City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, October 3, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 6, 2023

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-06-23 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. September 6, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Land Use Element ID 1403

60 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.7–110

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

State Requirements

2076 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ good evening welcome everyone to the

0:06 ↗ city council Planning Development and

0:08 ↗ environment committee meeting of October

0:10 ↗ 3rd 2023 my name is council member

0:12 ↗ Victoria hunt and I am here tonight with

0:15 ↗ council president Walsh and Council

0:16 ↗ Deputy president Hall

0:18 ↗ we have one item on our agenda this

0:21 ↗ evening

0:22 ↗ um and before we get to that we will at

0:25 ↗ this time take public comments

0:28 ↗ um so

0:30 ↗ I will check in at this time if I will

0:33 ↗ note for the record there are no members

0:34 ↗ of the public in the audience this

0:35 ↗ evening

0:36 ↗ city clerk are there anyone is there

0:39 ↗ anyone in the virtual meeting and if so

0:41 ↗ I will read some additional instructions

0:43 ↗ sharehunt we currently have no online

0:45 ↗ attendees all right

0:49 ↗ um

0:50 ↗ then

0:51 ↗ I will note that at any time if you'd

0:54 ↗ like to give us any comments please feel

0:56 ↗ free to email us at city council

0:58 ↗ issaquah.gov and with that we will move

1:00 ↗ past the

1:02 ↗ public comment period to approval of the

1:04 ↗ minutes we have minutes from the

1:05 ↗ September 6th meeting did we have any

1:08 ↗ comments or edits to those

1:10 ↗ looks like we do not so then I'll move

1:12 ↗ to approve those all those in favor

1:14 ↗ please say aye aye

1:17 ↗ minutes are approved and with that we

1:20 ↗ will go to our first and only agenda

1:22 ↗ item which is ID 1403 comprehensive Plan

1:25 ↗ update drafts land use element and this

1:28 ↗ will be presented by Kristen Leeson our

1:30 ↗ senior planner Kristen welcome

1:40 ↗ there we go good evening I'm Kristen

1:42 ↗ Leeson senior planner with Community

1:43 ↗ planning and development

1:45 ↗ good to see you tonight we are talking

1:47 ↗ about the first draft of the land use

1:49 ↗ element for the 2024 periodic update of

1:51 ↗ the comprehensive plan

1:54 ↗ and we're just looking for input on our

1:56 ↗ first draft from you all tonight

1:59 ↗ so there are oops I apologize there are

2:02 ↗ several questions that we are going to

2:04 ↗ ask of you

2:06 ↗ um one is if there are any any

2:07 ↗ additional considerations that you'd

2:09 ↗ like PPC to look at the planning policy

2:11 ↗ commission to look at should staff

2:13 ↗ further expand on language on two of the

2:15 ↗ neighborhood character policies which

2:16 ↗ we'll get we'll look at a little closer

2:18 ↗ later on

2:19 ↗ did staff consider edits to any of the

2:21 ↗ unchanged policies that are in there and

2:24 ↗ are there any additional topics that we

2:25 ↗ should consider when making edits to the

2:27 ↗ final draft

2:35 ↗ so just a little background again the

2:38 ↗ element the land use element sets the

2:39 ↗ vision and the intent for the land use

2:41 ↗ in

2:43 ↗ Issaquah it's closely tied to the

2:44 ↗ transportation

2:46 ↗ element it guides implementation through

2:48 ↗ the land use code through the Strategic

2:50 ↗ the city strategic plan the shoreline

2:53 ↗ master program and then other plans

2:54 ↗ functional plans that are in place for

2:56 ↗ the city

2:58 ↗ it is monitored through periodic and

3:00 ↗ annual updates that we do to the land

3:02 ↗ use code title 18. it is also going to

3:04 ↗ be monitored now for through the newly

3:07 ↗ State mandated report cards that are

3:09 ↗ going to be done every five years

3:13 ↗ just as a reminder some of the things

3:14 ↗ that were required are the land use map

3:16 ↗ that shows City Limits Urban growth area

3:18 ↗ and proposed or land use designations

3:23 ↗ it also is required to include our

3:25 ↗ capacity and our targets so this is as a

3:27 ↗ reminder we'll be adding this as one of

3:28 ↗ the new things this year our capacity

3:30 ↗ for both jobs and housing is way over

3:32 ↗ our targets our capacity for housing is

3:35 ↗ just over 12 000 and our capacity for

3:37 ↗ jobs it's just over fourteen thousand

3:39 ↗ yet our housing Target is 3 500 and the

3:43 ↗ jobs Target is 7 500 and these are by

3:45 ↗ Between the years of 2019 to 2044.

3:51 ↗ some of the bigger changes that we had

3:53 ↗ were the changes to the sub area

3:55 ↗ neighborhood map

3:57 ↗ we've added neighborhood plans template

4:00 ↗ policies

4:01 ↗ we as I just mentioned are including our

4:03 ↗ new targets

4:04 ↗ a state mandated policy is to provide a

4:07 ↗ policy to mitigate risk from wildfires

4:10 ↗ and we also did a giant reorganization

4:12 ↗ of the element it may have seen in the

4:15 ↗ draft

4:16 ↗ I'm going to start with the maps

4:18 ↗ our sub areas when we first adopted it

4:21 ↗ back in 1994 were much 1995 were much

4:23 ↗ much smaller than this because the city

4:25 ↗ was smaller so as we have annexed and

4:27 ↗ changed our boundaries have grown and

4:29 ↗ changed and we've sort of added on

4:31 ↗ they've been in place the sub area since

4:34 ↗ 1994.

4:35 ↗ however in 2017 we had a neighborhood

4:39 ↗ coordinator who was to go out and start

4:41 ↗ networking with the different

4:42 ↗ neighborhoods and said I need to go out

4:44 ↗ and find out who identifies with what

4:46 ↗ neighborhood and so this new map was

4:48 ↗ drawn up in 2017.

4:51 ↗ our two difficulties are is that one as

4:53 ↗ you can see here the colors are the

4:54 ↗ neighborhood map the red lines of the

4:56 ↗ subarian map they do not line up

4:58 ↗ and another issue is that Communications

5:01 ↗ Public Works planning we all use these

5:04 ↗ Maps regularly and if you don't have

5:06 ↗ lines to line up it's really been

5:07 ↗ causing a headache for us for the past

5:09 ↗ six years

5:11 ↗ so we have looked at incorporating the

5:14 ↗ 2017 map into the Sudbury map also you

5:18 ↗ may recall there were changes to the

5:19 ↗ central Issaquah boundary in 2018 that

5:21 ↗ were never addressed so things that were

5:23 ↗ taken out of central have just been

5:24 ↗ floating out there and then we also

5:27 ↗ annexed in that time the what we call

5:29 ↗ the King County donut which was also

5:30 ↗ never included or identified as a

5:33 ↗ sub-area

5:34 ↗ so those changes needed to be made we

5:36 ↗ worked with current planners and the

5:38 ↗ Communications Department to

5:40 ↗ make what is now our proposed map for

5:44 ↗ since for uh the city and this has also

5:47 ↗ been run by public works as well and

5:49 ↗ they provided us with one comment

5:52 ↗ you have any you want me to keep going

5:56 ↗ okay

5:58 ↗ so our proposed policy is I'm just going

6:00 ↗ to work through those policies that have

6:03 ↗ changed because there are so many in the

6:04 ↗ land you settlement I'm also going to

6:06 ↗ know that most so so many in here are

6:09 ↗ that it was simplified language was

6:10 ↗ removed because it's been codified or

6:13 ↗ um because it was redundant I'm not

6:15 ↗ going to go over those I'm going to

6:17 ↗ point out those that are a little bit

6:18 ↗ different

6:19 ↗ so if that's okay with you all that

6:22 ↗ works

6:24 ↗ okay

6:25 ↗ so one we did change goal a which is to

6:29 ↗ Serve and Protect natural systems from

6:31 ↗ negative impacts of development we

6:32 ↗ merged it with policy a because they

6:34 ↗ said almost the same thing

6:35 ↗ we did that the rest of those on here A2

6:38 ↗ through A5 are all simplified or

6:40 ↗ language removed because it was codified

6:45 ↗ um same here except for a13 mountains to

6:48 ↗ sound has always had an intent or vision

6:50 ↗ statement and that changed since we last

6:52 ↗ updated this in 2017 so we updated it to

6:55 ↗ make sure it's consistent with mountains

6:56 ↗ to sound

6:59 ↗ we also there were there was a policy B1

7:01 ↗ about trees and some of it had to do

7:03 ↗ with trees in the urban environment some

7:05 ↗ of it was the tree canopy so we pulled

7:06 ↗ out some of that and we're putting it

7:08 ↗ into the environmental element which has

7:10 ↗ a much longer name but that's what I'm

7:11 ↗ going to refer to it and we left the

7:13 ↗ Urban Tree piece here

7:18 ↗ C2 where to focus future growth we've

7:21 ↗ always struggled sort of with

7:23 ↗ rezones and redesignations so we are

7:25 ↗ trying to point out that we really want

7:27 ↗ our growth to be in the regional growth

7:29 ↗ Center which was not specifically there

7:31 ↗ before so we updated that policy

7:35 ↗ um

7:37 ↗ the rest we just simplified

7:39 ↗ M2 and N3 are the ones that we're going

7:41 ↗ to focus on a little bit later they have

7:43 ↗ to do with neighborhood character

7:45 ↗ and those both comply or are

7:47 ↗ implementing this strategic plan or they

7:51 ↗ or vice versa to maintain the existing

7:54 ↗ character or the character of existing

7:56 ↗ neighborhoods the one state requirement

7:59 ↗ that we had for the land you settlement

8:00 ↗ was to mitigate risk to lives and

8:02 ↗ property posed by wildfires we put the

8:05 ↗ policy in there how exactly that will be

8:07 ↗ done will be done through our Emergency

8:08 ↗ Management

8:11 ↗ all right

8:14 ↗ so an uh another one this is really can

8:16 ↗ I can I pause this for one second so

8:19 ↗ um I think we're several of us are

8:21 ↗ trying to follow along and I I'm one I'm

8:24 ↗ just wondering

8:25 ↗ um I'm realizing the numbers is it

8:28 ↗ because then the lettered numbers moved

8:31 ↗ from different sections and then

8:32 ↗ eventually we're gonna re-number them so

8:35 ↗ right now these are all of these are

8:37 ↗ kind of in all the differences they're

8:38 ↗ all over the place but we know that

8:40 ↗ they're going to change a couple of

8:41 ↗ times between even now and by the time

8:43 ↗ it's done so we've just said we're just

8:45 ↗ going to have to leave them as much as

8:46 ↗ we can for now so in the end you'll

8:48 ↗ renumber them oh yes with the new goals

8:52 ↗ okay yeah so yeah yeah all right um I

8:54 ↗ think that I think that makes sense but

8:56 ↗ we're like all right thank you

9:01 ↗ on this one another one that was

9:03 ↗ required by the county is that we

9:05 ↗ address Equitable amenities and services

9:07 ↗ in land use so it talks about services

9:09 ↗ and facilities for all types of

9:12 ↗ residents

9:14 ↗ um again focusing future growth in the

9:17 ↗ regional growth Center and other

9:18 ↗ mixed-use areas this actually took it

9:20 ↗ Beyond a regional growth Center

9:22 ↗ um

9:24 ↗ see again support Urban core development

9:27 ↗ as a regional growth Center so it

9:29 ↗ emphasizes Again The Reef work to do in

9:30 ↗ the regional Breast Center

9:32 ↗ explore opportunities X3 is a new one

9:35 ↗ explore opportunities to accommodate

9:37 ↗ Transit and Transit oriented uses and

9:39 ↗ this sets us up we're about to start our

9:40 ↗ work on

9:41 ↗ the light rail planning and the transit

9:44 ↗ station so this sets up some direction

9:46 ↗ for us to do that

9:51 ↗ and our last page here is it says cue to

9:55 ↗ conserve productive Forest resource

9:58 ↗ lands we just took out the hillsides

10:00 ↗ viewscape because that's not what this

10:02 ↗ is about and there are plenty of others

10:04 ↗ that protect the hillside's viewscape

10:05 ↗ and this one was actually about the

10:06 ↗ forested resource lands

10:09 ↗ um and then the last one support

10:11 ↗ comprehensive annexation of the of our

10:14 ↗ one remaining potential annexation area

10:17 ↗ we just broaden it

10:19 ↗ um to sort of cover the policies there's

10:21 ↗ the state has very very very detailed

10:23 ↗ requirements and annexations

10:26 ↗ do that comprehensive over

10:31 ↗ I was wrong

10:33 ↗ um

10:34 ↗ gold Z

10:36 ↗ uh these are our neighborhood template

10:38 ↗ policies that we have in here develop

10:41 ↗ nature so these are all new most of

10:43 ↗ except for one develop neighborhood

10:44 ↗ plans to enhance an established

10:46 ↗ neighborhood amenities

10:48 ↗ adapt guiding principles from

10:50 ↗ neighborhood planning guide which has

10:52 ↗ not been developed yet but it will we

10:53 ↗ have a consultant to do that for us or

10:55 ↗ with us

10:56 ↗ in three we actually moved in here X8

10:59 ↗ consider 10 minute neighborhoods

11:03 ↗ and I'll just the planning policy

11:06 ↗ condition struggled a bit with this one

11:07 ↗ you may have seen that meeting they

11:09 ↗ struggled about with that one

11:12 ↗ X9 celebrate the history and culture of

11:14 ↗ each neighborhood and X10 maintain an

11:17 ↗ enhanced neighborhood Aesthetics and

11:19 ↗ unique aspects was also a bit of a

11:21 ↗ struggle I've edited it since we saw a

11:23 ↗ planning policy commission a little bit

11:26 ↗ um they struggled with the word design

11:27 ↗ that was in there so we've taken that

11:30 ↗ out

11:32 ↗ so then we have all of our I'm not going

11:34 ↗ to go through them all of our unchanged

11:36 ↗ policies here if there's anything

11:37 ↗ specific that you would like to talk

11:39 ↗ about

11:40 ↗ here

11:41 ↗ on our next steps we're going to revise

11:43 ↗ this again thank you for we'll look

11:45 ↗ we'll have a second draft as you know

11:47 ↗ we'll send it to this state in January

11:49 ↗ for their review q1 of 2024 we'll have

11:53 ↗ our final review of all of the elements

11:54 ↗ and then in Q2 we'll have the public

11:56 ↗ hearing and it's anticipated it will be

11:58 ↗ adopted in by around September of 2024.

12:04 ↗ and for you all your timeline at our

12:07 ↗ next meeting at your next meeting you

12:09 ↗ will have a cipascope review and

12:11 ↗ environment stewardship and climate

12:13 ↗ resilience element aka the environmental

12:16 ↗ element as I keep calling it

12:18 ↗ there we go

12:22 ↗ all right thank you very much

12:25 ↗ um do we have any questions I have a

12:27 ↗ couple

12:30 ↗ okay so the first one

12:33 ↗ um I think every every time we do this

12:36 ↗ it's helpful to go over the housing

12:38 ↗ Target burst capacity and how to

12:41 ↗ think about the target how to

12:46 ↗ think about it in terms of policy

12:48 ↗ and and how we get those numbers

12:52 ↗ all right I was trying to do this I

12:53 ↗ would make you dizzy but um I'm just

12:55 ↗ gonna

12:59 ↗ okay

13:01 ↗ there we go

13:05 ↗ so you want to talk about what each one

13:08 ↗ means

13:09 ↗ um and specifically the difference you

13:11 ↗ know how do we how do we think about the

13:13 ↗ fact that our Target is very different

13:16 ↗ than the capacity

13:17 ↗ um how you would advise us to think

13:20 ↗ about that as policy makers so when we

13:22 ↗ said when we did the central most of our

13:24 ↗ capacity

13:25 ↗ is in central Issaquah not just the

13:28 ↗ urban core or the region or the regional

13:30 ↗ growth Center

13:31 ↗ um it's it's all of central Elizabeth

13:34 ↗ and

13:36 ↗ we upzoned it in 2014 so that for future

13:40 ↗ growth targets we even have a place to

13:42 ↗ accommodate our targets that was one of

13:45 ↗ the initial reasons that we did it two

13:47 ↗ we wanted Light Rail to come through

13:48 ↗ here so we needed more density so that

13:50 ↗ was another reason to do it and three we

13:52 ↗ wanted to protect our hillsides so we

13:55 ↗ increased the allowable capacity in in

13:59 ↗ this area

14:00 ↗ so that we have it for the future so

14:02 ↗ that's part of the reason why we have so

14:04 ↗ much right now we way up zoned it back

14:07 ↗ then

14:08 ↗ our capacity is just how much can come

14:10 ↗ in there

14:11 ↗ how much does our zoning by right allow

14:13 ↗ to come in there how many housing units

14:15 ↗ could we fit under you know if you have

14:16 ↗ four and a half dwelling units break or

14:18 ↗ how many can you actually fit in there

14:19 ↗ and that's how we figure it out when we

14:21 ↗ do this we do take out critical areas

14:22 ↗ those are removed from the study and

14:25 ↗ things like city-owned properties

14:27 ↗ Condominiums are taken out because if

14:29 ↗ you have you know 62 condominiums in a

14:31 ↗ building hard to get 62 people to

14:33 ↗ redevelop their property so things like

14:35 ↗ that are removed our targets are

14:37 ↗ established through negotiations with

14:39 ↗ the county and other cities the state

14:41 ↗ says this is how much growth we need

14:42 ↗ this is how many units we need county

14:44 ↗ says or they say counties this is what

14:47 ↗ we are allocating to you and then the

14:49 ↗ cities spend six months negotiating how

14:52 ↗ much we're each going to take and that

14:54 ↗ becomes our Target and our Target does

14:56 ↗ not mean that this is how much we have

14:57 ↗ to build because we're not builders

15:00 ↗ we also can't make people build here our

15:02 ↗ Target is how much we have to

15:03 ↗ accommodate

15:05 ↗ so that's the difference between the two

15:07 ↗ and how we get there

15:09 ↗ council president Washington yeah I just

15:10 ↗ wanted to ask a follow-up on that when

15:13 ↗ you're talking about our capacity for

15:15 ↗ building I know you said a lot of it is

15:17 ↗ in the

15:19 ↗ um Urban core area and other areas um in

15:23 ↗ that area but does it also

15:26 ↗ consider

15:28 ↗ um adus and things that were allowed

15:31 ↗ because of 11 10 house about 11 10 or

15:34 ↗ anything like that that would allow for

15:37 ↗ more housing units per parcel no it does

15:40 ↗ not

15:42 ↗ I know and adus are considered units

15:45 ↗ they're considered so when we build adus

15:47 ↗ they'll count toward our

15:50 ↗ s but our capacity right now does not

15:54 ↗ reflect the fact that

15:56 ↗ previously a

16:00 ↗ parcel that had a single family home on

16:02 ↗ it could now have to or more correct

16:08 ↗ so our housing capacity

16:11 ↗ is actually higher than that probably

16:14 ↗ higher than that

16:16 ↗ interesting okay we have amended our

16:18 ↗ code but it will be higher than that

16:19 ↗ likely yes yeah okay thanks you're

16:23 ↗ welcome

16:27 ↗ and a lot of that is when we set these

16:29 ↗ targets before the most recent State

16:31 ↗ changes that happened right I think I

16:34 ↗ remember you guys coming to us for

16:35 ↗ feedback when we were negotiating where

16:37 ↗ these things we negotiated in 2021 and I

16:41 ↗ believe they were adopted in 2022.

16:45 ↗ not interested

16:46 ↗ okay thanks

16:49 ↗ early 2022 so yes before the house bills

16:52 ↗ were adopted

16:58 ↗ okay

16:59 ↗ um on the on the sub areas versus the

17:03 ↗ neighborhood Maps

17:05 ↗ it looks to me like the map that we will

17:09 ↗ be going forward and so all of the

17:12 ↗ Departments like you were saying it

17:14 ↗ would all be

17:15 ↗ the neighborhood map plus some areas

17:19 ↗ that I guess didn't identify with a

17:21 ↗ particular neighborhood but have but

17:23 ↗ have neighborhood names on this map is

17:25 ↗ that right yes okay so those ones we use

17:28 ↗ the sub-area name of that area like um

17:31 ↗ Tiger Mountain is not

17:33 ↗ label that on the self-reflection

17:35 ↗ neighborhoods right and actually

17:37 ↗ something that we've talked about is

17:38 ↗ removing Tiger Mountain the South part

17:40 ↗ of Talus and

17:43 ↗ Lake Sammamish State Park because

17:44 ↗ technically those aren't neighborhoods

17:45 ↗ those are preserved areas

17:48 ↗ so not really any you know not can't

17:50 ↗ really go have a community meeting there

17:52 ↗ which is what Communications uses it for

17:54 ↗ so and that not that they've come out

17:56 ↗ the map altogether they come off the

17:58 ↗ neighborhoods man but obviously they'd

17:59 ↗ still be reflected when we show open

18:00 ↗ space

18:01 ↗ and so forth

18:03 ↗ um not all the names stay the same

18:05 ↗ Newport changed because Newport was

18:07 ↗ actually different parts it was parts of

18:08 ↗ different

18:11 ↗ um

18:12 ↗ sorry sub areas there we go but yes most

18:16 ↗ of the names stayed the same

18:18 ↗ okay and so this would then be the same

18:22 ↗ map that we would use for neighborhood

18:25 ↗ Communications and for public works and

18:27 ↗ for Community Development so all of the

18:29 ↗ Departments would use these yeah same

18:31 ↗ names

18:32 ↗ okay

18:35 ↗ um

18:36 ↗ and I'm sorry so the one difference in

18:39 ↗ the naming is Issaquah Valley versus

18:43 ↗ so between

18:46 ↗ a couple

18:51 ↗ I'm sorry uh Newport changed to Issaquah

18:54 ↗ Valley which is this yeah so Issaquah

18:56 ↗ Valley is the same as the neighborhoods

18:58 ↗ the Newport name

19:00 ↗ is the same as the neighborhoods we

19:03 ↗ changed South Cove at the request of the

19:05 ↗ South Cove resident so it's actually

19:06 ↗ South Lake Sammamish now

19:08 ↗ the rest are the same

19:12 ↗ oh nope nope uh

19:15 ↗ the Tibbetts Creek Valley actually is a

19:18 ↗ combination of two different of the

19:19 ↗ neighborhoods

19:21 ↗ and we we added Tibbetts Creek Valley

19:23 ↗ back in as a sub area it was there

19:25 ↗ before because just the topography and

19:26 ↗ the way we're going to plan for those

19:28 ↗ areas

19:29 ↗ is similar it's there are lots of

19:32 ↗ critical areas there because of the

19:34 ↗ creek that runs through it's zoned for

19:37 ↗ Less density so as planners we looked at

19:39 ↗ it and said for us if you don't mind

19:41 ↗ this makes a little more sense

19:43 ↗ okay and the main reason for these names

19:45 ↗ is that Communications work that was

19:47 ↗ done earlier about where people what

19:50 ↗ people call their neighborhoods what

19:51 ↗ people what neighborhood people identify

19:53 ↗ with is that correct yes

19:56 ↗ okay

19:57 ↗ all right thank you

19:59 ↗ question

20:01 ↗ um on that I notice in the sub areas

20:05 ↗ there was one for Lakeside

20:08 ↗ and that is now listed as North Issaquah

20:12 ↗ I wonder whether the lines on that

20:14 ↗ should be adjusted for the top portion

20:17 ↗ of Lakeside that is going to end up

20:20 ↗ being a neighborhood that would probably

20:23 ↗ fit best into Issaquah Highlands we

20:26 ↗ struggled with that one

20:28 ↗ um Issaquah Highlands

20:30 ↗ in the code has its own

20:33 ↗ design standards so for that reason we

20:36 ↗ thought this is easier for residents and

20:39 ↗ planners and developers to recognize as

20:42 ↗ a separate area that falls under these

20:44 ↗ design standards now lakeside's a

20:46 ↗ development agreement it's not in the

20:47 ↗ standards but they also have they are

20:49 ↗ governed by their development agreement

20:51 ↗ not through the land use code have the

20:53 ↗ same area and we we did we struggled

20:55 ↗ with withson and if we did just

20:58 ↗ Lakeside my mouse appeared we did just

21:01 ↗ Lakeside

21:02 ↗ then you still have this weird King

21:05 ↗ County area that was annexed with part

21:07 ↗ of central Issaquah so we've kind of

21:11 ↗ we've struggled with it admittedly so if

21:12 ↗ you guys have any suggestions I mean we

21:15 ↗ could you know attach this to it and

21:16 ↗ that could all be part of Lakeside

21:18 ↗ this is what we came up with as an

21:20 ↗ initial thought so we are open to

21:22 ↗ suggestions okay I I appreciate that the

21:25 ↗ explanation of why it well it might fit

21:29 ↗ based on how a future resident there

21:32 ↗ might think of themselves at the same

21:35 ↗ time there are important differences to

21:37 ↗ reflect from a city Side so I'll think

21:39 ↗ on that more okay thank you you're

21:41 ↗ welcome

21:44 ↗ we have anything

21:46 ↗ any questions

21:51 ↗ yeah go ahead

21:53 ↗ um I just have a couple nitpicky

21:54 ↗ questions so hold on a second

21:57 ↗ um

22:01 ↗ the um so I noticed there are five

22:04 ↗ instances where we say like best

22:06 ↗ practice or one instance of best

22:08 ↗ practice and five that are best

22:09 ↗ management practices for different

22:12 ↗ things I'm just wondering if you know

22:13 ↗ when we when staff reads that if we have

22:16 ↗ a good idea of kind of what that means

22:17 ↗ or do we have any concern about like a

22:19 ↗ staff change year over year with that

22:22 ↗ change in the eyes of our staff or is it

22:25 ↗ a best practice to just say best

22:26 ↗ practice my question yes because those

22:29 ↗ change

22:30 ↗ so

22:32 ↗ I have a feeling these two are going to

22:33 ↗ have a better than answer than I would

22:35 ↗ but if it's Transportation I can't even

22:37 ↗ this is why I'm thinking of him there

22:39 ↗ there are Transportation policies that

22:40 ↗ were in place that were really at the

22:42 ↗ time they were the best practices best

22:43 ↗ things to do and then something new

22:45 ↗ comes along and then something new comes

22:47 ↗ along and it's you know from different

22:48 ↗ agencies or different groups or it's

22:50 ↗ amended or things change so I it is

22:53 ↗ typically best just to say best

22:54 ↗ practices

22:55 ↗ as opposed to referring to one doctor

22:58 ↗ yeah I can see that I guess what what

23:00 ↗ I'm thinking of you is as

23:03 ↗ we continue to

23:05 ↗ add our best practices it's now

23:07 ↗ different

23:08 ↗ what maybe the next door City's best

23:10 ↗ practices is because maybe they don't

23:11 ↗ know that this other place has thought

23:13 ↗ about it a little bit more and has a new

23:15 ↗ best practice so I don't really know how

23:17 ↗ to Grapple that with

23:19 ↗ Federal answer for me especially because

23:22 ↗ I don't want to necessarily Define it

23:23 ↗ all in here

23:27 ↗ um

23:28 ↗ the um oh which one was it the

23:31 ↗ neighborhood there were a couple under

23:33 ↗ goal Z about pending neighborhood

23:34 ↗ discussion can you talk to us a little

23:36 ↗ bit about what that is

23:38 ↗ right here

23:40 ↗ yes

23:41 ↗ okay

23:42 ↗ and you just want to know more about

23:44 ↗ what that's for yeah like the reasons

23:47 ↗ from

23:48 ↗ um say pending neighborhood discussions

23:49 ↗ so is that actual going out to

23:51 ↗ neighborhoods and having discussions or

23:52 ↗ is some boarding commission going to

23:53 ↗ have a discussion about neighborhoods or

23:55 ↗ are we going to have that it it was

23:58 ↗ pending neighborhood discussions with

23:59 ↗ plans planning policy commission and

24:01 ↗ Planning Development and environment

24:03 ↗ committee and Council

24:05 ↗ um how these were going to go they just

24:07 ↗ they weren't

24:08 ↗ and that was our reason for putting him

24:11 ↗ in there we want to do general you know

24:13 ↗ neighborhood plans and what the

24:15 ↗ guideline for us we want consistency

24:17 ↗ when we go out and talk to neighborhoods

24:18 ↗ about what we're going to talk to them

24:19 ↗ about what we want to plan for and so we

24:22 ↗ put these in here and just wanted to

24:23 ↗ make sure that

24:25 ↗ this was something that you all agreed

24:26 ↗ with

24:28 ↗ right okay

24:30 ↗ um

24:31 ↗ some of the ones that weren't changed

24:34 ↗ that had to do with schools I'm just

24:36 ↗ curious if like in years past as those

24:38 ↗ were developed where they developed

24:40 ↗ collaboratively with the school district

24:41 ↗ are they aware of these policies

24:43 ↗ they were they were okay they were yes

24:46 ↗ thumbs up then

24:48 ↗ um

24:49 ↗ and then how does this state so when we

24:52 ↗ finish

24:53 ↗ everything it goes to the state for

24:55 ↗ review what is that process like is it

24:57 ↗ they usually come back with tons of

24:59 ↗ notes like here's why we think you're

25:01 ↗ doing wrong or what should we expect

25:02 ↗ from them sometimes they do I can't tell

25:05 ↗ you what happens if you're doing

25:06 ↗ something wrong because we didn't do it

25:07 ↗ last time I was here

25:09 ↗ um but they do make it they will come

25:11 ↗ back with you and say these things need

25:12 ↗ to be corrected and then it has to be

25:14 ↗ reviewed again and if you know once

25:16 ↗ you've fixed it

25:17 ↗ they will also make recommendations for

25:19 ↗ future

25:20 ↗ comp plan updates something that they do

25:25 ↗ so it's a back and forth stuff for us to

25:27 ↗ keep track of for the next yes

25:32 ↗ um I think that's

25:36 ↗ it for me I keep going back I'll

25:38 ↗ probably wait for the comments but I'm

25:39 ↗ having a having trouble with the way the

25:41 ↗ benefits of 10 minute neighborhoods so

25:43 ↗ I'll probably talk about that with you

25:45 ↗ guys but I don't have a question about

25:46 ↗ that thank you though

25:48 ↗ all right I have one question that

25:51 ↗ um

25:51 ↗ so goalsy

25:54 ↗ it says golsi develop neighborhood plans

25:57 ↗ to enhance and established neighborhood

25:58 ↗ amenities but I had I have I'm looking

26:00 ↗ at golsy

26:02 ↗ in the

26:04 ↗ draft the clean draft and it's

26:06 ↗ completely different so

26:09 ↗ I tried to abbreviate here instead of

26:11 ↗ putting okay

26:13 ↗ I I think it to me it means something

26:16 ↗ completely different which is why I'm

26:17 ↗ confused so this one says ensure

26:20 ↗ welcoming attractive and walkable

26:21 ↗ neighborhoods with various amenities

26:22 ↗ that support the city's cultural and

26:24 ↗ economically diverse community so that

26:26 ↗ seems different than developed

26:27 ↗ neighborhood plans but um

26:30 ↗ is that

26:35 ↗ okay okay

26:39 ↗ so

26:42 ↗ all right good

26:46 ↗ um

26:48 ↗ um

26:49 ↗ in on the same section it talks about a

26:52 ↗ neighborhood plan template policies so

26:56 ↗ is that also part of that conversation

26:59 ↗ with PPC and pde and right that's what

27:01 ↗ these are these are the neighborhood

27:03 ↗ template

27:04 ↗ policies

27:06 ↗ so the concept then is to have a section

27:11 ↗ in

27:13 ↗ the comprehensive plan land use element

27:15 ↗ that has a section on hey here's what we

27:18 ↗ think neighborhoods should be whether

27:21 ↗ that's a

27:23 ↗ future or here's what all neighborhoods

27:26 ↗ should share or something like that

27:28 ↗ whether that's a future neighborhood or

27:30 ↗ an existing neighborhood so it's not

27:33 ↗ necessarily us telling them what they

27:34 ↗ should share

27:36 ↗ it's us

27:38 ↗ covering these issues with the

27:40 ↗ neighborhoods and saying

27:41 ↗ what are your amenities do you want to

27:43 ↗ protect these things do you want to

27:46 ↗ allow small-scale residential here

27:47 ↗ because we got pushback from playing

27:49 ↗ policy Commission on the small scale

27:52 ↗ retail and the 10-minute neighborhoods I

27:54 ↗ said wait what if I live in a

27:55 ↗ neighborhood where we don't want it okay

27:57 ↗ but we're not just going to avoid the

27:59 ↗ question with you we're at least going

28:00 ↗ to ask you if you want it when we meet

28:02 ↗ with you the history and culture of each

28:05 ↗ neighborhood maybe Central Issaquah

28:07 ↗ doesn't have a whole lot of history and

28:09 ↗ culture or maybe you know some something

28:11 ↗ like that because it's brand new it

28:12 ↗ hasn't been developed yet but

28:14 ↗ other neighborhoods do they've got you

28:17 ↗ know I look I think of squawk Mountain

28:18 ↗ that all has all the mid-modern houses

28:20 ↗ or the cemetery and all these

28:22 ↗ you know the coal mines and historical

28:24 ↗ things like that that they might want to

28:25 ↗ protect so this is coming out of my head

28:27 ↗ I'm not talking to the neighborhood so

28:29 ↗ it's yeah yeah okay so I think there's a

28:32 ↗ conversation to be had about how that

28:35 ↗ reads because I don't think I read it

28:38 ↗ the same way that you described so

28:40 ↗ thanks

28:46 ↗ okay and do you have any other questions

28:50 ↗ that's it okay

28:52 ↗ um all right could you please pull up

28:54 ↗ the list of questions that you have for

28:56 ↗ us again thank you

28:59 ↗ all right

29:00 ↗ um

29:02 ↗ so let's go through these questions and

29:06 ↗ then we can also have General time does

29:09 ↗ that sound uh good okay

29:14 ↗ uh yes let's let's check in I will note

29:16 ↗ for the record that um at this time we

29:18 ↗ will call for public comment but there

29:19 ↗ are no members of the public in the

29:21 ↗ audience and I'll check in with the city

29:22 ↗ clerk if there's anyone online

29:24 ↗ chair hunt there are no virtual

29:25 ↗ attendees at this time all right thank

29:27 ↗ you thank you for the reminder

29:29 ↗ um

29:31 ↗ then we will move into

29:33 ↗ um deliberation so the first question

29:35 ↗ that we have

29:37 ↗ um from

29:38 ↗ the administration is are there any

29:40 ↗ additional considerations that planning

29:42 ↗ policy commission should study prior to

29:43 ↗ finalizing their recommendation to city

29:46 ↗ council

29:49 ↗ anybody

29:51 ↗ I can start or okay I'll go ahead and

29:53 ↗ start

29:54 ↗ um

29:58 ↗ these are in order that they appear in

30:01 ↗ the

30:02 ↗ um in the document so the first one is

30:05 ↗ um the natural environment goals I think

30:08 ↗ the wording was changed and it it no

30:11 ↗ longer

30:12 ↗ um

30:13 ↗ I think makes sense so it says conserve

30:15 ↗ and enhance the city's natural systems

30:17 ↗ from the potentially negative impacts of

30:19 ↗ Land Development I think it made sense

30:20 ↗ when it was protect but now it's saying

30:21 ↗ conserve and enhance from potentially

30:24 ↗ negative effects and I like conservative

30:26 ↗ enhance so I just I think the sentence

30:29 ↗ needs to be reworked to something like

30:31 ↗ conserve and enhance the city's natural

30:33 ↗ systems and protect it against negative

30:35 ↗ impacts of development something like

30:37 ↗ that

30:39 ↗ um I

30:42 ↗ wondered on

30:45 ↗ um throughout throughout this there is a

30:47 ↗ lot of protection and respect for

30:51 ↗ topography

30:53 ↗ um

30:54 ↗ about hillsides firstly I thought we

30:58 ↗ should also make sure to be protecting

31:00 ↗ other critical areas like and it does

31:02 ↗ have Wildlife corridors but also the the

31:05 ↗ buffers

31:07 ↗ um and things like that and it has

31:08 ↗ Wildlife corridors include the stream

31:10 ↗ sweepers but I think some statement

31:12 ↗ about protecting critical areas in

31:14 ↗ general would be good to have in this

31:15 ↗ section

31:18 ↗ um and would cover a lot of ground and

31:20 ↗ then

31:21 ↗ um

31:22 ↗ the uh the word respect did jump out at

31:26 ↗ me

31:27 ↗ um I think we've

31:28 ↗ talked about this before but

31:31 ↗ um in general for these land use

31:33 ↗ policies I I like to have words that I

31:37 ↗ know as a policy maker or you know

31:40 ↗ trying to look at it through the lens of

31:42 ↗ a staff member what does it mean so um

31:44 ↗ what does it mean to respect the

31:46 ↗ topography that's a hard as a policy

31:48 ↗ maker that's hard so I think um just the

31:50 ↗ the more action kind of oriented what

31:52 ↗ does it mean and some of these are great

31:55 ↗ um

31:56 ↗ in terms of being like I know what

31:58 ↗ action we would take but

32:00 ↗ some of them like respect that one in

32:03 ↗ particular jumped out as as a

32:06 ↗ open to interpretation

32:10 ↗ um

32:12 ↗ okay on the land on the goal queue which

32:17 ↗ is maintaining uses of uses and

32:19 ↗ activities of

32:21 ↗ of the lands natural resources the first

32:24 ↗ one talks about small

32:27 ↗ agricultural uses like pea patches and I

32:31 ↗ wondered if there's a specific legal

32:34 ↗ reason why we are limiting this to the

32:38 ↗ like the creek Valley and the Issaquah

32:41 ↗ Creek area and the reason is I I do know

32:43 ↗ that there's a lot of pea patches for

32:45 ↗ example in the highlands and I don't I

32:47 ↗ don't know that we wouldn't encourage

32:49 ↗ that they seem to be thriving so

32:53 ↗ yeah is there a reason that we call out

32:57 ↗ these valleys I think when this policy

33:01 ↗ was written it was probably just where

33:03 ↗ they were located so it's something

33:05 ↗ that's been overlooked

33:06 ↗ okay yeah so I think you know might as

33:08 ↗ well encourage them wherever

33:10 ↗ people

33:11 ↗ neighborhoods want to have them

33:14 ↗ um

33:23 ↗ okay

33:24 ↗ um under sustainability this is similar

33:26 ↗ to my uh

33:28 ↗ concerned about the word respect

33:31 ↗ and maybe maybe this is a conversation

33:33 ↗ but balance Urban Development with the

33:35 ↗ protection of the natural environment

33:37 ↗ and environmentally critical areas

33:39 ↗ balance seems uh

33:43 ↗ hard to interpret how one balances

33:46 ↗ especially as a policy

33:49 ↗ um I don't know if if any other if

33:51 ↗ planning policy had any

33:53 ↗ conversation about that word or no no

33:57 ↗ okay we can rethink it okay

34:01 ↗ um

34:03 ↗ yeah I think I think rethinking it and

34:05 ↗ it's in the sustainability section so

34:07 ↗ you know through the lens of the

34:10 ↗ sustainability part of our land use

34:12 ↗ what do we mean with how you would

34:15 ↗ protect the natural environment um

34:19 ↗ or yeah just the policy side of what it

34:22 ↗ means to balance those things I think

34:24 ↗ would be good to clarify

34:30 ↗ okay land use policy X2 is in

34:34 ↗ sustainability it's about encouraging

34:36 ↗ the development of amenities that are

34:38 ↗ supportive of all types of families

34:40 ↗ and and I wondered

34:43 ↗ what the rationale of putting that there

34:46 ↗ is in the sustainability section and

34:49 ↗ maybe I'm just missing it but it seems

34:50 ↗ like it kind of went more like in the

34:52 ↗ neighborhood section to me which is

34:54 ↗ in a different part of this

34:59 ↗ I don't recall the ration okay okay

35:02 ↗ um so my suggestion there would be to

35:04 ↗ put you know things about amenities and

35:06 ↗ services it seems like the rest of those

35:08 ↗ were in

35:09 ↗ the seemed like the rest of those were

35:11 ↗ in the neighborhood part

35:14 ↗ um so just grouping that in there

35:17 ↗ um

35:18 ↗ I thought this the actions in the um

35:22 ↗ gold G which are reducing greenhouse gas

35:24 ↗ emissions are very specific and very

35:26 ↗ actionable and I appreciated those a lot

35:32 ↗ um

35:44 ↗ I have some specific wording things but

35:46 ↗ I don't think I need to get into that

35:54 ↗ and then I think

35:55 ↗ um I had a fair amount of I although I I

35:59 ↗ think maybe I didn't understand the

36:01 ↗ context of the changes that were made to

36:03 ↗ the section about goalsy but I did have

36:06 ↗ a number of comments on that so maybe we

36:08 ↗ can talk about that separately and it

36:10 ↗ sounds like

36:11 ↗ um planning policy already considered

36:13 ↗ that so I don't know that they need to

36:15 ↗ reconsider that I think maybe that's

36:17 ↗ something we have to talk about

36:19 ↗ um

36:22 ↗ okay I have a question on the under the

36:24 ↗ annexation section

36:27 ↗ policy X4

36:29 ↗ make every effort to ensure that lands

36:31 ↗ within issaquah's potential annexation

36:32 ↗ area develops according to Issaquah

36:34 ↗ comprehensive plan policies and

36:36 ↗ development standards annexation

36:38 ↗ how how would we make sure that lands

36:42 ↗ that we have not yet annexed develops

36:45 ↗ according to our plans we work with the

36:47 ↗ county

36:48 ↗ okay and who who they are the reviewers

36:50 ↗ of things before they come into Issaquah

36:53 ↗ so we work with them okay I might

36:55 ↗ actually

36:56 ↗ I might actually then recommend so that

36:58 ↗ they work with the the

37:02 ↗ County to ensure that because I yeah

37:08 ↗ because it's not directly in our control

37:10 ↗ so then it's unclear how we make every

37:12 ↗ effort

37:13 ↗ um

37:14 ↗ so but that's a good that's a good

37:16 ↗ clarification so thank you

37:18 ↗ and

37:29 ↗ there's another instance of balance

37:31 ↗ development with protection and land use

37:32 ↗ A2 so again that would be good to

37:34 ↗ clarify and then my last

37:37 ↗ one is um

37:42 ↗ under results and accountability

37:44 ↗ provide recommendations for potential

37:47 ↗ land use amendments when gaps are

37:48 ↗ identified in achieving land use goals

37:51 ↗ and policies I thought that was an

37:53 ↗ interesting

37:55 ↗ interesting but I also thought it would

37:57 ↗ be good to clarify who this is a

37:59 ↗ document the comprehensive plan is a

38:01 ↗ document that's used by lots of

38:03 ↗ groups and uh

38:06 ↗ staff staff members as well as Council

38:09 ↗ and as well as the public and so I

38:12 ↗ wondered if that one

38:14 ↗ [Music]

38:15 ↗ um

38:16 ↗ who who is responsible for it because

38:18 ↗ this one is also about

38:20 ↗ there's an interpretation here necessary

38:23 ↗ of if we're achieving the land use goals

38:24 ↗ and policies I thought that one maybe it

38:26 ↗ would be good to clarify who that one is

38:29 ↗ directed to or is that every everyone

38:31 ↗ involved should be assessing if we met

38:33 ↗ the goals and policies and providing

38:35 ↗ recommendations if we're not

38:37 ↗ um

38:38 ↗ but I thought that one could also use a

38:40 ↗ little Clarity to make it more

38:42 ↗ actionable

38:44 ↗ and those are some of the things that I

38:46 ↗ thought could be

38:48 ↗ we could take a second or could have a

38:51 ↗ second look at

38:55 ↗ president Walsh okay

38:58 ↗ um

38:59 ↗ my notes aren't nearly as organized in

39:02 ↗ order they're just all the things that I

39:05 ↗ found

39:06 ↗ um

39:08 ↗ one of the areas that was removed was

39:13 ↗ policy H1

39:16 ↗ um which if I'm going back to that it's

39:21 ↗ a decrease Auto Reliance through

39:23 ↗ sustainable land use planning that

39:25 ↗ encourages dense mixed-use development

39:27 ↗ patterns in central Issaquah nearby

39:29 ↗ multimodal Transportation networks and I

39:32 ↗ get that that was moved to the new

39:34 ↗ environmental stewardship and climate

39:36 ↗ resilience element but that really to me

39:39 ↗ talks about our land use planning

39:43 ↗ um and I think it also pairs pretty well

39:48 ↗ with the new

39:51 ↗ policy X8 around 10-minute neighborhoods

39:54 ↗ and also potentially policy 01

39:59 ↗ well-distributed commercial available

40:01 ↗ via non-motorized travel and so I wonder

40:06 ↗ if there's a way to continue to bring in

40:08 ↗ that concept because it land use

40:14 ↗ achieves the goals of sustainability

40:16 ↗ through

40:18 ↗ our use of land in an appropriate method

40:23 ↗ Etc

40:25 ↗ um

40:28 ↗ so I can see that one

40:32 ↗ so for a lot of the transportation

40:33 ↗ policies that were in the land use them

40:35 ↗ before they're focused on a lot of the

40:38 ↗ transportation demand management for

40:40 ↗ transportation and from House Bill 1181

40:42 ↗ that's actually required to go into the

40:45 ↗ new environment which is why it was

40:46 ↗ being used to have moved from land use

40:48 ↗ to the new environment element that's

40:50 ↗ the main reason why a lot of those are

40:52 ↗ getting moved over we agreed with you

40:53 ↗ that they are kind of a land use base

40:55 ↗ but because of 1181 we wanted to make

40:57 ↗ sure that we were making it easier for

41:00 ↗ compliance

41:01 ↗ yeah

41:03 ↗ if you feel like we should have related

41:07 ↗ policies in the land use element we

41:08 ↗ could take a look at that

41:10 ↗ yeah I think the thing that this policy

41:13 ↗ does for me when I'm thinking about it

41:15 ↗ in context of land use is it

41:19 ↗ specifically ties the idea that our land

41:22 ↗ use is related to our Auto Reliance

41:24 ↗ which I think is a really important

41:26 ↗ connection to make and that we

41:28 ↗ accomplish that via dense mixed-use

41:32 ↗ development patterns and nearby

41:34 ↗ multimodal Transportation networks and

41:37 ↗ so I still think emphasizing those two

41:41 ↗ methods as a way to achieve our goals

41:45 ↗ when we're talking about land use is

41:48 ↗ extremely important now you can do some

41:52 ↗ of that when we're talking about

41:53 ↗ development patterns and 10 minute

41:56 ↗ neighborhoods if you specify that it was

41:59 ↗ you know dense mixed use or mixed use

42:02 ↗ horizontal or vertical something that

42:06 ↗ talks about our Auto Reliance so that

42:08 ↗ that might be one way to accomplish it

42:10 ↗ but I still

42:12 ↗ I feel like there's something there that

42:15 ↗ still needs to be added into one of

42:18 ↗ those few policies if not

42:20 ↗ bringing this and

42:22 ↗ um keeping it in the land use section

42:27 ↗ okay that was one

42:30 ↗ um there's two new policies X12 and x13

42:33 ↗ which were related to like programs and

42:38 ↗ education

42:39 ↗ I can't see where those belong in land

42:42 ↗ use rather than environment

42:49 ↗ um I'm looking at those right now

42:52 ↗ um

42:53 ↗ administering Creekside and Wetland

42:55 ↗ restoration and

42:58 ↗ the provide public education programs

43:02 ↗ those let's see what I'm sorry what are

43:04 ↗ they currently under

43:06 ↗ develop they're under sustainability

43:07 ↗ yeah they're the last ones and goal L

43:12 ↗ under sustainability

43:16 ↗ um that those were there because it

43:18 ↗ started off as managed city-owned land

43:20 ↗ in a sustainable manner including they

43:22 ↗ fell under that policy so we can and

43:25 ↗ then we got rid of part of that policy

43:27 ↗ and made two more out of that that's why

43:31 ↗ it stayed there but we can move them

44:24 ↗ thank you chance I appreciate it I'll

44:26 ↗ state that again uh policy m6 and M8 the

44:30 ↗ arterials that's related to

44:31 ↗ neighborhoods

44:33 ↗ um how do

44:37 ↗ how do we otherwise

44:41 ↗ figure out what an a neighborhoods

44:46 ↗ traffic

44:48 ↗ situation should be and whether we would

44:51 ↗ consider an arterial like is there

44:53 ↗ someplace else that's not in a land use

44:55 ↗ element that we really talk about what

44:57 ↗ the design of

45:00 ↗ streets versus arterials and how they

45:02 ↗ relate to neighborhoods

45:04 ↗ we

45:05 ↗ yeah we do we have our I'm going to

45:08 ↗ probably let Steven address this and we

45:09 ↗ have our street standards the taco

45:12 ↗ yeah so we have the Citywide Street

45:14 ↗ standards that address roadway design

45:16 ↗ but it's also tied with the state

45:18 ↗ classification of arterios that also

45:21 ↗ dictates how roadway design also really

45:24 ↗ incorporates a lot of that

45:26 ↗ differentiating from the neighborhood

45:28 ↗ roadways which aren't intended to take

45:30 ↗ the brunt of a lot of the traffic versus

45:32 ↗ our arterial

45:35 ↗ okay and then the other portion that

45:37 ↗ those policies mentioned was that

45:40 ↗ Transportation facilities can create

45:43 ↗ pressure for development in certain

45:45 ↗ areas especially sensitive areas so I

45:49 ↗ wonder if they're

45:51 ↗ should be a consideration when we're

45:54 ↗ talking about land use especially land

45:56 ↗ use in an area that maybe hadn't been

45:58 ↗ developed before and whether

46:01 ↗ these streets that are created in that

46:04 ↗ could

46:05 ↗ create pressures for either further

46:08 ↗ development or development toward areas

46:11 ↗ that are particularly sensitive

46:13 ↗ environmentally so is is there

46:16 ↗ something that belongs in that land use

46:18 ↗ section that that really talks about how

46:20 ↗ Transportation can create pressures for

46:22 ↗ more development

46:32 ↗ so when in when we are considering a lot

46:34 ↗ of these policies we didn't really think

46:36 ↗ that the transportation facilities were

46:38 ↗ going to create development pressure

46:39 ↗ primarily because of Transportation

46:40 ↗ facilities were more of the result of

46:44 ↗ the development pressures

46:45 ↗ preceded a lot of those translation

46:47 ↗ facilities so any of the development

46:49 ↗ that's going to be surrounding any of

46:50 ↗ those speeds are already planned for

46:52 ↗ rather than trying to create new

46:53 ↗ pressures for the neighbor

46:55 ↗ does that help kind of address the point

46:57 ↗ you're getting or do you think that

46:59 ↗ within the land use element we need to

47:01 ↗ be addressing Central pressures from

47:03 ↗ Development coming in that's planned for

47:06 ↗ I guess I'm thinking of

47:09 ↗ you know induce demand created by

47:12 ↗ building Transportation but that's

47:14 ↗ probably more of a regional or you know

47:17 ↗ outside of our particular City situation

47:20 ↗ so

47:22 ↗ there probably aren't that many

47:24 ↗ transportation areas that we could you

47:26 ↗ know expand a roadway one or two and it

47:28 ↗ would induce demand uh development

47:31 ↗ within the City of Issaquah it would

47:33 ↗ probably create more demand in say Maple

47:35 ↗ Valley yeah yeah okay

47:40 ↗ um okay next one uh policy X3 which is

47:44 ↗ related to Transit and the transfer

47:46 ↗ Transit oriented development support

47:49 ↗ um I really like that policy and I like

47:52 ↗ that it's added in there I guess I would

47:54 ↗ just

47:55 ↗ question whether

47:58 ↗ if we're thinking about this as a

48:00 ↗ long-term plan whether it should live

48:03 ↗ inside of goal P which talks about the

48:05 ↗ urban core

48:07 ↗ or whether there's the potential to kind

48:11 ↗ of talk about some of that outside

48:15 ↗ of that Urban core area

48:20 ↗ I'm going to take a stab at this but

48:22 ↗ again because Steven's more involved in

48:23 ↗ transportation he probably knows it

48:25 ↗ better but I we don't know exactly where

48:27 ↗ it's going to be and the transit

48:29 ↗ if you look at Totem Lake which is going

48:31 ↗ to be a Transit Center that is in

48:32 ↗ Kirkland that has really expanded

48:35 ↗ outside of what I you know was

48:37 ↗ it's it's huge and so if if that's to

48:40 ↗ come here and say it's closer to Front

48:42 ↗ Street then what if it starts to touch

48:44 ↗ Front Street or

48:46 ↗ I think I think the point is we don't

48:48 ↗ know exactly where it's going to go and

48:50 ↗ if it's going to potentially touch areas

48:52 ↗ outside of the urban core or outside of

48:54 ↗ central Issaquah we'd want to be able to

48:56 ↗ address that too and by it you mean the

48:59 ↗ transit center the transit oriented area

49:01 ↗ yeah yeah which isn't just the transit

49:04 ↗ center it's the housing that goes with

49:06 ↗ it and the retail that goes with it and

49:08 ↗ yeah I guess the the piece that

49:13 ↗ comes when I'm looking at that

49:15 ↗ this suggests that we've had a policy

49:18 ↗ conversation that

49:20 ↗ Transit and Transit oriented development

49:23 ↗ should be only in the urban core and I

49:26 ↗ don't think we've really had that policy

49:28 ↗ conversation and I think in fact

49:30 ↗ development in many ways is

49:34 ↗ saying hey you've got a Transit Center

49:36 ↗ up in the highlands and the transit

49:37 ↗ center down near tell us that

49:40 ↗ are could be could act in that same way

49:44 ↗ and

49:46 ↗ so I guess I just until we have really

49:49 ↗ truly had a conversation about where

49:52 ↗ that should be and looking at it for a

49:54 ↗ 20-year period or 10-year period which

49:56 ↗ is what the comp plan does I hesitate to

49:59 ↗ have that live

50:01 ↗ only in the urban core section so I

50:04 ↗ think that it would be a good question

50:05 ↗ to bring up to PPC and kind of have that

50:09 ↗ that conversation so that we can be

50:12 ↗ appropriately forward thinking on that

50:17 ↗ um so

50:18 ↗ I think

50:20 ↗ so this is the wording of the section so

50:22 ↗ it does talk about this

50:24 ↗ it does talk about some other

50:27 ↗ maybe it could be softened but it

50:30 ↗ doesn't only limit to so you're saying

50:32 ↗ that you don't think quality

50:37 ↗ yes it's undergo P so goal p is focus

50:40 ↗ and promote office housing and Retail

50:42 ↗ development in the urban core regional

50:44 ↗ growth Center and other areas designated

50:45 ↗ for compact mixed-use development served

50:48 ↗ by a full range of Transportation

50:49 ↗ options

50:50 ↗ so I think maybe we want to

50:53 ↗ we could kind of expand on to other

50:56 ↗ areas designated for

50:59 ↗ compact mixed use development

51:02 ↗ now I think that's a really good call

51:03 ↗ out I just didn't

51:06 ↗ um I read it too fast and just

51:08 ↗ considered it Urban core I think that

51:11 ↗ answers my question so

51:13 ↗ yeah you guys already did the work for

51:16 ↗ me thanks

51:18 ↗ um okay next

51:23 ↗ um policy O2 is related to pedestrians

51:29 ↗ um can we change this to something other

51:31 ↗ than inspire

51:33 ↗ it just I think that one is really hard

51:37 ↗ to understand uh as a concept inspire a

51:40 ↗ community well I'd like to be actionable

51:45 ↗ um

51:46 ↗ let's see

51:49 ↗ um I agree with councilmember hunt that

51:51 ↗ X2 probably belongs in a different

51:54 ↗ section from sustainability on that

51:59 ↗ um got other stuff on 10 minute

52:00 ↗ neighborhood

52:03 ↗ oh

52:04 ↗ um

52:05 ↗ okay so goal m

52:07 ↗ is in I think that's in the

52:10 ↗ sustainability section let me check yeah

52:14 ↗ so one of the things that this calls out

52:17 ↗ it says allow for and accommodate growth

52:19 ↗ in a manner that is fiscally responsible

52:21 ↗ responsive to the community and enhances

52:24 ↗ and protects the natural environment

52:27 ↗ and

52:28 ↗ this is going to be a little bit of a

52:30 ↗ long rant idea but fiscally responsible

52:34 ↗ I think is a really important thing to

52:36 ↗ call out as a city when we're trying to

52:39 ↗ decide what the land use should be one

52:42 ↗ of the things that we really need to

52:44 ↗ consider is what the cost to maintain

52:48 ↗ that and provide services to a land use

52:51 ↗ versus the tax revenue that we bring in

52:54 ↗ and well we don't know from our

52:57 ↗ individual City studies Studies have

52:59 ↗ been done on many cities around the

53:01 ↗ country that dents or downtown areas

53:06 ↗ smaller units provide more of a tax

53:10 ↗ basis and larger Parcels with only a

53:14 ↗ single family home on them are often

53:17 ↗ subsidized because their tax revenue

53:19 ↗ doesn't cover the cost to maintain and

53:23 ↗ provide services so that while it's in

53:27 ↗ the sustainability section actually

53:29 ↗ brought up this concept of

53:32 ↗ do we should we have a policy or even a

53:36 ↗ goal in the area

53:38 ↗ and the land use element that talks

53:40 ↗ about

53:41 ↗ what the fiscal impact of different

53:45 ↗ types of development are and if we have

53:47 ↗ a preference for types of development

53:50 ↗ that create a net positive rather than a

53:54 ↗ net negative

53:56 ↗ so I think that's a big enough one that

53:57 ↗ I would want it to go back to PPC and

54:01 ↗ obviously need to hear from my

54:03 ↗ colleagues so those are my areas

54:07 ↗ okay

54:08 ↗ some thoughts on a follow-up thoughts

54:10 ↗ but do you do you want to you haven't

54:12 ↗ gone yet so yeah I mean I don't have any

54:14 ↗ additional considerations for that first

54:16 ↗ one I liked the word inspire but I can

54:18 ↗ live with changing it if you want to go

54:19 ↗ I think you bring up a good point though

54:21 ↗ I I think the intent of what you're

54:23 ↗ saying lives in this goal in my mind but

54:26 ↗ if you think we need to pull it out or

54:28 ↗ call it out in a new way

54:30 ↗ willing to have that conversation I'm

54:31 ↗ curious what our chair

54:35 ↗ okay I'll stop there for now okay

54:38 ↗ um I and I

54:40 ↗ I feel similarly with respect and

54:42 ↗ Inspire I think those the words are

54:45 ↗ great but I just need to know what's the

54:47 ↗ action that we do to

54:50 ↗ to inspire like how so

54:53 ↗ um that's more my goal uh with the my

54:57 ↗ comments on the respect so I agree

54:59 ↗ um okay so on this uh allow for an

55:03 ↗ accommodate growth in a manner that is

55:04 ↗ fiscally responsible responsible to the

55:06 ↗ community and enhances and protects the

55:07 ↗ natural environment I think and this and

55:10 ↗ then my first one or my comment in that

55:12 ↗ section was about balance I think maybe

55:15 ↗ my concerns and your concerns might be

55:18 ↗ addressed if we split this out like that

55:21 ↗ goal covers a lot

55:23 ↗ of ground it covers fiscal

55:26 ↗ responsibility responsive to community

55:28 ↗ and the natural environment so I think

55:31 ↗ maybe instead of saying you balance all

55:34 ↗ of these things in the first goal like

55:35 ↗ maybe we we tease apart those goals for

55:39 ↗ those different things like we have some

55:42 ↗ goals for what we mean by being fiscally

55:44 ↗ responsible or policies about what we

55:47 ↗ mean to be fiscally responsible as the

55:49 ↗ goal and what we mean about

55:52 ↗ enhancing and protecting the environment

55:54 ↗ in the context of sustainability

55:57 ↗ um I think that might help

56:00 ↗ um so

56:03 ↗ toward that idea I think if you tease

56:06 ↗ out each of those three concepts

56:09 ↗ responsive to the community I think

56:11 ↗ would be probably the neighborhood

56:13 ↗ section and the enhances and protects

56:16 ↗ the natural environment would probably

56:18 ↗ be the natural environment section

56:22 ↗ um

56:22 ↗ but I don't think we have

56:24 ↗ anything maybe you could put the fiscal

56:27 ↗ responsibility into the development

56:29 ↗ patterns and create a policy

56:32 ↗ or go under that that you know really

56:35 ↗ talks about what the aim of and uses

56:42 ↗ so I think

56:44 ↗ um from my from my perspective I think

56:46 ↗ that the uh what it means to be fiscally

56:49 ↗ responsible could could have some goals

56:51 ↗ under that or some policies rather sorry

56:53 ↗ under that and that would be helpful but

56:56 ↗ I do think that the um because it's

56:58 ↗ about allowing for an accommodating

57:00 ↗ growth while protecting the environment

57:02 ↗ and so when we have the focus the future

57:05 ↗ growth in areas with no minimal or

57:07 ↗ environmentally critical areas I do

57:08 ↗ think

57:09 ↗ that that is speaking to sustainability

57:12 ↗ so I think I think that

57:16 ↗ um for me it's really just separating

57:18 ↗ out the fiscally responsible piece with

57:21 ↗ policies by what what do we mean for

57:23 ↗ that and then the

57:25 ↗ um

57:25 ↗ accommodating growth and protecting the

57:27 ↗ environment and policies related to that

57:29 ↗ I think that would that would help I did

57:32 ↗ uh

57:34 ↗ while we're in this section the

57:37 ↗ um the mitigating Wildfire one which is

57:39 ↗ the last one in this section I believe

57:43 ↗ um is

57:45 ↗ because the state has required it um but

57:48 ↗ it's also something that our community

57:51 ↗ cares a lot about and we've had recent

57:54 ↗ discussions with our emergency

57:55 ↗ management team

57:59 ↗ um so to that end I wondered if we

58:02 ↗ shouldn't also talk about maybe expand

58:06 ↗ on that or break it into also one also a

58:09 ↗ policy about evacuation planning and and

58:13 ↗ sort of emergency planning for other

58:15 ↗ natural disasters and I'm not sure that

58:17 ↗ that does go into the sustainability

58:19 ↗ section

58:20 ↗ um but I I did think maybe we could

58:22 ↗ cover

58:24 ↗ um some of those other emergency

58:26 ↗ preparedness concerns

58:32 ↗ and and expands upon it

58:36 ↗ also for flooding I know it on that one

58:40 ↗ all right

58:42 ↗ yeah

58:43 ↗ um

58:44 ↗ do you think that

58:46 ↗ [Music]

58:47 ↗ um

58:48 ↗ like exit what is the word why am I not

58:52 ↗ evacuation yeah evacuation routes

58:54 ↗ belongs in the land use or is there

58:55 ↗ another element or chapter of the comp

58:58 ↗ plan

59:02 ↗ it's here in the new environment element

59:05 ↗ there is going to be a subsection within

59:07 ↗ that that's going to be addressing

59:08 ↗ climate change or resilience and so it's

59:12 ↗ going to be talking about natural

59:13 ↗ disaster reaction Emergency Management

59:16 ↗ kind of to the note that the committee

59:19 ↗ members are kind of speaking to tonight

59:20 ↗ but if you want us to speak more on the

59:22 ↗ evacuation disaster management or land

59:25 ↗ use

59:26 ↗ could look at adding additional policies

59:28 ↗ around that or this element

59:31 ↗ yeah because I wonder if that would

59:32 ↗ either belong in the transportation

59:34 ↗ element or in the new climate element

59:39 ↗ versus land use because I I really like

59:43 ↗ this policy I just don't know if I would

59:45 ↗ go into evacuation in this concept

59:52 ↗ adding on to what Stephen just said we

59:54 ↗ met with the sustainability Department

59:56 ↗ today and they did ask us to put a

59:57 ↗ policy in there around making

1:00:01 ↗ City facilities climate resilient

1:00:04 ↗ so that will be once we

1:00:07 ↗ that was today so once we figured that

1:00:08 ↗ one out that'll go in here as well but

1:00:10 ↗ it still does not address evacuation but

1:00:12 ↗ it does address

1:00:13 ↗ other natural disasters and as a safe

1:00:16 ↗ place for those

1:00:22 ↗ yeah so I think

1:00:24 ↗ um I think then this policy which is a

1:00:26 ↗ new policy

1:00:27 ↗ it would also then help to clarify by so

1:00:31 ↗ it says land use planning tools that

1:00:33 ↗ reduce Wildfire risk the residential

1:00:35 ↗ development in high risk areas and and

1:00:38 ↗ separating the human development from

1:00:41 ↗ Wildfire prone Landscapes so I think

1:00:44 ↗ um the separating for future development

1:00:47 ↗ that's clear what that would be and then

1:00:48 ↗ I was thinking that for the existing

1:00:51 ↗ developments existing homes one of the

1:00:55 ↗ things that would fall under land use

1:00:57 ↗ would be planning around like evacuation

1:00:59 ↗ roads so I'm actually not sure what else

1:01:01 ↗ what other

1:01:03 ↗ um land use tools we would use for

1:01:06 ↗ established neighborhoods and so that

1:01:08 ↗ might be if there aren't then I think

1:01:10 ↗ explaining what we mean by that would be

1:01:13 ↗ helpful here and if there are other

1:01:14 ↗ tools then putting that information in

1:01:17 ↗ here would also be helpful

1:01:20 ↗ so like a lot of my comments really

1:01:21 ↗ trying to get at what uh what are the

1:01:25 ↗ actions what are the specific

1:01:28 ↗ things we could do to achieve that

1:01:33 ↗ great that's a little Deputy president

1:01:36 ↗ Hall

1:01:37 ↗ um

1:01:38 ↗ yeah and I have no problem with changing

1:01:39 ↗ some of the verbiage

1:01:41 ↗ um

1:01:42 ↗ that

1:01:43 ↗ what you're feeling is less actionable I

1:01:45 ↗ guess in my mind I'm thinking this lives

1:01:47 ↗ kind of above the action and then we

1:01:50 ↗ have like actionable plans that stem

1:01:52 ↗ from these where the action comes from

1:01:54 ↗ so but either way I'm totally fine with

1:01:57 ↗ that I I did want to express I don't

1:01:58 ↗ know if it's maybe a difference of

1:02:00 ↗ opinion or just something I wanted to

1:02:02 ↗ highlight so it sounds like goal m

1:02:04 ↗ um the first one under sustainability

1:02:06 ↗ definitely is when the PPC should

1:02:08 ↗ consider because I think no matter what

1:02:10 ↗ we do it's important that these three

1:02:12 ↗ elements the fiscally responsible

1:02:14 ↗ responsive to the community and protects

1:02:16 ↗ the natural environment

1:02:18 ↗ um

1:02:19 ↗ um live together somehow because I mean

1:02:23 ↗ the balance of those three things is

1:02:25 ↗ what spells out success you know you do

1:02:27 ↗ some quick analysis you've got

1:02:29 ↗ liabilities and then you've got

1:02:31 ↗ responsiveness to the community that's

1:02:33 ↗ needs or services for the community and

1:02:34 ↗ then protects the environment that's

1:02:36 ↗ also needs or services for the

1:02:37 ↗ environment too right so you're kind of

1:02:39 ↗ weighing pros and cons for these kinds

1:02:42 ↗ of things so I just think whatever we do

1:02:43 ↗ there needs to be important that these

1:02:45 ↗ things are all interrelated and need to

1:02:47 ↗ be considered

1:02:54 ↗ so it does sound like then that's

1:02:57 ↗ something we think PPC it would be good

1:03:00 ↗ to have PPC take another look at

1:03:02 ↗ um

1:03:04 ↗ so goal goal M potentially easing it

1:03:09 ↗ apart but taking into account that these

1:03:10 ↗ different pieces

1:03:12 ↗ also can impact

1:03:18 ↗ is that right okay okay

1:03:28 ↗ you have any other

1:03:30 ↗ um thoughts on this first one

1:03:33 ↗ anything else that we think PVC should

1:03:41 ↗ I think the goal Z is okay definitely an

1:03:45 ↗ area but they were already planning to

1:03:47 ↗ talk about that is there

1:03:50 ↗ should is there something that we have

1:03:53 ↗ as feedback for that or well my

1:03:55 ↗ understanding is actually they they have

1:03:57 ↗ talked about it they have talked about

1:03:58 ↗ it where they had their issues were with

1:04:01 ↗ the

1:04:02 ↗ preserving neighborhood character

1:04:04 ↗ and I just closed all the policies

1:04:06 ↗ somehow in front of me and more but for

1:04:07 ↗ the preserving neighborhood character

1:04:09 ↗ and the 10-minute neighborhoods those

1:04:12 ↗ were big discussions that we had

1:04:14 ↗ they thought 10-minute neighborhood was

1:04:16 ↗ a bit specific

1:04:19 ↗ um

1:04:20 ↗ and that was one of those conversations

1:04:22 ↗ well what if we don't want it well

1:04:24 ↗ that's we just want to have the

1:04:25 ↗ conversation and then the other one was

1:04:28 ↗ uh the design

1:04:31 ↗ the version that was sent to them

1:04:32 ↗ originally talked about preserving the

1:04:36 ↗ neighborhood design character

1:04:40 ↗ and there were some discussion about

1:04:42 ↗ just removing the word design they felt

1:04:43 ↗ like it was a bit restrictive

1:04:46 ↗ so we changed it to assets and unique

1:04:49 ↗ unique assets and

1:04:53 ↗ um okay I I think well in the version

1:04:55 ↗ I'm looking at it has as the last goal

1:04:58 ↗ in that section maintain an enhanced

1:05:00 ↗ neighborhood Aesthetics and unique

1:05:02 ↗ assets through best practices in design

1:05:05 ↗ and development regulations so they were

1:05:07 ↗ okay with

1:05:09 ↗ that they haven't seen the new version

1:05:11 ↗ but they trusted us to bring it to you

1:05:12 ↗ okay for discussion okay so they've had

1:05:15 ↗ a conversation and they identified some

1:05:17 ↗ things but um

1:05:19 ↗ some changes have been made subsequently

1:05:21 ↗ in the search

1:05:26 ↗ so I hate to throw something back to

1:05:28 ↗ them that they

1:05:30 ↗ didn't have a clear answer on

1:05:34 ↗ um

1:05:35 ↗ I like the concept of

1:05:38 ↗ policy n and policy X8 which is the

1:05:43 ↗ allow small scale retail and personal

1:05:44 ↗ services and residential area that meets

1:05:47 ↗ residence needs and then also with the

1:05:50 ↗ benefits of attendant neighborhoods Etc

1:05:53 ↗ um I like those as Concepts I think

1:05:56 ↗ that's something that every neighborhood

1:05:58 ↗ would benefit from and the way that I

1:06:01 ↗ read those policies is that

1:06:04 ↗ that should be something allowed in

1:06:08 ↗ every neighborhood and so if there is a

1:06:11 ↗ disagreement that that should be the

1:06:13 ↗ policy uh because certain neighborhoods

1:06:17 ↗ might not want that then we need to

1:06:19 ↗ figure that out before we put it in the

1:06:21 ↗ comp plan

1:06:23 ↗ um

1:06:24 ↗ because if I read that and come in I'm

1:06:27 ↗ going to say well we should probably

1:06:29 ↗ have code that allows for small-scale

1:06:31 ↗ retail in every neighborhood would be my

1:06:34 ↗ reaction to reading that policy

1:06:37 ↗ I don't know if there's a different

1:06:40 ↗ interpretation

1:06:42 ↗ I think that was their initial reaction

1:06:45 ↗ and not understanding that are me not

1:06:48 ↗ just explaining well enough that this is

1:06:50 ↗ a conversation to be had

1:06:52 ↗ and not a definitive all neighborhoods

1:06:55 ↗ will have 10 minute neighborhoods all

1:06:57 ↗ neighborhoods will have small scale

1:06:59 ↗ it was not a broad stroke this is the

1:07:01 ↗ way it will be it was more

1:07:03 ↗ when we go talk to these neighborhoods

1:07:05 ↗ this is one of the topics we need to

1:07:07 ↗ discuss do they want this

1:07:10 ↗ then I might just adjust the policy to

1:07:14 ↗ say

1:07:16 ↗ consider

1:07:18 ↗ policies neighborhood by neighborhood

1:07:20 ↗ that would allow

1:07:22 ↗ okay

1:07:24 ↗ and I think that clarifies that's not

1:07:27 ↗ the direction that I necessarily want to

1:07:30 ↗ go but I am one of seven and also not on

1:07:34 ↗ PPC anymore uh so I think that's

1:07:38 ↗ probably a conversation that should be

1:07:41 ↗ had

1:07:42 ↗ um because I could see that going two

1:07:44 ↗ different directions

1:07:46 ↗ and then on the 10-minute neighborhoods

1:07:49 ↗ um

1:07:51 ↗ I think that's kind of a kitschy term

1:07:54 ↗ that in you know it used to be 15-minute

1:07:57 ↗ neighborhoods Etc I would prefer

1:08:00 ↗ defining what the benefits are of that

1:08:03 ↗ so when I think of a 10 or 15 minute

1:08:05 ↗ neighborhood I think of the fact that

1:08:08 ↗ there is there are services such as

1:08:12 ↗ small scale retail and personal services

1:08:14 ↗ either in

1:08:16 ↗ mixed-use vertical or horizontal

1:08:20 ↗ that are accessible

1:08:22 ↗ to most neighborhoods

1:08:25 ↗ within a

1:08:28 ↗ easy bike or walk

1:08:31 ↗ and so that that I think

1:08:35 ↗ gets to the concept without using

1:08:39 ↗ terminology that somebody might not know

1:08:42 ↗ or might have a different conception of

1:08:47 ↗ we were we have a definition to

1:08:49 ↗ including the definition section which

1:08:51 ↗ the planning policy commission saw but

1:08:53 ↗ you're saying to include it if we can as

1:08:55 ↗ much as possible within the policy

1:08:57 ↗ itself

1:08:58 ↗ yeah I I think so because I'm not sure

1:09:03 ↗ if the

1:09:05 ↗ concept of the public concept of a

1:09:07 ↗ 10-minute neighborhood

1:09:09 ↗ is necessarily the same concept

1:09:12 ↗ everywhere even if it is defined I think

1:09:15 ↗ it just doesn't provide the same clarity

1:09:16 ↗ as

1:09:18 ↗ just defining what we're talking about

1:09:33 ↗ Okay so

1:09:36 ↗ um

1:09:37 ↗ then are we comfortable with

1:09:41 ↗ knots and not would this go back to PPC

1:09:45 ↗ uh it would go back to the PPC but we

1:09:48 ↗ could either call it out for them to

1:09:50 ↗ take another look with a specific

1:09:51 ↗ question or they could just look at what

1:09:53 ↗ you've done to address their concerns in

1:09:55 ↗ your review I yeah and I I I'll make the

1:09:58 ↗ changes or make the suggestions and take

1:10:00 ↗ it back to them and call it out as

1:10:01 ↗ something that you all asked them to

1:10:02 ↗ revisit

1:10:03 ↗ right I think we I think we maybe do we

1:10:09 ↗ do we need do we still we need them to

1:10:12 ↗ specifically revisit this or just that

1:10:14 ↗ there will be changes

1:10:16 ↗ I would just highlight it as a change

1:10:18 ↗ since the last time they saw it

1:10:21 ↗ um I think the

1:10:22 ↗ sustainability goal m is a focused

1:10:26 ↗ conversation about you know how do we

1:10:28 ↗ manage all of these Concepts I think the

1:10:32 ↗ suggestion here is potentially this is

1:10:36 ↗ responsive to what their needs were if

1:10:39 ↗ they see that and feel otherwise then

1:10:41 ↗ they can have a conversation

1:10:45 ↗ okay um I think in that case I I liked

1:10:49 ↗ your wording on

1:10:51 ↗ um neighborhood by neighborhood

1:10:53 ↗ conversation for and three which is

1:10:56 ↗ about allowing retail and then

1:10:59 ↗ um X8 which is the 10 minute

1:11:01 ↗ neighborhoods so I think

1:11:04 ↗ I think that makes sense and also I I

1:11:05 ↗ don't think I would have read it

1:11:08 ↗ that way as as written um so it's good

1:11:12 ↗ clarification

1:11:16 ↗ um

1:11:18 ↗ I had a question that I didn't read

1:11:21 ↗ earlier on this on this section or is

1:11:23 ↗ there somewhere else the concept of the

1:11:26 ↗ green necklace

1:11:28 ↗ um

1:11:28 ↗ and that as a neighborhood

1:11:31 ↗ connectivity and amenity type of

1:11:35 ↗ it's not referred to in land use it's

1:11:37 ↗ all over the parks element but it's not

1:11:39 ↗ referred to here

1:11:43 ↗ okay

1:11:44 ↗ um I think that's interesting I mean it

1:11:47 ↗ so for the comprehensive plan it is

1:11:51 ↗ comprehensive it's meant to tie together

1:11:53 ↗ our different

1:11:56 ↗ um goals and be overarching and so we do

1:11:58 ↗ have a goal for example

1:12:01 ↗ um about designing and creating trails

1:12:03 ↗ and paths to increase connectivity

1:12:06 ↗ um and so I thought there for example

1:12:08 ↗ you know in in alignment with the goals

1:12:10 ↗ of the green necklace

1:12:12 ↗ um but I thought maybe specifically

1:12:14 ↗ referring to the green necklace would be

1:12:17 ↗ would be a good addition

1:12:20 ↗ so I would think that the trust station

1:12:22 ↗ line also has a policy calling up okay

1:12:30 ↗ I would say I think

1:12:32 ↗ the concepts are included here you

1:12:35 ↗ mentioned one about Trails there's M11

1:12:37 ↗ create connected Wildlife corridors so I

1:12:40 ↗ I think there is that if we wanted to

1:12:44 ↗ say such as the green necklace

1:12:48 ↗ um I think that would be fine but I do

1:12:50 ↗ appreciate that it's used in many other

1:12:52 ↗ areas

1:13:10 ↗ sorry so back to our list so we've

1:13:13 ↗ covered the first one I think

1:13:15 ↗ things for planning policy which is

1:13:17 ↗ really focusing on that the big

1:13:19 ↗ sustainability goal that we talked about

1:13:22 ↗ earlier

1:13:24 ↗ um we've covered I think M2 and and

1:13:28 ↗ three

1:13:30 ↗ um

1:13:34 ↗ yes we talked we talked about N3 not so

1:13:37 ↗ much about N2 M2 right so M2 is not in

1:13:43 ↗ the draft the clean draft

1:13:47 ↗ okay is this supposed to be

1:13:50 ↗ oh where is it

1:13:53 ↗ oh

1:13:55 ↗ oh

1:13:57 ↗ that was in okay yeah that was in the

1:14:01 ↗ block and things in sustainability that

1:14:03 ↗ I thought should be in the neighborhood

1:14:04 ↗ character

1:14:06 ↗ so

1:14:09 ↗ um

1:14:11 ↗ okay so it's in sustainability so did

1:14:14 ↗ you would were you thinking it would go

1:14:16 ↗ into Z which is the neighborhood one

1:14:23 ↗ yes sorry I'm rereading it and I I have

1:14:25 ↗ to admit

1:14:27 ↗ um I thought the same as you earlier

1:14:28 ↗ today when I was looking at this so um

1:14:30 ↗ but yes looking at it again yeah

1:14:31 ↗ neighborhood okay

1:14:34 ↗ um so that's our first comment

1:14:37 ↗ um we agree that we think it should go

1:14:38 ↗ in the neighborhood section

1:14:50 ↗ and can you remind me is this the one

1:14:52 ↗ that you mentioned uh planning policy

1:14:55 ↗ was had a discussion about the word

1:14:57 ↗ character in M2

1:15:00 ↗ they did it was it was really

1:15:02 ↗ neighborhood this isn't the same policy

1:15:04 ↗ there was another one we took the word

1:15:05 ↗ design out but it was uh

1:15:09 ↗ neighborhood character design or

1:15:11 ↗ neighborhood design care something like

1:15:12 ↗ one of those two

1:15:14 ↗ the word design was a little

1:15:18 ↗ hit them the wrong way

1:15:37 ↗ as I watched I don't like the word

1:15:39 ↗ character either

1:15:41 ↗ I like it better than scale but

1:15:45 ↗ um I think

1:15:49 ↗ you know if there's a better way to

1:15:51 ↗ frame it great I think the fact that we

1:15:54 ↗ have already

1:15:56 ↗ eliminated some other areas and kind of

1:15:59 ↗ streamlined what that concept is and

1:16:01 ↗ added other things to me makes this less

1:16:05 ↗ of an emphasis I could live with it I

1:16:08 ↗ like the fact that it talks about

1:16:11 ↗ providing character you know some sort

1:16:14 ↗ of sense of self to newly developing

1:16:17 ↗ neighborhoods I just don't think we

1:16:19 ↗ should ever say that a neighborhood

1:16:24 ↗ can't change I mean that suggests that

1:16:27 ↗ there was no history I mean I understand

1:16:29 ↗ we don't live on the east coast and we

1:16:31 ↗ aren't around history of you know

1:16:33 ↗ development all of the time but

1:16:36 ↗ yeah I I my fear when using the word

1:16:39 ↗ character or retaining character is that

1:16:42 ↗ we are saying a neighborhood is set in

1:16:44 ↗ stone and cannot adapt and change to

1:16:48 ↗ growing needs and differing people that

1:16:52 ↗ move in as

1:16:54 ↗ as things change

1:16:59 ↗ okay

1:17:01 ↗ um I agree but that's actually why I

1:17:03 ↗ love N3 I think N3 is perfect I don't

1:17:05 ↗ think that needs to change one bit

1:17:07 ↗ because I think the way that we describe

1:17:09 ↗ the spirit of what goes into a

1:17:12 ↗ particular neighborhood really and then

1:17:13 ↗ we say enhanced neighborhood character

1:17:15 ↗ to me like that one hits neighborhood

1:17:18 ↗ character perfectly but the first one I

1:17:21 ↗ I wrote and three spells it out and this

1:17:24 ↗ one doesn't this one just says

1:17:27 ↗ you have retained desired neighborhood

1:17:29 ↗ character and provide character to newly

1:17:31 ↗ developing neighborhoods and I I didn't

1:17:33 ↗ get the same kind of

1:17:35 ↗ I don't know I don't have an answer I

1:17:37 ↗ don't know how to change this I'm sorry

1:17:38 ↗ but I just felt like N3 in particular

1:17:41 ↗ made me feel good at the end of it when

1:17:42 ↗ I read never heard character and then

1:17:44 ↗ the first one I didn't feel good reading

1:17:46 ↗ neighborhood character and it's because

1:17:48 ↗ what a neighborhood character good

1:17:50 ↗ neighborhood character bad there are a

1:17:53 ↗ lot of ways the connotation of

1:17:55 ↗ neighborhood character can be taken

1:17:57 ↗ um and I think in N3 we nailed it

1:17:59 ↗ perfectly but an NT or an M2 maybe that

1:18:01 ↗ could be something

1:18:03 ↗ PC thinks about two or maybe it could be

1:18:05 ↗ something staff thinks about or perhaps

1:18:08 ↗ bear hunt has a thought right now about

1:18:10 ↗ about M2

1:18:14 ↗ um well I like I like the idea of kind

1:18:19 ↗ of modeling the way we talk about it in

1:18:22 ↗ and three

1:18:23 ↗ um

1:18:24 ↗ and I also was was also going to suggest

1:18:27 ↗ that I thought the way that we talk

1:18:30 ↗ about

1:18:32 ↗ um addressing the so uh x 11 which is

1:18:37 ↗ also in the section it talks about

1:18:40 ↗ um adapting guiding principles maybe

1:18:41 ↗ that may be needed to address the unique

1:18:43 ↗ interests and needs of each

1:18:45 ↗ neighborhood's residence I thought that

1:18:46 ↗ was also kind of a way to address this

1:18:51 ↗ um so then it would be maintain

1:18:52 ↗ development regulations that promote

1:18:55 ↗ compatibility between uses and

1:18:58 ↗ um

1:18:59 ↗ you know

1:19:00 ↗ address the unique interests and needs

1:19:03 ↗ of each neighborhood's residence it also

1:19:04 ↗ implies

1:19:05 ↗ getting to know the unique

1:19:07 ↗ uh situation of the neighborhoods which

1:19:10 ↗ is what the intent was with these

1:19:14 ↗ um

1:19:14 ↗ so something like that might be good

1:19:23 ↗ okay

1:19:24 ↗ did staff consider edits to unchanged

1:19:26 ↗ policies I think we had several that we

1:19:29 ↗ mentioned

1:19:30 ↗ um or several of the yeah that we

1:19:33 ↗ mentioned um do we have any additional

1:19:35 ↗ ones

1:19:38 ↗ yeah

1:19:39 ↗ uh additional topics for staff to

1:19:42 ↗ consider when making final edits through

1:19:44 ↗ the draft

1:19:48 ↗ council president

1:19:50 ↗ well technically this skips question

1:19:52 ↗ number four from our packet which said

1:19:55 ↗ do the proposed changes fully meet the

1:19:56 ↗ expectations for the land use element

1:19:58 ↗ update and I just had something

1:20:00 ↗ underneath there about this is just a

1:20:03 ↗ really great reworking and I love the

1:20:08 ↗ simplification of this before it felt

1:20:11 ↗ monotonous and like there was a lot

1:20:13 ↗ there and it was all over the place now

1:20:16 ↗ it's like oh this really gives me a

1:20:19 ↗ sense of where we're going as a city and

1:20:22 ↗ so I just sorry I wanted to call that

1:20:25 ↗ out because it was really nice and

1:20:27 ↗ refreshing

1:20:28 ↗ okay are there any additional topics for

1:20:31 ↗ stuff to consider I think honestly we

1:20:34 ↗ have probably pulled it out in that

1:20:37 ↗ first question

1:20:39 ↗ um I will just put back my hat of

1:20:43 ↗ physical responsibility and strong towns

1:20:45 ↗ and all of that I think

1:20:49 ↗ addressing that in the land use element

1:20:51 ↗ is important and so well I did

1:20:54 ↗ appreciate what Deputy council president

1:20:56 ↗ Hall said about hey those three balances

1:20:58 ↗ are important and keeping that in mind

1:21:01 ↗ is great and maybe we do maintain that

1:21:05 ↗ there but I think we still need to

1:21:07 ↗ address the

1:21:09 ↗ tax and City costs and revenue and all

1:21:13 ↗ of the implications of land use

1:21:17 ↗ that never get talked about

1:21:21 ↗ well we're starting to talk about it now

1:21:23 ↗ because we've realized that there are

1:21:24 ↗ some areas that are subsidizing other

1:21:26 ↗ areas

1:21:28 ↗ and I just think if we're going to have

1:21:30 ↗ a comprehensive plan we need to think

1:21:32 ↗ about what our cities fiscal future

1:21:35 ↗ looks like if we continue a certain

1:21:38 ↗ development pattern versus others that

1:21:42 ↗ adapt to that so

1:21:49 ↗ okay okay

1:21:51 ↗ um yeah and I will agree there were a

1:21:54 ↗ lot of things that I really liked like I

1:21:56 ↗ I really liked especially the

1:21:58 ↗ the greenhouse gas and Energy Efficiency

1:22:00 ↗ section I was like okay great you know

1:22:02 ↗ very clear and um so I there is a lot to

1:22:06 ↗ like here

1:22:06 ↗ [Music]

1:22:09 ↗ um

1:22:12 ↗ do you have any any last on this one or

1:22:16 ↗ the doesn't mean expectations two I mean

1:22:18 ↗ I'm sure you all dream and comprehensive

1:22:20 ↗ land language at this point so just

1:22:22 ↗ thank you for bearing with it

1:22:25 ↗ quite a bit longer actually sorry

1:22:30 ↗ I have a last question

1:22:33 ↗ um is the so the uh Treasures

1:22:37 ↗ are in are referenced in the comp plan I

1:22:42 ↗ believe do you know what section and it

1:22:44 ↗ would not be land use they are in the

1:22:46 ↗ land use appendix

1:22:48 ↗ volume two okay

1:22:51 ↗ um

1:22:55 ↗ okay

1:22:56 ↗ um I think I don't know if uh

1:23:02 ↗ I don't know exactly where that would

1:23:04 ↗ fit into this but I was just looking

1:23:07 ↗ over you know some of these that talk

1:23:09 ↗ about maintaining the important you know

1:23:13 ↗ the things that are important for

1:23:14 ↗ cultural educational Scenic recreational

1:23:16 ↗ resources celebrating local and Regional

1:23:18 ↗ Heritage a lot of those are the

1:23:20 ↗ treasures and that's why the treasures

1:23:22 ↗ list was created and so I think

1:23:24 ↗ referencing that would be would be good

1:23:28 ↗ and in an appendix it might not

1:23:31 ↗ be as easy to to know so maybe we could

1:23:34 ↗ reference it and and and that was in the

1:23:38 ↗ 1000 goal n

1:23:40 ↗ um there may be another place that would

1:23:42 ↗ work better but

1:23:43 ↗ that might be a nice addition

1:23:46 ↗ also president Walsh I've got one more

1:23:48 ↗ sorry

1:23:49 ↗ um the there's the one section that adds

1:23:52 ↗ the area about the Wildland Urban

1:23:55 ↗ interface and fires and all of that and

1:23:58 ↗ councilmember Hunt brought up while we

1:24:00 ↗ were kind of talking about that also

1:24:01 ↗ flooding

1:24:03 ↗ and that made me realize like are we

1:24:07 ↗ talking about one versus the other do we

1:24:11 ↗ have an area that really effectively

1:24:14 ↗ talks about

1:24:16 ↗ letting do we need

1:24:19 ↗ something in a land use section that

1:24:22 ↗ does or does that belong in the climate

1:24:25 ↗ change and resiliency

1:24:28 ↗ we have several policies that talk about

1:24:30 ↗ storm water management

1:24:32 ↗ in the landing settlement

1:24:35 ↗ okay so it's called out as storm water

1:24:38 ↗ rather than flooding

1:24:41 ↗ interesting okay

1:24:43 ↗ now that is a good point

1:24:54 ↗ okay thanks

1:25:05 ↗ okay

1:25:07 ↗ um do we have any anything else

1:25:11 ↗ all right

1:25:13 ↗ um

1:25:14 ↗ I assume that in the climate resiliency

1:25:15 ↗ Wildfire is also covered under there

1:25:18 ↗ yeah okay so it will just be in a couple

1:25:21 ↗ of places

1:25:23 ↗ great great

1:25:24 ↗ um well thank you again and this was

1:25:27 ↗ um great to read and also great to hear

1:25:29 ↗ about the conversations that were had at

1:25:31 ↗ our volunteer commission and thank thank

1:25:33 ↗ them as well for their hard work on this

1:25:35 ↗ and

1:25:37 ↗ um do you have what you

1:25:39 ↗ need from us on this

1:25:41 ↗ um topic yes I do thank you okay great

1:25:47 ↗ um

1:25:49 ↗ we have no other items so I think the

1:25:51 ↗ last thing is if there are any

1:25:52 ↗ announcements

1:25:56 ↗ yes salmon days is coming right up

1:25:59 ↗ um encourage the community to go to that

1:26:01 ↗ and

1:26:03 ↗ um there being no further business then

1:26:04 ↗ we are adjourned at 7 56 pm thank you

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 (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Chair Hunt moved to adopt the minutes as presented.
Question 2 – Expand language on Neighborhood Character for Policies M2 & N3?  Committee liked Policy N3.  Committee recommended moving Policy M2 into Goal Z.