← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, September 26, 2019

6:30 PM · 2h 22m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Proposed Amendments to Utilities and Public Services Element, Capital Facilities Element, (I) AB 7683 10/10
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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 2020 – Ron Faul land use documents. 2020 – Joan Probala 2022 – Joy Lewis Membership 2022 – Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Bill Rinehart seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Jason Voiss several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2023 – Randy Harrison 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, 2020 – Tom Haskins see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Robin Beukers 2020 – Vacant 2020 – Vacant
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of September 5, 2019
packet pp.5–8
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-05-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission MINUTES—SPECIAL MEETING 6:30 PM Council Chambers September 5, 2019 135 E. Sunset Way
2a
Olde Town Subarea Plan Implementation: Proposed Code Amendments - Continued From September 5, 2019, (A)
Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.9–54
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
In December 2018, Council adopted the updated version of the Olde Town Subarea Plan. Included in the updated Plan is an Action Program which includes: Immediate Actions (2019-2020), Short Term Actions (2021-2022) and Longer Term Actions (2023-2030). Staff is currently in the process of implementing the following six Immediate Actions.
2b
Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map: Redesignations and Rezones, (A)
Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.55–70
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
Each year, the City and other public entities such as the County and school district, acquire property within the City through purchase or dedication. These acquired properties are then redesignated as Community Facilities with the intent of providing public benefit. With the new land use designation also comes a new zoning designation. Three zoning designations fall under the Community Facilities land use designation. Per the City’s municipal code, these zones and their primary intent are:
4. REGULAR BUSINESS
4a
Proposed Amendments to Utilities and Public Services Element, Capital Facilities Element, (I)
Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager · packet pp.71–105
Staff report:
By State Law, Comprehensive Plan amendments may only be done once a year and a Docket (list) of amendments must be established by Council. This is to ensure that all the items on the Docket are reviewed together in a thoughtful way, not piecemeal as requests trickle in throughout the year.
5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
5a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.107
Staff report:
OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2019 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 9/17/19) All meetings located in Council Chambers unless noted January 2019 September 2019 1/10/19 Cancelled 9/5/19 Public Hearing: Olde Town Code Amendments 1/24/19 Public Hearings: a) Comp Plan 2019 Docket 9/12/19 Open House: Olde Town Architectural Standards/Design Guidelines b) Code amendment: Wireless Communication Facilities cancelled Also: Comments from the Mayor Introduction: Sign Code Update 9/26/19 • Comp Plan Amendments: Capital Facilities Element & Utilities Element February 2019 • Land Use Element re: Tree Canopy/policies (may be postponed until 2020) 2/14/19 • Public Hearing (1 of 2): Comp Plan Amendments: Community Facilities Continued Public Hearing: Code amendment: Wireless Facilities rezones Introduction: Comp Plan Amendments: Treasures
0:07 good evening and welcome to the
0:10 September 26 meeting in the planning
0:12 policy commission so glad to see all of
0:19 you in attendance this is kind of a
0:22 first for the rest for the people up
0:24 here to have so many interested parties
0:26 in talk any louder that's it it's on
0:37 okay can you hear me now okay so we'll
0:50 start over again so welcome to the
0:52 September 26 meeting of the Planning
0:54 Policy Commission I'm glad to see all of
0:58 you here all of you concerned citizens
1:00 that's what this is for is to make your
1:03 thoughts/opinions known to not only us
1:07 but to the council and the rest of the
1:09 community so first of all on our agenda
1:12 is approval of the minutes for September
1:15 the fifth and I need a motion to approve
1:19 the minutes for a for September the
1:21 fifth I like to make a motion to approve
1:24 minutes from September 5th for plants
1:27 and policy Commission a second is there
1:30 any discussion any changes anything that
1:33 I'm assuming you all read themselves no
1:37 comments that I'll call for the question
1:39 all those in favor say aye
1:40 all right hearing none the minutes are
1:44 approved so tonight we're going to break
1:47 this meeting up into two sections the
1:49 first one is implementation of the Old
1:53 Town sub area plan we've already gone
1:57 through the plan we've already approved
1:59 the amendments we just this is just a
2:03 implementation into Z to make sure that
2:06 everything is in the books the way
2:08 they're supposed to be and so with that
2:10 we're going to call on Kristen to
2:13 some update on exactly what we're
2:15 talking about Kristen do you want to
2:20 introduce yourself I am going to it so
2:23 for those of you I haven't met I'm
2:25 Kristen Lisa and I'm a senior planner
2:27 with the development services department
2:28 the first one that we're talking about
2:31 tonight as Joan mentioned are the old
2:32 town code amendments so in 2018 we
2:36 updated our Old Town sub-area plan as
2:39 part of that plan we adopted an action
2:41 program the action program included
2:43 immediate actions from 2019 to 2020
2:46 short-term actions from 2021 to 2022 and
2:49 longer-term actions from 2023 to 2030
2:53 era yes to 2030 so we are in the process
2:56 of implementing the short I mean the
3:00 immediate act six of those immediate
3:02 actions these are land use code
3:05 amendments and when adopted in the plan
3:08 they were very specific amendments so we
3:11 are implementing those this was posted
3:15 this came to the Commission on August
3:19 8th August 22nd September 5th and
3:22 tonight this has been posted on the
3:24 city's website and we sent letters to
3:27 all property owners 540 owners in Old
3:30 Town we have heard from six of those
3:32 owners the first action and this is
3:39 verbatim from the plan is code revisions
3:43 to reduce heights to three storeys in
3:45 the cultural and business district the
3:47 three stories in the multifamily high
3:50 district which is east of on East sunset
3:53 way only so front Street over East and
3:56 in reduce it to two stories height in
4:01 the two stories in the single family
4:03 duplex zone and these zones are outlined
4:06 here so that's what we're proposing the
4:09 base height and the CBD was 45 feet
4:15 we're proposing to reduce it to 40 feet
4:17 or three stories whichever is lower base
4:21 height in the multifamily high east of
4:23 sunset was 40 feet we're proposing
4:27 to keep it at 40 feet or three stories
4:29 whichever is lower maximum height there
4:32 is no longer maximum height the maximum
4:34 height would be 40 feet the same in the
4:36 CBD multifamily medium we added a new
4:41 zone it's multifamily medium old town
4:43 only so it's kind of a new zone their
4:48 existing what happened was we realized
4:50 that they could still their base height
4:53 was 40 feet but they could still go to
4:55 50 feet well their multifamily medium
4:57 and multifamily high it's supposed to be
5:00 less dense than multifamily high and
5:02 allowing them to go 250 feet would make
5:04 it higher so we have also said or we are
5:07 also proposing that that would be 40
5:10 feet or three storeys whichever is lower
5:11 lastly single-family duplex we are
5:15 proposing to reduce that height from 30
5:18 feet to 25 feet or 2 storeys whichever
5:20 is lower action number 3 was code
5:24 revisions to increase impervious surface
5:26 in the CBD from 85% to 95% that is what
5:30 is proposed in the code and to increase
5:33 impervious and the multifamily high
5:35 district to east of cents that way from
5:37 50% to 75% action number four was to add
5:44 code revisions to require ground floor
5:47 commercial on the front on Front Street
5:49 we have added a footnote to the uses
5:51 where that would be allowed and required
5:53 to use this that would be allowed and
5:55 where that would be required there was a
5:57 request at our last meeting that did say
6:00 to allow commercial / retail on Front
6:03 Street it was felt that that was a bit
6:05 too restrictive and so we just put
6:08 commercial on Front Street action number
6:12 five code revisions to allow small-scale
6:14 retail and multi-family high and there
6:17 are a lot of what this means really it's
6:19 a sunset way and the intent was to allow
6:23 standalone uses small-scale standalone
6:26 uses there are some that are already
6:27 there they're a grandfathered in which
6:29 means they were there before the code
6:30 changed and no longer allowed them you
6:33 can do it small scale businesses within
6:36 a mixed-use building but this was
6:38 prevented
6:40 it was preventing some people from doing
6:41 commercial where they wanted to be able
6:43 to do commercial and the task force
6:44 really wanted to see more commercial
6:48 there was a task force in 2015 they
6:50 wanted to see more commercial on sunset
6:54 action number six was to make do code
6:57 revisions to remove old town parcels as
6:59 transfer of development receiving sites
7:01 so there are we have a transfer of
7:04 development rights program that allows
7:05 you to buy property rights from one
7:07 property which then becomes permanent
7:10 open space and transfer that development
7:12 to receiving sites since the TDR program
7:17 was adopted we established the central
7:21 Issaquah plan central is acquire around
7:24 Gilman and Costco is where we want our
7:26 growth to go and it was heard loud and
7:29 clear during the planning process for
7:31 the plan update that nobody wants to see
7:32 more density in old town so we are
7:35 proposing to remove the receiving sites
7:37 from Old Town the receiving sites are
7:39 the ones here that are in their red
7:42 they're checked here or they're striped
7:44 here action 15 wants to develop
7:50 incentives that reduce parking
7:51 requirements for neighborhood oriented
7:54 commercial projects we defined
7:56 neighborhood oriented businesses as
7:58 those with ten or fewer locations
8:02 throughout the u.s. that served the
8:04 daily and weekly needs of local
8:06 residents which would be Old Town the
8:08 intent or the idea is that people would
8:10 be able there would be more services
8:12 where people could walk therefore we
8:14 could potentially reduce their parking
8:16 requirements by 10% we're proposing that
8:20 an addition to this was that we had an
8:24 old map in here that was done in 1986
8:28 and referred to the downtown area and a
8:32 parking study the parking study area and
8:34 was done for the local Improvement
8:37 District that was adopted in 1986 no
8:39 longer exists so we removed that map and
8:42 expanded a lot of the provisions and
8:44 regulations and exemptions to all of the
8:47 CBD and Easton
8:50 that way so that's all I have
8:55 we are asking Council tonight to make a
8:56 recommendation on these amendments the
9:01 proposed amendments are expected to go
9:03 to City Council on December 10th for
9:06 discussion they won't take action then
9:07 and then they would go back to City
9:09 Council on January 6th where it is
9:11 expected that they would take action so
9:15 with that I'm going to open a public
9:17 hearing and ask if anybody wanted would
9:20 like to speak on this particular subject
9:23 I'll open the public meeting at 6:40 and
9:28 ask if anybody is interested in making
9:31 any comments to the changes proposed in
9:34 the code amendment if you are would you
9:38 come to the podium and introduce
9:40 yourself hi my name is Ellen Rey and I
9:47 have the property at 470 Sunset and I
9:51 have been very interested in developing
9:54 that property for a mixed use dental
9:58 office and with the housing situation
10:03 the way it was I was thinking that some
10:05 of my building cost could be offset with
10:08 putting the apartments above off of the
10:12 front street here and I I'm okay with
10:17 the amendments of having it just on
10:19 Front Street now when taking the
10:21 mixed-used off at the side but I am
10:25 concerned with the 4,000 square foot
10:27 limiting to the business amendment is
10:29 that something that it's because of the
10:32 square footage and the parking
10:33 requirements is it can I ask questions
10:39 or I'm just just public comment so it's
10:42 just public comment I will keep a record
10:44 of the questions and we may get a man I
10:45 love and I know there's other people
10:48 that are opposed to the four-story
10:49 buildings but I think the problem that
10:50 we have in is quiet is parking and I
10:52 think parking is going to be essential
10:54 for all the businesses and in the
10:56 neighborhood my thought is all filled
10:59 with the business parking already and
11:01 it's a home
11:02 and if I want to turn it into an office
11:04 a 4,000 square foot office
11:06 how will I ensure that the parking
11:08 spaces are enough and I'm really the
11:11 4,000 square foot building to build it
11:13 in the cost of it I have additional
11:17 resources for parking underneath the
11:20 building I really like the buildings
11:23 that are here and I think the
11:24 landscaping is it grows fills in and it
11:27 looks nice and I think that we should
11:29 look at parking as a whole with the
11:31 businesses and maximize the land use in
11:34 that area and I think for growth and
11:37 development I would love to have with
11:41 the dental office I think that we need
11:43 to incorporate other things into dental
11:48 world there's breathing issues and
11:49 there's so many specialists that need to
11:51 be involved and I'd like to have more
11:53 than one business
11:54 I don't know everything there is to know
11:55 about dentistry and I'd like to have it
11:57 limited I don't like the idea of having
11:59 it limited to just the scope of my field
12:01 I'd like to have a few more practices in
12:04 there that could offset this cost and
12:06 have a little larger practice for that
12:09 reason to contribute back because I
12:11 think we're so close to the schools
12:12 within walking distance and things like
12:14 that I'd like to have the opportunity to
12:17 expand on that because there's nothing
12:19 available for addressing the kids
12:22 healthcare that close and nearby and I'd
12:24 like to be more open with the community
12:27 and being able to address the needs of
12:30 needs of the children but we can't grow
12:35 and development alone I need the help of
12:37 other people in it just a small little
12:39 area and I think with the scope of the
12:42 4,000 square foot limiting and different
12:44 things I worry that the parking issues
12:48 and everything else I would like to see
12:49 the businesses continue to grow through
12:52 here because it's a front street that
12:55 leads to a freeway and I think those are
12:57 meant for businesses I don't think
12:59 they're meant for homes along that
13:01 Street that's my concern
13:03 thank you I forgot to
13:09 say that there's a limit of just like on
13:12 the City Council of five minute limit so
13:15 if you take that into consideration I
13:17 know that you wanted to make some
13:21 comments please introduce yourself tall
13:31 hi my name is sue Foss and I own the
13:35 property that's in the receiving zone at
13:37 120 First Avenue so but actually the
13:44 thing I want to talk about is not the
13:45 loss possibly of some value in the
13:48 property but the environmental concerns
13:51 I have about increased impervious
13:55 surfaces I was really surprised about
13:59 that because I think it's akua's better
14:02 than that to be paving everything and
14:06 that those open spaces that could
14:08 transfer some development rights I think
14:12 they should be preserved so the water
14:13 can soak into the ground our fish are
14:17 running right now there's a storm drain
14:20 right by my office and after a heavy
14:23 rain I go out there and there's trash
14:25 and it's falling through the cracks and
14:28 I could see a day when it's a quat could
14:30 be under water because of these storm
14:33 drains failing with our weather changing
14:36 I just wonder if it just doesn't seem
14:40 like a good thing I'm really concerned
14:43 more concerned than about the value of
14:46 my building because I think highest and
14:50 best use means more than money so that's
14:57 all thank you thank you would anybody
15:00 else like to make a comment I know you
15:05 all should have been signed up but I
15:07 think that
15:12 good evening Council and guests here my
15:16 name is Ryan Yee my wife and I own the
15:18 property at 245 East sunset way we are
15:22 in the area and are one of those houses
15:26 we have operated an acupuncture and
15:29 massage and my construction my
15:32 construction business out of this
15:34 property for the last 10 years we are
15:36 currently just looking at development to
15:41 convert into a office and residents
15:44 above you know I'm going to share some
15:49 mouths with you hopefully you can follow
15:50 along with me I'll try and stay within 5
15:52 minutes we currently have a 6,000 square
15:56 foot property under current rolls we can
16:00 only per build on 50% that's three
16:04 thousand square foot of that for every
16:09 200 square feet of office space we are
16:11 currently required to provide one
16:13 parking space if we have a resident for
16:17 one resident we must also include two
16:21 parking spaces if we were to fit nine
16:24 parking spaces that is seven parking
16:28 spaces for the business and two for the
16:31 residents we would proximately have 400
16:34 square feet to build an office in okay
16:39 now impervious surface are not the
16:43 increase to 75 percent allows me to use
16:46 four thousand of that six thousand
16:49 square foot to build on and hopefully in
16:54 this changes that we're considering
16:55 we're also considering raising the two
17:00 hundred square foot per office space
17:03 required to one parking space to maybe
17:06 400 or 600 square feet to require only
17:10 one parking space because as we increase
17:14 to 75 percent if we don't change that
17:17 I'm not improving or enlarging any of my
17:21 office
17:21 all I'm doing is adding parking because
17:24 I can't make it off this bigger so on
17:29 those particular areas I hope that we're
17:31 looking at changing that and also
17:33 including a provision that allows us to
17:36 do tandem parking since that if we are
17:39 at the office our clients can actually
17:41 park in back of us and that is not going
17:45 to be a revision or a waiver request but
17:49 something added to the amendment that
17:52 allows us because all of these offices
17:54 are accessed primarily from the alley
17:56 and the backside and not a driveway on
18:00 sunset
18:02 so this change is a matter of great
18:06 importance we're revising our plans
18:09 right now just because we received this
18:11 letter changing those things with the
18:14 architect nirn kind of on hold I would
18:17 like to also consider that we can do
18:19 some sort of water retention storage on
18:22 site to actually collect the rainwater
18:25 and use it to our water features our
18:29 pond or waterfall or for that matter
18:31 just watering our plants and those
18:34 things would all be helpful in
18:35 consideration so bear that in mind in
18:39 the math of it that our building code
18:42 requirements are also really restrictive
18:44 so that when we go ahead and look at
18:46 what an impervious surface is how it
18:49 impacts us to be able to one be able to
18:52 build an office for that manner and I
18:55 think the look of being able to have go
18:59 back and say an Old Town is a call feel
19:01 it's nice to be able to have a business
19:04 and still live above it and not have to
19:06 drive to an office every day thank you
19:09 thank you would anybody else like to
19:12 make comment
19:22 hi my name is Robert Ben Susan I am a
19:24 property manager with a Zoe's commercial
19:27 properties and we manage the downtown
19:29 Issaquah plaza property across the
19:32 street and we are one of the few
19:34 developable sites in downtown and
19:37 Sukhois I guess I want to urge the
19:40 council not to change anything it's
19:42 already very fairly restrictive as it is
19:45 and you know if without if you put more
19:51 limitations on development there will be
19:54 no changes there will be the same old
19:57 property that you see currently in our
20:00 case and in several other cases and if
20:02 people want to see new innovative
20:05 architecture something that would bring
20:10 more interesting types of tenants to
20:14 downtown and more residential to
20:16 downtown limited limiting the
20:20 development is not the way to do it and
20:22 if you look around and all the other
20:24 suburbs around in greater Seattle and
20:27 you'll see that all of them are seeing
20:31 development and certainly a lot little
20:33 higher than what was currently allowed
20:36 for in downtown Issaquah and they're
20:38 thriving and we hope that you will leave
20:43 things as they are
20:44 and let some opportunity for development
20:48 continue and still keep young town a
20:54 wonderful place downtown as well with
20:56 its special feel and an Old Town we if
21:01 you look at our building are not a
21:04 historical or architectural anything
21:11 that downtown Issaquah is famous for and
21:14 if developer to come in they would be
21:17 required to come in with a plan and
21:20 design that would yeah with downtown and
21:23 make it a nicer place for everyone and I
21:27 hope the council will will think hard
21:30 about not changing
21:32 and allowing more opportunity for other
21:35 developers and for growth that isn't
21:38 asking we're not we're not asking for
21:41 anything higher we're just asking to
21:43 leave it as it is to allow for some
21:46 things to happen thank you thank you
21:50 is there a Kris Cynthia but did you want
21:56 to make a company
21:57 okay does anybody else want to make a
22:02 comment does anybody else want to make a
22:05 comment though I'm going to close the
22:09 public hearing at 6:53 and open it up
22:17 for discussion and I appreciate saying
22:21 Council but we are not the council we're
22:23 just a committee so we haven't been you
22:27 know given our updates here so is there
22:34 any comments that you'd like to make
22:38 I wanted to commend you guys from
22:41 hearing some comments we had a lot of
22:43 discussion about retail and it looks
22:46 like you guys have made some amendments
22:47 that well didn't necessarily fit with
22:49 the original design that we had all kind
22:52 of envisioned as we've talked about it
22:53 over the last couple of years I think
22:55 it's a really nice balance of trying to
22:57 draw business trying to balance the
23:00 residential without necessarily being so
23:03 confining to property owners so as we've
23:05 gone through these meetings I think
23:07 staff has heard that and to me the
23:09 revisions tonight are reflecting that
23:11 and so I wanted to say thank you for
23:13 that I
23:14 it's a journey I think we've all come
23:16 along a little bit by a little bit and
23:17 so anything where it's rested right now
23:20 it's a good compromise to kind of
23:22 advances further and see where we get
23:24 anybody else
23:27 Randy
23:35 I want to say I appreciate the people
23:42 that spoke and they're concerned about
23:43 their businesses and that they want to
23:47 grow and but I know that we've talked
23:50 about these amendments for a long time
23:53 we've toured the city and I think we
23:56 have a tendency to not to look at the
24:01 big picture and say wouldn't it be nice
24:03 to have a 2-story here in a three-story
24:05 here and we kind of forget about the
24:07 people who are already there and have to
24:10 make their living and their plans based
24:13 on what their property allows them to do
24:18 so I have some questions and concerns I
24:25 would like to find a way to discuss with
24:32 these property owners a little bit more
24:34 on what they can do based on the
24:38 amendments that are proposed how they
24:41 can actually be made to be able to work
24:44 around making sure that they have some
24:48 way to grow their businesses so with
24:55 that we need to vote on on this tonight
25:02 are you ready to vote if you want to
25:05 continue this on for more discussion or
25:09 what would you like to do have a
25:13 question you I have some I think some of
25:15 these comments were under the Act were
25:17 some of our discussions you mentioned
25:19 that you'd like to discuss more with
25:20 some of the
25:21 [Music]
25:23 presenters their concern so how do you
25:26 see we vote tonight how do you see
25:28 wrapping those discussions and responses
25:31 of the city to these individuals how do
25:33 you see that how does that work with us
25:35 voting tonight or not or delaying vote I
25:39 don't know I just thought of this no I'm
25:42 with you I would think that you know
25:46 we've spent a long time when these
25:48 amendments and these codes and I would
25:55 think that you know they're all for the
26:01 betterment of the city I think it will
26:03 look good when it's done but I would
26:06 hope that the city would spend more time
26:08 with especially they three or four
26:11 people that made comments tonight to
26:14 help them work around instead of just
26:17 saying only two thousand square feet or
26:20 four thousand square feet
26:21 some way to incorporate and allow them
26:25 to grow their business right and if you
26:27 know I think if anybody who spoke
26:29 tonight wants to contact me I can always
26:32 set up a meeting with the current
26:33 planner who does numbers better than I
26:35 do and we can talk about it and you know
26:39 every comment that's made here it's part
26:40 of the record it goes to City Council as
26:42 well as the City Council will consider
26:44 their comments too so there since the
26:48 council is not voted on this there is
26:51 still time to make some changes so I
26:55 would suggest that you the four of you
26:59 sit down and make sure you have a
27:02 private interview with the city staff
27:05 and see how you can work this out you
27:10 know we want things to be done right we
27:13 also want businesses to grow and if
27:16 there's for some reason we haven't
27:17 really thought enough about a specific
27:21 amendment maybe there can be some wiggle
27:25 room or little changes to enable you to
27:29 promote your businesses so with that
27:33 I know the city you know the city staff
27:36 Kristen is willing to set up meetings
27:41 with planners for you so I hope you take
27:44 advantage of that and and see if we
27:46 can't work around making sure everybody
27:50 is happy because that's what we want we
27:55 want the people that are in the city to
27:57 grow their business we want people to
27:59 who live in the city to be able to use
28:02 those businesses and if they can't
28:04 expand and and we're expanding the city
28:08 for so many people
28:09 we need services to provide for these
28:12 people so I hope that that works out but
28:17 with that we still have to vote on our
28:20 recommendation to send these amendments
28:24 forward to the City Council for review
28:26 now I need a motion to approve the no
28:32 and you said you had some questions
28:33 would you like to vote on these
28:34 individually or as a package I don't
28:38 have any specific questions I just
28:40 concerns maybe instead of questions so
28:42 do you want to voice those before we all
28:45 think I have okay so do we want to do
28:48 one of these individually then we can do
28:50 them by amendment and vote rather than
28:52 doing them as a package we can send a
28:55 partial recommendation if if we feel
28:57 that not everybody is on board with
28:59 voting for these all the package the
29:02 other real discussion on this so I'm
29:05 waiting for what you guys would like to
29:12 anybody know changes that I'd like to
29:17 see the amendments as as they are
29:18 written and as we have discussed since
29:20 okay so we have a motion on the floor I
29:23 need a second second all those in favor
29:27 say aye opposed very none we're going to
29:32 forward them to the City Council for
29:34 review Robin
29:47 second did it I don't know whose fathers
29:49 bill made the motion you made the motion
29:58 no I worry did he really make any wishes
30:00 or not
30:02 okay so with that do you have a
30:06 presentation to be made for our next for
30:16 the public hearing on the proposed
30:17 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and
30:20 zoning map which I think all of you are
30:23 which I think all of you are here to
30:26 discuss so Kristin I'm about to present
30:34 so I'm still Kristin Leeson city planner
30:36 with the development services department
30:39 and I'm wait I've got it open the right
30:41 presentation
30:51 okay so this discussion our deliberation
30:57 are about our proposed 2019 community
31:00 facilities redesignate Sandri zones this
31:03 is something that we do pretty much
31:06 every year whenever any public entity
31:08 the city the school district a fire to
31:11 anybody a public entity acquires public
31:15 land this is what we do we propose to
31:18 rezone it to a communities to facilities
31:22 land use designation and the purpose of
31:26 this is to identify publicly owned land
31:29 that is going to be used for publicly
31:31 owned for public purpose so that's just
31:35 a really long definition that says what
31:37 I said but I said it faster within the
31:42 community facilities land use
31:43 designations there are three zoning
31:45 designations the first is community
31:47 facilities open space community
31:50 facilities open space is intended for
31:52 passive uses not in sense of uses
31:55 permanent open space passive trails
31:59 interpretive trails another one is
32:02 community facilities recreation
32:04 community facilities recreation allows
32:07 for slightly higher intensive uses such
32:11 as recreational parks baseball fields
32:15 interpretive trails concession stands as
32:18 accessory uses to the baseball fields
32:20 the last one that we have is the most
32:23 intensive of the community facilities
32:25 and its community facilities facilities
32:27 this allows for things like our
32:30 community center government buildings
32:32 schools libraries daycares that's what
32:36 it that's what that's for so our
32:40 notification for this this was
32:41 advertised in the Issaquah reporter
32:43 letters were sent out to all property
32:46 owners within 300 feet of each of these
32:48 sites so there were nine hundred and
32:50 thirty letters sent out and it was
32:52 posted on the city's website I'm gonna
32:56 start just I'm headed north and then I
32:58 got north south west east
33:01 Parcells 133 are located up on 228 their
33:06 existing the intended use
33:08 they've been purchased by the school
33:10 justice across school district and their
33:12 intended tented use is to put future
33:15 schools on this site the existing land
33:18 use designation is low-density
33:19 residential
33:21 the proposed as with all of these land
33:24 use designation is community facilities
33:26 the existing zoning is single-family
33:29 small lot and the proposed zoning is
33:33 community facilities facilities I have
33:38 all parcels 4 through 10 on here because
33:42 or and then 6 through 10 we're included
33:46 in the original letter that went out
33:48 those will now be addressed at a later
33:51 date once some more planning has the
33:53 planning process has been done for these
33:54 parcels however number 5 is still being
33:56 discussed it was purchased by King
33:59 County and is intended for trails to
34:03 connect up to the other cougar mountain
34:05 trails that are there it is low density
34:07 residential and land use designation
34:10 currently it is being proposed as its
34:14 existing zoning single family estates
34:17 its proposed zoning is single phase
34:21 community facilities open space arsal 11
34:27 is actually I'm just get back I did not
34:31 say where these are these are just north
34:34 of talus along Newports ways where these
34:36 parcels are located and this area here
34:40 is all owned by King County or this area
34:43 here I should say parcel 11 is located
34:47 in the talus area just off of SR 900
34:50 again this is a parcel that was
34:52 purchased by the school district it is
34:54 proposed for a future school its
34:57 existing land uses retail its existing
35:00 zoning is office its proposed zoning is
35:04 community facilities for the facilities
35:09 our CIL's 12 and 13 this is where our
35:13 new 62nd Street is located for the most
35:16 part so on this part you have the
35:20 roundabout and part of 62nd and on this
35:23 southeast corner 62nd runs down through
35:26 here and over here the rest of this site
35:28 is used for permanent open space as
35:30 mitigation for the road the existing
35:34 land use designation is mixed use the
35:36 existing zoning is mixed use central
35:38 Issaquah and the proposed zoning is
35:41 community facilities facilities and this
35:43 is because there's already a road here
35:46 the last one is parcel 14 this was
35:49 purchased acquired by the city and it
35:52 was acquired as part of the future front
35:54 street park system there are several
35:56 parcels that have been purchased
35:57 directly to the west and north of this
35:59 one the city likes to try and purchase
36:01 lands adjacent to the creek the existing
36:06 land use designation is low density
36:08 residential the existing zoning is
36:10 single-family small lot the proposed
36:12 zoning is community facilities
36:14 recreation that's all I have very short
36:20 this public hearing will actually be
36:22 continued to October 10th as part of the
36:25 comprehensive plan amendments public
36:27 hearing on November 12th it would go to
36:30 City Council for a study session well
36:32 they were not take action and then on
36:34 December 2nd it would go with all the
36:36 Comprehensive Plan amendments to council
36:38 for action potential pacts essential
36:42 action correct this could go on for a
36:45 while okay yes so with that I'm going to
36:52 open up the public hearing in regard to
36:55 the rezone and I know that there's a
36:58 list of people who would like to make
37:01 public comment
37:12 the committee did get all of the
37:15 comments that you that many of you the
37:20 committee did get the comments that were
37:23 provided by many of you and so we've all
37:26 read them and understand them but we're
37:31 gonna start with I know there's a lot of
37:33 people that would like to speak tonight
37:34 so we're going to start with Karen
37:36 Stephens Joan may make one comment
37:39 before we start I just wanted to note
37:41 that tonight's discussion deliberation
37:45 is about the zoning and that yes there
37:47 will be a site plan that comes through
37:49 eventually an application has not been
37:50 submitted and that goes through a
37:51 different public price I don't know if
37:52 you heard that so this is just the
37:56 rezoning of this property it is not any
37:59 site plan I know that some of you have
38:02 looked online and saw the site plan that
38:05 is not what it's going to be it's a
38:08 proposal that proposal has not gone to
38:11 the city to get any permits so there is
38:16 going to be a lot of changes in regard
38:19 to exactly where the buildings are
38:22 placed understanding that the school
38:26 district needs land to build and they
38:28 are required to stay within the city
38:30 limits to build new schools so they are
38:33 very limited to what areas how much land
38:36 is available for them to use so with
38:39 that
38:46 [Music]
38:48 okay if he would go the microphone
38:51 introduce yourself that would be great
38:59 okay my name is Karen Stephens and I'm
39:02 retired nurse University of Washington
39:05 and a state nurse working over 20 years
39:08 in long-term care and residential
39:11 services involving Title 18 and 19
39:13 Medicare Medicaid so I'm familiar with
39:16 problems as senior citizens in response
39:21 to the proposed change in Issaquah
39:23 comprehensive plan for the city church
39:26 property on 228 objections include but
39:30 are not limited to the following issues
39:32 one location issues two schools
39:35 including the proposed high school with
39:38 possibly 2,000 students and staff will
39:42 be forced into a confined area in the
39:44 midst of a community of more than 2,000
39:48 senior citizens located in the following
39:54 is Providence point retirement community
39:57 including forest village which has its
40:01 entrance opposite Providence point on
40:04 40s southeast 43rd way at the top of the
40:08 hill he is in Bellwood retirement
40:12 community with property existing on an
40:15 off of two hundred and twenty eighth
40:17 Avenue southeast see Providence Marian
40:21 wood nursing home long-term care
40:23 facility title 1819 with skilled nursing
40:28 residents which exits onto two hundred
40:33 and twenty eighth and I understand
40:35 there's going to be some more building
40:37 to expand that it would at Pine Lake is
40:43 assisted living and another retirement
40:46 community village being built on the
40:50 grounds
40:51 existing off 228 and excuse me at areas
40:55 they they're expanding not married would
40:59 these senior communities have been
41:02 situated in the serene woodland setting
41:05 thanks to the sale stipulations by the
41:08 original owners that the land be used to
41:10 benefit the elderly giving them ready
41:13 access to emergency response services
41:16 nearby which visit these property
41:19 properties sometimes as often as three
41:21 times daily traffic increases related to
41:24 the proposed schools would negatively
41:27 impact emergency responses and in the
41:31 event of a disaster future students and
41:35 staff could be trapped in a pocket with
41:37 only one main exit zoning should not
41:40 allow this to happen
41:43 number two traffic issues southeast 43rd
41:47 way is an F ker s curved two-way road
41:53 with untended potholes with a steep
41:59 grade of about ten degrees in the winter
42:03 it is often IC with cars being abandoned
42:06 on the sides especially in heavy snow
42:09 and drivers and in need of rescue 128
42:15 southeast the exit entrance of the
42:20 school area already has backed up
42:22 throughout the day in mornings
42:24 afternoons and evenings by commuters and
42:27 school traffic to and from the five
42:29 schools already located on 228 southeast
42:37 more school buses and teenagers Drive
42:40 teenage drivers will only exacerbate the
42:44 congestion and increase the danger of
42:46 accidents and interference with
42:49 emergency responses number three
42:52 environmental issues power demands of
42:55 the proposed schools and their activity
42:58 fields wood
43:00 negatively impact local residents of the
43:02 nursing homes and other facilities
43:05 stadium lighting and noise will also
43:07 interfere with the neighboring residents
43:09 need for sleep and rest perhaps the most
43:12 damaging impacts however will be the
43:15 increase of air pollution caused by fuel
43:21 emissions from cars delivery trucks
43:24 buses heating and air conditioning
43:27 facilities the removal of the beautiful
43:30 trees will also negatively affect air
43:33 quality residents of senior communities
43:36 are encouraged to walk like an exercise
43:40 outside exercise outside to maintain the
43:45 stamina and mobility he had another
43:48 school of Anu located on 228 southeast
43:53 may make outdoor activities for seniors
43:55 a health threat rather than a benefit
43:59 and of course the litter will increase
44:04 thus attracting mice rats raccoons and
44:08 other foraging creatures additionally an
44:11 an increased demand on sewer lines will
44:18 possibly create more runoff and hillside
44:22 deterioration from heavy trenching it's
44:25 been five minutes
44:26 this is a zoned residential area which
44:29 has been providing a quiet fairly serene
44:32 environment for retirement years of
44:34 senior citizens that's a disruption in
44:37 all areas of our lives will be
44:40 deleterious to our health and well-being
44:43 imposition of this plan will defeat the
44:45 purpose of residential zoning law a
44:48 dereliction of duty by the Issaquah City
44:50 Council Planning Commission thank you
44:53 for listening thank you thank you
44:57 [Applause]
45:01 just as a side note my mom was one of
45:03 the first people who lived in Providence
45:05 Point is Susan Forbes keep that thought
45:26 I thought it was just a small area that
45:30 you were talking about but that
45:31 compasses a lot of stuff so why don't
45:34 you come to the microphone one and ask
45:37 the question not now yes because once
45:43 I'm up here I don't leave yes watch
45:46 right here five minutes yes good I don't
45:49 need that much
45:50 I know it's about zoning and I know it's
45:54 in the beginning I think it's in the
45:56 beginning process of deciding what's
45:59 going to happen but what has stuck with
46:03 me for about a month now as I was
46:05 visiting somebody in the Highlander
46:06 which is a tall building in Highland
46:09 Village and she is on the top floor from
46:15 her many windows in her condo she has a
46:19 clear view of that and almost that
46:22 entire property and it would take giant
46:25 sequoias a couple hundred years to grow
46:28 tall enough to help with some of the
46:32 noise and also the visual impact on the
46:35 people that live in that building so I
46:38 just coming from my perspective I'm
46:42 really worried about having a school
46:47 there and the noise that may come and
46:50 probably will come from football games
46:53 and other activities tennis and softball
46:57 and also the lighting situation for
47:01 those folks who are right on the edge of
47:03 the property
47:05 and there just doesn't seem to be enough
47:08 buffer for them to to maintain their
47:15 sense of peace and quietness so as
47:18 you're thinking through the process and
47:21 if anybody ever wants to go up to the
47:24 Highlander to the third floor and see
47:26 exactly what I'm talking about you have
47:28 my name and phone number and I will make
47:31 it happen thank you Thank You Roberta
47:39 Brown
47:54 I'll make this quick as well
47:57 now that I know that this is uniquely
47:59 about rezoning not about interior
48:02 facilities so I have a little
48:05 reorganization here just first of all in
48:09 terms of even using it for a school just
48:12 one comment I've been sort of involved
48:15 since the beginning with this
48:17 I in fact showed up the only one I think
48:20 here to the original hearings about
48:25 whether to tear down the building or
48:28 rather to preserve it including the
48:30 stained glass windows and all that so so
48:34 my first question in that process I
48:36 learned that in fact many of the
48:38 students and I may be wrong about this
48:40 but many of the students who are
48:42 destined for the new school will be
48:45 coming from down in the valley near i-5
48:49 all that area and need to be bussed up
48:53 now if that's correct it's going to be a
48:56 disaster
48:58 in terms of traffic in terms of the poor
49:02 students and in terms of our living in
49:04 the 21st century with the global crises
49:07 of warming so you know I think there's
49:10 still I realize it's bought it's a done
49:12 deal but if there's any way we could
49:15 reconsider building down by the freeway
49:18 where the students will be which will be
49:21 much more practical it would be great so
49:24 that said moving on to okay it's going
49:27 to happen I think a possibility to
49:30 consider again because we are living in
49:33 the 21st century not the 1950s could we
49:38 consider in terms of the zoning to have
49:42 some of the parcels zoned as recreation
49:47 or open space instead of just facilities
49:51 my reason for this again is
49:55 environmental primarily and also I'm
49:57 thinking of the kids especially the
50:00 grade school kids who will be there if
50:02 you notice the footprint for that I have
50:05 certain words Stevie
50:06 is as big as the school if not bigger
50:09 and football is going to be a bygone
50:12 sport in 20 years most parents are not
50:15 allowing their boys boys no to to turn
50:19 out for football anymore and the other
50:22 sports their gender-neutral don't need a
50:25 stadium we've already got one up the
50:27 street at the skyline so you know maybe
50:30 the zoning could be reconfigured to have
50:34 some area for recreation open space we
50:37 could have a great synergistic
50:39 relationship with all of us old retired
50:42 folks in terms of nature trails lots of
50:47 trees and so forth so last comment the
50:49 trees yes indeed those trees are a
50:52 sponge and absorbent of carbon for miles
50:56 and miles around including front street
50:59 I hate to say this it spreads they need
51:03 to be preserved as much as possible and
51:05 what isn't preserved I'd like to see
51:08 offset are there any plans to offset
51:11 that again in terms of permeable parking
51:14 sod roof solar paneling but that gets
51:17 into the school itself so I won't touch
51:19 on that but finally in terms of rezoning
51:22 where does the environmental impact
51:25 study fit in if it's for facilities
51:30 rather than residential is that a
51:33 different environmental study and I'm
51:35 very concerned knowing that that was
51:38 what was torn down was a 19th a half
51:41 century old concrete building full of
51:44 asbestos those of us from the Y down
51:47 there know that as well I do believe is
51:51 some PCBs is there going to be an
51:54 absolutely thorough environmental study
51:57 possibly some toxic cleanup I think this
52:02 is absolutely essential especially if
52:04 young children are going to be put there
52:05 and there will be a navigable runoff
52:08 down to the lake so those are my
52:11 questions or comments thank thank you
52:17 francy ito that tough you know thank you
52:31 for this opportunity to speak yes my
52:33 name is Francie Beto and I do live in
52:36 Providence Point with my friends here
52:40 my initial some of the comments I have
52:42 have already been addressed so I won't
52:45 repeat those I'll just maybe cheer for
52:48 them but the life for those of us at
52:53 Providence point if we think back 35
52:56 years at least that this community has
52:59 existed those of us that live there have
53:03 we've paid our dues we've supported the
53:07 community paid our taxes and helped grow
53:12 the businesses in the valley floor some
53:15 now on the plateau and it feels I'm
53:22 addressing this to the school issue and
53:24 I'll make it really quick but it seems
53:26 punitive to me to leapfrog over to
53:33 whether at least if not it depends on
53:35 how you read the designations from the
53:40 least impactful to small homes moving
53:44 totally over the two middle into the
53:47 most invasive kind of facility I mean
53:51 invasive kind of designation to
53:53 designate a facility now of course the
53:56 facility can be a community center a
54:00 place where kids can come after school
54:03 because they don't have parents at home
54:06 when school is out they need to be
54:09 somewhere a lot of them go to the
54:11 library and so if there was a community
54:16 center designated up on
54:18 the hill that would be great but a high
54:22 school in terms of the whole list of
54:27 high schools that are already on 228
54:30 five I believe schools on 220 it's
54:34 between where southeast 43rd turns into
54:39 228 all the way down to Safeway that way
54:45 so that's a concern the growth Planning
54:51 Commission you have a responsibility I
54:55 believe to assist our city in making a
55:00 plan that looks out to the future and
55:05 not just 5 10 years and as part of that
55:09 we know that if we allow are all of the
55:14 developments that have been built all
55:16 the homes in the highlands and all along
55:19 the 228 the corridor those homes
55:23 generate kids so when you Providence
55:27 point doesn't generate how many kids I
55:30 have to say we're the exception but all
55:33 those homes have kids you know and so to
55:36 now say well we have to have a place for
55:39 those kids to go to school I think that
55:43 that now and in the future the plan
55:45 needs to be build a build homes and a
55:51 build schools so I would like to see
55:56 this land used now for a community
56:00 center if it's adopted to use to be in
56:03 the designation of facilities that we
56:07 have a community center open space
56:10 trails leave a little place in Sammamish
56:15 on the Sammamish Plateau in Issaquah
56:17 where people can get some restful
56:21 environmental time thank you
56:30 Helen right okay
56:39 sue Foss that's you okay
56:43 I thought that this putting out this
56:46 slip like this would cause confusion to
56:49 me Russ Miller
56:57 I didn't expect to speak today I didn't
57:00 check the box but I live in forest
57:04 village and Providence point and along
57:09 with many of my neighbors I think we're
57:12 probably pretty much an agreement about
57:14 concerns of the noise I questioned the
57:20 schools as well to me it seems a little
57:22 insane to have a elementary school as
57:26 well as a high school in the same area
57:32 I'd like to see some maybe some
57:34 modifications on that possibly one one
57:38 but not two I think we need to take some
57:41 of that space and I'm in agreement with
57:46 many of my neighbors as far as trees
57:50 runoff pollution you know all the above
57:56 and so I would just humbly ask that you
58:02 consider a better use of this property
58:07 again honey Edwards
58:18 they're not signed up to speak but did
58:20 you want to speak well speak
58:32 I'm not unless the market corner 11
58:35 Garden Village and and Providence point
58:39 I think you're building lots and lots
58:43 and lots of houses up in the Highland
58:46 there's lots of room up there is that
58:50 not City property you can't build
58:54 squirrels up there I don't think they're
58:57 near the high school near the hospital
59:01 there's lots of new homes going in there
59:04 and what are you gonna do it those kids
59:06 table off to some other district we're
59:11 getting too many houses and not enough
59:14 schools you need to think about that
59:17 before you build all these houses is
59:25 Alan here I saw him a few minutes ago
59:30 Alan flintoff he's not here Robert and I
59:42 can't read it Ben
59:44 si SS en he left
59:57 Kelcey slack Casey
1:00:05 John Macduff nope what anybody else
1:00:12 that's not signed up like two gentlemen
1:00:17 here who said also that their state your
1:00:24 name please I am married aratus and I
1:00:32 live in Washington village had been a
1:00:35 resident there for a little over three
1:00:37 years I moved as soon as I turned 55 I
1:00:40 could move into a place that had a free
1:00:42 pool I thought this would be about site
1:00:49 plan as well so I'm kind of I kind of
1:00:53 threw some comments together if you'd be
1:00:55 patient with me I appreciate it
1:00:57 they're about 1,300 residents in
1:00:59 Providence point I'm not sure if you
1:01:01 were aware of that of those about
1:01:03 one-third live in the bordering actually
1:01:06 border the proposed school property
1:01:11 about about 500 or so and those are
1:01:16 three of the villages that are affected
1:01:19 and those aren't the only people that
1:01:21 care about this er actually people here
1:01:23 from Forest Village was just across the
1:01:25 street doesn't isn't even anywhere near
1:01:26 the proposed school given the events of
1:01:30 the past week it seems that a lot of
1:01:33 teenagers around the globe are thinking
1:01:35 more about the future than US adults and
1:01:39 I hope you keep that in mind when you're
1:01:42 considering how to rezone this property
1:01:45 maybe what we as a community and
1:01:49 community I mean adults and kids because
1:01:52 the kids are very important as well even
1:01:55 to us senior citizens maybe what we need
1:01:59 is just a smaller footprint the district
1:02:03 needs school the residents need schools
1:02:06 it's going to happen
1:02:08 the question is how there are three
1:02:13 parcels maybe the central parcel could
1:02:15 be scaled down a scaled-down version
1:02:17 however that wants to happen but there
1:02:20 are three parcels so it seems like you
1:02:22 have a lot of opportunity there and
1:02:25 personally because I border along the
1:02:27 property I'm really gonna miss the owl
1:02:29 hoots at night and probably does a lot
1:02:32 of hunting there as well so bottom line
1:02:36 is I I think all of us definitely all of
1:02:39 us here and everybody at profit at this
1:02:41 point would really appreciate that you
1:02:43 keep us in mind that's the Planning
1:02:47 Commission of course the school district
1:02:49 the City Council as you go forward with
1:02:52 this project thank you would you please
1:03:02 take this over there so they can sign up
1:03:04 you have a record of if you like and
1:03:13 then sir okay
1:03:21 hello my name is sue Martin's and I my
1:03:25 husband and I live in Providence Point
1:03:28 we're also the grandparents of a set of
1:03:31 twins who currently go to an elementary
1:03:34 school just over the border and
1:03:38 Sammamish but it is the sukwon school
1:03:40 district and we pick them up every
1:03:43 afternoon it takes us 40 minutes from
1:03:48 the time we are approaching their school
1:03:50 in our car to get into the line to wait
1:03:54 to even enter the school property and
1:03:56 then to go around and find a parking
1:03:59 spot and then sit for a few minutes
1:04:02 until the children are let loose and
1:04:04 then I get out of the car and jump up to
1:04:08 meet them in your back to the car and
1:04:10 then we wait again for some of the cars
1:04:13 to clear out and then of course you can
1:04:16 only make a right-hand turn because of
1:04:18 safety and the traffic and everything
1:04:20 mm-hmm
1:04:22 and then we get them home so this takes
1:04:24 anywhere from 35 to 45 minutes and
1:04:27 that's just an elementary school and
1:04:30 there's just one school so one of the
1:04:32 questions I have that we need to get
1:04:35 from this entity who is making this
1:04:38 proposal for us why two schools on the
1:04:42 same property mention nine-year-old
1:04:46 twins
1:04:47 beautiful little girls and now we're
1:04:49 going to have a bunch of teenagers in
1:04:51 cars what the heck are we thinking about
1:04:55 I just can't believe we're anyway that's
1:05:01 my some of my traffic issues but also we
1:05:04 also know that down the road on to 43rd
1:05:08 they're now building an apartment
1:05:09 complex so you're not only going to
1:05:12 solve any kind of problems in your
1:05:14 future you're gonna have double the
1:05:16 amount of traffic coming and going on to
1:05:20 28 and then as far as our environmental
1:05:24 issues I wonder what's going to happen
1:05:27 to our little family of deer that I
1:05:29 watch every chance I can get that they
1:05:33 are running around we're not
1:05:34 taking that we keep saying environments
1:05:36 but you know let's get down to the
1:05:38 nitty-gritty I know I don't I'm afraid
1:05:42 you know the bear might get me if I'm
1:05:44 out there walking but I also like the
1:05:47 idea that were so wild still there
1:05:50 couldn't possibly be a bear and I just
1:05:54 have a couple other concerns it's
1:05:58 already been mentioned that there's not
1:06:00 much of a buffer I've seen two possible
1:06:03 plans and it doesn't look like there's
1:06:06 any buffer you know it looks like the
1:06:10 trees are going to so anyway I I just
1:06:14 wanted to get those point points across
1:06:16 I know everybody else has made much
1:06:18 better points but these were just
1:06:20 emotional ones for me because I feel so
1:06:22 close to it and I'd love being in
1:06:25 Providence Point and all the hikes and
1:06:27 walks I could take thank you I know the
1:06:34 board is there somewhere but I'd really
1:06:36 appreciate if you would sign in just so
1:06:38 that the staff knows to contact you
1:06:42 it's behind you I think
1:06:57 my name is Harry Stouffer appreciate the
1:07:00 opportunity to say a few words but could
1:07:03 I first get that clarification that if
1:07:06 the School District covers broad areas
1:07:08 beyond the city why must it build within
1:07:13 the city according to growth growth
1:07:16 management rules they have to be in the
1:07:19 city I will get that answered for you I
1:07:24 just thought you know that statement
1:07:26 probably shouldn't be in the record if
1:07:27 it's not exactly a it's specifically
1:07:31 it's within the urban growth line it's
1:07:33 so it can't be in the rural area it has
1:07:36 to be in the urban area which would be
1:07:38 our city limits and any area that's
1:07:43 either within a city or within a
1:07:45 potential annexation area okay so there
1:07:48 would be areas outside the limits of the
1:07:51 city of Issaquah where they could put
1:07:53 the schools right like in Sammamish or
1:07:55 Renton or places but they couldn't be
1:07:58 out in the in the rural area like Tiger
1:08:00 Mountain they couldn't be able but I
1:08:02 appreciate that but I mean I think a lot
1:08:05 of well made points are a lot of points
1:08:07 were well made here tonight I think I
1:08:10 think the concern is that this is
1:08:13 greased you know that the school
1:08:15 district was going to condemn the
1:08:18 property through eminent domain if they
1:08:21 weren't able to buy it so they bought it
1:08:23 and now it appears that they believe
1:08:25 that they can just go ahead and develop
1:08:27 it in any way that they want to develop
1:08:29 it and I know that the point has been
1:08:31 made here that this is this is not about
1:08:33 the site plan but it's about the zoning
1:08:36 but getting the zoning right is the
1:08:39 thing that should be accomplished first
1:08:41 and if it's turned into a zone for
1:08:44 schools they're going to be rolling
1:08:46 right along have the momentum and say
1:08:49 well its zoned for schools we're going
1:08:50 to build schools so I just ask everyone
1:08:53 to keep open minds and realize that this
1:08:58 site is a very bad site for two schools
1:09:02 a football stadium parking garage
1:09:05 courts baseball fields and all the rest
1:09:08 thank you I don't know what happened to
1:09:22 the Lord right there front row
1:09:36 good evening I'm Richard Aram Beru
1:09:39 I'm an attorney representing the
1:09:41 Providence Point umbrella Association I
1:09:44 don't want to take a lot of your time
1:09:46 tonight because we're going to be back
1:09:48 in front of you on October 10 with a
1:09:51 more thorough presentation but I want to
1:09:53 correct respectfully correct you
1:09:57 misunderstandings that I think have been
1:09:59 presented tonight first of those is when
1:10:03 you consider a comp plan change and
1:10:06 Zoning for a particular use you can't
1:10:10 avoid the ramifications zoning
1:10:15 ramifications environmental
1:10:17 ramifications of what's going to be put
1:10:19 on the property so you've got to
1:10:22 consider that the record is replete with
1:10:25 plans and other materials about what the
1:10:30 district wants to do with this property
1:10:33 which seems to be and will demonstrate
1:10:37 it's clearly excessive the second point
1:10:41 is this is a comp plan change in a
1:10:44 rezone it's approached by you as any
1:10:49 comp plan and rezone change would be
1:10:52 does it meet does it meet the standards
1:10:55 of the city does it qualify for impacts
1:11:00 or lack of impacts to adjacent
1:11:03 properties the school district is not
1:11:06 given particular credit credence or a
1:11:12 free ride because there the school
1:11:15 district you have to keep within your
1:11:17 as you as the city always has the second
1:11:22 point to be made and we'll make this
1:11:24 point later on this this property
1:11:27 doesn't qualify for use of schools it's
1:11:30 probably the last place you'd want to
1:11:33 put one school much less two schools
1:11:36 we'll talk about those factors later but
1:11:39 it shares a thirty 100-foot boundary
1:11:44 with the residential area it has severe
1:11:49 limitations on access began a
1:11:53 disqualifying factor and it's in the
1:11:55 midst of one of the worst traffic
1:11:58 situations in western Washington in
1:12:01 Sammamish and in Issaquah alone to 28th
1:12:05 and 43rd so I want to keep it short
1:12:08 tonight introduce myself thank you all
1:12:11 for listening to Providence point people
1:12:14 and myself we'll be back with more
1:12:16 information for you on the 10th of
1:12:19 October thank you
1:12:25 but anybody else like to make a comment
1:12:42 my name is Tom Mullins and I am the
1:12:44 capital projects director for these
1:12:46 across school district
1:12:47 thank you for your consideration of the
1:12:50 district's request to redesignate and
1:12:52 rezone the properties recently acquired
1:12:54 by the district for new schools school
1:12:58 sites are needed for school facilities
1:12:59 approved by our voters as part of the
1:13:01 2016 bond program recent and continuing
1:13:06 continuing robust enrollment growth
1:13:08 throughout the district requires the
1:13:10 construction of new schools for our
1:13:11 community all projects are on critical
1:13:14 timeline to address capacity challenges
1:13:16 within our existing schools we have
1:13:19 worked hard over the last three years to
1:13:21 identify and acquire sites and locations
1:13:23 near enrollment growth and on land
1:13:25 feasible for school construction city of
1:13:29 is akua's comprehensive plan and zoning
1:13:32 regulations permit the construction of
1:13:33 new schools only on parcels designated
1:13:36 and zone 2 c FF this reason the current
1:13:40 proposal is the first step in the land
1:13:42 use process for moving forward with
1:13:44 school projects request relates only to
1:13:47 the underlying land use designation is
1:13:50 not specific to project design on the
1:13:52 properties we understand that the city
1:13:55 does have pre application conceptual
1:13:57 plans posted on the development page
1:13:59 website these documents submitted as
1:14:03 part of the pre application process are
1:14:05 nowhere near our final decision or
1:14:08 proposal for city permit review
1:14:10 they are simply conceptual plans when it
1:14:14 moves forward beyond conceptual planning
1:14:16 and through the city's permit process
1:14:18 the district will consider as required
1:14:21 by the c FF zoning design measures to
1:14:24 carefully incorporate the school into
1:14:26 the surrounding neighborhood district
1:14:29 appreciates your thoughtful
1:14:30 consideration of this request and
1:14:31 appreciates the continuing opportunity
1:14:34 to partner with city busy quaff and the
1:14:37 use of public property and deliver a
1:14:39 quality education to our shared
1:14:41 constituents thank you thank you
1:14:46 I I do appreciate you being here I was
1:14:58 going to request someone from the school
1:15:01 district be here on the 10th to answer
1:15:03 any questions or concerns that and I
1:15:07 assume you are going to be here so yes
1:15:10 so anybody else want to make a comment
1:15:14 anybody else going once
1:15:17 I'm going to close the public hearing
1:15:19 what I'm now gonna close the phone yes
1:15:22 could we continue to October the 10th I
1:15:24 even read that written that wrote that
1:15:26 down she said every time so it will not
1:15:33 be here it will be in the Pickering room
1:15:36 at City Hall Northwest by Holiday Inn it
1:15:45 will be at the Pickering room next a
1:15:48 holiday in City Hall Northwest you all
1:15:54 know where that is you know where
1:15:56 Holiday Inn is it's right next to it's
1:15:58 the building right next to the Holiday
1:16:00 Inn okay so on the 10th at 6:30 any
1:16:06 comments that you want to make before
1:16:09 yes I just wanted first off to tell you
1:16:14 how much we appreciate your being here
1:16:17 this is an example of people being able
1:16:22 to address their municipal government
1:16:24 you would be amazed at how many of our
1:16:27 meetings we have and how many city
1:16:30 meetings go on with nobody showing up
1:16:33 from the public to speak so the fact
1:16:36 that you're here is a reinforcement of
1:16:39 the basic tenants of American democratic
1:16:41 experience and we appreciate it very
1:16:44 I would like to point out again as was
1:16:48 made earlier kind of an expectation
1:16:51 management thing here the Planning
1:16:53 Policy Commission does just that we make
1:16:56 recommendations
1:16:58 to the mayor and today's meeting and
1:17:02 next week's are on the October 10th
1:17:04 meeting is about zoning it is not about
1:17:07 what happens on the land if and when the
1:17:11 zoning takes place that's an entirely
1:17:13 different process and I would encourage
1:17:16 you to continue to do what you're doing
1:17:18 here tonight there will be a series of
1:17:21 meetings there will be a series of
1:17:22 presentations beyond the planning policy
1:17:26 Commission that will involve the
1:17:27 Development Commission that will involve
1:17:29 the City Council will involve Committees
1:17:32 of the City Council that will affect
1:17:33 what happens on this parcel and the more
1:17:37 public input those entities get the more
1:17:42 it will reflect your in my personal
1:17:45 opinion your legitimate concerns so
1:17:49 thank you very much for being here
1:17:51 tonight
1:17:51 and please continue to follow the
1:17:54 process and take advantage of the public
1:17:56 hearings to influence your elected
1:17:58 representatives thank you in line to
1:18:10 some of the comments here but
1:18:11 independent of those I would like to
1:18:14 understand as we move forward with this
1:18:16 liberation how a rezoning process and a
1:18:20 comp plan change is intertwined within
1:18:24 the is and with tree plant tree
1:18:29 management and the other issues
1:18:31 transportation issues that have been
1:18:33 addressed here at least two questions
1:18:34 and and and which seemed to me integral
1:18:37 to the whole process knowledge of Zoning
1:18:40 but then of course site development so
1:18:42 can I understand better please sure and
1:18:44 Randy alluded to it a little bit we're
1:18:46 the policy Commission and so we do the
1:18:49 overarching piece on what the land use
1:18:53 designation and the zoning would be for
1:18:55 and remember these aren't just any
1:18:57 parcels in the list that you looked at
1:18:59 today
1:18:59 these are owned by a public entity to be
1:19:03 used for public purpose so they're
1:19:05 different than if it's a housing
1:19:08 development and commercial development
1:19:10 sort of in a different category there
1:19:12 publicly owned for public benefit and so
1:19:15 those they go through the re-designation
1:19:18 and rezone by you all and then council
1:19:21 approves or doesn't approve and then
1:19:24 when the actual project gets proposed
1:19:26 say it be a courthouse a fire station a
1:19:29 school that has to go through the
1:19:31 Development Commission and they look at
1:19:34 the site plan they look at the traffic
1:19:36 they look at the height and the
1:19:37 landscaping and the tree planning and
1:19:39 there's an environmental review that
1:19:42 goes through and gets sent out to all
1:19:45 the agencies to the state do e-everybody
1:19:48 so the environmental review is on the
1:19:50 project it's on the earthmoving it's on
1:19:53 the trees coming down it's not on the
1:19:56 policy idea that the color on the map is
1:19:59 going to change it's actually on the
1:20:02 effects of the land and air and water
1:20:04 from the project and that information
1:20:07 and the site plan and all that work that
1:20:09 goes through the development Commission
1:20:11 for their recommendation to the City
1:20:13 Council and the elected officials
1:20:15 actually make the determination on the
1:20:17 project for a school let's say the Cal
1:20:20 City Council makes the decision on that
1:20:22 with all the information from the
1:20:24 environmental review and the site
1:20:25 planning information probably there'll
1:20:28 be a traffic study all those pieces and
1:20:30 parts go into the approval or
1:20:33 disapproval or approval with conditions
1:20:34 of the project so that includes
1:20:38 comprehensive plan change which I
1:20:40 believe is also comprehensive plan
1:20:42 changes you all that's you all the
1:20:44 comprehensive plan and the zoning is you
1:20:46 all but the actual building and
1:20:49 earthmoving is the Development
1:20:51 Commission and the City Council so let
1:20:54 me rephrase it okay you keep on beating
1:20:56 on this so in addressing the
1:20:58 comprehensive plan change what we're
1:21:00 doing uh-huh is it not are are we not to
1:21:06 question or to consider upfront at this
1:21:09 stage the I ask considerations
1:21:12 transportation considerations
1:21:13 environmental considerations I'm just
1:21:15 right seems to me the separate issues
1:21:17 going they are two separate issues we do
1:21:21 for these sorts of amendments we do a
1:21:23 non project SEPA review to see if
1:21:27 changing for example changing the color
1:21:29 on the map the reason re designation
1:21:32 there's not an effect yet until we
1:21:35 actually get the proposal because it
1:21:37 could be it could end up as Tom said it
1:21:40 might go through and that site plan
1:21:41 might be completely different than it is
1:21:43 now and so we would have done our review
1:21:46 on something that wasn't wasn't what it
1:21:48 was going to be so that's why we wait
1:21:50 and have the big environmental review on
1:21:53 the actual earthmoving trees coming down
1:21:56 proposal and not on changing the color
1:21:59 on the map because it could change they
1:22:01 could go all through it and decide it's
1:22:03 not the parcel or the fire station as it
1:22:05 did decided it wasn't the parcel so then
1:22:07 we can go back and change the zoning to
1:22:09 whatever would be better for the next
1:22:12 go-around of whoever is going to own it
1:22:14 and whoever wants to put something there
1:22:16 but as if someone said it's just the
1:22:18 first step of a long process is that
1:22:22 does that help yep so then I'd like to
1:22:27 clarify given that we're talking about
1:22:29 changing it from one designated purpose
1:22:31 and intended use to a spectrum of other
1:22:35 uses what are the factors that we should
1:22:38 be taken to consideration for the rezone
1:22:42 and REE designation I mean these are
1:22:45 currently set up to accommodate 133
1:22:48 single-family houses but that's been
1:22:51 disallowed for reasons that we're not
1:22:54 going to discuss tonight how do we
1:22:57 decide whether a school is the
1:22:59 appropriate use for this how do we
1:23:01 decide whether maybe some of it should
1:23:02 be retained for open space how do we
1:23:06 handle that conversation right well part
1:23:08 of that the and again there's two
1:23:15 different kinds of redesignation and
1:23:17 reasons that we get at this at this
1:23:20 juncture for the Comprehensive Plan and
1:23:22 in the past I know not all of you have
1:23:24 been here but there have been applicants
1:23:27 developers that have come in and have
1:23:29 asked for a change from let's say
1:23:31 single-family to retail commercial
1:23:34 and that's a different category because
1:23:38 it's not a public entity for public
1:23:41 benefit and that's such a narrow focus
1:23:46 for the city that it's not that there's
1:23:51 different criteria but there's a lot of
1:23:54 criteria that since it's a public entity
1:23:57 tb's for public benefit there's a lot of
1:24:00 boxes to check off that we don't have to
1:24:02 check off because sounds like we're
1:24:04 going up taking it off market say we're
1:24:07 gonna see if we can find some high use
1:24:08 for public benefit right if that doesn't
1:24:12 flush out then I'll go back in as some
1:24:15 other designation correct it's just
1:24:17 almost like we're taking it off market
1:24:18 almost well we're we're taking a lot of
1:24:21 the economics out of it yes yes yes that
1:24:24 one of the criteria is not an economic
1:24:25 benefit kind of a thing that that is
1:24:28 often what an applicant would have to
1:24:31 figure out before they would ask for a
1:24:33 redesignation rezone is is it
1:24:35 economically viable for them to even
1:24:37 apply for that we don't have to do that
1:24:39 but we don't have to do that no that's
1:24:40 not in our purview and when we've had
1:24:42 those discussions and they're in a
1:24:45 different they're not of course in the
1:24:46 community facility rezone bucket but
1:24:49 you've had a lot of good discussions on
1:24:51 do we really want that parcel you know
1:24:54 on that maybe it's on the outskirts of a
1:24:56 residential area do we want that to be
1:24:58 the start of commercial moving this way
1:25:00 into the single-family and they've
1:25:02 always been really good discussions
1:25:04 because they are actually changing what
1:25:08 might happen or what the trend might be
1:25:10 if then the next year maybe three more
1:25:12 parcels on the edge might want to flip
1:25:13 to commercial and so those are the sort
1:25:16 of policy issues that you all have to
1:25:17 recommend on whereas this community
1:25:20 facilities public ownership for public
1:25:22 benefit it's sort of a different bucket
1:25:24 for you all to think about you can still
1:25:27 decide perhaps that it's not a good
1:25:29 place for a courthouse fire station
1:25:32 school property I mean that's totally
1:25:33 within your realm to decide that or to
1:25:36 recommend that but it's not the site
1:25:39 planned piece that that you're worried
1:25:41 about yet
1:25:43 I heard of this packet coming out I had
1:25:45 email you guys because I had seen the
1:25:46 notification from the city and knew
1:25:48 would be looking at it and I was like
1:25:50 I'm gonna want a really good
1:25:51 justification I'm gonna want to hear
1:25:53 nothing you're out site plan but I'm
1:25:54 gonna want to hear from the city why do
1:25:56 you like this property why are you
1:25:58 requesting to have this and I didn't see
1:26:00 anything in the packet really directly
1:26:02 address that so while I for which parcel
1:26:04 for parcels 1 2 & 3 so I've had the
1:26:08 benefit of being on this commission for
1:26:11 a while so I have less questions about
1:26:13 the incas at parcel 11 because it's been
1:26:16 dialogue for a long time
1:26:18 however this I had emailed you guys I
1:26:21 think that it would be helpful not only
1:26:23 to have again representation from the
1:26:26 school district but if we actually can
1:26:27 have a dialogue with them of them
1:26:29 explaining to us again not a site plan
1:26:32 but telling us why this piece of
1:26:35 property and really kind of the request
1:26:37 why do we want to put something that is
1:26:39 for the public good - this particular
1:26:41 use I think would help to really bridge
1:26:44 what needs to be what right now is the
1:26:47 large chasm so for me when I was looking
1:26:51 at a lot of responses coming in all the
1:26:52 way up you know up into today I think a
1:26:55 really natural thing is to look at this
1:26:58 and look at possibly not doing the
1:27:00 rezone on parcel 3 I think it's an
1:27:03 interesting idea to limit the request
1:27:06 right now and to leave 3 and designated
1:27:10 as open space I think that's something
1:27:12 we should consider talking about
1:27:13 continuing on for the 10th another thing
1:27:16 that I think we should think about is
1:27:17 the parcel 5 we're waiting on the other
1:27:21 parcels that are joining it I'm not sure
1:27:23 why we're chained where I we're
1:27:25 addressing 5 right now and putting it as
1:27:27 open space but we're waiting on the
1:27:29 other pieces they're all connected why
1:27:31 don't we do them all together that part
1:27:34 I can answer is that King County Oh owns
1:27:37 five and they've already decided what
1:27:39 they want to do with it and it's to keep
1:27:42 it open and and we and the city was fine
1:27:44 with that the city doesn't know what it
1:27:46 wants to do exactly with the other
1:27:48 parcels so they want to do more site
1:27:50 planning on those parcels before we do
1:27:53 before we rezone to either
1:27:55 recreation or open space for the other
1:27:57 ones but King County has made it really
1:27:59 clear they want it to be theirs to be
1:28:01 open so open space is still on the table
1:28:03 for parcels like six through
1:28:05 well we haven't everything is off the
1:28:08 table until we start doing the planning
1:28:09 for it okay does do right now is was it
1:28:14 requested by by the school district for
1:28:17 one two and three to all be designated
1:28:18 the same correct and right now city
1:28:21 doesn't see any difference between
1:28:22 treating those parcels differently
1:28:24 correct I think it's an interesting
1:28:27 dialogue for us to have of interesting
1:28:30 of looking at splitting some of these
1:28:31 designation up for the school district
1:28:34 and I would be very interested to have
1:28:35 the school district come and tell us why
1:28:37 they want one two and three to all be
1:28:39 designated for facilities okay we can
1:28:42 see answer it on the tenth any other
1:28:52 questions that you all would want us to
1:28:54 try to answer by the tenth I would like
1:28:56 to know if the school district looked at
1:28:58 other locations too and if they did if
1:29:00 they ruled those out why they ruled
1:29:03 those out okay unless unless you all let
1:29:12 me know otherwise I will I've already
1:29:15 done this with a few people that have
1:29:16 emailed me like mr. Stouffer
1:29:19 I will put you down as parties of record
1:29:21 if you've signed that piece of paper and
1:29:23 I will pass it on to the development
1:29:25 commission people as well so that
1:29:26 whenever there's a meeting about this
1:29:28 you all will be notified okay
1:29:31 so if you don't want to be part of that
1:29:33 group writing your name down there and
1:29:35 say no or don't write your name at all
1:29:37 and just let me know yes we want you to
1:29:42 sign in and I think there's a box on
1:29:43 there that checks if you want to be and
1:29:46 if it's not checked I'm going to assume
1:29:47 that you want to be on the list unless
1:29:49 you tell me otherwise because I don't
1:29:50 think that was made clear in the
1:29:51 beginning I think there's a empty sheet
1:29:53 of paper so there should be enough room
1:29:57 and for parcel 12 you had mentioned that
1:30:00 one of the reasons that you were going
1:30:02 to I know I'm sorry I know everyone's
1:30:04 talking about one too so for a partial
1:30:09 12 you when you done your presentation
1:30:10 you entered it was because of the road
1:30:12 that you guys were looking at the
1:30:13 facilities designation what is the plan
1:30:17 for that there's a road there sorry 62nd
1:30:20 goes through the southeast corner yeah
1:30:22 most of the parcel north west of that is
1:30:24 being used as mitigation for South East
1:30:27 62nd but it's it's all one parcel and
1:30:30 because there's a road on there it's
1:30:31 still CFF so there's no way for it to be
1:30:34 I'm trying to think what the middle one
1:30:35 is it wouldn't be open space Bofur is
1:30:37 there right now for facilities it would
1:30:40 designate it for to be able to no longer
1:30:42 be mitigation right it wouldn't stay
1:30:44 that it could possibly change based on
1:30:47 having that designation of facilities
1:30:49 change it could is there something nice
1:30:52 that I don't it required mitigation yes
1:30:54 it's required mitigation okay so I they
1:30:57 can't do anything differently and it's
1:30:59 that's not my question
1:31:01 yeah I can you know and I can
1:31:02 double-check and find out what regulates
1:31:03 that to make sure that it stays in place
1:31:05 okay and I'll do that for next time
1:31:06 thank you you're welcome
1:31:14 any other questions that you would like
1:31:16 us to try to have answered by the 10th
1:31:18 Oh page 92 I think we talked about
1:31:23 there's um the fee for parks the
1:31:28 development fee for parks is still being
1:31:30 done for 2019 and so all the stuff in
1:31:32 our packet was from like the 2016 it was
1:31:34 all old stuff okay I'm just on the
1:31:36 rezone and read designations no I know
1:31:38 my other question was before we closed
1:31:39 the reading no we have another
1:31:42 presentation okay good thank you similar
1:31:45 clarification on parcel number fourteen
1:31:47 I don't think you mentioned that or
1:31:48 maybe you did I didn't know given the
1:31:51 breadth of the designation the proposed
1:31:54 designation partial 14 seems to have
1:31:58 it's a very small footprint it seems to
1:32:00 have a very limited you went why are you
1:32:03 looking to zone that I think it's there
1:32:08 yeah there is right now is proposed for
1:32:10 community facilities open space but the
1:32:12 city in 2018 received a King County
1:32:15 conservation futures grant for that to
1:32:18 help pay for that site and because of
1:32:20 this futures grant there are
1:32:22 restrictions on the site already that
1:32:25 are kind of open space restrictions and
1:32:26 they limit how much recreation you can
1:32:28 do so the parks department didn't want
1:32:30 to limit what they could do within that
1:32:32 Grant does that make sense
1:32:43 regular business okay I appreciate all
1:32:48 of you being here
1:32:52 we're gonna go on to amendment
1:32:54 amendments to utilities and public
1:32:56 service elements I know there's some
1:32:59 questions if you would get with put your
1:33:04 name on that list and have the staff
1:33:06 answer them oh sure
1:33:19 what they're down there
1:33:45 well moving right along into regular
1:33:50 business rich is going to give us an
1:33:55 update on the amendments to utilities
1:33:58 and public service services yes
1:34:07 yes no nurse we're still the middle of a
1:34:10 meeting
1:34:18 okay so the comprehensive plan we
1:34:25 amended annually were only allowed to
1:34:27 amend it annually okay you all looked at
1:34:35 the docket which we call the list of
1:34:37 comprehensive plan amendments you looked
1:34:39 at the docket some of you looked at the
1:34:42 docket back in January and you forwarded
1:34:45 it to City Council Council approved the
1:34:48 docket for the first time on February
1:34:50 19th and then they amended the docket on
1:34:54 May 20th so it's had some review and
1:34:59 then we started actually working on the
1:35:01 amendments and you reviewed the land-use
1:35:04 element amendments which are docket
1:35:07 items two and three you did those in
1:35:09 July as well as the transportation
1:35:11 element that same night you looked at
1:35:14 the parks element with Parks Department
1:35:16 the goals and policies also in July and
1:35:20 then tonight we're looking at the last
1:35:23 two pieces that are writing which are
1:35:28 the utilities and public services
1:35:30 element and the capital facilities
1:35:32 element and of course we just did the
1:35:34 rezone and read designations October
1:35:37 10th is the continued public hearing at
1:35:40 the Pickering Broome city hall Northwest
1:35:43 by the Holiday Inn it will be continued
1:35:46 and it will have all the amendments that
1:35:48 you've seen and those from tonight and
1:35:50 you will have a lovely big packet to
1:35:53 review before that night several of the
1:35:58 items as you probably saw in the memo if
1:36:00 you got that far in the packet several
1:36:02 of the items are we did not do we did
1:36:06 not finish or we chose not to do because
1:36:08 there were other pieces moving forward
1:36:10 or changing the direction so there are
1:36:13 several items on the original docket
1:36:15 they're moved to future years or that
1:36:17 may no longer be necessary and we can
1:36:20 talk about those if you would like to
1:36:21 but from the growth management act we
1:36:24 always have to be really open about
1:36:26 which ones didn't move forward so that
1:36:28 the public doesn't think that we're
1:36:29 trying to bury some amendments that they
1:36:32 would really like to see we have to be
1:36:33 really upfront about which ones we
1:36:35 didn't we weren't able to do so the
1:36:39 tonight's purpose in this little section
1:36:41 is the utilities and public service
1:36:43 element and the capital facilities
1:36:45 element to take public comment if
1:36:48 anybody is still here and interested in
1:36:50 these two elements and then for you all
1:36:52 and I know joy already has a question to
1:36:55 give us questions and comments and
1:36:57 direction that we can try to have ready
1:36:59 for you for the October 10th meeting I'm
1:37:04 going to start with the easy one first
1:37:06 we don't amend this one very often and
1:37:10 we actually thought we were going to
1:37:11 amend this with the stormwater plan
1:37:13 that's going through but the stormwater
1:37:15 plan isn't done yet so we weren't going
1:37:18 to change anything but then we found out
1:37:20 that the solid waste
1:37:22 gotcha we can cut we adopted King
1:37:25 County's comprehensive solid waste plan
1:37:28 and so I asked Mycah one of our staff if
1:37:32 he would help update the numbers for us
1:37:33 and the good news is we're diverting
1:37:36 even more of our waste out of the waste
1:37:39 stream which is super wonderful 59% now
1:37:42 up from forty five percent in 2013 so
1:37:46 those are the only changes to the
1:37:48 element but I thought they were award
1:37:50 since we already had that this element
1:37:51 up to be changed I thought it was worth
1:37:55 it to update this information because
1:37:57 it's it's really good information are
1:37:59 there any questions on I'm this
1:38:02 amendment I was assuming that we're
1:38:04 still on track for our 80% reduction
1:38:06 according to my codes we said we are
1:38:08 right he's hopeful that we are the other
1:38:15 just so I cannot because they're long
1:38:18 lines with questions coming to various
1:38:21 parts of the documents they're either
1:38:24 taken from various different years so on
1:38:25 page 75 it talks
1:38:27 2016 59% am I to understand now there
1:38:32 were 80% diversion no that's policy g3
1:38:35 it's our it's our goal for 2050 so where
1:38:39 are we now then off about that however
1:38:41 as a 2016 the city is diverting only
1:38:44 about 59 percent of his total municipal
1:38:46 waste do you have an update on that's
1:38:49 the update that we have that's that yeah
1:38:51 that's the most current information if I
1:38:53 knew a more current number that would be
1:38:55 the number okay so that's as much as
1:38:58 Micah knew you have a directional sense
1:39:01 are we heading towards 80 percent that's
1:39:04 what Joyce question was and yes my god
1:39:07 thinks that we are on track to hit that
1:39:09 80 percent capital facilities element
1:39:17 was a little trickier especially as Joan
1:39:19 knows we haven't updated this one in
1:39:21 quite a while and the reason is we
1:39:23 haven't updated our impact in mitigation
1:39:25 fees in a while some of them and so we
1:39:29 didn't want to update this element with
1:39:31 old information and so so we didn't and
1:39:36 so the other piece so backup so we had
1:39:42 some help
1:39:43 with our fabulous consultant and we just
1:39:45 finished updating the council and under
1:39:48 staff and the consultants finished
1:39:50 updating transportation fire impact fees
1:39:56 and police general government buildings
1:40:01 bicycle and pedestrian mitigation fees
1:40:05 and I think I'm missing one when schools
1:40:07 school is a different track those are
1:40:08 also impact fees but they're on a their
1:40:11 figured out by the school district and
1:40:13 it's a pass-through from the city and
1:40:15 the reason I'm saying all that that
1:40:17 probably sounds a little like
1:40:18 gobbledygook is impact fees which are
1:40:22 only transportation parks schools and
1:40:25 transportation services is a fire yeah
1:40:30 they're a creature of the state when the
1:40:33 growth Management Act was passed the
1:40:36 state said that the cities and
1:40:38 and jurisdictions can collect these
1:40:41 impact fees schools fire transportation
1:40:44 and Parks they'll be a quiz on this at
1:40:46 the end that we have the authority to
1:40:48 collect those under certain strict
1:40:51 circumstances mitigation fees the city
1:40:55 collects those are created those are
1:40:58 enabled through SEPA so they're not
1:41:02 specifically outlined by the state like
1:41:05 impact fees are but the city has tried
1:41:07 to create them and and craft them using
1:41:12 the rules of impact fees so that they're
1:41:14 legally defensible and so when our
1:41:17 consultant looked at this element and
1:41:19 saw that we use the term level of
1:41:22 service which is a state word for impact
1:41:26 fees that with commuter of concurrency
1:41:30 for transportation you've heard of fire
1:41:32 as you know like calls per minute and
1:41:34 you know your leader call time the
1:41:38 consultant was very uncomfortable that
1:41:41 we've been using the term level of
1:41:43 service for mitigation fees because
1:41:46 they're related to SEPA and they're not
1:41:48 they're not exactly the same as as the
1:41:52 how impact fees are done so part of the
1:41:55 update of the capital facilities element
1:41:57 I feel like this is a long path to a
1:41:59 little house part of the changes to the
1:42:01 capital facilities element is to try to
1:42:04 take out some of the level of service
1:42:06 language that was relating to mitigation
1:42:09 fees we kept it for impact fees because
1:42:13 that's what they're supposed to be used
1:42:14 for some of the places we talked about
1:42:17 level of service that didn't seem like
1:42:19 it would get us into any trouble we left
1:42:21 in but we tried to be really conscious
1:42:24 of not not claiming if you will that
1:42:28 mitigation is the same as an impact fee
1:42:31 and when we get closer in there you can
1:42:33 ask questions if this description hasn't
1:42:35 made any sense but that was one of the
1:42:37 biggest changes is to try to take out
1:42:39 the term level a service for things that
1:42:42 aren't actually related to impact fees
1:42:44 but there were a few exceptions that we
1:42:47 left in so just saying that and when we
1:42:49 get to the actual places you can ask me
1:42:51 all sorts of questions I'm the other
1:42:53 piece it is a little tricky I think
1:42:57 is that parks the parks impact fees are
1:43:00 just starting to be updated
1:43:02 the parks department wanted to be sure
1:43:03 that they had all of their capital
1:43:06 projects in the budget and in the
1:43:09 capital facility at capital improvement
1:43:12 plan so that we would count all of those
1:43:16 in the new impact feed the other piece
1:43:19 of impact fees because they're supposed
1:43:21 to be used to pay for growth its growth
1:43:24 pays for growth is the pieces that you
1:43:28 need the capital projects that you need
1:43:30 for growth have to be in the capital
1:43:33 facilities element in order to charge
1:43:36 impact fees for them so as you saw the
1:43:40 the fire station and then there's fire
1:43:42 station debt listed in the new plan
1:43:45 there's the City Hall I think we call it
1:43:51 the consolidated city offices are listed
1:43:54 in the the capital facilities element so
1:43:57 even though that's a mitigation fee but
1:43:59 we're trying to treat it like it's an
1:44:02 impact fee so we have to be sure that
1:44:04 those new projects that are to to help
1:44:07 us deal with growth are in this element
1:44:10 so that we can charge the fee so the
1:44:13 tricky part is since the parks impact
1:44:16 fees are just now being updated with the
1:44:18 hope that they're updated by the end of
1:44:20 the year
1:44:21 this document is also going to council
1:44:24 by the end of the year so we have to
1:44:26 figure out a way to have all the right
1:44:29 information in this element in order to
1:44:32 be able to update the fees and I'm
1:44:35 talking to our attorney about it to see
1:44:37 if our strategy is not only correct but
1:44:39 legal but our idea is that we would
1:44:42 strike out all of the parts now that
1:44:45 talked about Park impact fees and the
1:44:47 park level of service and reference the
1:44:50 new fees the new rate study not knowing
1:44:54 exactly what it is yet but knowing that
1:44:57 it will be mathematically
1:44:59 done the way the other ones have been
1:45:03 wanted to at least get you thinking
1:45:06 about that if that's something that you
1:45:08 would be comfortable with or if that's
1:45:10 something that you would be totally
1:45:11 uncomfortable with and then and because
1:45:14 if we can't get it into the capital
1:45:16 facilities element and parks fees
1:45:19 wouldn't be able to be updated and have
1:45:22 a new fee being charged until next year
1:45:25 when we amended the capital facilities
1:45:28 element that's sort of the catch-22 I
1:45:30 wish we still had our audience because I
1:45:31 want applause for you this is exactly
1:45:33 what I like this idea a lot this is
1:45:35 exactly what I was opposed to so I am a
1:45:38 huge proponent of having it be updated
1:45:40 to reference the formula for the new
1:45:43 impact fees but and see we don't have
1:45:46 that yet I know we don't have that I
1:45:48 hesitate to pass it along right now I
1:45:51 would like to have that and I would
1:45:52 rather trust because I know it's in the
1:45:54 works as far as we're seeing it we need
1:45:56 to pass it along to other people to be
1:45:58 able to get it through this year so I
1:46:00 like it if the attorney is ok with it I
1:46:03 like I am a proponent of that much
1:46:05 better than how it is right now and the
1:46:07 good news I think from from working with
1:46:10 the consultant in him and talking to the
1:46:14 council the council must have asked many
1:46:17 many times are these fees calculated to
1:46:20 be the highest we are legally allowed to
1:46:23 charge applicants and the answer is yes
1:46:27 the we were asked to calculate them as
1:46:30 the highest that can be charged and so
1:46:33 that's how the consultant calculated
1:46:34 them and so I'm sure the parks fee will
1:46:39 be calculated as the highest that we can
1:46:41 legally charge council always can adopt
1:46:44 a lower fee they always want to see the
1:46:47 higher fee but in years past there was
1:46:49 one time that they did lower one of the
1:46:51 fees I think it was for general
1:46:52 government which is a low fee anyway but
1:46:55 they're allowed to charge less they just
1:46:58 can't obviously charge more than the
1:47:00 legally defensible fee
1:47:03 so it's good to know let the attorney
1:47:04 know that at least that's how I feel I
1:47:07 don't know if anybody else wants to
1:47:08 weigh in on this but certainly you don't
1:47:09 have to you know tell me you can sort of
1:47:11 ponder if that makes sense to you and
1:47:13 you have until October 10th to before
1:47:16 you see that or the week before before
1:47:17 you would see the draft but but that's
1:47:20 sort of the tricky bit of the update of
1:47:22 this element to tell you the truth it
1:47:25 was really fun to get in this element
1:47:27 and start cleaning it up it had been so
1:47:29 many years since we did I'm speaking of
1:47:32 cleaning up part I didn't clean up was
1:47:36 level of service for transportation got
1:47:38 better when we calculated we updated our
1:47:41 concurrency in 2018 and I didn't correct
1:47:45 it in your draft so I wanted it'll look
1:47:48 like this in the draft that you get
1:47:49 October 10th but we actually have only
1:47:52 five failures four intersections instead
1:47:56 of six failures so that was pretty great
1:47:59 maybe not as great as our solid waste
1:48:02 diversion but still a positive note and
1:48:05 so it appears that s our nine hundred
1:48:08 and Talis does not fail anymore so
1:48:10 hurrah for our transportation so this is
1:48:14 actually will be a correction that you
1:48:15 see in the October 10th draft just
1:48:21 talking about how we changed how we
1:48:24 talked about level of service this one's
1:48:25 for fire this one was really great to
1:48:28 explain to the council instead of having
1:48:32 the traditional in one fire station per
1:48:34 acre how many it's I have to read it
1:48:38 because it still makes me kind of laugh
1:48:40 it's the amount of time spent by staff
1:48:44 responding to incidents and then the
1:48:47 availability is the time that they're
1:48:49 not responding so once they get to the
1:48:51 90 percent that's when they can't get
1:48:54 there on time and so they the rate study
1:48:59 was really fascinating about how many
1:49:01 parking spaces for fire trucks and fire
1:49:04 apparatus you need at all the different
1:49:07 stations to get to make sure we don't go
1:49:10 below the 90% so it was a fascinating
1:49:12 way to think about fire service
1:49:15 but it did change the level of service
1:49:17 and so I wanted to be able to explain
1:49:20 because when I first heard it I was like
1:49:22 I didn't quite understand it until it's
1:49:25 how long they are versus when they're
1:49:29 not available
1:49:30 are there questions on that just out of
1:49:32 curiosity than 90% where does that come
1:49:34 from and what background is from all the
1:49:38 studies that we've been doing since
1:49:40 we've been doing fire impact visas the
1:49:43 fire department they have anime have to
1:49:46 just say this if they're watching they
1:49:48 have an amazing data collection
1:49:51 reservoir where they do the calls for
1:49:53 service how far away they are when the
1:49:55 calls come in how long it takes them to
1:49:57 I mean they have data that would just
1:49:59 fascinating and so they got it down to
1:50:03 how many parking spaces in each building
1:50:09 and where the apparatus Reparata
1:50:12 are to get to make sure that they're
1:50:15 always above the 90% and they have
1:50:18 they've got it based on how many people
1:50:20 and how many calls per new people - at
1:50:24 what year that 90% all of a sudden goes
1:50:27 to 89 and that's when they are going to
1:50:29 need more parking spaces in their fire
1:50:32 stations so that it goes back above 99
1:50:36 that's in the rate study the 90% has
1:50:38 come from past studies as well I mean
1:50:40 there must be some reason Frank as
1:50:42 opposed to 88 right we're and we're
1:50:44 we're way up from that at this point but
1:50:46 they have they had a whole progression
1:50:48 of with the growth that's projected in
1:50:50 the LAN juice element how long it will
1:50:53 take them to start getting near to nine
1:50:55 to the 89 and which is why in the chart
1:50:58 we show that the fire when we need this
1:51:01 fire station and then there's an
1:51:02 underlying piece of the debt that the
1:51:04 impact fees would pay off as well and
1:51:07 these the thing Robin
1:51:09 a lot of this data for level of service
1:51:12 for transportation and fire and secure
1:51:17 police are national entities I mean
1:51:20 these are these are this is data that's
1:51:23 used across the country just percent oh
1:51:26 that sounds I don't I'm not gonna say
1:51:28 this specifically this 90% but I know
1:51:30 that that level of service or firing and
1:51:33 traffic and police is pretty much based
1:51:37 on on national organization studies and
1:51:41 presentations and that's true
1:51:43 the difference from GMA is that cities
1:51:47 and jurisdictions get to choose their
1:51:49 own level of service that the data is
1:51:52 collected like a level of service see
1:51:54 here or in Sammamish or in Idaho is all
1:51:58 the same level of service see but we can
1:52:01 choose to be level of service see
1:52:03 whereas idaho may want to be level of
1:52:06 service a but then but the numbers of
1:52:09 what level of service see means are is
1:52:12 the same does that make sense
1:52:13 thank you but it's nice to have more
1:52:15 data to rely on than just our little
1:52:18 spot of heaven there other questions
1:52:21 about fire per se ER that was one of my
1:52:25 going ongoing questions about how fire
1:52:29 and police services are calculated and
1:52:35 if they had been because the last time
1:52:36 we talked about it they hadn't been
1:52:38 updated since 1996 or something like
1:52:40 that so I appreciate the fact that they
1:52:42 have all the data and they're actually
1:52:44 involved in making the the judgment
1:52:48 calls and and what kind of level of
1:52:51 service they need right I think fire was
1:52:53 back from 2006 it was one of our older
1:52:55 older rate studies so it was really
1:52:58 great to get back in and one new one
1:53:01 just just a comment here just it's about
1:53:03 numbers because the numbers are driven
1:53:07 by these assumptions about growth and
1:53:09 and so I just compared population charts
1:53:12 and various pages through here and those
1:53:15 different charts are used to generate
1:53:17 different numbers but they're impactful
1:53:19 and so if you look on page for example
1:53:21 85 at the popular
1:53:23 and growth there from 2013 through 2025
1:53:27 odd and then compare that to other pages
1:53:29 the numbers are not consistent and so I
1:53:32 started using different different tables
1:53:35 just to follow through the calculation
1:53:37 and we're talking millions of dollars
1:53:38 here in terms of capital budgets and and
1:53:40 and when we cross over from 90 to 80 8.8
1:53:44 and whatever so are these numbers
1:53:47 constantly updated I mean should there
1:53:49 not be consistency for example at least
1:53:51 in the population assumptions right and
1:53:53 I'm assuming and I haven't looked at
1:53:56 them recently but I'm assuming that they
1:53:58 used that they got the numbers from us
1:54:01 and we get our numbers from office of
1:54:03 financial management at the state
1:54:06 because we try to be really careful that
1:54:08 we're all using the same apples I want
1:54:13 to waste your time now but if you look
1:54:14 and compare the charts in these various
1:54:15 pages starting at page 85 and going
1:54:17 forward you'll see that the numbers are
1:54:19 different in various years which are
1:54:21 used in the calculations okay
1:54:22 so I just point that out and say you
1:54:24 know what probably consistency is not a
1:54:26 bad thing is this the little chart
1:54:30 that's on page 85 that was already
1:54:31 adopted with the rate study for fire so
1:54:34 I couldn't change those but I can
1:54:35 certainly go back and see if and again
1:54:38 we started started the fire update in
1:54:46 2019 we started it at the end of 2017 so
1:54:51 I'm not sure I have to look back to see
1:54:54 what numbers or what numbers we were
1:54:59 using is there a miscalculation I
1:55:01 understand what's the is they're saying
1:55:04 the numbers are wrong saying the
1:55:05 population numbers are different loss
1:55:08 whereas the consistency loss I
1:55:10 understand
1:55:11 consistently you're say they're not
1:55:13 consistent what do you mean the
1:55:14 population growth okay if you look at
1:55:16 various pages they the numbers change so
1:55:19 the Robin can you I have the same
1:55:21 question can you give us the pages
1:55:22 you're talking okay so start with 85 so
1:55:26 that's that one and then we go on
1:55:32 90-page 92013 for example in page 9 he's
1:55:37 not the same as it is on page 85 it's 90
1:55:40 is really old page 90 is from those
1:55:43 numbers drive the calculations don't ya
1:55:45 I was trying to follow through but those
1:55:47 are the ones on page 90 you're gonna all
1:55:49 be removed because they're they're from
1:55:51 really old and these are for level sorts
1:55:54 of parks anyway right that's why they're
1:55:56 gonna be used for fire because we
1:55:58 haven't updated them yet he's 91 as well
1:56:00 so will be removed and updated with with
1:56:06 the correct population that's the point
1:56:08 okay that's fine question though because
1:56:14 we do all always try to be apples and
1:56:16 apples but Patricia I I have a 30,000
1:56:20 foot level question sir
1:56:21 what is the mayor's announcement on
1:56:23 Monday about a five million dollar
1:56:25 deficit our shortfall going to affect if
1:56:29 at all what this Commission does on
1:56:32 these kinds of things well they are
1:56:35 they're going either obviously going to
1:56:37 be changes significant changes but it's
1:56:41 not clear to me already I don't know if
1:56:43 anybody knows at this point if that's
1:56:44 going to have any effect on our the data
1:56:49 that we get now compare it to October
1:56:53 10th or you know whatever
1:56:55 right well the data that are that's in
1:56:57 the capital facilities element is either
1:56:59 from the capital improvement plan the
1:57:02 the city's six-year capital improvement
1:57:04 plan that's already been adopted which
1:57:07 has the project's the capacity projects
1:57:09 listed in it and the rate studies that
1:57:12 were adopted in September I want to say
1:57:15 the 16th for traffic schools not parks
1:57:22 police general government and bike ped
1:57:25 those the rate studies and the numbers
1:57:27 in there and the capacity projects in
1:57:30 the rate study are also it's being
1:57:32 referenced so we in the capital
1:57:34 facilities element we haven't referenced
1:57:36 the budget which is what I think you're
1:57:39 talking about is the issues with a very
1:57:41 tight
1:57:42 we're just dealing with the capital
1:57:45 improvement program and the rate studies
1:57:47 that have been adopted so we're not
1:57:49 we're not talking about actual dollars
1:57:51 that it might change but stuff that's
1:57:53 already been adopted that's why the
1:57:54 parks part is so tricky is because
1:57:56 there's not any I don't have any numbers
1:57:59 yet for that you don't you don't believe
1:58:02 that we're gonna be doing something in
1:58:05 this meeting that will be rendered
1:58:08 invalid by decisions that are made
1:58:11 correct because I don't think we're
1:58:14 gonna say we're not saying that we have
1:58:17 to do something within the six year
1:58:18 capital improvement program because that
1:58:21 that part might be bumped out if we
1:58:23 can't do the purchases that we had hoped
1:58:25 that we would do China a good question
1:58:27 though that that is going to be an
1:58:28 interesting yes it is okay so we go to
1:58:34 fire police is one of those that's
1:58:38 really not a level of service anymore
1:58:40 it's because it's a mitigation fee and
1:58:43 so we're still calling it that it's
1:58:45 based on calls for service including
1:58:48 those that have to do with criminal
1:58:50 investigations we want to be sure that
1:58:52 people know that there's sort of at
1:58:55 least two parts of police and the level
1:58:58 of service is is related to both of them
1:59:01 if we stayed a little service do we need
1:59:04 numbers actually say with level services
1:59:06 no because this is we're trying to get
1:59:09 we're trying to get away from doing that
1:59:12 when it's a mitigation fee because it's
1:59:14 not driven by the state and but we knew
1:59:17 that if we if we didn't talk about level
1:59:19 of service for police that people might
1:59:22 think that we aren't providing a service
1:59:24 for police or we don't feel like there's
1:59:26 an importance to that so we didn't want
1:59:28 to take it out for fear that people
1:59:30 would think oh my gosh look at that they
1:59:32 got rid of the level of service we we
1:59:35 got rid of the notion that it's that
1:59:37 much like an impact fee which like fire
1:59:41 but we didn't want to not talk about
1:59:43 that this level of service are these are
1:59:46 combined with these things criminal
1:59:48 investigation and calls for service but
1:59:50 you're right there's no number there's
1:59:51 no you know 75 calls for service or
1:59:54 there's no
1:59:55 total for a year because it just seemed
1:59:58 too limiting when when we really that's
2:00:00 really not the level of service or
2:00:01 police and the good news is we're doing
2:00:04 so well with police that there's no
2:00:06 capacity projects for them like trucks
2:00:09 or cars or motorcycles or buildings in
2:00:12 their futures so they're doing really
2:00:14 well with meeting the level of service
2:00:17 yeah but that in quotes taking over
2:00:20 second floor so they're expanding but
2:00:22 just thoughts in there it's always
2:00:23 really been there's we've been yeah it's
2:00:26 the word when you're somewhere where
2:00:27 you're not supposed to be with assumably
2:00:29 there is more of a need yes there
2:00:32 certainly expanding and it's good that
2:00:33 they can kick people out and knowing no
2:00:37 one objects so Trish you're just
2:00:40 changing some language our nomenclature
2:00:47 right we're still gonna be measuring
2:00:49 something that's akin to a level of
2:00:51 service what you're gonna take all the
2:00:54 metrics out of these standards just
2:00:56 those that are not impact fees so
2:00:59 potentially be a metric for what level
2:01:03 of service
2:01:03 police is providing correct Police has
2:01:06 metrics
2:01:07 I mean police has a bazillion of things
2:01:10 that they have to hit and they hit and
2:01:12 they when they asked for a car or a
2:01:14 motorcycle or more room or you know all
2:01:18 those things capital things that police
2:01:19 asked for they have their criteria but
2:01:22 it's not it's not of the level of
2:01:25 service that we would put in this
2:01:27 element because the part of this element
2:01:30 is we need to have the capacity projects
2:01:32 that we're charging growth for in this
2:01:36 element and so that's how we talk about
2:01:38 it but the metrics at this point aren't
2:01:41 something that we wanted to put in we
2:01:43 were uncomfortable putting it in because
2:01:44 it's really not a level of service like
2:01:47 it is if it's fire or schools or traffic
2:01:51 no it's it's an odd concept because I've
2:01:54 been calling them level of service for
2:01:55 you know twenty eight years now and it's
2:01:59 the consultant was like you need to be
2:02:01 really careful of that because it's
2:02:02 really not level of service it's how
2:02:06 well you want your police department
2:02:08 form standard right right standards of
2:02:11 performance this didn't wanna make
2:02:16 everybody really confused if we could if
2:02:20 we could use the same term but not get
2:02:22 in trouble with it being a metric that
2:02:25 makes sense some other term well because
2:02:28 then there would be level of service
2:02:30 service whatever the term that you used
2:02:33 and and it might start confusing people
2:02:35 is it better to have a level of service
2:02:37 than a service standard and we were
2:02:40 trying not to go there well what what do
2:02:43 what do police departments and other
2:02:46 municipalities use for this then outside
2:02:50 I mean I understand this is a state
2:02:52 mandated thing with regard to impact
2:02:54 fees excuse me and level of service but
2:02:57 there's got to be some I won't say
2:03:02 standard but it would seem to me that
2:03:03 that there has there is some semantic
2:03:07 definition of the performance so that
2:03:10 the public can use right to determine
2:03:14 what they're getting for their tax
2:03:16 dollars when it comes to law enforcement
2:03:17 right and I think part of it is how
2:03:20 quickly they can do their calls for
2:03:22 service they can do the criminal
2:03:25 investigations all those things that I
2:03:27 know the chief has but we just didn't
2:03:33 know quite how to quantify it in this
2:03:36 element knowing that the purpose of this
2:03:37 element is not is not to to be the I'm
2:03:41 not to be the one that counts if Chiefs
2:03:44 doing a good job with all of us his
2:03:46 folks our job is to make sure that when
2:03:49 they do have a capital need that it's in
2:03:51 this element so that we can charge new
2:03:54 growth for it and it would also be may
2:03:57 also be so that you can see the need
2:03:59 before it actually clears before correct
2:04:02 correct any other
2:04:09 UHN in simple facilities this one our
2:04:11 consultants just love this one because
2:04:13 we cannot find another jurisdiction that
2:04:15 charges for this so they thought we were
2:04:18 very innovative and this one this one
2:04:23 are all the buildings city buildings
2:04:27 public this public city buildings that
2:04:29 are not police that are not fire that
2:04:33 are not parks that we already charge for
2:04:36 these would be the ones that would be
2:04:39 like the shopsite like City Hall
2:04:42 Northwest like there's a very small list
2:04:48 of public buildings and the reason it's
2:04:53 a low fee because there's very few
2:04:55 buildings and the purpose was that there
2:04:58 the council thought that there when we
2:05:01 invented this one that it was just
2:05:03 really helpful that the public could
2:05:05 have a place to come in and get their
2:05:06 passports and get their utility bill
2:05:08 paid and all those things and they
2:05:10 thought that that was a service that we
2:05:12 provided so they wanted to some help
2:05:14 that when we grew and we needed more
2:05:16 buildings that we would be able to have
2:05:19 a little bucket of money to help with
2:05:20 that growth the needs for growth a
2:05:23 really cool discussion came up at the
2:05:25 council committee meeting and that was
2:05:27 the future of government
2:05:30 Pervis providing services is not always
2:05:33 going to be brick and mortar you know
2:05:34 we're gonna pay our utility bills online
2:05:36 what can we someday pay for a great
2:05:40 website connecting link thing that you
2:05:44 can pay you know you can be more
2:05:46 responsive to the public but not have
2:05:47 them come into a building and our
2:05:49 consultant thought that was a fabulous
2:05:51 idea but that's not how we calculated
2:05:53 that wasn't the format we used but were
2:05:56 completely fired up about the next time
2:05:58 we update this in whatever three to five
2:06:00 years to think more futuristic about
2:06:03 government services and maybe you know a
2:06:05 computer program to be a better
2:06:08 interface with folks to help them with
2:06:10 their services so they don't have to
2:06:12 come to City Hall would be a really cool
2:06:14 way to to put that to put that together
2:06:17 so we didn't get to do that this time
2:06:21 they were certainly excited about in the
2:06:23 future going beyond just
2:06:26 brick-and-mortar and the consolidated
2:06:30 city offices are in capital improvement
2:06:35 program partly in the six years and then
2:06:38 partly in future years so that that
2:06:41 little table is in the capital facility
2:06:43 element to show that we could charge for
2:06:45 those charge new growth for to help us
2:06:48 pay for that consolidated City office in
2:06:52 the future any questions on municipal
2:06:56 facilities okay we talked about this one
2:07:02 already parks impact fees and I'll let
2:07:04 you know if the attorney likes our idea
2:07:06 or if I have to go back to the drawing
2:07:09 board but that would be parks element
2:07:12 that map the only change on the map it's
2:07:16 hard to cross out the old map but it has
2:07:18 a big X and the only change or the new
2:07:21 map is that the old map has a little
2:07:24 star and says future school
2:07:25 administration offices and the new map
2:07:28 actually has it with the out of star
2:07:30 saying school administrative offices and
2:07:32 those are in the area of the building up
2:07:35 by FedEx up by a brown bear and what's
2:07:40 at the corner Microsoft is the old Apple
2:07:42 exams Value Village it's on it's the old
2:07:46 what was it used to be Siemens I think
2:07:49 so that's the only change on the map as
2:07:51 well so next steps as you know there's
2:07:55 another public hearing of the
2:07:56 continuation on October 10th the
2:07:59 Pickering room City Hall Northwest by
2:08:01 the holiday and I have saved that a
2:08:03 hundred times and then if all goes well
2:08:05 we couldn't be at the study session
2:08:07 November 12th with no action from the
2:08:10 council and then the council meeting on
2:08:13 December 2nd it may take action if they
2:08:16 would like are there questions about any
2:08:22 and all of this fascinating information
2:08:24 I think we have to make sure that Ron
2:08:27 knows where to go
2:08:32 you got lost the last time I'm sure it's
2:08:36 good I have to actually post the door
2:08:37 I'm not sure how many people will look
2:08:40 at a posting on the door but I have to
2:08:42 post the door when we leave that it's
2:08:43 been continued and where the next future
2:08:46 meeting is and we'll put it on the
2:08:48 website but I have a feeling a lot of
2:08:50 people are gonna come here that night
2:08:51 and I think the debate is going to be
2:08:55 here which is why we got bumped to be in
2:08:57 the Pickering room is the debate the
2:08:59 election debate I think is supposed to
2:09:00 be in here that night either that night
2:09:03 or the night before they kind of blocked
2:09:05 out the whole week here the church can
2:09:07 the Picard can depicting a comma date a
2:09:11 number of people showed up here yes
2:09:13 we'll have to reconfigure the the chairs
2:09:16 we won't have you all in a nice big you
2:09:18 like typical but I'm trying to remember
2:09:20 which one were we in that had a lot of
2:09:23 people in it as I remember we we were
2:09:27 first we weren't we were had our backs
2:09:29 to the crowd and we switched the seats
2:09:31 around so yeah when we did when we were
2:09:33 talking about really rezone when we were
2:09:35 talking about changing the designation
2:09:37 for like the Old Town meets up with
2:09:40 destination retail you're good memory
2:09:43 ten points but yeah there was a lot of
2:09:45 people there and it was really a cozy
2:09:47 discussion too because the cameras and
2:09:49 microphones aren't so obvious and so
2:09:52 people just start talking which I
2:09:53 suppose is good and bad but I remember
2:09:56 that was a really cozy conversation with
2:09:57 the property owners she mentioned a
2:10:00 couple of times regarding the rezoning
2:10:01 of the province point that emphasizing
2:10:06 this is public good this is that and the
2:10:11 question was how do we think about this
2:10:13 that was a great way of putting it is
2:10:15 that is there some list of criteria that
2:10:18 you could send at least to me that might
2:10:21 help me differentiate how I should think
2:10:24 about a property that's been
2:10:25 contemplated to be resumed for a public
2:10:29 good and one that's contemplated to be
2:10:31 rezone for your commercial where's your
2:10:35 money-making operation if you will
2:10:37 there's something that yes there are
2:10:39 criteria for for the other kind I'm sure
2:10:42 that sure leads to me I may be the only
2:10:44 one you know and it's one of the
2:10:46 criteria to me the most famous one is
2:10:49 that if the the rezone adds housing you
2:10:56 know population because we've already
2:10:58 met our growth targets council people
2:11:01 kept asking the council for razones for
2:11:03 up zones and so the council changed the
2:11:05 code well with your help it had to go
2:11:07 through you offers that said that if if
2:11:09 we've already met our growth targets and
2:11:12 the rezone would add capacity for
2:11:15 housing that it was a denial because
2:11:17 they weren't interested in up zoning to
2:11:19 get more units when we already met our
2:11:21 state growth targets so that was
2:11:22 actually a criteria and so someone would
2:11:25 come in and say I want to rezone my land
2:11:27 from single-family duplex to multifamily
2:11:29 hi we'd say this criteria you don't meet
2:11:33 it so you know we would have to say no
2:11:35 we couldn't approve it because you don't
2:11:37 meet the criteria with that sure offices
2:11:41 for me so Tricia
2:11:43 I've also this is 30,000 foot level but
2:11:47 I've heard that there's talk that the
2:11:50 city is going to look at the benefits of
2:11:57 shifting from increasing the number of
2:12:00 homes in Issaquah to really focusing on
2:12:04 getting more jobs have you heard that I
2:12:07 have heard if you well I guess in
2:12:11 October October 10th packet and you may
2:12:14 remember this from July we're our
2:12:17 housing target we're getting back to our
2:12:19 housing target faster than we're getting
2:12:21 to our job target not that we're behind
2:12:23 in the job target we're just not almost
2:12:25 there yet like we are with the housing
2:12:27 target and so I think that's made some
2:12:30 folks think that maybe we should try to
2:12:32 jumpstart the job creation which is a
2:12:35 lot of that's the market you know it's
2:12:37 like how do you change the house of a
2:12:39 hot housing market to make a hot
2:12:41 commercial job market I mean it's not
2:12:43 always up to us but I think there's the
2:12:46 thought that you know is there something
2:12:47 we should be doing to get the jobs and
2:12:49 and that to me is the essence of what we
2:12:52 do here is the something that
2:12:56 significant is I believe part of what we
2:13:01 ought to be looking at when it comes to
2:13:03 our recommendations to the to the mayor
2:13:07 and I know it was it was in we've
2:13:10 already started to discuss it it's in
2:13:11 the public documents good boy that's a
2:13:13 that's a big deal if we're considering a
2:13:15 seismic shift like that and you know I
2:13:19 think this emissions got some some work
2:13:21 ahead and when we responded to Puget
2:13:24 Sound Regional Council with their vision
2:13:27 2050 plan one of the questions was given
2:13:31 all of our neighbors and how everyone's
2:13:34 meeting or not meeting their growth
2:13:36 housing or job targets does that get
2:13:38 taken into consideration when we get the
2:13:40 next group you know do we get some grace
2:13:42 on ours because we've done so well you
2:13:44 know we're like the A+ student versus
2:13:47 maybe some of our neighbors haven't been
2:13:49 so great at it again a lot of its market
2:13:52 it's not just because we're so popular
2:13:54 but we were popular and so PS our C's
2:13:59 response was that negotiation is between
2:14:01 you and the county the SRC will be
2:14:04 sitting at the table with us but they're
2:14:05 not actually advocating that it so quad
2:14:09 did really well you ought to give them a
2:14:10 break on their next housing target or
2:14:12 whatever it is we want them to support
2:14:14 us on and and we just hit really hard
2:14:16 that we've been you know you should be
2:14:19 supporting those jurisdictions that are
2:14:21 really doing well so that we don't have
2:14:23 to because that it's not only the growth
2:14:24 it's the infrastructure that goes with
2:14:26 it it's the school so that you heard
2:14:28 tonight it's the it's the parks it's all
2:14:30 the things that go with police and fire
2:14:32 it's not just those housing and job
2:14:34 numbers so so we'll see how that goes
2:14:36 with with PS RCN with King County when
2:14:39 we start to negotiate with King County
2:14:41 and when does that negotiation with the
2:14:43 county start on the second set of they
2:14:48 don't call it buildable lands anymore so
2:14:50 I have to remember the new name it's
2:14:54 like growth capacity project but I
2:14:56 always say which used to be buildable
2:14:58 lands and that's something Krista nation
2:15:00 of latterly but that's something that
2:15:01 she does is she
2:15:03 figures out that all the remaining
2:15:04 capacity on the land on our land sends
2:15:07 it to PSR C and the county and the
2:15:11 county sees make sure that it fits with
2:15:13 what data they have and then they can
2:15:16 tell how much capacity we have left and
2:15:19 then you start negotiating around the
2:15:21 table with all the jurisdictions you
2:15:23 know Sammamish might have this much left
2:15:25 North Bend might have this one you know
2:15:26 and everybody's in King County has their
2:15:29 bucket they say we have this many houses
2:15:31 and jobs let's go and we all you know
2:15:34 start to say well I'll take five but I
2:15:37 won't take ten you know and it just
2:15:38 starts to go like that and we're
2:15:40 supposed to have them all negotiated I
2:15:42 think by the end of next year then we
2:15:46 have this issue that came up to date
2:15:49 where we've got a plot of land that's
2:15:51 currently oriented toward future housing
2:15:53 and we're talking about reorienting
2:15:55 toward totally really almost be a job
2:15:59 creation because it's gonna be an
2:16:01 employer school me that if we're gonna
2:16:08 reorient towards supporting jobs and I
2:16:10 think having something out of sync like
2:16:13 we have those two criteria for us
2:16:15 reorienting towards job creation makes
2:16:17 sense
2:16:18 that's one criteria that we might take
2:16:21 into consideration when we're evaluating
2:16:23 this reason mm-hmm when again though
2:16:26 they for how right right one I can't
2:16:30 imagine that any community facilities
2:16:32 rezone would add housing unless it's
2:16:34 something like the city owning a place
2:16:37 then we're going to build affordable
2:16:38 housing or something like that right and
2:16:45 I'm hoping that when on the 10th that
2:16:47 the school district comes in I've heard
2:16:49 several of the administrators talk about
2:16:51 how many sites they looked at and they
2:16:53 lost you know they either the price was
2:16:55 too high the location I mean they went
2:16:57 through I mean it's been three years
2:16:59 three at least three years since the
2:17:00 bond and none of nothing is under
2:17:02 construction they had a strong argument
2:17:03 to make they just need to make because
2:17:13 maybe the critical issue and that's what
2:17:17 land is available right in in the school
2:17:20 district territory right and that data
2:17:23 is pretty compelling as I understand it
2:17:26 right it is but at the same time the
2:17:28 school district is known for the fact
2:17:29 that time and time again they get
2:17:31 exemption after exemption and they build
2:17:33 what they want and they do what they
2:17:35 want and so it's important to lay a
2:17:37 foundation where we say in within our
2:17:40 purview this is how we're going to
2:17:42 direct it and I don't know that just
2:17:44 because we know we need schools and we
2:17:46 know that there is not an abundance
2:17:47 spaces of land that doesn't mean that we
2:17:49 need to blanketly say all three all
2:17:51 sites go right ahead
2:17:53 well I don't disagree with your premise
2:17:56 that there has been significant
2:17:59 discussion about the way this core
2:18:02 school district has proceeded with its
2:18:06 project tell you the Development
2:18:08 Commission resided over some meetings
2:18:11 where there was some very significant
2:18:13 neighborhood concerns and so there
2:18:20 that's absolutely a legitimate issue I
2:18:23 just think that the driver is where can
2:18:29 they build it right and the good news
2:18:31 since Randy's since you've looked at
2:18:33 schools and the school projects is the
2:18:35 PPC has changed the code and I know
2:18:38 these won't be compact schools because
2:18:41 we had promised that the new code
2:18:43 wouldn't affect the bond schools because
2:18:46 they only appropriated how many how much
2:18:49 money for the 2016 bond schools so then
2:18:53 when we so we have to code amendments
2:18:55 that you all did with some help from
2:18:57 Council but part of them was just to
2:19:00 make them the less footprint schools
2:19:02 that these will have to be the ones
2:19:03 though the next wave of bond schools
2:19:06 sounds like bond from the movie but
2:19:09 school bond schools and then the next
2:19:11 group when they do a new bond whenever
2:19:13 that is those will have to be compact
2:19:15 schools and those I'm hoping will go in
2:19:17 central they will be compact and tall
2:19:20 and and the resonant thing in this
2:19:25 discussion where there is the zoning or
2:19:27 whatever when it regards the school is
2:19:30 in those meetings of the Development
2:19:31 Commission that where they come in with
2:19:34 the initial the initial meeting and then
2:19:36 the public hearings and all that the
2:19:39 development Commission's spent those
2:19:41 meetings were more than 50% of the
2:19:44 meeting time was not talked about the
2:19:46 environmental impact it was not talked
2:19:48 about this the architecture it was
2:19:50 talked about student parking mmm-hmm
2:19:53 and and the drop-off pick up parking
2:19:58 which it's not our purview but to talk
2:20:04 about room for improvement yeah yeah
2:20:07 that's still a big issue yes okay with
2:20:10 that I think that even have valid
2:20:14 questions and you probably could go on
2:20:16 for a long time so but I'm looking at
2:20:21 the clock and it's 10:00 to 9:00 and I
2:20:23 think that the 10th is going to be
2:20:25 coming up pretty soon so I'm gonna for
2:20:30 this topic the two elements utilities
2:20:33 and capital facilities the only question
2:20:35 I have to get to you before the 10th is
2:20:38 the rezone criteria which is actually
2:20:41 the community facilities topic so
2:20:43 there's nothing nothing else do you want
2:20:45 me to researcher or do on these other
2:20:48 than take all the stuff out of parks
2:20:49 anything else you want to know or have
2:20:52 done by the 10th I think you told me I
2:20:54 it's a question that my questions about
2:20:56 inconsistency of numbers which drive
2:20:59 some those are irrelevant to the sense
2:21:01 that they will be made consistent if the
2:21:04 ones that were inconsistent were the
2:21:07 parks numbers then yes those will change
2:21:09 I'll spend a couple of minutes with you
2:21:11 can go through it afterwards if you want
2:21:12 because
2:21:13 I'm confused about your answer there
2:21:14 they won't change you're just removing
2:21:16 them because they're old the numbers
2:21:20 were there they were not struck through
2:21:22 as they should have been
2:21:23 they were inconsistent because they're
2:21:25 old numbers are they're invalid is is
2:21:27 there not numbers to keep in there
2:21:29 they're being pulled out when we looked
2:21:30 at this tonight there should be a strike
2:21:32 through the whole site I see okay sorry
2:21:34 I didn't understand that that's okay
2:21:36 thank you very much thank you Bill for
2:21:37 translating it always helps I like that
2:21:40 Christopher was a translator for the
2:21:41 names on the list that was fabulous so
2:21:44 do you have any other update I'm the
2:21:46 only other question I have is on this
2:21:49 famous October 10th night I have the
2:21:53 RSVPs and I know I don't get Randy at
2:21:55 all in October and I don't have anything
2:21:57 listed for joy October 10 I'm gonna do
2:22:01 my best to be here on the 10 okay so I'm
2:22:04 gonna put a yes and a question mark and
2:22:06 Tom no no okay and I don't have anything
2:22:10 for Robin yeah sure yes okay so then we
2:22:15 have one two three four five so we have
2:22:19 a quorum so that's awesome and I will be
2:22:22 sending you out reminders that it's in
2:22:23 the pickering room City Hall northwest
2:22:26 by valide and October 10 638 a parking
2:22:30 spot parking excellent well done you all
2:22:36 that I'll call the meeting at 8:00 I
2:22:41 don't know Steve Reed

Attendance

Council / Members (8)
Administration/Staff: Joan Probala
Trish Heinonen
Policy Planning Manager Joy Lewis Christen Leeson
Sr. Planner Bill Rinehart Christopher Wright
Economic Dev. Mgr. Janice Carle Randy Harrison Robin Beukers
Alt. Tom Haskins
Alt. Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Ron Faul
Jason Voiss