Planning Policy Commission – Special Meeting · Wednesday, January 10, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Nov 9, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Nov 16, 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 30, 2017

packet pp.5–13

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Nov 9, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Nov 16, 2017

▶ Watch from 1:05 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

2881 segments .txt ↗

0:12 ↗ [Applause]

0:17 ↗ seven points out one two three four

0:21 ↗ general well this is we're not voting

0:23 ↗ anyway welcome to the January 10th

0:27 ↗ meeting of the Planning Policy

0:29 ↗ Commission I want to I originally wanted

0:33 ↗ to say thank you Oh tonight we're going

0:36 ↗ to talk about continue talking about the

0:38 ↗ vision of the central area I wanted to

0:42 ↗ thank the scribe for doing such

0:46 ↗ tremendous minutes from our last meeting

0:49 ↗ and with that I'd like to look at the

0:52 ↗ members of this commission and say have

0:56 ↗ you read the minutes and are you ready

0:57 ↗ to vote as somebody have a something to

1:02 ↗ tell me I'd like to make a motion to

1:05 ↗ approve the minutes

1:09 ↗ November 30th of November 30th any

1:15 ↗ discussion all those in favor say aye

1:19 ↗ aye I don't think I could do that

1:22 ↗ because can I on this tonight I can

1:25 ↗ approve the minutes okay perfect before

1:30 ↗ we start discussion tonight I know that

1:34 ↗ Keith is ready to give us a update on

1:37 ↗ everything we need to know to make a

1:41 ↗ wise decision for creating this vision

1:45 ↗ for the community I want to remind

1:47 ↗ everybody that we've spent the last year

1:51 ↗ well before that I when I read the

1:53 ↗ minutes I realized that there were some

1:55 ↗ people that had made comments about

1:56 ↗ making sure that you had codes addressed

2:01 ↗ before you could go into the vision but

2:05 ↗ if you remember for the last year we

2:07 ↗ have been working on such things as

2:10 ↗ Heights and setbacks and schools and

2:15 ↗ housing issues so we have done all the

2:18 ↗ hard work I mean some of that still has

2:21 ↗ to be done but the major part of it has

2:23 ↗ been done and what what the city has

2:26 ↗ done is started actually backwards they

2:29 ↗ started with the underlings and then

2:34 ↗ come back to do the vision and normally

2:36 ↗ you do the vision first so what the city

2:39 ↗ has done is made our work just a little

2:41 ↗ bit harder so when Keith does his

2:45 ↗ presentation maybe you can remember all

2:48 ↗ of the conditions that you put on all of

2:52 ↗ these things so that when you can see

2:55 ↗ the vision you can correlate the two

2:57 ↗ together

2:58 ↗ so with that Keith we're looking forward

3:02 ↗ to your presentation I know that I asked

3:05 ↗ you guys to put together a list of all

3:08 ↗ of the things that we suggested you were

3:12 ↗ probably going to do it anyway but I'm

3:14 ↗ hoping that all of the things that we've

3:16 ↗ said in the last couple of meetings that

3:18 ↗ are now in a concise form since you

3:20 ↗ haven't updated the actual vision

3:25 ↗ there's pressure so first off Happy New

3:30 ↗ Year everybody hopefully everybody had a

3:31 ↗ nice holidays and welcome to 2018 so

3:35 ↗ this evening we are revisiting the

3:40 ↗ visions we spent a number of meetings

3:43 ↗ last year kind of walking through

3:46 ↗ changing the visions making

3:49 ↗ recommendations to changing the visions

3:51 ↗ from what they are currently in the plan

3:53 ↗ to something that would provide greater

3:57 ↗ clarity and predictability for the

3:59 ↗ community as well as the developers that

4:03 ↗ are choosing to develop in central

4:04 ↗ Issaquah so what as you know when we

4:10 ↗ when we realized that we were coming

4:12 ↗ back you know my thinking is because

4:16 ↗ this is a topic that has no edges it

4:19 ↗ really doesn't we could talk about this

4:21 ↗ forever frankly and there is no right

4:24 ↗ and wrong there's just different

4:25 ↗ opinions and different ways we can keep

4:28 ↗ recharacterizing I think what we'd like

4:30 ↗ Central Issaquah to be and so what I

4:33 ↗ thought was let's let's divide it into

4:35 ↗ three try and do this in three meetings

4:38 ↗ where we take kind of the introduction

4:41 ↗ piece

4:42 ↗ tonight and then the next two meetings

4:46 ↗ we would spend on two neighborhoods each

4:49 ↗ meeting or two sub districts each

4:51 ↗ meeting so I tried to kind of break it

4:53 ↗ into smaller pieces so we could stay

4:55 ↗ focused because it's easy to get lost is

4:57 ↗ my take on this so so we have some

5:02 ↗ different choices and so I wanted Before

5:05 ↗ we jump into kind of talking about this

5:08 ↗ I want to make sure we're all pointed in

5:10 ↗ the same direction and so what we have

5:13 ↗ as a base document is something that we

5:16 ↗ spent a number of meetings on last year

5:18 ↗ it is a product of basically a year-long

5:23 ↗ public outreach where we had

5:25 ↗ neighborhood meetings we had focus

5:27 ↗ groups we came to PPC early on and you

5:31 ↗ guys put some preferences on boards and

5:35 ↗ then ultimately we started drafting

5:36 ↗ language and as we work through that

5:39 ↗ with you guys last year we came up with

5:42 ↗ kind of a current structure and before

5:46 ↗ we start wordsmithing I think the

5:50 ↗ question for you all is the structure

5:53 ↗ that we have in place are we moving

5:56 ↗ forward with that and if so then yeah

5:58 ↗ let's start talking about the comments

6:00 ↗ we heard a council committee and what

6:02 ↗ are we gonna do with those

6:03 ↗ that's one pathway we could go down a

6:05 ↗ different pathway is know the structures

6:08 ↗ not what we wanted it to be frankly it

6:10 ↗ was flawed and we should start at square

6:13 ↗ one

6:15 ↗ you know Reedus cussing what these

6:18 ↗ visions what the content should be and

6:20 ↗ how to put that together

6:22 ↗ what I would say though is I'm going to

6:24 ↗ let you guys hopefully choose which

6:28 ↗ pathway you want to go down before we

6:30 ↗ start my only hope is that whatever

6:34 ↗ pathway we go down that we can get to an

6:38 ↗ end point in the first quarter of this

6:41 ↗ year I think that you know the

6:44 ↗ commitment that I heard from the council

6:46 ↗ was send it back to PPC you know three

6:50 ↗ meetings seemed like a reasonable amount

6:52 ↗ of time so the whole

6:54 ↗ is that whatever direction we want to go

6:57 ↗ that you know basically three months

7:01 ↗ worth two to three months we should be

7:03 ↗ done now if that means I'm willing to

7:05 ↗ meet here I'm actually here every night

7:07 ↗ anyway so there if we want to talk about

7:10 ↗ this nightly I'm good with that

7:12 ↗ but I think part of before we get kind

7:15 ↗ of started is it's just having a very

7:17 ↗ high conversation about the document

7:21 ↗ that we took forward to Council in

7:23 ↗ December is that is that the starting

7:26 ↗ spot

7:26 ↗ should we start there do we feel like we

7:29 ↗ had productive conversations in 2017 and

7:32 ↗ that that even though we all agree it

7:35 ↗ wasn't a finished document is that a

7:37 ↗ good starting spot for a 2018

7:39 ↗ conversation so that's I think question

7:41 ↗ number one which you want an answer I

7:48 ↗ would I am I am waiting for an answer so

7:51 ↗ you know I think I think the question is

7:55 ↗ do we start where we where we left off

7:56 ↗ or do we want to start in a new space I

8:01 ↗ guess you could say there's two

8:03 ↗ different ways you could slice that you

8:06 ↗ could take attribute you could start

8:08 ↗ over from scratch and take attributes

8:10 ↗ chunks and say this is a great piece

8:13 ↗ let's put this in here let's put this in

8:15 ↗ here and kind of create a new structure

8:17 ↗ using what we have right so yep or we

8:22 ↗ try and make these work and I don't I

8:24 ↗ think I might actually faster to do it

8:26 ↗ the other way more faster and more

8:29 ↗ efficient than trying to debug what we

8:30 ↗ already have it's thought I mean that's

8:34 ↗ how I work when I come up with a problem

8:36 ↗ it isn't moving forward I don't know so

8:40 ↗ you start from scratch I just reformat

8:43 ↗ or restructured the document the plan

8:47 ↗ and then I take what I've already

8:48 ↗ thought and started saying this is a

8:50 ↗ good piece let's put this over here and

8:52 ↗ let's put this over here so so thinking

8:55 ↗ from an efficiency standpoint does it

8:57 ↗ really make any difference if this

8:59 ↗ section is before this section does it

9:03 ↗ really make a difference to the

9:05 ↗ overall plan No okay so what you just

9:09 ↗ said you just said no to structure how

9:13 ↗ things are say how things are structured

9:15 ↗ together start start with the beginning

9:18 ↗ what is in there in the plan now is it

9:22 ↗ bad is it wrong can it be improved on or

9:27 ↗ is nothing in it about you I think it

9:34 ↗ can be improved upon

9:35 ↗ okay improved upon it's not starting

9:37 ↗ from scratch no I'm not saying start

9:40 ↗ from scratch I'm saying there's two

9:45 ↗ different ways okay how do I say is

9:48 ↗ organizationally you can start from

9:50 ↗ scratch and then because the way we

9:53 ↗ think organ is or how we organize it

9:59 ↗ might be important or how we process

10:03 ↗ things

10:03 ↗ so going from we're gonna look at this

10:05 ↗ chapter that we're going to relook at

10:08 ↗ the valley the valley vision then we're

10:11 ↗ going to move over to but isn't the

10:15 ↗ vision itself more important than how

10:18 ↗ its put together yes so if you spend if

10:24 ↗ you start from scratch and end up

10:26 ↗ spending six or seven meetings on it

10:28 ↗ because we're not going to agree on this

10:31 ↗ here and this here but no we want to

10:33 ↗ change the structure of it isn't it more

10:36 ↗ important through this point in time to

10:38 ↗ get on and actually get on with the city

10:42 ↗ get on with the building get on with the

10:44 ↗ vision then worrying about the structure

10:46 ↗ so I'll come back to my original

10:47 ↗ question is what is in there now

10:52 ↗ efficient do we cover all the bases is I

10:57 ↗ mean I know that we needed more wildlife

11:01 ↗ and protection of streams I know but

11:04 ↗ that's in there now what else do we have

11:07 ↗ to put in there to make it work I see

11:11 ↗ two things are I think

11:14 ↗ comments um I think that it is a good

11:17 ↗ starting place because I think we have

11:19 ↗ put a lot of time into the structure and

11:22 ↗ for me I like the developer probably the

11:28 ↗ developer section the city section and

11:30 ↗ the what success looks like I like those

11:32 ↗ because I think it clearly lays out

11:34 ↗ where we want to go I do have some small

11:39 ↗ smaller things but I think in the I

11:42 ↗ think it's a good starting place yeah I

11:45 ↗ would just add I think if we were gonna

11:47 ↗ go back to square one that means really

11:49 ↗ going back to square one and going out

11:51 ↗ to the community again and doing

11:52 ↗ everything we did last year and I feel

11:55 ↗ like all of that has ended up you know

11:57 ↗ in a good place

11:59 ↗ structurally I mean I feel good about

12:01 ↗ that so one thing I would that I do

12:04 ↗ think is missing but I think is is again

12:07 ↗ correctable from this as a starting

12:10 ↗ point is that I looked in earlier

12:11 ↗ versions and I think that in a vision

12:14 ↗ some illustrations of what we mean for

12:16 ↗ example by a human-sized grid those

12:19 ↗ sorts of things that they could benefit

12:21 ↗ from some actual photos and those there

12:24 ↗ were some images in earlier versions of

12:26 ↗ the vision so that is one thing that I

12:28 ↗ think is missing right now we really

12:32 ↗ have I think a good I think we have a

12:35 ↗ good starting place from the verbiage

12:37 ↗ but we are missing those pictures which

12:40 ↗ I think could could really bring some of

12:42 ↗ the verbiage to life I'll see ya so I

12:48 ↗ actually agree that the structure is

12:50 ↗ good

12:50 ↗ what so I but I do have feedback on the

12:55 ↗ and we can talk about this a little bit

12:57 ↗ later on and the the words are a little

13:02 ↗ too soft I think they have to be much

13:05 ↗ more actionable and and I guess you have

13:08 ↗ to put regulations behind them also in

13:11 ↗ terms of the measures of success I think

13:13 ↗ we need to talk a lot more about how

13:15 ↗ success is actually defined because

13:17 ↗ things like yeah

13:20 ↗ wildlife corridors are identified and

13:22 ↗ protected what does that mean I mean it

13:24 ↗ means

13:25 ↗ it could mean different things to

13:26 ↗ different people so you know those kind

13:28 ↗ of things I think that we have to change

13:30 ↗ but I think that the structure I agree

13:32 ↗ with I think that if we do separate into

13:38 ↗ three meetings and take each district

13:41 ↗ separately I think we're going to come

13:43 ↗ up with some better ideas and I have a

13:45 ↗ couple little little things in each one

13:48 ↗ of them too that that would be to me

13:51 ↗ would be more vision statement but

13:54 ↗ basically I think we need to get on with

13:56 ↗ the discussion and and see where you

14:00 ↗ want us to go here okay so let's let's

14:03 ↗ start there I think there's a lot of

14:05 ↗ refinement that will come out of these

14:07 ↗ meetings whether it's three or four that

14:10 ↗ we end up having so I'm absolutely good

14:15 ↗ with that and you guys as you think of

14:17 ↗ things along the way even if we're

14:19 ↗ they're kind of like we're gonna do it

14:21 ↗ next time or something or we did it last

14:22 ↗ time feel free to let me know because

14:24 ↗ I'm taking notes and we will get all

14:26 ↗ that stuff cranked into iterative

14:29 ↗ versions as we move along Kate I would

14:31 ↗ ask one thing though which i think is is

14:34 ↗ giving me heartburn on what you have

14:37 ↗ here yeah is we make these suggestions

14:39 ↗ but they're not incorporated necessarily

14:42 ↗ into what we get so I'm hoping that as

14:46 ↗ we make some suggestions tonight they

14:49 ↗ can be incorporated so that we can see

14:51 ↗ the final if you want to yes final

14:54 ↗ product you will you will have my intent

14:56 ↗ would be you would get updates before

15:00 ↗ the next meeting so the next packet

15:02 ↗ before we enough for tomorrow but for

15:06 ↗ the next the next agenda when we talk

15:09 ↗ about visions again whatever we talk

15:11 ↗ about tonight

15:12 ↗ will get incorporated into a red line of

15:15 ↗ the previous version so it has to be

15:17 ↗ that way we can't no absolutely fine so

15:20 ↗ we'll spend a little bit of time I think

15:21 ↗ looking in the rearview mirror looking

15:23 ↗ at the red lines and see if we captured

15:25 ↗ your guys's comments and then we'll

15:27 ↗ focus on the next segment so that's the

15:30 ↗ way I envision this going down I don't

15:33 ↗ know if you were planning on

15:34 ↗ talking about this but I would like to

15:37 ↗ review the the code part the enforceable

15:40 ↗ byte code because that was something

15:42 ↗ that was new to me that was brought up

15:44 ↗ at the Landon Shore and I think that is

15:46 ↗ a really important thing for us to

15:48 ↗ discuss because it changes the context

15:50 ↗ of the whole vision so if we could

15:53 ↗ review that I would appreciate that yeah

15:55 ↗ I have a question too we went through

16:00 ↗ all of those bite just height

16:06 ↗ restrictions and all the things that

16:09 ↗ we've done the last year so if when we

16:12 ↗ finish this and it goes to council and

16:14 ↗ it's approved and I know it will be

16:18 ↗ improved does it you know most of that

16:22 ↗ stuff is now basically code because

16:25 ↗ that's what you're going to be working

16:27 ↗ under when somebody comes in to ask for

16:30 ↗ permits so do you have to go back how

16:34 ↗ long is it going to take you to go back

16:36 ↗ and actually put it into code language

16:38 ↗ so that somebody can say hey this is

16:41 ↗ code so that's a that's a big fork in

16:45 ↗ the road and we need to have a

16:47 ↗ conversation this is I think what Vicki

16:48 ↗ was after just a second ago there's

16:51 ↗ there's two ways we can do this one is

16:55 ↗ we can leave the visions as basically

16:59 ↗ kind of like policy direction you know

17:01 ↗ here's here's what we want for our city

17:04 ↗ and then you have to actually then add

17:07 ↗ code section to put to make those

17:11 ↗ connections between the visions and what

17:13 ↗ the regulations say people actually have

17:15 ↗ to do that's one choice the other choice

17:17 ↗ and this is the piece that this is the

17:20 ↗ pathway that I chose last year and I did

17:23 ↗ we could go either way so I don't think

17:25 ↗ there's a right and wrong answer the

17:27 ↗ other way is you change the

17:28 ↗ applicability section in the code to say

17:32 ↗ and you have to comply with the visions

17:34 ↗ so this gets to Althea's point earlier

17:36 ↗ and that is if the language in the

17:39 ↗ visions is clear then you can use that

17:42 ↗ as regulation even though it's basically

17:47 ↗ more like Paul

17:48 ↗ see so as long as it's clear then the

17:51 ↗ city can say look here's what the vision

17:53 ↗ says for this neighborhood you have to

17:56 ↗ do this and even though it's not in the

18:00 ↗ code section it's in the plan it can be

18:04 ↗ implemented with the right connector and

18:07 ↗ and that's the the piece that we put

18:10 ↗ into the applicability section we can go

18:14 ↗ either way so either one but we have to

18:17 ↗ that's a like I said it is a fork in the

18:19 ↗ road we should decide because either one

18:21 ↗ we're gonna spend a lot of time on that

18:24 ↗ language to make it clearly

18:26 ↗ implementable or we leave it broader and

18:30 ↗ there's going to be a follow-up code

18:32 ↗ section that's going to have to come

18:34 ↗ later this year and it would come back

18:37 ↗ to us to code would come back to you

18:39 ↗ okay I would like to see actual codes so

18:43 ↗ and when the developer comes in or a

18:45 ↗ builder comes in they can say this is it

18:48 ↗ it's that's too too aspirational over

18:52 ↗ there

18:52 ↗ I want code I want to see it in writing

18:55 ↗ that this is what I have to do I don't

18:58 ↗ want to change I want to well gee it's

19:00 ↗ aspirational and it could be this or

19:02 ↗ they could be that but this states it

19:04 ↗ specifically so I I would hope my

19:07 ↗ recommendation would say come back and

19:09 ↗ do it in code so we should so we'll have

19:12 ↗ there's pros and cons and so I've worked

19:16 ↗ in permitting for a long time and

19:21 ↗ permitting is black and white right

19:23 ↗ setbacks are 25 feet no ifs ands or buts

19:27 ↗ if you don't like that you can apply for

19:28 ↗ variance right but otherwise you do that

19:31 ↗ the problem is with vision stuff to turn

19:35 ↗ that into code you cannot imagine every

19:38 ↗ scenario that you're possibly going to

19:40 ↗ have there's too many different

19:41 ↗ variables out there in property and

19:43 ↗ setbacks and everything else and so what

19:46 ↗ it does by keeping it in the vision

19:49 ↗ section and I'm not plugging one or the

19:51 ↗ other is it gives the city the ability

19:55 ↗ it it gives you some performance

19:57 ↗ standards so in other words it says you

20:00 ↗ have to

20:01 ↗ this but there might be two or three

20:02 ↗ different ways to get there right and an

20:05 ↗ individual property owner in the city

20:07 ↗ can work through that and and get

20:09 ↗ compliance so the compliance isn't

20:11 ↗ optional

20:12 ↗ but how you get there there might be

20:14 ↗ some variety in how you get there it's

20:16 ↗ the same as asking for a variance it is

20:19 ↗ not it's actually not so so we'll talk

20:23 ↗ about that at some point and and let's

20:28 ↗ let's stay on topic for a little while

20:31 ↗ all right so let's so so let's let's go

20:35 ↗ ahead I mean is anybody else want to

20:37 ↗ talk about structure choices before we

20:40 ↗ dive into the council committee comments

20:44 ↗ which I actually thought most of them

20:46 ↗ were really good I think we just have to

20:47 ↗ talk them through and decide what we

20:49 ↗ want to do with them so you guys are

20:50 ↗ sitting at the table and when we're done

20:53 ↗ and when Keith says does anybody else

20:55 ↗ want to make any comment you're

20:57 ↗ certainly welcome to to make your ideas

21:00 ↗ no so that's why you're here yeah before

21:06 ↗ we move forward can we just make a

21:09 ↗ decision are we keeping the structure

21:13 ↗ well I've had three people that said yes

21:16 ↗ I just want to make it definitive yeah

21:19 ↗ that's my move forward we check a box so

21:22 ↗ I thought I'd like to check boxes

21:24 ↗ tonight I don't think we have to make a

21:26 ↗ move

21:27 ↗ no just I think it's in a collaborative

21:28 ↗ gonna continue on the way I think so

21:31 ↗ yeah yes don't fight over the microphone

21:41 ↗ so on the structure like so so I get on

21:46 ↗ the structure that's all I was gonna

21:47 ↗ talk about the structure part it seems

21:50 ↗ like needed some to me needed some

21:52 ↗ further depth on defining housing and

21:55 ↗ restricting housing types the same type

21:57 ↗ of housing types in that area

21:59 ↗ so from structure pattern I think this

22:01 ↗ structure I guess I would senior to the

22:07 ↗ structure I wasn't going to talk about

22:09 ↗ that piece but it as a structure where

22:10 ↗ you talk about it not so much in each

22:12 ↗ neighborhood okay

22:13 ↗ the concept of designing housing so it's

22:17 ↗ similar housing stock goes into existing

22:20 ↗ same stock that's a structure that

22:23 ↗ applies to all neighborhoods maybe you

22:27 ↗ don't put a condo right next to a house

22:30 ↗ or you don't put a townhouse structure

22:32 ↗ of individual districts we're talking

22:35 ↗ about how to present the whole statement

22:38 ↗ there's a difference in I think the way

22:42 ↗ we're communicating to one another so

22:46 ↗ Steve let me cuz I know where you're at

22:48 ↗ so on if we if we keep the structure and

22:51 ↗ then we start looking at the document

22:53 ↗ the first couple items from the council

22:57 ↗ committees list deal with the guiding

22:58 ↗ principles you're in the guiding

23:00 ↗ principles right now and I think your

23:02 ↗ comment about that as it relates to the

23:04 ↗ housing guiding principle once you save

23:06 ↗ it for them because I think we're gonna

23:08 ↗ talk about jobs in the guiding

23:09 ↗ principles and we're also talking about

23:11 ↗ the main vision statement so so okay I

23:14 ↗ think okay yeah a little sort of I was

23:17 ↗ gonna be a high level on all these the

23:19 ↗ next was the environment and the concern

23:22 ↗ I have is

23:24 ↗ Issaquah talks about having a 51% tree

23:26 ↗ canopy going forward and i don't know

23:28 ↗ how how that's going to be held in

23:30 ↗ context with the green necklace concept

23:32 ↗ I want to see that get flushed out

23:33 ↗ further as well in much more depth and

23:37 ↗ the other was economic vitality jobs

23:41 ↗ again the same thing what's the balance

23:43 ↗ we have a measure of a method of

23:45 ↗ measuring our economic success I don't

23:48 ↗ know if we have a measure from okay

23:54 ↗ those are my thoughts at high level

23:57 ↗ honey I just have a clarification when

24:02 ↗ you talk about structure we are talking

24:05 ↗ about the structure of starting with the

24:10 ↗ central squat plan the plan vision and

24:13 ↗ then all of the language that goes down

24:17 ↗ into it as being part of the structure

24:20 ↗ right because in a few meetings ago

24:22 ↗ there was some talk of splitting that

24:25 ↗ out into a different place right okay so

24:30 ↗ that's staying staying in and then the

24:33 ↗ rest goes so so there was some comments

24:36 ↗ out of the committee about the need for

24:40 ↗ change section so if we're keeping the

24:42 ↗ same structure then we're gonna have a

24:44 ↗ conversation about that one section of

24:46 ↗ the structure and where whether it lives

24:48 ↗ or not or morphs into something else

24:50 ↗ that will definitely be part of the

24:52 ↗ conversation I just wanted to make sure

24:54 ↗ that I understood that all of that

24:56 ↗ language at the front was part of the

24:58 ↗ structure yes it thank you and Keith

25:00 ↗ what's your opinion on structure yes so

25:08 ↗ so what's the goal and and so sometimes

25:11 ↗ for me it's important where we talk what

25:14 ↗ are we trying to do what are we trying

25:15 ↗ to achieve and what I believe we're

25:18 ↗ trying to achieve is we're trying to put

25:20 ↗ some more clarity on the visions for

25:25 ↗ central Issaquah we we decided that that

25:28 ↗ may be the first projects that came

25:31 ↗ through the the turnstile didn't quite

25:33 ↗ meet our expectations and so what

25:36 ↗ way to improve predictability is to

25:40 ↗ provide a greater level of detail and so

25:43 ↗ I believe that this document will do

25:47 ↗ that I don't think that there is a way

25:50 ↗ we can anticipate every development

25:53 ↗ project that's coming through and get

25:54 ↗ this perfect but I believe that between

25:59 ↗ the revision to the visions as well as

26:03 ↗ the codes that Joan talked about earlier

26:05 ↗ I think the city is going to be in a

26:07 ↗ much better place for the next wave of

26:10 ↗ development that comes through the door

26:12 ↗ so is this is this I think this will get

26:18 ↗ us there I think there's a lot of

26:21 ↗ wordsmithing still to do to make it

26:24 ↗ clear because what might be clearer for

26:26 ↗ me and what might be clearer for you

26:27 ↗ might be completely different things

26:29 ↗ and the task at hand is to write

26:32 ↗ something that's clear for everybody so

26:34 ↗ that there's little ambiguity because

26:36 ↗ the more ambiguity there is the more

26:39 ↗ people bring their lawyers to the city

26:41 ↗ and and try and prove that they're right

26:43 ↗ and that's not where I want to go so so

26:46 ↗ do I think that we're on the right track

26:48 ↗ I do think we're on the right track

26:50 ↗ I think this document is a lot more

26:54 ↗ predictable than the one we had

26:56 ↗ previously and a lot clearer of what

27:00 ↗ everybody's responsibilities are and

27:02 ↗ talking about just measuring success

27:05 ↗ alphy I think that's a huge piece and

27:08 ↗ and I think you guys spent a lot of time

27:10 ↗ talking about that that was a necessary

27:11 ↗ component to this so I drunk the

27:15 ↗ kool-aid I guess I think I think we're

27:17 ↗ moving in the right direction I think

27:20 ↗ this has some more work to do but I

27:24 ↗ think I think if we kind of focus and

27:27 ↗ talk about it I think we're gonna get

27:29 ↗ there I really do

27:31 ↗ well any thoughts

27:40 ↗ okay so let's let's get on with it

27:43 ↗ all right okay so we're starting page

27:46 ↗ one there were comments about so so for

27:52 ↗ me I'm gonna try and be as focused as I

27:56 ↗ can so so our task was to update

27:59 ↗ divisions some of these first comments

28:02 ↗ are really more about the main vision of

28:05 ↗ the plan and the guiding principles

28:07 ↗ which wasn't necessarily assuming was

28:10 ↗ part of our scope but it became our

28:12 ↗ scope so it's it's part of I think it's

28:15 ↗ it's open for conversation at this point

28:17 ↗ you know when you read the main vision

28:20 ↗ statement which listed on the top of

28:23 ↗ page one I'll go down so central

28:28 ↗ Issaquah vision guide the evolution of

28:30 ↗ central Issaquah from a place known

28:32 ↗ primarily for strip malls and office

28:34 ↗ buildings into a more cohesive

28:36 ↗ neighborhood that is widely recognized

28:39 ↗ as a vibrant and livable town center by

28:41 ↗ and then there's the rest so there were

28:45 ↗ comments about that statement not being

28:49 ↗ aspirational enough and also being kind

28:52 ↗ of pointing at a negative of our city

28:55 ↗ and so so there was at least some

29:01 ↗ comment from landon sure that this

29:03 ↗ particular piece needed to get some work

29:06 ↗ now I haven't put any time into the

29:09 ↗ island so so although I would have I'd

29:13 ↗ love to say that from Landon's shore

29:14 ↗ till now I haven't done any work and I

29:16 ↗ got to spend a lot of time on the beach

29:18 ↗ somewhere that's not true

29:20 ↗ I actually didn't start wordsmithing

29:22 ↗ this because I wanted to make sure we

29:24 ↗ were in agreement that things that we

29:27 ↗ agreed with the committee so first

29:29 ↗ question is do you guys agree with the

29:31 ↗ committee is this is this statement not

29:35 ↗ where we want it to be yes okay so great

29:39 ↗ so that's a YES on the first one okay so

29:42 ↗ I would like to

29:45 ↗ the commissioners I don't think we have

29:48 ↗ time to all agree on another vision

29:52 ↗ statement I think we could go around the

29:55 ↗ circles for six months and not come up

29:57 ↗ with something so what I'd like to do is

30:00 ↗ ask you to go home and think about it

30:04 ↗ and come up with something so that when

30:07 ↗ we come back in the next meeting we have

30:09 ↗ some choices we have some choice that'd

30:11 ↗ be great to to put up there and kind of

30:14 ↗ look at super awesome idea

30:17 ↗ okay so we're all gonna take a whack at

30:21 ↗ this intro to the main guiding

30:24 ↗ principles I think that's great and I

30:27 ↗ know that

30:27 ↗ councilmember winter Stein also said he

30:30 ↗ had worked on that a little bit and I

30:32 ↗ reached out to him and asked for him to

30:34 ↗ share and he is he said he wanted to

30:37 ↗ meet so we're gonna do that I think

30:39 ↗ early next week

30:41 ↗ so by the time you guys get the next

30:43 ↗ version if he's got some suggestions I

30:45 ↗ will make sure you guys have that to

30:46 ↗ consider suggestions suggest yes suggest

30:49 ↗ they're just suggestions on it yeah all

30:52 ↗ right so suggestion now so I was one of

30:57 ↗ the people who I strongly feel that this

31:00 ↗ does not have the sense of pride that we

31:03 ↗ want to start a vision with and I think

31:05 ↗ though if we just remove this is a

31:08 ↗ suggestion if we remove the clause in

31:10 ↗ the middle about a place known primarily

31:12 ↗ for strip malls and office buildings so

31:14 ↗ if we say guide the evolution of central

31:17 ↗ Issaquah into a more cohesive

31:18 ↗ neighborhood that is widely recognized

31:20 ↗ as a vibrant and livable town center by

31:22 ↗ and then the principles I think that

31:25 ↗ that could be a workable solution

31:28 ↗ because I just don't like that one

31:30 ↗ center part that's a good start and it

31:36 ↗ could be the one that we all agree on

31:37 ↗ that but let's all still give us take

31:40 ↗ that and see if we can't move forward I

31:44 ↗ just don't want to spend a lot of time

31:46 ↗ on that particular thing when we have to

31:48 ↗ look at so many other things yeah yes

31:50 ↗ okay because I already know what's gonna

31:54 ↗ take most of our conversation that's

31:56 ↗ this necklace thing so so okay so Steve

32:01 ↗ brought up some points and so now we're

32:04 ↗ into we're into the actual guiding

32:07 ↗ principles and you know the thing about

32:09 ↗ this to me Tricia and I were talking

32:11 ↗ about this and I think Christian you

32:12 ↗ might have been there although it's hard

32:14 ↗ for me remember these days you know part

32:17 ↗ of this is things change right i when

32:20 ↗ this plan was being put together

32:22 ↗ there was no housing in central Issaquah

32:24 ↗ at all nobody was even talking about

32:26 ↗ building housing in central Issaquah the

32:29 ↗ city knew it needed housing you know to

32:31 ↗ go with all the jobs and so there was a

32:32 ↗ huge focus on housing so when we say

32:35 ↗ well where's the jobs it's like well you

32:37 ↗ know back when the plan was being put

32:39 ↗ together it was kind of just assumed the

32:41 ↗ jobs were gonna be here but you know

32:43 ↗ clearly times change and now the sudden

32:47 ↗ you get housing and people start

32:48 ↗ worrying about the jobs and it's like

32:49 ↗ where's the jobs and so it's it's just a

32:52 ↗ product of this thing is a fluid thing

32:55 ↗ even though you do these plans that are

32:57 ↗ for a long time

32:58 ↗ things change people's perspectives

33:01 ↗ change priorities change and sometimes

33:03 ↗ it's worthwhile going back and looking

33:04 ↗ and saying why did we write it that way

33:06 ↗ why didn't we include these other things

33:08 ↗ and so I think it's a great time for us

33:10 ↗ to say let's talk about what's not there

33:12 ↗ what might should be there so Steve you

33:14 ↗ had talked about both how an amendment

33:17 ↗ to the Housing and environment earlier

33:20 ↗ yes okay okay so on your point on

33:26 ↗ housing I don't want to I don't want to

33:29 ↗ put words in your mouth I don't want to

33:31 ↗ paraphrase what you said but what I

33:32 ↗ think you were getting to was that there

33:36 ↗ needs to be some consistency in housing

33:40 ↗ in neighborhoods with it so you want to

33:43 ↗ kind of go that with that a little bit

33:45 ↗ and kind of see if there's any support

33:48 ↗ from others to try and change that I

33:51 ↗ think that is a good summary I think

33:57 ↗ at least in sin neighborhoods words

33:59 ↗ traditional housing that stock of

34:02 ↗ existing housing needs to be maintained

34:05 ↗ in style and type not do things like

34:08 ↗ combining lots and to allow larger Sal

34:11 ↗ houses or larger height houses and are

34:16 ↗ consistent with the neighborhood that's

34:19 ↗ my intent housing I guess I would also

34:26 ↗ look at codeine that allows more

34:33 ↗ condominiums versatile housing instead

34:37 ↗ of apartment style complexes which seems

34:40 ↗ to be the place that we're going and I'd

34:42 ↗ like to know if there's some way or code

34:44 ↗ that allows for or prevents or just

34:50 ↗ opens the floodgates all kinds of

34:52 ↗ apartment complexes which I think

34:54 ↗ bringing a different character and style

34:55 ↗ of a community then then does having

35:00 ↗ folks who own the residents I think

35:05 ↗ every city right now would love to have

35:07 ↗ condominiums and not apartments since

35:11 ↗ they can't since the builders aren't

35:13 ↗ going to build it under the liability

35:15 ↗ that is now put upon them they're not

35:18 ↗ going to come I know that there are

35:21 ↗ other cities that are facing the same

35:24 ↗ problems that have joined together with

35:29 ↗ other groups to lobby the legislature to

35:33 ↗ remove the restrictions that are now on

35:36 ↗ on it and from what I heard at the

35:39 ↗ economic breakfast last week I think

35:44 ↗ there are several legislators on both

35:46 ↗ sides of the aisle that are willing to

35:48 ↗ look at this and understand that it's a

35:51 ↗ problem for all the cities to get condos

35:56 ↗ and the only thing that I would say

35:58 ↗ about this housing thing here is I think

36:02 ↗ we need to add somewhere

36:06 ↗ when you have a variety of types you

36:08 ↗ should have owned in it and

36:12 ↗ owner-occupied I don't know how you

36:15 ↗ would put that in there but it's coming

36:17 ↗ and I would if I would expect it would

36:20 ↗ be a lot of discussion in the next

36:23 ↗ legislative sister it's only 60 days so

36:26 ↗ I don't know what's going to come about

36:27 ↗ it but that's one of the big issues that

36:28 ↗ I know the realtors are on board with it

36:32 ↗ and a few other cities so it's extremely

36:36 ↗ important to put in there so yeah I mean

36:39 ↗ right now realtor's master-builders

36:43 ↗ cities Issaquah ever at rent and so

36:47 ↗ everybody's lobbying Olympia right now

36:49 ↗ to support some sort of legislative

36:55 ↗ action that would remove that liability

36:58 ↗ issue which is basically keeping

37:00 ↗ builders from building condominiums so

37:02 ↗ so this is a this is a regional problem

37:05 ↗ and unfortunately until it changes you

37:11 ↗ will not get condominiums in Issaquah

37:14 ↗ because of the liability risk and the

37:17 ↗ associated cost to mitigate that risk

37:19 ↗ that comes with that but there is

37:23 ↗ significant effort right now being

37:26 ↗ followed to try and change that so can

37:29 ↗ we prevent or down zone to prevent

37:32 ↗ apartment complexes this is not a zoning

37:34 ↗ activity this is a busy I'm asking for a

37:37 ↗ brioche you're not a lawyer and I don't

37:39 ↗ play one on TV either but from is there

37:41 ↗ way the city can say be controlled

37:44 ↗ zoning so so the City Council the City

37:47 ↗ Council could zone property to make it

37:51 ↗ only allowable for single-family homes I

37:54 ↗ don't think that's consistent with the

37:57 ↗ vision conversations we're having can I

38:00 ↗ ask a kind of a larger question here so

38:04 ↗ what are we trying trying to accomplish

38:05 ↗ when saying that we want condos as

38:08 ↗ opposed to apartments what what is the

38:11 ↗ driving need for that

38:12 ↗ I mean so you know condos provide

38:16 ↗ housing to a certain set of people

38:19 ↗ renters are a different set of people

38:22 ↗ now you want a whole competition of

38:24 ↗ those so if we're trying to build more

38:26 ↗ condos what is the greater need that

38:29 ↗ we're trying to accomplish by saying

38:31 ↗ that we want condos I'm not quite I

38:34 ↗ wasn't quite getting that from the

38:36 ↗ conversation I can answer that

38:42 ↗ so I guess what I'm trying to address is

38:45 ↗ I think you get a community where people

38:48 ↗ live work play go to school all those

38:51 ↗ things you get a different economic

38:54 ↗ vitality out of people who own their

38:57 ↗ residence and take pride in their

38:58 ↗ ownership versus people who might be

39:00 ↗ renters and care more for the community

39:02 ↗ that's what I'm tempted to drive by

39:05 ↗ having or method of ownership as being a

39:09 ↗ preferred method of desired residency

39:13 ↗ rather than apartment complex owners so

39:17 ↗ then in the in the grand scheme of

39:19 ↗ things are we saying that yeah so this

39:21 ↗ is a very pretty expensive part of town

39:24 ↗ right and so we're saying that people

39:27 ↗ are not as valued because they cannot

39:30 ↗ afford to buy property I'm not looking

39:33 ↗ at it as a attempting to drive or

39:36 ↗ determine or ascertain the value of a

39:38 ↗ person so it still has value regardless

39:40 ↗ I'm not sure I'm so I get your point I

39:45 ↗ actually support your point so this is

39:47 ↗ this is a thing where we can go down a

39:50 ↗ rabbit hole really fast I think Steve

39:52 ↗ has made a suggestion that we put some

39:55 ↗ language in here I think Joan has made a

39:57 ↗ suggestion what I'm looking for is does

40:00 ↗ anybody else other than Jones support

40:03 ↗ her proposal and does anybody other than

40:06 ↗ Steve support his proposal and I think

40:09 ↗ we should move on I think it's basically

40:11 ↗ the same I'm not sure what was the

40:14 ↗ proposal again

40:15 ↗ exactly I don't I don't get those

40:17 ↗ exactly so there was there was basically

40:20 ↗ you know two and I don't know what the

40:23 ↗ exact words are we'll work on that and

40:25 ↗ we can do that as a red line and then

40:27 ↗ you guys can look at and see if you like

40:28 ↗ it it was to put some language in there

40:30 ↗ about you know I would I would so the

40:34 ↗ word in here is variety maybe it should

40:37 ↗ be diversity

40:38 ↗ I heard ownership and rental being

40:41 ↗ somewhere mentioned in that we can put

40:44 ↗ that in and see what it looks like and

40:47 ↗ then we can have a bigger conversation

40:48 ↗ about whether we support that as an edit

40:51 ↗ or not rather than spending a ton of

40:54 ↗ time debating that tonight it doesn't

40:56 ↗ say that it has to be one or the other

41:00 ↗ in the way of what comes in and being

41:02 ↗ built but I think that having language

41:06 ↗ in there that just says that we you know

41:09 ↗ want all different types of housing

41:12 ↗ gives the city a better flavor a better

41:17 ↗ I don't know a mixture of people who

41:23 ↗ come in here and stay for many years and

41:27 ↗ make the city their own that join boards

41:31 ↗ and commissions and actually part of the

41:34 ↗ city but I think that this is a vision

41:38 ↗ statement so we can you know our vision

41:40 ↗ is to have a mixture of both of them and

41:42 ↗ at some point in time we'll be able to

41:44 ↗ do that actually I have a suggestion for

41:47 ↗ that and when we talked about jobs I was

41:50 ↗ just thinking jobs housing it has to

41:52 ↗ support the economic vitality and the

41:54 ↗ innovation and if you don't have all of

41:57 ↗ those support eachother then you just

41:59 ↗ having them in random pockets doesn't

42:02 ↗ seem to make any sense to me

42:03 ↗ I mean that's that's my opinion it's if

42:06 ↗ you're trying to get to a certain place

42:07 ↗ the jobs the housing everything has to

42:09 ↗ fit together sounds like two different

42:14 ↗ Congress say are two very different

42:15 ↗ topics owner occupancy ratio which is

42:19 ↗ one is that the legality of living

42:22 ↗ renters versus owners and then you have

42:24 ↗ the diversified portfolio of properties

42:30 ↗ so vision statement should probably

42:32 ↗ cover both those we want to stipulate a

42:38 ↗ ratio of owner occupancy know so so the

42:49 ↗ hard thing is as government we live in a

42:52 ↗ capitalist country last I checked you

42:55 ↗ know it's very property rights oriented

42:57 ↗ we can't mandate ownership or rental so

43:02 ↗ you can you can allow for a certain

43:04 ↗ height a certain density but legally we

43:07 ↗ can't say you can only put ownership

43:09 ↗ housing there the property owner has the

43:11 ↗ right to build you know mental ownership

43:15 ↗ co-op if that's allowed by code so so us

43:19 ↗ trying to prescribe an ideal ratio one

43:25 ↗ it's hard to implement but two I don't

43:28 ↗ know what success would be you know

43:31 ↗ because it you will get into a serious

43:35 ↗ debate about equity and diversity and

43:40 ↗ you know what income level our jobs are

43:43 ↗ here and it starts to unravel really

43:46 ↗ quickly okay and I have a question about

43:50 ↗ condos while we're on your topic if we

43:53 ↗ have a high-rise building it's not

43:56 ↗ apartments and it would become condos

44:01 ↗ right if it's residential its

44:03 ↗ residential so are we actually already

44:06 ↗ gonna get that right now right now if

44:11 ↗ you get a multi-story residential

44:14 ↗ building it will be apartments or it'll

44:17 ↗ be a hotel if you consider that

44:19 ↗ residential I don't but it would be so

44:22 ↗ so if a builder so right now a builder

44:25 ↗ has a choice of building condominiums

44:27 ↗ for sale units for rental units and the

44:31 ↗ reason why they're choosing to in our

44:35 ↗ economy Seattle is different downtown

44:38 ↗ Bellevue is a little bit different but

44:41 ↗ for us right now the added cost to get

44:44 ↗ the protection from the lawsuits so what

44:47 ↗ happens is there's a whole group of

44:49 ↗ lawyers out there that chase condominium

44:52 ↗ construction and there's a certain time

44:54 ↗ limit for liability of construction

44:57 ↗ defects and what happens is if you build

45:00 ↗ condominiums you will be sued for some

45:03 ↗ sort of construction defect because

45:05 ↗ there's money to be made to do that and

45:07 ↗ it's just and until we change the

45:11 ↗ legislation that gives some protection

45:14 ↗ to builders for that purpose people will

45:17 ↗ not build condominiums here because what

45:19 ↗ you have to do is you have to buy an

45:21 ↗ insurance policy that protects you

45:23 ↗ against that liability risk and so

45:26 ↗ you're building the same product

45:28 ↗ basically and you're having to pay to

45:32 ↗ not get sued or to cover your assets

45:34 ↗ when you do get sued and most builders

45:36 ↗ will say it's not worth it that the

45:38 ↗ money doesn't work so I'm just gonna

45:40 ↗ build an apartment and that's why

45:41 ↗ apartments are getting built right now

45:43 ↗ here

45:43 ↗ oh if Raleigh was to develop their

45:46 ↗ properties today I'm going to go with

45:48 ↗ the maximum size and say we're gonna go

45:51 ↗ with a story building yep and it would

45:56 ↗ be apartments by default I would let

45:59 ↗ Kerri answer that question

46:04 ↗ okay emotional experience and the system

46:09 ↗ is not set up for people who want to do

46:11 ↗ the right thing I didn't realize that

46:14 ↗ well you go one step for it further if

46:17 ↗ there's a problem of a minor plumbing

46:20 ↗ issue that's enough they can the Builder

46:24 ↗ Canada cannot come back and fix it

46:27 ↗ homeowners are required to sue yeah

46:32 ↗ instead of fixing some little feature

46:35 ↗ and any builder who built a new home no

46:38 ↗ matter how expensive the home is there's

46:41 ↗ going to be something that isn't quite

46:43 ↗ right the corner isn't you know 45

46:46 ↗ degree or 90 degree angle and they can't

46:49 ↗ come back and fix it they have to be

46:51 ↗ sued and so until that's changed

46:53 ↗ okay so difficult understanding the

46:57 ↗ legalities and the reasons why you'd

46:58 ↗ want apartments over condos is there a

47:01 ↗ difference between construction quality

47:04 ↗ of a condo versus apartment or are they

47:07 ↗ the same and the reason why I bring that

47:09 ↗ up is because many years ago they're in

47:11 ↗ the real estate booth everybody was

47:12 ↗ doing condo conversions right converting

47:14 ↗ apartment

47:15 ↗ they're always apartments they never

47:16 ↗ work and tend to be comments so in

47:19 ↗ today's market and someone was to build

47:20 ↗ an apartment complex is it actually

47:23 ↗ really I mean if someone chose to go

47:26 ↗ down the route of a condominium versus

47:28 ↗ apartment complex is it really the same

47:29 ↗ building or are there different quality

47:35 ↗ on the finishes because it's going to

47:38 ↗ depend on what they think they can get

47:40 ↗ for rent and you know if they if they

47:43 ↗ consider it a luxury market they'll del

47:45 ↗ up the finishes because then they'll be

47:48 ↗ able to get the the rents to justify

47:50 ↗ that same color same to build the

47:53 ↗ building yeah oh I had no idea there's a

47:56 ↗ complete revelation to me so it's

47:58 ↗ awesome yeah

47:59 ↗ something a little bit different but

48:01 ↗ still staying with housing where we talk

48:03 ↗ in I think the business is all trying to

48:05 ↗ keep existing businesses especially

48:07 ↗ since we've still got confluence area in

48:10 ↗ here which does have existing housing

48:12 ↗ which I think a lot of that is

48:13 ↗ the lower-income and I wouldn't even

48:15 ↗ consider it affordable because by you

48:18 ↗ know the current definition of

48:19 ↗ affordable most of those are low income

48:21 ↗ and I would like to see maybe some

48:23 ↗ statement in there to try and also with

48:26 ↗ the housing is make sure going forward

48:28 ↗ we can keep our existing housing you

48:34 ↗ know our existing citizens that are

48:37 ↗ there and not displace them because

48:39 ↗ that's the other thing that's really

48:40 ↗ happening with Seattle is all their low

48:43 ↗ rent apartments and hotels are being

48:46 ↗ torn down and none are being built so

48:48 ↗ that's one of the reasons why there's so

48:50 ↗ much homeless and if we do that here if

48:53 ↗ those be turned into high-rise or you

48:56 ↗ know expensive apartments where are

48:58 ↗ those people in there right now going to

48:59 ↗ go so some sort of says you know

49:01 ↗ sustainability with existing people in

49:04 ↗ our housing I think we need to have a

49:06 ↗ statement in there you know I could just

49:08 ↗ add I think with the with the housing I

49:11 ↗ mean I agree with what everybody is

49:12 ↗ saying but I think from a vision like

49:13 ↗ from for the vision I mean really what

49:18 ↗ may be well the words we need to think

49:20 ↗ about our like why do we want you know

49:23 ↗ condos instead of apartments or whatever

49:24 ↗ it is what what are the outcomes and

49:27 ↗ it's I mean we want to facilitate

49:28 ↗ investment in the community or whatever

49:31 ↗ it is whatever then whatever those words

49:32 ↗ are and I think that's it gets a little

49:36 ↗ fuzzy but in the vision statement I mean

49:38 ↗ that's that's the way that's why we want

49:40 ↗ that we don't want to say in the vision

49:41 ↗ we want you know owner-occupied or

49:43 ↗ whatever but we want people to invest

49:46 ↗ live a long time and invest in the

49:48 ↗ community and we have a lot of that in

49:51 ↗ there already I mean you know all stages

49:53 ↗ of life and varieties and words like

49:55 ↗ that which are all good I think the

49:58 ↗ detail is going to can then come later

50:00 ↗ either in the neighborhoods or even in

50:02 ↗ code or whatever but but that's just my

50:06 ↗ my perspective just reminding us this is

50:08 ↗ a vision and not you know that detail

50:14 ↗ I don't agree with any of y'all the

50:22 ↗ reason that we added central housing to

50:25 ↗ central Issaquah is because it was a

50:28 ↗ monoculture of businesses and adding

50:31 ↗ housing was going to create the vitality

50:33 ↗ and the 24-hour occupancy that was going

50:37 ↗ to make it exciting and active and urban

50:40 ↗ and energized and this statement

50:44 ↗ provides no pathway to success of

50:48 ↗ gaining that this just talks about yeah

50:51 ↗ you know we're gonna grind through and

50:52 ↗ make sure that we have housing for all

50:54 ↗ kinds of people it doesn't talk about

50:56 ↗ why you're putting the housing in the

50:59 ↗ particular areas to get the success of

51:01 ↗ each neighborhood to make it individual

51:04 ↗ and better right and I would like to see

51:07 ↗ some language in there talking more

51:11 ↗ about the appropriateness of the housing

51:13 ↗ per neighborhood and its reason for

51:16 ↗ being and the variety this is almost a

51:22 ↗ detail to me it's not a vision so would

51:26 ↗ you add that to the districts when we

51:32 ↗ get into the districts and no because

51:36 ↗ it's the overarching reason for having

51:39 ↗ housing in the vision it's not each

51:41 ↗ detailed thing it's more about and the

51:46 ↗ central is you know we are adding

51:47 ↗ housing to the area to increase the

51:52 ↗ vitality make it 24 hours add a variety

51:56 ↗ of interest or whatever you know the the

51:59 ↗ words are that people think are

52:01 ↗ appropriate for what you envision in all

52:04 ↗ of central Issaquah to make people want

52:07 ↗ to take the train in and go to Issaquah

52:10 ↗ and live there because they can walk out

52:12 ↗ their door and they can go to a

52:13 ↗ restaurant and they can work just down

52:15 ↗ the way and you don't have to have a car

52:18 ↗ and it's transformative right

52:20 ↗ you're going from suburban car oriented

52:22 ↗ strip malls to a whole different way of

52:25 ↗ living and by saying you're just dealing

52:27 ↗ with a variety of housing methods I

52:29 ↗ think is is that that would be in each

52:34 ↗ district vision what kind of housing

52:36 ↗ varieties do you perceive in that sorry

52:42 ↗ go ahead

52:42 ↗ cotton said do you have a draft you

52:44 ↗ would like to share of a vision alt I

52:51 ↗ can make one not right now because I

52:54 ↗ agree with you on the on this it looks

52:57 ↗ more like a mission statement here's how

52:59 ↗ we're trying to get to our mission our

53:00 ↗ vision but we don't know what the

53:02 ↗ mission is I agree with you if I could

53:04 ↗ add a comment one of the things that

53:06 ↗ surprised me about this vision document

53:08 ↗ is there's no mention in here anywhere

53:10 ↗ of the cascade agenda which is really

53:15 ↗ the whole point of the central is

53:19 ↗ replanting effort that's what we're

53:21 ↗ trying to achieve we are not only a

53:23 ↗ cascade agenda city but we are a cascade

53:26 ↗ agenda leadership City and there's just

53:28 ↗ a handful of those in the state and yet

53:31 ↗ in our vision we don't even mention it

53:34 ↗ what is it's in the introduction of the

53:38 ↗ plan all the pieces all the sort of the

53:40 ↗ the anchor pieces and one of them is

53:43 ↗ cascade one of them's mountain to sound

53:45 ↗ the GMA target so we went through all of

53:48 ↗ that and then said and this is our

53:50 ↗ reaction to that is we're trying to put

53:51 ↗ it in the central plan but but point

53:53 ↗ Walter and it's not actually in the bit

53:55 ↗ ship it belongs in here and it

53:57 ↗ essentially is a vision that was put

53:59 ↗ forth by for Tara

54:01 ↗ it's a different way of growing you know

54:03 ↗ if the quoi has grown as a suburban

54:04 ↗ community around the car we are

54:07 ↗ constrained geographically by mountains

54:09 ↗ and a lake and frankly we've run out of

54:11 ↗ room to build and if we don't change the

54:13 ↗ way we build we're going to go right up

54:15 ↗ the green hillsides that define the

54:17 ↗ brand and the character of our community

54:18 ↗ so we have to have this conversation

54:20 ↗ with our community about building in a

54:23 ↗ different way and embracing density in

54:26 ↗ our urban areas our urban cores in a

54:28 ↗ thoughtful way that still preserves the

54:30 ↗ character of our town but saves the open

54:32 ↗ space that we all value so so greatly

54:36 ↗ and so there's a website and it goes

54:38 ↗ into great detail about what that

54:40 ↗ cascade we have a discussion at one

54:49 ↗ point in time about in the beginning

54:52 ↗ having a aspirational wording of why

55:01 ↗ we're doing this so that we can explain

55:04 ↗ exactly why we're doing it why we have

55:06 ↗ to do it you know why we should be doing

55:09 ↗ it wasn't there some kind of a statement

55:11 ↗ that should be in there somewhere to

55:13 ↗ address some of the things have just

55:15 ↗ been said in the plan why we're doing

55:20 ↗ the central plan originally why we're

55:23 ↗ changing the vision it's probably why

55:27 ↗ we're doing it in the first place why

55:29 ↗ we're because that's not my land and

55:31 ↗ adding more housing and more stuff to

55:36 ↗ the central area we didn't we excel in

55:39 ↗ the introduction together all the pieces

55:41 ↗ are in the introduction how we went

55:43 ↗ through all the pieces of that we could

55:45 ↗ make it stronger if if it's not I think

55:47 ↗ that that was one of the things that was

55:50 ↗ talked about that it should be stronger

55:52 ↗ and and more up-to-date of why we're

55:55 ↗ doing this

55:56 ↗ people don't understand when they wake

55:58 ↗ up the next morning and there's a 12

56:00 ↗ story building next to them they want to

56:02 ↗ what value that is we could send that

56:06 ↗ around as another homework item for

56:08 ↗ everyone to read the intro and see if it

56:10 ↗ needs to be stronger if there needs to

56:12 ↗ things need to be a reason I different

56:14 ↗ needs to be somewhere where whether I

56:16 ↗ mean somewhere ahead of yes right so

56:21 ↗ yeah do folks agree with that or is that

56:25 ↗ ask the skull I agree I think that that

56:32 ↗ would be a better a better introduction

56:35 ↗ I think that the need for change is a

56:38 ↗ bit too much it's very germane to the

56:41 ↗ conversations we're having right now but

56:43 ↗ for an average reader who wants to know

56:45 ↗ what the visions about it's it's very

56:47 ↗ particular to our specific conversations

56:50 ↗ but I think we would be better served by

56:52 ↗ having a more general motivation for the

56:55 ↗ whole document in place of this and

56:57 ↗ maybe one statement about how it changed

57:00 ↗ that should be updated let me talk about

57:04 ↗ that next so so let's there's a lot of

57:10 ↗ the same page is just not in the same

57:12 ↗ order I think so

57:15 ↗ there needs to be a little bit of

57:17 ↗ tweaking on the economic vitality piece

57:19 ↗ I think it needs to be specific about

57:21 ↗ jobs and jobs as it relates to the

57:24 ↗ housing that's being provided Steve what

57:29 ↗ was your point on environment I lost

57:30 ↗ that one you want to still make that or

57:33 ↗ did you give it up I I guess my point is

57:39 ↗ is walk talks about a 2-1 percent tree

57:43 ↗ canopy retention and I don't see how we

57:45 ↗ can develop the strollers well plan and

57:47 ↗ retain a 50% tree canopy those things

57:51 ↗ are in conflict so what's the balance

57:53 ↗ between being known as a city a Tree

57:58 ↗ City USA since 1992 the banner is no

58:01 ↗ longer up there I was pointed

58:02 ↗ but and this concept of a green necklace

58:07 ↗ are we forsaking or basically saying for

58:10 ↗ all intents we're not going to be a 51%

58:12 ↗ tree canopy city anymore is that what we

58:15 ↗ would want that's part of it I think

58:18 ↗ we've kind of talked about wildlife

58:20 ↗ corridors but I think of things like the

58:22 ↗ birds were property with an out we

58:23 ↗ should be blowing on steep slopes or do

58:25 ↗ we have city code that says we can't

58:27 ↗ build in a place like that I also think

58:29 ↗ of let's say the quarry property were

58:32 ↗ and I don't know the city code but when

58:35 ↗ that came up that allows you the city

58:38 ↗ requires a waiver if you build within 50

58:40 ↗ percent of the steep slope maybe that's

58:41 ↗ a code that I think is I am for review

58:45 ↗ of whether or not that's a good thing or

58:46 ↗ not or we should look at that type of

58:49 ↗ code so that's kind of my concern about

58:51 ↗ environment I think Connie made a good

58:57 ↗ point I I like the fact that it's more

59:01 ↗ there's more in there not only in

59:05 ↗ housing but in the environment to say

59:11 ↗ more about what's going on and why

59:13 ↗ you're doing it well so part of it is

59:15 ↗ you know we started talking I mean it

59:17 ↗ came up a lot during the conversations

59:19 ↗ about the green necklace where you know

59:21 ↗ you're increasing density you're

59:23 ↗ increasing kind of the urban nature of

59:28 ↗ the city within this district and so

59:31 ↗ what's the importance of the environment

59:33 ↗ in that and I think it's very important

59:35 ↗ and so it becomes you know the harder

59:38 ↗ the area gets the more important the

59:41 ↗ green space has become because you know

59:44 ↗ now of a sudden you're only access to

59:47 ↗ maybe something natural is a riparian

59:50 ↗ corridor and so that becomes super

59:52 ↗ important because you don't have a green

59:53 ↗ yard because you live in an apartment

59:55 ↗ building or maybe a condo if the

59:57 ↗ liability legislation goes through so so

1:00:00 ↗ that that's not what this says and I

1:00:04 ↗ think if if really we're gonna look at

1:00:06 ↗ this as what is the reason for these

1:00:09 ↗ things as being important in central

1:00:12 ↗ Issaquah

1:00:13 ↗ akin to the housing and if we look at

1:00:15 ↗ all of these with that lens then I think

1:00:18 ↗ you would redraft the environment piece

1:00:21 ↗ to talk about the value of the

1:00:23 ↗ environment in an urbanizing setting

1:00:27 ↗ because it has a different role than say

1:00:30 ↗ up on squak where everybody has a big

1:00:31 ↗ forested backyard

1:00:33 ↗ right so I think we can look at that and

1:00:37 ↗ I you know the tree canopy piece

1:00:40 ↗ Steve just to go there is it's a

1:00:44 ↗ citywide aspiration which means that

1:00:47 ↗ there will be some areas that don't have

1:00:49 ↗ 51% and then there's other areas that

1:00:52 ↗ are a hundred percent because we

1:00:53 ↗ preserve them as permanent open space so

1:00:56 ↗ it it's it's an overall City calculus

1:00:59 ↗ and not a parcel by parcel calculus I

1:01:01 ↗ fully agree with it just seems with

1:01:03 ↗ right now as of 2006 we're on there 51

1:01:05 ↗ percent overall citywide I don't see how

1:01:08 ↗ we can take out trees in the center

1:01:09 ↗ local plan and stay above 51 percent

1:01:13 ↗ that's we plant trees so it's I get your

1:01:18 ↗ point and let's take a let's take a

1:01:22 ↗ draft at this and we'll bring you guys

1:01:26 ↗ back a red line of this section next

1:01:29 ↗ time so we get one quick clarification

1:01:33 ↗ on the on the summary from Lyndon Shore

1:01:36 ↗ yeah the school's piece was that a

1:01:39 ↗ recommendation to add schools sections I

1:01:43 ↗ mean a statement so this this had many

1:01:47 ↗ tentacles well if you don't want to know

1:01:50 ↗ so Fulham's hackett so right now if you

1:01:55 ↗ went when you get into the sub district

1:01:59 ↗ conversations the only one where schools

1:02:01 ↗ really comes up is confluence and part

1:02:03 ↗ of it is because proximity to Issaquah

1:02:08 ↗ Valley and then the future middle school

1:02:11 ↗ site and so there was some some dialogue

1:02:13 ↗ in that neighborhood description about

1:02:15 ↗ that that's one of the assets of that

1:02:17 ↗ neighborhood and so part of the

1:02:19 ↗ conversation is you know if we're going

1:02:21 ↗ to add

1:02:22 ↗ you know that the target is another you

1:02:26 ↗ know it's 7000 housing units in the

1:02:30 ↗ regional growth center you know right

1:02:33 ↗ now you can look at Issaquah Highlands

1:02:35 ↗ and if you use that as a metric and say

1:02:37 ↗ okay you know 4500 housing units

1:02:39 ↗ generates the need for two elementary

1:02:42 ↗ schools you know you start to say okay

1:02:43 ↗ well if you're gonna put 7,000 housing

1:02:45 ↗ units in how many elementary schools do

1:02:47 ↗ you need and where are you gonna put

1:02:48 ↗ them and if your plan doesn't talk about

1:02:51 ↗ schools it seems like that's maybe a

1:02:54 ↗ missed opportunity so so there was that

1:02:56 ↗ whole conversation about do we need to

1:02:58 ↗ populate a school conversation in each

1:03:02 ↗ of these sub districts to really turn

1:03:04 ↗ them into neighborhoods because

1:03:05 ↗ everybody wants to have a school in a

1:03:07 ↗ neighborhood right I did I grew up next

1:03:09 ↗ to my elementary school so so that's

1:03:11 ↗ part of it another part was it kind of

1:03:16 ↗ it was and I put it on this line but it

1:03:19 ↗ started as live-work-play and I think

1:03:21 ↗ mr. Morgan brought that up

1:03:23 ↗ and it was you know this is this is kind

1:03:27 ↗ of a you know this is something that we

1:03:30 ↗ all talk about is the expected outcome

1:03:33 ↗ for Central Issaquah live live work play

1:03:35 ↗ and then you know would you expand it to

1:03:39 ↗ include and learn if there's a school

1:03:41 ↗ component and so if that is something we

1:03:44 ↗ all believe is important to the success

1:03:46 ↗ of central Issaquah why doesn't it show

1:03:49 ↗ up anywhere in this document and so so

1:03:51 ↗ that's why number 3 is here and so as we

1:03:56 ↗ start to get into the the sub district

1:03:58 ↗ conversations and even as we're into

1:04:00 ↗ this main kind of intro section you know

1:04:03 ↗ do we need to have some language about

1:04:05 ↗ schools and if so then where we're going

1:04:08 ↗ to put it so so I'm seeing kind of some

1:04:10 ↗ people kind of nod their heads you know

1:04:13 ↗ if anybody's got some thoughts that they

1:04:14 ↗ want to share then let's kind of put

1:04:17 ↗ them on the table because I'm taking

1:04:19 ↗ notes from an outline standpoint I think

1:04:22 ↗ urban schools plan is actually key to

1:04:25 ↗ these neighborhood districts or may and

1:04:30 ↗ to break that down with public schools

1:04:32 ↗ private schools preschools daycare and

1:04:35 ↗ after-school facilities and if the

1:04:38 ↗ majority of this is going to be

1:04:39 ↗ apartments like I think it's going to be

1:04:42 ↗ then there is an additional need for

1:04:45 ↗ after-school resources because you've

1:04:46 ↗ got a lot of kids running around and

1:04:48 ↗ where are we gonna put those kids if we

1:04:50 ↗ don't keep them busy they're gonna

1:04:51 ↗ become issues so and we don't want that

1:04:56 ↗ so that's kind of where I was thinking

1:04:59 ↗ we need to make sure we have a schools

1:05:02 ↗ component for each neighborhood be able

1:05:05 ↗ to handle all those kids living in one

1:05:10 ↗ confined areas they are not gonna have

1:05:13 ↗ backyards so they're gonna be more

1:05:15 ↗ active I think than people who would

1:05:17 ↗ live in a house

1:05:22 ↗ oh I'm I'm starting to get a little

1:05:27 ↗ confused as to whether we are supposed

1:05:30 ↗ to be wordsmithing all the component

1:05:33 ↗ parts of the vision at this point in

1:05:35 ↗ time or or what so one thing I would say

1:05:41 ↗ in looking at it we have transportation

1:05:44 ↗ which is this big huge Bugaboo and then

1:05:47 ↗ we have this little thing called other

1:05:48 ↗ essential services all in the same

1:05:50 ↗ paragraph it seems like transportation

1:05:53 ↗ is a standalone and then in these other

1:05:57 ↗ essential services whatever they might

1:05:59 ↗ be

1:06:00 ↗ that would include schools and those

1:06:02 ↗ important components that people need

1:06:06 ↗ for their essentials for daily living

1:06:10 ↗ right and that that would make sense I'm

1:06:15 ↗ not sure I'm a fan of the innovation

1:06:19 ↗ well and that's why I was confused are

1:06:22 ↗ we going one by one yeah it's a little

1:06:24 ↗ bit no no it's a little bit more free

1:06:26 ↗ flow than that so if you want to start

1:06:28 ↗ on innovation no I don't I don't care

1:06:30 ↗ that I'll go back to how about we do

1:06:32 ↗ this well or let's finish schools before

1:06:36 ↗ we finish environment because we were

1:06:37 ↗ actually there and then we popped to

1:06:38 ↗ schools so we start with housing the

1:06:46 ↗ only thing I wanted to say about

1:06:48 ↗ environment was protection is a huge

1:06:54 ↗ component and that's totally left out of

1:06:56 ↗ the environmental paragraph so what it

1:06:59 ↗ says protection of wildlife quarters and

1:07:01 ↗ healthy streams are essential to central

1:07:03 ↗ Issaquah integrating environmental

1:07:06 ↗ features in and wildlife corridors and

1:07:10 ↗ healthy streams is not the environment

1:07:12 ↗ that's a sub component of the

1:07:14 ↗ environment so that would indicate that

1:07:16 ↗ you only have to protect those and the

1:07:18 ↗ rest you can integrate so in your

1:07:20 ↗ verbage the hierarchy of language would

1:07:22 ↗ be not what I would prefer

1:07:28 ↗ I would consider that well and that's

1:07:31 ↗ why I would say too because they're

1:07:33 ↗ really on a valley floor and part of the

1:07:35 ↗ issues that I have with all the parking

1:07:36 ↗ is the wetlands have been destroyed and

1:07:40 ↗ so I think in our statements is

1:07:43 ↗ realizing that maybe what we want to do

1:07:45 ↗ is bring some of it back because we also

1:07:49 ↗ have storm water that we need to worry

1:07:50 ↗ about which is part of our

1:07:51 ↗ infrastructure so you know realizing

1:07:55 ↗ it's just not the views - but it's the

1:07:57 ↗ valley floor and it's the lake that we

1:07:59 ↗ have to also protect as we grow okay one

1:08:14 ↗ of the other comments on environment

1:08:16 ↗ which i think is where we what we're

1:08:18 ↗ talking about right now is that the

1:08:21 ↗ wildlife corridors is potentially vague

1:08:25 ↗ and I think that it does refer to

1:08:29 ↗ riparian areas I'm a I'm a former

1:08:36 ↗ wildlife biologist and have worked

1:08:38 ↗ professionally in urban settings and so

1:08:40 ↗ wildlife corridors could mean more than

1:08:42 ↗ that and I recognize that but I think

1:08:44 ↗ that for our plan we are referring to

1:08:46 ↗ vibrant areas so I would just like to

1:08:49 ↗ clarify what we mean by that and it

1:08:52 ↗ comes up many times not only in the this

1:08:54 ↗ statement but throughout the document I

1:08:58 ↗ can help just a smidge with that having

1:09:01 ↗ read the parks plan lately the parks

1:09:04 ↗ plan has a lot of language on wildlife

1:09:06 ↗ corridors in the is it referring to in

1:09:12 ↗ the central area wildlife corridors that

1:09:14 ↗ are planned wildlife corridors in

1:09:21 ↗ general not just in the central area

1:09:24 ↗ because the parks plan covers the whole

1:09:26 ↗ town and with the wildlife corridors

1:09:31 ↗ here you've got to connect to the lake

1:09:32 ↗ into the areas where the wildlife are

1:09:35 ↗ running through and we have a lot of

1:09:37 ↗ deer and bear and cougar that actually

1:09:39 ↗ access to the valley floor and so to

1:09:42 ↗ help direct them not just along the

1:09:44 ↗ narrow streams maybe provide other ways

1:09:46 ↗ safe harbors versus going through the

1:09:48 ↗ school might be something that we need

1:09:51 ↗ to look at across 990 have you know more

1:09:54 ↗ things under i-90 where they can go to

1:09:56 ↗ so we don't have the Cougar killed like

1:09:59 ↗ we did on islands not too long ago so

1:10:02 ↗ can you take the environment and

1:10:04 ↗ separate it into two sections and the

1:10:07 ↗ same thing

1:10:07 ↗ two sections and and and put the natural

1:10:13 ↗ features and then wildlife separate so

1:10:19 ↗ that you have a wonderful statement that

1:10:22 ↗ covers creeks and natural views and

1:10:24 ↗ stuff and then add a a specific more

1:10:29 ↗ condensed more I want to say inclusive

1:10:36 ↗ inclusion a inclusive area of the

1:10:39 ↗ wildlife so make it broader so that you

1:10:43 ↗ have two different distinct things and

1:10:45 ↗ don't put them together so I guess I

1:10:48 ↗ would say I didn't watch if I could do

1:10:51 ↗ that

1:10:52 ↗ so for me each paragraph has a certain

1:10:55 ↗ level of importance right so by giving

1:11:00 ↗ wildlife corridors its own paragraph it

1:11:03 ↗ the now is at the same level as

1:11:04 ↗ transportation which I think we should

1:11:07 ↗ unpack that a little bit and see if the

1:11:09 ↗ groups what you're doing now I don't

1:11:11 ↗ think I'm actually not it's so right now

1:11:14 ↗ environment is one thing and it's like

1:11:16 ↗ and I think we can talk about there's

1:11:18 ↗ different parts of the environment and

1:11:19 ↗ what's the importance of that as part of

1:11:22 ↗ a successful urban environment is

1:11:25 ↗ important I think if you were to create

1:11:29 ↗ the wildlife corridors as its own topic

1:11:32 ↗ okay I don't I'm not thinking that at

1:11:35 ↗ all I'm just putting more emphasis into

1:11:39 ↗ better language for both of them yeah no

1:11:42 ↗ absolutely I think we need to we're

1:11:44 ↗ gonna rework all of these based on the

1:11:47 ↗ conversations I think we're hearing this

1:11:49 ↗ evening so okay are you ready for

1:11:55 ↗ innovation or did you want to go

1:11:57 ↗ somewhere else yes since you asked about

1:12:03 ↗ it we've yeah I'd like to finish up

1:12:05 ↗ something yeah I like you've included it

1:12:09 ↗ but my question having that listed as a

1:12:11 ↗ public space and so suggested maybe just

1:12:15 ↗ a another section in there that just

1:12:18 ↗ says quality of life squadron

1:12:20 ↗ by promoting environmental sense

1:12:22 ↗ sustainability and just somewhere and

1:12:25 ↗ just say adding neighborhood schools as

1:12:28 ↗ one of those bullet points within the

1:12:30 ↗ paragraph that makes sense

1:12:46 ↗ so where did you add that Mel well

1:12:48 ↗ there's somewhere in there promoting

1:12:51 ↗ environmental sustainability

1:12:54 ↗ you could just say adding neighborhood

1:12:56 ↗ schools improving architectural design

1:12:58 ↗ and grading development and so forth

1:13:00 ↗ okay rather than listing it as just a

1:13:03 ↗ public space yeah I question if the

1:13:10 ↗ schools as you pointed out it's in with

1:13:14 ↗ public spaces I question if it should go

1:13:16 ↗ under other essential services and split

1:13:19 ↗ that out I think that that might make

1:13:21 ↗ more sense because also schools our

1:13:24 ↗ schools are very important but also at

1:13:26 ↗ multiple levels including potentially

1:13:28 ↗ private schools I mean our vision I

1:13:30 ↗ think means we have after school

1:13:33 ↗ facilities as Ron said and all of these

1:13:35 ↗ things and so I think that that that

1:13:37 ↗ maybe deserves more emphasis and other

1:13:41 ↗ essential services section I might be a

1:13:44 ↗ that's my suggestion for address I'll

1:13:48 ↗ thrown I thought about that same thing

1:13:50 ↗ and thinking about somewhere to have it

1:13:52 ↗ but to me schools are really critical to

1:13:55 ↗ a sense of community so when I thought

1:13:57 ↗ about is it just a service we provide or

1:14:00 ↗ do schools create sense of community I

1:14:02 ↗ would rather it be shown as a under that

1:14:05 ↗ category was my I would be fine with

1:14:11 ↗ that too I think the point about not

1:14:13 ↗ having it with plazas and schools I

1:14:15 ↗ think it needs its own emphasis are we

1:14:21 ↗ talking about the sense of community

1:14:22 ↗ piece right now mm-hmm

1:14:25 ↗ it would be interesting to hear with the

1:14:27 ↗ parks department but their idea or what

1:14:30 ↗ their suggestion would be to add into

1:14:32 ↗ that you know so much the social centers

1:14:35 ↗ around Parks Recreation you might have a

1:14:39 ↗ handle it

1:14:40 ↗ be kind of interesting to hear what they

1:14:41 ↗ have to say be back how we're meeting

1:14:45 ↗ with them tomorrow so we'll have we can

1:14:47 ↗ have a conversation with them about that

1:14:52 ↗ hi Trish all right next

1:15:01 ↗ I vote for transportation for three

1:15:05 ↗ points okay should be by itself I heard

1:15:14 ↗ with more emphasis on what we're trying

1:15:17 ↗ to do in transportation

1:15:21 ↗ I'll take buses for four big walking for

1:15:26 ↗ sixteen support for pulling

1:15:34 ↗ transportation out into its own yes yeah

1:15:37 ↗ absolutely

1:15:39 ↗ okay and I think also non-motorized I

1:15:42 ↗ think that the bicycles and other

1:15:45 ↗ options we're getting around to could be

1:15:48 ↗ basically if you have transportation by

1:15:51 ↗ itself which I support I think then you

1:15:52 ↗ can expand a little bit on our vision

1:15:54 ↗ for having less car trips and less

1:15:56 ↗ single car trips

1:16:00 ↗ okay

1:16:02 ↗ so Kevin question for you is the pole

1:16:06 ↗ transportation out it was an example of

1:16:10 ↗ other essential services I already went

1:16:11 ↗ there with my head so I'm gonna look to

1:16:14 ↗ Trish

1:16:20 ↗ tation so should we create a topic of

1:16:27 ↗ utilities or leave it as an essential

1:16:29 ↗ services I'd recommend leaving it as a

1:16:32 ↗ central public because there might be

1:16:34 ↗ something new that we haven't even

1:16:36 ↗ considered yet that just falls under the

1:16:38 ↗ category of things that you need in your

1:16:40 ↗ daily life okay so utilities what else

1:16:44 ↗ would be considered essential services

1:16:47 ↗ [Music]

1:16:49 ↗ sewer water fire protection fire flow in

1:16:54 ↗ your water there's a whole whole rest of

1:17:00 ↗ it it's City provides it helps for ride

1:17:07 ↗ so you have the criteria essential for

1:17:11 ↗ daily living and so when I read that I

1:17:14 ↗ read that people have places to get

1:17:24 ↗ their prescriptions get their food get

1:17:27 ↗ do their things that are required for

1:17:31 ↗ daily living and because I think that

1:17:36 ↗ sort of point of the central Issaquah

1:17:40 ↗ plan is you aren't supposed to have to

1:17:41 ↗ hop in your car and drive to you know

1:17:44 ↗ two miles away to get everything you

1:17:47 ↗ need in a day you should be able to with

1:17:49 ↗ without doing that go in and at least

1:17:54 ↗ get your espresso in the morning right

1:17:55 ↗ so what I think unpacking the idea of

1:18:00 ↗ exactly what you mean by essential

1:18:02 ↗ services and what it means by your daily

1:18:05 ↗ needs is at least a conversation to have

1:18:09 ↗ so that it can can be clear what we're

1:18:12 ↗ aiming for in that because that's sort

1:18:15 ↗ of I always read it

1:18:17 ↗ because I know that's a goal for the

1:18:19 ↗ central Issaquah plan you get there and

1:18:22 ↗ if that isn't the sentence that does

1:18:25 ↗ that I think we need a sentence that

1:18:27 ↗ that gets us to that success I'll

1:18:34 ↗ support that because part of I consider

1:18:36 ↗ essential services is a small market I

1:18:38 ↗ mean that you can go down if you have a

1:18:40 ↗ smaller place you're not going to have a

1:18:42 ↗ great big freezer refrigerator so be

1:18:44 ↗ able to go down and get your your

1:18:46 ↗ groceries locally without having to get

1:18:48 ↗ in your car and not having to store you

1:18:50 ↗ know a whole pallet of toilet tissue in

1:18:54 ↗ your apartment

1:18:58 ↗ this might be the first time I'm this

1:19:00 ↗ one's gonna I some a this might be the

1:19:04 ↗ first time I've disagreed with Connie on

1:19:05 ↗ something just I don't think we're

1:19:07 ↗ supposed to have a I know I kind of like

1:19:08 ↗ it I don't think this this is about

1:19:11 ↗ having a store in every neighborhood or

1:19:13 ↗ every sub area I don't think he not

1:19:15 ↗ economically you can you can have nine

1:19:18 ↗ to FCS or nine safe ways or anything

1:19:21 ↗ else I think at some point it's not

1:19:25 ↗ about the I the daily living of where I

1:19:28 ↗ buy my toilet paper where I buy my

1:19:30 ↗ steaks or wherever else I think it's

1:19:32 ↗ more essential services than it is

1:19:36 ↗ having a grocery store in your

1:19:37 ↗ neighborhood it's not as much the

1:19:39 ↗ economic vitality of development as much

1:19:42 ↗ as the grander scale of where we're

1:19:47 ↗ going as a city that's me I think that

1:19:51 ↗ as the vision it doesn't actually

1:19:52 ↗ mandate that we have every component in

1:19:55 ↗ it just is that this is our vision and

1:19:58 ↗ that our vision is that we have the

1:20:00 ↗ essential services in the central area

1:20:03 ↗ and so you don't need to drive the

1:20:06 ↗ Bellevue for example to get your you

1:20:09 ↗ know prescription or whatever it is that

1:20:11 ↗ we do have everything that people need

1:20:14 ↗ for their day-to-day in the central area

1:20:16 ↗ but not necessarily within a you know

1:20:20 ↗ within each neighborhood and I think

1:20:22 ↗ that I think that it's fine because it's

1:20:25 ↗ called out here as the daily services in

1:20:27 ↗ the section that is general for the

1:20:28 ↗ whole plan anybody else

1:20:38 ↗ okay anything else in the guiding

1:20:43 ↗ principles you haven't talked about

1:20:45 ↗ innovation yet

1:20:46 ↗ what are you get it are you gonna get

1:20:47 ↗ they're trying to keep me to go in a

1:20:50 ↗ sensible order I'm trying to get you to

1:20:52 ↗ the end you noticed that right I think

1:20:54 ↗ innovation this is not innovation to me

1:20:57 ↗ if we're going to be in an innovative

1:21:00 ↗ town you're looking at different ways of

1:21:02 ↗ creating energy and different ways of

1:21:05 ↗ building and yes there's some

1:21:09 ↗ partnerships that you might be able to

1:21:12 ↗ get at but it's sort of staying on the

1:21:14 ↗ cutting edge of the right way to develop

1:21:20 ↗ an urban city and this does not this

1:21:26 ↗ this does not get me to that and that

1:21:30 ↗ it's redundant private partnerships to

1:21:33 ↗ help the community achieve the central

1:21:35 ↗ is a quad vision and this is part of the

1:21:37 ↗ vision and so now you've just gone

1:21:38 ↗ around to I don't know what success is

1:21:41 ↗ there so I would probably just get rid

1:21:47 ↗ of that as a goal unless somebody can

1:21:52 ↗ figure out some way to be able to figure

1:21:55 ↗ out how to make that successful I think

1:21:59 ↗ this is what the city should be doing

1:22:01 ↗ and does all the time so innovative

1:22:06 ↗ essential services all right thank you I

1:22:17 ↗ think that's something that we think is

1:22:19 ↗ innovative we're trying to do the pilot

1:22:21 ↗ project

1:22:22 ↗ in central by the transit station with

1:22:25 ↗ housing with affordable housing with

1:22:28 ↗ multifamily tax and as a pilot to me

1:22:32 ↗ that's sort of the innovative and

1:22:33 ↗ innovative piece we're trying all these

1:22:35 ↗ different things right there in the

1:22:36 ↗ middle of Central right by the

1:22:38 ↗ transportation you can expand that a

1:22:40 ↗ little bit

1:22:41 ↗ for example cross laminated timber is a

1:22:44 ↗ new building material that enables all

1:22:47 ↗ kinds of new new applications but we've

1:22:50 ↗ not had a building in a superb iLET with

1:22:52 ↗ that before and so what is the

1:22:54 ↗ permitting process if you even wanted to

1:22:56 ↗ use cross laminated timber so thinking

1:22:58 ↗ about things like that and then we I

1:23:00 ↗ think somebody around here talked about

1:23:02 ↗ micro housing units that's another

1:23:04 ↗ innovative approach to housing it's a

1:23:06 ↗ product that our community doesn't offer

1:23:08 ↗ right now and there may be some demand

1:23:10 ↗ for that and so I think there is room

1:23:12 ↗ for innovation but or innovative

1:23:15 ↗ innovation I get that that just talks

1:23:19 ↗ about how to get more building done and

1:23:23 ↗ I think you need to expand it to

1:23:28 ↗ technology and things besides that to

1:23:31 ↗ help the city itself so can I take a

1:23:33 ↗ pulse of the group keep innovation or

1:23:38 ↗ dump it so keep it but just work it a

1:23:42 ↗ little harder all right we'll try and

1:23:44 ↗ keep it and working a little harder

1:23:46 ↗ tomorrow by next meeting by working it a

1:23:51 ↗ little harder that means expanding it so

1:23:56 ↗ that it can and identify different

1:24:00 ↗ different pool of things you can do that

1:24:02 ↗ are you okay yeah it's how Dave's gonna

1:24:06 ↗ talk okay well it took you an hour and I

1:24:11 ↗ have to get to the mic

1:24:17 ↗ so if you if you're you dub graduate and

1:24:20 ↗ you get the call in this magazine

1:24:22 ↗ there's an excellent article in there

1:24:24 ↗ about it and it's it's really something

1:24:26 ↗ what ya be doing it it has a lot of

1:24:28 ↗ unfortunately we don't have a Western

1:24:30 ↗ Washington mill it could be a while

1:24:31 ↗ before we do but it really is important

1:24:35 ↗ to the that our long term timber

1:24:37 ↗ industry and in those jobs and just the

1:24:41 ↗ whole thing that's just the right thing

1:24:42 ↗ to do good and you know innovation is

1:24:47 ↗ something that should be in all these

1:24:48 ↗ categories so that's and it's kind of

1:24:55 ↗ the the rental ownership of condos or

1:24:59 ↗ multifamily kinds of things I got the

1:25:03 ↗ impression not too many people have been

1:25:04 ↗ landlords because it's it is a difficult

1:25:07 ↗ job to be a landlord and I'm sure people

1:25:10 ↗ would love to be building condominiums

1:25:11 ↗ and hope we get more and then the

1:25:15 ↗ emphasis on school my daughter teaches

1:25:17 ↗ on Broad Street the Broad Street has

1:25:19 ↗ associated with Wall Street in public

1:25:22 ↗ high school and 11th 12th and 13th floor

1:25:25 ↗ building and the urban schools is

1:25:27 ↗ something we're going to have to have

1:25:29 ↗ and obviously you don't have a your your

1:25:33 ↗ fields and some of those kinds of things

1:25:35 ↗ but we're good meat we're closer than

1:25:36 ↗ some that I think we really have to

1:25:38 ↗ think about schools and there's a lot of

1:25:40 ↗ frustration in the community of that

1:25:41 ↗ we've been behind on getting school

1:25:43 ↗ sites and that really has to come

1:25:45 ↗ earlier in the process as the

1:25:48 ↗ affordability for one thing and just if

1:25:51 ↗ you want to get families you want to get

1:25:52 ↗ kids and all the rest in there you've

1:25:54 ↗ got to have a reasonable school thing

1:25:57 ↗ and people come to this areas we know

1:25:59 ↗ for schools and we want that to continue

1:26:02 ↗ I guess if they're coming we want them

1:26:04 ↗ to have an interest in schools and that

1:26:06 ↗ they think schools are important

1:26:09 ↗ okay thank you sorry okay

1:26:12 ↗ those are my okay whoo all right

1:26:18 ↗ second section the need for change so so

1:26:26 ↗ part of this is you know I think as we

1:26:28 ↗ talked about this and then we'll get

1:26:30 ↗ into the conversation from Landon Shore

1:26:32 ↗ so the reason why we included this

1:26:35 ↗ section was we felt like it was

1:26:37 ↗ important to kind of document why the

1:26:40 ↗ vision changed you know after like five

1:26:46 ↗ years it's been five years Trish thank

1:26:48 ↗ you so so this was you know so so there

1:26:54 ↗ was you know a few paragraphs in here

1:26:57 ↗ about why there was a need for change

1:27:00 ↗ the comments that came out of Landon

1:27:03 ↗ Shore I don't think they completely

1:27:07 ↗ bought into the need the need for the

1:27:10 ↗ need for change and so part of it is a

1:27:13 ↗ conversation with us is this is this is

1:27:17 ↗ this just extra words or is there some

1:27:21 ↗ value to this that's worth keeping you

1:27:24 ↗ know I think a recommendation from

1:27:28 ↗ councilmember Goodman was maybe there's

1:27:30 ↗ just a sentence that says you know in

1:27:32 ↗ 2018 the visions were updated following

1:27:37 ↗ the you know the first few projects that

1:27:40 ↗ were built and and it doesn't

1:27:42 ↗ necessarily need to be more than that so

1:27:44 ↗ so this is kind of open field let's talk

1:27:47 ↗ about whether there's value to leaving

1:27:50 ↗ this in or whether we strip it out and

1:27:53 ↗ don't talk about it ever again I don't

1:27:57 ↗ think it needs to be in there

1:28:02 ↗ this is a vision a vision plan and I

1:28:06 ↗ don't need to know why somebody did

1:28:09 ↗ something before I agree I think it can

1:28:13 ↗ be removed and I think then we have a

1:28:16 ↗ stronger starting to our vision but I do

1:28:22 ↗ agree to continue on what what I was

1:28:28 ↗ saying before we do have to have a

1:28:31 ↗ paragraph or some something in the

1:28:35 ↗ beginning to say what why we're doing

1:28:40 ↗ this we also have a section called reset

1:28:46 ↗ so that one's next so there is a

1:28:52 ↗ paragraph on reset you know maybe if if

1:28:57 ↗ we need to do we can pull some of the

1:29:00 ↗ stuff from need for change into the

1:29:03 ↗ reset paragraph is kind of Appendix

1:29:07 ↗ items yeah well we don't really have an

1:29:10 ↗ appendix I mean I think the reality some

1:29:16 ↗ people may want to know why we've made

1:29:18 ↗ changes and other people just want to

1:29:20 ↗ read the division that we have move

1:29:22 ↗ forward so my thought on on the reset

1:29:26 ↗ was it seems odd to have a reset without

1:29:29 ↗ the need for change so I mean it flows

1:29:32 ↗ now need need for change and then reset

1:29:35 ↗ and then here's what we're doing right

1:29:36 ↗ yeah

1:29:37 ↗ so it tells a story it tells right I'll

1:29:39 ↗ call this a story yeah that's right yeah

1:29:41 ↗ so maybe if the need for change is going

1:29:43 ↗ away

1:29:44 ↗ maybe we just removed the heading reset

1:29:48 ↗ and I mean I think the information is

1:29:50 ↗ important but it seems a little bit

1:29:52 ↗ disjunct and without that it doesn't

1:29:54 ↗ flow as well and then you go into the

1:29:57 ↗ division into district visions so I

1:30:00 ↗ guess that's just my thought is maybe if

1:30:03 ↗ the need for change goes away either the

1:30:05 ↗ reset also goes away or maybe there's

1:30:06 ↗ just like I think a recommendation

1:30:08 ↗ was a couple of sentences to transition

1:30:10 ↗ from the vision into the beams Connie I

1:30:18 ↗ disagree again I've been doing this for

1:30:22 ↗ 20 years and if you don't say that you

1:30:26 ↗ have made something better because you

1:30:29 ↗ failed in the past you're gonna do it

1:30:31 ↗ again

1:30:31 ↗ so you darn well better say that you had

1:30:34 ↗ a problem this was the problem and this

1:30:36 ↗ was the pathway we took to fix it and

1:30:39 ↗ this is how we made it better because in

1:30:41 ↗ 10 years none of us may be at the table

1:30:44 ↗ and somebody might do what we already

1:30:47 ↗ did that didn't work again I think it's

1:30:51 ↗ always wise to show that we started with

1:30:54 ↗ something and now we've adjusted and

1:30:56 ↗ we're trying something new and that also

1:30:59 ↗ sets the pathway knowing that we're

1:31:01 ↗ gonna have to probably adjust it again

1:31:02 ↗ because of nothing nothing is is ever

1:31:07 ↗ perfect right and so if you don't create

1:31:09 ↗ that pathway for the people who were in

1:31:12 ↗ your seats in ten years it's like

1:31:15 ↗ starting all over again so we have to

1:31:18 ↗ show how we've learned and I need it

1:31:20 ↗ there yes you need it there because

1:31:22 ↗ that's setting this stage for the new

1:31:25 ↗ code at the very beginning you say you

1:31:27 ↗ know we had this thing and now we

1:31:29 ↗ changed it and and this is our better

1:31:31 ↗ product and that gives people the sense

1:31:34 ↗ that okay we started out with something

1:31:37 ↗ now now they'll ask well what was it

1:31:39 ↗ exactly that didn't work before and you

1:31:42 ↗ can have a conversation and make a

1:31:43 ↗ better decision the next time when you

1:31:46 ↗ have context because otherwise no one

1:31:54 ↗ will ever read it they may not ever read

1:31:56 ↗ it now even though it's at the beginning

1:31:58 ↗ because people hate to read they're just

1:32:01 ↗ going to go to the cool-looking tables

1:32:02 ↗ because they're colorful I agree I mean

1:32:07 ↗ I I agree now

1:32:12 ↗ okay I agree the thing though that I

1:32:15 ↗ didn't like about the reset was that it

1:32:18 ↗ called out just the six moratorium items

1:32:20 ↗ when my sense is that there's a lot of

1:32:22 ↗ other things folks think are needed as

1:32:25 ↗ part of this revision and we're not

1:32:27 ↗ limiting to this vision to just a six

1:32:29 ↗ things were looking at building this

1:32:32 ↗ vision on is why they want to build and

1:32:34 ↗ create it's not just based on the

1:32:36 ↗ secretory items specifically its

1:32:37 ↗ building the better Issaquah that we

1:32:39 ↗ want

1:32:53 ↗ I'm in favor of councilmember Goodman's

1:32:57 ↗ suggestion which was to include a very

1:32:59 ↗ abbreviated version of this is it was

1:33:03 ↗ changed this date and one sense of why

1:33:07 ↗ and maybe a few because it has had a few

1:33:10 ↗ iterations so there would be a few and

1:33:13 ↗ then it would be a few sentences it was

1:33:15 ↗ changed on this date this is why I was

1:33:17 ↗ changed on this date this is why but I

1:33:19 ↗ think that people I think that it's

1:33:24 ↗ important to document it but I don't

1:33:26 ↗ think that it warrants this much

1:33:28 ↗ documentation I think that the vision

1:33:32 ↗ guiding principles are are very

1:33:34 ↗ important and to give this much space at

1:33:36 ↗ the very beginning to this process I

1:33:40 ↗ think is not warranted

1:33:48 ↗ well we have two very different opinions

1:33:51 ↗ everybody talk at once you're on yeah I

1:33:57 ↗ mean I think I've already said it I

1:33:58 ↗ basically agree I think that having a

1:34:01 ↗ mention of the process is good but maybe

1:34:03 ↗ not this much mentioned and I as I said

1:34:06 ↗ before I think I'm assuming now we're

1:34:09 ↗ talking about a need for change and

1:34:10 ↗ reset as altogether because I think you

1:34:12 ↗ can't really have one without the other

1:34:13 ↗ so I would just collapse that into

1:34:16 ↗ something more discreet well if we're

1:34:22 ↗ talking about a new vision and we need

1:34:25 ↗ to tell them why maybe we need to

1:34:27 ↗ restructure the order it's posted in

1:34:29 ↗ that it should start saying here's what

1:34:32 ↗ the problem was yeah that's a you're

1:34:35 ↗ saying yeah here's the problem was we

1:34:39 ↗ looked at it we reset it we got these

1:34:42 ↗ district visions and then you then you

1:34:44 ↗ put your vision now here's the vision

1:34:46 ↗ and all the stuff that's behind what's

1:34:48 ↗ printed on this first page they reverse

1:34:51 ↗ the order I just think it's disjointed

1:34:54 ↗ the way it is I mean you have this great

1:34:57 ↗ vision statement and then then you stop

1:35:01 ↗ and and you don't continue I think it

1:35:04 ↗ needs to be in the front why you did it

1:35:07 ↗ why you're doing it if you want to put

1:35:09 ↗ it in there at all that's my thought

1:35:11 ↗ you're talking about as a professor yeah

1:35:17 ↗ it just doesn't work for me

1:35:19 ↗ that where's it is you know so if you

1:35:30 ↗ order it above the plan vision like in a

1:35:35 ↗ italicized text or some something that

1:35:39 ↗ looks like it's an introduction and

1:35:42 ↗ definitely different as a preface I

1:35:44 ↗ think that would be in a very very

1:35:45 ↗ attractive thing for people to read and

1:35:47 ↗ and that would be good if it is a simple

1:35:51 ↗ paragraph that that

1:35:55 ↗ looks like it's a part of the main

1:35:58 ↗ document I think people would just skip

1:36:00 ↗ past it so as long as it is highlighted

1:36:03 ↗ in some way I don't have a problem with

1:36:05 ↗ it being before everything as long as

1:36:12 ↗ it's a appealing and attractive you have

1:36:21 ↗ a lot of components fighting each other

1:36:23 ↗ for what people would read but yeah as a

1:36:26 ↗ in a box with a blinking arrow to it

1:36:34 ↗ [Laughter]

1:36:37 ↗ there's been some suggestions for

1:36:41 ↗ reorganizing this piece and potentially

1:36:44 ↗ condensing it a bit so so let's do that

1:36:47 ↗ and we'll look at it in two weeks and

1:36:49 ↗ see if we think it looks better or not I

1:36:52 ↗ think I got the gist of what you guys

1:36:55 ↗ wanted to do with that I think also it

1:36:58 ↗ it needs to include more of the original

1:37:03 ↗ motivations that we discussed for the

1:37:05 ↗ whole vision not just the need for the

1:37:08 ↗ changes right so I think you should

1:37:10 ↗ start with that and then at this and

1:37:12 ↗ then go into the vision that you've got

1:37:14 ↗ it yeah the background for the whole

1:37:16 ↗ yeess is I think very important and then

1:37:19 ↗ maybe some condense all right well let

1:37:26 ↗ me look at that because remember this is

1:37:28 ↗ like this is like a chapter out of a

1:37:30 ↗ novel right there's the rest of the

1:37:32 ↗ novel and then there's this chapter and

1:37:34 ↗ we were gonna like pull the chapter out

1:37:36 ↗ play with it and stick it back in and

1:37:38 ↗ have it still work with the rest of the

1:37:40 ↗ the plan right and so that introduction

1:37:43 ↗ is in the rest of the plan it's in

1:37:45 ↗ another chapter and so let's look at

1:37:48 ↗ what that looks like to potentially more

1:37:50 ↗ connected in with divisions and and

1:37:54 ↗ we'll see what that looks like so no

1:37:55 ↗ promises but we'll definitely do that

1:37:57 ↗ exercise and go through that before the

1:37:59 ↗ next meeting it's too condensed and all

1:38:02 ↗ losses impact

1:38:05 ↗ people ten years ago I won't have our

1:38:07 ↗ expertise and so they're like what do

1:38:09 ↗ they mean by that don't have enough

1:38:11 ↗ explain that's right it's cuz they're

1:38:14 ↗ all addicted to social media on there

1:38:19 ↗ all right I'm gonna roll on given where

1:38:25 ↗ we are with time so so that was actually

1:38:32 ↗ six on this list so now I think we are

1:38:37 ↗ to page unless somebody wants to talk

1:38:41 ↗ about this section on page 2 which is

1:38:46 ↗ district visions community conversation

1:38:49 ↗ or the fresh look you guys want because

1:38:56 ↗ that seems odd now idly placed without

1:39:02 ↗ the change in reset nice so you so you

1:39:06 ↗ think it's it's flying with the up to

1:39:08 ↗ this box with the flashy arrow at the

1:39:10 ↗ beginning I'm not sure it's it's pretty

1:39:13 ↗ hefty it is pretty hefty okay I like it

1:39:20 ↗ though because it's processed but that's

1:39:22 ↗ just me showing all the outreach we did

1:39:24 ↗ right that might just be me what what if

1:39:30 ↗ you left it where it was but also

1:39:34 ↗ treated it the same as the introduction

1:39:37 ↗ for the regular vision because this is

1:39:40 ↗ the inner it's a little introductory

1:39:42 ↗ piece for the district visions as

1:39:44 ↗ compared to the overarching vision okay

1:39:48 ↗ so a littler box with eyes well I'm just

1:39:53 ↗ saying if you if you're if you're

1:39:55 ↗ creating a document and you have

1:39:57 ↗ symmetry right so you have your little

1:39:59 ↗ introductory thing before your

1:40:01 ↗ overarching city vision and then this is

1:40:04 ↗ the update there then it might be

1:40:06 ↗ expected that there would be an update

1:40:08 ↗ to the district vision similar to the

1:40:10 ↗ overarching vision and so I think if you

1:40:13 ↗ were reading

1:40:13 ↗ that might make sense we updated the big

1:40:16 ↗ vision and this is the process to update

1:40:19 ↗ the small vision okay we can look at

1:40:25 ↗ that I agree it kind of floats weirdly

1:40:28 ↗ without the other pieces so we'll see if

1:40:30 ↗ it finds a better home alright so the

1:40:35 ↗ next piece is so now we're into some

1:40:38 ↗ serious substance so what we tried to do

1:40:42 ↗ was we tried to create kind of four

1:40:46 ↗ buckets that would be somewhat common to

1:40:51 ↗ each neighborhood okay and I think this

1:40:55 ↗ this really didn't work for Landon Shore

1:40:59 ↗ you know at least that was my take you

1:41:04 ↗ know there was a there was some

1:41:06 ↗ confusion about whether these things had

1:41:09 ↗ to happen in each sub district or

1:41:12 ↗ whether they would be some of these

1:41:15 ↗ things would happen in in each district

1:41:18 ↗ there was definitely a lot of

1:41:20 ↗ conversation about sustainable and

1:41:22 ↗ whether this last box really was

1:41:25 ↗ sustainability or whether it was

1:41:27 ↗ something else you know I I think it is

1:41:34 ↗ very environmentally focused but there's

1:41:37 ↗ also some pieces that are not

1:41:38 ↗ environment so I was not quite on board

1:41:41 ↗ with that comment so we need to talk

1:41:46 ↗ about this so this was a this was an

1:41:50 ↗ organizational strategy I think it was a

1:41:53 ↗ way to try and make sure that when we

1:41:56 ↗ get to each sub district that we would

1:41:59 ↗ think about the same kind of things as

1:42:01 ↗ far as what would success be and so it

1:42:04 ↗ was kind of like an organizing element

1:42:06 ↗ for me and so for me there's value here

1:42:10 ↗ because when you get to then each sub

1:42:14 ↗ district you can go back and see if

1:42:16 ↗ these bullet points are there we're not

1:42:19 ↗ and so but if nobody else does feeling

1:42:26 ↗ that I guess the question is is what's

1:42:28 ↗ the value of this so we organized each

1:42:32 ↗ neighborhood

1:42:34 ↗ similarly with these kind of four

1:42:37 ↗ buckets in terms of different things

1:42:41 ↗ within each neighborhood and I think

1:42:45 ↗ we're to the point of talking whether

1:42:47 ↗ that works or not I actually like this

1:42:53 ↗ list I do think there are pieces in

1:42:56 ↗ there that don't belong in the category

1:42:59 ↗ of you have them and but I actually do

1:43:02 ↗ this is this says specifics to me so

1:43:05 ↗ what does livable mean and I think that

1:43:08 ↗ there's we should talk about the this

1:43:13 ↗ and this should connect division the the

1:43:17 ↗ overall vision that aspirational vision

1:43:20 ↗ because there's a lot in here that

1:43:21 ↗ actually goes to that vision so I

1:43:24 ↗ actually like the having this this list

1:43:34 ↗ Oh blank space so in landing chore there

1:43:39 ↗ was a conversation about definitions yep

1:43:41 ↗ and I've expressed the same concern I

1:43:46 ↗ don't know what livable means and just

1:43:49 ↗ having that number of bullet points

1:43:51 ↗ underneath it seems too tight I would

1:43:54 ↗ like a brief definition of what livable

1:43:59 ↗ is what distinctive would mean what

1:44:01 ↗ connected is and what sustainable would

1:44:04 ↗ mean in the context of this chart and

1:44:09 ↗ that way I could sort of extrapolate

1:44:10 ↗ other bullet points that would fit into

1:44:13 ↗ the category because right now I would

1:44:15 ↗ be guessing wildly because I don't

1:44:16 ↗ really know how you're defining those

1:44:19 ↗ words and even if they were just

1:44:21 ↗ dictionary definitions I don't know but

1:44:23 ↗ some definition because these are not

1:44:25 ↗ the only things that are going to be

1:44:28 ↗ pertinent

1:44:29 ↗ [Applause]

1:44:39 ↗ okay so I have a theory if you instead

1:44:44 ↗ of using these if you used your vision

1:44:48 ↗ had header topics could you use those

1:44:52 ↗ vision header topics to create this

1:44:55 ↗ chart the ones that we just went through

1:44:57 ↗ that we didn't agree with the innovative

1:44:59 ↗ environment transportation is there any

1:45:02 ↗ way to feed those again into this system

1:45:05 ↗ so that it would all be linked I think

1:45:07 ↗ there's a lot of them so it seems really

1:45:09 ↗ awkward but I thought I would at least

1:45:11 ↗ pitch it to see if there was a potential

1:45:13 ↗ I think that's an interesting idea I

1:45:20 ↗ think that it's very helpful to have

1:45:22 ↗ buckets my concern about these buckets

1:45:26 ↗ though is that for example

1:45:27 ↗ transportation is in obviously it's in

1:45:31 ↗ connected but it also appears in livable

1:45:33 ↗ and then it appears in sustainable just

1:45:37 ↗ in different forms so that was my

1:45:41 ↗ concern and then to build on the last

1:45:46 ↗ comment from Connie I think maybe one

1:45:49 ↗ way to approach this would be to say

1:45:51 ↗ would be to use these I think they're I

1:45:55 ↗ think they are okay but I think that

1:45:56 ↗ there's so much overlap that it makes it

1:45:58 ↗ difficult to actually use these as as

1:46:01 ↗ buckets when there is that overlap so

1:46:03 ↗ maybe some some looking at how the

1:46:10 ↗ guiding principles fit in and trying to

1:46:13 ↗ separate them out so that there is more

1:46:15 ↗ distinction between the different the

1:46:18 ↗ different buckets so does transportation

1:46:21 ↗ go and connect it and then just leave it

1:46:22 ↗ and connect it and everything having to

1:46:24 ↗ do with transportation then goes in that

1:46:26 ↗ connected bucket for example

1:46:36 ↗ this is where it's easier to start over

1:46:39 ↗ again I was gonna say we're back to the

1:46:41 ↗ structure and discussion well I mean I

1:46:44 ↗ agree I think what what I'm hearing is

1:46:46 ↗ well I'm not quite ready to get rid of

1:46:50 ↗ the of the four but I do think having

1:46:54 ↗ you know better connection between I

1:46:57 ↗ mean I think probably the some of the

1:46:59 ↗ confusion that landed short and others

1:47:01 ↗ have had is that you know we just go

1:47:03 ↗ through this list and we have the you

1:47:05 ↗ know seven or eight or whatever it is in

1:47:07 ↗ the vision and then we sort of change

1:47:08 ↗ the language a little bit start talking

1:47:11 ↗ about these things so I mean one way

1:47:14 ↗ would be to do what Connie suggested

1:47:15 ↗ which would be to carry those you know

1:47:18 ↗ the key words from the vision statements

1:47:19 ↗ through everything or if we want to put

1:47:23 ↗ it in simpler buckets like this maybe we

1:47:25 ↗ getting back to the visual there the

1:47:28 ↗ aesthetic of it I mean maybe we every

1:47:31 ↗ time one of those words shows up you

1:47:33 ↗ know it's bolded or italicized or

1:47:34 ↗ something and that would do two things

1:47:36 ↗ it would draw people's attention to it

1:47:37 ↗ show them where those statements show up

1:47:39 ↗ in here and also would give us just a

1:47:42 ↗ quick check on if we actually cover

1:47:45 ↗ everything that we said we were going to

1:47:47 ↗ and is there a pretty equal

1:47:48 ↗ representation and maybe we need fewer

1:47:51 ↗ or more buckets I mean I like my I think

1:47:54 ↗ my organizing mind likes the you know

1:47:56 ↗ the colors and the boxes and and

1:47:57 ↗ carrying it through to the different

1:47:59 ↗ neighborhoods I like the way that shows

1:48:01 ↗ up so I don't I don't know if I've given

1:48:05 ↗ a definitive recommendation except to

1:48:08 ↗ say that I like the organization of it I

1:48:10 ↗ would like to see better connectivity

1:48:12 ↗ between the vision statements and what's

1:48:14 ↗ here so so couple pieces one is you know

1:48:19 ↗ so I think I don't disagree that a

1:48:22 ↗ definition or some sort of description

1:48:27 ↗ maybe I like description better the

1:48:29 ↗ definition is a value in that it then

1:48:32 ↗ allows you to extrapolate so I think

1:48:34 ↗ there's some value to that and so we can

1:48:36 ↗ try and see what that looks like

1:48:39 ↗ connecting it to the guiding principles

1:48:42 ↗ I think also makes sense for me and I'm

1:48:44 ↗ not sure how to do

1:48:45 ↗ yeah but I think you know there

1:48:48 ↗ definitely needs to be some threads

1:48:49 ↗ going back and forth because otherwise

1:48:52 ↗ you're right you turn the page and it's

1:48:53 ↗ like hey whose plan is this it's

1:48:55 ↗ completely different than the last one

1:48:57 ↗ right I don't know that I am enamored

1:49:02 ↗ with trying to create a bucket for each

1:49:05 ↗ guiding principle because that seems

1:49:06 ↗ like a lot of kittens to try and keep

1:49:09 ↗ track of the one thing I don't know I

1:49:13 ↗ don't disagree with your comment Viki

1:49:15 ↗ what I don't know is and I need to think

1:49:19 ↗ about that more so I'm just being honest

1:49:21 ↗ so I get the fact that there's like

1:49:24 ↗ mobility pieces you know in other things

1:49:28 ↗ than connected because in my mind like

1:49:31 ↗ for example you know providing options

1:49:34 ↗ for daily needs without the use of a

1:49:36 ↗ private vehicle that is a transportation

1:49:38 ↗ thing but it's very much a

1:49:42 ↗ sustainability thing it's that it's the

1:49:44 ↗ idea that you know you can just walk to

1:49:47 ↗ go get a groceries or whatever the case

1:49:49 ↗ is and so I'm gonna PI need to think

1:49:51 ↗ about that one a little bit more to see

1:49:53 ↗ if they can be more contained because

1:49:55 ↗ obviously I didn't think that initially

1:49:57 ↗ which is why there is spill or spillage

1:49:59 ↗ of the particular guiding principles in

1:50:03 ↗ different buckets on this page so I

1:50:08 ↗ think that for me I mean you could even

1:50:11 ↗ make the argument that being connected

1:50:13 ↗ as part of being liveable you know so I

1:50:15 ↗ think that the value of the buckets is

1:50:17 ↗ that they they allow us to put things in

1:50:20 ↗ sections and organize our thoughts and

1:50:22 ↗ give some predictability to the way the

1:50:25 ↗ document is laid out and so to me my

1:50:28 ↗ issue with having very similar to me

1:50:33 ↗ anyway very similar statements in the

1:50:34 ↗ different buckets as then you

1:50:36 ↗ that value of of saying well if I want

1:50:39 ↗ to know about the transportation in this

1:50:40 ↗ neighborhood I'd go to the connected

1:50:42 ↗ section because it could be in the

1:50:43 ↗ livable or it could be in the

1:50:45 ↗ distinctive if it's distinctive or it

1:50:47 ↗ could be in the sustainable because it

1:50:49 ↗ also it so I think that it the I think

1:50:52 ↗ that there will be some judgment calls

1:50:54 ↗ to decide where we put things but for me

1:50:57 ↗ for the predictability of the document

1:50:59 ↗ it is really important that we don't

1:51:00 ↗ have so much double counting okay I

1:51:08 ↗ really like this page a lot and I think

1:51:13 ↗ in some ways we're pretty deep into the

1:51:15 ↗ weeds because we are working deep in the

1:51:18 ↗ weeds in all of this and from the

1:51:19 ↗ public's perspective that when they come

1:51:21 ↗ to look at this when I look at it from

1:51:24 ↗ somebody that that is that in the public

1:51:27 ↗ and I look at this to me I read these

1:51:30 ↗ things and I think these are all great

1:51:32 ↗ things I'd love to have all these things

1:51:34 ↗ in central Issaquah throughout the whole

1:51:36 ↗ city if they do overlap I maybe it's not

1:51:40 ↗ too bad because it reinforces the

1:51:42 ↗ importance of some of those things and

1:51:44 ↗ why we might have them if I was somebody

1:51:47 ↗ from that side and I looked at all this

1:51:48 ↗ I'd say this is great I like the order

1:51:50 ↗ as Troy said it kind of helps sort of

1:51:52 ↗ lock things out and so forth but the

1:51:55 ↗ bullet points they might be redundant

1:51:57 ↗ with the visions but I think it's a

1:51:59 ↗ great statement I I really like this I'd

1:52:02 ↗ want to keep this in I like that it's

1:52:08 ↗ organized for me and things aren't

1:52:11 ↗ always just in one box so it makes sense

1:52:16 ↗ to have haven't called out in other

1:52:18 ↗ boxes for me but if you like the words

1:52:21 ↗ after you create a description of what

1:52:25 ↗ each one of these words mean in in a

1:52:29 ↗ piece of paper like this it would be

1:52:32 ↗ nice to take those four words and put it

1:52:35 ↗ in the upper echelon statement that

1:52:40 ↗ these are the four things that we're

1:52:42 ↗ going to talk

1:52:43 ↗ and have them in bold and then you can

1:52:46 ↗ put them associate them with each one of

1:52:51 ↗ these boxes I think that would make a

1:52:54 ↗ lot of sense to me I may be saying what

1:53:00 ↗ John just said slightly differently

1:53:03 ↗ maybe your definitions in each of those

1:53:06 ↗ boxes could be your guiding principles

1:53:09 ↗ so that then livable you would allocate

1:53:13 ↗ the guiding principles in the in each of

1:53:17 ↗ those boxes and your guiding principles

1:53:20 ↗ then would be creating the broader

1:53:23 ↗ definition for what you're talking about

1:53:25 ↗ and that would allow you to consolidate

1:53:28 ↗ it into four from too many guiding

1:53:31 ↗ principles so I'm not so have you said

1:53:40 ↗ so okay it sounds wonderful way I have I

1:53:46 ↗ have one more thing about these

1:53:47 ↗ particular buckets I think that I can

1:53:51 ↗ economic statements the economic

1:53:54 ↗ vitality are particularly it's

1:53:58 ↗ particularly hard for me to know for

1:54:00 ↗ example if I wanted to know about the

1:54:02 ↗ economic vitality vision I think it

1:54:05 ↗ would be particularly hard to know where

1:54:06 ↗ which bucket that goes into from this

1:54:14 ↗ yes if you were to take this sheet of

1:54:16 ↗ paper and cut it all into strips so

1:54:18 ↗ every bullet is a separate strip of

1:54:20 ↗ paper mix them all up and give the

1:54:23 ↗ people the four feels they wouldn't

1:54:26 ↗ necessarily all let you told them they

1:54:28 ↗ had to have exactly the same you know

1:54:30 ↗ seven in each one or whatever it is

1:54:33 ↗ I think we'd see a whole different mix

1:54:35 ↗ and you see on here and each person

1:54:37 ↗ would have a little different mix

1:54:38 ↗ they're all great things but I want to

1:54:41 ↗ move bunch them around affinity diagram

1:54:44 ↗ infinity like the fourth grade and I say

1:54:57 ↗ I think some of those if I were to put

1:55:02 ↗ distribute I might most probably have I

1:55:04 ↗ wouldn't be exactly an even number in

1:55:05 ↗ each one some livability would take a

1:55:10 ↗ whole bunch of we can add based on what

1:55:15 ↗ we talked about in the guiding principle

1:55:18 ↗ so I guess we go back to structure we've

1:55:24 ↗ all agreed originally that the trust

1:55:26 ↗ structure was fine so this is the

1:55:28 ↗ structure I think does anybody really

1:55:34 ↗ have it now that they look through

1:55:36 ↗ everything have any problem with it okay

1:55:41 ↗ so we're going to keep this yes I like

1:55:44 ↗ the colors yeah hey count I don't know

1:55:47 ↗ if I picked those colors here a lot of

1:55:48 ↗ colors so with that are we gonna delve

1:55:53 ↗ into what's in here more specifically or

1:55:57 ↗ is that going to be for the next time so

1:56:01 ↗ like I think we landed on the vision

1:56:06 ↗ statement I mean I think if you guys

1:56:08 ↗ want to either reorganize David or

1:56:14 ↗ reword some of these things for clarity

1:56:17 ↗ I'm gonna do some work on them as well

1:56:20 ↗ by providing either a definition or

1:56:22 ↗ description and trying to make some

1:56:24 ↗ connections to the guiding principles

1:56:25 ↗ and so we'll we can

1:56:27 ↗ kind of bring ideas maybe to the next

1:56:29 ↗ meeting so if you guys don't mind doing

1:56:32 ↗ a little homework I'd say let's leave

1:56:34 ↗ y'all to do some and come back next time

1:56:37 ↗ and pick it up then can I make a

1:56:40 ↗ suggestion Keith yeah so for each one of

1:56:43 ↗ the pages for each one of the four if

1:56:47 ↗ you guys can go back and look at the

1:56:51 ↗ actions so terms like work with work

1:56:55 ↗ with is is very soft you know put his

1:56:59 ↗ work with me now call them you know

1:57:01 ↗ every once a week doesn't mean I just

1:57:04 ↗ talked to them once what does that mean

1:57:05 ↗ and so it has to be it has to have some

1:57:08 ↗ kind of outcome to it so if if you guys

1:57:11 ↗ could go through all of those in the

1:57:13 ↗ develop obligations and the city

1:57:15 ↗ implementing actions and make them

1:57:17 ↗ actionable and actionable with actual

1:57:19 ↗ outcomes that would be helpful and in

1:57:23 ↗ measures of success actual metrics so

1:57:25 ↗ what a safety mean does it mean you know

1:57:28 ↗ if somebody's running across the street

1:57:29 ↗ five out of ten times somebody gets hit

1:57:32 ↗ is that good

1:57:33 ↗ you know what does that mean so you know

1:57:35 ↗ if for all five pay off all four pages

1:57:38 ↗ if if you can make it so that we

1:57:40 ↗ actually know what it looks like what

1:57:42 ↗ the outcome looks like and how you're

1:57:44 ↗ gonna measure it that would be helpful

1:57:53 ↗ okay okay so now now we're to the

1:58:00 ↗ squishiest piece alright so I'm gonna go

1:58:06 ↗ back to the first page so okay here's

1:58:12 ↗ the thing so we put this very schematic

1:58:16 ↗ into our draft as just something to

1:58:20 ↗ start a conversation really this

1:58:23 ↗ documents in the plan now and this is

1:58:25 ↗ the one that Lindsay kind of pointed to

1:58:28 ↗ I think it was at Landon Shore this

1:58:31 ↗ document here this as far as we

1:58:34 ↗ understand although our meeting is with

1:58:36 ↗ Parks Department tomorrow which is less

1:58:39 ↗ helpful than if it was today this I

1:58:42 ↗ believe is the graphic that's coming out

1:58:45 ↗ as part of the park plan so the

1:58:49 ↗ conversation that Trish and Kristen and

1:58:51 ↗ I are having with the park Department

1:58:53 ↗ tomorrow is green necklace is is there a

1:58:59 ↗ green necklace in here so that we're all

1:59:03 ↗ consistently looking and calling things

1:59:06 ↗ the same you know what I can tell you

1:59:13 ↗ from the conversations I've heard with

1:59:15 ↗ the park director you know one of the

1:59:18 ↗ biggest pieces of the park plan is what

1:59:20 ↗ they call this green spine that runs

1:59:22 ↗ north-south from basically Valley

1:59:26 ↗ Park at the south end up to Lake

1:59:28 ↗ Sammamish at the north end and trying to

1:59:30 ↗ make sure that there's a green

1:59:32 ↗ connection all the way through the city

1:59:34 ↗ so that's one of their biggest things in

1:59:36 ↗ a north-south direction an east-west

1:59:38 ↗ direction this thing and I swear I had a

1:59:42 ↗ nightmare about a snake and I think this

1:59:44 ↗ is the only thing that's a snake like

1:59:45 ↗ that I've seen in a lot in a long time

1:59:47 ↗ so so this is the mounds to sound trail

1:59:50 ↗ so this is a regional trail that

1:59:54 ↗ connects all the way through Issaquah

1:59:56 ↗ goes through Bellevue and the reason why

1:59:59 ↗ it's kind of fat in the middle it's not

2:00:00 ↗ because it's swallowed a mouse it's

2:00:02 ↗ because they're not exactly sure

2:00:05 ↗ the alignment and the exact location as

2:00:08 ↗ it runs through the middle of the city

2:00:10 ↗ we're clear on the west end and the east

2:00:12 ↗ end but the middle there's still some

2:00:14 ↗ variability so so you know they've got

2:00:16 ↗ these kind of two linear components to

2:00:20 ↗ this plan and there's some nodes and

2:00:23 ↗ actually if you start to look at the

2:00:25 ↗ nodes here and look at some of the nodes

2:00:26 ↗ on our plan they're actually fairly

2:00:29 ↗ similar and you can start to actually

2:00:32 ↗ get some similarities between those and

2:00:36 ↗ you know one of the comments about this

2:00:39 ↗ diagram before was well it doesn't

2:00:41 ↗ represent basically all the other trails

2:00:45 ↗ and connectivity that's happening in a

2:00:48 ↗ non-motorized way through our city and

2:00:51 ↗ so I am here to tell you today I don't

2:00:55 ↗ know what the answer is to this one I

2:00:57 ↗ think you guys all liked having another

2:01:00 ↗ diagram in the visions because the green

2:01:03 ↗ necklace was such an important component

2:01:05 ↗ for the overall success of central

2:01:08 ↗ Issaquah you know we kind of went

2:01:10 ↗ through a little bit of a conversation

2:01:13 ↗ about does it make sense to actually

2:01:15 ↗ have an image so that when we say green

2:01:17 ↗ necklace because right now the problem

2:01:19 ↗ was we were saying green necklace and

2:01:21 ↗ everybody's like I don't even know what

2:01:22 ↗ that looks like in my head right and so

2:01:24 ↗ it was like okay we need that's a

2:01:25 ↗ problem we need to be able to visualize

2:01:27 ↗ it for people in theory and that's what

2:01:30 ↗ we try to do so now I've got these three

2:01:33 ↗ images

2:01:35 ↗ none of them overly look the same I

2:01:38 ↗ think even if you put them all together

2:01:40 ↗ I'm not sure you have something that is

2:01:44 ↗ necessarily understandable so I don't

2:01:47 ↗ know what to do with this and I'm just

2:01:48 ↗ gonna be honest about that piece right

2:01:50 ↗ now and so any any conversation you all

2:01:54 ↗ want to have I am all yours what do we

2:01:57 ↗ think of green necklace I think of

2:01:59 ↗ something that I do not have to compete

2:02:00 ↗ with a vehicle whether I'm a pedestrian

2:02:03 ↗ or cyclist

2:02:05 ↗ I don't want cars and a lot of people

2:02:07 ↗ who

2:02:08 ↗ who live in the city feel like cars

2:02:11 ↗ represent a safety issue and so that

2:02:14 ↗ would keep them from getting on a

2:02:15 ↗ bicycle or keep them from actually

2:02:17 ↗ walking down pathway if they have to

2:02:19 ↗ compete with cars

2:02:21 ↗ and if we're gonna have 7,000 people

2:02:23 ↗ living within a smaller area then

2:02:26 ↗ they're gonna need that leisure outlet

2:02:28 ↗ so getting them feeling like they're in

2:02:31 ↗ a riparian corridor of sorts the green

2:02:36 ↗ that close so when I look at the map

2:02:39 ↗ down below I see a lot of streets that I

2:02:42 ↗ would have to compete with but I don't

2:02:44 ↗ actually see green trails and maybe it's

2:02:49 ↗ because they don't all exist yet and I

2:02:52 ↗ understand but where are those and maybe

2:02:56 ↗ highlighting those and a different color

2:02:58 ↗ than the others and now if you could

2:03:01 ↗ walk me through that I know you talked

2:03:05 ↗ about the green necklace but a necklace

2:03:10 ↗ you know it'd be just a distinction it

2:03:15 ↗ doesn't have to be a circle it doesn't

2:03:17 ↗ have to just has to be connected to all

2:03:21 ↗ the different areas so I mean I would

2:03:26 ↗ like a separate page with everything we

2:03:30 ↗ have and how it could possibly be

2:03:34 ↗ connected it doesn't have to be a circle

2:03:36 ↗ it doesn't have to and it doesn't have

2:03:39 ↗ to be perfect it doesn't have to be

2:03:41 ↗ what's going to end up but it's just a

2:03:43 ↗ general idea of what we hope to get but

2:03:49 ↗ we can have spokes as long as it's

2:03:52 ↗ connected and that's the main goal of

2:03:55 ↗ this is to be connected

2:03:59 ↗ otherwise I don't know how you're going

2:04:01 ↗ to get a a circle I mean I'm sorry think

2:04:08 ↗ of circles figuratively but Alou where

2:04:12 ↗ people could walk around the entire

2:04:13 ↗ thing if they want to we're not that big

2:04:15 ↗ of a city and so that's only four or

2:04:17 ↗ five miles people will do that right it

2:04:19 ↗ would be a great running path to I think

2:04:24 ↗ I think that our plan should definitely

2:04:32 ↗ reflect the parks plan and I think that

2:04:35 ↗ that has a lot of detail that is good so

2:04:38 ↗ I would support including that because

2:04:42 ↗ that's where they want to go and this

2:04:44 ↗ green necklace is about parks so I think

2:04:47 ↗ we should align our vision with their

2:04:50 ↗ vision for the parks I I still think

2:04:53 ↗ that the circle version is too

2:04:58 ↗ cartoonish and I I would I think that

2:05:01 ↗ it's nice to show where we want to have

2:05:03 ↗ connections so I would advocate for that

2:05:05 ↗ but I would like to see it more in the

2:05:06 ↗ style of the parks and so maybe some

2:05:08 ↗ integration of where we want to go in

2:05:11 ↗ addition to what they're the where

2:05:14 ↗ they're actually are these mountains of

2:05:15 ↗ sound trails that are outlined there and

2:05:18 ↗ kind of mesh with that style that would

2:05:21 ↗ be my suggestion but I again also really

2:05:25 ↗ appreciate having a visual in there and

2:05:27 ↗ I think that's super important because

2:05:28 ↗ otherwise it's very difficult to know

2:05:30 ↗ what we're talking about okay that after

2:05:35 ↗ years and years and years talking about

2:05:37 ↗ the grid

2:05:39 ↗ hates ace but how about if we call it

2:05:41 ↗ the green Network and get away from the

2:05:46 ↗ necklace idea and then we don't have to

2:05:47 ↗ do the circle and everything because I

2:05:48 ↗ think that's the whole key the idea for

2:05:51 ↗ a potential resident downtown is the

2:05:53 ↗ idea can I look at a map like a park map

2:05:56 ↗ and see look at all the different places

2:05:58 ↗ I can go by walking or by bike that are

2:06:02 ↗ all connected to parks trails all that

2:06:04 ↗ that's what I think we really want to

2:06:05 ↗ get across to people and it's a network

2:06:07 ↗ that I can go through not just a

2:06:10 ↗ necklace that goes around something so

2:06:12 ↗ and I would suggest perhaps one full

2:06:15 ↗ page of what we have currently that

2:06:18 ↗ everything is just in green and it's

2:06:20 ↗ public spaces parks and in pathways and

2:06:25 ↗ bike routes and then another page that

2:06:29 ↗ is what we think it's going to be in 10

2:06:31 ↗ or 20 years whatever the parks

2:06:32 ↗ department is aspirational to for the

2:06:35 ↗ future vision is the real benefit I

2:06:38 ↗ think is seen a full page of like the

2:06:41 ↗ bottom left there when we start to see

2:06:43 ↗ all the the green land we have in

2:06:46 ↗ Connexions already it starts to look

2:06:48 ↗ really attractive so that would be my

2:06:51 ↗ suggestion I really like that idea it's

2:06:55 ↗ spot on I couldn't have said it better

2:06:57 ↗ though the original task force that came

2:07:00 ↗ up with the idea is now content to make

2:07:03 ↗ a little change and I like the idea I

2:07:13 ↗ like network better than that list

2:07:15 ↗ anyway so that's this is the part I

2:07:20 ↗ guess where I to have the greatest

2:07:21 ↗ heartburn or heartache about I agree it

2:07:26 ↗ I don't think was ever designed to be a

2:07:27 ↗ circle per se it was designed to get

2:07:29 ↗ from one point of the city and natural

2:07:31 ↗ beauty to another so network seems to be

2:07:35 ↗ more encompassing of that the thing

2:07:37 ↗ about green necklace though were talks

2:07:38 ↗ about the necklaces the jewels and the

2:07:40 ↗ natural beauty not just open space

2:07:42 ↗ connections but it's talking about

2:07:43 ↗ retaining that natural beauty and the

2:07:44 ↗ context

2:07:45 ↗ environment that we're in and we're just

2:07:47 ↗ talk about our network I don't think

2:07:48 ↗ we're talking about that natural beauty

2:07:51 ↗ that's part of Issaquah so I want to it

2:07:53 ↗ seems like I'm still stuck maybe on this

2:07:57 ↗ idea of the natural beauty of Issaquah

2:07:58 ↗ retaining that and we're losing

2:08:01 ↗ something in going from an environment

2:08:04 ↗ what we talked about the environment to

2:08:06 ↗ just agreeing that work how do we

2:08:08 ↗ incorporate or ensure that we have that

2:08:10 ↗ natural beauty that is akua's known for

2:08:12 ↗ not just certainly in our city but we

2:08:15 ↗ change some of that natural beauty

2:08:17 ↗ inside CIP that needs to be retained how

2:08:22 ↗ do you I don't know I don't know how we

2:08:25 ↗ get it and I think we fact what the

2:08:27 ↗ verbage in the words needing to retain

2:08:29 ↗ that not just as a green network or a

2:08:32 ↗ green necklace but what that what those

2:08:35 ↗ jewels look like that we talk about we

2:08:37 ↗ need to retain it not just walk squawk

2:08:41 ↗ Mountain to the different I don't know

2:08:47 ↗ how you get in a picture a circle like

2:08:52 ↗ that unless you go and you take this

2:08:58 ↗ Park if you go down this road this road

2:09:00 ↗ over here and you're fine so that you

2:09:03 ↗ can actually get around and make it a

2:09:05 ↗ circle so I don't know how you do that I

2:09:07 ↗ don't think it was ever meant to be a

2:09:09 ↗ circle i sir if I wasn't clone that it

2:09:12 ↗ was meant though to retain the natural

2:09:14 ↗ beauty that we have were known for in

2:09:17 ↗ Issaquah I think that's what I

2:09:19 ↗ envisioned is that this was the

2:09:21 ↗ mechanism by which we would retain that

2:09:24 ↗ natural beauty and I think talking about

2:09:26 ↗ just as a network doesn't say that we

2:09:29 ↗ want to retain any of that natural

2:09:30 ↗ beauty in the valley floor a 1 encompass

2:09:34 ↗ ensure that we retain that natural

2:09:35 ↗ beauty as well as having a network that

2:09:38 ↗ allows us to get to different Nash's

2:09:51 ↗ okay me I don't know when the last time

2:09:58 ↗ you'll read the central Issaquah plan

2:10:00 ↗ was but we are supposed to have verdant

2:10:05 ↗ landscaping along all of our Street

2:10:08 ↗ scapes that are going to be now our our

2:10:11 ↗ green areas that are occupied by

2:10:15 ↗ concrete and more density and that was a

2:10:18 ↗ requirement of the environmental impact

2:10:21 ↗ statement to create the central Issaquah

2:10:24 ↗ plan

2:10:24 ↗ so the street scapes are supposed to be

2:10:28 ↗ equally green and accommodating for a

2:10:32 ↗ for for walking in Bellevue the parks

2:10:37 ↗ department is responsible for their

2:10:40 ↗ streetscape landscaping to ensure that

2:10:43 ↗ their new urbanity is connected with the

2:10:48 ↗ green the map is not the only piece that

2:10:51 ↗ is just a visual the language then that

2:10:55 ↗ defines what a green network is which I

2:10:58 ↗ like would say that this is the the

2:11:02 ↗ labyrinth or the tissue that gets you

2:11:05 ↗ from park to place to amazing spot in

2:11:08 ↗ Issaquah so you can incorporate that

2:11:10 ↗ within the language and you can also use

2:11:12 ↗ your walking Network and then overlay or

2:11:15 ↗ underlay your parks and trails so that

2:11:19 ↗ in the end you can see how the whole

2:11:20 ↗ system works but then you could peel it

2:11:23 ↗ apart and also see the individual

2:11:25 ↗ components of the parks the street

2:11:28 ↗ network and the trails and all together

2:11:31 ↗ they create the green network and I

2:11:33 ↗ think you can do that with the series of

2:11:36 ↗ three different maps maybe four and

2:11:39 ↗ language and I think that that would be

2:11:41 ↗ much clearer to get us to the and result

2:11:45 ↗ one last thing mountains to sound

2:11:47 ↗ Greenway does not have to have only one

2:11:50 ↗ trail through Issaquah it could be on

2:11:53 ↗ either side of the freeway which makes a

2:11:55 ↗ lot of sense

2:12:00 ↗ yeah I guess this this map that Park

2:12:05 ↗ Department has is pretty interesting it

2:12:06 ↗ shows it's it's stress is kind of

2:12:10 ↗ connecting from the existing city to all

2:12:12 ↗ the things around it there's not as many

2:12:14 ↗ internal connections which is so that

2:12:17 ↗ part of it is not emphasized here and

2:12:19 ↗ there's islands such as your hillside

2:12:21 ↗ Park that has nothing it's there and not

2:12:24 ↗ connected to anything which drives funny

2:12:27 ↗ nuts but there's you know there's the

2:12:32 ↗ point about the mountain South Greenway

2:12:35 ↗ Trail certainly we would like to see it

2:12:37 ↗ connect to the state park but it also

2:12:40 ↗ should come through the central Issaquah

2:12:42 ↗ plan and it can merge then over on the

2:12:44 ↗ north side of i-90 at the Issaquah

2:12:47 ↗ Preston trail but yeah there's going to

2:12:50 ↗ be more than there's gonna be more than

2:12:52 ↗ one route that on that that'll be

2:12:54 ↗ obvious to the people wanting to go to

2:12:57 ↗ different places and connect to the

2:12:58 ↗ state park or connect to or the mountain

2:13:01 ↗ type ends I think network is perfect I

2:13:06 ↗ think that's what we're after we're

2:13:07 ↗ looking at to be as green as possible

2:13:09 ↗ and much more connected in the central

2:13:13 ↗ area then it shows there which gets more

2:13:16 ↗ down to some of these kinds of trails at

2:13:18 ↗ the bottom left I think we're I think

2:13:22 ↗ we're getting getting this a lot better

2:13:24 ↗ an understanding by calling Network we

2:13:27 ↗ understand better what we're trying to

2:13:28 ↗ do with this

2:13:33 ↗ [Laughter]

2:13:36 ↗ anything else I think that is that's as

2:13:41 ↗ far as we wanted to get tonight so does

2:13:44 ↗ that give you enough to start creating

2:13:48 ↗ some oh yeah Maps

2:13:51 ↗ oh yeah so what I'm gonna try and do is

2:13:54 ↗ and so for Althea's come in earlier I

2:13:59 ↗ will dive into the first sub two sub

2:14:02 ↗ districts just you know that was the

2:14:06 ↗ plan so I will go back into this first

2:14:09 ↗ section which we called the story we

2:14:12 ↗ will update words put some photos in I

2:14:17 ↗ agree with that Vicki I think that would

2:14:18 ↗ be that was an earlier comment that we

2:14:20 ↗ just hadn't had a chance to get to yet

2:14:22 ↗ and also start to work on some of the

2:14:28 ↗ restructuring and edits that we talked

2:14:30 ↗ about tonight

2:14:31 ↗ so that'll show up as red line I'll then

2:14:34 ↗ we'll also go into the first two

2:14:36 ↗ neighborhoods and start to work on the

2:14:40 ↗ word smithing a little bit in advance of

2:14:42 ↗ our next meetings so that if we get

2:14:44 ↗ through this we review the rearview

2:14:47 ↗ mirror and actually have some time to

2:14:49 ↗ get into the neighborhoods we'll have

2:14:50 ↗ we'll have something to actually talk

2:14:52 ↗ about that'll be a little bit more

2:14:53 ↗ productive just based on the length of

2:14:57 ↗ time it took us to get through this we

2:14:59 ↗ may need more than two more meetings so

2:15:01 ↗ just putting that on your plate and to

2:15:07 ↗ recap there are three items of homework

2:15:09 ↗ that I'll be sending out tomorrow to all

2:15:12 ↗ of you the first is to redline the

2:15:15 ↗ vision to wordsmith it and give us

2:15:17 ↗ suggestions the second one is the intro

2:15:20 ↗ that includes the mountains to sound and

2:15:22 ↗ the cascade agenda just to send that out

2:15:25 ↗ to everybody and if there's something

2:15:27 ↗ you have issues with or that you'd like

2:15:29 ↗ to recapture or reorganize or whatever

2:15:32 ↗ but just so that you remind yourselves

2:15:34 ↗ what the whole central plan is all about

2:15:35 ↗ and the third one is to send you the

2:15:38 ↗ boxes to see if you would reorganize the

2:15:41 ↗ items in the boxes or if there's

2:15:42 ↗ anything that you would want

2:15:43 ↗ do with the boxes and there any don't

2:15:46 ↗ email everybody

2:15:47 ↗ no no just either do them yourselves and

2:15:50 ↗ bring them yeah or if you really can't

2:15:53 ↗ wait you can send them to us early but

2:15:55 ↗ just send them to staff don't send him

2:15:57 ↗ I'm saying and when she says staff just

2:15:59 ↗ sent him to Trish you're gonna send out

2:16:05 ↗ something through email yes I'm sending

2:16:08 ↗ out three homework assignments that I

2:16:10 ↗ just mentioned okay in our goal I'll do

2:16:12 ↗ that tomorrow and and our goal will be

2:16:15 ↗ to get you guys something at least a

2:16:18 ↗ week in advance of the next visions

2:16:21 ↗ meeting whenever that may be 25th the

2:16:23 ↗ 25th your other special meeting because

2:16:26 ↗ they're all special I know but the

2:16:27 ↗ special meeting my email due today it's

2:16:30 ↗ the 24th which is a Wednesday and that's

2:16:33 ↗ on the wireless communications public

2:16:37 ↗ hearing

2:16:38 ↗ that's one Dominic just sent oh yeah

2:16:41 ↗ but I sent it as soon as we got a quorum

2:16:43 ↗ I sent you all that that was tough

2:16:45 ↗ because I know I'd been asking you about

2:16:46 ↗ many of the times we finally got a

2:16:49 ↗ quorum so thank you all for all the

2:16:50 ↗ pesky emails I've been sending sounds

2:16:54 ↗ like I might need to find some more

2:16:55 ↗ meeting times but we have tons of time

2:16:58 ↗ I'm sorry to potentially slightly delay

2:17:03 ↗ but did we so number nine it was there

2:17:07 ↗ was one more point from Landon short and

2:17:08 ↗ I just want to make sure that we may be

2:17:11 ↗ briefly address it or just consider that

2:17:14 ↗ it's been addressed because I think

2:17:16 ↗ otherwise we won't ever get to it in the

2:17:18 ↗ in the individual parts so so I think

2:17:24 ↗ this one this one for me is somewhat

2:17:30 ↗ hinge to the conversation that we need

2:17:33 ↗ to have on whether or not the visions

2:17:37 ↗ are kind of regulatory or whether

2:17:40 ↗ they're really just aspirational they're

2:17:43 ↗ separate code okay so we discussed that

2:17:45 ↗ it

2:17:46 ↗ meeting up yeah well depending on what

2:17:50 ↗ the timing looks like you know this

2:17:53 ↗ conversation about the intro might be

2:17:55 ↗ another hole meeting which then we can

2:17:58 ↗ talk about that piece as part of that so

2:18:00 ↗ let's look and see what this looks like

2:18:02 ↗ next but we need to dial that up so I

2:18:05 ↗ didn't forget about it but it depends I

2:18:07 ↗ think is the answer okay thank you I

2:18:09 ↗ just wanted to make sure that we weren't

2:18:10 ↗ closing out this and then because that I

2:18:13 ↗ think is important yeah anything else

2:18:18 ↗ for the good of the order I will see

2:18:22 ↗ some of you back here tomorrow night to

2:18:26 ↗ talk about and the docket and the comp

2:18:32 ↗ plan guys no vision still necks really

2:18:35 ↗ okay and the task force in the public

2:18:41 ↗ are welcome tomorrow in case you're

2:18:43 ↗ interested in those topics or anybody

2:18:46 ↗ else a wide variety of area that we have

2:18:51 ↗ here in this info but I do want to thank

2:18:53 ↗ you all for I think that we made some

2:18:55 ↗ good progress I think it's going to be a

2:18:58 ↗ lot better and I think the council will

2:19:00 ↗ be a lot happier from from what we did

2:19:03 ↗ so thank you all and with that I'll

2:19:05 ↗ close the meeting at 9:02 thank you

2:19:18 ↗ you

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF