 ↗ all for sharing your input with us and joining us here this evening again. Ken,

4:03 ↗ sorry for that. Thank you. Ken Konigsmark, 5713 285th Avenue SE in Issaquah, talking on

4:08 ↗ the TALIS Development Agreement. I was there 20 years ago at the beginning of that

4:14 ↗ development agreement. I know none of the council or elected officials were present at that

4:19 ↗ time, which is why I have more gray hair than all of you combined, I

4:24 ↗ think. But I want to remind everybody of what happened 20 years ago, the commitments

4:29 ↗ that were made, and as this development agreement is expired, as it should be, let's

4:34 ↗ not give up and give any ground on what those commitments were. The

4:40 ↗ original proposal, which I should donate to the Issaquah History Museum at this

4:46 ↗ point, called for development all the way south along SR 900, up on

4:52 ↗ the flank of Squawk Mountain next to Forest Rim, and that proposal, initial

4:58 ↗ proposal by Intercorp 20 years ago, over the course of many discussions, transferred

5:04 ↗ into this development agreement that was made. What was not known at the

5:10 ↗ time was the informal discussions done by myself on behalf of Visiglalps Trails Club and

5:15 ↗ Mountains to Sound Greenway and Joanna Buehler of Save Lake Sammamish included several commitments from

5:20 ↗ Intercorp, most of which made it into the development agreement, but not all. So I

5:25 ↗ want to remind you what those commitments were. donate 400 plus acres of land to

5:31 ↗ the city, which is the TALUS open space in exchange for a clustered urban

5:36 ↗ village of 1,800 homes and 800,000 square feet of office space. It was that

5:42 ↗ office component that enabled TALUS to donate the land. It made it economically feasible.

5:48 ↗ That office component later became what is now Timber Ridge with some available office

5:54 ↗ space still to be built out. The plan was by Intercorp, who

5:59 ↗ had done Whistler Mountain, develop a self-contained, dense mountain village type of community

6:05 ↗ that emphasized the outdoors, recreation, trails, access to nature at your doorstep, all

6:11 ↗ those good things that define the quality of life in Issaquah.

6:17 ↗ there would be no scab on development allowed from any other side of Talus. In

6:23 ↗ other words, the Talus Road system infrastructure of sewer and water was not to be

6:28 ↗ utilized by any other development on adjoining parcels. Thanks to the city, you removed the

6:34 ↗ potential annexation area further west on Cougar that had intended and wanted to do that.

6:39 ↗ Thank you for that. It's an example of where we don't want to give up

6:45 ↗ on the commitments. There were to be no other connecting roads as well down to

6:51 ↗ Newport way down to S R 900. No other connecting roads except that which was

6:57 ↗ laid out. There would be no development adjacent to S R 900 in the original

7:03 ↗ proposal. In fact, there were four parcels. Whoops. right adjacent to SR

7:08 ↗ 900, right here. And we negotiated to be sure that those were removed

7:14 ↗ and the development set back. I'll hurry up. Can you summarize, Ken? Yes.

7:20 ↗ Thank you. Flip to the second page. Let's not allow the master plan

7:25 ↗ to be changed. There may be density remaining that needs to be housed somewhere,

7:31 ↗ but do not change the plat situation. Do not allow any development adjacent to

7:37 ↗ SR 900. It's not the city's responsibility to make the developer whole if they

7:42 ↗ made a bad investment. Thank you, Ken. Just and there are several

7:48 ↗ hands in support. I didn't mention that this evening but I know many of you

7:52 ↗ are coming in groups and if you have a speaker here speaking on your behalf

7:56 ↗ and you're agreeing with their talking points it would be great for you to raise

8:00 ↗ your hand so the council understands that support and also when you are addressing the

8:04 ↗ council instead of repeating comments that have already been made and recognized if you could

8:08 ↗ add new points to the discussion it would be or to the comments it would

8:12 ↗ be super helpful. Mary. MARY HAMERLY: My name is Mary Hammerly. I live at 1230

8:18 ↗ Oakwood Place, Northwest Issaquah. I'm one of the lucky people that live in one of

8:23 ↗ the developments along Newport Way that have been there for a while. So I've been

8:29 ↗ living with construction. But I'm here tonight to discuss the parcel 789 of TALIS. I,

8:35 ↗ at this point, believe that the development department seems to be unwilling to acknowledge the

8:41 ↗ instability of soil anywhere in Cougar Mountain. When Save Cougar Mountain hired an

8:47 ↗ attorney related to the Bergsma property, the attorney pointed out a huge number

8:52 ↗ of risks in regard to landslides that the development department had approved for

8:58 ↗ Bergsma. The cuts, the fills, everything. The attorney said it doesn't work. But

9:04 ↗ yet, we're sitting here and planning to further extensively develop these parcels 7,

9:10 ↗ 8, and 9. When I was a child, I lived on a lake where it

9:16 ↗ had been a policy for years to dump raw sewage into the lake. So, 60s,

9:21 ↗ 50s, when I was a child, and I've been around a while, when the wind

9:26 ↗ blew in our direction, the raw sewage came up onto our beach. It was slimy,

9:31 ↗ it was green, it was black, and it smelled, and it was part of life

9:37 ↗ when I was a child. When the land use laws went into place,

9:42 ↗ the people that were dumping that raw sewage, many of them had such small parcels

9:48 ↗ that there wasn't enough room for a septic system. And if there was, it might

9:54 ↗ not be the right land type to perk. Therefore, those parcels were worthless.

10:00 ↗ And those landowners were furious. But I don't think any of us today would be

10:05 ↗ sitting here and saying it's okay to put raw sewage in because otherwise those properties

10:10 ↗ would have no value. We have an area that is known as

10:16 ↗ a landslide area. There's been two landslides in the 2000 range on that

10:22 ↗ area. We don't need another OSO. What did we ask when OSO happened?

10:28 ↗ Why did Snohomish County ever approve that development? I think this council needs

10:34 ↗ to look at Parcel 7, 8, and 9, and before you even consider

10:40 ↗ any development, get a decent study of that land, and determine for

10:45 ↗ sure whether it's stable. And don't put the city in the position of

10:51 ↗ being liable, as the county was in Oso. CHRISTIE WOOD: Thank you, Mary.

10:57 ↗ And there is lots of supporting hands in the audience for Mary's comments.

11:02 ↗ Next, we have Jeff Gerard, followed by Mark Mullet, followed by Rich Hill.

11:12 ↗ Hi, my name is Jeff Gerard and I'm a resident of TALIS. I live in

11:18 ↗ the mountain air development and we're just below TALIS parcel 8. The wall is visible

11:23 ↗ from part of my house through the trees. I work at Microsoft. I'm a data

11:28 ↗ scientist by trade. I'm not an expert in, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an

11:33 ↗ expert in geotechnical analysis, but I can read and I can read complicated stuff.

11:39 ↗ And one of the things that I read over the weekend was the findings from

11:44 ↗ the King County Superior Court in the matter of ORA Talus 90 versus City of

11:50 ↗ Issaquah and Talus 7 and 8 investments. And there is some very interesting stuff in

11:55 ↗ this report. I was hoping just to, I was just trying to get some information

12:01 ↗ about parcel 9 so that I could come here tonight and talk about parcel 9.

12:06 ↗ And I'm not going to talk about parcel 9 because I think we're going to

12:10 ↗ have a discussion later about parcel 9. So I'll leave that for that. I just

12:14 ↗ want to start with... I just want to be clear. There won't be public comment.

12:18 ↗ Oh, there won't be public comment for that? No, this is your time. So this

12:22 ↗ is the time for TALIS parcel 9? Yes, this is your time. Holy cow. Okay,

12:26 ↗ now the pressure's on. Pressure's on. Can I have a little bit of time back

12:31 ↗ for that? Please. So maybe a tiny bit of time. Just want to make sure

12:35 ↗ you know we have probably 30 or more people that want to speak and do

12:40 ↗ you have to get the council to get their regular business done too? So how

12:44 ↗ about a minute or two more since you didn't realize? Sure, okay. Thank you. Thanks

12:49 ↗ Jeff. It's very disturbing. I'm not going to go through it in detail. Actually, I

12:54 ↗ am going to go through it in detail, but I'm not going to go through

12:58 ↗ it in detail tonight because it's 25 pages long. And I have some friends that

13:02 ↗ are lawyers. I'm going to have them take a look at this thing. This is

13:06 ↗ very, this is pretty scary actually. And with regard to, I'm going to say just

13:10 ↗ one thing with regard to TALIS parcel 9, which is a quote from, at that

13:15 ↗ time, Council Member Pauly in a closed session. The details of which are made available

13:20 ↗ by this findings of fact and conclusions of law. So this is the actual order.

13:24 ↗ A lot of the heavy thinking and big lifting is done during the preliminary plat.

13:28 ↗ And that when you get to the final plat piece, what the hearing examiner is

13:32 ↗ looking at is checking the boxes to make sure that all the different conditions are

13:36 ↗ met. And I get that, but I believe one of the conditions that has changed

13:40 ↗ is that part of the body of the record that goes along with this final

13:44 ↗ plat approval is a geotechnical report. and a geotechnical peer review that occurred prior to

13:50 ↗ a landslide. Now you go back and look at the data and in 2014 when

13:55 ↗ these plots were originally approved, Terra Associates, which to me is kind of the fusion

14:00 ↗ GPS of Issaquah land planning, they're, because they're all over the place, but they use

14:05 ↗ some bad data, they use seven-year-old data to analyze in a report that was given

14:10 ↗ in 2014 and they're paid for by J.R. Hayes. and they're the ones that the

14:15 ↗ city relied on for all the geotechnical analysis. And I'm a data scientist so I

14:20 ↗ can, I know a lot about statistics and I can tell you that, you know,

14:24 ↗ there's sort of a risk and reward, risk and payoff thing that gets pretty complicated.

14:29 ↗ But if you have a low risk thing with a high possible payoff or a

14:33 ↗ high possible cost, you actually take your analysis out to the edges a little further.

14:38 ↗ And that was not done with 7, 8 and 9 and that's pretty clear. And

14:44 ↗ the court has ordered you guys to do a complete new replatting of 7 and

14:49 ↗ 8 already. And they've ordered you to do a complete reassessment. So I would ask

14:55 ↗ you as you do that, A, to not hire terror associates or anybody associated with

15:00 ↗ terror associates. B, bring somebody from outside the current city planning office that's been responsible

15:06 ↗ for all the work that's been done to supervise that. and C, when

15:11 ↗ you're looking at what to do tonight with Talas parcel 9, I think every decision

15:17 ↗ you make about this going forward should be let's do the most conservative thing we

15:22 ↗ can do that's not going to get us sued again. Because if there's a, if

15:27 ↗ there's a landslide there, especially this report actually scared me because I live right below

15:33 ↗ that wall and that this this thing says that wall might not be stable and

15:38 ↗ I live right underneath that wall. We have another rain and they poo pooed heavy

15:44 ↗ rain in the past. You know they had a landslide on they had a slide

15:48 ↗ on on parcel 7 in 2010 and when the city. I'm going to get you

15:52 ↗ to address to the council. Okay sorry I'm trying to get them riled up not

15:56 ↗ you. I want them riled up and I want you to take a look at

16:00 ↗ this in depth. I want I think we should have a complete investigation of this.

16:05 ↗ And I'm going to get you to wrap up because now you have extra time.

16:09 ↗ Those are my points. I sent you guys an email. I sent you a copy

16:13 ↗ of this thing if you haven't seen it. You should read it. Thank you. Thank

16:18 ↗ you, Jeff. And lots of support for Jeff's comments. I just want to make sure

16:22 ↗ I'm clear again because maybe I wasn't as clear as I had hoped to be.

16:26 ↗ We do have one more opportunity for comment, but it's just on our transportation improvement

16:30 ↗ plan. Any other comments not related to that should be bundled up in your three

16:36 ↗ minutes. So if you're here for Opportunity Center, Transit Area Development or the TALIS Development

16:41 ↗ Agreement, all of those are, this is your time to talk. There won't be an

16:47 ↗ opportunity later in the meeting. So next we have Senator Mark Mullet followed by Rich

16:53 ↗ Hill and Peter Eglick. Again, please queue up at the lectern.

16:59 ↗ Hi there. For the record, I am Mark Mullet at 3129 Northeast Harrison Street. I'm

17:04 ↗ here tonight on behalf of the Opportunity Center. And I think when Councilmember Martz and

17:09 ↗ myself were on this council together many moons ago, you know, that was when I

17:14 ↗ was first introduced to this organization, HealthPoint and DentalPoint, by going up to Redmond to

17:19 ↗ see their operations up there. I will say during my six years in Olympia, I've

17:24 ↗ Gain tremendous respect for both of those organizations in terms of how they provide services

17:29 ↗ for low income people throughout the state of Washington. And and I feel that having

17:34 ↗ those sort of services in the city of Issaquah has a much bigger benefit than

17:38 ↗ just the residents of the city of Issaquah, which I view my role in the

17:43 ↗ capital budget at the state level is we've invested state capital dollars to help bring

17:48 ↗ those type of services of medical and dental access to communities throughout the state. And

17:52 ↗ specifically, we've invested capital dollars at the state level to support HealthPoint and DentalPoint going

17:57 ↗ into communities because they have such a good reputation in the state level of being

18:01 ↗ able to provide those services. And so I think as you guys debate that tonight,

18:06 ↗ I just want the Council to know My hope would be that you would have

18:11 ↗ a partner in the state if you decide to, I would like you to try

18:15 ↗ to keep your options open, I guess, of whatever you decide to realize that when

18:20 ↗ we go into session on January 14th, if we want to work together between the

18:24 ↗ state and the city to try to figure out how to get dollars to bring

18:28 ↗ those organizations to our city, I will be your advocate in that mission. And I

18:32 ↗ can't guarantee anything, but I can promise you that I will work my butt off

18:37 ↗ to try to make that happen because I do believe wholeheartedly in those organizations and

18:41 ↗ the value they bring. And I think it's a much bigger impact than just the

18:45 ↗ city, which is why I think state dollars would be appropriate to help make that

18:49 ↗ happen. And I know I'm kind of glad I just get to walk out

18:55 ↗ of here and don't have to make hard decisions tonight. It's kind of fun

19:01 ↗ to watch other elected people have to go through all this stuff. So thank

19:06 ↗ you very much for your public service and your time. And I wish you

19:12 ↗ well, it doesn't sound like you're in a short meeting tonight, but I'll be

19:18 ↗ asleep while you're probably still here. Thank you very much. Bye bye. Thank you,

19:24 ↗ Senator Mallet. Members of the council, good evening. My name is Rich Hill. I'm

19:30 ↗ counsel for Resmark, which is the owner of TALIS parcel 9. And I'm here to

19:35 ↗ discuss tonight the issue of down zoning parcel 9. While Resmark is not demanding equal

19:40 ↗ time with those who are on the other side of this debate, I have timed

19:45 ↗ my remarks at 8 minutes and would ask the mayor's leave to be able to

19:50 ↗ speak for 8 minutes to the issue. Mr. Hill, we have had significant internal

19:56 ↗ conversation about audience comments versus the different meetings that we've had to talk

20:01 ↗ about the issue, including Land and Shore and Planning Policy Commission. And so

20:07 ↗ at this point in time, because we're doing audience comments, three minutes is

20:13 ↗ your maximum time to talk. I acknowledge your ruling, Mayor. With that,

20:18 ↗ then, I will do my best to short circuit my comments. I have submitted written

20:24 ↗ materials. I know the council has looked at them carefully. Resmark urges you tonight to

20:29 ↗ make the right decision to adopt the unanimous recommendation of your PPC and maintain the

20:34 ↗ MF designation and 60 foot height limit that has been applied to parcel 9 since

20:40 ↗ the very inception of the development agreement. Is there a timer so I know Oh,

20:45 ↗ sorry, yes. So we'll add a little bit of time as I explain it to

20:49 ↗ you. There's a green light in front of you that is for the full amount

20:52 ↗ of time and Tisha will reset that. As you get closer, it will start to

20:56 ↗ blink, then it will go yellow and then red as in a time. Then you

21:00 ↗ pull the cane. Then I just totally cut your mic off. Fair enough. Just kidding,

21:04 ↗ we don't. Ms. Geiser has handed, distributed a handout which is two pages from the

21:08 ↗ staff's zoning history of the property. The first shows that when the development agreement was

21:12 ↗ adopted, parcel nine was actually planned for high density residential with an 85 foot height

21:17 ↗ limit up to 300 dwelling units. That zoning remained in effect for 16 years until

21:23 ↗ the preliminary plat was approved in 2014. At that time, the property was voluntarily reduced

21:29 ↗ in height to 45 feet, density of 90 dwelling units. This is the basis for

21:35 ↗ the current vested plat on the property. So as of today, members of the council,

21:40 ↗ the development agreement allows multifamily use on the property with a 60-foot height limit. Resmark

21:46 ↗ is not asking for any increased height or any increased density, just to maintain

21:52 ↗ its current allowed height and density. Throughout the process until the very last moment,

21:58 ↗ the administration recommendation was to maintain the existing residential heights and densities in the

22:04 ↗ replacement regulations. It was never proposed once throughout the process to downsize either parcel

22:10 ↗ 9 or any other parcel. Only at the 11th hour did Councilmember Ray suggesting

22:16 ↗ down zoning this one parcel out of all the others with no sound planning support,

22:21 ↗ no staff analysis, and only a reference to ex-party comments from community members of support.

22:27 ↗ At page two of the handout, I show on the right column the effect, which

22:33 ↗ is contrary to all other parcels in TALIS IX if this parcel is down zoned.

22:38 ↗ It would down zone a multifamily parcel to single family, reducing height from 60 feet

22:43 ↗ to 45 feet. In addition to being wholly unfair and unjustified, this would result in

22:48 ↗ a substantial loss of property value and development flexibility. The council remanded this

22:54 ↗ issue to its PPC for its recommendation for proper zoning of the

23:00 ↗ parcel. The PPC had already recommended once a multifamily designation of the

23:06 ↗ property. After the public hearing, the PPC unanimously recommended again retaining the

23:11 ↗ existing use of the properties. The Planning Commission recommendation, which

23:17 ↗ I'm sure you have had an opportunity to review, sets forth in detail

23:23 ↗ all of the sound planning policy reasons to maintain the existing zoning on

23:29 ↗ the property. The staff report presented with your proposed ordinance provides no facts

23:35 ↗ or analysis to rebut any of the PPC's thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis. Certainly

23:40 ↗ no evidence of changed circumstances to support a down zone, which your

23:46 ↗ ordinance requires. I see my time is short. I see my time

23:52 ↗ is short. Res Marks expressly asks the council to maintain the zoning

23:58 ↗ that's been on the effect on the property for 20 years. Sincerely

24:03 ↗ hopes it will not come to having to challenge the issue in

24:09 ↗ court. We hope the council will adopt the sound reasoning and recommendation

24:15 ↗ of its PPC to maintain the multifamily zoning on the property rather than

24:21 ↗ challenging the matter before the growth board, superior court and or the federal

24:26 ↗ court. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Hill. Good evening. Good evening, council members.

24:32 ↗ I'm Peter Eglick. I'm the attorney representing the Talus Residential Association. Before I

24:38 ↗ get started, can I just confirm that you all received the letter I

24:43 ↗ sent in on Friday? and have had a chance to review it. Has anyone

24:49 ↗ not received it on the council? Okay. Everyone should have received it. Pardon me? Everyone

24:55 ↗ should have received it. It went all through the same. Okay. What you just heard

25:00 ↗ from my colleague Rich, who I've known for three decades, is essentially a demand to

25:06 ↗ reject the preliminary plat for which they have approval based largely on a threat, very

25:12 ↗ nicely put, of a lawsuit. What I would suggest to you is that's not the

25:17 ↗ appropriate decision here. The record here is that a single family preliminary plat has been

25:22 ↗ approved. The applicant, the property owner has plenty of value to be gained from that.

25:28 ↗ If there's going to be a change, that can be considered in the provisional consideration

25:33 ↗ process that comes up in a year. But that's the status quo and all the

25:38 ↗ discussion about what happened 20 years ago and 14 years ago and 10 years ago

25:42 ↗ is not the status quo. The status quo is that these folks applied for and

25:47 ↗ obtained a single family preliminary plat approval and now they're telling you no, they want

25:51 ↗ more leeway. There's no law that requires you to give it. This is not a

25:56 ↗ rezone. This is a termination of development agreement you write on a clean slate. Even

26:01 ↗ if you didn't write on a clean slate, if you actually go back and look

26:05 ↗ at the attachment to the planning commission findings where they go through all the rezone

26:09 ↗ criteria, Ask yourself for each one of those reason criteria. Why is MF more

26:15 ↗ appropriate under those criteria than SF? It's not. I mean, they're in the public interest,

26:21 ↗ this and that, all that. It's all equivalent. What they get out of demanding that

26:27 ↗ you stampede to an MF now is they get the opportunity to vest a

26:33 ↗ in some ways more intense project before that provisional review has occurred in 2019.

26:38 ↗ And that is backwards. What should happen is that you should provide a designation, which

26:44 ↗ you are entitled to do, that's consistent with the plat that they have obtained approval

26:50 ↗ of, and then you should say, in 2019, we'll look at whether MF is appropriate,

26:55 ↗ examining all of the factors, some of which people have mentioned, some of which others

27:01 ↗ will be mentioned, that apply. There's no need to stampede. There's no need to give

27:06 ↗ them a vested right now to something that it is not clear is going to

27:12 ↗ be appropriate. There's no legal requirement that you do so. This is again a fundamental

27:17 ↗ fallacy. This is not a rezone application. It's not a site-specific rezone. This is part

27:22 ↗ of a legislative rezone process. One other point I want to make, and this goes

27:27 ↗ to the GMA, there's been some mention of the Growth Board and we're going to

27:32 ↗ go appeal to that and all that. I haven't seen any finding that says that

27:37 ↗ the choice of SF To wrap up your comments? I will. That the choice of

27:42 ↗ SF would somehow put the city in violation of, for example, your housing targets under

27:47 ↗ the Growth Management Act. There's nothing in any of the analysis you have that says

27:52 ↗ that. This is completely consistent with the law. We have to ask you to wind

27:56 ↗ it up. Thanks. Okay. And so TALIS asks you not to be stampeded. Thank you.

28:01 ↗ Thank you. Next tweet. Any support in the room?

28:07 ↗ Next we have John Rittenhouse followed by Bruce Semple and Brookie

28:13 ↗ Scholl. John Rittenhouse, 260 Mount Olympus Drive NW in Issaquah and

28:19 ↗ I'm a resident and I'll keep this short and I'm going

28:24 ↗ to help you with your easy decision tonight. So I'm here

28:30 ↗ to speak on behalf of Agenda Bill 7534, the Opportunity Center

28:36 ↗ Resolution for the Transit Oriented Development Project. and I'm supporting

28:42 ↗ the administration's recommendation of option two to provide integrated health, dental, and

28:47 ↗ behavioral health services. The community needs assessment that was recently completed actually

28:53 ↗ mirrors the community needs assessment that the Together Center actually did about

28:59 ↗ 10 years ago when they were attempting to site human services campus

29:05 ↗ in Issaquah. And it talked about the need for health, medical,

29:10 ↗ dental services, and those needs are still there 10 years later. Both Valley Cities

29:16 ↗ and Health Point are well-known and well-respected in the Puget Sound region, each with

29:22 ↗ multiple locations and an existing co-located space that both organizations currently have in Des

29:28 ↗ Moines. So speaking about the food banks experience, our case manager Rebecca

29:34 ↗ Rice says that the most challenging issues she faces with clients are around lack

29:40 ↗ of dental services and lack of mental health services because there are no local

29:45 ↗ agencies to refer clients to. And current food bank clients who are not able

29:51 ↗ to get mental health services are likely to be future food bank clients.

29:57 ↗ And as we know now, lack of dental care can lead to problems like diabetes,

30:03 ↗ heart disease, and a greater likelihood of suffering a stroke. With both health and dental

30:09 ↗ services, HealthPoint is uniquely qualified to serve the entire patient on an ongoing basis, rather

30:14 ↗ than treating each visit as a one-off, which can happen at hospitals or clinics that

30:20 ↗ are required to provide uncompensated care. The financial case for this option is even stronger

30:26 ↗ than it was five minutes ago. Using the almost $1 million that

30:32 ↗ was set aside during the Together Center Human Services campus effort was not used.

30:37 ↗ If it were used, along with the projected $250,000 a year in tenant rent,

30:43 ↗ that should allow the project to break even within 10 years, even if Senator

30:49 ↗ Mullet can't help you at the state level. So Valley Cities and

30:55 ↗ Health Point provide comprehensive package and services not currently available in Issaquah. And

31:01 ↗ therefore it's well suited to the city's effort to bring a range of

31:07 ↗ service providers consistent with the needs of a more urbanized community. This option

31:13 ↗ will serve Issaquah well for decades and is well worth investing in now.

31:19 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, John. Bruce.

31:24 ↗ Thank you. My name is Bruce Semple and I live at 100 Timber

31:30 ↗ Ridge Way Northwest and I'm a permanent resident of Iskwa. Parcel 9 is

31:36 ↗ the subject and it's a very prominent gateway into the Tallis neighbourhood

31:42 ↗ and is the dominant focal point approaching Shangri-La Way at the top of Tallis

31:47 ↗ Drive. When parcel 9 was given a preliminary plat approval for 90 single family

31:53 ↗ townhouses, the resident community was supportive because it was consistent with the mountain village

31:59 ↗ character that was envisioned in the development agreement for Tallis. This land use plan

32:05 ↗ would have proceeded to the final plat but for the landslide

32:11 ↗ which has delayed everything. Worse, Parcel 9 became a longstanding eyesore

32:16 ↗ and disruptor of the roadways and utilities. Living each day with

32:22 ↗ this eyesore has reinforced the importance of landscape harmony on a

32:28 ↗ prominent gateway Understandably, the community is anxious to see an end

32:33 ↗ to the hillside stabilisation so that the anticipated 90 single family townhouses can

32:39 ↗ proceed to completion. However, it has been said that nothing is guaranteed in

32:45 ↗ life except taxes and death, and the multifamily zoning and the proposed replacement

32:51 ↗ regulations has raised the possibility of a replacement focal point at the top

32:57 ↗ of Tallis Drive of another eyesore in the form of a 60-foot wall of

33:03 ↗ an apartment block. And we have a lot of those around in our gateways,

33:08 ↗ unfortunately. Only single-family zoning in the replacement regulations can assure that this would not

33:14 ↗ happen to this prominent gateway, regardless of the current developer's stated intentions.

33:20 ↗ Our resident community is understandably concerned by this possibility and requests that

33:26 ↗ the City Council vote to adopt replacement regulations that limit zoning on

33:31 ↗ parcel 9 to UVSF so that the original plan for 90 single

33:37 ↗ family townhouses is ensured. This will strengthen the linkage between the development

33:42 ↗ agreements vision and the architectural harmony of the entire Tallis community. Thank

33:48 ↗ you. Thank you, Bruce. There's a lot of support in the room for Bruce's comments.

33:53 ↗ I'm just going to take a moment to talk about a technical issue we're having

33:57 ↗ with ICTV right now. We have been notified by people that are watching it on

34:03 ↗ computers that they're having an issue. So I have a website that I wanted

34:09 ↗ to read out since the audio portion isn't working. But if anybody is getting

34:14 ↗ a text or an email from somebody saying they can't hear, the website www.ustream.tv

34:20 ↗ slash channel slash 1526. 3545 has actually got the audio and the sound, so you

34:26 ↗ may be hearing from people who aren't here tonight or are frustrated, but we are

34:31 ↗ working on the problem. Rookie? Hello, my name is Brookie Scholl and I'm with the

34:37 ↗ TALIS Residential Association. Thank you for allowing us to speak this evening. So I'd like

34:42 ↗ to speak obviously about parcel nine. We are aware that you've received at least 100

34:47 ↗ emails on this subject within the last few weeks on this matter and we hope

34:52 ↗ that our collective voices are heard. the owner of parcel 9 has a valid preliminary

34:57 ↗ plat for 90 townhomes and they were in the process of getting the land ready

35:02 ↗ to build those townhomes back in 2015 when the landslide occurred coincidentally the development agreement

35:07 ↗ is being terminated so the waters are really feeling like they're being muddied It feels

35:12 ↗ as though the owner of Parcel 9 is using this as an opportunity to scrap

35:16 ↗ their original plans. The preliminary plat is still valid. If they build from their original

35:21 ↗ plans, they would be single-family homes. Changing the zoning to multifamily will give the owner

35:26 ↗ free rein to build a giant building at the top of the mountain without any

35:31 ↗ further public discussion, and our mountain village feel would be gone forever. The proposed ordinance

35:36 ↗ states that the city is committed to reviewing the regulations in 2019. So we ask

35:40 ↗ that you vote single family today and if the owner has any issues with building

35:45 ↗ the townhomes then they can come back and they can have a public conversation about

35:49 ↗ the need for multi-family in 2019. And with that discussion they can bring real plans

35:54 ↗ to the table that we can all review together. This inverse situation will not work

36:00 ↗ and it's really not fair. Our voices do matter. Please vote single

36:05 ↗ family. Thank you. Thank you, Brookie. Lots of support in the room

36:11 ↗ by raised hands. Next we have Elizabeth Taylor followed by Jason Owens

36:17 ↗ followed by Jillian Hostenski.

36:24 ↗ Good evening. My name is Elizabeth. I live at 3425 Northeast Monterey

36:30 ↗ Lane, Issaquah Highlands. I had some thoughts and what-ifs on the Cougar

36:36 ↗ Mountain project. What if the building starts and after 22 acres of

36:41 ↗ trees are cut and hundreds of truckloads of soil are carted away

36:47 ↗ and something goes wrong? The builder says, "This isn't working

36:53 ↗ out as I had been told it could, and it becomes

36:59 ↗ too expensive to try more." What if no one could ever

37:05 ↗ be found that would consider even trying again? The project is

37:11 ↗ abandoned. The mountain is scarred forever. How do you replace old

37:17 ↗ growth forest or rebuild a thick undergrowth? Bring wetlands back

37:23 ↗ that were demolished. Wildlife and habitat are disrupted and may never

37:28 ↗ return. You can't regrow something that has taken Mother Nature years

37:34 ↗ to accomplish. It would be a blight on the mountainside forever.

37:39 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Show of support with hands. Thanks.

37:50 ↗ Good evening, council members. My name is Jason Owens. I am the chief information officer

37:54 ↗ for HealthPoint. I'm part of the executive leadership team of a part of HealthPoint. I

37:59 ↗ wanted to just offer public comments and just say we are here to support and

38:03 ↗ work collaboratively with the city council and endeavoring for the Opportunity Center. Well, I thank

38:08 ↗ Senator Malik for his kind words. He has been a great

38:14 ↗ partner down in Olympia on several projects that we have gotten

38:19 ↗ funding for and our other partners within the community. We are

38:25 ↗ committed to services if you allow us to work with you

38:31 ↗ guys. And if I can be of any assistance, I just

38:36 ↗ want to be here and offer my support. Thank you. Where

38:42 ↗ did the handouts go? Hello, Mayor Pali and City Council members.

38:48 ↗ I'm Jillian Hostenski, 2601 Northwest Alpine Crest Way. And I'm an owner in

38:54 ↗ the city of Issaquah in the Tallis Bridges development. I've been an Issaquah

39:00 ↗ resident for many years, since 1987, when Paul and Michelle and I didn't

39:06 ↗ even, and my family didn't even have children yet. So it's been a

39:12 ↗ long time seeing this city evolve. so i had sent each of

39:17 ↗ you emails um suggesting that you stick with the 45 foot limit in the townhome

39:23 ↗ as opposed to the 60 foot six-story apartments and i've received responses from you and

39:29 ↗ i'm really grateful from that um it was only today that i learned about the

39:35 ↗ court decision and so my notes are a little rough and what i want to

39:40 ↗ say this evening but um I do want to make a couple points.

39:46 ↗ What I read in the September 18th, 2017 decision was the court basically

39:52 ↗ said the geotechnical reports should have been updated after this slide. Then the

39:57 ↗ second thing they said was that although the city did some retro work

40:03 ↗ to make sure Shangri-La was safe, that they should have taken a bigger

40:09 ↗ look at our safety and done more than that. So

40:14 ↗ you might remember me from right after this slide happened. I came to the council

40:20 ↗ and I had some toothpicks. I'm no toothpicks tonight. But I came home that evening

40:26 ↗ of the slide to darkness and rain and emergency vehicles and police who couldn't even

40:31 ↗ tell me where to go to my home. And I was so afraid my house

40:37 ↗ was going to be in toothpicks. And now again, reading that this development has

40:43 ↗ occurred without sufficient acknowledgement of that slide, it makes me scared. And it gives me

40:48 ↗ the courage to come here tonight and speak to you. So I've been part

40:54 ↗ of the process. I've been emailing you. I've been on the TALIS webpage. I've asked

41:00 ↗ for messages. I went to the public hearing where we were told that the proposal

41:06 ↗ was going to be 45 feet. I have the handout that was provided.

41:12 ↗ And I just really hope that you

41:17 ↗ keep that trust with your citizens. We

41:22 ↗ voted for you. We want you to

41:27 ↗ keep us safe. And thank you for

41:33 ↗ listening to my comments. Thank you, Jillian.

41:38 ↗ Lots of hands of support for Jillian's

41:43 ↗ comments. Next, we have Kristen Kuhman, followed

41:48 ↗ by Cynthia Lessford and Barb DeMichel. Hi, my

41:54 ↗ name is Kirsten Kuhman and I live on 3290 Northwest Harmony Way in the bridges

41:59 ↗ at TALIS. And we've lived in the bridges, my husband and I, for over seven

42:04 ↗ and a half years. We were one of the first people that were part of

42:09 ↗ that community. When we moved in, Parcel 9 was actually heaven. It was beautiful trees,

42:14 ↗ thick, lush. We couldn't even see past our backyard into any roads. We just thought,

42:19 ↗ "Oh my gosh, we've just discovered the most magical place ever." And trust me, we

42:24 ↗ looked and looked and looked. Just ask my husband. I was that wife. And we

42:29 ↗ found the perfect neighborhood, and we found the perfect house, and we found the perfect

42:34 ↗ setting. Because it was like we were in the mountains. I'm from Utah. In the

42:39 ↗ mountains, but we were like right there in Issaquah. We had everything. It was perfect.

42:44 ↗ Oh, I was nervous. I'm like, "That was not two minutes." I'm talking pretty fast.

42:48 ↗ Anyway, so when we were told what was going to happen to the development, the

42:53 ↗ builder said, "This is going to be town homes in keeping with the architecture of

42:57 ↗ everything else that's surrounding it." We thought, "Great. That makes a lot of sense. Great

43:02 ↗ use for the land." But as time went on, and then all of a sudden

43:07 ↗ the trees started disappearing, and then the white plastic came up, and then all of

43:12 ↗ the crazy but necessary work to kind of help stabilize that hill has been going

43:17 ↗ on forever. So I ask myself, what happens to the people, however, whatever happens, that

43:22 ↗ buy those houses in the future? Are they going to hear the story of what's

43:27 ↗ really going on underneath them? That makes me nervous. It makes me nervous for those

43:31 ↗ of us that are close that could be affected if a slide happens again. So

43:35 ↗ I look at a few points. Yes, there's the beauty and there's the magic of

43:39 ↗ that neighborhood and that's why we moved there. And that's why I think we have

43:43 ↗ so many great neighbors that move there with us. But we've got to consider that.

43:47 ↗ We've also got to consider the density. You know, we live there because it feels

43:52 ↗ It feels spacious and open in our trails, but with an apartment as you go

43:56 ↗ right into the center because that is the focal point that has been mentioned. Every

44:00 ↗ single one of us, whether we go left to the bridges or right, we all

44:04 ↗ see that. And we want it to be something that we're proud of, something that

44:09 ↗ sets the tone for our neighborhood, something that is safe, something that is responsible, something

44:13 ↗ that is architecturally consistent with what we're proud of and what we stand for. and

44:17 ↗ we want to continue that mountain retreat feeling. And I think if we're allowed to

44:22 ↗ build 60 foot apartments where we tore down 60 foot trees, to me somehow, that

44:27 ↗ just doesn't seem like the right thing to do. So please let Parcel 9 Mountain

44:32 ↗ be the integrity of architecture that we have grown to love and the destiny that

44:36 ↗ brought so many of us together as neighbors. So thank you very much for listening.

44:41 ↗ - Thank you, Kristen. Lots of support in the room.

44:48 ↗ Hi, my name is Cynthia Lessford, 630 Timber Creek Drive, Northwest in Issaquah.

44:54 ↗ I'm a TALIS resident and I'm one of those people who drive up

45:00 ↗ past Parcel 9 two to four times a day. And as everybody has

45:06 ↗ said, it has gone through the slide, the plastic, all the construction, the

45:12 ↗ big crane, and... I know what ugly is because we've been looking at it for

45:17 ↗ two and a half years. So I would like to see the Talos Agreement end

45:22 ↗ with the following conditions: The present and future development should be compatible with the expectations

45:27 ↗ of the residents and not the developer. I understand the developer wants to make money

45:31 ↗ but we have to live there forever and we have to look at this and

45:36 ↗ we have to drive up there and it's going to be part of our life.

45:41 ↗ They're going to leave. and we aren't. Want to keep the current parcel nine

45:47 ↗ zoning to 90 single family attached and an attached town homes with a maximum

45:52 ↗ of 45 feet. Don't allow the city to change the regulations to multifamily. Five-story

45:58 ↗ apartment building on this narrow and steep parcel would look out of character with

46:04 ↗ the mountain terrain as specified in the development agreement. If you read most of

46:10 ↗ the development agreement, Mountain environment is in there millions of times. Well,

46:16 ↗ maybe 10,000. Parcel 9 is the end of our only entrance and we

46:21 ↗ do not want an Atlas style building looming over every car that enters

46:27 ↗ or leaves our beautiful, our tree-filled community. So I love living in Talus.

46:33 ↗ I love living in Issaquah. Please ensure the development agreement placement regulations meet

46:38 ↗ parcel nine expectations of the Talus residents. Please vote for a height of

46:44 ↗ 45 feet and 90 units. Thank you. Thank you, Cynthia. A lot of

46:50 ↗ support for Cynthia's comments.

46:55 ↗ Good evening, Council. My name is Barbara DeMichel and I live at 580 Front

47:01 ↗ Street South. I'm here tonight to support the selection of HealthPoints and Valley Cities

47:07 ↗ for their proposal for the Opportunity Center. For the past decade, I've been on

47:13 ↗ the board of the Together Center, which is located in Redmond. And if you're

47:18 ↗ not familiar with the Together Center, it's a social services campus currently with 21

47:24 ↗ different social service agencies on campus. We're really proud of them. Health Point has

47:30 ↗ been the anchor tenant at that facility for many, many years. And over

47:36 ↗ the last decade or so, I've had many opportunities to visit the Health

47:41 ↗ Point facility and observe what's going on there. It is an outstanding operation,

47:47 ↗ beautiful facility. They offer services for people who are covered by Medicaid.

47:53 ↗ They offer a sliding scale for low-income people who don't qualify for

47:59 ↗ Medicaid. They offer dental services and combined with the proposal to include

48:04 ↗ Valley Cities, they'll be able to offer mental health services here.

48:10 ↗ I was able to email the director of the Redmond facility and she said

48:16 ↗ that they estimate that over time they've served about 20% of Issaquah's population. So

48:22 ↗ you may be thinking it's a small number, it's not a small number. And

48:28 ↗ I want you to think about the challenge of taking transportation if you

48:34 ↗ don't have a car from Issaquah to Redmond and from Redmond back to Issaquah,

48:39 ↗ especially if you have little children in tow. So to place a facility here

48:45 ↗ in Issaquah would be a tremendous boon for the low-income citizens of this community

48:51 ↗ or anyone who is looking for health care services. HealthPoint's motto is

48:57 ↗ "Everyone deserves great care." We know that there is a great need for additional

49:03 ↗ medical, dental, and mental health services in this area. And so I urge you

49:09 ↗ to accept the proposal from HealthPoint and Valley Cities, and I think that it

49:15 ↗ would be a wonderful asset for this community. Thank you so much. Thank you,

49:21 ↗ Barb. And there are some hands of

49:27 ↗ support in the audience for Barb's comments. Thank you, Barb. Next, Tisha. No one further

49:32 ↗ has signed up to speak. Is there anyone else who would like to address council

49:37 ↗ this evening? No way. Okay. I got a couple of hands. I was going to

49:42 ↗ say, wow, you flared me. Okay. Steve and then Skip.

49:53 ↗ Good evening. So several comments. I'll keep them brief. The first on the six-year transportation

49:57 ↗ improvement project, a couple projects caught my attention. If you will have time to comment.

50:02 ↗ I'm not going to be able to come back so I'm just trying to get

50:06 ↗ them done. Thank you though. So the first was I heard a proposed roundabout at

50:10 ↗ the front intersection of Front Street and Sunset as proposed. I have some concern with

50:14 ↗ it just in general what it does to the character of the Old Town neighborhood

50:18 ↗ so I'd like to see that discussed a lot more before that kind of gets

50:22 ↗ forward. I think we need to look at getting the traffic off of the area

50:27 ↗ rather than having a roundabout. I'm not sure how it would be convenient to keep

50:31 ↗ that character of Old Town. The next, the whole transportation oriented development project, I support

50:35 ↗ the idea, but there still seems to be a lot of questions in community as

50:40 ↗ far as what the total cost and the affordable housing. I think all those things

50:44 ↗ need to be talked about and looked at community wide before we talk about specific

50:48 ↗ projects about this particular project for The last was I guess the tell us

50:54 ↗ development in the context of a lot of times I hear that we talk about

50:59 ↗ should we approve this apartment complex or that apartment complex. I think we all should

51:04 ↗ have some stake in the game and again we're talking to the sense of deja

51:09 ↗ vu we're talking about this particular apartment complex. On tell us whether should be allowed

51:14 ↗ in high density. I think we may have that larger context of where we tried

51:19 ↗ again with with let's say in this would or the Alice building and now this

51:24 ↗ building where we talk about one project at a time, we're not being cohesive and

51:28 ↗ having that conversation. I need your help too when we look at who are becoming

51:32 ↗ time and time again, I've heard people say we don't want this particular apartment complex,

51:36 ↗ we need to look at how we're treating apartment complexes and we're building density in

51:41 ↗ when we don't have the infrastructure to handle it and it's you folks that are

51:45 ↗ allowing and approving zoning because we keep going back and saying zoning allows this to

51:49 ↗ happen so we have to allow it to happen. we need to have that conversation

51:55 ↗ citywide. So while I definitely feel for the Tallis residents and understand the complex or

52:01 ↗ that idea of keeping their own particular neighborhood whole and not having it, we need

52:06 ↗ to have that conversation citywide as a community. I think some communities are better organized

52:12 ↗ or some neighborhoods are better organized than others. So I ask your help

52:18 ↗ to not just look at this apartment complex by apartment complex as we

52:24 ↗ keep doing, but to have that wider conversation. Thank you. Thank you, Steve.

52:30 ↗ Skip? And being at least a week. I'm Skip Rowley, 1595 Northwest Gilman

52:36 ↗ Boulevard. And I'm here to speak very quickly on the transit-oriented development. We

52:42 ↗ really support the project. We think it's a great project, but we've got

52:48 ↗ some real concerns about parking. The old ordinance for medical dental

52:54 ↗ that we used to have to live by required five parking stalls

52:59 ↗ per thousand square feet. A year down to two, I believe. When

53:05 ↗ we were building apartments, our apartment requirement was two parking stalls per

53:11 ↗ unit, and this building has got .95 parking stalls per unit.

53:17 ↗ We want you to support the project, but we want you to figure out how

53:22 ↗ to park the cars first. And there are ways for you to do it, and

53:27 ↗ I hope that you can. I really do want to see the project done. It's

53:32 ↗ something that we need, but I don't want some poor guy getting his teeth drilled

53:37 ↗ at the dentist while I'm out there towing his car. So anyway, do your best,

53:42 ↗ one and all. Thank you very much. Bye. - Thank you, Skip. The smattering

53:48 ↗ of hands in support. And Dave Wagner, I saw

53:53 ↗ you with your hand up. Hi, Council. David Wagner,

53:59 ↗ 360 Northwest Dogwood Street, resident of Issaquah since 1945,

54:04 ↗ except for 26 years serving in the United States

54:10 ↗ military. I'm not here to speak about TALIS tonight, but I totally agree we

54:16 ↗ got to make it better. We got to make it better. The thing I am

54:21 ↗ here to thank the Council members who came to Memorial Day. I want you to

54:27 ↗ know that we marked the graves of 549 veterans that are buried in Upper and

54:33 ↗ Lower Hillside Cemetery. And we also had a flyover. For those of

54:38 ↗ you who may have missed it, it was a B-25 built in

54:44 ↗ 1943 from historic, yeah, Mitchell B-25 built in 1943. And it was

54:50 ↗ an honor and pleasure to have Historic Flight Foundation fly that B-25

54:55 ↗ over our event. Something else you may have noticed in the news,

55:01 ↗ and I will be back to talk about it, Yesterday morning at

55:07 ↗ 3:00, we had a B-52 come down 405. Now, I don't know if

55:13 ↗ you know what a B-52 is, but it's a big bomber, and it

55:18 ↗ came down 405. I wish that that could happen during rush hour, but

55:24 ↗ probably would freak a lot of people out. And it was wonderful

55:30 ↗ to have that happen. And I want to come back at the next meeting

55:36 ↗ and brief you on a project for a Vietnam Veterans Memorial Park that is

55:41 ↗ being built at Museum of Flight. And it's quite an honor to be a

55:47 ↗ part of that committee. And the last thing I want to tell you is

55:53 ↗ that on Saturday, with our mayor present, we disposed of-- 470

55:59 ↗ United States flags and a Boy Scout Eagle candidate

56:04 ↗ completed his work, so he will be an Eagle

56:10 ↗ Scout. Those flags are gathered from around the community,

56:15 ↗ and they were disposed of properly by burning them.

56:21 ↗ It was an honor to be there. It was an

56:27 ↗ honor to have 70 people from our city there. So

56:33 ↗ thank you for your time. And especially for your council

56:39 ↗ members that were at the Memorial Day service. Thank you

56:45 ↗ for being there. CHRISTIE WOOD: Thank you, Dave. Hands in

56:51 ↗ support. Ken, I'm assuming you're going to take the microphone.

56:57 ↗ KEN EASMAN: My name is Ken Eastman. I reside at

57:03 ↗ 2473 Northwest Stony Creek Drive. I'm representing my own views

57:09 ↗ tonight. and not the views of any community organization. And I want to

57:14 ↗ tell you I'm proud to be a resident of the beautiful community that I

57:20 ↗ live in, Tallis. I'm proud of our mountainside village with its beautiful landscaping and

57:26 ↗ parks, playgrounds, trails, and the architecture of our buildings. I'm proud of my neighbors

57:32 ↗ who care enough to keep it beautiful. Parcel 9 resides at the center of

57:37 ↗ our community. I want the parcel 9 to become an integral part of our

57:43 ↗ community and not the eyesore that it's been for the last three years. I'm impatient.

57:49 ↗ The clearing and grading started in 2015 with the hillside a few months later. It's

57:54 ↗ been three long years and no doubt it'll be a few more years before this

58:00 ↗ is remedied. But I believe there can be a satisfactory end to this misery. I

58:05 ↗ commend the city for fixing the utilities, restoring the sidewalk, and the landscaping. I commend

58:11 ↗ the parcel owner for spending the millions of dollars to permanently stabilize the slope and

58:17 ↗ make it safe. I want a path forward that turns parcel 9 into a part

58:22 ↗ of TALIS that we can all be proud of. A community just like Timber Ridge

58:27 ↗ or Spring Peak or the Bridges neighborhood that I live in. I don't want to

58:32 ↗ live in a community where this parcel hangs in limbo for eternity while we squabble

58:37 ↗ about what to do with it. So I support the zoning of single family because

58:43 ↗ it gives us the best chance for a form factor that will fit the look

58:48 ↗ and feel of the community. If in the future the parcel owner cannot make single

58:53 ↗ family work, there's a process for the parcel owner to make a case to City

58:58 ↗ Council for multifamily. I've got every confidence that if the parcel owner works with the

59:03 ↗ TALIS Architectural Review Committee on the building design that both parcel owner and the community

59:08 ↗ can win. I'm impatient. i've looked at the flapping plastic eco blocks mud construction

59:14 ↗ equipment orange fencing drainage pipe for way too long and i want my community back

59:19 ↗ i want a clear path forward so end the da zone parcel 9 single family

59:25 ↗ and please save cougar mountain thank you thank you ken lots of hands in the

59:31 ↗ air for ken's comments mary's making her way up If

59:36 ↗ there's anyone else, can you

59:42 ↗ please sort of give me

59:47 ↗ a show of hands or

59:52 ↗ move towards the microphone so

59:58 ↗ I can get an idea

1:00:03 ↗ of how many more. It's

1:00:09 ↗ like a couple more. My

1:00:14 ↗ name is Mary Lynch and

1:00:19 ↗ I reside at 2690 Northwest

1:00:25 ↗ Oak Crest Drive. I'm here for two reasons

1:00:31 ↗ tonight for public comment. First is I hope that going forward with your

1:00:36 ↗ comp planning that you put priority on creating a tree canopy and setting

1:00:42 ↗ goals for what we want, that we actually fund to figure out what

1:00:48 ↗ we have. and actually located, updated the location. We document both private project and

1:00:54 ↗ document both public and private canopies and we plan for ongoing funding and forest stewardship.

1:01:00 ↗ That has not been done yet we are proud to say we're 25 years tree

1:01:06 ↗ city but we have not protected our tree canopy. That can be seen last week

1:01:11 ↗ with the cuttings of two different locations of old growth trees. Next I want to

1:01:17 ↗ talk about, we know along Newport Way that there's going to be development for the

1:01:22 ↗ next years to come. But we would expect that our pathways into the city are

1:01:27 ↗ protected and safe. As of this afternoon, we still don't have any action from the

1:01:33 ↗ city or from the developer to remove the vehicle or at least protect the vehicle

1:01:38 ↗ that is blocking the pathway at the bottom of Oak Crest Drive. If you'll note,

1:01:44 ↗ the tree there is partially destroyed. They've gone in and destroyed the roots. They've taken

1:01:49 ↗ down the major part, but they've left a major piece hanging over the roadway.

1:01:55 ↗ right next to the sign, right next to where we've had two dogs and a

1:02:00 ↗ little boy killed in our crosswalk. Yet this is what the reaction we get from

1:02:04 ↗ the city and the developer. I personally got an email back from the developer saying,

1:02:08 ↗ we're sorry, but there's nothing we can do until we can get it moved. There

1:02:13 ↗ is no advance signs that says that there's anything there. They actually took the 25

1:02:17 ↗ mile an hour speed limit signs that they put while they're there down. They also

1:02:22 ↗ closed the work site down early because of it. People coming home this

1:02:27 ↗ afternoon had to walk out into the lanes of traffic. The bicyclers had to go

1:02:32 ↗ in the lanes of traffic. Here's another view here to see how it's leading. We're

1:02:37 ↗ supposed to have rain and wind tonight. What's going to happen if that falls over

1:02:41 ↗ and hit somebody? We routinely have people that live out in our neighborhood that work

1:02:46 ↗ nights and have to walk that pathway home or to the bus. What are they

1:02:51 ↗ going to do to get home? No lights, no advance warnings. And you

1:02:57 ↗ received one, or the mayor did earlier this week, a 50 miles an hour that

1:03:02 ↗ we recorded. I routinely see 50 and 45 mile an hour vehicles. Can you imagine

1:03:07 ↗ if someone's trying to walk out around that and cars are coming at them, not

1:03:13 ↗ only westbound, but we've got a curve there that we've talked much about. And nothing's

1:03:18 ↗ been done. We've heard nothing from the city. I drove by there. There's been

1:03:24 ↗ no advance warning. Nothing's been done. And this is allowed to sit. This is

1:03:30 ↗ unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. Hands of support in the audience. Connie. Hi,

1:03:35 ↗ I'm Connie Martin. You know, I have had a meeting like that. That's kidding.

1:03:41 ↗ I don't even control the light button. Tisha does. Okay, now I get to go,

1:03:46 ↗ right? Okay, my name is Connie Marsh and I live up on Squawk Mountain. And

1:03:51 ↗ I went to the transit-oriented development meeting the other night and a couple of things

1:03:57 ↗ happened that were sort of shocking and hilarious at the same time. I was having

1:04:02 ↗ a conversation with one person and they said you're against the transit-oriented development

1:04:08 ↗ because you don't want the low-impact people, low-income people in town. And I'm

1:04:14 ↗ going, me? I want to keep out the riffraff. I am the riffraff.

1:04:21 ↗ I couldn't believe it. It's like I make less than just about anybody. I am

1:04:26 ↗ far below your poverty level, yet I'm one of the people who's supposed to be

1:04:31 ↗ supporting in my tax dollars the people who would be moving in. And so I

1:04:36 ↗ went to the effort today to look up to see what that amount was before

1:04:41 ↗ somebody got a break on their property taxes, and I sent you all that email.

1:04:47 ↗ Had the same conversation as I was garage sailing in my riffraff way with a

1:04:53 ↗ lot of people on fixed income this last weekend. And there are many people, it's

1:04:58 ↗ a hot topic of conversation, saying they can no longer afford to stay in their

1:05:04 ↗ homes because of the things that they have to pay for taxes. The increase in

1:05:10 ↗ water rates is sort of startling. Utilities, all the basic things in life that

1:05:16 ↗ you have to pay for. So we are supposed to be creating spaces for

1:05:22 ↗ those people who actually are going to be making more money on us. And

1:05:28 ↗ I'm against that. Now, things I am for. I do like HealthPoint. I think

1:05:34 ↗ we do need a health facility and a dental place for those who are

1:05:40 ↗ low income. in our town and I think people have to travel way too far

1:05:45 ↗ to get it. I just don't think that we need to build a big building

1:05:51 ↗ to put it in. We have extra capacity in our health areas. If you want

1:05:56 ↗ it adjacent to the park and ride, put it in the health facility just across

1:06:01 ↗ SR 900 and you can walk to it. So, No on the TOD, yes on

1:06:07 ↗ health, and I am proud to be your riffraff. Thank you very much. Thank you,

1:06:12 ↗ Connie. Hands of support there. Is there anyone else who would like to address the

1:06:18 ↗ council this evening? I'm going to check two more times. So second call, would anyone

1:06:24 ↗ else like to address your council this evening? Come on up.

1:06:35 ↗ My name is Kathleen Mazur and I'm totally unprepared for tonight, but I do want

1:06:40 ↗ to support HealthPoint. I've been a HealthPoint employee for 18 years now. I was only

1:06:45 ↗ going to stay four. I'm a dentist. I happen to be at the Redmond Clinic.

1:06:51 ↗ And I just want to say that we see patients from all walks of life,

1:06:56 ↗ all religions, all races, all ages, from six months old up to 90 plus. Whoever

1:07:02 ↗ can make it in, we see them. Our particular clinic has eight operatories, and we

1:07:08 ↗ see 800 to 1,000 appointments per month. And we provide not just the low-income patients.

1:07:14 ↗ We provide... Microsoft patients, we take any type of insurance, anyone who needs our services,

1:07:20 ↗ we're willing to and able to see them. So I know that there is a

1:07:25 ↗ need for healthcare on the east side, I mean, well, low-income healthcare, but healthcare in

1:07:30 ↗ general that's combined to treat the whole patient, not just the teeth for a nice

1:07:35 ↗ smile or not just the medical, but very much intertwined with all the different disciplines

1:07:41 ↗ that we can offer. So thank you so much for listening. Kathleen, thank you for

1:07:46 ↗ speaking. You must have felt very passionate about it if you weren't prepared. I wasn't

1:07:51 ↗ prepared at all. Thank you. Thank you very much. You did a great job. So

1:07:56 ↗ I will check one more time. Is there anyone else who would like to speak

1:08:00 ↗ this evening? Second last call. Anyone liking to address council this evening? And a last

1:08:05 ↗ call for public comment before I close. I did want to thank you all for

1:08:10 ↗ coming tonight. This is a huge group that we have. We heard a lot about

1:08:15 ↗ one of our conversations we're going to have later on which is about Opportunity Center

1:08:20 ↗ in a proposed transit-oriented development project and the need for dental medical and mental services

1:08:25 ↗ in Issaquah as well as a lot of supporters of Health Point. Did have some

1:08:30 ↗ comments on the Berksma Hillside property. Also on construction issues on Newport Way. Had comments

1:08:36 ↗ on the TIP program and if you wish to make more we'll have our public

1:08:41 ↗ hearing later. this evening. The biggest amount of test comments we received this

1:08:46 ↗ evening had to do with the ending of the TALIS-DA. Support for the preliminary

1:08:52 ↗ plat that was originally approved, a density of 90 units, single-family zoning was brought

1:08:58 ↗ up several times. Concerns related to how developments would fit the mountain character, if they

1:09:04 ↗ are appropriate density, and obviously concerns of years of looking at the plastic mountain. Also

1:09:10 ↗ heard about the original commitments in the TALS-DA and how important it is for the

1:09:15 ↗ city to use appropriate geotechnical review for Parcel 7, 8, and 9. Also had a

1:09:20 ↗ half a dozen comments or so on various community issues. So thank you all so

1:09:25 ↗ much for coming this evening and sharing your thoughts. We're moving out of audience comments

1:09:31 ↗ and into committee and regional reports and we'll start with Council Member Hunt. Thank you

1:09:36 ↗ Madam Mayor. On May 23rd I attended the Cascade Water Alliance board meeting with Mayor

1:09:42 ↗ Pauly and I attended by phone. We took a couple actions. We authorized assessment of

1:09:48 ↗ the regional capital facilities charge process and workflows of cascade members. This is a charge

1:09:53 ↗ that's assessed to members for connections to the water system. And we also authorized herbicide

1:09:59 ↗ treatment for control of aquatic vegetation in the Lake Taps Reservoir, which is a part

1:10:05 ↗ of their regular reservoir maintenance. um specific to Issaquah we heard about how cascade

1:10:10 ↗ is working with the Montreux and South Cove Community and Esquire to help them reduce

1:10:16 ↗ irrigation water use in conjunction with the city and in upcoming months we will be

1:10:22 ↗ working on the budget and rate development for the next two year two years The

1:10:28 ↗ next regular meeting of Cascade Water Alliance will be June 27th and there will also

1:10:33 ↗ be a Cascade Water Alliance Resource Management Committee which will meet June 14th which I

1:10:38 ↗ will also attend and this concludes my report. Thank you. Council Member Wray. Thank you

1:10:42 ↗ Mayor Pauley. The Services and Safety Committee will meet on June 12th at 6:30 here

1:10:47 ↗ in Council Chambers. The agenda will likely include agenda bill 7394, the park strategic

1:10:53 ↗ plan, agenda bill 7600, an interlocal agreement with the Department of Natural Resources

1:10:59 ↗ related to the maintenance and use of the High Point Trailhead, and agenda

1:11:05 ↗ bill 7617, an interagency agreement with the Department of Natural Resources for incident

1:11:10 ↗ management team participation. Eastside Fire and Rescue Board will meet on June 14th

1:11:16 ↗ at 4 o'clock. The agenda for that meeting has not been set and that concludes

1:11:21 ↗ my report this evening. Thank you councilmember Ramos. Thank you mayor Just two meetings coming

1:11:26 ↗ up this Friday the 8th. I'll be the Eastside Transportation Partnership meeting and Next week

1:11:31 ↗ Wednesday the 13th at the King County Emergency Management Advisory County. Thank you Thank you.

1:11:35 ↗ That's it. That concludes my report. Thank you very much. Council Member Winterstein. Thank you,

1:11:41 ↗ Mayor Pauly. No report on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee because we haven't met. And

1:11:46 ↗ the Growth Management Policy Board will be meeting next this Thursday, June 7th. And the

1:11:51 ↗ principal action scheduled is to finalize the Vision 2040 scoping effort. That concludes my report.

1:11:57 ↗ Thank you. Council Member Goodman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. On this Thursday, June 7th, The

1:12:02 ↗ council Land and Shore Committee will meet. The agenda includes the

1:12:08 ↗ following items. Agenda Bill 7614, the proposed high street conversion in

1:12:14 ↗ Issaquah Highlands. Agenda Bill 7480, preliminary plat regarding West Ridge North,

1:12:19 ↗ also in the Highlands. We have an informational item on

1:12:25 ↗ the agenda, Issaquah School District/City Land Evaluation that involves the land

1:12:31 ↗ up by Swedish Hospital that the school district is interested in

1:12:37 ↗ purchasing for a school. Agenda Bill 7612, amendments to, and my

1:12:42 ↗ computer's restarting. I think there was an agenda bill about a

1:12:48 ↗ Timber Ridge easement. And then I think there were some code amendments regarding something. Thank

1:12:54 ↗ you. Amendments to the Issaquah Municipal Code regarding transfer of development rights resulting from Issaquah

1:12:59 ↗ Highlands Development Agreement. That's it. nicely done that's teamwork deputy council president patis thank you

1:13:05 ↗ madam mayor no report this evening thank you council president martz thank you madam mayor

1:13:10 ↗ uh the king county growth management policy council met wednesday may 30th they were going

1:13:16 ↗ to talk about school citing motion i was at ubc learning all about micro needles

1:13:21 ↗ which are going to take away if you don't like having to be jabbed with

1:13:26 ↗ big needles for uh uh vaccines and whatnot. You're gonna like the technology that's coming,

1:13:31 ↗ has nothing to do with the city, but it's fascinating nonetheless. But I will give

1:13:36 ↗ a report as soon as I get the minutes from that meeting. Upcoming Sound Cities

1:13:41 ↗ Association Public Issues Committee is gonna meet Wednesday, June 13th. A couple of important topics.

1:13:46 ↗ We're gonna have a discussion on the King County Land Conservation Initiative, and we're gonna

1:13:51 ↗ get an update on the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force. And then the pre-pic meeting,

1:13:56 ↗ not really a problem for our council, but if anybody wants to attend the Always

1:14:01 ↗ Fun Jurassic Parliament, the topic is going to be leading by example in a toxic

1:14:06 ↗ climate. So, you know, if you want to hear about other cities' troubles, that will

1:14:11 ↗ be fun. That concludes my report. Thank you. That completes Committee and Regional Reports. Moving

1:14:16 ↗ on to the Mayor's Report. There will not be an Executive Session held this evening.

1:14:22 ↗ I attended several meetings in the previous weeks, the Cascade Water Alliance board meeting

1:14:28 ↗ with Council Member Hunt on May 23rd and Sound Transit's board meeting on May

1:14:33 ↗ 24th where we received updates on three of the ongoing Sound Transit projects. On

1:14:39 ↗ May 31st I attended Puget Sound Regional Council's Annual General Assembly. This is the

1:14:45 ↗ meeting where officers are selected annually and the budget is approved. During the last

1:14:51 ↗ two weeks there were several opportunities for community outreach. I got to attend the ribbon

1:14:56 ↗ cutting for Kumon of Issaquah on Gilman Boulevard, an after-school academic enrichment program. On May

1:15:02 ↗ 25th I attended the Visitors Information Center's familiarization tour of trailheads in Issaquah. On May

1:15:07 ↗ 30 I attended the Solarize workshop and gave some opening remarks. June 1st I attended

1:15:13 ↗ an open house and community event at Gibson Eck High School and on June 2nd

1:15:18 ↗ I attended the VFW Boy Scouts of America annual flag retirement ceremonies. Thought I'd provide

1:15:24 ↗ a couple of updates on a few issues. I do not have new information

1:15:30 ↗ on the Cougar Mountain-Bergsma project. For our Southeast 62nd Street and Bridge project, which

1:15:35 ↗ is the connecting piece between East Lakes-Mamish Parkway and Costco's campus, the delivery of

1:15:41 ↗ the precast concrete trail undercrossing for the East Lakes-Mamish Trail went very well with

1:15:47 ↗ no issues. Contractor is now working to install retaining walls on either end and install

1:15:53 ↗ electrical and lights inside the crossing. Contractor continues to pour concrete on the bridge for

1:15:58 ↗ railings, the bridges over Issaquah Creek, sidewalk and decking. In addition, they're working on some

1:16:04 ↗ utility trenches in the area. There is a fantastic video that the city put out

1:16:09 ↗ on YouTube that shows the progress of the trail crossing and I would encourage you

1:16:15 ↗ to look that up. It's quite an inspiring project. We are also completing the Northwest

1:16:21 ↗ Gilman Boulevard corridor concept project. We are continuing to gather input through our online survey

1:16:26 ↗ and residents should visit the project's page at issaquahwa.gov/gilman. You can take the online survey,

1:16:31 ↗ sign up to receive updates or just learn more about the project itself. And the

1:16:37 ↗ City's strategic planning process, which we started in January of this year, I'd like to

1:16:42 ↗ invite you to come and join your City Council, senior staff, Mayor and community representatives

1:16:46 ↗ tomorrow night at the Senior Center as we review and discuss the information provided by

1:16:51 ↗ over a thousand community members in the engagement kickoff for our strategic planning process. So

1:16:55 ↗ we will be located at the Issaquah Senior Center over on Creek Way from 5:30

1:17:00 ↗ to 8:30 p.m. tomorrow night and it is a meeting that's open to the public

1:17:04 ↗ and we would love to have you there. Proceeding to the consent calendar. The

1:17:10 ↗ consent calendar was distributed to Council in advance. If authorized, the items on the consent

1:17:15 ↗ calendar will be considered together and approved in one motion. Have the payables and payroll

1:17:21 ↗ for June 4th been reviewed? They have. Thank you. Does any Councilmember desire to remove

1:17:26 ↗ any item from the consent calendar and consider it under regular business this evening? Seeing

1:17:31 ↗ none, could we have a motion? Council President Martz. Madam Mayor, I move

1:17:37 ↗ the consent agenda as listed in tonight's, sorry, the consent calendar as listed in

1:17:43 ↗ tonight's agenda. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by

1:17:49 ↗ saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Thank you. That passes unanimously. The

1:17:55 ↗ next item on the agenda

1:18:00 ↗ is our public hearing for

1:18:05 ↗ this evening. AB 7599 is

1:18:10 ↗ our 2019 through 2014 six-year

1:18:15 ↗ transportation improvement program. This item

1:18:21 ↗ was heard at the can

1:18:26 ↗ was heard before the council

1:18:31 ↗ infrastructure committee. Before I open

1:18:36 ↗ the public hearing I'd like

1:18:41 ↗ to invite Kurt Seaman, transportation

1:18:47 ↗ manager, to make a presentation.

1:19:02 ↗ Thank you, Mayor Pauley and Issaquah Council.

1:19:08 ↗ I'm happy to be here tonight to

1:19:13 ↗ give you a brief presentation and update

1:19:19 ↗ on our Transportation Improvement Plan. This is

1:19:24 ↗ a six-year plan. I can do this

1:19:30 ↗ here. And let me, I've got about a five minute presentation here. I've

1:19:36 ↗ got more slides than that that I would be happy to share, but in respect

1:19:40 ↗ to everything else you have on your agenda here, I'm gonna keep it brief and

1:19:45 ↗ be happy to answer any questions you have. So what is the six year transportation

1:19:50 ↗ improvement plan and why do we do it and what is the process that's involved?

1:19:54 ↗ So the six year plan, we do it because it's in the process It's our

1:19:59 ↗ assurance that each city has a perpetually is perpetually preparing advance

1:20:05 ↗ plans for not less than 6 years that carry out a

1:20:10 ↗ coordinated transportation program. So It gives us all some certainty of

1:20:16 ↗ what the future has to hold relative to transportation projects. It's also

1:20:22 ↗ required by state law. That's the RCW 357710. And importantly for the

1:20:28 ↗ city, by having projects in an approved plan, that will be asking you

1:20:33 ↗ to approve here at the next council meeting. It gives us opportunity for more funding

1:20:39 ↗ and more funding eligibility, which is an important way to fund many of the projects

1:20:45 ↗ on the plan. The process that we have followed, and so just the the process

1:20:50 ↗ going forward here once this is adopted, it will go to regional

1:20:56 ↗ planning organizations such as PSRC, also the state within 30 days of

1:21:02 ↗ adoption and be our officially adopted plan. We also share with all

1:21:07 ↗ our regional partners, TIB, PSRC, Metro Sound Transit, others, so that every,

1:21:13 ↗ the idea is that everyone understands what each city has planned for

1:21:19 ↗ their transportation improvements. The process that we have followed so far as

1:21:25 ↗ this plan has been has gone to the planning policy planning policy

1:21:30 ↗ Commission on May 10th. to the Council Infrastructure Committee for discussion on May

1:21:36 ↗ 17th, to the Chamber Government Affairs Committee on May 18th, and now it's coming

1:21:42 ↗ to Council to start the public hearing, to open the public hearing tonight. And

1:21:48 ↗ I think this is up to Council obviously, but maybe continue to the June

1:21:54 ↗ 18th meeting. And so don't expect anyone

1:22:00 ↗ to see all this. And I just want you to show you what this looks

1:22:06 ↗ like. It's a busy, complicated list. I think what you can see, most of you

1:22:12 ↗ hopefully can see, is there's a double line here. So the projects above this line

1:22:17 ↗ are projects that we have planned for the next six years. So those are projects

1:22:23 ↗ starting in 2018 and going on through So this is the six year

1:22:29 ↗ plan and what I was mentioning earlier is the essence of what

1:22:35 ↗ we're we're talking about here and there's a number of projects which I'm happy to

1:22:40 ↗ talk about any one of them in more detail if you'd like, if that's useful.

1:22:45 ↗ And then in addition to those six-year projects, there are all the other projects which

1:22:50 ↗ we envision accomplishing in years beyond the first six years. So those are the projects

1:22:55 ↗ below the double line. So it's all these projects here as well as the projects

1:22:59 ↗ that fall onto the next page. So again, not to rush you through this, but

1:23:05 ↗ just to give you an idea of the overall size and scope of our transportation

1:23:10 ↗ plan. And here are the projects in light green.

1:23:16 ↗ So I have a slide that shows all the projects on the list for

1:23:22 ↗ the entire project list. These are the projects, what we call the above the

1:23:28 ↗ line projects. So these are the projects, just to go back here, these are

1:23:33 ↗ the projects in this area here. So the projects, the projects above this

1:23:39 ↗ double line are these projects here in green. So there's a wide range of projects

1:23:45 ↗ from fairly small to fairly large and complex throughout the city. And so this gives

1:23:50 ↗ you an idea of where those projects are. And again, I have can

1:23:56 ↗ go into more detail on anything and I'd be happy to answer questions.

1:24:02 ↗ But that's the the the five minute overview of what the tip is

1:24:07 ↗ and what we're asking for you to adopt through the public hearing process.

1:24:13 ↗ Thank you. Before we open the public hearing, does Council have any questions

1:24:19 ↗ for Kurt? Member Winchester, followed by Council Member Hunt. Kurt, Project TR zero

1:24:24 ↗ I'll tell you what it is. It's the Sammamish Road pinch point.

1:24:30 ↗ And this TIP is millions of dollars less than the previous TIP.

1:24:37 ↗ uh and i wonder if you could just help me under is that is that

1:24:40 ↗ because of some uh the work that's being done in coordination with uh the state

1:24:44 ↗ because we have a better sense of what that is so i can sure i

1:24:48 ↗ can uh i can answer that question and the scope may be a little bit

1:24:52 ↗ different either it could be a scope question because we're reusing a number i think

1:24:56 ↗ the old project was the entire road and now it's just the pinch point right

1:24:59 ↗ so that what we're what you're asking about, what we're talking about here is this

1:25:04 ↗ project here, which is a very large project and many millions of dollars. I think

1:25:10 ↗ it may be, I wanna say 80 million, you have it in front of you

1:25:15 ↗ there. So that is not, to be clear, that is not the Pinch Point project.

1:25:20 ↗ The Pinch Point project is a $1 million project and it's focused right in the

1:25:26 ↗ vicinity, basically where I have my arrow, And that project is meant to piggyback on

1:25:31 ↗ the state is the state's effort to widen the shoulders to you to make an

1:25:37 ↗ auxiliary lane on I 90 which they'll be starting on fairly soon and as they

1:25:43 ↗ do that they'll be constructing a wall along this portion of. The freeway well

1:25:49 ↗ a longer along a lot along a long portion of the freeway but specifically in

1:25:54 ↗ this area which will enable us to have a little more room to build sidewalks

1:25:59 ↗ and bike lanes in that area where there are previous where there are currently no

1:26:05 ↗ good non motorized connection. So when we talk about the pinch point should probably have

1:26:10 ↗ two graphics here. So there is an overall idea in future years beyond the six

1:26:16 ↗ years to make improvements to this entire corridor. That's a large expensive project. The pinch

1:26:22 ↗ point improvements which I just mentioned are just right here and we believe that for,

1:26:28 ↗ I think that's a million dollars for the pinch point improvement and we believe that

1:26:33 ↗ that's an adequate amount of money to build those non-motorized improvements that I mentioned. we're

1:26:39 ↗ getting a a good bargain we feel from the state because they're doing a lot

1:26:43 ↗ of the work they're building the wall they're actually giving us enough room there to

1:26:48 ↗ make those improvements so the state's doing the bulk of the heavy lifting on that

1:26:52 ↗ project and we're coming back with non motorized improvements that. Does that help? Yeah, it

1:26:57 ↗ does. Just for clarification, in the old TIP, you just reused the number and now

1:27:01 ↗ the 28 is just the pinch point and the larger Sammamish Road project has been

1:27:06 ↗ redid. I think that could be the confusion. That's what caused my confusion. Thank you.

1:27:10 ↗ Same project, maybe just a confusion on the numbering. councilmember hunt thank you um there

1:27:16 ↗ as you were explaining how to read above and below the line i have a

1:27:21 ↗ question about the one item that is below the line but has funding as i

1:27:27 ↗ read it allocated for 2018 which is the tr o41 front street streetscape and so

1:27:33 ↗ i just um so my question is how to read that one number that is

1:27:38 ↗ below the line but allocated sure so i can i can help explain

1:27:44 ↗ that so that's a project to it's the front street we call it

1:27:50 ↗ here the front street streetscape so that's a project to continue finishing front

1:27:55 ↗ street with beautification mostly landscaping those kinds of things in the downtown we

1:28:01 ↗ did the the first order first first part of those improvements a few

1:28:07 ↗ years ago, a couple years ago, and now we're coming back with Front Street beautification

1:28:12 ↗ streetscape improvements. And our plan is to complete those this year. So that's why that's

1:28:18 ↗ shown in 2018. We show funding for a lot of these projects above the line

1:28:23 ↗ in 2018. So the plan here is to not, currently we don't have funding proposed

1:28:28 ↗ or future improvements on Front Street other than the ones we're showing here in 2018.

1:28:33 ↗ So 2018 I would tell you as a reference point so that you

1:28:39 ↗ can see where we're at this year and how we're spending planning spend

1:28:45 ↗ money this year. To be clear that the six-year TIP that we're asking

1:28:51 ↗ for you to adopt is the 2019-2024 project list there. So we're not

1:28:56 ↗ currently planning to do any additional work on those front street streetscape improvements

1:29:02 ↗ beyond this year. Any other questions? Council President Martz. Yeah,

1:29:08 ↗ I'll ask what somebody in the audience, if they hadn't seen this before, might

1:29:14 ↗ wonder about. When you look at the totals for the annuals, can you talk

1:29:20 ↗ a little bit about load balancing? Because you've got 20 million, 13 million, 24

1:29:25 ↗ million, 49 million, 17 million, 11 million, 65 million. Can you talk about how

1:29:31 ↗ it actually works in practice? That's an excellent question.

1:29:37 ↗ So this is our TIP plan. These are the

1:29:43 ↗ projects that we are, many of them are currently

1:29:49 ↗ under design and one of them, 62nd Street, is under construction. This

1:29:54 ↗ is, there are more complicated budget questions related to this list than are evident

1:30:00 ↗ here. So we don't, many of these projects, or perhaps most of these projects,

1:30:06 ↗ currently are not fully funded. Again, what I mentioned earlier, there's some

1:30:11 ↗ value to this. It tells everyone, the community and other agencies what our

1:30:17 ↗ plans are. It helps us acquire funding, but to be perfectly honest, you're

1:30:23 ↗ right, there's some big dollar amounts here. There's maybe one of the largest

1:30:28 ↗ here. Well, there's the two Newport projects and then the crossing of I-90,

1:30:34 ↗ which is, which is a concept, a plan to cross I-90

1:30:39 ↗ somewhere in the vicinity, sort of midway on Gilman. We don't have even

1:30:45 ↗ a conceptual design for that now, but this is our plan. our plan going

1:30:51 ↗ forward and you raise a good point. I think as we move forward and talking

1:30:56 ↗ about a transportation mobility plan and as we develop that, that will help clarify how

1:31:01 ↗ this, how these all these projects work together and that mobility plan would likely have

1:31:05 ↗ a funding piece to it that would help, I think, answer your questions. But you're

1:31:10 ↗ right, there's many more needs here and many more dollars here than we currently have

1:31:15 ↗ set aside. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? I just want to make sure

1:31:21 ↗ it's clear for the public this evening that we this is a public hearing and

1:31:25 ↗ before I open it I want to make sure that people are aware that the

1:31:30 ↗ council will not necessarily be voting on the motion this evening. We are just doing

1:31:35 ↗ the public hearing this evening and that any guidance for addressing council is same as

1:31:39 ↗ it was during audience comments and it's included on the agenda. and so i now

1:31:44 ↗ open the public hearing at 8 43 33 and tisha has anybody signed up

1:31:50 ↗ this evening no would anyone like to address the council on the tip connie's

1:31:56 ↗ got a foot forward and mary's behind her come on up connie so i'm

1:32:02 ↗ connie marsh i live up on squawk and this feels like my ten thousandth

1:32:07 ↗ tip and every time i see one i get a little bit more jaded

1:32:13 ↗ because um Well, the top projects tend to get done when we have

1:32:19 ↗ funding for them. The rest sort of wheelie-wag around and other things happen. But

1:32:25 ↗ in all the reiterations of the TIP, I think what I miss the most

1:32:31 ↗ is when we used to get the spreadsheets saying how much money was being

1:32:37 ↗ spent on things other than cars. because when you measure cars and you total up

1:32:43 ↗ funding for cars and single occupancy vehicles, that's what you get. And I don't think

1:32:48 ↗ we can afford to look at our town that way anymore. We can't build our

1:32:52 ↗ way out of it. So we need to start figuring out how we are going

1:32:57 ↗ to measure mobility. And everybody says, "Oh, the mobility master plan." Well, I think that

1:33:02 ↗ needs to start now. I think there is not a general recognition amongst the community

1:33:07 ↗ that you can't build your way out. And so when you put up a TIP,

1:33:11 ↗ a Transportation Improvement Plan, and it is filled with auto-oriented projects and you don't pull

1:33:16 ↗ out anything other than that and say, "Oh, and this is what we're doing to

1:33:21 ↗ help pedestrians, and this is what we're doing to help you ride the bus, and

1:33:25 ↗ this is keeping you out of the rain when you wait for the bus," then

1:33:30 ↗ you are not showing a balance in your transportation system that I think is

1:33:35 ↗ the future. And I think that future should start now. We've done it again.

1:33:41 ↗ And I would ask for those spreadsheets to be reinitiated. At one point in

1:33:47 ↗ time, we actually had the sidewalk portion sort of pulled out a

1:33:52 ↗ little bit, and now it's all glammed into road projects. And so

1:33:58 ↗ we can't tell the difference between a sidewalk where people walk and

1:34:04 ↗ bike lanes. And so it's hard to understand from the community what

1:34:10 ↗ our system is. So I don't think it's as easy as I'm

1:34:16 ↗ making it sound, but I think we need to try. Thank you.

1:34:22 ↗ - Thank you. Mary? - My name is Mary Lynch, and I

1:34:28 ↗ reside at 2690 Northwest. Oak Crest Drive. I thought I did.

1:34:33 ↗ There we go. Okay. And I want to just say I thank

1:34:39 ↗ Kurt for all the work that he put into this and that

1:34:45 ↗ it is out in a timely fashion so we maybe have more

1:34:51 ↗ than one public hearing. First I want to say is I'm really glad to see

1:34:57 ↗ that we have moved the Providence Point intersection up to the top of the list

1:35:01 ↗ because it's much overdue and needed and we need it now with all the development

1:35:06 ↗ that's going on not only in that end of town but also on out Lake

1:35:10 ↗ Sammamish. The other question I have I would say is why are we pushing

1:35:16 ↗ the Tibbetts frontage out past year six because with the other thing on your Dr.

1:35:22 ↗ Knight which is the transit oriented development they're not charged to really redo anything on

1:35:27 ↗ Newport Way but yet they're going to have much impact on that section of Newport

1:35:33 ↗ Way and I think the frontage project is just the park I don't think it

1:35:39 ↗ addresses the other side nor does it really address the intersection at S 900 and

1:35:44 ↗ so I think we need to have something in there as a placeholder that needs

1:35:49 ↗ to happen and if the transit oriented development is going forward quickly that needs to

1:35:53 ↗ be moved up to the priority and not below the line. The other thing I

1:35:59 ↗ have some concern with is on the funding for the 21st Street is that's part

1:36:04 ↗ of the vision but we really don't even know what's happening out there and to

1:36:09 ↗ have funding for it unless it's identified by the developer I don't feel we should

1:36:15 ↗ be spending any more tax dollars on projects like that. We've got too many that

1:36:20 ↗ have gone unfunded. So that being said, what's missing then? What dropped way down low

1:36:26 ↗ was the rest of Newport Way from South 54th to Lakemont. And may I remind

1:36:31 ↗ you that is needed for concurrency as part of the central area plan concurrency study.

1:36:36 ↗ Also that would help get you the Mountains of Sound Greenway or that portion. What's

1:36:41 ↗ also missing and part of the vision from the The plan that you did the

1:36:47 ↗ last meeting as far as for the central area plan is Mount to Sound Greenway.

1:36:52 ↗ Where is that in this funding? I don't see it any place. The other thing

1:36:57 ↗ that was identified as a need and vision and success is the Gateway I-90 multimodal

1:37:02 ↗ bridge over I-90. That's not in there. Neither is the missing links of the Lake

1:37:07 ↗ Sam Trail that have been identified and were being needed because of some of the

1:37:11 ↗ rework that's done on 62nd and then what else is missing. So these are missing

1:37:16 ↗ projects that I really think need to be addressed before the TIP is approved and

1:37:21 ↗ those projects moved in the next six years. All of these things are happening in

1:37:26 ↗ the next six years. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. Is there anyone else that would

1:37:30 ↗ like to speak during the public hearing? Second call. Anyone wishing to

1:37:36 ↗ speak? Final call for speakers on the 2019 to 2024 Six-Year

1:37:42 ↗ Transportation Improvement Program. Okay, we will close the public hearing at

1:37:48 ↗ 8:38 and there is no council action requested on this item

1:37:53 ↗ at tonight's meeting. This item will return for a decision at

1:37:59 ↗ the June 18th 2018 council meeting. So now we are moving

1:38:05 ↗ to regular business. I have to double check with the clerk here. Did

1:38:11 ↗ I actually announce that we were doing an agenda revision? Okay, it's been a long

1:38:16 ↗ meeting. So item A this evening will be the motion that was postponed from the

1:38:20 ↗ May 21st, 2018 meeting And the motion was to direct the administration to reevaluate the

1:38:25 ↗ permitted land uses in the Central Issaquah development and design standards and make recommendations to

1:38:30 ↗ the City Council as to whether or not changes are needed after the moratorium is

1:38:35 ↗ lifted. And I'm going to check in with Councilmember Goodman and ask if you want

1:38:40 ↗ to introduce this item. I do, thank you. I talked to the Mayor and also

1:38:45 ↗ Council leadership. a fairly beefy agenda tonight. And so this will probably come

1:38:51 ↗ very late into the evening. And so for that reason, I'm going to

1:38:56 ↗ be making a motion to postpone the motion to the June 18, 2018

1:39:02 ↗ council meeting. Second. So it's been moved and seconded to postpone the motion

1:39:08 ↗ to June 18, 2018. Is there any council discussion? Okay,

1:39:13 ↗ no discussion. All those in favor of postponing to June 18th say aye. Aye. Those

1:39:19 ↗ opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We're now moving to AB 7524, end of Taos Development Agreement.

1:39:25 ↗ This item was before the Council at the March 19th Council meeting and it was

1:39:31 ↗ remanded to the Planning Policy Commission with direction to consider redesignating the zoning of Parcel

1:39:37 ↗ 9. Planning Policy Commission's recommendation came out on May 10th and

1:39:43 ↗ now tonight is returning to Council for a decision. I'd like to

1:39:48 ↗ invite Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager, to make a presentation. Good evening.

1:39:54 ↗ Good evening. So as a brief recap of how we got here

1:40:00 ↗ in the recent past, on December 4th the Council directed the Administration

1:40:05 ↗ to separate the Taos and Iskua Highlands Development Agreements and go back

1:40:11 ↗ to the community. which we did for TALIS on January

1:40:17 ↗ 23rd. On March 19th, when we returned to the full council, the development agreement

1:40:23 ↗ termination and replacement regulations were remanded to the Planning Policy Commission. A hearing was

1:40:29 ↗ held on May 10th, And at that hearing it was recommended that that

1:40:34 ↗ UVMF zoning be applied to parcel 9. So tonight we are returning to

1:40:40 ↗ the council potentially for a decision and I just remind the council that

1:40:46 ↗ we did not go to Land and Shore at your direction. So there

1:40:52 ↗ were some different process that was used to the planning policy commission. So

1:40:57 ↗ I just wanted to touch on that and explain what happened. Um, there was a

1:41:03 ↗ public hearing. That's not unusual, but typically planning policy commission hearings are legislative. Um, but

1:41:09 ↗ in this case it was quasi judicial with the planning policy commissioners declaring any conflicts

1:41:14 ↗ which they had. Why did that happen? Uh, that morning, uh, the, the the decision,

1:41:20 ↗ a legal decision called Schnitzer was issued first thing and we

1:41:26 ↗ consulted with the city attorney about what approach to take and

1:41:32 ↗ using an abundance of caution, we proceeded with a quasi-judicial approach

1:41:38 ↗ following the hearing which necessitated the declaration of any conflicts.

1:41:44 ↗ Following that, the city attorney had an opportunity to review in more depth the Schnitzer

1:41:49 ↗ decision, determined that the situation was not comparable, and we were able to proceed with

1:41:55 ↗ the legislative process for the rest of the development agreement.

1:42:01 ↗ And as you know, there was quite a few comments that resulted from that. So

1:42:06 ↗ what I want to do is touch on some of those comments this evening. First

1:42:12 ↗ of all, there was some comments about terminating the development agreement, which I believe is

1:42:17 ↗ why we're here. There were also some comments about parcel 17B, which is the undeveloped

1:42:23 ↗ property below Timber Ridge. and asking for it to remain commercial only. It is

1:42:28 ↗ still shown as commercial only in the replacement regulations. There's a separate process underway

1:42:34 ↗ right now, an appeal about what uses can and the process for determining what

1:42:40 ↗ uses could be on that property. There were quite a few

1:42:46 ↗ comments about not changing the density or the number of units. And we

1:42:51 ↗ just wanted to be clear that whether the property is zoned single-family or

1:42:57 ↗ multi-family, it would have 90 units on it. So the zoning does not

1:43:03 ↗ affect that entitlement. There was also many comments related to changes from the original

1:43:09 ↗ proposal or changes to the original zoning. So over the life of the development agreement

1:43:14 ↗ as has been mentioned this evening, there has been a reduction in density. The zoning

1:43:20 ↗ has always remained the same as UV or urban village. But now, because we are

1:43:25 ↗ terminating the development agreement, we have to determine what the replacement regulations would be. In

1:43:30 ↗ other words, what would the zoning on any particular parcel be? And that's what we're

1:43:35 ↗ discussing this evening. So there are a couple of policy questions that are

1:43:41 ↗ not particularly clear, which is why you get paid the big bucks. So one is

1:43:47 ↗ site stability. There were a lot of public comments both this evening and in the

1:43:53 ↗ emails concerning which building types would create the most stability. There was obviously a lot

1:43:58 ↗ of concern about consistency with the rest of TALIS and its character and about increasing

1:44:04 ↗ the height from 45 feet to 60 feet. So for your consideration, I just

1:44:10 ↗ want to put a few things out there for you to use this evening. In

1:44:16 ↗ terms of stabilization, there is quite a bit of work that's been underway. Last year,

1:44:22 ↗ the city in the fall did a stabilization and repair project on roads and underground

1:44:28 ↗ infrastructure. That project is now complete. The owner of the property is constructing a series

1:44:33 ↗ of buried walls to stabilize the site. Those are underway. I believe two walls have

1:44:39 ↗ been permitted and one wall is in review and the fourth wall will be, as

1:44:44 ↗ they see how the progress goes, determine whether that fourth wall is required. When all

1:44:50 ↗ of that work is done, there will need to be additional

1:44:56 ↗ geotechnical assessment to determine what kind of development the site can

1:45:01 ↗ support. That's a big question and we won't know until all

1:45:07 ↗ that repair work and stabilization work is complete. Now to building

1:45:13 ↗ type and height. Under the development agreement right now, single-family

1:45:18 ↗ homes, townhouses, and apartments up to 60 feet are allowed.

1:45:24 ↗ When the property was subdivided, the preliminary plat, the sort

1:45:30 ↗ of first step in the subdivision process, identified townhomes up

1:45:36 ↗ to 60 feet in height. The next step in the

1:45:41 ↗ subdivision process would be a final plat. That has been

1:45:47 ↗ stalled and the property is kind of caught between preliminary and final plat. If

1:45:53 ↗ the property had been final platted, consistent with the preliminary plat, and we were

1:45:59 ↗ placing zoning on it, we would have zoned it for townhouses up to 45

1:46:05 ↗ feet. The challenge is that we're caught in that sort of purgatory in between

1:46:11 ↗ the preliminary and final plat. The choices that have been

1:46:17 ↗ established in the replacement regulations are either UVSF for single family, which

1:46:23 ↗ would allow single family homes or townhouses up to 45 feet, or

1:46:29 ↗ UVMF for multifamily, single family homes, townhouses, or apartments up to 60

1:46:35 ↗ feet. question question i want to start um one second council member so

1:46:41 ↗ lucy how far i have one more slide paul would it be okay if we

1:46:45 ↗ get through one slide and come back as long as you know how to go

1:46:49 ↗ back one slide i do that is contrary to what lucy said you guys don't

1:46:53 ↗ get the big bucks we run on volunteer power up here but lucy's get the

1:46:57 ↗ big bucks she can figure out how to make that slide go back impossible So,

1:47:02 ↗ I just, the last slide is just to assist the council in sort of making

1:47:08 ↗ a bridge between where we were on March 19th and the actions that you're being

1:47:14 ↗ asked to take tonight. Because this is really a continuation from that decision-making process. So

1:47:19 ↗ I'm just providing this summary to help you know where we were. So on

1:47:25 ↗ March 1st, the Land and Shore Committee, Council Committee made a recommendation. There

1:47:31 ↗ were seven topics of that in that recommendation. Five of them

1:47:37 ↗ were the Land and Shore Committee recommended in the affirmative.

1:47:42 ↗ Those five items, one, two, three, four, and six on

1:47:48 ↗ the slide are shown in the replacement regulations following the

1:47:53 ↗ Land and Shore recommendation. Item number seven on vesting,

1:47:59 ↗ Land and Shore did not make a recommendation. We stuck with the administration

1:48:05 ↗ recommendation. I would just add that, As both the administration and council have,

1:48:11 ↗ I believe, discussed, there was a desire that both TALIS and Issaquah Highlands have the

1:48:17 ↗ same vesting regulations. And so to do that, you would select option number one, which

1:48:23 ↗ is the one that is shown in the replacement regulations at this time. Lucy, you

1:48:29 ↗ want to back up one slide? And we'll go start with Councilmember Winchester. Thank you.

1:48:35 ↗ Thank you. Regarding building type and height, so I have a couple

1:48:40 ↗ questions are going to form as we're we're going along here in your you say

1:48:46 ↗ the preliminary plat says townhouses up to 60 feet. So I had in my mind

1:48:52 ↗ that was townhouse the preliminary plat had townhouses up to 45. So this is where

1:48:58 ↗ being kind of caught in the middle is a challenge. The townhouses The code

1:49:04 ↗ allowed them to go up to 60 feet. The townhouses, as much as we've

1:49:10 ↗ seen anything, they were 45 feet. If the final plat had gone through and

1:49:16 ↗ we were applying zoning like we would for any other parcelized one unit per

1:49:21 ↗ one lot, it would have been 45 feet. Okay, okay

1:49:27 ↗ fine. So the preliminary plat was complete and that had townhouses up to 60. I

1:49:33 ↗ just wanted to be clear. I always thought that that had been 45. Tonight the

1:49:39 ↗ word, and actually on your next slide, you don't have to go there, the word

1:49:45 ↗ vesting was thrown out. And I'd like you to just say a little bit about

1:49:51 ↗ that. Is vesting, if you have a preliminary plat, and it's

1:49:57 ↗ been that's been finalized or whatever you call that how does that relate to

1:50:03 ↗ vesting so I'm gonna start and I'm sure the city attorney will love to

1:50:09 ↗ see him so yeah he's reaching for the microphone so when a preliminary plat

1:50:15 ↗ is submitted to the city if the application is determined to be complete

1:50:21 ↗ then it is considered vested. Okay, well what does that

1:50:26 ↗ mean? It means that the things that are shown in

1:50:32 ↗ the preliminary plat or the things that are required to

1:50:37 ↗ review the preliminary plat are vested. How am I doing,

1:50:43 ↗ Jim? So in this case, Buildings were shown, some were

1:50:49 ↗ attached, some were single family, the general location of those

1:50:54 ↗ were shown, some landscape was shown, the roads were shown,

1:51:00 ↗ the critical area setbacks were shown. So those kinds of

1:51:05 ↗ things are vested by the preliminary plot. Okay, and, okay,

1:51:11 ↗ and... I think the language as that's

1:51:17 ↗ in the replacement regulations, the option that you talked about earlier, would

1:51:23 ↗ then hold those as vested going forward even with the replacement regulations.

1:51:28 ↗ Yes, because-- If adopted as proposed. Sorry, excuse me for interrupting you.

1:51:34 ↗ What the option number one is doing is identifying the three

1:51:40 ↗ things that state law vests and preliminary plats are one of

1:51:46 ↗ those. So we are not establishing something different than the state

1:51:51 ↗ or more expansive than the state in option number one. We're

1:51:57 ↗ matching the state. Okay. Okay. And can you go, that's all I was

1:52:02 ↗ gonna ask about vesting. I have two other questions. Sure. You look like you're ready

1:52:08 ↗ to say something. Well, I was just gonna add two things. First is that Lucy's

1:52:13 ↗ correct that PLATS vest, PLAT applications vest when a complete application is filed. And that

1:52:18 ↗ means that a PLAT is considered under the regulations that are in effect at the

1:52:23 ↗ time the application is filed. Once the preliminary plat is approved, which is what we

1:52:29 ↗ have here, the developer has a right to construct, assuming they get final plat approval,

1:52:35 ↗ they will have the right to construct what is shown on the preliminary plat.

1:52:41 ↗ So right now they had a right under the platting regulations to have their

1:52:47 ↗ plat application considered under the regulations in effect when they filed their application. Now

1:52:52 ↗ they have a preliminary plat. That means they have the right to go ultimately

1:52:58 ↗ to final plat if they meet all the conditions of preliminary plat approval and

1:53:04 ↗ to build what is shown on the preliminary plat. All right, thank you. Thank

1:53:10 ↗ you. I'm going to be working up quickly. Sure. So stability, the- I wanted to

1:53:14 ↗ go back and talk about vesting for just a second, if we can. I'd just

1:53:19 ↗ like to check with Council for a second. In some of our commissions, what we

1:53:23 ↗ do is we keep on a topic and have all the Council members review it

1:53:27 ↗ instead of doing it round robin style. So what is your preference this evening? Would

1:53:32 ↗ you all like to ask questions on vesting, move on to the next topic, or-

1:53:36 ↗ Go ahead, Council. I would suggest that each council member ask their questions first because

1:53:42 ↗ my questions may build off each other to a point, hopefully. Okay, thanks. So

1:53:48 ↗ I'll get to second then. Go ahead, Council Member Winchester. Okay, thank you. And,

1:53:53 ↗ you know, I might, yeah, I'm going to cede the floor to my Council

1:53:59 ↗ Member Ray and I'll come back later. Councilmember Wray. Thank you. So what's

1:54:05 ↗ what you because you said something pretty interesting which is what is that the

1:54:11 ↗ vesting of a preliminary plat vests those things that are in a preliminary plat.

1:54:16 ↗ What's in a preliminary plat? Well sometimes they're just lot lines and streets. I

1:54:22 ↗ did go back and look at it today and building footprints were shown. So

1:54:28 ↗ that does give them more than the just the property lines. Thank you.

1:54:34 ↗ You're welcome. Questions? Council President Martz. So I was the council member who wasn't here

1:54:40 ↗ the last time council heard this. So I'm going to beg your forgiveness for asking

1:54:46 ↗ some perhaps dumb questions. So I have four that should be easy and the fifth

1:54:52 ↗ might be a doozy. So the first is you said Plenary Plat, some were attached,

1:54:58 ↗ some were single family. They're all single family, right? It's just some are attached single

1:55:03 ↗ family and some are detached single family, right? But the preliminary plat is for 30

1:55:09 ↗ is to subdivide the parcel into 30 pieces of land for 30 different owners. that

1:55:14 ↗ some of whom would have attached houses to their neighbors, right? So, I'm going to

1:55:20 ↗ restate that a little bit. I agree with most of what you said. It's not,

1:55:26 ↗ I don't know where 30 came from. So, 90, Sorry, 90. 30 was my misspeaking.

1:55:31 ↗ Okay. Okay. And I was kind of referring, because the plat covered Parcels 7, 8,

1:55:37 ↗ and 9, I was referring to all three of them. So that was part of

1:55:42 ↗ where the confusion, and that's why I wasn't sure when you said 30 what that

1:55:48 ↗ might have referenced. So Parcels 7 and 8 showed single-family detached, sort of a traditional

1:55:54 ↗ house. Parcel 9 showed single-family attached, which is more commonly called townhouses. Got it.

1:56:00 ↗ Why close the TALIS DA now? Why are we doing this now? We've had the

1:56:05 ↗ development agreement. It's been an excellent tool, but it is 15 years old and the

1:56:11 ↗ regulations are out of date. I mean, there are critical area regulations, stormwater regulations that

1:56:16 ↗ we feel we really need to be using more up-to-date tools than the development agreement

1:56:22 ↗ offers us. Okay. What were the development rights on this parcel of land before the

1:56:27 ↗ development agreement came along? You know, I saw that question and I poked around and

1:56:33 ↗ I could not find what it was. I assume it was probably five-acre zoning for

1:56:38 ↗ single family based on the kinds of houses that were there when the TALIS project

1:56:43 ↗ started, but I don't actually know what it was zoned. So very, very steep horse

1:56:48 ↗ farms, basically. Horse farms or goat farms, if you will. Okay. Okay. We'll go with

1:56:53 ↗ goat farms. What was the multifamily housing in Talus? Has it been

1:56:58 ↗ built recently? What's in the last few years? Has there been any

1:57:04 ↗ multifamily built? Yes, and I appreciated the opportunity to sort of

1:57:10 ↗ build a little slide. So anything that, I don't know how well

1:57:15 ↗ these colors read, anything that's so, that's colored purple, which is kind

1:57:21 ↗ of subtle here, which are the ones that are listed across the

1:57:27 ↗ bottom. So these six parcels have been developed as multifamily over the

1:57:33 ↗ course from 2003 through 2017. So there's been And I

1:57:39 ↗ would be glad to show where these are. So

1:57:44 ↗ this is Calabria and it's mostly right here that's

1:57:50 ↗ the multifamily. Rosecrest, the Estates, Spring Peak, which is

1:57:55 ↗ probably the newest from scratch, Copper Ridge and Timber

1:58:01 ↗ Ridge. Okay. And then, so here's the one that's

1:58:06 ↗ maybe harder. So the DA's provided sort of special rights for a period

1:58:12 ↗ of time, right? It's an environment that's got very specific sort of fixed development environment

1:58:18 ↗ to encourage certain kinds of development. Do we have the ability in closing the DA

1:58:23 ↗ to evaluate those rights with respect to changes that have occurred in the last 20

1:58:29 ↗ years? So my understanding is yes, that it is a contract. with a date

1:58:35 ↗ under which is called the build-out period and during that build-out period

1:58:40 ↗ there are very limited ways in which you can change the rules

1:58:46 ↗ and entitlements and rights under the development agreement. And then when that

1:58:52 ↗ contract period ends, if you choose to terminate it, either party, either

1:58:58 ↗ the master developer or the city chooses to terminate it, then you

1:59:03 ↗ can make whatever choices you want. I'm phoning a friend. Well, the

1:59:09 ↗ only thing I would add to that is that during the term

1:59:15 ↗ of the build-out, You can only make changes in the terms of the

1:59:20 ↗ agreement if they are necessitated by a serious threat to public health and safety. So

1:59:26 ↗ the council needs to make that kind of or by agreement. My question was at

1:59:31 ↗ the closing of the DA. Yes. And so during the agreement, you're limited to that.

1:59:37 ↗ At the closing of the agreement, you have the ability to establish any zoning regulations

1:59:42 ↗ that you deem appropriate. thank you very much i appreciate it that's that's all the

1:59:48 ↗ questions i had uh deputy council president batiste Thank you. Lucy, this was sent

1:59:54 ↗ back to PPC a second time, and could you speak to

1:59:59 ↗ their recommendation coming back, sort of nutshell that? Why they made

2:00:05 ↗ the recommendation on the remand? The question that they primarily asked

2:00:11 ↗ was what is the new information? I think that our

2:00:16 ↗ understanding was that it was not that the choice, that the

2:00:22 ↗ way in which parcel 9 was trapped between preliminary and final

2:00:28 ↗ plat had not been as overt as the council and the

2:00:33 ↗ administration wanted it to be, and that we wanted to go

2:00:39 ↗ back and have that public conversation to ensure that it was

2:00:44 ↗ very clear what the choices were for that property

2:00:50 ↗ and the Commission kept asking what was new and

2:00:56 ↗ we did not have new information and they carried

2:01:02 ↗ forward their recommendation from the September 28th hearing thank

2:01:07 ↗ you welcome more questions Working down a couple council members who haven't had

2:01:13 ↗ a chance to ask yet. Council Member Goodman? If there aren't, I'm for a motion

2:01:18 ↗ if there are no more questions or what's the next? I'm sure to sell, no

2:01:23 ↗ rustling. Okay, it's time for motion. Sorry, no, Council Member Winterstein? Yeah, if you've got

2:01:28 ↗ questions. Go back. Thank you for this additional information, by the way. Is

2:01:33 ↗ it a different slide deck where you had up earlier? No, it's all one big

2:01:39 ↗ gigantic one. So I just need to know where you want me to go. Hit

2:01:44 ↗ 8 and enter. I'm not sure what number it is. Was it like that one?

2:01:50 ↗ That's 5. Okay. We were close. Is that the one you want? Yeah. Yes.

2:01:57 ↗ You didn't say this, but what I was listening for, I was just kind

2:02:03 ↗ of -- you do say under stabilization or stability. Additional geotech assessment will be

2:02:08 ↗ required to determine what development the site might be able to support. So that

2:02:14 ↗ doesn't presuppose anything. There's a possible outcome that nothing could be built there. Is

2:02:20 ↗ that -- is that possible with the --

2:02:28 ↗ that a potential geotech assessment we don't know right right we

2:02:34 ↗ don't know we don't know okay um all right got it

2:02:39 ↗ thanks for your answer uh go back to uh then and

2:02:45 ↗ back one more slide to slide four you had some on

2:02:50 ↗ your fourth bullet during your presentation you said um 90 unit

2:02:56 ↗ i think you used the phrase something like 90 units will

2:03:02 ↗ be built there it says maximum will be 90 units And

2:03:08 ↗ so kind of just, I'm splitting hairs a little bit. I just want to

2:03:13 ↗ be absolutely clear. First of all, and you also use the word entitlement, which

2:03:19 ↗ I think is commonly used within the framework of the development agreement. So the

2:03:25 ↗ parcel nine has 90 dwelling unit entitlements. So I really appreciate you listening

2:03:31 ↗ so closely to my words. So let me make a couple of adjustments. So

2:03:37 ↗ we, for 20 years I've used the word entitlement because that's the development agreement

2:03:43 ↗ word. But as we move into the replacement regulations, it's what we call a

2:03:48 ↗ zoning cap. So I mean, it's measured the same way, - Dwelling units. - It's

2:03:54 ↗ dwelling units, right. So, and the other point that you're making, which is very

2:04:00 ↗ important, is it's the maximum under single family or multi-family is 90 units. That

2:04:06 ↗ does not mean that 90 units would be built, but that the maximum number

2:04:11 ↗ would not change whichever zoning was put in place, at least as it's proposed

2:04:17 ↗ right now. - Okay, thank you for that clarification. preliminary plat have 90

2:04:22 ↗ units yes and so that was 90 townhomes yes

2:04:28 ↗ okay and and if and one of the questions

2:04:33 ↗ we're going to be addressing shortly is is the

2:04:39 ↗ multifamily zoning versus single-family zoning and it's going to

2:04:44 ↗ be 90 dwelling units the cap regardless of the

2:04:50 ↗ zoning That's what's proposed in either scenario. So if this

2:04:56 ↗ council goes with single family, it would be up to 90

2:05:02 ↗ dwelling units. If this council goes with multifamily, it would be

2:05:08 ↗ up to 90 dwelling units. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you

2:05:13 ↗ for that clarity. That's all my questions at this time. Any

2:05:19 ↗ more questions? I have a question from our lawyer. Not

2:05:25 ↗ a question, but I did want to point out one thing that is

2:05:31 ↗ about the packet and the material you have in the packet. The ordinance

2:05:37 ↗ that you have in the packet adopts the PPC's findings from September 28th

2:05:43 ↗ and May 10th. So and those findings are related to having the talus parcel

2:05:48 ↗ 9 the UV multifamily. So if you decide to do something different and I have

2:05:54 ↗ no idea what the council is going to do, but if you decide to do

2:05:59 ↗ something different, you will need to make a change in the ordinance and in the

2:06:05 ↗ findings. if you decide to do something different. I don't know whether you're planning

2:06:11 ↗ on doing that or not, but I just wanted to make sure before you

2:06:17 ↗ started into your deliberations that you recognize that that's the way the ordinance is

2:06:23 ↗ currently drafted. Thank you. That's a great clarification. Any other questions? We'd entertain a

2:06:29 ↗ motion. Thank you. Council Member Goodman. Thank you. So, I'm going to make a

2:06:35 ↗ motion that is called the alternative motion in the packet. And...

2:06:42 ↗ My understanding and intent is that it would be to propose the UV

2:06:48 ↗ single family instead of the UV multifamily, but for everything else that was

2:06:54 ↗ on your list, it would be proposed as in the-- Everything else would

2:07:00 ↗ be unchanged except for the couple of things that are noted in the

2:07:06 ↗ motion to implement the single family. And the-- I guess we'd

2:07:11 ↗ have to deal with the ordinance. I'll just make the motion and then if we

2:07:17 ↗ have to change the ordinance. I would move to adopt ordinance number 2840. Adopting by

2:07:23 ↗ reference a new chapter 18.19C of the Issaquah Municipal Code providing urban village replacement regulations

2:07:29 ↗ for the area formerly governed by the TALUS Development Agreement, providing for severability and savings

2:07:35 ↗ except modifying the figures 2A and 2B

2:07:39 ↗ Second.

2:08:03 ↗ It's been moved and seconded and I'm not going to read it again. Before we

2:08:08 ↗ go to council deliberations, I realize and so does the council how emotionally invested many

2:08:14 ↗ people are here tonight, both property owners and develops and residents that are here. I

2:08:20 ↗ think the council was very respectful in listening to the public comment earlier.

2:08:25 ↗ I'd like to make sure as they go through their deliberations that we

2:08:31 ↗ offer that same level of respect so that they can finish their deliberations

2:08:37 ↗ uninterrupted and we can get to a vote this evening. That's my hope.

2:08:43 ↗ Discussions? I can make comments. My comments are primarily about parcel 9 because

2:08:50 ↗ I support the other proposals. A list that you have. Can you put that list

2:08:55 ↗ back up so we know sort of the outstanding issues? And these are the same,

2:09:01 ↗ I think primarily except the buffer, the same list that we had outstanding that we

2:09:07 ↗ were talking about when we had the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement termination. Two, three, and

2:09:13 ↗ four are unique to TALIS. Okay. So, I'm supporting these, but I'm

2:09:18 ↗ speaking to, my comments are related to parcel nine because that's, as

2:09:24 ↗ of late, really what we've been hearing a lot about. But first

2:09:30 ↗ I want to thank everybody who has taken the time to email and call the

2:09:35 ↗ Council with your comments. I appreciate it very, very much. I realize that it takes

2:09:39 ↗ time and passion to do that. And I say this every time we have a

2:09:44 ↗ lot of public comment. I think the public probably believes that we get a ton

2:09:48 ↗ of email traffic and telephone traffic, and the fact is we don't. So it's very,

2:09:53 ↗ very helpful, at least to me, when I hear from the community about how you

2:09:57 ↗ feel about the issues that we deliberate about many times every month. It's really helpful

2:10:01 ↗ to me. I want to thank you. I have not gotten back to all of

2:10:05 ↗ you in your emails, but I will, and I have listened to all of my

2:10:09 ↗ voicemails. The next thing I want to say to

2:10:15 ↗ all of you who oppose the multifamily zoning on parcel 9, I'm totally with you

2:10:20 ↗ because I don't support multifamily zoning on that parcel as well. To me, the issues

2:10:25 ↗ are about the character of TALIS and community expectations. Regarding the character of TALIS, I

2:10:30 ↗ want to make it clear that this issue has nothing to do with rental versus

2:10:35 ↗ ownership. TALIS is a mix of multifamily, or sorry, rental and ownership already. A mix

2:10:40 ↗ was envisioned and so a mix is perfectly appropriate. However, in my opinion, multifamily on

2:10:45 ↗ that parcel is not consistent with the character of Tallis, at least not today. I

2:10:51 ↗ agree with the comments I've heard that driving up Tallis Drive with a 60-foot tall,

2:10:56 ↗ potentially stacked flat apartments so prominent at the top of the main ingress is too

2:11:01 ↗ imposing. When I enter these days on Issaquah on I-90 and my first glimpse of

2:11:06 ↗ Issaquah is the sea of apartment buildings, I'm disappointed and I'm sad. The form of

2:11:12 ↗ those buildings was not what we envisioned in the Central Issaquah plan and it's one

2:11:17 ↗ of the main reasons we had a moratorium to fix the errors in that plan

2:11:23 ↗ that allowed that type of form. Residents in Tallis have spoken loudly in past few

2:11:28 ↗ weeks. They too do not want to look at 60 foot high apartment buildings at

2:11:33 ↗ the top of their main drive. That's not consistent with the mountain village character of

2:11:38 ↗ Tallis. Secondly, the TALIS community expects us to use the information

2:11:44 ↗ we have today to make good decisions for the future of TALIS, just as we

2:11:49 ↗ did when upholding the expectations on certain vacant parcels in the Highlands in order to

2:11:55 ↗ preserve the vision there, unless that community tells us otherwise, we also need to listen

2:12:00 ↗ to TALIS residents. And the vision for that parcel undoubtedly has evolved. The fact that

2:12:05 ↗ the parcel, and particularly over the past two years with the slide, actually it's been

2:12:11 ↗ almost three, The fact that the parcel had a significant slide can't be ignored when

2:12:16 ↗ considering zoning now. Because of that slide, the TALIS community clearly is much more aware

2:12:21 ↗ of that parcel, as we heard tonight, than they were nearly three years ago. And

2:12:27 ↗ the community clearly has spoken. They want single-family on that parcel. I respect that view

2:12:32 ↗ and I agree with it. Thank you. Ms. Member Winterstein, do I see your hand?

2:12:37 ↗ I did and I'm gonna ask a question because we had

2:12:43 ↗ some new information tonight. Given the proposal, the motion that's on

2:12:49 ↗ the floor and been seconded, I'm gonna go back to vesting.

2:12:55 ↗ Is, so because there's an approved preliminary plat of up to

2:13:01 ↗ 60 feet, is that vested? And is this motion consistent with

2:13:07 ↗ that vesting? The regulations that are associated with the plat

2:13:13 ↗ I'm gonna let you answer that. The answer is that the

2:13:19 ↗ plat was vested under the regulations in effect at the time

2:13:25 ↗ the application was filed, but once the preliminary plat is approved,

2:13:31 ↗ the developer obtains the right to build whatever is shown in

2:13:36 ↗ the plat. And I'm gonna ask Lucy if the 60-foot

2:13:43 ↗ buildings were shown in the preliminary plat or if 45 foot buildings were shown

2:13:48 ↗ if there was anything in the plat that indicated one or the other. So

2:13:54 ↗ it's a great question. My thought is height was not indicated, but I would

2:14:00 ↗ have to go back and look more closely at the drawings to determine that.

2:14:15 ↗ Well, the developer has the right to build what is shown in the plat. If

2:14:20 ↗ they didn't show the height in the plat and the height regulations change, I think

2:14:25 ↗ that they're subject to the new height regulations. Okay, thank you. And I didn't anticipate

2:14:30 ↗ this question. It was Lucy's slide earlier that showed preliminary plat 60 feet. I had

2:14:35 ↗ thought it had been at 45. And the proposal for single family does have a

2:14:40 ↗ limit of 45 feet, hence my question. - I wasn't, so it seems to

2:14:46 ↗ me that it might not, they may be in conflict. - So I understand your

2:14:52 ↗ point. I think that the numbers I was showing were what was allowed while it

2:14:58 ↗ was being reviewed under the development agreement. So I would have to do the subsequent

2:15:04 ↗ research to answer that question of what was, whether, I'm sorry, I don't know whether

2:15:10 ↗ height was shown. It's not typically shown. So I would have to look at both

2:15:15 ↗ the staff report and the drawings to confirm that. Okay, and I'm not presupposing anything.

2:15:20 ↗ It was just on your slide earlier. That's why I'm asking. Right, and I was

2:15:25 ↗ talking about in a different point in time and that was not clear. Do you

2:15:30 ↗ have comments as well, Paul? Well, that was, I just think this is germane. I

2:15:35 ↗ mean, and if you could, maybe I'm interpreting, you said a different point in time.

2:15:40 ↗ Do you have that? Can you put that back up? Yeah. So when the-- It

2:15:46 ↗ says preliminary townhouses up to 60 feet. That's the first I had seen that. Right,

2:15:50 ↗ because at the time the preliminary plat was shown under the development agreement, 60 feet

2:15:56 ↗ would have been allowed. And so I apologize that was misleading in terms of what

2:16:01 ↗ would happen going forward. I had not done that level of research. Now I understand

2:16:06 ↗ why you're asking the question. Okay, you're not saying there that the preliminary plat included

2:16:11 ↗ 60 feet. I am not. I'm simply saying under the regulations at that time, it

2:16:16 ↗ was 60 feet, not... that the preliminary plat vested 60 feet and like you said

2:16:22 ↗ earlier a preliminary plat may just show lot lines and roads and that's what vests

2:16:28 ↗ if they have something more on there that would vest so if it's if it's

2:16:34 ↗ silent about a certain option or element then that doesn't vest right And

2:16:39 ↗ if they had shown 60, it would make it legally non-conforming. Okay. All

2:16:45 ↗ right. Just to be clear, when a plat application is filed, what vesting

2:16:51 ↗ means is that the applicant has a right to have its plat considered

2:16:57 ↗ under the regulations in effect at that time. And there's a lot of cases out

2:17:03 ↗ there where people have talked about, well, what does that mean? Does it mean I

2:17:07 ↗ have the right to do certain types of buildings? Does it mean I have a

2:17:12 ↗ right to certain uses? What does it mean? Does it mean I have the right

2:17:16 ↗ to setbacks? And the answer is that you have a right to have your plat

2:17:21 ↗ considered under those regulations. And that includes anything that you have shown on your plat

2:17:26 ↗ And so if you showed setbacks on your plat, you'd be vested as to the

2:17:32 ↗ setbacks. If you showed certain road standards on your plat, you'd be vested to those

2:17:37 ↗ road standards. If you don't show them, then once your plat is approved and the

2:17:42 ↗ regulations change, those new regulations will apply to anything that is not shown on your

2:17:47 ↗ plat. okay good yeah that's consistent with my understanding and and again my question was

2:17:53 ↗ that information would be in conflict with the proposal for single family which has a

2:17:58 ↗ limit of 45 and i understand your answer right now um i'll see the floor

2:18:04 ↗ Council President Marks. So I'm going to support this alternate amendment or alternate motion that

2:18:10 ↗ was made for tonight. Needs change in a community. We saw that a couple of

2:18:15 ↗ years ago when we considered and chose to lower speeds on Newport. Your argument was

2:18:21 ↗ roads change, right? What had been a regional thoroughfare became, you know, the street

2:18:27 ↗ out in front of people's homes. And so we acted accordingly. Highlands needs have changed

2:18:33 ↗ over time. You know, Talus has certainly changed. We hear a little bit tonight about

2:18:38 ↗ the office campus and the village center, and I take a little sigh as

2:18:44 ↗ to uh what has and hasn't gotten built and and i think what we've seen

2:18:49 ↗ over the last 20 years is a consensus to put housing density on the valley

2:18:54 ↗ on the valley floor and to a lesser extent in the highlands i noticed from

2:18:59 ↗ the conversation on condominiums that recent condos in talus have been low profile except for

2:19:03 ↗ the obvious exception of timber ridge right but the the appetite when uh uh condos

2:19:08 ↗ have gone in have been for lower profile they have not been for for these

2:19:13 ↗ larger units you know i think the fundamental task in front of any elected official

2:19:17 ↗ and i've said this before is is to look at at the rights of the

2:19:22 ↗ individual while identifying acting and acting on the community will and finding where that finding

2:19:27 ↗ where that common ground is the community will has certainly been amply expressed on this

2:19:31 ↗ issue. And I really believe the individual rights have been secured through the vesting

2:19:37 ↗ that we talked about this evening. I think that's super important. I think the

2:19:43 ↗ city takes vesting when a DA closes very importantly and parses that closely when

2:19:49 ↗ a DA ends to make sure we understand what's vested and what's not. And

2:19:54 ↗ I think... I think also intent in reviewing the materials, I think the fact that

2:20:00 ↗ this was voluntarily down selected from high to medium density to allow to get to

2:20:06 ↗ single family further shows that there was at the time of the vesting a very

2:20:11 ↗ strong intent on the part of the developer to go to the single family units.

2:20:17 ↗ And so that influences my decision as well. And that's why I'll be supporting it

2:20:22 ↗ tonight. Thank you. Council Member Ramos. Yes, first of all, I'd like to thank everybody

2:20:28 ↗ who participated in the public comment section in any way, shape or form tonight

2:20:34 ↗ and comments or through emails or telephone, it's the most public comment I've seen on

2:20:40 ↗ anything in Issaquah since I've been here. So I commend you to showing up and

2:20:45 ↗ doing your public duty when you care about something. That's what life is about here

2:20:50 ↗ and taking care of your community because community matters, obviously. So thank you for that.

2:20:56 ↗ And I know that single family is right for maintaining character of this area. And

2:21:01 ↗ that's what I'll be supporting. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Council President Patis. So

2:21:07 ↗ I wanted to just echo some of what you've already heard. I very much appreciate

2:21:12 ↗ you coming out to the council meeting and giving all your feedback. We received so

2:21:16 ↗ many emails. I tried to respond to some of them. I know I didn't respond

2:21:21 ↗ to all of them, but I wanted you to know that I did have an

2:21:26 ↗ opportunity to read them and I really appreciate you both being here and all the

2:21:30 ↗ emails and phone calls that we did receive. And when we get that amount of

2:21:35 ↗ public outreach, it is just so critically important because on a lot of topics, we

2:21:40 ↗ don't get all of that public outreach. So I very much appreciate that. One thing

2:21:46 ↗ that's critical that we're talking about is ending the development agreement for TALIS,

2:21:52 ↗ and I feel like it's time and that's critically important to move forward.

2:21:58 ↗ I do support all of the March 19th topics that we had listed

2:22:04 ↗ that had gone through land and shore. and all of those are, we're not talking

2:22:10 ↗ about a lot of them tonight other than parcel nine, but all very important and

2:22:16 ↗ I do support those. All of the information, this is a complicated issue, and all

2:22:22 ↗ of the information, I think we've all done, you know, really taken the time to

2:22:28 ↗ take in all the information, but in regard to the character of TALIS, the

2:22:33 ↗ height selection that we're talking about. That has led me to

2:22:39 ↗ be supportive of the alternate motion that we have tonight. And

2:22:45 ↗ so I'll be supporting that for a single family. Thank you.

2:22:50 ↗ Council Member Ray. So a lot of people have worked very

2:22:56 ↗ diligently for the last 18 months to bring the TALIS development

2:23:02 ↗ agreement to an end with replacement regulations that address the future of the community. And

2:23:08 ↗ I believe that the ending of the DA is a forward-looking process, not necessarily a

2:23:13 ↗ backwards-looking process. And when I look at the goal that was set, the number one

2:23:19 ↗ goal that was set, for ending the DA, it was to retain the character of

2:23:25 ↗ the urban villages. And I think that we've got some great guidance from the community

2:23:29 ↗ over the last couple weeks on what maintain the character of the urban village of

2:23:34 ↗ Tallis looks like. So I think we know, I know how I'm going to vote

2:23:39 ↗ on this issue. - Thank you, and I saw Council Member Hunt's hand go up.

2:23:44 ↗ Thank you, Madam Mayor. I am also in support of the single-family

2:23:50 ↗ zoning for this parcel, which is the topic that I think we're

2:23:55 ↗ all focusing in on this evening. There are a number of other

2:24:01 ↗ regulations that also going to go into effect with the ending of the

2:24:07 ↗ TALIS DA, and I support those as well. I really appreciated in public comment

2:24:13 ↗ seeing some of the changes by the maps actually that Mr. Ken Conning-Smarck showed.

2:24:19 ↗ I think that over time, the vision and the plan does update and Council

2:24:25 ↗ President Martz also spoke about that. I wanted to also echo

2:24:31 ↗ one thing that Council Member Goodman spoke about, which is that it isn't in

2:24:36 ↗ our purview as Council to decide the ownership versus rental. This is something that

2:24:42 ↗ isn't in the zoning that the city in this case is not deciding. And

2:24:48 ↗ actually, as a person that recently rented a townhome and a bunch of townhomes

2:24:53 ↗ that were all rental, I think that that either can be ownership

2:24:59 ↗ or rental and the decision before us is about the single

2:25:05 ↗ family building structure type versus the multi-family building structure type and

2:25:11 ↗ i support single family motion as made by council member goodman

2:25:18 ↗ Thank you, Councilmember Hunt. Councilmember Winterstein, I'm going to come back to you because I'm

2:25:22 ↗ not sure that you've completed your comments. Oh yeah, I didn't. I hadn't yet. So

2:25:27 ↗ thank you very much. I too appreciate it. It was i haven't responded to all

2:25:33 ↗ the emails but i've gone kind of from most current to most recent and i'm

2:25:38 ↗ over a hundred responses in and i'm only to last friday afternoon which means there's

2:25:43 ↗ a probably a couple hundred more that predated that uh forgive me for not getting

2:25:49 ↗ back to you if you send an email uh prior to that i appreciate that

2:25:54 ↗ very much and it was very um came through loud and clear with the community's

2:25:59 ↗ preference was in terms of single family. And I want to take this opportunity

2:26:05 ↗ as well to point out some of the other things that would come with

2:26:11 ↗ these replacement regulations. And just so you're there, because I think in a number,

2:26:17 ↗ quite a few of the emails, I picked up the perception that maybe multifamily

2:26:22 ↗ meant more dwelling units than single family. And as you heard tonight, it doesn't.

2:26:28 ↗ So it's unfortunate if people had that misinterpretation. I also picked up in

2:26:34 ↗ a lot of the emails that there was the perception that that

2:26:40 ↗ there may be a style and a form that is inconsistent

2:26:46 ↗ with whatever was built, as inconsistent with what's in TALIS today.

2:26:52 ↗ And the good news is that with these replacement regulations, the

2:26:58 ↗ architectural standards, and the design guidelines from the DA are with some

2:27:04 ↗ modifications are retained. The Talus Covenants conditions and restrictions also remain in

2:27:09 ↗ place and the Architectural Review Committee, I assume will still stand and

2:27:15 ↗ have a say. So all of those definitions, those regulations and constraints

2:27:20 ↗ that helped shape the form and the factor that you so love

2:27:26 ↗ today mostly remain in place. So whatever building or whatever type, whether it be single

2:27:31 ↗ or multifamily, that will be built. that you can be assured that it's going

2:27:37 ↗ to be consistent in the kind of the look and form and the feel that

2:27:43 ↗ you've grown accustomed to and like so much about TALIS today. And there's another change

2:27:48 ↗ in there too, which I think is very significant, and it has to do with

2:27:54 ↗ a section, it's called Hillside Sites. And this would be a change

2:28:00 ↗ that would, if in place previously, would actually have caused

2:28:06 ↗ a different build out than you see today. Under the

2:28:11 ↗ development agreement, if a parcel is sloped to a certain

2:28:17 ↗ pitch, And under the development agreement, each parcel did have a maximum height

2:28:23 ↗ of whatever their buildings could be. But if it was pitched, or not, I guess,

2:28:28 ↗ but you could average the heights. So if there was an 80-foot maximum, you could

2:28:34 ↗ have a 100-foot building and a 60-foot building and therefore have an average of 80

2:28:39 ↗ feet and meet it. And that's what's, one of the things I really struggled with

2:28:45 ↗ is when I drive up to Tallis today or ride my bike or walk

2:28:51 ↗ up that street, of course what dominates your entrance is the over 100 foot

2:28:57 ↗ tall front building of Timber Ridge. That's the entrance to Tallis. And under these

2:29:02 ↗ regulations, it couldn't be 100 feet. It could be 80 feet. because and

2:29:08 ↗ and that's a significant difference now I won't go into all the details but on

2:29:14 ↗ what would govern that but there is a relatively new portion of the central and

2:29:20 ↗ is a quad a development of design standards that's being adopted here that has these

2:29:26 ↗ hillside sites regulations in there and that will affect whatever happens that will be in

2:29:31 ↗ effect on any development going forward including on parcel 9 Last thing I wanted to

2:29:37 ↗ say is yesterday evening, it was, oh, about dinner time, because I know Lucy had

2:29:42 ↗ her dinner in the oven when I called her, and I was standing at the

2:29:47 ↗ top of Parcel 9, and I had walked from the bottom along the street to

2:29:53 ↗ the top to get a sense of try to get a sense myself of what

2:29:57 ↗ the height different what how high is the beginning in the front or the I

2:30:01 ↗ should say the east and the west sides of that it's kind of from downhill

2:30:06 ↗ to uphill I don't have exact numbers and I probably could have got them but

2:30:10 ↗ it looks like it's roughly 70 feet plus or minus 10 feet. I was trying

2:30:15 ↗ to measure it with a GPS. And when you stand at the top there

2:30:21 ↗ and you realize that height is okay, that is the potential if under the

2:30:27 ↗ multifamily option, that is the potential maximum height. then I could envision

2:30:33 ↗ what the impact might look like. It's possible that there

2:30:39 ↗ would be a building down by Shangri-La Way, 60 feet

2:30:44 ↗ tall, which would basically be as high as the backside

2:30:50 ↗ or the west boundary of that parcel. And That's

2:30:56 ↗ very distinctive and quite different than what's surrounding there today. Absolutely

2:31:01 ↗ agree with many of the comments that were made about being

2:31:07 ↗ consistent with the character building of that size. Certainly would stand

2:31:13 ↗ out from the buildings around that are there today. I do really

2:31:18 ↗ appreciate what was said by some of my colleagues on the council, Council

2:31:24 ↗ Member Goodman, echoed by Council Member Hunt about the question about ownership versus

2:31:30 ↗ rental. It was stated many times about just I don't want apartments and

2:31:36 ↗ that's a critical strategy. I mean there is a place in our community

2:31:42 ↗ for apartments. My daughter lives in an apartment. My son used to live in an

2:31:47 ↗ apartment. They've got a place for people in different places on their journey to home

2:31:52 ↗ ownership, either growing a family or shrinking a family. So there is a place there,

2:31:57 ↗ and we don't want to be judgmental on the people who live in apartments versus

2:32:01 ↗ who own their homes. So a lot of input, a lot of them address those

2:32:07 ↗ issues. I very do, like I said, I'm going to echo, I appreciate what I've

2:32:12 ↗ heard earlier. This has been difficult because really what happens on council when you sit

2:32:18 ↗ up here, many times as you're learning about a topic, your first impressions are formed

2:32:23 ↗ by the original proposal that comes from the staff, from the administration. And back in

2:32:29 ↗ March, when we had this topic up before we actually settled the Highlands Development

2:32:35 ↗ Agreement, when it was put up here, people saw in this chamber the same

2:32:40 ↗ thing that we had seen for a couple months, the proposal for multifamily because

2:32:46 ↗ it precisely matched what's allowed on parcel nine under the development agreements. And to

2:32:52 ↗ me that makes a lot of sense, because that's one of the things that was

2:32:58 ↗ stated, is that we try to match what was there if it's not developed, or

2:33:04 ↗ do an overlay to match what was actually already built. And when people really

2:33:10 ↗ spoke loudly about and consistently in many voices spoke about wanting

2:33:15 ↗ single family instead of that multifamily, which was a match, that's

2:33:21 ↗ where the struggle was for me. because I knew there was taller buildings already. I

2:33:27 ↗ knew you were gonna get a design and a development that looked like the buildings

2:33:32 ↗ you had already. I knew in your hearts most people accept people whether they live

2:33:36 ↗ in apartments or not. It really had to do with the size and the character,

2:33:41 ↗ and I've come down on side to agree with the voices from the community and

2:33:45 ↗ my colleagues up here, and I'm gonna support the motion. Thank you. I

2:33:51 ↗ am just doing a little bit of housekeeping here for the

2:33:57 ↗ motion maker. I know we did hear, I believe from Jim

2:34:03 ↗ Haney, that if the alternative motion was selected, it wasn't correct.

2:34:09 ↗ So if you would consider some additional information and see if

2:34:15 ↗ your second agrees, then we'll go to the vote. Okay. So

2:34:21 ↗ I would like to propose an amendment to the motion

2:34:26 ↗ to add the following language and updating/editing the ordinance language in accordance with

2:34:32 ↗ this motion. Does the second agree? Second. Who wants to weigh in? Well,

2:34:38 ↗ I was just working on some draft findings as I'm sitting here at

2:34:44 ↗ the table to help you out, but I realized that the clerk probably couldn't

2:34:50 ↗ read my handwriting if we were doing that. So I was trying to type

2:34:56 ↗ them out here, but I'm happy to read them if that helps. Sure. Those

2:35:01 ↗ were my words. I think he has better words. So do I need to

2:35:07 ↗ withdraw this then, the amendment? - It wasn't seconded. - Un-seconded. - He did

2:35:13 ↗ second it. - Un-seconded. - Un-seconded. - Mr. Haney? - So in section three,

2:35:19 ↗ Let me make sure I have the microphone close enough. In section

2:35:24 ↗ three of the ordinance, it adopts the findings adopted by the PPC

2:35:30 ↗ on September 28th and May 10th. And I would just add at

2:35:35 ↗ the end of that section, except to those findings supporting the zoning

2:35:41 ↗ of TALIS parcel nine as UV-MF, peren, multifamily, end peren, period. as

2:35:47 ↗ a substitute for such findings, comma, the council finds

2:35:52 ↗ that the Talus IX parcel should be designated UV-SF,

2:35:58 ↗ excuse me, SF, peren, single family, end peren, for

2:36:04 ↗ the following reasons, colon. One, the UV-SF

2:36:09 ↗ zoning is consistent with the approved preliminary

2:36:15 ↗ plat for Talus 9, which envisions up

2:36:21 ↗ to 90 single family attached dwelling units,

2:36:26 ↗ townhomes, period. Two, the UV-SF zoning is

2:36:32 ↗ consistent designation is consistent with the character of

2:36:38 ↗ development in TALIS in terms of building size

2:36:44 ↗ and whatever else you want to add to

2:36:49 ↗ that. Three, the UV-SF zoning is consistent with

2:36:55 ↗ the community's vision for TALIS 9, which is,

2:37:01 ↗ excuse me, as provided in the approved preliminary

2:37:06 ↗ plat of single family development. And

2:37:12 ↗ four, the UV-MF zoning is inconsistent with the character,

2:37:17 ↗ community vision, and approved preliminary plat, period. And that's

2:37:23 ↗ what I heard the council say, but if you

2:37:29 ↗ have additional additional reasons why the community character is, it isn't consistent with

2:37:35 ↗ community character or is consistent, you could fill those in as well. Can I

2:37:41 ↗ ask a clerical question first? Tisha, does all of that belong in the motion

2:37:46 ↗ or can a reference be made in the motion? Those changes? A

2:37:52 ↗ council member could move to amend the ordinance per

2:37:58 ↗ the findings that were just read by the city

2:38:03 ↗ attorney. That's how the motion would read, per the

2:38:09 ↗ findings. Okay. So moved. Second. Can I get those

2:38:14 ↗ last few words again? And? To amend the ordinance

2:38:20 ↗ to adopt the findings as read by the city

2:38:25 ↗ attorney. Okay. So the motion is to

2:38:31 ↗ adopt ordinance number 2840, adopting by reference a new chapter 18.19C of the

2:38:37 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code, providing urban village replacement regulations for the area formally governed

2:38:43 ↗ by the TALIS Development Agreement, providing for severability and savings except modifying figures

2:38:48 ↗ 2A and 2B, bracket TALIS zoning and zoning cap map and charts, end

2:38:54 ↗ bracket, specifically changing parcel 3 on the map and charts bracket, Talus parcel

2:39:00 ↗ 9 bracket from UVMF to UVSF and adding to the additional parcel property information

2:39:05 ↗ a requirement that the land be subdivided such that there is one unit per

2:39:11 ↗ resulting lot and to amend the ordinance to adopt the findings of fact as

2:39:17 ↗ read by the City Attorney signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes

2:39:23 ↗ unanimously. Councilmember, or Mayor Pauly, can I clarify? So we do need to vote

2:39:29 ↗ on the amendment before the motion. So I would suggest retaking the vote to

2:39:34 ↗ and specify that it's on the amendment. First vote will be on the amendment

2:39:40 ↗ to the motion which is and to amend the ordinance to adopt the findings

2:39:45 ↗ as read by the City Attorney. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? the amendment

2:39:51 ↗ carries unanimously you're going to make me read that whole thing again i can i

2:39:56 ↗ can okay all those in favor of adopting ordinance number 2840 adopting by reference a

2:40:02 ↗ new chapter 18.19c of the isco municipal code providing urban village replacement regulations for the

2:40:07 ↗ area formerly governed by the talus development agreement providing for severability and savings except modifying

2:40:12 ↗ figures 2a and 2b talus zoning and zoning cap maps and charts specifically changing parcel

2:40:18 ↗ 3 on the map and charts, tells parcel 9, from UVMF to UVSV and

2:40:24 ↗ adding to the additional parcel property information a requirement that the land be subdivided

2:40:30 ↗ such that there is one unit per resulting lot. Signify by saying aye. Opposed?

2:40:35 ↗ Main motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

2:40:38 ↗ I'm

2:40:48 ↗ going

2:40:57 ↗ to

2:41:07 ↗ call

2:41:17 ↗ for

2:41:26 ↗ a

2:41:36 ↗ five-minute

2:41:45 ↗ recess

2:41:55 ↗ now

2:42:05 ↗ before

2:42:14 ↗ we

2:42:24 ↗ move

2:42:34 ↗ to

2:42:43 ↗ our

2:42:53 ↗ next

2:43:02 ↗ items.

2:43:12 ↗ Thank

2:43:22 ↗ you

2:43:31 ↗ all

2:43:41 ↗ for

2:43:50 ↗ attending.

2:44:00 ↗ If

2:44:10 ↗ you

2:44:19 ↗ don't

2:44:29 ↗ stay

2:44:39 ↗ past

2:44:48 ↗ our

2:44:58 ↗ recess.

2:45:07 ↗ Okay.

2:45:17 ↗ So

2:45:27 ↗ we

2:45:36 ↗ are

2:45:46 ↗ back

2:45:56 ↗ from

2:46:05 ↗ our

2:46:15 ↗ recess

2:46:24 ↗ and

2:46:34 ↗ we

2:46:44 ↗ are

2:46:53 ↗ moving

2:47:03 ↗ on

2:47:12 ↗ to

2:47:22 ↗ our

2:47:32 ↗ next

2:47:41 ↗ item

2:47:51 ↗ on

2:48:01 ↗ regular

2:48:10 ↗ business

2:48:20 ↗ which

2:48:29 ↗ is

2:48:39 ↗ AB

2:48:49 ↗ 7616.

2:48:59 ↗ MEND exclusivity section for transit oriented development memorandum of understanding. This is the first

2:49:04 ↗ time for this item before Council and we have Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development

2:49:10 ↗ Manager to make a presentation. Hi, good evening. I'm hoping this will be an

2:49:16 ↗ easy one. So as you may recall in August of 2017 the Council

2:49:22 ↗ voted to allow the mayor to sign the MOU between Spectrum

2:49:28 ↗ Development Solutions, CenturyLink, and the city of Issaquah. One of those sections

2:49:34 ↗ was the exclusivity period, which specifically calls out, so the language here on the slide,

2:49:39 ↗ and this is also in your packet, the language in the slide that's crossed out

2:49:44 ↗ was what was in the original, and it had for 180 days after the signing

2:49:49 ↗ of that document. We have, as you know, been working on some things that's taking

2:49:53 ↗ a little longer than 180 days, and so we have spoken with Spectrum Development Solutions

2:49:58 ↗ and CenturyLink and all agree that we want to extend this section of the MOU

2:50:04 ↗ until December 31st, 2018. And so this section merely means that CenturyLink can't

2:50:09 ↗ go out and work on another project during this period. The MOU itself

2:50:15 ↗ does not have a timeframe or an expiration date. Again, the MOU is

2:50:21 ↗ the intentions that we that set our intentions to move forward and we'll

2:50:27 ↗ be back in late summer and fall talking about the development agreement

2:50:32 ↗ which will be the details and the final details for the entire

2:50:38 ↗ project. So this again is this extension is just to merely ensure

2:50:44 ↗ that the exclusivity between CenturyLink and our partners remains. Thank you. Are

2:50:50 ↗ there any questions? Seeing none, are we, I guess this is,

2:50:55 ↗ So President Martz, are we ready for a motion? Yes Madam Mayor, I move to

2:51:01 ↗ authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute the proposed amendment to the Memorandum of

2:51:07 ↗ Understanding with the City Spectrum Development Solutions and CenturyLink for the Transit Oriented Development TOD

2:51:12 ↗ project extending the exclusivity section to December 31st, 2018. Second. It's been moved and seconded.

2:51:18 ↗ Is there any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

2:51:24 ↗ It passes unanimously. Thank you. Great. And this next one will be just as quick,

2:51:30 ↗ right? Yes. The next item on our agenda this evening, AB 7534, Opportunity Center Resolution

2:51:36 ↗ for Transit-Oriented Development. This item was heard at the May 14th Council Work Session. And

2:51:41 ↗ Jen will stay up at the microphone and make the next presentation. Thanks, Jen. Okay,

2:51:47 ↗ so thanks again for hearing about this project. Many of the same slides will be

2:51:51 ↗ here from the May 14th work session, but we'll spend time on the ones that

2:51:55 ↗ were not. So we're going to move quickly through that so we can get to

2:51:59 ↗ discussions, but please stop me if you have any questions, and I may call upon

2:52:03 ↗ my friends. I think pretty much everybody in this audience here may be able to

2:52:07 ↗ be called up from the development team, HealthPoint, or David Fujimoto, or Keith Niven. First,

2:52:12 ↗ I want to mention that I did hand out, and if anybody does not have

2:52:16 ↗ it here in audience, an extra spreadsheet that we will be including on the attachment

2:52:20 ↗ of the packet, and I think all the council members should have that. So

2:52:26 ↗ we're going to talk quickly about the council questions and responses that were in the

2:52:31 ↗ memo. We're also going to look at the review of the funding gap and the

2:52:36 ↗ options and then the goal for tonight is to select the opportunity center use and

2:52:41 ↗ investment choice that we've been discussing the several months. It's kind of interesting that in

2:52:47 ↗ tonight's agenda you've been talking about the six-year TIP, the 20-year TALIS agreement, and what

2:52:52 ↗ we're creating here is really a 50-plus year building that will be in our community.

2:52:57 ↗ We really appreciate everybody's time you've taken over the last few months. This has been

2:53:03 ↗ a really complex process and project. And I realize we started exploring this idea in

2:53:08 ↗ 2014. But we weren't able to really move forward into the King County surplus land

2:53:14 ↗ was made available. So at the end of 2016, we published the RFP for the

2:53:20 ↗ TOD project and then selected Spectrum and King County Housing Authority in the beginning of

2:53:25 ↗ 2017. So we've been working hard on this since then and for a project that

2:53:30 ↗ takes us almost a decade from the seed of the idea to opening the doors,

2:53:35 ↗ we know that the decisions we make today are not only for today but for

2:53:39 ↗ many decades to come. We can't entirely predict what the future is, but we're hoping

2:53:44 ↗ that we're creating the project here that's next to the transit center that will provide

2:53:48 ↗ people with alternatives to owning a car in Issaquah in the future. And so we

2:53:53 ↗ do believe that the building reform is going to be able to adapt to future

2:53:58 ↗ conditions and the Opportunity Center, which is we'll be talking about tonight, will provide a

2:54:02 ↗ sustainable model to provide human services to Issaquah residents. and we're here today to decide

2:54:07 ↗ the future of how that will be shaped. After tonight's decision, we will be holding

2:54:13 ↗ the community meeting in July and then potentially September, and then we'll be back to

2:54:19 ↗ council to talk about a development agreement negotiations as they proceed. So the first slide

2:54:25 ↗ I'd like to talk about is the open house. We held that open house last

2:54:30 ↗ Thursday evening. We had 15 public attendees. It was a well-attended meeting. and what

2:54:36 ↗ some of the concerns that we heard. So at first there

2:54:42 ↗ was about 11 stations we had general information about the TOD project. We

2:54:48 ↗ had a board from the King County Housing Authority that explored and looked at what

2:54:53 ↗ the different income levels and rents would be and for different income that different employees

2:54:58 ↗ in the city make and so to kind of understand better who's going to be

2:55:03 ↗ living there. And then we had the specific three options out for people to explore.

2:55:08 ↗ In general, there wasn't an overwhelming, I like one versus two versus three for the

2:55:13 ↗ three options, but people were in general really supportive of the TOD. They had obviously

2:55:18 ↗ some concerns about different pieces of it. The transportation impacts or traffic impacts was one

2:55:22 ↗ of the largest ones we've heard. So that's about the what's gonna happen to Newport

2:55:27 ↗ and SR 900 intersection. What are the improvements planned for Newport? What are the improvements

2:55:32 ↗ planned for Maple? Even had a thought about thinking about how the school bus,

2:55:38 ↗ which will be not only servicing the residents in the project, but also

2:55:44 ↗ the daycare, where that's going to be parked in order to pick up

2:55:49 ↗ kids and drop off kids. And the importance of intercity transportation to link

2:55:55 ↗ this TOD project to other parts of the city. One of the questions

2:56:00 ↗ we had that evening was about the timing of those impacts. So we currently do

2:56:06 ↗ not have a transportation impact analysis done for this project. Typically, that happens when projects

2:56:12 ↗ come to permit phase. We have talked with the developer and he has agreed that

2:56:17 ↗ during the development agreement phase, so in the next steps, he'll be conducting that because

2:56:22 ↗ he wants to understand better what those impacts may be. They may not be fully

2:56:26 ↗ engineered out to say this is exactly what's going to happen, but we'll be looking

2:56:30 ↗ at those options and be able to have that discussion with council and the community

2:56:35 ↗ in future. The other piece, and I think you heard a comment tonight, was about

2:56:40 ↗ the parking. So one of the users, or at least one of the users, would

2:56:44 ↗ require additional parking that we know about. So that's option two, looking at the healthcare

2:56:48 ↗ user. We, again, don't know all the users in option one, so we can't make

2:56:52 ↗ any assumptions about that yet. But we are committed to finding a solution with HealthPoint

2:56:57 ↗ and Valley Cities to either find, we own city properties in the area. We're also

2:57:02 ↗ exploring on-street parking and we'll work with them on our commute trip reductions through our

2:57:07 ↗ salmon friendly trips. So while we don't have a solution identified at this time, that

2:57:13 ↗ is our next step as well as staff to figure that out and come back

2:57:18 ↗ to you about how we'll address that. Any questions so far?

2:57:24 ↗ yes i have a question about what you just said about parking um there

2:57:29 ↗ was a draft memo that talked about information that we had gotten um in

2:57:35 ↗ regards to meridian center did that make it to the final oh i hope

2:57:41 ↗ so Okay, sorry. I hope so. So in the draft, so one of the challenges

2:57:45 ↗ of, and we were asked, you know, what is the parking needs going to be

2:57:50 ↗ for the health center? And they are estimating based on their current sites, which are

2:57:55 ↗ not next to a transit center, which don't have as good transit service. So they

2:58:00 ↗ estimate between 20 and 40 extra spaces they need than what's already provided in the

2:58:05 ↗ building. We're lucky enough that Hal Farris, who's with Spectrum Development Solutions, developed a similar

2:58:10 ↗ project up in the Northgate area. It is not by the Northgate Transit Center, but

2:58:15 ↗ it's across the highway from that, across the street from that. Again, not right next

2:58:20 ↗ to a really robust transit system. And he went and did some research and found

2:58:25 ↗ they had just over two spaces per thousand square feet. That is what our code,

2:58:31 ↗ two spaces per thousand square feet is what our code provides and what will be

2:58:36 ↗ provided within the parking structure for this use. So it's pretty aligned with what they

2:58:41 ↗ are seeing up there in Northgate. Again, he mentions with less robust transit service. So...

2:58:47 ↗ That was enlightening and HealthPoint, you know, again, has committed to working with us

2:58:53 ↗ to reduce trips as much as possible. Thank you. One of the

2:58:59 ↗ things that I wanted to talk about is people also mentioned about and we've had

2:59:04 ↗ conversations with some council members about the uses that are on the site and how

2:59:10 ↗ transit oriented they are. And one of the things that we really struggle with is

2:59:15 ↗ that the TOD project is a little bit before its time as far as the

2:59:21 ↗ type. We haven't seen this type or the building type which means It's gonna be

2:59:26 ↗ have mixed use, it's gonna be mixed income happen in our community, but we know

2:59:31 ↗ that we wanna see this form of development that meets the Central Issaquah plan vision.

2:59:35 ↗ So we have, again, talked to the developer about in the future, so we will

2:59:41 ↗ commit and working with our partners and they have partners for their commercial uses. But

2:59:47 ↗ as things change, so if in 20 years the release runs out and there's an

2:59:53 ↗ opportunity to make something more vibrant, maybe there's some space within some of the apartment

2:59:58 ↗ amenities that could be better utilized for retail in the future or a little coffee

3:00:04 ↗ shop. That is something that this building is going to be built to allow those

3:00:09 ↗ changes. And we as the property owners for the Opportunity Center can make those decisions

3:00:14 ↗ in the future as well about if there's a need for changing something. So while

3:00:19 ↗ people may be concerned about the current uses not being that restaurant retail, really vibrant,

3:00:25 ↗ engaging street frontage, we do believe that there will be a lot of people coming

3:00:30 ↗ in. We heard about how many people they serve in the Redmond facility. It is

3:00:35 ↗ not going to be a sleepy street corner. There are a lot of people who

3:00:40 ↗ will be accessing these services. And so we believe it's a wise choice. And in

3:00:46 ↗ general, again, we heard support for affordable housing and the need for affordable housing and

3:00:51 ↗ the design and density and again, seeing this type of development happen in the central

3:00:57 ↗ Issaquah area was pretty strong as well. Any questions? - Good. - Okay, oh, yes.

3:01:02 ↗ And thank you for attending Council Member Hunt. She was at the open house and

3:01:08 ↗ so. thank you the parking needs you mentioned it's um approximately two parking stalls

3:01:14 ↗ per a thousand square feet so for so that's 20 but then i've heard a

3:01:19 ↗ bunch of other numbers at various points so is it is it going to be

3:01:25 ↗ 20 parking stalls within the building that are specific in the in the um opportunity

3:01:31 ↗ center option two with the 10,000 square feet of medical

3:01:36 ↗ dental, it would be 20 parking stalls dedicated to this

3:01:42 ↗ use inside the building. So there will be 20, so per code developer needs to

3:01:48 ↗ provide certain number of parking stalls. We have had not gotten to the detailed discussions

3:01:53 ↗ but I know that there has been some hesitation about saying this is exactly for

3:01:57 ↗ the daycare, this is exactly for HealthPoint, this is exactly for the kidney center because

3:02:02 ↗ the idea is that there'll be some sharing. So we haven't negotiated with our user

3:02:07 ↗ to say maybe they want three dedicated spaces or five dedicated spaces up front. that

3:02:11 ↗ could be possible. But in general, the developers like to tend to want to stay

3:02:17 ↗ away from, you know, this space is for this user. Okay. I think it might

3:02:22 ↗ be a different question. It's about whether or not parking for the Opportunity Center will

3:02:27 ↗ be all on-site or a combination. Oh. Yeah, that's part of it. Okay. So it

3:02:32 ↗ is all on-site. So all the parking is in structured parking for the TOD. So

3:02:37 ↗ it will all be within that parking structure. Yes. On that level. Okay. And

3:02:43 ↗ it will be, so looking at the different options, is it then that

3:02:49 ↗ option three, which is the smaller use, that would have 20 less parking

3:02:54 ↗ spaces in the structure than option two? 12, because it's, so it's still

3:03:00 ↗ have four, so for 4,000 square feet, it would have eight spaces that

3:03:06 ↗ are. And that 20 covers the needs for patients as well as for

3:03:11 ↗ staff. No. So that's where we have the parking shortage as far as the user

3:03:17 ↗ is concerned. So the 20 is required by our code and HealthPoint has said they

3:03:22 ↗ may need another 20 to 40. And we know that we're not going to find

3:03:27 ↗ 20 or 40 in one place, but again that's where we're looking at the different

3:03:32 ↗ options from on-street parking to the other properties that we own in the area. And

3:03:38 ↗ so the additional 20 to 40, that's under challenges on this spreadsheet. Any other questions

3:03:44 ↗ on that or Maven? Okay. And so then in the memo, as Council Member Marks

3:03:50 ↗ mentioned, there was about 12 questions that council members had asked us directly in briefings

3:03:56 ↗ over emails. And so I don't know if you had a chance to look at

3:04:02 ↗ that. I have the questions I can pull up. But in general, we

3:04:07 ↗ categorize them in general background, financial, project sources and uses, and project

3:04:13 ↗ program operation questions. Are there any questions? We really tried to make

3:04:19 ↗ sure we got the intent of the question, because again, one question

3:04:25 ↗ may mean something different on paper. So would you like me to

3:04:31 ↗ pull them up, or is there any, yes? Okay. So, and I

3:04:37 ↗ mentioned in the memo that the information in the memo was a

3:04:43 ↗ little repetitive sometimes because we had we were telling a story and then we're answering

3:04:48 ↗ the questions but we felt it was important everybody kind of has a different perspective

3:04:53 ↗ and a different look at this and so we want to make sure that that

3:04:58 ↗ we presented the information in various ways so Do you want me to just go

3:05:03 ↗ through the questions real quick? Or is there something, a specific question you may have

3:05:08 ↗ a question about? Do you want to go through each question or just pause and

3:05:13 ↗ see if there is a question on the answer? There's number one and two. I

3:05:18 ↗ would, I guess my preference would be to ask council members what questions they have

3:05:23 ↗ on the phone. So council members. Council Member Hunt.

3:05:29 ↗ I know that there is somewhat limited data and that the data may not

3:05:35 ↗ directly apply to our specific case, but to the extent possible, could you speak

3:05:40 ↗ to the transit-oriented nature of the different options for the different Opportunity Centers? Meaning,

3:05:46 ↗ what data, if any, is available as far as how many people would be

3:05:52 ↗ likely to utilize the service using transit or pedestrian, if it was a pedestrian-oriented

3:05:57 ↗ use? Any data on that? Sure. And I pulled out question 11. I think it's

3:06:03 ↗ the closest one to that. And thank you for acknowledging we don't have the full

3:06:08 ↗ data yet. But one of the things that anecdotally that Hope Link has told us

3:06:13 ↗ is that they have noticed that their locations with the poorest access to transit has

3:06:18 ↗ a declining participation for the past two years. So they have now decided when they

3:06:23 ↗ locate a new facility that that transit access to transit will be one of those

3:06:28 ↗ criteria. We we have no reason to believe that's not true of other nonprofits as

3:06:33 ↗ it's more challenging to get to. People today and earlier in the public comment period

3:06:38 ↗ mentioned about how challenging it is to get to some of these centers. I don't

3:06:43 ↗ know if there's any other data that you have heard about. Okay. The other thing

3:06:49 ↗ is, as mentioned here, is that the 2007, I'm sorry, 2010 Human Services Campus Facility

3:06:55 ↗ Human Services Campus Feasibility Assessment identified proximity transit as a criterion for

3:07:01 ↗ all service providers. So again, we don't have any data right now

3:07:07 ↗ besides that research we've done in the Meridian Health Center and what

3:07:12 ↗ we've already mentioned. Jen, just to clarify, you mentioned Hope Link. So one of the

3:07:18 ↗ confusing parts of this is that there are multiple options and multiple kinds of partners.

3:07:23 ↗ Hope Link would be a potential partner in a one or an option one or

3:07:28 ↗ an option three? Sure. Yes. And I think their information, I think, tends to probably

3:07:33 ↗ be appropriate for all the nonprofit users as far as the ability for people to

3:07:38 ↗ access services is important to have transit. I have a related

3:07:44 ↗ question about Hope Link. So I have been asking this and sort of

3:07:50 ↗ related questions and the other information that was provided was about the shuttle

3:07:56 ↗ service or trans... service that is provided by Hope Link. I believe that is one

3:08:01 ↗ of the core services that they provide us. And so I wondered if you could

3:08:06 ↗ speak to that at all and how that might fit into this bigger picture about

3:08:10 ↗ transit use. I'm going to phone a friend. Sorry, Dave, David, because I know that's

3:08:14 ↗ one of their services. They're not planning on providing that service here, I don't believe,

3:08:18 ↗ but I'll let David. Sure. So Hope Link is a contracted service provider with King

3:08:23 ↗ County Metro. And so they provide a lot of the shuttle services that you see

3:08:28 ↗ out and around in the community. So for example, I believe they actually operate some

3:08:33 ↗ of the trailhead direct services. There's also an alternative service that connects North Bend, Snoqualmie

3:08:38 ↗ and the Squaw Highlands. That's under the brand of King County Metro, but it's actually

3:08:44 ↗ a Hope Link provided service. So they're a service provider for King County. So they

3:08:49 ↗ do provide a lot of those services. So they have a lot of experience in

3:08:54 ↗ those kinds of transportation services. And you said that they do not, they have not

3:09:00 ↗ proposed to... provide that service at this location though it wasn't that wasn't clear to

3:09:05 ↗ me from their application oh i see um they were not proposing to add transportation

3:09:11 ↗ services as part of their proposal uh that would have to be something else the

3:09:16 ↗ city could pursue similar to how we're pursuing um alternative services for squawk and talus

3:09:21 ↗ that would be a good example of another kind of candidate for that kind of

3:09:26 ↗ model of investigation additional questions that's president martz jen

3:09:32 ↗ um can you can you expand on or or talk about on

3:09:38 ↗ page four of your memo you have a sentence the anticipated annual

3:09:43 ↗ lease payments would cover all bond payments required can you explain that

3:09:49 ↗ yes So, one of the things that, as we're looking at the

3:09:55 ↗ investment choices, we understand that investment choices for option one and two are much larger

3:10:00 ↗ than number three. But we also wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that

3:10:06 ↗ all three all three options provide a revenue stream the revenue stream for option one

3:10:12 ↗ and two um the one and two would require could require a bonding to be

3:10:17 ↗ bond to be issued and the lease revenue from the the tenants would cover those

3:10:23 ↗ costs for our that's information we received from our finance director jen olson um this

3:10:29 ↗ is the one thing that i was speaking to council member ramos today about um

3:10:34 ↗ If you notice, it says investing up to $2.3 million and up to $1.5 million.

3:10:40 ↗ So these are the kind of the cap of what we're asking, we need commitment

3:10:45 ↗ for tonight. But we know that you heard Senator Mark Mallett here tonight saying he

3:10:50 ↗ wants to support this. There's no guarantee of that funding. We do know that HealthPoint,

3:10:55 ↗ if that's the chosen option, is interested in working with us on being a partner

3:11:00 ↗ in this project. and looking at tenant improvement contribution. They have not figured out

3:11:06 ↗ that number and got it approved by their board, so we can't bring

3:11:12 ↗ that information forward yet. We wanted to make that aware. And we also

3:11:17 ↗ have a $965,000 mitigation fund that was mentioned tonight as well that would

3:11:23 ↗ reduce the need to bond. So all of these numbers here are showing

3:11:29 ↗ what is needed at the most. So when we do the bond in

3:11:34 ↗ 2019 or 20, we will know by that time that, okay, we need so much

3:11:40 ↗ less for that. But right now we're assuming that the full bond is at this

3:11:45 ↗ amount, at the sources and uses that are in the table. Is that clear? -

3:11:51 ↗ Yes. - Okay. - Thank you. - Council Member Goodman. - Thanks. Jen, the $950,000

3:11:56 ↗ or $65,000 that you're talking about, so it's my understanding that that was money

3:12:02 ↗ that came from TALIS and it was dedicated for or was because there

3:12:08 ↗ wasn't enough, maybe enough affordable housing built as was anticipated or something to

3:12:14 ↗ do with that. So maybe somebody else knows the answer to that, but

3:12:20 ↗ I thought that was tied to affordable housing. It's actually the first

3:12:25 ↗ major amendment to the TALIS Development Agreement and it was a donation that was made

3:12:31 ↗ as part of this to the city. I don't know if there's other actions that

3:12:36 ↗ have happened since then that has linked it. I'm seeing some shaking heads to the

3:12:41 ↗ affordable housing. And I know that, again, that was at one time, I

3:12:47 ↗ believe, thought that they might be used for the human services campus. And then, you

3:12:52 ↗ know, part of that money. Yeah, I want to go back to the reason that

3:12:57 ↗ we have the money. So Council made a policy decision several years ago to potentially

3:13:02 ↗ use that money for human services campus. Yes. I'm not aware that that was

3:13:07 ↗ a permanent decision. That was for a human service campus that didn't end up getting

3:13:13 ↗ funded. But back to the purpose of the money originally. Does somebody know? Yeah. Paul's

3:13:19 ↗ phrasing it. I'd like to have the administration answer the question, actually. So it was

3:13:25 ↗ a payment in lieu, or we might need to call a friend? So we're calling

3:13:31 ↗ a friend. Thanks. Thanks. the wording is pretty general but general but

3:13:37 ↗ specific um so um when we were negotiating oh sorry stranger

3:13:43 ↗ i i could keith niven director of economic development and development

3:13:49 ↗ services for the city um So when we process the first major

3:13:54 ↗ amendment to the talus agreement, it was right when the master developer changed hands

3:14:00 ↗ and J. R. Hayes became the master developer of talus and approach the city,

3:14:06 ↗ wanting to negotiate an amendment, and that amendment included a lot of different things

3:14:11 ↗ that included The improvements to Newport, which included the low-level LED lighting, it included

3:14:17 ↗ a number of different things, but one of the things that he told the city

3:14:23 ↗ he could not achieve was the second phase of the affordable housing in Tallis. And

3:14:29 ↗ so the way we crafted the amendment was that there would be a $1.5 million

3:14:35 ↗ donation that could be used at the city's discretion. That's what got approved now

3:14:41 ↗ subsequent to that as councilmember Goodman mentioned there was some commitments by the

3:14:47 ↗ council at the time that a portion of that money could be used

3:14:52 ↗ to explore a Human Services campus And that kind of ran its course

3:14:58 ↗ And now I think the City Council could purpose that remaining money as it sees

3:15:04 ↗ fit. There is a thread connection to affordable housing. There is also a thread

3:15:10 ↗ connection to human services. There was a, for lack of a better term, payment

3:15:15 ↗ in lieu of meeting the affordable housing requirement. It was, but we were clear

3:15:21 ↗ in the amendment that the council, the city could use that money at its

3:15:26 ↗ discretion. Thank you. More questions? Ms. Member Ray. Just a couple

3:15:32 ↗ quick ones. So recognizing the need for or the opportunity to

3:15:38 ↗ put some community service, some human service in the Opportunity Center.

3:15:44 ↗ So would we be providing that rental of that space at

3:15:50 ↗ something less than market rate? Yes, and so we have not negotiated

3:15:56 ↗ any lease terms yet, but the idea has always been to be above our costs

3:16:01 ↗ and below market rate. So at $25, that's about in that range, but again, we

3:16:07 ↗ would not commit to anything tonight because we have not committed to anything to our

3:16:13 ↗ tenants. Okay, perfect. And then this is kind of on the other side of the

3:16:18 ↗ equation. Recognizing the limited parking at a TOD by design, and recognizing that it's

3:16:24 ↗ next to a park and ride by design, how do we ensure that we don't

3:16:29 ↗ have overflow parking going to the park and ride, which is already strapped for spots?

3:16:35 ↗ Yes. And so one of the things that will be happening later this year is

3:16:40 ↗ that we will be doing a parking study focused on the two transit centers and

3:16:45 ↗ the transit stop right here and looking at that and exploring potentially a parking enforcement

3:16:50 ↗ model. So that would maybe if that actually does get implemented by the time this

3:16:55 ↗ project is developed, we'll have it all worked out. The other thing is, again, working

3:17:00 ↗ with our tenants to make sure that they are vigilant about probably the early arrivals

3:17:04 ↗ could be the only ones that get the space in the parking, the parking right,

3:17:09 ↗ because if you've ever been there, it's pretty full by eight o'clock. So any of

3:17:13 ↗ the patients who may come throughout the day, it's unlikely they would find a spot

3:17:18 ↗ in the transit center. So we'll work with the tenants to make sure that their

3:17:22 ↗ employees have a place to park that will not interfere with the transit users. Thank

3:17:27 ↗ you. Let's go Council Member Hunt, Martz, and Goodman. So related to

3:17:32 ↗ that last point, there are the 20 to 40 additional parking for

3:17:38 ↗ the medical dental use. And so if they are definitely not going

3:17:43 ↗ to be in the overflow parking, because that is often fairly full

3:17:49 ↗ and in the future I imagine will become more full, what is...

3:17:55 ↗ and it is not going to be in the building itself under the current plan.

3:18:00 ↗ So where are those 40 parking stalls? And I think 40 parking stalls, that's also

3:18:06 ↗ a fairly large amount at the upper limit. So we've explored different things initially. So

3:18:11 ↗ again, we haven't gone all the way to figuring out this 13 spaces here and

3:18:16 ↗ 10 spaces there. But we are looking at options to put on street parking. on

3:18:21 ↗ either side, so the 13th Avenue, which is the new street, and so is there

3:18:26 ↗ a way to build out that full street and actually get on-street parking immediately as

3:18:31 ↗ opposed to waiting for the redevelopment of the property next door? We're looking at is

3:18:36 ↗ there opportunity for even on-street parking on the other side where the Sound Transit driveway

3:18:41 ↗ is? We also own a property at Newport in SR 900 that potentially we could

3:18:46 ↗ use for overflow parking and I'm not committing to that as well, but there are

3:18:52 ↗ some other options. We actually have a parking lot that's overflow for Metro as well,

3:18:58 ↗ but it's up in the above the playground yes area so there's again we have

3:19:04 ↗ some parcels in some other areas where if again working with to have the employees

3:19:09 ↗ park there would reduce it would then allow the spaces in the center for um

3:19:13 ↗ the um patients to be able to utilize and cycle through okay and the the

3:19:18 ↗ property you mentioned that's the other property on sr 900 is that by the ski

3:19:23 ↗ park that's the it's kitty corner so it's yes so it's across sr 900 no

3:19:28 ↗ west side of sr The west side, yeah, northwest side. What is it currently? Vegan.

3:19:33 ↗ Utility, looks like a utility. Yeah. Some field. Yes. It was, when we purchased the

3:19:39 ↗ King County Roads property, that was part of the package. that was a

3:19:44 ↗ bell on top thank you council president goodman and then council president mark ah council

3:19:50 ↗ president well you guys look so much alike if you stay tonight i look at

3:19:56 ↗ you i'm looking at me council i know right twins separated council member my question

3:20:02 ↗ was really just do we know how many patients uh per day or per year

3:20:08 ↗ or per per sub number we expect to uh be uh seen uh at a

3:20:13 ↗ ten thousand square foot facility like this david's gonna look up that in the proposal

3:20:18 ↗ they sent can we go to the next question unless you know jason yeah okay

3:20:23 ↗ he has the proposal so we'll look that one up okay i believe we have

3:20:28 ↗ a purple tonight 800 to a thousand in a month somebody said that was the

3:20:34 ↗ redmond site yeah right right Actually, you can let Jen know and get

3:20:40 ↗ the next question on the table. Yeah, just repeat it and I'll say it then

3:20:45 ↗ in the mic. Council Member Goodman? So the dental clinic itself, 800 to 1,000 per

3:20:50 ↗ month. She's not sure the square footage compared to this site. So we'll look up

3:20:55 ↗ that and get that back. Yeah. So it sounds to me like the parking issues

3:21:00 ↗ that we're talking about with the need for the extra parking spots, that's being, that's

3:21:05 ↗ a function of the... the medical dental that's being proposed, right? Right.

3:21:10 ↗ And the size, yes. So we have a transit-oriented development

3:21:16 ↗ which I will just say that I call the TOD project the opportunity that we

3:21:21 ↗ have. I don't know why we're narrowing it to 10,000 square feet, calling it an

3:21:26 ↗ opportunity center, because I think the opportunity is the TOD proposal. But it seems a

3:21:30 ↗ little strange to me. This is a, correct me if I'm wrong, because it's kind

3:21:35 ↗ of a question, kind of not, I just want to confirm what I'm hearing, that

3:21:40 ↗ we've got a TOD project that we're considering right now where we've got parking issues

3:21:44 ↗ that are caused by the focus on the health, the medical, dental use

3:21:50 ↗ that we're focused on, but yet we don't have any, really any idea

3:21:56 ↗ how we're going to handle that extra parking. Well, we do have some

3:22:01 ↗ ideas. But we can't commit to a certain city space. We don't know where we're

3:22:07 ↗ going to need overflow parking for employees. So and we're going to a parking and

3:22:13 ↗ pilot parking enforcement plan that later on. And I'm just confirming that what I heard

3:22:19 ↗ was that we could do some enforcement, but we can't do any enforcement in a

3:22:24 ↗ transit center. So, am I, so those are questions, those are kind of,

3:22:30 ↗ I'm confirming that I, am I misunderstanding anything there? Well, again, we think we

3:22:36 ↗ have some solutions that we're not going to find 20 to 41 location, but that

3:22:40 ↗ we could find some other locations that would work for the tenant and that the

3:22:45 ↗ parking enforcement would potentially be available for if there's people parking in places that they

3:22:49 ↗ shouldn't be. Transit center aside, because again, I think that's going to be a little

3:22:54 ↗ less of a challenge because of just how it fills up so quickly in the

3:22:59 ↗ morning. But that's, again, my perception when I use a transit center. And I think

3:23:03 ↗ the intention of this building is that over time we're gonna have less use of

3:23:08 ↗ cars and more use of transit. So we cannot say that today or in 2022

3:23:13 ↗ when this is opened up, I'm not gonna claim that everyone's gonna take the bus

3:23:19 ↗ there. But this building and this use will transition to more towards that. So that's

3:23:24 ↗ something that we believe and we wanna work hard with the tenants to get there.

3:23:29 ↗ And do we have any-- - Questions, Council Member Ray. So Jen you just actually

3:23:35 ↗ made me think of something really interesting. Have we had any discussions as we start

3:23:40 ↗ to approach TOD with our transit partners in terms of if we do this what

3:23:46 ↗ happens to transit service at that at that location? Meaning if it increases the need?

3:23:52 ↗ Well we're bringing people to them through the TOD, would we expect an increase in

3:23:58 ↗ service? Has there been any discussion about... Oh, meaning that we could actually get more

3:24:03 ↗ service hours as a community? Exactly, yeah. Sure. So, of course, that's the goal, I

3:24:08 ↗ guess, is that the more we're able to get more residents anywhere in our city

3:24:13 ↗ that would access transit. We actually have talked to Sound Transit and the TOD staff

3:24:19 ↗ in King County Metro. So they both are aware of this project and know that

3:24:24 ↗ it's coming and are very excited that this would be part of this. And so

3:24:29 ↗ I think in the bigger picture when Metro and Sound Transit looks at their hours,

3:24:34 ↗ That is a possibility for sure. Yeah, because now you're creating, you know, at least

3:24:40 ↗ 385 units of people who may take the bus and a whole bunch of customers

3:24:45 ↗ that are as well. So thank you. That's one of our goals. And we do

3:24:50 ↗ have an answer. Ding, ding, ding. So an estimate of 900 to 1100 per month.

3:24:55 ↗ Patients. And just to add into that, so the proposal estimated 5,400 individuals, and

3:25:01 ↗ so that, based on some assistance from our esteemed colleagues, is estimated around 900

3:25:07 ↗ to 1,100 visits per month. Is that dental health both? Combined, yes. Our space,

3:25:13 ↗ I was going to say, is smaller than some of the other locations, so...

3:25:20 ↗ That's member almost your hand up. Yeah, just just a thought because as we think

3:25:23 ↗ about transit or in development meant just because transit at the spot you're going to

3:25:27 ↗ trying to get to doesn't mean everybody can get there on the bus because there's

3:25:31 ↗ still a lot of places that people in this county that they may not have

3:25:35 ↗ a bus at the other end. So that parking is always still going to be

3:25:39 ↗ needed because that's our county is not that well served and I don't see it

3:25:43 ↗ being that well served 20 years from now that. Sure. you can't get a bus

3:25:47 ↗ from a lot of places to there. Do you have any questions? Any questions as

3:25:52 ↗ well? Okay. We still don't have a motion on the table, so I'm going to

3:25:56 ↗ stay in -- so I've got Council Member Winterson, Council President Martz. Questions? Jen, hopefully

3:26:01 ↗ these are easy. In your -- question number five in the -- there's a --

3:26:05 ↗ it's of the sources of funds identified, are those funds committed and encumbered? Could they

3:26:10 ↗ go away? I just want to clarify -- I think I know the answer, but

3:26:14 ↗ this table is a little bit confusing. Like the first line there is, okay, that's

3:26:20 ↗ funds to build a project. But there's a couple on there, especially the last one

3:26:25 ↗ and the third to the last. Those are just cost avoidance. We're not providing funds,

3:26:30 ↗ especially that last line. It says MFTE, $1 million, available for the project. That's not

3:26:35 ↗ funds to the project. I just want to be clear about that. So this was

3:26:39 ↗ from a previous slide that showed the $164 million that it was needed in order

3:26:44 ↗ to build the project. And so that's um can be considered considered a city contribution

3:26:49 ↗ it's not a cash contribution from us which is that that's what this is these

3:26:54 ↗ are funds required it's the value that's the value to the developer is what he's

3:26:59 ↗ saying okay yeah okay thank you i i was sure about that but i just

3:27:04 ↗ wanted clarification and then on the next uh excuse me question number seven it was

3:27:08 ↗ mentioned tonight when uh senator mullet was here as well i'm just curious about i

3:27:13 ↗ don't know We don't know if this is just a pipe dream or if anything

3:27:19 ↗ could happen, but is there a timing question? Let's say that through their capital budget

3:27:24 ↗ next year, the legislature is able. Is there any kind of timing? How would something

3:27:28 ↗ like that mesh with what's needed for the project? Okay. So we, so whoever we

3:27:34 ↗ is collectively, need to have in the developer's hands by about first quarter 2020

3:27:40 ↗ the funds for the shell, for the construction. So not the tenant improvements, which

3:27:45 ↗ we've talked about as another expense, but that would be required in 2021-22.

3:27:51 ↗ So depending on if they are able to make an allocation in

3:27:57 ↗ 2019, that would line up with what is necessary for the project.

3:28:02 ↗ Okay, thank you. Councilmember Hunt. Thank you. So you said earlier something

3:28:08 ↗ that I'm interested in, which is about how the space could adapt

3:28:13 ↗ to future conditions, and part of that would be the shared space

3:28:19 ↗ for the residential part of the building. And then, so I wondered if you could

3:28:24 ↗ elaborate on that and how the options would be different under the different Opportunity Center.

3:28:30 ↗ pieces um yeah i don't know that we have done a lot of research or

3:28:35 ↗ you know kind of thinking about that so i hesitate to say well this could

3:28:40 ↗ become this but so what um council member hunt is looking at is um so

3:28:45 ↗ it was mentioned in the in the open house by the developer that you know

3:28:50 ↗ looking at this this is the 10 000 square foot opportunity center here and then

3:28:54 ↗ What color are they? They're kind of different kind of green. Are the

3:29:00 ↗ amenities for the apartment community? And maybe as time moves on, could this

3:29:06 ↗ become something that's more community facing as far as a coffee shop or something

3:29:11 ↗ like that. We did also talk about having a lease with HealthPoint or whoever,

3:29:17 ↗ Hopelink, whoever it may be, that we would make sure that we would put

3:29:23 ↗ into the final lease that if conditions change, so somehow healthcare changes so drastically,

3:29:29 ↗ they need less space, that we would then look at really trying to

3:29:35 ↗ create a space for a vibrant transit-oriented user in the nonprofit world. So

3:29:40 ↗ the uses we're looking at today in 20 years are not set for the full

3:29:46 ↗ 50 years of the building. So I think as our community is transitioning, this building

3:29:51 ↗ is set up nicely to transition with it. And I think we've talked before about

3:29:56 ↗ that this building is not the end all of transit oriented development for our community.

3:30:00 ↗ It's one piece of it. And I'm I'm reminded that this site is so a

3:30:05 ↗ great site because it also provides within walking distance a lot of professional offices, amenities,

3:30:11 ↗ grocery stores, et cetera, which, you know, hard to find in a walking distance in

3:30:17 ↗ many neighborhoods. So... and then also related to that there are some changes to the

3:30:22 ↗ um the um residential amenities in the building footprint and there's also some changes to

3:30:27 ↗ the public plaza which with different options and there's some changes to where the daycare's

3:30:31 ↗ yard is with the different options and so i think that is part of what

3:30:36 ↗ we're discussing because we when we if we pick one of these options it affects

3:30:41 ↗ the whole footprint of the building it affects the public plaza it affects the street

3:30:45 ↗ facing amenities and it affects the whole orientation. So I think it's part of the

3:30:50 ↗ discussion. - Okay, so yeah, so we'll just look at between two and three 'cause

3:30:55 ↗ option two, one and two are the same footprint. And so it does not change

3:31:00 ↗ the size of the daycare center or the public plaza. changes where they were. So

3:31:05 ↗ in the 10,000 square foot option, and if Hal wants to jump up and take

3:31:11 ↗ over, he can. In the 10,000 square foot Opportunity Center option here, the Kidney Center

3:31:16 ↗ is Down here on what will be 13th Avenue Northwest and the daycare becomes

3:31:22 ↗ a much longer Building and the public plaza here is becomes longer the daycare needs

3:31:28 ↗ a small play area for the youngest of children and then another day play area

3:31:33 ↗ will be in the upper level where they'll have elevator access to get up there

3:31:39 ↗ on one of the upper tiers of the of the building. So then if

3:31:45 ↗ you look here, so the difference again, so the daycare center now moves to the

3:31:50 ↗ 13th Avenue, Northwest Kidney Center moves where the Opportunity Center was, and then the Opportunity

3:31:56 ↗ Center becomes here. So again, looking back here, it's taking the space here and using

3:32:01 ↗ it differently. The public plaza looks like it's bigger, but this play area now that

3:32:06 ↗ was up above, it will be on here, but it will be fenced off. So

3:32:11 ↗ it won't be publicly accessible. But again, the feel is a

3:32:17 ↗ different feel. But the space is the same. Is there anything

3:32:23 ↗ else, Hal, that you'd like to add? More questions? Go to

3:32:29 ↗ a motion. Madam Mayor, I move to approve resolution number 2018-09.

3:32:35 ↗ Providing a commitment for the size and financial investment for the nonprofit commercial space

3:32:41 ↗ Opportunity Center in the transit oriented development TOD project selecting option two. Is there

3:32:47 ↗ a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Council President Mertz. So I

3:32:53 ↗ have five points. Four should go quickly. The fifth maybe a little longer. I believe

3:32:59 ↗ there's a demonstrated need for this in the community. The 2010 Human Services Campus Feasibility

3:33:05 ↗ Study, John Rittenhouse referred to this, talked about it. The 2017 Community Needs Assessment reaffirmed

3:33:11 ↗ it. Senator Mark Mullet talked about it. He talked about it as a regional need,

3:33:17 ↗ which is why he would potentially see getting state involvement in it, talking about a

3:33:22 ↗ catchment of larger than 35,000 people because the nearest one to the north is Redmond.

3:33:27 ↗ I think the location is appropriate. We've always, and this is me reaching back to

3:33:33 ↗ being involved in the Human Services campus conversation, always recognized that transit was critical for

3:33:39 ↗ medical and dental. And lack of transit was actually one of the things that derailed

3:33:45 ↗ some of the early ideas for Human Services campus because it wasn't close enough to

3:33:51 ↗ transit. I believe the infrastructure is appropriate. I understand the questions around parking. I think

3:33:55 ↗ that the fact that we have a data point and that that data point is

3:34:00 ↗ in the ballpark of what we've got. I understand that's not what HealthPoint is saying

3:34:05 ↗ that they're going to need, but I think it's a really good starting point. We're

3:34:09 ↗ talking about having pooled parking between several different uses of that of the dedicated parking

3:34:15 ↗ on site which could help make things more flexible and absorb peak time use

3:34:21 ↗ I think it's financially prudent I point back to this anticipated annual lease payments

3:34:27 ↗ would cover all bond payments required. you know five million dollars for ten thousand square

3:34:33 ↗ feet is cheap in this town um yes there is other medical uh buildings in

3:34:38 ↗ the city but you're gonna pay market rate because your competitors are for-profit uh medical

3:34:44 ↗ institutions but this opportunity and i use five because it's you know two and a

3:34:49 ↗ half specific and then maybe another two for improvements depending on on how that conversation

3:34:54 ↗ goes with health point it's still cheap for ten thousand square feet um The fifth

3:35:00 ↗ is the most challenging. It's this question around public engagement. I just want to say,

3:35:05 ↗ you know, I think I'm pretty comfortable talking about public engagement. I was the one

3:35:09 ↗ who two times pushed for televised budget meetings and goals, had to do it twice

3:35:14 ↗ because I couldn't do it the first time. I've always pushed for televising committee meetings,

3:35:19 ↗ taking public comment at committee meetings. But this is not sunset, where we just have

3:35:24 ↗ an open house and there's five knobs and tell us where you want each of

3:35:29 ↗ these five dials to be. There's four partners, the developer, CenturyLink, King County Housing Authority

3:35:34 ↗ and ourselves. We don't have some of the latitude to just say, "Public, tell us

3:35:39 ↗ how to do it and we'll go do it." We have been talking about this

3:35:43 ↗ for over a decade. We have recommendation from those four partners plus Eastside

3:35:49 ↗ Human Services Forum and the Human Services Commission. I recognize this is

3:35:55 ↗ part of a larger conversation about transit or development. and about where we have growth,

3:36:01 ↗ which we heard earlier in the evening is one of the fundamental questions in front

3:36:05 ↗ of our city. It's part of our growing pain. It is, I have said before,

3:36:08 ↗ a good problem to have in that we are absorbing growth in the valley. And

3:36:12 ↗ when I compare it, I always use Shoreline as an example, 'cause I have friends

3:36:16 ↗ in Shoreline. It's really hard to see single family homes being torn down to make

3:36:20 ↗ room for transit oriented development. And we don't have to do that because we have

3:36:24 ↗ the valley. And finally, I just wanna say to the six of you, I think

3:36:28 ↗ this is a once in a political lifetime opportunity. I actually really believe that

3:36:34 ↗ if I serve on council for another eight and a half years, this may be

3:36:38 ↗ the best opportunity to substantively improve the lives of the residents of Issaquah. And so

3:36:42 ↗ normally we sit here, the seven of us, and we all just sort of make

3:36:46 ↗ our opinion based on, you know, the arguments. And of course, you're all going to

3:36:50 ↗ do that. But I'm just going to sort of be a little different this time.

3:36:54 ↗ And I'm going to please ask all six of you to vote for this. I

3:36:58 ↗ think it's that important. And I hope that we can take that leap of faith

3:37:02 ↗ that we're going to address the some of the logistic challenges involved in this and

3:37:06 ↗ make this happen for the residents of our city who don't have decent health care

3:37:11 ↗ and don't have a way to get it right now thank you thank you deputy

3:37:15 ↗ council president batiste Well, I'll start by saying that Council

3:37:21 ↗ President Martz stole a whole bunch of my comments. So,

3:37:27 ↗ ten years ago, we were talking about the need within

3:37:33 ↗ the city for health services, dental services, and mental health.

3:37:39 ↗ Going back to my Six years ago to my time on the

3:37:44 ↗ Human Services Commission, we've been talking that whole time, it seems like for such

3:37:50 ↗ a long time about the $965,000 in mitigation funds that could have gone toward

3:37:56 ↗ a Human Services Campus. And the day that we got the, you know, the

3:38:01 ↗ final decision that the Human Services Campus just wasn't going to to make it

3:38:07 ↗ over the finish line was a really, really sad day for me. We

3:38:13 ↗ got a 2017 needs assessment, so when we talk about what the need

3:38:19 ↗ is, I don't know I don't really need a lot of data because of

3:38:25 ↗ the work that I've done in the past. I know that we have

3:38:30 ↗ the need and we often have to rely on regional aspects to have

3:38:36 ↗ people be served. We talked to somebody earlier talked about 20% of the

3:38:41 ↗ people that were going to the Together Center to HealthPoint were from Issaquah.

3:38:47 ↗ I have so many stories about the time that I was on the

3:38:53 ↗ Human Services Commission about hearing stories about people not being able to access

3:38:59 ↗ medical, dental, or health services, and they didn't have a way to get

3:39:05 ↗ there. So now we've got a transit-oriented development. We've got transit there. We

3:39:11 ↗ have these amazing partners. that have this amazing reputation, both

3:39:17 ↗ HealthPoint and Valley Cities. We've got Senator Mark Mullet

3:39:22 ↗ coming forward and talking about the fact that he

3:39:28 ↗ would try to help. We've got the $965,000 and

3:39:34 ↗ I think that again, the $5 million for 10,000

3:39:39 ↗ square feet if we tried to do this in a different way. I remember all

3:39:45 ↗ the discussions that we had around the Human Services Campus. I'm going to echo what

3:39:51 ↗ Council President Martz said. I feel like this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

3:39:57 ↗ I feel like it's really incredibly important to come into the city, and I will

3:40:03 ↗ be supporting this wholeheartedly. Thank you. Okay. Heading right down the road. Council Member Goodman.

3:40:09 ↗ Thank you. So I appreciate the comments. Mine are going to be different. I want

3:40:15 ↗ to make it really, really clear that I, like I said before, the opportunity here

3:40:19 ↗ to me is the transit-oriented development project. I really like the TOD project. I've liked

3:40:24 ↗ it from the beginning. I think it's very, very, very exciting. Not quite sure how

3:40:29 ↗ we got to the point we are now. Jen, you mentioned a few times tonight

3:40:34 ↗ that, you know, we've worked hard on this for the last few months. It really

3:40:39 ↗ hasn't been the last few months, it's just been the last few weeks. It was

3:40:44 ↗ mid-May when we started talking about these details and the month before that, that we

3:40:49 ↗ kind of heard about the RFP process, the full Council heard about that. So I'm

3:40:54 ↗ super concerned about a lot of things. First of all, the process, the fact that

3:41:00 ↗ there really hasn't been any public engagement, even though it's been promised over and over

3:41:06 ↗ again, and I know that Spectrum has wanted to do that public engagement and

3:41:11 ↗ that was supposed to start in January. But somehow last fall, I guess there was

3:41:17 ↗ a decision to make a request for proposals. And then that kind of started that

3:41:23 ↗ train down to where we are now. I don't have any issues with

3:41:29 ↗ the need for the services or the how wonderful the agencies are that

3:41:35 ↗ we're talking about the medical dental agencies. I know they're wonderful services and

3:41:41 ↗ I know that they're needed. But I've got the similar concerns that we

3:41:46 ↗ heard tonight. We've got parking concerns that we've talked about a lot.

3:41:52 ↗ What does the public think about spending $5 million? I mean, it's $5

3:41:58 ↗ million and we haven't had a public process. We had 15 people show

3:42:04 ↗ up at a meeting. It's a huge financial commitment. We have several

3:42:09 ↗ council members talk consistently about what are we giving up if we spend $5 million?

3:42:15 ↗ What else could we spend $5 million on? What else could we spend the $965,000

3:42:20 ↗ on? Affordable housing, there's a link to that, and we talk about that just as

3:42:26 ↗ important. And does the community believe that the medical dental is what we should commit

3:42:31 ↗ $5 million to at this point in time? Is it consistent with the TOD?

3:42:37 ↗ Hearing maybe not. So I'm not going to support that option. I am

3:42:43 ↗ interested to hear what other council members say. I would support option three,

3:42:49 ↗ and I don't think we give up anything because I think we still

3:42:55 ↗ have a space there. We haven't talked to the community about whether the

3:43:01 ↗ other options could be in a space that's supposed to be a very

3:43:07 ↗ exciting building with exciting other, you know, maybe other opportunities in there for our

3:43:13 ↗ central Issaquah area. So I don't have any doubt that there's a need. I

3:43:18 ↗ don't have any, that's not my issue. I just don't think this is the

3:43:24 ↗ right process and I'm not comfortable committing $5 million without the public process that

3:43:30 ↗ we should have had. Councilmember Winterstein. Come back to me later, please. Councilmember Ramos.

3:43:37 ↗ Um, thank you. Um, there's there's I'm going to start kind of weird here, but

3:43:43 ↗ there's two things that concern me is funding and public involvement. Um, it is a

3:43:48 ↗ lot of money. Um, and how we're going about the process of deciding how to

3:43:54 ↗ spend $5 million is is a concern. Um, and and knowing in comparison to

3:44:00 ↗ an item previous today, we had a whole lot of public input on something that

3:44:05 ↗ was not actually any dollars involved. So there is that question. At the same time,

3:44:10 ↗ as I see that, I see that we have, we are the property owners in

3:44:16 ↗ this case. we're making a, to me, a sound investment in our community. It's a

3:44:21 ↗ payback option. So it's not like we're spending the money and it's gone, like if

3:44:26 ↗ we spend it on a piece and it's gone, the revenues are gonna come back

3:44:31 ↗ to us and beyond, because once you pay that off, then you actually can have

3:44:36 ↗ a stream of money coming in. So fiscally, I can get past that point on

3:44:41 ↗ that when we're making a decision that's sound as well. and and i

3:44:47 ↗ like to look at um the other thing that bothers a little bit we talked

3:44:51 ↗ about this that there's a cap that right now it looks like the city's committing

3:44:55 ↗ to all this funding but in talking to a couple folks such as yourself that

3:44:59 ↗ i believe that health point and uh the state will help with some of this

3:45:02 ↗ as well i don't want to look like we're going to take it all and

3:45:06 ↗ and bear the whole burden because i think we've got partners that are going to

3:45:10 ↗ continue to work with us and and hopefully reduce that on on just the city

3:45:14 ↗ itself because you know that's not our duty as a city just to you know

3:45:19 ↗ provide these services all by ourselves um and and i'm going to look at this

3:45:23 ↗ as it all the other little questions that came up i think we can work

3:45:27 ↗ at in design parking and all those little things i think that's going to come

3:45:32 ↗ as we go and we continue our work partners working through it and i do

3:45:36 ↗ think that this is i'm going to go with Council President Martz on this. This

3:45:41 ↗ is a unique opportunity that I don't think we'll see again in many ways that

3:45:45 ↗ we can do in our community. It is very different. It's visionary and we don't

3:45:49 ↗ have all the facts and figures because you're a little bit out there on a

3:45:54 ↗ vision. And so you're not sitting there making all this sound with everything lined up

3:45:58 ↗ just right. So when you have to do that, you have to have a little

3:46:02 ↗ bit of leap of faith. I do have that. I know what's going on having

3:46:07 ↗ mentioned chairing this Human Services Commission and being on that side of the equation for

3:46:13 ↗ a long time. I know that piece of it too and this is very critical.

3:46:18 ↗ So I'm gonna call this a vision and I think it's an important one that

3:46:24 ↗ I think people later on 10 or 15, 20 years from now they're gonna go,

3:46:29 ↗ "God, who had the guts to do that way back then?" And I'm gonna go

3:46:35 ↗ with that. Councilmember Winterstein. Thank you.

3:46:41 ↗ you know what i'd really like i'd like a little bit more time and for

3:46:47 ↗ the process because i'm aware from the meeting that we had how jen and i

3:46:52 ↗ we talked about some of the timing and i know that the um the hud

3:46:58 ↗ insured funding there's like you know there's there's some steps that need to happen you've

3:47:04 ↗ got one year and you can't even complete the first step until um we make

3:47:10 ↗ a decision But it's really tough for me. If I just think in terms of

3:47:15 ↗ managing finances and being a smart business person, if I've got a potential partner in

3:47:20 ↗ an engagement who's kind of sitting right in front of us and saying, you know,

3:47:25 ↗ I may want to put some coin in on this, man, we should already be

3:47:30 ↗ negotiating with a potential partner rather than hoping that maybe we'll get something from HealthPointe.

3:47:35 ↗ So it feels risky to me to say, well, so from a business

3:47:41 ↗ perspective, we're gonna front this, but boy, we're really hoping you're gonna come

3:47:46 ↗ in and help some and state, we really hope, we haven't put any

3:47:52 ↗ numbers on those, we don't know what those are. That's just not the

3:47:58 ↗ way I would prefer that we conduct business. So that's from a business

3:48:04 ↗ perspective. uh that so that you know that's a big

3:48:09 ↗ concern i am also concerned i share the concern about the the

3:48:15 ↗ parking but but maybe with a slightly different twist we with health

3:48:21 ↗ services there is higher demand for parking than maybe other options that

3:48:27 ↗ we could go with at the opportunity center we Well, I

3:48:33 ↗ mentioned we had a data point. Where was that data point? Was that in

3:48:39 ↗ Seattle somewhere? That was Northgate. I think Bill made a really good point. I'm

3:48:45 ↗ going to assume that potential clients to this location don't have as many pickup

3:48:51 ↗ opportunities via transit than clients that go to Northgate. So if they've got two

3:48:56 ↗ stalls per 1,000 square feet, uh there you know that data point i i

3:49:02 ↗ i it's it's off i think there needs to be an adjustment so we will

3:49:08 ↗ have a parking problem is my thinking and i do agree with the contention that

3:49:14 ↗ the 0.9 for the residents that are there is awfully aggressive as well if we

3:49:20 ↗ had already had numerous other nearby developments in the spirit of the that had

3:49:26 ↗ similar parking ratios that we're looking at for this one. Um

3:49:32 ↗ there's and when and they had been built at the ratios that we're looking here

3:49:36 ↗ then i think parking would probably be a more acute problem because the first ones

3:49:41 ↗ that got in if indeed they needed more parking than they had to deliver then

3:49:45 ↗ there would be spillover and the next development project that came in and the community

3:49:50 ↗ and the older there would start being more and more conflict greater demand and the

3:49:55 ↗ need for some greater parking strategy and policy enforcement or what have you here in

3:49:59 ↗ the city of Issaquah I mean we're we're inevitably going there uh the first few

3:50:03 ↗ projects and this would be a major one in the central area are are going

3:50:07 ↗ to ones that are going to benefit from that but and maybe maybe I should

3:50:11 ↗ just say you know good on you I mean that good good for you I

3:50:15 ↗ think downstream is going to be more and more difficult as more development comes in

3:50:19 ↗ so so I so I do struggle with that I don't think we have the

3:50:22 ↗ parking correct We just did a capital project. We have a capital improvement plan

3:50:28 ↗ and you've heard me say this before, I'm going to keep saying it. We're going

3:50:34 ↗ to revise that quite a bit. Now we're talking about a bit of capital. Yes,

3:50:40 ↗ there may be a revenue stream. We can model that to offset some of that

3:50:45 ↗ initial outlay. But you want to know what the impact is? It's okay. It's what's

3:50:50 ↗ currently not funded, some of those projects, and the capital project, that's what the impact

3:50:55 ↗ is, and other projects that are going to come along. We're going to want to

3:51:00 ↗ be very opportunistic, and we're not going to have maybe the cash on hand that

3:51:04 ↗ we have today. So from those perspectives, I have

3:51:10 ↗ real, from a business perspective, I have a

3:51:16 ↗ challenge with this. On the other hand, the

3:51:22 ↗ services that would be available, I agree with

3:51:28 ↗ the points earlier made that it's been verified,

3:51:34 ↗ multiple ways of the need within the community. I know when we were looking at

3:51:39 ↗ a human services campus and maybe an investment of a million dollars and maybe a

3:51:45 ↗ little bit more, but that was for an entire human services campus. Now, if you

3:51:51 ↗ want to equate this Opportunity Center and these health services to a small human services

3:51:56 ↗ campus, now we're talking about 5 million cash i know there'd be some revenue but

3:52:02 ↗ 5 million cash for less than what we were hoping for with the human services

3:52:07 ↗ campus so that's not nearly the return as well so what i'm articulating is this

3:52:12 ↗ the struggles because because from a from a um a community need value to the

3:52:18 ↗ community. There's many aspects of this entire project that I very much

3:52:23 ↗ would like. From a business perspective, I don't like all the terms.

3:52:29 ↗ I really wish we had more time to maybe talk further with

3:52:35 ↗ a potential partner and get some more of a commitment. I think

3:52:41 ↗ that state, it's too far out there. So I'm right now, squarely

3:52:47 ↗ right on the fence. I'm gonna make a decision in a moment. - In

3:52:52 ↗ a moment. - Thank you. Council Member Ray. - So I'm gonna kind of

3:52:58 ↗ echo some of the things I've heard before in comments. I love the idea

3:53:04 ↗ of transit-oriented development. I love the idea of taking that parcel of land and

3:53:10 ↗ making it available to people of a wide range of incomes so that they

3:53:16 ↗ can take advantage of our transit system and that they can help reduce the burden

3:53:22 ↗ on our current traffic infrastructure. I hate the idea that we are talking about a

3:53:27 ↗ solution that has an impact on parking. When every time that we talk about, well,

3:53:33 ↗ we're going to need more parking spots, that says to me that this is not

3:53:39 ↗ a heavy transit-oriented use. And that parcel of land there by the

3:53:44 ↗ transit center is very unique and given our transportation issues, I would

3:53:50 ↗ like us to find the most transit-oriented implementations possible. This 10,000 square

3:53:56 ↗ feet is not a human services campus. It's not a solution that

3:54:02 ↗ provides integrated human services and referral services. That being said, I do think

3:54:07 ↗ it is something that is needed in our community. I think that's very clear. There

3:54:12 ↗ are other places that we could build it that would have less impact on parking.

3:54:17 ↗ Or there are other places we could site it that would have less impact on

3:54:21 ↗ parking and would not use the space that I think is so unique for transit

3:54:26 ↗ in this community. I believe that we can do more if we looked at different

3:54:31 ↗ alternatives. I'm not really quite honestly excited about the idea of the city of Issaquah

3:54:36 ↗ becoming a landlord for a medical dental facility is not what I think is one

3:54:42 ↗ of our core competencies. And I think there's better ways for us to provide public

3:54:48 ↗ support for this needed community good. I think we can do more good with

3:54:54 ↗ fewer dollars than taking that space, which I think has higher value in transit oriented

3:54:59 ↗ and quite honestly, I'm thinking of calling it the Opportunity Center is a bit ironic

3:55:04 ↗ because I feel like we're being opportunistic here and we're not thinking this thing through

3:55:09 ↗ about what is the best use of this property in this land. We're being opportunistic

3:55:14 ↗ and saying, hey, let's let's move forward with this idea. So those are my feelings.

3:55:18 ↗ Thank you, Council Member Ray. Council Member Hunt. Thank you. I, like Council Member Winterstein,

3:55:24 ↗ I really wish I had more time, that we had more time with the

3:55:30 ↗ community and that we had more time to really understand the implications. I think

3:55:36 ↗ there are a lot of moving pieces to this. And I think also really

3:55:41 ↗ even this evening, we really focused on one use and didn't think about the other

3:55:47 ↗ options that are before us, let alone other options that aren't before us, but that

3:55:53 ↗ one could imagine. So I am, I currently feel like I don't have

3:55:59 ↗ the information as far as how this aligns, how the medical dental use

3:56:04 ↗ aligns with the best practices for transit-oriented development. I think that transit-oriented development

3:56:10 ↗ is a wonderful thing for our community and I think that having

3:56:16 ↗ affordable housing next to transit makes the affordable housing that much more affordable for

3:56:22 ↗ people if they don't have to use their car and they can get to

3:56:27 ↗ their work or other places without a car. And so it does, the transit-oriented

3:56:33 ↗ development in itself will be addressing very serious needs in our community. And my

3:56:39 ↗ concern is that the uses of the land uses at the bottom of the

3:56:45 ↗ building will affect the experience of those living in the building as well as those

3:56:50 ↗ using the transit center which we want to increase and which we want to support

3:56:55 ↗ we want to make a community where people are more able to use the transit

3:57:00 ↗ center to get to work so in thinking about the project overall the daycare center

3:57:06 ↗ i think is a really great transit oriented use because People drop their kids off

3:57:11 ↗ if they're using the transit center and it saves potentially four car trips a day

3:57:16 ↗ and if you are living in the transit, if you're living in the building, you

3:57:22 ↗ could also use that and some of it will be set aside as affordable and

3:57:27 ↗ so you could also use that and it would save you those trips every day.

3:57:32 ↗ And it again contributes to the affordability. I think that It also internalizes

3:57:38 ↗ traffic. We're not talking about what are the parking needs for this because it's

3:57:44 ↗ a clear transit-oriented use that will reduce trips. I noticed on this big spreadsheet

3:57:50 ↗ that parking commute trip reduction investment, I just don't see anything that suggests that

3:57:55 ↗ this will reduce Car trips, that the medical dental use will reduce car

3:58:01 ↗ trips. I think as Council Member Ramos pointed out, a lot of our community is

3:58:07 ↗ currently not all that well served by transit. And so they would be driving. And

3:58:13 ↗ I think that using the overflow for the transit center, that would be in direct

3:58:18 ↗ conflict with wanting to have more people using the transit center and the park and

3:58:24 ↗ ride. There's just a lot. that I am concerned about. And I really

3:58:30 ↗ want the transit-oriented development to succeed as a transit-oriented development and an affordable

3:58:36 ↗ housing development. And I'm concerned that I don't have the information that I

3:58:42 ↗ would need to say that this use doesn't conflict with the transit. I

3:58:47 ↗ also think that we really are, I would also want to make sure

3:58:53 ↗ that this is a flexible use and I'm concerned very concerned about

3:58:59 ↗ um reusing or re-designating part of the medical center i don't see that as i

3:59:05 ↗ mean medical is a very serious need in the community has been said and i

3:59:10 ↗ totally agree i wouldn't want to have this be a medical campus and then rely

3:59:16 ↗ on part of that becoming something else and i also i also am not comfortable

3:59:22 ↗ planning on using the amenities that are available to people in the building The

3:59:28 ↗ option that seems most flexible to me is the option three, which we really

3:59:34 ↗ didn't talk very much about, but which does have some shared spaces. The proposal,

3:59:39 ↗ as I understand it, there's a shared space that we didn't talk about, but

3:59:45 ↗ that the Kidney Center could use for education classes as well as the...

3:59:51 ↗ the smaller Opportunity Center. It just, of the options presented, it seems like

3:59:56 ↗ a more flexible space. Also, maybe that could be used for other classes

4:00:02 ↗ and maybe those classes and employment services could be more transit oriented. And

4:00:08 ↗ so for me, I am still at the point where I don't know

4:00:13 ↗ that the medical dental use doesn't directly conflict with the transit-oriented nature of this development

4:00:19 ↗ overall. And so I would be more inclined to option three also because I think

4:00:25 ↗ it gives more flexibility to develop as a neighborhood over time. Thank you, Councilmember

4:00:31 ↗ Hunt. I'm just going to go over a few options that you have before I

4:00:36 ↗ call for a vote. We have a motion on the table and it's been seconded

4:00:41 ↗ and it's for a 10,000 square foot medical dental option. We can continue deliberations. Show

4:00:46 ↗ a hand, you know, if somebody puts their hand up and wants additional deliberation time,

4:00:51 ↗ we can do that on this one. There is an option that a Councilmember can

4:00:56 ↗ make an amendment to motion for a different option instead of two. We can

4:01:02 ↗ vote on the motion that's on the table, and if it fails, it does

4:01:07 ↗ not mean the agenda bill is done. We can entertain another motion and continue.

4:01:13 ↗ So what is your preference? Council President Martz. As the maker of the motion,

4:01:19 ↗ I would suggest we vote on this, and then if somebody wants to make

4:01:25 ↗ an alternate motion, if this were to fail. Sure. So we'll close out

4:01:31 ↗ deliberations and I will read the motion. We'll go for a vote. Motion

4:01:36 ↗ to approve If there's no further discussion, all those in favor

4:01:42 ↗ of approving resolution number 2018-09, providing a commitment for the size and

4:01:48 ↗ financial investment for the nonprofit commercial space, Opportunity Center, in the transit-oriented

4:01:54 ↗ development TOD project, selecting option 2, signify by raising your hand and

4:02:00 ↗ saying aye. Aye. Opposed? It passes 4 to 3 with, can

4:02:05 ↗ I have the nays? Goodman, Ray and Hunt in opposition. The next

4:02:11 ↗ order of business is good of the order. Do any of the

4:02:17 ↗ council members have anything for good of the order? Council member Ramos?

4:02:22 ↗ It's definitely just a personal thing, but last Saturday was National Trails Day. I like

4:02:27 ↗ to always celebrate my trails. On the first Saturday of June every year, I run

4:02:33 ↗ the National Trails event where we run from Mount Rainier to Tacoma. It's 50 miles.

4:02:38 ↗ We do it as a team. I don't do it all by myself, but we

4:02:43 ↗ tag off and run and raise money for trail maintenance. Awesome. Thank you. Anything else

4:02:48 ↗ for good of the order? I have a couple of things. June 5th, tomorrow, Tuesday,

4:02:53 ↗ we'll be having a special council meeting. It is our strategic plan charrette and it

4:02:59 ↗ will be at the Senior Center from 5:30 to 8:30 and it is open to

4:03:04 ↗ the public to attend. June 18th our regular council meeting. There are two

4:03:10 ↗ potential agenda items at this time. AB 7394 which is approval

4:03:16 ↗ of the park strategic plan and AB 7599 which is the

4:03:21 ↗ continuation of the public hearing and adoption of the 2019-2024 six-year

4:03:27 ↗ transportation improvement program. Anything else? And there being no further business

4:03:32 ↗ we're adjourned.

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 (6)

Postpone the motion to the June 18, 2018 Council meeting. . b)

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by RAMOS

Carried 7-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2840, adopting by reference a new Chapter 18.19C of the Issaquah Municipal Code providing Urban Village Replacement Regulations for the area formerly governed by the Talus Development Agreement; providing for severability and savings, except modifying Figures 2A and 2B (Talus Zon…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by RAMOS

Amend the ordinance to adopt the findings (Section 3) as read by the City Attorney as follows: "Section 3. Adoption of Findings. In support of the actions taken in this ordinance, the Issaquah City Council adopts the September 28, 2017 and May 10, 2018 Findings of the Issaquah Policy Planning Commis…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by RAMOS

Carried 7-0

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

Authorize the Mayor to enter into and execute the proposed amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with the City, Spectrum Development Solutions and CenturyLink for the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) project, extending the exclusivity section to December 31, 2018. . d)

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

Approve Resolution No. 2018-09, providing a commitment for the size and financial investment for the nonprofit commercial space (“opportunity center”) in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project, selecting Option 2. . (Opponents: Goodman, Hunt, Reh)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 4-3

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

Opposed: Goodman, Hunt, Reh

Main motion as amended: Amend the ordinance to adopt the findings (Section 3) as read by the City Attorney as follows: "Section 3. Adoption of Findings. In support of the actions taken in this ordinance, the Issaquah City Council adopts the September 28, 2017 and May 10, 2018 Findings of the Issaqua…

Moved by (main motion as amended) · seconded by

Carried 7-0

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