Many small developers who said the current city-wide development moratorium has hurt their businesses and life savings asked the council for an exemption during the Oct. 17 Issaquah City Council meeting’s public hearing.

The six-month emergency moratorium was introduced and voted into place at the Sept. 6 council meeting during Good of the Order without prior public notification. The council’s reasoning was that development in Issaquah has not been following the standards set by the 2012 Central Issaquah Plan, namely in the categories of architectural fit with the community, urban design elements, vertical mixed use, affordable housing, parking and visions for each district.

The moratorium does not apply to all development. Any building project that is currently underway, or complete permit applications that were already submitted before the Sept. 6 meeting, are allowed to continue moving forward.

Also exempt from the constraints of the moratorium are properties covered by development agreements; development having to do with public transit; public facilities like fire stations; public schools and Village Theatre; projects involving the sale and development of land owned by the city and public capital projects; remodels and tenant improvements; single-family homes on lots already vested through platting approvals; developments considered to be affordable housing, which are defined as being at least 40 percent comprised of affordable housing units; and emergency repairs or construction due to a natural disaster or similar cause.

Most of the 23 speakers were developers asking the City Council for an exemption.

Residents Ron and Lisa Humphrey, who have been Issaquah business owners for 20 years, asked the council to either lift the moratorium or provide an exemption for their development on Second Avenue.

“We have sunk our heart and soul into this, we have put our house up for collateral, we’ve dropped about $50,000 in plans — and now this moratorium has shut it down,” Ron Humphrey said. “We’re at the point now that we don’t know what to do … we’re going to lose a lot financially.”

Terry James, a self-proclaimed “small builder and developer” said he had been careful to follow all protocol and was about to file a permit application for his project on Southeast Darst Street when the moratorium hit him “out of the blue.”

“I understand that there are some real needs and real concerns regarding growth and development … but the unintended consequences are families like us,” James said. “I’m a small guy. I’m not a big builder. This is what I’ve done my entire life to save the resources to be able to do small projects like this to provide for my family … A six-month or longer moratorium for small builders like us really, really impacts us financially.”

Fourteen-year resident Alec Rowell, whose Third Place short plat project had already been held up once by the 2008 housing crash, said it is unfair if a blanket moratorium applies to projects that in actuality do not defy the Central Issaquah Plan.

“There was really no reason for it to apply to our property at all, a project that furthers the important goals of the Issaquah city vision and does not negatively impact any of the six areas of concern called out in the declaration of the moratorium,” he said.

Jennifer Anderson of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties suggested that the council “narrow the scope [of the moratorium] and apply it to those districts in the Central Issaquah Plan,” an idea that several subsequent commentators echoed in their own speeches.

Out of the 22 non-vested projects that are now halted due to the moratorium, only 10 are within the area of the Central Issaquah Plan, according to information included in the city’s agenda packet.

Other speakers, such as Joseph Amedson, who has lived in Issaquah since 1986 and has been working on his 14.5-acre, Talus-area project since 1998, requested that the moratorium not apply to small developers.

“I hope the council and mayor consider exempting the short plats and small lots. Most of us are small owners, not big developers, and we’re not going to put that much impact on the traffic,” he said. Amedson said that his project is now seven to eight years behind due to the moratorium.

“Small people like me have a lot of their life’s savings at risk,” said Willy Gevers, who was planning a development on Front Street for his four-employee company. “We’d just like to appeal … could there be a review process, can we ask for an exemption from the moratorium for small projects like this that fit the theme of the goals we have here?”

Other residents supported the moratorium.

“Everybody can come forward with some exemption story of ‘why this should not apply to me.’ I think we need to take this opportunity for what it is, an opportunity to say we need to have policies and planning in place to plan the growth we want where we want it to happen and have the infrastructure in place to make that happen,” Steve Pereira said. He recommended the moratorium actually be strengthened.

Elizabeth Maupen, who said she is especially concerned about Issaquah’s lack of affordable housing, said it is “important to pause long enough to be sure we are developing what we really need.” She did note, however, that “perhaps a process of granting certain exemptions” may be helpful.

The city said that it has received many comments over social media and email thanking the council for the moratorium, and agreeing that the city has not achieved the goals of the Central Issaquah Plan.

“Disappointed that the best price available is [$1,300] for a small [400-foot] studio on Gilman,” said Carlos Gonzalez, commenting on Issaquah’s unaffordable housing via the web. “A person would need to make at least $24 an hour to even qualify for something that small. Thus, our kids whom we raised here are forced to move elsewhere.”

Council President Stacy Goodman introduced a motion to direct the administration to create recommendations for the moratorium for the council to look at during its next regular meeting on Nov. 7.

“I’m not prepared to recommend anything … specific in terms of changes, possibly, to the language of the moratorium because I’m in the same boat that the administration is, I’m still digesting everything and hearing from people and getting through the public hearing,” Goodman said.

The council members said that they felt for the people who had come and shared their personal plights during the hearing.

“It’s never an intended consequence that you have people who are hurt by an action. That’s not an intent,” Goodman said.

“We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the very specific impact of this legislation to [small landowners],” Councilmember Paul Winterstein said. He discussed creating a review process and said his “interest” is “for the small landowner.”

Councilmember Mary Lou Pauly amended the motion so that the council would also meet together before the Nov. 7 meeting to “consider exemptions” to the moratorium. Pauly said waiting to discuss such important legislation would be “treating an emergency like regular business.”

The motion and the amendment passed unanimously.