← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Regular Meeting Auto captions

Monday, March 18, 2024

7:00 PM · 2h 8m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Watch on YouTube ↗ Agenda PDF ↗ Minutes PDF Transcript .txt
Topics tracked across meetings:
Waiver of Permit Fees for Low Income Residents and Building Permit Fee Deferral for Emergencies AB 8950 ››››› 3/6
Environmental Board · Jun 8, 2022 → Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Jun 28, 2022 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024 → Planning Policy Commission · Aug 22, 2024 → City Council Committee of the Whole · Nov 18, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 2, 2024
◀ Prev: Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Jun 28, 2022 View full lifecycle → Next: Planning Policy Commission · Aug 22, 2024 ▶
Light Rail Planning AB 8786 › 1/2
City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024 → Economic Vitality Commission · Aug 21, 2024
View full lifecycle → Next: Economic Vitality Commission · Aug 21, 2024 ▶
Central Issaquah Pioneer Program, Multi-Family Tax Exemption AB 8791 ››› 2/4
City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 24, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 15, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 6, 2024
View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 15, 2024 ▶
Puget Sound Energy Up & Go Service Agreement for EV Charger Incentives, Installation, and Maintenance at Public Works, Modified Agreement Amend Previous Motion AB 8841 › 1/2
City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · May 6, 2024
View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · May 6, 2024 ▶
AT&T Small Cell Franchise Agreement AB 8767 › 1/2
City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 1, 2024
View full lifecycle → Next: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 1, 2024 ▶
2024 Proposed Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB 8758 › 2/2
Planning Policy Commission · Jan 25, 2024 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024
◀ Prev: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 25, 2024 View full lifecycle →
Memorandums of Understanding regarding Body Worn Cameras with the Issaquah Police Officers' Association, Teamsters 117 representing Police Sergeants, and Teamsters 117 representing Police Commanders Ratify AB 8761 › 2/2
Equity Board · Sep 6, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024
◀ Prev: Equity Board · Sep 6, 2023 View full lifecycle →
2nd and Bush Intersection Improvements (Olde Town Traffic Calming) Project (TR 039), Phase 1 AB 8801 › 2/2
City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 6, 2020 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024
◀ Prev: City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 6, 2020 View full lifecycle →
Establishing the Central Issaquah Pioneer Program in IMC 18.514 AB 8743 › 2/2
City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 24, 2023 → City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 18, 2024
View full lifecycle →
Section
Topic
3. SPECIAL BUSINESS
3a
Transportation Advisory Board ID 1694
Receive Report · 10 min · packet pp.7–10
Topics: Transportation
▶ Watch from 0:53 Open packet at p.7 ↗
Staff report:
Provide the City Council the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the 2024 Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) work plan as required by IMC 2.92.050.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5a
Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Nov. 6, 2024
Carried 7-0
Approve · packet pp.11–14
Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 10, 2023
▶ Watch from 26:34 Open packet at p.11 ↗
Staff report:
CONSENT CALENDAR a) 11-06-23 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page (0000) CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Council Chambers November 6, 2023 MINUTES 135 E. Sunset Way
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5b
Accounts: Payables and Payroll of March 18, 2024, $5,703,037.60 ID 1634
Carried 7-0
Approve · packet pp.15–44
Topics: Budget
▶ Watch from 26:39 Open packet at p.15 ↗
Staff report:
Finance Department P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 PH: 425-837-3050 www.issaquahwa.gov
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5c
2024 Proposed Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB 8758
Carried 7-0
Approve · packet pp.45–56
Topics: Land Use
Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 25, 2024
▶ Watch from 26:45 Open packet at p.45 ↗
Staff report:
The Washington State Growth Management Act requires that certain counties and the cities within those counties adopt comprehensive plans. By state law, comprehensive plans may be amended no more than once a year. The State mandates a full periodic update of the comprehensive plan every 10 years. Issaquah has been working on the periodic update since April 2023. The current periodic update must have City
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5d
Memorandums of Understanding regarding Body Worn Cameras with the Issaquah Police Officers' Association, Teamsters 117 representing Police Sergeants, and Teamsters 117 representing Police Commanders Ratify AB 8761
Carried 7-0
packet pp.57–78
Topics: Public Safety
Previously discussed: Equity Board · Sep 6, 2023
▶ Watch from 26:50 Open packet at p.57 ↗
Staff report:
The 2023-2024 Adopted Budget approved by the City Council on Nov. 7, 2022, included funding for a BWC program, with a plan to research vendors in 2023 and implement in 2024. The City Council approved a contract with Axon, a BWC software vendor, at the December 4, 2023 Council meeting. The Police Department received cameras in early 2024 and has scheduled Department-wide training on the BWCs on March 19 and 20, 2024. The BWC will be ready to implement immediately following the training.
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5e
AT&T Small Cell Franchise Agreement AB 8767
Carried 7-0
Introduce · packet pp.79–124
▶ Watch from 26:55 Open packet at p.79 ↗
Staff report:
The City originally granted a franchise agreement to New Cingular Wireless PC on September 11, 2013. This franchise agreement was for a limited area for a macro-cell site off of West Lake Sammamish Parkway SE, adjacent to Timber Lake Park and attached to a Puget Sound Energy utility pole. The City granted the first renewal franchise on February 1, 2019. This renewal extended the franchise area to utilize the public ways throughout the entire City for a small wireless network and ran through February 6, 2024.
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5f
2nd and Bush Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Project (TR039), Phase 2 AB 8788
Carried 7-0
Award Bid · packet pp.125–127
▶ Watch from 27:01 Open packet at p.125 ↗
Staff report:
At the Council Study Session on February 25, 2020, ID 0615 (Staff Report, Presentation, Video) was presented for Olde Town Traffic Calming improvements. The intersection of 2nd Ave SE and SE Bush St was identified as a location that should be improved and, as part of the improvements, rectangular rapid flashing beacons should be evaluated. Following the Study Session, the Administration designed Stage 1 of the construction project that was awarded by the Council at their regular meeting on May 2, 2022 (AB 8380). The Council is being asked to accept the Phase 1 project at tonight's meeting (AB 8801) and work performed under the contract included:
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5g
Highwood & Westside Reservoir Improvements (WT018) AB 8798
Carried 7-0
Award Bid; Authorize Funding · packet pp.129–134
Topics: Budget
▶ Watch from 27:06 Open packet at p.129 ↗
Staff report:
C. Westside Reservoir CIP Project
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5h
2nd and Bush Intersection Improvements (Olde Town Traffic Calming) Project (TR 039), Phase 1 AB 8801
Carried 7-0
Accept Project · packet pp.135–136
Topics: Land UseTransportation
▶ Watch from 27:12 Open packet at p.135 ↗
Staff report:
On April 25, 2022, the City Council awarded the construction contract to Active Construction Inc. for the 2nd and Bush Intersection Improvements (Olde Town Traffic Calming) Project TR 039, in the amount of $646,646. The work included a base bid plus three additional bid schedules. Change Order 1 to this contract was authorized by the City Council on Feb. 6, 2023 bringing the contract total to $681,078.70.
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5i
Puget Sound Energy Up & Go Service Agreement for EV Charger Incentives, Installation, and Maintenance at Public Works AB 8802
Carried 7-0
Authorize · packet pp.137–151
Topics: Climate
▶ Watch from 27:17 Open packet at p.137 ↗
Staff report:
The Climate Action Plan (ICAP) was passed by Council on December 6, 2021, with bold targets for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reduction. Specifically, the ICAP highlights the need to electrify the municipal fleet and to build out EV charging infrastructure in the City. According to the 2022 greenhouse gas inventory, the City fleet accounts for 19% of municipal operations emissions. The City currently owns two EVs with additional vehicles on order. It is essential that we build out our fleet charging program to support the transition of vehicles so that the City is prepared to operate and provide dedicated charging for EVs when they arrive. Staff are pursing multiple options for funding fleet charging, including City funding, grants, and PSE’s Up and Go program. The Up and Go Fleet program provides PSE funding incentives and cost share to make EV charging installations more affordable.…
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5j
2023 Water Main Replacement Project (WT 015) AB 8805
Carried 7-0
Accept Project · packet pp.153–155
Topics: Water
▶ Watch from 27:23 Open packet at p.153 ↗
Staff report:
City Attorney Review Rachel Bender Turpin City Attorney Review Date: March 13, 2024
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5k
Dept. of Commerce Climate Planning Grant AB 8816
Carried 7-0
Accept Grant; Authorize Agreement · packet pp.157–177
Topics: Climate
▶ Watch from 27:28 Open packet at p.157 ↗
Staff report:
The City of Issaquah approved its first Climate Action Plan in December 2021. The Climate Action Plan (ICAP) engaged the community in a number of events in the summer of 2021, including workshops, focus groups, and a community-wide survey. The Administration is currently implementing multiple community facing and municipal operations actions in order to make progress towards our greenhouse gas reduction targets. These actions include home and commercial building fossil fuel reduction and energy efficiency programs, electrification of city buildings and fleet, and preparing for the inevitable impacts of climate change through resilience planning and communication. The Administration is currently using funds from the Sustainability Fund as well as grants from the County and State to support ICAP implementation.
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
5l
AT&T Affidavit of Agent Authority for Backup Generator for Cell Tower at Timberlake Park AB 8823
Carried 7-0
Authorize · packet pp.179–221
Topics: Parks
▶ Watch from 27:34 Open packet at p.179 ↗
Staff report:
The City entered a lease agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC on September 12, 2012, for constructing, operating, repairing, replacing, and maintaining telecommunications facilities at parcel 1824069021, Timberlake Park. This lease agreement has been extended several times and will terminate in 2032. The existing lease agreement is attached as Exhibit C.
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
6. REGULAR BUSINESS
6a
Establishing the Central Issaquah Pioneer Program in IMC 18.514 AB 8743
Adopt Ordinance · 30 min · packet pp.223–239
Topics: Land Use
Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 24, 2023
▶ Watch from 27:39 Open packet at p.223 ↗
Staff report:
The intent of the proposed Central Issaquah Pioneer Program is to spur development, particularly residential development, where it has failed to occur in Central Issaquah since the Central Issaquah Plan adoption. The proposed Central Issaquah Pioneer Program, as recommended in the Central Issaquah Plan, will create adjusted development requirements and provision of the multi-family tax exemption (MFTE) for a limited number of development projects within Urban Core, Mixed-Use-Central Issaquah zones, and Vertical Mixed-Use overlay within Central Issaquah.
6b
Central Issaquah Pioneer Program, Multi-Family Tax Exemption (Set Hearing Date) AB 8791
Carried 6-1
Approve Resolution Setting Public Hearing · 15 min · packet pp.241–253
Topics: HousingLand UseBudget
Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 24, 2023
▶ Watch from 57:47 Open packet at p.241 ↗
Staff report:
In 2017, the City adopted a MFTE program pursuant to Chapter 84.14 RCW, allowing for special valuation of eligible improvements associated with multifamily housing in areas designated by the City Council as "residential targeted areas," for the purpose of increasing residential opportunities for affordable housing. The program is codified at Chapter 3.09 IMC. Currently, the City has established two residential targeted areas, the Tibbetts Valley Transit-Oriented Development Targeted Area and the Issaquah Highlands High Street Collection Residential Targeted Area.
Roll call:
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
Opposed: Marts
6c
Light Rail Planning Guide AB 8786
Carried 7-0
Approve · 45 min · packet pp.255–316
▶ Watch from 1:12:51 Open packet at p.255 ↗
Staff report:
Over the last 20 years, the City’s population has more than doubled, bringing about new transportation opportunities and challenges which require new strategies to meet the City’s goals. Considering this growth, the City is seeking to take a proactive, transit-supportive approach to ensure that anticipated future roadway improvements support the long-term transit network.
Roll call:
Moved by REH · seconded by WALSH
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
9. GOOD OF THE ORDER
9a
Upcoming Council Meetings
3003 segments .txt ↗
0:09 ↗ good evening everyone and welcome I'm
0:11 ↗ going to call the March 18th city
0:13 ↗ council meeting to order and as a
0:15 ↗ reminder we continue to have a remote
0:17 ↗ aspect to our meetings both staff and
0:20 ↗ members of the public may be
0:21 ↗ participating in tonight's meeting
0:23 ↗ remotely bya web acts first item on the
0:26 ↗ agenda this evening is the Pledge of
0:27 ↗ Allegiance and I invite you to join
0:33 ↗ I flag United States
0:49 ↗ ofice thank you the first item we have
0:52 ↗ on our agenda this evening is under
0:53 ↗ special business it's ID 1694 the
0:57 ↗ transportation Advisory Board 2024 work
1:00 ↗ plan the city code that established the
1:02 ↗ transportation Advisory Board is unique
1:05 ↗ in that it requires the input of the
1:06 ↗ city council prior to final approval of
1:09 ↗ the transportation Advisory board annual
1:10 ↗ work plan I'd like to invite
1:12 ↗ Transportation program coordinator John
1:14 ↗ Larsson friend Transportation Advisory
1:17 ↗ Board chair Cynthia crass and vice chair
1:20 ↗ Julian Mel to the podium to present the
1:23 ↗ tab proposed work Lang and John I think
1:26 ↗ you're going to use this one great thank
1:29 ↗ you all for coming
1:35 ↗ tonight ah good evening council members
1:38 ↗ and olly uh my name is John Larson
1:40 ↗ friend as mentioned before I'm the
1:42 ↗ transportation program coordinator here
1:43 ↗ at the city I'm also the staff Le aison
1:45 ↗ for the transportation Advisory Board uh
1:49 ↗ as mayor Paulie mentioned uh the tab
1:52 ↗ code is a little bit unique and that we
1:54 ↗ do need to bring any work plans before
1:57 ↗ you which is a very special opportunity
1:59 ↗ that we have
2:00 ↗ to bring members of our tab up as well
2:04 ↗ so I'd like to invite uh either or both
2:06 ↗ both of you up to make any comments that
2:08 ↗ you would like to make at this
2:17 ↗ time good evening thanks for having us
2:19 ↗ here and um I just prepared a couple
2:22 ↗ quick very very brief comments but I
2:24 ↗ wanted to add one and then just say that
2:26 ↗ I have staffed and served on and been
2:29 ↗ involved in advisory Boards of all kinds
2:30 ↗ for years and I I'm a firm believer that
2:33 ↗ it uh that the agenda should be driven
2:36 ↗ by the people wanting advice so I really
2:38 ↗ appreciate the opportunity to come and
2:40 ↗ have that overlap um uh the past few
2:44 ↗ years we've worked together with
2:46 ↗ leadership and really hone the work plan
2:49 ↗ and tighten it up a little bit um to
2:51 ↗ make optimal use as a tab as a of the
2:53 ↗ tab as a resource and we've chosen to
2:56 ↗ include agenda items that have
2:58 ↗ meaningful policy and value based
3:00 ↗ decision so we can have uh good
3:02 ↗ discussions um there was a time I think
3:04 ↗ maybe around post MMP adoption when the
3:07 ↗ agenda was a little more cluttered and
3:10 ↗ we were kind of maybe a mile wide and an
3:11 ↗ inch deep um and I think that we have
3:15 ↗ achieve something that's a little bit
3:17 ↗ better use of our time it does mean we
3:19 ↗ don't cover everything but um feel
3:22 ↗ really good about the work that we're
3:24 ↗ doing and um we've I think um we have a
3:28 ↗ rich and meaningful work program so so
3:29 ↗ I'm happy to be a part of it so thank
3:37 ↗ you good evening city council um so I'm
3:41 ↗ the vice chair of Transportation
3:43 ↗ Advisory Board and I'll add on a couple
3:46 ↗ of notes in terms of um like the
3:48 ↗ practicality of why it's so useful to
3:51 ↗ have a fewer items but more depth in
3:53 ↗ those items I think the meetings that
3:55 ↗ we've had so far in 2024 both January
3:58 ↗ and February uh particular in February
4:00 ↗ we only really discussed the
4:02 ↗ transportation Improvement program plan
4:06 ↗ um criteria and that really had a robust
4:09 ↗ discussion in terms of what members
4:11 ↗ wanted to see out of uh the next five
4:13 ↗ years of capital Improvement projects
4:17 ↗ within the city and so I think that was
4:19 ↗ a really robust discussion that we had
4:21 ↗ there um another thing that was added on
4:26 ↗ by my initiative was the equity uh
4:28 ↗ portion of this admin uh administrative
4:31 ↗ work plan item uh because I think all of
4:34 ↗ us acknowledge should acknowledge that
4:36 ↗ Equity is a huge part of Transportation
4:39 ↗ considerations especially when you
4:40 ↗ consider 20th
4:43 ↗ century bad decisions basically that
4:46 ↗ have been made um in terms of Highways
4:48 ↗ being cut through uh neighborhoods and
4:50 ↗ all of that so that's just my comments
4:57 ↗ thanks thank you Cynthia Julian I
5:00 ↗ appreciate your time being here and your
5:03 ↗ comments um I'm going to keep this
5:05 ↗ fairly short and sweet for you this
5:06 ↗ evening um we're here to basically show
5:10 ↗ you what it is and I wanted to ask if
5:12 ↗ there are any questions or comments that
5:13 ↗ you might make about it um I did want to
5:16 ↗ point out that uh I did get to work with
5:20 ↗ uh many staff members across the public
5:23 ↗ works and planning departments on this
5:25 ↗ work plan uh hence why there's a lot of
5:27 ↗ yellow on this uh specific work plan
5:31 ↗ because uh there's a lot of moving
5:32 ↗ targets going on so I wanted to address
5:34 ↗ that really quickly um the plan is to
5:36 ↗ come back to tab in I believe June or
5:39 ↗ July to basically reexamine what the
5:42 ↗ work plan will look like and probably
5:44 ↗ nail in those dates uh a lot more
5:46 ↗ solidly um and hopefully fill in the uh
5:49 ↗ blue section which was the future
5:50 ↗ projects for next year as well so um I'm
5:52 ↗ going to leave it there and open it up
5:56 ↗ forting great thank you very much does
5:58 ↗ anybody have any comments Ms or
6:00 ↗ questions for John or Cynthia or Julian
6:04 ↗ let's go with council member
6:06 ↗ Joe thank you Julian I wonder if you can
6:08 ↗ come back up to the Das please I had a
6:10 ↗ question about your Equity
6:14 ↗ program and I think it's uh fantastic
6:18 ↗ that you brought that uh issue and and
6:21 ↗ that lens to this uh Transportation
6:23 ↗ Advisory Board appreciate that I was
6:26 ↗ wondering if there was um a component
6:29 ↗ about
6:30 ↗ equity in terms of access to
6:32 ↗ Transportation as well whether it's
6:34 ↗ buses or getting around town just you
6:37 ↗ know a wheelchair or other uh device is
6:40 ↗ that part of the conversation as well
6:43 ↗ it's not quite squared down in terms of
6:45 ↗ what specifically this Equity training
6:47 ↗ will be about but um you know we had a
6:50 ↗ conversation about this when we were
6:52 ↗ talking about this in January and we
6:54 ↗ wanted this Equity training to be more
6:56 ↗ focused on the applying it to
6:59 ↗ transportation
7:00 ↗ other than just Equity broadly make sure
7:03 ↗ that's focused on that Transportation
7:06 ↗ aspect and problematic um isues that
7:09 ↗ there are with the inequities there so
7:11 ↗ if I'm hearing you right it'd be more
7:12 ↗ focused on uh the big mobility of cars
7:17 ↗ and transportation projects and not
7:20 ↗ necessarily the mobility of individual
7:22 ↗ people in town is that correct or you
7:25 ↗ haven't quite nailed it down yet we
7:27 ↗ haven't quite nailed down exactly what
7:29 ↗ it is it's mostly Equity uh based on
7:33 ↗ transport like applied to Transportation
7:36 ↗ uh issues so that can be that as well
7:39 ↗ okay um but any anything related to
7:40 ↗ transport no I really appreciate that
7:42 ↗ and this Council spent a a great deal of
7:45 ↗ time talking about our Ada uh access for
7:48 ↗ sidewalks and ramps and we're trying to
7:51 ↗ get all those up to date as part of our
7:52 ↗ plan and we hope that that could be a
7:54 ↗ component of the access for uh people to
7:57 ↗ get around town and to get to the the
7:59 ↗ bus and other Transportation modes as
8:01 ↗ well so thank you very much absolutely
8:04 ↗ thank you council member Joe any other
8:05 ↗ comments or questions for the tab
8:08 ↗ team uh council member
8:11 ↗ hunt thank you thank you for the
8:13 ↗ presentation and for attending our
8:15 ↗ meeting um I had a question about the
8:19 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory um so right now
8:21 ↗ the description of that as a work plan
8:23 ↗ item is that uh there would be a
8:25 ↗ presentation on the 2022 greenhouse gas
8:28 ↗ inventory I wonder if that might um spur
8:31 ↗ a conversation about how to align with
8:33 ↗ the climate action plan or an additional
8:35 ↗ work item there around how to reduce um
8:38 ↗ transportation emissions if that's
8:40 ↗ called for based on the information from
8:42 ↗ the inventory and if that might be a
8:43 ↗ potential work item depending on the
8:45 ↗ outcome of that
8:47 ↗ conversation yes I'm I'm really excited
8:49 ↗ to hear uh specifically from David REI
8:52 ↗ who will be coming to uh talk to us
8:54 ↗ about uh that greenhouse gas inventory I
8:57 ↗ don't have specific details around it uh
8:59 ↗ but they when I put out the call they
9:01 ↗ immediately email me back and we would
9:03 ↗ love to do this talk to tab about
9:07 ↗ this any other additional comments or
9:11 ↗ questions um John and uh chair and vice
9:14 ↗ chair I just want to thank you for
9:15 ↗ coming tonight and for those in the
9:16 ↗ audience are watching our Council relies
9:19 ↗ heavily on the volunteer power of our
9:21 ↗ community and that shows up in boards
9:22 ↗ and commissions and the topics that they
9:25 ↗ touch can be very very deep and so I'm
9:28 ↗ glad that that refocus happened and that
9:30 ↗ the work items um are satisfying that
9:33 ↗ Community Edge that you have to be
9:35 ↗ involved and to help so thank you both
9:36 ↗ for coming tonight and John thank you
9:37 ↗ for presenting that was great absolutely
9:40 ↗ thank you
9:42 ↗ all the next uh item of our business of
9:45 ↗ our agenda this evening is audience
9:46 ↗ comments and this is the time when
9:48 ↗ members of the public May address
9:50 ↗ Council in person or virtually those who
9:52 ↗ signed up in advance to make comments we
9:54 ↗ be called on First and if you're joining
9:56 ↗ us virtually and you would like to make
9:57 ↗ comments please raise your hand or send
10:00 ↗ the host a chat message if you're in the
10:02 ↗ room and did not sign up I'll ask for
10:04 ↗ other speakers before closing this
10:05 ↗ portion of the meeting city clerk do we
10:07 ↗ have anyone signed up to speak for
10:09 ↗ General audience comments yes we have
10:11 ↗ four people signed up to speak great
10:13 ↗ thank you so for those that are making
10:15 ↗ comments tonight you're invited to
10:16 ↗ address the council regarding matters
10:18 ↗ that are directly related to isqua's
10:20 ↗ programs projects services or events
10:23 ↗ please direct comments to the whole
10:24 ↗ Council and not individuals while this
10:26 ↗ is not a question and answer session we
10:28 ↗ will contact you to follow up if needed
10:31 ↗ when you are recognized uh if you are a
10:33 ↗ virtual attendee please unmute your
10:35 ↗ microphone and if you're in the room
10:37 ↗ please step up to the Lector in the
10:38 ↗ center in front of the council state
10:40 ↗ your name address and relationship to
10:42 ↗ the city and speak clearly and pause
10:44 ↗ frequently please limit your comments to
10:46 ↗ 5 minutes if you're attending virtually
10:48 ↗ and you do not respond after your name
10:50 ↗ or phone number is called or if your
10:51 ↗ connection is lost unexpectedly the
10:53 ↗ meeting will need to proceed and you are
10:55 ↗ encouraged to rejoin the meeting if you
10:56 ↗ are able personal attacks sub language
10:59 ↗ derogatory remarks and disruptive
11:01 ↗ behavior will not be permitted public
11:03 ↗ comments written and verbal are an
11:05 ↗ important aspect of the public process
11:07 ↗ and the city takes comments seriously we
11:09 ↗ thank you for taking the time to address
11:11 ↗ US city clerk can you please identify
11:13 ↗ the first person who signed up to speak
11:15 ↗ today yes our first two speakers are
11:18 ↗ virtual attendees uh Carl sheret Carl
11:21 ↗ I'm going to make you a panelist now so
11:23 ↗ you should have the option to unmute and
11:25 ↗ can choose to turn your video
11:35 ↗ hello can you hear me sure can perfect
11:38 ↗ thank you um again my name is Carl
11:41 ↗ sheret I'm a real estate developer with
11:42 ↗ a firm called Avalon Bay we have um been
11:45 ↗ active in Isa and pursuing opportunities
11:48 ↗ and have been following the recent
11:50 ↗ Pioneer programs progression um over the
11:52 ↗ past year uh as you all know the past
11:55 ↗ efforts to develop multif family housing
11:57 ↗ in isqua has largely been unsuccessful
12:00 ↗ uh for a variety of reasons uh but
12:03 ↗ particularly today current economic
12:05 ↗ conditions add a new headwind that will
12:06 ↗ further challenge the viability of
12:08 ↗ housing development in our region we
12:10 ↗ appreciate the council's recognition
12:12 ↗ that the pilot program that is for
12:14 ↗ discussion today uh it remains a
12:16 ↗ learning opportunity and we're hopeful
12:17 ↗ that the city officials can continue to
12:19 ↗ to learn from it and to find
12:20 ↗ Opportunities to incentivize development
12:23 ↗ uh going forward hopefully that this um
12:26 ↗ this Pioneer program will spur the
12:28 ↗ intended mixed use development as the
12:30 ↗ city is hoping for and it's a good
12:32 ↗ opportunity to have a pro of concept
12:35 ↗ built out in the real world therefore uh
12:37 ↗ I would strongly urge the council to
12:39 ↗ approve the proposed 8-year mfte program
12:43 ↗ were two two projects total in 100 to
12:45 ↗ 400 units in size the three-year program
12:49 ↗ uh threeyear life of that program and to
12:51 ↗ critically to improve both the affable
12:53 ↗ options both the 60% and the 80% Ami
12:56 ↗ options uh as this is a pilot program
12:59 ↗ by definition we want to make sure that
13:01 ↗ we're including more options not less
13:03 ↗ and including more incentives not less
13:06 ↗ uh the best way to continue to grow our
13:08 ↗ housing stock in this region is to
13:10 ↗ provide Creative Solutions that help
13:12 ↗ move uh the needle for developers and
13:14 ↗ for municipalities alike thank you very
13:17 ↗ much thank you Carl uh city clerk who's
13:20 ↗ our next
13:21 ↗ speaker looks like our next speaker
13:24 ↗ dropped off so let's move to uh Brian
13:27 ↗ runberg who is here in the room
13:34 ↗ there's a little not Brian asked me to
13:37 ↗ switch is that okay that sounds like I'm
13:40 ↗ Jesse claw what's the Barbie thing I'm
13:42 ↗ not I'm just Ken that's what that
13:44 ↗ sounded like when you turn the
13:45 ↗ microphone on it's like that's funny I'm
13:47 ↗ just Ken exactly uh good evening council
13:51 ↗ members my name is Jesse Clawson my
13:52 ↗ address is 701 fth Avenue Seattle
13:55 ↗ Washington I'm here to address items 6A
13:57 ↗ and 6B tonight
13:59 ↗ um thank you for your consideration of
14:01 ↗ the pioneer program and the mfte changes
14:04 ↗ um I applaud the city of isqua for
14:06 ↗ trying to Spur development in central
14:08 ↗ isqua we highly encourage the council to
14:11 ↗ amend the proposed ordinance to retain
14:13 ↗ the optional language requested by the
14:15 ↗ Planning Development and environment
14:17 ↗ committee um the language provides an
14:19 ↗ option for developers to either provide
14:21 ↗ more units at the 80% Ami level or
14:24 ↗ provide fewer units at the 60% Ami level
14:28 ↗ this option does three things first it
14:31 ↗ allows for developers who may have
14:33 ↗ different funding sources to participate
14:35 ↗ in the program some will have Partners
14:37 ↗ who prefer the 60% Ami and some will
14:40 ↗ have Partners who prefer the 80% Ami and
14:43 ↗ it will allow those both types of
14:45 ↗ developers to participate second the
14:47 ↗ program allows for more income levels to
14:49 ↗ be able to live in central
14:51 ↗ isqua as is the ordinance Cuts people
14:55 ↗ off affordable uh units off at 60% % Ami
15:00 ↗ for a single person 60% Ami could make
15:03 ↗ no more than
15:04 ↗ $57,000 in change for 80% Ami the salary
15:08 ↗ limitation is $70,000 in change um this
15:12 ↗ means that a single person making more
15:14 ↗ than the $57,000 in change would be
15:17 ↗ unable to participate in the Pioneer
15:19 ↗ program if the options were not adopted
15:22 ↗ by council tonight this action will
15:24 ↗ would exclude the following professions
15:26 ↗ based on King County data public employ
15:28 ↗ employe es like Municipal clerks bus
15:30 ↗ drivers and crossing guards they make
15:33 ↗ $66,000 healthcare workers and licensed
15:36 ↗ nurses make $68,000 on average and
15:40 ↗ miscellaneous construction workers make
15:42 ↗ $60,000 so somebody making 61% Ami would
15:46 ↗ not be able to uh afford the affordable
15:49 ↗ unit or would not be able to qualify I'm
15:51 ↗ sorry the affordable unit under the
15:54 ↗ non-option program um third providing
15:56 ↗ this options May re may result a higher
15:59 ↗ number of affordable units the option
16:01 ↗ requires 10% at
16:03 ↗ 80% uh for units or 8% of units at 60%
16:08 ↗ obviously 10% is a few more units um
16:11 ↗ finally providing the 60% and 80% Ami
16:14 ↗ option is consistent with the King
16:15 ↗ County Planning policies council is
16:17 ↗ aware that King County has required um
16:20 ↗ distributions of affordable units to be
16:23 ↗ planned for and provided by cities um
16:27 ↗ those were adopted by King County in
16:29 ↗ June of
16:30 ↗ 2023 by uh ordinance
16:34 ↗ 19660 um and that's uh
16:37 ↗ cpp1 um in that
16:41 ↗ cpp1 uh isqua's housing distribution for
16:45 ↗ lowincome housing it's for 51% to 80%
16:48 ↗ Ami so 60% is in there and 80% is in
16:52 ↗ there it is all one tranch of units that
16:54 ↗ isqua is required um to plan for so
16:59 ↗ there's no data cited that I could see
17:02 ↗ that says there is a greater need for
17:04 ↗ 60% Emi units in isqua and certainly
17:07 ↗ nothing that would uh create this
17:10 ↗ option make adopting this option make
17:13 ↗ you fall out of compliance with the cpps
17:15 ↗ nothing like that um the cpps state that
17:18 ↗ measuring success in meeting the housing
17:21 ↗ distribution will primarily be defined
17:23 ↗ by whether a jurisdiction has adopted
17:25 ↗ and implemented policies that taken
17:28 ↗ together in light of available resources
17:30 ↗ can be reasonably expected to support
17:32 ↗ and enable the production or
17:34 ↗ preservation of units at each
17:36 ↗ affordability level so we think that
17:39 ↗ providing this option absolutely is
17:41 ↗ compliant with the cpps and uh we hope
17:44 ↗ that you amend the ordinance as uh
17:47 ↗ provided today thank you thank you Jesse
17:50 ↗ who is the third person on our list city
17:52 ↗ clerk Ryan
17:57 ↗ renberg hi um sadly I'm not
18:01 ↗ Ken um I'm Brian renberg and uh
18:04 ↗ representing the ownership group that
18:06 ↗ has the former Red Robin side and
18:08 ↗ Pickering place and thank you again for
18:11 ↗ engaging on this proposed Pioneer
18:13 ↗ program um our group saw this in the
18:15 ↗ central isqua plan and brought it to to
18:18 ↗ Jen over a year ago as a potential tool
18:21 ↗ as needed um our proposed site
18:24 ↗ specifically it's in the middle of
18:25 ↗ retail Center in an office Park in
18:27 ↗ surrounded by a sea of fault and it hits
18:29 ↗ all the criteria
18:31 ↗ goals um and certainly would be first in
18:34 ↗ the market where there is none as it's
18:36 ↗ defined is in the definitions there
18:39 ↗ however we do need these incentives to
18:41 ↗ make it all happen uh over the past 12
18:43 ↗ months we've followed through this
18:45 ↗ through several meetings with you as
18:47 ↗ well as with several other subcommittees
18:49 ↗ and we've also worked closely with and
18:51 ↗ collaboratively with Jen and and and
18:53 ↗ staff and Arch for that matter um to
18:56 ↗ work out and land on the two affordable
18:58 ↗ options
19:00 ↗ proposed um regardless we want to dispel
19:02 ↗ any notion as you've heard it previously
19:05 ↗ that there'll be a stampede of new
19:06 ↗ housing as mixed use development of this
19:08 ↗ type is completely stalled throughout
19:10 ↗ the region um as none of these are
19:13 ↗ currently financially uh or having very
19:15 ↗ extreme challenges making them viable uh
19:18 ↗ even in competing locations where Tod is
19:21 ↗ um shortly operational let alone in a a
19:23 ↗ context where it's further out um and
19:26 ↗ foretelling I guess of the level of risk
19:28 ↗ that we're we're saying is there's
19:30 ↗ there's there's only interest in more
19:32 ↗ big box retailer which certainly does
19:34 ↗ not align with the long range diverse
19:37 ↗ goals of the program uh in the in the
19:39 ↗ comp plan including housing um I want to
19:43 ↗ reiterate you know we're local um yet
19:46 ↗ we're Regional leaders in this type of
19:47 ↗ mixed use housing and our designs are
19:50 ↗ also recognized nationally uh in terms
19:53 ↗ of your sustainability goals it aligns
19:55 ↗ with us as well we've designed the most
19:57 ↗ energy efficient apartment buildings in
19:59 ↗ the United States and been nationally
20:00 ↗ recognized for that we've heard your
20:02 ↗ concerns about the quality of character
20:04 ↗ or lack thereof and and reference at a a
20:08 ↗ project um that had been done previously
20:10 ↗ we're quite confident we can resolve
20:12 ↗ those concerns as well um no one we feel
20:15 ↗ is better equipped and suited put
20:17 ↗ together a project like this than our
20:18 ↗ team we want to stress however that that
20:22 ↗ is not the whole equation here um
20:24 ↗ there's been numerous barriers and
20:26 ↗ substantial risks and and certainly so
20:29 ↗ in undertaking and attracting the
20:31 ↗ capital to invest over the100 million do
20:34 ↗ and more to invest in a project in this
20:36 ↗ context we will need every incentive and
20:40 ↗ every option and every tool possible to
20:42 ↗ pull that together so we we we kindly
20:46 ↗ ask you to proove the tools put before
20:48 ↗ you the 8-year mft uh program the
20:51 ↗ two-year limit is uh of this is and uh
20:55 ↗ the two project limit rather the
20:57 ↗ three-year expiration is great so that
20:59 ↗ was added in but most importantly we urg
21:02 ↗ strongly put back in the optionality
21:05 ↗ that was discussed of both the 60% and
21:07 ↗ the 80% Ami we certainly have further
21:10 ↗ due diligence to prove out some zoning
21:13 ↗ issues with Jen and and the zoning staff
21:15 ↗ and if we get past that gate or that
21:17 ↗ hurdle the next logical step is going
21:20 ↗ out to Capital markets rather the
21:22 ↗ institutions that would lend at at a
21:25 ↗ project of this scale we cannot know
21:27 ↗ right now whether the 60% of the Ami is
21:30 ↗ more financeable or the other as
21:32 ↗ discussed but we can tell you is that
21:35 ↗ there'll be far more interest if there's
21:37 ↗ more options to choose from one One Fund
21:41 ↗ might be uh preferable over the other
21:43 ↗ depending on any particular time in the
21:44 ↗ marketplace and what we can also say is
21:48 ↗ we'll be completely transparent and
21:50 ↗ share that data so we all can learn from
21:53 ↗ it um a few other key things to consider
21:56 ↗ here the definition of the pilot program
21:58 ↗ was intended for the proof of concept
22:00 ↗ and the outcome and we've heard that in
22:03 ↗ many of the subcommittees as well and is
22:05 ↗ cited numerous times before and
22:08 ↗ certainly within the documents this
22:09 ↗ Pioneer program was not intended to be
22:11 ↗ an affordable housing program rather to
22:13 ↗ Spur development where there was none
22:16 ↗ yet we all do recognize the need for
22:18 ↗ affordable housing and we can layer that
22:20 ↗ in but we certainly need the tools and
22:22 ↗ the options to accomplish that for
22:25 ↗ context the trail head apartment says
22:27 ↗ some something around $19
22:29 ↗ million uh of additional offsets and
22:33 ↗ certainly not apples to have a
22:35 ↗ comparison but we simply want you to
22:36 ↗ arrive or ask you to follow through with
22:39 ↗ the original options proposed either
22:41 ↗ option is a win-win the city and and has
22:45 ↗ pointed out either 24 or 30 units
22:47 ↗ roughly on this project and offering
22:49 ↗ both certainly does not jeopardize the
22:51 ↗ King County Housing policies in in any
22:53 ↗ way so we thank you for the
22:55 ↗ consideration of this important project
22:59 ↗ thank you
23:00 ↗ Brian city clerk is our online attendee
23:04 ↗ back great yes he is and uh before he
23:06 ↗ speaks we have a few more people who've
23:08 ↗ joined us online so if anyone else would
23:09 ↗ like to make public comments please
23:11 ↗ raise your hand or send me the host a
23:13 ↗ chat and next we have John Schwarz John
23:16 ↗ I'm going to make you a pan panelist now
23:18 ↗ so you should have the option to unmute
23:20 ↗ and can choose to turn your video
23:23 ↗ on let's see did I did I start sharing I
23:26 ↗ want to make sure I wasn't sharing my
23:27 ↗ screen
23:29 ↗ nope not that there's anything
23:32 ↗ on hi I'm John Schwarz I'm a real estate
23:35 ↗ development consultant working in uh the
23:38 ↗ greater P sound region um have looked at
23:41 ↗ some projects in isqua with some clients
23:44 ↗ and over the past decade or so found
23:47 ↗ those to be pretty difficult to bring to
23:49 ↗ fruition and as previously mentioned our
23:51 ↗ current economic situation has really
23:54 ↗ made that even tougher um I'm also
23:56 ↗ currently involved in three loow income
23:58 ↗ housing projects both in Seattle and
24:00 ↗ Bellevue all of those are 100%
24:03 ↗ affordable with a mix of 60 to 80% um
24:06 ↗ median income units so I got a lot of
24:09 ↗ familiarity with with affordable
24:12 ↗ housing um I've been following this
24:15 ↗ program development over the last I
24:17 ↗ think two years has been being discussed
24:20 ↗ um I've testified at previous committee
24:21 ↗ hearings the economic uh Vitality
24:24 ↗ committee hearings and was pleased to
24:28 ↗ see this optionality that has been been
24:30 ↗ discussed it seems like in the current
24:32 ↗ version of this it's it was dropped um
24:35 ↗ and I would strongly encourage you to go
24:37 ↗ to add that that uh optionality back
24:40 ↗ into the program I think it's going to
24:42 ↗ open it up to a broader range of of
24:45 ↗ developers that you know for various
24:47 ↗ funding sources may have an ability to
24:50 ↗ plug into one or the other of those two
24:52 ↗ options and I think you want to you know
24:55 ↗ in the pilot concept phase here really
24:57 ↗ open those options up as much as
24:59 ↗ possible so you can learn what's going
25:01 ↗ to what's going to work in the market to
25:03 ↗ Spur housing development in
25:05 ↗ isqua
25:08 ↗ um let's
25:10 ↗ see you know so like I said previously
25:12 ↗ in the economic Vitality committee it
25:14 ↗ seems like they' were had strong support
25:16 ↗ for both of these options so I really
25:18 ↗ would encourage you to uh do both of
25:21 ↗ them I think this really does get to the
25:24 ↗ heart of um some of your central isqua
25:27 ↗ plan documents that are looking for
25:30 ↗ initial residential projects in the plan
25:32 ↗ area that are given additional and
25:33 ↗ giving additional incentives to balance
25:35 ↗ the risk involved with being the first
25:38 ↗ in the market area and you know is aaz a
25:41 ↗ great City you know it's just the
25:44 ↗ projects have to be financially viable
25:45 ↗ for them to happen I think this is a
25:48 ↗ great step in that direction and and
25:50 ↗ would just encourage you to to keep the
25:51 ↗ optionality in place thank you thank you
25:55 ↗ John C cler has anyone else indicated
25:57 ↗ desire to speak no I would like to thank
26:02 ↗ um all of those members of our regional
26:04 ↗ development Community for taking an
26:07 ↗ interest in isqua and taking the time to
26:09 ↗ either come in tonight or to participate
26:11 ↗ virtually and share your comments we
26:13 ↗ value that um the gist of it is a lot of
26:17 ↗ support for the program with a requests
26:20 ↗ from all the speakers that the 60 and
26:22 ↗ 80% options both be included so thank
26:25 ↗ you very much for that information as a
26:27 ↗ reminder written comments can be
26:29 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at
26:31 ↗ is w.gov and we're going to move on to
26:34 ↗ our consent calendar um I don't have any
26:37 ↗ remarks on the consent calendar tonight
26:38 ↗ but I'm going to give the committee
26:39 ↗ chairs an option to see are any
26:41 ↗ committee chairs needing to do that okay
26:43 ↗ thanks the consent calendar was
26:45 ↗ distributed to Council in advance and if
26:47 ↗ authorized the items on the consent
26:49 ↗ calendar will be considered together and
26:50 ↗ approved by one motion have the payables
26:53 ↗ and payroll been reviewed they
26:55 ↗ have thank you do has any council member
26:59 ↗ desire to remove any item from the
27:00 ↗ consent calendar and consider it under
27:01 ↗ regular
27:04 ↗ business okay could I get a motion
27:08 ↗ council president yeah I move to approve
27:10 ↗ the consent calendar as
27:12 ↗ distributed
27:15 ↗ second it's been moved and
27:19 ↗ seconded
27:21 ↗ last so the motion is to approve the
27:24 ↗ consent calendar is presented is there
27:26 ↗ any Council discussion
27:29 ↗ hearing none um all those in favor
27:31 ↗ signify by saying I I
27:35 ↗ I those opposed that carries unanimously
27:39 ↗ and0 we're moving into regular business
27:42 ↗ and the first item we have this evening
27:43 ↗ is AB
27:45 ↗ 8743 establishing the central isqua
27:47 ↗ Pioneer program in the isqua municipal
27:50 ↗ code 1 18514 and the action before
27:53 ↗ Council this evening is to adopt the
27:55 ↗ ordinance this item was before the city
27:57 ↗ council for discussion at the December
27:59 ↗ 4th city council meeting and was most
28:01 ↗ recently reviewed by the Planning
28:03 ↗ Development and environment committee
28:05 ↗ and I'd like to have economic
28:06 ↗ development manager Jen Davis Hayes up
28:08 ↗ to present this item welcome Jen thank
28:10 ↗ you um good evening council members
28:13 ↗ mayor my name is Jen Davis Hayes
28:14 ↗ economic development manager and I'm
28:17 ↗ here to speak about the Pioneer program
28:20 ↗ as uh Brian uh runberg one of the public
28:23 ↗ commenters mentioned it was about a year
28:25 ↗ ago that he had uh stood at same
28:28 ↗ location asking why don't you have a
28:30 ↗ Pioneer program and so Council said
28:32 ↗ let's check this out so I appreciate you
28:34 ↗ over the last year going through this it
28:36 ↗ has been a a long uh Journey but I think
28:39 ↗ we've got got to a really great place so
28:41 ↗ the purpose tonight is to actually uh
28:44 ↗ ask you to adopt the ordinance that will
28:45 ↗ create the P Central Isa Pioneer program
28:48 ↗ so this gives you a quick overview of
28:51 ↗ the background again we've been here
28:52 ↗ multiple times touched economic Vitality
28:55 ↗ commission planning policy commissions
28:57 ↗ as well as committee full Council
28:59 ↗ meetings Etc um and then you know we
29:02 ↗ love to uh show you when we talk about
29:05 ↗ any of these programs um where this
29:07 ↗ program sits on the housing Continuum
29:09 ↗ because not every program is for every
29:11 ↗ single um level of Ami in housing and so
29:14 ↗ this one really talks about um the
29:17 ↗ affordable uh rental ownership rental
29:20 ↗ and uh market rate housing at the higher
29:23 ↗ end and so again this is uh as you heard
29:26 ↗ tonight from some of the public
29:28 ↗ commenters that the goal really of the
29:30 ↗ pioneer program is to Spur housing in
29:33 ↗ the urban core and mixed use areas and
29:35 ↗ to show the proof of concept again um
29:38 ↗ we've talked about this in the past but
29:39 ↗ just the lack of Redevelopment there
29:41 ↗ where are uh rich in
29:44 ↗ amenities The Proposal that uh the
29:47 ↗ administration brings forward tonight
29:49 ↗ and that was also app uh approved and
29:51 ↗ recommended by the planning policy
29:53 ↗ commission is uh this what you have see
29:55 ↗ on the screen for the two projects um
29:58 ↗ the uh the the zone areas uh projects
30:01 ↗ must be between 100 and 400 units and uh
30:05 ↗ we are uh presenting the 8% at 60% Ami
30:09 ↗ and the 8-year mfte but with lifetime
30:13 ↗ affordability um so uh I will just
30:16 ↗ mention right now again the um planning
30:19 ↗ policy commission did recommend this um
30:21 ↗ move this forward as a recommendation um
30:23 ↗ when we talk to Arch about the need
30:25 ↗ while there's not hard data that shows
30:27 ↗ that 60% % versus 80% is um higher need
30:31 ↗ or more challenging to find the in
30:34 ↗ general that is what is is I don't want
30:37 ↗ say um is uh makes sense that it's in
30:42 ↗ certain communities you're going to have
30:43 ↗ less of the lower income um housing
30:45 ↗ available um as mentioned that uh this
30:49 ↗ is part of the the not only the King
30:51 ↗ County Planning policies but also
30:53 ↗ housing our housing work plan which
30:55 ↗ talks about diversity of Housing and
30:57 ↗ housing at different levels if this
30:59 ↗ program didn't did not exist developers
31:01 ↗ would have to provide uh housing at the
31:03 ↗ 50 UH 60 and 80% in uh Ami levels so um
31:09 ↗ a couple of reasons why uh we we are
31:12 ↗ moving forward with one option um and
31:14 ↗ that's 8% um at 80 or
31:17 ↗ 60% um so our recommendation is to adopt
31:21 ↗ the ordinance which again has those
31:22 ↗ program elements and if if that occurs
31:25 ↗ so just so you know the mfte
31:28 ↗ as you know is a separate agenda item on
31:30 ↗ tonight's agenda and we'll be moving
31:32 ↗ forward if this uh does pass tonight and
31:36 ↗ that would then uh be in front of you on
31:38 ↗ May 6th to approve and we already have
31:42 ↗ uh been receiving some interest in the
31:44 ↗ Pioneer program so um by adopting
31:47 ↗ tonight it shows the the intent of the
31:48 ↗ council to move forward with this
31:52 ↗ program thank you thank you Jen uh
31:56 ↗ council member hun is chair of oh sorry
31:59 ↗ can I get to council member hun before
32:00 ↗ your question or okay sorry about that
32:03 ↗ as chair of the Planning Development
32:04 ↗ environment committee do you want to um
32:07 ↗ summarize the committee's
32:08 ↗ recommendations on this item yes uh
32:11 ↗ thank you Madame
32:12 ↗ mayor the uh Planning Development and
32:15 ↗ environment committee met on February
32:17 ↗ 6th and this was um ID 1568 Central
32:21 ↗ isqua Pioneer program we um had a robust
32:26 ↗ discussion I actually went back watched
32:29 ↗ uh the meeting today because we have not
32:31 ↗ had a meeting we did not have a March
32:32 ↗ meeting of the committee um so we didn't
32:35 ↗ approve the meeting minutes yet so I I
32:37 ↗ went back and watched our discussion um
32:40 ↗ we agreed with uh the recommendations
32:44 ↗ after after dis discussing pros and cons
32:46 ↗ we agreed with the administration's
32:48 ↗ recommendations on most of the
32:50 ↗ components of the program including um
32:54 ↗ having a three-year applicability of um
32:57 ↗ project projects and we also um agreed
33:00 ↗ with the placement of where this would
33:02 ↗ live in the code and of the 400 unit
33:05 ↗ maximum which was discussed as being um
33:08 ↗ it that made sense as well to the
33:09 ↗ developer uh community that spoke
33:12 ↗ specifically on that topic um so we we
33:15 ↗ agreed with all of the components that
33:17 ↗ are in the um in the administration's
33:21 ↗ recommendation after uh much vetting and
33:24 ↗ discussion um we had a majority the
33:28 ↗ majority of our time was
33:30 ↗ on the two uh the two options ultimately
33:35 ↗ one of which is in the recommendation um
33:37 ↗ around the affordability levels and the
33:39 ↗ percentage for the uh requirement to get
33:43 ↗ the mft incentive uh so the two of the
33:47 ↗ two
33:48 ↗ items we had a lot of discussion about
33:50 ↗ it um we also discussed the Eco
33:54 ↗ Northwest um study that was done um
33:59 ↗ which gave us a bunch of information
34:01 ↗ about how we could uh adjust our code to
34:05 ↗ um meet a number of our different
34:07 ↗ housing housing goals and variety of
34:09 ↗ housing types um and how this could fit
34:11 ↗ into their recommendations or how this
34:13 ↗ uh aligns with those
34:15 ↗ recommendations um we also discussed
34:17 ↗ that uh PPC had approved this
34:21 ↗ recommendation that 8% at 60% Ami um
34:25 ↗ economic Vitality I believe supported uh
34:28 ↗ having options um but PPC did put
34:31 ↗ forward this proposal with the one
34:33 ↗ option um and then ultimately one of the
34:36 ↗ reasons why there is a uh amendment in
34:39 ↗ our packet this evening is because um at
34:42 ↗ the uh at the end of the meeting there
34:45 ↗ were two of us that were comfortable
34:47 ↗ proceeding with this the 8% of housing
34:50 ↗ at 60% Ami and one member of the
34:53 ↗ committee that still um preferred and
34:55 ↗ also preferred the having the
34:57 ↗ optionality and also preferred that we
34:58 ↗ bring that to council so that is where
35:01 ↗ we ultimately landed um one one thing
35:05 ↗ that uh I wanted to raise for Council as
35:07 ↗ well is that the 8% of 400 units which
35:11 ↗ is the highest amount uh possible for
35:14 ↗ the pilot program um that is 32 units
35:18 ↗ 10% is 40 units so we're talking about a
35:22 ↗ difference total difference of eight
35:24 ↗ units but a different affordability
35:26 ↗ level for all of those units that is
35:29 ↗ what um is at stake here and ultimately
35:32 ↗ the the majority recommendation the two
35:34 ↗ of the three were comfortable proceeding
35:36 ↗ with the uh administration's
35:39 ↗ recommendation which was also the also
35:41 ↗ um Jen told us has more Community value
35:45 ↗ uh and so that is why it's this
35:47 ↗ recommendation but we were not of one
35:50 ↗ mind L of conversation I'm going to go
35:53 ↗ to council member Marts I think it's a
35:54 ↗ question for staff it is what do we get
35:58 ↗ for what
36:00 ↗ investment what's the dollar value of
36:03 ↗ the subsidy for what dollar value of
36:06 ↗ investment by the
36:09 ↗ city um so as investment would you
36:11 ↗ consider forone revenue of course okay
36:16 ↗ um because that's not investing in a
36:18 ↗ just certain way right um so I would
36:20 ↗ need to get into the so in the packet
36:23 ↗ there is information and I'm sorry I
36:24 ↗ should have printed out the memo I don't
36:26 ↗ have that in front of me
36:28 ↗ but the fact that is so right now we
36:30 ↗ have zero affordable housing in in uh
36:32 ↗ these areas and we have zero housing as
36:34 ↗ well so we are going to see housing
36:37 ↗ where we want to see housing where our
36:39 ↗ light rail will be in the future we have
36:41 ↗ we have very little affordable housing
36:43 ↗ being built in these area in this area
36:45 ↗ we have 11 units in the central isqua
36:48 ↗ area that have been built in the 14 12
36:52 ↗ 13 years so we will begin to see
36:56 ↗ opportunities for our Workforce
36:58 ↗ our residents our children who want to
37:00 ↗ come back to the community and live here
37:02 ↗ um but I can give you those exact
37:03 ↗ numbers um I can get into the the packet
37:06 ↗ real quick great okay she can pull that
37:09 ↗ up I'm G to stop sharing let's see if
37:10 ↗ there's other questions or comments and
37:12 ↗ we'll come back to that thanks Council M
37:13 ↗ Mar council
37:14 ↗ president I have it pulled up if you
37:17 ↗ want me to read it off um okay Tish she
37:20 ↗ share it up there it'll be better on
37:23 ↗ that um did you have any questions I was
37:26 ↗ just trying to think if I did but but no
37:28 ↗ okay any other uh questions this
37:32 ↗ time looks like we're just waiting for
37:36 ↗ that information for council member
37:38 ↗ Marts and I apologize for not having
37:40 ↗ that printed out no
37:45 ↗ worries one more
37:47 ↗ page oh sorry uh council member hunt um
37:52 ↗ oh so this is this is answering the
37:54 ↗ question directly I was going to mention
37:56 ↗ that in our um pde meeting it was also
37:59 ↗ mentioned that Arch had done a study um
38:03 ↗ modeling the economic impacts of the two
38:06 ↗ options and found them to be similar so
38:08 ↗ that was reported or equivalent that was
38:11 ↗ reported in the um they're close to
38:14 ↗ equivalent yeah so there it's not 100%
38:17 ↗ equivalent so the um the
38:19 ↗ 60% uh option is more value to the
38:23 ↗ community than the 80% value um compared
38:27 ↗ to the developers option uh value and so
38:30 ↗ here you can see um again this is for 8
38:33 ↗ years um we're looking at $33,000 per
38:37 ↗ year and this does also so the full
38:38 ↗ analysis and we will do a full analysis
38:41 ↗ of mfte when we come back in mid year to
38:43 ↗ look at it but a full analysis would
38:45 ↗ also include what we were getting for
38:47 ↗ construction sales tax for permitting
38:49 ↗ fees for Resident residents who are um
38:53 ↗ paying sales tax for you know eight plus
38:55 ↗ years that are living there um the tax
38:58 ↗ on the commercial space of the land if
39:00 ↗ that ex the commercial space exists so
39:03 ↗ this is one part of that uh formula um
39:08 ↗ and so right again we're looking at
39:10 ↗ $33,000 a year um over the eight years
39:14 ↗ $270,000 and then that
39:17 ↗ $270,000 begins to be collected in year
39:19 ↗ nine for the rest of life of the project
39:22 ↗ well more than that because it would
39:24 ↗ probably increase over
39:26 ↗ time
39:28 ↗ m is that what you were looking for that
39:30 ↗ was half of what I was looking you the
39:32 ↗ value the value for we for what we get
39:34 ↗ for that
39:37 ↗ investment he he's doing the the give
39:40 ↗ for the get if it's a so how do you
39:42 ↗ value affordable housing um is that I I
39:45 ↗ think it's the difference between market
39:47 ↗ rate and and 60% or the difference
39:50 ↗ between market rate and 80% times the
39:52 ↗ number of units times the time duration
39:55 ↗ right so you're saying the the uh
39:57 ↗ so the benefit that value that um Arch
40:02 ↗ created so is that what you're asking
40:03 ↗ for the ratio of benefits to the
40:06 ↗ developer versus the
40:08 ↗ city I guess it's it's if we just if we
40:11 ↗ just funded this ourselves right if we
40:13 ↗ just said they're going to build market
40:15 ↗ rate housing and we're going to do what
40:16 ↗ is it 40 if it was at 60% it's 40 units
40:19 ↗ is that right was that what I heard um
40:22 ↗ well it's it's 8% of whatever the number
40:24 ↗ of units they build okay well let's
40:28 ↗ so it's 32 if it's 400 okay 32 right so
40:33 ↗ if we just said we're going to subsidize
40:35 ↗ 32 units for eight years and take it
40:38 ↗ from market rate to 60% that would be a
40:40 ↗ certain dollar value right and that's
40:43 ↗ effectively the benefit that we get out
40:45 ↗ of this for that
40:47 ↗ $270,000 investment on our part and $3.1
40:50 ↗ million investment by the community if I
40:52 ↗ read it right
40:54 ↗ right um well there's also the value
40:57 ↗ again again of having yes a a unit a
40:59 ↗ whole apartment community being built
41:01 ↗ that may or may not be built because the
41:03 ↗ mfte helps to sub for the whole project
41:06 ↗ right so it's not it's the the different
41:08 ↗ components that add into that so I can I
41:11 ↗ can actually look up um what the we
41:13 ↗ assume the rental rates are and what
41:14 ↗ those differences are but um it be a
41:17 ↗ quick math so I'm not sure if I have if
41:20 ↗ I have uh the the you know I that number
41:24 ↗ already existed
41:26 ↗ no there was a a big Excel spreadsheet
41:30 ↗ that did the analysis for the whole
41:32 ↗ project over time and so do you have
41:34 ↗ that spreadsheet up
41:36 ↗ okay okay is this is this the
41:41 ↗ one is this the latest one okay so the
41:45 ↗ um the value of the reduced rent per
41:49 ↗ affordable unit is
41:53 ↗ $268,600 at 60% for the 8 0% it's $132
42:00 ↗ 845 yeah1
42:03 ↗ 13284
42:05 ↗ 132k times how many units that is so so
42:08 ↗ it's a little complicated let me get the
42:10 ↗ other one up yeah go ahead um so apples
42:12 ↗ to appel's comparison is 8% at 60% Ami
42:17 ↗ and 14% at 80% Ami the options that were
42:21 ↗ vetted out were 10% at 80% Ami so if
42:25 ↗ you're really looking in terms of
42:27 ↗ dollars which ones are equal it's 14% at
42:32 ↗ 8 if that's helpful so so 14% of up to
42:38 ↗ 400
42:39 ↗ unit is uh 56 units right so is the
42:45 ↗ value 56 time
42:49 ↗ $132,000 so so let me kind of take one
42:52 ↗ step back so which option would you want
42:56 ↗ the information about first the
42:58 ↗ difference you want the Delta difference
43:01 ↗ I'm just trying to understand what what
43:03 ↗ in foregone Revenue I I I suspect that
43:05 ↗ there's a nice Force multiplier here I'm
43:07 ↗ just trying to understand what that
43:08 ↗ Force multiplier at 60% Ami the reduced
43:12 ↗ rental rate is 1100 for the sake of
43:14 ↗ Simplicity and the other one is 550 the
43:17 ↗ 80% for one unit that's the difference
43:20 ↗ you're looking at for rental rate per
43:23 ↗ unit times 12 months time 8 years times
43:26 ↗ the number of units is the total is the
43:29 ↗ total value so value of reduced rent for
43:31 ↗ an eight at 8%
43:34 ↗ 60 uh is
43:38 ↗ $268,000 versus um per unit for all 8%
43:44 ↗ at for 300 unit complex at
43:48 ↗ 8% in at 8% affordable at 60% Ami okay
43:54 ↗ you you've got
43:56 ↗ $268,000
43:57 ↗ a value of reduced rent that's how much
44:00 ↗ the rent reduction dollars
44:03 ↗ are all right thank you that helpful
44:05 ↗ that sure does thanks I think I have
44:09 ↗ that this order right I think it's
44:10 ↗ council member Ray council member hunt
44:12 ↗ council
44:13 ↗ president that works don't we have
44:17 ↗ inclusionary zoning already in this area
44:19 ↗ that requires a certain number of
44:21 ↗ affordable housing to be built with
44:23 ↗ anything yeah so this program actually
44:26 ↗ uh again a pilot program to encourage
44:28 ↗ development where it hasn't happened is
44:30 ↗ to actually for this 8% at 60% Ami is to
44:35 ↗ meet the both components of the
44:38 ↗ inclusionary as well as the uh de
44:41 ↗ development bonus programs so yes we do
44:44 ↗ there is a requirement to build um in
44:46 ↗ the in the urban core
44:48 ↗ 12.5% at different level uh Ami
44:51 ↗ depending on if you're doing rental or
44:53 ↗ ownership the same thing in mixed use at
44:55 ↗ a lower percentage I believe it's 7 .5%
44:57 ↗ but again this is the idea was to uh as
45:02 ↗ a pilot project to uh reduce uh some of
45:05 ↗ those requirements and then and we've
45:07 ↗ seen um other you know pilot projects do
45:10 ↗ that and and is that really because
45:12 ↗ we're just not seeing the
45:15 ↗ development of the housing stock in the
45:18 ↗ valley floor and centralis quad that
45:20 ↗ we've been looking for and this is a way
45:22 ↗ to incentivize at least the initial
45:25 ↗ couple of developments and create some
45:27 ↗ anchor tenants and then we we hope that
45:28 ↗ it takes off correct correct um that's
45:32 ↗ great and that's what I thought um
45:34 ↗ second question um and I don't know what
45:36 ↗ you just said something that made me go
45:38 ↗ huh but um this is mixed use right we're
45:42 ↗ because we we've we've talked about
45:43 ↗ mixed use before and we end up with
45:45 ↗ nothing but residential and I just want
45:46 ↗ to make sure that that this this is this
45:49 ↗ is clearly mixed use um housing or mixed
45:53 ↗ use development it so um it is not
45:57 ↗ required except for in the mixed use
45:59 ↗ overlay area in the urban core which is
46:01 ↗ around Mall Street and where the commons
46:03 ↗ is there is no requirement for ground
46:06 ↗ floor retail anywhere in central wqu
46:09 ↗ except for those areas so um there is we
46:12 ↗ encourage and if it makes sense to do
46:15 ↗ ground floor commercial or retail or
46:17 ↗ more you know of a mixed use um but when
46:20 ↗ we looked at this during the moratorium
46:22 ↗ days um it the size of Central isqua is
46:25 ↗ so large it does not make sense to
46:27 ↗ require ground floor commercial on every
46:31 ↗ parcel um so that's why we limited right
46:34 ↗ but we're just talking two two projects
46:36 ↗ here not you know not all of downt isqua
46:40 ↗ and if you wanted to have a
46:41 ↗ demonstration project to said wow this
46:43 ↗ really does work um going and requiring
46:45 ↗ mixed juuse to me kind of makes a little
46:47 ↗ bit of sense because I just hate it when
46:50 ↗ we we say we're going to do mixed juice
46:51 ↗ and we don't and there's real value in
46:54 ↗ mixed juice I think and and there is
46:57 ↗ financial benefit to the city of having
46:59 ↗ mixed use and it's um and quite honestly
47:02 ↗ it's not as lucrative for
47:05 ↗ developers there is a benefit of the
47:07 ↗ community in the right spots and I said
47:09 ↗ would say that from an economic
47:10 ↗ development perspective where we've seen
47:11 ↗ in other cities where it was required
47:14 ↗ and ground floor retail or ground floor
47:16 ↗ commercial stays vacant for a very long
47:18 ↗ time so yes I think in a lot of areas in
47:21 ↗ central Squad in these two zones it
47:23 ↗ would be it would make a lot of sense
47:24 ↗ but there I I could probably find some
47:26 ↗ parcels where if we required mix to be
47:29 ↗ it would it would be um a challenge to
47:32 ↗ fill and Ken M you are going to be
47:34 ↗ looking at your mfte program coming up
47:38 ↗ and you definitely have the ability at
47:40 ↗ that point in time to have this
47:42 ↗ discussion about it because you make a
47:44 ↗ very good point we have touched on this
47:45 ↗ three times in the last 10 years great
47:48 ↗ thank you for that yeah I love it I
47:51 ↗ think it's council member hunt followed
47:52 ↗ by council president thank you um the
47:56 ↗ mfte program is is eight years and
47:59 ↗ there's a table which explains the
48:01 ↗ foregone re revenue for that eight years
48:04 ↗ um based on estimates um but they'll if
48:07 ↗ is it true that if you wanted to look at
48:09 ↗ the benefits in terms of the rent saved
48:12 ↗ for community members that would be
48:13 ↗ lifetime so lifetime the building so
48:15 ↗ that's however you know you would have
48:17 ↗ to take an average building life span
48:21 ↗ and use that to estimate the benefits if
48:23 ↗ you wanted to look at the whole project
48:25 ↗ lifetime benefits and I'm looking at the
48:28 ↗ yeah I'm looking at the the formula
48:30 ↗ behind there and yes they they're using
48:32 ↗ the number of years of the
48:34 ↗ MS looking for thank you Jen looking for
48:38 ↗ any additional
48:40 ↗ questions well thank you very much for
48:42 ↗ the presentation many thank you for
48:44 ↗ jumping up and sharing some more numbers
48:45 ↗ with us uh is there anybody willing to
48:49 ↗ make a
48:53 ↗ motion yes uh I move to adopt ordinance
48:58 ↗ number 3052 amending chapter
49:02 ↗ 18514 of the isqua municipal code to
49:04 ↗ establish the central isqua Pioneer
49:08 ↗ program and second thank you council
49:12 ↗ president so it's been moved and
49:14 ↗ seconded is there any Council
49:16 ↗ discussion uh can I go to the Mover and
49:18 ↗ then Deputy council president okay so um
49:22 ↗ council member hunt followed by Deputy
49:24 ↗ council president and then council
49:25 ↗ member Mars
49:28 ↗ thank you um I appreciate uh hearing my
49:32 ↗ fellow council members comments on this
49:33 ↗ in committee and um and the discussion
49:36 ↗ that we will have this evening on this
49:38 ↗ um topic as I mentioned we really agreed
49:42 ↗ on almost all components including um
49:45 ↗ having additional flexibility in terms
49:46 ↗ of the years in which this program would
49:48 ↗ be applicable moving that from two to
49:51 ↗ three which was a a um a request and
49:53 ↗ which was a benefit to the developers um
49:56 ↗ it also provides mfte which is of course
49:58 ↗ an incentive um a big incentive and uh
50:02 ↗ and um a number of other factors making
50:06 ↗ it um incentivizing this kind of program
50:10 ↗ I think for me the one the one point
50:13 ↗ where we had some um additional
50:17 ↗ consideration I very strongly feel that
50:19 ↗ we should go with the administration's
50:22 ↗ recommendation on the 60% Ami um it is
50:26 ↗ not that many more units but it is it is
50:29 ↗ uh affordable at a level that we are
50:31 ↗ finding very difficult to um have he
50:35 ↗ built uh and so we can't um make the
50:39 ↗ program stricter uh we can start with a
50:43 ↗ stricter program and see or you know
50:45 ↗ require this this um more affordability
50:48 ↗ and then if we don't find that is giving
50:50 ↗ us the results that we want we could add
50:52 ↗ optionality but we can't really reduce
50:55 ↗ optionality um so I would start uh and I
50:59 ↗ I why I moved to the original motion and
51:01 ↗ why I felt this way in committee as well
51:03 ↗ I think that we should have start with
51:05 ↗ this um 60% Ami option we know that
51:09 ↗ community members um at making these uh
51:14 ↗ 60% Ami salaries are struggling they are
51:17 ↗ cost burdened they live in our community
51:19 ↗ now and are um are really struggling and
51:23 ↗ so I I feel that that is um really
51:27 ↗ important to try to have that benefit
51:29 ↗ it's also been stated this is a more of
51:32 ↗ a community benefit um more of a value
51:35 ↗ to our community um and uh if we and the
51:40 ↗ 80% um is also of course needed but the
51:43 ↗ 60% is I think truly truly desperately
51:47 ↗ needed and um that it's more value to
51:49 ↗ the community was I think what I kept
51:52 ↗ coming back to that I can't go for the
51:54 ↗ option that is the the lower value for
51:57 ↗ the community um both of them being of
52:00 ↗ course important so uh for that reason I
52:04 ↗ I do strongly feel we should go with the
52:06 ↗ 60% Ami um 8% of the units it's a
52:11 ↗ difference of eight units total but it
52:13 ↗ will be for the lifetime of the building
52:14 ↗ these will be affordable to Folks at 60%
52:17 ↗ Ami which I think is is truly um
52:20 ↗ important and very much
52:23 ↗ needed thank you thank you council
52:25 ↗ member Deputy council president
52:30 ↗ oh um oh you're second okay sorry
52:33 ↗ council president that's fine go um I'm
52:37 ↗ definitely supporting this and I think
52:40 ↗ one of the things that I got caught on
52:42 ↗ at first um and that I think we as a
52:46 ↗ council tonight are getting a little bit
52:48 ↗ caught on is this is not an affordable
52:50 ↗ housing project this is not an incentive
52:54 ↗ to create affordable housing it's a big
52:57 ↗ win and we will get some but this
53:00 ↗ program was designed to create a Pioneer
53:04 ↗ project in an area where we have not
53:07 ↗ been able to achieve
53:08 ↗ development and so that was really
53:12 ↗ important when PBC was talking about
53:14 ↗ this was hey we're going to get some
53:17 ↗ incentives we're going to see some good
53:19 ↗ things we always like to have um mixed
53:22 ↗ income housing in there but this is
53:26 ↗ really designed as a maximum two project
53:30 ↗ idea so that we can prove out a point
53:33 ↗ that housing development in our Urban
53:36 ↗ core works and so I just want to make
53:40 ↗ sure we keep that in mind that yes we
53:43 ↗ can maybe go back and forth on the
53:47 ↗ incentives and the affordability mix um
53:52 ↗ but this is very cheap for any
53:54 ↗ affordable housing the we're getting out
53:57 ↗ of this and we're getting a chance to
54:00 ↗ prove the Pioneer project so I just want
54:03 ↗ to make sure we keep both of those in
54:05 ↗ mind because we do have a future
54:07 ↗ conversation coming up talking about how
54:10 ↗ we should design an mft program based on
54:13 ↗ what Eco Northwest said based on what
54:15 ↗ the market is today and any of this data
54:19 ↗ will only help to um influence that
54:22 ↗ conversation when it comes out thanks
54:24 ↗ thank you council president uh I'm going
54:26 ↗ to move to council Marts followed by
54:28 ↗ Deputy council
54:30 ↗ president the idea that this is a
54:33 ↗ Pioneer project in an area that we have
54:35 ↗ not been able to get development is just
54:37 ↗ flat out wrong uh we had a moratorium in
54:40 ↗ 2016 to 2018 during that time Atlas was
54:44 ↗ built then veil was built in 2019
54:47 ↗ Westridge Town Homes was also built in
54:49 ↗ 2019 and then 2020 to 2022 we had the
54:53 ↗ covid uh uh emergency and it's been 18
54:57 ↗ months since then and I'm not ready to
54:59 ↗ say that issaqua is unbuildable because
55:02 ↗ during that time interval we got three
55:05 ↗ projects in either our Urban Villages or
55:08 ↗ the central isqua area so I don't I have
55:11 ↗ no idea why we are talking about this as
55:13 ↗ if somehow our valley floor is bereft of
55:16 ↗ housing it's not at all so I don't see
55:19 ↗ the urgency to us
55:22 ↗ uh giving away foron Revenue to try to
55:25 ↗ promote something that the market has
55:27 ↗ shown over the last 20 years it loves to
55:30 ↗ build an is well why on Earth do we need
55:33 ↗ to do that especially at a time where
55:34 ↗ our community is telling us that they
55:36 ↗ don't want more traffic they don't want
55:39 ↗ uh development that is not for which the
55:42 ↗ infrastructure is not covered I'm
55:45 ↗ confused about whether we're supposed to
55:46 ↗ talk about the the uh affordable housing
55:50 ↗ benefit or not because supposedly we're
55:52 ↗ not because we're having that in a
55:53 ↗ different conversation but my
55:55 ↗ calculation on this is it's something
55:58 ↗ like $2.7 Million worth of benefit for
56:00 ↗ $31 Million worth of deferred revenue
56:03 ↗ between the city of isqua and our
56:06 ↗ partners so it's not a screaming deal if
56:09 ↗ we want to talk about the housing
56:11 ↗ benefit side of it it's a force
56:12 ↗ multiplier from the city of isqua that's
56:15 ↗ on the back of the school district so
56:17 ↗ that's not a great deal for our
56:18 ↗ residents so it's a it's a project
56:20 ↗ that's not needed and in a financial
56:23 ↗ mechanism that uh does a diss to our
56:26 ↗ partners in the community that are
56:28 ↗ giving vital services to our kids no
56:30 ↗ 100% against thanks thank you council
56:33 ↗ member Ms uh Deputy council
56:35 ↗ president um Madame mayor is uh this the
56:37 ↗ appropriate time to offer an
56:39 ↗ amendment um let me see if there's
56:42 ↗ anybody else who wants to make comments
56:43 ↗ and then yes okay anybody else want to
56:46 ↗ make comments deuty council president go
56:49 ↗ ahead with your
56:51 ↗ Amendment um so I will move to amend
56:54 ↗ table 18. 514 .042 Point C Pioneer
56:58 ↗ program Central isqua affordable housing
57:00 ↗ minimum thresholds of the ordinance to
57:03 ↗ add an option for 10% of units of
57:06 ↗ affordable housing required at 80% Ami
57:09 ↗ and to allow the developer to select
57:11 ↗ between the two options of affordable
57:13 ↗ housing
57:15 ↗ requirements do we have a second second
57:18 ↗ than it's been moved and seconded uh
57:20 ↗ Council
57:22 ↗ discussion uh Deputy council
57:25 ↗ president
57:27 ↗ uh thank you mayor let me just get my
57:29 ↗ notes here thanks um so well first of
57:32 ↗ all I wanted to thank the uh pte and the
57:35 ↗ planning policy commission and the
57:37 ↗ economic Vitality commission for their
57:40 ↗ really robust discussions um I did not
57:42 ↗ watch the videos but I did read the
57:44 ↗ transcript from the uh planning policy
57:47 ↗ commission and they really brought out a
57:49 ↗ lot of of a good discussion uh over uh
57:54 ↗ the possibility of offering Developers
57:56 ↗ is a option um and I totally agree that
57:59 ↗ our goal for this Pioneer project is uh
58:02 ↗ to start creating density around
58:04 ↗ hopefully a future light rail station
58:08 ↗ and and respectfully I don't think that
58:11 ↗ we've had enough development in central
58:12 ↗ isqua to really support that light rail
58:15 ↗ station which is really the driver
58:17 ↗ behind all of this um so uh those are a
58:21 ↗ couple of of points I want to make but I
58:23 ↗ would like us to kind of step back and
58:26 ↗ have a bigger uh discussion about what
58:30 ↗ is really required when you're talking
58:32 ↗ about developing 30% and 60%
58:35 ↗ Ami um I've really been digging into
58:38 ↗ this because yes we do need those
58:42 ↗ options for people in our community but
58:45 ↗ uh I'm not sure that we're pursuing the
58:47 ↗ right model and I'm just going to give
58:49 ↗ you three
58:51 ↗ examples uh of recent um uh forums that
58:55 ↗ I've listened to
58:56 ↗ the first one is was at the National
58:58 ↗ League of cities uh uh convention uh we
59:02 ↗ heard from Tempe Arizona where they have
59:04 ↗ put in a major senior housing
59:07 ↗ development at
59:08 ↗ 30% uh the Tempe city council put $10
59:11 ↗ million into that project of the city's
59:14 ↗ money um to subsidize that
59:17 ↗ project uh just last week I was
59:19 ↗ listening to a presentation about a
59:22 ↗ small cottage compound that's being
59:24 ↗ built in buan
59:27 ↗ um that project 1.8 Acres was bought and
59:31 ↗ the land donated to the project by uh
59:35 ↗ well I'll call a
59:38 ↗ philanthropist um and the presenter that
59:40 ↗ at that Forum said this development
59:43 ↗ could never have happened without a
59:45 ↗ major subsidy without a major subsidy
59:48 ↗ and then my third example is my favorite
59:50 ↗ the together
59:51 ↗ Center uh they have 30% and 60% Ami they
59:55 ↗ ow owned that property whole and
59:58 ↗ outright worth $26 million that was a
1:00:01 ↗ subsidy they put into that project and
1:00:04 ↗ so uh I don't think that we have been
1:00:08 ↗ really addressing the fact that we are
1:00:10 ↗ not we are not looking at how we um
1:00:14 ↗ subsidize the 30% and 60% Emi and we're
1:00:18 ↗ putting the onus of this development
1:00:21 ↗ onto our developers and saying you
1:00:24 ↗ figure out how this works you figure
1:00:25 ↗ figure out how this pencils out um and
1:00:29 ↗ so far people developers have been
1:00:31 ↗ coming back to us or not even coming
1:00:33 ↗ back to us they've just been going away
1:00:34 ↗ and saying this doesn't pencil out this
1:00:38 ↗ does not pencil out for us we need the
1:00:40 ↗ 80% option in order to make it pencil
1:00:43 ↗ out and I think one of the previous
1:00:45 ↗ speakers talked about going out and
1:00:46 ↗ getting bank loans uh so it isn't the
1:00:49 ↗ developer that makes this decision it's
1:00:51 ↗ the banks who say we won't fund this
1:00:54 ↗ development unless a p out so um uh
1:00:59 ↗ first of all I think we're getting off
1:01:00 ↗ really really cheap as the council
1:01:02 ↗ president said
1:01:03 ↗ $270,000 of mfte for us it's a lot more
1:01:06 ↗ expensive for the school district I
1:01:08 ↗ agree um is a pretty small investment
1:01:11 ↗ when you compare to some of the
1:01:13 ↗ Investments that have been been made
1:01:15 ↗ locally for these 30% and 60% Ami
1:01:18 ↗ projects I think that we have to give
1:01:21 ↗ our developers this this option to make
1:01:23 ↗ it viable so that they can actually go
1:01:26 ↗ in and build and again I'm going to go
1:01:28 ↗ back to our uh the driver on this is
1:01:32 ↗ that 2041 Light Rail Project tonight
1:01:36 ↗ we're going to look at the Light Rail
1:01:38 ↗ station planning guide and in that guide
1:01:41 ↗ I will quote um that they say that
1:01:44 ↗ strong Partnerships and commitments from
1:01:46 ↗ local municipalities and agencies are
1:01:49 ↗ essential for obtaining Federal funding
1:01:51 ↗ for the Light Rail Project we need to
1:01:54 ↗ demonstrate that we have a strong
1:01:56 ↗ commitment to making that area dense and
1:02:00 ↗ ready for Light Rail and I can't think
1:02:02 ↗ of a more strong statement that we could
1:02:04 ↗ make about that then we give our
1:02:07 ↗ developers the option of either 60% or
1:02:11 ↗ 80% I think that developers and cities
1:02:14 ↗ should be partners in achieving our
1:02:17 ↗ strategic goal of having a light whale
1:02:19 ↗ station here in isqua and I don't think
1:02:22 ↗ that we can do that without listening to
1:02:24 ↗ them we heard tonight we gotten
1:02:27 ↗ letters unanimously the development
1:02:29 ↗ Community is saying give us this option
1:02:32 ↗ and I am willing to give them that
1:02:34 ↗ option so that we get the density that
1:02:37 ↗ we're looking
1:02:38 ↗ for uh from the actions that they are
1:02:41 ↗ able to take so I strongly support the
1:02:44 ↗ amendment to uh provide an option to our
1:02:47 ↗ developers in the Pioneer project thank
1:02:50 ↗ you thank you Deputy council president
1:02:52 ↗ um council member Hall you seconded did
1:02:54 ↗ you want to make some comments and then
1:02:55 ↗ anybody else please raise your
1:02:57 ↗ mic uh yeah thank you um I agree with
1:03:00 ↗ the deputy council president I think
1:03:02 ↗ this is where my head was at um in
1:03:04 ↗ committee as well I think that providing
1:03:06 ↗ options is good and it seems like the
1:03:08 ↗ Professionals in the space are telling
1:03:09 ↗ us that having options would be helpful
1:03:12 ↗ um and I agree that this is not designed
1:03:15 ↗ was told to us many times this is not
1:03:17 ↗ designed as an affordable housing
1:03:19 ↗ program it's the really spur development
1:03:22 ↗ in an area that's been underdeveloped um
1:03:24 ↗ which to me would lend itself to the
1:03:26 ↗ amended motion tonight by not being too
1:03:29 ↗ prescriptive about what level Ami should
1:03:31 ↗ be there so um um and I think that also
1:03:37 ↗ lends itself to an opportunity to see
1:03:39 ↗ which gets chosen which will then be
1:03:41 ↗ valuable information as we're forming
1:03:43 ↗ our actual mfte program down the road um
1:03:47 ↗ plus again as was said we get lifetime
1:03:49 ↗ affordability here which I am a big
1:03:51 ↗ opponent of so um yeah I I support the
1:03:53 ↗ amended motion
1:03:56 ↗ anyone else Desiring to speak to the
1:03:59 ↗ Amendments council member Joe and then
1:04:03 ↗ Council M Ray well thank you um I'm also
1:04:06 ↗ in support of this amendment tonight um
1:04:09 ↗ I think that uh the developers do need
1:04:12 ↗ to have a couple of things in order to
1:04:14 ↗ make uh well they need a lot of things
1:04:16 ↗ in order to make a project successful
1:04:18 ↗ but certainly one is is the flexibility
1:04:21 ↗ to choose a program either um you know
1:04:24 ↗ the 80% or 60% depending on what
1:04:26 ↗ financing they're able to get and we
1:04:29 ↗ also need to keep in mind that interest
1:04:31 ↗ rates are not the 3% rate that they were
1:04:34 ↗ at when no projects were being built on
1:04:36 ↗ our valley floor and now it's s eight
1:04:40 ↗ for and much higher so it makes a
1:04:42 ↗ project more difficult to pencil out
1:04:45 ↗ also certainty is another important
1:04:47 ↗ element that our Builder Community wants
1:04:50 ↗ to see um you know they we put the rule
1:04:54 ↗ in they they know what the rules are
1:04:57 ↗ they know our rules for development for
1:04:59 ↗ permitting for environmental concerns
1:05:01 ↗ along the way then they can make that
1:05:04 ↗ decision whether or not that project's
1:05:05 ↗ going to go through or not
1:05:09 ↗ um you know I think that uh if we act
1:05:13 ↗ now uh with the the option to have them
1:05:16 ↗ both there um we stand a better chance
1:05:19 ↗ of actually getting a project on the
1:05:21 ↗ valley floor um if we keep it at the 60%
1:05:24 ↗ level not sure that we're going to get a
1:05:27 ↗ project and we're going to be back here
1:05:29 ↗ 3 years two years later trying to adjust
1:05:33 ↗ it again um you know and I see this as a
1:05:37 ↗ as a way to back up the investment that
1:05:39 ↗ we've made by putting $1 million toward
1:05:44 ↗ the overpass
1:05:45 ↗ underpass Terminus for Sound Transit we
1:05:49 ↗ put that money in the budget we are
1:05:52 ↗ going to study that it's part of the the
1:05:55 ↗ you know how we're going to put our
1:05:56 ↗ Terminus together there and as council
1:05:59 ↗ member D Michelle points out having um
1:06:02 ↗ the Partnerships there that show that
1:06:05 ↗ the housing is going to be started um it
1:06:07 ↗ shows that we have the opportunity to
1:06:10 ↗ capitalize on that 1 million dollar I
1:06:12 ↗ think it makes sense to give the
1:06:14 ↗ developers that are going to be taking
1:06:15 ↗ the risk on this project the ability to
1:06:17 ↗ have the flexibility to have 80% or 60%
1:06:21 ↗ Ami projects thank you thank you council
1:06:24 ↗ member Joe council member Ray um thank
1:06:26 ↗ you mayor
1:06:27 ↗ Paulie I like the flexibility of the 80%
1:06:30 ↗ um as opposed to the Solly 60% I think
1:06:32 ↗ it opens up some um good possibilties so
1:06:36 ↗ I prefer this option but I got to tell
1:06:38 ↗ you I'm not excited about either option
1:06:41 ↗ so when we get through this vote I'll
1:06:43 ↗ come back to that but um if I if I had
1:06:46 ↗ if those are my two choices I prefer the
1:06:49 ↗ the uh flexibility of the 80%
1:06:51 ↗ Ami thank you any more comments on the
1:06:54 ↗ amendment
1:06:57 ↗ and uh city clerk do you have the
1:06:59 ↗ language for the amendment in front of
1:07:01 ↗ you if you could reread that sure uh the
1:07:05 ↗ vote is whether to amend table
1:07:14 ↗ 18.51% of units of affordable housing
1:07:17 ↗ required a 80% Ami and to allow the
1:07:19 ↗ developer to select between the two
1:07:21 ↗ options of affordable housing
1:07:23 ↗ requirements uh it has been moved and
1:07:26 ↗ seconded all those in favor of the
1:07:27 ↗ amendment say I I and raise your
1:07:30 ↗ microphones so we can count thank you uh
1:07:34 ↗ those opposed Nay Nay Nay the amendment
1:07:38 ↗ passes four to three thank you for that
1:07:40 ↗ we are back to the main uh motion and
1:07:44 ↗ I'm going to go to council member Ray
1:07:46 ↗ who sounds like you might want to speak
1:07:47 ↗ to it yeah I am very much feeling
1:07:51 ↗ similar to my esteemed colleague council
1:07:53 ↗ member Marts and and I really appreciate
1:07:56 ↗ the clarity that the council president
1:07:58 ↗ put on this Pioneer program that this is
1:07:59 ↗ not an affordable housing program this
1:08:02 ↗ is a development uh incentive program
1:08:06 ↗ and um got to tell you I have never
1:08:08 ↗ walked through or talked to anyone says
1:08:10 ↗ boy what we need is more people here and
1:08:12 ↗ we need more housing here and we should
1:08:14 ↗ be uh um subsidizing that what I hear
1:08:17 ↗ people say is we need more affordable
1:08:18 ↗ housing here and we need maybe more um
1:08:22 ↗ uh access to housing here but no one has
1:08:24 ↗ just said I need more market rate
1:08:26 ↗ housing here and that seems to be the
1:08:28 ↗ driver so that's what's kind of um
1:08:30 ↗ making me not super supportive of this
1:08:33 ↗ right at this moment I'm I'm I'm open
1:08:36 ↗ I'm all ears to hear um other people's
1:08:38 ↗ points of view but we have a serious
1:08:41 ↗ traffic problem um we're going to talk
1:08:43 ↗ about concurrency a little bit uh later
1:08:45 ↗ and we've got additional intersections
1:08:48 ↗ that are failing um I think we have a
1:08:51 ↗ more robust approach to affordable
1:08:53 ↗ housing um in our existing inclusionary
1:08:56 ↗ zoning and um I just not sure that we
1:08:59 ↗ get the juice for the squeeze um for the
1:09:03 ↗ MF investment that we are considering
1:09:06 ↗ putting into this Council M thank you um
1:09:09 ↗ any other comments council
1:09:11 ↗ president so I go back to a story that I
1:09:14 ↗ heard from the rallies um talking about
1:09:17 ↗ development the rallies very great
1:09:20 ↗ family in the area that um develop a lot
1:09:23 ↗ of Housing and other things
1:09:26 ↗ they have a little bit of an older
1:09:27 ↗ housing stock and you know the last time
1:09:31 ↗ they had to actually lower rents and
1:09:35 ↗ provide a lot of incentives to get
1:09:37 ↗ people to move in it was when Atlas went
1:09:40 ↗ up an atlas represents a situation where
1:09:45 ↗ you've got market rate housing the thing
1:09:48 ↗ that's really important to recognize is
1:09:51 ↗ when we had the community survey you
1:09:54 ↗ want you heard one of the biggest issues
1:09:57 ↗ people had was Cost of Living Well I
1:10:00 ↗ agree this isn't
1:10:02 ↗ incentivized 30% Ami housing but it is
1:10:07 ↗ additional housing and one of the ways
1:10:10 ↗ that you get additional lower um cost
1:10:15 ↗ housing is by building more
1:10:20 ↗ housing okay I think it was councilman
1:10:22 ↗ Merz followed by Deputy council
1:10:24 ↗ president
1:10:27 ↗ I I continue to not understand the
1:10:30 ↗ argument that we have not been getting
1:10:32 ↗ development in the Central Area Atlas
1:10:35 ↗ was 344 units Bale is 110 units West
1:10:39 ↗ Ridge is 221 units Gateway Anthology is
1:10:44 ↗ 400 units these are all things that have
1:10:46 ↗ occurred within the last 10 years
1:10:48 ↗ occurred between essentially our
1:10:50 ↗ moratorium and the EM the co emergency
1:10:53 ↗ it's been 18 months since Co ended it is
1:10:56 ↗ premature to assume that the market
1:10:59 ↗ needs our assistance to build housing
1:11:01 ↗ the housing that as several people have
1:11:03 ↗ noted is controversial in a community
1:11:06 ↗ when we don't have a good mechanism to
1:11:08 ↗ pay for the infrastructure associated
1:11:10 ↗ with that housing and have even less if
1:11:13 ↗ we foro revenue for these developers so
1:11:17 ↗ I invite anybody to look at those
1:11:18 ↗ numbers of the housing that's been built
1:11:20 ↗ since the moratorium and argue that we
1:11:22 ↗ haven't been having development on the
1:11:24 ↗ valley floor we have haven't had it in
1:11:25 ↗ the last 18 months but 18 months does
1:11:27 ↗ not a market make thank you Deputy
1:11:30 ↗ council
1:11:31 ↗ president thank you just a a note about
1:11:34 ↗ the the traffic which I I appreciate
1:11:37 ↗ those
1:11:38 ↗ comments um the and this is this is a
1:11:41 ↗ hard one for people to see but uh the
1:11:44 ↗ whole idea of creating density is
1:11:47 ↗ because density allows for Transit and
1:11:51 ↗ allows for uh more multimodal options or
1:11:55 ↗ over the long
1:11:56 ↗ run it's hard one to argue because
1:11:58 ↗ people don't see it right away I'm
1:12:00 ↗ looking at John and uh but uh they don't
1:12:03 ↗ see it right away but that is exactly
1:12:05 ↗ what we need to do in order to be able
1:12:07 ↗ to uh bring more robust Transit and more
1:12:11 ↗ robust uh Transit and transportation and
1:12:14 ↗ multimodal options to this community and
1:12:17 ↗ of course the ultimate of that is that
1:12:19 ↗ light rail station which will be
1:12:22 ↗ transporting people in and out of uh
1:12:24 ↗ thousands of people people in and out of
1:12:26 ↗ this area so so um you know that's a
1:12:30 ↗ long range AR argument it really is but
1:12:33 ↗ it's like a chicken and an egg argument
1:12:35 ↗ we have to get the density in order to
1:12:36 ↗ get the transit we need the transit in
1:12:38 ↗ order to get the density and it it does
1:12:40 ↗ work but uh this is a first step toward
1:12:43 ↗ creating that kind of environment around
1:12:46 ↗ what will be a light rail station um and
1:12:49 ↗ that will be fed by Major Transit
1:12:52 ↗ operations eventually uh but we can't do
1:12:55 ↗ it until we take the first step forward
1:12:57 ↗ so anyway just just my comment on the
1:13:00 ↗ traffic situation thank you thank you
1:13:03 ↗ Deputy council president we have three
1:13:04 ↗ that we have not heard from yet so I
1:13:07 ↗ will come back the council member way
1:13:09 ↗ I'm just giving you three an opportunity
1:13:11 ↗ council member Joe council member
1:13:13 ↗ Hunt No thank you
1:13:17 ↗ um we have a a a situation of pent up
1:13:21 ↗ demand for housing in isqua I believe in
1:13:25 ↗ the sense that uh there are seniors that
1:13:28 ↗ want to move out of that four-bedroom
1:13:30 ↗ house or three-bedroom house and they
1:13:31 ↗ want to move down to something that
1:13:33 ↗ might be a two-bedroom condo two-bedroom
1:13:36 ↗ townhouse we have young people that
1:13:38 ↗ can't come back to our communities
1:13:40 ↗ because the price of housing is too high
1:13:42 ↗ they'd like to get into an Adu or
1:13:44 ↗ one-bedroom apartment the supply is not
1:13:47 ↗ there
1:13:48 ↗ um from a study that that I read it was
1:13:52 ↗ upjn study um from
1:13:56 ↗ 2019 they found that when a 100 units of
1:13:59 ↗ just market rate housing is
1:14:01 ↗ built what happens is about 70 units on
1:14:06 ↗ the bottom quartile and the second
1:14:08 ↗ bottom
1:14:09 ↗ quartile open up as people move to that
1:14:12 ↗ next level of Housing and so by the by
1:14:16 ↗ the time you pass three years about 70
1:14:20 ↗ units of that other housing has opened
1:14:22 ↗ up the rally housing that's the 400,000
1:14:25 ↗ or the $2,000 a month housing has opened
1:14:28 ↗ up because people are moving up and some
1:14:30 ↗ people are moving down to other units
1:14:32 ↗ along the way so I I know it doesn't
1:14:35 ↗ seem like
1:14:36 ↗ we need more housing in isqua but we
1:14:41 ↗ 3,500 more units according to the cpps
1:14:44 ↗ the numbers we've been given by the
1:14:47 ↗ county for housing through our comp plan
1:14:50 ↗ for the next 20 years I know that's a
1:14:52 ↗ long time and but 3,500 units are needed
1:14:55 ↗ along the way at all income levels as as
1:14:58 ↗ Jen Davis Hayes points out and so when
1:15:00 ↗ we're building a project or we're
1:15:02 ↗ encouraging a project that might bring
1:15:04 ↗ in 400 units and might have 40 units of
1:15:08 ↗ affordable housing we're helping that
1:15:10 ↗ supply and and we're going to um see
1:15:13 ↗ movement there in ways that I think that
1:15:16 ↗ we can't necessarily see right now but
1:15:20 ↗ with that movement comes density then
1:15:22 ↗ comes Transit then comes our terminus
1:15:25 ↗ and you know we're moving along in a way
1:15:27 ↗ that I think is positive for uh for
1:15:29 ↗ isqua it's going to be a more walkable
1:15:31 ↗ Community people can walk to the um the
1:15:36 ↗ Terminus um it's going to be a community
1:15:38 ↗ where where people can get out of their
1:15:40 ↗ cars and get on the trails without
1:15:42 ↗ having to get into um you without having
1:15:45 ↗ to take a car to Lakes smam State Park
1:15:47 ↗ or along the creek along the way
1:15:50 ↗ walkable Community can be is something
1:15:52 ↗ that I can see as well in the future so
1:15:54 ↗ I would um support this agenda bill
1:15:56 ↗ tonight thank you thank you council
1:15:57 ↗ member
1:15:58 ↗ hun um thank you I will also be
1:16:02 ↗ supporting this um I do think that based
1:16:06 ↗ on having conversations with community
1:16:08 ↗ members at their doors and um and our
1:16:11 ↗ community surveys uh going back to the
1:16:13 ↗ housing strategy when we surveyed
1:16:15 ↗ residents around that um there is really
1:16:18 ↗ a lot of people that are cered and uh
1:16:20 ↗ that live in our community that um that
1:16:22 ↗ uh having additional options small
1:16:24 ↗ smaller options um than the current
1:16:27 ↗ houses that they have that that would be
1:16:29 ↗ uh important for them to be able to stay
1:16:31 ↗ in in the community I think there are
1:16:34 ↗ lots of benefits to having those smaller
1:16:35 ↗ units in terms of as as has been
1:16:37 ↗ mentioned by my colleagues the option
1:16:39 ↗ for seniors to stay in the community but
1:16:41 ↗ downsize the options for children to um
1:16:44 ↗ return to the community after they've
1:16:46 ↗ been away and with a um uh with um with
1:16:50 ↗ a salary that is not allowing them to
1:16:52 ↗ yet buy a home so I think having these
1:16:55 ↗ options is really important and based on
1:16:57 ↗ lots of conversations there are people
1:16:59 ↗ who are cost burdened and there is a
1:17:01 ↗ real need for that um I
1:17:05 ↗ uh will will flag that this was
1:17:08 ↗ anticipated in the central isqua plan as
1:17:12 ↗ a potential need that we would have to
1:17:14 ↗ have a Pioneer program to uh create the
1:17:17 ↗ first in market and um it is true that
1:17:20 ↗ parts of the city have grown and the
1:17:22 ↗ city overall has grown um but this area
1:17:24 ↗ where we anticipate there will be future
1:17:26 ↗ light rail uh where we anticipate that
1:17:29 ↗ we will have mass transit where we want
1:17:31 ↗ to have that density um for a number of
1:17:34 ↗ reasons including that there there needs
1:17:36 ↗ to be um sort of first in Market
1:17:39 ↗ incentives uh I do believe that this is
1:17:42 ↗ um this was anticipated in central esqu
1:17:44 ↗ program and um I am supportive of taking
1:17:46 ↗ this step so that we can begin to have
1:17:48 ↗ the housing in that location where we
1:17:50 ↗ expect to have public transit more
1:17:53 ↗ vibrancy more um mixed use and more of
1:17:57 ↗ the growth in that particular part of
1:17:58 ↗ the city thank you and before I go to
1:18:01 ↗ council M Council M Hall you're the only
1:18:02 ↗ one has a chance to chime in but if
1:18:03 ↗ you're okay I will go for a second round
1:18:06 ↗ okay Council Hall yeah I mean just
1:18:08 ↗ really briefly to say I agree that you
1:18:10 ↗ know this was envis envisaged in the
1:18:12 ↗ central isqua plan so for me this
1:18:15 ↗ Pioneer project is all about
1:18:17 ↗ implementing the central isqua plan and
1:18:18 ↗ getting us to the goals that are stated
1:18:20 ↗ in there um also I I completely agree
1:18:23 ↗ that moratorium and Co
1:18:25 ↗ um impacted development in our region
1:18:28 ↗ but we also had wonderful Consultants
1:18:30 ↗ come in and look at our code and work
1:18:32 ↗ with developers and they have all
1:18:34 ↗ concluded in saying there are a host of
1:18:36 ↗ problems why people look at isqua
1:18:39 ↗ develop but then say it's just not going
1:18:40 ↗ to work got to go somewhere else so
1:18:43 ↗ again this is helping us get closer um
1:18:45 ↗ to what we envisioned in the central
1:18:46 ↗ isqua plan
1:18:50 ↗ and yeah I'm go for second round council
1:18:54 ↗ member Ray
1:18:55 ↗ um thanks and um thank you for that
1:18:58 ↗ council member hall because I think that
1:19:00 ↗ was was also very cogent um so
1:19:03 ↗ affordability is not the issue because
1:19:04 ↗ we got a tool for affordability I know
1:19:05 ↗ we keep talking about affordable
1:19:06 ↗ affordable affordable but that's not
1:19:08 ↗ what this is about because we've already
1:19:10 ↗ got inclusionary zoning which actually
1:19:12 ↗ gives us as I do the numbers more
1:19:14 ↗ affordable housing than this does so um
1:19:17 ↗ like the sentiment I think it's
1:19:18 ↗ something that's very popular something
1:19:19 ↗ that is important to the city um speaks
1:19:22 ↗ to the survey but not addressed by this
1:19:25 ↗ solution um but I'm also really
1:19:27 ↗ intrigued with um is there a problem
1:19:30 ↗ with our existing zoning and code that's
1:19:32 ↗ discouraging development that's why I
1:19:33 ↗ said thank you because you know that's
1:19:36 ↗ really if that's the problem instead of
1:19:38 ↗ throwing mfte at it to incentivize it
1:19:41 ↗ why don't we fix the underlying problem
1:19:43 ↗ and get the development that we had
1:19:44 ↗ envisioned in the centralis CL plan
1:19:46 ↗ because I'm a big supporter of the
1:19:48 ↗ centralis CL Vision I'm a big supporter
1:19:50 ↗ of density around Transit though I think
1:19:53 ↗ it's um it's more of a egg chicken that
1:19:58 ↗ um the uh when when it gets really clear
1:20:02 ↗ and close and there's Transit going to
1:20:04 ↗ be here there will be development like
1:20:06 ↗ you have no no idea because people will
1:20:08 ↗ want to be in that area that's what I've
1:20:11 ↗ seen in other parts of the world where I
1:20:13 ↗ see Transit going out and then finally
1:20:16 ↗ um what makes us think that these two
1:20:18 ↗ Pioneer projects are going to make a
1:20:19 ↗ difference in terms of
1:20:22 ↗ um you know boy if I did this 400 units
1:20:26 ↗ then somebody else is going to say I'm
1:20:28 ↗ I'm going to go in and do something U
1:20:31 ↗ without the subsidy because well that
1:20:33 ↗ one works so well um I I just don't
1:20:35 ↗ that's not how that's not how I think um
1:20:38 ↗ but um I just don't think that it's
1:20:40 ↗ going to make a significant um uh
1:20:43 ↗ difference quite honestly so that's I
1:20:45 ↗ guess my biggest thing we'll we'll put
1:20:46 ↗ in a 400 units uh we'll have 32
1:20:49 ↗ affordable units or 40 affordable units
1:20:52 ↗ and um and that's that's great we'll
1:20:55 ↗ have more traffic um we'll lose some
1:20:57 ↗ Revenue but I don't think it's going to
1:20:59 ↗ help forward our development because I
1:21:01 ↗ don't think that's the
1:21:02 ↗ problem thank you Council M Ray anyone
1:21:05 ↗ else for a second round of comments
1:21:06 ↗ before I call for the
1:21:08 ↗ vote not seeing any
1:21:10 ↗ indication um so the motion was to adopt
1:21:14 ↗ ordinance number 3052 amending chapter
1:21:23 ↗ 18.51% the as
1:21:26 ↗ amended um all those in favor signify by
1:21:29 ↗ saying I and raise your mics please I
1:21:33 ↗ I thank you those opposed
1:21:38 ↗ no that passes uh 5
1:21:41 ↗ to2 thank you for that um the next item
1:21:45 ↗ of business this evening is AB 8791 and
1:21:48 ↗ this is the central esqua Pioneer
1:21:49 ↗ program multif family tax exemption and
1:21:51 ↗ it is to set the hearing date so so the
1:21:55 ↗ request before Council this evening is
1:21:56 ↗ to approve the resolution setting the
1:21:58 ↗ public hearing and I still have Jen back
1:22:01 ↗ up at the microphone and Jen can you do
1:22:05 ↗ presentation yes I'm still here hi Jen
1:22:08 ↗ Davis Hayes city of isqua Economic
1:22:09 ↗ Development and so as we mentioned the
1:22:13 ↗ mfte um has a
1:22:16 ↗ um has a uh uh different steps in order
1:22:22 ↗ to uh Implement so tonight we are here
1:22:25 ↗ to um ask you to adopt the resolution
1:22:28 ↗ which would set the mfte public hearing
1:22:32 ↗ date on April 15th and we just went
1:22:35 ↗ through all these reasons of what we've
1:22:37 ↗ we've talked about mft along the way um
1:22:40 ↗ and so again remember that this is to
1:22:43 ↗ support Pioneer program goal uh just for
1:22:46 ↗ housing it's eight years um that would
1:22:49 ↗ only be exempt for the residential
1:22:50 ↗ portion taxes are still collected on
1:22:52 ↗ land and Commercial pieces that if it's
1:22:55 ↗ built um and then uh the lifetime
1:22:58 ↗ affordability of of those um uh
1:23:01 ↗ units it if you pass the resolution
1:23:04 ↗ tonight we'll come back and have um that
1:23:07 ↗ public hearing on the 15th and then a
1:23:09 ↗ full vote on the 6th um work with um our
1:23:13 ↗ friends in community Planning and
1:23:15 ↗ Development to implement and Market to
1:23:16 ↗ Pro the program overall to property
1:23:18 ↗ owners and development developers to let
1:23:20 ↗ them know this project
1:23:22 ↗ exists so we're asking for for you to
1:23:25 ↗ pass a resolution to set the public
1:23:27 ↗ hearing so we can have a further
1:23:29 ↗ in-depth discussion thank
1:23:31 ↗ you Jen just a question at the
1:23:33 ↗ conclusion of the public hearing what
1:23:35 ↗ would the next steps be for
1:23:37 ↗ Council the next meeting then would be
1:23:40 ↗ to uh come back and and consider
1:23:42 ↗ adoption of of the uh area to add to our
1:23:46 ↗ mfte ordinance that currently does exist
1:23:48 ↗ thank
1:23:49 ↗ you um questions from
1:23:53 ↗ Council council member
1:23:55 ↗ hunt a clarifying question we um we
1:24:00 ↗ passed a uh amended version of the last
1:24:05 ↗ ordinance um does this
1:24:08 ↗ ordinance
1:24:10 ↗ adopt does this ordinance need to be
1:24:12 ↗ changed to be internally consistent or
1:24:16 ↗ not the resolution is just sing a
1:24:19 ↗ hearing there there's no there's no
1:24:21 ↗ language in the resolution pertaining to
1:24:24 ↗ the affordability
1:24:27 ↗ requirement okay
1:24:30 ↗ okay any other
1:24:32 ↗ questions would anyone care to make a
1:24:34 ↗ motion council
1:24:36 ↗ president I move to approve resolution
1:24:38 ↗ number 20
1:24:41 ↗ 24-13 notifying the public of its intent
1:24:43 ↗ to designate the central isqua Pioneer
1:24:45 ↗ program area as a residential targeted
1:24:48 ↗ area for the purposes of the city's
1:24:50 ↗ multif family property tax exemption
1:24:52 ↗ program and setting the required public
1:24:56 ↗ hearing second it's been moved and
1:24:58 ↗ seconded is there any Council
1:25:01 ↗ discussion seeing none all those in
1:25:03 ↗ favor please indicate by saying I I
1:25:06 ↗ iOS nay those opposed thank you that uh
1:25:10 ↗ passes 6 to
1:25:11 ↗ one and the next item of business for us
1:25:14 ↗ this evening uh and I believe our last
1:25:16 ↗ un regular business is AB 8786 the light
1:25:19 ↗ rail planning guide the request before
1:25:22 ↗ the council this evening is to approve
1:25:24 ↗ approve and I'd like to invite Thomas
1:25:26 ↗ valre senior Transportation planner to
1:25:28 ↗ present this item welcome
1:25:33 ↗ Thomas thank you very much mayor Paulie
1:25:35 ↗ members of the
1:25:38 ↗ council just going to get situated here
1:25:41 ↗ with my
1:25:53 ↗ presentation
1:25:55 ↗ uh so again my name is Thomas valdres
1:25:56 ↗ senior Transportation planner for the
1:25:58 ↗ city uh I'm joined here by Lacy Bell the
1:26:02 ↗ principal at Nelson nigr Associates her
1:26:06 ↗ and her team worked on this document so
1:26:07 ↗ I was hoping to co-present this with her
1:26:10 ↗ so that she could answer questions and
1:26:12 ↗ uh lead some of this
1:26:15 ↗ discussion so again the purpose is to
1:26:17 ↗ seek approval for the light rail
1:26:19 ↗ planning
1:26:20 ↗ guide and uh just briefly we'll cover a
1:26:23 ↗ little bit of background information on
1:26:26 ↗ providing some context on what we're
1:26:27 ↗ talking about we'll then have Lacy here
1:26:31 ↗ talk about the guide itself and then
1:26:33 ↗ I'll talk about um how the mobility and
1:26:35 ↗ infrastructure committee uh how we spoke
1:26:38 ↗ to them and talk about uh next steps and
1:26:42 ↗ uh seeking
1:26:45 ↗ approval so as this Council knows uh the
1:26:48 ↗ central Esq plan was uh adopted in 2012
1:26:53 ↗ uh the the vision for the central isqua
1:26:55 ↗ plan as of 2012 was to guide the
1:26:57 ↗ long-term vision of the neighborhood to
1:27:00 ↗ have a more livable sustainable and
1:27:02 ↗ mixed use urban
1:27:04 ↗ area and in 2015 the city partnered with
1:27:08 ↗ the pugan Regional Council to designate
1:27:10 ↗ uh a large portion of the area shown
1:27:12 ↗ here in green as an urban core
1:27:16 ↗ area and this is designated as a um
1:27:19 ↗ regional growth Center that's envisioned
1:27:21 ↗ to have the majority of the housing and
1:27:23 ↗ jobs that we foresee being here over the
1:27:26 ↗ next about 25
1:27:29 ↗ years in
1:27:31 ↗ 2016 King count uh King County uh voters
1:27:35 ↗ approved uh Sound Transit 3 uh which was
1:27:38 ↗ a uh B measure which is going to be
1:27:42 ↗ funding the uh Light Rail uh that we
1:27:44 ↗ anticipate coming to the community in
1:27:47 ↗ about
1:27:48 ↗ 2041 uh this map shows the extent of it
1:27:51 ↗ so it's uh from South Kirkland uh
1:27:54 ↗ rolling through bellw and then
1:27:56 ↗ terminating in Central
1:28:00 ↗ isqua and so again as what what was
1:28:03 ↗ mentioned in previous agenda items it is
1:28:06 ↗ intended that this uh region of Central
1:28:09 ↗ isqua uh be developed uh to be a
1:28:12 ↗ walkable dense uh Community uh that is
1:28:15 ↗ livable and sustainable and would
1:28:17 ↗ support the densities needed for light
1:28:19 ↗ rail to come to Central
1:28:22 ↗ isqua so again the city city is taking
1:28:24 ↗ steps to prepare for Light Rail and uh
1:28:27 ↗ in that vein we have partnered with
1:28:29 ↗ Nelson nagard Associates to develop a
1:28:32 ↗ light rail planning document um and this
1:28:36 ↗ guide will help us uh plan for the next
1:28:40 ↗ a couple years and Beyond so looking
1:28:42 ↗ forward to uh telling you more about
1:28:49 ↗ document thanks Thomas and again I'm
1:28:52 ↗ Lacy Bell with Nelson nigar
1:28:54 ↗ helped uh put this plan together looking
1:28:56 ↗ forward to being here I feel very very
1:28:59 ↗ relevant to the agenda tonight to talk
1:29:01 ↗ about so um the full plan is in your or
1:29:05 ↗ the guide is in your packet so you can
1:29:08 ↗ review that in depth but really just
1:29:10 ↗ wanted to hit the high points tonight
1:29:12 ↗ that we uh started that guide with what
1:29:15 ↗ are the prerequisites for success of a
1:29:18 ↗ light rail station and based on this
1:29:19 ↗ conversation I know that you all are
1:29:22 ↗ very familiar with those metrics
1:29:24 ↗ uh talk about what the South Kirkland
1:29:27 ↗ isqua project timeline is and where
1:29:30 ↗ there are key milestones for checking in
1:29:32 ↗ key strategic considerations for isqua
1:29:35 ↗ in partnering with Sound Transit talk
1:29:38 ↗ about some visioning that you will do as
1:29:39 ↗ a community and then talk about the next
1:29:41 ↗ steps I'll go back to
1:29:44 ↗ Thomas so as I mentioned really the
1:29:47 ↗ guide starts with what does it take to
1:29:49 ↗ be successful to have high-capacity
1:29:51 ↗ Transit and we talk about this in urban
1:29:53 ↗ planning spee as the 60s of Transit
1:29:55 ↗ supportive station or Transit supportive
1:29:58 ↗ land use that encourages policies that
1:30:02 ↗ allow for people to get around without
1:30:05 ↗ having to rely solely on a personal
1:30:08 ↗ automobile right so thinking about what
1:30:11 ↗ you want that station area to be you
1:30:13 ↗ need destinations that can be accessed
1:30:16 ↗ from that station area within walking
1:30:18 ↗ distance a design of the facilities to
1:30:21 ↗ allow for people to feel safe walking or
1:30:24 ↗ rolling whether be I heard the Ada com
1:30:28 ↗ conversation tonight right or biking we
1:30:30 ↗ know that having destinations that are
1:30:33 ↗ accessible to that station without a
1:30:36 ↗ vehicle are important as so that covers
1:30:39 ↗ the distance and the design again talked
1:30:42 ↗ about wanting higher density and a
1:30:45 ↗ diversity of land uses so really
1:30:47 ↗ thinking about mixed use so you're not
1:30:49 ↗ only having people use that
1:30:51 ↗ high-capacity transit station at one
1:30:53 ↗ time to access job at 8 in the morning
1:30:55 ↗ right but having a mix of uses really
1:30:57 ↗ brings activity to that station area
1:31:00 ↗ throughout the day and then as you get
1:31:03 ↗ closer to implementation the sixth fee
1:31:06 ↗ is demand management and thinking
1:31:08 ↗ through strategies like parking
1:31:10 ↗ restrictions or parking fees to further
1:31:13 ↗ uh reduce
1:31:14 ↗ the demand to have vehicles at that
1:31:17 ↗ station
1:31:20 ↗ area uh what we laid out for the South
1:31:22 ↗ Kirkland isqua in the is the timeline
1:31:26 ↗ aligning with the sound transit project
1:31:29 ↗ process so sound transits process is
1:31:31 ↗ really based on the Federal Transit
1:31:34 ↗ Administration the FTA Capital process
1:31:37 ↗ and that Capital process focuses on
1:31:41 ↗ planning and environmental clearance
1:31:43 ↗ going through full environmental design
1:31:46 ↗ and then going into construction before
1:31:48 ↗ doing testing and Revenue Service and
1:31:50 ↗ it's important as uh Deputy council
1:31:53 ↗ president noted we mentioned that
1:31:55 ↗ Partnerships are important to receiving
1:31:58 ↗ any federal grants and that sound
1:32:00 ↗ transit considers Partnerships with the
1:32:02 ↗ local jurisdictions important throughout
1:32:05 ↗ that lifespan of the process and
1:32:08 ↗ so the isqua in a unique spot in that
1:32:12 ↗ the voter approved package was back in
1:32:15 ↗ 2016 but the implementation isn't until
1:32:18 ↗ 2041 and you might be thinking is this
1:32:20 ↗ the right time to start thinking about
1:32:22 ↗ this and it really is is what uh Sound
1:32:25 ↗ Transit is planning is to kick off that
1:32:27 ↗ formal planning process that would be
1:32:29 ↗ the first step in that sound
1:32:32 ↗ transit FTA type process and they're
1:32:36 ↗ planning to do that in the late 2020s
1:32:38 ↗ and so if you all start now you can
1:32:41 ↗ begin you can enter that process having
1:32:44 ↗ a very clear vision for what isqua wants
1:32:47 ↗ which will help you be prepared to have
1:32:49 ↗ those conversations with Sound
1:32:51 ↗ Transit and I'm happy to answer any
1:32:53 ↗ questions but just wanted to provide
1:32:56 ↗ overview so in addition to thinking
1:32:58 ↗ about what you want that station area to
1:33:00 ↗ look like for the 6ds that we talked
1:33:02 ↗ about key considerations that the city
1:33:05 ↗ will want to consider are you've got
1:33:07 ↗ another unique opportunity you're plan
1:33:09 ↗ to be the end of the line not just the
1:33:11 ↗ end of the line for one line but really
1:33:13 ↗ the end of the line for the Eastern
1:33:17 ↗ extent of that light rail system and so
1:33:20 ↗ you can think about what do you want to
1:33:21 ↗ be do you want to be a big parking
1:33:23 ↗ Reservoir so everybody from isaan
1:33:26 ↗ further east can come park that's one
1:33:29 ↗ approach or do you want to maybe focus
1:33:32 ↗ on more local access and think through
1:33:35 ↗ if there's other places along the line
1:33:37 ↗ where some of that parking demand could
1:33:40 ↗ be spread out and really focus on how
1:33:43 ↗ you fit into the Central isqua
1:33:47 ↗ Community um again we talked about your
1:33:50 ↗ zoning your overlays for Central isqua
1:33:53 ↗ how does this station area support the
1:33:56 ↗ development policy goals that you have
1:33:58 ↗ as a city and how can you use that to
1:34:00 ↗ leverage those policies or are there new
1:34:03 ↗ policies that you want to put in place
1:34:05 ↗ to further support the type of
1:34:06 ↗ development you want around the station
1:34:08 ↗ area and then thinking through how do
1:34:11 ↗ you integrate with the local bus service
1:34:14 ↗ with whatever local service looks like
1:34:16 ↗ in 2041 we're seeing technology
1:34:19 ↗ increases with um more on demand type
1:34:22 ↗ Services how do you design for a station
1:34:24 ↗ that can integrate that public transit
1:34:28 ↗ Network and so one of the first steps
1:34:30 ↗ that we've outlined is that really you
1:34:32 ↗ would again getting ready for that sound
1:34:36 ↗ transit process Sound Transit they start
1:34:38 ↗ their process they'll once you get into
1:34:40 ↗ that process you'll hear a lot about the
1:34:42 ↗ representative project and what that
1:34:44 ↗ representative project has is that dot
1:34:47 ↗ on the map that's near I90 in Central
1:34:49 ↗ isqua and so that's going to be the
1:34:51 ↗ starting point and if the if isqua wants
1:34:55 ↗ that dot to be where that station is
1:34:57 ↗ that's great but if uh isqua as a city
1:35:00 ↗ and your community is you go out and get
1:35:03 ↗ uh kind of the vision for what the
1:35:05 ↗ station area should look like if there's
1:35:07 ↗ any of these other areas that you would
1:35:08 ↗ want to explore having clear
1:35:11 ↗ documentation for why you would want to
1:35:13 ↗ consider another location would be
1:35:15 ↗ really important and they uh Sound
1:35:17 ↗ Transit would want to understand how the
1:35:19 ↗ cost compares to the representative
1:35:21 ↗ project so that representative project
1:35:24 ↗ included a station plus a parking
1:35:27 ↗ structure and so thinking about that is
1:35:30 ↗ how much investment Sound Transit is
1:35:32 ↗ putting into
1:35:34 ↗ isqua so these are really big circles
1:35:37 ↗ right and they cover most of the central
1:35:39 ↗ isqua area but thinking through what is
1:35:41 ↗ your goal for this station area is it to
1:35:44 ↗ serve um highest employment density
1:35:48 ↗ right you might want to look on the
1:35:49 ↗ other side of the freeway if it's
1:35:51 ↗ to the serve the the highest population
1:35:56 ↗ employment it might be somewhere near
1:35:59 ↗ where we're at or if you want to use the
1:36:01 ↗ existing Transit Center you can think
1:36:03 ↗ about all of those things that you could
1:36:04 ↗ take with the
1:36:06 ↗ community so what's recommended in the
1:36:09 ↗ next couple years is to prepare for that
1:36:12 ↗ sound transit process working through
1:36:14 ↗ this station sighting and
1:36:16 ↗ Alignment again visioning with the
1:36:18 ↗ community how do you want this station
1:36:20 ↗ to function as an end of a line are
1:36:22 ↗ there other Partnerships that you can
1:36:25 ↗ uh build to make this station area more
1:36:28 ↗ successful one of the challenges that I
1:36:31 ↗ often say there are in these big capital
1:36:33 ↗ projects is the developer timeline
1:36:36 ↗ doesn't really align with the time frame
1:36:38 ↗ for a large uh infrastructure project so
1:36:40 ↗ developers you'll need to keep them in
1:36:43 ↗ informed about when the project when is
1:36:45 ↗ the right time to be engaged and try and
1:36:48 ↗ get feedback from them but understand
1:36:50 ↗ that the developer process is usually
1:36:52 ↗ much shorter than it the development
1:36:54 ↗ time for a big Capital project and then
1:36:57 ↗ again thinking through bus service
1:36:59 ↗ connections and really what type of
1:37:01 ↗ policies you would want to put in place
1:37:03 ↗ for any land use
1:37:05 ↗ changes so with this I will turn it over
1:37:09 ↗ back to thas to talk through the next
1:37:13 ↗ steps thank you Lacy and we'll hear more
1:37:16 ↗ from the m& committee but just to
1:37:18 ↗ summarize uh we we did take this item to
1:37:21 ↗ MIDI in December um they they agreed
1:37:23 ↗ that the light rail planning guide
1:37:25 ↗ adequately provided a playbook for the
1:37:28 ↗ city to take um when we're thinking
1:37:30 ↗ about light rail planning efforts uh it
1:37:32 ↗ was recommended that we regularly update
1:37:34 ↗ this document uh knowing that the
1:37:37 ↗ scaling timeline will be progressing uh
1:37:40 ↗ new conditions uh will come between now
1:37:43 ↗ and then uh we'll have more information
1:37:46 ↗ uh so we will want to update this
1:37:48 ↗ document regularly to make sure it's uh
1:37:50 ↗ Evergreen and useful for
1:37:52 ↗ us um so again the recommendation I'm
1:37:54 ↗ hoping to get tonight is an adoption of
1:37:59 ↗ resolution for the light Ro planning
1:38:01 ↗ guide and just talking about next steps
1:38:04 ↗ uh if this was adopted uh we would
1:38:06 ↗ Implement some near-term action items uh
1:38:08 ↗ some of these actions include
1:38:11 ↗ implementing um a community-driven
1:38:13 ↗ vision for future light rail planning uh
1:38:16 ↗ so in Q2 we're hoping to launch a
1:38:19 ↗ community survey um this is just to get
1:38:21 ↗ feedback on what the community hopes
1:38:24 ↗ for a light rail station
1:38:26 ↗ area uh this will inform future
1:38:29 ↗ discussions with focus groups uh which
1:38:32 ↗ we've talked about uh previously uh the
1:38:35 ↗ focus groups will be involved um with
1:38:38 ↗ various topics relevant to the community
1:38:40 ↗ so the development Community um you know
1:38:43 ↗ large land owners and developers hoping
1:38:45 ↗ to talk to senior citizens youth um and
1:38:49 ↗ everybody under the the Stars we're
1:38:50 ↗ we're hoping uh to actually recruit so I
1:38:52 ↗ guess this could be another call out um
1:38:55 ↗ I think right now we have a pretty
1:38:57 ↗ robust recruitment effort going on uh I
1:39:00 ↗ think most of the uh focus groups will
1:39:03 ↗ be filled um but if anybody listening to
1:39:05 ↗ this is interested uh would love to have
1:39:08 ↗ you involved in
1:39:11 ↗ um in Q3 we're hoping to take summaries
1:39:15 ↗ of all the uh survey responses and then
1:39:17 ↗ focus groups uh discussions we'll be
1:39:20 ↗ taking that to the equity board the
1:39:22 ↗ economic Vitality commission the Human
1:39:25 ↗ Services Commission and finally the
1:39:27 ↗ transportation Advisory Board uh in Q3
1:39:30 ↗ uh after all this we will be taking the
1:39:33 ↗ draft vision statement and set of draft
1:39:36 ↗ guiding principles that represent the
1:39:39 ↗ culmination of all the discussions we've
1:39:41 ↗ had and we'll be taking that to the
1:39:43 ↗ commun the uh Committee of the whole uh
1:39:45 ↗ we hope in Q4 of this
1:39:47 ↗ year so again
1:39:50 ↗ um that that is essentially what we're
1:39:53 ↗ proposing tonight and I'd be happy to uh
1:39:56 ↗ answer any questions and we'll uh stop
1:39:59 ↗ my presentation
1:40:01 ↗ here thank you uh Thomas and Lacy that
1:40:05 ↗ was a great presentation uh let's go to
1:40:08 ↗ um council member Marts are you okay if
1:40:10 ↗ I have council member R do his summary
1:40:12 ↗ first okay so I we'll come right back to
1:40:14 ↗ you so council member R is chair of the
1:40:16 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee
1:40:17 ↗ and if you want to summarize the
1:40:19 ↗ committee's recommendation I I would
1:40:20 ↗ love to but Thomas kind of told most of
1:40:23 ↗ well most are if not all of my thunder
1:40:26 ↗ so so but no the committee was
1:40:28 ↗ supportive of the the planning guide and
1:40:30 ↗ provided a supp Playbook um really
1:40:32 ↗ appreciate the um inclusion of regular
1:40:35 ↗ updates which is something that we added
1:40:37 ↗ as the committee um and and by and large
1:40:41 ↗ really a lot of lot of good work went
1:40:43 ↗ into this plan so more um after we got a
1:40:46 ↗ motion but I think the committee was uh
1:40:50 ↗ very comp huh we had a lot of fun we had
1:40:52 ↗ a good robust
1:40:53 ↗ conversation and uh I I think it's a
1:40:56 ↗ better I hope it's a better plan for the
1:40:58 ↗ input from the committee great
1:41:00 ↗ councilman
1:41:02 ↗ Merz thank you and it was a great
1:41:04 ↗ presentation and you put your finger on
1:41:06 ↗ some really important questions and just
1:41:08 ↗ to just you know a couple of them around
1:41:11 ↗ location right there's a breadth of
1:41:13 ↗ options and and a breadth of price tags
1:41:15 ↗ associated with those options parking
1:41:18 ↗ you know you talked about location and I
1:41:22 ↗ I find it hard to imagine that we would
1:41:24 ↗ ask any of our friends from further east
1:41:26 ↗ to keep driving further west to get
1:41:28 ↗ other parking locations but well in the
1:41:31 ↗ end here's my question how much say do
1:41:34 ↗ we as a city have in this process and
1:41:37 ↗ those just to pick those two major
1:41:38 ↗ questions and and a related question is
1:41:41 ↗ sort of what's the role of this planning
1:41:43 ↗ guide in our deliberations with Sound
1:41:46 ↗ Transit as we move
1:41:51 ↗ forward you make a great point um Sound
1:41:54 ↗ Transit is ultimately going to be
1:41:57 ↗ deciding uh where they put the station
1:41:59 ↗ where the alignment goes and all that um
1:42:01 ↗ but we can certainly make it easy for
1:42:02 ↗ them to do what's best for our community
1:42:05 ↗ and so this document is really providing
1:42:08 ↗ that game plan to set in motion um
1:42:12 ↗ anything from you know land use changes
1:42:15 ↗ uh that can incentivize where they put
1:42:18 ↗ their their station um some communities
1:42:22 ↗ have even uh said specifically it needs
1:42:24 ↗ to go here um so that's one approach uh
1:42:28 ↗ and it really depends on what we want to
1:42:30 ↗ do with that
1:42:33 ↗ um ultimately they're going to decide
1:42:36 ↗ where they put it um but we do have some
1:42:38 ↗ levers in terms of uh like land use
1:42:42 ↗ application type things um so we can we
1:42:45 ↗ can make it easier for them to place it
1:42:48 ↗ in the right area for our community
1:42:51 ↗ forgive me but I am a tad confused by
1:42:53 ↗ that answer because I hear on the one
1:42:54 ↗ side I hear they're going to do what
1:42:56 ↗ they want to do and on the other you say
1:42:59 ↗ we have some
1:43:00 ↗ levers such as let me let me let me put
1:43:04 ↗ it in really simple terms um we have the
1:43:07 ↗ ability to use a bully pulpit to say
1:43:09 ↗ this is what we think makes sense and so
1:43:11 ↗ one of the reasons we're here largely
1:43:13 ↗ five years sooner than probably any
1:43:16 ↗ other community in the region would be
1:43:17 ↗ doing this is to get a jump on it and to
1:43:20 ↗ say here's what's the thinking is here's
1:43:22 ↗ the data behind it and so Sound Transit
1:43:25 ↗ doesn't have to do a whole lot of
1:43:31 ↗ thinking any other questions council
1:43:34 ↗ president um are there any examples of
1:43:39 ↗ cities such as perhaps Redmond that you
1:43:43 ↗ put in the guide that um had an
1:43:45 ↗ influence on station sighting that we
1:43:48 ↗ might be able to use as an example and
1:43:51 ↗ your mic isn't on there you
1:43:54 ↗ go yeah so we were very intentional in
1:43:58 ↗ the peers that we reached out to so
1:44:01 ↗ Federal Way um I think there's one
1:44:04 ↗ approach I have a cooworker who jokes
1:44:06 ↗ that it's essentially like they put a
1:44:08 ↗ billboard like light rail station goes
1:44:10 ↗ here and had zoning that prohibited the
1:44:13 ↗ station from going other places um to
1:44:17 ↗ Redmond they had the luxury of having
1:44:20 ↗ two stations in their area and they
1:44:24 ↗ worked with sound transit to make sure
1:44:26 ↗ that the one that was at their downtown
1:44:28 ↗ station did not have parking and which
1:44:32 ↗ is the end of the line but they had
1:44:33 ↗ their parking at the other location and
1:44:36 ↗ so yeah I think Redman bellw had a lot
1:44:41 ↗ of there was a lot of conversation with
1:44:43 ↗ Sound Transit about where the Belleview
1:44:45 ↗ stations went again a little bit of a
1:44:47 ↗ different scenario from isqua because
1:44:49 ↗ you have the one station in the plan so
1:44:51 ↗ there's not as much like oh oh well
1:44:53 ↗ we'll give you this at this station for
1:44:55 ↗ that station but
1:44:57 ↗ there and the other piece that I would
1:44:59 ↗ say is that the federal process really
1:45:02 ↗ does and whether or not this whether or
1:45:06 ↗ not the ski link is federally funded is
1:45:07 ↗ still yet to be determined but those
1:45:09 ↗ partnering Agreements are a requirement
1:45:12 ↗ for any
1:45:14 ↗ of for Sound Transit even moving forward
1:45:17 ↗ at their board and
1:45:19 ↗ so they really want to partner with the
1:45:21 ↗ jurisdiction you all do have permitting
1:45:24 ↗ Authority right and so making sure that
1:45:27 ↗ you have land use that supports the
1:45:29 ↗ station are and again you have the
1:45:32 ↗ benefit of being at the end of the plan
1:45:35 ↗ so you can talk to your Regional
1:45:37 ↗ partners and see what's worked and what
1:45:40 ↗ hasn't but yeah I think um as we've
1:45:44 ↗ talked to Sound Transit they also
1:45:46 ↗ recommended talking to Everett and SN
1:45:50 ↗ homish County they actually developed a
1:45:52 ↗ plan and did so now the Everett link
1:45:54 ↗ extension is moving forward considering
1:45:57 ↗ a different station location than what
1:46:00 ↗ was in the representative
1:46:05 ↗ project any other questions and if not I
1:46:09 ↗ might look at chair Ray to see if he
1:46:11 ↗ wants to make a motion i' I'd like to
1:46:12 ↗ make a motion to adopt resolution number
1:46:19 ↗ Dash um different resol different hold
1:46:22 ↗ on okay okay well that's gosh that was
1:46:25 ↗ the one I really wanted to make so I'm
1:46:27 ↗ feeling a little bad
1:46:30 ↗ now that's the one in the in the in the
1:46:32 ↗ deck and the one in my script is
1:46:34 ↗ different city clerk get us back on
1:46:38 ↗ track I'm going to go to the agenda Bill
1:46:41 ↗ okay the the motion I have listed and
1:46:44 ↗ which might be on the PowerPoint was to
1:46:46 ↗ approve the light rail planning guide is
1:46:48 ↗ presented oh amended order fine doesn't
1:46:50 ↗ need to be it doesn't need to be
1:46:53 ↗ resolution all right um
1:46:57 ↗ simpler that was really too bad because
1:47:00 ↗ I was I was on a
1:47:03 ↗ roll all right I'm going to go with uh
1:47:06 ↗ I'd like to uh move to approve the light
1:47:08 ↗ rail planning guide is
1:47:12 ↗ presented
1:47:14 ↗ second it's been moved in seconded is
1:47:17 ↗ there any Council
1:47:18 ↗ discussion I well that was fast I'm
1:47:21 ↗ going to go to the Mover Council member
1:47:23 ↗ ra Deputy council president council
1:47:24 ↗ member Hall I think it's very exciting
1:47:27 ↗ that the the mics that went up were the
1:47:30 ↗ the committee members and I think we
1:47:32 ↗ were we as uh council member Hall said
1:47:34 ↗ we had a great conversation about this
1:47:37 ↗ um I'm excited about this legis our um
1:47:40 ↗ this planning guide and I view it a bit
1:47:42 ↗ like our legislative agenda in that it
1:47:45 ↗ provides Clarity on our perspective and
1:47:47 ↗ it helps us to guide the discussion so
1:47:50 ↗ you know same with the legislative
1:47:51 ↗ agenda we don't always get what we want
1:47:53 ↗ but if we don't do the work ahead of
1:47:54 ↗ time we don't get what we want so um I
1:47:57 ↗ it's a necessary step um couple of
1:48:01 ↗ things that are really important to me
1:48:03 ↗ and I'm glad that um council member uh
1:48:05 ↗ Hall and Deputy president uh de Melle
1:48:07 ↗ are going to chime in because we we all
1:48:09 ↗ had our own perspectives but we benefit
1:48:12 ↗ nqu from being a regional Hub um and
1:48:15 ↗ this will make us more of a regional Hub
1:48:18 ↗ but as we go forward the engagement
1:48:19 ↗ strategy is really what's most important
1:48:21 ↗ to me and how do we engaged with the
1:48:23 ↗ populations they're going to be
1:48:26 ↗ potentially the users of Sound Transit
1:48:28 ↗ and so um clearly I want to hear the
1:48:31 ↗ voice of the people of isqua so and I
1:48:34 ↗ want to hear new voices um because there
1:48:36 ↗ I think there are voices we don't always
1:48:38 ↗ hear and this is a big deal and this is
1:48:40 ↗ really part and parcel to what we become
1:48:42 ↗ as a community um I think we also have
1:48:44 ↗ an obligation to engage with the
1:48:45 ↗ surrounding communities so it's samamish
1:48:48 ↗ North Bend no qualy uh maybe going down
1:48:52 ↗ south out towards uh Maple Valley
1:48:55 ↗ Covington um and then we have workers
1:48:58 ↗ and visitors who don't live here but
1:49:00 ↗ they do come in to work and to visit
1:49:02 ↗ Nisa and their their perspectives are
1:49:06 ↗ essential um kind of next topic is end
1:49:09 ↗ of a line planning I think that's very
1:49:11 ↗ interesting and how we want to position
1:49:13 ↗ it I don't know that I have a strong
1:49:15 ↗ opinion on that but I think it's really
1:49:17 ↗ good that we're starting to think about
1:49:18 ↗ it now instead of
1:49:19 ↗ later um and then finally um and Thomas
1:49:23 ↗ talked to this a really Dynamic world we
1:49:27 ↗ live in right now and you never know
1:49:28 ↗ what's going to come up and so having
1:49:31 ↗ this mindset that we're going to be
1:49:33 ↗ revisiting this plan on a on a periodic
1:49:36 ↗ basis to make sure that it still makes
1:49:38 ↗ sense for us just like we would with a
1:49:40 ↗ legislative agenda makes a ton of sense
1:49:42 ↗ to me so um kudos to the team um good
1:49:46 ↗ good planning document gets us launched
1:49:49 ↗ on the right foot so thank you thank you
1:49:51 ↗ and then I have Deputy council president
1:49:53 ↗ and then council member home uh plus one
1:49:56 ↗ everything that uh council member Ray
1:49:59 ↗ said and uh just a a really good piece
1:50:02 ↗ of work the only thing I would like to
1:50:04 ↗ focus on is under the 6ds we have the
1:50:07 ↗ demand management and um those include
1:50:10 ↗ incentives and disincentives and I think
1:50:12 ↗ one of the big incentives is uh Public
1:50:15 ↗ Safety and so I hope as we go through
1:50:18 ↗ this process that we will kind of Infuse
1:50:21 ↗ the whole process with look at that how
1:50:23 ↗ can we make the lighting um you know
1:50:26 ↗ just every aspect of it uh think about
1:50:28 ↗ the safety of people because we found
1:50:30 ↗ out uh from covid that the safety on the
1:50:33 ↗ buses if it's not there people don't
1:50:36 ↗ want to ride it really is a huge part of
1:50:39 ↗ incentivizing people to take light rail
1:50:42 ↗ to take uh Transit and to um you know
1:50:45 ↗ get out of their cars so anyway just
1:50:48 ↗ just that as a as a comment about the
1:50:52 ↗ the plan but the plan itself is
1:50:54 ↗ excellent and I agree that we need to um
1:50:58 ↗ cooperate and work with our regional
1:50:59 ↗ Partners um and uh yeah and who some of
1:51:04 ↗ whom have gone before us like Redmond
1:51:06 ↗ and bellw I think bellw had a completely
1:51:08 ↗ different alignment that they got it
1:51:11 ↗ wasn't just a different station they got
1:51:13 ↗ a whole different alignment so I think
1:51:16 ↗ there's a history here of working with
1:51:18 ↗ sound transit to get what the local
1:51:20 ↗ community wants so um thank you so much
1:51:23 ↗ for your hard work and for your good
1:51:24 ↗ work thank you council member Hall
1:51:27 ↗ followed by council member hunt um
1:51:30 ↗ similarly I think it's uh I think it's
1:51:31 ↗ great work I think it's fantastic again
1:51:33 ↗ really enjoyed the conversation that we
1:51:35 ↗ had in committee um I did want to share
1:51:37 ↗ some of my notes um from committee as
1:51:39 ↗ well again I appreciated seeing um the
1:51:43 ↗ focus on um what Transit supportive
1:51:46 ↗ communities look and feel like um what
1:51:48 ↗ the policy considerations around being
1:51:49 ↗ an End of Line Station in particular um
1:51:52 ↗ should look like and then a compr
1:51:54 ↗ comprehensive review of next steps and
1:51:56 ↗ what what to do and when to do it um we
1:51:59 ↗ had talked a little bit and it came up
1:52:00 ↗ today in the presentation too about like
1:52:02 ↗ really what are the trade-offs between
1:52:04 ↗ making that policy choice about focusing
1:52:06 ↗ on serving the community or focusing on
1:52:09 ↗ serving commuters who come in to use the
1:52:11 ↗ system um and you had mentioned I think
1:52:14 ↗ it was Lynwood Transit Center and Angle
1:52:16 ↗ Lake as good examples of kind of End of
1:52:19 ↗ Line um stations to look at and and I
1:52:21 ↗ think I had suggested in committee that
1:52:23 ↗ maybe we could organize a council field
1:52:25 ↗ trip so I'll just throw that over there
1:52:28 ↗ um and then also one of the questions we
1:52:30 ↗ asked you was really what are the like
1:52:32 ↗ end ofline considerations that we should
1:52:34 ↗ be thinking of Public Safety was one
1:52:36 ↗ that was already brought up but even
1:52:37 ↗ things like public restrooms I think you
1:52:39 ↗ brought up um even service navigation um
1:52:43 ↗ and then making sure you have like the
1:52:45 ↗ footprint space for buses so again just
1:52:47 ↗ some kind of interesting takeaways I
1:52:49 ↗ wanted to share with the rest of Council
1:52:51 ↗ on that and then Council
1:52:53 ↗ council member Deputy council president
1:52:55 ↗ D Michelle also had said something
1:52:57 ↗ insightful that I wrote down which was
1:52:59 ↗ to be mindful of station location and
1:53:02 ↗ how does the potential of expansion in
1:53:04 ↗ the future impact our planning so
1:53:05 ↗ expansion Beyond isqua because that
1:53:07 ↗ could happen long term we we might not
1:53:10 ↗ be an End of Line forever and that
1:53:12 ↗ seemed to be like potential that we
1:53:14 ↗ needed to at least be mindful of when we
1:53:16 ↗ were at committee
1:53:17 ↗ so again going to be supporting thanks
1:53:20 ↗ thank you and council member hunt Follow
1:53:22 ↗ by council member
1:53:24 ↗ marz thank you uh I'm currently on the
1:53:27 ↗ task force that's um looking at our
1:53:30 ↗ strategic Plan and there's an item in
1:53:31 ↗ there about um so this is the city-wide
1:53:34 ↗ strategic plan about that the preferred
1:53:36 ↗ location timeline Envision for light
1:53:38 ↗ rail integration is established and then
1:53:41 ↗ potential actions include um developing
1:53:43 ↗ a city-wide Transit plan that have
1:53:45 ↗ lessons from other case studies and
1:53:46 ↗ engaging with the community wash Dot and
1:53:49 ↗ some Transit um and uh and partners
1:53:53 ↗ so I think this um takes us a big step
1:53:55 ↗ towards that uh goal which is one of our
1:53:59 ↗ uh you know one of our core objectives
1:54:00 ↗ in our city strategic plan as
1:54:02 ↗ anticipated by with lots of community
1:54:04 ↗ engagement when we adopted that plan um
1:54:07 ↗ five years ago as a city uh so I I am I
1:54:10 ↗ am supportive I think to me the the
1:54:14 ↗ piece that stood out is the difference
1:54:17 ↗ in the different options a lot of the
1:54:19 ↗ options it seems like are oriented
1:54:20 ↗ towards existing
1:54:22 ↗ um you know where there's current
1:54:24 ↗ housing density where there's current
1:54:25 ↗ jobs where there are currently jobs
1:54:28 ↗ where there is currently a Transit um
1:54:30 ↗ Center and so uh I think especially when
1:54:34 ↗ we're going out to the community um we
1:54:37 ↗ have been immersed in these plans the
1:54:40 ↗ central isqua plan strategic plan all
1:54:42 ↗ these plans that think more about how
1:54:44 ↗ the future will be when the light rail
1:54:45 ↗ is there and the light rail will be
1:54:46 ↗ there for a very long time will also
1:54:48 ↗ influence growth and so I just think um
1:54:51 ↗ it'll be very important in the community
1:54:53 ↗ discussions to set the stage this is
1:54:55 ↗ where our jobs are now this is where we
1:54:57 ↗ imagine with future zoning and with this
1:55:00 ↗ um with Transit how this would influence
1:55:02 ↗ and then think and and present the
1:55:05 ↗ question with that longer term lens I
1:55:08 ↗ think this is a super important
1:55:09 ↗ discussion for our community to have
1:55:11 ↗ very important for future of the city um
1:55:14 ↗ I'm glad that this is a step in that
1:55:16 ↗ direction and I think especially that
1:55:18 ↗ location within Central um isqua of
1:55:21 ↗ where that that that facility ends up
1:55:23 ↗ that's a very important discussion to
1:55:25 ↗ have with the community and I appreciate
1:55:27 ↗ that it's been teed up in this
1:55:28 ↗ thoughtful
1:55:29 ↗ way thank you uh Council Merz thank you
1:55:34 ↗ uh this is very exciting uh I I was big
1:55:38 ↗ st3 supporter you know I lived in the
1:55:40 ↗ Twin Cities when they took their first
1:55:43 ↗ small mild steps towards um having real
1:55:47 ↗ uh uh real mass transit um Social
1:55:50 ↗ Security Administration tells me I can
1:55:52 ↗ expect on average to live another 27
1:55:54 ↗ years so I could expect to benefit from
1:55:57 ↗ the better part of a decade of of
1:55:59 ↗ enjoying the system once it actually
1:56:00 ↗ gets built which is also exciting um
1:56:03 ↗ there are hard conversations coming I
1:56:06 ↗ very much worry that we have a vision of
1:56:09 ↗ what makes sense what will be good for
1:56:11 ↗ the community uh what will maybe take
1:56:14 ↗ some of the
1:56:16 ↗ inevitable uh endof the-line traffic
1:56:19 ↗ that's going to come there's no way that
1:56:21 ↗ we're going to tell cars from snami that
1:56:24 ↗ they need to drive to Eastgate right so
1:56:27 ↗ those hard conversations that are coming
1:56:30 ↗ you know Sound Transit will want to do
1:56:32 ↗ what is makes most sense financially
1:56:35 ↗ which is not necessarily what makes the
1:56:37 ↗ most sense make our community whole in
1:56:40 ↗ doing our part It's about us doing our
1:56:42 ↗ part and I hope that this planning guide
1:56:46 ↗ will begin the conversation of in as as
1:56:49 ↗ part of us doing what's right for the
1:56:51 ↗ region Sound Transit needing to come to
1:56:54 ↗ the table and and making us whole in a s
1:56:57 ↗ in a program that does not uh that is
1:56:59 ↗ that is not orthogonal to what we're
1:57:01 ↗ trying to do in the valley so that's
1:57:03 ↗ what I'm excited about but this is this
1:57:05 ↗ is an exciting First Step a very long
1:57:08 ↗ and challenging Road and uh you know all
1:57:11 ↗ of us that are elected officials won't
1:57:13 ↗ be here hopefully some of the city staff
1:57:15 ↗ that are involved in this project will
1:57:17 ↗ still be here uh when this gets done in
1:57:19 ↗ 20 years um but there's there is a long
1:57:21 ↗ con consistent
1:57:23 ↗ challenging uh conversation about what
1:57:26 ↗ we can accept uh to do right by the
1:57:28 ↗ region and what sound transit can do uh
1:57:31 ↗ to do right by us on this on this to get
1:57:33 ↗ to where we need to be in 20 years thank
1:57:35 ↗ you thank you council member Mars are
1:57:37 ↗ there any other um comments
1:57:41 ↗ discussion okay I will reread the
1:57:44 ↗ motion as per council member raise
1:57:48 ↗ resolution uh the motion before you is
1:57:50 ↗ to approve the light rail planning
1:57:51 ↗ guidance is presented all those in favor
1:57:53 ↗ signify by saying I I I those
1:57:57 ↗ opposed that passes unanimously thank
1:58:00 ↗ you for that great conversation next
1:58:02 ↗ item of business for us tonight is
1:58:03 ↗ committee and Regional reports and we'll
1:58:05 ↗ start with council member Joe thank you
1:58:07 ↗ Madame mayor um March 27th the Cascade
1:58:11 ↗ water Alliance will hold their regular
1:58:14 ↗ board meeting and April 3rd um Cascade
1:58:18 ↗ water Alliance will hold their public
1:58:22 ↗ public policy meeting sorry I can't read
1:58:24 ↗ my own writing that concludes my report
1:58:26 ↗ thank you thank you uh council member
1:58:28 ↗ Hall thank you um last Thursday the East
1:58:31 ↗ Side Fire and Rescue board of directors
1:58:33 ↗ met um we had chair and vice chair
1:58:36 ↗ elections in Alan goofi from North Bend
1:58:39 ↗ and myself will be um resuming our roles
1:58:42 ↗ as chair and vice chair U we also had
1:58:44 ↗ board orientation which included really
1:58:47 ↗ interesting information about financial
1:58:49 ↗ information about epher but also calls
1:58:51 ↗ for service things like that um that I
1:58:53 ↗ have asked to share with the council so
1:58:56 ↗ um they said they'd get it to me in the
1:58:57 ↗ next couple days so I will share that
1:58:58 ↗ all with you and I am certainly will
1:59:00 ↗ find it interesting um the next actually
1:59:04 ↗ we have a special meeting tomorrow it's
1:59:05 ↗ virtual to discuss a potential uh
1:59:08 ↗ response to a request for proposals from
1:59:10 ↗ Bothel to provide executive fire
1:59:13 ↗ services for them so we'll keep in the
1:59:14 ↗ loop on how that progresses but the next
1:59:17 ↗ regular board meeting is Thursday April
1:59:20 ↗ 11th at 4 pm at our headquarters that
1:59:22 ↗ concludes my report thank you council
1:59:23 ↗ member hunt thank you Madame mayor I
1:59:26 ↗ have one upcoming meeting on March 21st
1:59:29 ↗ which is this coming Thursday there will
1:59:31 ↗ be a meeting of the salmon Recovery
1:59:33 ↗ Council of WRA 8 which is the name of
1:59:35 ↗ our Watershed we have no um no decision
1:59:38 ↗ items uh we do have a number of
1:59:40 ↗ informational items that I think will be
1:59:42 ↗ um of interest to the the to isqua and
1:59:46 ↗ to my fellow council members including
1:59:47 ↗ an update on King County flood control
1:59:49 ↗ projects which include um efforts for
1:59:52 ↗ flood control in the isquat creek Basin
1:59:54 ↗ that concludes my report thank you
1:59:57 ↗ council member Ray thank you mayor
1:59:58 ↗ Paulie the uh Council mobility and
2:00:01 ↗ infrastructure committee met on March
2:00:03 ↗ 12th uh we had one agenda item which was
2:00:06 ↗ the 2022 concurrency plan um I'm going
2:00:10 ↗ to start by saying it was probably the
2:00:11 ↗ best presentation I have ever seen on
2:00:14 ↗ what concurrency is and how it really
2:00:16 ↗ works so if you're interested in
2:00:19 ↗ concurrency um take a little bit of time
2:00:22 ↗ and go um listen to the meeting it was
2:00:25 ↗ uh it it it to me it provided a lot of
2:00:27 ↗ clarity on what we are really doing when
2:00:29 ↗ we model uh for for um in currency um
2:00:33 ↗ just a couple highlights um we have two
2:00:36 ↗ new potential intersections that will be
2:00:39 ↗ failing by 2050 uh East Lake sish
2:00:42 ↗ Parkway at 56 Street and Front Street at
2:00:45 ↗ Gilman um so we we'll have some options
2:00:48 ↗ there um anyway the uh recommendation
2:00:52 ↗ from the administration which the
2:00:54 ↗ committee endorsed was to wait on making
2:00:57 ↗ a final decision on those two failing
2:00:59 ↗ interceptions until after we finish um
2:01:02 ↗ the concurrency level of service that's
2:01:05 ↗ being evaluated using uh the mo guide
2:01:09 ↗ guiding principles of the mobility
2:01:11 ↗ master plan with particular interest in
2:01:13 ↗ multimodal um um modes of transportation
2:01:17 ↗ so we um in some ways we we punted we
2:01:19 ↗ didn't take any action but we said we
2:01:21 ↗ would
2:01:22 ↗ um take this up later and the current
2:01:25 ↗ plan is that it the um concurrency will
2:01:28 ↗ go back to the tab in July and October
2:01:31 ↗ for review come back to Mobility
2:01:34 ↗ infrastructure in September and November
2:01:36 ↗ and then next January we will be back um
2:01:40 ↗ to council for final um final approval
2:01:44 ↗ and then late 2025 is when we would be
2:01:46 ↗ doing updates to traffic impact fees and
2:01:49 ↗ bicycle and pedestrian mitigation fees
2:01:52 ↗ and that concludes my report great thank
2:01:54 ↗ you councilman Merz thanks Madam mayor
2:01:57 ↗ uh the sound City's Association public
2:01:58 ↗ issues committee met on Wednesday March
2:02:01 ↗ 13th for an online meeting couple of
2:02:04 ↗ things that we talked about that folks
2:02:05 ↗ around here might be interested in had a
2:02:07 ↗ great presentation on The Crisis Care
2:02:09 ↗ Center's Levy implementation plan um I
2:02:12 ↗ would say the sense of the body was that
2:02:15 ↗ um the county is got a pretty good plan
2:02:18 ↗ for both the operational and the policy
2:02:21 ↗ side of implementing this large pile of
2:02:24 ↗ money and uh so we we liked what we
2:02:27 ↗ heard and and got good answers to our
2:02:29 ↗ questions we also had a conversation
2:02:31 ↗ about the regional Wastewater Services
2:02:33 ↗ Plan update uh which is getting worked I
2:02:35 ↗ would say the biggest issue that uh we
2:02:38 ↗ got we talked a lot about was uh cost
2:02:41 ↗ sensitivity in the public and there's
2:02:43 ↗ all sorts of great plans for all the
2:02:45 ↗ cool stuff they want to do uh for the
2:02:47 ↗ future of Wastewater and how we're going
2:02:49 ↗ to do it uh you know more envir
2:02:51 ↗ environmentally sensitive and uh with
2:02:54 ↗ equity and all those other things and
2:02:56 ↗ they all cost money so I think that um
2:02:59 ↗ the the county folks um heard us loud
2:03:02 ↗ and clear that our communities have a
2:03:04 ↗ lot of concerns around the cost of our
2:03:06 ↗ services right now uh and then there was
2:03:08 ↗ a legislative session recap so that's
2:03:10 ↗ fine uh secondly services safety and
2:03:14 ↗ Parks committee will be meeting uh
2:03:16 ↗ tomorrow Tuesday March 19th here in
2:03:18 ↗ council chambers at 6:30 uh we have ID
2:03:21 ↗ 15569 credit card processing fees cost
2:03:24 ↗ recovery we have ID 1583 comp plan
2:03:28 ↗ update for the draft parks recreation
2:03:30 ↗ trails and open space element which
2:03:32 ↗ should be fun and we have ID 1612 City
2:03:35 ↗ Hall Northwest Surplus report so we have
2:03:38 ↗ a juicy meeting tomorrow that concludes
2:03:42 ↗ my report Deputy council president D
2:03:44 ↗ Michelle I think I have a hard time
2:03:46 ↗ following that
2:03:48 ↗ report so uh on March the 8th I cheered
2:03:51 ↗ the side Human Services Forum meeting
2:03:53 ↗ and our guest presenter was Brad food
2:03:56 ↗ from Seattle King County Public Health
2:03:58 ↗ who discussed the current status of the
2:04:00 ↗ Fentanyl and opioid crisis uh last year
2:04:03 ↗ over 1300 people died in King County uh
2:04:07 ↗ as a result of contact with fentanyl and
2:04:10 ↗ 3,300 died in Washington state so Brad
2:04:14 ↗ reviewed all that the county is doing
2:04:15 ↗ which is extensive to prevent inter
2:04:18 ↗ intervene and treat fental addiction and
2:04:20 ↗ overdose and and if you are interested
2:04:23 ↗ they have a fantastic website devoted to
2:04:26 ↗ all of the statistics and everything
2:04:28 ↗ that they are
2:04:30 ↗ doing and uh when we asked how could
2:04:33 ↗ local communities help he said two
2:04:36 ↗ things reduce the stigma around
2:04:38 ↗ addiction so that people feel
2:04:40 ↗ comfortable coming forward and getting
2:04:41 ↗ help and the other thing is providing
2:04:43 ↗ fact-based information to our residents
2:04:46 ↗ so those are the two things that he
2:04:48 ↗ recommended it was an excellent
2:04:50 ↗ presentation um uh on Friday March 9th I
2:04:53 ↗ chaired the East Side Transportation
2:04:54 ↗ partnership and we held a hybrid meeting
2:04:57 ↗ that went very well technically after as
2:05:01 ↗ you can imagine at the first hybrid
2:05:02 ↗ meeting it took us about 15 minutes to
2:05:05 ↗ get the technology right but once we got
2:05:07 ↗ got it right uh we we had a great
2:05:09 ↗ meeting so um we did a round robin
2:05:13 ↗ because this was our first time kind of
2:05:15 ↗ back together and ask people to
2:05:17 ↗ summarize their City's top
2:05:19 ↗ Transportation issues uh the very top
2:05:22 ↗ issue was as you might suspect was
2:05:23 ↗ pedestrian Transit and Community safety
2:05:26 ↗ uh safety just kept coming up over and
2:05:28 ↗ over again as we went around the table
2:05:31 ↗ other top issues were first and last
2:05:33 ↗ mile Solutions uh preparing for the
2:05:35 ↗ light rail introduction um and uh better
2:05:39 ↗ Road and Transit connections between
2:05:40 ↗ Eastside cities and restoration of Metro
2:05:43 ↗ service so those were just common themes
2:05:47 ↗ uh we also heard a brief report in a lot
2:05:49 ↗ of interest in the Bell HW
2:05:52 ↗ which is Belle's new uh Circulator bus
2:05:55 ↗ in the downtown business district
2:05:57 ↗ Kirkland says that they'd like to try a
2:05:59 ↗ cap hop Woodville said they'd like to
2:06:02 ↗ try a wood
2:06:04 ↗ hop a wood chuck
2:06:07 ↗ chuck so anyway I was kind of happy that
2:06:11 ↗ we have the Metro flex and we didn't
2:06:12 ↗ have to get into that conversation so um
2:06:16 ↗ and then finally there will be a
2:06:18 ↗ regional transit committee meeting uh
2:06:20 ↗ this Wednesday um at uh in the afternoon
2:06:23 ↗ and that concludes my report thank you
2:06:25 ↗ council president thank you the growth
2:06:28 ↗ management policy board met on the 7th
2:06:31 ↗ and we received presentations including
2:06:34 ↗ some information about how child care
2:06:37 ↗ centers are having a difficult time
2:06:40 ↗ finding um locations because of zoning
2:06:43 ↗ and some of the things that as an
2:06:45 ↗ example Community down near um the
2:06:49 ↗ military base how they had solved
2:06:51 ↗ addressed that so that was really
2:06:53 ↗ interesting and then the affordable
2:06:55 ↗ housing committee also met on the 7th
2:06:57 ↗ and we provided feedback on the kind of
2:06:59 ↗ City scoring comparisons that we're
2:07:01 ↗ going to use to rank whether people have
2:07:05 ↗ accomplished their um goals that they
2:07:07 ↗ set out in their comprehensive plans um
2:07:10 ↗ of the housing element or not and so
2:07:13 ↗ that was just the first of many
2:07:15 ↗ presentations on that and that concludes
2:07:17 ↗ my report thank you council president
2:07:19 ↗ there is no mayor's report this evening
2:07:21 ↗ although I do have one item for good of
2:07:22 ↗ the order and that's where we are right
2:07:24 ↗ now anybody else have items for good of
2:07:27 ↗ the order uh Deputy council
2:07:29 ↗ president I'm I'm Duty bound to say that
2:07:32 ↗ uh quanis is holding a uh their annual
2:07:35 ↗ dance on Friday called boo barrels and
2:07:38 ↗ Bruce if you are interested check out
2:07:40 ↗ the uh website which is isqua ku. org
2:07:44 ↗ for more information at the Pickering
2:07:46 ↗ Barn at Pickering Barn absolutely thank
2:07:49 ↗ you so that was what I was doing as well
2:07:52 ↗ um I was going to talk about council
2:07:54 ↗ member Joe reminded me our second annual
2:07:57 ↗ sustainability fair is happening
2:07:59 ↗ Saturday March 30th from 10:00 a.m. to 3
2:08:01 ↗ p p.m. at the Pickering Barn this was
2:08:04 ↗ really well attended last time and we're
2:08:06 ↗ we were expecting even more people
2:08:08 ↗ there's Hands-On activities there's
2:08:10 ↗ walks to Restoration areas there's all
2:08:12 ↗ kinds of stuff in there so thank you
2:08:13 ↗ council member Joe for reminding me of
2:08:16 ↗ that um the upcoming meetings April 1st
2:08:20 ↗ is the regular City Council meeting it
2:08:22 ↗ should be a short meeting as far as we
2:08:24 ↗ can tell right now as there's no regular
2:08:25 ↗ business items on that agenda and there
2:08:27 ↗ is no executive session this evening so
2:08:30 ↗ we are adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
2:08:34 ↗ thanks
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)
Barbara de Michele
Zach Hall
Victoria Hunt
Russell Joe
Tola Marts
Chris Reh
Lindsey Walsh

Motions and votes (6)

Adopt Ordinance No. 3052, amending Chapter 18.514 of the Issaquah Municipal Code to establish the Central Issaquah Pioneer Program.
Moved by HUNT · seconded by WALSH
Amend Table 18.514.042.C Pioneer Program – Central Issaquah Affordable Housing Minimum Thresholds of the ordinance to add an option for 10% of units of affordable housing required at 80% AMI and to allow the developer to select between the two options of affordable housing requirements. ( MAIN MOTIO…
Moved by DE MICHELE · seconded by HALL
Carried 4-3
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Russell Joe, Chris Reh
Opposed: Hunt, Marts, Walsh
Approve Resolution No. 2024-13, notifying the public of its intent to designate the Central Issaquah Pioneer Program Area as a Residential Targeted Area for the purposes of the City’s Multifamily Property Tax Exemption Program; and setting the required public hearing. ( c)
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
Carried 6-1
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
Opposed: Marts
Approve the Light Rail Planning Guide as presented. .
Moved by REH · seconded by WALSH
Carried 7-0
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Nov. 6, 2024; Approved. b) ID 1634 - Accounts: Payables and Payroll of March 18, 2024, $5,703,037.60; Approved. c) AB 8758 - 2024 Proposed Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Approved the 2024 Docket of Proposed …
Moved by WALSH · seconded by DE MICHELE
Carried 7-0
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh
Main motion as amended: APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, Nov. 6, 2024; Approved. b) ID 1634 - Accounts: Payables and Payroll of March 18, 2024, $5,703,037.60; Approved. c) AB 8758 - 2024 Proposed Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Approved the …
Moved by (main motion as amended) · seconded by
Carried 5-2
In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Russell Joe, Lindsey Walsh
Opposed: Marts, Reh