Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 12, 2014 · City Council Digest

2. COMMISSION MEMBERS

Commission Members

packet pp.2

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 8, 2014

Open packet at p.2 ↗

Staff report:

after the Mayor and/or Council has already shared the direction they moving toward.

3672 segments .txt ↗

0:23 ↗ there we are the lights on good evening

0:29 ↗ the Piney policy commission meeting for

0:32 ↗ Thursday June 12th will come to order it

0:36 ↗ at 6 35 first item of business is

0:38 ↗ approval of the minutes for May 22nd

0:42 ↗ are there any additions or Corrections

0:44 ↗ for members of the commission

0:47 ↗ seeing none yeah I have I have one I

0:51 ↗ think on

0:57 ↗ uh

1:12 ↗ six

1:14 ↗ today

1:24 ↗ upgraded you tonight we're kidding

1:36 ↗ is your mic on call

1:38 ↗ I was trying but I don't know

1:42 ↗ is the red light on okay it is now there

1:45 ↗ it is now he's happy

1:48 ↗ how about the top of page seven

1:54 ↗ that was that was me okay

2:00 ↗ any other Corrections

2:02 ↗ I also have one addition that I'm not

2:06 ↗ seeing in the minutes and I'm not sure

2:07 ↗ at what point we talked about this but

2:09 ↗ during the utilities discussion uh I

2:12 ↗ specifically remember asking about

2:15 ↗ uh the possibility of inclusion of fiber

2:18 ↗ optic expansion and I didn't see that

2:20 ↗ within the minutes

2:22 ↗ okay okay okay

2:28 ↗ anything else

2:31 ↗ if none noting the changes

2:34 ↗ is there a motion to accept the minutes

2:37 ↗ um second offered and second all in

2:39 ↗ favor

2:41 ↗ opposed

2:43 ↗ Mr approved

2:45 ↗ move on the next item of business is the

2:49 ↗ Transportation element update yes

2:57 ↗ Kristen the floor is yours excellent

3:00 ↗ because I love having the floor

3:03 ↗ um so for those of you who I haven't met

3:04 ↗ yet I'm Kristen Lisa and I'm a senior

3:06 ↗ planner with development services

3:09 ↗ and I've worked with Trish for about 11

3:11 ↗ years or so

3:12 ↗ um

3:13 ↗ so tonight we I know only 11. tonight we

3:17 ↗ have we're talking about two different

3:18 ↗ elements we were talking about the

3:21 ↗ Transportation element and we're going

3:24 ↗ to do what we did last time and talk

3:25 ↗ about the goals we're just going to

3:27 ↗ focus on the goals and then we'll move

3:28 ↗ into the land you settlement and talk

3:30 ↗ about the changes that were made to the

3:32 ↗ goals just briefly that we covered those

3:33 ↗ and then start discussing policies

3:36 ↗ so moving right into it

3:39 ↗ um

3:40 ↗ first thing I'd really like to talk to

3:41 ↗ and it's part of the element is the

3:44 ↗ one of the city council's 2015 goals one

3:49 ↗ of their goals is to establish a master

3:51 ↗ they called it a transportation Mobility

3:53 ↗ plan we're changing it to our

3:54 ↗ transportation master plan we're trying

3:56 ↗ to change that to a Mobility master plan

4:01 ↗ I think so

4:04 ↗ let me skip this cute well

4:08 ↗ so what they would like the

4:10 ↗ transportation master plan to be is a

4:12 ↗ comprehensive multimodal approach to

4:14 ↗ transportation to identify near and

4:16 ↗ long-term projects and funding

4:18 ↗ mechanisms for those

4:19 ↗ they would like to incorporate several

4:21 ↗ existing plans that we have including

4:23 ↗ complete streets

4:25 ↗ pet and bike policies and plans and then

4:28 ↗ we're also currently working on

4:30 ↗ Transportation concurrency and they

4:32 ↗ would like that to be incorporated into

4:33 ↗ it

4:35 ↗ they they suggested that the development

4:38 ↗ of the master plan can be started with

4:40 ↗ the transportation element

4:42 ↗ and one of the examples that they

4:45 ↗ suggested that we look at is the Redmond

4:47 ↗ Transportation master plan

4:50 ↗ so some of the contents in the Redmond

4:52 ↗ plan as well as a few others there are

4:55 ↗ Trends and conditions performance

4:57 ↗ measurements multimodal transportation

4:59 ↗ system plans motorized non-motorized

5:03 ↗ Transit they include Freight access and

5:05 ↗ distribution parking plans and

5:08 ↗ transportation demand management

5:10 ↗ Regional Transportation maintenance and

5:13 ↗ operation plans and pro plans and

5:15 ↗ programs and three-year priority action

5:18 ↗ plans design guidance

5:20 ↗ one other thing another goal that the

5:22 ↗ city council had was to do a circulation

5:25 ↗ plan it was a proposed goal to do a

5:27 ↗ circulation plan for Old Town and what

5:29 ↗ they decided to do is combine that in

5:31 ↗ with the Mobility master plan

5:35 ↗ so that is an additional piece to this

5:38 ↗ so we're already working on a lot of

5:40 ↗ this and in 2014 we're working on the

5:43 ↗ mobility action plan and that includes

5:46 ↗ priority projects there are 13 on there

5:49 ↗ they are prioritized there were about 80

5:51 ↗ in total that we're looking at we priced

5:53 ↗ out the first 13 and those will be

5:54 ↗ included as well as the others into the

5:57 ↗ maps that we have the non-motorized maps

5:59 ↗ we also identified recommendations for

6:03 ↗ policy changes program changes and

6:05 ↗ standards changes

6:07 ↗ we're also currently working on updating

6:10 ↗ concurrency

6:11 ↗ and this includes updating our models

6:13 ↗ once we use we use land use assumptions

6:15 ↗ to find out figure out how traffic's

6:16 ↗ going to work over the next 20 years and

6:18 ↗ see what improvements need to be made

6:20 ↗ we're updating the transportation impact

6:22 ↗ fee the we're trying to simplify

6:25 ↗ concurrency and impact fees we're coming

6:28 ↗ up with a new non-motorized

6:29 ↗ Transportation mitigation fee that came

6:31 ↗ out of the central Issaquah plan and

6:34 ↗ looking at funding strategies how are we

6:36 ↗ going to pay for all these things that's

6:37 ↗ part of what we're doing right now as

6:39 ↗ well

6:40 ↗ 2015 June of 2015 is when the

6:43 ↗ transportation element will be finished

6:45 ↗ and that includes all of the 20-year the

6:48 ↗ street system transit system pedestrian

6:50 ↗ system and bicycle system plans or maps

6:53 ↗ that we have that show all of the routes

6:55 ↗ that we want to be built in 20 years

6:58 ↗ it includes the transportation

6:59 ↗ Improvement program which is our

7:01 ↗ long-range plan

7:02 ↗ uh project descriptions three-year

7:04 ↗ priority action plan concurrency

7:06 ↗ management and level of service policies

7:09 ↗ in a street functional classification

7:10 ↗ system most of that is in there now and

7:13 ↗ we're just updating

7:15 ↗ and I say just updating it's kind of a

7:17 ↗ big deal but we're updating those

7:19 ↗ existing things 2017 we will turn that

7:22 ↗ into a standalone Master Mobility plan

7:26 ↗ and we'll add Trends and conditions

7:28 ↗ performance measurements and some of

7:30 ↗ Freight distribution we'll update our

7:32 ↗ TDM plan and include maintenance and

7:35 ↗ operations plan Regional Transportation

7:37 ↗ as well

7:38 ↗ and then in 2019 we'll do on the

7:40 ↗ Citywide parking plan Old Town

7:42 ↗ circulation plan design guidelines and

7:44 ↗ by that time it will be time to update

7:46 ↗ the concurrency model again

7:48 ↗ so just to kind of give you guys

7:50 ↗ a

7:51 ↗ snapshot of what needs to be done what's

7:54 ↗ going to be done over the next four

7:55 ↗ years but the transportation element is

7:57 ↗ a huge piece of that so when we start

8:00 ↗ updating the policies we have a schedule

8:03 ↗ for it but I think the schedule is going

8:04 ↗ to change a little bit for when this

8:06 ↗ comes back to PPC

8:07 ↗ we can't really do the concurrency

8:09 ↗ policies and level of service policies

8:11 ↗ until Council has adopted those changes

8:13 ↗ and that won't be until fall actually

8:15 ↗ they won't adopt until by the end of the

8:18 ↗ year we'll start working on them in fall

8:20 ↗ and then we can start incorporating some

8:22 ↗ of the pedestrian non-motorized bike

8:24 ↗ policies

8:26 ↗ now or in the next month or two once

8:29 ↗ that comes along so that we're waiting

8:30 ↗ on a few updates before we can move on

8:32 ↗ this question yes when you're talking

8:35 ↗ about concurrency are you referring only

8:37 ↗ to Road concurrency or multimodal

8:39 ↗ multimodal concurrency

8:42 ↗ Kristen yes can you go back two slides

8:46 ↗ oops wrong way

8:48 ↗ this one

8:49 ↗ next one more

8:52 ↗ can you explain the difference between

8:54 ↗ what the transportation Improvement

8:55 ↗ program 20-year is and what the tip

8:58 ↗ expanded project description is because

9:00 ↗ I thought

9:02 ↗ that the tip was was 20-year plan you

9:04 ↗ know I thought about two I should have

9:06 ↗ taken the second one out it's so when

9:08 ↗ when you all see Gary every time he has

9:11 ↗ the the charts that lists out all of the

9:13 ↗ projects and then it includes the

9:15 ↗ pricing

9:16 ↗ this is the other piece to that he also

9:18 ↗ has individual sheets that describe each

9:20 ↗ one

9:20 ↗ right and that's all it is they first

9:23 ↗ I've broken out into two different

9:24 ↗ sections here it's all one yeah I want

9:26 ↗ to know if it was expanded Beyond 20

9:29 ↗ years or something if we were talking

9:30 ↗ about it no no

9:37 ↗ okay right I just wanted to make sure

9:38 ↗ that's what it was yes okay thank you

9:40 ↗ you're welcome

9:41 ↗ I have another question too just to make

9:44 ↗ sure how this all fits together so we're

9:46 ↗ working on the transportation element of

9:48 ↗ the plan

9:49 ↗ and all these things are going on kind

9:51 ↗ of concurrently so we need to make sure

9:53 ↗ they they fit together right correct so

9:55 ↗ the master uh Mobility master plan we

9:59 ↗ have to basically say in here that

10:01 ↗ that's what we're going to do next right

10:03 ↗ instead of line that up and I guess

10:05 ↗ those are the kind of things I'm right

10:06 ↗ there's a section in here called

10:08 ↗ Mobility management and I would imagine

10:09 ↗ that a policy in there would be develop

10:12 ↗ a Mobility master plan right to yeah

10:14 ↗ yeah so those kinds of things that

10:16 ↗ aren't quite here yet as you bring some

10:17 ↗ of these other things to light and then

10:18 ↗ we take the transportation element out

10:21 ↗ of it included in the master or the

10:23 ↗ mobility master plan plus all those

10:25 ↗ other pieces because you got it you got

10:27 ↗ a thing laid out for four years it isn't

10:29 ↗ quite set up to be done yet right which

10:32 ↗ is why our schedule may not work that we

10:34 ↗ already have out there and then and then

10:36 ↗ so some of the details you say you're

10:37 ↗ not coming till the fall for some of

10:39 ↗ these things you're going to want so

10:40 ↗ that's

10:41 ↗ the more detail that will fall under

10:42 ↗ what we're talking about correct correct

10:46 ↗ yeah a lot of it I can't even address

10:47 ↗ right now it's just

10:49 ↗ there's too much flying around

10:52 ↗ for me to keep up all right

10:54 ↗ so the transportation element we're

10:56 ↗ going to do what we did last time and

10:57 ↗ just talk about the goals

10:59 ↗ so just as a reminder a goal is your aim

11:03 ↗ or desired result

11:04 ↗ the policy is what guides you

11:08 ↗ to achieve those goals and

11:09 ↗ implementation is the execution of those

11:12 ↗ policies the actual doing okay so

11:14 ↗ tonight it's the big picture aim

11:18 ↗ so why it's important one it's a huge

11:21 ↗ piece of the mobility master plan

11:24 ↗ two Transportation patterns affect land

11:26 ↗ use patterns as much as Landry says you

11:28 ↗ know it's vice versa they affect each

11:29 ↗ other equally

11:31 ↗ and transportation seems to be the

11:33 ↗ number one issue that residents and

11:35 ↗ businesses would like to see addressed

11:36 ↗ in the city so it's a pretty big

11:40 ↗ so the vision currently

11:43 ↗ is to provide a comprehensive

11:45 ↗ well-managed active transportation

11:47 ↗ system that enables the safe and

11:49 ↗ efficient movement of all users

11:50 ↗ contributes to the public realm through

11:53 ↗ well-designed and inviting facilities

11:55 ↗ and provides a variety of facilities

11:57 ↗ that accommodate the multiple functions

11:59 ↗ that occur such as connectivity

12:01 ↗ Recreation passive use informal

12:04 ↗ Gathering and storm water

12:06 ↗ yes

12:10 ↗ I'm unclear what

12:12 ↗ what about storm water

12:15 ↗ it's

12:16 ↗ storm water what just that it's like

12:18 ↗ that it infiltrates that it doesn't

12:19 ↗ flood that it's infiltrated back into

12:22 ↗ the ground because they feel like that

12:23 ↗ sentence kind of

12:25 ↗ sticks out there well no it's just like

12:27 ↗ and storm water

12:30 ↗ oh okay you know like I was thinking

12:32 ↗ okay well the removal this the storage

12:34 ↗ of it the

12:36 ↗ um treat like what about it are we

12:39 ↗ trying to address okay

12:41 ↗ so expand a bit stormwater infiltration

12:44 ↗ yeah anything I was just like oh did a

12:47 ↗ word get dropped off okay right because

12:50 ↗ we don't want to say we're transporting

12:52 ↗ the storm water yeah

12:54 ↗ we're supposed to do with it now that we

12:58 ↗ have it we have

13:02 ↗ okay so we're trying to say minimizing

13:04 ↗ of uh Imperial surface maybe he said

13:08 ↗ were we getting it

13:10 ↗ not necessarily because if you want

13:13 ↗ non-motorized facilities

13:14 ↗ and bike Lanes or cycle tracks your

13:17 ↗ roads aren't going to get any skinnier

13:19 ↗ so not really you just want to be sure

13:21 ↗ that when you're building all of this

13:22 ↗ that you're not creating more problems

13:24 ↗ with correct

13:27 ↗ anything else one more question another

13:29 ↗ paragraph and a second line it talks

13:30 ↗ about movement of all users

13:32 ↗ yes usually just felt weird to me

13:36 ↗ um citizens as people users who are kind

13:39 ↗ of like a

13:40 ↗ I don't know pay for you use kind of

13:42 ↗ thing I guess

13:49 ↗ thought is to make sure that some of the

13:52 ↗ um the way we do you know the green the

13:55 ↗ storm water kinds of um the not ditches

13:59 ↗ but the infiltration systems that look

14:01 ↗ green and landscaped but really they're

14:04 ↗ um like on uh Rainier to make sure that

14:07 ↗ those are what we think of when we put

14:09 ↗ in a new rotor we repair a road that it

14:11 ↗ doesn't have to be just ditches and

14:13 ↗ culverts that it could actually be that

14:15 ↗ nice green infiltrating but that looks

14:17 ↗ like it's the landscape

14:24 ↗ um what what does active means as

14:27 ↗ opposed to I mean I assume I know what

14:30 ↗ it means but first why is it capitalized

14:32 ↗ to

14:35 ↗ you know this active transportation is

14:37 ↗ passive transportation

14:39 ↗ it's it's active it's capitalized

14:41 ↗ because it's defined okay that's the

14:44 ↗ only reason okay and a lot of people

14:46 ↗ don't know what it means so we defined

14:47 ↗ it right okay

14:48 ↗ um

14:49 ↗ I didn't see the

14:51 ↗ definition

14:53 ↗ it's pulled or

14:55 ↗ straight from Central Issaquah and

14:57 ↗ trying to be consistent we use the same

15:00 ↗ term

15:01 ↗ but is it is it the active well to me

15:05 ↗ implies you know you think of passive

15:09 ↗ like passive Recreation versus active

15:12 ↗ Recreation okay if you apply to

15:14 ↗ Transportation you think of you know

15:16 ↗ more motorized as opposed to walking so

15:19 ↗ sitting in your car pedaling a bike

15:21 ↗ okay

15:22 ↗ so I don't know if it has a definition

15:24 ↗ that goes beyond that it's fine but

15:27 ↗ otherwise I would

15:29 ↗ prefer to not have the word active as

15:32 ↗ part of it

15:33 ↗ okay

15:36 ↗ um

15:36 ↗ we can look at that the only concern is

15:38 ↗ consistency that's one of the goals that

15:40 ↗ we're trying to achieve is to make sure

15:41 ↗ that the comprehensive plan is

15:43 ↗ consistent with the centralized aquam so

15:46 ↗ um

15:48 ↗ definition right there is it not in in

15:50 ↗ parentheses it is right there yeah and

15:53 ↗ and that's out of the center is a

15:55 ↗ coupling because it talks about mass

15:57 ↗ transit which is really outdated term

16:01 ↗ um but because we have to be consistent

16:03 ↗ we can't change that

16:04 ↗ right Mass trans

16:07 ↗ I have one more thing I guess back to

16:10 ↗ the storm water thing sorry

16:13 ↗ um because I know that I don't know the

16:15 ↗ soils in Issaquah that well and I don't

16:30 ↗ sure did your mic go turn off

16:39 ↗ so anyways I don't know if it we should

16:41 ↗ say it accommodate storm water rather

16:44 ↗ than just you know

16:47 ↗ it's just my thought and sometimes we

16:49 ↗ shouldn't accommodate sometimes we

16:50 ↗ should so and I think putting it up

16:52 ↗ there we just want to be sure we're

16:53 ↗ always thinking about it because you're

16:55 ↗ right some places are really good for

16:57 ↗ infiltration and some places not yeah so

16:59 ↗ we just don't want to forget that

17:01 ↗ roadways and and transportation pieces

17:04 ↗ are often also our storm water

17:07 ↗ facilities whether they're pipes or

17:09 ↗ infiltration got it okay and we could

17:12 ↗ also think we could also say you know an

17:15 ↗ appropriate storm water infiltration but

17:16 ↗ that is looked at every single time any

17:20 ↗ project comes in right

17:21 ↗ whether it can or not okay okay and one

17:25 ↗ thing that I'm not seeing within the

17:26 ↗ transportation Vision

17:28 ↗ um you know comprehensive well-managed

17:30 ↗ efficient but could we work in

17:33 ↗ environmentally responsible as kind of

17:35 ↗ an overarching goal of the

17:36 ↗ transportation system I think that would

17:38 ↗ go a long way to making sure that that's

17:40 ↗ addressed in each of the goals

17:49 ↗ we all okay with it baby

17:51 ↗ it didn't come out very well is

17:52 ↗ everybody okay with that yeah okay some

17:55 ↗ language I was going to suggest was

17:57 ↗ something like that maximizes or

18:00 ↗ minimizes now maximize is Energy

18:02 ↗ Efficiency because it says efficient but

18:05 ↗ it says efficient movement so we have

18:07 ↗ the other version of Ephesians the

18:10 ↗ maximize his Energy Efficiency and

18:14 ↗ minimize its description to the

18:16 ↗ environments

18:28 ↗ okay

18:30 ↗ so I would be adding environmentally

18:33 ↗ responsible maximizes Energy Efficiency

18:35 ↗ and minimizes

18:38 ↗ I can't read my word destruction

18:40 ↗ disruption thank you looks like it

18:42 ↗ starts with an A disruption to the

18:44 ↗ environment

18:45 ↗ okay

18:50 ↗ ready okay

18:55 ↗ I don't want to go through each and

18:56 ↗ every one of these

18:57 ↗ um but these are GMA requirements so GMA

19:00 ↗ as you all know requires certain

19:04 ↗ pieces be addressed in your

19:05 ↗ comprehensive plans and essentially

19:07 ↗ they're saying make sure that you use

19:09 ↗ land assumptions to determine what your

19:12 ↗ travel is going to be like and how

19:14 ↗ people are going to travel over the next

19:15 ↗ 20 years make sure that you have a

19:17 ↗ funding strategy to pay for all of this

19:19 ↗ make sure that you don't let development

19:21 ↗ happen unless things are mitigated

19:23 ↗ or other things are changed such as the

19:25 ↗ level of services decreased

19:27 ↗ um

19:28 ↗ make sure that you have 20-year plans in

19:30 ↗ place

19:32 ↗ um

19:33 ↗ again with funding make sure that you

19:35 ↗ coordinate with other agencies

19:37 ↗ use Transportation demand management

19:39 ↗ strategies to try and get people out of

19:42 ↗ single occupancy vehicles

19:44 ↗ and

19:46 ↗ you make sure that you are concurrent so

19:49 ↗ that really quickly summarizes all those

19:51 ↗ policies we can't change them but I just

19:54 ↗ wanted to go over those with you

19:57 ↗ okay

19:59 ↗ first category so like we did with land

20:02 ↗ use this is broken up into different

20:03 ↗ categories

20:05 ↗ first category is transportation and

20:07 ↗ land use and IT addresses land use

20:09 ↗ assumptions growth targets

20:10 ↗ Transportation Improvement program and

20:12 ↗ concurrency

20:14 ↗ the first goal is coordinate land use

20:16 ↗ and transportation

20:18 ↗ so like GMA said

20:20 ↗ make sure that you don't let development

20:23 ↗ happen unless

20:24 ↗ the traffic impacts are mitigated or

20:26 ↗ unless the level of service has changed

20:29 ↗ essentially and there are other things

20:31 ↗ but that's what it's saying

20:33 ↗ any question would that be maybe better

20:36 ↗ addressed by coordinating with

20:39 ↗ land use with Transportation I suppose

20:41 ↗ so it doesn't seem like we're just

20:43 ↗ addressing both goals separately but

20:46 ↗ we're actually coordinating the tools

20:51 ↗ do I hear any names

21:02 ↗ 30 but that's okay very fashionable

21:05 ↗ do you need a chair

21:08 ↗ um we'll get a

21:11 ↗ H okay

21:14 ↗ number two

21:17 ↗ okay one of the rolly ones would work

21:19 ↗ let me get it up there oh wait

21:31 ↗ where did you figure yeah

21:34 ↗ okay

21:36 ↗ unless there any other comments on the

21:37 ↗ first one

21:40 ↗ number two

21:42 ↗ is link development and transportation

21:44 ↗ improvements by tying Transportation

21:46 ↗ cost estimates and potential funding to

21:49 ↗ job and population growth rates

22:11 ↗ are we good okay

22:15 ↗ three

22:17 ↗ and actually moving on to a different

22:18 ↗ section as well this is transportation

22:20 ↗ demand management which is trying to get

22:22 ↗ people out of single occupancy vehicles

22:25 ↗ so we work with different companies

22:27 ↗ large companies when they come in to

22:29 ↗ come up with plans for carpooling or

22:31 ↗ Bike Share or private small vehicles

22:33 ↗ that people can use if they take transit

22:35 ↗ that's what this includes

22:37 ↗ use Transportation demand management

22:38 ↗ techniques to achieve efficient use of

22:40 ↗ Transportation infrastructure increase

22:42 ↗ the person carrying capacity accommodate

22:45 ↗ and facilitate future growth and Achieve

22:48 ↗ issaquah's land use objectives

22:51 ↗ I did have a question with regard to the

22:53 ↗ wording of increase the person carrying

22:56 ↗ capacity is that of the rights of way or

22:58 ↗ of the individual Vehicles individual

23:00 ↗ vehicles I believe I can have to check

23:03 ↗ but I believe that's individual Vehicles

23:04 ↗ since that's the point of this whole

23:06 ↗ section right like a van pool or a

23:08 ↗ carpool or a something like that okay a

23:11 ↗ shuttle yeah a shuttle yeah

23:17 ↗ anything else

23:20 ↗ okay

23:21 ↗ number four support alternative modes of

23:24 ↗ transportation that help to reduce

23:25 ↗ dependency

23:27 ↗ on single occupancy vehicles

23:34 ↗ uh I would uh support something a little

23:39 ↗ instead of support as a word what about

23:42 ↗ the offer travel choices

23:47 ↗ it's more active

23:50 ↗ okay

23:52 ↗ um

23:54 ↗ I'm just thinking goal versus policy

23:57 ↗ that's what I'm doing

23:58 ↗ but

24:00 ↗ right

24:03 ↗ this is a bigger picture so that could

24:06 ↗ be a policy that says oh and that would

24:09 ↗ be very specific it would be it would be

24:11 ↗ but I'm looking at it as a broader okay

24:15 ↗ in the broader context of

24:19 ↗ um so the

24:21 ↗ support

24:23 ↗ I just want to understand doesn't seem

24:25 ↗ strong enough or actionable enough yeah

24:28 ↗ okay

24:29 ↗ so how about if I look for a more

24:31 ↗ actionable word okay that keeps it a

24:33 ↗ goal okay

24:34 ↗ and along those same lines the

24:38 ↗ transportation demand management is also

24:40 ↗ aimed at reducing carbon emissions

24:44 ↗ um

24:45 ↗ so but while IT addresses single

24:47 ↗ occupancy vehicle use

24:49 ↗ I would be in favor of

24:52 ↗ a goal added just below that to support

24:55 ↗ the use of alternative energy vehicles

24:59 ↗ or low emissions zero emission vehicles

25:02 ↗ okay that's part of the plan as well and

25:03 ↗ I think that would go a long way to a

25:05 ↗ reduction of emissions as well so goal

25:07 ↗ number six has prioritized non-motorized

25:09 ↗ and Transit oriented Mobility

25:10 ↗ improvements and Design Elements because

25:13 ↗ of their climate reduction benefits

25:20 ↗ does that cover

25:22 ↗ what you'd like to see

25:24 ↗ or

25:27 ↗ um not necessarily because these are

25:30 ↗ still motorized vehicles and they're not

25:32 ↗ Transit oriented and it doesn't really

25:34 ↗ go to the um

25:37 ↗ overall demand management design and so

25:41 ↗ that's where I think as a separate goal

25:43 ↗ or even modifying the goal related to

25:48 ↗ Alternative modes of transportation

25:49 ↗ would address that

25:50 ↗ okay for the fun of it could you repeat

25:53 ↗ your first one for me please and then

25:55 ↗ I'll and uh

25:57 ↗ uh what was that good for the fun of it

26:00 ↗ could you repeat your first phrasing for

26:02 ↗ me oh um

26:04 ↗ support

26:06 ↗ um

26:08 ↗ it was yeah alternative alternative

26:11 ↗ um fuel okay Vehicles including low

26:15 ↗ emission and zero emission Vehicles

26:16 ↗ could we just add that to that uh

26:20 ↗ lower increased the person carrying

26:23 ↗ capacity lower emissions accommodate and

26:26 ↗ yeah it could either be added to uh goal

26:29 ↗ three or goal four I think it could fit

26:31 ↗ into either one of those with just a

26:32 ↗ rewording okay

26:36 ↗ all right

26:40 ↗ so

26:43 ↗ goal five

26:45 ↗ I actually I'm starting to go back to on

26:47 ↗ um

26:50 ↗ goal four

26:52 ↗ um instead of support alternative modes

26:54 ↗ like what Chantel was saying what about

26:55 ↗ encourage

26:57 ↗ is that a more

27:00 ↗ um

27:01 ↗ actionable actionable but still it

27:04 ↗ doesn't like put this city out there for

27:08 ↗ like committing to yeah dividing the

27:12 ↗ alternative modes

27:15 ↗ um yeah I encourage I mean unless you

27:17 ↗ would say provide incentives for yeah or

27:20 ↗ something like that I don't see that as

27:22 ↗ much more actionable and support

27:25 ↗ okay

27:27 ↗ yes

27:30 ↗ that's all right

27:40 ↗ that is

27:45 ↗ no I was going to ask I was waiting for

27:47 ↗ the next goal the managed parking

27:49 ↗ through plans and

27:52 ↗ is that in the parking plans to put in

27:56 ↗ um

27:57 ↗ charging stations for the electric

27:59 ↗ vehicles that's 2019. I don't know no I

28:03 ↗ don't know 2019 is too far away it is so

28:05 ↗ I I'm not there yet

28:08 ↗ um

28:12 ↗ yeah and it would be it would be a good

28:15 ↗ policy when I'm

28:17 ↗ thinking my concern as well is that it

28:19 ↗ seems like it would be more a policy to

28:21 ↗ encourage energy efficient vehicles as

28:23 ↗ opposed to an overarching goal doing how

28:26 ↗ can you encourage

28:28 ↗ electric vehicles if you don't provide

28:32 ↗ the plug-in well exactly that's one of

28:34 ↗ the policies that would encourage

28:35 ↗ electric vehicles and I think would be

28:38 ↗ necessary for encouraging electric

28:39 ↗ vehicles but I do feel that it's a

28:41 ↗ policy policy so I have a proposal

28:44 ↗ how about if we at we could add a

28:46 ↗ section called transportation in the

28:48 ↗ environment

28:49 ↗ and put the climate

28:52 ↗ related goals under there

28:54 ↗ and under their list policies to provide

28:58 ↗ or ensure developers provide electric

29:01 ↗ stations charging stations

29:03 ↗ um

29:04 ↗ incentivize

29:06 ↗ fuel

29:08 ↗ alternative fuel cars that kind of thing

29:11 ↗ does that work

29:13 ↗ so you'd put then then it just emissions

29:15 ↗ under there under right one too right

29:17 ↗ then it just it seems that and it was

29:19 ↗ included in the goal as well so it just

29:21 ↗ seems that there needs to be a bigger

29:22 ↗ focus on it based on this discussion and

29:24 ↗ to get a bigger Focus you're going to

29:26 ↗ have a whole section devoted to that

29:28 ↗ I I do like the idea of separating

29:33 ↗ um

29:34 ↗ something

29:36 ↗ having sections for each of the

29:40 ↗ there's a climate control one but

29:43 ↗ sections for each of the the modes of

29:46 ↗ transportation so we can have some

29:48 ↗ specific policies that relate to each

29:50 ↗ one of them as opposed to having a lot

29:52 ↗ of them

29:53 ↗ put together under alternative or

29:56 ↗ support alternative or support data

29:58 ↗ support that but what are we doing for

30:00 ↗ walkability what are we doing for

30:02 ↗ bicycles what are we doing for

30:05 ↗ alternative energy Vehicles transit or

30:09 ↗ whatnot right so they are broken into

30:11 ↗ sections the goals are currently broken

30:12 ↗ into sections like that but I would just

30:14 ↗ propose adding one that specifically

30:16 ↗ towards climate or the environment

30:19 ↗ I would be in favor of that for sure

30:21 ↗ that worked so I'll go back and yes I

30:24 ↗ would like to point out that the city is

30:25 ↗ already where all the developers already

30:27 ↗ doing that up in the highlands there's a

30:29 ↗ whole strip of electric plug-ins

30:31 ↗ wherever you'd like to call them

30:33 ↗ or they're called um so I don't know if

30:35 ↗ they're incentivized to do that or it's

30:38 ↗ just the city said You shall do this

30:41 ↗ right we had a program where we had

30:43 ↗ because we have one at the city hall

30:44 ↗ over by the Holiday Inn as well so

30:47 ↗ there's a few sprinkled around

30:50 ↗ not enough though

30:52 ↗ okay Kristen can you point where those

30:55 ↗ sections are that you said so at the at

30:57 ↗ the top of each page so you have uh I

30:59 ↗ don't have a pointer

31:01 ↗ that one says Transportation demand

31:02 ↗ management that's a section

31:05 ↗ um active Transportation Network that's

31:06 ↗ a section yeah

31:08 ↗ uh Street Network

31:10 ↗ non-motorized Network

31:12 ↗ right I was I was talking about

31:13 ↗ specifically doing walkability

31:15 ↗ specifically bicycles specifically you

31:18 ↗ know so those would be a section so you

31:20 ↗ don't want non-motorized do you want

31:21 ↗ those to Encompass both of those you

31:23 ↗ want them to be separate and maybe that

31:24 ↗ can go under non-motorize but

31:28 ↗ okay let's let's see how it goes okay

31:32 ↗ okay I'm gonna stop you from now on

31:36 ↗ I'm not sure where this fits but I guess

31:38 ↗ it's a thing I'm concerned with from uh

31:40 ↗ from the bikes you know we talk about

31:42 ↗ encouraging bicycles and all that kind

31:43 ↗ of stuff and the new engineering that

31:45 ↗ I'm seeing is for

31:48 ↗ um is is actually contrary to safety on

31:51 ↗ bicyclists if you go up on the highlands

31:53 ↗ you do not want to ride up there because

31:55 ↗ the lanes are so narrow the cars don't

31:57 ↗ fit and you're going to get blown off

31:58 ↗ the road and it's so this new

32:00 ↗ engineering of narrowing everything down

32:02 ↗ so the cars can't move very fast and the

32:04 ↗ driveways aren't wide enough and the one

32:06 ↗ lane for a two-lane road it puts the

32:09 ↗ bicycles in serious Jeopardy so it's

32:12 ↗ really hard this is kind of an

32:13 ↗ overarching thing that we're saying

32:14 ↗ we're going to encourage bicycles and

32:16 ↗ we're going to engineer everything to

32:17 ↗ make it unsafe for the bicyclists and

32:20 ↗ and I'm not sure where that fits but

32:22 ↗ that's the new style of engineering not

32:24 ↗ just in isawa but other places as well

32:25 ↗ but it's gotten it's to me it's very

32:28 ↗ ridiculous and it's quite I ride my bike

32:30 ↗ all over and I don't ride certain places

32:32 ↗ because it it throws you into the middle

32:34 ↗ of traffic no matter what you want to do

32:36 ↗ right so I'm not sure how that fits in

32:39 ↗ here but somehow I'd like to see that

32:41 ↗ issue of safety of those addressed in

32:44 ↗ the engineering standards other places I

32:45 ↗ mean just simple things bulb curbs water

32:48 ↗ thing they throw the bicyclist all of a

32:50 ↗ sudden totally into into traffic when

32:52 ↗ they can be on the edge of traffic

32:53 ↗ so and that's been addressed in the

32:56 ↗ mobility action plan

32:57 ↗ something that we're working on right

32:59 ↗ now something about a protected Lane

33:01 ↗ when you can handle bicycles as an

33:03 ↗ alternative mode of transportation to

33:05 ↗ Transportation centers but as I view it

33:09 ↗ bicycles and walking trails pedestrian

33:12 ↗ walks are more Recreation than

33:14 ↗ alternative people who uh the way to get

33:18 ↗ cars off the road is to try to figure

33:20 ↗ out some way uh to get people not to use

33:23 ↗ cars to shop and I'll get i'll address

33:26 ↗ that later because I had a proposal that

33:29 ↗ I made some years ago that my

33:31 ↗ uh address that issue but we talk about

33:35 ↗ bicycles as an alternative mode of

33:37 ↗ transportation I think we have to be

33:39 ↗ careful because uh

33:42 ↗ to go from one place to another is to go

33:44 ↗ with a purpose and uh bicycles

33:47 ↗ uh unless you're running an errand or

33:50 ↗ going to a Transportation Center just

33:52 ↗ don't cut it

33:56 ↗ yeah because I'm on my bike around town

33:59 ↗ all day long and I covered this ground

34:01 ↗ and I and I use it as a transportation

34:03 ↗ mode not as a recreation model and I

34:05 ↗ would disagree no not anymore I I also

34:08 ↗ commute to Queen Anne from Issaquah by

34:11 ↗ bike and it's I've noticed some of those

34:13 ↗ same issues with certain roadways along

34:15 ↗ my bike route that create hazards so I I

34:18 ↗ have been involved with that as well and

34:21 ↗ this is why I was suggesting to have a

34:22 ↗ bicycle section where we can list

34:24 ↗ policies that are specific to riding

34:27 ↗ bicycles and a

34:28 ↗ pedestrian section that is specific to

34:31 ↗ that which seems to fit maybe under

34:33 ↗ non-motorized but it's not directly

34:35 ↗ there right now so I think the critical

34:36 ↗ issue that we need to talk about is how

34:38 ↗ to get cars off the streets because

34:41 ↗ that's what we're facing right now

34:43 ↗ without population growths so the issue

34:46 ↗ becomes what do we how do we deal with

34:49 ↗ the issue of

34:50 ↗ increasing population from 30 to 60 000

34:54 ↗ and uh and that uh exacerbating the

34:58 ↗ traffic jams we currently have

35:01 ↗ and I don't disagree with you I think

35:03 ↗ those can be integrated a solution that

35:05 ↗ both works for increasing uh reducing

35:09 ↗ the amount of cars on the roadway

35:11 ↗ increasing alternative transportation

35:13 ↗ options which would get cars off the

35:15 ↗ roadway as well as making sure we're

35:18 ↗ looking for opportunities to integrate

35:19 ↗ those two one of the ways would be to

35:21 ↗ find ways to encourage

35:23 ↗ car share and transportation sharing

35:26 ↗ which which have worked in other cities

35:28 ↗ very well in other counties but uh

35:32 ↗ the issue is how and what incentives can

35:34 ↗ we provide to make that happen and

35:37 ↗ Costco right now has the largest Van van

35:39 ↗ pool in the state and we do have

35:41 ↗ policies in place that require

35:43 ↗ businesses with 100 people or more that

35:46 ↗ come in to do that but

35:48 ↗ but you're right and those are good

35:49 ↗ policies that we need to make sure that

35:51 ↗ we have right when we get to those so

35:53 ↗ that we can make that happen

35:55 ↗ so on that on that note

35:57 ↗ um looking down just one goal ahead the

36:01 ↗ parking managing parking through plans

36:03 ↗ and programs

36:05 ↗ I know zoning codes typically require

36:08 ↗ parking for certain

36:11 ↗ you know land uses and so I know that

36:15 ↗ the the lowest emissioned car would be

36:17 ↗ no car right so if you're requiring cars

36:21 ↗ or parking in your developments then

36:24 ↗ you're basically encouraging cars so I'm

36:26 ↗ just kind of wondering

36:28 ↗ you know maybe I don't know how you

36:29 ↗ would word this maybe just manage

36:32 ↗ parking plans if we have a goal of in

36:35 ↗ the parking plan to

36:37 ↗ allow a developer to build a building

36:40 ↗ without providing parking and if he had

36:43 ↗ some idea he or she had an idea of

36:45 ↗ okay we're going to Market this

36:47 ↗ development with no parking

36:51 ↗ um

36:51 ↗ I don't know provide something in there

36:54 ↗ to allow someone to do that so I feel

36:57 ↗ like I'm going deeper into this than I

36:58 ↗ should but we talked about that when we

36:59 ↗ did the central issaqua plan and

37:02 ↗ developers said no but another factor is

37:06 ↗ what

37:07 ↗ finances will and will not Finance what

37:10 ↗ banks will not finance and a lot of

37:12 ↗ times they won't finance a building if

37:13 ↗ it doesn't have parking currently

37:15 ↗ however

37:16 ↗ in central Issaquah we gave both minimum

37:19 ↗ and maximum parking requirements so

37:21 ↗ which we've never had maximum

37:23 ↗ requirements before and we reduced the

37:25 ↗ minimum down quite a bit in central

37:28 ↗ Issaquah and that could change as we

37:32 ↗ turn from more of a suburban community

37:34 ↗ into a more urban community in central

37:36 ↗ Issaquah but then you have to remember

37:38 ↗ too that the comprehensive plan covers

37:40 ↗ all of Issaquah and not just Central

37:42 ↗ Issaquah so you do still you will still

37:44 ↗ have a very Suburban element outside of

37:46 ↗ that but it's a very good point and

37:48 ↗ something that's been talked about a lot

37:50 ↗ King County had a whole six-week program

37:52 ↗ on it right I I just don't know if we

37:54 ↗ need to make a comprehensive plan based

37:56 ↗ on what could be financed right you know

37:59 ↗ someone could Finance the whole thing

38:01 ↗ themselves you know who knows

38:03 ↗ what could possibly be done and so I I

38:07 ↗ just feel like providing a minimum just

38:09 ↗ seems kind of odd to me because it's

38:11 ↗ like and it just doesn't well I think in

38:15 ↗ in

38:15 ↗ assuming that at some point people

38:18 ↗ aren't going to be I think having a

38:21 ↗ minimum is important because

38:24 ↗ I

38:26 ↗ am not getting on my bike I have an

38:28 ↗ infant and I have a five-year-old and

38:29 ↗ there is no way I'm going to the grocery

38:31 ↗ store with that so I know some people do

38:34 ↗ but we live in a city that is aspiring

38:37 ↗ to be

38:39 ↗ um

38:40 ↗ this

38:42 ↗ you know amazing place but it's still

38:44 ↗ suburban and there are reasons why

38:46 ↗ people choose to live in a suburban area

38:49 ↗ and I think that

38:52 ↗ if you only focus on the alternative

38:56 ↗ Transportation modes you're alienating

38:58 ↗ quite a large population of Issaquah

39:02 ↗ we're not Seattle where everything's

39:05 ↗ close and while some people do commute

39:07 ↗ great distances

39:09 ↗ um

39:11 ↗ you know I worked for Los Angeles County

39:13 ↗ for quite a few years and the same

39:15 ↗ argument came up a lot

39:18 ↗ what it comes down to I think is if you

39:21 ↗ exclude too many things in the in the

39:24 ↗ hopes of creating this ideal

39:27 ↗ plan you're ruling out sources of

39:30 ↗ funding because you don't have a certain

39:32 ↗ phrase included in your general plan and

39:35 ↗ then you're not you're no longer

39:37 ↗ eligible for like

39:39 ↗ certain tax benefits and certain things

39:42 ↗ where the cities require that help

39:46 ↗ from the government and if you don't

39:48 ↗ have that one word in your goal or in

39:50 ↗ your plan

39:51 ↗ you just totally eliminated that source

39:55 ↗ of funding whatever the end goal would

39:58 ↗ be so if you're having minimum

40:01 ↗ if you're getting rid of minimum parking

40:03 ↗ you're getting rid of

40:06 ↗ half of Issaquah and

40:09 ↗ um

40:25 ↗ you know why would we limit them the

40:28 ↗ option of that you know

40:30 ↗ so don't discourage it and right it's

40:32 ↗ just so so you know if someone wanted to

40:35 ↗ come in and do something and attract all

40:37 ↗ these people that didn't want to own a

40:39 ↗ car they could do that you know and so

40:42 ↗ maybe it wouldn't be a retail spot

40:43 ↗ because no one's going to go there and

40:45 ↗ shop at this retail place without a car

40:47 ↗ right you know it's just like

40:50 ↗ in this in a plan that provided some

40:53 ↗ type of option for that you know can I

40:56 ↗ let Mike jump in here real quick he's

40:57 ↗ been trying to get in for a while at

40:58 ↗ least

41:01 ↗ I think I think any plan or future goals

41:06 ↗ we have to live with the reality

41:09 ↗ of what is current in our environment

41:15 ↗ you can you can hope you can demand you

41:19 ↗ can

41:20 ↗ pray that you're going to have cutbacks

41:23 ↗ in certain areas where you're you know

41:25 ↗ doing

41:26 ↗ less cars more bikes etc etc but let's

41:30 ↗ look at reality

41:32 ↗ count the number of cars on the highway

41:34 ↗ we all drive cars

41:37 ↗ you may not because you ride your bike

41:39 ↗ to work that's fine

41:41 ↗ I don't

41:43 ↗ and I can tell you every morning that

41:45 ↗ there's a whole bunch of people that are

41:46 ↗ driving their cars all over the place so

41:49 ↗ eliminating parking or setting up an

41:52 ↗ environment that is going to be that

41:55 ↗ I don't have a problem with having as a

41:57 ↗ goal or an objective

42:00 ↗ but as a expectation

42:04 ↗ ain't gonna work folks all right I mean

42:07 ↗ I I don't ride my bike to work every day

42:09 ↗ and I'm I'm not suggesting that I'm just

42:12 ↗ suggesting the idea of the possibility

42:15 ↗ of someone to do that you know so I'm

42:17 ↗ not saying you have to bike to work

42:20 ↗ every day and you have to ride to a

42:22 ↗ place that's not gonna you're not going

42:23 ↗ to be able to park in so I'm just saying

42:25 ↗ someone might have that idea and why

42:28 ↗ limit that person to that right and

42:30 ↗ along Paul what you're saying is um we

42:33 ↗ have it in our zoning code our land use

42:34 ↗ code that if someone does come in with

42:37 ↗ that kind of idea like the Z home and

42:39 ↗ they said the people that are going to

42:41 ↗ live here are going to have such a

42:43 ↗ sustainability mindset and lifestyle

42:45 ↗ that we could have excuse me we could

42:47 ↗ have a lot fewer parking spaces because

42:49 ↗ they're probably going to have the

42:51 ↗ little smart cars they're probably going

42:53 ↗ to bike they're and so we were able to

42:55 ↗ reduce their parking because they could

42:56 ↗ show us what their plan was and our

42:58 ↗ zoning code allows us to do that so we

43:00 ↗ already sort of have that umbrella of

43:02 ↗ being Innovative as long as the

43:04 ↗ applicant can and show that like the

43:07 ↗ neighbors aren't going to be affected

43:09 ↗ because all the people that can't find

43:10 ↗ parking in their apartment counter

43:12 ↗ condos are going to park you know are

43:14 ↗ going to impact the neighbors so we want

43:16 ↗ to be sure that those innovative ideas

43:17 ↗ work within the whole neighborhood not

43:20 ↗ just with that parcel but we do have

43:22 ↗ some places it pieces in place to allow

43:25 ↗ for that and I think it's good to always

43:27 ↗ be thinking of that next thing too like

43:29 ↗ you're talking about like what if the

43:31 ↗ next thing comes in and we can't we

43:33 ↗ can't do it because we've put ourselves

43:35 ↗ in a corner but so we're hoping that

43:37 ↗ those kinds of things are in here so

43:39 ↗ when you get down to that actual

43:41 ↗ application that we'd be able to say yes

43:43 ↗ you've shown us that you're putting all

43:45 ↗ these things in places so it's a good

43:47 ↗ thing for those folks that live there

43:48 ↗ and work there but it doesn't affect the

43:50 ↗ neighborhood in a bad way so I think

43:52 ↗ we're covered I think what everybody's

43:54 ↗ saying is is good and we have it covered

43:57 ↗ yeah yeah and you know I would agree

44:00 ↗ with Mike we're you know yes we have to

44:03 ↗ encourage reduction where we can but

44:05 ↗ that's where we have that second part of

44:07 ↗ the goal the quote that supports his

44:09 ↗ quas land use objectives end quote

44:12 ↗ um we can't get rid of parking it would

44:14 ↗ be a detriment to uh businesses if we

44:17 ↗ were to in if we were to encourage

44:19 ↗ people to build buildings directly

44:22 ↗ without accounting for parking I used to

44:25 ↗ live on Capitol Hill where there were

44:27 ↗ tons of buildings being thrown up left

44:29 ↗ and right without any parking and now no

44:31 ↗ one can find parking in Capitol Hill you

44:33 ↗ have people that are parking as

44:34 ↗ squatters there it discourages use of

44:37 ↗ the business people will just drive

44:39 ↗ elsewhere if they don't have access and

44:42 ↗ so I think we have to be mindful of all

44:44 ↗ the goals of Issaquah not just the one

44:46 ↗ policy

44:47 ↗ because that this goal has to address

44:50 ↗ all the policies so yeah so to that I

44:52 ↗ like this group you all are so

44:53 ↗ thoughtful I make one last remark

44:56 ↗ regarding parking I hope is the last

44:58 ↗ remark

44:59 ↗ um

45:00 ↗ what about practical approaches to

45:02 ↗ parking I mean has anybody driven around

45:04 ↗ the parking lots in the highlands

45:07 ↗ I don't know if they're purposefully

45:09 ↗ designed to make it difficult to drive

45:13 ↗ in those parking lots you know the

45:16 ↗ planning areas that come out so far and

45:18 ↗ they're so narrow and I know the

45:20 ↗ developers Under Pressure to put so many

45:23 ↗ parking spots in

45:25 ↗ for some code what have you and

45:27 ↗ somewhere along the lines I mean the

45:29 ↗ parking lot sizes the sizes the cars

45:34 ↗ were reduced but my car is still the

45:36 ↗ same size

45:38 ↗ um so they could get more parking spots

45:39 ↗ in the place but I don't know how we

45:41 ↗ approach that um

45:43 ↗ and then I am a recreational bicycle

45:46 ↗ user and I ride my bike around uh on the

45:50 ↗ top of the hill on the plateau and go to

45:52 ↗ the QFC and uh do we require a certain

45:55 ↗ amount of bicycle parking spaces we do

45:58 ↗ it doesn't seem like it's enough though

46:01 ↗ so I don't know if that's appropriate to

46:03 ↗ put in here somewhere else we're talking

46:05 ↗ about bicycles

46:06 ↗ so just a thought and thank you very

46:08 ↗ much just just to follow up just on on

46:11 ↗ his comment about the Uplands

46:14 ↗ um size of parking

46:16 ↗ quickie

46:17 ↗ number one complaint

46:20 ↗ in the retail environment up there from

46:22 ↗ what I've been able to see

46:23 ↗ and I've talked to at least 10

46:27 ↗ I think I because I was just kind of

46:29 ↗ interested

46:31 ↗ Dick's Sporting Goods knows that area

46:33 ↗ and up in there yeah that that is their

46:37 ↗ number one complaint from customers

46:40 ↗ period

46:42 ↗ and they almost laugh about it when you

46:45 ↗ walk in

46:46 ↗ so it's it could cause some real

46:49 ↗ problems okay

46:51 ↗ it's a standard we're getting but it's

46:54 ↗ definitely worth discussing are we on

46:57 ↗ number six

46:59 ↗ are we on goal number six we're good to

47:01 ↗ go all right

47:03 ↗ prioritize non-motorized and Transit

47:06 ↗ oriented Mobility improvements and

47:07 ↗ Design Elements because of their climate

47:09 ↗ reduction benefits

47:11 ↗ now we talked about this one a few

47:12 ↗ minutes ago kind of and that

47:14 ↗ we will come we will have a

47:17 ↗ transportation environment section so

47:19 ↗ this will actually be there not under

47:20 ↗ transportation demand management but

47:22 ↗ comments regarding the goal yeah my only

47:24 ↗ comment would be it looks like goal six

47:26 ↗ could be rolled up into goal four

47:29 ↗ fairly easily because those are the

47:32 ↗ alternative modes of transportation I

47:33 ↗ think that are addressed and or some of

47:36 ↗ the alternative transportation

47:39 ↗ methods that are would be encompassed by

47:42 ↗ goal for so I don't know that it needs a

47:45 ↗ separate goal it seems that it would be

47:47 ↗ encompassed within goal four okay

47:52 ↗ so merge foreign

47:55 ↗ yes the alternative modes okay

47:59 ↗ anything else

48:07 ↗ Jump Right In thank you um does anybody

48:10 ↗ else want to question the the expression

48:13 ↗ climate reduction

48:15 ↗ um I'm not sure is that reducing the

48:17 ↗ climate well but climate reduction what

48:19 ↗ does that mean reducing the climate I

48:21 ↗ mean I don't know turning the thermostat

48:23 ↗ down I'm not seriously on the

48:25 ↗ temperature outside what about control

48:28 ↗ substituting climate reduction with

48:30 ↗ reduced carbon emissions I think it's

48:32 ↗ carbon reduction yeah it's perfect

48:34 ↗ reduction good catch

48:44 ↗ I was just throwing that in there and

48:46 ↗ see if you guys would catch it all right

48:53 ↗ for sure we want to combine them

48:56 ↗ I guess that's what I was that's what I

48:57 ↗ was looking at when I said hold on

48:58 ↗ because you said combine them but I'm

49:00 ↗ not sure that's the best answer

49:03 ↗ um

49:04 ↗ I just

49:06 ↗ as far as going back and looking at I've

49:07 ↗ been trying to sort it out because

49:09 ↗ Transportation demand management

49:10 ↗ techniques to achieve all this you know

49:13 ↗ the next school right there oh okay this

49:16 ↗ I wasn't okay

49:19 ↗ yeah they both have two different

49:22 ↗ outcomes yeah

49:24 ↗ it feels like they're different to me

49:27 ↗ um

49:27 ↗ and one and one goal is to reduce single

49:30 ↗ occupants the other one is is that's

49:32 ↗ right you know so that's that's kind of

49:34 ↗ a traffic goal the other one's an

49:37 ↗ environmental goal so they actually

49:38 ↗ they're two different goals

49:41 ↗ how about if I work on the two yeah it

49:43 ↗ actually makes a market nearly separate

49:45 ↗ and more clearly one is going to go with

49:47 ↗ the climate ones anyway though right so

49:50 ↗ that actually is going to move

49:52 ↗ right

49:54 ↗ number six is going with the climate

49:57 ↗ ones

49:58 ↗ environment ones

50:00 ↗ okay

50:04 ↗ seven

50:05 ↗ oh active transportation

50:07 ↗ the active Transportation Network

50:10 ↗ um

50:11 ↗ so this address is green streets Street

50:14 ↗ design maintenance and public Realm

50:17 ↗ and it's to the first goal the goal

50:20 ↗ seven ensure connections between all

50:22 ↗ modes of transportation throughout the

50:24 ↗ city so

50:26 ↗ that means make sure that your

50:29 ↗ safe and efficient non-motorized bicycle

50:31 ↗ routes

50:32 ↗ connect up to the transit center and

50:35 ↗ from the transit center you have a way

50:37 ↗ to get that last mile or you're walking

50:40 ↗ from the store

50:42 ↗ to the park and you want to make sure

50:44 ↗ that there's a safe path there so that's

50:46 ↗ what that means by connecting all modes

50:48 ↗ of transportation that it's not just

50:50 ↗ transit to cars we're trying to distorts

50:53 ↗ once you get to that place you have to

50:54 ↗ have safe connections everywhere yeah

50:56 ↗ but my only comment on that goal would

50:58 ↗ be to ensure and then add in and expand

51:02 ↗ so it kind of gives a maintenance width

51:04 ↗ and expansion to increase the

51:06 ↗ connections

51:07 ↗ okay

51:16 ↗ is that okay with people integration of

51:18 ↗ yes I saw maybe maybe not Trish and I

51:21 ↗ have had this discussion before uh what

51:23 ↗ do you do to get existing Property

51:25 ↗ Owners to buy into the uh to the uh

51:28 ↗ Central Issaquah plan uh apparently you

51:31 ↗ can't force people to sell uh evident

51:34 ↗ domain might be a tool in some respects

51:36 ↗ but it's uh yes the one thing that I

51:40 ↗ worry about when I look at the central

51:41 ↗ Issaquah plan is that uh it can only be

51:45 ↗ implemented with a cooperation of

51:47 ↗ existing property owners and uh how do

51:51 ↗ we incentivize existing profit existing

51:54 ↗ Property Owners to buy into the uh to

51:57 ↗ the central plan in terms of uh public

51:59 ↗ gathering places and green streets and

52:04 ↗ uh The Pedestrian walkways uh closed off

52:07 ↗ traffic streets and so forth ah you

52:10 ↗ can't do it without getting buy-in from

52:13 ↗ existing Property Owners right and we

52:15 ↗ you know we told people during the

52:16 ↗ process who were afraid that when the

52:17 ↗ central Issa crop land was adopted that

52:19 ↗ all of a sudden they were going to have

52:20 ↗ to make these changes and we made sure

52:22 ↗ no when you redevelop

52:24 ↗ you have to make these changes but not

52:26 ↗ if you're going to stay as you are

52:29 ↗ hmm all right and there's a couple that

52:31 ↗ are coming in and we're hoping that you

52:33 ↗ know there'll be a domino effect that

52:34 ↗ once the first one goes in then the

52:36 ↗ neighbors go wow that's pretty neat and

52:39 ↗ then they'll come in and you know they

52:40 ↗ all got a bump in zoning so they're all

52:42 ↗ worth more now so if they choose to

52:45 ↗ redevelop you know their values are

52:46 ↗ higher but it's just a process of the

52:49 ↗ market has to start churning and then it

52:51 ↗ takes off but we're still kind of in

52:53 ↗ that slow turn I think it's something we

52:56 ↗ need to think about in terms of

52:57 ↗ precipitating the process right one of

53:00 ↗ the council goals is to figure out an

53:02 ↗ anchor project because the council would

53:04 ↗ like to jump start it too but I mean

53:06 ↗ it's you can the government can only do

53:09 ↗ so much to try to get the the free

53:11 ↗ market to go but the council is looking

53:13 ↗ at other things too to get it to go

53:15 ↗ faster Redmond adopted their downtown

53:17 ↗ plan in the late 90s or early

53:20 ↗ 2000s and it's just now taken off it's

53:22 ↗ flying but it takes a while right for

53:25 ↗ these

53:27 ↗ starter programs Catalyst projects to

53:30 ↗ get things going mm-hmm

53:35 ↗ yes Laura

53:37 ↗ okay

53:39 ↗ um what did we change ensure connections

53:42 ↗ to integration of integration between

53:46 ↗ okay

53:52 ↗ thank you you're welcome

53:54 ↗ okay

53:55 ↗ eight

53:58 ↗ so is it ensure and expand integration

54:01 ↗ between is that how it ended up yes okay

54:03 ↗ I just wanted to keep up thank you for

54:05 ↗ that I forgot to go over

54:07 ↗ okay number eight

54:09 ↗ almost halfway there

54:11 ↗ so are we looking at Financial

54:13 ↗ sustainability or this is still the

54:16 ↗ actual active Transportation Network

54:18 ↗ what

54:19 ↗ so when you talk about sustainability is

54:21 ↗ the financial no

54:24 ↗ where where are you seeing

54:26 ↗ sustainability number eight goal oh I'm

54:28 ↗ sorry

54:29 ↗ oh okay I'm sorry

54:31 ↗ um

54:32 ↗ no sustainability uh

54:34 ↗ kind of we need we're talking

54:36 ↗ maintenance programs so make sure that

54:38 ↗ what you build yes durability uh what's

54:41 ↗ the other word uh resilience yes okay

54:45 ↗ yes

54:47 ↗ okay so ensure sustainability of the of

54:49 ↗ the existing Transportation

54:50 ↗ infrastructure

54:52 ↗ yeah and I I would support some

54:55 ↗ clarification of that as well because I

54:56 ↗ had the same question because it sounds

54:57 ↗ like it could be fiscal sustainability

54:59 ↗ it could be environmental sustainability

55:02 ↗ of the network of the active

55:04 ↗ Transportation Network so I think if

55:06 ↗ reliability

55:09 ↗ of the existing Transportation

55:10 ↗ infrastructure might be a better term if

55:12 ↗ that's really what we're aiming for

55:15 ↗ I'll fly that by our Public Works

55:17 ↗ director who told me to put

55:18 ↗ sustainability in there but I will

55:20 ↗ reliability well you've got a short-term

55:23 ↗ issue here because of the cuts in uh uh

55:28 ↗ in plan Cuts in metro bus service that

55:31 ↗ will affect us as well as the whole

55:34 ↗ Greater Seattle area and with tokens

55:37 ↗ sustainability we we have to figure out

55:39 ↗ some way to to avoid these cuts for

55:42 ↗ starters

55:50 ↗ all right number nine

55:52 ↗ enable and encourage creative public

55:54 ↗ gathering spaces a long Transportation

55:56 ↗ corridors

56:00 ↗ yes I'm sorry that's okay your look was

56:05 ↗ found next to creative it's driving me

56:06 ↗ crazy

56:07 ↗ the comma yes oh it's not small I'm

56:12 ↗ sorry

56:14 ↗ Kendra you remind me of another former

56:16 ↗ PPC from former PPC member

56:18 ↗ foreign

56:27 ↗ public gathering spaces they are

56:34 ↗ all right

56:36 ↗ I fixed the comma are we good that's

56:38 ↗ okay

56:41 ↗ all right

56:44 ↗ Street Network

56:46 ↗ establish an integrated Street system to

56:49 ↗ provide alternative routes and reduce

56:50 ↗ congestion

56:52 ↗ so

56:54 ↗ try and get more good system in there as

56:56 ↗ opposed to cul-de-sacs or you can so

56:58 ↗ that you have more routes yes what does

57:01 ↗ that mean yeah that means try and so you

57:05 ↗ know oftentimes developers will want to

57:07 ↗ come in and put in a cul-de-sac

57:09 ↗ which takes keeps traffic off of that

57:12 ↗ street which is great for people who

57:13 ↗ live there but it puts it all on the

57:15 ↗ street whereas if you have a grid system

57:17 ↗ there are more options for people to

57:19 ↗ drive so the roads aren't quite as

57:20 ↗ congested

57:21 ↗ so can we say this

57:24 ↗ what I just said yeah will provide a

57:27 ↗ grid system with a high level of

57:29 ↗ interconnection that provides I mean the

57:32 ↗ connection part I think is what the

57:34 ↗ important part of that

57:36 ↗ yeah provide alternative routes and

57:39 ↗ reduce congestion it sounds like we

57:41 ↗ don't need connectivity yet so

57:42 ↗ established means you're starting from

57:44 ↗ scratch how about improve improve a grid

57:46 ↗ system

57:47 ↗ and I'd prefer a connected Street system

57:50 ↗ and rather than integrated

57:54 ↗ the other way beyond the other policy

57:56 ↗ once the other way from connected to

57:58 ↗ integrated okay so connected connect is

58:00 ↗ good yeah

58:02 ↗ okay and maybe maintain an enhance

58:06 ↗ or a connected Street system as opposed

58:08 ↗ to established because I agree that does

58:10 ↗ sound like we're missing

58:20 ↗ okay so maintain and enhance a connected

58:27 ↗ Street grid system

58:28 ↗ to provide alternative routes

58:31 ↗ and reduce congestion okay okay yeah I

58:33 ↗ kind of have a question that goes with

58:35 ↗ our street Network Issaquah has kind of

58:37 ↗ become like a pass through

58:40 ↗ at certain times of the day

58:44 ↗ um

58:47 ↗ by making this a goal are we encouraging

58:50 ↗ more of that

58:52 ↗ I think what it does is it gives local

58:54 ↗ drivers more options

58:57 ↗ the pass-through traffic is probably

58:59 ↗ going to take the same route anyway

59:00 ↗ they're going i-90.

59:02 ↗ but the local traffic has more options

59:04 ↗ so they get off of those more congested

59:06 ↗ routes and onto the local streets okay

59:12 ↗ does this does this mean signs like

59:14 ↗ local residents only or no this is sort

59:19 ↗ of like the under crossing that's by the

59:21 ↗ the under Crossing by the male by the

59:24 ↗ post office that was for local traffic

59:26 ↗ to get from side to side so you didn't

59:28 ↗ have to get on the freeway or try to go

59:30 ↗ over the freeway with all the regional

59:32 ↗ traffic time coming for that and so

59:33 ↗ we're trying to think of more places

59:35 ↗ where we can connect the grid system for

59:37 ↗ so the local folks can get around and

59:39 ↗ have alternative ways to not have to go

59:41 ↗ on sr900 or Front Street and so

59:44 ↗ um so that locals kind of get a break

59:46 ↗ when the regional folks you know are I

59:49 ↗ mean the magnet is I-90 and we're never

59:51 ↗ going to be able to stop that but if we

59:52 ↗ can figure out other ways for locals to

59:54 ↗ get around then I think it'll be happier

59:56 ↗ and for everybody and that was part of

59:58 ↗ the purpose of the Old Town circulation

59:59 ↗ plan is to find a better grid system

1:00:01 ↗ through there so that

1:00:04 ↗ the local residents don't always have to

1:00:06 ↗ go down Front Street with everybody else

1:00:10 ↗ okay

1:00:12 ↗ what what impact does this section have

1:00:16 ↗ on housing developments who the the

1:00:20 ↗ people that are looking for houses

1:00:22 ↗ prefer a cul-de-sac

1:00:24 ↗ for its uh traffic reduction and

1:00:28 ↗ um does

1:00:30 ↗ does this apply to that

1:00:33 ↗ it would be new it would be new

1:00:34 ↗ development unless unless you happen to

1:00:37 ↗ have a cul-de-sac that already has a

1:00:39 ↗ punch through on the on the plat which a

1:00:42 ↗ lot of them do if it's a vacant land

1:00:43 ↗ next to it they'll they'll leave sort of

1:00:45 ↗ a little a little stub if you will for

1:00:48 ↗ the next subdivision to go in and that

1:00:50 ↗ we you know would still happen that way

1:00:52 ↗ and hopefully when you bought there you

1:00:54 ↗ would know that it's really not a

1:00:55 ↗ cul-de-sac forever it's a stub to the

1:00:57 ↗ next neighborhood when that is built but

1:01:00 ↗ I don't think we would go into existing

1:01:02 ↗ neighborhoods and start blowing out

1:01:03 ↗ their cul-de-sacs it wouldn't be that I

1:01:05 ↗ meant more in terms of for future

1:01:06 ↗ development because people who are

1:01:10 ↗ looking for single-family homes in a

1:01:13 ↗ Suburban neighborhood

1:01:16 ↗ chances are a cul-de-sac would be a

1:01:20 ↗ something that they would want in terms

1:01:23 ↗ of mitigating the traffic that people

1:01:25 ↗ are cutting through to get to the other

1:01:27 ↗ off-ramp for the freeway or whatever

1:01:28 ↗ right how does this goal affect those

1:01:33 ↗ future development in terms of

1:01:36 ↗ um

1:01:39 ↗ allowing for cul-de-sacs is this

1:01:41 ↗ eliminate eliminate the possibility it

1:01:43 ↗ does not it does not eliminate and it

1:01:46 ↗ can't eliminate the possibility because

1:01:47 ↗ if you get up on the hillsides you know

1:01:48 ↗ we still have East Cougar Mountain which

1:01:50 ↗ is which is one of our potential

1:01:51 ↗ annexation areas which will eventually

1:01:54 ↗ someday develop and they're just

1:01:55 ↗ environmental constraints that you

1:01:56 ↗ simply can't do grid systems in some of

1:01:58 ↗ those places right but so we can't

1:01:59 ↗ prohibit but we would like to encourage

1:02:01 ↗ the grid system where we can sure okay

1:02:03 ↗ yeah thank you you're welcome

1:02:07 ↗ ready

1:02:10 ↗ okay 11. non-motorized Network

1:02:14 ↗ incorporate non-motorized projects as an

1:02:17 ↗ integral integral part of all roadway

1:02:20 ↗ projects

1:02:22 ↗ so in other words when you're designing

1:02:25 ↗ a street don't just design for cars

1:02:26 ↗ designed for pedestrians and bicycles as

1:02:29 ↗ well

1:02:34 ↗ I think the difficulty with that is

1:02:36 ↗ again uh if you're shopping the big box

1:02:40 ↗ stores or if you're shopping the

1:02:41 ↗ supermarkets bicycles it's pretty hot to

1:02:44 ↗ carry your parcels and bicycles unless

1:02:47 ↗ you've got a uh an attachment to your

1:02:50 ↗ bike at one time just

1:02:53 ↗ uh thinking out of the box if there was

1:02:56 ↗ some way that we could incentivize the

1:02:59 ↗ big box stores and the supermarkets to

1:03:02 ↗ deliver at a token price or

1:03:06 ↗ subsidized that would keep an awful lot

1:03:08 ↗ of cars off the streets I live on squawk

1:03:10 ↗ Mountain pretty far up and bicycling

1:03:13 ↗ particularly at my age is not an option

1:03:17 ↗ even walking is not an option it's great

1:03:20 ↗ downhill but you got to get back up and

1:03:23 ↗ that that creates its own difficulties

1:03:25 ↗ so unless we can find some sort of a uh

1:03:29 ↗ Jitney system to uh to service the uh

1:03:33 ↗ the mountains it's uh it's going to be

1:03:36 ↗ pretty hard to get cars off the streets

1:03:37 ↗ and to develop non-alternatives to

1:03:40 ↗ motorized Transportation this is insane

1:03:42 ↗ I think there are ways to do it but I

1:03:44 ↗ think the ways again are to incentivize

1:03:47 ↗ stores and uh

1:03:51 ↗ other places apartment houses perhaps to

1:03:54 ↗ provide Golf Course golf car type

1:03:58 ↗ transportation for local areas and

1:04:01 ↗ things like that these are ways to uh to

1:04:04 ↗ uh to reduce motorized Transportation

1:04:06 ↗ but we have to be thinking in those

1:04:09 ↗ terms I think and those are the ideas of

1:04:11 ↗ the you know having the apartments

1:04:12 ↗ provide that those are very good ideas

1:04:14 ↗ for you know for the alternative modes

1:04:16 ↗ of transportation as well and then but I

1:04:18 ↗ want to be clear that this one is not

1:04:19 ↗ saying design roads only for

1:04:21 ↗ non-motorized it's saying design roads

1:04:23 ↗ design the non-motorized in addition to

1:04:26 ↗ the streets that are there for cars and

1:04:28 ↗ trucks I have uh one one word answer to

1:04:31 ↗ Ray gondolas

1:04:33 ↗ gondolas

1:04:38 ↗ you know those things that go up in

1:04:41 ↗ gandolas

1:04:42 ↗ it's like in ski towns yeah like a ski

1:04:47 ↗ lift yeah Gondola who's going to

1:04:50 ↗ development

1:04:52 ↗ um

1:04:55 ↗ for a long time in several doesn't this

1:04:59 ↗ basically refer to bike paths along new

1:05:01 ↗ roadways yes it says on roadway projects

1:05:04 ↗ it's in addition to the Carson so I

1:05:07 ↗ would like to stay just to bring up

1:05:10 ↗ um and I mean that's a very good goal

1:05:13 ↗ and that in no way it takes away from

1:05:15 ↗ having roads anywhere

1:05:17 ↗ um and you know just encourages

1:05:19 ↗ sidewalks and bike lanes and whatnot but

1:05:22 ↗ I still would like to see uh

1:05:25 ↗ uh some wording about encouraging a

1:05:28 ↗ connected bicycle

1:05:31 ↗ Network and then we can add some

1:05:35 ↗ policies regarded regarding what kind of

1:05:39 ↗ uh basic bicycle lanes and whatnot we

1:05:43 ↗ would like to see in the city so a lot

1:05:45 ↗ of this is being addressed in the

1:05:46 ↗ mobility action plan and so next time

1:05:48 ↗ when we bring I'm going to incorporate

1:05:49 ↗ those policies and put all of our

1:05:51 ↗ existing policies in there as well so

1:05:53 ↗ we'll go through that then tune see how

1:05:55 ↗ that but you said the Mobility plan is

1:05:58 ↗ going to be this comes first right uh no

1:06:01 ↗ Mobility plan does it's almost done this

1:06:03 ↗ is Diego the chicken uh this is the

1:06:05 ↗ chicken but well it comes first so the

1:06:09 ↗ Mobility plan is almost done okay and

1:06:11 ↗ those policies are going to be

1:06:12 ↗ incorporated in here okay yes

1:06:16 ↗ yes

1:06:17 ↗ it's a a existing

1:06:21 ↗ example of this because I think it comes

1:06:23 ↗ to view when you think about this

1:06:25 ↗ the new road that we just talked about

1:06:27 ↗ that went under I-90 by the post office

1:06:30 ↗ they also put in bike route and walking

1:06:36 ↗ that's a very busy location a lot of

1:06:38 ↗ people use it is that what we're talking

1:06:40 ↗ about doing just as a visual

1:06:42 ↗ recommendation yes it is okay that's

1:06:44 ↗ what I thought

1:06:49 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Parkway they're

1:06:51 ↗ about to there's a design to put in an

1:06:53 ↗ extra southbound lane right before you

1:06:55 ↗ get to I-90 and in addition to the

1:06:57 ↗ southbound land they are also going to

1:06:58 ↗ put in bike lanes and a sidewalk

1:07:00 ↗ so

1:07:03 ↗ so I've got a question on on some of

1:07:05 ↗ these I don't have the existing comp

1:07:07 ↗ plan memorized here so most of the stuff

1:07:10 ↗ we have in here is

1:07:12 ↗ it's really carried over I don't know I

1:07:13 ↗ don't think a lot of it's very new so so

1:07:16 ↗ the question comes up if we have these

1:07:18 ↗ ideas were probably in the existing comp

1:07:20 ↗ plan so how are how did we not do these

1:07:24 ↗ things previously a lot of them are but

1:07:27 ↗ things have changed part of the reason

1:07:28 ↗ for the mobility action plan is because

1:07:31 ↗ Council two years ago said it's great

1:07:33 ↗ we've got policies and we've got maps in

1:07:35 ↗ place but it's not happening so part of

1:07:37 ↗ what the mobility action plan is is to

1:07:40 ↗ make those things happen to find funding

1:07:42 ↗ sources and

1:07:43 ↗ come up with new programs or incentives

1:07:45 ↗ to make those things happen

1:07:47 ↗ so you just confused me because you

1:07:49 ↗ talked about the Mobility plan and then

1:07:51 ↗ there's the it's the master plan that's

1:07:53 ↗ coming after this and now we have the

1:07:55 ↗ mass plans coming before this so the

1:07:56 ↗ wording is confusing okay yeah that's my

1:07:58 ↗ fault trying to get him to change the

1:08:00 ↗ name of the mobility action plan too so

1:08:02 ↗ the mobility action plan is

1:08:03 ↗ non-motorized it's a bike that Planet

1:08:06 ↗ Bike ped plan there you go that's that's

1:08:08 ↗ right so that may have been your

1:08:09 ↗ confusion there too I apologize versus

1:08:11 ↗ the so there is the currently there's a

1:08:13 ↗ Mobility action plan which is being

1:08:15 ↗ written it's actually the bike ped

1:08:17 ↗ non-motorized I still call it bike peg

1:08:19 ↗ in my mind Mobility is everything that

1:08:22 ↗ moves which is why I'm trying to get

1:08:23 ↗ them to change the name okay so but yeah

1:08:26 ↗ that was a confusion right so and you

1:08:28 ↗ know what it it's so ingrained in me I I

1:08:31 ↗ don't see a difference but yes so I'm

1:08:33 ↗ glad you clarified that because I'm too

1:08:35 ↗ deep into it yeah and so so I guess the

1:08:37 ↗ question on some of these things like I

1:08:38 ↗ hate to bring it up but the highlands

1:08:40 ↗ and and I don't think anybody's very

1:08:42 ↗ happy with the engineering design up

1:08:44 ↗ there at all for a whole lot of reasons

1:08:46 ↗ and that that's the newest thing we've

1:08:48 ↗ built and that obviously got around

1:08:51 ↗ any reasonable stuff that we're trying

1:08:53 ↗ to put in here so I guess the question

1:08:55 ↗ is how does that happen that something

1:08:57 ↗ you know

1:08:59 ↗ the variances that they get allowed they

1:09:02 ↗ are under different development

1:09:03 ↗ regulations

1:09:04 ↗ the all of the urban Villages so you

1:09:07 ↗ have the highlands and you have Talus

1:09:09 ↗ and they have rally which is actually

1:09:10 ↗ close to Central Issaquah Lakeside in

1:09:13 ↗ Central in central Issaquah those are

1:09:16 ↗ all actually under different development

1:09:18 ↗ regulations

1:09:20 ↗ so and you we've had a chance to see

1:09:22 ↗ what's worked and what hasn't worked

1:09:24 ↗ so we can make sure that what hasn't

1:09:28 ↗ worked doesn't happen down here but two

1:09:29 ↗ different parts of the city the point

1:09:31 ↗ though the development agreements for

1:09:33 ↗ the Thailand side on the Urban Village

1:09:35 ↗ Development commission as well the the

1:09:37 ↗ development agreements

1:09:40 ↗ sounds fantastic as I've said many times

1:09:43 ↗ I wish I lived there and I do but it

1:09:46 ↗ doesn't look at all like what the

1:09:47 ↗ development agreement said it would do

1:09:49 ↗ so the devil is in the details it's not

1:09:52 ↗ you know you can build you can have the

1:09:55 ↗ greatest goals you can even have good

1:09:58 ↗ policies it still doesn't mean that the

1:10:00 ↗ implementation is gonna

1:10:02 ↗ be what you want it to be that's very

1:10:03 ↗ true

1:10:05 ↗ and I did have one comment I think this

1:10:08 ↗ this might address Ray's Point um so

1:10:11 ↗ well for one I think we should change

1:10:13 ↗ the first word from an incorporate to

1:10:15 ↗ integrate uh just to kind of keep the

1:10:17 ↗ word inconsistent with the active

1:10:18 ↗ transportation change we did

1:10:20 ↗ um but but regardless of that I think

1:10:22 ↗ the concern may be

1:10:23 ↗ all roadway projects um you know if

1:10:26 ↗ we're doing a repair to a road on squawk

1:10:29 ↗ do we need to incorporate non-motorized

1:10:32 ↗ project with that

1:10:34 ↗ um it in those instances it may be

1:10:36 ↗ Overkill so if we're just integrating it

1:10:38 ↗ as part of an integral part of roadway

1:10:41 ↗ projects and not necessarily all roadway

1:10:43 ↗ projects than where or or maybe changing

1:10:47 ↗ it to

1:10:48 ↗ new roadway projects or major roadway

1:10:50 ↗ projects I don't know what major major

1:10:52 ↗ might work because I'm just thinking of

1:10:54 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Parkway where

1:10:55 ↗ they're getting ready to just redo part

1:10:57 ↗ of it but they're adding all this new

1:10:58 ↗ stuff non-motorized facilities

1:11:01 ↗ so but I see I see your point are you

1:11:03 ↗ saying that if we have a chance to build

1:11:05 ↗ a sidewalk we shouldn't build it

1:11:10 ↗ Road patch on a 20-foot section of you

1:11:14 ↗ know Ray's street is is that something

1:11:17 ↗ where we want to incorporate a sidewalk

1:11:19 ↗ on every roadway repair that we do

1:11:21 ↗ because roadway projects encompasses

1:11:24 ↗ roadway builds major Renovations and

1:11:28 ↗ fixing a pothole

1:11:29 ↗ so you know do we want to make it that

1:11:33 ↗ all-inclusive and that and that's my

1:11:35 ↗ only concern there is we may end up kind

1:11:38 ↗ of spinning our Wheels later on

1:11:40 ↗ um

1:11:41 ↗ over meeting goals on very small roadway

1:11:43 ↗ projects

1:11:45 ↗ okay

1:11:47 ↗ okay

1:11:49 ↗ I'll work on that one

1:11:50 ↗ um

1:11:52 ↗ because a pothole wouldn't be on the tip

1:11:55 ↗ but yeah but neither is a complete

1:11:57 ↗ Street project talk about potholes

1:11:59 ↗ uh so yeah

1:12:04 ↗ I'll talk to I'll talk to Sheldon and

1:12:06 ↗ see if he has any ideas too

1:12:09 ↗ yes

1:12:10 ↗ thanks I was going to suggest instead of

1:12:13 ↗ projects put Networks

1:12:16 ↗ because I don't know what a

1:12:17 ↗ non-motorized project is

1:12:21 ↗ about facilities

1:12:23 ↗ something I've been projects because it

1:12:25 ↗ just okay

1:12:27 ↗ so non-motorized facilities yeah

1:12:30 ↗ and then you brought up the issue so

1:12:32 ↗ that that like the highlands that was

1:12:34 ↗ part of the Urban Village yes they're

1:12:36 ↗ under how to develop different set of

1:12:38 ↗ rules so

1:12:40 ↗ we don't have anything we can do to

1:12:43 ↗ encourage that those development

1:12:44 ↗ processes

1:12:46 ↗ no they're locked in no they're yeah

1:12:48 ↗ they're locked which is very sad

1:12:51 ↗ because they have biplines happening

1:12:53 ↗ right now and you still the

1:12:54 ↗ opportunities for public input on

1:12:56 ↗ several

1:12:57 ↗ um some of the the the ones that are

1:13:00 ↗ closer to um the Highland tribe

1:13:03 ↗ so there's a few few left in you know

1:13:06 ↗ public input is always welcome

1:13:10 ↗ but I think they're coming that we don't

1:13:12 ↗ have any input I mean we agreed to those

1:13:13 ↗ plans there's just separate than this

1:13:17 ↗ the developers

1:13:20 ↗ so we we had input to them correct and

1:13:24 ↗ then the answer was no one that's not as

1:13:26 ↗ Chantal said they do have the ubdc where

1:13:28 ↗ there is public time for public

1:13:30 ↗ participation and comments

1:13:41 ↗ no

1:13:45 ↗ it was just two two years ago there's

1:13:48 ↗ still seven parts of it next side

1:13:51 ↗ happened separately from the highlands

1:13:52 ↗ Raleigh just happened three years ago

1:13:55 ↗ three years ago two years ago so it's

1:13:58 ↗ still it's still happening right and it

1:14:01 ↗ just

1:14:01 ↗ all right are we ready for goal 12. I

1:14:04 ↗ have silver 11 I have I'm going to work

1:14:06 ↗ on it I'll figure out instead of all

1:14:07 ↗ roadway projects a way to Encompass

1:14:09 ↗ everything but maintenance

1:14:11 ↗ um but in a great non-motorized

1:14:13 ↗ facilities as a part of

1:14:15 ↗ all roadway projects okay

1:14:21 ↗ could do Capital but the problem is is

1:14:22 ↗ if you do just Capital complete streets

1:14:24 ↗ isn't included in that in complete

1:14:26 ↗ streets is where your sidewalks get

1:14:27 ↗ completed and so I gotta I've got to

1:14:30 ↗ fiddle with that one so okay

1:14:33 ↗ um

1:14:35 ↗ 12. ensure all facilities are accessible

1:14:37 ↗ to people of all ages and abilities

1:14:42 ↗ I agree with that gold but I I'm sorry

1:14:45 ↗ go right ahead no no I just wanted to

1:14:47 ↗ ask safely

1:14:49 ↗ add the safe safety accessibility

1:14:53 ↗ uh safe and accessible oh I see I would

1:14:57 ↗ think if you just said comply with Ada

1:14:59 ↗ guidelines that encompasses everything

1:15:01 ↗ including safety

1:15:04 ↗ does there are other things though that

1:15:06 ↗ you can do like putting the landscape

1:15:08 ↗ buffer between the sidewalk and the cars

1:15:09 ↗ makes people who are walking on the

1:15:11 ↗ sidewalk feel a lot safer and you can do

1:15:13 ↗ cycle tracks as opposed to cycle lane or

1:15:15 ↗ bike lanes that are buffered so you're

1:15:18 ↗ right Ada is covers a lot

1:15:21 ↗ but there are some additional things

1:15:23 ↗ that can be done but safety is not

1:15:25 ↗ addressed there and what the examples

1:15:27 ↗ you just gave were right I'd be adding

1:15:29 ↗ safety to the department right

1:15:32 ↗ okay so yeah I put safe and accessible

1:15:34 ↗ to all people of Ages people of all ages

1:15:36 ↗ and abilities

1:15:39 ↗ anything else

1:15:41 ↗ and then I do have the new goal

1:15:42 ↗ encourage you connected bicycle Network

1:15:45 ↗ and I would assume Chantal you would

1:15:47 ↗ also want to encourage a connected

1:15:48 ↗ pedestrian pipe Network okay

1:15:53 ↗ okay

1:15:56 ↗ yes I wrote them as separate separate

1:15:58 ↗ goals okay

1:16:00 ↗ I'm listening okay

1:16:03 ↗ it's next

1:16:05 ↗ oh

1:16:06 ↗ right there I thought I'd see it sorry

1:16:10 ↗ Transit Network

1:16:14 ↗ this one's um

1:16:17 ↗ I feel like there should be more goals

1:16:18 ↗ here but I looked at it but as you all

1:16:20 ↗ know King County Metro

1:16:23 ↗ is a bit in flux right now and

1:16:26 ↗ I sit on the transportation committee

1:16:29 ↗ for the city the transportation Mobility

1:16:31 ↗ committee and there are so many things

1:16:34 ↗ flying around like right now I feel like

1:16:36 ↗ this is going to get bigger and Bolder

1:16:38 ↗ later but

1:16:40 ↗ for now this was safe to put in there

1:16:43 ↗ but I'd like to add something I think

1:16:45 ↗ major to this because

1:16:47 ↗ um the concept of Transit here in

1:16:49 ↗ Issaquah is right now as you as you're

1:16:51 ↗ mentioning we are feeling like

1:16:54 ↗ you know um I don't know what you want

1:16:56 ↗ to call it but we have no no say almost

1:16:58 ↗ I mean things are just being taken away

1:16:59 ↗ and leaving us with nothing so somehow I

1:17:02 ↗ want to say Issaquah has the power to

1:17:04 ↗ take care of themselves if if no one

1:17:06 ↗ else is going to do that so somehow I

1:17:09 ↗ want to develop do we have the ability

1:17:10 ↗ to take transit inter on hands if what

1:17:12 ↗ happens with Metro right now leaves us

1:17:13 ↗ with nothing but getting out of you know

1:17:16 ↗ a Transit Center into some other town

1:17:18 ↗ and there's no way around

1:17:20 ↗ our our town and there's no real you

1:17:22 ↗ know connection if you can't get to one

1:17:24 ↗ point in town

1:17:25 ↗ we have we have no Transit so I I

1:17:27 ↗ somehow look to say if we're really

1:17:29 ↗ going to be abandoned then we want to

1:17:32 ↗ have something here that says let's

1:17:34 ↗ let's do something to enforce that issue

1:17:36 ↗ so Monday night at 5 30 on the 16th

1:17:40 ↗ the transportation Mobility group is

1:17:43 ↗ presenting in this room to the council

1:17:44 ↗ infrastructure committee on that very

1:17:46 ↗ topic

1:17:47 ↗ and oftentimes they allow for public

1:17:49 ↗ comments so if you would like to come to

1:17:52 ↗ that just thought I'd give you a heads

1:17:53 ↗ up since you brought it up it's on TV

1:17:55 ↗ too right if they want to uh this one I

1:17:57 ↗ don't the committee meetings usually

1:17:58 ↗ aren't because it's from 5 30 to 6 30.

1:18:01 ↗ we're doing it here because the council

1:18:02 ↗ meeting is right after so

1:18:04 ↗ um just thought I'd give you a heads up

1:18:06 ↗ one way to do that would be to develop

1:18:08 ↗ our own Dash system I don't know if

1:18:10 ↗ you're familiar with Dash it's uh it's a

1:18:13 ↗ popular uh approach and many larger

1:18:16 ↗ communities but again you're getting

1:18:19 ↗ down to financing and uh if we're going

1:18:21 ↗ to do it how are we going to pay for it

1:18:24 ↗ well that's what that's it I want to put

1:18:25 ↗ something in our our comp plan that says

1:18:27 ↗ we can take it's a tasks we can go to we

1:18:30 ↗ can go to FTA we can find all that

1:18:32 ↗ there's the federal funds that are being

1:18:34 ↗ paid to this area and if they're not

1:18:35 ↗ going to be spent in this area then

1:18:36 ↗ there's ways we can we can deal with

1:18:38 ↗ that so there's just I mean it's it's

1:18:40 ↗ not easy but no nothing it's easy you

1:18:42 ↗ can't say then then we're our own

1:18:44 ↗ community and then we stand on our own

1:18:45 ↗ and we have to fight I buy into that

1:18:49 ↗ completely Bill if we can do it you

1:18:50 ↗ can't leave us sitting on the on the

1:18:52 ↗ bench going uh sorry so I see where

1:18:56 ↗ you're going with that I think and I've

1:18:57 ↗ got it written down but I also want to

1:18:59 ↗ see what happens Monday night the

1:19:01 ↗ difficulty again and I don't want to

1:19:02 ↗ sound negative is the trade-offs and and

1:19:05 ↗ uh is it education or is it

1:19:07 ↗ Transportation can we have both and how

1:19:09 ↗ do we pay for it if you can go to school

1:19:11 ↗ you don't have any

1:19:14 ↗ and that's that's what we're facing

1:19:16 ↗ we're facing the realities of

1:19:19 ↗ funding versus need

1:19:22 ↗ yeah and so maybe a goal to address uh

1:19:26 ↗ that would be maybe ensure uh

1:19:28 ↗ maintenance of a robust uh transit

1:19:30 ↗ system within Issaquah okay

1:19:33 ↗ um and that kind of leaves it open to

1:19:35 ↗ try to develop it however we can if we

1:19:37 ↗ can

1:19:38 ↗ um you know if we're stuck with what the

1:19:41 ↗ county has given us we're stuck without

1:19:42 ↗ the county has given us if we have the

1:19:44 ↗ ability to fund something through

1:19:46 ↗ federal or state dollars we can utilize

1:19:48 ↗ that one other goal I thought of and and

1:19:51 ↗ I don't know if this is a problem um I

1:19:53 ↗ haven't been I walk to Salmon days so

1:19:56 ↗ but during high volume Events maybe we

1:19:59 ↗ have increased share of trips made by

1:20:01 ↗ transit but also maybe increase use of

1:20:03 ↗ Transit during high volume events

1:20:06 ↗ or encourage

1:20:11 ↗ so um

1:20:16 ↗ we do have a shuttle system and I'm not

1:20:18 ↗ sure if it's underutilized or at

1:20:21 ↗ capacity or I'm not sure I just don't

1:20:23 ↗ have their institutional histories are

1:20:25 ↗ you talking about route 200

1:20:30 ↗ right what we're doing for shuttles or

1:20:32 ↗ whether we have we work we're working

1:20:34 ↗ with Metro to increase runs during those

1:20:36 ↗ times no I think uh in fact I think just

1:20:40 ↗ off the top of my head one of the things

1:20:42 ↗ we can think about is uh how do we

1:20:45 ↗ utilize the school buses that uh that

1:20:47 ↗ are idle between nine o'clock and two

1:20:49 ↗ o'clock uh can we utilize them for uh

1:20:51 ↗ for a dash type uh system as a starter I

1:20:56 ↗ don't know if it's possible let's get us

1:20:58 ↗ off the top of my head but uh

1:21:01 ↗ okay I I wonder

1:21:04 ↗ tell you under the funding models that

1:21:06 ↗ that's going to create a whole lot of

1:21:08 ↗ algebra for someone

1:21:10 ↗ one of the issues that's been I've been

1:21:12 ↗ struggling with related to Transit I

1:21:15 ↗ live in the highlands the bus is my

1:21:17 ↗ primary mode of transportation to work

1:21:20 ↗ and in between as well as much as I can

1:21:24 ↗ um there's more and more people coming

1:21:25 ↗ to the highlands there's no I mean

1:21:27 ↗ there's no concurrency I guess between

1:21:29 ↗ us between Transit and and I think I've

1:21:33 ↗ mentioned that before and I know that

1:21:35 ↗ concurrency cannot deal with operational

1:21:38 ↗ costs but I'm still struggling to find a

1:21:42 ↗ way that there's some kind of a process

1:21:45 ↗ that can happen between transits and

1:21:49 ↗ letting more people move into a place

1:21:51 ↗ you know when you start by having buses

1:21:54 ↗ then you have to stand then you have to

1:21:56 ↗ stand in very weird position because

1:21:58 ↗ people are pushing you from every

1:21:59 ↗ direction uh you you know you bag on top

1:22:02 ↗ of your head and whatnot because at

1:22:04 ↗ solar space days of five buses go in

1:22:07 ↗ front of you when you're trying to get

1:22:08 ↗ home and it takes you you know an hour

1:22:10 ↗ and a half when it should be taking you

1:22:12 ↗ 20 minutes there is definitely an issue

1:22:15 ↗ that goes beyond the

1:22:17 ↗ Metro funding because the buses have not

1:22:20 ↗ been cut yet and yet we are over

1:22:23 ↗ capacity in a lot of areas so and yet

1:22:27 ↗ people are still coming and a lot of

1:22:28 ↗ people are moving to the highlands

1:22:30 ↗ because of the it's a Transit dependent

1:22:33 ↗ area they're expecting transits they are

1:22:36 ↗ being promised Transit and yet there

1:22:38 ↗ will be no transit for them or they will

1:22:40 ↗ be very uncomfortable transit for them

1:22:42 ↗ so I'm struggling to see how to address

1:22:45 ↗ that but I to me it's a very important

1:22:48 ↗ issue that needs to be somehow looked at

1:22:55 ↗ so just to be clear is it um

1:22:58 ↗ not allowing

1:23:00 ↗ those types of developments unless

1:23:02 ↗ you're certain that the transit is going

1:23:04 ↗ to be there well you can't do that

1:23:05 ↗ because it's already allowed so well but

1:23:08 ↗ in the future yeah I mean it's kind of a

1:23:10 ↗ concurrency type thing right like you

1:23:12 ↗ have if you don't have sewer you cannot

1:23:14 ↗ have people if you don't have enough

1:23:16 ↗ Transit capacity you can't have people I

1:23:18 ↗ I don't know it's right maybe it's you

1:23:20 ↗ pay into a Transit fund that helps the

1:23:22 ↗ city bring more in for those areas or

1:23:26 ↗ yeah I like the term Transit concurrency

1:23:29 ↗ I mean we have we don't have control

1:23:31 ↗ over it like we do roadway but

1:23:34 ↗ um it's something to think about how we

1:23:35 ↗ could try to get more control over that

1:23:37 ↗ right

1:23:41 ↗ all right anything else on Transit right

1:23:42 ↗ now

1:23:43 ↗ more to come

1:23:44 ↗ one more thing yes sorry

1:23:47 ↗ um it's uh so these the these the old

1:23:50 ↗ part of Transit which is

1:23:52 ↗ um which is having the buses but there's

1:23:55 ↗ also the one of the things that eases uh

1:23:59 ↗ the availability of Transit is having

1:24:02 ↗ roads and in the infrastructure that is

1:24:05 ↗ that supports that so not sure what the

1:24:09 ↗ terms are for that but having

1:24:11 ↗ um roles that you know preferential

1:24:13 ↗ nights so that buses can turn in you

1:24:16 ↗ know the so that they can go faster so

1:24:19 ↗ that they can cost less money so that we

1:24:21 ↗ they don't get get cut to the same

1:24:23 ↗ extent right when we were doing uh we we

1:24:26 ↗ have uh Transit identified routes but we

1:24:29 ↗ haven't gone far enough with that right

1:24:31 ↗ these are found around on 900 right and

1:24:34 ↗ we talked to Metro about that when we

1:24:35 ↗ were doing central Issaquah that was one

1:24:37 ↗ of their comments is we had gone far

1:24:38 ↗ enough so that would be part I would

1:24:40 ↗ imagine it um of the mobility Master the

1:24:44 ↗ big one the mobility master plan not the

1:24:46 ↗ non-motorized

1:24:47 ↗ yeah but you're right it hasn't been

1:24:49 ↗ addressed enough and we could put that

1:24:51 ↗ in here okay okay

1:24:55 ↗ running out of space

1:25:02 ↗ okay

1:25:14 ↗ sorry thank you

1:25:15 ↗ um

1:25:16 ↗ what about making some kind of a mention

1:25:18 ↗ of

1:25:20 ↗ um working with other small cities in

1:25:22 ↗ the area to

1:25:24 ↗ make sure that our

1:25:27 ↗ issaquah's Transit

1:25:30 ↗ um

1:25:31 ↗ is uh

1:25:34 ↗ I don't know works together with let's

1:25:36 ↗ say Sammamish Transit because

1:25:39 ↗ it's I feel like that might be missing

1:25:41 ↗ from one of our

1:25:42 ↗ well we have Regional coordination

1:25:45 ↗ which is to collaborate with our

1:25:46 ↗ neighboring municipalities King County

1:25:49 ↗ and other agencies

1:25:51 ↗ so we do have it I would think okay

1:25:52 ↗ sorry all right

1:25:55 ↗ okay Finance

1:26:00 ↗ invest strategically in transportation

1:26:03 ↗ so part of that is coming through our

1:26:04 ↗ funding strategies that's being done

1:26:06 ↗ right now by our consultant

1:26:08 ↗ and will be included in the plan but

1:26:10 ↗ it's

1:26:11 ↗ identifying you know coming up with a

1:26:13 ↗ three-year

1:26:14 ↗ project and funding plan

1:26:16 ↗ so that you know where it's coming from

1:26:18 ↗ and my only uh addition there would be

1:26:22 ↗ that to make sure that we're investing

1:26:24 ↗ strategically with long-term cost-saving

1:26:27 ↗ goals in mind okay

1:26:29 ↗ um because you know it's good to have

1:26:31 ↗ the three-year plan but

1:26:33 ↗ the the case in point when Seattle had

1:26:36 ↗ the opportunity to put in a Subway

1:26:38 ↗ what

1:26:39 ↗ 80 years ago something like that and and

1:26:42 ↗ it didn't come to fruition and now we're

1:26:45 ↗ spending billions on a tunnel to

1:26:47 ↗ mitigate some of that so looking at

1:26:50 ↗ those investment opportunities as well

1:26:51 ↗ okay

1:26:56 ↗ one of the key elements of strategy is

1:26:58 ↗ uh priorities and timetable and I would

1:27:03 ↗ look at it from the standpoint of top

1:27:06 ↗ priority immediately is safety secondly

1:27:09 ↗ is moving traffic efficiently

1:27:12 ↗ removing bottlenecks on Front Street and

1:27:15 ↗ Issaquah and Hobart Road that's

1:27:17 ↗ immediate

1:27:18 ↗ that exists right now and but again

1:27:21 ↗ looking at strategy you look at

1:27:23 ↗ timetables and you look at how do you do

1:27:25 ↗ it financially and otherwise

1:27:29 ↗ and you said you said safety and moved

1:27:31 ↗ traffic and then the pinch points sort

1:27:33 ↗ of onto a Hobart Road and then there was

1:27:35 ↗ one other one you mentioned

1:27:37 ↗ front okay

1:27:40 ↗ thank you

1:27:44 ↗ okay

1:27:47 ↗ last one are we going to prioritize

1:27:51 ↗ those like that so the

1:27:54 ↗ because I would prioritize the 200

1:27:55 ↗ persons the non the non-motorized

1:27:58 ↗ projects have been prioritized and yes

1:27:59 ↗ that it would be part of the three-year

1:28:02 ↗ uh

1:28:03 ↗ I can't think of what it's called but

1:28:05 ↗ it's a three three year plan and I

1:28:07 ↗ believe that yes those are prioritized

1:28:08 ↗ that's something that the council has

1:28:09 ↗ asked for yes

1:28:13 ↗ all right 15.

1:28:17 ↗ collaborate with this across neighboring

1:28:19 ↗ municipalities King County and other

1:28:21 ↗ agencies to address Regional impacts and

1:28:23 ↗ issues

1:28:27 ↗ so this gets into sharing Transit

1:28:29 ↗ finding ways to cooperate Road

1:28:31 ↗ improvements non-motorized improvements

1:28:38 ↗ yes the

1:28:40 ↗ thing something about

1:28:42 ↗ um in I'm sorry going back to goal 15

1:28:45 ↗ investing strategically in

1:28:47 ↗ transportation would that be where we

1:28:49 ↗ would also include

1:28:51 ↗ um

1:28:53 ↗ trying to apply for Grants whenever

1:28:57 ↗ possible

1:28:59 ↗ is that would that be more of a policy

1:29:01 ↗ it is it's more of a policy and I can

1:29:03 ↗ think of two

1:29:04 ↗ that are not in here yeah one would be a

1:29:07 ↗ new one and one's an old one so yes

1:29:08 ↗ that's file under policies okay I was

1:29:10 ↗ thinking yeah rather than just

1:29:12 ↗ investment money but also finding free

1:29:15 ↗ money

1:29:19 ↗ am I good

1:29:21 ↗ that's transportation

1:29:25 ↗ okay

1:29:26 ↗ good job good job

1:29:40 ↗ lounges

1:29:42 ↗ what time is it

1:29:45 ↗ right we'll get started on this we'll

1:29:48 ↗ see what happens

1:29:49 ↗ to follow me

1:29:51 ↗ did someone just call me

1:29:54 ↗ no Kristen yes

1:29:56 ↗ isn't she awesome

1:30:00 ↗ all right

1:30:05 ↗ okay I'm second Phil you're more than

1:30:07 ↗ welcome to come second fiddle no no

1:30:09 ↗ you're doing awesome okay

1:30:12 ↗ uh Landy Solomon

1:30:18 ↗ I just shrank about two inches I had to

1:30:20 ↗ fix that uh

1:30:23 ↗ I

1:30:24 ↗ so this is what was sent to you so I

1:30:26 ↗ went through we went through and made

1:30:28 ↗ the changes to the goals that we talked

1:30:29 ↗ about last time put in the policies that

1:30:31 ↗ are there or the policies that existed

1:30:33 ↗ change some of them added a few I have

1:30:35 ↗ to warn you and you may have noticed

1:30:36 ↗ when you were looking diligently through

1:30:38 ↗ your packets and taking notes that I

1:30:41 ↗ actually added quite a few under natural

1:30:44 ↗ environment we started looking at it and

1:30:46 ↗ realized there were just a lot of things

1:30:48 ↗ missing there were too many policies

1:30:50 ↗ that needed to be addressed and it

1:30:51 ↗ needed to be broken up so that's what

1:30:54 ↗ happened there so

1:30:56 ↗ I'm going to skip the growth management

1:30:59 ↗ act since we went through that last time

1:31:00 ↗ and we can't change that

1:31:03 ↗ but first category

1:31:06 ↗ natural environment

1:31:09 ↗ so maintain and enhance the natural

1:31:11 ↗ systems and features which used to be

1:31:13 ↗ amenities of the City and surrounding

1:31:16 ↗ area than I added from the potentially

1:31:18 ↗ negative impact of human activities

1:31:20 ↗ included but not limited to Land

1:31:22 ↗ Development

1:31:24 ↗ am I good

1:31:27 ↗ so yes oh do you have one I don't want

1:31:31 ↗ to

1:31:32 ↗ touch on every single policy

1:31:34 ↗ so is it okay did everybody have a

1:31:37 ↗ chance to look at this

1:31:39 ↗ so you have comments ahead of time

1:31:42 ↗ so I'll just kind of go A1

1:31:45 ↗ A2 and if there are comments you guys

1:31:47 ↗ jump in and let me know okay

1:31:49 ↗ all right

1:31:51 ↗ A1

1:31:54 ↗ yes regarding A1 just on the second line

1:31:57 ↗ I I would

1:31:59 ↗ like to see protection and promotion so

1:32:01 ↗ again a maintenance element and then a

1:32:04 ↗ forward-looking element

1:32:06 ↗ hang on I had to turn on review let's

1:32:08 ↗ see against

1:32:09 ↗ where did let's see could you second

1:32:11 ↗ line uh protection and promotion

1:32:17 ↗ look at that

1:32:19 ↗ okay A2

1:32:24 ↗ significant trees

1:32:28 ↗ that's not capitalized so that's not

1:32:30 ↗ defined

1:32:31 ↗ so I don't know what a significant tree

1:32:33 ↗ is oh actually it is it is defined and

1:32:36 ↗ yeah it's a certain size it's actually a

1:32:38 ↗ regulatory system the diameter diameter

1:32:41 ↗ yeah I think it's the diameter of a tree

1:32:44 ↗ but yeah but it is defined perfect yeah

1:32:47 ↗ okay

1:32:48 ↗ A2

1:32:53 ↗ A3

1:32:54 ↗ regarding A3

1:32:57 ↗ um I don't know if this can be added but

1:33:00 ↗ um

1:33:01 ↗ clustering of buildings within

1:33:02 ↗ developments I I would I would just add

1:33:05 ↗ to do it in line with neighborhood

1:33:07 ↗ character

1:33:08 ↗ I think that's just important to make

1:33:10 ↗ sure that when we're adding these things

1:33:12 ↗ that it's

1:33:14 ↗ at least got the look and feel of the

1:33:15 ↗ surrounding neighborhood can we do that

1:33:18 ↗ I'm thinking Anderson

1:33:21 ↗ say it again uh the suggestion was to do

1:33:23 ↗ in line with neighborhood character

1:33:25 ↗ and I think that's more of in the land

1:33:27 ↗ use code when we look at each of them

1:33:30 ↗ that comes in to do a cluster we make

1:33:32 ↗ sure that

1:33:33 ↗ um it's you know that the densest part

1:33:36 ↗ isn't on the neighbor's fence line of a

1:33:39 ↗ the lower density we do that kind of

1:33:41 ↗ review when we actually look at the plot

1:33:43 ↗ or the sorry Division and are you

1:33:44 ↗ talking densities are you talking look

1:33:46 ↗ I'm I'm talking look and feel the

1:33:48 ↗ Leavenworth yeah issue where the

1:33:50 ↗ incoming

1:33:51 ↗ um things you know I I have no problem

1:33:53 ↗ with putting in high density

1:33:55 ↗ Apartments but when they look completely

1:33:59 ↗ out of place to the rest of the

1:34:00 ↗ neighborhood I don't know if that's

1:34:01 ↗ something that can be incorporated or

1:34:03 ↗ not as a goal what do you think

1:34:06 ↗ I'm just thinking Anderson

1:34:09 ↗ um

1:34:09 ↗ well maybe we'll kind of do an asterisk

1:34:12 ↗ and yeah we'll have to check trying to

1:34:13 ↗ figure out how to say what you're trying

1:34:16 ↗ to say without

1:34:17 ↗ going the other way with the lawsuit

1:34:19 ↗ that yeah

1:34:22 ↗ yes

1:34:23 ↗ so the comp plan affects the zoning code

1:34:27 ↗ and usually when you go through a

1:34:30 ↗ development the zoning code is what kind

1:34:32 ↗ of guides a development do we ever look

1:34:35 ↗ at the zoning code and provide any input

1:34:37 ↗ on that yes whenever we amend it you do

1:34:39 ↗ through you there's an annual docket of

1:34:42 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments and

1:34:44 ↗ there's an annual document of land use

1:34:45 ↗ code amendments okay so those will come

1:34:47 ↗ to you so like we're going through a

1:34:49 ↗ review of the comp plan right now do we

1:34:51 ↗ ever go through a review of the zoning

1:34:53 ↗ code nothing about the whole thing but

1:34:56 ↗ when amendments come through they all

1:34:57 ↗ have to go through you right so it's

1:35:00 ↗ just looking at that specific Amendment

1:35:01 ↗ okay right and it depends on um and this

1:35:04 ↗ year I'm not sure if we're going to get

1:35:06 ↗ to do any this year because this is

1:35:07 ↗ keeping us so busy right but it's

1:35:09 ↗ usually something some error that we've

1:35:11 ↗ found or something that isn't quite

1:35:12 ↗ clear you know let's say that Justin

1:35:15 ↗ mentioned we realize we actually have a

1:35:17 ↗ plant go through and it's not turning

1:35:19 ↗ out the way we thought it would like

1:35:20 ↗ Chantal said even though you think

1:35:22 ↗ you've written it for every situation it

1:35:24 ↗ seems like the second guy in the door

1:35:26 ↗ it's like oh we didn't think of that and

1:35:27 ↗ so then we take the code back to you and

1:35:29 ↗ try and rewrite it and make it clearer

1:35:31 ↗ right okay it'd be nice to go through

1:35:34 ↗ the whole thing though someday but

1:35:37 ↗ but that's a really nice idea but not

1:35:39 ↗ quite yet but maybe sometimes I'm just

1:35:41 ↗ thinking if you know if all of us have

1:35:43 ↗ ideas of like okay we can want to change

1:35:45 ↗ the code when there's the opportunity to

1:35:48 ↗ do that right and we certainly put them

1:35:49 ↗ on the docket when there's issues that

1:35:51 ↗ that you guys bring up or our planners

1:35:53 ↗ bring up or applicants bring up and we

1:35:55 ↗ try to get to them in whatever priority

1:35:57 ↗ order we can do them and the state also

1:35:59 ↗ this year

1:36:00 ↗ um

1:36:01 ↗ so they said you have to update your

1:36:03 ↗ comp plans this year but oh at the same

1:36:05 ↗ time you had to do an audit of your

1:36:06 ↗ languages code this year to make sure

1:36:07 ↗ it's state compliant so there's a little

1:36:09 ↗ ensuring of consistency that's going to

1:36:11 ↗ happen this year as part of that audit

1:36:13 ↗ and that's kind of what I thought is

1:36:15 ↗ that you know these policies is what

1:36:17 ↗ guide the zoning code so you know if

1:36:19 ↗ these change how do we ensure that the

1:36:21 ↗ zoning code gets changed so that it's

1:36:23 ↗ this is reflected right right

1:36:27 ↗ I don't know whether this comes under

1:36:29 ↗ goals or policies but do we have any uh

1:36:33 ↗ standards for extern exterior

1:36:35 ↗ development exterior appearance to make

1:36:38 ↗ sure that it uh it's compatible with the

1:36:41 ↗ surroundings and environmentally

1:36:42 ↗ attractive and uh

1:36:45 ↗ and so forth some of the stuff that's

1:36:47 ↗ been built lately uh certainly wouldn't

1:36:50 ↗ conform with with my image of Issaquah

1:36:54 ↗ and I think many peoples and I would

1:36:57 ↗ hate to see a kind of development where

1:37:00 ↗ you have glass factories that are called

1:37:03 ↗ offices or residences

1:37:05 ↗ do we have standards that uh are land

1:37:08 ↗ use code addresses standards and it

1:37:10 ↗ regrets IT addresses durability and

1:37:12 ↗ quality and windows and

1:37:15 ↗ where those can and can't be and how

1:37:17 ↗ long solid walls can be and where you

1:37:19 ↗ have to have breaks and all that

1:37:21 ↗ um

1:37:22 ↗ but you can't get too subjective

1:37:24 ↗ you know you can't say well I like frat

1:37:26 ↗ moves and I like pointed roofs we can't

1:37:28 ↗ require one or the other about

1:37:30 ↗ appearance standards not

1:37:33 ↗ right they're design standards we have

1:37:34 ↗ the green sheets in most of the city and

1:37:36 ↗ then Central Issaquah has its own

1:37:38 ↗ standards and we also have standards for

1:37:40 ↗ the for Front Street and Sunset and of

1:37:42 ↗ course the the urban Villages have their

1:37:44 ↗ own I know we have it for old town but I

1:37:46 ↗ wasn't sure about the other areas yep we

1:37:49 ↗ do

1:37:53 ↗ A4

1:37:58 ↗ A5

1:38:03 ↗ A6

1:38:07 ↗ A7

1:38:08 ↗ yes

1:38:16 ↗ allow P patches that kind of thing that

1:38:18 ↗ goes on to an empty lot like a hobby

1:38:21 ↗ Farm

1:38:22 ↗ something's not a huge kind of a

1:38:26 ↗ a deal but a

1:38:31 ↗ and I actually had that same reading I

1:38:34 ↗ was thinking a small scale at some of

1:38:37 ↗ the farms you see out on Issaquah Hobart

1:38:39 ↗ like I thought that was a small scale

1:38:40 ↗ farm so I wasn't thinking pea patches

1:38:42 ↗ and and urban Farmers I was thinking

1:38:45 ↗ small scale agriculture Opera operations

1:38:47 ↗ okay

1:38:49 ↗ um so I don't know if that wording can

1:38:50 ↗ be clarified at all or if we're

1:38:51 ↗ encouraging both that's

1:39:05 ↗ well I think it it it

1:39:09 ↗ describes something that exists out

1:39:11 ↗ there that's not necessarily under the

1:39:13 ↗ hobby Farm I mean most of the Farms like

1:39:16 ↗ on Issa Oklahoma throat would be

1:39:18 ↗ qualified as Hobby Farms I think right

1:39:20 ↗ but small scale is maybe something

1:39:22 ↗ different that may not be covered by

1:39:24 ↗ that

1:39:25 ↗ yeah I'm thinking of it I'm not familiar

1:39:27 ↗ with the hobby Farm but I'm thinking of

1:39:28 ↗ a single-family house that was taken

1:39:30 ↗ down for some reason and nothing else

1:39:32 ↗ goes up so you put in a small garden you

1:39:35 ↗ know a Pea Patch kind of Garden right or

1:39:37 ↗ if you have enough land that you could

1:39:38 ↗ have we have our land use code have

1:39:40 ↗ certain acreages that you need to have

1:39:42 ↗ an alarm or alpaca or you know something

1:39:45 ↗ like that and so I think this would

1:39:47 ↗ allow those kinds of things I guess

1:39:48 ↗ instead of Agriculture maybe that is a

1:39:51 ↗ hobby farm and agriculture would be

1:39:53 ↗ you know if you have someone come in for

1:39:55 ↗ 400 chickens for a chicken farm or

1:39:57 ↗ something I don't know if we'd be in

1:39:59 ↗ favor of that a greenhouse for example

1:40:02 ↗ greenhouses are allowed yeah that would

1:40:05 ↗ be horticulture

1:40:06 ↗ oh not any months right that's true and

1:40:10 ↗ taking out small scale doesn't prohibit

1:40:12 ↗ small scale I just

1:40:22 ↗ does this cover unincorporated areas no

1:40:25 ↗ oh no they would not be any right okay

1:40:28 ↗ there's not

1:40:29 ↗ yeah there's not a lot of areas around

1:40:32 ↗ still but

1:40:38 ↗ okay we'll revisit this one

1:40:41 ↗ okay

1:40:43 ↗ A8

1:40:47 ↗ A9

1:40:49 ↗ I'm I'm confused about A9

1:40:52 ↗ um it says continue to prohibit the

1:40:55 ↗ inappropriate conversion

1:40:58 ↗ what are we saying because earlier you

1:41:00 ↗ said that East Cougar Mountain is going

1:41:02 ↗ to get developed eventually

1:41:07 ↗ so what what are we exactly saying here

1:41:10 ↗ is to the developer that they can't put

1:41:15 ↗ in single family housing on quarter acre

1:41:19 ↗ Lots anymore

1:41:23 ↗ sorry I'm reading it one second

1:41:25 ↗ um

1:41:26 ↗ that's actually a good way to interpret

1:41:28 ↗ that yeah that is a good way to

1:41:29 ↗ interpret that I've never read it that

1:41:31 ↗ way before um this is one of the the

1:41:33 ↗ pieces of growth management is that um

1:41:35 ↗ they were sprawling oh there was all

1:41:38 ↗ this development sprawling past Urban

1:41:40 ↗ places where you could provide water and

1:41:42 ↗ sewer and so you'd see these five acre

1:41:45 ↗ tracks being turned into

1:41:48 ↗ um developments that the cities couldn't

1:41:50 ↗ serve and so

1:41:52 ↗ um

1:41:53 ↗ this is kind of

1:41:56 ↗ yeah it makes our zoning code you can't

1:41:58 ↗ do that anymore maybe it would be

1:42:00 ↗ continue to discourage

1:42:03 ↗ inappropriate conversion and low

1:42:05 ↗ development housing in inappropriate

1:42:08 ↗ circumstances I mean because if we do

1:42:10 ↗ develop a

1:42:11 ↗ Forest I mean it's not going to go all

1:42:13 ↗ condos

1:42:17 ↗ right

1:42:21 ↗ yeah we'll have to we'll highlight that

1:42:24 ↗ one

1:42:25 ↗ um

1:42:26 ↗ yeah the uh the GMA the GMA goal says

1:42:30 ↗ prevent sprawling low density

1:42:31 ↗ development so I'll have to let's figure

1:42:34 ↗ out how to I think that was probably you

1:42:35 ↗ know the bright line I know you know

1:42:37 ↗ four units per acre kind of thing I know

1:42:39 ↗ we'll work on this one yeah I also

1:42:41 ↗ wonder about the the phrase

1:42:43 ↗ establishment of minimum densities

1:42:45 ↗ yeah that's growth management

1:42:47 ↗ we use your land efficiently minimum

1:42:50 ↗ densities to use your land efficiently

1:42:52 ↗ because we're in the urban growth

1:42:53 ↗ boundary

1:42:54 ↗ and so we're supposed to use the land

1:42:56 ↗ you know smart growth and using it

1:42:58 ↗ efficiently so that we can have a

1:43:00 ↗ boundary that then it's Rural and

1:43:02 ↗ preserved on the other side

1:43:04 ↗ so if I had 10 acres for example and I

1:43:06 ↗ just wanted to subdivided into five and

1:43:08 ↗ build two nice homes instead of putting

1:43:10 ↗ in a cluster

1:43:12 ↗ of less expensive

1:43:15 ↗ apartment buildings

1:43:17 ↗ that's what that means well it depends

1:43:19 ↗ what your zoned first of all your 10

1:43:22 ↗ acres if you're 10 acres is zoned you

1:43:24 ↗ know mixed use that you're that putting

1:43:27 ↗ one house on each of the five in the

1:43:31 ↗ middle of downtown

1:43:32 ↗ wouldn't be the best use of that land

1:43:35 ↗ you wouldn't have to do anything with it

1:43:37 ↗ if it's vacant now and you just have one

1:43:38 ↗ house you could be like that forever and

1:43:40 ↗ there's nothing the city could do

1:43:43 ↗ but we can try and encourage you though

1:43:45 ↗ when you do develop it that it would be

1:43:47 ↗ an efficient use of land it just sounds

1:43:49 ↗ like it flies in the face of what we're

1:43:52 ↗ trying to avoid you know terms like

1:43:53 ↗ carbon emissions and increased traffic

1:43:56 ↗ and and you know sewage treatment and

1:43:58 ↗ water supply I I don't know why restrict

1:44:02 ↗ a developer in the minimum standards if

1:44:04 ↗ he wants to go a different route that's

1:44:05 ↗ all I'm saying I I don't right and it's

1:44:07 ↗ because we're in an urban we're on the

1:44:10 ↗ urban side of the urban line that we're

1:44:12 ↗ supposed to be using I think we

1:44:14 ↗ we're not saying I are you saying that

1:44:17 ↗ you think that this means that we have

1:44:19 ↗ to keep low density

1:44:21 ↗ it says an establishment of minimum

1:44:23 ↗ densities

1:44:24 ↗ that's the phrase I don't so you

1:44:27 ↗ density should be higher within a gross

1:44:29 ↗ boundary

1:44:31 ↗ well I'm just saying why would you why

1:44:33 ↗ would we say you have to have four

1:44:34 ↗ instead of two

1:44:36 ↗ okay when two is better for the

1:44:37 ↗ environment

1:44:39 ↗ not if the two are going to go move

1:44:42 ↗ outside or the urban growth boundary

1:44:44 ↗ well for example is East Cougar Mountain

1:44:48 ↗ within the urban

1:44:51 ↗ plan to where

1:44:53 ↗ you have to build

1:44:56 ↗ high density housing or are the

1:44:58 ↗ developers going to be allowed to build

1:45:01 ↗ single-family homes right in that case

1:45:04 ↗ question that's the question I have

1:45:06 ↗ right in that case because there's so

1:45:07 ↗ many critical areas they would probably

1:45:09 ↗ have to do low density just like the

1:45:11 ↗ Tibbetts Creek Valley is still low

1:45:13 ↗ density because you couldn't put a lot

1:45:15 ↗ on there because the land just can't

1:45:17 ↗ carry it with the wetlands and the

1:45:19 ↗ stream buffers and all of that so you've

1:45:20 ↗ raised a good point that sometimes it's

1:45:22 ↗ the land that helps us with the density

1:45:24 ↗ not you know not the um

1:45:27 ↗ the minimum it's the um

1:45:30 ↗ but for example if you're on Gilman

1:45:32 ↗ Boulevard and you're you know you're

1:45:34 ↗ taking down whatever it is and you just

1:45:36 ↗ want to build a house on you know five

1:45:38 ↗ acres on Gilman Boulevard I think people

1:45:40 ↗ would you know there's no constraints

1:45:42 ↗ there's no

1:45:43 ↗ um so we would want you to use the land

1:45:46 ↗ as efficiently as possible in in that

1:45:48 ↗ case but it depends on you know this is

1:45:50 ↗ one of those General statements that's

1:45:52 ↗ that the zoning code then piece by piece

1:45:54 ↗ where you're located helps us Define

1:45:56 ↗ what you would do what we would do so I

1:45:59 ↗ would have a question on that so if you

1:46:01 ↗ own that 10 acres and he wanted to

1:46:03 ↗ subdivide it would he have to subdivide

1:46:05 ↗ to a four lot I mean if that was it all

1:46:08 ↗ depends where you sound if he's if he's

1:46:10 ↗ next to Kelly Ranch he's on one acre 1.2

1:46:14 ↗ units per acre because it's constrained

1:46:18 ↗ it's Wetland it's stream buffer but if

1:46:20 ↗ you're on Gilman Boulevard your retail

1:46:23 ↗ mixed use and and you can go all the way

1:46:25 ↗ up to

1:46:27 ↗ I don't even know what the zoning is for

1:46:29 ↗ 125 feet right and so it all depends

1:46:32 ↗ where his 10 acres are right so it's

1:46:34 ↗ based on your zoning if it was zoned a

1:46:36 ↗ certain thing you can right right and

1:46:39 ↗ we've zoned we hope that we've zoned

1:46:41 ↗ places to to recognize what kind of land

1:46:43 ↗ it is for the carrying capacity and the

1:46:46 ↗ constraints and um so that we're not

1:46:49 ↗ trying to mess with anybody and make

1:46:51 ↗ them do a lot more than they would want

1:46:54 ↗ to do

1:46:55 ↗ so if the zoning defines that why is

1:46:57 ↗ that phrase necessary

1:46:59 ↗ is this as Paul said this is supposed to

1:47:01 ↗ be the overarching guidelines for the

1:47:04 ↗ zoning code this is supposed to help

1:47:06 ↗ inform the zoning code you have maximum

1:47:09 ↗ standards now but you don't have minimum

1:47:11 ↗ standards am I correct correct we have

1:47:14 ↗ yeah okay uh you're proposing I suspect

1:47:17 ↗ to have minimum standards as well

1:47:20 ↗ and would you carry it further in terms

1:47:23 ↗ of redeveloping the commons for instance

1:47:26 ↗ and the QFC shopping center into

1:47:29 ↗ something like the Lake Hills

1:47:31 ↗ development which is multi-use they tore

1:47:34 ↗ down all of the single story

1:47:37 ↗ um

1:47:38 ↗ stores and they're building a multi-use

1:47:41 ↗ complex

1:47:43 ↗ right so far the only place that's the

1:47:46 ↗ way I would interpret the central

1:47:47 ↗ Issaquah plan Vision right exactly are

1:47:50 ↗ we talking Redevelopment or eventual

1:47:53 ↗ eventually doing that because there's a

1:47:56 ↗ difference right and the only place now

1:47:58 ↗ that has minimum standards minimum floor

1:48:01 ↗ area ratio is the urban core which is

1:48:03 ↗ the the central part of the central

1:48:05 ↗ Esquire area that there is a minimum far

1:48:07 ↗ that we require in the urban core but

1:48:10 ↗ the rest of the city you know we're not

1:48:12 ↗ there yet to have minimum minimum

1:48:14 ↗ development requirements so that would

1:48:16 ↗ be the goal

1:48:18 ↗ to someday have it for the whole city

1:48:20 ↗ yeah

1:48:21 ↗ we may get there at least with the

1:48:24 ↗ central Issaquah court the total is

1:48:25 ↗ right we already have it for that and if

1:48:28 ↗ the growth supports it I mean if we

1:48:30 ↗ don't have the growth that will

1:48:32 ↗ necessitate those excuse places they're

1:48:34 ↗ not going to get built right well maybe

1:48:36 ↗ the next comprehensive plan that would

1:48:38 ↗ be developing all of the uh rally

1:48:41 ↗ one-story office structures along Gilman

1:48:44 ↗ which I'm sure he'll do anyway as the

1:48:47 ↗ market uh calls for it right he has this

1:48:49 ↗ development agreement so he's ready when

1:48:51 ↗ the market is

1:48:54 ↗ well the whole Central Issaquah plan

1:48:56 ↗ assumes that there'll be a market for

1:48:58 ↗ what we're proposing to do right yes

1:49:01 ↗ it just takes some time

1:49:05 ↗ my question

1:49:07 ↗ excuse me is this going to run in the

1:49:10 ↗ face of

1:49:12 ↗ and I'll use an example

1:49:16 ↗ in our neck of the woods up in the

1:49:19 ↗ um

1:49:21 ↗ plateau

1:49:24 ↗ where King County will look at an R6

1:49:29 ↗ verses in our four

1:49:32 ↗ and they'll allow high density

1:49:35 ↗ construction and I mean high density

1:49:37 ↗ Construction

1:49:39 ↗ even though half of the land

1:49:42 ↗ is

1:49:44 ↗ unbuildable

1:49:46 ↗ so they're cramming the amount of

1:49:49 ↗ buildings in a in an area half the size

1:49:54 ↗ of what it should normally be

1:49:57 ↗ in requirements by zoning and it's

1:50:00 ↗ happening right now so I don't know is

1:50:02 ↗ this going to have an impact on that

1:50:04 ↗ kind of an approach we have go ahead oh

1:50:07 ↗ you're gonna go no go ahead and our

1:50:09 ↗ zoning code now allows partial transfer

1:50:11 ↗ if you have critical areas on your land

1:50:13 ↗ you're allowed to it's a sliding scale

1:50:15 ↗ you know if you're 80 percent critical

1:50:17 ↗ you can transfer a little bit of that

1:50:19 ↗ and what's left that's developable

1:50:21 ↗ developable not the whole thing but part

1:50:25 ↗ of it

1:50:26 ↗ um but so so we already have that kind

1:50:29 ↗ of a sliding scale in existence I don't

1:50:30 ↗ really know how King counties works if

1:50:32 ↗ they get a complete one-to-one when they

1:50:34 ↗ transfer it but ours we don't allow the

1:50:37 ↗ the full the full

1:50:40 ↗ transfer to the to the developable part

1:50:42 ↗ we only allow a portion of it okay I'm

1:50:45 ↗ good

1:50:47 ↗ A10

1:50:48 ↗ I feel like I'm playing bingo

1:50:52 ↗ all right

1:50:54 ↗ all right I added this one maintain an

1:50:55 ↗ overall tree canopy of at least 50 to

1:50:57 ↗ offset the urban heat island effects and

1:50:59 ↗ reduce carbon dioxide emissions this was

1:51:01 ↗ in our discussion but we didn't have any

1:51:03 ↗ goals on trees which is a was a couple

1:51:05 ↗ years ago a huge Council priority what

1:51:07 ↗ is the current canopy uh it depends on

1:51:10 ↗ which thing you look at we're either at

1:51:12 ↗ 47 point something percent or 51 percent

1:51:15 ↗ right I always think of 51. but it's

1:51:19 ↗ both in the comp plan it depends on

1:51:20 ↗ which method you use right

1:51:27 ↗ the question I had when you put a 50

1:51:28 ↗ tree canopy

1:51:30 ↗ um

1:51:31 ↗ you know how did you say you measure

1:51:32 ↗ that throughout the whole city yes you

1:51:34 ↗ know and then you're looking at who's

1:51:36 ↗ going to take the brunt of that when

1:51:38 ↗ lack of tree canopy is also our Parks

1:51:40 ↗ which are big open grass fields there's

1:51:43 ↗ no true canopy and those types of things

1:51:45 ↗ a lot lots of places don't have tree

1:51:46 ↗ candy because they're still vegetated

1:51:48 ↗ and so where that comes down to when you

1:51:51 ↗ know a couple people have some trees you

1:51:53 ↗ know some big old duck Furs that they

1:51:54 ↗ need to come down and they look like a

1:51:56 ↗ significant tree because they're big and

1:51:57 ↗ they'll grow big again very quickly but

1:51:59 ↗ who gets stuck with that

1:52:01 ↗ that 50 goal because the city's using up

1:52:05 ↗ a lot of it itself well we we have a

1:52:07 ↗ anytime anybody wants to cut down a tree

1:52:09 ↗ they have to come in and get a tree

1:52:10 ↗ permit and it's reviewed by the arborist

1:52:12 ↗ so it may be too big it may be able to

1:52:14 ↗ come down because it's unhealthy and it

1:52:16 ↗ may fall over land on a house but we may

1:52:18 ↗ look at it and say nope that's that's a

1:52:20 ↗ significant tree it can't come down so

1:52:22 ↗ we do have staff that monitors this as

1:52:24 ↗ we go and then as developments come in

1:52:26 ↗ we look at it there as well

1:52:29 ↗ we also have programs where we replant

1:52:31 ↗ trees like we were just down by the um

1:52:33 ↗ the dam we had such fun talking about it

1:52:36 ↗ all week by where the dam got removed

1:52:38 ↗ and the the Weir was put back in and

1:52:41 ↗ there's all that tree planting that so

1:52:43 ↗ we do a lot of restoration whenever we

1:52:45 ↗ can we usually do them annually to try

1:52:47 ↗ to put trees back in places that need

1:52:50 ↗ them or just to try to keep the canopy

1:52:52 ↗ going because we know it's not all

1:52:55 ↗ publicly owned tree canopy that it is

1:52:58 ↗ also with the residents and so we we try

1:53:01 ↗ to do our part to keep planting them as

1:53:03 ↗ well

1:53:04 ↗ so is that if someone were to try to get

1:53:07 ↗ a tree permit could they

1:53:10 ↗ would they have to have a requirement to

1:53:12 ↗ plant x amount of trees or it depends on

1:53:15 ↗ the situation sometimes I think you're

1:53:17 ↗ allowed

1:53:19 ↗ oh this goes back a few years I think

1:53:20 ↗ you're allowed to take down three in a

1:53:23 ↗ year but it was two in a year be wrong

1:53:26 ↗ um it's it's kind of a cumulative thing

1:53:28 ↗ that we figured out and I can't it's

1:53:30 ↗ been a while

1:53:31 ↗ um and sometimes depending on what it is

1:53:33 ↗ we ask that either you replant in some

1:53:36 ↗ other place on your yard like if it's

1:53:38 ↗ all of a sudden going under your

1:53:39 ↗ sidewalk or it's Wrecking your driveway

1:53:41 ↗ or if it's um we ask in depending on the

1:53:44 ↗ case if you could plant one somewhere

1:53:46 ↗ else and if you can't you know we

1:53:47 ↗ understand that too it depends so much

1:53:50 ↗ depends on the lot yeah and um but we

1:53:52 ↗ try to to keep planning you know we have

1:53:55 ↗ a street tree program we try to plant it

1:53:57 ↗ in as many places as we can

1:54:01 ↗ yes

1:54:02 ↗ I'm wondering what how that goal

1:54:08 ↗ um helps us retain our tree City

1:54:11 ↗ USA title

1:54:14 ↗ and is there any way to

1:54:17 ↗ somehow mention that we want to continue

1:54:21 ↗ to remain

1:54:23 ↗ within that category we will make that a

1:54:26 ↗ policy

1:54:36 ↗ and and I just guess I we're putting it

1:54:38 ↗ you said this is a new one and a 50

1:54:40 ↗ number

1:54:41 ↗ there should be some science behind that

1:54:44 ↗ no there is science behind it we have we

1:54:45 ↗ have one or two studies that were done

1:54:47 ↗ that actually we have and that'll be in

1:54:50 ↗ the discussion it'll be in the

1:54:51 ↗ discussion portion right above that a

1:54:52 ↗ lot of this was pulled from the

1:54:53 ↗ discussion it was just discussion so it

1:54:55 ↗ didn't mean as much so now we're trying

1:54:57 ↗ to make policies

1:55:01 ↗ yeah the next version you see of this

1:55:02 ↗ will have all the discussion in it so it

1:55:04 ↗ little by little it's getting longer and

1:55:06 ↗ longer

1:55:08 ↗ okay

1:55:09 ↗ B1

1:55:14 ↗ B2

1:55:18 ↗ yes

1:55:25 ↗ identify trees in our Urban okay

1:55:46 ↗ no it does not no

1:55:51 ↗ not for the tree canopy no yeah

1:55:54 ↗ not under this section for landscaping

1:55:56 ↗ yes but this is just the tree canopy

1:56:08 ↗ B3

1:56:11 ↗ B4

1:56:17 ↗ goal C

1:56:19 ↗ added this one as well

1:56:21 ↗ conserve and protect environmental

1:56:22 ↗ environmental sorry and I can't say it

1:56:26 ↗ environmental critical areas from loss

1:56:29 ↗ or degradation maintain as open space

1:56:31 ↗ hazardous areas and significant areas of

1:56:33 ↗ steep slopes undeveloped shorelines and

1:56:35 ↗ wetlands

1:56:38 ↗ areas

1:56:42 ↗ is this the OZO problem essentially

1:56:44 ↗ Steve that was the first thing it was

1:56:46 ↗ steep slopes come to mind yes

1:56:50 ↗ and we also have here a coal mine areas

1:56:57 ↗ yeah just think hazardous tends to refer

1:56:59 ↗ more to man-made things in general

1:57:03 ↗ so I don't know if it doesn't sound like

1:57:04 ↗ we're talking about environment

1:57:05 ↗ hazardous deals with hazardous materials

1:57:07 ↗ more so I wouldn't need a better word

1:57:09 ↗ there I think

1:57:11 ↗ does that work maintain

1:57:18 ↗ yeah I would be in favor of keeping the

1:57:20 ↗ word hazardous just from

1:57:23 ↗ I know that

1:57:27 ↗ in the in the reports from oh so they

1:57:29 ↗ were they actually identified hazards

1:57:30 ↗ Associated naturally so and I know that

1:57:33 ↗ it's used in those areas

1:57:36 ↗ can I get a general consensus here leave

1:57:39 ↗ or remove hazardous I would like to

1:57:41 ↗ leave it too I think it's it's not

1:57:43 ↗ identified in the critical area

1:57:45 ↗ ordinance it's in the head centers I'd

1:57:47 ↗ have to look Define and I'd have to look

1:57:51 ↗ better call me

1:57:54 ↗ Trish did you get that one to look for

1:58:05 ↗ so we're I think we're leaving it in but

1:58:07 ↗ I'm going to also look for the

1:58:08 ↗ definition in the critical area

1:58:09 ↗ ordinance

1:58:12 ↗ okay uh

1:58:19 ↗ C1 sorry lost my place for a second C1

1:58:25 ↗ foreign

1:58:27 ↗ okay all right C2

1:58:32 ↗ C3

1:58:37 ↗ C4

1:58:43 ↗ C5

1:58:45 ↗ to C4 for a moment yes

1:58:48 ↗ that's yes

1:58:50 ↗ um the one with the buffer yeah that's

1:58:54 ↗ it allow three development in the buffer

1:58:57 ↗ in whether it's a legal non-conforming

1:59:00 ↗ situation can you explain that

1:59:03 ↗ legal now I'm conforming so a house was

1:59:06 ↗ built within a buffer and then or not

1:59:08 ↗ within a buffer say a house was built

1:59:10 ↗ it's next to the creek it was built

1:59:12 ↗ outside of the buffer that existed at

1:59:13 ↗ that time but then the regulations

1:59:14 ↗ changed and all of a sudden the house

1:59:16 ↗ was within the buffer what would be

1:59:18 ↗ allowed this these days so this would be

1:59:21 ↗ grandfatherine right from Grandfather

1:59:22 ↗ yeah and that is a legal definition

1:59:24 ↗ within the GMA what about one of the

1:59:27 ↗ Telus property at the

1:59:29 ↗ Water Tower built in a buffer would that

1:59:32 ↗ be a non-conforming

1:59:35 ↗ situation as well the which one one of

1:59:38 ↗ the Italian Parcels that were approved

1:59:40 ↗ recently by the council had a water

1:59:43 ↗ tower built in a buffer and we wondered

1:59:47 ↗ why that was the case

1:59:48 ↗ would that be an example of a I mean it

1:59:52 ↗ could have been built anywhere else but

1:59:53 ↗ it was a lot to be built in the in the

1:59:55 ↗ buffer right I don't know about that one

1:59:57 ↗ yeah and if it was allowed to be built

1:59:59 ↗ there then it wouldn't be legally

2:00:01 ↗ non-conforming somehow it was

2:00:03 ↗ conditioned to be okay there conditions

2:00:05 ↗ and I don't know

2:00:06 ↗ how maybe it was mitigated or the buffer

2:00:09 ↗ you know it was buffer averaging or

2:00:10 ↗ something I don't know the specifics but

2:00:13 ↗ but usually legally non-conforming means

2:00:15 ↗ that something happened after it was

2:00:17 ↗ built to make it to make the legal

2:00:19 ↗ status change

2:00:22 ↗ C5

2:00:26 ↗ C6

2:00:30 ↗ Goldie also added

2:00:33 ↗ she's looking for more work improved

2:00:36 ↗ storm water quality and management over

2:00:37 ↗ current conditions

2:00:42 ↗ I don't think we need the over current

2:00:44 ↗ conditions I think it just the

2:00:46 ↗ Improvement is Improvement it's always

2:00:48 ↗ improvement's always going to be over

2:00:50 ↗ curtain it's assumed okay

2:00:52 ↗ are we good with that

2:00:55 ↗ could live dangerously and say are there

2:00:57 ↗ any changes to all of the D policies

2:01:01 ↗ I was just thinking the same thinking of

2:01:03 ↗ doing them as a group

2:01:06 ↗ okay

2:01:08 ↗ Living Dangerously are we good with the

2:01:09 ↗ D policies

2:01:13 ↗ D3

2:01:22 ↗ that I believe that's based on the

2:01:24 ↗ assessment isn't that do you know right

2:01:26 ↗ based on based on the King County

2:01:28 ↗ Assessor data

2:01:30 ↗ and where the property valued is is it

2:01:33 ↗ 50 and well what does that mean

2:01:36 ↗ well there's best available science and

2:01:38 ↗ then there's the buffers

2:01:48 ↗ need water

2:01:50 ↗ but it's actually like a legally defined

2:01:54 ↗ um phrase unreasonably is legally

2:01:58 ↗ Legally defined phrase by the shoreline

2:02:00 ↗ master

2:02:01 ↗ the stormwater code is so who decides

2:02:04 ↗ what unreasonably means

2:02:06 ↗ it would be through the code provisions

2:02:10 ↗ but I don't know if it's King County or

2:02:11 ↗ the state

2:02:12 ↗ oh it's that we have to we have to be

2:02:14 ↗ consistent with them

2:02:16 ↗ I'll look it up what's the matter that

2:02:18 ↗ does not limit

2:02:20 ↗ development

2:02:22 ↗ well

2:02:27 ↗ we can we'll look that up because that's

2:02:28 ↗ yeah I'll look it up storm water is kind

2:02:30 ↗ of tricky

2:02:32 ↗ I've had a lot of experience working on

2:02:35 ↗ building codes and phrases like that

2:02:37 ↗ provide a lot of work for lawyers

2:02:43 ↗ right if that was in the code I would be

2:02:45 ↗ worried but since this is sort of the

2:02:48 ↗ overarching direction but we'll look

2:02:50 ↗ that up

2:02:52 ↗ I can ask Carrie about that

2:02:55 ↗ anything else with d

2:03:00 ↗ all right e

2:03:02 ↗ added

2:03:04 ↗ enhance wetlands in the riparian

2:03:05 ↗ corridors of the city's creeks and

2:03:07 ↗ streams to improve environmental

2:03:08 ↗ functions and fish and wildlife habitat

2:03:16 ↗ so we've been doing Tibbetts restoration

2:03:17 ↗ and whenever developments come in

2:03:19 ↗ they're required to restore and the city

2:03:21 ↗ has been doing some restoration work

2:03:24 ↗ okay any questions about the goal or e

2:03:34 ↗ okay

2:03:36 ↗ climate control

2:03:38 ↗ this was edited encouraging Innovative

2:03:41 ↗ climate Solutions which Advanced the

2:03:42 ↗ city towards a carbon neutral community

2:03:47 ↗ any comments or questions on F

2:03:51 ↗ policies I I do have a couple under F1 I

2:03:55 ↗ think we should ensure that the targets

2:03:57 ↗ are objective targets meaning that we

2:04:00 ↗ have you know hard scientific numbers

2:04:01 ↗ that we're looking at those are not

2:04:03 ↗ picked by us those are actually mandated

2:04:05 ↗ by the state okay

2:04:07 ↗ and then um

2:04:09 ↗ under oh wait I'm wrong I'm thinking

2:04:11 ↗ different targets okay objective targets

2:04:15 ↗ the greenhouse gas one to me

2:04:20 ↗ oh I see targets to limit not the actual

2:04:22 ↗ Target itself okay

2:04:24 ↗ okay

2:04:26 ↗ um so what was the word objective

2:04:31 ↗ and then trying to read my own writing

2:04:34 ↗ here

2:04:36 ↗ so I will see to other people on these

2:04:38 ↗ as

2:04:39 ↗ try to figure out what I said

2:04:42 ↗ okay anything else on F for a second

2:04:44 ↗ while he's looking

2:04:46 ↗ F3 where'd 80 come from

2:04:50 ↗ King County goal yeah so we aligned with

2:04:52 ↗ a lot of the jurisdictions in King

2:04:53 ↗ County

2:04:55 ↗ to do 80 percent

2:04:56 ↗ by 2050.

2:05:01 ↗ where are we at right now

2:05:04 ↗ we can check that would be

2:05:07 ↗ um sustainability office keeps track of

2:05:10 ↗ that

2:05:12 ↗ F5 we use the same language we

2:05:14 ↗ eliminated once before with climate

2:05:16 ↗ reduction

2:05:27 ↗ have you found it yes I did figure out

2:05:31 ↗ what I was talking about uh under uh to

2:05:34 ↗ a

2:05:35 ↗ um I would I would add and incorporate

2:05:40 ↗ alternative energy or renewable energy

2:05:42 ↗ so not only using less energy but

2:05:45 ↗ incorporating it in in the buildings

2:05:46 ↗ where possible

2:05:49 ↗ um

2:05:50 ↗ I'll use less energy to be

2:05:52 ↗ and and I don't know that may be

2:05:54 ↗ Superfluous I'll you know I'll see the

2:05:56 ↗ others on that

2:05:58 ↗ um and then

2:05:59 ↗ under I would recommend adding a new

2:06:02 ↗ section g incorporating

2:06:04 ↗ um waste and water

2:06:07 ↗ recycling

2:06:08 ↗ um oh also under D sorry go down in

2:06:11 ↗ order here incorporate recycle or

2:06:13 ↗ reclaimed under D under D yeah so not

2:06:18 ↗ just recycling but also just reclaiming

2:06:21 ↗ Woods you're not necessarily just using

2:06:23 ↗ recycled materials you can also use

2:06:25 ↗ reclaimed materials encourage that that

2:06:27 ↗ would be a new policy uh no I'm not

2:06:29 ↗ quite sure you just be incorporating

2:06:31 ↗ recycled or reclaimed materials

2:06:36 ↗ F2 F2 F2 Delta oh sorry U yeah sorry F2

2:06:41 ↗ okay

2:06:43 ↗ okay

2:06:44 ↗ recycled and reclaimed right there yeah

2:06:47 ↗ yeah

2:06:48 ↗ was that it and then adding a new

2:06:51 ↗ section g there

2:06:53 ↗ to incorporate uh Wastewater recycling

2:06:59 ↗ corporate Wastewater

2:07:01 ↗ recycling yes yes

2:07:04 ↗ at the building and infrastructure level

2:07:12 ↗ okay I had a question on f2d is in Delta

2:07:16 ↗ what does the phrase and locally

2:07:18 ↗ produced materials mean

2:07:23 ↗ can we really do that or within uh 50

2:07:25 ↗ mile Radiance yeah or uh you know within

2:07:28 ↗ a that's kind of a it helps with gas you

2:07:32 ↗ know to not do the gas production if

2:07:34 ↗ you're Trucking something in from Mexico

2:07:36 ↗ or if you're bringing it in from Canada

2:07:38 ↗ or to try to get things as local as

2:07:41 ↗ possible to help with the um the message

2:07:44 ↗ is Under The Heading of encouraging it's

2:07:46 ↗ not saying

2:07:47 ↗ right it's not saying that you but

2:07:49 ↗ that's part of being a lead building is

2:07:51 ↗ how close your um your building

2:07:53 ↗ materials come from the site

2:07:56 ↗ contractors would do that anyway if it

2:07:57 ↗ was cheaper yeah it's cheaper too

2:08:01 ↗ um under F7

2:08:04 ↗ I don't know that we'd want to limit it

2:08:06 ↗ to just the puget's to just pse's green

2:08:10 ↗ power program and maybe expand the

2:08:11 ↗ wording of that to include knowledge and

2:08:13 ↗ participation in state and federal green

2:08:15 ↗ Pro green Alternative Energy programs

2:08:19 ↗ because I know there are things you know

2:08:21 ↗ pse's level and then as well as state

2:08:23 ↗ and federal levels as well

2:08:31 ↗ okay

2:08:35 ↗ all right anything else on F

2:08:37 ↗ on F5

2:08:40 ↗ um

2:08:41 ↗ Lobby for regional and Statewide regs

2:08:44 ↗ which match the city's climate reduction

2:08:46 ↗ would greenhouse gases reduction be

2:08:48 ↗ better

2:08:53 ↗ I'm leaving it up to him

2:08:55 ↗ looking to you

2:08:57 ↗ carbon units

2:08:58 ↗ yeah

2:09:01 ↗ there's nothing other than climate I

2:09:03 ↗ just we

2:09:04 ↗ changed it to carbon

2:09:06 ↗ should use the same thing to also Urban

2:09:09 ↗ emissions or something

2:09:11 ↗ regarding FNG I'm wondering why G2 is in

2:09:16 ↗ is not enough Wait f f and g where the

2:09:20 ↗ G2

2:09:21 ↗ should be in F

2:09:24 ↗ G

2:09:25 ↗ I'm I'm confused under f

2:09:29 ↗ yeah oh you're saying that this policy

2:09:32 ↗ you think should go under F yes

2:09:37 ↗ okay

2:09:40 ↗ um

2:09:44 ↗ in fact in looking at these I had the

2:09:47 ↗ same thing circled I had G1 G2 and G3

2:09:51 ↗ um

2:09:52 ↗ more relating to

2:09:54 ↗ um climate than General sustainability

2:09:57 ↗ these were I'll check these were

2:09:59 ↗ by our sustainability office of

2:10:02 ↗ sustainability

2:10:04 ↗ and I'll check with them and see

2:10:06 ↗ why they were separated and what right

2:10:09 ↗ the well we I'd wait until we get into G

2:10:13 ↗ okay

2:10:15 ↗ no can I say

2:10:18 ↗ so one of the

2:10:21 ↗ I always have

2:10:22 ↗ um

2:10:23 ↗ concerns about using sustainability as

2:10:26 ↗ uh equivalent to Environmental

2:10:29 ↗ policies which it's not these are all

2:10:33 ↗ green policies they're not sustainable

2:10:35 ↗ policies to round up the sustainability

2:10:39 ↗ we shouldn't add to those the community

2:10:43 ↗ health policies that are a little

2:10:46 ↗ further so for me if I'm talking about

2:10:48 ↗ sustainability I also want the people to

2:10:50 ↗ be happy as well as the the nature so

2:10:54 ↗ they want gathering places I want

2:10:57 ↗ um you know the

2:11:00 ↗ happy environment for me as well as for

2:11:02 ↗ the right the three-legged stool exactly

2:11:04 ↗ right okay

2:11:08 ↗ so those are green green party seeds

2:11:10 ↗ basically

2:11:15 ↗ okay

2:11:16 ↗ the goal is not but the policies are

2:11:20 ↗ okay

2:11:34 ↗ okay

2:11:36 ↗ see what you're saying okay because yeah

2:11:38 ↗ last time we changed it to include

2:11:40 ↗ social economics right in the gold but

2:11:42 ↗ that the policies as the losses okay is

2:11:45 ↗ there anything else on G

2:11:48 ↗ would like to see real sustainability

2:11:51 ↗ policies

2:11:52 ↗ environmental sustainability policies

2:11:54 ↗ and social okay I'll see you one so

2:11:57 ↗ there's a few later in later on that

2:11:59 ↗ could be moved up and

2:12:05 ↗ okay

2:12:06 ↗ all right

2:12:08 ↗ anything else on G on G7 I just had a

2:12:12 ↗ question how often

2:12:14 ↗ should the

2:12:15 ↗ Word program be evaluated and presented

2:12:20 ↗ and I'd add make sure you add strategic

2:12:22 ↗ in front of work programs so it's

2:12:24 ↗ consistent with the earlier

2:12:26 ↗ language

2:12:27 ↗ okay

2:12:29 ↗ Trish do you know how long how often the

2:12:30 ↗ evaluations are supposed to occur no I

2:12:32 ↗ don't that's a good question okay we

2:12:35 ↗ again

2:12:42 ↗ we will find out

2:12:44 ↗ anything else on G

2:12:48 ↗ h

2:12:49 ↗ I was presented to the lab for and

2:12:51 ↗ accommodate growth in a manner that is

2:12:52 ↗ fiscally responsible responsive to the

2:12:55 ↗ community and enhances and protects the

2:12:56 ↗ natural environment

2:12:59 ↗ I had one comment on H6

2:13:01 ↗ um

2:13:03 ↗ incorporating

2:13:05 ↗ um

2:13:05 ↗ neighborhood safety in that

2:13:08 ↗ um

2:13:11 ↗ so I and I just added to the end so

2:13:14 ↗ maybe neighborhoods comma open space

2:13:16 ↗ comma and safety

2:13:26 ↗ wait oh sorry I put it in the wrong

2:13:28 ↗ place

2:13:35 ↗ there we go

2:13:41 ↗ okay

2:13:43 ↗ anything else on H

2:13:48 ↗ it's a long one

2:13:52 ↗ all right I oh wait um

2:13:55 ↗ that's going too fast that's okay so uh

2:13:58 ↗ each seven I was trying to figure out

2:14:00 ↗ how to say that

2:14:02 ↗ um

2:14:03 ↗ I had a policy I was looking at for more

2:14:07 ↗ Transportation which is basically to

2:14:11 ↗ um the primary purpose of our arterial

2:14:13 ↗ street is to move people rather than

2:14:16 ↗ than vehicles

2:14:19 ↗ um that definitely

2:14:22 ↗ relates to that one

2:14:24 ↗ so just it goes back to that issue of

2:14:27 ↗ Transportation versus mobility and

2:14:29 ↗ that's we're moving the goal is to move

2:14:31 ↗ people whichever way works best not to

2:14:34 ↗ move

2:14:36 ↗ vehicles

2:14:39 ↗ okay

2:14:43 ↗ all right

2:14:47 ↗ anything else

2:14:50 ↗ I

2:14:52 ↗ maintain and create a diversity of high

2:14:54 ↗ quality places to live work shop and

2:14:56 ↗ recreate

2:15:00 ↗ any comments on the policies

2:15:03 ↗ um just on I8 I feel that it should be

2:15:05 ↗ designate protect and promote historic

2:15:09 ↗ landmarks

2:15:15 ↗ okay

2:15:22 ↗ anything else and I

2:15:29 ↗ healthy communities

2:15:31 ↗ ensure development through plans

2:15:33 ↗ policies and regulations that promote

2:15:34 ↗ physical social and mental well-being so

2:15:36 ↗ that people can live healthier and more

2:15:38 ↗ active lives

2:15:42 ↗ most of these policies are new because

2:15:44 ↗ the goal is new

2:15:46 ↗ and required by the state

2:15:58 ↗ any thoughts

2:15:59 ↗ I've found that non-motorized travel is

2:16:02 ↗ kind of a curious expression

2:16:04 ↗ I mean are we saying bicycles

2:16:06 ↗ saying walking and bicycling

2:16:09 ↗ I don't know okay okay

2:16:28 ↗ regarding just um kind of

2:16:31 ↗ food healthy food of some sort that one

2:16:34 ↗ uh I think it's going to be we're

2:16:36 ↗ addressing it and I think it's going to

2:16:37 ↗ be in human services

2:16:39 ↗ okay

2:16:44 ↗ this might not be the right

2:16:46 ↗ portion for it but there hasn't been any

2:16:49 ↗ mention of any kind of um

2:16:53 ↗ equine uh accessibility when we're

2:16:56 ↗ talking about non-motorized

2:16:58 ↗ um transportation in the Kahani

2:17:02 ↗ neighborhood there are quite a few horse

2:17:04 ↗ accommodations is there any plan for the

2:17:07 ↗ City of Issaquah to incorporate that

2:17:10 ↗ as part of a recreational

2:17:13 ↗ um

2:17:15 ↗ um I I haven't heard of any plans I can

2:17:18 ↗ see that it would fit

2:17:20 ↗ um probably more appropriately into

2:17:22 ↗ maybe here but into the parks plan which

2:17:25 ↗ is also being updated and is coming soon

2:17:27 ↗ yeah

2:17:28 ↗ so

2:17:30 ↗ so we know how about everything we look

2:17:31 ↗ at it then yeah I mean I just I figure

2:17:33 ↗ if we're going to have those facilities

2:17:35 ↗ it's more likely to go

2:17:37 ↗ thinking of is um

2:17:41 ↗ I worked with a different city where we

2:17:45 ↗ actually had to incorporate

2:17:47 ↗ um crosswalk buttons that were higher so

2:17:50 ↗ that someone on Horseback could hit a

2:17:53 ↗ crosswalk

2:17:55 ↗ button to cross the street while on

2:17:58 ↗ Horseback and maybe not healthy

2:18:00 ↗ communities but somewhere

2:18:03 ↗ in here if that's something that people

2:18:05 ↗ in the neighborhoods are

2:18:08 ↗ um

2:18:09 ↗ participating in

2:18:12 ↗ there might be some kind of funding

2:18:14 ↗ available somewhere down the road to

2:18:17 ↗ incorporate that into non-motorized

2:18:19 ↗ travel okay here's the question

2:18:23 ↗ does Issaquah have within the city

2:18:26 ↗ limits is there any

2:18:28 ↗ um

2:18:29 ↗ restrictions

2:18:31 ↗ for horses

2:18:34 ↗ I don't know I'm going to have to I

2:18:35 ↗ wrote down talk to these people and I

2:18:37 ↗ don't know right because I think you can

2:18:39 ↗ have them depending on how large your

2:18:41 ↗ lot is you can have them on your

2:18:43 ↗ you can I'm not sure how you ride them

2:18:46 ↗ around we're not a real horse friendly

2:18:49 ↗ I hate to say that but I don't think

2:18:51 ↗ we're real horse friendly with our

2:18:52 ↗ Trails I mean we have

2:18:54 ↗ mountain bikes and we have you know we

2:18:57 ↗ try and do as many modes but I I don't

2:19:00 ↗ recall seeing a horse recently around

2:19:02 ↗ but I'll certainly ask the parks

2:19:03 ↗ department if if trails are I know it's

2:19:05 ↗ sort of like this one tiny little part

2:19:07 ↗ of a fringe Community but I was just

2:19:09 ↗ thinking in terms of incorporating as

2:19:12 ↗ many we're going to say pedestrian and

2:19:14 ↗ bicycle travel instead of non-motorized

2:19:17 ↗ there may be additional

2:19:21 ↗ non-motorized methods that we might

2:19:23 ↗ exclude in terms of

2:19:26 ↗ someday

2:19:28 ↗ camels yeah being available to to get

2:19:32 ↗ grants or to get certain things

2:19:35 ↗ not change our entire zoning law but

2:19:38 ↗ right

2:19:39 ↗ you never know I don't know I was

2:19:41 ↗ awfully surprised the other day when I

2:19:42 ↗ looked out my window and saw horse

2:19:43 ↗ riding by so I thought oh well okay

2:19:46 ↗ well worth looking into anything else on

2:19:48 ↗ Jay

2:19:51 ↗ all right okay

2:19:52 ↗ oh not not far to go support a connected

2:19:55 ↗ multimodal Transportation Network as a

2:19:57 ↗ key to successful land use

2:20:00 ↗ uh

2:20:03 ↗ yeah

2:20:07 ↗ okay

2:20:08 ↗ any questions or comments on that one

2:20:11 ↗ policy

2:20:13 ↗ the only thing I would say is that your

2:20:16 ↗ list there okay one of trails the

2:20:18 ↗ transit's not included if you're talking

2:20:20 ↗ multimodal I think or good catch a big

2:20:23 ↗ part of multimodal good good catch

2:20:29 ↗ somebody else

2:20:32 ↗ pardon me

2:20:34 ↗ should we include the word roads K1 at

2:20:37 ↗ the top design and create Trails

2:20:39 ↗ sidewalks

2:20:41 ↗ but that's where it's okay this is this

2:20:43 ↗ is about healthy community and getting

2:20:45 ↗ people out and active

2:20:47 ↗ cars don't do that

2:20:48 ↗ but the general description of K says

2:20:51 ↗ the connected multimodal Transportation

2:20:54 ↗ Network

2:20:55 ↗ looks like we're just excluding roads

2:20:58 ↗ yeah some so maybe rewording of the goal

2:21:01 ↗ to state that it's not necessarily for

2:21:05 ↗ successful land use but for healthy land

2:21:08 ↗ use

2:21:10 ↗ or health oriented land use or a

2:21:14 ↗ connected non-motorized or

2:21:22 ↗ all right

2:21:25 ↗ I hadn't even seen that

2:21:27 ↗ centers this is also a new one that

2:21:29 ↗ we're required to add this year because

2:21:31 ↗ of our urban center

2:21:33 ↗ focus and promote office housing and

2:21:35 ↗ Retail development in urban centers

2:21:37 ↗ right now we do have one

2:21:39 ↗ almost

2:21:45 ↗ any thoughts on this one

2:21:49 ↗ um instead of ensuring other commercial

2:21:51 ↗ areas do not detract

2:21:54 ↗ I would almost say ensure that other

2:21:56 ↗ commercial areas enhance uh because you

2:21:58 ↗ don't necessarily want it to be you know

2:22:00 ↗ well are they you know if you've got a

2:22:03 ↗ neat shop yes it's going to detract from

2:22:06 ↗ some bread sales at Target but is it

2:22:09 ↗ enhancing the overall commercial

2:22:11 ↗ atmosphere okay

2:22:13 ↗ are you all okay with that

2:22:14 ↗ so I'm trying to understand what this

2:22:16 ↗ means though

2:22:18 ↗ so does that mean that the priority for

2:22:21 ↗ commercial development will be the urban

2:22:23 ↗ center and that all of the city's

2:22:27 ↗ resources in terms of Economic

2:22:29 ↗ Development

2:22:32 ↗ what are this economic Vitality type

2:22:35 ↗ thing will be

2:22:37 ↗ only

2:22:38 ↗ prioritizing that area so other

2:22:41 ↗ commercial areas in the cities will get

2:22:43 ↗ less attention I wouldn't say all of all

2:22:46 ↗ of the resources because one of the

2:22:48 ↗ council's goals and Targets this year is

2:22:50 ↗ to now look at Old Town again right and

2:22:53 ↗ see what we can do there to help improve

2:22:55 ↗ Redevelopment and attractions to that

2:22:58 ↗ area so I think what this is saying too

2:23:00 ↗ is that because a lot of the land that's

2:23:02 ↗ farther from the major streets is

2:23:05 ↗ cheaper and so we often get applicants

2:23:08 ↗ that come in for a parcel that's kind of

2:23:10 ↗ way off the beaten Trail and they want

2:23:12 ↗ it to be they want us to go through all

2:23:14 ↗ these different changes to make it a

2:23:16 ↗ Automotive something or something

2:23:18 ↗ something and we say you know you're way

2:23:21 ↗ out in the middle of nowhere that would

2:23:23 ↗ be perfect in the urban center even

2:23:25 ↗ though the land's probably a little more

2:23:26 ↗ expensive and so we're trying to make

2:23:29 ↗ sure that that our guidance is not to do

2:23:31 ↗ all these strange contortions on the

2:23:34 ↗ outlying areas where the land is cheaper

2:23:36 ↗ and put all the density

2:23:39 ↗ and to put the density where it's

2:23:41 ↗ supposed to go where we've planned for

2:23:43 ↗ it to go and just keep that in mind when

2:23:46 ↗ applicants keep trying to get the rules

2:23:48 ↗ changed changed around that around the

2:23:51 ↗ perimeter and that makes a lot of sense

2:23:52 ↗ I just didn't read it that way and then

2:23:55 ↗ looking like it would be detracting from

2:23:57 ↗ Front Street or from

2:24:02 ↗ those other areas that were previously

2:24:05 ↗ designated as the important commercial

2:24:07 ↗ areas yeah no I don't think we would

2:24:09 ↗ want to take anything away from from

2:24:10 ↗ those it would be those you know those

2:24:12 ↗ other small new kind of things right the

2:24:15 ↗ the strip malls uh yeah right right that

2:24:17 ↗ kind of thing

2:24:20 ↗ m

2:24:22 ↗ M so how did you end up

2:24:25 ↗ enhance okay yeah

2:24:28 ↗ new section resource lands

2:24:31 ↗ maintain opportunities for Agricultural

2:24:34 ↗ and resource land uses or activities

2:24:35 ↗ encourage compatible uses adjacent to

2:24:38 ↗ restore land resource lands which

2:24:40 ↗ support the use of the resource

2:24:42 ↗ and minimize conflicts among uses

2:24:47 ↗ I I had a couple questions regarding I

2:24:49 ↗ mean is this is this a new requirement

2:24:51 ↗ of the GMA or it's an old requirement of

2:24:53 ↗ GMA okay so we're just coming up to code

2:24:55 ↗ then because it it's so specifically

2:24:58 ↗ with regard to M4 and M6 so those GMA

2:25:02 ↗ mandated or because I don't know that

2:25:05 ↗ you know

2:25:07 ↗ I feel that

2:25:09 ↗ um

2:25:11 ↗ mineral resources yeah mineral resources

2:25:14 ↗ and that that had to do with Lakeside

2:25:16 ↗ when we annexed Lakeside too that

2:25:19 ↗ we had to ensure that they could remain

2:25:22 ↗ as a mineral resource land

2:25:24 ↗ yeah okay

2:25:26 ↗ and then M6

2:25:35 ↗ I don't know that it's it's

2:25:37 ↗ yeah stay required yeah and my like I I

2:25:42 ↗ like the best practices concept um but I

2:25:45 ↗ feel M6 could be a little stronger

2:25:49 ↗ um you know almost to the point of

2:25:52 ↗ discouraging minute mineral extraction

2:25:55 ↗ through requirement of zero net impact

2:25:56 ↗ on any

2:25:58 ↗ um new mineral extraction

2:26:01 ↗ um projects

2:26:03 ↗ um

2:26:04 ↗ or something to that effect so so that

2:26:07 ↗ we're really protecting lands I mean I

2:26:10 ↗ you know everyone knows the horror story

2:26:11 ↗ is from Montana where you have mineral

2:26:13 ↗ extraction that's just decimated the

2:26:15 ↗ land and I want to kind of make sure

2:26:17 ↗ that any mineral extraction going on

2:26:18 ↗ leaves the land the same or better than

2:26:21 ↗ it was before

2:26:22 ↗ oh I see what you're saying

2:26:33 ↗ okay

2:26:36 ↗ okay

2:26:37 ↗ those aren't the words I'm gonna work on

2:26:39 ↗ it

2:26:40 ↗ but

2:26:42 ↗ so you're gonna do a 180 on that one

2:26:46 ↗ instead of required

2:26:49 ↗ you know that's saying require best

2:26:51 ↗ practices

2:27:23 ↗ if it's gonna if it's going to happen

2:27:25 ↗ make sure that they have as few impacts

2:27:27 ↗ as possible

2:27:34 ↗ so I guess the reality is we need to

2:27:36 ↗ keep this in here I guess the reality is

2:27:38 ↗ how much you know logging and mineral

2:27:41 ↗ extraction are we going to have within

2:27:42 ↗ the city limits

2:27:44 ↗ you know I mean they don't allow it on

2:27:46 ↗ the ridge you know miles from here that

2:27:48 ↗ they've fought to buy that land because

2:27:49 ↗ it wouldn't allow some logging there so

2:27:51 ↗ you know when you get to the goal

2:27:53 ↗ minimize conflict amongst users I mean

2:27:56 ↗ it just seems like

2:27:58 ↗ it sounds like something you have to say

2:28:00 ↗ but

2:28:01 ↗ well and if you do Annex any properties

2:28:03 ↗ into the city you can all of a sudden

2:28:05 ↗ say you can't do that in the city

2:28:07 ↗ so you have to still allow it

2:28:09 ↗ for those people

2:28:11 ↗ right for those uses

2:28:15 ↗ okay Kristen back then back to one

2:28:18 ↗ quickly uh use the term and there again

2:28:20 ↗ small scale agricultural uses

2:28:25 ↗ and again that may

2:28:28 ↗ beg the question of the definition

2:28:31 ↗ oh M1

2:28:37 ↗ okay

2:28:43 ↗ we only go to oh we're almost there

2:28:46 ↗ Regional coordination and annexation

2:28:48 ↗ policies uh work with local and Regional

2:28:51 ↗ agencies and all affected parties during

2:28:53 ↗ the annexation process

2:28:57 ↗ any thoughts on those I have a question

2:29:00 ↗ on number 101

2:29:03 ↗ 001 yeah okay well one the the last

2:29:06 ↗ sentence starting with however

2:29:09 ↗ okay however if the development

2:29:11 ↗ commences prior to annexation in the

2:29:13 ↗ local show require that the development

2:29:15 ↗ room permit approval system should be

2:29:18 ↗ done by the city

2:29:20 ↗ um

2:29:21 ↗ is this suggesting that if somebody's

2:29:24 ↗ going to develop a piece of property and

2:29:25 ↗ a paa they have to consider a limit this

2:29:28 ↗ might be

2:29:29 ↗ and actually the City of Issaquah and

2:29:31 ↗ therefore I have to develop my property

2:29:32 ↗ per the Issaquah city codes no this is

2:29:36 ↗ this is if the annexation process has

2:29:37 ↗ started

2:29:39 ↗ am I right or wrong this is like one

2:29:41 ↗ Krispy Kreme and Fred Meyer and Home

2:29:43 ↗ Depot came in and the pla the project

2:29:46 ↗ was approved but the only thing that had

2:29:48 ↗ started being built was Krispy Kreme and

2:29:50 ↗ so we did an interlocal with King County

2:29:52 ↗ that the city would keep processing

2:29:55 ↗ um the permit that King County had

2:29:58 ↗ already approved and so but we at least

2:30:01 ↗ got to do it with our with our

2:30:03 ↗ overseeing and our we did we couldn't

2:30:05 ↗ change the rules okay

2:30:07 ↗ because the legal concept Doctrine

2:30:09 ↗ investing right but we were able to do

2:30:12 ↗ the inspections and waste the time you

2:30:14 ↗ built to right right but we were able to

2:30:16 ↗ do the inspections right that's good it

2:30:20 ↗ costs a lot of money they do

2:30:23 ↗ understandable okay

2:30:26 ↗ very last goal Annex the city's

2:30:29 ↗ potential annexation areas to ensure

2:30:31 ↗ compatibility of a City development

2:30:32 ↗ regulations and to provide for public

2:30:34 ↗ services public facilities and

2:30:36 ↗ concurrent Transportation field

2:30:37 ↗ facilities at the city's level of

2:30:39 ↗ service

2:30:40 ↗ believe it or not that was cut down from

2:30:42 ↗ the last time

2:30:46 ↗ regarding o4

2:30:49 ↗ we talk about uh response due to health

2:30:52 ↗ emergencies or threat to the aquifier do

2:30:55 ↗ we want to maybe expand that as threat

2:30:57 ↗ to City resources generally

2:31:00 ↗ um you know I don't know what other

2:31:02 ↗ things might come up if we're talking

2:31:04 ↗ maybe threats to energy

2:31:06 ↗ threats to water sewer things like that

2:31:11 ↗ may come into play as well

2:31:19 ↗ I have excuse me I have a question on

2:31:21 ↗ the last sentence in O3 okay

2:31:25 ↗ Transportation deficiencies should be

2:31:27 ↗ addressed within six years

2:31:30 ↗ that's a state law

2:31:31 ↗ oh okay yes

2:31:34 ↗ really doesn't need to be doing

2:31:36 ↗ I just have one other small correction

2:31:38 ↗ Justin not Jason oh I'm sorry I've been

2:31:40 ↗ doing that online I apologize I actually

2:31:42 ↗ respond to any J name

2:31:44 ↗ that's good to know I apologize thank

2:31:48 ↗ you

2:31:52 ↗ okay any other thoughts I'll know

2:31:56 ↗ ah

2:31:58 ↗ you guys did a fabulous job thank you I

2:32:01 ↗ did thank you

2:32:05 ↗ the longest we've gone in a long time

2:32:08 ↗ and I just want to thank anyone in the

2:32:10 ↗ studio audience that stuck with us

2:32:11 ↗ through that

2:32:19 ↗ and um maybe even some of the

2:32:21 ↗ implementations and maps and oh Maps

2:32:24 ↗ that'll be exciting

2:32:26 ↗ no it will I like that

2:32:28 ↗ no I meant that

2:32:31 ↗ anything else anything else I I'm done

2:32:33 ↗ you're done okay what's the what's the

2:32:36 ↗ schedule that's right next in the next

2:32:40 ↗ meeting is uh I think Capital facilities

2:32:44 ↗ again and Public Utilities utilities and

2:32:48 ↗ services it's a really long title

2:32:50 ↗ services public services and utilities

2:32:52 ↗ whatever Jason will be back to give you

2:32:55 ↗ the next round of those two chapters two

2:32:57 ↗ weeks two elements

2:32:59 ↗ um it's whatever the next meeting is oh

2:33:03 ↗ we should we don't have that on here

2:33:05 ↗ anymore don't have it on the cover

2:33:06 ↗ sheets as I'm asking these new ways I'd

2:33:09 ↗ have to see

2:33:11 ↗ is this one we skip the week July 8th we

2:33:14 ↗ should be the 26th

2:33:16 ↗ July 26th you're right July 26th June

2:33:19 ↗ I'm sorry June 26th

2:33:23 ↗ oh and then we're into July yeah June

2:33:25 ↗ 26th do we know at all who might not

2:33:29 ↗ have might not be here June you're not

2:33:32 ↗ going to be here okay

2:33:37 ↗ okay

2:33:40 ↗ any other questions comments for the

2:33:41 ↗ good of the order before we adjourn

2:33:45 ↗ adjourned at nine

2:33:48 ↗ zero eight okay thank you all for being

2:33:51 ↗ patient you guys were good and you were

2:33:53 ↗ prepared they were prepared and it was

2:33:55 ↗ like

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.