City Council Regular Meeting Auto captions

Monday, November 19, 2018

7:00 PM · 4h 2m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Topics tracked across meetings:

Review Amendments to Olde Town Code, (D) ›› 1/3

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Aug 8, 2019 → Economic Vitality Commission · Oct 16, 2019

View full lifecycle → Next: Planning Policy Commission · Aug 8, 2019 ▶

Amendments to Central Standards Table 4.3A Level of Review AB 7680 ››› 3/4

Cemetery Board · Aug 3, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 8, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 7, 2019

◀ Prev: Cemetery Board · Aug 3, 2017 View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 7, 2019 ▶

Termination of Interlocal Agreement for Public Defense Monitoring Services AB 7696 › 1/2

City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 7, 2019

View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Jan 7, 2019 ▶

Olde Town Subarea Plan Update AB 7326 ››››››››››››› 14/14

Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 → Planning Policy Commission · Feb 9, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 20, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 15, 2017 → City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 7, 2017 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 1, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Mar 19, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 19, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 View full lifecycle →

Proposed Amendments to Central Standards Table 4.3B Permitted Land Uses AB 7661 ››››››› 8/8

City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 18, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Jul 18, 2018 → Planning Policy Commission · Aug 23, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 23, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 4, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 → City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 19, 2018

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 View full lifecycle →

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

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

◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 15, 2018 View full lifecycle →

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll of Nov. 19, 2018, $ 5,658,907.39 ID 0320

Approve · packet pp.5–98

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 22:52 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Finance Department P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 PH: 425-837-3050 www.issaquahwa.gov

Minutes: Council Committee-of-the-Whole, Oct. 23, 2018

Approve · packet pp.99

▶ Watch from 23:44 Open packet at p.99 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 10-23-18 Committee-of-the-Whole Council Page [0000] Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH Committee-of-the Whole Council 6:30 PM Council Chambers October 23, 2018 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way

Minute: Special Council Committee Work Session, Oct. 29, 2018

Approve · packet pp.101–102

▶ Watch from 24:36 Open packet at p.101 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 10-29-18 Council Committee Work Session Minutes Page [0000]

Amendments to Central Standards Table 4.3A Level of Review AB 7680

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.111–123

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 8, 2018

▶ Watch from 25:28 Open packet at p.111 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Development Services Department:

Termination of Interlocal Agreement for Public Defense Monitoring Services AB 7696

Refer to Council Services & Safety · packet pp.125–132

Topics: Public Safety

▶ Watch from 26:19 Open packet at p.125 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

7. REGULAR BUSINESS

Olde Town Subarea Plan Update AB 7326

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.173–353

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 28, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2016 Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Mar 1, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Mar 19, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018

▶ Watch from 22:15 Open packet at p.173 ↗

Staff report:

D. Response to Council Questions E. Revised Plan as of July 2017 Nov. 2017 Sept. 2018 F. Comparison Table as of Nov 1, 2018 (updated) G. Council Comments and Response (new) H. Memo re Policy 5.4.a (new)

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

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

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

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance · packet pp.355–427

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 21, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 26, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 28, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 28, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 24, 2018

▶ Watch from 22:24 Open packet at p.355 ↗

Staff report:

The City Council ended the development moratorium on May 21, 2018 following approval of the Central Issaquah District Vision update. The District Vision update included removing two areas (Exhibit B) from the Central Issaquah area that were determined to be different than the rest of Central Issaquah: 15 parcels zoned Intensive Commercial that do not have frontage on East Lake Sammamish Parkway SE

Roll call:

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

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

Proposed Amendments to Central Standards Table 4.3B Permitted Land Uses AB 7661

Carried 7-0

Adopt Ordinance; Direct Administration · packet pp.429–504

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 18, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Aug 23, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 23, 2018

▶ Watch from 22:34 Open packet at p.429 ↗

Staff report:

On May 21, 2018, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2837, limiting Self-Storage Units in specific zones within Central Issaquah.

Roll call:

Moved by HUNT · seconded by GOODMAN

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

Council Vacancy Process AB 7705

Approve · packet pp.505–510

Topics: Boards & Commissions

▶ Watch from 22:43 Open packet at p.505 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7705 - AGENDA BILL Regular City Council Regular Meeting - 19 Nov 2018 Business

8. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Upcoming Council Meetings

▶ Watch from 27:11

4435 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ medical trial where he had to wear a

0:15 ↗ face face mask

0:18 ↗ good evening and welcome everyone i'm

0:21 ↗ calling the november 19th regular city

0:23 ↗ council meeting to order

0:26 ↗ uh i'd ask those who'd like to join the

0:28 ↗ council and myself in the pledge of

0:29 ↗ allegiance to please stand

0:32 ↗ i pledge allegiance to the flag of the

0:35 ↗ united states of america

0:37 ↗ to the republic for which it stands

0:40 ↗ a nation under god

0:42 ↗ indivisible with liberty and justice for

0:45 ↗ all

0:50 ↗ first up on our agenda this evening is

0:52 ↗ audience comments this is your time to

0:54 ↗ address your counsel

0:56 ↗ the guidelines for public participation

0:58 ↗ are displayed on the overhead and please

1:02 ↗ limit your comments to three minutes

1:04 ↗ this evening

1:05 ↗ those who signed up on the sign up sign

1:07 ↗ up sheet will be called forward first

1:09 ↗ and if you did not sign up i will ask

1:11 ↗ for other speakers before closing this

1:13 ↗ portion of the meeting

1:14 ↗ and if you are here on behalf of a group

1:16 ↗ please identify yourself as spokesperson

1:18 ↗ for the group

1:20 ↗ and if you are in support of any of our

1:22 ↗ speakers this evening feel free to raise

1:24 ↗ your hand so council understands how

1:26 ↗ many in the audience are here to support

1:27 ↗ the speaker

1:32 ↗ and has anyone signed up to speak this

1:34 ↗ evening i have won liz mills

1:45 ↗ good evening my name is liz mills i work

1:47 ↗ for crisis connections as the director

1:49 ↗ of king county 2-1-1

1:51 ↗ we submitted funding requests for three

1:54 ↗ programs of crisis connections king

1:56 ↗ county 211 the crisis line and teen link

1:59 ↗ and we want to thank you for the

2:00 ↗ recommendations for crisis line and teen

2:02 ↗ link

2:03 ↗ and i'm here tonight to ask you to

2:05 ↗ reconsider the recommendation of zero

2:07 ↗ funding for king county two one one we

2:10 ↗ had previously and for years been funded

2:12 ↗ at five thousand dollars a year

2:14 ↗ we had asked that you take another look

2:16 ↗ and fund our program at this level or at

2:19 ↗ some level

2:20 ↗ we really very much rely on the funding

2:22 ↗ from the city of issaquah and and this

2:24 ↗ is a significant loss to us

2:27 ↗ in 2019 united way this summer informed

2:30 ↗ several of its uh grant recipients of

2:32 ↗ which were one that they're changing

2:34 ↗ their funding process it resulted in a

2:36 ↗ loss of a hundred and five thousand

2:38 ↗ dollars to king county two one one so

2:40 ↗ every dollar really does count

2:42 ↗ and the service we provide far exceeds

2:45 ↗ our annual contracted goals with the

2:47 ↗ city

2:48 ↗ last year we provided services at 350

2:51 ↗ percent of our annual goal and 2018 will

2:54 ↗ be similar

2:56 ↗ so why did issaquah residents call 2-1-1

2:59 ↗ well most called us with urgent needs

3:01 ↗ for shelter emergency shelter domestic

3:03 ↗ violence

3:04 ↗ finding affordable housing and food

3:06 ↗ resources we also help disappoint

3:08 ↗ residents with financial assistance for

3:10 ↗ eviction prevention keeping the

3:12 ↗ utilities on and moving costs these are

3:14 ↗ just a few examples

3:16 ↗ most of the callers were very low income

3:18 ↗ ninety one percent at thirty

3:20 ↗ ninety one percent of them at thirty

3:22 ↗ percent or less of median it's very very

3:26 ↗ low income forty eight percent reported

3:28 ↗ someone in the household with a

3:29 ↗ disability these are often people who

3:32 ↗ really need a coach they need help

3:33 ↗ navigating the system to be able to be

3:36 ↗ successful in getting resources and

3:38 ↗ we're happy to be of service

3:41 ↗ with or without your funding

3:43 ↗ we will serve visaqua residents we take

3:45 ↗ the next call that comes we just ask

3:48 ↗ that you'd help us pay for the service

3:50 ↗ thank you for your consideration

3:54 ↗ if there's no one else that signed up

3:55 ↗ would anyone like to address counsel

3:57 ↗ this evening during audience comments

4:00 ↗ sure come on up to the microphone

4:17 ↗ hi my name is tom huffnegle and i'm here

4:20 ↗ with my wife cheryl regal we're the

4:22 ↗ owners of the property

4:24 ↗ that is let me see if i can point out

4:28 ↗ where you see that number nine

4:33 ↗ so

4:34 ↗ we're kind of caught in this group now

4:36 ↗ that's having

4:38 ↗ our base height of our buildings lowered

4:40 ↗ and so what happened was

4:43 ↗ when we first came to the first meeting

4:44 ↗ we just came to find out what's

4:45 ↗ happening in neighborhood we didn't

4:46 ↗ realize our rules were changing also so

4:49 ↗ i was a little naive on that

4:51 ↗ and basically it's a lot it's 36 000

4:54 ↗ square feet does everyone have a copy of

4:56 ↗ this okay so i'm trying to just kind of

4:58 ↗ put it in sequence quickly how long do i

5:00 ↗ have i don't want to over

5:02 ↗ ship overshoot my time

5:04 ↗ three oh geez let's move fast so uh long

5:08 ↗ story short

5:09 ↗ one thing that was changed was we used

5:11 ↗ to have a base heights of 48 feet

5:14 ↗ and it's now been reduced to 40 feet in

5:17 ↗ this new set of zoning rules

5:19 ↗ and what we're asking for is to bring it

5:21 ↗ back to that

5:23 ↗ with issaquah

5:24 ↗ exploding like it is i went to that

5:27 ↗ anthology apartment buildings next to

5:28 ↗ the chevy dealer there's 398 units being

5:31 ↗ put in

5:32 ↗ let's figure two people per unit that's

5:34 ↗ 800 people that'll be needing more

5:36 ↗ services

5:37 ↗ intensive commercial land is so precious

5:39 ↗ right now and so hard to find

5:42 ↗ that

5:43 ↗ we need every square inch of it also

5:45 ↗ going up in the air too so we're asking

5:46 ↗ for that

5:47 ↗ and i think when we had the meeting last

5:50 ↗ week or no at november first we had a

5:52 ↗ meeting where three of the members were

5:54 ↗ here

5:55 ↗ they said well two of the members

5:57 ↗ decided to vote

5:58 ↗ just to go with the cities because they

6:00 ↗ felt

6:01 ↗ uh the ppc meeting had agreed to it all

6:04 ↗ the owners said well the only two owners

6:06 ↗ that were there was

6:07 ↗ myself and my wife and mindy and her

6:09 ↗ husband over there who has the lot

6:11 ↗ across from us

6:12 ↗ and so

6:14 ↗ the only reason we kind of

6:16 ↗ didn't understand why it was being

6:18 ↗ changed was

6:20 ↗ when we spoke to keith about he asked

6:22 ↗ why do you want 48 feet at that time

6:24 ↗ this is the second meeting in

6:26 ↗ june on i believe it was the 26th

6:29 ↗ of june

6:30 ↗ and i said well possibly for apartment

6:32 ↗ buildings hotels we can put on there

6:35 ↗ a lot of different things maybe office

6:37 ↗ building

6:38 ↗ and keith was under the impression at

6:39 ↗ that time that our area wasn't zoned for

6:41 ↗ that so he said that's not a good reason

6:45 ↗ you can't even build that high anyway

6:46 ↗ because you're not zoned for it and i

6:47 ↗ said oh i didn't know that

6:49 ↗ long story short where i came up with i

6:51 ↗ was about nine years earlier i'd been

6:53 ↗ here in this building when they

6:55 ↗ presented us with the new rules and said

6:57 ↗ we could do all those things so i

6:58 ↗ thought oh great

7:00 ↗ we have access to that so we asked keith

7:02 ↗ for a meeting and he uh was real helpful

7:05 ↗ and he we met with him and we said keith

7:07 ↗ we'd like to have that 48 feet back

7:09 ↗ um because we can do all these things on

7:11 ↗ the property and he said well

7:13 ↗ that's true but i would prefer the 40

7:15 ↗ feet uh level

7:17 ↗ and so it's just

7:18 ↗ personal preference i i think he's

7:20 ↗ looking at it as how it'll look in the

7:22 ↗ community but uh we're in the industrial

7:24 ↗ section there basically of issaquah this

7:26 ↗ is intensely commercial

7:28 ↗ so he said you can go to the council and

7:30 ↗ ask them and if they

7:31 ↗ would agree with you then you know you

7:33 ↗ said i'll be fine with that otherwise i

7:34 ↗ would prefer that the 40-foot level so

7:37 ↗ um

7:38 ↗ is you know am i being fair here keith

7:40 ↗ what i'm saying everything i want to

7:41 ↗ make sure i'm not putting that's okay

7:43 ↗ address your comments to the council

7:45 ↗ thank you okay so basically

7:47 ↗ that's what we're mainly asking for is

7:49 ↗ the base heights get it back to 48 feet

7:51 ↗ because there's so much pressure

7:53 ↗ for that little bit of intensive

7:55 ↗ commercial land that's left people are

7:57 ↗ constantly contacting us wanting to do

7:59 ↗ things

8:00 ↗ because there's so little left that's

8:02 ↗ out there and

8:04 ↗ it's not my time that's three minutes

8:06 ↗ okay so bottom line is we're that lot

8:08 ↗ there and

8:10 ↗ we're not asking for anything we didn't

8:11 ↗ have six months ago we're just asking

8:14 ↗ for some of it back and that's what

8:15 ↗ we're

8:16 ↗ hoping that the council will consider

8:18 ↗ letting us have the 48 feet other than

8:19 ↗ that

8:20 ↗ we want to go along with what keith and

8:22 ↗ his department has come up with

8:24 ↗ thank you tom and thank you for bringing

8:26 ↗ copies tonight for council thank you is

8:28 ↗ there anyone else that would like to

8:29 ↗ address the council christina you want

8:31 ↗ to come up

8:39 ↗ well good evening i'm christina bruning

8:42 ↗ i'm a resident of old town issaquah

8:44 ↗ and madame mayer

8:46 ↗ and members of the city council

8:49 ↗ i moved to old town issaquah in 1991

8:52 ↗ to be close to trails for hiking and

8:54 ↗ cycling where i didn't have to get into

8:56 ↗ my car

8:58 ↗ i walk for transportation i actually ran

9:00 ↗ down here tonight so

9:02 ↗ i walk i do walk for exercise and

9:04 ↗ leisure

9:05 ↗ as a walking ambassador for the city's

9:07 ↗ sustainability program a few years ago

9:09 ↗ i'm also asked to continue lead rocks in

9:11 ↗ issaquah

9:13 ↗ a number of years ago our neighborhood

9:15 ↗ in south issaquah created a community

9:17 ↗ awareness initiative

9:18 ↗ and we did this so that we could better

9:20 ↗ understand what our needs were and the

9:22 ↗ needs of the community and how we could

9:24 ↗ all work together to move us forward

9:26 ↗ [Music]

9:28 ↗ our our neighbors are known to be

9:29 ↗ positive

9:30 ↗ contributors who live work and play here

9:35 ↗ we have several issues that have piqued

9:36 ↗ our interest over the years and those

9:38 ↗ have been around for a while you know of

9:40 ↗ them

9:41 ↗ well we have artificial turf and stadium

9:43 ↗ lighting that was being done at the then

9:45 ↗ middle school eight feet from people's

9:47 ↗ bedroom windows we worked to get two

9:49 ↗ fields up at central park

9:51 ↗ the rainier trail where folks did not

9:54 ↗ want their children walking because it

9:56 ↗ was kind of creepy

9:58 ↗ it is now a shift to it's an active use

10:00 ↗ trail

10:02 ↗ we have front street we've said it's

10:03 ↗ loud the traffic is fast and the

10:06 ↗ sidewalks are narrow we now have a

10:08 ↗ crosswalk so we can use both sides

10:11 ↗ just this past saturday actually i was

10:13 ↗ walking from old town to the state park

10:16 ↗ i was almost hit by a car

10:18 ↗ as somebody felt it was necessary to

10:20 ↗ make a left as a group of pedestrians

10:22 ↗ were in the middle of a crosswalk

10:25 ↗ it was so scary that somebody took a

10:26 ↗ water bottle and threw it at the car

10:30 ↗ the construction was another project we

10:32 ↗ worked on with the city and the

10:34 ↗ elementary school new clark elementary

10:37 ↗ and then currently we have the new

10:39 ↗ middle school that has stadium lighting

10:41 ↗ which is visible from our homes

10:45 ↗ old town sub area plan update this is

10:47 ↗ one we have been watching very carefully

10:51 ↗ we totally appreciate the mindfulness of

10:54 ↗ the council land and shore and of course

10:57 ↗ public the

10:59 ↗ planning policy commission

11:02 ↗ we love the idea of a walkable community

11:05 ↗ and of course the gathering places

11:09 ↗ as you know

11:10 ↗ we identify as old town

11:13 ↗ so front street clark

11:15 ↗ through front and second avenue when

11:18 ↗ that came up through conversations

11:19 ↗ throughout the last however many months

11:22 ↗ that was quite disturbing to us and

11:24 ↗ alarming to us

11:26 ↗ so we look forward to further

11:28 ↗ conversation as we move forward from

11:31 ↗ plan to implementation

11:35 ↗ the best solutions as we have proven

11:38 ↗ come from community engagement

11:41 ↗ and the folks on the ground so thank you

11:43 ↗ for considering these thoughts as you

11:45 ↗ move forward

11:46 ↗ thank you christina did you want to

11:47 ↗ leave your comments with the clerk if

11:49 ↗ you have them in writing uh possibly

11:51 ↗ okay thanks

11:52 ↗ is there anyone else that would like to

11:53 ↗ address counsel this evening steve come

11:56 ↗ on up

12:09 ↗ hi steve pereira old town about 10 years

12:11 ↗ now um so indeed the old town siberia

12:14 ↗ plan is indeed on the agenda tonight and

12:17 ↗ i do

12:18 ↗ and one of those who also like the old

12:20 ↗ town area very much it's kind of what

12:21 ↗ brought me attracted me to come to

12:22 ↗ israel in the first place it's obviously

12:24 ↗ received a lot of attention over the

12:26 ↗ years

12:28 ↗ i just put it in context i know that one

12:30 ↗ person had talked about the difference

12:32 ↗ between old between quaint and unique

12:33 ↗ and different

12:35 ↗ and old just being tired one down and

12:37 ↗ worn and we fought hard for the idea of

12:40 ↗ not letting

12:42 ↗ uh

12:43 ↗ and having to fight not keep the e in

12:45 ↗ old but if we change a lot of the things

12:48 ↗ that are unique about it while there are

12:49 ↗ a lot of good things in the plan i think

12:51 ↗ the height and the density changes

12:53 ↗ aren't in keeping with what we were

12:56 ↗ essentially promised in that old town

12:58 ↗ would stay unique and we wouldn't put

12:59 ↗ those

13:01 ↗ central israel plan standards into place

13:03 ↗ from

13:04 ↗ the cip which is where a lot of the area

13:06 ↗ was zoned for and now we're trying to

13:09 ↗ change the standards and the limits to

13:11 ↗ more match cip which was put in place

13:14 ↗ uh

13:15 ↗ it seems like if i went to any other

13:16 ↗ neighborhood in israel if i went to

13:18 ↗ telus if i went to

13:20 ↗ the highlands we wouldn't be talking

13:21 ↗ about he would be upgrade upset about

13:24 ↗ that very much and proposing it just

13:26 ↗ seems out of character with what we were

13:28 ↗ promised and told wouldn't happen

13:31 ↗ in taking cip plans and

13:33 ↗ applying them here

13:36 ↗ there's a lot of good things in the plan

13:38 ↗ as far as community gathering spaces and

13:41 ↗ there's good things i've seen those go

13:42 ↗ forward but i don't know that i agree

13:44 ↗ with i well i don't think i disagree i

13:47 ↗ know i disagree with

13:49 ↗ changes in

13:50 ↗ height and density there's not

13:55 ↗ room for those

13:56 ↗ were losing to someone's character and

13:58 ↗ unique and special

14:01 ↗ that we're not going to get back i think

14:02 ↗ a lot of that applies i think also to

14:05 ↗ uh

14:07 ↗ i'm sorry that's other scope i think

14:08 ↗ that applies to the state route 10 but

14:09 ↗ that's not up for consideration tonight

14:11 ↗ so i'm going to leave that off the

14:12 ↗ discussion

14:13 ↗ um

14:15 ↗ i'm just kind of

14:17 ↗ this pit of my side of my stomach as we

14:20 ↗ look forward to thanksgiving

14:22 ↗ i think this seems to be the last chance

14:24 ↗ that we have to ask your help and

14:26 ↗ support in

14:27 ↗ consideration in keeping old town the

14:29 ↗ unique and special place that it is

14:31 ↗ um

14:33 ↗ and i think we need to keep the density

14:35 ↗ at 65 percent and

14:37 ↗ i think that

14:39 ↗ i would like to keep with the two-story

14:40 ↗ limit that's in place today and i'd like

14:43 ↗ your support on that thank you

14:44 ↗ thank you steve is there anyone else who

14:46 ↗ would like to address the council this

14:48 ↗ evening

14:50 ↗ that i can call anyone wishing to

14:52 ↗ address the council

14:54 ↗ i don't think i can have you back up

15:01 ↗ oh

15:02 ↗ different comments come on up

15:04 ↗ steen is coming back up

15:10 ↗ well hello um christina bruning i am the

15:13 ↗ board president of the downtown issaquah

15:15 ↗ association

15:17 ↗ and madame mayer and members of the city

15:19 ↗ council as an old town resident i got

15:22 ↗ more involved in the downtown issaquah

15:24 ↗ association also known as dia

15:27 ↗ to bring forward the voice and the

15:29 ↗ spirit of old town residents

15:31 ↗ i'm pleased this evening to stand before

15:33 ↗ you and express our sincere support to

15:35 ↗ the city

15:36 ↗ the city council i look across at you

15:39 ↗ and i see you many of you at our events

15:42 ↗ whether it was at keep us aqua beautiful

15:44 ↗ day with your families

15:46 ↗ or wine walks and of course gas station

15:48 ↗ blues

15:50 ↗ issaquah goes apples which kicked off

15:52 ↗ scarecrows on front street and of course

15:54 ↗ our farm fresh market

15:57 ↗ the art commission their support and

15:59 ↗ candor

16:00 ↗ in challenging dia to strive for more

16:02 ↗ visual arts in 2019

16:05 ↗ is very much appreciated

16:07 ↗ so i hope you also in 2018 we did

16:10 ↗ complete the mural on the side of japan

16:12 ↗ ginger and we launched confluence jazz

16:16 ↗ parks and rec made confluence jazz a

16:18 ↗ reality for us at a sneak peek into 2019

16:22 ↗ that music event at confluence park is

16:24 ↗ going to go from a four hour event to

16:26 ↗ eight hours

16:28 ↗ the economic development

16:30 ↗ group

16:31 ↗ having a commitment of having a staff

16:34 ↗ member on our board has been imperative

16:35 ↗ to our success

16:38 ↗ we did want to highlight the old town

16:40 ↗ sub-area plan update

16:42 ↗ we certainly appreciate the city

16:45 ↗ striving to keep downtown historic

16:47 ↗ contemporary and vibrant

16:50 ↗ the planning policy commission

16:52 ↗ recommendation to move the

16:54 ↗ implementation up on certain parts of

16:56 ↗ the plan

16:57 ↗ was very well received

17:00 ↗ and we as an organization the downtown

17:03 ↗ squad association look forward to

17:04 ↗ partnering further

17:06 ↗ the goals highlighted align with the

17:08 ↗ downtown nissan association initiatives

17:10 ↗ and we recognize that parking traffic

17:12 ↗ and community gathering places

17:14 ↗ and the engagement of old town residents

17:16 ↗ are vital to thriving downtown

17:19 ↗ there are things that we need to do

17:20 ↗ better and we can need to keep talking

17:22 ↗ conversations in the cbd the cultural

17:25 ↗ business district

17:26 ↗ about a three-story building is

17:28 ↗ different than the current 45 feet as

17:32 ↗ this moves from plan into land use code

17:36 ↗ i anticipate through the feedback we

17:38 ↗ have gotten from our community that we

17:40 ↗ may hear some push back on that and some

17:42 ↗ concerns

17:43 ↗ whether or not the aas which is the

17:47 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

17:49 ↗ for height is going to be retained

17:51 ↗ so that's something to we ask the

17:53 ↗ council keep that in mind

17:56 ↗ the height requirements are something

17:58 ↗ that are on everybody's top priority so

18:01 ↗ downtown squad association is excited to

18:03 ↗ continue to work with the city

18:05 ↗ and as we move forward with the

18:06 ↗ streetscapes plan and other initiatives

18:09 ↗ so thank you very much

18:10 ↗ thank you again christina

18:12 ↗ is there anyone else this evening that

18:14 ↗ would like to address counsel

18:16 ↗ i can call

18:18 ↗ and a last call if anyone would like to

18:20 ↗ address counsel this evening

18:22 ↗ seeing none audience comments are closed

18:26 ↗ move to the next portion of our meeting

18:28 ↗ which is committee and regional reports

18:29 ↗ starting with council member hunt

18:32 ↗ thank you madam mayor on november 15th i

18:35 ↗ attended the wyra8 salmon recovery

18:37 ↗ council meeting we had a

18:40 ↗ somewhat alarming update on salmon

18:42 ↗ numbers in our water resource inventory

18:44 ↗ area or wyra

18:46 ↗ salmon numbers in wyra8 indicated a poor

18:48 ↗ return year for all species

18:51 ↗ and the salmon counters estimated 6700

18:55 ↗ chinook thirty two thousand one hundred

18:57 ↗ sockeye and eleven thousand coho that

18:59 ↗ was sixty six percent eighteen percent

19:02 ↗ and forty eight percent of the long term

19:03 ↗ averages for chinook sockeye and coho

19:05 ↗ salmon so a lot of the discussion of the

19:08 ↗ meeting was around that 18

19:10 ↗ return for the long-term average for

19:12 ↗ sockeye and what that means for the

19:14 ↗ salmon in our region and the need for

19:18 ↗ more

19:19 ↗ efforts to

19:20 ↗ support salmon recovery

19:22 ↗ we also discussed

19:24 ↗ funding guidance for 2019 as well as our

19:27 ↗ 2019 work plan for the salmon recovery

19:29 ↗ council

19:30 ↗ and we discussed the snohomish county

19:32 ↗ surface water management budget i don't

19:34 ↗ have an update on snohomish county

19:37 ↗ participation in the interlocal

19:39 ↗ agreement that i mentioned last time

19:41 ↗ but if i do have an update on that i

19:43 ↗ will

19:45 ↗ i will bring that forward to council as

19:46 ↗ soon as i have that information

19:48 ↗ and we also talked about the king county

19:51 ↗ 2019-2020 surface water management rate

19:54 ↗ proposal

19:56 ↗ the next meeting is scheduled for

19:57 ↗ january 17 2019 it will now be

20:01 ↗ located in the department of ecology in

20:03 ↗ bellevue and be 2 pm

20:07 ↗ on november 15th i also chaired the

20:09 ↗ council infrastructure committee meeting

20:11 ↗ councilmember ramos was excused and

20:13 ↗ councilmember ray substituted on the

20:14 ↗ committee we had three items on the

20:17 ↗ agenda as well as project updates

20:20 ↗ the first item was

20:22 ↗ ab7687 request for right-of-way

20:24 ↗ encumbrance talus parcel 9.

20:28 ↗ council

20:29 ↗ recommended to deny the encumbrance of

20:31 ↗ foothills drive northwest

20:33 ↗ requested by ora talus 90

20:35 ↗ and the recommendation was to have this

20:37 ↗ come forward on december 3rd so that is

20:39 ↗ not on the

20:40 ↗ agenda this evening but it will be later

20:44 ↗ on december 3rd

20:46 ↗ and

20:47 ↗ the

20:48 ↗ deliberation on this focused around the

20:50 ↗ liabilities having to do with the city

20:53 ↗ construction going on in the

20:55 ↗ right-of-way where there are a number of

20:56 ↗ utilities which would be above the

20:59 ↗ proposed

21:00 ↗ tie-backs which is a structural

21:02 ↗ component of the wall that was proposed

21:03 ↗ by the applicant

21:06 ↗ the next item on the agenda at council

21:08 ↗ infrastructure was ab7538 this is the

21:10 ↗ updated water system plan this was one

21:13 ↗ part of many discussions that we have

21:15 ↗ ongoing on this topic and we reviewed

21:17 ↗ the supply options as well as a pro

21:20 ↗ forma with financial information for the

21:22 ↗ different options

21:23 ↗ then we also discussed ab7649 amendments

21:26 ↗ to imc chapter 13.90 water sewer and

21:29 ↗ storm water recovery contracts this is a

21:32 ↗ ordinance updating chapter 13.90 of the

21:35 ↗ issaquah municipal code and it reflects

21:38 ↗ recent amendments to state law regarding

21:40 ↗ these contracts

21:44 ↗ and then in project updates we had an

21:45 ↗ update regarding the southeast 67th

21:47 ↗ street uh construction work that's going

21:50 ↗ on

21:51 ↗ and um roadway is planned to open by the

21:53 ↗ end of 2018.

21:56 ↗ and this concludes my report

21:58 ↗ thank you councilmember ray

22:00 ↗ thank you mayor paulie uh the services

22:02 ↗ and safety committee met on november

22:04 ↗ 14th at 6 30 here in council chambers we

22:07 ↗ had a rather full agenda we heard agenda

22:09 ↗ bill 7651

22:11 ↗ human services grant funding

22:13 ↗ recommendations and that will be on this

22:15 ↗ evening's agenda as regular business

22:17 ↗ we also received a presentation on the

22:19 ↗ public art for 62nd street from

22:23 ↗ the artist

22:24 ↗ susan

22:25 ↗ zaccola um

22:27 ↗ pretty cool stuff um i'm pretty excited

22:29 ↗ to see it in real life

22:31 ↗ uh agenda bill 7667

22:34 ↗ the arts grant recommendation and this

22:36 ↗ will be on regular business on december

22:37 ↗ 3rd council meeting agenda bill 7652

22:42 ↗ hearing examiner appointment and this

22:44 ↗ will be on december 3rd's consent

22:45 ↗ calendar

22:47 ↗ agenda bill 7691 startup 425 enter local

22:51 ↗ agreement and this will also be on

22:52 ↗ december 3rd consent calendar

22:56 ↗ agenda bill 7689 amending the imc

23:00 ↗ 3.63 school impact fees to allow

23:03 ↗ flexibility and adopting fees and this

23:05 ↗ will be on regular business on december

23:07 ↗ 3rd council meeting and then finally

23:09 ↗ agenda bill's 7640 amending school

23:12 ↗ impact fees and this two will be on

23:14 ↗ regular business on december thirds

23:15 ↗ council meeting next services and safety

23:18 ↗ committee will be on december 11th the

23:20 ↗ east side fire and rescue board met on

23:23 ↗ december 8th at uh eastside fire and

23:25 ↗ rescue headquarters

23:27 ↗ the board chair pro tem was none other

23:30 ↗ than our own mayor paulie

23:33 ↗ the agenda included a

23:35 ↗ the board's approval of

23:38 ↗ a letter of agreement with the unions

23:39 ↗ related to

23:41 ↗ membership firefighter annual physicals

23:43 ↗ and special assignments and the board

23:46 ↗ was also asked to provide input into the

23:49 ↗ east side firing rescues 2019 agenda

23:52 ↗ their legislative calendar and the 2018

23:54 ↗ fire chief evaluation

23:56 ↗ and then finally i just wanted to let

23:58 ↗ everyone know that east side fire and

24:00 ↗ rescue does have a strike

24:02 ↗ force down fighting fires in

24:04 ↗ northern california so they should be

24:06 ↗ down there for about another another

24:08 ↗ week helping out with that

24:11 ↗ mess

24:12 ↗ and the next eastside fire and rescue

24:14 ↗ board meeting will be on december 13th

24:15 ↗ and that concludes my report this

24:17 ↗ evening thank you councilmember ray

24:18 ↗ councilmember ramos thank you mayor

24:21 ↗ on the 9th of november i attended the

24:24 ↗ east side transformation partnership

24:25 ↗ meeting and

24:27 ↗ we were working on the legislative

24:29 ↗ agenda which i mentioned earlier and

24:31 ↗ that will be on their agenda on the 14th

24:33 ↗ of december when i attend that meeting

24:35 ↗ to

24:36 ↗ to pass that if all goes as planned

24:40 ↗ also the emergency management advisory

24:42 ↗ committee will meet on december 12th as

24:44 ↗ well i'll be there the agenda's not set

24:46 ↗ yet

24:47 ↗ the regional transit committee will also

24:49 ↗ meet

24:50 ↗ i should say the sca caucus of the

24:53 ↗ regional transit committee will be

24:54 ↗ meeting on 1219 as we work on some of

24:57 ↗ those issues to break those into coming

24:59 ↗ into 2019 working with metro on some

25:01 ↗ some issues uh the next uh council

25:04 ↗ infrastructure committee will be on the

25:05 ↗ 20th of december and the agenda has not

25:08 ↗ been set that for that yet

25:10 ↗ thank you thank you councilmember

25:12 ↗ romelus councilmember winterstein thank

25:14 ↗ you madam mayor

25:15 ↗ next thursday the 29th will be the next

25:17 ↗ meeting of the puget sound regional

25:19 ↗ council's

25:20 ↗ future sound regional council's growth

25:22 ↗ management policy board the agenda has

25:24 ↗ not yet been published though i suspect

25:26 ↗ it's going to focus on the psrc's vision

25:29 ↗ update that has been our primary work

25:31 ↗ plan for the year

25:33 ↗ and i also want to mention that the um

25:36 ↗ the issaquah chamber of commerce has

25:39 ↗ published a their legislative agenda for

25:42 ↗ the city

25:44 ↗ and um and it's so that is i think we're

25:47 ↗ going to start hearing

25:48 ↗ more from them i think there's there's

25:51 ↗ been a real focus on that they put into

25:54 ↗ legislative matters affected them here

25:56 ↗ in the city including of course economic

25:58 ↗ development transportation and housing

26:00 ↗ among them i just want to make my fellow

26:02 ↗ council members aware that that is not

26:04 ↗ available from them online

26:06 ↗ that concludes my report thank you

26:08 ↗ councilmember winston councilmember

26:09 ↗ goodman thank you madam mayor uh landon

26:11 ↗ shore committee next meets on december

26:14 ↗ 6th at 6 30 p.m here in council chambers

26:16 ↗ and the agenda has not yet been set

26:18 ↗ that's my report

26:20 ↗ thank you

26:21 ↗ deputy council president

26:23 ↗ thank you madam mayor the east side

26:25 ↗ human services forum did not meet in

26:27 ↗ november and i'll give an update uh on

26:30 ↗ what's coming forward in december at the

26:31 ↗ next meeting

26:33 ↗ thank you

26:34 ↗ by council president martz

26:38 ↗ thank you madam mayor the sound cities

26:40 ↗ association public issues committee

26:42 ↗ uh met last wednesday at 7 p.m in renton

26:46 ↗ city hall

26:47 ↗ two particular items of interest we

26:50 ↗ looked at the 2019 sca legislative

26:53 ↗ agenda which hadn't changed

26:55 ↗ substantively from the version that you

26:57 ↗ all saw

26:59 ↗ moved that forward

27:00 ↗ recommended that forward

27:02 ↗ we continued to look at the regional

27:04 ↗ affordable housing task force

27:07 ↗ i will be

27:08 ↗ talking about that a little bit more in

27:11 ↗ good of the order because i want to

27:13 ↗ come back to it

27:15 ↗ i had gotten some feedback from folks so

27:17 ↗ i want to address it a little bit

27:18 ↗ further gmpc growth management planning

27:22 ↗ council will meet thursday november 29th

27:24 ↗ at 4 pm in psrc chambers and the primary

27:27 ↗ topic is is the affordable housing task

27:29 ↗ force recommendations that relate to the

27:31 ↗ gnpc and that concludes my report thank

27:35 ↗ you council president martz

27:37 ↗ now for the mayor's report

27:39 ↗ uh there will be an executive session

27:41 ↗ held this evening to discuss property

27:43 ↗ acquisition per rcw 42.30

27:47 ↗ 0.110 paren one paren b this item is

27:50 ↗ expected to last 40 minutes and no

27:53 ↗ action is anticipated to follow an open

27:55 ↗ session

27:57 ↗ i wanted to talk a little bit about a

27:58 ↗ donation from lakeside industries this

28:00 ↗ evening i would like to thank lakesite

28:02 ↗ industries for their generous donation

28:04 ↗ of five acres of property to the lake

28:06 ↗ sammamish state park i would also like

28:08 ↗ to thank mountains to sound greenway

28:10 ↗ trust for their role in facilitating

28:11 ↗ discussions that ultimately led to the

28:14 ↗ donation of this section of creekside

28:16 ↗ property

28:17 ↗ the donation will result in better

28:19 ↗ connection between the park's trails and

28:21 ↗ the city of issaquah it will also aid in

28:24 ↗ the conservation efforts allowing state

28:26 ↗ parks to move forward with creek

28:27 ↗ restoration sooner rather than

28:29 ↗ originally planned

28:31 ↗ and we're very proud to have a company

28:32 ↗ like lakeside industries based here in

28:34 ↗ issaquah it's refreshing to know that

28:36 ↗ businesses like lakeside care as much

28:38 ↗ about the well-being of the people that

28:40 ↗ live work and play here in issaquah as

28:42 ↗ much as we do and we are very fortunate

28:45 ↗ to benefit by mountains of sound

28:46 ↗ greenway trust's dedication to the work

28:48 ↗ they do to conserve and enhance our

28:51 ↗ region's landscape

28:52 ↗ i also want to tell council about a

28:54 ↗ couple of community meetings that

28:55 ↗ happened over the last few weeks city

28:58 ↗ staff has recently facilitated two

29:00 ↗ community meetings for residents of the

29:02 ↗ neighborhoods of south cove and sycamore

29:05 ↗ south cove was the annual homeowners

29:07 ↗ association meetings it was on monday

29:09 ↗ that november 12th between 7 and 8 30 at

29:12 ↗ zambica

29:13 ↗ it was a check-in for the mayor with the

29:16 ↗ neighborhood and had 20 attendees

29:19 ↗ there's some follow-up items from

29:20 ↗ questions that were asked about pavement

29:23 ↗ management plans

29:25 ↗ who manages lighting in the neighborhood

29:27 ↗ and they wanted eagerly wanted to hear

29:29 ↗ an update on the washdot project

29:33 ↗ there was a neighborhood meeting for

29:35 ↗ sycamore on november 13th from 5 30 to 7

29:38 ↗ 30 at the rogue brewery

29:40 ↗ this neighborhood is currently a mix of

29:42 ↗ sanitary sewer either as septic system

29:45 ↗ or sanitary sewer and this open house

29:47 ↗ quest was a question to gauge the

29:50 ↗ neighborhood interest in sanitary sewer

29:52 ↗ service through a local improvement

29:53 ↗ district or some other financing

29:55 ↗ mechanism the results of the open house

29:58 ↗ will be reported out to the community in

30:00 ↗ the next few weeks or so there are about

30:01 ↗ 40 attendees for that open house

30:04 ↗ and lastly i wanted to talk about the

30:06 ↗ turkey trot happening this thursday

30:08 ↗ november 22nd at 9 00 a.m

30:10 ↗ please join me at the issaquah turkey

30:12 ↗ trot a fun and casual run walk or trot

30:15 ↗ through downtown issaquah on

30:16 ↗ thanksgiving morning it starts at 9 a.m

30:19 ↗ need you to arrive at 8 30 a.m to

30:21 ↗ participate and allow you to get to the

30:23 ↗ start line and the start and finish line

30:25 ↗ is on bush street between the food bank

30:27 ↗ and the community center

30:29 ↗ thanksgiving inspired costumes and

30:31 ↗ accessories are always encouraged and

30:33 ↗ the proceeds from this event go to the

30:34 ↗ issaquah food and clothing bank and if

30:36 ↗ you need more information

30:38 ↗ www.issaquahturkeytrot.org

30:41 ↗ thanks

30:44 ↗ next item on our agenda this evening is

30:46 ↗ the consent calendar this calendar was

30:48 ↗ distributed to council in advance and if

30:50 ↗ authorized the items on the consent

30:52 ↗ calendar will be considered together and

30:54 ↗ approved by one motion have the pay

30:56 ↗ payables and payroll been reviewed yes

30:59 ↗ thank you does any council member desire

31:02 ↗ to remove any item from the consent

31:03 ↗ calendar and consider it under regular

31:05 ↗ business

31:08 ↗ is there a motion

31:10 ↗ meta mayor i move we adopt the consent

31:12 ↗ calendar as listed in this evening's

31:13 ↗ published agenda second

31:16 ↗ it's been moved and seconded to approve

31:18 ↗ the calendar

31:20 ↗ uh all those in favor signify by saying

31:22 ↗ aye aye those opposed

31:24 ↗ that carries unanimously

31:27 ↗ the next item under the agenda is

31:28 ↗ regular business and first up is ab-760

31:32 ↗ human services grant funding

31:34 ↗ recommendations this item is coming out

31:36 ↗ of the council services and safety

31:38 ↗ committee and i'd like to invite

31:40 ↗ sustainability director david fujimoto

31:42 ↗ to make a presentation

31:47 ↗ excuse me

31:48 ↗ good evening madam mayor and council

31:50 ↗ members david fujimoto director of the

31:52 ↗ office of sustainability

31:54 ↗ i'm here tonight to provide a quick

31:56 ↗ overview of the human services

31:58 ↗ commission grant recommendations but

32:00 ↗ i'll be joined by our human services

32:02 ↗ commission chair derek franklin and our

32:04 ↗ vice chair vanessa moussa vis-a-day and

32:07 ↗ we also have several members of our

32:08 ↗ commission who have joined us here

32:10 ↗ tonight so we wish to express our

32:12 ↗ gratitude and appreciation for their

32:13 ↗ hard work over the past several months

32:18 ↗ real quickly as a recap the human

32:21 ↗ services grant

32:22 ↗ program is a two-year cycle

32:25 ↗ we work with about 17 other cities

32:28 ↗ through a collaborative in both north

32:30 ↗ northeast and south king county

32:32 ↗ to let an rfp to request proposals from

32:35 ↗ a variety of agencies

32:37 ↗ to

32:38 ↗ request funding from the city

32:40 ↗ this uh rfp covers a full range of

32:43 ↗ services uh we often talk about uh

32:45 ↗ services that range from prevention

32:47 ↗ through crisis intervention along one

32:49 ↗ spectrum and then along the age spectrum

32:51 ↗ from prenatal all the way through

32:53 ↗ seniors um and then we also have more

32:55 ↗ recently the benefit of some additional

32:57 ↗ work that provides some focus for some

32:59 ↗ areas for targeted attention

33:02 ↗ the process is outlined so that the

33:04 ↗ human services commission dedicates some

33:06 ↗ time

33:07 ↗ to reviewing and providing

33:09 ↗ recommendations on those grants and

33:11 ↗ they present those to the to the city

33:13 ↗ council which is why we're here tonight

33:15 ↗ which approves the overall funding and

33:17 ↗ the allocation

33:19 ↗ as i mentioned before we have some

33:21 ↗ additional information that was helping

33:23 ↗ to inform the process this year in 2017

33:26 ↗ we completed a community needs

33:27 ↗ assessment and that helped us to

33:29 ↗ identify some additional areas for

33:32 ↗ support and these are some of the the

33:34 ↗ primary categories with some examples of

33:37 ↗ the types of

33:39 ↗ targeted support that could be provided

33:41 ↗ or that were identified through that

33:42 ↗ body of work

33:46 ↗ this year and as with the last cycle we

33:48 ↗ also identified a

33:50 ↗ funding level this was something that

33:52 ↗ was adopted through agenda bill 7479

33:56 ↗ earlier this year which set a funding

33:58 ↗ level of 495 thousand dollars overall

34:02 ↗ and this was had two different

34:03 ↗ components to it it included a base

34:05 ↗ funding amount as well as a targeted

34:07 ↗ funding amount

34:08 ↗ in that conversation the targeted

34:10 ↗ funding related to those areas

34:12 ↗ identified for some additional need and

34:14 ↗ support

34:17 ↗ and with that i am going to turn it over

34:19 ↗ to derek and vanessa to go through the

34:21 ↗ process and the recommendations

34:34 ↗ good evening i'm madam mayor members of

34:36 ↗ the council i'm derek franklin of

34:37 ↗ service chair of the human services

34:39 ↗ commission um

34:42 ↗ talking a little bit as david said about

34:43 ↗ the overview of our process

34:46 ↗ the uh the review of the human services

34:48 ↗ grants is uh really the major work item

34:50 ↗ for the commission and we've been

34:52 ↗ working to improve the process with

34:53 ↗ every cycle um here you see an uh an

34:56 ↗ overall timeline of key dates and

34:58 ↗ commission grant review meetings in the

34:59 ↗ past year uh there were several

35:01 ↗ preparations leading up to the

35:02 ↗ application period itself and and

35:04 ↗ throughout the process some of these

35:06 ↗ preparations included one an overall

35:09 ↗ grant review

35:10 ↗ process review which we started late in

35:12 ↗ the fall 2017 to step back and look at

35:14 ↗ our process a little bit and check for

35:16 ↗ possibilities for updates

35:20 ↗ next review of several

35:21 ↗ inputs such as the comprehensive plan

35:23 ↗ human services element and the the

35:26 ↗ recently completed isoqua community

35:28 ↗ needs assessment

35:30 ↗ also preparation for a grant's vision

35:32 ↗ statement as uh

35:34 ↗ was developed to provide a high level

35:36 ↗ guidance or sense of high level guidance

35:37 ↗ for us as a group and alignment around

35:40 ↗ the desired outcome of the commission's

35:41 ↗ work

35:43 ↗ also i review an update of the

35:44 ↗ commission's scoring tools which we'll

35:46 ↗ i'll speak to in a few slides

35:49 ↗ preparation of a city supplement a

35:51 ↗ two-page summary of grant objectives and

35:52 ↗ priorities including those in the needs

35:55 ↗ assessment which was conveyed to all

35:56 ↗ grantees so in other words applicants

35:58 ↗ who applied to the city of issaquah got

36:00 ↗ a supplement

36:01 ↗ highlighting some of the specifics

36:03 ↗ around

36:04 ↗ applying to the city

36:06 ↗ the commission all received equity

36:08 ↗ training

36:09 ↗ and i'll speak to that in a moment as

36:10 ↗ well we onboarded new commissioners

36:14 ↗ this year three were new and uh or three

36:18 ↗ came on board with uh some experience

36:20 ↗ from last cycle i'm sorry and the others

36:21 ↗ were new

36:22 ↗ so it took some time to orient folks to

36:24 ↗ the to the somewhat complicated process

36:27 ↗ with help of city staff

36:29 ↗ uh and we we took the time this year to

36:31 ↗ implement a practice scoring round given

36:33 ↗ that uh there's several steps to the

36:34 ↗ process but a round that involved

36:36 ↗ the commission going through a mock

36:38 ↗ scoring scenario to try to work out

36:40 ↗ kinks ahead of time

36:42 ↗ we held a series of grant review

36:44 ↗ meetings as it says in that calendar may

36:46 ↗ through september eight meetings in

36:47 ↗ total we also participate in a joint

36:50 ↗ eastside commission meeting including

36:52 ↗ the cities of bellevue kirkland redmond

36:54 ↗ sammamish and issaquah and then finally

36:56 ↗ with our scoring we had three rounds of

36:58 ↗ review and deliberation the first round

37:01 ↗ was scoring

37:02 ↗ formally scoring

37:04 ↗ and initial funding suggestions within

37:06 ↗ each of five goal areas which i'll speak

37:08 ↗ to in a moment

37:09 ↗ the second round included refinements

37:11 ↗ and consideration across the full range

37:13 ↗ of programs that we're recommending and

37:15 ↗ then finally round three was to step

37:17 ↗ back a little farther and look at any

37:20 ↗ final tweaks or refinements that would

37:22 ↗ in our estimation give the council a

37:24 ↗ solid portfolio of services to

37:27 ↗ deliberate upon once recommended

37:31 ↗ i spoke to the equity training uh

37:34 ↗ that the council or sorry

37:37 ↗ that the commission went through uh we

37:39 ↗ we had the honor of working with a sarah

37:42 ↗ tran with a non-profit assistance center

37:44 ↗ a few takeaways from the commission uh

37:46 ↗ members were

37:48 ↗ one that we're really here to be

37:49 ↗ advocates for the community and not

37:50 ↗ judge and jury on these applications

37:53 ↗ um also to be aware of one's implicit

37:55 ↗ and unconscious unconscious biases

37:58 ↗ and do do the work ourselves and as a

38:00 ↗ group to practice dismantling them

38:03 ↗ to actively seek to invest in those

38:04 ↗ community-based organizations who we

38:06 ↗ believe can do the work in ways that

38:08 ↗ perhaps other mainstream organizations

38:10 ↗ may not be able to do

38:13 ↗ and finally to work together to choose a

38:14 ↗ group of organizations that will

38:16 ↗ collectively meet the unique needs

38:18 ↗ of the issaquah community and

38:20 ↗ recognizing that this requires multiple

38:22 ↗ approaches

38:25 ↗ so grant applications received

38:28 ↗ as a result of the request before

38:30 ↗ proposal from the city we received 91

38:32 ↗ applications representing over 1.1

38:34 ↗ million dollars in funding requests

38:37 ↗ compared to the

38:38 ↗ 2017-2018 cycle this represents a 23

38:42 ↗ increase in the number of applications

38:44 ↗ and a 58 increase in the number or the

38:47 ↗ dollars requested of the city

38:50 ↗ in 2017 2018 on the cycle there for

38:53 ↗ comparison there were 74 applications

38:56 ↗ and 694

38:58 ↗ 000 approximately in requests

39:01 ↗ so the commission review

39:04 ↗ reviews grant applications in five goal

39:06 ↗ areas or buckets uh these had an origin

39:09 ↗ in the united way process

39:12 ↗ they're used by other east side cities

39:13 ↗ that allows for

39:15 ↗ clear communications and comparison

39:19 ↗ the pie chart on the screen is a

39:21 ↗ breakdown of funding requests as

39:23 ↗ represented by applications we received

39:25 ↗ in each of the goal areas

39:30 ↗ there were several new program

39:31 ↗ applications this cycle they're listed

39:34 ↗ on the screen in front of you

39:36 ↗ we received 22 new

39:38 ↗ program applications in 2018

39:41 ↗ and we've not received applications from

39:43 ↗ these programs specifically that's to

39:45 ↗ differentiate from organizations

39:47 ↗ or a single organization can apply for

39:51 ↗ unique programs within their broader

39:53 ↗ umbrella

39:54 ↗ these represent programs we've not had

39:56 ↗ applications for in the past

40:02 ↗ so

40:03 ↗ the evaluation criteria itself

40:07 ↗ we focus on several factors in doing

40:09 ↗ this first the demonstration of need by

40:11 ↗ the the applicant uh considered two

40:14 ↗ aspects of that one the need for

40:15 ↗ services

40:16 ↗ using both qualitative and quantitative

40:18 ↗ data

40:19 ↗ did they provide services for example

40:21 ↗ that were not otherwise available so

40:23 ↗ taking a closer look at what they

40:24 ↗ propose their services would be and

40:26 ↗ aligning that with what

40:29 ↗ we have before us in terms of data

40:31 ↗ community needs assessment other metrics

40:33 ↗ from the city

40:35 ↗ and then also financial need the degree

40:38 ↗ of financial need that organizations

40:40 ↗ have for city support the impact of the

40:42 ↗ dollars

40:43 ↗ we also looked at the level and quality

40:45 ↗ of service the capacity to provide

40:47 ↗ services to issaquah residents

40:50 ↗ changes in service demands

40:52 ↗ consistency in services and meeting

40:54 ↗ demands historically

40:55 ↗ we looked also at accessibility issues

40:58 ↗ like affordability physical

40:59 ↗ accessibility for residents

41:01 ↗ transportation immediacy of services

41:04 ↗ cultural competence to meet the

41:06 ↗ population's needs and other criteria

41:09 ↗ and then finally at partnerships

41:11 ↗ that the ability for the grantees to

41:14 ↗ coordinate services with other agencies

41:15 ↗ to maximize impact and efficiency was of

41:18 ↗ consideration for the commission

41:24 ↗ funding recommendations

41:26 ↗ in addition the evaluation of

41:27 ↗ applications occurred at three levels of

41:29 ↗ consideration

41:34 ↗ individually at the individual level

41:36 ↗ commissioned members reviewed

41:38 ↗ applications applying criteria and

41:40 ↗ reviewing

41:41 ↗ applications across

41:43 ↗ basically for all the commission members

41:44 ↗ so every commission member had a chance

41:46 ↗ to read and review each of the

41:48 ↗ applications

41:49 ↗ we looked at the applications across

41:51 ↗ goal area the five goal areas identified

41:53 ↗ previously by the city

41:55 ↗ considering the suite of applications in

41:57 ↗ each of these areas this allowed us to

41:58 ↗ consider for example for multiple

42:00 ↗ applications for like services in one

42:02 ↗ goal era goal area so the council may re

42:05 ↗ may see for example

42:07 ↗ in a goal area around

42:09 ↗ providing shelter that there may be

42:11 ↗ recommendations for two organizations

42:14 ↗ that provide similar

42:16 ↗ similar services and then finally we

42:18 ↗ step farther farthest back and look sort

42:20 ↗ of portfolio-wide at what we what their

42:22 ↗ recommendations would be

42:24 ↗ looking at all of the needs in the

42:25 ↗ community how they and how

42:27 ↗ recommendations that we can provide

42:28 ↗ might function together as a package and

42:31 ↗ interact as best as possible with one

42:33 ↗ another

42:36 ↗ then recommendations do reflect the the

42:39 ↗ division goals and key areas of the city

42:42 ↗ the funding allocations

42:45 ↗ applicants that receive full or partial

42:47 ↗ funding that was in 63 of the 91

42:50 ↗ applicants

42:51 ↗ applicants that did not receive funding

42:53 ↗ were 28 total

42:55 ↗ [Applause]

42:59 ↗ and there were applications that we said

43:01 ↗ as i said did not receive funding

43:03 ↗ and we realized right up front that this

43:05 ↗ uh the requests for applicants this

43:07 ↗ cycle

43:08 ↗ far exceeded our budget

43:10 ↗ while we as a commission recognize and

43:13 ↗ we're thankful and appreciative of the

43:15 ↗ council's decision to increase the

43:17 ↗ funding uh that they decided you decided

43:20 ↗ to give to human services this year uh

43:23 ↗ the the need continues to outstrip some

43:26 ↗ demand

43:27 ↗ our primary responsibility was to ensure

43:29 ↗ a fiscally responsible allocation to

43:31 ↗ organizations best suited to deliver

43:34 ↗ needed services and able to validate

43:36 ↗ effective use of funding with an eye

43:38 ↗ towards minimizing redundancy and we

43:41 ↗ also recognize the benefit of newer and

43:42 ↗ less proven organizations serving unique

43:44 ↗ populations and providing unique

43:46 ↗ services as the populations and demands

43:48 ↗ of the city continue to evolve

43:52 ↗ generally

43:53 ↗ all these

43:55 ↗ applicants are well respected and

43:57 ↗ provide confidence services it was a

43:59 ↗ very very difficult decision

44:01 ↗ uh to make to not fund these that

44:03 ↗ involved considerable deliberations um

44:05 ↗ next i'm going to turn it over to

44:07 ↗ vanessa who will cover the commission's

44:09 ↗ specific grant recommendations thank you

44:12 ↗ derek

44:17 ↗ good evening i'm vanessa mousavizade

44:20 ↗ vice chair of the human services

44:21 ↗ commission

44:23 ↗ i'm going to talk to you a little bit in

44:25 ↗ more specificity about the goal areas

44:28 ↗ but before i do the part about the

44:30 ↗ presentation that isn't that clear is

44:32 ↗ how much heart we put into our

44:34 ↗ deliberations

44:35 ↗ i want to elevate that for you because

44:36 ↗ we take our work so seriously and i

44:39 ↗ don't think it's a stretch to say that

44:40 ↗ each of us lost a little sleep in our

44:44 ↗ checking each other and advocating for

44:47 ↗ community needs

44:49 ↗ so

44:50 ↗ with that we'll go into goal area one

44:53 ↗ goal area one

44:55 ↗ covers services for basic needs

44:57 ↗ including housing and shelter it

44:59 ↗ addresses food insecurity food access

45:02 ↗ housing insecurity affordable housing

45:05 ↗ supportive services and a range of

45:07 ↗ homeless services to support four

45:09 ↗ populations including youth men women

45:12 ↗ and families experiencing homelessness

45:15 ↗ this goal area constitutes 47 of total

45:18 ↗ funding recommendations

45:20 ↗ it's it also involves 26 of 32

45:23 ↗ applications that we're proposing for

45:25 ↗ funding it represents about 233 000 of

45:28 ↗ uh almost 400 000 requested it's a

45:32 ↗ thirty three percent increase over the

45:33 ↗ last cycle requested and it includes

45:36 ↗ about fifty thousand in targeted funding

45:39 ↗ the targeted funding allowed for

45:41 ↗ increases in services specific to

45:44 ↗ homeless response system including

45:46 ↗ outreach day centers shelter housing

45:49 ↗ housing stability and homelessness

45:51 ↗ prevention notably this is a first-time

45:54 ↗ funding recommendation for the muslim

45:55 ↗ community resource center and ywca

45:58 ↗ issaquah family village resident

46:00 ↗ services and we'd also like to elevate

46:03 ↗ that we are

46:04 ↗ recommending friends of youth tlp or

46:07 ↗ transitional living program

46:09 ↗ focus on youth young adult homelessness

46:11 ↗ substance use disorder case management

46:13 ↗ and transitional housing we're also

46:16 ↗ like to highlight support for hope link

46:18 ↗ family development wrap-around case

46:21 ↗ case management focused on housing

46:23 ↗ stability prevention and homelessness

46:25 ↗ and significant investment in financial

46:27 ↗ assistance

46:28 ↗ as well as continued support of east

46:30 ↗ east side homeless response system

46:35 ↗ for goal area 2

46:37 ↗ this goal area addresses school

46:39 ↗ readiness

46:40 ↗ social and emotional support for youth

46:42 ↗ and families

46:43 ↗ adult independent living culturally

46:46 ↗ specific support services

46:48 ↗ information and referral and legal

46:50 ↗ assistance this goal area constitutes 14

46:53 ↗ percent of total funding recommendations

46:56 ↗ we had we're recommending 11 of 18

46:58 ↗ applications which represents uh almost

47:01 ↗ 69 000 of 173 000 total requested it's a

47:06 ↗ 25 increase in funding over the last

47:08 ↗ cycle and it includes 20 700 in targeted

47:12 ↗ funding which contributes to culturally

47:15 ↗ relevant navigation case management

47:18 ↗ language access and youth substance

47:20 ↗ abuse prevention leadership development

47:23 ↗ notably we're suggesting continued

47:25 ↗ support of east side friends of seniors

47:28 ↗ new targeted services including

47:30 ↗ culturally focused and language access

47:32 ↗ programs

47:34 ↗ and new programs with iaw influence the

47:37 ↗ choice and cultural bridges

47:42 ↗ for goal area 3

47:44 ↗ this goal area includes advocacy

47:46 ↗ domestic violence

47:48 ↗ legal services housing and shelter

47:51 ↗ counseling information and referral

47:54 ↗ the school area constitutes 11 percent

47:56 ↗ of total funding recommendations

47:58 ↗ we are recommending six of seven

48:00 ↗ applications be funded which represents

48:03 ↗ 53 600 of nearly 147 000 total requested

48:09 ↗ it's a 36 percent increase from the last

48:12 ↗ cycle in this goal area it includes

48:14 ↗ nearly 18 000 in targeted funding

48:18 ↗ notably

48:20 ↗ we are recommending funding for dawn

48:22 ↗ this is new funding for shelter and

48:24 ↗ supportive services for domestic

48:25 ↗ violence increased funding for lifewire

48:28 ↗ shelter my sister's home

48:31 ↗ and new funding to lifewire's housing

48:33 ↗ stability program

48:34 ↗ focused on prevention financial

48:36 ↗ assistance rapid rehousing diversion

48:38 ↗ flexible financial assistance and

48:40 ↗ advocacy services

48:45 ↗ and for goal area 4 the school area

48:47 ↗ includes medical care dental care mental

48:50 ↗ health and behavioral health substance

48:52 ↗ use disorder treatment and supportive

48:54 ↗ services

48:55 ↗ five of the 22 applications are

48:57 ↗ recommended for funding represents 100

49:01 ↗ hundred of nearly three hundred thousand

49:03 ↗ total requested it's a fifty six percent

49:06 ↗ increase over the past cycle

49:09 ↗ it includes twenty five thousand six

49:11 ↗ hundred in targeted funding

49:13 ↗ notably

49:14 ↗ um we'd like to mention that we are

49:17 ↗ suggesting an increase in funding

49:19 ↗ recommendations in the school area is a

49:21 ↗ 56 percent increase

49:23 ↗ funding all medical and dental programs

49:26 ↗ that were brought to us that includes

49:28 ↗ health point and international community

49:30 ↗ health services or ichs

49:32 ↗ expansion of funding and behavioral

49:34 ↗ health services mental health counseling

49:36 ↗ and recovery services treatment of

49:37 ↗ substance use disorders and psychiatric

49:39 ↗ treatment

49:40 ↗ and funding for health education in

49:42 ↗ schools

49:43 ↗ through nami

49:48 ↗ and then the last bucket is goal area

49:50 ↗ five

49:51 ↗ services in this goal area include skill

49:53 ↗ development and training

49:54 ↗ job placement

49:56 ↗ supported employment and child care

49:58 ↗ referral and technical assistance

49:59 ↗ services this goal area constitutes

50:02 ↗ eight percent of total funding

50:03 ↗ recommendations we're recommending six

50:05 ↗ of the ten applications for funding this

50:08 ↗ represents just over thirty nine

50:10 ↗ thousand of the over ninety four

50:12 ↗ thousand in total requests it's a four

50:15 ↗ percent increase in funding from the

50:16 ↗ last cycle this represents four thousand

50:19 ↗ two hundred in targeted funding

50:21 ↗ notably we see a significant focus

50:23 ↗ around employment and education services

50:26 ↗ for individuals with barriers to

50:27 ↗ employment in this bucket

50:30 ↗ in sum the human services commission

50:32 ↗ recommends funding 65 applications to

50:35 ↗ meet the funding level target of 495

50:38 ↗ 000. the additional funding provided for

50:40 ↗ this year's grant cycle gave us the

50:42 ↗ ability to support a number of important

50:44 ↗ services in our community we are

50:46 ↗ experiencing an increase in demand for

50:48 ↗ services and the additional funding has

50:50 ↗ made an important difference in our

50:51 ↗ ability to support community needs the

50:54 ↗ commission has regularly reflected on

50:56 ↗ the critical impact this additional

50:57 ↗ target funding has made in filling

51:00 ↗ service gaps in our community

51:03 ↗ and finally i just like to recognize

51:05 ↗ david for his leadership and support of

51:07 ↗ the commission throughout he's done a

51:09 ↗ stand-up job in keeping us on target

51:12 ↗ focused organized and

51:14 ↗ the reason why we have a successful

51:17 ↗ recommendation for you on time is

51:18 ↗ largely due to him thank you and we

51:20 ↗ welcome questions thank you vanessa

51:23 ↗ before we move to council questions

51:24 ↗ could other members of the commission

51:26 ↗ that are here this evening just raise

51:27 ↗ your hand so council is aware

51:29 ↗ thank you for coming it's great

51:32 ↗ lots of questions

51:42 ↗ i think this may be

51:44 ↗ a panel

51:45 ↗ a panel question

51:47 ↗ um

51:48 ↗ so it's my understanding that some

51:50 ↗ organizations

51:51 ↗ had multiple grant requests in and some

51:53 ↗ of them got funded and some did not

51:58 ↗ that is correct okay

52:00 ↗ yeah i mean that's because you went

52:01 ↗ through the list of people who didn't

52:03 ↗ get funded and i i guess i was just

52:04 ↗ struck with they did get something for

52:06 ↗ other programs

52:08 ↗ in some instances so uh we do accept

52:10 ↗ applications on uh for programs that are

52:13 ↗ our specific programs or services and uh

52:16 ↗ an agency can choose to submit more than

52:18 ↗ one application so in several instances

52:20 ↗ there were

52:22 ↗ organizations that submitted

52:23 ↗ applications for multiple uh programs

52:25 ↗ and

52:26 ↗ may have received

52:28 ↗ some of the funding but not necessarily

52:30 ↗ all

52:31 ↗ is there a process in place or

52:33 ↗ envisioned to

52:36 ↗ circle back with those

52:38 ↗ entities that didn't receive funding

52:40 ↗ and do a debrief with them so that they

52:42 ↗ can understand what the thinking was of

52:44 ↗ the commission and

52:46 ↗ um looking forward to next year how they

52:48 ↗ might

52:49 ↗ align uh absolutely so we

52:52 ↗ are happy to uh we typically uh handle

52:54 ↗ those um as requested but are happy to

52:56 ↗ meet with the applicants or talk with

52:58 ↗ them by phone whatever is easiest to

53:00 ↗ provide whatever feedback we can

53:03 ↗ for this grant process and then

53:05 ↗ typically as a part as part of the

53:07 ↗ process for in future years we also have

53:10 ↗ application workshops and other

53:11 ↗ opportunities for a potential grant

53:13 ↗ applicants to understand the process

53:15 ↗ that's coming up thank you

53:17 ↗ thank you councilmember ray are there

53:18 ↗ any other questions

53:20 ↗ that's my brew interesting

53:25 ↗ thank you and thank you for the

53:25 ↗ presentation and the information i

53:28 ↗ really do appreciate all the time and

53:29 ↗ effort i know it's not an easy task i

53:33 ↗ think the comment was made something to

53:34 ↗ the effect how

53:35 ↗ even those that didn't receive a

53:37 ↗ recommendation from the commission many

53:39 ↗ of them deemed to be offering worthy and

53:42 ↗ important service to people within the

53:43 ↗ community so i know that makes it

53:44 ↗ especially difficult

53:46 ↗ i do want to ask one question

53:48 ↗ in the presentation at one point it does

53:50 ↗ say that you did actively seek to invest

53:53 ↗ in niche community based organizations

53:56 ↗ and i'm wondering if any of which that

53:59 ↗ you are

54:00 ↗ who might fit that uh description

54:03 ↗ uh within this

54:04 ↗ uh proposed funding uh certainly so

54:07 ↗ there are some organizations that are

54:09 ↗ more community based in their uh the

54:13 ↗ populations that they work with some

54:14 ↗ examples include india association of

54:17 ↗ western washington

54:19 ↗ muslim association

54:20 ↗ muslim community resource

54:23 ↗ center

54:24 ↗ there are also some organizations that

54:26 ↗ specialize in reaching

54:28 ↗ culturally based

54:30 ↗ cultural navigation such as the chinese

54:32 ↗ information services center

54:34 ↗ so some of those

54:36 ↗ outreach navigation services are um

54:40 ↗ more kind of tailored to those

54:41 ↗ populations

54:43 ↗ okay so it wasn't just

54:46 ↗ issaquah community it was a broader

54:48 ↗ community definition

54:51 ↗ it was the

54:52 ↗ their more based in uh or have

54:55 ↗ connections with those community members

54:57 ↗ um which include community members in

54:59 ↗ issaquah but by the nature of their

55:01 ↗ organization they're more affil they're

55:03 ↗ more oriented towards

55:05 ↗ those

55:06 ↗ cultural

55:08 ↗ characteristics if you will

55:11 ↗ yeah thank you

55:12 ↗ are there any other questions

55:15 ↗ for a motion

55:17 ↗ i'd like to move

55:19 ↗ to adopt the

55:20 ↗ 2019-2020

55:22 ↗ human services grant funding as

55:24 ↗ recommended by the human services

55:25 ↗ commission second

55:28 ↗ and moved and seconded is there any

55:29 ↗ council discussion

55:31 ↗ let's remember ray i'd like to start it

55:33 ↗ off

55:34 ↗ first i want to

55:36 ↗ just amplify what councilmember

55:38 ↗ winterstein said and recognize the hard

55:40 ↗ work that the human services commission

55:43 ↗ put into making these recommendations

55:46 ↗ earlier this year we set the targeting

55:48 ↗ target for these grants and then gave

55:51 ↗ them the very dubious job of figuring

55:53 ↗ out how to decide which of this pantheon

55:56 ↗ of very

55:59 ↗ worthy organizations should be funded

56:01 ↗ and funded at what level and i also want

56:03 ↗ to recognize the leadership of derek and

56:05 ↗ vanessa and our and david in bringing

56:07 ↗ this home because this was a difficult

56:10 ↗ task and required a great deal of energy

56:13 ↗ to make it come together

56:15 ↗ i particularly um

56:17 ↗ like the process we went through and

56:19 ↗ having well-defined uh criteria to apply

56:22 ↗ so that we can say these are these are

56:24 ↗ the places that we selected and here's

56:26 ↗ why

56:27 ↗ and then also if we can circle back with

56:31 ↗ this goes to my question earlier with

56:32 ↗ those entities or those grants that we

56:35 ↗ didn't fund so that they understand why

56:37 ↗ and given that we have some constraints

56:40 ↗ what that methodology looked like so

56:43 ↗ i think this is a

56:45 ↗ heck of a good plan moving forward for

56:47 ↗ the next two years

56:49 ↗ thank you councilmember ramos yes i just

56:51 ↗ want to thank the commission and derek

56:53 ↗ and everybody on there for all the hard

56:55 ↗ work

56:56 ↗ and you know i was under on that

56:58 ↗ commission for almost 10 years and so i

57:00 ↗ know what excuse me what the hard work

57:02 ↗ is and having the increased number of uh

57:05 ↗ applicants makes it even more difficult

57:09 ↗ and the

57:10 ↗ i'm very happy that we got you increased

57:12 ↗ funding um which we got uh had the

57:15 ↗ ability to uh spread

57:18 ↗ those grants out more but when you got

57:20 ↗ the increased funding the the number of

57:22 ↗ applications also increased

57:24 ↗ proportionately it seemed like so you

57:25 ↗ had just a difficult job so i want to

57:27 ↗ thank you for your work and really

57:29 ↗ appreciate all that you do because i

57:31 ↗ know the hours you put in and the as you

57:33 ↗ mentioned the heartache of uh making

57:35 ↗ those decisions so thank you very much

57:38 ↗ thank you deputy council president

57:41 ↗ [Music]

57:42 ↗ so i just wanted to also thank the

57:44 ↗ entire human services commission david

57:47 ↗ and the staff and and i uh really

57:50 ↗ understand when you talk about

57:52 ↗ the heart that goes into the

57:53 ↗ deliberations is just never easy

57:57 ↗ um and it was amazing to see that we

57:59 ↗ were able to in increase that funding

58:02 ↗ but then seeing the increase in

58:04 ↗ applications as well so just never an

58:06 ↗ easy job i see that the binder has grown

58:10 ↗ even larger

58:11 ↗ than years in the past and this is not

58:14 ↗ an easy job

58:15 ↗ looking across all of the organizations

58:17 ↗ that work locally

58:19 ↗ that work regionally

58:21 ↗ and also the partnerships and and being

58:24 ↗ able to try to determine

58:26 ↗ the best avenues i

58:28 ↗ uh in terms of the process it's always

58:31 ↗ great for me to to see

58:33 ↗ how the process has evolved and i see

58:36 ↗ former

58:37 ↗ uh some of my

58:39 ↗ the members that i sat on the commission

58:41 ↗ with years ago and and seeing how the

58:44 ↗ process has evolved and seeing those

58:45 ↗ goal areas broken down

58:47 ↗ is really

58:48 ↗ impactful and so i love to see that

58:51 ↗ happening

58:52 ↗ and really great to see some of the new

58:54 ↗ programs that uh new groups that have

58:56 ↗ applied

58:58 ↗ like the ywca and some of the expansion

59:00 ↗ of

59:01 ↗ current programs like the food bank

59:03 ↗ groceries to go

59:06 ↗ and and i would um just stand

59:09 ↗ thank you for such an amazing job

59:12 ↗ and i would echo some of my former

59:15 ↗ or my council members

59:17 ↗ that are talking about circling back

59:19 ↗ around

59:20 ↗ with the groups that weren't funded

59:23 ↗ and also with the groups that maybe were

59:25 ↗ funded for certain programs and not

59:27 ↗ funded for other programs so they can

59:29 ↗ better understand

59:32 ↗ how to how to go forward in the future

59:34 ↗ thank you

59:35 ↗ thank you are there any council member

59:37 ↗ winterstein thank you

59:42 ↗ i have real mixed emotions about this at

59:44 ↗ one point that one side i'm

59:47 ↗ it is

59:49 ↗ i guess i could use the word proud i'm

59:51 ↗ proud that this

59:53 ↗ body the council and this and the city

59:56 ↗ in general mayor's office as well

59:57 ↗ supported the increase in funding it

59:59 ↗ certainly

1:00:01 ↗ i have witnessed over the 10 years that

1:00:03 ↗ the commission has existed

1:00:05 ↗ this community and our leadership

1:00:07 ↗ willing to extend ourselves more and

1:00:09 ↗ more to help more organizations help

1:00:12 ↗ more people in need within issaquah and

1:00:14 ↗ that's fantastic

1:00:16 ↗ at the same time i've seen i think we

1:00:17 ↗ had less than 200 000

1:00:20 ↗ the first year i was involved and not

1:00:22 ↗ nearly as many applications and at the

1:00:24 ↗ so at the same time the number of hands

1:00:27 ↗ that are reaching out for money

1:00:29 ↗ and the competition

1:00:31 ↗ uh for this funding uh is grown uh and

1:00:35 ↗ and it's i have a lot of appreciation

1:00:37 ↗ for human services

1:00:39 ↗ agencies

1:00:40 ↗ um unlike many of our business and

1:00:43 ↗ landowners seeking maybe 30 years of

1:00:46 ↗ certainty and predictability many of

1:00:48 ↗ these agencies are going one and two

1:00:50 ↗ year cycles on certain whether or not

1:00:53 ↗ they're going to be able to continue to

1:00:54 ↗ offer their same program that's that's a

1:00:56 ↗ very difficult challenging world

1:00:59 ↗ uh when uh the funding that you may be

1:01:02 ↗ dependent upon is so unpredictable

1:01:05 ↗ and and so that's where i'm torn that's

1:01:07 ↗ kind of the what makes it very difficult

1:01:09 ↗ because i'll say i mean

1:01:11 ↗ i've been very aware of 2-1-1 for a long

1:01:14 ↗ time and i know people

1:01:15 ↗ down here for the meals program that i'm

1:01:17 ↗ part of that

1:01:18 ↗ have spoken about using it and i've

1:01:21 ↗ pushed people in that direction to make

1:01:22 ↗ a call there as well

1:01:24 ↗ so to see to see that organization that

1:01:27 ↗ function um our this process

1:01:30 ↗ deemed that that that they um you know

1:01:33 ↗ aren't worthy of our funding

1:01:36 ↗ i'm not gonna i'm not gonna question

1:01:37 ↗ that tonight uh but boy they get to to

1:01:40 ↗ learn that it's gotten to that point

1:01:42 ↗ where an organization that my perception

1:01:44 ↗ is at least that serves so many with our

1:01:46 ↗ organization we decided that they didn't

1:01:49 ↗ or within our city um didn't deserve any

1:01:51 ↗ of our funding

1:01:52 ↗ i don't know what that means but what

1:01:55 ↗ i'm seeing in it is that

1:01:57 ↗ that again

1:01:59 ↗ more hands more competition even though

1:02:01 ↗ we've got more money that we're offering

1:02:03 ↗ making it uh is really a com and always

1:02:07 ↗ has been a competitive market

1:02:09 ↗ and i would just ask

1:02:11 ↗ going forward that

1:02:14 ↗ that especially when there's been

1:02:16 ↗ a long term in history

1:02:18 ↗ of of the city supporting a certain

1:02:20 ↗ organization

1:02:22 ↗ that some consideration be given to that

1:02:25 ↗ because of the difficulty it is to

1:02:27 ↗ constantly involve

1:02:29 ↗ your human services organization to

1:02:31 ↗ adjust to the increased competition that

1:02:33 ↗ there is for more and more voices and

1:02:35 ↗ hands being held out and seek of funds

1:02:39 ↗ so

1:02:40 ↗ so

1:02:41 ↗ i just that that

1:02:44 ↗ i just wanted to share with my

1:02:45 ↗ colleagues on the council and everybody

1:02:46 ↗ listening those that got funding that

1:02:48 ↗ did not that

1:02:50 ↗ i

1:02:51 ↗ seldom have i seen an application that

1:02:53 ↗ wasn't worthy of something

1:02:55 ↗ and

1:02:56 ↗ i know that the sources of funds

1:03:00 ↗ that you may be seeking

1:03:01 ↗ are diversified you have a lot of

1:03:03 ↗ different

1:03:04 ↗ people you're you're working with and

1:03:06 ↗ you all have different capabilities

1:03:08 ↗ within your staff to actually achieve

1:03:10 ↗ that funding level that you're seeking i

1:03:13 ↗ recognize those challenges i'm glad that

1:03:15 ↗ we can help where we are

1:03:17 ↗ and yet i'm going to continue to

1:03:18 ↗ challenge us and our city and the

1:03:20 ↗ commission

1:03:21 ↗ to continue to refine

1:03:23 ↗ what what you have been doing refining

1:03:25 ↗ your process and understanding what how

1:03:28 ↗ our limited resources can go to best

1:03:30 ↗ meet the needs within the community

1:03:32 ↗ thank you thank you council member we're

1:03:33 ↗ just saying any other comments

1:03:38 ↗ so if there is no further discussion all

1:03:41 ↗ those in favor of approving the 2019-22

1:03:44 ↗ human services grant funding as

1:03:45 ↗ recommended by the human services

1:03:47 ↗ commission signify by saying aye aye was

1:03:50 ↗ opposed

1:03:51 ↗ that passes unanimously

1:03:54 ↗ the next item on the agenda this evening

1:03:56 ↗ is a b 732

1:03:58 ↗ the old town sub-area plan update this

1:04:01 ↗ item is coming out of the council land

1:04:03 ↗ insurer committee and i'd like to invite

1:04:05 ↗ senior planner kristin leeson to make a

1:04:07 ↗ presentation

1:04:14 ↗ okay good evening madam mayor and city

1:04:16 ↗ council members i'm kristen leeson

1:04:17 ↗ senior planner with the development

1:04:18 ↗ services department

1:04:20 ↗ here to talk about the old town subarea

1:04:22 ↗ plan

1:04:24 ↗ so the purpose of this update is to

1:04:26 ↗ address some 2015 council goals that

1:04:28 ↗ came up

1:04:29 ↗ to update a plan that has really not

1:04:32 ↗ been touched since it was adopted in

1:04:35 ↗ 1999 so about 19 years

1:04:38 ↗ to consider task force recommendations

1:04:40 ↗ that were made in 2015

1:04:42 ↗ and to you know issaquah is growing so

1:04:45 ↗ we want to be able to ensure that we can

1:04:46 ↗ maintain old town's character while

1:04:49 ↗ increasing its vitality

1:04:52 ↗ so just a little history

1:04:53 ↗ this was adopted in 1999.

1:04:55 ↗ in 2009 it was

1:04:58 ↗ amended just to remove any references to

1:04:59 ↗ the bypass

1:05:01 ↗ in 2015 there were some council goals

1:05:03 ↗ that came up regarding circulation and

1:05:05 ↗ establishing a task force so a task

1:05:06 ↗ force was formed and a recommendation

1:05:08 ↗ was made at the end of that year in 2016

1:05:11 ↗ the old town subury plan update was

1:05:13 ↗ begun

1:05:15 ↗ in 2017 pbc made a recommendation to

1:05:19 ↗ approve the planned amendments and

1:05:21 ↗ landon shore began review in march of

1:05:23 ↗ 2018 landon shore our city council

1:05:26 ↗ actually referred the plan back to ppc

1:05:29 ↗ for further review we had some new

1:05:30 ↗ members by that time so we took them on

1:05:32 ↗ a big tour of old town which was a huge

1:05:34 ↗ hit

1:05:34 ↗ and then in july ppc held their second

1:05:37 ↗ public hearing went back to land and

1:05:39 ↗ shore in september of this year and here

1:05:41 ↗ we are

1:05:45 ↗ so just some format changes some you can

1:05:47 ↗ see from the pictures that the 1999 plan

1:05:49 ↗ was very very thick and it has

1:05:52 ↗ decreased in size quite a bit without

1:05:54 ↗ losing any of its

1:05:55 ↗ importance and relevance

1:05:57 ↗ the eis was included in the original

1:05:59 ↗ plan and that has been removed that's

1:06:01 ↗ not done anymore we made elements

1:06:03 ↗ consistent with the citrul central

1:06:05 ↗ issaquah plan so we added housing and

1:06:06 ↗ environment we removed the facilities

1:06:08 ↗ and utilities element we removed excess

1:06:11 ↗ background information to improve

1:06:12 ↗ readability for example then i was

1:06:14 ↗ looking the other day at the 1999 land

1:06:16 ↗ use element which is 37 pages long and

1:06:19 ↗ the policies don't start until about

1:06:21 ↗ page 30. so there was a lot of

1:06:23 ↗ information there and then we the

1:06:25 ↗ implementation section that was there

1:06:26 ↗ that talked about things like replacing

1:06:28 ↗ water lines and looking at certain

1:06:30 ↗ intersections

1:06:32 ↗ was replaced with a with an action

1:06:34 ↗ program

1:06:36 ↗ so some policy changes that we have

1:06:39 ↗ from 1999

1:06:41 ↗ encourage active use and these are

1:06:43 ↗ these are summarized

1:06:45 ↗ from the from the plan so not as much

1:06:47 ↗ details included here but encourage

1:06:49 ↗ active use of sidewalks to adjacent

1:06:51 ↗ businesses update standards for cbd and

1:06:54 ↗ mfh

1:06:55 ↗ increase and promote neighborhood

1:06:57 ↗ interaction

1:06:58 ↗ implement park strategic plan continue

1:07:00 ↗ the green necklace which is a new idea

1:07:02 ↗ since this has been adopted through old

1:07:03 ↗ town prioritize non-motorized facilities

1:07:06 ↗ and increase mobility options repurpose

1:07:08 ↗ underutilized city-owned properties

1:07:12 ↗ employ public parking management

1:07:13 ↗ strategies minimize negative impacts on

1:07:16 ↗ regional traffic

1:07:18 ↗ nope negative negative impacts of

1:07:20 ↗ regional trade there we go amen parking

1:07:21 ↗ requirements allow pop-up and

1:07:23 ↗ non-traditional retail ventures and

1:07:25 ↗ adopt residential architectural

1:07:26 ↗ standards reduce heights in higher

1:07:28 ↗ residential areas

1:07:32 ↗ i will say when this was remanded from

1:07:34 ↗ council back to planning policy

1:07:36 ↗ commission you all did ask them to look

1:07:37 ↗ at five particular things

1:07:39 ↗ one was to look at the old town sub-area

1:07:41 ↗ boundaries so things that they looked at

1:07:43 ↗ were

1:07:44 ↗ old route 10 which we're talking about

1:07:46 ↗ tonight

1:07:47 ↗ was removed from central isoqua and

1:07:48 ↗ there was a discussion about adding that

1:07:50 ↗ to the north end of old town

1:07:52 ↗ they also talked about removing the area

1:07:54 ↗ kind of south of clark where the schools

1:07:57 ↗ are on the east and west side of front

1:07:58 ↗ street from old town it just they didn't

1:08:00 ↗ feel like it had the same character

1:08:02 ↗ without the grid system and the same

1:08:03 ↗ type of architecture however once they

1:08:05 ↗ realized that we're going to look at the

1:08:07 ↗ standards this upcoming year they

1:08:09 ↗ decided to postpone any amendment so

1:08:12 ↗ there have been no changes that they're

1:08:13 ↗ at this time

1:08:14 ↗ but one of their action items is to

1:08:17 ↗ revisit the standards and the boundaries

1:08:18 ↗ one year after the standards are adopted

1:08:22 ↗ another one was to look at the proposed

1:08:24 ↗ plan structure in relationship to the

1:08:26 ↗ central issaquah vision

1:08:28 ↗ they talked about it but the vision

1:08:30 ↗ hadn't been adopted yet and they felt

1:08:31 ↗ like old town was unique and therefore

1:08:33 ↗ the plan for old town needed to be

1:08:35 ↗ unique as well

1:08:36 ↗ strategies or actions from traffic

1:08:38 ↗ calming efforts they didn't expand on

1:08:39 ↗ the existing policies that were there i

1:08:41 ↗ have in here that they provided a

1:08:43 ↗ description of cut through traffic but

1:08:44 ↗ that has since been removed

1:08:46 ↗ parking they agreed um with the idea of

1:08:49 ↗ employing parking parking management

1:08:50 ↗ strategies and the proposed zoning

1:08:52 ↗ changes such as building height and

1:08:53 ↗ impervious surface

1:08:55 ↗ they were supportive of the commit land

1:08:56 ↗ use land and shore committee's

1:08:58 ↗ recommendations and didn't make any

1:08:59 ↗ additional changes

1:09:01 ↗ that is my presentation thank you

1:09:03 ↗ kristen are there questions for kristen

1:09:09 ↗ not exceeding any second chance for

1:09:11 ↗ questions

1:09:15 ↗ uh motion all right madame mayor hang on

1:09:17 ↗ a second paul did you have a question or

1:09:19 ↗ no oh okay sorry

1:09:21 ↗ adam mayor i moved to adopt ordnance

1:09:24 ↗ number

1:09:25 ↗ 2849

1:09:28 ↗ repealing and replacing the old town

1:09:30 ↗ sub-area plan a sub-area plan within

1:09:32 ↗ issaquah's comprehensive plan

1:09:34 ↗ is there a second second

1:09:36 ↗ is that paul

1:09:38 ↗ thank you

1:09:40 ↗ um discussion

1:09:44 ↗ well it's council president says the

1:09:46 ↗ mover i'm the mover because i was lucky

1:09:49 ↗ enough to uh sub as chair of landon

1:09:51 ↗ shore landon shore took a very

1:09:54 ↗ comprehensive uh review of this this

1:09:56 ↗ year and um i just want to say i

1:09:58 ↗ appreciate staff

1:10:00 ↗ managed a lot of punchlist items in

1:10:03 ↗ reviewing this up to and including after

1:10:05 ↗ the most recent land insurer

1:10:08 ↗ meeting so i

1:10:09 ↗ uh i just i believe this is a very well

1:10:12 ↗ vetted uh plan thank you

1:10:15 ↗ other comments

1:10:20 ↗ still no okay oh yes councilmember

1:10:23 ↗ winterstein seeing if you could read my

1:10:24 ↗ mind

1:10:27 ↗ when we set off on this actually if i go

1:10:30 ↗ back a little bit further

1:10:33 ↗ the council a number of years ago had

1:10:35 ↗ spent quite a bit of energy in

1:10:37 ↗ completing a couple major other sub the

1:10:39 ↗ central sub area then we put a lot of

1:10:41 ↗ attention actually into finishing the

1:10:44 ↗ parts of the highlands and it was upon

1:10:46 ↗ uh completion of those it was recognized

1:10:48 ↗ by the council at that time that

1:10:50 ↗ they're that this part of town which so

1:10:52 ↗ represents um much of

1:10:55 ↗ what people identify with as the heart

1:10:57 ↗ of issaquah

1:10:59 ↗ perhaps needed some of our attention

1:11:01 ↗ that was probably four years ago and so

1:11:04 ↗ this has run quite a long process i

1:11:06 ↗ think it's a very difficult task

1:11:09 ↗ when

1:11:10 ↗ i think we set off for ourselves on a

1:11:12 ↗ very difficult task

1:11:14 ↗ if you think of the neighborhoods within

1:11:16 ↗ issaquah some are newer

1:11:19 ↗ some are older and one's an original

1:11:22 ↗ and that original has probably seen more

1:11:25 ↗ change in the last 10 years than any of

1:11:27 ↗ the other neighborhoods

1:11:29 ↗ i think about squawk val squawk mountain

1:11:31 ↗ the change is a little bit slower uh

1:11:34 ↗ coming there

1:11:35 ↗ and and you could the newer you are the

1:11:37 ↗ less change you've seen

1:11:39 ↗ but it's a very difficult task to set

1:11:42 ↗ out to preserve

1:11:43 ↗ a character and i think it's in it and

1:11:46 ↗ because character is defined by

1:11:48 ↗ different differently by a lot of

1:11:50 ↗ different people

1:11:52 ↗ one of the ways that it is defined

1:11:54 ↗ preeminently around here is in the

1:11:55 ↗ buildings in the structure there's many

1:11:57 ↗ other aspects of course

1:11:59 ↗ and this is where this plan um is was i

1:12:02 ↗ think is innovative and bold in that

1:12:05 ↗ there was quite a bit of community

1:12:07 ↗ participation especially early on and

1:12:09 ↗ that data is in the bill if you haven't

1:12:10 ↗ seen that you should look at that there

1:12:12 ↗ was quite a bit of input given

1:12:14 ↗ um there's quite a and and and further

1:12:17 ↗ uh i think one of the um

1:12:20 ↗ uh biggest steps that's in here have to

1:12:22 ↗ do with building heights

1:12:24 ↗ uh you uh you want to change a place

1:12:27 ↗ and big

1:12:28 ↗ build much bigger buildings around older

1:12:30 ↗ smalling smaller buildings and tear down

1:12:33 ↗ a big builder

1:12:35 ↗ build bigger and and this uh we're

1:12:37 ↗ trying to reverse that trend here and

1:12:39 ↗ that's a big deal that affects people

1:12:42 ↗ here now

1:12:44 ↗ both

1:12:45 ↗ residents and and business and property

1:12:47 ↗ owners and it'll affect things for many

1:12:49 ↗ years into the future

1:12:51 ↗ so i i really do believe there's much

1:12:53 ↗ here

1:12:54 ↗ uh

1:12:55 ↗ and this is a bold plan to do what we

1:12:57 ↗ set out to do is to to to the best of

1:13:00 ↗ our ability to be fair and to try to

1:13:03 ↗ preserve that part of issaquah we think

1:13:05 ↗ is essential to our character and

1:13:07 ↗ identity

1:13:08 ↗ and i know that this is not just the

1:13:10 ↗ effort of this council as you as you

1:13:12 ↗ said earlier there are many commission

1:13:14 ↗ members and many members of the public

1:13:16 ↗ especially citizens who live in the old

1:13:18 ↗ town area that participated in this

1:13:21 ↗ and

1:13:22 ↗ i i certainly think we've done our best

1:13:24 ↗ possible job

1:13:25 ↗ and i'm looking forward to its

1:13:27 ↗ implementation

1:13:28 ↗ thank you councilmember winterstein is

1:13:30 ↗ there anyone else who would like to

1:13:31 ↗ comment

1:13:34 ↗ not seeing anyone

1:13:36 ↗ if there's no further discussion all

1:13:38 ↗ those in favor of adopting ordinance

1:13:40 ↗ number 2849 repealing and replacing the

1:13:42 ↗ old town sub-area plan

1:13:44 ↗ a suburb area plan within issaquah's

1:13:46 ↗ comprehensive plan signify by saying i i

1:13:50 ↗ closed

1:13:51 ↗ that carries unanimously

1:13:53 ↗ next item on the agenda this evening is

1:13:55 ↗ ab7643

1:13:57 ↗ central issaquest zoning for old route

1:13:59 ↗ 10 east gilman boulevard

1:14:02 ↗ and intensive commercial areas this item

1:14:05 ↗ is also coming out of the council land

1:14:06 ↗ insure committee and i'd like to invite

1:14:10 ↗ not the planning policy manager but the

1:14:12 ↗ director of development services keith

1:14:15 ↗ niven to make a presentation

1:14:17 ↗ just seeing if you're paying attention

1:14:19 ↗ um

1:14:23 ↗ good evening madam mayor city council

1:14:24 ↗ keith divin director of development

1:14:26 ↗ services

1:14:28 ↗ so this evening we're going to discuss

1:14:32 ↗ agenda bill 7643

1:14:35 ↗ which is zoning for two areas uh of the

1:14:38 ↗ city which were taken out of central

1:14:41 ↗ isoqua as part of

1:14:44 ↗ the moratorium concluding the moratorium

1:14:47 ↗ so on may 21st we ended the moratorium

1:14:50 ↗ following the adoption of the district

1:14:51 ↗ visions as part of that process it was

1:14:54 ↗ decided that there were two areas that

1:14:56 ↗ just didn't really feel like central

1:14:58 ↗ issaquah

1:14:59 ↗ one was the east end of gilman and the

1:15:01 ↗ other was a portion of the property

1:15:04 ↗ zoned intensive commercial over by the

1:15:06 ↗ public works operations shop

1:15:09 ↗ in total we had 15 parcel zone intensive

1:15:11 ↗ commercial that we were taking out and

1:15:13 ↗ 39 parcels zoned destination retail

1:15:18 ↗ by taking them out of central

1:15:21 ↗ it required us to go through and look at

1:15:25 ↗ zoning what would be the appropriate

1:15:26 ↗ zoning and what would be the standards

1:15:28 ↗ that would be assessed to those

1:15:30 ↗ properties

1:15:31 ↗ we went through a public notice process

1:15:34 ↗ where 150 notices were sent out to

1:15:36 ↗ property owners within 300 feet of those

1:15:38 ↗ affected properties and then

1:15:41 ↗ we held a number of meetings at the

1:15:43 ↗ planning policy commission to discuss

1:15:46 ↗ potential outcomes

1:15:48 ↗ we also came to

1:15:50 ↗ the council at a work session

1:15:52 ↗ through

1:15:53 ↗ id 0301

1:15:56 ↗ and we talked about this we talked about

1:15:58 ↗ alternatives and options um and that led

1:16:01 ↗ us then to a conversation at land and

1:16:04 ↗ shore

1:16:05 ↗ so to orient everybody

1:16:09 ↗ here's a zoning map of the city and the

1:16:11 ↗ area that we're talking about is really

1:16:13 ↗ kind of at the southeast end of

1:16:16 ↗ what would be what used to be the

1:16:18 ↗ boundaries of central issaquah

1:16:20 ↗ we have the properties in and they don't

1:16:23 ↗ show up as gray there but they're they

1:16:25 ↗ show up as white

1:16:26 ↗ up on the screen

1:16:28 ↗ those are intensive commercial and then

1:16:31 ↗ these ones that are kind of purplish

1:16:33 ↗ pink

1:16:34 ↗ those are the ones that were zoned

1:16:36 ↗ destination retail

1:16:38 ↗ the proposal that we're making is that

1:16:42 ↗ we actually have

1:16:44 ↗ we create an intensive commercial zone

1:16:46 ↗ outside of central issaquah so there

1:16:49 ↗ would be some parcels that were left

1:16:51 ↗ within central isoqua that would be

1:16:53 ↗ zoned intensive commercial and then

1:16:55 ↗ there would be a number of properties

1:16:56 ↗ zoned intensive commercial outside

1:16:59 ↗ similarly what we ultimately are

1:17:01 ↗ recommending for

1:17:03 ↗ what used to be destination retail

1:17:06 ↗ is to have a mixed-use zone within

1:17:08 ↗ central issaquah and a mixed-use zone

1:17:11 ↗ outside of central issaquah

1:17:15 ↗ so in in terms of the policy

1:17:17 ↗ considerations uh

1:17:19 ↗ first we have to deal with what zoning

1:17:21 ↗ is appropriate for these properties

1:17:23 ↗ and then the second uh piece of the

1:17:25 ↗ question would be you know when we

1:17:27 ↗ decided to take these out of central

1:17:29 ↗ issaquah was it envisioned that there

1:17:31 ↗ would be a down zone or any effect to

1:17:33 ↗ the to the property owners and so that's

1:17:35 ↗ kind of the the process we went through

1:17:37 ↗ as we started to talk about alternatives

1:17:40 ↗ so

1:17:42 ↗ go through my chart here with you guys

1:17:44 ↗ intensive commercial so option one that

1:17:47 ↗ was that's what they have now

1:17:49 ↗ um so this zoning is a remnant of

1:17:52 ↗ central is aqua so basically there's a

1:17:55 ↗ floor area

1:17:56 ↗ ratio requirement

1:17:59 ↗ there's the building heights there's the

1:18:02 ↗ setbacks and then there's the impervious

1:18:05 ↗ the second column this represents

1:18:08 ↗ the the the

1:18:10 ↗ standards that were in place prior to

1:18:13 ↗ bringing them into central liza so those

1:18:15 ↗ parcels in intensive commercial were

1:18:18 ↗ zoned intensive commercial prior to

1:18:21 ↗ the adoption of central isoqua and these

1:18:24 ↗ were the standards that applied

1:18:27 ↗ back in

1:18:28 ↗ 2013-ish

1:18:30 ↗ 2012.

1:18:32 ↗ and so

1:18:33 ↗ what we're recommending now is kind of a

1:18:37 ↗ split between the two so

1:18:39 ↗ as as you heard earlier from one of the

1:18:41 ↗ property owners we're recommending

1:18:43 ↗ um that the building height go back to

1:18:45 ↗ 40 feet and not stay at 48. the

1:18:48 ↗ difference between those two is roughly

1:18:50 ↗ one story you can build three stories at

1:18:53 ↗ 40 and you can build four stories at 48.

1:18:56 ↗ um but what this what this also says is

1:18:58 ↗ there's a maximum of 65 feet

1:19:01 ↗ that would be allowed so that's five

1:19:03 ↗ stories

1:19:04 ↗ and that is that's current that's

1:19:06 ↗ consistent within all three

1:19:08 ↗ recommendations so we not we did not

1:19:11 ↗ make a recommendation to remove that or

1:19:14 ↗ reduce that in any way

1:19:16 ↗ that was consistent with what they had

1:19:18 ↗ prior to inclusion in central

1:19:21 ↗ and there's

1:19:22 ↗ provisions within the city code which

1:19:24 ↗ tells you how you get basically from 40

1:19:26 ↗ feet to 65 feet

1:19:28 ↗ from a setback standpoint the

1:19:30 ↗ conversation we had with the property

1:19:32 ↗ owners

1:19:33 ↗ is the land uses within the intensive

1:19:36 ↗ commercial zone uh they're they're

1:19:38 ↗ really they're very auto oriented um so

1:19:42 ↗ things like setbacks

1:19:44 ↗ um front yard side yard rear yard

1:19:46 ↗ setbacks all made sense for those

1:19:48 ↗ property owners

1:19:51 ↗ as you can see what they have now are

1:19:53 ↗ zeros

1:19:55 ↗ and part of the reason for the zeros in

1:19:57 ↗ central is

1:19:59 ↗ we want all our buildings to be right

1:20:01 ↗ next to each other it promotes

1:20:02 ↗ walkability and pedestrian

1:20:05 ↗ interest

1:20:06 ↗ i think when we decided to pull these

1:20:08 ↗ properties out of central issaquah

1:20:10 ↗ there's also an acknowledgment that this

1:20:13 ↗ area is really

1:20:14 ↗ not pedestrian oriented it really

1:20:16 ↗ remains very auto oriented and so these

1:20:19 ↗ setbacks are more in keeping with

1:20:23 ↗ a more suburban style of development

1:20:28 ↗ what we did though

1:20:29 ↗ we also kept the 90 impervious

1:20:32 ↗ um from central and one of the reasons

1:20:35 ↗ why we didn't revert that back to the 65

1:20:38 ↗ percent

1:20:38 ↗ is you know as i think we agreed with

1:20:41 ↗ the property owner that testified

1:20:43 ↗ earlier there's really not that much

1:20:45 ↗ land in intensive commercial left

1:20:48 ↗ we don't have a storm water limitation

1:20:50 ↗ that would warrant limiting it to 65

1:20:53 ↗ percent and so leaving it at 90 percent

1:20:56 ↗ seemed like that was a good compromise

1:20:57 ↗ with property owners

1:21:00 ↗ so flipping now to destination retail

1:21:03 ↗ the conversation we had is you know

1:21:05 ↗ really there's

1:21:06 ↗ nothing that requires those properties

1:21:09 ↗ to stay retail and so having it be

1:21:12 ↗ called destination retail really didn't

1:21:13 ↗ make sense uh long term for the city so

1:21:16 ↗ that's why we were proposing mixed use

1:21:18 ↗ um under the um current standards again

1:21:22 ↗ there's an far requirement within

1:21:26 ↗ central issaquah where we're going to

1:21:29 ↗ [Music]

1:21:31 ↗ the preferred option from the

1:21:33 ↗ administration

1:21:35 ↗ really not much has changed the big

1:21:38 ↗ conversation was about front yard

1:21:40 ↗ within central

1:21:42 ↗ there's really a build to line again

1:21:44 ↗ getting back to that expectation that

1:21:47 ↗ properties would build up to the street

1:21:49 ↗ right away to promote walkability

1:21:52 ↗ as we talked about it primarily with the

1:21:54 ↗ grange and bombs and sam kyle

1:21:58 ↗ i think there was a belief that you know

1:22:00 ↗ those properties really wanted a little

1:22:02 ↗ bit of a setback from the right of way

1:22:05 ↗ and so we changed it from

1:22:07 ↗ basically the zero build two line to a

1:22:10 ↗ ten foot front yard setback but all the

1:22:12 ↗ other standards

1:22:15 ↗ were proposing to remain the same

1:22:18 ↗ so that's the recommendation

1:22:21 ↗ from the administration is really uh

1:22:23 ↗ option three of for both intensive

1:22:26 ↗ commercial and

1:22:28 ↗ uh for mixed use

1:22:30 ↗ and i think that's the end of my

1:22:32 ↗ presentation

1:22:34 ↗ questions

1:22:35 ↗ council member winterstein thank you

1:22:37 ↗ keith what are the ways in which a

1:22:38 ↗ property owner can

1:22:40 ↗ build up to 65 feet if the

1:22:43 ↗ base height is 40 or 48

1:22:45 ↗ how do they get to 65

1:22:48 ↗ so

1:22:49 ↗ so in central the way that you get above

1:22:51 ↗ the base height is there's a density

1:22:54 ↗ bonus program or transfer development

1:22:55 ↗ rights

1:22:56 ↗ outside

1:22:58 ↗ it's specified in the city code

1:23:01 ↗ and i don't have that list memorized i

1:23:03 ↗ apologize

1:23:04 ↗ but it's a specific list of criteria

1:23:07 ↗ that you have to satisfy to be able to

1:23:09 ↗ go above

1:23:10 ↗ um the base height

1:23:16 ↗ you could phone a friend but none of

1:23:17 ↗ them were here

1:23:28 ↗ council member if that would be helpful

1:23:33 ↗ um could you talk about what percentage

1:23:36 ↗ of the um property owners

1:23:39 ↗ were able to discuss the changes with

1:23:41 ↗ you in the series of um meetings that

1:23:44 ↗ were conducted

1:23:45 ↗ sure um

1:23:46 ↗ so uh we didn't have

1:23:49 ↗ you know as as i mentioned earlier we

1:23:52 ↗ sent out over 150 notices to affected

1:23:55 ↗ property owners

1:23:57 ↗ for the

1:23:59 ↗ destination retail we primarily had

1:24:03 ↗ three property owners

1:24:05 ↗ it was boehms and

1:24:09 ↗ lagrange and sam kyle

1:24:11 ↗ for the intensive commercial

1:24:13 ↗ there was either only two or three

1:24:15 ↗ property owners that engaged in the

1:24:16 ↗ conversation so not that many um this is

1:24:19 ↗ kind of planning standard stuff which a

1:24:21 ↗ lot of people don't get super excited

1:24:23 ↗ about but

1:24:24 ↗ um but the there was opportunity it just

1:24:27 ↗ was not that many

1:24:29 ↗ and those 150 notices were they mostly

1:24:32 ↗ homeowners that are nearby because there

1:24:34 ↗ weren't that many parcels so primarily

1:24:37 ↗ homeowners

1:24:39 ↗ so it would

1:24:41 ↗ definitely all of these homeowners would

1:24:43 ↗ have gotten notice

1:24:45 ↗ the ones over on this side you're

1:24:47 ↗ talking like lakeside

1:24:50 ↗ and the the properties that are outside

1:24:54 ↗ of central so which would be some more

1:24:56 ↗ commercial properties but here you would

1:24:58 ↗ have picked up you know you would have

1:25:00 ↗ picked up

1:25:04 ↗ dairy golden and

1:25:07 ↗ la-z-boy and those kind of properties as

1:25:10 ↗ well as some of the neighborhood back in

1:25:12 ↗ here

1:25:14 ↗ i had one more clarification on the

1:25:18 ↗ on the destination retail you were

1:25:20 ↗ talking about how it it might not be

1:25:22 ↗ retail in the future but it also

1:25:24 ↗ currently has residential in in that

1:25:26 ↗ area with the

1:25:28 ↗ condominiums

1:25:29 ↗ it does

1:25:31 ↗ so mix use again seem like a good um

1:25:34 ↗ kind of outcome zone

1:25:36 ↗ because it also allows retail office and

1:25:40 ↗ residential as allowed land uses

1:25:43 ↗ thanks

1:25:45 ↗ councilmember ray

1:25:46 ↗ so keith what was the rationale on

1:25:49 ↗ intensive

1:25:51 ↗ commercial to go

1:25:54 ↗ to 40 feet versus 48.

1:25:59 ↗ so part of it um

1:26:01 ↗ was you know there there were

1:26:04 ↗ there were

1:26:06 ↗ some up zones that happened as part of

1:26:08 ↗ central um but it also includes things

1:26:12 ↗ like structured parking and far

1:26:16 ↗ and so it seemed like when we were

1:26:18 ↗ pulling it out

1:26:19 ↗ um and most of the properties in

1:26:23 ↗ intensive commercial

1:26:25 ↗ are fairly um

1:26:27 ↗ they're developed at fairly low

1:26:29 ↗ densities now most of them are single

1:26:31 ↗ story or two-story buildings

1:26:33 ↗ um it seemed like uh having

1:26:37 ↗ the larger building height as a base

1:26:39 ↗ height um seemed like it was pushing too

1:26:42 ↗ much density in an area that might be

1:26:45 ↗ underserved from an infrastructure

1:26:47 ↗ standpoint

1:26:48 ↗ primarily streets um

1:26:51 ↗ so for option three

1:26:54 ↗ these

1:26:56 ↗ buildings would not have an far

1:26:58 ↗ requirement nor

1:26:59 ↗ or structured parking so we could have

1:27:00 ↗ street parking and

1:27:02 ↗ okay great thank you

1:27:05 ↗ deputy council president bautiste

1:27:08 ↗ thank you keith i just had a question on

1:27:11 ↗ timing in terms of the recommendation

1:27:13 ↗ that talks about housing density

1:27:17 ↗ the housing density and diversity and

1:27:19 ↗ completed in 2019

1:27:22 ↗ uh and then the question

1:27:24 ↗ for my first question is do we have it

1:27:27 ↗ uh where

1:27:28 ↗ when in 2019 would that

1:27:31 ↗ be proposed to be done

1:27:34 ↗ so that's the next agenda bill oh i'm so

1:27:36 ↗ sick it's okay

1:27:38 ↗ so sorry you're jumping ahead we can

1:27:40 ↗ talk about that now if you'd like but

1:27:42 ↗ hold those questions

1:27:46 ↗ some of these i some of our agenda bills

1:27:47 ↗ this evening have a significant amount

1:27:49 ↗ of overlap there is a laugh yes

1:27:52 ↗ questions uh council member ramos um

1:27:54 ↗ yeah so just following up on on the uh

1:27:59 ↗ the logic to stay to 40 feet where

1:28:02 ↗ and i understand what you're saying on

1:28:04 ↗ that side but to me the other side is

1:28:06 ↗ pretty much also predominantly single

1:28:08 ↗ story a little bit of two story um but

1:28:10 ↗ you went to 48 feet for um

1:28:14 ↗ for mixed so

1:28:16 ↗ why is the difference on those those two

1:28:18 ↗ pieces is what i guess so sam's kyle sam

1:28:22 ↗ kyle's building uh seems to set a pretty

1:28:25 ↗ big scale it's

1:28:27 ↗ you know it's uh it's three

1:28:30 ↗ it's three big stories now plus it's a

1:28:31 ↗ big building so i think the conversation

1:28:34 ↗ and plus the um

1:28:36 ↗ the i think the street access uh east

1:28:41 ↗ gilman's huge

1:28:42 ↗ um i don't know that we'll ever build

1:28:44 ↗ out that entire right-of-way because

1:28:45 ↗ it's giant um so it just seemed like it

1:28:48 ↗ the capacity to handle maybe bigger

1:28:51 ↗ buildings made sense

1:28:52 ↗ um

1:28:53 ↗ so

1:28:54 ↗ i think it was it was simply that it

1:28:56 ↗ just seemed like it it had the capacity

1:28:58 ↗ to handle bigger

1:29:00 ↗ bigger outcomes

1:29:02 ↗ thank you

1:29:03 ↗ additional questions

1:29:07 ↗ is there a motion

1:29:08 ↗ yes madam mayor i moved to adopt

1:29:11 ↗ ordinance number 2850

1:29:14 ↗ amending the official zoning map to

1:29:16 ↗ rezone those parcels zone destination

1:29:19 ↗ retail and intensive commercial that

1:29:21 ↗ were removed from the central iskawa

1:29:23 ↗ plan boundary as part of the adopted

1:29:25 ↗ central park neighborhoods central sorry

1:29:28 ↗ central plan neighborhood vision

1:29:30 ↗ amending imc 1806 establishment of

1:29:33 ↗ zoning districts to add a mixed-use zone

1:29:36 ↗ amending imc

1:29:38 ↗ 18.07.360 district standards table to

1:29:41 ↗ add a mixed use zone and amend the

1:29:43 ↗ standards of the intensive commercial

1:29:45 ↗ zone and amending chapter 4.0 zoning

1:29:48 ↗ districts uses in standard summary and

1:29:51 ↗ chapter 9.0 signs of the central

1:29:54 ↗ issaquah development and design

1:29:56 ↗ standards

1:29:57 ↗ to remove all references to the

1:29:59 ↗ destination retail zone just for a

1:30:01 ↗ second

1:30:04 ↗ thank you is there a discussion

1:30:11 ↗ so if there is no discussion i'm not

1:30:14 ↗ going to reread that motion that was so

1:30:16 ↗ well read by the council president um

1:30:20 ↗ all those in favor of adopting ordinance

1:30:23 ↗ number 2850 signify by saying aye aye

1:30:27 ↗ opposed

1:30:28 ↗ that carries unanimously

1:30:30 ↗ next item on the agenda this evening is

1:30:32 ↗ ab7

1:30:35 ↗ proposed amendments to central standards

1:30:37 ↗ table 4.3 b

1:30:39 ↗ permitted land uses this item is coming

1:30:42 ↗ out of council land and shore and we'll

1:30:44 ↗ keep keith up at the microphone for a

1:30:46 ↗ presentation okay thank you um

1:30:50 ↗ so another

1:30:52 ↗ i think one of the reasons why this

1:30:53 ↗ agenda bill and the previous one kind of

1:30:56 ↗ seemed like they

1:30:57 ↗ weave back and forth is they both

1:31:00 ↗ were

1:31:01 ↗ follow-up outcomes

1:31:03 ↗ from uh

1:31:05 ↗ the adoption of the visions and closing

1:31:07 ↗ out the moratorium

1:31:09 ↗ this one

1:31:11 ↗ initially started with a discussion

1:31:13 ↗ about

1:31:14 ↗ limiting hotels and self-storage units

1:31:16 ↗ in central and ultimately when that

1:31:19 ↗ conversation

1:31:21 ↗ was finished

1:31:22 ↗ the question was asked should we go back

1:31:25 ↗ and look at table 43b

1:31:27 ↗ which is what this agenda bill's uh

1:31:29 ↗ affectionately called um and see if

1:31:32 ↗ there are other land uses that may not

1:31:35 ↗ make sense in central israel based on

1:31:38 ↗ the new visions that were adopted

1:31:40 ↗ so we went through that and we came up

1:31:43 ↗ uh

1:31:44 ↗ we had some conversations with the

1:31:45 ↗ planning policy commission and we came

1:31:48 ↗ up with a list of land uses that we

1:31:50 ↗ thought made sense to

1:31:52 ↗ uh

1:31:53 ↗ limit in central isoqua so correction

1:31:55 ↗ facility jails

1:31:57 ↗ hazardous waste storage and treatment

1:32:00 ↗ facilities

1:32:01 ↗ heliport helipad helistop

1:32:05 ↗ automotive wrecking or dismantling yard

1:32:09 ↗ not too pedestrian oriented

1:32:11 ↗ agricultural food processing and storage

1:32:14 ↗ boat building sales and repair building

1:32:16 ↗ materials storage and sales distribution

1:32:18 ↗ center and feed store agricultural

1:32:20 ↗ supply

1:32:22 ↗ [Music]

1:32:23 ↗ so this was a list we talked about at

1:32:25 ↗ planning policy commission we came

1:32:27 ↗ through

1:32:27 ↗ council committee and

1:32:30 ↗ ultimately we were

1:32:32 ↗ ready to adopt this and there was a an

1:32:35 ↗ ask to go back and look at one of the

1:32:37 ↗ recommendations that came out of the

1:32:38 ↗ planning policy commission which was to

1:32:41 ↗ limit duplexes triplexes and fourplexes

1:32:45 ↗ from

1:32:46 ↗ the core

1:32:47 ↗ and the mixed-use zone and

1:32:50 ↗ you know as we talked about that

1:32:53 ↗ you know there were there were a number

1:32:55 ↗ of questions that really came up and

1:32:58 ↗ a lot of it has to do so this one kind

1:33:00 ↗ of has a new name uh other than 43b

1:33:03 ↗ which is

1:33:04 ↗ density and diversity and so it's about

1:33:06 ↗ talking about housing density and

1:33:08 ↗ housing diversity and you know right now

1:33:13 ↗ um the core and the mixed use zone make

1:33:16 ↗ up 531 acres that's that's all that's

1:33:19 ↗ over half of central issaquah

1:33:22 ↗ and a big part of our valley floor and

1:33:25 ↗ if you're not going to allow duplex

1:33:27 ↗ triplex and fourplexes within

1:33:30 ↗ those 531 acres

1:33:33 ↗ what kind of housing are you going to

1:33:34 ↗ get and we have a pretty aggressive

1:33:38 ↗ housing target as part of the regional

1:33:40 ↗ growth center and if it all ends up

1:33:42 ↗ being stacked flats

1:33:44 ↗ and if nobody's building condominiums if

1:33:46 ↗ all we're getting is apartments then

1:33:48 ↗ that's a lot of apartments that we're

1:33:50 ↗ we're headed towards in our city

1:33:53 ↗ and so that part of it um

1:33:56 ↗ you know is is kind of then

1:33:58 ↗ counterbalanced with a conversation

1:34:00 ↗ about well we need density

1:34:02 ↗ and if we're allowing duplexes and

1:34:05 ↗ triplexes and maybe fourplexes they

1:34:08 ↗ start to kind of pivot towards more

1:34:10 ↗ dense housing but if we're starting to

1:34:12 ↗ allow or get

1:34:14 ↗ um a lot of our

1:34:16 ↗ core and mixed use area being

1:34:18 ↗ redeveloped at a lower density housing

1:34:20 ↗ product then are we going to be able to

1:34:23 ↗ reach our targets and are we going to

1:34:25 ↗ support the transit that we're really

1:34:27 ↗ after for this portion of our city

1:34:30 ↗ and so

1:34:31 ↗ really

1:34:32 ↗ what it came down to was we need to do a

1:34:36 ↗ lot more analysis on what those outcomes

1:34:38 ↗ might look like

1:34:40 ↗ so that we could have a better

1:34:41 ↗ conversation with the city council so

1:34:45 ↗ what we talked about at committee was to

1:34:47 ↗ basically

1:34:49 ↗ make a recommendation to

1:34:52 ↗ adopt the limit of those land uses that

1:34:55 ↗ were identified on the second slide

1:34:59 ↗ but to defer an action on duplex triplex

1:35:02 ↗ and four plexes until after the

1:35:04 ↗ administration can provide some analysis

1:35:07 ↗ and a better conversation with the city

1:35:09 ↗ council so that's the item that we had

1:35:13 ↗ identified the other night at budget to

1:35:15 ↗ work on in 2019

1:35:18 ↗ and to answer

1:35:21 ↗ deputy president batista's question

1:35:24 ↗ i think what i would expect is we could

1:35:26 ↗ get to that probably by start it um

1:35:30 ↗ february march

1:35:32 ↗ because we're going to probably need a

1:35:33 ↗ consultant to do that work that's a part

1:35:34 ↗ of the budget conversation that we still

1:35:36 ↗ need to have and i think we're planning

1:35:38 ↗ to have on the 10th but then you know so

1:35:40 ↗ if we start february march then we would

1:35:42 ↗ be done by august september so sometime

1:35:44 ↗ mid part of the year i think

1:35:46 ↗ that analysis will be done we'll be able

1:35:48 ↗ to present that back to the council and

1:35:51 ↗ then you guys could make a decision on

1:35:53 ↗ what to whether or not to

1:35:56 ↗ include duplexes triplexes and

1:35:58 ↗ fourplexes in the limited land uses for

1:36:01 ↗ the core and mixed use so kind of mid

1:36:03 ↗ part of the year i think we'd be ready

1:36:05 ↗ to bring that back to the

1:36:09 ↗ ahead council follow-up question

1:36:11 ↗ so apologies for skipping ahead and

1:36:14 ↗ popping forward uh but thank you for

1:36:16 ↗ answering that so

1:36:18 ↗ mid-2019 and that analysis needs to be

1:36:21 ↗ done first

1:36:23 ↗ and so then that

1:36:25 ↗ uh

1:36:26 ↗ part of part of the question was then we

1:36:28 ↗ would be able to go and have that

1:36:30 ↗ conversation

1:36:31 ↗ after that analysis is done so that

1:36:33 ↗ would happen in 2019 right as well right

1:36:37 ↗ because i think it's going to be very

1:36:38 ↗ much a character and policy driven

1:36:41 ↗ conversation with the council in terms

1:36:43 ↗ of what you would like to see central

1:36:45 ↗ look like

1:36:46 ↗ will drive the outcome of that

1:36:48 ↗ but you need to have

1:36:50 ↗ a good understanding of you know what

1:36:52 ↗ the potential unintended consequences

1:36:54 ↗ might be of

1:36:56 ↗ deciding that either one way or the

1:36:57 ↗ other

1:36:58 ↗ thank you yeah any questions

1:37:03 ↗ is there a

1:37:04 ↗ motion member hunt

1:37:07 ↗ i would move to adopt ordinance number

1:37:12 ↗ two

1:37:14 ↗ adopting by reference amendments to the

1:37:16 ↗ central issaquad development and design

1:37:18 ↗ standards

1:37:21 ↗ including table 4.3 b permitted land

1:37:23 ↗ uses as recommended by the council land

1:37:25 ↗ and shore committee and

1:37:27 ↗ direct the administration to conduct an

1:37:29 ↗ analysis on housing density and

1:37:30 ↗ diversity to compete to be completed in

1:37:33 ↗ 2019

1:37:34 ↗ and revisit removal of duplex triplex

1:37:36 ↗ and fourplex units from the mixed use

1:37:38 ↗ and urban corazons of central isquad

1:37:40 ↗ following this analysis

1:37:42 ↗ second

1:37:43 ↗ the moved and seconded discussion

1:37:48 ↗ that's my friend

1:37:50 ↗ i am glad that we will be looking at

1:37:52 ↗ this in more detail

1:37:54 ↗ as as a council because i think it does

1:37:56 ↗ have implications for the character of

1:37:58 ↗ this area where we expect to see a lot

1:38:00 ↗ of

1:38:01 ↗ residential land use in the not too

1:38:03 ↗ distant future and i also think it has

1:38:06 ↗ big implications for the community in

1:38:07 ↗ terms of the housing options that will

1:38:09 ↗ be available

1:38:11 ↗ i

1:38:12 ↗ i

1:38:13 ↗ as a starting place i think that the

1:38:16 ↗ mixed use and urban core descriptions

1:38:19 ↗ and intents of the zoning

1:38:21 ↗ districts they do set

1:38:23 ↗ they set

1:38:24 ↗ descriptions of the residential

1:38:28 ↗ density as being different for the mixed

1:38:30 ↗ use area and the urban core area and i

1:38:33 ↗ think that having more analysis in terms

1:38:35 ↗ of how we can achieve those differences

1:38:38 ↗ that were put forward in the plan

1:38:40 ↗ will be really helpful

1:38:42 ↗ and i also i am looking forward to

1:38:45 ↗ getting more information about how this

1:38:46 ↗ will affect the

1:38:48 ↗ the diversity of housing types that are

1:38:51 ↗ available we know that there is this

1:38:53 ↗ missing middle housing types it was in

1:38:56 ↗ our housing strategy work plan that we

1:38:58 ↗ need more of these missing middle

1:38:59 ↗ housing types i think that there are

1:39:02 ↗ individuals who um

1:39:04 ↗ who would like to have

1:39:05 ↗ both a rental option with stacked plots

1:39:07 ↗ but also a ownership option and as we

1:39:09 ↗ know there are not a lot of condominiums

1:39:11 ↗ being built currently and we don't know

1:39:13 ↗ when that will change so i would like to

1:39:16 ↗ see more analysis on this because i

1:39:18 ↗ think it is a complex

1:39:20 ↗ issue and it has real implications for

1:39:22 ↗ how this area looks and feels in the

1:39:25 ↗ future

1:39:26 ↗ other comments councilmember goodman and

1:39:28 ↗ i want to thank

1:39:30 ↗ keith thank you for your work on review

1:39:32 ↗ of this table

1:39:34 ↗ i i very much appreciate it i think it's

1:39:36 ↗ part of our

1:39:37 ↗ continued due diligence to make sure

1:39:39 ↗ that we have the centralisation plan

1:39:42 ↗ how it should be so that we get

1:39:43 ↗ what we have envisioned not just what we

1:39:46 ↗ allow and i'd like to thank council

1:39:47 ↗ member hunt for

1:39:49 ↗ raising the housing issue it's this is

1:39:50 ↗ an extremely important topic and i look

1:39:52 ↗ forward to having that conversation next

1:39:54 ↗ year

1:39:55 ↗ any other comments

1:39:58 ↗ that's remember winterstein thank you

1:40:02 ↗ actually this keith you mentioned it

1:40:04 ↗ earlier this started when the proposal

1:40:06 ↗ was to remove the storage units and i

1:40:09 ↗ actually didn't support that legislation

1:40:11 ↗ because i felt that that even a

1:40:13 ↗ residential core was that was still a

1:40:15 ↗ needed service but that did precipitate

1:40:19 ↗ i think as council member goodman

1:40:20 ↗ suggested well let's look at the rest of

1:40:22 ↗ the options and i look at the ones that

1:40:24 ↗ in front of us this evening it is

1:40:26 ↗ difficult to imagine how

1:40:30 ↗ a primarily dense residential area

1:40:33 ↗ would need those i think it's a little

1:40:34 ↗ bit different than the storage so i can

1:40:36 ↗ support that list further i also want to

1:40:39 ↗ thank councilmember hunt about the

1:40:41 ↗ housing and a moment ago she said

1:40:43 ↗ she used the phrase missing middle and i

1:40:45 ↗ want to add a little bit more and this

1:40:47 ↗ is why i actually support this variation

1:40:49 ↗ of taking the the the

1:40:52 ↗ triplex's fourplexes um

1:40:55 ↗ off the table today for reconsideration

1:40:57 ↗ as this motion specifies is that also

1:40:59 ↗ their construction materials are

1:41:01 ↗ generally going to be different from

1:41:02 ↗ stack flats especially if they get

1:41:04 ↗ taller

1:41:05 ↗ generally they're going to be wooden in

1:41:06 ↗ structure and and and that also means

1:41:09 ↗ that they tend to come into the market

1:41:11 ↗ at a different price point a lower price

1:41:12 ↗ point

1:41:13 ↗ than when you've got concrete and steel

1:41:16 ↗ in your construction

1:41:17 ↗ and so i would add in addition all the

1:41:20 ↗ questions that you put up there about

1:41:22 ↗ about should we allow or deny these type

1:41:25 ↗ of structures we have to look at the

1:41:28 ↗ affordability component and what that

1:41:30 ↗ would mean as well i don't have an

1:41:32 ↗ answer to that but i but this is the

1:41:35 ↗ comprehensive we're going to look at

1:41:36 ↗ this comprehensively we have to weigh

1:41:39 ↗ that component of it as well

1:41:41 ↗ uh

1:41:42 ↗ it's in and we haven't really i think

1:41:44 ↗ this is an interesting topic now

1:41:47 ↗ in that

1:41:48 ↗ we we had a vision and we wanted we

1:41:50 ↗ constantly have been um striving for

1:41:52 ↗ better ways well more recently we've

1:41:55 ↗ been striving for better ways to help

1:41:57 ↗ achieve those visions

1:41:58 ↗ uh and yet and yet uh the issue of

1:42:01 ↗ housing affordability and housing stock

1:42:03 ↗ affordable to more people who live here

1:42:05 ↗ is elusive and we have a housing

1:42:08 ↗ strategy and this type of structures can

1:42:10 ↗ be a key part of it and so whether or

1:42:12 ↗ not we think they should also be allowed

1:42:16 ↗ in these two zones is the right question

1:42:18 ↗ for us to be considering

1:42:20 ↗ thank you thank you any other comments

1:42:24 ↗ uh deputy council president batis

1:42:26 ↗ so i would just like to echo some of my

1:42:28 ↗ fellow council members uh comments uh

1:42:31 ↗ thank you keith for the work that's done

1:42:34 ↗ has been done here and uh thank you to

1:42:36 ↗ councilmember hunt for raising the

1:42:38 ↗ question a really i think really

1:42:40 ↗ important question as we go forward and

1:42:43 ↗ look um at housing and i look forward to

1:42:46 ↗ being able to have that conversation

1:42:48 ↗ regarding the duplexes triplexes

1:42:51 ↗ in 2019

1:42:52 ↗ thank you any other comments

1:42:56 ↗ okay

1:42:58 ↗ if there's no further discussion all

1:43:00 ↗ those in favor of adopting ordinance

1:43:02 ↗ number two eight five one adopting by

1:43:04 ↗ reference amendments to the central

1:43:06 ↗ squad development and design standards

1:43:08 ↗ including table 4.3 b permitted land

1:43:11 ↗ uses as recommended by the council land

1:43:14 ↗ insurer committee and directing the

1:43:16 ↗ administration to conduct an analysis on

1:43:18 ↗ housing density and diversity to be

1:43:21 ↗ completed in 2019

1:43:23 ↗ and revisit removal of duplex triplex

1:43:26 ↗ and fourplex units from the mixed use

1:43:28 ↗ and urban core zones of centrosqua

1:43:31 ↗ following the analysis signify by saying

1:43:33 ↗ i i

1:43:35 ↗ was opposed

1:43:36 ↗ that carries unanimously

1:43:39 ↗ the next and last item under regular

1:43:41 ↗ business this evening is

1:43:44 ↗ ab7705 council vacancy process

1:43:49 ↗ look at my notes here

1:43:53 ↗ so

1:43:54 ↗ i have

1:43:55 ↗ to first

1:43:56 ↗ give a little background on why we have

1:43:58 ↗ a vacancy

1:44:00 ↗ um congratulations to one of our sitting

1:44:02 ↗ council members council member ramos has

1:44:04 ↗ been elected to represent

1:44:06 ↗ state legislative district five in

1:44:08 ↗ olympia

1:44:09 ↗ and we have received a resignation

1:44:12 ↗ notification effective january 1st 2019.

1:44:18 ↗ so i'd like to invite city clerk tina

1:44:20 ↗ eggers to present the proposed process

1:44:22 ↗ and timeline for filling the vacancy hi

1:44:24 ↗ thank you

1:44:26 ↗ um yes we um have a vacancy that would

1:44:30 ↗ become effective january 1

1:44:32 ↗ and with that the council has 90 days

1:44:35 ↗ from that time period to appoint a

1:44:37 ↗ qualified person

1:44:39 ↗ that individual must be 18 years or

1:44:42 ↗ older a registered voter and have one

1:44:45 ↗ year residency within the city limits

1:44:48 ↗ that term would be valid through

1:44:49 ↗ november of 2019

1:44:51 ↗ that's because

1:44:54 ↗ the elections office and state law puts

1:44:57 ↗ a higher weight on an individual who's

1:45:00 ↗ elected rather than appointed

1:45:02 ↗ so the person who would be

1:45:04 ↗ serving

1:45:05 ↗ in the four-year term that would start

1:45:07 ↗ in january of 2020 actually

1:45:10 ↗ starts earlier to

1:45:12 ↗ carry out that

1:45:14 ↗ service tonight's agenda bill

1:45:18 ↗ we have the timeline and process that

1:45:19 ↗ we'd like you to

1:45:21 ↗ approve or amend or

1:45:23 ↗ indicate that you'd like to

1:45:25 ↗ take more time to discuss it

1:45:28 ↗ review the supplemental questions

1:45:29 ↗ applicant presentations visuals and if

1:45:32 ↗ you had any other

1:45:34 ↗ changes or questions for us

1:45:36 ↗ what i put together was a proposed

1:45:38 ↗ timeline

1:45:40 ↗ again it's proposed

1:45:42 ↗ there is some flexibility here if you

1:45:44 ↗ wanted to make some changes

1:45:46 ↗ in your agenda bill you will see

1:45:50 ↗ that those dates correlate to what was

1:45:53 ↗ proposed to you

1:45:55 ↗ we could start there

1:45:56 ↗ if that's where you're comfortable and

1:45:58 ↗ then we can delve in a little bit deeper

1:46:00 ↗ if you'd like

1:46:01 ↗ thank you

1:46:02 ↗ questions for the city clerk

1:46:05 ↗ council president martz well did you

1:46:08 ↗ do you want to walk people through that

1:46:10 ↗ calendar sure so if you're ready to

1:46:14 ↗ approve a process this evening we could

1:46:16 ↗ begin the recruitment as early as

1:46:18 ↗ wednesday um we

1:46:21 ↗ followed the same timeline or same sort

1:46:23 ↗ of process that we did previous there

1:46:25 ↗ was a couple of nuances i'll point those

1:46:27 ↗ out

1:46:28 ↗ we would um you know

1:46:30 ↗ push this out through social media and

1:46:32 ↗ all our other variations and and look

1:46:34 ↗ for others to to be helping spread the

1:46:36 ↗ word as well

1:46:38 ↗ uh 10 a.m deadline works well with

1:46:40 ↗ trying to package up materials for

1:46:44 ↗ the public to review and for you council

1:46:46 ↗ members to take a take a look at

1:46:49 ↗ this this proposal uh

1:46:54 ↗ would have a meet and greet occurring

1:46:56 ↗ before

1:46:57 ↗ the applicant presentations not

1:46:59 ↗ immediately before because of the amount

1:47:01 ↗ of time that's needed um last year when

1:47:04 ↗ we did council presentations you started

1:47:07 ↗ at 5 p.m

1:47:09 ↗ and then you went into executive session

1:47:12 ↗ you had dinner

1:47:13 ↗ and then at 8 00 pm you started your

1:47:15 ↗ regular meeting and that was not

1:47:17 ↗ concluded until about 11 15. so it could

1:47:19 ↗ make for a very long day if you're

1:47:20 ↗ trying to

1:47:22 ↗ have a meet and greet on the same day if

1:47:24 ↗ that was important to you then i would

1:47:26 ↗ suggest that you look at having your

1:47:28 ↗ meet and greet and council presentations

1:47:30 ↗ on a different date like a non-council

1:47:32 ↗ meeting date

1:47:37 ↗ let's see

1:47:38 ↗ and then

1:47:39 ↗ following the same timeline you could

1:47:43 ↗ be prepared to

1:47:44 ↗ to take action and fill the appointment

1:47:46 ↗ february 4th

1:47:48 ↗ there was some interest in

1:47:51 ↗ looking at possibly narrowing the scope

1:47:53 ↗ of the

1:47:55 ↗ pool of applicants

1:47:58 ↗ you

1:47:59 ↗ that would be a good suggestion if you

1:48:00 ↗ had a large applicant pool it may not be

1:48:03 ↗ necessary if you have

1:48:05 ↗ a low number

1:48:06 ↗ but this does provide that flexibility

1:48:09 ↗ and then

1:48:10 ↗ you

1:48:11 ↗ this timeline would include sort of a

1:48:14 ↗ open q a of of applicants or of the

1:48:17 ↗ finalists

1:48:18 ↗ and

1:48:19 ↗ again you could recess into executive

1:48:21 ↗ session but

1:48:23 ↗ caution you to only be discussing the

1:48:25 ↗ qualifications of applicants and if you

1:48:28 ↗ were ready you could

1:48:29 ↗ move to

1:48:31 ↗ appoint the individual and that agenda

1:48:33 ↗ bill that would be coming back on the

1:48:35 ↗ 22nd

1:48:37 ↗ would sort of outline

1:48:39 ↗ who the applicants are and what the

1:48:40 ↗ process is and how the nomination

1:48:42 ↗ process goes

1:48:44 ↗ thank you

1:48:45 ↗ more questions

1:48:47 ↗ let's remember when you sign followed by

1:48:48 ↗ council member goodman

1:48:50 ↗ thank you

1:48:52 ↗ this process uh

1:48:55 ↗ allows for the

1:48:56 ↗ narrowing of the pool of applicants but

1:48:58 ↗ and you have it slotted up there but

1:49:00 ↗ what mechanism might we work use

1:49:04 ↗ has that been discussed

1:49:06 ↗ it's

1:49:08 ↗ it would be an all new invention

1:49:09 ↗ wouldn't it it would be new

1:49:11 ↗ yes

1:49:13 ↗ can we discuss that further i'd like to

1:49:15 ↗ get a good idea of what we might be

1:49:17 ↗ thinking because

1:49:19 ↗ if we have 12 is 6 the right number if

1:49:21 ↗ we have 10 is 4 the right number or

1:49:24 ↗ or something else and then how to do

1:49:26 ↗ that

1:49:28 ↗ you're like council president mart's

1:49:29 ↗ waiting because we have discussed this a

1:49:31 ↗ bit yeah so the genesis of this is the

1:49:34 ↗ sense that

1:49:35 ↗ uh

1:49:36 ↗ we have typically what happens is we

1:49:39 ↗ have a whole bunch of people who come to

1:49:42 ↗ the last meeting of this process

1:49:45 ↗ and

1:49:46 ↗ many of whom

1:49:47 ↗ do not get nominated and and go through

1:49:50 ↗ a long process and so we thought

1:49:54 ↗ the possibility if we had a large number

1:49:57 ↗ of applicants

1:49:58 ↗ that would make sense to perhaps narrow

1:50:00 ↗ it down and then that would allow us to

1:50:02 ↗ focus in and spend more time with a

1:50:05 ↗ smaller number of candidates for whom

1:50:07 ↗ there was some

1:50:09 ↗ expressed interest from the council in

1:50:11 ↗ understanding better i think the idea

1:50:13 ↗ was perhaps three

1:50:15 ↗ um

1:50:16 ↗ and that i i suspect although i'm open

1:50:19 ↗ to suggestions that we would just open

1:50:21 ↗ it up for potentially up to three

1:50:23 ↗ nominations

1:50:24 ↗ on that evening although like i said um

1:50:28 ↗ you know we hadn't we hadn't fully

1:50:29 ↗ detailed this one out but i think the

1:50:31 ↗ idea would be

1:50:32 ↗ taking up to three nominations and then

1:50:34 ↗ if there weren't um three

1:50:37 ↗ if there were only two we could do two

1:50:39 ↗ and if there was only one

1:50:40 ↗ they would have the possibility of

1:50:44 ↗ potentially making a decision that

1:50:45 ↗ evening before we had done q a

1:50:48 ↗ that outcome seems unlikely

1:50:50 ↗ okay and if i may summarize then you

1:50:53 ↗ envision this as a very uh public

1:50:55 ↗ process of of

1:50:57 ↗ of identifying and with count the whole

1:50:59 ↗ council somehow

1:51:01 ↗ uh participating in who gets put on the

1:51:04 ↗ short list if we go that way very public

1:51:06 ↗ correct very public all right thank you

1:51:10 ↗ hi councilmember goodman

1:51:11 ↗ um so i will

1:51:13 ↗ follow up

1:51:15 ↗ that

1:51:16 ↗ conversation with

1:51:17 ↗ thoughts about

1:51:19 ↗ coming up with a

1:51:21 ↗ number to reduce to in advance of

1:51:24 ↗ knowing

1:51:24 ↗ how many applicants we have and what the

1:51:29 ↗ what the qualifications i know there are

1:51:31 ↗ hard qualifications and there are soft

1:51:33 ↗ qualifications i think it's kind of a

1:51:34 ↗ difficult thing to decide

1:51:37 ↗ um

1:51:38 ↗ because that's

1:51:39 ↗ that's different with every

1:51:42 ↗ vacancy

1:51:44 ↗ goal that we have

1:51:45 ↗ so that's my comment on that i'm not

1:51:47 ↗ opposed to the idea however because i

1:51:50 ↗ can

1:51:50 ↗ see how that may

1:51:52 ↗ be

1:51:53 ↗ a little more efficient and

1:51:55 ↗ um

1:51:56 ↗ potentially friendlier to the folks that

1:52:00 ↗ that come and don't get nominated um

1:52:04 ↗ the

1:52:05 ↗ have comments about the meet and greet

1:52:07 ↗ um i think that was an addition to the

1:52:09 ↗ last process that we went through and i

1:52:12 ↗ thought it was overall a good idea

1:52:14 ↗ um in practice however i felt it to be

1:52:17 ↗ um not not structured enough and it was

1:52:20 ↗ awkward felt awkward to me

1:52:23 ↗ and i think we've gotten some feedback

1:52:24 ↗ from applicants that that was awkward

1:52:27 ↗ so um

1:52:29 ↗ one idea

1:52:30 ↗ and we don't have to decide that tonight

1:52:31 ↗ but one idea i had thought about is

1:52:34 ↗ um

1:52:35 ↗ lack of a better description

1:52:38 ↗ kind of a speed dating thing

1:52:40 ↗ where

1:52:41 ↗ um we would have two or three council

1:52:42 ↗ members

1:52:44 ↗ together

1:52:45 ↗ and then the applicants would move

1:52:47 ↗ through and and

1:52:48 ↗ um one at a time

1:52:51 ↗ who the council members would have an

1:52:52 ↗ opportunity to ask questions and have a

1:52:54 ↗ conversation

1:52:55 ↗ um

1:52:56 ↗ so that we at least

1:52:58 ↗ you know every council member gets to

1:53:00 ↗ have some sort of a q a or discussion

1:53:02 ↗ with every applicant um and vice versa

1:53:04 ↗ and we didn't have that last time

1:53:06 ↗ well i

1:53:08 ↗ one idea is to have i think idea is to

1:53:09 ↗ have it more structured that's just one

1:53:11 ↗ thing i thought about thank you i saw

1:53:13 ↗ council

1:53:15 ↗ member batista and council member ray

1:53:16 ↗ followed by council member hunt

1:53:18 ↗ so i'm going to agree with the speed

1:53:20 ↗ dating

1:53:23 ↗ aspect i i think that um i'm joking but

1:53:26 ↗ uh

1:53:27 ↗ i

1:53:28 ↗ i too uh think in regard to that uh

1:53:34 ↗ that last year it was um it was a bit

1:53:38 ↗ awkward and it was also hard for the

1:53:39 ↗ candidates to know how to move around

1:53:43 ↗ and have a touch with each council

1:53:45 ↗ member and i think it was also hard for

1:53:47 ↗ the council members to know how to move

1:53:49 ↗ around and have a touch with each

1:53:51 ↗ of the

1:53:52 ↗ applicants um

1:53:54 ↗ the the other uh so i i feel that that

1:53:57 ↗ was a that

1:53:59 ↗ i agree with uh councilmember goodman i

1:54:01 ↗ think that that needs to be looked at

1:54:03 ↗ uh the other that uh the other

1:54:06 ↗ small point that i was going to ask

1:54:08 ↗ about is

1:54:09 ↗ the eagle room gives us more room to do

1:54:11 ↗ that

1:54:12 ↗ yet

1:54:13 ↗ and i'm not sure we have enough room

1:54:16 ↗ here

1:54:17 ↗ but we're we're also walking over to a

1:54:20 ↗ council work session which was also an

1:54:22 ↗ awkward

1:54:24 ↗ component of that to have to

1:54:27 ↗ look at your watch and say i've got to

1:54:29 ↗ go now

1:54:31 ↗ and it would probably flow a little

1:54:34 ↗ you know a little better if we were here

1:54:36 ↗ and then everyone was recognizing

1:54:38 ↗ there's a council work session

1:54:40 ↗ i'm just not sure there's enough room

1:54:43 ↗ work on process council member ray then

1:54:44 ↗ council member hunt oh i love the idea

1:54:46 ↗ of an informal meet and greet i like the

1:54:48 ↗ idea of making it more formal in the

1:54:51 ↗ round robin aka speed dating structure i

1:54:54 ↗ think

1:54:55 ↗ 45 minutes is inadequate particularly if

1:54:56 ↗ we have a turnout like we had last time

1:54:59 ↗ and i also am concerned that as

1:55:01 ↗ deputy president batiste just mentioned

1:55:03 ↗ if we have an event that we're all

1:55:06 ↗ scurrying off to at the end of it

1:55:09 ↗ that creates some conflict and i know

1:55:11 ↗ nobody wants to put another night here

1:55:13 ↗ on their calendar but it might be

1:55:15 ↗ something that's important enough to

1:55:16 ↗ allocate some dedicated time to so that

1:55:19 ↗ we can do this

1:55:21 ↗ correctly and more importantly that we

1:55:23 ↗ can give the applicants for this vacancy

1:55:25 ↗ the respect that they really deserve

1:55:29 ↗ accounts member

1:55:30 ↗ hunt um

1:55:33 ↗ and i had a couple comments i like the

1:55:35 ↗ idea of the more structured uh meet and

1:55:37 ↗ greet as well i think that that as well

1:55:40 ↗ as the

1:55:41 ↗ um

1:55:42 ↗ as well as the narrowing down process

1:55:44 ↗ really depends on how many applicants we

1:55:46 ↗ have i think it's less critical that it

1:55:48 ↗ be structured if there's fewer

1:55:50 ↗ applicants but if there is a lot of

1:55:52 ↗ applicants then i think that would

1:55:54 ↗ it would i think help the applicants

1:55:57 ↗ know how to

1:55:59 ↗ identify with and speak with all of the

1:56:01 ↗ council members if we did have more of a

1:56:04 ↗ system in place for doing that i also

1:56:07 ↗ agree that potentially 45 minutes is not

1:56:10 ↗ adequate time and it could be its own

1:56:12 ↗ standalone

1:56:14 ↗ standalone event or it could be before

1:56:17 ↗ another meeting but with more time

1:56:20 ↗ and

1:56:21 ↗ the other thing

1:56:22 ↗ that i wanted to comment on was about

1:56:25 ↗ the 10-minute verbal presentations about

1:56:27 ↗ the possibility for

1:56:29 ↗ other sorts of presentations i think

1:56:31 ↗ that on council we talk

1:56:36 ↗ we regularly talk and deliberate on

1:56:38 ↗ issues without visual aids and so i

1:56:40 ↗ actually prefer to have

1:56:43 ↗ the

1:56:44 ↗ applicants make their case and describe

1:56:47 ↗ their vision for issaquah without visual

1:56:49 ↗ aids so that would be my that would be

1:56:51 ↗ my preference because that's what we do

1:56:53 ↗ weekly or sometimes multiple times a

1:56:56 ↗ week we talk about our vision for

1:56:57 ↗ issaquah and we deliberate

1:57:00 ↗ face to face and

1:57:02 ↗ talk it through

1:57:04 ↗ so before i go to council president

1:57:05 ↗ martz i just wanted to say i'm noting

1:57:07 ↗ down that we have three things at least

1:57:09 ↗ to discuss here

1:57:11 ↗ the use of visual aids or not

1:57:14 ↗ whether or not

1:57:17 ↗ we will have a separate meeting with

1:57:19 ↗ additional time and

1:57:21 ↗ i can't read my other note but i'll get

1:57:23 ↗ to it council president mart's followed

1:57:25 ↗ by

1:57:26 ↗ have you spoken yet paul i can't

1:57:27 ↗ remember yes but i have an addition i'll

1:57:29 ↗ come back to you too okay council

1:57:30 ↗ president so i was gonna yeah also agree

1:57:32 ↗ that there's to me there's a question

1:57:34 ↗ around the 10-minute presentations um

1:57:36 ↗ but i wanna i wanna i think we should

1:57:38 ↗ talk to that um as a separate point um

1:57:41 ↗ and then also the question around uh

1:57:43 ↗ visual aids or not but um back to the

1:57:46 ↗ issue of uh the calendar and meeting

1:57:48 ↗ ahead of time so i i think i actually

1:57:50 ↗ think about this a little bit

1:57:51 ↗ differently than everybody else does

1:57:52 ↗ which is in terms of

1:57:55 ↗ what that event is for

1:57:58 ↗ i think of that first and foremost as an

1:58:00 ↗ event for the public

1:58:02 ↗ and then

1:58:03 ↗ a chance for us to see the applicants

1:58:06 ↗ uh

1:58:07 ↗ interacting with the public right

1:58:10 ↗ so

1:58:11 ↗ that event when we had it over in the

1:58:14 ↗ eagle room one of the reasons why it was

1:58:16 ↗ funny and we spent um

1:58:18 ↗ i mean the mayor and i reviewed the the

1:58:21 ↗ feedback from from the applicants um

1:58:23 ↗ last year

1:58:24 ↗ was there weren't many members of the

1:58:25 ↗ public there right i think council

1:58:27 ↗ members outnumbered the public but i

1:58:29 ↗ think the intent was um that's the pl

1:58:33 ↗ okay i'm seeing a headshake um

1:58:36 ↗ i i think the intent of that activity

1:58:38 ↗ was um to allow the public uh to get a

1:58:41 ↗ chance to meet with those applicants and

1:58:43 ↗ again for us to see

1:58:45 ↗ the public meeting with them and so uh

1:58:48 ↗ you know i it's one of the reasons why

1:58:51 ↗ we

1:58:52 ↗ talked about moving it to this location

1:58:55 ↗ before the council meeting specifically

1:58:57 ↗ because we think it would have the

1:58:59 ↗ opportunity of producing a larger public

1:59:01 ↗ turnout and a larger number of public

1:59:03 ↗ members to

1:59:04 ↗ to speak to the applicants

1:59:07 ↗ in terms of our opportunity to speak

1:59:09 ↗ with the applicants one of the things

1:59:11 ↗ that i want to add to the list of things

1:59:13 ↗ to talk about later is

1:59:14 ↗ i think that we should consider in the

1:59:16 ↗ instructions

1:59:17 ↗ to encourage candidates to consider

1:59:19 ↗ reaching out individually to council

1:59:21 ↗ members because we all know that some

1:59:22 ↗ applicants did and some applicants

1:59:24 ↗ didn't

1:59:25 ↗ and then the other

1:59:26 ↗ revolves around

1:59:29 ↗ encouraging or at least

1:59:30 ↗ acknowledging the possibility of letters

1:59:32 ↗ of recommendation which some applicants

1:59:34 ↗ have said that they didn't really

1:59:36 ↗ understand during the process that that

1:59:37 ↗ was an option

1:59:38 ↗ so that also comes from the feedback

1:59:41 ↗ so

1:59:42 ↗ um

1:59:44 ↗ uh i guess that is the summary of my

1:59:47 ↗ thoughts um i think the meet and greet

1:59:49 ↗ is really about the public

1:59:50 ↗ and uh it's the public's only chance to

1:59:53 ↗ directly interact with the applicants uh

1:59:56 ↗ before we uh before we bring the the

1:59:59 ↗ process back into this room

2:00:00 ↗ what's remember winston thank you i

2:00:02 ↗ actually have a couple questions so

2:00:03 ↗ please bear with me tina do you remember

2:00:05 ↗ the order of things last year

2:00:08 ↗ my recollection is that the

2:00:10 ↗ presentations to counsel happened before

2:00:14 ↗ the meet and greet it did

2:00:16 ↗ and and thank you

2:00:18 ↗ and so this is different

2:00:20 ↗ and and and tola

2:00:24 ↗ my memory also serves me that i was the

2:00:25 ↗ one who suggested the meet and greet for

2:00:28 ↗ the purpose of giving council members an

2:00:30 ↗ opportunity to interact with a in a less

2:00:33 ↗ structured way

2:00:35 ↗ up close speaking perhaps one-on-one or

2:00:37 ↗ at least in a small group of people so

2:00:40 ↗ that proposal was to create something

2:00:42 ↗ beyond just

2:00:44 ↗ the presentation they gave us and the

2:00:46 ↗ maybe the chance that they had to talk

2:00:48 ↗ to us one-on-one if they reached out to

2:00:50 ↗ us it so the

2:00:52 ↗ my original intent at least was to

2:00:53 ↗ create a place

2:00:55 ↗ where candidates and council members

2:00:57 ↗ could have more unstructured

2:00:58 ↗ conversation and in that regard it did

2:01:02 ↗ accomplish that but i do agree with the

2:01:05 ↗ observations and that could be even

2:01:07 ↗ better

2:01:08 ↗ as well because i do remember going

2:01:10 ↗ there go okay i remember you saying this

2:01:12 ↗ now i want to ask you in a direct

2:01:14 ↗ response to that

2:01:15 ↗ and and i thought that was actually very

2:01:17 ↗ helpful to me and so and so this order

2:01:21 ↗ sorry mayor

2:01:22 ↗ i mean you know

2:01:24 ↗ this order actually challenges me i like

2:01:26 ↗ the idea of that afterwards i want to

2:01:28 ↗ hear them and then have a chance to talk

2:01:30 ↗ with them about that

2:01:32 ↗ um and

2:01:33 ↗ the other thing i'll say is

2:01:36 ↗ you know with apologies to my colleagues

2:01:38 ↗ here on the council that

2:01:41 ↗ we're going to get to the questions but

2:01:42 ↗ there are three of them that i want to

2:01:43 ↗ discuss changing the wording of okay

2:01:47 ↗ i am going to keep the discussion going

2:01:50 ↗ to see if there's anything else to add

2:01:52 ↗ to the list of items to have you discuss

2:01:55 ↗ did i see your hand go up mariah

2:02:02 ↗ it sounds like you've got the list i

2:02:03 ↗ have more comments about what we're

2:02:06 ↗ already discussing you're asking for

2:02:08 ↗ additional

2:02:09 ↗ no you can't you can do both if you

2:02:11 ↗ would like to make more comments on the

2:02:12 ↗ process

2:02:13 ↗ please feel free to do that and then

2:02:15 ↗ when everybody is done i'll kind of read

2:02:17 ↗ back the list and see if i've captured

2:02:18 ↗ all the

2:02:20 ↗ you know items to be discussed so you

2:02:21 ↗ feel free okay

2:02:23 ↗ well i think

2:02:24 ↗ as as i think this through i think

2:02:27 ↗ we have a decision to make about um

2:02:30 ↗ sort of the purpose of that of that meet

2:02:33 ↗ and greet and and if it ends up being a

2:02:36 ↗ a dual purpose um that

2:02:39 ↗ that would that would be fine

2:02:41 ↗ uh for both having the public there and

2:02:45 ↗ um having conversations with candidates

2:02:47 ↗ i would uh council member wenderstein

2:02:50 ↗ just talked about the order and now that

2:02:51 ↗ i think about that

2:02:53 ↗ that does make more sense to me to be

2:02:55 ↗ able to listen to the

2:02:57 ↗ to the applicants uh speak and then be

2:03:00 ↗ able to because then you might have

2:03:02 ↗ follow-up questions that that you could

2:03:05 ↗ uh talk with them about

2:03:07 ↗ um

2:03:08 ↗ if we are uh if part of our purpose is

2:03:11 ↗ to involve the public which i believe it

2:03:13 ↗ is then

2:03:15 ↗ having

2:03:16 ↗ a separate meeting on a separate date

2:03:18 ↗ where where we don't have

2:03:22 ↗ the council work session i'm

2:03:25 ↗ love to hear what everyone else thinks

2:03:27 ↗ about this but i think we might have

2:03:28 ↗ less public engagement in that regard

2:03:31 ↗ i'm not sure we if we have a council

2:03:34 ↗ work session and there are people that

2:03:35 ↗ are coming

2:03:36 ↗ to

2:03:37 ↗ that are interested in the council work

2:03:38 ↗ session then we just might have more

2:03:40 ↗ public participation

2:03:43 ↗ i wanted to speak on the

2:03:45 ↗ the visual aids

2:03:46 ↗ so this is this is coming directly for

2:03:49 ↗ me as being

2:03:50 ↗ someone who went through the appointment

2:03:52 ↗ process

2:03:53 ↗ in terms of visual aids

2:03:56 ↗ for me and just

2:03:58 ↗ the way that i work it's very hard for

2:04:00 ↗ me to read

2:04:02 ↗ off of a script and that was actually

2:04:05 ↗ the hard the hardest part for me

2:04:08 ↗ is that you're you are putting together

2:04:11 ↗ all of your thoughts

2:04:12 ↗ um and then you don't it doesn't seem

2:04:15 ↗ like you get as much of a chance to

2:04:17 ↗ interact with counsel because you have a

2:04:19 ↗ harder time

2:04:20 ↗ looking up unless you have the whole

2:04:22 ↗ thing memorized

2:04:24 ↗ and so being able to look at a

2:04:26 ↗ powerpoint and actually talk a little

2:04:28 ↗ bit more

2:04:29 ↗ i guess off the cuff

2:04:31 ↗ seems

2:04:33 ↗ seems to go toward what council member

2:04:35 ↗ hunt brought up in terms of we're

2:04:37 ↗ deliberating

2:04:38 ↗ we don't always have something in front

2:04:40 ↗ of us but to me

2:04:41 ↗ bullets on a powerpoint where i'm just

2:04:43 ↗ speaking about certain things so it's

2:04:46 ↗ more

2:04:47 ↗ kind of coming from my heart and i'm not

2:04:49 ↗ reading it off a page seems to make more

2:04:52 ↗ sense to me that that was definitely my

2:04:57 ↗ feedback after

2:04:58 ↗ going through the appointment process

2:05:02 ↗ and

2:05:05 ↗ i had one more thought but i'm going to

2:05:06 ↗ wait because it went out of my head

2:05:09 ↗ so i think we're going to have a very

2:05:11 ↗ interesting conversation since five of

2:05:14 ↗ the eight of us have been through

2:05:16 ↗ that process so this is going to be fun

2:05:19 ↗ any more discussion anything else to add

2:05:21 ↗ to the list i did note down to that you

2:05:24 ↗ had some suggested question edits as

2:05:26 ↗ well anything else to add to the list

2:05:28 ↗ because if not i'm just going to

2:05:30 ↗ move through these one item at a time

2:05:33 ↗ and see if we can get resolution

2:05:35 ↗ that's present i'm sorry didn't paul you

2:05:37 ↗ said you had three more things to add to

2:05:39 ↗ the list did i hear that right

2:05:41 ↗ well that was in the questions so i have

2:05:43 ↗ the wording of some of the questions i

2:05:45 ↗ want so i think we can carve that off

2:05:47 ↗ separately i was going to see maybe if

2:05:48 ↗ we could put that up and go through the

2:05:50 ↗ questions

2:05:51 ↗ um so i'm not sure in what particular

2:05:53 ↗ order or which is an easier not easy

2:05:56 ↗ question to answer but

2:05:58 ↗ let's start with the slides or no slides

2:06:01 ↗ and do a thumbs up or thumbs down so

2:06:02 ↗ that we can leave it in i want to be

2:06:04 ↗ really clear with those that are

2:06:05 ↗ applying that they understand what the

2:06:07 ↗ presentation

2:06:08 ↗ requirements are so anybody have

2:06:10 ↗ thoughts on that

2:06:13 ↗ or just want to give me some sort of

2:06:15 ↗ indication of yes or no

2:06:19 ↗ yeah i was just

2:06:20 ↗ sort of

2:06:22 ↗ one key point here is that if

2:06:25 ↗ you know there's one question about do

2:06:27 ↗ you allow that

2:06:28 ↗ and then there's another question about

2:06:30 ↗ how how many slides would you allow so

2:06:34 ↗ they're they're kind of i think our

2:06:35 ↗ suggestion was one slide one slide yep

2:06:39 ↗ well to be fair one one council member

2:06:42 ↗ actually wanted to chat about the

2:06:43 ↗ possibility of more than one slide but

2:06:46 ↗ i

2:06:46 ↗ since i have the floor i'm actually

2:06:48 ↗ swayed by council member hunt's uh

2:06:50 ↗ suggestion that uh asking people to

2:06:53 ↗ present the way that they would up on

2:06:55 ↗ the dais uh makes it so that i'm no

2:06:58 ↗ longer interested in more than one side

2:07:00 ↗ i'm interested in zero slots zero slides

2:07:04 ↗ uh if we're only going to have one slide

2:07:07 ↗ then that

2:07:08 ↗ probably wouldn't work in terms of what

2:07:11 ↗ i was just speaking to so one slide i

2:07:13 ↗ think it would be super dense

2:07:20 ↗ i guess i would still vote to at least

2:07:22 ↗ have one slide but it doesn't it's not

2:07:26 ↗ exactly what i was uh speaking to so if

2:07:28 ↗ other council members feel

2:07:31 ↗ that um otherwise then i would say no

2:07:33 ↗ slides i'm gonna tell i'm just gonna

2:07:35 ↗ move right down

2:07:36 ↗ and sort of get a

2:07:38 ↗ indication and i'll come back to you if

2:07:39 ↗ that's okay

2:07:41 ↗ i'm sorry can i just suggest that if if

2:07:43 ↗ the vote is to not include slides we

2:07:46 ↗ don't have to worry about it but the

2:07:46 ↗ vote is to include slides so we can have

2:07:48 ↗ the follow-on conversation

2:07:50 ↗ councilmember goodman

2:07:53 ↗ i was just going to say that i'm

2:07:55 ↗ i too

2:07:57 ↗ i'm not supportive of the

2:07:59 ↗ visual presentations because at some

2:08:01 ↗ point

2:08:02 ↗ it becomes

2:08:04 ↗ it could the potential is there for

2:08:07 ↗ all of the applicants to do something

2:08:08 ↗ completely different

2:08:10 ↗ and

2:08:12 ↗ then

2:08:13 ↗ i start thinking about

2:08:15 ↗ well

2:08:17 ↗ we're not really comparing apples to

2:08:18 ↗ apples it's apples to oranges and so if

2:08:21 ↗ somebody does some bang-up job on slides

2:08:23 ↗ then

2:08:25 ↗ then you wonder if that same other

2:08:27 ↗ person that was so impressive could also

2:08:28 ↗ do a bang-up job on slides and so at

2:08:31 ↗ this point i'm not supportive of

2:08:34 ↗ anything more than just what we have

2:08:36 ↗ traditionally

2:08:38 ↗ allowed thanks bounce remember

2:08:40 ↗ winterstein no visual aids individually

2:08:42 ↗ it's councilman ramos

2:08:45 ↗ oh pass

2:08:46 ↗ councilmember ray

2:08:49 ↗ i'm kind of thinking of this

2:08:50 ↗ presentation a bit like a candidate's

2:08:52 ↗ forum where you don't get to bring

2:08:53 ↗ visual aids so i'm a no visual aids okay

2:08:57 ↗ sounds like that's where we're landing

2:08:58 ↗ that we will have our 10-minute

2:09:00 ↗ presentation as we did before no visual

2:09:02 ↗ aids

2:09:05 ↗ next one do you want to have well i had

2:09:08 ↗ two on the meet and greet do you want to

2:09:10 ↗ have it on a separate date with a longer

2:09:12 ↗ amount of time and where do you want to

2:09:14 ↗ sequence it in the schedule

2:09:18 ↗ remember goodman i'll just start with a

2:09:19 ↗ suggestion what if we just flipped the

2:09:21 ↗ two meetings we had on january 14th we

2:09:23 ↗ had a special

2:09:25 ↗ special meeting just with the council

2:09:28 ↗ are the presentations

2:09:30 ↗ and then on the 22nd

2:09:33 ↗ um

2:09:36 ↗ the council that's a regular council

2:09:37 ↗ meeting because it's the day after

2:09:39 ↗ mlk day yeah it starts at seven

2:09:42 ↗ so

2:09:44 ↗ my question about that day is would

2:09:47 ↗ that gives us an extra half an hour

2:09:49 ↗ and we could start at five or five

2:09:51 ↗ thirty maybe five

2:09:53 ↗ um and then go on to our

2:09:56 ↗ council meeting

2:09:58 ↗ um

2:10:02 ↗ and then

2:10:05 ↗ making sure i understand what you're

2:10:06 ↗ suggesting is keeping the meeting on the

2:10:09 ↗ 14th

2:10:11 ↗ which would be the 10-minute

2:10:13 ↗ presentations

2:10:14 ↗ and moving the meet-and-greet to an hour

2:10:17 ↗ and a half before the january 22nd

2:10:19 ↗ council meeting

2:10:21 ↗ okay

2:10:23 ↗ can i point out that

2:10:25 ↗ um

2:10:26 ↗ the council presentations an executive

2:10:30 ↗ session was a three-hour

2:10:32 ↗ meeting mm-hmm

2:10:34 ↗ and the council meeting did start later

2:10:37 ↗ when we did this last year

2:10:39 ↗ so if it were to be on the 14th and it

2:10:41 ↗ were to be three hours long it would

2:10:42 ↗ delay the work session

2:10:44 ↗ and make for a very long night

2:10:48 ↗ um

2:10:51 ↗ so there is a there is a work session

2:10:54 ↗ there is a work session now on the 14th

2:10:56 ↗ yes um is it do we know what's

2:11:00 ↗ there's the opportunity of moving the

2:11:03 ↗ work session items it's the first work

2:11:05 ↗ session in january i don't know how

2:11:06 ↗ packed it's going to be maybe we just

2:11:08 ↗ cancel it

2:11:11 ↗ could be an option looking at the city

2:11:12 ↗ administrator

2:11:18 ↗ council president mart and to speak to

2:11:20 ↗ that i mean we were talking about adding

2:11:22 ↗ if we had nine applicants 90 minutes

2:11:25 ↗ right so we're not i mean that

2:11:27 ↗ in terms of the modifications the 14th

2:11:29 ↗ it would just be plus

2:11:31 ↗ somewhere between one to two hours it

2:11:32 ↗ wouldn't be plus three hours likely

2:11:34 ↗ unless of course unless we have 18 hours

2:11:36 ↗ i think we

2:11:41 ↗ 14 and then executive sessions so

2:11:45 ↗ if you're comfortable with that we can

2:11:48 ↗ for now

2:11:50 ↗ advertise that we will have the

2:11:53 ↗ ten minute presentations that night that

2:11:55 ↗ would move that to the council chambers

2:11:58 ↗ so that you would be able to recess into

2:12:00 ↗ executive session and then begin your

2:12:02 ↗ work session

2:12:03 ↗ if we have a work session which i'm

2:12:05 ↗ guessing we will probably have a work

2:12:07 ↗ session

2:12:09 ↗ is

2:12:10 ↗ council member goodman we can play with

2:12:12 ↗ the times we can that we start both of

2:12:14 ↗ those special meetings on the work

2:12:15 ↗ session

2:12:16 ↗ based on what ends up to be on the work

2:12:18 ↗ session agenda and

2:12:20 ↗ number of applicants yeah and move those

2:12:23 ↗ agenda items if we can and

2:12:26 ↗ council member hunt was correct when she

2:12:27 ↗ said what drives a lot of this is how

2:12:29 ↗ many applicants we get sure

2:12:32 ↗ so does that look like a plan oh council

2:12:35 ↗ member ray no i was just going to say i

2:12:36 ↗ like the resequencing too i think it

2:12:38 ↗ makes sense

2:12:39 ↗ to do the presentations before the meet

2:12:41 ↗ and greet and it'll make the meet and

2:12:42 ↗ greets more effective i believe

2:12:44 ↗ okay

2:12:46 ↗ um

2:12:48 ↗ so

2:12:49 ↗ we have done the meet and greet

2:12:51 ↗ sequencing the length of time

2:12:54 ↗ the no slides

2:12:56 ↗ um and i think um this was really not so

2:12:59 ↗ much for discussion but it was a

2:13:00 ↗ suggestion from council president that

2:13:02 ↗ we make it clear in the materials that

2:13:04 ↗ we advertise

2:13:06 ↗ about

2:13:07 ↗ encouraging candidates to meet with

2:13:09 ↗ council members to

2:13:12 ↗ do letters of recommendation and

2:13:13 ↗ endorsements

2:13:15 ↗ on the last page of your packet is the

2:13:19 ↗ instructions that says uh let's see

2:13:22 ↗ you're encouraged to learn more about

2:13:24 ↗ the role of a council member attend

2:13:25 ↗ various council meetings talk with

2:13:27 ↗ current or former council members submit

2:13:29 ↗ letters of support or reference letters

2:13:30 ↗ to the city clerk

2:13:32 ↗ and to review the public financial

2:13:33 ↗ disclosure responsibilities that's great

2:13:36 ↗ tina is that satisfactory

2:13:39 ↗ great council member goodman and the um

2:13:41 ↗ the format of the meet and greet is that

2:13:43 ↗ something we would talk about later yep

2:13:47 ↗ have some time

2:13:50 ↗ um then i would move on to councilmember

2:13:52 ↗ winterstein's

2:13:53 ↗ proposed discussion of several questions

2:13:57 ↗ applicant questions thank you

2:14:10 ↗ there are three questions four seven and

2:14:13 ↗ nine that kind of inject

2:14:16 ↗ um

2:14:17 ↗ judgment uh into the statement

2:14:20 ↗ um and

2:14:22 ↗ regardless if i agree or disagree it's

2:14:23 ↗ just the wording of one so for example

2:14:25 ↗ four reads if you are on council

2:14:28 ↗ you will be looking at having to make

2:14:29 ↗ decisions in a divided community

2:14:31 ↗ occasionally

2:14:34 ↗ how would you make the decisions on

2:14:35 ↗ issues that divide the community and so

2:14:37 ↗ maybe this one isn't as clear as maybe

2:14:39 ↗ seven and nine are

2:14:40 ↗ um

2:14:42 ↗ i would propose a rewrite of that one to

2:14:46 ↗ um

2:14:49 ↗ put more of an emphasis on

2:14:51 ↗ you know the fact that

2:14:53 ↗ some dif there may be strong sediments

2:14:56 ↗ held on multiple sides of certain issues

2:14:59 ↗ uh and trying to understand how somebody

2:15:01 ↗ would operate in that environment so

2:15:03 ↗ something like how would you make

2:15:04 ↗ decisions on issues where the community

2:15:06 ↗ has strong sediments and they are not

2:15:08 ↗ all in agreement

2:15:14 ↗ for discussion

2:15:16 ↗ what i'm trying to do is just taking

2:15:18 ↗ that divided community

2:15:20 ↗ piece out of there i understand the

2:15:22 ↗ intent sometimes it's hard because we're

2:15:24 ↗ not on because there are strong

2:15:26 ↗ sediments within the community

2:15:31 ↗ better or stay with the original

2:15:34 ↗ thoughts um

2:15:37 ↗ no i

2:15:39 ↗ i

2:15:41 ↗ i like the

2:15:42 ↗ idea to

2:15:44 ↗ revise it

2:15:46 ↗ um

2:15:48 ↗ and

2:15:49 ↗ noting that you know there are different

2:15:52 ↗ sentiments in the community and so

2:15:55 ↗ um

2:16:01 ↗ you can maybe we

2:16:02 ↗ can one is word-smithing it

2:16:07 ↗ especially anybody who's ever been a

2:16:08 ↗ good editor that's remember right yeah i

2:16:11 ↗ i'm just struck with we're not a divided

2:16:13 ↗ community so the word divided is the

2:16:14 ↗ wrong word we you know we may have

2:16:16 ↗ different points of view we may have

2:16:18 ↗ different objectives we may have

2:16:19 ↗ different sentiments so i'm agreeing i'm

2:16:21 ↗ just throwing out some words that are

2:16:22 ↗ not divided because i don't believe we

2:16:24 ↗ are okay

2:16:27 ↗ so some wordsmithing on that one to make

2:16:32 ↗ it clearer that it's

2:16:34 ↗ different sentiments different points of

2:16:36 ↗ view

2:16:37 ↗ and getting away from the connotation of

2:16:40 ↗ a divided community

2:16:42 ↗ okay right because the question comes in

2:16:44 ↗ the second sentence how would you make

2:16:46 ↗ decisions so i tried to retain that part

2:16:49 ↗ of it and and and you could discuss that

2:16:52 ↗ allah and so i retained how would you

2:16:54 ↗ make decisions

2:16:55 ↗ then i i i

2:16:58 ↗ in the case where there are strong

2:16:59 ↗ sediments

2:17:00 ↗ on different sides of the same issue

2:17:02 ↗ sounds like we're getting head nuts that

2:17:03 ↗ that's a good direction to go question

2:17:06 ↗ seven

2:17:07 ↗ it starts with is a guaja's growing

2:17:09 ↗ pains what can be done to better manage

2:17:11 ↗ these

2:17:12 ↗ time manage these times of rapid growth

2:17:15 ↗ in a way that protects our existing

2:17:17 ↗ residents quality of life and preserves

2:17:19 ↗ as aqua's essential character

2:17:21 ↗ and

2:17:22 ↗ and

2:17:23 ↗ again your leading

2:17:26 ↗ candidate

2:17:27 ↗ and i thought about maybe a more open

2:17:30 ↗ way of doing it how do you view the

2:17:31 ↗ city's growth and what would you do to

2:17:33 ↗ protect our quality of life and

2:17:34 ↗ character

2:17:36 ↗ thoughts

2:17:38 ↗ let's remember i think i think paul just

2:17:40 ↗ hit on it i think you could just go with

2:17:42 ↗ what do we have to do to maintain our

2:17:44 ↗ residents quality of life and preserve

2:17:46 ↗ esqua's

2:17:48 ↗ um essential character that's the

2:17:50 ↗ question

2:17:50 ↗ the rest of it's

2:17:52 ↗ you know preamble well it is and and i

2:17:55 ↗ thought a key

2:17:58 ↗ if you've run a campaign in the city you

2:18:00 ↗ know the word growth is a four-letter

2:18:02 ↗ word to many people so i think keeping

2:18:04 ↗ it in the question

2:18:06 ↗ and allowing a candidate to express

2:18:08 ↗ their

2:18:09 ↗ perception their

2:18:10 ↗ their

2:18:11 ↗ how they view growth

2:18:13 ↗ explicitly calling how do you view the

2:18:15 ↗ city's growth

2:18:17 ↗ and what would you do to protect our

2:18:18 ↗ quality of life and character so there

2:18:19 ↗ is two parts to the question and i

2:18:21 ↗ deliberately wanted to keep the growth

2:18:22 ↗ in there that's that was my thinking but

2:18:24 ↗ i appreciate your support supposed to

2:18:26 ↗ merts yeah i agree that growth should be

2:18:28 ↗ should be kept in it

2:18:29 ↗ i want to know how they view growth

2:18:31 ↗ specifically okay

2:18:34 ↗ comments

2:18:36 ↗ head nods good let's go to excuse me i'm

2:18:39 ↗ sorry so how do you view the city's

2:18:41 ↗ growth and what was the second part and

2:18:42 ↗ what would you do to protect our quality

2:18:44 ↗ of life and character

2:18:48 ↗ i took that the word essential two

2:18:49 ↗ questions it is

2:18:52 ↗ and and and i

2:18:54 ↗ so that's a good point i agree with that

2:18:55 ↗ there are two questions

2:18:57 ↗ except with an and

2:19:01 ↗ because it is it is an attempt to get at

2:19:05 ↗ i think the two sides of the same coin

2:19:07 ↗ there's growth and then how it affects

2:19:09 ↗ quality of life and character how about

2:19:10 ↗ if it starts with

2:19:12 ↗ when considering the city's growth comma

2:19:15 ↗ what would you do to protect the quality

2:19:16 ↗ of life an essential character

2:19:18 ↗ i think that was more that was the

2:19:20 ↗ original intent was to link those two

2:19:24 ↗ right and so that's a good way of saying

2:19:26 ↗ it

2:19:28 ↗ yes

2:19:32 ↗ um vicky

2:19:34 ↗ it's a minor comment but i think the the

2:19:36 ↗ intent was to remove the word essential

2:19:38 ↗ is that right yes

2:19:46 ↗ what

2:19:49 ↗ and some head nods let's move to nine

2:19:52 ↗ isquad is becoming again it's kind of

2:19:54 ↗ leading it's a leading question is

2:19:56 ↗ becoming increasingly unaffordable

2:19:57 ↗ whether you agree or disagree with that

2:20:00 ↗ we could maybe write that just and and

2:20:02 ↗ as a question please word smith yeah

2:20:03 ↗ describe your perception of housing

2:20:05 ↗ affordability in issaquah

2:20:07 ↗ and what would you do to address it if

2:20:09 ↗ it is a problem so

2:20:12 ↗ it may

2:20:13 ↗ be beyond just how it might be more than

2:20:15 ↗ housing be unaffordable

2:20:18 ↗ well so so that's a good point and and

2:20:20 ↗ my perception was

2:20:23 ↗ um uh yes i'm injecting housing in there

2:20:25 ↗ because that's what i thought it was and

2:20:27 ↗ if if

2:20:28 ↗ we think it's intended to be broader

2:20:30 ↗ than that i'm all ears

2:20:32 ↗ it's generally what you hear

2:20:34 ↗ affordability and the housing has a lot

2:20:36 ↗ of cost elements to it in addition to

2:20:39 ↗ property taxes yep

2:20:41 ↗ so what what phrasing did you suggest

2:20:44 ↗ paul

2:20:46 ↗ i'm less wedded to this one but it says

2:20:47 ↗ describe your perception of housing

2:20:49 ↗ affordability in esqua

2:20:52 ↗ and

2:20:53 ↗ i'm trying i want to hear what they

2:20:54 ↗ think about affordability

2:20:56 ↗ uh they um and because our currently it

2:21:00 ↗ says it it's judgmental is becoming

2:21:02 ↗ increasingly unaffordable it's it's a

2:21:04 ↗ statement of like it's fact i would

2:21:07 ↗ actually like to hear with the candidate

2:21:09 ↗ um um

2:21:11 ↗ what their perception affordability is

2:21:13 ↗ and then i went on and what would you do

2:21:14 ↗ to address it if it is a problem

2:21:17 ↗ see there i got presumptive that if it

2:21:19 ↗ is if

2:21:21 ↗ not

2:21:24 ↗ have a question what are we trying to

2:21:26 ↗ get at here

2:21:29 ↗ i mean what are we

2:21:30 ↗ this one's a little bit

2:21:32 ↗ of all of them this is one i could take

2:21:33 ↗ out and not feel like we lost much but

2:21:36 ↗ so i'm just trying to figure out what

2:21:37 ↗ what we're really trying to

2:21:39 ↗ unearth in

2:21:41 ↗ in a candidate's thought processes

2:21:46 ↗ i had definite thoughts about this i

2:21:47 ↗ think housing affordability is one of

2:21:49 ↗ our toughest nuts and and any i love

2:21:51 ↗ crowdsourcing solutions when possible

2:21:54 ↗ and that so so

2:21:56 ↗ in the off chance there's some genius

2:21:58 ↗ would drop some brilliance upon us i

2:22:00 ↗ wanted to keep the question in

2:22:06 ↗ there box

2:22:11 ↗ uh councilmember goodman council member

2:22:12 ↗ hunt

2:22:13 ↗ it is

2:22:14 ↗ so specific

2:22:16 ↗ um

2:22:17 ↗ that

2:22:18 ↗ i agree with

2:22:21 ↗ guess that this is one that i could do

2:22:22 ↗ without

2:22:23 ↗ um

2:22:31 ↗ gotcha

2:22:33 ↗ councilmember hunt batiste

2:22:40 ↗ so i think if the intent is to

2:22:44 ↗ to have the applicants describe housing

2:22:47 ↗ strategies for

2:22:49 ↗ affordable and or workforce housing

2:22:52 ↗ i don't know that the question actually

2:22:57 ↗ will

2:22:58 ↗ generate those responses because as it

2:23:01 ↗ is worded now it's describe your

2:23:03 ↗ perception of affordability and issaquah

2:23:05 ↗ could also be up for businesses

2:23:07 ↗ or

2:23:08 ↗ pools it could be yes it could be a

2:23:11 ↗ number of things

2:23:12 ↗ so i wonder if it would be

2:23:16 ↗ um

2:23:17 ↗ i wonder if we do want to have it be a

2:23:20 ↗ specific question

2:23:22 ↗ about housing

2:23:23 ↗ then

2:23:24 ↗ we should probably put the word

2:23:26 ↗ housing in there because i think if i

2:23:28 ↗ were

2:23:29 ↗ um

2:23:31 ↗ i think it we might get applicants that

2:23:34 ↗ read this

2:23:35 ↗ as meaning something more general

2:23:38 ↗ um

2:23:42 ↗ well i guess

2:23:43 ↗ i can totally understand what

2:23:45 ↗ councilmember hunt was

2:23:47 ↗ just referring to but

2:23:49 ↗ i

2:23:51 ↗ for me i i actually like the the more

2:23:53 ↗ broad question about

2:23:56 ↗ issaquah

2:23:58 ↗ being unaffordable to to open it up to a

2:24:00 ↗ variety of different topics um

2:24:03 ↗ housing is definitely part of that

2:24:07 ↗ maybe there's a way to word it where we

2:24:09 ↗ really cover both

2:24:10 ↗ so you could talk about two different

2:24:12 ↗ two different things if you had another

2:24:14 ↗ idea that you wanted to offer

2:24:16 ↗ about why you felt that was happening

2:24:22 ↗ so to be completely contrarian uh i

2:24:25 ↗ really would like to focus on housing

2:24:27 ↗ affordability i think the variability

2:24:29 ↗ the very the regional variability is in

2:24:31 ↗ the price of housing right in terms of

2:24:34 ↗ overall cost of cost of living

2:24:36 ↗ and i think that

2:24:39 ↗ as i've said many times before the uh

2:24:42 ↗ the way the region and our city in

2:24:44 ↗ particular responds to ongoing growth is

2:24:46 ↗ is our just our biggest challenge but i

2:24:49 ↗ think one of the most important facets

2:24:51 ↗ of that to me is housing affordability

2:24:53 ↗ so what however it's worded

2:24:55 ↗ i would like to know how candidates feel

2:24:57 ↗ about housing affordability in the city

2:24:58 ↗ and what they see the council's role in

2:25:00 ↗ responding to that

2:25:02 ↗ okay looking to wrap this up

2:25:05 ↗ councilmember interesting

2:25:07 ↗ the other thing that this question does

2:25:08 ↗ is because this is an active issue in

2:25:11 ↗ front of us we are still working on our

2:25:13 ↗ housing strategy and i actually remember

2:25:16 ↗ vicki's answer

2:25:18 ↗ because it demonstrated that she had

2:25:21 ↗ looked at

2:25:23 ↗ legislation that was in flight

2:25:26 ↗ and

2:25:27 ↗ this gives

2:25:29 ↗ candidates that same opportunity which i

2:25:31 ↗ think

2:25:33 ↗ i would like to see

2:25:36 ↗ uh councilmember okay i'm gonna just

2:25:38 ↗ kind of go

2:25:40 ↗ in a way off in the stratosphere here

2:25:42 ↗ but possibly it is describe your

2:25:45 ↗ perception of the council's role

2:25:48 ↗ relative to affordable housing in

2:25:50 ↗ issaquah

2:25:53 ↗ it's not stratosphere okay

2:25:56 ↗ the only thing i would change about that

2:25:58 ↗ is affordable housing or housing

2:26:00 ↗ affordability right affordable housing

2:26:01 ↗ has a very specific definition

2:26:04 ↗ i could i could go either way on that

2:26:05 ↗ but i'll just repeat that please

2:26:08 ↗ i don't know that i can do that

2:26:10 ↗ um

2:26:10 ↗ describe your perception of the

2:26:13 ↗ council's role

2:26:15 ↗ in

2:26:17 ↗ housing affordability in issaquah

2:26:22 ↗ that's good

2:26:25 ↗ does

2:26:27 ↗ is perception the right word or is it

2:26:30 ↗ describe counsel

2:26:31 ↗ describe

2:26:33 ↗ your

2:26:36 ↗ um

2:26:38 ↗ yeah what you believe the role should be

2:26:41 ↗ no okay what do you believe the

2:26:42 ↗ council's role should be

2:26:44 ↗ relative to housing

2:26:46 ↗ affordability affordability in this call

2:26:52 ↗ you're taking the what would you do if

2:26:54 ↗ there is a problem out of the question

2:26:56 ↗ right

2:26:58 ↗ now

2:26:59 ↗ good question

2:27:00 ↗ gets you where you want to be

2:27:02 ↗ okay did any other council members want

2:27:04 ↗ to talk about any of the other questions

2:27:06 ↗ on that list councilmember hunt

2:27:08 ↗ uh on

2:27:10 ↗ question six

2:27:11 ↗ um that one currently reads in addition

2:27:13 ↗ to council committee assignments council

2:27:15 ↗ members each serve on one or more

2:27:17 ↗ regional board or commissions

2:27:20 ↗ and what are your views on serving

2:27:22 ↗ regionally and what areas would you like

2:27:23 ↗ to serve as why regionally what

2:27:24 ↗ qualifies you for that service so i

2:27:27 ↗ think that this is a really important

2:27:28 ↗ question i

2:27:30 ↗ i would

2:27:32 ↗ recommend

2:27:34 ↗ streamlining it more and removing that

2:27:35 ↗ middle piece what are your views on

2:27:37 ↗ serving regionally i think i

2:27:39 ↗ would like to see it be more like the

2:27:41 ↗ rewritten um

2:27:44 ↗ number nine actually so describe your

2:27:48 ↗ your

2:27:49 ↗ view on the role of issaquah in the

2:27:51 ↗ region and then

2:27:53 ↗ and then what areas would you like to

2:27:55 ↗ serve and what qualifies you for that

2:27:57 ↗ service

2:27:58 ↗ thoughts on that edit

2:28:01 ↗ what's a head nods that's right okay

2:28:04 ↗ i'll let tina get that in so describe

2:28:06 ↗ your view

2:28:09 ↗ of the

2:28:11 ↗ role of issaquah in the region

2:28:15 ↗ and then

2:28:16 ↗ of israel's role regionally

2:28:19 ↗ yes did this close around the region

2:28:23 ↗ and i would remove the what are your

2:28:25 ↗ views on serving regionally because i

2:28:27 ↗ don't think that that's a

2:28:29 ↗ question that's going to generate much

2:28:31 ↗ insights but this this question about

2:28:33 ↗ issues role in the region i think

2:28:42 ↗ um

2:28:43 ↗ did you and you want the first sentence

2:28:45 ↗ in there as well to set the stage

2:28:47 ↗ i think it could be shortened so i think

2:28:49 ↗ it could be council members serve on one

2:28:52 ↗ or more regional boards or commission

2:28:54 ↗ council members each served

2:28:57 ↗ thoughts

2:28:59 ↗ lots of head nods

2:29:00 ↗ do any council members have any comments

2:29:03 ↗ or edits for any of the other questions

2:29:06 ↗ that's remember goodman

2:29:10 ↗ um

2:29:12 ↗ the second part in what areas would you

2:29:15 ↗ like to serve as aqua regionally

2:29:18 ↗ um

2:29:19 ↗ i think it should be more in what areas

2:29:21 ↗ do you

2:29:22 ↗ see yourself serving as a whole

2:29:24 ↗ regionally and why

2:29:27 ↗ because it sort of suggests that you

2:29:29 ↗ just get to

2:29:30 ↗ do what you like do what you want

2:29:35 ↗ and council member batiste comment on

2:29:38 ↗ that

2:29:39 ↗ no no different okay let's wrap this one

2:29:42 ↗ up number six with um councilmember

2:29:44 ↗ goodman's edit

2:29:46 ↗ better

2:29:47 ↗ okay councilmember petite so in several

2:29:50 ↗ of the questions we're asking uh about

2:29:53 ↗ how they feel specifically and then in

2:29:56 ↗ number 10 we ask about how the city

2:29:59 ↗ council can better solicit and

2:30:00 ↗ incorporate

2:30:01 ↗ incorporate community

2:30:03 ↗ feedback

2:30:06 ↗ and i guess i'm struggling with word

2:30:07 ↗ feedback

2:30:09 ↗ that's important but community

2:30:11 ↗ engagement

2:30:13 ↗ would be more broad

2:30:15 ↗ and i'm also thinking about um

2:30:19 ↗ just just layering in what you know more

2:30:22 ↗ what are your ideas if we want to ask

2:30:24 ↗ specifically about how city council can

2:30:26 ↗ do a better job

2:30:28 ↗ but also to understand what their ideas

2:30:31 ↗ are

2:30:32 ↗ it's interesting it is a question about

2:30:34 ↗ council performance versus

2:30:37 ↗ what

2:30:38 ↗ your ideas are

2:30:39 ↗ um

2:30:41 ↗ how might the council better solicit and

2:30:43 ↗ incorporate community feedback

2:30:46 ↗ oh i guess that's i guess that's that

2:30:47 ↗ that's the same

2:30:49 ↗ i i'm i'm more saying

2:30:51 ↗ uh

2:30:53 ↗ you want to know what their ideas

2:30:55 ↗ i would like to know what their ideas to

2:30:57 ↗ um to solicit and incorporate community

2:31:00 ↗ engagement we could say feedback and

2:31:02 ↗ engagement maybe those are the same but

2:31:04 ↗ i'd like to know more about them

2:31:06 ↗ personally

2:31:08 ↗ so so possibly the question might be if

2:31:12 ↗ on the council how would you engage with

2:31:14 ↗ the community to solicit their input

2:31:19 ↗ that better

2:31:20 ↗ i like that

2:31:22 ↗ it is this make me do it again a

2:31:24 ↗ replacement question

2:31:26 ↗ or a new question a reworking of number

2:31:29 ↗ ten okay

2:31:31 ↗ it again if on the council

2:31:34 ↗ how would you

2:31:35 ↗ engage with the community and solicit

2:31:39 ↗ their input

2:31:41 ↗ now that i'm looking at it

2:31:45 ↗ now engage with the community and

2:31:47 ↗ solicit their input

2:31:49 ↗ i just wonder if if it's too complicated

2:31:51 ↗ to ask both

2:31:52 ↗ questions because

2:31:55 ↗ there are two different questions how

2:31:56 ↗ would you directly engage

2:31:59 ↗ um and also how could the council do

2:32:02 ↗ a better job with engagement and i

2:32:04 ↗ actually like both of the questions

2:32:06 ↗ um

2:32:13 ↗ thoughts how can

2:32:14 ↗ i'm wordsmithing in my head so if i hear

2:32:16 ↗ you correctly mariah what you're saying

2:32:18 ↗ is you would keep both parts in there

2:32:20 ↗ okay thoughts

2:32:22 ↗ is that um

2:32:24 ↗ what you are intending or is it too much

2:32:32 ↗ i just think it's important so some

2:32:35 ↗ some applicants might come at this from

2:32:37 ↗ two different angles

2:32:39 ↗ in that way and talk more about

2:32:40 ↗ themselves personally but they are two

2:32:42 ↗ two very important questions

2:32:45 ↗ um and uh two different answers that you

2:32:47 ↗ would get so i like having both of them

2:32:50 ↗ but

2:32:50 ↗ uh council president mertz about

2:32:52 ↗ something like

2:32:54 ↗ uh

2:32:55 ↗ how is

2:32:56 ↗ how well does the city council engage

2:32:59 ↗ the community and what would you do

2:33:04 ↗ to

2:33:07 ↗ whatever whatever

2:33:08 ↗ in other words

2:33:10 ↗ it's a feedback on how we're doing

2:33:12 ↗ currently

2:33:15 ↗ and then what would they do differently

2:33:18 ↗ yeah i'm a little bit apprehensive to do

2:33:20 ↗ that because

2:33:22 ↗ um if i was a candidate or an applicant

2:33:25 ↗ and i wanted your support and i said you

2:33:27 ↗ guys are terrible at this i wouldn't

2:33:28 ↗ want to answer that so although i know

2:33:31 ↗ people from last time that would be that

2:33:32 ↗ would be happy to answer that but but i

2:33:34 ↗ think that the the point is this when we

2:33:37 ↗ ask how we're doing that's a question

2:33:39 ↗ about um you evaluating us which is not

2:33:42 ↗ the intent i don't think right so i

2:33:44 ↗ think the

2:33:45 ↗ um i think it's really important and i

2:33:47 ↗ think it's great feedback to get but i

2:33:48 ↗ don't think this is the forum to get

2:33:49 ↗ that feedback i think what we want to

2:33:51 ↗ know is how would you do it if you were

2:33:53 ↗ on the council

2:33:54 ↗ that will help inform us in terms of

2:33:56 ↗ who's so your suggestion would be to

2:33:58 ↗ just have the first one in the square

2:34:01 ↗ brackets if on counsel how would you

2:34:03 ↗ engage the community in solicit input

2:34:06 ↗ my preference that's the suggestion

2:34:08 ↗ thoughts

2:34:10 ↗ and what you could do i was just going

2:34:12 ↗ to say what you could do is you could

2:34:14 ↗ also word it in a way i i like that

2:34:17 ↗ um you could add if on the council how

2:34:20 ↗ would you engage or do

2:34:22 ↗ something about

2:34:24 ↗ do you have ideas about how the

2:34:27 ↗ council could be doing more outreach i

2:34:30 ↗ guess that gets to chris's question i

2:34:32 ↗ i feel the same way i think it's hard to

2:34:35 ↗ directly ask the applicant uh about how

2:34:39 ↗ council is doing so i'm just going to go

2:34:41 ↗ back to my original comment about i like

2:34:44 ↗ how would you engage

2:34:46 ↗ the community in solicitors am i seeing

2:34:47 ↗ head nods

2:34:49 ↗ you puzzled faces i'm not sure if we're

2:34:51 ↗ there yet

2:34:54 ↗ remember interesting i don't want the

2:34:56 ↗ good to be enemy of the perfect i'm good

2:34:58 ↗ with it good with it

2:35:02 ↗ generally good

2:35:04 ↗ any other questions on the application

2:35:06 ↗ that you would like to discuss

2:35:10 ↗ okay

2:35:14 ↗ at this point if there's no more

2:35:16 ↗ questions on process it would be great

2:35:17 ↗ to have a motion

2:35:19 ↗ actually i have one more question so are

2:35:21 ↗ we

2:35:22 ↗ still how do people feel about the

2:35:25 ↗ potential down select between the second

2:35:27 ↗ and the third meeting because i'm not

2:35:29 ↗ sure i heard consensus

2:35:31 ↗ support for that yeah i think i heard

2:35:33 ↗ that we want to potentially not

2:35:36 ↗ talk about a specific number of nominees

2:35:38 ↗ uh

2:35:39 ↗ to go to the third night

2:35:42 ↗ what i think i heard and what probably

2:35:44 ↗ makes sense is just say whoever somebody

2:35:47 ↗ wants to nominate gets to go to the

2:35:49 ↗ third

2:35:50 ↗ night and if

2:35:52 ↗ that's who goes to the third night who

2:35:54 ↗ gets at least one support from one

2:35:55 ↗ council member to do so and one

2:35:57 ↗ clarification is that when the city

2:35:59 ↗ clerk wrote this up she wrote may

2:36:02 ↗ so you're not locked in

2:36:05 ↗ to reducing

2:36:06 ↗ it's an option in your process

2:36:09 ↗ but i would like to know how people feel

2:36:11 ↗ generally about that good question

2:36:13 ↗ i i think it's a great idea

2:36:16 ↗ and i i think your

2:36:18 ↗ methodology if there's somebody who will

2:36:20 ↗ support a candidate then they move

2:36:21 ↗ forward

2:36:24 ↗ it's memberhead

2:36:25 ↗ i'm also in support i think it gives

2:36:27 ↗ especially if there are a large number

2:36:29 ↗ of applicants it gives the applicants a

2:36:30 ↗ little bit more information about how

2:36:32 ↗ the process is going in in between the

2:36:35 ↗ steps because there are so many

2:36:37 ↗ different steps and so i think it's it's

2:36:39 ↗ respectful to give them information

2:36:41 ↗ about where they stand

2:36:43 ↗ if there is a large number of applicants

2:36:45 ↗ if if there's fewer applicants then i

2:36:47 ↗ think

2:36:48 ↗ this process probably doesn't need to

2:36:50 ↗ come into play so i appreciate that

2:36:52 ↗ there's the the council may

2:36:54 ↗ narrow the pool

2:36:55 ↗ thank you

2:36:57 ↗ uh council member batiste

2:36:59 ↗ uh plus one

2:37:01 ↗ so it looks like we're going to leave it

2:37:03 ↗ in with a may

2:37:05 ↗ and see what the applicant pool size is

2:37:08 ↗ anything else

2:37:11 ↗ thank you this was a late edition

2:37:13 ↗ waiting for election results to be

2:37:15 ↗ finalized

2:37:17 ↗ you did great we had it on regular

2:37:19 ↗ business tonight which is awesome

2:37:20 ↗ and so i would entertain a motion

2:37:23 ↗ madam mayor i moved to approve the

2:37:24 ↗ process and timeline for filing the 2019

2:37:27 ↗ vacancy of position number four is

2:37:29 ↗ presented

2:37:33 ↗ second

2:37:34 ↗ it's been moved and seconded is there

2:37:35 ↗ any council discussion

2:37:38 ↗ there's no discussion all those in favor

2:37:40 ↗ for approving the process and timeline

2:37:41 ↗ for filling the 2019 vacancy of position

2:37:44 ↗ 4 as presented and amended signify by

2:37:46 ↗ saying aye aye closed

2:37:50 ↗ council member ramos vote

2:37:52 ↗ okay

2:37:53 ↗ passes unanimously

2:37:56 ↗ um i'm going to suggest that we take a

2:37:59 ↗ five minute break at this point in time

2:38:01 ↗ before we move to the next items which

2:38:04 ↗ are good of the order and upcoming

2:38:06 ↗ council meetings and executive session

2:38:07 ↗ so we'll take a five minute break

2:45:04 ↗ so we are back in session and we're

2:45:06 ↗ going to adjust our agenda slightly

2:45:09 ↗ i'm going to

2:45:10 ↗ move good of the order and

2:45:12 ↗ upcoming council meetings till after

2:45:14 ↗ executive session so we'll be entering

2:45:17 ↗ executive session shortly as earlier

2:45:20 ↗ announced there will be an executive

2:45:21 ↗ session held this evening to discuss

2:45:23 ↗ property acquisition for rcw 42.30 0.110

2:45:28 ↗ for n1 plan b this item is expected to

2:45:30 ↗ take 40 minutes no action is anticipated

2:45:33 ↗ to follow

2:45:34 ↗ in open session we will now recess into

2:45:37 ↗ executive session

2:45:38 ↗ at 10 40 9 46.

3:53:17 ↗ thank you thank you

3:53:19 ↗ and we are out of executive session

3:53:23 ↗ um back in regular session at 10

3:53:27 ↗ 54.

3:53:29 ↗ um on our agenda still this evening

3:53:31 ↗ we're going to go through good of the

3:53:33 ↗ order

3:53:34 ↗ um and council president martin item

3:53:36 ↗ thanks i'll try to make this fast so

3:53:38 ↗ we've been talking about the regional

3:53:40 ↗ afford affordable housing task force

3:53:42 ↗ action plan five-year action plan and

3:53:45 ↗ this is something that sca

3:53:47 ↗ uh has been looking at and been giving

3:53:50 ↗ guidance

3:53:51 ↗ i did hear back

3:53:53 ↗ from the mayor

3:53:54 ↗ but i want to ask again if if i want to

3:53:57 ↗ solicit feedback from everybody ahead of

3:54:00 ↗ a

3:54:01 ↗ final vote at sca

3:54:03 ↗ i just wanted to uh so i've sent you all

3:54:06 ↗ the updated document um i'm just going

3:54:08 ↗ to read you some excerpts from uh from

3:54:11 ↗ sca

3:54:12 ↗ at its meeting on october 24th the task

3:54:15 ↗ force amended the action plan in

3:54:16 ↗ response to pick feedback to clearly

3:54:18 ↗ state that the recommendations of the

3:54:20 ↗ task force are not mandates for cities

3:54:22 ↗ rather the task force recognizes that

3:54:24 ↗ the housing market in different parts of

3:54:26 ↗ the county will call for different

3:54:27 ↗ solutions to most effectively preserve

3:54:29 ↗ and increase the supply of affordable

3:54:30 ↗ housing sca representatives on the task

3:54:33 ↗ force have emphasized the need for

3:54:34 ↗ technical assistance shared information

3:54:36 ↗ and recommended strategies that will

3:54:38 ↗ support cities and their efforts to

3:54:39 ↗ tackle the region's affordable housing

3:54:40 ↗ crisis i will say our city has provided

3:54:43 ↗ technical input to sca is an example of

3:54:47 ↗ what we came up with in exiting the

3:54:50 ↗ moratorium puts us ahead i think of a

3:54:52 ↗ lot of other cities as to how far

3:54:53 ↗ they've thought about this issue

3:54:55 ↗ in addition to recommending potential

3:54:56 ↗ strategies the action plan calls for

3:54:58 ↗ establishing a framework of ongoing

3:54:59 ↗ collaboration among cities and with king

3:55:01 ↗ county to support implementation of

3:55:03 ↗ those strategies and monitoring results

3:55:05 ↗ this is proposed to come in the form of

3:55:07 ↗ a standing committee of the king county

3:55:09 ↗ growth management planning council the

3:55:11 ↗ task force considered a range of options

3:55:13 ↗ to support implementation and the

3:55:14 ↗ preferred option was to utilize an

3:55:16 ↗ existing body the gmpc rather than stand

3:55:19 ↗ up an entirely new organization to both

3:55:21 ↗ conserve resources and enable the region

3:55:23 ↗ to move forward more quickly this would

3:55:25 ↗ be significant a significant new body of

3:55:27 ↗ work for the gnpc and king county is

3:55:29 ↗ currently considering redirecting

3:55:31 ↗ staffing resources to support the new

3:55:33 ↗ standing committee as part of its budget

3:55:35 ↗ deliberations so once again if you have

3:55:37 ↗ any thoughts for me on the revised

3:55:39 ↗ document if you could let me know within

3:55:40 ↗ the next couple of weeks i would sure

3:55:42 ↗ appreciate it that's all i have this

3:55:43 ↗ evening thank you anything else for good

3:55:45 ↗ of your order that council remember

3:55:46 ↗ interesting thank you

3:55:48 ↗ last thursday

3:55:51 ↗ david fujimoto sent out an email to the

3:55:53 ↗ council and uh

3:55:56 ↗ titled village theater i wanted to

3:55:58 ↗ follow up on that i

3:56:01 ↗ at during the budget

3:56:03 ↗ a deliberation meeting that we haven't

3:56:06 ↗ i had made a mistake and i was had

3:56:08 ↗ convinced myself that we were looking at

3:56:10 ↗ year four or four

3:56:12 ↗ uh for that and i thought i had the

3:56:14 ↗ information i had looked at it multiple

3:56:16 ↗ times david helped me see that i was

3:56:18 ↗ actually reading that wrong

3:56:20 ↗ and so i just wanted my colleagues to

3:56:22 ↗ know that um that was an honest mistake

3:56:25 ↗ uh and uh we are we were not we were

3:56:28 ↗ deliberating

3:56:30 ↗ uh

3:56:31 ↗ um a third year of of a four of a

3:56:34 ↗ four-year program that they had hoped

3:56:35 ↗ for

3:56:36 ↗ so um i don't know if you if you saw

3:56:38 ↗ that email from david but that was uh i

3:56:41 ↗ do want to own up that that was my

3:56:42 ↗ mistake and it wasn't not intended to be

3:56:44 ↗ deceitful at all it was just a mistake

3:56:47 ↗ thank you anyone else forget of the

3:56:48 ↗ order

3:56:50 ↗ um i just want to let you know that on

3:56:52 ↗ december 3rd there will be a special

3:56:53 ↗ counseling meeting to begin at 6 15 pm

3:56:56 ↗ for the purpose of an executive session

3:56:58 ↗ item

3:56:59 ↗ and some of the other items that will be

3:57:01 ↗ on the december 3rd potentially on the

3:57:03 ↗ december 3rd agenda are the public

3:57:06 ↗ hearing on the 2019 final budget

3:57:09 ↗ 2019 arts grants recommendations

3:57:13 ↗ um proposal to amend school impact fees

3:57:16 ↗ and a request for right-of-way

3:57:17 ↗ encumbrance for talis parcel night

3:57:20 ↗ anything else

3:57:22 ↗ we are adjourned

3:57:25 ↗ at oops

4:01:59 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Bill Ramos

Chris Reh

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (5)

Approve the 2019-2020 Human Services Grant funding as recommended by the Human Services Commission. . b)

Moved by REH · seconded by BETTISE

Carried 7-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2849, repealing and replacing the Olde Town Subarea Plan, a Subarea Plan within Issaquah’s Comprehensive Plan. . c)

Moved by MARTS · seconded by WINTERSTEIN

Carried 7-0

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

Adopt Ordinance No. 2850, amending the official zoning map to rezone those parcels zoned Destination Retail and Intensive Commercial that were removed from the Central Issaquah Plan Boundary as part of the adopted Central Plan Neighborhood Vision, amending IMC 18.06 Establishment of Zoning Districts…

Moved by MARTS · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 7-0

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

11-19-18 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page [0000] Adopt Ordinance No. 2851, adopting by reference amendments to the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards including Table 4.3B Permitted Land Uses as recommended by the Council Land & Shore Committee; and Direct the Administration t…

Moved by HUNT · seconded by GOODMAN

Carried 7-0

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

Approve the process and timeline for filling the 2019 vacancy of Position No. 4 as presented and amended. .

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