Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 9, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 22, 2016

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 - Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 - Jon Stob 2018 - Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 - Justin Walsh The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 - Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 - Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 - Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 - Salim Juma see IMC 18.03. 2018 - Larisa Kolcz 2018 - Vacant 2018 - Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Draft Minutes - 13 Oct 2016

packet pp.5–10

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 22, 2016

▶ Watch from 0:30 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED 2017

packet pp.11–19

▶ Watch from 1:41 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

A. 2017 Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments: By State Law, Comprehensive Plan amendments may only be done once a year and a Docket (list) of amendments must be established by Council. This is to ensure that all the items on the Docket are reviewed together in a thoughtful way, not piecemeal as requests trickle in throughout the year.

757 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ - Assing Ebola or something. Good evening. The Planning

0:19 ↗ Policy Commission for February 9th, 2017 will come to

0:24 ↗ order. First item of business tonight is a renewal

0:30 ↗ approval of the minutes from October 13th, 2016. Are

0:35 ↗ there any additions or corrections? - Correction on page

0:41 ↗ nine of 19. Second paragraph, third line down.

0:47 ↗ It was quoting myself, it says, "City is growing too

0:53 ↗ fast and it could be misinterpreted." I was stating to

0:59 ↗ growing faster than our projected resources could handle, was the

1:05 ↗ intent of that statement. Okay. Yeah. That's all. I move

1:11 ↗ that we approve the meeting minutes with the addition of

1:17 ↗ your intent. Second. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor?

1:23 ↗ Aye. Opposed? Minutes approved. Do either of you

1:29 ↗ need a packet tonight? You're okay or you

1:35 ↗ need one? I thought they wanted a packet.

1:41 ↗ Tonight's agenda item is a public hearing on

1:47 ↗ the proposed 2017 comprehensive plan docket to be

1:53 ↗ presented by Trish Heinonen, a long-range planning manager.

1:58 ↗ Trish, you have the floor. Thank you, sir.

2:04 ↗ I wish they would get this fixed.

2:14 ↗ Okay. What a crew here tonight. Thank you for being with us tonight. And thank

2:19 ↗ you all for coming tonight. Another epic beginning to a year of comprehensive plan amendments.

2:25 ↗ This is how we start our comprehensive plan amendments. And we're going to talk about

2:31 ↗ the docket and you guys can ask all the questions that you need to ask.

2:37 ↗ And we'll open it up for public comment. And then you can talk some more

2:41 ↗ about the docket and what you've heard from the public. And then hopefully, if you're

2:46 ↗ ready, you'll be able to recommend it with whatever changes you would like to the

2:51 ↗ council. And then they will take action, hopefully, in March. And then after we've done

2:55 ↗ all that excitement, we get to talk about the PPC work plan for this coming

3:00 ↗ year. You guys are going to be packed with adventures this year. There are so

3:04 ↗ many cool things that you're going to be working on. And I thought I would

3:08 ↗ let you know in advance to make sure you're all in and not like, oh

3:12 ↗ my gosh, this is more than I thought I signed up for. So I kind

3:16 ↗ of wanted to give you a preview while there's still time to get all excited

3:21 ↗ about it. So with that, are there questions on how we're going to move through

3:26 ↗ tonight? OK. The Growth Management Act at the state requires that we look at our

3:32 ↗ comprehensive plan, which is our overarching policy document for the city, that we look at

3:37 ↗ that only once a year. And they have a suggestion on how we go through

3:43 ↗ it. And the way we've chosen to do it is a docket or a list

3:47 ↗ that we approve in the beginning of the year. And then if any other requests

3:52 ↗ come in after that time, we have to put them on next year. And that's

3:56 ↗ so that we don't do piecemeal, changing this, changing that as they come in. And

4:01 ↗ then at the end of the year, we realize that things don't all fit together

4:05 ↗ anymore. So that's why we only do it once a year. Tonight is the-- we've

4:10 ↗ gathered some of the amendments previously that we weren't able to do. There's a lot

4:15 ↗ this year that we're not able to do. You probably noticed that in the packet.

4:20 ↗ But tonight, you get to look at it and make your recommendation. And hopefully, we're

4:25 ↗ done with this part of creating the list by the end of March. We used

4:30 ↗ to have a docket of land use code amendments. But the land use code, which

4:35 ↗ is more the development regulations, like how high the building is, how wide the sidewalk,

4:40 ↗ those kinds of things, we used to have a docket of those, but you can

4:44 ↗ amend the land use code as many times a year as you can do. So

4:48 ↗ we decided we still have a list of things we want to do, but we

4:53 ↗ don't keep it as an official docket that we roll out in the beginning of

4:57 ↗ every year. This year we'll do a lot of code updates because of the moratorium.

5:02 ↗ So it's not like we won't be looking at code this year. We'll be looking

5:07 ↗ at a lot of code. This is the docket. It probably looks... big on this

5:13 ↗ list on the screen. Most of these are annual amendments. Those of you

5:18 ↗ that have sat there for many years will recognize that every year we

5:24 ↗ put the updated Transportation Improvement Program in. And you all look at that.

5:30 ↗ Usually April or May, you have your review of that. We do the

5:35 ↗ capital facilities element. And we update the level of service each year. We do our

5:40 ↗ population update, which is number two. We get new numbers from the state in April.

5:45 ↗ And that's how all of our revenues as a city are based on the new

5:50 ↗ state numbers. And we roll those all the way through the comp plan to make

5:55 ↗ sure that all of our data is up to date. If we've purchased or received

5:59 ↗ any public property for public use in the past year, we redesignate and rezone it

6:04 ↗ for city use. So far, we have one of those. I don't know if we'll

6:09 ↗ be getting any more of those as the time goes on, but we kind of

6:13 ↗ hold that as a placeholder. And there's also another one. I don't know if you

6:18 ↗ remember last year, there was one in Overdale that was a privately owned property that

6:22 ↗ they had turned into conservancy as a conservancy easement. Overdale Park is asking to do

6:27 ↗ another one this year. So that's kind of exciting because it's privately owned, but they

6:31 ↗ maintain it in open space forever. So that's kind of a neat deal for us,

6:35 ↗ for the city. So there's another one of those on the agenda for this year.

6:40 ↗ The central plan will have some amendments. The Old Town sub-area plan will be coming

6:44 ↗ to you, I think, in April for the hearing, but I think you get to

6:48 ↗ see a preview which is really exciting. We haven't looked at Old Town for a

6:54 ↗ while. So we'll have a little more detail on that later on tonight. The housing

7:00 ↗ element to do an implementation strategy, you've all been involved in the joint meetings that

7:06 ↗ we've had, three of them now. So you're pretty much aware of what's going on

7:11 ↗ with the housing strategy. The other one that's carried over from last year is the

7:17 ↗ King County Island annexation. We never made it through that last year, so we're hopefully

7:21 ↗ getting through that this year. That's over by where the King County shop is and

7:26 ↗ the city shop is. It's that little, I think it's like maybe 30 acres that

7:31 ↗ we're hoping to annex this year. The only other one that

7:37 ↗ we're hoping to do this year, number eight, is the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement and

7:42 ↗ the TALIS Development Agreement have come up to the end of their 20-year time period

7:47 ↗ this year. And so we have to figure out how to revert the urban zoning

7:53 ↗ and their standards to regular zoning and not change anything. Our goal is not to

7:58 ↗ really change anything, but to to take it out of development agreement. So that's a

8:03 ↗ project that you all will be working on, I think, with the UVDC. I think

8:08 ↗ they're going to help us, because they're so familiar with the development agreements, and we're

8:13 ↗ not. They're going to help us work through that change. The other ones on here,

8:18 ↗ we just don't have the resources to do them. None of them are-- earth shattering

8:24 ↗ we would love to do them all we would love to have more more staff

8:28 ↗ so we could do them all but um from nine on are the ones that

8:33 ↗ we just we just don't have enough um help to to work on especially with

8:38 ↗ the moratorium work plan that we're working on that we're supposed to have done by

8:42 ↗ october trish you might if i ask about that sure um so is is it

8:47 ↗ really a matter of just how this was set was priority set by the council

8:51 ↗ or is it just that you're saying that there's just not staff to be able

8:57 ↗ to complete the work needed done past the first eight? Right, because the moratorium work

9:02 ↗ plan is mostly in our department and there's not enough staff to do the seven

9:07 ↗ pieces, well I guess six pieces that they've asked us to do and do a

9:12 ↗ full load of comprehensive plan amendments. Does that mean that staff, that there's currently open

9:17 ↗ headcount that needs to be filled to complete it or there isn't even budget to

9:20 ↗ be able to do it? It's not a matter of having people. It's budget and

9:24 ↗ staff, right. It's not even in the city's budget to be able to do more

9:28 ↗ than the workload we have here on the stocket right now? Right. Like for example,

9:32 ↗ right now we're going out and we've advertised for three planners because we're down. We

9:36 ↗ had three planners. We do have open headcount and we don't, even if we had,

9:39 ↗ all of our positions filled, we still wouldn't have the resources needed to complete these

9:44 ↗ things. Correct. I guess, so I guess I'm wanting to work backwards a little bit

9:48 ↗ because I don't want to focus too much on the things that we're not looking

9:53 ↗ at right now. But you know, we had specifically this last year in 2016 been

9:57 ↗ looking at transportation, so number nine. I was kind of curious, If there was anything

10:01 ↗ that had come out of that, obviously the failure of the bond, if there was

10:06 ↗ any movement on that or if that was actually kind of at a dead halt

10:10 ↗ from the last time we had heard anything about it. There's been movement on that

10:14 ↗ topic. I know at the council level, they're talking about a transportation committee that would

10:18 ↗ work on transportation issues kind of that came out of the bond. and came out

10:23 ↗ of the council's priority when they set the moratorium. They said that not only were

10:28 ↗ there the six land use pieces, well, in the visions is a kind of land

10:33 ↗ use, the six land use pieces, there was also the transportation mobility part of the

10:39 ↗ city's growth that was worrisome. And so that's sort of being looked at by, we're

10:44 ↗ helping Public Works look at that, but that's sort of, they're trying to do implementation,

10:49 ↗ whereas this would be, number nine would be more of a planning document not actually

10:54 ↗ an action you know we're gonna we're gonna build an intersection we're gonna change some

10:58 ↗ lanes we're gonna that kind of thing and I think they want the action they

11:03 ↗ want to just which is what the bond would have done would have gotten some

11:08 ↗ funding together so we could actually have some action So do you know if number

11:13 ↗ nine falls into the category of more being an open headcount issue or

11:19 ↗ a lack of resources to be able to put into that planning document

11:25 ↗ for transportation? I think both. Trish, to follow up on that, is this

11:31 ↗ the transportation element implementation, is that looking at how the items in

11:37 ↗ our annual tip are going to be analyzed? No, that's more of the,

11:43 ↗ like the comp plan talks about the mode split, your transit rides versus

11:49 ↗ your single occupancy vehicle rides, and what kinds of things can we implement

11:55 ↗ to get that shift closer to more people are riding together using transit or bike

12:00 ↗ pad than our single occupancy. So it's taking the policies that are in the comp

12:05 ↗ plan and figuring out action strategies like we're doing for the housing element. But that

12:10 ↗ one actually made it the affordability part actually made it on the moratorium. So that's

12:15 ↗ why that one sort of bumped up in priority because a part of that is

12:19 ↗ connected to the moratorium. Okay, thank you. I kind of saw number 12 as being

12:24 ↗ a part of it. I know it's not directly related to housing policy and strategy,

12:27 ↗ and I was curious, when was the last time that we updated the land use

12:31 ↗ implementation strategy? All of the, oh, well, we've never had a, implementation strategy for any

12:36 ↗ of them. That was something that we created in the 2015 when we overhauled all

12:41 ↗ the elements because some of the pieces of those elements were sort of talked about

12:46 ↗ implementation and some of them were policy based. So we took all the parts out

12:51 ↗ that were seem to be more code related and put them in a bucket and

12:56 ↗ said we need to work on these because these are They don't really belong in

13:00 ↗ the plan, but they belong somewhere so we can implement, so we can sort of

13:05 ↗ check off like, you know, we need a-- I'm trying to think of a good

13:09 ↗ example. You know, we need to better understand our transfer of development rights program. Well,

13:13 ↗ we have that as a policy, and we kind of talk about how you'd implement

13:17 ↗ it, but they're kind of mixed together. So they don't have the power of law

13:22 ↗ because it's not in a code. and yet they're aspirational because they're in the plan.

13:26 ↗ So we were trying to separate them so they would have the power of law

13:30 ↗ because they're in a code. That's actually, we haven't been able to do that yet.

13:34 ↗ I bring something interesting when you bring up the TDRs. I know staff has been

13:37 ↗ working on on that. with the ending of both with TALIS and the Highlands. Is

13:42 ↗ that something that's going to be, that we're going to be looking at on the

13:46 ↗ 2017 docket is putting something into the code addressing TDR? - I know we'll have

13:51 ↗ to for the development agreements. I'm not sure how far out of the code, you

13:55 ↗ know, to the rest of the city that will go, 'cause certainly we still have

14:00 ↗ our TDR bank that has units in it that are available and there's still units

14:04 ↗ out there that folks haven't used yet. So we have to figure out some way

14:10 ↗ that You know, that seems pretty applicable to what we're looking at at number eight

14:14 ↗ as well as our housing strategy. Right. So I was so I when you so

14:18 ↗ I'm glad you brought that up because it seems to me that's something that should

14:23 ↗ probably be a part of something on our code that we actually specify rather than

14:27 ↗ having it be changing back and forth on how we want to deal with TDRs.

14:31 ↗ Right. And there was a discussion at the council level that when we when we

14:35 ↗ did the central plan, because that's where we wanted the development to go. The TDR

14:40 ↗ program can be somewhat cumbersome because you have to have a buyer and a seller,

14:45 ↗ and then they have to agree on the price, and then you agree on how

14:49 ↗ much they're worth. And so it's kind of a dance that sometimes takes longer than

14:54 ↗ an applicant wants to take to get that extra development. potential. And so in the

14:58 ↗ central plan, we just allowed them to get bonus density. And we said, these are

15:02 ↗ the three or four or five things you have to do as an applicant. You

15:06 ↗ don't have to talk to another landowner. You don't have to fix a price. You

15:10 ↗ don't have to-- these are the criteria you have to provide us-- open space or

15:14 ↗ housing, affordable housing, or some combination of both. And you get more height or you

15:18 ↗ get more that you don't have to do the wedding cake. So we tried to

15:22 ↗ make it easier, if you will, for the central plan to have the bonus, to

15:26 ↗ have the extra density there. But we couldn't change it citywide because there were still

15:30 ↗ TDRs out there. So the TDR program is still in effect in the rest of

15:35 ↗ the city, but not in the central plan because they have an easier way to

15:39 ↗ do it, which is through the development bonus part. And so I think part of

15:43 ↗ what, through the development agreements, we may be able to explore a little better how

15:47 ↗ to, how to make the TDR program maybe flow in an easier way. But it's

15:52 ↗ never easy when you have two property owners trying to find the right price. But

15:57 ↗ I think that's something that the development agreement folks are going to be looking at.

16:02 ↗ So I guess my question is I think about 12, but since I'm seeing that

16:06 ↗ these are all kind of listed as being new amendments, I think I assume that

16:11 ↗ they existed and that there was something additional that staff wanted to do but were

16:15 ↗ not able to. What I'm hearing from you is that these don't actually exist. Correct.

16:20 ↗ I see. Right, in 2015 we put a page At the end, there's an appendix

16:25 ↗ of what the implementation strategies would have included in them. And so there's, I think,

16:30 ↗ one of the first ones is a public participation section that spells out how the

16:35 ↗ public gets involved, how they get communication. And that's one of the first ones I

16:41 ↗ remember pulling out of the land use element. We talk about it in the plan

16:46 ↗ that we want to have it. It should be great. It's very important. But we

16:52 ↗ never really solidified it to say, this is exactly how it's going to flow for

16:57 ↗ any different permit or any different kinds of action that you might have. And so

17:02 ↗ someday when we get to do a strategy, that would be something that we'd like

17:08 ↗ to have in it. Because other communities do have public participation strategies. thank you

17:13 ↗ can you uh anticipate any issues with delaying looking at 9 through 17 as it

17:19 ↗ relates to any of the other ones that we're already looking at like what kind

17:25 ↗ of jumped out at me is number 13 for utilities and public services if we're

17:31 ↗ talking about housing before we're talking about how we get utilities to that is that

17:36 ↗ kind of a well the or the horse well the element the utilities and public

17:42 ↗ service element exists and that's got the water plan the sewer plan the telecommunications and

17:47 ↗ the cable and all that is in the plan now in a policy piece and

17:52 ↗ then they have the different water plans and sewer plans that actually talk about the

17:57 ↗ pipe is six inches and the you know the stuff that's beyond my comprehension but

18:02 ↗ what this was was to try to take those aspirational goals out of utilities like

18:08 ↗ water conservation. We talk about it in the comp plan element, but we don't actually

18:14 ↗ get into, if you're residential, you should have this many whatever's in your, your faucets

18:19 ↗ should be this way, and sort of the whole incentive, something that would make the

18:25 ↗ policies be able to be implemented and measured more than we can do now.

18:31 ↗ Okay. Would it be worthwhile to look at those before and make sure those are

18:36 ↗ fully implemented before looking at further development? I don't think it's really a development question

18:41 ↗ because we know we have the the amount, the supply amount out there for the

18:47 ↗ growth that we've accommodated in our zoning. But these were more, and I should pull

18:52 ↗ up, I can send them to you that there's a, in the comp plan there's

18:57 ↗ a list of each of them at the end of the the comp plan that

19:02 ↗ just has lists of the things that we would want to have in the implementation.

19:06 ↗ In fact if I can get to it because you guys are asking good questions.

19:10 ↗ Oh can I not get out of there? There should be an exit key. Thank

19:14 ↗ you. I apologize if you're if it seems silly to be asking questions

19:20 ↗ about things we know aren't on our docket rather before we actually get to the

19:24 ↗ things that are but I was struck by what was curious about kind of how

19:29 ↗ they get addressed and I realized when you have an issue of not having adequate

19:33 ↗ staffing to be able to complete these planning strategies but something that I think we

19:37 ↗ all feel passionately about is having those plans in place to be able to productively

19:41 ↗ have the best community that we can and I really think planning is a great

19:46 ↗ tool for us to be able to achieve what we want and as we especially

19:51 ↗ in this moratorium wanting to be delicate about how we how we go about it

19:55 ↗ and so seeing some of these action items pushed off to 2018 I think it's

20:00 ↗ something we're curious about and wondering. So I know we don't have staff to be

20:05 ↗ able to actually do planning the way that we've had, whether it was a temporary

20:09 ↗ committee for traffic, the traffic task force, or the way we've had committees come together

20:14 ↗ and talk about housing. I'm wondering if there's a way to still use a limited

20:18 ↗ amount of city resources to be able to have meetings with the city so that

20:23 ↗ when they do get addressed in 2018, we have an idea about how the community

20:27 ↗ perceives these things or things that they want to have included in the plan, almost

20:31 ↗ like a pre-planning activities in 2017 where we recognize that staff doesn't have the resources

20:35 ↗ for them, but if there's some way that we can start to integrate them into

20:39 ↗ the consciousness of the city so that we can get back feedback from citizens and

20:44 ↗ kind of pulling numbers to, I guess, be more ready for it. Right. I don't

20:48 ↗ know if that's an unrealistic goal because we don't have the resources to do them.

20:53 ↗ Right, and the hard thing is you have me and I'm full time and I

20:57 ↗ have half of Jennifer and I have less than half of Kristen. And we have

21:02 ↗ to do the comp plan amendments and the district visions, which you'll see in the

21:07 ↗ moratorium and the housing strategy and the central monitoring report. I mean, there's the annexation.

21:13 ↗ And so there's just this really small band of long rangers that are spread pretty

21:18 ↗ thin with what we've got going. So to have-- A heck of a job. to

21:24 ↗ have another commission or three to be working on other things. I think all of

21:29 ↗ the products would just, we wouldn't do A plus or B minus projects. It would

21:33 ↗ be really difficult. - Be taking from others to be able to try to-- -

21:38 ↗ Right, I just think that would be, and current planning has even fewer. They're the

21:43 ↗ ones that are trying to get three people 'cause they lost three people in December.

21:48 ↗ So we're just at sort of this flux where, We just don't have a lot

21:53 ↗ of resources, but our plates are really full. But I love your idea. I mean,

21:56 ↗ I would love to do them all because they're all really interesting and they're worthwhile.

22:00 ↗ And I think they would help us as a city, but I just don't know

22:03 ↗ how we would... For example, the council is still working on the 2016 amendments that

22:08 ↗ you handed to them in October because their plates are so full that they're having

22:13 ↗ troubles getting to everything that's on their plate. And so it's just, there's just, it's

22:17 ↗ a really, even though people are like, you have a moratorium, what are you doing?

22:21 ↗ It's like, oh my gosh, you know, we're doing everything and then. And so it's

22:26 ↗ just been a really tough time to be able to ponder all the things that

22:30 ↗ we would love to ponder. But that's a great idea. I hope when we get

22:35 ↗ to do it that that's how we get to do it, is with a lot

22:40 ↗ of public input and find out what folks really do want. But this is just

22:44 ↗ for before you go. This is what the implementation strategies appendix looks like. And it

22:49 ↗ talks about how we got them. And then we'll see public participation element. That's the

22:54 ↗ first one. And it talks about-- so these aren't connected to any element, but then

22:59 ↗ they're broken down by element. So to get back to our urban forestry and open

23:04 ↗ space management plan, I think that would be fabulous to work on that. Climate action

23:09 ↗ plan, update the tree canopy. We haven't done that in a few years. I mean,

23:13 ↗ all these things were in the comp plan, but they're more code related. So we

23:18 ↗ want to get back to them sometime and actually update make more of a code

23:23 ↗ or update the inventory or whatever it is that's listed. Because I think that would

23:28 ↗ just be better for all of us. And housing element, of course, we're already working

23:34 ↗ on. And to speak to Carl's question, this is the piece of the transportation element

23:39 ↗ that would be part of the strategy plan. And then utilities is just a few

23:45 ↗ short pieces, although I'm sure they're difficult. And we have emergency management plans. policies in

23:50 ↗ the element and we also have over in our operations department, they have a whole

23:56 ↗ book on emergency management, but one of the council members last year wanted it to

24:02 ↗ be an element and I thought, That whole book in the plan, wow, that would

24:07 ↗ be hard to print. But we thought, well, we'll put it in there. Maybe there's

24:12 ↗ pieces of it that are super policy-oriented and that we could put in. And then

24:17 ↗ cultural has pieces, human services element has pieces. And I can send this to you

24:22 ↗ so you can look at it at your leisure at home, but all sorts of

24:27 ↗ good stuff in there. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. And back to you,

24:32 ↗ Ron. So looking at some of these possible amendments,

24:39 ↗ I see a lot of them that are not that are going to be

24:45 ↗ postponed until 2018 that look important. Yeah. And considering where the city is right

24:51 ↗ now, the fact that we are starting to build a lot in the, but

24:57 ↗ we haven't exactly started. We've started but we haven't expanded. We're still in our

25:03 ↗ baby steps, right? So if it's a issue with staff, where they're not

25:09 ↗ able to have the capacity to be able to handle all this volume, then do

25:14 ↗ we have the ability to be able to propose to City Council to raise, to

25:20 ↗ open up for hiring to help you out? Give them a proposal or give them

25:26 ↗ a recommendation. Our recommendation to City Council is to approve a new headcount for your

25:32 ↗ team. Where would we get the money? What would you take part of that's what

25:38 ↗ I was asking earlier is that it's not just a matter of open headcount and

25:42 ↗ getting staff in. It's a matter of also budgetary that we've already maxed out on

25:46 ↗ the resources that we have. There's no budget for the year to be able to

25:50 ↗ add in on the docket. Even if we had staff, we would we filled in

25:54 ↗ with what headcount we currently have open. We don't have the money or resources to

25:59 ↗ add on additional headcount. That's what it sounds like. Right. I just don't want to

26:03 ↗ see us as a city not focus on some of these key

26:09 ↗ initiatives, and then we get to a stage where it's too late. So we're kind

26:14 ↗ of at that point now, right? So do we have a choice? Well, it depends

26:20 ↗ on how you look at that, because we have elements, all those elements are in

26:26 ↗ place. It's just the pieces that I showed you, the implementation strategy for them, is

26:31 ↗ not in place, but there's certainly codes and plans, you know, like I mentioned to

26:37 ↗ John, we have a water plan, sewer plan, we have all the plans and emergency

26:42 ↗ management, but there's pieces like the urban canopy, the climate action plan. There's other things

26:48 ↗ that would be great to have, but I don't think they would impair us as

26:53 ↗ a city if we didn't have them next year. I mean, it's not anything like...

27:01 ↗ CHRIS JERRAM: Postponing a year is what you're saying is not a big deal. CHRISTIE

27:06 ↗ WOOD: Right, because some of them have been postponed since last year, since we first

27:11 ↗ did this. And when we first identified them in 2015, we had hoped to do

27:15 ↗ them all last year. But then things happened, and we only were able to start

27:20 ↗ on housing because that seemed to be the priority, because that was on the council's

27:25 ↗ priority list. last year. So that was the only one that we were able to

27:30 ↗ start is the housing strategy plan. But the good news with parks is parks is

27:34 ↗ doing a huge plan starting this year. And so we bumped the parks strategy plan

27:38 ↗ to next year to find out all that they're going to find out will inform

27:43 ↗ us on what was what's left for us to work on once they do the

27:47 ↗ heavy lifting, if you will. Then we kind of figure that was your strategy with

27:51 ↗ parks. Yeah, I'm happy that they're moving forward on that one. Okay. Um, Would your

27:57 ↗ staff be open to volunteers if someone in the public had qualifications or you don't

28:01 ↗ have the staff to handle them? Because then you have to manage and keep them

28:05 ↗ focused and it would just be a lot. I mean, we're at our wits end

28:10 ↗ now trying to get done what we're trying to get done. I think, Ron, that's

28:14 ↗ what I was trying to ask her earlier was saying, hey, what if we even

28:18 ↗ tried to do open up meetings for the doing initial pre-planning with members of the

28:22 ↗ community and it's even... It sounds like trying to manage that would be too much

28:27 ↗ on staff. Yeah. Right. There's very few of us in DSD these days. But we're

28:33 ↗ mighty. We're few yet mighty. Yes. Other questions? I'm going to see if I can

28:38 ↗ flip back to. Thank you, Trish. Yeah, let's actually talk about what we want to

28:44 ↗ do. From the current slide. Oh, I jumped too soon. Were there any other questions?

28:50 ↗ I think I probably already jumped too soon. I already mentioned this when we were

28:55 ↗ going through the docket. And these are the new ones. And there's a blank slide.

29:01 ↗ So that's the question and answer. Are there other questions or thoughts? No, we have

29:06 ↗ public hearing, though, correct? Right. But I wanted to make sure you had all your

29:11 ↗ questions answered before we opened it up. I do have some questions about our actual

29:15 ↗ proposed amendments. I know that was all discussion about stuff that we haven't been doing.

29:19 ↗ I was curious about number two, our population updates. You mentioned that in April we're

29:22 ↗ going to get numbers from the state. So when I think about the work that

29:26 ↗ we've done in the last year about thinking about our development indexes, our happiness indexes,

29:30 ↗ the things that we do to rate kind of where we're at as a city,

29:33 ↗ how we're using our resources. We're just gonna get updates on our numbers. It says

29:38 ↗ population updates. Are we getting a huge dump of numbers? Why is it just population?

29:43 ↗ Are we also getting? - The Office of Financial Management, they give us the actual

29:48 ↗ population number and then they give us housing units based on the data that we

29:54 ↗ send them of what building permits have been approved and demolitions that have gone away,

29:59 ↗ they give us an updated housing number and population number that then we take those

30:04 ↗ and roll them into our population housing forecast table. It goes into the capital facilities

30:09 ↗ element to roll through the level of service. We sort of use that to update

30:15 ↗ all the plans that go by population. So that's the number we use as the

30:20 ↗ state because that's the number that we get revenues based on. Sure. So last calendar

30:25 ↗ year when we were looking at things, we had mentioned as a committee that we

30:30 ↗ were wanting more updated numbers across a variety of areas. Right, on impact fees and

30:35 ↗ the capital facilities plan. And that letter went, in fact, the council is still talking

30:41 ↗ about the letter that you sent. And they budgeted-- I don't think they were

30:46 ↗ budgeting this year for police and buildings, but they were talking about how

30:52 ↗ best to figure out the impact fee and mitigation fee numbers. But they

30:58 ↗ are updating the capital facilities plan, which is the six-year-- that includes police cars and

31:03 ↗ that kind of thing. Because we've had, as you remember from last year, the one

31:08 ↗ we were using was a few years old. So there were no new capital pieces

31:13 ↗ and parts to put in our equations to make them look like we're actually producing

31:18 ↗ our end of the bargain when growth comes. We still have to provide police cars

31:22 ↗ and parks and all those capital things that you can't ask a developer to provide

31:27 ↗ all of it. So so they're updating. They're supposed to update that this year. So

31:32 ↗ that would be good. Okay, thank you. That's what I'm that's exactly what I was

31:37 ↗ asking. Excellent. Excellent question. Other questions before we open it up to anyone in our

31:42 ↗ vast public that would like to comment. Are you ready for public comment? I'm ready.

31:47 ↗ Open it up for public hearing. You would like to speak, come up to the

31:52 ↗ microphone and have anything you want to say. Come up to the microphone and state

31:57 ↗ your name and address. please hi thank you my name is steve

32:03 ↗ pereira i live at 170 northeast dogwood street here in israel for about nine years

32:08 ↗ i think that's the customary format i'm supposed to use so uh if i'm wrong

32:14 ↗ please correct me so a couple thoughts uh first i wanted to go to mr

32:19 ↗ mr falls comment on do we have the ability to recommend to city of israel

32:25 ↗ administration or council uh prioritizing plans further before we do other activity and how that

32:30 ↗ might impact It seems to me like yes, you very much have the ability to

32:35 ↗ make that recommendation. The city has X number of dollars coming in and prioritizes how

32:40 ↗ to spend those X number of dollars. We are making a lot of growth of

32:44 ↗ plans. We have a six month moratorium, maybe a year moratorium. It seems like it's

32:49 ↗ worthwhile to say we need to have these plans fully developed before we continue with

32:53 ↗ development. I'm not suggesting that's what you want to say, but you have the ability

32:58 ↗ to make that recommendation. to city administration and the city council. So I

33:03 ↗ guess I would suggest you do consider making that consideration for them to prioritize the

33:09 ↗ funding. Obviously that would mean other things probably wouldn't happen, but that's again within the

33:15 ↗ purview of what I think the policy planning commission has to do. Next comments,

33:21 ↗ number four and number five kind of related Central Issaquah plan to expand include

33:26 ↗ the Old Town area and number five the Old Town sub area plan update.

33:32 ↗ So Trish while you were speaking one of the things I heard you talk

33:37 ↗ about like in the Central Issaquah plan there's certain policies in place to enhance

33:43 ↗ development and building heights and all that so As a resident of Old Town, I

33:49 ↗ think technically I'm just outside the border of Old Town based on where my address

33:54 ↗ is, but I consider myself Old Town. I think technically it stops right before where

33:59 ↗ my house is, but that's what I think I understand, unless I can plead differently.

34:04 ↗ But I count myself as Old Town. My point is I'm concerned with Old Town

34:09 ↗ seems to be a unique and special place, and I know they're doing a lot

34:15 ↗ of plans proposed looking at it seems like it was last looked at in 2009.

34:20 ↗ We're less than 10 years later and already we're talking about changing it. It seems

34:24 ↗ like a part of the growth, a part of the plan for the CIP was

34:29 ↗ that we got to keep Old Town the way it was and Central Izaakau Plan

34:33 ↗ could change into whatever and that was kind of a implied consent decree that not

34:38 ↗ officially recognized. Now we're talking about changing Old Town and I'm not sure that's what

34:42 ↗ we really want. Once we lose this place that was developed in 1960s, 1970s, I

34:47 ↗ don't think we're ever gonna get it back. So I'm just hesitant at this point.

34:52 ↗ I'm not saying yes or no, I'm just saying I think we're moving too fast

34:56 ↗ and I wanted to express that concern to all of you while that continues to

35:01 ↗ thresh out. The next one I wanted to talk about was the number six, the

35:05 ↗ Create Housing Element Strategy. Thank you for being involved in that activity. One of the

35:11 ↗ things that occurred to me that I've heard somebody say is that one of the

35:16 ↗ few examples of affordable housing still left is in the Old Town area because it's

35:21 ↗ smaller area undeveloped housing or smaller lots, smaller house sizes. So I think that one

35:26 ↗ of the things that should be included in the moratorium discussion is zoning for smaller

35:32 ↗ houses, smaller lots. There's not a piece that talks about the moratorium now where it

35:38 ↗ talks about smaller houses. You can get, I think it's called best use for land

35:44 ↗ so they can build big huge houses, big old lots. But there needs to be

35:49 ↗ a way of zoning that includes and incorporates a smaller accommodation of housing. So

35:56 ↗ Again that's not specifically listed here on the docket but I think it's within the

36:02 ↗ purview of the policy planning commission to hopefully give some feedback saying that that's something

36:08 ↗ that should be looked at. Wanted to jump back to number one the capital facilities

36:13 ↗ or more specifically the TIP updates and this is used just as an example. One

36:19 ↗ of the things I know being looked at is the loft building which would have

36:25 ↗ kind of office housing and in exchange the developer would put a four-way traffic light

36:31 ↗ at that intersection rather than having C-curb ramps as I understand it. If I'm using

36:35 ↗ the wrong terms, I apologize. That's my understanding. I'm having to go into meetings.

36:41 ↗ One of the things I heard at that meeting was that they've long talked about

36:46 ↗ this idea of rather than having Rainier connect with Juniper, connect it directly to Gilman

36:51 ↗ Boulevard. I had never heard that before. So in all this talk about the TIP,

36:57 ↗ which is the Traffic Improvement Plan, I think that's correct, we talked about all these

37:02 ↗ other things like widening other streets, If that's something that was looked at, that's something

37:07 ↗ that should be talked at. My point is we don't have, the TIP doesn't seem

37:12 ↗ to include to me the things that it should that are talked about more about

37:17 ↗ free flowing traffic and improving traffic than they should, than about widening individual streets in

37:22 ↗ neighborhoods that don't facilitate that traffic movement.

37:31 ↗ keep up the good work on the housing plan and I would again like to

37:35 ↗ see not talk about just encouraging developing housing for affordable housing but I think we're

37:40 ↗ kind of losing the focus of we've been trying to do trying to encourage that

37:44 ↗ from happening and it's not been happening. I think you need some more teeth in

37:49 ↗ the plan that says make this happen and not having code that says if

37:55 ↗ it's the force of law, then you have to have it. I think

38:01 ↗ that's a good thing. We don't, at least to date, have not been

38:07 ↗ doing that. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Hi, my name is Zach.

38:13 ↗ I'm from Seattle. I'm first time to all this. I'm still very green.

38:18 ↗ So pardon me if I haven't done my due diligence with homework.

38:24 ↗ But with having the transportation element pushed back a bit, I thought I read somewhere

38:29 ↗ that we're like cusping to full capacity, like 96% or something during peak hours. So

38:35 ↗ if we're putting that back, then how would that, you know, if that's for another

38:40 ↗ year and we have a quicker growth than expected, who knows? I mean, as someone

38:45 ↗ that maybe will use transportation to get here from, the downtown area how would that

38:51 ↗ pushing it back is that gonna affect any more rapid growth or you

38:56 ↗ know what could be adverse in that respect versus or what's being done

39:02 ↗ to keep that from happening I guess that's what I'm saying so yeah

39:07 ↗ but cool place never been to squat before it's gorgeous and yeah bright

39:13 ↗ future for sure okay thank you seeing no one else from the public

39:19 ↗ we'll close the public hearing portion Now we have to do

39:24 ↗ what, Chris? Chris, if you're ready, do you want to talk about any

39:30 ↗ of the court or ask questions? The only question is, I don't know,

39:36 ↗ Ron, if you want to try to address the issue of whether telling

39:42 ↗ the city that they should spend money that they don't have to buy

39:47 ↗ people that they can't get. Well, I'd like to propose the recommendation to

39:53 ↗ city council and let the subject matter experts figure it out. But

39:59 ↗ this way, at least we're raising the flag that we are concerned that

40:05 ↗ staff doesn't have adequate capacity to be able to handle all the projects

40:11 ↗ that we feel are necessary and let them figure out how to fund

40:17 ↗ it if it's a priority for them. CLARE DUDA: That's a good point.

40:23 ↗ We've only got eight of 17 items. So less than half can be

40:29 ↗ worked on. At some point, we're going to have to say, well, we're going

40:35 ↗ to cut out those extra items altogether, or we've got to have more people to

40:40 ↗ be able to handle them. Or we have funds, or we're funding projects somewhere else

40:46 ↗ that may be lower priority than what this should be. So maybe this isn't getting

40:51 ↗ the proper attention. But again, that's really not... for me to decide, I

40:57 ↗ can just make the recommendation and let them figure it out. So that's what

41:03 ↗ I think would be a good strategy is, hey, we have this concern. And

41:08 ↗ I think that's the issue is that we could make that the-- we have

41:14 ↗ a concern that with current staffing standards, we can't address all the items that

41:20 ↗ should be addressed. And city council needs to be aware of that. Maybe

41:25 ↗ we're bringing coals to Newcastle. They probably are aware of it. But

41:31 ↗ there are 17 items that we would like to have and amendments.

41:37 ↗ We can only address eight of them. CHRIS JERRAM: You said it

41:43 ↗ well. TODD BANDUCCI: I don't know how we would-- I guess-- I

41:49 ↗ don't know if we make that an addition on the findings or

41:55 ↗ make a separate letter.

42:01 ↗ I don't know if we're able to specify, but to me number 12 and 13

42:06 ↗ really get to the heart of what we're trying to do with how to create

42:10 ↗ a housing strategy with our development moratorium. And I don't know if there's a way

42:15 ↗ to highlight that we think that there are other pieces that need to be used

42:19 ↗ in conjunction with it. I am a little curious. I know staff does a good

42:24 ↗ job of saying, hey, where do we want to put our resources? But it might

42:29 ↗ be helpful for those who are watching at home to kind of maybe understand, for

42:34 ↗ instance, why is number seven given more of a priority? Maybe it takes less resources

42:39 ↗ to deal with our annexation agenda. And I'm not saying that that isn't important, but

42:44 ↗ I'm curious maybe why staff chose to put that on the docket maybe versus dealing

42:49 ↗ with actually creating implementation strategies for utilities, land use, things that

42:55 ↗ can be related to dealing with our development moratorium. And that's

43:01 ↗ actually a partnership we've entered into.

43:12 ↗ - Okay, sorry. - It's a preset thing. We've already committed those resources to and

43:16 ↗ that's why that's on the docket. - Right, we just weren't able to do it

43:20 ↗ last year 'cause we ran out of people and resources. - That's a great explanation.

43:24 ↗ I do have one question too about, I'm looking at number four and five and

43:28 ↗ they both have the same bullet point in reverse order about considering increasing that boundary

43:33 ↗ and they have different dates. So first we're gonna look at the Old Town in

43:37 ↗ April and then that will go to recommendation in June. and then that same bullet

43:41 ↗ point is listed for number four and that is September. I'm curious how these two

43:46 ↗ are going to interact. It sounds like this boundary issue will already be decided come

43:50 ↗ June before we even have a public hearing on it in September and so I'm

43:55 ↗ curious how you guys laid that out, how you guys see those pieces folding together.

43:59 ↗ Right, and it's the same piece of land that would move out of Old Town

44:04 ↗ into Central. And if it doesn't pass in Old Town plan, then it would be

44:08 ↗ moot in the Central plan. But we wanted to have them queued up at the

44:12 ↗ same time so that anyone that's just following Central wouldn't be surprised when all of

44:16 ↗ a sudden part of it is a boundary change from Old Town to Central. So

44:20 ↗ we wanted to label them in both places. But if it doesn't happen in Old

44:24 ↗ Town, then it would be moot in Central. Okay. but it's that top

44:30 ↗ notch technical term up by Front Street and it

44:35 ↗ has where the new Bellevue Brewery, what is that, Staples, and it would

44:41 ↗ be that little piece that actually pops into Central, but it's still part of Old

44:47 ↗ Town right now in the mapping of it. And is it the city or is

44:52 ↗ it the brewery? It's the city. The city wanted it connected before the brewery came.

44:58 ↗ I see. What is that? Why is that? because then it would have the

45:03 ↗ building potential of the central plan, which is taller, more dense, because it's right up

45:09 ↗ there by the freeway, versus the more quaint, as Steve mentioned, the smaller density and

45:15 ↗ the smaller footprint, if you will, of Old Town. And that was one of the

45:21 ↗ sites also where the Economic Vitality Commission wanted to try an anchor project. and

45:27 ↗ then they realized it wasn't in Central. So they were petitioning as well to get

45:32 ↗ that little corner to be in Central so that could be potentially an anchor project.

45:37 ↗ Is it kind of a race against the Bellevue Brewing Company? No. No, I think

45:42 ↗ the Bellevue Brewery, they're already talking to us, so they can do what they want

45:47 ↗ with the Old Town zoning with the way it is. Gotcha. Thank you for laying

45:52 ↗ out that plan. I just kind of wanted to see how you guys thought you

45:56 ↗ were going to want to address those since they obviously overlap. Right. We just wanted

46:00 ↗ full disclosure that it would be in both of them if it went through. And

46:04 ↗ it wouldn't be in either of them if it didn't go through. Well, what do

46:08 ↗ you think is the best way to address it? Separate letter? Well, if we put

46:12 ↗ it in the findings, I can pull out the part and actually put it in

46:16 ↗ their agenda bill so that they notice it better. Put it in the findings that

46:20 ↗ we approve. Well... We'll vote on whether we approve or not, but when

46:26 ↗ we do approve, we'll put a notice in that we have concern over the lack

46:32 ↗ of funding and they should... The funding and resources. You can pull up what are

46:37 ↗ wonderful words we at some point said. Right, because Susan often makes you all sound

46:43 ↗ so... And I'm sure you're doing that right now. Freedom juices. That being the case,

46:48 ↗ is there a motion to approve the findings of fact? Second.

46:54 ↗ On the docket amendments for 2017. So motion with

46:59 ↗ the included suggestion to council of being able to

47:05 ↗ have additional resources. Second that. All in favor? Aye.

47:11 ↗ Aye. Opposed? None. Excellent. We just have to add that.

47:16 ↗ And then I guess you'll send it to me to sign after we put it

47:22 ↗ in? If you want me to, to send it to you to okay it, that

47:27 ↗ we got it right, that Susan got it right. Now you're going to tell us

47:32 ↗ what you intend to do with us the rest of the year. Yes, how we're

47:37 ↗ going to keep you so excited and busy. Thanks, Carl. Thanks, Joy, for working on

47:43 ↗ that. Thank you. The moratorium, the temporary development moratorium, I

47:48 ↗ don't know if you've heard, was enacted in September. Then a

47:54 ↗ few weeks later, They actually, they had another public hearing on it and

48:00 ↗ they had, they adopted a work plan to address the pieces that they wanted to

48:06 ↗ look at. And this is all on the website, by the way. I think I

48:12 ↗ included the link in your packet. But the six issues, well, there's six, we've combined

48:17 ↗ two of them, that they addressed initially were affordable housing that was a citywide issue,

48:23 ↗ And then the other issues were only in the central Issaquah, were limited to the

48:29 ↗ central Issaquah planning area. And that was architectural fit and urban design, which we put

48:34 ↗ together because they're very similar. They kind of have similar feels to them. Vertical mixed

48:40 ↗ use, because we haven't gotten any yet. Parking issues, some folks are saying that we

48:45 ↗ put the parking limit too low. and that it's we're under parked and the council

48:51 ↗ was also worried about we weren't getting enough structured parking. So they want us to

48:55 ↗ look at that again. And the other piece was that the district visions, there are

49:00 ↗ 10 districts in Central and of the 10 visions that are listed, they felt like

49:05 ↗ the developments weren't actually looking like the vision made it sound like they should look.

49:09 ↗ And so they wanted us to take another look at the district visions. And you

49:14 ↗ all are going to be part of all of these. So I wanted you to

49:19 ↗ know upfront. You already know this. I thought I'd start out with the easy one

49:24 ↗ because you're all aware of this from coming to the meetings. This is the housing

49:29 ↗ strategy. This is supposed to be done and to council in before October.

49:35 ↗ And I thought you were leaving. I was going to say, what did we say?

49:40 ↗ Um, um, you've seen this before in your packets. Um, right now we're in the

49:45 ↗ needs analysis step. Um, and we're almost done with that. Um, we've talked to focus

49:50 ↗ groups. We've, uh, had three joint commission meetings. And we've done a lot of really

49:54 ↗ great work. We're working on the survey now that would go out to the public

49:58 ↗ to talk about their views of housing issues and if we've found them all or

50:02 ↗ if there are other issues that we haven't found and sort of how they feel

50:07 ↗ about different kinds of affordable housing and what might work in their neighborhoods. We're trying

50:11 ↗ to figure out how to ask some questions like that. The next step would be

50:16 ↗ more public outreach, but actually having, we started a little bit of it last time,

50:22 ↗ but having strategies that are actually actions, incentives, accessory dwelling units, how do you make

50:28 ↗ those easier to build? How do you get a levy going where we can tax

50:33 ↗ ourselves? Because everybody has to put in a little bit. It can't just all be

50:37 ↗ on the developers or all on the city or all on one group. We kind

50:41 ↗ of all have to partner together to figure out how to build more affordable housing

50:46 ↗ for the folks that live here and work here or the kids and family members

50:50 ↗ that would like to live here. So the next group of policy conversation is not

50:56 ↗ only the affordable strategies that we started with, but also how do you get, you

51:01 ↗ know, do we need more senior housing? Do we need more housing for developmentally disabled?

51:07 ↗ Do we need more? really small we're finding we need a lot of smaller homes

51:12 ↗ because it seems there's only the I think the average is they're building three and

51:16 ↗ four bedrooms but what the focus groups are all saying is they would just really

51:21 ↗ like a little house just a little starter house and and we don't have those

51:26 ↗ so so we're learning a lot of new things and the policy conversation we're hoping

51:31 ↗ we've kind of started already but that will be going strong in May and June

51:36 ↗ And then we're hoping to unroll the actual strategy, you know, this summer sometime where

51:41 ↗ we actually get into these are the things we would do immediately in the next

51:46 ↗ five years. And these are the things that we would roll out for the whole

51:51 ↗ 20-year plan to have to sort of change the aspects of our housing that we

51:55 ↗ have. Are there questions on housing? District Visions is the other one that Long

52:01 ↗ Range is the lead on. This I use, this is a sample of what the

52:07 ↗ District Visions say now in the central plan. This one is Western Gateway. I

52:12 ↗ guess the good news and the bad news about Western Gateway is it's for some

52:17 ↗ reason it's all the applications that we got right out of the gate were in

52:22 ↗ Western Gateway and we didn't actually have all of the development standards in place to

52:27 ↗ actually get exactly you know it talks about office and mixed use but we didn't

52:32 ↗ have it be required so the applicants said we're really not interested in mixed use

52:36 ↗ so we're just going to build residential and we had no way of making them

52:42 ↗ do the vision because it wasn't in the code. It was aspirational, but it wasn't

52:46 ↗ in the code. So this is one of the reasons that the council would like

52:51 ↗ us to re-look at the visions to see if there's ways to strengthen the vision

52:55 ↗ and also ways to partner with regulations so that we actually will get what the

53:00 ↗ vision says that we want. So that's just a sample. And the pieces, as you

53:05 ↗ can see, the categories for the vision were the vision, which includes pieces of the

53:11 ↗ green necklace, how the green necklace fits in, the primary uses that we're hoping for

53:17 ↗ in the vision, the key environmental features and mobility connection, you know, the transportation piece.

53:22 ↗ And what we wanted in the new version of these is we want to actually

53:27 ↗ call the green necklace and parks out as a separate topic and not put it

53:32 ↗ in the opening statement so that each of each neighborhood district will have specifically this

53:37 ↗ is the green necklace component of this area and these are the trails or the

53:42 ↗ connections to the other areas from this so that all of the 10 districts have

53:47 ↗ some aspect of the green necklace in them We had that originally, but we didn't

53:52 ↗ come out and give it its own category. So with parks helping us with their

53:56 ↗ plan this year, we're hoping that that's going to be a really great part to

54:01 ↗ help us realize the vision. The other piece that's not in the original is to

54:06 ↗ talk about boundary adjustments. One is the piece in Old Town that we talked about.

54:10 ↗ The other is the state park wasn't part of the city when we first did

54:14 ↗ Central, and there's been some questions whether we should add it to the Central area

54:19 ↗ because it's such a beautiful resource. Not that the zoning would change, but that it

54:23 ↗ seems like a logical addition to the plan. I don't know if we would do

54:28 ↗ that, but that's something that's come up in comments. So boundary adjustments is added as

54:33 ↗ part of the scope. Are there questions on this part? Just giving you

54:39 ↗ guys a little teaser on all of these. The next one is only

54:45 ↗ for Central Issaquah and that's the architectural fit urban design piece.

54:51 ↗ And this is parts of the pieces that we didn't have for some of the

54:56 ↗ gateway projects and atlases. How do the buildings face the street? How do they interact

55:01 ↗ with the public area? How do you make sure that the public areas are just

55:05 ↗ more in our toolbox so that we have things turn out the way we thought

55:10 ↗ they were gonna turn out? So those are just some ideas on to sort of

55:15 ↗ help you understand what we're hoping to get from that piece. And you all will

55:21 ↗ be working with the Development Commission on this one, because the Development Commission just nails

55:26 ↗ all the criteria. They just know what they need. So they'll be helping us understand

55:31 ↗ that. Vertical mixed use, this is a good one. This has already been worked on

55:36 ↗ quite a while. It started when we started housing. And so we're trying to figure

55:41 ↗ out, are there places where we're going to require it? Are there places where it

55:46 ↗ makes more sense than other places? I think this comes to you--

55:52 ↗ I'll look at the calendar. But this one I think is the most, the farthest

55:56 ↗ along than all of us, than all the other ones. So this is going to

56:00 ↗ be an exciting one. And I'm not sure who, if you're working with any other

56:04 ↗ commissions on this one, I couldn't find that in the notes. But I know this

56:08 ↗ comes to you, I just can't remember when, it's on the last page of the

56:12 ↗ schedule. Any questions on vertical mixed use?

56:18 ↗ parking. This is only in central Issaquah and again it's because some folks thinks that

56:23 ↗ when we change the ratio and the central plan in the central standards instead of

56:29 ↗ having a maximum we sort of lowered them so that they can still have higher

56:34 ↗ number of parking but we're hoping over time that they would choose and they would

56:39 ↗ be able to get to market a lower number People aren't really using the lower

56:44 ↗ number yet. We knew they wouldn't because people aren't into transit and all that kind

56:48 ↗ of stuff yet. We don't have those other options available. But we want to re-look

56:52 ↗ at that to see if the parking ratio is off and also if there's a

56:56 ↗ way to require more structured parking or if that just changes the price point and

57:00 ↗ then we don't get anything. So those are some things we want to look at.

57:04 ↗ And again, you'll be working with the Development Commission on this one because they just

57:08 ↗ know the stuff. They're just brilliant with this stuff. And you will be too. You

57:14 ↗ will be too. And so those are the moratorium, before I jump, those are the

57:19 ↗ moratorium ones. Any questions on those? The other

57:25 ↗ things that you'll be working on that are also very exciting is the Old Town

57:29 ↗ Plan. And just to make a comment on one of the comments is we're not

57:34 ↗ talking about a lot of changes. The plan was originally done, it was the first

57:39 ↗ sub-area plan we did after growth management, which I thought was pretty exciting. Back then

57:44 ↗ it was the priority of the council that Old Town be the first one to

57:48 ↗ have a sub-area plan. And the one change that we did back in, I think

57:53 ↗ it was 2009, is we took the bypass out. That was the only change we

57:57 ↗ made. We weren't allowed to go in and fiddle with any of the rest of

58:01 ↗ it. It was just take the bypass out and you're done. But we wanted to

58:06 ↗ get into it because some of it is old. And so we've been having a

58:09 ↗ lot of fun at the outreach because so many people are so enamored with the

58:13 ↗ way it is and that it's small town and it's charming and it's quaint and

58:17 ↗ it's just all these wonderful things. So we're really having fun with this project. And

58:21 ↗ I know you guys will too. I know some of you have been at the

58:25 ↗ outreach meetings. These are some of the pieces that are in it. And then the

58:29 ↗ one part about the moving the boundary is part of it. We're doing some surveying,

58:34 ↗ I think coming up pretty soon. And I think there's some more outreach meetings coming

58:39 ↗ up as well. This comes to you early. I think you mentioned when, is it

58:43 ↗ April? No, April, May it's coming. But this is another one that's coming earlier than

58:48 ↗ the end of the year. And then the end of the development agreements. And I

58:54 ↗ think we're going to get help on this one from the Urban Village Commission. And

58:58 ↗ this is to figure out how to turn TALIS and the Highlands Development Regulations into

59:03 ↗ regular zoning, like our zoning code or like central, but not really change anything. Because

59:07 ↗ we don't want everybody up there to have nonconforming uses, because that would be a

59:11 ↗ nightmare for everyone. So we're trying to figure out how to change the zoning, but

59:16 ↗ not actually change what can happen up there. So that'll be kind of an interesting

59:21 ↗ process. Are there questions on those two? No? And this is our best shot

59:27 ↗ at what the schedule is for all the pieces that we know. You don't

59:33 ↗ have a lot of off nights so far. And I know in years past

59:38 ↗ you've had many. So we're turning up the heat now. So there's going to be

59:44 ↗ a lot of things going on. This could change depending on how quickly or not

59:49 ↗ quickly staff can get things through to you and how quickly the council can get

59:53 ↗ things through. Because we're having, as you can imagine, because it's council's moratorium, we're having

59:58 ↗ a lot of touch bases with them to make sure that we're on the track

1:00:03 ↗ that they want us to be on. So that... can always change how and when.

1:00:08 ↗ And we'll try and keep you apprised as soon as we know, just so you

1:00:13 ↗ can plan accordingly. Are there any questions about the schedule as we know it? Our

1:00:19 ↗ next two dates on there are the 23rd and the 9th, and they're blank. Are

1:00:25 ↗ they-- do you know if we're meeting, if we're discussing and congregating? You're right.

1:00:32 ↗ I will have to ask if anybody's ready for anything. Because what's the next one?

1:00:36 ↗ Oh, the next one's district vision. 23rd, that's just right around the corner. Oh, my

1:00:40 ↗ gosh. And Old Town. Dave will be here for Old Town. Well, I wonder if

1:00:43 ↗ any of them could go earlier. I can check tomorrow to see what the next

1:00:47 ↗ two are. That would be bad to give you. I'm just wondering if those are

1:00:51 ↗ blank if we're not meeting and the next time is end of March or if

1:00:55 ↗ those are placeholders for something. Right. That would be bad to give you guys two

1:00:59 ↗ weeks off right after I've told you that we're going to be so busy. Okay,

1:01:04 ↗ good question. And the one in May,

1:01:10 ↗ the Transportation Improvement Program, that's usually when

1:01:16 ↗ we but I'm really not sure. That's a public works piece and so they

1:01:21 ↗ bring it when they bring it and we just try to clear the decks for

1:01:27 ↗ when they bring it. But certainly you have some good questions to ask them this

1:01:32 ↗ year about the part that goes from Rainier right into Gilman because I thought that

1:01:37 ↗ was fascinating the other night. I had never heard that either, but then I'm not

1:01:42 ↗ in public works, so that was pretty interesting. Anything else? Do I have anything else

1:01:48 ↗ listed? If you know of anybody that is as brilliant

1:01:54 ↗ and captivating as yourselves, we are looking for folks to be on our

1:01:59 ↗ commissions. Is that time already? It is. And as you all are sitting here,

1:02:05 ↗ you know that you are the ones that have been brilliant this whole time. And

1:02:10 ↗ so if you have any clones that may want to join us in our exciting

1:02:15 ↗ work this year. You're saying that just so you don't have to raise our salary.

1:02:20 ↗ That's what you're saying. Yes, there is no salary raised this year, sadly. But we

1:02:25 ↗ could request an accommodation of some sort. Yeah, I don't even think we get

1:02:31 ↗ pins anymore, do we? Do you get pins anymore? I'm sorry. I love a good

1:02:37 ↗ button. That's a sad, that's a sad thing. Anything else? Thank you for being here

1:02:43 ↗ tonight. I really desperately needed a quorum. Thank you for having public comment. Thank you.

1:02:48 ↗ Thank you, two members of the public for coming in and bearing with us and

1:02:54 ↗ for all you at home watching. Right. And the other comment, we do actually have

1:02:59 ↗ the transportation element. that has all the pieces and parts that you mentioned about growing

1:03:05 ↗ and that, but it's the smaller piece that's the implementation that talks about when we

1:03:11 ↗ scrolled through it, the mode split and more transit and important things, but the basic

1:03:17 ↗ parts are there. But good comments. Good to have folks here. Thank you. And I'll

1:03:22 ↗ let you know. And that case will adjourn at 7:40. Maybe we just need a

1:03:28 ↗ smaller commission. Look how efficient we were tonight.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF