Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 22, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · May 25, 2017

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 – Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 – Jon Stob 2018 – Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 – Lindsey Walsh The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 – Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 – Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 – Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 – Victoria Hunt see IMC 18.03. 2018 – AJ McGauley 2018 – Althea Saldanha 2018 – Vacant

Election of Vice-Chair

Topics: Elections

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of June 8, 2017

packet pp.5

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 27, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · May 25, 2017

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards: Parking

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.7–51

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

BACKGROUND

3792 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ in 22nd meeting of the Planning Policy

0:11 ↗ Commission tonight we're going to talk a

0:15 ↗ little bit about parking in the city of

0:17 ↗ Issaquah and opening up to a public

0:21 ↗ meeting if anybody is here to discuss it

0:24 ↗ before we get into the meeting I just

0:27 ↗ want to say one thing about a week and a

0:31 ↗ half ago I had I got an email that was

0:36 ↗ kind of I was well was was really just

0:38 ↗ depressing kind of it was about a

0:43 ↗ commissioner that had been on the

0:44 ↗ Commission for about almost eight years

0:46 ↗ I think and he passed away so I just

0:49 ↗ wanted to say that offer our condolences

0:52 ↗ to every extracts family and I wanted to

0:56 ↗ make sure that it got into the the

0:59 ↗ record I know they're not there watching

1:01 ↗ this but you know I just wanted to make

1:04 ↗ sure that the city would say thank you

1:06 ↗ for your service and all right so anyway

1:11 ↗ with that proved over the minutes I know

1:16 ↗ that some of you weren't there at our

1:17 ↗ last meeting but we did have a lengthy

1:20 ↗ discussion on how to be a good

1:23 ↗ Commissioner so would anybody like to

1:28 ↗ make a motion to the limits of a second

1:32 ↗ second all those in favor say aye aye

1:35 ↗ opposed they the most motion carries

1:41 ↗ I would like to change one thing on the

1:44 ↗ on the agenda tonight if it's a if it's

1:47 ↗ acceptable to the rest of you I would

1:50 ↗ like to move the election to the end of

1:52 ↗ the meeting so that we can go through

1:54 ↗ the meeting and then have that at the

1:57 ↗ end but okay okay so with that Lucy

2:02 ↗ please start us off on this great

2:05 ↗ conversation on parking good evening I'm

2:11 ↗ Lucy Sloman i'm land development man

2:13 ↗ during the development services

2:15 ↗ development services department is that

2:17 ↗ better

2:20 ↗ don't want to eat it how about like that

2:26 ↗ there you go okay thank you so tonight

2:30 ↗ we're talking about the first moratorium

2:32 ↗ work plan item to come to PPC I believe

2:34 ↗ and it's parking so I'm just going to

2:36 ↗ give you a little bit of history last

2:39 ↗ summer in 2013 the central is quoi

2:43 ↗ standards were adopted and there was

2:46 ↗ something in the centralist quoi plan

2:47 ↗ that required that there was a

2:51 ↗ evaluation every three years so we did

2:54 ↗ that last July and one of the things

2:56 ↗ that was noted in that evaluation was of

2:59 ↗ the 14 or so projects that we evaluated

3:03 ↗ seven of the seven residential projects

3:06 ↗ all had structured parking of the

3:09 ↗ commercial projects only one had

3:11 ↗ commercial it had structured parking so

3:15 ↗ as a result or maybe not when the

3:18 ↗ moratorium was enacted parking was

3:20 ↗ identified as one of six work plan items

3:24 ↗ for the moratorium and related to

3:27 ↗ parking we asked two questions is parked

3:31 ↗ right or not this was for just for

3:33 ↗ central is claw and shed structured

3:36 ↗ parking be required to do this we hired

3:40 ↗ a consultant team fair and peers which

3:43 ↗ is a transportation engineering firm and

3:46 ↗ a sub consultant eco Northwest which is

3:49 ↗ a financial economist company and on

3:53 ↗ June 7th we presented our findings and

3:56 ↗ to Landon Shore and their direction was

4:00 ↗ to leave the parking standards unchanged

4:02 ↗ and to implement structured parking

4:05 ↗ requirement and so then staff went away

4:07 ↗ and worked on code amendments and that's

4:10 ↗ what we're bringing to you this evening

4:12 ↗ so the recommendation is as follows for

4:16 ↗ office for the office uses buildings

4:19 ↗ over 5,000 square feet would have

4:21 ↗ one-third of their required parking in

4:24 ↗ structures for residential uses again

4:28 ↗ one-third of the required parking would

4:31 ↗ be in structures

4:32 ↗ for retail there would be no structured

4:35 ↗ parking requirement just the existing

4:38 ↗ encouraged and there would be no

4:40 ↗ exemptions or adjustments proposed so I

4:46 ↗ I know there were a lot of different

4:48 ↗ memos so I pulled out some of the

4:50 ↗ information that I thought might be

4:52 ↗ relevant just as by way of an

4:53 ↗ introduction what we so the staff

4:58 ↗ evaluated a number of residential retail

5:00 ↗ and office projects of the six office

5:05 ↗ projects we evaluated there was a range

5:07 ↗ from 0 to 93% of their part each

5:10 ↗ projects parking in structures with an

5:13 ↗ average of 43% and a median of 31% for

5:18 ↗ retail it was between 0 and 25 with an

5:22 ↗ average of 21 and 12 all the residential

5:26 ↗ projects we evaluated had structured

5:28 ↗ parking and that was 14 residential

5:30 ↗ projects with an average of 45% in a

5:34 ↗ median of 31% so that's the sort of

5:38 ↗ on-the-ground what are we seeing Eco

5:42 ↗ Northwest has been working on economic

5:46 ↗ analyses in the city for a while

5:50 ↗ associated with vertical mixed-use

5:52 ↗ projects and affordable housing and so

5:56 ↗ they were added to the team to look at

5:59 ↗ the feasibility of structured parking

6:02 ↗ using their own algorithms and what they

6:05 ↗ found was that for office projects

6:08 ↗ somewhere between 25 percent structured

6:11 ↗ parking and fifty percent structured

6:14 ↗ parking it became infeasible same was

6:18 ↗ true for retail projects and for

6:23 ↗ residential projects had dependent on

6:25 ↗ the kind of the construction type for

6:28 ↗ townhomes you could have a hundred

6:30 ↗ percent requirement for structured

6:32 ↗ parking and that would not be a problem

6:34 ↗ based on their model whereas again it

6:38 ↗ was somewhere between 25 and 50 percent

6:40 ↗ structured parking is where it switches

6:44 ↗ from feasible to infeasible when you're

6:46 ↗ dealing

6:46 ↗ podium yes a question on that so when

6:50 ↗ they were further analysis where they

6:52 ↗ were looking at current project cost and

6:54 ↗ project values were they trying to

6:56 ↗ forecast what would be feasible you know

6:59 ↗ assuming continued growth and rise of

7:01 ↗ land values and over a five-year or

7:03 ↗ ten-year period well what we wrote were

7:06 ↗ looking at current to its current okay

7:09 ↗ and so are the administration's

7:15 ↗ recommendation is both a combination

7:17 ↗ than of achieving the vision that was

7:19 ↗ established in central is kua and trying

7:23 ↗ to avoid unintended consequences such as

7:26 ↗ reducing the likelihood of redevelopment

7:30 ↗ or new projects and then we have our

7:36 ↗ next steps I'm just doing a quick

7:38 ↗ overview I'm more interested in your

7:40 ↗ questions than presenting a lot of

7:42 ↗ detail once we have had the discussion

7:47 ↗ with PPC we're hoping we'll get a

7:49 ↗ recommendation this evening then we

7:52 ↗ would return to land and shore in July

7:55 ↗ and we are scheduled to be in front of

7:57 ↗ council for adoption mid July anybody

8:06 ↗ have any good comments I've got it I

8:12 ↗ guess I'm a little confused with your

8:14 ↗ percentages but if between 25 and 50

8:18 ↗ percent of structured parking is

8:21 ↗ infeasible why are we proposing 33

8:25 ↗ percent okay let me let me try and

8:27 ↗ improve my wording the way they looked

8:30 ↗ at it in 25 percent increments zero 25

8:34 ↗ 50 75 100 at 25 it was feasible at 50

8:40 ↗ percent

8:40 ↗ it was infeasible according to their

8:43 ↗ model so it's somewhere between 25 and

8:46 ↗ 50 percent it went from feasible to

8:50 ↗ infeasible but they were not looking at

8:53 ↗ any finer grain between 25 and 50

8:57 ↗ percent does that make more sense

8:59 ↗ and why is that Lucy we specially

9:01 ↗ commissioned this why are we going only

9:03 ↗ 25 percentages junks well I think that

9:07 ↗ there is a limit to how much a model can

9:09 ↗ can predict at that specific range part

9:13 ↗ of those limitations the number of

9:15 ↗ examples we looked at it looks like we

9:17 ↗ are you showed us that the structured

9:20 ↗ parking has seven projects surveyed we

9:22 ↗ had a a dozen for residential I'm sorry

9:25 ↗ that was one with office and then we

9:26 ↗ weren't given a number for retail so

9:29 ↗ less than two dozen projects were looked

9:30 ↗ at for this information so eco Northwest

9:33 ↗ is not that was just a staff survey of

9:36 ↗ projects on the ground equal Northwest

9:39 ↗ was doing a financial model not using

9:42 ↗ specific projects from ethic law but

9:45 ↗ looking at a number of factors such as

9:48 ↗ land values construction costs cost of

9:52 ↗ structured parking different kinds of

9:56 ↗ lease rates associated with various land

9:59 ↗ juices so how many for retail you'd

10:01 ↗ given us the numbers of seven for office

10:02 ↗ but a dozen for residential how many

10:04 ↗ retail did you guys look at the staff at

10:08 ↗ the staff level yeah projects that you

10:10 ↗ guys looked at in the city it says up

10:12 ↗ there four and that was what was about

10:13 ↗ documentation and the Tartar

10:15 ↗ documentation is doesn't have a number

10:16 ↗ of page nine so staff felt like looking

10:21 ↗ at two dozen was all encompassing of our

10:24 ↗ city how did you guys come to that

10:25 ↗ number of looking at we were looking at

10:27 ↗ recent projects that had been built over

10:31 ↗ the last five to ten years we weren't we

10:35 ↗ were trying to think of projects that

10:37 ↗ were in central is kua and the urban

10:40 ↗ villages that had similar

10:43 ↗ characteristics to what we were

10:46 ↗ anticipating in Central School that's

10:49 ↗ interesting so by using the urban

10:50 ↗ villages did you find that that was a

10:52 ↗ pretty good use by using our urban

10:55 ↗ villages as an example is that part of

10:56 ↗ the reason why you came to the

10:58 ↗ conclusion on retail do you want to

11:00 ↗ avoid retail parking requirements in

11:03 ↗ favor of having smaller businesses and

11:05 ↗ not having chains moving in is there a

11:08 ↗ correlation between those two not

11:10 ↗ specifically related to group

11:13 ↗ yeah the the report specifically calls

11:15 ↗ out no no structured parkour you don't

11:18 ↗ to require structured parking for retail

11:20 ↗ because a large a ladle a larger retail

11:24 ↗ development is more likely to be able to

11:26 ↗ whose effect that of an example and I'm

11:28 ↗ curious if that's because of looking at

11:29 ↗ the urban villages specifically so I

11:34 ↗ think I'm not I want to make sure I'm

11:37 ↗ answering the question that you're

11:38 ↗ asking if you're asking is the mix of

11:41 ↗ uses in Grand Ridge Plaza a concern to

11:44 ↗ us and therefore we were picking trying

11:49 ↗ to avoid that I don't that was not part

11:51 ↗ of it we were looking at recent retail

11:54 ↗ projects and Grand Rouge Plaza is a

11:58 ↗ recent retail one that had structured

12:00 ↗ parking so we looked at that I think

12:03 ↗ overall we had we had a concern that

12:08 ↗ from both what we're hearing the

12:10 ↗ projects we looked at and the model that

12:13 ↗ came from eco Northwest or the

12:16 ↗ information that came from eco Northwest

12:18 ↗ that retail projects with requiring

12:23 ↗ structured parking could skew to larger

12:26 ↗ chains that would be more likely to

12:28 ↗ afford it than smaller local businesses

12:32 ↗ but smaller chains that could be true up

12:35 ↗ to we didn't think that there was a

12:36 ↗ clear indication that this would not

12:40 ↗ skew the market okay thank you oh you

12:46 ↗ said that after about 25 percent it

12:50 ↗ became infeasible somewhere between 25

12:53 ↗ and 50 percent I understand that but you

12:56 ↗ said that somewhere above the 25 so how

13:00 ↗ did you come up with a 33 percent it was

13:03 ↗ looking at the projects on the ground

13:07 ↗ and seeing at what point what kind of

13:11 ↗ numbers we were seeing so in residential

13:15 ↗ projects we were seeing that most

13:18 ↗ projects were at 30% if you were a

13:22 ↗ little bit lower than that but that did

13:24 ↗ not seem like a big stretch

13:26 ↗ you get up to 33% and so that's why we

13:30 ↗ were not concerned with picking that

13:33 ↗ level with office projects we were

13:37 ↗ seeing that most projects over a certain

13:40 ↗ size that's why we picked 5,000 was were

13:45 ↗ building significantly more even closer

13:48 ↗ to a hundred percent so in the retail

13:56 ↗ who would actually if we went forward

13:58 ↗ with your recommendation who would be

14:01 ↗ the ultimate benefit er in retail right

14:05 ↗ so who would benefit if we went to 25%

14:10 ↗ it I just want to make sure I'm tracking

14:13 ↗ your question who would in the retail

14:15 ↗ marketplace if we set it at 25% required

14:19 ↗ structured parking who would benefit but

14:23 ↗ probably a moderate to larger stores and

14:29 ↗ chains that could afford to build

14:31 ↗ structured parking what we were seeing

14:34 ↗ in central Islam the first few years of

14:36 ↗ implementation is that many that the

14:41 ↗ development projects were small and they

14:44 ↗ were building no structured parking

14:46 ↗ especially when it was redevelopment of

14:49 ↗ just a pad they most of central is quad

14:53 ↗ is you know has 75 percent parking lots

14:56 ↗ that was one of the factors that drove

14:59 ↗ the establishment of the central is Claw

15:01 ↗ plan and so many of those can redevelop

15:06 ↗ and do not need to build any extra

15:10 ↗ parking so we're seeing that the little

15:13 ↗ ones are able to use surface parking and

15:17 ↗ until they do a full redevelopment of a

15:19 ↗ piece of property structured parking

15:22 ↗ would be pretty burdensome so let's take

15:25 ↗ the safe way target shopping mall in the

15:32 ↗ middle of the summertime it's I would

15:34 ↗ say on the weekend you could have 40

15:38 ↗ percent capacity

15:39 ↗ and Christmas it's almost 100% capacity

15:43 ↗ so how would this impact that if they

15:48 ↗ were to redevelop today to this

15:51 ↗ recommendation what would that story

15:53 ↗ look like I think that story so the

15:58 ↗ story would be that they would have to

16:00 ↗ figure out if they were going to

16:01 ↗ redevelop they probably would only

16:03 ↗ redevelop if they were able to add more

16:06 ↗ either more retail or mix of uses and so

16:11 ↗ for them the question would be how could

16:13 ↗ they provide the parking on the existing

16:15 ↗ land would and I think that would

16:18 ↗ probably mean that they would choose to

16:22 ↗ go to structured parking because that

16:25 ↗ would be the only way to increase the

16:27 ↗ density they could increase the density

16:30 ↗ slightly but not that much without going

16:32 ↗ to structured parking so this

16:35 ↗ recommendation here is saying that they

16:37 ↗ would have to make a certain first of

16:39 ↗ all retail being the exclusion we're not

16:45 ↗ requiring them to have structured

16:47 ↗ parking but we are requiring residential

16:50 ↗ and office to have structured parking

16:54 ↗ minimums that correct yes okay well if I

17:02 ↗ want to build an office complex and it

17:06 ↗ turns out that I go over my own and it

17:10 ↗ becomes infeasible at 30 30 % how does

17:15 ↗ the city work with me as the developer

17:18 ↗ to address the three percent parking so

17:24 ↗ you're asking if my project and you want

17:30 ↗ to build an office project and you feel

17:33 ↗ that it's infeasible to do 33% parking

17:37 ↗ what what role would the city have in

17:39 ↗ working with that property owner some

17:42 ↗ general guidelines of what what would

17:43 ↗ happen well I think we'd want to sit

17:46 ↗ down and understand their assumptions

17:48 ↗ and where the concern you know where

17:52 ↗ was it the construction type where they

17:54 ↗ may be building to smaller project to

17:57 ↗ not be able to make that feasible is

18:01 ↗ there an opportunity to work with

18:03 ↗ another property owner nearby to jointly

18:08 ↗ redevelop to share the cost of the

18:12 ↗ structured parking I think we'd want to

18:14 ↗ sit down and understand what was driving

18:17 ↗ them to it to perceive that it was

18:20 ↗ infeasible okay because there is no

18:23 ↗ wiggle room correct Lucy basically

18:24 ↗ mentioned this report there will be no

18:25 ↗ exceptions correct now when one of the

18:32 ↗ okay to make comment oh I'd like to just

18:34 ↗ jump in if I can so you know one of the

18:36 ↗ things is and in you know so eco

18:41 ↗ Northwest basically set up parameters to

18:43 ↗ say somewhere in this range it's going

18:46 ↗ to be infeasible to get what you want

18:49 ↗ under the current market values and

18:51 ↗ market structure that's in place right

18:53 ↗ now what we did is by looking at the

18:56 ↗ existing projects that have been coming

18:58 ↗ through the pipeline recently we we

19:01 ↗ establish what we felt was a reasonable

19:03 ↗ tolerance for how much structured

19:05 ↗ parking was coming with with projects

19:08 ↗ and so as you look at the medians I

19:10 ↗ think are really important so right now

19:11 ↗ the medians for both office and

19:13 ↗ residential or 31% right and so you know

19:17 ↗ as we look at office so right now we've

19:19 ↗ got one office project that's in the

19:21 ↗ pipeline on Gilman and that's Gilman

19:23 ↗ loss that's a hundred percent structured

19:26 ↗ parking for that office project Costco

19:29 ↗ is coming in there a hundred percent

19:31 ↗ structured parked you know and so as I

19:34 ↗ think about 30 percent and again getting

19:36 ↗ back to the goal here the goal here is

19:39 ↗ is and I think staff felt like we were

19:43 ↗ proposing a modest requirement as an

19:47 ↗ initial requirement for the developers

19:50 ↗ to say okay look we're really serious

19:52 ↗ that we need to start using our property

19:54 ↗ within central Issaquah within the city

19:56 ↗ more efficiently right and so if based

20:00 ↗ on both the economic analysis that econ

20:03 ↗ Northwest did plus the tolerances in

20:05 ↗ projects that were happening in our city

20:08 ↗ I think we felt like you know moving 33%

20:12 ↗ for both residential and office made

20:15 ↗ sense so that's that's that's the

20:17 ↗ premise for how we built this and that's

20:19 ↗ where we should be talking about you

20:21 ↗ know do you like the thought process

20:22 ↗ that we we use to get to this place or

20:25 ↗ do you feel like there's some flaws do

20:28 ↗ you feel like you know we don't want

20:30 ↗ this to happen so one of the things Joan

20:32 ↗ about your question is so office for me

20:35 ↗ I could take all these very differently

20:38 ↗ you know retail you know so retail

20:41 ↗ structured parking really only happens

20:44 ↗ with really large retail projects right

20:46 ↗ I mean if if when when Denny's got

20:51 ↗ demolished and Corner Bakery came in you

20:54 ↗ know for us to have a parking garage

20:55 ↗ come with that small retail space would

20:57 ↗ not have made any sense but when you

20:59 ↗ talk about you know hundreds of

21:02 ↗ thousands of square feet of retail

21:03 ↗ you're talking about Bell Square

21:05 ↗ you know we push Grand Ridge Plaza to do

21:08 ↗ that structure up there they didn't feel

21:10 ↗ like that that was economically feasible

21:13 ↗ for them but they did and I think

21:15 ↗ they're glad that they did that but we

21:17 ↗ are talking smaller scale it really is

21:20 ↗ not for the suburbs and we are still a

21:22 ↗ suburb retailers in the suburbs feel

21:25 ↗ like they want to have convenience

21:27 ↗ parking right in front of their stores

21:28 ↗ and that's typically surface parked so

21:30 ↗ part of my concern as your Economic

21:35 ↗ Development Director is if we were to

21:37 ↗ put a requirement on retail I think we

21:40 ↗ would basically just most likely

21:43 ↗ stagnate any retail redevelopment in our

21:45 ↗ city and so that's one of the reasons

21:47 ↗ why the administration is not proposing

21:49 ↗ a retail component here but when you

21:52 ↗ look at office you know right now Class

21:55 ↗ A office space has structured parking

21:56 ↗ and I think what we're trying to say is

21:59 ↗ from an office perspective you know

22:01 ↗ we're not Bellevue we're not redmond our

22:03 ↗ office niche is a niche and anybody

22:07 ↗ building office here it's going to be

22:09 ↗ fairly small scale and doing it as class

22:12 ↗ a with some structured parking I don't

22:14 ↗ think is a stretch my opinion hello

22:17 ↗ your recommendation is that we

22:19 ↗ we do not change retail requirements now

22:24 ↗ but we only look at office and

22:26 ↗ residential yeah so I think I feel

22:31 ↗ comfortable looking at looking at the

22:33 ↗ econ Northwest study and then the the

22:35 ↗ meetings that we've had so far that I

22:36 ↗ don't think the 1/3 requirement is going

22:39 ↗ to inhibit any any future development

22:41 ↗ and then central is about given the

22:42 ↗ direction that land values are going so

22:44 ↗ my question so I'm going to kind of move

22:47 ↗ the conversation a little bit one is

22:49 ↗ kind of a quick one up question than to

22:51 ↗ I think I want one that I want to have

22:53 ↗ the rest of the rest of the Commission

22:54 ↗ discuss first off you made a comment

22:56 ↗ about how you want to have structured

22:57 ↗ parking because you're concerned about

22:59 ↗ the redevelopment potential of these

23:02 ↗ lives

23:02 ↗ none of these lots of but but the

23:04 ↗ redevelopment potential of these

23:05 ↗ projects is there any discussion of

23:08 ↗ having design centers dictate the type

23:10 ↗ of structured parking there's there's

23:13 ↗ been some some discussion nationally

23:14 ↗ about ensuring that structured parking

23:16 ↗ are done on flat I'm not sure the

23:20 ↗ technical term would be but that the the

23:22 ↗ parking structures are flat and not

23:23 ↗ sloped so that the particular parking

23:25 ↗ structure can be repurposed into

23:26 ↗ something other than Park you know in

23:29 ↗ the future and so I'm curious so that's

23:31 ↗ something that we've taken into account

23:32 ↗ several design standards rather than

23:35 ↗ strictly our parking standards so I'm

23:37 ↗ just going to back up one second because

23:39 ↗ we did talk about this a bit with Landon

23:41 ↗ Shore and we had a lot of conversation

23:43 ↗ internally so one of the challenges with

23:46 ↗ the moratorium work plan the six items

23:48 ↗ is they're overlapping and you're

23:51 ↗ dealing with them sequentially and so

23:56 ↗ one of the things that we liked about

23:58 ↗ the schedule for parking is that parking

24:00 ↗ has implications for almost all of the

24:03 ↗ other moratorium work plan items

24:05 ↗ especially architectural fit and urban

24:07 ↗ design as well as vertical mixed-use and

24:10 ↗ affordable housing

24:11 ↗ yeah no if that's not FSI relevant for

24:14 ↗ today we can save that for a later later

24:17 ↗ touch point so we we have certain design

24:19 ↗ standards for parking already it is also

24:23 ↗ one of the items that our consultant on

24:29 ↗ architectural fit and urban design is

24:30 ↗ looking at but I mean it's important

24:33 ↗ to recognize exactly the point that

24:34 ↗ you're making which is that the choices

24:38 ↗ that we make whether we keep structured

24:41 ↗ parking encouraged or whether we require

24:44 ↗ structured parking have design

24:46 ↗ implications and that we have to look at

24:49 ↗ that within those other items but

24:52 ↗ understanding how I think one of the big

24:55 ↗ drivers for this from within this piece

24:59 ↗ protecting in particular is are we

25:02 ↗ efficiently and effectively using our

25:04 ↗ land and so we absolutely need to think

25:08 ↗ about design but I think this piece is

25:10 ↗ probably more focused on the efficient

25:12 ↗ use of land that's fine as I think we

25:13 ↗ can say that for another conversation so

25:15 ↗ then so then my I think the more the

25:17 ↗ question that I really want to hear

25:18 ↗ discussion for the rest of the council

25:20 ↗ is on the the memo and the analysis has

25:24 ↗ all been done very much discussing how

25:26 ↗ do we have more structured parking and I

25:29 ↗ think the more relevant question is how

25:30 ↗ do we have less surface parking which I

25:34 ↗ think by asking the question the

25:35 ↗ opposite direction thank you we may get

25:37 ↗ to a slightly different policy

25:38 ↗ recommendation because I think when you

25:41 ↗ look at why we don't want surface

25:43 ↗ parking you discussed the the lack of

25:46 ↗ density in surface parking I think you

25:48 ↗ can get to that by requiring density

25:50 ↗ minimums and far minimums other than

25:54 ↗ strictly structured parking and then

25:56 ↗ have a need for structured parking

25:57 ↗ simply be implied in a particular

25:59 ↗ density minimum and I think also I don't

26:02 ↗ remember if this is this is discussed

26:04 ↗ directly in the material but in the

26:07 ↗ context of trying to evolve central

26:08 ↗ asuka from being a suburban environment

26:13 ↗ to a more urban environment is the fact

26:15 ↗ that surface parking tends to degrade

26:17 ↗ the pedestrian experience as you as you

26:20 ↗ navigate the city and so I think and I

26:22 ↗ think this this is the appropriate venue

26:24 ↗ to have to have this discussion but we

26:25 ↗ can we can maybe put this aside for

26:27 ↗ another more like the MU by I really

26:29 ↗ like to see something that as we move

26:31 ↗ towards encouraging structured parking I

26:33 ↗ would also really like to see something

26:34 ↗ that discourages certain types of

26:37 ↗ surface parking because I don't I think

26:39 ↗ if I look at a project that has surface

26:42 ↗ parking in the back of a lot that's

26:44 ↗ facing away from any price

26:46 ↗ Mary Street in a primary pedestrian

26:47 ↗ access I don't really care if its

26:49 ↗ surface structured if it's surface and

26:52 ↗ we need more density later acknowledge

26:54 ↗ be redeveloped but that surface parking

26:56 ↗ isn't taking away from the urban

26:57 ↗ character of the particular neighborhood

26:59 ↗ but I think having new developments that

27:02 ↗ have a suburban style of surface parking

27:06 ↗ I think does not contribute to the

27:08 ↗ transition from a suburban urban form

27:10 ↗ that were seeking with this type of Pro

27:14 ↗ structured parking policy so I think can

27:16 ↗ be really helpful to in addition to

27:17 ↗ requiring a certain competitive

27:19 ↗ structured parking looking to

27:20 ↗ specifically discourage certain

27:23 ↗ placements of surface parking because I

27:25 ↗ don't I don't think the problem is that

27:28 ↗ we that a new development will have

27:30 ↗ surface parking I think the problem is

27:32 ↗ that in development we'll have surface

27:33 ↗ parking where there is a large surface

27:35 ↗ lot that is between bus stop and the

27:39 ↗ front door and office building and so I

27:41 ↗ think I think if if the concern is we

27:44 ↗ want in structured parking is one more

27:45 ↗ density I think we should just have

27:47 ↗ density requirements and whether or not

27:49 ↗ they get to that density via structured

27:52 ↗ parking a structured parking or doing

27:55 ↗ parking outside or whatever I think is

27:56 ↗ kind of relevant what matters they

27:57 ↗ deliver that entity we want and if we

27:59 ↗ don't if we want structured parking

28:01 ↗ because we don't like having traditional

28:02 ↗ suburban surface Lots that are in the

28:05 ↗ front of the building we should just

28:07 ↗ simply not allow surface Lots along

28:11 ↗ primary street so we had a discussion

28:13 ↗ around the amuse I think it at a land in

28:15 ↗ charming a couple months ago where we

28:17 ↗ talked about requiring that the first

28:19 ↗ floor of buildings along a primary

28:21 ↗ material such as Gilman we simply

28:23 ↗ potentially would just simply require

28:25 ↗ that that has to be commercial retail

28:28 ↗ because that's what we want and we don't

28:29 ↗ want someone building apartment

28:31 ↗ buildings that aren't excused along

28:33 ↗ specific streets I think we can use the

28:35 ↗ same toolkit and say along particular

28:37 ↗ streets you just can't have a surface

28:39 ↗ lot that faces that Street so I think if

28:43 ↗ that if that's what we want more density

28:46 ↗ and not suburban surface Lots

28:49 ↗ I don't think simply requiring

28:51 ↗ structured parking achieves either of

28:53 ↗ those goals I think we should have a

28:55 ↗ particular policy that more directly

28:57 ↗ achieves those two goals rather than

28:59 ↗ simply trying to fill

28:59 ↗ to sign a particular structure to

29:02 ↗ non-structured parking ratio that was

29:06 ↗ kind of a long comment no that's okay I

29:08 ↗ tried to make some notes so we do have a

29:11 ↗ minimum density requirement in the urban

29:14 ↗ core we have a minimum floor area ratio

29:17 ↗ requirement in most parts of central is

29:20 ↗ cause certainly for larger properties we

29:23 ↗ have building placement requirements

29:25 ↗ that build two lines and a certain

29:28 ↗ amount of street wall required currently

29:30 ↗ which puts the buildings of the street

29:33 ↗ and the parking away from the street so

29:35 ↗ I think you know in that sense we've

29:37 ↗ addressed some of those and you know

29:40 ↗ there may be other opportunities and we

29:42 ↗ can certainly discuss that I think one

29:44 ↗ of the challenges in in with surface

29:50 ↗ parking is that it does support some of

29:52 ↗ the other things that we're trying to do

29:54 ↗ so for instance if you have a full block

29:57 ↗ development it may be difficult to get

30:00 ↗ it all in the middle of the block and

30:02 ↗ have building all the way around it I

30:04 ↗ mean in other words not pick one street

30:06 ↗ that's the loser and other streets that

30:09 ↗ are the winner foot but I think don't

30:11 ↗ you but don't you get to those and I'm

30:14 ↗ just gonna challenge you on that for

30:16 ↗ sake of discussion but don't you get to

30:17 ↗ that through all those other policies

30:19 ↗ that you just walk through that you know

30:20 ↗ we've already checked the box we have

30:22 ↗ density requirements we have street

30:25 ↗ facing my kids we're not going to join

30:27 ↗ right but have it a building face to

30:28 ↗ Street and if a developer has a lot that

30:30 ↗ they want to develop and has a density

30:32 ↗ requirement to think that they can't

30:34 ↗ meet with surface parking and they can't

30:37 ↗ put surface parking in any of the four

30:38 ↗ streets then they're going to build

30:40 ↗ structured parking and I don't I don't

30:41 ↗ see and then so I want to he responds I

30:44 ↗ don't see how having a structured

30:46 ↗ parking requirement in addition to all

30:48 ↗ those other things that we already have

30:50 ↗ I don't see how it's going to drive any

30:51 ↗ different sort of development well I

30:55 ↗ think what we've seen is we've had those

30:58 ↗ tools for three years and we aren't

31:00 ↗ quite achieving the vision that we want

31:02 ↗ and I think the other piece that I would

31:04 ↗ add and then Keith had something he

31:06 ↗ wants to say is that we're also one of

31:10 ↗ the other challenges that we're finding

31:11 ↗ is that there is a

31:13 ↗ a value placed on both streets and

31:16 ↗ greenways such as our creeks and our

31:19 ↗ parks and other parts of the green

31:22 ↗ necklace and what we're finding is that

31:25 ↗ again something gets sacrificed along

31:28 ↗ the way so it's it's not that surface

31:31 ↗ parking alone will solve that I don't

31:33 ↗ think it will but we want to add that as

31:36 ↗ another tool to try and get to the

31:39 ↗ vision because what we're finding is

31:41 ↗ that even though we have many of the

31:43 ↗ good tools that you've identified in

31:45 ↗ place we're just not getting as far as

31:47 ↗ we want to be in terms of achieving that

31:49 ↗ vision certainly so I think my takeaways

31:52 ↗ and I think we just need to strengthen

31:53 ↗ those tools have more rigorous density

31:56 ↗ requirements have more rigorous Street

31:59 ↗ facing requirements rather than trying

32:01 ↗ to get through it do parking I think

32:02 ↗ we're trying to tackle the the symptom

32:04 ↗ not not the root cause I think I think I

32:07 ↗ think this proposal is fine and I would

32:08 ↗ support it because I don't think of

32:09 ↗ prohibits any type of development we

32:11 ↗ want anyways I don't but I don't think

32:13 ↗ it's going to I don't think is going to

32:14 ↗ achieve anything I think if I think if

32:16 ↗ we want to get type of development we

32:18 ↗ want we need to be using other parts of

32:20 ↗ the toolkit and not not parking to that

32:23 ↗ because I don't I don't know I don't

32:24 ↗ think this actually gets to the issues

32:25 ↗ that that I think we've seen so far I

32:27 ↗ mean in Miami in fact I don't want to

32:30 ↗ leave you alone I completely agree that

32:32 ↗ this does not get to our goal you start

32:34 ↗ out with these two fundamental questions

32:36 ↗ I get you're wanting to focus on the

32:38 ↗ structured parking element but I feel

32:39 ↗ like we've forgotten the first question

32:41 ↗ which is how are we parking in Issaquah

32:43 ↗ and I think most people agree we have a

32:45 ↗ problem and I don't think this actually

32:46 ↗ addresses that problem I'm I really am

32:49 ↗ not understanding from the study house

32:51 ↗ staff came away saying the office and

32:53 ↗ residential should both be at 33% and if

32:56 ↗ you find that you're going to prohibit

32:57 ↗ retail between 25 and 50 let's aim low

33:00 ↗ and give it 20 but to say that retail

33:03 ↗ isn't going to have any kind of

33:04 ↗ accountability now you mentioned that

33:06 ↗ with higher density buildings that there

33:08 ↗ would be more requirement I live in know

33:09 ↗ what that is because right now I feel

33:12 ↗ like unless you're creating all

33:13 ↗ standalone retail businesses it would be

33:16 ↗ very easy to have let's say plaza 221

33:20 ↗ you give us this example we've got it on

33:22 ↗ page 32 of 45 has 57 estimated

33:26 ↗ is going to need yet has no structured

33:29 ↗ parking requirements that seems like a

33:32 ↗ problem to me and it seems like this

33:33 ↗ little loophole the developers are going

33:35 ↗ to be able to come in and say well maybe

33:37 ↗ I would have built an office but it sure

33:39 ↗ is going to be easier for me just to

33:40 ↗ brand it as retail and further down the

33:43 ↗ line depending on how we've changed our

33:45 ↗ code we're going to be able to have

33:46 ↗ someone come into a retail space but

33:49 ↗ let's say they're a dentist office and

33:50 ↗ they'll just you know replumb it and

33:52 ↗ we'll be changing these little things to

33:55 ↗ be able to have the very heart of the

33:57 ↗ issue which is retailers being able to

34:00 ↗ kind of be this vacuum that's being

34:02 ↗ created right now in this proposal I'm

34:04 ↗ not seeing how we're actually addressing

34:06 ↗ major parking issues with this so going

34:09 ↗ back to our question number one

34:10 ↗ there's no comment right now from the

34:13 ↗ staff about actually doing structured

34:16 ↗ parking for our park and ride structured

34:18 ↗ parking for we want to encourage more

34:20 ↗ walkability in Issaquah and where people

34:22 ↗ are actually going to go and park to be

34:24 ↗ able to use these retail spaces which

34:26 ↗ don't have any kind of requirement for

34:27 ↗ providing anything other than the basic

34:29 ↗ surface structures they already have so

34:32 ↗ you you alluded to a parking problem

34:34 ↗ more than once can you elaborate on what

34:36 ↗ that is because I don't know that we

34:38 ↗ have a store if you right now city staff

34:41 ↗ says that Issaquah needs to be a

34:43 ↗ mixed-use community we want to have less

34:45 ↗ cars on the road we can't build more

34:47 ↗ roads right so we need to have more ways

34:48 ↗ of how people are using those roads so

34:50 ↗ one primary way would be a Park and Ride

34:52 ↗ unfortunately our Park & Ride is

34:54 ↗ completely at max capacity by like 8:00

34:57 ↗ a.m. so even if you're somebody who

34:59 ↗ isn't using that park and ride for their

35:01 ↗ purposes of work if you want to be able

35:03 ↗ to come into Issaquah and walk to Gilman

35:06 ↗ there's nowhere for you to go right now

35:08 ↗ we haven't addressed basic issues I

35:10 ↗ don't you know we think about structures

35:12 ↗ that are for instance next to the

35:13 ↗ library are usually at max capacity the

35:16 ↗ small little places that we have for

35:17 ↗ people to be able to come park their car

35:19 ↗ go to restaurants use the retail build

35:22 ↗ up the way that we want is a quater look

35:24 ↗ there's really nowhere for people to

35:25 ↗ come in and go and we've seen

35:27 ↗ information that has shown that people

35:29 ↗ come into our community and leave

35:31 ↗ because it is bouldering peak times

35:33 ↗ Friday nights

35:34 ↗ Saturday nights we've seen that there's

35:36 ↗ an issue of people trying to be able to

35:38 ↗ use transit and

35:40 ↗ unable to because of park-and-ride being

35:41 ↗ maxed out so when we talk about parking

35:44 ↗ issues in Issaquah I appreciate this

35:46 ↗ focus on structured parking but we

35:48 ↗ haven't actually addressed parking in

35:49 ↗ Issaquah as a full package so this the

35:52 ↗ scope of this is not addressing parking

35:54 ↗ in Issaquah parking issues in Issaquah

35:56 ↗ this is about parking issues in central

35:58 ↗ is a clog right so Oldtown not

36:01 ↗ applicable

36:02 ↗ Hyland's not applicable where Tantra

36:04 ↗ Lacroix is central is equai is the focus

36:08 ↗ of this work item and I think one thing

36:10 ↗ to keep in mind is I think believe land

36:12 ↗ insurer already made a decision on how

36:14 ↗ much parking and decided to leave the

36:16 ↗ requirements as is and so what we're

36:17 ↗ discussing here today and correct me if

36:19 ↗ I'm wrong Keith is what kind of parking

36:22 ↗ not how much and so and so I think I

36:24 ↗ think Keith would like us to not get

36:26 ↗ distracted on volume of parking I think

36:29 ↗ the question is how much parking so

36:30 ↗ little hot to you I don't want talking

36:32 ↗ about that for a little bit because we

36:33 ↗ can do that so right now so so Landon

36:36 ↗ Shore basically gave a nod but at the

36:38 ↗ end of the day what comes out of Landon

36:42 ↗ Shore and what comes out of the City

36:43 ↗ Council will be a product of this

36:45 ↗ conversation as well and so let's just

36:47 ↗ let's leave that right here so what

36:49 ↗ Ferren Pierce did is they looked at

36:52 ↗ right-sized parking and they looked at

36:55 ↗ how parking was being used as atlas so

36:57 ↗ they used atlas of the case study

36:59 ↗ because that's really what generated the

37:01 ↗ issues and the moratorium item for

37:04 ↗ parking was the concern that there was

37:07 ↗ spillover parking issues from Atlas out

37:10 ↗ on the 7th into the Commons shopping

37:14 ↗ center and so fare and Pierce did a

37:16 ↗ parking study and if you live in Atlas

37:20 ↗ and you have a vehicle you get a you get

37:22 ↗ a placard for your car that says you're

37:24 ↗ a resident of Atlas so it's really easy

37:25 ↗ to tell where this people are parking

37:27 ↗ because they all have stickers right and

37:29 ↗ so what they found their conclusion was

37:32 ↗ that people are parking in sevens and

37:34 ↗ people are leaving their cars in the

37:37 ↗ Commons parking lot because they want to

37:39 ↗ not because there's not parking spaces

37:42 ↗ available within the Atlas project

37:45 ↗ itself it's preference so maybe you have

37:47 ↗ an apartment that's right there on 7th

37:50 ↗ why would I want a parking space that

37:52 ↗ might be

37:53 ↗ farther away back in the project when I

37:56 ↗ can park basically outside the door

37:58 ↗ right and so what what Ferren Pierre

38:02 ↗ said and their conclusion was people are

38:05 ↗ parking where they want to in parking

38:09 ↗ spaces that are unregulated and if the

38:11 ↗ community doesn't like that outcome then

38:14 ↗ the community needs to have a

38:15 ↗ conversation about parking regulations

38:17 ↗ whether that's you know doing a parking

38:21 ↗ zone or putting meters in or limited

38:24 ↗ term parking there's a whole group of

38:26 ↗ tools that the city can use if it

38:28 ↗ doesn't like how the free parking spaces

38:31 ↗ are being used as the city densifies

38:33 ↗ okay so that's the conclusion that the

38:36 ↗ consultant came up with in terms of was

38:39 ↗ Atlas right-size parked their conclusion

38:41 ↗ was yes based on analysis research and

38:45 ↗ field surveys on what's happening there

38:48 ↗ now just talking about Atlas I I assumed

38:53 ↗ or read or I was told that Atlas has

38:58 ↗ what three hundred and some units but

39:02 ↗ there wasn't sufficient it was like two

39:04 ↗ hundred parking places so there was a

39:06 ↗ big difference between now there was no

39:12 ↗ one you know more than one to one I had

39:17 ↗ clean said if I don't unload of it I go

39:19 ↗ up the top of my head as we try to find

39:27 ↗ that I'll go and comment I agreed Rory I

39:30 ↗ don't I don't think we have a parking

39:31 ↗ issue in central school I think if

39:34 ↗ you're looking strictly a park and rides

39:36 ↗ I think certainly we we have more demand

39:38 ↗ than we can ever possibly meet to

39:40 ↗ building parking garages but I think

39:41 ↗ when you're looking specifically at

39:42 ↗ developments within Centro Scott for

39:44 ↗ people trying to get to businesses homes

39:46 ↗ in Center as well I don't I don't think

39:48 ↗ we have a parking problem

39:48 ↗ I mean Deptford evidently from residents

39:50 ↗ that there are and I think so I think

39:52 ↗ that we have a lack of conveniently

39:55 ↗ available parking which is a different

39:57 ↗ problem than a lack of parking period

40:00 ↗ and so I think Keith is right that I

40:02 ↗ would much rather see a discussion

40:05 ↗ around doing

40:06 ↗ need to have timed parking do we need to

40:07 ↗ have residential permit zones we need to

40:09 ↗ have paid parking i I don't III when I

40:12 ↗ hear a discussion at that mention of

40:14 ↗ tools we can have the city is actually

40:16 ↗ not a discussion that's been brought up

40:17 ↗ but I do appreciate you talking about

40:19 ↗ the discussion that you think kids wants

40:20 ↗ to have sure well so I didn't I didn't

40:22 ↗ think I didn't think that that we wanted

40:24 ↗ to have a discussion here today about

40:25 ↗ whether we wanted to charge for parking

40:27 ↗ whether or not we wanted it moved up the

40:29 ↗ parking minimums I didn't think either

40:30 ↗ of those don't you to just kind of move

40:33 ↗ on the discussion at some point in time

40:36 ↗ would the city consider looking more

40:40 ↗ specifically at parking in the central

40:43 ↗ area err in a central area downtown area

40:46 ↗ is that on the books to do so what the

40:50 ↗ council said when we came back with our

40:53 ↗ consultants not the council's land in

40:57 ↗ short committee was that the kinds of

41:01 ↗ control devices to control or methods to

41:04 ↗ control use of on street parking they

41:07 ↗ were very interested in that but they

41:09 ↗ did not want scope creep and so they

41:11 ↗ asked us to track this and bring it back

41:15 ↗ as an item next year but they really

41:18 ↗ wanted the moratorium items to stay

41:20 ↗ closely hewing closely to the topics

41:25 ↗ that had been specified so because

41:28 ↗ Farren peers had done some research

41:30 ↗ we've asked them to prepare a memo to

41:32 ↗ summarize that so we have that to use

41:34 ↗ next year but we aren't addressing that

41:37 ↗ at this time then just to be clear and

41:40 ↗ because you set downtown I don't know if

41:42 ↗ you meant downtown so there is parking

41:45 ↗ issues downtown and we know that people

41:49 ↗ use the downtown parking spaces as Park

41:52 ↗ & Ride

41:53 ↗ because the that bus stop right across

41:56 ↗ the street for the 554 is busy from

41:58 ↗ people who leave their cars in downtown

42:01 ↗ you mean old old camp where we are right

42:03 ↗ now downtown old town same thing for me

42:05 ↗ so I want to make sure if we're talking

42:07 ↗ in Old Town there is parking concern on

42:10 ↗ Old Town and the council has asked staff

42:15 ↗ I believe it's due next year to come

42:18 ↗ back to the council

42:20 ↗ with an assessment of how to add parking

42:24 ↗ spaces to Old Town so Old Town's its own

42:27 ↗ parking little quandary but for central

42:30 ↗ is a quad this is what this piece was

42:34 ↗ meant to focus on so and then to answer

42:38 ↗ Joan's question Atlas's park at one

42:41 ↗ point two stalls per unit and what just

42:46 ↗ to unpack Keith's comment about right

42:49 ↗ sized parking I just want to many of you

42:51 ↗ may not know what that is so in 2012

42:54 ↗ King County undertook a study of

42:58 ↗ reviewing multifamily throughout the

43:00 ↗ county and said how much parking is

43:03 ↗ being provided and how much parking is

43:05 ↗ being used because there was a concern

43:07 ↗ that we may be over parking thinking

43:12 ↗ that that's what we need and as just on

43:15 ↗ a countywide basis what they found was

43:17 ↗ that it was generally parked at one

43:19 ↗ point six stalls per unit and it was

43:22 ↗ being used at one point two stalls per

43:25 ↗ unit so I'm sorry what do you think I

43:28 ↗ can I ask you a question a question so

43:30 ↗ you said one point two is that one point

43:33 ↗ to a sign or unassigned because when you

43:36 ↗ when you take one point two and you have

43:38 ↗ I have six cars I may not be there but

43:41 ↗ nobody else can use it so when you use a

43:44 ↗ number like one point two you have to

43:46 ↗ know whether they're doing assigned or

43:48 ↗ unassigned and I suspect it's assigned

43:50 ↗ because that's why you're getting the

43:51 ↗ overflow into the grocery store parking

43:55 ↗ lot

43:56 ↗ what is something one of the things that

43:57 ↗ I saw a NAPA that really concerned me

43:59 ↗ with the smaller units had like point

44:02 ↗ seven-five in that two years Aquash

44:03 ↗ standard it's not a full parking space

44:05 ↗ or it was yeah I think it was one point

44:08 ↗ is 0.75 is the standard I mean that's

44:11 ↗ that's not something you can implement

44:13 ↗ right because you cannot have 0.75 of a

44:16 ↗ car it works on an average it doesn't

44:18 ↗ work when you're trying to implement it

44:21 ↗ so that was that that's the concern and

44:24 ↗ so is is it assigned or unassigned when

44:27 ↗ you will talk about Atlas it's both so

44:31 ↗ they have assigned and

44:34 ↗ and they I think the point about the

44:37 ↗ hangtags is it does identify how many

44:41 ↗ cars there there are certain

44:43 ↗ requirements that they have I think that

44:47 ↗ what they're seeing and part of the

44:49 ↗ reason that and we've been seeing this

44:51 ↗ at its core islands is that the amount

44:53 ↗ of cars that people have are dropping

44:56 ↗ and it may not be you don't agree no I

45:02 ↗ don't

45:02 ↗ okay well the studies are very very

45:05 ↗ clear that with Millennials and that's

45:07 ↗ the group that is more likely to rent

45:09 ↗ those units than boomers or Gen X but

45:15 ↗ with Millennials they are not owning

45:18 ↗ cars at the same rate they are relying

45:19 ↗ on transit and alternative

45:21 ↗ transportation and uber and other

45:24 ↗ elements other methods than owning cars

45:27 ↗ or owning multiple cars they may own one

45:29 ↗ car and not multiple cars why Green

45:33 ↗ Seattle where there's good

45:35 ↗ transportation I don't agree in the

45:37 ↗ suburbs because I don't think the

45:38 ↗ transportation is good enough but but

45:40 ↗ that's I mean I I'm a data person so

45:42 ↗ you'd have to show me data to show it

45:44 ↗ tell me whether that's that's one way or

45:47 ↗ the other but I also wanted to make a

45:50 ↗ comment about office residential and

45:52 ↗ retail the fact that you'll have enjoy

45:54 ↗ said some of this so did a j1 is the

45:57 ↗ growth that the fact that you know not

45:59 ↗ there's not a standard and being and

46:02 ↗ actually building that into the plan and

46:05 ↗ figuring out you know what is this going

46:07 ↗ to look like five years from now is very

46:10 ↗ concerning to me the other part is that

46:12 ↗ office residential and retail are not

46:14 ↗ independent in a city like a sofa and so

46:17 ↗ you have standards on too and you have a

46:18 ↗ third and there's you know there's all

46:21 ↗ of a sudden you know that there's

46:23 ↗ overflow from one into the other and

46:25 ↗ it's it's just a mess so I'm concerned

46:29 ↗ about the fact that you have on one two

46:31 ↗ and not on the third and on the fact

46:33 ↗ that growth is not being taken care of

46:36 ↗ here

46:37 ↗ so I'm I'm like to hear more about your

46:41 ↗ concern about how they relate to one

46:43 ↗ another I mean when we when we decide

46:47 ↗ how much parking is required which would

46:50 ↗ be you know is based on a table that's

46:52 ↗ related to the uses we would identify

46:55 ↗ how much parking can is required to be

47:01 ↗ in a structure which would be related to

47:03 ↗ either the retail or the office use it

47:06 ↗ is true that they may choose to

47:09 ↗ implement that in a variety of ways I

47:12 ↗ don't know that that makes it a mess

47:14 ↗ that that means that we have implemented

47:21 ↗ the uses the way that we intended to I'm

47:27 ↗ not and maybe I'm not tracking the

47:28 ↗ concern that your identity I think maybe

47:30 ↗ it's point of clarification

47:32 ↗ nothing proposed today changes the total

47:35 ↗ amount of parking as required of a

47:37 ↗ retail development correct that's right

47:39 ↗ so you're asking us is actually to

47:42 ↗ change parking limits for residential no

47:49 ↗ parking parking is percentages of

47:51 ↗ structured a structured versus

47:53 ↗ unstructured right right if not it's how

47:57 ↗ your parking not the amount of parking

47:59 ↗ that you're required to provide okay so

48:03 ↗ let me ask you a question we've looked

48:05 ↗ for more mixed-use development in the

48:08 ↗ centralist qua area and yet these

48:11 ↗ proposed requirements for structured

48:14 ↗ parking are split into office

48:17 ↗ residential and retail what do you do

48:20 ↗ with the situation that is mixed-use

48:24 ↗ retail and residential or retail and

48:27 ↗ office particularly if you are proposing

48:31 ↗ no structured parking requirement for

48:34 ↗ retail so just to make my brain not hurt

48:41 ↗ I'm going to say that if just to take an

48:44 ↗ example if you had 50 retail stalls

48:48 ↗ required for the retail 50 parking

48:52 ↗ stalls required for the retail and 50

48:54 ↗ parking stalls required for the

48:57 ↗ residential we would have

49:01 ↗ you know 15 stalls that were required

49:03 ↗ for the residential that would have to

49:08 ↗ be in structured parking and so we would

49:11 ↗ look for that now the reality is that

49:14 ↗ they probably would choose to do some

49:17 ↗ for the retail as well because that's

49:20 ↗ the kind of that's the way projects get

49:23 ↗ built is eco Northwest points out

49:25 ↗ frequently you're building a whole floor

49:28 ↗ structured parking not a half floor

49:30 ↗ structured parking so that's why we set

49:34 ↗ a relatively what we consider a

49:36 ↗ relatively conservative standard because

49:39 ↗ we want to push the market establish the

49:44 ↗ vision but we don't want to have

49:48 ↗ negative consequences by putting it at a

49:51 ↗ higher level than the market that we

49:54 ↗ feel the market can so I think that's a

49:55 ↗ good point for all of us to make sure

49:57 ↗ that we get into our brains structured

50:01 ↗ parking has to happen in floor level

50:04 ↗ amounts so even if there is a

50:07 ↗ requirement of 33% if one floor is going

50:12 ↗ to end up getting you 40% they're going

50:15 ↗ to build at that level so I think that's

50:18 ↗ important and it's also important if

50:20 ↗ we're looking at kind of those smaller

50:23 ↗ office buildings around the 5,000 square

50:27 ↗ foot mark which was listed here as kind

50:30 ↗ of the proposed line is that if that

50:34 ↗ 5,000 square foot office building

50:38 ↗ requires 10 to 15 total parking slots

50:42 ↗ they're still going to have to build a

50:44 ↗ structured parking that would probably

50:47 ↗ cover most if not all of those as well

50:52 ↗ that's it's not always true I think it

50:54 ↗ depends on the method that you park it

50:57 ↗ built built under counts a structured

51:00 ↗ correct right so under building which it

51:03 ↗ to take your example Lindsay I think is

51:05 ↗ a is a likely one and we are seeing this

51:09 ↗ in some of the residential projects

51:11 ↗ where they have say townhouse

51:14 ↗ at the street and then behind that is

51:18 ↗ tuck what is under building parking and

51:20 ↗ then the residence is above that and so

51:23 ↗ I'm there's not that there's not a cost

51:26 ↗ or an implicit structural implication

51:28 ↗ for that but that is different than

51:30 ↗ buildings say a hole for underground as

51:34 ↗ we've seen on some slope sites we have

51:37 ↗ seen Gateway seniors a residential

51:40 ↗ project built half a floor of under

51:45 ↗ building parking where it's actually you

51:47 ↗ know essentially underground and the

51:49 ↗ other half is a pool and an exercise

51:52 ↗ room you know so they found a way to do

51:55 ↗ half and half so I mean that's one of

51:58 ↗ the challenges is that there are

51:59 ↗ different structural construction types

52:02 ↗ and that's another reason that we didn't

52:04 ↗ set it particularly high because we

52:07 ↗ aren't trying to get it so fine-grain

52:09 ↗ that if you build with this construction

52:12 ↗ type you have this percentage and if you

52:14 ↗ build with another you have a higher or

52:15 ↗ lower percentage so so if I look at the

52:20 ↗ question and I'm shifting topic side so

52:23 ↗ I like the questions on it so number two

52:25 ↗ structure parking you know a ensure land

52:28 ↗ is use more efficiently be discourage

52:29 ↗ the continuation of single-story surface

52:31 ↗ parking suburban development so a

52:33 ↗ specific goal is to not have a little

52:35 ↗ you know one building one store with you

52:39 ↗ know a little service parking lot around

52:40 ↗ we specifically do not want that to

52:41 ↗ happen so that means that we generally

52:44 ↗ do not want freestanding retail is that

52:49 ↗ is that that's fair we don't want a

52:51 ↗ retail building surrounded by service

52:52 ↗ parking lot that is not the building

52:54 ↗ form that we're trying to evolve into I

52:57 ↗ think that's true so so well do we even

53:01 ↗ want retail of it be built by itself

53:04 ↗ well we don't isn't the whole point of

53:06 ↗ then that the VM you thrust is to always

53:08 ↗ every to always mix with the office or

53:10 ↗ residential office or well I think it

53:13 ↗ had ordered that MN FM we're continuing

53:16 ↗ to study V mu I think the V mu is

53:19 ↗ vertical mixed juice just to make sure

53:22 ↗ know everyone's in on the lingo I think

53:26 ↗ one of the things that you see with

53:28 ↗ vertical

53:28 ↗ mixed-use is that our market isn't quite

53:32 ↗ ready for it but even if it was

53:35 ↗ absolutely roaring for it it's unlikely

53:37 ↗ that you're going to have it on every

53:39 ↗ street everywhere you would tend to I

53:43 ↗ mean even in Seattle where they've done

53:44 ↗ that they had a lot of empty storefronts

53:46 ↗ for a long time now the market catches

53:49 ↗ up when you get a certain amount of

53:50 ↗ density and those infill I don't think

53:53 ↗ we're quite at that point yet and so

53:56 ↗ probably more appropriately where we're

53:59 ↗ targeting certain areas for requiring

54:03 ↗ vertical mixed-use based on a number of

54:06 ↗ factors which were identifying how does

54:09 ↗ it but the how does that interplay with

54:11 ↗ retail not having structured I guess I

54:14 ↗ mean I'm thinking out loud here

54:15 ↗ well I I guess I'm focused I'm focused

54:17 ↗ on on the piece which I think that we

54:22 ↗ did not find a ready answer to but the

54:25 ↗ piece about the single-story retail I

54:27 ↗ think that part of our the reason I'm

54:30 ↗ talking about vertical mix juice is that

54:32 ↗ is part of a multi-story building and as

54:36 ↗ a preference or a requirement so we're

54:39 ↗ not requiring multi-story buildings

54:43 ↗ there are certainly implications land

54:45 ↗ values structured parking minimum

54:48 ↗ densities and things that may push

54:50 ↗ people to that but we I think especially

54:53 ↗ because we feel that the retail market

54:55 ↗ though strong here for new rebuilding of

54:59 ↗ it unless you have a larger piece of

55:01 ↗ property that or you're doing a full or

55:04 ↗ sizable redevelopment you're just not

55:06 ↗ going to be able to incorporate

55:08 ↗ structured parking and we're not willing

55:11 ↗ to risk that we would not get new

55:14 ↗ businesses in on a pad because we've

55:18 ↗ required structured parking for all

55:20 ↗ retail uses I've got a couple strategic

55:24 ↗ questions here then kind of if you can

55:26 ↗ follow along thinking about the urban

55:29 ↗ core when we go higher density I'm

55:32 ↗ thinking two or three hundred units a

55:34 ↗ building we are not changing the parking

55:39 ↗ requirements in terms of volume we're

55:42 ↗ saying that there's going to be less

55:44 ↗ structured parking therefore there's

55:46 ↗ going to be more surface parking is that

55:49 ↗ the argument that I'm hearing no so we

55:54 ↗ we are we are ensuring that some portion

55:58 ↗ of the parking for residential projects

56:02 ↗ will be structured we are not changing

56:04 ↗ the requirements for how much parking is

56:07 ↗ required okay clear the requirement now

56:10 ↗ is zero percent for zero structured is

56:13 ↗ required right now for residential for

56:16 ↗ everything okay so when we are looking

56:19 ↗ at this argument we're saying we're

56:22 ↗ going to increase structured parking

56:24 ↗ requirements for high-density

56:27 ↗ residential for any residential okay so

56:31 ↗ a higher the structured number those

56:35 ↗ fewer surface stalls we're going to have

56:38 ↗ which means we're going to have your

56:40 ↗ cars parked on street surfaces and less

56:46 ↗ land being consumed by single stalls not

56:51 ↗ many not necessarily and the percentage

56:55 ↗ of the percentage of required parking

57:00 ↗ that has to be in a structure is the

57:01 ↗ same no matter the size of the project

57:04 ↗ obviously a bigger project has more

57:07 ↗ parking required so it's going to have

57:09 ↗ more parking in a structure the part

57:11 ↗ that Keith was talking about earlier in

57:14 ↗ terms of people using on street parking

57:17 ↗ is about human nature which is that

57:20 ↗ people like to park where it's

57:21 ↗ convenient but some people will park

57:24 ↗ where it's cheap and some people will

57:26 ↗ chart Park where will choose to pay for

57:29 ↗ parking because they like to have a

57:31 ↗ guaranteed covered parking space those

57:34 ↗ are the nature of you know the two kind

57:37 ↗ of parking natures that there are out

57:39 ↗ there

57:39 ↗ so in this unit this imaginary unit

57:42 ↗ hypothetical that's 400 units in size

57:47 ↗ we're saying we're going to lower the

57:50 ↗ structure requirement there is no

57:52 ↗ structured requirement okay so we're not

57:55 ↗ we're not

57:56 ↗ Lauren what I've seen is 43% and 33% no

58:00 ↗ that's that's what that's what's a habit

58:02 ↗ the numbers up here at the top are what

58:05 ↗ we found in the projects that we

58:07 ↗ surveyed being without earth so those

58:09 ↗ are just what we're finding as a way of

58:12 ↗ saying well if we look at what's being

58:14 ↗ built in Issaquah how does that compare

58:17 ↗ to the numbers that eco Northwest was

58:20 ↗ finding in their analysis so we are not

58:24 ↗ we are setting it we're setting it

58:27 ↗ closer to the median than the average

58:30 ↗ but we are not lowering our requirement

58:34 ↗ we are actually setting a requirement

58:37 ↗ that doesn't exist currently we're

58:39 ↗ establishing a structure requirement for

58:42 ↗ residential land and yet where one is

58:44 ↗ absent today yeah right so that's the

58:47 ↗ part I was really confused about so I'm

58:48 ↗ thinking why are we reducing it but

58:50 ↗ we're not really doing it we're actually

58:52 ↗ increasing that we're creating that

58:54 ↗ space yeah okay and I'm still failing to

58:58 ↗ understand how staff believes the office

59:00 ↗ and residential knee should be the exact

59:01 ↗ same percentage for structured parking

59:04 ↗ yeah I I wouldn't I would be finding all

59:07 ↗ the way up to hundred percent for office

59:09 ↗ I don't I mean Kiki do you keep teeth is

59:12 ↗ admiring my ambition I'm not sure I

59:16 ↗ would agree with that that's his

59:17 ↗ characterization at that Sara but I

59:20 ↗ would say fear III I think you guys

59:22 ↗ could be could be more aggressive on on

59:24 ↗ office I think we could be more

59:26 ↗ aggressive on both I mean I think so so

59:29 ↗ this is where this is the kind of

59:30 ↗ conversation I wanted to have with you

59:32 ↗ guys it's like so we have some data

59:34 ↗ points and we know what we're getting

59:37 ↗ without any requirement right this is

59:40 ↗ just what the market is bearing right

59:42 ↗ now based on preferences of who's

59:45 ↗ actually in our community and so the

59:47 ↗ question is okay how far do we want to

59:50 ↗ push this bar without and again we're

59:55 ↗ trying to avoid this unintended

59:57 ↗ consequences on the bottom of the screen

59:59 ↗ right because at some point we could say

1:00:01 ↗ let's make it a hundred now I actually

1:00:03 ↗ think that we could push office to a

1:00:06 ↗ hundred because I actually think that

1:00:08 ↗ besides the small office space

1:00:10 ↗ which tend to be like residential

1:00:12 ↗ conversions and other things like that

1:00:14 ↗ anybody who's going to build a new

1:00:16 ↗ office building in Issaquah it's going

1:00:18 ↗ to be class a space they're going to

1:00:19 ↗ expect it to have structured parking and

1:00:21 ↗ so having either a hundred percent or

1:00:23 ↗ you know sometimes having some surface

1:00:26 ↗ parking for either for show um you know

1:00:28 ↗ couriers and deliveries and drop-offs

1:00:30 ↗ all that kind of stuff is kind of norm

1:00:32 ↗ but so it doesn't freak me out but

1:00:35 ↗ that's pushing you know I think what we

1:00:38 ↗ the approach we took was let's go 33%

1:00:41 ↗ see what happens and then if the market

1:00:43 ↗ is is still responding well and people

1:00:47 ↗ are still wanting to develop in central

1:00:49 ↗ Issaquah then maybe we move it to 66%

1:00:51 ↗ right and so you can you know there's

1:00:54 ↗ different approaches here one is let's

1:00:56 ↗ go to where we think the market

1:00:58 ↗ tolerance can accept it or let's nudge

1:01:00 ↗ your way that way so two key tiers the

1:01:03 ↗ question is is is this is it on the

1:01:06 ↗ table to provide solutions to to a

1:01:12 ↗ structured parking disrupted parking for

1:01:15 ↗ different businesses and and here's the

1:01:16 ↗ example so we don't want to disadvantage

1:01:18 ↗ small businesses right in any way so you

1:01:21 ↗ know city city garages is the way to

1:01:24 ↗ have structured parking and and

1:01:26 ↗ accomplish a goal for smaller businesses

1:01:29 ↗ where they they have the structured

1:01:31 ↗ parking but they don't they don't have

1:01:33 ↗ to build something right right and so

1:01:35 ↗ they may have a small office they would

1:01:37 ↗ qualify as office space right if it was

1:01:40 ↗ even if it's a small office and they

1:01:41 ↗ don't have the space to have parking so

1:01:44 ↗ where so is there is it on the table to

1:01:46 ↗ have the you know city create this

1:01:49 ↗ structured parking and then have it cost

1:01:52 ↗ it out across a bunch of business can we

1:01:54 ↗ talk about parking benefit districts and

1:01:56 ↗ I think if there's there are two terms

1:01:58 ↗ use parking benefit districts and surely

1:02:00 ↗ parking your local improvement to staff

1:02:02 ↗ thank you can we talk about this guy I

1:02:05 ↗ do think it's especially if we want to

1:02:06 ↗ go more aggressive than 33% I do think

1:02:10 ↗ we would also want to at the same time

1:02:11 ↗ discuss those does the staff support

1:02:15 ↗ lids it was it was recommended we pay

1:02:18 ↗ for it would be paper then did it show

1:02:21 ↗ up in the staff part of the docto it

1:02:23 ↗ doesn't know

1:02:24 ↗ no it was an equal Northwest how to send

1:02:26 ↗ the staff support a Winslet where where

1:02:28 ↗ are we on that well so I think I think

1:02:30 ↗ so local Improvement District has to be

1:02:34 ↗ approved by the property owners in the

1:02:37 ↗ local Improvement District area I

1:02:39 ↗ believe that's actually for the for the

1:02:41 ↗ parking business improvement areas the

1:02:43 ↗ bids actually talks about being a

1:02:45 ↗ financing tool that's actually by a

1:02:47 ↗ legislative body yes but you still have

1:02:50 ↗ to have agreement of a certain

1:02:52 ↗ percentage of writers so the city build

1:02:54 ↗ bit so party doesn't build it does that

1:02:56 ↗ actually says that the city the

1:02:58 ↗ improvements that we don't construct

1:02:59 ↗ them we just come up with the money so I

1:03:03 ↗ don't know what it's saying because I

1:03:04 ↗ don't have it in front of me the way a

1:03:05 ↗ local Improvement District word is the

1:03:09 ↗ property owners agree to tax themselves

1:03:10 ↗ the city builds the improvement on

1:03:13 ↗ behalf of those property owners that's

1:03:16 ↗ how an L ID works

1:03:19 ↗ we haven't do we have any we've done a

1:03:21 ↗ lot yes and how's that success rate been

1:03:23 ↗ can we talk about that well there are

1:03:25 ↗ things like street improvements like

1:03:27 ↗ specifically regarding to parking no

1:03:30 ↗ we're not done how is that discussed

1:03:33 ↗ doing that have what how what's that

1:03:35 ↗ audition on not in central is across

1:03:37 ↗ well and I think haven't discussed it at

1:03:39 ↗ all is outreach telling me I said not in

1:03:41 ↗ central Issaquah House staff has not

1:03:42 ↗ described as discussed doing a lids in

1:03:44 ↗ central Issaquah we have not discussed

1:03:47 ↗ doing a local Improvement District for

1:03:49 ↗ parking in central Issaquah and why is

1:03:51 ↗ that why it has a big business because

1:03:53 ↗ we don't think that's the right solution

1:03:54 ↗ right can you talk more about that why

1:03:57 ↗ is that not a good solution because we

1:03:59 ↗ don't think we have a parking problem in

1:04:01 ↗ central Issaquah well so I'm going to

1:04:05 ↗ take a different tact which is that we

1:04:09 ↗ encourage parking districts okay which

1:04:13 ↗ is is a less formal I mean that isn't

1:04:17 ↗ necessarily a building a parking garage

1:04:20 ↗ although it could be one of the

1:04:23 ↗ challenges is when you're talking about

1:04:25 ↗ multiple property owners who may have

1:04:27 ↗ completely different redevelopment

1:04:29 ↗ schedules and needs how do we bring all

1:04:33 ↗ those people together there

1:04:36 ↗ a work program it's directed by the

1:04:38 ↗ council to develop those kinds of

1:04:42 ↗ districts and to go out and lobby

1:04:44 ↗ property owners and educate them and try

1:04:47 ↗ and develop that but I think that that

1:04:49 ↗ is is not something that you can do

1:04:53 ↗ without quite a bit of effort so it's

1:04:56 ↗ that doesn't negate what we're proposing

1:04:59 ↗ doesn't negate that that could happen

1:05:01 ↗ that could be the next step ask because

1:05:05 ↗ every three year well every year as

1:05:07 ↗ Jennifer painfully knows we have to

1:05:09 ↗ prepare a report for the council on the

1:05:12 ↗ implementation of central Issaquah and

1:05:14 ↗ then there's the three-year more

1:05:16 ↗ in-depth report that we do we could

1:05:20 ↗ after three years say okay we want to

1:05:23 ↗ move that this further and faster and

1:05:25 ↗ the way we're going to do it is by

1:05:27 ↗ trying to implement one of one of these

1:05:29 ↗ various kinds of districts or LEDs but

1:05:31 ↗ that isn't the place where we are right

1:05:34 ↗ now which is to make structured parking

1:05:37 ↗ happen by the action of the city in

1:05:40 ↗ terms of financing and building it so so

1:05:44 ↗ would you say a lid or a parking benefit

1:05:46 ↗ district is a toolkit to increase the

1:05:49 ↗ total number of parking spots but not

1:05:51 ↗ really good toolkit to change the type

1:05:53 ↗ of parking provider I think that I think

1:05:55 ↗ it I don't know that that's necessarily

1:05:56 ↗ true I just think it requires a love it

1:06:02 ↗ places it at a priority of staff time

1:06:05 ↗ there's a lot of like a lot of legwork

1:06:07 ↗ right and I'm not saying that badge is

1:06:09 ↗ not what we've been asked to do at this

1:06:11 ↗ point okay so it's so you would use it

1:06:14 ↗ more as an economic development tool

1:06:15 ↗ frankly I mean so let's assume that we

1:06:18 ↗ want to redevelop central Issaquah and

1:06:21 ↗ we want to build a bunch of parking

1:06:24 ↗ spaces so that that could then

1:06:25 ↗ facilitate property owners to redevelop

1:06:28 ↗ and not have to provide those spaces

1:06:30 ↗ they could buy into a garage basically

1:06:32 ↗ and so that's one way to actually incent

1:06:36 ↗ redevelopment to happen is to actually

1:06:39 ↗ build the infrastructure that makes it

1:06:41 ↗ easier for those properties to redevelop

1:06:42 ↗ but because we believe that we can we

1:06:48 ↗ can privately fund a substantial amount

1:06:50 ↗ of

1:06:50 ↗ structured parking we don't need a lid

1:06:53 ↗ because the because of these these

1:06:56 ↗ thresholds are we should should be able

1:06:57 ↗ to be easily met by existing or upcoming

1:06:59 ↗ development we're taking one small step

1:07:03 ↗ towards the vision in terms of more

1:07:09 ↗ urban form in favor

1:07:11 ↗ thank you sorry wall leanings bad so

1:07:17 ↗ we're taking one small step towards a

1:07:20 ↗ the more urban form and the wiser use of

1:07:23 ↗ our or more efficient use of our land

1:07:25 ↗ that then I think that there this is the

1:07:29 ↗ first bite at a larger Apple which may

1:07:31 ↗ very well include all the tools that

1:07:32 ↗ you're bringing up we're just not at

1:07:34 ↗ that point yet

1:07:36 ↗ so can I then direct the question toward

1:07:40 ↗ some of those other ideas because eco

1:07:43 ↗ Northwest in their their presentation

1:07:47 ↗ here goes through case studies for the

1:07:50 ↗ city of Portland and the City of Redmond

1:07:53 ↗ and talks about other ways to

1:07:56 ↗ incentivize structured parking and those

1:07:59 ↗ include allowing an additional story for

1:08:03 ↗ the construction they include a density

1:08:09 ↗ bonus or a floor area ratio bonus win

1:08:14 ↗ and these are on pages 24 of 51 and 25

1:08:19 ↗ of 51 right but he's falling through

1:08:21 ↗ pages 12 and 13 of the econ record yep

1:08:24 ↗ so what in addition to potentially

1:08:29 ↗ requiring and putting these things in

1:08:32 ↗ place are we considering any of these

1:08:34 ↗ other ideas around incentivizing that

1:08:37 ↗ use through density bonuses floor area

1:08:39 ↗ ratios any of those so we have two may

1:08:45 ↗ be modest ones that are already in place

1:08:47 ↗ well once not so modest I think they

1:08:49 ↗ were very happy to see that with the

1:08:53 ↗ minimum floor area ratio we do not count

1:08:56 ↗ structured parking to that which is a

1:08:59 ↗ pretty important incentive the other

1:09:03 ↗ modest one that we do is if you have

1:09:06 ↗ under building parking we allow you to

1:09:08 ↗ have increased height so it's it's not a

1:09:10 ↗ significant height increase it's about

1:09:12 ↗ six feet but it does facilitate doing

1:09:18 ↗ under building or structured parking do

1:09:21 ↗ we have any sense of how successful

1:09:24 ↗ those have been any commentary from

1:09:26 ↗ developers whether or not that

1:09:28 ↗ incentivized this type of development

1:09:32 ↗ and whether taking that further in any

1:09:35 ↗ of these ways would continue to

1:09:37 ↗ incentivize that type of behavior I

1:09:42 ↗ definitely I I don't I don't know

1:09:45 ↗ directly I know that they were very

1:09:48 ↗ happy to get the extra height I don't

1:09:50 ↗ know if that was say a tipping point how

1:09:54 ↗ much of an incentive it was in their

1:09:57 ↗ decision making because there are a

1:09:58 ↗ number of factors that come into play I

1:10:01 ↗ would love for the the PCC we the PPC or

1:10:05 ↗ PC I went son if you want groceries or

1:10:09 ↗ policy I'll stop by the PCC afterwards

1:10:13 ↗ so III would love to see to come with an

1:10:19 ↗ increase in required structure parking

1:10:21 ↗ and additional height at six feet seems

1:10:24 ↗ a little low I mean it's certainly

1:10:26 ↗ better than nothing but III would love

1:10:28 ↗ to recommend to Landon Shore and a

1:10:30 ↗ council that if we're going to inquiry

1:10:32 ↗ structured parking no give them an extra

1:10:35 ↗ six feet or something like that I think

1:10:37 ↗ I think if we're going to make one one

1:10:40 ↗ small step in this direction let's also

1:10:41 ↗ make another small step and another and

1:10:45 ↗ another another tool that we have so AJ

1:10:48 ↗ where you could have proposed like a

1:10:49 ↗ threshold like fifty like so at what

1:10:52 ↗ percent so so right now if we're going

1:10:55 ↗ to mandate thirty three and they go to

1:10:57 ↗ what do they now get that bonus of

1:11:01 ↗ whatever that might be if it's

1:11:02 ↗ additional height or density or whatever

1:11:05 ↗ that to a question I was because you

1:11:07 ↗ need to have that you need to actually

1:11:08 ↗ figure that part out right so if you

1:11:10 ↗ want them to do one can I inject for

1:11:13 ↗ just a moment

1:11:14 ↗ if one do one do one one stall and one

1:11:17 ↗ structured stalling no I was I was

1:11:20 ↗ assuming that they would be having to

1:11:21 ↗ build 33% if you're so if you're so

1:11:25 ↗ you're suggesting that if they do what

1:11:29 ↗ they're required to do that they get

1:11:31 ↗ extra height you know but I guess in

1:11:33 ↗ that case you're basically just raising

1:11:34 ↗ height limits then yes if they require

1:11:36 ↗ 33% and then they achieve or they do to

1:11:40 ↗ impose a sticker percent then you give

1:11:43 ↗ them a good point of those things that

1:11:45 ↗ way ya know and I would say yeah if you

1:11:47 ↗ if we're gonna require 33% and staff

1:11:50 ↗ doesn't want to say require 50% because

1:11:52 ↗ there it is too aggressive let's require

1:11:53 ↗ 33% and then if you hit 50% or maybe for

1:11:58 ↗ office 80% sounds like that's um I mean

1:12:00 ↗ these are these are arbitrary but you

1:12:02 ↗ know have have have have a requirement

1:12:05 ↗ that we feel like isn't going to

1:12:06 ↗ prohibit any project from happening but

1:12:08 ↗ then on what are more aspirational

1:12:09 ↗ structure requirement is let's have more

1:12:11 ↗ aggressive benefits and it sounds like

1:12:13 ↗ height limit is the one since we're

1:12:15 ↗ already at zero FA are I think having

1:12:18 ↗ higher height maybe maybe increasing the

1:12:21 ↗ total number of FA are but I don't know

1:12:22 ↗ if the council have an appetite for that

1:12:23 ↗ but well maybe give them an extra maybe

1:12:26 ↗ give them an extra six feet if we hit

1:12:27 ↗ kind of what our aspirational structure

1:12:29 ↗ parking so just to make sure I'm

1:12:30 ↗ tracking what you're saying when you say

1:12:32 ↗ an extra six feet do you mean on top of

1:12:34 ↗ the six feet they order to get now so

1:12:36 ↗ we're at a total of twelve correct okay

1:12:38 ↗ I just wanted to make sure we weren't

1:12:40 ↗ getting half story

1:12:43 ↗ and then so one of the things that's a

1:12:47 ↗ little bit of a challenge right now is

1:12:49 ↗ we have a density bonus program that if

1:12:52 ↗ you go over that height or over a

1:12:56 ↗ certain density then you have to either

1:12:58 ↗ pay or provide open space or do

1:13:00 ↗ affordable housing depending on your

1:13:03 ↗ land juice so the question is are we a I

1:13:10 ↗ would say I would say though I would say

1:13:12 ↗ those would not change because if you if

1:13:14 ↗ you're giving them that extra six feet

1:13:15 ↗ but they don't want to pay into open

1:13:18 ↗ space they just don't take advantage of

1:13:20 ↗ the extra six feet okay so then we're

1:13:22 ↗ not really giving them anything okay

1:13:24 ↗ that's okay so I think if you were going

1:13:27 ↗ to give the

1:13:27 ↗ the extra 12 I know

1:13:38 ↗ package might be something they delayed

1:13:44 ↗ right Boyd might repeat after my second

1:13:48 ↗ yeah uh-huh

1:13:49 ↗ yes I'm the puppet over here so the

1:13:56 ↗ existing code has this density bonus

1:13:58 ↗ provision and the we had reckoned staff

1:14:01 ↗ had recommended some changes to that

1:14:03 ↗ program right before the moratorium and

1:14:05 ↗ I think that that council is looking at

1:14:09 ↗ how the moratorium items shake out to

1:14:13 ↗ determine whether they keep the density

1:14:14 ↗ bonus program in place and I think

1:14:16 ↗ Keith's point is that this may be

1:14:21 ↗ instead of being folded directly into it

1:14:24 ↗ because it's complicated by this

1:14:26 ↗ existing program that hasn't been

1:14:28 ↗ modified but that it's a recommendation

1:14:30 ↗ to have sort of a Phase two of this that

1:14:34 ↗ if if the density bonus program is

1:14:37 ↗ modified that that PPC's recommendation

1:14:42 ↗ would be to give an extra 12 feet of

1:14:45 ↗ height for these minimum parking level

1:14:49 ↗ and I think and I think let's not get

1:14:51 ↗ tied up on the specifics the high

1:14:52 ↗ setting it's more that if when we have a

1:14:54 ↗ discussion around bends their density

1:14:56 ↗ bonuses maybe it's we recommend that a

1:14:58 ↗ more higher level of structured parking

1:15:00 ↗ being corporated into that so so one of

1:15:04 ↗ the things that came out of the first

1:15:07 ↗ phase of conversation of vertical mix

1:15:09 ↗ use was that the density bonus program

1:15:11 ↗ in central Issaquah is actually a

1:15:14 ↗ disincentive and not an incentive and so

1:15:18 ↗ basically it one of the things that

1:15:21 ↗ we're talking about and thinking about

1:15:22 ↗ is what if we put that program or that

1:15:25 ↗ piece of central Issaquah basically in

1:15:27 ↗ the freezer for maybe the next five

1:15:29 ↗ years until the market actually catch

1:15:30 ↗ that it catches up to the point where

1:15:32 ↗ people want to take advantage of that so

1:15:34 ↗ in this time we're now you can't go

1:15:37 ↗ above say a certain number of

1:15:40 ↗ because the density bonus program is on

1:15:43 ↗ hold doing this would allow you those

1:15:45 ↗ extra you know one floor or two floor

1:15:48 ↗ and I would be if you maximize your

1:15:50 ↗ structured parking so right so we get

1:15:52 ↗ something we want and then they can

1:15:54 ↗ actually then put a higher project

1:15:56 ↗ together so it might actually be a great

1:15:58 ↗ win-win so just thinking about that as a

1:16:00 ↗ construct and so maybe for tonight and

1:16:03 ↗ again I'm not trying to put words in

1:16:05 ↗ anybody's mouth but maybe what we do is

1:16:07 ↗ we say okay let's also think about some

1:16:09 ↗ incentives that would be

1:16:10 ↗ performance-based based on going above

1:16:13 ↗ the requirement that's being set here

1:16:15 ↗ yeah I think that's I think that's fair

1:16:17 ↗ so I actually have a couple things here

1:16:19 ↗ that AJ is brought up and and I think

1:16:22 ↗ are really good ideas but to cement what

1:16:25 ↗ he and a couple others have said I kind

1:16:27 ↗ of wrapped the room my mind around a new

1:16:29 ↗ strategy here if we increase the

1:16:33 ↗ structured parking I see there's three

1:16:35 ↗ major benefits one there's an

1:16:36 ↗ environmental benefit there's a economic

1:16:38 ↗ benefit and there's a health benefit

1:16:40 ↗ from an environmental benefit by adding

1:16:44 ↗ more structured parking means we're

1:16:46 ↗ going to have more opportunity for

1:16:49 ↗ pervious surfaces instead of impervious

1:16:52 ↗ surfaces from an economic standpoint we

1:16:56 ↗ have higher revenue generation per

1:16:58 ↗ square foot of real estate because we

1:17:03 ↗ are now allowing those we're now clean

1:17:06 ↗ building space where there would be a

1:17:09 ↗ single stall and from a health

1:17:12 ↗ standpoint we create the opportunity for

1:17:16 ↗ more open space which creates both a

1:17:20 ↗ healthier psychological and leisure

1:17:22 ↗ lifestyle and walkability walkability so

1:17:27 ↗ by actually increasing the structured

1:17:29 ↗ parking requirements we actually as a

1:17:32 ↗ city would be better off because if we

1:17:35 ↗ have more units even if we give the

1:17:37 ↗ benefit of saying ok we'll give you

1:17:39 ↗ higher density we'll give you not hard

1:17:41 ↗ as they will give you height by building

1:17:47 ↗ more parking structure and parking

1:17:50 ↗ capacity will actually give us more

1:17:53 ↗ revenue because we

1:17:54 ↗ have more units higher density and we

1:17:59 ↗ can generate sales tax revenue per

1:18:01 ↗ people we can also generate property tax

1:18:05 ↗ is all that right I think that the

1:18:13 ↗ environmental and the health are correct

1:18:16 ↗ I'm not sure that it automatically is

1:18:21 ↗ higher revenue generating because there

1:18:28 ↗ are higher costs that come with

1:18:30 ↗ structured parking so it does encourage

1:18:37 ↗ not just spreading out more so that once

1:18:40 ↗ you build a bigger building then you

1:18:42 ↗ have more density and it could do that

1:18:44 ↗ it could generate more revenue but I

1:18:47 ↗ don't know that it inherently does that

1:18:49 ↗ being not not to get it after I am are

1:18:54 ↗ we are we looking at how we tax

1:18:56 ↗ structured parking differently than

1:18:58 ↗ surface parking zetas

1:19:00 ↗ is that a whole nother can of worms but

1:19:01 ↗ the fact that you know if you're for

1:19:03 ↗ requiring people to build structured

1:19:05 ↗ parking does that qualify as an

1:19:06 ↗ improvement that results in higher

1:19:08 ↗ property tax per space probably think

1:19:11 ↗ that was wrong for him okay so then you

1:19:16 ↗ ACI see you in which entity with all the

1:19:18 ↗ instance the property tax levy sales tax

1:19:19 ↗ but we would result in a higher well the

1:19:22 ↗ more valuable people aren't put in the

1:19:24 ↗ building the more people are going to

1:19:25 ↗ shop well no remember remember we're not

1:19:27 ↗ we're not changing the total number of

1:19:28 ↗ parking spaces well but if you look at

1:19:31 ↗ the target parking lot for example if

1:19:33 ↗ you took that surface area and instead

1:19:35 ↗ built up I know that I I know but that's

1:19:38 ↗ the point I tried to make earlier

1:19:39 ↗ whether or not it's structured or non

1:19:41 ↗ structure it has nothing to do with the

1:19:42 ↗ total amount of density and if what we

1:19:44 ↗ want to achieve is a denser environment

1:19:46 ↗ the house and we should be looking at

1:19:48 ↗ our density requirements actually that's

1:19:50 ↗ not correct because if you have less

1:19:53 ↗ surface parking that means you can

1:19:55 ↗ utilize that square footage of space for

1:19:59 ↗ higher density business but that if you

1:20:01 ↗ only go up one story then does it make a

1:20:03 ↗ difference and then but that's that's

1:20:06 ↗ true we're going

1:20:07 ↗ is where that required structure parking

1:20:08 ↗ if we want people to hit if we want to

1:20:10 ↗ develop or to hit a certain amendment

1:20:12 ↗ entity we should just require a minimum

1:20:14 ↗ level of density and whether or not they

1:20:16 ↗ meet that density requirement and a

1:20:18 ↗ parking requirement through structure

1:20:19 ↗ and on structured parking I think is

1:20:21 ↗ irrelevant the cars take up space

1:20:23 ↗ whatever the course and if what if what

1:20:26 ↗ they're what they have to do to meet the

1:20:27 ↗ density requirements build structured

1:20:29 ↗ parking that's that that's fine and but

1:20:31 ↗ I don't I don't see what we need I

1:20:32 ↗ receive require I got a run guys sorry

1:20:35 ↗ but I think I think this is I'd

1:20:37 ↗ certainly don't oppose it because it

1:20:39 ↗ seems like it's not going to discourage

1:20:41 ↗ development but I don't think my fine

1:20:43 ↗ point is I don't think your structured

1:20:44 ↗ parking requirement achieves any of the

1:20:47 ↗ goals that we think we're trying to

1:20:48 ↗ achieve I don't I don't think this will

1:20:50 ↗ hurt but I think - I think to achieve

1:20:52 ↗ the the density in the urban form that

1:20:54 ↗ we want I think we need to achieve it

1:20:55 ↗ using things other than structured

1:20:57 ↗ parking so all right I got to run I'll

1:21:00 ↗ see you guys my conversation yeah great

1:21:03 ↗ great conversation happen keep having

1:21:05 ↗ fun without me I'm sure glad I don't

1:21:08 ↗ have to go through this all the time and

1:21:11 ↗ be creative and think about all these

1:21:13 ↗ things and then have a group of people

1:21:15 ↗ come in and say you forgot about that or

1:21:18 ↗ could you do this hmm it's hard that's

1:21:22 ↗ my life there's always things that you

1:21:24 ↗ don't think of that that could make it

1:21:26 ↗ better right and all of us are looking

1:21:29 ↗ to make it better so well yeah right

1:21:32 ↗ absolutely yeah so so for if we're at

1:21:37 ↗ 43% structured parking we want to

1:21:41 ↗ propose a 33% why would we go lower than

1:21:46 ↗ what we then what pillars are willing to

1:21:49 ↗ build that now and a related question

1:21:51 ↗ which is about this in feasibility so I

1:21:54 ↗ know they gave the range but presumably

1:21:57 ↗ I mean and also this is only based on

1:22:00 ↗ six offices but if I don't think that

1:22:04 ↗ the offices would be building at an

1:22:05 ↗ infeasible rate if if it were actually

1:22:09 ↗ infeasible so it seems that this is on

1:22:12 ↗ the lower end of what is infeasible at

1:22:15 ↗ least for offices if this is

1:22:17 ↗ representative of offices

1:22:20 ↗ so I we we can go higher I think what

1:22:27 ↗ we're concerned about is we are testing

1:22:29 ↗ a market we are trying to look at a

1:22:32 ↗ number of factors so that we're making

1:22:34 ↗ an informed decision and we're trying

1:22:37 ↗ not to break the market I don't know I

1:22:41 ↗ had one other thing just about so

1:22:42 ↗ working within the framework of these

1:22:45 ↗ numbers for requirements for the

1:22:49 ↗ different office residential in retail

1:22:51 ↗ so it's 33 for office and residential

1:22:55 ↗ and then nothing on retail and I think

1:23:01 ↗ that a number of the concerns as far as

1:23:03 ↗ vertical excuse and then redevelopment

1:23:06 ↗ from one type to another from an office

1:23:09 ↗ to retail or retail to an office and

1:23:11 ↗ then and then also the fact that for

1:23:15 ↗ offices if they're too small then you

1:23:17 ↗ wouldn't have the requirement it seems

1:23:19 ↗ like for retail if retail were also put

1:23:21 ↗ at 33% that would be similar and it

1:23:26 ↗ could have a similar space requirement

1:23:29 ↗ to the office because the reasoning for

1:23:31 ↗ why you wouldn't want it seems to me

1:23:33 ↗ that the reasoning for why you wouldn't

1:23:35 ↗ want to put this requirement on small

1:23:37 ↗ offices is similar to why you wouldn't

1:23:39 ↗ want to put it on small retail you want

1:23:42 ↗ to encourage small retail I think it's

1:23:45 ↗ how people use that as Parker's people

1:23:48 ↗ who are in in office environment want to

1:23:51 ↗ park in structured parking but the

1:23:53 ↗ retail developers are concerned that if

1:23:57 ↗ they only provide structured parking

1:23:59 ↗ people won't be able to park right next

1:24:02 ↗ to the store that they want to go to and

1:24:03 ↗ thus won't shop as much well for and but

1:24:07 ↗ for especially for large projects it

1:24:09 ↗ seems like if we want to encourage small

1:24:11 ↗ projects and we don't want to encourage

1:24:13 ↗ large projects or retail large box chain

1:24:17 ↗ stores one thing would be to put the

1:24:19 ↗ requirement on the large stores or and

1:24:23 ↗ ice right now stuff is recommending no

1:24:25 ↗ change to the standards how about we

1:24:27 ↗ change the standards a little if we

1:24:29 ↗ don't want to put all of our eggs in the

1:24:30 ↗ structured parking basket we think this

1:24:32 ↗ is going to give us

1:24:33 ↗ unintended consequences I don't

1:24:35 ↗ understand why Keith is telling me that

1:24:37 ↗ but you don't believe that central

1:24:39 ↗ Issaquah has a parking problem but

1:24:41 ↗ clearly we're trying to address

1:24:43 ↗ increasing parking in Issaquah so maybe

1:24:46 ↗ the staff think that's like a future

1:24:48 ↗ problem we're going to come off of it so

1:24:49 ↗ so I'm the economic development director

1:24:52 ↗ in addition to being the development

1:24:54 ↗ Services Director has the Economic

1:24:56 ↗ Development Director we talk to our

1:24:58 ↗ businesses every year and our businesses

1:25:01 ↗ don't tell us that they don't have

1:25:04 ↗ enough parking

1:25:04 ↗ so in central is go along Gilman the

1:25:07 ↗ businesses that we do business visits

1:25:09 ↗ with every year parking parking is a

1:25:12 ↗ concern for every retailer but signage

1:25:15 ↗ is there are other things that drive

1:25:17 ↗ their needs parking in Old Town is a

1:25:22 ↗ concern for the businesses in Old Town

1:25:24 ↗ but for central Issaquah what I can tell

1:25:27 ↗ you is parking is not the main issue

1:25:30 ↗ right now it's traffic

1:25:32 ↗ so so one piece I want you guys to be

1:25:36 ↗ aware of again I think it's about parity

1:25:39 ↗ is to our knowledge and we did we did as

1:25:44 ↗ much research as we could we could only

1:25:47 ↗ find one other city that was proposing a

1:25:49 ↗ requirement on structured parking and

1:25:50 ↗ that's Federal Way and they've had that

1:25:53 ↗ legislation cued up for a long time and

1:25:55 ↗ has not been able to get their council

1:25:58 ↗ to approve it so so we are we are going

1:26:02 ↗ to be seen as being someone who's doing

1:26:05 ↗ something that nobody else is doing by

1:26:07 ↗ just requiring structured parking in the

1:26:09 ↗ developments that are coming in central

1:26:11 ↗ Issaquah so so that's one of the reasons

1:26:13 ↗ why we're taking a fairly conservative

1:26:15 ↗ approach to this is because we're kind

1:26:17 ↗ of jumping out there where no other than

1:26:18 ↗ other cities are not doing that so this

1:26:21 ↗ is a piece of information I want you

1:26:23 ↗ guys to be aware of so then what are

1:26:25 ↗ other cities doing that are achieving

1:26:28 ↗ structured parking are they achieving

1:26:30 ↗ structured parking because their land

1:26:33 ↗ values are more expensive and land is

1:26:37 ↗ less available and thus it just becomes

1:26:39 ↗ a requirement are they achieving it

1:26:42 ↗ because they have the density

1:26:44 ↗ requirements and

1:26:46 ↗ and it's required because of that what

1:26:50 ↗ is this because because they're workers

1:26:52 ↗ that's baked in already to their numbers

1:26:53 ↗ they have to achieve it and it's the

1:26:54 ↗ most economical way for them to do it

1:26:56 ↗ it's restructured parking because they

1:26:57 ↗ already have to achieve a certain amount

1:26:59 ↗ of parking

1:27:00 ↗ we're not moving our standards at all so

1:27:03 ↗ so everybody does things a little bit

1:27:05 ↗ differently so like for Redmond around

1:27:08 ↗ Cleveland Street

1:27:09 ↗ they've mandated mixed-use for six

1:27:12 ↗ blocks basically so you're getting

1:27:14 ↗ structured parking and one of the things

1:27:15 ↗ I was going to say Lindsay is if you're

1:27:17 ↗ getting five over one if you're building

1:27:19 ↗ five over one your structure parking

1:27:21 ↗ that just because of the quantity of

1:27:23 ↗ parking that you're providing you're not

1:27:25 ↗ going to build that expensive building

1:27:27 ↗ and then surface part behind it it just

1:27:29 ↗ it won't it won't that nobody does that

1:27:31 ↗ so so the cities that have certain focus

1:27:37 ↗ of development activity they're getting

1:27:41 ↗ the structured parking because of the

1:27:43 ↗ densities so like downtown Bellevue

1:27:45 ↗ they're getting structured parking

1:27:46 ↗ because of the densities that are

1:27:48 ↗ happening there but there's a land value

1:27:50 ↗ and market driven outcome and not a

1:27:52 ↗ regular regulated outcome at least as

1:27:56 ↗ far as we understand when we discuss the

1:28:02 ↗ central area plan forever and ever

1:28:06 ↗ ninety percent of it about of it was

1:28:09 ↗ retail at the bottom and and residential

1:28:13 ↗ above and it's not required is there

1:28:17 ↗ areas of the city that of the central

1:28:20 ↗ area that you think are so important to

1:28:23 ↗ have that kind of a structure that you

1:28:25 ↗ can actually require it to be put in

1:28:28 ↗ there the vertical mixed-use where you

1:28:30 ↗ can retail on the ground floor and

1:28:32 ↗ residences above it I mean you have to

1:28:34 ↗ do that if you're if the if the plan is

1:28:37 ↗ what was created in the central area

1:28:39 ↗ plan you're going to have to require

1:28:42 ↗ that I know that you tried to get it

1:28:44 ↗ into Atlas and Atlas didn't want to do

1:28:46 ↗ that but there's there was no

1:28:48 ↗ requirement that they had to do that so

1:28:50 ↗ are you planning on putting that into

1:28:53 ↗ some areas right that's a separate work

1:28:56 ↗ plan item for the moratorium

1:28:59 ↗ and we are looking at certain areas

1:29:02 ↗ where it may be required okay that's

1:29:06 ↗ good to hear because it wasn't there

1:29:07 ↗ before

1:29:08 ↗ right I want to bring up a question

1:29:09 ↗ about Atlas at the moment and use that

1:29:12 ↗ as a model

1:29:13 ↗ if Atlas was at 100 percent capacity

1:29:16 ↗ under capacity of what 100 percent of

1:29:20 ↗ occupants occupant capacity would

1:29:28 ↗ there's parking structure become

1:29:31 ↗ completely full and would their lot

1:29:33 ↗ become completely full if that's the

1:29:36 ↗ case then with those cars then you would

1:29:39 ↗ have overflow onto the streets and then

1:29:42 ↗ into the Commons is that assumption

1:29:45 ↗ reasonable I don't think that we think

1:29:51 ↗ that's what's going to happen based on

1:29:56 ↗ the studies that King County has done in

1:30:01 ↗ comparable locations projects of this

1:30:06 ↗ size and type have parked at about one

1:30:12 ↗ point two stalls per unit which is what

1:30:16 ↗ they provided that doesn't count in in

1:30:18 ↗ the on street parking which would be

1:30:21 ↗ available for guests or for sort of a

1:30:27 ↗ safety net if that number is not

1:30:29 ↗ specifically correct we are seeing a lot

1:30:33 ↗ of on street parking near Atlas but

1:30:35 ↗ that's about convenience and human

1:30:37 ↗ nature not because there isn't enough

1:30:40 ↗ parking on site right and I understand

1:30:43 ↗ that's why I said it a hundred percent

1:30:44 ↗ capacity because right now it's

1:30:46 ↗ convenient parking and then the

1:30:48 ↗ convenient parking becomes heavily

1:30:50 ↗ impacted so people then have to park in

1:30:53 ↗ the parking lot a designated area in the

1:30:56 ↗ parking structure that they have right

1:30:58 ↗ and that's why the city may decide wants

1:31:01 ↗ to discuss whether we need to be doing

1:31:03 ↗ something to or control on street arm

1:31:08 ↗ Street parking is used could be time

1:31:10 ↗ limits could be residential parking

1:31:12 ↗ zones could be meters

1:31:13 ↗ lots of different tools that the city

1:31:15 ↗ can discuss and and think about whether

1:31:18 ↗ the costs are worth the benefits so and

1:31:22 ↗ if we going back to the central core and

1:31:27 ↗ that five iron unit complex I was

1:31:29 ↗ telling you that about the hypothetical

1:31:32 ↗ the structured parking would then become

1:31:35 ↗ more convenient to the residents because

1:31:38 ↗ it could literally they're living above

1:31:40 ↗ parking right whereas as Alice right now

1:31:43 ↗ it might be more convenient for them to

1:31:46 ↗ park on the street because their unit is

1:31:49 ↗ facing the street and they don't have to

1:31:51 ↗ go to the back of the parking lot but if

1:31:54 ↗ you have 12 storey buildings now the

1:31:57 ↗ majority of those residents would say

1:31:58 ↗ convenient parking is actually in the

1:32:01 ↗ garage structure so having higher

1:32:04 ↗ structure require or having higher

1:32:06 ↗ structured parking requirements would

1:32:09 ↗ also be more convenient so the impact

1:32:14 ↗ there would be because your feel good

1:32:16 ↗ high Abood right because I'm not

1:32:18 ↗ building I'm not just thinking about

1:32:19 ↗ Alice I'm thinking I'm looking at Alice

1:32:21 ↗ but Atlas is more spread out but when

1:32:23 ↗ you go towards the core and even looking

1:32:26 ↗ at where Rolly will likely be those

1:32:29 ↗ units are going to be 12 stories high

1:32:31 ↗ give or take so you can better that the

1:32:35 ↗ fact of convenient parking is it's great

1:32:39 ↗ if it's right on the street right in

1:32:40 ↗ front but the reality is those streets

1:32:44 ↗ might handle 12 cars at tops so the

1:32:47 ↗ convenient parking would then be

1:32:49 ↗ structured parking so by adding more

1:32:52 ↗ structure requirement we're saying we're

1:32:54 ↗ actually going to be giving people a

1:32:56 ↗ benefit of the doubt and give them more

1:32:58 ↗ convenience higher capacity can you

1:33:02 ↗ require in a 12 story apartment building

1:33:07 ↗ and you require that the higher you go

1:33:10 ↗ that that it goes above the 33% and you

1:33:13 ↗ add the extra parking into it we can

1:33:16 ↗ require whatever we want I know so but

1:33:21 ↗ but everything has an economic impact

1:33:25 ↗ right so

1:33:26 ↗ as we require a more expensive building

1:33:28 ↗ because now all of the parking or a

1:33:30 ↗ bigger percentage of the parking is

1:33:33 ↗ being instructure

1:33:34 ↗ you know that's changing then the lease

1:33:38 ↗ amount that those units will go for

1:33:41 ↗ because they have to recoup the cost of

1:33:44 ↗ building the facility right and so part

1:33:46 ↗ of as we as we try and balance out all

1:33:49 ↗ these things because we want we want

1:33:50 ↗ great urban form which tends to be more

1:33:54 ↗ complicated and expensive buildings but

1:33:57 ↗ we're also worried about affordable

1:33:59 ↗ housing and what it costs to run an

1:34:01 ↗ apartment in our community and so part

1:34:03 ↗ of this is finding trying to optimize

1:34:07 ↗ all those variables in a way that gets

1:34:09 ↗ us the best city at the end of the day

1:34:11 ↗ and so all I'm saying is just think

1:34:14 ↗ about there's always going to be a

1:34:16 ↗ counterbalance to whatever whatever

1:34:18 ↗ button or lever we push right and it's

1:34:21 ↗ either going to be higher rents for

1:34:22 ↗ apartments or higher lease space for

1:34:25 ↗ offices or higher lease space for retail

1:34:28 ↗ as ultimately you guys wanted to push

1:34:30 ↗ something that direction so so that's

1:34:32 ↗ the that's what we just have to keep in

1:34:34 ↗ mind as we're thinking about percentages

1:34:36 ↗ I was just trying to yeah

1:34:40 ↗ continue on and sort of go down from his

1:34:43 ↗ comments about actors parking under

1:34:46 ↗ buildings and stuff so the cost

1:34:49 ↗ difference and all of those things that

1:34:50 ↗ you have to add in and the Builder will

1:34:52 ↗ have to decide you know he's going to

1:34:55 ↗ have to look at the neighborhood and see

1:34:57 ↗ what rent can be you know his highest

1:35:00 ↗ rent but he can go up to or it's not

1:35:04 ↗ going to be rented so he's going to put

1:35:06 ↗ that into his development plans and

1:35:08 ↗ seeing if he can put in that kind of

1:35:11 ↗ parking he might go down and not have to

1:35:13 ↗ do at all but but it would I think what

1:35:16 ↗ is important and keep in particular if

1:35:19 ↗ when we have these conversations it were

1:35:21 ↗ really helpful to have data that shows

1:35:24 ↗ us okay so we do this and this is how it

1:35:26 ↗ changes because you're sure of the

1:35:29 ↗ assumptions that we made now I'm I see

1:35:31 ↗ most people here all the people who

1:35:33 ↗ talked are tend to be data people and so

1:35:36 ↗ you know saying we think is is a bit

1:35:38 ↗ harder for us to

1:35:39 ↗ to consume we want to see that you know

1:35:42 ↗ that the you push down on this it goes

1:35:45 ↗ up by percent so much that kind of stuff

1:35:47 ↗ sure and and so part of why you've got

1:35:51 ↗ two things here that that look fairly

1:35:54 ↗ tight on case studies is you know you've

1:35:59 ↗ got you've got an economic firm that did

1:36:03 ↗ a model for us and said here's based on

1:36:06 ↗ your land values and construction costs

1:36:08 ↗ here's here's where the thing tits

1:36:11 ↗ somewhere between 25 and 50 very large

1:36:15 ↗ amount of anyway so yeah so I get that

1:36:17 ↗ and so and and so what we did was we

1:36:21 ↗ said what is the tolerance of the market

1:36:23 ↗ right because I think for me that's

1:36:26 ↗ what's more important it's what what

1:36:28 ↗ people have put real projects together

1:36:30 ↗ for in our community they figured out

1:36:32 ↗ how to get those numbers okay

1:36:34 ↗ and so that means that they can then

1:36:37 ↗ rent apartments or rent office space for

1:36:41 ↗ whatever the market will bear having

1:36:44 ↗ that amount of structured parking so for

1:36:46 ↗ me I used I thought that was a much

1:36:49 ↗ better metric than what we got out of

1:36:51 ↗ Eko Northwest so as Vicki said the

1:36:56 ↗ averages are higher than than the

1:37:00 ↗ recommendation right and so so then so

1:37:04 ↗ then there's a disconnect right there

1:37:06 ↗ yeah and higher are they on what echo

1:37:08 ↗ Northwest predicts us infeasible was the

1:37:11 ↗ Lawrence's right but it doesn t v--'s

1:37:14 ↗ excuse they're close to the DD right I

1:37:15 ↗ mean we're looking we're looking at a

1:37:18 ↗ number of numbers I mean I I think you

1:37:22 ↗ know one of the things that that's a

1:37:23 ↗ challenge and is even if we had a great

1:37:29 ↗ model and every single project analyzed

1:37:32 ↗ in the city it's not a guarantee that

1:37:34 ↗ we're going to get the right number I

1:37:36 ↗ think that you know where we're trying

1:37:39 ↗ to establish a number that's reasonable

1:37:44 ↗ but I don't think that we have enough

1:37:47 ↗ data to say we guarantee this is the

1:37:50 ↗ right number I just I don't think that

1:37:52 ↗ that's the way

1:37:53 ↗ that you're going to get a real estate

1:37:55 ↗ number that guarantees you going forward

1:37:58 ↗ is there is some art to this too I'm not

1:38:02 ↗ sure this I think you can benchmark

1:38:04 ↗ against similar cities you can do so I

1:38:08 ↗ know you you used a consultant but you

1:38:11 ↗ can benchmark us to you know what that's

1:38:13 ↗ what does that actually look like it

1:38:15 ↗ this seems this seems a little too

1:38:18 ↗ squishy for me and and a lot of there's

1:38:22 ↗ a lot of data that that doesn't seem

1:38:25 ↗ like there's this enough consistency so

1:38:29 ↗ so I am concerned I think a lot of us

1:38:33 ↗ have have had the same system same

1:38:35 ↗ reaction and that was what Landon Shore

1:38:38 ↗ when they said hey we need to question

1:38:41 ↗ that 33 percent recommendation give us

1:38:44 ↗ more data send it back to PPC and so

1:38:47 ↗ we're looking at this and going okay

1:38:48 ↗ yeah we looked at the data that you have

1:38:50 ↗ but the the infeasibility

1:38:55 ↗ financial numbers were looking at that

1:38:58 ↗ and going that doesn't make sense for

1:39:01 ↗ the projects that we're actually seeing

1:39:03 ↗ and the projects that we're actually

1:39:06 ↗ seeing there's only six four and 14 for

1:39:11 ↗ us to make the decision based on and

1:39:13 ↗ that's too little so what about other

1:39:19 ↗ cities the other states have different

1:39:21 ↗ economic factors than we do true so so

1:39:26 ↗ what Bellevue guess what Kirkland gets

1:39:28 ↗ is a different to different market than

1:39:30 ↗ is acquired the clay is Issaquah and you

1:39:34 ↗ know it would be great if we had 26 and

1:39:37 ↗ you know 44 and 114 we don't get that

1:39:42 ↗ many projects and and so when we looked

1:39:45 ↗ at the projects that have come through

1:39:47 ↗ the pipeline in the last five years

1:39:49 ↗ that's that's how many there are and we

1:39:51 ↗ felt like beyond that was not going to

1:39:54 ↗ be a good a good metric because just the

1:39:57 ↗ art our sophistication

1:39:59 ↗ five years ago was dramatically

1:40:01 ↗ different than it is now

1:40:03 ↗ absolutely agreed and so so those that

1:40:05 ↗ is the whole

1:40:07 ↗ range of data that we can use in my

1:40:09 ↗ opinion so so keep in terms of

1:40:12 ↗ benchmarking so what metrics are you

1:40:14 ↗ using to the side that'd be a different

1:40:17 ↗ or similar so when you benchmark you'll

1:40:19 ↗ never find exactly the same situation

1:40:22 ↗ someplace else what you're using is is a

1:40:25 ↗ set of things that that you're using to

1:40:27 ↗ compare so the benchmark doesn't need to

1:40:30 ↗ be in in in this in this state it can be

1:40:35 ↗ in another state it's we're trying to

1:40:38 ↗ come up with a best practice based on

1:40:41 ↗ cities that have had similar problems

1:40:43 ↗ and and that's my concern is is we're

1:40:46 ↗ using just Bellevue and Redmond assuming

1:40:48 ↗ that that's the only cities available to

1:40:51 ↗ us so when you benchmark I think there's

1:40:54 ↗ you should look at more than just this

1:40:57 ↗ area and would you agree I would I would

1:41:00 ↗ absolutely agree especially when you say

1:41:01 ↗ we're looking at Federal Way who hasn't

1:41:03 ↗ passed this and were looking at Portland

1:41:04 ↗ and I don't find these to be actually

1:41:07 ↗ very good comparisons for us at all so

1:41:10 ↗ so yeah so office our office market is

1:41:18 ↗ our office market our office market is

1:41:21 ↗ highly influenced by Bellevue Seattle

1:41:24 ↗ Redmond and those office markets and

1:41:28 ↗ i-90 in our location in Puget Sound it

1:41:31 ↗ does no good to look at Irvine Orange

1:41:35 ↗ County Silicon Valley anywhere else to

1:41:37 ↗ try and get a peer on office market for

1:41:41 ↗ us what our office market is is that's a

1:41:44 ↗ whole conversation in and of itself and

1:41:46 ↗ I'm more than happy to sit down and have

1:41:49 ↗ coffee with you and talk about that from

1:41:52 ↗ a residential standpoint econ Northwest

1:41:55 ↗ basically did the analysis as part of

1:41:58 ↗ the vertical mix use of what our current

1:42:02 ↗ market rate is for residential based on

1:42:08 ↗ lease rates that we're getting now and

1:42:10 ↗ and they've compared that to the cost of

1:42:14 ↗ building a five over one product so

1:42:17 ↗ they've done that analysis of

1:42:20 ↗ our current market based on property

1:42:22 ↗ values and construction costs and so you

1:42:25 ↗ know I guess I feel like that the

1:42:29 ↗ analysis that was done is as good as it

1:42:32 ↗ can be I don't think this is an exact

1:42:34 ↗ science I think if you guys want to know

1:42:36 ↗ that at 33% we're fine at 34% people

1:42:42 ↗ walk away you're not going to get that

1:42:44 ↗ because every development project is

1:42:46 ↗ different in ways that they finance in

1:42:49 ↗ ways that they acquire the property and

1:42:51 ↗ in ways that they construct and so I

1:42:54 ↗ think the best we can do with this is to

1:42:57 ↗ pick a number that we feel comfortable

1:42:59 ↗ with and then test it so in doing that

1:43:05 ↗ how we looked at the potential ROI of

1:43:09 ↗ the incentives because you mentioned

1:43:11 ↗ incentives earlier right so if we if a

1:43:16 ↗ developer says I can do structured

1:43:19 ↗ parking up to 20% after 20% it becomes

1:43:22 ↗ infeasible if we came back and said okay

1:43:26 ↗ based on our model based on the fact

1:43:28 ↗ that every floor that you build is a

1:43:30 ↗ hundred people and looking at it from a

1:43:33 ↗ 10-year standpoint the revenue the

1:43:36 ↗ potential sales revenue or sorry

1:43:38 ↗ potential tax revenue the city could

1:43:41 ↗ generate from each floor of residence

1:43:43 ↗ living there would pay for that

1:43:47 ↗ incentive within 10 years right so we're

1:43:51 ↗ actually paying off the incentive

1:43:54 ↗ through their sales right through the

1:43:59 ↗ the resident sales then we could help

1:44:04 ↗ that developer build that extra

1:44:06 ↗ structure or that extra floor and we can

1:44:11 ↗ achieve our goals and after 10 years

1:44:13 ↗ then we are making money on that

1:44:17 ↗ investment

1:44:17 ↗ sure so so the state allows for

1:44:21 ↗ multifamily tax exemption so that could

1:44:24 ↗ apply for residential right now that's

1:44:30 ↗ another conversation that the council is

1:44:32 ↗ having as it relates to May

1:44:34 ↗ the transit-oriented development project

1:44:36 ↗ so and it was part of as you guys know

1:44:39 ↗ the toolbox that we're bringing forward

1:44:41 ↗ in terms of what we could do for

1:44:43 ↗ affordable housing so so far up to this

1:44:48 ↗ point the council has been hesitant to

1:44:53 ↗ say we're going to put incentives in

1:44:55 ↗ place for development to happen in

1:44:57 ↗ central Issaquah so so so far it's been

1:45:01 ↗ regulations or policies but not

1:45:05 ↗ incentives now clearly you guys could

1:45:08 ↗ make a recommendation to consider

1:45:10 ↗ incentives and maybe those incentives

1:45:12 ↗ would run along the lines of what we've

1:45:14 ↗ talked about tonight in terms of getting

1:45:16 ↗ more structured parking but so far

1:45:20 ↗ incentives have not been in it in the

1:45:23 ↗ basket in tourism in the scent of

1:45:25 ↗ doesn't have to necessarily mean that we

1:45:27 ↗ are giving money away right so if we can

1:45:31 ↗ convince a developer to build more

1:45:33 ↗ structured parking then we fill up more

1:45:38 ↗ square footage of the lot that they have

1:45:40 ↗ with residents right and in doing so if

1:45:46 ↗ we if we create a model that says this

1:45:50 ↗ is the incentive that will give you and

1:45:52 ↗ our objective is to have it paid off in

1:45:55 ↗ ten years or 15 years and that after 15

1:46:01 ↗ years we will be making money on that

1:46:05 ↗ investment that we have we can't

1:46:06 ↗ necessarily call it an investment but

1:46:08 ↗ the incentive is an investment into our

1:46:11 ↗ future right so we're encouraging that

1:46:14 ↗ developer to build more structured

1:46:16 ↗ parking we give them an extra floor that

1:46:18 ↗ extra floor gives us more revenue so

1:46:23 ↗ that it makes sense so yeah I'm tracking

1:46:25 ↗ on all that and and and I don't think

1:46:28 ↗ that so a height bonus as an incentive

1:46:33 ↗ for more structured parking you know

1:46:35 ↗ clearly that is something that could be

1:46:38 ↗ discussed and added as a recommendation

1:46:41 ↗ at this point we have not we

1:46:48 ↗ not had any incentives included in any

1:46:54 ↗ of the moratorium items so far but I'm

1:46:56 ↗ not I get I get the logic behind it and

1:47:00 ↗ if ultimately you guys want to propose

1:47:03 ↗ an incentive at a certain level of

1:47:07 ↗ structured parking like as in an

1:47:09 ↗ additional floor for building height you

1:47:14 ↗ could do that does that model make sense

1:47:18 ↗ to you I mean I think in real world that

1:47:20 ↗ would actually work yes young man

1:47:26 ↗ propose that we open up to public

1:47:28 ↗ comment and keep the conversation going

1:47:30 ↗ with the folks we have in the room okay

1:47:33 ↗ we can certainly do that if you want to

1:47:38 ↗ if do you guys have any any burning

1:47:41 ↗ questions that that you might forget

1:47:44 ↗ that you really need to know I mean we

1:47:47 ↗ could discuss this for the next 12 hours

1:47:49 ↗ without getting to a conclusion on what

1:47:54 ↗ they're asking us to do today which is

1:47:56 ↗ where at least we have nothing now we

1:47:58 ↗ want at least 33% of course it could be

1:48:01 ↗ more about we're looking at 33% as a

1:48:04 ↗ minimum as a starter with that unless

1:48:08 ↗ there's something else we can discuss

1:48:10 ↗ after it not agree with joy I think

1:48:12 ↗ these people have been sitting here for

1:48:14 ↗ a while so if anybody I'm going to close

1:48:18 ↗ this meeting and open up the public

1:48:19 ↗ comments and if anybody in the audience

1:48:21 ↗ would like to make a comment ladies

1:48:28 ↗ first

1:48:37 ↗ good evening I'm Christy triple and with

1:48:40 ↗ Valley properties at one five nine five

1:48:43 ↗ Northwest Gilman Boulevard here in

1:48:45 ↗ Issaquah so as I've listened to you ask

1:48:49 ↗ questions and as the conversation has

1:48:51 ↗ evolved so too has what I wanted to

1:48:54 ↗ share with you but I think with the

1:48:59 ↗ central Issaquah plan in the urban core

1:49:01 ↗ the vision always was how do we overcome

1:49:04 ↗ the sea of parking that we have on the

1:49:07 ↗ valley floor which was seventy-five

1:49:09 ↗ percent so you think about that that's

1:49:12 ↗ not the highest and best use for our

1:49:15 ↗ land and many developers when land

1:49:18 ↗ values increase absolutely are going to

1:49:21 ↗ agree with you and they're going to move

1:49:22 ↗ to structured parking and they're going

1:49:25 ↗ to build the best building possible

1:49:26 ↗ within that calm prime so having a

1:49:29 ↗ complete compact and connected community

1:49:32 ↗ is really important so I think the tools

1:49:35 ↗ that you're talking about are important

1:49:37 ↗ I do agree with the recommendation of

1:49:41 ↗ keeping the parking standards the same

1:49:43 ↗ as they are I think we're we have the

1:49:46 ↗ right ratios for today obviously that

1:49:49 ↗ conversation and how we use our valley

1:49:52 ↗ floor and our vehicles or multimodal

1:49:54 ↗ options is going to change in 10 or 20

1:49:56 ↗ years so think about some tools that you

1:49:59 ↗ can do today to help influence the kind

1:50:03 ↗ of development you want to see today so

1:50:06 ↗ that's one piece and then on the notion

1:50:09 ↗ of structured parking obviously that is

1:50:12 ↗ an important element to looking to that

1:50:16 ↗ future so I think moving forward with

1:50:19 ↗ that what's going to be important and

1:50:22 ↗ obviously separate from the conversation

1:50:24 ↗ about the two questions at hand this

1:50:26 ↗ evening of for the public hearing is

1:50:29 ↗ asking staff in the city to consider on

1:50:32 ↗ its next comp plan discussion what are

1:50:35 ↗ some tools that we can put in the

1:50:37 ↗ toolbox to really enable that to be

1:50:39 ↗ successful and to see the kind of

1:50:41 ↗ development we want to see so things

1:50:44 ↗ like the park

1:50:45 ↗ and Business Improvement Districts are

1:50:49 ↗ important how can they collaborate

1:50:51 ↗ looking at the shared parking agreement

1:50:55 ↗ taking the requirement off the title to

1:50:59 ↗ be recorded because that creates a real

1:51:01 ↗ problem for developers and their banks

1:51:03 ↗ and financing and all the things

1:51:06 ↗ associated with that and then also

1:51:08 ↗ looking at what are some other things

1:51:14 ↗ had one other ideas in terms of the

1:51:16 ↗ toolkit oh that's probably because it's

1:51:20 ↗ the most hardest I forgot

1:51:22 ↗ parking enforcement or management needs

1:51:24 ↗ to be part of that conversation in the

1:51:26 ↗ structured parking environment because

1:51:28 ↗ if you're asking developers to place a

1:51:31 ↗ priority of structured parking which is

1:51:33 ↗ much more expensive and there's free

1:51:35 ↗ parking right outside their door that

1:51:37 ↗ they can't actually recoup costs for

1:51:39 ↗ that makes it really difficult for

1:51:42 ↗ looking at where you make your

1:51:44 ↗ investments in a building so I think

1:51:48 ↗ that that's important too and I think

1:51:49 ↗ that's an opportunity for a community

1:51:51 ↗ dialogue next year but how do you figure

1:51:54 ↗ out to put some tools in place for today

1:51:56 ↗ to make sure that you're influencing the

1:51:59 ↗ type of development that's going to

1:52:00 ↗ happen today

1:52:01 ↗ thanks for the opportunity to comment

1:52:03 ↗ and good luck but the coin your first

1:52:15 ↗ my name is Mel Morgan I serve on the

1:52:18 ↗ development Commission so I get to see

1:52:21 ↗ these regulations when projects come

1:52:23 ↗ through and I served on the central

1:52:25 ↗ Issaquah task force and we built the

1:52:28 ↗ central Issaquah plan so I saw it from

1:52:31 ↗ the vision at the beginning and I think

1:52:34 ↗ the key here tonight is you're really

1:52:36 ↗ being asked to make a decision on what

1:52:39 ↗ these percentages are that's what the

1:52:41 ↗ land and Shore Committee has asked you

1:52:43 ↗ to opine on is what these percentages

1:52:46 ↗ should be and what the basis for that

1:52:49 ↗ would be to achieve the central Issaquah

1:52:51 ↗ vision and avoid any unintended

1:52:53 ↗ consequences and number one I think we

1:52:57 ↗ need to be aspirational than what we do

1:53:00 ↗ here

1:53:01 ↗ I understand keys issue with trying to

1:53:04 ↗ bring businesses in which we want to do

1:53:06 ↗ but at the same time we want to be

1:53:08 ↗ looking forward and be aspirational in

1:53:10 ↗ terms of the central Issaquah plan and

1:53:12 ↗ creating as as much of an urban

1:53:15 ↗ environment as we can which means

1:53:17 ↗ structured parking I do think you've got

1:53:20 ↗ the numbers here and if you look in your

1:53:22 ↗ package its pages 16 and 17 that have

1:53:29 ↗ the charts that showed all three of them

1:53:32 ↗ at 25 to 50 percent the feasibility

1:53:34 ↗ flipped over so somewhere in that range

1:53:37 ↗ I think if you look at residential first

1:53:41 ↗ that looked the least feasible but we've

1:53:44 ↗ got good projects we've seen six

1:53:46 ↗ projects come through in central

1:53:48 ↗ Issaquah we've got the senior housing

1:53:50 ↗ project Gateway senior that was it was

1:53:53 ↗ at 29% when you look at the other five

1:53:57 ↗ we had gateway at 49% reeva 78% Vale at

1:54:03 ↗ 40% Atlas at 76% in in stood at a

1:54:07 ↗ hundred percent so we were 40 percent to

1:54:10 ↗ a hundred percent without any structured

1:54:12 ↗ parking requirement at all I think to

1:54:15 ↗ set it at 33 percent is not being very

1:54:19 ↗ aspirational about it I think we can set

1:54:21 ↗ it at 50 percent if we look at the study

1:54:24 ↗ showing that 50 percent it's not

1:54:26 ↗ feasible it's sort of marginal

1:54:28 ↗ and we've seen projects come in near 50

1:54:31 ↗ or above for many of these I think you

1:54:33 ↗ should set it at 50 percent as a good

1:54:36 ↗ starting point for residential for

1:54:40 ↗ office if you look at the chart it's it

1:54:44 ↗ leans more towards feasible at 25 then

1:54:47 ↗ unfeasible at 50 which means to me it

1:54:49 ↗ leans more towards 50 we have five

1:54:53 ↗ buildings that were over 5,000 square

1:54:56 ↗ feet one of them was the ProLiant of

1:54:58 ↗ Surgeons that was 0% parking or

1:55:01 ↗ structured the other four were 31% 33%

1:55:06 ↗ 55% and 93 percent I'm going to look at

1:55:09 ↗ that we've got a minimum of 30 31% of

1:55:12 ↗ those four projects and two of them over

1:55:15 ↗ 50% again I think we can go at at least

1:55:18 ↗ 50% for office and we've already got the

1:55:21 ↗ market support for that in what's been

1:55:23 ↗ built and then finally with retail which

1:55:27 ↗ is a tough one for standard retailers

1:55:30 ↗ that wanted an easy lot for people to

1:55:32 ↗ drive in get out shop and leave but

1:55:36 ↗ that's what is a clause had as Christie

1:55:39 ↗ pointed out where 75 percent we were 75

1:55:42 ↗ percent of the developable land was

1:55:44 ↗ parking lots when we started looking at

1:55:46 ↗ the central Issaquah plan and most of

1:55:49 ↗ that was for retail we had far more

1:55:51 ↗ retail than we had residential or office

1:55:53 ↗ so retail it's a tough one but I think

1:55:56 ↗ we do have to have a minimum there and

1:55:58 ↗ maybe that's where you said it at 33% if

1:56:03 ↗ not higher but I think we should have

1:56:05 ↗ some minimum for retail because we

1:56:07 ↗ already have a lot of retail downtown

1:56:08 ↗ Issaquah my final question would be what

1:56:13 ↗ do we do with hotels and other types of

1:56:16 ↗ developments the Spring Hill Suites was

1:56:18 ↗ recently built at a hundred percent

1:56:20 ↗ structured parking so I think with hotel

1:56:23 ↗ properties you could easily go at at

1:56:24 ↗ least 50 percent if not more but I don't

1:56:27 ↗ know if Lane assures can consider that

1:56:29 ↗ separately so thank you very much just

1:56:34 ↗ to follow up on that if isn't there

1:56:38 ↗ requirements

1:56:41 ↗ or if a new business comes in new retail

1:56:45 ↗ don't they have to abide by a certain

1:56:48 ↗ number of parking spaces that they have

1:56:50 ↗ as they're required to have so there is

1:56:53 ↗ some kinds of requirements already right

1:56:56 ↗ so right now as with anything you know

1:57:00 ↗ if you wanted to build a new retail

1:57:01 ↗ space it would need to meet the parking

1:57:04 ↗ numbers so a certain number of spaces

1:57:07 ↗ would have to come with each one of

1:57:09 ↗ those new businesses okay so at least

1:57:13 ↗ there is some kind of a overing over

1:57:18 ↗ important you know connection that they

1:57:21 ↗ have to have there's some on retail and

1:57:25 ↗ requirements you know so retail is the

1:57:27 ↗ hardest one and and that's probably why

1:57:29 ↗ you guys are feeling less comfortable

1:57:31 ↗ with it you know I mean it's it's hard

1:57:34 ↗ to predict retails future frankly

1:57:37 ↗ brick-and-mortar retail is changing

1:57:40 ↗ dramatically you know that when you see

1:57:44 ↗ Sears not make it when you see JC

1:57:48 ↗ Penney's probably not going to make it

1:57:50 ↗ you know it's it's it's hard it's hard

1:57:52 ↗ to predict what kind of how retail is

1:57:54 ↗ going to change in the future you know I

1:57:57 ↗ can look at the empty staples building

1:57:59 ↗ and say you know somebody somebody

1:58:01 ↗ demolished that building and built the

1:58:04 ↗ same building there with surface parking

1:58:06 ↗ that would be that'd be horrible but

1:58:09 ↗ right now you know it's it's hard to

1:58:12 ↗ predict where this should go frankly for

1:58:14 ↗ we here so we have one more person that

1:58:17 ↗ I'm sure see was going to say all hi my

1:58:26 ↗ name's Keith Niven and I'm the economic

1:58:27 ↗ development director I'd like to add

1:58:31 ↗ Keith does his job and does it well so

1:58:33 ↗ I'm not going to hate Nike so a couple

1:58:36 ↗ thoughts one was I guess these are

1:58:40 ↗ aspirational statements and it's a place

1:58:43 ↗ seems very much it these two thoughts

1:58:46 ↗ but their heads one is what's the is

1:58:51 ↗ equality we want to be any others how do

1:58:53 ↗ we get economic development

1:58:55 ↗ and construction for a place that loves

1:58:58 ↗ its natural beauty when we have

1:59:01 ↗ impervious services that very much is

1:59:03 ↗ against that natural beauty so I would

1:59:08 ↗ agree that these numbers that are

1:59:09 ↗ represented here seem too low for

1:59:11 ↗ aspirational statements we need to be

1:59:13 ↗ shooting higher both in what we get and

1:59:19 ↗ what we want I think if you just have a

1:59:22 ↗ social standards you need that in code

1:59:23 ↗ though if I think I did hear Keith say

1:59:30 ↗ that office might already be at a

1:59:32 ↗ hundred percent so I guess I would set

1:59:34 ↗ that out as a goal already to start that

1:59:36 ↗ is a ten percent

1:59:38 ↗ residential thirty percent as minimum

1:59:41 ↗ retail I guess I have two thoughts one

1:59:44 ↗ is begin answer amount of sprawl if you

1:59:50 ↗ don't require retail to be kind of

1:59:53 ↗ centered area you can just go out and

1:59:54 ↗ build a lot tear down the trees and have

1:59:56 ↗ service service parking I think G and

2:00:00 ↗ just force that to be structured

2:00:01 ↗ together with and to defeat that sprawl

2:00:04 ↗ so I also I think there is a cumulative

2:00:06 ↗ effect of I think the example of the

2:00:09 ↗ corner bakery was put in an existing

2:00:12 ↗ place at some point you get a certain

2:00:14 ↗ level of density and don't have

2:00:17 ↗ structured parking you're then I'm going

2:00:19 ↗ to come back to the city and say we need

2:00:21 ↗ structured parking and the taxpayers

2:00:23 ↗ have to pay for that I don't think

2:00:24 ↗ that's a long-term goal either we need

2:00:27 ↗ to say not just who you are now but who

2:00:29 ↗ want to be I think if you don't require

2:00:32 ↗ the structured parking today to look at

2:00:35 ↗ the growth of the area in Puget Sound

2:00:37 ↗ we're not going to be that place we want

2:00:40 ↗ to be that has a great beauty I think

2:00:42 ↗ there's a switching gears a little bit

2:00:45 ↗ there's a I've heard the comment

2:00:48 ↗ expressed that we requires tried to

2:00:54 ↗ focus growth and development in this

2:00:56 ↗ central plan but we're getting a lot of

2:00:58 ↗ the growth in development outside of the

2:00:59 ↗ central planning area so I think we need

2:01:02 ↗ to look at a topic for insider' ation is

2:01:04 ↗ down zoning certain other areas we're

2:01:06 ↗ down zoning

2:01:07 ↗ eliminating construction in other areas

2:01:08 ↗ to center to focus it in a core area to

2:01:11 ↗ not have built and spread that's a piece

2:01:17 ↗ of it I think another piece is where you

2:01:22 ↗ I I think you still want a zoning that

2:01:29 ↗ limits the height of you buildings to a

2:01:31 ↗ certain zone outside of a sub core area

2:01:33 ↗ so that we don't have spreading growth

2:01:37 ↗ or a way to control that or to enforce

2:01:39 ↗ the structured parking maybe those

2:01:41 ↗ things might be considered outside of

2:01:42 ↗ the structure that I'm looking to the

2:01:44 ↗ policy Planning Commission to consider

2:01:48 ↗ things in a wider perspective than just

2:01:50 ↗ the things that you get presented

2:01:51 ↗ specifically by city staff please keep

2:01:57 ↗ up the good work

2:01:57 ↗ Thanks I'm sorry one other thought and

2:02:02 ↗ it's a process thing I guess I'd like to

2:02:04 ↗ see in the agenda place where it simply

2:02:08 ↗ calls up public comment as an item topic

2:02:11 ↗ that's discussed not just as something

2:02:13 ↗ we add partway through that way just

2:02:15 ↗ maybe hopefully increases people wanted

2:02:18 ↗ to come and talk and increases democracy

2:02:22 ↗ if they know that there's a planned

2:02:23 ↗ place for that I think that's a good

2:02:26 ↗ thing Thanks so John can we propose

2:02:32 ↗ something and to go for without I'm

2:02:34 ↗ going to close the public comments and

2:02:36 ↗ open it up to you so we so actually I

2:02:43 ↗ think both of both and I'm sorry I don't

2:02:46 ↗ remember even and they they they said

2:02:51 ↗ something but I was thinking as well so

2:02:54 ↗ I think for me I would be comfortable

2:02:57 ↗ with 5050 and 33 I I really I really

2:03:02 ↗ cannot see not having a standard for the

2:03:06 ↗ retail and so for me that would be the

2:03:10 ↗ so I don't I agree with the AJ that it's

2:03:14 ↗ not going to solve all our problems

2:03:15 ↗ I think density is the one that will

2:03:17 ↗ solve the problem

2:03:19 ↗ but if we had to have the structured

2:03:21 ↗ parking standard to me that would be the

2:03:23 ↗ place to go and I would agree with that

2:03:26 ↗ idea but I would put a minimum size

2:03:28 ↗ requirement on the retail before

2:03:30 ↗ required requiring structured parking

2:03:32 ↗ much like we're talking about for office

2:03:35 ↗ at 5,000 and I'm not sure where that is

2:03:39 ↗ on retail there's very few projects here

2:03:43 ↗ to look at let's see well they said that

2:03:49 ↗ was 10 to 15 parking spots or at that

2:03:52 ↗ size or office but not necessarily for

2:03:55 ↗ retail so the the four projects that we

2:03:58 ↗ have here you've got the plaza 221

2:04:01 ↗ retail which required 57 parking spots

2:04:04 ↗ for 11,000 square feet and then you jump

2:04:08 ↗ up to 118 thousand square feet with over

2:04:11 ↗ Lake Center so I'm not sure if there is

2:04:15 ↗ any information on understanding how

2:04:18 ↗ many parking spaces per kind of set of

2:04:23 ↗ square footage on retail that might help

2:04:26 ↗ make that decision because we might say

2:04:29 ↗ with retail I really don't want to see

2:04:32 ↗ 50 parking spots out in front of

2:04:35 ↗ something in central Issaquah so still

2:04:37 ↗ being back we can actually create I

2:04:43 ↗ think a motion that we asked the city

2:04:48 ↗ for what is reasonable for retail

2:04:52 ↗ structured parking and they can come up

2:04:54 ↗ with some cases and present them what to

2:04:57 ↗ us so that we can have a better

2:04:58 ↗ understanding of what we want to

2:05:01 ↗ recommend in terms of a number we don't

2:05:03 ↗ have enough data to make that assessment

2:05:06 ↗ tonight I think we have a reasonable

2:05:10 ↗ amount of information to make the

2:05:12 ↗ assessment for a residential office

2:05:13 ↗ retail and hotel and actually though yet

2:05:18 ↗ my own mind I put down 50% for

2:05:22 ↗ residential at and 60% 50% for office

2:05:26 ↗ and he just happened at the same number

2:05:28 ↗ so we want to make a decision on those

2:05:32 ↗ and then

2:05:32 ↗ the city to come back with some but they

2:05:36 ↗ think is acceptable for retail with some

2:05:38 ↗ cases so we can make a decision on it

2:05:40 ↗ I'm going to jump in and say that I love

2:05:43 ↗ Ron how you like to you like to get more

2:05:46 ↗ information and put the brakes on

2:05:47 ↗ because I think all of us want to make

2:05:49 ↗ the best choice possible and get as much

2:05:51 ↗ information as possible but based on

2:05:53 ↗ where we're at I think that we need to

2:05:55 ↗ make a recommendation tonight that

2:05:57 ↗ doesn't necessarily need to coincide

2:05:59 ↗ necessarily with what we initially came

2:06:01 ↗ in with but the idea of saying let's get

2:06:05 ↗ more information and put it off I think

2:06:06 ↗ might be detrimental to our community in

2:06:08 ↗ terms of moving forward with the agenda

2:06:10 ↗ items that we need to I am a big

2:06:12 ↗ proponent of what LCS said even though I

2:06:15 ↗ agree with her about the squishiness of

2:06:16 ↗ what we're looking at I think we have to

2:06:18 ↗ say this is the best that we've got

2:06:20 ↗ right now and we've had suggestions of

2:06:22 ↗ saying we're going to we're going to

2:06:23 ↗ take a shot and see how it goes so given

2:06:25 ↗ that I think we should I would be a

2:06:28 ↗ proponent of of moving around with these

2:06:30 ↗ numbers a little bit right now I don't

2:06:33 ↗ know if I would love to hear from staff

2:06:35 ↗ saying yes we proposed this you seem to

2:06:37 ↗ be in favor of something maybe you have

2:06:39 ↗ a more of a tiered system obviously you

2:06:41 ↗ like retail being less than and I think

2:06:44 ↗ that we're seeing office as being

2:06:45 ↗ something that can easily support having

2:06:49 ↗ more so maybe that means that it's kind

2:06:50 ↗ of a tiered gradual amount of increases

2:06:53 ↗ but I also like I'll say it would be a

2:06:56 ↗ proponent of changing these numbers so I

2:06:59 ↗ just want to make a couple comments you

2:07:01 ↗ had up there on the first slide you put

2:07:07 ↗ that back up at six is that is that the

2:07:13 ↗ slide for the next one

2:07:18 ↗ that one that they have put in 43%

2:07:25 ↗ parking I'd like to know what they're

2:07:29 ↗ doing with the rest of the cars I mean

2:07:32 ↗ that's only half of the scenario you

2:07:36 ↗ need to know okay there's 43 percent but

2:07:38 ↗ there has whatever 50 some percent

2:07:42 ↗ that's on the street or you know you

2:07:44 ↗ have to look at that at the same time

2:07:46 ↗ that you look at how much parking they

2:07:49 ↗ provide that doesn't mean too much to me

2:07:52 ↗ because there's so much more or maybe

2:07:54 ↗ there isn't anymore

2:07:56 ↗ when you look at at those particular

2:07:58 ↗ things and the second thing is when we

2:08:00 ↗ talked about the central area it was

2:08:03 ↗ always with the assumption that there

2:08:05 ↗ would be green necklace and open areas

2:08:09 ↗ for people we want a density but we

2:08:12 ↗ wanted openness at the same time and I

2:08:15 ↗ don't know if I can go back and say

2:08:18 ↗ we're just going to have these buildings

2:08:22 ↗ be 33 percent or 50 percent without

2:08:26 ↗ knowing that how much area we actually

2:08:31 ↗ have to build on giving us all the green

2:08:34 ↗ stuff around it so we might require more

2:08:38 ↗ than 33 percent we might require more

2:08:40 ↗ than 50 percent if the bottom line is to

2:08:44 ↗ get what the central area wanted and and

2:08:48 ↗ imagine for our city so I think 33

2:08:53 ↗ percent is too low I agree with with

2:08:56 ↗ some of the other commissioners here I

2:08:59 ↗ would like to get some kind of a emotion

2:09:02 ↗ tonight and even if it's just two of the

2:09:06 ↗ three but we need to progress onto this

2:09:09 ↗ I think that we're kind of looking at

2:09:12 ↗ you know we want the retail to have a

2:09:15 ↗ certain amount but I don't think you

2:09:19 ↗ know are you going to go back and look

2:09:20 ↗ at the retail that we have we're going

2:09:23 ↗ to require more things if you're putting

2:09:25 ↗ in a burger a burger king of some some

2:09:30 ↗ store

2:09:32 ↗ are you really going to require you know

2:09:37 ↗ parking you know structured parking I

2:09:40 ↗ don't think that a small grocery store

2:09:42 ↗ something is going to be able to do that

2:09:44 ↗ so what Lucy answers my question before

2:09:47 ↗ Keith gave me this wonderful explanation

2:09:50 ↗ I asked her why what would you do if you

2:09:53 ↗ come in with 31% to the 33% you said we

2:09:56 ↗ work with you we do this we get you know

2:09:59 ↗ and I like that approach from the city

2:10:01 ↗ that they're willing to work to see how

2:10:03 ↗ you can put it together

2:10:05 ↗ to even get more density and more I

2:10:10 ↗ would rather have all the you know

2:10:12 ↗ structured parking so I get 45 different

2:10:16 ↗ parks that I can walk around and it

2:10:18 ↗ doesn't bother me as much so I would

2:10:21 ↗ like to have a motion tonight I think

2:10:23 ↗ we're at a point where we need a motion

2:10:25 ↗ I think we've discussed all the stuff

2:10:29 ↗ that we can you know little things that

2:10:31 ↗ are in it so would somebody like to make

2:10:33 ↗ a motion and I ask one more question

2:10:36 ↗ okay hotels where do they fall between

2:10:40 ↗ office retail residential well that's

2:10:43 ↗ the question I was just discussing with

2:10:46 ↗ Keith I mean those three uses that we

2:10:49 ↗ proposed don't cover every use that

2:10:52 ↗ there is pack city and and so for

2:10:55 ↗ instance restaurants I'm not sure would

2:10:57 ↗ fall into those categories we didn't say

2:11:00 ↗ commercial which would capture every

2:11:03 ↗ single what would capture a lot more

2:11:05 ↗ uses institutional we're talking about

2:11:10 ↗ through a separate just owning change on

2:11:14 ↗ school industrial and warehouse I mean

2:11:22 ↗ you know so we're not we we didn't try

2:11:24 ↗ and hit every category but we should

2:11:27 ↗ talk about other categories I mean as

2:11:31 ↗ now identified the Spring Hill Marriott

2:11:35 ↗ is 100% Raleigh hotel is zero they they

2:11:40 ↗ plan structured parking

2:11:42 ↗ as future phases and the parking lots

2:11:44 ↗ they built will come out but that that

2:11:47 ↗ is that is what it is the hotel that was

2:11:54 ↗ planted his quoi Highlands would have

2:11:56 ↗ had maybe 75 67 75 percent structured

2:12:03 ↗ parking and it was not financially

2:12:05 ↗ feasible and so they can move forward

2:12:07 ↗ with it so you know again we don't have

2:12:10 ↗ a big sample of hotels to guide us

2:12:13 ↗ though in terms of hotels it it takes

2:12:17 ↗ care of the rooms accept hospitality has

2:12:21 ↗ a whole lot of people that work there

2:12:22 ↗ and so you if you're not counting that

2:12:26 ↗ then you're under you got less parking

2:12:30 ↗ spaces and you shed or lose less parking

2:12:32 ↗ the new strip so how you define a number

2:12:35 ↗ of parking spaces for hospitality is

2:12:38 ↗ very different than having it for

2:12:41 ↗ residential or or retail right there's a

2:12:44 ↗ two different things well and and I

2:12:46 ↗ think what you're saying is whether the

2:12:48 ↗ parking requirements based on and

2:12:51 ↗ they're on a per room basis that isn't

2:12:54 ↗ just for guests but takes into account

2:12:56 ↗ the staff that serves the hotel so and

2:13:04 ↗ you know rather than get sidetracked on

2:13:08 ↗ that one thing that I think would be

2:13:11 ↗ important in taking this back to Landon

2:13:14 ↗ Shore is to have a list of those things

2:13:17 ↗ that this doesn't cover such as as you

2:13:21 ↗ said restaurants I'm not sure now that I

2:13:24 ↗ think about it whether or not grocery

2:13:26 ↗ stores are included in that and if I was

2:13:28 ↗ going to make a recommendation on retail

2:13:32 ↗ structured parking requirements I would

2:13:35 ↗ have to think about that you know are we

2:13:37 ↗ just talking about a larger retail

2:13:41 ↗ environment like what happened in the

2:13:44 ↗ highlands and high street or what about

2:13:47 ↗ a grocery store that goes in are we

2:13:50 ↗ requiring that they're so understanding

2:13:53 ↗ that scope would be really important

2:13:57 ↗ are you suggesting we do not make a

2:14:00 ↗ recommendation tonight no I'm suggesting

2:14:03 ↗ that we did no I do believe we need to

2:14:06 ↗ make a recommendation but we are just a

2:14:11 ↗ recommendation body if we also recommend

2:14:14 ↗ these are the other pieces of

2:14:16 ↗ information that they may need to

2:14:18 ↗ disregard our recommendation and move

2:14:21 ↗ forward with it I think that's fine so

2:14:23 ↗ we make a recommendation based on three

2:14:26 ↗ areas that we were asked to make a

2:14:30 ↗ location on and make a recommendation

2:14:32 ↗ about other areas be make a

2:14:36 ↗ recommendation that city staff provide

2:14:39 ↗ the additional information for land and

2:14:41 ↗ char because one of the reasons that

2:14:43 ↗ things you could do that you know that's

2:14:44 ↗ that's two different ones yep

2:14:47 ↗ give me a give me a notion what do you

2:14:50 ↗ think of that what is presented this

2:14:53 ↗ evening are we able to come to a

2:14:57 ↗ consensus on numbers won't we start

2:14:59 ↗ there that's what I'm we started

2:15:00 ↗ involving your me do that in the

2:15:03 ↗ emotional either fail or you change the

2:15:06 ↗ motion please do the first two I would

2:15:09 ↗ love to ask is that I know you've you

2:15:11 ↗ come with of these numbers we tend to

2:15:12 ↗ have a consensus of wanting to tweak

2:15:14 ↗ those numbers do you have any input as

2:15:16 ↗ far as to me I'm seeing a cheered a

2:15:18 ↗ tiered system I'd love to see if you're

2:15:20 ↗ like nope across the board right now I'm

2:15:22 ↗ seeing that you want to have less

2:15:23 ↗ requirements of structured parking on

2:15:26 ↗ retail and right now it looks like the

2:15:28 ↗ market can bear the highest amount of

2:15:30 ↗ office so with city staff liked would

2:15:33 ↗ the city staff support our

2:15:35 ↗ recommendation if it was more tiered

2:15:38 ↗ than across the board or do you see

2:15:40 ↗ residential and office being the same

2:15:42 ↗ seeing as you recommended to us via 33%

2:15:45 ↗ across those two so I just want to make

2:15:48 ↗ sure I understand your terminology so

2:15:50 ↗ when you say tier do you mean that each

2:15:52 ↗ of these land uses doesn't have the same

2:15:55 ↗ requirement rect okay yeah I don't have

2:15:58 ↗ a concern that they might have different

2:16:00 ↗ requirements okay looks like I'm going

2:16:06 ↗ to propose them that we say that a

2:16:08 ↗ retail is at 32

2:16:10 ↗ percent I'm going to propose that we say

2:16:12 ↗ that residential is at 33% and that

2:16:16 ↗ office is at 50% I disagree I want I

2:16:19 ↗ would like to I do I have a second on

2:16:22 ↗ the motion it was it was not a motion no

2:16:25 ↗ I know I know but you know you want to

2:16:28 ↗ go there I know that yeah I'm trying to

2:16:30 ↗ just test that waters you have numbers

2:16:31 ↗ right now so I was actually thinking

2:16:33 ↗ 5050 33 so 50 residential 50 office 33

2:16:37 ↗ hotel I'm sorry we can't detail sorry

2:16:42 ↗ okay I want to throw in minimum sizes

2:16:46 ↗ there I'm being with the office the

2:16:50 ↗ recommendation was 5000 and I think I

2:16:52 ↗ agree on that I have no clue where to

2:16:55 ↗ put that on retail but I feel like it

2:16:57 ↗ has to be there so they have some

2:16:58 ↗ definitions that maybe help page 1608

2:17:03 ↗ Rita I've they have general midscale

2:17:05 ↗ general large-scale in general

2:17:07 ↗ neighborhood scale retail definitions

2:17:10 ↗ 30,000 square feet for a mid scale 4,000

2:17:14 ↗ for neighborhood scale your worship is

2:17:17 ↗ 45 or 50 one that's very good okay so so

2:17:23 ↗ yeah so we could use those numbers if we

2:17:27 ↗ want to base it on a definition so and

2:17:34 ↗ and again this is not like conclusive

2:17:38 ↗ it's only one example but corner bakery

2:17:41 ↗ I think is either 41 or 4,300 square

2:17:43 ↗ feet and I think that would that's a

2:17:47 ↗ size that indicates to me it would be

2:17:49 ↗ pretty hard to add parking into that

2:17:52 ↗ structure isn't that a restaurant also

2:17:55 ↗ so it is a restaurant but I'm just

2:17:58 ↗ thinking of it as a so-so maybe part of

2:18:01 ↗ it the way to go about this is in the

2:18:03 ↗ other direction not as opposed to thing

2:18:05 ↗ about how many square feet the space is

2:18:07 ↗ think about how many parking spaces make

2:18:11 ↗ sense to be in a structure right so if

2:18:13 ↗ you say let's assume that it's 20 spaces

2:18:15 ↗ that's basically let's call it you could

2:18:18 ↗ see there tuck under so it could be

2:18:20 ↗ under the building or it's two floors

2:18:23 ↗ of ten spaces well that's a really small

2:18:26 ↗ garage right and so this is where you

2:18:29 ↗ have to kind of start to test what does

2:18:31 ↗ that look like out once if somebody were

2:18:32 ↗ to build this and so you know I think so

2:18:36 ↗ the question and you guys had kind of a

2:18:37 ↗ little bit visceral reaction to 50 right

2:18:40 ↗ a surface parking lot of 50 was bad okay

2:18:43 ↗ so what if that was structured

2:18:46 ↗ okay well now you could say it's it's

2:18:48 ↗ two floors of 25 okay well or it's three

2:18:52 ↗ floors of whatever that works out to be

2:18:54 ↗ so so it might be easier to think about

2:18:56 ↗ it because if you guys thought about in

2:18:58 ↗ terms of number of cars we can translate

2:19:01 ↗ that into square footage of retail space

2:19:03 ↗ based on the standards because the

2:19:04 ↗ standards say you have to have a certain

2:19:06 ↗ number of spaces per square foot right

2:19:08 ↗ so so I don't know if that wouldn't be

2:19:10 ↗ helpful or not but that may be I think

2:19:13 ↗ that I think that is really helpful to

2:19:15 ↗ me I think if we have the numbers that

2:19:18 ↗ said this many parking spaces per square

2:19:20 ↗ feet and for this size of a building you

2:19:25 ↗ could see that many structured spaces

2:19:28 ↗ per floor that would certainly be

2:19:30 ↗ helpful in making whatever decision that

2:19:33 ↗ I'm guessing ultimately landed chore is

2:19:35 ↗ going to have to make so maximum Maxim's

2:19:38 ↗ are usually one per 400 square feet and

2:19:41 ↗ minimums are usually one for 200 square

2:19:43 ↗ feet for offices and I think for retail

2:19:48 ↗ restaurants that the challenge is

2:19:51 ↗ parking is really high now the one thing

2:19:54 ↗ that we do typically do is that when you

2:19:57 ↗ look at something like where Corner

2:19:59 ↗ Bakery went in I'm just wiggling because

2:20:00 ↗ I'm freezing the air conditionings like

2:20:02 ↗ on high now and where Corner Bakery went

2:20:07 ↗ in it's a mix of uses and we typically

2:20:10 ↗ use a shopping center standard for

2:20:12 ↗ development like that and I think that's

2:20:15 ↗ again one type

2:20:19 ↗ Jennifer's looking up as fast as she can

2:20:21 ↗ yeah it's like one per I think it's it's

2:20:27 ↗ three as a max

2:20:35 ↗ okay so we could not put a square

2:20:39 ↗ footage requirement on it because it

2:20:40 ↗ already was going to have to adhere to

2:20:42 ↗ what's already set I'm sorry so wait

2:20:46 ↗ again during it and by trying to change

2:20:49 ↗ the amount that staff has already put

2:20:51 ↗ that radio yeah so you could you could

2:20:53 ↗ basically say that there could be a

2:20:56 ↗ requirement that there's not a surface

2:20:58 ↗ parking lot greater than X number of

2:21:00 ↗ stalls right so that way you could say

2:21:03 ↗ all right so so let's say that 20 we

2:21:06 ↗ don't want to parking lot bigger than 20

2:21:08 ↗ stalls all right so now if I'm building

2:21:11 ↗ a development and it requires 25 I've

2:21:15 ↗ got to put those extra five stalls in a

2:21:17 ↗ structure somewhere right so that's I

2:21:20 ↗ mean you could tackle it that way so

2:21:22 ↗ I've got an idea here and I think we

2:21:25 ↗ have a lot of different ideas on the

2:21:28 ↗ table right now and I know it some of

2:21:31 ↗ you wants to make a decision tonight so

2:21:34 ↗ let me ask staff if we give you our

2:21:37 ↗ recommendations and you help us bake

2:21:40 ↗ this into a plan that we can vote on the

2:21:44 ↗ next time we meet would that delay would

2:21:49 ↗ that delay cause a negative impact in

2:21:53 ↗ the agendas so um I I'm only providing

2:21:57 ↗ this as an answer to you our agenda

2:22:00 ↗ bills due tomorrow oh yeah

2:22:04 ↗ so if I just stay on the schedule and

2:22:07 ↗ that's what I was going to say is if the

2:22:09 ↗ right thing to do is to not send

2:22:11 ↗ something forward we can delay it all

2:22:14 ↗ I'm saying is to stay on the schedule we

2:22:17 ↗ have to have a recommendation tonight

2:22:19 ↗ and so here's the thing

2:22:21 ↗ Landon sure gave this to us because they

2:22:24 ↗ didn't know what to do with those

2:22:26 ↗ numbers no every code revision is going

2:22:29 ↗ to come through you guys so for vertical

2:22:31 ↗ mix use if we do a code revision

2:22:32 ↗ everything you guys are going to get to

2:22:34 ↗ touch all the moratorium things okay but

2:22:37 ↗ the question they asked yes so I don't I

2:22:43 ↗ don't think they were out

2:22:44 ↗ they were asking staff that question and

2:22:47 ↗ we thought that that was useful

2:22:50 ↗ information both for you and for the

2:22:54 ↗ land in Shore I think what they're

2:22:57 ↗ asking for you is to have the kind of

2:23:00 ↗ conversation that you're having is you

2:23:03 ↗ know what are our consent concerns what

2:23:05 ↗ are our opportunities how does this fit

2:23:07 ↗ with the vision where might this have

2:23:09 ↗ negative consequences are we including

2:23:11 ↗ the right lane I mean all the things

2:23:13 ↗ that you're talking about are the things

2:23:14 ↗ that they're looking for you to have a

2:23:16 ↗ conversation about so maybe now we look

2:23:21 ↗ at these 45 and use that as a guide and

2:23:26 ↗ we make those numbers work within the

2:23:29 ↗ next 15 minutes we could come up with a

2:23:33 ↗ decision because I think right now we

2:23:35 ↗ are in all reference yeah well we have

2:23:39 ↗ differences of opinions because we don't

2:23:41 ↗ really know how we want to tie those

2:23:43 ↗ numbers in and and you've all brought up

2:23:45 ↗ really good points about some of these

2:23:49 ↗ numbers like well where's a hotel

2:23:51 ↗ where's a restaurant come in where is a

2:23:53 ↗ supermarket come in so so maybe maybe

2:23:57 ↗ again its suggestion to help you guys

2:24:00 ↗ with this conversation is staff I think

2:24:05 ↗ what's clear that we took a conservative

2:24:08 ↗ approach to this no other cities doing

2:24:09 ↗ this we said okay let's let's put one

2:24:12 ↗ toe in the lake you heard from the

2:24:14 ↗ public this is we should be aspirational

2:24:16 ↗ not conservative so maybe the first step

2:24:19 ↗ is to say philosophically do you guys

2:24:21 ↗ think we should be aspirational or

2:24:23 ↗ conservative because that will then tip

2:24:26 ↗ you towards one side or other of the

2:24:28 ↗ spectrum and then if if there's

2:24:30 ↗ consensus on that then we can talk about

2:24:33 ↗ okay what's an aspirational number that

2:24:36 ↗ we all can maybe feel comfortable with

2:24:38 ↗ or what's the conservative number that

2:24:40 ↗ we might all feel comfortable with it's

2:24:42 ↗ a suggestion or make a motion to make a

2:24:46 ↗ decision on whether we want to be

2:24:48 ↗ conservative level

2:24:52 ↗ we can move this thing forward I don't

2:24:55 ↗ know that that mattheum oh yeah oh yeah

2:24:58 ↗ spiration

2:24:59 ↗ raise your target so so I are we agreed

2:25:03 ↗ on the 50-50 on the first two it's the

2:25:06 ↗ third one that we seem to be stuck on

2:25:07 ↗ victus so some people on new information

2:25:10 ↗ yeah and so it we're it's the thing that

2:25:15 ↗ we're sticking on is so we like the

2:25:16 ↗ third is from what I heard we like the

2:25:19 ↗ 33 we just don't know what that

2:25:20 ↗ threshold is that's it right so we've

2:25:23 ↗ got a 50/50 and threshold on the 33% is

2:25:27 ↗ are we going to impact smaller

2:25:28 ↗ businesses that's that's our question

2:25:30 ↗ here right right you know yes yes yes

2:25:36 ↗ and are we choosing 50% because we feel

2:25:39 ↗ like it's aspirational yes I think you

2:25:43 ↗ aspirational is go I don't even know the

2:25:45 ↗ 50% is aspirational I think the market

2:25:46 ↗ can bear it when we look at the numbers

2:25:48 ↗ specifically regarding office space I

2:25:49 ↗ think it's going to be easily this is a

2:25:52 ↗ minimum never gonna know they can go to

2:25:55 ↗ 100% if they want but this is our

2:25:58 ↗ baseline minimum so the 50-50 club here

2:26:04 ↗ works I think that the retail is so it's

2:26:11 ↗ extremely different than its you know

2:26:15 ↗ there's so many different different

2:26:17 ↗ avenues different kinds of retail

2:26:18 ↗ different requirements there is

2:26:20 ↗ requirements in the city for a number of

2:26:24 ↗ parking spaces for retail units so there

2:26:30 ↗ is some basis to to work on this but to

2:26:34 ↗ require a small places to have

2:26:37 ↗ structured parking is is I don't know

2:26:43 ↗ how you can do that I mean how how could

2:26:45 ↗ you open a learning center and build

2:26:49 ↗ dude who's going to come in and offer

2:26:51 ↗ Issaquah those services we have to

2:26:53 ↗ provide some you know open spaces we

2:26:58 ↗ have to have enough because each one has

2:26:59 ↗ to have so many spaces available but

2:27:04 ↗ it's

2:27:04 ↗ very difficult for the small businesses

2:27:07 ↗ now if you're talking and I could have

2:27:10 ↗ idea because aren't we talking about the

2:27:13 ↗ developers who build the buildings not

2:27:15 ↗ the retailer who ends up inhabiting that

2:27:18 ↗ building you would just have more

2:27:20 ↗ retailers in a larger building is the

2:27:22 ↗ idea so we would still be able to have a

2:27:26 ↗ variety of services provided to us it's

2:27:28 ↗ just not all individually so I have a

2:27:30 ↗ big building and you put in ten

2:27:32 ↗ different small retail in there and then

2:27:37 ↗ require them to pay for structured

2:27:40 ↗ parking there's small business on a

2:27:43 ↗ limited budget and that's just going to

2:27:47 ↗ add cosby there to us or to to them to

2:27:52 ↗ be able to open their business and you

2:27:54 ↗ know that eliminates Issaquah from

2:27:56 ↗ having a good business here so you've

2:27:59 ↗ got to be really careful on whether it's

2:28:02 ↗ an existing retail space or somebody

2:28:05 ↗ building a new space you're not going to

2:28:08 ↗ I can imagine that 30,000 square foot

2:28:11 ↗ retail business in Central miss applause

2:28:14 ↗ it just doesn't sit there but if you

2:28:17 ↗ have the big building with 10 different

2:28:21 ↗ smaller areas and smaller companies in

2:28:24 ↗ there that would work oh sorry

2:28:27 ↗ quietly so I don't think that we should

2:28:31 ↗ be extremely concerned with putting

2:28:34 ↗ higher numbers on on retail that's just

2:28:39 ↗ my opinion I think that you know 33 to

2:28:42 ↗ me is that is a big number as it is and

2:28:44 ↗ I don't think we should go anywhere

2:28:46 ↗ further than 33 percent o my Greek zone

2:28:49 ↗ I might kill you can't I already 50 33

2:28:52 ↗ is what don't think I have a question

2:28:55 ↗ for Keith yes on the retail yes help us

2:28:59 ↗ understand how to come up with the

2:29:01 ↗ number what so right now because because

2:29:05 ↗ there is no truck no charge parking in

2:29:08 ↗ Issaquah that if you if you create if

2:29:12 ↗ you create a situation where a retail or

2:29:15 ↗ somebody one who wants to build retail

2:29:17 ↗ has to build a parking garage they're

2:29:20 ↗ not going to be able to monetize the

2:29:22 ↗ value of that with the patrons so in

2:29:24 ↗ other words you know you can't charge

2:29:26 ↗ the park in that garage because as soon

2:29:28 ↗ as you put a price tag on if people will

2:29:30 ↗ just park elsewhere they'll find other

2:29:32 ↗ free parking close by and do that and

2:29:34 ↗ then that will be seen as a detriment to

2:29:36 ↗ the retail space and so they'll be

2:29:38 ↗ vacant okay so at some point that that

2:29:41 ↗ paradigm changes in Issaquah when we

2:29:44 ↗ have when parking is at a premium

2:29:46 ↗ and then it you can charge for retail

2:29:49 ↗ parking so right now what's going to

2:29:51 ↗ happen is that retail space will have to

2:29:55 ↗ charge its retailers its tenants more

2:29:58 ↗ money to offset the cost of maintaining

2:30:00 ↗ the garage right and so what you'll have

2:30:03 ↗ happen is it'll be a function of the

2:30:07 ↗ availability of space so as retailers

2:30:09 ↗ look to habitat different spaces within

2:30:13 ↗ the city that more expensive space will

2:30:16 ↗ go last okay so so if you so any any

2:30:21 ↗ percentage on retail I think you're now

2:30:24 ↗ to the point of saying I'd say pick a

2:30:27 ↗ number because I think you're just going

2:30:29 ↗ to basically preclude a number of

2:30:32 ↗ retailers from being able to afford that

2:30:34 ↗ space so if we want to be aspirational

2:30:38 ↗ and create structured parking for retail

2:30:42 ↗ yes understanding the the small business

2:30:47 ↗ model that Joan brought up is really a

2:30:49 ↗ great point that when I'm also thinking

2:30:51 ↗ about is the development where Lowe's

2:30:55 ↗ and PCC is if in the future

2:30:58 ↗ forward-looking when that becomes

2:31:00 ↗ redeveloped because of I imagine it will

2:31:03 ↗ how large of a retail space should we be

2:31:07 ↗ looking at before we put down a

2:31:09 ↗ requirement because obviously the bigger

2:31:11 ↗ the rewrite the retail space not a

2:31:13 ↗ retailer but the entire complex right so

2:31:18 ↗ this is this is the struggle we had

2:31:20 ↗ which is why we ended up with zero and

2:31:21 ↗ you may not like our thought process so

2:31:23 ↗ on the very big end of the spectrum a

2:31:26 ↗ mall or you know whether it's an

2:31:29 ↗ enclosed mall

2:31:30 ↗ or an open-air mall like grandage Plaza

2:31:31 ↗ or the Commons if the Commons built

2:31:34 ↗ today most likely they would have put

2:31:36 ↗ some of their their parking in structure

2:31:38 ↗ and they're actually we're having

2:31:40 ↗ conversations with them about

2:31:41 ↗ redevelopment and it's going to turn

2:31:43 ↗ into something much more dense that that

2:31:47 ↗ part structured parking for that will

2:31:49 ↗ happen just because of the value of land

2:31:51 ↗ and the amount of square footage that

2:31:53 ↗ we're all going to want to incorporate

2:31:54 ↗ on their property so then you flip to

2:31:57 ↗ the middle size so the middle size are

2:31:59 ↗ like the the lows and the grocery stores

2:32:02 ↗ and the staples building and those type

2:32:06 ↗ of spaces right now there there's not

2:32:11 ↗ many new retailers that want to

2:32:15 ↗ encompass that size of a space you're

2:32:19 ↗ basically talking you know your bigger

2:32:23 ↗ chains or you know like furniture

2:32:27 ↗ galleries or things that take a lot of

2:32:29 ↗ floor space right and so then then

2:32:33 ↗ you're down to little so you go you go

2:32:35 ↗ really big like like enclosed or outdoor

2:32:38 ↗ mall then you've got your big box and we

2:32:41 ↗ have we're not going to get more we're

2:32:42 ↗ not likely going to get more big boxes

2:32:45 ↗ we could I mean one of the reasons why

2:32:47 ↗ this came up is there was a proposal for

2:32:49 ↗ a Les Schwab Schwab big-box surface

2:32:52 ↗ parking not what we want but that gives

2:32:55 ↗ a big box

2:32:56 ↗ well medium sized box you know but

2:33:00 ↗ that's that's one of the things that I

2:33:01 ↗ agree with AJ is this isn't the only

2:33:03 ↗ tool that's going to get us to where we

2:33:05 ↗ want to be at the end of the day though

2:33:07 ↗ Keith can I stop you there my biggest

2:33:10 ↗ concern and somebody said it and I don't

2:33:12 ↗ remember who is at some point if we

2:33:15 ↗ don't plan for it now and we don't do

2:33:17 ↗ the aspirational stuff now at some point

2:33:19 ↗ it's going to cost Issaquah and we don't

2:33:21 ↗ have that money right and we're going to

2:33:24 ↗ have to pay for that parking garage so

2:33:26 ↗ the standards we put in place today are

2:33:29 ↗ going to impact us in the future and if

2:33:32 ↗ we don't take care of it now we're going

2:33:34 ↗ to take care of the future because it's

2:33:35 ↗ not going to scale the way district was

2:33:38 ↗ growing and the amount of demand there

2:33:41 ↗ is for for retail and retail products

2:33:44 ↗ it's just not going to scale parking

2:33:47 ↗ lots are already really really full and

2:33:50 ↗ so they're going to have to put parking

2:33:52 ↗ garages at some point so the way I'm

2:33:55 ↗ thinking about it is the bigger stores

2:33:57 ↗ and how we define the bigger stores we

2:34:00 ↗ have to have structured parking they

2:34:01 ↗ have to build it in now because if they

2:34:03 ↗ don't we're going to pay for it later

2:34:05 ↗ so you know that's I I'm not willing to

2:34:10 ↗ accept a zero on retail right now for

2:34:14 ↗ for larger businesses I honestly there

2:34:17 ↗ should almost be a different requirement

2:34:19 ↗ retail versus mall mall is a completely

2:34:23 ↗ different animal

2:34:24 ↗ although it's retail the duck protects

2:34:26 ↗ the small mom-and-pop retail shop like

2:34:29 ↗ run Street Market I agree we were to

2:34:31 ↗ redevelop you're going to require them

2:34:32 ↗ love them

2:34:33 ↗ parking they can't make that work I

2:34:36 ↗ don't think no matter what we tell you

2:34:38 ↗ put there you wouldn't be able to make

2:34:39 ↗ that work because of the sites there's

2:34:42 ↗ benches that's the size requirement or

2:34:45 ↗ the demand requirement for for parking

2:34:48 ↗ and since we do have are a number of

2:34:52 ↗ parking spaces and it's based on I'm

2:34:54 ↗ thinking is based on square footage

2:34:55 ↗ right of the store not that less dimmers

2:34:59 ↗ that's that you can concerns me even

2:35:01 ↗ more that's not customers is based on on

2:35:03 ↗ square footages to store you know we

2:35:06 ↗ could use that so can we go in with a

2:35:09 ↗ proposal and I'm conscious of time

2:35:12 ↗ because it's way past time and you guys

2:35:14 ↗ have been working all day

2:35:16 ↗ so can we do the 30 we do 5050 and 33

2:35:22 ↗ and then leave the the kind of the cap

2:35:25 ↗ on the size of the business to like a

2:35:28 ↗ midsize and above and whatever we define

2:35:32 ↗ midsize we go with the operate whatever

2:35:34 ↗ the operational definition is and I'm

2:35:36 ↗ thinking something like that because if

2:35:38 ↗ we make it if we make it too small then

2:35:41 ↗ then we're impacting small businesses

2:35:43 ↗ make it too large we're only impacting

2:35:46 ↗ big-box stores and so we need something

2:35:49 ↗ in between so that I mean that's what

2:35:51 ↗ I'm thinking what do you do so so to

2:35:54 ↗ give you some

2:35:55 ↗ reference points I'll try and be as

2:35:57 ↗ accurate as it can be so so staples is

2:36:00 ↗ like 22,000 square feet okay

2:36:05 ↗ so bigger or smaller or is that the size

2:36:09 ↗ I mean so so okay so if you want

2:36:12 ↗ something smaller than that the corner

2:36:16 ↗ bakery is a good example you're saying

2:36:17 ↗ the corner bakery was less than 5,000 is

2:36:19 ↗ just under where details under it right

2:36:21 ↗ now if you look at our findings of fact

2:36:23 ↗ everything is over 5,000 gross square

2:36:25 ↗ feet so I would be a proponent of

2:36:28 ↗ keeping that measure I think when we try

2:36:30 ↗ to think about small businesses when

2:36:32 ↗ it's the corner bakery if you try to in

2:36:35 ↗ there I've you know unless you want to

2:36:37 ↗ start playing with this city's amount

2:36:39 ↗ and saying no I think that's 7,000 or

2:36:41 ↗ you want to start quibbling about that

2:36:42 ↗ right now we have a baseline do we have

2:36:44 ↗ any reason to move that baseline I'm

2:36:47 ↗ good to the base the baseline in

2:36:50 ↗ defining the fact amendment 3

2:36:53 ↗ specifically says residential uses and

2:36:56 ↗ office uses over 5,000 gross square feet

2:36:58 ↗ we would also add to that and that we

2:37:02 ↗ would add into that retail spaces as

2:37:04 ↗ well so residential is zero I mean any

2:37:07 ↗ residential project of any size had to

2:37:10 ↗ do so we require all residential uses

2:37:12 ↗ and office uses over 5,000 gross square

2:37:14 ↗ feet to use structured parking to meet a

2:37:16 ↗ portion of their minimum parking

2:37:17 ↗ requirements well that's an error then

2:37:19 ↗ because what the code says is any

2:37:21 ↗ residential project of any size has to

2:37:23 ↗ do structured parking okay so then we're

2:37:26 ↗ in the front what in this is the fine

2:37:27 ↗ and the findings of fact that we're

2:37:29 ↗ about to vote on and amend lucy what's

2:37:32 ↗ wrong here what needs to be changed

2:37:33 ↗ because right now because okay thank you

2:37:45 ↗ mel okay

2:37:47 ↗ I have possibly an easy solution to this

2:37:50 ↗ tobacco if we we could create a motion

2:37:54 ↗ that would save 50 percent of

2:37:56 ↗ residential 50 percent office and for

2:37:59 ↗ retail we leave it up to Development

2:38:01 ↗ Commission to help vet those numbers

2:38:07 ↗ because it almost okay to be closer to

2:38:11 ↗ the development to really understand

2:38:14 ↗ that I would agree because I think

2:38:16 ↗ there's too many pieces to that puzzle

2:38:18 ↗ for us right now it's almost a

2:38:20 ↗ case-by-case basis

2:38:22 ↗ we'll see in the findings of fact we're

2:38:23 ↗ in collections I'm having a hard time

2:38:24 ↗ seeing where it says the 33 that you

2:38:26 ↗ guys have proposed I'm having our time

2:38:28 ↗ seeing where I want even amend that to

2:38:30 ↗ be able to make well I'm so I I didn't

2:38:35 ↗ write the findings of fact so I'm

2:38:36 ↗ looking at it now but I think it would

2:38:39 ↗ be in the code proposal that okay this

2:38:43 ↗ is on I've got it up on the screen and

2:38:47 ↗ it's on that's why I might probably been

2:38:50 ↗ on page 46 starting on page 46 those are

2:38:58 ↗ the specific code amendments that are

2:39:02 ↗ required for the code amendments that

2:39:08 ↗ we're proposing so on page 48 is where

2:39:16 ↗ it specifically says office used optical

2:39:21 ↗ Azari for sign percent residential uses

2:39:23 ↗ 33 percent retail service uses no

2:39:27 ↗ requirements okay I'm going to ask

2:39:32 ↗ everybody on our amendments of one and

2:39:34 ↗ two nobody seems to have a problem with

2:39:35 ↗ our definitions of parking structure no

2:39:38 ↗ one seems to have brought up any issues

2:39:39 ↗ of wanting to change our findings of

2:39:41 ↗ fact right now is that correct does

2:39:44 ↗ anyone have a problem with that okay so

2:39:45 ↗ I'm going to make an amendment that we

2:39:47 ↗ that we adopt the essential is a quad

2:39:50 ↗ development and design standards as

2:39:51 ↗ written with the change Jennifer to

2:39:55 ↗ Section B point one being 50 percent

2:40:00 ↗ number two being 50 percent and number

2:40:03 ↗ three being 33 percent I would actually

2:40:08 ↗ like to challenge the 33% and leave that

2:40:12 ↗ up to another Commission like the

2:40:16 ↗ development Commission to be able to

2:40:18 ↗ understand that on our base

2:40:20 ↗ use my case basis I'm going to I'm going

2:40:22 ↗ to work that way I'm going to make a

2:40:23 ↗ motion and if you don't want to vote

2:40:24 ↗ about bar you answer yeah you can't

2:40:27 ↗ this development convention bases their

2:40:30 ↗ decisions on what is already there yeah

2:40:33 ↗ we can't go to take it back to the it

2:40:36 ↗ come so part of our role of what we're

2:40:38 ↗ here's the problem we're not subject

2:40:40 ↗ matter experts in the retail and we

2:40:42 ↗ don't have enough information about

2:40:44 ↗ retail to make a good decision I think

2:40:48 ↗ tonight we do about the other two but

2:40:52 ↗ retail is too complex of a beast and it

2:40:55 ↗ really is or at least we have not been

2:40:58 ↗ presented with the information from

2:41:00 ↗ staff to look at because the decisions

2:41:03 ↗ we make tonight are going to be

2:41:05 ↗ decisions that are going to impact small

2:41:07 ↗ and medium-sized businesses and it's a

2:41:10 ↗ really important decision that we get

2:41:12 ↗ right hold your opinion in very high

2:41:16 ↗ regard however I would like to make a

2:41:18 ↗ motion for the numbers that I suggested

2:41:19 ↗ and to move forward on the three areas

2:41:22 ↗ that we were asked to evaluate okay

2:41:25 ↗ there's a motion a motion on the floor

2:41:27 ↗ and beckon it I'm thinking if you can't

2:41:30 ↗ second I can't okay artists claria

2:41:33 ↗ alternate oh if there's not enough

2:41:36 ↗ people you can oh okay so you know

2:41:38 ↗ whatever yeah if there are not enough

2:41:42 ↗ regular members here the alternates can

2:41:45 ↗ vote they still in for the regular

2:41:48 ↗ members last and we thank them for their

2:41:51 ↗ service so there's a motor floor and

2:41:54 ↗ it's been seconded all those in favor of

2:42:05 ↗ she yeah she did the minimum on the

2:42:09 ↗ retailer issues with Jennifer Skye was

2:42:10 ↗ at 33% a change of residential on 50% in

2:42:14 ↗ an office on 50% his eyes I I'm

2:42:18 ↗ proposing that we keep it as staff is

2:42:19 ↗ recommended at the at the 5,000

2:42:21 ↗ gross square feet as mentioned in our

2:42:23 ↗ amendment 3 I'm saying no other changes

2:42:25 ↗ I'm Sam keeping it at the 5,000 for so

2:42:30 ↗ there's no minimum for retail and

2:42:32 ↗ service right now and since we didn't

2:42:36 ↗ recommend a percentage so the question

2:42:39 ↗ is are you recommending a requirement of

2:42:43 ↗ 33% structured for projects above 5,000

2:42:48 ↗ England ok I am my amendment if eclis

2:42:51 ↗ puts 5,000 across-the-board on both

2:42:54 ↗ residential and retail anything over

2:42:56 ↗ 5,000 square feet is subject to the

2:42:59 ↗ percentages of structured parking so you

2:43:02 ↗ would add 5,000 to the residential

2:43:05 ↗ anything that is over that correct that

2:43:08 ↗ that's not what we proposed I'm just

2:43:11 ↗ trying to make sure I'm understanding

2:43:12 ↗ the 25,000 on office residential and

2:43:16 ↗ retail only for retails we were talking

2:43:20 ↗ about long different regions again we

2:43:21 ↗ leave the moment I answer that I was I

2:43:24 ↗ will leave no gross square foot on

2:43:27 ↗ residential uses and add a 5,000 gross

2:43:31 ↗ square feet to retail so that any

2:43:33 ↗ business that is under 5,000 gross

2:43:35 ↗ square feet of retail space is not

2:43:37 ↗ subject to the 33% parking requirement

2:43:40 ↗ would your motion for retail include

2:43:42 ↗ hotel and commercial it is not specified

2:43:45 ↗ by staff and so I'm deferring that that

2:43:48 ↗ is not included that's not what we've

2:43:50 ↗ been asked to evaluate today okay so I

2:43:56 ↗ was in motion it has been moved in

2:44:00 ↗ second and you read the motion

2:44:07 ↗ so I believe that that that the motion

2:44:13 ↗ is to increase the office percentage

2:44:17 ↗ from 33 to 50 percent otherwise

2:44:20 ↗ unchanged increase the residential

2:44:24 ↗ percentage to 50 percent otherwise

2:44:27 ↗ unchanged and add a percentage to retail

2:44:33 ↗ service uses of 33 percent for projects

2:44:37 ↗ above 5,000 square feet okay correct

2:44:43 ↗ so and that's what I've tried to put up

2:44:45 ↗ here just so we can all see you know I I

2:44:48 ↗ just I you have to have it repeated by

2:44:50 ↗ my own by bailing it wasn't going to be

2:44:52 ↗ me and then don't did I make a counter

2:44:54 ↗ motion or how's that work

2:44:56 ↗ you can make an amendment to the motion

2:44:58 ↗ okay I would like to make an amendment

2:45:01 ↗ to emotion that retail be further

2:45:06 ↗ evaluated because of the complexity of

2:45:09 ↗ retail and I don't believe that 5,000

2:45:12 ↗ feet this requires structured parking at

2:45:15 ↗ 5,000 square feet is going to be

2:45:17 ↗ profitable that's not an amendment

2:45:22 ↗ that's a that's a position which I

2:45:23 ↗ respect

2:45:24 ↗ okay so I like to make an amendment that

2:45:26 ↗ we approve the residential and the

2:45:31 ↗ office and we table the retail so that's

2:45:35 ↗ a separate motion then that's not

2:45:37 ↗ amendment okay so how would I so I run

2:45:43 ↗ is your amendment iam you leave I don't

2:45:47 ↗ know if this account to you you'll tell

2:45:49 ↗ me if it's not a counter motion but what

2:45:52 ↗ I'm hearing Ron basically ask is that

2:45:54 ↗ retail service be left unchanged with no

2:45:58 ↗ requirement because he would like

2:46:00 ↗ further study that is correct so I'm

2:46:05 ↗ moving I believe that we need can we

2:46:09 ↗ just decide if what I said is a motion

2:46:11 ↗ or a counter motion I mean whether it's

2:46:14 ↗ an acceptable from a procedural

2:46:17 ↗ perspective

2:46:19 ↗ I don't think you can answer that I know

2:46:21 ↗ I can't answer that I don't know if

2:46:22 ↗ there's someone here who could you are

2:46:24 ↗ basically saying that we're going to

2:46:27 ↗ approve the retail with no requirements

2:46:31 ↗ with the assumption or the

2:46:33 ↗ recommendation that it and it has

2:46:35 ↗ further evaluation by staff to determine

2:46:41 ↗ if there's an appropriate to determine

2:46:44 ↗ if there is a a more appropriate way to

2:46:47 ↗ do this

2:46:49 ↗ perfect yes I like that right he is it's

2:46:57 ↗ an append mental to absolutely so I

2:47:01 ↗ propose that we ask city staff to

2:47:05 ↗ reevaluate the retail requirements but

2:47:11 ↗ this the caveat in there was that we

2:47:15 ↗ leave the retail at 0% and recommend

2:47:20 ↗ that they continue this ok so I make the

2:47:24 ↗ motion to you make the amendment I make

2:47:26 ↗ the amendment to the motion the motion

2:47:29 ↗ that we leave retail at 0% and ask city

2:47:34 ↗ staff to assess a I don't know what I

2:47:43 ↗ said so I think so your your your ass

2:47:48 ↗ you're putting forward an amendment to

2:47:50 ↗ the motion to leave the retail

2:47:54 ↗ recommendation unchanged and ask staff

2:47:59 ↗ to make a recommendation a future

2:48:05 ↗ recommendation on the appropriate level

2:48:08 ↗ of retail arcing parking ranking and and

2:48:14 ↗ so if this is more or less correct than

2:48:18 ↗ the the next step is someone has to

2:48:20 ↗ second data yeah ok and I want to

2:48:23 ↗ continue with that amendment within one

2:48:25 ↗ year okay well I don't I'm also a point

2:48:29 ↗ of order I don't see how the amendment

2:48:32 ↗ can't challenge

2:48:33 ↗ the actual motion so right now the

2:48:35 ↗ motion is for 33% but the amendment is

2:48:38 ↗ to bring it down to 0% so there's one

2:48:41 ↗ more zero measure isn't an amendment

2:48:44 ↗ obvi you can vote down the amendment

2:48:51 ↗ will forget it you approve the amendment

2:48:54 ↗ then you go back to your motion - and

2:49:00 ↗ what will happen is you'll approve the

2:49:03 ↗ amendment based on approve the motion

2:49:06 ↗ based on the amendment that was if it

2:49:09 ↗ was passed so it is an amendment in your

2:49:12 ↗ markup so the question is if someone

2:49:15 ↗ else supports brightening the discussion

2:49:18 ↗ I have a amendment on the floor does

2:49:20 ↗ anybody second that amend that ended

2:49:23 ↗ okay so we're going to vote on the

2:49:27 ↗ amendment now okay so you understand

2:49:30 ↗ we're going to leave it at zero and

2:49:32 ↗ we're going to we're going to recommend

2:49:34 ↗ that staff come back with further

2:49:36 ↗ evaluation of the process and the need

2:49:38 ↗ for structured parking parking and if I

2:49:42 ↗ could maybe suggest an amendment to the

2:49:44 ↗ amendment is because I think what you're

2:49:45 ↗ asking for is because you guys were

2:49:47 ↗ clear you wanted aspirational standards

2:49:50 ↗ right and so you guys figured out where

2:49:53 ↗ you wanted office and residential to be

2:49:55 ↗ and what I heard was you need more

2:49:58 ↗ information to find that aspirational

2:50:00 ↗ level for retail so I would just suggest

2:50:03 ↗ you throw that aspirational word in for

2:50:05 ↗ us to come back with an aspirational

2:50:08 ↗ standard for retail I'd like to make an

2:50:11 ↗ amendment the same amendment with the

2:50:15 ↗ word of aspirational in there to add the

2:50:19 ↗ word aspirational to that within one

2:50:22 ↗ year okay so it's not changing since his

2:50:25 ↗ making me amend his making the motion

2:50:27 ↗ the amendment so it's not changing it so

2:50:30 ↗ we have a just a second agree with the

2:50:34 ↗ change yes is young yes okay so we're

2:50:39 ↗ going to vote on the amendment as we I

2:50:44 ↗ just stated

2:50:45 ↗ so all those in say

2:50:47 ↗ of agreeing and to the amendment to the

2:50:51 ↗ motion say Aye all right aye opposed nay

2:50:56 ↗ I'm a native there was one two three

2:51:00 ↗ four I don't think I can vote can i yeah

2:51:03 ↗ you can because okay well I vote yes and

2:51:08 ↗ so the most the amendment passes and I

2:51:12 ↗ will go back to the original motion

2:51:15 ↗ which now includes the amendment that

2:51:18 ↗ was passed so the amendment is 50 50 and

2:51:24 ↗ 0 with the aspirational recommendation

2:51:27 ↗ for staff so with that I call the motion

2:51:32 ↗ 12 for the most call for the whatever

2:51:35 ↗ I'll second that motion

2:51:36 ↗ you know neither said can i condition

2:51:39 ↗ all those in favor of the amendment

2:51:42 ↗ their motion with the amendment please

2:51:45 ↗ say aye aye opposed nay

2:51:49 ↗ and she carries okay thank you okay the

2:51:57 ↗ last thing I'm in ours

2:51:58 ↗ addendum like the agenda extremely I

2:52:01 ↗ can't even talk is the we need a vice

2:52:04 ↗ chair so since I will be gone for

2:52:07 ↗ several meetings and then examine my

2:52:09 ↗ cell is anybody willing to step forward

2:52:12 ↗ and put their name into the vice chair I

2:52:15 ↗ would like to put my money

2:52:18 ↗ this guy Thank You Carl

2:52:21 ↗ are there any other nominations from the

2:52:24 ↗ floor and I nominate her you can

2:52:26 ↗ nominate anybody you want nominate

2:52:28 ↗ Lindsey and do I have to accept or

2:52:32 ↗ reject like you also have to do yeah I

2:52:35 ↗ would accept that good okay so we have

2:52:40 ↗ to follow five people to be vice chair

2:52:47 ↗ I'm not quite sure how to do this all

2:52:51 ↗ those that date like do you want do you

2:52:53 ↗ want to give them a chance to make

2:52:54 ↗ statements if they're to canvas

2:52:57 ↗ do you know what I hope you have

2:53:00 ↗ prepared remarks yeah and yet you want

2:53:03 ↗ to pass us some money yeah are you

2:53:05 ↗ giving a statement like that all right

2:53:08 ↗ good

2:53:08 ↗ you know being vice chair and since I

2:53:10 ↗ will be gone you're going to be running

2:53:12 ↗ meetings and do you feel comfortable

2:53:14 ↗ enough you've both been on the council

2:53:17 ↗ for a while council whatever this is for

2:53:21 ↗ a while Commission and so you both know

2:53:26 ↗ what to do when you're both certainly

2:53:27 ↗ qualifies for doing it so do you are you

2:53:29 ↗ going to be in town do you have the time

2:53:31 ↗ to do it and okay so so we have two

2:53:35 ↗ qualified people to be vice chair so all

2:53:44 ↗ those who would we only have one based

2:53:49 ↗ on people so all those that would like

2:53:51 ↗ on to be your next vice chair or do we

2:53:58 ↗ have to vote for one versus the other

2:53:59 ↗ ladies haven't you you don't get to vote

2:54:02 ↗ you don't get help me I normally do like

2:54:05 ↗ there's only five of us to get to vote

2:54:08 ↗ you get the item point of order you

2:54:10 ↗ don't get a vote for yourself as well

2:54:12 ↗ obviously but I'm saying like is it yes

2:54:15 ↗ versus no one or well anyway anyway

2:54:18 ↗ there's five of us that can both so all

2:54:20 ↗ those that would prefer to have Ron be

2:54:23 ↗ the vice chair I I'm all those that were

2:54:30 ↗ like Lindsay to being faster i watch

2:54:36 ↗ show room do everything good

2:54:37 ↗ okay so I know that that Ron really

2:54:40 ↗ wants to do ice chair and I'm sure that

2:54:45 ↗ there will soon be a chair position

2:54:49 ↗ available and so it would be nice if if

2:54:53 ↗ you could step into that one of those

2:54:55 ↗ positions in the mierqi not like not not

2:54:57 ↗ not right now but you know what are

2:54:59 ↗ these I'm totally cool um so with that

2:55:03 ↗ I'm assuming

2:55:04 ↗ Ron is now your vice-chair so

2:55:06 ↗ congratulations thank you yeah and again

2:55:09 ↗ with that I'm going to call the meeting

2:55:11 ↗ to order at 9:26 one hour early this is

2:55:19 ↗ one of the longest meetings that was

2:55:28 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF