City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, November 15, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 18, 2022

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 5:34 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-18-22 City Council Services, Safety & Parks Page 1 Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. October 18, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

TOD Project: Tibbetts Valley Park Cell Tower Lease ID 1298

45 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.7–79

Topics: HousingParks

▶ Watch from 0:32 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of this meeting is to: 1. Update City Council on the Transit Oriented Development Project and Opportunity Center (TOD OC). 2. Seek Council Committee input on a potential lease of Tibbetts Valley Park for a cell tower to be relocated from the future TOD OC site.

2388 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ so what would I do without you

0:07 ↗ welcome everybody Ryan tolemartz call

0:11 ↗ the November 15th 2022 city council

0:16 ↗ services safety and Parks committee to

0:18 ↗ order

0:19 ↗ there are multiple public comment

0:20 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting

0:22 ↗ there's a general public comment

0:24 ↗ opportunity beginning of the meeting or

0:26 ↗ you can make comments after the

0:28 ↗ presentation and counsel question and

0:30 ↗ answer period at each of tonight's

0:32 ↗ agenda items

0:34 ↗ members of the public May address

0:35 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:37 ↗ virtually those who sign up in advance

0:38 ↗ to make comments will be called on first

0:40 ↗ if you are joining us virtually and

0:42 ↗ would like to make comments please raise

0:44 ↗ your virtual hands do this if you're on

0:46 ↗ the phone you press star three if you

0:49 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone you can

0:51 ↗ look for a hand icon this does vary by

0:53 ↗ device one option may be to go to the

0:55 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

0:57 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

1:00 ↗ if you're in the room and did not sign

1:02 ↗ up I will ask for other speakers before

1:04 ↗ closing this portion of the meeting I'll

1:06 ↗ raise a moment to see if anyone wishes

1:08 ↗ to raise their hand

1:10 ↗ so we'll have speakers here

1:12 ↗ clerk has anyone signed up to speak or

1:14 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this evening

1:17 ↗ chair Martz Mr David namura signed up to

1:21 ↗ speak at public comment Mr nemour did

1:23 ↗ you want to speak at the top of the

1:26 ↗ meeting or did you want to speak after

1:27 ↗ the staff presentation

1:34 ↗ uh citizen comments are an important

1:36 ↗ part of the public process we take them

1:39 ↗ yes yes

1:41 ↗ uh uh citizen comments are an important

1:44 ↗ part of the public process we take them

1:46 ↗ seriously and Factor them into the

1:47 ↗ decisions we make please direct comments

1:48 ↗ to the whole Council and not to

1:50 ↗ individuals while this is not a question

1:52 ↗ and answer session we will contact you

1:54 ↗ to follow up if needed when recognize

1:56 ↗ unmute your microphone or step up to the

1:59 ↗ lectern state your name address in

2:00 ↗ relationship to the cities cities speak

2:02 ↗ clearly and pause frequently limit

2:04 ↗ comments to five minutes if you are

2:06 ↗ attending virtually and do not respond

2:08 ↗ after your name or phone number is

2:09 ↗ called or your connection is lost

2:10 ↗ unexpectedly the meeting will will need

2:12 ↗ to proceed you're encouraged to rejoin

2:14 ↗ the meeting if able person will attack

2:16 ↗ subscene language derogatory remarks and

2:19 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be

2:20 ↗ permitted

2:21 ↗ uh clerk can you identify the first

2:23 ↗ person who signed up to speak if we have

2:25 ↗ anybody signed up

2:28 ↗ chair Mart as I indicated uh Mr nomura

2:31 ↗ signed up to speak previously and would

2:33 ↗ like to wait until the Staff

2:35 ↗ presentation after the staff

2:36 ↗ presentation

2:38 ↗ uh is there anyone else in the room that

2:40 ↗ would like to speak at this time

2:43 ↗ Ms Marsh please come to the lectern

2:49 ↗ hi my name is Connie Marsh and this is

2:54 ↗ my

2:57 ↗ thirty thousand foot comment section

3:00 ↗ so for the last nearing 30 years

3:05 ↗ I have been doing this and I read almost

3:07 ↗ everything

3:09 ↗ and so when something like uh something

3:13 ↗ comes up

3:15 ↗ I can pretty well say the pros and the

3:19 ↗ cons and I can pretty well tell you what

3:22 ↗ documents those pros and cons are based

3:25 ↗ in and then I can usually find the

3:28 ↗ supporting information that's new

3:31 ↗ and in my own brain create the argument

3:34 ↗ pro and con and come to some sort of a

3:37 ↗ decision and so this is this is what I

3:41 ↗ perceive to be good decision making and

3:44 ↗ what a government should also be doing

3:47 ↗ and I miss Mark hinthorne who

3:51 ↗ who

3:52 ↗ stubbornly took us through the pros and

3:57 ↗ the cons and insisted that the council

4:00 ↗ make uh a decision knowing the goods and

4:05 ↗ the bads so it is distressing to me in

4:09 ↗ the last two weeks to have had three

4:12 ↗ different things that have just come up

4:13 ↗ with

4:15 ↗ sort of we want us and

4:18 ↗ only with supporting information

4:20 ↗ and not the information that is gone and

4:25 ↗ I don't think you can make wise

4:27 ↗ decisions if you don't understand the

4:30 ↗ things that are not good about something

4:33 ↗ and so I would

4:36 ↗ ask that you always insist for both

4:41 ↗ sides of the issue so your your thing

4:45 ↗ that's happening tonight is pretty

4:47 ↗ rah-rah right it doesn't talk much about

4:49 ↗ the cons of the situation I'm going to

4:51 ↗ get into that in more detail later but I

4:54 ↗ wanted you to know that in the

4:56 ↗ overarchingness of what I say it's how

5:00 ↗ to make a good decision not that I'm

5:02 ↗ always just that much of a flip and

5:04 ↗ whiner though I am that but I'm here

5:08 ↗ oops

5:10 ↗ thank you for your comment uh does

5:13 ↗ anyone else want to speak at this point

5:15 ↗ before we get into tonight's agenda

5:19 ↗ anyone online indicated an interest in

5:22 ↗ speaking

5:23 ↗ chair Martz uh no one uh is in

5:26 ↗ attendance online at the moment

5:28 ↗ all right well we will then proceed

5:32 ↗ um

5:34 ↗ uh approval of the minutes minutes from

5:37 ↗ October 18th does anyone care to make a

5:40 ↗ motion in regards to the minutes

5:42 ↗ move to approve

5:44 ↗ second

5:46 ↗ all in favor

5:48 ↗ aye aye opposed abstentions that carries

5:52 ↗ three to O uh the minutes are approved

5:54 ↗ we move to ID 1298 Tod project Tibbetts

5:59 ↗ Valley Park cell tower lease with our

6:02 ↗ Deputy City administrator Snyder

6:13 ↗ all right good evening Council uh I'm

6:16 ↗ Andrea Snyder Deputy City administrator

6:18 ↗ and

6:20 ↗ um

6:21 ↗ and we have uh two two things for your

6:25 ↗ consideration tonight I've somewhat

6:27 ↗ combined the presentations just because

6:28 ↗ the background is very similar and

6:30 ↗ trying to streamline them but we will be

6:32 ↗ going through each item one at a time

6:34 ↗ with me also in support should you have

6:38 ↗ any questions that I can't answer we

6:40 ↗ have Dan Landis from King County Housing

6:42 ↗ Authority who's here Dave nomura who's

6:45 ↗ from illumin and a number of Staff

6:48 ↗ including director Jeff Watling we also

6:51 ↗ have the City attorney who has been

6:54 ↗ helping us with these agreements as well

6:56 ↗ so I may at some point decide to phone a

7:00 ↗ friend and just wanted to thank those

7:02 ↗ individuals for being here tonight and

7:04 ↗ helping with this presentation

7:07 ↗ so um the first item that we are going

7:12 ↗ to talk about this evening is the draft

7:15 ↗ lease for Tibbetts Valley Park and

7:18 ↗ uh

7:19 ↗ the potential to locate a cell tower at

7:22 ↗ that Park site

7:41 ↗ foreign

7:49 ↗ sorry about that uh so purpose of this

7:52 ↗ evening regarding the lease is

7:55 ↗ um

7:56 ↗ first to update the city council on the

8:00 ↗ Tod project or Transit oriented

8:02 ↗ development project and the Opportunity

8:04 ↗ Center I apologize in advance you're

8:06 ↗ going to hear quite a few acronyms

8:08 ↗ thrown out and I'm going to do my best

8:09 ↗ to slow down and make sure to spell out

8:11 ↗ what those acronyms say but certainly if

8:13 ↗ you catch me saying something that I

8:15 ↗ haven't spelled out yet please please

8:17 ↗ ask questions and interrupt me

8:20 ↗ um

8:21 ↗ and so first we'll be providing an

8:23 ↗ update on where we are today with that

8:24 ↗ project and also seek the council

8:27 ↗ committee input on this potential lease

8:29 ↗ for Tibbetts Valley Park again for a

8:31 ↗ cell tower to be relocated from what

8:34 ↗ we've identified as the future Transit

8:36 ↗ oriented development Tod and Opportunity

8:40 ↗ Center site

8:43 ↗ so we're looking for a Direction first

8:46 ↗ from Council on should the

8:47 ↗ administration continue to negotiate

8:49 ↗ with vertical Bridge that's the operator

8:52 ↗ of that cell tower on a lease for the

8:55 ↗ Telecommunications Tower to support the

8:56 ↗ todc todoc project and if yes then are

9:01 ↗ there any additional terms the council

9:03 ↗ would like represented in those

9:05 ↗ negotiations

9:08 ↗ a little bit of background we've been at

9:11 ↗ this project for a long time so those

9:12 ↗ who have been following this project uh

9:15 ↗ are familiar with the city released in

9:17 ↗ RFP I believe it was in 2016 looking for

9:20 ↗ partners to develop a mixed use mixed

9:23 ↗ income project what we call the todoc

9:26 ↗ next to the Issaquah Transit Center

9:28 ↗ there's a lot more details in the

9:30 ↗ project than that but I'm trying to be

9:32 ↗ concise for the purposes of this evening

9:34 ↗ the city then selected King County

9:36 ↗ Housing Authority or kcha and Spectrum

9:39 ↗ development solutions to be the

9:41 ↗ development partners for this project as

9:43 ↗ of today and recently spectrum is no

9:46 ↗ longer a partner in this project but

9:47 ↗ certainly had worked on it for many

9:49 ↗ years alongside kcha

9:52 ↗ the current property owner known as

9:55 ↗ Lumen formerly known as CenturyLink of

9:58 ↗ the future to Doc site requires that the

10:01 ↗ cell tower that's currently on that

10:03 ↗ property to have their relocation site

10:06 ↗ secured before they'll transfer

10:07 ↗ ownership of that future Tod OC site to

10:12 ↗ kcha so there's a lot of moving pieces

10:14 ↗ again please ask questions if it starts

10:17 ↗ to get too confusing I'm going to try to

10:20 ↗ make it as clear as possible

10:22 ↗ and so basically there's a cell tower on

10:25 ↗ that site and the property cannot be

10:28 ↗ redeveloped with that cell tower in the

10:30 ↗ location that it is so it needs to be

10:32 ↗ moved and the current owner Lumen is

10:35 ↗ requiring that their future relocation

10:37 ↗ site is secured before they're willing

10:38 ↗ to sell the property

10:41 ↗ again just as a reminder of what that

10:43 ↗ project was originally conceived as when

10:45 ↗ we put out that RFP and got responses

10:48 ↗ and started our partnership with King

10:51 ↗ County Housing Authority this is the

10:53 ↗ project I was originally conceived

10:54 ↗ here's a map as well on this slide you

10:57 ↗ can see sr900 running north and south on

10:59 ↗ the map on the left hand side

11:02 ↗ and then highlighted in this drawing as

11:05 ↗ the next to the transit center is the

11:07 ↗ future site of the todoc this is a

11:10 ↗ concept and that concept included two

11:14 ↗ buildings with a total of 355

11:17 ↗ residential units and

11:19 ↗ um

11:20 ↗ some commercial space including 10 000

11:22 ↗ square feet that we've identified as the

11:25 ↗ Opportunity Center which would be

11:26 ↗ essentially a human services campus

11:28 ↗ providing health and Behavioral Health

11:30 ↗ Services for low-income people

11:33 ↗ and in addition we have been talking

11:37 ↗ about

11:38 ↗ 175 or more affordable units at 40 to 80

11:42 ↗ percent of Ami that's the project is

11:45 ↗ we'd been talking about it for years and

11:46 ↗ was originally conceived just brief

11:48 ↗ summary you can also see in this map

11:50 ↗ immediately to the South is Tibbetts

11:53 ↗ Valley Park

11:55 ↗ actually um I have a question you said

11:57 ↗ 40 to 80 was it 40 to 80 or 40 to 60. I

12:00 ↗ thought I read in the literature 40 to

12:02 ↗ 60. yeah

12:04 ↗ um in our original this is the original

12:06 ↗ concept we were talking about 40 to 80

12:09 ↗ percent King County Housing Authority

12:12 ↗ has since come back and is looking at

12:15 ↗ more affordable units so 40 to 60

12:18 ↗ percent I don't know if Dan you need

12:21 ↗ you'd like to clarify on this point at

12:22 ↗ all can you come up to the microphone

12:25 ↗ please Dan thank you

12:29 ↗ the Dan Landis King County Housing

12:31 ↗ Authority so the original plan was that

12:34 ↗ uh Spectrum on their portion of the

12:36 ↗ parcel was going to have some 80 units

12:39 ↗ so 20 of the 175 units are the Spectrum

12:42 ↗ or what spectrum was proposing we were

12:45 ↗ proposing to build 155 which would be at

12:47 ↗ 40 and 60 percent of Ami

12:50 ↗ thank you

12:54 ↗ great thank you Dan

12:57 ↗ um so that's the project is originally

12:59 ↗ conceived uh also more background we the

13:04 ↗ city had formed a non-binding memorandum

13:06 ↗ of understanding mou outlining the

13:09 ↗ role's responsibility and expectations

13:10 ↗ of each of the project Partners

13:12 ↗ including Spectrum that's no longer a

13:15 ↗ partner

13:16 ↗ that uh sense you know there's we've

13:20 ↗ been at this project for many years

13:22 ↗ there's been a lot of twists and turns

13:24 ↗ and changes when we had formed an mou we

13:27 ↗ considered that to be a precursor to a

13:29 ↗ development agreement

13:31 ↗ that development agreement is no longer

13:33 ↗ required the city's role in this project

13:36 ↗ has shifted and

13:39 ↗ uh and

13:42 ↗ kind of fast forwarding now to modern

13:44 ↗ day the city is considering this lease

13:46 ↗ of Tibbetts Valley Park for a cell tower

13:49 ↗ and that's because we've evaluated all

13:52 ↗ the other relocation sites for this cell

13:55 ↗ tower we've looked at everything it took

13:57 ↗ us two years to really perform an

13:58 ↗ exhaustive search and really the only

14:00 ↗ suitable site that we have been able to

14:02 ↗ identify is Tibbetts Valley Park there's

14:05 ↗ more information and background on this

14:07 ↗ in the written materials for this

14:09 ↗ evening I'm really hitting the

14:10 ↗ highlights in this presentation

14:13 ↗ uh the city as we look at the

14:16 ↗ negotiations for the lease for the city

14:19 ↗ Park

14:21 ↗ we also consider public benefits of this

14:25 ↗ todoc project as partial compensation

14:27 ↗ for the city land lease and so that's

14:29 ↗ why these two items are for your

14:31 ↗ consideration tonight the one is the

14:33 ↗ city land lease and then future later on

14:36 ↗ tonight we're going to talk about the

14:37 ↗ King County Housing Authority agreement

14:40 ↗ the interlocal agreement with them

14:43 ↗ foreign

14:46 ↗ again here is the map of the area

14:49 ↗ highlighted in yellow is that future Tod

14:51 ↗ site

14:53 ↗ um

14:53 ↗ in fact on that map I think you can see

14:56 ↗ the Shadow from the cell tower that's

14:57 ↗ existing on the site and then across the

15:01 ↗ street to the South we have Tibbetts

15:02 ↗ Valley Park marked in with a red X to

15:07 ↗ the south of that parking lot is the

15:08 ↗ approximate location of the relocation

15:12 ↗ site for that cell tower

15:14 ↗ and again as I said we've looked

15:16 ↗ um

15:17 ↗ really performed an exhaustive search in

15:19 ↗ the area

15:20 ↗ including you know other cell tower

15:23 ↗ sites the city has and operates

15:25 ↗ um and really this was the only one that

15:27 ↗ we could find that would match all of

15:30 ↗ the criteria for that cell tower to

15:32 ↗ operate

15:35 ↗ so the proposal for your consideration

15:36 ↗ is a lease of a portion of the Tibbetts

15:40 ↗ Valley Park as the relocation site for

15:42 ↗ the cell tower and it's supporting

15:44 ↗ equipment so you can see in this picture

15:45 ↗ this is kind of a conceptual drawing of

15:47 ↗ what it could look like giving an idea

15:49 ↗ of what the visual impacts and

15:51 ↗ approximate location of that facility to

15:54 ↗ be we still need to do work with

15:57 ↗ vertical Bridge the operator of that

15:59 ↗ cell tower on the exact design of the

16:02 ↗ building the supportive structure for

16:05 ↗ that that cell tower so that's still in

16:07 ↗ the works but this kind of gives an

16:08 ↗ approximation of what we could expect as

16:10 ↗ you can see it's in a tucked away part

16:13 ↗ of of the park it's meant to be out of

16:16 ↗ the way of future uses and really trying

16:18 ↗ to limit the impacts on the recreational

16:21 ↗ uses of the park

16:26 ↗ uh so main points of this lease again

16:29 ↗ there's a lot in the lease that's been

16:30 ↗ included in the packet but just hitting

16:32 ↗ the highlights for you main points would

16:34 ↗ be that the rent would be 20 of Revenue

16:37 ↗ share which we estimate at this point to

16:39 ↗ be approximately 1800 a month

16:41 ↗ like I said before additional

16:43 ↗ compensation would be provided via the

16:46 ↗ public benefits from the Tod of C

16:48 ↗ project just the housing the affordable

16:51 ↗ housing component alone that kcha has

16:53 ↗ prepared to provide has an estimated

16:55 ↗ value of 41 million

16:57 ↗ over the the lifetime of that project

17:01 ↗ the length of the term of the lease at

17:03 ↗ this point is 25 years that's what the

17:05 ↗ administration has proposed and uh

17:08 ↗ vertical bridge is uh seeking to bargain

17:10 ↗ for an additional five years to that

17:12 ↗ lease they would prefer it be 30 years

17:15 ↗ the tower would be 85 feet tall in

17:18 ↗ compliance with Issaquah municipal code

17:21 ↗ and the administration as I said before

17:25 ↗ would approve final design as the

17:27 ↗ landowner before permit application so

17:31 ↗ we have two hats we're wearing in this

17:33 ↗ project one is as the the landowner and

17:37 ↗ the other as the regulator for this

17:39 ↗ project which comes in permits and Code

17:41 ↗ Compliance Etc so as the landowner we

17:44 ↗ would have final approval of design to

17:46 ↗ make sure that it meets those Park

17:49 ↗ Aesthetics that we're really looking for

17:54 ↗ um so as I said before uh what's still

17:57 ↗ under negotiation with this lease there

17:59 ↗ are a couple of things vertical Bridge

18:01 ↗ as I said wants a 30-year term instead

18:04 ↗ of 25.

18:05 ↗ another concept is this idea of a

18:07 ↗ tournament so vertical Bridge wants the

18:10 ↗ ability for the city to assume their

18:12 ↗ subleases subleases meaning all the

18:14 ↗ attendant antennae that attach to the

18:18 ↗ Tower

18:18 ↗ so vertical Bridge wants the ability for

18:21 ↗ the city to assume their subleases with

18:23 ↗ those

18:25 ↗ um with with those companies like

18:27 ↗ T-Mobile and the other

18:28 ↗ antenna operators

18:31 ↗ and for the city to operate the tower in

18:33 ↗ case vertical Bridge dissolves and is

18:36 ↗ unable to sell the city lease to another

18:39 ↗ provider similar to Vertical Bridge so

18:41 ↗ something were to happen to Vertical

18:42 ↗ bridge and they dissolve and for

18:44 ↗ whatever reason we're not able to

18:46 ↗ sell their assets to another provider

18:50 ↗ that the city would then take over

18:51 ↗ operation of that of that Tower so

18:54 ↗ that's that's something that we're still

18:55 ↗ negotiating with them on

18:57 ↗ uh and then finally they also would like

19:01 ↗ should vertical Bridge dissolve and

19:03 ↗ their lender assume their assets than

19:06 ↗ that City would provide the same lease

19:09 ↗ terms to their lender should the lender

19:11 ↗ take over the lease so that's another

19:12 ↗ thing that they would like from us that

19:14 ↗ we're still negotiating about

19:17 ↗ with each of those things comes

19:19 ↗ different levels of risk

19:21 ↗ and so we're working through some of

19:24 ↗ those

19:26 ↗ options uh generally for you this

19:29 ↗ evening is to move forward with the

19:32 ↗ lease negotiations and continue talking

19:34 ↗ to Vertical Bridge again feedback of the

19:37 ↗ committee is very welcome and would help

19:39 ↗ shape the negotiations on this lease or

19:42 ↗ uh or a direction would be to not move

19:46 ↗ forward with the lease negotiations at

19:47 ↗ Tibbetts Valley Park and should that be

19:50 ↗ the direction from Council tonight

19:52 ↗ in either case

19:54 ↗ we would

19:57 ↗ um

19:58 ↗ bring bring the item to the next regular

20:01 ↗ city council meeting for City council's

20:03 ↗ consideration so that's what we would

20:05 ↗ recommend

20:06 ↗ um

20:08 ↗ and

20:09 ↗ um this the the city I'm sorry the

20:12 ↗ administration's recommendation for this

20:14 ↗ evening regarding those two options is

20:16 ↗ to continue the lease negotiations and

20:18 ↗ bring the lease to the next city council

20:19 ↗ meeting for their consideration we

20:22 ↗ believe this is the best option to

20:23 ↗ support the dot todoc project and if the

20:27 ↗ council were to direct us not to move

20:29 ↗ forward with those negotiations not to

20:31 ↗ move forward with this lease agreement

20:33 ↗ then that would likely end the

20:36 ↗ possibility of that Tod OC project as we

20:39 ↗ have been working on and conceived

20:45 ↗ so um that concludes the presentation

20:47 ↗ are there any questions

20:51 ↗ council member Ray

20:54 ↗ councilmember marks um do we have any

20:56 ↗ other cell towers on city land

20:59 ↗ yes

21:01 ↗ uh we have I maybe Eileen can chime in

21:05 ↗ in terms of how many leases that we have

21:06 ↗ we operate in we have a number of leases

21:09 ↗ they're typically on utility sites so

21:11 ↗ they're on water tower sites uh in

21:13 ↗ different parts of the city and

21:16 ↗ um oh I'm sorry I just saw Eileen pop up

21:19 ↗ do you want to say how many we have

21:21 ↗ sure

21:26 ↗ oops very quietly

21:32 ↗ I apologize for that I hope you guys can

21:35 ↗ hear me

21:36 ↗ yeah okay great all right thank you

21:39 ↗ thank you committee glad to be here this

21:41 ↗ evening

21:42 ↗ um I don't have an exact figure for you

21:44 ↗ but you know as we've been working

21:46 ↗ through all of the various Telecom

21:48 ↗ matters in the city I'd estimate between

21:50 ↗ I don't know eight to ten maybe even a

21:52 ↗ few more so actually quite a few leases

21:55 ↗ in Issaquah so this is not new leasing

21:59 ↗ for Telecom Towers is not new to us

22:01 ↗ across staff cool and on the terms for

22:03 ↗ those leases similar to what we're

22:04 ↗ talking about with vertical Bridge

22:07 ↗ this is a unique lease so for example

22:11 ↗ the rental provision that Andrea

22:13 ↗ highlighted earlier is very much

22:17 ↗ different than what the city would

22:18 ↗ normally

22:19 ↗ uh how the city would normally structure

22:22 ↗ rent in Issaquah we typically see a an

22:25 ↗ upfront

22:27 ↗ um payments as well as a monthly or

22:31 ↗ annual payment generally calculated on a

22:35 ↗ per square foot basis

22:37 ↗ um here here what is anticipated is a

22:41 ↗ pass-through of uh sublease rent from

22:45 ↗ vertical Bridges sublesses so the the

22:48 ↗ antenna companies that Andrea mentioned

22:51 ↗ earlier

22:52 ↗ so it would be quite a different

22:54 ↗ situation in this in this circumstance

22:57 ↗ so you would have a variable rent

23:00 ↗ um that you know and no guarantee you

23:03 ↗ know if vertical Bridge had no sublesses

23:05 ↗ then you know it had in at that

23:08 ↗ particular time we would not be getting

23:11 ↗ rents from them additionally additional

23:14 ↗ compensation has been

23:16 ↗ um we've been looking at the the

23:18 ↗ benefits of the Tod project I believe

23:21 ↗ kcha could speak to that if it's

23:23 ↗ something you know the I think 40

23:25 ↗ million dollar range and additionally

23:28 ↗ two vertical Bridge has agreed to allow

23:30 ↗ the city

23:32 ↗ um with you know with certain caveats to

23:34 ↗ cite Emergency Equipment on the tower if

23:38 ↗ if the city found a need to so kind of

23:40 ↗ looking at rent in this particular lease

23:45 ↗ um in a calculated and paid in it in a

23:49 ↗ much different way than we normally

23:50 ↗ would under a normal lease

23:52 ↗ do you have any kind of um rough numbers

23:54 ↗ on the the difference between a similar

23:57 ↗ lease

23:58 ↗ um in terms of total annual revenue in

24:01 ↗ this one

24:03 ↗ annual revenue I would

24:08 ↗ I think monthly rents the estimate was

24:10 ↗ at something like eighteen hundred I

24:13 ↗ think that was monthly I defer to the

24:15 ↗ program materials but

24:18 ↗ um typical

24:19 ↗ I will say what we've seen in two of the

24:21 ↗ most recent leases is I think

24:24 ↗ fair market value of something like

24:26 ↗ thirty dollars a square foot annually

24:30 ↗ um but then again that doesn't take into

24:32 ↗ consideration the big upfront payments

24:34 ↗ so it's a bit hard to do apples to

24:37 ↗ apples but if uh Council committee is

24:40 ↗ looking for you know annual lease you

24:43 ↗ know just what we're looking at um

24:45 ↗ aggregate annually I could pull those

24:47 ↗ numbers and and email them to you on

24:49 ↗ that one that would that would be nice I

24:51 ↗ think that the whole Council would like

24:53 ↗ to see that um before it comes back and

24:56 ↗ then you can just amateurize The Upfront

24:58 ↗ money across the 30 years so you know

25:00 ↗ just cover it that way

25:03 ↗ um I have a couple of others um you want

25:05 ↗ me to keep going or you want me to keep

25:06 ↗ going okay

25:08 ↗ um is there an alternative to an 85-foot

25:10 ↗ uh Pole

25:14 ↗ 85 feet is the maximum height per our

25:18 ↗ city code

25:20 ↗ um

25:20 ↗ so and 85 feet also is the approximate

25:24 ↗ height of the current lights that are in

25:27 ↗ the park so there's lights that vary at

25:30 ↗ different different heights but 85 feet

25:32 ↗ is is about what most of the lighting is

25:34 ↗ in the park well thank you for teeing up

25:36 ↗ the lighting because that was my next

25:37 ↗ question

25:38 ↗ um so are those ball fields lit

25:42 ↗ yes I believe some of them are and maybe

25:45 ↗ Jeff Watling can speak in more detail we

25:49 ↗ do have lights at the park yeah

25:52 ↗ yes all five fields are lit cool

25:55 ↗ um so I'm just kind of going down the

25:57 ↗ rabbit hole so bear with me

25:59 ↗ um would it be possible to move the

26:00 ↗ tower over and use it um as a lighting

26:03 ↗ fixture so it doesn't kind of stand out

26:05 ↗ quite so overtly

26:08 ↗ uh so I can I can speak to that a little

26:10 ↗ bit uh we

26:13 ↗ um we can attach lights to that pole to

26:16 ↗ provide additional lighting for the

26:18 ↗ parking lot so that's something that's

26:19 ↗ within the lease and our ability to do

26:21 ↗ that moving the pole to a more

26:23 ↗ centralized location within the park we

26:25 ↗ did consider that we thought that there

26:28 ↗ are some downsides to that first

26:31 ↗ um

26:32 ↗ it might be a little bit in the way that

26:34 ↗ Park is kind of tightly programmed with

26:36 ↗ the way that the fields are situated at

26:38 ↗ this point so finding a good centrally

26:40 ↗ located uh place for it and the

26:43 ↗ supportive structure because it's not

26:44 ↗ just a pull it has to come with

26:46 ↗ um that supportive structure that

26:48 ↗ provides Cabinetry and other things that

26:49 ↗ support the antenna on the pole so to

26:52 ↗ find a good location for that is a

26:54 ↗ little bit difficult kind of in the way

26:56 ↗ and we're concerned that should the park

27:00 ↗ redevelop in the future Tibbetts Valley

27:01 ↗ Park is undergoing a master plan and so

27:05 ↗ should the park redevelop putting it in

27:07 ↗ a more centralized location will would

27:10 ↗ increase the likelihood that we would

27:12 ↗ need to relocate that Tower and the

27:14 ↗ supportive structure with the

27:15 ↗ Redevelopment of the park so we're

27:17 ↗ trying to find a tucked away location

27:19 ↗ that isn't in the middle of of the

27:22 ↗ recreational uses according to the draft

27:25 ↗ lease if the city were to require the

27:28 ↗ cell tower to be relocated from its

27:32 ↗ location in the park to another location

27:34 ↗ if we redevelop the park then the city

27:36 ↗ would have to cover the cost of that

27:38 ↗ relocation and we estimate those costs

27:41 ↗ present day to be about 700 to 800 000.

27:47 ↗ last question how big is that supportive

27:50 ↗ building

27:51 ↗ and I'm in square feet wise

27:53 ↗ uh yeah great question so we don't have

27:56 ↗ final numbers from them but Gene I think

27:59 ↗ has has some draft numbers that we've

28:01 ↗ been given the conversation has arranged

28:04 ↗ uh pretty

28:06 ↗ pretty widely since we started these

28:07 ↗ conversations with vertical bridge but

28:10 ↗ perhaps Gene Paul can remind me what the

28:13 ↗ what the square footage is of that

28:15 ↗ supportive structure at least for the

28:16 ↗ last estimate that we've received

28:19 ↗ sure and good evening members of the

28:21 ↗ committee I'm Gene Paul management

28:22 ↗ analyst in the executive office uh the

28:25 ↗ last sketch that's included in the

28:26 ↗ packet had a 12 by 40

28:29 ↗ supported building so about 480 square

28:31 ↗ feet would be used for that uh structure

28:34 ↗ wow okay great thanks Gene um just

28:37 ↗ bigger than I expected

28:38 ↗ but what do I know all right um that's

28:40 ↗ what I got for right now thank you very

28:42 ↗ much and a nice job orchestrating the

28:44 ↗ responses Andrea

28:47 ↗ councilman councilmember Michelle do you

28:50 ↗ have any questions uh no thanks not

28:51 ↗ right now

28:52 ↗ um I have a couple

28:54 ↗ um so you mentioned building it per code

28:57 ↗ so would this require any variances or

29:00 ↗ any other

29:02 ↗ executive

29:05 ↗ stuff uh would this would the cell tower

29:08 ↗ in its supportive structure require any

29:10 ↗ variances uh to my knowledge no uh our

29:14 ↗ our efforts with this whole project

29:16 ↗ including the todoc project is uh to

29:20 ↗ to not have those types of variances to

29:24 ↗ really develop it according to the code

29:26 ↗ as

29:27 ↗ um as the code States all right thank

29:30 ↗ you

29:31 ↗ um what is um why we had received some

29:33 ↗ public comment on this and there was a

29:35 ↗ question around the public process and

29:37 ↗ what's the public process for this level

29:39 ↗ of a project and can you sort of

29:41 ↗ describe where this fits in our public

29:44 ↗ process model

29:46 ↗ foreign

29:48 ↗ yes and please follow up with additional

29:51 ↗ questions if I don't explain it clearly

29:53 ↗ so I think originally when we started

29:56 ↗ down this road of the Tod project we had

30:00 ↗ envisioned that we would do a

30:01 ↗ development agreement and we could do we

30:04 ↗ could require that development agreement

30:06 ↗ because the city was

30:09 ↗ um

30:09 ↗ was contributing another property so we

30:13 ↗ were going to provide if you recall the

30:14 ↗ RV park property as a relocation site

30:18 ↗ for lumens operations

30:23 ↗ um last year Lumen let us know that they

30:27 ↗ did not need that property to relocate

30:29 ↗ their operations that they were planning

30:30 ↗ on leaving Issaquah altogether

30:32 ↗ and so that meant that Issaquah was no

30:35 ↗ longer a party within uh the purchase

30:39 ↗ and sale agreements so previously

30:41 ↗ because we were gifting this city land

30:44 ↗ for Lumen to relocate we were part of

30:48 ↗ the purchase and sale agreement with

30:50 ↗ King County Housing Authority Spectrum

30:52 ↗ development and Lumen so once we did not

30:56 ↗ gift once the requirement was lifted of

30:59 ↗ us to gift this land for the for the

31:01 ↗ project we our rule changed so our rule

31:04 ↗ changed from being a party to the

31:05 ↗ purchase and sale agreement to more of a

31:08 ↗ facilitative role in trying to make

31:10 ↗ trying to help this development occur

31:14 ↗ um and uh once that happened we really

31:18 ↗ lost our leverage to be able to require

31:20 ↗ a development agreement

31:21 ↗ and so the process then changed our our

31:24 ↗ public input process changed and uh kcha

31:28 ↗ does not want a development agreement

31:30 ↗ instead they're here with an interlocal

31:33 ↗ agreement that we'll be discussing later

31:35 ↗ this evening

31:37 ↗ and we cannot force them to do a

31:40 ↗ development agreement and so that

31:41 ↗ changes the nature of the public

31:43 ↗ engagement at this point the project is

31:46 ↗ very similar to a typical private

31:50 ↗ development that would happen in the

31:52 ↗ city so it would follow those same

31:54 ↗ processes of public engagement as any

31:57 ↗ other private development would since

31:59 ↗ kcha would be the property owner

32:02 ↗ foreign

32:05 ↗ this is probably a Jeff Watley question

32:07 ↗ so I'm giving him heads up right now we

32:10 ↗ we actually had a similar thing to this

32:12 ↗ a few years ago we were looking at

32:14 ↗ putting a tower at Confluence Park on

32:19 ↗ Rainier Boulevard North and I remember

32:22 ↗ it because I actually flew my drone to

32:24 ↗ see the height involved and to see what

32:26 ↗ the visual impact would be of such a

32:28 ↗ thing and so I was going to ask uh if

32:31 ↗ director Watling remember because I

32:32 ↗ don't know if even Wally was here at

32:34 ↗ that point

32:35 ↗ um if he remembers that and what the

32:37 ↗ public process was and if there were any

32:39 ↗ issues or concerns around that

32:43 ↗ uh good evening council member March I I

32:45 ↗ do not remember the specifics um

32:49 ↗ specifics of that of that request

32:51 ↗ um I I think a note I would make about

32:54 ↗ the specifics of this request

32:56 ↗ um this is not a cell tower

32:58 ↗ consideration we're making just for the

33:00 ↗ sake of a cell tower consideration this

33:03 ↗ is a consideration it's really being

33:05 ↗ explored

33:07 ↗ um solely because of as Andrea said uh

33:10 ↗ the proposed private project across the

33:13 ↗ street and the need to move the cell

33:15 ↗ tower

33:17 ↗ all right thank you I I mean I I know we

33:20 ↗ considered it like I said because I

33:21 ↗ actually went over and flew my drone it

33:23 ↗ was a Keith Niven special for something

33:24 ↗ we were doing I just don't remember what

33:26 ↗ it was do you remember Chris

33:28 ↗ uh all right well never mind uh thanks

33:31 ↗ anyways

33:33 ↗ any other questions councilmember Ray

33:35 ↗ yeah I just want to follow up on that a

33:36 ↗ little bit because

33:39 ↗ um

33:39 ↗ irregardless of why we're doing it I

33:42 ↗ mean we're taking a chunk of Parkland

33:44 ↗ and we're repurposing it and so

33:47 ↗ um I'm just I'm just trying to Grapple

33:49 ↗ with you know what what kind of public

33:51 ↗ engagement should there be

33:54 ↗ um so the public knows that we're doing

33:55 ↗ this and they have an opportunity to

33:58 ↗ opine about what they think of it

34:00 ↗ because I can guarantee you that it's

34:02 ↗ going to get built and people are going

34:04 ↗ to be like where the heck did that come

34:05 ↗ from and and all that um so I just was

34:08 ↗ you know if this was you know let's just

34:11 ↗ because we can Factor this back into the

34:12 ↗ equation let's say it had nothing to do

34:14 ↗ with

34:15 ↗ um the prop the Lumen property what

34:17 ↗ would normally be our process for

34:19 ↗ dealing with a piece of Parkland like

34:20 ↗ that if we wanted to to repurpose it

34:24 ↗ or develop it

34:30 ↗ Jeff would you like to uh try to answer

34:34 ↗ that question

34:34 ↗ sure it's an excellent question

34:37 ↗ um I I would say if this was a a Parks

34:41 ↗ LED project or as you as you suggest

34:43 ↗ council member Ray a a consideration of

34:48 ↗ um repurposing or reusing public land

34:51 ↗ um yeah I think there would be a series

34:53 ↗ of public engagements depending on what

34:56 ↗ the consideration is for

34:59 ↗ um

35:00 ↗ um for that repurposing or for that

35:03 ↗ um

35:04 ↗ um or for that Park use

35:06 ↗ whether it's part of it whether if it

35:09 ↗ was part of a capital project right

35:10 ↗ there would be uh sort of the public

35:12 ↗ engagement effort that's happening with

35:14 ↗ a specific Capital project

35:17 ↗ um

35:18 ↗ I'm sorry I I don't have you know

35:20 ↗ specifics of of what every precise

35:23 ↗ project would or process would look like

35:26 ↗ but again if it was

35:29 ↗ um

35:29 ↗ if it was a consideration

35:32 ↗ um solely driven by the the city in

35:35 ↗ consideration of repurposing Park

35:37 ↗ property

35:39 ↗ um yeah they would be there would be

35:40 ↗ some type of public engagement

35:42 ↗ great thanks Jeff

35:44 ↗ and and I guess what this really relates

35:47 ↗ back to my question about Confluence

35:48 ↗ Park and if we if we move forward today

35:52 ↗ with a recommendation uh to bring this

35:54 ↗ back to the full Council I guess I would

35:56 ↗ suggest that we take a look at what that

35:58 ↗ process was when we were considering

36:00 ↗ putting Towers uh at Confluence because

36:05 ↗ it it would I think be right on the nose

36:07 ↗ for what you were talking about and it

36:09 ↗ was such a small process that you don't

36:11 ↗ remember it

36:12 ↗ but we'll see

36:14 ↗ um but I think that I think that would

36:15 ↗ be useful to answer that might be useful

36:17 ↗ to answer that partially answer that

36:18 ↗ question

36:22 ↗ I'm sorry oh council member Michelle

36:27 ↗ but I think that we've made really clear

36:29 ↗ in the materials that there is the

36:31 ↗ reason we are doing this

36:33 ↗ and the driving factor is the Tod

36:37 ↗ project and and the uh so and I know you

36:41 ↗ touched on this earlier but I'll just

36:43 ↗ ask the question so that we say it again

36:45 ↗ we have a a large public benefit because

36:49 ↗ that's the reason that's that we're

36:51 ↗ looking at this so would you go over the

36:55 ↗ the estimated public benefit that we

36:58 ↗ would be getting from this project if we

37:01 ↗ were to agree to go into negotiations

37:05 ↗ over this cell phone tower

37:07 ↗ yes uh

37:09 ↗ thank you so

37:11 ↗ um

37:12 ↗ what the public benefit was estimated to

37:15 ↗ be and maybe Dan you can kind of come up

37:18 ↗ and and talk about your methodology but

37:21 ↗ 41 million dollars worth of the

37:23 ↗ affordable housing component of this

37:25 ↗ project and that's just the part of the

37:27 ↗ project that KCA ha would would build

37:31 ↗ so we anticipate there would be still

37:35 ↗ two buildings on that property and so

37:38 ↗ just out of that one building that kcha

37:40 ↗ would build likely first that that be 41

37:44 ↗ million dollars worth and Dan can you

37:46 ↗ remind me over the course of how many

37:48 ↗ years

37:50 ↗ so any housing we build will be

37:52 ↗ affordable permanently at those rates

38:00 ↗ square foot Opportunity Center which the

38:04 ↗ kcha would construct the city is still

38:07 ↗ required to help and assist with that

38:09 ↗ construction financially but we would in

38:13 ↗ turn then be gifted a commercial condo

38:15 ↗ for the city to

38:18 ↗ um

38:18 ↗ lease out to Partners that would provide

38:21 ↗ human services so

38:23 ↗ um

38:24 ↗ so that would be that's another public

38:25 ↗ benefit as part of this project other

38:28 ↗ other things to come I think is reserved

38:31 ↗ spaces space for the Leo house Life

38:33 ↗ Enrichment

38:35 ↗ um

38:36 ↗ opportunities and uh and so there's

38:39 ↗ space set aside specifically for them uh

38:42 ↗ to provide housing to those for an adult

38:44 ↗ family type setting

38:47 ↗ and other benefits that we contemplate

38:50 ↗ with this project but that still have

38:51 ↗ yet to be defined include we've talked

38:55 ↗ about a public Plaza and what that would

38:57 ↗ look like we would still need to Define

38:59 ↗ that and finalize the details there the

39:04 ↗ central Issaquah plan

39:06 ↗ calls for a road to be put into the east

39:11 ↗ of this property and so we would look to

39:13 ↗ kcha to provide some of their land so

39:17 ↗ that we could construct a new road and

39:19 ↗ help

39:20 ↗ help complete the grid within Central

39:23 ↗ Issaquah and on the valley floor the

39:24 ↗ transportation grid that's also included

39:27 ↗ into this project and those are just

39:30 ↗ some of the benefits

39:32 ↗ with with I think the main one being the

39:34 ↗ affordable housing and the levels of

39:36 ↗ affordability within this housing

39:38 ↗ project are certainly unique

39:40 ↗ and just a quick follow-up it might be

39:43 ↗ confusing for members of the public to

39:45 ↗ talk about a condominium

39:47 ↗ it's it's really more of a term that

39:51 ↗ applies to the agreement about who runs

39:54 ↗ that if I saying that correctly so yeah

39:58 ↗ that's correct it would be a commercial

40:01 ↗ condominium so it would be a space that

40:04 ↗ the city would have ownership of and we

40:06 ↗ would be in a condominium agreement with

40:09 ↗ kcha so that we could own that space and

40:11 ↗ decide how the city would like to lease

40:15 ↗ it out to Partners or potentially sell

40:17 ↗ that

40:18 ↗ condominium space

40:21 ↗ thank you very much

40:24 ↗ I'll ask one more question and there was

40:27 ↗ a there was a point in the five-year

40:29 ↗ story history here where there was talk

40:31 ↗ of having a child care facility on site

40:35 ↗ that would be separate from the

40:37 ↗ Opportunity Center uh has that not is

40:40 ↗ that no longer part of the plans

40:42 ↗ uh well so we uh

40:46 ↗ the project team would still need to

40:48 ↗ understand

40:50 ↗ um what the other part of this project

40:52 ↗ would look like right so we had two

40:54 ↗ partners uh Spectrum development

40:56 ↗ Solutions and King County Housing

40:58 ↗ Authority who uh were partnering on this

41:01 ↗ project King County Housing Authority

41:03 ↗ was to develop the affordable housing

41:06 ↗ building that included the commercial

41:08 ↗ condo or that Opportunity Center the

41:11 ↗ Spectrum development Solutions was to

41:13 ↗ develop a little bit more market rate or

41:16 ↗ as Dan Landis said earlier that 80

41:17 ↗ percent and so Spectrum has uh has

41:22 ↗ removed themselves from this partnership

41:23 ↗ and now King County Housing Authority is

41:25 ↗ considering what does that second

41:27 ↗ building look like who are potential

41:30 ↗ partners for that building so that

41:33 ↗ second building was going to have the

41:35 ↗ daycare center in it so I think you know

41:38 ↗ this project has had many permutations

41:40 ↗ and partners over the years it's still

41:42 ↗ an identified need within Issaquah kcha

41:45 ↗ still understands that's something that

41:47 ↗ we would really value in the community

41:49 ↗ needs so you know if we can make it

41:52 ↗ happen that would be great but we need

41:53 ↗ to identify future Partners before we

41:55 ↗ can make any guarantees

41:57 ↗ thank you

41:58 ↗ councilmember Ray

42:00 ↗ um one last question since and it's

42:02 ↗ probably not much of a question really

42:03 ↗ but it's just to complete the picture

42:05 ↗ which is the negotiations with Lumen and

42:08 ↗ vertical Bridge need to be completed by

42:11 ↗ the end of the year and that's driving a

42:13 ↗ lot of what what we're we're talking

42:15 ↗ about we just haven't said that so I

42:17 ↗ wanted to say that you know to provide

42:19 ↗ context that we're a little bit jammed

42:22 ↗ up right now

42:23 ↗ thank you because I have been meaning to

42:25 ↗ say that and I I keep forgetting so yes

42:27 ↗ that is a major major driver of this

42:30 ↗ project and why we're here today Lumen

42:33 ↗ has indicated that they uh really need

42:36 ↗ to sell this property and they have

42:38 ↗ other offers and they have offers that

42:41 ↗ are willing to provide

42:42 ↗ a much greater in price and those other

42:47 ↗ offers according to Lumen don't need to

42:49 ↗ move that cell tower and so at this

42:52 ↗ point we're very grateful for Lumen to

42:54 ↗ stay engaged with us on this on this

42:56 ↗ opportunity and

42:58 ↗ um you know if this were to continue and

43:01 ↗ be a prolonged process then we would

43:04 ↗ lose lumen's engagement with us and we

43:06 ↗ would lose their partnership and they

43:07 ↗ would likely sell the property to

43:10 ↗ uh an entity that was willing to pay a

43:12 ↗ little bit more

43:16 ↗ I said that was my last question I lied

43:18 ↗ trickster

43:20 ↗ um just to confirm we've

43:22 ↗ explored putting the cell tower

43:25 ↗ essentially where it is right now in the

43:27 ↗ new developed site and that's not

43:29 ↗ feasible

43:32 ↗ correct

43:34 ↗ we have we have looked at it in every

43:36 ↗ possible way like I said we've examined

43:38 ↗ this for two years and re-examined it

43:42 ↗ and re-examined it so one option we

43:44 ↗ considered was to relocate the cell

43:46 ↗ tower or the associated antennae on top

43:48 ↗ of the building another option was for

43:52 ↗ us to relocate the cell tower just to a

43:55 ↗ different part of the parcel and still

43:57 ↗ have it be a freestanding structure

43:59 ↗ we've looked at locating antennae on on

44:03 ↗ light poles on the street we've looked

44:06 ↗ at locating antennae on other utility

44:09 ↗ Parcels the city owns we've looked at

44:11 ↗ locating it on the Fire Station 72

44:13 ↗ that's adjacent we've looked at all

44:16 ↗ these things and there's a number of

44:17 ↗ criteria that we need to that we need to

44:20 ↗ apply to a future cell tower location

44:21 ↗ site we need to look at

44:23 ↗ um

44:24 ↗ uh we need to look at considerations for

44:27 ↗ residents and how close cell towers are

44:29 ↗ to Residents that's a factor we look at

44:33 ↗ um

44:34 ↗ at the carriers themselves so all of

44:36 ↗ vertical Bridges sub tenants like

44:38 ↗ T-Mobile and Verizon and whoever else

44:41 ↗ they have requirements for where those

44:44 ↗ antenna are posted and the coverage that

44:46 ↗ the community enjoys as a result of the

44:48 ↗ cell tower and so unfortunately all

44:51 ↗ those other locations did not meet those

44:53 ↗ requirements in Tibbetts Valley Park

44:55 ↗ really seemed to be the only one that

44:57 ↗ met all of the requirements

45:01 ↗ done for real are you sure all right

45:05 ↗ thank you uh well do you have any other

45:08 ↗ material to present before we open up

45:10 ↗ the public comment uh thank you

45:13 ↗ councilmember not at this time I do just

45:15 ↗ want to remind you that we still have

45:16 ↗ one other topic to discuss the the kcha

45:19 ↗ lease so

45:20 ↗ um the the main question for us tonight

45:21 ↗ is what what do we do about the cell

45:24 ↗ tower release potential for cell tower

45:26 ↗ release at Tibbetts Valley Park thank

45:27 ↗ you yes the first half of this yes great

45:30 ↗ thank you only taking yes this is this

45:33 ↗ is but the first of two parts

45:35 ↗ that I will ask if any first of all do

45:37 ↗ we have any members of the community

45:40 ↗ online or that have indicated uh desire

45:43 ↗ to speak

45:48 ↗ uh chair marks Dale Leonard is on the

45:51 ↗ line uh Mr lehner did you wish to speak

45:54 ↗ on this topic

46:00 ↗ if you would like to speak on this uh

46:02 ↗ please indicate either in the chat or by

46:05 ↗ raising your hand

46:09 ↗ no indication all right then I will open

46:11 ↗ it to that if anyone present this

46:13 ↗ evening wishes to speak now would be a

46:15 ↗ great opportunity if you'd come to the

46:16 ↗ lectern

46:21 ↗ oh

46:24 ↗ even the city council members staff uh

46:27 ↗ Steve Pereira living in Old Town for I

46:30 ↗ don't know 14-ish years so I sent in a

46:32 ↗ number of inputs on the question I don't

46:34 ↗ want to repeat all those I'm hoping

46:36 ↗ you'll address those as part of your

46:37 ↗ deliberations otherwise I'm wasting

46:39 ↗ everybody's time uh I would like to see

46:42 ↗ kind of a here's all the pluses here's

46:45 ↗ all the minuses what's the cost what's

46:47 ↗ the benefit what's the public gain for

46:49 ↗ each of those deliberators and defined

46:51 ↗ what's what's the benefit of Leo what's

46:53 ↗ the benefit of the units what are the

46:55 ↗ number of units what are the benefits to

46:58 ↗ the park system by having a cell tower

46:59 ↗ on there having to postpone

47:01 ↗ City Park development because of that

47:05 ↗ cell tower location what's the risk of

47:06 ↗ the cost what's the risk of the benefits

47:08 ↗ of

47:09 ↗ the

47:12 ↗ additional lease requirements that the

47:15 ↗ contract site wants to put in

47:18 ↗ I haven't heard you address any of those

47:20 ↗ inputs so far so

47:24 ↗ I just keep hearing the negatives that

47:26 ↗ way the benefits that I keep hearing and

47:28 ↗ I don't hear anybody asking in a

47:30 ↗ position of Authority or as a reluctant

47:32 ↗ representatives to address those so

47:34 ↗ I'm really here trying to learn and put

47:36 ↗ a positive spin on it but I'm not

47:38 ↗ hearing what I'd like to hear as due to

47:40 ↗ due diligence on the part of my elected

47:43 ↗ representatives thank you

47:46 ↗ thank you for your comment

47:55 ↗ uh good evening David kapler 255

47:58 ↗ Southeast Andrew Street I'm actually

48:00 ↗ kind of three related topics here

48:03 ↗ um the Osprey issue on cell phone towers

48:07 ↗ and Lighting on Tibbetts Valley part

48:10 ↗ needs to be considered that what can be

48:13 ↗ done to design it so it doesn't become

48:15 ↗ an osprey nest site in the problems with

48:18 ↗ that

48:19 ↗ I don't know why you didn't paint the

48:21 ↗ building Green in your diagram that

48:23 ↗ would help but

48:26 ↗ um and um what about parking

48:29 ↗ um if there's an emergency in the middle

48:31 ↗ of the night there'll be plenty of

48:32 ↗ parking for the crews to work at the

48:34 ↗ tower

48:35 ↗ um in the daytime when crews are going

48:37 ↗ to be potentially doing regular work on

48:40 ↗ it

48:41 ↗ um it's are you going to have reserves

48:43 ↗ parking space or is there going to be an

48:45 ↗ enclosed gated part which should take

48:48 ↗ possibly more land than the the building

48:51 ↗ where so we know that Crews can

48:54 ↗ effectively work there so I just wanted

48:56 ↗ that consideration

48:58 ↗ my two biggest issues with the city for

49:03 ↗ decades has been the um the property

49:07 ↗ over by the public works area

49:09 ↗ and to give away that the RV Park

49:14 ↗ um

49:15 ↗ was was a terrible idea and I'm glad

49:20 ↗ it's not in the process if we're talking

49:23 ↗ about saving parks and that kind of

49:25 ↗ thing you know the biggest addition in

49:27 ↗ parks in the valley floor is going to be

49:29 ↗ where the city parks the the park

49:31 ↗ departments trucks and their site there

49:34 ↗ which we want to have as part of

49:37 ↗ Confluence Park well their site the only

49:40 ↗ where would you put the kinds of

49:42 ↗ machinery and trucks and all of that the

49:45 ↗ site is over there where the RV park is

49:47 ↗ and also we're going to be needing more

49:50 ↗ space over time for our water sewer

49:53 ↗ storm water

49:56 ↗ facilities so I was totally against this

49:59 ↗ project as long as it was taken out our

50:02 ↗ future

50:03 ↗ locations for that uses the city would

50:08 ↗ be very difficult to find other places

50:10 ↗ to to to to do it on

50:13 ↗ my other issue is the location of the

50:15 ↗ mountain to sound Greenway Trail

50:18 ↗ I I don't believe it should be a Newport

50:20 ↗ in this particular area we're talking

50:22 ↗ about I believe it's already where

50:24 ↗ there's an expanded sidewalk on Maple

50:26 ↗ also Maple is a wider right-of-way than

50:30 ↗ Newport

50:32 ↗ and if you want to take down all the

50:34 ↗ trees on Tibbetts Valley Parks South

50:38 ↗ North Edge there to make room for the

50:42 ↗ mountain to sound Greenway Trail and all

50:43 ↗ the other traffic improvements that

50:45 ↗ admittedly is needed there it will be

50:48 ↗ the the fight of the decade I think in

50:50 ↗ the community and there's no reason we

50:53 ↗ need to take those trees down if we can

50:55 ↗ get them out into Sam Greenway trail

50:57 ↗ located over on Maple

50:59 ↗ thank you

51:01 ↗ thank you

51:07 ↗ you're right Connie Marsh again

51:09 ↗ so I've repeatedly heard we have been

51:12 ↗ looking for a place for a new cell tower

51:14 ↗ for two years two years two years and

51:17 ↗ we've been doing this since

51:19 ↗ I don't know 2014. is that what that was

51:21 ↗ yet there was no time for a public

51:24 ↗ conversation and I've been through this

51:26 ↗ with the city many times

51:29 ↗ we wait and wait and wait and wait and

51:32 ↗ then we have to make a decision because

51:33 ↗ we're over a barrel and now we no longer

51:36 ↗ have time for the community conversation

51:38 ↗ the community conversation I was

51:41 ↗ expecting was not about a cell tower it

51:43 ↗ was about the community dollars being

51:45 ↗ used for an opportunity Center and for a

51:48 ↗ Transit oriented development that was

51:50 ↗ going to be an a community

51:55 ↗ um project between King County and the

51:58 ↗ city and that is the public engagement

52:01 ↗ that we needed to have if you ask the

52:03 ↗ people in this city if this

52:05 ↗ transit-oriented development even exists

52:07 ↗ 98 of them are going to say I have no

52:09 ↗ idea what you're talking about

52:11 ↗ so uh I am

52:14 ↗ I think it's inappropriate

52:16 ↗ to have something at this scale that

52:18 ↗ could have a lot of benefit to a lot of

52:20 ↗ people be entirely hidden and then

52:22 ↗ expect counsel to make a decision

52:25 ↗ without these people's voices and I

52:28 ↗ gotta say I'm not surprised I'm just

52:30 ↗ disappointed because I've asked every

52:32 ↗ two months for the last four years for

52:35 ↗ information on this a variety of people

52:37 ↗ and here we are we're under the gun we

52:39 ↗ have to vote because we need to be done

52:41 ↗ by the end of 2022. so interestingly

52:45 ↗ simultaneously we are working on our

52:47 ↗ Title 18 and the best available science

52:50 ↗ now says that the buffers for salmanid

52:53 ↗ bearing streams are 150 feet

52:56 ↗ so if you look at the Tibbetts Creek

52:59 ↗ buffer at a hundred feet this cell tower

53:02 ↗ is out of the buffer but if you look at

53:04 ↗ what our current best of available

53:05 ↗ science says it is in the buffer as is

53:10 ↗ the corresponding Hut

53:13 ↗ so I asked the question is this project

53:16 ↗ going to be vested by a council decision

53:19 ↗ and the answer was no

53:21 ↗ so you cannot describe what the process

53:24 ↗ will be without understanding if this is

53:28 ↗ going to be in the buffer because we

53:31 ↗ don't know yet and that is an oncoming

53:33 ↗ decision that has gotten a lot of public

53:36 ↗ review

53:37 ↗ so

53:39 ↗ um I don't I I I I

53:43 ↗ reprocess

53:46 ↗ as I keep sending you what a major

53:48 ↗ modification in a in a master plan is

53:53 ↗ it it's clear to me that this is a major

53:56 ↗ modification the city is somehow

53:58 ↗ interpreting it as a minor modification

54:01 ↗ I'm not sure how because that is

54:03 ↗ actually a development services

54:05 ↗ department decision further along in the

54:07 ↗ process

54:08 ↗ uh so

54:11 ↗ um let's go back to my original comment

54:14 ↗ when I said if I look at this from 60

54:18 ↗ 000 feet you have to have the

54:21 ↗ appropriate real information to make a

54:23 ↗ decision

54:24 ↗ so this may be for the next topic but

54:30 ↗ um

54:31 ↗ is this actually Transit oriented

54:34 ↗ development

54:35 ↗ anymore or is this an affordable housing

54:38 ↗ project

54:39 ↗ because before it was going to be this

54:41 ↗ combined mixed-use variety of people

54:44 ↗ living in a place pretty much the

54:47 ↗ definition of what you would expect a

54:48 ↗ Transit oriented development to be which

54:50 ↗ is getting people out of their cars

54:53 ↗ which is which is the point

54:56 ↗ so now

54:58 ↗ um

55:00 ↗ I am going to

55:03 ↗ to

55:04 ↗ stop I didn't hear any most of these

55:07 ↗ things addressed by your question so I'm

55:09 ↗ hoping maybe that will come up after

55:11 ↗ we're done talking and I will continue

55:14 ↗ on the broader topic next

55:19 ↗ thank you and I I did forget to ask if

55:22 ↗ anyone uh here had signed up to speak on

55:26 ↗ this topic

55:28 ↗ yes chair Martz uh David nomura had had

55:31 ↗ signed up to speak my apologies

55:39 ↗ Mr chair uh members of the council thank

55:41 ↗ you very much for the opportunity uh my

55:42 ↗ name is Dave number I'm the director of

55:43 ↗ government Affairs for Lumen

55:45 ↗ um just here to support

55:47 ↗ um the efforts that the city is going

55:48 ↗ through and in discussing this this

55:50 ↗ project you know as Andrew has mentioned

55:51 ↗ this has been a project that's been in

55:54 ↗ the works for for many years most of

55:56 ↗ which I've I've been a part of and you

55:58 ↗ know I think we're coming to the end we

56:00 ↗ still have a little bit of work to do

56:01 ↗ but I think we're coming to the end of

56:02 ↗ what's been a long collaborative process

56:04 ↗ that's going to have a lot of public

56:05 ↗ value and so we hope from lewin's

56:07 ↗ standpoint though we can move forward

56:09 ↗ with this and and hopefully close this

56:11 ↗ deal soon and and provide this public

56:13 ↗ benefit for the the Greater Community so

56:16 ↗ we appreciate the time I'm in

56:18 ↗ consideration

56:20 ↗ thank you for your comment

56:22 ↗ and now to deliberation so the issue at

56:26 ↗ hand is do we wish to recommend to

56:29 ↗ continue lease negotiations and bringing

56:31 ↗ the lease to the next regular city

56:33 ↗ council meeting for consideration or not

56:38 ↗ and I will let one of you to lead us off

56:40 ↗ council member Ray I'll get to start

56:42 ↗ um

56:43 ↗ Deputy City administrator would you

56:45 ↗ throw up put up on the screen again the

56:48 ↗ um

56:49 ↗ the three areas that are still being

56:51 ↗ negotiated

56:54 ↗ I think you had those somewhere in the

56:56 ↗ there we go

56:58 ↗ um so I'm gonna I'm gonna start taking

57:01 ↗ the easy ones I don't have a big strong

57:03 ↗ preference between 25 or 30 years so

57:05 ↗ from my perspective either is fine I

57:08 ↗ think the attorney is interesting I

57:10 ↗ don't have any objection to doing that

57:12 ↗ so

57:13 ↗ um if they go for that that's fine and

57:14 ↗ nor do I have a problem with new new uh

57:16 ↗ lease or for lenders for new lease for

57:20 ↗ lender if the vertical Bridge wants the

57:21 ↗ city to provide the same these terms I

57:23 ↗ think that's fine so I took the easy

57:25 ↗ part first

57:26 ↗ um this is hard I mean this is really

57:28 ↗ really hard and it's it's hard for a lot

57:30 ↗ of the reasons that we've than

57:32 ↗ discussing it's it's hard because the

57:35 ↗ transit oriented development Opportunity

57:37 ↗ Center is something that we have been

57:38 ↗ talking about for a long long time and

57:41 ↗ you know there have been

57:43 ↗ disagreements on what its scope should

57:45 ↗ be but by and large there's there's

57:47 ↗ pretty uh

57:49 ↗ broad support at least from this well I

57:52 ↗ don't know if yeah the city council to

57:54 ↗ move forward with this

57:57 ↗ um

57:58 ↗ I I have pause though because I feel

58:01 ↗ like we're in a position of having to

58:04 ↗ make a decision without

58:06 ↗ public input on the tower

58:10 ↗ um

58:10 ↗ because of the time constraints so I'm

58:12 ↗ I'm I'm very

58:14 ↗ um I'm very conflicted about this

58:16 ↗ because I recognize that if we say no uh

58:19 ↗ you're not just saying no to a tower

58:20 ↗ you're saying no to Tod and so it's it's

58:23 ↗ a double no and uh and so that's got a

58:26 ↗ lot of weight and a lot of power

58:28 ↗ um so I really don't know so I I'm I'm

58:31 ↗ turning to my most esteemed colleagues

58:33 ↗ here on this committee to help me figure

58:35 ↗ out what the heck direction to go

58:41 ↗ council member to Michelle do you want

58:43 ↗ to go next I I will thank you very much

58:47 ↗ um so I support approving a

58:50 ↗ um approve a moving I'm sorry I'll start

58:54 ↗ over again I uh support moving ahead

58:57 ↗ with negotiations

58:59 ↗ um I emailed uh Andrea earlier today and

59:03 ↗ um uh just to to me reading through the

59:06 ↗ packet materials the most significant

59:08 ↗ sentence in there was that the role of

59:11 ↗ the city has changed we uh when uh Lumen

59:15 ↗ decided that they did not need another

59:17 ↗ parcel of land in Issaquah that

59:20 ↗ significantly changed our role we are no

59:23 ↗ longer a partner on this project we are

59:26 ↗ as you said a facilitator that means

59:29 ↗ that um

59:31 ↗ we are in a completely different place

59:34 ↗ in terms of conducting public Outreach

59:38 ↗ because it's no longer really our

59:42 ↗ project

59:43 ↗ and so I think that needs to be clear

59:45 ↗ we're not operating where we were five

59:47 ↗ years ago or three years ago even

59:50 ↗ we are in a much different place and I

59:54 ↗ don't think it would even be appropriate

59:56 ↗ for us to take on a role of doing public

59:59 ↗ Outreach or conducting public Outreach

1:00:01 ↗ on a project

1:00:02 ↗ in which we really do not have a

1:00:06 ↗ partnership role any longer

1:00:09 ↗ so um

1:00:11 ↗ so that to me is is one reason why

1:00:16 ↗ um first of all I'm very grateful to

1:00:17 ↗ everybody who has stayed on board this

1:00:19 ↗ project because it has been a really

1:00:22 ↗ long and and very

1:00:24 ↗ significantly changed I wanted I was

1:00:27 ↗ really glad to see Mr land this year

1:00:30 ↗ and uh your letter was so clear and I

1:00:33 ↗ know it went it's really attached to the

1:00:35 ↗ next item that we're going to take up

1:00:37 ↗ but I do want to commend you for the

1:00:40 ↗ clarity of going through the project

1:00:43 ↗ piece by piece by piece by piece it is

1:00:46 ↗ not a raw raw letter in any sense of the

1:00:49 ↗ word it is to me it's a description of

1:00:52 ↗ everything that can go wrong

1:00:54 ↗ and still command the commitment of arch

1:00:59 ↗ and King County Housing Authority and

1:01:02 ↗ the city and Lumen and to me it was just

1:01:06 ↗ a wonderful statement of all the things

1:01:09 ↗ that we've gone through to get to this

1:01:11 ↗ point and that commitment is still there

1:01:14 ↗ and one of the reasons it's still there

1:01:16 ↗ is because there is a crying need for

1:01:20 ↗ affordable housing and there is also a

1:01:22 ↗ crying need in our community for some

1:01:25 ↗ place to provide Human Services and

1:01:27 ↗ that's the interest that the city has in

1:01:30 ↗ that condominium piece of the project

1:01:33 ↗ so

1:01:34 ↗ um

1:01:35 ↗ I've been thinking a lot about my dad

1:01:38 ↗ today we were talking earlier he had a

1:01:41 ↗ saying he was it was in for a dime in

1:01:43 ↗ for a dollar

1:01:45 ↗ and he was raised during the Depression

1:01:46 ↗ so right now I suppose that would be in

1:01:48 ↗ the millions but we made a commitment or

1:01:52 ↗ not we but a council in 2015 in 2017

1:01:57 ↗ made a commitment to this project put

1:01:59 ↗ out rfps took took uh

1:02:03 ↗ um applications for people made

1:02:05 ↗ agreements and

1:02:07 ↗ um we cannot at this point give up those

1:02:11 ↗ agreements we have significant resources

1:02:13 ↗ that have been pledged to this project

1:02:15 ↗ that

1:02:17 ↗ um

1:02:18 ↗ need to be honored and the commitment of

1:02:22 ↗ the long-term commitment thank you Mr

1:02:24 ↗ Landis has it needs to be honored and so

1:02:28 ↗ um I think that we should move ahead

1:02:30 ↗ with negotiations and and hopefully

1:02:33 ↗ um we come to a really significantly

1:02:36 ↗ good place

1:02:37 ↗ with lumens so thank you

1:02:40 ↗ thank you so uh let me let me address

1:02:44 ↗ downsides first can you please put up

1:02:45 ↗ the picture the notional uh view of what

1:02:50 ↗ it might look like at this at the south

1:02:52 ↗ end of the parking lot thank you nope

1:02:55 ↗ the last one you were there a second ago

1:02:57 ↗ there we go

1:02:59 ↗ uh so you know Chris I understand the

1:03:02 ↗ question about the location I actually

1:03:05 ↗ think there's a better location than

1:03:06 ↗ putting it in the middle of the park I

1:03:07 ↗ think near I've I've

1:03:10 ↗ flown my drones around there too and uh

1:03:12 ↗ that that is about how tall the trees

1:03:14 ↗ are because my normal return to home

1:03:16 ↗ height for my drone doesn't work in that

1:03:18 ↗ area because they're Dollar Trees uh so

1:03:20 ↗ you know if you're gonna have to put an

1:03:22 ↗ antenna in the park actually this looks

1:03:25 ↗ better than I thought it was going to

1:03:26 ↗ look

1:03:27 ↗ um and and I realized it won't look

1:03:29 ↗ exactly like this but it seems to be as

1:03:31 ↗ far as locations go a good location uh

1:03:35 ↗ don't have to worry about kids trying to

1:03:36 ↗ hit home runs and hit it which is one of

1:03:39 ↗ the things I was concerned about uh

1:03:42 ↗ parking a question was raised about

1:03:44 ↗ parking we actually have materials in

1:03:47 ↗ the in the packet tonight that talks

1:03:48 ↗ about we have looked at the parking and

1:03:51 ↗ access issues uh in relation to the

1:03:53 ↗ parking lot the administration doesn't

1:03:55 ↗ feel that's a problem I want to address

1:03:57 ↗ this question about timing and why we

1:03:59 ↗ have to do it right now and while I

1:04:02 ↗ certainly recognize there are municipal

1:04:04 ↗ governments in this area that that try

1:04:06 ↗ to use the clock to get things done this

1:04:09 ↗ City generally generally doesn't and

1:04:12 ↗ this was really around kind of a

1:04:14 ↗ breakthrough in the situation that

1:04:17 ↗ occurred

1:04:18 ↗ around this timing and and I'm quite

1:04:21 ↗ confident this was not an intentional

1:04:23 ↗ effort to come before us at the last

1:04:25 ↗ minute but really having the situation

1:04:27 ↗ uh thankfully change so I'm I'm

1:04:31 ↗ comfortable with that

1:04:34 ↗ um let's talk about the community

1:04:38 ↗ benefit of this uh

1:04:41 ↗ I came on Council 13 years ago and we

1:04:47 ↗ wanted a Opportunity Center and we said

1:04:50 ↗ we needed it and we had two million

1:04:53 ↗ dollars in the bank and we looked and we

1:04:56 ↗ looked and we looked and we looked and

1:04:58 ↗ we looked and we looked and I can't

1:05:00 ↗ stress enough how hard we looked and how

1:05:03 ↗ many locations and partnering with at

1:05:06 ↗ work and buying a commercial building

1:05:09 ↗ that we would share or going in with the

1:05:12 ↗ fire department or just we looked at so

1:05:15 ↗ many areas and it this has been what

1:05:18 ↗ this comes down to tonight ultimately is

1:05:20 ↗ whether you what benefit you see to the

1:05:23 ↗ Tod and the Opportunity Center and I

1:05:27 ↗ have been on board with this project

1:05:28 ↗ since day one because I came on Council

1:05:31 ↗ hearing from the community about an

1:05:33 ↗ opportunity Center

1:05:35 ↗ touring the together Center which is

1:05:37 ↗ which is about to

1:05:39 ↗ um it's got a new facility that they're

1:05:41 ↗ opening up understanding what that means

1:05:42 ↗ to Redmond understanding what having

1:05:44 ↗ those sorts of facilities would mean in

1:05:46 ↗ this community and that to me has been

1:05:48 ↗ as big of a part of this as the transit

1:05:51 ↗ art and development itself they were

1:05:53 ↗ they're both important

1:05:55 ↗ um this transit-oriented development is

1:05:58 ↗ super important 40 to 60 percent is a

1:06:00 ↗ great Target it's a great place to be

1:06:03 ↗ able to have folks who can afford to

1:06:05 ↗ live here in a time when the market rate

1:06:07 ↗ stuff is at you know 140 to 180 percent

1:06:10 ↗ of Ami uh so I'm just I it comes down to

1:06:16 ↗ if you see that benefit then all what

1:06:19 ↗ we've done in the last years make this

1:06:21 ↗ easier right make this process easier as

1:06:24 ↗ one comment was you know we had a

1:06:26 ↗ complicated land swap that would have

1:06:28 ↗ involved trading some some very valuable

1:06:30 ↗ real estate we considered doing that I

1:06:33 ↗ think we had a majority of council that

1:06:34 ↗ would have supported it this is so much

1:06:35 ↗ easier to do than that so

1:06:38 ↗ uh for all those things it like I said

1:06:41 ↗ it really comes down to if you don't see

1:06:43 ↗ a benefit to it then there's you know a

1:06:45 ↗ million individual issues but if you see

1:06:47 ↗ the benefit then the costs associated

1:06:50 ↗ with this are really light and uh it's a

1:06:53 ↗ really a huge opportunity I I just I

1:06:57 ↗ think Lumen has been extraordinarily

1:06:59 ↗ patient through all this and I want to

1:07:01 ↗ thank them for five years of uh of of

1:07:04 ↗ helping us figure this out and working

1:07:06 ↗ with their uh with their tenant but uh

1:07:10 ↗ and and the administration's effort to

1:07:12 ↗ continue this through and so I'm I'm I

1:07:14 ↗ will be supporting it tonight uh I like

1:07:17 ↗ I said the benefit is huge and the cost

1:07:19 ↗ is very light so it's a it's an obvious

1:07:21 ↗ decision for me

1:07:23 ↗ council member right it's only come back

1:07:25 ↗ um

1:07:26 ↗ thank you for that both of you

1:07:29 ↗ um clearly the role in the the Tod has

1:07:31 ↗ changed and no disputing that but I

1:07:33 ↗ don't think that's the issue here I

1:07:34 ↗ don't think we're asking for public

1:07:35 ↗ comment on Tod we're asking for public

1:07:37 ↗ comment on a Parks project which and

1:07:40 ↗ that's why I was asking director Watling

1:07:42 ↗ about what would our normal process be

1:07:44 ↗ so my dilemma that I'm really wrestling

1:07:47 ↗ with is a desire for transparency we

1:07:50 ↗ talk about that all the time we talk

1:07:51 ↗ about getting public input we tried

1:07:53 ↗ about doing the people's business doing

1:07:54 ↗ the people's business you know in front

1:07:56 ↗ of everybody and now I'm weighing that

1:07:59 ↗ which we would have to uh abridge to get

1:08:03 ↗ the vertical Bridge

1:08:05 ↗ um versus the public need for more

1:08:08 ↗ affordable housing and some and Human

1:08:09 ↗ Services capabilities so

1:08:12 ↗ um

1:08:13 ↗ that's that's where I think my delay my

1:08:16 ↗ well I think that's where my dilemma

1:08:17 ↗ that is where my dilemma is right now is

1:08:19 ↗ I have two things that I hold very dear

1:08:21 ↗ that are in absolute conflict with each

1:08:23 ↗ other and I can't resolve that conflict

1:08:25 ↗ easily

1:08:26 ↗ so this may be a you know a game day

1:08:29 ↗ decision for me

1:08:32 ↗ so so if as this appears to be heading

1:08:35 ↗ towards a two to one I would encourage

1:08:38 ↗ you to take a look at what we did when

1:08:41 ↗ we looked at putting Towers at

1:08:43 ↗ Confluence it was a really small light

1:08:46 ↗ easy conversation for something that was

1:08:49 ↗ as impactful or more than what we're

1:08:51 ↗ talking about here yeah and and thanks

1:08:53 ↗ and that's that's spot on and and I need

1:08:56 ↗ that at some point and so it may not be

1:08:58 ↗ a two to one it may be a 3-0 but it may

1:09:01 ↗ not be a you know 7-0 at the next one or

1:09:05 ↗ whatever because I need to see that I

1:09:07 ↗ need to understand that so I'm I'm good

1:09:09 ↗ with moving forward but there's some

1:09:10 ↗ questions that haven't been answered yet

1:09:11 ↗ that need to be answered to help me with

1:09:13 ↗ that you know is this consistent with

1:09:15 ↗ our precedent is this consistent with

1:09:17 ↗ how we've dealt with things like this in

1:09:18 ↗ the past are we treating

1:09:21 ↗ um this particular situation

1:09:23 ↗ um special and I'm always a little bit

1:09:25 ↗ leery in city government about making

1:09:27 ↗ special exceptions for a special case

1:09:29 ↗ because it always comes back to bite us

1:09:31 ↗ and so

1:09:33 ↗ um we need I need we don't need I need I

1:09:36 ↗ need to see that this isn't a you know

1:09:37 ↗ this isn't really an aberration this is

1:09:39 ↗ pretty typical we wouldn't do this in

1:09:42 ↗ normal situations if we were going to be

1:09:43 ↗ putting in a 500 square foot building in

1:09:46 ↗ an 85-foot Tower

1:09:49 ↗ all right

1:09:50 ↗ uh

1:09:53 ↗ do we do you like to make a motion or

1:09:55 ↗ shall I

1:09:56 ↗ um

1:09:57 ↗ I am happy to make a motion let's see uh

1:10:02 ↗ I move that let's see I'm sorry I move

1:10:06 ↗ that we approved moving moving ahead

1:10:08 ↗ with negotiations on the tel the cell to

1:10:13 ↗ phone tower

1:10:15 ↗ relocation at Tibbetts Creek

1:10:17 ↗ Park

1:10:20 ↗ thank you continue lease negotiations

1:10:22 ↗ and bringing lease to the next regular

1:10:24 ↗ city council meeting for their

1:10:25 ↗ consideration second

1:10:29 ↗ all right further any further discussion

1:10:32 ↗ all in favor say aye the clerk would

1:10:35 ↗ like to interject and ask that the

1:10:37 ↗ motion be restated so I can be recorded

1:10:39 ↗ accurately yes thank you you want to

1:10:41 ↗ show me that again I move that we

1:10:43 ↗ continue lease negotiations and bring

1:10:45 ↗ the lease to the next regular city

1:10:46 ↗ council meeting for their consideration

1:10:50 ↗ thank you

1:10:53 ↗ all in favor say aye aye aye opposed

1:10:56 ↗ abstentions it carries three to O

1:11:00 ↗ with that we will move on to the uh

1:11:03 ↗ second part of our evening which is ID

1:11:06 ↗ 1297 King County Housing Authority

1:11:09 ↗ interlocal agreement again Deputy City

1:11:12 ↗ administrator Snyder

1:11:15 ↗ thank you councilmember Martz

1:11:18 ↗ so this this portion yes focuses on that

1:11:21 ↗ interlocal agreement with King County

1:11:23 ↗ Housing Authority or kcha as it's

1:11:26 ↗ referred to here the purpose for us this

1:11:29 ↗ evening is to get feedback from you on

1:11:31 ↗ the draft interlocal agreement

1:11:35 ↗ so does council have any changes that

1:11:38 ↗ you'd like to see for the draft

1:11:39 ↗ interlocal agreement and should the

1:11:42 ↗ administration Advance the Ila for full

1:11:44 ↗ council's consideration at the next

1:11:46 ↗ regular meeting

1:11:47 ↗ those are the direction that we seek

1:11:49 ↗ from you this evening

1:11:51 ↗ the interlocal agreement or Ila as you

1:11:54 ↗ see here

1:11:55 ↗ provides at least 155 units of

1:11:59 ↗ affordable housing for those earning 40

1:12:01 ↗ to 60 percent of area median income

1:12:04 ↗ it includes that 10 000 square foot

1:12:06 ↗ Opportunity Center we've talked about

1:12:08 ↗ five units reserved for Life Enrichment

1:12:11 ↗ options or Leo to House people with

1:12:13 ↗ developmental disabilities

1:12:15 ↗ a mix of market rate and affordable

1:12:19 ↗ housing in accordance with the original

1:12:20 ↗ vision of the project so as I said

1:12:23 ↗ before there were two buildings

1:12:25 ↗ envisioned one was going to be the

1:12:26 ↗ affordable component and one was going

1:12:28 ↗ to have more market rate in it in the

1:12:32 ↗ interlocal agreement despite losing one

1:12:35 ↗ of their Partners kcha still maintains a

1:12:37 ↗ commitment to having a market rate

1:12:39 ↗ Apartments a market rate housing as a

1:12:42 ↗ part of this project

1:12:44 ↗ uh also as part of the Ila the draft Ila

1:12:48 ↗ there is a stipulation to have the city

1:12:50 ↗ agree to the land lease for the cell

1:12:52 ↗ tower so that's why we are covering this

1:12:55 ↗ item second and the lease first

1:12:59 ↗ so advantages and disadvantages uh I

1:13:02 ↗ mean we talked before about how the mou

1:13:06 ↗ the memorandum of understanding that the

1:13:08 ↗ city had with with the development team

1:13:12 ↗ how that was going to be a precursor to

1:13:14 ↗ the mou was going to be a precursor to

1:13:17 ↗ the development agreement

1:13:19 ↗ so this the mou was non-binding and

1:13:23 ↗ without an interlocal agreement we don't

1:13:26 ↗ have those obligations of the affordable

1:13:27 ↗ housing and all those other items we

1:13:29 ↗ just discussed there's no obligation for

1:13:32 ↗ kcha to develop those things they could

1:13:35 ↗ get ownership of the property and they

1:13:39 ↗ could then flip it and sell it to the

1:13:41 ↗ highest bidder if they wanted to so this

1:13:44 ↗ formalizes those obligations in the

1:13:47 ↗ interlocal agreement

1:13:49 ↗ the

1:13:52 ↗ uh in addition it helps formalize the

1:13:55 ↗ understanding that these public benefits

1:13:57 ↗ are part of our consideration for

1:13:59 ↗ compensation for that City lease just to

1:14:02 ↗ make sure that uh the these two

1:14:04 ↗ decisions are tied because they are

1:14:06 ↗ linked uh we're not just deciding on a

1:14:08 ↗ on a cell tower lease in the city park

1:14:11 ↗ it's very much related to the Tod

1:14:14 ↗ project if the Tod project did not

1:14:16 ↗ require the cell tower relocation we

1:14:18 ↗ wouldn't be considering a cell tower at

1:14:19 ↗ Tibbetts Valley Park

1:14:22 ↗ um I uh have not been able to identify

1:14:27 ↗ any disadvantages the key here is that

1:14:30 ↗ to make sure that this interlocal

1:14:32 ↗ agreement says the things that Council

1:14:34 ↗ wants it to say and so if it doesn't do

1:14:37 ↗ that we need your feedback tonight to

1:14:39 ↗ let us know what other items should be

1:14:41 ↗ included in the Ila

1:14:47 ↗ so options

1:14:50 ↗ for this evening Advance the draft Ila

1:14:53 ↗ to the next regular city council meeting

1:14:56 ↗ for consideration potential approval

1:14:59 ↗ another option is to keep negotiating

1:15:02 ↗ the Ila with these additional

1:15:03 ↗ considerations as provided by the

1:15:05 ↗ council committee this evening or three

1:15:08 ↗ do not move forward with the Ila and of

1:15:10 ↗ course the consequence of that is uh

1:15:13 ↗ that that could again put an end to our

1:15:18 ↗ discussions about the transit oriented

1:15:19 ↗ development project

1:15:24 ↗ administration's recommendation this

1:15:26 ↗ evening is to advance the draft Ila to

1:15:28 ↗ the next regular city council meeting

1:15:29 ↗ for consideration and potential approval

1:15:34 ↗ timing and next steps the administration

1:15:37 ↗ would seek approval of the interlocal

1:15:39 ↗ agreement with kcha at the same time

1:15:41 ↗ that Council considers approval of the

1:15:43 ↗ Tibbetts Valley Park lease with vertical

1:15:45 ↗ Bridge because again we believe these

1:15:47 ↗ two things are linked and connected and

1:15:48 ↗ want to demonstrate that in our process

1:15:51 ↗ pending approval

1:15:53 ↗ Lumen and kcha would then execute their

1:15:56 ↗ purchase and sale agreement for the

1:15:57 ↗ future Tod site

1:16:00 ↗ transferring ownership and control of

1:16:01 ↗ the site to King County Housing

1:16:03 ↗ Authority

1:16:04 ↗ and then once kcha has ownership of the

1:16:08 ↗ site they would then Begin work on

1:16:09 ↗ finalizing the design for the todoc

1:16:11 ↗ project and begin applying for permits

1:16:17 ↗ so again Direction needed for this

1:16:19 ↗ evening does council have any changes

1:16:22 ↗ for the draft Ila and should the

1:16:24 ↗ administration Advance the Ila for full

1:16:26 ↗ council's consideration

1:16:28 ↗ that concludes my presentation are there

1:16:30 ↗ any questions

1:16:34 ↗ council member G Michelle

1:16:36 ↗ oh no okay but council member Ray I can

1:16:40 ↗ tell well you never know how many you're

1:16:41 ↗ going to get either we're going to start

1:16:43 ↗ with one

1:16:44 ↗ um

1:16:46 ↗ so I think it's great that we didn't

1:16:48 ↗ have to do the land swap to make this

1:16:49 ↗ happen that certainly simplified

1:16:51 ↗ everything and and all that um and I

1:16:53 ↗ know that we are contributing um or

1:16:56 ↗ buying a condominiumized uh part of the

1:17:00 ↗ final product which is the 10 000 square

1:17:01 ↗ foot

1:17:02 ↗ um

1:17:03 ↗ Opportunity Center

1:17:05 ↗ um what else are we contributing to this

1:17:07 ↗ anything is it just is it just really

1:17:10 ↗ we're just buying our chunk of it

1:17:16 ↗ um so in the in the materials for this

1:17:18 ↗ evening it links to uh other

1:17:21 ↗ presentations we've given in the past of

1:17:22 ↗ all of the city's Financial

1:17:24 ↗ contributions enumerated and so

1:17:27 ↗ um I'm going to do the best that I can

1:17:28 ↗ to answer that off the top of my head

1:17:30 ↗ but I'm also going to ask Gene Paul to

1:17:33 ↗ uh to look it up and back me up in case

1:17:36 ↗ I forget anything so there's my advanced

1:17:39 ↗ warning to Gene so he can start his

1:17:41 ↗ research

1:17:42 ↗ um so so yes the city has uh in the past

1:17:47 ↗ committed to helping provide Financial

1:17:50 ↗ contribution towards the construction of

1:17:51 ↗ the Opportunity Center we our latest

1:17:55 ↗ estimate which is outdated is that

1:17:57 ↗ that's five uh roughly five million

1:18:00 ↗ dollars

1:18:02 ↗ we have achieved some grants to do that

1:18:04 ↗ we have set aside funds to do that

1:18:07 ↗ um so we would be contributing all of

1:18:08 ↗ those things towards that purchase the

1:18:11 ↗ other Financial commitment the city has

1:18:13 ↗ made is one in terms of foregone Revenue

1:18:16 ↗ so this is the one project in the

1:18:19 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code that would

1:18:21 ↗ qualify for that multi-family tax

1:18:23 ↗ exemption and we have provided that to

1:18:28 ↗ this project should it meet the criteria

1:18:30 ↗ within the IMC for 12 years so that

1:18:33 ↗ would be in terms of of foregone revenue

1:18:36 ↗ for 12 years the mfte

1:18:40 ↗ um

1:18:41 ↗ I'm trying to think of any other

1:18:42 ↗ contributions towards this project other

1:18:44 ↗ than this the portion of Tibbetts Valley

1:18:46 ↗ Park and I I think we've just about

1:18:49 ↗ covered it

1:18:54 ↗ uh thank you the city administrator Bob

1:18:56 ↗ quits uh reminds me of the the hours of

1:19:00 ↗ Staff time and other costs incurred over

1:19:02 ↗ the past five years but we're gonna call

1:19:04 ↗ those Sun costs

1:19:06 ↗ yeah

1:19:08 ↗ there there has been some out-of-pocket

1:19:10 ↗ costs that's true so in terms of some uh

1:19:13 ↗ appraisals of areas surveys of areas

1:19:15 ↗ things like that that we've incurred to

1:19:17 ↗ date I'm going to ask Gene since I gave

1:19:20 ↗ him a heads up did I forget anything

1:19:21 ↗ important and if I did it looks like

1:19:24 ↗ maybe Dan has something else to add

1:19:29 ↗ I I think you covered everything from

1:19:31 ↗ the slides that you referenced in the

1:19:33 ↗ materials okay great Dan can you can you

1:19:36 ↗ chime in if I've forgotten anything else

1:19:39 ↗ so I think thank you uh it it was

1:19:43 ↗ mentioned that Arch contributed money

1:19:45 ↗ and part of the money that Arch

1:19:46 ↗ contributed did come from Issaquah and

1:19:49 ↗ uh also Issaquah as it does for all

1:19:52 ↗ affordable housing projects is waiving

1:19:54 ↗ the permitting fees and so those are

1:19:56 ↗ additional contributions from the city

1:19:59 ↗ all right thanks

1:20:01 ↗ um

1:20:02 ↗ and I'm not going to ask you to do this

1:20:04 ↗ tonight but before we we bring this back

1:20:06 ↗ can you tell me what the mfte for 12

1:20:09 ↗ years is going to cost the city in terms

1:20:10 ↗ of property tax revenue uh in fact I can

1:20:13 ↗ what we estimated it to be at the time

1:20:16 ↗ that we that the city council

1:20:19 ↗ um approved of the code revision to

1:20:22 ↗ allow mfte at that time it was estimated

1:20:24 ↗ to be a million dollars over the course

1:20:26 ↗ of 12 years that amount has changed of

1:20:29 ↗ course as property taxes has changed

1:20:31 ↗ over that time

1:20:33 ↗ Deputy Administrator Snyder is it is it

1:20:35 ↗ safe to say that it's basically the OC

1:20:38 ↗ is five million bucks three million of

1:20:40 ↗ it coming from the state 1 million of it

1:20:41 ↗ coming from our uh OC uh Revenue pool

1:20:47 ↗ and 1 million coming from deferred from

1:20:49 ↗ Fork on Revenue

1:20:52 ↗ uh the 1 million from foregone Revenue I

1:20:55 ↗ believe is incorrect the mfte is for is

1:20:58 ↗ support of the affordable housing

1:20:59 ↗ component regardless of the Opportunity

1:21:02 ↗ Center the other million uh that would

1:21:05 ↗ add up to this five million dollar

1:21:07 ↗ estimate we have a couple of Revenue

1:21:10 ↗ sources from uh the county that we have

1:21:13 ↗ not fully spent right so I believe that

1:21:16 ↗ one of them and forgive me I'm going to

1:21:18 ↗ get them confused tonight

1:21:19 ↗ um there is one that is uh one of the

1:21:22 ↗ allowable uses can be towards Behavioral

1:21:25 ↗ Health and those types of services and

1:21:27 ↗ so I believe we could use those revenues

1:21:29 ↗ to support the Opportunity Center

1:21:32 ↗ construction if needed right that's

1:21:33 ↗ unspent point one percent right that we

1:21:36 ↗ that we authorized a couple years ago

1:21:37 ↗ that's correct yes thank you so so there

1:21:40 ↗ would be no impact to general fund in

1:21:43 ↗ doing this or with the estimates that

1:21:45 ↗ were in place with the caveat that you

1:21:47 ↗ said that those estimates are not are a

1:21:50 ↗ bit still yes from everything we know

1:21:52 ↗ today that is what we believe we would

1:21:54 ↗ need to have updated estimates King

1:21:56 ↗ County Housing Authority has not

1:21:58 ↗ provided updated estimates until they

1:22:00 ↗ get land control because doing estimates

1:22:02 ↗ requires a lot of investment as well so

1:22:04 ↗ they're C taking land control and some

1:22:06 ↗ certainty before they invest more in

1:22:08 ↗ this project so as we talk about once

1:22:10 ↗ they get land control and finalized

1:22:12 ↗ design we'll be able to have a better

1:22:14 ↗ understanding of what those costs might

1:22:15 ↗ be

1:22:16 ↗ thank you

1:22:18 ↗ other questions

1:22:22 ↗ so I will ask if anyone has signed up

1:22:25 ↗ for this item in particular

1:22:30 ↗ chair marks no one has signed up for

1:22:32 ↗ this item in particular has anyone

1:22:34 ↗ indicated online that they wish to speak

1:22:36 ↗ to this topic

1:22:38 ↗ no one online has indicated a desire to

1:22:41 ↗ speak to this topic then I will offer

1:22:43 ↗ those in the audience the opportunity to

1:22:45 ↗ speak to this issue if you are so

1:22:46 ↗ inclined

1:22:54 ↗ Connie Marsh again so of course we don't

1:22:57 ↗ get the impact fees so we're going to be

1:22:59 ↗ taking away a chunk of Park but we

1:23:01 ↗ aren't going to be getting any impact

1:23:03 ↗ fees to then buy anything for

1:23:06 ↗ the people who are going to be living in

1:23:08 ↗ this facility to use the park just a

1:23:12 ↗ little tidbit the other thing that I

1:23:14 ↗ think is disturbing in the agreement is

1:23:16 ↗ there is the

1:23:17 ↗ conversation about we're going to try to

1:23:20 ↗ maintain the goal of having a variety of

1:23:23 ↗ housing levels altogether because the

1:23:26 ↗ city has been pretty clear that they

1:23:28 ↗ don't want just isolated spots of

1:23:31 ↗ low-income housing they want a variety

1:23:33 ↗ yet in the agreement

1:23:35 ↗ it basically seems to allow one extra

1:23:38 ↗ unit and that would fulfill that vision

1:23:41 ↗ and so I found that very unclear and

1:23:45 ↗ uncompelling so I'm not sure if I missed

1:23:49 ↗ some three paragraphs that described

1:23:51 ↗ this commitment in the agreement but I

1:23:55 ↗ don't think that can be a verbal

1:23:56 ↗ commitment and I think that we actually

1:23:59 ↗ want to have some

1:24:01 ↗ some

1:24:03 ↗ succinct language that is

1:24:06 ↗ I don't know implementable is the word

1:24:09 ↗ but it describes very clearly what what

1:24:13 ↗ we're aiming for in that agreement and

1:24:15 ↗ and so that is not there the um

1:24:21 ↗ process

1:24:23 ↗ has already begun for this project it's

1:24:27 ↗ just very behind on the active projects

1:24:30 ↗ list we have critical area studies that

1:24:33 ↗ if in theory already been begun and and

1:24:37 ↗ so so far this project has not followed

1:24:40 ↗ any normal

1:24:43 ↗ process it's followed

1:24:46 ↗ a public

1:24:48 ↗ project

1:24:50 ↗ process being approved by the city

1:24:54 ↗ council for something that now has to go

1:24:57 ↗ through a private project approval

1:25:02 ↗ which is super awkward in in the world

1:25:05 ↗ of you have a private project that the

1:25:09 ↗ city council has already swamied over

1:25:11 ↗ and said we want it

1:25:13 ↗ so what does that even do when your

1:25:16 ↗ development commission and all of these

1:25:19 ↗ other bodies trying to make decisions

1:25:22 ↗ when the council has already said yes

1:25:25 ↗ it's very confusing and I don't I think

1:25:27 ↗ it I think it's chilling to the public

1:25:29 ↗ good

1:25:31 ↗ the public has again has no idea that

1:25:35 ↗ this has changed from the last two years

1:25:37 ↗ the city is still putting in a bunch of

1:25:40 ↗ money no matter who it's from it's City

1:25:42 ↗ money and the public has not had a

1:25:45 ↗ chance to comment and say what they

1:25:47 ↗ would actually like to see what they

1:25:49 ↗ would like to have as part of this

1:25:51 ↗ agreement and it's here it's going to a

1:25:54 ↗ council meeting with no further Outreach

1:25:56 ↗ with a five million dollar public

1:25:58 ↗ investment

1:25:59 ↗ and

1:26:00 ↗ again

1:26:02 ↗ that is not a normal private project

1:26:04 ↗ that just goes through the private

1:26:06 ↗ process because the city in general does

1:26:08 ↗ not give private developers five million

1:26:11 ↗ dollars for fun

1:26:13 ↗ right it's not the same thing I

1:26:17 ↗ and I know because I've been through

1:26:18 ↗ many private and many public okay so I

1:26:22 ↗ know you want it

1:26:23 ↗ and my my point is I don't care how much

1:26:26 ↗ somebody wants something

1:26:29 ↗ it's got to have the same process for

1:26:33 ↗ everyone single family people need the

1:26:37 ↗ same

1:26:38 ↗ known process as some great public

1:26:43 ↗ entity that's going to do great things

1:26:45 ↗ people just need to have the same

1:26:48 ↗ consistent Pathways every time and this

1:26:52 ↗ one has blown that out of the water in

1:26:54 ↗ the past I don't know how you're going

1:26:57 ↗ to gather it together because and I

1:27:00 ↗ guess this is the the worst thing

1:27:03 ↗ it feels like there is no changing it

1:27:07 ↗ even if you were the most compelling

1:27:10 ↗ public person

1:27:12 ↗ Council often comes to these things with

1:27:15 ↗ their minds already made up no matter

1:27:17 ↗ what a person would say and I can't tell

1:27:21 ↗ you how disheartening it is and it makes

1:27:23 ↗ me go home and cry

1:27:24 ↗ so I don't know how that you know

1:27:29 ↗ that this public really cares about its

1:27:32 ↗ City it's just really hard to interface

1:27:34 ↗ with it and not feel like you're

1:27:36 ↗ rejected when you comment I don't think

1:27:38 ↗ you understand

1:27:39 ↗ that to the tips of your toes anymore so

1:27:44 ↗ I appreciate the thoughts

1:27:47 ↗ um and the cautions and I hope you

1:27:51 ↗ consider bringing it to a more complete

1:27:54 ↗ public conversation

1:28:02 ↗ perfect timing

1:28:04 ↗ would anyone else care to speak to this

1:28:06 ↗ issue this evening

1:28:09 ↗ but anyone else

1:28:11 ↗ third time

1:28:13 ↗ all right we'll go to a discussion we

1:28:16 ↗ should probably make a motion before we

1:28:18 ↗ uh

1:28:20 ↗ uh discuss that motion so

1:28:25 ↗ I will make a motion

1:28:28 ↗ uh I move we advance the draft Ila to

1:28:32 ↗ the regular city council meeting on

1:28:33 ↗ November 21st for consideration and

1:28:36 ↗ potential approval

1:28:38 ↗ I'll second that motion

1:28:41 ↗ discussion

1:28:47 ↗ well I'll die okay I'll I'll dive in all

1:28:50 ↗ right

1:28:51 ↗ um

1:28:53 ↗ so uh

1:28:55 ↗ this has had a funny pedigree there's no

1:29:00 ↗ question about it it it it it was built

1:29:03 ↗ as one thing five years ago and it

1:29:05 ↗ morphed into a different thing and then

1:29:07 ↗ it morphed into a different thing and

1:29:09 ↗ now it's a yet different thing

1:29:11 ↗ um I I will say that I do believe there

1:29:15 ↗ has been a lot of public engagement on

1:29:17 ↗ the subject of a transit-ordinate

1:29:19 ↗ development and an Associated

1:29:21 ↗ Opportunity Center and I say that

1:29:23 ↗ because there was a point where we had a

1:29:25 ↗ vote and it was a four to three vote

1:29:28 ↗ to continue going forward with this

1:29:30 ↗ project

1:29:31 ↗ and and we heard a lot from a lot of

1:29:33 ↗ folks in the community

1:29:35 ↗ um that is it is a it is true it is a

1:29:38 ↗ different proposal than it looks like

1:29:39 ↗ today uh but there is there is a rich

1:29:42 ↗ history on this one

1:29:44 ↗ um dating of course from 2017 so five

1:29:46 ↗ years ago and

1:29:49 ↗ uh I come back to what I said on the

1:29:52 ↗ first measure which is

1:29:54 ↗ um if you see a value in doing Tod here

1:29:57 ↗ and doing an opportunity Center

1:30:00 ↗ um I do I do think it's interesting this

1:30:03 ↗ question about whether what fraction of

1:30:06 ↗ market rate it is

1:30:08 ↗ um and so

1:30:09 ↗ I certainly think that would be

1:30:12 ↗ something that would be value it would

1:30:14 ↗ be valuable to have a little bit more

1:30:15 ↗ clarity on for the for going forward to

1:30:18 ↗ the full Council I mean I'm going to

1:30:20 ↗ support this this evening but this

1:30:22 ↗ question on the likelihood of it being a

1:30:25 ↗ mix of market rate and subsidized I

1:30:28 ↗ think is a is would be valuable to have

1:30:31 ↗ a conversation with the full Council

1:30:34 ↗ other other comments council member Ray

1:30:37 ↗ oh or councilmember Michelle oh

1:30:41 ↗ um I'll just say yeah I was

1:30:44 ↗ in 2017 you were on the council I was

1:30:47 ↗ out there in the audience uh I was one

1:30:49 ↗ of the people that testified in favor of

1:30:51 ↗ this project

1:30:52 ↗ I was for 10 years on the together

1:30:55 ↗ Center board and participated in the

1:30:59 ↗ development of that project in Redmond

1:31:01 ↗ which is uh

1:31:03 ↗ very much nearing its completion I think

1:31:06 ↗ it's going to open sometime next year

1:31:10 ↗ um and

1:31:11 ↗ um the these are just really elegant

1:31:14 ↗ projects but they are difficult in that

1:31:18 ↗ um you have to negotiate and a lot of

1:31:19 ↗ those negotiations occur

1:31:22 ↗ um behind the scenes and they have to in

1:31:26 ↗ many ways you're dealing with uh legal

1:31:29 ↗ entities and legal agreements that need

1:31:32 ↗ confidentiality or they don't happen or

1:31:35 ↗ they actually put the city at Jeopardy

1:31:36 ↗ if they were being discussed in public

1:31:40 ↗ so I know that's maybe hard for people

1:31:42 ↗ to understand

1:31:44 ↗ [Music]

1:31:45 ↗ I have a dim understanding I'm looking

1:31:47 ↗ at Mr Landis again I have a dim

1:31:49 ↗ understanding of why

1:31:51 ↗ the federal government requires you to

1:31:54 ↗ put housing together like your 40 to 60

1:31:58 ↗ percent Ami you get a better tax break

1:32:01 ↗ because it's all together maybe you can

1:32:04 ↗ explain that to us a little bit uh

1:32:06 ↗ better but I think that I know that the

1:32:10 ↗ council has has hoped that we would have

1:32:14 ↗ intermingled housing market end and that

1:32:18 ↗ may not be possible because it

1:32:19 ↗ forecloses the opportunity for federal

1:32:22 ↗ support but I could be wrong about that

1:32:25 ↗ so maybe it would be better to ask an

1:32:27 ↗ expert on that but overall I uh of

1:32:31 ↗ course I approve this and I I think that

1:32:34 ↗ the interlocal agreement gives us a

1:32:37 ↗ stronger position because it specifies

1:32:40 ↗ exactly what you know what we are

1:32:42 ↗ agreeing to with King County Housing

1:32:44 ↗ Authority so thank you

1:32:48 ↗ got to remember Ray

1:32:49 ↗ three things one is we absolutely

1:32:51 ↗ positively have to have an Ila because

1:32:54 ↗ we don't have a development agreement

1:32:55 ↗ and we have nothing other than you know

1:32:58 ↗ a verbal agreement and a hearty

1:32:59 ↗ handshake from some from credible people

1:33:01 ↗ but um uh trust but verify I think was

1:33:04 ↗ the uh

1:33:06 ↗ the the line so

1:33:08 ↗ um yes must have an Ila so the next

1:33:10 ↗ question then is really about what to

1:33:12 ↗ put what is missing from it

1:33:15 ↗ um I would like to see some more

1:33:17 ↗ definitive language around

1:33:20 ↗ the integration of the market rate and

1:33:22 ↗ the affordable housing units um you know

1:33:24 ↗ how that's going to be so we have a

1:33:26 ↗ clear understanding and it may not be

1:33:29 ↗ optimal but it'll be overt so let's just

1:33:33 ↗ put it out there and you know if we if

1:33:36 ↗ you know it's not optimal it's not

1:33:37 ↗ optimal it's just what it is but let's

1:33:39 ↗ be overt about it and then the second

1:33:41 ↗ thing is I would like to see a not to

1:33:44 ↗ exceed cap put on the um

1:33:47 ↗ Opportunity Center so we talked about

1:33:49 ↗ you know it's five it's six you know is

1:33:52 ↗ it 20 million dollars I don't know but

1:33:54 ↗ I'd like to see the Ila include some

1:33:56 ↗ sort of a not to exceed cap on the cost

1:33:59 ↗ for the opportunity Center because right

1:34:01 ↗ now the way it's written we we've got a

1:34:02 ↗ uh we've got a blank check that we're

1:34:05 ↗ we're writing

1:34:07 ↗ um to our I am nothing but admiration

1:34:10 ↗ for our partners but um I'm also um

1:34:13 ↗ you know I worry about things like this

1:34:16 ↗ so um I'd like to you know I'm not sure

1:34:19 ↗ I care too much about what your cap is

1:34:20 ↗ or what the cap is but it's got to be

1:34:22 ↗ capped at something

1:34:26 ↗ all right

1:34:27 ↗ uh before we take a vote on this if if

1:34:30 ↗ uh if we voted this has the

1:34:32 ↗ administration got the feedback that it

1:34:34 ↗ wants this evening on the subject

1:34:39 ↗ I believe we have and I'd like to say a

1:34:41 ↗ few words after the vote but thanks

1:34:43 ↗ thank you all right

1:34:46 ↗ any further comments

1:34:48 ↗ all in favor say aye aye

1:34:50 ↗ aye aye opposed abstentions that passes

1:34:54 ↗ three to o thank you City administrator

1:34:56 ↗ yes thank you councilmember march

1:34:59 ↗ members of the committee

1:35:00 ↗ um I think back in my

1:35:04 ↗ um 30 plus years of working in local

1:35:06 ↗ government of times when City councils I

1:35:08 ↗ have worked with have set big goals and

1:35:11 ↗ have set big projects and it's quite

1:35:13 ↗ honestly not that often

1:35:16 ↗ um this one was one of them where the

1:35:19 ↗ council had a public process had a

1:35:21 ↗ vision and then said to your able City

1:35:24 ↗ staff go figure it out

1:35:26 ↗ um

1:35:27 ↗ when I arrived in 2019

1:35:30 ↗ councilmember March took me aside and

1:35:32 ↗ said so what's going on with todoc

1:35:34 ↗ haven't heard much about it in the last

1:35:36 ↗ year or so

1:35:38 ↗ um and the reality at that point was

1:35:40 ↗ that it was a difficult project then

1:35:43 ↗ it's remained a difficult project but in

1:35:45 ↗ 2019

1:35:47 ↗ um it was not coming together because of

1:35:49 ↗ all the reasons you've heard enumerated

1:35:52 ↗ this evening Andrea Schneider after

1:35:55 ↗ fresh off her role as interim City

1:35:58 ↗ administrator looking for new projects I

1:36:01 ↗ said why don't you take a look at this

1:36:02 ↗ one and see what we can do

1:36:05 ↗ for the next three years this has been a

1:36:08 ↗ central part of what she has worked on

1:36:11 ↗ through a pandemic through

1:36:14 ↗ CenturyLink becoming Lumen through Lumen

1:36:17 ↗ changing their business

1:36:19 ↗ needs all of those things but all goes

1:36:23 ↗ back to this council's view that this

1:36:26 ↗ was important that this was a person of

1:36:28 ↗ land that could help move a lot of

1:36:31 ↗ things forward and I just want to take a

1:36:33 ↗ moment to recognize Andrea for the work

1:36:37 ↗ that she's done

1:36:38 ↗ it's very very infrequent you can say

1:36:42 ↗ about any city project that one person

1:36:45 ↗ we all want to talk about teams not this

1:36:49 ↗ one

1:36:50 ↗ Andrea made this happen through her

1:36:52 ↗ dogged determination because this city

1:36:56 ↗ council said this is important for this

1:36:59 ↗ community you know there were comments

1:37:01 ↗ made tonight about public participation

1:37:03 ↗ there was lots of public participation I

1:37:05 ↗ was not here for it but it's well

1:37:07 ↗ documented and this city council said to

1:37:10 ↗ the administration get it done and so

1:37:13 ↗ we're very proud to be here and saying

1:37:17 ↗ we're getting it done that the amount of

1:37:19 ↗ public benefit that this project

1:37:21 ↗ provides I mean you'd be hard-pressed in

1:37:24 ↗ any Community to find the sheer amount

1:37:27 ↗ of dollars but it's more than dollars

1:37:29 ↗ it's helping people who need it helping

1:37:31 ↗ them in a way there's a large Transit

1:37:34 ↗ Center right down the street I mean is

1:37:37 ↗ it a block Andrea it's a block not even

1:37:40 ↗ a block

1:37:42 ↗ so this Council had a vision that this

1:37:45 ↗ community council member D Michelle said

1:37:46 ↗ you were on the other side you were in

1:37:48 ↗ the audience

1:37:49 ↗ so I don't want anyone listening to this

1:37:52 ↗ public process this evening this full

1:37:54 ↗ discussion of the issue this evening to

1:37:56 ↗ think that this this wasn't a public

1:37:58 ↗ process it was unfortunately we had a

1:38:01 ↗ pandemic it took a long time but we're

1:38:03 ↗ here tonight moving it forward and so I

1:38:06 ↗ just want to take an opportunity to make

1:38:08 ↗ sure anyone who's listening this evening

1:38:09 ↗ understands that this isn't something

1:38:11 ↗ that's been done in the shadows this is

1:38:13 ↗ something implementing a direction of

1:38:16 ↗ the Issaquah Washington City Council and

1:38:19 ↗ your staff and the administration is

1:38:21 ↗ proud that we've been able to do it and

1:38:23 ↗ very particularly that Andrea Schneider

1:38:25 ↗ was able to lead this and bring this

1:38:28 ↗ together so thank you Mr chairman for

1:38:31 ↗ allowing me to get on a soapbox for just

1:38:33 ↗ a moment but I think it's important that

1:38:36 ↗ those watching in the community truly

1:38:38 ↗ understand that not everything gets done

1:38:40 ↗ with two public meetings and you're

1:38:42 ↗ finished this was a multi-year project

1:38:44 ↗ it was important to have happen it was

1:38:47 ↗ very hard to do but at the end of the

1:38:49 ↗ day a many many many Issaquah residents

1:38:52 ↗ will benefit from it our our transit

1:38:56 ↗ system leveraging that all the things we

1:38:58 ↗ all aspire to know is your staff as well

1:39:00 ↗ as the council is going to happen

1:39:02 ↗ and I couldn't as your city

1:39:04 ↗ administrator be more proud

1:39:07 ↗ thank you very much for your comments

1:39:08 ↗ City administrative

1:39:10 ↗ uh do we have any announcements before

1:39:12 ↗ we adjourn

1:39:14 ↗ I don't

1:39:16 ↗ uh thank you everyone here and thank you

1:39:18 ↗ everyone at home and with that we are

1:39:19 ↗ adjourned

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Motions and votes (2)

approve moving ahead with negotiations on the cell phone tower relocation to Tibbetts Creek Park and continue lease negotiations and bring the lease to the next Regular City Council Meeting for the Council’s approval. The motion passed 3 – 0. b) ID 1297 King County Housing Authority Interlocal Agree…

Moved by de Michele · seconded by Marts

advance the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for full Council consideration at the November 21, 2022 Regular City Council meeting. The motion passed 3 – 0. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements.

Moved by Marts · seconded by de Michele