Planning Policy Commission – Special Meeting · Thursday, November 30, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: City Council Committee of the Whole · Oct 24, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Oct 26, 2017

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 – Lindsey 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 – Victoria Hunt see IMC 18.03. 2018 – AJ McGauley 2018 – Althea Saldanha 2018 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 9, 2017

packet pp.5–11

Previously discussed: City Council Committee of the Whole · Oct 24, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Oct 26, 2017

▶ Watch from 1:14 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

is whether the southeast corner of Gilman should be included in Central Issaquah or Olde Town. McGAULEY agreed to Niven’s suggestion that participants hold their questions on boundaries for now.

Minutes of November 16, 2017

packet pp.13

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Nov 9, 2017

▶ Watch from 2:54 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 11-16-17 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page 1

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Central Issaquah Plan District Visions, (R)

Keith Niven, Development Services Director Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager · packet pp.15–29

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Nov 9, 2017

▶ Watch from 3:19:03 Open packet at p.15 ↗

5030 segments .txt ↗

0:30 ↗ good evening and welcome to the November

0:34 ↗ 30th meeting the Planning Policy

0:36 ↗ Commission this is a continuation of our

0:39 ↗ November 9th meeting discussing the

0:42 ↗ central area planned for Issaquah so we

0:47 ↗ have with us tonight three members of

0:51 ↗ the Commission the task force that

0:55 ↗ created the onion and we also have asked

1:03 ↗ to join us three members of the

1:04 ↗ community two members of the community

1:08 ↗ so we have a full house tonight so as

1:12 ↗ always we have to start the meeting with

1:14 ↗ the approval of the minutes and we have

1:17 ↗ two minutes to approve the one from

1:20 ↗ November the 9th so I have a motion to

1:24 ↗ approve the minutes from November the

1:26 ↗ 9th I move to approve the minutes from

1:31 ↗ November 9th a second second

1:37 ↗ all those discussion any changes all

1:43 ↗ those in favor say aye

1:44 ↗ aye and we also had a little different

1:48 ↗ meeting on November 16th where some of

1:51 ↗ members went out to see the community so

1:56 ↗ there's an informed discussion for the

2:00 ↗ planning for the central area so we have

2:04 ↗ a minutes that have to be approved from

2:08 ↗ a that night and I know some of you were

2:11 ↗ there so even you all have the

2:14 ↗ opportunity to vote the people who were

2:17 ↗ there besides the regular members so I

2:20 ↗ need a motion to approve the minutes of

2:23 ↗ November 16th where are those medicines

2:29 ↗ page 13 there the minutes of the of the

2:33 ↗ queue oh I see this isn't okay all right

2:36 ↗ now most ubers second time all those in

2:40 ↗ favor no discussion any but everybody in

2:42 ↗ favor say aye

2:43 ↗ aye motion carries so with that I'm

2:48 ↗ going to turn over the meeting to our

2:50 ↗ illustrious planning department head ed

2:57 ↗ guy director Keith Niven so please tell

3:04 ↗ us some of the changes that you've made

3:06 ↗ since our last meeting thank you I hope

3:10 ↗ everybody had a good Thanksgiving

3:11 ↗ welcome back to work tonight's a

3:14 ↗ heavy-lift we're gonna go through the so

3:19 ↗ we met y'all had band tours and y'all

3:24 ↗ made it safely out through your van tour

3:26 ↗ so that was glad about that and we also

3:30 ↗ had kind of a primer on this or a first

3:33 ↗ step where we talked about the existing

3:36 ↗ central plan visions and we had some

3:39 ↗ conversations about ten districts ten

3:42 ↗ neighborhoods you know does that make

3:44 ↗ sense we talked about train stations and

3:48 ↗ other things and so we took those

3:51 ↗ comments as well as some of the comments

3:54 ↗ that we heard during the tours and we

3:57 ↗ gave you guys

3:58 ↗ version 2.0 or 7.0 or 20-point Oh

4:02 ↗ whatever version it happens to be and so

4:04 ↗ tonight what I'd like to do is kind of

4:06 ↗ take you guys through a series of

4:09 ↗ questions rather than just opening it up

4:12 ↗ and saying did you love it which I think

4:15 ↗ would land us in 20 different

4:17 ↗ conversations pointing 20 different

4:19 ↗ directions I thought we would have a

4:21 ↗ little bit more structured conversation

4:23 ↗ which is one of the reasons why I asked

4:24 ↗ for the opportunity and I appreciate the

4:27 ↗ chair giving me the the grace to allow

4:30 ↗ the public to be up here because I think

4:32 ↗ there'll be it would be best to have

4:34 ↗ public comment at each topic rather than

4:37 ↗ waiting til the end when hopefully we've

4:39 ↗ all decided what we want to do so

4:42 ↗ here we go hang on to your hats so I

4:45 ↗ want to just just to start with a

4:48 ↗ reminder you know so central Issaquah

4:52 ↗ plan is a part of the comprehensive plan

4:56 ↗ and it is a sub area plan for basically

5:00 ↗ a big section of the valley floor and

5:02 ↗ that plan is comprised of guiding

5:06 ↗ principals and district visions and

5:09 ↗ policies and then ultimately it it lands

5:13 ↗ in development and design standards and

5:15 ↗ really what we're talking about tonight

5:17 ↗ is just kind of this one this one planet

5:24 ↗ that's circling out here on the right

5:27 ↗ and and really we have to keep in mind

5:30 ↗ or I'd like for us to keep in mind that

5:32 ↗ these other pieces are still part of the

5:33 ↗ plan they are still there this that

5:37 ↗ we're doing this evening is not a

5:39 ↗ standalone document and it's not really

5:41 ↗ intended to be a standalone document

5:43 ↗ when we're done with it the intent that

5:46 ↗ I have is the section on districts in

5:48 ↗ the in the central de quoi plan now we

5:52 ↗ rip those pages out we put these new

5:54 ↗ ones in and the plan is still the plan I

5:56 ↗ mean I think generally speaking the the

5:59 ↗ vision for the plan itself is is we're

6:04 ↗ kind of we all believe in that we all

6:07 ↗ are expecting that to be the future of

6:11 ↗ central Issaquah I think the ask was do

6:14 ↗ we need to clarify the vision so that we

6:17 ↗ have more predictability that we're

6:19 ↗ actually going to get there all right

6:21 ↗ and so why I listed these things out

6:24 ↗ here on the left architecture urban

6:26 ↗ design manual vertical mix you

6:28 ↗ structured parking inclusionary

6:30 ↗ requirements all of those things came

6:34 ↗ through you guys they are all what I

6:37 ↗ would consider evolutions in the

6:40 ↗ document itself but they're over here in

6:44 ↗ development and design standards so

6:45 ↗ these are this is the nuts and bolts the

6:47 ↗ regulations of what developers have to

6:49 ↗ do there's no ifs ands or buts they tend

6:52 ↗ to be black and white they should be

6:54 ↗ black and white

6:55 ↗ if they aren't black and white then we

6:56 ↗ have problems this over here this is a

6:59 ↗ little bit more it's it's a little bit

7:03 ↗ more directional in that this is what we

7:06 ↗ want you to do but there might be a

7:07 ↗ couple different ways to get there and

7:09 ↗ so with that here's my first question so

7:15 ↗ the document that you got that was part

7:16 ↗ of the packet the first part of this

7:20 ↗ document is really intended to kind of

7:22 ↗ tell a story telling a story of why we

7:25 ↗ were updating the visions and I think my

7:31 ↗ first question for you and I think maybe

7:35 ↗ it makes sense for the Commission and

7:38 ↗ task force to have some conversation and

7:40 ↗ then ask for the public to see if they

7:42 ↗ have any comments and then let you guys

7:44 ↗ kind of finish off your thoughts on this

7:46 ↗ so this is I don't want to spend a ton

7:49 ↗ of time on the story because I don't

7:51 ↗ know that the story is really where we

7:55 ↗ should be spending most of our time I

7:57 ↗ think it should be clear in as a

8:00 ↗ stepping stone to the actual

8:03 ↗ neighborhood descriptions but it was

8:09 ↗ really more to document why we are doing

8:16 ↗ what we're doing so I guess looking for

8:18 ↗ comments thoughts from the Commission

8:21 ↗ first and the taskforce on kind of the

8:24 ↗ story so I think in general it works I

8:30 ↗ think the piece that's missing for me I

8:32 ↗ went back and watched the Landon Shore

8:35 ↗ meeting when you presented it to Council

8:38 ↗ I think one of the things that's missing

8:40 ↗ then is

8:42 ↗ ey for the community in order to get the

8:45 ↗ community buy-in and so I think talking

8:48 ↗ about why why we're looking at density

8:51 ↗ and describing these neighborhoods as a

8:54 ↗ way to preserve the hillsides etc etc I

8:58 ↗ think that would be a good addition

9:01 ↗ tagging on to that I had the same

9:04 ↗ thought and I meant it a little

9:07 ↗ different I we have a central Issaquah

9:11 ↗ district vision and such like that but

9:13 ↗ we don't know have the overall benefit

9:16 ↗ to the community

9:17 ↗ why should current residents support

9:20 ↗ this and I just jotted down the number

9:23 ↗ one goal of the CIP plan should be to

9:26 ↗ sustain and enhance quality of life for

9:29 ↗ its akua's residents even as we grow in

9:33 ↗ other words those people who are already

9:36 ↗ here we're not forgetting about you to

9:39 ↗ accommodate thousands of newcomers we

9:41 ↗ want to sustain and enhance your quality

9:44 ↗ of life - even as we enable more growth

9:48 ↗ over the next 30 years so I think that

9:51 ↗ needs to be in there to let people

9:52 ↗ living here today know that they're a

9:56 ↗ priority - and I'd like to add on I

9:59 ↗ think there's a really key part that's

10:01 ↗ missing from all of this and that's the

10:04 ↗ jobs piece because we focus so much on

10:07 ↗ what the town is going to look like

10:10 ↗ physically the type of residents we're

10:13 ↗ going to have a mixed-use and so on but

10:14 ↗ what is the economic what what does a

10:19 ↗ job market are going to look like is it

10:21 ↗ going to be retail low income retail is

10:24 ↗ it going to be at median 100% of median

10:27 ↗ income are they going to be office jobs

10:30 ↗ are they going to be commercial jobs and

10:33 ↗ I think that's a really key piece

10:35 ↗ because right now we are at almost 100

10:38 ↗ percent

10:39 ↗ of what our targets are supposed to be

10:41 ↗ our eighth target a hundred percent of

10:43 ↗ our residential unit target and our job

10:46 ↗ market I don't have the numbers but I

10:48 ↗ think they're only at 10%

10:52 ↗ but not much higher than that so I think

10:57 ↗ that's addressed in the economic

10:59 ↗ vitality section but maybe just beefing

11:01 ↗ that up to talk when we're talking about

11:04 ↗ this story portion of the beginning not

11:06 ↗ going into right Mitchell okay so my

11:09 ↗ feedback is just I think we're missing

11:12 ↗ jobs I think that's fair you know I

11:14 ↗ think that you know clearly I think

11:19 ↗ partially because you know we were

11:22 ↗ really trying to get housing on the

11:24 ↗ valley floor there was definitely a big

11:26 ↗ slant towards the residential part of

11:29 ↗ this and then we started talking about

11:31 ↗ placemaking and turning them into

11:32 ↗ neighborhoods but you know in my mind

11:34 ↗ they are neighborhoods with jobs too so

11:37 ↗ that's I think I think we can definitely

11:40 ↗ add more flavour associated with jobs I

11:43 ↗ think that's a valid point so my

11:46 ↗ impression was that a lot of these

11:48 ↗ pieces that people are pointing out our

11:50 ↗ in the first pages but they're sort of

11:54 ↗ they're sort of in two different places

11:56 ↗ because there's the fresh look which I

12:00 ↗ really like the way that's organized

12:01 ↗ with the graphics and then there's also

12:04 ↗ the first page which has the plan vision

12:07 ↗ broken down into sections so I think

12:10 ↗ that it does tell a story but it's a

12:12 ↗ little bit repeating and kind of in a

12:14 ↗ different way and so maybe it could just

12:16 ↗ be made more succinct so that people can

12:18 ↗ say this is really the economic part

12:20 ↗ this is really the liveable part and my

12:22 ↗ other comment on the first pages is I

12:25 ↗ think I would reorder them also I think

12:29 ↗ livable instead of distinctive coming

12:32 ↗ first livable coming first from from a

12:38 ↗ storytelling standpoint I like how

12:40 ↗ you're starting to play around with

12:41 ↗ district first sub district first

12:44 ↗ neighborhood

12:46 ↗ and I think that can be leveraged a

12:48 ↗ little bit maybe a little more

12:50 ↗ explicitly because I think as the since

12:53 ↗ since the Commission is has recommended

12:55 ↗ kind of merging the growth area into one

12:58 ↗ district that there are very specific

13:00 ↗ district-wide visions but then there's

13:03 ↗ also a concern about will not abandon

13:05 ↗ the distinctive characteristics of the

13:07 ↗ sub districts I think I would recommend

13:09 ↗ going all-in on the using word choice to

13:13 ↗ drive that where districts are these

13:15 ↗ four big parcels that we're talking

13:17 ↗ through and then using neighborhoods to

13:19 ↗ refer to or previously the much smaller

13:21 ↗ districts I think you I think you kind

13:24 ↗ of you can tell that's how whoever as

13:26 ↗ this was being written that that was

13:28 ↗ kind of being done I think that's a

13:30 ↗ really helpful way to think about it

13:31 ↗ that we have formal districts and then

13:33 ↗ within those districts particularly the

13:35 ↗ central district or the growth area

13:37 ↗ district there are then neighborhoods

13:39 ↗ where those neighborhoods are more or

13:40 ↗ less the various constituent districts

13:43 ↗ that we had in Prior drafts

13:45 ↗ I think the using that kind of because

13:47 ↗ we spent a lot of time trying to decide

13:49 ↗ if we wanted to call the districts vs.

13:50 ↗ neighborhoods

13:51 ↗ I think referring to the growth area as

13:54 ↗ a district and then the four or five sub

13:56 ↗ pieces as neighborhoods might be helpful

13:58 ↗ way to leverage both of those words

14:00 ↗ you'd still be able to refer to

14:02 ↗ neighborhoods having a particular

14:04 ↗ distinctiveness while also having a

14:06 ↗ district distinctiveness and identity in

14:09 ↗ place making it so forth

14:15 ↗ I have to jump in on this one the

14:19 ↗ foundation from the task forces work I

14:22 ↗ mean we floundered for three or four

14:23 ↗ meetings until we coalesced around this

14:26 ↗ whole concept of the green necklace and

14:29 ↗ yet that's not really documented much in

14:32 ↗ this plan there's one little paragraph

14:33 ↗ but even that doesn't capture it and

14:36 ↗ then when you get into each neighborhood

14:38 ↗ vision it's not even mentioned but there

14:40 ↗ are specific segments of it like it's a

14:43 ↗ quad trail or other things that are

14:45 ↗ mentioned but it's not capturing the

14:49 ↗ foundational element of what this whole

14:52 ↗ plan was about which is that every

14:55 ↗ resident even as we grow should have

14:57 ↗ nature at their doorstep be able to walk

14:59 ↗ out there high-rise condo door to this

15:02 ↗ green necklace of connected trails and

15:05 ↗ open space that follows tippets Creek to

15:07 ↗ the state park over to Issaquah Creek up

15:10 ↗ into the confluence park up maple in

15:12 ↗ Juniper trail over to Tibbets Valley

15:15 ↗ Park and or other areas but we're not

15:19 ↗ capturing that and that should be a

15:20 ↗ foundational element so I'm gonna ask

15:22 ↗ you to hang on to that green necklace is

15:25 ↗ question one B because there were some

15:30 ↗ other comments about the green necklace

15:31 ↗ so I think we're gonna deal with it

15:33 ↗ specifically next once we kind of get

15:35 ↗ the other story comments so hang on to

15:38 ↗ that can PPC or task force any other

15:42 ↗ comments here before we give the public

15:45 ↗ an opportunity to say what they short

15:48 ↗ concise comments about the story from

15:51 ↗ from a storytelling standpoint if you're

15:54 ↗ gonna show this picture with a bunch of

15:56 ↗ colors make sure those colors either

15:58 ↗ have meaning or a legend or don't have

16:00 ↗ the colors and I'm wondering why there's

16:02 ↗ different shades of red and I know that

16:05 ↗ those colors should include green for

16:08 ↗ all the existing parks and open spaces

16:10 ↗ that are in that central area so that

16:12 ↗ that's known and it becomes clear that

16:15 ↗ they're part of what this green necklace

16:17 ↗ will become so that the green

16:18 ↗ should be shown I was just lazy and used

16:21 ↗ a zoning map but I don't disagree with

16:23 ↗ you hate I think that's fine but I think

16:28 ↗ for the final so do you have a

16:30 ↗ preference on should it show anything or

16:33 ↗ just geography I would rather I think I

16:36 ↗ would rather go with geography or

16:37 ↗ picture like the one Barry yeah I

16:39 ↗ wouldn't I wouldn't show zoning because

16:41 ↗ the zoning is a derivative of the

16:44 ↗ visions you don't want to start the

16:45 ↗ vision with zonings I agree I think but

16:49 ↗ I think it should show that okay yeah

16:51 ↗ maybe so I would just I think that's

16:53 ↗ probably best I think it should

16:55 ↗ definitely show the neighborhood's

16:58 ↗ because they're referenced throughout

16:59 ↗ the document and I don't I don't think

17:01 ↗ people would necessarily know where the

17:03 ↗ boundaries would be unless that was at

17:05 ↗ least on that one one more quick one I'm

17:11 ↗ gonna go back to what Lindsey pointed

17:12 ↗ out in her first comment and if you look

17:14 ↗ at the second from the bottom paragraph

17:17 ↗ page 17 which is capturing this this

17:21 ↗ story that sentence says finally growth

17:25 ↗ must not just fit in with our existing

17:27 ↗ community it must make it better and not

17:29 ↗ be a detriment to the existing residents

17:32 ↗ and businesses that exist within an

17:34 ↗ adjacent to central Issaquah that

17:37 ↗ shouldn't be a finally that should be

17:39 ↗ right up front that should be the

17:41 ↗ introductory paragraph which might say

17:44 ↗ something like Issaquah will grow over

17:46 ↗ the next 30 years per the visions

17:49 ↗ outlined in this plan

17:50 ↗ however growth must not just fit in with

17:53 ↗ our existing blah blah blah I would put

17:56 ↗ that right up front and again that again

17:58 ↗ is telling our existing residents we

18:01 ↗ care about you and we don't want to lose

18:02 ↗ the character and quality of life in our

18:05 ↗ community we want to make it better even

18:07 ↗ as we grow then that statement is really

18:09 ↗ well done right would it be helpful to

18:11 ↗ you to even lean into it anymore and use

18:13 ↗ language that we're gonna harness growth

18:15 ↗ to improve so it's not simply that okay

18:18 ↗ we've got a growth coming let's fit it

18:20 ↗ and make it better it's okay we've got

18:22 ↗ growth coming let's take advantage of

18:24 ↗ fact that these particular districts are

18:25 ↗ going to grow to facilitate a better

18:29 ↗ neighborhood in a better city so you use

18:32 ↗ some language around around harness and

18:34 ↗ in capture because because I think a lot

18:36 ↗ of the a lot of the deliver not

18:37 ↗ deliverables a lot of the measures at

18:40 ↗ City implementation actions and measures

18:42 ↗ of success you know the city is only

18:43 ↗ able to do that either because a they're

18:46 ↗ working with a particular development as

18:48 ↗ it occurs where B is going to be

18:50 ↗ harnessing extra money that's coming in

18:52 ↗ through that so I think I think taking

18:55 ↗ that paragraph is opportunity to make

18:56 ↗ very clear that a lot of these things

18:58 ↗ we're going to achieve not simply

19:01 ↗ because we're growing but we're actually

19:02 ↗ gonna be I'm not saying that right it's

19:05 ↗ not simply we're not doing this reacting

19:08 ↗ new growth we're actually going to be

19:10 ↗ able to do it because we're growing I

19:12 ↗ know that makes sense but it's kind of

19:13 ↗ it's spending a little bit positive like

19:15 ↗ a little bit more positive and in kind

19:17 ↗ of turning the air the other direction

19:18 ↗ whilst keeping them connected but have

19:20 ↗ employee other way it has a little look

19:23 ↗ to fly or anything and then I'm not to

19:26 ↗ nitpick but then the exact following

19:28 ↗ sentence it's semi colon comma after

19:31 ↗ occupancy period so this is true during

19:36 ↗ construction and after occupancy right

19:40 ↗ that sentence doesn't make any sense so

19:43 ↗ the one that Rick correct just read so

19:49 ↗ the the second last paragraph on page 17

19:51 ↗ so he read the first suit two sentences

19:54 ↗ or the first sentence and then the

19:56 ↗ second sentence which he didn't read and

19:59 ↗ I think it's missing a bunch of words

20:01 ↗ really yeah this is construction and

20:05 ↗ after occupants makes sense of other

20:07 ↗ people so so you want so you want growth

20:11 ↗ to fit in both during construction

20:13 ↗ because construction can be a big impact

20:16 ↗ to adjacent occupied uses right and then

20:20 ↗ after it's done and people are living

20:22 ↗ there or people are working there you

20:24 ↗ want it to fit in with whatever happens

20:26 ↗ to be adjacent to or nearby right so I

20:29 ↗ think you're I think you're trying to

20:31 ↗ address that fit piece both during

20:34 ↗ construction because that can be a big

20:36 ↗ impact to an

20:36 ↗ hood but also after it's done okay like

20:41 ↗ that I think there's one other aspect

20:43 ↗ that we are we're missing within these

20:45 ↗ four subsets and that is our parks and

20:49 ↗ our streams

20:50 ↗ we have fish bearing streams and so

20:52 ↗ there's a conversation that we should

20:55 ↗ make sure that a certain percentage of

20:58 ↗ our streams continue to have fish in

21:01 ↗ them and accessible to parks so we we're

21:06 ↗ not emphasizing enough and parks within

21:09 ↗ these four bullet points because isn't

21:13 ↗ that kind of the I mean that's what is

21:16 ↗ that's what people think right now

21:18 ↗ there's a clause we have all these parts

21:20 ↗ and we want to focus on these parks but

21:23 ↗ we're not putting that language in this

21:26 ↗ vision strongly enough or frequently

21:31 ↗ enough yeah and that's what I had given

21:33 ↗ feedback before the last meeting that I

21:35 ↗ thought in the environmental section we

21:37 ↗ really needed to talk about what

21:38 ↗ wildlife corridors which would could

21:42 ↗ easily end up along the streams but that

21:45 ↗ that needed to be part of that because

21:47 ↗ the whole reason we got into this also

21:49 ↗ central area plan is we didn't want a

21:51 ↗ bunch of parking lots you know the the

21:54 ↗ we wanted to try and make more pervious

21:57 ↗ service throughout the valley floor as

21:59 ↗ we grew to and not you know have all

22:01 ↗ these vast amounts of parking lots so

22:05 ↗ under the environmental I would like to

22:07 ↗ see wildlife corridors and passive open

22:12 ↗ spaces as added there is that in

22:17 ↗ question that is on are we getting off

22:20 ↗ track a little bit to put all these

22:23 ↗ things in it

22:25 ↗ yeah at the story level well it's

22:29 ↗ starting what this is the this is the de

22:31 ↗ sub that plan I mean that was part of

22:35 ↗ those pages is it on page two my page -

22:41 ↗ yeah right

22:43 ↗ why do I think that was the question for

22:45 ↗ Keith like a we are we starting to bring

22:47 ↗ up stuff that we should save for a later

22:49 ↗ slide

22:50 ↗ getting off track we're not gonna get it

22:53 ↗ you know all of those comments are

22:56 ↗ important and should be added I mean I

22:59 ↗ think you guys are on the right track

23:00 ↗ but I think we need to just go through

23:02 ↗ this and then well I was actually

23:04 ↗ mentioning the park piece because the

23:07 ↗ parts are really important to us and

23:08 ↗ it's not even mentioned in the first

23:10 ↗ four bullet points here which is really

23:13 ↗ this question I thought that's why

23:16 ↗ that's kind of those are our jewels as

23:19 ↗ our perk space we're kind of avoiding

23:23 ↗ that community is gonna understand

23:28 ↗ exactly what this and does unless they

23:31 ↗ can see something this language I think

23:36 ↗ is awesome

23:37 ↗ I think it's creative and it means you

23:42 ↗ know taking it at face value it creates

23:46 ↗ a perfect place but I think if I was

23:49 ↗ just a normal wasn't looking at this and

23:53 ↗ just lived in South Co I would think

23:57 ↗ well gee that's really nice but it

23:59 ↗ doesn't affect me because

24:01 ↗ I can't see what it's going to be it

24:04 ↗ says it's going to be perfect but I

24:06 ↗ can't see that there's going to be parks

24:08 ↗ around them and that stuff so I think

24:13 ↗ the first part is is I think the story

24:17 ↗ is fine with a few little comments and

24:19 ↗ add additions so I'm gonna I'm gonna

24:22 ↗ just put the fish on the sideboard I

24:25 ↗ don't disagree that fish are important

24:26 ↗ is it why I'm not sure that they had a

24:30 ↗ space in the original plan called out

24:34 ↗ I'm not saying they shouldn't I just

24:36 ↗ don't know where to stick it right now

24:37 ↗ so I'm gonna I wrote fish I'm not losing

24:41 ↗ it well I think I just want to bring up

24:50 ↗ the fish are actually really important

24:52 ↗ piece because as we develop and grow and

24:55 ↗ these districts expand and the

24:57 ↗ population explodes this town is about

25:00 ↗ fish it's our icon and we have the fish

25:03 ↗ hatchery well if we have so much growth

25:06 ↗ in so much density and we're missing the

25:12 ↗ stream development and protecting those

25:14 ↗ streams to make sure that they are fish

25:17 ↗ bearing and maybe having controls on

25:20 ↗ growth to ensure that they are going to

25:22 ↗ continue to be fish bearing I concur

25:27 ↗ with Mary that I think wildlife

25:29 ↗ corridors really need to be established

25:30 ↗ in the environment and so before moving

25:32 ↗ on with the green necklace I think it's

25:33 ↗ important to talk about that as an

25:35 ↗ actual value I think fish are included

25:37 ↗ in that and I think it's better to have

25:39 ↗ a broader spectrum of wildlife because

25:41 ↗ it's not just the iconic image that we

25:44 ↗ have it's about how we live and interact

25:46 ↗ in our space and I think that it's

25:47 ↗ better to talk about wildlife corridors

25:49 ↗ as something that's an actual physical

25:51 ↗ space as we all know it is and it's

25:53 ↗ something that's stringing and vital to

25:55 ↗ maintaining our character so having a

25:58 ↗ broad having a little more broader

25:59 ↗ language about that in the environment

26:01 ↗ section I think is very important

26:03 ↗ I don't I don't want to derail this

26:13 ↗ conversation but I think I disagree this

26:15 ↗ is central maybe I'm thinking too much

26:17 ↗ central like the growth district but

26:19 ↗ this is supposed to be like a dense

26:20 ↗ walkable vibrant urban neighborhood

26:23 ↗ there's not gonna be like deer and

26:25 ↗ raccoons three meetings ago I saw a

26:29 ↗ black bear not two blocks from here you

26:31 ↗ know there's of our community and I

26:33 ↗ think that even though we're not saying

26:34 ↗ we're prioritizing them above or instead

26:37 ↗ of growth I just think that there's

26:39 ↗ something that should be included since

26:40 ↗ we especially have an environment

26:41 ↗ section it's not like we have to create

26:42 ↗ a special wildlife area forum it's

26:45 ↗ already laid out for us right into

26:46 ↗ environment so that's why I'm still not

26:50 ↗ buying I think for the city Vista quoi

26:52 ↗ absolutely wild left orders to make are

26:54 ↗ incredibly important to make sure

26:56 ↗ animals can move between the different

26:58 ↗ hill parks into the lake and back map

27:00 ↗ but it specifically for central I don't

27:02 ↗ think it makes any sense here's the

27:03 ↗ here's the problem I see and that is if

27:05 ↗ we ghost if we focus on the core guess

27:09 ↗ where all the streams go through the

27:11 ↗ core so if we create a core that is not

27:14 ↗ fish habitat friendly we're not going to

27:17 ↗ have a fish hatchery but I have salmon

27:21 ↗ no one is saying we repealed state law

27:23 ↗ that will protect the streams it's

27:25 ↗ through the streams will be fine I don't

27:26 ↗ think I don't think we need to be

27:28 ↗ building any things above and beyond

27:30 ↗ what's basic we need to make sure that

27:33 ↗ there are controls that the development

27:36 ↗ isn't going to move the fish away I

27:38 ↗ don't think I don't think we're quite

27:39 ↗ there Rob but I do think we're just

27:41 ↗ talking about story right now and I

27:42 ↗ think some of us think that's an

27:43 ↗ important part of our story so to get

27:45 ↗ back anyways and just as a reminder I

27:47 ↗ think you're right you are talking about

27:49 ↗ just a story and getting it in the story

27:50 ↗ piece but there is a goal in six

27:53 ↗ policies to talk specifically about the

27:56 ↗ riparian corridor the wildlife corridor

27:58 ↗ protecting the stream so that's in the

27:59 ↗ plan itself but yes if it need it may

28:02 ↗ need to be mentioned up front as well

28:04 ↗ so we can just add fish I think I've got

28:08 ↗ I've got wildlife natural we will we

28:11 ↗ will add to the environment section so

28:17 ↗ there is a point in time where we can

28:19 ↗ make the rules and regulations but not

28:22 ↗ here this is yeah this is not the place

28:24 ↗ for rules but so okay I'm going to pivot

28:29 ↗ and give the public an opportunity to

28:34 ↗ give a brief comments on this section

28:37 ↗ just the story part of the districts for

28:41 ↗ those that came in late Steve and John

28:44 ↗ if you guys want to come up to the table

28:46 ↗ you're welcome to we're not going to

28:48 ↗ walk up and back

28:49 ↗ but Steve the reason is we're gonna talk

28:52 ↗ about these things one at a time and at

28:54 ↗ the end it's going to be probably a

28:57 ↗ little late for public comments so we're

28:58 ↗ gonna leave the public comment in during

29:01 ↗ the conversation so if you want come up

29:04 ↗ and I'm gonna let Connie go first if she

29:06 ↗ wants I think we need a number for under

29:15 ↗ the reasons why this community

29:18 ↗ conversation I think one of the problems

29:20 ↗ was as there was no linkage between the

29:24 ↗ vision and the implementation so I think

29:27 ↗ we need to strengthen the linkage

29:29 ↗ between the two and we can use these

29:31 ↗ district visions as that tool because

29:37 ↗ number three just says we're going to

29:38 ↗ describe them I think we need to go

29:41 ↗ beyond that and then say and and we this

29:45 ↗ is how we're going to use those

29:47 ↗ descriptions I think the environment

29:50 ↗ would fit nicely into an increased

29:52 ↗ description under sustainability because

29:55 ↗ I think that you're the sustainability

29:58 ↗ is a little thin and could be expanded

30:01 ↗ but I also agree that this whole big

30:05 ↗ first description of those four

30:08 ↗ characteristics could be collapsed into

30:12 ↗ cool little charts with the colors

30:15 ↗ because it's you're repeating it a few

30:18 ↗ times and I think it would be easier to

30:19 ↗ understand for people as they go through

30:21 ↗ I agree with the majority of what

30:25 ↗ everybody else is saying and support

30:28 ↗ that that's it David thank you I think

30:33 ↗ you know strengthening vision to reality

30:37 ↗ if we just have the vision we're still

30:40 ↗ going to get Gateway projects that be

30:43 ↗ concerned I have green necklace next

30:47 ↗ we're not there yet okay

30:49 ↗ we really will do that next promise

30:51 ↗ that's a big one I also want to make a

30:52 ↗ comment you don't have to comment what

30:57 ↗ tunes it's not a requirement

31:12 ↗ [Music]

31:13 ↗ ice-t Paris or anything should be late

31:16 ↗ or I'm sorry for being late

31:18 ↗ key thanks for setting the stage for me

31:20 ↗ to make sure I didn't enamel too far I

31:22 ↗ agree with a lot of the comments that I

31:25 ↗ heard as far as I'm concerned we're

31:27 ↗ gonna lose a part of those

31:28 ↗ characteristics of what those ten

31:29 ↗ neighborhoods were by dissolving them

31:31 ↗ down to four but not talking about those

31:32 ↗ things I like Connie's comment and

31:34 ↗ increasing the linkage between our

31:36 ↗ storytelling and how we're going to make

31:38 ↗ that happen we're gonna lose some things

31:43 ↗ otherwise and we need so we need Burbage

31:47 ↗ and code that talks about making those

31:48 ↗ things happen so I'm not gonna go back

31:57 ↗ and I have things and environment I'm

31:59 ↗ gonna set those aside for now and not

32:00 ↗ talk about those that's why pre-shared

32:03 ↗ key to setting the stage for what we

32:05 ↗ were doing I'll reserve my other

32:11 ↗ comments for present ok so here we go

32:17 ↗ question 1 B so before I flip the slide

32:21 ↗ I'm gonna talk for a second so right now

32:25 ↗ we there was there was comment about

32:28 ↗ there's been reoccurring comment about

32:31 ↗ the green necklace and the green

32:33 ↗ necklace is is you know there's kind of

32:37 ↗ a broadly diagrammed map in the plan and

32:42 ↗ there wasn't really a you know it and so

32:46 ↗ what we tried to do was was to encompass

32:50 ↗ a better description of what the green

32:52 ↗ necklace is intended to be and that's

32:54 ↗ what's in this paragraph and what we

32:56 ↗ heard on some early comments back on

32:58 ↗ this version was yeah but we need a map

33:01 ↗ we all love Maps and so we we went ahead

33:07 ↗ and did a stab at a map and I think so

33:11 ↗ so the question is going to be does the

33:14 ↗ map helpers the map actually take us in

33:16 ↗ the wrong direction

33:17 ↗ and we need to have very open

33:19 ↗ conversation of

33:21 ↗ the map so so what would the graphic so

33:31 ↗ we can work on the graphic the question

33:33 ↗ is does it help to have a graphic and if

33:37 ↗ so we'll work on the graphic having some

33:41 ↗ comments on how to make the graphic read

33:44 ↗ a little bit better but this was a a an

33:50 ↗ attack by staff to try and translate the

33:53 ↗ paragraph into something more imageable

33:56 ↗ now in some ways that's good and in some

34:00 ↗ ways it takes out kind of that image and

34:02 ↗ michaelis was and you might be

34:04 ↗ disappointed or you might be super

34:06 ↗ thrilled so I'm gonna stop talking is

34:10 ↗ this helpful or not and if it's helpful

34:14 ↗ how do we make it as helpful as it can

34:17 ↗ be if this particular image isn't what

34:20 ↗ y'all had in mind so I think it's

34:23 ↗ helpful it needs to be a little more

34:26 ↗ accurate for example where you've got

34:28 ↗ Pickering barn and Darce Park and all

34:31 ↗ that that's where you would route the

34:33 ↗ green necklace not over there on the

34:34 ↗ East Lake Sammamish trail so you'd want

34:37 ↗ to so this section right here can

34:39 ↗ migrate to the southwest yeah and run

34:42 ↗ along this yep yeah and connect over to

34:45 ↗ confluence park and then maple juniper

34:49 ↗ trail over to Tibbets Valley Park should

34:53 ↗ probably show a connector to Tiger

34:55 ↗ Mountain and squawk Mountain just a

34:58 ↗ hypothetical connector like you do to

35:01 ↗ cougar same thing for squawk and tiger

35:05 ↗ but you're capturing the essence which

35:08 ↗ is the green necklace was envisioned to

35:11 ↗ route along the Tippit's Creek corridor

35:14 ↗ through Lake Sammamish State Park back

35:16 ↗ up through the Issaquah Creek corridor

35:18 ↗ and the missing link is only between

35:21 ↗ Tibbets Valley Park and over to probably

35:24 ↗ confluence park and or wherever

35:27 ↗ we want to have linkages to that section

35:29 ↗ and then connections to the outer grain

35:32 ↗ of Cougars squawk tiger and the regional

35:35 ↗ trails like East Lake Sammamish trail

35:37 ↗ high point trail in the i-90 trail if

35:40 ↗ you could capture that the diagram some

35:44 ↗ conceptional diagram like that I think

35:46 ↗ is very helpful and I would add the

35:52 ↗ verbage though the verbage about the

35:54 ↗ green necklace needs to be right up

35:56 ↗ front in the story and as a priority of

36:00 ↗ what the central Issaquah plan is all

36:02 ↗ about its foundation was that even as we

36:05 ↗ grow and turn into an urban center we're

36:08 ↗ gonna ensure nature at the doorstep of

36:11 ↗ every person with all which also allows

36:15 ↗ for commuting and access to transit and

36:19 ↗ walkable shopping and all sorts of

36:20 ↗ things but access to nature on an inner

36:23 ↗ and an outer green necklace that was the

36:26 ↗ concept would we want to add more

36:29 ↗ connectivity based on st3 coming or

36:36 ↗ accessibility so if st3 assuming that

36:38 ↗ the light rail is going to be under 90

36:42 ↗ would we want to add more connectors to

36:47 ↗ that area and do we want to go all the

36:49 ↗ way up to there's supposedly a train

36:52 ↗ station no I don't think the train

36:56 ↗ station belongs on this map I think so

36:59 ↗ there I think there's two things that I

37:01 ↗ would distinguish between them one is

37:03 ↗ the green necklace which is that nature

37:05 ↗ at your doorstep opportunity and I think

37:07 ↗ parts of that may be part of the

37:10 ↗ commuter network but not necessarily the

37:13 ↗ same thing and what you're getting at is

37:14 ↗ the commuter network of ped and bike

37:17 ↗ facilities that may be part of this but

37:20 ↗ maybe also separate from what the green

37:22 ↗ necklace actually is yeah I was thinking

37:25 ↗ of that you can have suctions which

37:27 ↗ would be shared yeah so is it planning

37:32 ↗ the

37:32 ↗ have a have a path all the way around

37:37 ↗ there or we gonna have pockets of parts

37:41 ↗ it's going to be a pathway could be as

37:48 ↗ wide as a path it could be a wide as

37:50 ↗ confluence apart it's connections

37:54 ↗ between all the green spaces which might

37:56 ↗ be large but where you can't have the

37:59 ↗ large spaces then you have a path that

38:02 ↗ connects them all it concept being much

38:06 ↗ like the mountains Tucson Greenway which

38:08 ↗ in Seattle is nothing more than an urban

38:10 ↗ trail in many places but that connects

38:13 ↗ you out to the broader mountain network

38:16 ↗ of trails and this is connections of

38:19 ↗ open space Tibbits Valley Park

38:21 ↗ confluence park Pickering barn and darts

38:25 ↗ Park all those areas but then connecting

38:28 ↗ them all by a trail that allows people

38:30 ↗ to flow between all of those I just like

38:33 ↗ more specifics on where that trails

38:36 ↗ gonna go well so that's what I was going

38:39 ↗ to say and I think there's there's a map

38:42 ↗ in the central is so called plan already

38:44 ↗ that's exhibit 7 page 43 that details

38:49 ↗ exactly where the proposed routes for

38:54 ↗ urban shared path proposed new parks

38:56 ↗ regional routes things like that I think

38:59 ↗ that level of detail is important but

39:02 ↗ also to be able to do some of the scale

39:05 ↗ here that talks about connecting out to

39:07 ↗ Cougar Mountain and the high point trail

39:09 ↗ but I think the details there are what

39:13 ↗ are going to be very important and what

39:15 ↗ map was that again so it's in the

39:17 ↗ central let's call plan yeah exhibit 7

39:20 ↗ page 43 yeah so that so that map is

39:24 ↗ absolutely critical part of the plans

39:27 ↗ right I like that the vision is a slight

39:30 ↗ abstraction away from that you need you

39:33 ↗ need both we need the detail plan with

39:36 ↗ detail deliverable

39:37 ↗ but you want that you want the elevator

39:39 ↗ you want the image that like it's simple

39:42 ↗ enough that people go okay the green

39:43 ↗ necklace it's this thing that loops

39:45 ↗ around it follows the creek and it's got

39:48 ↗ these Spurs that go off to the green

39:50 ↗ hillsides around and then there's also

39:53 ↗ these Spurs that head towards the center

39:56 ↗ which actually ends up being the train

39:58 ↗ station like it or not yes he told me

40:01 ↗ the bad guy and an answer to your

40:02 ↗ question I think we absolutely need a

40:04 ↗ graphic and I absolutely don't like this

40:06 ↗ graphic and I would encourage a

40:07 ↗ visualization that's more like a

40:09 ↗ spiderweb that I think might encourage a

40:11 ↗ little bit more of an interconnectedness

40:13 ↗ and a running through the community

40:16 ↗ rather than this kind of go piece and

40:19 ↗ but I'm not I'm not crazy about this

40:20 ↗ graphic I I agree mostly I like that we

40:25 ↗ still the necklace so it fits with the

40:26 ↗ the branding but I do think the little

40:29 ↗ whatever they are end up being if

40:31 ↗ they're little green circles not only do

40:33 ↗ they be coming out but you should be

40:34 ↗ able to get between the four boxes just

40:36 ↗ just just reduce the show that it

40:37 ↗ connects internally yeah it's more like

40:40 ↗ a spiderweb try to give you a little

40:42 ↗ more of a design aspect so we've been so

40:47 ↗ there's been green web green a cream

40:51 ↗ necklace screen net lantern I think we

40:56 ↗ can stick with the same name even if the

40:58 ↗ image accent being inspired our

41:01 ↗ community actually look like a string of

41:04 ↗ green pearls I hear you so what I heard

41:07 ↗ was that there should show some

41:10 ↗ connectivity internal to this because

41:12 ↗ that it's going to be that way anyway so

41:15 ↗ it'll make it feel more like it is in a

41:17 ↗ part of our community it runs throughout

41:18 ↗ it much like our streams rather than it

41:20 ↗ feeling like and then we have a loop you

41:23 ↗ know yeah so I'm in a number of our

41:26 ↗ meetings we've discussed the green

41:27 ↗ necklace and I think that this is very

41:28 ↗ helpful because I hadn't actually

41:30 ↗ thought of it this way

41:33 ↗ for and so I do think that it is very

41:35 ↗ helpful but I agree that it's kind of

41:40 ↗ like a cartoon on top of a realistic map

41:42 ↗ and I think that since we have these

41:44 ↗ green spaces there you could use just

41:46 ↗ more of a overlay so you could see

41:48 ↗ through the green necklace type area so

41:52 ↗ some sort of translucency and a little

41:54 ↗ less of the cartoony mix that would be

41:58 ↗ my recommendation but I do think it is

42:00 ↗ helpful to see it this way it can be

42:05 ↗ smaller pearls or emeralds I got to

42:09 ↗ throw this in because this is such a

42:11 ↗ priority to me that I actually met with

42:13 ↗ Jeff Watling the parks director today

42:15 ↗ specifically to ask about this and where

42:18 ↗ parks department is in defining the

42:20 ↗ route and all that we had a very good

42:23 ↗ discussion and I'm not gonna I'm not

42:24 ↗ gonna quote Jeff or put him on the spot

42:27 ↗ but I'd say that I would be confident

42:29 ↗ that the parks department perhaps

42:32 ↗ working with this achill helps trails

42:33 ↗ called cascade bike club and all these

42:36 ↗ other groups could within six months

42:39 ↗ define the desired specific route of

42:43 ↗ what the green necklace would be that

42:44 ↗ connects all these open spaces so that's

42:47 ↗ the timeframe we're talking about to go

42:48 ↗ from cartoon to a real plan and that's

42:52 ↗ what you know Jeff is all for that too I

42:55 ↗ think I'm not going to quote him or or

42:57 ↗ try to put him on the spot I'm surmising

43:00 ↗ that Jeff is for that and I'm certainly

43:02 ↗ for that and think that's where we got

43:04 ↗ to go is get to a specific detailed

43:06 ↗ route and plan that guides us or it's

43:09 ↗ never going to happen as each parcel

43:10 ↗ develops we'll lose that opportunity

43:12 ↗ that we needed so it's got to be down to

43:15 ↗ a parcel level as to where that routes

43:17 ↗ gonna go can I throw something out there

43:22 ↗ so I think the map is great I love it

43:24 ↗ but what's with the people demand we

43:26 ↗ gotta we gotta give people what they

43:28 ↗ want but would it be also useful to

43:30 ↗ actually use this exact framework so

43:34 ↗ today future for boxes

43:37 ↗ and then the action item is a measure of

43:39 ↗ success and have a full page on the

43:42 ↗ green necklace and so this picture could

43:45 ↗ be a quarter of the real estate but so

43:48 ↗ you have four pages one for each

43:50 ↗ district what else be able to have a

43:52 ↗ green necklace page that ends up having

43:55 ↗ the exact same sections I think at the

43:58 ↗ very minimum being able to say today

44:00 ↗ what's missing and the vision of it

44:04 ↗ because that was one thing that counsel

44:05 ↗ definitely mentioned in their meetings

44:09 ↗ was okay but how specifically do we get

44:12 ↗ there what's missing and so if we

44:15 ↗ indicate on there this central Issaquah

44:19 ↗ area is missing those 24/7 gathering

44:22 ↗ places and we have a few connectivity

44:26 ↗ points here that are needed that gives

44:29 ↗ us an implementation plan so I think I

44:32 ↗ think this this delivers the content

44:34 ↗ that everyone's asking for but I think

44:36 ↗ stylistically by having it actually end

44:38 ↗ up looking the same it shows that the

44:40 ↗ green necklace is co-equal with the four

44:43 ↗ district vision and going beyond just

44:45 ↗ the name to the district so I like your

44:47 ↗ lingo of going districts and

44:48 ↗ neighborhoods so I want to keep keep

44:49 ↗ that so going beyond the districts and

44:51 ↗ keeping us and following this and going

44:53 ↗ with the sustainability the things we

44:55 ↗ valued being able to having that space

44:57 ↗ to detail out the same way that we say

44:59 ↗ our stories nice but it doesn't say

45:01 ↗ everything we want to say if we have

45:02 ↗ this layout then we're able to go into

45:04 ↗ more of the nitty-gritty for environment

45:06 ↗ for livability and those tenants that we

45:08 ↗ find to be important just like we do the

45:10 ↗ districts but instead of having just

45:13 ↗ this one paragraph layout the way that

45:16 ↗ we have this I think that's a great

45:18 ↗ suggestion

45:21 ↗ it works and gets it all put together

45:23 ↗ where there helps that particular map

45:27 ↗ just making it I want to say bigger but

45:31 ↗ still the same size but show a little

45:34 ↗ more detail on the underneath part so

45:37 ↗ that people can get a little bit better

45:40 ↗ idea of where it is going I mean you can

45:43 ↗ keep the same map only stretch the

45:46 ↗ bottom and so people can get a better

45:49 ↗ idea that and then come in with the rest

45:52 ↗ of the Finland

45:55 ↗ okay all right public there's a couple

46:05 ↗ of spokes missing the city has put a lot

46:07 ↗ of money to connecting Lake Sammamish

46:09 ↗ State Park with the east side of spock

46:12 ↗ mountain using as a quarry corridor and

46:15 ↗ that needs to be reflected we're also

46:16 ↗ the silverado plat and some of these

46:19 ↗ others plus the county acquisitions are

46:21 ↗ working on the west side of squawk to

46:23 ↗ connect Tippett's valley park to the

46:25 ↗ west side of suaq and the city open

46:27 ↗ space they have on squawk and you know

46:30 ↗ just across to all the city open space

46:33 ↗ on coders so what there needs to be some

46:35 ↗ of those out more outward spokes going

46:37 ↗ on for sure but we need a much more

46:40 ↗ defined map eventually to be fair to a

46:44 ↗ developers so they know that this is

46:47 ↗ coming out that they can plan for that

46:49 ↗ hopefully they see it as an amenity

46:51 ↗ implanted into the project rather than

46:54 ↗ doing a project and then find out this

46:56 ↗ they're trying to force this on them and

46:57 ↗ it screws up their project so we want

47:00 ↗ people to see this as amenity to their

47:02 ↗ development and useful and

47:05 ↗ a real asset and that they're part of

47:09 ↗ this and that's got to get down on the

47:11 ↗ ground fine rather than that so there's

47:28 ↗ connectivity and then there's green

47:30 ↗ necklace and then there's some places

47:32 ↗ where connectivity is the green necklace

47:34 ↗ and so I see them laid on top of each

47:38 ↗ other and so if you're gonna do a

47:41 ↗ call-out sheet for example for the green

47:44 ↗ necklace I think we also need a call-out

47:47 ↗ sheet for connectivity and what things

47:50 ↗ are missing and what we need for

47:51 ↗ connectivity in each each neighborhood

47:54 ↗ but those are sort of overarching all

47:57 ↗ over the central Issaquah plan so I

47:59 ↗ think we have some topics that are

48:01 ↗ within neighborhoods and some topics

48:03 ↗ that are overarching and this is one

48:06 ↗ that I call overarching I think it needs

48:09 ↗ to be a net or a mesh or a web because I

48:14 ↗ think every neighborhood should feel

48:16 ↗ like it is a part of the green necklace

48:18 ↗ and it should be connected to whatever

48:21 ↗ the largest parks are and then within

48:24 ↗ each one we have expectations of the

48:27 ↗ developers also creating little bits of

48:29 ↗ the green necklace and so we have to

48:32 ↗ have some method of getting them to put

48:34 ↗ their appropriate private parks in to

48:38 ↗ augment the public parks that are likely

48:40 ↗ to be larger and then figuring it out

48:43 ↗ how the trails will connect them all

48:45 ↗ together and in this conversation

48:47 ↗ tonight I don't get a sensation that

48:50 ↗ that is occurring I get the feeling that

48:52 ↗ we're still looking at these blobs

48:54 ↗ saying well this is enough I think it

48:56 ↗ has to be entirely controlled and put

49:00 ↗ together and scheduled now how to do

49:03 ↗ that what is written here doesn't even

49:05 ↗ attempt that because remember the parks

49:07 ↗ department still has to come out with

49:08 ↗ their parks plan one thing I was

49:10 ↗ thinking is perhaps the trails that are

49:14 ↗ exist

49:15 ↗ would be a decent base for being

49:18 ↗ underneath this map so then at least we

49:20 ↗ could see what we already have and we

49:21 ↗ might be able understand better what we

49:24 ↗ need for the connectivity thanks so I

49:31 ↗ looked at this and I guess I liked this

49:32 ↗ map from the standpoint it boy does make

49:35 ↗ a true statement of what the green

49:37 ↗ necklace that everybody's talking about

49:38 ↗ to me I didn't picture a green necklace

49:41 ↗ just to be a place of connectivity

49:42 ↗ between different places you'd go to but

49:45 ↗ that is why would retain some of its

49:47 ↗ character and charm as far as being a

49:50 ↗ wooded small-town feel and that's built

49:53 ↗ in to who we are as a people and

49:56 ↗ maintaining it more than just as a thing

49:58 ↗ on the fringe or a connection to get to

50:00 ↗ but it's REIT retaining parse its

50:04 ↗ retaining open space it's retaining and

50:08 ↗ protecting streams it's protecting Sam

50:11 ↗ and it's protecting riparian care

50:13 ↗ riparian and bird and wildlife corridors

50:17 ↗ we haven't captured that in either our

50:19 ↗ story or in our document and I think

50:21 ↗ that needs to be part of who we are if

50:23 ↗ we don't talk about it we're not going

50:24 ↗ to have it come true we're going 20

50:28 ↗ years down the road and say we don't

50:29 ↗ have salmon bearing streams anymore we

50:31 ↗ don't have wildlife quarters the deer

50:33 ↗ that we see the pictures we say yeah

50:36 ↗ next door were you know a bear or a

50:39 ↗ cougar aren't can happen because we

50:43 ↗ haven't talked about those as part of

50:44 ↗ our story we just talked about a green

50:46 ↗ delicate breakable necklace

50:53 ↗ any final thoughts before I move all

50:56 ↗ right so we're gonna get to maybe some

50:59 ↗ easier questions here so question number

51:03 ↗ two should the service district be

51:06 ↗ removed from central Issaquah so service

51:08 ↗ is down here

51:09 ↗ it's at shop okay yep okay north side of

51:12 ↗ 90 kind of south end of the city this is

51:17 ↗ the area with RV park and City shop and

51:21 ↗ other things and so yes no don't know

51:31 ↗ [Music]

51:37 ↗ what kind of rules would you be so so

51:48 ↗ there's so what would happen is if we

51:50 ↗ take it out the zoning their zoning on

51:54 ↗ the property now most of those

51:56 ↗ properties are zoned intensive

51:57 ↗ commercial which allows things like auto

52:01 ↗ shops and manufacturing and it's kind of

52:05 ↗ our little manufacturing kind of

52:07 ↗ neighborhood that we have in the city

52:08 ↗ which is super important from a business

52:10 ↗ standpoint but there are standards that

52:13 ↗ apply outside of central Issaquah if we

52:17 ↗ take it out

52:17 ↗ what would happen is as a follow-up if

52:20 ↗ you guys decide to take it out what we

52:22 ↗ will do in 2018 is we'll send out

52:26 ↗ basically a notice to property owners

52:28 ↗ that their standards are going to change

52:30 ↗ now to give them an opportunity to come

52:32 ↗ to a PPC hearing where they could say

52:35 ↗ that doesn't work for them or that is

52:37 ↗ fine or whatever but what so basically

52:40 ↗ it's more about things like setbacks and

52:42 ↗ building heights than it is about land

52:44 ↗ uses that's what's different

52:45 ↗ central Issaquah allows for more dense

52:51 ↗ development then what would happen if we

52:54 ↗ take it out did that answer your

52:58 ↗ question Joan

52:59 ↗ okay I just want to make sure there is

53:00 ↗ some governing yes take rules they're

53:05 ↗ not as good but we have yeah I'm totally

53:08 ↗ fine with it being dropped from from the

53:11 ↗ vision as long as the worse don't have a

53:13 ↗ standalone decision point where we

53:15 ↗ actually think through the ramifications

53:16 ↗ of it being in central Issaquah from a

53:19 ↗ legal perspective versus not that's I

53:22 ↗ think sounds what you're saying is yes

53:23 ↗ we will

53:25 ↗ there's a follow up code action yes

53:28 ↗ that's I'm saying I think I'm just

53:30 ↗ voicing that want to make sure code

53:31 ↗ action where the public gets an

53:32 ↗ opportunity to weigh in on that other

53:34 ↗ than other than this public here yeah

53:35 ↗ yes and then the Commission gets to

53:37 ↗ think about it and make sure okay cool

53:39 ↗ that makes sense

53:39 ↗ yes so the task force struggled with

53:43 ↗ that district two and not sure what it

53:46 ↗ should be could be but one thought was

53:48 ↗ kind of an incubator area for new

53:51 ↗ startups you know think of this took

53:53 ↗ about 30 years from now it's a desirable

53:55 ↗ place the next Apple might well found

53:58 ↗ itself in Issaquah for all we know and

54:02 ↗ maybe that's a place where that could be

54:03 ↗ and if that can happen without being in

54:06 ↗ the central Issaquah plan I'm ok with it

54:08 ↗ I'm just nervous about what might happen

54:11 ↗ if it's not in the plan

54:13 ↗ and we don't want to lose that that's

54:15 ↗ now the Eastern Gateway to Issaquah I

54:18 ↗ saw what happened to the Western gateway

54:20 ↗ and I'm not happy about that

54:22 ↗ so let's not lose the Eastern Gateway

54:25 ↗ and in fact we could turn that as an

54:28 ↗ Eastern gateway into something very nice

54:30 ↗ when that RV park moves out and other

54:33 ↗ things it could become a grand entryway

54:36 ↗ to Issaquah as you come out of the

54:38 ↗ assaut clubs on out of the mountains to

54:40 ↗ Sohn Greenway right into the heart of

54:43 ↗ Issaquah what do we want that area to be

54:45 ↗ is the first thing people see that's how

54:48 ↗ I look at that so if we can manage that

54:51 ↗ without it being in the central Issaquah

54:53 ↗ plan okay but if it's better to manage

54:57 ↗ it by having that in the plan and that's

55:00 ↗ something we need to consider

55:04 ↗ there's still a citywide vision

55:07 ↗ statement and all that fun stuff and so

55:09 ↗ I think everything we're trying to

55:11 ↗ accomplish with that neighborhood we can

55:13 ↗ cover at a citywide level as opposed to

55:16 ↗ essential to support level public thumbs

55:21 ↗ up thumbs down

55:21 ↗ the RV park is completely owned by the

55:25 ↗ city right yep yep and it's also our

55:28 ↗ zone for adult entertainment and

55:29 ↗ marijuana stores yep so and that's what

55:34 ↗ we've decided to put those things we

55:35 ↗ don't want anywhere else

55:36 ↗ yep that doesn't mean we wanted you know

55:40 ↗ we wanted to have some class - Kylie do

55:48 ↗ you have anything for this one Steve

55:51 ↗ anything - just I think this is also the

55:54 ↗ property where the mobile home park yes

55:55 ↗ okay I've just my own I take this

55:58 ↗ mistake of an affordable housing piece

56:00 ↗ of unit I want to make sure that gets

56:02 ↗ doesn't get overwhelmed by possible

56:04 ↗ development and can be carried forward

56:07 ↗ okay just to be clear did anybody else

56:10 ↗ want to make a comment gun yes or no do

56:14 ↗ you want to thumbs-up yes okay next old

56:23 ↗ route 10 same question so old route 10

56:27 ↗ is southern part eastern part south of

56:31 ↗ i90 it's where XXX and bombs and the

56:36 ↗ grange happened to live and as we talked

56:40 ↗ about that one I think that again things

56:44 ↗ that I heard were that neighborhood

56:46 ↗ seems to feel more like Old Town than it

56:48 ↗ does central Issaquah so maybe that

56:51 ↗ should be its resting spot again if you

56:57 ↗ combine the two your need to be plugged

57:00 ↗ in John

57:03 ↗ I have two together how how the rules

57:13 ↗ that have already the codes you know

57:15 ↗ have already been accepted for Old Town

57:17 ↗ how will it apply to that we actually

57:20 ↗ have so we're in the process now of

57:22 ↗ updating the Old Town plan and so if if

57:25 ↗ the Commission decides that old route 10

57:29 ↗ really feels more like Old Town or

57:31 ↗ should doesn't feel so much like central

57:33 ↗ Issaquah we take it out of central

57:35 ↗ Issaquah the Old Town plan still has to

57:39 ↗ come back we brought to you guys a long

57:41 ↗ time ago and it has changed about as

57:44 ↗ much as the visions have changed so

57:46 ↗ you're gonna get another whack at it and

57:48 ↗ so by then which will probably be

57:51 ↗ January or February of next year we will

57:54 ↗ know whether this has come out of

57:56 ↗ central Issaquah and then a whole

57:59 ↗ conversation that we will have is should

58:01 ↗ we now change the boundary for Old Town

58:04 ↗ to include old route 10 into Old Town so

58:07 ↗ that's a whole that's the way that will

58:09 ↗ play out if ultimately you guys want to

58:12 ↗ take it out of central Issaquah and the

58:13 ↗ council agrees just just thinking of

58:15 ↗ what Old Town is going to be the type of

58:18 ↗ housing is going to go in there and we

58:21 ↗ have talked about this roof slants and

58:23 ↗ all this other stuff how will that

58:25 ↗ actually affect and old route 10 if if

58:31 ↗ you combine the two I mean we heard last

58:35 ↗ time there might be a bar and in there

58:37 ↗ different kinds of things that might be

58:41 ↗ going on there that would be affected by

58:43 ↗ rules that would be governing Old Town

58:46 ↗ right so obviously when we put the

58:51 ↗ latest version of the Plan Update

58:53 ↗ together we weren't envisioning adding

58:56 ↗ this area so if that is indeed the

58:58 ↗ outcome then I think we as staff and I'm

59:01 ↗ looking at Kristen cuz Dave's not in the

59:03 ↗ room we need to go back and look at that

59:06 ↗ and think about that and probably work

59:08 ↗ on some language for that like this it's

59:12 ↗ going to be planned first and standard

59:14 ↗ second so if we include

59:17 ↗ old about 10 in Old Town then that's

59:19 ↗ changing maps that's adding some

59:21 ↗ policies potentially to talk about that

59:24 ↗ area but then we have to look at okay

59:26 ↗ what kind of code now would we want to

59:29 ↗ potentially put in place that would be

59:31 ↗ specific to the old about ten part of

59:34 ↗ Old Town because we have like if you

59:37 ↗ remember we have specific code language

59:39 ↗ related to like say front streets that's

59:42 ↗ what we call the cultural business

59:43 ↗ district it has specific code related to

59:47 ↗ it that's different than sunset right so

59:50 ↗ it would be like adding kind of another

59:52 ↗ layer for old route ten potentially I

59:55 ↗ think we'd have to talk through that and

59:56 ↗ we as staff haven't even started that

59:59 ↗ conversation yet because we're trying to

1:00:01 ↗ get visions it will it will get if if

1:00:07 ↗ that's what we want to do we will

1:00:08 ↗ definitely put the time into it and then

1:00:10 ↗ you guys will get that first probably in

1:00:15 ↗ February ish and our next meeting I

1:00:21 ↗ believe December 14th isn't are we going

1:00:24 ↗ to be starting to go over that no yeah

1:00:30 ↗ we were both I would not crank corrected

1:00:32 ↗ that was what was sent out was okay it

1:00:34 ↗ was we were hoping to be done with

1:00:36 ↗ conversations that land in Shore so that

1:00:39 ↗ then we can come back to PPC but Landon

1:00:42 ↗ Shore has been busy with other things so

1:00:44 ↗ it got kicked to next year actually yeah

1:00:52 ↗ I'm not I think I'm okay with moving

1:00:56 ↗ some of old art 10 old town or just

1:01:00 ↗ tonigh there but I'm not I'm if we do

1:01:03 ↗ that I don't think the borders as drawn

1:01:05 ↗ our best we're gonna have that

1:01:08 ↗ conversation separately okay yes I

1:01:11 ↗ anticipated so we've we've got actually

1:01:14 ↗ a are the borders in the right place

1:01:16 ↗ conversation coming up so hang on to

1:01:18 ↗ that thought okay I think it's better to

1:01:23 ↗ take it out it does not

1:01:24 ↗ fit with the character of what we're

1:01:26 ↗ talking about with the rest of the

1:01:27 ↗ central Isikoff plan and I see great

1:01:28 ↗ potential for the Grange with their barn

1:01:31 ↗ and bones and whatever other xxx root

1:01:35 ↗ beer and and their car shows all that is

1:01:38 ↗ a fun kind of funky a Beltone kind of

1:01:42 ↗ area of Issaquah maybe in the future and

1:01:45 ↗ that's what it should be it doesn't need

1:01:47 ↗ to be high-rise condos and all that it

1:01:49 ↗ should be funky oldest as well

1:01:54 ↗ that's what you originally imagined it

1:01:57 ↗ to be the 1950's kind of thing that's

1:02:01 ↗ kind of in my mind that's what it's

1:02:02 ↗ always been

1:02:03 ↗ yeah okay so destination is what we saw

1:02:08 ↗ let me not only for a local but

1:02:10 ↗ destination and with all the trail

1:02:12 ↗ connections coming down you know it's

1:02:14 ↗ that the locals can ride their bikes

1:02:16 ↗ down or to it but also people can come

1:02:18 ↗ and take transit and their bikes and

1:02:21 ↗ ride or walk up into the tiger mountain

1:02:24 ↗ and into the other parks but let it be a

1:02:26 ↗ destination area so if anybody wanted to

1:02:28 ↗ put in a nice restaurant that cater to

1:02:31 ↗ bikers that would be a perfect place

1:02:33 ↗ right yes yeah John you're gonna want to

1:02:39 ↗ talk I know that so first let's let's

1:02:40 ↗ get to the folks at the table

1:02:42 ↗ Connie Dave Steve I'm admittedly a huge

1:02:49 ↗ proponent of removing it from the

1:02:51 ↗ central as well then I'd like to make

1:02:54 ↗ sure it's down zones so we don't because

1:02:57 ↗ state prices lose bones and Grange and

1:03:00 ↗ xxx I think those are heritage places I

1:03:03 ↗ think this is lost reflects I that

1:03:06 ↗ remains in the chain those would be

1:03:10 ↗ started lose it's still zoned for as a

1:03:13 ↗ 25 mile an hour or there's no speed zone

1:03:15 ↗ post which means 25 miles a zone

1:03:17 ↗ it feels very much like part of Old Town

1:03:20 ↗ weather that you map the same coding in

1:03:23 ↗ I'm open to that

1:03:24 ↗ but it doesn't belong as part of

1:03:26 ↗ attention is central to our plan and

1:03:28 ↗ needs to retain its kind of current look

1:03:30 ↗ and feel thanks John you want to come up

1:03:33 ↗ sure you're welcome to come you know

1:03:38 ↗ we've john mavar and I run the Grange

1:03:40 ↗ and I you know I've talked this over

1:03:45 ↗ with folks at the store and folks on the

1:03:46 ↗ board and of course you know where we've

1:03:49 ↗ been around since 43 and a beldam has

1:03:53 ↗ been around a long time and and of

1:03:55 ↗ course the dairy gold there and I think

1:03:58 ↗ that I you know I think we've got to

1:04:00 ↗ make us more part of old town and and

1:04:02 ↗ what's interesting that's come up is

1:04:04 ↗ sort of this idea of an Old Town loop

1:04:06 ↗ where you can come through downtown take

1:04:09 ↗ the right on on Gilman there and then

1:04:12 ↗ come back around so you actually can

1:04:13 ↗ kind of see old town and the Grange at

1:04:18 ↗ least as long as I'm there what we're

1:04:20 ↗ doing virtually every few months is

1:04:24 ↗ trying to do something to increase our

1:04:27 ↗ curb appeal so syntaxes come out and

1:04:29 ↗ read on the fuel island and we're

1:04:30 ↗ actually going to paint a mural on the

1:04:32 ↗ big long fence that is there we're gonna

1:04:35 ↗ knock out the window so that we actually

1:04:36 ↗ look more like a storefront than like a

1:04:39 ↗ gulag and yeah and again we're gonna

1:04:44 ↗ we're gonna put a bar and sort of in the

1:04:47 ↗ back on the Left I think is where it's

1:04:48 ↗ gonna wind up in and in that bar and

1:04:50 ↗ we're gonna do some classes and dances

1:04:52 ↗ but we've actually as a real community

1:04:55 ↗ resource we've knocked out a wall in our

1:04:59 ↗ conference room and made it about 40%

1:05:01 ↗ bigger because our classes have become

1:05:04 ↗ kind of overwhelmingly large and and

1:05:06 ↗ then I mean just so that you know we did

1:05:09 ↗ a community Appreciation Day I'm not

1:05:11 ↗ sure if any of you all were there in the

1:05:13 ↗ middle of the summer and there must have

1:05:15 ↗ been a thousand people showed up we

1:05:16 ↗ changed it from customer appreciation

1:05:18 ↗ day because that's confining and and we

1:05:21 ↗ made it a community Appreciation Day and

1:05:22 ↗ the diversity and the age difference of

1:05:25 ↗ the folks there was terrific so I think

1:05:27 ↗ you know when you think about Old Town I

1:05:29 ↗ guess what I'd ask you to

1:05:31 ↗ consider and remember is that you know

1:05:35 ↗ not only the Grange has been there a

1:05:36 ↗ long time but we really are

1:05:38 ↗ concentrating on being compelling and

1:05:41 ↗ necessary and and important in the

1:05:45 ↗ community so I I love Old Town I mean

1:05:48 ↗ that's where I did all my Christmas

1:05:49 ↗ shopping last year and that's where I'm

1:05:50 ↗ gonna do it this year and and I think I

1:05:53 ↗ think that most of the folks that I

1:05:54 ↗ talked to the shop there and on the

1:05:56 ↗ board would like to be more part of that

1:05:58 ↗ awesome thanks thank you

1:06:01 ↗ all right kept it in to Old Town where

1:06:11 ↗ would the connection be well so so we'd

1:06:17 ↗ have to talk about that right I mean

1:06:18 ↗ we'd have to talk about you know whether

1:06:22 ↗ you extended it from the south to

1:06:28 ↗ include that or whether you and I'm

1:06:31 ↗ talking about plan connection and not

1:06:33 ↗ any kind of mobility connection you know

1:06:36 ↗ if you're gonna grab that area in and

1:06:37 ↗ bring it into Old Town you know we

1:06:42 ↗ talked about staples and bringing that

1:06:44 ↗ in which is now lazyboy you know and so

1:06:48 ↗ you've got to talk about we've got to

1:06:49 ↗ revisit those conversations about if

1:06:52 ↗ you're gonna bring this area that makes

1:06:54 ↗ sense into Old Town what area that's

1:06:57 ↗ next to it that maybe we've already

1:06:58 ↗ decided it wasn't part of Old Town is

1:07:00 ↗ going to get sucked in as part of that

1:07:01 ↗ process so I think we'd have to look at

1:07:04 ↗ that Joan I don't think tonight we would

1:07:06 ↗ want to spend too much time on that very

1:07:10 ↗ difficult to find an area that hasn't

1:07:13 ↗ been built on to have an easy flow

1:07:17 ↗ through access and if you're going to

1:07:19 ↗ call it Old Town you're going to have to

1:07:21 ↗ have it connected right but I think

1:07:24 ↗ that's kind of the same thing we did we

1:07:25 ↗ were trying to bolt together

1:07:26 ↗ Tibbits Valley and Pickering you

1:07:28 ↗ they're clearly divided right now we

1:07:30 ↗ from a vision standpoint we wanted to be

1:07:32 ↗ one thing it's kind of the same thing

1:07:34 ↗ with older out of 10 right now it

1:07:36 ↗ doesn't really flow to the rest of old

1:07:38 ↗ town but from a vision standpoint let's

1:07:40 ↗ connect them and then that means then

1:07:42 ↗ that means what they need to figure out

1:07:44 ↗ how to implement the connection so you

1:07:47 ↗ have to start with the vision that idea

1:07:48 ↗ of the rgc being one neighborhood or two

1:07:50 ↗ we still have to have that conversation

1:07:52 ↗ [Laughter]

1:07:55 ↗ put that out there on public record

1:07:58 ↗ yes there one last comment about the

1:08:00 ↗ overall 10 and if we do make it a bring

1:08:05 ↗ an end to the boundaries of Old Town I

1:08:07 ↗ think it needs to be a subset with its

1:08:10 ↗ own codes unique to that area because

1:08:13 ↗ with triple acts the Grange I think that

1:08:17 ↗ area could be so much more than what it

1:08:20 ↗ is today with the right the right

1:08:24 ↗ improvements the right enhancements and

1:08:27 ↗ still take the attributes of Old Town

1:08:29 ↗ but with the Grange those are really

1:08:31 ↗ kind of Jules and I we're not we're not

1:08:34 ↗ maximizing its potential it doesn't need

1:08:37 ↗ to be a two-lane road for one it could

1:08:39 ↗ be you know it could be a smaller

1:08:42 ↗ two-lane road and we give that real

1:08:43 ↗ estate back to the businesses or put in

1:08:47 ↗ parks or something that source to

1:08:49 ↗ enhance and expand their businesses

1:08:52 ↗ right but I don't you think if it's

1:08:56 ↗ going to be part of Old Town it should

1:08:57 ↗ be a subset of Old Town but definitely

1:09:00 ↗ not part of the central as a call plan

1:09:03 ↗ ok question for this is and if you've

1:09:08 ↗ gotten the theme of these questions it's

1:09:10 ↗ should areas be in central Esquire out

1:09:13 ↗ so this area down and to give you guys

1:09:18 ↗ kind of the lay of the land so this area

1:09:22 ↗ we titled confluence neighbourhood

1:09:25 ↗ because it's kind of the confluence

1:09:28 ↗ between central Issaquah and Old Town

1:09:30 ↗ but it's and it's right next to

1:09:33 ↗ confluence park and

1:09:35 ↗ you know so here's the this big white

1:09:38 ↗ thing is this is Safeway REI right here

1:09:41 ↗ so it's basically south of Locust it

1:09:46 ↗ runs over picks up kind of that area

1:09:51 ↗ that's on the to that new apartment

1:09:55 ↗ buildings gonna be yeah it's called anus

1:09:57 ↗ wood I was trying to figure out what

1:09:58 ↗ direction I guess that's West the west

1:10:00 ↗ side of Newport you know and then runs

1:10:04 ↗ down to kind of tell Holly and so this

1:10:10 ↗ area is you know it's it it is it's we

1:10:14 ↗ drove through it I made a left on the

1:10:16 ↗ Gillman from juniper at five o'clock or

1:10:22 ↗ six o'clock which in a van which was

1:10:24 ↗ interesting so it's but it's a mix of

1:10:27 ↗ uses there's there's residential there

1:10:30 ↗ is some commercial there's like some I

1:10:33 ↗ think there's places that offer like

1:10:35 ↗ music lessons and things there's you

1:10:37 ↗ know you've got some senior housing and

1:10:41 ↗ assisted living in there it's just it's

1:10:43 ↗ a real kind of mix of stuff and so I

1:10:47 ↗ think I think the question is it

1:10:50 ↗ definitely has a different flavor than

1:10:52 ↗ some of the other neighborhoods in

1:10:54 ↗ central Issaquah I think we've talked

1:10:56 ↗ about that maybe that's okay maybe

1:10:58 ↗ that's important to have areas of

1:10:59 ↗ different you know character but I think

1:11:03 ↗ the question is I have heard at least

1:11:05 ↗ somebody suggests that maybe this area

1:11:09 ↗ should be taken out of central Issaquah

1:11:10 ↗ I would agree what a percent does not

1:11:13 ↗ belong in central as crumbling

1:11:16 ↗ where is gilman village in that is that

1:11:20 ↗ in the area it's in East Valley actually

1:11:22 ↗ so I think it's right here

1:11:25 ↗ tell me if I'm wrong make it bigger

1:11:35 ↗ not where I am

1:11:38 ↗ I could I could get out and get on to

1:11:41 ↗ something else to make it bigger if I

1:11:42 ↗ needed to I know it happened you want me

1:11:48 ↗ to you want me to see if it's just hard

1:11:51 ↗ to to actually see yeah then use you

1:11:56 ↗ zoom with the bottom right look at that

1:12:02 ↗ I just don't know if it's legible look

1:12:09 ↗ at that wow that's right nice oops

1:12:17 ↗ [Music]

1:12:20 ↗ you guys good yeah okay

1:12:24 ↗ so Alice Alice is here

1:12:29 ↗ this is Vale it's under construction

1:12:32 ↗ right now basically 7th and Locust Ennis

1:12:37 ↗ woods over here under the green fuzz you

1:12:43 ↗ know you've got Bernstein Park in salmon

1:12:46 ↗ run park kind of in the middle of this

1:12:47 ↗ neighborhood confluence is down here so

1:12:57 ↗ I heard one out why would we not have

1:13:01 ↗ Gilman village and part of that Gilman

1:13:05 ↗ village right now is in the East Valley

1:13:07 ↗ neighborhood we can talk about we're

1:13:10 ↗ talk about the boundaries later so so

1:13:12 ↗ where Gilman village lands can be a

1:13:15 ↗ conversation we'll have so I think this

1:13:19 ↗ is great I like the idea of having it a

1:13:22 ↗ part of the central Issaquah but not

1:13:24 ↗ part of the growth Center and the East

1:13:27 ↗ Indies Valley because those are a lot

1:13:28 ↗ more denser a lot more urban I really

1:13:32 ↗ like this functioning as a transition

1:13:35 ↗ neighborhood that has aspects of oops

1:13:38 ↗ sorry that has aspects of central is

1:13:40 ↗ aqua which is denser and more urban than

1:13:42 ↗ the rest of us aqua but not as dense in

1:13:45 ↗ urban as the growth Center in East

1:13:47 ↗ Valley so I think the idea of having

1:13:48 ↗ this neighborhood very much

1:13:50 ↗ transitioning from the growth Center to

1:13:53 ↗ Old Town I think is fantastic I think

1:13:57 ↗ it's it makes sense as a district

1:13:59 ↗ especially with the confluence park is

1:14:02 ↗ kind of your place making neighborhood I

1:14:03 ↗ think I think that there's a lot to like

1:14:05 ↗ about one including it into that this

1:14:08 ↗ specific district does as visioned I

1:14:10 ↗ agree I keep it in well I know I

1:14:14 ↗ attended the district meetings that we

1:14:17 ↗ held and the citizens that the residents

1:14:19 ↗ that live there right now

1:14:21 ↗ very concerned with it staying in

1:14:23 ↗ because they really feel that you know

1:14:26 ↗ what's happened to their residential

1:14:28 ↗ area with Ennis wood and with locust and

1:14:32 ↗ with Atlas it's just atrocious because

1:14:34 ↗ you know they've got these tall

1:14:36 ↗ buildings going in next to you know

1:14:38 ↗ two-story houses and so they don't

1:14:41 ↗ really think that those are fitting in

1:14:43 ↗ with the character of their

1:14:44 ↗ neighborhoods especially right up next

1:14:46 ↗ to a park so unless this has you know

1:14:50 ↗ some zoning and codes that definitely

1:14:53 ↗ change from what's gone on in there I

1:14:56 ↗ don't think the residents that live

1:14:58 ↗ there feel that this should be part of

1:15:01 ↗ the central area plan because they they

1:15:03 ↗ don't feel like they their existing

1:15:07 ↗ homes are being protected or appreciated

1:15:10 ↗ I agree with everything AJ said so I

1:15:13 ↗ won't repeat at all I think he's nailed

1:15:15 ↗ it but the only thing I'd add is this

1:15:18 ↗ also serves a subset of the population

1:15:20 ↗ that needs to have an area where they

1:15:23 ↗ can live that can walk to old town walk

1:15:26 ↗ to the school that has dispersed housing

1:15:30 ↗ not all high-rises we don't want to lose

1:15:32 ↗ that that's part of historic Issaquah

1:15:34 ↗ and I think it does not need to be part

1:15:38 ↗ of the central Issaquah plan either I

1:15:41 ↗ think my concern is that right next to

1:15:45 ↗ that and above it is the area that we've

1:15:47 ↗ identified for mixed-use and in order to

1:15:52 ↗ make that happen as as a project we need

1:15:58 ↗ to know that there's going to be dense

1:16:00 ↗ housing nearby and so I would say it

1:16:05 ↗ probably needs to be considered in the

1:16:08 ↗ central Issaquah plan as a way to have

1:16:10 ↗ some of those projects there that could

1:16:13 ↗ be transitionary I would completely

1:16:19 ↗ agree with that this is a 30-year plan

1:16:22 ↗ and something that's in the house now

1:16:24 ↗ that's a single-family house that's been

1:16:25 ↗ there for 30 years it's the city's

1:16:28 ↗ transitioning and we can't pretend

1:16:30 ↗ seeing the family houses in the middle

1:16:32 ↗ of an urban neighborhood and you've got

1:16:35 ↗ retail that's walking distance hopefully

1:16:37 ↗ more jobs would be walking distance I

1:16:39 ↗ would keep it in I guess I guess there's

1:16:58 ↗ a lot of new homes that have gone in

1:17:01 ↗ there in the last five years there are a

1:17:03 ↗ lot of older apartments that are the low

1:17:06 ↗ affordable and I think as those are

1:17:09 ↗ redevelop there needs to be a

1:17:11 ↗ redevelopment and attempting to keep

1:17:13 ↗ those but there is a tremendous number

1:17:16 ↗ of new homes built that have been built

1:17:18 ↗ there single-family yes they're a little

1:17:20 ↗ bit taller and some of them may be 3

1:17:22 ↗ story single family but that have gone

1:17:24 ↗ in in the last five years in that area

1:17:26 ↗ and you're talking $500,000 to a million

1:17:29 ↗ dollar homes that those those are the

1:17:32 ↗ people that showed up at this meeting

1:17:33 ↗ and said we don't want an atlas another

1:17:36 ↗ atlas going in next door maybe for this

1:17:42 ↗ because those concerns to address it and

1:17:46 ↗ I understand some of my other

1:17:48 ↗ commissioners comments which also make

1:17:50 ↗ sense from an economic vitality

1:17:52 ↗ standpoint maybe this being a transition

1:17:58 ↗ center if it's a not part of CIP but it

1:18:03 ↗ is a transition boundary or a

1:18:05 ↗ transitional area - if we pull it out a

1:18:08 ↗ CIP then what would that vision look

1:18:12 ↗ like I mean what what kind of buildings

1:18:14 ↗ would go in there and if it's part of

1:18:16 ↗ CIP what kind of buildings would be

1:18:18 ↗ there so so that's that's a good

1:18:23 ↗ question I think I think you need to

1:18:25 ↗ think about it in terms of two things

1:18:27 ↗ one is buildings but also it's the what

1:18:33 ↗ else we get in central Issaquah so

1:18:36 ↗ central Issaquah it's not just about the

1:18:38 ↗ density that you can build on each

1:18:40 ↗ parcel it's also that that development

1:18:43 ↗ is pedestrian-oriented that the streets

1:18:46 ↗ are complete with you know pedestrian

1:18:48 ↗ facilities and adequate bike

1:18:51 ↗ considerations whether they're bike

1:18:52 ↗ lanes or something else and so by having

1:18:56 ↗ it in central Issaquah it's this

1:18:58 ↗ neighborhood is going to get the

1:18:59 ↗ benefits of those things you know what

1:19:02 ↗ we have here and and somebody mentioned

1:19:04 ↗ it and I apologize for not remembering

1:19:05 ↗ who so that's that's elementary school

1:19:09 ↗ right that's currently the admin offices

1:19:13 ↗ for the school districts so that's a new

1:19:15 ↗ middle school and so as we talk about

1:19:18 ↗ and I think we talked about it in the

1:19:19 ↗ van a little bit you know this

1:19:20 ↗ neighborhood you know it's it's it's got

1:19:25 ↗ a great kind of funk associated with it

1:19:27 ↗ because of the diversity of housing and

1:19:29 ↗ things that are here but it is truly

1:19:31 ↗ walkable to a ton of stuff you know you

1:19:33 ↗ can live in this neighborhood walk to an

1:19:35 ↗ elementary school walk to your middle

1:19:37 ↗ school walk to a big city park walk to

1:19:40 ↗ old town walk to Gilman village walk to

1:19:43 ↗ Safeway walk to REI I mean it's a great

1:19:46 ↗ it's a great place and it's it's kind of

1:19:48 ↗ off the map for a lot of people you know

1:19:51 ↗ they don't drive back through here

1:19:52 ↗ because there's not a lot of reason to

1:19:54 ↗ you know seventh is going to become a

1:19:58 ↗ lot busier because of the amount of

1:20:01 ↗ housing that's gone in with Atlas and

1:20:03 ↗ once vales occupied and so that's that

1:20:07 ↗ is definitely going to impact I think

1:20:08 ↗ this neighborhood a bit but I think that

1:20:13 ↗ so so to answer your question Ron I

1:20:17 ↗ think if it was outside central Issaquah

1:20:20 ↗ similar to service an Old Town what

1:20:23 ↗ happens is the zonings not going to

1:20:25 ↗ change I don't believe and I'm looking

1:20:27 ↗ at my zoning experts over there to tell

1:20:29 ↗ me if I'm wrong but the development

1:20:31 ↗ standards will so for example building

1:20:34 ↗ heights and FA RS will be lower and so

1:20:38 ↗ there would be some more you you you

1:20:42 ↗ potentially scale in some of the stuff

1:20:45 ↗ that's there now but you also have you

1:20:49 ↗ know in in my mind one of the reasons

1:20:51 ↗ why this is off the map is parcels are

1:20:54 ↗ really small you know the bigger parcels

1:20:56 ↗ have already

1:20:57 ↗ then bail was one of the bigger ones in

1:20:59 ↗ this neighborhood and it's we know what

1:21:00 ↗ it is now but to go in there and

1:21:03 ↗ assemble a bunch of small lot housing to

1:21:05 ↗ you know bulldoze it and build something

1:21:07 ↗ else that's hard it doesn't mean it

1:21:10 ↗ won't happen but maybe to Mel's point

1:21:12 ↗ that might be 20 years from now and not

1:21:15 ↗ two years from now you know as people

1:21:18 ↗ are looking for redevelopment

1:21:19 ↗ opportunities if you have to this is and

1:21:22 ↗ take a page out of the school district

1:21:23 ↗ if you have to assemble a bunch of

1:21:25 ↗ residential properties individually

1:21:27 ↗ owned that's going to be your last

1:21:29 ↗ choice as opposed to finding bigger

1:21:31 ↗ parcels or things that are ready to go

1:21:33 ↗ okay - Ron's point - he asked what kind

1:21:36 ↗ of building would be built there it's

1:21:37 ↗ not in central Issaquah we have

1:21:39 ↗ architectural standards that have just

1:21:40 ↗ been adopted and if it's not in central

1:21:42 ↗ let's applaud those don't apply right so

1:21:45 ↗ density now let's talk about density for

1:21:48 ↗ a moment density is actually unchanged

1:21:51 ↗ because they are zoned today for X

1:21:55 ↗ density and all we're talking about is

1:22:00 ↗ the codes - actually the design

1:22:04 ↗ standards yeah do you want to apply the

1:22:07 ↗ CIP senators or not this isn't a do one

1:22:09 ↗ up zone or down zone question because

1:22:17 ↗ building heights are higher in central

1:22:21 ↗ Issaquah right so if we actually make

1:22:25 ↗ this part of the CIE if this is part of

1:22:27 ↗ the CIP then the building heights go up

1:22:30 ↗ and density goes up or what you're

1:22:32 ↗ saying is density goes down if you

1:22:37 ↗ remove it building Heights impervious

1:22:39 ↗ surface those go down and if you keep it

1:22:43 ↗ in they remain higher be impervious

1:22:45 ↗ surface and building Heights could its

1:22:46 ↗ endo so could you actually create kind

1:22:51 ↗ of a combination area where you keep a

1:22:54 ↗ toned down version of the CIP here so

1:22:57 ↗ that you have a lot of the amenities and

1:22:59 ↗ the attributes of the CIP but you don't

1:23:01 ↗ have

1:23:02 ↗ the taller buildings so you could so

1:23:07 ↗ sure that's a zone change that's that's

1:23:10 ↗ a change to code not visions now I think

1:23:14 ↗ in the vision when we get to the vision

1:23:15 ↗ if you decide potentially you can

1:23:18 ↗ reserve the right to have a conversation

1:23:20 ↗ about confluence later but if if

1:23:23 ↗ ultimately we decide that the vision for

1:23:26 ↗ this neighborhood should be lower scaled

1:23:28 ↗ you know that could then also lead to a

1:23:31 ↗ request to reduce the maximum building

1:23:34 ↗ height what is the maximum building

1:23:36 ↗ height now so it could go from you know

1:23:40 ↗ five storeys to four you know if that

1:23:42 ↗ but that's a code change you know that

1:23:44 ↗ would happen after based on you know

1:23:49 ↗ recommendation that you all might have

1:23:50 ↗ about this neighborhood if you leave it

1:23:52 ↗ in or you leave it at you know sixty

1:23:56 ↗ five which is really five stories and

1:23:59 ↗ say you know what at maybe thirty years

1:24:01 ↗ from now it should be five stories yeah

1:24:04 ↗ what one thing keep in mind is you as

1:24:05 ↗ you look at the actual verbiage it says

1:24:07 ↗ things like small-scale redevelopment

1:24:09 ↗ did you know distinctive 1.3 low to

1:24:12 ↗ moderate density so I think the language

1:24:13 ↗ there is very much clear pegged down

1:24:16 ↗ from other parts of Central District one

1:24:23 ↗ think of the comments okay any

1:24:28 ↗ recommendation I think that it seems to

1:24:33 ↗ feel similar to I mean it seems to fit

1:24:37 ↗ into the central Issaquah from a feel

1:24:39 ↗ standpoint in my perspective and it

1:24:42 ↗ seems also to a lot of the vision

1:24:46 ↗ statements as far as livability

1:24:47 ↗ sustainability it's right next to this

1:24:49 ↗ beautiful park and right next to schools

1:24:51 ↗ and walkable and it to me it seems to

1:24:56 ↗ already sort of be going in that

1:24:58 ↗ direction to meet a lot of those

1:24:59 ↗ livability livability aims and so I

1:25:05 ↗ think it's kind of going that direction

1:25:07 ↗ already and it is transition a

1:25:09 ↗ transition and it has small parcels so

1:25:12 ↗ it probably will go slower but I think

1:25:15 ↗ it fits it feels like it fits in with

1:25:17 ↗ central Wisconsin public with the

1:25:23 ↗ difference with the verbiage that goes

1:25:27 ↗ along with it to ensure that there is

1:25:30 ↗ part of our central area that has a less

1:25:34 ↗ dense more family-oriented kind of feel

1:25:37 ↗ to it if it is part of this if we do

1:25:45 ↗ decide to make it part of the CIP I want

1:25:47 ↗ to know why Gillman village is not part

1:25:49 ↗ of it oh you said you're gonna get to a

1:25:51 ↗ tuck we're talking about boundaries soon

1:25:54 ↗ I'd Steve it seems like I'm in here I

1:26:01 ↗ hear the both the argument that it's a

1:26:03 ↗ good part for CIP to apply to it because

1:26:05 ↗ that's the walkability thing denser if

1:26:10 ↗ you want to keep it as this transitional

1:26:12 ↗ neighborhood though you have to not have

1:26:14 ↗ it in CIP or you have to have it in a

1:26:15 ↗ separate code or a separate way of

1:26:17 ↗ talking about it otherwise people are

1:26:19 ↗ gonna buy up to the single homes piece

1:26:21 ↗ by piece and they're gonna build

1:26:22 ↗ something bigger if you put in the AP

1:26:27 ↗ you're gonna lose that it's going to

1:26:28 ↗ become a transitional it's gonna become

1:26:30 ↗ it's gonna lose that current feel

1:26:33 ↗ that bothers me so I would rather see it

1:26:37 ↗ outside the c.a.p or a separate piece

1:26:39 ↗ and I'll go with Ron's come and I think

1:26:42 ↗ Gilman village needs to be part of that

1:26:44 ↗ discussion as well Connie or David yeah

1:26:52 ↗ so the MER district mixed-use

1:26:56 ↗ residential is that the murder district

1:26:59 ↗ [Laughter]

1:26:59 ↗ [Applause]

1:27:02 ↗ just a little ways across the freeway

1:27:05 ↗ yes the murder district makes you so is

1:27:11 ↗ those are the rules that got you what

1:27:13 ↗ you have and that is an intermediary

1:27:16 ↗ zoning that's already within the city

1:27:18 ↗ that provides mixed-use but not the big

1:27:22 ↗ density and so when you look at this

1:27:25 ↗ parcel then you see the creek going down

1:27:28 ↗ the center you can see that a lot of

1:27:29 ↗ this is the critical area that we're

1:27:31 ↗ trying to protect there's only a small

1:27:33 ↗ slice that you would even want to

1:27:35 ↗ consider in the high-density that is the

1:27:39 ↗ central Issaquah plan at this point in

1:27:42 ↗ time we don't have anything in our

1:27:45 ↗ descriptive language that has ever

1:27:47 ↗ changed the code ability for people to

1:27:50 ↗ build the tall buildings and so given

1:27:55 ↗ what we have now if you say this stays

1:27:58 ↗ in that still does not change that

1:27:59 ↗ language they still have the ability for

1:28:01 ↗ that high-density no matter what the

1:28:03 ↗ vision language says unless the code has

1:28:06 ↗ changed now that is that gets to that we

1:28:09 ↗ need a better linkage between our vision

1:28:11 ↗ and actuality but I don't trust that yet

1:28:14 ↗ so if we could be very very very sure

1:28:17 ↗ that that would change and that we would

1:28:20 ↗ be able to enforce the vision to lower

1:28:23 ↗ density or less density I think this

1:28:25 ↗ would be fine I think we have two years

1:28:28 ↗ before we can be very very sure that

1:28:30 ↗ that is true and until that point in

1:28:33 ↗ time and sees how this is not going to

1:28:35 ↗ be redeveloped quickly I would prefer to

1:28:37 ↗ keep it in the MER where you can get

1:28:40 ↗ this great mixed-use residential smaller

1:28:43 ↗ lot walkable

1:28:45 ↗ feel without the threat of the density

1:28:47 ↗ thanks it is a really interesting

1:28:52 ↗ neighborhood it's great to walk through

1:28:54 ↗ there low cross confluence park and

1:28:56 ↗ through there and actually atlas to

1:28:58 ↗ Gilman then you come back through Gilman

1:29:00 ↗ village and stuff and you can really

1:29:02 ↗ walk a lot and not have much noise or a

1:29:06 ↗ bunch traffic it's gonna get worse at

1:29:08 ↗ minute late but it's we don't we don't

1:29:11 ↗ still want to screw that every up it's

1:29:12 ↗ pretty special and it's I think a lot of

1:29:15 ↗ retired people are gravitating there

1:29:17 ↗ because they can get to things they can

1:29:19 ↗ ride a bike on what land they've got a

1:29:21 ↗ grocery store which we don't have in

1:29:23 ↗ this end of town so that's pretty it's

1:29:26 ↗ got a lot of advantages this don't screw

1:29:30 ↗ it up I don't know okay wrote down don't

1:29:35 ↗ screw it up all right all right AJ

1:29:47 ↗ should the Regional Growth Center be one

1:29:49 ↗ or two neighborhoods one whoa so so can

1:29:57 ↗ I so I so look at it so the the key word

1:30:00 ↗ there is neighborhood so I'm curious if

1:30:03 ↗ we can you do kind of get up get up both

1:30:07 ↗ and have it be one district but then in

1:30:11 ↗ the district division articulate

1:30:13 ↗ multiple neighborhoods so you'd still

1:30:17 ↗ only get one page for the district to

1:30:20 ↗ make it very clear that for instance the

1:30:23 ↗ light rail station is supposed to be the

1:30:25 ↗ pivot and the node for the entire

1:30:27 ↗ district but you can still have

1:30:29 ↗ neighborhoods within that when you say

1:30:32 ↗ neighborhoods you're talking about

1:30:33 ↗ themed neighborhood juice no I'm talking

1:30:37 ↗ about like place making it that the idea

1:30:39 ↗ that you would near your you were let

1:30:43 ↗ your your zoning and your your

1:30:45 ↗ your legal requirements would be the

1:30:47 ↗ same but you would then the city would

1:30:49 ↗ then refer to it and label things

1:30:52 ↗ stinking so more it's more of a more of

1:30:56 ↗ a nebulous placemaking would you say

1:30:58 ↗ that as for neighborhoods one district

1:31:02 ↗ what would your vision look like because

1:31:04 ↗ I hear what you're gone and I'm kind of

1:31:06 ↗ on board with it but I I see I see three

1:31:09 ↗ neighborhoods I don't really see why

1:31:10 ↗ Highland Tibbets Valley need to be two

1:31:12 ↗ separate ones but that's that's more

1:31:14 ↗ nitpicking and I mean youyou you kind of

1:31:16 ↗ have four neighbors what it's because of

1:31:19 ↗ the development agreement but is the

1:31:20 ↗ elephant agreement cross 900 he does

1:31:24 ↗ yeah so rally Center belly centers over

1:31:28 ↗ here and Hylas over here and so the

1:31:31 ↗ development agreement actually kind of

1:31:33 ↗ grabs all of that area I guess so the

1:31:36 ↗ number is I don't disagree with kind of

1:31:41 ↗ where you're going with that AJ I think

1:31:43 ↗ the question is is you know would you

1:31:45 ↗ then just split it north and south so

1:31:47 ↗ this would be one neighborhood on the

1:31:48 ↗ north side and then this would be a

1:31:50 ↗ neighborhood on the south side where

1:31:51 ↗ does SR 900 is it a big enough division

1:31:55 ↗ that hila is separate from kind of this

1:31:59 ↗ area over here it's it's a natural wall

1:32:04 ↗ not a natural but it's a boundary

1:32:05 ↗ it's a boundary but I think the question

1:32:08 ↗ is is is the is our vision that currency

1:32:10 ↗ if it is our vision that that that band

1:32:12 ↗ will be oh that's calm yeah over that

1:32:14 ↗ boundary be a natural transition between

1:32:16 ↗ neighborhoods I think that that's the

1:32:18 ↗ question I think we should talk district

1:32:24 ↗ before neighborhood because I'm not I'm

1:32:29 ↗ not sold either that it should be one

1:32:33 ↗ district or a north and south district

1:32:36 ↗ because if you're looking at it

1:32:39 ↗ particularly if you look into the Costco

1:32:41 ↗ development agreement that's in the

1:32:43 ↗ Pickering area they've identified quite

1:32:46 ↗ a bit of extra area

1:32:49 ↗ they may want to expand into and so if

1:32:54 ↗ they do that that really dominates that

1:32:57 ↗ top area and so that would create a

1:33:01 ↗ clear differentiation between the north

1:33:04 ↗ area and then the south area would be

1:33:06 ↗ more of the mixed-use residential dense

1:33:10 ↗ housing you know that feel so I think

1:33:15 ↗ you could end up with two very different

1:33:18 ↗ feels the question is is that our

1:33:21 ↗ intention or can we even control for

1:33:24 ↗ that and does that change how we choose

1:33:26 ↗ them as districts and adding to that

1:33:30 ↗ Pickering and getting back to the jobs

1:33:34 ↗ piece if we decide to make these the one

1:33:38 ↗ district three or four different

1:33:40 ↗ neighborhoods where are the jobs going

1:33:44 ↗ to go

1:33:45 ↗ if we remove Pickering right now all the

1:33:48 ↗ landlords have to be on board an

1:33:50 ↗ agreement before they can put any kind

1:33:53 ↗ of residential there but if we focus on

1:33:57 ↗ Pickering and actually and I originally

1:34:00 ↗ thought that would be great to have that

1:34:01 ↗ as mixed-use residential but if we

1:34:04 ↗ create that space to be our Job Center

1:34:07 ↗ then we can support our the rest of our

1:34:11 ↗ vision with having higher jobs so that

1:34:13 ↗ the people who live here may actually be

1:34:16 ↗ able to work here if we remove that

1:34:19 ↗ piece and where are we going to put all

1:34:21 ↗ these offices where are we going to put

1:34:22 ↗ all these jobs I don't think we're

1:34:24 ↗ talking about removing everything though

1:34:25 ↗ all areas still aggressive yeah I hear

1:34:29 ↗ you what I'm saying is that we're

1:34:32 ↗ talking about Pickering is possibly

1:34:34 ↗ being a more of a residential area and

1:34:38 ↗ I'm thinking maybe Pickering would be

1:34:40 ↗ better off as a commercial area which it

1:34:45 ↗ is like right now with offices instead

1:34:48 ↗ of residential mixed use I think it's

1:34:50 ↗ anything it's still both

1:34:51 ↗ and the whole area is our urban center

1:34:53 ↗ and it will have more jobs and more

1:34:57 ↗ retail and more housing than it has

1:34:58 ↗ before yeah I don't really love the idea

1:35:00 ↗ of thinking of a Job Center in Issaquah

1:35:02 ↗ I like to think of that as running

1:35:04 ↗ throughout the same way that I think

1:35:05 ↗ about our green necklace I don't really

1:35:07 ↗ love the idea of being concentrating the

1:35:09 ↗ concept of of jobs into one neighborhood

1:35:12 ↗ within the district and so especially

1:35:15 ↗ when we think about driving around kind

1:35:17 ↗ of the industrial park right now where

1:35:20 ↗ the school district wants to move in

1:35:21 ↗ where we have several big businesses in

1:35:23 ↗ our community and thinking about the

1:35:25 ↗ fact that we are going to be getting

1:35:26 ↗ some residential going in there it

1:35:28 ↗ really is a mix of things rather than

1:35:30 ↗ necessarily thinking of Pickering as an

1:35:31 ↗ industrial park I I hadn't really heard

1:35:35 ↗ that and I haven't seen that in the way

1:35:37 ↗ that we've been describing the

1:35:38 ↗ neighborhoods and I hear your what

1:35:41 ↗ you're saying I just think I'm looking

1:35:43 ↗ 20-30 years down the road and I think

1:35:45 ↗ retail is going to make a major change

1:35:48 ↗ and so where are we going to have those

1:35:50 ↗ jobs because it's probably not going to

1:35:53 ↗ be retail that's that that's the point

1:35:57 ↗ of zoning for mixed-use we don't have to

1:35:59 ↗ decide that now you allow all uses but

1:36:02 ↗ there needs to be a caution that we

1:36:05 ↗ don't turn into a suburban residential

1:36:08 ↗ commuter community that's not what we

1:36:10 ↗ want to be needs to be a place where you

1:36:12 ↗ live work and play and I smiled because

1:36:15 ↗ some of you probably weren't even born

1:36:17 ↗ back when the Skyport was here and we

1:36:20 ↗ were promised the bill of goods for that

1:36:22 ↗ whole development that's there now that

1:36:23 ↗ it was going to become an office park

1:36:25 ↗ and become a job Center for Issaquah and

1:36:28 ↗ of course once they're granted their

1:36:30 ↗ permits to build it oh sorry the market

1:36:32 ↗ changed now we got to do ugly strippery'

1:36:34 ↗ tall retail with vast parking lots that

1:36:37 ↗ you can't even walk between stores in

1:36:39 ↗ and that's what we ended up with so we

1:36:42 ↗ got to do better than that and I do

1:36:44 ↗ think personally there's a distinction

1:36:47 ↗ between the north side of i-90 and the

1:36:49 ↗ south and I don't know specifically what

1:36:53 ↗ the Raleigh vision is for hila but I

1:36:55 ↗ suspect his vision there is probably

1:36:58 ↗ different than what's the vision for

1:37:00 ↗ Tippit's valley so

1:37:02 ↗ you can call it one district with

1:37:04 ↗ different neighborhoods or I prefer

1:37:07 ↗ personally to have two separate

1:37:09 ↗ neighborhoods one north one south at

1:37:11 ↗ least and maybe three I'm in favor of

1:37:15 ↗ having a b1 district and I think that

1:37:18 ↗ they that it would benefit a lot for

1:37:21 ↗ connectivity if there were ways to

1:37:23 ↗ overcome the barrier that is currently a

1:37:26 ↗ big barrier but from a vision standpoint

1:37:27 ↗ maybe there could be overpasses or

1:37:29 ↗ walkways or some way to safely get

1:37:32 ↗ across at various points because I think

1:37:34 ↗ the on the South part of the district

1:37:38 ↗ they would benefit from access to the

1:37:39 ↗ the park and in both ways so if you were

1:37:43 ↗ able to overcome that barrier I think it

1:37:45 ↗ would be beneficial and I think it's

1:37:47 ↗ beneficial to have it be one district to

1:37:49 ↗ sort of support that vision the water

1:37:53 ↗ fest III decided to come to us and say

1:37:55 ↗ we want to build our headquarters center

1:37:58 ↗ would that change his conversation

1:38:00 ↗ that's a lot of jobs and it's at the end

1:38:04 ↗ of a Nestea 3 light rail or what if what

1:38:08 ↗ if microsoft says we did finally outgrow

1:38:10 ↗ our redmond campus even after their

1:38:12 ↗ billion dollar expansion and as they had

1:38:14 ↗ planned to put 12 thousand jobs up in

1:38:17 ↗ Issaquah Highlands that again never

1:38:19 ↗ happened maybe in 30 years from now this

1:38:23 ↗ is a great location for a corporate

1:38:25 ↗ complex of some type whatever those

1:38:28 ↗ major businesses are I agree with you

1:38:30 ↗ retails going by the wayside and in 30

1:38:33 ↗ years where you're not going to have

1:38:35 ↗ shopping strips like that I don't know

1:38:37 ↗ that we're ready to make that decision

1:38:39 ↗ as to what will be there I think it's

1:38:42 ↗ aspirational for us to say we're gonna

1:38:44 ↗ have this great idea and put something

1:38:46 ↗ there so we can have a vision but

1:38:49 ↗ there's too many unknowns and we should

1:38:51 ↗ wait till st3 comes because I think once

1:38:54 ↗ sc3 comes that would become a very

1:38:58 ↗ viable place for offices like downtown

1:39:01 ↗ Bellevue I mean granted we don't want to

1:39:03 ↗ downtown

1:39:03 ↗ in terms of the high-rises but in terms

1:39:06 ↗ of the jobs I think would be a goldmine

1:39:08 ↗ for jobs market it's at the end of well

1:39:14 ↗ we wait to do anything in that area or

1:39:18 ↗ if we don't have any restrictions of

1:39:21 ↗ what we want we're not going to get

1:39:23 ↗ anything that we do want and you've got

1:39:26 ↗ to understand that that whole area is

1:39:27 ↗ the regional growth center that's where

1:39:30 ↗ all the high rises and we don't have to

1:39:35 ↗ build it out today no we don't we need

1:39:39 ↗ to have the zone capacity for it right

1:39:41 ↗ I'm gonna pass our seat requirements and

1:39:44 ↗ we don't have to worry about the

1:39:45 ↗ changing in the market either if we if

1:39:49 ↗ we want a certain thing in there and we

1:39:52 ↗ think it's good for the city and the

1:39:54 ↗ market goes crazy we just wait I mean

1:39:58 ↗ once you build it it's done exactly

1:40:01 ↗ that's my point and I don't think we're

1:40:04 ↗ ready to make the decision well but

1:40:06 ↗ we're not making the decision on the use

1:40:08 ↗ or anything I think that the question

1:40:10 ↗ here is is a one or two neighborhoods

1:40:12 ↗ north and south of i90 that's the only

1:40:15 ↗ question all the development can still

1:40:17 ↗ take place or will take place under the

1:40:19 ↗ zoning that's there

1:40:20 ↗ I completely agree the Victoria that

1:40:23 ↗ this is it's aspirational if we keep it

1:40:26 ↗ as two neighborhoods we're saying that

1:40:28 ↗ we're accepting the scar that i9 has

1:40:31 ↗ created in our city and we're gonna live

1:40:34 ↗ with that forever we make this one

1:40:36 ↗ neighborhood or one district we're

1:40:38 ↗ seeing our aspiration is to get rid of

1:40:40 ↗ that scar

1:40:41 ↗ someday lid the whole thing and create

1:40:44 ↗ one city center that we can have and I

1:40:47 ↗ would rather see that happen and leave

1:40:49 ↗ it as two separate visions I think

1:40:51 ↗ that's exactly the difference here is

1:40:54 ↗ you know so we've created a district in

1:40:57 ↗ that we we identified this as the

1:40:59 ↗ regional growth center right so that

1:41:00 ↗ happened and I think the question is is

1:41:03 ↗ is do you allow I 90 to be an edge or do

1:41:08 ↗ you say right now it's an edge and we're

1:41:11 ↗ trying to diminish the impact of that

1:41:13 ↗ edge

1:41:14 ↗ through time and through development and

1:41:17 ↗ city investment and maybe washed-out

1:41:19 ↗ investment investment you know likewise

1:41:21 ↗ if you are gonna spin-off hila or

1:41:24 ↗ Sammamish Park which you're doing is

1:41:26 ↗ also saying us are nine hundred becomes

1:41:28 ↗ an edge and and I think you know it's

1:41:31 ↗ it's it's at this point being very

1:41:33 ↗ deliberate on those transportation

1:41:35 ↗ facilities and whether their divisional

1:41:39 ↗ points or whether we're gonna try and

1:41:42 ↗ overcome them to create kind of singular

1:41:45 ↗ areas I think that's the conversation

1:41:47 ↗ here the use is you know the uses the

1:41:49 ↗ zoning is the zoning and I think what

1:41:51 ↗ we're talking about is you know as we

1:41:54 ↗ describe you know if we ultimately say

1:41:57 ↗ Pickering as a neighborhood and Gilman

1:42:00 ↗ or Tibbets Valley or whatever we want to

1:42:01 ↗ call the South one is a neighborhood

1:42:03 ↗ then then I would hope that because

1:42:05 ↗ they're both part of the core we're

1:42:08 ↗ talking about a mix of land uses we

1:42:10 ↗ already know that vertical mix used is

1:42:12 ↗ mandated on the south area south of i90

1:42:15 ↗ that was part of the the moratorium was

1:42:18 ↗ creating a zone that had mandatory

1:42:20 ↗ vertical mixed-use you know whether or

1:42:23 ↗ not residential ever makes it into

1:42:25 ↗ Pickering

1:42:25 ↗ I mean I'm optimistic that it is but

1:42:28 ↗ part of it is us saying we think that

1:42:31 ↗ having residences in high-density

1:42:33 ↗ residential near the Costco you know

1:42:37 ↗ because it is an employment hub for us I

1:42:39 ↗ mean you know and it will be for a long

1:42:41 ↗ time if we get another office

1:42:43 ↗ headquarters or large office developer

1:42:45 ↗ and they choose to locate there as well

1:42:48 ↗ you know it's probably gonna be because

1:42:50 ↗ Sound Transit serves that area it could

1:42:53 ↗ also be because there's retail and

1:42:55 ↗ residential right there

1:42:56 ↗ I mean the suburban office market is

1:42:59 ↗ pretty well dying just because most

1:43:03 ↗ office employees want to be in a more

1:43:05 ↗ walkable more mixed use area right and

1:43:08 ↗ so so part of this is is I think what

1:43:11 ↗ we're talking about is is this one or

1:43:14 ↗ two or ill or more it could be three I

1:43:16 ↗ mean I think we're talking about how

1:43:19 ↗ many well we'll later talk about where

1:43:21 ↗ the dividing line is but I think right

1:43:24 ↗ now we're trying to figure out how many

1:43:25 ↗ is

1:43:25 ↗ this is it 1 2 2 is at 3 it's at 6 a

1:43:28 ↗ consensus I'll back off on my discussion

1:43:35 ↗ about potentially 3 zones as long as Mel

1:43:38 ↗ gets Sound Transit to building so am I

1:43:49 ↗ correct

1:43:49 ↗ and with my verbage that that AJ had

1:43:53 ↗ proposed of saying one district with

1:43:55 ↗ multiple neighborhoods is that is that

1:43:57 ↗ it since obvious that's not the question

1:43:59 ↗ is that what you're asking yes

1:44:02 ↗ okay I'm a proponent of that you okay

1:44:08 ↗ how many has been I would also throw in

1:44:10 ↗ I wouldn't call it the regional

1:44:12 ↗ Grossinger yes I would love do we have a

1:44:14 ↗ chance to address those verbage of that

1:44:17 ↗ yes yes this would be fine so so I think

1:44:25 ↗ the question is is so how many how many

1:44:27 ↗ are we talking to neighborhoods well

1:44:31 ↗ first let's talk about regional growth

1:44:32 ↗ center okay our GC yeah is anybody a

1:44:35 ↗ proponent of that I know I'm not right I

1:44:37 ↗ am because I feel like you brand around

1:44:40 ↗ the neighborhood's not around every like

1:44:49 ↗ death downtown Seattle there's downtown

1:44:51 ↗ which is just downtown and then there's

1:44:53 ↗ the neighborhoods in downtown that have

1:44:55 ↗ an actual identity I think that you

1:44:58 ↗ could you might still identify with the

1:45:00 ↗ neighborhood but we could still have a

1:45:02 ↗ name that people would use for that

1:45:04 ↗ region I I think that if you call it the

1:45:06 ↗ regional growth center you're sort of

1:45:07 ↗ missing an opportunity to have something

1:45:09 ↗ that people would identify with and I

1:45:11 ↗ think that this sounds it's just I I

1:45:15 ↗ think that it's kind of a missed

1:45:16 ↗ opportunity to have it be called the

1:45:18 ↗ regional growth center when the other

1:45:19 ↗ districts have names where people can

1:45:21 ↗ really identify and say oh that's where

1:45:22 ↗ I live but I identify with confluence

1:45:25 ↗ park or something else and this nobody

1:45:26 ↗ would be like oh yeah I know that I live

1:45:28 ↗ in the regional center I think we need

1:45:31 ↗ to rename it and still allow district

1:45:33 ↗ identity to be the predominant way that

1:45:35 ↗ we think of the market Belltown and the

1:45:37 ↗ way we break up downtown Seattle we can

1:45:40 ↗ still do that same thing in this area

1:45:42 ↗ without calling it the RDC you buy a

1:45:50 ↗ Cadillac we all know it's a GM so needs

1:45:55 ↗ to have a different name but from a

1:45:57 ↗ legal standpoint we can still call it an

1:46:00 ↗ rgc regional growth center but we all

1:46:03 ↗ know that it's going to be a county line

1:46:04 ↗ right what if we what if we just call it

1:46:06 ↗ city center that's awesome I like that

1:46:13 ↗ they see regional growth center will

1:46:16 ↗ react in horror like why do we want to

1:46:19 ↗ become a regional growth center who said

1:46:21 ↗ that you know so it's that name that

1:46:23 ↗ attracts

1:46:24 ↗ but that let me so let me even though I

1:46:26 ↗ know everyone disagrees with me let me

1:46:27 ↗ try one more time I think that but I

1:46:29 ↗ think that's that's why regional grocer

1:46:30 ↗ is a good name because well that's what

1:46:33 ↗ it is it is a regional growth center and

1:46:34 ↗ the people that live there need to

1:46:35 ↗ understand that they live in a growth

1:46:37 ↗ center but what they what that implies

1:46:40 ↗ is downtown Bellevue or Amazon's

1:46:43 ↗ headquarters in downtown Seattle that's

1:46:46 ↗ what the vision is and what I'd like

1:46:48 ↗ people to understand is something some

1:46:51 ↗ name that connotes that yes we're going

1:46:54 ↗ to grow the quality of life and

1:46:58 ↗ livability for everyone who lives here

1:47:00 ↗ we're not going to just let ourselves

1:47:02 ↗ turn into downtown Bellevue that's

1:47:04 ↗ that's to me the importance of that name

1:47:06 ↗ so I will let you know that when we were

1:47:08 ↗ approved by the Puget Sound Regional

1:47:11 ↗ so when we were there at our meeting

1:47:12 ↗ getting approved you're patting us on

1:47:14 ↗ the back but saying that we really

1:47:15 ↗ needed to work on our marketing and

1:47:17 ↗ change the name so they really yeah most

1:47:20 ↗ are not named Regional Growth Center I

1:47:25 ↗ just want to say that I think we need to

1:47:27 ↗ change the name because what we see is

1:47:30 ↗ well mean what we really want to grow is

1:47:31 ↗ jobs because we as far as housing we've

1:47:35 ↗ gotten what we really want here and

1:47:37 ↗ we're going to have some more with this

1:47:39 ↗ with high-density

1:47:40 ↗ but what we really want to go is the

1:47:42 ↗ sustainability and the jobs and keeping

1:47:45 ↗ people working here and living here and

1:47:47 ↗ enjoying what we have I'm looking at the

1:47:54 ↗ name Regional Growth Center and in order

1:47:58 ↗ to get that mass transit there we have

1:48:04 ↗ to commit to have so much housing around

1:48:07 ↗ it right and so even though you want to

1:48:10 ↗ change the name which is fine it still

1:48:12 ↗ has to be regional growth center much a

1:48:19 ↗ branding discussion nada yeah yeah and I

1:48:23 ↗ heard city center I thought that had a

1:48:25 ↗ good ring to it Center is fantastic I

1:48:27 ↗ like something more unique to Issaquah

1:48:30 ↗ not not two but like it's a quad center

1:48:32 ↗ instead of just City which said guy any

1:48:35 ↗ city any city might look like any other

1:48:37 ↗ city

1:48:37 ↗ it's akua's unique you know and it says

1:48:41 ↗ that when we say it's a cross Center or

1:48:43 ↗ something

1:48:43 ↗ it's a cause not written then we're not

1:48:46 ↗ downtown Bellevue we're gonna do it our

1:48:48 ↗ way that is in match with the values the

1:48:52 ↗ culture the unique attractions that are

1:48:55 ↗ Issaquah so that's why

1:48:58 ↗ I like it both but I think this probably

1:49:00 ↗ should go to the community how about the

1:49:05 ↗ Valley Center or hey I thought that too

1:49:08 ↗ but then we also have East Valley and

1:49:10 ↗ some of them I will then you need to

1:49:11 ↗ rename East Valley and I consider Valley

1:49:13 ↗ and so I just thought it was little too

1:49:15 ↗ similar so what I came up with was hokey

1:49:18 ↗ I'll tell you in little flowery but I

1:49:20 ↗ came with chrysalis which basically

1:49:21 ↗ means development of growth but is a

1:49:24 ↗ little softer sounding name than the RG

1:49:26 ↗ see we don't have to decide on the name

1:49:35 ↗ tonight twelve I don't think that we

1:49:46 ↗ should leave him up in the air we should

1:49:49 ↗ have some consensus with all of this so

1:49:51 ↗ I we have the consensus that it should

1:49:53 ↗ be one neighborhood one district

1:49:56 ↗ district

1:49:57 ↗ how many neighborhoods

1:50:01 ↗ I'd say four neighborhoods I see to

1:50:08 ↗ think to to I'm liking to go for three

1:50:15 ↗ I'll give you minority opinion on that

1:50:18 ↗ rod all right so can we go to public

1:50:21 ↗ comment

1:50:22 ↗ who's gonna arm wrestle to be for Akane

1:50:27 ↗ so my vision of this is two

1:50:30 ↗ neighborhoods but what I want to see to

1:50:33 ↗ provide an overall breakage of all of

1:50:37 ↗ our roads barriers because we have more

1:50:39 ↗ than nine 19's or nine hundred we have

1:50:41 ↗ 56 we have East Lake Sammamish Parkway

1:50:44 ↗ and we have Newport way all of those

1:50:46 ↗ barriers I would like to see a roads map

1:50:50 ↗ it goes over the top and then mandates

1:50:54 ↗ where there shall be crossings over the

1:50:56 ↗ entire central Issaquah area and that

1:50:59 ↗ way you wouldn't have to have that

1:51:01 ↗ district to break through i ninety or sr

1:51:04 ↗ nine hundred but it would also break

1:51:06 ↗ through the other road situations that

1:51:08 ↗ we have so I solved the problem

1:51:09 ↗ differently and then I think that the

1:51:14 ↗ feel of the two neighborhoods are going

1:51:16 ↗ to be very different I think Costco is

1:51:19 ↗ going to really really create the

1:51:22 ↗ character of the northern area and the

1:51:24 ↗ southern area is going to be more retail

1:51:29 ↗ people oriented and you have the Lake

1:51:34 ↗ Sammamish State Park which needs to be

1:51:36 ↗ an emphasis on the north which you don't

1:51:39 ↗ have to the south so I don't think you

1:51:41 ↗ can consider it as one I think four is

1:51:43 ↗ onerous so I personally landed up with

1:51:46 ↗ two and I think if Valley might be

1:51:50 ↗ just fine if you want to combine your

1:51:54 ↗ titles I don't think you can call it a

1:51:56 ↗ center because I think you're going to

1:51:57 ↗ come up against Old Town is the heart

1:51:59 ↗ right Old Town is really the center and

1:52:01 ↗ this is this is different than that so

1:52:06 ↗ and you don't think I'm missing anything

1:52:08 ↗ there thank you we gotta have a massive

1:52:15 ↗ lid over i-90 it's got to have all these

1:52:17 ↗ feeder buses from all those areas that

1:52:19 ↗ aren't even in the transit area or Sound

1:52:23 ↗ Transit areas got to come on i-90 and

1:52:26 ↗ dump people otherwise you didn't fill

1:52:28 ↗ the whole area with parking garages it's

1:52:30 ↗ just critical that we have that and

1:52:32 ↗ that's going to blend these areas

1:52:33 ↗ together by having that lid and the life

1:52:37 ↗ that'll come with them a major transit

1:52:39 ↗ center right there it's yeah it's 2-2

1:52:45 ↗ and it's yeah it's ansa sister so did

1:52:54 ↗ O'Connor's comments and their old days

1:52:56 ↗ comments and Victoria I don't think we

1:53:00 ↗ met before but thank you I like to

1:53:02 ↗ comment I think though that connectivity

1:53:04 ↗ between the communities is important

1:53:07 ↗ it's not just sectioning them off my

1:53:12 ↗ communities but it's regardless of

1:53:13 ↗ whether it's one two three or four or

1:53:15 ↗ the whole community we need to overcome

1:53:17 ↗ those boundaries so that needs to be

1:53:19 ↗ part and you look at more than just

1:53:21 ↗ washed out making that happen we need to

1:53:23 ↗ plan for that to happen so I'm still

1:53:27 ↗ concerned with going with just one

1:53:29 ↗ neighborhood because I think we're

1:53:30 ↗ losing part of the characters Eric

1:53:32 ↗ turistic of what people move to those

1:53:34 ↗ inputs for like going with just one

1:53:37 ↗ overall neighborhood and I don't want to

1:53:39 ↗ lose that so before we actually move on

1:53:43 ↗ I got a question for you Keith Hyatt's

1:53:46 ↗ what is the plan for hire

1:53:49 ↗ hila so the plan is so it's part of

1:53:56 ↗ rally's development agreement they are

1:53:59 ↗ you know they've already built two

1:54:02 ↗ hotels

1:54:04 ↗ Jarnell Scott office building in there

1:54:07 ↗ their next project is going to be I

1:54:10 ↗ think they're gonna try for another

1:54:11 ↗ office project next and then residential

1:54:15 ↗ will follow at some point so it's mixed

1:54:17 ↗ use its

1:54:18 ↗ you know the rally's vision for their

1:54:22 ↗ property is in sync with central

1:54:25 ↗ Issaquah so it's walkable it's mixed-use

1:54:28 ↗ its high density they they have a

1:54:31 ↗ similar vision as we do for the rest of

1:54:35 ↗ Central is quoi so their plan is to

1:54:38 ↗ actually make it very similar to Tibbets

1:54:40 ↗ Valley yes okay that's why I was

1:54:43 ↗ thinking it should be its own

1:54:44 ↗ neighborhood because I didn't know that

1:54:46 ↗ there was going to be mixed use and I

1:54:47 ↗ thought I was all going to be commercial

1:54:49 ↗ and all right okay yeah based on

1:54:56 ↗ questions two through five central his

1:54:58 ↗ akov will be comprised of so we left we

1:55:01 ↗ took out service we took out old route

1:55:05 ↗ ten we left in for now confluence so we

1:55:09 ↗ have confluence Western gateway we have

1:55:13 ↗ a north we have two neighborhoods in the

1:55:15 ↗ in the rgc or music wah Valley or

1:55:19 ↗ Central Valley or something and then we

1:55:24 ↗ have East Valley so I'm thinking two

1:55:27 ↗ three four five neighborhoods his

1:55:30 ↗ Western gateway out no six Western

1:55:33 ↗ gateway still in Western gateway be

1:55:37 ↗ taken out we can have that conversation

1:55:38 ↗ I didn't I was on the table it should be

1:55:40 ↗ taken out all right

1:55:43 ↗ it's just housing a question there's

1:55:47 ↗ still a lot left with the Gateway that

1:55:49 ↗ hasn't been resolved as far as the

1:55:52 ↗ bridge over i-94

1:55:58 ↗ [Music]

1:55:59 ↗ the road was not done so to take it out

1:56:02 ↗ you're taking out some of the leverage

1:56:05 ↗ to get funding to complete it and also

1:56:07 ↗ to be our gateway to Issaquah so I mean

1:56:12 ↗ I think it's a mistake that you haven't

1:56:15 ↗ corrected and you're gonna leave it on

1:56:16 ↗ corrected it functions very similar to

1:56:18 ↗ confluence it is a trend

1:56:20 ↗ out of central is the coop but therefore

1:56:22 ↗ it then makes sense to keep you need to

1:56:24 ↗ include it so you get the design and

1:56:26 ↗ transportation benefits that are in the

1:56:28 ↗ CIP even if you don't have the density

1:56:30 ↗ that you have in the core so how many

1:56:32 ↗ neighborhoods are East Valley are you

1:56:33 ↗ counting for East Valley I've got six

1:56:35 ↗ total but how many are in East Valley

1:56:37 ↗ alone I you're collecting all these are

1:56:40 ↗ different yes so so we haven't talked

1:56:43 ↗ about that alright so maybe we park this

1:56:48 ↗ question until after we've done the

1:56:49 ↗ districts right plus is that where we're

1:56:51 ↗ at yeah okay so this isn't question six

1:56:55 ↗ no it's not actually a 30 question soon

1:56:59 ↗ so question six is are the boundaries

1:57:03 ↗ right so and then I gave you guys it

1:57:11 ↗ gave you guys a question

1:57:14 ↗ and I think Ken hit it a little bit

1:57:16 ↗ earlier oops sorry

1:57:19 ↗ so as you get off Front Street on i-90

1:57:24 ↗ and we talked about the sinking kennel

1:57:27 ↗ and then there's about dealership I'm I

1:57:31 ↗ am much more inclined to say service

1:57:34 ↗ back in here even though I think Ken

1:57:36 ↗ sees it as a potential gateway I don't I

1:57:38 ↗ see it actually as a pocket that is has

1:57:42 ↗ a very different purpose for me as

1:57:45 ↗ economic development but these areas

1:57:47 ↗ right here out on whether you call that

1:57:50 ↗ Front Street or East Lake Sam they're

1:57:54 ↗ very visible and so back to a similar

1:57:58 ↗ come luhan's

1:57:59 ↗ the value of being in central Issaquah

1:58:02 ↗ is you have the standards that relate to

1:58:06 ↗ pedestrian orientation to walkability so

1:58:09 ↗ for example you know carlson kennel

1:58:13 ↗ property where did my mouse go there it

1:58:14 ↗ is so you know it sits right here they

1:58:16 ↗ just did the stream relocation and

1:58:19 ↗ they've cleared it off and it's like now

1:58:21 ↗ you can see the property go okay wow

1:58:22 ↗ there's actually kind of a decent sized

1:58:24 ↗ piece of property there you know the

1:58:26 ↗ question is is if if that is not in

1:58:29 ↗ central Issaquah the typical sub

1:58:33 ↗ urban development of that property would

1:58:35 ↗ be the building would be at the back and

1:58:37 ↗ the parking lot would be out front and

1:58:39 ↗ you know there may or may not be a

1:58:41 ↗ sidewalk that connects to the door and

1:58:44 ↗ then if you on the contrary if you did

1:58:47 ↗ it as a central project you know the

1:58:50 ↗ building would be up at the street it

1:58:53 ↗ would have that activity piece and so so

1:58:56 ↗ I'm just bringing that up as one thing

1:59:00 ↗ for y'all to think about because if we

1:59:02 ↗ take this out

1:59:04 ↗ the standards under IMC are very

1:59:06 ↗ different than they are under central if

1:59:08 ↗ we poach out East Valley to grab it that

1:59:13 ↗ would be something I would actually ask

1:59:15 ↗ you guys to consider then you would go

1:59:17 ↗ to about 230th would be your West you're

1:59:19 ↗ eastern border rather than 30th right

1:59:22 ↗ here Eastern Eastern border would be to

1:59:27 ↗ 30th eastern border not be like fall

1:59:30 ↗ City Road not well fall city roads this

1:59:34 ↗ one okay so you helped how much further

1:59:36 ↗ you wanted to go out two to three so I'm

1:59:37 ↗ talking about these parcels right here

1:59:40 ↗ Thanks that's the auto body shop it's

1:59:44 ↗ 2:30 okay that's the auto body shop area

1:59:48 ↗ yeah it's just it doesn't wrap all the

1:59:51 ↗ way you know when we drove all the way

1:59:53 ↗ back and there was rubies and the detail

1:59:59 ↗ shop that was under construction and the

2:00:01 ↗ RV park not any of that I think all

2:00:03 ↗ that's kind of tucked back behind it's

2:00:06 ↗ really just the vacant kennel property

2:00:08 ↗ and then the boat storage place it's

2:00:12 ↗ basically all front faces the frontage

2:00:14 ↗ of stream Front Street or eats like Sam

2:00:17 ↗ I'm not sure where it changes I like

2:00:19 ↗ this idea of taking out service but

2:00:21 ↗ extending that border because it really

2:00:23 ↗ is I mean we talked about it as a

2:00:24 ↗ gateway only because after this stream

2:00:27 ↗ relocation project it's not our best

2:00:29 ↗ face and we'd like it to be a better

2:00:32 ↗ face I think less than we want it to be

2:00:34 ↗ a neighborhood like Blake Western

2:00:36 ↗ gateway so I'm a proponent of changing

2:00:38 ↗ that border

2:00:39 ↗ I'm down with it yeah okay and the other

2:00:41 ↗ the other thing you guys talked about

2:00:43 ↗ earlier was Gillman village so right now

2:00:46 ↗ that's this that's this little kind of

2:00:49 ↗ doorstep so right now I've got it in

2:00:54 ↗ East Village only because it's zoned the

2:00:57 ↗ same as all the rest of the East Village

2:00:59 ↗ but remember we definitely ancient

2:01:03 ↗ follow the vision remember I'm lazy so I

2:01:12 ↗ think it's a conversation we need to

2:01:14 ↗ have so I think that the character have

2:01:19 ↗ been small low-density quirky but still

2:01:22 ↗ very walkable I think Gillman Village

2:01:23 ↗ absolutely fits the vision of confluence

2:01:25 ↗ and not East about the East Valley and

2:01:30 ↗ then if that means that it needs to be

2:01:31 ↗ then the zone it needs to be changed so

2:01:34 ↗ that it fits confluence what are the

2:01:38 ↗ pros I think because if you look at what

2:01:40 ↗ I mean one of the key measures of

2:01:42 ↗ success for East Valley is to maintain

2:01:45 ↗ the character of Gillen village so

2:01:47 ↗ number four that then becomes a key

2:01:50 ↗ implementation for confluence and then

2:01:52 ↗ we need to be very sure as it's been

2:01:55 ↗ repeatedly mentioned upon the comment

2:01:57 ↗ that our actual zoning rules are

2:01:58 ↗ structured in a way that actually help

2:02:00 ↗ maintain Gillman village and not have it

2:02:03 ↗ get torn down 20 years so my guess is

2:02:05 ↗ with you the the folks that live in the

2:02:08 ↗ confluence neighborhood now have more of

2:02:10 ↗ an association with Gillman village then

2:02:12 ↗ say Oh Depot or the storage unit that's

2:02:18 ↗ going in across the street I mean think

2:02:21 ↗ about that line of Gillman it's an easy

2:02:23 ↗ it's an easy way even just looking at

2:02:25 ↗ that that small neighborhood I mean

2:02:27 ↗ they're effectively neighbors to each

2:02:28 ↗ other when you think about kind of that

2:02:30 ↗ oh gosh the the future storage unit

2:02:33 ↗ going in already has a different feel so

2:02:35 ↗ from that measure I would agree about

2:02:37 ↗ adding it to confluence but does that

2:02:39 ↗ actually change the zoning right now I

2:02:42 ↗ don't think it does what I think it does

2:02:43 ↗ is it presents a future conversation

2:02:45 ↗ when we talk about changing

2:02:46 ↗ for the confluence area but I don't know

2:02:48 ↗ that it actually does anything right now

2:02:50 ↗ to protect Gillman village so I just

2:02:52 ↗ want to make it be specific that I think

2:02:53 ↗ it again this goes to vision and not

2:02:55 ↗ code I agree with the idea of pulling

2:02:58 ↗ Gillman village into confluence but I

2:03:00 ↗ think we should take a look at that area

2:03:03 ↗ where Gillman Boulevard is and that

2:03:06 ↗ really needs to be part of that

2:03:08 ↗ conversation of is the mixed-use density

2:03:13 ↗ all of that going to just stick on the

2:03:16 ↗ eastern side or is that going to extend

2:03:19 ↗ down Gillman village because we really

2:03:21 ↗ haven't had a good community

2:03:23 ↗ conversation about what Gillan villages

2:03:25 ↗ or what Gillman Boulevard is going to

2:03:28 ↗ become and so depending on the answer to

2:03:32 ↗ that is does that belong in the regional

2:03:36 ↗ growth center or an extension of East

2:03:40 ↗ Valley where it doesn't really fit but

2:03:42 ↗ hey it's where we can put it yeah I

2:03:45 ↗ think that's that's a separate

2:03:46 ↗ conversation I mean you take the little

2:03:49 ↗ little notch and then give it the

2:03:50 ↗ confluence but then what's left along

2:03:52 ↗ the south of 90 does that belong and the

2:03:54 ↗ growth Center versus East Valley that's

2:03:56 ↗ a separate question I right so if you

2:04:00 ↗ you know if you know character-wise and

2:04:04 ↗ what we're trying to do with gilman

2:04:05 ↗ village it definitely feels more like

2:04:07 ↗ confluence when you look at this piece

2:04:10 ↗ over here where atlases and the Kentucky

2:04:13 ↗ Fried Chicken you know it's it's really

2:04:17 ↗ when you think about transitions you

2:04:19 ↗ know you don't want to transition your

2:04:21 ↗ lowest to your highest right in theory

2:04:24 ↗ there should be a step in between which

2:04:25 ↗ is what kind of East Valley is to some

2:04:28 ↗ extent you know so I like the fact that

2:04:33 ↗ there's this piece of purple on the

2:04:35 ↗ south side of Gilman right here because

2:04:38 ↗ I think it's a good kind of buffer in

2:04:40 ↗ between the core and confluence but

2:04:45 ↗ clearly once you get to the east side of

2:04:47 ↗ the creek

2:04:49 ↗ this is gilman village and we're talking

2:04:50 ↗ about it staying a much smaller level so

2:04:53 ↗ so the question is do you have this

2:04:56 ↗ little area here the

2:04:59 ↗ on the south side of Gillman but the

2:05:01 ↗ rest of it being in confluence I don't

2:05:04 ↗ know it starts you using the river as

2:05:07 ↗ the dividing point River creepy sorry I

2:05:15 ↗ like the concept that you're talking

2:05:18 ↗ about of this of this merging between

2:05:20 ↗ going from confluence to what right now

2:05:22 ↗ is the rgc but it doesn't feel like East

2:05:25 ↗ Valley to me it feels like rgc when

2:05:27 ↗ you're there and when thinking about the

2:05:30 ↗ development that is even just currently

2:05:32 ↗ going on it feels like RG sees me so to

2:05:35 ↗ me it makes sense to add the use that

2:05:37 ↗ Creek we add Gillman into confluence and

2:05:40 ↗ we have Gillman be our dividing line for

2:05:43 ↗ East Valley but because you could go

2:05:45 ↗ back to having that as a neighborhood

2:05:47 ↗ all Gilman but make it a part of the

2:05:50 ↗ growth Center because like because I

2:05:52 ↗ think you want we want to make sure

2:05:53 ↗ Gilman as you as you drive from 17th to

2:05:55 ↗ the Front Street is it's just a single

2:05:57 ↗ continuous corridor

2:06:00 ↗ so I thought you lost me AJ so so Gilman

2:06:05 ↗ the boulevard not Gilman the old

2:06:08 ↗ district yes so I was saying so have it

2:06:11 ↗ so have it be a part of the rgc district

2:06:14 ↗ but then kind of go back to on the south

2:06:17 ↗ side of 90 you have two neighborhoods

2:06:19 ↗ Timbits valeting gilman to allow for

2:06:22 ↗ kind of the the step down as you move

2:06:24 ↗ eastward along gilman the boulevard you

2:06:27 ↗ talking about just keeping the street in

2:06:30 ↗ the sea in the regional growth Center in

2:06:33 ↗ the rgc and no properties actually he's

2:06:37 ↗ saying make that area part of the rgc

2:06:40 ↗ district but then give it its own

2:06:43 ↗ neighborhood name yes what's the benefit

2:06:48 ↗ what's the benefit to your argument I

2:06:50 ↗ don't know I think it just goes back to

2:06:55 ↗ right I think I

2:06:58 ↗ I think I agree that it's not it doesn't

2:07:00 ↗ really feel like he's Valley I don't

2:07:05 ↗ know

2:07:06 ↗ so Keith yeah what's the pros and cons

2:07:08 ↗ of this so well so part of it is the

2:07:11 ↗ more we dissect this I actually loved

2:07:14 ↗ when we did this and it was like it

2:07:16 ↗ turned and went from ten to four because

2:07:18 ↗ then it was like he's a groomer I'm lazy

2:07:20 ↗ and and then it was like I only had to

2:07:21 ↗ do four descriptions of what these areas

2:07:23 ↗ were gonna be so the more we dissect it

2:07:26 ↗ into individual pieces you know each of

2:07:29 ↗ those have to stand on their own right

2:07:31 ↗ so if you so let's say we take this

2:07:33 ↗ piece of confluence or this the Gillman

2:07:36 ↗ village and we put it in confluence

2:07:37 ↗ right so now we have this piece of

2:07:39 ↗ purple down here south of the freeway

2:07:41 ↗ and I agree that that feels very

2:07:45 ↗ different than the Fred Meijer shopping

2:07:47 ↗ center and up by Microsoft and BMC it's

2:07:52 ↗ different okay so maybe this becomes the

2:07:55 ↗ Gillman neighborhood down here not

2:07:59 ↗ including Gillman village but maybe you

2:08:01 ↗ would I don't know we need to talk about

2:08:03 ↗ that you know and then what is what is

2:08:05 ↗ it really and and does it have its own

2:08:08 ↗ sense of place that's distinguishable

2:08:10 ↗ and deserves distinguishment from the

2:08:13 ↗ rest or does that then become part of

2:08:16 ↗ confluence and you just kind of push it

2:08:18 ↗ to the freeway so part of it is I don't

2:08:22 ↗ mind demising this as many times as you

2:08:24 ↗ guys feel it should be demised but every

2:08:27 ↗ time we demise it each area needs to

2:08:29 ↗ have its own character yeah I see what

2:08:33 ↗ you're saying I and I agree we still

2:08:34 ↗ want to try to stick to four districts

2:08:37 ↗ yeah because it's Gillman village owned

2:08:40 ↗ by the same person right that so if you

2:08:44 ↗ take it into the Regional Growth and

2:08:46 ↗ somebody offers money it could be

2:08:49 ↗ totally redeveloped totally yeah so

2:08:52 ↗ that's yeah

2:08:55 ↗ something possibility right area you you

2:09:00 ↗ put it in you know the codes and that

2:09:02 ↗ kind of stuff would but would change it

2:09:05 ↗ so if you want to try and enhance her to

2:09:07 ↗ keep but I would think confluence would

2:09:09 ↗ be the better place if you really don't

2:09:10 ↗ care then put it in the regional growth

2:09:13 ↗ it's prime real estate so from an

2:09:16 ↗ economic standpoint I think being part

2:09:18 ↗ of the regional growth center until we

2:09:22 ↗ get a better name I think would be smart

2:09:25 ↗ okay this is this is what I want to

2:09:28 ↗ propose because I think we're starting

2:09:29 ↗ to get a little confused right now we

2:09:30 ↗ have this little puzzle piece coming off

2:09:32 ↗ of the rgc into East Valley if you

2:09:34 ↗ follow up the creek yep I think that

2:09:36 ↗ lines to be extended along the creeks so

2:09:38 ↗ that that tiny rectangle of purple right

2:09:40 ↗ now it becomes regional growth center we

2:09:42 ↗ stop with the Creek and that little

2:09:44 ↗ triangle which is actually Gillman

2:09:46 ↗ village if you please correct me if I'm

2:09:47 ↗ wrong becomes part of confluence we've

2:09:50 ↗ already moved that other line or East

2:09:53 ↗ Valley to include what we're saying is

2:09:55 ↗ the eastern corridor a little bit

2:09:56 ↗ correct so so joy you take the

2:10:00 ↗ southeastern leg of rgc you'd now move

2:10:04 ↗ it to the creek yeah so atlas goes in

2:10:08 ↗ and so does which so the storage unit

2:10:16 ↗ and in medical office yeah and so then

2:10:19 ↗ this little stepstool is part of

2:10:22 ↗ confluence and then we have this piece

2:10:24 ↗ of East Valley which extends south of

2:10:26 ↗ the freeway

2:10:27 ↗ why wouldn't we make from Gilman 290

2:10:32 ↗ that hold sectional purple why wouldn't

2:10:34 ↗ we make that part of the regional growth

2:10:35 ↗ center this area here that's kind of the

2:10:39 ↗ tire stores and stuff yeah with an

2:10:43 ↗ exception with an exception of the

2:10:45 ↗ little purple area off on the right hand

2:10:48 ↗ side of Front Street everything left to

2:10:51 ↗ Front Street to the growth Center would

2:10:53 ↗ become part of the regional growth

2:10:55 ↗ center and for that little section

2:10:57 ↗ that's gilman village you could do some

2:10:59 ↗ special though

2:11:00 ↗ there or moving into confluence but I'm

2:11:02 ↗ fine keeping just add that little sliver

2:11:05 ↗ right nestled on Front Street because

2:11:07 ↗ remember that because at that point

2:11:09 ↗ that's still part of your East Valley

2:11:10 ↗ axis and remember too that we're trying

2:11:12 ↗ to say like I'm sorry I mean touch off

2:11:14 ↗ me anytime that we're trying to say well

2:11:16 ↗ what are the fields of these

2:11:17 ↗ neighborhoods okay so we're still

2:11:18 ↗ keeping to the core of these four

2:11:20 ↗ districts but we're saying what does

2:11:21 ↗ East Valley feel like and my proposal is

2:11:24 ↗ to say that the area of Atlas that

2:11:26 ↗ little piece you know to the creek

2:11:28 ↗ doesn't feel like East Valley to me

2:11:30 ↗ however when we talk about this blending

2:11:31 ↗ and not having the 90 be effectively a

2:11:34 ↗ straight cut through our community that

2:11:36 ↗ area where you think of the gas station

2:11:38 ↗ in the Tire Center that feels more East

2:11:40 ↗ Valley to me that feels more in line as

2:11:43 ↗ the neighborhood exists now would it be

2:11:47 ↗ better operationally if that changed and

2:11:50 ↗ became part of the regional growth

2:11:51 ↗ center and grew with the regional growth

2:11:53 ↗ center no I think it's line having a

2:11:57 ↗ north/south so part of so okay I don't

2:12:03 ↗ want to go there we're trying to talk

2:12:06 ↗ about these blending right now there's a

2:12:08 ↗ reason that we're saying you know we've

2:12:09 ↗ we've elected to say confluence stays in

2:12:11 ↗ central Issaquah however it's its own

2:12:13 ↗ identity and so I'm trying to not have

2:12:16 ↗ East Valley be cut by the by the 90 and

2:12:20 ↗ so to me do they have to be hard and

2:12:22 ↗ fast lines can you kind of have like a

2:12:24 ↗ vague transition area because because

2:12:27 ↗ these are from from vision map I'm

2:12:29 ↗ thinking like the necklace you you

2:12:31 ↗ intentionally have some of the lines be

2:12:33 ↗ vague and not following actual things

2:12:35 ↗ can we do the same thing here and then

2:12:38 ↗ just not specify that it's a specific

2:12:41 ↗ road or Creek but just kind of have it

2:12:43 ↗ be a bit vague dividing point between

2:12:45 ↗ the two districts then unhelpful it's

2:12:47 ↗ unhelpful okay so we're trying to get

2:12:51 ↗ more predictability right vague lines

2:12:53 ↗ lead to no I'm I'm in this district

2:12:56 ↗ right I mean we don't want to do that

2:12:58 ↗ okay all right

2:13:01 ↗ I like Joy's idea I don't know no I

2:13:04 ↗ don't know if anybody else wants to

2:13:07 ↗ weigh in of moving this rgc line over to

2:13:11 ↗ the creek

2:13:12 ↗ and then I think there was general

2:13:15 ↗ perspective of adding Gillman village to

2:13:17 ↗ confluence okay good compromise okay

2:13:21 ↗ let's go with that public are you gonna

2:13:24 ↗ want to comment on that Keith I go Oh

2:13:27 ↗ quick question for East Valley

2:13:29 ↗ yeah the high in Fred Meyer yes why is

2:13:32 ↗ that part of the CIP that's unbuildable

2:13:36 ↗ land it's actually so it's it it is

2:13:43 ↗ buildable you know it's a cliff it's

2:13:47 ↗ it's it's it's created fill material

2:13:52 ↗ [Music]

2:13:53 ↗ there's someone looking at potentially

2:13:56 ↗ doing something there now where they

2:13:58 ↗ were before the moratorium I don't know

2:14:00 ↗ if they're still around we'll see well

2:14:03 ↗ if if and when the moratorium gets

2:14:04 ↗ lifted I cannot answer why that's part

2:14:08 ↗ of central Issaquah I would defer to my

2:14:11 ↗ long-range planners to answer that

2:14:14 ↗ question when we were developing the

2:14:19 ↗ plan it was going to be used for

2:14:21 ↗ affordable housing the affordable

2:14:24 ↗ housing provider owned it and so we put

2:14:27 ↗ it in there because we knew we were

2:14:28 ↗ gonna have trouble meeting our

2:14:29 ↗ affordable housing targets so we thought

2:14:31 ↗ that would be a bonus to have a property

2:14:33 ↗ owner and a property already in there

2:14:35 ↗ and then it was sold so that ended our

2:14:38 ↗ great aspiration of already having pre

2:14:42 ↗ ready affordable housing in central can

2:14:45 ↗ we remove it and what's the implication

2:14:49 ↗ I mean would it make any difference to

2:14:51 ↗ remember because I don't think it should

2:14:52 ↗ be built we can't so so it's private

2:14:56 ↗ property and as property rights someone

2:15:00 ↗ who owns it can build on it to the

2:15:03 ↗ standards that are allowed the only way

2:15:06 ↗ that the city can stop someone from

2:15:08 ↗ building on it is to purchase it so in

2:15:12 ↗ this that doesn't seem like that's in

2:15:14 ↗ the plan right now so I need I just want

2:15:17 ↗ you to be aware that put leaving it in

2:15:20 ↗ central Issaquah taking it out does not

2:15:22 ↗ change the fact that somebody could

2:15:24 ↗ build on that hill

2:15:25 ↗ as long as they can follow the rules

2:15:28 ↗ that are in place to do so and if

2:15:30 ↗ they're gonna build on it I'd rather

2:15:31 ↗ have them build something that fit CIP

2:15:34 ↗ standards so here's so I can I can go we

2:15:36 ↗ can go ahead and talk about this a bit

2:15:38 ↗ so under under the original plan that

2:15:45 ↗ came in was for a hotel the hotel

2:15:48 ↗ developer wanted to maximize the views

2:15:52 ↗ so they put that hotel as high up on

2:15:55 ↗ that hillside as possible and had a

2:15:57 ↗ really kind of nasty driveway that wound

2:16:00 ↗ its way up to their building and because

2:16:03 ↗ it was in central Issaquah we said you

2:16:07 ↗ cannot put it floating up the hillside

2:16:09 ↗ it actually has to be on black nugget

2:16:11 ↗ road so they were then gonna cut a big

2:16:16 ↗ chunk out of that wall that's behind

2:16:18 ↗ Fred Meyer and put that hotel so that

2:16:22 ↗ the front door was on black nugget road

2:16:24 ↗ because that's what the standards would

2:16:25 ↗ say so rather than a tall building up on

2:16:29 ↗ the side of the hill it was at least

2:16:32 ↗ down at the road grade and what's

2:16:37 ↗ happened or what's happening in the

2:16:39 ↗ current architectural standards and

2:16:42 ↗ urban design manual is the council have

2:16:45 ↗ been working with staff to add some

2:16:48 ↗ additional design guidelines

2:16:50 ↗ specifically for this hillside so but

2:16:55 ↗ having said all of that if you guys

2:16:57 ↗ think it should not be in central

2:16:59 ↗ Issaquah and should be regulated by

2:17:02 ↗ Issaquah municipal code and not Central

2:17:05 ↗ Issaquah standards that you guys can do

2:17:08 ↗ that so what you're saying is it would

2:17:11 ↗ by taking an out of CIP with loosen'd

2:17:14 ↗ standards it would give I think the

2:17:19 ↗ developer maybe less density but it

2:17:21 ↗ would give them more flexibility to

2:17:23 ↗ build differently on that property

2:17:33 ↗ okay so let's we're gonna get to public

2:17:36 ↗ comment a second I know you got a lot to

2:17:38 ↗ say about that so we have right now two

2:17:41 ↗ changes to the boundaries we're adding

2:17:45 ↗ we're puching out east valley to grab

2:17:47 ↗ the front street frontage 3o gilman

2:17:53 ↗ village and RG c so any other changes to

2:17:59 ↗ I see I see isn't that piece you see you

2:18:07 ↗ to make a very short concise college as

2:18:12 ↗ it was to summarized that those pieces

2:18:14 ↗ of the icy zone that talked a little

2:18:17 ↗ earlier just added to the list right any

2:18:20 ↗ spelling right right okay anything else

2:18:25 ↗ before we open this up for public

2:18:26 ↗ comment all right Steve so I agree with

2:18:40 ↗ given voyage to confluence I wanted to

2:18:45 ↗ add that I like RPC because I think it's

2:18:48 ↗ truth in advertising that's called what

2:18:50 ↗ it actually is and let's think that's

2:18:52 ↗ that we're going to put our development

2:18:53 ↗ I still like for neighborhood so and one

2:18:57 ↗ make sure that gets maintained give them

2:18:59 ↗ involve our Boulevard I agreed that for

2:19:03 ↗ the conversations needed I'd like to see

2:19:05 ↗ the edible trail maintained that doesn't

2:19:08 ↗ get talked about as much it's kind of

2:19:09 ↗ some of it was before my time I know

2:19:12 ↗ with all the growth I just want make

2:19:13 ↗ sure that it's mentioned thanks

2:19:21 ↗ I have no problem with any of it but I

2:19:25 ↗ do have a problem with the jagged edge

2:19:27 ↗ on the hillside I think we need the

2:19:31 ↗ grading standards changed for all

2:19:33 ↗ hillsides in town and a hillside overlay

2:19:36 ↗ but I think adding the density that to

2:19:39 ↗ this parcel makes it developable without

2:19:42 ↗ the additional density I think the cost

2:19:44 ↗ would for a long time outstrip its

2:19:46 ↗ ability to be anything and hopefully in

2:19:51 ↗ that point in time the city could buy it

2:19:52 ↗ because it is one belligerent parcel

2:19:56 ↗ that would be better off in public

2:19:59 ↗ ownership than in private development in

2:20:02 ↗ visually and access so I would take it

2:20:06 ↗ out of the central plan I do wonder

2:20:09 ↗ about all the other jaggedy edges up to

2:20:11 ↗ the top and why they were there and if

2:20:13 ↗ they can be removed or smooth into

2:20:16 ↗ something that that seems more likely I

2:20:20 ↗ don't understand why the line is drawn

2:20:22 ↗ that way in the north east corner but

2:20:25 ↗ maybe that's a different conversation

2:20:31 ↗ David that that wall is so ugly right

2:20:38 ↗ now and it's a city property as my

2:20:41 ↗ understanding yes we own the wall Thank

2:20:45 ↗ You King County and it's got you know it

2:20:49 ↗ does get complicated in that area I'm

2:20:51 ↗ not as doesn't bother me as much as it

2:20:55 ↗ does some to have something go on that

2:20:57 ↗ at part of Mercer Island that's the all

2:21:01 ↗ the i-90 was put in a ditch on Mercer

2:21:04 ↗ Island and the clay that came off there

2:21:07 ↗ that's what the V Z property there is

2:21:08 ↗ all filled with clay and they feel that

2:21:12 ↗ other places it's got a legacy all over

2:21:15 ↗ Eastern King County where they dump that

2:21:17 ↗ clay in problems and Costco ran into it

2:21:20 ↗ at their new store and Redman in fact

2:21:22 ↗ but we've got it there on that hillside

2:21:25 ↗ so they over excavated then they slapped

2:21:27 ↗ Mercer Island on top of its Mercer

2:21:31 ↗ Island dirt ban the behind the wall

2:21:34 ↗ I believe yeah it suburban dirt all

2:21:46 ↗ right all right so this is before we

2:21:54 ↗ dive into the individual neighborhoods

2:21:55 ↗ or districts I wanted some feedback on

2:22:01 ↗ the structure so if we have an overall

2:22:03 ↗ structural deficiency let's talk about

2:22:06 ↗ that now so what we did is we we tried

2:22:12 ↗ to describe what it was today we tried

2:22:15 ↗ to describe what we thought it would be

2:22:16 ↗ in the future so the outcomes were maybe

2:22:21 ↗ some of the most confusing pieces in a

2:22:25 ↗ way it was intended to be similar to I

2:22:28 ↗ think what Lindsay suggested which was

2:22:30 ↗ you know what do you need to what's

2:22:32 ↗ missing what what do you need to get to

2:22:34 ↗ have happen to actually get to your

2:22:36 ↗ success and so we can talk about that

2:22:42 ↗ and that one may be the one we'd spend

2:22:44 ↗ them

2:22:44 ↗ time talking about and then city

2:22:46 ↗ implementing actions and then measures

2:22:48 ↗ of success so so overall is was this an

2:22:54 ↗ okay structure to describe each of the

2:22:56 ↗ districts I don't know if this would be

2:23:02 ↗ part of the measures of success but I

2:23:04 ↗ think there should be breaks Falls and

2:23:07 ↗ pressures so if for instance let's say

2:23:10 ↗ jobs if jobs don't get to a certain

2:23:12 ↗ point we don't make that goal then

2:23:14 ↗ nothing gets built so we can't do that

2:23:18 ↗ so we can't we can't we can't put a

2:23:23 ↗ neighborhood or a district under

2:23:25 ↗ moratorium because the property owners

2:23:28 ↗ aren't doing what we want them to do I

2:23:30 ↗ mean I think you'd have to the way you'd

2:23:32 ↗ have to do that Ron is you'd have to

2:23:35 ↗ basically rezone like the balance of the

2:23:39 ↗ property instead of for mixed-use for

2:23:41 ↗ just like commercial I mean if we like

2:23:44 ↗ let's say we we saw let's say that we

2:23:48 ↗ decided that you know the Tibbets Valley

2:23:53 ↗ neighborhood is should be mixed use and

2:23:56 ↗ the only thing that was being built was

2:23:58 ↗ residential there was no office

2:24:00 ↗ happening the only way that you could I

2:24:03 ↗ think changed the the disposition of

2:24:08 ↗ that would be to take those remaining

2:24:10 ↗ properties and change the zoning from

2:24:12 ↗ what's allowed now which is a mix of

2:24:15 ↗ uses to just commercial you could do

2:24:19 ↗ that that's pretty intense to be that

2:24:23 ↗ prescriptive with zoning but we could

2:24:26 ↗ well it's not exactly what I was

2:24:29 ↗ referring to when I say brakes and have

2:24:32 ↗ triggers we're instance let's say level

2:24:36 ↗ of service at intersections if we start

2:24:38 ↗ having failed level of services or key

2:24:41 ↗ intersections then that has to be

2:24:44 ↗ improved before we could move forward

2:24:46 ↗ with further development if jobs aren't

2:24:50 ↗ coming too

2:24:52 ↗ Issaquah and we have developers wanting

2:24:54 ↗ to build only residential then we can't

2:24:58 ↗ build anymore because you don't have the

2:25:01 ↗ jobs we're not meeting or other target

2:25:03 ↗ so what we end up with is 13,000

2:25:07 ↗ potential more units and no jobs right

2:25:10 ↗ so so the only way so from a concurrency

2:25:14 ↗ standpoint traffic and traffic impact

2:25:17 ↗ fees that's all set right and so that

2:25:21 ↗ piece is not gonna be part of the

2:25:25 ↗ equation that you would ultimately

2:25:27 ↗ change land use over if if though you

2:25:32 ↗ know you got to a point so right now

2:25:34 ↗ there's an obligation under central

2:25:37 ↗ Issaquah that we do monitoring and

2:25:40 ↗ provide reports out every three years

2:25:42 ↗ that's how we got to where we kind of

2:25:44 ↗ are right now if you got to a point

2:25:48 ↗ where you saw that a neighborhood was

2:25:51 ↗ not building commercial you then take

2:25:54 ↗ two approaches you could either figure

2:25:56 ↗ out an incentive program to get the

2:25:57 ↗ commercial if we're out of whack with

2:25:59 ↗ our job expectation or you'd have to

2:26:02 ↗ rezone to allow only commercial so

2:26:06 ↗ that's that's the that's the action the

2:26:09 ↗ city could take to correct something

2:26:13 ↗ like that if that imbalance was if the

2:26:17 ↗ market was providing that imbalance

2:26:18 ↗ there shouldn't that be part of our

2:26:21 ↗ vision well it's already part of the

2:26:24 ↗ toolbox that the city has in terms of so

2:26:27 ↗ we have jobs and housing targets now for

2:26:30 ↗ central Issaquah and the regional growth

2:26:32 ↗ center right and my point is there's

2:26:34 ↗ nothing articulating that we need to hit

2:26:38 ↗ those targets okay so they're

2:26:40 ↗ aspirational but if we want to build as

2:26:44 ↗ community and we want a strong vibrant

2:26:46 ↗ community we need those jobs so and we

2:26:49 ↗ need the level of service at key

2:26:50 ↗ intersections so as a community before

2:26:52 ↗ we can move forward and allow growth

2:26:56 ↗ to be controlled and braked by making

2:26:59 ↗ sure that level service that key

2:27:01 ↗ intersections are able to handle the

2:27:04 ↗ capacity and that there are jobs here

2:27:07 ↗ and we're not getting it and have

2:27:09 ↗ controls that will bring it here and

2:27:11 ↗ slow everything down until we can get

2:27:14 ↗ those thresholds right so our target is

2:27:17 ↗ 80% jobs let's say based on the amount

2:27:22 ↗ of building that we have we can't move

2:27:24 ↗ forward until we get those jobs so I

2:27:27 ↗ just there are a couple of things on a

2:27:28 ↗ creek here one is that our targets

2:27:30 ↗ they're not meant for us to hit it those

2:27:33 ↗ are a floor not a ceiling so we are

2:27:35 ↗ required to accommodate them but not to

2:27:38 ↗ actually make sure that that happens

2:27:39 ↗ okay so with both housing in with jobs

2:27:42 ↗ and it just it sounds like you're

2:27:45 ↗ concerned that we're not that we haven't

2:27:47 ↗ hit that 20,000 number but that's ok as

2:27:50 ↗ long as we accommodate for it according

2:27:52 ↗ to the state the other thing I went back

2:27:54 ↗ and I looked at the numbers and as of

2:27:56 ↗ 2014 we had gotten just over six

2:27:59 ↗ thousand and three hundred jobs which

2:28:01 ↗ means that we've hit about 32 percent of

2:28:03 ↗ our jobs target for 2030 one that's come

2:28:07 ↗ up a couple of times I wanted to mention

2:28:09 ↗ that okay so our we're at 30% for 2030

2:28:13 ↗ one but our residential capacity is

2:28:15 ↗ already at twenty thirty one so where

2:28:17 ↗ we're failing it's almost there

2:28:19 ↗ not quite so right now we're outgrowing

2:28:23 ↗ our jobs capability but one of the

2:28:25 ↗ reasons we did this too is we were

2:28:26 ↗ looking for a jobs housing balance we

2:28:28 ↗ needed that housing to come in and for

2:28:30 ↗ the existing jobs that we had here so so

2:28:35 ↗ part of it is well let's say that we all

2:28:38 ↗ said we start getting all this

2:28:39 ↗ commercial and we had all these jobs

2:28:41 ↗ coming here but we had no residential so

2:28:43 ↗ then we would have to slow the jobs

2:28:45 ↗ piece now I'm just saying we need to

2:28:47 ↗ have measures control measures to

2:28:50 ↗ preview so we have a balanced solution

2:28:52 ↗ so we don't end up with where we're at

2:28:54 ↗ today so so the right now I guess to

2:28:59 ↗ answer your question I think you're

2:29:00 ↗ right so right now there's there's

2:29:04 ↗ monitoring that we do relate it to

2:29:07 ↗ central Issaquah we do a dashboard

2:29:10 ↗ although we're gonna have to talk about

2:29:11 ↗ who does the dashboard next year and

2:29:15 ↗ then you know we do our monitoring and

2:29:20 ↗ and at some point you know the council

2:29:24 ↗ the council and staff are are starting

2:29:27 ↗ to have actually with the end of the

2:29:29 ↗ development agreement for the islands

2:29:31 ↗ having really good conversations about

2:29:33 ↗ jobs and housing and expectations and

2:29:37 ↗ you know that balance of that sweet spot

2:29:42 ↗ I don't know like I called it balance

2:29:43 ↗ I'm gonna say there's a sweet spot you

2:29:45 ↗ know we are you know we are a

2:29:49 ↗ second-tier suburb of Seattle that's

2:29:52 ↗ never gonna change right and so even

2:29:56 ↗ though you know people right now choose

2:29:59 ↗ to live out here because of environment

2:30:01 ↗ because of great school district because

2:30:03 ↗ of easy commute to the Central City

2:30:06 ↗ those things drive a lot of what this

2:30:10 ↗ city has been for the past you know 50

2:30:13 ↗ 60 70 years what's gonna what will

2:30:15 ↗ change as traffic gets worse and this is

2:30:19 ↗ my perspective you don't have to agree

2:30:21 ↗ with it is that commute from Issaquah to

2:30:25 ↗ Seattle will become less doable for some

2:30:27 ↗ people that will then drive more jobs in

2:30:31 ↗ this city as CEOs decide you know what I

2:30:35 ↗ live here my family's here because my

2:30:37 ↗ kids go to school here and I don't want

2:30:40 ↗ to sit in traffic for a half hour and

2:30:43 ↗ the Train still 20 years away so guess

2:30:46 ↗ what I'm gonna build my office expansion

2:30:48 ↗ rather than in Soto I'm gonna build it

2:30:51 ↗ here and the market will correct that so

2:30:56 ↗ but that but it's gonna swing right so

2:30:59 ↗ that's my belief but I believe that

2:31:02 ↗ market forces do actually kind of

2:31:05 ↗ balance themselves out over time if we

2:31:07 ↗ continue to find reasonable

2:31:09 ↗ transportation solutions this could very

2:31:12 ↗ well stay a bedroom community primarily

2:31:14 ↗ with very you know select office

2:31:18 ↗ opportunities like Costco's headquarters

2:31:21 ↗ like SanMar

2:31:22 ↗ Swedish like you know and we have this

2:31:25 ↗ list and my hope and part of my job in

2:31:28 ↗ my alter-ego is to try and build that

2:31:31 ↗ employment base so that our jobs housing

2:31:36 ↗ fulcrum is better balanced you know

2:31:39 ↗ there's tons of scholarly reports about

2:31:44 ↗ how housing jobs balance and the belief

2:31:46 ↗ that there's some way that you can get

2:31:49 ↗ everybody to live and work in your

2:31:51 ↗ community doesn't exist even in central

2:31:54 ↗ cities because what happens is maybe one

2:31:55 ↗ spouse works in the city but the other

2:31:57 ↗ one commutes to a job somewhere else so

2:32:00 ↗ the average whether you're in a central

2:32:03 ↗ city or in a suburb it's 13 miles it's

2:32:06 ↗ the same so but that doesn't mean we

2:32:08 ↗ shouldn't be worried about jobs and

2:32:10 ↗ housing we want to have both

2:32:12 ↗ opportunities within our community so

2:32:15 ↗ that there are opportunities for people

2:32:16 ↗ to live and play and work all in

2:32:20 ↗ Issaquah because that takes some of

2:32:22 ↗ those cars off the roads right so I'm I

2:32:25 ↗ guess I'm not trying to dismiss your

2:32:28 ↗ concern it's a real one but we don't

2:32:30 ↗ have a measure that says you know what

2:32:33 ↗ if our housing to job ratio ends up at

2:32:37 ↗ four to one now the sudden we have to go

2:32:39 ↗ and rezone the rest of the rgc to

2:32:42 ↗ commercial only that decision has not

2:32:45 ↗ been made yet I don't think that

2:32:46 ↗ decisions can be made as part of what

2:32:48 ↗ we're doing here with visions I think

2:32:49 ↗ it's an important piece to talk about

2:32:51 ↗ House housing and jobs balance and and

2:32:53 ↗ and have them ideally work step

2:32:56 ↗ hand-in-hand you know and this is right

2:32:59 ↗ now we've got a bunch of apartments

2:33:00 ↗ being built

2:33:01 ↗ we've got Costco building office space

2:33:03 ↗ you know so right now it's kind of

2:33:06 ↗ working I'm not too concerned at the

2:33:08 ↗ moment but we could go through a drought

2:33:11 ↗ of where either there's no new housing

2:33:13 ↗ which is kind of where we started with

2:33:16 ↗ you know we want housing on the valley

2:33:18 ↗ floor or we could get you know a bunch

2:33:21 ↗ of new jobs and say wow how do we now

2:33:24 ↗ incent more housing here I mean it's a

2:33:26 ↗ it's a continuum of conversation I don't

2:33:28 ↗ think there's clear lines where you say

2:33:30 ↗ if you get to this spot you've got a

2:33:32 ↗ problem and then

2:33:34 ↗ to get me give you a piece of mind right

2:33:36 ↗ this is a living document our vision is

2:33:39 ↗ mixed you servin and we'll come back and

2:33:43 ↗ refresh this document every two five

2:33:47 ↗ eight years or whatever so they will

2:33:49 ↗ there will be natural mechanisms a part

2:33:51 ↗ of the process to check in and then

2:33:53 ↗ update everything that doesn't need to

2:33:55 ↗ be codified in it I agree with you I

2:33:57 ↗ just think that from a visionary

2:33:59 ↗ standpoint we should have that

2:34:01 ↗ discussion about jobs and levels of

2:34:05 ↗ service even though the they're not

2:34:08 ↗ streets are not really part of the

2:34:11 ↗ vision I think having the level of

2:34:14 ↗ service of the streets is important

2:34:16 ↗ because we don't want to live in a

2:34:18 ↗ community which is just clogged right if

2:34:21 ↗ we outgrow the streets infrastructure

2:34:23 ↗ and we're not putting the money into the

2:34:25 ↗ infrastructure to get us moving around

2:34:27 ↗ the city we don't want to live here

2:34:28 ↗ right and this is a bedroom community

2:34:32 ↗ right now it is so we can get the jobs

2:34:35 ↗ here so I want to jump back to these

2:34:38 ↗ five that are on the screen so I think

2:34:41 ↗ the today statement is clear I think the

2:34:44 ↗ future statement is fairly clear as far

2:34:48 ↗ as a small here's what we think it

2:34:52 ↗ should be but misses the details that I

2:34:55 ↗ think council was looking for which are

2:34:58 ↗ things like development agreements in

2:35:01 ↗ some cases give a lot of specifics about

2:35:04 ↗ what this is going to be and so I think

2:35:07 ↗ we need to specifically mention and link

2:35:09 ↗ to the development agreements and pull

2:35:11 ↗ out some of the unique characteristics

2:35:15 ↗ so I think that would be kind of in that

2:35:19 ↗ future statement I think also the future

2:35:22 ↗ would really benefit from

2:35:25 ↗ you know those garbled d maps that you

2:35:27 ↗ guys created that have the you know

2:35:30 ↗ mobility here and okay sorry

2:35:34 ↗ you know what it's over I know just the

2:35:40 ↗ idea of a visionary map that says we're

2:35:46 ↗ going to do more here we're going to

2:35:49 ↗ create more mobility in this area I

2:35:54 ↗ think that would be an additional visual

2:35:57 ↗ plan yes a visual plan there you go the

2:36:01 ↗ outcome area I just really don't like

2:36:04 ↗ that I I don't I think it's too much of

2:36:07 ↗ that planning ideals as Mary Lou said

2:36:11 ↗ and then I think having sample photos

2:36:16 ↗ that could be taken out of either the

2:36:18 ↗ CIP as we're done with the previous ones

2:36:21 ↗ or taken out of the development

2:36:22 ↗ agreement would be a really good idea

2:36:26 ↗ and then other details like sound

2:36:30 ↗ transit stuff and how that's going to

2:36:33 ↗ adjust what this area looks like I think

2:36:37 ↗ that goes into the what's missing what

2:36:40 ↗ do we need to accommodate over this

2:36:41 ↗ visionary period I have a hard time with

2:36:44 ↗ outcome because for me it feels a little

2:36:46 ↗ bit number-two future it feels a little

2:36:48 ↗ bit of for of how do we implement it so

2:36:50 ↗ I'm a little left clear on outcome as a

2:36:52 ↗ category and I think it's interesting to

2:36:55 ↗ have a conversation about measures of

2:36:56 ↗ success I think something that was

2:36:58 ↗ brought up was you know the fact that we

2:37:02 ↗ have a lack of a grocery store in Old

2:37:04 ↗ Town is it's a big deal and the fact

2:37:06 ↗ that the jacksons is now supplementing

2:37:08 ↗ that well appreciated is not necessarily

2:37:11 ↗ what I think we want that neighborhood

2:37:12 ↗ to look like so to me measures of

2:37:14 ↗ success is actually a bigger discussion

2:37:17 ↗ that may not be for tonight but talking

2:37:19 ↗ about what do we what do we actually see

2:37:21 ↗ and still need in these neighborhoods

2:37:23 ↗ and what do we measure as

2:37:26 ↗ about you like for instance confluence

2:37:28 ↗ being able to stay confluence rather

2:37:29 ↗ than just having that Creek coming in

2:37:32 ↗ when we talk about the valuing future

2:37:34 ↗ middle school walkability for residents

2:37:37 ↗ things like that so I think measures of

2:37:39 ↗ success really are defined by their

2:37:41 ↗ neighborhoods and that it's a larger

2:37:43 ↗ discussion again kind of you know that I

2:37:46 ↗ broke apart for two different

2:37:47 ↗ neighborhoods just there that's

2:37:49 ↗ obviously something we could do for

2:37:51 ↗ every neighborhood and evaluate where do

2:37:53 ↗ we want to be so to me number three is

2:37:56 ↗ and number five you're kind of we're a

2:37:58 ↗ little closer on the unclear and

2:37:59 ↗ everything else I think we're kind of

2:38:00 ↗ closer on the clear that I like the way

2:38:06 ↗ that the outcomes are presented but to

2:38:10 ↗ me they felt much more like objectives

2:38:13 ↗ so this is this is what we want to well

2:38:17 ↗ so there's the future statement which is

2:38:18 ↗ kind of the vision but then there's also

2:38:20 ↗ these more detailed objectives and then

2:38:22 ↗ there's the measures of how do we how do

2:38:26 ↗ we qualify if we've met that objective

2:38:27 ↗ or to what degree we've met that

2:38:29 ↗ objective so I would use I would suggest

2:38:32 ↗ using that word for outcome and then

2:38:35 ↗ actions I think are are good and

2:38:39 ↗ specific in a lot of places maybe some

2:38:41 ↗ could be a little fine tunes but I think

2:38:43 ↗ that it's a really good section to have

2:38:45 ↗ there and I also really liked the

2:38:47 ↗ measures of success although some of

2:38:49 ↗ them I think are kind of they're more

2:38:53 ↗ directions so we want to move in this

2:38:56 ↗ direction of having a safer crossing for

2:38:57 ↗ example and that then feels like an

2:38:59 ↗ objective and then to have a measure of

2:39:00 ↗ success where you can say like yes we

2:39:03 ↗ are

2:39:03 ↗ something something where you can

2:39:05 ↗ actually say yes we've met this

2:39:09 ↗ objective so there's a little bit of

2:39:12 ↗ overlap there but I think that clarity

2:39:14 ↗ of separating the objectives from the

2:39:16 ↗ measures of success would be a good fine

2:39:19 ↗ tuning there so

2:39:26 ↗ yeah okay so so the construct for me was

2:39:32 ↗ so clearly one and two are clear right

2:39:36 ↗ so as you as you migrate down into three

2:39:39 ↗ three you know three and four in my mind

2:39:45 ↗ were this split between private sector

2:39:48 ↗ and public sector right so the outcome

2:39:51 ↗ of this neighborhood will be these

2:39:55 ↗ things if they're written clear enough

2:39:58 ↗ you can then have a developer have to

2:40:02 ↗ comply with those when they come through

2:40:05 ↗ with their project so it gives both the

2:40:07 ↗ city and the Development Commission if

2:40:09 ↗ it goes through development commission

2:40:10 ↗ they are akin to policies policy

2:40:14 ↗ direction to say like you will be you

2:40:16 ↗ know you will recognize the

2:40:18 ↗ compatibility and I'm making this stuff

2:40:20 ↗ up I could just turn to a page which

2:40:21 ↗ would be easier compatibility of

2:40:23 ↗ adjacent natural areas right and so

2:40:26 ↗ there's there's an outcome there that

2:40:28 ↗ we're after it's not a city it's not

2:40:32 ↗ that the city's doing that we're not

2:40:34 ↗ buying a property and providing a public

2:40:37 ↗ access way it's if you're developing

2:40:39 ↗ your property next to a wetland or next

2:40:41 ↗ to you know a riparian corridor that you

2:40:45 ↗ will provide you know access to that

2:40:48 ↗ that was the intent and it didn't time I

2:40:50 ↗ don't think I pulled it off but the

2:40:52 ↗ intent was and what what and because I'm

2:40:55 ↗ a code person you know and I'm the one

2:40:58 ↗ who ends up dealing with developers who

2:41:01 ↗ say you know you can't make me do this

2:41:03 ↗ if we're clear in these things you know

2:41:09 ↗ residents feel connected with nature

2:41:11 ↗ I can I can say to a developer how did

2:41:15 ↗ you accomplish that right and you can

2:41:17 ↗ say well I provided gazebo here next to

2:41:23 ↗ the wetland and they say okay maybe

2:41:25 ↗ that's good enough right

2:41:26 ↗ so it's not prescriptive it's not you

2:41:29 ↗ have to do this it's you have to achieve

2:41:31 ↗ some sort of a you know whether it's an

2:41:33 ↗ outcome

2:41:34 ↗ are an objective don't know that III

2:41:36 ↗ have a perspective my English is

2:41:39 ↗ probably not good enough to know if

2:41:40 ↗ which term is the right term but that's

2:41:43 ↗ what I was going for and that clearly

2:41:44 ↗ didn't hit the mark cuz Lindsey's like

2:41:46 ↗ ed doesn't work for me so I am

2:41:51 ↗ completely and I think we are all

2:41:54 ↗ completely open to suggestions that

2:41:56 ↗ y'all might have as it relates to

2:41:57 ↗ specifically number three and how maybe

2:42:00 ↗ that can be better structured but the

2:42:05 ↗ intent is I think because as you look at

2:42:08 ↗ the pieces of this and how it's going to

2:42:09 ↗ work I want a piece that I can get

2:42:12 ↗ developers to do the things that we're

2:42:14 ↗ wanting them to do can you relate an

2:42:18 ↗ outcome to a specific code or policy

2:42:22 ↗ that may be a way to do that you can

2:42:24 ↗ leave more general language in these

2:42:26 ↗ outcomes and then say refer to code

2:42:29 ↗ such-and-such paragraph a subparagraph

2:42:33 ↗ one because that's a way you can then

2:42:36 ↗ enforce it because if you if I'm a

2:42:37 ↗ developer and you say how are you

2:42:39 ↗ connecting to nature I'd say I'd put

2:42:41 ↗ windows in my building so people can

2:42:43 ↗ look out and see the sky I mean and you

2:42:46 ↗ can't make them do any more than that

2:42:48 ↗ then that's the trouble with these

2:42:50 ↗ things like that it's got to be

2:42:52 ↗ regulated and tight so I think if the

2:42:58 ↗ policy is clear enough you can and so

2:43:02 ↗ the problem is you're right can if all

2:43:04 ↗ it says you know I guess I think I think

2:43:09 ↗ that if someone says the way I achieved

2:43:12 ↗ getting connected connection with nature

2:43:14 ↗ is I put windows on the south side of my

2:43:17 ↗ buildings I would say you know what

2:43:19 ↗ that's not good enough and and and we

2:43:21 ↗ might have to fight that out but but

2:43:24 ↗ part of it is so the rules the rules are

2:43:27 ↗ where you know it's black and white and

2:43:30 ↗ I think so the regulations you know if

2:43:32 ↗ you're next to a wetland and we feel

2:43:35 ↗ like you need to put a public trail

2:43:37 ↗ there then we say you'd have to do that

2:43:39 ↗ but there's going to be times when it's

2:43:42 ↗ like alright there's maybe a few

2:43:44 ↗ different ways that you can achieve kind

2:43:46 ↗ of what

2:43:46 ↗ after which is but where this uh example

2:43:49 ↗ would be Atlas where the whole intent

2:43:51 ↗ was that was a key connecting quarter of

2:43:54 ↗ the green necklace and we didn't achieve

2:43:56 ↗ that with Atlas we we blew it and I'm

2:43:59 ↗ not blaming anybody I'm just again

2:44:01 ↗ saying we got to do better we can't let

2:44:03 ↗ that happen

2:44:04 ↗ and whether that was objectives codes

2:44:07 ↗ policies outcomes whatever it was it

2:44:10 ↗ just didn't happen the way it needed to

2:44:13 ↗ at Atlas that's a really missed key

2:44:16 ↗ opportunity that was key to the whole

2:44:19 ↗ green necklace I think we're learning

2:44:23 ↗ and that the reason that that happened

2:44:27 ↗ is that it codes for not in force I

2:44:31 ↗ think that what Keith is getting at is

2:44:34 ↗ there will be hopefully the overlays

2:44:37 ↗ that Connie wants and I think reading

2:44:42 ↗ the comments that we got online I think

2:44:45 ↗ everybody was on the same page that you

2:44:48 ↗ have to implement these things and I

2:44:51 ↗ think that's gonna be done hopefully

2:44:55 ↗ right I have one suggestion for so I I

2:45:00 ↗ appreciate that you separated out or

2:45:04 ↗ that you explain the separation between

2:45:05 ↗ the public and private part or the you

2:45:09 ↗ know because I didn't pick up on that

2:45:11 ↗ reading it but now I sort of see it more

2:45:14 ↗ I think though that I'm then confused

2:45:17 ↗ why the outcomes are are in these

2:45:21 ↗ distinctive livable connected

2:45:23 ↗ sustainable boxes but it doesn't follow

2:45:25 ↗ through to the city and to the measures

2:45:28 ↗ of success and maybe one way to also

2:45:31 ↗ strengthen the

2:45:32 ↗ action would be to just sort of have it

2:45:34 ↗ follow through so you would have you

2:45:36 ↗ could have more of a matrix because then

2:45:37 ↗ you could have your your outcomes for

2:45:43 ↗ the distinctive livable and then have

2:45:45 ↗ your city actions for also distinctive

2:45:48 ↗ liveable liveable etc and then also your

2:45:50 ↗ measures of success sort of following

2:45:51 ↗ down because then you could link make

2:45:53 ↗ make linkages a little better okay so I

2:45:59 ↗ think the future statement is good

2:46:01 ↗ conceptually I think it doesn't get into

2:46:05 ↗ all of the details that council was

2:46:07 ↗ looking for and maybe that's

2:46:09 ↗ unreasonable to have all of that maybe

2:46:12 ↗ some of it is contained other areas of

2:46:15 ↗ the central Isikoff plan like the

2:46:17 ↗ mobility and future roads and trails and

2:46:19 ↗ connectedness and things like that I

2:46:22 ↗ don't know exactly how to connect those

2:46:25 ↗ but I think there's an expectation that

2:46:27 ↗ there are more details from the

2:46:29 ↗ development agreements from those types

2:46:32 ↗ of detailed maps so I don't know how to

2:46:35 ↗ connect it but I feel like it needs to

2:46:37 ↗ be there somehow I don't disagree I'm

2:46:43 ↗ not sure how far to go down the rabbit

2:46:45 ↗ hole because you don't want the visions

2:46:47 ↗ to be four hundred pages long right

2:46:49 ↗ because then they don't they aren't

2:46:50 ↗ visions so let me think about that and

2:46:55 ↗ see if we can populate some more details

2:46:57 ↗ might be useful to win presenting this

2:47:01 ↗ to Council to include it and you know

2:47:04 ↗ mention seven pages down there's this

2:47:07 ↗ map and this one that if that connected

2:47:11 ↗ feel I like having the shorter future

2:47:18 ↗ statements personally because I think

2:47:20 ↗ that then you get into the

2:47:22 ↗ comes their more specific and there have

2:47:24 ↗ these bullets and then you could if you

2:47:26 ↗ especially if you strengthen the

2:47:27 ↗ connection to the city and then the

2:47:29 ↗ measures of success I think that's where

2:47:30 ↗ you get into the more details I

2:47:32 ↗ personally like the concise today future

2:47:35 ↗ and then a bunch of details yeah I think

2:47:38 ↗ it's really important to keep it on one

2:47:39 ↗ page we just got to figure out how to

2:47:42 ↗ how to do that but to keep the district

2:47:44 ↗ don't want a struggle to keep it on

2:47:46 ↗ there know it's hard but but but it

2:47:49 ↗ forces it forces us to figure out how to

2:47:51 ↗ be how to be concise I like to make a

2:47:57 ↗ comment I think almost before we close

2:47:59 ↗ here we all struggle with expressing our

2:48:05 ↗ visions with us projects and I think

2:48:09 ↗ from staff have done a great job I think

2:48:11 ↗ the task force has done a great job the

2:48:13 ↗ commissioners have certainly put a lot

2:48:15 ↗ of effort into doing our best to

2:48:18 ↗ understand this the reality is this is

2:48:20 ↗ we're talking about hundreds of millions

2:48:23 ↗ of dollars that are going to be coming

2:48:25 ↗ into Issaquah for all this development

2:48:27 ↗ we don't get it right it's gonna be a

2:48:30 ↗ mess I think for a price a reasonable

2:48:35 ↗ price it would be wise and prudent to

2:48:37 ↗ have an outside organization come in and

2:48:41 ↗ help us make this vision help us

2:48:44 ↗ materialize our thoughts into actionable

2:48:48 ↗ items and a help us build a vision

2:48:52 ↗ rather than having us struggle through

2:48:55 ↗ this exercise in trying to put what we

2:48:58 ↗ think is the right thing on on this

2:49:01 ↗ document without having people who this

2:49:04 ↗ is what they do for a living

2:49:06 ↗ they have PhDs and and urban planning

2:49:09 ↗ where they actually and no offense to

2:49:12 ↗ staff because I know you guys do an

2:49:14 ↗ awful lot of work here

2:49:16 ↗ but I think the reality is when we're

2:49:21 ↗ talking about this there's so many

2:49:25 ↗ things that go into this and we're a

2:49:29 ↗ small town and we're growing so fast and

2:49:32 ↗ I think we're we need additional

2:49:36 ↗ assistance so I'm I would rather spend

2:49:40 ↗ that money myself visions are well and

2:49:43 ↗ good we could spend hours refining the

2:49:45 ↗ visions but they're meaningless if there

2:49:47 ↗ isn't the backup codes and policies of

2:49:49 ↗ regs to make them real and I know staff

2:49:52 ↗ is too busy and if we need to pay

2:49:55 ↗ somebody to come in and help staff write

2:49:58 ↗ those and get them done quickly that's

2:50:00 ↗ where the money you get more bang for

2:50:02 ↗ your buck and we get visions that are

2:50:04 ↗ implemented then if you got the backup

2:50:07 ↗ to make people do what we want them to

2:50:09 ↗ do and we got to get to a point people

2:50:12 ↗ need to understand that it's akua's such

2:50:14 ↗ a desirable place that we can pick and

2:50:17 ↗ choose who we want and if someone comes

2:50:20 ↗ in and doesn't want to do what we want

2:50:21 ↗ on that little piece of property get out

2:50:24 ↗ of here then we'll wait for the next

2:50:25 ↗ person to come along in 30 years there's

2:50:28 ↗ far more demand than we will have

2:50:30 ↗ capacity to absorb in this town just the

2:50:34 ↗ other day on Facebook there was a string

2:50:36 ↗ of comments about the 15 worst cities in

2:50:39 ↗ Washington which then prompted

2:50:41 ↗ discussion about what are the best

2:50:43 ↗ cities in Washington guess who the

2:50:45 ↗ thread was about Issaquah we are

2:50:48 ↗ recognized as the best city in

2:50:49 ↗ Washington so we don't need to accept

2:50:53 ↗ just whatever comes in the door and

2:50:55 ↗ think we need that growth we need that

2:50:57 ↗ development no we don't we need what's

2:51:00 ↗ good for the people of this city and if

2:51:03 ↗ we have to wait if but the key to get in

2:51:06 ↗ it you gotta have the backup codes and

2:51:09 ↗ policies in place to make what we want

2:51:11 ↗ happen otherwise we're gonna get more

2:51:14 ↗ atlases and gateways and I'm sorry but I

2:51:16 ↗ disagree with the concept that we need

2:51:18 ↗ to be spending what

2:51:19 ↗ realistically be 60 $80,000 to have a

2:51:22 ↗ firm come in and do exactly what our

2:51:25 ↗ qualified staff are our citizens who

2:51:27 ↗ live in the community are working

2:51:29 ↗ together to achieve I think is a much

2:51:31 ↗ better outcome than trying to outsource

2:51:33 ↗ a firm telling us what our vision is I

2:51:35 ↗ think what we're doing in and the work

2:51:38 ↗ tonight and it's far preferable to that

2:51:41 ↗ idea so I don't support that at all

2:51:43 ↗ let's keep that in mind that that's so

2:51:49 ↗ I'm going to ask the public if they have

2:51:52 ↗ comments on structure and then I think

2:51:55 ↗ we're going to and let's unless you guys

2:51:58 ↗ are all my coffee's empty unless you

2:52:01 ↗ guys are all a lot more into this than

2:52:04 ↗ it looks like you are my suggestion

2:52:06 ↗ would be where we're down to now is

2:52:09 ↗ taking those districts and having you

2:52:12 ↗ guys send your suggestions on edits to

2:52:16 ↗ those and I would have you just email

2:52:17 ↗ those in so what I would do then is

2:52:20 ↗ synthesize your comments on the

2:52:22 ↗ districts only the rest of it I think

2:52:24 ↗ I've got pages of notes on the story on

2:52:27 ↗ the structure you know the boundary

2:52:32 ↗ changes I think we got through an awful

2:52:35 ↗ lot of stuff tonight I think that now

2:52:38 ↗ down to the specifics on each district

2:52:41 ↗ you know I'm happy for you guys to email

2:52:44 ↗ me comments and if you want to proceed

2:52:46 ↗ with that otherwise if if we're gonna go

2:52:50 ↗ through those four I'm gonna ask

2:52:52 ↗ somebody to copy run for preview oh can

2:52:56 ↗ you can you just talk them through we've

2:52:57 ↗ waited all night

2:52:59 ↗ let's wait sorry

2:53:02 ↗ so public comment on just the structure

2:53:05 ↗ of each district I won and I'm not

2:53:15 ↗ comfortable leaving it without some

2:53:17 ↗ direction as to where the neighborhood

2:53:20 ↗ visions are going to go so I would like

2:53:23 ↗ some language saying that for example we

2:53:27 ↗ are going to create a specific code

2:53:29 ↗ package for each neighborhood that will

2:53:32 ↗ be applied to that neighborhood at some

2:53:36 ↗ point in time even a paragraph saying

2:53:39 ↗ what the next connective tissue is going

2:53:42 ↗ to be to code and went because we're

2:53:45 ↗ basically redoing yes we have the vision

2:53:48 ↗ and I don't know when the code will

2:53:52 ↗ follow through and I want some pathway

2:53:54 ↗ that is sensible to let Development

2:53:57 ↗ Commission be able to implement and

2:54:00 ↗ staff to be able to look at it in a

2:54:02 ↗ neighborhood by neighborhood basis so I

2:54:05 ↗ just want a little bit of what's the

2:54:07 ↗ process once we look at this and I don't

2:54:09 ↗ think that's in in the central Issaquah

2:54:12 ↗ plan or SIDS anywhere so every year we

2:54:15 ↗ go through the what things are on the

2:54:18 ↗ docket for you guys to do that would be

2:54:21 ↗ a nice little addition to put on there

2:54:24 ↗ so that you have a a date that you're

2:54:26 ↗ supposed to have it done by I'm looking

2:54:30 ↗ at my content staff that are all sitting

2:54:32 ↗ there like okay no I disagree I was

2:54:40 ↗ looking for implementation of that

2:54:42 ↗ thought into some sort of memory that

2:54:45 ↗ we'll all have more than the next 30

2:54:47 ↗ minutes David gets going more to Ken's

2:54:51 ↗ comments

2:54:53 ↗ whenever the moratorium is over if we

2:54:56 ↗ don't have the codes and the policies

2:54:59 ↗ there I'm afraid what we'll get and my

2:55:03 ↗ biggest concern right now

2:55:05 ↗ and just to comment on both those pieces

2:55:09 ↗ because it connects to Jones to before

2:55:11 ↗ Steve goes is I don't disagree I want to

2:55:15 ↗ I want to I want to try and get one task

2:55:19 ↗ over the goal line before we saddle it

2:55:22 ↗ with another big piece because that's a

2:55:24 ↗ big piece right and I think that not

2:55:28 ↗ that that's not important but what we

2:55:31 ↗ were tasked with right now is to update

2:55:33 ↗ the visions and I think that when you

2:55:37 ↗ look at where we started and what we've

2:55:38 ↗ got now I mean I think it's hugely

2:55:41 ↗ different but that's me so Steve I did

2:55:48 ↗ all the comments I've heard before code

2:55:52 ↗ code code otherwise it's not going to

2:55:55 ↗ happen to it so I don't number one I

2:55:58 ↗ don't know that today seems still

2:56:00 ↗ unclear as far as verbage that talks

2:56:03 ↗ more than just Story number three I

2:56:07 ↗ agree with Ron's comment there needs to

2:56:09 ↗ be some trigger mechanism that says

2:56:12 ↗ whether or not we're getting what we get

2:56:15 ↗ in and we can change at some point so

2:56:18 ↗ that's still unclear to me number five

2:56:23 ↗ is still unclear to me as far as

2:56:25 ↗ measures of success are we getting what

2:56:27 ↗ we want I think we're good at measuring

2:56:29 ↗ economic development I don't think we're

2:56:30 ↗ good at measuring a green necklace or

2:56:34 ↗ riparian corridors or wildlife corridors

2:56:37 ↗ or anything else that needs to be built

2:56:40 ↗ into not just the story but again to the

2:56:42 ↗ code of where we are because I think the

2:56:45 ↗ more that I've gotten myself involved I

2:56:48 ↗ know there are a lot of smart citizens

2:56:51 ↗ that volunteer like all of you and make

2:56:55 ↗ what we want to be but I don't think

2:56:57 ↗ we're getting that I think that's key

2:57:00 ↗ making that happen be able to measure

2:57:04 ↗ that success if we also need some

2:57:06 ↗ outside expertise to pick our brains

2:57:09 ↗ better to make sure we're getting that

2:57:10 ↗ verbage and the wording

2:57:12 ↗ I'm okay with that that we need to be

2:57:15 ↗ able to measure the code we have in

2:57:16 ↗ place okay so for each of the districts

2:57:27 ↗ you guys gonna be super let down because

2:57:30 ↗ I didn't really it's like just okay what

2:57:35 ↗ do you want to change about Western

2:57:35 ↗ gateway I hope I didn't unpack it more

2:57:40 ↗ than that so for each of them I figured

2:57:42 ↗ we would just get into an overall

2:57:44 ↗ conversation about each district which

2:57:47 ↗ like I said I am happy to do via

2:57:50 ↗ comments through email if you all would

2:57:51 ↗ rather do that and get a better night so

2:57:54 ↗ we ended the meeting last time we ended

2:57:56 ↗ it at 9:30 and I said we were ending it

2:57:59 ↗ early at 9:30 last time because I wanted

2:58:03 ↗ you all to be prepared to stay later

2:58:04 ↗ tonight and you said okay so I'm

2:58:08 ↗ uncomfortable with having you just email

2:58:12 ↗ okay you want to get comfortable that

2:58:15 ↗ because one simulates somebody else's

2:58:17 ↗ simulates somebody else and and I think

2:58:19 ↗ we're at a point in time that we really

2:58:21 ↗ need to do that so either we have

2:58:24 ↗ another meeting which we don't have time

2:58:26 ↗ to do or we spend a little bit of time

2:58:29 ↗ with less comments and discussion but

2:58:34 ↗ you know specifics or

2:58:36 ↗ so since we're not all looking at old

2:58:40 ↗ full town sub-area playing on the 14th

2:58:43 ↗ is there an agenda for the 14th if we

2:58:53 ↗ didn't finish tonight then council

2:58:55 ↗ doesn't get this before the moratorium

2:58:56 ↗ ends and I don't know how that how that

2:59:00 ↗ affects that schedule we were hoping to

2:59:03 ↗ get done tonight if possible I might

2:59:04 ↗ start crying well if this doesn't get

2:59:10 ↗ done and the moratorium stays in place

2:59:13 ↗ for one more City Council well you know

2:59:15 ↗ the moratorium is over on the 30th and

2:59:17 ↗ less Council extends it if we're not

2:59:21 ↗ done with things so the council has

2:59:23 ↗ another hearing scheduled on the 18th

2:59:26 ↗ for the moratorium their choice on the

2:59:29 ↗ 18th is they can lift the moratorium or

2:59:32 ↗ they can extend the moratorium because

2:59:36 ↗ the visions relate to all of central

2:59:38 ↗ Issaquah for me it would be hard for me

2:59:41 ↗ to believe that they would lift it until

2:59:44 ↗ this piece of the puzzle gets at least

2:59:47 ↗ pretty well batten down and since they

2:59:50 ↗ haven't gotten to see version 26 I don't

2:59:56 ↗ know that I don't know I would not

2:59:58 ↗ expect for them to lift it now they

3:00:00 ↗ might we've gotten all the rest of it

3:00:02 ↗ done so the other 5 moratorium work

3:00:06 ↗ items are done almost inclusion Aires on

3:00:09 ↗ its way but and architecture reviews on

3:00:12 ↗ Monday so so in theory by the 18th all

3:00:15 ↗ of them but this one would be done the

3:00:19 ↗ problem if we if we do have a

3:00:21 ↗ continuance of a conversation as we can

3:00:25 ↗ but as unless the council wanted to have

3:00:29 ↗ a special land inshore meeting after the

3:00:31 ↗ 14th but before the 18th and that

3:00:33 ↗ doesn't seem likely since that would be

3:00:35 ↗ like Friday they wouldn't have a chance

3:00:39 ↗ to look at our product so we're running

3:00:43 ↗ out of time now the extension typically

3:00:49 ↗ is six months

3:00:50 ↗ but they don't have to do six months

3:00:53 ↗ they could do two months but it's that's

3:00:58 ↗ that's what we're facing and hey you

3:01:01 ↗ know we've been working hard to try and

3:01:03 ↗ get this all done by the end of the year

3:01:05 ↗ that was been a goal and so I think

3:01:09 ↗ that's still my goal but I understand

3:01:12 ↗ I'm ready to stay for a long time if we

3:01:16 ↗ want to go through the four neighborhood

3:01:18 ↗ districts go it goes for one and see how

3:01:21 ↗ it goes well how it turns at least and

3:01:23 ↗ then get into the yep

3:01:25 ↗ so Western gateways first marry so any

3:01:32 ↗ comments you know we had the

3:01:34 ↗ conversation of should it be in should

3:01:35 ↗ it be out that happened already so I

3:01:38 ↗ think now again back to let's talk about

3:01:41 ↗ each of the five sections so description

3:01:45 ↗ about today okay future the only thing

3:01:52 ↗ I'm already talking to WisDOT about when

3:01:56 ↗ they're sound group wall goes in place

3:02:00 ↗ that'll be or welcomed Issaquah big

3:02:01 ↗ cement wall we need to get plantings

3:02:04 ↗ there and I'm talking to them about a

3:02:07 ↗ gateway entry welcoming sign in the what

3:02:12 ↗ do you call it off the shoulder to their

3:02:15 ↗ edge there right away between the wall

3:02:17 ↗ and i-90 so I would prefer if this said

3:02:21 ↗ not just incorporated into the new

3:02:23 ↗ connection over i-90 which may be twenty

3:02:26 ↗ to thirty years away but say in the

3:02:29 ↗ right-of-way and or on the connection

3:02:31 ↗ over i-90 okay I think it's a good

3:02:36 ↗ suggestion

3:02:39 ↗ I had this

3:02:42 ↗ okay implementing actions I wasn't

3:02:46 ↗ prepared to do this um we need the

3:02:49 ↗ crossings to exist between neighborhoods

3:02:52 ↗ and across Newports way to the trailhead

3:02:56 ↗ because as its worded here it's

3:02:58 ↗ basically getting people into the

3:03:00 ↗ transportation but they need to connect

3:03:03 ↗ the Gateway with the existing

3:03:05 ↗ neighborhoods which is not part of the

3:03:08 ↗ vision yet for a new port way that needs

3:03:11 ↗ to change

3:03:12 ↗ also we hang on so say that again Mary

3:03:16 ↗ so which number were yuri number two

3:03:18 ↗ okay ad and crossing to existing

3:03:21 ↗ neighborhoods and to trail safe you know

3:03:25 ↗ because right now the emphasis is on

3:03:27 ↗ getting Gateway people into Issaquah not

3:03:31 ↗ to existing neighborhoods and that's

3:03:37 ↗ very evident by what we see going

3:03:39 ↗ forward with the concept for a new port

3:03:41 ↗ way okay and then also transit local

3:03:48 ↗ transit or ways to get to the Transit

3:03:51 ↗ Center from the Gateway area nothing

3:03:55 ↗ said about that so we've got it in the

3:03:58 ↗ outcome piece yeah but that city's got

3:04:02 ↗ to work with that to get it right so

3:04:04 ↗ that was I didn't understand that that

3:04:07 ↗ was actually likely until I talked to my

3:04:09 ↗ staff so I'll add work with Metro on the

3:04:13 ↗ Newport route which is three point four

3:04:15 ↗ under something or a local what I

3:04:18 ↗ doesn't have to be Metro it can be a

3:04:20 ↗ local system some way well what I was

3:04:22 ↗ told is metros already made a commitment

3:04:25 ↗ to add a new port route to future look

3:04:29 ↗ yeah it does that'll yeah but I don't

3:04:30 ↗ think they're just going to find it and

3:04:34 ↗ measure success

3:04:37 ↗ [Music]

3:04:41 ↗ wildlife corridors from cougar down to

3:04:45 ↗ the lake well not only Tibbets but we've

3:04:49 ↗ got spider and aviation coming so it's

3:04:52 ↗ it's all of those is wildlife corridors

3:04:54 ↗ you know through there connect them to

3:04:57 ↗ Lake Sam and measures of success is

3:05:01 ↗ salmon in all of those obvious salmon

3:05:04 ↗ coming back in all of those one more

3:05:14 ↗ minor but important one which is in

3:05:16 ↗ distinctive descriptions item 1.2 there

3:05:19 ↗ and it talks about monster sound trail

3:05:22 ↗ and cougar mountain trail heads are

3:05:24 ↗ regional destinations well that's true

3:05:26 ↗ but if you're a local resident it's like

3:05:28 ↗ wait a minute why do I want that in my

3:05:29 ↗ neighborhood and so it should read those

3:05:33 ↗ Cougar Mountain trailhead are adjacent

3:05:37 ↗ amenities and regional destinations

3:05:41 ↗ because it's an amenity for the local

3:05:43 ↗ people we're not trying to draw

3:05:45 ↗ everybody in a region to their

3:05:47 ↗ neighborhood it's for them and for

3:05:49 ↗ others he also want to make sure on

3:05:54 ↗ implementation number six about the

3:05:55 ↗ noise wall that that's something that

3:05:57 ↗ we're able to highly control the

3:05:59 ↗ aesthetic design of and whether that

3:06:02 ↗ goes to the Arts Commission whether that

3:06:05 ↗ falls within design standards that is

3:06:07 ↗ overseen by some somebody else that that

3:06:10 ↗ that that implementation action is is

3:06:13 ↗ highly controlled by our community okay

3:06:16 ↗ we can do our best it could come out

3:06:19 ↗ really badly if it could that could be

3:06:22 ↗ the face of our community anyway when we

3:06:24 ↗ talk about we want signage that is that

3:06:26 ↗ will be it's a sign for our community

3:06:28 ↗ I'll definitely put that in there as an

3:06:32 ↗ intended outcome right something that

3:06:36 ↗ properly reflects our community rather

3:06:38 ↗ than just a concrete area with maple

3:06:41 ↗ leafs imprinted

3:06:43 ↗ I want to add to that wall yes sir

3:06:48 ↗ because I have personal experience with

3:06:50 ↗ us when I lived in the Bay Area we I

3:06:54 ↗ lived about a mile away from a freeway

3:06:56 ↗ that I never heard before and when they

3:06:58 ↗ put these sound walls up the noise

3:07:01 ↗ became very very loud and so we have a

3:07:05 ↗ lot of communities that are on the

3:07:07 ↗ hillside if we build a hard barrier wall

3:07:09 ↗ that sound will ricochet off those walls

3:07:12 ↗ and these neighborhoods will hear the

3:07:15 ↗ freeway it'll sound like a river running

3:07:17 ↗ through your neighborhood so I do not

3:07:20 ↗ like the idea of having a hard wall you

3:07:23 ↗ can have a vegetation wall or other soft

3:07:26 ↗ walls that will absorb the noise but

3:07:28 ↗ there are other ways to reduce noise

3:07:31 ↗ through asphalt the quality of asphalt

3:07:33 ↗ you use and other types of attributes

3:07:36 ↗ I'm not four walls and when you write

3:07:38 ↗ when you drive down is it are 90 through

3:07:42 ↗ our town and you see a wall it's gonna

3:07:45 ↗ look like you're writing through Lynwood

3:07:47 ↗ or Kirkland it's not going to be a very

3:07:50 ↗ glamorous it's gonna look like 405 do we

3:07:52 ↗ want that in our neighborhood no it's a

3:07:58 ↗ sticky problem Wow it's like it's so one

3:08:01 ↗ wall when one person's wall is another

3:08:04 ↗ person's potential you know blight so

3:08:07 ↗ you know I guess I mean I think to Joy's

3:08:10 ↗ point you know you don't want for miles

3:08:14 ↗ of blank concrete can walls as the

3:08:17 ↗ signature of Issaquah right so from an

3:08:20 ↗ aesthetic standpoint of travelers either

3:08:23 ↗ visiting our community traveling past

3:08:25 ↗ our community or those of us that live

3:08:27 ↗ here or work here you know you want that

3:08:30 ↗ aesthetic from i-90 to be distinctive

3:08:33 ↗ and representative of our community as I

3:08:39 ↗ don't disagree with you Ron about

3:08:42 ↗ because I actually used to do freeway

3:08:44 ↗ planning in Phoenix so I know all about

3:08:46 ↗ noise walls and the travel of sound you

3:08:50 ↗ know the problem that you've got you

3:08:53 ↗ is I don't know what the noise levels

3:08:55 ↗ are right now of just the bleed-through

3:08:57 ↗ up the hillside versus if you make a

3:09:02 ↗ canyon and contains some of that noise

3:09:05 ↗ how much of it actually spills over the

3:09:07 ↗ walls to some extent it depends on how

3:09:09 ↗ tall those walls are and part of that

3:09:11 ↗ you know our desire for the aesthetic of

3:09:15 ↗ not having it be a canyon versus you

3:09:19 ↗ know having some spillover over the top

3:09:21 ↗ so it's a complicated topic you know the

3:09:25 ↗ the tree-lined or the shrub line I can

3:09:29 ↗ tell you that that's not effective in

3:09:31 ↗ dampening much noise from freeways it

3:09:35 ↗ will do some but not much so if you

3:09:39 ↗ truly want a noise barrier needs to be

3:09:41 ↗ concrete wall sound absorbing wall not

3:09:44 ↗ concrete well yeah there sounded it's a

3:09:47 ↗ sound of service since I you know we

3:09:50 ↗ talk about walls I worry about the sound

3:09:52 ↗ I mean I can already hear 90 on the top

3:09:55 ↗ of squawk and you'd put a sound wall up

3:09:57 ↗ I'm gonna really hear that freeway and

3:09:59 ↗ Highlands will - oh it's going to be a

3:10:03 ↗ really important attribute and I think

3:10:05 ↗ if you build it people will scream

3:10:07 ↗ bloody murder one because that's a

3:10:10 ↗ visual blight and two it's going to be

3:10:12 ↗ it's going to affect the entire town

3:10:14 ↗ where right now it affects the retail

3:10:18 ↗ you know the the properties are most

3:10:21 ↗ adjacent to the freeway but the other

3:10:24 ↗ neighborhoods can tolerate it and I

3:10:27 ↗ don't think it's the right solution for

3:10:29 ↗ us I think there are other attributes

3:10:32 ↗ our quality grade of concrete or asphalt

3:10:36 ↗ would help minimize that if we push for

3:10:39 ↗ it not to bring us to the rgc but since

3:10:45 ↗ that's also an implementation action for

3:10:46 ↗ that as well I think it's fair to say

3:10:48 ↗ that we want to make sure that our

3:10:49 ↗ community highly controls how how they

3:10:53 ↗ go in and that they represent our

3:10:56 ↗ community I think we can carry that

3:10:57 ↗ through forward for all noise noise

3:11:00 ↗ walls along

3:11:01 ↗ 90 corridor has a transit community that

3:11:03 ↗ people come in and out of it matters to

3:11:05 ↗ us and so we communicate that to staff

3:11:07 ↗ now not sure what the best way is to

3:11:10 ↗ achieve that goal yet but know that it's

3:11:11 ↗ important to us and let us know how we

3:11:13 ↗ can help you to help you do that right

3:11:14 ↗ you can add a few words in in here to

3:11:18 ↗ address that I can you're not going to

3:11:21 ↗ necessarily get everything you want

3:11:23 ↗ working with sound transit or anything

3:11:26 ↗ else but we can try I think number six

3:11:29 ↗ should be work words washed out to

3:11:31 ↗ reduce the noise but I don't like the

3:11:34 ↗ idea that we're really going to walls as

3:11:36 ↗ a solution region across Center that's

3:11:41 ↗ number two any other comments on rgc

3:11:57 ↗ other than we're changing its name and

3:11:59 ↗ and splitting it into at least two

3:12:01 ↗ neighborhoods so there's two huge

3:12:04 ↗ development agreements in this area and

3:12:07 ↗ I think highlighting those I have made

3:12:10 ↗ note of the rally da and the Costco da

3:12:13 ↗ so that's I don't know there's just

3:12:17 ↗ something to Costco in there potential

3:12:19 ↗ expansion areas like nevermind that's in

3:12:22 ↗ the da it might be nice to see what does

3:12:27 ↗ the city before see this looking like

3:12:30 ↗ this these two neighborhoods so when we

3:12:32 ↗ talk about kind of you know Wall Street

3:12:34 ↗ turning into you know so some of the

3:12:36 ↗ visualizations that we've had

3:12:39 ↗ even if simple might help to communicate

3:12:41 ↗ the message of what we're trying to

3:12:43 ↗ achieve in this area so yeah I think one

3:12:47 ↗ of the suggestions from Lindsay about

3:12:49 ↗ adding some photos of you know not

3:12:53 ↗ everything but you know if there were

3:12:55 ↗ three or four photos of each kind of

3:12:57 ↗ district or neighborhood to help

3:13:00 ↗ visually you know because some people do

3:13:03 ↗ better with pictures some with words you

3:13:05 ↗ know to show that confluence is

3:13:07 ↗ different than the rgc which is

3:13:08 ↗ different than East Valley I mean I

3:13:10 ↗ think what we're doing is we're creating

3:13:11 ↗ very different areas with

3:13:15 ↗ central and I think that having some of

3:13:17 ↗ those photos I think will be helpful so

3:13:19 ↗ I think I think that was a good

3:13:21 ↗ suggestion I don't know if you were

3:13:22 ↗ thinking of something else joy I think

3:13:23 ↗ some of its gonna have to be abstracting

3:13:25 ↗ a little it's gonna be photos I think

3:13:26 ↗ some of it might be like what we saw

3:13:28 ↗ when we were going over Wall Street

3:13:30 ↗ isn't actually real they weren't actual

3:13:32 ↗ photographs they're concepts to help

3:13:34 ↗ draw and so one thing that was really

3:13:36 ↗ that I really enjoyed about it going

3:13:38 ↗ around on our on our walking bus tour

3:13:40 ↗ was this concept of this is what it can

3:13:43 ↗ be this is what this developers

3:13:45 ↗ interested in and so kind of getting

3:13:47 ↗ people that visualization because right

3:13:48 ↗ now if you were to walk into let's say

3:13:50 ↗ the Fred Meyer Home Depot

3:13:52 ↗ you know asphalt parking lot it's hard

3:13:53 ↗ to imagine well where would you put

3:13:56 ↗ condos townhomes or whatever being able

3:13:58 ↗ to go around talk to me about you know

3:14:00 ↗ that we talked about that the blight of

3:14:01 ↗ the wall what what can that what can a

3:14:04 ↗ hotel on the hillside look like that is

3:14:07 ↗ integrated into our community so well

3:14:09 ↗ the hotel us about example but I think

3:14:11 ↗ that when we try to communicate a vision

3:14:13 ↗ a vision of the rgc it might help to say

3:14:16 ↗ this is what we see the future of

3:14:18 ↗ Issaquah looking like rather than just

3:14:21 ↗ this is what it is now and there's this

3:14:22 ↗ hard line between where we want to get

3:14:24 ↗ to great programs that can draw in that

3:14:26 ↗ bad stuff one other thing I feel like

3:14:34 ↗ the Lake Sammamish State Park while it's

3:14:38 ↗ mentioned in the today section adjacent

3:14:41 ↗ to yeah there isn't anything on the

3:14:44 ↗ future section about now there should be

3:14:46 ↗ more connectivity there okay for that I

3:14:50 ↗ would suggest that you in East Valley

3:14:53 ↗ take section number three point 500

3:14:58 ↗ and number one and city implementing

3:15:01 ↗ actions and just take both of those and

3:15:03 ↗ put them into digital growth center

3:15:06 ↗ number three okay

3:15:11 ↗ the number one in city implementing

3:15:13 ↗ actions in these valley if taxes sick

3:15:17 ↗ and three point five under connected but

3:15:20 ↗ again what I've been distressed that's

3:15:22 ↗ all good and I agree with that but

3:15:24 ↗ something about the green necklace

3:15:26 ↗ unless we unless we all agreed that

3:15:28 ↗ you're gonna create a page specifically

3:15:30 ↗ for the green necklace that precedes all

3:15:32 ↗ these visions I think we agreed to that

3:15:34 ↗ all right then that should cover it

3:15:35 ↗ because I had lots of comments on how

3:15:37 ↗ that should be integrated in here one

3:15:39 ↗ other comment on under sustainable 4.4

3:15:45 ↗ yes I don't like the wording has not

3:15:49 ↗ resulted in a loss of employment how

3:15:51 ↗ about development has resulted in a gain

3:15:53 ↗ of employment the better wait it's a

3:15:56 ↗ more proactive optimistic way of looking

3:15:59 ↗ at it and then also on three point three

3:16:05 ↗ Sound Transit Station is a central hub I

3:16:09 ↗ would like it in our vision to be very

3:16:13 ↗ clear that that hub needs to be located

3:16:16 ↗ within the footprint of the i-90

3:16:19 ↗ right-of-way that's our vision as a City

3:16:24 ↗ Sound Transit may not like it TUC that's

3:16:26 ↗ our vision that can flex with the code

3:16:31 ↗ that we've already passed we've already

3:16:33 ↗ passed code that allows them to put

3:16:35 ↗ wherever they want we opened it up for

3:16:38 ↗ them so I don't know how we have a

3:16:39 ↗ vision that actually contradicts work

3:16:42 ↗ we've already done well even if the code

3:16:44 ↗ would allow it to go anywhere our vision

3:16:46 ↗ can say we wanted to write in the nine

3:16:49 ↗ right away under Parkes it has the

3:16:53 ↗ flyover bus ramps so we don't have all

3:16:56 ↗ the traffic clogging this up I mean we

3:16:58 ↗ better lay that out or we're gonna get

3:17:01 ↗ wherever Sound Transit wants to go is

3:17:05 ↗ the slug map in the comp planner and

3:17:08 ↗ sits in this yeah it didn't central plan

3:17:11 ↗ okay I think what joy was referring to

3:17:13 ↗ and we came here with the public hearing

3:17:15 ↗ I'm more specific zoning that never kind

3:17:18 ↗ of died yeah so there is a map in the

3:17:24 ↗ central listicle plan that shows four

3:17:26 ↗ possible locations yes that's the say it

3:17:29 ↗ looks like it slug so should we narrow

3:17:32 ↗ that down to one high I think so

3:17:36 ↗ because again when you talk about the

3:17:38 ↗ plague of Issaquah today being a

3:17:40 ↗ commuter pass through town if you want

3:17:43 ↗ to avoid that as it's even worse 30

3:17:45 ↗ years from now then you need to have the

3:17:47 ↗ vision that says that station is right

3:17:50 ↗ in the footprint of the main

3:17:52 ↗ transportation corridor with everything

3:17:54 ↗ feeding into and we make that our vision

3:17:59 ↗ otherwise you just end up with more pass

3:18:01 ↗ through commuter traffic getting to the

3:18:03 ↗ train station I mean that could be a

3:18:04 ↗ task force into itself - well some

3:18:07 ↗ Transit will probably do that all right

3:18:09 ↗ I doubt they're gonna consult us they're

3:18:11 ↗ gonna do what they want so I mean if you

3:18:13 ↗ want to go that direction I think that

3:18:14 ↗ we almost need to have the city appoint

3:18:15 ↗ task force like we did with the traffic

3:18:17 ↗ issue recently to say what is the best

3:18:19 ↗ place for our community one of the

3:18:23 ↗ things and it says this is there going

3:18:24 ↗ to be I think where we have most housing

3:18:26 ↗ we still haven't addressed the schools

3:18:29 ↗ and in sustainability or someplace I

3:18:32 ↗ think we need to define that you'll live

3:18:34 ↗ work and play and go to school you know

3:18:38 ↗ by walking because if we don't work

3:18:41 ↗ closely with the school district we're

3:18:43 ↗ going to be busing all these kids to

3:18:45 ↗ Timbuktu

3:18:46 ↗ so someplace in here I think we need to

3:18:49 ↗ work that in to make sure that we are

3:18:51 ↗ identifying working closely with the

3:18:53 ↗ school district or with charter schools

3:18:55 ↗ to build charter schools and some of our

3:18:57 ↗ mix juice buildings

3:18:59 ↗ well does that go back to the visions

3:19:00 ↗ that we had about urban schools that had

3:19:03 ↗ the agenda item to go back I mean

3:19:05 ↗ another way to integrate that verbage

3:19:07 ↗ those still yet to be created well we're

3:19:11 ↗ coming back here to talk turbine school

3:19:15 ↗ policy at some point in next year I

3:19:17 ↗ think we think we promise first half

3:19:20 ↗ vaguely remember that so so that part is

3:19:23 ↗ gonna happen I don't disagree with

3:19:25 ↗ Mary's comment you know that you know

3:19:29 ↗ part of the conversation we've been

3:19:31 ↗ having about the potential hilltop

3:19:35 ↗ elementary school site is you know the

3:19:38 ↗ need to put schools where the population

3:19:40 ↗ gain is so you diminish the amount of

3:19:42 ↗ required busing that's necessary and I

3:19:45 ↗ think we all would agree that that is a

3:19:46 ↗ good outcome right or objective I still

3:19:49 ↗ don't know Vicki you know and so if we

3:19:55 ↗ expect to have 7500 housing units you

3:20:00 ↗ know in the vicinity of in the sub area

3:20:03 ↗ in this district you know there should

3:20:05 ↗ be some conversation about schools so I

3:20:08 ↗ agree with that I don't know where it

3:20:09 ↗ goes but yeah I don't see maybe in this

3:20:11 ↗ this this districts that's gonna be the

3:20:15 ↗ largest yeah Wow I don't know I don't

3:20:18 ↗ know if it wants to be in the rgc or

3:20:20 ↗ somewhere around the perimeter I don't

3:20:21 ↗ know well it just needs to be noted some

3:20:24 ↗ here so it doesn't get forgotten again I

3:20:25 ↗ agree because it got forgotten the last

3:20:27 ↗ time I had one more thing the quote I

3:20:30 ↗ had a question about in the today

3:20:31 ↗ statement we have the function of Gilman

3:20:33 ↗ bull Boulevard

3:20:34 ↗ remains undecided in the future I don't

3:20:37 ↗ think if you like

3:20:40 ↗ I was like well it's a very positive

3:20:45 ↗ statement and it's also it doesn't

3:20:47 ↗ really give a direction of what we would

3:20:48 ↗ like it's honest we might want to have

3:20:54 ↗ an actual part of it we address that in

3:20:56 ↗ the future you know so you know we

3:20:58 ↗ envision Gilman Boulevard to be a

3:21:02 ↗ corridor that connects you know I mean

3:21:04 ↗ like there you don't want I don't mind

3:21:07 ↗ this this diamond being in there today

3:21:08 ↗ but I do mind it just being left hanging

3:21:11 ↗ County has a tape though to identify a

3:21:13 ↗ vision here because there is something

3:21:15 ↗ in the work plan and we've hired a

3:21:17 ↗ consultant to do a vision for all of

3:21:20 ↗ Gilman from 902 Front Street in 2018 I

3:21:24 ↗ don't think I think it's a little

3:21:28 ↗ premature

3:21:29 ↗ to do it right now and I don't think we

3:21:31 ↗ have to say what the vision is I think I

3:21:32 ↗ think to Joy's point you know we've kind

3:21:35 ↗ of set up this we've got this kind of

3:21:37 ↗ thing that's out there and then we just

3:21:39 ↗ don't even address it I think I think

3:21:41 ↗ saying that maybe in the future the

3:21:43 ↗ Gilman Boulevard is the potential to do

3:21:47 ↗ something or has been integrated into

3:21:50 ↗ you know the district or in the

3:21:52 ↗ neighborhoods to a point where there

3:21:53 ↗ it's an asset I mean I think you could

3:21:55 ↗ be as loose as that without getting into

3:21:57 ↗ specifically like what is it because I

3:22:00 ↗ don't even know yeah

3:22:08 ↗ so I have two things one is and this has

3:22:12 ↗ come up a bunch of times but I think

3:22:13 ↗ since it's a vision I would like to see

3:22:15 ↗ there be worrying about having a cover

3:22:18 ↗ over ionize you or a lid is this not

3:22:22 ↗ actually in the vision and then the

3:22:25 ↗ other thing would be there's no there's

3:22:26 ↗ a lot of mention of connections and

3:22:28 ↗ crossings but I think it should be

3:22:30 ↗ considered especially for the smaller

3:22:32 ↗ roads like a certain 100 relatively

3:22:35 ↗ speaking

3:22:35 ↗ also tunnels it could be an option high

3:22:41 ↗ water table you dig in you catch water

3:22:44 ↗ there's no nowhere tunnels are hard for

3:22:51 ↗ us unless you're in I mean the Highlands

3:22:53 ↗ could have a tunnel talus can have a

3:22:55 ↗ tunnel but Valley floors ie you can get

3:22:58 ↗ water it at six feet I also felt like

3:23:04 ↗ I'm Mary I know Mary already mentioned

3:23:06 ↗ this but for the Western gateway which I

3:23:09 ↗ agree with but for this one for measures

3:23:11 ↗ of success its again wildlife corridors

3:23:13 ↗ when we talk about connectivity I think

3:23:15 ↗ that that needs to be emphasized that

3:23:17 ↗ that's we're not just trying to connect

3:23:19 ↗ people we're also trying to connect the

3:23:20 ↗ environment and right now that's still

3:23:22 ↗ you know a migration path into the park

3:23:30 ↗ know that so this applies I noted this

3:23:34 ↗ one here but it truly applies to every

3:23:36 ↗ district neighborhood whatever but and I

3:23:39 ↗ don't know where you'd want to fit it

3:23:40 ↗ but under city implementation actions I

3:23:43 ↗ would like to see some aspirational goal

3:23:47 ↗ that says something along the lines of

3:23:49 ↗ use the transfer of development of right

3:23:51 ↗ rights program and development

3:23:54 ↗ mitigation to enhance density without

3:23:58 ↗ handing out free up zones that in other

3:24:05 ↗ words there needs to be you don't just

3:24:07 ↗ give everybody instant multi-millionaire

3:24:09 ↗ status and say now you've got 50 units

3:24:12 ↗ to an acre instead of five

3:24:15 ↗ make them buy into that by offsetting

3:24:19 ↗ with other open space by helping with

3:24:21 ↗ road improvements by doing some of the

3:24:24 ↗ green green necklace by whatever else we

3:24:27 ↗ need is the amenities that make this

3:24:30 ↗ livable you don't just get the free zone

3:24:33 ↗ in you got to buy into the vision and

3:24:35 ↗ then you get your zoning so somewhere

3:24:37 ↗ that needs to be woven into this whole

3:24:39 ↗ plan as City implementing actions or

3:24:42 ↗ just the overall approach to how we will

3:24:46 ↗ let that density fill in here it's not

3:24:50 ↗ just giving out freely like candy so I

3:24:54 ↗ don't disagree I think where I would

3:24:58 ↗ stick it can is there's clearly no

3:25:08 ↗ oxygen left in this room I think I would

3:25:17 ↗ place it in the story section and in

3:25:22 ↗ terms of talking about how you know the

3:25:25 ↗ this area has already been upset you

3:25:28 ↗ know and that basically that the city

3:25:30 ↗ has Smart Growth tools like TDRs and

3:25:33 ↗ density bonus program to provide for

3:25:35 ↗ additional density where property owners

3:25:38 ↗ see fit to go after that and rather than

3:25:40 ↗ having the city increased zoning beyond

3:25:42 ↗ what's there now so I think and I think

3:25:45 ↗ that could be part of the story not to

3:25:52 ↗ just hand it out freely but to partner

3:25:56 ↗ with developers and they need to buy

3:25:58 ↗ into it if they want the benefit of

3:26:00 ↗ added density buy into making this

3:26:03 ↗ community absorb that density with some

3:26:07 ↗ other attractive features that benefit

3:26:09 ↗ the whole community okay

3:26:24 ↗ so throughout all of this it's like

3:26:26 ↗ what's the public benefit and so I went

3:26:29 ↗ to the effort of reading San Francisco

3:26:31 ↗ Code while I was down there because they

3:26:32 ↗ have a lot of this conversation about

3:26:34 ↗ how to increase density and they just

3:26:37 ↗ say if you want to be this dense you

3:26:40 ↗ have to do the rules and you have to do

3:26:43 ↗ these things too and that was very

3:26:46 ↗ specific block by block pictures this is

3:26:53 ↗ going to be a park and they drew the

3:26:55 ↗ park in that area this is going to be

3:26:57 ↗ your plaza and they drew it in that area

3:26:59 ↗ this is the area for your affordable

3:27:01 ↗ housing and these are the three blocks

3:27:03 ↗ where you can actually have your

3:27:04 ↗ increased density and they just

3:27:06 ↗ described very clearly what you shall do

3:27:10 ↗ in order to be able to build in San

3:27:13 ↗ Francisco and it wasn't an option it was

3:27:16 ↗ just you are privileged to build here

3:27:17 ↗ and so we get the bonus as the community

3:27:20 ↗ with lots and lots of language of and

3:27:22 ↗ how do you protect the individual values

3:27:25 ↗ of each community and so when I read

3:27:27 ↗ this this is what I this is the place

3:27:30 ↗ where I think you could start asking for

3:27:32 ↗ that so in your beginning language you

3:27:34 ↗ see a lot of and it has to make the

3:27:36 ↗ community better where that language

3:27:38 ↗ falls short is is is where we're asking

3:27:43 ↗ for changes we're just asking for the

3:27:45 ↗ baseline and I think we're missing the

3:27:48 ↗ whipped-cream that would actually make

3:27:50 ↗ the community happy to have development

3:28:00 ↗ I don't generally have comments on her

3:28:02 ↗ neighborhood by neighborhood basis there

3:28:03 ↗ was one that stood out that was

3:28:05 ↗ mentioned that this is the area for

3:28:07 ↗ affordable housing that wasn't

3:28:09 ↗ necessarily in the other ones I just

3:28:11 ↗ think if we're gonna have affordable

3:28:12 ↗ housing we need to talk about how that

3:28:13 ↗ where that's going to happen throughout

3:28:16 ↗ district observation so I appreciate

3:28:21 ↗ that and just so that you know Steve the

3:28:22 ↗ reason why some of the neighborhoods or

3:28:25 ↗ the districts have a mentioned specific

3:28:29 ↗ a mention for affordable housing is

3:28:31 ↗ because of the inclusionary requirement

3:28:34 ↗ in East Valley and brg C so we know we

3:28:38 ↗ will get it there's you know so part of

3:28:40 ↗ I think what I heard and Lindsay can

3:28:43 ↗ tell me if she heard something else what

3:28:45 ↗ I heard from land in Shore was part of

3:28:47 ↗ the criticism of the existing visions is

3:28:49 ↗ we weren't getting what it said we were

3:28:51 ↗ we wanted right and so if like in

3:28:54 ↗ confluence we say we want affordable

3:28:56 ↗ housing and confluence then what's the

3:28:58 ↗ tool that we're going to use to get it

3:29:00 ↗ and right now the inclusionary is not

3:29:03 ↗ going to extend into confluence and so I

3:29:05 ↗ don't disagree we want we have a we have

3:29:07 ↗ an affordable housing program that we're

3:29:10 ↗ trying to get a certain number overall

3:29:11 ↗ period right I think that you know if

3:29:16 ↗ there's an opportunity and there

3:29:17 ↗ actually is one potentially in

3:29:19 ↗ confluence because the city owns the at

3:29:21 ↗ work site so we could and I thought

3:29:25 ↗ maybe I did actually put that in there

3:29:26 ↗ because of that but you like in Gateway

3:29:30 ↗ I don't think we're gonna get any

3:29:32 ↗ affordable housing and Gateway I mean

3:29:34 ↗ because that ship sailed

3:29:35 ↗ and there was an inclusionary

3:29:36 ↗ requirement we have so in the land and

3:29:38 ↗ we missed that boat so so I don't

3:29:42 ↗ disagree with you but there's reasons

3:29:44 ↗ why some places it specifically says

3:29:46 ↗ affordable in some places it didn't

3:29:49 ↗ there anything else

3:29:51 ↗ the fuller said here have a comment

3:29:56 ↗ before we close we're not closing skip

3:30:05 ↗ to the end that was my thing of trying

3:30:10 ↗ to get you I know you've made actually

3:30:12 ↗ some comments about three four already

3:30:14 ↗ so I wasn't sure if you had more things

3:30:16 ↗ to have a couple kind of small ones the

3:30:24 ↗ in three talks about under sting

3:30:26 ↗ distinctive says horizontal mixed-use

3:30:28 ↗ provides housing and employment

3:30:29 ↗ opportunities it seems like we were

3:30:32 ↗ looking for vertical mixed-use as well

3:30:36 ↗ so I'm sorry Mela you and he fell in

3:30:38 ↗ each valley he's finally so item one

3:30:42 ↗ point to their distinctive I got to be

3:30:47 ↗ in the wrong place oh I am sorry I'm

3:30:50 ↗ like reading that three times saying

3:30:51 ↗ that doesn't say that we clearly got to

3:30:54 ↗ a point so so as we as we as we've and

3:31:00 ↗ around we talked about East East Valley

3:31:05 ↗ a lot and you know you're probably not

3:31:09 ↗ gonna see a change in the microsoft

3:31:11 ↗ office buildings I mean you've got seven

3:31:13 ↗ or 50,000 square feet of Class A office

3:31:15 ↗ it's probably not going anywhere anytime

3:31:17 ↗ in the next thirty years you know you've

3:31:20 ↗ got the school district that's moving

3:31:23 ↗ forward buying one of the space labs

3:31:25 ↗ buildings and that's gonna be their new

3:31:26 ↗ office buildings you've got probably the

3:31:30 ↗ FedEx site is going to turn over at some

3:31:34 ↗ point and and could be vertically

3:31:36 ↗ mixed-use but could also just be

3:31:38 ↗ residential you know the BMC site as we

3:31:42 ↗ talked about BMC and kind of that east

3:31:47 ↗ side of East Lake Sam you know I think

3:31:50 ↗ at least some of the conversations that

3:31:52 ↗ we had was that seemed like that was a

3:31:53 ↗ lot more like residential like maybe you

3:31:56 ↗ know townhouse E or something along the

3:31:59 ↗ lines of so as you started to talk about

3:32:01 ↗ the construct of what was happened

3:32:02 ↗ there it seemed more like we had mixed

3:32:06 ↗ use but it was more horizontal mix you

3:32:08 ↗ swear as opposed to the vertical which

3:32:10 ↗ we saw more in the RG see and so it

3:32:16 ↗ doesn't mean we won't get some vertical

3:32:18 ↗ mix use I mean I think you know the the

3:32:21 ↗ owners of the majority of the Fred Meyer

3:32:25 ↗ Shopping Center right now we're actually

3:32:26 ↗ talking about vertical mix use that's I

3:32:30 ↗ guess my question could we just change

3:32:32 ↗ it to say horizontal and vertical I

3:32:35 ↗ don't have a problem with that I think

3:32:40 ↗ we talked about in the future statement

3:32:42 ↗ it talks about it being a less dense

3:32:44 ↗ character than the rgc yeah so I would

3:32:46 ↗ say generally mixed use is more dense

3:32:50 ↗ when you're talking vertical less dense

3:32:52 ↗ when you're talking about as obvious I

3:32:54 ↗ think that's the vision for the area or

3:32:57 ↗ at least what we can expect I don't know

3:32:59 ↗ I would see Fred Myers you come in there

3:33:01 ↗ and you put in a you know five stories

3:33:04 ↗ of wood over ground level retail in the

3:33:07 ↗ location like that is being very

3:33:09 ↗ difficult in what we'd see on the

3:33:11 ↗ Albertson side and of going in again I

3:33:16 ↗ could see both of them happening us to

3:33:19 ↗ happen it just means that it could yeah

3:33:22 ↗ that if somebody came in with a vertical

3:33:23 ↗ we wouldn't be able to go back and say

3:33:25 ↗ sorry you can't do it because their

3:33:27 ↗ vision was only horizontal yeah I was

3:33:31 ↗ curious about for implementing number

3:33:33 ↗ three when we talk about gathering space

3:33:35 ↗ with a view of Mount Rainier but we

3:33:37 ↗ don't mentioned as a measure of success

3:33:39 ↗ I'm curious I also call it Trish's pipe

3:33:44 ↗ dream so

3:33:47 ↗ [Music]

3:33:47 ↗ [Laughter]

3:33:52 ↗ so measure of success looks like from

3:33:58 ↗ the city and right now again it feels

3:34:00 ↗ like a threat of no-man's land you know

3:34:03 ↗ telling me that you know Gilman house do

3:34:04 ↗ you know what is the place of Yale in my

3:34:06 ↗ community public space for our year I

3:34:08 ↗ would like to have a specific session

3:34:10 ↗ that of a measure of success I'd like to

3:34:12 ↗ see that address I thank you for

3:34:14 ↗ connecting the dots there's obviously a

3:34:19 ↗ few things about Gilman Village that

3:34:20 ↗ need to move you know there's on in East

3:34:26 ↗ Valley City implementing actions

3:34:29 ↗ I'm sorry measures of success I regional

3:34:32 ↗ traffic impacts on East Lake Sammamish

3:34:34 ↗ parkway rating news could we add in 56

3:34:36 ↗ yeah yeah good point and then throughout

3:34:41 ↗ he's family there's discussion of East

3:34:44 ↗ Lake Sammamish Park we evolved it into a

3:34:46 ↗ pedestrian bicycle friendly corridor

3:34:49 ↗ yeah route and I have a biker I would

3:34:53 ↗ not buy Connie he's like sparkly if I

3:34:55 ↗ can go on the trail I know we want to

3:34:59 ↗ put a lot of money in well then what we

3:35:04 ↗ talked about when we're at a task force

3:35:06 ↗ is with the redevelopment is creating

3:35:09 ↗ the pathways inside remember well I mean

3:35:14 ↗ basically the backs of the buildings

3:35:17 ↗ would be to East them at the Parkway and

3:35:20 ↗ they would face one another with your

3:35:22 ↗ pedestrian your sidewalks inside yeah

3:35:27 ↗ likely you village so knowing that the

3:35:29 ↗ traffic with that many lanes it's not

3:35:31 ↗ gonna ever be pedestrian friendly

3:35:33 ↗ because right now they're not using East

3:35:35 ↗ Lake Sammamish so with creating new

3:35:38 ↗ roads well that's because there's not

3:35:40 ↗ really well two things I don't think

3:35:43 ↗ there's really facilities that are

3:35:45 ↗ continuous on East Lake Sam that give

3:35:48 ↗ you that level of comfort that you're

3:35:50 ↗ not going to get hit by somebody going

3:35:52 ↗ 50 miles an hour to Sammamish but also

3:35:55 ↗ you know so the question is I don't I

3:35:57 ↗ don't

3:35:58 ↗ I don't know the answer to that question

3:36:01 ↗ I mean it is it defeatist not to say we

3:36:03 ↗ want to try and turn East Lake Sam into

3:36:05 ↗ a more pedestrian and bike friendly

3:36:07 ↗ facility I mean right now it's it's been

3:36:10 ↗ it's been designed to move as many cars

3:36:14 ↗ as quickly as possible from point A to

3:36:16 ↗ point B and and I think the question is

3:36:19 ↗ do we try and reclaim that Street or do

3:36:22 ↗ we say it's a write-off

3:36:23 ↗ well the reason that we've always left

3:36:24 ↗ it in there's B in 2004 and then again

3:36:26 ↗ in 2014 when we did the first on

3:36:29 ↗ motorized plan and then walk and roll

3:36:31 ↗ the commuters that we talked to said

3:36:32 ↗ that they would rather ride on the

3:36:33 ↗ street because they want to fly through

3:36:35 ↗ there instead of having to ride on a

3:36:36 ↗ shared used route where they risk

3:36:37 ↗ running into pedestrians and have to go

3:36:39 ↗ slower rights always been in their part

3:36:42 ↗ of when we were looking at the layout is

3:36:43 ↗ to create a few more through rows that

3:36:46 ↗ were more bike friendly sure would

3:36:52 ↗ definitely help options so because I

3:36:56 ↗ actually biked that route or commute to

3:36:59 ↗ Bothell and to Redmond on the trail on

3:37:01 ↗ the trail I can actually save almost 15

3:37:04 ↗ minutes by taking the road over the

3:37:06 ↗ trail that's huge huge that's actually

3:37:13 ↗ doesn't make any difference it was

3:37:17 ↗ before they closed it for so I used to

3:37:21 ↗ take the road because it was a whole lot

3:37:23 ↗ faster and when I commute I see a lot of

3:37:25 ↗ bicyclists doing the same thing I'm

3:37:27 ↗ doing and I don't see as many bicyclists

3:37:29 ↗ taking the bike path although the bike

3:37:31 ↗ path is really important especially when

3:37:35 ↗ it's wet because you don't get all the

3:37:36 ↗ spray but if you really want to fly you

3:37:39 ↗ take Lake Sam and it's a lot faster

3:37:46 ↗ but I don't know I I think it's really

3:37:49 ↗ important to keep maintain a

3:37:51 ↗ bike-friendly pathway on the on the road

3:37:54 ↗ but the people that take like Sam as far

3:37:57 ↗ as bikes know that it's not very only so

3:38:02 ↗ part of it is it's hard to look far

3:38:04 ↗ enough down the road so to speak right

3:38:06 ↗ but I mean if you envision like if you

3:38:09 ↗ took BMC and turned it into fairly big

3:38:12 ↗ residential complex and let's assume

3:38:15 ↗ that the second space labs building

3:38:17 ↗ turns into housing or FedEx turns into

3:38:19 ↗ housing and we start to actually create

3:38:21 ↗ a real neighborhood there so right now I

3:38:23 ↗ mean you've got basically people cutting

3:38:25 ↗ through that area to get around the

3:38:29 ↗ intersection of East Lake Sam and 56 in

3:38:32 ↗ the morning you know because it's faster

3:38:34 ↗ and right now that's fine cuz nobody

3:38:36 ↗ lives in there right and as soon as

3:38:38 ↗ people live in there that's gonna be a

3:38:39 ↗ problem

3:38:39 ↗ I think likewise you know what we've

3:38:43 ↗ learned on Newport where you allow roads

3:38:46 ↗ to not have all the facilities that

3:38:48 ↗ people expect there's going to be

3:38:51 ↗ somebody at some points gonna say there

3:38:53 ↗ should be bike lanes there should be

3:38:54 ↗ wide sidewalks you know people are still

3:38:57 ↗ going to drive 40 miles an hour but we

3:38:58 ↗ should have pedestrian facilities on

3:39:00 ↗ that road that that recognize that I

3:39:04 ↗ don't know well I think Newport is a

3:39:07 ↗ little bit different in the sense that

3:39:09 ↗ you don't have these Lake Sammamish

3:39:11 ↗ Trail which is an alternative any night

3:39:17 ↗ I use that when I commute to Seattle as

3:39:19 ↗ well and it's a little hairy in the

3:39:22 ↗ mornings because you have so many cars

3:39:24 ↗ zooming past you where Lake Sam you at

3:39:26 ↗ least have a bike path the whole length

3:39:28 ↗ well I think on Newport we're talking

3:39:31 ↗ about a mixed-use trail and bike lanes

3:39:33 ↗ right it's hopefully sooner than later

3:39:38 ↗ so I don't know I mean I think I think

3:39:42 ↗ we should be thinking about all modes on

3:39:45 ↗ all streets even if right now they're

3:39:47 ↗ kind of scary I had a note for the comp

3:39:51 ↗ for confluence of

3:39:52 ↗ the last neighborhood and that is to

3:39:55 ↗ have in the implementing actions that we

3:39:57 ↗ actually say that we are looking at

3:39:59 ↗ having staff address code to help keep

3:40:03 ↗ the characteristics of the neighborhood

3:40:07 ↗ that probably should be in each

3:40:09 ↗ neighborhood

3:40:10 ↗ well we've specifically talked about

3:40:12 ↗ with confluence tonight and so I think

3:40:13 ↗ it's important to think about it as an

3:40:15 ↗ action item if you don't want to put it

3:40:16 ↗ in the implementation actions but it's

3:40:18 ↗ something we've discussed it and it may

3:40:19 ↗ need language to help preserve it in a

3:40:22 ↗ similar way that we you know don't Old

3:40:23 ↗ Town though again not sinful Issaquah

3:40:25 ↗ keep treating it a little bit like a I

3:40:28 ↗ hate to say a special neighborhood

3:40:30 ↗ within the district but they all should

3:40:33 ↗ have their I think the point of this is

3:40:35 ↗ to get you know I think part of the

3:40:38 ↗ problem is we had 900 acres or 1,100

3:40:42 ↗ acres I keep forgetting how many acres

3:40:43 ↗ you know of central Issaquah and this

3:40:45 ↗ was to actually make more distinction

3:40:48 ↗ and I think your point is a good one we

3:40:50 ↗ did talk about confluence there does

3:40:52 ↗ need to be if if we don't do any of the

3:40:55 ↗ other code revisions that one needs to

3:40:57 ↗ happen if we're going to have it be a

3:41:00 ↗ transitional neighborhood like we

3:41:01 ↗ described just one other over measure of

3:41:11 ↗ success for the different areas that

3:41:13 ↗ Street cannon fires we really haven't

3:41:16 ↗ talked about tree canopies but I'd like

3:41:18 ↗ to see you know something put in there

3:41:20 ↗ as far as the measures the tree canopy

3:41:22 ↗ on in this area is increased because I

3:41:25 ↗ think most of our tree canopy right now

3:41:27 ↗ is from outside this area I'm not

3:41:29 ↗ touching trees you know so I'm just

3:41:31 ↗ gonna be honest I mean the tree code

3:41:33 ↗ we've got Central is quadtree code we've

3:41:35 ↗ got IMC tree code I think the whole tree

3:41:38 ↗ code piece is heading towards a whole

3:41:40 ↗ remake because I think the conversations

3:41:43 ↗ we've been having about the villages and

3:41:44 ↗ the differences between and the urban

3:41:47 ↗ schools we had same came came to the

3:41:49 ↗ same place about we'd have one tree code

3:41:52 ↗ for the whole city and I don't know

3:41:53 ↗ agree with with what you want to

3:41:55 ↗ with that Mary but I don't want to I

3:41:57 ↗ want to put it in here because I don't

3:41:59 ↗ know what to do with that yet and I

3:42:00 ↗ think it's really complicated

3:42:02 ↗ I just like to again put a whole space

3:42:04 ↗ holder in there I'll think about that

3:42:07 ↗ one all right Ron did you have one

3:42:13 ↗ comment today I was gonna ask the public

3:42:17 ↗ if they had one last comment to make

3:42:19 ↗ they can go first but so I know this is

3:42:22 ↗ kind of it I don't want to be a negative

3:42:24 ↗ and I certainly know that this is can be

3:42:28 ↗ a sore spot and I don't want to offend

3:42:34 ↗ anybody all right even experts need

3:42:38 ↗ coaching assistants sometimes right NFL

3:42:41 ↗ football players they need a coach I

3:42:44 ↗ think we need a coach to look at this

3:42:47 ↗ and help us make sure that we are

3:42:49 ↗ nailing this thing down and for if it

3:42:53 ↗ costs us a hundred thousand if it cost

3:42:55 ↗ us two hundred thousand I think it's an

3:42:56 ↗ investment because if we get it right

3:42:59 ↗ we'll get that money back and fold if we

3:43:03 ↗ get it wrong we're gonna be hosts and I

3:43:06 ↗ think we just should be prudent and I I

3:43:08 ↗ would like to make the recommendation of

3:43:10 ↗ City Council make a motion that we look

3:43:16 ↗ for a third party to assist our staff in

3:43:20 ↗ making this vision in helping us guide

3:43:24 ↗ our thoughts and processes into a really

3:43:29 ↗ polished off document I love my city

3:43:31 ↗ very much I want a one a rockstar

3:43:36 ↗ document I want the best possible

3:43:38 ↗ outcome for our city I don't want to

3:43:41 ↗ sell short and I think like what Ken has

3:43:44 ↗ said if we make it really if we do a

3:43:51 ↗ top-notch job we don't have to sell the

3:43:54 ↗ city short and try and lure people here

3:43:57 ↗ with incentives we make the vision very

3:44:01 ↗ clear we back it up with really solid

3:44:04 ↗ code

3:44:05 ↗ and I think we need help with that as

3:44:06 ↗ well and then we can move forward with

3:44:09 ↗ peace of mind and it'll be an investment

3:44:12 ↗ it will get it back if we don't I think

3:44:15 ↗ would be having this conversation in

3:44:17 ↗ five years from now saying what did we

3:44:20 ↗ do wrong I just don't want to have that

3:44:23 ↗ conversation I wanted to get it I want

3:44:25 ↗ to knock the ball out of the park first

3:44:27 ↗ time right thank you actually I would

3:44:33 ↗ like to make a motion to City Council

3:44:35 ↗ that we look for a third party assistant

3:44:38 ↗ to help our staff with baking this

3:44:43 ↗ vision motion on the floor is there a

3:44:49 ↗ second hearing no second the motion dies

3:44:57 ↗ does anybody else want to make a last

3:44:59 ↗ comment David's ready we do something

3:45:03 ↗ better than East Valley

3:45:05 ↗ maybe it's my prejudice about Canton the

3:45:09 ↗ oldest family freeway or highway and

3:45:13 ↗ what was the almost live show and you

3:45:16 ↗ know I just

3:45:17 ↗ these valley just doesn't make it for me

3:45:19 ↗ but I don't have a great solution cuz

3:45:21 ↗ you're not gonna call it Sammamish

3:45:22 ↗ because it was damaged or something you

3:45:25 ↗ know so which it's you know so I don't

3:45:28 ↗ know it just bugs me so take it under

3:45:31 ↗ advisement if you can come up with a

3:45:35 ↗ better name then I'm happy for y'all to

3:45:37 ↗ send me names and I just have one last

3:45:40 ↗ pitch you talk about East Lake Sammamish

3:45:43 ↗ Parkway and all the roads it's how do we

3:45:46 ↗ get across the roads it's not how do you

3:45:49 ↗ parallel the roads and that is why you

3:45:51 ↗ need to make it pedestrian friendly and

3:45:53 ↗ last time this plan got written

3:45:55 ↗ everything was how do you get a cross I

3:45:58 ↗ mean just walk down it and Gilman

3:46:01 ↗ Boulevard it said you know people aren't

3:46:02 ↗ really gonna want to go across the road

3:46:04 ↗ and so it's not going to be a pedestrian

3:46:07 ↗ oriented street and I think he said all

3:46:10 ↗ of our streets need to be looked at as

3:46:12 ↗ pedestrian oriented if you want a future

3:46:14 ↗ where people are going to be able to

3:46:16 ↗ cross them

3:46:16 ↗ so again one last pitch I'm sort of

3:46:21 ↗ connectivity overlay over the entire

3:46:23 ↗ central is a quat plan Oh since nobody

3:46:27 ↗ else has any comment I'm going to make

3:46:28 ↗ one a very short one and I basically is

3:46:31 ↗ just to agree with Connie in the way of

3:46:33 ↗ I expect with the code codes that are

3:46:37 ↗ going to be put together that you're

3:46:41 ↗ going to see where the parks are going

3:46:42 ↗ to be how many homes you can build there

3:46:45 ↗ what the track and what traffic what it

3:46:48 ↗ does to traffic if you put 7,000 new

3:46:51 ↗ units in some area how they're going to

3:46:54 ↗ get out right now we have a traffic

3:46:56 ↗ problem we can't get around very well

3:46:59 ↗ and if you put 75 7,000 more units in

3:47:02 ↗ here you are going to have problems and

3:47:04 ↗ I can't see bringing down streets to

3:47:08 ↗ make them instead of three lanes to two

3:47:11 ↗ lanes I can't see us doing any of that

3:47:13 ↗ as to you're somebody's comment the if

3:47:18 ↗ the intersections fail were there

3:47:21 ↗ already failing we already have Epps in

3:47:25 ↗ most of the areas in the city so we

3:47:31 ↗ still have that so I think

3:47:32 ↗ transportation is you can say going to

3:47:35 ↗ build all these homes but you're going

3:47:36 ↗ to have to have to have the access to be

3:47:38 ↗ able to move people around and when we

3:47:42 ↗ had they we had the discussion

3:47:44 ↗ originally on the central area plan we I

3:47:48 ↗ was I'm the only one that was on the PPC

3:47:51 ↗ at the time besides Carl and it was yes

3:47:54 ↗ we're going to approve this as long as

3:47:56 ↗ you do the codes to make sure that you

3:47:58 ↗ know which area how many homes are going

3:48:00 ↗ to go in that area where the traffic is

3:48:02 ↗ going to be how many parks are going to

3:48:04 ↗ be there where the parks are going to be

3:48:06 ↗ so I'm hoping that that's what the city

3:48:08 ↗ comes out with because I mean that's

3:48:10 ↗ what we need we need to know what we're

3:48:14 ↗ going to do we just can't let builders

3:48:15 ↗ do it

3:48:16 ↗ so that's my my two thoughts so since it

3:48:19 ↗ is now 10:25 I'm gonna call this meeting

3:48:24 ↗ to close and thank you very much for

3:48:26 ↗ your comments they were awesome so my

3:48:29 ↗ one last ask so we're gonna be we will

3:48:36 ↗ do the edits to our best ability of

3:48:39 ↗ understanding the direction that we got

3:48:41 ↗ this evening there will be an updated

3:48:43 ↗ version of this probably by Monday and

3:48:47 ↗ if any of you would like to come to

3:48:50 ↗ Landon Shore next week to talk about

3:48:53 ↗ this whether you like it or not I'm

3:48:56 ↗ ready for honesty I think the council

3:49:00 ↗ wants honesty you know I would love for

3:49:02 ↗ y'all to come and say it's wonderful but

3:49:04 ↗ if you think it's horrible and a train

3:49:06 ↗ wreck if you feel like you know the

3:49:08 ↗ council should hire consultants

3:49:11 ↗ I'd say bring it on

3:49:14 ↗ I think having I think having some

3:49:19 ↗ others come to Landon Shore and help the

3:49:22 ↗ conversation along would be great

3:49:24 ↗ what's do Lennon Shore starts at 6:30 I

3:49:27 ↗ don't know what's we're kind of like the

3:49:30 ↗ only thing on the agenda there's a

3:49:32 ↗ couple little things it's a couple

3:49:34 ↗ little things so I would say for the

3:49:38 ↗ most part the bulk of the meeting will

3:49:39 ↗ be talking about the visions it the

3:49:43 ↗ agenda will be on the city website so

3:49:46 ↗ you'll be able to see what time and

3:49:48 ↗ where and where you are on the agenda so

3:49:52 ↗ it'll be up tomorrow

3:49:53 ↗ waitjust tomorrow Friday yes yes it'll

3:49:56 ↗ be a smart

3:49:57 ↗ like an hour and 20 minutes so I hate to

3:50:00 ↗ do this but this is the public hearing

3:50:02 ↗ and we still have a findings of fact

3:50:04 ↗ they need a recommendation and I know

3:50:06 ↗ the there have been so I know I know

3:50:09 ↗ that it's kind of up in flux

3:50:11 ↗ I just how do you want to handle that so

3:50:14 ↗ I looked at the piece of paper that I'm

3:50:15 ↗ supposed to sign that forward this on

3:50:17 ↗ but there were so many things that

3:50:19 ↗ you've changed on it on that so I don't

3:50:23 ↗ think that there could be I'd like to

3:50:28 ↗ see it before you son I personally feel

3:50:38 ↗ that we have really rocked through a lot

3:50:41 ↗ of stuff and it's hard to say that we're

3:50:44 ↗ all on the same page until we look at

3:50:45 ↗ that page and while I don't want to

3:50:47 ↗ delay I am hesitant to say if findings

3:50:52 ↗ of fact as implemented in our discussion

3:50:55 ↗ that makes me a little apprehensive

3:50:59 ↗ oh sorry does that mean we have to go to

3:51:02 ↗ the fourteenth for you to make a motion

3:51:03 ↗ to move this forward

3:51:05 ↗ well let me ask you a question right now

3:51:06 ↗ is there anything else on on our docket

3:51:09 ↗ for the rest of the year

3:51:10 ↗ now it's officially our last meeting it

3:51:13 ↗ would be if the visions were done I'm

3:51:16 ↗ chair how do you feel about we certainly

3:51:19 ↗ can if we don't have the finding of

3:51:25 ↗ facts we can't go to land in short right

3:51:27 ↗ no you go to land in short right I mean

3:51:30 ↗ I think I think the purpose of land in

3:51:32 ↗ Shore is really just to have a

3:51:34 ↗ conversation with the committee if

3:51:37 ↗ there's Commission business to do my

3:51:39 ↗ suggestion would be have a quick meeting

3:51:41 ↗ on the 15th 14th 14th

3:51:45 ↗ this document will be done and baked it

3:51:47 ↗ will be through Landon Shore well it

3:51:50 ↗ could be through they and ensure only

3:51:54 ↗ they left so so you guys will have a

3:52:00 ↗ document that at least staff feel is is

3:52:03 ↗ done and representative of this

3:52:06 ↗ conversation so at that point you guys

3:52:09 ↗ can review that document have a

3:52:10 ↗ conversation and then do your findings

3:52:13 ↗ and and and have that done in advance of

3:52:17 ↗ the council meeting on the 18th which

3:52:21 ↗ still kind of works this still will go

3:52:25 ↗ to a discussion of land and this is yeah

3:52:28 ↗ this is still going there will be a new

3:52:31 ↗ version that they will get by I don't

3:52:34 ↗ know that it by tomorrow

3:52:35 ↗ so it's tomorrow now right tomorrow's

3:52:39 ↗ Saturday so we will as soon as possible

3:52:46 ↗ I don't know that it's going to be

3:52:46 ↗ tomorrow it might be Monday those maps

3:52:50 ↗ to do there's all those pretty pictures

3:52:54 ↗ in those pictures

3:52:56 ↗ at least it's going to land in Shore and

3:52:59 ↗ if all of you any of you want to go to

3:53:01 ↗ the meeting it would help progress it

3:53:06 ↗ through it would help staff we would

3:53:09 ↗ appreciate any any we can't do it for we

3:53:19 ↗ can't have a meeting basically online

3:53:22 ↗ can we be a PC yeah no no I like to open

3:53:26 ↗ the eggs and yeah you ain't has to be an

3:53:29 ↗ open meeting and that's not so we can

3:53:32 ↗ have it in a van though noted on the

3:53:41 ↗ meeting that there was going to be a van

3:53:43 ↗ I'm surprised that other people didn't

3:53:46 ↗ join in but some people that were here

3:53:49 ↗ had said they wanted to go

3:53:51 ↗ David's David's driven with me before I

3:53:54 ↗ remember one time driving over a giant

3:53:57 ↗ mountain of dirt David in the car and

3:54:00 ↗ when you were driving us you managed to

3:54:02 ↗ do some strange things yes just just for

3:54:08 ↗ the record just for the record no no

3:54:11 ↗ driving laws were broken while I was

3:54:13 ↗ driving a city vehicle if any of you

3:54:19 ↗ want to go to Landon Shore and continue

3:54:22 ↗ this on and then we'll have a final

3:54:24 ↗ discussion on the four shoes in them

3:54:28 ↗ you'll have the information in front of

3:54:29 ↗ you and then forwarded on with my

3:54:33 ↗ signature yeah okay although I closed

3:54:39 ↗ the meeting at 10:30 10:25 I'm going to

3:54:42 ↗ again close it at 10:30 so with that

3:54:45 ↗ turn off your microphones

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

MOVED BY LEWIS, SECONDED BY WALSH, that minutes of the PPC meeting on November 16, 2017, be approved as presented.
Niven explained the Service District’s existing zoning and what changes would take place for property owners in the Service District if this change was approved by the Council.
MOVED BY FAUL that PPC ask the City Council for funding to hire third-party assistance to help staff with the vision effort.
The Central Issaquah Plan was approved with the idea that the code would be in place to enforce the vision, and we know now what can happen without clear, enforceable code.
a) Planning Policy Commission 11-30-17 the Commission agreed to meet again on Thursday, December 14 to review the final district visions draft document and make a recommendation to Council.