City Council Special Meeting · Monday, March 19, 2018 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

The purpose of this special meeting is to allow the City Council to recess into Executive Session to discuss pending/potential litigation per RCW take approximately 30 minutes. Please note that Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Action, if needed, would occur in open session of a Regular Council meeting

2720 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ Good evening and welcome everyone. I am calling the March 19th

0:15 ↗ regular City Council meeting to order. Council President Martz has an

0:21 ↗ excused absence this evening. I'd like to ask those of you

0:26 ↗ who would like to join the Council and myself in the

0:32 ↗ Pledge of Allegiance to please stand. I pledge allegiance to the

0:37 ↗ flag of the United States of America, the flag for which

0:43 ↗ it stands, for liberty and

0:48 ↗ justice for all. Before I get to the

0:54 ↗ first item on the agenda, I did just want to let our audience know, we

0:59 ↗ have a large audience this evening, that we have a long business meeting and many

1:05 ↗ important topics that will require a lot of conversation and dialogue between council tonight. I

1:10 ↗ just also wanted to say that the 800-page packet that if anybody chose to go

1:15 ↗ through it, as the council members had to, is something we are trying to change.

1:20 ↗ We are working actively with the city clerk and some council members and council leadership

1:25 ↗ to try and present our information in a briefer, more compact, more understandable format. Thank

1:31 ↗ you. I see Joe clapping. So the first item on regular business today is audience

1:36 ↗ comments. We have many different groups and individuals here this evening. The guidelines for audience

1:41 ↗ comments are on the meeting agenda. If you got a chance to sign up on

1:46 ↗ the sign-up sheet you will get to speak first. If you did not sign up

1:51 ↗ I will ask for other speakers before closing the portion of the meeting. When you

1:56 ↗ are recognized please come up to our lectern and speak into the microphone. State your

2:00 ↗ name, address and relationship to the city. Limit your comments to three minutes and if

2:05 ↗ you have written comments that you would like to submit please bring them over to

2:09 ↗ the clerk. If you are with a group that is here this evening and you

2:15 ↗ have a common message and you've been communicating with Council, we would appreciate it during

2:19 ↗ the business meeting for you to have a spokesperson or several spokespersons, spokespeople, as long

2:24 ↗ as you keep reiterating some new points. So if you find that there is a

2:28 ↗ speaker speaking and they are saying something that resonates with you, please feel free to

2:33 ↗ wave your hand so the Council then can understand who came here to support that

2:37 ↗ issue tonight. Thank you. Do we have anyone signed up? I'm

2:43 ↗ not surprised. Yes, Joe Verner. Good evening. The name

2:49 ↗ is Joe Verner and the address is 1230 Oakwood

2:55 ↗ Place, Northwest. It's alongside the Newport Way Northwest Corridor.

3:01 ↗ Just two quick items tonight. One of the topics

3:07 ↗ is AB 7485 about the vacating of an easement.

3:13 ↗ When you do present that or discuss it, could

3:19 ↗ the audience receive a one paragraph, easy to understand,

3:25 ↗ non-obfuscated version explanation of what it's about, why it's

3:30 ↗ there, who benefits, and when does it happen? Secondly,

3:36 ↗ the trash and garbage and shoot-up needles that have

3:42 ↗ been along Newport Way Northwest West of sr

3:47 ↗ 900 on the bergsma property was miraculously cleaned up today,

3:53 ↗ so if the city had some facilitation efforts or encouragement

3:59 ↗ Kudos to the city and I say thank you

4:05 ↗ Thank you, Joe. I'd just like to point, because Joe is pointing out I'm saying

4:10 ↗ something here. We do have a public hearing this evening and it is related to

4:15 ↗ the vacation of a portion of Northeast Gilman Boulevard. You can provide comments now if

4:20 ↗ you would like, but there will be a time in the meeting when you can

4:25 ↗ provide input on that specific item. So thank you, Joe. Next. Bruce Semple, followed by

4:30 ↗ Gary Young and Tia Haim.

4:36 ↗ Thank you. My name is Bruce Sample. I live at 100 Timber

4:42 ↗ Ridge Way, North West and I'm a resident of Issaquah. Timber Ridge

4:47 ↗ residents have been repeatedly sharing their comments here and in emails, etc.

4:53 ↗ and concerns with you about the fate of AB7524 and about any

4:59 ↗ potential changes in zoning that would impact both the type and any

5:04 ↗ development on parcel 17B and the character of Tallis. The type of

5:10 ↗ land use naturally raises concerns about any impacts on daily living for our

5:16 ↗ nearly 500 residents and 250 staff, such as traffic congestion on SR 900,

5:22 ↗ Tallis Drive, and particularly on Falcon Way. Falconway is already heavily

5:28 ↗ utilised for to and fro resident use of garages, for suppliers' trucks

5:34 ↗ accessing the delivery bay, for emergency vehicle use and for on-street parking

5:39 ↗ by residents, staff and guests. But a significant counterbalance to all this

5:45 ↗ busyness and hassle is the calming and health benefiting effects of the

5:51 ↗ beauty of the Timber Ridge site with its expansive architecture and its landscaping

5:57 ↗ all framed by the mountainside forests. This is not just the biased opinion

6:02 ↗ of us residents. Timber Ridge was awarded runner up out of over 80

6:08 ↗ nationwide competitors in the 2017 Continuing Care Retirement Community category of the Senior

6:14 ↗ Housing News Architecture and Design Awards being especially recognised for its green

6:20 ↗ construction strategy being in harmony with the environment and I'll have a copy

6:26 ↗ of that award for the Clerk later. Timber Ridge is a major contributor

6:31 ↗ to the envisioned character of Tallis and adds to the inspiring aspects of

6:37 ↗ the southern gateway to Issachar. We also share the concerns of Tallis homeowners

6:43 ↗ for the future of Parcel 9. and we hope that any future

6:49 ↗ construction there will be similarly acknowledged for design excellence and compatibility with the envisioned mountain

6:55 ↗ village character of Tallis. So we have attended tonight, all 30 of us from Timber

7:01 ↗ Ridge, to encourage you to end the Tallis Development Agreement with all due speed so

7:07 ↗ that we and all of Tallis residents have an opportunity to add our full voice

7:13 ↗ to any future development of Parcel 17B and indeed of Parcel 9. We want

7:19 ↗ to ensure that their zoning and land use remain as originally approved and we all

7:24 ↗ hope that any development will be in harmony with the planned envisioning of Tallis and

7:30 ↗ be an embellishment of our southern gateway. I have a final shout out from our

7:36 ↗ staff, including many college students. They are mostly commuters and they are significantly

7:42 ↗ impacted by the roadways congestion and it is noteworthy that those who missed out on

7:47 ↗ the previous petition gathering have asked to be recognized by adding their names. Their additional

7:53 ↗ signatures have been attached to my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. At least the

7:58 ↗ 30 hands of the people that came with Bruce are up, if not about 40.

8:09 ↗ Mayor Pauly, Council, Gary Young with Shelter Holdings 11624, Southeast 5th, Suite 210,

8:14 ↗ Bellevue, Washington, 98005. I never really thought I'd be coming before you tonight

8:20 ↗ and saying what I'm going to say tonight. It's very disappointing. But in

8:26 ↗ all our 40 years of business, and many of those are 40 years

8:31 ↗ of business here in the City of Issaquah, we have never sued a

8:37 ↗ city or any jurisdiction. But in all our 40 years, we've never

8:43 ↗ been treated quite as poorly as we're being presently treated by the

8:48 ↗ City of Issaquah. This is a difficult thing to be dealing with.

8:54 ↗ I know it's not popular in Issaquah to acknowledge that property owners

9:00 ↗ and developers are valued as part of the community, but we are

9:05 ↗ your constituents. We are a family-owned business, deep roots in this community, way

9:11 ↗ back. We have built many neighborhoods in the community that have been very well received,

9:17 ↗ all types of development throughout this region. We support our local residents, local businesses, our

9:23 ↗ nonprofits, Leo, Eastside Baby Corner, Art East, the Esquire School Foundation, many more. And we

9:29 ↗ care very deeply about what happens in this city. Two weeks ago we

9:34 ↗ delivered the City a notice of default under the development agreement that outlines the pattern

9:40 ↗ of egregious behavior, just basically means really bad, by the City with respect to our

9:46 ↗ applications. This was not a step that we took lightly. This is the last thing

9:51 ↗ we really wanted to do. I would expect that the facts in that notice of

9:57 ↗ default were shocking to you. It should be shocking to you that the City would

10:03 ↗ refuse to abide by the terms of an agreement to which it is bound. Regardless

10:09 ↗ of how you feel about us or our specific development proposals, as every resident in

10:14 ↗ Issaquah and yourselves, you should be extremely concerned that the City of Issaquah would act

10:20 ↗ in the manner that we have described to you. It is your duty as Council

10:26 ↗ members to investigate and remedy this situation. The city has scheduled a meeting

10:31 ↗ with our attorneys that will be later this week to discuss the notice of

10:37 ↗ default. It makes no sense whatsoever for you to take action tonight before that

10:43 ↗ meeting has occurred. Furthermore, I urge you to just to do the right thing

10:48 ↗ and table the adoption of the replacement regulations until at least these defaults under

10:54 ↗ the development agreement have been investigated and resolved. Thank you. Thank you, Gary.

11:00 ↗ Tia Heim, followed by Karen Lee and Susan

11:05 ↗ Haas. Good evening. I'm Tia Heim, also with

11:11 ↗ Shelter Holdings and IHIF Commercial. We keep hearing the

11:17 ↗ statement that we should have acted sooner because we knew the development agreement was coming

11:22 ↗ to an end. So I wanted to address that to you tonight. The development agreement

11:27 ↗ remains in effect until it's terminated. That means all of the parties to the development

11:32 ↗ agreement are required to abide by its terms. We relied on that happening. However, the

11:37 ↗ city improperly chose not to fulfill its obligations under the development agreement. As property owner,

11:42 ↗ how could we possibly have anticipated that that would happen? We had no choice but

11:47 ↗ to rely on the development agreement. It is the land use code that applies within

11:53 ↗ Issaquah Highlands right now. There was no other set of land use regulations or review

11:58 ↗ timeframes that we could have elected to use. It's also important to remember that we

12:03 ↗ began discussions regarding our plat and vesting of our applications with the city over 14

12:09 ↗ months ago. The initial collaborative meeting for our plat was

12:14 ↗ held on March 21st, 2017. We began diligently pursuing the specific site development permits

12:20 ↗ as soon as the plat application was deemed complete. We now have applications for

12:25 ↗ plat and three SDPs or ASDPs that have been deemed complete and are vested

12:31 ↗ to the development standards including mitigation per the terms of the development agreement. Any

12:37 ↗ attempt to refuse to recognize this will create needless controversy. We've provided extensive

12:42 ↗ comment on the specific problems with the replacement regulations including the proposed minimum FAR and

12:48 ↗ structured parking requirements and we hope that you have reviewed the record on these points.

12:54 ↗ These proposed regulations are a radical change for Issaquah Highlands and will result in very

13:00 ↗ little to no new development happening. The minimum FAR proposed by the administration

13:06 ↗ demands a minimum density that is significantly more than the original Microsoft proposal. It

13:12 ↗ exceeds the target FARs in the development agreement and ignores the fundamental differences between

13:17 ↗ retail and commercial development. In effect, it prohibits retail development. The Land and Shore

13:23 ↗ Committee recommended to you that you should not adopt the structured parking requirement in Issaquah

13:28 ↗ Highlands and we hope that you follow this recommendation. A vote in favor of either

13:33 ↗ or both the minimum FAR or structured parking sends a very clear message to the

13:38 ↗ community that you do not support any additional retail or services being added to Issaquah

13:43 ↗ Highlands, despite that being the number one request from the people that actually live there.

13:48 ↗ We're disappointed with the recommendations from the administration and hope that the City

13:54 ↗ Council approaches this with fresh eyes, requiring fair and equal treatment for all

14:00 ↗ and pursuing investigation and resolution of the defaults under the development agreement prior

14:06 ↗ to charging forward with termination and new regulations. Simply adding provisional status does

14:12 ↗ not solve any of the problems that have been identified. Thank you. Thank

14:18 ↗ you, Tia. My name is Karen Lee. My address is 582-240th Avenue, Southeast

14:24 ↗ Sammamish. I lived in Issaquah for seven years, and then we

14:29 ↗ bought a house, and it became Sammamish at that point. I'm

14:35 ↗ here on behalf of Preserve Providence Heights. I'm the new vice

14:41 ↗ president. We became a nonprofit in December, so now we're a

14:46 ↗ 501 , and we're still trying to save Providence Heights. And

14:52 ↗ I'm here to update you that-- We would like for you to

14:57 ↗ remove the meditated determination of non-significance because we feel that the land and the buildings

15:03 ↗ are very significant. If they weren't so significant, there would not be a landmark status

15:09 ↗ on them right now. And we ask that you keep the landmark status on them.

15:15 ↗ We have plans to build something really wonderful there. which will be

15:21 ↗ addressed in another speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Karen.

15:27 ↗ Next is Susan Haas followed by Fran Pope. Good

15:32 ↗ evening, staff, mayor and city council. My name is

15:38 ↗ Susan Haas and I live at 1952 Forest Southeast

15:44 ↗ 24th Place in Sammamish. And my connections to Issaquah,

15:49 ↗ one is that I'm a weekly volunteer at the

15:55 ↗ Issaquah Food and Clothing Bank And also my second connection

16:01 ↗ is that I'm a board member of Preserve Providence Heights. So that's

16:07 ↗ what I'm interested in talking about. Yes, as Karen Lee mentioned, we

16:12 ↗ still feel very strongly that there could be a really, really good

16:18 ↗ future for Issaquah through preservation of that place. And while the property

16:24 ↗ owners did not have a landmark status attached to it in the

16:30 ↗ past, The community showed so much input and so much

16:36 ↗ interest that now they do. And I'm just really interested in

16:41 ↗ conveying that Preserve Providence Heights, like so many other people, is

16:47 ↗ so committed to kids and so committed to children's education and

16:53 ↗ schools and there being space and adequate educational facilities. And we don't

16:59 ↗ see this as a divisive battle between kids and trees or kids and

17:05 ↗ historic preservation. We see it as incredibly synergistic. All these goals can be

17:11 ↗ met, we feel. So many people do feel that way. And also it's

17:16 ↗ not a battle between Preserve Providence Heights and the property owner either and

17:22 ↗ Church Home. Yes, there is a legal suit right now. and

17:28 ↗ Preserve Providence Heights is a party in this suit, as is the

17:34 ↗ city and the county and Church Home. But we have every best

17:39 ↗ intention to cooperate with Church Home and seek alternative solutions that really

17:45 ↗ do work for everybody. So that's our PR

17:51 ↗ campaign. We're totally pro-kids. We're totally pro-cooperation. We

17:57 ↗ are not in a legal battle for fun.

18:03 ↗ We'd love to not be spending time on

18:08 ↗ that anymore, actually. So whatever you can do

18:14 ↗ to facilitate that would be wonderful. Thank you.

18:20 ↗ Thank you, Susan. Fran Pope, followed by Christine

18:26 ↗ Soule. Sure.

18:33 ↗ Hello, I'm Fran Pope, resident of Issaquah since 1974,

18:39 ↗ living at 625 Mount Fury Circle Southwest. To assure transparency,

18:44 ↗ I am a member of Sammamish Symphony where I play second violin and serve as

18:50 ↗ secretary of the board. I'm also a violinist with Kirkland Civic Orchestra. Both are volunteer

18:55 ↗ community orchestras. I am employed as a substitute reference librarian with King County Library System.

19:00 ↗ I'm also vice president of Preserve Providence Heights. This evening I am not representing any

19:06 ↗ of these organizations in any official capacity, but I am making comments on my own.

19:12 ↗ Playing in these orchestras has raised us to an entirely new level of

19:18 ↗ education as adults and as adult learners. Today, Kirkland Civic Orchestra has grown

19:23 ↗ from about nine members to 86. Sammamish has grown to 60. One of

19:29 ↗ our biggest challenges is rehearsal and performance space. Imagine, if you will, fitting

19:35 ↗ 60 Sammamish players in an unventilated space about the size of these council

19:41 ↗ chambers. Both orchestras have performed with acclaim in Benaroya Hall, where our actual sound

19:46 ↗ can be heard. Our usual venues, Northwest University Chapel in Kirkland, Maiden Bower Theater in

19:52 ↗ Bellevue, and Eastlake High School Auditorium in Sammamish are less than optimal because they were

19:58 ↗ designed for stage plays rather than symphonic works. If you notice, our upcoming concert is

20:04 ↗ only at Maiden Bower because we could not find another venue in the area.

20:10 ↗ At least two other orchestras and several choirs in the area face the same challenge.

20:15 ↗ Yet the chapel at Providence Heights seats 500 and has acoustics far more suitable to

20:21 ↗ music because it was designed for it. There are also rooms on the site that

20:26 ↗ could accommodate rehearsals Secondly, as a librarian, I am very

20:32 ↗ well acquainted with the great need for meeting rooms. KCLS can only accommodate a

20:38 ↗ limited number of people for study groups, adult education classes, tutoring, and public meetings.

20:43 ↗ Private rooms are, or private rooms for supervised parent-child visits. The libraries are

20:49 ↗ also in default care center for the homeless. This can sometimes rightly or wrongly make

20:55 ↗ library patrons uncomfortable in using the library. We are not immune to the issue of

21:01 ↗ opioid and drug addiction. There simply is a critical need for these people to go

21:06 ↗ for help, transitional housing and treatment. Yet Providence Heights is a great opportunity to serve

21:12 ↗ these underserved and needy in our community. Using the existing campus as a community resource

21:18 ↗ could change life and perhaps save life for many. As a member of Providence

21:23 ↗ Heights, I'm extremely concerned about the loss of the historic landmark. I feel that the

21:29 ↗ determination of cultural non-significance is greatly in error given its possible uses as cited above.

21:35 ↗ The campus is an enormous community to solve many of the community's problems and provide

21:41 ↗ residents of all ages. Thank you. Thank you very much, Fran. Christine Soule followed by

21:47 ↗ Paul Dean.

22:01 ↗ I wasn't sure you'd be able to see me over this. I'm honored to

22:07 ↗ be here. I am passionate about Providence Heights. Christine, can I get you

22:13 ↗ to give your address? Yes, I live in Woodinville. It's 16434 246 Avenue, Northeast. That's

22:18 ↗ in Woodinville. And my relationship with Providence Heights is that I had gone to Church

22:24 ↗ Home for 18 years. I invested heavily in the purchase of that building for Church

22:30 ↗ Home, as well as we have a great relationship with Church Home. We currently go

22:36 ↗ to Eastridge in Issaquah, so we do have a great connection and heart for Issaquah.

22:42 ↗ But what I really felt that I was to tell you guys today was a

22:46 ↗ story that changed my life about two weeks ago. I had heard that the Plateau,

22:50 ↗ or that we called it Plateau Campus, didn't actually sell. I was surprised about four

22:54 ↗ years ago I thought it had sold. And so I heard the whole story of

22:58 ↗ everything that had taken place. About three days later, I was driving down the road

23:02 ↗ and I found, I saw a homeless woman. And I decided to pull over and

23:06 ↗ chat with her and I had approached her and said, "How can I help you?"

23:10 ↗ And as we began to talk, she started to share her story with me. And

23:14 ↗ she shared things like when she was 19, she had her first daughter. Well, when

23:17 ↗ I was 18, I had my first daughter. When two years later, she had twin

23:21 ↗ boys. Well, two years later, I had twin boys. And she shared with me that

23:25 ↗ as a young mom with three children, she was a drug addict. She wanted to

23:29 ↗ be a great mom, but she really didn't know how to. Well, I was a

23:33 ↗ drug addict, and I wanted to be a great mom, and I really didn't know

23:36 ↗ how to. So as we continued to talk, I was amazed by everything. We talked

23:41 ↗ for about an hour and a half, and it was like she was reading my

23:45 ↗ story. And as I sat there and listened to her, she even chose to tell

23:49 ↗ me that one of her daughters was born without her esophageal flap not developed. How

23:54 ↗ many of you guys have heard of that? Well, my daughter, yes. I hate to

23:57 ↗ interrupt you because it's a very compelling story, but can you address the council with

24:01 ↗ your comments? Oh, yes, I'm so sorry. I know it's really hard when there's an

24:05 ↗ audience of people. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to look. These are your guys.

24:09 ↗ Please forgive me. No, you're great. Thanks. So anyways, so we go and, you know,

24:12 ↗ my daughter as well, her esophageal flap was not developed and I thought, wow. So

24:16 ↗ I got to my car and I just began to weep. And I thought, you

24:20 ↗ know, what is it that separated us? That I get to go home to where

24:23 ↗ I go home to, and she goes to bed at night in a tent, concerned

24:27 ↗ that she's going to get caught. And so instantly, I thought about the Providence Heights.

24:32 ↗ And I thought, why on earth are there hundreds of dorms vacant, and there's people

24:36 ↗ that have nowhere to sleep at night? Well, then I was quickened with the fact

24:41 ↗ that I teach a class. And in that class, we're doing a kindness project. And

24:46 ↗ I kept staring at my kids. And throughout the entire conversation, I was pointing my

24:51 ↗ finger at them. And I said, you be the difference that you want to see

24:56 ↗ in the world. You be it. you go be the difference that you want to

25:01 ↗ see. So with that, we have, can I keep going or does that? You can

25:06 ↗ wrap it up. That would be great. Okay. So we have a plan. We have

25:10 ↗ the ability. We have even talked with Pastor Leon Sandberg from Church Home and he

25:15 ↗ is willing to work with us. If the eminent domain can be lifted, we would

25:19 ↗ like to build a facility, a training center, not a homeless shelter, a training center

25:24 ↗ to equip these women, give them the opportunity, and have someone to believe in them.

25:29 ↗ We have a full plan. We have apartment buildings that we would like to build,

25:33 ↗ and we would like to do low-income housing. So I would love to discuss that

25:38 ↗ more at some point, but really it comes down to the fact that we need

25:43 ↗ to love them if we want to lead them. And I think that's what's going

25:47 ↗ to bring the success in homelessness. Thank you very much, Christine. Mm-hmm. Paul Dean, followed

25:52 ↗ by Brookie Scholl.

26:03 ↗ Thank you for hearing my comments. My name is Paul Dean. I reside at 2525.

26:08 ↗ My time is already up. You're done. Didn't even get through my address. 2525 Northeast

26:13 ↗ North Star Lane in Issaquah. I'm also the pastor of Selma Eastside Church and I'm

26:19 ↗ a local historian. I'm here with the group talking about Providence Heights and I'm going

26:24 ↗ to make my comments short and in regard to me being a historian and me

26:30 ↗ being a pastor. First, as a historian, I encourage you to ask you to

26:35 ↗ oppose the mitigated determination of non-significance in that it fails to give adequate consideration

26:41 ↗ of the historic significance of Providence Heights. When visitors to our city search for

26:47 ↗ historic attractions, they find a list of well-preserved sites including our railroad depot, town

26:53 ↗ hall, Pickering barn, a ginkgo tree, a historic gas station with a very quaint

26:58 ↗ cigar sign on the back. If we preserve Providence Heights, we would add

27:04 ↗ to that list a world-class chapel that could host beautiful concerts and events. As proud

27:09 ↗ citizens, we could inspire visitors with the story that in the turbulent 60s, this site

27:15 ↗ was built to give young women of all races equal education. As a pastor, preserving

27:20 ↗ Providence Heights and letting nonprofit organizations repurpose it to serve the poor and vulnerable means

27:25 ↗ that we'll have options the next time a homeless woman asks our church for help.

27:30 ↗ I could tell her that Issaquah cares about her situation and wants to walk with

27:35 ↗ her through this challenging chapter of her life. I'd tell her that thanks to concerned

27:39 ↗ citizens and government officials, she has a place where she can go for shelter, for

27:44 ↗ training, and to get back onto her feet again. Right now the shelters are full

27:49 ↗ and the life and job training options are well-meaning but inadequate. If we act now,

27:55 ↗ make hard decisions and partner with nonprofits, the community could come together, repurpose Providence Heights

28:00 ↗ and make a difference in the lives of the poor and vulnerable around us. I'm

28:06 ↗ aware that it is a complicated issue. However, I ask you to oppose the mitigated

28:11 ↗ determination of non-significance in that it fails to give adequate consideration to the

28:17 ↗ historical significance of Providence Heights campus. I ask for the sake of our

28:23 ↗ history, our citizens, and the poor and vulnerable among us. Thank you for

28:28 ↗ listening. Thank you, Paul. Had a dozen hands raised. Brookie Schull. 13 hands

28:34 ↗ raised. Brookie Schull followed by Karen Porterfield.

28:40 ↗ Hello. Thank you for listening to my comments this evening. My name is Brookie Scholl.

28:46 ↗ I'm at 522 Timber Creek Drive, Northwest in Issaquah. I'm the president of the TALIS

28:51 ↗ Residential Association. There are a couple of us tonight that will be speaking, but really

28:57 ↗ our main theme are two things. Excuse me. Number one, we're in favor of ending

29:03 ↗ the development agreement this evening. And number two, in all of the individual decisions

29:09 ↗ that need to be made, we really care that all decisions keep with the

29:14 ↗ original intent of the development agreement. And tonight I'll speak just really briefly on

29:20 ↗ two things. One is Parcel 17B, which is just below Timber Ridge. we really

29:26 ↗ um do not want that to be split up into residential and commercial we

29:32 ↗ really want that to just remain as it was in the original development agreement

29:37 ↗ as as all commercial and in addition i wanted to address vesting we are

29:43 ↗ in favor of vesting to be consistent with state law and those are my

29:49 ↗ comments thank you thank you brookie

30:00 ↗ Good evening and thank you for providing this time for us to speak to you

30:06 ↗ this evening. My name is Karen Porterfield and I live at 2498 Northwest Stoney Creek

30:12 ↗ Drive and I too am a member of the TALIS Residential Association Board. I'm here

30:18 ↗ tonight to speak about AB 7524 but the focus will be on parcel 9 in

30:24 ↗ TALIS. When City staff presented to the Tallis residents on the 23rd

30:29 ↗ of January the proposed new zoning for all Tallis parcels, they indicated that

30:35 ↗ they supported our desire that parcel 9 should continue to be developed as

30:41 ↗ individually townhomes and had been identified by such as the owner. Staff never

30:47 ↗ indicated that they were doing multi-family zoning that will allow five

30:52 ↗ to six story apartment buildings such as the Gateway to be built on

30:58 ↗ that land. We as an HOA and a community were shocked when it

31:04 ↗ came to light that this was possible if this multi-family zoning is going

31:10 ↗ to be enacted. We are distressed that this important piece of information was

31:15 ↗ not effectively communicated to us during the public meeting. Failing to disclose this

31:21 ↗ possible land use that could have a significant impact on our community is

31:27 ↗ close to lying. You can be factual but not truthful, and I think

31:33 ↗ that is what we saw. The Dallas community does not have confidence that

31:39 ↗ city staff is looking out for the community's best interests, and this lack

31:44 ↗ of transparency further erodes our trust in the city. We have been very

31:50 ↗ clear about parcel 9. It is the heart of our community. We support what the

31:56 ↗ developer had proposed and the preliminary plat showed of 90 homes, townhomes on that site.

32:01 ↗ We are not asking you to prohibit the owner of parcel 9 from building those

32:06 ↗ townhomes or developing that site. What we are asking is that you will support what

32:12 ↗ had currently been planned and had been communicated to the community through this entire process.

32:19 ↗ Had we not discovered this complete lack of judgment by city staff when

32:24 ↗ they were assigning designations to TALIS parcels, including multifamily designation for parcel nine,

32:30 ↗ we would probably be sitting here in two to three years listening to

32:35 ↗ gateway style apartments be built on that piece of property. We have

32:41 ↗ one chance to ensure that we do this right, and I really, really am asking

32:47 ↗ you to consider how we achieve that goal. Like many of our neighbors, we want

32:52 ↗ to end the TALIS Development Agreement as quickly as possible, but we cannot accept the

32:58 ↗ current replacement regulations that include zoning parcel nine as multifamily. We are requesting that you

33:04 ↗ amend the replacement regulations and apply proper zoning to this parcel. This zoning

33:09 ↗ will allow the developer to build what was intended and

33:15 ↗ would protect our community. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. About

33:21 ↗ 30 to 40 hands raised in the room. Kirsten Tucker

33:27 ↗ followed by Bob Swanson. Hello, my name is Kirsten Tucker-Kuhman.

33:32 ↗ I live at 2390 Northwest Harmony Way. I'm an owner

33:38 ↗ and I definitely have an interest in the parcel 9

33:44 ↗ discussion as well. It's about beauty, it's about integrity, and it's about consistency. And

33:49 ↗ I have to say, like our friends at Timber Ridge, the reason we live there

33:54 ↗ is because of the beauty of that area. You come up, you leave Issaquah, you're

33:58 ↗ shopping, you're at Target, you drive up, you drive through 900, you come up the

34:03 ↗ hill and you see this beautiful, incredible structure. All of our friends at Timber Ridge.

34:07 ↗ Then you drive up a little further and it's beautifully landscaped and it's done a

34:12 ↗ great job and you feel like you're in a mountain retreat. That's why I moved

34:17 ↗ into that neighborhood. That's why I wanted to be a member and an owner in

34:21 ↗ Tallis. And you kept driving, and this is way back when, before the big white

34:25 ↗ mountain came to town. But when it was trees, and you just drove up, and

34:29 ↗ it's like all of a sudden you were somewhere else. You weren't in a city,

34:34 ↗ you weren't in the suburbs, you were in a very special, special place. But that's

34:38 ↗ changed a lot. And I just am here to say I hope it doesn't change

34:42 ↗ anymore. From what I understand, and Karen illustrated it quite vividly, there's a chance that

34:47 ↗ we could build Atlas style apartments in that area. And for those of you that

34:52 ↗ haven't been up that particular road, you drive up Talus Way, it's beautiful, and then

34:57 ↗ you get to Shangri-La, and each resident hits that Shangri-La. And even if you're at

35:01 ↗ Timber Ridge, you see Shangri-La Way and you see the White Mountain behind it. So

35:06 ↗ it's for every single resident that lives in that community. It's the center of our

35:11 ↗ community. And so for that to become multi-level apartment buildings. When we bought and invested

35:16 ↗ in that neighborhood, we were told that they were going to be town homes. So

35:21 ↗ it sounded like it was going to integrate well. It would keep the integrity of

35:26 ↗ the neighborhood, of the landscape and everything that we bought into, not just as neighbors,

35:31 ↗ but as investors. And, you know, being a neighbor and an investor, I'm concerned what

35:37 ↗ it will do to our investment and to our quality and experience of coming home

35:42 ↗ every day to a wonderful neighborhood that we all love and enjoy. So right now,

35:47 ↗ it's an eyesore. Please don't make it worse than permanent. Please don't give them that

35:52 ↗ opportunity. Please preserve the character of our beautiful neighborhood. Do what is right for the

35:57 ↗ people of our community. We're very, very passionate about that. It's a special place. and

36:03 ↗ I ask you to really consider carefully when you make your final decision, how valuable

36:08 ↗ are these little jewels throughout our community? And if you haven't had the opportunity to

36:14 ↗ drive up there, please do so, because it truly is one in a million type

36:19 ↗ of a place, and we hope to maintain the integrity and the beauty and the

36:25 ↗ magical environment in which we're all privileged enough to live in. Thank you. Thank you,

36:30 ↗ Kirsten. Oh, sorry. At least two-thirds of the audience raised their hand. Bob, go ahead.

36:35 ↗ My name is Bob Swanson. I live up in 826 4th Avenue Northeast, Issaquah Highlands.

36:39 ↗ Excellent to see you, Mayor and City Council. So I have just a few distinctions

36:44 ↗ in my life. I get to be the husband of my wonderful wife and I

36:48 ↗ get to be the father of my two kids. And I think I'm the person

36:52 ↗ that has probably talked to my neighbor, all my neighbors, most of my neighbors than

36:56 ↗ anybody else. I think I met Just about all of them. I hold that distinction,

37:01 ↗ I believe. So I can just say there's two things about in my neighborhood people

37:05 ↗ don't like to visit us. We're kind of in the bottom. Nobody comes down there.

37:09 ↗ And all the people I've visited, I've only met three people that want the school

37:14 ↗ built there. And one of them happens to work for the school district. And that's

37:18 ↗ good. I'm very happy that they want that built there. Two, just a little asterisk,

37:23 ↗ not one person in my entire neighborhood I met yet have actually, I guess nobody

37:29 ↗ comes and asks us to vote, but nobody wants more retail, I guess what you'd

37:35 ↗ say. And I don't mean that against anybody else. It just was a funny thing

37:39 ↗ when they said, number one, I guess nobody comes and knocks on our doors or

37:44 ↗ whatever, but nobody wants any more retail. Matter of fact, people have told me specifically,

37:48 ↗ no, we don't want any more retail, but that's just an asterisk. So anyway, I've

37:53 ↗ just found out some, I'm not doing the video for tonight because we have a

37:57 ↗ lot of people. But the one thing I found out, the school, not only do

38:01 ↗ you guys zoned it, okay, so that's good, but now what they, and they say

38:05 ↗ you gotta have trees, you have to have certain trees lined up, but I just

38:09 ↗ found out that they wanna build a road around the school. Okay, found this about

38:13 ↗ a week ago, I guess. So that puts a lot of little fireworks going off

38:17 ↗ my head in a way that's at least, at least a 20 foot wide. You're

38:21 ↗ gonna have a road going one way. I'm assuming it's going one way, it could

38:25 ↗ go the other, you know, so, but at least 20 feet. So now you got

38:29 ↗ 20 more feet around the school for a dumb place to put a school. Now

38:33 ↗ you're gonna cut down 20 more feet of trees and put it that much closer

38:38 ↗ to the edge. I just can't believe and it just gets, I'm not saying that's

38:42 ↗ against you guys by any means, because it's not your job to build the school,

38:47 ↗ it's the superintendent's job to build the schools. You guys approve them. So even though

38:52 ↗ he said the reverse before, but that's another subject. So the point is it's still

38:57 ↗ a dumb place to put a school. It's even dumber when you start cutting down

39:01 ↗ another road 20 feet wider. It just gets worse and worse. Anyway, thank you for

39:06 ↗ that. Next week I'll be looking forward to, or two weeks from now, looking forward

39:11 ↗ to doing the video premiere. And thank you very much. Thank you, Bob. Tish, is

39:15 ↗ there anyone else signed up? No. So if your comments that you wish to

39:21 ↗ share with the council tonight have already been have not been expressed, please come

39:27 ↗ up to the podium and I see a gentleman right back there. Hello members

39:33 ↗ of the council. My name is Rich Hill and I'm counsel for Resmark, the

39:39 ↗ owner of parcel 9. I have to admit I'm quite shocked that the

39:44 ↗ issue of down zoning parcel 9 has come up at the very last council

39:50 ↗ meeting of a multi-month process of considering changes to the development regulations. On behalf

39:56 ↗ of Resmark, I want to say that Resmark is delighted at the community support

40:01 ↗ for its vested plat. Resmark has been spending millions of dollars for to

40:07 ↗ deal with the infrastructure issues associated with the plat, fully intends to develop

40:13 ↗ it as intended. With that said, however, the property under the development agreement

40:19 ↗ is zoned multifamily. The proposal is to zone at multifamily. That is consistent with

40:25 ↗ the original intent of TALIS. So that the argument that, oh, we need to change

40:30 ↗ it down to single family to go with that original intent is just not valid.

40:36 ↗ Having a legislative determination of this at the very last moment is not the way

40:42 ↗ to do planning. Had Resmark known that this might come up tonight, Resmark would have

40:48 ↗ had an opportunity to submit a letter, discuss with council the need to meet standards

40:54 ↗ for down zones, had an opportunity to discuss with council members. This is just too

40:59 ↗ late in the process. I do want to emphasize it's Resmark's intent to proceed with

41:04 ↗ the preliminary plat. That's what they've been spending months working on and that's the point.

41:09 ↗ There isn't a rush to down zone. This zoning is intended to be provisional, an

41:14 ↗ opportunity to take another look and if really the council thinks it's important to do

41:20 ↗ something to the zoning other than what has been on the table the entire time

41:25 ↗ through this process, the provisional zoning process is the time to do that. Just in

41:30 ↗ a nutshell, site-specific down zone is not a type of action that should be

41:36 ↗ done at the last minute in a legislative process. Thank you. Thank you, Rich.

41:42 ↗ Is there anyone else who would like to speak this evening? Jamie? Steve? After

41:48 ↗ Jamie? Good evening, Jamie Rosen. I live at 1395 Northeast

41:53 ↗ Park Drive in Issaquah in the Issaquah Highlands. I did not know we were going

41:58 ↗ to be shortening to three minutes. I went with the five but I'll do my

42:03 ↗ best to speak quickly. So good evening to all here. My comments tonight pertain to

42:07 ↗ AB 7523, end of Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement. I wanted to share my support of

42:12 ↗ the adoption of AB 7523. I appreciate the additional time that has been spent during

42:17 ↗ the first part of 2018 on helping the public better understand what's being proposed as

42:22 ↗ well as making some adjustments along the way. After listening to lots of dialogue and

42:27 ↗ public input, I do think it makes sense for the city to do its best

42:32 ↗ to adopt replacement regulations at this point in time that adhere to the original intent

42:37 ↗ of Issaquah Highlands when it was laid out 20 years ago and when Port Blakely

42:41 ↗ was managing the development directly. In the absence of the strong oversight that Port Blakely

42:46 ↗ provided, we need strong replacement regulations that allow us to keep true to the original

42:51 ↗ intent. With that said, much has changed over the course of 20 years in the

42:56 ↗ Highlands and in the region at large. As the Highlands gets ready to celebrate its

43:01 ↗ 20th anniversary, I feel strongly that the time is right to engage the roughly 10,000

43:06 ↗ residents of the Issaquah Highlands community in a revisioning exercise to ensure that the remaining

43:11 ↗ undeveloped parcels and the final build out of the community best reflects what our community

43:16 ↗ would like to see in the coming 20 years, whether that's commercial office space, retail

43:21 ↗ amenities, housing or some combination thereof. This same community could very much be part of

43:26 ↗ the solution given the influence and connections many of the Highlands residents have in the

43:31 ↗ commercial sector. In addition, I know there is a strong desire by some in our

43:36 ↗ community and administration to further develop the work aspect of live-work-play here in Issaquah and

43:40 ↗ in the Highlands specifically. In fact, much of the passion around the end of this

43:45 ↗ DA is rooted in a strong desire to remain steadfast to the original intent of

43:49 ↗ a large employer being housed in the Highlands, giving residents the opportunity to truly live

43:54 ↗ in the same community where they work. While I too would love to have high

43:58 ↗ value work opportunities right here in Issaquah, I do think it is time for us

44:03 ↗ to take stock of the current market situation regionally and within our own city and

44:07 ↗ develop targets and associated tactics grounded in fact-based data and research. I'm not suggesting we

44:12 ↗ give up on our dream of attracting major employers, but I do think if we

44:17 ↗ are going to be successful at it, we need a cohesive plan that is based

44:21 ↗ in reality and is aligned with regional developments, allowing us the opportunity to develop a

44:26 ↗ plan and strategy to tactfully market our city and associated assets. We should not be

44:30 ↗ looking at the Highlands or Talus or Central Issaquah in isolation when it comes to

44:35 ↗ our desire to develop gainful employment opportunities in our city. Each area provides current and

44:40 ↗ potential commercial assets that can be utilized when attempting to attract major employers. But we

44:45 ↗ need a plan, a holistic plan that takes into account the trends we are seeing

44:49 ↗ around the Puget Sound region, the current utilization of commercial space, The current busing of

44:54 ↗ employees from suburbs like our own and commercial centers, the development of technology clusters and

44:59 ↗ the list goes on and on. In closing, the data is out there. We need

45:03 ↗ to start looking at it comprehensively and develop a plan that drives us toward our

45:08 ↗ end objective and allows us to thoughtfully and intelligently preserve commercial parcels today and in

45:12 ↗ the future. Unfortunately, I don't think Kevin Costner's quote from Field of Dreams, "If you

45:16 ↗ build it, they will come," applies in this situation. We need to do more. I

45:20 ↗ just want to say thank you to the city staff and the Land and Shore

45:24 ↗ Committee for all the time and effort they have put in over the last few

45:29 ↗ months to do their best to explain this situation and the DAs to the public

45:33 ↗ and give us the opportunity to provide comment into the wee hours of the night.

45:37 ↗ So thank you very much. Thank you, Jamie. If you could

45:42 ↗ hand those in, that'd be great. Is there anyone else who

45:48 ↗ would like to speak this evening? Quite a few. Cynthia. My

45:54 ↗ name is Cynthia, excuse me, my name is Cynthia Lessford. I

45:59 ↗ live at 630 Timber Creek Drive in Talus and I am

46:05 ↗ on the Talus Residence Homeowners Board, but tonight I'm, well, tonight

46:11 ↗ I am representing the board and myself. My two concerns are

46:16 ↗ the buffer, the 100-foot buffer that was specified in the development agreement.

46:22 ↗ My understanding is the city is trying to shorten that for developers use. And the

46:28 ↗ second is the satellite communities, Bergsma, and my understanding there's another piece of property that

46:34 ↗ is to the east of Timber Ridge. I would like to not allow a road

46:40 ↗ coming in from Bergsma. If Bergsma is to be built, that it will go down

46:45 ↗ to Newport Way and the other property instead of coming along Falcon

46:51 ↗ Way, which would be the busy intersection that was already talked about for

46:57 ↗ Timber Ridge, that it has its entrance and exit off of 900. Thank

47:02 ↗ you. Thank you. Next. Mayor Pauly, I have a comment on. I'm going

47:08 ↗ to actually go. Yeah, let me go once first through everybody and then

47:13 ↗ we'll see where we are with time. Thanks very much. Next.

47:23 ↗ CAROL HAAS: Hello. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, staff. Thank you, city council

47:28 ↗ members. My name is Carol Haas. My last name is H-A-S-S. I live

47:34 ↗ in Sammamish. I live at 19524 Southeast 24th Place. This used to be

47:39 ↗ Issaquah. And I was very proud as an Issaquah resident. Didn't want even

47:45 ↗ the name change to Sammamish. I'm here to talk

47:51 ↗ about the City of Issaquah's MD&S designation of Providence Heights Campus,

47:57 ↗ and I would like to object to this designation. I'm gonna

48:03 ↗ give you seven reasons why I'm objecting. Number one, the City

48:09 ↗ of Issaquah has offered no new information for this MD&S designation

48:15 ↗ of 3/12/18. Providence Heights campus was granted

48:20 ↗ LAMBART status in 2017. This MD&S designation does not give

48:26 ↗ adequate consideration to the historical significance of the Providence Heights

48:32 ↗ campus. Number three, the MD&S classification is entirely contrary to

48:38 ↗ the City of Issaquah's policy B3. It is impossible to

48:44 ↗ understand how the city's stated policy, which is to support efforts

48:49 ↗ to secure space for preservation of Issaquah's heritage, fits into the

48:55 ↗ decision to demolish this campus. 4. The MD&S states that

49:00 ↗ the City of Issaquah must obtain the Landmark Commission's permission in

49:06 ↗ a certificate of appropriateness to demolish this property. It makes no

49:12 ↗ sense that the Landmark Commission would choose to give permission to

49:17 ↗ demolish this property after having unanimously voted to designate it Landmark

49:23 ↗ status. 5. The City of Issaquah does not address the embodied issue,

49:29 ↗ excuse me, the embodied energy issue. Number six, the City of Issaquah cites

49:35 ↗ no other sources than the applicant's own opinions which are completely one-sided and

49:40 ↗ lacking substantiation. Number seven, It appears that the City of

49:46 ↗ Issaquah is clearly biased in its decision to grant an

49:51 ↗ MD&S designation. Why would it not otherwise require a full

49:57 ↗ EIS, Environmental Impact Statement? In conclusion, to show evidence that

50:02 ↗ the City of Issaquah is not biased and to be

50:08 ↗ completely full in its reestablishment of this MD&S, A

50:13 ↗ full EIS should be required by the city.

50:19 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Carol. Steve? Hi, Steve

50:25 ↗ Pereira, Old Town for about 10 years. So

50:30 ↗ I'll try to be brief. First of all,

50:36 ↗ I reject the premise of reducing citizen comments

50:42 ↗ to three minutes instead of five minutes.

50:48 ↗ Stupid sorry respectfully Getting to point there are a couple events that I think were

50:53 ↗ good recently one was The Friends of Issaquah library sponsored a outlander party Thing at

50:57 ↗ the Issaquah library. I'm not a big fan of the series. I'm okay. I like

51:02 ↗ it, but I don't talk about that I just think the Friends of Issaquah library

51:06 ↗ do a good job. So a good community plug for people to reach out for

51:11 ↗ that the other is in recent Wine art walk the rogue gallery had a

51:17 ↗ chance to have some brews breweries Establish and it was a library. I think it

51:22 ↗ was the first time that a local establishment was so sponsored and honored So I

51:27 ↗ just think that was a good outreach to the local business opportunity. So thanks for

51:33 ↗ that there or I go next the I'm glad to see that the Old Town

51:38 ↗ will go back to PPC for discussion. I just think there's so much in there,

51:42 ↗ but I'd like to talk about from the prospect of, we talk about development plans

51:47 ↗ or for development agreements for the Highlands and the Talus. They have kind of outreach,

51:51 ↗ but nobody, I think people who live in Old Town need to have some idea

51:55 ↗ of a weighted average to their input is more bespoken and considered. I don't think

52:00 ↗ that aspect has ever been considered. I think we need to consider that aspect more

52:05 ↗ deeply. I also want to know what specifically is going to go back to the

52:09 ↗ PPC. Is it the E in Old Town? Is it the boundaries for Old Town?

52:14 ↗ Is it the height limit? Is it the density? What are we talking about so

52:19 ↗ that people have idea? I want people to be reached out to more so they

52:23 ↗ know about in advance when it's going to be discussed and how it's going to

52:28 ↗ be reached. The idea of the vacation next is the vacation of Gilmore Boulevard. I

52:33 ↗ know it's a separate topic, but I think there's a whole development looking at Gilman-Bulbright,

52:38 ↗ I would like to see that completed before we have an agreement on vacating that

52:43 ↗ part of public roadways to see how that fits into the whole. I don't think

52:47 ↗ we've looked at that holistically enough. Too often we look at things piece by piece.

52:52 ↗ I'm sure I've forgotten something, but that's it for now. Thanks. Thank you, Steve. Is

52:57 ↗ there anyone else who'd like to speak this evening? I'm sorry, I still have a

53:02 ↗ couple of things to... I know, I think you're out of time. Okay, so the

53:07 ↗ Providence Heights, I think there's so many things that have been said and I support

53:12 ↗ them all. I'm not a member of PPH, just to be clear. But the idea

53:17 ↗ of a judge ruled that the City of Issaquah was not following its own code

53:22 ↗ needs to be looked at. I think the idea of vacating that property without following

53:27 ↗ a full EIS needs to be looked at. I think the idea of in the

53:32 ↗ Issaquah School District presented its argument. There were a number of statements in there that

53:37 ↗ said there was communication between the ISD and the City Council. I'd like to see

53:41 ↗ some transparency of the government that says what that communication was. I think there's, I'm

53:46 ↗ hesitant to say collusion, but I just think that needs to be further looked at.

53:50 ↗ Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Mr. Hill, it's not typical during public comments for us

53:56 ↗ to have repeats. So I'm going to ask you if you would submit your additional

54:02 ↗ comments in writing to our clerk or by email. This is on behalf of Regency

54:07 ↗ and Safeway and others. Yeah. I'll look at the clerk and see if it's... And

54:13 ↗ we'll be 30 seconds. Is this normal? Not typical? Council, okay?

54:19 ↗ Up to you. What's the question? Do you want to hear some additional

54:25 ↗ testimony from public comment from someone who's already spoken tonight on a different

54:30 ↗ subject, which is not our normal practice. Seems like a dangerous precedent. I

54:36 ↗ could have my client speak. That would be more appropriate. Thank you. And

54:42 ↗ if you could state your name and address for the record, that'd be

54:48 ↗ great. Thank you, Chris. David Morse, 1011 Northeast High Street, Issaquah. On behalf

54:54 ↗ of Regency, Safeway, We are proponents of the whole live work concept. We

54:59 ↗ want to see this in Nisico Highlands. We want to see this preserved. We've

55:05 ↗ got everything but the work concept up here. It is actually going to enhance

55:11 ↗ the retail component up there by emphasizing the strong employment base up there.

55:16 ↗ Additional retail is not necessarily bad, but it should be

55:22 ↗ more of the side dish and not the entree in

55:28 ↗ future development up there. I believe that the, I won't

55:33 ↗ get into particulars and numbers, but there's plenty of retail

55:39 ↗ that's allowed in the old existing plan. And to replicate

55:45 ↗ or or to try to mirror what has gone on in the north

55:51 ↗ side of nine street is is just not the proper way forward not

55:56 ↗ the best way forward for us all we support the vesting as as

56:02 ↗ the city attorney and recommended. Anything less than that is inconsistent

56:08 ↗ with standard protocols in the industry, and certainly vesting at a pre-op is almost

56:13 ↗ irresponsible. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. You're welcome. Is there anyone else

56:19 ↗ that would like to speak this evening? Come on up. Julie.

56:34 ↗ Good evening. My name is Julie Clark. I live at 915 Bear Ridge

56:40 ↗ Court, Northwest in Issaquah, and that is in Tallis. And I just wanted

56:46 ↗ to support and reiterate what the other members of Tallis have stated with

56:52 ↗ respect to the ending of the development agreement. In addition, I am also

56:58 ↗ a representative of Safe Cougar Mountain, and I just wanted to Thank

57:04 ↗ you, Mayor Pauly, for I think it was at the last meeting in your mayor's

57:09 ↗ report that you had stated that the city of Issaquah is working with TPL in

57:14 ↗ the looking into the acquisition of the Berksma property. And I want to also let

57:20 ↗ you know that we have received quite a large amount of support in

57:26 ↗ our request of asking the city to work with King County and any

57:32 ↗ other local organizations in the acquisition of the full 46 acres. During the

57:38 ↗ last two weeks we've received well over 500 signatures on a petition that

57:44 ↗ we have started which is specifically asking the city of Issaquah to acquire

57:50 ↗ the 46 acres. So thank you. Thank you Julie. Is there anyone else?

57:55 ↗ Oh, that was not Steve wanting to speak again, that's Steve supporting. Is there anyone

58:01 ↗ else that would like to address Council this evening? Second call. A last call if

58:06 ↗ anybody would like to address Council this evening. On behalf of Council myself, I'd like

58:12 ↗ to thank the almost over 70 people who came tonight and provided us some comments

58:18 ↗ on the ending of the Issaquah Highlands and Talas Development Agreement, preserving Providence Heights, school

58:23 ↗ siting issues, the vacation of Gilman Boulevard, displeasure with the three-minute timing of public comments,

58:28 ↗ and our last speaker who I thought we might have a Council meeting where we

58:34 ↗ didn't talk about Bergsma. We talked a bit about Bergsma. So thank you very much.

58:40 ↗ We'll be moving on now to Committee and Regional Reports and we'll start with Council

58:45 ↗ Member Hunt. Thank you Madam Mayor. There was a RIAA 8 Salmon Recovery Council meeting

58:51 ↗ on March 15th At that meeting there was a discussion of that council's leadership,

58:57 ↗ budget and work plan. Also presentations about the Bear Creek stormwater watershed plan, Kokanee recovery

59:03 ↗ and also water systems teacher fellows program presented by sustainability ambassadors and Cascade Water Alliance.

59:09 ↗ And the next meeting of the RIAA 8th Sam & Recovery Council will be May

59:15 ↗ 17th. at City of Kirkland City Hall. And this concludes my report. -

59:20 ↗ Thank you. Council Member Ray. - Thank you, Mayor Pauley. Services and Safety

59:26 ↗ Committee met on March 13th. We received an update on the 2017 Human

59:32 ↗ Services Grants and Contract Performance and Monitoring. We also discussed the Visit Issaquah

59:37 ↗ organization that came back from the Council Work Session on March 12th. The

59:43 ↗ staff has been directed to meet with the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and

59:48 ↗ discuss governance and mission of the DMO and bring it back to the April 10th

59:54 ↗ Services Safety Committee. We discussed agenda bill 7494, amending IMC chapter 16.4, construction codes

1:00:00 ↗ and permit fee. That is on tonight's consent agenda. We also discussed agenda bill 7562,

1:00:06 ↗ short-term funding request for the budget process, and that will be discussed later during regular

1:00:11 ↗ business. The next meeting of services and safety is scheduled for April 10th. Eastside Fire

1:00:17 ↗ and Rescue met last on March 8th. I attended with Council Member Goodman. We

1:00:23 ↗ talked about authorizing the fire chief to enter into an interlocal agreement for

1:00:29 ↗ automatic aid for firefighters. The board reviewed a draft special ordinance aimed at

1:00:35 ↗ including Eastside Fire and Rescue in planning and approval of special events in

1:00:40 ↗ the 73 service areas that EFER provide support for. And then finally, the

1:00:46 ↗ EFRA Board approved the assignment to the FAC Committee to discuss the Bracer

1:00:52 ↗ Compliance Software Engine, which will assist with fire prevention. The next Eastside Fire

1:00:58 ↗ and Rescue Board meeting is on April 12th. Sound City's Public Issues Committee

1:01:04 ↗ met on March 14th. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but we'll update the council

1:01:10 ↗ with the proceedings as soon as I receive the minutes from them. And the next

1:01:16 ↗ meeting, Council President Martz will be attending, hopefully, on April 11th. And that concludes my

1:01:22 ↗ report this evening. Thank you, Council Member Ray. Council Member Ramos? Thank you, Mayor.

1:01:28 ↗ The Council Infrastructure Committee met last Thursday on the 15th. Items of topic were first

1:01:33 ↗ one was Isco Hobart Road corridor study. It was the first presentation to the public.

1:01:38 ↗ Note that this is a not decision document but options document and so it will

1:01:43 ↗ come again to the public at the Committee of the Whole on April 24th. Between

1:01:48 ↗ now and then it's out to people look at if they're interested take a look.

1:01:53 ↗ Emily has it been on a posted on the website yet? but it will

1:01:59 ↗ be hopefully soon posted onto the website so you can take a look as well

1:02:04 ↗ if not but it's under our minutes our package there for now um second item

1:02:10 ↗ is ab7535 amendments to even a small cell infrastructure and that is going to stay

1:02:16 ↗ in committee until next meeting there's more work to do on that one uh next

1:02:22 ↗ one is ab7554 which is the salmon recovery plan where i wrote eight that is

1:02:27 ↗ going to be on a consent calendar next meeting i just encourage people to take

1:02:30 ↗ a look at that it tells you a little bit about what we've been doing

1:02:34 ↗ in the past 10 15 years to help salmon recovery and what we're going to

1:02:38 ↗ do in the next 10 years so if you're interested in summer recovery take a

1:02:42 ↗ look um AB 7485, vacation of Gilman Boulevard. It's been brought up a

1:02:48 ↗ couple of times. It's a public hearing tonight, so we'll just have that open tonight

1:02:53 ↗ and it'll continue into the next council meeting. And then our last item, AB 7553,

1:02:59 ↗ amendment to the Greenwood Point Assumption. That was mainly a legal description error that was

1:03:04 ↗ being corrected. No major change from when we passed it the first time. So it's

1:03:10 ↗ a minor correction there. I attended the Eastside Transportation Partnership on the 9th and in

1:03:16 ↗ that meeting we submitted five projects for PSRC funding through that competitive cycle. So

1:03:21 ↗ EDP gets to submit five and we had only five and we submitted those

1:03:27 ↗ five. None for Mizuquah. The Emergency Management Advisory Committee met on the 14th and

1:03:33 ↗ we're continuing to deal with setting priorities for how to plan our emergency management

1:03:39 ↗ Set up for when things happen because funding for those things is going down from

1:03:44 ↗ the current administration. So how do we keep those programs running with in times of

1:03:49 ↗ decreased funding and this Wednesday the 21st I'll be attending the Regional Transit Committee meeting

1:03:54 ↗ We're going to have presentations on the community connections, which we're going to have a

1:03:58 ↗ piece of that here in Issaquah also how performance measures for operations for Metro Transit

1:04:04 ↗ as well as one center city. And then one last thing I forgot was the

1:04:09 ↗ next infrastructure committee meeting is not at its normal time. It's going to be on

1:04:13 ↗ April 11th. So if you're interested in that one next month, it is not its

1:04:18 ↗ normal scheduled date, same time, but on April 11th. That concludes my report. Thank you,

1:04:24 ↗ Council Member Ramos. Council Member Winterside. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have two quick reports.

1:04:29 ↗ The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, we haven't met recently, so there isn't anything new to

1:04:33 ↗ report. However, we are scheduled to meet on March 30th to address the issues concerning

1:04:38 ↗ the proposed establishment of a nonprofit destination marketing organization, also known as Visit Issaquah. That

1:04:43 ↗ arose during the Council's Services and Safety Committee meeting on March 13th and as reported

1:04:48 ↗ earlier by Council Member Wray. And then the Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management Policy

1:04:53 ↗ Board, we have not met since our last council meeting and where we're reported last

1:04:58 ↗ reported on the board's meeting from March 1st. The next board meeting is Thursday April

1:05:03 ↗ 5th and the agenda for that is not yet set. Thank you, Councilmember Murchison. Councilmember

1:05:09 ↗ Goodman? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Land and Shore will, I just wanted to report Land

1:05:14 ↗ and Shore, which typically meets the first Thursday, is not meeting April 5th. Instead, we'll

1:05:20 ↗ meet April 19th, 6:30 here in Council Chambers. And the agenda has not yet been

1:05:25 ↗ set, but I will report that agenda at the first meeting in April. Thank you.

1:05:31 ↗ Councilmember, Deputy Council President Batiste. Thank you, Madam Mayor. No report on

1:05:37 ↗ my typical regional roles for tonight, but I am going to just

1:05:43 ↗ give a quick report on our last work session because we did

1:05:49 ↗ have an action that was postponed, and we've mentioned it a couple

1:05:55 ↗ of times. But AB 7522, they're creating the Visit Issaquah project, The committee

1:06:00 ↗ basically had further questions and they have decided to delay a decision and it's

1:06:06 ↗ going to go back to LTAC to have additional information and that was something

1:06:12 ↗ that was coming forward so I just wanted to make it clear where that

1:06:17 ↗ is sitting right now. We also discussed AB 7563 which was expedited traffic enforcement

1:06:23 ↗ and that is on the agenda for this evening. So we'll be discussing that

1:06:29 ↗ further and I had a budget process review session to talk about the upcoming

1:06:35 ↗ budget. thank you that concludes my report thank you next item on the agenda is

1:06:40 ↗ the mayor's report it was issued earlier today but i will warn you it's really

1:06:45 ↗ long there are a lot of issues going on in town to start off there

1:06:51 ↗ was a special meeting held this evening at 6 15 p.m to hold an executive

1:06:56 ↗ session to discuss pending and potential litigation for rcw 42.30.110 paren one print i the

1:07:01 ↗ item is expected to take approximate was it The item was expected to take approximately

1:07:06 ↗ 30 minutes. No action was anticipated to follow an open session. I attended a couple

1:07:11 ↗ of meetings since our last council meeting. March 8th I attended the PSRC, the Puget

1:07:17 ↗ Sound Regional Council Transportation Policy Board meeting. The board reviewed the public comments on the

1:07:22 ↗ draft regional transportation plan. Some of the comments submitted referenced Issaquah or impacts to Issaquah

1:07:28 ↗ and surrounding areas, including requesting information on the timing of the construction build out of

1:07:33 ↗ Highway 18 from I-90 to Issaquah Hobart Road, concerns over trucks currently using the county

1:07:38 ↗ roads instead of highways to move goods and materials south of Issaquah, concerns over discussion

1:07:43 ↗ in Issaquah about possibly tolling Front Street, and a lack of park and rides at

1:07:48 ↗ Highway 18 and Issaquah Hobart Road and a lack of transit service to this area.

1:07:54 ↗ March 8th I also attended the Cascade Water Alliance Resource Management Committee meeting. There were

1:07:59 ↗ no items to report from that meeting. In consultation with Council President Martz, I'm happy

1:08:04 ↗ to say I'm appointing Council Member Hunt as the City of Issaquah alternate to the

1:08:09 ↗ board. Her committee assignment has yet to be determined. A couple of community and

1:08:15 ↗ outreach events. On March 6th I walked the Providence Point Laughing Japes Creek Hill with

1:08:21 ↗ residents of Forest Ridge neighborhood and the members of Providence Point Residents Board looking at

1:08:26 ↗ some potential trail connections and on May 7th I attended the ribbon-cutting for a business,

1:08:32 ↗ not new business to Issaquah but Boogan had relocated onto Front Street and had their

1:08:37 ↗ opening on of their Front Street location last week. A couple announcements to share. Doug

1:08:43 ↗ Levy of Outcomes by Levy has been working as the city's lobbyist for seven years.

1:08:48 ↗ As of May 1st, he will be taking a new career path and retiring from

1:08:53 ↗ legislative lobbying and working more in a consultant role with the City of Renton. Doug

1:08:58 ↗ will be attending the April 16th Council meeting to give a 2018 legislative session summary

1:09:03 ↗ report and we will take that moment in time to recognize Doug's many accomplishments on

1:09:08 ↗ the city's behalf. 2018 legislative legislature has finished its work for the session

1:09:14 ↗ and there were a couple of items I wanted to bring to the public's attention.

1:09:19 ↗ Some appropriations that were approved that affect Issaquah was a $50,000 allotment for Issaquah's work

1:09:25 ↗ as an innovation partnership zone in the sports medicine focus. This money is to be

1:09:31 ↗ used as seed money to trying to attract a convention or activity around sports

1:09:36 ↗ medicine. Also $200,000 was allotted for the Lake Sammamish State Park environmental impact statement

1:09:42 ↗ and $206,000 was allotted for the additional investigation of PFOS in Issaquah on the

1:09:48 ↗ valley floor. Our project partners are Eastside Fire and Rescue, Sammamish Plateau Water District

1:09:54 ↗ and the Department of Ecology. I'm very excited to announce that the City is getting

1:10:00 ↗ underway with the City's strategic planning process. The Citywide strategic plan, which we are calling

1:10:05 ↗ Our Issaquah, will be a first for our community. The goal of Our Issaquah is

1:10:11 ↗ to affirm the community's vision for Issaquah to establish community-based priorities and to develop a

1:10:16 ↗ framework for aligning resources and decision-making to address those priorities. Through a competitive process, the

1:10:21 ↗ City has selected a consultant team to provide technical expertise in this endeavor. BDS Planning,

1:10:27 ↗ along with the support from Econ Northwest, have been hired and are beginning to work

1:10:32 ↗ this month. It's critical that this work is driven by the community. As work gets

1:10:37 ↗ underway, we are planning engagement through a variety of methods including not only surveys and

1:10:42 ↗ focus groups, but also finding ways to get outside, ways to go to our residents,

1:10:48 ↗ hear from our businesses, and talk with our community groups. We expect to have pop-up

1:10:53 ↗ engagement stops out in the community and are developing resources such as meeting in a

1:10:58 ↗ box to facilitate neighborhood dialogue and input. Residents can find information about our Issaquah and

1:11:03 ↗ the strategic planning process on the City's website. This content will continue to build as

1:11:09 ↗ the planning process progresses and residents can find a link to subscribe to email updates.

1:11:14 ↗ We plan to have a brief presentation and overview of the strategic planning approach and

1:11:20 ↗ schedule at the April 2nd City Council meeting. Gilman Boulevard. Our city staff team

1:11:26 ↗ had a Gilman corridor kickoff event last week. If you look up at the

1:11:32 ↗ screen, you'll see the output from the kickoff meeting, which was a freewheeling brainstorming

1:11:38 ↗ session before they went out to walk the corridor as a group. They

1:11:43 ↗ got a lot of valuable input and we're using this to create the online map

1:11:49 ↗ and survey tool and to influence the design framework. Next steps include firming up the

1:11:54 ↗ public outreach approach, beginning reach out to the residents, businesses and updating the council. There

1:12:00 ↗ were a couple of issues that the community brings up quite often in public comments

1:12:05 ↗ that I like to address in the Mayor's report as well. There are two items

1:12:10 ↗ remaining to be completed under our moratorium. Inclusionary requirements. Staff is working with Eco Northwest

1:12:16 ↗ to evaluate the impact of the proposed inclusionary requirements that requirements would have had on

1:12:22 ↗ the Atlas project using Atlas as a case study. It is expected a report and

1:12:27 ↗ presentation will be made to Land and Shore at the community's April meeting. Inclusionary zoning

1:12:32 ↗ is a way that cities are able to require a percentage of built units to

1:12:37 ↗ be affordable at different levels and the council is considering looking at a case study

1:12:42 ↗ to determine if we are headed in the right direction. The last work item under

1:12:47 ↗ the moratorium was the Update of the visions. The visions document the Central Esquid neighborhoods

1:12:53 ↗ and it is currently in the City Council Land and Shore Committee and will be

1:12:58 ↗ discussed at the committee's April meeting. An update on Cougar Mountain and Berksmoor. Our Development

1:13:03 ↗ Services Department is continuing to process the current plot application proposed for this property. The

1:13:08 ↗ City is partnering with the Trust for Public Lands and exploring options for purchasing all

1:13:13 ↗ or a part of the property. Some updates on Talus Parcels 7, 8 and 9.

1:13:18 ↗ Palace Parcel 7 and 8. The City Geotechnical Consultants have finished their first review of

1:13:23 ↗ the new critical area study for Parcel 7 and 8. The property's owners consultants are

1:13:28 ↗ currently working through the City comments. Palace Parcel 9. The property owner is continuing to

1:13:33 ↗ work on stabilizing the property. By the end of the month, it's expected they will

1:13:38 ↗ be three quarters done with the construction of the first wall system. The City expects

1:13:43 ↗ stabilization efforts will continue through the end of 2018. I also wanted to take a

1:13:49 ↗ moment to talk about the Transit Orient Development Project and provide you an update. The

1:13:54 ↗ City has partnered with Spectrum Development and the King County Housing Authority to create a

1:13:59 ↗ mixed-use Transit Orient Development Project next to the Issaquah Transit Center. This privately owned project

1:14:05 ↗ will create 355 affordable and market rate housing commercial uses, including a potential medical

1:14:11 ↗ and dental facility and public amenities in the city's urban core. The complex project,

1:14:17 ↗ which the developer is calling Trailhead, requires relocating a business, complicated financing from multiple

1:14:23 ↗ sources, and building a first-of-its-kind mixed-use project in central Issaquah. The details of

1:14:28 ↗ the project have not been finalized but important milestones have been reached in the past

1:14:34 ↗ few months and they include securing 12 million dollars in public funding from King County's

1:14:40 ↗ TOD fund and ARCH our regional housing coalition as well as the city's pilot multi-family

1:14:45 ↗ tax exemption designation for this project. A public meeting will be held in the second

1:14:51 ↗ quarter of the year where project information will be provided and input will be sought

1:14:56 ↗ on how to enliven the city required public plaza and building frontages at this project.

1:15:02 ↗ The city will negotiate development agreements for this project which will require City Council approval

1:15:07 ↗ and give additional opportunities for public comment. More information about this project can be found

1:15:13 ↗ on our website at www.isikwawa.gov/tod. Providence Heights was also talked about in public comment

1:15:18 ↗ this evening. On March 14th, property owners Church Home filed a motion in the Providence

1:15:24 ↗ Heights litigation seeking entry of a judgment declaring the landmark designation invalid as a violation

1:15:30 ↗ of their First Amendment rights. Consistent with the settlement agreement between the City and Church

1:15:36 ↗ Home, the City will not be opposing entry of the judgment. Preserve Providence Heights may

1:15:41 ↗ oppose the motion. The motion is currently scheduled to be heard without oral arguments this

1:15:47 ↗ Thursday, March 22nd by Judge Julie Spector. And the last item on the Mayor's report

1:15:52 ↗ tonight is an exciting update on the Teen Cafe. This is a project you may

1:15:57 ↗ have heard discussed at committee and in council. The Teen Cafe project has now been

1:16:02 ↗ rebranded as the Garage, a Teen Cafe. The next step and this project would be

1:16:06 ↗ located over next to our current our community center. The next steps for this project

1:16:12 ↗ include finalizing the lease agreement with the city's Parks and Recreation Department and presenting to

1:16:17 ↗ the City Council in an April meeting. The Teen Cafe project has raised the funds

1:16:21 ↗ for the renovation and for operating costs through the end of the fiscal year which

1:16:26 ↗ for the Teen Cafe is June 30th. And that concludes the Mayor's report. Citing to

1:16:31 ↗ the consent calendar, have the payables and payroll for March 19th been reviewed? They have.

1:16:36 ↗ thank you i now ask the clerk to read the consent calendar into the record

1:16:41 ↗ the consent calendar was distributed to council in advance for study if authorized council action

1:16:46 ↗ will occur by single motion regarding the following items item a seeks approval of the

1:16:51 ↗ accounts payables and payroll of march 19th item b seeks approval of the city council

1:16:56 ↗ regular meeting minutes of march 5th item c ab7326 old town sub area plan update

1:17:01 ↗ seeks to remand to Planning Policy Commission. Item D, AB 7398, Administrative Staff Association

1:17:07 ↗ Collective Bargaining Agreement. Seeks approval. Item E, AB 7538, Updated Water System

1:17:13 ↗ Plan. Seeks referral to Council Infrastructure Committee. Item F, AB 7553, Second

1:17:19 ↗ Amendment to South Cove Greenwood Point Assumption Interlocal Agreement with Bellevue. Seeks

1:17:25 ↗ approval. Item G, AB 7561, Amendment to Salary Ordinance. seeks to adopt

1:17:31 ↗ ordinance. If adopted the ordinance will be assigned number 2829 and item H AB

1:17:37 ↗ 7573 King County Cooperative Watershed Management Grant for Lower Issaquah Creek enhancement seeks to

1:17:42 ↗ authorize submittal. This concludes the reading. Thank you. Does any council member desire to

1:17:48 ↗ remove any item from the consent calendar and consider it under regular business? Would

1:17:54 ↗ you like to make a motion? Yes. I would move to approve all

1:18:00 ↗ of the items presented on the consent calendar this evening. Second. It's been moved and

1:18:06 ↗ seconded to approve all the items on the consent calendar as submitted. All those in

1:18:12 ↗ favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Next item on the agenda is

1:18:17 ↗ a public hearing. AB 7485, Vacation of a Portion of Northeast Gilman Boulevard.

1:18:23 ↗ This is the beginning or the continuation of the

1:18:29 ↗ public hearing? The beginning. Okay, it says continue. Got

1:18:35 ↗ it. Okay. We'll be having a public hearing this

1:18:41 ↗ evening. This was heard as an informational item in

1:18:46 ↗ the Council Infrastructure Committee. Before I open the public

1:18:52 ↗ hearing, I'd like to invite Interim City Administrator Emily

1:18:58 ↗ Moum to briefly present this item. Great. Thank you

1:19:04 ↗ very much. I'm here to present this item in advance of

1:19:10 ↗ the hearing. Our intent is to have the hearing continued over to the April 2nd

1:19:16 ↗ regular meeting. At that point in time, we'd be able to entertain more discussion, deliberations

1:19:21 ↗ on this item, and we'd seek action at that point. So for tonight, I'm just

1:19:27 ↗ going to give a brief overview of this item, and this is one of two

1:19:33 ↗ then opportunities for public comment. So our

1:19:38 ↗ city municipal code state law allows for the vacation of

1:19:44 ↗ public right-of-way. Vacation of public right-of-way simply means that the

1:19:50 ↗ city would remove some portion of the public interest or

1:19:56 ↗ all of the public interest on a piece of public

1:20:01 ↗ infrastructure such as a roadway. and then that would cease

1:20:07 ↗ to be, in this case, a public road. However, the agenda bill

1:20:13 ↗ also specifies that both the city and the state's Department of Transportation

1:20:19 ↗ would retain easements on this property in order to maintain underground infrastructure

1:20:25 ↗ and the support wall structure for I-90. So

1:20:31 ↗ state law and the city's code allows for an abutting property owner

1:20:36 ↗ that has an interest in a street, for example, to ask for

1:20:42 ↗ the vacation for either part or all of that public right-of-way. And

1:20:48 ↗ then it's council's determination whether or not to approve that vacation of

1:20:54 ↗ the public right-of-way. City Council also can initiate the vacation of

1:21:00 ↗ public right-of-way and sometimes chooses to do so when there's a desire to

1:21:06 ↗ reduce the burden on the municipality for maintaining that public infrastructure, particularly if

1:21:11 ↗ that infrastructure isn't needed for its original intent. So in this case we

1:21:17 ↗ have a property owner who has approached the city and asked for the

1:21:23 ↗ vacation of a portion of Gilman Boulevard. and this portion is right

1:21:29 ↗ next to I-90 at the end of Gilman on the east side

1:21:35 ↗ of Gilman. The property here is shown in yellow, kind of greenish

1:21:40 ↗ yellow, and we've indicated the property owners holdings in blue there. So

1:21:46 ↗ you can see right now this segment of road really serves as

1:21:52 ↗ a driveway into this property owners properties. This

1:21:57 ↗ is a very engineering level picture that also shows the limits of

1:22:03 ↗ that property. The property has to be valued in order for the

1:22:09 ↗ city to sell it. That work has been done. This has been

1:22:15 ↗ valued at $140,000. As I mentioned before, City and WSDOT would retain

1:22:20 ↗ easements. and the city's Public Works Engineering Department has determined

1:22:26 ↗ that this land is no longer needed as public right-of-way for the purpose

1:22:32 ↗ of a road. The vacation may allow the property owner to increase the

1:22:38 ↗ number of parking spots that serve these properties and may also allow for

1:22:44 ↗ slightly larger redevelopment size due to the additional land area under their control.

1:22:52 ↗ So with that, I know there were questions at the committee meeting. We'll be prepared

1:22:57 ↗ to answer those in full and any others that may come up through the public

1:23:02 ↗ hearing at the April 2nd regular council meeting. Tonight, the motion that we're asking you

1:23:08 ↗ to approve is to continue that public hearing until April 2nd. And ultimately, the motion

1:23:13 ↗ as it reads in your packet would be to approve this vacation. Thank you. Questions?

1:23:20 ↗ There's no questions. Then I will move to open the public hearing. Guidelines for citizens

1:23:26 ↗ comments that were mentioned earlier and on the agenda also apply to those made under

1:23:32 ↗ this public hearing. And I now open the public hearing at 8:24. And has anyone

1:23:38 ↗ signed up to speak this evening? Yes. Sam Kyle.

1:23:48 ↗ Good evening, Mayor, Council. I was asked by the

1:23:53 ↗ staff to come in and clarify some of this.

1:23:59 ↗ I don't think that it's been identified on this.

1:24:05 ↗ It's actually not an extension of Gilman Boulevard, never

1:24:10 ↗ was an extension of Gilman Boulevard. In approximately 1963,

1:24:16 ↗ the state had defined a... frontage road. The city staff

1:24:22 ↗ has all this documentation in file. But in 1963, approximately the original I-90

1:24:27 ↗ was defined and had an entire frontage road. You don't have the map

1:24:33 ↗ up there, but it went across the entire front from Front Street out

1:24:39 ↗ to the city limits. And then in approximately 19...

1:24:46 ↗ 76 68 I think it was. They redefine redesign the roadway and and

1:24:51 ↗ made a determination of what they now call the fr 4 line. Because

1:24:57 ↗ that piece that's looking and being asked to be vacated. This was not

1:25:03 ↗ a piece of if this was done under a taking by the state.

1:25:08 ↗ I didn't have anything to do with the city so they were widening

1:25:14 ↗ and the family Schultz family contested it and they

1:25:20 ↗ ended up finally Deeding over through a court action and stuff in

1:25:26 ↗ in this taking This property was solely for the exclusive use

1:25:32 ↗ of all of the property coming into the back. It was all owned

1:25:37 ↗ by one entity at that time. I've since bought all of that and

1:25:43 ↗ the resident family that this property had joined. And in the warranty deed, it states

1:25:49 ↗ in part, it says, "As part of the consideration of this transaction, the state agrees

1:25:54 ↗ to construct a right-of-way of the frontage service road along the southwesterly side of said

1:26:00 ↗ highway and to which frontage service road only the grantor's or its assessors are assigned

1:26:06 ↗ to reserve the right of reasonable access." So the entire driveway was exclusively for the

1:26:11 ↗ purpose of the property that it serves presently. And then in 1999, the state came

1:26:17 ↗ back and did the flyover to Sammamish and they depleted all the parking. They reduced

1:26:22 ↗ it almost in half. That used to have parking on both sides of the street

1:26:28 ↗ out there. And then they came back and gave it back to the city after

1:26:33 ↗ they completed the flyover. The state has signed off on the easement and agreement as

1:26:39 ↗ far as the vacation process. So if there's any questions, I'm available for them. So

1:26:44 ↗ thank you. Thank you, Sam. Has anyone else signed up to speak? No. Would anyone

1:26:50 ↗ like to speak to this topic this evening on the vacation at Gilman Boulevard? Asking

1:26:56 ↗ once, asking twice, asking three times. So we will close the public hearing. Is there

1:27:01 ↗ a motion to continue to hear. Thank you Council Member Ramos. Second? Second.

1:27:07 ↗ So it's been moved and seconded. The motion is to continue the public

1:27:13 ↗ hearing to the City Council regular meeting of April 2nd, 2018. Council discussion?

1:27:19 ↗ If there's no further discussion, all those in favor of continuing the public

1:27:25 ↗ hearing to the City Council regular meeting of April 2nd, 2018 signify by

1:27:30 ↗ saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That passes unanimously. The next item

1:27:36 ↗ on the agenda is regular business. First item under

1:27:42 ↗ regular business is AB 7563 expedited traffic enforcement. This

1:27:48 ↗ item is coming out of the March 12th work

1:27:53 ↗ session. I'd like to invite Police Chief Scott Beerbaum

1:27:59 ↗ to make a presentation. Good evening, Council. I am Chief Scott

1:28:05 ↗ Barabon with Issaquah Police Department. This agenda bill is a follow-up conversation started originally back

1:28:10 ↗ in February during the authorization of funding for three police officer positions. It carried on

1:28:16 ↗ to the March 12th Council work session to have a further discussion about filling the

1:28:22 ↗ gap of the interest in traffic enforcement while the positions for the Police Department are

1:28:27 ↗ getting up and running. During the March 12th During the March 12th

1:28:33 ↗ work session conversation about an alternative to provide that additional enforcement.

1:28:39 ↗ The alternative that was presented was a limited term three-month traffic

1:28:44 ↗ enforcement focused on the downtown core around Northwest Gilman, Front Street,

1:28:50 ↗ and State Route 900 to address certain driving behaviors. It was going

1:28:56 ↗ to be accomplished through overtime, through the police department, and through partnering with

1:29:02 ↗ Washington State Patrol and contracting for their services. Continue on through this. In

1:29:08 ↗ addition to the enforcement, we are going to be utilizing Peak Democracy to

1:29:13 ↗ have citizen and community input about driving behaviors in those locations before and

1:29:19 ↗ after to address the effectiveness of this limited term. program. And at the

1:29:25 ↗ end of the pilot project, we would then come back to council and

1:29:31 ↗ report out on the amount of traffic enforcement and the impact that the

1:29:37 ↗ enforcement had to include that follow up on the community surveys and the

1:29:42 ↗ input that was collected through it. This is really as part of the

1:29:48 ↗ alternatives. We provided them. The alternative 1A at the top of the graph

1:29:54 ↗ was provided to council as a short term. project to provide

1:30:00 ↗ 39 shifts of enforcement for about 234 hours of total emphasis with the

1:30:05 ↗ expected outcome of approximately over 700 traffic stops. The expenditure would be a

1:30:11 ↗ maximum of $34,000 and down to a minimum of a little over $18,000 depending upon

1:30:17 ↗ the ratio of overtime utilized by Issaquah traffic emphasis versus Washington State Patrol traffic emphasis.

1:30:23 ↗ And again, this was short term with opportunity to determine the effectiveness and to hopefully

1:30:29 ↗ fill that gap until the staffing is up and running by the end of 2019.

1:30:36 ↗ really brought this along because we had a longer conversation about it on march 12th

1:30:41 ↗ but this is really the um the really the nuts and bolts of it here

1:30:46 ↗ thank you chief i'm going to see if deputy council president patis would like to

1:30:50 ↗ add some comments from the work session Thank you, Madam Mayor. At the

1:30:56 ↗ work session with our discussion regarding this topic, there was general

1:31:01 ↗ support of the administration's recommendation, which was alternative 1A, which was

1:31:07 ↗ the three shifts per week for 13 weeks with an expenditure

1:31:12 ↗ of $34,125. The committee expressed the desire to limit the number of shifts to

1:31:18 ↗ the 39 for the pilot program with an understanding that the expenditure could be lower

1:31:24 ↗ than the requested amount. This would be dependent, of course, on the ratio of the

1:31:30 ↗ Issaquah Police Department versus the Washington State Patrol staffing given the difference in the rates.

1:31:36 ↗ The committee was supportive of using the peak democracy tool for the community pre and

1:31:41 ↗ post project engagement. to determine the project's effectiveness. The committee had also asked, during the

1:31:47 ↗ committee session, there was also a question about using the school zone safety fund

1:31:53 ↗ for the project. And as stated in the agenda bill, With this last

1:31:59 ↗ update, that project does not satisfy the requirements for the school safety zone

1:32:04 ↗ fund as the expenditures are not associated with the school zone speed enforcement

1:32:10 ↗ program nor are they related to the capital improvements. So to wrap back

1:32:15 ↗ around the alternative 1A for the three shifts per week at the 13

1:32:21 ↗ weeks was what the committee talked about and was supportive of. Thank

1:32:27 ↗ you very much. Does council have any questions? Council Member Hunt. Thank

1:32:32 ↗ you, Chief Baerbaum. In this table, the expenditure and the number

1:32:38 ↗ of shifts, which one would be used to the full extent?

1:32:44 ↗ I was under the impression that it would be, the expenditure

1:32:49 ↗ would be $34,000 approximately, and then the number of shifts could

1:32:55 ↗ vary depending on the ratio of IPD versus State Patrol. Right. So part

1:33:01 ↗ of that conversation, if we had to utilize Washington State Patrol for all shifts, we

1:33:06 ↗ would be using 39 shifts. In order to kind of just determine the effectiveness based

1:33:12 ↗ on that three shifts per week, that's why we stayed at the conversation circled around

1:33:18 ↗ 39 shifts total and recognizing that the funding could be maximum of $34,000,

1:33:24 ↗ but depending upon the utilization of Issaquah Police Department employees, it would then be

1:33:30 ↗ lower. So if it was filled by all Issaquah Police Department employees, it would

1:33:35 ↗ be closer to a little over $18,000. of expenditure. Really what the focus was on,

1:33:41 ↗ as opposed to on the dollar amount, we were looking at the amount of shifts

1:33:46 ↗ and the amount of emphasis hours that we're going to be applying towards it. And

1:33:50 ↗ then we'd be able to determine what the effectiveness was based on that. Thank you.

1:33:55 ↗ Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Winterstein. Thank you. Scott, one of the

1:34:01 ↗ outcomes listed is to the, well, there's four. There are four outcomes, right? One is

1:34:06 ↗ the increased presence at the traffic emphasis locations. The other one is increased traffic stops.

1:34:12 ↗ A third one is reduction in driver behaviors that impact traffic flow and local mobility.

1:34:17 ↗ I can guess how a change in behavior will be measured just if there's fewer

1:34:22 ↗ drivers. over time, people will be making the same mistakes. The fourth one

1:34:28 ↗ is increased mobility in traffic emphasis locations. Is this gonna be measured and

1:34:34 ↗ if so, how? That was going to be utilizing the peak democracy

1:34:39 ↗ of kind of getting that before and after snapshot from our community members of that

1:34:45 ↗ feeling of movement from the increase of proper driving behaviors. It's going to be difficult

1:34:50 ↗ to acquire through pure sheer traffic counts because there's a dependent on some variables on

1:34:55 ↗ that, but we're going to be utilizing the peak democracy to get more of that

1:35:01 ↗ feedback on perception of that increased mobility. Okay, all right, all right, thank

1:35:07 ↗ you. I think that's important. I don't think we talked about that at the work

1:35:12 ↗ session. If we did, I forgot, I apologize. But it will be based upon kind

1:35:17 ↗ of perception. We're not going to have empirical data. Correct. Okay, thank you. Are there

1:35:21 ↗ any other questions? Council Member Ray, would you like to make a motion? I would,

1:35:26 ↗ thank you. I'd like to move to authorize funding for Expedited Traffic Enforcement Pilot Project,

1:35:31 ↗ Alternative 1A, three shifts per week from April 1st through June 30th, 2018. Number two,

1:35:37 ↗ authorize the mayor to enter into an execute contract with the Washington State

1:35:43 ↗ Patrol for enhanced traffic enforcement. And three, direct the director of finance to

1:35:49 ↗ include the necessary funds not to exceed $34,125 in a subsequent 2018 budget

1:35:55 ↗ amendment utilizing the general fund. - Second. - Thank you. It's been moved

1:36:00 ↗ and seconded. Is there any council discussion? Council Member Ramos. - Yes.

1:36:07 ↗ Chief, I really want to thank you for putting this together with the detail that

1:36:12 ↗ you've done. So we have very clear expenditures and outcomes and really appreciate that after

1:36:18 ↗ much discussion getting to something very specific. I think our goal here is to to

1:36:24 ↗ change behaviors. Our goal is not to find people and collect money. It is to

1:36:28 ↗ change driving behavior so it's safer and actually flow better because people are doing the

1:36:33 ↗ right things. And this is going to give us a nice shot at what that's

1:36:38 ↗ going to feel like because our traffic enforcement has been slowly decreasing because of staffing

1:36:43 ↗ and so this is going to boost that back up and hopefully get that so

1:36:47 ↗ thank you very much for this and I will be supporting it. One last thing

1:36:52 ↗ just as you mentioned that the dollar amount there I mentioned for them it's about

1:36:56 ↗ $48 per per stop if anybody's interested in cost. Thank you councilmember Ramos deputy council

1:37:01 ↗ president to tease. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I just wanted to

1:37:07 ↗ echo the sentiment that Councilmember Ramos spoke of. Chief, I really appreciate

1:37:12 ↗ all of the information that came forward and the detail and also

1:37:18 ↗ having the different options. And I would be supportive of going forward with

1:37:24 ↗ 1A. And I also appreciated this being looked at as a pilot program

1:37:30 ↗ so we could better understand all of the information coming about and having

1:37:35 ↗ peak democracy doing that work. And so it was very thoughtful and I

1:37:41 ↗ appreciate that. Thank you. Any other? Oh, Council Member Winterson. Thank you.

1:37:48 ↗ This only says three months. I know that it'll be a partial covering of the

1:37:54 ↗ gap between perhaps when all staff are online by the end of 2019. So that's

1:37:59 ↗ obviously more than three months away. And as I said during the work

1:38:05 ↗ session, I was in favor of this shorter duration because I felt

1:38:11 ↗ it was sufficient time to actually get a measure, especially in terms

1:38:16 ↗ of the number of citations. And as such, I'm looking forward to

1:38:22 ↗ seeing that data and should it say that this is, an

1:38:28 ↗ essential program that should continue, that maybe we should cover the gap until you

1:38:34 ↗ have with the rest of your officers online. I'll be interested in entertaining discussion

1:38:40 ↗ to extend it at that time. Thank you, Council Member Winterstein. Are there any

1:38:46 ↗ other comments or discussion? Council Member Hunt. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and

1:38:51 ↗ thank you again, Chief Baerbaum, for your presentation. I am in

1:38:57 ↗ support of Alternative 1A. I think, though, that my support is

1:39:03 ↗ based on the Focus on shifts because I think that adding number

1:39:09 ↗ of shifts as we've talked about with the police staffing Request earlier. There's

1:39:14 ↗ increasing calls for service. There's increasing need for police presence. And so I

1:39:20 ↗ think that this will fill in the the gap until we reach the

1:39:26 ↗ until we reach the full staffing of police officers and I would also

1:39:32 ↗ like to add there's a question in our packet about one of the policy questions

1:39:37 ↗ is, is there a desire to have non-IPD officers enforcing traffic laws in the city?

1:39:42 ↗ And for me, I do not. Agree with that particular statement and so my hope

1:39:48 ↗ is that this will be a stopgap solution and then once we reach the

1:39:53 ↗ full staffing of police then That will cover not only our traffic needs but

1:39:59 ↗ also our calls for service needs as our population grows Thank you. Any other

1:40:05 ↗ councilmember Goodman. Thank you. I So I too am supportive. Thank you,

1:40:11 ↗ Chief Beerbaum, for providing us with much more clarity and details around this

1:40:16 ↗ proposal which was not as clear during our budget session. And to echo a little

1:40:22 ↗ bit of what Council Member Hunt said about full staffing that we are expecting, I'm

1:40:28 ↗ looking forward to the full staffing and my expectation is that when we are full

1:40:34 ↗ staff that we will have traffic enforcement efforts that our community expects we should have

1:40:39 ↗ and that I'm hoping and expecting that we're not going to have to have any

1:40:44 ↗ more any stop, you know, any interim stopgap proposals that we'd be able to do

1:40:49 ↗ that with our full police force. Thank you. Are there any other comments? I just

1:40:54 ↗ would like to say, oh, Paul, did you have your hand up? I

1:41:00 ↗ would just like to add in a couple of things. We hear the request for

1:41:05 ↗ the data, that it's not just survey data, but some empirical data that the council

1:41:09 ↗ is expecting to see back after the pilot. So thank you for emphasizing that. And

1:41:13 ↗ I did want to give some credit to Chief Beerbaum. This is an example of

1:41:18 ↗ what I would consider an agenda bill that really told the story well. And I

1:41:23 ↗ think his presentation was good and full credit due, this was his idea. This wasn't

1:41:28 ↗ something I had asked him to do. So well done, Chief. Thank you. So if

1:41:33 ↗ there is no further discussion, All those in favor of authorizing funding for the expedited

1:41:39 ↗ traffic enforcement pilot project alternative 1A, three shifts per week from April 1st to June

1:41:44 ↗ 30th, 2018, authorizing the mayor to enter into and execute a contract with Washington State

1:41:49 ↗ Patrol for enhanced traffic enforcement and directing the finance director to include the necessary funds

1:41:55 ↗ not to exceed $34,125 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment utilizing the general fund

1:42:01 ↗ signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you, Chief. Thank

1:42:06 ↗ you. I have a question for Council before we go on to the

1:42:12 ↗ next item. Typically around the two-hour mark we take a short break. We

1:42:18 ↗ can do that now or we can move to AB 7523 and take

1:42:24 ↗ a break after. Yes? We'll take a five-minute recess and we'll come back

1:42:29 ↗ in at 8:00

1:42:31 ↗ So

1:42:41 ↗ I'd

1:42:51 ↗ like

1:43:01 ↗ to

1:43:12 ↗ call

1:43:22 ↗ us

1:43:32 ↗ back

1:43:42 ↗ to

1:43:52 ↗ order.

1:44:02 ↗ And

1:44:12 ↗ the

1:44:22 ↗ next

1:44:32 ↗ item

1:44:42 ↗ on

1:44:53 ↗ the

1:45:03 ↗ agenda

1:45:13 ↗ this

1:45:23 ↗ evening

1:45:33 ↗ is

1:45:43 ↗ AB

1:45:53 ↗ 7523,

1:46:03 ↗ end

1:46:13 ↗ of

1:46:23 ↗ Issaquah

1:46:34 ↗ Highlands

1:46:44 ↗ Development

1:46:54 ↗ Agreement.

1:47:04 ↗ This

1:47:14 ↗ item

1:47:24 ↗ is

1:47:34 ↗ coming

1:47:44 ↗ out

1:47:54 ↗ of

1:48:04 ↗ the

1:48:15 ↗ Council

1:48:25 ↗ Land

1:48:35 ↗ and

1:48:45 ↗ Shore

1:48:55 ↗ Committee,

1:49:05 ↗ and

1:49:15 ↗ I'd

1:49:25 ↗ like

1:49:35 ↗ to

1:49:45 ↗ invite

1:49:56 ↗ Land

1:50:06 ↗ Development

1:50:16 ↗ Manager

1:50:26 ↗ Lucy

1:50:36 ↗ Sloman

1:50:46 ↗ to

1:50:56 ↗ make

1:51:06 ↗ a

1:51:16 ↗ presentation.

1:51:26 ↗ Thank

1:51:37 ↗ you,

1:51:47 ↗ Madam

1:51:57 ↗ Mayor.

1:52:09 ↗ So this evening we're focused on the things that have happened since mid-December when

1:52:14 ↗ we last saw you, which was when we had committed to dividing this into

1:52:20 ↗ two separate agenda bills, going back to the community, back through land and shore,

1:52:26 ↗ and then returning to the council. So for Issaquah Highlands, the community meeting was

1:52:31 ↗ held on February 7th. The primary topics, as you may have seen in your

1:52:37 ↗ packet, was the minimum non-residential density and structured parking. You may

1:52:43 ↗ see some edits in the ordinance, the replacement regulations. That was

1:52:48 ↗ done because we have decided to retain those as two separate

1:52:54 ↗ standalone documents. We had originally anticipated synthesizing them back into a

1:53:00 ↗ single chapter and we have determined not to do that. And

1:53:06 ↗ so the rest of my presentation will really be a summary of the

1:53:11 ↗ topics that we discussed at Land and Shore as part of bringing this

1:53:17 ↗ back to the full council. So the first was a recommendation to make

1:53:22 ↗ these provisional. It is not interim. Interim is related to a moratorium. We

1:53:28 ↗ have had a year-long enactment process. This would not have any kind of

1:53:33 ↗ automatic sunset. But we're hoping to conclude this piece of the process

1:53:39 ↗ and then revisit the vision and any remaining community questions in 2019.

1:53:49 ↗ Minimum non-residential density, which Land and Shore also made an

1:53:54 ↗ affirmative recommendation on, was based on the significant amounts of

1:54:00 ↗ unbuilt entitlement, the traffic analysis that assumed a certain amount

1:54:06 ↗ of internalization, the importance of jobs, and using our land

1:54:12 ↗ wisely. Structured parking had a negative recommendation from Land

1:54:17 ↗ and Shore. The administration continued with their recommendation so that

1:54:23 ↗ the provisions of the Central Issaquah Standards are still in

1:54:29 ↗ the recommendation from the administration. This was not a standalone recommendation.

1:54:35 ↗ This was part and parcel of all the elements that came from

1:54:40 ↗ central Issaquah, which as you may remember, began with the urban villages.

1:54:46 ↗ And part of that is an expectation that over the course of

1:54:52 ↗ the build out of the development agreement, that structured parking would become

1:54:57 ↗ part of the landscape. One item that we

1:55:03 ↗ discussed and delayed to the provisional process was transfer of development

1:55:09 ↗ rights. One thing that is going into place right now is long-range

1:55:14 ↗ planning is currently updating the maps so that the TDR map for the city

1:55:20 ↗ will be altered in the Issaquah Highlands area and the non-residential properties within a

1:55:26 ↗ quarter mile of the park and ride will be designated for use by TDRs.

1:55:32 ↗ As it stands right now, that requires council action. What the provisional process

1:55:38 ↗ will, one of the things that we will explore is a two-tier zoning

1:55:43 ↗ cap in which there's a certain amount that's maybe allowed outright and that

1:55:49 ↗ TDRs would be allowed to take it above that. But that is just

1:55:54 ↗ an initial place to start a conversation. Vesting. Vesting. There were

1:56:00 ↗ three options laid out in your packet in the vesting

1:56:06 ↗ options memo. One is state law. which would require no action

1:56:12 ↗ if you decide to carry that forward as it matches the language that is

1:56:17 ↗ currently in the replacement regulations. Option two would be the Issaquah Municipal Code, which

1:56:23 ↗ has some nuance that's slightly different than state law, kind of explaining how we

1:56:29 ↗ will do it in Issaquah, but essentially is state law. To implement option two,

1:56:34 ↗ you would simply remove that section. of the replacement regulations. Option three is most

1:56:40 ↗ similar to what was enacted with the moratorium. And to do that, you

1:56:46 ↗ would replace the current language with the language from the March 15th memo.

1:56:54 ↗ We also just wanted to note that you received a communication, a letter

1:56:59 ↗ from the IHIF commercial. And we just want to go on the record

1:57:05 ↗ that we feel that there are elements of that that are incorrect or

1:57:11 ↗ we would take issue with. And we won't go into that tonight unless

1:57:16 ↗ asked to do so, but we just wanted to note that. That's the

1:57:22 ↗ end of my presentation. Thank you, Lucy. Does Council have any

1:57:28 ↗ questions? Council Member Goodman, Council Member Winterstein, Council Member Wray. Okay.

1:57:34 ↗ Council Member Winterstein. Thank you. Lucy, regarding that last letter you

1:57:40 ↗ said, could you just, just so for the sake of transparency,

1:57:45 ↗ could you tell us what the issue is regarding the letter?

1:57:51 ↗ There were several issues highlighted in the letter, including

1:57:57 ↗ breach of contract that we have defaulted and that

1:58:02 ↗ staff has stated that they have no intention of

1:58:08 ↗ following the development agreement that we are blocking lawful

1:58:13 ↗ development that we have deemed permits incomplete without cure

1:58:19 ↗ there are many elements to it Okay,

1:58:24 ↗ so just in general, it's calling into question the

1:58:30 ↗ processing of those applications? Yes. Thank you. Council Member

1:58:36 ↗ Goodman. Thank you. I just wanted to, for my

1:58:42 ↗ own clarity here, it's my understanding that the motion

1:58:48 ↗ that's in the packet to adopt the new chapter

1:58:53 ↗ includes the recommendations that came from Land and Shore,

1:58:59 ↗ also including the structured parking, which still is, which even though Land

1:59:05 ↗ and Shore was a one to two against, it's still the administration's

1:59:11 ↗ recommendation and also would include the vesting. So in short, the recommendations

1:59:17 ↗ plus the administration's, all of the administration's recommendations are included in the

1:59:23 ↗ ordinance and attached new code because it's a little bit

1:59:29 ↗ confusing. So let me run through this list since these were the topics that

1:59:34 ↗ came up at Land and Shore. So the provisional recommendations were supported by the

1:59:40 ↗ Land and Shore Committee and they appear in the ordinance. The minimum

1:59:46 ↗ non-residential density was supported by Land and Shore, it remained unchanged.

1:59:52 ↗ Structured parking was not recommended by Land and Shore. The administration

1:59:57 ↗ took the opposing position and retained that element. Transfer of development

2:00:03 ↗ rights was deferred to the provisional process, so I just included

2:00:08 ↗ it as part of the discussion. Vesting had no recommendation from Land

2:00:14 ↗ and Shore, and so the language in the replacement regulations remained unchanged.

2:00:20 ↗ Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Wray. Just a couple of clarifying questions.

2:00:26 ↗ How many parcels on the Highlands are not vested at this time?

2:00:31 ↗ Well, that would be a legal question. I believe there is one.

2:00:37 ↗ Let me try that again, because that's fair pushback. Does a

2:00:42 ↗ preliminary plat vest a property? Yes, for the elements that are within

2:00:48 ↗ the plat. Can you say more about that? Yes, so elements that

2:00:54 ↗ components of a plat that are necessary to process the plat such

2:00:59 ↗ as road standards would be vested. Elements that are not necessary or

2:01:05 ↗ not part of the plat are not vested, for instance landscape. Okay.

2:01:11 ↗ Deputy Council President Petit. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Lucy, could you go back to

2:01:17 ↗ the slide on vesting and I was hoping you could just run through one

2:01:23 ↗ more time the difference between option one and option two. So they're very similar.

2:01:29 ↗ There are, as I understand it, and it may be more appropriate for the

2:01:35 ↗ city attorney to speak to this, It would also be building permits, long and

2:01:40 ↗ short plats and development agreements, but certain components such as the element that I was

2:01:46 ↗ just speaking to Council Member Ray about of a plat of permits that are being

2:01:51 ↗ vested to the things that are required to process that permit. For instance, that is

2:01:57 ↗ in our city code. I don't know if that's in state law. There may be

2:02:02 ↗ some elements like that, that are part of how we explain those kinds

2:02:08 ↗ of permits being vested in the city. So just if I

2:02:13 ↗ could recap from my own understanding, option two would take everything

2:02:19 ↗ under option one. Yes. And then it would add some procedural

2:02:24 ↗ elements of how the city of Issaquah looks at vesting. That's

2:02:30 ↗ how I would explain it. I get a nod. Thank you.

2:02:41 ↗ That's generally correct. Pardon my voice. I'm sorry. Option

2:02:47 ↗ number two would basically -- option number one limits

2:02:52 ↗ the vesting specifically to state law. And that would

2:02:58 ↗ be building permits, short plats, plats, development agreements. Option

2:03:03 ↗ two eliminates reference to that, but State law would

2:03:09 ↗ still apply as would the Issaquah municipal code section

2:03:15 ↗ on vesting Questions councilmember hunt and that the preliminary

2:03:20 ↗ plat is Vested is that is it vested under

2:03:26 ↗ any option that we would take? Yes, and what

2:03:31 ↗ other? Permits are vested under any options that we

2:03:37 ↗ would take in in this area

2:03:43 ↗ Are you asking what other kinds of permits would be vested if we went

2:03:49 ↗ with option three? No, I'm asking if there other than the preliminary plat, if

2:03:55 ↗ there are other permits that have definitely vested. Oh, I'm sorry. So building permits

2:04:01 ↗ are definitely vested. That is a complete building permit submittal is vested under state

2:04:07 ↗ law. A complete long or short plat submittal permit submittal is vested

2:04:13 ↗ and an adopted development agreement is vested. Have the developers made any

2:04:19 ↗ of those for these, for this plan? So you're asking are there

2:04:24 ↗ other people who have vested using those particular types of permits? I'm

2:04:30 ↗ asking if the developer in this case has any other, any of

2:04:36 ↗ those permits that would also be vested other than the preliminary plat.

2:04:43 ↗ So, there are many builders of unbuilt property. There

2:04:49 ↗ are some who have building permits. For instance, Sumitomo

2:04:55 ↗ has submitted a building permit. Polygon Homes has a

2:05:01 ↗ development agreement for affordable housing. At this time, Shelter

2:05:07 ↗ Holdings has a plat. Thank you. Any other questions?

2:05:13 ↗ I just have to clarify. I'm still kind of

2:05:18 ↗ a little bit baffled by this. So if I

2:05:24 ↗ have an approved plat, that means that roads are

2:05:29 ↗ vested to the previous standard. What else is vested

2:05:35 ↗ to the previous standard? Parcel sizes, potential uses, infrastructure,

2:05:40 ↗ those the standards that are related to establishing

2:05:46 ↗ the parcels and the blocks. So what isn't vested

2:05:51 ↗ then? So things that you wouldn't show in a

2:05:57 ↗ plat, so for instance, landscape and buffer sizes, parking

2:06:03 ↗ standards, potentially building heights and setbacks, those would not

2:06:08 ↗ be critical areas standards would be vested if that applied it doesn't in the

2:06:14 ↗ area we're talking about. And so things such as building height and parking and

2:06:20 ↗ things that are not vested to the plat, those would require a building permit?

2:06:26 ↗ Yes. Okay. Councilmember Winterstein, did I see your hand up?

2:06:32 ↗ This is a question about the state statute regarding vesting. Sorry, Jim.

2:06:38 ↗ I know your voice sounds tired. I may ask you to talk

2:06:44 ↗ again. In Issaquah, we have an administrative requirement that an applicant complete

2:06:50 ↗ and obtain a site development permit. This is an administrative requirement before

2:06:56 ↗ getting a building permit. Does state law... address any, does

2:07:01 ↗ it define what a building permit is? Is that assumed somewhere

2:07:07 ↗ or any conditions like we practice here in Issaquah, are they

2:07:13 ↗ addressed in helping determine status. State statute says that the requirements

2:07:19 ↗ for a complete building permit application are to be defined by the

2:07:25 ↗ local jurisdiction. So it leaves it up to the local jurisdiction to

2:07:30 ↗ define that. The City of Issaquah's code says that you can file

2:07:36 ↗ a building permit application at any time. You don't need to

2:07:42 ↗ have a site development permit approval prior to filing a building

2:07:48 ↗ permit. But the local jurisdiction is given the authority to define

2:07:53 ↗ what's necessary for a complete building permit application. Is there any

2:07:59 ↗ other questions? If not, I would like to give Council Member

2:08:05 ↗ Goodman an opportunity as chair of Land and Shore to provide

2:08:11 ↗ some comments on the Land and Shore Committee meeting.

2:08:17 ↗ My comments are that it has been, we have spent many hours, many,

2:08:23 ↗ many hours. I don't know that I have any other comments other than

2:08:29 ↗ what has already been presented by Lucy and that I presented a fairly

2:08:34 ↗ comprehensive report after Landon Shore met on how the committee, each of the

2:08:40 ↗ committee members voted on each item. If there aren't any other questions, I

2:08:45 ↗ would make a motion. Great. I will move to adopt

2:08:51 ↗ ordinance number 2830. Say that again. 2830. Thank you. Adopting by reference

2:08:57 ↗ a new chapter 18.19c of the Issaquah Municipal Code, providing urban village

2:09:03 ↗ replacement regulations for the areas formerly governed by the Issaquah Highlands Development

2:09:09 ↗ Agreement and the Highlands Drive Transit Oriented Development, TOD Development Agreement, revising

2:09:14 ↗ the boundaries of the area governed by the WSDOT TDR Development Agreement.

2:09:20 ↗ Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded.

2:09:26 ↗ Is there any council discussion? Council Member Winterstein. Thank you, Madam

2:09:32 ↗ Mayor. And though I try really hard to be paperless, it

2:09:37 ↗ does make me dependent upon the electronic format and my machine

2:09:43 ↗ is completely locked up right now. So I apologize. Is there

2:09:48 ↗ something I could pull up for you? I've got the agenda bill open. Oh,

2:09:54 ↗ do you have my notes? You didn't send them. I'd be glad to bring

2:10:00 ↗ them. Well, I do want to and I do appreciate one of the things

2:10:05 ↗ that we have here up on council is some hard copy of some potentially

2:10:11 ↗ alternative language to the ordinance and its attachments. And the first, we

2:10:17 ↗ have hard copy. I don't think they were in the

2:10:22 ↗ packet. And the first one, and I appreciate what's already

2:10:28 ↗ been mentioned this evening about structured parking that that

2:10:34 ↗ the language that just was seconded does not include

2:10:39 ↗ the majority opinion of the Land and Shore Committee.

2:10:45 ↗ I'm looking at Chris because he sat in on

2:10:50 ↗ that. And so what this language that's in this

2:10:55 ↗ does say, well, parking,

2:11:01 ↗ Actually, so the language that's in this ordinance has to do with,

2:11:07 ↗ like you said, matching the central Issaquah area structured parking standards, which

2:11:13 ↗ were recently adopted as part of the moratorium. Correct. And Lucy, could

2:11:19 ↗ you just, I'm sorry, I don't have it with me, so could

2:11:25 ↗ you... Tell us quickly what those requirements are. Yes. So

2:11:30 ↗ 50 percent of residential parking has to be in a structure.

2:11:36 ↗ For office, the threshold is 5,000 square feet. Above that, 50

2:11:42 ↗ percent of required parking has to be in a structure. For

2:11:47 ↗ retail, above 25,000 square feet, 50 percent has to be in

2:11:53 ↗ a structure. Okay. All right. Thank you. And one of those

2:11:59 ↗ standards, if I recall, when the Council adopted those for the

2:12:04 ↗ central area, we, at that time, did not go with the

2:12:10 ↗ administration's recommendation at that time or that of the consultant, especially

2:12:16 ↗ as it related to retail. And... So I'm just that's

2:12:21 ↗ just that's what happened. Mm-hmm. You said tonight In your in

2:12:27 ↗ your slide about structured parking. I think you made it made

2:12:33 ↗ the comment. Oh, yeah use Central is across standards started with

2:12:38 ↗ urban villages. So the DA Does it have any? Requirements for

2:12:44 ↗ structured parking correct. And what are those? I'm sorry, I

2:12:50 ↗ misunderstood what you said. It does not have a requirement, it has

2:12:56 ↗ a goal. Okay, and so the central IZUKWA standards have gone beyond

2:13:01 ↗ what the original urban village development agreements did when it came to

2:13:07 ↗ structured parking. - In terms of making it a requirement, yes. - Okay,

2:13:13 ↗ all right. So I understand the argument, hey, let's use what we developed

2:13:18 ↗ for central area because we think it applies to the urban villages. But

2:13:24 ↗ two things, I think, and as part of that policymaking, when I was

2:13:30 ↗ on the council last year. It was not part of my thinking at all, nor

2:13:35 ↗ was it, I recall being discussed that those standards, because they were part of the

2:13:40 ↗ moratorium and only applied to the central area, that those standards would be looked at

2:13:45 ↗ to be applied in other parts of the city. Secondly, and as you just

2:13:51 ↗ said, because they go beyond what was in, even though the central standards

2:13:57 ↗ were based upon as a starting point, the development agreements for the urban

2:14:02 ↗ villages, but it goes beyond what the urban villages had specified. And so

2:14:08 ↗ I think, you know, for those two reasons and some more, I'm very...

2:14:14 ↗ I get the policy argument that, and also

2:14:20 ↗ kind of the goal and the vision of

2:14:26 ↗ an urban development that doesn't that has considerably less surface parking

2:14:31 ↗ compared to say structured parking and I've understood I understand that I've

2:14:37 ↗ been thinking about that quite a bit but what I what I

2:14:43 ↗ don't accept and that's why I voted against it in committee was

2:14:48 ↗ the application of these for the structured parking for these replacement regulations

2:14:55 ↗ And so I just want to make sure that all the other

2:15:01 ↗ council members who weren't on land and shore can kind of hear

2:15:07 ↗ that. And so I actually would like to make a motion to

2:15:13 ↗ amend the motion regarding structured parking. And I'm going to read from

2:15:18 ↗ the literature provided to us. Oh, there, my machine just woke up.

2:15:24 ↗ Provided us by staff. And

2:15:31 ↗ And so I'm going to move to make sure I understand this correctly. Did you

2:15:36 ↗ author this? Make sure I understand this. Okay. - I touched it at one point.

2:15:42 ↗ - If you're on page two, Paul, in the middle section, I think you could

2:15:47 ↗ move to add a new subsection to section 18. - Okay, it's add. It's add.

2:15:52 ↗ Thank you for that. Thank you for that, Mayor. So I'm going to,

2:15:58 ↗ I'm moved to add a new subsection to section

2:16:03 ↗ 18.9.C.140.D, district standards as follows. Paragraph D, structured parking.

2:16:09 ↗ The requirement to build structured parking in 18.19A, the

2:16:15 ↗ CIDDS, Central Elizabeth standards, Chapter 8, Section 8.18.B does

2:16:20 ↗ not apply to Issaquah Highlands. Second. It's been moved and seconded.

2:16:26 ↗ Is there discussion? Councilmember Ray. I just have a couple comments and I've been

2:16:32 ↗ doing a lot of thinking about this and Paul, you're correct. At Land and Shore,

2:16:36 ↗ I was more aligned with you than I am right now and I'm still trying

2:16:40 ↗ to figure out where I am. But I find that the requirements for structured parking

2:16:44 ↗ at 50% residential makes a lot of sense to me because we don't want a

2:16:48 ↗ lot of street parking in our residential areas. It is my belief that for office

2:16:53 ↗ space, particularly class A office space, which is what we would likely be building

2:16:59 ↗ up here, that to be competitive, you have to have structured parking. That's generally

2:17:05 ↗ an expectation. And Lucy, it's 25,000 square foot threshold for retail, for structured parking.

2:17:11 ↗ So that would only be the largest of retail areas. So

2:17:17 ↗ is that by building or by development, the 2,500? So if I'm building a

2:17:22 ↗ number of buildings and each one is 20,000 square feet, so collectively more than

2:17:28 ↗ 25, would that require structured parking? - They'd have to put them on separate

2:17:34 ↗ parcels, I think. - They'd have to be on separate parcels. - So it's

2:17:40 ↗ really 25,000 square feet of retail per parcel, more than that would require structured

2:17:46 ↗ parking. - Yes. I have to do

2:17:52 ↗ some math. Mm-hmm. Councilmember Goodman, Councilmember Ramos. Thank you. I just wanted to

2:17:57 ↗ offer a few of the reasons that I would not support the amendment.

2:18:03 ↗ Missisquoi Highlands is always was expected to be very pedestrian oriented and is

2:18:09 ↗ very pedestrian oriented. Surface parking lots, no matter how well they are designed

2:18:14 ↗ and landscaped, are not pedestrian oriented. As we all know, the valley floor is

2:18:20 ↗ littered with surface parking lots, which of course we're trying to get away from. And

2:18:25 ↗ getting rid of surface parking lots is the primary motivation for the standards in Central

2:18:30 ↗ Issaquah. And so it's curious to me why we would want, allow more of Issaquah

2:18:36 ↗ to be consumed by surface parking lots. And I believe that if we allow the

2:18:41 ↗ market to determine what is built, Without consideration, we will be

2:18:46 ↗ disappointed in the outcome. I do recall Grand Ridge

2:18:52 ↗ Plaza. They're being negotiated the the structured parking lot that's up

2:18:58 ↗ there next to the theater. And that was something that the administration and

2:19:04 ↗ I do not recall that that came to council. But I know that

2:19:09 ↗ there was significant interest in the groups that reviewed that proposal that structured parking

2:19:15 ↗ was wanted and needed and it's it's not enough we hear all the time it's

2:19:20 ↗ not enough parking up there even with the structured parking so that's why i don't

2:19:25 ↗ that's why i support the the proposed structured parking regulations and wouldn't support support the

2:19:30 ↗ amendment That's never almost you had a question when you talked about retail so the

2:19:35 ↗ requirements for structure parking it at 25,000 retail and then 5,000 square feet for office

2:19:40 ↗ office space. OK so that's office or commercial or anything is 5,000 so commercial fits

2:19:45 ↗ in their office and services I think is that the way it's described in this

2:19:49 ↗ is a 5,000 square foot requirements and yes, it's what I want to clarify. Thank

2:19:54 ↗ you. um councilmember hunt this is a clarifying question if you

2:20:00 ↗ have a multi-level parking lot such near parking structures such as grand ridge

2:20:06 ↗ plaza does that contribute towards the far of one no that was a

2:20:12 ↗ significant discussion at the beginning of central issaquah whether structured parking would count

2:20:18 ↗ or not after consideration of several different property owners

2:20:23 ↗ making arguments it was decided that in central is a quad

2:20:29 ↗ to not count structured parking towards the floor area ratio. Thank

2:20:35 ↗ you any other councilmember Ramos. I want to clarify that to

2:20:41 ↗ not counted. explain what it means to not count it. So when you're

2:20:47 ↗ calculating far, how do you not counting it? So how does that math work? If

2:20:52 ↗ you had a one acre site and you were required to build an acre of

2:20:58 ↗ building, your occupied space would count towards that one acre, but your structured parking would

2:21:04 ↗ not. so i'm still

2:21:10 ↗ trying to get there um so if you have a two-story building on half

2:21:15 ↗ of that lot and a structured parking lot on the other half of that

2:21:21 ↗ lot that would meet your far because the structure parking wouldn't be counted i

2:21:27 ↗ just want to clarify the math thank you council president patis so i just

2:21:32 ↗ in regard to the structured parking uh conversation i i just I

2:21:38 ↗ feel like we've spent a lot of time talking about what we

2:21:44 ↗ would do in the central Issaquah area. We've talked a lot about

2:21:49 ↗ trying to get away from the surface parking. I would not be

2:21:55 ↗ voting for the amendment as it stands. I do think that we

2:22:00 ↗ need to focus on that. and hopefully keep that aligned as

2:22:06 ↗ we're going forward in the Highlands. Additional discussion or questions? Council Member

2:22:12 ↗ Winterstein. Another point for me is we have had, and it's stated

2:22:18 ↗ very clearly throughout this entire process, trying to establish replacement regulations

2:22:24 ↗ that kind of capture the spirit of the original development agreement and

2:22:30 ↗ and I mean you you said it yourself there were not goals

2:22:36 ↗ there were no requirements for structured parking in the original development agreement

2:22:41 ↗ and I think that's an important consideration I I want my colleagues

2:22:47 ↗ on the council who stated their preferences otherwise understand I I understand

2:22:53 ↗ very well this goal of reducing surface parking and yet this issue along with

2:22:59 ↗ some others I think we're going to still talk tonight for me are bigger

2:23:04 ↗ than just that simple issue because it's a it's an overall body of regulation

2:23:10 ↗ that we're putting in place and what that does to the cost of development, but

2:23:16 ↗ more importantly, the cost of living in Issaquah and what that's gonna mean for us

2:23:21 ↗ long term. That's the major theme that I'm gonna go back to perhaps a couple

2:23:27 ↗ times this evening still. And I do wanna mention that structured parking is definitely a

2:23:32 ↗ much higher expense. It definitely drives up, they'll then drive up the expenses really for

2:23:37 ↗ all of us But first and foremost though, if we're gonna be true to the

2:23:43 ↗ development agreement, then since it did not have a requirement, I'm not sure why, I

2:23:48 ↗ don't think we should be proposing this. - So I'm gonna have one more go

2:23:53 ↗ around and if we're ready after that, we'll vote on the motion. So Council Member

2:23:58 ↗ Ray. - I'm gonna kind of back it up a little bit. So this is

2:24:03 ↗ and was a very difficult decision and has profound effect. So when I was, I've

2:24:08 ↗ been wrestling this, I've been looking at really two things. One is really what is

2:24:13 ↗ it in the best interest of the community. So in some ways I don't really

2:24:18 ↗ care what the development agreement said because it's 20 years old and this community has

2:24:22 ↗ changed a lot in 20 years. But what I do really care about is what

2:24:27 ↗ the community and that we should be putting together goals and regulations that drive to

2:24:31 ↗ what the community wants today. And I don't think we know what that is. One

2:24:36 ↗ of the reasons that I was supportive of the provisional regulations was to give us

2:24:41 ↗ the ability to say, we're gonna end the DA 'cause we need to do it,

2:24:46 ↗ and we need to put regulations in place that will allow us to move forward,

2:24:51 ↗ but we want to recognize that we're gonna come back and true these up

2:24:57 ↗ when we have found out what's important to the community. My biggest concern is we

2:25:02 ↗ can much more easily a year from now, loosen regulations and it is much more

2:25:08 ↗ difficult a year from now to tighten regulations. So I am inclined to go with

2:25:13 ↗ a what are the most reasonable regulations we can put in place that we, if

2:25:19 ↗ they seem to be inappropriate or drive the wrong behavior, we can loosen them up

2:25:24 ↗ a year from now, six months from now, whatever, so that we can achieve the

2:25:29 ↗ community's goals. So that's kind of my philosophical approach to this decision making and how

2:25:34 ↗ we, how we vet these things. Thank you, Council Member Ray. I saw Council

2:25:39 ↗ Member Hunt's hand up, and then we'll go back and give the last three another

2:25:45 ↗ chance as well. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have also found this topic to be

2:25:51 ↗ very complicated, and the impacts, I think, are potentially huge. I think that

2:25:57 ↗ for the community, one thing that I keep coming back to is the

2:26:02 ↗ use of space and that really we have all of this open space

2:26:08 ↗ in Issaquah that's so important and we really do want to at least

2:26:13 ↗ in the urban villages there's the goal for concentrating the density and

2:26:19 ↗ having that live work play vision. I think that the, I think that

2:26:25 ↗ in the original, in the original development plan, there was a goal for

2:26:31 ↗ having structured parking, but without, without something stronger than a goal, I don't

2:26:37 ↗ know that we would get it. And so I have wrestled with this

2:26:43 ↗ topic. I think ultimately that the, the, smart use of the space

2:26:49 ↗ is to more than just encourage structured parking but to put

2:26:54 ↗ some requirements on structured parking. Thank you, Council Member Hunt. Three

2:27:00 ↗ more. Council Member Ramos, Goodman or Batiste. Anyone interested? Council Member

2:27:06 ↗ Ramos. Yeah, as everyone else struggling with what we have to

2:27:11 ↗ do here, it's It's difficult because there's things that we would

2:27:17 ↗ love to do and there's things that we are able to do. And one of

2:27:22 ↗ the things we're doing with Central Issaquah, we've gone and took a whole chunk of

2:27:27 ↗ our central core and decided we're going to do something different with that and unique

2:27:32 ↗ and do that. And that's a whole piece of our core. And to me the

2:27:37 ↗ problem being here is we're taking essentially a very small piece It's left after 20

2:27:42 ↗ years of development and people going along with all these previous standards and then and

2:27:47 ↗ then changing them fairly quickly because I read just it seemed like we talked for

2:27:53 ↗ a long time as a council as a city that we were going to basically

2:27:58 ↗ put on when we did put the zoning on the end development agreement, it would

2:28:04 ↗ be the same as what we had. And that's what I felt I heard for

2:28:09 ↗ a long time and then then this came about the of the far in the

2:28:13 ↗ structure parking which we're talking about right now and so it was a change it

2:28:18 ↗ was a shift. And so I'm trying to deal with that where where that line

2:28:22 ↗ gets drawn and ideally I think it'd be great to have it, but I'm just

2:28:27 ↗ not sure yet that that's really we've taken the adequate steps to require that at

2:28:32 ↗ this point we can always still continue to encourage it i don't know if we

2:28:37 ↗ can require it i'm still on the fence on that one thank you councilmember goodman

2:28:42 ↗ so if you uh What we still hear from, if you're

2:28:48 ↗ talking about vision and what the community expects and what the community appreciates

2:28:54 ↗ about the development that's up there right now, we still hear from Issaquah

2:28:59 ↗ Highlands folks that while yes, we shop at Grand Ridge Plaza, the suburban

2:29:05 ↗ style was not envisioned. What we wanted was the the urban style and it was

2:29:10 ↗ not surface parking lots and that style. So we have heard from the community many

2:29:16 ↗ times over the years since that was built that that's not what they envisioned. I've

2:29:21 ↗ had many community members tell me that they wish that we would not have approved

2:29:26 ↗ that, that we would have been tougher and that we would have held out for

2:29:31 ↗ something that was more in line with the original vision. So again, I'm

2:29:37 ↗ not going to support the amendment, but I do believe

2:29:43 ↗ that approving replacement regulations right now that will allow development

2:29:49 ↗ similar to Grand Ridge Plaza is not what the community

2:29:55 ↗ has wanted. And last but not least, Deputy Council President

2:30:01 ↗ Bautiste. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I guess I would

2:30:07 ↗ a couple of things that we've talked about were the goals and

2:30:12 ↗ the goals not necessarily being developed and to echo a little bit

2:30:18 ↗ of some of what my fellow council members have talked about you

2:30:24 ↗ know when 20 years have gone by and we've gotten public feedback

2:30:30 ↗ regarding surface parking and regarding density and protecting neighborhoods and our hillsides

2:30:36 ↗ and that kind of thing and moving away from um as we're as we've been

2:30:42 ↗ talking about central isaac which is which seems like a perfect thing to to to

2:30:48 ↗ draw over to because that is the the density that we've been talking about and

2:30:54 ↗ and the most recent work um and the most recent conversations regarding what

2:30:59 ↗ surface parking would actually look like and we don't have everything clearly defined

2:31:05 ↗ in regard to the urban some of the urban villages and and in

2:31:11 ↗ regard to the end of the development agreement because that was many years

2:31:17 ↗ ago so I I think that we've gotten so

2:31:23 ↗ much feedback over the years regarding how people were feeling,

2:31:28 ↗ especially in the Highlands, about surface parking and Grand Ridge

2:31:34 ↗ Plaza. So it seems to make sense to me to

2:31:39 ↗ go forward and have those central Issaquah provisions as part

2:31:45 ↗ of what we're thinking about. Thank you. So I will

2:31:51 ↗ read through the motion again. The amendment is to move to add a

2:31:56 ↗ new subsection to section 18.19 C.14 OD district standards as follows. The structured

2:32:02 ↗ parking, the requirement to build structured parking in 18.19 A of the SIDS,

2:32:08 ↗ Chapter 8, Section 8.18.B does not apply to Issaquah Highlands. All those in

2:32:13 ↗ favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. I

2:32:19 ↗ guess I forgot to tell you what to say. So the amendment fails. Winterstein

2:32:25 ↗ and Ramos voting for the motion and Hunt, Ray, Goodman and Batiste against the

2:32:31 ↗ motion. Coming back to the main motion, are there any, is there any other

2:32:37 ↗ discussion or any other amendments prior to proceeding to the vote on the motion?

2:32:43 ↗ Yeah, thank you Madam Mayor. I want to talk about vesting and the

2:32:49 ↗ I think it's really important that we have a good conversation about this.

2:32:54 ↗ Thank you, Lucy, for putting that up. This is an area, you guys

2:33:00 ↗ said earlier, these are kind of complex and difficult questions. So you spend

2:33:06 ↗ a lot of time on them and absolutely true for me as well.

2:33:12 ↗ And in particular, this one, what's in the proposed ordinance is option number

2:33:17 ↗ one up there. specifically repeats the language that's in

2:33:23 ↗ the RCWs. I understand that. But one of the,

2:33:29 ↗ I don't have a lot of experience with vesting

2:33:34 ↗ outside of what's currently in effect for the central

2:33:40 ↗ area. And the, just only in the central area

2:33:46 ↗ regarding to the moratorium. um the and um that that

2:33:52 ↗ vesting standard um draws the line uh option number three there there's a bunch

2:33:58 ↗ of things listed up there but basically um we we are considering under the

2:34:04 ↗ moratorium in the central area anybody who has a basic completed site development permit

2:34:10 ↗ application is that i saying that correct yes that's right all right thanks as

2:34:16 ↗ well as a pre-app Right. And those are two steps that

2:34:21 ↗ we require in order to get a building permit? So as our

2:34:27 ↗ city attorney said, the code says that anyone can submit a building

2:34:33 ↗ permit at any time. Okay, we administratively require those?

2:34:39 ↗ We encourage that because to go to the effort of submitting

2:34:45 ↗ a complete building permit and then processing a land use permit

2:34:51 ↗ makes for a very complicated and difficult process. but they absolutely

2:34:57 ↗ have the right to submit a building permit. Okay, all right. Well, thank

2:35:02 ↗ you for that. And I understand that. I know it's been mentioned that

2:35:08 ↗ we have the site development permit line on the moratorium because the moratorium

2:35:14 ↗ was an emergency that it caught people off guard. And I dove into

2:35:20 ↗ this because Well, I wanted to know and I couldn't find any any

2:35:26 ↗ anything in the record that said that was the reason that we did this in

2:35:31 ↗ fact all i could find was mention how we thought that in this because of

2:35:36 ↗ what you say we encourage what i said administratively what have you because of we

2:35:42 ↗ encourage those uh those pre-apps in the site development pit we felt that that was

2:35:47 ↗ uh you know um a sufficient uh burden and and therefore we would vest there

2:35:53 ↗ It is interesting during the moratorium and so in the original ordinance and all

2:35:59 ↗ the ordinances since that have updated or extended the moratorium, there was a time

2:36:04 ↗ when we considered, and this was back in October 26 of 2016, an alternative

2:36:10 ↗ to the proposed vesting and that alternative was to actually make it even

2:36:16 ↗ more lenient than this level and the council at that

2:36:22 ↗ time didn't even want to hear about it. We just

2:36:27 ↗ stuck with exactly what was already in the language that

2:36:33 ↗ was in the ordinance, which is the ASDP/SDP. And so,

2:36:39 ↗ this idea that we don't want to use the precedent

2:36:45 ↗ that we have in place for the moratorium, the argument

2:36:50 ↗ that It is unwarranted because the moratorium people off guard is, so

2:36:56 ↗ I can't accept that because I never, that didn't come about during the

2:37:02 ↗ moratorium. I never could find anything in the record that said that that

2:37:08 ↗ was a special case. The moratorium was about temporarily stopping development so that we

2:37:14 ↗ could change regulations and update the vision for the central area to make sure we

2:37:19 ↗ started getting what we want, not just what we could get. And the vesting reflected

2:37:25 ↗ what was felt was fair given our administrative prerequisites for the building permit. I took

2:37:30 ↗ it then and I still see it as that the standard as being

2:37:36 ↗ fair. So there's that. Now I also understand that in the development agreement,

2:37:42 ↗ Lucy, do you have this, does it actually say in there, does it

2:37:47 ↗ address vesting? Does it specifically about what happens when the development agreement expires?

2:37:55 ↗ I can pull that up. It has a provision that says that

2:38:01 ↗ we will, that when the, how long the build out period is

2:38:07 ↗ and that when the development agreement is terminated, the replacement regulations will

2:38:13 ↗ be the law of the land. I am paraphrasing. Right. So it's

2:38:18 ↗ our interpretation, it's your interpretation that that then would apply to the

2:38:24 ↗ vesting as well. And that doesn't.

2:38:30 ↗ And so we've been, we have

2:38:36 ↗ received counsel that in our particular

2:38:42 ↗ circumstances where a development agreement is going to terminate and it says

2:38:47 ↗ in that agreement that the replacement regulations are now in effect that there isn't precedent

2:38:53 ↗ it does this law is silent on that there isn't precedent in case law so

2:38:58 ↗ in then it and then it truly does come to this body if we choose

2:39:03 ↗ to address it - we get to choose and whether or not we make it

2:39:11 ↗ proposal as proposed now or something to align with the moratorium that's fully within the

2:39:16 ↗ discretion of this legislative body and that was a concern of mine we we all

2:39:22 ↗ did talk about that and i um i understand i think it's okay there and

2:39:27 ↗ so that that That's the highlighted section? Right. Upon such adoption, this agreement shall

2:39:32 ↗ terminate and thereafter the UGA portion of the property shall be governed by the adopted

2:39:38 ↗ city zoning and related development regulations. Okay. So I'm just kind of summarizing this pathway

2:39:44 ↗ we've gone through and I was very concerned about Vesting already being established by the

2:39:49 ↗ DA and there's nothing we can do about that that seems to indicate well No,

2:39:55 ↗ that's gonna go away. It's about what we adopt So now I know that we

2:40:00 ↗ have that latitude with less concern about whether or not we're consistent with state law

2:40:05 ↗ or not And so I appreciate the effort that's been given to help us understand

2:40:10 ↗ that and As was already said today, according to the city attorney, we are free

2:40:15 ↗ to choose the vesting regulations as long as they're not more restrictive than state law,

2:40:20 ↗ but they can be less restrictive like we're doing with the moratorium. In other words,

2:40:24 ↗ we can go either way and not be violating the rights of current developers who

2:40:29 ↗ happen to be in the middle of trying to develop the property in the Highlands.

2:40:33 ↗ So what I'd like to do with that is kind of, you know, my just

2:40:38 ↗ my reasoning and my thinking I'd like to make a motion regarding to vesting which

2:40:43 ↗ basically says and we had again we have another thank you Keith and we have

2:40:49 ↗ a piece of paper that is not available to the public

2:40:55 ↗ right now. It basically says, we would vest at the site

2:41:00 ↗ development permit because of, and for the reasons that I gave

2:41:06 ↗ earlier. So Lucy, do you have that language? - Yeah, that's

2:41:11 ↗ what I'm looking for right now. - So as soon as

2:41:17 ↗ she puts that up, oh yeah, okay, that's right. I think

2:41:22 ↗ that is in the packet, that's right. Oh, you had it.

2:41:28 ↗ - I know. - Tab. Sorry, I was trying to make

2:41:34 ↗ it bigger. You can. I can. There it is. I was using the wrong end.

2:41:39 ↗ You can also collapse the panel on the left. Those are our bookmarks, so if

2:41:44 ↗ I have to find something quickly, I'm going to keep that. and you can always

2:41:49 ↗ call them back just for reference so i'm going to make a motion that

2:41:55 ↗ that deletes section 18.19.c.280 vesting of permits and replaces it with that language right

2:42:00 ↗ there which is the same thing that we have on this paper in front

2:42:06 ↗ of us which basically aligns the vesting similar to what we have under the

2:42:12 ↗ moratorium for the central area So I really need to either have you read it

2:42:17 ↗ into the record or I can, Paul, so that the council members are clear on

2:42:22 ↗ the exact language that they're voting on. So would you like me to read it

2:42:26 ↗ into the record? Can I? Mary Lou, if I can comment, we did design this

2:42:31 ↗ handout so if needed the council member can move adoption of the amendment and reference

2:42:35 ↗ the title in bold, so vesting option three in this case to avoid reading the

2:42:40 ↗ code itself. That was my intent. I'm making a motion

2:42:45 ↗ to amend the ordinance and adopt vesting option number three. Is there

2:42:51 ↗ a second? It's been moved and there is no second, so the

2:42:57 ↗ motion does not proceed to a vote. Back to the main motion,

2:43:02 ↗ which we have not voted on yet. Are there any other items

2:43:08 ↗ to discuss or any other amendments to consider? Councilmember Wray. This is

2:43:14 ↗ more of a procedural question. Should the motion fail, What happens? Great

2:43:19 ↗ question. I'm going to go to the team. Are you asking if the main motion

2:43:25 ↗ to adopt the ordinance fails? So the ordinance would not, the new code would not

2:43:31 ↗ be adopted and as to the implications of that, Lucy would be best able to

2:43:37 ↗ respond. Lucy or Keith. You can't kick that over here fast. Yeah. So the development

2:43:43 ↗ agreement would still be in place. Okay. any other questions or discussion

2:43:49 ↗ if not i will read the me oh there we go three p i saw

2:43:53 ↗ three hands councilmember ramos and i'd like to get back to council members ray um

2:43:58 ↗ question previously and i'm not seeing it here so i'm not following but we talked

2:44:03 ↗ about the provisional and and i don't understand you know there's there's something and then

2:44:08 ↗ they're saying there's provisional and that means we're gonna give it a year do more

2:44:12 ↗ research mean it's not final and in a year we, you know, six months to

2:44:17 ↗ a year, whatever that takes, we may back that down, we may keep it, we

2:44:21 ↗ have choices, we're going to do some more research, more discussion with developers and see

2:44:25 ↗ where we can go with that. I'm not sure, explain to me for sure all

2:44:28 ↗ the ins and outs of that because I have ideas in my head but I'm

2:44:32 ↗ not sure I'm following them and I haven't, because I haven't seen anything writing in

2:44:36 ↗ that, what difference that makes. So the provisional aspect of these regulations would

2:44:42 ↗ be in the ordinance only. If you adopt them this evening, they

2:44:48 ↗ would be permanent. But the ordinance makes a commitment that the administration

2:44:54 ↗ will follow through in 2019 with a visioning process in the community.

2:45:00 ↗ to determine if there are properties certain elements certain regulations change

2:45:06 ↗ of use that the community feels while distinct from the way

2:45:12 ↗ we closed out the development agreement would be more appropriate in

2:45:17 ↗ building out the rest of the development so clarifying that so

2:45:23 ↗ you're saying in 2019 we would go through that process and

2:45:29 ↗ So that mean we're barely in 18 here. So that's your way then you go

2:45:34 ↗ through that process in the meantime for a year plus the new regulations would be

2:45:40 ↗ in place. Yes, it would stop anything that didn't meet these new regulations for your

2:45:46 ↗ pleasant at that point they may get changed or may not right so for all

2:45:52 ↗ intents and purposes are really adopted. They are really adopted. So it's revisionals kind of

2:45:58 ↗ a. misnamed thing because we can always change regulations, I guess. Sure.

2:46:04 ↗ And it's an important point to be clear about. I think You're absolutely right. They

2:46:10 ↗ are permanent. If we did nothing, they would remain in place. I think it is

2:46:16 ↗ more of a commitment because of all the conversations that we've had in each of

2:46:21 ↗ the urban villages and questions about whether X or Y is the right thing to

2:46:27 ↗ do, whether certain regulations are the right thing to do. we made a commitment to

2:46:33 ↗ go back to the community and figure out what those elements are and focus

2:46:39 ↗ on them and have a conversation rather than talking about the whole replacement regulations,

2:46:45 ↗ have a more focused conversation on the specific elements that may be of concern

2:46:50 ↗ or where there's a desire to shift the vision of the community. - So

2:46:56 ↗ that would be on? just the two pieces that are new, which would

2:47:02 ↗ be the FAR and the structured parking, basically? - No, it could include transfer development

2:47:08 ↗ rights, it could include uses, it could be, as Council Member Ray said, that in

2:47:13 ↗ a year we decide we want to revisit structured parking. There are a number of

2:47:19 ↗ things that we could talk about and we are not setting particular limits on that

2:47:25 ↗ conversation. right then one more for clarifying is that so i'm not seeing that anywhere

2:47:30 ↗ so that's not what's before us in this in the ordinance it's in the ordinance

2:47:35 ↗ that it says section eight of the organization okay all right so it so this

2:47:41 ↗ is what we're voting on has that provisional agreement yes in the ordinance okay i

2:47:46 ↗ saw a couple more hands councilmember goodman comment okay um i view the provisional as

2:47:51 ↗ um the comment was made we can change our codes anytime, go all

2:47:57 ↗ the way back to adopting the Central LISQA plan when the council was told,

2:48:03 ↗ yes, we can change the codes anytime if we're not getting what we wanted.

2:48:08 ↗ And it took four or five years later in a moratorium in order to

2:48:14 ↗ force that effort. And so the provisional section eight in the ordinance provisional regulations

2:48:19 ↗ commits us to the review which I think is very important

2:48:25 ↗ and wish we would have had that for Central Issaquah. Thank

2:48:31 ↗ you. Anymore? Council, go to Battiste and then Winterstein. Thank you.

2:48:37 ↗ I just wanted to, there, This decision is a very

2:48:43 ↗ large decision. There's so many pieces to a development agreement ending and I

2:48:48 ↗ just wanted to, regardless of the outcome, thank staff and the Land and

2:48:54 ↗ Shore Committee for all the hard work that's been put into this. This

2:49:00 ↗ is not easy. It's very complicated and just a very large body of work.

2:49:06 ↗ But for that reason, I was one of the outcomes of having that provisional

2:49:12 ↗ status and the commitment to the neighborhood visioning public process, I think was so

2:49:17 ↗ incredibly important to me as I was looking at this and I just wanted

2:49:23 ↗ to thank the Land and Shore committee and staff for bringing that forward.

2:49:29 ↗ Thank you. Council Member Winterson. Regarding section 8 of the ordinance,

2:49:34 ↗ the provisional regulations, last sentences, and subject to further review through

2:49:40 ↗ the 2019 process. So that language, you do say up here

2:49:46 ↗ that there's no automatic sunset. It does say in here that

2:49:52 ↗ these are permanent. So I'm just wondering, is this Is

2:49:58 ↗ this strong enough in terms of committing the city

2:50:04 ↗ to actually act in a timely manner? It just,

2:50:10 ↗ I just, the intent as stated, and I kind

2:50:16 ↗ of agree with Council Member Ramos that provisional

2:50:22 ↗ What this statement really does, it doesn't do anything to

2:50:27 ↗ the regulations. It just commits us to review elements of

2:50:33 ↗ the development of these regulations and all this says is

2:50:39 ↗ following a review process through 2019. Is that good enough?

2:50:50 ↗ A little bit of silence, maybe I'll weigh in. I think the administration is well

2:50:55 ↗ aware not only just the property owners who have not yet developed their sites, but

2:51:00 ↗ also the community's strong and vocal request to do this, that this is happening in

2:51:05 ↗ 2019. If you would like to change the wording to make it stronger, but I

2:51:11 ↗ think we would be silly if we didn't think that this was desired by all

2:51:16 ↗ sides in the Highlands, undeveloped and residential. Well, thank you for that. I appreciate that.

2:51:21 ↗ We could always wordsmith things, but I think that's the intent, and I appreciate you

2:51:26 ↗ saying that publicly, and we're all, you know, that's what I was hoping for. Thank

2:51:32 ↗ you. I have two more council members who have an opportunity to speak. Council Member

2:51:37 ↗ Ray, Council Member Hunt. If there are no other questions. Wait, Vicky was going to

2:51:43 ↗ talk. Sorry. Oh, sorry, Vicky. Council Member Hunt. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is

2:51:49 ↗ a very complicated issue. I strongly feel that for the

2:51:55 ↗ best use of our, basically for the best use of

2:52:01 ↗ the space that these changes, these updates, the regulation, replacement

2:52:07 ↗ regulations, they're striving to get closer to the original vision

2:52:13 ↗ and i think that they are potentially different than some of the other areas in

2:52:18 ↗ the highlands but i think that closer not only to the original vision but to

2:52:24 ↗ the current vision based on what i am hearing from the community and so i

2:52:30 ↗ think that there are a number of complex parts i am also glad for the

2:52:36 ↗ provisional status that will allow us to revisit revisit this in time I

2:52:41 ↗ knew I couldn't let it go. What I think, and this is to

2:52:47 ↗ Councilmember Winterstein's comment, I think that the provisional regulations just publicly don't allow

2:52:53 ↗ us to, they require us to come back and revisit this. And without

2:52:58 ↗ the provisional stipulation, it would be very difficult for me to move forward

2:53:04 ↗ with this because there is so much uncertainty that still remains. And we

2:53:10 ↗ have... We have a drive to wrap up this development agreement and at the

2:53:16 ↗ same time we still have work to do to really understand what the what the

2:53:21 ↗ revised vision of our community, particularly in the Highlands looks like. And so I'll just

2:53:26 ↗ restate what I said before. We need to put regulations in place that allow us

2:53:32 ↗ to become more flexible over time if that is what's in the best interest and

2:53:38 ↗ the needs of the community. Thank you, Council Member Ray. Council Member Winstein, last comment?

2:53:44 ↗ No, I think it's just you. Thank you. Most of my previous comments had to

2:53:49 ↗ do with specific issues. I do want to acknowledge the body of work that's been

2:53:55 ↗ done to bring this to this. This is our first expiring 20-year development agreement.

2:54:01 ↗ And there has been, and I know there's some of the staff people involved, perhaps

2:54:06 ↗ yourself as well, Lucy, were even involved in the drafting of the original development agreement

2:54:11 ↗ itself, as well as the central area standards, and as well as these replacement regulations.

2:54:16 ↗ And I agree generally with the comments from my colleagues on the council about things

2:54:21 ↗ evolving And I do think also that our commitment requirement, as

2:54:27 ↗ Councilmember Ray said, that we revisit some of these and

2:54:32 ↗ that for the purpose of really garnering the true interests

2:54:38 ↗ of the citizens, I think there's an excellent comment tonight. We're still kind of

2:54:44 ↗ doing it just for the Highlands and that may be a greater context within the

2:54:50 ↗ context of the whole city. I think it merits consideration as well. I think more

2:54:55 ↗ or less we've done these regulations to what we set out to do in many

2:55:01 ↗ of those circumstances. I've raised a couple that I don't agree with this evening.

2:55:07 ↗ And I think that, and kind of the overall thing that's motivating

2:55:13 ↗ me, just like we said before, is what is best for Issaquah?

2:55:18 ↗ And we have, you know, that's what I think about all the

2:55:24 ↗ time. These regulations, however, in a couple areas to me are, and

2:55:30 ↗ I'm including, I think, the minimum floor area ratio density, a requirement

2:55:36 ↗ um that's new i think the structure parking is new we have certainly adopted a

2:55:42 ↗ footing a kind of a footing here in isaac where it's just we're going to

2:55:47 ↗ regulate regulate regulate add regulations we've we've done it in other parts of the city

2:55:53 ↗ we have some pretty now pretty substantive substantive regulations now in these replacement regulations and

2:55:59 ↗ that's unfortunate because so much of the work is very very good But but

2:56:05 ↗ as a result I am actually not going to support this motion this evening because

2:56:10 ↗ of the overbearing regulations on some of the aspects There's a lot that I like

2:56:15 ↗ and it's done very well I think this is an important topic that we're gonna

2:56:21 ↗ have to continue to address any other comments? If there's no further

2:56:27 ↗ discussion, all those in favor of adopting ordinance number 2830, adopting by reference

2:56:32 ↗ a new chapter 18.19C of the Issaquah Municipal Code providing urban village replacement

2:56:38 ↗ regulations for the areas formerly governed by the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement and

2:56:43 ↗ the Highlands Drive Transit Oriented Development, TOD Development Agreement and revising the boundaries

2:56:49 ↗ of the area governed by the WASHDOT TDR Development Agreement Signify by

2:56:55 ↗ saying aye. Aye. Opposed? In opposition was Council Member Ramos and Council Member

2:57:01 ↗ Winterstein and four in favor. Thank you and I think you're still up.

2:57:07 ↗ Next item of business is AB 7524, end of the TALIS Development Agreement.

2:57:13 ↗ This item is also coming out of the Council Land and Shore Committee.

2:57:19 ↗ We will again hear from Land Development Manager Lucy Sloman to present this

2:57:25 ↗ item. Welcome back. Welcome back. So this is, you will remember that I've

2:57:30 ↗ tended to do a consolidated presentation, but because it is a decision on two separate

2:57:36 ↗ agenda bills, I'm doing two separate, but there will be a little bit of a

2:57:41 ↗ groundhog day here. So again, in December, we separated this into two agenda bills. We

2:57:47 ↗ were asked to go back to the community. which we did January 23rd for the

2:57:52 ↗ Taos community. The primary topic at that time was parcel 17B and the land

2:57:58 ↗ uses and heights and potential impacts. Again, we have edited the document

2:58:04 ↗ to be standalone and not to anticipate consolidation after adoption. There

2:58:10 ↗ were a few additional new players at Land and Shore, so

2:58:16 ↗ we will revisit those. Provisional, I think you're all familiar with,

2:58:21 ↗ and that was an affirmative recommendation from Land and Shore. Buffers,

2:58:27 ↗ that topic came up tonight. The Staff

2:58:33 ↗ had proposed their buffers along SR 900 and Cougar Mountain. All

2:58:38 ↗ the discussion in the community and at Land and Shore focused

2:58:44 ↗ on the SR 900 buffer. There was a new exception proposed

2:58:50 ↗ by staff which Land and Shore voted against. Now the language

2:58:55 ↗ which you see on the right with the colors and strikeouts,

2:59:01 ↗ is the exemptions remain unchanged. Most of the changes are to

2:59:07 ↗ clarify that we're going to only allow existing facilities within that

2:59:13 ↗ buffer, not that there would be new constructed ones. We define what existing is. We

2:59:18 ↗ do note that with the drainage retention detention ponds that before the city accepts them,

2:59:24 ↗ we have to make sure that they are fully functioning and that may require some

2:59:29 ↗ rebuilding or some action and we want to ensure that there is an

2:59:35 ↗ opportunity for that to take place. I have discussed these provisions

2:59:41 ↗ with Public Works Operations Director Heath and these were acceptable to

2:59:47 ↗ him. Sorry, I forgot I had to keep going. Residential

2:59:53 ↗ parking, we were asked by some of the council members to look more

2:59:59 ↗ closely at the parking regulations and to make sure that we were

3:00:04 ↗ not losing or putting something in place with unintended consequences. What we

3:00:10 ↗ noticed was that the way the parking regulations are in the urban

3:00:15 ↗ villages in Central Issaquah, there is a minimum required and a maximum

3:00:21 ↗ allowed. The minimum required at Tallis is the maximum allowed in

3:00:27 ↗ central Issaquah. We concurred that given Tallis' more suburban nature and

3:00:33 ↗ the fact that it is on the hillside where putting in

3:00:39 ↗ parking is a challenge, we're unlikely to end up with big

3:00:44 ↗ surface parking lots. but we also don't end up with a lot of on-street

3:00:50 ↗ parking. And so we felt that it was not appropriate to cap parking in the

3:00:55 ↗ way we had in Central Issaquah. And so the language that's before you reverts back

3:01:01 ↗ to the language that is in the development agreement for residential parking.

3:01:07 ↗ Talos parcel 9 at Land and Shore, we had quite a discussion

3:01:13 ↗ and then that item was withdrawn. I just provided this slide to

3:01:19 ↗ help give the history of parcel 9 because that was part of

3:01:25 ↗ the discussion. When the development agreement was originally adopted, And it was

3:01:31 ↗ in this configuration. It was in the high density category, which only

3:01:36 ↗ allowed attached and multifamily up to 85 feet high and a density

3:01:42 ↗ of 23 to 150 dwelling units. When the preliminary plat for

3:01:48 ↗ parcel 789 came in, the proposal for parcel 9 did not

3:01:54 ↗ fall within the required density range for high density and so

3:02:00 ↗ the developer elected to go to medium density, which was allowed

3:02:06 ↗ within the development agreement. That added both detached residential to the

3:02:12 ↗ other two classifications of allowed residential. It reduced the height and it reduced

3:02:17 ↗ the density. At that time, they had an entitlement of 90 dwelling units.

3:02:23 ↗ With the proposed replacement regulations, there are two components that you can see

3:02:29 ↗ here. One is that it's shown as multifamily, which is this purple color,

3:02:34 ↗ and then it was given a medium density residential.

3:02:40 ↗ One of the challenges with going between the development agreement

3:02:46 ↗ and zoning was that we moved away from ranges and

3:02:52 ↗ a broad set of flexible standards to more specific standards.

3:02:58 ↗ And staff felt that the medium density multifamily category was

3:03:03 ↗ most like the one that was used in

3:03:09 ↗ the preliminary plat. I know that there are questions and concerns with that

3:03:15 ↗ and I'm sure we'll discuss it tonight. Just wanted to provide that history.

3:03:21 ↗ Again, minimum FAR was affirmatively recommended by the committee as was structured parking.

3:03:27 ↗ Vesting, there was no, again, no recommendation and the same options have been

3:03:33 ↗ put forward. Thank you. I have some additional information that I wanted

3:03:39 ↗ to read into the record. During last week, Council Member Ray had submitted various questions

3:03:44 ↗ and had discussions with our city staff and legal staff and I wanted to provide

3:03:49 ↗ some of that information on the record today for other Council Members who may not

3:03:55 ↗ have been aware of it and for the public. The Council Land and

3:04:00 ↗ Shore Committee met on March 1st, 2018 to discuss the ending of the TALIS-DA and

3:04:06 ↗ the adoption of replacement regulations. During their discussion, the three committee members discussed the various

3:04:11 ↗ options for replacement zoning on unbuilt parcels in TALIS. The committee recommended that the bill

3:04:16 ↗ be moved to the March 19th Council Meeting for Action and that additional discussion could

3:04:21 ↗ occur as to the options for zoning for unbuilt parcels. Since the committee meeting,

3:04:27 ↗ additional questions have been asked by Council members of our City Attorney and DSD staff.

3:04:32 ↗ The information below answers the questions and is being provided to Council for consideration during

3:04:38 ↗ deliberations. The information describes the zoning designations for Council and provides additional background information on

3:04:43 ↗ parcel 9, which was the subject of the committee questions. there are several options

3:04:49 ↗ that can be considered for the unbuilt parcels multi-family zoning this zoning would allow the

3:04:54 ↗ dwelling unit entitlements assigned to a parcel to be used for multi-family or single family

3:04:59 ↗ development for parcel 9 this multi-family zoning would permit both townhouses or apartment buildings regardless

3:05:05 ↗ of the building form the maximum height would be 60 feet Single-family zoning this zoning

3:05:10 ↗ would allow the entitlements assigned to a parcel to be used for single-family development For

3:05:16 ↗ parcel 9 this zoning is a lower density category than originally assigned to the property

3:05:21 ↗ under the DA This zoning would reduce the building height allowance to 45 feet single-family

3:05:26 ↗ This zoning would permit a townhouse building form and would be buildable under the existing

3:05:31 ↗ approved preliminary plat for parcel 9 Parcel 9 was originally designated as high density on

3:05:37 ↗ a 3.57 acre parcel. This would have permitted the development of the entitled 90 dwelling

3:05:42 ↗ units to be in a building or buildings up to 85 feet tall. Subsequently, the

3:05:47 ↗ parcel was re-designated as medium density and the parcel's footprint was expanded to over 5

3:05:53 ↗ acres under the current development agreement. This allowed for the 90 unit entitlement to be

3:05:58 ↗ built in a building or buildings up to 60 feet in height. If the developer

3:06:03 ↗ of parcel 9, which has an approved preliminary plat for 90 single family attached lots

3:06:08 ↗ that are townhomes, does not wish to or cannot construct what is shown on the

3:06:14 ↗ preliminary plat, then the developer would need to propose the subsequent development that meets the

3:06:19 ↗ requirements of the replacement regulation City Council adopts. If the council chooses to proceed with

3:06:24 ↗ the staff recommendation from the AB, the process tonight would be to move, second, deliberate

3:06:30 ↗ and vote on the motion in the AB. If the council chooses to consider assigning

3:06:35 ↗ single-family medium density zoning instead of multifamily medium zoning to any parcels, The process would

3:06:41 ↗ be to move and second the motion to discuss the proposal to reconsider the recommended

3:06:45 ↗ zoning designations and to request a public hearing at a council meeting at a date

3:06:50 ↗ certain to allow for discussion of this change to the administration's recommendation. The vote on

3:06:55 ↗ the motion may be considered after the public hearing. There would be no vote on

3:06:59 ↗ the main motion at the council meeting tonight. The council may wish to consider the

3:07:04 ↗ following when reviewing their options. at the december 4 city council meeting council reviewed the

3:07:09 ↗ goals for ending of the das in both highlands and talus they were to retain

3:07:14 ↗ the character of each urban village create as few non-conforming situations as possible and replace

3:07:20 ↗ and update the 15 to 20 year old standards use standards use current and city

3:07:25 ↗ regulations to the greatest extent possible except where it will significantly impact character So

3:07:31 ↗ that was delivered to Council on the weekend via email and I just wanted to

3:07:37 ↗ make sure that the public was also aware of this information. Any questions for Lucy?

3:07:43 ↗ Councilmember Winterstein. Thank you. Earlier Lucy when you had this slide up when you were

3:07:49 ↗ presenting you said that these proposed regulations for parcel 9 were difficult. I

3:07:54 ↗ think you used that word, which, but I look up there and I remember

3:08:00 ↗ the same thing when we were in committee at Land and Shore and the

3:08:06 ↗ currently kind of what's allowed there per the revised preliminary plat looks exactly like

3:08:12 ↗ the proposed replacement regulations. So that seems pretty straightforward to me. What, am I

3:08:18 ↗ missing anything? So I think the two sides to this coin

3:08:24 ↗ are that in terms of where the parcel is right now and

3:08:29 ↗ the regulations that were in place with the preliminary plat and the

3:08:35 ↗ proposed regulations, they match. What I think the concern is that if

3:08:41 ↗ the preliminary plat had gone to final plat, and it had been

3:08:47 ↗ platted into those 90 lots, we would have applied single family zoning to

3:08:53 ↗ that completed parcel. And so I think that is the concern is do

3:08:59 ↗ we zone it based on where it is right now and carry

3:09:04 ↗ forward with more flexibility, or do we carry forward what would have

3:09:10 ↗ been if it hadn't slid and if it moves to final plat?

3:09:16 ↗ - Okay, thank you. - Member Ray. - I still have a

3:09:22 ↗ lot of questions. And so if you all would indulge me for a couple minutes,

3:09:26 ↗ I mean, I have a lot of questions. And part of the reason I wanna

3:09:31 ↗ go through these questions is there's a lot of uncertainty about the evolution of parcel

3:09:35 ↗ nine. There's a lot of information that has been presented in ways that have been

3:09:40 ↗ difficult to understand for both the council and for the public. And I wanna make

3:09:44 ↗ sure that we have all the pertinent information daylighted before we make this decision that

3:09:50 ↗ really could have significant impact, and we heard it today from the public,

3:09:56 ↗ significant impact on the community. So I'm going to take us back to

3:10:02 ↗ ground zero. So work with me here. How's parcel nine currently zoned? Urban

3:10:07 ↗ Village. So what's that mean? Right of development agreement. How was, and you

3:10:13 ↗ talked about this one, so I've got my notes here. That's okay. I'll walk with

3:10:17 ↗ you again. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that a lot, Lucy. How was Parcel 9

3:10:22 ↗ originally designated in terms of density in the DA? So it was high density. It's

3:10:26 ↗ this left-hand column, and I'm just pointing to it. to help guide us through it.

3:10:31 ↗ High density residential, which did not allow single family detached, only attached and multifamily,

3:10:37 ↗ 85 feet in height, 23 to 150 dwelling units per acre. Awesome. And the

3:10:43 ↗ changes that were made to the development agreement that changed it into medium density

3:10:48 ↗ and expanded the size of the parcel, that was done The change in

3:10:54 ↗ the size of the parcel was, I believe, a lot

3:11:00 ↗ line adjustment that was made prior to the preliminary plat.

3:11:06 ↗ I'm so impressed that you think I remember everything. The

3:11:12 ↗ parcel 7, 8, and 9, you can see how, for

3:11:17 ↗ instance, the road alignment changed. between the original adopted development agreement and the platting

3:11:23 ↗ for parcel 9. And so in adjusting to create the three parcels that would be

3:11:29 ↗ platted, there was a lot line adjustment. Then when they were ready to do the

3:11:35 ↗ preliminary plat and we were going through the sort of preliminary discussions, we recognized that

3:11:40 ↗ based on the number of units that they had purchased and the size of the

3:11:45 ↗ property, they could not meet the minimum density, which is the 23 dwelling units per

3:11:51 ↗ acre for high density. So there's an election process within the uh development

3:11:57 ↗ agreement which allows them to shift down one density category without anything other than just

3:12:02 ↗ saying we want to do that which is what they did which took them to

3:12:08 ↗ medium density residential which added detached residential as a use reduce the height and reduce

3:12:14 ↗ the density and they had purchased as their entitlement 90 dwelling units - And

3:12:19 ↗ those changes were approved by the master developer and the city, so that became

3:12:25 ↗ the new law of the land in the DA. So when the preliminary plat

3:12:31 ↗ for nine was filed, how was the land identified in the preliminary plat? Was

3:12:37 ↗ it single family, multifamily? That is a level, that is a kind

3:12:43 ↗ of zoning approach that isn't used within the development agreement. So it just was classified

3:12:48 ↗ as medium density residential, which had this range of residential uses that were allowed. And

3:12:54 ↗ as long as it fell within that range of uses, the ones I've shown here

3:12:59 ↗ in the middle, and was within the density met, fell between the density minimum and

3:13:05 ↗ maximum, it was allowed. So we did not classify it as one thing or

3:13:11 ↗ the other. And the platform nine showed individual property lines, which would be consistent

3:13:16 ↗ with single family, not multifamily? Single family attached. Right. So I was just looking

3:13:22 ↗ at, a couple of neighboring neighborhoods, so Ascent and Sentara, which both

3:13:28 ↗ have attached townhomes that show individual property line and are being designated or

3:13:34 ↗ zoned. Proposed zoning on them is single family. Right. And I think you're

3:13:40 ↗ touching on the point of being in this kind of purgatory between preliminary

3:13:46 ↗ and final plat was the was how we ended up in between. - Yeah, I'm

3:13:52 ↗ just trying to get to intent 'cause where I sit is we're trying to balance

3:13:58 ↗ two things, neighborhood expectations, we heard those earlier today, and property owner intent. And so

3:14:03 ↗ I'm trying to establish what really is the intent. So let me go ask you

3:14:09 ↗ some questions that I bet you won't know the answer to. If I go to

3:14:14 ↗ the King County Assessor's parcel viewer, how would this parcel be identified as its current

3:14:20 ↗ use? I don't know. Single family. If I were to go down and read the

3:14:26 ↗ thing that said what's the highest and best use of vacant on this property? Councilmember

3:14:31 ↗ Ray, just read her the answers. I don't think you have to make her say

3:14:36 ↗ no each time. Thank you. I only had the two. So it's highest and best

3:14:41 ↗ use right now is single family. So I'm moving on. So when you presented to

3:14:46 ↗ the TALIS community on January 23rd, you indicated that this was going to be Oh,

3:14:51 ↗ your table showed adopted density on parcel nine was high with an 80 foot cap

3:14:57 ↗ and that we were down zoning to get to medium density. So I was just

3:15:03 ↗ curious why you didn't disclose that we'd already done that down zone. Actually, that was

3:15:09 ↗ a discussion item, I believe, at that meeting. And what I identified wasn't that we

3:15:15 ↗ were down zoning it, that over the course of property development, well, In thinking

3:15:21 ↗ back, there was one parcel that was up zoned through the process and so we

3:15:27 ↗ talked about how the table represented what had happened as the parcels were being developed

3:15:33 ↗ and those changes mostly of down dropping to the next lower level and the one

3:15:39 ↗ example of it being going to a higher level had all happened during its development.

3:15:45 ↗ It was not part of the replacement regulation process. Okay. So recognizing that

3:15:50 ↗ the parcel nine will be vested under our vesting rules, our most restrictive

3:15:56 ↗ vesting rules, and it could be built as currently plotted as single family

3:16:02 ↗ attached homes. Would it also be possible on that property with a multi-family

3:16:07 ↗ designation, 60 foot to put in a five to six story apartment buildings

3:16:13 ↗ on that parcel? You know, I thought about

3:16:19 ↗ that. While some of that is true, but the hillside

3:16:25 ↗ designation or the hillside regulations that have been added in

3:16:31 ↗ the urban villages would be more restrictive than typical multifamily

3:16:37 ↗ parcels because of the limitations on regrading and walls and

3:16:42 ↗ stepping through the site. So there would be the ability to put

3:16:48 ↗ in stacked flat apartments. The form of the building might be different than a traditional

3:16:54 ↗ apartment building. We could put in fairly large apartment buildings. I mean, I guess that's

3:17:00 ↗ not a good question. Apartment buildings would definitely be a form factor we could put

3:17:06 ↗ into that parcel. Yes. And they could be-- and you told me about this. So

3:17:12 ↗ on the-- Because it's on a slope, it would

3:17:17 ↗ be-- the bottom could be 60 feet tall? So it's-- no.

3:17:23 ↗ I think that the diagram that is here-- sorry, I'm using

3:17:29 ↗ a PDF because I thought it would work better. So

3:17:35 ↗ from the road, the maximum building height would be fixed. It would not

3:17:41 ↗ be able to average the grade. So the topmost level would be the

3:17:47 ↗ 60 feet, but the building would be required to step its roof line

3:17:53 ↗ following the grade, which would therefore restrict it from being 60 feet at

3:17:59 ↗ the street. 40 feet at the street? unless I evaluated. Yeah, okay. But

3:18:05 ↗ tall and also because there's multifamily, no setback, so it could be right at

3:18:10 ↗ the street? Right, so could single family. No, single family has a five-foot setback.

3:18:16 ↗ Okay. So when you were talking to the community, did you share the fact

3:18:22 ↗ that we could be building apartment buildings on this parcel with them? We, Councilmember

3:18:27 ↗ Ray, the question might be was whether or not building forms were discussed because

3:18:33 ↗ I'm not sure - No, I think it's more than form because it's

3:18:39 ↗ also use. I think there's a difference between single family individual ownership and multifamily

3:18:45 ↗ rental. And it has a significance not only in the form of the building,

3:18:50 ↗ but in the quality of the neighborhood. So I think it's significant, and I think

3:18:56 ↗ it's something that would have been very important for the public to understand at that

3:19:00 ↗ time to provide some feedback. And what I have heard from the community is, wow,

3:19:05 ↗ we felt like we were getting kind of partial information, and we didn't really understand

3:19:10 ↗ all of this, 'cause it's very technical and very jargony, and they were feeling very

3:19:15 ↗ much like they, I'm gonna use the word bums rush, but they weren't getting complete

3:19:20 ↗ information so that they could react to it. So I'm gonna kind of stop there

3:19:26 ↗ and kind of summarize. And the reason that I brought this up is if

3:19:31 ↗ we designate this property as a single family, we can build exactly what is

3:19:37 ↗ entitled or what is currently envisioned on that plat as designated by the current

3:19:43 ↗ plat on nine. So the developer can build exactly what is currently envisioned on

3:19:49 ↗ that plat with a single family designation. If we designate it as

3:19:54 ↗ multifamily, then the community is at risk of that parcel being turned into

3:20:00 ↗ apartment buildings, which is something that I've heard pretty loud and clear from

3:20:05 ↗ the community is not something that they... think is appropriate. My incredibly succinct fear is

3:20:11 ↗ if we don't zone this thing as multifamily, we're back here three years from now,

3:20:17 ↗ we're having a quasi-judicial proceeding, and we're gonna have to go ahead with something we

3:20:22 ↗ know is wrong. So Councilmember Ray, I don't think we've made a motion yet. Okay.

3:20:27 ↗ So what I'm going to do... I'm done with my questions. Thank you. And you

3:20:32 ↗ can, you can deliberate more after the motion is made. Are there any other Councilmembers

3:20:37 ↗ who have questions? Oh, Councilmember Ramos, then Councilmember Hunt. I just have one question on

3:20:42 ↗ height because I, I know went from 85 to 60, but then I heard

3:20:47 ↗ that it's 45, but I haven't seen 45 anywhere So I'm trying to figure where

3:20:53 ↗ the 45 came from. So I believe the 45 came up because single-family zoning would

3:20:59 ↗ limit the Development to 45 feet. So the current current

3:21:05 ↗ - The plan is a 45 foot limit. - No, the current

3:21:10 ↗ proposal is 60 feet, which is multifamily zoning. and that was the concern that was

3:21:16 ↗ raised. Now, the other possibility, I don't remember exactly when 45 feet was mentioned. It

3:21:21 ↗ may be partly because the townhouses would likely have been built at 45 feet. I

3:21:27 ↗ believe, Council Member Ramos, that was part of the information I gave in answer to

3:21:32 ↗ Council Member Ray's questions this weekend. It was about single family versus multifamily. That is

3:21:37 ↗ when the 45 foot was said. It's not on the slide because it's new information

3:21:42 ↗ from this weekend. Council Member Hunt. Actually, I have a

3:21:48 ↗ question about the buffer. It's a different topic. The buffer allows for

3:21:54 ↗ the existing buildings that are in the buffer, which makes good sense.

3:21:59 ↗ Does it allow for redevelopment of buildings that are in the buffer

3:22:05 ↗ if you wanted to change? The only structure in the buffer is

3:22:10 ↗ a small public operations shed that's associated with the Other

3:22:16 ↗ than that, other than several ponds, there

3:22:22 ↗ is the entry monument and the SR

3:22:27 ↗ 900 walls and potentially some trails. And

3:22:33 ↗ so there are a few buildings, but those are outside of the buffer. So I

3:22:38 ↗ can pull up GIS. There is one parcel along the frontage of TALIS that is

3:22:43 ↗ not actually part of TALIS, so that may be the one you're thinking of. There

3:22:49 ↗ is also an expansion parcel that is commonly called the EMERIC that was brought under

3:22:54 ↗ the development agreement a few years ago. I believe the house, the foundation is still

3:22:59 ↗ there, but the house isn't. And that is within the 100 foot buffer.

3:23:05 ↗ Okay. And so this would not allow so by allowing that to

3:23:11 ↗ be there it doesn't allow for somebody to develop something else there

3:23:17 ↗ with these regulations. And then my other question is about one of

3:23:23 ↗ Councilmember Ray's questions regarding rental and I just wanted to clarify that

3:23:29 ↗ rental versus ownership is not part of any of these regulations

3:23:35 ↗ that we're choosing. No. Thank you. Councilmember Winterstein. Thank you. Lucy,

3:23:41 ↗ you haven't said anything about parcel 17B. So just for my

3:23:46 ↗ own clarity, I think you've done the same, so I'm

3:23:52 ↗ gonna try to state it and you can fill in, that this,

3:23:58 ↗ the proposed zoning on 17B is-- - Office. - Sorry? - Office.

3:24:03 ↗ - Which matches current, The entitlement that they currently own is

3:24:09 ↗ being converted to a zoning cap and a zone that matches that.

3:24:15 ↗ So they currently have 516,000 square feet of office entitlement. on a

3:24:21 ↗ parcel that was intended for office uses. And we are converting that

3:24:26 ↗ to 516,000 square feet of zoning cap on a parcel zoned for

3:24:32 ↗ office. Okay. And what's the question? Is there a question about 17B

3:24:38 ↗ in front of us at all today other than that? No.

3:24:43 ↗ but and but the the there's a lot of other things going on that aren't

3:24:49 ↗ in front of you related to 17b right and so this action tonight doesn't end

3:24:55 ↗ any it doesn't decide any of those other questions it doesn't end any proceedings on

3:25:01 ↗ those other questions that that's that's my point the there if there's a perception that

3:25:07 ↗ should we end the development agreement tonight along with the details about the zoning

3:25:13 ↗ and the land use on parcel 17 B that that would settle the question and

3:25:18 ↗ maybe even give the the owner these chains that they've asked for but in fact

3:25:23 ↗ it does not at all and that's a question that we as a city and

3:25:28 ↗ as a council would be addressing under a completely separate track Right. An appeal

3:25:34 ↗ has been filed on the decision requesting an administrative minor--denying it as an

3:25:39 ↗ administrative decision and stating that it would be a council action. We have

3:25:45 ↗ received some other permits associated with that parcel. Okay. Thank you. And just

3:25:51 ↗ a point for this line of question, just to make clear for everybody

3:25:56 ↗ that tonight we are not addressing that question about 17 at all.

3:26:02 ↗ That's on a completely separate track. Any more questions? Council

3:26:08 ↗ Member Goodman. Can I ask a procedural question? Probably need

3:26:14 ↗ to enlist Jim. So there were a couple of options

3:26:19 ↗ in your comments, Mayor Pauley, that regarding the current proposed

3:26:25 ↗ recommendation, if the Council wanted to deliberate and vote on

3:26:31 ↗ that. Another option if they wanted to consider this parcel 9

3:26:37 ↗ different zoning single-family but not instead of them SFMF then not

3:26:43 ↗ vote tonight. Could there is there another are there any other

3:26:48 ↗ options? Could there be for example could the council deliberate and

3:26:54 ↗ vote on everything but the zoning, replacement zoning for parcel nine

3:27:00 ↗ and then have the public hearing process? My feeling is no because

3:27:06 ↗ you have to either terminate the development agreement or not terminate the

3:27:12 ↗ development agreement. That would be a partial termination of the development agreement.

3:27:17 ↗ So I think you have to either adopt the package as it

3:27:23 ↗ stands or continue this If you adopt the package as it stands

3:27:29 ↗ you could still initiate a rezone process for parcel 9. That is you could

3:27:35 ↗ terminate the development agreement in total and then immediately initiate a rezone process for

3:27:41 ↗ parcel 9 which would go to the policy planning commission for recommendation and then

3:27:47 ↗ come back to the city council after that, or you could just not

3:27:53 ↗ adopt the package, continue this on, and allow for notice to be given

3:27:58 ↗ specifically relating to parcel nine and any other changes you wanted to make,

3:28:04 ↗ and hold a new public hearing yourself at the council level. So either

3:28:10 ↗ way, it sounds like that's, I'm guessing that schedule would be the same. What does

3:28:15 ↗ that schedule look like if we were to either defer this to a later meeting

3:28:20 ↗ until we consider that, have a public hearing, go to PPC, have a public hearing,

3:28:26 ↗ or do a rezone? What is that, what would a proposed schedule look like?

3:28:31 ↗ Well, we would have to write a staff report, advertise for the public hearing,

3:28:37 ↗ whether it was the advertising, I believe it's the same, whether it's at PPC

3:28:43 ↗ or at council. So I would guess that we are maybe six to eight

3:28:49 ↗ weeks out just to give ourselves enough time to assemble materials, advertise, get comments,

3:28:55 ↗ come forward with a complete and thought out package. six to eight

3:29:01 ↗ weeks out from coming back to council or going to PPC?

3:29:07 ↗ What my phone friend said is back, the motion is back

3:29:12 ↗ to full council on or before July 16th. Where are you

3:29:18 ↗ reading that, Lucy? On the second, on our addendum, which I

3:29:23 ↗ can pull up. This one? Is there one also for Talish?

3:29:29 ↗ There's a Talish one and an Issaquah Highlands one. Got it.

3:29:38 ↗ That's now up on screen. If there are no more questions, I'd be looking for

3:29:43 ↗ some. Oh, there's more questions. Council Member Hunt. I have another question on the buffer.

3:29:47 ↗ Why is one of the buffers 50 feet and the other is 100 feet? That's

3:29:51 ↗ the way the development agreement was originally adopted. I think it's a reflection of differing

3:29:57 ↗ purposes. The intent of the buffer along SR 900 was to be more of a

3:30:03 ↗ screen. The buffer along Cougar Mountain Wildland Park was to, I think, ensure that trees

3:30:09 ↗ did not fall from the park onto homes and that the county would therefore face

3:30:15 ↗ some kind of liability. And 50 feet was determined

3:30:20 ↗ to be adequate for that purpose. I would assume so.

3:30:26 ↗ So there's no change in the dimensions. We were retaining

3:30:32 ↗ the same dimensions. Questions? Are we ready for a motion?

3:30:38 ↗ Ms. Member Goodman. So I'm going to start with the

3:30:43 ↗ alternative motion, Amanda PPC and see where that takes us and I'll

3:30:49 ↗ state my reasons why. I move to remand agenda bill 7524 to the Planning Policy

3:30:55 ↗ Commission and the Council Land and Shore Committee for consideration of redesignating the map for

3:31:00 ↗ parcel 9, figure 2A from urban village multifamily to urban village single family returning to

3:31:06 ↗ the full council honorary board before July 16, 2018. Is there a second? Second. Moved

3:31:12 ↗ and seconded. Is there discussion? -Member Goodman. -Thank you. I'm

3:31:17 ↗ making this motion because I'm uncomfortable just for so

3:31:23 ↗ many reasons. Again, approving something that needs to immediately

3:31:29 ↗ be reviewed. I would just rather do it right

3:31:35 ↗ the first time and I think consideration of full

3:31:40 ↗ consideration, opportunity to consider what the zoning options are on that

3:31:46 ↗ parcel and the implications I think are important. I mean, this

3:31:52 ↗ is the the parcel that had the slide. It's a parcel that's

3:31:58 ↗ at the top of the hill that everybody sees that you heard about.

3:32:03 ↗ And the notion there could be an apartment building there, how close to

3:32:09 ↗ the street, no matter how tall it is. I just think that that

3:32:15 ↗ needs to be talked about. Other discussion? it's member ray um

3:32:21 ↗ i appreciate that and i'm trying to really understand why we would send

3:32:27 ↗ it to planning policy commission versus just doing public um public hearing

3:32:33 ↗ and bringing it back to the council. My primary concern is just the additional time

3:32:38 ↗ that that adds to the cycle and I know we are all anxious to put

3:32:44 ↗ the development agreements to bed and this just will extend that. Can we ask that

3:32:50 ↗ as a question now and have Mr. Haney respond to whether or not that's a

3:32:55 ↗ good way to go? What the drawbacks would be? Sure, let's do that.

3:33:01 ↗ So, Mr. Haney, what are the relative pros and cons of going to

3:33:07 ↗ PPC versus doing a public hearing and bringing it directly back to council?

3:33:13 ↗ Well, I think the obvious con is not being able to get the

3:33:19 ↗ recommendation of the PPC. You know, the code does allow you, or excuse

3:33:25 ↗ me, the law does allow you to hold the additional public hearing at the

3:33:30 ↗ council level and to act on this yourself but by doing so you do not

3:33:36 ↗ go to the PPC and allow people to make their case in front of the

3:33:41 ↗ PPC and you don't get a recommendation from your primary planning body. So And

3:33:47 ↗ I don't know if Mr. Niven has any additional comment on that. So I

3:33:53 ↗ haven't looked at this section of city code for a while. I do believe

3:33:59 ↗ that the standard process for a rezone is PPC recommendation and council decision. By

3:34:04 ↗ sub, by avoiding PPC, we're following the process that's more like the moratorium, which which

3:34:10 ↗ was seen more as an emergency action. I think procedurally you have to go to

3:34:15 ↗ commission, but I'm going to defer to the city attorney. I haven't looked at this

3:34:20 ↗ section of code in a while. I think the standard level six process is commission

3:34:26 ↗ and then council decision, which is why we take all of our level six things

3:34:31 ↗ either to PPC or UVDC if it's a UVDC thing. So I don't think you

3:34:36 ↗ can bypass commission. That's my non-legal opinion. I think it depends on

3:34:42 ↗ what we're doing with the development, whether this is still part of

3:34:48 ↗ terminating the development agreement or... I think that's true. You know, that

3:34:53 ↗ if this is still part of the terminating the development agreement in

3:34:59 ↗ the entire package, you don't necessarily have to go back to the

3:35:04 ↗ PPC, although I would recommend that given the issues involved and given

3:35:10 ↗ the process. Certainly if you were to adopt the

3:35:16 ↗ package and then separately to initiate a rezone of the parcel,

3:35:21 ↗ that would require going back to the PPC under the code.

3:35:27 ↗ No question about that. Question. Other comments on the motion? That's

3:35:33 ↗ Member Winterstein. Just thinking out loud as much as anything.

3:35:39 ↗ I understand the single family element to this, I believe, because that is

3:35:45 ↗ what had been. It was the route that the owner and the developer

3:35:51 ↗ was pursuing. That didn't happen. But that didn't happen. And we had a

3:35:56 ↗ representative from the owner say something during comments tonight that, yeah, that they

3:36:02 ↗ would wanted to retain the multifamily option.

3:36:13 ↗ - This is a different version of the slide

3:36:19 ↗ that includes the elements that were in, I believe,

3:36:25 ↗ Mayor Pauly's-- - Thanks. - Okay. - There's that

3:36:31 ↗ 45 feet. - So you interrupted my train of thought. What

3:36:37 ↗ are you doing with this? - I'm sorry, I thought that would be helpful because

3:36:43 ↗ you were talking about how that was being processed, single family versus multifamily. I apologize

3:36:49 ↗ if it was distracting. - Yeah, okay. So I was just making the point that,

3:36:55 ↗ yeah, it was going down the path of being developed as single family, even though

3:37:01 ↗ it retained the ability to do this medium density multifamily. Well, the

3:37:07 ↗ single family didn't happen. And so I don't know why I

3:37:12 ↗ don't know why we would consider anything other than what stills

3:37:18 ↗ with the land. Councilmember Ray. Um, multifamily didn't happen either. I

3:37:24 ↗ think we have a choice here and it to me it's

3:37:29 ↗ really pretty straightforward. It's um, I mean, there's um,

3:37:35 ↗ There's the property rights of the developer, which I think are well established in the

3:37:40 ↗ fact that they filed a plat that says we're going to build attached and detached

3:37:45 ↗ single family townhomes. And that's their intent. And then there's an expectation of the community

3:37:50 ↗ that we're going to have attached and detached single family townhomes. And we can accomplish

3:37:55 ↗ both of those things with a single family designation for zoning. If we go multifamily,

3:38:01 ↗ we might get that. But you know what? We might get big old apartment buildings

3:38:07 ↗ and that is not what I think And what I heard tonight, the community thinks

3:38:12 ↗ is the best use of that piece of land. And we have an opportunity here

3:38:17 ↗ to say, we think this is the best use of that piece of land in

3:38:22 ↗ a way that meets the expectations of the community and aligns the intent of the

3:38:27 ↗ developers. So I feel very strongly that we need to go through a process to

3:38:31 ↗ vet whether or not single family is the appropriate way to go. I personally think

3:38:36 ↗ it is, but I think we need to go through a process. I think we

3:38:40 ↗ have to go through public hearing. I think we need to do due process. And

3:38:44 ↗ I think Council Member Goodman's motion to send this to PPC is fine. I think

3:38:49 ↗ the time is of the essence because we need to close down the DA. And

3:38:54 ↗ so if we don't need to go to PPC, that just adds more cycles to

3:38:59 ↗ this deliberation that I don't know is going to increase the we have into what's

3:39:05 ↗ in the best interest of the community. And I would rather just move this thing

3:39:10 ↗ into a public hearing, do that work and then bring it back to the council

3:39:15 ↗ for final adjudication or final resolution. - Thank you, council member Ray. A couple of

3:39:20 ↗ suggestions. We'll let the remaining council members who haven't spoken yet discuss it. You can

3:39:25 ↗ propose an amendment to the motion that Councilmember Goodman put on the table as

3:39:31 ↗ well and we could vote on that, can we not? I can chair. Yes.

3:39:37 ↗ So we have not heard from Councilmember Ramos, Batiste or Hunt on this particular

3:39:42 ↗ issue. So I guess the question, we keep using the word rezone and I

3:39:48 ↗ guess that's bothering me because we didn't zone it to multifamily. we're not

3:39:54 ↗ rezoning it back to single family what we're doing is taking the development agreement and

3:40:00 ↗ put zoning on it and staff had one opinion And so we're saying we're not

3:40:05 ↗ sure that was the right opinion because there already was an agreement to change that

3:40:09 ↗ from the original D.A. So we're going with the original D.A. or the agreement that

3:40:13 ↗ occurred afterwards, which was a change to the D.A. and this piece of land. And

3:40:17 ↗ it's not just for me that that it wasn't just on a piece of land.

3:40:21 ↗ It was changed the whole shape. It took a larger piece of land. So there's

3:40:25 ↗ a whole bunch of stuff involved, not just said this piece of land, you know,

3:40:29 ↗ we're just going to build less on it. actually combined it reshaping from three and

3:40:33 ↗ a half to five something acres, right? So to make it work and that made

3:40:38 ↗ it work this way. So there's a lot in that process of that agreement. So

3:40:43 ↗ I think we need to go back and look at that and do it right.

3:40:48 ↗ I would tend to agree with the less steps we need. I think is that

3:40:53 ↗ because it's not a rezoning who's rezoning. Yes, we got to go through PVC and

3:40:58 ↗ all that kind of stuff. I don't know as we have to because we're just

3:41:03 ↗ it's a staff interpretation here. So I might leave I would lean for the other

3:41:09 ↗ motion. So member but it's so again in regard to the end of the development

3:41:14 ↗ agreement there. It's a very large body of work. There's a lot of moving

3:41:20 ↗ pieces and I don't think that it's a bad idea to have

3:41:25 ↗ just go back to the commission and get more information and another look

3:41:31 ↗ at one particular issue in regard to the end of the development agreement

3:41:37 ↗ and also get the public comment. I understand that time is of the

3:41:43 ↗ essence. So I can see both sides of this. But now that I'm

3:41:49 ↗ thinking it through in terms of just how much work has

3:41:55 ↗ been done around the end of development agreements and having

3:42:01 ↗ that have another look and it sounds like that is

3:42:07 ↗ also the recommendation. I would support that. Ms. Hunt.

3:42:12 ↗ I see this as part of ending the development agreement

3:42:18 ↗ and so for that reason because the Planning Policy Commission

3:42:24 ↗ has looked at the ending of the development agreements, I

3:42:30 ↗ am comfortable with the public hearing and going back to

3:42:36 ↗ council's steps. I'm un-clarified. Do you mean to go

3:42:42 ↗ to PPC and then come to council or no? No. As

3:42:48 ↗ Council Member Batiste or Deputy President Batiste said, This has been looked at

3:42:54 ↗ extensively. I came down on the issue the other side though because I think that

3:42:59 ↗ they have looked at the ends of the development agreements and I think that this,

3:43:04 ↗ I am comfortable with not going through that because I see this as part of

3:43:10 ↗ our deliberations on ending the development agreements app, taking into account their previous recommendations. Thank

3:43:15 ↗ you for your comments. We have heard from everybody now. I'm looking over at Council

3:43:20 ↗ Member Ray to see if he's going to. Council Member Goodman wants to say. So

3:43:26 ↗ I hear there's interest in not going to PPC. I would like our... Mr. Haney

3:43:31 ↗ to weigh in on whether that is it is a is it prudent

3:43:37 ↗ to Not go to PPC because I heard initially he said he does

3:43:43 ↗ not recommend that. Yeah, so here's the here's my view on this is

3:43:49 ↗ that Councilmember hunt is correct that this entire package of ending the development

3:43:55 ↗ agreement and establishing the zoning went to the PPC and The rules are

3:44:01 ↗ that once something has gone to the PPC and the PPC has made a recommendation

3:44:06 ↗ that in order to change that the Council has the option of either remanding it

3:44:12 ↗ back to the PPC for an additional public hearing or holding the public hearing itself.

3:44:17 ↗ So that is an option. I do recommend, however, as I've said, going

3:44:23 ↗ back to the PPC, particularly when you're looking at an individual property as

3:44:29 ↗ opposed to looking at the entire package or some more specific policy issue

3:44:35 ↗ that maybe applies beyond that. I recommend going back to the PPC. But

3:44:41 ↗ again, I think legally, because you've already received a recommendation from the PPC,

3:44:47 ↗ on the zoning across the entire area. I think it is an option to keep

3:44:53 ↗ the hearing at the city council level. Thank you, Jim. That's very helpful. So we

3:44:58 ↗ have a motion and a second. It was Goodman and Batiste. Two options here. Council

3:45:04 ↗ Member Ray could propose an amendment to that motion. No, I don't think I can.

3:45:09 ↗ I don't know how to amend that in such a way that it would. I

3:45:15 ↗ mean, the motion that's on the table, which is a valid motion, is to send

3:45:20 ↗ it to PPC before coming back. So it's actually PPC and Land and Shore. Right.

3:45:26 ↗ So I can't amend that motion because I would completely, I can propose an alternative

3:45:30 ↗ motion, but I think we need to deal with the one that's on the table.

3:45:34 ↗ That's what I'm given. I would agree. We'd probably have to vote and see if

3:45:39 ↗ it fails. I will ask Mr. Haney another question. Is it necessary to go to

3:45:43 ↗ land and shore? No, it is not. So I think the motion was

3:45:49 ↗ to have it go through the process that we just talked about and then come

3:45:55 ↗ back July, whatever that is. So you can shorten up that process and leave Land

3:46:00 ↗ and Shore out. It doesn't have to be mid-July. It could be sooner than that.

3:46:06 ↗ Is your suggestion to have us vote on the motion as you originally read it?

3:46:12 ↗ Well, I would... Can I amend my own motion?

3:46:18 ↗ If your second agrees. Can I amend my own motion?

3:46:23 ↗ Yes. Okay. So, can you put the, could you put

3:46:29 ↗ the motion back up there, please? Yes. I would amend

3:46:34 ↗ the motion as follows. Remand agenda bill 7524 to the

3:46:40 ↗ Planning Policy Commission for consideration of redesignating the map for

3:46:45 ↗ parcel 9, figure 2A from urban village multifamily to urban

3:46:51 ↗ village single family, returning to the full council. no

3:46:56 ↗ later than July 16, 2018. Second. The motion is to

3:47:02 ↗ amend AB 7524 to the Planning Policy Commission for consideration

3:47:08 ↗ of re-designing the map for parcel 9, figure 2A from

3:47:13 ↗ UVMF to UVSF returned to the full council no later

3:47:19 ↗ than July 16, 2018. Discussion? - Mr. Mayor Bernstein? -

3:47:25 ↗ Just a point of order. Is this an amendment or is it an already

3:47:31 ↗ amended main motion? So we only have one vote. - So we have an

3:47:37 ↗ amendment to the main motion that was then changed. And so you are voting

3:47:42 ↗ on an amendment to the main motion. - Main motion never ended. - Yeah,

3:47:48 ↗ technically you could ensure there was consensus around the modified amendment either by

3:47:54 ↗ a vote or by unanimous consent and then go ahead and vote on

3:48:00 ↗ the amendment. So there's two votes here. Voting on the amended language and

3:48:05 ↗ then voting on the motion. Session? I have a question. The original plan

3:48:11 ↗ was to go to Planning Policy Commission and then Council Land and Shore.

3:48:17 ↗ Then Council Land and Shore was removed in the process but the date

3:48:23 ↗ on or before date has not changed. So I'm wondering what the

3:48:28 ↗ expected on or before date would change to with that. May,

3:48:34 ↗ June. And that relative to going only to Council Land and

3:48:40 ↗ Shore, what is the time difference that that would be? I

3:48:46 ↗ think you're asking us to parse something that we have

3:48:54 ↗ We haven't worked it out at that level of detail, so. Okay. Thank you. That's

3:48:59 ↗ Mayor Goodman. I think that the intent was to provide an opportunity to shorten that

3:49:04 ↗ schedule up as best we could without putting any dates on there because we don't

3:49:09 ↗ have calendars in front of us and staff availability and meetings. And what else, not

3:49:14 ↗ only the calendar, but what else they may already have on the agenda. Right. The

3:49:19 ↗ motion before you now still has it going to planning policy, or sorry, still has

3:49:24 ↗ it Going to planning policy before returning to council. Only

3:49:30 ↗ Land and Shore Committee was removed. Discussion? Are you ready

3:49:35 ↗ for the vote? We're just seeing head nods. We're voting

3:49:41 ↗ on the amended language. Correct. Before we vote on the

3:49:46 ↗ motion. The amendment reads. Mayor Pauly, I'm sorry. So technically

3:49:52 ↗ this vote should be on whether to strike and the

3:49:57 ↗ council Land and Shore Committee from the amendment. Okay.

3:50:03 ↗ So the amendment that we're voting on is whether or not to strike

3:50:09 ↗ land and shore, council land and shore committee from the amendment. Understood? All

3:50:15 ↗ in favor? Aye. Opposed? That change passes unanimously. Tisha, the next one is

3:50:21 ↗ on the wording of the amended motion. So now you are voting on

3:50:27 ↗ the and actually I'm sorry it's not an amendment it's our main motion at this

3:50:32 ↗ point correct so I apologize for any confusion so as the motion as amended okay

3:50:38 ↗ So this next vote will be on the motion as amended. And the motion

3:50:44 ↗ reads: remand AB7524 to the Planning Policy Commission for consideration of re-designing the map

3:50:50 ↗ for parcel 9, figure 2A from UV-MF to UV-SF, returning to the full Council

3:50:56 ↗ no later than July 16, 2018. All in favor? Would you put your hands

3:51:02 ↗ up so the clerk can see? That is Batiste, Goodman and Winterstein

3:51:08 ↗ in favor. Opposed? -Aye. -Ramos, Boyd and Hunt opposed. And just to

3:51:14 ↗ ask an opinion, Tisha, for is this a vote that the mayor

3:51:20 ↗ would participate in as tiebreaker? Thanks, Jim. Since it's purely procedural, I'd

3:51:26 ↗ say yes, that the mayor can break the tie on this even

3:51:32 ↗ though it's not a vote on the ordinance itself.

3:51:40 ↗ So I'm voting in favor of it going to Plain

3:51:46 ↗ Policy Commission and coming back to Council. And that is

3:51:52 ↗ the end of this agenda bill for this evening. The

3:51:57 ↗ last item under regular business this evening is AB 7562,

3:52:03 ↗ short-term funding request for budget process improvements. This item is

3:52:09 ↗ coming out of the March 12th work session and the

3:52:14 ↗ Council Services and Safety Committee And I'd like

3:52:20 ↗ to invite... Mayor? I think we've lost the

3:52:25 ↗ council. I noticed. Well, they're just kind of...

3:52:31 ↗ Maybe we should take five. ...grabbing a refreshment.

3:52:36 ↗ They're back. Here we go. I would like

3:52:42 ↗ to invite Finance Director Jennifer Olsen to the

3:52:47 ↗ lectern. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Good evening, Council.

3:52:53 ↗ This agenda bill is returning from the Council Services and Safety Committee. The administration

3:52:59 ↗ is requesting staff resource funding for budget process improvements. Council should have found in

3:53:05 ↗ the agenda packet the administration has modified the staffing proposal due to receiving council

3:53:10 ↗ feedback on a proposal to transition to a biennial budget, but

3:53:16 ↗ this is not going to be anticipated until Council would consider this

3:53:22 ↗ mid-2020 for a biennial cycle to start 2021 through 2022. This change

3:53:28 ↗ came along with a reduced amount of time to put in place staffing

3:53:34 ↗ resources from previous overall period of a March to December timeframe, shifting it to an

3:53:39 ↗ April-May to December timeframe to supplement budget staff. The revised proposal requests funding for a

3:53:45 ↗ combination of an LTE position as well as a contractual position. The revised number of

3:53:51 ↗ hours and the equivalent staffing has been identified for this funding request. A fair amount

3:53:57 ↗ of discussion has been put into and around the number of hours and the cost

3:54:03 ↗ per hour in the staffing proposal by the type of staffing that has been requested.

3:54:08 ↗ Finance staff has identified that the budget development tasks have encumbered over, or currently and

3:54:14 ↗ historically encumbered over 7,000 hours of staff time. And so for budget transition, for the

3:54:20 ↗ year of transition, it's anticipated to take over 10,000 hours, of which the

3:54:25 ↗ new budget analyst roles would cover about 3,500 hours. And this would reduce

3:54:31 ↗ existing staff time from over 7,000 hours to about 6,500 hours so that existing

3:54:37 ↗ staff are able to focus on tasks that are and have been traditionally delayed

3:54:43 ↗ or not accomplished. Those are things like financial modeling and financial procedure improvements that

3:54:49 ↗ are a critical framework to put in place for the city organization.

3:54:55 ↗ So the future budget development year number of hours, which is identified

3:55:00 ↗ as approximately 6,000 hours, anticipates a likely request for continued budget analyst

3:55:06 ↗ work staff to ensure that the budget development process is continually improved

3:55:12 ↗ and that the division of the finance department is not long-term encumbered

3:55:17 ↗ from other core financial services and working towards those continual budget process

3:55:23 ↗ improvements. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions on

3:55:29 ↗ the revised staffing proposal that was included in your packet. It is redlined to

3:55:35 ↗ show what changes were made to the proposal. I'd be happy to answer those

3:55:41 ↗ questions now. Thank you, Jen. Questions? No questions. Oh, there we go. Councilmember Ramos.

3:55:47 ↗ So I've gotten confused following the numbers through all this thing. I guess

3:55:53 ↗ I have a number of questions because I can't follow the numbers logically. So

3:55:59 ↗ I'm going to go to page 977 of the packet. There you have the

3:56:04 ↗ first table that has current, transition, and future. The finance department budget phase level

3:56:10 ↗ of effort. I know where I'm talking about. If you want to look, especially

3:56:16 ↗ you know which one I'm talking about. You're on page two of the revised staffing

3:56:21 ↗ proposal? Correct, yes. All right. So under current budget related hours, 7,000. I'll use round

3:56:27 ↗ numbers. In the transition, you need 10,000, right? That's the addition of basically 3,000 additional

3:56:32 ↗ hours. for this transition, right? That's correct. It's for an enhanced level of effort

3:56:38 ↗ towards the budget development process. Okay. And in the future then, we're going to need

3:56:43 ↗ about 6,000 hours. So between 7,000-- in the future, we'd be saving about 1,000 hours

3:56:48 ↗ a year because once we get this system running, that should decrease our workload, right?

3:56:52 ↗ Did I read that? You're reading that correctly, that we would have a system-based versus

3:56:57 ↗ manual-based system of data. Jen, can I just get you to add some information? While

3:57:02 ↗ the budget process takes less, there's not an expectation that there is an overall

3:57:08 ↗ savings in time because there are some services right now that finance cannot adequately

3:57:14 ↗ staff. That is correct. There would be a refocus of financials or -

3:57:20 ↗ The effort level. - Finance department staff effort towards other initiatives that need to get

3:57:26 ↗ underway. - Okay, so you anticipated one of my questions, but let me get to

3:57:31 ↗ them. So 3,000 additional hours to me, that's one and a half FTE. - It's

3:57:37 ↗ actually 1.7. - 2,000 hours is an FTE to me. - 2,080. - 2,080, okay,

3:57:43 ↗ 2,000 hours is one FTE. So that's 3,000 hours, which is one and a half.

3:57:50 ↗ Okay. I'm rounding here a little bit, a week or two off. So that's only

3:57:55 ↗ one and a half FTE additional. And so I'm trying to find that we went

3:58:00 ↗ from three to, and some places it still says three, some places it says two.

3:58:04 ↗ So I'm trying to follow it, all the numbers all the way through. And so

3:58:09 ↗ I have a problem there. Going to the last one that you asked the question

3:58:14 ↗ was, so I'm assuming we have this then then we should reduce our effort because

3:58:19 ↗ if we go through all this extra effort and we aren't saving ourselves time or

3:58:24 ↗ money in the future I'm not sure why we're going through this effort but you

3:58:29 ↗ made that statement but then I flip to the next page I'm gonna hit a

3:58:34 ↗ couple because I'm it's all consistent with numbers here so the next page three cost

3:58:40 ↗ analysis for enhanced staffing you show employees that 2890 all use full numbers for you

3:58:45 ↗ because you know I rounding so 20 90 but consultant of 1410 and 195

3:58:51 ↗ which is only like you know do Matthew 15 1600 hours approximately 1605 and

3:58:57 ↗ we're showing 4400 you know 4495 hours. So I'm confused on that were consultants

3:59:02 ↗ are only at a small amount a lot of that's already existing employees.

3:59:08 ↗ So I'm trying to figure out where the cost is coming from because you're talking

3:59:13 ↗ $300,000 and that's a lot of cost, which is my fear. So that, you know,

3:59:17 ↗ I guess that's where I'm trying to get to because that $1,500 is only to

3:59:22 ↗ me, sorry, three quarters of an FTE. So I'm seeing places where there's three quarters

3:59:27 ↗ of an FTE, one and a half of an FTE, up to three of an

3:59:32 ↗ FTE. and i'm just not following the numbers and which makes me very unsure of

3:59:37 ↗ the dollar request because i'm not seeing the numbers add up to me consistently throughout

3:59:42 ↗ this proposal dan do you want to take a chance to explain what the total

3:59:47 ↗ dollar amount is and what kind of flexibility you've built in there for whether or

3:59:52 ↗ not you're using contract stuff or lt stuff because i think you've given yourself some

3:59:57 ↗ flexibility to to tool this team the best way you can. - That's

4:00:02 ↗ correct. The revised amount of our funding is 296,424 thousand. Of that

4:00:08 ↗ includes some FF&E and contingency dollars for So with that,

4:00:14 ↗ the request is $292,110 for a combination of

4:00:19 ↗ perhaps an in-house or on-staff person, typically referred

4:00:25 ↗ to as an LTE, and then to use

4:00:31 ↗ a consultant or a temporary agency in a budget

4:00:37 ↗ analyst role. And the flexibility that is built into this proposal is that the

4:00:42 ↗ estimated number of hours for each of those types of positions should be flexible

4:00:48 ↗ because of the ability to ramp up quickly. We may have more of an

4:00:54 ↗ opportunity to ramp up with a consultant or a temporary agency than we do

4:01:00 ↗ have with getting someone in-house. So that is the reason for the

4:01:06 ↗ revised ask of what looks to be two positions. It is a

4:01:11 ↗ combination so that the administration can remain flexible to ensure that we

4:01:17 ↗ have maximum effort towards the budget analyst role. Is that an

4:01:23 ↗ up to $290,000 plus then? That's correct. It is up to. No,

4:01:29 ↗ exactly where we're going to be. Because we're not sure how quickly

4:01:35 ↗ that we can get someone on board, and so that would be

4:01:40 ↗ the maximum amount. More questions, Councilmember Ramos? Other questions from other councilmembers?

4:01:46 ↗ Okay. I'm going to pitch this to Councilmember Ray. Make a motion.

4:01:52 ↗ One just a minute. Questions? I'm having Paul's problem with my computer. We have

4:01:58 ↗ better internet in here now according to IT. We can move over to Council Member

4:02:03 ↗ Batiste, or Deputy Council President Batiste to make a motion if that would help. That

4:02:08 ↗ would be great. Otherwise, I'm just, I'm hung right now. You're just going to keep

4:02:13 ↗ us up until midnight? Okay. Yeah. Anything you need. Yeah. So I would

4:02:18 ↗ like to make a motion to authorize funding for

4:02:24 ↗ the two budget analyst positions as proposed in the

4:02:29 ↗ revised staffing proposal and direct the finance director to

4:02:35 ↗ include $296,424 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment utilizing

4:02:40 ↗ the general fund. Is there a second? Second. Moved

4:02:46 ↗ and seconded. Is there discussion? Councilmember Hunt. i just wanted

4:02:52 ↗ to thank you um for clarifying a number of of the issues that i had

4:02:57 ↗ with the previous version i think that there's more realism reflected in in this in

4:03:03 ↗ terms of the um after we changed from a biennial after we dropped that goal

4:03:08 ↗ of switching also to a biennial there was um that was removed from the staffing

4:03:14 ↗ proposal as well as the update as far as the actual time that will

4:03:19 ↗ be available to make these changes. And so I appreciate those updates to the

4:03:25 ↗ amounts, dollar amounts, also the hours. And I also appreciate the table, when this

4:03:31 ↗ was in committee, the table that has the crosswalk between the dollar amount table and

4:03:37 ↗ the current transition and future time. Because when we were talking about this in committee,

4:03:43 ↗ that got very confusing and I appreciate the the crosswalk, I have a

4:03:48 ↗ much better idea now of what is actually being asked. And so for all

4:03:54 ↗ those reasons, I do support this. And I also just wanted to again thank

4:04:00 ↗ you for providing more information and also updating to address some of the changes

4:04:06 ↗ that have happened in recent weeks. Thank you, Council Member Hunt. Deputy Council President

4:04:12 ↗ Batiste. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted

4:04:18 ↗ to echo Councilmember Hunt's information. Thank you, Jen,

4:04:23 ↗ for we had a fair amount of time to talk this

4:04:29 ↗ through and asked a lot of questions. We had some changes and what we decided

4:04:35 ↗ to do with budgeting going forward and then had an opportunity to see all of

4:04:41 ↗ the revised information come back and understanding that within those amounts that there can be

4:04:46 ↗ some flexibility in terms of the kinds of staffing that you would need to

4:04:52 ↗ roll out all of the work that needs to be done, both with software

4:04:58 ↗ updates and budgeting. So I would be supporting this this evening. Thank you for

4:05:04 ↗ your presentation, Jen. Thank you. Other council members? Council Member Goodman, followed

4:05:09 ↗ by Council Member Winterstein. I just want to echo the comments made so

4:05:15 ↗ far. Thank you for the clear presentation. I'll be supporting. Council Member Winterstein.

4:05:21 ↗ Yeah, two things. It does include the additional information that I was asking for

4:05:27 ↗ last time. There is an estimate of the hours. I can see where the dollar

4:05:33 ↗ values, the amount comes from, except I'm not sure what Mo cost is. Could you?

4:05:39 ↗ It's the rightmost column in there, $32,457. What is that? Monthly. That's okay. Or it's

4:05:45 ↗ Mo money. Mo money. Mo cost. Mo cost. I wasn't really sure about that one.

4:05:50 ↗ Okay. It wasn't added in there anyway. Then the other point too is in this

4:05:56 ↗ one is this is the first I've seen it was it was at our work

4:06:02 ↗ session where we had the conversation about the biennial budget and so I've seen in

4:06:08 ↗ this that you guys have on FAP since then and made that decision to defer

4:06:14 ↗ that for a couple years and I really hope that that's the right decision. I

4:06:19 ↗ think it certainly relieves. I know there's advantages to our organization, at least proposed, you

4:06:24 ↗ know, for a biennial budget. But I do believe from everything that I've seen and

4:06:29 ↗ know that we're trying to do that this is more people have a greater chance

4:06:34 ↗ at succeeding with this plan than when we were trying to put the biennial in

4:06:39 ↗ there before. Thank you. We will get there. I've got a couple left. Council Member

4:06:44 ↗ Ray Oramos. I guess I'm still just having trouble here. It's

4:06:50 ↗ you know, it's $300,000 which which can definitely be spent somewhere

4:06:56 ↗ that we have a lot of needs for infrastructure and other

4:07:02 ↗ things in particular. And I just

4:07:07 ↗ I guess you're just not convincing me of this kind of money needed for

4:07:13 ↗ additional budget analyst positions that we haven't been doing prior to. And I understand

4:07:19 ↗ there's some changes and so forth, but it just seems like a very high

4:07:25 ↗ cost. Considering last year we took the finance department and we let it be totally

4:07:29 ↗ organized that we're supposed to take care of all these problems and the way it

4:07:33 ↗ was supposed to be we added FTE to that and so now we're adding additional

4:07:37 ↗ stuff. So it just seems like I'm putting a lot of money into the finance

4:07:41 ↗ department which doesn't do our citizens any good. It may help our system run a

4:07:45 ↗ little better, but what they see on the ground and looking for our parks and

4:07:50 ↗ rec and everything else that we do, traffic control, whatever, you know, that's, I'm just,

4:07:55 ↗ it's a lot of money going to something that I have a hard time supporting

4:08:00 ↗ without seeing something when we've made all these changes already to this department and

4:08:06 ↗ and uh and spending additional funding so i i will not support this thank you

4:08:11 ↗ council member ramos council member ray um i just wanted to note well two things

4:08:15 ↗ i wanted to note i want to thank council member hunt for getting me on

4:08:20 ↗ the right page because i'm looking at the wrong numbers so so thank you um

4:08:25 ↗ and and i um i appreciate the um that you took the feedback from services

4:08:30 ↗ and um reflected that in this final document and the numbers foot and they tick

4:08:34 ↗ and I think we have a lot of work to do and I I might

4:08:39 ↗ have to disagree with my esteemed colleague to the left that I think that there

4:08:43 ↗ is a lot of work particularly when you put in a new system there's gonna

4:08:48 ↗ be all sorts of things that we haven't anticipated and and they're going to be

4:08:52 ↗ quite busy chasing things down so I will support this tonight Thank You council member

4:08:57 ↗ Goodman I ask a question there are comments that We took steps to make changes

4:09:03 ↗ in the department that should have handled all of this or corrected all

4:09:09 ↗ this. So can we get some responses to that? So we're all on

4:09:14 ↗ the same page, the understanding at least. Sure. I'll be brief about

4:09:20 ↗ that. The reorganization that we presented at first services and then through

4:09:26 ↗ budget deliberations with the full council reflected a few different pieces. One

4:09:32 ↗ that we asked to implement through budget deliberations in 2018 and then

4:09:37 ↗ other future needs that we weren't asking for at the time in

4:09:43 ↗ 2018. The major purpose of the reorganization step one of

4:09:49 ↗ 2018 was to make a change from sort of the deputy director

4:09:54 ↗ kind of appointment to more of a divisional division head structure to provide

4:10:00 ↗ better purview over distinct operations within the department. But at that point in time,

4:10:06 ↗ we also highlighted we have quite a bit of work still left to do

4:10:12 ↗ to revamp our budget processes We talked about implementing the new budget software and

4:10:18 ↗ Jen had highlighted through services and then on to council that there would be

4:10:24 ↗ future steps to take to reorganize the department around the needs and this was

4:10:30 ↗ one of them. Thank you. Just checking one last time to see if there's

4:10:36 ↗ any more discussion. Oh, there's a bit. Council Member Winterstein followed by Council Member

4:10:42 ↗ Hunt. If it helps everybody, you can go back

4:10:48 ↗ to the Council Committee work session from last October 30th. And in that

4:10:54 ↗ packet is the org chart for the finance reorganization. and in it it

4:11:00 ↗ clearly marks the new position that was requested as part of the 2018 budget

4:11:06 ↗ and it shows one, two, three, four, five, six other potential future positions spread

4:11:11 ↗ across this new organization including one within the budget and forecasting group of a

4:11:17 ↗ budget analyst and with our action tonight I view this as us, you

4:11:23 ↗ coming back and saying, okay, here's the position we have to fill. Here's my justification

4:11:29 ↗ for that. And another position to help us with the implementation of the budgeting software.

4:11:34 ↗ So that's the context that I see this in. And just for your benefit. Thank

4:11:40 ↗ you. And that was Council Member Hunt. Thank you. I wanted to... Expand in the

4:11:46 ↗ bigger picture of why I support this. I think that the budget is an important

4:11:51 ↗ way that we express our priorities and I really just think that it is important

4:11:57 ↗ to get it right and this has been justified as the way that we go

4:12:01 ↗ forward this year to make sure that we are addressing our priorities in the budget

4:12:06 ↗ and that's in the bigger picture that's why I support this. Thanks Council Member Hunt.

4:12:10 ↗ Is there anyone else who would like to comment before we go to the vote?

4:12:17 ↗ There's no further discussion. All those in favor of authorizing funding for the

4:12:23 ↗ two budget analyst positions as proposed in the revised staffing proposal and directing

4:12:29 ↗ the finance director to include $296,424 in a subsequent 2018 budget amendment utilizing

4:12:35 ↗ the general fund signify by saying aye. Opposed? Nay. Councilmember Ramos in opposition.

4:12:41 ↗ The next order, thank you Jen, the next order of business is

4:12:46 ↗ for good of the order. Do council members have anything for good

4:12:52 ↗ of the order? Deputy Council President Batiste. I just wanted to say

4:13:00 ↗ Councilmember Martz is excused this Wednesday for leadership and so we would be great

4:13:05 ↗ to have another councilmember join us on Wednesday. I believe it's myself and Councilmember

4:13:11 ↗ Ray that will be at leadership. So if there is someone else that would

4:13:17 ↗ like to join us, let me know after the meeting. Thank you. Are there

4:13:23 ↗ any other items? I have two items. As part of our typical practice during the

4:13:29 ↗ last four years of Council, the consent agenda has been read in during the meeting.

4:13:33 ↗ That is a preferential practice. I'm checking with you to find out. I talked with

4:13:38 ↗ Council President Martz about it. He doesn't have a strong opinion on it one way

4:13:43 ↗ or the other. It's an option for us to actually remove that part from the

4:13:47 ↗ meeting if it's we are not hearing from others that is adding benefit to the

4:13:52 ↗ meeting. just wanted to get your thoughts on it you can throw it out there

4:13:56 ↗ tonight and you can either email me or i can check back at another for

4:14:00 ↗ good of the order it's just the request just to think about whether we want

4:14:04 ↗ to actually do the reading into the record reading into the record so you still

4:14:08 ↗ vote on it you just wouldn't read the whole thing yep most councils typically just

4:14:12 ↗ vote On behalf of your request, if anything needs to be brought down, of course.

4:14:17 ↗ And the second item was looking forward to the April 2nd meeting. There are a

4:14:22 ↗ couple of items that are currently heading towards committee amending IMC Chapter 1604, construction codes

4:14:27 ↗ and permit fees, creating the Visit Issaquah organization. And so if they make it through

4:14:32 ↗ committee, you'll be seeing them at the April 2nd meeting or I think I actually

4:14:37 ↗ might have to revise the one on. Boats is already through. Which one? The revised

4:14:43 ↗ building codes, I think? Is it the permit fees? It's on committee for -- it's

4:14:47 ↗ on Council, sorry, for April 2nd. Is it through committee? Yes. Thanks. And then the

4:14:52 ↗ last item is the introduction of the citywide strategic plan, and we'll be having a

4:14:56 ↗ presentation at the Council meeting. Is there anything else for good of the order? There

4:15:00 ↗ was an executive session this evening. It was held during a special Council meeting prior

4:15:05 ↗ to tonight's regular meeting, and there was no action -- there is no action needed

4:15:09 ↗ at this time. There being no further business, this meeting is adjourned at 11:15.

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 (4)

Paul Winterstein (arrived at 6:23 PM) Terry Thorsrud

Attorney Keith Niven

Economic

Development Services Director