Development Commission · Thursday, February 10, 2022 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Dec 2, 2021

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Staff Liaison Lucy Sloman, Land About Development Manager Created in 1983, this commission reviews all Email Lucy Sloman land use actions requiring a Level 3 review. The Commission further serves as an advisory Regular Members board to the City Council on land use actions 2022 – Michael Brennan requiring council approval (Level 5 review). 2022 – Richard Sanford 2022 – Richard Sowa The appearance of fairness doctrine prohibits 2023 – Patty Dillon Development Commission members and City 2023 – Brooke Shore Council members from discussing the merit of 2024 – Kevin Price specific land use development applications 2024 – Arthur Schulte outside of the formal public meeting process. Citizens, however, may discuss any issue with Alternate Members the City's Development Services

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 20, 2022

packet pp.5–10

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Dec 2, 2021

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. -Thursday, January 20, 2022

Minutes of January 27, 2022

packet pp.11–16

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Feb 7, 2022

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES Special Joint Meeting PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. -Thursday, January 27, 2022

5. REPORTS

Council Updates

Received · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.51

▶ Watch from 1:43:39 Open packet at p.51 ↗

Staff report:

2022 Development Commission Schedule (tentative) (updated 12/14/2021)

2755 segments .txt ↗

1:29 ↗ all right welcome to the policy and

1:30 ↗ planning commission meeting uh for

1:32 ↗ february 10th

1:34 ↗ call to order tonight i'd like to uh

1:38 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

1:39 ↗ meeting i'd like to start by providing

1:41 ↗ some guidelines we have participants

1:43 ↗ attending by computer and others who may

1:45 ↗ be attending by phone

1:47 ↗ for all meeting attendees who wish to

1:49 ↗ speak

1:50 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

1:51 ↗ frequently state your name each time

1:54 ↗ before speaking

1:55 ↗ get your microphone when not speaking

1:57 ↗ and if having technical difficulties

1:59 ↗ please join the meeting using a

2:01 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

2:03 ↗ tablet

2:04 ↗ or the call-in information in the invite

2:08 ↗ and we're going to go ahead and have

2:10 ↗ two sets of attendance tonight uh

2:12 ↗ kristin please go ahead and call for ppc

2:15 ↗ and lucy for

2:16 ↗ development commission

2:19 ↗ all right mr bader

2:21 ↗ here

2:22 ↗ mr milligan

2:24 ↗ here

2:25 ↗ good to see you

2:27 ↗ uh mr lewis

2:30 ↗ here

2:31 ↗ commissioner fall

2:34 ↗ cheerful

2:35 ↗ and commissioner zaragoza

2:37 ↗ here

2:38 ↗ and then commissioner's voice and

2:40 ↗ monahan have excused absences this

2:42 ↗ evening

2:48 ↗ good evening development commission um

2:51 ↗ chair brennan

2:52 ↗ here

2:54 ↗ uh commissioner sanford

2:57 ↗ here

2:58 ↗ commissioner soha here

3:01 ↗ commissioner dylan

3:05 ↗ we'll see if she's having trouble

3:06 ↗ joining um commissioner shore

3:09 ↗ i see it may be having technical issues

3:12 ↗ so we'll check in with her when she's

3:14 ↗ back

3:15 ↗ commissioner price

3:17 ↗ here commissioner ikeda

3:22 ↗ maybe also having problems and

3:24 ↗ commissioner

3:26 ↗ morgan

3:28 ↗ and for the development commission i

3:31 ↗ just wanted to let you know

3:33 ↗ um that commissioner arthur schulte has

3:36 ↗ submitted his resignation

3:39 ↗ so he won't be joining us anymore

3:41 ↗ unfortunately

3:42 ↗ but now i hope to be able to confirm

3:45 ↗ commissioner shore's presence

3:48 ↗ i'm here can you hear me yes

3:51 ↗ okay

3:52 ↗ thank you

3:54 ↗ all right thank you lucy thank you

3:56 ↗ kristen

3:57 ↗ uh and then i'm going to go ahead and go

3:58 ↗ through the tonight's agenda and

4:00 ↗ structure

4:02 ↗ we're going to start off with general

4:03 ↗ public comment

4:05 ↗ and then we'll have presentations on the

4:09 ↗ [Music]

4:10 ↗ code update memo for circulation and for

4:12 ↗ parking each topic will stop and have a

4:16 ↗ for commissioner questions

4:18 ↗ we'll open up to public comment again

4:20 ↗ for each topic

4:22 ↗ and then we'll conclude with

4:23 ↗ commissioner discussion

4:27 ↗ excuse me we do need to approve the

4:28 ↗ minutes for january 27th january 20th

4:30 ↗ and january 27th first

4:32 ↗ okay

4:34 ↗ and

4:36 ↗ here

4:50 ↗ okay and we're going to go ahead and

4:51 ↗ prove the meeting minutes for january

4:53 ↗ 20th

4:55 ↗ are there do i hear of any changes or

4:58 ↗ corrections that need to be made for the

5:00 ↗ january 20th

5:01 ↗ meeting minutes

5:04 ↗ okay hearing none

5:06 ↗ meeting minutes for january 20th is

5:07 ↗ approved

5:08 ↗ and the meeting minutes for january 27th

5:11 ↗ are there any corrections or changes

5:13 ↗ that need to be made to those

5:17 ↗ okay and hearing none uh the january

5:19 ↗ 27th meeting minutes are approved as

5:22 ↗ well and i will go ahead and hand the

5:25 ↗ floor over to kristen and lucy for their

5:27 ↗ presentations tonight

5:29 ↗ actually are you going to do public

5:30 ↗ start with public comment as you

5:31 ↗ mentioned okay just about to say that

5:33 ↗ yes okay i'm going to open up for

5:35 ↗ general public comment

5:37 ↗ any members of the public that like to

5:38 ↗ speak

5:42 ↗ if you'd like to speak please raise your

5:44 ↗ hand or press star 3.

5:51 ↗ there's no one that would like to speak

5:52 ↗ at this time

5:54 ↗ okay excellent i'm going to go ahead and

5:55 ↗ head and hand the floor over to you for

5:58 ↗ presentations

6:00 ↗ and that's going to be steven padua

6:06 ↗ hi good evening everyone kristen could

6:08 ↗ you uh

6:09 ↗ give me

6:12 ↗ rights to share my screen

6:18 ↗ well she does that um thank you everyone

6:21 ↗ for having me tonight my name is tim

6:22 ↗ padua i'm the long-range fighting

6:24 ↗ manager for the city and and i'm going

6:26 ↗ to be going over the

6:28 ↗ parking circulation circulation sections

6:30 ↗ of title 18 project update and

6:33 ↗ these are the last gaps analysis items

6:36 ↗ that will be brought to the commission

6:37 ↗ as we shift our focus into the next

6:39 ↗ phase

6:40 ↗ um you all have done

6:42 ↗ splendid work for

6:44 ↗ for the last year

6:46 ↗ to go through several sections and now

6:48 ↗ we're going to be shifting the focus

6:50 ↗ looking more specifically at actually uh

6:52 ↗ draft code changes um

6:55 ↗ now now i have rights i'm going to share

6:57 ↗ my screen

7:00 ↗ can everybody see my presentation now

7:05 ↗ yes

7:06 ↗ okay great thank you

7:10 ↗ doesn't say i was going to be i'm going

7:12 ↗ to be discussing the parking circulation

7:13 ↗ sections of the title 18 project update

7:16 ↗ and

7:17 ↗ while we typically

7:18 ↗ have talked about these two topics uh

7:21 ↗ kind of the combined topics they are

7:23 ↗ separate topics

7:24 ↗ uh we'll be referencing separately and

7:27 ↗ different code sections

7:29 ↗ that we'll be talking about as i go

7:30 ↗ through the gaps analysis

7:33 ↗ and

7:33 ↗ due to the nature of the code sections

7:36 ↗ staff held additional affinity groups

7:38 ↗ discussions which is a little different

7:40 ↗ than some of the other topics you might

7:41 ↗ have discussed so on january 5th we

7:43 ↗ hosted a joint subcommittee meeting with

7:45 ↗ the members of the economic economic

7:47 ↗ vitality commission and the

7:49 ↗ transportation advisory board and on

7:51 ↗ january 6 we facilitated discussion with

7:54 ↗ our vision partners group as well as

7:56 ↗ interested property owners and then on

7:58 ↗ january 18th we facilitate a discussion

8:00 ↗ with several developers and master

8:02 ↗ builders with projects in our areas and

8:04 ↗ i'll talk a little more about that in

8:06 ↗ the presentation as we go through

8:08 ↗ discussion and getting feedback from you

8:10 ↗ all on these topics but if you haven't

8:13 ↗ read through the meeting summaries that

8:14 ↗ were part of tonight's materials i

8:16 ↗ encourage you to do so there

8:18 ↗ each of the groups had

8:20 ↗ different levels of expertise and

8:22 ↗ experience when it comes to parking and

8:23 ↗ circulation which made for great

8:25 ↗ conversations with staff

8:28 ↗ so similar to the other topics that have

8:30 ↗ been brought to the commission the

8:31 ↗ general approaches for parking

8:33 ↗ circulation are

8:34 ↗ consistent with several of the project

8:36 ↗ goals which aim to simplify and

8:37 ↗ streamline code

8:39 ↗ as we go through each area staff will

8:41 ↗ incorporate modern best practices and

8:44 ↗ provide level detail that is more

8:45 ↗ appropriate for the land users

8:47 ↗ development process

8:49 ↗ as as part of this process staff will

8:51 ↗ also look at updating the engineering

8:53 ↗ and similar

8:55 ↗ detail specifications

8:56 ↗ that way we maintain long-term

8:58 ↗ consistency with what code requirements

9:01 ↗ are going to be changing too

9:04 ↗ so as chair

9:06 ↗ paul mentioned earlier we'll be going

9:08 ↗ through each section separately and then

9:10 ↗ and then uh stop for discussion with

9:12 ↗ each of the commissions

9:16 ↗ and i'll be starting with circulation

9:20 ↗ so you've heard this multiple times

9:21 ↗ before and it's it's no different for

9:23 ↗ circulation but the city has gone

9:25 ↗ through multiple phases of code

9:26 ↗ amendments which has created multiple

9:28 ↗ layers to the land development process

9:32 ↗ yeah the general city code was specific

9:34 ↗ and less specific language for

9:36 ↗ circulation design and construction

9:38 ↗ and then you have added layers of

9:40 ↗ replacement regulations with the central

9:43 ↗ standards

9:44 ↗ uh with the goal of supporting growth

9:46 ↗ through central issaquah

9:47 ↗ something that's a little more unique to

9:49 ↗ circulation and topics like it is we

9:51 ↗ have the public works engineering

9:53 ↗ standards which provide further guidance

9:55 ↗ on design and construction that kind of

9:57 ↗ come to play during this code update

10:00 ↗ more recently the city adopted the

10:02 ↗ mobility master plan which provides

10:04 ↗ updated policies on where walking and

10:06 ↗ bicycling facilities should be located

10:08 ↗ throughout the city and this this will

10:10 ↗ also influence some of the code update

10:12 ↗ for circulation

10:17 ↗ so for the circulation section of code

10:20 ↗ these are the general methods uh staff

10:22 ↗ are approaching the update

10:24 ↗ so the long range planning group will be

10:25 ↗ working closely with public works and

10:27 ↗ park staff to consolidate engineering

10:29 ↗ specifications related to design and

10:31 ↗ construction and items related to safety

10:34 ↗ into the public works engineering

10:36 ↗ standards and referencing that in code

10:38 ↗ similar to other topics being covered in

10:41 ↗ this project will be consolidating code

10:43 ↗ to simplified sections and relevant to

10:46 ↗ circulation we'll be updating the

10:47 ↗ roadways cross sections identified in

10:50 ↗ code to be consistent with the recently

10:52 ↗ adopted plans like the mobility master

10:54 ↗ plan and that way it's simpler to use in

10:57 ↗ the land development process and easier

10:58 ↗ to enforce

11:02 ↗ now when we had the affinity groups

11:06 ↗ discussions

11:07 ↗ the topic of circulation did not have as

11:10 ↗ many

11:12 ↗ areas of concern

11:13 ↗ when we were preparing for the meetings

11:15 ↗ and so

11:16 ↗ the majority of questions focused at the

11:18 ↗ affinity group discussions were on

11:20 ↗ parking which will be the next topic

11:22 ↗ i'll talk about tonight but we did still

11:24 ↗ have a general conversation

11:26 ↗ about circulation to make sure that

11:28 ↗ we're we're not missing any any uh

11:31 ↗ issues or concerns as we go through this

11:33 ↗ project update

11:35 ↗ all groups agree that the consolidation

11:37 ↗ and the simplification of code is very

11:39 ↗ important and many mentioned it was long

11:41 ↗ overdue

11:43 ↗ additional comments were made that new

11:45 ↗ codes should be aligned with newly

11:46 ↗ adopted city plans like the mobility

11:48 ↗ master plan and the majority of

11:50 ↗ conversations with the affinity groups

11:52 ↗ focus more

11:54 ↗ on parking which i'll talk about in a

11:56 ↗ few minutes but this seemed to be an

11:58 ↗ area where both staff and affinity

11:59 ↗ groups felt that

12:02 ↗ the least amount of issues were

12:04 ↗ were

12:04 ↗ involved in the project update process

12:10 ↗ as noted in the staff member and here

12:12 ↗ tonight's materials

12:14 ↗ um items not being addressed as part of

12:16 ↗ the title 18 update project will be

12:18 ↗ added to the white board which will be

12:20 ↗ addressed at a future date following the

12:22 ↗ title 18 project update for circulation

12:25 ↗ two areas were identified as

12:28 ↗ items that the city will need to address

12:31 ↗ at another time

12:32 ↗ first is how transit facilities will be

12:34 ↗ designed and enforced in city code and

12:36 ↗ it's our intention to address this as

12:38 ↗ part of the transit study that the city

12:40 ↗ will be starting this year

12:42 ↗ the other area that we think we can

12:44 ↗ agree on is that

12:46 ↗ is how we'll be accommodating high

12:48 ↗ capacity transit like

12:49 ↗ light rail in the city in the future we

12:52 ↗ have not identified locations of light

12:54 ↗ rail tracks or stations

12:56 ↗ but once we do we'll need to address

12:58 ↗ this encode in terms of design and

13:00 ↗ construction as well as access to

13:02 ↗ transit and land use development around

13:04 ↗ light rail and the stations

13:06 ↗ that get identified

13:08 ↗ that way

13:09 ↗ we can complement the connected transit

13:12 ↗ service and the development around it

13:17 ↗ so now i'd like to stop and open the

13:18 ↗ floor for questions or comments about

13:20 ↗ circulation

13:22 ↗ the main

13:23 ↗ questions we have for you tonight are

13:25 ↗ there concerns or comments related to

13:27 ↗ the consolidation of these documents the

13:30 ↗ merging of the roadway classifications

13:32 ↗ in code or potentially alignment with

13:34 ↗ the mobility master plan

13:37 ↗ and trout share follow let me know if

13:39 ↗ you want me to turn off

13:41 ↗ stop sharing my screen for discussion

13:44 ↗ okay thanks go ahead and keep your

13:46 ↗ keep the screen up there because the

13:47 ↗ members can go ahead and see that for

13:49 ↗ questions

13:50 ↗ and if you have questions uh please ask

13:53 ↗ them in the chat window and i'll

13:56 ↗ mention you have a question and i'll go

13:57 ↗ ahead and call on you

14:05 ↗ and nina milligan has the first question

14:09 ↗ good evening stephen

14:11 ↗ it's fun to be working with you again uh

14:13 ↗ the previous slide about future

14:15 ↗ considerations regarding transit

14:16 ↗ facilities

14:17 ↗ um can you tell me what um what's the

14:20 ↗ definition of future

14:25 ↗ so in the development of the transit

14:27 ↗ study that we'll be starting this year

14:28 ↗ will

14:29 ↗ are wanting to identify

14:31 ↗ what the near-term or long-term changes

14:34 ↗ of our transit system should look like

14:36 ↗ to accommodate both our growth

14:39 ↗ as well as the potential as the

14:41 ↗ planned light rail that's going to be

14:43 ↗ coming into the city and so

14:46 ↗ when we look at

14:49 ↗ any potential changes to the system we

14:51 ↗ want to make sure that it's easier to

14:54 ↗ look at in code how that's going to be

14:56 ↗ accommodated by either new development

14:59 ↗ or in public projects

15:03 ↗ i'm sorry let me follow up um for

15:05 ↗ clarity then they and then there was

15:07 ↗ another part where

15:08 ↗ you mentioned that there's other stuff

15:10 ↗ that we won't do until after that

15:14 ↗ when is after that and can you kind of

15:17 ↗ recap

15:18 ↗ what that involves

15:20 ↗ well with with the development of the

15:23 ↗ transit study we're going to be looking

15:24 ↗ at kind of what this planned transit

15:26 ↗ network should look like or change to

15:28 ↗ over time

15:30 ↗ it's hard to say when a specified data

15:33 ↗ is because

15:35 ↗ we can do as much planning as we want

15:38 ↗ but sound transit is the ultimate

15:39 ↗ decider of where light whale will go and

15:42 ↗ they're not going to be ready for

15:43 ↗ discussion until at least

15:45 ↗ 2028

15:46 ↗ so we have a few years to start some

15:49 ↗ initial planning and prepare for those

15:51 ↗ discussions

15:52 ↗ but we really can't make any changes

15:55 ↗ until some of those decisions are are

15:58 ↗ decided with sound transit and even

16:01 ↗ washed out

16:02 ↗ after 2028

16:23 ↗ chair fall you're on me

16:26 ↗ okay sorry we're not supposed to be on

16:28 ↗ mute

16:29 ↗ uh and looks like we have a question

16:31 ↗ from uh commissioner brennan

16:36 ↗ thank you sheriff a quick question we

16:37 ↗ are talking about consolidation of

16:41 ↗ of the design standards and eliminating

16:43 ↗ redundancy

16:44 ↗ the the road profiles and um

16:47 ↗ design standards for you know sidewalk

16:49 ↗ widths three trees landscaping

16:51 ↗ requirements they create character

16:54 ↗ uh as well for certain parts of the city

16:57 ↗ are we talking about

16:58 ↗ kind of merging to kind of a more

17:00 ↗ consistent standard or

17:02 ↗ are we still going to be preserving

17:05 ↗ the character that comes with the road

17:07 ↗ profiles in different parts of the city

17:09 ↗ like the highlands or

17:12 ↗ like old town etc

17:17 ↗ thank you for the question so for for

17:18 ↗ consolidation with circulation

17:21 ↗ um

17:22 ↗ we are trying to move all the sections

17:24 ↗ of code to just one section of code

17:26 ↗ primarily for the road classifications

17:29 ↗ or the profiles where it's defined

17:31 ↗ characteristics that's something we're

17:33 ↗ preserving that's not that's not

17:35 ↗ something that we're looking to change

17:37 ↗ the only exception is with mobility

17:39 ↗ master plan it defined new policies on

17:42 ↗ where

17:42 ↗ certain walkway or bike facilities

17:45 ↗ should be going in the city so we'll be

17:46 ↗ updating those uh roadway profiles

17:50 ↗ to

17:51 ↗ be consistent with the what the mobility

17:52 ↗ master plan but the overall

17:55 ↗ characteristics that are defined for

17:57 ↗ neighborhoods is something that we're

17:58 ↗ preserving great thank you

18:05 ↗ thank you commissioner brennan and

18:07 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

18:11 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

18:12 ↗ lewis here uh thank you for the

18:14 ↗ presentation so far stephen uh it's nice

18:17 ↗ to have you in your new role this is the

18:18 ↗ first time you've been presenting to us

18:20 ↗ in your new role and it's a very fitting

18:22 ↗ one for you to be in front of us for

18:24 ↗ my only comment on this section is

18:25 ↗ really

18:26 ↗ as we consolidate these documents into a

18:28 ↗ single code

18:30 ↗ i feel like i sit from a very unique

18:31 ↗ position as somebody who used to sit on

18:33 ↗ the uvdc i'm very familiar with motorops

18:37 ↗ for instance in the highlands the

18:38 ↗ parking requirements of talus not

18:40 ↗ everybody is and we also um from the

18:43 ↗ planning policy commission standpoint we

18:44 ↗ have a lot of policy that has gone into

18:47 ↗ things like creating what you will now

18:49 ↗ be pulling into code from for instance

18:51 ↗ um bike racks right and having the

18:52 ↗ ability of bike parking

18:55 ↗ so when we come at this this few grove

18:58 ↗ us we see a lot of it i think it's going

19:00 ↗ to be very difficult

19:02 ↗ from somebody from the outside and

19:03 ↗ members of the public to necessarily be

19:05 ↗ reading the code and having it make

19:06 ↗ sense and i would just encourage that

19:09 ↗ when we do see draft documents that it

19:12 ↗ very clearly lays out

19:14 ↗ here's what the policies are here's what

19:17 ↗ we've had and this is why we're merging

19:19 ↗ it similar to the way that our documents

19:20 ↗ are kind of broken down for us with the

19:22 ↗ gaps analysis but really having a bit of

19:24 ↗ a background so that when people are

19:25 ↗ able to dive into the code it makes a

19:27 ↗ little bit more sense so that's my only

19:29 ↗ comment really is as we see it next time

19:32 ↗ to kind of taking a little more

19:33 ↗ painstaking effort to really um see how

19:36 ↗ the sauce is made for instance to be

19:38 ↗ able to say ah this is why this makes

19:40 ↗ sense it's because i'm able to pull this

19:41 ↗ from these different places to get our

19:43 ↗ end results so that's my only

19:45 ↗ encouragement on this particular section

19:48 ↗ thank you

19:51 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis i'm not

19:53 ↗ seeing any additional questions so

19:55 ↗ kristin let's go ahead and open it up

19:56 ↗ for public comment on this topic

20:07 ↗ i apologize i'm here i was having

20:09 ↗ trouble seeing my list um it looks like

20:11 ↗ connie morris connie morris

20:15 ↗ i'd like to speak by marsha connie i am

20:18 ↗ making you a panelist

20:21 ↗ and

20:22 ↗ you may speak

20:23 ↗ you are unmuted you can turn on your

20:25 ↗ camera

20:30 ↗ okay

20:32 ↗ start my video there we go got it so

20:36 ↗ it's good to know you've forgotten my

20:37 ↗ name that's always nice

20:40 ↗ hi i'm connie marsh i live up on squawk

20:43 ↗ um

20:46 ↗ and

20:49 ↗ so

20:52 ↗ uh a consolidation

20:55 ↗ in

20:56 ↗ to one area so that you can see it of

20:58 ↗ course makes sense but

21:01 ↗ the problems that you're

21:03 ↗ outlining that i guess you're trying to

21:06 ↗ fix are not the problems that

21:10 ↗ i have with the road

21:13 ↗ standards

21:14 ↗ and circulation so

21:16 ↗ um i'm going to tell you what they are

21:18 ↗ and maybe you're going to fix them

21:20 ↗ somewhere else

21:21 ↗ and

21:23 ↗ that is one

21:25 ↗ we have had huge difficulties with the

21:28 ↗ private sector building to

21:31 ↗ the public roads and there is no

21:34 ↗ particular public process

21:36 ↗ for

21:37 ↗ a community to input

21:40 ↗ into that project effectively when it

21:44 ↗ goes to development commission we say

21:46 ↗ it's outside of their purview uh there

21:50 ↗ this is not something that the

21:51 ↗ transportation advisory board considers

21:55 ↗ and so that basically leaves the

21:57 ↗ community out of

21:59 ↗ of

22:00 ↗ their own roads projects and the details

22:03 ↗ that they will live with every single

22:05 ↗ day when they are driving their cars

22:07 ↗ around those projects

22:08 ↗ so that

22:10 ↗ that that is a huge problem that does

22:12 ↗ not seem to be being addressed

22:15 ↗ here and similarly

22:17 ↗ our public roads

22:20 ↗ are uh

22:22 ↗ are considered

22:24 ↗ not zoned and so they have very few

22:27 ↗ rules for how they

22:30 ↗ have to go through any sort of process

22:32 ↗ within title 18 or any of our code

22:35 ↗ because they are not considered zoned

22:38 ↗ and so this leaves the building of

22:40 ↗ public roads and public facilities

22:44 ↗ just sort of

22:46 ↗ out there in the wind and and they they

22:50 ↗ use a tool kit that is is going to be

22:52 ↗ reviewed but it's not effective and so

22:55 ↗ the public has no consistency we have no

22:57 ↗ idea how these roads projects go through

23:00 ↗ publicly and privately and so then what

23:02 ↗ happens is when the community finally

23:04 ↗ gets their hands

23:06 ↗ on a rhodes project we're really testy

23:09 ↗ and then you know staff gets defensive

23:12 ↗ and we get grumpy and it's ugly so i

23:14 ↗ would like to solve that nut in some

23:16 ↗ much more elegant and effective way and

23:19 ↗ i don't know what that is but that's a

23:23 ↗ big nut to crack for me and then the

23:26 ↗ other one that we've had issues with

23:29 ↗ is

23:30 ↗ that whole thing about when can you not

23:33 ↗ use the standards and i don't care what

23:35 ↗ the standards are but sometimes i want

23:38 ↗ to keep the mature tree i don't want you

23:41 ↗ to cut down the trees so then you can

23:43 ↗ build a planter strip right that makes

23:46 ↗ no sense to me so

23:48 ↗ what types of languages are you going to

23:50 ↗ use or change or what criteria are you

23:52 ↗ going to use to decide when you don't

23:55 ↗ have to build your roads

23:58 ↗ or

23:59 ↗ mobility facilities to standard so those

24:03 ↗ are my my two

24:05 ↗ big issues that i would like to see

24:08 ↗ solved with this code update thank you

24:21 ↗ thank you connie is there anyone else

24:22 ↗ who would like to speak

24:30 ↗ no one else is raising their hand to

24:31 ↗ speak

24:37 ↗ all right all right

24:40 ↗ so i am going to go ahead and open this

24:43 ↗ up for

24:44 ↗ commissioner discussion

24:49 ↗ and are there any

24:51 ↗ are there any commissioners that would

24:53 ↗ like to make comments

25:05 ↗ okay and the first comment is from mel

25:07 ↗ morgan

25:08 ↗ commissioner morgan you have the floor

25:10 ↗ uh thank you chair fall i would like to

25:12 ↗ say that i i would agree with all the

25:14 ↗ steps that are being taken and i think

25:17 ↗ it would be

25:18 ↗ a great idea to have this all in one

25:20 ↗ place that

25:21 ↗ a developer can fully understand what

25:23 ↗ the needs are and

25:25 ↗ um including if

25:27 ↗ there is a way for any kind of variant

25:29 ↗ cities we saw a need for

25:31 ↗ bigger variants when we had a project

25:33 ↗ the brown bear car wash project last

25:35 ↗ week

25:36 ↗ and it

25:37 ↗ varies to the road standards it wasn't

25:39 ↗ ours to approve

25:41 ↗ but it made sense to do it so

25:44 ↗ again agree with what staff's doing

25:46 ↗ thank you

25:52 ↗ thank you commissioner morgan and

25:53 ↗ commissioner milligan you have the floor

25:56 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner

25:57 ↗ milligan here

25:59 ↗ and i too um echo

26:02 ↗ commissioner um morgan's comments i

26:05 ↗ really appreciate the work that's been

26:06 ↗ done and um

26:08 ↗ really very uh very little complaint i

26:10 ↗ think we're on the right track and

26:11 ↗ there's been a lot of um good um

26:14 ↗ expertise applied to these programs and

26:17 ↗ uh these this project i'm looking

26:19 ↗ forward to seeing the outcome of how

26:20 ↗ these things get consolidated and i'm

26:22 ↗ sure there's a lot of low-hanging fruit

26:24 ↗ so we're going to be delighted with

26:26 ↗ the results i i want to follow up a

26:28 ↗ little bit with um

26:30 ↗ with

26:31 ↗ mr padua about

26:34 ↗ preparing for in the timing of dealing

26:36 ↗ with sound transit and

26:39 ↗ we might have more to talk about in

26:41 ↗ parking but generally speaking because

26:43 ↗ of the way it was introduced before

26:46 ↗ is that it seems that we have some

26:49 ↗ things

26:50 ↗ that we could do in advance of sound

26:53 ↗ transit telling us what to do

26:55 ↗ that will help um chart a

26:58 ↗ a stronger course for is of our

27:00 ↗ issaquah's desires and what's important

27:03 ↗ to us rather than what's important to

27:04 ↗ sound transit being at the end of the

27:06 ↗ line we all know that this is a

27:08 ↗ challenge and uh and in fact it was mr

27:11 ↗ padua who took me to

27:13 ↗ redmond to learn about how therefore

27:16 ↗ planning

27:17 ↗ uh

27:18 ↗ helped to prevent

27:21 ↗ sound transit from taking over areas of

27:23 ↗ the city for their facilities that

27:26 ↗ redmond did not want them to

27:29 ↗ take over so i i think i hope that we

27:32 ↗ don't have just a blanket statement

27:33 ↗ saying hey we'll just do that later

27:36 ↗ i think we can see what's coming and and

27:38 ↗ i'd like to move some of that up earlier

27:42 ↗ i think that's just my main comment

27:44 ↗ about

27:46 ↗ circulation though i do want to

27:50 ↗ follow up on what connie marsh said

27:51 ↗ about

27:53 ↗ standards in road stands we're going to

27:54 ↗ talk about this again later with street

27:56 ↗ parking

27:57 ↗ but

27:59 ↗ it is

28:00 ↗ i'd like to learn more and i hope that

28:01 ↗ we will in the next presentation about

28:03 ↗ um

28:04 ↗ what are the standards in our our street

28:06 ↗ right away use for our circulation and

28:08 ↗ parking that we might need more

28:12 ↗ standards

28:14 ↗ that might be able to be held till the

28:16 ↗ next section so thank you cheerful

28:19 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and

28:24 ↗ i'm not seeing any additional comments i

28:26 ↗ would like to second what nina and mel

28:29 ↗ morgan has said

28:31 ↗ specifically about the parking and the

28:34 ↗ to connie's point i think is also very

28:36 ↗ important about the street standards

28:39 ↗ um so stephen are you do you feel

28:42 ↗ comfortable speaking to some of connie's

28:44 ↗ questions

28:49 ↗ yes so we'll go back to

28:52 ↗ my notes

28:56 ↗ from public comment yeah i can try and

28:59 ↗ um um start stephen and then maybe you

29:02 ↗ can fall in so what i heard cheerful um

29:05 ↗ were we need a process for um roads

29:09 ↗ public and private when i'm assuming it

29:11 ↗ these are things that don't don't go

29:13 ↗ through or don't have an associated land

29:16 ↗ use permit that is approved by a

29:18 ↗ development commission or has a public

29:20 ↗ process built into it so if it's a

29:22 ↗ standalone road or

29:25 ↗ an access

29:26 ↗ point that it there needs to be some

29:28 ↗ thoughtful process and public engagement

29:30 ↗ process for that

29:32 ↗ uh the other thing i think was um

29:35 ↗ a more robust and clear and transparent

29:38 ↗ process for deviations from adopted

29:40 ↗ standards for street frontage and and

29:43 ↗ having some guidance for

29:45 ↗ if the you know what that deviation

29:47 ↗ process looks like who makes the

29:48 ↗ decision but also what criteria is used

29:50 ↗ for

29:51 ↗ granting those deviations so i think

29:54 ↗ that those were good uh things that we

29:56 ↗ would take back in terms of as we draft

29:58 ↗ our code uh to to keep that in uh that

30:02 ↗ filter as we're going through a rewrite

30:05 ↗ yeah thank you minnie uh okay i am not

30:08 ↗ seeing additional comments so we're

30:11 ↗ gonna go ahead and bring it back to um

30:14 ↗ steven for the next section

30:17 ↗ we so there's one additional uh question

30:20 ↗ i actually want to pose to the

30:21 ↗ development commission um on the topic

30:24 ↗ of circulation because it's it's been a

30:25 ↗ topic of discussion about staff with

30:27 ↗ through block passages and i apologize i

30:29 ↗ didn't have that um added on my my

30:32 ↗ presentation but the question is with

30:35 ↗ the relevance of having

30:39 ↗ through block passages specific to

30:41 ↗ central isoqua or citywide because right

30:43 ↗ now the standards are not very clear on

30:48 ↗ where it should be required to have

30:49 ↗ through black passages

30:51 ↗ and when it shouldn't uh similar to what

30:54 ↗ was the comments that were made in

30:55 ↗ public comment

30:56 ↗ of

30:57 ↗ not having the right detail of when

30:59 ↗ you're not supposed to have something

31:00 ↗ constructed and right now we have

31:02 ↗ through block passages being required in

31:04 ↗ locations where

31:06 ↗ it doesn't seem to make sense uh where

31:08 ↗ you connect a road to an alleyway or you

31:11 ↗ connect

31:12 ↗ a road to a private walkway and it's not

31:16 ↗ publicly accessible so i'm hoping to get

31:19 ↗ a little bit of

31:20 ↗ uh maybe feedback from the develop

31:22 ↗ commission on kind of your experience

31:23 ↗ with seeing

31:25 ↗ projects as they've come through to you

31:28 ↗ uh when it comes to the requirements of

31:30 ↗ through block passages

31:42 ↗ okay and looks like we have a comment

31:44 ↗ from commissioner sanford

31:48 ↗ thank you chair wallace richard sanford

31:50 ↗ to the uh through black passage point i

31:53 ↗ know that when we were participating in

31:56 ↗ drafting the architecture and urban

31:57 ↗ design standards for centralisic wall

32:00 ↗ the context there was really in

32:02 ↗ reference to a grid

32:05 ↗ and we were discussing the utility and

32:08 ↗ the effectiveness of through black

32:10 ↗ passages in the context of that grid

32:13 ↗ where that's producible in the city i

32:15 ↗ think the concept of through black

32:17 ↗ passage makes sense

32:19 ↗ uh but

32:20 ↗ as you say um as you move out of that

32:24 ↗ context it makes

32:25 ↗ less sense frankly and i think there is

32:28 ↗ even

32:29 ↗ um a possible problem that

32:32 ↗ could be encountered with a development

32:34 ↗ that's out of that kind of context does

32:37 ↗ that mean that the next development that

32:39 ↗ may be next to it must maintain that

32:41 ↗ through black passage if it's not a

32:43 ↗ clearly defined grid

32:46 ↗ so that that's the kind of question that

32:48 ↗ occurs to me

32:49 ↗ thank you

32:56 ↗ thank you very much commissioner sanford

32:58 ↗ and commissioner milligan you have the

32:59 ↗ floor

33:01 ↗ i commissioner planning policy

33:03 ↗ commissioner here you didn't ask for me

33:05 ↗ but

33:06 ↗ having uh spent years on the urban

33:08 ↗ village development commission i too

33:10 ↗ dealt with through block passages quite

33:11 ↗ a bit and i wanted to chime in my

33:13 ↗ support for them in general especially

33:16 ↗ as they were

33:18 ↗ implemented in issaquah highlands they

33:19 ↗ were really important tool

33:21 ↗ to help reduce massing and

33:25 ↗ the

33:26 ↗ pedestrian

33:28 ↗ circulation

33:30 ↗ up in issaquah islands depends on these

33:32 ↗ three block passages now maybe to what

33:34 ↗ commissioner so is saying is that and

33:36 ↗ and perhaps we already have it in isoqua

33:38 ↗ highlands and that could be a model is

33:40 ↗ that our through block passage uh

33:43 ↗ facilities are all

33:44 ↗ different size and scale depending on

33:46 ↗ where they are so if you're just trying

33:48 ↗ to break up a residential block and it's

33:50 ↗ not really a grid you just want to keep

33:52 ↗ access to say that alley the little

33:54 ↗ sneaker sidewalk

33:56 ↗ is great and and really important to

33:59 ↗ encourage

34:00 ↗ efficient pedestrian

34:02 ↗ circulation so i

34:05 ↗ encourage you to

34:06 ↗ uh perhaps uh consider these highland

34:08 ↗ standards for through bullet passages

34:10 ↗ and then uh improve them as necessary

34:12 ↗ because i know that we have learned from

34:14 ↗ them uh as well so thank you

34:18 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and

34:19 ↗ commissioner morgan you have the floor

34:22 ↗ thank you chairfall

34:23 ↗ i'd like to um echo what commissioner

34:26 ↗ sanford said about

34:28 ↗ the grid

34:29 ↗ uh through block passages versus what we

34:32 ↗ see in some locations and i have to say

34:34 ↗ the development commission has not

34:35 ↗ worked on the highlands so we didn't get

34:38 ↗ to see that kind of ground-up

34:40 ↗ development work there but i think we

34:42 ↗ did have an example

34:44 ↗ um if i remember correctly with issaquah

34:46 ↗ work lofts project

34:49 ↗ with a question about a through block

34:51 ↗ passage in that parcel

34:53 ↗ that would have taken you to

34:55 ↗ if i remember right just

34:57 ↗ the

34:58 ↗ freeway right of way or

35:01 ↗ it seemed like a questionable location

35:03 ↗ it would seem that there should be a

35:05 ↗ requirement in general

35:07 ↗ that any through block passage has to

35:09 ↗ have

35:10 ↗ reasonable endpoints of both sides

35:13 ↗ before you would require it in a

35:14 ↗ location

35:17 ↗ thank you

35:28 ↗ uh thank you very much commissioner

35:30 ↗ morgan and commissioner lewis you have

35:32 ↗ the floor

35:34 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

35:36 ↗ lewis i just wanted to voice support uh

35:39 ↗ and echo nina's comments about through

35:41 ↗ block passages i i think that's i think

35:44 ↗ they're they're right on point for what

35:46 ↗ how i feel and i will say that when we

35:48 ↗ get on later uh to parking requirements

35:50 ↗ one of the affinity groups uh did

35:51 ↗ mention

35:52 ↗ distinguishing old town separately in

35:54 ↗ the parking requirements and i think

35:56 ↗ that would be an appropriate thing to do

35:58 ↗ here for through block passages

36:00 ↗ and be able to expand them throughout

36:01 ↗ the city uh and if uh staff feels it is

36:04 ↗ reasonable to create a small designated

36:06 ↗ zone where they don't exist

36:07 ↗ would be the exception for that so thank

36:09 ↗ you

36:15 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis uh

36:16 ↗ commissioner zargoza

36:22 ↗ thank you chair sorry i couldn't find

36:24 ↗ any button um

36:25 ↗ richard sergio says so i just wanted to

36:28 ↗ uh second nina's comments on the

36:31 ↗ highlands and those pass-throughs those

36:33 ↗ are really great and they're really

36:35 ↗ functional when you're dealing with row

36:36 ↗ homes which are long

36:38 ↗ kind of like going on for an entire

36:41 ↗ block and you really want to just kind

36:42 ↗ of get to the other side of the street

36:44 ↗ they also have

36:46 ↗ they they really create a feeling of of

36:49 ↗ a village right you have these little

36:51 ↗ passageways which are almost like little

36:52 ↗ private sidewalks they really have a

36:54 ↗ great feeling for that for that for

36:56 ↗ those neighborhoods

36:57 ↗ um but

36:59 ↗ it is a complex situation i think we

37:01 ↗ need a good list of

37:02 ↗ of what the

37:04 ↗ what the reasons for them are what the

37:06 ↗ goals are how they help in certain and i

37:08 ↗ mean because i think they they do

37:10 ↗ create

37:11 ↗ different

37:12 ↗ things in different situations and

37:13 ↗ different types of neighborhoods so i

37:15 ↗ think the the rules for how they work

37:17 ↗ needs to be a little bit more dynamic

37:20 ↗ um but yeah i definitely wouldn't want

37:22 ↗ to just say oh they're not necessary

37:24 ↗ outside of these zones but really kind

37:26 ↗ of think about um how they can affect

37:29 ↗ every type of zone in the city so they

37:31 ↗ can be really great

37:33 ↗ thank you

37:36 ↗ thank you commissioner zargoza and

37:38 ↗ commissioner brennan

37:39 ↗ go ahead i agree with commissioner

37:42 ↗ zargoza's comment about there needs to

37:44 ↗ be what clary about what's the purpose

37:46 ↗ that the trublock passages is providing

37:49 ↗ i agree with the comments from

37:51 ↗ other commissioners about there needs to

37:53 ↗ be a destination they need to be taking

37:55 ↗ you somewhere

37:56 ↗ um and the context

37:58 ↗ whether it's in a residential

38:00 ↗ you know

38:01 ↗ smaller scale

38:03 ↗ single family

38:04 ↗ residential zone

38:06 ↗ um or a commercial like in the central

38:09 ↗ issaquah

38:11 ↗ area then there there's a different

38:13 ↗ context and so their purpose is

38:15 ↗ different so

38:16 ↗ if you're breaking it if part of the

38:17 ↗ purpose is to break up the block from a

38:20 ↗ pedestrian experience you're going to

38:21 ↗ have long

38:22 ↗ uninterrupted you know blocks that

38:25 ↗ people need to to travel you have an

38:27 ↗ opportunity to to break the block up to

38:29 ↗ provide some additional

38:31 ↗ options to get to where you want to go

38:34 ↗ using the through block passages they

38:36 ↗ also break up as somebody mentioned the

38:38 ↗ massing of a building

38:39 ↗ but

38:40 ↗ there are other ways to break up the

38:41 ↗ massing of the building too by limiting

38:43 ↗ floor plate sizes and requiring certain

38:45 ↗ step backs etc

38:47 ↗ but i think

38:48 ↗ it needs to be

38:50 ↗ clear in the code and i haven't looked

38:52 ↗ at the specific code language here about

38:54 ↗ what the underlying purpose of the

38:55 ↗ through block passage is

38:57 ↗ to make sure you don't end up with

38:59 ↗ something that just does like you said

39:01 ↗ in the presentation or in the question

39:02 ↗ where it doesn't make sense it runs you

39:04 ↗ in it dead ends at a freeway i mean that

39:06 ↗ wouldn't make any sense so

39:08 ↗ uh again i think that that would be

39:11 ↗ my

39:12 ↗ suggestion is that that clarity about

39:14 ↗ purpose and then the context and which

39:17 ↗ area of the city it's in and then that

39:19 ↗ would determine the configuration

39:25 ↗ thank you commissioner

39:26 ↗ brennan uh commissioner milligan

39:30 ↗ this is commissioner milligan such a

39:32 ↗ good topic i have to come in twice uh

39:34 ↗ listening to our fellow commissioners uh

39:37 ↗ i'm reminded

39:38 ↗ of um one circumstance that i thought i

39:41 ↗ should have brought up is that the

39:43 ↗ through black passage is often on

39:45 ↗ private property and it's a public

39:47 ↗ facility

39:48 ↗ and i think that this has been a real

39:50 ↗ bugger i don't know the solution but i

39:52 ↗ just want to bring that up as as one of

39:54 ↗ those um challenges that i wish we could

39:57 ↗ solve for because i really do think that

40:00 ↗ they are so highly valuable and

40:03 ↗ echoing what our other commissioners

40:05 ↗ have said that when it facilitates

40:07 ↗ pedestrian circulation or you know

40:09 ↗ bicycle circulation when where those are

40:12 ↗ allowed

40:13 ↗ i think that they're invaluable in in in

40:16 ↗ any

40:17 ↗ area in the city

40:19 ↗ but

40:20 ↗ i do think that that one little issue of

40:22 ↗ liability not little

40:25 ↗ um could maybe be addressed a little

40:26 ↗ better maybe we could do that in the

40:28 ↗ code

40:28 ↗ thank you

40:30 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and i'd

40:32 ↗ like to second uh commissioner

40:33 ↗ milligan's um

40:39 ↗ point uh and bring up atlas as a great

40:42 ↗ example of where that might be a failure

40:45 ↗ uh okay i am not seeing any additional

40:47 ↗ comments or questions

40:50 ↗ so with that said um

40:54 ↗ leonard perdue do you want to go ahead

40:55 ↗ and move on to the next topic

40:58 ↗ yes thank you

41:00 ↗ before i move on uh and i first thank

41:03 ↗ you for kind of the off the cuff

41:04 ↗ question on through black passages and

41:07 ↗ there was one more comment made in

41:09 ↗ public comment on the street standards

41:11 ↗ and one of the things that uh

41:14 ↗ one of the extra efforts we're kind of

41:16 ↗ going through in in addition to the

41:17 ↗ title of teen title 18 update is

41:20 ↗ updating the public works street

41:21 ↗ standards so that's something that staff

41:23 ↗ is actually undergoing right now because

41:25 ↗ it's completely understandable if we're

41:27 ↗ going to be referencing these street

41:29 ↗ standards in code they need to be up to

41:31 ↗ date too because they have been updated

41:33 ↗ since 2010 which is

41:36 ↗ well over

41:37 ↗ overdue on needing to get updated so

41:40 ↗ that's also something that's getting

41:41 ↗ updated as part of this process too just

41:43 ↗ to

41:45 ↗ go back to share of all your your ask of

41:48 ↗ kind of addressing the comments that

41:49 ↗ were made in public comment

41:51 ↗ thank you very much for doing that i

41:52 ↗ appreciate it

41:54 ↗ so moving on to parking so thank you

41:57 ↗ again for the comments on

41:59 ↗ circulation

42:01 ↗ now we'll move on to the parking section

42:03 ↗ of code

42:04 ↗ similar to circulation there's multiple

42:07 ↗ layers being considered with this

42:09 ↗ project update

42:11 ↗ you have the guidance

42:14 ↗ you have layers of code and guidance

42:15 ↗ that have created kind of a confusing

42:17 ↗ process for the land development

42:20 ↗ for land development and it's difficult

42:22 ↗ to manage enforce for staff so we'll be

42:25 ↗ looking at the guidance from the

42:26 ↗ mobility master plan as well as

42:28 ↗ two major parking studies the city has

42:30 ↗ undergone of the last few years to help

42:32 ↗ guide some of these changes

42:34 ↗ but also look at intention to stick to

42:36 ↗ current policy

42:37 ↗ um because if there's areas where staff

42:39 ↗ feel like there's a deviation from the

42:41 ↗ original

42:43 ↗ regulation intent we'll be bringing

42:45 ↗ those topics back to the commission

42:48 ↗ for further discussion before any

42:49 ↗ changes get pursued

42:52 ↗ so for parking there's a lot large

42:54 ↗ amount of work being consolidated

42:56 ↗ code to streamline in the land uni land

42:59 ↗ use development process and based on

43:01 ↗ staff and affinity group

43:04 ↗ discussions we'll be taking a closer

43:05 ↗ look at several areas of the parking

43:07 ↗ code

43:08 ↗ the first is with parking occupancy

43:10 ↗ metrics for disco language staff will be

43:13 ↗ looking at all the different metrics we

43:14 ↗ use to determine how we can consolidate

43:17 ↗ and simplify these metrics because right

43:19 ↗ now we have several metrics that we use

43:21 ↗ to determine parking regulation

43:24 ↗ that our

43:25 ↗ inconsistent and extremely difficult to

43:29 ↗ regulate and predict

43:32 ↗ so we want to simplify this for staff

43:34 ↗ but also for

43:36 ↗ anyone using the code to understand what

43:38 ↗ we're actually trying to require

43:41 ↗ we'll also be looking at improvements to

43:43 ↗ code language related to requirements of

43:45 ↗ the transportation management plans and

43:48 ↗ when these are required and what's

43:49 ↗ required right now

43:51 ↗ we say the transportation management

43:53 ↗ plans are required but we don't provide

43:56 ↗ enough detail of what exactly we're

43:58 ↗ requiring and when

43:59 ↗ so we want to provide clarity in this

44:01 ↗ language on what we mean by

44:04 ↗ requiring these translation management

44:06 ↗ plans and what this achieves

44:09 ↗ staff will also be looking at

44:10 ↗ establishing contextual parking

44:13 ↗ requirements

44:14 ↗ based on land use this would this would

44:16 ↗ be something that would create tiers or

44:17 ↗ buckets of parking regulation

44:19 ↗ for different areas of the city so you

44:21 ↗ know one of the examples that was

44:23 ↗ mentioned in the staff member was

44:25 ↗ looking at maybe central issaquah and

44:27 ↗ old town

44:28 ↗ has the same bucket um

44:31 ↗ commissioner lewis you brought up a good

44:32 ↗ point with the affinity group

44:33 ↗ discussions of

44:35 ↗ maybe that's not the best idea and so

44:36 ↗ we're looking at how best to use that if

44:40 ↗ it's useful in this title updating

44:42 ↗ process and so that'll be another topic

44:43 ↗ we'll bring back to the discussion in

44:45 ↗ the next phase

44:46 ↗ additionally staff will be adding more

44:49 ↗ bike parking

44:50 ↗ more language on bike parking and shared

44:52 ↗ parking to clarify

44:54 ↗ what exactly the city is requiring

44:56 ↗ because we provide some description in

44:58 ↗ the central standards but it doesn't

45:00 ↗ really differentiate between short-term

45:02 ↗ and long-term parking bike parking

45:05 ↗ and what incentives we're actually

45:07 ↗ allowing as part of

45:10 ↗ what would be going into the bike

45:11 ↗ parking standards and so we want to take

45:13 ↗ a take advantage of this process to

45:17 ↗ really make it clear what incentives

45:19 ↗ we're providing as well as additional

45:21 ↗ tools that relate to these items that

45:24 ↗ meets the original intent of their

45:25 ↗ requirements

45:30 ↗ so as i noted before parking had the

45:33 ↗ most topic areas of concern and interest

45:35 ↗ for staff and the affinity groups

45:38 ↗ there's

45:39 ↗ mixed opinion about minimum maximum

45:41 ↗ parking requirements as well as any

45:43 ↗ changes to bike parking requirements all

45:45 ↗ the groups

45:46 ↗ agreed that the parking occupancy

45:48 ↗ metrics should be simplified

45:51 ↗ but more detail needs to be provided for

45:54 ↗ bike parking requirements

45:55 ↗ and incentives related to transit access

45:58 ↗ and lastly this

46:00 ↗ yes let me interrupt you i'm not seeing

46:02 ↗ anything on my screen

46:04 ↗ oh

46:08 ↗ commissioner is he showing something

46:10 ↗ on your screen it's it's showing now

46:13 ↗ okay

46:14 ↗ i apologize for that i press share and

46:16 ↗ it didn't actually go through so uh can

46:18 ↗ you see my screen now

46:20 ↗ yes great thank you thank you

46:23 ↗ so um

46:25 ↗ going back to what i was saying with

46:26 ↗ with the detail needed for bike parking

46:28 ↗ and transactions incentives we want to

46:30 ↗ make sure that we are

46:33 ↗ meeting the intent of what was called

46:35 ↗ for the central equal plan as well as

46:37 ↗ newly adopted plans and making new

46:40 ↗ policy changes related to that

46:42 ↗ and the city needs to look at

46:45 ↗ its requirements related to parking

46:46 ↗ structures

46:47 ↗ a lot of concern has been expressed with

46:51 ↗ how much parking is being required

46:53 ↗ within a parking structure in central

46:54 ↗ issaquah and meeting city goals related

46:57 ↗ to affordable housing and being able to

47:00 ↗ achieve both and so

47:01 ↗ one of the things we

47:04 ↗ will want to try to look at is how can

47:07 ↗ we

47:08 ↗ clarify these parking structure

47:09 ↗ requirements or potentially make changes

47:11 ↗ and that's something

47:12 ↗ more specifically we'll bring in the

47:14 ↗ next phase with the commission

47:20 ↗ so one of the things that i mentioned

47:22 ↗ earlier with uh the whiteboard is that

47:25 ↗ we we're not able to address everything

47:27 ↗ as title as part of this title 18

47:29 ↗ project update

47:31 ↗ you you're probably seeing that

47:32 ↗ consisting with a lot of other sections

47:33 ↗ and so

47:34 ↗ a lot of items from the affinity group

47:36 ↗ discussions are being added to the

47:38 ↗ whiteboard most of these items will

47:40 ↗ require major amendments that will

47:43 ↗ result in significant different outcomes

47:45 ↗ and so

47:46 ↗ staff did not feel that it was

47:47 ↗ appropriate to address a lot of these at

47:49 ↗ this time

47:50 ↗ which is why they're on the whiteboard

47:51 ↗ list so based on the affinity group

47:54 ↗ discussions the topics highlighted in

47:56 ↗ bold on this list will likely be the

47:58 ↗ prioritized topics the city will want to

48:00 ↗ address sooner than later

48:06 ↗ so now i'd like to stop and ask if

48:08 ↗ there's any questions or comments for

48:10 ↗ the parking section of code there's

48:11 ↗ there's a lot of areas of

48:13 ↗ update that the city the city will want

48:16 ↗ to pursue as part of this project and

48:17 ↗ there's a lot of updates the city is

48:19 ↗ wanting to hold off on until after the

48:22 ↗ title 18 code update

48:24 ↗ currently i have all the approaches of

48:26 ↗ changes listed on the screen but if

48:28 ↗ you'd like me to move to another side

48:29 ↗ please let me know

48:33 ↗ and thank you very much uh planter padu

48:35 ↗ and so we're going to go ahead and open

48:36 ↗ up to customer or

48:39 ↗ commissioner

48:41 ↗ questions

48:42 ↗ and the first one is commissioner

48:46 ↗ sanford thank you chair follows richard

48:49 ↗ sanford um i notice in the parking

48:52 ↗ section under the uh parking memo

48:55 ↗ i guess it's page 22 of 51 it it

48:59 ↗ lays out a bulleted list of the various

49:03 ↗ um aspects of this activity that can

49:06 ↗ improve the effectiveness and so on

49:08 ↗ and one is clarifying which standards

49:10 ↗ apply city-wide and which apply only to

49:13 ↗ specific geographic locations and it

49:16 ↗ reminded me of when we were talking

49:18 ↗ about the architecture and urban design

49:21 ↗ aspects of the code update a little

49:22 ↗ while ago and there was a citywide

49:25 ↗ section that was being considered there

49:27 ↗ as well as neighborhood overlay section

49:30 ↗ so it seems that they're going to be

49:32 ↗ aspects of this code that are specific

49:34 ↗ if not to neighborhoods into certain

49:35 ↗ geographic areas and different tiers are

49:38 ↗ being discussed so i was wondering if

49:40 ↗ you're thinking of structuring this in

49:42 ↗ the same way

49:43 ↗ with a city-wide section and

49:46 ↗ neighborhood overlay section or if

49:48 ↗ there's not

49:50 ↗ that much information in terms of

49:52 ↗ architecture and urban design it was

49:54 ↗ highly substantive and there was going

49:56 ↗ to be a lot of information in both of

49:57 ↗ those i was wondering if you're

49:59 ↗ considering the same approach for this

50:02 ↗ i and i guess my opinion would be i

50:04 ↗ would only caution if there is

50:06 ↗ substantive amount of information if it

50:08 ↗ can be structured similarly

50:11 ↗ to the approach in the architecture and

50:13 ↗ urban design

50:14 ↗ areas so that i think that would be the

50:16 ↗ most intuitive for users

50:19 ↗ thanks

50:24 ↗ thank you for the question uh

50:26 ↗ commissioner stanford to answer your

50:27 ↗ question

50:28 ↗ yes we are we are wanting to simplify

50:31 ↗ this as as much as possible

50:33 ↗ it very similar to the design standards

50:35 ↗ um where we'll have a table and we'll

50:38 ↗ just have

50:39 ↗ um currently you know when you look at

50:41 ↗ the table for parking regulations you

50:43 ↗ have the column of where the land use is

50:46 ↗ and the column for what the right the

50:48 ↗ parking requirement is

50:50 ↗ when we look at if we look at how to

50:53 ↗ incorporate this in more of a

50:54 ↗ context-based regulation or maybe it's

50:57 ↗ regulation for central or another area

51:00 ↗ for

51:01 ↗ trying to meet the similar intent you'll

51:03 ↗ have just that another column

51:05 ↗ identifying for that other tier what

51:07 ↗ that parking regulation would be

51:10 ↗ okay so it sounds like it's not going to

51:12 ↗ be parallel to the architecture and

51:13 ↗ urban design which had entirely

51:15 ↗ different sections for city-wide versus

51:18 ↗ neighborhood overlays it sounds like

51:19 ↗ there's not

51:20 ↗ that

51:21 ↗ same level of substantive information

51:23 ↗ here and it could be handled in a table

51:26 ↗ it is in the context where we're

51:28 ↗ explaining what the intent is between

51:30 ↗ the different sections not so much in

51:32 ↗ the table that will be provided in code

51:40 ↗ okay and thank you very much

51:42 ↗ commissioner sanford commissioner lewis

51:43 ↗ you have the floor

51:46 ↗ thank you chairfall commissioner joy

51:48 ↗ lewis stephen do you mind going back to

51:49 ↗ the previous slide my question's a

51:52 ↗ little bit broad right now and i'm

51:53 ↗ hoping to better understand uh for this

51:55 ↗ particular section of the code

51:58 ↗ how much we're uh changing versus doing

52:00 ↗ a consolidation clarifying are we still

52:03 ↗ planning on using the basic core

52:05 ↗ structure of what will require for

52:07 ↗ structure parking for instance

52:08 ↗ uh

52:09 ↗ right now for this title 18

52:12 ↗ overhaul right

52:14 ↗ am i understanding that correctly

52:16 ↗ correct yeah that's a future discussion

52:18 ↗ um do you happen to know um minnie may

52:20 ↗ know better or kristen since she was uh

52:22 ↗ here uh the last time that our

52:24 ↗ commission looked at this i think was

52:25 ↗ about three years ago that we did

52:27 ↗ structured parking

52:29 ↗ um but i'm curious is basically if we're

52:32 ↗ planning on

52:33 ↗ simplifying consolidating but yet also

52:36 ↗ keeping the core tenants of the existing

52:38 ↗ code when it pertains to structured

52:41 ↗ parking

52:43 ↗ for the intent of this project we're

52:46 ↗ preserving all the regulations as much

52:48 ↗ as we can

52:49 ↗ the um what's identified on

52:52 ↗ the whiteboard list will be items that

52:54 ↗ we'll be addressing after the title 18

52:57 ↗ update project the current project

52:59 ↗ anyway um kristen do you have any

53:02 ↗ insight on on the first question

53:05 ↗ do i just want to note uh the structured

53:07 ↗ parking was updated as part of the 2016

53:10 ↗ moratorium and was adopted in 2017.

53:13 ↗ okay thank you uh

53:16 ↗ that um that aligns to what i was

53:18 ↗ remembering um and then can you also

53:20 ↗ walk me through something that was

53:21 ↗ interesting in the affinity groups was

53:23 ↗ this discussion about the use of public

53:26 ↗ uh parking for for instance along public

53:29 ↗ streets

53:30 ↗ for uh private enterprises can you go a

53:32 ↗ little bit more into that discussion and

53:33 ↗ kind of what staff is thinking about

53:34 ↗ that

53:37 ↗ could you clarify which

53:39 ↗ um the off-street parking requirements

53:41 ↗ right now is on a whiteboard but it was

53:42 ↗ discussed pretty heavily with all the

53:44 ↗ affinity groups they all weighed in

53:45 ↗ pretty pretty well on this i was kind of

53:47 ↗ curious if staff could kind of speak to

53:49 ↗ us a little bit

53:51 ↗ yes thank you for the question so in the

53:54 ↗ discussion with the affinity groups we

53:56 ↗ brought up on-street parking versus

53:57 ↗ off-street parking the type of

53:59 ↗ requirements that should be considered

54:00 ↗ in city code and and what was this what

54:02 ↗ was brought up in the affinity groups is

54:05 ↗ in the newer developments where we're

54:07 ↗ requiring on off street parking as part

54:10 ↗ of the the building or in the structure

54:13 ↗ they're not being used and it's forcing

54:15 ↗ people or people are choosing to park on

54:17 ↗ the street and so

54:19 ↗ one of the several of the companies that

54:21 ↗ were made with

54:22 ↗ um

54:24 ↗ this kind of future discussion on the

54:25 ↗ regulations and what they should be is

54:27 ↗ we need to be considering

54:29 ↗ incentives or

54:30 ↗ another tool that incorporates on-street

54:33 ↗ parking as part of the broader context

54:35 ↗ of what's being provided for new

54:37 ↗ developments and so

54:39 ↗ when we eventually have that discussion

54:41 ↗ we'll be looking at

54:42 ↗ for off street parking what should the

54:45 ↗ requirement be um so going to that that

54:48 ↗ second bullet point of should we be

54:50 ↗ moving to parking maximums with certain

54:52 ↗ develop or certain areas of the city

54:55 ↗ as well as looking at with

54:57 ↗ structured parking how can we meet

55:00 ↗ affordable housing goals

55:03 ↗ and balance that with trying to keep

55:05 ↗ with the original intent of the parking

55:07 ↗ structure requirements which was

55:09 ↗ aesthetics as well as uh making sure we

55:11 ↗ have a pedestrian friendly environment

55:15 ↗ thank you that that's very helpful

55:17 ↗ i certainly felt like when i was looking

55:20 ↗ at the different comments from the

55:21 ↗ affinity groups i was i was missing a

55:24 ↗ particular group and that was really

55:25 ↗ neighborhood community involvement um

55:28 ↗ really seeing how we're using our spaces

55:31 ↗ how people feel um that they're being

55:33 ↗ impacted by parking was a little bit

55:35 ↗ absent from those conversations and i

55:37 ↗ want to encourage that when we're having

55:39 ↗ this conversation about off street

55:40 ↗ parking that we're able to hopefully

55:43 ↗ have a community manager in place at

55:44 ↗ that point and be able to really be

55:47 ↗ having a better feel for what's going on

55:49 ↗ you had mentioned earlier about how

55:51 ↗ we're going to be using

55:52 ↗ previous parking studies

55:54 ↗ when moving forward right now with with

55:56 ↗ our title 18

55:58 ↗ for this section and i

55:59 ↗ i certainly remember

56:01 ↗ that we were surprised as a commission

56:03 ↗ at some of the results from the parking

56:04 ↗ study and that they didn't necessarily

56:06 ↗ reflect the comments that were coming in

56:08 ↗ from the community

56:10 ↗ we also i remember the parking study

56:13 ↗ coming in and telling us particular

56:14 ↗ numbers about you know what was full

56:17 ↗ what was being used and what wasn't and

56:19 ↗ what uh but what was remarkably not

56:21 ↗ included in that was how the transit

56:23 ↗ center was at capacity by what time how

56:27 ↗ full how often was that being you

56:29 ↗ utilized and how many people were being

56:31 ↗ turned away and things like that and so

56:33 ↗ there was an entire component that was

56:35 ↗ missing from those surveys um that we

56:38 ↗ would really get again from the people

56:40 ↗ who are using the facilities and so i'm

56:42 ↗ not quite sure how that plays in moving

56:44 ↗ forward for us right now but it does

56:46 ↗ leave a little bit of a concern to me of

56:48 ↗ that we're missing a pie wedge if that

56:51 ↗ makes sense um i've really enjoyed

56:53 ↗ reading um the discussions of the

56:54 ↗ infinity groups i found it incredibly

56:56 ↗ helpful when looking at this topic but i

56:59 ↗ do want to say that i think that there's

57:00 ↗ a little bit more that needs to go in

57:02 ↗ before we start doing our draft code

57:06 ↗ as as we kind of re-tool things around

57:08 ↗ so thank you

57:17 ↗ okay thank you very much commissioner

57:18 ↗ lewis and

57:20 ↗ i also would like to bring up a question

57:22 ↗ here

57:23 ↗ but before i do i notice that

57:25 ↗ commissioner milligan wants to bring up

57:27 ↗ a point of order

57:29 ↗ i thank you chairfall commissioner

57:31 ↗ milligan here i didn't want to get in

57:32 ↗ the way of your question but uh

57:35 ↗ i wanted to make a suggestion that after

57:39 ↗ we finish our questions and we have

57:41 ↗ public comment and then we go into

57:43 ↗ commissioner deliberations is there

57:46 ↗ can the staff help us by either using

57:50 ↗ the affinity group slide or one of the

57:53 ↗ things that breaks up the topic so that

57:55 ↗ we don't feel like we have to comment

57:59 ↗ about all of the things at one time so

58:01 ↗ that we can listen to the other comments

58:03 ↗ about bike parking or listen to the

58:05 ↗ other comments about street parking or

58:06 ↗ maximums or whatever it is

58:08 ↗ if you could just break it up into

58:10 ↗ three or four for us i think we could be

58:12 ↗ more efficient in um

58:14 ↗ listening and kind of putting together

58:16 ↗ our thoughts

58:17 ↗ if that's possible thank you thank you

58:19 ↗ chairpal

58:20 ↗ sure no worries uh

58:23 ↗ planner uh padua are we actually gonna

58:25 ↗ have a presentation on

58:28 ↗ the affinity groups because i didn't

58:30 ↗ think we were gonna have that tonight

58:31 ↗ but i know that was in our packet for

58:33 ↗ our

58:34 ↗ course to view

58:37 ↗ just the the high level summary of when

58:39 ↗ we had the affinity groups and and um

58:42 ↗ kind of sprinkled information throughout

58:43 ↗ the presentation of what the infinity

58:45 ↗ groups kind of spoke to on each of the

58:46 ↗ topics

58:47 ↗ okay okay excellent uh i do so going

58:51 ↗ back to my question here um looking back

58:53 ↗ at what the some of the comments were

58:55 ↗ about the affinity groups

58:57 ↗ in regards to uh bicycle parking

59:01 ↗ i've not seen

59:03 ↗ um well in one of the questions here on

59:06 ↗ question two said several comments were

59:08 ↗ made that the city's language should

59:09 ↗ allow flexibility in how developers meet

59:12 ↗ the requirements prescriptive language

59:14 ↗ prevents innovation in this area

59:17 ↗ if we don't

59:20 ↗ offer prescriptive

59:22 ↗ direction we won't get

59:25 ↗ bicycle parking

59:26 ↗ and that's been pretty consistent i've

59:28 ↗ seen in developments where if they don't

59:30 ↗ require it they don't get it now the

59:33 ↗ demographic of the affinity groups

59:36 ↗ i am

59:38 ↗ i don't want to stereotype but i'm

59:39 ↗ looking and i'm i know most of them

59:43 ↗ they are not bicyclists

59:46 ↗ and if you look at

59:48 ↗ a lot of my neighbors who are bicyclists

59:50 ↗ they're getting e-bikes and they want to

59:52 ↗ use their e-bikes to go back and forth

59:54 ↗ to the stores and they want a place to

59:56 ↗ lock them up and there is no place to

59:59 ↗ lock them up so if we want to get people

1:00:01 ↗ out of their cars and into alternative

1:00:03 ↗ modes of transportation

1:00:05 ↗ including low-income housing and not

1:00:07 ↗ just low-income housing but

1:00:10 ↗ high-income luxury apartments as well

1:00:12 ↗ people want to use a bicycle especially

1:00:14 ↗ if it's an e-bike because they're easier

1:00:16 ↗ to use in cars and they're cheaper and

1:00:18 ↗ they're sometimes even faster

1:00:20 ↗ so i think it's

1:00:23 ↗ it would be

1:00:25 ↗ misleading for us and

1:00:30 ↗ destructive for us to

1:00:32 ↗ allow developers to kind of get away

1:00:34 ↗ with whatever they want because if we're

1:00:36 ↗ not descriptive in it we're not going to

1:00:38 ↗ get it

1:00:39 ↗ and so i worry that

1:00:41 ↗ we don't we need to move that

1:00:44 ↗ component up into

1:00:46 ↗ what is going to be part of title 18 and

1:00:48 ↗ not push it out

1:00:52 ↗ uh okay

1:00:53 ↗ and so with that said let's go ahead and

1:00:55 ↗ move it into

1:00:56 ↗ public comment actually that was

1:00:58 ↗ probably more of a discussion than it

1:01:00 ↗ was a question

1:01:02 ↗ so

1:01:03 ↗ let me rephrase that question so

1:01:06 ↗ planner purdue is that something that we

1:01:08 ↗ can move up

1:01:09 ↗ into

1:01:14 ↗ not moving out

1:01:16 ↗ is that something we can move up into

1:01:17 ↗ the higher

1:01:19 ↗ priority

1:01:22 ↗ in in terms of changing what the

1:01:24 ↗ requirements are

1:01:26 ↗ not just changing the requirements

1:01:27 ↗ making sure that they stick because i

1:01:29 ↗ don't want the the way the presentation

1:01:31 ↗ was to me in the way that i'm seeing the

1:01:33 ↗ comments is that

1:01:35 ↗ it's going to get tabled out and kind of

1:01:38 ↗ moved down in priority

1:01:40 ↗ i see

1:01:40 ↗ um so what's going to happen with the

1:01:43 ↗ current update with this title 18

1:01:46 ↗ update project is we're going to be

1:01:48 ↗ clarifying what's required and keeping

1:01:50 ↗ the requirements as they stand now

1:01:52 ↗ what's on the whiteboard right now is

1:01:54 ↗ discussion of if we change what the

1:01:56 ↗ requirements are so that that's that's

1:01:59 ↗ not what we're trying to do

1:02:01 ↗ and specific to the affinity group

1:02:02 ↗ discussions on their comments on giving

1:02:05 ↗ giving developers flexibility it was

1:02:07 ↗ more on

1:02:08 ↗ not going too prescriptive

1:02:11 ↗ with any additional requirements

1:02:13 ↗ for instance requiring they use a

1:02:16 ↗ specific type of steel that was

1:02:19 ↗ one of the comments made developers made

1:02:20 ↗ that was some they've seen a city do

1:02:22 ↗ that before

1:02:24 ↗ or a requirement that they have to use

1:02:25 ↗ specific

1:02:27 ↗ shapes where

1:02:28 ↗ only very few or limited manufacturers

1:02:32 ↗ actually accommodate that type of

1:02:33 ↗ requirement and so that's that's where

1:02:35 ↗ they're wanting to be a little more

1:02:37 ↗ flexible is um

1:02:40 ↗ making sure that we're providing bike

1:02:41 ↗ parking that's actually accommodating

1:02:43 ↗ people who ride bikes and that's

1:02:45 ↗ something that will i will be making

1:02:47 ↗ sure is in in the code

1:02:49 ↗ but also making sure that they have the

1:02:51 ↗ flexibility to put in the amount or the

1:02:55 ↗ design of bike parking to

1:02:58 ↗ fit in kind of within the design of the

1:03:00 ↗ development that kind of goes in

1:03:02 ↗ does that help kind of address your

1:03:04 ↗ question

1:03:05 ↗ that does that does the way it was

1:03:07 ↗ presented made it sound like we're gonna

1:03:09 ↗ kind of

1:03:10 ↗ negotiate it out

1:03:14 ↗ thank you

1:03:15 ↗ okay so with that said let's go ahead

1:03:16 ↗ and open up to public comment so kristin

1:03:19 ↗ let is there any members of the public

1:03:21 ↗ that would like to make comments tonight

1:03:22 ↗ on this topic yes connie marsh would

1:03:24 ↗ like to speak

1:03:28 ↗ connie you are now a panelist i might

1:03:30 ↗ turn on your camera

1:03:35 ↗ unmute

1:03:37 ↗ start video start my video

1:03:42 ↗ okay so

1:03:46 ↗ parking parking parking um

1:03:51 ↗ this

1:03:52 ↗ conversation just feels like it's losing

1:03:55 ↗ a bunch of history

1:03:57 ↗ of why our parking

1:04:01 ↗ is what it is

1:04:03 ↗ and

1:04:05 ↗ and uh so sort of how we got to be where

1:04:07 ↗ we are right so

1:04:09 ↗ i guess it all boils down to again

1:04:11 ↗ neighborhood character

1:04:13 ↗ so when you cluster

1:04:16 ↗ your parking together

1:04:19 ↗ that is also clustering

1:04:21 ↗ the landscaping within the parking i

1:04:24 ↗ don't know what that means because our

1:04:26 ↗ varying

1:04:27 ↗ uh

1:04:28 ↗ parking

1:04:31 ↗ uh characteristics for landscaping are

1:04:34 ↗ are different so i'm not i'm not sure if

1:04:37 ↗ you're

1:04:38 ↗ how how much melding there is because i

1:04:42 ↗ think you have to be very careful not to

1:04:44 ↗ lose characteristics uh there's that one

1:04:47 ↗ horrifying characteristic i think in the

1:04:50 ↗ uh central issaquah plan that says you

1:04:52 ↗ actually don't have to have any

1:04:55 ↗ trees you can just use

1:04:58 ↗ metal vertical structures instead of

1:05:00 ↗ trees in a parking lot

1:05:02 ↗ i think that's still in there i would

1:05:04 ↗ hate to see that spread

1:05:06 ↗ anywhere

1:05:07 ↗ but

1:05:08 ↗ then there

1:05:10 ↗ is

1:05:12 ↗ circulation within parking

1:05:16 ↗ which we have many problems in town

1:05:20 ↗ that that our you can't walk in or out

1:05:24 ↗ of elderly shopping centers because

1:05:27 ↗ there are no sidewalks going in or out

1:05:29 ↗ so everybody ends up in the lane of

1:05:31 ↗ traffic

1:05:32 ↗ and this goes back to the when do you

1:05:35 ↗ need to bring things up to standard

1:05:39 ↗ so i think

1:05:40 ↗ some of these

1:05:42 ↗ circulation within parking lots should

1:05:45 ↗ be a top criteria for bringing things up

1:05:48 ↗ to standard

1:05:51 ↗ because

1:05:53 ↗ i would rate things like safety

1:05:56 ↗ as

1:05:58 ↗ as a truck priority to consider

1:06:01 ↗ for whether you are creating a

1:06:02 ↗ successful parking area and i think most

1:06:06 ↗ of our parking standards

1:06:08 ↗ in issaquah do not necessarily create

1:06:11 ↗ successful

1:06:12 ↗ parking

1:06:13 ↗ areas and so i know i am not following

1:06:16 ↗ your grid because i don't experience

1:06:19 ↗ parking

1:06:20 ↗ like

1:06:22 ↗ like you're trying to make me experience

1:06:24 ↗ it right here central issaquah plan very

1:06:27 ↗ clearly in its eis

1:06:29 ↗ required structured parking because the

1:06:33 ↗ main reason they convince us to have the

1:06:35 ↗ central issaquah plan is to get rid of

1:06:38 ↗ the sea of of parking

1:06:41 ↗ and to do that it you require

1:06:45 ↗ structured

1:06:46 ↗ parking and we're supposed to be aiming

1:06:48 ↗ more and more toward that as we go what

1:06:52 ↗ i am finding in a lot of the parking

1:06:54 ↗ areas is each store now has a sign

1:06:57 ↗ saying what their parking is

1:07:01 ↗ or is not

1:07:02 ↗ now if we talk about how we want our

1:07:05 ↗ parking to look in the city of issaquah

1:07:09 ↗ do we want every store to have their own

1:07:12 ↗ individual parking or are we trying to

1:07:15 ↗ figure out some more holistic parking

1:07:18 ↗ um

1:07:20 ↗ system

1:07:21 ↗ our

1:07:22 ↗ co our comprehensive plan says we're

1:07:24 ↗ supposed to try to figure out how to

1:07:26 ↗ make a holistic system

1:07:28 ↗ so

1:07:29 ↗ we don't have that at this point in time

1:07:31 ↗ i think you need to include something

1:07:33 ↗ about that in our code and then when you

1:07:36 ↗ talk about parking management we

1:07:38 ↗ actually have language

1:07:40 ↗ in the comprehensive plan about parking

1:07:42 ↗ management and some of the times that we

1:07:45 ↗ don't uh we we find ourselves short on

1:07:48 ↗ parking and it becomes an issue is

1:07:50 ↗ because we have known functions that

1:07:52 ↗ happen all the time like at the school

1:07:54 ↗ district in a variety of places and so

1:07:57 ↗ we need to have some management

1:07:59 ↗ strategies to work in special events

1:08:03 ↗ because if every tuesday night you have

1:08:06 ↗ a special event in old town

1:08:08 ↗ and then all of the street parking in

1:08:11 ↗ the neighborhoods is taken up by a

1:08:13 ↗ special event

1:08:15 ↗ this is an issue that could be resolved

1:08:17 ↗ by trying to have some parking

1:08:19 ↗ management and we have just ignored that

1:08:22 ↗ throughout time and i think we need to

1:08:25 ↗ to actually bring

1:08:27 ↗ that to the fore and try to figure out

1:08:29 ↗ how to manage things a little better and

1:08:31 ↗ we actually already have it as as a

1:08:35 ↗ language to try to guide us there and so

1:08:37 ↗ i don't think that has to be on a

1:08:38 ↗ whiteboard and i think i saw that on a

1:08:41 ↗ whiteboard and then i want to talk about

1:08:45 ↗ another overlap we're going to talk

1:08:47 ↗ about safety

1:08:49 ↗ and lighting

1:08:51 ↗ in

1:08:52 ↗ parking

1:08:54 ↗ and so right now so for in old town we

1:08:58 ↗ have public parking with zero lighting

1:09:02 ↗ and so i think we need to have lighting

1:09:04 ↗ standards that are in our

1:09:07 ↗ public

1:09:08 ↗ areas as well as private areas so the

1:09:13 ↗ city again needs to start

1:09:15 ↗ to adhere to some new standards and

1:09:18 ↗ right now we don't really have public

1:09:21 ↗ parking

1:09:22 ↗ standards like that for our own city so

1:09:25 ↗ how do we get those into our

1:09:28 ↗ our code this is more of how i

1:09:31 ↗ experience parking

1:09:34 ↗ around town and how i fight trying to

1:09:36 ↗ get to certain stores where it's

1:09:38 ↗ particularly unsafe and so if you don't

1:09:41 ↗ mind feeding those things into the

1:09:43 ↗ hopper as you address code and

1:09:45 ↗ potentially walk around town and see

1:09:47 ↗ where you feel unsafe and then one last

1:09:50 ↗ thing i was the person who was trying to

1:09:52 ↗ get a through block passage that the

1:09:54 ↗ development commission considered dead

1:09:56 ↗ ending to the freeway but it wasn't it

1:09:59 ↗ is trying to um

1:10:02 ↗ make a parallel passage

1:10:05 ↗ to gilman boulevard which is

1:10:07 ↗ particularly awful to walk on

1:10:10 ↗ so some consideration needs to be for

1:10:13 ↗ those that criteria is um

1:10:17 ↗ where

1:10:18 ↗ are the safe pleasant places for people

1:10:21 ↗ to walk and how do we create those

1:10:23 ↗ corridors so sorry i just went back a

1:10:26 ↗ topic uh thank you

1:10:38 ↗ thank you connie is there anyone else

1:10:39 ↗ who would like to speak

1:10:41 ↗ if so please raise your hand

1:10:48 ↗ there's no one else who would like to

1:10:49 ↗ speak

1:10:50 ↗ okay thank you chris

1:10:52 ↗ and so let's go ahead and open it back

1:10:54 ↗ up to commissioner

1:10:56 ↗ discussion are there any commissioners

1:10:59 ↗ that would like to make some discussion

1:11:00 ↗ points

1:11:07 ↗ i know there is

1:11:09 ↗ ah commissioner sanford you are the

1:11:11 ↗ first one please

1:11:13 ↗ thanks chair follow richard sanford uh

1:11:15 ↗ question

1:11:16 ↗ um what's the scope of input that you

1:11:19 ↗ would like from a development commission

1:11:21 ↗ on this tonight it it seems that some of

1:11:23 ↗ the affinity group comments

1:11:25 ↗ concern topics that wound up on the

1:11:27 ↗ whiteboard and so

1:11:29 ↗ i guess discussion of

1:11:31 ↗ whiteboard items is not part of our

1:11:34 ↗ discussion tonight is that correct and

1:11:36 ↗ you really want us to focus on

1:11:38 ↗ the elements of structuring the code or

1:11:41 ↗ is it open for us to comment on the

1:11:44 ↗ affinity group comment topics as well

1:11:48 ↗ i think tonight would be helpful to get

1:11:50 ↗ comments on

1:11:52 ↗ um

1:11:53 ↗ and i'll share my screen to go back to

1:11:55 ↗ the specific areas where we're

1:11:58 ↗ kind of approaching this project as part

1:12:00 ↗ of the title 18 update project is is it

1:12:02 ↗ helpful to have this this is the kind of

1:12:04 ↗ the specific areas and i can go back to

1:12:06 ↗ commissioner milligan's comments of

1:12:08 ↗ maybe we bundle this up in you know

1:12:11 ↗ groups of three to help with kind of

1:12:14 ↗ consolidate or

1:12:15 ↗ organize commissioner comments chair

1:12:17 ↗ fall does that work to

1:12:19 ↗ kind of go that for

1:12:21 ↗ commissioner discussions i think that

1:12:23 ↗ would be a great idea

1:12:24 ↗ okay so i can leave this screen up and

1:12:25 ↗ then for the first three comments

1:12:28 ↗ um

1:12:30 ↗ commissioner sanford to answer your

1:12:31 ↗ question

1:12:32 ↗ it would be helpful to get your

1:12:34 ↗ commissioner thoughts on items even on

1:12:36 ↗ the whiteboard even if we aren't going

1:12:39 ↗ to be addressing that as part of this

1:12:40 ↗ project because one of the things that

1:12:42 ↗ we do want to try to look at with the

1:12:44 ↗ items on the whiteboard is how to

1:12:46 ↗ prioritize those topics following the

1:12:48 ↗ title eight of the title of the

1:12:51 ↗ title 18 update project

1:12:53 ↗ okay thanks and so

1:12:55 ↗ in that case um i'll throw this one out

1:12:58 ↗ because i want to make sure this doesn't

1:13:00 ↗ get lost it does relate to some topics

1:13:02 ↗ that were raised by the affinity groups

1:13:05 ↗ and i noticed that there was

1:13:07 ↗ concern about structured parking

1:13:09 ↗ uh in terms of the high water table

1:13:13 ↗ building separate uh structured parking

1:13:17 ↗ uh below ground

1:13:19 ↗ and

1:13:20 ↗ ms marsh just referred to are we going

1:13:23 ↗ to require every development every store

1:13:24 ↗ and so on to have their own parking plan

1:13:26 ↗ on their old structure their own

1:13:27 ↗ structured parking

1:13:30 ↗ i was wondering and i i haven't seen

1:13:32 ↗ much discussion of

1:13:34 ↗ municipal parking and our plans for

1:13:37 ↗ municipal structured parking or parking

1:13:39 ↗ lots

1:13:40 ↗ and i guess i could envision a kind of

1:13:44 ↗ healthy context in which

1:13:47 ↗ the city

1:13:48 ↗ provides municipal parking

1:13:51 ↗ that's fairly close to areas of high

1:13:53 ↗ concentration or interest quarter mile

1:13:55 ↗ walking distance let's say

1:13:58 ↗ and not necessarily

1:14:00 ↗ next to

1:14:02 ↗ the

1:14:03 ↗ high density area of interest but a bit

1:14:05 ↗ farther away

1:14:07 ↗ with the walk toward that

1:14:10 ↗ um a pedestrian

1:14:12 ↗ friendly retail friendly

1:14:15 ↗ area that could be very conducive i

1:14:19 ↗ think to retail because it would all be

1:14:21 ↗ first floor would be street level

1:14:24 ↗ another issue with

1:14:25 ↗ it seems to me

1:14:27 ↗ requiring

1:14:28 ↗ structured parking if we can't go below

1:14:30 ↗ the building very far and down to the

1:14:32 ↗ water table

1:14:33 ↗ a lot of the structured parking may be

1:14:36 ↗ above ground and then the building winds

1:14:38 ↗ up hovering above the parking

1:14:40 ↗ and that defeats the purpose of having

1:14:42 ↗ an engaging first floor public realm

1:14:45 ↗ that is retail friendly

1:14:47 ↗ so maybe in terms of this kind of

1:14:50 ↗ municipal idea that i'm suggesting

1:14:52 ↗ maybe developers could pay into a

1:14:55 ↗ parking fund that would

1:14:57 ↗ the purpose of which would be to

1:14:59 ↗ construct and maintain municipal parking

1:15:01 ↗ in areas where i just identified thanks

1:15:04 ↗ just want to throw that out there

1:15:10 ↗ thank you commissioner sanford uh

1:15:13 ↗ one quick ques or one quick comment to

1:15:16 ↗ commissioner sanford uh i just thought

1:15:18 ↗ of the idea

1:15:19 ↗ maybe above ground parking above the

1:15:22 ↗ building so instead of having just a

1:15:24 ↗ bare roof you have parking on the roof

1:15:27 ↗ and then

1:15:28 ↗ taking the the target example or

1:15:31 ↗ in the safeway mall example

1:15:34 ↗ instead of having all this expansive

1:15:36 ↗ parking you put the parking on top of

1:15:38 ↗ the building and then people can take an

1:15:39 ↗ elevator or stairs down into the

1:15:41 ↗ building itself and that would save

1:15:43 ↗ space and

1:15:45 ↗ solve the problem

1:15:46 ↗ uh okay the next comment here is for

1:15:50 ↗ from commissioner milligan you're on the

1:15:52 ↗ floor

1:15:55 ↗ oh you're on the mute

1:15:59 ↗ commissioner morgan is ahead of me and i

1:16:00 ↗ want to hear what he has to say

1:16:02 ↗ oh i'm sorry commissioner morgan i

1:16:05 ↗ highlighted you and i went right over

1:16:06 ↗ you i'll go ahead and you have the floor

1:16:09 ↗ okay thank you uh thanks jeff all the

1:16:12 ↗ a few comments then

1:16:14 ↗ i would agree with consolidation of the

1:16:16 ↗ documents consolidation of offstring

1:16:19 ↗ parking requirements

1:16:20 ↗ and simplifying the parking occupancy

1:16:23 ↗ metrics all those i think make great

1:16:25 ↗ sense

1:16:26 ↗ the transportation management plan

1:16:28 ↗ criteria

1:16:30 ↗ i would simply throw those out

1:16:33 ↗ i feel like those fall in the herding

1:16:36 ↗ cat management plan category

1:16:39 ↗ in that the idea that we can set up

1:16:42 ↗ these plans that the city can monitor

1:16:44 ↗ that

1:16:45 ↗ property owners can

1:16:47 ↗ put in place for employers to try to get

1:16:49 ↗ their employees to follow through on

1:16:52 ↗ i think is far more work than

1:16:54 ↗ we ever would get

1:16:56 ↗ results from

1:16:58 ↗ and not make that part of

1:17:00 ↗ the requirement for developing property

1:17:02 ↗ to have those i just don't think they're

1:17:04 ↗ workable

1:17:05 ↗ i do agree with the contextual parking

1:17:07 ↗ requirements and has stated um

1:17:10 ↗ by commissioner lewis that

1:17:12 ↗ that those may need to be separated say

1:17:15 ↗ between central issaquah

1:17:17 ↗ and old town or whatever

1:17:21 ↗ areas we want those in

1:17:23 ↗ the um

1:17:26 ↗ let's see the the

1:17:28 ↗ there was one other thing i don't think

1:17:30 ↗ was oh no it is at the end here the

1:17:33 ↗ shared parking i think the i think it's

1:17:35 ↗ critical to look at updating the shared

1:17:38 ↗ parking

1:17:39 ↗ code language

1:17:40 ↗ um

1:17:42 ↗ to see how those can change

1:17:44 ↗ we're involved in a project our our fund

1:17:47 ↗ owns the maple street building that used

1:17:49 ↗ to have

1:17:50 ↗ parking on the south side of maple

1:17:52 ↗ street that was an open sea of parking

1:17:55 ↗ we sold it to our partner to build a

1:17:57 ↗ hotel the spring hill suites hotel

1:18:00 ↗ and we have a shared parking agreement

1:18:02 ↗ so they can use our parking stalls at

1:18:05 ↗ night for hotel guests we can use our

1:18:07 ↗ parking garage during the day for our

1:18:09 ↗ office tenants and it works great and

1:18:12 ↗ it's a it's a great way to get more use

1:18:14 ↗ out of parking

1:18:17 ↗ and so i think to the extent that we can

1:18:18 ↗ look at those shared parking agreements

1:18:21 ↗ that language and make sure it works now

1:18:23 ↗ but also giving that

1:18:24 ↗ flexibility as parking requirements

1:18:27 ↗ might change down the road for those

1:18:28 ↗ agreements to be revised

1:18:31 ↗ [Music]

1:18:33 ↗ the

1:18:34 ↗ the bike parking

1:18:36 ↗ i think one thing i think it's critical

1:18:38 ↗ that we do look at that that we do want

1:18:40 ↗ to encourage biker

1:18:42 ↗ bikers to have parking available one

1:18:44 ↗ thing i would like you to look at is the

1:18:47 ↗ possibility of

1:18:49 ↗ ground floor retail space

1:18:52 ↗ in buildings to be used for

1:18:55 ↗ bike parking facilities

1:18:59 ↗ in the interim period because we

1:19:02 ↗ as we try to put ground floor retail

1:19:04 ↗ especially in the central issaquah area

1:19:08 ↗ trying to put ground floor retail

1:19:10 ↗ sometimes isn't feasible initially

1:19:13 ↗ but it could be used for

1:19:15 ↗ parking of bike parking or bike storage

1:19:18 ↗ facilities that still are

1:19:22 ↗ it activates that area

1:19:24 ↗ um

1:19:26 ↗ until the point where the retail would

1:19:28 ↗ be usable

1:19:31 ↗ the structured parking

1:19:34 ↗ i think that's a must that we continue

1:19:37 ↗ to look at having that uh as ms marsh

1:19:39 ↗ pointed out

1:19:41 ↗ that was something that was uh integral

1:19:43 ↗ in the central is aqua plan

1:19:46 ↗ i served on that task force and if i

1:19:48 ↗ remember correctly at the time 70 of the

1:19:52 ↗ central issaquah area

1:19:54 ↗ of the developable land

1:19:57 ↗ was made up of parking lots and that was

1:19:59 ↗ something that would have to change for

1:20:02 ↗ central issaquad to develop and we can't

1:20:04 ↗ do that with seas uh

1:20:06 ↗ big fields of parking so i think we

1:20:09 ↗ still need structured parking

1:20:11 ↗ and finally i would say that

1:20:13 ↗ if there's a tool to make it impossible

1:20:16 ↗ for the city to continually change

1:20:18 ↗ parking requirements

1:20:20 ↗ on a more frequent basis it would be

1:20:23 ↗ good because i think a lot of the

1:20:27 ↗ if we get autonomous vehicles working

1:20:29 ↗ more frequently there's going to be

1:20:30 ↗ fewer people driving their cars to work

1:20:33 ↗ would be more people that will take a

1:20:35 ↗ an autonomous car to work get dropped

1:20:37 ↗ off and they don't need to park there

1:20:39 ↗ so i think we if we have a tool to

1:20:41 ↗ change frequently would be good so sorry

1:20:43 ↗ for the extended comment and thank you

1:20:45 ↗ very much nathan

1:20:49 ↗ thank you commercial morgan and

1:20:51 ↗ commissioner milligan go ahead

1:20:54 ↗ well

1:20:55 ↗ it's always a pleasure to go after you

1:20:57 ↗ because you take care of so much

1:20:59 ↗ topic for me commissioner morgan

1:21:01 ↗ commissioner milligan here i'm going to

1:21:03 ↗ because i have so much to say i'm going

1:21:05 ↗ to try to stick to just the

1:21:07 ↗ top

1:21:09 ↗ topics on the upper

1:21:11 ↗ topics on this list

1:21:13 ↗ although

1:21:14 ↗ it's not such it's not so tidy you know

1:21:16 ↗ the way these things all interact with

1:21:18 ↗ one another

1:21:19 ↗ uh i want to address um and and maybe

1:21:22 ↗ stephen can you pull up that um park

1:21:24 ↗ that um excuse me whiteboard

1:21:28 ↗ list thank you

1:21:34 ↗ one of the things that i

1:21:36 ↗ want to make sure doesn't end up on this

1:21:39 ↗ list is is how we handle street parking

1:21:42 ↗ i want to echo

1:21:45 ↗ commissioner lewis's comments about the

1:21:48 ↗ parking study that we had a few years

1:21:49 ↗ ago

1:21:50 ↗ i too was a little incredulous at the

1:21:53 ↗ results because they weren't reflecting

1:21:55 ↗ the experiences our communities were

1:21:57 ↗ having our neighborhoods were having

1:21:59 ↗ and that was

1:22:00 ↗ you know that was a few years ago

1:22:03 ↗ let's

1:22:04 ↗ because this kind of planning is so

1:22:05 ↗ long-ranging let's fast forward

1:22:08 ↗ to

1:22:09 ↗ times when the city is much bigger and

1:22:10 ↗ there's more issues more uh transit uh

1:22:14 ↗ facilities available to us and all the

1:22:15 ↗ other things that are gonna change the

1:22:16 ↗ way that we use parking and i really

1:22:19 ↗ want to put assert the importance that i

1:22:22 ↗ feel for us to address

1:22:24 ↗ street parking and and you know you guys

1:22:27 ↗ are going to know how to do it better

1:22:29 ↗ but some of the things that come across

1:22:30 ↗ my mind are um

1:22:33 ↗ how we allocate street parking to

1:22:35 ↗ private uses

1:22:37 ↗ uh haven't it hasn't ever quite felt

1:22:40 ↗ right so if there is um

1:22:42 ↗ as we're consolidating if there's code

1:22:44 ↗ in the city where

1:22:46 ↗ that works better let's use that one uh

1:22:49 ↗ consolidating is going to be

1:22:53 ↗ is going to be changing our code in some

1:22:55 ↗ ways because you're not just going to

1:22:57 ↗ mishmash everything together in some

1:22:59 ↗ cases you're going to say hey this one

1:23:00 ↗ works well let's use that way let's

1:23:02 ↗ consolidate to that

1:23:05 ↗ and so this would be one circumstance

1:23:07 ↗ where i think that we could improve um

1:23:10 ↗ pick the best one

1:23:12 ↗ but street parking without uh controls

1:23:16 ↗ as we

1:23:17 ↗ increase in

1:23:19 ↗ housing density

1:23:21 ↗ transit facilities and other things is

1:23:23 ↗ just

1:23:24 ↗ causing an unfair allocation of the use

1:23:27 ↗ and i'm going to bring up again how how

1:23:29 ↗ much i want to tackle this earlier

1:23:32 ↗ rather than later because we are

1:23:35 ↗ and will be even a bigger

1:23:37 ↗ end unit for transit for all of east

1:23:41 ↗ king county and for us to find a fair

1:23:44 ↗ way for our parking to be used by

1:23:46 ↗ residents and businesses rather than a

1:23:48 ↗ parking lot for people from us king

1:23:50 ↗ county to get on transit

1:23:53 ↗ i really want to tackle that earlier

1:23:55 ↗ rather than later don't want it on a on

1:23:57 ↗ a whiteboard

1:24:00 ↗ um

1:24:02 ↗ oh gosh let me plus one on commissioner

1:24:05 ↗ sanford's comments about municipal

1:24:07 ↗ parking uh boy

1:24:09 ↗ everything that he said is is golden not

1:24:13 ↗ only do i think that our city can

1:24:15 ↗ support economic development in our city

1:24:17 ↗ by municipal parking and perhaps over

1:24:20 ↗ the long term find a way for it not to

1:24:22 ↗ cost us a bunch of money

1:24:24 ↗ but can be a resource that um

1:24:28 ↗ pays for itself or so in some way

1:24:31 ↗ but to facilitate

1:24:33 ↗ um short distance uh walking uh in our

1:24:37 ↗ our retail districts is brilliant

1:24:40 ↗ love that thank you and i have been

1:24:41 ↗ supportive of municipal parking which we

1:24:43 ↗ haven't done

1:24:44 ↗ and i'd really like us to do it have for

1:24:47 ↗ a long time and don't know why we don't

1:24:48 ↗ maybe there's something in the code that

1:24:49 ↗ keeps us from doing that

1:24:52 ↗ and

1:24:53 ↗ let's see another thing about

1:24:59 ↗ just give me a moment i'm sorry

1:25:02 ↗ oh um

1:25:04 ↗ i wanted to point to

1:25:07 ↗ mercer island as an example of a city

1:25:10 ↗ that has tried different things over

1:25:12 ↗ time

1:25:13 ↗ to

1:25:15 ↗ make sure that it's a street in public

1:25:17 ↗ parking is for the intended uses

1:25:19 ↗ for instance they have suffered from

1:25:22 ↗ being a

1:25:23 ↗ transit destination and so in order to

1:25:26 ↗ prevent their streets from being

1:25:28 ↗ commuter parking lots they would

1:25:30 ↗ restrict parking up until say 9 a.m

1:25:35 ↗ and that way if you are trying to use

1:25:37 ↗ our city to park your car to take a bus

1:25:39 ↗ to bellevue or to take a train to

1:25:42 ↗ bellevue or seattle

1:25:43 ↗ [Music]

1:25:44 ↗ that way

1:25:45 ↗ we could have our streets available for

1:25:47 ↗ our businesses and the people who live

1:25:49 ↗ here

1:25:50 ↗ something like that they had some they

1:25:52 ↗ have had really great programs and they

1:25:54 ↗ have all evolved over the years

1:25:57 ↗ and then the um

1:25:58 ↗ the last thing i want to mention is i

1:26:00 ↗ hope there's nothing in our code that

1:26:02 ↗ prevents us from being creative in the

1:26:04 ↗ way that we use our street right of way

1:26:07 ↗ for

1:26:08 ↗ parking by putting the street on a diet

1:26:11 ↗ i know this is silly we all talk about

1:26:12 ↗ this see we've got these big you know

1:26:14 ↗ like four lane roads with this

1:26:16 ↗ um

1:26:18 ↗ uh turn lane down the middle that

1:26:19 ↗ somebody uses every once in a while

1:26:22 ↗ at an intersection

1:26:23 ↗ and then we have parallel parking

1:26:25 ↗ we can get a lot more parking in some

1:26:27 ↗ places where we want the street to be on

1:26:29 ↗ a diet maybe we want the street to slow

1:26:32 ↗ down

1:26:33 ↗ and

1:26:34 ↗ those very local destination

1:26:36 ↗ streets could use angle parking or some

1:26:39 ↗ other configuration of parking that

1:26:41 ↗ allows for more parking and

1:26:43 ↗ more pedestrian use and slower

1:26:46 ↗ speeds i hope that we have that kind of

1:26:48 ↗ flexibility in our code going forward so

1:26:50 ↗ we can look at that where it's

1:26:52 ↗ appropriate

1:26:54 ↗ the rest of my comments i think are

1:26:56 ↗ about

1:26:57 ↗ bikes so i'll wait

1:26:59 ↗ and then but do let me say that the

1:27:01 ↗ comments that i'm making now are the

1:27:03 ↗ things that i want to be helpful with

1:27:05 ↗ you've already got a lot of this going

1:27:07 ↗ in the right direction i really

1:27:08 ↗ appreciate the feedback from the

1:27:10 ↗ affinity groups keep listening to them

1:27:11 ↗ except for about the bikes

1:27:13 ↗ which we'll talk about

1:27:15 ↗ next

1:27:16 ↗ so thank you thank you chair paul

1:27:17 ↗ [Music]

1:27:20 ↗ thank you very much commissioner

1:27:22 ↗ milligan and i am not seeing any

1:27:24 ↗ additional comments i just want to call

1:27:27 ↗ on commissioners that haven't made any

1:27:29 ↗ comments or questions this evening to

1:27:31 ↗ make sure that

1:27:33 ↗ we are hearing from you

1:27:35 ↗ so i'm going to go ahead and give you

1:27:36 ↗ folks just a few more seconds here to

1:27:40 ↗ um if you have a comment or suggestion

1:27:42 ↗ please put that into the

1:27:44 ↗ chat window and i'll go ahead and call

1:27:45 ↗ on you

1:27:51 ↗ careful while we solicit additional

1:27:53 ↗ comments from commissioners i'd like to

1:27:54 ↗ respond to

1:27:55 ↗ a couple of comments and questions made

1:27:57 ↗ about municipal parking and and kind of

1:28:00 ↗ additional efforts

1:28:02 ↗ the biggest

1:28:04 ↗ barrier uh why cities don't do more

1:28:06 ↗ municipal parking is the cost so

1:28:09 ↗ as an example i previously worked with

1:28:11 ↗ the city of kirkland

1:28:13 ↗ and we built a

1:28:15 ↗ kirkland of

1:28:17 ↗ all the small cities probably have a

1:28:19 ↗ fairly expensive municipal parking

1:28:21 ↗ program they had their own parking

1:28:22 ↗ garage that they coordinated with the

1:28:24 ↗ development of the library in downtown

1:28:26 ↗ kirkland as well as they have two of

1:28:29 ↗ their own

1:28:30 ↗ actually three of their own parking lots

1:28:32 ↗ that they constructed

1:28:34 ↗ throughout the downtown

1:28:35 ↗ and

1:28:36 ↗ the most recent parking lot they

1:28:38 ↗ constructed put together 65 parking

1:28:40 ↗ stalls that cost a million dollars

1:28:43 ↗ so and that was just a flat surface

1:28:45 ↗ parking lot that wasn't even a parking

1:28:47 ↗ structure

1:28:49 ↗ when you get into constructing a parking

1:28:51 ↗ garage or large structure the cost per

1:28:54 ↗ parking stall reaches up to about a

1:28:57 ↗ hundred thousand dollars per stall

1:28:59 ↗ so

1:29:00 ↗ that is the biggest barrier i think we

1:29:03 ↗ have when it comes to municipal parking

1:29:05 ↗ i think the idea of getting investment

1:29:08 ↗ from the developers to go into a parking

1:29:10 ↗ garage is a good one

1:29:11 ↗ i just wonder if

1:29:13 ↗ it would be enough to

1:29:15 ↗ pay for a parking garage or even a

1:29:18 ↗ parking lot

1:29:20 ↗ and

1:29:21 ↗ if we consider something like that it

1:29:22 ↗ might require

1:29:24 ↗ additional public funding so that that's

1:29:27 ↗ that's one of the major barriers that

1:29:29 ↗ the city has always encountered what

1:29:30 ↗ we've looked at trying to construct our

1:29:32 ↗ own parking garage

1:29:33 ↗ based on all your comments i think we'll

1:29:35 ↗ want to take a look at again but i just

1:29:37 ↗ wanted to fill in that gap of why we

1:29:40 ↗ haven't done it yet or why many cities

1:29:42 ↗ don't do that

1:29:46 ↗ good comment uh plenary padua thank you

1:29:49 ↗ for that

1:29:50 ↗ uh okay i'm not seeing any additional

1:29:52 ↗ comments or questions so

1:29:54 ↗ with that um

1:29:56 ↗ kristin are we in a conclusion at the

1:29:59 ↗ moment

1:30:01 ↗ i would check with stephen but i believe

1:30:03 ↗ so

1:30:09 ↗ yes we are i just want to

1:30:12 ↗ quickly just share my screen just to

1:30:14 ↗ show kind of what the next steps are for

1:30:16 ↗ this project

1:30:18 ↗ can you all see the presentation

1:30:22 ↗ yes okay

1:30:23 ↗ so with the next steps where our plan is

1:30:25 ↗ to start working through the code and

1:30:28 ↗ we're going to be meeting again with the

1:30:29 ↗ affinity groups

1:30:30 ↗ um to talk about potential changes kind

1:30:33 ↗ of be going to code prior to bringing

1:30:35 ↗ back this topic to the commission

1:30:38 ↗ uh around june depending on kind of how

1:30:39 ↗ this process goes through the summer

1:30:42 ↗ so with that i i conclude the

1:30:44 ↗ presentation

1:30:46 ↗ thank you and i actually have two uh

1:30:48 ↗ comments that just came in as you were

1:30:51 ↗ discussing so commissioner milligan you

1:30:53 ↗ have a comment

1:30:57 ↗ thank you yeah i was following the rules

1:30:59 ↗ and sticking with the topics and i know

1:31:02 ↗ i already said something about bikes

1:31:04 ↗ commissioner milligan here uh but the um

1:31:07 ↗ there was uh bikes and then there was uh

1:31:09 ↗ shared parking which were the other

1:31:11 ↗ topics that we were thinking we were

1:31:13 ↗ separating out so there might be other

1:31:15 ↗ commissioners who want to speak up about

1:31:16 ↗ those i think

1:31:18 ↗ anyway i want to

1:31:20 ↗ plus one on share falls uh questions

1:31:22 ↗ earlier about bike parking and my

1:31:23 ↗ interpretation i really love the

1:31:25 ↗ affinity groups comments except i think

1:31:28 ↗ that they were

1:31:30 ↗ not anticipating

1:31:32 ↗ not even

1:31:33 ↗ recognizing the current need for bike

1:31:35 ↗ parking yeah sure it seems like there's

1:31:36 ↗ no problem with bike parking because

1:31:38 ↗ nobody parks their bikes because there's

1:31:39 ↗ no place to park your bike

1:31:41 ↗ i would love to ride a bike to many

1:31:44 ↗ facilities if i knew i had a safe place

1:31:46 ↗ to park them

1:31:47 ↗ and it needs to be a safe place there

1:31:49 ↗ are there must be something

1:31:52 ↗ in the regulations that say you could

1:31:55 ↗ put the bike parking off in the corner

1:31:58 ↗ back in the dark over there where

1:31:59 ↗ there's no traffic for instance my

1:32:01 ↗ favorite place to put a bike is where

1:32:02 ↗ there's a lot of visibility a lot of

1:32:04 ↗ eyes on the street

1:32:06 ↗ for security so if there's something

1:32:08 ↗ like that that helps our bike parking

1:32:11 ↗ requirements but i i think that that is

1:32:14 ↗ something we need to address and make

1:32:15 ↗ sure that we have

1:32:16 ↗ adequate

1:32:18 ↗ attention to

1:32:20 ↗ [Music]

1:32:22 ↗ that's

1:32:23 ↗ now i'm really done but i want to thank

1:32:25 ↗ the affinity groups for all the work

1:32:26 ↗ they did because i really do agree on

1:32:28 ↗ every single thing else they said except

1:32:30 ↗ for bike parking thank you

1:32:33 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan and

1:32:34 ↗ commissioner

1:32:36 ↗ brennan you have the floor

1:32:38 ↗ thank you cheerful i i was not quite

1:32:41 ↗ sure about the rules on this one

1:32:44 ↗ so um on the first few topics there the

1:32:46 ↗ consolidation etc um and setting the

1:32:50 ↗ kind of

1:32:51 ↗ um

1:32:51 ↗ the metrics used for determining parking

1:32:54 ↗ counts and creating a predictable set of

1:32:56 ↗ metrics that all that all makes a ton of

1:32:58 ↗ sense i think

1:32:59 ↗ no no debate about that in my mind the

1:33:02 ↗ transportation management plan that's

1:33:04 ↗ uh as commissioner morgan mentioned it's

1:33:07 ↗ about what's the

1:33:09 ↗ value on the return on the investment of

1:33:11 ↗ time and effort um it is tricky to

1:33:14 ↗ provide oversight on those on an ongoing

1:33:16 ↗ basis unless you've got an established

1:33:17 ↗ program they are they can be effective

1:33:20 ↗ but without that oversight

1:33:23 ↗ you kind of lose touch and they lose

1:33:25 ↗ their effectiveness but they are a tool

1:33:27 ↗ that's used to do reductions in parking

1:33:29 ↗ if you've got a transportation

1:33:30 ↗ management plan so

1:33:32 ↗ that one if there isn't an effective

1:33:34 ↗ oversight program then

1:33:37 ↗ i i would tend to agree that the

1:33:38 ↗ effectiveness is limited

1:33:40 ↗ i think the idea of contextual

1:33:42 ↗ requirements

1:33:43 ↗ makes sense um

1:33:45 ↗ i

1:33:47 ↗ it gets a little tricky i think there's

1:33:49 ↗ every project

1:33:50 ↗ some projects let's say not every

1:33:51 ↗ project some projects offer a unique set

1:33:53 ↗ of

1:33:54 ↗ um

1:33:55 ↗ parking needs that aren't really well

1:33:57 ↗ defined

1:33:58 ↗ um and i think if the code doesn't

1:34:00 ↗ already allow for

1:34:02 ↗ an off-ramp or a deviation from

1:34:04 ↗ standards using a parking study that's

1:34:07 ↗ specific to the use

1:34:09 ↗ i think that should be considered as an

1:34:11 ↗ alternative to deal with the uniqueness

1:34:13 ↗ of certain projects and their parking

1:34:15 ↗ needs

1:34:17 ↗ and then i totally ripped bikes i mean

1:34:20 ↗ i think we've gotta we've got to

1:34:21 ↗ accommodate we're moving toward

1:34:23 ↗ multi-modal um

1:34:25 ↗ you know transportation systems you've

1:34:26 ↗ got to accommodate parking for cars

1:34:28 ↗ that's big debate everybody's got an

1:34:31 ↗ opinion about parking for cars whether

1:34:33 ↗ we need more or less they're too big

1:34:35 ↗ they're too small

1:34:36 ↗ where they're located on and on where do

1:34:38 ↗ i plug my car in nowadays but i think

1:34:41 ↗ the idea for bikes is a growing

1:34:44 ↗ need and i think you need to be looking

1:34:46 ↗ ahead and setting

1:34:47 ↗ standards for bike parking

1:34:50 ↗ and then i agree with the shared parking

1:34:52 ↗ totally agree with that one of the

1:34:53 ↗ challenges is

1:34:55 ↗ not just shared parking between

1:34:57 ↗ properties but when you think about an

1:34:59 ↗ area as the downtown develops

1:35:02 ↗ like park one so you go you park in a

1:35:05 ↗ location and you can go to multiple

1:35:07 ↗ businesses but you don't have to move

1:35:08 ↗ your car

1:35:09 ↗ every time you want to go to another

1:35:11 ↗ business which is the case in a lot of

1:35:13 ↗ instances so

1:35:15 ↗ um i think me the city may not quite be

1:35:17 ↗ there yet

1:35:18 ↗ but it is a concept that might be uh

1:35:21 ↗ considered and the idea of opening up

1:35:24 ↗ your parking standards that's a big

1:35:26 ↗ project as you know and i understand why

1:35:28 ↗ you're limiting the scope

1:35:30 ↗ in this uh code update

1:35:32 ↗ um

1:35:33 ↗ because that could be by itself you know

1:35:36 ↗ a fairly

1:35:37 ↗ large piece of work and like i said

1:35:38 ↗ everybody's got an opinion so

1:35:40 ↗ and you'll hear from them so anyway i i

1:35:43 ↗ think great work on

1:35:44 ↗ on what you're

1:35:45 ↗ advancing now um

1:35:47 ↗ the pieces that you're advancing now

1:35:49 ↗ they seem to make sense to me

1:35:51 ↗ so thanks

1:35:54 ↗ thank you commissioner brennan and

1:35:56 ↗ commissioner lewis you have the floor

1:36:00 ↗ thank you commissioner joy lewis here um

1:36:03 ↗ again kind of addressing just this last

1:36:04 ↗ bucket i do think that it's important to

1:36:06 ↗ call out um that we really must account

1:36:09 ↗ for the need for bike parking to be safe

1:36:11 ↗ and visible right now it's something

1:36:13 ↗ that we have detailed in our policies

1:36:15 ↗ that's something our commission talks

1:36:16 ↗ about a lot but it worried me

1:36:19 ↗ seeing the affinity groups i i

1:36:21 ↗ their perspective on it is a little bit

1:36:23 ↗ different than mine so

1:36:24 ↗ i'm going to agree with um the previous

1:36:27 ↗ commissioner's comments that we've had

1:36:28 ↗ so far and really want to voice that i

1:36:30 ↗ what i want to say is i'm going to

1:36:32 ↗ appreciate you specifying to us how

1:36:35 ↗ we're going to reinforce the policies we

1:36:36 ↗ have with a restricted prescriptive

1:36:39 ↗ language so i'm going to put that on you

1:36:41 ↗ stephen i know you're going to do a

1:36:42 ↗ great job

1:36:44 ↗ and um you know whether it's something

1:36:46 ↗ if uh developers say this is a little

1:36:47 ↗ too onerous and i think it's certainly

1:36:49 ↗ applicable to say well the parks

1:36:51 ↗ department has uh something that they

1:36:52 ↗ like to put in for a fee we'd be happy

1:36:55 ↗ to give you the izapo treatment for you

1:36:57 ↗ to pony up if you don't want to deal

1:36:58 ↗ with it right and we can be able to um

1:37:01 ↗ put our specific design standards adding

1:37:04 ↗ little benches right there's all kinds

1:37:05 ↗ of things that we've talked about in the

1:37:06 ↗ past of how we want to be able to

1:37:08 ↗ integrate uh bike parking into our

1:37:10 ↗ community and i'm also happy to take a

1:37:12 ↗ larger fee from developers if they think

1:37:14 ↗ it's just too much for them to take on

1:37:16 ↗ um

1:37:17 ↗ we would be happy to not only have that

1:37:19 ↗ be enforced but also to uh be able to

1:37:21 ↗ create more of a liberal space if

1:37:23 ↗ they're not able to do that so i have a

1:37:25 ↗ hard time with the pushback of uh

1:37:28 ↗ of the concerns because i think right

1:37:30 ↗ now what we're finding is we're not

1:37:31 ↗ getting what we need

1:37:33 ↗ and we need to be able to accelerate

1:37:34 ↗ that so thank you

1:37:38 ↗ thank you commissioner lewis

1:37:40 ↗ uh now i'm not seeing any additional new

1:37:42 ↗ comments or questions so

1:37:44 ↗ i think from that uh

1:37:47 ↗ uh planner pedo we could probably go

1:37:49 ↗ ahead and um

1:37:53 ↗ call it

1:37:55 ↗ so with that uh let's go ahead and move

1:37:57 ↗ into

1:38:01 ↗ reports so uh

1:38:03 ↗ kristen do we have any new reports

1:38:06 ↗ i don't have anything regarding the

1:38:08 ↗ calendar and upcoming meetings um you

1:38:11 ↗ see i think you get a break for a while

1:38:14 ↗ congratulations um

1:38:16 ↗ but i do have some council updates for

1:38:19 ↗ you so

1:38:20 ↗ we have several agenda bills going to

1:38:23 ↗ council on february 22nd there are two

1:38:26 ↗ from a regional coalition for housing or

1:38:28 ↗ arch one is regarding the general fund

1:38:30 ↗ and they're recommending a little over

1:38:31 ↗ three million dollars to go toward five

1:38:33 ↗ different projects and one of those

1:38:35 ↗ projects is for five affordable units

1:38:37 ↗ from leo at the trailhead tod project

1:38:42 ↗ and then we have one there's an

1:38:44 ↗ interlocal agreement amendment with arch

1:38:45 ↗ that's being made

1:38:47 ↗ and lastly the docket that we had the

1:38:50 ↗ public hearing on on january 27th that

1:38:52 ↗ is also going to counsel on the 22nd

1:38:56 ↗ most amendments or most city council

1:38:58 ↗ updates so i'm going to leave too many

1:39:00 ↗ dolly wall because she has attended

1:39:02 ↗ quite a few recently

1:39:05 ↗ thanks kristen so uh we had the council

1:39:08 ↗ study session on title 18 um earlier um

1:39:12 ↗ last week or this week

1:39:15 ↗ on the 7th this week

1:39:18 ↗ we briefed them of all the good work

1:39:20 ↗ that all the boards and commissions have

1:39:22 ↗ been doing uh gave them links for all

1:39:25 ↗ your meeting meetings that you've done

1:39:27 ↗ all the agenda packets so if they really

1:39:29 ↗ want to know more they they have that

1:39:31 ↗ resource um

1:39:33 ↗ we shared with them the approach

1:39:36 ↗ of having these six larger groups uh

1:39:38 ↗ that you all are tackling

1:39:40 ↗ and

1:39:41 ↗ proposed that after you

1:39:44 ↗ have a public hearing on one group

1:39:46 ↗ and deliberate on it that we take move

1:39:49 ↗ that forward for council's discussion so

1:39:51 ↗ they can

1:39:52 ↗ you look at it get familiar with it

1:39:55 ↗ discuss it and give us any additional

1:39:57 ↗ considerations they want the boards and

1:39:59 ↗ commissions

1:40:00 ↗ to look at if there are missing pieces

1:40:03 ↗ in there so that way they won't get

1:40:05 ↗ everything all bundled up together but

1:40:07 ↗ as we go through each of those six

1:40:09 ↗ topics uh we would um have a council

1:40:12 ↗ discussion on those

1:40:13 ↗ so um i think they were favorable to

1:40:16 ↗ that uh we'll be working on the details

1:40:18 ↗ for when and how

1:40:19 ↗ and all of that that will work uh some

1:40:22 ↗ feedback that they gave us um

1:40:25 ↗ you know was related to public outreach

1:40:27 ↗ um so the first topic which is going out

1:40:31 ↗ um

1:40:33 ↗ we had our first open house on natural

1:40:35 ↗ environment

1:40:36 ↗ which you'll be having a public hearing

1:40:38 ↗ on the 24th so that went well i think

1:40:40 ↗ they were supportive of having a place

1:40:42 ↗ for folks to come in and get their

1:40:44 ↗ questions answered before the public

1:40:46 ↗ hearing um so we'll continue that same

1:40:49 ↗ pattern with when you have a public

1:40:50 ↗ hearing we will have a open house for q

1:40:53 ↗ a

1:40:53 ↗ uh sessions where uh folks can come in

1:40:56 ↗ and get uh you know uh if they're

1:40:58 ↗ confused about the content or have a

1:41:00 ↗ question about it we can help support

1:41:02 ↗ that

1:41:03 ↗ obviously anyone can reach us regardless

1:41:06 ↗ of the open house to get their questions

1:41:08 ↗ answered so

1:41:09 ↗ that's the sort of discussion we had

1:41:11 ↗ with council and let me see what other

1:41:13 ↗ feedback we heard from them

1:41:16 ↗ um

1:41:19 ↗ uh yeah there was the the concern about

1:41:22 ↗ um

1:41:23 ↗ they're they're gonna get the whole

1:41:25 ↗ complete packet um back in september

1:41:28 ↗ when they'll also be uh looking at

1:41:30 ↗ budget at the time so

1:41:33 ↗ so the timing uh concerns were expressed

1:41:36 ↗ uh that we'll be working with um with

1:41:38 ↗ them on

1:41:39 ↗ um

1:41:40 ↗ they they were

1:41:42 ↗ good with the affinity uh session one

1:41:45 ↗ question came up was um

1:41:47 ↗ the we are sending a postcard to

1:41:49 ↗ everyone in the city all property owners

1:41:52 ↗ and residents informing them of the land

1:41:54 ↗ use code update

1:41:56 ↗ and inviting them to uh the open house

1:41:58 ↗ in march 8th

1:42:01 ↗ so

1:42:02 ↗ they had some feedback on including some

1:42:05 ↗ additional language content in there and

1:42:07 ↗ so we've incorporated some of that

1:42:09 ↗ in that design

1:42:12 ↗ um

1:42:14 ↗ so i think those were sort of the

1:42:17 ↗ the main things they

1:42:18 ↗ they were interested in and i can

1:42:21 ↗ um

1:42:23 ↗ but they appreciated all the work that

1:42:24 ↗ all the boards and commissions have done

1:42:26 ↗ and you know we assured them that if you

1:42:29 ↗ feel

1:42:30 ↗ at some point this you need more time or

1:42:33 ↗ that you you have more questions for us

1:42:35 ↗ that we want to make have that

1:42:36 ↗ opportunity to to let you um you know

1:42:39 ↗ reach out to us one on one we can also

1:42:41 ↗ set up some time with a few of you at a

1:42:43 ↗ time uh because as we get into the

1:42:46 ↗ second phase which is the code update

1:42:48 ↗ the the content will get a little bit

1:42:50 ↗ more technical we want to make sure we

1:42:52 ↗ break it down and and not get you know

1:42:55 ↗ inundate you with with a lot of content

1:42:57 ↗ um

1:42:58 ↗ but um

1:42:59 ↗ so that's that's what happened in the

1:43:01 ↗ council study session in

1:43:03 ↗ uh upcoming meetings i think um kristen

1:43:05 ↗ kind of captured those that are

1:43:07 ↗ happening on february 22nd um

1:43:11 ↗ the rezone that you all um have passed

1:43:14 ↗ on that is also scheduled for february

1:43:16 ↗ 22nd

1:43:17 ↗ so they'll be making decisions on

1:43:18 ↗ whether to put it on the docket or not

1:43:20 ↗ um that's all i have no more to report

1:43:24 ↗ back to you kristen

1:43:26 ↗ i have nothing else to report

1:43:30 ↗ okay

1:43:31 ↗ and thank you marcia

1:43:33 ↗ kristen and minnie um

1:43:37 ↗ okay another business no business

1:43:39 ↗ announcements we're we're good okay so

1:43:42 ↗ i'm going to go ahead and join the

1:43:42 ↗ meeting at

1:43:44 ↗ 8 13.

1:44:03 ↗ 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 (10)

Faul

Commissioners Bader

Lewis

Milligan

Zaragoza Absence: Vice Chair Voiss (Excused) Commissioner Monahan (Excused) Development Commissioners Present: Chair Brennan

Vice-Chair Price

Commissioners Morgan

Sanford

Shore

Sowa Absence: Commissioner Schulte has submitted resignation Commissioner Dillon (Unexcused) Commissioner Ikeda (Unexcused)

Staff (5)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, CB&D Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager, CP&D Lucy Sloman, Current Planning Manager 2. Approval of Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page 23 of 1355 APPROVAL OF MINUTES c) 02-10-22 Special Joint Meeting Planning Policy Commission & Development Commission Meeting Minutes a) Chair Faul asked if there were any comments or changes to the Special Joint PPC

DEV meeting minutes of January 20, 2022

there were none. The minutes were approved. b) Chair Faul asked if there were any comments or changes to the Special Joint PPC

DEV meeting minutes of January 27, 2022

there were none. The minutes were approved. 3