City Council Special Meeting · Monday, April 15, 2019 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

The purpose of this special meeting is to allow the City Council to recess into Executive Session to discuss pending/potential litigation per RCW take approximately 60 minutes. Please note, Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Action, if needed, would occur in open session of a Regular Council meeting

▶ Watch from 2:34:11

3221 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ good evening like to welcome you to the

0:17 ↗ April 15th City Council regular meeting

0:20 ↗ and I'm going to call the meeting to

0:22 ↗ order all of those that would like to

0:24 ↗ any of those would like to join the

0:26 ↗ council myself in the Pledge of

0:27 ↗ Allegiance please stand for stadium on

0:51 ↗ the agenda this evening is under special

0:53 ↗ business I'm going to be handing out two

0:56 ↗ environmental awards tonight the Ruth

0:58 ↗ peace award and the community

1:00 ↗ environmental award so I'm going to move

1:02 ↗ over to the podium and invite the

1:04 ↗ recipients up Connie Marsh come on up

1:16 ↗ and join me well two awards two speeches

1:25 ↗ first speech for Connie they're gonna

1:32 ↗ stand up here all about ourselves so I

1:35 ↗ want to thank you all for joining me

1:36 ↗ tonight to hand out these two very

1:38 ↗ special awards these are meant to honor

1:41 ↗ those who spend hours and weeks and

1:43 ↗ months and years of their lifetime

1:45 ↗ advocating for the environment in our

1:47 ↗ community so first tonight I want to

1:50 ↗ thank and Connie Marsh for all of the

1:54 ↗ work that she has done and presenter

1:55 ↗ with the Ruth Keyes award this award is

1:58 ↗ presented to those in the community who

2:00 ↗ have shown extraordinary leadership to

2:02 ↗ protect our amazing natural surroundings

2:04 ↗ its namesake Ruth Keyes lived on Tiger

2:07 ↗ Mountain for many years observing and

2:09 ↗ studying the flow of water the health of

2:11 ↗ the salmon and the damages that

2:13 ↗ development could do to both if we were

2:16 ↗ not very careful and Ruth Keyes was not

2:19 ↗ a shy advocate I met her in 1994 at the

2:22 ↗ house she

2:22 ↗ built on Tiger Mountain and learned all

2:25 ↗ about the precious aquifer lying beneath

2:27 ↗ this valley and how wonderfully

2:28 ↗ interconnected our water resources are

2:30 ↗ to each other I also learned how

2:32 ↗ passionate individuals in this community

2:34 ↗ can be Connie has been a stalwart

2:37 ↗ environmental activist and community

2:39 ↗ resource in Issaquah and has served as a

2:42 ↗ key leader in the Issaquah environmental

2:44 ↗ council since its existence she has

2:46 ↗ spent countless hours more than most

2:48 ↗ would invest in reviewing and studying

2:50 ↗ city and state land-use policies and she

2:53 ↗ has served on many city committees and

2:55 ↗ advisory groups connie has devoted

2:57 ↗ countless hours attending city council

2:59 ↗ meetings committee meetings and board

3:01 ↗ and commission meetings to advocate for

3:02 ↗ land our forests and our water I first

3:05 ↗ heard Connie in the early 90s when I

3:07 ↗ served on the city's development

3:08 ↗ Commission but it's not just all

3:10 ↗ advocacy word you can also see Connie

3:13 ↗ out in the community volunteering in a

3:14 ↗ physical role removing those nasty

3:17 ↗ invasive species species in town and

3:19 ↗ nurturing native ones that grow

3:21 ↗ throughout our community so thank you

3:23 ↗ Connie for your decades of service

3:31 ↗ [Music]

3:41 ↗ so honey's gonna stay up with me and

3:44 ↗ we're gonna bring up safe Cougar

3:46 ↗ Mountain the second award I'm giving out

3:56 ↗ tonight is to the save Kruger mountain

3:58 ↗ group and I know we have more than two

4:00 ↗ of them here come on we don't fight

4:09 ↗ sometimes

4:10 ↗ yeah I see a couple of green shirts you

4:13 ↗ can you can definitely bring up any of

4:15 ↗ your crew that you want so they've got

4:20 ↗ the shirts on so this is another

4:28 ↗ environmental award that we give out

4:30 ↗ that builds upon the legacy of the Ruth

4:32 ↗ Keyes award it's the court also has this

4:34 ↗ community environmental award and it

4:36 ↗ recognizes outstanding achievements by

4:38 ↗ individuals groups and organizations

4:39 ↗ this year we're honoring Save Cougar

4:42 ↗ Mountain for its grassroots efforts to

4:44 ↗ preserve land previously proposed for

4:46 ↗ development working together this group

4:49 ↗ organized and led a broad public effort

4:51 ↗ involving more than 2,500 supporters

4:54 ↗ over two years who advocated to preserve

4:57 ↗ 46 acres on Cougar Mountain commonly

5:00 ↗ called Bergsma the land located on the

5:02 ↗ northeast corner of Cougar Mountain

5:03 ↗ between Newport Way and Northwest and

5:06 ↗ Talas had been proposed for development

5:08 ↗ most recently at 57 homes it's one of

5:12 ↗ the last significant pieces of privately

5:14 ↗ owned land open space zoned for

5:17 ↗ development in Issaquah from circulating

5:20 ↗ petitions to attending council City

5:22 ↗ Council meetings this dedicated group of

5:24 ↗ community members invested an impressive

5:27 ↗ amount of time rallying support among

5:28 ↗ neighborhoods park and open space

5:31 ↗ advocates and agencies and in late 2018

5:34 ↗ the is quested a council approved a

5:36 ↗ reservation plan for the open space just

5:40 ↗ recently the city of Vista Kwai even

5:41 ↗ received a monetary donation of $3,000

5:44 ↗ from save cougar mountain towards our

5:45 ↗ purchase of the property thank you to

5:47 ↗ all those save save Kruger mountains

5:49 ↗ volunteers for your dedication to open

5:51 ↗ preservation in our community we're so

5:53 ↗ proud of you all stay up for just a

6:13 ↗ little bit longer I'd also like you to

6:15 ↗ join me here as I do our proclamation

6:18 ↗ for Earth Day so please stay up here

6:20 ↗ with me it would be an honor for me to

6:22 ↗ stand here with you and read this

6:23 ↗ whereas the global community now more

6:27 ↗ than ever

6:27 ↗ faces extraordinary challenges such as

6:30 ↗ climate change global health issues and

6:32 ↗ environmental degradation food and water

6:35 ↗ shortages and economic struggles and

6:37 ↗ whereas Earth Day offers residents of

6:40 ↗ all ages a unique opportunity to make a

6:43 ↗ personal commitment to practices that

6:45 ↗ are vital in protecting the quality of

6:47 ↗ human and other life in Issaquah for

6:50 ↗ generations to come and whereas the city

6:52 ↗ of Vista quaja is celebrating Arbor Day

6:54 ↗ at Sammamish Cove on April 20th please

6:56 ↗ join me and in the downtown insula

6:58 ↗ Association is holding its annual City

7:00 ↗ City downtown spring cleanup in honor of

7:04 ↗ Earth Day on April 20th and whereas the

7:08 ↗ city of Vista quad prioritizes

7:09 ↗ sustainable practices and recognizes the

7:12 ↗ outstanding environmental achievements

7:14 ↗ by individuals groups and organizations

7:16 ↗ within the community

7:17 ↗ now therefore I Mary Lou Poly mayor of

7:20 ↗ the city of its quad do hereby proclaim

7:22 ↗ April 22nd 2019 to be Earth Day in the

7:26 ↗ City of Issaquah and urge all residents

7:28 ↗ to celebrate the special observance and

7:30 ↗ further to pledge to take action

7:33 ↗ together so that we can contribute to a

7:35 ↗ healthy environment and make it's quite

7:37 ↗ an even greater place to live work play

7:39 ↗ learn and visits

7:48 ↗ so normally the next item on the agenda

7:51 ↗ is also under special business but I

7:53 ↗ wanted to take a five minute break right

7:55 ↗ now so that I could get some pictures

7:57 ↗ with these folks and their awards so we

7:59 ↗ are going to take a five minute break

8:01 ↗ and we're gonna take our pictures like

8:04 ↗ right in front of who you guys are okay

8:38 ↗ [Music]

8:38 ↗ [Laughter]

9:04 ↗ [Laughter]

10:32 ↗ Thank You counsel for allowing their

10:36 ↗ little small recess and the

10:37 ↗ picture-taking that was fun we've had I

10:40 ↗ know it's not that obvious to folks on

10:41 ↗ camera but we had 20 or 30 folks here to

10:43 ↗ celebrate these two Awards with us

10:45 ↗ tonight and I appreciate you for doing

10:46 ↗ that the next item on business this

10:49 ↗ evening is ID zero four six zero Newport

10:52 ↗ Way State Route 900 to South East 54th

10:55 ↗ Street value engineering update council

10:58 ↗ will be hearing a presentation this

10:59 ↗ evening this item was last before

11:02 ↗ council for formal action in December

11:04 ↗ 2017 when the initial Newport Way

11:06 ↗ corridor concept was approved tonight

11:09 ↗ staff will be providing an update on the

11:11 ↗ value engineering study that was

11:13 ↗ conducted on this project I'd like to

11:15 ↗ ask transportation manager Kurt seaman

11:17 ↗ to make a presentation

11:29 ↗ Thank You mayor Pollock on council we're

11:32 ↗ courtesy and transportation manager here

11:34 ↗ at the city we're very happy to be here

11:37 ↗ tonight to give you a progress update on

11:41 ↗ our new port way from SR 900 to 54th

11:45 ↗ update we've done some work since we

11:47 ↗ last spoke and we wanted to share that

11:49 ↗ with you before we go out to a community

11:52 ↗ meeting here this we're planning for

11:54 ↗ later this spring I think early June is

11:57 ↗ what we're looking at now so without

12:00 ↗ being said have a short presentation to

12:03 ↗ walk you through what we've done since

12:06 ↗ we last spoke so I want to review our

12:09 ↗ progress I want to share the results

12:12 ↗ briefly of our value engineering study

12:14 ↗ that we did talk a little bit about that

12:16 ↗ discuss what the implications of that

12:19 ↗ study have been to design and answer any

12:22 ↗ questions that you have we conducted a

12:26 ↗ value engineering study in December of

12:29 ↗ last year in December of 2018 and for

12:32 ↗ those of you that may not know value

12:36 ↗ engineering is it it's related to cost

12:41 ↗ savings but it's not just cost savings

12:44 ↗ it's how to provide better value to the

12:46 ↗ project so that often translates into

12:49 ↗ savings and costs but that's not the

12:50 ↗ only purpose of the study and then I

12:54 ↗ want to talk about what that

12:56 ↗ specifically what that value engineering

12:58 ↗ study how that impacted the roadway

13:01 ↗ cross section so just a short recap of

13:05 ↗ where we've been on this project in

13:08 ↗ December of 2017 we shared the preferred

13:13 ↗ corridor concept with you and you

13:16 ↗ approve that corridor concept that was

13:17 ↗ the result of a lot of work and I'll

13:21 ↗ show you a slide that demonstrates how

13:23 ↗ many how much we've actually worked on

13:24 ↗ that project with a community I feel

13:26 ↗ like it's been a good progress good

13:28 ↗ process and we want to continue working

13:30 ↗ with the communities we move forward on

13:32 ↗ this so in the last year in descent in

13:35 ↗ 2018 from this from January to December

13:39 ↗ we worked hard to get from the 30%

13:42 ↗ design which we shared with you to

13:44 ↗ approximately a 60% design which is a

13:47 ↗ typically the level of design that is

13:50 ↗ required to do a meaningful value

13:53 ↗ engineering study a lot of the work we

13:54 ↗ did last year

13:56 ↗ besides advancing the overall plans was

13:58 ↗ looking at culverts storm water utility

14:00 ↗ design and those kinds of things as we

14:04 ↗ were working on this project as you're

14:06 ↗ aware of the cost continue to escalate

14:07 ↗ and there were also changes to this

14:11 ↗ corridor both with what was happening

14:13 ↗ along Cougar Mountain with the Bergsma

14:15 ↗ property and the transition of that to

14:18 ↗ parkland and so it's made sense to do a

14:23 ↗ value engineering study at that time so

14:25 ↗ we undertook that in in December to look

14:29 ↗ at what opportunities there would be to

14:32 ↗ as I said improve the value of the

14:36 ↗ project and presumably have some cost

14:38 ↗ reductions so since that work in on the

14:43 ↗ value engineering in December and

14:46 ↗ January of December 18 in January of 19

14:49 ↗ we've evaluated that study and wanted to

14:52 ↗ share with you the key results of that

14:55 ↗ that impact this project specifically so

14:59 ↗ a little history again so just to recall

15:02 ↗ this was the cross section that we

15:04 ↗ shared with you back at the end of 2017

15:07 ↗ and this was the cross section that we

15:10 ↗ closely developed by closely working

15:13 ↗ with a community and it has a so this is

15:17 ↗ the Cougar mountain side over here on

15:19 ↗ the on the left side of the screen and

15:22 ↗ then there's a sidewalk a landscape

15:24 ↗ buffer a bike lane two travel lanes in

15:28 ↗ some portions of this roadway there's

15:29 ↗ actually a center lane that's either a

15:32 ↗ median or a turn lane but in the Cougar

15:34 ↗ Mountain section it's typically two

15:37 ↗ lanes and then same thing on the other

15:39 ↗ side bike lane landscape buffer and then

15:42 ↗ on the it's nominally the north side the

15:46 ↗ i-90 side of the project there is a 10

15:48 ↗ to 12-foot mixed-use trail that can be

15:51 ↗ used both by side

15:52 ↗ listen and Walker so this was the this

15:56 ↗ was the concept that we landed on this

15:58 ↗ is again one that was the result of a

16:00 ↗ large community effort and it improves

16:06 ↗ vastly improves pedestrian bicycle

16:08 ↗ facilities along this corridor better

16:10 ↗ access to the neighborhoods it's a

16:12 ↗ design that accommodates future traffic

16:15 ↗ demands and and one that I think we all

16:18 ↗ agree ultimately enhances and supports

16:21 ↗ the character of that portion of our

16:23 ↗ community so I know you can't see this

16:27 ↗ and you really don't need to you can

16:29 ↗ probably see it on your screens I think

16:30 ↗ the audience probably can't but but the

16:32 ↗ but the point of this slide and the

16:35 ↗ following one is to show you that we had

16:36 ↗ all those rectangles up there represent

16:39 ↗ either touches that this project had

16:42 ↗ with council either full council or in

16:44 ↗ the infrastructure committee and then

16:46 ↗ the the blue squares up on top here

16:48 ↗ we're all can't see it but they're all

16:51 ↗ design workshops and then open houses

16:54 ↗ and then public meetings and and then

16:57 ↗ interspersed with coming back to council

16:59 ↗ in a variety of ways and as we move

17:02 ↗ through the project we ended up with

17:04 ↗ this like I said in December of 2017

17:07 ↗ bringing this to council for your

17:10 ↗ approval of the preferred concept and at

17:13 ↗ that time we were very clear and we're

17:17 ↗ very committed to this purple box which

17:19 ↗ I hope you can see which is this idea of

17:22 ↗ ongoing communication and updating the

17:24 ↗ community and the council on design

17:26 ↗ progress and schedule so that's what

17:28 ↗ we're doing tonight we're taking the

17:30 ↗ first step on that with you to update

17:31 ↗ you on our progress and out and results

17:35 ↗ of the vê study and like I said planned

17:37 ↗ is shortly after this after this

17:39 ↗ presentation go to the council and share

17:42 ↗ the results know the community and share

17:45 ↗ the results a little more detail with

17:46 ↗ the community so here are the without

17:49 ↗ any making you wait anymore to see what

17:51 ↗ I'm talking about with a value

17:53 ↗ engineering study this was so they

17:56 ↗ looked at a lot of different things

17:57 ↗ along the corridor and we're just going

17:59 ↗ to talk about what are really the most

18:00 ↗ impactful the sort of the biggest

18:04 ↗ made the most difference to the corridor

18:06 ↗ and had to made the most difference to

18:08 ↗ impacts and also to costs and and their

18:12 ↗ idea here if you can see this very well

18:15 ↗ but this portion as you recall along the

18:17 ↗ Bergsma now park property has a very

18:21 ↗ steep mountainside hillside coming right

18:23 ↗ down to the edge of Newport and - as

18:27 ↗ soon as you widen out this Newport to

18:29 ↗ build these bike facilities and and

18:34 ↗ landscape strip and sidewalks you're

18:37 ↗ pushing into this hillside so you're

18:39 ↗ cutting back a portion of the hillside

18:41 ↗ with the trees and you're also building

18:43 ↗ walls which as you may recall we're in

18:46 ↗ the nature and the highest parts we're

18:49 ↗ 20 feet or more so that was a pretty

18:52 ↗ significant impact to that to that side

18:56 ↗ of Cougar Mountain so when the value

18:58 ↗ engineering folks bear their change to

19:03 ↗ the project that would improve the value

19:04 ↗ they said well you have you have this

19:08 ↗ mixed-use trail on this side of the

19:10 ↗ project that provides your non motorized

19:14 ↗ connectivity for people that don't want

19:16 ↗ to ride their bikes on the street and

19:18 ↗ also for pedestrians and so why not just

19:21 ↗ remove both the landscape strip and the

19:25 ↗ sidewalk from the Cougar mountainside so

19:29 ↗ that was fine except for it really

19:33 ↗ didn't align with what we heard from the

19:36 ↗ community is there as the initial

19:38 ↗ project goals of input of improving

19:40 ↗ pedestrian traffic along are

19:42 ↗ accommodating pedestrian traffic on both

19:45 ↗ sides of the corridor so we're we're not

19:49 ↗ seeing that that really meets what the

19:52 ↗ community what we heard from the

19:53 ↗ community so instead we modified this

19:57 ↗ value engineering recommendation to be

20:01 ↗ our new roadway section our preferred

20:04 ↗ roadway section for this corridor which

20:08 ↗ not that different from the value

20:10 ↗ engineering study but it does maintain a

20:12 ↗ five to six foot sidewalk on the Cougar

20:14 ↗ mountainside so eliminates the

20:17 ↗ landscapes trip which by eliminating the

20:20 ↗ landscapes trip gives us far less impact

20:23 ↗ to Cougar Mountain and reduces these

20:25 ↗ walls to about half the height nominally

20:27 ↗ from what they were and reduce that

20:30 ↗ reduces the costs by many millions of

20:33 ↗ dollars we haven't done a detailed cost

20:35 ↗ estimate but it could be as in the order

20:38 ↗ of four to five million dollars and

20:39 ↗ reduce savings from building a smaller

20:43 ↗ wall so sort of went through this

20:47 ↗ already the the benefits of this road

20:50 ↗ section you know this is we think this

20:53 ↗ is a big deal to respond positively

20:56 ↗ there's such a such as strong feeling in

21:00 ↗ this community of the importance of

21:01 ↗ saving Cougar Mountain and so this road

21:04 ↗ although it's a benefit for the new port

21:07 ↗ and for the community that lives along

21:09 ↗ Newport it comes at a cost to build the

21:11 ↗ section that we had originally proposed

21:13 ↗ and cuts into cougar mountain

21:15 ↗ significantly and builds these higher

21:17 ↗ walls so this this wall design that

21:22 ↗ we've proposed by maintaining a sidewalk

21:25 ↗ along this side lower walls reduces the

21:27 ↗ impact of Cougar Mountain from what we

21:29 ↗ originally originally had but it still

21:33 ↗ maintains all the connectivity that I

21:36 ↗ talked about earlier

21:37 ↗ so in summary we shared the preferred

21:43 ↗ concept with you we initiate a value

21:45 ↗ engineering study we've considered those

21:48 ↗ recommendations from the value

21:49 ↗ engineering study and we have

21:53 ↗ incorporated those as as appropriate to

21:58 ↗ preserve the forested slope of the

22:00 ↗ mountain while maintaining the

22:02 ↗ pedestrian connectivity our next steps

22:05 ↗ include working with the county to

22:07 ↗ acquire the right of way to to complete

22:10 ↗ this part of the roadway section we also

22:14 ↗ are planning to move to 90 percent

22:16 ↗ design so that we can move to right away

22:19 ↗ acquisition which we understand is

22:21 ↗ importance to the council and as I

22:24 ↗ mentioned a couple times we are

22:26 ↗ planning an open house to share all this

22:29 ↗ information with a community in June so

22:33 ↗ that concludes my presentation I'm happy

22:36 ↗ to answer any questions you may have

22:38 ↗ a custom ember hunt thank you it looks

22:46 ↗ like the maximum hall maximum height of

22:48 ↗ the wall would be 11 feet well that will

22:51 ↗ that be the case or well it depends on

22:53 ↗ conditions so the slope of that mountain

22:57 ↗ is changing as you go down it so then

22:59 ↗ the the wall height is changing as you

23:01 ↗ go down it so the wall height varies in

23:04 ↗ some places there's no wall and that

23:05 ↗ along that corridor and I think the

23:08 ↗ maximum in this in this scenario that

23:11 ↗ I'm presenting is on the order of 10 or

23:13 ↗ 11 feet as I mentioned it was in the

23:16 ↗ previous version it was in excess of 20

23:19 ↗ feet so it's you know that's aside from

23:22 ↗ the cost savings of that just the

23:25 ↗ impacts to that hillside the

23:28 ↗ constructibility of it just the sort of

23:31 ↗ the how that feels when you're going

23:33 ↗ down the corridor to be adjacent to such

23:35 ↗ a tall wall those are all significant

23:38 ↗ improvements that we see one other

23:42 ↗ question in the previous design there

23:45 ↗ was the landscape strip and there was

23:47 ↗ the lamp posts that were it looks like

23:49 ↗ inlet in that yes so now they're gonna

23:51 ↗ be in the sidewalk I just wondered if

23:55 ↗ that's going to allow wheelchair access

23:59 ↗ if it's still wide enough for it so it's

24:00 ↗ accessible so that's a great question

24:03 ↗ and so there's a couple of ways and see

24:05 ↗ if I can go back there real quick that's

24:08 ↗ a good eye you have there so that's

24:11 ↗ that's that's this that's right here is

24:15 ↗ what you're talking about really so it's

24:16 ↗ this it's this area here and so

24:18 ↗ previously as you mentioned the

24:23 ↗ facilities like lamppost fire hydrants

24:26 ↗ could be another example of that would

24:28 ↗ typically be in a landscape strip and

24:30 ↗ now they're shown here I think I would

24:33 ↗ take this to be schematic there's

24:34 ↗ there's ways we can

24:36 ↗ we haven't gotten to 90% design of this

24:39 ↗ corridor yet so there's ways we can look

24:42 ↗ at this design as it may be possible

24:44 ↗ right now we're showing a staggered

24:47 ↗ lighting pattern by putting lights on

24:49 ↗ both sides of the corridor it may be

24:51 ↗ possible to provide the same amount of

24:53 ↗ lighting by putting lights only on one

24:55 ↗ side of the corridor in which case we

24:57 ↗ could put street lights all on this side

24:59 ↗ for example we haven't done that final

25:01 ↗ lighting analysis same thing with the

25:04 ↗ fire hydrants we may be able to serve

25:05 ↗ the fire hydrant needs for the for the

25:07 ↗ whole street from this side another

25:09 ↗ there's some sort of other ways to look

25:12 ↗ at that you can actually put sort of

25:16 ↗ bulb out type things or bulb in type

25:19 ↗ things into the wall so you can build a

25:21 ↗ little indents into the wall put your

25:23 ↗ street lights or your fire hydrants and

25:24 ↗ in there as well so there's some there

25:27 ↗ are some ways to do that that we just

25:29 ↗ haven't quite figured out they would not

25:32 ↗ to be clear that wouldn't be a

25:34 ↗ functional sidewalk to put the lamppost

25:37 ↗ as we've shown it here on this diagram

25:39 ↗ so it says that's a great question and

25:41 ↗ so I can I can assure you that the file

25:44 ↗ is in final form it won't look like

25:47 ↗ we're showing it here thanks for the

25:52 ↗ presentation I in regard to this picture

25:55 ↗ I just had a follow-up question on the

25:57 ↗ wall height and this picture versus the

26:01 ↗ one right before it with the landscape

26:03 ↗ strip right were you saying that those

26:06 ↗ the wall height there would while it

26:09 ↗ still needs to be determined but they

26:11 ↗ would be really equivalent so what I'm

26:15 ↗ sorry so what I'm saying here is

26:20 ↗ although it's a little hard to make a

26:24 ↗ side-by-side comparison with these two

26:26 ↗ pictures but if you can imagine that

26:28 ↗ this in this picture this curb line

26:31 ↗ stays fixed so the curb line is in the

26:33 ↗ same spot on both of these drawings and

26:36 ↗ so it's the same curb line so so so now

26:41 ↗ that your your yours you're putting your

26:45 ↗ wall much closer to the hillsides of the

26:48 ↗ mountainside it

26:49 ↗ nearly need to be nearly as tall when

26:52 ↗ you're when you're going when you're

26:54 ↗ removing all this material here you're

26:58 ↗ cutting much farther back into the

27:00 ↗ hillside so I should cut farther back

27:02 ↗ into the hillside the wall height has to

27:05 ↗ go up to just a match so in our

27:10 ↗ preferred alternative which I'm sharing

27:13 ↗ with you this in this original design it

27:17 ↗ was this height was as much as 20 feet

27:19 ↗ or more and what I'm showing you tonight

27:22 ↗ this this drawing the wall height this

27:27 ↗ same wall although it looks sort of

27:29 ↗ similar because we don't now have the

27:31 ↗ planter strip there that wall is about

27:33 ↗ half as high as maybe on the order of 10

27:36 ↗ 12 feet 10 11 12 feet something like

27:39 ↗ that so that's significant

27:41 ↗ it's not just the height walls get

27:43 ↗ harder to build as they get taller too

27:46 ↗ so there's you have more choices in

27:48 ↗ construction methods when you have

27:49 ↗ shorter walls than when you have big

27:51 ↗ tall walls so there's a lot of benefits

27:53 ↗ to this approach to the roadway

27:57 ↗ clarification customers and Mart's so

28:04 ↗ how much value has been engineered out

28:08 ↗ what's the before-and-after rough for

28:10 ↗ the magnitude cost on this project so

28:12 ↗ the well the costs are somewhat changing

28:17 ↗ and I don't the before cost for this

28:20 ↗ entire project I think the last numbers

28:23 ↗ we shared were on the order of 50

28:25 ↗ million dollars is that elements that

28:27 ↗ sound about right yeah as some more in

28:30 ↗ the order so this this these particular

28:33 ↗ improvements saved like I said about

28:35 ↗ five shave about five million dollars

28:37 ↗ off that price so it still is you know

28:39 ↗ it's still a significant capital project

28:42 ↗ but five million dollars is a

28:44 ↗ significant amount of money seven

28:45 ↗ percent I just I just wanted to know the

28:47 ↗ relative magnitude thank you their

28:52 ↗ questions

28:55 ↗ okay thank you very much Kurt okay I'm

28:58 ↗ all alone back in June and we'll see the

29:00 ↗ communities some of you I recognize out

29:02 ↗ there we'll see you soon

29:03 ↗ okay okay thank you next idea item on

29:08 ↗ the agenda is audience comments audience

29:10 ↗ members may address the council at this

29:12 ↗ time the guidelines for public

29:14 ↗ participation are displayed on will be

29:16 ↗ displayed on the screen Tish is just

29:18 ↗ getting them up please limit your

29:21 ↗ comments to 5-minutes those who signed

29:23 ↗ up will be called forward first if you

29:25 ↗ did not sign up

29:25 ↗ I will ask for other speakers before

29:27 ↗ closing this portion of the meeting and

29:29 ↗ if you are here as part of a group

29:31 ↗ please identify yourself a spokesperson

29:34 ↗ for the group and if you are in the

29:37 ↗ audience this evening and you are

29:38 ↗ supporting or in favor of the comments

29:40 ↗ that you're hearing please raise your

29:41 ↗ hands so council understands the amount

29:44 ↗ of support in the room tisha has anyone

29:47 ↗ signed up to speak this evening yes

29:48 ↗ Larry Franks

30:03 ↗ I'm first off I'd like to thank the the

30:06 ↗ city and the council and Emily in

30:09 ↗ particular for helping provide guidance

30:11 ↗ Larry you have to give us your name and

30:13 ↗ the name and the address I jumped right

30:17 ↗ into the thank you so my name is Larry

30:21 ↗ Franks I live at two four zero zero one

30:23 ↗ southeast one hundred and third Street

30:25 ↗ for the last 47 years so I've seen some

30:28 ↗ evolution in in this wonderful city so

30:34 ↗ back to the the thank you we shared some

30:36 ↗ information about changes that could be

30:39 ↗ made that would help our fish survive

30:41 ↗ making the journey from the Issaquah

30:44 ↗ Salmon Hatchery out to the the salt

30:46 ↗ water so thank you very much for the

30:48 ↗ letters to our legislators that

30:50 ↗ hopefully they'll make appropriate

30:52 ↗ decisions and we'll get more fish back I

30:55 ↗ wanted to share another strategy that is

30:58 ↗ a personal one I'm not representing the

31:01 ↗ Friends of Issaquah Salmon Hatchery at

31:03 ↗ this point I need to get my board of

31:06 ↗ directors on board on this particular

31:09 ↗ issue first but with a Bachelors of

31:12 ↗ Science in fisheries from the UW in 1979

31:17 ↗ and pursuing this issue and pursuing the

31:21 ↗ fish ever since then I have a lot of

31:24 ↗ data to support what's going on you

31:28 ↗ can't help seeing the news without

31:30 ↗ knowing that our orcas are starving

31:33 ↗ there are noise pollution issues there

31:37 ↗ are chemical pollution issues but the

31:40 ↗ main issue is lack of prey and the

31:43 ↗ southern residents for you do what your

31:46 ↗ mom says as far as when they're raised

31:48 ↗ and what you see for food they're

31:51 ↗ dependent on Chinook Chinook salmon have

31:54 ↗ been in very short supply in Puget Sound

31:57 ↗ for two decades now and Governor Inslee

32:02 ↗ is very aware of this put together a

32:06 ↗ task force that identified 36 actions

32:09 ↗ and action is being taken on a number of

32:12 ↗ them problem is most of those actions

32:15 ↗ have results

32:17 ↗ that are three or four years out so what

32:22 ↗ we did here for instance before and

32:24 ↗ helping our smoke make it out to the

32:25 ↗ salt water still mean that those go out

32:28 ↗ to the Pacific get large and come back

32:31 ↗ and so our orcas will have something to

32:33 ↗ eat in three or four years they're

32:36 ↗ starving now what can we do now the

32:40 ↗ answer to that is to stop chinook

32:44 ↗ harvest period stop chinook harvest

32:49 ↗ there have been several signature

32:52 ↗ restaurants that have stopped selling

32:54 ↗ chinook puget consumers community

32:58 ↗ changed their name last year only sells

33:03 ↗ Alaska sourced Chinook and these are

33:06 ↗ wonderful gestures their gestures last

33:09 ↗ year there were 40,000 shanna harvested

33:12 ↗ in Puget Sound alone if we don't do

33:15 ↗ something soon these fish are going to

33:20 ↗ starve I proposed this to several

33:24 ↗ individuals in the Washington Department

33:27 ↗ of Fish and Wildlife and they were

33:30 ↗ astonished and they said that it could

33:33 ↗ not be done and what they really mean by

33:36 ↗ that and won't say is that they'd be

33:39 ↗ torn limb from limb the economic

33:42 ↗ interests of each of the fishing

33:44 ↗ communities recreational I'm one of

33:46 ↗ those although I've stopped fishing for

33:48 ↗ chinook and steelhead the tribal

33:52 ↗ interests and the the commercial

33:54 ↗ interests so I'm back to that we need to

33:58 ↗ stop the Chinook harvest so what can the

34:02 ↗ city of is a quad do I don't have a plan

34:05 ↗ for that yet but I'll be back Thank You

34:09 ↗ Larry

34:10 ↗ it shows anyone else signed up this

34:12 ↗ evening yes 9a Milligan

34:15 ↗ and they're a bunch of hands in the air

34:18 ↗ Thank You Larry good evening I'm 9

34:29 ↗ Milligan I work at 255 o Northeast Park

34:32 ↗ Drive and Issaquah Highlands and I am

34:34 ↗ here to say thank you to Connie I also

34:37 ↗ want to say thank you to save Cougar

34:38 ↗ Mountain because you guys have done an

34:39 ↗ amazing thing but thanking Connie is

34:42 ↗ more personal for me when I first moved

34:45 ↗ as a quasi lence my husband and I met

34:47 ↗ Connie within the first week of living

34:49 ↗ here and her dedication to the

34:52 ↗ environment we both said Wow when we

34:55 ↗ walked away from this little visit and I

34:57 ↗ also said to myself this is a quoi this

35:01 ↗ is why I moved here and I want to thank

35:04 ↗ you Connie not only that night did you

35:06 ↗ impress me but when I served on the is

35:07 ↗ on the urban village Development

35:09 ↗ Commission you were there every single

35:12 ↗ meeting to keep us in line to help us

35:14 ↗ evaluate the reports to give us context

35:18 ↗ and then again on the city council again

35:21 ↗ you provided your rich study of what we

35:25 ↗ were deliberating and I can I just can't

35:29 ↗ say enough Thank You Connie and I and I

35:32 ↗ say that because it is Earth Day month

35:35 ↗ and I do work in Issaquah Highlands is a

35:38 ↗ question be proud that they have a fully

35:40 ↗ built green community on the hill that

35:42 ↗ is dedicated to living green in fact we

35:45 ↗ have a trademark that was trademarked by

35:47 ↗ our master developer in 2004 living

35:49 ↗ green and we use the words all the time

35:51 ↗ this month connections news which has

35:54 ↗ been out for a couple months now is the

35:56 ↗ living green issue and every month we

35:59 ↗ try to have a living green story in

36:03 ↗ Connexions news this time it's the

36:04 ↗ Future story and it was done by a

36:06 ↗ volunteer resident and eco artist named

36:09 ↗ Elaine block and not only has she

36:12 ↗ contributed thoughtful content to this

36:14 ↗ issue of the paper but she set up a

36:16 ↗ series of eco events and they'll be

36:18 ↗ starting in May you can find out about

36:20 ↗ them in this issue the paper or you can

36:22 ↗ look at Issaquah hylands.com calendar

36:25 ↗ but it's been a great joy to work with

36:27 ↗ her on

36:28 ↗ and so to have this night come up where

36:31 ↗ we're celebrating that environmental

36:33 ↗ dedication in Issaquah all I'm

36:38 ↗ overwhelmed with joy and pride being

36:40 ↗ part of this community especially to you

36:42 ↗ Connie also to the save the Cougar

36:44 ↗ Mountain thank you for all the work you

36:45 ↗ guys do you do way more than anybody

36:47 ↗ else and I just want to take that extra

36:51 ↗ time to say that so thank you thank you

36:53 ↗ now Anna

36:58 ↗ Daphne Gann

37:06 ↗ hello I'm Daphne again and I live in

37:08 ↗ Providence Point and every once in a

37:11 ↗ while we come to talk with you now as

37:14 ↗ you may remember the people from

37:17 ↗ Providence Point worked very closely

37:19 ↗ with City Council trying to pass a bond

37:22 ↗ issue and unfortunately it failed but we

37:25 ↗ really if a pre we really appreciated

37:28 ↗ all the that City Council did and we are

37:31 ↗ taking them at their word that they are

37:33 ↗ going to find a way to fund this traffic

37:36 ↗ light after the first of the year and

37:40 ↗ amazingly all of a sudden little utility

37:44 ↗ markers flags showed up and they came in

37:48 ↗ they did environmental tests and

37:50 ↗ everybody got really excited and I thank

37:53 ↗ you for that because we now are hopeful

37:57 ↗ however you're having a meeting tomorrow

38:00 ↗ night and there's no citizen's comment

38:04 ↗ section to that meeting so you got me

38:06 ↗ tonight this is a meeting that has your

38:12 ↗ said joint meeting with some committee

38:14 ↗ its committee of volunteers and it has a

38:19 ↗ strange euphemism name but it appears to

38:23 ↗ function as a traffic advisory committee

38:26 ↗ and as you also know I spend a lot of

38:32 ↗ time watching City Council on TV and I

38:35 ↗ look at your website up and down and

38:38 ↗ this is the best way I could come up

38:40 ↗ with to let you know that I have concern

38:43 ↗ about this traffic Advisory Committee

38:45 ↗ the traffic Advisory Committee and I'm

38:48 ↗ using that term but that's not what you

38:50 ↗ call it you called it something else on

38:53 ↗ the television they seem to be obsessed

38:57 ↗ with bicycles and pedestrian paths which

39:01 ↗ of course I mean I've got kids who are

39:04 ↗ doing the STP I've had one kid who hiked

39:08 ↗ the Cascade tres trail for 3,000 miles

39:11 ↗ last summer my family did all this in

39:16 ↗ the past so I'm really sympathetic to

39:19 ↗ sicles and pedestrians but you know on

39:24 ↗ your website you have a list of projects

39:28 ↗ and this list of projects there

39:30 ↗ transportation or development projects

39:33 ↗ or something and I have a lot of extra

39:36 ↗ time because my husband is sick so also

39:39 ↗ I spend a lot of time looking at your

39:41 ↗ website and lo and behold you have

39:43 ↗ project a funded recommended recommend

39:49 ↗ it and when I get down to the 43rd

39:51 ↗ Street traffic light

39:53 ↗ I see postponed now I'm getting two

39:59 ↗ points of view from the city one you're

40:02 ↗ out there putting out flags to allocate

40:06 ↗ utilities and yet you've got a committee

40:09 ↗ but you're going to be with tomorrow and

40:11 ↗ no citizen comment so again here I am

40:15 ↗ you know I I thank you all for

40:20 ↗ everything you've done and I'm going to

40:22 ↗ thank you again for at least telling

40:25 ↗ that committee that there are safety

40:28 ↗ issues that are equally as important as

40:31 ↗ bicyclists and pedestrians as much as I

40:34 ↗ love them and and I do hope that that

40:37 ↗ I'll be watching on TV and you know you

40:42 ↗ can wave at me and I thank you again and

40:45 ↗ for it for I'm sure your wise counsel

40:49 ↗ you know I've been on a lot of volunteer

40:52 ↗ boards in my long life and I will tell

40:56 ↗ you it is a thankless job sometimes and

41:00 ↗ I've talked to a lot of City Council's

41:02 ↗ from Anacortes to Tacoma and and I know

41:06 ↗ you also have a hard job because you

41:10 ↗ have all these people like me coming and

41:12 ↗ whining at you so again thank you so

41:15 ↗ much for what you do and I'm hoping you

41:20 ↗ know because I'm on a committee at

41:23 ↗ Providence point I get harassed by all

41:28 ↗ these old ladies who want answers and

41:31 ↗ I'll tell you what I'm telling them is

41:33 ↗ we're still waiting to hear from City

41:36 ↗ Council so you know if I wrote on this

41:39 ↗ piece of paper my phone number if

41:41 ↗ somebody wants to call me and give me a

41:43 ↗ a clue as to when you will let us know I

41:46 ↗ would appreciate it and thank you thank

41:50 ↗ you Daphne

41:51 ↗ and some hands up in the air I'm gonna

41:54 ↗ add a few little piece of information I

41:56 ↗ think what Daphne's referring to is a

41:58 ↗ joint meeting of the new citizens

42:00 ↗ transportation advisory board in the

42:01 ↗ City Council which happened last week so

42:03 ↗ it should be available on YouTube

42:05 ↗ I'm guessing and the council is

42:08 ↗ scheduled to look at the unfunded

42:10 ↗ project list in May in May so Daphne

42:14 ↗ will definitely give you a call and give

42:16 ↗ you any other of the rest of the

42:18 ↗ information that you need thank you

42:24 ↗ no I think we're good but thank you for

42:26 ↗ offering is there anyone else signed up

42:29 ↗ in the listing no is there anyone else

42:31 ↗ would like to come up in address council

42:33 ↗ I see two mister Kapler and then mr.

42:35 ↗ Verner

42:36 ↗ she's deferring governor

42:46 ↗ my name is Joe Verner the address is one

42:49 ↗ two three zero oakwood place northwest

42:52 ↗ in Issaquah is in the Summer Hill

42:55 ↗ subdivision the exit off of Newports way

43:00 ↗ Northwest to our subdivision is Oak

43:03 ↗ Crest if you've ever walked it or rode a

43:06 ↗ bike or drove by it that's where the

43:09 ↗ building the Riva project rated our

43:12 ↗ intersection that's not why I'm here to

43:15 ↗ talk I have some questions about Kurt's

43:19 ↗ presentation and where is Kurt I don't

43:24 ↗ have a problem with it but I do have

43:26 ↗ some questions if I don't get answers

43:29 ↗ tonight I'm sure you will follow up with

43:31 ↗ me my wife and I were two of several

43:37 ↗ dozens of Newport Way residents that

43:41 ↗ participated in those planning meetings

43:44 ↗ in 2017

43:48 ↗ what I think I heard tonight is an

43:54 ↗ opt-out not a cop-out an opt-out of some

43:58 ↗ of the things that were planned and

44:00 ↗ designed into those original design

44:05 ↗ concepts and if I remember correctly the

44:12 ↗ retaining wall that you may have been

44:14 ↗ talking about Kurt it was probably the

44:18 ↗ retaining wall that the Bergsma project

44:20 ↗ would have built as a give on their

44:25 ↗ mitigation fees so we're gonna get you

44:29 ↗ the answers to your questions but I want

44:31 ↗ you to make sure you're addressing

44:32 ↗ council this evening will definitely get

44:34 ↗ you your answers all right so question

44:38 ↗ number one is where approximately do you

44:43 ↗ believe that wall will begin near what

44:47 ↗ used to be the Bergsma project area and

44:50 ↗ where will it end as you go west of

44:56 ↗ Newport

44:58 ↗ towards the King County trailhead park

45:07 ↗ secondly will there be retainer walls

45:12 ↗ elsewhere a Newport way and I'm thinking

45:20 ↗ particularly west of our intersection at

45:26 ↗ Oak Crest going towards spyglass condos

45:30 ↗ and a sidewalk you know my understanding

45:35 ↗ is that the Riva project is going to

45:38 ↗ construct a five or six high five or six

45:44 ↗ foot high bold or retaining wall and

45:51 ↗ that it is classified as temporary until

45:58 ↗ the street widens but there's no answer

46:01 ↗ as to what's going to happen after that

46:04 ↗ so those are questions that I have

46:07 ↗ regarding the attained retaining walls

46:09 ↗ thank you very much Joe you're welcome

46:12 ↗ David Keppler

46:22 ↗ good evening David Kepler 255 southeast

46:25 ↗ and the street

46:27 ↗ Ruth Keys I'd get home and my wife would

46:30 ↗ say Ruth Keys called or I'd get the

46:32 ↗ message on the phone this was before

46:34 ↗ this cell phone and it was basically

46:36 ↗ marching orders now I get the same thing

46:40 ↗ from Connie my cell phone and I don't

46:43 ↗ dare not answer it anyway

46:47 ↗ big step forward four or five million

46:49 ↗ dollars possibly saved on Newports way

46:52 ↗ too maybe you said Providence point I

46:55 ↗ think you can do a lot better we really

46:58 ↗ don't need a sidewalk on the base of the

47:03 ↗ former Bergsma property except at the

47:08 ↗ 900 n the more South End where we will

47:11 ↗ have a trail going up there's a whole

47:13 ↗ section in them

47:15 ↗ most of the frontage on the Bergsma

47:18 ↗ property on Newport is too steep we

47:20 ↗ don't want people going up the hill onto

47:23 ↗ there that's not where the trails are

47:25 ↗ going to be we'd love to keep those

47:27 ↗ forests there and not really attract

47:30 ↗ people to that area the main access you

47:33 ↗ have from the north to the Bergsma

47:35 ↗ property is a great trail that starts on

47:38 ↗ King County land you don't want people

47:41 ↗ you don't need to have people you don't

47:42 ↗ really want them walking on newport

47:45 ↗ until they get to the new city property

47:47 ↗ and then having to go up a super steep

47:49 ↗ slope

47:50 ↗ you got a great trail that accesses off

47:53 ↗ the count the county property we need a

47:56 ↗ chunk a sidewalk somewhere on the south

47:58 ↗ between where the trail will start up

48:00 ↗ which hasn't been figured out and 900

48:03 ↗ and you need a piece of sidewalk on the

48:07 ↗ county property between oak the

48:11 ↗ Summerhill is basically Summer Hill and

48:14 ↗ the entrance to the county park you

48:17 ↗ don't need anything in that intermittent

48:19 ↗ area with retaining walls maybe some but

48:22 ↗ very little but certainly you don't need

48:24 ↗ that sidewalk there that's if you

48:27 ↗ anything if you got a little extra feet

48:28 ↗ make that sidewalk on the Tibbets creek

48:32 ↗ side a little wider or see what you can

48:35 ↗ do it

48:35 ↗ maybe have some viewpoints build into

48:37 ↗ that or something like that because the

48:39 ↗ creek is really cool down below there

48:41 ↗ and you'll still look across the street

48:42 ↗ up in a nice forest instead of a bunch

48:44 ↗ of concrete thank you thank you Dave

48:47 ↗ hands up in the air and Mary's coming up

48:58 ↗ my name is Mary Lynch and I recited to

49:00 ↗ 69 o North West Oak Crest Drive and I

49:04 ↗ just represent myself and also a lot of

49:07 ↗ people that have attended the Newport

49:08 ↗ way corridor meetings but I first want

49:10 ↗ to talk about Ruth's keys

49:11 ↗ I first met Ruth Keys over at the save

49:14 ↗ the airport when I first moved here and

49:18 ↗ that's where I also met Harvey Manning

49:20 ↗ and then later on David and Connie and

49:24 ↗ then Barbara and all with is of quantal

49:27 ↗ counsel and they mean a lot to me

49:30 ↗ because they've also educated me they're

49:31 ↗ the ones that told me and taught me how

49:34 ↗ the city government works and when I

49:35 ↗ have a question they're normally the

49:37 ↗ ones they call first because until even

49:40 ↗ now trying to find your way through the

49:42 ↗ city website isn't all not that easy and

49:45 ↗ I just like to say for those of you who

49:47 ↗ are listening tonight if you're on next

49:48 ↗ door Connie it's now probably 15-20

49:52 ↗ years old but she updates it every year

49:54 ↗ has a primer on how to maneuver through

49:57 ↗ the Issaquah city government and it's in

50:00 ↗ the document section there and it is

50:02 ↗ really good for people who are wanting

50:03 ↗ to know how things run in this is across

50:08 ↗ city and she puts that together and I'd

50:10 ↗ really recommend that I want to just

50:13 ↗ going forward though it's st. Connie for

50:15 ↗ all the things that she's done for me

50:16 ↗ and with the community and help to save

50:18 ↗ she's also with the central area plan

50:20 ↗ was one of the ones and getting that to

50:22 ↗ be redone and without her encouragement

50:24 ↗ there and their continued dogging it I

50:26 ↗ don't think that would have happened

50:28 ↗ so think there I want to support what

50:30 ↗ David said as far as you know the

50:32 ↗ sidewalks we need sidewalks on the south

50:35 ↗ side where we have the housing

50:37 ↗ developments I also will be back talking

50:40 ↗ to you again about the need to have

50:42 ↗ where we have turning in and out of the

50:46 ↗ developments we need to have Center

50:48 ↗ refuge Islands for three lane roads and

50:51 ↗ we do not have that designed in right

50:53 ↗ now and it's going to be built out kress

50:55 ↗ is going to be built without one but

50:57 ↗ from the trailhead to the city we don't

51:00 ↗ need a sidewalk on that side if we have

51:03 ↗ a safe place to cross where we ask it to

51:06 ↗ be as part of the plan and

51:08 ↗ at the trailhead the King County

51:10 ↗ trailhead is have a center median that

51:12 ↗ people can cross to the other side then

51:14 ↗ go down not have a crosswalk it at Oak

51:19 ↗ Crest but go on down and have a safe

51:22 ↗ crosswalk there with the center of

51:24 ↗ Refuge Island and do that all the way

51:26 ↗ down

51:28 ↗ Newport way to Lake Mont and that's

51:30 ↗ where we should be planning it and can

51:34 ↗ you hear me okay and I would like to see

51:37 ↗ that and that's a major savings that I

51:39 ↗ think and I really would hope that we

51:41 ↗ get adequate notice on this this was

51:43 ↗ really kind of a shock for me to see the

51:45 ↗ City Council that this was coming before

51:47 ↗ the council without any notice to this

51:49 ↗ to us that have been attending those

51:51 ↗ meetings and to see this for the first

51:54 ↗ time was a little bit I guess disturbing

51:57 ↗ in the process and I do routinely check

52:00 ↗ the Northwest corridor plan on the

52:02 ↗ website and there was nothing there

52:04 ↗ about this so had I not just happened to

52:07 ↗ tap the agenda tonight

52:09 ↗ I wouldn't even known that this is the

52:11 ↗ possibility and I don't know how much

52:13 ↗ notice we're going to get for the

52:14 ↗ meetings but hopefully that the website

52:16 ↗ is updated so citizens they have a

52:17 ↗ chance to give their input before a

52:19 ↗ community meeting thank you thank you

52:21 ↗ Mary is there anyone else would like to

52:23 ↗ dress council this evening

52:26 ↗ you see Connie coming up

52:38 ↗ so I'm Connie mother charlotte von

52:40 ↗ squawk it's it's good to see that the

52:46 ↗ engineering department is looking at

52:48 ↗ narrowing the footprint of the road in

52:50 ↗ order to reduce the impact to the

52:53 ↗ Bergsma property at this particular spot

52:57 ↗ there's also a wetland on the other side

52:59 ↗ of the road and so I'm not sure that

53:03 ↗ what the impacts to all of the other

53:06 ↗ critical areas are along this road

53:09 ↗ because it has never been clear on those

53:11 ↗ plans so it would be nice to have all of

53:14 ↗ those impacts shown more clearly at

53:19 ↗ these public meetings that they are

53:21 ↗ having you're still looking at a 10 to

53:24 ↗ 12-foot multi-purpose lane and a wide

53:28 ↗ landscape script strip on the north side

53:31 ↗ so you do have a little more wiggle room

53:34 ↗ with the width of the road I noticed

53:37 ↗ that Kurt did not say how tall the

53:42 ↗ retaining wall would be without the

53:45 ↗ sidewalk on that side he just said the

53:50 ↗ bookends not what was recommended in the

53:53 ↗ value engineering so those are things I

53:57 ↗ would like to know but good I'm glad for

53:59 ↗ that now the save cooter people they're

54:06 ↗ sort of humble but it's okay good Wow

54:14 ↗ Dave and I have done this so many times

54:18 ↗ over and over for what the last 25 years

54:20 ↗ people have an idea they want to do

54:23 ↗ something and so they come to people who

54:26 ↗ might know and then you try to provide

54:28 ↗ information so they can do something

54:31 ↗ successful and the city is pretty

54:34 ↗ complicated and creating a campaign to

54:38 ↗ get something achieved is inordinately

54:40 ↗ time-consuming and and so they start and

54:46 ↗ you try to say you know

54:49 ↗ I'm sorry but this is likely to suck two

54:51 ↗ years out of your life and they never

54:53 ↗ believed you but there has been no one

54:56 ↗ like this group that threw themselves

54:59 ↗ into this and listened and yelled at me

55:03 ↗ over and over and did it and did it and

55:07 ↗ did it and did it and did everything and

55:09 ↗ it was absolutely brilliant and so I

55:11 ↗ cannot tell you how awesome it was to

55:15 ↗ watch a community come together at the

55:17 ↗ right time with the right leadership and

55:20 ↗ get something like Bergsma done and it

55:22 ↗ gives you hope for the future where we

55:25 ↗ can have a community who embraces who we

55:29 ↗ are including the environment and we all

55:32 ↗ work together the City Council the

55:34 ↗ administration and the community voices

55:36 ↗ to all aim generally in the same

55:39 ↗ direction for once instead of trying to

55:42 ↗ tear each other apart

55:43 ↗ and so this one is sort of a shining

55:45 ↗ jewel example of what we could be and do

55:49 ↗ on so many topics and and I you know

55:54 ↗ it's not often I'm positive and hopeful

55:56 ↗ right so what do you do with this I

55:58 ↗ think you try to do it again and you try

56:01 ↗ to make it easier for everyone to come

56:03 ↗ together to have such enormous successes

56:05 ↗ so I appreciate I'm not in a wave

56:09 ↗ because I have to be talking you I

56:10 ↗ appreciate you all thank you Thank You

56:13 ↗ Connie

56:14 ↗ is there anyone a lots of hands in the

56:16 ↗ air is there anyone else who would like

56:17 ↗ to address their council this evening

56:20 ↗ second time anyone liking wishing to

56:23 ↗ address their council and third and

56:25 ↗ final call so we will close audience

56:27 ↗ comments for tonight and move to

56:30 ↗ committee and regional reports council

56:33 ↗ member Walsh no report at this time

56:36 ↗ thank you thank you

56:37 ↗ council member hunt thank you madam

56:40 ↗ mayor

56:40 ↗ Landon Shore met on April 4th and the

56:44 ↗ first item was a b7 725 amending imc

56:48 ↗ 18.0 6 to prohibit new duplexes or

56:52 ↗ cluster developments in sync

56:53 ↗ family suburban SF - s zoning district

56:58 ↗ this was going to be the first of two

57:00 ↗ touches on this topic and we in fact did

57:04 ↗ not take action and we did not make a

57:07 ↗ recommendation we did discuss the

57:10 ↗ proposal and we wanted a different

57:13 ↗ option that was more looking at what the

57:17 ↗ needs of the sycamore neighborhood was

57:19 ↗ and potential work by the administration

57:25 ↗ to give us other options that might be

57:27 ↗ more targeted so that will be coming

57:29 ↗ back to Landon Shore on May 2nd for a

57:33 ↗ second touch the second item on our

57:35 ↗ agenda was a b7 six eight three

57:38 ↗ amendments to imc eighteen point zero

57:41 ↗ seven four point four eight zero

57:43 ↗ community facilities standards regarding

57:45 ↗ public buildings the committee had some

57:48 ↗ questions from the last time we saw this

57:50 ↗ item such as why there was a max floor

57:53 ↗ area ratio and these questions were

57:56 ↗ addressed to the committee's

57:57 ↗ satisfaction and the committee

57:59 ↗ recommends it approval unanimously and

58:02 ↗ this is on the consent agenda for this

58:04 ↗ evening the third item was project

58:08 ↗ updates and as part of this we were

58:10 ↗ joined by the chairperson of the river

58:12 ↗ River and streams board Jeff wood and we

58:15 ↗ heard an update about the work of this

58:17 ↗ board this is a board that was

58:18 ↗ previously very active and in last

58:21 ↗ several years has been much less active

58:24 ↗ and so we talked about their work for

58:28 ↗ the next coming year and about how their

58:33 ↗ work might align with the strategic plan

58:35 ↗ particularly the goal area of

58:37 ↗ environmental stewardship in the

58:39 ↗ strategic plan and we generally talked

58:43 ↗ about the importance of this board and

58:45 ↗ how we're looking forward to working

58:47 ↗ with them in the future and to have our

58:49 ↗ decisions as council supported by their

58:52 ↗ their discussions the next meeting the

58:56 ↗ land in short committee is currently

58:57 ↗ scheduled for May 2nd and and I have one

59:02 ↗ other report on April 10th I attended

59:05 ↗ the pre pick meeting

59:06 ↗ rensen City Hall and this was a

59:08 ↗ presentation from Metro and Metro

59:12 ↗ discussed the mobility framework and

59:14 ↗ Regional Planning specifically about how

59:17 ↗ they are looking to be more than known

59:19 ↗ for only bus service but also for other

59:21 ↗ mobility ways to get around and one of

59:25 ↗ those things that they talked about as a

59:27 ↗ sort of flagship was the East Gate Park

59:30 ↗ and ride ride - and this is a on demand

59:35 ↗ shuttle service that connects with buses

59:37 ↗ to downtown Seattle the university

59:39 ↗ districts downtown Bellevue and it's a

59:41 ↗ quad so that was an interesting

59:44 ↗ presentation about the evolution of

59:46 ↗ Metro and then I also attended the pic

59:50 ↗ meeting but as in my capacity as a king

59:53 ↗ Conservation District advisory board

59:56 ↗ member to read a statement generally in

59:59 ↗ support of the programming of the king

1:00:01 ↗ conservation districts from the

1:00:02 ↗ perspective of a sound cities

1:00:04 ↗ association representative that serves

1:00:07 ↗ on that advisory committee and this

1:00:09 ↗ concludes my report

1:00:10 ↗ Thank You councilman vorrei Thank You

1:00:13 ↗ mayor Poli the services and safety

1:00:16 ↗ committee did not meet in April and the

1:00:18 ↗ next meeting of services and safety will

1:00:20 ↗ be on May 14th you're in Council

1:00:22 ↗ Chambers and that concludes my report

1:00:23 ↗ this evening Thank You councilmember

1:00:25 ↗ winter same thank you the next meeting

1:00:29 ↗ for the council Infrastructure Committee

1:00:30 ↗ the April meeting has been cancelled

1:00:33 ↗ okay oh there was information sent out

1:00:37 ↗ about project status update in May our

1:00:42 ↗ scheduled meeting is for May 16th and

1:00:44 ↗ there is not an agenda for that yet I

1:00:46 ↗ also want a report on the growth

1:00:49 ↗ management policy board we met an April

1:00:50 ↗ 4th at Seattle Puget Sound Regional

1:00:53 ↗ Council headquarters and we had a

1:00:56 ↗ presentation from the Marysville

1:01:00 ↗ Arlington manufacturing industrial

1:01:02 ↗ center or Mik application we have a

1:01:07 ↗ regional center mix are another type of

1:01:10 ↗ Center let's focus on preserving

1:01:13 ↗ industrial lands and it's about job

1:01:15 ↗ production and I think for our region it

1:01:18 ↗ was a very if you would want

1:01:19 ↗ watch that presentation this one in

1:01:22 ↗ particular the the types of jobs and the

1:01:25 ↗ affordability of housing in proximity of

1:01:27 ↗ that Mik I think really bodes really

1:01:30 ↗ well for our four County region it's

1:01:33 ↗ exactly the type of Economic Development

1:01:34 ↗ and housing opportunities co-located

1:01:38 ↗ even though the plan is just for the

1:01:41 ↗ industrial center but the housing that's

1:01:42 ↗ in proximity is it's much more

1:01:45 ↗ affordable than other places in East

1:01:46 ↗ King County most of our conversation in

1:01:50 ↗ that meeting we focused on the draft

1:01:52 ↗ policies within the division 2050 update

1:01:55 ↗ and these the conversations about these

1:01:59 ↗ draft policies are going to continue

1:02:01 ↗ through June when in July we expect the

1:02:05 ↗ vision 2050 draft plan to be available

1:02:09 ↗ so the GMP P will continue these

1:02:11 ↗ conversations we we discussed proposed

1:02:15 ↗ changes to the policies in the

1:02:17 ↗ transportation chapter the public

1:02:19 ↗ services chapter we ran out of time and

1:02:21 ↗ didn't get to talk about the policy

1:02:23 ↗ changes proposed in the economy chapter

1:02:26 ↗ and that's because we spent such a long

1:02:28 ↗ time talking about the proposed policy

1:02:30 ↗ changes in the development patterns

1:02:32 ↗ chapter and later this evening in this

1:02:35 ↗ meeting we're going to get to talk about

1:02:36 ↗ vision 2050 and this council's

1:02:40 ↗ recommendation for to be sent in as part

1:02:45 ↗ of the requested comments about the

1:02:48 ↗ draft supplemental EIS and I think we'll

1:02:51 ↗ have an opportunity to talk about the

1:02:53 ↗ development chapters a little bit more

1:02:54 ↗ during that meeting I think it was my

1:02:57 ↗ required thank you

1:02:58 ↗ councilmember Goodman thank you madam

1:03:01 ↗ mayor Eastside Fire and Rescue board of

1:03:03 ↗ directors met on April 11th there were

1:03:05 ↗ three items of note at that meeting

1:03:07 ↗ first of all captain Ben Lane was

1:03:09 ↗ promoted to deputy chief and he is a 28

1:03:12 ↗ year veteran of the fire service and

1:03:14 ↗ starting with Fire District 10 so we

1:03:16 ↗ want to congratulate him the board

1:03:18 ↗ approved returning some vehicles to the

1:03:20 ↗ partner agencies because the vehicles

1:03:22 ↗ have been replaced according to the

1:03:25 ↗ schedule under the vehicle replacement

1:03:27 ↗ fund or the sorry the vehicle

1:03:29 ↗ replacement schedule and one of those is

1:03:31 ↗ a Ford truck that's being returned to

1:03:33 ↗ Issaquah and then the board also

1:03:36 ↗ received a very very high-level brief

1:03:37 ↗ briefing on the final pea Foss study

1:03:41 ↗ summary report this is a very complex

1:03:45 ↗ topic and the report is 384 pages long

1:03:49 ↗ the report is a result of more than a

1:03:53 ↗ year of planning and coordination

1:03:54 ↗ between Eastside fire and rescue city of

1:03:57 ↗ Issaquah and the Department of Ecology

1:03:58 ↗ State Department of Ecology the Eastside

1:04:01 ↗ fire board will receive more detailed

1:04:03 ↗ information in June or July and this

1:04:06 ↗ council will receive more information I

1:04:09 ↗ believe in June or the Board meets again

1:04:12 ↗ on May 9th and there's not an agenda set

1:04:14 ↗ yet that's my report Thank You deputy

1:04:17 ↗ council president patís just a short

1:04:20 ↗ announcement the Eastside Human Services

1:04:22 ↗ forum meets this Thursday on April 18th

1:04:25 ↗ in Bellevue and no agent hasn't yet I'll

1:04:28 ↗ report out it's time I see everyone

1:04:31 ↗ Thank You Council my report Thank You

1:04:34 ↗ council president Mertz

1:04:35 ↗ thank you madam mayor sound cities

1:04:37 ↗ Association public issues committee met

1:04:39 ↗ on Wednesday April 10th a couple issues

1:04:43 ↗ of note we approved supporting the

1:04:46 ↗ challenge Seattle middle-income housing

1:04:48 ↗ initiative with a letter that very very

1:04:51 ↗ similar to the letter that the city of

1:04:53 ↗ Issaquah had already signed on to it

1:04:55 ↗ passed something like twenty six to five

1:04:57 ↗ or twenty eight to five there abouts it

1:04:59 ↗ was a strong majority which is good

1:05:01 ↗ because we needed a two-thirds majority

1:05:02 ↗ to take position on that we had two

1:05:07 ↗ items that generated a considerable

1:05:09 ↗ amount of discussion and not exactly

1:05:11 ↗ sure how they're gonna turn out one is

1:05:13 ↗ initiative 976 aka the latest I'm an

1:05:18 ↗ initiative I would say that opinions in

1:05:21 ↗ the room ranged from let's not get

1:05:24 ↗ involved it could do more harm than good

1:05:25 ↗ to cities who felt that it would have

1:05:29 ↗ such substantial impact that it was

1:05:30 ↗ worth SCA considering taking a position

1:05:34 ↗ there was also discussion of timing and

1:05:37 ↗ whether taking a position would what the

1:05:40 ↗ timing would be like on that but I think

1:05:42 ↗ that

1:05:43 ↗ SCA was going to go back SCA Executive

1:05:47 ↗ Board was going to go back and and

1:05:50 ↗ consider bringing that back but it would

1:05:51 ↗ be a to touch system again so it would

1:05:53 ↗ be we'd have it we'd have it touched

1:05:56 ↗ twice and I would come back and talk to

1:05:58 ↗ council about it before a final decision

1:06:01 ↗ was made by pick the other was a

1:06:05 ↗ conversation around the King

1:06:06 ↗ conservation district great proposal

1:06:08 ↗ that councilmember hunt spoke to I think

1:06:12 ↗ that there was a general sense of

1:06:15 ↗ wanting to have additional information

1:06:17 ↗ about what was going to go what the new

1:06:19 ↗ programs look like and what people are

1:06:22 ↗ gonna get for the money it's not a lot

1:06:24 ↗ of money but people are just my if I can

1:06:28 ↗ editorialize I think people are just

1:06:29 ↗ being careful about rate increases for

1:06:33 ↗ things and wanting to make sure that

1:06:34 ↗ they have a strong coherent conversation

1:06:37 ↗ with the community when they go back and

1:06:38 ↗ the public asks why this might be a an

1:06:42 ↗ increase substantially above the

1:06:44 ↗ inflation rate so that concludes my

1:06:47 ↗ report

1:06:47 ↗ Thank You council president Mertz so now

1:06:49 ↗ on to the mayor's report earlier this

1:06:52 ↗ evening there was an executive session

1:06:53 ↗ at 5:30 that was held to discuss pending

1:06:57 ↗ potential litigation per RCW 42.3 0.11 o

1:07:02 ↗ paren one brown eye and no action will

1:07:05 ↗ be taken in this evening's open session

1:07:08 ↗ in addition to the Earth Day

1:07:10 ↗ proclamation issued earlier this evening

1:07:12 ↗ on April 10th at a Police Department

1:07:14 ↗ dispatch meeting I proclaimed the week

1:07:16 ↗ of April 14th through 20th to be

1:07:19 ↗ National Public Safety

1:07:20 ↗ telecommunications week in honor of the

1:07:22 ↗ men and women whose diligence and

1:07:24 ↗ professionalism keep our city and

1:07:26 ↗ citizens safe I thought I'd pull out a

1:07:30 ↗ few highlights from that Proclamation

1:07:31 ↗ the safety of our police officers is

1:07:34 ↗ dependent upon the quality and accuracy

1:07:37 ↗ of information obtained from citizens

1:07:39 ↗ who telephone the Issaquah communication

1:07:41 ↗ center and Public Safety

1:07:43 ↗ telecommunications are the single vital

1:07:45 ↗ link for our police officers by

1:07:46 ↗ monitoring their activities by radio

1:07:48 ↗ providing them information and ensuring

1:07:51 ↗ their safety and each dispatcher has

1:07:53 ↗ exhibited compassion under

1:07:55 ↗ and professionalism during the

1:07:57 ↗ performance of their job in the past

1:07:59 ↗ year this coming Saturday I'll also be

1:08:02 ↗ issuing a proclamation at the mountains

1:08:05 ↗ of Sound Greenway annual Arbor Day event

1:08:08 ↗ and I will be proclaiming April 20th

1:08:10 ↗ 2019 to be Arbor Day and urge all

1:08:13 ↗ citizens to celebrate and support the

1:08:15 ↗ efforts to protect our trees and

1:08:17 ↗ Woodlands this holiday called Arbor Day

1:08:19 ↗ was first observed with the planting of

1:08:21 ↗ more than a million trees in Nebraska

1:08:23 ↗ and Arbor Day is now observed throughout

1:08:25 ↗ the nation and the world and the city of

1:08:28 ↗ Vista quoi is an active tree City USA

1:08:30 ↗ designate for 26 years city of its quoi

1:08:34 ↗ will be celebrating its annual Arbor Day

1:08:35 ↗ tree planting on Saturday April 20th and

1:08:38 ↗ I hope you will join me and other city

1:08:40 ↗ staff on this day at 10:00 a.m. at

1:08:42 ↗ Sammamish Cote and for more information

1:08:44 ↗ you can visit the mountains mountains to

1:08:46 ↗ Sound Greenway website and view their

1:08:49 ↗ events it was mentioned earlier but I

1:08:52 ↗ just want to mention it one more time

1:08:54 ↗ that there was a donation received from

1:08:57 ↗ Steve Cougar Mountain on April 5th I and

1:08:59 ↗ a few other council members were able to

1:09:01 ↗ attend a community event hosted by the

1:09:02 ↗ safe Cougar Mountain group where they

1:09:04 ↗ presented the city with a check for

1:09:06 ↗ $3,000 to contribute towards the Bergsma

1:09:09 ↗ property acquisition off Newport Way

1:09:11 ↗ just west of legacy landscaping on

1:09:14 ↗ Cougar Mountain I also want to express

1:09:16 ↗ the city's gratitude to individual

1:09:18 ↗ contributors who have also made

1:09:20 ↗ donations in support of this land

1:09:22 ↗ purchase in the 2019 board and

1:09:27 ↗ Commission recruitment we have completed

1:09:29 ↗ the interviews for the city's boards and

1:09:31 ↗ commissions and I want to thank all the

1:09:33 ↗ 43 applicants that responded as being

1:09:36 ↗ interested in a seat the applicant

1:09:39 ↗ qualifications were very impressive we

1:09:42 ↗ are welcoming twenty new members and

1:09:45 ↗ seventeen returning members all of our

1:09:47 ↗ regular seats on our boards and

1:09:49 ↗ commissions will be filled and we may

1:09:51 ↗ riad Verte eyes to fill open alternate

1:09:53 ↗ seats and the last thing on my list this

1:09:56 ↗ evening is coffee with the mayor the

1:09:58 ↗ next coffee with the mayor event will be

1:10:00 ↗ on Wednesday May 1st from 10:00 a.m. to

1:10:02 ↗ 11:30 a.m. in the library of the Senior

1:10:05 ↗ Center so I look forward to engaging

1:10:06 ↗ with any community members who can join

1:10:08 ↗ me for the

1:10:09 ↗ and that concludes the mayor's report

1:10:12 ↗ proceeding to the consent calendar the

1:10:15 ↗ consent calendar was distributed to

1:10:16 ↗ council in advance if authorized the

1:10:19 ↗ items on the consent calendar will be

1:10:21 ↗ considered together and approved under

1:10:23 ↗ one motion of the payables and payroll

1:10:25 ↗ been reviewed yes thank you the clerk

1:10:30 ↗ has asked me to announce that the April

1:10:32 ↗ 8th work session minutes which are on

1:10:34 ↗ tonight's consent calendar have been

1:10:36 ↗ updated to include public comment

1:10:38 ↗ provided at the meeting the updated

1:10:40 ↗ version was provided for you and

1:10:42 ↗ hardcopy this evening as any

1:10:45 ↗ councilmember desire to remove any item

1:10:47 ↗ from the consent calendar and consider

1:10:49 ↗ it under regular business seeing none is

1:10:55 ↗ there a motion to approve the consent

1:10:56 ↗ calendar

1:10:57 ↗ council president Mertz madam mayor I

1:10:59 ↗ move we approve the consent calendar as

1:11:02 ↗ listed in this evenings agenda with the

1:11:06 ↗ substitute with the minute substitutions

1:11:09 ↗ as noted by the clerk thank you second

1:11:11 ↗ it's been moved and seconded to approve

1:11:13 ↗ the consent calendar with the amended

1:11:15 ↗ set of minutes all those in favor

1:11:16 ↗ signify by saying aye it was opposed

1:11:20 ↗ thank you that carries unanimously

1:11:23 ↗ next item on our agenda this evening

1:11:25 ↗ under regular business is ID 0 437 Puget

1:11:29 ↗ Sound regional council vision 2050 this

1:11:33 ↗ item was previously before council at

1:11:36 ↗ the April first council meeting there

1:11:38 ↗ was a presentation from PSR C and at the

1:11:41 ↗ April 8th work session there was a staff

1:11:43 ↗ presentation and public comment tonight

1:11:45 ↗ following a brief presentation council

1:11:47 ↗ will be asked to provide direction on

1:11:48 ↗ the vision 2050 regional growth

1:11:50 ↗ alternatives the SRC is accepting

1:11:53 ↗ comments through April 29th as part of

1:11:55 ↗ the draft supplemental environmental the

1:11:58 ↗ mental environmental impact statement

1:12:00 ↗ I'd like to ask economic and development

1:12:03 ↗ services director Keith Niven to make

1:12:04 ↗ the presentation thank you madam mayor

1:12:06 ↗ good evening City Council

1:12:08 ↗ Keith Nevin director of economic

1:12:10 ↗ development and development services so

1:12:12 ↗ this evening we are going to continue

1:12:15 ↗ our conversation

1:12:17 ↗ about the draft supplemental

1:12:20 ↗ environmental impact statement currently

1:12:22 ↗ being worked on by Puget Sound Regional

1:12:24 ↗ Council we initially had a presentation

1:12:30 ↗ on April first and then at your April

1:12:34 ↗ 8th council work session there was an

1:12:36 ↗ opportunity for public comment and then

1:12:38 ↗ this evening will move towards I think a

1:12:42 ↗ conclusion on this particular topic

1:12:46 ↗ so what we're talking about is the four

1:12:50 ↗ County Metro Seattle central Puget Sound

1:12:56 ↗ vision framework which was called vision

1:13:00 ↗ 2040 and what Puget Sound Regional

1:13:03 ↗ Council is doing is updating that vision

1:13:06 ↗ 2040 to what they're calling vision 2050

1:13:09 ↗ and it accommodates the anticipated

1:13:12 ↗ growth that the new forecasts have

1:13:15 ↗ modeled out for the region and what's

1:13:19 ↗ being discussed is basically an

1:13:23 ↗ environmental impact statement it is

1:13:26 ↗ it's a supplemental environmental impact

1:13:29 ↗ statement and not a new environmental

1:13:30 ↗ impact statement because the

1:13:31 ↗ alternatives that are being considered

1:13:34 ↗ are basically an evolution of what was

1:13:38 ↗ considered for 2040 and where we are

1:13:41 ↗ today is as you can see from the middle

1:13:44 ↗ box we are in a comment period for the

1:13:47 ↗ draft supplemental environmental impact

1:13:50 ↗ statement and Puget Sound Regional

1:13:52 ↗ Council has asked for comment on the

1:13:55 ↗ three alternatives that are under

1:13:57 ↗ consideration right now so I'm going to

1:13:59 ↗ walk you through those this evening

1:14:01 ↗ we'll talk about the differences between

1:14:04 ↗ the three and see if the City Council

1:14:06 ↗ wants to move forward a recommendation

1:14:09 ↗ for consideration by b.src so the first

1:14:14 ↗ alternative I'm going to call it

1:14:16 ↗ alternative one is called stay the

1:14:18 ↗ course and it basically just takes the

1:14:21 ↗ existing framework that's in 2040 and

1:14:24 ↗ moves it out another 10 years the second

1:14:28 ↗ alternative which is called transit

1:14:29 ↗ focus growth

1:14:31 ↗ takes a different approach by focusing

1:14:34 ↗ more of the growth around high-capacity

1:14:37 ↗ transit and transit stations and it

1:14:40 ↗ actually identifies 75% of the future

1:14:44 ↗ growth will be within walking distance

1:14:46 ↗ of those facilities and then alternative

1:14:49 ↗ three which they're calling reset the

1:14:51 ↗ growth actually distributes more of the

1:14:55 ↗ forecasted growth out to unincorporated

1:14:59 ↗ County areas as well as rural areas and

1:15:03 ↗ smaller cities within the planning area

1:15:08 ↗ one of the questions that was asked last

1:15:10 ↗ time was to take a look at the

1:15:13 ↗ distribution of planned growth by County

1:15:18 ↗ as you can see populations in the in the

1:15:22 ↗ top table employments in the bottom

1:15:24 ↗ table as you can see for both the

1:15:28 ↗ transit focus growth and the reset urban

1:15:30 ↗ growth the population increases by an

1:15:34 ↗ excess of basically about two hundred

1:15:37 ↗ twenty-one thousand people and you can

1:15:41 ↗ see the changes by county from that

1:15:45 ↗ that's King County by the way and then

1:15:48 ↗ in employment again you can see under

1:15:52 ↗ alternatives two and three there's a

1:15:54 ↗ slight increase in employment forecast

1:15:57 ↗ for King County but there's a just a big

1:16:07 ↗ difference between the population and

1:16:08 ↗ employment I'm gonna talk about that in

1:16:09 ↗ just a minute

1:16:11 ↗ so where we are so we are a core city as

1:16:14 ↗ I mentioned before as you can see

1:16:17 ↗ alternative one which is right here

1:16:20 ↗ under alternative - there's a slight

1:16:23 ↗ increase in planned population for core

1:16:27 ↗ cities and under alternative three

1:16:31 ↗ there's actually a decrease in planned

1:16:35 ↗ population for core cities but as you

1:16:37 ↗ can see the unincorporated areas in the

1:16:41 ↗ rural areas are

1:16:43 ↗ increasing significantly under

1:16:47 ↗ alternative three similarly for popular

1:16:52 ↗ for employment there's a slight decrease

1:16:54 ↗ for core cities under the transit focus

1:16:57 ↗ growth we can talk about that a little

1:16:59 ↗ bit if you'd like and then under

1:17:01 ↗ alternative three there's a more

1:17:04 ↗ significant reduction in forecasted

1:17:07 ↗ employment for core cities and as you

1:17:11 ↗ can see again similar to population

1:17:14 ↗ under alternative three the employment

1:17:17 ↗ is believed to rise in those areas yes

1:17:21 ↗ sir sorry these are all growth versus

1:17:24 ↗ where we're at today so it isn't a

1:17:26 ↗ decrease I think people may

1:17:28 ↗ misunderstand what you're saying it's

1:17:30 ↗ not like some of these involve having

1:17:32 ↗ fewer jobs they just have less growth

1:17:35 ↗ than the other option it's all funds new

1:17:38 ↗ people yes tons more jobs thank you for

1:17:41 ↗ the clarification is it a reduction in

1:17:43 ↗ the forecast of growth or those are the

1:17:46 ↗ words I was looking for excellent all

1:17:50 ↗ right so let's now so I wanted what I

1:17:52 ↗ wanted to do now is actually just start

1:17:54 ↗ a conversation about the three

1:17:55 ↗ alternatives and then let you guys kind

1:17:58 ↗ of weigh in where you want to so I'm

1:18:00 ↗ gonna start with alternative three an

1:18:02 ↗ alternative three is the really let's

1:18:06 ↗ disperse more of the growth into those

1:18:11 ↗ areas that are currently less served by

1:18:14 ↗ by transit by infrastructure so if you

1:18:19 ↗ look at the the detriment column you

1:18:23 ↗ know so what we're looking at is we're

1:18:25 ↗ increasing population the the forecast

1:18:29 ↗ for population growth for those areas is

1:18:32 ↗ increasing by two hundred twenty one

1:18:33 ↗ thousand for King County this is just in

1:18:36 ↗ King County and the jobs are twenty

1:18:38 ↗ thousand and so if you look at that in

1:18:40 ↗ my mind that's out of balance and these

1:18:43 ↗ are areas that are not served by transit

1:18:45 ↗ very well and so what you're talking

1:18:48 ↗ about is basically adding a significant

1:18:51 ↗ amount of commuter traffic where those

1:18:54 ↗ folks will be driving to their jobs

1:18:58 ↗ which will not be located in the same

1:19:00 ↗ locations based on the forecasted growth

1:19:02 ↗ figures and so you know under this

1:19:05 ↗ scenario you know the environmental

1:19:08 ↗ impacts will likely be more

1:19:11 ↗ infrastructure improvements will be

1:19:14 ↗ probably further needed than what's

1:19:17 ↗ there now and so as I looked at

1:19:20 ↗ alternative three there was not a lot of

1:19:23 ↗ advantage I think to the region to

1:19:26 ↗ support alternative three and I'm just

1:19:27 ↗ throwing that out there is as my

1:19:31 ↗ evaluation of that alternative

1:19:33 ↗ alternative one and two so alternative

1:19:36 ↗ one is is what the current framework is

1:19:40 ↗ and sometimes you have to say well you

1:19:43 ↗ know if you're gonna deviate from the

1:19:45 ↗ existing framework or the existing

1:19:47 ↗ alternative there should be an advantage

1:19:49 ↗ to go with something different and so as

1:19:52 ↗ you look at alternative to you know some

1:19:57 ↗ of the things that I think are good

1:19:59 ↗ about alternative two is actually

1:20:01 ↗ identifying a measure of 75% of the

1:20:04 ↗ growth within walking distance to

1:20:08 ↗ transit infrastructure I think that

1:20:11 ↗ that's it's good to put a metric on that

1:20:15 ↗ you could also basically assume that

1:20:19 ↗ even though the jobs and population

1:20:23 ↗ growth for King County are similar to

1:20:25 ↗ alternative three there's going to be

1:20:27 ↗ those that increase in growth is going

1:20:31 ↗ to happen proximate to transit

1:20:34 ↗ infrastructure and the expectation is is

1:20:37 ↗ that hopefully most of that growth will

1:20:40 ↗ have will use we'll be able to utilize

1:20:43 ↗ that part of kind of our transportation

1:20:47 ↗ network and will not result in the same

1:20:51 ↗ number of say traffic and regional

1:20:53 ↗ traffic issues that would happen under

1:20:56 ↗ alternative three so you know I think

1:21:01 ↗ the I'm gonna kind of stop at this point

1:21:05 ↗ and let

1:21:05 ↗ guys maybe ask questions I think I think

1:21:09 ↗ the question may be at hand is if you

1:21:13 ↗ agree that alternative three that

1:21:16 ↗ there's not a reason to really talk

1:21:18 ↗ about alternative three then maybe what

1:21:21 ↗ might be most productive for this

1:21:23 ↗ conversation would be to talk about the

1:21:25 ↗ differences between alternative one and

1:21:27 ↗ two and see if there are advantages to

1:21:30 ↗ one versus the other and I don't mean

1:21:32 ↗ alternative one one or the other that

1:21:35 ↗ you would want to make a recommendation

1:21:36 ↗ to PSR C to support I'm just gonna

1:21:40 ↗ summarize it a little differently sure

1:21:42 ↗ there is no formal motion tonight but

1:21:46 ↗ there is a potential recommendation so

1:21:48 ↗ they're not absolutely required to make

1:21:50 ↗ a rare condition they can decide tonight

1:21:52 ↗ if they want to make a recommendation on

1:21:54 ↗ one of these alternatives correct they

1:21:55 ↗ could also choose not to correct and

1:21:58 ↗ then we're also going to have a

1:22:01 ↗ discussion with the council about

1:22:03 ↗ potential additional counselor view of

1:22:06 ↗ 2050 so by the end of the night tonight

1:22:08 ↗ we'll also go to the question of you

1:22:11 ↗ want to have additional conversation at

1:22:13 ↗ a future date on some of the policy

1:22:14 ↗ language on the policies right because

1:22:16 ↗ the the three alternatives is due at the

1:22:18 ↗ end of the month okay great several

1:22:23 ↗ questions first off this presentation

1:22:25 ↗ isn't in our packet is it so I changed

1:22:28 ↗ this slide so this slide is new the rest

1:22:30 ↗ of the the rest of the presentation and

1:22:33 ↗ I added the growth chart but that's out

1:22:35 ↗ of the EIS so all I did was I changed

1:22:37 ↗ this and then I added this to help the

1:22:46 ↗ conversation this evening and I did that

1:22:49 ↗ today unfortunately I just got back from

1:22:50 ↗ being out for a week so I couldn't have

1:22:52 ↗ done that last week at my apologies okay

1:22:54 ↗ fair enough because one of my next

1:22:56 ↗ questions has to do with one of the

1:22:57 ↗ slides that was added so if you go back

1:22:59 ↗ up to the the trend line that had jobs

1:23:01 ↗ in housing yes sir that was out of my

1:23:03 ↗ yes yeah I mean one of the things that I

1:23:05 ↗ notice about that is if you say growth

1:23:09 ↗ in actual forecasts these these are

1:23:13 ↗ totals one of the things I notice is

1:23:16 ↗ that the employment for

1:23:18 ↗ action goes up quite a bit over time

1:23:20 ↗ right so we reach in around 2010 if you

1:23:24 ↗ want to say the number of jobs per

1:23:27 ↗ people in the region right yep it hit a

1:23:30 ↗ local minima about 2010 and ever since

1:23:34 ↗ then has been going back up like it was

1:23:36 ↗ well below 50% right now if you look at

1:23:39 ↗ 2010 well below 50% the the ratio of

1:23:42 ↗ jobs to two people right but by 2050

1:23:48 ↗ it's over 50% that's that's quite a

1:23:51 ↗ change demographically what's fueling

1:23:54 ↗ that change so I can't answer that these

1:24:01 ↗ are numbers from PSR see that they're

1:24:04 ↗ getting from OFM so it's such a sea

1:24:08 ↗ change yeah it's not like I mean I just

1:24:10 ↗ down the road I would like an answer to

1:24:12 ↗ that because it really rapid tells me

1:24:15 ↗ that there's a fundamental demographic

1:24:16 ↗ shift that's going on in key in the

1:24:18 ↗ Puget Sound area that I don't understand

1:24:20 ↗ I will definitely convey that comment

1:24:24 ↗ back to PSR C and the next question I

1:24:27 ↗ have is on where you've got your impact

1:24:31 ↗ of each of the three options by county

1:24:34 ↗ yes explain again why stay the course

1:24:37 ↗ has so much less King County growth than

1:24:39 ↗ the others it's got like 1/3 less growth

1:24:43 ↗ than the others and and and double the

1:24:47 ↗ growth in in poor Kitsap County

1:24:54 ↗ are you on population yes okay so is so

1:25:02 ↗ let me see if I can reframe your

1:25:04 ↗ question so is your question why are the

1:25:08 ↗ other three counties better represented

1:25:11 ↗ under stay the course than they are the

1:25:14 ↗ other two alternatives I just don't

1:25:15 ↗ understand why King County's growth

1:25:17 ↗ would be so much less under stay the

1:25:19 ↗ course it just I philosophically I don't

1:25:25 ↗ as you've explained the three options

1:25:26 ↗ can you tell me why in a in a short

1:25:29 ↗ answer

1:25:29 ↗ why I will look to councilmember winter

1:25:33 ↗ Stein who sits on GMP B and maybe this

1:25:35 ↗ has come up in their conversations well

1:25:39 ↗ certainly for transit focus growth it

1:25:42 ↗ the idea is creating more dense housing

1:25:48 ↗ in proximity to what they call transit

1:25:53 ↗ stations and that is a change from what

1:25:58 ↗ stay the course does because stay the

1:26:01 ↗ course looks for most of its growth in

1:26:02 ↗ regional centers such as we have a

1:26:04 ↗ regional growth center so the transit

1:26:07 ↗ focus stations if you if we plan for

1:26:11 ↗ more growth around these stations that's

1:26:13 ↗ more growth outside of the regional

1:26:16 ↗ centers and the Kitsap in Peirce and

1:26:20 ↗ Snohomish counties do not have and it's

1:26:23 ↗ not forecasted to have as much

1:26:26 ↗ high-capacity transit stations as King

1:26:29 ↗ County would so so it's it's it's more

1:26:34 ↗ it's not I don't look at it as stay the

1:26:37 ↗ course as less you know like we're we're

1:26:41 ↗ growing less it's just that transit

1:26:43 ↗ oriented transit focus growth growth

1:26:46 ↗ pulls more into those stations in King

1:26:49 ↗ County that don't exist on those other

1:26:51 ↗ counties okay thank you

1:26:53 ↗ that that helps and my final question is

1:26:56 ↗ with option three as option three

1:27:00 ↗ presuppose growth outside the the urban

1:27:03 ↗ growth boundary line

1:27:06 ↗ that's a great question

1:27:08 ↗ and I'm not sure I have the answer so

1:27:11 ↗ the so we're a little bit of an anomaly

1:27:15 ↗ and that we have no longer any pas

1:27:18 ↗ potential annexation areas other than

1:27:20 ↗ one on Cougar Mountain that we don't

1:27:23 ↗ want but there are some significant

1:27:26 ↗ potential annexation areas in King

1:27:28 ↗ County one outside of Federal Way and

1:27:30 ↗ went outside of Seattle that would be

1:27:33 ↗ significant kind of growth areas

1:27:37 ↗ I assume the other counties have similar

1:27:39 ↗ PAS around their communities that are

1:27:43 ↗ within the UGA s the way that this is

1:27:45 ↗ described is kind of cities

1:27:50 ↗ unincorporated pas and rural areas now I

1:27:55 ↗ don't I don't know why because for me I

1:27:58 ↗ don't know I don't think the GMA is

1:28:00 ↗ allowing us to push growth into rural

1:28:02 ↗ areas and so I don't know if Paul has a

1:28:06 ↗ better answer than that because it

1:28:08 ↗ doesn't make sense with my understanding

1:28:09 ↗ of GMA either yeah I know this is still

1:28:12 ↗ in compliance in alignment with the

1:28:14 ↗ goals of GMA it's just more dispersed

1:28:18 ↗ outside of as you said in unincorporated

1:28:20 ↗ and in my rural areas and there are

1:28:26 ↗ denser areas in unincorporated parts of

1:28:28 ↗ the counties so it's seeing more growth

1:28:31 ↗ in those areas but still completely in

1:28:33 ↗ alignment with without moving the line

1:28:34 ↗ in alignment with the goals of GMA it's

1:28:37 ↗ just more dispersed then and then in the

1:28:40 ↗ regional centers as their other two

1:28:42 ↗ plans okay I'm skeptical that much of

1:28:46 ↗ rural land that's inside the urban

1:28:47 ↗ growth boundary but nobody likes this

1:28:49 ↗ option anyhow so it's fine sessions

1:28:54 ↗ councilmember hunt and my first question

1:28:57 ↗ is on this slide

1:28:58 ↗ transit focus growth and reset urban

1:29:01 ↗ growths have the same same numbers in

1:29:04 ↗ every column so but these counties have

1:29:08 ↗ different percentages of or different

1:29:10 ↗ core cities different or different areas

1:29:15 ↗ so I don't understand how that we're

1:29:17 ↗ so so because it's not our source data I

1:29:24 ↗ think we can capture your question and

1:29:26 ↗ then Keith can get a response from Parc

1:29:28 ↗ because it's not data coming from us

1:29:30 ↗ it's coming from them but that's a good

1:29:32 ↗ question I don't have an answer to that

1:29:34 ↗ question either councilmember it's a

1:29:36 ↗ good question okay so then for them 4ps

1:29:41 ↗ are see my other part of that question

1:29:42 ↗ would be is it then that within each

1:29:46 ↗ county there is a different allocation

1:29:48 ↗ among that County's core cities etc but

1:29:54 ↗ it doesn't you you don't see the growth

1:29:56 ↗ moving from like a core city in one

1:29:58 ↗ county to the next County that it's done

1:30:01 ↗ all at county level that's the only way

1:30:03 ↗ this I can think this so there's there's

1:30:06 ↗ I think there's analysis that can be

1:30:08 ↗ done at the county level so these are

1:30:10 ↗ the these are the charts that are

1:30:11 ↗ showing that county difference or Delta

1:30:16 ↗ based on the three alternatives and then

1:30:18 ↗ you get to the metropolitan cities the

1:30:22 ↗ core cities the rural the other chart

1:30:25 ↗ which shows you how and so this I think

1:30:30 ↗ the assumption is because they did not

1:30:32 ↗ provide different charts at this level

1:30:35 ↗ by county I think the assumption I was

1:30:38 ↗ making is that this is consist that the

1:30:40 ↗ model is projecting this out county by

1:30:44 ↗ county at the same rates that makes

1:30:47 ↗ sense so the numbers would be different

1:30:50 ↗ but the the fluctuation by alternative

1:30:54 ↗ would be consistent county by county I

1:30:58 ↗ can ask that question as well that thank

1:31:02 ↗ you that would be great to know I am

1:31:04 ↗ interested in the answer to this because

1:31:06 ↗ currently the two options both the one

1:31:09 ↗ that's the recommended option on the

1:31:11 ↗ transit range of growth and the reset

1:31:12 ↗ urban growth have the same numbers but

1:31:14 ↗ the the other option the first state of

1:31:16 ↗ the course has different options per

1:31:17 ↗ counties so either when we switch to if

1:31:20 ↗ we choose a recommendation other than

1:31:22 ↗ stay the course it has actually the same

1:31:24 ↗ so I would just like to understand

1:31:26 ↗ that how that's working out sure okay

1:31:30 ↗ and then could you go to the benefits

1:31:34 ↗ and detriments slide please

1:31:42 ↗ would it be would it be so these are

1:31:45 ↗ these are points that were put together

1:31:47 ↗ by staff yes okay so would it be safe to

1:31:50 ↗ say then that possible detriments to

1:31:53 ↗ stay the course are the inverse of the

1:31:56 ↗ possible benefits under the other

1:31:59 ↗ alternatives yes and I had and then

1:32:08 ↗ related to council presidents Mart's

1:32:11 ↗ questions about that that other slide

1:32:13 ↗ with the rate of employment and I guess

1:32:18 ↗ I'm wondering too about if they're if

1:32:20 ↗ these 1% difference in the employment is

1:32:23 ↗ is within margin yeah I would think that

1:32:27 ↗ with you know the there's a lot of it

1:32:30 ↗ air around predictions and a lot of

1:32:32 ↗ things that are out of the control of

1:32:34 ↗ any of us or out of the ability of

1:32:36 ↗ anyone to predict and 1% here there it's

1:32:40 ↗ probably well within that error so if we

1:32:42 ↗ could get some some ballpark estimate on

1:32:44 ↗ error on these yeah that would be

1:32:47 ↗ helpful okay

1:32:50 ↗ that's my Ross thank you

1:32:54 ↗ Keith can you explain why the

1:32:56 ↗ Highlands garage would not meet the

1:32:59 ↗ definition of the high capacity transit

1:33:00 ↗ station areas so this is I've been

1:33:04 ↗ chasing this quite a bit so if you read

1:33:08 ↗ the definition and I can pop down I

1:33:11 ↗ actually edited it so the transit focus

1:33:16 ↗ growth alternative assumes an explicit

1:33:18 ↗ goal for seventy five percent of the

1:33:20 ↗ region's population employment growth to

1:33:22 ↗ occur within a quarter to a half mile

1:33:25 ↗ from current and planned high-capacity

1:33:26 ↗ transit station areas including light

1:33:30 ↗ rail bus rapid transit commuter rail

1:33:33 ↗ ferries and streetcar so right now we

1:33:36 ↗ don't have any of those

1:33:38 ↗ except for you know the question that I

1:33:42 ↗ was struggling with was bus

1:33:43 ↗ rapid-transit so depending on your

1:33:45 ↗ definition and some defined bus rapid

1:33:49 ↗ transit as bus service that has

1:33:52 ↗ dedicated infrastructure so if you think

1:33:55 ↗ about if you think about the SR 900

1:33:59 ↗ garage and go to the Highlands later but

1:34:01 ↗ let's start with the S or 900 garage

1:34:02 ↗ there is actually an HOV Lane coming off

1:34:06 ↗ of i90 that basically allows that bus

1:34:10 ↗ because I've ridden it to bypass the

1:34:13 ↗ traffic queue that's happening on SR 900

1:34:16 ↗ and make its way to that facility so

1:34:19 ↗ under some definitions that garage would

1:34:22 ↗ comply with a definition of bus

1:34:27 ↗ rapid-transit now having discussed this

1:34:30 ↗ with PSR C today because I actually

1:34:33 ↗ asked them a bunch of questions about

1:34:35 ↗ that they right now are not considering

1:34:38 ↗ either of our garages as part of the BRT

1:34:43 ↗ system and so neither of our garages

1:34:46 ↗ would qualify under what they're looking

1:34:51 ↗ at for a high-capacity transit station

1:34:53 ↗ so which would get me to a point where

1:34:57 ↗ if worse if we're thinking like we're

1:34:59 ↗ leaning towards alternative to maybe we

1:35:02 ↗ would want to suggest and edit to the to

1:35:06 ↗ the the definitions for what a

1:35:08 ↗ high-capacity transit station would be

1:35:10 ↗ so for the Highlands I think clearly

1:35:12 ↗ because there isn't a dedicated HOV Lane

1:35:16 ↗ up to that facility it's it's definitely

1:35:19 ↗ farther down the pecking order than our

1:35:21 ↗ SR 900 garage would be okay can you walk

1:35:25 ↗ us through attachment C that does look

1:35:28 ↗ at the potential for 75% growth

1:35:32 ↗ attachment C I think it's the premarital

1:35:36 ↗ I'd come out this one alright so what we

1:35:39 ↗ did was we basically we took a look at

1:35:44 ↗ so this is the Highlands garage here

1:35:45 ↗ with the the dark yellow is the quarter

1:35:49 ↗ mile and are they both showing on there

1:35:51 ↗ she's showing up great and then the

1:35:53 ↗ lighter yellow is the would be the half

1:35:57 ↗ mile and so what we did is we basically

1:36:00 ↗ took our buildable lands analysis and

1:36:05 ↗ our existing zoning and we forecasted

1:36:07 ↗ out where we would likely get additional

1:36:12 ↗ residential growth this isn't this is an

1:36:16 ↗ employment right now this is just a map

1:36:18 ↗ of potential population growth so this

1:36:21 ↗ was looking at the the housing ad to see

1:36:24 ↗ if we could get potentially 75% of our

1:36:28 ↗ anticipated housing growth to happen

1:36:31 ↗ within and at this time and the ask I

1:36:34 ↗ made was to look at our three locations

1:36:37 ↗ assuming we would include our two

1:36:39 ↗ existing garages now when I talk to PS

1:36:42 ↗ are see about the garages I'm going to

1:36:44 ↗ make sure that I get this on the table

1:36:46 ↗ is you know this is a planning document

1:36:49 ↗ for a long time and part of what we know

1:36:52 ↗ about our garage is our garages are

1:36:54 ↗ typically full by nine o'clock or 10

1:36:56 ↗ o'clock on the work days and what you

1:36:59 ↗ want to do from a planning perspective

1:37:01 ↗ is you want to get more use out of that

1:37:05 ↗ infrastructure investment than what

1:37:07 ↗ we're getting today and the only way you

1:37:09 ↗ can do that is providing more service

1:37:11 ↗ and the only way that you provide more

1:37:13 ↗ services you provide more writers and if

1:37:15 ↗ the garage is already full then you need

1:37:17 ↗ people to be able to walk or bike to

1:37:18 ↗ those facilities if they're going to

1:37:20 ↗ actually use the transit and so I think

1:37:24 ↗ part of the discussion is and and the

1:37:28 ↗ reason for you know potentially

1:37:30 ↗ suggesting that those significant Park

1:37:33 ↗ and Ride facilities be included in this

1:37:35 ↗ is that those are those are hubs for

1:37:38 ↗ transit use now and I think depending on

1:37:42 ↗ what we do today and how we form our

1:37:44 ↗ policies will dictate whether they

1:37:48 ↗ increase and how much they increase in

1:37:51 ↗ usage over the next thirty years so it's

1:37:55 ↗ just something to think about in terms

1:37:56 ↗ of as we kind of walk through the rest

1:37:59 ↗ of this so if I'm looking at this map I

1:38:02 ↗ understand where our

1:38:04 ↗ existing park and rides are how come

1:38:08 ↗ that yellow quarter-mile comes down

1:38:11 ↗ toward what is basically Gilman and

1:38:16 ↗ front this one yeah

1:38:19 ↗ in that portion so right now we don't

1:38:26 ↗ exactly know where our rail station is

1:38:30 ↗ going okay so it's a representation of

1:38:32 ↗ the idea that the rail station will be

1:38:34 ↗ somewhere in that region and thus there

1:38:36 ↗ will be a quarter mile from that right

1:38:38 ↗ okay thank you good questions

1:38:44 ↗ council member winter sign followed by

1:38:46 ↗ council president Mart's I'll give up my

1:38:49 ↗ time too

1:38:50 ↗ okay that's the president Mertz so in

1:38:52 ↗ looking at the DFC is it looks like

1:38:59 ↗ those totals by county are assigned like

1:39:04 ↗ legally give the supporting data it

1:39:07 ↗ looks like those are sort of by Fiat and

1:39:09 ↗ then they're they're divvied out by

1:39:11 ↗ city's core cities and it gives

1:39:14 ↗ information about how it would impact

1:39:15 ↗ each of the the sub areas but I think

1:39:19 ↗ it's a top-down thing which is why

1:39:20 ↗ they're identical so even those two

1:39:21 ↗ columns which means that utility is

1:39:23 ↗ somewhat less on that but I'll also

1:39:27 ↗ answer my own question about the

1:39:29 ↗ percentage of lands inside the urban

1:39:31 ↗ growth boundary that would be rural or

1:39:33 ↗ orient unincorporated indeed in King

1:39:36 ↗ County it's very very low four percent

1:39:37 ↗ but Pearson's and hamish are much much

1:39:39 ↗ much higher which is why it's a bigger

1:39:41 ↗ factor there thank you for answering

1:39:45 ↗ your own question times I'm hearing just

1:39:49 ↗ through the questions that you're asking

1:39:50 ↗ that there's a lot of issues with the

1:39:53 ↗ understandability of the PSR C data and

1:39:56 ↗ so I guess I have a question for the

1:39:58 ↗ group are you clear on whether or not

1:40:01 ↗ you want to make comments on at this

1:40:02 ↗ stage since the opportunities are

1:40:05 ↗ limited after tonight any thoughts on

1:40:09 ↗ that it's more interesting yeah I'd

1:40:12 ↗ really really would like our council to

1:40:14 ↗ make some recommendation on the

1:40:16 ↗ alternatives

1:40:18 ↗ for for the draft supplemental EIS that

1:40:25 ↗ is that's the question on the table it's

1:40:29 ↗ gonna be what alternative the GMP B we

1:40:32 ↗ will be debating this

1:40:33 ↗ and if our council can speak with one

1:40:36 ↗ voice about an alternative with and with

1:40:40 ↗ comments then that we all know carries a

1:40:43 ↗ lot more weight and the question so so

1:40:49 ↗ there's my input I mean there's their

1:40:51 ↗ understanding data is important the

1:40:53 ↗ question in front of us tonight is of

1:40:56 ↗ the three alternatives do we want to

1:40:58 ↗ lend our voice to to one of those we may

1:41:02 ↗ have to live with some ambiguity in the

1:41:05 ↗ data but I think the alternatives at a

1:41:07 ↗ high level are distinct enough I'm

1:41:10 ↗ hoping that we can make a call like that

1:41:14 ↗ in still in light of the fact there may

1:41:17 ↗ be some uncertainty and some uncertainty

1:41:20 ↗ about the numbers and the meaning behind

1:41:21 ↗ the numbers I think that would be very

1:41:22 ↗ important thank you so that's for

1:41:25 ↗ mothers counselor ham council president

1:41:26 ↗ Mertz

1:41:28 ↗ so I do have this one ambiguity with

1:41:32 ↗ well that my primary ambiguity which is

1:41:35 ↗ around why reset urban growth would have

1:41:37 ↗ the same numbers as transit focus growth

1:41:41 ↗ however it's more a question in my mind

1:41:43 ↗ about why I I think I understand why

1:41:47 ↗ stay the course and transit focus growth

1:41:49 ↗ are different and then I don't really

1:41:50 ↗ understand why reset urban growth is the

1:41:52 ↗ same as transit book so it's my question

1:41:55 ↗ is really about reset urban growth which

1:41:56 ↗ is also not probably the one that we'll

1:41:59 ↗ be considering this evening so I am

1:42:03 ↗ comfortable with with that ambiguity in

1:42:06 ↗ mind I am comfortable that at a high

1:42:08 ↗ level the transit focus growth seems

1:42:10 ↗ like the the option that seems to be

1:42:14 ↗ best in line with what I hear from the

1:42:17 ↗ community about making transportation

1:42:19 ↗ more efficient it seems like it has as

1:42:22 ↗ far as the environmental impacts it

1:42:23 ↗ seems like it has the least

1:42:25 ↗ environmental

1:42:26 ↗ so partly because of that increased

1:42:28 ↗ transportation efficiency and overall at

1:42:33 ↗ a high level it seems like the option

1:42:35 ↗ that's sort of minimizing sprawl and the

1:42:38 ↗ best option aligns with our previous

1:42:41 ↗ city vision our previous city planning

1:42:44 ↗ so I'm comfortable with saying at this

1:42:48 ↗ time that I'm in support of the transit

1:42:50 ↗ focus growth that's one beret and then

1:42:52 ↗ cut summer Walsh no I forgot counts

1:42:55 ↗ president Mart's then ray then mush so I

1:42:58 ↗ have to say I'm feeling the rare

1:43:01 ↗ curmudgeonly this evening towards this

1:43:04 ↗ whole thing I don't like this entire

1:43:07 ↗ methodology it's not results oriented

1:43:10 ↗ it's not towards what as a region do we

1:43:14 ↗ define livability do we define how we

1:43:18 ↗ want our community you know our larger

1:43:22 ↗ community when I say community you say

1:43:23 ↗ five county metro area how we want it to

1:43:26 ↗ look and and so so therefore you don't

1:43:31 ↗ get anything

1:43:32 ↗ considering history right you don't get

1:43:33 ↗ anything of where we are today you don't

1:43:35 ↗ get any consideration of diversity of

1:43:37 ↗ housing you don't get any consideration

1:43:38 ↗ of diversity of employment and that's no

1:43:42 ↗ way to run a railroad so my heart is

1:43:45 ↗ with transit focus growth right because

1:43:48 ↗ that's the way it's supposed to work but

1:43:50 ↗ I'm worried that we're gonna be made

1:43:51 ↗ chumps in this process I'm worried that

1:43:53 ↗ we who have given so much in changing

1:43:57 ↗ our community to accept growth I was

1:44:00 ↗ gonna get reesy Road out with

1:44:01 ↗ communities that haven't given as much

1:44:03 ↗ that haven't transformed themselves as

1:44:06 ↗ much and that we're gonna get slathered

1:44:07 ↗ with the same huge numbers as anybody

1:44:11 ↗ else I mean it's great that we are that

1:44:14 ↗ we have the transit that we have we are

1:44:17 ↗ likely question mark to get

1:44:19 ↗ high-capacity transit at some point in

1:44:21 ↗ the future maybe but so I'm nervous

1:44:25 ↗ right my heart's with transit focus

1:44:27 ↗ growth but boy oh boy it would be so

1:44:30 ↗ unfair to this community to then go into

1:44:33 ↗ a process that does it that doesn't

1:44:35 ↗ consider all that the city has done

1:44:38 ↗ in the 15 years that I've lived here to

1:44:40 ↗ transform itself to accept growth

1:44:44 ↗ councilmember Rey thank you can we get

1:44:47 ↗ really local for just a moment Keith so

1:44:49 ↗ if we were to go with transit focus

1:44:53 ↗ growth as opposed to stay the course

1:44:54 ↗ because I think those are the two that

1:44:56 ↗ are on the table what's it mean to the

1:44:58 ↗ city of Issaquah in terms of new

1:45:01 ↗ residents and new jobs in 2050 that's a

1:45:06 ↗ great question

1:45:07 ↗ so this trickles down from PSR C to the

1:45:12 ↗ county to through our comp plan and our

1:45:15 ↗ targets right and so one of the reasons

1:45:19 ↗ councilmember Rea that I wanted us to

1:45:22 ↗ look at this was to answer one of the

1:45:25 ↗ biggest questions that I think was on

1:45:28 ↗ the table is if we if we supported

1:45:32 ↗ alternative - which now has a metric of

1:45:36 ↗ 75% of your growth is going to happen

1:45:38 ↗ within walking distance of transit

1:45:41 ↗ facility whatever that might be defined

1:45:43 ↗ as you know with that could we

1:45:45 ↗ accommodate that with our existing

1:45:48 ↗ zoning and our existing buildable lands

1:45:51 ↗ analysis or or would we have to up tone

1:45:54 ↗ you know if we ultimately you know -

1:45:56 ↗ councilmember marches play so are we are

1:45:59 ↗ we drinking some kool-aid that later we

1:46:02 ↗ might regret so I think what this did

1:46:05 ↗ for me was to say we have capacity right

1:46:08 ↗ now again I think if if we can say

1:46:14 ↗ locally that we can count at least our

1:46:18 ↗ SR 900 garage the one up in the

1:46:20 ↗ highlands I think is additive as well

1:46:23 ↗ but we could probably figure out a way

1:46:27 ↗ to accommodate those 900 units if we had

1:46:29 ↗ two on the valley floor but one of the

1:46:31 ↗ things that that we wanted to do was to

1:46:35 ↗ make sure that we had the existing

1:46:36 ↗ zoning and capacity to accommodate 75%

1:46:39 ↗ of our growth without having to do a

1:46:41 ↗ massive up so and we've already done

1:46:43 ↗ that with Central Issaquah plan so I

1:46:46 ↗ think from that perspective I think

1:46:48 ↗ we're okay if you go back to again

1:46:51 ↗ this is a wrong way sorry this is this

1:46:55 ↗ is a planning model right so a lot of

1:46:58 ↗ things can translate between a

1:47:01 ↗ forecasted model and an actual reality

1:47:04 ↗ in the field will this mean that we if

1:47:09 ↗ we accept alternative 2 and that

1:47:13 ↗ ultimately gets folded into the

1:47:16 ↗ recommended framework for 2050 that we

1:47:19 ↗ will see an increase because we're a

1:47:23 ↗ core city in population and and 2

1:47:30 ↗ councilmember Hunts Point if the model

1:47:32 ↗ shows 1% you know is that even worth is

1:47:35 ↗ is anybody gonna notice even if it

1:47:37 ↗ happens I don't I don't know the answer

1:47:39 ↗ to that so so I think we're at this high

1:47:42 ↗ level for County planning framework

1:47:45 ↗ trying to dive down now to a local

1:47:48 ↗ conversation I don't know that it

1:47:49 ↗ translates to this gets back to my

1:47:52 ↗ initial comment from two weeks ago you

1:47:55 ↗ don't really have three distinctly

1:47:58 ↗ different alternatives it's not it's not

1:48:00 ↗ three completely different fruit it's a

1:48:02 ↗ it's a red apple a green apple and a

1:48:04 ↗ kind of a mixed apple I mean they're all

1:48:06 ↗ three very close to each other I think

1:48:09 ↗ once you once you can get past the take

1:48:12 ↗ three off the table 1 & 2 1 & 2 are such

1:48:16 ↗ close cousins I don't know that you I

1:48:18 ↗ don't know that we would see a

1:48:20 ↗ difference either way council member

1:48:21 ↗ sorry for that really long answer I

1:48:27 ↗ probably do if I can just have a second

1:48:30 ↗ to kind of digest everything I just

1:48:31 ↗ heard so if I'm hearing you correctly it

1:48:33 ↗ doesn't matter if we go one or two from

1:48:35 ↗ from an issue qua perspective we're

1:48:38 ↗ probably going to get the same number of

1:48:39 ↗ people and the same number of jobs so

1:48:41 ↗ here's so and all maybe phone a friend

1:48:44 ↗ and ask councilmember winter Stein to

1:48:46 ↗ weigh in I believe again think about

1:48:51 ↗ this in terms of framework right now

1:48:53 ↗ we're talking about three alternatives I

1:48:55 ↗ think which ever alternative we pick if

1:48:58 ↗ we want to pick one to recommend a PSR C

1:49:01 ↗ it will then info

1:49:03 ↗ the policies and the policies are where

1:49:07 ↗ it starts to get a lot more real in

1:49:10 ↗ terms of the policies and the actions

1:49:12 ↗ that are being proposed by PSR C in each

1:49:16 ↗ of the environmental elements of the EIS

1:49:19 ↗ so if we pick say the transit focused

1:49:23 ↗ growth alternative there will be certain

1:49:26 ↗ policies that that respond to that

1:49:30 ↗ alternative that are different than if

1:49:33 ↗ ultimately stay the course is chosen as

1:49:36 ↗ the preferred alternative so this this

1:49:38 ↗ informs then the policy direction that

1:49:41 ↗ comes next and as councilmember winter

1:49:44 ↗ Stein said that conversation is really

1:49:46 ↗ like June July of this year so I have a

1:49:50 ↗ hard time picking an option when I can't

1:49:52 ↗ distinguish the two of them so for me I

1:49:56 ↗ mean I understand where people are

1:49:57 ↗ coming from I can't get behind anything

1:49:59 ↗ other than saying I don't think three

1:50:00 ↗ makes any sense but if you can't give me

1:50:03 ↗ a better distinction between option

1:50:05 ↗ number one and option number two I

1:50:06 ↗ really can't get on board with saying

1:50:07 ↗ then we support one or two because their

1:50:11 ↗ margin of error insignificant so you

1:50:14 ↗ know toss up so that's kind of where my

1:50:15 ↗ heart's at councilmember Goodman and

1:50:18 ↗ then councilmember booties I think

1:50:19 ↗ Mariah you're up first

1:50:22 ↗ so keep a question in the the language

1:50:26 ↗ that you had proposed about the

1:50:29 ↗ Highlands Park could you go to that

1:50:31 ↗ slide I'm I'm wondering if other cities

1:50:36 ↗ might be in a similar situation if you

1:50:39 ↗ have any other core cities that might be

1:50:42 ↗ in a similar situation where they have

1:50:45 ↗ maybe not everything on the list but

1:50:48 ↗ significant Park & Ride facilities so

1:50:51 ↗ there will most likely be other cities

1:50:55 ↗ that would qualify to have a you know if

1:51:00 ↗ you know my take on it would be a

1:51:02 ↗ significant park and ride would be more

1:51:03 ↗ than 500 stalls and so there are going

1:51:07 ↗ to be communities in the four County

1:51:09 ↗ region that have those facilities that

1:51:13 ↗ would that this will probably be a

1:51:15 ↗ bigger deal to than us because of our

1:51:19 ↗ regional growth center and the zoning

1:51:22 ↗ that we have for that and our planned

1:51:23 ↗ future rail station puts us in a little

1:51:26 ↗ bit different place than maybe some that

1:51:28 ↗ aren't gonna receive those facilities

1:51:30 ↗ down the road so and - and and I'm this

1:51:33 ↗ I think is germane it's gonna sound like

1:51:35 ↗ I'm going off reservation but I think it

1:51:37 ↗ also attends to councilmember Ray's

1:51:40 ↗ comment is I think the way this all

1:51:43 ↗ plans out is is if you the difference

1:51:48 ↗ between the two you know stay the course

1:51:52 ↗ and the transit focused alternative is

1:51:55 ↗ it plays out in how PS RC potentially

1:51:59 ↗ allocates transportation revenues right

1:52:03 ↗ I mean because that's really what

1:52:04 ↗ they're doing all of this kind of leads

1:52:07 ↗ to that focus of how they then disperse

1:52:11 ↗ the monies that they are given to

1:52:13 ↗ disperse to trans transportation and

1:52:16 ↗ transit improvements under alternative -

1:52:19 ↗ it says we're gonna take I mean I don't

1:52:23 ↗ know if you can say 75% of our revenue

1:52:25 ↗ and put it towards transit where that is

1:52:29 ↗ not as clear under the stay the course

1:52:32 ↗ alternative and I don't want to connect

1:52:35 ↗ too many dots and I'll look -

1:52:37 ↗ councilmember winter Stein's help on

1:52:39 ↗ this if he wants to weigh in on it but

1:52:42 ↗ that's the that's kind of the bottom

1:52:43 ↗ line for the difference between one and

1:52:46 ↗ two I think is it puts more of the eggs

1:52:49 ↗ in one basket and says we're gonna now

1:52:52 ↗ focus our investment in transportation

1:52:56 ↗ infrastructure in transit at least a

1:52:59 ↗ significant piece of it more than what

1:53:01 ↗ we have maybe under the current see

1:53:03 ↗ under the current thing the the shiny

1:53:05 ↗ object is the Regional Growth Center and

1:53:08 ↗ they're scattered all over the place and

1:53:11 ↗ so now this is taking that and taking it

1:53:15 ↗ to a more focused outcome

1:53:18 ↗ potentially by by providing that level

1:53:21 ↗ of clarity I just offer that

1:53:25 ↗ thank you I was just curious about that

1:53:29 ↗ I think that the if we're going down the

1:53:32 ↗ transit-oriented focus that that

1:53:35 ↗ language is important a it's a tough one

1:53:44 ↗ I when I look at the transit focused

1:53:48 ↗ growth alternative - it really does seem

1:53:51 ↗ to match with with our our growth

1:53:54 ↗ philosophy and and our focus on the

1:53:56 ↗ central Issaquah plan and and just being

1:53:59 ↗ able to have that focus around transit

1:54:01 ↗ and it being the most environmentally

1:54:04 ↗ responsible and I think that so so

1:54:08 ↗ really I've been focused in on

1:54:10 ↗ alternative to an alternative three

1:54:14 ↗ seems like less likely but I'm stuck

1:54:19 ↗ between one and two just because I feel

1:54:23 ↗ like we don't have a lot of data we've

1:54:26 ↗ got very different numbers and we're

1:54:30 ↗ saying that they're similar but but when

1:54:35 ↗ you look at the population growth around

1:54:37 ↗ that they don't they don't seem that

1:54:39 ↗ similar so I'd like to better understand

1:54:42 ↗ the numbers I'm I'm you know I'm I'm

1:54:45 ↗ leaning toward number two but I feel

1:54:47 ↗ like we need more information okay

1:54:51 ↗ councilmember Goodman that's never grew

1:54:53 ↗ into staying councilmember hunt I don't

1:54:55 ↗ totally understand alternative three if

1:54:57 ↗ that's just out there just to be this

1:55:00 ↗ don't pick this nobody will but but but

1:55:06 ↗ I'm so why is it there so I guess I

1:55:09 ↗ don't understand what the potential

1:55:11 ↗ merits would be so I guess I'm not so

1:55:17 ↗ much a no on that as I'm hearing from

1:55:19 ↗ others difference between the stay the

1:55:23 ↗ course and the transit focused growth

1:55:25 ↗ for me is right there in the numbers

1:55:27 ↗ it's over 200,000 people and you know

1:55:31 ↗ you keep saying that it might not make

1:55:34 ↗ as big a difference to Issaquah but you

1:55:36 ↗ know whether we choose one or the other

1:55:39 ↗ but we're a really fairly small city and

1:55:42 ↗ the increases are gonna make any

1:55:44 ↗ increases are going to make a big

1:55:45 ↗ difference and it says on one of the

1:55:48 ↗ pages that the alternative to it's going

1:55:51 ↗ to exceed our central Issaquah plan E is

1:55:53 ↗ I would imagine we'll have to do more

1:55:56 ↗ studies on that I don't I I frankly

1:56:02 ↗ don't know how much more we take how

1:56:06 ↗ much more we can take

1:56:08 ↗ and the shiny object the first go-around

1:56:11 ↗ with all of this was all the money for

1:56:14 ↗ transportation projects and I'm not sure

1:56:16 ↗ that anybody who lives and works around

1:56:18 ↗ here would say that we've been better

1:56:21 ↗ off for that since the decision that we

1:56:22 ↗ made in 2012 or 13 so I'm I'm concerned

1:56:28 ↗ about about 1 1 & 2 transit focus growth

1:56:33 ↗ it sounds really good but I don't know

1:56:37 ↗ how much of a difference that is you

1:56:40 ↗ know maybe it's the best decision for

1:56:42 ↗ the region but I don't know if that's

1:56:43 ↗ the best decision for Issaquah so I

1:56:48 ↗ don't know if we're gonna be able to

1:56:49 ↗ pick one maybe we can provide a list of

1:56:54 ↗ concerns that we have and then weigh in

1:56:56 ↗ in the summer again Thank You

1:57:00 ↗ councilmember winter stone thank you

1:57:02 ↗ Keith can you get

1:57:04 ↗ tonight's packet up on the screen I can

1:57:08 ↗ there is a table in it and as you're

1:57:11 ↗ searching for that if you have my

1:57:13 ↗ colleagues want to look on page 174 of

1:57:17 ↗ tonight's packet it's table 3.5 - 1

1:57:23 ↗ summary comparison of alternatives to

1:57:25 ↗ stay the course I think there's some

1:57:28 ↗ good information in here that sheds a

1:57:30 ↗ lot of light on what is being asked what

1:57:35 ↗ are the things it does is it breaks down

1:57:37 ↗ both population and employment by what

1:57:39 ↗ they call regional geographies those

1:57:41 ↗ being metropolitan cities core cities

1:57:43 ↗ high-capacity transit communities which

1:57:46 ↗ is the new element cities and towns

1:57:48 ↗ urban and unincorporated in

1:57:55 ↗ we all enjoy a tact so keep going keep

1:57:57 ↗ going keep going keep going keep going

1:58:00 ↗ right there you just went that way

1:58:02 ↗ you rent that right there so Keith zoom

1:58:05 ↗ in on that a little bit you can right

1:58:10 ↗ there in the bottom right click + click

1:58:12 ↗ it again and again Center that this

1:58:19 ↗ begins the sheds a little I want to make

1:58:21 ↗ one comment first and then I'm gonna

1:58:23 ↗ look at these numbers I think these

1:58:25 ↗ numbers tell me that that table where it

1:58:27 ↗ shows that our alternative to an

1:58:30 ↗ alternative 3 to have similar

1:58:31 ↗ distributions by county is probably

1:58:34 ↗ wrong an alternative 3 this these

1:58:37 ↗ numbers and the other bar charts that

1:58:39 ↗ are in the packet don't agree with the

1:58:41 ↗ numbers that are in that table that we

1:58:43 ↗ looked at earlier

1:58:43 ↗ they just don't agree right the end so I

1:58:46 ↗ think it's this why this one is so

1:58:48 ↗ important is we are a core city and stay

1:58:52 ↗ the course says 28 percent of the growth

1:58:55 ↗ through 2050 will happen in core city's

1:58:58 ↗ transit focus gross says 29 percent of

1:59:02 ↗ the growth will happen in core cities my

1:59:04 ↗ own personal interpretation that this is

1:59:05 ↗ a look forward of over 30 years and

1:59:08 ↗ that's within the margin of error it's

1:59:10 ↗ very difficult to nail that that that's

1:59:13 ↗ saying in the four County region core

1:59:15 ↗ cities will be about the saint's will

1:59:18 ↗ have about the same amount of growth the

1:59:20 ↗ real difference is when you get to reset

1:59:22 ↗ urban growth there's a reduction because

1:59:24 ↗ less would be in all of the cities

1:59:26 ↗ there's less in metropolitan and there's

1:59:28 ↗ less in core there's less in the

1:59:29 ↗ high-capacity transit communities and

1:59:32 ↗ there's yeah there's a big and then

1:59:34 ↗ there's big jumps in the other areas

1:59:36 ↗ right then the other thing to jump out

1:59:38 ↗ here is that is that new regional

1:59:40 ↗ geography called high-capacity transit

1:59:43 ↗ communities and you can see the real

1:59:45 ↗ difference in that in alternative to

1:59:48 ↗ where it would they would receive 23% of

1:59:51 ↗ the growth whereas the other

1:59:52 ↗ alternatives they would both receive

1:59:54 ↗ they would only receive 18% of the

1:59:56 ↗ growth and what that represents is

1:59:58 ↗ outside of those cities

2:00:02 ↗ metropolitan court cities where there

2:00:04 ↗ are these bus rapid transit stations

2:00:07 ↗ there would be more growth in proximity

2:00:09 ↗ to those and so that's that's where the

2:00:14 ↗ the biggest change would could come

2:00:16 ↗ there would be less and cities and towns

2:00:18 ↗ there'd be less than the unincorporated

2:00:20 ↗ there would be less of the growth in

2:00:21 ↗ rural the most of it would be in these

2:00:24 ↗ high capacity transit communities I

2:00:26 ↗ think that these numbers when they split

2:00:28 ↗ it across out by these regional

2:00:30 ↗ geographies I think tells a better

2:00:32 ↗ picture what we were trying to see in

2:00:34 ↗ the data earlier and you can see the

2:00:36 ↗ same below then the bottom row deals

2:00:40 ↗ with employment and you see similar you

2:00:44 ↗ mean employment the the the density

2:00:47 ↗ around the high-capacity transit

2:00:50 ↗ communities is mostly about housing they

2:00:54 ↗ don't expect to get that many more jobs

2:00:57 ↗ there so you don't really see that

2:00:58 ↗ spread across that big difference as you

2:01:02 ↗ do in population with the numbers so I

2:01:04 ↗ think this this chart is very revealing

2:01:07 ↗ and I think the the other thing if you

2:01:10 ↗ could go back to your chart your graph

2:01:12 ↗ which shows our city this region where

2:01:17 ↗ they'll rely trail station may go and

2:01:20 ↗ their transit community I your slide 11

2:01:24 ↗ this one yeah yeah so I'm actually going

2:01:28 ↗ to get I'm going to get to that I was

2:01:29 ↗ just asked so high capacity transit

2:01:32 ↗ stations is defined in the in the EIS

2:01:35 ↗ and it's not a community it's it's it's

2:01:39 ↗ and you had the definition up there it

2:01:42 ↗ is about it is about light rail stations

2:01:45 ↗ they're they're called stations but it's

2:01:47 ↗ stations or its commuter rail or its

2:01:49 ↗ ferry and it's these rapid these breasts

2:01:53 ↗ rapid transit lines and and by that

2:01:56 ↗ definition our transit centers are not

2:02:01 ↗ HCT right they are not by that

2:02:04 ↗ definition and and I can last

2:02:08 ↗ earlier this month during the GMP be

2:02:10 ↗ meeting that there was by far the most

2:02:13 ↗ interesting conversation of

2:02:15 ↗ out that policy and what's odd I think I

2:02:18 ↗ think what's gonna be a struggle for 4ps

2:02:20 ↗ RC is that the definition they use

2:02:24 ↗ during their a is when they when they

2:02:27 ↗ put together the the draft supplemental

2:02:29 ↗ EIS did not include stations like this

2:02:32 ↗ so they don't have they didn't do

2:02:34 ↗ analysis around with these type of

2:02:36 ↗ transit centers in their in their EIS

2:02:39 ↗ but my sense was and what I heard there

2:02:43 ↗ and what I would my would I would if my

2:02:45 ↗ council members are so inclined I I feel

2:02:48 ↗ strongly that we should continue we

2:02:51 ↗ should push for the recognition of

2:02:53 ↗ transit stations like ours in that HCT

2:02:57 ↗ definition and then and if we were

2:03:01 ↗ successful with that then I think what

2:03:03 ↗ you're showing with this numbers that

2:03:05 ↗ even with our existing zone capacity in

2:03:10 ↗ proximity of all of these areas in our

2:03:14 ↗ city then through comp champ comp plan

2:03:20 ↗ changes we wouldn't have to potentially

2:03:22 ↗ we wouldn't have to do any up zoning our

2:03:24 ↗ current land use and zoning that's in

2:03:27 ↗ place would already be in alignment with

2:03:30 ↗ the goals for transitory and growth

2:03:32 ↗ alternative to but I think that takes it

2:03:35 ↗ does take the entire GMP be you know in

2:03:39 ↗ or at least majority agreeing that we

2:03:41 ↗ should include this now I will say that

2:03:43 ↗ in back on the April 4th meeting there

2:03:46 ↗ was a lot of light bulbs that went on

2:03:48 ↗ about what the what the meaning of

2:03:52 ↗ high-capacity transit was and that

2:03:55 ↗ high-capacity transit stations because

2:03:58 ↗ it put more growth in places that people

2:04:02 ↗ didn't realize it was going in because

2:04:03 ↗ it says bus stops it says a stop is a

2:04:07 ↗ station and it didn't account for these

2:04:10 ↗ it didn't account for existing transit

2:04:12 ↗ centers in that definition so I think

2:04:14 ↗ that conversation started earlier this

2:04:16 ↗ month I know it's going to continue and

2:04:19 ↗ and this is exactly the kind of

2:04:22 ↗ deliberation that the staff at PSR C is

2:04:24 ↗ absolutely dependent upon us having I

2:04:26 ↗ think

2:04:28 ↗ and I will you know I can't I don't want

2:04:30 ↗ to speak conclusively for my colleagues

2:04:33 ↗ from sound cities who are in the caucus

2:04:34 ↗ with me but I think there's a general

2:04:37 ↗ agreement and understanding of this idea

2:04:41 ↗ that our existing infrastructures such

2:04:45 ↗ as these should be included in that

2:04:47 ↗ definition and will continue to carry

2:04:48 ↗ forth that that conversation and support

2:04:51 ↗ for that idea so I think it gets to the

2:04:54 ↗ question that that Chris asked about

2:04:56 ↗ what would be the difference potentially

2:04:59 ↗ none at all for us core cities aren't

2:05:02 ↗ seen as growing significantly different

2:05:06 ↗ under either alternative and and that's

2:05:09 ↗ and we are a core city so what that

2:05:11 ↗ means is that OFM and then the counties

2:05:13 ↗ wouldn't be allocating more growth us

2:05:15 ↗ than is under the existing plan so

2:05:18 ↗ without getting more allocations to two

2:05:22 ↗ core cities and therefore to us I don't

2:05:24 ↗ think it's a strong deviation from the

2:05:27 ↗ path that we're already on and if indeed

2:05:28 ↗ you know this chart and what it shows of

2:05:31 ↗ our capacity within proximity of our

2:05:33 ↗ transit stations already exists then

2:05:37 ↗ there's then that would mean that we

2:05:39 ↗ wouldn't even be looking at cup change

2:05:42 ↗ comp plan changes to accommodate even

2:05:45 ↗ the alternative - okay so I think it's

2:05:53 ↗ gonna be hunt Mart's and Walsh so I I

2:06:04 ↗ did want to mention that in the draft

2:06:07 ↗ environmental draft supplemental

2:06:09 ↗ environmental impact statement there's a

2:06:10 ↗ number of other topics that are

2:06:12 ↗ considered other than what we've been

2:06:14 ↗ talking about so one of them is

2:06:16 ↗ emissions and I think that at the higher

2:06:21 ↗ level rather than trying to think

2:06:24 ↗ because we do have this estimate about

2:06:26 ↗ what is going to happen with core cities

2:06:28 ↗ but we don't have it we don't have a

2:06:31 ↗ projection and I think it wouldn't make

2:06:33 ↗ sense to have a projection for what

2:06:34 ↗ specifically will happen how this might

2:06:37 ↗ influence

2:06:38 ↗ because there are so many other there's

2:06:40 ↗ so many other things so I think that at

2:06:44 ↗ a higher level looking at some of these

2:06:46 ↗ issues like emissions for the entire

2:06:49 ↗ region and how they would change under

2:06:51 ↗ the different alternatives makes sense

2:06:53 ↗ and there is information about that

2:06:55 ↗ there's projected pollutant emissions

2:06:57 ↗ tons per day transit focus growth has

2:07:00 ↗ police and stay the courses in the

2:07:03 ↗ middle reset urban growth has the

2:07:05 ↗ highest emissions so there's information

2:07:07 ↗ about that and there's information about

2:07:10 ↗ other environmental impacts and I think

2:07:14 ↗ that for at the high level the

2:07:16 ↗ transportation transportation focus

2:07:20 ↗ growth makes sense and then looking at

2:07:22 ↗ this 1% increase population 1% decrease

2:07:26 ↗ population when you look at what these

2:07:27 ↗ projections are based on it's just sort

2:07:29 ↗ of a straight trend line that is an

2:07:31 ↗ estimate of what the best guesses and I

2:07:34 ↗ think that I think that based on that

2:07:38 ↗ looking at these other projections about

2:07:41 ↗ the impacts and about how we know we

2:07:44 ↗ need to how how I think we know we need

2:07:48 ↗ to grow and a transit oriented way as a

2:07:53 ↗ region I am very much in favor of the

2:07:55 ↗ transit oriented option remember Walsh

2:08:00 ↗ council months thank you so I would

2:08:04 ↗ encourage anybody who has questions

2:08:06 ↗ about this to read the 2050 draft se is

2:08:11 ↗ it's 227 pages worth of information

2:08:15 ↗ about the as you said the tonnage of

2:08:20 ↗ pollutants the you know personal sizes

2:08:26 ↗ everything it's very clear to me after

2:08:31 ↗ reading this that the benefits of

2:08:35 ↗ transit oriented growth are huge for our

2:08:40 ↗ region I think

2:08:42 ↗ additionally the for a long time we have

2:08:46 ↗ planned population and growth and we

2:08:51 ↗ have planned

2:08:52 ↗ transit and traffic and congestion on

2:08:55 ↗ two separate arms I view this as a huge

2:09:00 ↗ way to tie those two together do not

2:09:03 ↗ plan for growth that is inevitable and

2:09:06 ↗ handle the transportation after to tie

2:09:10 ↗ the two together and say they are

2:09:12 ↗ essentially one that you cannot plan for

2:09:17 ↗ growth without knowing how those people

2:09:20 ↗ are going to travel and so if this

2:09:23 ↗ presents the opportunity to tie those

2:09:26 ↗ together and potentially then tie the

2:09:29 ↗ dollar amounts together to provide

2:09:32 ↗ benefits to the communities that are

2:09:35 ↗ dealing with those additional people I

2:09:38 ↗ think that's huge where I think I differ

2:09:41 ↗ potentially with Councilman remember

2:09:44 ↗ winter Stein is looking at the vision

2:09:48 ↗ 2050 the high-capacity transit it's

2:09:52 ↗ almost like those areas are defined only

2:09:55 ↗ because they're not a core city and they

2:09:59 ↗ happen to have transit I think as PSR C

2:10:05 ↗ gets into this more and realizes and has

2:10:08 ↗ those conversations

2:10:09 ↗ we're probably gonna realize that oh if

2:10:12 ↗ we're trying to put more population into

2:10:15 ↗ areas with transit that's going to

2:10:18 ↗ include the core cities and the major

2:10:23 ↗ cities and so I think those numbers

2:10:27 ↗ might end up shifting around a little

2:10:29 ↗ bit because when I read the definition

2:10:30 ↗ for hcats HC T's it basically says

2:10:35 ↗ anything with a light rail current or

2:10:38 ↗ proposed station like that's us so I

2:10:43 ↗ think we probably will see more of that

2:10:45 ↗ growth than is necessarily suggested in

2:10:49 ↗ the document if we go in that direction

2:10:50 ↗ I still think it's the right way to go

2:10:53 ↗ because it ties those two methods

2:10:55 ↗ together Thank You council presidents so

2:11:00 ↗ a couple things

2:11:02 ↗ so appendix B of s DS DSC is is

2:11:08 ↗ supporting data and if you look at it

2:11:11 ↗ what it says is that under the state the

2:11:13 ↗ course option King County's share of the

2:11:18 ↗ growth in core cities would be two

2:11:21 ↗ hundred and seventy two thousand people

2:11:23 ↗ under the growth Oh what's a cults right

2:11:30 ↗ trends of focus growth its three hundred

2:11:33 ↗ and forty six thousand people so it's a

2:11:36 ↗ 27 percent increase and so that the

2:11:39 ↗ chart they councilmember winters time

2:11:41 ↗ pointed out those are fractions of the

2:11:44 ↗ already noted different target numbers

2:11:46 ↗ right I did the math and that's that's

2:11:49 ↗ how those fractions work right so it's a

2:11:52 ↗ so it's a twenty seven percent higher

2:11:53 ↗ allocation to King County core cities

2:11:56 ↗ likewise the same data says that HCT

2:12:01 ↗ goes from stay the course of fifty eight

2:12:04 ↗ thousand to transit focus ninety two

2:12:07 ↗ thousand or a sixty percent larger

2:12:10 ↗ increase so these options and again my

2:12:14 ↗ heart is towards transit focus growth

2:12:16 ↗ but you know I'm worried because tight

2:12:20 ↗ I'm not sure I feel like some of the

2:12:22 ↗ data we feel is a little loosey goosey

2:12:24 ↗ and aren't really totally sure what

2:12:26 ↗ we're talking about buying into as this

2:12:28 ↗ being an example I think the other thing

2:12:31 ↗ that we're hearing tonight is some real

2:12:34 ↗ some real fear uncertainty and doubt

2:12:36 ↗ around st3 there was the comment about

2:12:38 ↗ what does the urban growth center what

2:12:40 ↗ has it gotten us what was the shiny

2:12:42 ↗ object I mean the shiny object was st3

2:12:45 ↗ and was okay maybe I guess it wasn't

2:12:51 ↗ never mind I'll talk after you my my

2:12:54 ↗ view is that thus far the the big thing

2:12:57 ↗ that we have gotten from urban growth

2:13:00 ↗ Center that we wouldn't have had

2:13:02 ↗ otherwise was rapid transit and we're

2:13:04 ↗ not sure that's gonna happen right and

2:13:06 ↗ that's what some of this is about I

2:13:08 ↗ think if all of us felt sure that in

2:13:10 ↗ 2041 our kids we're gonna be taking the

2:13:13 ↗ train from Issaquah

2:13:15 ↗ to downtown Seattle I think some of our

2:13:18 ↗ concerns around the transit focus growth

2:13:21 ↗ would go away but I think right now for

2:13:23 ↗ a variety of reasons not just potential

2:13:26 ↗ initiatives this fall but also cost

2:13:28 ↗ overruns that are occurring on st3

2:13:30 ↗ already I think that's an element of

2:13:32 ↗ this tonight and I don't know how you

2:13:33 ↗ untie that Gordian knot because it's a

2:13:35 ↗ fundamental aspect of where we're at on

2:13:37 ↗ st3 but it's out there and I think it's

2:13:39 ↗ an element of what you're hearing

2:13:40 ↗ tonight I'm taking some notes because I

2:13:42 ↗ think what I'm hearing is maybe the

2:13:44 ↗ council would like to support an

2:13:46 ↗ alternative but if they do it's going to

2:13:48 ↗ come heavily caveat IRB's councilmember

2:13:51 ↗ Goodman I just wanted to point out that

2:13:54 ↗ that was one potential shiny new object

2:13:58 ↗ because we hadn't gotten to that point

2:14:00 ↗ yet but the real shiny object was all

2:14:02 ↗ the transportation dollars and that pot

2:14:04 ↗ of money has become more and more

2:14:06 ↗ diluted with every single year and

2:14:09 ↗ there's huge competition for that money

2:14:11 ↗ I realize we can't build our way out of

2:14:13 ↗ the transportation problem by just

2:14:14 ↗ building new roads but what's left you

2:14:17 ↗ know what what gets distributed is

2:14:19 ↗ monies for huge new projects and some

2:14:24 ↗ you know a ton of our size doesn't

2:14:27 ↗ always have a huge project that we can

2:14:31 ↗ compete for so I I stated that concern

2:14:35 ↗ in 2013 when we were making this

2:14:39 ↗ decision about the center and within a

2:14:42 ↗ year there was talk at SCA about

2:14:45 ↗ competition for transportation dollars

2:14:47 ↗ which has come true so you know it's I

2:14:52 ↗ feel similar to tole I'm just kind of

2:14:54 ↗ torn because of the difference between

2:14:57 ↗ paper and projections and realities

2:15:04 ↗ Chris or Mariah would you like to weigh

2:15:07 ↗ in I think I've weighed which was help

2:15:12 ↗ me out I can't support you either one or

2:15:15 ↗ two I could support saying we think the

2:15:18 ↗ third option is is a non-starter but

2:15:22 ↗ there's not enough data that's been

2:15:23 ↗ presented even in the is that would

2:15:25 ↗ would draw a clear distinction

2:15:28 ↗ I mind between 1 & 2 for this city and I

2:15:30 ↗ I represent this city first ok Mariah I

2:15:35 ↗ would I haven't really changed where

2:15:38 ↗ where I was at before I I feel like

2:15:41 ↗ we're choosing between 1 & 2 and those

2:15:44 ↗ would be the best options to look at and

2:15:46 ↗ I'm leaning toward transit I think that

2:15:49 ↗ we have a lot of outstanding questions

2:15:51 ↗ and I do feel that no we we really do

2:15:57 ↗ have Sound Transit you know out there I

2:16:01 ↗ feel like the the definition that we

2:16:04 ↗ talked about earlier and my question

2:16:06 ↗ around that I think that that's really

2:16:07 ↗ important and I think that I'm hoping

2:16:11 ↗ that that is discussed going forward but

2:16:14 ↗ I think we need more information between

2:16:16 ↗ 1 & 2 I'm still leaning toward - oh this

2:16:21 ↗ is polling of all 7 of you my notes show

2:16:25 ↗ that 4 of you aren't strongly wing and

2:16:29 ↗ in selecting a one two or three Dahmer's

2:16:32 ↗ saying it's not a three but I'm hearing

2:16:34 ↗ from four of you that it's not

2:16:35 ↗ absolutely a one or two so how and what

2:16:39 ↗ do we want to do with our opportunity to

2:16:41 ↗ comment at this point in time we want to

2:16:44 ↗ write a letter and throw a few

2:16:47 ↗ suggestions out there do we want to

2:16:49 ↗ write a letter talking about not

2:16:50 ↗ supporting three we want to then say

2:16:54 ↗ that 1 & 2 could be an option but

2:16:56 ↗ there's not enough information because

2:16:57 ↗ there the following unanswered questions

2:17:02 ↗ come from that present right that's my

2:17:05 ↗ own volition

2:17:06 ↗ oh well it's GMTV

2:17:11 ↗ thank you first a comment I wanted to

2:17:14 ↗ make real quickly I appreciate the both

2:17:17 ↗ vicki and mentioning that the other

2:17:21 ↗ environmental impacts that are out there

2:17:23 ↗ those those are pretty significant about

2:17:26 ↗ less land development less impervious

2:17:28 ↗ surface actually less redevelopment

2:17:32 ↗ which actually improves stormwater if

2:17:34 ↗ you do more

2:17:35 ↗ development those numbers are very

2:17:36 ↗ important for environmental factors that

2:17:39 ↗ are also we don't have them all

2:17:41 ↗ represented in our packet tonight but

2:17:43 ↗ those are key parts of the EIS so

2:17:45 ↗ there's that I think you're it's

2:17:48 ↗ important for me as as a so I've got two

2:17:51 ↗ hats to wear right on the GM PV and this

2:17:55 ↗ absolutely is a four County question in

2:17:59 ↗ front of us as it is at the same time

2:18:01 ↗ you know having to look at okay what

2:18:04 ↗ would be the impact for our own city

2:18:05 ↗ what we think would be the best and and

2:18:08 ↗ so for me at a regional level it's

2:18:11 ↗ actually it's easy for me at a regional

2:18:14 ↗ level I think it goes really well what

2:18:17 ↗ was said earlier about listen we're

2:18:19 ↗ planning on a we're planning on an

2:18:21 ↗ infrastructure investment let's get the

2:18:23 ↗ most leverage out of that and that is

2:18:25 ↗ the folk that is the primary reason and

2:18:27 ↗ I think the EIS does show that in many

2:18:31 ↗ ways displacement is a little bit worse

2:18:33 ↗ around option number two but and on

2:18:36 ↗ balance there's a lot of advantages over

2:18:38 ↗ the other alternatives so I think at a

2:18:40 ↗ regional level you know that's I can I

2:18:43 ↗ can align myself with that easily but

2:18:45 ↗ before and I look at the city and I

2:18:48 ↗ think about you know comments I've heard

2:18:50 ↗ here tonight I think you know would help

2:18:55 ↗ me the most if there was a regional kind

2:18:57 ↗ of read and then there was but yeah but

2:18:59 ↗ we have these concerns about our city

2:19:00 ↗ and then what that allows me to do as as

2:19:03 ↗ I work with my peers and SCA in that

2:19:06 ↗ caucus and as I work with staff from and

2:19:08 ↗ other members of GMP B and also at PSR C

2:19:10 ↗ is to make those case those points

2:19:13 ↗ everybody comes and kind of makes their

2:19:14 ↗ own case for their own whether it be a

2:19:16 ↗ city or a county or some other entity

2:19:18 ↗ that they represent and that's that's

2:19:20 ↗ really important I had before coming in

2:19:23 ↗ here I felt this thing about these our

2:19:27 ↗ transit centers being included in

2:19:28 ↗ high-capacity transit stations I thought

2:19:30 ↗ that was a really important thing to

2:19:31 ↗ battle for and I think there's some

2:19:33 ↗ support for that but if there's more

2:19:35 ↗ along to so Marylou to your question

2:19:38 ↗ this you know you know you know a

2:19:41 ↗ statement a not in favor of three and

2:19:43 ↗ unsure about one or two

2:19:46 ↗ you know I if if that was very clear

2:19:50 ↗ about potential concerns about what the

2:19:57 ↗ impact may be to Issaquah and B that

2:20:01 ↗ would be most helpful because this is

2:20:05 ↗ the question in front us tonight is

2:20:07 ↗ picking between three growth strategies

2:20:09 ↗ and then a law that work in the policy

2:20:12 ↗ development and there are many hundred

2:20:15 ↗ different partners hundreds of policies

2:20:17 ↗ that we're working through those are

2:20:19 ↗ really is what's going to shape what

2:20:20 ↗ happens on the ground in terms of equity

2:20:23 ↗ and environment and and distribution and

2:20:28 ↗ all the other factors that are measured

2:20:31 ↗ in in the EIS so so very if there was

2:20:35 ↗ specific concerns about option one or

2:20:37 ↗ two that could be included I think that

2:20:40 ↗ would be most views useful now because

2:20:44 ↗ of the ongoing shaping of the policies

2:20:47 ↗ that's going to be taking course over in

2:20:50 ↗ the May and June time frames

2:20:51 ↗ I can't suppose it works so I think I

2:20:59 ↗ think I think something similar I think

2:21:02 ↗ generally what we're hearing is that

2:21:04 ↗ there is broadly speaking of the three

2:21:08 ↗ options and interest in the transit

2:21:10 ↗ focused but with a number of specific

2:21:12 ↗ caveats I think it's important to

2:21:15 ↗ articulate those because you've heard a

2:21:17 ↗ bunch of different ones from from the

2:21:18 ↗ seven up on the dais I think that

2:21:20 ↗ becomes then talking points as Paul

2:21:23 ↗ mentions for GM PB in GM PC and and sort

2:21:27 ↗ of puts our stake in the ground as to

2:21:28 ↗ where our concerns are I think it's

2:21:30 ↗ important to consider putting teeth into

2:21:33 ↗ that conversation because it's like so

2:21:36 ↗ what right if you say okay you know go

2:21:39 ↗ with transit focused option okay fine

2:21:41 ↗ get on board and then you're on board I

2:21:43 ↗ think it's important to talk about that

2:21:45 ↗ if our concerns are realized right if if

2:21:50 ↗ if light rail doesn't come to Issaquah

2:21:53 ↗ if we don't get transportation dollars

2:21:55 ↗ to councilmember Goodman's point you're

2:21:57 ↗ gonna see that's gonna have implications

2:21:58 ↗ politically

2:21:59 ↗ in this area I think it's gonna cause a

2:22:01 ↗ concern around the urban growth or the

2:22:05 ↗ growth Management Act around the urban

2:22:06 ↗ growth boundary line around support

2:22:09 ↗ regionally for transit initiatives

2:22:10 ↗ around support for tax initiatives

2:22:13 ↗ broadly I think this area supported st3

2:22:16 ↗ because we believe the vision of st3 and

2:22:19 ↗ I think if something comes along next

2:22:20 ↗ time and there's fear and certainty in

2:22:22 ↗ doubt it won't support it and people in

2:22:24 ↗ this area are successors if it all

2:22:26 ↗ breaks and we don't get transit dollars

2:22:28 ↗ and we don't get Light Rail our

2:22:30 ↗ successors will say open up fall city

2:22:32 ↗ open up Preston you know and that would

2:22:35 ↗ be super super bad so so I think we I

2:22:40 ↗ think you know I don't know how

2:22:42 ↗ everybody feels but I think there was a

2:22:43 ↗ general consensus towards transit focus

2:22:45 ↗ but we articulated our concerns and we

2:22:46 ↗ say if these concerns are realized these

2:22:49 ↗ are the things we're worried about happy

2:22:50 ↗ thank you that's very helpful

2:22:52 ↗ councilmember Goodman and then deputy

2:22:55 ↗ council attendant pity council president

2:22:58 ↗ batiste and I'd also like to encourage

2:23:00 ↗ you please to give me more of those

2:23:02 ↗ caveats if you have them I've noted the

2:23:04 ↗ ones that comes to President Monson

2:23:05 ↗ we're gonna thanks I like that idea I

2:23:08 ↗ would be in favor and would suggest

2:23:12 ↗ potentially I am indicating the

2:23:17 ↗ council's support for alternative to do

2:23:24 ↗ to the regional benefits but that the

2:23:27 ↗ council wasn't unanimous on supporting

2:23:34 ↗ an alternative or because they had had

2:23:37 ↗ numerous concerns about the direct

2:23:39 ↗ impacts to Issaquah and then I would

2:23:41 ↗ agree with council president marks on

2:23:44 ↗ the several internal impacts and

2:23:48 ↗ concerns that he mentioned I don't have

2:23:51 ↗ any more okay thank you

2:23:53 ↗ if you can't specificity so I feel like

2:23:56 ↗ our conversation is evolving and after

2:23:59 ↗ listening to accounts remember winter

2:24:01 ↗ Stein and talking about going back to

2:24:04 ↗ have this conversation I think it's

2:24:07 ↗ important that we are giving some

2:24:10 ↗ definition to how we're feeling even

2:24:13 ↗ though we still have those concerns and

2:24:16 ↗ from an environmental perspective and

2:24:19 ↗ looking this regionally I think that

2:24:21 ↗ this makes sense in terms of going down

2:24:24 ↗ the pathway of the transit option number

2:24:28 ↗ two and I do like the ideas that council

2:24:33 ↗ president Mart's brought up in terms of

2:24:35 ↗ just putting some teeth in there and and

2:24:37 ↗ I would like there to be a discussion

2:24:40 ↗ around the language that I pointed out

2:24:42 ↗ earlier

2:24:46 ↗ that's member Walsh so my concerns

2:24:49 ↗ around the transit focused growth

2:24:52 ↗ alternative are whether there is a

2:24:59 ↗ whether the assumptions around the

2:25:01 ↗ definition of the HCT communities is as

2:25:05 ↗ solid as it could be and whether the in

2:25:11 ↗ my mind the core cities have a lot of

2:25:13 ↗ the same infrastructure and transit

2:25:18 ↗ stations and hubs that the HCT

2:25:22 ↗ communities do and are more built up so

2:25:26 ↗ I'm wondering whether the data behind

2:25:31 ↗ that are the assumptions on that are

2:25:35 ↗ solid and if that means there would

2:25:37 ↗ actually be more population in the core

2:25:40 ↗ cities

2:25:46 ↗ others council member ray or hunt and so

2:25:56 ↗ one caveat that was mentioned but I just

2:25:58 ↗ wanted to make sure it was noted was

2:26:00 ↗ this displacement it seems to be one of

2:26:02 ↗ the few one of the few negatives on a

2:26:06 ↗ large scale that is associated with the

2:26:08 ↗ transit-oriented option there so I would

2:26:13 ↗ like to and I and in the full

2:26:16 ↗ documentation of the draft supplemental

2:26:19 ↗ environmental impact statement there is

2:26:21 ↗ some lists there's a list

2:26:24 ↗ it's pretty long actually of mitigation

2:26:27 ↗ measures so things that cities can do to

2:26:30 ↗ to avoid that outcome which i think is

2:26:34 ↗ helpful but i still think it should be

2:26:35 ↗ raised because it is potentially

2:26:37 ↗ important so that would be one one

2:26:40 ↗ caveat and one concern but again

2:26:43 ↗ environmentally it seems best option for

2:26:45 ↗ the region thank you let's remember ray

2:26:49 ↗ i don't really have anything dad okay

2:26:54 ↗ councillor Goodman um I was wondering if

2:26:58 ↗ um Council will have an opportunity to

2:27:00 ↗ review that before it goes out and

2:27:06 ↗ wondering I think maybe their only

2:27:09 ↗ opportunity if we were gonna do that

2:27:11 ↗ would be the 23rd if we even have a

2:27:12 ↗ video hall meeting or wins let's do the

2:27:15 ↗ 29th okay we had not built that into the

2:27:23 ↗ timeline to have another step back with

2:27:26 ↗ Council I think as we had set this up

2:27:29 ↗ coming to you over this month we had

2:27:31 ↗ said this would be the opportunity where

2:27:33 ↗ we take that input and then we would do

2:27:35 ↗ our very best to convey that to PSR C by

2:27:40 ↗ the end of the month we had not

2:27:41 ↗ anticipated sharing a draft and seeking

2:27:44 ↗ comment on that

2:27:49 ↗ are your comments over wash can we also

2:27:54 ↗ mention in there I think one of the

2:27:55 ↗ concerns that we've heard is the sense

2:27:58 ↗ of the growth that we have already taken

2:28:00 ↗ in and if this is meant to build out the

2:28:05 ↗ potential population numbers that we're

2:28:07 ↗ going to be expected to accommodate by

2:28:10 ↗ 2050 that we don't want to see this as a

2:28:14 ↗ reset of the day going forward we're

2:28:19 ↗ gonna be expected to take on the 30%

2:28:22 ↗ growth that this anticipates without

2:28:25 ↗ looking at that historical sense is

2:28:29 ↗ immense I would quantify that a little

2:28:32 ↗ further and it's and suggest that they

2:28:35 ↗ explicitly look at how much cities have

2:28:37 ↗ how close they've come to hitting their

2:28:40 ↗ 2040 targets when considering 2050

2:28:43 ↗ targets and cities that have done more

2:28:48 ↗ towards their 2040 targets should get a

2:28:50 ↗ little bit more relief towards the 2050

2:28:51 ↗ targets Thank You councilmember

2:28:56 ↗ understand I want to comment about that

2:28:57 ↗ I think I think I thank you for that

2:29:00 ↗ point that plays directly into I think

2:29:03 ↗ some of the policy formation that we're

2:29:05 ↗ doing because we this is this is setting

2:29:09 ↗ what they call the they call them NPP's

2:29:13 ↗ you know what that stands for I forget

2:29:14 ↗ it's it's the multi County planning

2:29:16 ↗ policies and that idea of because that

2:29:22 ↗ this is coming in the future right I'm

2:29:24 ↗ not sure what year in the future where

2:29:26 ↗ that were we'll get new numbers and you

2:29:28 ↗ guys will the county will get its

2:29:29 ↗ allegation the city will then each city

2:29:32 ↗ will be asked ok what numbers are you

2:29:33 ↗ gonna take that process you know we have

2:29:37 ↗ a chance to formulate a policy in this

2:29:39 ↗ vision document to give guidance to that

2:29:41 ↗ process which could be a way of allowing

2:29:44 ↗ a city to take credit for past growth in

2:29:48 ↗ and above their allocation I don't think

2:29:51 ↗ that's part of the formula today but

2:29:52 ↗ that's what I just heard I just think

2:29:53 ↗ that's really good input thank you

2:29:56 ↗ I know this is silly time to be having a

2:29:58 ↗ question but I have a question so is

2:30:00 ↗ it's a quad-core City or if we have

2:30:02 ↗ sound transit are we a high-capacity

2:30:04 ↗ transit community or are we both so my

2:30:08 ↗ understanding is we are a core city HCT

2:30:11 ↗ is a place that's not currently a core

2:30:16 ↗ city but has like a existing or future

2:30:20 ↗ rail station or potentially a ferry

2:30:23 ↗ terminal and so the the idea is right

2:30:28 ↗ now they're kind of off the radar and

2:30:29 ↗ the idea is these things actually have

2:30:33 ↗ infrastructure to support more growth

2:30:35 ↗ and so that's why they're jumping the

2:30:38 ↗ way they are in the forecast that makes

2:30:41 ↗ sense now it's perfect thanks cute yeah

2:30:45 ↗ councilmember Goodman if you want to

2:30:47 ↗ look that up councilmember right it's on

2:30:49 ↗ page 81 of the draft SC is it defines

2:30:54 ↗ exactly which communities are which

2:30:57 ↗ great thank you any other comments we're

2:31:04 ↗ writing a letter we are saying that we

2:31:07 ↗ do not believe alternative 3 is the best

2:31:10 ↗ for the region that generally the

2:31:13 ↗ council is supportive of option 2 with

2:31:18 ↗ about five or six caveats that talk

2:31:21 ↗ specifically about Issaquah concerns

2:31:24 ↗ also I I didn't know Vicki it's not a

2:31:26 ↗ caveat but I thought you wanted us to

2:31:28 ↗ put in there and that it's a

2:31:29 ↗ environmentally it is the most solid one

2:31:32 ↗ environmentally so plus on it not just a

2:31:36 ↗ concern that we might have with it but

2:31:37 ↗ that's a rationale to go for it and the

2:31:41 ↗ displacement is I believe the region's

2:31:43 ↗ what I have here so that's a regional

2:31:45 ↗ nice across Pacific right right

2:31:48 ↗ is there anything else anybody wants to

2:31:51 ↗ add okay can I just make one comment

2:31:56 ↗ Mary really appreciate it you know it's

2:31:58 ↗ it's it's really been it's kind of hard

2:32:01 ↗ for me to be on that council when when

2:32:03 ↗ members from the King County Council or

2:32:05 ↗ the Seattle Council or Pierce County

2:32:08 ↗ councillor Snohomish County counts all

2:32:09 ↗ these bigger organizations city of

2:32:11 ↗ Bremerton see if ever it all show up and

2:32:13 ↗ everybody every representative shows up

2:32:15 ↗ with a packet of information they've got

2:32:17 ↗ four or ten pages of something that that

2:32:20 ↗ maybe multiple staff people spend a lot

2:32:23 ↗ of time on and they've got all this

2:32:24 ↗ research behind them and and it's tough

2:32:27 ↗ for a smaller cities we talk about this

2:32:29 ↗ all the time is like wow I'm jealous

2:32:32 ↗ that you have you've got that much many

2:32:34 ↗ resources behind you can get you that

2:32:36 ↗ and and then keith has done a great job

2:32:38 ↗ in helping me as much as possible it is

2:32:40 ↗ tougher for smaller cities like us we

2:32:43 ↗ don't have the same resources as some of

2:32:44 ↗ the other players but this I envision

2:32:47 ↗ what this letter is going to be exactly

2:32:49 ↗ that kind of vehicle to give us you

2:32:52 ↗ maybe more influence than then we've had

2:32:54 ↗ before just because I mean this is a big

2:32:57 ↗ heavy lift for this organization to do

2:32:59 ↗ we spend a lot of time on this we just

2:33:00 ↗ can't afford to do it like every single

2:33:02 ↗ month for what's on the docket there so

2:33:04 ↗ I do really appreciate it and I think

2:33:06 ↗ this is a good this is a good time as

2:33:08 ↗ any to have spent this much of our city

2:33:10 ↗ time and resources on such an important

2:33:12 ↗ topic we meet at all in almost every

2:33:15 ↗ month we have something that's really

2:33:16 ↗ important but and and but I'm glad to be

2:33:19 ↗ able to to bring this whatever this

2:33:21 ↗ letter final form is it's going to be

2:33:23 ↗ very helpful thank you thank you any

2:33:26 ↗ other comments okay we'll move to good

2:33:30 ↗ of the order do council members have

2:33:32 ↗ anything for good of the order of a few

2:33:34 ↗ meeting updates that's it hey on April

2:33:42 ↗ 16th we will be having a special council

2:33:44 ↗ workshop at 5 p.m. the City Council will

2:33:47 ↗ be discussing the draft citywide

2:33:49 ↗ strategic plan the meeting will be held

2:33:51 ↗ in the Pickering Room it's City Hall

2:33:52 ↗ northwest and that's tomorrow on April

2:33:55 ↗ 23rd council committee of the whole will

2:33:57 ↗ be meeting at 6:30 p.m.

2:33:59 ↗ discussing the draft citywide strategic

2:34:02 ↗ plan and the cow will be held in council

2:34:06 ↗ chambers thank you

2:34:07 ↗ on may 6th at the regular council

2:34:10 ↗ meeting will be held here in chambers at

2:34:11 ↗ 7 p.m. and the potential agenda items

2:34:14 ↗ are affordable housing proclamation and

2:34:16 ↗ city wide strategic plan so far that is

2:34:19 ↗ all we have

2:34:20 ↗ there will be no executive session at

2:34:24 ↗ the end of our meeting and so we are

2:34:26 ↗ adjourned

2:34:27 ↗ at 9:35

2:34:43 ↗ 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 (12)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Paul Winterstein

Scott Behrbaum, Police Chief

Shannon Ragonesi, Attorney

Jeff Dunbar, Attorney

Kari Lester, Attorney

Zach Lell, Attorney