- Oh, so it's in the back, okay. - Actually, sit,
no, right where, I mean, if you wanna sit, sit the
three facing us. Good evening. And welcome to the February 28th
meeting of the Planning Policy Commission. Tonight is our big meeting.
We are hopefully going to finalize the vision for the Central
Area District of Vistaqua. We're doing things a little different tonight. You'll
notice that we're back up here and you're the rest of the community
activists that have been with us all this time. It's kind of down
there. And I started this for two reasons. First of all, Mayor
and the council have given us the planning policy the directive to actually do this
and so when it's done they will have our name on it and I want
to be able to have these people say as much and get all their information
out. And then I'm going to call on you and get your input if that's
okay. Just so, because when we were around the table it was very difficult to
distinguish who was on the commission, who was not on the commission. And so this
was a way to at least keep you involved because you've done such a good
job and put in so many hours like we have to make the city, the
central area a great place to live, work and play. So with that, after we
go through all of this, we are going to be, the reason that table is
like that is because we have five maps that we're gonna put on the table
to go through and make sure that we have the ending the the of the
the boundaries of each one of the neighborhoods where we think it should be
so that's why the table is there actually the way it is so with
that I'm going to ask is we have a quorum here we have two
minutes that we have to approve so the minutes of the February 8th meeting
Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve
the minutes. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries.
The minutes of the February 15th meeting. Need a motion? So moved.
We'll get a second for you. Second. All those in favor say
aye. Aye. Motion carries. Keith. Are you ready
to start us through the process? I am. So
good evening Commission and interested parties. So this evening
you guys have a red line version of the
draft visions. I also have uploaded a separate document
which is just the restructured future So if you want
to go through that as kind of a consolidated, here's all the future visions, we
can do that as a separate thing or as part of the overall page by
page discussion. Once we get through the draft visions, the last thing that we have
to do this evening would be to kind of go through the maps of each
neighborhood. and talk about the proposed neighborhood boundaries and make sure that
we're all in agreement that each neighborhood is displayed as it should
be or as we think it should be. So unless the chair would like
to handle this differently, it seemed like maybe the best thing to do would
be to just run through this page by page and you guys could stop
and talk about it when you had questions, comments or suggested edits. But
if you want to handle it differently, I'm open. No, that's fine. But what I'd
like to do, because I spent some time on the future. You want to do
that first? No. Oh. I actually want to go through this first so that we
can understand exactly what's going on in the neighborhood. Then we can go back to
the future and see if there's anything we need to put in there and put
some flower language in it. Fluff it up. And then do you still want to
do that neighborhood by neighborhood? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, okay. Yeah. All right. Let's do that
then. So you don't want to do the little overview part first to frame it.
Yeah, we're gonna go through that page one. Yeah, you guys don't stop me. I'm
just gonna keep scrolling page. Yeah, so I know I know This isn't a change,
but I just went for the for the good of the record. So the double
underlined Yes. That is the line that we're anchoring on
that means this has real Yes and what that is
showing is that language is an amendment to the existing
1819 a one one see so there's code section and
what we're proposing here is an added to that. So
that it gives the city the teeth to require developers to comply
with the developer obligations that are listed in each neighborhood. And do we
have an opinion from Council that concurs that this is kosher. when you
say council do you mean lawyers yeah yeah legal sorry not your not personal council
uh city council no yeah so um yes uh uh the city attorney has weighed
in uh that he believes that we can you know at the end of the
day what happens is we point developers to this language and we say okay look
this says you have to comply and And ultimately, they're either going to comply or
they're going to try and appeal that to a hearing examiner. So there's a process
in the city code right now that allows for someone to protest that if they
believe that this doesn't have standing or doesn't have the right amount of standing. So
there's ways that that can work itself out over time. But generally, the way it
would work is most developers would say, "Okay, I get that. And now here's how
I'm going to comply." okay good just one that for the record sure so we
update the sip yearly is that correct is how often is it reviewed because basically
this document can be amended whenever we're dealing with our centralized squad plan yes it's
roughly annually correct uh - Yeah, it's the company. - If I give you an
ish, is that correct? - Yes. - Okay. - I mean, so as definitely as
needed. I mean, if we saw an issue, we could deal with a code change.
So anything in the SIDS, the Central Lizzie Quad Development and Design Standards, We could
do that anytime. If it was a plan change, so let's assume we got the
vision update wrong. Oh my gosh, I hope not. But if we did, that could
be reviewed as part of an annual comp plan change because Central Elizabeth Quad plan
is kind of a mini comp plan. Yeah. I asked because there really wasn't any
kind of section that addressed how this is a living document and how we want
it to change. And especially as these neighborhoods, you know, we're we're shrinking down. We're
having these new ideas they're obviously going to amend and to grow and as that
life continues to To kind of change the document will also need to change as
we see how these neighborhoods are are living and breathing this document And so I
don't know there needs to be a section saying how that change is happening I
just kind of wanted to bring up some waves of referencing that even if it's
just a staff and I would say I that this is just a small part
of the central plan and that language that you described is in the bigger plan
that of what it's entailed and that's 20 plus years and all those kinds of
thoughts that you had so that we were able to adjust it when needed. So
the good news is I think joy that we we dove into the weeds on
this right. And so we've all kind of sat around and said, okay, what is
this going to be? What's it going to look like? And I think what I
would say is, so let's assume something radical happens in one of the neighborhoods that
we hadn't anticipated. Okay. Let's assume that, let's say that like, for example, Pickering is
the site of a new high school. Okay, you know what, that would be, that
wouldn't necessarily be antithetical to what we were thinking should happen there, but it might
be a big enough driver that we might want to go back in and look
at the vision for Pickering and say, okay, now that we know that there's a
high school there, should we change anything? Do we need to look at any other,
you know, anything in there that we may not have thought about in 2017, 18?
- Okay, thank you. - Good. - Okay, we ready for page two? Okay,
so page two and this first section of the plan or the document I'm going
to say is really just kind of outlining how the plan pieces fit together because
it seemed like that was something that was going to be helpful. So now we
get into really the updated visions. Should we be peppering grammar and wording changes or
email that to you after the meeting? That's your choice if you want to do
it now, that's fine if you would rather just shoot me an email later I
can I can I'll let you know that I will definitely go through those and
put those in if you want to do it later your choice we wait. Something
major or no just the come after attainable the underlying line. I think you can
do that now and I think the fact down on page 2 page 2, yeah,
the on to underline clear table measurable passed up a little bit. Oh, sorry,
I didn't even see the underline. So you want a comma after attainable? I
agree. You know, I had an English teacher that told me like... No, it
doesn't go there. I'm going to hope there's also commas that's consistent with the
rest of the document. all right i'll try to restrain myself that's all right i
was just asking if this is the right venue i might cut you off from
cookies at some point since i did bring up cookies um this might take for
a while tonight and there are two boxes of cookies over there so if you
really need some sustenance please uh feel free to go over and get some i'll
be hanging out over there yeah we've already had ours so you know we're ready
um let me know that you are you want to make
a comment absolutely okay what what is it um and those
supposed of the city just before chapter three um i just
looked up the definition of supposed and it says maybe
And so I think the city is supposed to do their obligations. I mean they
must, right? Down just before Chapter 3, Regional Growth Center, you say those supposed of
the city. And so the things that you have that the city says they're going
to do, I think they need to do. I don't think you're just suggesting that
they might. Would you say required by instead of supposed of? Well something
that's different so so we can't with so what I
will tell you is that that those are identified as
city actions right within within the individual neighborhoods so we
have developer obligations and city actions and the measures for
success so right now those are You know if
the Commission wants different language there, that's fine. What I'll tell you
is obligating the city to do something through a comprehensive plan document
is probably not the right protocol. Just saying those actions of the
city just like you just said out loud. You just don't supposed.
It is a weird word choice. Necessity by the city?
We're only Keith so I think that make this and so not clear so the
clause beforehand is talking about the developer obligations and everyone's clear about that when you
move after the semi colon are you continuing to speak about the developer obligations are
you starting to speak about the city implementation actions city actions. Do we do you
even need that cause. I think it's good to show that there's 2 things going
on one is the developer and one is the city that we're at almost partners
in it. That's just a description of what
comes later. So I would just say and
city of the implementing actions or maybe by
the setting here. Eric, you're ready. Yeah, just
reusing this use reusing the the verbiage in
the columns and said implementation actions. OK, anything
else on page 2, 3. So here we
get to the updated visions and really this section of one through 10 was really
just a summary of kind of the high points of what we saw and what
we changed. So hopefully it's still accurate. When you say removing service, do you need
to say removing most of service? Because part of it's going into East Lake? I
don't know if that's... Or is that covered under number six? No, it's different. I
think it goes to 6 but it doesn't. I changed it. Okay. So
yeah, so originally we took all of service out. Right. And then we
had buyer's remorse and we put a couple pieces of property back in.
Do you want to switch that and say removing old route 10 and
most of service so that it's not most of old route 10? Right.
Is this the right spot to talk about how we're trying to toss
old route 10 off to Old Town? some area um no let's let
let's let that so you guys are gonna hopefully um get that conversation soon when
the old town plan update comes back here okay like a boomerang all right anything
else on the list of 10. now obviously if we make some other boundary changes
so right now all i'm anticipating is this one that's five and then we've talked
enough about six that i'm gonna guess there's gonna be at least some tweakage on
the east side of east lake um if there's anything else um you know we'll
i'll just go back in and and fill in the blanks after we talk about
the maps later tonight are we going to keep green necklace i don't know because
i missed that last meeting is it going to be network necklace glob spiderweb something
you know i don't i don't think i don't think we came to a firm
decision yeah we didn't yeah i yeah we're lindsay and i were just talking about
this before the meeting i think i like i like a necklace because then as
a as a derivative you could talk about the green jewels mountains the state park
and whatnot and then either the green thread or the green chain which then holds
them together which is the trails which i thought was kind of a nifty visual
metaphor so does that decision belong to us or city council
or parks So parks is probably going to drive that and so you
know if if there's clarity on the 8th then we'll either leave a green necklace
or change it to green whatever it is if that is still not decided on
the 8th my my my guess would be to leave green necklace here because if
if ultimately parks is going to change that to something else then we'll just go
back into the plan and fix it later. I'm with that.
Okay, so now we get into our new vision statement. So
this was kind of the old vision with new sense at
the beginning that Ron had suggested. Remember we talked this one
through? Where this one landed. Missing. Yeah, it reads entirely wrong
as far as grammar, but it just doesn't feel... like
anything it's missing an a a prosperous distinctive neighborhood central is an environmentally
rich vibrant and prosperous set of distinctive neighborhoods you could do that but
it still doesn't say anything a bunch of words it is but you
guys said you liked it i think ron liked it except for joy
who wasn't here she gets a pass So is it is
it fine or do you want to wordsmith it a bit? I'm fine if you
guys want to work it a little bit prosperous collection of distinctive neighborhoods you need
something between prosperous and instinctive I think I like collection of because the idea is
you have the neighborhoods which is which are each distinctive and then central Mexico which
is itself distinctive beyond in the greater city so I make sure that's clear come
thriving businesses and just adjust
so i think when we're talking about the central isaac area the
things that we're trying to convey is that it is a mix
of residential and business it is thriving it is dense Well, part
of having all these neighborhood visions too is to insinuate this is a community. This
isn't just where we go to buy our goods and we go back to our
homes. This is an integrated part of our city in a way that we want
it. This is the vision. So to me, it's missing that community heart to it.
So even if that's the word community right now, I think that's the point of
defining these are our neighborhoods, these are the fields, this is what we want. So
it's almost like central Issaquah, It does say where people live, work, play, and
learn, which can... Is it community? So instead of collection, what about community there, Joy?
Or would it be community before? Central Elizabeth is a community of environmentally rich, vibrant...
And I think you can just swap out collection for community. So it's a rich,
vibrant, prosperous community. Does that sound like it's more... Yeah. I like community. Because
you very much want the name prints. Well, I think that's the
point of why we're defining all these things is to-- we're really
trying to lace all these things together. So let's think about that.
You go to the next thing, and the first sentence is not
a sentence. Oh, it is at the very end. It's just-- Sensualist
will be is your subject verb. But everything before that is one
long qualifier. So you want me to move that to the beginning?
Central is a call will be a livable
and vibrant Center for our city comprised of
thriving or just comma and will be comprised
of then comma or Yeah, and will be
Yeah, you don't need a comma, sorry. Yeah, no comma. You and your commas. Yeah,
sorry. My seventh grade English teacher reprised me. I don't love how we say distinctive
neighborhoods twice. That is more of a pet peeve of mine. We have a community
of distinctive neighborhoods. Next sentence. I think you can get rid of and distinctive neighborhoods.
In which sentence? The second one. I like it in the first one. Oh, no,
yeah. I don't know if I was supposed to... Can you get
rid of thriving businesses and distinctive and just say comprised
of neighborhoods served by-- I like thriving. We really veto
districts too. Are we not doing that anymore? Yeah, we
have. You died. Identifiable neighborhoods? I don't think you need, I
don't think, I don't think name brands needs a qualifier. What is, what are
you trying to get with the comprised of part? I get the multimodal transportation
systems actually. I was trying to say businesses and housing together. But that's covered
by livable and vibrant. Livable and vibrant. Can you just get rid
of that whole section, just say, and will be served by a multiple introduction? No,
because livable doesn't necessarily mean residential and business together. Livable can mean a lot of
things. This is us being specific. But there's no residential in the... Can we table
this paragraph? Intimate instead of distinctive. Oh, I like that. Intimate neighbor? No. Because urban.
I wouldn't consider Pickering and Gilman particularly intimate. no i'm serious can we we might
get bogged down this can we table this and get circled back to it i
just don't like the distinctive neighborhoods being repetitive twice sure two sentences in a row
so you want me to try and find a word for distinctive so we get
a different word choice yeah all right or just just community of neighborhoods you don't
you don't you don't you don't need a word up there sure we go into
detail talking about why what their distinctions are comprised of thriving businesses and neighborhoods doesn't
have to be distinctive but we threw it out up here oh okay i like
i like having it if you're gonna have it somewhere have it down at the
bottom yeah okay uh question first sentence is second paragraph will be yeah it needs
to be a will be in the first will be no no paragraph above
will be yeah so in all of the uh city visions that i
have seen it usually addresses a year or says in the future blah
blah blah is something something something not will be well but that's not
how we've written the rest of them did you want to change them
all to is's I think you guys edited the future stuff.
Say "is." Oh, it's a mix. So in Newport, it's
a "will be," Pickering, it's an "is." So we need
standardization. That goes, I'll bring it up when we get there, but there's nothing that
always says "has" like it's in the past tense. Our tenses actually do get mixed
around a lot. Gilman is a has-been. Yeah. I wrote it off already. All right,
do you guys care is or will be? I like is because will be implies
that it isn't right now. Okay. Yes. everyone that i'm looking at because i've
got all of them up here everything except for bell red in
bellevue says is it is is so maybe a big comment fix
that yeah i'll just um all right i show up a note
yeah because you've you've got it it's every year you've got four
or five times i'm glad i mean it's three glad i'm consistently
inconsistent yeah and we still have two distinctives No, you know the
one about it's got a strike through yeah, this one's gone. The bottom of the.
Yeah, I was another one. I thought that was the end is not to write
yeah, but yeah that that distinctive is your better different meaning. Yeah, yeah. You do
need to come after connected though. Clear with that color. Anybody wants to make a
comment on that particular thing. I don't like the wording for the will serve
as well as visitors from surrounding neighborhoods and regions. I can see will serve
the citywide will serve you know citywide residents and you know the region but
to say the visitors are from surrounding neighborhoods I think it's a little bit
weird. Same thought I had. Any comment on that? I think it's a little
bit funky of wording, but I like the meaning saying residents and employees, people
from surrounding neighborhoods in Issaquah and people from the rest of the region. Do
you want to just call them people, not visitors? Yes. Well, or citizens because
you really want to put the Issaquah, I would think people first and then
other outside regions.
You could see what the 3 of you look like. So
you take the surrounding neighborhoods and the region to the front
side neighborhoods. Most of us and some players. Additionally.
No, I think it flows with just commas. We do want people to come in
and shop and stuff. They do now. We have to consider the region and how
we get through. Yeah, this is still a node for people from the Ritten Highlands
and Sammamish and whatnot that were the big nearby city for them to come and
work, live and play. Or not live, but work. I guess what I'm seeing is
you're glumping all the rest of the city with the others. I don't see it
that way. I just see it as a way that's describing this is going
to be an area used by all of these people, not necessarily in ranked
order. Yeah, I think as Keith as you edited it, I think it's good.
Okay, moving on. I like the next section. Very short and succinct. Hard to
criticize that one. You could make it green. So, can I
do my comments now? Okay. I don't see us protecting the
environment at all there. What I see is the environment is
serving residents, employees, the neighborhoods in the region. And I don't
think that's what our environment is going to be doing. We're
supposed to be protecting the environment to serve the natural environment,
not necessarily the built environment and the shoppers, right? Yeah. I think
it's fine. Environment is heavily stressed elsewhere in the document. I don't
think we need to name check it in each paragraph. This is
the vision. This is the, this is, this is what's setting the
tone for the rest and if we're saying that our environment is supposed to be
serving the residents, employees and surrounding neighborhoods in the region, that, that does not proclaim
the greenness of Issaquah and one of our core values of the environment. So I
disagree.
i'm good with it as is what do you guys think i mean is would
city staff back uh saying that isaacwa finds it a priority to protect our environment
i think they would so so that we start we start off you can't disassociate
this first sentence from the rest of it so you start you start off the
vision by central isaac was an environmentally rich vibrant and prosperous community so for me
i mean that that i think goes to connie's point that it's environmentally I mean,
so I think that's there. I'm not concerned that it's lacking
in the vision statement because I think it's there, but, and
I don't know. So I also think that this piece of
the puzzle It's really high level. I think we get to
there's environment in every neighborhood in terms of obligations and city
actions and measures of success. So I'm fine with it the
way it is. I know. Tomorrow night. Well, we're accommodating new development. Why can't we
also say that we're protecting our environmental resources? I mean, that's just an add-on that's
like three or four words, so it doesn't really change our thing that much, but
yet it adds something that we think is of core value. So if we're going
to say that we want to accommodate development, then why can't we also just say
that we're protecting... I think the "we're going to grow gracefully," I think that that
captures that sentiment. Yeah, and it says... Transition gracefully is the way they put it.
...sustinctive, livable, connected, and sustainable are prioritized. Can we say gracefully over time while protecting
our natural... These sentences are so long, I don't... They are very long, so why
not make them longer? I don't really want to shove any more phrases into it.
Why don't we get rid of some of our duplication of words and add the
environment instead? What if you say, "Distinguished
by community amenities and a strong relationship with the environment"?
I like that. Does that help? I do. I think
so. Where were you reading? Middle of the paragraph. And
a strong relationship after the "A"? Stay in the word
"strong". Yep. Great. Fine. So you say put
the green necklace section here, but then later on, if
I am not mistaken, there's another page that says green
necklace. So where is it going to be? Like five
pages down. That bubble. The green cloud. It shouldn't be
there. It should be gone. Oh, it may be. It's on. No
bubble. We're looking at an older version. Sorry, that was probably the version that was
sent out. Bubble free. Good. All right. Moving on. I'm backing up. Sorry. Okay, map,
right? Map is hopefully good, at least for now. We're going to talk about map
boundaries later. And later on you will be, I mean, like maybe each neighborhood's a
different color, right? If you think that would be helpful. I do. Okay.
but know then that you'll probably have to continue that same color for each neighborhood
because then people start to be like it was blue here but it's not blue
here what are you saying so you may want to just you know say this
is what we're picking and we're sticking to it and when it's not open to
suggestion i picked cerulean blue and that's how it's going to be because down the
line i can see people referencing back you might not want to pick the same
colors that we use for livable distinctive connective and sustainable so as not to associate
them yes color confusion the other yeah okay all
right uh we got two paragraphs on neighborhood visions
comments edits suggestions yeah so seconds engines after visions
no no comma where are you um first paragraph
first paragraph second line right you don't like that
one all right just killed it anything else no
no that one's supposed to be there that one
should stay No, the one before it needs to
be deleted because it's subject verb, not because it's a list.
Yeah. Okay. Are you ready? I think this is good. Okay.
I have one. It should be monitored by the city. And
I would say will be monitored by the city because...
You know my suggestion for all of those mandates to the city I would suggest
leaving them as suggestive and let the council decide if they want them to be
mandates and I I understand where you're coming from Connie. I just have Less comfort
that we can tell the council they have to do things Earlier in the document
you talked about it needing to be measurable. Yep, and And that can be
an argument that the city should have to do it, right? So when you take
this before Land and Shore, could you make a note to bring that up? I
definitely can. That would be great. Just basically an asterisk of saying right now it's
stated like and we would like you to determine. That there was concern over the...
Not concern, but saying right now it's stated as a should and we want to
see where you lie on it being a will. Right. and that just that just
puts our comment to it without it necessarily we're saying what they should or will
or versus just so they're aware of the fact that we're reading something into that
and that way they need to make a decision and say no we we wanted
to should intentionally yep versus a will why don't we just put will in parentheses
and let them say here's our recommendation do you like it or not I see
it more as an asterisk of even keep it in keep it keep
it in mind so that they're like yeah this is intentionally what we
want to do rather than us telling them what it should be or
will be sure okay livable we have words that describe livable and then
a bunch of bullet points underneath livable I've got one harmonize new development
in its setting do we want to clarify that
As we harmonize new development For that one as we I'm
thinking specifically Gilman and Pickering as new development comes in they
may and there might be a brief transition period where if
there won't be harmony in the setting as there might be
a story building next to a strip mall and And I think specifically
with those two neighborhoods, there's gonna be a bit of a transition. We wanna be
sure that after those neighborhoods have finished being redeveloped, everything is in harmony. Is there
a way for that sentence to add a qualifier or do you think that that's
adequately captured elsewhere by the fact that we're trying to have density and fun stuff
like that? But I just wanna make sure that no one reads that and thinks
that as new development comes in, it's gonna be necessarily harmonious with existing development. specifically
I think in Gilman and Pickering. So these are desired objectives, right? I mean we're
trying, we want it to harmonize at the end of the day. Okay, so this
is the goal that by the time we're finished it will all be in harmony.
That I'm good with that. I just want to make sure it's not that as
we transition things will necessarily always be in harmony. Just one
comp it should be in harmony even during construction in that the
existing residents should not be really impacted negatively so your definition of
harmony may change afterwards it may be the setting in the buildings,
but during construction bullet point is about scale architecture. Well even and
so I think so I think your point is that This is supposed
to be where we're supposed to be at the end of it. I think I'm
good with it. I just want to make sure that it's not trying to suggest
that the scale and architecture buildings will necessarily be in harmony as the neighbor as
as yeah as neighborhoods transition, but if they say this what do you guys think
you go with it. Yeah, I think the explanation that this is the goal is
that the objectives that's what they're listed as but I think it's a good point
to bring up just kind of change that too. I don't necessarily think
it needs to be changed. I think having explained that these are end
goals as opposed to-- End goals, exactly. I think I'm good with it.
Why is social interaction capitalized under foster-- the first one under urban community?
Beats the heck out of me. OK, sorry. I'm just curious. I didn't
know there's some deep meaning behind that. That's fixed in the redlined version
that I have. Oh. So
is there a reason sustainability is in the top
bar? Is that an intentional duplication, accessible and sustainable,
even though we have a whole component part called
sustainable? I think that's fine because it points that
they buttress each other. And we could do that
with some of the other ones. I have no
opinion on that one. You realize that we've gone
through all of this before? Mm-hmm. um there's
a uh third bullet down from urban community instead of saying foster because you've
already used the word foster once i must like foster yes maybe instill okay
do you want to kind of create that that's that awareness um make it
more personal and then provide neighborhood schools to support community I think we
want to include that in somewhere. I heard your keys provide neighborhood schools to
support community. Yeah, what was your question run. We want to insert urban into
that what point not not. They're going to be urban. I don't think there's
another choice but you know because I just not a plan. I mean their
their model of suburban sites won't happen here. I think it's fine. It just
won't. Okay, so you can change foster the second to instill or
nurture nurture sense of safety I like foster because it's because it's speaking.
It's not just necessarily sense of safety, but it's the actual infrastructure that's
going to be in the neighborhood. Well, you want to use foster twice
that was the point. Yeah, that's fine. We use provide twice what I
don't like nor to nurture but. Hey. uh so in the
cr the redlined version that i have under economic vitality um the
second bullet has minimized job loss crossed out i think that should
remain in look i fixed it not sure which version's the latest
this one we're going with this one okay lindsay she's got fresh
printouts i'll grab one there as well but Yes,
I realize that they're
different. Okay. Okay, ready
to ramble to distinctive?
Is there a reason
why in an environment
there isn't a bullet
point about wildlife corridors?
Why we don't mention
the other members of
our community here? Seems
like a... I think that might go on the
very first paragraph under environmental features. You've got the creeks, the wetlands, open spaces. You
could add environmental corridors to that list. I know we just like to always say,
well, you know, we know about the corridors and we mentioned other places, but it
just seems like this is the place to mention them. Because you've got an environmental
corridor show up in the sustainable columns. Right. i think
you know maybe it's something about you know maintaining and or prioritizing our wildlife corridors
and their functionality i mean you want that as a separate bullet or do you
want to just include wildlife quarters in the laundry list that's in bullet number one
i put it in the list because i think in maybe in sustainable because i
like i like integrate i really like what that means because you're you're we're protecting
them and nurturing them but also integrating the corridors into our yeah, it's part of
our environment. Yeah, it's still but it's still an urban environment that they need
to be interfacing with so I like having them there. Okay. Question Keith on
the first bullet for economic vitality. Yep. Our creeks. Businesses that are special to
the city. Protected open spaces, natural views and wildlife corridors. yes
do you not like that one are there businesses that aren't special that are not
special um i just don't want to go there you know that doesn't read really
well it just kind of asks the question like is there a list there is
a list okay that was a question okay um we'll maybe rework bullet number one
so it seems less preferential apparently okay um i think what i was going to
do um the person that i have says retain and support existing businesses that are
oh that are special to the city So I think what was what was trying
to be gotten there Please we have certain small businesses Like things that are in
Gilman village We also have some big businesses like Costco and others and Swedish that
are important to the city It's not to imply that there are others that are
not so important to the city. So this one's just fraught with problem. Yeah.
So we will do something with that that's hopefully genius. Yes.
Okay. I've got a question to the my commissioners. I learned
a new term today. rain gardens and how rain gardens actually process water runoff. We've
never talked about it here, but I thought something like that might be a great
addition to environment for our central Isoquel plan because it's a great way to get
rid of water runoff. And there's probably going to be a fair amount of it.
we talk i mean there's green streetscapes and then there's green buildings right but a
rain garden is actually designed to process and filter the water and that's a tool
that we're use existingly in the city we have sample projects already that are rain
gardens so we're already actively doing rain gardens as stormwater It's a pretty small micro,
so I don't know mentioning it. I mean, we'd have to start getting into a
huge list of how we treat stone water drain up. Right, because we're not talking,
you know, solar panels. I mean, we're doing more umbrella kinds of things in this,
whereas that's actually a specific implementation piece. That's true. Okay. I thought I'd just bring
it out because it's like, when I heard about it, I was like, wow, hey,
what a great idea. Okay, so just those two. All right, anything
else indistinctive? Any other potential objectives that
we find more troubling than not? All
right, let's move to connected. On the
first bullet, when you say complete, would
it be helpful to add multimodal? Do
you think that's implied by complete?
I think either way so complete means something to me because we have a complete
streets program which is you know care towards those kind of things like putting in
I'm missing sidewalks and bike lanes and stuff, but if that's not as transparent. I
can you guys think is just complete station system means complete streets to you guys.
Yeah, I think complete is fine. Okay, I'm good with it. Okay. And on bullet
point three, create safe, convenient, and comfortable travel routes. I didn't really understand the word
comfortable. To me, I prefer like efficient, you know, like not sitting at the same,
harmonizing traffic lights. You know, I think of more... quick efficiencies. I don't know about
comfortable. So I think comfortable there is specifically for like the bikers and walkers. Think
of Newport Way is a great example because you'll see that I think in the
Newport and then I think in Gilman talks about Newport Way being making a more
comfortable street. I think that's not for the... for the vehicular drivers to become more
comfortable. So that it's also the people that are sharing the street are more comfortable.
It's also kind of loosely aimed at getting towards things like weather protection and things
like benches so that people can't walk very far. Maybe there's places for them to
stop and rest along the way. Okay, I can appreciate that. It didn't come through
to me in that work, but I was clearly in a wrong mindset. Yeah, because
I also think it's-- DANNY WARSHAY: Some of these are kind of veiled. I also,
when I see that, in addition to what Keith said about covers and branches and
whatnot, I also think sometimes a route can be perfectly safe, but that doesn't necessarily
mean people are comfortable using it. DANNY WARSHAY: Right. And so I think that there's
a very different design if you're trying to simply be safe, where you might just
put up concrete barriers versus something comfortable where you have more of a harmonious, more
pedestrian friendly street environment. I came at that from the wrong perspective. So I understand
what you're saying by comfort. But is there a way to talk about-- efficiency effectively
of you know, like harmonizing traffic lights or you know, these are small again small
things but being able to just even just integrate of the concept of us wanting
to. Does the second bullet cover that improving connectivity that's not simply new connections but
also making sure the existing connections are. A fact that it's a patient system covers
that too. Yeah, we think it's covered that's cool. I don't I don't think efficiency
is covered because You can have all these other things. It
could be connected, but it doesn't mean you don't have to go out of your
way. And you know when you set down any structure, you're going to have the
people who are trampling through the grass to create the efficient route for commuter walking
and by bicycling especially you want to create efficient pathways so people will get
out of their cars and use those for the multimodal so I I agree
with your efficiency as a separate issue. So I think so what if I
agree to I think what if you added efficiency into bullet to so it's
improve neighborhood connectivity efficiency and remove barriers. Because it all seems like the same
bucket. Okay. And you guys can say no. For the
very last bullet, would it be helpful to say a vehicle light and vehicle free?
I don't know how you'd ever get to a vehicle free. No, I think in
the vision we have, I could see, especially if you don't have kids, you live
in Esquire, you're by the transit center, I could see if people could live vehicle
free. It won't be a large majority, but especially with car sharing and whatnot, I
think it'll be much more feasible. Is vehicle light a thing? So the reason I
brought that up is because you'll see that sometimes that in worse, and sometimes the
attempt is to get people to stop using their car for commutes and whatnot, but
still own a car. You know what? No, no, nevermind. Now that I talked through
it out loud, I'm good with it. Keep it.
one minor one Keith uh yeah in connectivity uh middle human size I think the
street grid instead of the grid Street thank you um and is that what that
green picture is supposed to be isn't it cool oh yeah didn't we say we
wanted a an identifier sure right I think Vicki's another version okay - Is
it a something something picture? - I mean, yeah. - I don't mind. - I
see it in the other version. - I don't mind that if you labeled it
saying what it was, that makes sense. - Yeah, I actually thought it was kind
of very Tron-like. For those of us who are old. - Is that what we're
aspiring to? - I think that's gonna happen. - And then safe, convenient, and comfortable,
comma after convenient. - Where? - Third bullet. - Safe, convenient, comma. And in
all of these, does anybody else want the titles bolded? Yes. Sure.
We're in a previous version. Serious. I know, I do love this
crossing. You're nailing it. And then I'm wondering under urban community where
the first sentence provide robust telecommunications infrastructure, I'm wondering if we should
also be saying something to the notion of power or electrical infrastructure?
That's very important for us as a community. I think
in this connected one the goal of saying the robust
telecommunication infrastructure was so that people can work from home
and so I might clarify that a little bit further
just say to enable No, because I think you also
need it so that people will you know tech companies
will be comfortable working here. Oh good point. Good point.
Okay. Sustainable? Can I, consistent and can we have some
descriptors over the energy? Because our problem is it's like this.
I don't think energy belongs in the connected section. Would you
put it in sustainable? I think it does because, oh go
ahead. Well I'd agree that it does because you talk about
urban infrastructure which is connected for us as a city, greater region, businesses,
homes, all of those things. Infrastructure is really key. But we don't ever, we don't
ever, we don't touch on energy anywhere else in the document. No, and in sustainable,
there's an economic vitality section which says ensure infrastructure investment support future growth. I think
you could add it in that area. You don't work for PSE anymore, do you?
No, I don't. So I don't know, I don't have a horse in this anymore.
Okay. Um... So to Kristi's point, I don't know where it belongs.
Maybe it doesn't belong in Connected. Maybe it does. So power is-- so
I think maybe Connie and Kristi know a little bit more about this
than maybe you guys do because you haven't heard it. So clean power--
so PSC tracks power outages. PSC doesn't track power brownouts. And so what happens
is we have a lot of tech people who work in our community
who rely on very clean power. And even Swedish, if their power gets
to a certain point, it kicks on their backup generators because if they're
doing surgeries, they can't have dirty power. So they keep logs and it
actually goes gray more than you'd guess. And for those of us who have
backup batteries for our CPUs, they click all the time. So I think it
is important. I think it is part of an urban infrastructure that we need
to rely on to grow. We have a couple substations in town that haven't
been built on. One up in the Highlands, and then the one on Newport
has the ability to double in size. And so not Newport, SR 900, it's
kind of on Newport. So the question is, where should it go? I think
it should go somewhere. I think livable and economic vitality might actually
be the best spot. Because if you're talking about having green power, I think that
would go under sustainable. But if you're talking about having safe, reliable power, I think
livable economic vitality would go there, along with things like job creation, retaining workforce, and
whatnot. So the sustainable sections, one of the kind of word cloud is planning for
the present and future. I think that's where it goes and I would talk about
also water maybe. Yeah, then we should also be talking, I mean there's a few
things, if we're gonna be adding, which I think it's actually a good idea to
talk about all that the grid entails, but then we're also talking about how we
make trash as a community. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, yeah, hold on, yeah, time out.
These really sound like City of Issaquah issues, not Central Issaquah issues. And so
I think all of these things, these aren't unique to the neighborhoods. And I think
if they should be addressed in the planning documents, it should be at a city
level and not at a sub-area level. Because you're right, because then you start talking
about trash and sewage. And I don't think that that's appropriate in this document. I
think that the amount of growth that you're planning in a narrow area makes power
core. because we don't have it and that's one of the energy sucks
sort of like traffic, right? We're spending chapters on mobility here. I mean,
we're talking about it forever, but when you get a large infrastructure blip
like that, if you don't have power and that is the rest of
town is small compared to this future growth. i i think it needs
to be addressed i don't know that the other ones do we have a water
plan going in but we don't have a plan for power in the city we
have no other place okay so i I don't think it goes in connected because
you're talking more about transit and like bikes and walkings in this one. I
like it in sustainability. And so is there anything else on this particular one
that you want to change? Interconnected. Okay. Yes, I have one. On the create
safe convenient and comfortable travel routes, I recommend removing the word travel and add
a pedestrian and bicycle routes. puts the emphasis on the two things that
we're trying to accomplish no but your vehicle routes still need to be safe yeah
no travel there's no reason no reason to exclude cars nowhere in here do we
actually talk about bicyclists so what happens is we're going to develop a neighborhood and
there aren't going to be they're at the top of the page and then and
as we talked about complete transportation system no that that is you don't think that
bicycle routes will get removed. - No. - No. - The opposite. - So
we're looking at more bicycle routes. - Yeah. - Yeah, aspire to the creation
of a vehicle-free lifestyle option. Again, that doesn't say anything about bicycles.
So I don't think I mean skateboards. So there's a reason why I'm
bringing that out. Yeah. Well, so hang on so I don't disagree. I
mean so transit we have something in here that says increased transit routes.
Okay, transits over the top we say increased transit service. So I I
could see adding a new bullet that says increase bike routes. That's good
service. Increased bike ability or something like that because it's
but you're both adding around so pads and sidewalks, you know I mean
like in that it can that bullet part point service all three modes
that are non-vehicle transit service bicycle routes and Pedestrian paths actually I like
what Keith said add bicycle routes simple and the reason why I'm bringing
that up is because I When we're talking about
doing some of these TPI road improvements, bicyclists are getting moved
off in favor of parking. Thank you. What are you going
to add it as? Another bullet. Are you going to add
another bullet? What's the bullet going to say? Give him some
direction. Increase bike routes or add bike routes. That's it? That's
it. Sustainable. This is going to council. You need to change
your color so you can read the block. It's
dark blue on the paper. It's nice turquoise on the screen.
All right, so when we talk about the grid, should that
be an urban community? Where? I mean, what section do we
want to put when we talk about the grid? Would that
be under urban community? I would put it under economic vitality,
where it says ensure infrastructure investments support future growth with adequate...
Power, soup or water. Maybe infrastructure should be its own thing. I mean, maybe it
needs to have another one. We have bullet points underneath that, having the grid be
one of the bullet points under infrastructure. I disagree. I think infrastructure can rest and
support future growth is important. And if there is a bullet, I don't think we
need to be highlighting specific infrastructures. I don't think that this planning document is the
right spot for that. I completely hear you and I think we obviously
need to think about this as a city-wide thing. I don't know. I mean, I
agree we're looking at adding mass, a massive amount of volume that the city has
never seen before. That means an increase in the way that we interact in our
environment through trash, power. I mean, I always, water is one of my go-to's especially
when we think about the runoff from the fire station and our wells. I mean
like so to me all these things having a bullet point isn't really that difficult
for us. It's not like we're it takes away from this document by mentioning it.
But I just I just don't see but I don't see that that buttressed anywhere
else elsewhere in the plan. for us to go here and then name check different
parts of infrastructure, but then not address it anywhere else. We're name checking different parts
of the environment that we're protecting. We're name checking that we're doing transit and bike
and walking and schools. And we're name checking development as far as retail and Right
and then when you look elsewhere in the plan we have specific requirements around retail
and no net job loss. We have specific requirements about where we want trail corridors,
specific requirements around sound transit stations and whatnot. I think, I don't think infrastructures fit
elsewhere in this document. I think the infrastructure requirements are very much a citywide issue.
I think especially, you know, my PAC hat that I don't own anymore. I mean
the amount of growth that we're looking at here psc would never look at just
central isaac as an environmental need it would be blended in with the entire east
county for their planning purposes so it's just it's just it's just not that material
when you look at things like water electricity planning that stuff that's being planned well
beyond the sub area yes but we can also ask for it to be included
in part of being necessary for this area Yeah, I gotta be honest, I knew
PSC had issues with Clean Energy. I didn't realize how much they were affecting this
community. So that's on me for not being aware of that. And that makes me
want to be like, I think we're missing a chunk in this document when we
talk about the planning of it. Maybe this is something that, not that we need
to start having Keith rewrite whole sections about it, But maybe this does need to
be integrated in a way and to me either we can do it with bullet
points here or we can start adding it to all of our other neighborhoods. I
don't know that it's appropriate in all the neighborhoods because that's actually one of my
complaints is that we start to repeat our bullet points and they're not actually very
specific. So I don't think we're going to have specifics here about the grid to
be able to contribute to the rest of the document. So I would be a
proponent of adding something here to talk about the increased need. We talk about that
all the time when we go over the SIP on the semiannual basis of being
like, hey, how are we catching up with resources? How is this, how is fire
and police responding to our growth? I mean, this is a constant thing that we're
talking about with our growth is how do we have our resources match what we
perceive is going to be coming in and not falling behind and I think that
water power are things a part of that. And I think at the SIPP level,
I think that's appropriate. I don't think that that's, I don't think that that needs
to be gone into detail at the sub area level. Even on a bullet point?
Is that in detail? I mean it's not like we're adding it now throughout all
the neighborhood visions. But one of the things that's really happening differently is these codes
are going to be written from here and because of the density and all this
being added to it, the city's probably gonna have to go through and rewrite its
existing codes for a lot of this stuff, which if they were not to do
this, they wouldn't have to do. So that's the reason to have it in this
document. And we haven't talked about fire, and I think fire's another one. We may
have to have five new fire trucks in the downtown area. So you need to
think about growth the other thing which someplace in here I would like to see
is the livability while it's growing Because I do know Gateway had major brownouts out
there while the power grid was coming on for the Gateway project And if we
don't have some codes and standards in their livability while we're growing around infrastructure I
think we've fallen short. I really appreciate that comment Mary. I'd like to Excuse
me, I'm sorry, Ron. Build on that point as well. I like what you're saying,
Joy, because it's really important even today. If you think about the central Esquadra Valley
floor, it's where our neighborhoods connect. People come down. Whenever there's power out, people come
down here to get gas. They come down here to get - Resources, yeah. -
All sorts of resources. And so it's not only important today at this moment, but
as we grow as a community, we need to be able to support the entire
city. - I like that, it is. It is something that connects, that it can,
you know, this area connects our whole community. It's kind of our hub and so
I'm fine. I like the idea of actually putting infrastructure as its own thing under
sustainability and having bullet points and spilling that out. But if that's too detailed and
we don't want to go there, then I do think that at least it needs
to be mentioned in a bullet point under economic fatality. Anybody else? I think this
obviously suggests that we need to have a larger conversation about
this or maybe get an update how the city is handling
this in general. I support either listing or adding some bullet
points for the main areas. Exactly what would you put in
that bullet point? I would
put another bullet point under economic fatality if we don't and I agree I understand
if people are like hesitant to add another section that is infrastructure but that would
be my recommendation because to me I think it's important enough to do so but
if we did I would suggest it then be another bullet point that would say
that we continue to scale infrastructure as as as needed and then we list what
that is and that is you know, fire
and rescue, that's water, that's waste, and that's
power. How about infrastructure and public amenities should
occur concurrently with or in advance of development,
including... Yep. I like that. I really like
that. That's from Bell Red's version. oh yeah i'm
i'm just doing i'm good with that and so you have infrastructure actually you
have that language about advancement concurrently it's in there somewhere yeah that that that
i see value with stressing that the the infrastructure investments need to be concurrent
or an advancement of growth that i actually i see value in having that
language here Boom. We've satisfied multiple people's concerns. So I just
have one confusion. Connected on the purple says urban infrastructure in its title.
And so it's a little confusing then not to discuss much urban infrastructure
there, but to discuss it in sustainable instead. So should that be somehow
moved over? No, because I think in the connected section, it's talking about
specifically transportation infrastructure. Streets, paths. Signage. Well, then you would just
call it out and it wouldn't be Infrastructure it would
be streets. That's right Not urban infrastructure or you know
mobility infrastructure I can understand that to me. It's confusing.
Yep. I can understand that. Thank you funny Okay, let's
go back to sustainable That's a
language you or we all you good anything else unsustainable only got added is if
we're gonna list all the stuff that needs to be grown and concurrent are you
gonna so are we gonna just have that language are we gonna then name check
a bunch of different types of infrastructure I wasn't gonna name check do you want
to check no no mention of power then correct I might say including blah blah
blah blah blah where blah is each of those
things. Clarify. It seems like the things you should mention are the things that
are of concern. And so power is of concern so you would mention it.
So the infrastructure failures that we have now, things that aren't working, I would
focus on. Things that seem to be moving along appropriately, I don't think you'd
have to call out as much. So I think it's our going Keith
so just gonna say powers the only one we don't control right can't make PSE
provide anything I Disagree, so I think for for fire. We've got to coordinate with
Eastside And the other one was I would add schools as another key piece of
infrastructure that needs to grow concurrently with I mean if you think
about you know, all the other either remember the kids so right now so water
wise, okay, so let's just we'll tackle these guys one by one so water were
part of cascade water alliance, which provides enough water for our continued growth out into
the future stormwater is regulated by the state through the county. I'm sorry the county.
Well, it comes down from the state, right? So the state and the
NPDES requirements are mandated to the localities. And so we have to comply
with those. They're regulations just like any other regulations that come down from
the RCWs. Trash is a or waste collection is
a private contract. So there are companies that bid for service
Eastside fire and rescue is a regional fire protection entity of
which the city is the largest kind of shareholder You know, so,
but you know, true, we could always go back to having our own fire department.
But, you know, so part of this, so it's not really infrastructure, it's services. So
this starts to kind of unravel as soon as you start to include some services.
So then do I put police in there? I mean, so where does this list
stop? And if we're really concerned about power, And maybe AJ and I have different
perspective on how much control the city has. I mean, if I tell PSC to
go build a substation tomorrow, they're gonna say, "Yeah, no, we're not gonna do that."
So this is one of those things where I think the city is an influential
part of that decision process, but ultimately we have maybe 49% of the vote. So
for me, power is a little different than some of the others because the others
we control. But I'm willing to write whatever you guys want listed. If you want
to grocery list this thing. I think we don't want to grocery list it because
you're going to forget something or you're going to broaden it too long and it
becomes meaningless. I think public safety is an important one because public safety is falling
behind because we had a 2006 capital facilities plan for a long time. So if
we don't mention it, it won't sustain itself. But I don't but I think
that's my point that I don't think I don't think this document is the right
point I don't think adding bullet points is gonna actually drive any action by the
city But unlike unlike all the detail we have in the same limitation actions elsewhere
in the document Lindsay Can you read what you were suggesting that we put in
there? Do you if you still have it? Infrastructure and public amenities are provided concurrently
with Or in advance of growth. Actually, that's probably good enough. Yeah, I think
just-- Well, what if we added the power? I mean, in that, we have-- there's
two points then. You're saying public amenities. Why don't we just add the power grid?
So then it's three things, right? So then it's-- We don't own power grid. We
don't have any influence in power grid. Well, we do, 49%, but we don't have
controlling. well that was just a hypothetical number his point is that we don't
have the majority stake what you do is you don't allow growth until the power
is there to sustain it and that's that's that's implied by saying infrastructure i think
it is i mean i mean if you want to be if you want to
say like eg like such as um power et cetera, then that's
fine. You can be specific about power, but then not imply
that it's a finite list. I like that. So I would
say infrastructure, e.g. power, and public amenities, e.g. schools, occur
I like that because I think power and school are the two ones that
people are most concerned about lagging growth. They're certainly lagging. Schools are definitely lagging.
Yeah, that works for me. And parks, of course. What does the EIS call
them? Because they're all clustered under the one chapter in the EIS. What's the
term they use? Do you remember? Each of those component parts was
called out in the impact statement saying that they had to do X things in
order to be able to continue to grow and still be inside the environmental envelope
for which they were approved. And I don't know that anybody's particularly checked back to
see if that is the case.
not the expense not what i was expecting from you keith i i don't
i don't read the uh central is across eis um on a frequent basis
okay not in my uh to-do list so we're gonna add that one bullet
Okay, I'm bulleted up. Are we good? Yeah, we're good. To Connie's point, should
we, is that something that we need to add? I think she was using
that as a way to potentially structure the conversation that we just had. If
you guys want me to check what we agreed to against what was in
the EIS, I can do that. It was more a matter of using the language
that we've already used to discuss all those things so that we had some, it
would be referring to something as compared to something new, right? I
had one comment under housing. I would like to see affordable, maintain
existing and build more affordable housing because providing smaller options for singles
and smaller families doesn't mean that it's affordable. I remember seeing affordable
somewhere though. Would that also include age and place? They're in the
neighborhoods. It's in the neighborhoods. Pardon. It's in there and then that
in under one of the other can you have promote affordable housing and the
promotes a nice remember saying it flexible verb. There was that moment, you know,
remember now it's in the I know that the whole time livable.
so we can do it here i mean we've talked about potentially putting things in
a couple places where it makes sense yeah i think i think promote affordable housing
is a second bullet under housing okay that adds value adds more length to this
section too which would be good would it be appropriate to say uh to promote
affordable housing and agent place is that the right conversation to have here no i
think no i think agent agent place is too specific for this no that's all
right i do like the additional bullet point so we just
looked up the planned action eis for the central squad plan
and it's um public public services and utilities okay thank you
it's less homework i used to do no i'm finding a
blank spot she was writing get milk on the way home
She had a few too many of those cookies.
Public services and amenities? Utilities. Utilities. I was going
to say, now you made me forget the last
part. Well, but we're not... That's just what they're
called in the EIS. Place is consistent. Okay. Are
we ready for West Newport? Yes. Thank you, Trish.
So my big comment here is that the future sections, I don't
like the idea of them being bullet points. When I'm looking at
the other city's neighborhood visions, when they're creating these future paragraphs, they
are paragraphs. And if I think about the reader, the intended reader
of this part, It's community members and the city and it's to create
an image, a picture in their head of what they can see that neighborhood
being. I don't get that conveyed by bullet points. That just is a list
to me. It's not an image. This is your bullet points. I did not
present it in bullet points. I presented it in paragraphs. In paragraphs. Yeah.
- Can I go off of that for a second? I actually don't mind the
bullet point. What I mind is the fact that these bullet points get repeated from
neighborhood to neighborhood without any change or distinction. And so I'm gonna go for this
and I'm gonna hope that I don't say this four times with every neighborhood that
we bring up. but we start and we have the two main repetitive bullet points.
Noise from the I-90 has been managed by WSDOT. And then we say that the
city has worked with Issaquah School District to improve schools. And that is in every,
mostly in every single one. And then we then go, when we go down into
our charting, it says, oh, and we're gonna work with them. It is has no
accountability and it has no distinction between the differences that each community needs. I would
love to see something that says that maybe Confluence needs more crosswalks whereas maybe Pickering
needs more buses. I don't know what specifically in schools, maybe more students are spread
out across the neighborhood whereas maybe they're more dense and we actually just need more
resources than that or maybe like in Confluence it's more about walkability and trying to
make that safer but there's no difference in any of the neighborhoods between what we
need from the school district other than we have worked with them. I don't like
the has worked with. I think it's past tense. rather than an active. And I
also don't like that we don't say what that is. And that goes back to
the noise from my 90. I mean, does that mean that some neighborhoods need to
have a wall built? Or does that mean that some are having some, you know,
what is it that each community needs? Because the whole point of this is to
say we're distinctive. They're their own spaces. They have their own separate needs, but we
don't define what those are. So distinctive is distinctive. And I think each distinctive section
within each neighborhood is different. because I can tell you I wrote these and I
can tell you that each one of them started from scratch whereas livable, what makes
each neighborhood livable may actually be the same. So for example, being able to walk
to a school. So whether you live in Confluence or Pickering or Gilman or West
Newport, you and you have a school-aged kid, you want your kid to be able
to get to school in a very safe and convenient way, right? So whether that
school is... The confluence may already have taken care of and have an abundance of
one type of resource and not another. And so I'd like to identify what that
is. But the problem is we're trying to look out 20 years, right, Joy? And
if we're gonna put 7,000 households in the Regional Growth Center, that would tell me
that that's enough for two elementary schools. just in the regional growth center and so
i don't know where those are the school district doesn't know where those are i'm
based on the conversation i had right before this meeting they're not even thinking that
way just yet but but we had that conversation so we're starting to at least
prime the pump for them to start thinking they're going to have to buy urban
school sites in central is a clock because that's where the kids are gonna be
and buying them at the edge of the city because It's cheaper to buy land
in talus or somewhere else and build the school there That's just not a good
outcome that we're okay with so we're happy for that. So we're having side has
a side point Thank you for that conversation So as you as you then start
to think about these neighborhoods and how they're livable I mean Most people choose to
live in Issaquah either because they like the environment or they've got kids and they
want their kids in the school system out here, right? And so if you've got
kids and want them in the school system, then you want to be able to
get them to school in an efficient and safe way, right? But that's true for
every neighborhood. And so I guess the question is, if you don't like that repeated
in every neighborhood, but you think it is true for every neighborhood, then where do
we put it in a way that doesn't water it down? Ooh. If it applies
to every neighborhood, it goes to the boxes that we just talked about. If
it's specific to a neighborhood, it goes in the neighborhood vision portion for that
neighborhood. Okay, so if everybody thinks yes, then the ones that are replicated, like,
for example, you know, monitoring and maintaining open spaces in every neighborhood, because we
said that's necessary everywhere. If that's getting lifted up, to the overall central
Issaquah as a whole, I want you all to nod and say, "Yes, let's do
that." If not, let's talk about that as a structural thing right here, right now,
so that we can get clarity. To Joan's point... Joan? Joan Jr. You haven't been
here for a while. To Joan's point, There are certain things here where
we could change what it says there to make it more applicable to
that neighborhood, the specifics there. And I understand it's a 20-year document.
And if schools is a bad example, then let's try noise from the I-90 has
been managed and you know, and so then we go back and we're like, yeah,
we needed to deal with noise. I mean, but how are we dealing with noise?
I mean, it's so vague and it's just kind of this notion of... I have
a counter argument. Yeah. My counter argument. Because for me the function of the
neighborhood sheets would be the tool for the developer in the city to sit
down with those neighborhood sheets and say, This is what's going on in your neighborhood
and this is what you're gonna need to do and that puts them all on
the same page. If you pull too much of that out, even though it seems
redundant to us now, when you look at them one at a time because the
developer wants to know what to do, then it's very clear. This and this and
this and this and this are the hot topics. they do each of those things
is what is flexible because it's going to be a little bit different in each
neighborhood and that's the discussion that the developer will have with the city and then
when it goes to development commission they would be in theory using this same tool
to say well did you do that are you actually getting rid of the sound
can you walk to the schools and so I like The repetitiveness, not because I
enjoy reading it, but because I see it as a functioning tool to get us
what we need in each neighborhood. And so this is not for my reading enjoyment
like a novel, and I had to give that up. So I just try tearing
each sheet apart and saying, okay, am I going to get what I want using
these words in this neighborhood? And I don't know if that helps. I think I
agree. One, I think it is super important to repeat things in the tables. So
I think in the tables, the repetition is there, and I think we all agree
on that. For the future statements, there might be a few of these to pull
out, but I like each of these being able to stand on their own. But
I think if there's some that apply to all neighborhoods, I think it's okay to
pull them out. But I think all of these, I don't think there are any
that apply to all neighborhoods. all five neighborhoods i think any i i think there's
all i think for all these like for instance i-90 it's not in confluence no
it's not there is there's one next to conflict yeah yeah and so like so
the only one that i could i could maybe see that we should perhaps pull
out of this and pull forward might be uh might be the school's one but
i also think that's really important and i like having it show up yeah i'm
less i'm less a proponent of pulling it out as i am trying to be
a little more specific but i guess what your your point is to say that
we won't always know what those needs are and so you're just trying to say
that the need exists yeah because i think so when you look at that i
think those two things one because i think for the schools one i think we
still need to be vague because we don't know where the residential growth is going
to be let alone where the schools and i guess i'm reading it i'm not
seeing the accountability but to connie's point how do we have the how do we
have the account like the accountability if we don't mention it yeah i'm just wanting
i wanted a little more meat to the to the to the especially the schools
just you know especially is there a reason that it's past tense that we it
has worked for him in the neighborhoods rather than being more active These are supposed
to be future visions. Yeah. So-- Yeah, so you're supposed to read this as if
you're 20 years from now. Yeah. So you look back and you say, yeah, the
noise from my 90s now no longer problems because we have noise walls or we
have other attenuation devices that then allows residential to be right next to the freeway
and people live there and are happy. You also might be confused because it says
West Newport will be and that's going to change. In the document it's going to
say West Newport is. So that probably threw you off. Why can't we also say
the city is working with? Well, because by the time that this happens, that will
have been done and be finished. The noise walls or whatever they... be will be
done in 20 years from now we won't be working with west shot that project
would be complete because because like for that for that specific one for west newport
the noise walls are going to get put in as a part of adding the
new access line like that should happen in the next five years so it's so
it's the way that it just kind of got structured was this was kind of
looking back So it's almost like what is it now looking in the rearview mirror
and you can say, okay, the noise walls have been built, you've got a park
in Anthology. We work with the school district, that's no longer a problem of, hey,
all the schools are on the edges. I mean, so this is kind of the,
this is the outcome or the hopeful outcome, right? I mean, if we do it
right, this is the hopeful outcome. - It's inconsistent in all of this. So the
thing is, whichever way you choose, - Choose. - Yes, we've said that. -
Yeah, and so I think you're just fighting with the same inconsistency 'cause every other--
- I admire your consistent inconsistency. - I agree with Lindsay, I like the paragraphs
better. - So let me do two things. Let me read to you something from
Bell, a Redmond's thing that says the neighborhood division describes the Bear Creek neighborhood in
2030. it represents what the vision what the neighborhood will look and feel like
when the neighborhood plan is implemented I think that statement may be up in
the before the vision or before the neighborhood area explains why we're talking in
the future with that tense. Or add that sentence to page two of this document
where you explain how things flow. Can you email me that please? Thank you. I
think you can stick that on page two at the very beginning of the document
that just explains how things flow. But I agree. I think that would be helpful
because I think we all get that it's a look back. But if someone's encountering
this document the first time that might not be clear. Okay, and then the second
thing I was going to say is related to that paragraphs idea
the what I'm looking for when I talk about this livable section
for West Newport is to be able to describe what that neighborhood
looks and feels like to create that vision, that image for somebody who's reading it.
And so when I'm looking at, say, for example, Bear Creek's parks and recreation, residents,
employees and visitors alike enjoy parks in the neighborhood that offer a balance of active
and passive recreation opportunities. Natural park areas are walkable, educational and design main. So the
idea is it paints a vision, an image for you. And I just don't think
that does that. originally what i wanted to do was go to the go through
each one of them and then go back to the to the few for the
future part of it that beginning because after you read what it's supposed to be
you can picture in your mind what you want to be in there exactly
what you said I mean things like sounds from Lake Sammamish children playing but
voting entertainment those are the vision statements that you really want to have in
there the fluff So you want in each one of those. So Joan do you
want us do you want us to pivot and focus on the tables and work
through each neighborhood? Well no I mean you've gone through this And then I want
to go back to that. So go through this first. What are the things in
here that you want to change? Is there anything that you want to add? I
like, I like, I have to say that I like the fact that there are
the same things are the repetitive in other, in the different ones because each, you're
looking at each individual community separately and you should have what's going to happen. there
so I really like it repetitive in the tables when we're talking about the
developer obligations the city implementing actions and the measures of success when you're painting
a vision of a neighborhood I want that to be distinct and unique so
that I can have an idea what this is gonna look like and so
to Joyce point if we're gonna talk about used for many
locations of the four, you know, one of those that has been duplicated in each
area. In order to get a vision of what that means for this neighborhood, we
need to be something specific and unique for that neighborhood. I mean, like, I guess
I just wanted, like, as a measure of success, it's just... Yeah, we're working with
the school district. I mean that to me that isn't a measure of success talking
about the communication that's happening. I want to hear, I want to see something that
says our schools are located within a walkable distance, you know, for this neighborhood our
schools are located within a walkable distance for the majority of the kids. You know,
I wanted to see something that was a little bit more detailed. Let's look at
the actual measure of success bullets. I think the tone of the measure of success
i think generally meets what you're looking for so so with the schools there's a
city action so work with isd to provide safe and convenient access to nearby schools
so and and so i did not have a measure of success for working with
the school district we could um you know this is where it starts getting a
little fuzzy in terms of you know how specific do we want to get I
don't know. Can we get a little more specific? I mean, is it, and again,
if you tell me, you know what, this achieves what we want, we get your
point, move on, that's okay. It was just when I was reading it, I really
wasn't getting anything that was specific to these neighborhoods about, really directing the school district
of saying hey we want in this neighborhood we want the schools to be embedded
right on it whereas we can say hey in this neighborhood because of the layout
of where it is you can do it on the outskirts and we need a
lot more resources to be able to get kids to that you know having that
realistic detail of what we anticipate the same way we do with developers saying this
is how we want what we want it to look like I felt like we
weren't giving that to the school district and that concerned me So part of the
problem is, you know, the school district's gonna buy whatever land they're gonna buy, right?
We can have conversations, we can try and push them to Central, you know, and
let's assume we're successful and they build an elementary school, you know, in one of
the Central neighborhoods to start with. You know, whether it's Pickering or Gilman or West
Newport or Confluence or Eastlake, I mean, I guess the question is, do we
need to be specific? Does that matter to one neighborhood or another? And what I
was trying to get to was, I think, we want this to be true for
all of them, that it's safe and convenient access to nearby schools. Now, nearby might
be next door, or nearby might be underneath the freeway in Gilman if you live
in Pickering. I think either way, that seems like that's probably what you would call
your neighborhood school, right? And so, I guess I don't know how far down you
want to go with this one because for me it just gets really fuzzy really
fast. I mean we're having conversations now with the school district about just thinking about
Central Issaquah versus all the stuff around the perimeter which is kind of where they're
looking right now. But that's a conversation, and if we don't continue to have those
conversations, they'll never get there. So Joyce asked for more specifics in the measures of
success. I think I can support that, whether it's related to schools or something else.
So then just show you I'm not I'm not gonna let you just be vague
because this is our last moment, right? No, so you need to tell me what
you want Lindsay if you want a measure of success for West Newport on schools
What is it? Because I'm gonna tell you there probably won't be a school in
West Newport. Yeah, so then the priority for West Newport would be a Special emphasis
on resources like there I say buses. Yeah to be able to get kids to
another neighborhood to be able to allow a uh to a better connectivity so if
if we anticipate no school in this neighborhood and connectivity is then the thing that
we want to push for so so what we have on the city's action items
is safe and convenient right because right now there is bus service on newport and
i think a lot of people would say it's it's maybe not that well well,
I'm not going to use that word, that it's dark. There's not necessarily facilities. So
the bus stops, puts its red flashing lights on, right? And the kids who are
all lined up by the side of the road in a driveway get on the
bus. is that a good is that where we want this to be or or
if we know that we're going to have you know bus pickups and drop-offs on
newport you know school district needs to exactly exactly that's something a little bit better
perfect example of what where i think each neighborhood has a different need and calling
that out may be helpful but but i think we've got that because so look
at your measure of success newport way becomes a local street and is not used
for regional commuters And that will facilitate safer bus pickup and drop-offs. You see pedestrian
connections to other areas are safe and convenient. That bullet point covers the ability for
someone to walk to Sunset Elementary School. So I think, Joy, I think the things
that you want, I think they're in here. They're covered in different ways. I can
appreciate that. And again, Keith, if you tell me, look, there's a reason that we're
not getting into the weeds on this, I can respect that. It was, again, something
that struck me as I read the document. So maybe, and I think you're, I
don't want to dismiss your point, Joy, because I think it's important. I think the
question for me is, There are a lot of variables still. You guys have asked
for, well, gee, it's already March, in three months for us to come back and
talk urban schools, right? Because the urban school policy, which morphed into the compact schools,
you know, ends up that we need to come back and have a policy conversation.
I think we said in the first half of the year? Yeah, so in the
next three months we got to be talking about urban schools and I think that's
gonna about I'm looking forward to it too. Yeah, so that's gonna be so that's
gonna be about the same time that the City Council and the school board are
gonna get together because that meeting is not happening as fast as it was hoping
to so so I guess what I would say is we need a placeholder so
that we know that this is an important thing for us and To your point
earlier about when do we come back and say, okay, let's tune this up again.
That may be one of those ones where once we make some progress with the
school district, because right now it's literally ground zero in terms of talking about. If
you look at where they've identified the next two elementary schools and the high school,
it's on the edge of the city. Right. OK. So the next round, the next
round of schools where they're going to buy property, they need to be in central.
So that's part of the conversation that we'll have. That's part of the ongoing conversations
we'll be having with ISD. It just for me it's it's words so not there
yet. Yeah, Jack I can imagine if we're sitting here 3 years from now updating
this document and we know schools come in a particular neighborhood then I think adding
specific language makes absolute sense. I think we're just not quite there yet. i i
don't think you added this already i was doing something else but uh under connectivity
residents of west newport find convenient mobility to other parts of the city uh convenient
this is measures of success third column first first bullet yeah could that also be
safe and comfortable again because because we use that at the beginning, but it's worth
re-emphasizing. And so then the mobility for the schools then has to be
safe and pleasant or comfortable. At least it adds some more modifiers rather
than just convenient. I mean, it's a token. And
just to add, because what we don't have is working with the schools to get
safe, comfortable bus stops. And we need a definition of what that is, because we're
going to have gateway with no bus stops, and they will be standing in the
driveway along the road.
No, I mean I do. I'm torn between what I, this is exactly my point
when I read the document. I mean each neighborhood has different needs and I think
the conversations with Issaquah School District is a good example of saying we're still not
getting our needs and wanting this to be a place where we have a little
bit of meat. But I can appreciate the fact that you're saying we're not, we're
not there yet. So. If that's all. I trust you, Keith, if you say this
is the best we can do right now and I appreciate you hearing me, you
know. So this is so so part of this is and I'm sorry if my
bar is really low. Part of this is we're moving the visions. I don't mean
that in a bad way. to you guys or you who worked on this earlier.
But we're moving it from very general to a lot more specific. Is this the
landing spot? Probably not. But this is moving the needle a long ways from where
it was in the previous version. And so I guess I look at that and
say, this doesn't necessarily land all of the things that we're talking about, but it
at least puts them on the radar. Placeholder. Yeah, absolutely. and i think
there's value to that yeah i appreciate it now more after talking to you
i like the fact that we're coming going around in the circle and coming
back to the original plan so it must have been okay in the beginning but
i like the fact that you're actually you know throwing arrows at it darts to
make sure that we're where we're supposed to be so anything else on here i've
got one more for west newport under distinctive we um the last bullet point is
that west newport provides the most access to preserved open space of all central isaac
neighborhoods It currently does that. I'm assuming that means we want it to stay doing
that since we have this future tense of in 20 years. Again, it's in the
distinctive bullet points. Not, keep going up. It's back. It's in the future section. It's
in the distinctive, yeah, the future section. Yeah, yeah. So, so am I correct in
saying that it currently has the most access to a preserved open space? We want
it to stay that way. And so I was hoping that we had something that
kind of ensure is there some sort of protections in place? How are we how
are we achieving that future concept? So It's a good question. So right
now part of part of the neighborhood is being preserved as open space.
So what's the eastern part of the Gateway project or the anthology project?
I'm gonna try and use its new name is actually going to be
preserved as open space. There's also then you know it's adjacent to West
Newport so Cougar Mountain and the permanent open space owned by the county
comes all the way down to Newport and it's right across the street
from West Newport. So I think that because the rest of the neighborhoods
are much more urban and surrounded by other kind of development areas. I think
this one will always have the most at it's one of the distinctive pieces I
think of West Newport is it's definitely much has much more connection to the open
space. I think the anchor for this is really Cougar Mountain which I think is
fine because it's either County or state or the county County County land and then
in your implementation actions measure success that there's a couple of points that specifically speak
to the trailhead and how that will be transformed and enhanced. as a neighborhood amenity.
I think you've got that. Okay. You've got the vision bullets there and I think
it's in your, it's spoken to you in your bullet point around the traffic. How
we get there, yeah, how we keep that. So if you were to talk about
the five neighborhoods of Central, And this is part of that kind of what makes
this one distinctive. I think this connection to the open space for West Newport is
much more prevalent than the rest. It doesn't mean it's not important in the rest.
It just means that there's more opportunities, I think, here. Yeah, I agree and I
guess I just wanted in reading it as being this future tense of it is
and we wanted to stay how we did that I was wondering, you know, so
but if you think that we're achieving that by saying that we're gonna provide convenient
and safe trail access Cougar Mountain Trailhead, I mean, okay. I guess I was trying
to see where where is that where is the teeth in that of keeping that
a core tenant of the neighborhood? So one of the big things I
think about this neighborhood is it's the most isolated neighborhood except for the one directly
across the freeway. So there's again, this is like last time. How do you get
across SR 900? and do it safely and pleasantly because it says that we
are supposed to provide residents with walking, bicycling options for accessing daily retail and service
needs, yet you haven't really done that and there's no way to get across SR
900 more easily that you've talked about. So I feel like that's missing in this
situation and this is much echoes a conversation that we had at the last meeting
How do you bridge that gap? And
I don't think this does that yet.
- Under city implementation actions, so, i added a
comment over email where we added the last bullet under measure success cougar mountain trail
has expanded to be a neighborhood and regional destination um just for the good of
my fellow um commission members my thought about that was as that that trail headed
a lot of those trees are going to get cut down it's going to be
transformed to a parking lot and so my vision was in addition to making that
a parking lot have it you know be park amenity itself and not simply an
access to the park and so i think that's covered in a measure of success
But under the same implementation actions, it still just work with King
County to expand trailhead. Could we extend that to say to expand
trailhead and transform trailhead into park into itself or maybe just expand
and transform trailhead or park into itself? I meant that that's a
little Do you see I'm saying Keith? No. So... I typed
something. Yeah, so we're working counting to expand and transform Trailhead. Right, so...
Because the Trailhead is a park. It's a part of the park, but
the idea is to make that flat area before you start running up
the ridge into a place that people can go to... into a gathering place
or whatnot or whatever what to a gathering place yeah perfect okay i think there's
room for a bathroom and parking oh there's no i've i've walked that space there's
room for you can have you can have a little bit it can be a
little bit more than literally just a parking lot with a bathroom it has a
picnic table now yeah But I think what you need is a park a real
public park. Oh, yeah. Yeah, this isn't this isn't in lieu of a public park
but the point is is if you're if you're gonna go through the expense of
clearing and leveling the land and put it in a bathroom and put it in
a parking lot might as well they're talking 80 plus parking stalls in there and
so you've got to have safe access on and off and they're widening Newport Way
right there too. So there's not going to be a lot and you're right next
to a creek. So what looks like A lot of land you've got 2 creeks
on either side so without really changing the whole characteristic of that trail you're not
really going to be able to do a whole lot with it. But that's my
point I think for the first quarter mile that if the trail won't be a
trail of the park. Please take a landscape it.
i'm i'm i'm good with the addition i just added a bit more so i
could share what my well my thing we need like a concept like an urban
park where we have an urban schools like a mini mini park is what you're
kind of yeah it doesn't doesn't have to be much space i just want to
make sure that i just want to have in the vision statement it shouldn't just
be just be the concrete yeah just remember that okay so those are the things
that you wanted to change now let's go back to the future so we're moving
on to the next game so In order to have this as a vision
and to have it fly, you have to, as Lindsey was talking
about, other areas that talked about things that you imagined in
that neighborhood. So what I want you to do is give me
like three or four keywords that then can be put together to
make a longer statement. Things like... Joan, I don't think we want
more fluff here. I like it that it's very precise and to
the point. I disagree, but I think it needs something else.
What do you think it needs? Just an imaginary statement of what you think it's
going to look like or what people are going to feel like when they're there.
But do we have that in the objectives pages? I feel that's a lot more
fluff that has pictures and then you've got the words and the bubbles at the
top of each one. I think that covers it. I think these neighborhood sections are
meant to be more tactical. It's your... I think the developer obligation city
implementing options and measures of success are supposed to be tactical. There's the part
that's going to be used by city staff and developers. I think this section
as a vision is meant to be used by the community and somebody trying
to create a picture of the area to show what this neighborhood will look
like So so can I ask a question? So when you said
you want it not to be bullet points but to be paragraphs is
it is but paragraphs but still segregated by topic. So for paragraphs per
neighborhood. I still I like the bullets I think they're crisp and there
is there easy to navigate. I hate bullets because I don't it doesn't
create a picture. And you have all the bullets, all the rest of it, so
you go bullet, bullet, bullet. I just like a couple of paragraphs as a descriptive
narrative and that gives a normal person a sense of what the neighborhood is going
to be, and then you go into the bullet points for those of the engineering
persuasion who like the bullet points better. It's because it speaks to a variety of
brains. So, so i've written that livable one for west newport if you want me
to read it and see what we think between them so residents have built a
tight-knit community thanks to a local part park located at the edge of the anthology
project which provides a convenient place for local recreation and gatherings single and family multi-family
housing plus senior housing complexes are well maintained The
idea is
it creates
a vision
using all
of those
things. i'm
looking for you guys you're taking away the bullets and and making it into a
paragraph i think it says it it communicates same information it's packaged differently i don't
it's i don't think we have time it will just let's just think about it
it's packaged just so differently beautifully done lindsay first of all sure uh and the
same information that is really what we have to decide is what are we trying
to convey i do get a image in my head. I get a better picture
with the paragraph, but I think that I get more detail when I see it
in a bullet point way. So really, I think what we have to decide is
how are we trying, how and what are we trying to convey? Do we want
the fuzzy picture in our head or do we want the concise here is what
it is? I don't think it's what we see and what we need. It's how
we're going to sell it not only to the City Council but to the community.
And they have to see something. They have to use the language that Lindsey said.
so why can't we do both why can't we have a couple of the ideas
that lindsay talked about and put them in the in the beginning paragraph and still
have the bullets so we have both we have the picture and then we have
the bullets wouldn't that just be repetitive because what she did was she took the
bullet points and made that her paragraph so that way you can change it i
mean i mean if you get an idea of of imagining what it can be
um I just think it needs more. Narrative. You
just need a picture. Narrative. Why don't you guys think the
bullet points are already described to the nth degree in the chart. It feels
to me like we're just repeating basically the same bullet points in bullet form again,
in bullet form. And so they're already bullet formed. - So behind that doing the
paragraph and then doing the chart to act as our bullet points. I can get
behind that. I do think that it does a better job of creating a picture
if that's what our goal is. if we think that that's an easier way of
selling this, I tend to think that people have a harder time reading these days.
And so the more paragraphs you have, the more they get lost and wander off.
So that's why I think bullet points are helpful. That was why I wanted to
put the labels on it in the first place. Right. So that's why we don't
get rid of the chart because maybe they can just skip reading.
I mean, Lindsay, your paragraph was beautiful, but like I don't, I don't, it doesn't,
it doesn't change the content of the document. I think we just need to, I
think we just need to get a document to Landon Shore. We can maybe put
as a point of discussion, ask Landon Shore, are these bullet points too bullity? And
would a paragraph be more consumable? I think that's a fair caveat and say like,
hey, one of the things we wrestled with was what's the best way to package
this particular piece of information. But the actual content of this page is not going
to change. So then in that case, then I would be for the paragraph and
the charting because I think that's better packaging. But don't we need to get this
to Landon Short tomorrow? I don't think Keith wants to go to bed tonight. I
mean... so i don't but i want to go to bed tonight so if if
you guys decide paragraph and i don't i don't care you guys just tell me
which direction you think makes the most sense we will change it from bullet points
to paragraphs and then you guys can review that on the 8th along with the
green necklace and council will get it after that so they're getting it in pieces
So like you guys got it in pieces. They're getting it in pieces. So all
I expect to talk about with council tomorrow night is chapter 1, which is not
this. We're not into the neighborhoods. Oh, that's interesting. Is there a reason that staff
had the position of bullet points and chart versus? So the reason why it came
out this way is each of these things
are a different idea, right? And so trying to link
them all together starts to make issues of
sequencing like what do you what do you say first is that the most important
thing as bullets they're all even right that's why you didn't number these you know
because then you assume one is bigger than two right but as bullets they're just
they're just all bullets now if I don't disagree with the comment that one of
you made it might have been Connie that that um There's different brains that read
things differently, as I think has been evidenced by the conversation that you all
have had. Some people like fluffy narrative prose, and some people like laundry lists.
What you take away from that, if ultimately we want a document that is
navigatable or memorable by the biggest slice of the population, maybe we have both.
So that somebody who wants to read something that's fluffy because that's what they expect
in a vision document, this is what, you know, you could basically say we don't
have any of that. And maybe doing that here is where you could point people
to and say that's the visionary piece. That's the, you know, if you want to
see what this is going to be in the future, there it is. I think
that to your comments on the tactical tables, I do think that landed in the
right spot. That's a tool that the staff and development commission and developers, it's going
to be easy to navigate. It's like, okay, here's my neighborhood, here's my laundry list
of things to go through. And it's like, okay, I'm either going to do it
or I'm going to argue with the city and say I don't have to do
it. But that's, you know, there won't be ambiguity, which is one of the things
I think we were trying to overcome with this work effort. So what you guys
want to do in terms of the future and whether it's bullets or paragraph, I'll
go either way. It's not going to be done tonight unless you like the bullets
and then I can say it's done. But if you guys want to see it
as narrative, what I would do is change it and then you guys would need
to read it and give feedback before the 8th because on the 8th with the
green necklace we need to be done done. So so if if we're going to
if you guys want to see it in paragraph form to just then and I
know we can't really have conversations outside of Commission meetings because that seems wrong, but
you guys can send us individually your comments and suggestions and if you thumbs up
great or thumbs down, but we need some clarity and there's a little bit more
time to bake this if you guys want to I guess is my long answer
joy. I like that answer. It makes me feel better actually makes me feel warmer
and cozier. What do you think? Without putting you on the spot, Keith, in
a hypothetical world, what would you have thought about Lindsay's paragraph? The author, where you
were like, did you feel like that worked? I mean, again, hypothetically, I don't
want to. I'd probably add some commas. Just kidding. Two more commas. So. You feel
like that was on track to, you know, as the author of what you see
as being a little more dreamy, visionary paragraphs. Sure. I mean, I think you could
lace these things together. And And I don't know if her sequencing worked for me.
I mean, you know, like the school thing might not wanted to have been there,
might wanted to have been somewhere else. But I mean, you know, yeah, that's, if
you guys, you know, so part of this work effort, if you guys want paragraphs,
is you guys need to look at the bullet points and say, yeah, that's basically
the content. And now let's just fluff it up, right? Yeah. Okay, the reason, one
of the reasons that this started was the paragraph that was there was hard to
read. It was like all of these thoughts were stuck together and it didn't flow.
And that's why we put it into a bullet form. And I think it works
with a bullet form, but I also think it needs a little bit more, not
a whole big paragraph, but maybe a few words to, in the beginning. I, I,
That's my thought. So you're of a middle ground. Keep the bullet points but add
a little more fluff into it with the future paragraph above it. Yeah, it's always
been that way. Yeah. So that's, we have three positions. Yeah, so right now you
can decide which position you want to do. So, AJ, what would you like to
see? No change, as is. Ron? I think we need more ciphers so it's more
cryptic. I say keep it the way it is. I can read it both ways.
Lindsay. I think the comments from City Council when I went back to
watch the video was that they wanted something that created a vision for
each of the areas that was specific to those. And I think particularly
when we're looking at the repetitive bullet points that are the same for
multiple neighborhoods, that that's going to get called out by them.
and they won't like that. Additionally, looking at who is
the reader of this section of the document, I think
having something that creates a narrative solves, addresses the reader.
I want to say something about the idea of having
it somewhat repetitive across multiple neighborhoods, and that is if
I'm a developer and I'm going to be developing in
Westport, I'm not going to read what's in the Regional Growth Center, most likely. I'm
going to focus on West Newport. So if it's repeated throughout different neighborhoods, I'm going
to take notice to the neighborhood that I'm building it. Yes, and I think it's
perfectly fine for it to be repetitive in the boxes section that talks about the
developer obligations and things like that. When you're talking about a vision for the area,
I think we need specifics and something that creates an image of
what that is specific to that neighborhood. Right. Each neighborhood needs a
stand on its own. Yes. So does not what this does. But
that doesn't make any of the neighborhoods distinct. That says. The distinctive
piece does, right? I mean, those are specific bullets to West Newport.
Yeah, yeah, I think your point about bullets being repeated. I think we want to
avoid that in the distinctive section, but I think in the other ones, I think
the rest of us, I think, are okay with that. I think I think if
you can if you can find something in the distinctive section that is repetitive across
neighborhoods, I think that that would be something that would be good to highlight and
fix. but i think outside the distinctive section i think it is appropriate many of
our neighborhoods have stuff in common and so stuff will be repeated okay i think
it's uh we're going to keep the repetitiveness so let's not go back on that
again so that's done we need to decide i mean this will work for all
of the neighborhoods do you want to adjust the bullets do you want a all
paragraphs and all reformatted again which I think would be way time consuming and delay
things or do you want a little bit of creativity in the beginning with the
bull bullet points you have to make at least you have to give. So John
are you looking to add a paragraph that takes that little future sentence and flush
that out yeah, but then leaves the bullets underneath because because something that I would
be comfortable with thinking to the meetings is if we came back. address that fluff
and we're like not allowed to touch the bullets and touch the tables. That's what
I want. Okay, because one of the things I'm pushing against is if is like
if we converted these all to paragraphs we would spend the entire next meeting rediscussing
all the parts of the paragraph. That's not going to happen. I just want to
add two or three sentences to the top. I'm fine fluffing out the top of
the future section. I do see some value with that. - How do we
fluff that out without being third repetitive? - Well, you don't highlight the various
bullets. You have just fluff. But each neighborhood has something but it's fluff - it's
it's fluff for framing right so for an example for West Newport would we say
then that The because it's you know closely connected to all of our natural amenities
that you predominantly hear the sound of birds I mean, is that what we're looking
for is to try to highlight that in this neighborhood? I don't hear you humanity
I hear nature. Is that the is that the fluff specifically for West Newport? I
mean We've already add fluff for each neighborhood and it's a specific characteristic Is that
the characteristic of West Newport is its connection to the environment? I think the question
is what are we trying to sell right and for West Newport? Is that its
connection to the environment? Is that the defining characteristic we would add the fluff to
in the future? I Okay, is there what what what I mean, I'm not
seeing what is the what is another characteristic of that separate from West Newport from
the others. That's why I wanted to do the bottom before we did this. But
I think we've I think we've I think we're done with Newport yes except for
yes, the fluff so I think I think we're done there what what would what
what would what would the what would the for with the framing paragraph be maybe
that's not called fluff. How would you how would how would you frame. neighborhood. What
do you see doing in Newport? What would people be able to
do? Hiking, biking, stores, children restaurants. What is the two or three
things that you see as making this a vision in this neighborhood?
What would you be doing? I see it as being predominantly live
and play, less work. Okay, so-- Whereas I would see pickering being more work, less
play. Okay. So I would say that the-- you know, so that's what I'm asking.
I think the fluff to Newport is its connection to the environment. So I-- Okay,
what do you do in the environment? I'm predominantly, you know, hearing the sounds of
nature versus the sounds of humanity. I'm interacting more with my community in that I'm,
you know, waving at the bicyclist going past rather than shaking my fist at them.
Okay, so in different words, but yeah. Okay, so those are the only things I
want to put in there, if that's acceptable to you. Yes? I mean it's not
going to hurt anything. You still have... No. Okay. So let's move on to the
next neighborhood. Can I... Just one point to get back to the... because Connie brought
up and it kind of got overlooked was the crossing of I-90 or S-900 and
when I look at one of the next sections we talk about 17th is a
less crossing is less of a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. Could we
add that to Newport also? Or the West Newport? So it's already in
some of the other ones and a measure of success for connectivity. So
right now the reason why it's in the other ones is you have
neighborhoods that are split by arterials. Right. West Newport is not. So it
does not abut SR 900. But we talk about getting to
the you have to go to other places to get
to humanities. I think the members of the commission are
good as is and we're ready to move on the
next thing right next. Regional growth center. You say this
week, what. Did you say it that loud? All right. So, yes, you did. So,
um... Were we really set on keeping RGC as the name of this neighborhood? No,
the neighborhood's actually Pickering and Gilman. Right. But there's just, so AJ had asked for,
um, a kind of a primer here to say, "Got the Regional Growth Center and
it's made up of these two neighborhoods, Pickering and Gilman." This is your fluff. No,
I'm serious. This is your framing sentence with the framing map that kind of tees
up how Pickering and Gilman are different than-- or are highlighted or whatever you want
to do and how those two neighborhoods specifically relate to each other in unique ways.
So it's just a quick paragraph that highlights that. There is no table associated with
it because the tables are specific to Gilman and Pickering. I mean we've we've done
is we were trying to write the paragraphs for Gilman and pickering you kept we
kept trying to want to talk about each other and so we just have that
have the regional growth centers just a quick tee up for the so are actually
the RGC is our fluff it's our wave it's a painting a picture actually I
could I can get behind that. So Keith good news I have just a couple
wordsmithing OK. Instead of strategy, rewriting the whole thing. I'm looking
at the first sentence where it says the vision of the
Regional Growth Center is to bring about urban density development that
creates a thriving pedestrian and bicyclist oriented mixed use center. I'm
shocked. And in the middle, green necklace? Yes. I'm thinking green
necklace backslash mountains and sound corridor because it could be one
and the same or different. And now I the
reason why I'm bringing up the mountains of sound quarters because it's such
a instrumental campaign across the region and it's supposed to be a very
substantial trail going through our city so and bringing that language into the
vision is basically embracing the concept. so i think the mountains to
sound trail is a key component of the green necklace or the green network whatever
we're calling it so i missed the one meeting you guys had with park board
and you guys are going to have another one but i believe that that map
has the mountains to sound yeah, very specifically identified on it. Yeah, so I so
it will so I guess I guess my question Ron is I think it's a
subset of green necklace or whatever the green thing we're calling this. So I don't
know that you need to call it out specifically any any different than you would
call out say the East like some Amish trail or the Preston trail. or any
of the other kind of significant connections. I mean, it's a big deal, but we
have some other big deals too. Yeah, it'll get its love elsewhere in the document.
I just wanted to bring it out as a call out because it is a
big deal, but I'm satisfied. Thank you. Okay, Pinkering. No, do we not have more
than one new crossing of I-90 to help tie them together? We do. It's discussed
here. As more vibrant day and evening activities and a new crossing. But are we
looking at potentially multiple because so that the pet crossing will be not in the
growth center that will be that that will be in Newport and then they'll be
the road crossing and 11 to 12. The world is there a 3rd. Well that
transit center potential lid nobody's going to find out we're talking about and that's in
regional see how it's up in the corner there's a crossing up in the corner
of this very map right no so um so you've got one well you've got
one from anthology across right we all are agreeing so anthology has an actual ped
bridge landing as part of that site plan so there is a place to land
a bridge there to get it over to it's probably going to be over to
greenwood trust There's also the crossing that we've talked about somewhere in here whether
it's 12th or 11th or maple or something that somewhere in this vicinity right.
So that there's others so I think. - Aren't you showing a crossing right
there on this map? - I think that's the boundary. - Those purple lines
are borders. - That's a neighborhood boundary and this is I think the RGC.
Oh. Yeah, that's a border not a road. So you're just-- In this view, assuming
that we build out to the text that Keith is promising us, We will
have three PED crossings of I-90. We would have the one that's down near the
post office now. We have the one at 900 and we would have another one
somewhere in between. Yes, and then one farther west. And then one further west. And
then one further west, which is Newport, which is not part of this conversation. Right.
New crossings. But one new crossing. One new one. I don't, so I don't think
you're going to get more than one new one. i mean that would be another
conversation yeah the yeah the the sound transit station may function as a crossing but
i don't know that's not but that's not what this is saying this is there
will be a new crossing and there will be a new station i think what
you'll see next week is that there is okay yeah and if and if we
need to adjust this because what we're getting from the green necklace then we can
that was in the green necklace map uh it was in the green necklace map
so we'll see i mean i think you know i think the reality is so
so wash dot's working on ijr right and the ijr will deal with crossings and
to my knowledge they're not talking about anything more than one so doesn't mean there
won't be more than one i just don't know that that's a conversation point between
the city and wash dot at this time what's igr interchange justification report sorry
for the acronym it's looking at the redoing the Front Street interchange but
it goes all the way back to us or 900 because of looking
at how you would potentially kind of improve the functioning might actually be
things like slip lanes and other stuff which might actually start farther back
are we ready to go to pickering before you move on i
know right where you are just don't go to the next page
um pickering is listed there as number one because it's underneath the
regional growth center but it should be three so is west newport
i would just remove the numbers right because it would be weird
if you listed that as two necessarily uh okay yeah
All right, we good? Kay? So we're gonna skip
the future and do the same thing we did
with the first one. So we're gonna skip that
right now and go into the rest of it.
Ooh. Why did the word opportunities get added to
jobs? You talk about that for 1.4. So the
point was made, what if it's empty?
So in other words, so it's a job, so there's job opportunities there. So if
you had a commercial building that was empty, and we actually have a couple, could
the developer argue that there's no jobs there, so he's not displacing any jobs, the
jobs were zero. And so we wanted to try and avoid that conversation, because that
seemed like that might be a loophole. So we changed it to job opportunities because
there's a certain number of jobs per square footage that groups like ITE use as
calculus to figure out trips. So would it be helpful to, and this might be
something you want to float by land and shore, not in this document, I think
for the purposes of this document that's fine, but to have like a city memo
that explains what you guys actually mean by job opportunities. I think for the Development
Commission, I think that would be super useful. It doesn't need to be in this
document. It doesn't need to be dealt with. It's on videotape now forever. Yeah. So
we can just play this video and then submit that as evidence. But I also
think this might be the kind of thing, I assume you'll stress this when you're
putting this in front of Land and Shore. They will probably also ask the same
question. What does that mean? There's probably a better way to describe that. I'm not
sure how, though. I like this because I think this makes sense for non developers
on what we try to mean But there probably also needs to be some sort
of legal memo II type thing outside of this document that So that all the
developers can read it today and understand what I agree with AJ and I really
like the way you put this together because You're right. The opportunities is the opportunity
cost right of losing it. Yeah. No, I like it That's a win. Christine. I
- I'd like to make a comment for consideration. I understand
the livable aspect under city implementing actions of incorporate noise reducing
measures, but when livable is introduced as a bullet point, it
talks about the entire length of the Gilman and Pickering neighborhoods.
And I think that when you think about things from a
visibility and economic vitality perspective or economic development, we'll want
to have some pockets to see into the city what the city has to offer
if you just have an entire sound wall or an entire grouping of trees running
the entire length of the city to kind of buffer us from the freeway we're
also missing out on visibility aspect which i think is an important consideration
you don't want to miss out on that but you also want to think about
those who are living in a mixed-use environment as well so if you think about
seattle or bellevue they're not completely screened off a lot of times they use buildings
for some of that noise necessary make it complicated i i see what you're saying
but i think my i think my vision is is different i think Specifically for
this one, I think it was more like Mercer Island, where when you're on 90,
you just don't see because the freeway is so clearly isolated. That was actually close
to the vision I have. Not like going through downtown Bellevue where you see the
towers. Right. I wanted to clarify, I don't think Issaquah wants to be like Bellevue
or Seattle, but I think there's going to be commerce also happening in the city.
And so how do you address that component? Maybe there's views or something, but to
say it's going to run the entire length of your two densest neighborhoods, it's supposed
to be a regional growth center. I think that could be confusing in the future.
So... So the problem with that is, you know, so you have gaps in
walls and the noise just funnels into the gaps. And so, you know, if you
think about like the relationship of the freeway to Anthology and the big buildings that
they're building next to it, you know, you're not going to get Mercer Island. They're
not going to build, you know, 80-foot sound walls along the freeway. I mean, you
know, at most it would be like a, you know, a 10-foot, 12-foot, 15-foot tall
concrete wall. you're gonna see the buildings above it. You know, you'll see the buildings
above it. Isn't that just gonna create bounce then? It's not actually gonna absorb the
sound, it's just gonna redirect it? It puts, it keeps it in a channel. So
you have to put them on both sides, right? And so it keeps it in
a channel and it goes up over and by the time it gets over, it,
it, So noise works on line of sight for the most part. And so
if you can block the line of sight, then by the time it dissipates
by going over, it loses its intensity. So I mean, it's one of those
things where I did urban freeways in Phoenix before I left. We built a
lot of sound walls. So it's one of those things where it's... and one of
the reasons why we tried to put some language about the walls in terms of
trying to meet our neighbor our community character is so that they don't just get
to be blank concrete barriers right so it's a trade-off it's if you want residential
next to the freeway and i'm not saying we do or we don't i mean
right now we're trying to promote residential on the valley floor and and I think
if we do want it and want it to be livable, there needs to be
some sound attenuation from the freeway. But how that gets accomplished, now right now you're
right, it does say for the length. Now part of the problem is if you
have this conversation with WSDOT, you're going to need to be specific about what your
intended outcome is right and so it's it's not you can have a conversation of
please build it where we have residential or where we're going to have residential because
they're going to say well where is that we're like we don't know right so
I don't know the answer to your question I'm not dismissing it I'm just saying
I don't know how to solve that problem it seems like it's kind of all
or nothing. If they put the light rail above the freeway then we have to
have a conversation. So for example, with Gateway Senior, we tried
or I tried to get them to build the buildings between the freeway
and where the public plazas were going to be for the people and instead they
built all of their buildings leaving all the public spaces exposed to all the freeway
noise and the echoes bouncing off the buildings so is this language going to give
us the ability to do anything when a developer comes in say you have not
are they going to have to build a sound wall for I-90. So how do
we get that protection for the incoming community so that the plazas
aren't like right there next to I-90? Because if that's not going
to do this, then something else needs to happen because that's bad.
Aren't the sound walls a WSDOT thing, not a developer thing? WSDOT,
not developer. I could say for us with the Hilah Crossing neighborhood, even though
we're under a development agreement, we wouldn't want, and maybe we're different because we're local
and connected community, but we wouldn't want a sand wall blocking off Hilah Crossing and
its visibility. We would want to work within our own processes to make sure that
we were addressing issues like that around noise. We'd want people to see into the
neighborhood and all the things that are offered, but not to be completely walled off.
So you're saying you want, you know, if I own the Ford dealership, I want
that to be visible from the freeway so people know there's a Ford dealership there,
so people know to go there to buy cars and get service and whatnot. Totally.
Totally. So the difference is they control where they put specific land uses on all
of their property right so they can make decisions about putting the residential next to
the creek where it may be a much better place to put residential than next
to the freeway. But if you're but in other places where let's say I
I bought the you dub clinic right and the old you dub clinic that
was by where big lots is and I wanted to put apartments there. Okay,
well that's actually freeway and so you know I don't have another choice. That's
where I'm putting my apartments. And if really we want livable neighborhoods next to freeways,
I mean, I hate to say it, but look at the freeways in Southern California,
look at the freeways in Puget Sound where there are residential enclaves built next to
the freeways. They're noise walls. And so I just, I mean, I don't, I
mean, if you guys would rather not have noise walls, we can take it out.
But I think that right now it's probably what you would want if, you know,
the other choice is you do stuff like what Gateway did. You know, they just
built big buildings next to the freeway to shelter their three-story, you know, woody walk-ups,
okay? So, okay, so they used their own buildings as a noise wall for the
rest of their project. choice they made. You know, but I think what we're trying
to do is trying to figure out, okay, we're trying to, there's reasons why there's
not residential next to the freeway now. And that's what something we want to change.
I think this says incorporate noise reducing measures into I-90. It doesn't say the entire
length. It does somewhere. The bullet point on page 15. That's the bullet point.
But if it's a if it's a washed out responsibility and a developer wants
to build their I'm not quite getting how you're going to get something to
happen. We get something out my way the wash dot as I well as
but not necessarily when things are being built right correct. Right, there
is no sequencing connection there because DOT, if they were to do a
noise attenuation project, it would be for a stretch of a roadway that
wouldn't be as residential development was happening. yeah i i hear what you're saying about
about hyla but i think i think the vision for prickly and gilman is that
people will be out and about and there will be mixed use bringing in residential
along the whole corridor and so i think if it's i think if it's an
all or nothing i think i would pretty firmly land on the sound wall understanding
that that that does diminish some commercial opportunity i think the bringing in the more
mixed use is more in the direction we want the neighborhood to go in so
it doesn't say Sound walls there it says attenuation improve rice. Oh because
there's different so there are some different choices now what i would say to christy
is this may ultimately if we're successful here then maybe what we need to do
is go back and look at our sign code right which right now would probably
block most of the signage of some of those businesses because unless you're a corporate
center that can put something at the roof line you're basically limited to a ground
sign which might be behind a noise wall so there might you know so this
might then necessitate some changes to our sign code which we have to change anyway
right and i'm not intending to complicate or continue the length of the meeting this
evening i just when it says running the entire length of the neighborhood that makes
me concerned and so i just felt a responsibility to bring that to everyone's attention
and personally speak on behalf of the rallies we wouldn't want our neighborhood particularly screened
- Thank you. - So I've got a few in there.
2.6 in distinctive. I don't like the word consider when we're
talking about developer obligations, I would strengthen that. - Require. -
Provide is the easier, but. - Yeah, I think provide works
with the rest of the bullets too. - 4.1 in sustainable.
I mean, sorry, provide appropriate, you know, because we
don't want just lighting. We want it to be
dark skies compatible lighting. Provide, you know, the appropriate
lighting. And the qualifiers to promote evening public activity.
Now, does that work? Having them provide appropriate lighting?
Yes? Yeah, I think staff would. Okay. Just making
sure. What? No. 4.1 that reads a
little bit odd to me provide a variety of housing for different populations
as present um yeah i think you originally had a variety of housing
as president i don't think yeah i don't know i would just get
rid of is present yeah at the end of that uh 4.3 you
use has um development has resulted in um i'm not sure if that
No, that's that's blue perfect. I think that's okay. Okay Can I add on to
that the question of that actual sentence that? The only result in game employment is
since this is under developer obligations It would mean every development has to result in
a net gain of jobs Yes, and I think that one's probably does that go
as a measure of success? Yeah Yeah, I could point out
You know, there's a topic that we've sort of missed throughout
the whole document and that is creating spaces and environment connectedness
for people with disabilities such as the blind and/or wheelchair accessibility.
We don't have any trails that even handicapped people can use.
Like for instance, if... Well, we have paved trails, but we
don't have any dirt trails or nature
We don't provide pathways into nature for people who have wheelchairs. I think that's a
larger scope conversation outside of the neighborhood visions. Yeah, I think it goes without saying
that Central Issaquah will be ADA compliant. So I think that should cover most of
that. Yeah, ADA compliant, but do we want to create an environment that is
So so the problem with doing something like that in a sub area and not
the city as a whole then you start to make implications that were discriminating in
the rest of the city for people with special needs right. I'd say that's in
this it's going to be in the park strategic plan. I mean for the whole
city they have to address that. i don't know if they do address it but
that's where it should be citywide i was thinking we haven't mentioned it and i
thought i'd bring it up but i'm right satisfied because it should be in the
big plant in the big park plan keep remembering there are three plans above this
that they cover 90 percent for 1.7 is that the uh kind of where the
soccer is that referencing where the soccer fields are where east lakes of amish and
exit 15 are and the redesign that the state has requested yeah it kind of
felt a little bit like a slip-in is there uh is that is that saying
that in 20 years we basically see that as being completely ripped down redesigned or
it's i think what we're trying to say there is that There's a there's a
perception I think in the city that that that's a significant recreational asset that feels
a little bit walled off both because of the amount of vegetation that's there but
also because of where the entrances so whether or not we can move the entrance
or or some other means I think what we're trying to get is better porosity
with the park. so that people feel like it's easy to get there and they
can enjoy the amenities that might happen to be there so i don't know if
it's reading that way but that's where we were trying to get to what we
talked about last week was making sure that new development didn't have their back to
that's yeah that's 56 to think the 56th the idea that I can write a
lot of this that's Northwest some that's Northwest some and whatever whatever it's called that
the idea that right now some of those buildings they're clearly designed so that that
road is the back of the building and the first in words and then so
this requirement is that when it goes to the development Commission the new buildings must
initially be oriented but each it you should have clear pedestrian access to that you
the state Park which the wind and be across. The parkway. So it's more
the idea that you're you're you're physically reorienting pickering the better access to the
park whether or not the actual park entrance moves okay, yeah, this is under
develop obligation right under same actions there's work to the park and work yeah,
I'm sorry I got lost. He just right. We play Pickering Park
right now pick the gun farm. I think you know we called
it like everything where where's that under sustainable bullet point one city
implementing actions say barn you got to. sorry we're
just talking amongst ourselves apparently
everybody is at this point
of the meeting four can
we change the order of
that sentence It would make more sense
to me provide missing pedestrian through redevelopment instead of the
other way around I'm sure question If you don't mind
the on 3.3 right before that I'm sorry 3.2 provide
transit pedestrian bicycle circulation from Pickering to Gilman That sounds
like more of a city obligation because I don't think
one development project would be able to create that connection
from a neighborhood to the next. That's talking about circulation, not connections. I
think you said it is that the development itself. How that's laid out.
To be able, you can get to what would then get you to
the neighborhood. It's kind of one degree removed. I mean, Mel,
you can tell me if you don't think that's going to fly. To me, if
I looked at that as a developer requirement and I looked at my property, I'd
be afraid the city could say, you're supposed to trail from Pickering to Gilman because
it says from Pickering to Gilman. It doesn't say access to... a trail that the
city bills. So now I agree. I guess the question is what if that was
restated to following the construction of the new I 90 crossing. So I think the
point is once there is that connection made we want bikes and pads in transit
service to to make that crossing right so as a developer, you know we want
you to be able to you know to recognize that there is that multimodal expectation.
So So what if it's after the crossing's been made? Or even just a more
general, like provide transit pedestrian bicycle circulation to all adjacent connections. So even before a
crossing goes in, that they would have to, there would be an emphasis that they
connect everything. Yeah, I like that, because I don't think you want to anchor it
just on the new bridge, but also if you're building something in Pickering and your
closest point is the nice bridge that's next to... 900 to be
able to make sure you have access to that. All adjacent properties.
It's like all adjacent areas. Properties would just be the parcels nearby,
right? Right. But if everybody connects to the one next to them,
right? Then you have a chain? So where is it?
impossible to complete a human scale street grid in and except for
a 90 right what what would that mean because you say where
possible complete a human scale street grid. If the lot you're developing
is she's is in a full block. So if there's a critical
area or natural feature in the way We don't want
them to connect a street over a wetland,
right? I mean, so in some places there's--
Well, maybe you do. No. Honey, did you
just say that? Well, if you're putting a
pedestrian bridge over a creek to create a human scale street grid so that people
will actually get out and walk as compared to getting in their car and having
to drive all the way around. I think you might want to do that. So
I was just trying to figure out when, what that would mean exactly when you
looked at that. Because if a developer can say, well, I can't because there is
a I have to cross the north. Well, we're in
the wrong area. Tributary 0-1-7-0. And it's a critical area.
So, it's just not very clear. Good point. So, I
mean, so it's clear to me. I mean, it says
where possible, right? So you'd have to demonstrate that it
was not possible because maybe you can't get a permit
to do that. I hear Connie's point. So what if a developer comes back and
says, well, it costs too much because it's going over a critical area. That's practical,
not possible. A cost prohibitive is not. Yeah. So those are different words. So for
me, practical, if it says it's not practical, then it's then it can say, you
know what, it cost me $3 million to do a bridge. I'm not going to
do that. Possible is different. Possible is I can't engineer it. I can't get permits
to do it. I have another property owner that's not allowing me
to land. You're not allowing practical to be part of that conversation.
You're allowing possible. Yeah. Okay. I got it. Well, then they don't
develop. Okay. I've got another one. Okay. Under city implementing actions connections,
the first bullet point there, I know Council said, "Hey, why
are you making the decision about where the Sound Transit station is
gonna go?" Uh-huh. So I would just change that to work with
Sound Transit to locate the ST station as a neighborhood focal point.
Just remove the within the I-90 right away. Council was very specific
that they don't want that decision being made in a policy
document without it being a wider community conversation. I say let them
take it out. I agree. This was our ninja move to get
into right of way. Yeah. I'm okay with that. I wanted to
address it. All right. Okay. Where's the maintenance yard addressed in this?
It's not. The what? this this comes with a big old maintenance
yard that's going to suck up land and wherever it goes put that in kirkland
actually if it is in the i-90 right-of-way doesn't need to have a maintenance yard
they can do some storage capacity because it's at the end of the line and
they need to be tail tracks which can be in the right-of-way that the maintenance
yard Might be here, but it doesn't need to be because it'll be connected the
rest of the network, right? So it from what I understand on sound transits planning
that the maintenance yard in Bellevue and the one in Seattle are enough to handle
the capacity for the network And so we shouldn't as a community Be required to
happen. That's what I've heard Obviously, you work for sound transit now, right? I not
yet. Oh, I will I will in a week and a half I didn't know
if you needed to recuse yourself from this conversation. Not yet. So
the intent is so the maintenance yard is going to be linked to the station.
They're connected if there is a maintenance yard. And I think our vision has always
been put the station, leave the station in the right of way so we don't
have tracks running through any of our neighborhoods. And then if you need an extension
for a maintenance yard, it stays in the right of way too. You know, I
think I think you guys have given some clarity on where the station should go
I think if we can I mean if you want to put and maintenance yard,
that's fine If you want to leave it as is that's fine Okie doke. I'm
gonna keep us rolling. Are we anybody else on anything in? Pickering all
right did you want to go back up to future now no
we're gonna we've already discussed it the first time so we'll add
stuff okay oh i gotta get rid of my three i really
like the numbers but i'm like yeah but then that that ranks
the importance of the neighborhood it does all right gilman rolling down
to the tactical chart i didn't know there was a word miscellany
So, so I guess question for y'all since the conversation we had
earlier about power that last bullet on sustainable about construct what we
have right now is construct mobility improvements with or before new projects.
I guess the question is, is do you want to expand that
to include anything else? Yes. Okay. I hope people don't kill me
for this, but I have I just thought of something here. looking
at 1.6 hold on can we can we wrap up the bullet i think it
might uh do you want to do it as a second bullet say something i
was going to do it as a separate one i mean i think i think
the concurrency one is a big enough thing that it should be its own which
is what's intended by this bullet so the next one i would just put uh
public services and utilities as a similar um
Let him finish. You can let him
wrap. Okay. All right. So Keith, can
we move on to the next item
here? Yes. Okay. 1.6. Yes. Provide weather
protection for primary pedestrian walkways and bus
stops, transit centers. The reason why I bring that up is because
we've had this conversation before where we're we are a wet community Yeah, and if
you're standing waiting for the bus, you don't want to get wet Can you say
walkways and waiting areas or walkways and gathering place or something like that? Because it
well, you don't want to say it gathering places as in over an entire park
or something That's a good point. Yeah, and this would be applicable for both sections.
I and transit stops I like that yes I
agree with what Ron said I think that needs to
go up to um occurring so I want 1.6 repeated
yes I think that's great no you had your lighting
thing before somewhere else is that lighting thing here too
is when it gets dark at 3 30. yep
It becomes tough walking and being at transit centers. Sometimes you have to wear a
flashing beacon so the bus drivers can even see you to stop. Yeah, I think
taking the lighting text. In in Pickering and wasn't that for it was
activities or something? It was a new part night the day and night one No,
it was in no, it's just in the last lighting and amenities to promote evening
public activity Yeah, so do you have 2.6 public activity? Okay good. Yeah, just have
5 2.6. Just repeat that. Yeah, great. I So on pickering
you jump from 1.6 to 1.8. That should be one clearly
1.7 didn't make the cut. Yes, like. All right. Develop a
mall street promenade plan and a plan for going Boulevard because
those be 2 different plans right. Yes, so a plan and
a plan for going Boulevard for that. Yeah, yeah.
thanks and and we're only planning gilman we aren't planning any other roads in the
future we don't want to plan for 56 through east lake sammamish and all that
do we have plans for all of the major roads or
I don't so I don't know the answer to your question. I think what I
know of is that we need a plan for Gilman and we need a plan
for mall. Right. I think we need a plan for East Lake Sammamish Parkway and
for 56th. As all of these things develop and you have to look at the
access and how people cross the street and everything, I think all the major roads
sort of need a plan and they've never had them before. So if you're only
doing things that you know are going to happen, that's not going to last very
long, like two years, right? Do we want plans for those roads? I think we
do, but is this document a place for it? I think we're good. 56 than
spanish parkway or spoken to in the relevant neighborhood so i was gonna
say it's not a part of it's not a part of this neighborhood
but yeah i i do find that is it why is it not
mentioned because it's you know it's not being addressed right now i mean
like let's take it easily because mannish parkway so um you know i
i think what's going to happen We have I think the city has
put in put some different emphasis on different streets depending on. Probably less when probably
less proactive and it should have right so you know for example were like knee
deep in Newport right now because of all the development on Newport and all the
unhappy people that live on Newport. I think why you don't have a similar level
of kind of concern on East Lake Sammamish is nobody's nobody lives there now. Yeah,
right. But as soon as we get a couple apartment buildings going in on East
Lake Sam, you know, it's kind of like the conversation we had as we drove
through the area where Microsoft is right now Sammamish residents kind of cut through that
area all the time in the AM peak. As soon as we have people living
in there, that's going to be, you know, a huge thing for the city to
deal with to cut that off, right? So I think, I mean, I guess I'm
answering your question that there's a million and one things always to do. Is there
any less need to look at East Lake Sammamish or... It goes back to my
comment before about this being a living document and basically right now, While we hate
being reactive, it tends to be we don't really know what's going in right now.
I think they're covered in the document. On 56th Street, we have a bullet point
that specifically talks about making it more permeable and including the crossings. And for East
Lake Sammam, you have a bullet point that currently says something something in the document.
But I think that's meant to mean the same thing as what we're doing here
with Gilman. So I think all of the major boulevards are covered in the document.
There's no implementation to get you there. That's the difference. This one has a plan
for Gilman that is supposed to create what you expect. I don't think there's an
implementation. I disagree. I actually think this bullet is the least specific and tactical of
the three examples. Well, they're making a Gilman Boulevard plan as we speak, which is
why it's there. So I guess, you know, if we're going to unpack this anymore,
I mean, I guess, so council's already... said we want to plan for gilman and
we want to plan for mall i mean so those two those two are here
because council's already kind of supported that um you know the others i mean you
know is it called fall city road i mean there's there's a lot of streets
we don't have plans for um you know we need a plan for sun we
need a plan for sun we need a plan for sunset you know i mean
there's where does it stop now that's not in central isaac it stops in the
central isaac club plan well i'm going to agree with connie here i think that
we are naming out very important streets here as far as plans that are needed
i do think we need a plan for northwest manish or east lakes and manish
parkway and sr 900 It's theory if we think about this is
being a 20 year document. I mean so as a 900 is addressed as making
it more permanent for us more about the mobility issues rather than development. Yes, I
mean 56 tree they don't need planes is to be more permeable and that's called
out I think the only way you might have changes in East Lake right now
we have something something yes to maybe have that language and where this language. When
we get these like remind me. because I will have forgotten. We don't want to
put something something in front of the land shore. Does it still say something something?
It does in my printout. You know, Saturday was a tough day. At some point,
I just needed to be done with this. So I might have just missed something.
Sorry. As long as you didn't miss something something. I got the something something. So
what was it, AJ, what was it that you just proposed? East Lake Sam.
When we get to the East Lake neighborhood, there should be developed a plan
for East Lake Sammamish Parkway. Yeah, so no change to this page. Wouldn't that
be part of the creek? No. No, because that stops at the creek. Yeah,
no, it's East Lake neighborhood. Mm-hmm. No, that would be 56th if you
wanted to do a plan for a road in Pickering, it would be 56th. That's
what I was thinking of because we had that conversation last week. we were fighting
for yeah and there's a bull in there that talks about making
a more permanent and better crossings i would say that that development
area is really um handled by the costco development agreement yes so
we don't need to address that here yes we just need to
talk about mobility across that street no moving on east lake do
it so keith my first suggestion is something something um
So where is that by the way? So under connected implementation actions in between the
second and third bullet. It should be its own bullet. I think that's I think
what you did is. So it was under a distinctive because we're talking about a
plan to create it being a distinctive area. I think it's on connected. Oh I
thought you were talking about the develop a plan. No, it's under, it's, yeah, so
right now it's under connected, but I, I think, like. I know, I was saying
that needs to. I think, yeah, I think I agree. So, so take, take where
you have right now, the transform, just the transform part. Yes. And then get, get
rid of that and then have. It does say something, something. I vividly remember us
writing that last time. And then here, have the same language before. So create a
plan. Or something. Or. is it so is it under it's under distinctive yep
so yeah so good so i think i think the pedestrian bike facilities and
east lake sam are the connected and then under the distinctive it's develop a
plan or east lake samanich parkway do we want to have language around transforming
it into And then this was the something something into more of a neighborhood because
the point that I think that what we wanted to add this in at the
meeting last week was the idea that between 56 and Front Street can you make
that road into more of a boulevard and not simply highway. Is once it because
the key to talk with us at length last time Eastlakes ma'am once you like
leave the city streets Is it as it as heads into Samama sure that's fine
as as an arterial but can it be to develop a plan for Eastlakes Amish
Parkway to be a Boulevard and not an arterial To reflect the evolving community
or do you want to just have just develop a plan and neighborhood Street,
I know I know but what's weird is that I'm like I see it
as an arterial so I would need to know what else is coming cuz
right now I'm like, well, yeah, that's what it is You're you're writing in
the wrong column Keith so so you have the plan develop the plan here right
yeah but then over here um oh so you're going to keep it in both
spots so we're going to keep it in both because part of it is so
so you want it to so part of it is we're trying to make these
roads that right now function more as regional connectors to be more city oriented right
and so i think what you're wanting to say if I and maybe and no,
no, I was right is that we wanted to be more neighborhood friendly. OK and
I have it that needs a bullet for a transform. Yeah, as opposed to continuation
of OK. Yes, it's going to have to develop a so in the newport area
measures of success for distinctive it says newport becomes a model for successfully challenge changing
a high speed regional roadway to an asset for the neighborhood. I don't know whether
That as a measure of success on East Lake make sense. So
similar to Newport. Yeah. I think that makes sense. You say vehicular
dominated streets, dominant streets have been transformed into shared facilities with bikes
and pedestrians and whatever that is connected. I like what Connie said.
It's already there. No, no, no. She's just repeating what's there. It's
right here. Thank you. Okay. Then we've already got it, just in a different
way. Yeah. That's fine. So it's a measure of success, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I'm
with you. But basically the measure... Look, I said something positive. It's like Sam should
be the driver. I'm going. They can yeah,
I still find kind of love. I'm sorry, good day mail. All
right so 1.5 out. Yes, Sir 1.5 the addition of the development
will not reduce non residential square footage or job opportunities. So we've
talked about this last time for Gilman and pickering we've added it
here which means The Gateway neighborhood West Newport is essentially built
out Confluence is a very small portion We're essentially saying for all the
developable portions of Central Issaquah You have to redevelop with commercial uses in
them on any property you can't go in anywhere and just build an
apartment unless you're building on a parking lot and Right. Or
covering or retaining. Yeah. And I guess I would look at something like say BMC,
the very north end of town that's not retail oriented, there's not walking distance anything.
Somebody came and said I wanted to do a, build an apartment project there.
you would be telling them you have to put job related development in right and
I so the so the good news is lumber yards don't have that many jobs
so you're probably creating a very small retail space to go in a redevelopment project
I think you could argue in a you know if you looked at the square
footage of the buildings and if you go by a building code type of thing
of how many people work per square foot and in the summer it can be
quite a few I I disagreed with this with the other two. I think to
extend this into the other, we're in essence saying you have to do, for the
most part, mixed-use development throughout the Central Issaquah area and I don't think we necessarily
want to be doing that. Coming through the back door. Right. And I mean, I
definitely get the intention of what this is saying and what the hope to accomplish
is, but We talked briefly about this at the Economic Vitality Commission that there's a
lot of unintended consequences that come from this. And so really be sure you know
what you're asking and what all those potential unintended consequences are because they could-- created
challenges i thought we did and i thought it was on purpose yeah yeah we
we discussed this at length i think we had really good discussion last week and
i think we're comfortable like we're comfortable with it and i think this is something
that you're going to bring up to land and shore and they can make a
final call on and there will be vigorous debate would be my guess on this
one at land and shore because i'm not sure they will all be on the
same page yeah because anything and then As as we discussed last week, remember it's
not always retail too soon you have lots that aren't retail conducive there are other
ways to have non residential development. The land and sure wants to know what we
think. We they don't want us to send them something and say well here it
is. But what do you think no, no, I think the commission feels pretty strongly
that we want to keep that line. I think the point is is that when
the public is pushing back we're saying that's fine. You'll have more opportunity to push
back as it goes to committee and Council, but the commission is comfortable with it.
Okay confluence. It's really short. Well, actually it's on two pages. It's long. Oh,
I'm sorry. I have one thing on Eastlake. I know, livable. The first one is
the noise from I-90 has been managed, but it's not mentioned in the livable section
the way the other ones are. I mean, you know, we normally have a bullet
point that says incorporate noise reducing measures. So we have it bullet pointed, but we
don't have it in our chart. Is that on purpose? I think at
that point the I 90 is elevated and he's
like you're not going to have noise wall and
there is no. It was left off. In that area.
That doesn't mean there won't be. Is it purposefully left off in the charting? I
don't think so. Since I didn't have a map, I probably got really confused. But
then just make a note because it can mirror the same language as all the
other ones. In livable, incorporate noise reducing measures, wall, landscape, et cetera on I-90. So
I added it, Joy. It was a good catch. Thank you. Sorry. Confluence. Confluence.
All right, so a little Confluence. So I
put Gilman Village back in Confluence because it
migrated to East Lake for a while. Do
we have anything about, and then this might
belong in East Lake, the Issaquah Creek, the
Parks Division, as that being a complete corridor?
this this this i by this i put in our in my comment that i
emailed you keith and i don't remember what you wrote back but the idea that
that creek from confluence park to like i think i told you that or i
suggested maybe this is more of a green necklace conversation point than it was okay
any of the neighborhoods all right thank you because if it's if it's about trails
and connectivity green necklace okay Confluence is one of the neighborhoods that
going back to the discussion about the Issaquah School District of improving connections for the
neighborhood. Yes. I was wondering if there was a way to put something in about
maybe currently what the pain point is that is a little more specific of how
we want because confluence is though evolving is already has needs and so maybe that
something specifically says we want a school in we want another school in confluence. I
mean is there - To our first bullet point, is there something that's
actionable regarding the school district that's different for Confluence than the other neighborhoods? If not,
no problem. - No, it shouldn't be. - We don't need to relive the conversation,
but. - I mean, so to kind of walk backwards on this one, Joy. So
this one, kind of what we talked about was we know that IBE is just
to the, Set South. Of the neighborhood and then they're talking about turning their admin
offices into a middle school. Right? And so where we started with this one is
we want to make sure that developers realize that there's schools in the vicinity and
that you know making sure that kids that there's crosswalks and you know connected walking
paths and all that kind of stuff seemed like that was what we wanted. And
so, but then when I thought about it, I thought about it well, but we
want that in all the neighborhoods. So that's when I kind of backed it off
and said what's true here, because there are schools nearby, we want in the rest
of them. So it kind of became the same for all. Okay. I just double-check
again. Yeah, I don't mean to relive the conversation other than Confluence to me stands
out as a distinctive neighborhood in this point. So... So under
city implementing actions, it says work with developers
where possible. And so when would it be
impossible to work with a developer? I can
take that out.
Or what were you meaning, you think? Who knows? Hey, Keith, in Connected for Pickering
and Gilman, we have provided for transit, pedestrian, bicycle circulation from Pickering to Gilman or
Gilman to Pickering. Yes. Would it be helpful to have the same thing, have the
same language in Confluence and say Confluence to Gilman? Is that a developer obligation? Yes.
So 3.1. So it doesn't yet exist in Confluence. But I'm saying taking the same
language. I'd say Confluence to Gilman. Yes. What was that
again? What were you, what was you? So that's, so
we talked, we talked about this in those two neighborhoods.
So right, I'm reading off of the printout. I think
you might have changed it slightly, but provide for transit,
pedestrian, bicycle circulation. Beach 20. From Pickering to Gilman. Same
language, Gilman to Pickering. And then same language, Gilman to
Confluence to Gilman. Having that mirror in the two neighborhood
sections. All adjacent. Yeah, whatever the final language was.
You can walk before you would get on a bus and pay
$2.50 from Confluence to Gilman size. Then I
just have a quick special request of PPC members. When you talk about the fluff
for the neighborhood, I know that you just had the conversation about connectivity in terms
of the green necklace, but we talk about Confluence Park today. In the today, I
think it should be something celebrated in the future because there's been a lot of
investment made. both public and I think some private in that park
and I think it really has an opportunity to be something
even greater. You know, Keith, that comment I had, I don't
know if it's that different than 3.1. So maybe now that
I'm thinking it through, it might be superfluous, whatever the word
is. You talked about transit too
though and this is just walking right walking and biking and your other comment
had transit connections No, this is non vehicular. Oh, no Yeah, I think I'm
fine with it cuz I don't where's trains are gonna go through confluence I
might be running up and down Front Street, but that's it. I think that's
fine. Or it'll be along Newport. Yeah, that's fine. I Okay, I think
I see your eyes kind of glassing over here. Do we need
more cookies? We have boundaries still. So we have two things left
to do. The first thing we talked about super briefly last time
and I blew your brains. So this is a proposed code amendment
to limit HOTELS, MOTELS, TIMESHARES, LODGING AND CONFERENCE CENTERS TO
PICKERING. AND THIS IS ALSO A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT SELF-STORAGE TO
LIMIT TO PARCELS FRONTING EAST LAKE SAMAMISH PARKWAY OR 221ST PLACE.
SO THAT IS -- SO THE STORY BEHIND THIS IS CONCERN
IS THAT AS SOON AS THE MORATORIUM IS LIFTED THAT WE
WILL GET THREE Three more mini storages along Gilman, although the one that's under
construction now I'm gonna say on public record is a darn good-looking storage unit
I think in my opinion surprised me it's it's Of all the other ones
that have been built in town I think so kudos to seek on for
that Okay, so what what's the logic for keeping it along East like Sam
I So right now you have some storage on East Lake Sam now, so
there's a cross from But we have someone Gilman right now So that doesn't so
part of it is I think again getting back to the conversation we had a
little bit earlier where East Lake Sam is You know, nobody lives on East Lake
Sam yet. I know. And so if you were going to allow opportunities, I think
there was a perception. I don't want to read too much into this. This was
a direction that was suggested out of the mayor's office. And so if you guys
want to tinker, this is why this comes to PPC. This is vetting it with
the community. And ultimately you guys get to decide what you want to push forward
as a recommendation coming out of PPC on these Is it too tight? Is it
wrong location? Is it not something that you're worried about and you know, but this
is what's so drawing from the conversation We just had about East like Sam should
be up if it's gonna be the primary Boulevard and a mix using lighting it
with many storages wouldn't be yeah, I think I think any Understand that right now.
It's a lot more conducive for many stories than Gilman is I think if the
vision is that East Lake Sam Should be up a boulevard just like Gilman is
then I think if we don't want storage and Gilman I think the same logic
applies to East Lake Sam. I would totally agree with that. Okay, I answer that
question And I forgot what area I think it's part of East Lake and
the where the service yards are we're talking about where the potential dealership would be
going in that area would be maybe the more appropriate place for storage because it's
sort of out of the way and it's not going to be taking up prime
retail real estate and what about 2 21st Sorry, where is 221st? Where the brown
bear and the taco time and-- I think that's too valuable of property to put--
Yeah, 221st is-- that seems like a great spot for an apartment building at some
point in the next decade. I get my car-- I think whatever logic that exists
that-- So what I'm hearing, I'm going to translate and see if you guys are
giving me thumbs up or thumbs down. You guys would rather self-storage not be allowed
in central Issaquah? Yeah, I'd rather put on the outskirts. Okay, so we're gonna
take that one P with the 24 and we're just gonna delete it. So not
allowed period. So the area because Ron the area that you were suggesting back behind
in the industrial area that's out of central that's now out of central Issaquah. Yeah,
that's not near the cannabis company. It is near the cannabis company. Well, it's because
it says it's on Google. I don't actually know where it is. It's never been
there before. Yeah, I don't think storage fits our mixed use vision. And that's That's
the reason why, you know, the old service area is not in Central Issaquah. It's
so you can do things like storage units. I am curious, what is 20? We
have sub notes for 23 and 24, but isn't that a 20 next to both
the self storage? This one? And below, yeah. So that's already there. So those first
two are the existing and those next two are the proposed. But we don't have
a footnote of what 20 is. Right now you have 23, 24. I don't have
footnotes for 1 through 22 actually. So I was just adding, so I started at
23 because they were new. So 20 is, whatever 20 is, I think it's like...
I don't know. It probably explains it. It doesn't matter because it's not permanent. They
probably send you to the standards for what... Okay, so you guys, so right now,
right now you guys, so this is coming off in its entirety at this point
since you guys are not supportive of that. What about the hotel? I'm okay with
hotel. Pickering only. Pickering only. I don't understand why we're banning it from Gilman. I
don't see that. Or from 221st. When you think about the way that the road's
going to be going through, I don't see why you couldn't put a nice, you
know, boutique hotel on 221st. Because Raleigh already has hotels in the Gilman area. I
reject the idea that we have enough hotels. So you think that means that it
wasn't a... I don't know what that means and no one else is going to
be interested in the space. Yeah. I mean, if one doesn't get built, that's fine.
We don't need to encourage it. But I see no reason to prohibit it. If
we end up having all the hotels built in Gilman and not in Pickering, then
where are the Costco people going to stay? And the idea is to get them
closer to Costco so they can actually walk. So let's talk about the negatives. 221st
would do that. Yeah. So we obviously see the negatives in having self-storage located
in certain areas because it doesn't provide for an active use of the
area, you know, yada, yada, yada. We envision, yeah. What is the negative
of allowing a developer to put a hotel in different areas?
So the argument that was made was, and there's not
a lot of data to support this. So if you
can build an argument that says that right now our
biggest hotel generating demand is Costco's international headquarters. and many
of the stays are related to that, which is why most of them
are maybe or maybe not where they are. Then if part of what
you are saying is we're fine with more hotels, But if they're doing
business with Costco, then they should be within walking distance of Costco. So in theory,
they could maybe not have a rent-a-car, maybe have less trips on the streets. And
that's the intended outcome for, I think, the suggestion that it be limited to pickering.
So the idea is exclude it from everywhere else, not because it's a negative there,
but because we want to direct it. Direct. Actually, I think the market will de-
determine where the best place is for a hotel. Yeah, if if Costco is really
driving the hotel then I think the market will put a hotel next to Costco.
Or Costco puts their own hotel there because they're thinking hey, you know. I guess
like I'm thinking as a business traveler and I've got two hotels and they're roughly
the same price point and one of them is next to the place I'm working
at. Like that's easily enough to make me choose that. But the other one is
in the downtown area where you can walk to - Food and all that. -
Yeah, both are supposed to be walkable. - So let's take a hypothetical. So let's
say I can buy a cheap piece of property 'cause it's a hillside behind Fred
Meyer. - That's exactly what I wanna talk about. - And there's a brand new
road that goes from that street, that internal driveway up over the creek right into
Costco. So I might decide to build there, right? And everybody who stays at the
hotel who's doing business with Costco, they will drive through that shopping center over 60
second into Lake drive and that's what you'll get so is that an okay outcome
if that's what the market wants to provide. Well, I don't i'm just asking a
question personally there's no judgment in my i don't want to see a hotel sitting
on that hillside yeah we could talk about hillside if it's a nice looking hotel
but that's exact parcels when we did our tour through i mean but isn't that
in east lake not in it's in east lake yeah so that's not that's not
urban core well but but so so this is our conversation right so how far
if you're gonna unpack it beyond you So are you I'm looking for suggestions. So
are you saying you know what I think pick rings too tight of a not
let's say urban core. Yeah, I there's a reason that they have the same zoning
I think is because I think things like allowing hotels should be just consistent across
the zone. I agree. The RGC. And you could you could also say that the
new crossing of I 90 would make Gilman walkable to Costco as well right. Yeah,
you would just have to get it. Yeah, eventually. That's fine. Yeah, because I think
if you if you want to talk about the one in the hill, that's a
separate conversation, which is why are we dropping hotel lodging from MU, right? Wouldn't that,
isn't that mixed use? No. So I don't need this footnote anymore because now it's
urban core. You don't need either of them. You don't need either one either. So
for clarification, because I see urban core crossed out and I see regional growth center,
RGC. So what are we calling this? So the zoning district, so this is a
zoning table. So the zoning is still urban core, but we're calling it the regional
growth center and now we're also calling it Pickering and Gilman neighborhoods. We're just not
calling it a sub-district. Don't go back there. Are we going to line up? Are
we going to realign our... growth center to align with our neighborhood boundaries.
I looked at them they said no I don't know. All right so
let's can we have a conversation about why we're not allowing hotels in
the other zones that are not urban core. Right so that would be
Things like the Highlands, Talus, any of that? Could you please? No, no, no, no,
no. This is central. This is just central. Great. So this is so really what
you're-- so you guys took out destination and intensive commercial by getting rid of old
Route 10 and service. So those two columns are gone. um it's not allowed right
now in mixed use residential this is confluence right here okay so so what you've
got so you got village residential which is west newport okay yeah that makes sense
it's not gonna happen um and so really the only thing that's that you've taken
away is mixed use so that's pretty much almost all of east lake So
if you want to put that back, if you want to say basically no change,
then you'd be saying I think East Lake is fine too. I think it's fine.
Yeah, I mean I don't mind you pro and conning me on it, but right
now I don't really mind the idea of it just off the cuff. We think
about a boulevard concept in our you know versus an arterial we think about the
future that It doesn't seem like a terrible place to put it. Well, I mean
that's up on the hill again remember so if you want to restrict things to
Alongside the road for example so that they would have access on to the main
corridor You can do things like that in your in your footnotes, too so it
doesn't have to be Just in the area it could be in the
area but but that's a certain street building discussion Footnotes of these zoning
maps so Keith. Yes, sir. If we put a hotel I don't have
any problem with putting the hotel in Eastgate. I'm sorry. That's okay. I
- I don't have any problem with that. - Well actually I want the LTACs
for that. - No, we actually want them here, really. I actually think we do.
The only thing I have a problem with is putting development on that hillside. And
if that's the only discussion or if that's the only con we have here, then
what can we do to prevent that from happening in that parcel that we are
all so concerned about and still open that up for East Lake? Well, you could
do what Connie said is one option where you say if there's a hotel, it
has to have direct access on the East Lake Sammamish Parkway, right? So the hillside
would not. The problem is, so the hillsides, the hillsides private property, so it's developable.
It's, I mean, it's, it could be developed. I don't know if it's developable or
not. Somebody would have to provide all the geotech that says you could actually get
into that hillside and not have something really bad happen. So that part, so you
can, you can say where you want it more than you can say, I don't
want it on a hillside, right? so you could so you can so if you're
going to be selective in east lake um you could say it has to be
on an arterial street okay well that could be east lake sammamish parkway that could
be um you know uh that could be gilman because we have a little bit
of east lake over on gilman um Could that argument also be made for was
that what's the name of that road that goes like nugget black nugget? Yeah, could
that also be it's not an arterial? It's a it's a collector. I mean so
so you could I mean and I would double check those with engineering to make
sure that they're the right names but I mean so if If the commission wants
to carve East Lake into hotel non hotel spaces that just has to be
rational it can't look like you did it purposely to exclude a parcel. Then
we get in trouble. So run facing to East Lake in Eastgate are East.
I think some of the Parkway East Lake neighborhood is late. Yeah, I've been
up since 5. I don't see any reason to to carve
up the neighborhood. Neither. Okay, I'm seeing 3 no development via a hillside conversation.
I don't think that should be in what you're saying by doing that as
you're opening up the whole area to tell which is I'm OK with but
except on black nugget is a bad idea. - Why, I mean, if the market
bears it and an environmental impact study says it's fine, I'm not sure that I'm
following why it's about it yet. - Because you can get a EIS report that
says something is safe. On that hillside and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe.
There are many cases to show that we can start to the whole system can't
be bad if this is our plan of how we attack development. What would you
rather have there? Do you want a hotel or do you want to develop on
nothing? That's not an option. It's private property and if it's able to be developed
then so okay so time out. Come out. Trish is smarter than all
of us. So this particular item, we wanted to unpack it
a little bit, which we did. And I would suggest that all of you hold
your opinion because we have to have a public hearing because it's a code amendment.
So the public hearing is scheduled for the 22nd of March. So this will be
an opportunity for the public, Mel can bring all his friends, you know, to say
why this is a good or a bad idea. Okay, so so we
can just put this back on the sideboard you guys have had some good conversations
Let's save it for the 22nd and then you guys need to make a recommendation
on this Can you put in front of public the two changes we've already made?
Absolutely as the as the recommended proposed or whatever the packet is anybody down to
adding it to East Lake Sammamish hotels would also then move Yes Yes, I would
not So we have that thing ironed out. So you guys are conversing. Yeah, you
guys are split on that one. So so for the three of you who are
not seeing any limitations to East Lake. You know, it'd be basically no code change.
Right. Because right now it's just permitted. Okay. All right. With that, I think we're
ready to go to maps and go through each of the five neighborhoods and see
if we want to change any boundaries. I always do. So we have a lot
of fun. A lot of energy at the end of this meeting. Yeah, so I
have a thought related to that. Several meetings ago, we were looking at zoning maps
when we were deciding our neighborhood boundaries. Yes. And we were like, that's the wrong
way to do it. Are we going to, now that we've, after we set our
neighborhood lines, are we going to go back and make sure our zoning matches our
neighborhoods? No. Not necessarily. Why not? uh because i don't know that it's that important
that the neighborhood lines and the zones match but i thought i just remember we
had we had a big discussion about how the zoning should follow am i glad
we have a zoning map in this room where did it go so okay so
we have a zoning map we can cross reference as we discuss and if it
seems like that's a um a determining factor let's have that conversation okay
all right so you guys need to come down to
the floor uh we got big maps we're gonna unroll
bobby sit down all right Okay. Okay. Yeah.
We're allowed to stand up. Oh, yeah.
We're standing up. Oh, my gosh. Do
we get to take these home? I
don't understand. Nope. Oh, Wes. Oh.
Hi,
Wes.
Can
we
have
a
two-minute
break?
You
know,
where
you
put
the
fun
little
thing
on
the...
Thanks.
Did
someone
already
run
out?
Are
you
happy
you
got
your
phone?
They're
the
exact
same.
They
have
the
exact
same
boundaries.
Oh,
we're
back
on.
This
one
is
just,
if
you
guys,
it
may
be
easiest
to
mark
up.
That
one
shows
zoning,
because
exactly
the
conversation
I
had. this
is how it has been amended
but not approved right i know
but yes by you all and
you all have the most questions
on this yeah east lake conforms
so let's start with important
I mean to AJ's point that contains part of
Rally, Rally Development Agreement. So do you shift it
over? Yep, right. Which is easy to see on
the zoning map. Okay, do we move to Gilman?
If we try to change the zoning to match
- You can't change that, that's part of the development. - Right, but I mean
that's to-- - But you could put that into Gilman. - But you could put
it into the Gilman. - You could put it in Gilman if you wanted. You
could bump the line to include Olive Rowley in Gilman. - So what's the pros
and cons of doing that? - Some people were talking about the zoning being more--
- Okay, what is Rowley? - It was separated originally because it's a creek there,
it's an obvious divider between the parks. Tibbetts Creek goes right up. -
I don't think it makes a functional difference. - How long
is the development period? - 30 years. - So what's the
benefit to having it this way? - This is how it
is existing. - What would be your, would you leave it
in or take it out? - I mean, today it doesn't
matter. In five years, I think,
I think
I'm good
with the
boundary as
is. With the understanding that those parcels
aren't going to get rezoned no matter what we do. Well, and this is all
the same development room, correct? So this is actually only, it's a five max as
long as everything around it stays under five. And it's not built in the development
room, they're able to be higher than whatever the highest building is. Not that particular
location? - So this isn't all the same as the other one? - It
is, but there's a, we wanted a view access and to preserve that,
so we can buy one and get the other. So that one's specific
to the land use, whereas these are more flexible, depending on where it
is in proximity to the tree. - All right, so last report, we're
all good? - Sweet. - Great, let's move on to number two.
So I think pickering is probably the second easiest. Yep.
Remind me if this is developable or who owns this.
The 200 foot bridge. Well, this is going to be
a road. Oh yeah, that's going to be 67th. And
then this is the buffer to the creek that's owned
by the homeowners, the Costco homeowners association thing and then
we have the same one. size darst park
there's a costco wetland over here houses single family
houses city property single family houses jordan creek office
building and New taco... So this isn't staying green. There's a
road that's gonna come through over the creek. They're building it right now.
So why do we have the jet out? Why would this have to
be straight line? We did it because it's all part of one parcel.
When we did the urban... Everything on the straight line,
everything to the east of that is accessed from
221st, right? Right. So this path just goes through
the Falls River Boundaries. So remember the purple
is the original growth center so technically that's not...
Yeah, because what we would be showing that isn't
a jut out, it's an edge there. Yeah. Any
reason here versus there? Is that a boundary?
Actually, we'll, yeah, it doesn't matter. We can just extend the corner out. It doesn't
matter. We'll just extend the orange to move the red. Yes. Okay. Yeah.
- And then I guess that would be the same. - No, sorry. - Oh,
that's because that's for three. - That's why. There was no point in having a
third. - That was just the original boundary. - Yeah, with the road, why match
the original road boundary? Why is this on the other side of the road? Why
wouldn't you make it a nice square? - I wouldn't do that. All
right. - Is there
a reason that this
line doesn't match up
to the road? That's
the regional . That's the regional . That's the regional . It's probably
the limited access for . And actually, yeah. That's the right away. And
that actually is, that's right away, right there. So it goes to the
parcel down there. Yeah. And we split the neighborhoods down the middle. So
now as we have it, Gilman Village is in . Yes. Gilman Village
is-- It's just to the east of the creek in South . All
right, you guys want to do Eastlake Confluence? So Eastlake's the hard one.
So let's go Confluence. So we need to talk about this line, which
should be here versus the 90. Well, if you do that, then you
would have the Medical Center and you have the strip mall that has
the big old tires. It would be part of the Confluence. I
definitely think this does not belong in confluence, whether it's Eastman or Hillman, we can
talk about it in a minute, but I think this is the appropriate word. You
guys talked about having it go across to create more of a sense of connection.
No, no, no, we're talking confluence. I remember when we originally discussed this, we had
pulled in Hillman and confluence, and we had limited it because we really felt that
this So if we're just talking confluence, then that is
the edge. Makes sense. Anything down here? Yeah, because this is
now like the paint store. Well, not right now. But this
is the gas station that needs cleaning up. -
Yeah, this is the Old Town Quarter, right? - It is, yeah. - Are there
any parcels that are in neither? - It's not Old Town. - It is part
of Old Town. - Old Town extends? - Up to Gilman. -
Off the front, up to the end. - Working on the Old Town sub-area
plan. It's there, I promise. - I just wanna make sure there isn't-- -
No, I think there is. - Okay, so that's-- - Wait a second, we're
confused here. We thought that the next discussion about the Old Town sub-area plan
was to possibly extend it or not extend it. - Well, that was the
cover of Old Service. The conversation
was to put the Grange
into Old Town. Right. So
did that happen? No, we're coming back to you guys. Because we're coming back to
you guys to talk about that with the Old Town Plan. Remember how there was
a discussion about, like, you guys wanted, I mean, staff was proposing the possibility of
stopping Old Town back where the creek was. Right. Over the creek was, right. And
so that got vetoed and nixed out? No, it hasn't been vetoed or nixed out.
When we come back, we're talking about all the boundaries of Old Town. Is there
any reason to include this triangle? It's going
to be a car wash,
so it got bought by
Brown Bear. There's a food
truck. No, I'm not in
there. I know. Would
you ever, if you
wanted, if we wanted
to do a different
zoning south of June
3rd, is that possible
down the road? What were you thinking? Well,
what I'm wondering is that, I mean, you can go pretty tall there now. So
one of the city action items for Confluence, and I had this conversation with Mary
Lou either today or yesterday, I don't know, it all blurs together, is we made
that commitment to basically pull the zoning back down for the MUR to keep Confluence
in central, but to reduce the height bulk and mass. We talked about that at
the first meeting. To the old MUR? Yeah, probably back to the old MUR. Yeah.
Well, I guess I would see the possibility of it being taller on the north
side, shorter on the south side. Yeah, I mean, given some of this here in
this . So if we're going to tweak the zoning, we'll have to talk that
all the way through. But I appreciate the thought on that moment. I heard that.
- The zoning is transitioned. - That's why we did it. - So, and one
thing, is Brady the elementary school? - Yes. - Is there any value of bringing
it into CIP to apply the contract school requirements to it? So when that school
is revoked? - Yeah, the compact school already applies to it. - So it already,
is there a policy to that? - 'Cause that's citywide, yeah. - So architecture would
apply if it's in central. - Can you value that? - Yeah. - Having that
school, So I think if you were going to take this south of
Pauli. Looks kind of nasty now, so it's not going to get any worse. Sorry.
So I think if you were going to take that south of Pauli to include
the schools, you'd also have to look at whatever is over here. No, no, no,
no. If anything, this should go away even after it's developed so you aren't continually
eroding yet another forested hillside. not to get upset about
the court, it's the hill sides that are under constant-- - So you're
saying by including it in there that would potentially mean that those would--
- Well it raises the-- - The height. - What you can do.
- Yeah, okay, got it. - What do you guys think about bringing
the school in to have, say, a beer party? - So when they,
when they, when they, When they do the middle school, it would have
to meet architectural standards as opposed to not. That's just one. Well, that's a
nice idea, except for-- They're going to. They're going to put the parking under
the track. So they're going to put the track on a deck. Sorry, was
that on camera? I don't know what they're doing. Just kidding. Are they actually
going to-- Do the development on the other side of
Newport that seems to be stalled? Inniswood? They said they're
going to break ground this year. That's what they said
because we asked. Because if they don't do it, because
we want to make sure that it's still going to
be security approved. If we remove it and they do
not do it, then what could go wrong? The IMC,
which is the old code. Which means they could build-- They have
more impervious surface. In other words, what would be the pros and cons of-- There's
no architectural-- Assuming that they do not-- As far as their parking requirements-- Yeah, the
standards would change. Yeah, I think if that gets developed, it would develop . Yes.
But if you don't, then you-- but it's already-- It's permitted. I think so. I
think that's a move. I think the only thing that's interesting is what-- If they
don't build it, it will still be in the central . So it
sounds like two didn't want the school in? Is that right?
Two didn't have school? I don't see a value in bringing
the school in. Okay. Anybody else have an idea about the
school? If we brought it in, it would have the architectural
and urban design standard. Structured parking. They never appeared in yet.
That's why we did, in theory, that's why we did the
compact school zone code changes. So they wouldn't have to do
that, right? Yeah. But should we use... - Then I'm
always asking for exemptions as a reason to not-- - So the other, so Lindsey,
so the other things are setbacks, right? So in Central, you've got zero setbacks, you've
gotta be up against the street. Now we did that with compact schools, so some
of it, some of it you're gonna get regardless. In my mind, the biggest-- -
Well, yeah, they'd have to go through architectural review. Right? Mel and I are both
looking forward to that. Whenever those projects start wheeling through. And to be honest, I'm
sort of questioning the architectural standards that we have, the six guidelines that we can
fit within. I think it's going to be interesting to see what comes out. I
don't know how school would fit kind of in many of those. I think it
would be a barn. It would be Grange. It would be Grange. Yeah, Grange. Story.
Main Street. It's really nice to say that schools do
this when schools have certain certain needs and restrictions and they have a piece of
property that they're gonna try to pull all their stuff into, it's kind of hard
to say, you have to do it this way, when it doesn't work. - It's
really fun. - Okay, all right, that sounds like a no. - Okay, so we're
on to Eastlake. - So now we're on to Eastlake? - Eastlake. - Okay, Eastlake.
- All right, so we know there's been some conversations about the eastern boundary of
Eastlake. So do you want to start at the North? Let's start at the
North End. Okay. So does it make sense to stay along the road
rather than coming anything out? What is that? Haynes-Jensen. The State Park. Okay.
I agree. Church. Fire station. So we've got the... Oh, not the
fire station. Oh, there's the dentist's office and then the church and then
BMC. Right. And so... And I don't... I would rather have it go
BMC here because it's limited limited land here and then you've got your hillsides
coming up pretty fast. So I would prefer that mound break and then have
it start with the MC. So coming south, that's like a gateway first thing
you see. Would we want to have that, the central Issaquah controls on look
and everything at that property? Well, central Issaquah starts here, so that's not your
gateway. There. No, but the first property you see on the left side is going
to be where the dentist office is. Because this side has the whole pathway, so
you're not going to get that dense development on the trail. I think this is
your more natural gateway. I have this huge BMC property. We aren't going to have
much of a gateway for this little... Why wouldn't we want to control, have
more control over looking at it? What are you going to do with
its gateway-age? Not as a gateway, but in terms of fitting in within
the architectural design standards. Well, if you remember what it fits in the
architectural design standards, you're also giving it things that it can do with
its property. The zoning doesn't change. yeah i think we only have a
limited amount of space on east lake north of 56. so to say on
this side that the only thing we want on east lake sammamish is this
bnc property i feel like that's too limited so question for keith yes sir
what's the worst case scenario For the church and the dentist office.
If it's outside of the... Storage unit. Or a hotel. Or a
hotel. So since you guys have just precluded storage from Central, anything
outside is going to be a target for storage. Five-story storage unit. A
tire. A tire. A tire. Which means it should be in because it
has the protections. Keep the boundaries. So this falls along the lines. Connie's
on a board. They don't have a line. Connie's on a board. I
know, but she's got really valid oversight. So there's a split decision there
as to whether I should speak. So I'll speak to counsel. That's fine.
I want her to speak. So where would that, do we
want to discuss this part? So the- This whole boundary line
is this BMC? That's BMC. So that's the edge of BMC
and then there's this- So the next conversation is should that
be in Central? No. The residential behind BMC. Are those apartments
or condos? Yes. And their entry point is 56th. Yeah, they're coming
off of 56th. I think they should be included because they're interfacing with
this game. They're not facing-- Yeah, yeah. Yeah, this makes sense because these
are facing away, out in the hell. But these parcels here, I know
that the people who live there, they should be able to walk and
live. So the extent that this gets redeveloped, they have to
pay attention to this property. It's all part of the same
connection. So that's flat. No, that's a nice hill. So I
think one of the arguments is this is flat area that
because of the hill. That's part of the hill. I think
you've got it. So let me ask some questions. What is this? It's
the Bartels Shopping Center. Yeah, so then that's where you're going. So this is the
hill. This is the property that Ron was saying he'd like to stay, right? This
is the wall. Yeah, because this is Fred Meyer. That's 24-hour fitness. Right, this is
the overlay. And then this is an office, right? Yeah. Yeah, that used to be
right here. It's the wall. What about the wall? There's a brick
in the wall. Oh. Okay. And again, this goes, this here goes across the boundary
line? Yes. Okay. I could go direction on that. I hear... So that's some, I'm
looking at the terrain now. That, this is very much still, I mean, you're starting
to go up the hill, but the seeding line's here. Okay. Okay, so let's go
up to here in 56. Who's in favor of keeping it like this up to
this point? Okay, so we come around, we have
the wall. And the whole argument of that is this
slide is developed into a natural high-CIP control program. Right.
If you go up here, then you get that. There is a remarkable difference between
up here and up here. And any property that would be here would be oriented
this direction. You wouldn't have street access. So anything that has access on that... So,
question for Keith. I think we've sort of talked about it, but not to Greg's
likes. Why wouldn't we put the quarry in the service area? I didn't see.
Central supposed to be formed the new growth for
the next 20 years and so I don't think
we're gonna get housing or commercial there anytime soon
so they were never We have control through the
IMC we just don't have any architecture standards for
you this down before we necessarily get there.
This is San Marcos. Okay, so that is
up the hill. That's all one property. Once
you get past that. Okay, so that's two
properties. Those make sense in. I don't think they do.
But it's also, it's an office park. It's not a bunch of... Well, actually, it
opens up the University House. In this one, University House? Yeah. Yeah, because Sand Marsh.
Yeah. I don't think we're going to lose jobs. So I think having the no-loss
jobs... Yeah. I'm just saying, like... So we figure out... I think we might keep
that. Yeah, I would agree. It's funny that... It's the first thing we ever mentioned
after the process. You're making Trish and Kristen feel good. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh- You
can tell John, I stayed till 11 o'clock because I got two. You got
smarter than the rest of us. The master's degree wins out. So what's going
to happen is two different standards. So let's talk about this triangle parcel. That's
a quarry, isn't it? No. That triangle isn't?
was
that
had in them, you can correct me if my paraphrasing is incorrectly, the quarry had
instigated a backdoor discussion with the city saying when we stop being a quarry and
we're not extracting whatever we want to do, we can sell this and turn this
into residential and make big bucks. It came before us and we're like, wait a
minute, is this really a great idea? And they're like, hey, the city already told
us we could do it. And the city's like, yeah, this is what we're doing.
It's already been agreed upon in the past. So everything that's owned right over there
is not its own strip is poor anymore. It is a passive availability to be
sold and a home to put on it pending development of, you know, other properties.
- They're taking the considerations and making sure that whatever whatever they do on the
property, it will be set for residential. So, putting it into this-- Anybody
wants a different version of that? So, every quarry has a state mandated reclamation plan.
And so, the state says, okay, if you're going to mine, you have to have
a plan for what you're going to do with afterwards, right? So, Lakeside basically said,
hey, we want to do a development agreement. So, they have their own development agreement.
And it allows for residential up above. So the valley floor will always
be in their minds an asphalt plant. So they'll stop coring out the hillside,
which is where they're getting raw materials both for the asphalt production as well
as they sell stuff to Cadman for cement. At some point they will be
out of mineable materials, but they are, Lakeside is an asphalt contracting company and
they will continue to process asphalt on the valley floor as long as their family
still owns the business, basically, is the way they've described it. But up above,
all the way up to Highlands Drive, that has been included in a development
agreement, and they can build up to 1,200 residential units. There is some non-residential
associated with that. I forget how much. And if they were to sell the
portion, it right now is owned to the
So the development agreement doesn't come all the way down to the valley floor. It
goes, it starts up and it goes... The code says minimum. The code says minimum.
It's not saying... There's no homes that are... Yeah. Yeah, but it's pretty much just
minimum. So that's where it would cut off. Yes. Does it have a hatching on
it? Oh, that's pretty good. It does look like a different hatching.
Well, we're talking about the boundary of what we want to say to you, so
really what it's akin to. Or if we can't-- Right. --it's only on the bottom.
No, no, no. The development agreement is up the hill. The development agreement is not
by this person. Correct. Correct. I don't believe so. I think it's-- And what about
this? That's still mineral. And it's mineral, but it's-- No, the development agreement only applies
to the carpets of orange with stripes and not the red with stripes. So we
could put it in this shed. OK. I didn't make the couch.
I don't know that there would be any so that property
owner has said no way no how never ever ever and
every action they take annually is about retaining their asphalt contracting
business I know because they have a development agreement I mean
well so the bottom so I That would
cause a rift, yes. I think they would have an issue with being now included
in some types of-- And that-- we were talking about that trying. Any of it.
So can you explain the two triangles that made it in, well the other one's
not a triangle, but that made it in from service? Well, Carlson Kennel, so... Just
so they know why some of it was brought in and some of it not.
So Carlson Kennel, so what we did was we tried to have a conversation about
That has a frontage on East Lake Sam. So as
you get off the freeway, really Carlson Kennel and this
parcel, which is the boat place, and the big billboard.
Our one billboard in town. So these two have a presence on East
Lake Sam. And so the idea was, let's include them in the-- let's
keep them in the area that has higher standards, as opposed to letting
them out. So now, the unintended consequences-- I mean, we talked about it
here. But now, anywhere that's outside of Central is prone to have mini storage, right?
I mean, because you've just taken 1,000 acres out of the city and said, no
mini storage, right? Not you personally, but that's where that ball landed. So that just
means that if somebody was wanting to build mini storage, I'm looking now anywhere around
the perimeter that has good storage It has good frontage, good exposure. And a
gateway area as well. Can you do mini storage in Old Town? Actually, that
was going to be my next question. If we're going to not say mini
storage in here, then we need to say no mini storage in Old Town.
Or you could see this area, which is supposed to be our...
That's coming to a theater near you very soon. Do we
agree that those parcels, because they are in East Lake Sam,
should be included? Excellent. So that's it, right? The question is,
why wouldn't this section here? It's not fronting East Lake Saman.
It's also part of Lake Saman. Yeah, that's part of it.
All right, so this is done.
We've already set this. Let's talk
about this.
Well,
this
- Correct, yeah. So this, that would be all this. - Oh, there was some
adjustments tonight. - So we're already agreeing on a confluence that this is perfect. -
It's accurate. - This is a janky. So let's talk through these four parcels here
and these parcels here. We believe that we're laying these out correctly, these being a
part of Eastlake because they're anchored Eastlake via Fort Adam. - Anything that's up here,
- This is the touchdown flooring. -
Okay, there you go. And then the
food wall floor. And then you got
like the check and a go, right?
- Yes. - Check and catch. -
Isn't that a joke? I was talking about these spots. Well, yes,
and we're asking should that be in the scope? Can it be in scope? Well,
it used to be in Central. That's it. Yeah. You guys tell. And now we're
talking about adding that to the whole town. I think that makes more sense to
do that because I feel like this is oriented. Well, you'll have a question. No,
I think it's oriented. I think it's oriented this way because if you have If
you have this developed to this standard, then this is going to be a mismatch
to that. True. So this is a natural boundary. And this is all we're having
our conversation about this possibly being Old Town Gateway or something of that sort. It's
still to be decided, but I don't think we're ready to make that decision. What's
the edge of that parcel there? The street. Okay, so you have like two parcels
there here and here that you could potentially include. Well,
because these ones do
have access onto the
front street. I think
that whole section there
is a problem. Have
Old Towne start at the 90th. Because the idea is to
take that whole highway 10th. And then the only reason you're
not doing that on this side of Front Street is because
basically it takes a gas station there.
So, I think we're going to include that. So what about, so looking at
these parcels here that are circled around the fourth, on the south side of
Miami, do you guys agree that that should be anchored in East Lake? I
don't see what it would go to. It seems weird to jot out
I mean, they are more, okay, there you go, that's a good discussion.
They are more building to me than they are Eastlake. The 90 seems
like the dividing line of Eastlake, right? Yeah. Yeah. So my experience in
town is if I'm going down to Gildan, I'm not thinking at all
about Eastlake. And I know right now these are commercial. I would rather
have these, I think, associated with Gilman and have the continued
experience of ex-juice residential. Yeah, once I cross under the freeway, then
I'm in East Lake. But when I'm coming back, I'm coming up.
Why did we beat this to death in the last conversation? Because
we said that fourth and this mean that it's oriented that way.
We decided to say we're going to make it with Gilman and then all of
a sudden we said, no, we're going to sell it. So we followed the zoning.
We took the fur poll and then we're now backtracking. You're right. So most people
don't track the zoning, right? So they track with like Gilman the road and why
would that not be Gilman the neighborhood? Because this is the post office. And the
post office. So your suggestion is that we keep the zoning and So
you just, you take this out, you take this and include it,
so Gilman now has a KO. So rather than, yeah, that being
a square. Gilman's out. You see the good part there. This line
in East Lane is the 90, the 90 steps, right? That's up
the front street. Thoughts, everybody? What does that drive Gilman being
part of the growth center? Or do you like the idea that Gilman is the
growth center plus the corridor along the way? I mean, it already is.
I
think
it's
all
about
You're trying to make neighborhood edges that resonate with people, that make sense for
them. And so if part of our conversation with folks is take East Lake
and spill it to the south side of 90, I think people will have
a tough time with that. Because 90 is clearly a divisive edge. I mean,
even though we're trying to knit it together in multiple places. So I think--
I mean, I could see it going. I think that's fine. I think most
people will consider it part of that neighborhood. Yeah, I think as long as we
don't care that the border of Gilman doesn't matter. Or you see if that, if
we're already a federated doesn't matter then I'm perfectly okay. It actually may make it
better to make it a bigger differential. Right. Because now you don't think it's, that's
a mapping error, right? Right. Okay. All right. So this is going to have that,
this is going to sit right here. Yeah. And it just comes down here instead.
Yes. Is it even more of a pool of ice? I'll read
through Eastlake and see if anyone of that will
move. I think because the language in Gilmore was
about Bill and Goldberg and the language for Samantha
was about Eastlake Sam. I'm thinking more from the
same. And there's also another caveat. - Okay,
so we're comfortable with that. That's
our last decision for tonight. We
have to do one more thing.
I move we recommend approval of the updated draft visions as amended this
evening with the proposed boundary adjustments as we've just discussed and incorporation of
a map and a description of the green necklace as agreed on the
March 8th meeting to be had. That'll be a joint PCC meeting with
Parks Board. I second the motion. All those in favor say aye. Any
more discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Hearing none, the motion passes. It is
five minutes to 11. Is there any
other good for the order? Otherwise, I'm
going to close the meeting at 11
at 10:52. Five.