City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, March 28, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 28, 2023

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 7:29 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-28-23 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. February 28, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update/Scope ID 1394

30 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager, Community Planning & Development · packet pp.33–78

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 0:30 Open packet at p.33 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the March 28th meeting is to discuss the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update and additional projects to analyze housing and parking regulations (Title 18 future update items).

3730 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ all right good evening everyone welcome

0:06 ↗ to the city council Planning Development

0:07 ↗ and environment committee meeting of

0:10 ↗ March 28th I am councilmember hunt and I

0:14 ↗ am joined with council president Walsh

0:16 ↗ and Council Deputy president Hall

0:19 ↗ there will be multiple public comment

0:21 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:23 ↗ is a general public comment opportunity

0:24 ↗ at the beginning of the meeting or you

0:26 ↗ can make comments after the presentation

0:27 ↗ and committee question answer periods on

0:30 ↗ tonight's agenda items and as a reminder

0:32 ↗ there will also be a remote aspect to

0:34 ↗ our meetings both staff and members of

0:36 ↗ the public maybe may be participating in

0:38 ↗ tonight's meeting remotely via WebEx

0:41 ↗ so we will start this meeting off with

0:43 ↗ public comment again there will also be

0:45 ↗ public comment after the two discussion

0:47 ↗ items this evening members of the public

0:49 ↗ May address council at this time in

0:50 ↗ person or virtually those who have

0:52 ↗ signed up in advance to make comments

0:54 ↗ will be called on First and if you have

0:56 ↗ joined us virtually and would like to

0:57 ↗ make comments please raise your virtual

0:59 ↗ hand if you are on the phone please

1:00 ↗ press star 3 and if you have joined by

1:03 ↗ computer or smartphone look for the hand

1:04 ↗ icon this varies by device one option

1:07 ↗ may be to go to the participant panel

1:09 ↗ and choose the raise hand icon in the

1:11 ↗ lower right hand corner and if you are

1:13 ↗ in the room and did not sign up I will

1:14 ↗ ask for other speakers before closing

1:16 ↗ this part of the meeting so I believe we

1:18 ↗ do have members of the public who are

1:20 ↗ wishing to speak so I'll give a few more

1:21 ↗ guidelines citizen comments are an

1:23 ↗ important part of the public process we

1:24 ↗ take them seriously and Factor them into

1:26 ↗ the decisions we make please direct

1:28 ↗ comments to the whole committee and not

1:30 ↗ individuals and while this is not a

1:32 ↗ question and answer session we will

1:34 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed

1:36 ↗ please unmute your microphone which is

1:38 ↗ the button on the podium up there

1:41 ↗ um or or step up to the lectern and

1:44 ↗ please state your name address and

1:46 ↗ relationships to the city please speak

1:48 ↗ clearly and pause frequently and please

1:49 ↗ limit your comments to five minutes and

1:51 ↗ if you are attending virtually and do

1:53 ↗ not respond after your name or phone

1:54 ↗ number is called or if your connection

1:56 ↗ is lost the meeting will need to proceed

1:58 ↗ you are encouraged to rejoin the meeting

1:59 ↗ of fable

2:01 ↗ um city clerk can you please identify

2:03 ↗ the first person who has signed up to

2:05 ↗ speak

2:06 ↗ yes chair hunt the first uh person who

2:08 ↗ is signed up to speak this evening is

2:10 ↗ Eric olner

2:18 ↗ good evening and uh thank you for

2:20 ↗ permitting me to speak before the

2:22 ↗ committee uh my name is as you said is

2:24 ↗ Eric holliner uh my address is 1779

2:27 ↗ Harrison Court Northeast in the

2:30 ↗ highlands I'm a board member of the

2:33 ↗ Issaquah food and clothing bank which

2:36 ↗ partners with the city and other

2:38 ↗ community benefit organizations and

2:39 ↗ whose mission is to unite our community

2:42 ↗ in nourishing and nurturing individuals

2:45 ↗ by removing barriers to healthy food

2:48 ↗ vital resources and connections to

2:51 ↗ essential services

2:52 ↗ we've been in discussions with City

2:54 ↗ staff about how we can continue to serve

2:57 ↗ our community and support the city's

2:59 ↗ Human Services Department's strategic

3:02 ↗ plan as our community needs have grown

3:04 ↗ the Issaquah food and clothing bank has

3:06 ↗ continued operating in a facility that

3:09 ↗ is too small to accommodate the services

3:12 ↗ it currently offers and is constrained

3:15 ↗ by space from becoming the kind of

3:17 ↗ multi-resource Center that supports that

3:20 ↗ strategic plan

3:22 ↗ due to those physical constraints we've

3:24 ↗ been forced to use multiple off-site

3:26 ↗ facilities for inventory thereby

3:29 ↗ introducing operational inefficiencies

3:30 ↗ logistic issues and multiple vehicle

3:33 ↗ trips through the city all of which we

3:36 ↗ hope to significantly reduce with the

3:38 ↗ facility expansion

3:39 ↗ our space constraints limit the number

3:42 ↗ of neighbors we can serve in our Market

3:44 ↗ at any given time and often result in

3:47 ↗ long wait times currently we have no

3:49 ↗ space on site to meet privately with

3:52 ↗ individuals seeking essential and

3:55 ↗ sometimes highly personal resource

3:57 ↗ Referral Services

3:59 ↗ in addition our current facility limits

4:02 ↗ the number of programs we can run

4:04 ↗ concurrently and is not especially

4:07 ↗ welcoming to our neighbors in need our

4:09 ↗ staff or our volunteers

4:11 ↗ while it is ideally and centrally

4:13 ↗ located in the heart of downtown

4:15 ↗ Issaquah

4:16 ↗ the food bank is unable to expand to

4:19 ↗ meet these burgeoning Community needs

4:21 ↗ without some modifications to the city's

4:23 ↗ land use code

4:25 ↗ specifically its parking requirements

4:28 ↗ our facility team and its Architects

4:30 ↗ have explored numerous expansion options

4:33 ↗ and the preferred option to meet our

4:35 ↗ community's needs would require

4:37 ↗ additional parking by code

4:40 ↗ however due to its limited property size

4:42 ↗ and its essential programmatic needs

4:45 ↗ providing on-site on-site parking is is

4:48 ↗ simply not feasible

4:51 ↗ we have drafted language that would

4:53 ↗ include a parking waiver that the city

4:56 ↗ would approve only as long as we meet

4:58 ↗ very specific criteria and provide a

5:01 ↗ transportation demand management plan

5:03 ↗ that the city could approve

5:06 ↗ our request this evening is that the

5:08 ↗ city work with us to finalize that

5:11 ↗ language and hopefully incorporate the

5:13 ↗ proposed language as soon as possible

5:15 ↗ preferably as a modification to the

5:18 ↗ city's current parking regulations

5:20 ↗ rather than as part of the comprehensive

5:23 ↗ planned update and Associated parking

5:25 ↗ analysis that may not be completed until

5:28 ↗ the end of 24 2024 or later

5:32 ↗ my thanks again for the committee for

5:34 ↗ considering our request

5:37 ↗ thank you very much

5:39 ↗ city clerk is there anyone else who has

5:41 ↗ signed up to speak

5:43 ↗ yes chair hunt Aaron longchari

5:52 ↗ hi thank you committee for hearing our

5:55 ↗ public comments today I am the director

5:58 ↗ of operations and programs with the

6:00 ↗ Issaquah food and clothing bank

6:02 ↗ my personal home address is now in North

6:06 ↗ Bend but you will most often find me at

6:09 ↗ 179 First Avenue Southeast

6:12 ↗ I am here to support my colleague and

6:15 ↗ board members submission of public

6:17 ↗ comment for consideration for the

6:20 ↗ essential Human Service need we provide

6:24 ↗ the City of Issaquah and our surrounding

6:26 ↗ Community we are in unprecedented times

6:30 ↗ and we are seeing increased need across

6:33 ↗ all of our services and programs a 23

6:36 ↗ percent growth in service last year

6:39 ↗ throughout 2022 first quarter of 2023

6:44 ↗ we've already expanded Services by 38

6:48 ↗ percent we are incredibly constrained by

6:51 ↗ space we have a solid plan for how we

6:54 ↗ will go forward and meet the increasing

6:57 ↗ Social Services needs in the city and we

6:59 ↗ do hope that you'll consider our request

7:02 ↗ for a parking exemption in the code

7:05 ↗ thank you

7:08 ↗ thank you

7:11 ↗ city clerk is there anyone else who has

7:12 ↗ signed up to speak

7:14 ↗ no one else has signed up to speak okay

7:16 ↗ and anyone uh virtually we have no

7:18 ↗ virtual attendees chair hunt all right

7:20 ↗ great thank you then we will

7:23 ↗ um move into our agenda items for this

7:27 ↗ evening the first item on our agenda is

7:29 ↗ approval of the minutes these are the

7:30 ↗ minutes of the February 28th meeting

7:34 ↗ um does the committee have any comments

7:36 ↗ or Corrections

7:38 ↗ then I will move to approve the minutes

7:40 ↗ of the February 28th Meeting those in

7:43 ↗ favor say aye aye

7:45 ↗ all right that is approved and then we

7:48 ↗ have our two agenda items the first one

7:49 ↗ is id1340 public contractor code of

7:52 ↗ conduct and this will be presented by

7:54 ↗ director Moon and director Welling

8:21 ↗ we're good we know how to tag team we do

8:24 ↗ that's great well good evening Jeff

8:26 ↗ Watling parks and Community Services

8:28 ↗ director

8:29 ↗ see Emily Moon Public Works director I'm

8:32 ↗ happy to be here tonight we will be tag

8:34 ↗ teaming

8:35 ↗ um and having a little bit of fun in

8:36 ↗ this very important topic earlier this

8:39 ↗ year

8:40 ↗ um you and the rest of your council

8:42 ↗ members approved a contract contractor

8:44 ↗ code of conduct for private projects at

8:48 ↗ that time you directed Administration to

8:49 ↗ prepare

8:51 ↗ um a separate contractor code of conduct

8:54 ↗ for Pub for public projects Emily and I

8:57 ↗ have been working with

9:00 ↗ um

9:00 ↗ our staff within public works as well as

9:04 ↗ as Park department and really beginning

9:06 ↗ to look at this one of our primary goals

9:08 ↗ for that work was to be consistent in

9:12 ↗ scope and be consistent in intent and be

9:16 ↗ really consistent in format quite

9:18 ↗ frankly with the the private code of

9:20 ↗ conduct but while at the same time

9:22 ↗ recognizing the differences and

9:25 ↗ primarily really in many ways the the

9:28 ↗ different relationship we have with

9:30 ↗ contractors when it comes to public

9:31 ↗ projects they're working on our behalf

9:34 ↗ and they're working with a contract that

9:36 ↗ we already have already have in place so

9:39 ↗ we look forward to presenting this draft

9:41 ↗ to you tonight

9:43 ↗ our purpose tonight is to review that

9:47 ↗ proposed code of conduct and again as we

9:51 ↗ as we review do it outlining a number of

9:53 ↗ the differences

9:54 ↗ that we see but primarily really quite

9:59 ↗ similar to the the other code of conduct

10:01 ↗ another important point to note and our

10:04 ↗ purpose is to really outline and

10:06 ↗ reinforce the scope of this proposed

10:08 ↗ draft and that's really to describe how

10:11 ↗ contractors should carry out

10:13 ↗ construction projects while mitigating

10:16 ↗ public concerns and issues

10:19 ↗ something that I think you're going to

10:21 ↗ hear from both director Moon and I

10:23 ↗ tonight on a couple of fronts is some

10:26 ↗ really really important context to

10:27 ↗ remember and that's that the contractor

10:30 ↗ when it comes to public projects is

10:33 ↗ really playing a very focused role in

10:36 ↗ that Capital project

10:38 ↗ they're working on our behalf as I said

10:41 ↗ earlier they're doing work on behalf of

10:43 ↗ the City Public Communication for that

10:46 ↗ project really is primarily the

10:49 ↗ responsibility of the city and not

10:51 ↗ necessarily the the contractor that that

10:54 ↗ relationship for communication is is

10:57 ↗ really borne out by the city and and

10:59 ↗ something that as we've drafted this

11:02 ↗ document and worked with staff realize

11:05 ↗ we're not

11:06 ↗ um that that commitment that

11:09 ↗ responsibility to Public Communication

11:10 ↗ is not something necessarily

11:14 ↗ passed on to the contractor I bring that

11:17 ↗ up because Emily and I have both been

11:19 ↗ working fairly closely with our project

11:21 ↗ managers and our teams and in both parks

11:24 ↗ and in public works department really

11:26 ↗ fine seeking ways to better standardize

11:28 ↗ our communication plans and

11:31 ↗ communication plans when it comes to the

11:33 ↗ the full breadth of city capital

11:35 ↗ projects and recognizing all aspects of

11:38 ↗ the the capital project from planning

11:42 ↗ and concept through design and

11:45 ↗ permitting and then finally construction

11:47 ↗ and so as we're hearing tonight this

11:50 ↗ contractor code of conduct that's really

11:51 ↗ just one segment that's the construction

11:54 ↗ phase of work and so that commitment

11:57 ↗ that responsibility of Public

11:59 ↗ Communication that's again born by the

12:02 ↗ city and not necessarily the contractor

12:03 ↗ is something that

12:05 ↗ again we want to reinforce you'll hear a

12:08 ↗ time and again tonight and I think is a

12:10 ↗ really important distinction as we as we

12:13 ↗ move forward

12:15 ↗ so the direction we're seeking and

12:17 ↗ asking tonight is does the proposed code

12:21 ↗ of conduct help clarify the city's

12:22 ↗ expectation of contractors as they're

12:25 ↗ engaged in construction projects and

12:28 ↗ secondly does the committee recommend

12:30 ↗ the proposed conduct code of conduct be

12:33 ↗ placed on an upcoming city council

12:35 ↗ meeting

12:36 ↗ with that I'm going to tag team to Emily

12:40 ↗ to talk background

12:47 ↗ right this is just a quick refresher on

12:50 ↗ where we've come from and where we are

12:52 ↗ tonight

12:54 ↗ in October as director Watling said you

12:57 ↗ had a initial conversation

12:59 ↗ an overview of current practices

13:02 ↗ particularly in the community Planning

13:04 ↗ Development Department about how they go

13:07 ↗ about construction contractor oversight

13:11 ↗ and at that meeting you gave direction

13:13 ↗ to staff to pursue the drafting of a

13:17 ↗ code of conduct and also directed staff

13:21 ↗ to seek additional input on that code

13:25 ↗ then in January you held that meeting in

13:29 ↗ part to gather that public input and to

13:33 ↗ review a draft code

13:35 ↗ we have used that same input all of the

13:39 ↗ conversations that you have received via

13:42 ↗ email or doing during meetings to inform

13:45 ↗ this draft

13:47 ↗ in January you also directed staff to

13:51 ↗ return in April with a public projects

13:55 ↗ contractors code of conduct

13:58 ↗ and then that code of conduct for

14:00 ↗ private contractors was adopted in March

14:04 ↗ in between all of those actions as

14:08 ↗ director Watling and I have mentioned we

14:11 ↗ were working with our staff to talk

14:14 ↗ about what was moving forward with the

14:16 ↗ private code of conduct and the public

14:18 ↗ contractors potential code of conduct

14:21 ↗ and we had various meetings with staff

14:23 ↗ the City attorney City Administration to

14:26 ↗ try to talk about

14:28 ↗ what was bringing what was inherent in

14:32 ↗ those codes what was being covered

14:34 ↗ elsewhere what are the changes that we

14:37 ↗ might need to make to be responsive to

14:39 ↗ the differences that we'll discuss

14:41 ↗ tonight with public projects

14:44 ↗ foreign

14:45 ↗ so the proposal for the public code of

14:48 ↗ conduct as I said grew out of that

14:50 ↗ January committee meeting and the code

14:53 ↗ that is in your packet this evening

14:54 ↗ recognizes the differences between

14:56 ↗ public and private projects and the

14:59 ↗ different role as director wildling

15:01 ↗ mentioned that the city plays on public

15:04 ↗ projects

15:06 ↗ and these are just some examples of how

15:08 ↗ we see

15:10 ↗ that role being a little bit different

15:12 ↗ but also the the reasons for why a

15:15 ↗ separate code was desired

15:20 ↗ a developer private developer private

15:22 ↗ property owner has the ability to choose

15:25 ↗ their favorite contractor

15:27 ↗ we don't we don't so that's one

15:29 ↗ important difference that we Face

15:31 ↗ also the city is the property owner and

15:35 ↗ we are a direct agent of the Public's

15:38 ↗ interest the developer doesn't

15:39 ↗ necessarily have to

15:42 ↗ um

15:43 ↗ pay attention to all the same public

15:46 ↗ interests as we do and they aren't

15:48 ↗ necessarily the property owner

15:53 ↗ City also as director Watling said has a

15:56 ↗ start to finish role with this with a

16:00 ↗ public project and becomes the owner of

16:02 ↗ that asset in the end so our

16:04 ↗ relationship continues with the project

16:07 ↗ and then lastly the variety the location

16:11 ↗ all of our projects are extremely

16:13 ↗ diverse and and that really led to how

16:16 ↗ we are shaping this public contractors

16:19 ↗ code of conduct our work is not confined

16:22 ↗ typically to a single uh public or

16:26 ↗ private parcel and often is taking place

16:29 ↗ in the public right-of-way which is is

16:33 ↗ messy it's odd shaped at times for

16:35 ↗ example

16:40 ↗ this is a really long laundry list but

16:42 ↗ sort of speaks to the role that we play

16:45 ↗ from beginning to the end on a project

16:48 ↗ and how that role is different on public

16:50 ↗ versus private projects

16:53 ↗ this exemplifies the way in which we

16:55 ↗ direct and facilitate the execution of

16:58 ↗ those public projects and the roles and

17:01 ↗ responsibilities that we have

17:04 ↗ those roles and responsibilities also

17:06 ↗ give us great opportunities to shape

17:08 ↗ projects and to express the expectations

17:11 ↗ of the contract for the contractor and

17:14 ↗ the requirements of the contractor

17:17 ↗ it also gives us the ability to help

17:20 ↗ shape public engagement on a project the

17:23 ↗ interaction of the public with the

17:25 ↗ project and Public's knowledge of

17:28 ↗ aspects of the project

17:33 ↗ these are just a few examples of the

17:35 ↗ formal ways in which we communicate

17:38 ↗ expectations of contractors there are

17:41 ↗ bits and pieces in all of these various

17:44 ↗ codes and contracts and standards that

17:47 ↗ we apply when we bid jobs and when we

17:49 ↗ enter into agreements with the

17:51 ↗ contractor so just wanted to mention we

17:53 ↗ have a lot of formalized tools that

17:56 ↗ govern the behavior and the way in which

17:59 ↗ contractors carry out our projects

18:04 ↗ uh Community Planning and Development

18:06 ↗ reviewed some of their practices for

18:09 ↗ sitting down with contractors ahead of

18:12 ↗ construction and walking through these

18:15 ↗ sorts of elements we on the public side

18:19 ↗ public project side do very much the

18:22 ↗ same sort of thing we sit down with

18:24 ↗ contractors and really make sure they

18:26 ↗ have Clarity on the rules that are

18:28 ↗ governed governing how they work on the

18:31 ↗ project

18:34 ↗ our pre-construction meetings are very

18:37 ↗ thorough there's a lot of documents that

18:39 ↗ change hands but that's only one of the

18:42 ↗ ways that we communicate those

18:43 ↗ expectations

18:45 ↗ those documents and meetings typically

18:48 ↗ go over topics like approved

18:51 ↗ construction hours Environmental

18:53 ↗ Protection measures utility impacts

18:56 ↗ public relations and communication

18:58 ↗ traffic control and pedestrian safety

19:01 ↗ and a whole lot more

19:06 ↗ as the project owner and the regulator

19:09 ↗ on the project we also have the ability

19:12 ↗ to take significant steps and to ensure

19:15 ↗ accountability to City standards and

19:17 ↗ expectations

19:19 ↗ the proposed code of conduct in your

19:21 ↗ packet tonight is another tool

19:24 ↗ and it's another one that we can use to

19:26 ↗ reinforce the primary objective that we

19:29 ↗ all have that contractors be good

19:31 ↗ neighbors

19:32 ↗ Additionally the code of conduct

19:34 ↗ highlights succinctly in one place

19:37 ↗ some of these expectations for the

19:40 ↗ public Zone consumption so that the

19:43 ↗ public has a way to see those

19:45 ↗ expectations that's a little bit more

19:47 ↗ visible and a little bit more

19:49 ↗ accessible perhaps than all those other

19:52 ↗ tools that I showed you on previous

19:54 ↗ slides

19:56 ↗ foreign

20:00 ↗ so I spoke about how our public projects

20:02 ↗ are really varied and there was a big

20:04 ↗ list to help describe how varied those

20:08 ↗ projects are and some examples of

20:10 ↗ projects in your packet but they do vary

20:13 ↗ in terms of the size and the location

20:15 ↗ the visibility and their impact

20:19 ↗ and

20:21 ↗ one very important variable of

20:25 ↗ difference I think is where those

20:28 ↗ projects are taking place by Nature they

20:31 ↗ are on public property they're in the

20:32 ↗ public right-of-way and as such

20:35 ↗ we have an impact every time we do a

20:38 ↗ public project

20:40 ↗ in addition there are different rules

20:42 ↗ just one by way of example is our hours

20:47 ↗ of operation hours of construction can

20:49 ↗ vary more for public projects

20:51 ↗ particularly if those are emergency or

20:55 ↗ maintenance activities so that's an

20:57 ↗ important difference and again that

20:59 ↗ relates to where projects are typically

21:01 ↗ taking place when they're public

21:02 ↗ projects

21:04 ↗ so as we drafted the public projects

21:07 ↗ contractors code of conduct we wanted to

21:10 ↗ ensure that it would work for all

21:13 ↗ contractors engaged on our construction

21:15 ↗ projects no matter how varied and

21:18 ↗ diverse those projects are

21:22 ↗ thank you

21:24 ↗ so these are the main ways that the

21:27 ↗ public contractors code of conduct

21:29 ↗ differs from the private code

21:32 ↗ and I'm just going to quickly review

21:34 ↗ those codes are very very similar we use

21:38 ↗ the private code as the basis for

21:40 ↗ drafting the public code

21:43 ↗ so one difference is we have very

21:44 ↗ specific language about work hours just

21:47 ↗ to be clear about those requirements

21:51 ↗ we've also adjusted the language

21:52 ↗ regarding idling as some equipment

21:55 ↗ that's used in construction such as a

21:57 ↗ paver

21:59 ↗ requires idling in order to function in

22:02 ↗ addition others like our jet trucks idle

22:06 ↗ as they are running

22:09 ↗ we also clarified that protecting the

22:13 ↗ size the site and signing the site to

22:16 ↗ discourage dumping and trespassing we

22:19 ↗ modified the language in that provision

22:22 ↗ we also wanted to make sure that

22:25 ↗ communication plans and Outreach plans

22:27 ↗ would be tailored to fit every public

22:29 ↗ project and so we wanted to make sure

22:32 ↗ this Clause was responsive to the

22:33 ↗ diverse needs of the community for each

22:36 ↗ project and the diversity of the

22:38 ↗ projects themselves

22:40 ↗ and I wanted to say just a little word

22:42 ↗ about that one of the things we talk

22:45 ↗ about a lot is being context sensitive

22:48 ↗ and our communication team works very

22:51 ↗ closely with our project managers and

22:54 ↗ they have found that having those sorts

22:57 ↗ of tailored plans are more more

23:00 ↗ effective for residents to understand

23:03 ↗ what's happening and to access

23:05 ↗ information about projects and that the

23:08 ↗ communication plans also have to be

23:10 ↗ nimble enough to be dynamic over time as

23:13 ↗ things change with the project or as we

23:16 ↗ realize there are additional interests

23:18 ↗ that we need to attend to on the project

23:24 ↗ so our communication team and project

23:26 ↗ managers think very deeply about who is

23:30 ↗ going to be affected by the project when

23:32 ↗ and how and how to best reach them with

23:35 ↗ the right amount of information

23:38 ↗ we believe that poorly designed tools

23:40 ↗ and plans don't meet the public needs

23:43 ↗ and so we worked hard we work hard and

23:45 ↗ are continuing to work hard putting a

23:48 ↗ lot of effort into improving our

23:50 ↗ communication plans standardizing our

23:53 ↗ approach in that we are requiring every

23:57 ↗ project have a communication and

24:00 ↗ Outreach plan

24:01 ↗ that is responsive to the nature of that

24:04 ↗ particular project

24:07 ↗ we also modified the language regarding

24:09 ↗ access as the nature of the work in the

24:12 ↗ public right-of-way often means we may

24:16 ↗ affect the public we may affect driveway

24:18 ↗ access as we are repaving a cul-de-sac

24:22 ↗ for example and we sometimes affect

24:25 ↗ emergency vehicle routes we work very

24:28 ↗ closely with Public Safety to make sure

24:32 ↗ they know what's happening when and to

24:35 ↗ work with them on any detours or Mutual

24:38 ↗ aid needs they may have

24:40 ↗ lastly we also clarified the requirement

24:43 ↗ for temporary pedestrian facilities

24:45 ↗ again to be in sync with

24:49 ↗ federal state and local codes

24:56 ↗ so lastly we've made a different

24:58 ↗ recommendation on implementation the as

25:01 ↗ you know in March the private

25:03 ↗ contractors code of conduct was

25:07 ↗ inserted into our Issa municipal code

25:10 ↗ and we've had conversations with City

25:14 ↗ attorney about the way in which we could

25:17 ↗ minimize any chance of confusion over

25:20 ↗ which code applies and also have the

25:24 ↗ right level of control over contractors

25:26 ↗ and the right way of communicating

25:29 ↗ expectations to contractors and so we

25:32 ↗ have recommended that we include this

25:35 ↗ code of conduct as an appendix to the

25:37 ↗ contract they have to enter into the

25:40 ↗ contract they have to acknowledge that

25:43 ↗ they will abide by all conditions in the

25:45 ↗ contract this would be another condition

25:48 ↗ then we would review the code with them

25:51 ↗ at the pre-construction meeting

25:53 ↗ what's not on the slide is a bunch of

25:56 ↗ other work we would certainly train our

25:58 ↗ staff on the code of conduct in

26:00 ↗ particular we have a public project

26:03 ↗ inspectors that one of their primary

26:06 ↗ duties is to follow up on the conditions

26:09 ↗ of the contract

26:10 ↗ and we'd also take steps to develop

26:14 ↗ those project communication plans as

26:16 ↗ I've spoken about and to ensure that the

26:19 ↗ code gets placed into our future bid

26:22 ↗ documents and our bid Awards we're at a

26:25 ↗ spot now where we also need to go back

26:27 ↗ after the code is adopted and have

26:29 ↗ conversations with contractors that we

26:32 ↗ have already entered into agreements

26:34 ↗ with and who may have projects underway

26:36 ↗ and make them aware of it and we intend

26:39 ↗ to do that

26:44 ↗ oh this is me sorry

26:47 ↗ all right we gave you we gave you three

26:50 ↗ options the first option is

26:55 ↗ to of course review this give us your

26:58 ↗ input if you are satisfied with it or

27:01 ↗ with some minor changes direct us to

27:04 ↗ bring it back on consent second option

27:08 ↗ is to have it under regular business if

27:11 ↗ you'd like to discuss it with your

27:12 ↗ colleagues and then the third is of

27:15 ↗ course to ask us to go and make more

27:18 ↗ significant changes and come back to you

27:20 ↗ in a future meeting of this committee

27:26 ↗ Okay so

27:28 ↗ sorry

27:29 ↗ Administration would like to recommend

27:31 ↗ that you do provide us with that

27:34 ↗ feedback and that we place this on

27:37 ↗ consent agenda we're eager to get it

27:41 ↗ underway as soon as possible we do have

27:43 ↗ a busy construction season coming up and

27:46 ↗ we'd like to focus on getting the

27:49 ↗ contractors well informed and those

27:51 ↗ projects off to a good start

28:01 ↗ of the tag team uh so we look forward to

28:05 ↗ discussion and and your feedback tonight

28:07 ↗ uh timing next steps depending on your

28:09 ↗ input uh we'll be prepared to uh bring

28:13 ↗ this code of conduct for a future uh

28:15 ↗ council meeting

28:22 ↗ and Direction needed

28:24 ↗ um

28:25 ↗ as I said earlier in the introduction

28:27 ↗ does the proposed code of conduct

28:30 ↗ help to clarify the city's expectation

28:32 ↗ of contractors engaged in City

28:35 ↗ Construction activity and do you

28:38 ↗ recommend the proposed code of conduct

28:40 ↗ to be placed on an upcoming council

28:42 ↗ meeting with that welcome discussion

28:45 ↗ thank you okay so we will go into

28:47 ↗ questions and then we will have public

28:49 ↗ comment on this item so questions

28:51 ↗ council president Walsh thank you

28:54 ↗ um so there are many different agencies

28:57 ↗ obviously that are involved in projects

29:00 ↗ that may be within City Limits an

29:03 ↗ example might be washed out who is

29:05 ↗ looking to do Culvert projects

29:08 ↗ um

29:09 ↗ their projects obviously wouldn't go

29:13 ↗ through our contract process which is

29:15 ↗ how you're proposing that this

29:17 ↗ contractor could have conduct

29:19 ↗ becomes involved and part of the

29:22 ↗ requirement so what is how how would

29:26 ↗ that work for other agencies or other

29:30 ↗ groups projects that are essentially

29:32 ↗ public projects but

29:34 ↗ not directly through the city

29:40 ↗ so as you stated I believe this code of

29:44 ↗ conduct wouldn't apply that doesn't

29:46 ↗ necessarily mean that we aren't of

29:48 ↗ course having the same kinds of

29:50 ↗ conversations with those agencies as

29:52 ↗ they engage in our community

29:57 ↗ it depends on the project

29:59 ↗ as you heard about the fish Culvert

30:01 ↗ project they are not going through local

30:04 ↗ permitting by and large and so there are

30:09 ↗ perhaps fewer opportunities to have

30:11 ↗ conversations that would result in

30:13 ↗ conditions on those permits but other

30:16 ↗ projects go through our local permitting

30:18 ↗ that becomes an Avenue for us we

30:23 ↗ typically have planning meetings with

30:25 ↗ those agencies to talk about their

30:27 ↗ projects and we cover a lot of this same

30:28 ↗ ground

30:30 ↗ expectation on truck routes and hours of

30:35 ↗ operation and things like that but

30:38 ↗ for many aspects it's not necessarily

30:42 ↗ our code particularly when we're talking

30:43 ↗ about the state that applies it's it's

30:46 ↗ their own rules for their contractors

30:48 ↗ that typically apply

30:50 ↗ okay let me follow up on that because I

30:52 ↗ think that answers most of my question

30:54 ↗ but then you said that a project could

30:58 ↗ be from an outside agency that has to

31:01 ↗ get a permit in the city which is where

31:03 ↗ you're kind of covering those Concepts

31:05 ↗ But ultimately this

31:10 ↗ um ordinance was kind of talking about

31:12 ↗ how the the contract would be the method

31:16 ↗ of dispersal so in those cases there

31:20 ↗ isn't a contract but there is a permit

31:22 ↗ are you proposing that the contractor

31:25 ↗ code of conduct would be added as a part

31:29 ↗ of that permit no I'm not I I think that

31:33 ↗ would be counter to

31:35 ↗ run the risk of being counter to the

31:38 ↗ expectations that that particular agency

31:40 ↗ has of its own contractor we haven't

31:42 ↗ engaged in those conversations with

31:44 ↗ those other entities but I I think

31:47 ↗ that's a difficult path we were very

31:49 ↗ much focused on what we have the ability

31:52 ↗ to control and that's our contractors

32:00 ↗ City administrator yeah

32:02 ↗ um thank you madam chair members of the

32:04 ↗ committee uh probably makes sense for us

32:06 ↗ to refer to this fear24 as the city

32:08 ↗ public contact or code of conduct

32:11 ↗ because I think we do not as director

32:13 ↗ Moon said we don't want to set any false

32:15 ↗ expectations that we have control over

32:17 ↗ other entities uh we're so fortunate to

32:19 ↗ have director dollywall also here and

32:21 ↗ maybe I can phone a friend and ask a

32:23 ↗ quick question of director daliwal

32:25 ↗ those public entities that are not

32:28 ↗ exempt from our land use would still get

32:30 ↗ a building permit correct

32:33 ↗ so the state is exempt from our

32:40 ↗ good evening council members and um

32:43 ↗ City administrator to answer your

32:45 ↗ question it really depends on the

32:47 ↗ project okay so a building permit

32:50 ↗ usually is very explicit whether you're

32:52 ↗ you need one or you don't

32:54 ↗ um typically work in the right-of-way is

32:57 ↗ generally exemptions there's broad

32:59 ↗ exemptions for doing work within the

33:01 ↗ right-of-way the Culvert project you

33:04 ↗ know those specially created exemption

33:06 ↗ under the state law for those kind of

33:08 ↗ projects

33:09 ↗ other public agencies that might do work

33:12 ↗ in the city it seems to be the missing

33:15 ↗ Gap here if they don't need a permit or

33:17 ↗ they're not this code isn't subject to

33:19 ↗ them is I think what you're asking

33:21 ↗ councilman members so I I think the

33:24 ↗ challenge is for those public agencies

33:26 ↗ who are doing projects in the city that

33:28 ↗ do not require a local permit we would

33:31 ↗ have no mechanism and nothing that we

33:33 ↗ would do here tonight would be a

33:35 ↗ mechanism we can share it with them

33:37 ↗ encourage it as a best practice but we

33:40 ↗ wouldn't have that because I would

33:41 ↗ imagine the Lion's Share a public the

33:43 ↗ projects that are not cities projects

33:45 ↗ are in the right of way and so those

33:47 ↗ would have exemptions

33:49 ↗ um you know we could think of other

33:51 ↗ issues there are school projects for

33:54 ↗ example those are usually would require

33:56 ↗ a land use permit and ability so we

33:58 ↗ would catch them because that would be

34:00 ↗ on their property if there was a state

34:02 ↗ or federal agency building a building

34:04 ↗ and I can't even I guess the fish

34:06 ↗ hatchery for example is a state facility

34:08 ↗ so they would need a building permit if

34:11 ↗ they were doing a renovation

34:13 ↗ off the top of my head that's probably

34:14 ↗ the biggest structural non-city

34:17 ↗ non-school District property so we could

34:20 ↗ commit certainly to sharing this city

34:24 ↗ public project contractor code of

34:26 ↗ conduct with those agencies and

34:28 ↗ encourage them

34:29 ↗ um and do our best in that regard okay

34:31 ↗ yeah I was just wondering what the

34:33 ↗ relationship was so I appreciate the

34:35 ↗ clarification

34:40 ↗ city council president huh unless you

34:42 ↗ wanted to go first happy president Hall

34:44 ↗ go ahead okay thanks

34:46 ↗ um thank you very much so is this

34:48 ↗ anticipated to be adopted as an

34:50 ↗ ordinance before Council no so this is

34:53 ↗ more Council just providing feedback

34:56 ↗ to the administration for them to have

34:58 ↗ language in the Contracting process

35:00 ↗ correct and

35:02 ↗ we're going to suggest that it be

35:06 ↗ adopted blessed by way of emotion and

35:10 ↗ that motion will direct us to start to

35:13 ↗ apply the code of conduct

35:17 ↗ implement it as an attachment of a

35:19 ↗ contract

35:20 ↗ what I'm trying what I'm one of the

35:22 ↗ things that I'll talk about in comments

35:24 ↗ too is I'm trying to kind of think of

35:26 ↗ the rationale in terms of how

35:28 ↗ and why this is the role of counsel so

35:32 ↗ um

35:32 ↗ will this live like somewhere that we're

35:35 ↗ adopting like will this be in code or is

35:38 ↗ this just something you'd like kind of

35:39 ↗ blessing from Council that then staff

35:42 ↗ has

35:43 ↗ something they can hang their hat on you

35:45 ↗ yes the the latter okay

35:47 ↗ okay thank you and then my other

35:49 ↗ question is

35:51 ↗ um

35:53 ↗ if we have kind of a list of kind of

35:55 ↗ common problems that have arose that

35:58 ↗ we've documented from the community

35:59 ↗ Through c-cliff C click fix it whatever

36:02 ↗ it's called

36:04 ↗ um or any other mechanism that kind of

36:06 ↗ brought about us thinking about this so

36:08 ↗ I joined the committee I think the

36:09 ↗ meeting right after this was directed so

36:11 ↗ I'm still playing a little bit of

36:12 ↗ ketchup so trying to identify specific

36:14 ↗ like what specifically are the problems

36:16 ↗ that we're trying to solve so that way

36:17 ↗ then we can hold up this and with the

36:20 ↗ problems and say okay well this this

36:22 ↗ fits that need so do we have like some

36:24 ↗ sort of document or do you have a good

36:27 ↗ summary of kind of some of the problems

36:28 ↗ that are common that would be fixed with

36:30 ↗ this

36:32 ↗ I think we we have a good sense

36:35 ↗ there's a there's a pattern uh that's

36:39 ↗ what

36:41 ↗ director Watling and I are focused on it

36:45 ↗ often in my department has to do with

36:49 ↗ issues of traffic control

36:53 ↗ I think we

36:55 ↗ that information is getting to us

36:58 ↗ you know what are the issues and

37:00 ↗ concerns it comes to us from our own

37:03 ↗ conversations with community members it

37:06 ↗ comes via emails sent to you with copies

37:08 ↗ to us it it comes to us through C click

37:12 ↗ fix as you suggested

37:15 ↗ so I think we're getting that

37:16 ↗ information and furthermore we are

37:20 ↗ having conversations with our staff

37:21 ↗ about it we're making sure that

37:24 ↗ um

37:24 ↗ I as a new Department director have sat

37:27 ↗ down several times with my team over the

37:30 ↗ last few months to say

37:32 ↗ here here's where I hear we're not doing

37:35 ↗ well

37:36 ↗ let's talk about how we can get better

37:38 ↗ and then we are in the process right now

37:41 ↗ of shaping up all those tools and

37:43 ↗ practices in order to

37:46 ↗ execute better in the future so I do

37:49 ↗ think I do think we know

37:53 ↗ yeah if I if I could add to that you

37:55 ↗ know what we see as as sort of typical

37:57 ↗ c-click fix issues within Park and trail

38:00 ↗ projects

38:01 ↗ obviously those are happening off right

38:03 ↗ away

38:04 ↗ um our you know contractors either

38:06 ↗ especially if a contractor is working in

38:08 ↗ a specific area in a park they're not

38:10 ↗ securing that specific area of the park

38:13 ↗ or we're seeing maybe construction

38:16 ↗ litter falling on into other areas of

38:19 ↗ the park

38:20 ↗ I think to also emphasize what Emily

38:22 ↗ said you know the nice thing about

38:25 ↗ um

38:25 ↗ the contractual relations we already

38:28 ↗ have with these contractors we're

38:29 ↗ meeting with them weekly so as we're as

38:31 ↗ we're hearing those issues we're the

38:33 ↗ next weekly

38:35 ↗ um construction meeting that's being

38:38 ↗ addressed and being talked about if not

38:40 ↗ that's that same day so there's that

38:42 ↗ instant ability to follow up

38:45 ↗ um and then also to emphasize Emily's

38:47 ↗ point when it comes to as I was saying

38:49 ↗ in the introduction the the public

38:51 ↗ Outreach and communication side of

38:52 ↗ things that again is more our

38:54 ↗ responsibility unless the contractors we

38:57 ↗ too in parks are continuing to learn and

38:59 ↗ continuing to look at how we improve

39:02 ↗ that process and look forward to having

39:05 ↗ as I said in the intro a communication

39:08 ↗ plan that not just not only Bridges

39:10 ↗ construction phase of a project but

39:12 ↗ construction

39:15 ↗ addresses How We Do public Outreach on

39:17 ↗ the planning and visioning side of a

39:19 ↗ park project all the way through design

39:21 ↗ and permitting until once we're finally

39:23 ↗ constructing it

39:29 ↗ and just to put a finer point on it um

39:31 ↗ when I was hired a city administrator in

39:33 ↗ 2019 council member Chris Ray said my

39:36 ↗ number one complaint is how contractors

39:37 ↗ behave and many of you know that

39:40 ↗ councilmember Ray lives in Dallas so

39:42 ↗ there was a lot of issues going around

39:44 ↗ near there so that is how that got on

39:46 ↗ our work plan and then we had a pandemic

39:49 ↗ and time has passed and so that is why

39:52 ↗ now it's before the Council on the

39:54 ↗ committee but that was the it's not

39:55 ↗ because we've gotten this large

39:58 ↗ Avalanche of complaints that have caused

40:01 ↗ us to do this I think councilmember

40:03 ↗ Ray's point was there was a particular

40:06 ↗ project in a residential neighborhood

40:07 ↗ that was causing a lot of grief and the

40:10 ↗ he felt the city needed more tools so

40:13 ↗ that was what brought us here when it

40:15 ↗ was first presented to the council the

40:17 ↗ administration's recommendation was to

40:19 ↗ bifurcate public projects versus private

40:22 ↗ projects the committee agreed the

40:24 ↗ private project code went first and then

40:26 ↗ we've had a addition some additional

40:28 ↗ time to look at as you've heard this

40:29 ↗ evening some of the the changes but this

40:32 ↗ is not because there was a huge public

40:34 ↗ outcry that things were broken but

40:37 ↗ council member Ray and I think council

40:39 ↗ member hunt who also lives in that

40:41 ↗ General vicinity I think it heard from

40:43 ↗ Neighbors as well that we just needed

40:45 ↗ better tools and so that's why we're

40:47 ↗ here this evening

40:52 ↗ me

40:53 ↗ okay

40:54 ↗ um I have a couple of questions the

40:56 ↗ first one is the changes to the idling

40:59 ↗ Clause are were explained earlier it

41:03 ↗ seems I mean couldn't those same

41:05 ↗ machines be used by a private contractor

41:09 ↗ yes

41:11 ↗ um so second question would be

41:14 ↗ um uh sort of similar so there's this

41:18 ↗ change to Temporary walkways will be

41:20 ↗ clearly marked and clear of obstacles

41:23 ↗ um then in the that's in the private

41:27 ↗ version in the public contractor version

41:30 ↗ it says temporary pedestrian facilities

41:32 ↗ within the work Zone must meet the

41:34 ↗ accessibility criteria of the wash dot

41:36 ↗ design manual chapter 1510 to the

41:38 ↗ maximum extents feasible

41:40 ↗ I guess I'm just one it seems much

41:43 ↗ clearer and so I'm wondering why why

41:47 ↗ make it why that change in wording

41:51 ↗ um and why it wouldn't apply that we

41:53 ↗ should have the

41:55 ↗ walkways be clearly marked and clear of

41:57 ↗ obstacles

42:02 ↗ so we've provided this same sort of

42:04 ↗ input when the private code went forward

42:06 ↗ we believe that the language that's in

42:09 ↗ the city public contractors code of

42:11 ↗ conduct actually is more specific even

42:14 ↗ though maybe on face value it doesn't

42:17 ↗ appear to be there are many more

42:20 ↗ requirements in terms of temporary

42:23 ↗ pedestrian facilities and we hold our

42:26 ↗ contractors accountable to all of those

42:28 ↗ requirements they also vary depending on

42:33 ↗ aspects of the project

42:35 ↗ but that's the code that applies and

42:38 ↗ it's more than just keeping things

42:41 ↗ bringing clear

42:45 ↗ okay

42:47 ↗ um but it does it's more but it also

42:49 ↗ includes free and clear current signed

42:52 ↗ okay

42:53 ↗ um

42:54 ↗ uh you mentioned that this was run by

42:56 ↗ the City attorney and is it an option to

43:00 ↗ is it a um recommended against putting

43:04 ↗ it into the city code or was

43:07 ↗ what were the thoughts and maybe this is

43:09 ↗ a question for the City attorney but

43:10 ↗ that was my

43:12 ↗ question would it be legal to do that

43:15 ↗ legal yes it was

43:17 ↗ not recommended

43:21 ↗ because it was concerned that it would

43:22 ↗ create confusion there are enough

43:26 ↗ differences in the code aspects that

43:29 ↗ relate in the Issaquah Municipal Code

43:32 ↗ that relate only to private construction

43:34 ↗ we also have the difference of what's a

43:38 ↗ maintenance and emergency activity and

43:41 ↗ so it was her recommendation that we not

43:45 ↗ create that confusion and potential for

43:47 ↗ conflict

43:49 ↗ okay

43:51 ↗ um

43:53 ↗ so the main reason that is confusion

43:56 ↗ with with having two codes in the code

44:00 ↗ sure because there are differences with

44:04 ↗ those different types of construction

44:05 ↗ like activities okay

44:09 ↗ um one other thing that we discussed

44:10 ↗ with the private code of conduct was

44:14 ↗ enforcement would enforcement be

44:17 ↗ different with this because the

44:19 ↗ mechanism is different it's now a

44:21 ↗ contract or an attachment to a contract

44:23 ↗ versus a code

44:28 ↗ all right

44:31 ↗ likely different in that again you know

44:34 ↗ our first our first course of action for

44:37 ↗ for

44:38 ↗ um enforcement is the Construction

44:40 ↗ contract we have with with them they're

44:43 ↗ working on our behalf and so

44:45 ↗ um whereas a private contractor we don't

44:48 ↗ have that Direct

44:49 ↗ Construction contract so that gives us a

44:53 ↗ little bit more of enforcement ability

44:55 ↗ uh than

44:57 ↗ um than private but at the same time you

44:59 ↗ know code enforcement code actions a

45:01 ↗ number of those things are just as

45:04 ↗ applicable to to public projects as

45:06 ↗ private projects

45:12 ↗ so it but it would be enforced in a

45:14 ↗ different way because it wouldn't it

45:15 ↗ would probably

45:17 ↗ you would first go to the contract and

45:21 ↗ work it out maybe perhaps right it

45:24 ↗ depends I mean there are certainly been

45:26 ↗ instances where there's been code a code

45:29 ↗ enforcement done on on a on us on a

45:31 ↗ public project so I wouldn't say it's

45:34 ↗ always different

45:35 ↗ we just have there's some additional

45:38 ↗ mechanisms for enforcement

45:41 ↗ we paid the bills yeah so if there's a

45:45 ↗ problem in a construction site usually

45:46 ↗ when whoever the owner's representative

45:48 ↗ is says cut it out they generally do

45:50 ↗ because they know we pay the bills yeah

45:53 ↗ um

45:55 ↗ so if if there were a part of this that

45:57 ↗ was not in the code though that because

46:00 ↗ some of this is also already in the code

46:02 ↗ I believe as a requirement so it just

46:05 ↗ sort of puts it in one place but if

46:06 ↗ there were something that weren't in the

46:07 ↗ code that was in this attachment to the

46:10 ↗ contract then it would not be

46:12 ↗ enforceable by code enforcement because

46:15 ↗ it's not in the code so that's I guess

46:17 ↗ what I'm getting at there seems to be

46:18 ↗ there is a difference because of that

46:22 ↗ it's better

46:24 ↗ because again we have the checkbook

46:26 ↗ so we have more likelihood to have the

46:29 ↗ project manager enforce this because we

46:31 ↗ can simply say we will not approve your

46:33 ↗ progress payment

46:35 ↗ that's lots more than saying code

46:37 ↗ enforcement is going to come and write

46:38 ↗ you a ticket and give you 30 days to

46:40 ↗ cure it most of the things in both of

46:43 ↗ these codes are not so significant that

46:45 ↗ we would have a stop work order on this

46:48 ↗ so I think as you've heard from both

46:50 ↗ director Watling and director of moon

46:51 ↗ tonight there's a lot more force in a

46:55 ↗ city public project code simply by

46:56 ↗ attaching this to the contract one other

46:58 ↗ comment I wanted to make we've talked

47:00 ↗ about having this adopted by minute

47:02 ↗ order you could also have it adopted by

47:04 ↗ resolution and so if it's adoptable

47:06 ↗ resolution then it is

47:09 ↗ depending on how geeky you want to get

47:10 ↗ about city council actions

47:13 ↗ resolutions are kept in order I think

47:17 ↗ Chris appear on the website can easily

47:20 ↗ be found by a resolution if it's

47:23 ↗ something's adopted by a minute order it

47:25 ↗ lives in a city council agenda packet

47:27 ↗ and so if you're concerned about making

47:30 ↗ sure it doesn't get forgotten you could

47:32 ↗ do that we could talk about non-codified

47:35 ↗ ordinances but the city clerk would

47:37 ↗ probably come from home and and be very

47:40 ↗ upset with me but I think if you're

47:42 ↗ looking for something more substantial

47:43 ↗ than amended order I think a resolution

47:45 ↗ might be something you might want to

47:46 ↗ consider thank you okay thank you

47:49 ↗ do we have any oh yes go ahead

47:51 ↗ um just following up on that cool

47:52 ↗ question because I think my concern is

47:54 ↗ actually the opposite that way we might

47:56 ↗ be structuring it too much because I

47:58 ↗ guess when I think about the roles and

47:59 ↗ responsibilities of the administrative

48:01 ↗ body and Council we approve the contract

48:04 ↗ but the writing and the signing and the

48:07 ↗ management of contract comes from the

48:08 ↗ administration in the mayor so what are

48:12 ↗ you deal or do we have any concerns that

48:15 ↗ you know this if we were to adopt it in

48:18 ↗ a way that is more structured like a

48:19 ↗ resolution that we'd be tying the hands

48:21 ↗ of future administrations in a way

48:23 ↗ that's not really in accordance with the

48:25 ↗ role of our two bodies well the

48:28 ↗ council's adoption of any

48:31 ↗ any policy item

48:33 ↗ is equal they carry larger force uh with

48:38 ↗ a resolution in that you know generally

48:41 ↗ speaking it's something that's

48:42 ↗ separately written it's separately

48:43 ↗ numbered but by force I think again to

48:47 ↗ show would correct me if I'm wrong here

48:49 ↗ has the same weight you get to an

48:52 ↗ ordinance that's the next level uh

48:55 ↗ beyond that and unless there's some

48:58 ↗ penalty included in there than the

49:01 ↗ weight would be equal on the ordinance

49:03 ↗ side as well so um I don't think it's

49:05 ↗ tying hands I mean we're coming here I

49:07 ↗ think the administration agrees that

49:10 ↗ these are important issues that we want

49:12 ↗ to be part of you approve contracts so

49:15 ↗ you're already approving what would be

49:16 ↗ included anyway so if there were changes

49:20 ↗ over time I think we would just come to

49:21 ↗ you as we would with the private

49:23 ↗ contractor code because I think we're

49:24 ↗ going to have to live with both of these

49:26 ↗ and likely we would have to come back

49:29 ↗ with changes over time

49:36 ↗ no more questions all right so then we

49:38 ↗ will take public comment on this item at

49:41 ↗ this time I'll check in with the city

49:43 ↗ clerk if there's anybody who has

49:44 ↗ indicated a desire to speak on this item

49:50 ↗ chair hunt no one has uh indicated a

49:53 ↗ desire to speak to this in the room and

49:55 ↗ we have no virtual attendees at this

49:57 ↗ time okay

49:59 ↗ and the members of the public that are

50:01 ↗ here are not looking to speak on this

50:02 ↗ item either so thank you okay then we

50:05 ↗ will go to uh discussion who wants to

50:07 ↗ start us off on discussion on this item

50:13 ↗ Council Deputy president Hall

50:16 ↗ um sure thank you so much

50:18 ↗ um for the presentation and for the work

50:20 ↗ um

50:22 ↗ I don't know I feel like my comments

50:23 ↗ will will be a little bit different I I

50:25 ↗ mean if if you're asking me these two

50:28 ↗ questions under Direction needed

50:30 ↗ I would say yes it does clarify the

50:32 ↗ city's expectations

50:34 ↗ um and those of the contractors engaged

50:36 ↗ in our work

50:38 ↗ um

50:39 ↗ I don't know and then you know yes we'd

50:42 ↗ want to approve it at a council meeting

50:44 ↗ but I don't necessarily know myself if

50:48 ↗ this solves the problem or not and like

50:50 ↗ what exact problem that we're trying to

50:52 ↗ solve with this so I trust that the

50:55 ↗ problems that are developing the

50:56 ↗ community are making their way to the

50:57 ↗ right staff members are showing up in

50:59 ↗ those weekly meetings that you're having

51:01 ↗ with those contractors and that's great

51:02 ↗ but I don't necessarily know myself if

51:06 ↗ those documented public impacts are

51:08 ↗ being addressed by this but again I also

51:12 ↗ don't necessarily know if

51:15 ↗ um it's necessary for me as a council

51:17 ↗ member to know that as well because I

51:19 ↗ see this really more as an

51:22 ↗ administrative

51:24 ↗ um

51:25 ↗ function to add this to a contract

51:27 ↗ whereas the council and the mayor and

51:30 ↗ the administration are pretty much all

51:31 ↗ in alignment on what constitutes

51:33 ↗ constructing in the public good but I

51:36 ↗ just don't necessarily know if this

51:38 ↗ particular set

51:41 ↗ um of priorities that and actions or I

51:45 ↗ should just say you know language in the

51:47 ↗ code of conduct addresses any particular

51:51 ↗ underlying problems that we seek out to

51:53 ↗ address in the first place

51:55 ↗ um

51:56 ↗ so I'm kind of having a hard problem

51:59 ↗ with that and interested in what the

52:02 ↗ other committee members think of that

52:03 ↗ and I'll just leave it at that point for

52:05 ↗ now and maybe come back for round two

52:07 ↗ comments after

52:08 ↗ okay well one thing that this committee

52:11 ↗ can do is we can request additional

52:14 ↗ information or we can request that this

52:17 ↗ come back to the committee with changes

52:19 ↗ or with additional context so that's

52:22 ↗ something that we could um that we could

52:24 ↗ request it does have less

52:26 ↗ I think

52:28 ↗ um I believe it has less context as far

52:31 ↗ as the the community concerns that we

52:34 ↗ were trying to address in the original

52:37 ↗ um Bill and so or in the private Coda

52:40 ↗ contract bill

52:42 ↗ um so at that at that time I think we

52:44 ↗ had more discussion about you know how

52:46 ↗ is it going to be enforced and how is it

52:47 ↗ going to actually fix these problems and

52:50 ↗ then also that first part about what are

52:53 ↗ the problems that we're trying to solve

52:54 ↗ so I think because we on the committee

52:58 ↗ had that discussion this is very similar

53:01 ↗ it's it it does on its own it feels like

53:04 ↗ it doesn't have as much of that context

53:06 ↗ so we could definitely ask for that

53:08 ↗ context to come back on this yes

53:12 ↗ um when this was first discussed by the

53:14 ↗ committee the administration's

53:15 ↗ recommendation was to separate it

53:17 ↗ because I think as you've heard tonight

53:18 ↗ we feel we already have a lot of tools

53:20 ↗ as the the property owner and as the the

53:23 ↗ organization Contracting uh but at the

53:26 ↗ same time uh I think we've heard and I

53:29 ↗ think mayor Paulie agrees that we want

53:30 ↗ to hold ourselves to a higher standard

53:32 ↗ as we looked around the country for

53:34 ↗ these types of code of conduct we didn't

53:36 ↗ find a lot there were some communities

53:38 ↗ that did certainly but many communities

53:41 ↗ as we did our investigation simply said

53:43 ↗ here's all the things we already have

53:45 ↗ within our code we already have staff

53:47 ↗ working with the

53:49 ↗ um with contractors either for you know

53:52 ↗ through a building permit process

53:53 ↗ instructed inspectors or through the

53:55 ↗ ownership process for public projects

53:58 ↗ um so we came back with what we thought

54:00 ↗ made sense but we knew uh clearly there

54:02 ↗ was still two separate things so really

54:04 ↗ part of this is holding ourselves to a

54:06 ↗ higher standard I think we have seen

54:09 ↗ projects again like the talus one where

54:11 ↗ you have

54:13 ↗ established neighborhoods people living

54:15 ↗ there and right next to those homes was

54:17 ↗ been an ongoing construction site so

54:19 ↗ that's an unusual occurrence that many

54:21 ↗ communities probably don't find

54:22 ↗ themselves in so certainly I think the

54:25 ↗ administration is happy

54:26 ↗ to not move forward with this and keep

54:29 ↗ the private contractor on but the reason

54:32 ↗ we're here tonight is I think we felt it

54:34 ↗ was appropriate to hold ourselves to a

54:36 ↗ higher standard we wanted to explain

54:37 ↗ sort of how the pieces all fit together

54:39 ↗ but it's not again because we're hearing

54:42 ↗ wild complaints it's because we're

54:45 ↗ sensitive to our neighbors I think we as

54:48 ↗ a community hold ourselves up to a

54:49 ↗ higher standard on a lot of different

54:50 ↗ issues that many of our neighbors don't

54:52 ↗ so that's where we're coming from but

54:54 ↗ this is not because c-click fix found a

54:56 ↗ a spike in complaints that's not why

55:00 ↗ we're here tonight

55:04 ↗ yeah and I I think from my perspective

55:07 ↗ too when we had that conversation we

55:09 ↗ just recognized that it that the code of

55:13 ↗ the code of conduct was specifically for

55:15 ↗ the private sector and so we you know

55:18 ↗ realized well we should probably also

55:21 ↗ consider as a separate item what we do

55:23 ↗ with the public contractors and so then

55:25 ↗ this came back as well it you know if

55:28 ↗ you're addressing part of the building

55:30 ↗ part of the developers and part of the

55:32 ↗ building Community we felt we should

55:34 ↗ also consider something on this so

55:35 ↗ that's the other context piece

55:38 ↗ um

55:39 ↗ so I had a couple comments uh unrelated

55:43 ↗ to

55:44 ↗ it's fairly unrelated to the context of

55:46 ↗ it but I think that

55:48 ↗ we should try to align these as much as

55:51 ↗ possible so I don't see why we would

55:55 ↗ have

55:56 ↗ a different language about idling

55:58 ↗ vehicles in the private code and the

56:00 ↗ public code when they're going to be the

56:02 ↗ same kind of vehicle

56:04 ↗ um

56:05 ↗ it seems to me that in some cases that

56:08 ↗ there's the plain language version in

56:10 ↗ the private code of

56:12 ↗ contractors

56:13 ↗ um

56:14 ↗ version but if it's if it's actually

56:17 ↗ more specific and more informative to

56:20 ↗ have the language from the public

56:21 ↗ version then I think that's fine I just

56:24 ↗ if there's no like also with the

56:26 ↗ temporary walkways one so the

56:29 ↗ you know the language is is different

56:31 ↗ but it's meant to address the same exact

56:33 ↗ intent so I don't I don't think we

56:35 ↗ should I think we should con consider

56:38 ↗ aligning them

56:40 ↗ um

56:42 ↗ that would also address the confusion

56:44 ↗ although I know we're not recommended to

56:46 ↗ put this in the code but if they were

56:47 ↗ very very similar and then there were

56:49 ↗ just a few exceptions for public code of

56:51 ↗ conduct then

56:53 ↗ um I think that would address that

56:54 ↗ confusion issue that was mentioned

56:56 ↗ earlier as a reason to not put this in

56:57 ↗ the code although I'm I'm okay with not

57:00 ↗ putting in the code because of the

57:02 ↗ contract

57:04 ↗ um

57:05 ↗ because the contract

57:06 ↗ could be a stronger way to enforce it

57:10 ↗ and then my other comment is that uh

57:14 ↗ there are a number of places where this

57:16 ↗ says as feasible or as required by the

57:19 ↗ city and it seems to me that that leaves

57:22 ↗ room for interpretation or for

57:25 ↗ exceptions or for confusion you know

57:27 ↗ will it be required by the city or not

57:29 ↗ we don't have those the same number of

57:32 ↗ places where it says as required or to

57:34 ↗ the extent possible in the private code

57:37 ↗ of conduct the private contractors code

57:41 ↗ of conduct so I would like to if those

57:43 ↗ are if those remain in this

57:46 ↗ I would like those to be explained more

57:48 ↗ so if it says as required then say what

57:51 ↗ are the

57:52 ↗ you know what are the sort of criteria

57:54 ↗ that are going to be used for

57:55 ↗ determining whether it's required or not

57:58 ↗ um

57:59 ↗ to clarify

58:01 ↗ so those were my two sort of overarching

58:04 ↗ comments

58:07 ↗ go ahead

58:09 ↗ okay I kept my stuff up so uh

58:14 ↗ when I think back to what I've heard

58:17 ↗ from the community about what some of

58:19 ↗ the problems they've experienced are

58:22 ↗ some of it comes down to you know the

58:25 ↗ impacts on Newport Way and how that area

58:27 ↗ has been under public construction for a

58:30 ↗ long long time and

58:33 ↗ um

58:34 ↗ not having

58:36 ↗ as much of

58:39 ↗ the ability to know who to contact to

58:42 ↗ know how long you know a lot of that

58:44 ↗ comes down to communication there's

58:46 ↗ other things like not blocking driveways

58:49 ↗ noise work hours traffic management

58:52 ↗ trash those types of things which I can

58:56 ↗ see addressed in this and so I think

58:58 ↗ ultimately this is good whether it ends

59:03 ↗ up as a specific contractor code of

59:06 ↗ conduct or we just say hey let's make

59:08 ↗ sure those things are in the contracts

59:11 ↗ I'm really agnostic on that but I think

59:15 ↗ being able to communicate to the public

59:18 ↗ that

59:19 ↗ hey we're doing these things that's

59:22 ↗ really important

59:23 ↗ but I don't think the contractor could

59:25 ↗ have conduct addresses some of those

59:28 ↗ other things which you guys related

59:31 ↗ about the city's communication and so I

59:35 ↗ think

59:37 ↗ having understanding that that's a city

59:40 ↗ job and not a contractor job it doesn't

59:42 ↗ belong in the contractor code of conduct

59:44 ↗ but it does bring up this concept of

59:48 ↗ should we have standards around signage

59:52 ↗ and contact information on our private

59:57 ↗ projects or on our public projects

1:00:01 ↗ um it's ours it's our private stuff yeah

1:00:04 ↗ um on our city projects as a way to

1:00:07 ↗ ensure that people have emergency

1:00:10 ↗ contacts or contacts that they can talk

1:00:13 ↗ about so they know when the project is

1:00:16 ↗ intended to stop and I personally was

1:00:19 ↗ just in Bellevue the other day dropping

1:00:21 ↗ my son off at a activity and I was

1:00:24 ↗ driving past an area where ramp was a

1:00:27 ↗ pedestrian ramp was torn up and there

1:00:30 ↗ was a nice little Bellevue A-frame that

1:00:32 ↗ said this is the utilities department

1:00:34 ↗ here's why we're doing it here's who to

1:00:36 ↗ contact and I have to say there's a lot

1:00:39 ↗ to that it adds Pride to see that your

1:00:43 ↗ city is doing something to improve

1:00:45 ↗ itself it make sure you know that that's

1:00:48 ↗ a official that's not just you know

1:00:51 ↗ somebody went down there with a hammer

1:00:53 ↗ and knocked it down

1:00:55 ↗ um it gives you

1:00:58 ↗ an understanding of why the public

1:01:00 ↗ right-of-way is impacted and all of that

1:01:03 ↗ so I guess

1:01:04 ↗ what I would want to see is what you

1:01:09 ↗ know you've talked a lot about that

1:01:11 ↗ communication plan and how you're

1:01:13 ↗ working on that I don't think it belongs

1:01:15 ↗ here but how do we maybe solidify or

1:01:19 ↗ take that forward so that we have a set

1:01:21 ↗ of standards that doesn't

1:01:24 ↗ impact our ability to get things done

1:01:26 ↗ and keeps us flexible and Nimble but

1:01:29 ↗ also communicates to the public this is

1:01:31 ↗ what

1:01:31 ↗ are our expectations of ourselves

1:01:35 ↗ because I think that's the other

1:01:36 ↗ important part of this that isn't really

1:01:38 ↗ standardized

1:01:42 ↗ okay

1:01:44 ↗ final comment

1:01:46 ↗ um okay well then good so I'm glad that

1:01:48 ↗ this kind of has arisen not necessarily

1:01:51 ↗ because there are tons of problems out

1:01:53 ↗ there that we're collecting or feedback

1:01:55 ↗ that we're collecting from individuals

1:01:57 ↗ about public projects or about City

1:01:58 ↗ projects in particular

1:02:00 ↗ um and more that we want to hold

1:02:01 ↗ ourselves to a higher standard which I

1:02:02 ↗ think is great

1:02:04 ↗ um I just wanted to make sure that we

1:02:05 ↗ were addressing concerns if they existed

1:02:07 ↗ and it sounds like you know staff are

1:02:10 ↗ dwell on top of concerns as they come up

1:02:12 ↗ and we have these great tools weekly

1:02:15 ↗ which is crazy to me um to address them

1:02:18 ↗ in real time with our contractors so

1:02:20 ↗ that sounds good to me I guess then my

1:02:22 ↗ ask would be that we could consider this

1:02:26 ↗ almost a living document too whereas if

1:02:29 ↗ concerns

1:02:31 ↗ um if we're finding that particular

1:02:32 ↗ concerns over time things evolve things

1:02:36 ↗ change maybe there's a particular

1:02:38 ↗ concern that's really hard to work out

1:02:39 ↗ with a contractor and we don't want to

1:02:42 ↗ withhold money we don't want to go all

1:02:44 ↗ the way there we come back and revisit

1:02:46 ↗ revisit this document and update it and

1:02:48 ↗ I guess doesn't necessarily need to be

1:02:51 ↗ that the council

1:02:54 ↗ updates the document too but you know

1:02:56 ↗ the administration with their own role

1:02:58 ↗ can also just update contracts as that

1:03:01 ↗ goes on and as we identify new problems

1:03:03 ↗ but otherwise then I don't have any

1:03:04 ↗ problems moving forward with

1:03:06 ↗ although I do agree

1:03:08 ↗ um with the comments that were made by

1:03:10 ↗ both

1:03:10 ↗ the chair and the council president

1:03:13 ↗ thank you

1:03:14 ↗ okay thank you

1:03:16 ↗ um chair hunt yeah might I uh good

1:03:20 ↗ I have made an error

1:03:22 ↗ there was a last revision on the idling

1:03:26 ↗ provision on the private code and they

1:03:29 ↗ are identical now

1:03:33 ↗ okay great thank you that fixes that one

1:03:37 ↗ um so when you said you made an error

1:03:38 ↗ there's a different version that's we

1:03:41 ↗ were working off of a lot of different

1:03:42 ↗ versions and many staff members with

1:03:46 ↗ their hands in the pot trying to provide

1:03:48 ↗ comments on drafts and I just missed

1:03:51 ↗ that that uh

1:03:53 ↗ had been corrected that the private code

1:03:56 ↗ had been changed to reflect input from

1:04:01 ↗ the public projects team

1:04:06 ↗ okay so I'm just asking is the code in

1:04:09 ↗ our packet oh sorry is that yeah the

1:04:12 ↗ code in our packet is correct the word

1:04:14 ↗ in in the packet is correct and that

1:04:18 ↗ provision is identical to the one that

1:04:21 ↗ you adopted for the private code of

1:04:23 ↗ conduct

1:04:25 ↗ okay

1:04:27 ↗ um great

1:04:28 ↗ so uh thank you for that clarification

1:04:33 ↗ um so I think uh the comments about the

1:04:37 ↗ signage are interesting

1:04:39 ↗ um

1:04:40 ↗ we do have wording about the signage and

1:04:43 ↗ it says City staff will shape and direct

1:04:45 ↗ the communications and Outreach plan for

1:04:47 ↗ City public projects it is perhaps

1:04:51 ↗ um

1:04:52 ↗ unusual to have you know wording about

1:04:55 ↗ what the city is doing in in the because

1:04:58 ↗ it's not the contractor something that

1:05:00 ↗ the contractor is going to do but I do

1:05:03 ↗ think

1:05:04 ↗ um I think maybe it's worth

1:05:07 ↗ rewriting this so that it's about how

1:05:09 ↗ the contractor is going to like make

1:05:12 ↗ sure that the sign is standing and

1:05:15 ↗ visible and you know that they

1:05:17 ↗ facilitate that whatever the role of the

1:05:20 ↗ contractor is and making sure that the

1:05:23 ↗ that the signage is um maintains it

1:05:26 ↗ seems like that might be what we need to

1:05:30 ↗ put here and then as council president

1:05:32 ↗ was saying we need to have

1:05:35 ↗ separately there needs to be um

1:05:37 ↗ standardization or a plan for that

1:05:39 ↗ communication but

1:05:41 ↗ um I think that would make more sense to

1:05:43 ↗ me anyway for this document since it is

1:05:47 ↗ intended to be for the contractors

1:05:52 ↗ that makes sense

1:05:54 ↗ okay

1:05:58 ↗ um

1:05:59 ↗ okay so we have some feedback I think it

1:06:02 ↗ requires

1:06:03 ↗ re writing some things or adjusting some

1:06:07 ↗ things do we have any any additional

1:06:09 ↗ feedback I'm wondering if this should

1:06:10 ↗ come back to committee or if this or

1:06:14 ↗ what we want to

1:06:15 ↗ what's our can I ask a few questions go

1:06:18 ↗ ahead so I'm hearing different things

1:06:21 ↗ about this being a public contractor's

1:06:24 ↗ code of conduct versus making sure that

1:06:27 ↗ there are certain things that are

1:06:28 ↗ implemented that are important

1:06:31 ↗ so would you feel more comfortable with

1:06:35 ↗ us coming back with a you know more

1:06:37 ↗ fleshed out Communications plan that

1:06:40 ↗ talks about

1:06:41 ↗ signage and where we would use it and

1:06:43 ↗ how it would be used and how a website

1:06:45 ↗ would have all of that and less so about

1:06:49 ↗ some of the other details

1:06:51 ↗ I'm a little unclear from the

1:06:53 ↗ conversation where we stand

1:06:55 ↗ I mean gosh if you're volunteering to

1:06:59 ↗ put together information on what the

1:07:01 ↗ communication plan is I think that

1:07:03 ↗ satisfies some ideas I personally don't

1:07:07 ↗ think that for me is a stopping point to

1:07:11 ↗ approving this with some of the

1:07:13 ↗ modifications that we talked about

1:07:16 ↗ um

1:07:17 ↗ but I would certainly be interested to

1:07:20 ↗ understand how we are kind of

1:07:23 ↗ standardizing some of those things so we

1:07:25 ↗ could come back to what the committee at

1:07:27 ↗ a future meeting and just talk about

1:07:28 ↗ policies I think clearly that's an

1:07:30 ↗ Administration function versus a council

1:07:32 ↗ function so if we came back in a few

1:07:34 ↗ months and said here here's a more

1:07:37 ↗ specific plan

1:07:38 ↗ you're both okay with that okay

1:07:42 ↗ and so with that then

1:07:46 ↗ there's been I guess some questions

1:07:47 ↗ about other modifications that you'd

1:07:49 ↗ like to see so are you prepared to

1:07:52 ↗ perhaps just make sure we've got all of

1:07:53 ↗ those and then pass it out and then have

1:07:56 ↗ it go to the full Council

1:08:00 ↗ um are we or do we want to the other

1:08:02 ↗ option would probably be to have this

1:08:04 ↗ come back to the committee if we feel it

1:08:05 ↗ needs another

1:08:07 ↗ I think what I heard was

1:08:10 ↗ um just making sure that some of the

1:08:13 ↗ things are standardized across both and

1:08:16 ↗ that there is a modification to that

1:08:20 ↗ second bullet point under number three

1:08:22 ↗ related to

1:08:25 ↗ Communications and the contractor making

1:08:29 ↗ sure that any signage

1:08:32 ↗ is visible and maintained

1:08:36 ↗ other than that I don't remember any

1:08:41 ↗ other

1:08:42 ↗ modifications that were needed to this

1:08:44 ↗ so if those changes can be made I would

1:08:48 ↗ be comfortable with it going to consent

1:08:50 ↗ with the regular Council rather than

1:08:53 ↗ coming back necessarily

1:08:58 ↗ okay I have I have one question if we if

1:09:01 ↗ we were to go that route so

1:09:04 ↗ are there cases where the contractor

1:09:08 ↗ would actually maintain the um like the

1:09:12 ↗ schedule and the website and the signage

1:09:14 ↗ does that happen sometimes

1:09:17 ↗ that they would do do all that for a

1:09:19 ↗ public project

1:09:20 ↗ not that I not that comes to mind for me

1:09:23 ↗ when we build our new city hall Maybe

1:09:26 ↗ I mean it would take it would take

1:09:28 ↗ something of that magnitude

1:09:30 ↗ Community Center City Hall yeah

1:09:33 ↗ some pretty large project otherwise it

1:09:36 ↗ would be almost always the city

1:09:42 ↗ I was just wanting to make sure that we

1:09:43 ↗ weren't

1:09:44 ↗ that we I think um I think probably you

1:09:48 ↗ having worked on these much more would

1:09:50 ↗ know how to phrase the wording around

1:09:53 ↗ the responsibilities of the contractor

1:09:55 ↗ as far as the signage um but I think the

1:09:57 ↗ my

1:09:59 ↗ point which is based on the comments of

1:10:02 ↗ council president Walsh would be just to

1:10:03 ↗ separate out the

1:10:05 ↗ the responsibilities of the contractors

1:10:08 ↗ so that those are what's in this

1:10:10 ↗ in this code but what we would likely do

1:10:13 ↗ is that we would let the contractor know

1:10:15 ↗ this is what the sign needs to look like

1:10:18 ↗ these are the approximate dimensions and

1:10:21 ↗ more most projects they would provide it

1:10:23 ↗ based on our request

1:10:25 ↗ I mean there'd be some if we're doing if

1:10:28 ↗ a contractor is doing a Ada curb cut we

1:10:32 ↗ may at some point do what you saw in

1:10:34 ↗ Bellevue which has here's a standard uh

1:10:37 ↗ sign that you just put out

1:10:40 ↗ um

1:10:41 ↗ but I think we would have absolute

1:10:42 ↗ control over what it looks like all

1:10:44 ↗ always

1:10:48 ↗ okay yeah so then I think it just needs

1:10:51 ↗ to reflect that I guess as you know if

1:10:54 ↗ the cities are executed make the sign

1:10:56 ↗ and put it out then you that's that's

1:10:57 ↗ the role then of the

1:10:59 ↗ contractor but right now the way it is

1:11:01 ↗ the way it's written is it's about City

1:11:03 ↗ staff in the city saps world so

1:11:07 ↗ and then yeah my other my other comment

1:11:10 ↗ is about the as required and um

1:11:13 ↗ to the extent possible I think where we

1:11:16 ↗ have that and it's different from the

1:11:18 ↗ private code of conduct I would like if

1:11:21 ↗ we're gonna I feel like if we're gonna

1:11:22 ↗ put this in a contract we should explain

1:11:26 ↗ um explain those as required and those

1:11:28 ↗ sorts of things and not have to have it

1:11:31 ↗ be on a case you know have more

1:11:32 ↗ information about

1:11:34 ↗ about that and about how that criteria

1:11:36 ↗ is going to be applied

1:11:38 ↗ that's my that would I would also ask

1:11:40 ↗ for that in the when this comes back

1:11:46 ↗ so those are

1:11:47 ↗ those okay

1:11:50 ↗ um

1:11:51 ↗ so I I would like to say I understand I

1:11:56 ↗ think there was intent uh behind having

1:11:58 ↗ those Clauses and the intent was again

1:12:02 ↗ to make sure that the conditions on the

1:12:05 ↗ contract are responsive to the

1:12:08 ↗ site issues to the particular project

1:12:13 ↗ and uh and the the activity that's at

1:12:18 ↗ hand you know whenever possible for

1:12:19 ↗ example if we have an emergency

1:12:22 ↗ we will take action before giving 48

1:12:25 ↗ hours notice

1:12:28 ↗ so there are reasons for why we added

1:12:31 ↗ that language and but that doesn't mean

1:12:34 ↗ we're not specific with the contractor

1:12:37 ↗ when they're engaged in the work or

1:12:39 ↗ before they're engaged as a condition on

1:12:42 ↗ the contract

1:12:45 ↗ I think one of the challenges we have

1:12:47 ↗ with all contracts is that you you have

1:12:49 ↗ sort of this fixed set of criteria and

1:12:51 ↗ then you actually do the work and so I I

1:12:54 ↗ think we can work on that language make

1:12:57 ↗ it as definitive as possible with the

1:12:59 ↗ recognition uh that this will be an

1:13:01 ↗ attachment to the contract and like any

1:13:03 ↗ other attachment to any other contract

1:13:05 ↗ there's some latitude among the city

1:13:07 ↗ staff to work with the contractor to a

1:13:09 ↗ mixture conditions are applied so this

1:13:11 ↗ is not a hard and fast we're going to

1:13:13 ↗ pull their contract if a sign blows down

1:13:15 ↗ and people can't see it

1:13:21 ↗ if you allow the staff to use our

1:13:23 ↗ discretion and when you see the final

1:13:25 ↗ version if there's still an issue well

1:13:27 ↗ will talk but I think your your intent

1:13:29 ↗ is clear

1:13:31 ↗ I think just to clarify what what we're

1:13:32 ↗ hearing as well as as within the agenda

1:13:35 ↗ bills that moves forward in those cases

1:13:37 ↗ of the as may be required or wherever

1:13:39 ↗ possible provide a description as to

1:13:43 ↗ examples of why that's why that's in

1:13:46 ↗ there why that language is in there

1:13:51 ↗ um yeah I just I don't you know for

1:13:54 ↗ example there is this one that is and

1:13:56 ↗ I'm sure there's a reason I I understand

1:13:58 ↗ that but there's this one about

1:13:59 ↗ temporary pedestrian facilities and to

1:14:01 ↗ the maximum extent possible needing to

1:14:03 ↗ meet the accessibility criteria we don't

1:14:06 ↗ have that to the maximum extent possible

1:14:08 ↗ under build in a safe manner on the

1:14:10 ↗ private code of conduct so contract

1:14:13 ↗ so I would just ask that we you know we

1:14:17 ↗ explain I think if you have a pedestrian

1:14:20 ↗ temporary pedestrian facility I assume

1:14:23 ↗ it will need to be clearly marked and

1:14:25 ↗ clear of obstacles and so you know

1:14:27 ↗ having that whole thing say as

1:14:30 ↗ as possible just seems um strange to me

1:14:33 ↗ so I would just ask for more clarity on

1:14:35 ↗ those especially where we have a change

1:14:37 ↗ from the private code of conduct and the

1:14:40 ↗ intent is the same which is safety in

1:14:42 ↗ both cases and it seems a little

1:14:45 ↗ ambiguous in the public code of conduct

1:14:56 ↗ thank you

1:14:57 ↗ um is there any any other discussion do

1:15:00 ↗ we have any other asks did you did you

1:15:02 ↗ want it to come back with some um

1:15:05 ↗ context about

1:15:06 ↗ the

1:15:08 ↗ the bill like the history of because

1:15:11 ↗ that could be on the agenda bill when it

1:15:12 ↗ comes back about that it started off

1:15:14 ↗ with private code of conduct and well no

1:15:17 ↗ because that context I understood in the

1:15:19 ↗ context around what the problem is and

1:15:21 ↗ why we have a private code of context I

1:15:23 ↗ understood but the public context I

1:15:26 ↗ didn't or the context for public

1:15:27 ↗ projects I just didn't understand but

1:15:29 ↗ now I understand it much much more so I

1:15:31 ↗ think that's fine my question so did we

1:15:34 ↗ decide on this coming to regular meeting

1:15:36 ↗ or

1:15:39 ↗ here

1:15:40 ↗ what do you think

1:15:42 ↗ I'm fine with it going regular meeting

1:15:44 ↗ on consent but I'm willing to hear

1:15:46 ↗ others

1:15:48 ↗ so then just if we had an issue with any

1:15:51 ↗ of the changes we just pulled down off

1:15:53 ↗ consent no presentation we might just

1:15:55 ↗ give a summary to the rest of the

1:15:56 ↗ council is that the idea

1:15:58 ↗ I'm fine with that okay

1:16:00 ↗ okay I'm also okay with it all right so

1:16:03 ↗ we will put it on consent

1:16:06 ↗ um with the requested changes and if if

1:16:08 ↗ we or our fellow council members want to

1:16:11 ↗ pull it down we can

1:16:13 ↗ thank you

1:16:15 ↗ all right thank you

1:16:23 ↗ um okay great so that was our first item

1:16:25 ↗ uh we're moving on now to our second

1:16:28 ↗ item which is id1394

1:16:32 ↗ comprehensive plan periodic update scope

1:16:35 ↗ and this will be presented by long-range

1:16:38 ↗ planning manager Stephen Padua

1:16:42 ↗ thank you councilman Brown good evening

1:16:44 ↗ committee members can you hear me okay

1:16:47 ↗ look quiet

1:16:49 ↗ a little quiet all right I'll try to

1:16:51 ↗ speak up a little bit more uh today I'm

1:16:53 ↗ here to speak about the scope of the

1:16:55 ↗ comp plan periodic update and two

1:16:57 ↗ projects that are impacted by the comp

1:17:00 ↗ plan schedule

1:17:03 ↗ there's three items we need feedback on

1:17:05 ↗ tonight first is the draft engagement

1:17:07 ↗ plan the second is the scope of the

1:17:09 ↗ periodic update and then the last is the

1:17:12 ↗ parking analysis scope

1:17:15 ↗ first I'm going to dive into a little

1:17:16 ↗ background

1:17:17 ↗ on the comprehensive plan

1:17:20 ↗ the back in 1999 the growth management

1:17:23 ↗ Act was adopted which required cities to

1:17:27 ↗ develop comprehensive plans with the

1:17:29 ↗ intent of addressing concerns for growth

1:17:31 ↗ sprawl and quality of health of our

1:17:34 ↗ communities

1:17:36 ↗ the dma provided a framework of

1:17:39 ↗ requirements around Regional

1:17:41 ↗ coordination

1:17:42 ↗ countywide policies and establishing the

1:17:45 ↗ urban growth areas that we have to

1:17:47 ↗ manage our growth Within

1:17:52 ↗ the conference of plan has two types of

1:17:53 ↗ updates the first is an annual which is

1:17:56 ↗ an optional update that typically

1:17:59 ↗ includes minor updates throughout the

1:18:00 ↗ comprehensive plan and a base to

1:18:02 ↗ specific elements depending on any work

1:18:05 ↗ that might be happening within any other

1:18:07 ↗ planning documents the other update is

1:18:10 ↗ the periodic update which is done every

1:18:12 ↗ eight years and that's the type of

1:18:14 ↗ update we're about to embark on this

1:18:17 ↗ requirement for eight years actually is

1:18:18 ↗ after this periodic update is going to

1:18:20 ↗ be changing to every 10 years due to

1:18:23 ↗ recent legislation that passed and

1:18:26 ↗ typically this includes review of the

1:18:27 ↗ entire account plan

1:18:29 ↗ for meeting a lot of the requirements

1:18:32 ↗ from the state

1:18:34 ↗ but as you may requires seven of our

1:18:37 ↗ current elements uh to be required

1:18:40 ↗ within our comprehensive plan the city

1:18:42 ↗ of Isla has chosen to also include the

1:18:44 ↗ cultural and Human Services elements but

1:18:46 ↗ have been identified as significant

1:18:48 ↗ items for the community

1:18:52 ↗ for the scope of the update

1:18:54 ↗ we have three primary project goals the

1:18:58 ↗ first clients second is coordination and

1:19:01 ↗ the last is design and access for

1:19:03 ↗ compliance it's primarily looking at

1:19:06 ↗ what's required from the regional Vision

1:19:09 ↗ 2050

1:19:11 ↗ long-range planning document looking at

1:19:14 ↗ the King County county-wide policies and

1:19:16 ↗ what's been updated looking to any

1:19:20 ↗ reason changes within the checklist

1:19:24 ↗ that's provided by the Puget Sound

1:19:25 ↗ Regional Council

1:19:27 ↗ and also looking at multiple regulations

1:19:28 ↗ from the state and the county will be

1:19:31 ↗ incorporated as part of this update

1:19:34 ↗ for coordination one thing that is

1:19:36 ↗ fairly unique for the city of this

1:19:37 ↗ Clause is that we've made several

1:19:39 ↗ significant updates to our planning

1:19:40 ↗ documents which will update the goals

1:19:43 ↗ and policies within the comp plan due to

1:19:45 ↗ the timing of those updates and this

1:19:47 ↗ periodic update was decided to wait to

1:19:49 ↗ update the comp plan until this periodic

1:19:52 ↗ update had started

1:19:53 ↗ so as part of this update we'll be

1:19:55 ↗ reviewing the the planning documents

1:19:57 ↗ that have been more recently updated and

1:19:59 ↗ checking the coordination across all the

1:20:01 ↗ elements

1:20:03 ↗ Alaska for this periodic update is to

1:20:06 ↗ improve the design and access of the

1:20:08 ↗ comp plan and the intention of this is

1:20:10 ↗ to actually enhance the comp plan of the

1:20:11 ↗ city tool Beyond state requirements the

1:20:14 ↗ compound can actually be a very useful

1:20:16 ↗ tool for the city which can help guide

1:20:18 ↗ and track progress towards achieving the

1:20:20 ↗ city's goals as well as better

1:20:23 ↗ incorporating how the city is

1:20:24 ↗ implementing the city's vision

1:20:28 ↗ ultimately what we're trying to achieve

1:20:30 ↗ is this planning framework that's on

1:20:32 ↗ your screen and

1:20:34 ↗ we want to we want the comp plan to be a

1:20:37 ↗ guiding document for just about

1:20:38 ↗ everything we do in and it should be an

1:20:40 ↗ easy process to identify the

1:20:42 ↗ relationships between what our vision is

1:20:44 ↗ and what we're actually doing on the

1:20:46 ↗ ground

1:20:48 ↗ the comp plan will contain the vision

1:20:50 ↗ goals and policies

1:20:52 ↗ the city's functional plans which is

1:20:54 ↗ what I'm referring to for all the

1:20:55 ↗ planning documents that establishes

1:20:57 ↗ strategy for any particular topic with

1:21:00 ↗ actions and priorities that takes into

1:21:01 ↗ account specific resources

1:21:05 ↗ these should get filtered by the

1:21:07 ↗ Citywide strategic plan as kind of a

1:21:09 ↗ budgetary planning tool to balance

1:21:11 ↗ Investments uh for the city within this

1:21:14 ↗ the city budget as well as

1:21:15 ↗ implementation of city regulations

1:21:18 ↗ I see there's the performance metrics

1:21:19 ↗ that guide us for any of the changes

1:21:21 ↗ that we do over time

1:21:23 ↗ staff see the proposed scope tonight as

1:21:25 ↗ essential pieces to better implement

1:21:27 ↗ this entire planning framework

1:21:31 ↗ so earlier I spoke to several function

1:21:34 ↗ plans that have been updated in recent

1:21:36 ↗ years and are about about to be updated

1:21:39 ↗ all of these will be reviewed for

1:21:40 ↗ coordination updates as part of the

1:21:42 ↗ periodic update as part of a state

1:21:44 ↗ requirements to match their

1:21:46 ↗ comprehensive plan with our functional

1:21:48 ↗ plans lead into implementation

1:21:54 ↗ the timing of the functional plans were

1:21:55 ↗ developed to all required different

1:21:58 ↗ levels of effort in order to comply with

1:22:00 ↗ the state requirement only a handful of

1:22:03 ↗ elements will actually receive a full

1:22:04 ↗ review which will be managed by other

1:22:07 ↗ departments and the rest will be

1:22:08 ↗ reviewed for the sake of consistency

1:22:10 ↗ across all the elements

1:22:12 ↗ the housing element which we had managed

1:22:15 ↗ by CPD will primarily be updated with

1:22:17 ↗ State regulated changes that I'll

1:22:19 ↗ discuss in a bit

1:22:20 ↗ we're hoping to get feedback tonight on

1:22:22 ↗ this

1:22:23 ↗ um item tonight and to see if there's

1:22:26 ↗ anything else that we should be

1:22:27 ↗ considering

1:22:31 ↗ one of the changes that we're also

1:22:32 ↗ proposing with the periodic update is to

1:22:34 ↗ introduce a new uh natural environment

1:22:36 ↗ element and the purpose of uh creating

1:22:40 ↗ this new element is to actually simplify

1:22:44 ↗ the comprehensive plan and how people

1:22:46 ↗ access a lot of our goals and policies

1:22:48 ↗ related to The Climate action plan as

1:22:51 ↗ well as sustainability

1:22:53 ↗ um

1:22:54 ↗ preservation of the natural environment

1:22:56 ↗ and everything else that we're going to

1:22:58 ↗ be working with an environmental board

1:22:59 ↗ to identify with this new level

1:23:06 ↗ for public engagement we have two major

1:23:08 ↗ phases

1:23:09 ↗ for the first phase

1:23:12 ↗ we'll be focusing on discussion on the

1:23:14 ↗ visions and identification of any gaps

1:23:16 ↗ within the planning documents with the

1:23:18 ↗ comp plan

1:23:19 ↗ and the second phase we'll be going a

1:23:22 ↗ little deeper on the discussion on the

1:23:24 ↗ goals and policies within the

1:23:26 ↗ comprehensive plan as it relates to how

1:23:28 ↗ the function functional plans are

1:23:29 ↗ implemented

1:23:31 ↗ as indicated with the types of changes

1:23:33 ↗ we're looking at we think it makes the

1:23:35 ↗ most sense to focus the engagement to

1:23:38 ↗ the specific board to commissions and

1:23:39 ↗ interest groups of discussions to reduce

1:23:42 ↗ a lot of the confusion about the amount

1:23:43 ↗ of Engagement that will be taking place

1:23:45 ↗ this year

1:23:47 ↗ this is also another item we're hoping

1:23:49 ↗ to get a feedback on tonight

1:23:54 ↗ the other major component with the

1:23:56 ↗ comprehensive plan is looking at the

1:23:57 ↗ consultant scope

1:24:00 ↗ so we are planning to hire two

1:24:02 ↗ Consultants the first one will focus

1:24:04 ↗ primarily on conducting a full Eis for

1:24:06 ↗ the conference plan

1:24:07 ↗ the reason for this task is that our

1:24:10 ↗ original Eis for the conference plan was

1:24:12 ↗ originally put together back in 1994.

1:24:14 ↗ and so it is status recommendation as

1:24:17 ↗ well as the recommendation from the city

1:24:19 ↗ attorney's office to conduct this full

1:24:21 ↗ update of the IES with this periodic

1:24:23 ↗ update

1:24:25 ↗ the second consultant that would be

1:24:26 ↗ hiring will will provide support for

1:24:29 ↗ three main tasks

1:24:31 ↗ the first is neighborhood planning

1:24:32 ↗ discussions in the creation of the

1:24:34 ↗ template this was called for initiating

1:24:37 ↗ a task that came from the Citywide

1:24:39 ↗ strategic plan

1:24:41 ↗ the second task for this consultant is

1:24:43 ↗ to provide General call Plan update and

1:24:47 ↗ additional analysis that might come up

1:24:49 ↗ during our review

1:24:51 ↗ and the last task for the consultant is

1:24:54 ↗ to help with a new design of

1:24:56 ↗ comprehensive plan to make it more

1:24:57 ↗ accessible

1:24:58 ↗ as well as it make it much more of a

1:25:00 ↗ usable Tool uh as an internally for

1:25:03 ↗ staff

1:25:08 ↗ um the neighborhood sorry can I

1:25:10 ↗ interrupt for one second

1:25:12 ↗ um yes could you go back could you

1:25:14 ↗ explain a little bit more about what the

1:25:16 ↗ neighborhood planning template

1:25:18 ↗ is or what what that does

1:25:22 ↗ yes so for the neighborhood planning

1:25:24 ↗ topic

1:25:25 ↗ um we want to establish our

1:25:26 ↗ neighborhoods and get started on

1:25:28 ↗ creating neighborhood plans for each of

1:25:30 ↗ the neighborhoods that actually don't

1:25:32 ↗ have a neighborhood plan yet

1:25:34 ↗ the way our comp plan currently is

1:25:36 ↗ written is we have adopted sub-areas and

1:25:39 ↗ separately we use a different map for

1:25:41 ↗ the neighborhoods which have slightly

1:25:44 ↗ different boundaries and we want to

1:25:47 ↗ consolidate all the work that would win

1:25:48 ↗ to the development of the sub areas in

1:25:50 ↗ the neighborhood map and establish City

1:25:52 ↗ neighborhoods and initiate the

1:25:55 ↗ conversation on what should be going

1:25:57 ↗ into these neighborhood plans and

1:25:59 ↗ establish those policies within the

1:26:01 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:26:04 ↗ did that help answer your question

1:26:05 ↗ councilman

1:26:07 ↗ yes it did and and does this go above

1:26:09 ↗ and beyond the requirements for the

1:26:13 ↗ um

1:26:14 ↗ the comprehensive planning process

1:26:18 ↗ it does but it came up in last year's

1:26:21 ↗ City budgeting process that we wanted to

1:26:24 ↗ initiate the neighborhood planning

1:26:25 ↗ process and so we discussed it as

1:26:28 ↗ actually bringing it up as part of the

1:26:30 ↗ periodic update to initiate those

1:26:32 ↗ conversations so whatever we establish

1:26:34 ↗ in the neighborhood plans we can

1:26:36 ↗ actually establish his policies within

1:26:37 ↗ the comprehensive plan okay thank you

1:26:44 ↗ any other questions on this slide before

1:26:45 ↗ I move on

1:26:47 ↗ uh nope and I don't see any from my

1:26:49 ↗ colleagues so you can go ahead thanks

1:26:53 ↗ thank you

1:26:58 ↗ so next I'll talk about the two projects

1:27:00 ↗ which are Title 18 future updates that

1:27:02 ↗ are impacted by the comp plan schedule

1:27:06 ↗ the First with housing I need to explain

1:27:09 ↗ our approach overall for housing as it

1:27:13 ↗ it kind of relates to how we want to

1:27:15 ↗ address or scope the title 18 future

1:27:18 ↗ update for the housing analysis

1:27:21 ↗ apparently we have the happy Grant

1:27:23 ↗ project that is wrapping up and we're

1:27:24 ↗ going to have some recommendations that

1:27:26 ↗ we think will influence some of the work

1:27:28 ↗ going forward as well as the part of the

1:27:30 ↗ scope as part of that housing analysis

1:27:32 ↗ and for the comprehensive plan we're

1:27:34 ↗ going to be

1:27:35 ↗ we're planning to make three major

1:27:37 ↗ updates for housing

1:27:39 ↗ um that are State mandates the first is

1:27:41 ↗ from House Bill 1220 which is adopted in

1:27:43 ↗ 2021 and it requires language around

1:27:47 ↗ Emergency Shelters as well as display

1:27:49 ↗ displacement policies

1:27:51 ↗ the second is a pending legislation item

1:27:54 ↗ House Bill 1110 which would require all

1:27:57 ↗ jurisdictions to allow additional units

1:27:58 ↗ in single-family results

1:28:01 ↗ the discussion we've had with our

1:28:04 ↗ lobbyists is that this is one of the

1:28:07 ↗ hospitals that is more than likely to

1:28:09 ↗ get past in this legislative session so

1:28:12 ↗ we're preparing the comprehensive plan

1:28:13 ↗ for this update

1:28:15 ↗ last we'll be looking at to incorporate

1:28:17 ↗ the County countywide requirements to

1:28:19 ↗ designate all jurisdiction specific

1:28:22 ↗ allocations for affordable housing

1:28:24 ↗ what this will look like is that for the

1:28:26 ↗ 3 500 additional housing units we're

1:28:28 ↗ expecting with our growth there will be

1:28:30 ↗ a certain percentage designated towards

1:28:32 ↗ 30 percent Ami and lower and a certain

1:28:35 ↗ percentage of that total growth going

1:28:38 ↗ towards 60 Ami and lower and so forth

1:28:42 ↗ so this has been talked about for a

1:28:43 ↗ while at the county-wide and Regional

1:28:45 ↗ level and we're expecting final

1:28:46 ↗ allocations to be released during the

1:28:49 ↗ periodic update so we're preparing the

1:28:51 ↗ conference plan and some of the

1:28:52 ↗ discussions we'll be having with the

1:28:53 ↗ planning policy commission around what

1:28:55 ↗ will be proposed

1:28:59 ↗ and then all this will be followed by an

1:29:02 ↗ update to the central as well plan as

1:29:03 ↗ well as the housing strategy work plan

1:29:06 ↗ um so that we have a consistent flow of

1:29:07 ↗ discussion around how we want to

1:29:09 ↗ approach housing following the

1:29:11 ↗ development of the policies going into

1:29:12 ↗ the comprehensive plan

1:29:18 ↗ the pocket parking analysis

1:29:20 ↗ um it will follow parallel track to the

1:29:22 ↗ housing analysis scope and scheduled

1:29:24 ↗ after the comp plan update but the scope

1:29:26 ↗ and schedule is what we need direction

1:29:27 ↗ on tonight and there's two options of

1:29:32 ↗ that were in your materials for tonight

1:29:34 ↗ and the first is to look at a city-wide

1:29:37 ↗ analysis of parking and the other is to

1:29:41 ↗ focus the analysis just on Central

1:29:43 ↗ Issaquah

1:29:50 ↗ time your next steps after today we're

1:29:52 ↗ going to be diving into each of the

1:29:54 ↗ elements to start our review for

1:29:56 ↗ compliance and coordination of all the

1:29:57 ↗ elements

1:29:58 ↗ after some discussions with the board's

1:30:00 ↗ commissions we'll return to the

1:30:01 ↗ committee with proposed Direction with

1:30:03 ↗ on potential amendments for the

1:30:05 ↗ comprehensive plan and then we'll follow

1:30:07 ↗ up in September with board commission

1:30:08 ↗ recommendations

1:30:09 ↗ and to get further Direction prior to

1:30:12 ↗ Drafting and consolidation for the

1:30:14 ↗ comprehensive plan an early 2024 24

1:30:17 ↗ we'll start the docketing process and

1:30:19 ↗ we're aiming for Council adoption of the

1:30:21 ↗ comprehensive plan by June 2024.

1:30:27 ↗ so again the direction we need for this

1:30:30 ↗ topic tonight is on the draft engagement

1:30:32 ↗ plan the scope of the periodic update as

1:30:34 ↗ well as the parking analysis scope

1:30:38 ↗ that concludes my presentation would you

1:30:40 ↗ like me to leave up the questions

1:30:44 ↗ um yeah I think that'd be great thanks

1:30:48 ↗ do we have questions

1:30:50 ↗ no questions

1:30:52 ↗ you have questions

1:30:54 ↗ I'll ask a question so in our material

1:30:57 ↗ there was some information about how

1:31:00 ↗ Equity would be applied as a lens and

1:31:04 ↗ there was also some information about

1:31:07 ↗ how Equity would be

1:31:10 ↗ considered in the in the draft

1:31:13 ↗ engagement plan in the in the way we

1:31:16 ↗ engage the community on this and so I

1:31:18 ↗ wondered if you could speak to that and

1:31:20 ↗ also speak to it um if we're going to

1:31:23 ↗ use the so the city is also drafting

1:31:26 ↗ equity and Equity framework and in that

1:31:29 ↗ process and so if you could kind of

1:31:32 ↗ connect to the dots are we using that

1:31:34 ↗ Equity framework are we considering a

1:31:36 ↗ different

1:31:37 ↗ um a different set of principles thanks

1:31:43 ↗ thank you for the question so the we'll

1:31:45 ↗ be approaching Equity kind of in in two

1:31:47 ↗ different ways the first is there's a

1:31:49 ↗ lot of actually great guidance out there

1:31:52 ↗ on comprehensive plans and incorporating

1:31:54 ↗ Equity as best practices for specific

1:31:56 ↗ topics and different elements

1:31:58 ↗ we're going to be having discussions

1:32:00 ↗ with the equity board on how to approach

1:32:02 ↗ some of those as potential policy

1:32:04 ↗ changes and then ultimately we once a

1:32:08 ↗ framework is adopted we'll be taking a

1:32:12 ↗ look to see if depending on the timing

1:32:14 ↗ if we can establish

1:32:17 ↗ um the framework as a lens for the

1:32:19 ↗ comprehensive plan as a whole so that'll

1:32:21 ↗ be later on in the process

1:32:26 ↗ okay thank you

1:32:29 ↗ okay I have one more question which is

1:32:31 ↗ there was a bill that did not pass that

1:32:34 ↗ was HB 1099 State bill

1:32:37 ↗ um and that was to would have updated

1:32:39 ↗ Washington State's Credit Management act

1:32:41 ↗ to

1:32:43 ↗ um have climate change incorporated into

1:32:46 ↗ these comprehensive plans into the

1:32:49 ↗ comprehensive planning process and that

1:32:52 ↗ did not pass but after that a number of

1:32:54 ↗ cities were interested in pursuing that

1:32:58 ↗ anyway and Issaquah had been interested

1:33:01 ↗ in the

1:33:03 ↗ the principles and supportive of the

1:33:05 ↗ bill and so I wondered if

1:33:08 ↗ if you can speak to is the plan to

1:33:11 ↗ incorporate climate and climate change

1:33:14 ↗ and climate action from our Issaquah

1:33:17 ↗ climate action plan into this

1:33:18 ↗ comprehensive plan that would that be

1:33:20 ↗ compatible with what would have been HB

1:33:22 ↗ 1099

1:33:25 ↗ my understanding and discussion with the

1:33:27 ↗ sustainability group that it much of

1:33:29 ↗ what was going to be required from that

1:33:31 ↗ bill is already addressed as part of the

1:33:34 ↗ icap and Incorporated in the land use

1:33:38 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan so if

1:33:42 ↗ that's the direction you would like us

1:33:44 ↗ to kind of take a look at of maybe

1:33:46 ↗ finding where the gaps are of what was

1:33:49 ↗ proposing the bill and what might be

1:33:51 ↗ missing from the icap or or this new

1:33:54 ↗ environment chapter or element we can

1:33:57 ↗ work with a sustainability group and

1:33:59 ↗ then environmental board to to do that

1:34:03 ↗ okay so do I understand correctly then

1:34:05 ↗ that

1:34:07 ↗ um probably because we have the climate

1:34:09 ↗ action plan which is already already

1:34:11 ↗ been adopted in in the comprehensive

1:34:13 ↗ plan we probably mostly have addressed

1:34:16 ↗ this but you you could basically double

1:34:19 ↗ check is that right

1:34:21 ↗ yes okay okay great um those were my

1:34:24 ↗ questions I'm still not seeing questions

1:34:26 ↗ from my colleagues so we will oh go

1:34:29 ↗ ahead super quick one

1:34:31 ↗ um since one of the

1:34:33 ↗ directions needed tonight is on the

1:34:36 ↗ draft engagement plan so I mean is our

1:34:38 ↗ sense that we feel like

1:34:40 ↗ um

1:34:40 ↗ like there are best practices for

1:34:43 ↗ communicating and engaging with the

1:34:44 ↗ community about the comprehensive plan

1:34:46 ↗ because it's very

1:34:48 ↗ it would be it'd be very challenging to

1:34:50 ↗ understand for just the typical resident

1:34:52 ↗ of a particular City so do we feel like

1:34:55 ↗ we've kind of Incorporated what best

1:34:57 ↗ practices might be out there for

1:34:58 ↗ engaging with residents about comp plan

1:35:01 ↗ update

1:35:02 ↗ yes so we've we've had some discussions

1:35:05 ↗ with Consultants as well as a lot of

1:35:08 ↗ discussions with their Communications

1:35:09 ↗ Group on how best to approach it and and

1:35:12 ↗ based on the scope of the this periodic

1:35:15 ↗ update what's proposed is is the best

1:35:18 ↗ practices that we'd like to incorporate

1:35:21 ↗ with the periodic update that's what I

1:35:23 ↗ like to hear thank you

1:35:27 ↗ okay at this time we will take public

1:35:30 ↗ comment on this item

1:35:32 ↗ um so I will check in with the city

1:35:34 ↗ clerk if there are any members of the

1:35:36 ↗ public that are interested in making

1:35:38 ↗ public comment on this item

1:35:43 ↗ chair hunt I see no virtual hands raised

1:35:46 ↗ among our virtual attendees and uh I

1:35:50 ↗ don't see a desire from anyone in the

1:35:52 ↗ room to address this topic oh

1:35:57 ↗ um so we this isn't question answer but

1:35:59 ↗ you are welcome to make a comment and

1:36:01 ↗ and ask your question and then

1:36:03 ↗ um we can follow up with you and also we

1:36:06 ↗ can consider it in our in our comments

1:36:08 ↗ so go yes

1:36:11 ↗ step up to the microphone thank you

1:36:15 ↗ so I understand it's not question and

1:36:18 ↗ answer but I would like to understand at

1:36:21 ↗ some point if you could restate when the

1:36:24 ↗ decisions about the Ami percentages will

1:36:27 ↗ be made for the 3500

1:36:30 ↗ units and what your uh what

1:36:34 ↗ decision-making criteria will decide

1:36:37 ↗ what those percentages are thank you so

1:36:39 ↗ much

1:36:42 ↗ okay great thank you for that uh

1:36:44 ↗ additional comment

1:36:47 ↗ and I think since we have um since

1:36:50 ↗ since uh a comment was made earlier we

1:36:53 ↗ have the name and everything so I think

1:36:54 ↗ we're good yes okay great all right

1:36:56 ↗ thank you again and so now we will um go

1:36:59 ↗ into discussion deliberation on this

1:37:01 ↗ item and if we could pull up the

1:37:03 ↗ questions again uh that would be awesome

1:37:05 ↗ thanks

1:37:09 ↗ council president Walsh thank you

1:37:12 ↗ um I'm gonna just take one moment to

1:37:15 ↗ answer the question that was posed by

1:37:17 ↗ the public just because I'm on the

1:37:21 ↗ affordable housing committee for

1:37:23 ↗ um all of that so uh it's a numbers

1:37:26 ↗ coming down from the Department of

1:37:29 ↗ Commerce at the state level that were

1:37:31 ↗ then debated through King County and we

1:37:35 ↗ ultimately came up with a concept of

1:37:39 ↗ trying to get everybody up to the same

1:37:43 ↗ level rather than everybody build just a

1:37:46 ↗ similar amount but ultimately it will go

1:37:48 ↗ through King County for adoption and

1:37:50 ↗ then enough of the Cities also have to

1:37:53 ↗ adopt it so they're not expecting that

1:37:55 ↗ number to come through very soon but the

1:37:59 ↗ proposed numbers are out there

1:38:01 ↗ so we've got

1:38:03 ↗ progress but not quick on that

1:38:07 ↗ so um back to kind of some of these

1:38:11 ↗ areas I really appreciate that we're

1:38:13 ↗ thinking about all of this this is a

1:38:15 ↗ really tough concept for the public to

1:38:20 ↗ understand you know why are we creating

1:38:23 ↗ something that's a 10-year update you

1:38:26 ↗ know how does that change from the you

1:38:29 ↗ know land use code that we're making

1:38:31 ↗ adjustments to now

1:38:33 ↗ um so I appreciate that we are

1:38:35 ↗ going to do our darndest with the

1:38:38 ↗ engagement plan

1:38:40 ↗ and use that feedback I will be

1:38:44 ↗ interested to see how much engagement we

1:38:47 ↗ get on that since this is such a kind of

1:38:50 ↗ lofty out there idea

1:38:52 ↗ but

1:38:54 ↗ um as far as the scope of this

1:38:59 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:39:01 ↗ I am most interested in getting the

1:39:05 ↗ things done that we need to get done

1:39:08 ↗ and focusing as much as possible on

1:39:12 ↗ the problem areas that we as a community

1:39:17 ↗ are experiencing whether that relates to

1:39:22 ↗ housing or

1:39:24 ↗ climate you know and adopting the the

1:39:28 ↗ functional plans that we have already

1:39:30 ↗ put so much work into and bringing those

1:39:34 ↗ into the comprehensive plan I'm not as

1:39:37 ↗ interested in Reinventing the wheel in

1:39:41 ↗ areas that we don't need to

1:39:44 ↗ um I'm also not sure how

1:39:48 ↗ comfortable or how interested I am in

1:39:51 ↗ looking at some of the areas that aren't

1:39:55 ↗ State requirements such as the cultural

1:39:59 ↗ updates I I just don't know from my

1:40:02 ↗ perspective how important it is to have

1:40:04 ↗ those in the comprehensive plan versus

1:40:07 ↗ just having an understanding as a city

1:40:10 ↗ of how we approach those so I think that

1:40:13 ↗ would be my feedback on those particular

1:40:16 ↗ areas we have limited time we have

1:40:18 ↗ limited resources there are a limited

1:40:20 ↗ number of Consultants out there that are

1:40:22 ↗ willing to work since everybody's doing

1:40:24 ↗ the update at the same time and so I

1:40:26 ↗ want to make sure we get the most on the

1:40:29 ↗ things that we need to do I appreciate

1:40:31 ↗ one of those things is the Eis I think

1:40:34 ↗ that's super important I'm glad that we

1:40:37 ↗ are putting our money there and

1:40:40 ↗ understanding that that's an essential

1:40:42 ↗ part of understanding where we need to

1:40:45 ↗ go

1:40:47 ↗ um

1:40:47 ↗ as far as the parking analysis

1:40:53 ↗ I have to say I'm I'm kind of

1:40:56 ↗ just sitting here as much as I

1:40:57 ↗ understand the resource constraints I'm

1:40:59 ↗ pretty darn disappointed that we're

1:41:02 ↗ looking at that and saying that can't

1:41:05 ↗ necessarily happen and um in 2023 and

1:41:10 ↗ we're looking into 2024 or even 2025

1:41:13 ↗ depending on the scope of that so I'm a

1:41:17 ↗ little bit

1:41:18 ↗ frustrated in that area

1:41:21 ↗ given that that's on our future updates

1:41:24 ↗ plan and also just how important that is

1:41:27 ↗ in understanding what type of housing we

1:41:31 ↗ can build

1:41:33 ↗ um

1:41:33 ↗ I guess a question for either Stephen or

1:41:37 ↗ director dollywall when when we're

1:41:41 ↗ pulling together this the land use

1:41:43 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan and

1:41:47 ↗ one part of that has to be you know how

1:41:50 ↗ much growth can you accommodate given

1:41:52 ↗ your current zoning and everything if

1:41:56 ↗ if an apartment is going to be built in

1:41:59 ↗ and in one case it requires you know

1:42:02 ↗ structured parking which is going to

1:42:04 ↗ take up three floors versus another

1:42:06 ↗ where there's no parking requirement

1:42:08 ↗ wouldn't that have an adjustment on the

1:42:11 ↗ number of units that our zoning could

1:42:14 ↗ accommodate which is

1:42:16 ↗ essential as a part of the comp plan

1:42:22 ↗ I'm just wondering whether

1:42:25 ↗ changing our her doing a parking

1:42:28 ↗ analysis after the comp plan and thus

1:42:31 ↗ that being potentially a big change on

1:42:34 ↗ what we could build or or could

1:42:36 ↗ accommodate whether that is a problem

1:42:48 ↗ or I think from RT's perspective we

1:42:50 ↗ didn't see it as a problem primarily

1:42:52 ↗ because the policies will help us kind

1:42:55 ↗ of shape how some of that work is done

1:42:57 ↗ for the parking analysis that come out

1:42:59 ↗ of the comprehensive plan

1:43:03 ↗ yeah I think if I'm understand your

1:43:04 ↗ question correctly council president

1:43:06 ↗ Walsh

1:43:08 ↗ if the parking standards are different

1:43:10 ↗ is there a net difference to how many

1:43:13 ↗ units you can build

1:43:15 ↗ I think where we've designated our

1:43:18 ↗ growth density standards are pretty high

1:43:20 ↗ so but yes those two are connected in

1:43:23 ↗ terms of your total potential for

1:43:25 ↗ development what probably we need to

1:43:29 ↗ understand a little bit more is isn't

1:43:31 ↗ just how much can fit in that on that

1:43:34 ↗ lot but also the economics of where

1:43:37 ↗ parking makes it in you know structured

1:43:40 ↗ parking makes it infeasible for instance

1:43:42 ↗ and it doesn't pencil out nor economics

1:43:45 ↗ of of the parking and the housing so

1:43:47 ↗ that it is they are interconnected for

1:43:50 ↗ sure

1:43:51 ↗ um in terms of the current Title 18

1:43:55 ↗ update I think there was an email that

1:43:56 ↗ was sent out that kind of reflects what

1:43:59 ↗ we where we stretched it where we could

1:44:01 ↗ the the problem with really having no

1:44:06 ↗ parking standards or no minimums for

1:44:08 ↗ Issaquah is we still don't have Transit

1:44:11 ↗ and so people are relying on cars so

1:44:13 ↗ it's that transition until Light Rail is

1:44:16 ↗ here and until we get transit to take

1:44:18 ↗ people from place to place parking will

1:44:21 ↗ be that sort of in in the mix

1:44:24 ↗ um and and I think the focus on shared

1:44:27 ↗ parking as an interim plan we stretched

1:44:30 ↗ it Title 18 to the maximum we could

1:44:32 ↗ having those shared you know

1:44:34 ↗ opportunities we raised it from 10 to 40

1:44:36 ↗ already how much more we could push that

1:44:40 ↗ I think is kind of questionable without

1:44:42 ↗ Transit at least that's the feedback we

1:44:45 ↗ heard from the business Community when

1:44:46 ↗ we were having those conversations yeah

1:44:49 ↗ and I I wasn't at all proposing no no

1:44:52 ↗ parking standards or anything like that

1:44:54 ↗ I'm just trying to understand how the

1:44:56 ↗ relationship between any changes that we

1:45:00 ↗ make to parking how that affects

1:45:04 ↗ what we have to put in the comprehensive

1:45:06 ↗ plan and also you know like when it

1:45:09 ↗ comes to the housing allocations I know

1:45:13 ↗ a lot of cities are really concerned

1:45:15 ↗ that they're going to have to up Zone a

1:45:17 ↗ lot of areas in order to

1:45:21 ↗ accommodate the growth that they were

1:45:23 ↗ expected I don't think we're probably in

1:45:26 ↗ as dire of a situation because we

1:45:28 ↗ already have that planned growth but

1:45:32 ↗ I would be interested to know if

1:45:36 ↗ if we were in a situation like that

1:45:39 ↗ whether parking would be a hindering

1:45:41 ↗ Factor

1:45:43 ↗ um so that was yeah yeah and and it

1:45:46 ↗ varies on the neighborhood too I mean we

1:45:49 ↗ have streets where you won't be able to

1:45:51 ↗ add on street parking because of the

1:45:53 ↗ topography and because of the challenges

1:45:55 ↗ with you know additional stormwater

1:45:58 ↗ infrastructure so we have some

1:45:59 ↗ limitations in some neighborhoods for

1:46:02 ↗ things like that that then tie in with

1:46:06 ↗ additional density in those

1:46:07 ↗ neighborhoods so yeah I think they're

1:46:09 ↗ connected the density and parking are

1:46:11 ↗ intertwined that's why the

1:46:13 ↗ transportation and land use are

1:46:14 ↗ connected and that's why we're you know

1:46:16 ↗ especially for this community I think

1:46:18 ↗ those two do go hand in hand

1:46:21 ↗ um

1:46:28 ↗ um okay so I had

1:46:31 ↗ um first of all I agreed with council

1:46:33 ↗ president Walsh on when I was reading

1:46:35 ↗ this I I think we have a lot of existing

1:46:39 ↗ plans on things that are either required

1:46:42 ↗ or required in part by the comprehensive

1:46:44 ↗ planning process that we've already done

1:46:46 ↗ that are specific to

1:46:48 ↗ Issaquah that staff have done a great

1:46:51 ↗ job on and so I am less I I want to

1:46:56 ↗ focus

1:46:58 ↗ are valuable time on implementing those

1:47:01 ↗ plans rather than sort of reworking them

1:47:04 ↗ to fit into the comprehensive plan if

1:47:06 ↗ that's not required because we already

1:47:08 ↗ the the process of the plan

1:47:11 ↗ that was already done that the community

1:47:13 ↗ engagement was already there so

1:47:15 ↗ um and we you know now we need to

1:47:17 ↗ implement the plan so I would rather

1:47:18 ↗ focus on that so I agree on that point

1:47:21 ↗ especially for those pieces that we are

1:47:24 ↗ not required to do

1:47:26 ↗ I on the neighborhood plans I felt

1:47:30 ↗ similar because I those aren't we aren't

1:47:32 ↗ required to do those so if we did that

1:47:34 ↗ process

1:47:35 ↗ separate from the comprehensive planning

1:47:38 ↗ process I wonder if we might have more

1:47:40 ↗ flexibility and you know we could have

1:47:42 ↗ different Community engagement around

1:47:43 ↗ that and not kind of

1:47:46 ↗ mash it into this much bigger update I

1:47:49 ↗ wonder if that might be the way to go

1:47:50 ↗ because again it's not required to be

1:47:52 ↗ part of this process and we could

1:47:53 ↗ potentially use our own process for that

1:47:56 ↗ so that was a consideration I had um

1:48:01 ↗ then

1:48:03 ↗ a question let's remember honey if I

1:48:05 ↗ could offer a quick clarification so the

1:48:07 ↗ okay let's let's

1:48:10 ↗ um

1:48:10 ↗ proposed for the conference plan

1:48:12 ↗ periodic update isn't to go and try to

1:48:16 ↗ fix the functional plans that have

1:48:18 ↗ already been adopted or in development

1:48:19 ↗ it's more of fixing the comp plan to

1:48:21 ↗ match what's in those functional plans

1:48:25 ↗ yep I I understand

1:48:27 ↗ um I think

1:48:28 ↗ uh I'll just be from myself but I think

1:48:32 ↗ that you know especially when it's not

1:48:34 ↗ required that's where I'm saying I would

1:48:37 ↗ like to

1:48:39 ↗ um not spend as much of our effort on

1:48:42 ↗ that versus implementation so it's a

1:48:44 ↗ kind of an overarching

1:48:45 ↗ feeling that I got reading this

1:48:48 ↗ um and so I wanted to convey that and it

1:48:51 ↗ sounds like Council yeah council

1:48:53 ↗ president Walsh is also nodding so I

1:48:55 ↗ think I think we both got that sense

1:48:57 ↗ that we we understand

1:49:00 ↗ um the comprehensive plan can be more

1:49:02 ↗ than

1:49:03 ↗ then what is required but we

1:49:07 ↗ or I think we need to

1:49:11 ↗ potentially make sure that we have

1:49:13 ↗ resources to implement plans rather

1:49:16 ↗ actually Implement them rather than work

1:49:19 ↗ on fitting them into the comprehensive

1:49:21 ↗ plan

1:49:22 ↗ um so that was my first sort of

1:49:24 ↗ overarching comment

1:49:26 ↗ I had a question on the Eis

1:49:28 ↗ Eis is the environmental impact

1:49:31 ↗ statement and it will be done

1:49:34 ↗ um it seemed in parallel with the

1:49:36 ↗ comprehensive planning or

1:49:39 ↗ um okay so uh the Eis is meant to also

1:49:43 ↗ help with decision making and I wondered

1:49:46 ↗ if you could explain a little bit how

1:49:49 ↗ that will work like will there be a

1:49:51 ↗ checkpoint

1:49:52 ↗ um where we would get information by the

1:49:55 ↗ consultant listing the Eis about the

1:49:57 ↗ different options that we're considering

1:49:59 ↗ in the comprehensive plan and how they

1:50:00 ↗ would impact the environment and then

1:50:02 ↗ Council would

1:50:04 ↗ make a decision or how would that

1:50:06 ↗ interaction between those two processes

1:50:09 ↗ work

1:50:17 ↗ could you repeat your question one more

1:50:19 ↗ time my audio cut out okay so the Eis is

1:50:23 ↗ happening at the same time as the

1:50:25 ↗ comprehensive plan correct

1:50:28 ↗ correct okay so my question is the Eis

1:50:32 ↗ is the environmental impact statement

1:50:34 ↗ it's meant to as far as I understand

1:50:36 ↗ meant to help with decision making and

1:50:38 ↗ so I'm wondering what is the process by

1:50:41 ↗ which we use the environmental impact

1:50:44 ↗ statement in decision making for the

1:50:46 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:50:49 ↗ so when we're connecting the Eis with

1:50:51 ↗ consultant there's gonna they're gonna

1:50:53 ↗ be conducting several analysis around

1:50:54 ↗ What's

1:50:56 ↗ um part of the comprehensive plan what's

1:50:58 ↗ part of the regulations what's been

1:51:00 ↗ identified previously

1:51:03 ↗ um in in our growth uh expectations uh

1:51:08 ↗ what's been done with the Eis is with

1:51:11 ↗ several of the DA's and uh much of that

1:51:14 ↗ analysis is going to feed into

1:51:17 ↗ into the decision making for potential

1:51:20 ↗ amendments that go into the

1:51:21 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:51:24 ↗ does that help answer your question

1:51:27 ↗ um maybe so okay so the it's sort of the

1:51:31 ↗ AIS will be done on the existing

1:51:37 ↗ um provisions and then that will come

1:51:40 ↗ back to council as information that will

1:51:43 ↗ help us make amendments to the

1:51:45 ↗ comprehensive plan for changes and then

1:51:48 ↗ presumably the Eis has to reflect

1:51:53 ↗ those changes it has to go back into the

1:51:56 ↗ Eis process right

1:51:59 ↗ yes okay so I think um that's that's

1:52:02 ↗ great I think for when it is complicated

1:52:07 ↗ and I think I I would definitely benefit

1:52:09 ↗ from having like a

1:52:11 ↗ chart of how this is gonna work with the

1:52:14 ↗ you know when when does the Eis feed

1:52:16 ↗ into the

1:52:18 ↗ um comp plan and when does it go back

1:52:21 ↗ yeah and again tonight is really just

1:52:23 ↗ the beginnings of a road map uh this is

1:52:25 ↗ going to be a long process and we'll uh

1:52:28 ↗ at the very beginning what we'll also

1:52:29 ↗ tap the Consultants

1:52:31 ↗ to do this all the time and I'll have

1:52:33 ↗ that for you so I appreciate the

1:52:35 ↗ feedback we want to make sure that the

1:52:37 ↗ council

1:52:37 ↗ is going to be a big project you're

1:52:39 ↗ coming off a huge project and you're

1:52:40 ↗ going right into another huge project

1:52:45 ↗ um

1:52:47 ↗ I think when it does come back at

1:52:49 ↗ whatever feature point I think that

1:52:50 ↗ would be helpful to know because they're

1:52:54 ↗ they're both important and they're both

1:52:55 ↗ big projects like the Eis and you're

1:52:58 ↗ going to dive right back you get the

1:53:00 ↗ month of April off I think May 2nd your

1:53:02 ↗ meeting next meeting after this and

1:53:04 ↗ you're diving right in okay

1:53:07 ↗ um

1:53:10 ↗ all right and then I will try to address

1:53:13 ↗ the the specific questions that have

1:53:15 ↗ been asked so does the committee have

1:53:17 ↗ changes for the draft engagement plan I

1:53:20 ↗ I think

1:53:22 ↗ um I would be really interested in

1:53:24 ↗ hearing what the equity board has to say

1:53:27 ↗ um I think this is a big project that we

1:53:29 ↗ really would like to make sure we do a

1:53:32 ↗ good job engaging our entire Community

1:53:34 ↗ including having materials in multiple

1:53:37 ↗ languages and making sure that we're

1:53:39 ↗ reaching folks that aren't

1:53:42 ↗ uh that that aren't participating in

1:53:45 ↗ city and other City processes to make

1:53:47 ↗ sure we have that feedback so I

1:53:49 ↗ appreciated that I think especially once

1:53:52 ↗ we hear from the equity board I'd be

1:53:54 ↗ interested in their their thoughts and

1:53:56 ↗ how they think we might adjust that

1:53:58 ↗ whether that be making sure we have

1:54:00 ↗ child care for meetings or you know

1:54:03 ↗ whatever whatever is identified as the

1:54:05 ↗ barriers to make sure that we

1:54:07 ↗ that we address those

1:54:10 ↗ um

1:54:11 ↗ and does the committee have changes for

1:54:13 ↗ the scope of the periodic update

1:54:15 ↗ I think I spoke that I think addresses

1:54:18 ↗ or that's my earlier comments about I

1:54:20 ↗ would I would

1:54:23 ↗ um reduce the amount of non-required

1:54:26 ↗ updates especially when we have existing

1:54:28 ↗ City plans

1:54:30 ↗ and manager members of the committee I

1:54:32 ↗ think we're going to need you to go more

1:54:33 ↗ specific than that this evening so

1:54:35 ↗ Stephen can you go back to the slide

1:54:37 ↗ where I think you had listed those uh uh

1:54:40 ↗ planning options which are required and

1:54:43 ↗ those that are

1:54:49 ↗ so with this it's Human Services and

1:54:52 ↗ cultural are the two that are not

1:54:53 ↗ required is that correct Stephen

1:54:57 ↗ and the Human Services element we've

1:55:00 ↗ already done quite a bit with the Human

1:55:02 ↗ Services uh strategic plan correct would

1:55:05 ↗ there be much additional work beyond

1:55:07 ↗ that

1:55:08 ↗ uh no it's it's just we we never

1:55:12 ↗ Incorporated the Human Services

1:55:13 ↗ strategic plan into the comp plan

1:55:15 ↗ element so we're not looking at

1:55:17 ↗ additional community outreach any other

1:55:20 ↗ significant work hopefully be a pretty

1:55:22 ↗ ministerial process to take the approved

1:55:25 ↗ Community document and uh convert it to

1:55:27 ↗ whatever language needs to be part of

1:55:30 ↗ the comp plan

1:55:31 ↗ correct it's primarily just looking

1:55:33 ↗ through to see what needs to get changed

1:55:36 ↗ to get put into the conference plan and

1:55:37 ↗ just checking with the Human Services

1:55:38 ↗ Commission to make sure that we we are

1:55:42 ↗ understanding it correctly and then the

1:55:44 ↗ cultural element would be something new

1:55:47 ↗ there is not an existing is there a

1:55:49 ↗ recent existing document

1:55:51 ↗ there is an existing uh element on

1:55:53 ↗ cultural and

1:55:55 ↗ um the parks and human services

1:55:57 ↗ department will be working with the arts

1:56:01 ↗ and culture or Arts commission to update

1:56:04 ↗ their work plan and this element my

1:56:07 ↗ understanding is the biggest change is

1:56:08 ↗ that they're primarily going to be

1:56:10 ↗ making is just including additional

1:56:13 ↗ language on Landmark Landmark

1:56:14 ↗ preservation

1:56:16 ↗ so there's a little bit more work on the

1:56:18 ↗ cultural side compared to the Human

1:56:19 ↗ Services

1:56:20 ↗ correct

1:56:22 ↗ so I think what we're looking for of

1:56:24 ↗ manager members of the committee is a

1:56:26 ↗ recommendation to the full Council so

1:56:29 ↗ um I think from my perspective the Human

1:56:31 ↗ Services element has already been a lot

1:56:33 ↗ of recent work that's been done there we

1:56:35 ↗ would recommend moving forward with that

1:56:37 ↗ the cultural element I think is your

1:56:39 ↗ call there is some additional work that

1:56:42 ↗ needs to be done I don't sense in

1:56:44 ↗ director Donald correct me if I'm wrong

1:56:46 ↗ but that's going to take a lot away from

1:56:49 ↗ CPD staff's work on this it'll probably

1:56:52 ↗ be a little bit

1:56:53 ↗ so I think that's really your your call

1:56:57 ↗ and so Stephen those would be the two

1:56:58 ↗ pieces that are not required so if the

1:57:01 ↗ committee was looking to recommend to

1:57:03 ↗ the full Council

1:57:04 ↗ not pursuing these would be the two on

1:57:06 ↗ the table correct

1:57:08 ↗ correct uh the the other discretionary

1:57:11 ↗ items is going to be the the Eis which

1:57:14 ↗ is highly recommended by staff in uh the

1:57:17 ↗ city service office and the design and

1:57:21 ↗ access that will be done by the second

1:57:22 ↗ consultant and then there's the

1:57:24 ↗ neighborhood planning piece which we can

1:57:26 ↗ perhaps talk about in a moment that's

1:57:28 ↗ also discretionary correct

1:57:30 ↗ correct

1:57:31 ↗ so Madam chair members of the committee

1:57:33 ↗ what are your thoughts then on the human

1:57:35 ↗ services and cultural plans

1:57:38 ↗ what is the

1:57:40 ↗ so to be clear we have a human services

1:57:43 ↗ strategic plan which is great and very

1:57:45 ↗ accessible you can easily find it on the

1:57:47 ↗ website

1:57:48 ↗ um I think it's very well done so what

1:57:51 ↗ is the benefit of sort of reformatting

1:57:54 ↗ it and putting it into our comprehensive

1:57:56 ↗ plan

1:57:59 ↗ um so there's a there is an existing

1:58:01 ↗ Human Services element the conference

1:58:03 ↗ responsibility we would just be updated

1:58:04 ↗ to match what's was updated into the

1:58:07 ↗ Strategic plan the benefit of having in

1:58:10 ↗ the comprehensive plan is

1:58:12 ↗ occasionally there will be state or

1:58:14 ↗ federal grants that will require

1:58:16 ↗ policies to be adopted within the

1:58:18 ↗ comprehensive plan in order to be

1:58:20 ↗ eligible there's there's not a lot of

1:58:22 ↗ them but that is one of the benefits

1:58:26 ↗ okay well that's an interesting yeah I

1:58:29 ↗ mean if the council decides I mean we

1:58:31 ↗ don't know the the basis of why this you

1:58:34 ↗ know the city chose to have these

1:58:36 ↗ elements some of them were optional in

1:58:38 ↗ the past I don't think I'm familiar with

1:58:40 ↗ some of the history of why that was

1:58:42 ↗ chosen since then the thinking may have

1:58:45 ↗ evolved and now we have these functional

1:58:47 ↗ plans which generally are five-year time

1:58:50 ↗ frame comprehensive plan has a 20-year

1:58:53 ↗ comp plan if Council fee committee feels

1:58:57 ↗ we don't need to duplicate we'll just

1:58:59 ↗ have a good functional plan we can

1:59:01 ↗ eliminate this element from the

1:59:03 ↗ complaint is them am I understanding

1:59:06 ↗ your thought process there I think that

1:59:08 ↗ would be the outcome yeah we don't want

1:59:11 ↗ to update the Human Services element

1:59:12 ↗ then we would eliminate it and we would

1:59:14 ↗ just rely on the existing documents as

1:59:16 ↗ policy guidance yeah I'm satisfied with

1:59:19 ↗ the the grant opportunities answer I

1:59:22 ↗ just you know if there if it were for

1:59:24 ↗ planning we already have a plan and so

1:59:27 ↗ um if it were more for

1:59:29 ↗ having all the plans in one place I

1:59:31 ↗ would be less interested but if it's if

1:59:34 ↗ it provides grant opportunities that

1:59:35 ↗ seems smart

1:59:38 ↗ um okay and on the cultural if the main

1:59:40 ↗ change is landmarks we just did the

1:59:43 ↗ title 18

1:59:45 ↗ um update which is actually the code

1:59:47 ↗ portion around Landmark preservation so

1:59:51 ↗ I think I would

1:59:54 ↗ um

1:59:55 ↗ I would defer to my fellow

1:59:58 ↗ many members but um

2:00:00 ↗ I'm not similarly I'm not sure so is

2:00:03 ↗ that similarly that if we put that in

2:00:06 ↗ about landmarks then we could

2:00:08 ↗ potentially get have grant opportunities

2:00:09 ↗ that we wouldn't otherwise be able to

2:00:11 ↗ have

2:00:13 ↗ uh potentially yes and that is that's

2:00:16 ↗ the same benefit as having that as part

2:00:18 ↗ of the comprehensive plan is eligibility

2:00:19 ↗ for potential Federal

2:00:22 ↗ or state grants that might require it

2:00:26 ↗ okay

2:00:28 ↗ and just on that

2:00:30 ↗ um right now the cultural element

2:00:34 ↗ um in our comp plan is just five pages

2:00:36 ↗ so I can't see this as being a huge

2:00:39 ↗ update required

2:00:42 ↗ um I think going to a border commission

2:00:46 ↗ and having that conversation would

2:00:49 ↗ probably satisfy the need from my

2:00:52 ↗ perspective

2:00:53 ↗ um

2:00:55 ↗ because it's just a an optional element

2:00:58 ↗ so

2:01:00 ↗ so are you you're in favor of leaving it

2:01:02 ↗ or you would like to see it go away

2:01:05 ↗ I'm I think I'm fine with keeping the

2:01:09 ↗ cultural and the Human Services given

2:01:12 ↗ that they are small components and

2:01:16 ↗ if we limit our scope that they don't

2:01:20 ↗ become a sure big

2:01:22 ↗ big piece and that's not and that's

2:01:24 ↗ certainly not the intent I hopefully of

2:01:26 ↗ anything you've heard tonight

2:01:28 ↗ um you know we as a community have

2:01:30 ↗ decided that these are important all of

2:01:32 ↗ these are important and we've done other

2:01:35 ↗ additional planning above and beyond

2:01:36 ↗ what many other communities do in this

2:01:39 ↗ interim period so I think that's that's

2:01:42 ↗ one of our challenges looking at all

2:01:43 ↗ this is that we it says not a once in

2:01:46 ↗ every five year once every 10-year kind

2:01:47 ↗ of process for us we're always talking

2:01:49 ↗ about some element of this so this is

2:01:52 ↗ now catching up with the standards of

2:01:53 ↗ the state of Washington

2:01:56 ↗ so Madam chair it looks like we're fine

2:01:58 ↗ leaving these as is so Stephen can you

2:02:01 ↗ go back to the slide that talks about

2:02:03 ↗ the neighborhood

2:02:04 ↗ planning piece

2:02:10 ↗ one so so that's 125 000 this is covered

2:02:14 ↗ by a grant so this is money we already

2:02:16 ↗ have in hand to do the work

2:02:19 ↗ that's correct we acquired a

2:02:22 ↗ comprehensive plan periodic update Grant

2:02:24 ↗ from Department of Commerce and that

2:02:26 ↗ that's where the 125 000 is coming from

2:02:29 ↗ uh does that also cover the design piece

2:02:33 ↗ correct yes it does

2:02:36 ↗ okay

2:02:37 ↗ so my question on that and looking over

2:02:40 ↗ other comprehensive plans some of them

2:02:43 ↗ have a whole

2:02:45 ↗ section of you know 15 20 pages that

2:02:47 ↗ describes what a neighborhood is and all

2:02:50 ↗ of that

2:02:51 ↗ are we looking to create an element

2:02:56 ↗ in the comprehensive plan that describes

2:02:59 ↗ how neighborhoods are important or is it

2:03:02 ↗ just basically deciding on what the map

2:03:05 ↗ is and maybe a description of each

2:03:08 ↗ neighborhood so what's the scope there

2:03:11 ↗ and the second so it's primarily just

2:03:13 ↗ incorporating policies into the land use

2:03:15 ↗ element not creating a new element for

2:03:17 ↗ this that talks about what's expected

2:03:20 ↗ from neighborhood plans

2:03:23 ↗ um and and updating that map a

2:03:26 ↗ neighborhood plan uh boundaries

2:03:30 ↗ so is that separate from the old town

2:03:35 ↗ plan that we have

2:03:38 ↗ um it would just incorporate probably

2:03:41 ↗ elements of that but also do

2:03:44 ↗ descriptions and maps and understanding

2:03:47 ↗ of what each of the different

2:03:48 ↗ neighborhoods is

2:03:49 ↗ within that land use element

2:03:53 ↗ I'm actually going to ask Kristen Leeson

2:03:55 ↗ senior planner to jump in she she knows

2:03:57 ↗ more about the old town plans than I do

2:04:00 ↗ can better answer your question

2:04:05 ↗ hey there Kristen Leeson senior planner

2:04:08 ↗ um all sub-area plans stay

2:04:12 ↗ so first we need to fix the boundaries

2:04:14 ↗ to to Define exactly what our

2:04:16 ↗ neighborhoods are because right now we

2:04:18 ↗ have some gaps from when we adopted or

2:04:21 ↗ when we annexed King County into the

2:04:23 ↗ City and when we took parts of central

2:04:25 ↗ Issaquah out so that's part of it is

2:04:27 ↗ redefining the neighborhood boundaries

2:04:29 ↗ then when we do neighborhood plans they

2:04:31 ↗ all are

2:04:33 ↗ sort of sub plans to the comprehensive

2:04:35 ↗ plan just like the old town plan just

2:04:37 ↗ like the central Issaquah plan their

2:04:38 ↗ sort of subclans that address they have

2:04:41 ↗ policies that are very specific to those

2:04:42 ↗ neighborhoods

2:04:45 ↗ as as opposed to the overall

2:04:47 ↗ comprehensive plan climate change kind

2:04:49 ↗ of thing yes we want climate change

2:04:50 ↗ policies for the entire city but but the

2:04:52 ↗ sub-area plans will have separate small

2:04:54 ↗ separate uh area specific policies for

2:04:57 ↗ them

2:04:59 ↗ okay and so since this is ultimately a

2:05:04 ↗ part of the land use element which is a

2:05:06 ↗ required element

2:05:07 ↗ our options are either

2:05:11 ↗ use the 125 000 Grant

2:05:15 ↗ as a way to update that section or

2:05:19 ↗ remove the neighborhood element or the

2:05:24 ↗ neighborhood portion of the land use and

2:05:26 ↗ give the money back

2:05:29 ↗ is are those the two options

2:05:34 ↗ well if we don't use it we would give

2:05:35 ↗ the money back I think what you're

2:05:37 ↗ hearing from Kristen is that the

2:05:38 ↗ neighborhoods we have aren't do not

2:05:40 ↗ accurately accurately reflect other

2:05:43 ↗ planning that we have done so it's

2:05:45 ↗ prudent for us to conform all of us and

2:05:48 ↗ so I think it's one of the reasons we

2:05:49 ↗ went after the grant because we knew

2:05:50 ↗ this would be a good time to do that

2:05:57 ↗ no you're not wrong at all I'm sorry I

2:05:59 ↗ thought you were done

2:06:01 ↗ you know being virtual

2:06:03 ↗ um a little different um but uh the

2:06:05 ↗ neighborhood plans are a huge tool for

2:06:08 ↗ our current planners

2:06:09 ↗ and for us just to you know our

2:06:12 ↗ strategic plan talks about preserving

2:06:13 ↗ existing characteristics of existing

2:06:15 ↗ neighborhoods and that helps us to

2:06:17 ↗ Define what our existing neighborhoods

2:06:18 ↗ are

2:06:20 ↗ um so so that's a big tool for the

2:06:21 ↗ current planners as well as us

2:06:24 ↗ um

2:06:25 ↗ and then I forgot the other part that I

2:06:27 ↗ was going to say to fill in for Wally

2:06:28 ↗ but well the

2:06:30 ↗ what I've come to learn is still a

2:06:32 ↗ relatively newcomer here is not all of

2:06:34 ↗ our neighborhoods are equal that some of

2:06:37 ↗ our neighborhoods are well organized

2:06:38 ↗ have long traditions of being

2:06:40 ↗ neighborhoods have long traditions of

2:06:41 ↗ working together as neighbors within a

2:06:44 ↗ neighborhood and some of our

2:06:45 ↗ neighborhoods wouldn't even know they're

2:06:46 ↗ in a neighborhood together and so I

2:06:48 ↗ think some of this again Christian

2:06:51 ↗ correct me if I'm wrong comes from some

2:06:53 ↗ work that the communications staff did

2:06:55 ↗ in what 2017-2018 to work with these

2:06:59 ↗ communities what these neighbors and

2:07:00 ↗ saying what is your neighborhood and so

2:07:03 ↗ this is to take that map in essence put

2:07:05 ↗ it in uh the comprehensive plan and then

2:07:08 ↗ use it further we have been using it

2:07:10 ↗ informally absent uh two plus year

2:07:13 ↗ pandemic since it was adopted

2:07:16 ↗ um but we think it's important and so I

2:07:18 ↗ I for the administration's standpoint we

2:07:20 ↗ have a grant we think we can make the

2:07:23 ↗ best use of the money with the Grant and

2:07:25 ↗ it will ultimately give us a tool that

2:07:28 ↗ we can use not only in land use but

2:07:29 ↗ another

2:07:35 ↗ okay uh one question on the slide is

2:07:39 ↗ will the design apply only to the design

2:07:42 ↗ from this grant only applied to the

2:07:44 ↗ neighborhood piece or can the design

2:07:45 ↗ apply to the whole

2:07:49 ↗ they'll uh what we've discussed with

2:07:52 ↗ Department of Commerce is that the

2:07:53 ↗ consultant can help us put together

2:07:56 ↗ the language that'll update the

2:07:58 ↗ neighborhood planning policies but also

2:08:01 ↗ develop a template that we can use that

2:08:03 ↗ we can use to develop each individual

2:08:06 ↗ neighborhood plan

2:08:08 ↗ so outside of the copyright Supply

2:08:11 ↗ but I think um Stephen the you have

2:08:14 ↗ neighborhood planning template on the

2:08:16 ↗ slide additional analysis and design is

2:08:20 ↗ that design referring to the design for

2:08:22 ↗ the whole comprehensive plan

2:08:25 ↗ yes it's uh yes thank you Manny the

2:08:28 ↗ design is referring to the entire

2:08:30 ↗ comprehensive plan not the specific

2:08:32 ↗ neighborhood plants okay and that's also

2:08:34 ↗ covered by this 125 000 Grant though

2:08:38 ↗ yes

2:08:39 ↗ great

2:08:40 ↗ um that yeah my question was really to

2:08:43 ↗ make sure that it would be one design

2:08:44 ↗ across the whole thing instead of having

2:08:46 ↗ one part that was designed differently

2:08:48 ↗ so that's great

2:08:50 ↗ um

2:08:50 ↗ okay the last question uh that I didn't

2:08:54 ↗ yet answer on your list of questions was

2:08:56 ↗ about the parking and I would say that I

2:09:00 ↗ think it's a comprehensive plan it looks

2:09:02 ↗ across the whole city of Issaquah we

2:09:04 ↗ also just recently did our land use code

2:09:06 ↗ which looks across the whole

2:09:08 ↗ city as well and we didn't we did it I

2:09:11 ↗ consider a light touch to the parking

2:09:13 ↗ code in that so I would be in favor of

2:09:15 ↗ looking across the whole city we aren't

2:09:17 ↗ only growing in central Issaquah and in

2:09:20 ↗ fact

2:09:20 ↗ recently we've been growing much more

2:09:22 ↗ outside of central Issaquah than within

2:09:26 ↗ Central as well so I think looking

2:09:29 ↗ across the whole city would be my

2:09:31 ↗ preference but looking forward to

2:09:32 ↗ hearing from my fellow

2:09:34 ↗ members of the committee have

2:09:36 ↗ um so that's my answers to questions and

2:09:38 ↗ I think those were all the questions

2:09:41 ↗ yep go ahead okay thank you

2:09:45 ↗ um all right yeah question one uh the

2:09:47 ↗ engagement plan is looking good to me

2:09:49 ↗ I'm glad that we've explored kind of

2:09:51 ↗ best practices and how to communicate

2:09:52 ↗ and engage with residents about this

2:09:54 ↗ complicated topic

2:09:56 ↗ um and I'm sure that there are staff

2:09:57 ↗ coming up with really imaginative uh

2:09:59 ↗ ways to use social media to engage with

2:10:01 ↗ residents and all that good stuff

2:10:02 ↗ another Point too is that our most

2:10:07 ↗ up-to-date Community survey is going to

2:10:08 ↗ be finished this summer actually in a

2:10:10 ↗ month May 6th or a couple yeah

2:10:12 ↗ imminently so I imagine that that data

2:10:15 ↗ will be very helpful

2:10:17 ↗ um not just to our boards and

2:10:19 ↗ commissions but also to staff as as

2:10:21 ↗ we're thinking about what community

2:10:22 ↗ priorities are through the context of

2:10:24 ↗ the comp plan so just making sure that's

2:10:26 ↗ on the record

2:10:28 ↗ um with regard to parking analysis I

2:10:30 ↗ agree

2:10:31 ↗ um with our chair

2:10:33 ↗ um the council Direction was for it to

2:10:35 ↗ be City city-wide and I feel like this

2:10:37 ↗ was a settled issue when we had kind of

2:10:40 ↗ the scoping conversation

2:10:42 ↗ um earlier and I think that we if I

2:10:46 ↗ remember right at least I looked back at

2:10:47 ↗ my notes and I found this we knew that

2:10:49 ↗ it would likely cost more than we had

2:10:51 ↗ budgeted for this partic particular

2:10:52 ↗ biennium and that it would likely go

2:10:55 ↗ past this particular biennium too but

2:10:57 ↗ this was just money to get started on

2:10:59 ↗ the work and so I think we already had

2:11:01 ↗ that conversation on Council so I don't

2:11:03 ↗ think it's necessarily at a left field

2:11:05 ↗ that this is going to be a little

2:11:07 ↗ delayed we all understand that there's

2:11:09 ↗ so much going on right now with regard

2:11:11 ↗ to planning so as long as that work is

2:11:13 ↗ getting started and we're having those

2:11:15 ↗ conversations is what um

2:11:17 ↗ we had talked about during budget and

2:11:18 ↗ some of the scoping conversations last

2:11:20 ↗ year

2:11:22 ↗ um another thing I want to talk about

2:11:23 ↗ was the key project deliverables part

2:11:27 ↗ for the parking study

2:11:30 ↗ um

2:11:33 ↗ because I I feel like we had or at least

2:11:36 ↗ I had brought this up a couple times and

2:11:38 ↗ I just want to make sure that it's on

2:11:39 ↗ the record again for how I'm envisioning

2:11:41 ↗ this process going

2:11:43 ↗ um but there's been a lot of City

2:11:46 ↗ Planning research done in the space of

2:11:50 ↗ urbanism lately I feel like it's kind of

2:11:52 ↗ like a renewed area of research that's

2:11:55 ↗ gaining Traction in news and just in

2:11:58 ↗ daily life

2:12:00 ↗ um and so you know asking the question

2:12:02 ↗ what creates successful Community

2:12:03 ↗ outcomes just generally so one thing I

2:12:07 ↗ think that's missing here is an

2:12:10 ↗ assessment of what's out there what's

2:12:12 ↗ possible you know what does the emerging

2:12:14 ↗ research say what does the data say in

2:12:16 ↗ City Planning literature so we've got

2:12:19 ↗ number one assess existing policies in

2:12:23 ↗ The observed outcomes the one that I

2:12:25 ↗ think might be missing right after that

2:12:26 ↗ before Community engagement plan is also

2:12:29 ↗ assess the emerging policies and what

2:12:31 ↗ those predicted outcomes might be in

2:12:32 ↗ Issaquah and then we can take all that

2:12:34 ↗ together and go to the community which

2:12:37 ↗ gives us an opportunity to talk with the

2:12:40 ↗ community about problems get ideas about

2:12:43 ↗ problems that we had thought about

2:12:45 ↗ before also new ideas but also an

2:12:46 ↗ opportunity for us to go to the

2:12:48 ↗ community and say hey

2:12:49 ↗ this is what we learned in terms of

2:12:51 ↗ what's being employed elsewhere what

2:12:53 ↗ kind of outcomes are coming about in

2:12:55 ↗ those communities

2:12:57 ↗ we do or we don't think it would work in

2:13:00 ↗ Issaquah or we do or we don't think it

2:13:02 ↗ would be aligned with our strategic

2:13:04 ↗ planning documents

2:13:06 ↗ um and then the community we can involve

2:13:10 ↗ them in that process they may say no way

2:13:12 ↗ they may say let's do it they may say

2:13:14 ↗ something else in between but I just

2:13:16 ↗ feel like all that information has to be

2:13:18 ↗ there in order for us to make a good

2:13:20 ↗ decision and I think that's why last

2:13:22 ↗ year when I talked about this

2:13:26 ↗ um you know I ended with this is going

2:13:28 ↗ to take a long time because that's going

2:13:30 ↗ to take a long time and that was the

2:13:32 ↗ understanding that Council came to was

2:13:33 ↗ that you know in the very least we're

2:13:35 ↗ doing the work that needs to be done

2:13:36 ↗ though

2:13:38 ↗ um

2:13:39 ↗ because we got to do it right so I just

2:13:42 ↗ think in key project deliverables also

2:13:44 ↗ just making sure that we're highlighting

2:13:47 ↗ um

2:13:48 ↗ analyzing and assessing what those new

2:13:51 ↗ policies are and what that might look

2:13:53 ↗ like here in Issaquah and would it

2:13:55 ↗ create good outcomes here is important I

2:14:00 ↗ also don't understand necessarily how um

2:14:04 ↗ there was a public comment request from

2:14:06 ↗ the food bank earlier today so I'm not

2:14:08 ↗ sure if that intertwines with the

2:14:11 ↗ questions that are being asked of

2:14:12 ↗ tonight or if that's

2:14:13 ↗ purely an administrative decision or if

2:14:15 ↗ that's something that we'll need to come

2:14:16 ↗ back to council I don't have a good

2:14:18 ↗ understanding of that so just putting

2:14:20 ↗ that out there too but anyways that is

2:14:22 ↗ um my feedback for the direction needed

2:14:24 ↗ tonight

2:14:30 ↗ did you want to ask a question about the

2:14:32 ↗ well yeah I mean if

2:14:34 ↗ if we know what

2:14:37 ↗ if that is something that we need to

2:14:39 ↗ provide feedback on tonight as part of

2:14:41 ↗ the comp plan update or is that some

2:14:43 ↗ sort of evolving

2:14:45 ↗ um

2:14:45 ↗ sure um so the specific question that

2:14:49 ↗ you heard today or a situation is the

2:14:52 ↗ Redevelopment of the isuka food bank at

2:14:54 ↗ their current location which is built

2:14:57 ↗ out to the property line so there is not

2:14:59 ↗ an opportunity to have any parking on

2:15:02 ↗ site the proposed Title 18 has

2:15:04 ↗ requirements for have providing some

2:15:06 ↗ on-site parking you can have shared

2:15:08 ↗ parking opportunities and others but it

2:15:11 ↗ is not zero parking on site so the

2:15:14 ↗ request is partly to you know include

2:15:19 ↗ some exemptions for community service

2:15:21 ↗ facilities to allow only shared parking

2:15:25 ↗ on street parking where you you have

2:15:28 ↗ these kind of situations so that's the

2:15:31 ↗ ask the other thing I think we've

2:15:33 ↗ discussed with them is as part of this

2:15:37 ↗ comp plan of you know re-looking at the

2:15:39 ↗ parking in the Long Haul what it what

2:15:42 ↗ what

2:15:43 ↗ sort of uh you know should tier one be

2:15:46 ↗ expanded to include some of these areas

2:15:49 ↗ or not you know so we can kind of

2:15:51 ↗ consider with this larger parking update

2:15:55 ↗ um and then also if Council wants to

2:15:58 ↗ accommodate this request with the

2:16:01 ↗ current Title 18 update then there's

2:16:03 ↗ going to be addressed at the public

2:16:05 ↗ hearing on April 17th

2:16:09 ↗ okay so if we have if we have comments

2:16:12 ↗ that relate to it in the context of this

2:16:16 ↗ parking analysis for the comprehensive

2:16:18 ↗ plan then we could talk about that today

2:16:19 ↗ and then if it's more on the code Title

2:16:22 ↗ 18 then that's probably April 17th

2:16:25 ↗ because we aren't

2:16:26 ↗ that's not the topic of tonight's

2:16:28 ↗ feeding so

2:16:30 ↗ okay great

2:16:31 ↗ um so I was just looking thank you for

2:16:34 ↗ raising this parking standards

2:16:36 ↗ deliverables

2:16:38 ↗ um

2:16:39 ↗ it has here proposed two new alternative

2:16:42 ↗ sets of parking standards for title 18.

2:16:45 ↗ um but then it also has one of them

2:16:47 ↗ being minor adjustments and one being

2:16:50 ↗ removing parking minimums and developing

2:16:52 ↗ and proposing a new set of parking

2:16:53 ↗ regulations

2:16:55 ↗ um I I understand wanting to you know

2:16:59 ↗ be very clear about that we want

2:17:03 ↗ Alternatives and I completely want

2:17:05 ↗ Alternatives but it seems in the way

2:17:08 ↗ it's written that it's a little bit

2:17:11 ↗ um

2:17:13 ↗ it's like leading to a certain

2:17:15 ↗ conclusion because one is a very extreme

2:17:17 ↗ and one is is actually defined as a

2:17:19 ↗ minor adjustment I would be interested

2:17:22 ↗ in you know what are the what are the

2:17:25 ↗ cons what are the uh two best possible

2:17:28 ↗ scenarios that we think

2:17:31 ↗ um are different than the code one might

2:17:33 ↗ be they might both be

2:17:36 ↗ different changes but not necessarily A

2:17:38 ↗ minor and a and an already specified

2:17:41 ↗ major change so that's I think maybe

2:17:45 ↗ um one one change to that because I I

2:17:49 ↗ agree with um

2:17:51 ↗ council member Hall I think there's a

2:17:53 ↗ lot of literature there's a lot of work

2:17:54 ↗ on this I would like to you know have a

2:17:57 ↗ review of our city review of the

2:17:59 ↗ neighboring cities review of what's

2:18:01 ↗ working for other communities and then

2:18:03 ↗ put forward the best possible sets of

2:18:06 ↗ parking standards and choose from those

2:18:08 ↗ so that would be my

2:18:10 ↗ that's my thoughts on that one

2:18:16 ↗ I appreciate this concept

2:18:19 ↗ um so

2:18:21 ↗ I also agree we shouldn't pre-decide

2:18:24 ↗ um but we should present scenarios I

2:18:27 ↗ also agree the concept that there's a

2:18:30 ↗ lot of data already out there and that

2:18:34 ↗ is an important utilization so that

2:18:36 ↗ we're not Reinventing the wheel

2:18:38 ↗ um what I'm hoping to get out of the

2:18:40 ↗ parking analysis scope is really

2:18:45 ↗ two areas of economic feasibility

2:18:49 ↗ related to Commercial and housing you

2:18:53 ↗ know our parking standards keeping us

2:18:56 ↗ from getting mixed use our parking

2:18:58 ↗ standards keeping us from getting

2:19:00 ↗ affordable housing or are they

2:19:03 ↗ increasing the cost of housing to a

2:19:06 ↗ certain extent so that those are the

2:19:09 ↗ decision points I'm looking for

2:19:11 ↗ I think it's also really really

2:19:14 ↗ important for us to understand that land

2:19:17 ↗ use is our tax base

2:19:21 ↗ for the city

2:19:23 ↗ a lot of our taxes come from sales tax

2:19:25 ↗ and property tax and if that property is

2:19:29 ↗ being used as a surface parking lot that

2:19:33 ↗ is less financially viable for us as a

2:19:36 ↗ city so understanding that

2:19:40 ↗ areas such as you know downtown Front

2:19:44 ↗ Street are a more financially viable

2:19:47 ↗ product for us as a city because they

2:19:50 ↗ don't require as much parking

2:19:53 ↗ where they enable parking via on Street

2:19:57 ↗ um

2:19:57 ↗ really it would be useful to be able to

2:20:00 ↗ make decisions about land use not only

2:20:03 ↗ based on you know can a private

2:20:07 ↗ developer develop something or can a

2:20:09 ↗ non-profit developer develop something

2:20:11 ↗ but also what's what's in the best

2:20:13 ↗ interest of the city's financials

2:20:16 ↗ because we have a lot of obligations and

2:20:19 ↗ so understanding whether

2:20:22 ↗ putting a you know Big Box store out

2:20:27 ↗ there and surrounding it by a sea of

2:20:29 ↗ parking whether

2:20:31 ↗ that is

2:20:33 ↗ you know less cost effective than

2:20:36 ↗ something that

2:20:38 ↗ um has less parking would be useful for

2:20:42 ↗ us making good decisions

2:20:45 ↗ that are taxpayer friendly

2:20:55 ↗ okay great

2:20:57 ↗ um any other comments

2:21:01 ↗ pretty last question

2:21:03 ↗ um is any of this kind of scoping a

2:21:06 ↗ concern of planning

2:21:08 ↗ no yeah candidly I mean is this a

2:21:11 ↗ concern at all because I think that

2:21:12 ↗ would be good for Council to know

2:21:14 ↗ no concern I think it's good for us to

2:21:17 ↗ kind of think about you know what what

2:21:19 ↗ do we really want to understand about

2:21:21 ↗ parking what are the options before we

2:21:23 ↗ come to the conclusions of one way or

2:21:25 ↗ the other so I think that this is good

2:21:27 ↗ discussion

2:21:28 ↗ um I mean it can go different ways we

2:21:30 ↗ could understand how many parking stalls

2:21:33 ↗ there are currently you know we could go

2:21:35 ↗ down different Paths of understanding

2:21:37 ↗ parking I mean we heard at the community

2:21:40 ↗ listening session on Highlands about

2:21:42 ↗ parking and enforcement if there's on

2:21:44 ↗ street parking people aren't moving

2:21:46 ↗ their streets you know it's a really

2:21:47 ↗ understanding what parking issues are

2:21:50 ↗ that we want to try and solve and

2:21:53 ↗ understanding the goal being sustainable

2:21:55 ↗ walkable community and then bridging

2:21:58 ↗ that Gap by coming up with standards

2:22:00 ↗ that get us to our goal I think that's

2:22:03 ↗ all sort of what what I heard and and

2:22:05 ↗ really understanding the best practices

2:22:07 ↗ and research that has gone on on parking

2:22:09 ↗ and then applying that in issaquah's

2:22:12 ↗ context of where we are in the scheme of

2:22:14 ↗ things where we are with Transit and all

2:22:17 ↗ that

2:22:18 ↗ Stephen do you have other thoughts or do

2:22:21 ↗ you need more Direction on the parking

2:22:23 ↗ sounds like we want to there's unanimous

2:22:25 ↗ decision about Citywide and not just

2:22:29 ↗ Central Issaquah but do we need more

2:22:31 ↗ Direction in terms of framing city-wide

2:22:33 ↗ discussion

2:22:36 ↗ uh horoscope no I I think we we got the

2:22:40 ↗ feedback we needed for kind of

2:22:42 ↗ determining the test scope

2:22:44 ↗ and Minnie will come back

2:22:47 ↗ with before we retain a firm uh we can

2:22:50 ↗ yes I I think we need to talk about

2:22:52 ↗ money and time and I think we need to

2:22:55 ↗ have a better sense before we would uh

2:22:58 ↗ award a contract

2:23:00 ↗ um how much additional money and time

2:23:02 ↗ this deeper dive is going to cost so

2:23:05 ↗ because I think there are there are many

2:23:07 ↗ unintended consequences which are fine

2:23:10 ↗ but we want to make sure that we have

2:23:12 ↗ the proper resources and time frame to

2:23:14 ↗ deal with them

2:23:15 ↗ so I think let's let's just plan on

2:23:17 ↗ coming back so Madam chair what we'd

2:23:19 ↗ like to do is have the committee this

2:23:21 ↗ evening make a motion on these three

2:23:24 ↗ things we'd like to bring that back to

2:23:25 ↗ the full Council uh uh hopefully on

2:23:28 ↗ consent just to confirm uh this is these

2:23:32 ↗ are a lot of important issues as we move

2:23:34 ↗ forward and so we'd like to have the

2:23:37 ↗ full Council concur

2:23:43 ↗ what would that look like would it be an

2:23:46 ↗ informational item that we just

2:23:48 ↗ after yeah beyond the consent calendar

2:23:52 ↗ to concur the recommendations of the

2:23:54 ↗ committee which would be uh the draft

2:23:57 ↗ engagement plan as presented

2:23:59 ↗ um that there would be no changes to the

2:24:02 ↗ periodic update so we would show what

2:24:04 ↗ the component parts would be and that

2:24:06 ↗ the parking analysis would be Citywide

2:24:12 ↗ it might be better to actually bring it

2:24:14 ↗ to the council as a report out and you

2:24:18 ↗ know give an opportunity for comment or

2:24:20 ↗ if we feel that they need to weigh in

2:24:22 ↗ then we could do it

2:24:25 ↗ um

2:24:27 ↗ I think prior was the parking

2:24:30 ↗ um okay I think maybe if you were just

2:24:32 ↗ going to do central Issa I just think

2:24:34 ↗ that this is a big deal and I would hate

2:24:37 ↗ for your colleagues eight months from

2:24:39 ↗ now asking the question how how did that

2:24:42 ↗ happen

2:24:44 ↗ so if you're comfortable with the report

2:24:46 ↗ out again if your colleagues aren't

2:24:49 ↗ um I just I think it's unusual you know

2:24:51 ↗ we make recommendations all the time

2:24:53 ↗ like on Title 18 where we had so many

2:24:55 ↗ different steps and we didn't have

2:24:57 ↗ things on consent that kind of like were

2:25:00 ↗ formal concurrence on that intermediate

2:25:03 ↗ step so that's why I'm

2:25:05 ↗ hesitating but um yeah and I would just

2:25:08 ↗ say on the parking analysis I think the

2:25:12 ↗ decision Point comes down to

2:25:14 ↗ understanding what the cost is

2:25:16 ↗ um and cost timeline and scope and so

2:25:19 ↗ we've provided feedback on what we think

2:25:23 ↗ is most useful in looking at that

2:25:25 ↗ parking regulations

2:25:28 ↗ um

2:25:29 ↗ I think that holds to what the council

2:25:33 ↗ had previously approved as far as what

2:25:36 ↗ the future updates list would be this is

2:25:40 ↗ just providing a little bit tighter

2:25:42 ↗ feedback on that but I think the the

2:25:45 ↗ next point where it really needs to come

2:25:47 ↗ to council is understanding

2:25:50 ↗ what you know basically the cost benefit

2:25:52 ↗ analysis okay I again you've had a

2:25:56 ↗ pretty vigorous conversation talking

2:25:57 ↗ about taking things away we're convinced

2:26:00 ↗ that it was okay to leave them in

2:26:02 ↗ just these just seem like bigger

2:26:04 ↗ decisions uh if you feel your colleagues

2:26:07 ↗ are would be comfortable then I just

2:26:09 ↗ want don't want to have an issue

2:26:12 ↗ if there's a question on process later

2:26:15 ↗ on I think we ultimately ended up

2:26:17 ↗ agreeing to keep those areas in that we

2:26:22 ↗ had initially

2:26:24 ↗ disagreed with you have I again whatever

2:26:28 ↗ whatever your point is these are just

2:26:31 ↗ big decisions

2:26:33 ↗ um the council spent months coming up to

2:26:35 ↗ similar decisions on timely teen and so

2:26:38 ↗ this this is

2:26:39 ↗ this is analogous to that and so I'm

2:26:42 ↗ just concerned that it took so many

2:26:44 ↗ months to come up with framework for

2:26:46 ↗ Title 18 and just not going back to the

2:26:48 ↗ council this is the framework for what a

2:26:51 ↗ year and a plus of work and once every

2:26:54 ↗ eight years so if Council wants to weigh

2:26:57 ↗ in on what they'd like to see the update

2:26:59 ↗ you know this would be the opportunity

2:27:00 ↗ to do it early then then for someone to

2:27:03 ↗ say well we wanted we had a different

2:27:05 ↗ expectation of something so if the

2:27:08 ↗ committee you know whatever process you

2:27:10 ↗ all want to do we're happy to

2:27:11 ↗ accommodate that I I agree with this

2:27:14 ↗ sentiment I just don't think that having

2:27:17 ↗ something on consent that

2:27:20 ↗ I don't think that that is the what I

2:27:24 ↗ would think of as the most meaningful

2:27:26 ↗ way to have that additional counsel

2:27:29 ↗ conversation it sounds like he would

2:27:31 ↗ want to have regular business it's not

2:27:33 ↗ even conversation it's just

2:27:35 ↗ if you give again six eight months from

2:27:37 ↗ now someone says

2:27:40 ↗ why did we sign off on this major body

2:27:42 ↗ of work

2:27:43 ↗ and so maybe a report reporting out

2:27:48 ↗ is fine I'm just again we're still

2:27:51 ↗ rather new in the community process I

2:27:53 ↗ just know what it took to get to the

2:27:55 ↗ stage of Title 18 was a very long time

2:27:57 ↗ yeah and and also to be clear I think a

2:28:01 ↗ lot of what so a lot of the title 18

2:28:04 ↗ scoping work did start from that Council

2:28:09 ↗ had a lot of things that we issues

2:28:12 ↗ things that we wanted to address in that

2:28:15 ↗ update that we wanted to clarify and

2:28:17 ↗ have those metrics and then this process

2:28:19 ↗ is is different mandated by the state

2:28:22 ↗ and it's taking a lot of existing plans

2:28:24 ↗ and kind of putting them into this

2:28:26 ↗ format so I think it's

2:28:28 ↗ I think it's a different

2:28:30 ↗ um and maybe it's contextual just in my

2:28:33 ↗ experience and working with other

2:28:34 ↗ communities this is the single greatest

2:28:37 ↗ land use discussion a community has

2:28:40 ↗ in whatever interval it is so this is

2:28:42 ↗ every eight years it's the biggest land

2:28:44 ↗ use discussion they have in eight years

2:28:45 ↗ you've just concluded the biggest land

2:28:48 ↗ news discussion in 40 years so maybe

2:28:50 ↗ it's contextual I'm just concerned that

2:28:53 ↗ there would be no I would encourage the

2:28:55 ↗ chair to at least report out

2:28:58 ↗ so that there's no question

2:29:00 ↗ at some later point when this because I

2:29:02 ↗ don't know this would come back to the

2:29:03 ↗ council again until there's adoption

2:29:06 ↗ right

2:29:08 ↗ that's correct

2:29:10 ↗ um Stephen so after this we start our

2:29:14 ↗ boards and commissions

2:29:15 ↗ um I mean if we go to full Council and

2:29:18 ↗ then we start a boarding commissions or

2:29:20 ↗ we we've already had one meeting with

2:29:22 ↗ them kind of very giving them an overall

2:29:25 ↗ kind of understanding and then the

2:29:27 ↗ housing element so we're you know

2:29:30 ↗ prepping them for this more robust

2:29:32 ↗ discussion the boards and commissions

2:29:35 ↗ um

2:29:36 ↗ so it's really up to the committee if

2:29:39 ↗ you want to do a report out if you want

2:29:40 ↗ us to put a memo together for the

2:29:42 ↗ council that has the final scopes

2:29:46 ↗ we're happy to do whatever you think

2:29:49 ↗ would be useful

2:29:52 ↗ I think uh I would say I've really

2:29:55 ↗ appreciated your report outs if the

2:29:59 ↗ administration feels strongly about it

2:30:00 ↗ and wants to put out an informational

2:30:02 ↗ update that is just information on what

2:30:07 ↗ the changes and then I can bring it up

2:30:09 ↗ at go to the order and just say hey

2:30:12 ↗ everybody this is your chance if you

2:30:14 ↗ have any uh concerns about the scope

2:30:17 ↗ otherwise this is going to go through

2:30:19 ↗ the process and come back to us later

2:30:22 ↗ that satisfy everybody's

2:30:25 ↗ they're your colleagues I just

2:30:28 ↗ Yep this just this is just a very

2:30:31 ↗ yeah this just seems very

2:30:34 ↗ straightforward to me we do a lot of

2:30:36 ↗ planning we've already done a lot of

2:30:37 ↗ this work this is really incorporating

2:30:39 ↗ it

2:30:41 ↗ um

2:30:42 ↗ but I can see how from many other

2:30:45 ↗ communities perspective that isn't

2:30:48 ↗ necessarily the case

2:30:49 ↗ um and so

2:30:51 ↗ okay so why don't I at the next meeting

2:30:53 ↗ do my report out and I will

2:30:57 ↗ recap our whole conversation to the full

2:30:59 ↗ Council and then I will raise it go to

2:31:02 ↗ the order if there are additional

2:31:03 ↗ thoughts and I can also flag it before

2:31:05 ↗ the meeting and then at a subsequent

2:31:07 ↗ meeting because I imagine that won't be

2:31:08 ↗ ready for this next meeting which is

2:31:10 ↗ coming right up the written next regular

2:31:12 ↗ meeting then the next meeting it would

2:31:13 ↗ be some informational uh

2:31:17 ↗ update but I guess it would be on con it

2:31:21 ↗ would be on consent so it would be

2:31:22 ↗ adopting it in some way

2:31:24 ↗ um would be on the receiving it on the

2:31:27 ↗ agenda does that sound good sure okay

2:31:31 ↗ um great I think that addresses both the

2:31:34 ↗ formalization and the actually getting

2:31:37 ↗ Council giving Council an opportunity to

2:31:40 ↗ express their thoughts or concerns I

2:31:43 ↗ wanted to also just

2:31:44 ↗ flag that I think we had a very similar

2:31:48 ↗ conversation about what we want to do

2:31:49 ↗ with parking when we looked at this in

2:31:52 ↗ the context of Title 18 so you know we

2:31:54 ↗ went through the problems about it not

2:31:56 ↗ being land's highest and best use which

2:31:59 ↗ was mentioned again this evening also

2:32:02 ↗ dirty storm water and then aesthetic

2:32:04 ↗ dead zones and then we talk about

2:32:05 ↗ walkability and um and all of those

2:32:08 ↗ different issues so I think that those

2:32:10 ↗ are those are the issues that those

2:32:12 ↗ remain my concerns we we did do a light

2:32:15 ↗ revision of the parking code but I still

2:32:18 ↗ have all those same concerns and would

2:32:20 ↗ want them evaluated in this parking

2:32:22 ↗ study and I'm interested to hear what

2:32:25 ↗ the cost of doing this analysis are but

2:32:27 ↗ those are those are my concerns

2:32:31 ↗ so what would this follow-up

2:32:32 ↗ informational update

2:32:35 ↗ memo on consent look like would it just

2:32:38 ↗ be kind of

2:32:39 ↗ like some of the material that we've

2:32:40 ↗ seen tonight updated or

2:32:43 ↗ you know I think we were just

2:32:45 ↗ dude I think we would just summarize

2:32:47 ↗ what was concluded here just for the

2:32:50 ↗ record again this is an enormous process

2:32:53 ↗ I think it's a good point though I just

2:32:55 ↗ want to make sure

2:32:56 ↗ a lot about parking and there's at least

2:33:00 ↗ one council member who recently has

2:33:02 ↗ brought up a new Viewpoint about parking

2:33:05 ↗ too so we need to make sure that we're

2:33:06 ↗ all in the same Loop about this issue so

2:33:09 ↗ no I think that's a good point so then

2:33:11 ↗ what we've settled on an informational

2:33:13 ↗ update slash bring up any questions or

2:33:15 ↗ concerns that go to the order

2:33:17 ↗ and then an inform and then a consent

2:33:20 ↗ item at the following meeting sorry yeah

2:33:23 ↗ right so it would it would because I

2:33:25 ↗ think that's just how the timing would

2:33:27 ↗ be anyway so I will bring it at our

2:33:29 ↗ bring it up at our next meeting and flag

2:33:31 ↗ it for discussion then

2:33:33 ↗ we can have that discussion and any

2:33:35 ↗ concerns and then we can have on consent

2:33:39 ↗ and if it's if it was contentious then

2:33:41 ↗ we can pull it down off consent and and

2:33:44 ↗ revise it as needed but

2:33:46 ↗ we can cross that bridge it gives the

2:33:49 ↗ opportunity yeah okay

2:33:51 ↗ okay great

2:33:53 ↗ um one thing that I just wanted to

2:33:56 ↗ clarify is with my questions on HB uh

2:33:59 ↗ 1099 I just wanted to clarify that I am

2:34:01 ↗ interested in adhering to the principles

2:34:04 ↗ of that so that was the climate um

2:34:06 ↗ climate change in comprehensive planning

2:34:10 ↗ so if you could double check that and

2:34:12 ↗ make sure that we're on track to meet

2:34:14 ↗ that intent that would be great

2:34:16 ↗ and that was my last my last point on

2:34:19 ↗ this topic we have any final thoughts or

2:34:22 ↗ things no okay do you have what you need

2:34:25 ↗ from us on this topic okay

2:34:29 ↗ great

2:34:30 ↗ um

2:34:31 ↗ that concludes this topic which is our

2:34:33 ↗ second of two topics are there any

2:34:36 ↗ announcements

2:34:38 ↗ all right

2:34:42 ↗ I guess I can announce that the full

2:34:44 ↗ council is doing a uh listening session

2:34:47 ↗ on Thursday is it 6 or 6 30.

2:34:53 ↗ I believe it's 6 30. 6 30 fantastic I'll

2:34:57 ↗ be there early but um at the atlas

2:34:59 ↗ Apartment A Lobby and it's just an

2:35:01 ↗ opportunity for us to hear from the

2:35:05 ↗ um kind of central Issaquah community

2:35:07 ↗ and be able to talk to them about what's

2:35:10 ↗ going on in the area and understand any

2:35:13 ↗ concerns so we welcome the community to

2:35:15 ↗ that

2:35:16 ↗ great thank you then there being no

2:35:19 ↗ further business this meeting is

2:35:20 ↗ adjourned at 905 pm

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Victoria Hunt

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Recommendations & actions (3)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Requested approval of parking exemption.
Chair Hunt moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Committee recommended placing on a future Council consent calendar with its requested changes incorporated.