City Council Special Meeting · Thursday, July 6, 2017 · City Council Digest

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

Accounts: Payables and Payroll, July 6, 2017

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.5

Topics: Budget

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 19, 2017

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR b) 06-12-17 Council Committee Work Session Minutes Page 7859

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Committee Work Session, June 12, 2017

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.7–13

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 19, 2017

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

CONSENT CALENDAR c) 06-19-17 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7860

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting, June 19, 2017

Carried 7-0

Approve · packet pp.15–33

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

Mayor:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Transportation Benefit District AB 7250

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Committee Work Session · packet pp.35–105

Topics: Transportation

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jun 15, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 22, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · Jun 22, 2017

Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

In September 2016, the Issaquah City Council enacted a six-month moratorium on certain types of development to ensure future development meets the vision for Central Issaquah. The council has since extended the temporary moratorium until September 6, 2017.

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Amending Parking Requirements in the Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards AB 7345

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee · packet pp.107–116

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.107 ↗

Staff report:

NEW CITY COUNCIL AB 7353 - AGENDA BILL Consent City Council Special Meeting - 06 Jul 2017 Calendar

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

2017 Complete Streets Project, Phase 1 AB 7353

Carried 7-0

Award Bid · packet pp.117–134

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.117 ↗

Staff report:

Administration / Executive Department:

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Teen Café Letter of Interest AB 7451

Carried 7-0

Refer to Council Land & Shore Committee

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

6. REGULAR BUSINESS

Shangri-la Way NW/NW Talus Dr Intersection Restoration AB 7434

Carried 7-0

Award Bid; Authorize Additional Funding · packet pp.157–161

Topics: Land UseTransportationBudget

Open packet at p.157 ↗

Staff report:

POLICY & BUDGET INFO Expenditure Required Comp Plan Policy Nos. n/a $ 1,694,218

Roll call:

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

3990 segments .txt ↗

0:23 ↗ he says you

0:30 ↗ Madonn okay we're going to start the

0:32 ↗ it's across city council land and shore

0:34 ↗ committee Thursday July 6 and we have

0:39 ↗ several items on our agenda what I will

0:46 ↗ say in terms of public comment is that

0:50 ↗ on a Genda items B C and D and E we will

0:58 ↗ take a bit comment after each of those

1:02 ↗ brief public comment after each of those

1:05 ↗ so I will announce that after we're done

1:07 ↗ with our questions and also I'll

1:12 ↗ introduce ourselves I'm Stacy Goodman

1:14 ↗ and to my left is Mary Lou Pauline to my

1:15 ↗ right is Paul Winter Stein and F at the

1:17 ↗ podium

1:18 ↗ it's Keith Niven director of development

1:21 ↗ services department and economic element

1:24 ↗ and the first item on our agenda is

1:26 ↗ moratorium update thank you so the six

1:32 ↗ moratorium work items we're moving them

1:35 ↗ all forward there's that there's none on

1:38 ↗ tonight actually that's a well there is

1:40 ↗ amending parking so later on in the

1:44 ↗ agenda we'll deal with parking which is

1:46 ↗ coming back from PPC and the others are

1:50 ↗ kind of trekking along so the next

1:53 ↗ check-in point for the council is going

1:55 ↗ to be August 7th whatever the council

1:59 ↗ meeting is in August so what I'm

2:02 ↗ planning to do for y'all is to give you

2:04 ↗ a memo that will talk about the progress

2:09 ↗ made on each of the work items and

2:11 ↗ what's left to do including whatever

2:14 ↗ touch points there may be Monday of this

2:19 ↗ month is district visions so that'll be

2:22 ↗ your first opportunity to have a

2:24 ↗ conversation with staff about where we

2:27 ↗ are in the process and what we've

2:29 ↗ learned about the neighborhood's that

2:32 ↗ comprise central Issaquah and I think at

2:37 ↗ the end of this month at the cow is

2:40 ↗ affordable housing so so you'll get that

2:45 ↗ the tools that we've identified for

2:47 ↗ affordable housing and there'll be a

2:48 ↗ conversation about that and our approach

2:50 ↗ that we've come up with working through

2:53 ↗ a Joint Commission with planning policy

2:56 ↗ commission Human Services Commission and

2:58 ↗ economic vitality Commission oh and you

3:02 ↗ guys are also going to get the big

3:04 ↗ presentation from our consultant

3:05 ↗ architecture and urban design we've got

3:08 ↗ a draft manual we're going through that

3:10 ↗ with DC this month so to DC meetings to

3:14 ↗ kind of work through the nuts and bolts

3:16 ↗ 3 DC meetings so 3 DC meetings you can

3:20 ↗ tell them a little bit I'm a little bit

3:22 ↗ detached and then you guys get kind of

3:27 ↗ the big presentation at the end of the

3:28 ↗ month so that's that's our stuff so you

3:33 ↗ mentioned August 7th it says on the

3:35 ↗ calendar council public hearing on

3:37 ↗ moratorium that's to what consider so at

3:44 ↗ that point that's your decision point to

3:46 ↗ either lift extend or something in

3:51 ↗ between so I thought that another counts

3:55 ↗ recent council meeting we talked about

3:57 ↗ when the moratorium actually expired and

3:59 ↗ wasn't that early October so the six

4:01 ↗ months will be September but we have to

4:04 ↗ have the hearing before and because we

4:06 ↗ canceled the second meeting in August

4:08 ↗ typically I'm assuming that's happening

4:11 ↗ this year it has to be the first meeting

4:13 ↗ in August so it's just it's the last

4:16 ↗ touch point that we have with you guys

4:18 ↗ before a September point that when it

4:21 ↗ expires in early September I thought

4:24 ↗ okay okay so with that in mind it looks

4:32 ↗ like the calendar has the following a

4:37 ↗ schedule for adopt for the council to

4:40 ↗ consider adopting the different elements

4:43 ↗ architectural fit and urban design is

4:46 ↗ October 16th

4:47 ↗ as is vertical mixed use affordable

4:50 ↗ housing is September 18th our King is

4:53 ↗ July 17th the strict visions November

4:57 ↗ 20th

4:58 ↗ um and so you know what the talk is

5:03 ↗ about what's coming forward in early and

5:05 ↗ the recommendation you know what that is

5:08 ↗ yet or that preliminary we should know

5:11 ↗ just say no it's not I don't know what

5:13 ↗ the recommendation is from the

5:14 ↗ administration yet I would guess that

5:17 ↗ the mayor would like for you to lift the

5:19 ↗ moratorium in August I'm not sure that

5:23 ↗ we can get you there but we'll we'll

5:26 ↗ have a conversation about that okay okay

5:29 ↗ the questions about that moratorium

5:31 ↗ calendar in the next item on the agenda

5:36 ↗ is agenda bill 74 52 transit oriented

5:39 ↗ development a memoranda P oh sorry

5:43 ↗ transit oriented development memorandums

5:46 ↗ of understanding I was referred tonight

5:49 ↗ yes yeah you probably just heard about

5:52 ↗ this though hi my name is Jenna Davis

5:54 ↗ Hayes work in economic development and a

5:56 ↗ project manager for the transit orient

5:58 ↗ we are here tonight to talk about the to

6:02 ↗ mo use that are non-binding but very

6:05 ↗ important for us to move on next steps

6:07 ↗ with this project as you probably

6:09 ↗ remember such an tonight we're going to

6:12 ↗ talk a little bit about the project give

6:13 ↗ you a reminder of the components and

6:15 ↗ talk about the progress we've made to

6:16 ↗ date and the upcoming timeline when the

6:19 ↗ decision points are for council and then

6:21 ↗ get into more details about the mo use

6:24 ↗ and then our next steps and we have our

6:26 ↗ development partners here from King

6:27 ↗ County Housing Authority and spectrum

6:29 ↗ development solutions which will be

6:30 ↗ joining me at the mic as well so any

6:34 ↗ questions ok so just as a reminder our

6:37 ↗ transit oriented project site is here in

6:41 ↗ orange and it's next to the Transit

6:43 ↗ Center which is the white across the

6:45 ↗ street from Tibbets Valley Park

6:46 ↗ currently CenturyLink business as

6:49 ↗ operations site is located here and

6:51 ↗ working with them to relocate to the

6:53 ↗ King County roads property site which we

6:56 ↗ purchased and putting new locks on next

6:58 ↗ week so the city is in full possession

7:01 ↗ at this time and we will be talking

7:04 ↗ about the annexation part of that in the

7:05 ↗ annexation proof presentation later

7:08 ↗ today

7:10 ↗ so again a reminder of the components of

7:12 ↗ the transitory development and part of

7:14 ↗ these were required suggested or

7:17 ↗ required in our request for proposals

7:19 ↗ that we put out so there it's a vertical

7:22 ↗ mixed-use building which is a great

7:25 ↗ thing to see that as far as the building

7:27 ↗ type we're looking at both affordable

7:29 ↗ and market rate housing and if you've

7:32 ↗ been looking at past presentations the

7:35 ↗ number of affordable units has actually

7:36 ↗ gone up and so again that's as when you

7:38 ↗ create a concept and then you kind of

7:41 ↗ work through the details you're able to

7:42 ↗ find ways to provide more and adjust

7:44 ↗ things and so King County Housing

7:47 ↗ Authority Canon talked a little more

7:48 ↗ about that during their presentation

7:50 ↗ there will be ground floor commercial

7:52 ↗ space so some of that will be private

7:54 ↗ and some will be publicly owned we we

7:57 ↗ anticipate and then the connection to

7:59 ↗ the area amenity so again looking that

8:01 ↗ it's an across the street from the park

8:03 ↗ we have we have will have a plaza on

8:06 ↗ that side on Newport and then also a

8:09 ↗ mid-block crossing that connects

8:10 ↗ directly into where the sidewalk is for

8:12 ↗ the Transit Center so as the multiple

8:14 ↗ blocks as we look here you can see that

8:16 ↗ blue dotted line does multiple blocks

8:20 ↗ develop over time they'll have that mid

8:22 ↗ block all the way through that blue line

8:25 ↗ there next to the project site is what

8:27 ↗ is defined in the central Issaquah plan

8:30 ↗ for a core street and so the de this

8:33 ↗ development will build a little more

8:35 ↗ than half the site of the street and so

8:38 ↗ again that will help to create that grid

8:39 ↗ system that we want to see to break up

8:41 ↗ the blocks in central Issaquah any

8:44 ↗ questions okay so in general and again

8:49 ↗ this is a high low high level this is

8:51 ↗ subject to change and we you know of

8:52 ↗ course will want to get things open as

8:55 ↗ quickly as possible but we're looking at

8:57 ↗ tonight again reviewing the mo yous

9:00 ↗ getting any feedback and coming back in

9:02 ↗ August to finalize and hopefully get a

9:05 ↗ recommendation to adopt those at August

9:07 ↗ 7th full council meeting in September

9:10 ↗ and that's one of the reasons we need to

9:12 ↗ have that in order to for King County

9:14 ↗ Housing Authority is actually the

9:16 ↗ applicant to the King County Tod fund

9:18 ↗ and so that happens in September by

9:21 ↗ December we'll know of that ten million

9:23 ↗ dollar

9:23 ↗ location how much is allocated this

9:25 ↗ project and then in the fall of this

9:30 ↗ year and continuing to 2018 our

9:32 ↗ development team will be working on the

9:35 ↗ design and permitting and and during

9:37 ↗ that time we'll be touching base again

9:39 ↗ with Council to talk about more of the

9:41 ↗ details again so tonight's mo us are

9:43 ↗ non-binding so it doesn't commit to

9:45 ↗ anything we're but it has an intention

9:46 ↗ to go forward and do that so during that

9:48 ↗ that timing that process of the design

9:52 ↗ and permitting will will come forward

9:55 ↗ with an agreement that will come to as

9:57 ↗ much of a will be a development

9:58 ↗ agreement or just an agreement that

10:00 ↗ outlines all the details of the project

10:03 ↗ and make sure that we're all on the same

10:04 ↗ page so the other funding you know

10:07 ↗ securing other funding and doing

10:08 ↗ community out which outreach will also

10:10 ↗ happen in 2018 and this site is you know

10:15 ↗ different than just moving forward and

10:17 ↗ building affordable housing they

10:18 ↗ actually have to build the other site

10:20 ↗ for the relocation and then demolish and

10:22 ↗ start so the reality is that the Tod the

10:25 ↗ residential component and the mixed-use

10:28 ↗ component will be open anticipating in

10:30 ↗ 2021 so sounds like far away but it's

10:33 ↗ actually not too bad

10:36 ↗ any questions and general timeline and

10:39 ↗ then I taught here this slide talked

10:41 ↗ about so where the decision points for

10:43 ↗ the city so so we actually already

10:48 ↗ finalized purchase and thank you for the

10:50 ↗ King County roads property we did talk

10:54 ↗ to the Finance Committee in May and

10:56 ↗ we're going to come back to full council

10:57 ↗ talk in the fall to talk about the

11:01 ↗ multifamily tax exemption and at that

11:03 ↗ time we'll have a full analysis of what

11:05 ↗ that means and and as we are suggesting

11:09 ↗ for this to be a pilot site to adopt it

11:12 ↗ so I'm not looking at a larger scope so

11:14 ↗ here we are tonight at Landon Shore

11:16 ↗ again once the finalization for the MOU

11:20 ↗ is in August 7th and etc so the the

11:24 ↗ decision points are then starred there

11:25 ↗ so annexation will be a decision point

11:27 ↗ for you and I believe it's September and

11:30 ↗ and then if if they are successful in

11:34 ↗ getting funding from arch the council

11:36 ↗ approved that during their

11:37 ↗ normal process of that arch funding in

11:39 ↗ 2018 so okay okay okay

11:46 ↗ and so how fares from spectrum

11:49 ↗ development solutions will come up and

11:50 ↗ talk about EMI use so can how do we go

11:53 ↗ back to the schedule okay so just to

11:56 ↗ hello again and good to see you all

12:01 ↗ it's good to see you I know you get it

12:02 ↗ recorded that way most people can hear

12:05 ↗ me so that's not a problem

12:06 ↗ I wanted to just resize the schedule

12:09 ↗ this we the King County who has the Tod

12:14 ↗ funds they have set a set up a schedule

12:18 ↗ to make the funds available for

12:20 ↗ different set-aside areas is cause a

12:23 ↗ set-aside area bell red corridors to set

12:25 ↗ aside the Northgate areas of set-aside

12:27 ↗ there's a set aside for the des moines

12:30 ↗ area and then one around the pac med

12:31 ↗ hospital in king county realized that if

12:34 ↗ they put all of those set asides out on

12:36 ↗ the market at once they didn't have

12:37 ↗ enough bond cap 4% tax credits to be

12:40 ↗ able to support all those projects so

12:42 ↗ they had to go back in and look at their

12:44 ↗ schedule and stretch them out and Jen

12:46 ↗ and I went to a meeting where they were

12:48 ↗ looking at doing that and we said we

12:50 ↗ will have s qua will have land control

12:52 ↗ for this site in July we said and so we

12:56 ↗ will be ready for your application so

12:58 ↗ they said let's go with this quote let's

12:59 ↗ put them first on the docket so so

13:02 ↗ that's that's why does a push no it's

13:04 ↗ always was always the plan and we were

13:06 ↗ lucky that just didn't get delayed as

13:08 ↗ some of the other set asides did and so

13:10 ↗ what's what's real important is for us

13:12 ↗ to the RFP is supposed to come out this

13:14 ↗ month probably next week and it has to

13:17 ↗ be submitted on September 13th and we

13:20 ↗ submit for that and then we as the

13:23 ↗ collective we hear we have to have land

13:25 ↗ control so your annexation which is

13:28 ↗ supposed to be finalized on September 6

13:30 ↗ is really important because it's hard to

13:32 ↗ have land control when it's not even

13:34 ↗ part of this COIs yet and second these

13:37 ↗ the mo use which will which I will talk

13:39 ↗ about now we originally we're going to

13:41 ↗ have just one tri-party agreement with

13:43 ↗ Century Link the housing authority

13:46 ↗ ourselves in the city but we realized

13:48 ↗ there was a whole bunch of parts

13:50 ↗ agreement that century really didn't

13:52 ↗ have to get involved in they don't

13:54 ↗ really care how many affordable units

13:55 ↗ we're going to put on their site or what

13:57 ↗ are the amenities going to be or whether

13:58 ↗ we're building a core street so we

14:00 ↗ separated them into just two agreements

14:02 ↗ one that just dealt with the things that

14:04 ↗ were specific to CenturyLink and the

14:06 ↗ other ones which were a greater interest

14:08 ↗ to the city of what we are going to

14:10 ↗ develop on the Tod site itself so that's

14:13 ↗ why there's two agreements so that we

14:14 ↗ didn't have to drag CenturyLink through

14:16 ↗ all the other pieces

14:18 ↗ so this first agreement which is the MoU

14:23 ↗ between which is MOU there's two

14:28 ↗ agreements which I just spoke of one is

14:30 ↗ with CenturyLink it's focused on the

14:32 ↗ relocation site so as a reminder you're

14:35 ↗ annexing this piece of property that

14:38 ↗ you're going to talk about later today

14:40 ↗ but out of that there's a small piece

14:43 ↗ three acres out of the 20-some acres

14:45 ↗ that you're annexing that will be used

14:48 ↗ to relocate CenturyLink to that location

14:50 ↗ so we as the developer need to build

14:53 ↗ them their new facility and so we have

14:57 ↗ to reach an agreement with them that

14:58 ↗ they will agree to both what we're going

15:00 ↗ to build and the timing and when that's

15:02 ↗ going to get done on top of which

15:04 ↗ CenturyLink wants to make sure that

15:05 ↗ they're getting full value of their

15:08 ↗ property they entered into this with the

15:11 ↗ city and said hey we were supportive of

15:13 ↗ cities goals but that didn't mean that

15:15 ↗ they were willing to donate some leave

15:17 ↗ some value on the table they want to get

15:19 ↗ politely so we are in the process so

15:22 ↗ part of that whole thing which it says

15:24 ↗ in that MOU in the end we'll use we need

15:26 ↗ to get an appraisal done on their

15:28 ↗ existing site the Tod site so that they

15:31 ↗ know what the value their property is

15:33 ↗ that they're going to be leaving and

15:35 ↗ then we would get an appraisal done on

15:37 ↗ their new location after you know suing

15:41 ↗ that we built a new building on it so

15:43 ↗ the prese will look at our drawings and

15:44 ↗ say it's going to be about a thirty

15:46 ↗ thousand square building it meets all

15:47 ↗ these criteria and then there'll be two

15:49 ↗ values and they want to make sure that

15:52 ↗ if the value their land is worth more

15:54 ↗ than what they're getting then we would

15:56 ↗ pay them the difference the developer

15:57 ↗ would pay them the difference so the

15:59 ↗ city isn't you know is involved in that

16:02 ↗ but they need to they need to make sure

16:04 ↗ the gate

16:05 ↗ equal dollars there's no contribution

16:07 ↗ intended on their part and the city is

16:10 ↗ involved because they the city owns the

16:13 ↗ land and we spectrum actually buy the

16:14 ↗ land from the city or take possessions

16:17 ↗ out from the city before we can build a

16:20 ↗ new facility we can't build a new

16:22 ↗ facility on land somebody else owns you

16:24 ↗ know so we have to take possession of it

16:26 ↗ from title build a new building on it

16:29 ↗ and then we would give the completed

16:31 ↗ facility to CenturyLink after it's all

16:34 ↗ done and they approve our drawings and

16:36 ↗ all those so that's what the first MOU

16:37 ↗ is all about okay so one of the things

16:40 ↗ again

16:41 ↗ timing-wise is in a ladder keep on to

16:43 ↗ that schedule of 2021 even though it

16:45 ↗ seems far away you know many steps along

16:47 ↗ the way is that spectrum needs to do

16:50 ↗ some environmental assessment on the

16:52 ↗ property and CenturyLink isn't

16:54 ↗ comfortable coming having them come in

16:56 ↗ and dig holes until they have an MoU in

16:58 ↗ place right so so that's also an

17:01 ↗ important piece of the timing so they

17:02 ↗ can in the fall start to do that and not

17:04 ↗ delayed further so essentially has given

17:07 ↗ us approval we're doing right now as a

17:09 ↗ survey and the level 1 environmental but

17:12 ↗ they won't let us do the destructive

17:14 ↗ drill holes or take samples until this

17:16 ↗ MOU is complete so if we have the MOU

17:18 ↗ signed in August by the city then and

17:21 ↗ CenturyLink then we can do that work

17:24 ↗ before the application goes in on

17:26 ↗ September 13th so there's again a

17:28 ↗ tightness of the timeframe that has to

17:30 ↗ come together because we the the

17:32 ↗ application that's due on September 13th

17:35 ↗ requires that we have geo technical

17:37 ↗ information and environmental

17:38 ↗ information as part of that application

17:40 ↗ let's do on September 13th so there

17:43 ↗ isn't any kind of wiggle room in that

17:45 ↗ timeframe then the second agreement is

17:48 ↗ that the MOU that's between the city

17:51 ↗ spectrum and the King County Housing

17:53 ↗ Authority it's focused on the Tod site

17:56 ↗ what's being developed there how many

17:57 ↗ affordable units the length of

17:59 ↗ affordability the street improvements

18:00 ↗ building the core street the mid-block

18:02 ↗ crossing the other other amenities that

18:05 ↗ goes that goes into that and how that

18:07 ↗ all comes together so that's kind of

18:09 ↗ detailed in that and then just a over

18:13 ↗ you again for against to allow them to

18:14 ↗ apply for the King County Tod fund to

18:17 ↗ show that there that we

18:18 ↗ committed to providing them the site so

18:20 ↗ that shows side controls opposed to them

18:22 ↗ having to purchase it first so we took

18:26 ↗ both of the to mo use and we the what

18:29 ↗ sections are highlighted in red are the

18:31 ↗ ones that we thought you guys would want

18:32 ↗ to put your most attention on and the

18:34 ↗ first one is a city's acquisition of the

18:36 ↗ county property which the staff is

18:39 ↗ briefed on you'll hear a little more

18:40 ↗ about that today it's pretty getting

18:43 ↗ pretty well completed at that point and

18:45 ↗ then our expectrum Zach juez ition of

18:47 ↗ the replacement site you know and that

18:49 ↗ you you don't want to have us purchase

18:52 ↗ that until we've made a commitment of

18:54 ↗ what we're going to build on the Tod

18:56 ↗ site and and that's what the second MOU

18:58 ↗ does so the second MOU actually pulls

19:01 ↗ the first MOU in as a condition but we

19:04 ↗ did it that way so that CenturyLink

19:06 ↗ wouldn't have to get caught up in those

19:08 ↗ pieces the rest of them are a lot of

19:13 ↗ more formal communications exclusivity

19:16 ↗ we do have exclusivity agreement because

19:18 ↗ we didn't want to do all this work and

19:20 ↗ then have CenturyLink sell you know site

19:22 ↗ to somebody else comes in and you know

19:24 ↗ offers them ten percent more just out of

19:26 ↗ the blue so once they sign this then

19:28 ↗ they're locked into working with us all

19:31 ↗ the way through the Tod grant process

19:32 ↗ they can't you know pull the rug out

19:35 ↗ from underneath us at the last minute

19:36 ↗ and so you do have a copy of both MOU so

19:39 ↗ and if you have questions about those

19:41 ↗ other sections were more than willing to

19:42 ↗ talk about that but again we just

19:43 ↗ thought these might be the ones that you

19:44 ↗ that are most impactful to the city and

19:46 ↗ the decisions you'll be making so I did

19:48 ↗ read them and they're largely the same I

19:51 ↗ have a question about section number

19:53 ↗ nine and as you've mentioned the

19:55 ↗ agreements are non-binding except for

19:58 ↗ Section six and seven above section 6 is

20:00 ↗ investigation of the project site which

20:02 ↗ I understand but number seven is

20:04 ↗ communications and one of them in the

20:06 ↗ communications section requires

20:09 ↗ coordination on communication about the

20:11 ↗ project and it obligates the city all

20:14 ↗ the parties including the city to

20:18 ↗ accurately describe in public statements

20:20 ↗ that the Tod project is various

20:23 ↗ component components and present to the

20:26 ↗ public in a consistent thoughtful and

20:29 ↗ positive manner

20:30 ↗ so I don't have any issue with that with

20:32 ↗ regard to the city big sea but I just

20:37 ↗ wanted somebody to at some point maybe

20:39 ↗ before this comes before the council to

20:41 ↗ address whether the City Council would

20:44 ↗ be hot within that as well

20:46 ↗ I would think no but I think that's I've

20:50 ↗ not I've not only went our agreements

20:52 ↗ safe city capital C that include that

20:55 ↗ you guys and and typically when we are

20:59 ↗ if we're talking about the

21:00 ↗ administration it would be clear that

21:02 ↗ it's either the administration or the

21:04 ↗ city administration but what aagama

21:06 ↗ Murphy Wallops have said in the past as

21:08 ↗ if it says City Big C that's that's you

21:11 ↗ guys says the city of Issaquah that's

21:15 ↗ you guys so um I would like for somebody

21:19 ↗ to address that because that needs to be

21:22 ↗ I mean if that if the City Council is

21:24 ↗ bound by this communication vision and I

21:30 ↗ think that needs to be highlighted your

21:33 ↗ preference just to be clear would be

21:34 ↗ that's the city administration is fine

21:37 ↗ and maybe more appropriate given that we

21:40 ↗ munication typically come out from the

21:42 ↗ administration

21:48 ↗ when I read it popped out okay okay

21:58 ↗ I would agree with Keith when I read

22:00 ↗ this and I do interpret the capital C as

22:03 ↗ being the city but just like you said he

22:07 ↗ stration has a communications discipline

22:10 ↗ n staff and it's not too common that

22:14 ↗ council would be leadership or anybody

22:16 ↗ is okay we're going to do press release

22:19 ↗ let's sit down and talk about that

22:21 ↗ language I just in tight so I say that

22:25 ↗ because I assumed that this was the

22:26 ↗ administration and their communications

22:28 ↗ we can we can clarify okay that's all

22:31 ↗ I'm asking I mean we can all sit around

22:32 ↗ talk about how we read it but it doesn't

22:34 ↗ really mean much we need somebody to

22:36 ↗ tell us what that intent is general that

22:39 ↗ we are clear okay thank you okay okay

22:44 ↗ comment on that at a different comment

22:46 ↗ okay right okay so far as the documents

22:53 ↗ go in the content in the schedule I

22:55 ↗ don't have any particularly detailed

22:57 ↗ comments about that except the schedule

22:59 ↗ is hugely tight and requires us to do

23:01 ↗ things in really soft manner but the

23:05 ↗ documents themselves seem like you're

23:07 ↗ asking us to move through some

23:08 ↗ administrative processes so that we keep

23:10 ↗ on track so we get things done and find

23:12 ↗ with all thoughts my bigger concern is

23:14 ↗ that it's a complex project it's

23:17 ↗ different from all the other kinds of

23:18 ↗ projects as far as I know that we've

23:21 ↗ tried to do that give us affordable

23:24 ↗ housing and you're going to be coming to

23:27 ↗ a council of seven you guys are great

23:29 ↗ tag team by the way you really seem to

23:32 ↗ get this new understanding we do not we

23:34 ↗ have not looked in our housing strategy

23:36 ↗ and we have never actually

23:37 ↗ comprehensively as a council even

23:39 ↗ discussed what our strategy ought to be

23:41 ↗ towards housing if you want to make sure

23:44 ↗ this moves through with one touch you're

23:46 ↗ going to have to give us some sort of

23:48 ↗ primer in here about why this project is

23:51 ↗ different I heard this project compared

23:53 ↗ a week ago to the TDR request by polygon

23:56 ↗ which is entirely different type of

23:58 ↗ project and this was just the same kind

24:00 ↗ of thing and that's from a council

24:02 ↗ person so we don't know exactly what you

24:05 ↗ have on the table so we need that

24:08 ↗ information so that we all see that

24:11 ↗ kind of project this is and how does it

24:13 ↗ compare and I have some ideas I can

24:14 ↗ share with you Jen and what that

24:15 ↗ information might look like because we

24:17 ↗ need to be educated on this otherwise

24:19 ↗ you're going to have people getting

24:21 ↗ stuck and it's going to be hard for us

24:23 ↗ to make all of your deadlines right now

24:24 ↗ that's that would be a tragedy so just

24:26 ↗ FYI we did offer other council members

24:28 ↗ briefings before August understanding

24:31 ↗ that for them it's OneTouch for you is

24:32 ↗ too but so I'm thinking more than

24:35 ↗ briefings I'm actually think I'd like to

24:37 ↗ talk to you about what I think might be

24:38 ↗ some suggested content you might want to

24:40 ↗ include to get us all in place to get us

24:42 ↗ all understanding what we see here and

24:44 ↗ how is it different from what we've seen

24:46 ↗ before

24:46 ↗ but not having seen the draft housing

24:48 ↗ strategy yet how does this second eye in

24:51 ↗ and that was this meeting the mark good

24:53 ↗ so that was my next point and so I'm

24:55 ↗ actually working with Trish on the

24:56 ↗ housing strategy and said this is

24:58 ↗ actually one of the six points of that

25:00 ↗ addresses affordable housing and so you

25:02 ↗ guys are again come at the end of July

25:04 ↗ then that it'll be here so it's a

25:07 ↗ discrete project and again it talks

25:10 ↗ about this as a pilot for MFE

25:13 ↗ but it talks about the T of the

25:14 ↗ transitory development project so

25:16 ↗ there'll be more discussion around that

25:18 ↗ project in that context as well that's

25:21 ↗ great and the Eiffel 106 I think that

25:25 ↗ preliminary descriptions we got of the

25:26 ↗ project we're good but I don't think

25:28 ↗ council has a full understanding of what

25:30 ↗ this project is and so coming with the

25:32 ↗ tight timeline and this has to move on

25:34 ↗ this date and not having a housing

25:36 ↗ strategy I feel like we might be at a

25:38 ↗ bit of a disadvantage okay I can provide

25:40 ↗ you submit perfect comments thank you we

25:43 ↗ do have an all dan come up talk about

25:45 ↗ the housing authority the we do have

25:48 ↗ what's unusual in this is this

25:50 ↗ requirement to just to be able to submit

25:53 ↗ for the funding from King County and

25:55 ↗ part of we don't go into the full

25:58 ↗ details of all the nuts and bolts

26:00 ↗ because if if we were to get three

26:03 ↗ million dollars instead of the ten

26:04 ↗ million dollars a project probably isn't

26:06 ↗ going anywhere and so we can't fully

26:08 ↗ design this thing and put it all

26:10 ↗ together without really knowing what

26:12 ↗ funding support from the county will be

26:14 ↗ so that's why we're doing this MOU so

26:17 ↗ it's that's why it's non-binding why

26:20 ↗ it's really a policy document that says

26:22 ↗ this is how we're going to work together

26:24 ↗ and then once that application goes in

26:27 ↗ we can then start to develop the more we

26:29 ↗ will already his requirement of the prey

26:32 ↗ of the application we have to get the

26:35 ↗ site appraised so we will know more

26:37 ↗ information by the time we submit the

26:39 ↗ site will the little start to show more

26:41 ↗ of the cards on how it all lays out and

26:43 ↗ then we can work on the detail and the

26:46 ↗ staff can work to bring the rest the

26:48 ↗ council long on you know what is a city

26:50 ↗ really contributing in all the different

26:52 ↗ ways in which they contribute to make

26:53 ↗ the project work so this is really

26:55 ↗ approving a policy document knowing that

26:58 ↗ you get to see the nuts and bolts of it

27:00 ↗ later but right about making sure that

27:06 ↗ all of our that our council has a good

27:09 ↗ understanding of the basic form of the

27:11 ↗ project so we don't get hung up on what

27:14 ↗ the project is and that we do move and

27:16 ↗ follow this time fragile okay okay I

27:18 ↗ would just so I may make a comment I

27:21 ↗ think the mo used do a really good job

27:24 ↗ of laying out the basics of this we

27:26 ↗ understand the the land that's involved

27:30 ↗ who and their roles or agreeing with one

27:33 ↗ another or in between parties even

27:36 ↗ though it's interesting their three-way

27:37 ↗ mo use and yet there's very there

27:39 ↗ sections in there that just include two

27:41 ↗ parties right and but but I did find

27:45 ↗ that reading them I think does give a

27:48 ↗ very good picture of the moving parts so

27:53 ↗ I just that the kudos I do have I will

27:56 ↗ have when we at the Rope appropriate

27:57 ↗ time some very specific quaint questions

28:00 ↗ about some of the language so I want to

28:02 ↗ continue with you what your plan was and

28:05 ↗ we'll make time for that okay then we

28:07 ↗ were going to move to the next agreement

28:09 ↗ which is the agreement between the city

28:11 ↗ spectrum and King County Housing

28:13 ↗ Authority and we've highlighted those

28:15 ↗ sections all at Dan talk a little bit

28:17 ↗ about that agreement how it ties in the

28:18 ↗ affordable units and how those are

28:20 ↗ intermixed as well I'm Dan Watson I'm

28:25 ↗ the deputy director for the King County

28:26 ↗ Housing Authority we're excited to be a

28:28 ↗ part of this project but what's

28:31 ↗ important to understand is that there is

28:32 ↗ the affordable component of this is

28:34 ↗ obviously part of the vision that

28:36 ↗ was originally given to us but it's also

28:39 ↗ critical in terms of attracting the

28:41 ↗ funding from the county and we've also

28:44 ↗ put in other levels of subsidy I think

28:46 ↗ that gets it the question about your

28:48 ↗ ultimate strategy why this is different

28:50 ↗ than other projects because it's it's

28:52 ↗ the targeting it's the interplay between

28:53 ↗ the levels of affordability and the

28:55 ↗ funding and so we are really targeting a

28:58 ↗ workforce population at what is called

29:02 ↗ you know 60% of the area median income

29:04 ↗ and that's also attractive to find

29:08 ↗ getting the funding from the county we

29:09 ↗ were the recipient of three other fund

29:12 ↗ funding grants last year out of this

29:15 ↗ particular Tod fund so that's one thing

29:17 ↗ that made it particularly attractive to

29:19 ↗ us to work on this project in Issaquah

29:21 ↗ because it was well positioned to take

29:23 ↗ advantage of the funding that's being

29:25 ↗ provided through the county so what

29:27 ↗ we're looking at we originally

29:29 ↗ envisioned a hundred and twenty five

29:31 ↗ affordable units but some of the

29:33 ↗ feedback we got was that well let's look

29:36 ↗ at that per unit subsidy if you divide

29:38 ↗ that into ten million dollars and I

29:40 ↗ thought well the county sort of the

29:41 ↗ informal feedback was seems a little

29:43 ↗ high so we think we can actually make it

29:45 ↗ a little more efficient use of the site

29:47 ↗ and the podium deck by maybe bumping

29:50 ↗ that up to one hundred and fifty five

29:51 ↗ units slightly smaller units maybe a

29:53 ↗ little bit different bedroom mix but

29:55 ↗ that'll get our per unit subsidy down

29:57 ↗ and position us better but the creek the

30:00 ↗ critical elements is gaining site

30:02 ↗ control before September 13th getting

30:05 ↗ our whole application together with all

30:08 ↗ the various appraisals and environmental

30:09 ↗ work and that's absolutely crucial to to

30:12 ↗ getting the ten million dollars which is

30:13 ↗ crucial to making this project work so

30:16 ↗ it all kind of interplays amongst itself

30:18 ↗ and certainly we can get into a lot more

30:20 ↗ detail as to how that's all going to lay

30:22 ↗ out but this MOU doesn't get into those

30:25 ↗ specifics but talks about just the fact

30:27 ↗ that this is affordable and market rate

30:30 ↗ housing in one project with lots of

30:32 ↗ other public amenities and

30:34 ↗ infrastructure one we've been working

30:39 ↗ trying to make our application more

30:41 ↗ competitive and this is the application

30:44 ↗ for the king county funds and we

30:46 ↗ realized our cost per unit was too high

30:48 ↗ for that when we allocate everything

30:50 ↗ else

30:50 ↗ increase we looked at our building

30:52 ↗ efficiency the podium maximizing the use

30:55 ↗ of the podium so we can really take what

30:58 ↗ we're sunk costs or fixed costs like

31:00 ↗ building the roads doesn't change based

31:02 ↗ on how many units we're building putting

31:03 ↗ the mid-block crossing doesn't change

31:05 ↗ even building the podium itself doesn't

31:07 ↗ change if we can get more units on that

31:09 ↗ same podium we are able to spread those

31:11 ↗ costs over more units when we were last

31:13 ↗ with here giving you the general

31:15 ↗ overview

31:16 ↗ on the spectrum side we had twenty

31:18 ↗ percent of our units were affordable

31:20 ↗ between seventy and eighty percent of

31:22 ↗ area median income and but just for the

31:25 ↗ 12 year period of the tax exemption

31:27 ↗ that's going to go with it and that that

31:29 ↗ wasn't wasn't playing out as well as we

31:32 ↗ would like so we went back and looked at

31:34 ↗ our numbers and said we can make ten

31:36 ↗ percent of our units affordable

31:37 ↗ permanently affordable that adds 20

31:40 ↗ units on top floor the housing authority

31:42 ↗ is doing and that gets us up into that

31:44 ↗ hundred and eighty affordable units and

31:46 ↗ then really starts bringing that cost

31:49 ↗ down per unit so we have that mix we

31:51 ↗ always had a mix of affordable units and

31:53 ↗ market rate on the spectrum side but now

31:55 ↗ we've been able to look at those and

31:57 ↗ reduce the number but make them

31:59 ↗ permanently affordable to help really

32:02 ↗ make it a long-term affordable project

32:04 ↗ so that's how the application will be

32:06 ↗ presented put forth going into it and I

32:09 ↗ think you know this is probably well

32:11 ↗ beyond anything in your housing strategy

32:13 ↗ in one site it's largely gained by both

32:16 ↗ the Housing Authority's significant

32:17 ↗ participation in the project a lot of

32:21 ↗ their own money their own loan that's

32:22 ↗ going into this this is not just your

32:24 ↗ regular not-for-profit coming in as a

32:26 ↗ partnering on this they're putting a

32:28 ↗ substantial amount of their own

32:29 ↗ resources into this but also the

32:31 ↗ set-aside which is making it happen so

32:33 ↗ anyway it's said well I might add to the

32:35 ↗ one thing we are going you normally do

32:37 ↗ is we will put in an additional layer of

32:40 ↗ rental subsidies on a small number of

32:42 ↗ units um between 20 and 40 units that

32:45 ↗ will serve very low-income families

32:47 ↗ primarily it's part of an overall

32:49 ↗ strategy to get more lower income

32:52 ↗ families in areas of high opportunity

32:53 ↗ such as is a cloth that have jobs

32:56 ↗ services and good schools so that's

32:59 ↗ that's something we will do with our own

33:00 ↗ resources

33:01 ↗ so the

33:03 ↗ Jen skipped ahead here but the the MoU

33:07 ↗ between the city the housing authority

33:09 ↗ and spectrum the items you highlighted

33:12 ↗ our first replacement site agreement

33:14 ↗ that was the first MOU we just talked

33:15 ↗ about those ones then we have the

33:18 ↗ project site agreement itself where we

33:20 ↗ have the description the open space

33:22 ↗ community space the sensitive areas and

33:25 ↗ buffers around the site residential

33:27 ↗ units and density and the portability

33:29 ↗ that we just talked about the commercial

33:31 ↗ unit use is on the ground floor we still

33:33 ↗ have a continued strong interest from

33:37 ↗ the Bright Horizons daycare and the

33:40 ↗ northwest kidney center that want to go

33:42 ↗ into the into this facility and some

33:44 ↗ people aren't as enthused about the

33:46 ↗ kidney center and they remind us that

33:48 ↗ one in six Americans will have kidney

33:50 ↗ disease in their life so it's a

33:52 ↗ significant advantage for Issaquah to

33:54 ↗ have that kind of resource here to serve

33:56 ↗ your constituents we have the site

34:00 ↗ design standards which we'll get into

34:01 ↗ your design criteria parking

34:04 ↗ requirements which we're right now

34:06 ↗ meeting your code all of our parking is

34:09 ↗ structured parking on this site so it's

34:12 ↗ beyond what you're talking about later

34:14 ↗ today it does we are a little bit

34:16 ↗ concerned about this parking requirement

34:18 ↗ as it applies to the CenturyLink

34:20 ↗ replacement site which is in your urban

34:22 ↗ core and making sure that the parking

34:25 ↗ we're building there counts of

34:26 ↗ structured parking because if we have to

34:28 ↗ build their service facility on top of

34:31 ↗ parking or something it would not open

34:33 ↗ core that right right yeah so as you

34:36 ↗ talked about so council still has yet to

34:47 ↗ decide whether or not the Century Link

34:49 ↗ site will be and so the parking concern

34:52 ↗ has not yet been right okay I was just

34:57 ↗ reading ahead in your agenda I was like

34:58 ↗ yeah the infrastructure requirements are

35:02 ↗ spelled out what will ultimately go

35:04 ↗ spelled out in terms of what we're

35:05 ↗ having to do that's one of the big

35:06 ↗ challenges because as you develop the

35:10 ↗ Issaquah itself you don't have the

35:11 ↗ infrastructure roads sewers all those

35:13 ↗ kind of things are in place so that

35:15 ↗ makes the cost high and then our

35:16 ↗ schedule

35:17 ↗ we talked about the multifamily tax

35:19 ↗ exemption which Jen's says will come up

35:22 ↗ later to the council but that'll be

35:24 ↗ important part for this project to make

35:25 ↗ it work to be able to adopt that even if

35:29 ↗ it's a pilot project for this project

35:30 ↗ and I think she's going to get into that

35:33 ↗ later with the council not today but

35:35 ↗ another time and then the impact these

35:37 ↗ most of those are called out in your

35:39 ↗ current regulations already the impact

35:42 ↗ fees that are waived as a result for

35:45 ↗ those that apply to the affordable units

35:47 ↗ the market rate units still have to pay

35:49 ↗ the impact fees but the affordable units

35:51 ↗ are in your current regulations many of

35:54 ↗ them you do not and then we do know that

35:56 ↗ the core the street improvements we make

35:58 ↗ to the core street those can offset the

36:01 ↗ traffic impact fees that otherwise would

36:03 ↗ be paid because that's one of your

36:04 ↗ identified capital projects and that

36:08 ↗ when you it will be important for the CD

36:10 ↗ to identify we can help you do that is

36:11 ↗ is what is the city really contributing

36:14 ↗ with the waiver of all those impact fees

36:15 ↗ because it's part of this application

36:16 ↗ going into the county we have to show

36:19 ↗ they want to see that the city is

36:21 ↗ contributing as well that this isn't

36:24 ↗ happening just by the housing

36:26 ↗ authorities participation in the

36:28 ↗ county's participation and so waving of

36:30 ↗ impact fees is not consistent of all

36:33 ↗ around our Eastside cities Redmond

36:35 ↗ doesn't waive impact fees so the fact

36:37 ↗ that miss quad does can show as a

36:40 ↗ essentially a contribution being made by

36:42 ↗ the city is that it's a cause financial

36:47 ↗ contribution is the waving of the this

36:49 ↗ end MF to the land the segregate right

36:58 ↗ the MFT all those would count okay

37:07 ↗ but again humans we're doing that

37:10 ↗ announcement them will survive again

37:11 ↗ that information so you're aware of that

37:13 ↗ but that's something those are for the

37:14 ↗ impact fees is there a Inland code so

37:17 ↗ we're not asking for anything gift no

37:19 ↗ right so we would get a cost per unit

37:21 ↗ which is made up of whatever the MFT

37:25 ↗ contribution is whatever the impact fee

37:29 ↗ waivers is the land that's donated or

37:32 ↗ cash the city puts in we would know well

37:35 ↗ the city has contributed per unit

37:37 ↗ perfect okay I think that's all the

37:41 ↗ overview were having and then if there

37:44 ↗ are specific questions that we can't

37:45 ↗ answer for comment question okay so um I

37:51 ↗ know it's ahead on the agenda but how

37:54 ↗ significant of it of an impact to the

37:56 ↗ project requirements is that whether or

37:59 ↗ not the parcel the new centrelink parcel

38:02 ↗ is in or out of the central Issaquah

38:04 ↗ area in terms of impact to there the

38:07 ↗ cost of the project ever we I went

38:13 ↗ through your the intense commercial

38:15 ↗ zoning in the standards of design

38:18 ↗ standards applied to that looking to see

38:20 ↗ if there's things in there that really

38:22 ↗ don't fit given its location I mean it's

38:25 ↗ it's up there you know behind your

38:27 ↗ maintenance for the city's maintenance

38:29 ↗ facility behind the trailer park you

38:31 ↗ know those kind of things

38:32 ↗ in as a whole they weren't I

38:35 ↗ I was expecting to see a lot more

38:38 ↗ requirements that really weren't

38:40 ↗ applicable and I was it wasn't it wasn't

38:42 ↗ that extensive we're still allowed to

38:45 ↗ have chain-link fence is still allowed

38:47 ↗ within intent commercial you can put

38:49 ↗ barbed wire on top of it not that we are

38:51 ↗ intending on doing the Hatters I don't

38:52 ↗ think that means CenturyLink I don't

38:53 ↗ think they have that now so I don't see

38:54 ↗ why they would want that it does require

38:56 ↗ landscape screening if you have a

38:58 ↗ chain-link fence so there we might say

39:00 ↗ but you know that's applicable for the

39:02 ↗ frontage that faces when you come up to

39:04 ↗ it but when you get back in the woods

39:06 ↗ there you know is that is that a that

39:09 ↗ important so we had a provision in the

39:12 ↗ MOU that we would go through and look at

39:14 ↗ those and identify those kind of things

39:17 ↗ that maybe aren't applicable to come

39:18 ↗ back and ask for

39:19 ↗ exceptions to some of those standards

39:21 ↗ not having identified everyone we are we

39:25 ↗ are concerned as you were if you were to

39:27 ↗ adopt this into central Issaquah and

39:29 ↗ then add the structured parking

39:31 ↗ requirement and we don't we Centrelink

39:34 ↗ wants to have the parking we're

39:36 ↗ providing for them covered and secured

39:39 ↗ I mean walls all around or the roof over

39:41 ↗ it like a service facility like they

39:43 ↗ have now and we don't think we think

39:45 ↗ that would meet the definition of

39:48 ↗ structured parking as compared to a

39:50 ↗ carport

39:50 ↗ but that would be important to us

39:53 ↗ because we this would make sense to

39:56 ↗ build a service facility and have it

39:57 ↗ look like an urban project worth you

39:59 ↗ know underground parking or anything

40:01 ↗ like that

40:02 ↗ Thanks I mean they have five or seven

40:06 ↗ thousand square feet it's like locker

40:07 ↗ rooms for their crew you know and little

40:09 ↗ T 500 square foot office and all the

40:12 ↗ rest of it is for parking their service

40:14 ↗ vehicles that's what the building is

40:15 ↗ about so so those that we don't know

40:18 ↗ what we're I guess what our concern is

40:19 ↗ is what new provisions might be added

40:22 ↗ that we're not aware of that would it be

40:23 ↗ apply to this we don't know what that

40:25 ↗ those might be yeah well I guess we will

40:30 ↗ be talking about parking but later on

40:32 ↗ and even what's listed in there the idea

40:35 ↗ that such a yard would be classified as

40:38 ↗ office because the parking that we're

40:39 ↗ considering is only regarding office and

40:41 ↗ residential at least as currently

40:43 ↗ represented so doesn't strike me as

40:45 ↗ office yeah we'll get to that you know I

40:48 ↗ did the second MOU so I'm going to go

40:52 ↗ down to some of the language here and

40:53 ↗ make sure I understand sure that's what

40:55 ↗ this is really about is if you got

40:56 ↗ concern on language we are going to be

40:59 ↗ very a suggestion sir yeah okay I think

41:02 ↗ some of these are going to be easy and

41:03 ↗ down in there and paragraphs see it does

41:06 ↗ say in the second last sentence it does

41:09 ↗ say including destination businesses

41:11 ↗ just give me what's a what's a

41:12 ↗ destination business that would be the

41:21 ↗ it could be a lot of things so I did

41:24 ↗ definition I wasn't familiar with a

41:26 ↗ destination businesses as opposed to not

41:29 ↗ a destination I would say as compared to

41:32 ↗ something where you're driving by you

41:34 ↗ know old customers you know just

41:35 ↗ convenience so people might go from more

41:39 ↗ than just a immediate vicinity to get to

41:41 ↗ it so the kidney center would definitely

41:43 ↗ fit into that category where you're

41:44 ↗ going to draw from a catchment area from

41:46 ↗ Snoqualmie to they have a facility in

41:49 ↗ Bellevue so it's going to draw from a

41:52 ↗ larger area to come to that facility I

41:55 ↗ think it's an economic developer and

41:58 ↗ that's typically correctly so it's

41:59 ↗ neighborhood serving versus the

42:00 ↗ destination so even the daycare could be

42:02 ↗ destination because it's maybe people

42:04 ↗ from the highlands coming down so it's

42:06 ↗ not just serving that particular

42:07 ↗ neighborhood like a coffee shop may do

42:09 ↗ that so all right thank you for that

42:11 ↗ clarification onion paragraph II has an

42:15 ↗ odd comment in there it says even that

42:18 ↗ part of that first sentence it says

42:49 ↗ sure so the affordable housing will be

42:54 ↗ would be rent restricted or income

42:57 ↗ regulated so that would be fordable to

42:59 ↗ people making 40% of area median income

43:01 ↗ 60% market rate workforce is not rent

43:06 ↗ restricted so that but it's targeted in

43:09 ↗ our case we call workforce workforce

43:11 ↗ doesn't really have a heart and fixed

43:13 ↗ definition but it generally goes from

43:16 ↗ 60% to a hundred percent of area median

43:19 ↗ income is that is the income group

43:22 ↗ you're trying to target for that so but

43:24 ↗ it's not right restricted when it says

43:26 ↗ market rate that generally means not

43:29 ↗ rent restrict or not income restricted I

43:31 ↗ should say to who can live there so

43:34 ↗ people don't have to come in and say I'm

43:35 ↗ making sixty thousand dollars a unit or

43:38 ↗ making eighty thousand a year and I want

43:40 ↗ to rent this unit people can rent that

43:42 ↗ unit regardless of how much income okay

43:45 ↗ okay so if it said affordable and a

43:49 ↗ market rate housing I didn't change it

43:52 ↗ by down being the word workforce at all

43:53 ↗ is anything that's the same thing thank

43:55 ↗ you al you you you said earlier how

44:02 ↗ essential you said that the maybe you

44:05 ↗ use the word essential for the MFT e how

44:07 ↗ essential is it I don't think we

44:11 ↗ mentioned down in paragraph H by the

44:13 ↗ right we we submitted in our application

44:18 ↗ they we were asked to say you know how

44:21 ↗ important is this and if the city were

44:23 ↗ not to pass it what what would that mean

44:25 ↗ it's about a seven million dollar you

44:28 ↗ know economic present value of that tax

44:30 ↗ exemption not that's the whole that's

44:32 ↗ not the city's portion that's the entire

44:34 ↗ tax exemption the city's portion I think

44:37 ↗ we calculated is about a million to over

44:39 ↗ million dollars over twelve years is the

44:41 ↗ city's portion of that tax exemption and

44:43 ↗ that's a rough estimate

44:45 ↗ my part but that's that's really

44:47 ↗ important to us we we can't make the

44:50 ↗ market rate side of this work without

44:52 ↗ that multifamily tax occasion and and

44:55 ↗ just to be clear that the housing

44:56 ↗ authorities Kapoor Shammi this already

44:58 ↗ tax exempt so we're really just talking

45:00 ↗ about the market rate component here we

45:04 ↗ are under state law exam from local

45:06 ↗ property taxes housing authorities and

45:10 ↗ we can get into this detail later but

45:12 ↗ currently there are no property taxes

45:13 ↗ being collected on the CenturyLink

45:15 ↗ operation site so when it's more of an

45:17 ↗ opportunity cost of missing out on over

45:20 ↗ 12 years but at the end of 12 years the

45:22 ↗ city would then start to collect that on

45:25 ↗ the residential the blandest will still

45:28 ↗ be taxed so actually there'll be some

45:30 ↗ additional money we still pay the market

45:34 ↗ rate side still the portion of the

45:36 ↗ project not owned by the Housing

45:38 ↗ Authority still pays property taxes on

45:41 ↗ the land it's only the improvements that

45:44 ↗ are exempt and the daycare pays taxes on

45:47 ↗ the improvements it's not exempt from

45:48 ↗ that I believe the north is kidney

45:50 ↗ center is exempt from property taxes

45:53 ↗ because of what they do and the adult

45:55 ↗ family home if they were to go in

45:56 ↗ there's probably also property tax

45:58 ↗ exempt regardless of you passing the

46:01 ↗ multifamily tax exemption they would be

46:02 ↗ exempt anyway so Jen the regarding MFT

46:06 ↗ II good question that will come in front

46:09 ↗ of the council in the future will be the

46:10 ↗ applicability of it to market rate

46:12 ↗ housing this project meaning you're

46:17 ↗ saying that's what we need to

46:18 ↗ communicate

46:19 ↗ I'm sorry question for you is because

46:22 ↗ yes the call conversations I've been

46:26 ↗ part of about MFT E was about an

46:28 ↗ incentive to actually for to obtain a

46:33 ↗ affordable housing gotcha

46:35 ↗ right this context it's not it's it's

46:38 ↗ basically the residential so it kind of

46:41 ↗ helps to pay for right and so it's

46:43 ↗ giving you a tax exemption all the

46:45 ↗ residential portion of the market rate

46:48 ↗ again King County aside so therefore you

46:51 ↗ get your they're able to provide the

46:53 ↗ affordable housing and then the market

46:55 ↗ rate part of us they would be able they

46:58 ↗ would be

46:59 ↗ they wouldn't be able to afford the

47:01 ↗ affordable housing if they didn't have

47:02 ↗ that tax exemption on the whole thing so

47:07 ↗ I'm trying to figure out how to answer

47:09 ↗ that different accident' dan I thought

47:11 ↗ you said earlier that the units that you

47:13 ↗ would own if I'm saying this correctly

47:15 ↗ are already tax exempt there's no well

47:20 ↗ we don't really don't know what I'm

47:21 ↗ trying to say is that the MFT ordinance

47:23 ↗ wouldn't be essential to our component

47:25 ↗ of it but the the concept here is that

47:28 ↗ to be able to do an affordable housing

47:29 ↗ project if you will that has both market

47:34 ↗ and affordable oftentimes requires an

47:38 ↗ exemption on the whole of the whole

47:40 ↗ parcel that's the way the MFT ordinances

47:43 ↗ have worked in other jurisdictions where

47:45 ↗ that it provides an incentive to do both

47:48 ↗ provides so that works I understand now

47:51 ↗ I understand now it's the entire project

47:54 ↗ that would apply there would be a mix

47:57 ↗ your units would be tax exempt ins as

48:00 ↗ but this so coming forward would be an

48:02 ↗ EM FTE proposal for this entire probably

48:05 ↗ exactly so we don't have to rely on any

48:08 ↗ one type of exemption that the entire

48:10 ↗ project would would receive that so and

48:12 ↗ it's absolutely critical like like house

48:14 ↗ said in order to be able to even make

48:16 ↗ economics of this work and even then

48:19 ↗ it's going to be quite challenging some

48:22 ↗ of the you see a lot of the mixed-use

48:24 ↗ projects being built all around our

48:26 ↗ greater community all the cities and why

48:30 ↗ why it's a challenge here in this coin

48:31 ↗ why you haven't seen that action here in

48:33 ↗ central Issaquah there's two big things

48:36 ↗ one we have to build structured parking

48:38 ↗ to make this transit project look the

48:41 ↗ way it's going to look and to maximize

48:43 ↗ the units on the site and people don't

48:46 ↗ pay to park in Issaquah they pay very

48:48 ↗ little to park in Issaquah so if you are

48:50 ↗ actually building structured parking

48:52 ↗ you'd have to be able to get $250 to

48:54 ↗ $300 a month for each parking stall just

48:57 ↗ to pay for the cost to build that but in

48:59 ↗ insta Club I mean we especially given

49:02 ↗ where this one's located as soon as we

49:04 ↗ start charging people to park which we

49:06 ↗ will they're going to go find someplace

49:08 ↗ where it's free to park

49:10 ↗ which is on the street or in the parking

49:12 ↗ right next door so we the rents of the

49:15 ↗ unit's above are basically subsidizing

49:16 ↗ the structured parking and that's

49:18 ↗ something you have to always think about

49:19 ↗ as you add structured parking

49:21 ↗ requirements is the rent that people are

49:24 ↗ charging is what's subsidizing that

49:25 ↗ parking so that's one what's one

49:28 ↗ challenge here in Issaquah where

49:29 ↗ downtown Bellevue that people pay a lot

49:31 ↗ more to park downtown Seattle a lot more

49:33 ↗ in the park in our concrete cost just as

49:36 ↗ much here as it does in both cities the

49:38 ↗ other thing is we in in the valley of

49:40 ↗ Issaquah you have really soft soils the

49:44 ↗ ground is bearing soil is 55 to 75 feet

49:47 ↗ deep we have to support this structure

49:50 ↗ on auger cast piling or with a mat slab

49:53 ↗ and that adds to this site it adds about

49:56 ↗ two million dollars to the site

49:57 ↗ development costs that you would not

49:59 ↗ have on the highlands for example where

50:01 ↗ they have bearing soil that is upgrade

50:03 ↗ so you have an economic burden that

50:06 ↗ you're at that is requirement a building

50:08 ↗ in it in the valley floor that isn't in

50:12 ↗ the areas when you get away from the

50:13 ↗ valley and they have to we can't charge

50:15 ↗ more for rent unless people are willing

50:17 ↗ to pay it

50:17 ↗ which that isn't necessarily the case so

50:20 ↗ we have to make it up you know somehow

50:22 ↗ and those are the challenge some of the

50:25 ↗ challenges we face on this project you

50:27 ↗ need to Issaquah what we've heard so

50:29 ↗ thank you that's interesting for about

50:31 ↗ the soils so what we keep hearing is

50:33 ↗ that the market isn't right yet to

50:36 ↗ support that you know the kind of units

50:40 ↗ that were wanting with the housing and

50:42 ↗ so I don't know what that seems to be

50:46 ↗ the soils issue seems to be something

50:49 ↗ that I don't know what market is going

50:52 ↗ to I mean this is a I don't remember a

50:54 ↗ better market right so if we're not

50:55 ↗ going to get what we want now when will

50:57 ↗ we get it it sounds like that soils

51:00 ↗ issue isn't just on your site you're

51:01 ↗ saying it's in the valley but that

51:03 ↗ sounds like something that we haven't

51:04 ↗ actually addressed yet about how we're

51:06 ↗ going to actor that into how we get what

51:13 ↗ we want on the valley floor when we have

51:15 ↗ that unique circumstance right I mean

51:17 ↗ it's a it is a challenge everybody's

51:19 ↗ going to face how as they move forward

51:22 ↗ with their developments and they need

51:24 ↗ that's major that's brand new and that's

51:26 ↗ huge new information that we've never

51:28 ↗ heard not going to build on the valley

51:39 ↗ floor it's more expensive to build on

51:42 ↗ the bike and the retailers you require

51:43 ↗ we are fortunate that we were able to

51:46 ↗ attract two good quality tenants that

51:48 ↗ can take out most of the commercial

51:50 ↗ space and so if you have commercial

51:52 ↗ requirements this otherwise is isn't a

51:54 ↗ great retail location because you know

51:57 ↗ during the day there aren't a lot of

51:58 ↗ people buzzing around they're coming in

52:00 ↗ to buy things where people can pay rent

52:02 ↗ so as you require commercial on the

52:04 ↗ ground floor that you can't find the

52:07 ↗ economic anybody willing to pay it makes

52:10 ↗ it a challenge to develop so Atlas for

52:12 ↗ example doesn't have any retail so what

52:15 ↗ do you say it adds nine dollars what is

52:19 ↗ it two million dollars to your site to

52:21 ↗ our site what did you have like a square

52:23 ↗ foot yeah it's a 15 to 20 dollars per

52:26 ↗ square foot for the fund

52:29 ↗ it added premium for the foundation cost

52:31 ↗ the other factor you have to think about

52:33 ↗ is sometimes the land value itself can

52:36 ↗ be less right because of it right so

52:39 ↗ it's not like you're going to pay the

52:41 ↗ same amount here in Issaquah as you

52:42 ↗ might say somewhere else it has varying

52:44 ↗ soil rate so it's it's a kind of a more

52:47 ↗ complicated mix of economic factors but

52:50 ↗ I think the good news is or we have kind

52:52 ↗ of what's called a catalyst project I

52:53 ↗ mean it's why you have all of these

52:56 ↗ different incentives to get this started

52:59 ↗ and we hope that that will kind of start

53:02 ↗ to lead the way for the kind of

53:04 ↗ development that you want to see here

53:05 ↗ and as a qualm and you know and then the

53:08 ↗ land values at all kind intermix but I

53:10 ↗ think you just from what I've seen is

53:12 ↗ close got great opportunities for

53:14 ↗ residential development and for

53:16 ↗ affordable housing something you don't

53:18 ↗ see in too many other Eastside cities

53:19 ↗ frankly well I don't need to go down

53:21 ↗ that rabbit hole I just wanted to point

53:23 ↗ out that that was significant so I took

53:25 ↗ the floor from Paul because he had

53:26 ↗ questions consumer needs questions on

53:28 ↗ the n will you thank you and impact fees

53:30 ↗ and number five paragraph five it does

53:33 ↗ let the the IMC's at list cover school

53:36 ↗ traffic park and

53:37 ↗ fire you specifically call out traffic

53:42 ↗ so is the intent to waive all of those

53:45 ↗ school arc and fire as well as traffic

53:49 ↗ it's currently the IMC currently does

53:52 ↗ that yes they we specifically call out

53:54 ↗ the for affordable units so not the

53:57 ↗ market rate so we will still be getting

53:58 ↗ impact fees for the market rate units in

54:00 ↗ spectrums development but we called out

54:03 ↗ the traffic one because again it's in

54:06 ↗ this ti P so to kind of address that

54:08 ↗ because it's not so that so the traffic

54:11 ↗ impact fees for the market rate let's

54:13 ↗ say I'm just making up numbers and maybe

54:15 ↗ I shouldn't but if it's a million

54:17 ↗ dollars to build the road and they would

54:19 ↗ have to pay a million dollars into

54:20 ↗ traffic in fees that means they get a

54:22 ↗ credit and they don't to pay anything in

54:24 ↗ back seat if it's oxide to do their way

54:27 ↗ then they actually pay more you know pay

54:28 ↗ into the fund but less - the cost of

54:31 ↗ building the core Road so we just

54:33 ↗ pointed it out because that's again put

54:35 ↗ in our t IP currently okay again so so

54:39 ↗ fire schools and park you're

54:42 ↗ anticipating waving those as well those

54:46 ↗ are currently in the imce s for the

54:48 ↗ affordable units hold on huh yeah

54:57 ↗ so the IMC says at that 50 70 80 that's

55:03 ↗ what all of those all those references

55:04 ↗ to the IMC 3 69 71 72 and 73 so they are

55:09 ↗ are they affordable at 50 70 and 80% of

55:12 ↗ them right so our for the affordable

55:14 ↗ that in spectrum for instance is only if

55:16 ↗ we do the MFT is at 80 and the ones in

55:18 ↗ King County are lower lower 40 and 60 so

55:22 ↗ those do meet below those yeah okay so

55:26 ↗ maybe that's why I was not yeah get it

55:28 ↗ good answer yourself fall for that

55:38 ↗ all right thank you that was the extent

55:39 ↗ of my questions on the language thank

55:42 ↗ you this is definitely the type of

55:44 ↗ information and feedback we want to get

55:46 ↗ so that we are able to come back in

55:48 ↗ August with a more formal we're

55:51 ↗ anticipating we'd make red lines to this

55:53 ↗ document you got a draft of we have to

55:55 ↗ get sent we have not received

55:56 ↗ CenturyLink comments yet we have a Jen

55:59 ↗ and I have a call with them next week

56:00 ↗ and we hope to get their comments in

56:03 ↗ time also I mean we hat we need their

56:05 ↗ comments to this MOU before we come back

56:08 ↗ on the third because you go from there

56:10 ↗ to the seventh and we can't you know we

56:12 ↗ you can sign it we can sign it but if we

56:14 ↗ really get there find it we're not

56:16 ↗ getting very far so their questions oh

56:19 ↗ okay thank you I'm going to a call

56:22 ↗ thanks very much copper uh public

56:25 ↗ comment I think it has any comment this

56:27 ↗ is the time honey

56:43 ↗ so Connie Marsh and be way easier if you

56:49 ↗ had the public on board with this

56:50 ↗ because they knew it was happening but

56:52 ↗ the community outreach is active made

56:55 ↗ most of the decisions and typical for

56:59 ↗ the town but entirely inappropriate

57:01 ↗ because every time you all decide you

57:04 ↗ want to do something and then you

57:05 ↗ surprise the public with it then you

57:07 ↗ have to explain it all to them and they

57:08 ↗ get outraged that gee you guys decided

57:11 ↗ that you're going to use our money and

57:13 ↗ provide a tax break and we never heard

57:15 ↗ about it and now you're telling us in

57:17 ↗ retrospect that you already did it we

57:19 ↗ didn't know anything because you didn't

57:20 ↗ tell us so I think yet again you've got

57:24 ↗ it backwards

57:25 ↗ and it'll probably hit the fan again

57:29 ↗ which is too bad because this is one of

57:30 ↗ those things that would be nice to

57:32 ↗ happen we've just got to get out of the

57:34 ↗ habit of leaving the public behind when

57:37 ↗ we make these these deals I don't I

57:42 ↗ don't know how many times I have to say

57:44 ↗ that I don't know I'll leave the rest of

57:51 ↗ my comments to the later item thank you

57:55 ↗ next Steve

58:03 ↗ under pen steeper era 170 northeast

58:08 ↗ dogwood Street so a couple thoughts one

58:11 ↗ is I guess it's the proposed spot of

58:15 ↗ where the transfer development would

58:17 ↗ grow to and zoning of that which seems

58:20 ↗ to be at the base of sloped area has

58:24 ↗ some concern for me I'd very much like

58:30 ↗ the affordable housing some kind of way

58:33 ↗ those don't have a definitive answer yet

58:36 ↗ I think there's also an opportunity here

58:42 ↗ in when these things get presented

58:44 ↗ there's an educational opportunity for

58:46 ↗ anybody who reads the documentation to

58:49 ↗ talk about things like affordable

58:50 ↗ housing and 60 80 100 20 percent to

58:54 ↗ include that documentation and inclusion

58:55 ↗ so that folks don't get taken for

58:58 ↗ granted in can be informed of the

58:59 ↗ subject so I would like to see more of

59:01 ↗ that and documentation going forward

59:06 ↗ part of this I guess also and it's

59:09 ↗ looking ahead the structured parking

59:10 ↗ concern I would like to see structured

59:13 ↗ parking as part of this any time we will

59:17 ↗ lose trees or tree canopy that's kind of

59:20 ↗ what we're talking about is sprawl and I

59:22 ↗ would like to see that constrained

59:24 ↗ thanks thank you

59:26 ↗ anyone else in the public okay seeing

59:32 ↗ none we are supposed to be being action

59:38 ↗ on this I'm making a recommendation okay

59:42 ↗ yeah I'm waiting comments I mean I'm a

59:46 ↗ question question for you guys yeah I

59:48 ↗ have a question too okay

59:50 ↗ so we're going to be taking action so

59:52 ↗ now would be time for additional

59:54 ↗ questions and comments on the committee

59:57 ↗ okay let's start

1:00:03 ↗ start so Keith or Jen what is the plan

1:00:11 ↗ for community outreach and actually I'm

1:00:14 ↗ going to bring Hale back up as well and

1:00:16 ↗ we talked about this briefly but we are

1:00:21 ↗ planning to create a website that has

1:00:24 ↗ some basic information and it's helpful

1:00:25 ↗ to hear some of these questions so we

1:00:27 ↗ can address it we're getting actually

1:00:28 ↗ linked to show what is 60 and 80 percent

1:00:29 ↗ area median income is and then as far as

1:00:33 ↗ the design process I love how talk about

1:00:34 ↗ that and thinking the the timing of this

1:00:40 ↗ King County grant kind of interrupts how

1:00:43 ↗ we normally would have gone about doing

1:00:45 ↗ this and I respect what comment made and

1:00:48 ↗ not just about the economics of it but

1:00:50 ↗ just the physical attributes as well and

1:00:52 ↗ so we would normally ourselves host a

1:00:54 ↗ number of open houses to talk about what

1:00:56 ↗ the development is going to be and we

1:00:58 ↗ still intend on doing that we are still

1:01:00 ↗ at a conceptual design kind of a masking

1:01:02 ↗ density capacity kind of phase just to

1:01:05 ↗ make this application in we for our

1:01:08 ↗ submission for the to the city you know

1:01:12 ↗ we went kind of further with

1:01:13 ↗ embellishing what it might look like but

1:01:14 ↗ we really like to get input from the

1:01:16 ↗ community about what are the amenities

1:01:19 ↗ what how does it work how does it fit

1:01:21 ↗ into the community you know what does it

1:01:22 ↗ look like

1:01:23 ↗ and we're responsive to that so we would

1:01:26 ↗ we would given where we are in the

1:01:28 ↗ summer and when this application goes in

1:01:30 ↗ for King County we would probably start

1:01:32 ↗ that right after that goes in on the

1:01:33 ↗ 13th of September and then we would hold

1:01:36 ↗ a number of open houses from without

1:01:38 ↗ knowing how much money we're getting yet

1:01:40 ↗ but just so that we have that input from

1:01:42 ↗ them because we would like to go if we

1:01:44 ↗ find we get the funding as we would hope

1:01:47 ↗ for in December you know we're going to

1:01:50 ↗ want to go certainly with the design of

1:01:52 ↗ the new replacement facility and so to

1:01:54 ↗ the extent we can get public input prior

1:01:56 ↗ to that then we can coorporate their

1:01:57 ↗ comments into what we're doing as we

1:01:59 ↗ move forward so I would say this fall we

1:02:02 ↗ would take that up between the 13th of

1:02:04 ↗ September and the middle of December

1:02:06 ↗ when we get the you know the reward or

1:02:11 ↗ the award identification from them

1:02:14 ↗ great thank you their comments or

1:02:18 ↗ questions so the so the action is is

1:02:27 ↗ just approving going forward with the mo

1:02:30 ↗ use break finding mo use I'm sorry said

1:02:34 ↗ a last part the act the question for us

1:02:38 ↗ the legislative question is approval to

1:02:41 ↗ go forward with the mo use yes to

1:02:43 ↗ recommend to the full council for

1:02:45 ↗ approval yes true yes and so we do have

1:02:48 ↗ the opportunity to come back and on an

1:02:49 ↗ August 3rd but if you feel comfortable

1:02:50 ↗ enough we'll make the adjustments you

1:02:53 ↗ mentioned that could move forward oh

1:02:56 ↗ yeah yeah feel very very comfortable

1:03:00 ↗ with everything that you presented and

1:03:02 ↗ House answer to when the public

1:03:04 ↗ engagement might start my what it might

1:03:06 ↗ look like would be good still think we

1:03:07 ↗ need to have some sort of primer for the

1:03:09 ↗ four council members are not here I'm

1:03:11 ↗ not sure that just reaching out and

1:03:12 ↗ asking them as how questions is good

1:03:14 ↗ enough they actually think there has to

1:03:15 ↗ be more material in the package and also

1:03:17 ↗ the question about how is this different

1:03:20 ↗ than other projects we have improved is

1:03:22 ↗ very important I think for the council

1:03:24 ↗ to understand even though all we're

1:03:25 ↗ talking about is the MOU I think it's

1:03:27 ↗ important that they get that information

1:03:28 ↗ now the presentation tonight was great

1:03:31 ↗ you're really very very clear and

1:03:33 ↗ concise and I love the answer on the

1:03:35 ↗ public outrage in yoga what's one

1:03:46 ↗ huh yeah I'm comfortable with moving

1:03:48 ↗ boys yeah okay you know regular agenda

1:03:54 ↗ mm-hmm oh yeah where it says August 7th

1:04:02 ↗ but I mean are you regular or nothing

1:04:07 ↗ it's a regular yeah keep question that

1:04:10 ↗ I'm like check my understand now I think

1:04:13 ↗ they were looking at each other because

1:04:14 ↗ they're not sure okay

1:04:15 ↗ today again alright on vacation huh

1:04:17 ↗ it'll be me and a wig in hell all right

1:04:21 ↗ so whoever's their regular agenda thank

1:04:24 ↗ you very much thanks to Helen diem for

1:04:27 ↗ coming okay next item on the agenda

1:04:30 ↗ agenda bill 73 45 amending parking

1:04:33 ↗ requirements in the central list clause

1:04:35 ↗ development and design standards this is

1:04:38 ↗ also to be acted on tonight Lucy Foreman

1:04:46 ↗ hey where did you oh I know what

1:04:49 ↗ happened I'm going to start over

1:04:51 ↗ [Music]

1:05:07 ↗ okay good evening Lucy Sloman land

1:05:10 ↗ development manager so just to give you

1:05:15 ↗ a little bit of a summary I realized as

1:05:17 ↗ I was sitting here tonight that a year

1:05:18 ↗ ago we were doing the centralist claw

1:05:20 ↗ evaluation which led to all of this so

1:05:26 ↗ at that time we you know we evaluated a

1:05:30 ↗ selection of projects and seven

1:05:33 ↗ residential projects had structured

1:05:36 ↗ parking and all but one of the

1:05:39 ↗ commercial projects didn't have

1:05:40 ↗ structured parking the moratorium was

1:05:44 ↗ approved on September 6th and parking

1:05:47 ↗ was one of six items and that resulted

1:05:51 ↗ on the RFQ had two questions as his club

1:05:54 ↗ parked right or not and should

1:05:56 ↗ structured parking be required in March

1:05:59 ↗ we hired a consultant team Farren peers

1:06:02 ↗ and with a sub consultant of eco

1:06:05 ↗ Northwest on June 7th we were before you

1:06:09 ↗ and you present after our presentation

1:06:13 ↗ and based on the consultant work you

1:06:16 ↗ recommended leaving the parking

1:06:18 ↗ standards unchanged in implementing

1:06:20 ↗ structured parking requirement asked us

1:06:22 ↗ some questions we went off and wrote

1:06:25 ↗ code and presented that to PPC Planning

1:06:29 ↗ Policy Commission on June 22nd and they

1:06:34 ↗ recommended approval with some

1:06:36 ↗ adjustments to those requirements so

1:06:39 ↗ that's the big overview so just to take

1:06:42 ↗ a step back to what happened on June 7th

1:06:46 ↗ we had presentations by our two teams

1:06:49 ↗ Farren peers saved a lot just in case

1:06:56 ↗ faces triggered memories for you like me

1:07:00 ↗ so Farren peers said that the based on

1:07:05 ↗ their evaluation parking minimums were

1:07:07 ↗ set appropriately developers were

1:07:10 ↗ building Ward

1:07:11 ↗ and the minimum they thought there was a

1:07:13 ↗ low risk of parking spillover and that

1:07:16 ↗ we were going to see um on-street

1:07:19 ↗ parking utilization grow partly but

1:07:22 ↗ mostly because of convenience

1:07:25 ↗ Eco Northwest found that structured

1:07:29 ↗ parking greater than fifty percent will

1:07:31 ↗ be a challenge structured parking is

1:07:34 ↗ impacted by the type of construction and

1:07:36 ↗ development and that unique site

1:07:39 ↗ character is a characteristics sorry I

1:07:42 ↗ can't even read can it more easily

1:07:47 ↗ accommodate structured parking so

1:07:49 ↗ different kinds of sites can handle

1:07:52 ↗ structured parking more easily so we

1:07:59 ↗ brought you a very broad brush

1:08:01 ↗ recommendation last time which was for

1:08:04 ↗ office 33% structured parking over 5,000

1:08:08 ↗ square feet for residential 33%

1:08:11 ↗ structured parking and retail no

1:08:15 ↗ requirement it would remain encouraged

1:08:17 ↗ and the Planning Policy Commission so

1:08:20 ↗ the orange highlights where things

1:08:23 ↗ changed after their discussion they

1:08:27 ↗ recommended 50% for office same sized

1:08:31 ↗ buildings 50% residential they did not

1:08:35 ↗ have a requirement on retail that was a

1:08:38 ↗ big big discussion and they would like

1:08:42 ↗ the staff to return in a year to have

1:08:46 ↗ further discussion and we were

1:08:48 ↗ recommending with PPC and EB C to have a

1:08:51 ↗ more complete conversation so that's the

1:08:56 ↗ and the administration supported that

1:08:59 ↗ recommendation yes so this is the slide

1:09:06 ↗ we spent a lot of time on last time and

1:09:09 ↗ will likely tonight as well I've added

1:09:12 ↗ some things to it so we're done

1:09:16 ↗ never mind Oh so staff so the basis of

1:09:23 ↗ this

1:09:25 ↗ staff did an analysis of many structured

1:09:29 ↗ parking projects or many parking many

1:09:33 ↗ projects to see what kind of amounts of

1:09:36 ↗ structured parking there were looking at

1:09:39 ↗ office residential and retail the

1:09:46 ↗ percentages I think just to focus on

1:09:48 ↗ there's a high and a low which is I

1:09:50 ↗ think what we brought to you before

1:09:52 ↗ averages were 43% for office median of

1:09:57 ↗ 31 residential average 45 median 31

1:10:02 ↗ retail average 21 percent median 12

1:10:06 ↗ percent so at the same time eco

1:10:10 ↗ Northwest did their analysis looking at

1:10:13 ↗ our market and they were in general

1:10:17 ↗ seeing that somewhere between 25% and

1:10:20 ↗ 50% whereas where projects 25 percent to

1:10:26 ↗ 50 percent structured parking in that

1:10:29 ↗ range was where projects became

1:10:31 ↗ infeasible a lot of what we're you're

1:10:35 ↗ discussing is how to achieve the

1:10:38 ↗ Issaquah central squad vision and

1:10:41 ↗ avoiding unintended consequences I think

1:10:43 ↗ a big piece the policy decisions are a

1:10:47 ↗ big piece of what was kind of underlying

1:10:50 ↗ the conversation at PPC the

1:10:54 ↗ administration's recommendation of 33%

1:10:58 ↗ you can see that is closely aligned with

1:11:00 ↗ the median that we were seeing in

1:11:03 ↗ projects it falls between the range in

1:11:06 ↗ the range that eco Northwest had

1:11:08 ↗ identified and so it was a somewhat

1:11:11 ↗ conservative recommendation PPC was

1:11:15 ↗ interested in a more aspirational number

1:11:19 ↗ and so instead of being closer to the

1:11:24 ↗ median they're more at the average on

1:11:28 ↗ the public who spoke and the

1:11:32 ↗ commissioners felt that we should be

1:11:34 ↗ taking a bigger step

1:11:36 ↗ I think the administration and staff

1:11:39 ↗ felt that 33% was a more incremental

1:11:42 ↗ step that could be revisited you know in

1:11:46 ↗ the same way that we're visiting central

1:11:48 ↗ is claw out every three years with a

1:11:50 ↗ report that that would be an opportunity

1:11:52 ↗ to revisit that and see if we needed to

1:11:55 ↗ take another step

1:11:56 ↗ PPC as part of that aspirational

1:11:59 ↗ approach was recommending a bigger

1:12:02 ↗ initial step oh I have a question well

1:12:14 ↗ there's the recommendation is no change

1:12:18 ↗ in that sorry no change in the retail

1:12:20 ↗ now so no change in the retail I think

1:12:24 ↗ that there was um so from the

1:12:26 ↗ administration's perspective that there

1:12:29 ↗ was so if you looked at eco North's West

1:12:34 ↗ range was 20 somewhere between 25 and 50

1:12:37 ↗ percent which was like the other uses

1:12:39 ↗ but when you look at the projects that

1:12:41 ↗ have been built there's a much lower

1:12:43 ↗ average and a much lower median there

1:12:46 ↗ was uncertainty about how to not impact

1:12:50 ↗ local small businesses and how to not

1:12:54 ↗ favor say national chains over local

1:13:00 ↗ businesses so with that uncertainty at

1:13:04 ↗ this point there was an unwillingness on

1:13:07 ↗ the administration's part to put a

1:13:09 ↗ recommendation forward and I think

1:13:11 ↗ because of the information we had PPC

1:13:15 ↗ although they really wanted to establish

1:13:18 ↗ a percentage understood the uncertainty

1:13:23 ↗ associated with doing that and that's

1:13:25 ↗ why they asked us to return for a

1:13:28 ↗ conversation next year what does that

1:13:30 ↗ mean that I like a redevelopment with

1:13:32 ↗ retail then we just are going to

1:13:34 ↗ continue to get strip mall small retail

1:13:37 ↗ no I think that there well I think first

1:13:42 ↗ of all we are I think the central is

1:13:46 ↗ cause standards even before we put this

1:13:49 ↗ in place we're seeing

1:13:50 ↗ more structured parking we haven't seen

1:13:53 ↗ it with retail those have all been

1:13:54 ↗ pretty small projects in some of our

1:13:59 ↗ discussions with potential builders we

1:14:04 ↗ are seeing structured parking associated

1:14:06 ↗ with retail so I think as our land

1:14:08 ↗ values go up and to make moderate to

1:14:12 ↗ larger size projects make sense where

1:14:15 ↗ you're getting enough value for the land

1:14:17 ↗ to go through the cost and effort of

1:14:19 ↗ redeveloping structured parking is

1:14:21 ↗ likely but that is that is still we're

1:14:28 ↗ recommending encouraged which you're

1:14:30 ↗ right there is a risk there so could it

1:14:32 ↗ not be something like the recommendation

1:14:34 ↗ for office so for retail if it's over a

1:14:37 ↗ certain amount it's a certain size then

1:14:40 ↗ struck some sort of structured parking

1:14:42 ↗ some percentage would be required yes I

1:14:45 ↗ don't think we felt like we had enough

1:14:47 ↗ numbers to give us the same level of

1:14:50 ↗ confidence in establishing that what

1:14:53 ↗ would it take to get those numbers so

1:14:57 ↗ that so that so retail is a much harder

1:14:59 ↗ thing you know the as Lucy mentioned you

1:15:05 ↗ know even the tolerances on office how

1:15:07 ↗ many office projects we had to pick from

1:15:10 ↗ to look for what is the tolerance level

1:15:12 ↗ for structured parking retails it's way

1:15:15 ↗ different and so I know the concern that

1:15:19 ↗ you're expressing and that is and it's

1:15:22 ↗ the one off you know when we're talking

1:15:24 ↗ about bigger projects like the Commons

1:15:26 ↗ redeveloping or with a vertical

1:15:29 ↗ mixed-use project coming that will come

1:15:31 ↗ with structured parking it's the what

1:15:33 ↗ about the small remnant parcels that are

1:15:35 ↗ maybe on East Lake Sammamish or you know

1:15:38 ↗ what that's going to come with

1:15:39 ↗ structured parking they don't require it

1:15:42 ↗ because the only way that you can fit

1:15:45 ↗ additional development say on a fully

1:15:47 ↗ developed parcel like the Commons would

1:15:50 ↗ be to add structured parking because

1:15:53 ↗ you're taking surface parking lots to

1:15:54 ↗ build buildings with a verdict any

1:15:57 ↗ standalone vertical mixed-use project

1:15:59 ↗ you know you will to accommodate the

1:16:04 ↗ wired parking for all that density it

1:16:06 ↗ needs to be in a structure you just

1:16:08 ↗ nobody would build a big surface parking

1:16:11 ↗ lot with a five over one or five over

1:16:13 ↗ two so it's it's the small stuff it's

1:16:17 ↗ the could we get a another car dealer a

1:16:20 ↗ car part store or a you know fast-food

1:16:25 ↗ restaurant yes we could and I think if

1:16:28 ↗ we were going to go down that path of

1:16:30 ↗ saying how would we address retail and

1:16:33 ↗ those stand-alones I think you know we

1:16:35 ↗ would want to bring in probably a retail

1:16:38 ↗ consultant to help us understand that so

1:16:41 ↗ in in your package eco Northwest and I

1:16:48 ↗ can reference the page if you're

1:16:49 ↗ interested but they they they had a kind

1:16:52 ↗ of interesting discussion about so

1:16:54 ↗ they're you know they're they talk about

1:16:57 ↗ between twenty-five and fifty percent is

1:17:00 ↗ where the infeasibility happens but the

1:17:02 ↗ model that they were using was based on

1:17:04 ↗ twenty five thousand square feet of

1:17:07 ↗ retail and you know we're seeing

1:17:11 ↗ projects like you know the Taco Time

1:17:14 ↗ project or the corner bakery those are

1:17:16 ↗ significantly smaller than that and so

1:17:18 ↗ to get to the economy of scale where you

1:17:21 ↗ can build it is larger than most of the

1:17:25 ↗ projects that we've had and then to

1:17:29 ↗ factor in the kinds of the differences

1:17:32 ↗ in the market between the number of

1:17:35 ↗ projects that we have to look at for

1:17:37 ↗ office versus the retail which are all

1:17:40 ↗ these small ones that aren't doing it is

1:17:41 ↗ where we're really hesitant because

1:17:44 ↗ retail is such an important part of our

1:17:47 ↗ community and our character we know it's

1:17:49 ↗ a high priority but I think we're just

1:17:55 ↗ to avoid the unintended consequences we

1:17:58 ↗ just feel we aren't quite there to make

1:18:01 ↗ that recommendation yet

1:18:05 ↗ thank you for having this slide up I'm

1:18:08 ↗ going to ask something about office so

1:18:11 ↗ though it says between 25% and 50%

1:18:15 ↗ structure parking and office projects

1:18:17 ↗ becomes infeasible that tells me that's

1:18:20 ↗ a pretty wide range by the way right

1:18:22 ↗ that would tell me that some pro forma

1:18:24 ↗ stay at 26% it doesn't work and so to go

1:18:29 ↗ all the way to 50% with a recommendation

1:18:31 ↗ seems like we're pushing up against most

1:18:35 ↗ projects not being feasible if I

1:18:37 ↗ interpret the word that's on there so

1:18:42 ↗ one of the things that eco Northwest

1:18:44 ↗ pointed out is they are of course basing

1:18:49 ↗ it on all the information that they've

1:18:51 ↗ collected locally and there are a number

1:18:57 ↗ of variables construction type you know

1:19:01 ↗ the size of the site the type of the

1:19:02 ↗ soils you know all those many factors

1:19:06 ↗ that we see and I think that so part of

1:19:09 ↗ what they pointed out was that there was

1:19:11 ↗ a validity and then also looking at the

1:19:15 ↗ projects that we're seeing on the ground

1:19:16 ↗ as a way of sort of balancing their

1:19:21 ↗ their model against the realities of

1:19:25 ↗ Issaquah I mean that's one of the

1:19:27 ↗ challenges with looking at other

1:19:28 ↗ jurisdictions and other projects in

1:19:31 ↗ attempting to you know pick up code or

1:19:36 ↗ judge from that there are so many

1:19:37 ↗ variables and so what there's

1:19:39 ↗ essentially I think saying is there's

1:19:42 ↗ this wide range and when we look at

1:19:45 ↗ projects in Issaquah what we're seeing

1:19:47 ↗ is you know based on historical

1:19:50 ↗ information of the projects that have

1:19:52 ↗ built is that that the that they're

1:19:56 ↗ coming out at an average of 45 percent

1:19:58 ↗ and so while I understand your concern

1:20:02 ↗ and that's why we started at a 33%

1:20:06 ↗ conservative position the the Commission

1:20:12 ↗ was hoping for a more aspirational

1:20:13 ↗ number which is not unlike some of the

1:20:16 ↗ or many of the projects that we saw

1:20:23 ↗ to make sure I understand when we're

1:20:25 ↗ saying 25% or whatever these percentages

1:20:29 ↗ we're saying that the parking

1:20:31 ↗ requirement or the the total number of

1:20:34 ↗ stalls that a project is going to

1:20:36 ↗ require they require one hundred fifty

1:20:40 ↗ fifty percent are going to have

1:20:41 ↗ minimally have to be in structured we

1:20:44 ↗ actually would think that someone would

1:20:45 ↗ do a mix so typically there is a mix at

1:20:50 ↗ least some because you know you have

1:20:53 ↗ your you have your convenience drop-offs

1:20:55 ↗ you have like places where people want

1:20:57 ↗ to pull right up to the front go in and

1:20:59 ↗ do something really fast and come out

1:21:00 ↗ where as employees they can tuck into a

1:21:03 ↗ garage you know when you look at the

1:21:05 ↗ office that that's happened recently so

1:21:08 ↗ we have an application and now for

1:21:09 ↗ Costco it's going to be a hundred

1:21:11 ↗ percent in garage the office building

1:21:16 ↗ that was built on fort which is a

1:21:18 ↗ medical office building it's got its all

1:21:21 ↗ in grow well it's got a little bit out

1:21:23 ↗ on the surface but most of its in garage

1:21:24 ↗ the Gilman lofts project that you guys

1:21:27 ↗ just approved through a development

1:21:28 ↗ agreement it's all tuck under so it's

1:21:30 ↗ considered structured so so when you

1:21:33 ↗ look at and there's also a component

1:21:35 ↗ with office that you know if you're

1:21:37 ↗ trying to really if you say well you

1:21:40 ↗ know we don't have that much office

1:21:42 ↗ getting built in Issaquah period and

1:21:44 ↗ that that is getting built you know if

1:21:47 ↗ you want it to be you know Class A

1:21:49 ↗ office it's going to be structured

1:21:50 ↗ parked that's just part of the

1:21:52 ↗ requirement from Velma

1:21:53 ↗ it's part of the definition of class a

1:21:55 ↗ is it has structured parking so so I'm

1:21:58 ↗ not you know again I think whether you

1:22:02 ↗ have 30 or 50 I think either way is a

1:22:05 ↗ clause going beyond our pure

1:22:06 ↗ jurisdictions in terms of what we're

1:22:08 ↗ asking developers to do which is great

1:22:10 ↗ whether you want to take a more

1:22:13 ↗ conservative approach or a more

1:22:14 ↗ aspirational approach or something

1:22:17 ↗ in-between I think there's not a right

1:22:18 ↗ answer here I don't think that if

1:22:21 ↗ there's not a right answer I don't think

1:22:23 ↗ there's I don't think there's an answer

1:22:25 ↗ at least within the range that you guys

1:22:27 ↗ are talking about that would cause

1:22:29 ↗ developers to stop

1:22:32 ↗ if you go beyond 50 I think that that

1:22:35 ↗ that could be the case people would

1:22:39 ↗ choose to build either outside central

1:22:41 ↗ as a co-op or build other land uses that

1:22:44 ↗ aren't falling into this requirement

1:22:47 ↗ okay that's an interesting analysis it

1:22:51 ↗ does make me question the value of e

1:22:53 ↗ cone or sweats analysis if they're

1:22:55 ↗ saying between 25 and 50 it becomes

1:22:57 ↗ unfeasible and we're not seeing any of

1:22:59 ↗ that it does make me question that

1:23:01 ↗ entire analysis my other point would be

1:23:05 ↗ retail Lucy I think you characterized

1:23:10 ↗ the administration's initial proposals

1:23:13 ↗ at 33 percent as like incremental or

1:23:16 ↗ forget how you characterize that well I

1:23:20 ↗ said it was conservative and that we

1:23:22 ↗ could treat it incrementally where for

1:23:25 ↗ instance every three years as we do our

1:23:28 ↗ monitoring so why not do that with

1:23:31 ↗ retail because we're less confident of

1:23:34 ↗ that number I know you're not as

1:23:35 ↗ competent I mean you've just

1:23:37 ↗ communicated your concerns about office

1:23:39 ↗ but I think we felt that there was there

1:23:44 ↗ was less on-the-ground information to

1:23:49 ↗ back up the range that they were showing

1:23:55 ↗ between 25 and 50 percent okay thank you

1:23:58 ↗ and to be perfectly clear my uncertainty

1:24:01 ↗ has to do we have an analysis that says

1:24:03 ↗ one thing we have data from the field

1:24:04 ↗ that says another and we're leaning

1:24:06 ↗ toward the data on the field that's what

1:24:08 ↗ I'm questioning the value of the

1:24:09 ↗ analysis we have I I think eco Northwest

1:24:17 ↗ is a respected company and we're not I

1:24:20 ↗ think that I think one of the things

1:24:26 ↗ that we said to PPC and I think it is

1:24:31 ↗ one of the challenges they are a rather

1:24:34 ↗ data-driven body and would have liked to

1:24:37 ↗ have a very specific number and I think

1:24:42 ↗ what we're trying to get a sense of is

1:24:44 ↗ the ball

1:24:45 ↗ mark this is a something of an art and

1:24:49 ↗ not a science and so I'm not sure that

1:24:53 ↗ even if we had had a significantly

1:24:56 ↗ larger contract with eco Northwest that

1:24:59 ↗ they would have been able to say 33% is

1:25:02 ↗ perfect

1:25:03 ↗ 35% is not perfect so I think that we're

1:25:08 ↗ using a number of factors to try and get

1:25:10 ↗ us in that ballpark but because we are a

1:25:16 ↗ leader on in the in the region on this I

1:25:20 ↗ think that we are having to sorry we're

1:25:30 ↗ trying to make an educated guess okay

1:25:34 ↗ I'll just summarize it does feel like

1:25:37 ↗ guesswork and I don't know that we can

1:25:40 ↗ do any better than that right now

1:25:45 ↗ questions

1:25:53 ↗ ready for public comment the comments

1:25:56 ↗ time you have to you have to sing it

1:26:02 ↗ like that too if you're going to talk

1:26:04 ↗ about okay

1:26:07 ↗ ice-t Pereira so I guess this

1:26:11 ↗ conservative versus versus aspirational

1:26:13 ↗ concept is really kind of at the core

1:26:14 ↗ and these two things really banging

1:26:17 ↗ heads here it seems it's easier to

1:26:19 ↗ decide upfront what we want to be and

1:26:22 ↗ grow as a city versus later criteria

1:26:25 ↗ development to draw down what the city

1:26:27 ↗ that we want to become so I guess I lean

1:26:31 ↗ towards two things one is in studies

1:26:34 ↗ I've seen we're not going to be we're a

1:26:36 ↗ couple years out from you at the price

1:26:37 ↗ value where we get structured parking

1:26:39 ↗ and the fact that I heard today was that

1:26:44 ↗ and the soil type being different in

1:26:48 ↗ Issaquah Valley is different than other

1:26:50 ↗ places it seems easier to say wait and

1:26:53 ↗ put an aspirational goal on development

1:26:55 ↗ and so why not go towards the hundred

1:26:58 ↗ percent now before we build out and have

1:27:01 ↗ strips of parking strip structures it's

1:27:05 ↗ easier to say that now and put that

1:27:07 ↗ aspirational goal and build towards that

1:27:09 ↗ aspirational goal with policy it allows

1:27:11 ↗ us to have it if we don't get it in this

1:27:14 ↗ construction cycle 11 miles from sale

1:27:16 ↗ we're going to get that why are we

1:27:18 ↗ rushing it to make that wait the other

1:27:21 ↗ thing another thing anyway this seems

1:27:23 ↗ relevant is when we're looking at the

1:27:29 ↗ moratorium one of the things we saw that

1:27:32 ↗ caused us to put in place was not having

1:27:37 ↗ I guess we try to get development and it

1:27:42 ↗ was happening outside of the CIP and

1:27:43 ↗ another things happened to be happen

1:27:46 ↗ here that maybe we could put zoning

1:27:50 ↗ heightened restrictions aren't part of

1:27:52 ↗ the moratorium and I think zoning height

1:27:54 ↗ needs to be pardon moratorium

1:27:55 ↗ conversation and maybe downs on other

1:27:58 ↗ places so we restrict the sprawl needs

1:28:01 ↗ to be part of that conversation as well

1:28:04 ↗ and I also think that there does need to

1:28:07 ↗ be some retail structured parking

1:28:11 ↗ considered as part of this if that means

1:28:13 ↗ we need more fine-tuned numbers then we

1:28:16 ↗ need to have part of that otherwise

1:28:19 ↗ we're not going to get it where we need

1:28:21 ↗ it and we're going to have people

1:28:22 ↗ parking in residential zones or other

1:28:23 ↗ places if it doesn't come as part of

1:28:26 ↗ this if the structure is too small maybe

1:28:28 ↗ they pay some additional funds into a

1:28:30 ↗ into a kitty that gets used to build

1:28:33 ↗ structured parking not just having

1:28:35 ↗ sprawl of existing smaller construction

1:28:40 ↗ sites thanks honey

1:28:52 ↗ so I interrupted Lucy - sorry Lucy

1:28:57 ↗ because I actually wanted to see the

1:28:59 ↗ exact language of what these people were

1:29:02 ↗ asked to do and they were asked to tell

1:29:05 ↗ you about the feasibility of structured

1:29:07 ↗ parking right now and our CIP is a long

1:29:13 ↗ document and the whole reason at the

1:29:16 ↗ moratorium was because you didn't like

1:29:18 ↗ what was happening right now and so if

1:29:21 ↗ you if they are saying these are the

1:29:25 ↗ these are the percentages that would

1:29:29 ↗ allow people to do basically the same

1:29:31 ↗ thing that they're doing right now well

1:29:34 ↗ we don't like what's happening right now

1:29:37 ↗ and so what we want to do is get what we

1:29:41 ↗ envisioned which means that you would

1:29:43 ↗ raise those percentages even if it takes

1:29:46 ↗ a few years because we want a different

1:29:49 ↗ is equal we don't want a strip mall is

1:29:51 ↗ equal and so when people say

1:29:54 ↗ aspirational you know I want to just

1:29:57 ↗ spit because what does that really even

1:29:59 ↗ mean and it's such a good word to spit

1:30:01 ↗ on but if you look at our goals for the

1:30:05 ↗ central Issaquah plan it is clear that

1:30:07 ↗ we are envisioning something different

1:30:10 ↗ so I think you must go with a higher

1:30:12 ↗ percentage even at the cost of saying no

1:30:15 ↗ because we are terrible at saying no to

1:30:18 ↗ things even if we don't like them we

1:30:20 ↗ just say yes now Steve has a course if

1:30:25 ↗ we say no in the central is quad area

1:30:27 ↗ and we say yes everywhere else then we

1:30:30 ↗ are still not getting what we want and

1:30:34 ↗ that conversation has still not happened

1:30:36 ↗ within Council

1:30:37 ↗ so with this moratorium you do have a

1:30:41 ↗ magic moment with council to start

1:30:44 ↗ saying how are we going to deal with

1:30:46 ↗ strategically creating the central is a

1:30:49 ↗ quiet area that we want without just

1:30:51 ↗ having a doughnut hole and the rest of

1:30:54 ↗ town growth and that is a conspicuous

1:30:56 ↗ absence in your policy planning and so

1:31:00 ↗ yes I realize that is outside of poor

1:31:03 ↗ Lucy's presentation

1:31:06 ↗ I think the core of what Paul was saying

1:31:07 ↗ is no we don't want what you can do now

1:31:11 ↗ we want better than that and the

1:31:14 ↗ community expects you to go for better

1:31:16 ↗ and put the rules in place to make it so

1:31:18 ↗ thank you any other comments okay seeing

1:31:26 ↗ none any members a little bit question

1:31:37 ↗ sure so some of these comments provoked

1:31:40 ↗ a a question for maybe you see you said

1:31:43 ↗ it was a year ago that we gave the

1:31:44 ↗ report card that started all of this how

1:31:47 ↗ many office projects if there were six

1:31:49 ↗ that we could look at for the basis of

1:31:51 ↗ this analysis and residential there were

1:31:53 ↗ 14 in retail there were four today what

1:31:58 ↗ was it a year ago what what what what

1:32:01 ↗ has changed what would those numbers

1:32:03 ↗ have looked like a year ago we know and

1:32:06 ↗ maybe not just the count of the projects

1:32:08 ↗ but what type of what person we probably

1:32:10 ↗ weren't calculating I don't know if you

1:32:12 ↗ have your we selves across all types

1:32:20 ↗ this is this is in the city these are

1:32:24 ↗ not limited to central is Squa so for

1:32:28 ↗ instance residential projects are

1:32:30 ↗ probably evenly split or close to evenly

1:32:33 ↗ split between urban village and or is

1:32:38 ↗ kua highlands and central is quad there

1:32:41 ↗ I think there was one project that was

1:32:44 ↗ outside of either of those areas retail

1:32:50 ↗ was I have a retail had one project that

1:33:01 ↗ was before central is claw 2 projects

1:33:05 ↗ from central is Quan one from the urban

1:33:08 ↗ villages office

1:33:15 ↗ one of the projects is so one of the

1:33:20 ↗ office projects was under central

1:33:23 ↗ Issaquah some of the other ones are two

1:33:27 ↗ of them are in the urban villages and

1:33:30 ↗ several of them one was old town and the

1:33:33 ↗ other ones were prior to Central's cost

1:33:35 ↗ so we were looking over a range of years

1:33:41 ↗ and a range of areas to try and look at

1:33:46 ↗ what was happening in Issaquah not just

1:33:49 ↗ in centralist car so I you know if we go

1:34:03 ↗ back and look there were seven

1:34:06 ↗ non-residential projects that would have

1:34:10 ↗ been a combination of office and retail

1:34:13 ↗ and only one of those which was the

1:34:16 ↗ storage building had any structured

1:34:20 ↗ parking and of the residential projects

1:34:23 ↗ which of course we're all under central

1:34:25 ↗ is cloth all of them had some portion

1:34:29 ↗ and actually I think if I look at them

1:34:34 ↗ they ranged from about 30% with Gateway

1:34:40 ↗ senior that was the lowest one Gateway

1:34:42 ↗ was the second at about 35 and then they

1:34:47 ↗ ranged all the way up to 100% in

1:34:52 ↗ central's cloth

1:34:59 ↗ so um office yes of the six projects

1:35:04 ↗ looked at average in structured parking

1:35:08 ↗ 43% of the parking was in structured

1:35:10 ↗ parking right so dozens of the six

1:35:16 ↗ projects three of them did not have any

1:35:22 ↗ structured parking one of those is a

1:35:25 ↗ fairly large building the other two

1:35:27 ↗ would have fallen outside below this

1:35:30 ↗ 5000 square foot threshold so I don't I

1:35:37 ↗ didn't do that cocky I did a calculation

1:35:39 ↗ for how much the percentage of

1:35:41 ↗ structured parking for the projects that

1:35:43 ↗ were structured but not for the projects

1:35:45 ↗ that would have been about 5,000 that

1:35:48 ↗ would have made sense but I didn't think

1:35:49 ↗ of that recommendation would be to up at

1:35:51 ↗ 57% basically from the median be percent

1:35:57 ↗ 17% well from 4300 oh I see important

1:36:02 ↗ what did I say you use that you said the

1:36:04 ↗ right thing I was going from 33 to 50

1:36:06 ↗ instead of 43 at 50 um I'm uncomfortable

1:36:15 ↗ I guess I'm with a retail and that just

1:36:20 ↗ seems to not get us where we're trying

1:36:22 ↗ to go don't know what the answer is

1:36:25 ↗ because told we don't have the data

1:36:29 ↗ information we need so I don't know what

1:36:31 ↗ that means unless we grab some number

1:36:34 ↗ but

1:36:38 ↗ so if you think it's a retail just spend

1:36:43 ↗ a few minutes and see if you guys get

1:36:44 ↗ comfortable or you can handle the other

1:36:46 ↗ two and then end in retail I mean so

1:36:49 ↗ think about retail and how you shop and

1:36:52 ↗ right now you know where where do you

1:36:56 ↗ have retail experiences with structured

1:36:58 ↗ parking so grand rich Plaza so fairly

1:37:01 ↗ big l-square any of the other malls you

1:37:04 ↗ know they're structured parking but most

1:37:07 ↗ of the retail experiences we all have we

1:37:11 ↗ go to Target we go to you know Trader

1:37:13 ↗ Joe's we do these things their surface

1:37:15 ↗ parked right now and so what we don't

1:37:18 ↗ have a comfort level with is by

1:37:20 ↗ mandating um structured parking with

1:37:24 ↗ retail what does that do to our retail

1:37:27 ↗ market and our retail market is

1:37:29 ↗ obviously important to the economic

1:37:32 ↗ vitality of our community and so that

1:37:35 ↗ one is seems perilous without having

1:37:40 ↗ more information to make a good decision

1:37:42 ↗ I think the likelihood that we could

1:37:44 ↗ have an unintended consequence with

1:37:45 ↗ retail is a lot bigger than the other

1:37:48 ↗ two land uses or you put a number on it

1:37:52 ↗ you put a requirement on it now that's

1:37:55 ↗ no somewhere between 25 and 50 percent

1:37:58 ↗ and it has the effect of slowing while

1:38:04 ↗ you study that further oh I mean we have

1:38:08 ↗ to waste it on yeah but so I don't know

1:38:15 ↗ that it needs to be zero between zero

1:38:16 ↗ and 100 and I don't know if it's a no I

1:38:22 ↗ think cool what we heard in what Steve

1:38:27 ↗ said you know why do I rush to get what

1:38:28 ↗ we don't want I mean that's for my heart

1:38:34 ↗ furnace

1:38:35 ↗ so and of course I found it the first

1:38:41 ↗ time you know I think that the that what

1:38:47 ↗ eco Northwest was saying was that it's

1:38:51 ↗ on page 98 in your packets was that what

1:38:55 ↗ they were evaluating for the 25 to 50

1:39:00 ↗ percent that where that came from was a

1:39:02 ↗ twenty five thousand square foot retail

1:39:04 ↗ space and then the projects that were

1:39:10 ↗ looking at you know only two of them

1:39:17 ↗ fell above that one was grand Ridge

1:39:21 ↗ Plaza which had about 25 percent

1:39:24 ↗ structured parking and then over lake

1:39:28 ↗ had about 12 percent structured parking

1:39:32 ↗ so I think there are things with that I

1:39:36 ↗ think there are things that we can

1:39:37 ↗ probably do to know maybe its retail

1:39:42 ↗ over certain size but again this is one

1:39:48 ↗ of those things where this is not my

1:39:50 ↗ does not my wheelhouse this is not my

1:39:53 ↗ profession and so I'm uncomfortable just

1:39:56 ↗ you know creating language that sounds

1:39:58 ↗ reasonable to me when I don't have that

1:40:03 ↗ information that I need to make that

1:40:05 ↗ decision sure what's wrong with going

1:40:10 ↗ back to eco Northwest and saying council

1:40:12 ↗ wants to know what could go wrong if

1:40:15 ↗ they picked a 50% requirement for retail

1:40:18 ↗ over 25,000 eco Northwest is not a

1:40:21 ↗ retail expert and so I wouldn't use them

1:40:25 ↗ yeah you know there are companies like

1:40:27 ↗ real retail that would be a better

1:40:29 ↗ measure for that you know I guess I

1:40:32 ↗ would say that this was debated for a

1:40:35 ↗ long time at PPC and I think at the end

1:40:38 ↗ of the day they felt uncomfortable and

1:40:40 ↗ your staff is uncomfortable putting a

1:40:44 ↗ number on

1:40:45 ↗ because I think that it will have some

1:40:47 ↗ unintended consequences and you know

1:40:50 ↗ obviously the council can do what they

1:40:52 ↗ want to do but the recommendation coming

1:40:54 ↗ both from PPP and the administration is

1:40:56 ↗ zero for retail are there other places

1:40:58 ↗ in that Fugit sound reason other

1:41:00 ↗ jurisdictions that require structured

1:41:02 ↗ parking to some degree on detail of

1:41:04 ↗ certain size perhaps or so not in that

1:41:08 ↗ way so right now so there is a

1:41:10 ↗ structured parking requirement I believe

1:41:12 ↗ of some sort coming out of spring

1:41:14 ↗ district but right now Federal Way has

1:41:19 ↗ had proposed legislation that is still

1:41:22 ↗ pending and doesn't seem to be moving

1:41:25 ↗ and that's just that's only for

1:41:28 ↗ multifamily Federal Way it's supposed to

1:41:30 ↗ be our big competition who was bring

1:41:33 ↗ down Drake and Dahlia maybe we need to

1:41:36 ↗ find out what one just a question - so

1:41:41 ↗ you've had some small retail projects

1:41:44 ↗ redevelop and I have to say I actually

1:41:45 ↗ think the work that you did with Corner

1:41:47 ↗ Bakery and Donald - coorporate and Taco

1:41:51 ↗ Time anyone to incorporate some of those

1:41:53 ↗ elements of site design and I think

1:41:55 ↗ they're good I think it worked I guess

1:41:58 ↗ I'm kind of stuck in this place is that

1:42:00 ↗ we're not going to from what Steve said

1:42:01 ↗ we're not going to go from where we are

1:42:03 ↗ to you know something really quickly

1:42:05 ↗ that is that looks exactly like the

1:42:07 ↗ stuff that's that's the end of the

1:42:08 ↗ central plan so I'm I'm sort of stuck in

1:42:12 ↗ the places we can put something in it

1:42:15 ↗ still allows the smaller retails to go

1:42:17 ↗ ahead and get their permits and do their

1:42:19 ↗ upgrades great I'm kind of still

1:42:22 ↗ shell-shocked by what's happened over

1:42:24 ↗ the first three years and and I'm I'm

1:42:26 ↗ not convinced that being aspirational is

1:42:30 ↗ a bad thing we could just be

1:42:31 ↗ aspirational for a year you can ask for

1:42:34 ↗ more money to go out and do a resale

1:42:35 ↗ study like I'm not I'm not sure when I

1:42:38 ↗ look at what what I think we've lost in

1:42:40 ↗ terms of our opportunity in centralist

1:42:42 ↗ across I'm not sure I convinced I want

1:42:45 ↗ to lead something that limsa game

1:42:47 ↗ because I think we've not done or not

1:42:51 ↗ allowed it to develop in a way that the

1:42:53 ↗ community path is going to develop

1:42:54 ↗ I'm kind of leaning on the sides

1:42:56 ↗ something in there based on larger

1:43:00 ↗ stores and they have to provide that

1:43:02 ↗ much structured parking and we'll look

1:43:04 ↗ at it me or if you need money fine-tune

1:43:06 ↗ that number then aspirin and a budget

1:43:08 ↗ cycle pretty gun-shy right now so I'm

1:43:11 ↗ kind of even though staff and PPC is

1:43:14 ↗ saying they don't have enough

1:43:15 ↗ information

1:43:16 ↗ I'm just looking down the road and

1:43:17 ↗ saying we're going to somebody's retail

1:43:19 ↗ it's going to redo itself a couple of

1:43:21 ↗ times at least once maybe before we get

1:43:24 ↗ maybe to look we're looking forward so

1:43:26 ↗ I'm just I don't know I'm not feeling

1:43:28 ↗ zero I'm going there what number what

1:43:36 ↗ number where would you go

1:43:37 ↗ let me have us I think if based on the

1:43:41 ↗ kind of stock that has been coming in

1:43:43 ↗ the projects that you're looking at

1:43:44 ↗ they're coming in if they're not hanging

1:43:46 ↗ the 25,000 mark and you're not thinking

1:43:49 ↗ that we have we're going to get out it's

1:43:51 ↗ more time and people are going to go

1:43:52 ↗ look what they just did

1:43:54 ↗ then then let's start with the larger

1:43:56 ↗ store let's start with the 25,000 it

1:43:59 ↗ just I just I don't want anymore

1:44:02 ↗ antennae want anymore you know as I

1:44:06 ↗ guess where I'm going with it so I just

1:44:07 ↗ don't feel like leaving English goal is

1:44:10 ↗ an avoidant ending consequences and

1:44:13 ↗ we've had a lot of them so I'm not super

1:44:17 ↗ concerned about an intended consequence

1:44:19 ↗ of someone developing elsewhere right

1:44:24 ↗ now because we asked for we require what

1:44:28 ↗ we want that's where we are we on the

1:44:34 ↗ other office and residential leave did I

1:44:36 ↗ like fifty fifty fifty so we either you

1:44:38 ↗ have questions about that no I like to

1:44:40 ↗ see an action just like mixed comment

1:44:42 ↗ that it sounds being sounds like it was

1:44:44 ↗ long at PPC and involved I probably

1:44:47 ↗ won't get a chance to watch it it sounds

1:44:49 ↗ impressive sounds like they really dig

1:44:51 ↗ down and they really were trying to

1:44:53 ↗ listen to it the community it said about

1:44:54 ↗ the moratorium and what we built that's

1:44:56 ↗ awesome that is really good

1:44:58 ↗ well and it's the kind of conversation

1:45:01 ↗ that when you are trying to lead

1:45:03 ↗ something that you're talking about how

1:45:07 ↗ to use

1:45:08 ↗ what are the criteria you using to make

1:45:13 ↗ a community decision and that's that you

1:45:15 ↗ know conservative versus aspirational

1:45:18 ↗ incremental versus big steps I mean

1:45:20 ↗ that's the kind of conversation that

1:45:23 ↗ needed to happen I would propose that we

1:45:29 ↗ have to picture I'm sorry

1:45:32 ↗ I wouldn't propose that we have to put

1:45:33 ↗ in some sort of percentage for retail

1:45:34 ↗ and that it should be related to the

1:45:36 ↗ square footage before the so then the

1:45:42 ↗ question is do we come up with that now

1:45:45 ↗ or do we ask us to come back this time

1:45:46 ↗ back to them I guess the first have to

1:45:53 ↗ come back with it you've already kind of

1:45:55 ↗ got a recommendation and without any

1:45:57 ↗ more data or any more dollars to ask

1:46:00 ↗ questions of the members

1:46:01 ↗ what would you come back with it's

1:46:03 ↗ different than what you have nothing so

1:46:10 ↗ I mean you know so there's there's two

1:46:13 ↗ variables that you guys are debating on

1:46:15 ↗ retail how big is the building that

1:46:17 ↗ would be exempt and then with the

1:46:19 ↗ percentage of required structured

1:46:21 ↗ parking so you know I think that that's

1:46:26 ↗ a whole kind of spin off work project in

1:46:30 ↗ and of itself that we would ask you guys

1:46:34 ↗ for a budget appropriation for 2018 if

1:46:38 ↗ that's what you want to do so you

1:46:42 ↗ wouldn't come back with a different

1:46:43 ↗ number but council putting in that

1:46:44 ↗ recommendation would generate a project

1:46:46 ↗ with some touch it up okay fair enough

1:46:49 ↗ so just to get it started 25,000 square

1:46:54 ↗ feet 50%

1:46:59 ↗ that stab in the dark I haven't heard

1:47:02 ↗ staff say you know there you want to

1:47:03 ↗ kill retail do this and and and that's

1:47:07 ↗ probably the wrong way to phrase it but

1:47:10 ↗ to that and because it assumes that you

1:47:14 ↗ just you know that you know now is the

1:47:17 ↗ time

1:47:18 ↗ I haven't yet you haven't said anything

1:47:20 ↗ that you said will absolutely you know

1:47:22 ↗ create economic you know education

1:47:26 ↗ stagnation or dead zones it's okay you

1:47:28 ↗ just need work we'll do it so what'll

1:47:30 ↗ happen we can always remember what we've

1:47:33 ↗ had a central Issaquah plan it was oh

1:47:34 ↗ but we can Kearney can work on it we can

1:47:37 ↗ change the code and so we could do the

1:47:38 ↗ same thing so put something in here and

1:47:40 ↗ then we come and then we study it and in

1:47:43 ↗ a year if you want to change it yeah so

1:47:47 ↗ what would happen is most and I'm just I

1:47:49 ↗ don't have a crystal ball right so what

1:47:51 ↗ would happen is whatever you set that

1:47:52 ↗ number at twenty-five thousand square

1:47:54 ↗ feet and thousand square feet somebody

1:47:57 ↗ wanting to build something will pick a

1:47:59 ↗ thousand square feet less than that not

1:48:02 ↗ do the structured parking that's that's

1:48:04 ↗ what will happen the market will drive

1:48:07 ↗ that decision well you could say that

1:48:10 ↗ about any clinician we pick and so

1:48:14 ↗ that's exactly what happened what's

1:48:15 ↗ going on in the office one two and we're

1:48:17 ↗ going to pick five thousand square feet

1:48:19 ↗ inside had five thousand one right so I

1:48:22 ↗ don't understand why I don't understand

1:48:24 ↗ why it's such a rate of Horrible's with

1:48:27 ↗ the retail well because I think with

1:48:29 ↗ office we are we've seen projects that

1:48:33 ↗ when it was voluntary we're doing this

1:48:37 ↗ and so we that not every project it so

1:48:43 ↗ there are small projects that are not

1:48:44 ↗ doing it there are you know last century

1:48:48 ↗ projects that are not doing it you know

1:48:51 ↗ probably Pro Alliance up it we didn't

1:48:55 ↗ evaluate Swedish that's too complicated

1:48:57 ↗ because it's mo B and hospital and so

1:49:02 ↗ there are certain uses we aren't

1:49:04 ↗ involved with in this but ProLiant is

1:49:07 ↗ probably the biggest building that

1:49:09 ↗ didn't provide any structured parking

1:49:11 ↗ and

1:49:12 ↗ I think we all think that would probably

1:49:14 ↗ have been better if it you know did have

1:49:16 ↗ that and it's a fifty thousand square

1:49:19 ↗ foot building

1:49:20 ↗ so I think that what we what we're

1:49:24 ↗ seeing is that we have some we have both

1:49:28 ↗ eco Northwest data and on boots on the

1:49:32 ↗ ground and it's a quad data that make us

1:49:35 ↗ feel more comfortable making that

1:49:37 ↗ recommendation than we would with retail

1:49:40 ↗ and I understand your concern and but

1:49:47 ↗ that's just why we have less certainty

1:49:49 ↗ about that

1:49:50 ↗ what's the cycle the twenty five so give

1:49:51 ↗ me an example of a twenty five thousand

1:49:53 ↗ square foot retail so here's here's a

1:49:55 ↗ great example right so this is why this

1:49:56 ↗ is this is the unintended consequences

1:50:00 ↗ so Front Street Market is empty it's

1:50:02 ↗ about and it's probably about hey Jen

1:50:06 ↗ how many square feets Front Street

1:50:08 ↗ fourteen so let's just so let's assume

1:50:11 ↗ that somebody wants to come in and take

1:50:15 ↗ over Front Street Market a new grocery

1:50:16 ↗ store and for them because there are new

1:50:19 ↗ grocery store they want to do in

1:50:20 ↗ addition on the front and it takes it to

1:50:22 ↗ twenty thousand so now they have to do

1:50:24 ↗ 50% structured parking they would not

1:50:27 ↗ fit a wide parking well good point so

1:50:31 ↗ but if it was in central Issaquah so so

1:50:33 ↗ take sports authority yes okay so it's

1:50:35 ↗ sports - how many square feet were

1:50:36 ↗ already down so that's 40 okay

1:50:40 ↗ so if if somebody came in and wanted to

1:50:43 ↗ do some revisions on Sports Authority

1:50:44 ↗ that would add some square footage now

1:50:47 ↗ they have to do half of their parking as

1:50:51 ↗ structured and that is parking for

1:50:54 ↗ retail is four thousand I think then is

1:50:59 ↗ the maximum and so required parking the

1:51:05 ↗ minimum required is two per thousand

1:51:07 ↗ so one per thousand would have to be

1:51:10 ↗ structured to have a forty stall parking

1:51:15 ↗ garage okay

1:51:17 ↗ I'll not sign the damn oh yeah not

1:51:19 ↗ seeing it yeah on it okay

1:51:21 ↗ I think perhaps there's a there's a dual

1:51:24 ↗ hat thing here DSD and Edie and we're

1:51:28 ↗ coming at it I'm only wearing one okay

1:51:30 ↗ so yeah so I I would

1:51:34 ↗ I'm definitely talking with my DD head

1:51:37 ↗ on in case you guys are kidding yeah I

1:51:38 ↗ would prefer go easy on you yet so the

1:51:43 ↗ only way I would be for comfortable

1:51:45 ↗ moving forward is to add some sort of a

1:51:48 ↗ percentage and minimum square footage on

1:51:51 ↗ the retail and then with the caveat that

1:51:57 ↗ we look at it in the next year and see

1:51:59 ↗ if we hit the sweet spot that well that

1:52:04 ↗ you know that's a budget question right

1:52:05 ↗ but also he doesn't have to have the

1:52:07 ↗ Council's approval the mayor has

1:52:09 ↗ authority to execute contracts are up to

1:52:13 ↗ fifty thousand dollar study this kind of

1:52:15 ↗ work so it doesn't actually you know

1:52:17 ↗ have to come through budget but I I just

1:52:24 ↗ drove all we played the game now for

1:52:28 ↗ four years and no no don't want to play

1:52:31 ↗ that game anymore so what's going to

1:52:33 ↗ make you comfortable

1:52:33 ↗ what do you need to say well the only

1:52:36 ↗ one that sticks up sticks in my mind is

1:52:37 ↗ the twenty five thousand four feet and

1:52:39 ↗ fifty percent and because I don't know

1:52:41 ↗ any different that's the number that

1:52:42 ↗ equal Northwest looked at your keep

1:52:45 ↗ tossing about 50 percent or somebody is

1:52:46 ↗ and so that's the recommendation and so

1:52:49 ↗ I don't know any different so if we're

1:52:52 ↗ going to use those numbers just just for

1:52:54 ↗ discussion purposes and I and I know

1:52:58 ↗ you're thinking aspirational and that

1:53:00 ↗ would be 50 percent the somewhat more

1:53:03 ↗ conservative would be to stick with the

1:53:05 ↗ 25 percent and 25 thousand because at

1:53:09 ↗ that that was they were showing that

1:53:11 ↗ it's between 25 and 50 so 25 percent I

1:53:18 ↗ bet that make sense

1:53:26 ↗ oh right

1:53:30 ↗ I feel like I'm we're just operating

1:53:32 ↗ with a lot of big gaps of information

1:53:35 ↗ yeah retail you someone has to put in

1:53:39 ↗ structure and their customers we talked

1:53:42 ↗ about housing and whether or not the

1:53:43 ↗ housing units have to subsidize if as

1:53:45 ↗ long as we don't parking is free the

1:53:47 ↗ housing units have to subsidize the

1:53:49 ↗ parking what subsidizes the structured

1:53:53 ↗ parking for retail others even it's

1:53:56 ↗ probably even easier for customers to

1:53:58 ↗ parks elsewhere

1:54:00 ↗ especially in central area because

1:54:02 ↗ there's so much parking right now so

1:54:06 ↗ that that would that's a concern of mine

1:54:08 ↗ that it's it's like we're really

1:54:14 ↗ focusing on one small thing but I think

1:54:16 ↗ there's a larger context that we don't

1:54:17 ↗ we still understand the forces at play

1:54:19 ↗ and I gotta say as well to this whole

1:54:21 ↗ parking thing for the moratorium it

1:54:23 ↗ looks like it's coming down to going

1:54:25 ↗ from voluntary to fifty percent for

1:54:27 ↗ office fifty percent for residential on

1:54:29 ↗ shore about retail so that's the entire

1:54:31 ↗ parking element of the moratorium but no

1:54:35 ↗ change in the standards in terms of how

1:54:36 ↗ much parking whether it's instruction

1:54:39 ↗ right right this is just about

1:54:40 ↗ structured okay so and so this is this

1:54:46 ↗ is it feels like a bit of guesswork it's

1:54:51 ↗ bent and I can accept the

1:54:53 ↗ recommendations where they are for

1:54:55 ↗ office and residential we also consider

1:55:00 ↗ punted back what was it closer to

1:55:03 ↗ Anderson so I I would be comfortable

1:55:09 ↗ adding twenty five thousand square feet

1:55:11 ↗ and fifty percent and recommending that

1:55:14 ↗ to the full council and then there made

1:55:16 ↗ the administration made up comments

1:55:21 ↗ between now and full council I'm

1:55:24 ↗ planning on reading all the information

1:55:26 ↗ again to see if I can glean anything

1:55:27 ↗ else that might help me I'm also going

1:55:29 ↗ to look at some other jurisdictions I

1:55:31 ↗ guess I have to go do my own homework

1:55:32 ↗ and find out if what I can about the

1:55:34 ↗ spring district and see if there's

1:55:37 ↗ something else that feels more

1:55:38 ↗ comfortable to me I you know I made a

1:55:40 ↗ commitment a year ago to works come as

1:55:42 ↗ we needed to work to get the Merlion

1:55:44 ↗ lifted so I'm willing to put more work

1:55:47 ↗ into it without just punching it back

1:55:50 ↗ because I know the information that I

1:55:52 ↗ want to try to get but I'm not

1:55:55 ↗ comfortable with recommendation come see

1:55:58 ↗ but my feeling about what the retail

1:56:01 ↗ could be or should be might change this

1:56:05 ↗ is just sort of a 5050 few percent I

1:56:11 ↗ could support you on that

1:56:19 ↗ all right so let's run it up the

1:56:21 ↗ flagpole one more comment I related to

1:56:28 ↗ them and I would have would think that

1:56:30 ↗ maybe hoping that staff help with that

1:56:37 ↗ more information gathering really in

1:56:42 ↗ turn is a code to use maybe that

1:56:45 ↗ districts yeah yeah see if twenty five

1:56:47 ↗ and fifty is you know those need to be

1:56:51 ↗ changed for good reasons the last

1:56:57 ↗ comment has to do is something that

1:56:59 ↗ Connie had mentioned and that is that I

1:57:01 ↗ believe this is our opportunity move the

1:57:07 ↗ different direction with a central

1:57:08 ↗ square plan and it's code and make sure

1:57:10 ↗ that we actually get the product that we

1:57:13 ↗ expect to get the second piece of this

1:57:15 ↗ was back to a landing short question

1:57:17 ↗ from last year and that is that we know

1:57:20 ↗ that in terms of growth of residential

1:57:22 ↗ units that we are seeing as much growth

1:57:24 ↗ outside of Central Africa as we are in

1:57:27 ↗ Saito Central's class some of the things

1:57:29 ↗ that we're going to propose in these

1:57:31 ↗ work items they have the unintended

1:57:33 ↗ consequence a game of making land

1:57:35 ↗ outside of Santos club more desirable

1:57:39 ↗ that goes completely against our comp

1:57:40 ↗ plan vision of focus and growth hair

1:57:42 ↗ completely dismissed so the piece of

1:57:44 ↗ information that I asked for last year

1:57:46 ↗ that I don't think we've seen is did

1:57:48 ↗ come up with a figure that has said even

1:57:50 ↗ though we meet our growth management

1:57:52 ↗ target in 2018 approximately for

1:57:55 ↗ residential we saw the capacity to build

1:57:57 ↗ 11th or 11,000 more housing units I've

1:58:00 ↗ never talked about where those are and

1:58:02 ↗ for me for each of these moratorium

1:58:04 ↗ items if what we're doing is tightening

1:58:06 ↗ up this code and in the end we end up

1:58:08 ↗ building the doughnut I don't know if

1:58:10 ↗ Connie or Steve or somebody talked about

1:58:12 ↗ we've made a mistake again

1:58:13 ↗ so in order for me to get through this I

1:58:15 ↗ have to know where that capacity is and

1:58:19 ↗ that when we get out of this moratorium

1:58:21 ↗ we act on whatever other land issues we

1:58:25 ↗ have to so that we don't push the growth

1:58:27 ↗ up to the

1:58:28 ↗ again talking about things like requests

1:58:31 ↗ up in the highlands or up zoning

1:58:33 ↗ requests down a state route 904 changing

1:58:37 ↗ land-use that's happening anyway before

1:58:39 ↗ we do this and this could just make it

1:58:41 ↗ worse and so well I think this might get

1:58:44 ↗ at the product 50 years that we want in

1:58:47 ↗ central its class we may see the donut

1:58:49 ↗ grow up first

1:58:49 ↗ and that would be travesty I need that

1:58:53 ↗ piece in order to actually vote on stuff

1:58:55 ↗ like that it's as more time thank you

1:59:05 ↗ when I add a couple comments and I

1:59:07 ↗ misspoke earlier as far as it changes

1:59:10 ↗ that we it's not just adding these

1:59:12 ↗ percentage minimum requirements for

1:59:14 ↗ there are actual amendment and it's in

1:59:17 ↗ the packet as well so including so

1:59:21 ↗ there's language there's proposed

1:59:23 ↗ amendments rational recommendation that

1:59:25 ↗ came from PPC that had to do for example

1:59:27 ↗ with the and no administrative

1:59:32 ↗ adjustment may be made to reduce the

1:59:33 ↗ required provision for structured

1:59:35 ↗ parking like adding that example there's

1:59:37 ↗ a couple language changes like that

1:59:38 ↗ there on page 57 of the packet there's

1:59:43 ↗ another one amend the definition of

1:59:44 ↗ parking structure to clarify the carport

1:59:46 ↗ is not considered structure parking and

1:59:48 ↗ add a new definition of carport so these

1:59:49 ↗ are part of these are part of it as well

1:59:52 ↗ and then there's a third one which is is

1:59:53 ↗ just the all residential uses and office

2:00:03 ↗ uses over 5,000 gross feet square feet

2:00:06 ↗ to use structured parking to meet a

2:00:07 ↗ portion of the minimum parking

2:00:09 ↗ requirement and to establish okay that's

2:00:11 ↗ the one that actually adjusts it says

2:00:13 ↗ that mean this is the language we've

2:00:15 ↗ been talking about

2:00:16 ↗ it's the third amendment that actually

2:00:18 ↗ addresses what we've been discussing

2:00:21 ↗ there are these other changes right and

2:00:24 ↗ and we didn't focus on that I mean it is

2:00:28 ↗ part of our recommendations page that

2:00:30 ↗ there were no exemptions in terms of

2:00:32 ↗ certain uses that were excluded that was

2:00:35 ↗ in our memo also that for instance

2:00:38 ↗ affordable housing isn't excluded

2:00:41 ↗ from that and in terms of adjustments I

2:00:44 ↗ think the message that we have gotten

2:00:47 ↗ from counsel is if this is our

2:00:49 ↗ expectation this is our expectation and

2:00:51 ↗ so it was added to the list where it is

2:00:55 ↗ not available for adjustment now that is

2:01:00 ↗ contrary to what eco Northwest

2:01:02 ↗ recommended they recommended a variance

2:01:05 ↗ process which would you know adjustment

2:01:08 ↗ is if you have a better way to get their

2:01:10 ↗ variances hardship and we discussed that

2:01:14 ↗ and felt that that was not really what

2:01:17 ↗ we were hearing from counsel and PPC in

2:01:19 ↗ the community and so we did not

2:01:21 ↗ establish that or propose that so are we

2:01:29 ↗ all in agreement to move to the board

2:01:31 ↗ with the recommendation is what we

2:01:33 ↗ discussed okay okay

2:01:37 ↗ ha ha ha ha but it's not that you want

2:01:42 ↗ separate essential changes that I think

2:01:44 ↗ there may be something later on the

2:01:46 ↗ agenda we can do eventually which time

2:01:49 ↗ we can keep swinging all right thank you

2:01:53 ↗ an item on the agenda agenda bell 74 33

2:01:58 ↗ annexation of King County Island and

2:02:00 ↗ establishment of pre-annexation zoning

2:02:06 ↗ fish Hyneman yes

2:02:08 ↗ any policy manager okay we have two

2:02:18 ↗ annexations before you tonight the first

2:02:20 ↗ one is the King County Island potential

2:02:24 ↗ annexation area and tonight we want to

2:02:27 ↗ go over the schedule review some of the

2:02:29 ↗ specifics on this parcel I'm talk about

2:02:32 ↗ the proposed pre-annexation zoning I

2:02:34 ↗ have a committee discussion I think

2:02:37 ↗ they'll probably some audience comments

2:02:39 ↗ tonight related to this issue and then

2:02:42 ↗ we'll talk about the next steps the

2:02:45 ↗ process timeline for both annexations

2:02:48 ↗ you met on june 5th on this agenda bill

2:02:53 ↗ you passed a resolution

2:02:55 ↗ of intent to annex we set to public

2:02:58 ↗ hearing dates for the pre-annexation

2:03:00 ↗ zoning 230 days apart and you all asked

2:03:04 ↗ for additional information to be

2:03:06 ↗ presented in the packet for tonight and

2:03:08 ↗ that's in your packet and that was

2:03:10 ↗ existing zoning proposed owning what

2:03:13 ↗ community facilities zones included some

2:03:16 ↗ different topo maps so those are all in

2:03:18 ↗ your packet tonight on June 6th the day

2:03:22 ↗ after you did their resolution to move

2:03:26 ↗ forward we finalized they're submitted

2:03:28 ↗ to the state boundary Review Board they

2:03:30 ↗ should be done with their review July

2:03:32 ↗ 14th which is the 45-day timeline that

2:03:35 ↗ they have tonight July 6 is you're

2:03:38 ↗ reviewing this before it goes

2:03:40 ↗ July 17th to the first of the two public

2:03:44 ↗ hearings on that proposed pre-annexation

2:03:46 ↗ zoning the next one then it's September

2:03:50 ↗ 5th which if you're comfortable with

2:03:53 ↗ everything then you can not only make

2:03:55 ↗ your decision on the pre-annexation

2:03:57 ↗ zoning but you can also make your

2:03:58 ↗ decision on whether to annex the parcel

2:04:00 ↗ or not are there questions on the

2:04:03 ↗ schedule and as you heard from Jen

2:04:07 ↗ previously the September 5th timeline

2:04:11 ↗ fits really well with the Tod timeline

2:04:13 ↗ for their grant application this is the

2:04:17 ↗ parcel it's over by our King count our

2:04:21 ↗ shop site is it busy it you just said

2:04:24 ↗ parcel yeah good only something clear it

2:04:27 ↗ there are multiple parcels yeah it's

2:04:29 ↗ just all in unincorporated King County

2:04:31 ↗ right now right right it's better called

2:04:33 ↗ an island because it's three three

2:04:36 ↗ parcels and a part of a parcel that's

2:04:38 ↗ already in the city so even though even

2:04:41 ↗ though there's way more than three

2:04:42 ↗ listed in this table is in our packet as

2:04:44 ↗ well right there one two three four four

2:04:50 ↗ parcels right of way that's not

2:04:52 ↗ considered a parcel and part of a parcel

2:04:54 ↗ that's already in the city okay thank

2:04:58 ↗ you so it's a plethora of pieces in the

2:05:01 ↗ parcel the cons land

2:05:03 ↗ they the big piece that we find out we

2:05:07 ↗ just closed man is zoned mineral that

2:05:10 ↗ wash that parcels are different sorts of

2:05:14 ↗ residential which I thought was very

2:05:15 ↗ interesting and the little teeny piece

2:05:17 ↗ of the Burgess property is is considered

2:05:22 ↗ intensive commercial other questions on

2:05:25 ↗ the existing zoning and the whole we

2:05:28 ↗ don't zone right-of-way so the part to

2:05:32 ↗ the west of the yellow even though

2:05:34 ↗ that's in this island it doesn't get

2:05:38 ↗ zoning because it's right-of-way and

2:05:39 ↗ those are stormwater ponds questions on

2:05:43 ↗ an existing zoning proposed zoning and

2:05:50 ↗ we're not completely sure with how it

2:05:52 ↗ all is where the dashed lines go on the

2:05:55 ↗ parcel that we just purchased the bottom

2:05:58 ↗ part would be intensive commercial so

2:06:00 ↗ that we could move CenturyLink the

2:06:02 ↗ middle portion which is the slope would

2:06:04 ↗ be community facilities open space and

2:06:06 ↗ as you know we're still working with the

2:06:09 ↗ school district to try and figure out

2:06:11 ↗ the smallest possible parcel to which

2:06:14 ↗ they could put the urban elementary

2:06:17 ↗ school so that that boundary line is

2:06:19 ↗ fluid so far we still haven't quite

2:06:22 ↗ figured out what that line is but we're

2:06:24 ↗ working together to figure out what the

2:06:26 ↗ smallest site would be are there any

2:06:30 ↗ questions on oh and all that wash that

2:06:33 ↗ parcels would be community facilities

2:06:34 ↗ facilities we don't want them to be

2:06:37 ↗ residential already go back here you

2:06:41 ↗ again you just said we just purchased a

2:06:43 ↗ person the King County Road site so that

2:06:47 ↗ is of which one on this map is it it's

2:06:50 ↗ easier to show you on this it's the blue

2:06:51 ↗ one and it has at the bottom you can

2:06:55 ↗ sort of see the shadow where the shop

2:06:57 ↗ site is now it's a big loop-d-loop and

2:07:00 ↗ the big shed with parking but they owned

2:07:04 ↗ they used to own all of the blue so

2:07:08 ↗ that's what we purchased and yet the

2:07:11 ↗ entire island

2:07:13 ↗ this is zoning for the entire island

2:07:15 ↗ even though we just own

2:07:17 ↗ parcel right right we would like to put

2:07:20 ↗ pre-annexation zoning on all of it even

2:07:22 ↗ the land that we do not own which is

2:07:24 ↗ customary when you do annexation like

2:07:27 ↗ with South Cove with Kalani that we

2:07:30 ↗ didn't get but we put pre-annexation

2:07:31 ↗ zoning on it so that when they came in

2:07:33 ↗ it would have the zoning that we wanted

2:07:35 ↗ instead of comparable zoning the flip to

2:07:38 ↗ your next map so what you are proposing

2:07:42 ↗ zoning you're actually splitting certain

2:07:44 ↗ parcels into multiple types tones again

2:07:46 ↗ it we're we're trying to stay on our

2:07:49 ↗ parcel it's just the way that the map is

2:07:51 ↗ drawn but we would process a short plat

2:07:56 ↗ along concurrently with the zoning and

2:08:00 ↗ the annexation so that it would actually

2:08:02 ↗ create three parcels potentially

2:08:04 ↗ assuming the council wants to zone that

2:08:08 ↗ upper parcel of our new property CFS

2:08:12 ↗ that's still a conversation point in the

2:08:16 ↗ process right so if not we could create

2:08:19 ↗ two so at the end of the day the ISEE

2:08:21 ↗ parcel to create an Icee parcel at the

2:08:24 ↗ bottom which can then be part of the

2:08:26 ↗ conversation about Tod and giving that

2:08:30 ↗ to spectrum to give to CenturyLink you

2:08:34 ↗ know so that needs to be its own parcel

2:08:36 ↗ and then we've talked about at least

2:08:39 ↗ having a forested hillsides that's part

2:08:42 ↗ of mounts to sound so that's the fos and

2:08:44 ↗ then if the council wants to keep the

2:08:47 ↗ top of the property forested you could

2:08:49 ↗ just do basically two parcels and make

2:08:52 ↗ the whole thing at the from the middle

2:08:54 ↗ to the top

2:08:55 ↗ the fos if on the other hand the council

2:08:58 ↗ wants to create the opportunity for a

2:09:02 ↗ school site up at the top then you would

2:09:04 ↗ want to create three parcels and that

2:09:07 ↗ top one would then be zoned CSS

2:09:10 ↗ hopefully that helped and I think what

2:09:13 ↗ Trish was saying is that that rectangle

2:09:17 ↗ right now that says CSS that likely does

2:09:21 ↗ not represent the dimensions of the

2:09:23 ↗ property if at the end of the day you

2:09:26 ↗ guys feel like that could be a school

2:09:28 ↗ site it would be

2:09:29 ↗ you wallow than that I believe all right

2:09:32 ↗ something we're working with ISD on

2:09:35 ↗ right now

2:09:35 ↗ he said the planning would be done

2:09:38 ↗ concurrently with what with the

2:09:41 ↗ annexation process right now so we own

2:09:44 ↗ the property so we can do basically

2:09:49 ↗ start working on the platting and then

2:09:51 ↗ once it's in our jurisdiction and the

2:09:54 ↗ short plat can actually occur without

2:09:56 ↗ having to go asking County to do this

2:09:59 ↗ permitting oh the annexation were

2:10:01 ↗ actually served first right just because

2:10:06 ↗ that yeah the body doesn't have anything

2:10:08 ↗ to do with the annexation process right

2:10:10 ↗ right officially it would have to happen

2:10:13 ↗ first but since we would own it no

2:10:16 ↗ annexation annexation first but behind

2:10:18 ↗ the scenes we would know what we would

2:10:19 ↗ hope for for the short plat um anymore

2:10:25 ↗ Oh keep going you go back one slide

2:10:29 ↗ please mm-hmm so um the wash dots that

2:10:40 ↗ are residential that you're proposing to

2:10:42 ↗ be cff yes not CFL because it's the

2:10:47 ↗ state and they are talking about maybe

2:10:49 ↗ there might be some facilities there

2:10:51 ↗ like either a stormwater or water

2:10:54 ↗ reservoir or something like that and

2:10:56 ↗ they weren't in favor of of it being

2:10:58 ↗ open space

2:11:05 ↗ by the other the first item we discussed

2:11:09 ↗ this this evening the I think we call it

2:11:13 ↗ the property no way what was it called

2:11:15 ↗ in your packet Tod replacement property

2:11:21 ↗ yes so go back to the picture Oh

2:11:24 ↗ it's harder to see shows that it show it

2:11:27 ↗ would be very helpful to see an overlay

2:11:29 ↗ and I realize so but thank you for the

2:11:34 ↗ numerous Maps that you put in we have a

2:11:35 ↗ couple I'm not sure what the red one is

2:11:37 ↗ the lidar I'm not sure what I learned

2:11:38 ↗ from that I certainly see the the

2:11:41 ↗ topographic map and you can see what

2:11:43 ↗ steep and what isn't it's also the

2:11:47 ↗ letter from the school district which

2:11:50 ↗ draws a seven-acre roughly a seven-acre

2:11:53 ↗ box as well and and this idea of zoning

2:11:59 ↗ we we an administration is laying out

2:12:02 ↗ potential uses different uses for this

2:12:04 ↗ parcel and it's I think we're very close

2:12:09 ↗ to being able to imagine what that would

2:12:12 ↗ look what the proposal would look at

2:12:14 ↗ like at potential build-out great to

2:12:19 ↗ have that kind of overlaid especially on

2:12:22 ↗ the so you could see you know you know

2:12:26 ↗ does it fit within the flatland that's

2:12:29 ↗ there right now as any of this have to

2:12:30 ↗ get into steep slope where there's

2:12:32 ↗ forest today and also the school part

2:12:34 ↗ potential school part on the top how

2:12:37 ↗ much of that and this might be premature

2:12:39 ↗ but I would try to understand is that if

2:12:41 ↗ that if if we zoned it see a CF F and

2:12:47 ↗ then did this short flat and then what

2:12:50 ↗ followed through with the school

2:12:51 ↗ district would like to know what what we

2:12:55 ↗ think the impact in terms of what would

2:12:58 ↗ be developed what what trees would have

2:13:00 ↗ to come down how much soil roughly are

2:13:03 ↗ we talking about nning needs to go out

2:13:05 ↗ we just had a big conversation about

2:13:06 ↗ that I'm bergamot how much how much

2:13:09 ↗ material I was going to leave the site

2:13:11 ↗ and that raised a lot of concerns

2:13:14 ↗ and and I know it's all very early right

2:13:17 ↗ now but I would like to have a better

2:13:18 ↗ idea of at from what all the uses that

2:13:21 ↗ you are putting on the table for us to

2:13:24 ↗ consider what would it look like on this

2:13:26 ↗ land that is ours today so I can I'll

2:13:30 ↗ address the relocation site for sentry

2:13:32 ↗ like at the bottom so it is not going to

2:13:34 ↗ go into the slope this keeps up we

2:13:36 ↗ remained within the area they are

2:13:38 ↗ currently using and so so where you see

2:13:42 ↗ kind of that roundabout road is

2:13:44 ↗ approximately and so it's about a three

2:13:47 ↗ acre site so we actually you know I had

2:13:50 ↗ a had the survey and that's that's the

2:13:53 ↗ work that our development partners are

2:13:55 ↗ working off of and that CenturyLink is

2:13:56 ↗ aware of and and sees you know again in

2:13:59 ↗ concept plan that can fit on that so

2:14:01 ↗ there's no going in and you know into

2:14:03 ↗ the steep slope at all for the

2:14:04 ↗ CenturyLink there's you know again well

2:14:07 ↗ we'll gather more information about the

2:14:09 ↗ upper you'll get more information about

2:14:19 ↗ the CS s site so I don't know that we

2:14:22 ↗ have all the details of how much dirt is

2:14:24 ↗ going to be moved and cetera so that but

2:14:26 ↗ I'm just saying for right now I know the

2:14:27 ↗ answer to that for the relocation of

2:14:29 ↗ century of the potential relocation of

2:14:31 ↗ Century Link so before we get to the

2:14:34 ↗ hearing the you know the map that you

2:14:38 ↗ asked for showing the three parcels as

2:14:40 ↗ proposed we could do that map right

2:14:43 ↗ before the seventeenth you talked a

2:14:46 ↗ little bit about the code proposal

2:14:49 ↗ that's going to come forward regarding

2:14:53 ↗ urban schools and that's going to public

2:14:59 ↗ hearing next week at PPC that would that

2:15:02 ↗ affect this site if it's approved okay

2:15:08 ↗ so

2:15:13 ↗ wouldn't that need to be proof is this

2:15:17 ↗ cart before the horse

2:15:19 ↗ no I because that's a citywide change

2:15:24 ↗ and there's a process associated with

2:15:27 ↗ evaluating that you know at the end of

2:15:29 ↗ the day you guys you guys can decide

2:15:32 ↗ either C F F or not C F F here even if

2:15:34 ↗ you decide CF f you could wait and

2:15:36 ↗ decide what happens with that code

2:15:38 ↗ amendment to influence whether or not

2:15:43 ↗ you decide to sell that property to the

2:15:44 ↗ school district because it C F F doesn't

2:15:47 ↗ mean you've automatically made that

2:15:48 ↗ decision to sell it to the school

2:15:49 ↗ district that's a whole other process

2:15:52 ↗ right and leaving it having it be yeah

2:15:55 ↗ I'm gonna be CFO you can change it to

2:15:59 ↗ see a house later

2:16:17 ↗ so um so so you could do that that's

2:16:22 ↗ obviously a choice and I think the

2:16:24 ↗ school district would have some want to

2:16:27 ↗ weigh in on that if that is ultimately

2:16:28 ↗ where the committee thinks they would

2:16:30 ↗ like to go I think if you think that

2:16:32 ↗ this is a valid school site I want to

2:16:36 ↗ say that seems disingenuous to go ahead

2:16:39 ↗ and down it OS now and then do it s

2:16:41 ↗ later it seems like if you today feel

2:16:45 ↗ like this could be a good spot for

2:16:46 ↗ school and let's get you the information

2:16:50 ↗ that you need to feel comfortable that

2:16:52 ↗ that's the right zone to put on this

2:16:53 ↗ piece of and so I guess we can do it

2:16:57 ↗ either way you know you guys can choose

2:16:59 ↗ to go down either path but if part of

2:17:04 ↗ your hesitation about apps is issues

2:17:09 ↗ about building heights

2:17:11 ↗ we've already flown a balloon from the

2:17:13 ↗ top of the property at 60 feet to see if

2:17:15 ↗ it was where it would be visible from so

2:17:17 ↗ we have some of that data that we can

2:17:19 ↗ give you help you either feel

2:17:21 ↗ comfortable or not paulus mentioned

2:17:24 ↗ trees I think we can talk about if that

2:17:27 ↗ code amendment goes through as proposed

2:17:30 ↗ you know what would that do to the trees

2:17:33 ↗ on that site and how much would be

2:17:35 ↗ retained as the property owner you also

2:17:38 ↗ have the ability to make some other

2:17:40 ↗ stipulation when you sell that property

2:17:43 ↗ so if there's certain pieces of the code

2:17:44 ↗ that you don't like potentially put

2:17:47 ↗ restrictions on that as part of the sale

2:17:51 ↗ of the property so there's I mean

2:17:53 ↗ there's ways to get at maybe the

2:17:56 ↗ concerns that you might be having about

2:17:59 ↗ that but you had the choice

2:18:13 ↗ later something else

2:18:15 ↗ I don't think our councils particularly

2:18:17 ↗ appoint in tonight in particular

2:18:19 ↗ familiar with how to cite schools or you

2:18:23 ↗ know this person might be available but

2:18:25 ↗ if you're looking at the city as a whole

2:18:28 ↗ is this the right location is this why I

2:18:32 ↗ know that people can touch it

2:18:33 ↗ but it feels like we're being asked

2:18:36 ↗ tonight to make a decision that could

2:18:38 ↗ come back in two years it says well you

2:18:40 ↗ already went down the path you know

2:18:41 ↗ council already decided it's CFS and so

2:18:44 ↗ that was the first step towards making a

2:18:46 ↗ school site I thought I have no idea and

2:18:49 ↗ I don't know tonight that I can get

2:18:51 ↗ enough information to say I didn't do

2:18:54 ↗ and I don't think you need to do that

2:18:56 ↗ tonight I think part of what the ask is

2:18:59 ↗ you know and Trish let me know if I'm

2:19:01 ↗ wrong so so things are happening is the

2:19:03 ↗ BRB right now in terms of the doughnut

2:19:06 ↗ hole multiple parcels and I think at

2:19:10 ↗ some point you guys are going to have to

2:19:12 ↗ make a decision about our property and

2:19:15 ↗ whether it's two parcels or three

2:19:18 ↗ parcels and how its zoned that doesn't

2:19:21 ↗ happen tonight that doesn't happen I

2:19:24 ↗ think even I mean until September 5th is

2:19:27 ↗ the second public hearing on the

2:19:29 ↗ pre-annexation zoning so you have until

2:19:31 ↗ then to gather information ask us for

2:19:34 ↗ information because the first hearing is

2:19:37 ↗ the 17th of July I believe in that and

2:19:42 ↗ the second of two is September 5th so

2:19:45 ↗ that's when you would have to if you

2:19:48 ↗ chose to set the pre-annexation zoning

2:19:51 ↗ for all the parcels and choose whether

2:19:53 ↗ or not to annex the whole property to

2:19:55 ↗ the city so there's still time tonight

2:19:57 ↗ it was just a work session to get you

2:20:00 ↗ more familiar with the parcels before

2:20:03 ↗ the first public hearing on the

2:20:04 ↗ pre-annexation zoning so actually

2:20:07 ↗ tonight was for action on whether we're

2:20:08 ↗ evac whether we are recommending whether

2:20:12 ↗ we want to recommend to the full council

2:20:13 ↗ that we that we what zoning we want

2:20:18 ↗ whistles that's what the it wasn't it's

2:20:23 ↗ not a work session to France well I mean

2:20:24 ↗ I'm using that term loosely because you

2:20:26 ↗ had asked us a lot of questions on June

2:20:28 ↗ 5th that you wanted to work on

2:20:30 ↗ informally tonight before the actual

2:20:33 ↗ public hearing on the pre-annexation

2:20:34 ↗ pre-annexation zoning you wanted to know

2:20:37 ↗ the adjacent uses you wanted to know so

2:20:39 ↗ that's why we had this session before

2:20:42 ↗ the public hearing for you Bob I just a

2:20:46 ↗ quick question not and you are Bob

2:20:49 ↗ Harrison to the administrator thank you

2:20:50 ↗ the chair so from our standpoint I think

2:20:55 ↗ kind of what's driving this piece is the

2:20:58 ↗ commitment with the Century Link parcel

2:21:02 ↗ because we need that applicant needs to

2:21:05 ↗ really have a well-defined understanding

2:21:06 ↗ that this use can move there if the

2:21:09 ↗ other portion was undecided at this

2:21:12 ↗ point could we go to the boundary review

2:21:14 ↗ board can we do the property split first

2:21:16 ↗ go to the boundary review board with

2:21:18 ↗ those pieces that we know and if we got

2:21:20 ↗ it spend three months or four months

2:21:22 ↗ with the school district to finalize

2:21:25 ↗ what their site would kind of look like

2:21:26 ↗ and we'd be able to go back to the BRB

2:21:29 ↗ for that remaining portion or no you

2:21:30 ↗ don't like so we don't have to go to we

2:21:33 ↗ don't so BRB doesn't care on those

2:21:35 ↗ yes so we can put so as long as we have

2:21:37 ↗ doning and you know it can be OS if

2:21:40 ↗ that's a more comfortable decision you

2:21:43 ↗ know what what happened then is if that

2:21:47 ↗ zoning gets put in place as an annex

2:21:50 ↗ that way and then they're wanting to be

2:21:52 ↗ a conversation about rezoning it to cff

2:21:55 ↗ and that's fully executed within the

2:21:58 ↗ city right yes I get that so but the

2:22:01 ↗ other option is if you just leave a

2:22:02 ↗ portion in the county and do the

2:22:04 ↗ annexation later you could do that right

2:22:06 ↗ yeah we don't want to do that I know

2:22:08 ↗ what was the reason why we bought all

2:22:09 ↗ these County parcels was to get them out

2:22:11 ↗ but if I was it desire to have more

2:22:15 ↗ detail which I kinda heard that would be

2:22:17 ↗ another option it's not the greatest

2:22:19 ↗ option and it would be another option I

2:22:21 ↗ don't think the ARB would approve it if

2:22:23 ↗ we left part of it in there it's left it

2:22:25 ↗ in the county with understanding okay

2:22:27 ↗ right cuz then it's there and the

2:22:28 ↗ question yeah

2:22:30 ↗ provide services and I think King County

2:22:32 ↗ wouldn't want that either I think the

2:22:34 ↗ other piece too I just wanted to raise

2:22:35 ↗ was what we've talked about the upper

2:22:37 ↗ bench as being because we we definitely

2:22:40 ↗ the administration has a preference

2:22:41 ↗ that'd be school site but there is the

2:22:44 ↗ other zoning that you could put on the

2:22:45 ↗ site to alright put single family or you

2:22:47 ↗ could put other uses on the site so when

2:22:50 ↗ Council is looking at those options well

2:22:54 ↗ right I'm just saying that when we look

2:22:56 ↗ at reselling that up a bench though you

2:23:00 ↗ know zoning and all those things end up

2:23:02 ↗ rolling into the final price I suspect

2:23:05 ↗ in terms of what the appraisal might be

2:23:09 ↗ that was very helpful and I guess my

2:23:12 ↗ concern goes back to having a community

2:23:15 ↗ comment every nope my question would be

2:23:19 ↗ when did the community get to join the

2:23:21 ↗ conversation care so maybe we'll let

2:23:24 ↗ some comments some public happen and see

2:23:27 ↗ where they are and if it feels like to

2:23:28 ↗ me like we're walking down the path and

2:23:30 ↗ I haven't aware of what we're doing the

2:23:33 ↗ schools were also here they wanted to

2:23:34 ↗ present some information to that

2:23:36 ↗ committee tonight as well more questions

2:23:43 ↗ good does the committee mind if before

2:23:48 ↗ we go to public comment

2:23:49 ↗ I invite district representatives to

2:23:52 ↗ that what they would like to present we

2:23:56 ↗ have put some map back for Intendant

2:23:58 ↗ here and

2:24:03 ↗ aunty Lee and Steve Crawford welcome

2:24:08 ↗ thanks for coming thank you for having

2:24:10 ↗ us I couldn't think of a place I'd

2:24:13 ↗ rather be on a sunny july night my

2:24:17 ↗ favorite I can't think about in ten

2:24:19 ↗ other places that I would like to be in

2:24:21 ↗ say whether mr. Crawford does have a few

2:24:25 ↗ PowerPoint slides we'd like to walk you

2:24:27 ↗ through as we talk about the potential

2:24:29 ↗ use of this property at by Swedish

2:24:31 ↗ hospital let's see here this nice light

2:24:35 ↗ show Steve go one more day go from

2:24:38 ↗ beginning all the way left there you go

2:24:39 ↗ never felt so so I guess I would only

2:24:42 ↗ ask that because we're not deciding

2:24:44 ↗ about a school that we keep it on the

2:24:47 ↗ briefer side we can see the slides but

2:24:49 ↗ we're not just we're not going to be

2:24:50 ↗ deciding about a school yeah a little

2:24:51 ↗ kind of roll through and quickly thank

2:24:53 ↗ you you still hit the Return button

2:24:59 ↗ Steve oh there we go all right so why is

2:25:06 ↗ it a good site for an elementary school

2:25:07 ↗ Clark elementary is going to have a

2:25:09 ↗ projected enrollment in 2017 18 of 808

2:25:13 ↗ students it's our largest elementary

2:25:15 ↗ school we've added more classrooms there

2:25:17 ↗ than we have in any other school it's

2:25:19 ↗ still going to open with ten portable

2:25:21 ↗ classrooms Grand Ridge Elementary

2:25:24 ↗ projected to add 735 students there's

2:25:27 ↗ 125 kindergarten students that are

2:25:29 ↗ currently transported to Challenger and

2:25:32 ↗ endeavour Elementary School's

2:25:34 ↗ grand rodol Grand Ridge also has ten

2:25:38 ↗ portable classrooms this just shows you

2:25:40 ↗ what the attendance area boundaries are

2:25:44 ↗ for Grand Ridge doesn't quite get down

2:25:47 ↗ to Highlands Drive and the Clark

2:25:49 ↗ elementary serves the rest of the

2:25:52 ↗ surrounding area including considerable

2:25:57 ↗ area just a little bit larger scale map

2:25:59 ↗ of the grandage attendance in case there

2:26:01 ↗ was any questions there this shows how

2:26:05 ↗ the Grand Ridge attendance area is split

2:26:08 ↗ with the pink area kindergarten kids

2:26:12 ↗ going to Challenger and kindergarten

2:26:14 ↗ kids that

2:26:15 ↗ the green area going to endeavor

2:26:19 ↗ endeavors off of duty Hill Road

2:26:21 ↗ challengers in the kahani subdivision

2:26:23 ↗ area Valley takes care of the

2:26:28 ↗ valley core area with the Clark area

2:26:32 ↗ coming just to Front Street so 2016 2017

2:26:39 ↗ there's 80 grand Ridge kindergarten

2:26:42 ↗ students that are transported to

2:26:44 ↗ challenger there's 45 Grand Ridge

2:26:46 ↗ kindergarten students transferred to

2:26:49 ↗ transported to endeavor

2:26:51 ↗ there's 337 Highlands elementary

2:26:55 ↗ students that are transported to Clark

2:26:58 ↗ there's 173 elementary students in the

2:27:02 ↗ black nugget over Dale area that are

2:27:04 ↗ transported to Clark five hundred and

2:27:09 ↗ ten students are transported out of the

2:27:11 ↗ area to Clark well that's from the

2:27:14 ↗ Highland specifically and if you include

2:27:16 ↗ the over Dale black nugget area at 635

2:27:19 ↗ students they're transported to Clark

2:27:21 ↗ and I say transported because we provide

2:27:24 ↗ bus service but there are some that get

2:27:28 ↗ transported by their parents so if you

2:27:31 ↗ look at the trip generation numbers per

2:27:33 ↗ student from our Clark traffic study

2:27:37 ↗ those students generate 82 a.m. peak

2:27:43 ↗ trips 173 afternoon peak trips and the

2:27:48 ↗ p.m. peak is another 107 trips to and

2:27:50 ↗ from Clark so there's 362 trips every

2:27:55 ↗ day of trips related to those students

2:27:59 ↗ being transported to Clark elementary

2:28:01 ↗ that are coming through the urban core

2:28:03 ↗ second Avenue Front Street etc reducing

2:28:11 ↗ enrollment at Clark is critical to

2:28:13 ↗ accommodate core area growth at both

2:28:15 ↗ ieve and Clark we need capacity down

2:28:18 ↗ here for the growth that's coming Grand

2:28:23 ↗ Ridge Elementary is on a 10 acre site

2:28:25 ↗ going to an urban school plan a

2:28:28 ↗ three-story building

2:28:29 ↗ this compacted footprint reduced surface

2:28:31 ↗ parking including structured parking and

2:28:34 ↗ smaller play areas allows reducing the

2:28:36 ↗ proposed footprint to about seven acres

2:28:39 ↗ OSPI recommends ten acres for an

2:28:42 ↗ elementary school get into seven acres

2:28:44 ↗ as condensing things pretty much as far

2:28:48 ↗ as it can go this is a conceptual plan

2:28:51 ↗ of the site and this is the northwest

2:28:56 ↗ corner of the king county parcel that

2:28:58 ↗ you've required and basically you're

2:29:01 ↗ there is Swedish parking in this area

2:29:05 ↗ currently Swedish hospital is in this

2:29:07 ↗ area there's new residential development

2:29:09 ↗ that's under construction in this zone

2:29:12 ↗ so basically accessing off the north end

2:29:15 ↗ coming in structured parking to reduce

2:29:18 ↗ the surface area there we're proposing

2:29:22 ↗ this would be a three-story building and

2:29:25 ↗ that allows us to compact the footprint

2:29:28 ↗ pretty much as far as we can go in kind

2:29:31 ↗ of realistic sense and we have some hard

2:29:34 ↗ surface play area around the west and

2:29:36 ↗ south side of the building to covered

2:29:40 ↗ play areas which is typical for new

2:29:42 ↗ elementaries and provision for 300 we

2:29:46 ↗ generally go with for future portables

2:29:48 ↗ to accommodate flex growth patterns and

2:29:51 ↗ the sand play field on the south end

2:29:54 ↗ here topography of the area such that

2:29:56 ↗ there's kind of a hump on the north end

2:29:58 ↗ there's a valley a low spot in the

2:30:00 ↗ middle and another hump down in this

2:30:02 ↗ area so yes there would be some grading

2:30:04 ↗ that would tend to level out those areas

2:30:07 ↗ the admin area and the part of the

2:30:09 ↗ parking would be sat down in to grade

2:30:11 ↗ the admin area would be at the mid level

2:30:13 ↗ of the three-story building which then

2:30:15 ↗ steps down as the sites going downward

2:30:18 ↗ reduces the overall height and the sand

2:30:21 ↗ play field is kind of a balance in this

2:30:24 ↗ area so we're really showing here is

2:30:26 ↗ that the western side of this footprint

2:30:29 ↗ would pretty well correspond to the west

2:30:32 ↗ leg of the dogleg of the parcel that he

2:30:35 ↗ acquired and that sort of follow a

2:30:39 ↗ contour level from there back on around

2:30:42 ↗ to the southeast and yes there'd be some

2:30:46 ↗ grading on the top the trees around the

2:30:49 ↗ west and the south side would remain in

2:30:51 ↗ place and those trees are going to

2:30:55 ↗ screen the building from views from the

2:30:57 ↗ south and from the westerly areas the

2:31:02 ↗ school building will be compatible with

2:31:03 ↗ existing Highlands residential and

2:31:05 ↗ commercial development a neighborhood

2:31:10 ↗ school serves the local community

2:31:12 ↗ reduces transportation and enhances

2:31:15 ↗ sustainability goals it's a great spot

2:31:17 ↗ for a school thank you Steve

2:31:20 ↗ I also wanted to thank Gale Morgan our

2:31:22 ↗ director of transportation she put a lot

2:31:24 ↗ of those numbers together for us

2:31:27 ↗ one comment too about the obviously the

2:31:30 ↗ advantage of not having to transport

2:31:32 ↗ that many kids down off down to the

2:31:34 ↗ valley floor you're not simply replacing

2:31:37 ↗ those trends transit trips with other

2:31:39 ↗ transit trips because a good chunk of

2:31:41 ↗ this school would ultimately be a

2:31:42 ↗ walking school as well so you literally

2:31:45 ↗ could take cars out of circulation you

2:31:48 ↗ know when I've gone around over the

2:31:50 ↗ years and done bond presentations and

2:31:52 ↗ talked about building schools one of the

2:31:55 ↗ things that I've always told people is

2:31:56 ↗ because the first question they always

2:31:58 ↗ ask me where you going to put them we're

2:32:00 ↗ going to put the schools well we we

2:32:01 ↗ never know that in a bond campaign

2:32:03 ↗ because we have to purchase the land and

2:32:05 ↗ all that but one thing I always say is

2:32:06 ↗ we try to put them as close to where the

2:32:09 ↗ kids are as we can because we believe

2:32:11 ↗ that's the most sustainable it we

2:32:14 ↗ recognize the impact that we have on

2:32:16 ↗ traffic and so forth so just the idea of

2:32:21 ↗ this site is very very appealing to us

2:32:23 ↗ for all the reasons that Steve just

2:32:25 ↗ mentioned I'm sure it would be very

2:32:26 ↗ popular in that community as well thank

2:32:30 ↗ you

2:32:31 ↗ so it's it's very tempting for me to say

2:32:37 ↗ let's ask questions but we're not we're

2:32:39 ↗ not we're not having discussions about

2:32:43 ↗ the merits of your proposal and so I'm

2:32:46 ↗ I'm really hesitant to do that so let's

2:32:49 ↗ you know

2:32:51 ↗ we could ask a whole lot of questions if

2:32:54 ↗ that's really not what's on the agenda

2:32:56 ↗ make sense yes I would like to just make

2:33:01 ↗ a brief comment thank you for the

2:33:07 ↗ information especially the the layout

2:33:09 ↗ and the numbers said it is part of the

2:33:12 ↗ we do have a large decision to make it's

2:33:14 ↗ got multi pieces to it so thank you for

2:33:17 ↗ preparing that thank you and bringing it

2:33:19 ↗ forward this evening so as you're

2:33:21 ↗ available to thanks for the opportunity

2:33:23 ↗ we appreciate it you then we're going to

2:33:26 ↗ go to public comments bigger than we

2:33:38 ↗ expected originally and so that's why

2:33:40 ↗ there's a desire for a second site

2:33:42 ↗ bigger than the master

2:33:44 ↗ I mean vector yes so and that's for two

2:33:49 ↗ reasons

2:33:50 ↗ so one there everything that could

2:33:53 ↗ convert to residential converted to

2:33:55 ↗ residential there was also additional

2:33:58 ↗ enhancement units and then TDRs but also

2:34:01 ↗ a big function of that is there's more

2:34:04 ↗ kids turning up in apartment complexes

2:34:06 ↗ than what was originally envisioned we

2:34:09 ↗ knew the old school of thought was that

2:34:11 ↗ apartments generally don't generate a

2:34:13 ↗ big kid population it's good yeah okay

2:34:16 ↗ thanks

2:34:17 ↗ all right public comment Connie

2:34:31 ↗ so what is remarkable about the zoning

2:34:37 ↗ here is when you look at the forest and

2:34:40 ↗ smoke but you can basically see how much

2:34:42 ↗ of it is zoned

2:34:43 ↗ CFF the wash dot parcel cff which means

2:34:48 ↗ they could develop large buildings on

2:34:51 ↗ those slopes and the trees would be gone

2:34:53 ↗ and be intensive commercial not so bad

2:34:58 ↗ we aren't going to see it I'm for that

2:35:00 ↗ section so don't get me wrong I'm loving

2:35:02 ↗ that section the steep slope area that

2:35:05 ↗ we're calling CFO is unbuildable anyway

2:35:09 ↗ so that's going to stay forested no

2:35:11 ↗ matter what we do and then the top of

2:35:14 ↗ the hill which you can actually see the

2:35:16 ↗ development already of the equivalents

2:35:19 ↗ through the fringe of trees so the

2:35:21 ↗ Highlands would then become visible if

2:35:24 ↗ you cut the trees at the top of that

2:35:28 ↗ slope so now when we look at the

2:35:30 ↗ different zoning capacities and are

2:35:33 ↗ duking it out policies and our

2:35:36 ↗ comprehensive plan right now in our

2:35:39 ↗ land-use segment of our comprehensive

2:35:43 ↗ plan we are very strong in protecting

2:35:45 ↗ our forests until size it is in our

2:35:47 ↗ vision statement as a priority concern

2:35:49 ↗ and so well I believe that Issaquah

2:35:54 ↗ Highlands for example would need a

2:35:57 ↗ school I don't think that what we want

2:36:00 ↗ to do is create a zoning that would

2:36:03 ↗ allow for the main one of our main

2:36:06 ↗ visions and our plan to be compromised I

2:36:09 ↗ think would be better to go with a open

2:36:12 ↗ space zoning intensive commercial and

2:36:15 ↗ then I would like to understand exactly

2:36:18 ↗ what wash dot is intending with their

2:36:21 ↗ CFS zoning on those parcels and what

2:36:25 ↗ impacts that that might have because if

2:36:27 ↗ their current zoning is residential I

2:36:30 ↗ don't know why we wouldn't transfer it

2:36:34 ↗ over as residential except for they say

2:36:36 ↗ they don't want it so there seems to be

2:36:39 ↗ some information missing out of those

2:36:41 ↗ zones that I don't understand

2:36:44 ↗ the rationale for entirely so maybe if

2:36:46 ↗ they had an argument as to what their

2:36:48 ↗ future was that would be appropriate so

2:36:52 ↗ competing uses for land and also mr.

2:36:56 ↗ Harrison talked about selling the top

2:36:58 ↗ parcel which was interesting if indeed

2:37:02 ↗ you were looking at this to maximize

2:37:05 ↗ funding you would indeed put zoning on

2:37:09 ↗ that where you would get the most amount

2:37:11 ↗ of money so as soon as you put CSF you

2:37:16 ↗ are very much limiting the amount of

2:37:18 ↗ money that you could get by selling the

2:37:20 ↗ parcel as soon as you turn it into a

2:37:22 ↗ zoning that allows commercial or

2:37:24 ↗ residential if money making is your

2:37:27 ↗ primary concern then you get the money

2:37:29 ↗ so I think there's a lot of

2:37:31 ↗ considerations here how much would it be

2:37:33 ↗ worth if it was zoned in different areas

2:37:35 ↗ and seems that we already have cleared

2:37:38 ↗ land in other parts of the acquirements

2:37:40 ↗ that could potentially accommodate a

2:37:42 ↗ school what what are those areas so that

2:37:47 ↗ you can understand your zoning concerns

2:37:50 ↗ more completely and again I'm going to

2:37:53 ↗ reiterate tents of commercial less than

2:37:56 ↗ C F F for wash dot and clearly an

2:37:59 ↗ overwhelmingly open space for the top

2:38:03 ↗ parcel thanks thank you

2:38:06 ↗ you

2:38:18 ↗ hi so I largely won't repeat Connie's

2:38:22 ↗ comments because she started articulated

2:38:25 ↗ quite well just I again Division four is

2:38:29 ↗ equal was the slopes the cities area

2:38:32 ↗ would be maintained not developed I mean

2:38:35 ↗ more toward CFO not towards the other

2:38:38 ↗ building use on the site so I do

2:38:41 ↗ understand physical Highlands wiring to

2:38:44 ↗ school in that area I'm not sure that

2:38:46 ↗ this site is the best site for that so I

2:38:49 ↗ think that at this point isn't part of

2:38:52 ↗ the equation again what's the best use

2:38:54 ↗ of the land it's within the vision of

2:38:56 ↗ our treed slopes thanks thank you sorry

2:39:10 ↗ Corey Christensen I'd like to echo the

2:39:13 ↗ other people's comments about how these

2:39:16 ↗ parcels should be zone open space and

2:39:19 ↗ actually I think they should be

2:39:21 ↗ permanently protected open space and

2:39:23 ↗ maybe be a transfer of development

2:39:27 ↗ rights holder receiving site as far as

2:39:33 ↗ the entire Tod project briefly back to

2:39:38 ↗ the multifamily exemption people in my

2:39:43 ↗ neighborhood when I talk about when they

2:39:45 ↗ talk to me about this they're they're

2:39:47 ↗ rather ambivalent about this entire

2:39:49 ↗ project and when they start hearing

2:39:52 ↗ about the tax extension they don't like

2:39:54 ↗ it because when you talk about a city

2:39:57 ↗ share that's only a little bit in the

2:39:59 ↗ property tax their schools there's parks

2:40:02 ↗ there's all this other stuff and so it's

2:40:04 ↗ actually a fairly big ask of the

2:40:07 ↗ citizens now the part that's not the

2:40:11 ↗ part that actually pushes people over

2:40:13 ↗ the part that pushes people over is

2:40:15 ↗ seeing these upper three parcels

2:40:17 ↗ potentially stripped of their trees and

2:40:20 ↗ the people in Issaquah have been very

2:40:24 ↗ clear very consistent about protecting

2:40:27 ↗ the environment

2:40:29 ↗ open-space large part of our park bonds

2:40:33 ↗ we vote to buy open space and I've lived

2:40:39 ↗ in my house for 23 years 23 years ago

2:40:42 ↗ there there were just trees treed

2:40:44 ↗ hillsides was Lea Sukhois Highlands

2:40:46 ↗ treat hillsides was talus and we

2:40:49 ↗ remember that we didn't fight the

2:40:50 ↗ Issaquah Highlands we didn't fight

2:40:53 ↗ taliss and but now people are upset

2:40:57 ↗ about Bergsma people are upset about

2:41:00 ↗ talus 9 because talus 9 one of the the

2:41:03 ↗ contributing factors there were trees

2:41:05 ↗ being taken down and the mud slide down

2:41:08 ↗ talus drive and so on and so forth this

2:41:11 ↗ is just another example of more the same

2:41:14 ↗ and this treed area is actually the last

2:41:17 ↗ stand it's not just one little parcel in

2:41:20 ↗ you know that you can just say that that

2:41:23 ↗ that is the it's the last stand I just

2:41:28 ↗ drew it I'm gonna loss for words because

2:41:32 ↗ I can't actually believe you are even

2:41:34 ↗ considering taking the trees down on

2:41:35 ↗ this parcel that's how I feel about it

2:41:39 ↗ lastly when you when you put up your

2:41:41 ↗ timeline through September people have

2:41:45 ↗ been asking me how do we fight this and

2:41:47 ↗ we're not waiting till September to

2:41:49 ↗ start fighting this we're going to start

2:41:51 ↗ fighting it now and I don't mean to

2:41:53 ↗ sound threatening but the fight it will

2:41:55 ↗ not be just those trees it's the entire

2:41:57 ↗ project and so if you really like the

2:42:01 ↗ entire affordable housing concept if you

2:42:04 ↗ like moving centurylink I think you have

2:42:07 ↗ to ask yourself what is the public

2:42:10 ↗ benefit and actually more what is the

2:42:13 ↗ public takeaway you know you've got your

2:42:16 ↗ ask you're making a large ask in taxes

2:42:18 ↗ for the public

2:42:19 ↗ you're asking a large ask for the public

2:42:21 ↗ as far as accommodating a lot more cars

2:42:23 ↗ and not contributing anything to

2:42:24 ↗ infrastructure you're asking us again to

2:42:28 ↗ accommodate a lot more people for our

2:42:30 ↗ parks and no money for that and you're

2:42:32 ↗ asking for people more people pour it on

2:42:34 ↗ the Newport way that it already is

2:42:36 ↗ gridlocked and on top of that you're

2:42:38 ↗ asking us to give up our trees our last

2:42:40 ↗ stand

2:42:40 ↗ so no

2:42:44 ↗ Corie anybody else would comment being

2:42:49 ↗ then take back to the committee so our

2:42:55 ↗ specific ask tonight Patricia is whether

2:43:00 ↗ we want to recommend for the full

2:43:03 ↗ council that we annex the area right

2:43:08 ↗ we've already done the resolution right

2:43:11 ↗ so I'm sorry forward is it just a zoning

2:43:13 ↗ right it's - we've already advertised

2:43:15 ↗ for the public here in the first of the

2:43:17 ↗ two for the 17th so I think the asked

2:43:21 ↗ was do you have any more questions that

2:43:23 ↗ you would want us to try to answer for

2:43:25 ↗ the 17th so do we not make a recommend

2:43:29 ↗ so everything's already rolling this is

2:43:32 ↗ just I think it's so what we're trying

2:43:34 ↗ to do I think is to give you guys

2:43:36 ↗ whatever additional information you

2:43:38 ↗ would find helpful to have a pre

2:43:43 ↗ annexation conversation or conclusive

2:43:47 ↗ than this conversation that I desperate

2:43:49 ↗ for action the does say of our action

2:43:51 ↗ information and as I recall when it was

2:43:54 ↗ at the council when we've heard it here

2:43:55 ↗ I specifically said this is coming to

2:43:58 ↗ land and Shore will have more discussion

2:44:01 ↗ there plus it says action so I'm a

2:44:03 ↗ little bit confused yeah I see that

2:44:09 ↗ there's an a on the land and Shore but I

2:44:12 ↗ had always thought this was just for you

2:44:14 ↗ to gain more information and discuss

2:44:16 ↗ what you had asked for on June 5th

2:44:19 ↗ because everything else is rolling as

2:44:21 ↗ east side but it's not because it's

2:44:24 ↗ quasi-judicial we don't make a

2:44:27 ↗ recommendation it is that okay so - I am

2:44:34 ↗ - because we technically didn't have to

2:44:38 ↗ have the this in the middle of the two

2:44:40 ↗ public hearings but you had asked on

2:44:42 ↗ June 5th you thought it would be a good

2:44:44 ↗ idea to have sort of a discussion with

2:44:47 ↗ more information before you went to the

2:44:49 ↗ first public hearing so I don't think we

2:44:51 ↗ asked that

2:44:54 ↗ that's I have zero recollection of that

2:44:56 ↗ I figured that it was the regular

2:44:58 ↗ process to get referred to Landon Shore

2:45:01 ↗ for recommendation out we didn't even

2:45:03 ↗ discuss that it was causing a judicial

2:45:04 ↗ at the time that we talked about this at

2:45:06 ↗ full council so my confusion is when it

2:45:15 ↗ means it's rolling what action did we

2:45:17 ↗ take on this maybe on June 5th you

2:45:21 ↗ approved the resolution to move forward

2:45:24 ↗ if you look on the cover of the agenda

2:45:26 ↗ bill it says the proposed resolution

2:45:29 ↗ declared the city's intent to annex the

2:45:32 ↗ King County Island you included the

2:45:33 ↗ boundaries you stated the annexation

2:45:35 ↗ area will assume the proportionate share

2:45:37 ↗ of indebtedness as of the effective date

2:45:41 ↗ you set to public hearing dates for

2:45:43 ↗ considering the pre-annexation zoning

2:45:45 ↗ and you set a public hearing for the

2:45:47 ↗ actual annexation hearing and you

2:45:50 ↗ authorized the administration to proceed

2:45:52 ↗ with the annexation by submitting the

2:45:53 ↗ Notice of Intent to the boundary Review

2:45:55 ↗ Board that was all done on June 5th yes

2:46:00 ↗ but if you go to the last two lines

2:46:05 ↗ refer to the July 6 council linden short

2:46:08 ↗ committee for review and recommendation

2:46:20 ↗ am I missing something now you're right

2:46:24 ↗ that's what it says Oh Oh city

2:46:35 ↗ administrator what do we what's the what

2:46:38 ↗ is the process what so well so I think

2:46:43 ↗ the question is really about you know is

2:46:46 ↗ this inconsistent with what we're

2:46:47 ↗ supposed to do with quasi-judicial are

2:46:49 ↗ we supposed to make a recommendation it

2:46:52 ↗ was not my understanding that we were

2:46:53 ↗ just going to chat about it and provide

2:46:56 ↗ more questions so you know having read

2:47:01 ↗ the agenda bill I guess what I would say

2:47:03 ↗ is the agenda Bill's looking for a

2:47:05 ↗ recommendation coming out of this

2:47:07 ↗ committee for establishing the pre

2:47:09 ↗ patient illumining mm-hmm so if the

2:47:12 ↗ committee is ready to make that

2:47:14 ↗ recommendation then that would be the

2:47:16 ↗ action that would be taken is evening

2:47:18 ↗ okay if the committee's not ready it can

2:47:21 ↗ stay in committee because we're having

2:47:23 ↗ more land and short meetings before

2:47:25 ↗ September 5th okay sure we can

2:47:29 ↗ I'm not concerned about whether we're

2:47:30 ↗ ready or not I'm guessing that we are

2:47:32 ↗ that's what we were told in our agenda

2:47:35 ↗ Bella you're going to be doing so that's

2:47:37 ↗ what I was thinking about when I was

2:47:39 ↗ reading it but my concern is are we

2:47:42 ↗ doing something that out that is outside

2:47:43 ↗ what should be done if it's a closeted

2:47:46 ↗ judicial process right I won't be my

2:47:48 ↗ concern right your gender bill talks

2:47:50 ↗ about the two public hearings that the

2:47:52 ↗ first one the public may offer testimony

2:47:54 ↗ and you can talk about it but you don't

2:47:56 ↗ have to make any action at the first

2:47:59 ↗ public hearing I think the intent is to

2:48:01 ↗ keep an open mind see if there's any

2:48:03 ↗ questions that come up that you'd like

2:48:05 ↗ us to research which is why the state

2:48:07 ↗ requires 30 days in between the two

2:48:09 ↗ hearings on pre-annexation zoning so

2:48:12 ↗ that there's a time that you can get we

2:48:14 ↗ can gather information to help you make

2:48:16 ↗ the decision so here's what I would like

2:48:18 ↗ so if you will give me one more

2:48:20 ↗ opportunity so for me it seems in a

2:48:23 ↗ appropriate for you guys to make a

2:48:25 ↗ recommendation without during the public

2:48:26 ↗ comment mcdowell are right okay I mean

2:48:31 ↗ because you're basing it based on the

2:48:33 ↗ three comments you've heard tonight and

2:48:35 ↗ you may get you know a hundred people

2:48:38 ↗ from the Highlands I don't know what

2:48:39 ↗ you'll get but it seems like making a

2:48:42 ↗ recommendation is premature in advance

2:48:44 ↗ of the hearings that's the reason why

2:48:47 ↗ you have a hearing is to help inform

2:48:48 ↗ ultimately the council decision so there

2:48:52 ↗ it wouldn't come back so we have a time

2:48:54 ↗ sensitivity do we not so if we have two

2:48:57 ↗ public hearings one on July 17th and one

2:48:59 ↗ on September 5th it wouldn't be

2:49:01 ↗ appropriate then based on your rationale

2:49:03 ↗ for us to make a recommendation at all

2:49:05 ↗ before September 5th so so I guess what

2:49:11 ↗ maybe what we do is we hold off and no

2:49:16 ↗ no I would agree that that would be most

2:49:18 ↗ prudent because you haven't had your

2:49:19 ↗ public hearings yet on the zoning would

2:49:24 ↗ it be appropriate then to make comments

2:49:28 ↗ shouldn't mean concerned we have about

2:49:31 ↗ the proposed zoning sure and then that

2:49:34 ↗ gives us a chance to research or provide

2:49:36 ↗ more information or whatever before the

2:49:39 ↗ 17th that not give you all a chance to

2:49:43 ↗ research it well as well what land is

2:49:45 ↗ yours rule should be in this right

2:49:47 ↗ clarify

2:49:55 ↗ are there more questions that you want

2:49:58 ↗ us to research other than I had a few

2:50:00 ↗ from Paul what would all of the uses be

2:50:03 ↗ and how would it be built out with a

2:50:04 ↗ short plat and I have the one what would

2:50:07 ↗ what is wash that thinking about for the

2:50:11 ↗ future of their land uses those are the

2:50:13 ↗ two that I have that I heard

2:50:15 ↗ Agatha that second when I wash that is

2:50:18 ↗ that I'm a little uncomfortable with

2:50:21 ↗ that zoning so so Allah I'll speak up

2:50:26 ↗ for my peer who decided you want to go

2:50:28 ↗ home and have dinner so when we when we

2:50:31 ↗ purchase Park point we basically took

2:50:35 ↗ off so the way our water reservoirs work

2:50:38 ↗ is reservoirs have to be a certain

2:50:40 ↗ elevation to serve a certain portion of

2:50:42 ↗ the city when so the water plan that we

2:50:46 ↗ have showed a 297 reservoir on Park

2:50:50 ↗ Point and when we bought Park point and

2:50:52 ↗ preserved as open space it displaced a

2:50:55 ↗ critical piece of our infrastructure

2:50:58 ↗ necessary to serve water on the valley

2:50:59 ↗ floor and so as you as you go around the

2:51:02 ↗ city and look for another parcel that's

2:51:04 ↗ at the 297 band

2:51:06 ↗ he's wonder at the 297 band so Sheldon

2:51:09 ↗ has have been having conversations with

2:51:11 ↗ washed-out about whether or not the city

2:51:13 ↗ could purchase the water utility could

2:51:15 ↗ purchase one of these properties a lot

2:51:17 ↗ of reservoir conversation then turn from

2:51:20 ↗ washed out to mountains to sound how

2:51:22 ↗ could you do that and not have it

2:51:24 ↗ visible from the freeway so that's kind

2:51:27 ↗ of where this is but I guess and I don't

2:51:31 ↗ know what conversations have been had

2:51:33 ↗ with washed out about the pre-annexation

2:51:34 ↗ zoning it could be similar to I mean so

2:51:39 ↗ you know you could do it CFO and then

2:51:41 ↗ come in later and change it to CF app if

2:51:44 ↗ the city bought for a water reservoir

2:51:46 ↗ you know that's bad options there too I

2:51:49 ↗ don't know why all of it is showing up

2:51:52 ↗ as BFF because you only need one of them

2:51:54 ↗ for a water reservoir and I don't know

2:51:56 ↗ what else would happen on the rest of

2:51:57 ↗ them so here's where I think we are I

2:51:59 ↗ think the committee members should

2:52:00 ↗ provide some comments if you're

2:52:02 ↗ comfortable doing that now or if you

2:52:04 ↗ have additional questions and then I

2:52:05 ↗ think we need to move on to the next

2:52:07 ↗ agenda bill okay

2:52:08 ↗ so common was to start every class if

2:52:12 ↗ you want I think the thing that drives

2:52:15 ↗ me absolutely crazy is that none of that

2:52:18 ↗ if I'm a citizen follow those is just

2:52:22 ↗ new transcript in terms of what these

2:52:26 ↗ parcels might be used for whether it's a

2:52:29 ↗ school whether it's a water tower and it

2:52:32 ↗ it makes the whole thing so difficult

2:52:35 ↗ and so I don't know with our rules if

2:52:37 ↗ you can amend your agenda bill or

2:52:39 ↗ whatever but what is missing here is

2:52:41 ↗ some sort of narrative that would put

2:52:42 ↗ any context or transparency and this is

2:52:44 ↗ public it doesn't make any sense so it's

2:52:48 ↗ not just what might they use it for that

2:52:50 ↗ whole story you just told us no we're

2:52:52 ↗ not that that's what it's going to be

2:52:53 ↗ maybe it's not a water tower but there

2:52:55 ↗ it's just this is completely hidden from

2:52:57 ↗ the public and their opportunity to join

2:53:00 ↗ in on any of the conversation they'll

2:53:02 ↗ come to the public hearing and they'll

2:53:04 ↗ see what we thought tonight and unless

2:53:05 ↗ they watch the tape and hear you say

2:53:06 ↗ what you said in here the school

2:53:07 ↗ districts presentation this is just

2:53:10 ↗ hidden it's just totally hidden so I

2:53:12 ↗ don't know how you fix that but that's

2:53:15 ↗ just the way it comes across it's not

2:53:17 ↗ very transparent

2:53:25 ↗ well I would agree with those comments

2:53:27 ↗ and at this point I don't understand at

2:53:32 ↗ all why we don't leave everything CF

2:53:34 ↗ have everything be CFO except the IC

2:53:37 ↗ because there's a there does seem to be

2:53:41 ↗ a real-time sensitivity on that one and

2:53:43 ↗ that we've at least talked about before

2:53:49 ↗ but my comments about CFO at this point

2:53:54 ↗ have nothing to do with the merits of

2:53:56 ↗ the site as a potential school site

2:53:59 ↗ there's just I just don't have enough

2:54:01 ↗ information to even know whether whether

2:54:04 ↗ that would be an appropriate site and so

2:54:06 ↗ I don't want my comments to be

2:54:08 ↗ misconstrued by our good friends of the

2:54:12 ↗ school district as me not supporting

2:54:13 ↗ that for a school I just it's I just

2:54:15 ↗ don't think it's appropriate this time

2:54:17 ↗ to do CFS at least I don't that's my

2:54:20 ↗ comment tonight and same thing with the

2:54:22 ↗ wash not oh no I think the answer washed

2:54:26 ↗ out wants it is just it we fall short

2:54:29 ↗ for reasoning for me and the fact that

2:54:32 ↗ we're already working on something that

2:54:34 ↗ we know nothing about but oh but just do

2:54:37 ↗ CFS because they might be thinking about

2:54:38 ↗ something just yeah that's really

2:54:42 ↗ concerning I mean we keep hearing that

2:54:44 ↗ we make decisions before it's out in the

2:54:46 ↗ public and this is a perfect example of

2:54:48 ↗ why some people feel that way seems like

2:54:55 ↗ I've heard talk about a water tower for

2:54:57 ↗ a couple years

2:54:58 ↗ am I remembering that correctly yeah

2:55:03 ↗ they said they are been out there for a

2:55:06 ↗ long time but and but I was never clear

2:55:08 ↗ about the location and I remember

2:55:10 ↗ fearing that it would interfere kind of

2:55:13 ↗ the open space that it's already used by

2:55:15 ↗ the public on the west side of Highlands

2:55:19 ↗ Drive where there is the footpath that

2:55:21 ↗ might go into that area but I think I

2:55:23 ↗ asked that once and it was dispelled no

2:55:25 ↗ it wouldn't go there is that that that

2:55:30 ↗ is this the water tower that the same

2:55:32 ↗ water tower yes okay so it's kind of in

2:55:34 ↗ that it has to be in that elevation yeah

2:55:37 ↗ understood understand

2:55:38 ↗ of course the packet does have the

2:55:39 ↗ information from the letter from the

2:55:41 ↗ school district and the location that

2:55:44 ↗ they even kinda drew a seven-acre box

2:55:47 ↗ around the location so that that we knew

2:55:51 ↗ that the concept of a school was that's

2:55:54 ↗ there and I think the whole Tod project

2:55:58 ↗ as well said it did specify this

2:56:03 ↗ location for for that maintenance yard

2:56:07 ↗ for or whatever it's called for

2:56:08 ↗ CenturyLink so those those uses are out

2:56:12 ↗ there not allowed detail yet but

2:56:15 ↗ sufficient to know what the potential

2:56:17 ↗ land uses are and the so I'm glad to

2:56:21 ↗ know to learn more now about the other

2:56:23 ↗ potential use a water tower would be it

2:56:26 ↗ would be good to add that in there so

2:56:29 ↗ the so coming into this meeting I

2:56:33 ↗ thought the same thing that this is a

2:56:35 ↗ pre we're going to have a pre have to

2:56:37 ↗ set the annexation prior to the airing

2:56:39 ↗ and the administration has made a

2:56:40 ↗ proposal that's the way I look at this

2:56:42 ↗ it's I see and then the CFO and CFF and

2:56:45 ↗ and I came here wondering why CF f was

2:56:51 ↗ anywhere other than what the school

2:56:55 ↗ district identified as a location that

2:56:57 ↗ maybe they could use so then I see as

2:57:00 ↗ proposed makes sense the CFO makes a

2:57:03 ↗ sense where it is the the but the c FF

2:57:08 ↗ beyond what beyond what the school

2:57:13 ↗ district identified is what they're

2:57:14 ↗ interested didn't make any sense and and

2:57:18 ↗ now we hear that maybe there's a it

2:57:21 ↗ might be in one of those areas that a

2:57:22 ↗ water tower but that's not what was said

2:57:24 ↗ earlier so what the wash dot might want

2:57:26 ↗ is there something else being referred

2:57:28 ↗ to then something separate than a water

2:57:30 ↗ tower that we need not wash dot wants I

2:57:33 ↗ do not know of anything other than the

2:57:37 ↗ conversation between pwe and watch dot

2:57:40 ↗ about a reservoir so I don't know why

2:57:43 ↗ the other parcels

2:57:45 ↗ I think I think there's there's like

2:57:47 ↗ actually an existing bench on one of

2:57:50 ↗ those that's the right spot for the

2:57:51 ↗ reservoir it it will be screened from

2:57:54 ↗ the freeway it's perfect so I don't know

2:57:56 ↗ why the rest of it cff and I don't know

2:57:59 ↗ if washed odd if that was their ask to

2:58:02 ↗ make it CFS yes what Sheldon I'm don't

2:58:05 ↗ going with what Sheldon told Madden no

2:58:06 ↗ we need to write that down clearly um

2:58:09 ↗ you know but part of that is is a

2:58:14 ↗ necessity of our water utility expansion

2:58:18 ↗ that would be so I think one of the

2:58:21 ↗ things that I think we need to provide

2:58:23 ↗ you all before the hearing is I'll be a

2:58:27 ↗ land plan for all the property with the

2:58:29 ↗ stuff that we know that's coming even if

2:58:31 ↗ it's conceptual to show it what it's

2:58:34 ↗ going to look like it once been you

2:58:36 ↗ what's potential what's been discussed

2:58:38 ↗ you said he was coming with our

2:58:39 ↗ potential and that way you can see what

2:58:44 ↗ at least we believe is going to be the

2:58:47 ↗ outcome of that assuming you make the

2:58:49 ↗ zoning consistent with what the

2:58:51 ↗ administration is recommending that part

2:58:54 ↗ you know when Trish summarized I also

2:58:57 ↗ heard an expectation of understanding

2:58:59 ↗ grading impacts if this school were to

2:59:03 ↗ move forward and that's another piece we

2:59:05 ↗ can see we can provide some of that

2:59:06 ↗ technical information because then you

2:59:09 ↗ guys can understand make a better

2:59:11 ↗ decision on on what to do with the

2:59:13 ↗ property

2:59:14 ↗ hey so the only thing that I would

2:59:19 ↗ recommend or we want to see different is

2:59:22 ↗ is keeping the potential school area at

2:59:26 ↗ a pre-annexation level of CFS I mean I

2:59:30 ↗ see everything's CFO and then just that

2:59:33 ↗ seven acres

2:59:37 ↗ Thank You Bernard for the confusion okay

2:59:43 ↗ next I guess this one may be simpler

2:59:46 ↗ hahaha

2:59:48 ↗ cuz we're all tired no it is a good yeah

2:59:52 ↗ because it is agenda bell seven four

2:59:54 ↗ four two

2:59:55 ↗ Thank You Gail Steve and Ron for coming

3:00:00 ↗ you know before that last picture that

3:00:06 ↗ you had up there yeah you said it thank

3:00:09 ↗ you that showed the potential cff where

3:00:16 ↗ the school district indicated their

3:00:17 ↗ interest mm-hmm that drawing isn't even

3:00:20 ↗ that up in the upper right that's in the

3:00:22 ↗ upper right oh this that's not even

3:00:25 ↗ close to the seven acres at the school

3:00:27 ↗ district yes what is his big drama in

3:00:30 ↗ June before we even know what right so

3:00:33 ↗ my my message is that that information

3:00:36 ↗ can face something that's not even close

3:00:39 ↗ to what we're discussing that's that and

3:00:42 ↗ so that was out there yeah right well

3:00:43 ↗ it's pretty easy to look at that go oh

3:00:45 ↗ my gosh

3:00:45 ↗ Rice's this is this is quite different

3:00:48 ↗ right it's evolved a lot since beginning

3:00:51 ↗ of June but also to we tried to do that

3:00:57 ↗ once we heard from that and what their

3:01:00 ↗ idea was we tried to figure out how to

3:01:02 ↗ draw it on the contours because before

3:01:03 ↗ that the map you said that are just the

3:01:06 ↗ stick dash lines was just to get it to

3:01:08 ↗ bound review board with there's an idea

3:01:10 ↗ that there might be three different

3:01:11 ↗ zones within the parcel okay we might

3:01:14 ↗ learn Thank You agenda bill seven four

3:01:16 ↗ four two fish here Suzanne this is very

3:01:26 ↗ similar it'll be easier than the

3:01:29 ↗ previous one because this is a very very

3:01:31 ↗ small parcel less than two acres owned

3:01:33 ↗ by the City of Bellevue it is already

3:01:35 ↗ the site of a reservoir we took it over

3:01:39 ↗ in the assumption that you all approved

3:01:42 ↗ that would became effective January 1st

3:01:45 ↗ of this year and now that we've assumed

3:01:48 ↗ it as a utility now we get to bring it

3:01:51 ↗ into our

3:01:51 ↗ jurisdiction and it's completely

3:01:53 ↗ surrounded by the city limits this is it

3:01:58 ↗ this teeny tiny little gray parcel it

3:02:02 ↗ already has a reservoir on it yes though

3:02:05 ↗ there's no potential development they

3:02:07 ↗ rounded by trees which is a I couldn't

3:02:09 ↗ even get an aerial picture of it because

3:02:11 ↗ it just is so beautifully surrounded by

3:02:13 ↗ trees

3:02:14 ↗ what is the lid what is the landowner

3:02:16 ↗ what there we go you all you little

3:02:19 ↗ people with you so we could notice that

3:02:21 ↗ we're taking it over so this also gets

3:02:23 ↗ the two public hearings it gets all the

3:02:25 ↗ same thing but not the intrigue that the

3:02:28 ↗ previous annexation had on the tree are

3:02:31 ↗ there questions about the tiny little

3:02:33 ↗ utility site not even two acres it was

3:02:36 ↗ just the same thing only if we have any

3:02:38 ↗ questions or comments yes okay so I have

3:02:41 ↗ no there's no questions Paul no

3:02:43 ↗ questions push it out okay then so um

3:02:51 ↗ that's it yes I need to a public comment

3:02:55 ↗ what kind of you know what I'm missing

3:02:59 ↗ no okay we need evidence of that just

3:03:12 ↗ joking it's late I'm still here right

3:03:14 ↗ yes yes I'm so in our Issaquah PFF zone

3:03:20 ↗ are we going to keep the trees are we

3:03:22 ↗ going to cut the trees down from around

3:03:24 ↗ the reservoir so that we can see it

3:03:29 ↗ that's pretty jaded but you know it's I

3:03:32 ↗ I think we we probably could because I I

3:03:37 ↗ walked around a reservoir all the time

3:03:39 ↗ and they've carefully cut all the trees

3:03:41 ↗ out from around the reservoir that I

3:03:43 ↗ walk around all the time so I would ask

3:03:46 ↗ that question in all seriousness so can

3:03:52 ↗ we get that answer answer that Negresco

3:03:54 ↗ yeah that's question

3:03:57 ↗ okay maintenance around tax authorities

3:04:03 ↗ okay that's okay if there's nothing else

3:04:08 ↗ and we are adjourned

3:04:27 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Eileen Barber

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Tola Marts

Mary Lou Pauly

Bill Ramos

Paul Winterstein

Motions and votes (3)

Award the construction contract to rebuild the damaged Talus/Shangri-La Way public infrastructure to Marshbank Construction, Inc.in the amount of $1,330,684 including applicable Washington State Sales Tax; and direct the Finance Director to include $1,694,218 for restoration of Shangri-La Way NW and…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 7-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

Award the construction contract for the construction of the 2017 Complete Streets Phase 1 Project to NPM Construction Co. in the amount of $489,226 (including sales tax). .

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 7-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. a) Accounts: Payables and Payroll, July 6, 2017; Approved $ 4,323,843.14. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK NUMBERS AMOUNT Accounts Payable Checks 168652 to 168656 79,813.21 Accounts Payable Checks 168657 to 168877 1,055,962.59 Municipal Court Checks 4570 to 4575 3,168.…

Moved by GOODMAN · seconded by PAULY

Carried 7-0

In favor: Eileen Barber, Mariah Bettise, Stacy Goodman, Tola Marts, Mary Lou Pauly, Bill Ramos, Paul Winterstein