Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 11, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 6, 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. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Amendments Regarding Safe Injection Sites (Community Health Engagement Locations), (R)

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager

Public Hearing: 2018 Docket of Comprehensive Plan Amendments, (R)

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.5–21

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 5, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 6, 2017

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

A. Safe Injection Sites: 1. Two actions have occurred in King County that are causing this

2092 segments .txt ↗

0:16 ↗ good evening and welcome to the January

0:20 ↗ 11th meeting of the planning policy

0:22 ↗ commission tonight we're going to do

0:24 ↗ something a little different and not

0:27 ↗ working on vision this evening we're

0:29 ↗ just talking about safe sight injects

0:33 ↗ safe injection sites for the city so I

0:36 ↗ think what I'm going to do is since we

0:38 ↗ don't have a anything to approve we're

0:43 ↗ going to go right to Trish and see get

0:45 ↗ her explanation of what's going on in

0:47 ↗ the city okay

0:49 ↗ why are we doing this we get this

0:52 ↗ question a lot King County has done two

0:54 ↗ things

0:55 ↗ they have a they did a plan to try to

0:59 ↗ combat the opioid crisis and one of the

1:03 ↗ ideas in the plan was they should have

1:05 ↗ to pilot safe injection sites one

1:08 ↗ located in Seattle and one located

1:10 ↗ somewhere else in King County and

1:12 ↗ they're looking for that place to put

1:14 ↗ the second pilot and so that's one of

1:20 ↗ them and the other one is the the

1:21 ↗ opposition to safe injection sites has

1:24 ↗ got an initiative on the ballot for

1:26 ↗ February to prohibit them everywhere in

1:30 ↗ King County so we have these two things

1:32 ↗ going on and so our City Council decided

1:34 ↗ they wanted to talk about this right

1:36 ↗ away and and oppose having them here

1:40 ↗ because it we don't have that that Human

1:43 ↗ Services Network for those with drug

1:45 ↗ abuse issues so September they talked

1:49 ↗ about it they talked about it again in

1:50 ↗ October of last year and set a six-month

1:53 ↗ moratorium then in November they had a

1:56 ↗ public hearing and they actually sent an

1:58 ↗ ordinance which I gave you the clip that

2:00 ↗ said they felt that we should prohibit

2:04 ↗ safe injection sites in all zoning

2:07 ↗ districts Human Services Commission went

2:10 ↗ a little further they actually had a

2:12 ↗ special meeting with an expert and they

2:15 ↗ talked about the opioid crisis and after

2:17 ↗ they did their research and more

2:19 ↗ education they wrote a letter that's in

2:21 ↗ your packet to the mayor and city

2:22 ↗ council also opposing safe injection

2:25 ↗ sites in the city

2:26 ↗ so that's sort of the process in a

2:29 ↗ nutshell so tonight what we're doing is

2:31 ↗ there's proposed code language for

2:34 ↗ central Issaquah and the rest of the

2:36 ↗ city that defines safe injection sites

2:39 ↗ community the longer name and and says

2:44 ↗ that they're not allowed in any of the

2:46 ↗ zoning districts so it's in both central

2:47 ↗ is Squa and the entire city

2:49 ↗ you might wonder what is a safe

2:52 ↗ injection site here's a picture of one

2:54 ↗ in Vancouver BC where you can come in

2:58 ↗ you have to bring in your own drugs you

3:03 ↗ can't get them there and you pick up

3:05 ↗ your little you're a little safe you're

3:09 ↗ clean needles and you're sterile things

3:11 ↗ and you pick up your little kit and you

3:13 ↗ go over into your little room and you do

3:15 ↗ your thing and there's a little there's

3:17 ↗ a nurse here that's making sure that the

3:20 ↗ you know an overdose and if you need any

3:22 ↗ help or if you want some counselling or

3:24 ↗ if you're thinking that maybe you would

3:26 ↗ like to quit or any or all of the above

3:28 ↗ there's folks there to help you through

3:30 ↗ that and they've tried them in Canada I

3:36 ↗ don't know a lot there's a lot of data

3:38 ↗ out there but I didn't delve into a lot

3:40 ↗ of it knowing that it seemed pretty

3:42 ↗ clear where the direction that Issaquah

3:44 ↗ might be going so I didn't do a lot of

3:46 ↗ research but that's that seemed to be

3:51 ↗ enough for tonight unless you guys had a

3:53 ↗ lot of questions I didn't get any

3:54 ↗ questions in email so I figured this was

3:57 ↗ enough what are our neighbors doing as

4:01 ↗ of yesterday I talked to our folks at

4:05 ↗ MMR SC municipal research and services

4:09 ↗ that we use and the list the long list

4:13 ↗ are those cities and jurisdictions that

4:15 ↗ have already prohibited safe injection

4:17 ↗ sites they got in there right early and

4:20 ↗ they said no we don't want to be the

4:21 ↗ pilot and in the process like we are are

4:25 ↗ just the three and at this time as I

4:27 ↗ said no one's volunteered to be that

4:29 ↗ second pilot site for King County any

4:32 ↗ questions

4:35 ↗ so I talked around a little bit about

4:38 ↗ this definition this comes out of I

4:41 ↗ believe King County but also the one

4:44 ↗ this is the longest one we could find

4:45 ↗ this was out of Bellevue and the King

4:47 ↗ County one that seems to have every name

4:50 ↗ that they're called everything that

4:53 ↗ could happen in one it seemed to be the

4:55 ↗ biggest net and we wanted the biggest

4:59 ↗ net legally to be sure that we were

5:00 ↗ protected against anything that even

5:02 ↗ seemed to be like a safe injection site

5:06 ↗ so that's the definition and then as I

5:10 ↗ said we prohibited them in all zoning

5:12 ↗ districts centrally so kua and the rest

5:13 ↗ of the city there any questions on that

5:16 ↗ part the public hearing is tonight for

5:22 ↗ you to review and ask questions and

5:24 ↗ ponder and listen to the public if they

5:26 ↗ have comments and then land in Shorewood

5:29 ↗ review at the council-manager would

5:31 ↗ review it in February and then our hope

5:34 ↗ is that there'd be council action in

5:35 ↗ March before the moratorium before the

5:38 ↗ moratorium on safe injection sites not

5:40 ↗ the other moratorium this one is over in

5:44 ↗ March the end of March are there

5:48 ↗ questions on the process just to be

5:50 ↗ clear the council just recommended it

5:53 ↗ they did not vote on it right it's an

5:57 ↗ odd it's a great question it's in the

6:00 ↗ ordinance the ordinance is direct staff

6:04 ↗ to write it this certain way and that's

6:06 ↗ why I put that in italics in your staff

6:08 ↗ report because I've never seen that done

6:12 ↗ before not that I've seen everything but

6:14 ↗ to me it was very interesting to have

6:16 ↗ specific language directed in an

6:19 ↗ ordinance that's actually setting a

6:21 ↗ moratorium but I'm sure it's fine

6:24 ↗ because it went through the city

6:25 ↗ attorney but so that's why I pulled that

6:28 ↗ out so you all could see that that's why

6:30 ↗ this code came out with the language

6:32 ↗ that it came out with no I was just

6:34 ↗ getting to the to the point that tonight

6:37 ↗ we're just going to discuss it get more

6:39 ↗ input from the community and

6:42 ↗ gusts among ourselves and make a

6:44 ↗ recommendation to go for or against to

6:48 ↗ the City Council go to the council and

6:50 ↗ they can use that just for more actually

6:55 ↗ the opportunity for the community out

6:56 ↗ which is what this length right okay so

7:00 ↗ are there any anything that you want to

7:03 ↗ talk about before I open the on the

7:05 ↗ comment and there was one comment from

7:07 ↗ Althea she's not feeling well tonight

7:09 ↗ she asked that instead of leaving it

7:14 ↗ open the way we've done the code is we

7:17 ↗ leave the blanks open in the permitted

7:21 ↗ land use tables meaning that they're not

7:23 ↗ permitted if they don't have a letter of

7:24 ↗ review in them they're not permitted

7:26 ↗ she believes we should actually write in

7:29 ↗ in that line that they're not permitted

7:31 ↗ so I would I would give you that as a

7:33 ↗ suggestion from a fellow commissioner I

7:36 ↗ was there a difference she mentioned not

7:39 ↗ permitted or was the two words she use I

7:44 ↗ actually wrote it down she use not

7:46 ↗ permitted instead of it no hibbett 'add

7:48 ↗ is there a difference is there any no

7:51 ↗ it's the table of permitted land uses I

7:55 ↗ get you the same thing I think at least

7:58 ↗ what I took her comment Amin is leaving

8:00 ↗ it empty

8:01 ↗ maybe seem confusing to folks and so she

8:05 ↗ wanted us to actually write in that in

8:07 ↗ that column here instead of leaving it

8:09 ↗ open which to the planners means it's

8:12 ↗ not permitted because there's no process

8:13 ↗ in any of the boxes that you could be

8:15 ↗ like these right here are only permitted

8:18 ↗ in in these zones up here whereas if you

8:22 ↗ don't have any peas then you're not

8:24 ↗ permitted in any zone I can see where it

8:28 ↗ would right because this table is a lot

8:30 ↗ longer I just cut and paste it and I'm

8:31 ↗ happy to if you feel strongly that that

8:33 ↗ would be more clear to prohibit it I'm

8:36 ↗ happy to do that to have that if we have

8:38 ↗ an industry best practice already

8:40 ↗ establish where it's blank meaning it's

8:44 ↗ not prohibited I mean it's not permitted

8:46 ↗ therefore any way by default it's

8:48 ↗ prohibited right and

8:52 ↗ that in itself is satisfactory this is a

8:57 ↗ document used by planners and developers

8:58 ↗ they're used to the system keep it Isis

9:01 ↗ right because right here you can I put

9:03 ↗ the legend where it says no number not

9:05 ↗ permitted so the other table just didn't

9:08 ↗ have that it's just making changes I

9:10 ↗ want you got to change them all Wow

9:12 ↗ and it's adding more stuff to the table

9:14 ↗ that doesn't necessarily need to be

9:15 ↗ there right good point okay do you want

9:21 ↗ to open it up is there anybody on them

9:26 ↗ maybe I missed something but you tell me

9:29 ↗ why it's broken down into two amendments

9:33 ↗ because we have the central Issaquah

9:35 ↗ standards which is one land use code for

9:39 ↗ the central Issaquah but if we say

9:42 ↗ prohibited everywhere in the city of

9:45 ↗ Issaquah that includes the central zone

9:47 ↗ or central district right when you say

9:50 ↗ it that way it does but we have two

9:52 ↗ different locations that we have to put

9:53 ↗ it same with marijuana remember when we

9:56 ↗ did marijuana we had to put it in both I

9:58 ↗ don't remember

10:00 ↗ oh I think of them as the same it's the

10:03 ↗ same zip code right I mean we only you

10:07 ↗ only have two zip codes in the city I

10:09 ↗ I'm not the one to ask about zip codes

10:12 ↗ I'm not that's not my wheelhouse really

10:14 ↗ I know we have to land use codes exactly

10:17 ↗ at least split it sounds like it's

10:20 ↗ played in here as well but yeah I don't

10:22 ↗ I don't think it makes any difference

10:24 ↗ you know the city called and just saying

10:30 ↗ prohibited in the city of history laws

10:32 ↗ should be all you need to say because if

10:34 ↗ you put it in the IMC which is the rest

10:37 ↗ of the city as you see up here the zones

10:39 ↗ up here don't have urban core they don't

10:42 ↗ have any of the zones in central ok if

10:48 ↗ the city planners feel comfortable with

10:50 ↗ putting it in two places then we are

10:53 ↗ fine with Romeo a new place but maybe in

10:55 ↗ a future time we can talk about

10:57 ↗ simplifying our code system okay

11:02 ↗ physical with that I'm going to open the

11:06 ↗ public comment at 6:40 or and if is

11:12 ↗ there anybody that signed up or anybody

11:15 ↗ would like to address the issue of

11:19 ↗ injection sites if he would like to come

11:30 ↗ and we would be it's really cool because

11:33 ↗ we've come on up and introduce yourself

11:35 ↗ so this is a time for citizens to come i

11:42 ↗ watch the tennis so this is my my gig

11:44 ↗ tonight James Dennis I live up in Telus

11:48 ↗ one thing I did notice and my question

11:50 ↗ is just based on what I saw I saw a

11:51 ↗ nurse at that station and is there is

11:55 ↗ there an assumption that she would

11:56 ↗ provide medical aid so if somebody does

11:58 ↗ OD how liable would the city be - you

12:02 ↗ know well I mean how open would they be

12:04 ↗ to you know some type of litigation if

12:06 ↗ somebody od'd on a site that you guys

12:07 ↗ approve that's a great question that I

12:11 ↗ don't know the answer to but I know

12:13 ↗ that's why then one of the reasons the

12:14 ↗ nurse is there yeah well actually having

12:16 ↗ the nurse there it seems like a

12:17 ↗ liability to me because then you're

12:19 ↗ implying that medical aid is available

12:20 ↗ if something should happen it might only

12:22 ↗ be better if she wasn't there at all

12:24 ↗ saying you're you're on your own like

12:26 ↗ you know we're not responsible for

12:27 ↗ anything that happens here that's just

12:29 ↗ my thought right yeah that's a great

12:31 ↗ that's a very comment there anybody else

12:35 ↗ that would like to make a comment is

12:39 ↗ there anybody else that would like to

12:41 ↗ make a comment okay with that I will

12:46 ↗ close the public hearing

12:51 ↗ at 9:45 6:45 9:45 I'm used to lying I

12:58 ↗ know okay so so I have a couple thoughts

13:08 ↗ I guess first I didn't I'm glad to put a

13:14 ↗ list of the other communities up there I

13:16 ↗ was one question I had was what other

13:18 ↗ what are our neighbors doing and it's I

13:22 ↗ guess from my view a little shocking and

13:25 ↗ sad that everyone's just sort of carte

13:27 ↗ blanche saying no we're never going to

13:29 ↗ do this not in our backyard and I

13:32 ↗ actually sort of interpreted a letter

13:34 ↗ from the Human Services Commission a

13:36 ↗ little differently I mean they I thought

13:38 ↗ they went the way I read what they wrote

13:41 ↗ was that they I appreciated the fact

13:44 ↗ that they had somebody come and speak

13:45 ↗ and they got a little more educated on

13:46 ↗ it and and it seemed to me that they

13:49 ↗ were saying we would we wish we had more

13:53 ↗ time to learn more and maybe didn't want

13:55 ↗ to close the door completely on it but

13:56 ↗ understood the position of counsel with

13:58 ↗ all the stuff happening like you

14:00 ↗ mentioned so my my only thought is that

14:02 ↗ I I guess I find it a little

14:06 ↗ short-sighted I understand that we want

14:08 ↗ to do what our neighbors are doing and I

14:10 ↗ understand the risks and and and the

14:13 ↗ issue but I find it a little

14:15 ↗ short-sighted everybody talks about

14:16 ↗ wanting to solve the opioid crisis but I

14:19 ↗ mean then everybody takes a step back

14:22 ↗ and wants to know who's gonna do it you

14:23 ↗ know so from my perspective I mean I'm

14:25 ↗ gonna I'm planning on voting no tonight

14:27 ↗ not because I don't think there are

14:31 ↗ risks that the city would be taking on

14:32 ↗ and I think it's I'm not I'm a little I

14:35 ↗ was in my research a little underwhelmed

14:36 ↗ by the success you know that in terms of

14:39 ↗ people getting into treatment and things

14:40 ↗ like that I know that's not the point of

14:42 ↗ these places but but I think that just

14:45 ↗ closing the door right off the bat and

14:47 ↗ not at least saying hey we would love to

14:49 ↗ think creatively about this and I think

14:53 ↗ that that that would be good for is what

14:56 ↗ to do to sort of lead in that in that

14:57 ↗ capacity and the other thing I would say

15:00 ↗ and then I'll stop talking about

15:02 ↗ is that the by not including a

15:08 ↗ prohibition in the code that's not

15:10 ↗ necessarily saying yes we want to be the

15:13 ↗ pilot program correct it may seem like

15:15 ↗ that becomes the default because

15:17 ↗ everybody else is saying we're not going

15:18 ↗ to be the pilot program but I would

15:21 ↗ assume that we would still and maybe

15:24 ↗ this is a question but we would still

15:26 ↗ reserve some ability to I mean it would

15:28 ↗ go through a normal review process I

15:30 ↗ would think of some level so we still

15:32 ↗ have the ability to modify that proposal

15:35 ↗ or say no to that proposal if it came

15:36 ↗ into town if it wasn't exactly what we

15:38 ↗ wanted it to be so anyway that's all I

15:41 ↗ would say I frankly don't understand the

15:48 ↗ argument it's something that's illegal

15:51 ↗ shouldn't be permitted anywhere that's

15:54 ↗ my feeling it doesn't mean it doesn't

15:57 ↗ happen pardon me it doesn't mean it

15:59 ↗ doesn't happen because it happens

16:02 ↗ doesn't mean you make it legal and

16:04 ↗ permitted enough it and the argument

16:08 ↗ that we put it in or not put it in and

16:11 ↗ then later on we could address it again

16:14 ↗ you're just kicking the can down the

16:16 ↗ road we just tell people it's not

16:18 ↗ permitted in a so well done deal

16:24 ↗ well I also read the letter from the

16:29 ↗ Human Services Commission a little bit

16:31 ↗ differently than I thought was

16:34 ↗ characterized I think it does say in the

16:36 ↗ middle of the letter

16:37 ↗ it's akua's likely not an appropriate

16:40 ↗ location for safe injection site but it

16:42 ↗ also has a lot of other important points

16:46 ↗ it's it talks about the opioid crisis

16:51 ↗ and that we could have more space for

16:54 ↗ education around this issue I think that

16:58 ↗ the Human Services Commission by having

17:01 ↗ an expert come and speak to them I think

17:03 ↗ I thought is a very valuable thing to do

17:05 ↗ and I think it's good that we have the

17:07 ↗ opportunity to also speak with the

17:09 ↗ public about it

17:10 ↗ but I would have liked I think more

17:13 ↗ information I understand the argument

17:17 ↗ that it is illegal but I also understand

17:20 ↗ that a lot of people overdose and this

17:23 ↗ does seem under certain situations to

17:27 ↗ save lives or to prevent overdoses so I

17:31 ↗ think that there could be more room for

17:32 ↗ education about it and that was actually

17:35 ↗ what I took from the Human Services

17:37 ↗ letter although I also respects their

17:40 ↗ their finding that they do not think it

17:42 ↗ is appropriate I think that their main

17:44 ↗ message was that there is I need for

17:48 ↗ more education around the issue so

17:54 ↗ looking back at the ordinance it very

17:56 ↗ specifically says at the beginning of

17:59 ↗ the second page whereas King County

18:02 ↗ Council voted to limit establishment to

18:05 ↗ shells the safe injection sites only to

18:07 ↗ those cities which choose to establish

18:09 ↗ such a location by a vote of its elected

18:12 ↗ governing body that suggests that if we

18:15 ↗ take no action it still isn't saying

18:19 ↗ okay your rubber stamping it can come

18:22 ↗ here so I would in response to what the

18:28 ↗ health health and Services Committee

18:31 ↗ said I'd be open to having other

18:34 ↗ discussions about that actually getting

18:37 ↗ the information on the number or

18:40 ↗ estimated opioid users in Issaquah

18:42 ↗ versus other surrounding areas and get a

18:47 ↗ sense of is this the appropriate place I

18:49 ↗ don't think it is but I don't think we

18:52 ↗ necessarily have to say no to this in

18:58 ↗ order to eliminate it as a possibility

19:09 ↗ if we approve it then we are going to

19:12 ↗ open our doors to a lot of activity I

19:15 ↗ believe because now people are gonna

19:16 ↗ feel safe I mean to Issaquah you take

19:21 ↗ care of their heroin they're up there

19:23 ↗ opioid addiction you look at Everett and

19:28 ↗ Kitsap County they're in crisis they're

19:31 ↗ actually getting emergency funds to be

19:33 ↗ able to take care of the opiate crisis

19:35 ↗ if we open our doors they will come we

19:38 ↗ do not have the capacity to be able to

19:40 ↗ handle it it would take the city down a

19:43 ↗ very dark and dangerous road though no

19:50 ↗ absolutely no way could this happen we

19:52 ↗ don't have the infrastructure to support

19:54 ↗ it it would be it would create lots of

19:58 ↗ problems theft and on that I don't think

20:02 ↗ I'm arguing that it's and I'm responding

20:04 ↗ because you're looking at me but

20:06 ↗ necessarily because I'm trying to look

20:07 ↗ to everybody fine you can stay right I

20:12 ↗ don't think I'm arguing that safe

20:15 ↗ injection sites are a good option for

20:18 ↗ Issaquah just what the ordinance says

20:20 ↗ and what we are being asked to do to say

20:24 ↗ no prohibited I don't think it's

20:27 ↗ necessary and I think it does send a

20:29 ↗ signal that not in my backyard that list

20:34 ↗ is gonna go up on all of the other

20:36 ↗ cities that are looking at this I just

20:38 ↗ don't think it's necessary

20:41 ↗ actually very necessary I also I'm also

20:45 ↗ very empathetic to people who are

20:48 ↗ addicted to opiate I have a very close

20:52 ↗ family member who is addicted to opioid

20:54 ↗ she was a very outstanding person very

20:56 ↗ smart master's degree she had a back

20:59 ↗ injury

21:00 ↗ she was subscribed an opiate based drug

21:04 ↗ the doctors pulled it away from her she

21:07 ↗ cannot get off it so she's actually now

21:10 ↗ shooting up heroin I she has a safe

21:15 ↗ place it's her home she has the

21:17 ↗ resources to be able to take care of

21:18 ↗ that

21:19 ↗ but what we're talking about is a lot

21:21 ↗ opening the doors to people who don't

21:23 ↗ have those resources you're bringing

21:27 ↗ them into our city with a big welcome

21:29 ↗ sign not good I agree with part of your

21:35 ↗ argument which is and which is based on

21:37 ↗ the Human Services findings which is

21:39 ↗ that we do not have I think I agree with

21:42 ↗ part of your argument which is that we

21:44 ↗ do not have the other resources and that

21:47 ↗ potentially other cities would better

21:48 ↗ have the resources and the network of

21:51 ↗ Public Health and also I think a mental

21:56 ↗ health components for actually being a

21:59 ↗ successful network around the site

22:03 ↗ because in my reading about the

22:06 ↗ components that are important for safe

22:10 ↗ injection sites is very important that

22:12 ↗ there is our that there are other

22:13 ↗ facilities available to people when they

22:16 ↗ go to these sites that it's not just a

22:18 ↗ nurse and a place where you walk in but

22:20 ↗ you also have other services for helping

22:23 ↗ people stop using and so I agree with

22:26 ↗ that part of the argument I found in my

22:31 ↗ reading that there is not a lot of

22:34 ↗ evidence that it does but it can under

22:36 ↗ certain circumstances pull people in but

22:38 ↗ it does not I have a quote from a study

22:42 ↗ about a lot of European cities that have

22:45 ↗ safe injection sites and they said

22:47 ↗ there's no evidence that consumption

22:49 ↗ rooms encouraged increased drug use or

22:51 ↗ initiate new users so it may not it may

22:53 ↗ be that it's inappropriate for our city

22:55 ↗ but I think that there's a lot of a lot

22:59 ↗ of Education that could be around the

23:01 ↗ potential for what it could do under the

23:04 ↗ right circumstances now I look at

23:09 ↗ Seattle and I see all the homeless tents

23:12 ↗ and I see all of the garbage that

23:17 ↗ surrounds them

23:19 ↗ and the inability of the city to take

23:24 ↗ care of that now I look at this as

23:27 ↗ something that would be similar that

23:34 ↗ people would not be not only would the

23:37 ↗ people not really be taken care of but

23:39 ↗ the city wouldn't be taken care of and

23:41 ↗ we don't have the resources to provide

23:45 ↗ help and we don't have a place that's

23:49 ↗ big enough away from enough places in

23:52 ↗ order to support anything that would be

23:54 ↗ not in the middle of the city and and I

23:58 ↗ don't see that at this time we can

24:04 ↗ proceed with this and to you answer your

24:09 ↗ question I I think that we've done

24:13 ↗ enough add enough history had enough

24:17 ↗ discussion that we know that we don't

24:20 ↗ want this in the city I would suggest

24:24 ↗ that maybe we go the other way and

24:26 ↗ provide help to and be that maybe the

24:32 ↗ first one ones of the city to provide

24:35 ↗ that kind of help for people who need it

24:37 ↗ but not as a safe injection site no I

24:42 ↗ I'm perfectly content to vote no that I

24:46 ↗ now and in the future I don't want to

24:49 ↗ see a fight here in the city I just

24:54 ↗ don't think it's appropriate place for

24:55 ↗ it

24:57 ↗ Seattle is is way above our liberal way

25:02 ↗ of thinking and I don't think it's right

25:05 ↗ for our community so I I think that

25:12 ↗ maybe we can you know if you don't if

25:15 ↗ you want to do something you do

25:16 ↗ something to not just educate but to

25:18 ↗ help people in the situation and a lot

25:22 ↗ of them are stuck there like bronze

25:24 ↗ relic

25:25 ↗ yeah that it would be you know something

25:29 ↗ the city could do so I am going to vote

25:34 ↗ no on this because the public feedback

25:36 ↗ has been so strongly in that direction I

25:39 ↗ just kind of wanted to bring up the idea

25:41 ↗ that the ordinance doesn't necessarily

25:42 ↗ say that we need to negate it and that I

25:47 ↗ do think we should have further

25:49 ↗ conversation and maybe the reason this

25:51 ↗ is not the end of it I think that if it

25:53 ↗ if there is some site somewhere that

25:56 ↗ actually works and does a good job and

25:58 ↗ everything is neat and clean around it

26:01 ↗ you know in the future if that can

26:04 ↗ happen maybe maybe you know you can

26:06 ↗ always change your mind you can always

26:08 ↗ change the code but for right now I

26:11 ↗ think we're all in agreement that this

26:14 ↗ is the best thing for our city right now

26:16 ↗ the reason I invited Human Services to

26:19 ↗ come tonight to let him know that we

26:21 ↗ were talking about it is so that you'd

26:22 ↗ be able to ask some questions about

26:24 ↗ their experiences and the research they

26:26 ↗ did in the presentation that they had

26:28 ↗ but none of them chose to come which you

26:31 ↗ know I understand that too but so I

26:33 ↗ apologize that we weren't able to get

26:34 ↗ anyone that really knew what was going

26:36 ↗ on with with the whole picture of it all

26:39 ↗ I just had one that I'd like to you said

26:42 ↗ Joan I'm sorry about the you know in

26:46 ↗ maybe some some point in the future if

26:48 ↗ it could look and feel and be a certain

26:50 ↗ way I think that that would be good I

26:52 ↗ think by prohibiting it though we lose

26:55 ↗ the ability to ever have that

26:57 ↗ conversation we won't ever be able to

26:59 ↗ influence that at all we won't have the

27:01 ↗ opportunity to set metrics around what

27:03 ↗ that might look like and frankly I don't

27:06 ↗ think it'll ever happen like I don't

27:08 ↗ think I don't think it's equality is the

27:09 ↗ right place I don't think it's centrally

27:11 ↗ located I don't think it has the

27:12 ↗ population or the services and I think

27:14 ↗ before you know whoever were to open up

27:18 ↗ one of those sites before they did that

27:19 ↗ they would want to have they would want

27:20 ↗ to be able to check all those boxes for

27:22 ↗ sure so frankly I don't think that

27:24 ↗ there's a big risk that it would even

27:26 ↗ happen but if we just say no we don't

27:29 ↗ get to participate in that conversation

27:31 ↗ so that's just it's still my opinion on

27:34 ↗ that this topic scares the bejeebies out

27:38 ↗ of me

27:39 ↗ this really does because I see what

27:41 ↗ happens to my my family member

27:45 ↗ incapacitated 99% of time I mean you get

27:48 ↗ a conversation for five minutes in the

27:50 ↗ rest of day and then there's scope creep

27:54 ↗ we say yes supposedly that we become a

27:58 ↗ pilot let's just say you go yes it's

28:01 ↗ actually not what we're voting on we're

28:02 ↗ voting on prohibition right but it

28:06 ↗ become it will grow into something else

28:08 ↗ it's heroin today it'll be some other

28:11 ↗ drug tomorrow and then we'll be in a

28:14 ↗ position where we will be required to

28:17 ↗ really accept it so I say no and I ready

28:22 ↗ to say that I don't ever want this in

28:24 ↗ our community I need to protect our

28:27 ↗ community I feel like that's part of my

28:29 ↗ obligation to our city of Ezek well I

28:32 ↗ need to protect it so we could have a

28:34 ↗ discussion in a different way for a

28:36 ↗ different facility for a different way

28:39 ↗ to handle this and so we would be

28:42 ↗ included in the discussion at that point

28:45 ↗ in time

28:45 ↗ now if the city has a prohibition nobody

28:50 ↗ will be coming to the city to put that

28:53 ↗ in front of Council or or us so that's

28:56 ↗ what I mean by I do think that we would

29:00 ↗ retain the ability to talk about

29:02 ↗ treatment you know and other ways to

29:04 ↗ contribute you're right about that and I

29:05 ↗ think we should and I think we will but

29:06 ↗ that's all I'm saying what I say we lose

29:08 ↗ the ability to participate in that

29:10 ↗ conversation I mean to shape what that

29:12 ↗ facility like that might look like

29:14 ↗ that's all so I'm not something in the

29:17 ↗ future could be different is anybody

29:19 ↗ else any other comments um so I was a

29:22 ↗ little bit I was concerned about

29:26 ↗ basically the arguments that I was

29:30 ↗ getting from some of this discussion and

29:33 ↗ also from the letter that since we don't

29:35 ↗ have a network in place basically since

29:38 ↗ we aren't are since we don't have

29:40 ↗ anything then we shouldn't have safe

29:42 ↗ injection sites I do understand but I

29:43 ↗ would like to see some sort

29:48 ↗ as I think John was saying some sort of

29:51 ↗ other services available in the

29:53 ↗ community because it is a problem and we

29:57 ↗ this may not be the solution but I think

29:59 ↗ that we should do something would it

30:03 ↗ help if I had someone from Human

30:06 ↗ Services or even from the department

30:08 ↗ that's their chair that you know is

30:10 ↗ their staff to talk to you all about

30:12 ↗ because I know they've been working on

30:13 ↗ things in their arena but it would it

30:16 ↗ interest you all to find out what the

30:18 ↗ city is trying to do locally for opioid

30:21 ↗ and substance abuse and ecto is the city

30:23 ↗ actually doing something or they just

30:25 ↗ talking and listening to people coming

30:28 ↗ in I I would have to verify because

30:30 ↗ since it's not in my wheelhouse but I

30:32 ↗ know that was a council goal a while ago

30:34 ↗ something that's actually out of the

30:37 ↗ discussion tonight right but you're

30:39 ↗ asking it sounds like you're asking are

30:41 ↗ there other things that the city should

30:42 ↗ be doing for locally to help locally the

30:45 ↗ opioid crisis locally if it's not a big

30:48 ↗ safe injection site are there other

30:49 ↗ things to do and I could get you if you

30:51 ↗ want it I could try to get you more

30:53 ↗ information on what we're doing at some

30:55 ↗ point time that would be nice just but

30:57 ↗ that's it's not necessarily what we're

31:01 ↗ doing but what we can do in the future

31:04 ↗ right you know I think maybe at some

31:06 ↗ point in time we can have a discussion

31:08 ↗ or this council could have our human

31:10 ↗ services or whatever could have a

31:12 ↗ discussion of maybe something we can do

31:15 ↗ a pilot project that way of you know not

31:22 ↗ in sight but doing something that would

31:25 ↗ help the people and besides education I

31:28 ↗ don't I don't know what it would be yeah

31:30 ↗ but maybe we could do something like I

31:32 ↗ would just say I don't think we need to

31:33 ↗ maybe I don't like we need to have it on

31:35 ↗ an agenda for our meeting but if you

31:36 ↗ could just let it maybe if if they're

31:39 ↗ they're gonna have something and he

31:40 ↗ could attend or and that would be just

31:42 ↗ keep us in a loop that would be good

31:43 ↗ right okay anything else are you ready

31:46 ↗ to vote what one point of clarification

31:49 ↗ the way we've been talking about it so a

31:51 ↗ vote YES is against it no it's is not

31:56 ↗ half thing I'm gonna say no but that

31:58 ↗ would be

31:59 ↗ the wrong clintus about four and again

32:02 ↗ but it's for for prohibiting them yes so

32:07 ↗ it is still right course to be fair vote

32:10 ↗ YES for the amendments it would prohibit

32:12 ↗ them assets grow fast and and you know

32:15 ↗ the council brought it back to us and

32:17 ↗ normally we can discuss it and we can if

32:21 ↗ we were so against what they decided we

32:24 ↗ could make a recommendation but that's

32:26 ↗ not I need a motion

32:31 ↗ I'm somebody I'd like to make a motion

32:33 ↗ to approve the what's the word I'm

32:43 ↗ looking forward code amendment the code

32:45 ↗ amendments concerning safe injection

32:48 ↗ sites second any further discussion all

32:56 ↗ those in favor say yes I pose no no Rita

33:04 ↗ to wasn't carrying first yeah we're good

33:07 ↗ to know I did it was forwarded to it can

33:13 ↗ you see order to so I said I thought you

33:18 ↗ okay so it's actually for it so it's

33:22 ↗ four to one

33:23 ↗ no well technically one if you're so

33:28 ↗ they can you raise hands instead of eyes

33:31 ↗ what okay there was a confusion for me

33:36 ↗ for somebody said no and someone said I

33:38 ↗ and said I wasn't sure exactly which one

33:42 ↗ of you said which voted no yeah so you

33:44 ↗ said no but I wasn't sure if it was no

33:47 ↗ against it no against the emotion so

33:52 ↗ though we are right now we are five for

33:56 ↗ no or against the most support for the

34:00 ↗ motion or two to or did we are

34:02 ↗ affordable emotion wait for the motion

34:05 ↗ against them all yeah we got it it's

34:09 ↗ still past this afford it - yeah cuz you

34:12 ↗ voted or for it okay I thought it was

34:22 ↗ then when we went back I wasn't sure if

34:24 ↗ it was good anyway okay so next on the

34:28 ↗ agenda is the yes no it's four to one

34:39 ↗ because you're an alternative no no but

34:41 ↗ we had this discussion and I get two

34:42 ↗ votes now yes it's docket you read what

34:48 ↗ is Wow let's let's have Trish what point

34:57 ↗ of clarification what we talked about I

35:01 ↗ guess wasn't completely the complete

35:04 ↗ story is we have to say in the record

35:06 ↗ that it was four to one of regular

35:08 ↗ members and because we don't need

35:11 ↗ alternates because we still have a

35:12 ↗ quorum of regular members but that the

35:15 ↗ alternate that attended voted against

35:17 ↗ the measure so that can still be in the

35:19 ↗ minute okay

35:31 ↗ thank you are you ready for the next one

35:35 ↗ yes it's been quite a week the comp plan

35:40 ↗ this is exciting this is our January

35:44 ↗ every year we do this in January where

35:47 ↗ we open up the comprehensive plan and we

35:50 ↗ put in any amendments that we've been

35:52 ↗ just hoping we can get to this year we

35:55 ↗ look at the list you all look in the

35:56 ↗ list in January we send it to Council

35:59 ↗ they review it they may add some things

36:01 ↗ they typically do they approve the list

36:04 ↗ and then we get at it and we start doing

36:07 ↗ all the pieces on the list that we can

36:10 ↗ possibly do in a year the red parts of

36:14 ↗ this slide show that even once I sent

36:19 ↗ you the docket last week the excitement

36:21 ↗ was building people started sending us

36:23 ↗ things they wanted us to also do on the

36:25 ↗ docket and this was just internally so I

36:28 ↗ can imagine the ones that you're going

36:30 ↗ to want to add so the first one the

36:33 ↗ transportation improvement program that

36:35 ↗ we do every year that's the six year

36:37 ↗ capital plan we also need to be sure

36:40 ↗ that the transportation element is

36:42 ↗ updated with the concurrency update that

36:44 ↗ should be done this year knock on wood

36:46 ↗ and also the commute trip reduction Act

36:49 ↗ some of the details in that it's a state

36:52 ↗ program some of that's been changed so

36:53 ↗ we want to make sure the numbers are

36:55 ↗ accurate in the comp plan so that's all

36:58 ↗ under 1 which is sort of the

37:00 ↗ transportation element the population

37:03 ↗ ones we do that every year that's pretty

37:05 ↗ exciting except we're adding a number to

37:09 ↗ track jobs because jobs got pretty

37:12 ↗ exciting this year when we talked about

37:14 ↗ vision that we should start tracking

37:16 ↗ jobs so we're gonna put some numbers in

37:18 ↗ the in the comp plan so that we can

37:20 ↗ officially start tracking jobs they're a

37:22 ↗ little trickier to track them population

37:24 ↗ but we're gonna do it the rezone so far

37:29 ↗ so far I love my job so far we've only

37:33 ↗ had one parcel that we know of that the

37:37 ↗ city has purchased there's been donated

37:38 ↗ or what-have-you

37:39 ↗ there may be more by the end but this is

37:41 ↗ that placeholder that any

37:44 ↗ the city's received for public purposes

37:46 ↗ we do a community facilities rezone also

37:50 ↗ if there's any changes and I think there

37:53 ↗ are from the end of the development

37:54 ↗ agreements there's some zoning tweaks

37:56 ↗ that they're doing that would come

37:58 ↗ through our process as well to make sure

38:00 ↗ that they fit into the comp plan land

38:04 ↗ use designations also transfer of

38:07 ↗ development rights was an exciting topic

38:09 ↗ when the council was going through the

38:11 ↗ end of development agreements and so the

38:14 ↗ council is asked if we take a look at

38:16 ↗ the transfer of development rights and

38:18 ↗ figure that out in the comp plan sort of

38:20 ↗ the policy and where that where the

38:22 ↗ receiving sites can be now that the

38:25 ↗ development now that the urban village

38:27 ↗ is the two of them that are that

38:28 ↗ Hyland's used to receive them how do we

38:31 ↗ do that now that they're not the

38:34 ↗ Hyland's development agreements so

38:36 ↗ that'll be a really fun discussion can i

38:38 ↗ clarify it says thing sites there for

38:40 ↗ TDRs not receiving sites right well it

38:43 ↗ would be both where they've been where

38:44 ↗ the work and where the units can come

38:46 ↗ from and where they can go okay just

38:48 ↗ wanted to clarify anything else on one

38:52 ↗ through four even with the red ones even

38:57 ↗ more on this page as you remember the

39:01 ↗ architectural design manual that you

39:03 ↗ looked at a few months ago and our

39:05 ↗ exciting 2017 there was some discussion

39:08 ↗ about hillsides building on slopes that

39:12 ↗ we need to take another swing at to

39:15 ↗ further clarify the policy on that the

39:19 ↗ policy on compact schools you remember

39:22 ↗ this one

39:23 ↗ yes you do we get to tackle this one

39:26 ↗ this year and I am looking forward to

39:28 ↗ that King County PAA we had so much fun

39:33 ↗ annexing that that we missed some of the

39:35 ↗ language in the policy talking about pas

39:37 ↗ so we have to that's just a little bit

39:39 ↗ of tweaking and the sub area map which

39:41 ↗ of that'll be that'll be a good one the

39:44 ↗ central Issaquah plan when we finish the

39:46 ↗ visions which we will do very shortly if

39:49 ↗ perhaps some of the areas are out of the

39:52 ↗ central plan we'd have to shift the sub

39:54 ↗ area boundaries and do some shifting

39:56 ↗ with that

39:57 ↗ if there's any other bits and pieces

40:00 ↗ that we'd have to do this is sort of a

40:02 ↗ placeholder to catch everything that we

40:04 ↗ might change in the like if we change

40:06 ↗ the vision the not just the district

40:08 ↗ visions but the one-liners all those

40:10 ↗ pieces would be under this item okay

40:12 ↗ it's sort of a catch-all Old Town we're

40:17 ↗ not quite done with the Old Town yet so

40:19 ↗ it made it on the list again we have

40:21 ↗ high hopes for Old Town the community

40:24 ↗ sustainability indicators which is

40:26 ↗ Appendix A in the comp plan which I know

40:28 ↗ you already know that we didn't get

40:31 ↗ around to finally making it through

40:33 ↗ those last year because the moratorium

40:35 ↗ hit us so those are on schedule to come

40:38 ↗ back to you this year and they're

40:40 ↗ they've already been finished they just

40:42 ↗ didn't make it through the public

40:43 ↗ hearing so that should be hopefully not

40:45 ↗ a not a big deal the capital facilities

40:49 ↗ element may need some updating only

40:51 ↗ because the water system plan is coming

40:54 ↗ from Public Works and when they're done

40:56 ↗ with all their policy decisions and

40:59 ↗ issues and updates and numbers then it

41:02 ↗ will come to us to incorporate it into

41:04 ↗ the utilities element in capital

41:06 ↗ facilities element does that include

41:09 ↗ fluoridating the water and the mixing of

41:11 ↗ the water because great question we

41:14 ↗ would imagine that those policy issues

41:16 ↗ would be handled at the level of the

41:18 ↗ water system plan because if you were to

41:21 ↗ ask me why we would do that and what is

41:24 ↗ involved I would not be able to answer

41:25 ↗ that question to help you with the

41:27 ↗ policy discussion it would I would think

41:30 ↗ that would have to be done by the

41:31 ↗ experts in Public Works I have a

41:33 ↗ question on an earlier one yeah that

41:36 ↗ when you have the policy on compact

41:37 ↗ schools is that as we've been referring

41:40 ↗ to urban schools is that the same yes

41:53 ↗ you're being flashed it's that it's the

42:00 ↗ same discussion that we talked about in

42:02 ↗ July and so we're still using the word

42:05 ↗ urban schools were not using really the

42:06 ↗ word well the code says compact but the

42:09 ↗ policy I guess we're sticking with the

42:13 ↗ policy that was originally urban before

42:15 ↗ the name got changed so the difference

42:20 ↗ between compact yes there is so you know

42:25 ↗ so we started talking about urban

42:28 ↗ schools and that opened a whole range of

42:32 ↗ conversations that we really didn't

42:33 ↗ intend to tackle with what we were

42:36 ↗ really trying to do with the compact

42:38 ↗ school code so we changed we rebranded

42:41 ↗ we called it compact schools not urban

42:42 ↗ schools and what you guys said was urban

42:46 ↗ schools and schools in central Issaquah

42:48 ↗ need to be more urban in nature that may

42:51 ↗ be very different than what we did for

42:53 ↗ the compact school code amendments and

42:55 ↗ so what you guys asked for us to do is

42:57 ↗ to bring back a policy conversation

42:59 ↗ about what is an urban school what's it

43:01 ↗ look like and how does it different than

43:04 ↗ just a normal school and so that's what

43:06 ↗ we're doing that's what this is it's

43:08 ↗ really to have that conversation you

43:11 ↗ guys said we need to have a policy

43:12 ↗ conversation before we can really talk

43:15 ↗ about urban schools but that's you know

43:18 ↗ and that's really kind of what I would

43:20 ↗ consider the next generation of schools

43:22 ↗ past the ones that are in the current

43:24 ↗ kind of pipe right now the next Bond

43:29 ↗ when they're actually looking for school

43:30 ↗ sites within Central Issaquah because

43:32 ↗ that's where we're putting all our

43:33 ↗ housing so it's it's I think it's it

43:37 ↗ could land that it's the very same thing

43:39 ↗ as the compact schools I think it's

43:41 ↗ gonna have some different kind of

43:43 ↗ characteristics than what we talked

43:44 ↗ about with compact schools so Keith

43:48 ↗ you're saying compact schools and urban

43:50 ↗ schools are different but the only thing

43:52 ↗ on there is compact schools

43:54 ↗ I misrepresented it when I wrote it

43:56 ↗ there we'll fix that okay there we go

43:59 ↗ I thought we weren't allowed to use the

44:02 ↗ word anymore so I stand corrected

44:06 ↗ can we go to 12 well the new 12 I'm just

44:12 ↗ trying to be accommodating the new 12 is

44:15 ↗ I'm a just mind but might be biased but

44:18 ↗ the Appendix B which I know you know

44:21 ↗ what that is is a fabulous list of

44:24 ↗ implementation strategies for the whole

44:26 ↗ comp plan most all the elements have a

44:29 ↗ list of implementation strategies if you

44:32 ↗ haven't looked at it lately it is a

44:33 ↗ fabulous list some of them are a little

44:35 ↗ outdated though and it might be a good

44:37 ↗ time might not be might be a good time

44:40 ↗ to take a look at the list and see if

44:42 ↗ there are any things that are so

44:43 ↗ outdated that we would never ever want

44:45 ↗ to do them or if there might be some

44:48 ↗ things that now that you read the old

44:49 ↗ list you might have some new ideas that

44:51 ↗ you would like to put on the list and so

44:53 ↗ we threw that on there just because we

44:56 ↗ think it's such a fabulous list the list

44:57 ↗ in fact came two years ago there was a

45:00 ↗ lot of implementation tucked in the

45:02 ↗ policies that we would be going on with

45:04 ↗ the policy and then there'd be an

45:05 ↗ implementation tucked right in there and

45:07 ↗ it was very confusing because the comp

45:10 ↗ plan is not an implementation it's a

45:13 ↗ policy document but we didn't want to

45:15 ↗ lose the implementation pieces so we put

45:17 ↗ them in appendix B so we put that on

45:19 ↗ there as a reminder on how fabulous the

45:22 ↗ idea is to have your implementation so

45:24 ↗ close to your comp plan it's actually in

45:26 ↗ the appendix so we'd like to kind of

45:29 ↗ maybe think about if we'd like to look

45:31 ↗ through the list this year we wouldn't

45:33 ↗ have to change it perhaps or we might

45:35 ↗ want to change it a lot if we have the

45:36 ↗ time questions on that one okay and the

45:40 ↗ next slide the first so someone's going

45:42 ↗ to say you have to renumber the list now

45:44 ↗ yes we do because now here's another

45:46 ↗ number 11 these start the ones that we

45:50 ↗ don't think we have time to do this year

45:52 ↗ these are being recommended at least at

45:55 ↗ this point in the process that we

45:57 ↗ wouldn't have time to do this year

46:00 ↗ and most of them have been on here for a

46:04 ↗ little bit just because since we did the

46:06 ↗ update in 2015 there's been a lot going

46:10 ↗ on so we haven't been able to have a lot

46:12 ↗ of the policy question discussions that

46:14 ↗ we would like to have look Trish yes

46:18 ↗ number 11 would that include yes 11

46:23 ↗ point 2 11 number 2 win that also

46:29 ↗ include level service for public safety

46:32 ↗ reason why I'm bringing that up because

46:34 ↗ it has police fire all of those right

46:38 ↗ isn't there conversation at City Council

46:40 ↗ level of wanting to add possibly law

46:45 ↗ enforcement and if so wouldn't that

46:47 ↗ necessarily add them how add new

46:49 ↗ officers right well we mentioned you

46:52 ↗ might remember the two years ago and the

46:54 ↗ last time we did this we had very old

46:56 ↗ level of service data and it bothered

46:59 ↗ you all because you felt like you were

47:00 ↗ making a decision on level of service

47:02 ↗ with old data and so we put a hold on

47:04 ↗ this that until we can get new data it

47:08 ↗ seemed odd to go through the motions

47:10 ↗ with new numbers when we really don't

47:12 ↗ have new numbers they can still get new

47:14 ↗ officers because it did show that we

47:16 ↗ were getting close to needing new

47:18 ↗ officers but we didn't feel it was a

47:21 ↗ good use of time and resources to update

47:23 ↗ this without any new information we'd

47:25 ↗ still be using the old budget and the

47:26 ↗ old police statistics we'd have to do a

47:33 ↗ new rate study that updates you know how

47:37 ↗ many calls for service are they doing

47:39 ↗ how many officers do we have now how

47:40 ↗ many cars and motorcycles do we have now

47:43 ↗ how much room do they have to even do

47:45 ↗ their job and then you move it into all

47:48 ↗ the statistics on how often do they go

47:50 ↗ out and you know the detectives are

47:51 ↗ different than the officers are

47:53 ↗ different than the motorcycle folks and

47:55 ↗ so it's all updated we update and we're

47:58 ↗ supposed to update them like every three

47:59 ↗ or four years but it's a little

48:02 ↗ expensive but it's a good investment

48:03 ↗ because then usually your fees your

48:05 ↗ impact fees and mitigation fees can also

48:07 ↗ go up to help pay for that extra service

48:09 ↗ that you're providing

48:10 ↗ did the council fund that in the inky

48:12 ↗ budget I haven't seen the most recent

48:15 ↗ version we can follow up on that yeah I

48:22 ↗ reason why I bring up is because I

48:24 ↗ watched the last City Council and I

48:25 ↗ thought they had requested that or made

48:28 ↗ a mention about law enforcement and

48:30 ↗ wanting to add officers possibly so

48:32 ↗ right they can still do that okay in

48:34 ↗ fact that's used that's why we started

48:36 ↗ doing this was it gives them a five or

48:38 ↗ six year out what is it you look forward

48:43 ↗ to tell them that in two years you're

48:45 ↗ going to need more officers or in three

48:47 ↗ years you're going to need more parkland

48:49 ↗ so that they can start thinking about

48:51 ↗ budgeting for that ahead of time rather

48:54 ↗ than oh this year you need four officers

48:56 ↗ and so it's sort of that rolling budget

48:59 ↗ plus service list right now if they

49:01 ↗ wanted add officers would be at the

49:09 ↗ totally do that because the I'm sure the

49:12 ↗ police chief has given them a lot of

49:14 ↗ data it wouldn't be a total rate study

49:16 ↗ data but he's probably got all the data

49:18 ↗ on how his officers are out in the field

49:21 ↗ how often his detectives are out so

49:23 ↗ often there call this does this much and

49:25 ↗ their officers can only take this much

49:27 ↗ daily and so they need more I'm sure

49:29 ↗ they have a lot of statistics it's just

49:31 ↗ not the same thing as what we need to up

49:33 ↗ the impact fee and mitigation fee rates

49:35 ↗ that then changes the level of service

49:39 ↗ so I along that idea with what council

49:45 ↗ has done related to the police officers

49:48 ↗ and those three that didn't get approved

49:50 ↗ for this year we've also discussed

49:53 ↗ school impact and mitigation fees this

49:56 ↗ year and that was certainly a

49:58 ↗ controversy so I would say if there's

50:01 ↗ any way that we could get that included

50:04 ↗ I think that addresses two of the issues

50:08 ↗ that has come up this year right and

50:12 ↗ good point on school impact fees this

50:14 ↗ chapter talks about school impact fees

50:17 ↗ as a pass-through but there's going to

50:19 ↗ be a code amendment coming soon

50:22 ↗ not in the first quarter but coming soon

50:24 ↗ to clarify the process that the school

50:27 ↗ goes through to do their capital

50:29 ↗ facilities plan and then it comes to us

50:30 ↗ and we have our population increases and

50:33 ↗ to how we can work better together to

50:36 ↗ understand each other's data how we

50:38 ↗ translate each other's data and how to

50:40 ↗ come up with a better process and a

50:42 ↗ happier ending than we did this past

50:44 ↗ year but that's in the works to do an

50:46 ↗ actual process amendment or process

50:48 ↗ tweak to help us with that oh all right

50:51 ↗ looking at the I assume the 1 through 12

50:54 ↗ of the first site is what you're

50:57 ↗ recommending to put forward what was

50:59 ↗ this number 11 version competing with

51:03 ↗ why did it get on this list as opposed

51:06 ↗ to maybe something else on the other

51:07 ↗ list because the funding for the rate

51:10 ↗ study when I when I drafted this I had

51:12 ↗ not liked yet looked in if December 18th

51:15 ↗ or whenever they adopted the budget if

51:17 ↗ they had put money and for updating the

51:19 ↗ rate studies for police and fire right

51:23 ↗ now we're doing transportation and parks

51:26 ↗ and the remaining two that we rolled our

51:29 ↗ general government police and fire and

51:34 ↗ so we didn't want to update this with as

51:37 ↗ I said with old information so we were

51:38 ↗ waiting for the rate studies to be able

51:40 ↗ to put the new information in to the

51:41 ↗ level of service but they needed to add

51:43 ↗ that to the FY 18 budget well we asked

51:47 ↗ for it I'm not sure if it I didn't check

51:49 ↗ to see if it came if we actually got

51:51 ↗ funded even if it did it would happen

51:54 ↗ this year and the data would probably be

51:56 ↗ available at the end of the year at the

51:58 ↗ earliest or something right right right

52:00 ↗ they usually take a while to gather all

52:02 ↗ the information to update it okay it

52:05 ↗ couldn't happen anyways we could start

52:09 ↗ it this year if we did get the funding

52:11 ↗ but then actually the numbers would be

52:13 ↗ available like you said because it takes

52:14 ↗ a while to do all the data crunching for

52:17 ↗ next year okay any questions about this

52:20 ↗ page this is not as exciting of a page

52:23 ↗ sadly and then the very very last page

52:27 ↗ these are also ones to work on hopefully

52:31 ↗ someday soon but maybe not this year

52:34 ↗ now I've got I got three questions so I

52:38 ↗ came up with okay based on conversations

52:42 ↗ that have happened at City Council level

52:44 ↗ and NCPC microcell sites

52:49 ↗ Lake Sammamish did all my plan and Parks

52:52 ↗ plan okay when you say micro sites you

52:54 ↗ mean small cell wireless you have a

52:56 ↗ public hearing on that 24th of February

53:01 ↗ of January right next two weeks two

53:05 ↗ weeks you have a public hearing on that

53:07 ↗ there we're drafting code as we speak to

53:10 ↗ regulate that the new industry all right

53:14 ↗ and then what about the Lake Sammamish

53:15 ↗ development plan in the park span I know

53:17 ↗ because I've heard those names beat them

53:20 ↗ around I don't know that much about

53:21 ↗ you're asking fabulous questions the

53:23 ↗ parks plan we met with them today

53:25 ↗ the parks director and and Jen and

53:27 ↗ they're gonna bring you the new

53:30 ↗ strategic parks plan it's going through

53:32 ↗ the park board right now and it will be

53:34 ↗ coming to you later on this year and so

53:37 ↗ you'll be part of that and be holding

53:40 ↗ meetings and discussing and having all

53:43 ↗ sorts of good input it's been a really

53:44 ↗ cool process so far okay I like pardon

53:49 ↗ shouldn't we add it on here the parks

53:52 ↗ well when the parks since the parks

53:54 ↗ element is typically part of the it

53:58 ↗ shoots right in but we could add it to

53:59 ↗ one of them that probably was on last

54:02 ↗ year cuz we thought we were gonna be

54:03 ↗ done last year but we can add it if it

54:05 ↗ didn't make it on there so and with the

54:10 ↗ parks plan kind of a land acquisition

54:12 ↗ strategy and stuff to complete the green

54:14 ↗ necklace I'm not sure if that needs to

54:16 ↗ be on here or if it would just update

54:19 ↗ the comp plan once we've made decisions

54:25 ↗ that might be part of the parks plan I'm

54:27 ↗ not sure that but that's certainly a

54:29 ↗ good thing to get in writing somewhere

54:32 ↗ strategy Thor drain put in Lantern

54:37 ↗ Network okay and Ryan you still had a

54:42 ↗ question about Lake Sammamish yeah I

54:44 ↗ heard discussion it was a Lake Sammamish

54:50 ↗ development plan development agreement

54:52 ↗ development agreement would that be

54:55 ↗ appropriate for this list or that's so

54:58 ↗ that's still aspirational right is that

55:02 ↗ something that would be a policy no no

55:05 ↗ it's not policy it's actually it's

55:08 ↗ actually the opposite of policy so it

55:10 ↗ would be similar to like the Costco

55:11 ↗ development agreement it's what can you

55:13 ↗ do in the park it's doing an EIS that

55:17 ↗ would oh maybe

55:19 ↗ create a an envelope of development and

55:24 ↗ activity that could go in there without

55:26 ↗ additional environmental review and so

55:29 ↗ that is it's very much project oriented

55:34 ↗ less policy oriented okay that's my

55:38 ↗ that's my expectation right now we're

55:40 ↗ gonna have some public meetings probably

55:42 ↗ over the next couple months and talk

55:46 ↗ about scoping the EIS and that may

55:48 ↗ change but I'm thinking it's much more

55:51 ↗ programmatic like turning the existing

55:53 ↗ grass soccer fields into maybe

55:55 ↗ all-weather fields to increase their

55:57 ↗ activity and potentially create maybe a

56:01 ↗ destination for like regional soccer

56:03 ↗ tournaments so if it's not on this list

56:06 ↗ and it we get to the point where it may

56:09 ↗ need to be on the list

56:10 ↗ do we just add it at that time or is

56:14 ↗ this is the docket for 2018 for planning

56:17 ↗ so the docket of amendments to the

56:21 ↗ comprehensive plan so it's not

56:23 ↗ necessarily all of the things that we

56:24 ↗ address in planning but rather what

56:26 ↗ would go into our comprehensive plan for

56:29 ↗ the city right so first let's take small

56:32 ↗ cell that might be an easier

56:33 ↗ conversation to have because I know what

56:34 ↗ that looks like

56:36 ↗ and I'm not writing it right now I might

56:37 ↗ be writing it later so that's a that'll

56:42 ↗ be a code amendment so we have a section

56:44 ↗ in the IMC chapter 18 right now 1807 505

56:48 ↗ which is wireless communication

56:50 ↗ facilities small cell and the amount of

56:54 ↗ equipment that is probably coming our

56:56 ↗ way is going is is causing the need to

57:01 ↗ relook at our potential designing

57:04 ↗ guidelines for putting those in and so

57:07 ↗ that will be a code amendment that will

57:09 ↗ come to you guys because it is a code

57:11 ↗ amendment to chapter 18 but that's not

57:14 ↗ policy it's not part of the comp plan

57:17 ↗ it's more actual like nuts and nuts and

57:22 ↗ bolts he's going back to cement the

57:26 ↗ development for like Sammamish yeah what

57:30 ↗ happened to the plan that was developed

57:32 ↗ several years ago so the master plan

57:34 ↗ from 2007 still exists this is this is

57:39 ↗ not intended to replace that I'm talking

57:43 ↗ for state parks right now

57:44 ↗ this is intended kind of as as an

57:49 ↗ evolution maybe you know so there's you

57:52 ↗ know the park is clearly a significant

57:57 ↗ amount of the park is natural open space

58:01 ↗ focused around Issaquah Creek Herron

58:04 ↗ rookeries you know fishing is a huge

58:08 ↗ thing so all of that is is still

58:11 ↗ important this is kind of moving along

58:15 ↗ the lines of the city and state parks

58:19 ↗ talking about how do we increase the

58:22 ↗ amount of activity that also happens in

58:25 ↗ the state park that's not kind of nature

58:27 ↗ oriented so so the AVP volleyball

58:30 ↗ tournament started showing up I think

58:33 ↗ we're in year four now you know there's

58:36 ↗ been the state parks also executed a

58:41 ↗ partnering agreement with REI and there

58:44 ↗ was talk about potentially doing like an

58:46 ↗ educational center so this is

58:49 ↗ this is not in lieu of what they did in

58:53 ↗ 2007 this is and what else can they do

58:57 ↗ from what's going on right now so so

59:01 ↗ they've done a bunch of investments you

59:02 ↗ know they built a new bath house they

59:05 ↗ were they did a complete restoration of

59:08 ↗ Sunset Beach

59:09 ↗ there's a new huge tot lot thing there

59:14 ↗ they've got they've got permits to build

59:18 ↗ a dock and then you know they're talking

59:22 ↗ about lifeguarding and there's so it's

59:24 ↗ it's and what else can we do and one of

59:27 ↗ the biggest things that they would like

59:29 ↗ to do is to move the entrance to the

59:32 ↗ State Park so right now for all of us we

59:35 ↗ know where the entrance of the State

59:36 ↗ Park is but it's a candidly in a weird

59:39 ↗ space it's kind of like this weird weird

59:41 ↗ mid-block entrance and you know if you

59:44 ↗ were coming from Spokane or somewhere

59:46 ↗ else in the state to visit it they would

59:49 ↗ like it closer to the intersection kind

59:52 ↗ of where the Arco and I hop and Tully's

59:56 ↗ and all that is and so part of the EIS

1:00:00 ↗ and the development agreement might be

1:00:02 ↗ looking at can you move it without

1:00:04 ↗ messing up traffic so there's a big

1:00:07 ↗ traffic piece associated with this so so

1:00:10 ↗ that's what we're gonna do

1:00:11 ↗ it's probably gonna take a year it's

1:00:14 ↗ going to start with some conversations

1:00:16 ↗ with the community that's going to be

1:00:18 ↗ jointly done with city staff and State

1:00:21 ↗ Park staff so and that'll be in the next

1:00:23 ↗ few months

1:00:25 ↗ I don't know exact details because my

1:00:28 ↗ partner's are been on vacation this has

1:00:30 ↗ come a long way from the threat of

1:00:33 ↗ building office buildings on it we're

1:00:37 ↗ not nobody's talking to my knowledge

1:00:39 ↗ nobody's talking office buildings

1:00:40 ↗ no but I'm whenever two thousand four

1:00:43 ↗ five whatever they did the state was

1:00:45 ↗ thinking about getting revenue by

1:00:48 ↗ building office buildings on

1:00:50 ↗ like a - like part any other questions I

1:00:56 ↗ have a few other suggestions options

1:01:00 ↗ there so I looked through other comp

1:01:03 ↗ plan dockets for nearby cities I notice

1:01:05 ↗ that Bellevue is adopting vision zero

1:01:08 ↗ for zero traffic deaths I'm not sure if

1:01:12 ↗ that's something that we would want to

1:01:13 ↗ include Redmond has a regulation of

1:01:20 ↗ multifamily housing zoning like rezoning

1:01:23 ↗ in their current business park in

1:01:26 ↗ commercial areas so saying we don't want

1:01:28 ↗ to lose commercial parks and the jobs

1:01:32 ↗ that they provide and I know that's

1:01:33 ↗ something that's come up for us so I

1:01:36 ↗ don't know if that would get into any of

1:01:39 ↗ the other areas but the idea that we

1:01:40 ↗ wouldn't want such as sort of the no net

1:01:44 ↗ loss that if housing comes in there's no

1:01:46 ↗ net loss of jobs well that's more like

1:01:48 ↗ don't take a current Business Park and

1:01:54 ↗ put in housing there instead because you

1:01:58 ↗ have to somehow keep the jobs or keep

1:01:59 ↗ the yes okay yeah and then the last one

1:02:08 ↗ the st3 station is there something that

1:02:12 ↗ we should be doing there at this point

1:02:15 ↗ or is that kicked down I'm looking at

1:02:22 ↗ our transportation

1:02:27 ↗ I see Kristen just pop that one right

1:02:30 ↗ over to you so yeah so that's super

1:02:34 ↗ super interesting question I don't know

1:02:36 ↗ there's a clear answer so I'll kind of

1:02:38 ↗ answer it the best I can so we're doing

1:02:41 ↗ we're gonna have some conversations we

1:02:43 ↗ already have had some conversations as

1:02:45 ↗ part of CIP district visions and

1:02:48 ↗ especially as it relates to well Central

1:02:52 ↗ Valley or Issaquah Valley or whatever

1:02:54 ↗ that ends up being called at the end of

1:02:56 ↗ the day and you know I think I think the

1:03:02 ↗ next place it's going to show up but

1:03:05 ↗ it's too early to tell is so the council

1:03:08 ↗ is going to work on a strategic plan

1:03:09 ↗ this year and what I think what would be

1:03:16 ↗ possibly a very interesting topic for

1:03:18 ↗ them to include in the strategic plan is

1:03:21 ↗ putting some kind of putting some edges

1:03:26 ↗ to that st3 station like where is it how

1:03:30 ↗ are we going to treat it you know for

1:03:33 ↗ those of us that were at the Chamber

1:03:36 ↗ lunch today where the mayor spoke there

1:03:39 ↗ was a question about you know I just

1:03:42 ↗ kind of want to see what this looks like

1:03:45 ↗ and Joan said I told you so and so so

1:03:51 ↗ that piece of this there's a there's a

1:03:53 ↗ huge desire I think for that jewel to

1:03:59 ↗ land and so that we can start planning

1:04:01 ↗ around it and so it will be interesting

1:04:03 ↗ for me to see and because they haven't

1:04:05 ↗ started having those conversations about

1:04:07 ↗ what the strategic plan is going to

1:04:09 ↗ include I don't know it could include

1:04:12 ↗ that it seems like that's a giant piece

1:04:14 ↗ for us to start a community conversation

1:04:16 ↗ about and how what a better way to do it

1:04:19 ↗ then put on a strategic plan we say okay

1:04:21 ↗ in the next two years we're gonna

1:04:22 ↗ unravel this thing and see what it

1:04:24 ↗ really looks like so so I think for me

1:04:28 ↗ that's a better spot than here because

1:04:31 ↗ here I'm not sure where that goes but

1:04:33 ↗ there I would know where it would go

1:04:37 ↗ by following along my little agenda

1:04:40 ↗ there's a public hearing on approval of

1:04:43 ↗ the docket and so I'm going to open up

1:04:46 ↗ the public hearing at 7:20 7:40 and ask

1:04:54 ↗ if anybody wants to talk about the

1:04:56 ↗ docket do we have a member of the

1:05:01 ↗ community that would be interested in

1:05:05 ↗ providing us information I'm going to

1:05:17 ↗ start with with how we get to the docket

1:05:21 ↗ and I would actually like to be able to

1:05:27 ↗ understand a little better

1:05:29 ↗ Bonnie can you tell us who you are

1:05:31 ↗ Connie mark are you doing that at this

1:05:34 ↗ meeting I get confused

1:05:35 ↗ Connie Marsh I live on squawk how how

1:05:41 ↗ the information gets into the docket now

1:05:44 ↗ in the past there has been a way to

1:05:47 ↗ propose your ideas to get on the docket

1:05:51 ↗ and that's a public interface where if

1:05:53 ↗ anybody wants to have a policy then you

1:05:55 ↗ would shove your idea in and then it

1:05:58 ↗ would go through some administrative

1:06:01 ↗ review and potentially be able to get up

1:06:03 ↗ on the docket and we used to actually do

1:06:07 ↗ that with the land use code too and that

1:06:09 ↗ has sort of disappeared in the

1:06:11 ↗ intervening years and so now when I look

1:06:14 ↗ at the docket I have a hard time

1:06:16 ↗ understanding exactly how everything has

1:06:21 ↗ gotten fed into the docket and so I go

1:06:24 ↗ to all the meetings and I hear all the

1:06:25 ↗ things that are happening and I sort of

1:06:27 ↗ go well are these really all the policy

1:06:30 ↗ decisions that are happening so we can

1:06:32 ↗ understand what we're going to be doing

1:06:33 ↗ this year and so I thought we were doing

1:06:40 ↗ the shoreline master plan this year and

1:06:43 ↗ I may be well and the shoreline master

1:06:47 ↗ plan is actually in your

1:06:49 ↗ back chapter 11 is one of those things

1:06:53 ↗ for update sure line master plan

1:06:56 ↗ policies could be make changes in this

1:07:02 ↗ and then Keith over here started talking

1:07:05 ↗ about the council doing a strategic plan

1:07:08 ↗ well if the council is doing a strategic

1:07:10 ↗ plan that it seems likely that the

1:07:12 ↗ council is going to start looking at

1:07:15 ↗ policy changes in their strategic plan

1:07:19 ↗ because I've never seen the council just

1:07:23 ↗ not go up into policy when they're

1:07:26 ↗ trying to create something and I didn't

1:07:29 ↗ I didn't even think to weave it in the

1:07:34 ↗ maintenance facilities for sp3 got put

1:07:38 ↗ in to the comprehensive plan whenever it

1:07:42 ↗ got put in and I know council has been

1:07:44 ↗ chafing that somehow we have indicated

1:07:46 ↗ that we're going to house the

1:07:48 ↗ maintenance facilities for for st 3 on

1:07:52 ↗ the valley floor and so speaking here I

1:07:59 ↗ then don't understand if I feel like

1:08:02 ↗ something is supposed to be on the

1:08:04 ↗ docket does that just now because

1:08:08 ↗ somebody came up with an idea we say who

1:08:11 ↗ look here's another idea let's put it on

1:08:13 ↗ the docket so if you approve the docket

1:08:15 ↗ after I have spoken I guess you all

1:08:21 ↗ would have to say yes this needs to be

1:08:23 ↗ on the docket and then Trish were to add

1:08:25 ↗ it to the docket so it seems awkward

1:08:28 ↗ that's sort of that's the the process

1:08:31 ↗ seems awkward to me to get it to get it

1:08:33 ↗ done thoroughly the treasurer's we've

1:08:38 ↗ been wanting to redo the treasurer's for

1:08:39 ↗ many years because our town is way

1:08:43 ↗ bigger and we only have treasures from

1:08:45 ↗ our valley floor and we have via

1:08:47 ↗ Highlands we have Tallis now we have

1:08:49 ↗ Lake Sammamish State Park and so it

1:08:52 ↗ seems time is we're going to be

1:08:53 ↗ developing shortly to start creating

1:08:55 ↗ some protections of the things that we

1:08:58 ↗ refuse to loose and these are sacred

1:09:02 ↗ thing

1:09:02 ↗ in our town that shall not be harmed and

1:09:04 ↗ I would like to see that put on the

1:09:08 ↗ docket for this year too

1:09:10 ↗ as a public conversation and one last

1:09:12 ↗ one the community engagement program we

1:09:20 ↗ have no real policies for what we want

1:09:23 ↗ to see so it's hard to create a package

1:09:26 ↗ for community engagement if we have no

1:09:29 ↗ sort of overarching guidance and goals

1:09:33 ↗ and policies for what we see for

1:09:36 ↗ community engagement so I would also

1:09:38 ↗ like to see that be done this year and

1:09:41 ↗ and so we'll see what happens next and

1:09:45 ↗ just a clarification if the PPC doesn't

1:09:48 ↗ recommend the items that you listed and

1:09:52 ↗ not that they wouldn't they may you can

1:09:54 ↗ also go to Landon Shore and because

1:09:57 ↗ there's still opportunities this is just

1:09:58 ↗ sort of that in January is the first

1:10:00 ↗ time that it comes to the public for

1:10:03 ↗ their ideas so it's not the last time

1:10:05 ↗ that you could share it honey before you

1:10:08 ↗ go of all the ideas that you just went

1:10:12 ↗ through which one would you say is the

1:10:15 ↗ most important it should be on this I

1:10:19 ↗ say the treasurer's because if we don't

1:10:23 ↗ address them they could disappear

1:10:29 ↗ thank you anybody else would like to

1:10:33 ↗ talk about the festive seeing no other

1:10:39 ↗ anybody else I will close the public

1:10:42 ↗ hearing at 7:45 and open it up to

1:10:51 ↗ discussion would you I actually agree

1:10:57 ↗ with what Connie Marsh had mentioned

1:11:00 ↗ about technically all three if we don't

1:11:05 ↗ talk about community engagement this

1:11:06 ↗ year we're not gonna lose it

1:11:09 ↗ st3 maintenance yard we're gonna address

1:11:11 ↗ it at some point so that's kind of an

1:11:13 ↗ asterisk the treasurer's I think it

1:11:15 ↗ might be a good time to talk about

1:11:17 ↗ something like that aspirational put it

1:11:19 ↗ on the list and see what plaintiff Shore

1:11:21 ↗ and City Council think he of the three

1:11:27 ↗ things that how the three things that

1:11:31 ↗ that were brought up are they things

1:11:34 ↗ that you feel should be on here are they

1:11:38 ↗ part of something else are they being

1:11:40 ↗ taken care of some other way there

1:11:42 ↗ another process than been being on this

1:11:45 ↗ dock and and so for those of us who were

1:11:49 ↗ talking in the back of the class those

1:11:51 ↗ three things were treasurer's program

1:11:57 ↗ meaning engagement program shoreline

1:11:58 ↗ master program so surely master III

1:12:01 ↗ maintenance so okay so there's four so

1:12:10 ↗ shoreline master plan let's start with

1:12:13 ↗ that so we are updating our shoreline

1:12:17 ↗ master plan there is grants available

1:12:21 ↗ from Department of Ecology I think we've

1:12:24 ↗ applied for a grant Doug your m'q is the

1:12:27 ↗ planner that's going to be in charge of

1:12:29 ↗ that work I don't know that that will be

1:12:32 ↗ done in time for any kind of policy

1:12:35 ↗ outcomes to be included in the docket

1:12:39 ↗ for this year so it may actually be so

1:12:41 ↗ the work that

1:12:42 ↗ being done to update the shoreline

1:12:44 ↗ master plan in 2018 would then be

1:12:48 ↗ reflected on a 2019 dock that's true but

1:12:51 ↗ you have things on there that are right

1:12:53 ↗ 2008 2019 I know nothing about that I

1:12:57 ↗ can put those on okay okay so it's it's

1:13:02 ↗ just basically a placeholder to make

1:13:03 ↗ sure that that somebody's looking at

1:13:05 ↗ them and okay okay so second item let's

1:13:10 ↗ go to the rail yard maintenance facility

1:13:15 ↗ you know that's it's a significant

1:13:20 ↗ facility but it is it is a it's a it's a

1:13:27 ↗ nuance to something else that we need to

1:13:29 ↗ talk about first right I mean once you

1:13:32 ↗ know where the station is then the

1:13:34 ↗ conversation about where the maintenance

1:13:35 ↗ facility goes goes hand-in-hand but you

1:13:38 ↗ can can't start talking about the

1:13:40 ↗ maintenance facility I mean for example

1:13:41 ↗ if the station stays within the i-90

1:13:44 ↗ right away it could be that the

1:13:45 ↗ maintenance facilities in the right away

1:13:47 ↗ as well and if that's the case I'm not

1:13:49 ↗ sure any of us super care maybe we do

1:13:51 ↗ maybe we don't but that's a conversation

1:13:53 ↗ that I don't think we are to yet and so

1:13:57 ↗ I think the first piece goes back to

1:13:59 ↗ what I said earlier let's see where

1:14:01 ↗ where the community wants to engage on

1:14:04 ↗ the st3 station and I have not heard

1:14:08 ↗ from my new mayor and where she might

1:14:11 ↗ want to start talking about that but

1:14:13 ↗ like I said the strategic planning

1:14:15 ↗ process will start unfolding

1:14:17 ↗ I think this spring and and then we'll

1:14:20 ↗ start to get a sense for what kind of

1:14:22 ↗ topics are going to be included that

1:14:23 ↗ conversation and whether the station

1:14:26 ↗ would be or not but the maintenance

1:14:29 ↗ facility is is proximate to the station

1:14:32 ↗ so those are those are I think going to

1:14:35 ↗ need to be talked about as kind of a

1:14:38 ↗ dumbell connected the treasures

1:14:44 ↗ I was talking treasures before Connie

1:14:47 ↗ was talking treasures as as

1:14:51 ↗ as being on that list now what I would

1:14:54 ↗ say though is I totally agree the

1:14:56 ↗ treasures need to be updated there needs

1:14:58 ↗ to be there needs to be a newer

1:15:01 ↗ conversation about the treasures than

1:15:03 ↗ the one that was done 93 in 93 so now

1:15:11 ↗ what I would tell you guys is to add

1:15:14 ↗ something of that caliber to the docket

1:15:18 ↗ for this year given the fact that we're

1:15:20 ↗ knee-deep in visions I don't I'm looking

1:15:25 ↗ at the staff that would have to lead

1:15:28 ↗ that exercise and I can tell you we

1:15:30 ↗ don't have bandwidth so my suggestion is

1:15:34 ↗ to not lose that and put that up there

1:15:36 ↗ for 19 and we can always slide it down

1:15:41 ↗ if 19 looks scarier than 18 but I can

1:15:45 ↗ tell you right now I can based on State

1:15:48 ↗ Park and visions and finishing up

1:15:52 ↗ moratorium things and the housing

1:15:54 ↗ strategies that we're kind of unpacking

1:15:57 ↗ this year and small-cell I mean I've got

1:16:00 ↗ a list that's this long of non permanent

1:16:03 ↗ related projects that Development

1:16:04 ↗ Services is doing adding a meaty item

1:16:07 ↗ like updating the treasures I get it

1:16:10 ↗ breaks my brain I don't know how we

1:16:12 ↗ would do that this year

1:16:13 ↗ I don't think that I don't even think

1:16:16 ↗ Connie thinks that it should be done

1:16:17 ↗ this year it's just too fast in it it

1:16:20 ↗ would be on the docket and it would have

1:16:23 ↗ a placeholder and you can as you've done

1:16:26 ↗ in many years before you've had it

1:16:28 ↗ scheduled and then you gather that for

1:16:31 ↗ the following year so it's it's an

1:16:34 ↗ interesting concept I'm just looking at

1:16:36 ↗ the visions and where we're putting

1:16:38 ↗ things and how we're developing stuff

1:16:40 ↗ and it would be nice to have something

1:16:42 ↗ that says these are the treasures that

1:16:45 ↗ we don't want to lose you know kind of

1:16:49 ↗ thing and so it kind of goes together so

1:16:51 ↗ I would like to see that up there as a

1:16:54 ↗ placeholder I don't I can't imagine

1:16:58 ↗ you're going to do it this year you

1:17:00 ↗ probably might not even do it next year

1:17:01 ↗ about Italy

1:17:02 ↗ it's on the docket and once it's on

1:17:04 ↗ there it's going to be done at some

1:17:06 ↗ point in time okay and question yeah he

1:17:10 ↗ explained the treasurer's can I explain

1:17:13 ↗ the treasurer's no because in 93 I was

1:17:16 ↗ still in Phoenix College

1:17:18 ↗ Trish explain the dressers when GMA came

1:17:22 ↗ out of the state in 1990 the first thing

1:17:24 ↗ that it's a quote one of the first

1:17:25 ↗ things this COIs wanted to do is figure

1:17:27 ↗ out what we wanted to keep so that in 20

1:17:30 ↗ in our 20 year growth management plan

1:17:32 ↗ with everybody coming to live here and

1:17:34 ↗ work here what did we want to keep

1:17:36 ↗ forever that would keep our town just

1:17:38 ↗ the way we wanted it so we had a big

1:17:40 ↗ outreach it was a great process where we

1:17:42 ↗ created a list of treasures that are in

1:17:44 ↗ the Comprehensive Plan and the list is

1:17:47 ↗ much longer than what's in the

1:17:48 ↗ comprehensive plan

1:17:49 ↗ but the council only adopted the first

1:17:53 ↗ 35 I think because 37 was Harvey Manning

1:17:57 ↗ and they didn't quite know how to

1:17:59 ↗ preserve Harvey Manning even though he

1:18:01 ↗ is a city treasurer they just felt a

1:18:04 ↗ little odd having a person listed so

1:18:06 ↗ they cut it the their list off at 35 but

1:18:09 ↗ it's a great list some of the things

1:18:11 ↗ we've lost already because they were in

1:18:12 ↗ there they weren't in the city of

1:18:14 ↗ Issaquah they were in the county but we

1:18:15 ↗ counted them as our city treasures but

1:18:18 ↗ I'd invite you to look at the list it's

1:18:20 ↗ a great list of things and it would be

1:18:22 ↗ really fun to update them because

1:18:24 ↗ there's less county so there's a lot of

1:18:25 ↗ things we have now that that we didn't

1:18:27 ↗ have back in 93 that we would like to

1:18:29 ↗ keep updating and there's mist the mist

1:18:34 ↗ and the mines that are our ancestors I

1:18:37 ↗ mean it's a great list so I guess the

1:18:39 ↗ question goes is there are their urgent

1:18:44 ↗ treasures that we need to identify

1:18:47 ↗ quickly as we before we start moving

1:18:50 ↗ forward with the moratorium or release

1:18:52 ↗ into the moratorium so that those are

1:18:54 ↗ protected well I'm not it's a resolution

1:18:58 ↗ recognizing the treasures that's not

1:19:00 ↗ actually code language that says that

1:19:02 ↗ you can't cut the big tree or that the

1:19:05 ↗ mist in the mountains

1:19:06 ↗ it's protected in anyway it's just a an

1:19:09 ↗ awareness that these are the things that

1:19:11 ↗ are important to us but like Gillman

1:19:13 ↗ village is a treasure right village and

1:19:15 ↗ so we've talked about that as a trick

1:19:17 ↗ even as part of the visions

1:19:19 ↗ you know the edible landscape on Gillman

1:19:23 ↗ isn't it you're looking at me like well

1:19:26 ↗ I don't know so so so there so this is

1:19:32 ↗ this is a bigger conversation trying to

1:19:34 ↗ say let's tackle a piece of it now again

1:19:38 ↗ you have no bandwidths there's no way to

1:19:42 ↗ add anything else to my plate you can

1:19:45 ↗ make a recommendation you guys have the

1:19:47 ↗ ability to make that recommendation I'm

1:19:48 ↗ gonna be trying to lobby against it

1:19:51 ↗ because I just don't think we can do a

1:19:53 ↗ good job with it this year because we

1:19:55 ↗ have so much else on our plate but I

1:19:57 ↗ have no problem putting it up here for a

1:20:00 ↗ 19 or a 20 work item my well my real

1:20:03 ↗ question comes down to I guess the

1:20:06 ↗ objective is do we have any high risks

1:20:09 ↗ sure Gilman it could be demolished

1:20:12 ↗ tomorrow but this treasurer's plan

1:20:16 ↗ doesn't do anything to protect them they

1:20:18 ↗ just acknowledges that these are

1:20:19 ↗ treasures yeah it's just a resolution

1:20:21 ↗ identifies there's certain things in our

1:20:24 ↗ community that make us us and I think we

1:20:30 ↗ need to revisit that because it's a

1:20:31 ↗ great conversation and then if nowadays

1:20:35 ↗ we look a lot more towards if we want to

1:20:38 ↗ actually have things happen how do we

1:20:40 ↗ then take actions to be successful and I

1:20:44 ↗ think that that is a conversation that

1:20:47 ↗ we need to have of that list of

1:20:49 ↗ treasures are there certain things we

1:20:50 ↗ can influence you know I don't know that

1:20:52 ↗ we can influence the mist in the

1:20:53 ↗ mountains maybe we can get a

1:20:56 ↗ climatologist to help us understand that

1:20:58 ↗ better but you know there might be some

1:21:01 ↗ actions we can take as a community to

1:21:03 ↗ make sure that at least a portion of the

1:21:06 ↗ treasures are are preserved I don't know

1:21:09 ↗ but that's a conversation we could have

1:21:14 ↗ it's a great list it was a great process

1:21:17 ↗ it really was yes it was and it's a

1:21:21 ↗ great list but there are some things on

1:21:23 ↗ it that are questionable and something

1:21:25 ↗ that we need I had one more I did

1:21:28 ↗ remember all for the community outreach

1:21:31 ↗ program so what I would tell you is I

1:21:36 ↗ don't know enough about that to know

1:21:40 ↗ whether that's comp plan policies I mean

1:21:44 ↗ so I don't know I don't know if that

1:21:48 ↗ discussion is going to generate then

1:21:51 ↗ policies to add to our comp plan or not

1:21:53 ↗ it could I know that the council

1:21:57 ↗ increased the funding for the

1:21:59 ↗ neighborhood outreach coordinator from

1:22:01 ↗ three quarters to full-time and so there

1:22:05 ↗ is kind of an increased effort to

1:22:07 ↗ improve our community outreach part of

1:22:10 ↗ that within development services is to

1:22:13 ↗ look at our construction noticing you

1:22:17 ↗ know the old white signs that used to go

1:22:19 ↗ up that said you know hey something's

1:22:21 ↗ going to all the trees are going to get

1:22:22 ↗ bulldozed on this property but as you

1:22:25 ↗ drove past it at 40 miles an hour you

1:22:26 ↗ didn't know if it was gonna be a single

1:22:27 ↗ house or a five storey you know

1:22:30 ↗ apartment building and so part of what

1:22:32 ↗ we've been talking about is how do we

1:22:34 ↗ change that to make it more transparent

1:22:36 ↗ to the community what's actually going

1:22:38 ↗ in there then we've done some tests with

1:22:42 ↗ some different projects that are under

1:22:43 ↗ construction right now and so that will

1:22:45 ↗ be one part it won't be pollen I can't

1:22:48 ↗ see policies coming out of that activity

1:22:49 ↗ but this other thing maybe maybe not

1:22:53 ↗ I don't know enough to know okay sorry

1:22:58 ↗ well are you recommending that we added

1:23:00 ↗ on to them to this list as a visibility

1:23:04 ↗ I'm not but you guys could write I don't

1:23:09 ↗ know what policies would be involved in

1:23:11 ↗ that either I don't there will be a code

1:23:13 ↗ amendment that you see I think because

1:23:15 ↗ some of the public outreach notification

1:23:17 ↗ would change if we're going in the

1:23:19 ↗ direction that we think we're going but

1:23:21 ↗ it's not a policy though it's just a

1:23:22 ↗ trying to do a better job

1:23:24 ↗ letting folks know when construction and

1:23:26 ↗ development is coming I think that's an

1:23:29 ↗ ongoing thing for you guys after you

1:23:32 ↗ hear from the neighbors that haven't

1:23:34 ↗ been warned about a four-story building

1:23:36 ↗ now you're understanding you got to do a

1:23:39 ↗ little bit more right you I don't think

1:23:43 ↗ that should be on there I think that's

1:23:44 ↗ something you should be doing all the

1:23:45 ↗ time and I could be right it's mark I

1:23:48 ↗ think it's a general discussion about

1:23:49 ↗ how the Community Engagement person

1:23:53 ↗ should be how time should be used to

1:23:58 ↗ increase public engagement in the

1:24:02 ↗ process so that would be the larger

1:24:04 ↗ conversation I would want to have I

1:24:07 ↗ don't think that probably fits in the

1:24:09 ↗ comprehensive plan no agreement I don't

1:24:15 ↗ know about you sir yeah or no so no I

1:24:19 ↗ said a quick question a different

1:24:20 ↗ question okay back to the table original

1:24:24 ↗ number 12 was is it's not proposed to be

1:24:28 ↗ on the docket and I'm fine with that but

1:24:30 ↗ I just have a question about it

1:24:31 ↗ create transportation element

1:24:33 ↗ implementation strategy that sounds like

1:24:36 ↗ something the community would really

1:24:37 ↗ resonate with at some point in time so I

1:24:39 ↗ don't really know what that is but I'm

1:24:42 ↗ glad it's on the list I get that we

1:24:43 ↗ don't have time for it this year but

1:24:44 ↗ maybe next year anything around

1:24:48 ↗ transportation I think besides the the

1:24:51 ↗ Improvement Program I think would before

1:24:55 ↗ we're thinking that's right

1:25:01 ↗ so actually I'd like to ask question the

1:25:03 ↗ commissioners of the four items that

1:25:05 ↗ were mentioned we want to discuss them

1:25:08 ↗ any further or do we want to add them on

1:25:10 ↗ as you get visibility to him well I I

1:25:16 ↗ thought that the idea of discussing the

1:25:19 ↗ treasures in some form would be nice

1:25:22 ↗ because it sounds like there's a lot of

1:25:24 ↗ there will probably be a longer

1:25:27 ↗ discussion than just one meeting and so

1:25:30 ↗ I think it would be nice to start that

1:25:32 ↗ discussion in 2018 I also don't know

1:25:40 ↗ that based on the information we heard

1:25:43 ↗ about what the list of treasures is

1:25:45 ↗ though I also don't think it's a

1:25:46 ↗ comprehensive plans amendment but I

1:25:49 ↗ think it would be nice to start the

1:25:51 ↗ discussion right and it's just the

1:25:53 ↗ located in the comprehensive plan it was

1:25:55 ↗ it was done as the beginning of our GMA

1:25:58 ↗ so we've always left it in there as I

1:26:00 ↗ think it's in volume 2 just so we

1:26:02 ↗ wouldn't lose it

1:26:04 ↗ but I'll send it to you tomorrow morning

1:26:06 ↗ so you can again read the treasures ok

1:26:10 ↗ so so with that we want to add any more

1:26:19 ↗ we're comfortable with where it is the

1:26:22 ↗ ones that Lindsay added are we adding

1:26:24 ↗ those oh because my main ideas were the

1:26:27 ↗ st3 station the regulation so that we're

1:26:31 ↗ not rezoning business Parker commercial

1:26:34 ↗ into multifamily and the vision surgeon

1:26:40 ↗ zero I'm gonna ask cristen the mobility

1:26:43 ↗ plan the master mobility plan would that

1:26:45 ↗ have something like the vision zero in

1:26:48 ↗ it it would cover it yeah okay the only

1:26:51 ↗ reason I brought it up was because it

1:26:53 ↗ was on Bellevue's docket for adding to

1:26:55 ↗ there so I wasn't sure whether it was

1:26:57 ↗ something that standard we should be

1:26:59 ↗ also adopting okay and do we know the

1:27:02 ↗ timeline for the mobility master plan no

1:27:05 ↗ waiting to get a transportation senior

1:27:08 ↗ transportation planner okay and the

1:27:10 ↗ transportation advisory board in place

1:27:12 ↗ and that's the nate'll start being

1:27:14 ↗ addressed and really that the

1:27:15 ↗ transportation 0 the transportation 0

1:27:17 ↗ like the water system plan that's

1:27:20 ↗ something that needs to be addressed

1:27:21 ↗ through the transportation group first

1:27:22 ↗ and then come to us okay that'll be good

1:27:26 ↗ for the transportation board okay we're

1:27:29 ↗ not adding anything so that one wouldn't

1:27:31 ↗ get added then is that right no I don't

1:27:35 ↗ think it needs to be out of it okay you

1:27:37 ↗ don't want to add any of the put the

1:27:40 ↗ others so we have the shoreline the

1:27:42 ↗ Community Engagement st3 maintenance

1:27:44 ↗ yard and the treasurer's and then your

1:27:46 ↗ vision zero so of those five we're not

1:27:50 ↗ recommending that we add any of these

1:27:53 ↗ onto the docket at least for visibility

1:27:58 ↗ I think for the most part we've decided

1:28:01 ↗ that those belong in other areas than

1:28:04 ↗ the Comprehensive Plan well they're

1:28:06 ↗ important things like the SD 3 station

1:28:08 ↗ location would happen with a strategic

1:28:11 ↗ plan or things with the policy on yes I

1:28:17 ↗ agree with what you said and I was

1:28:18 ↗ moving on to the next one the the policy

1:28:21 ↗ on no net loss of jobs slash business

1:28:23 ↗ parks that would be something that would

1:28:25 ↗ either go in economic vitality or the

1:28:27 ↗ land-use element we're still talking

1:28:29 ↗ about that one keeping that one

1:28:30 ↗ but you have one of those things up

1:28:35 ↗ there is you're gonna work on a number

1:28:38 ↗ of jobs right we're gonna have a

1:28:40 ↗ tracking of jobs like we have a tracking

1:28:42 ↗ of housing coming in and so I think that

1:28:45 ↗ kind of works together right there's not

1:28:48 ↗ an image I think you'll see be handled

1:28:50 ↗ by other conversations that are

1:28:52 ↗ happening again

1:28:53 ↗ it was in Redmon's docket so I just

1:28:56 ↗ there was a question though when Alice

1:28:58 ↗ came in and it wasn't a business park

1:29:01 ↗ but the little mall was taken out was

1:29:03 ↗ like wow how many jobs did we lose and

1:29:06 ↗ so I mean it begs the question do we

1:29:08 ↗ want to have something in there that at

1:29:10 ↗ least says that we're aware that if it

1:29:12 ↗ comes in I guess I could that as an idea

1:29:15 ↗ it could be presented in our

1:29:18 ↗ comprehensive plan as we value jobs and

1:29:23 ↗ don't want to work on those replacements

1:29:26 ↗ so I don't know whether that's a a

1:29:29 ↗ policy decision that then needs to find

1:29:32 ↗ a home in the comprehensive plan but it

1:29:36 ↗ certainly seems like something that as a

1:29:37 ↗ community we're having more discussion

1:29:39 ↗ around right why don't we just take

1:29:41 ↗ those five things and make a list and

1:29:46 ↗ keep them in front of us or either next

1:29:51 ↗ year or to make sure that they're done

1:29:53 ↗ or looked at just just keep a record of

1:29:57 ↗ them basically okay because I'm happy to

1:30:00 ↗ put because I agree that st3 should be

1:30:02 ↗ in the strategic plan for the bigger

1:30:04 ↗ question the shoreline master program

1:30:06 ↗ I'm happy to put that in for 2019

1:30:08 ↗ because you'll be seeing probably parts

1:30:11 ↗ of it as it comes through if there's

1:30:12 ↗ change and that applies to the

1:30:14 ↗ comprehensive plan so I think it's the

1:30:15 ↗ appropriate place right and then the

1:30:18 ↗ treasurer's either in starting this year

1:30:22 ↗ at the end of the year and then

1:30:23 ↗ continuing on into 2019 I'm happy to put

1:30:26 ↗ those on as a separate line in the

1:30:27 ↗ docket and I but I don't have five what

1:30:30 ↗ I'm when am I missing so the five was so

1:30:35 ↗ shoreline community engagement st3

1:30:37 ↗ maintenance Treasury

1:30:40 ↗ in the vision zero vision zero is gonna

1:30:43 ↗ screw up somewhere else Community

1:30:45 ↗ Engagement is going to go somewhere else

1:30:48 ↗ the shoreline st3 maintenance and

1:30:51 ↗ treasures is st3 maintenance in the

1:30:54 ↗ Comprehensive Plan it's in the central

1:30:57 ↗ plan but I think it should get figured

1:30:59 ↗ out in this treaty it should but these

1:31:01 ↗ are comprehensive plan amendment so sing

1:31:03 ↗ it goes out somewhere else right yep

1:31:06 ↗ so we're down to shoreline and what

1:31:08 ↗ buzzers which are both comprehensive

1:31:11 ↗ plan right and the policy of no net loss

1:31:13 ↗ or at least a considered so yeah or no

1:31:17 ↗ well actually yeah I would say it

1:31:20 ↗ probably belongs in the Comprehensive

1:31:22 ↗ Plan whether or not I would be handled

1:31:24 ↗ this year or not so I have no net loss

1:31:26 ↗ the shoreline master program and the

1:31:28 ↗ treasurer's you don't have to put all

1:31:31 ↗ these in there you understand that I

1:31:33 ↗ mean we're making you don't have to put

1:31:36 ↗ them all in here and they don't have to

1:31:38 ↗ be done this year as long as you write

1:31:40 ↗ and Keith understand that they don't

1:31:42 ↗ have to be landing in Keith the capital

1:31:45 ↗ facilities plan we're actually moving

1:31:47 ↗ forward with getting the data to support

1:31:50 ↗ that initiative for 2019 I think I lost

1:32:00 ↗ that brain cell over the holidays so I'm

1:32:02 ↗ pretty so it was in the department's

1:32:05 ↗ budget to fund the update of the rate

1:32:08 ↗ study I don't remember if it got adopted

1:32:10 ↗ so I need to and we were trying to look

1:32:13 ↗ on a phone but well we'll Trish we'll

1:32:16 ↗ follow up with you tomorrow and give you

1:32:18 ↗ an idea of whether or not the rate study

1:32:20 ↗ got funded if it did then we will have

1:32:23 ↗ that done by the end of the year and

1:32:24 ↗ there will be updated impact fees for

1:32:28 ↗ police fire general government if it

1:32:32 ↗ didn't get funded I need to remember why

1:32:35 ↗ it didn't get funded because I remember

1:32:36 ↗ we asked for it so I need to figure out

1:32:38 ↗ the pathway of where it fell off the the

1:32:40 ↗ funding proposal but your guys memo that

1:32:44 ↗ you said saying the city needs to update

1:32:46 ↗ its impact fees that was why it was put

1:32:50 ↗ on the request for this year and I

1:32:52 ↗ I'm at least 75% sure it got funded but

1:32:56 ↗ I don't know for sure so we will do a

1:32:59 ↗ little homework and let you guys know

1:33:01 ↗ that and if so then then the impact fees

1:33:06 ↗ need to be updated right but we were

1:33:08 ↗ upset about that last time was that the

1:33:10 ↗ last study was done six or seven years

1:33:13 ↗ ago with the treasures and and it came

1:33:18 ↗ down to we needed no new policemen no

1:33:21 ↗ new firemen and we had an excess of a

1:33:24 ↗ fire truck and so things have changed

1:33:26 ↗ drastically since that so if the level

1:33:31 ↗ of service data did get funded

1:33:34 ↗ is that still and that's on the other

1:33:37 ↗ page is that still listed as 2019 or

1:33:43 ↗ would that potentially move it up into

1:33:45 ↗ 2018 it would depend on how fast the

1:33:47 ↗ consultant can get that data together

1:33:49 ↗ okay as I would say of the kind of

1:33:54 ↗ extras that would be a pretty important

1:33:56 ↗ one right to me considering the

1:33:58 ↗ conversation on impact fees and the fact

1:34:00 ↗ that we are so behind on so I'm sure we

1:34:03 ↗ have small cells helping Kristen use her

1:34:06 ↗ phone to stream data so it is it is in

1:34:10 ↗ the adopted budget so we will be

1:34:12 ↗ inserting me to put that on your list of

1:34:14 ↗ things to do because I'm sure you had

1:34:16 ↗ more capacity so we will get the

1:34:20 ↗ consultant started on that sometime soon

1:34:23 ↗ [Music]

1:34:24 ↗ yes yeah our first quarter list which is

1:34:28 ↗ a page and a half long

1:34:29 ↗ apparently it needs to at least one more

1:34:30 ↗ thing so so we will do that and that's

1:34:33 ↗ good I thought that that it got funded

1:34:36 ↗ but I just couldn't remember for sure so

1:34:40 ↗ by leaving this as number 11 well I have

1:34:45 ↗ to remember them it will be 13 now so

1:34:48 ↗ are those 11 and 12 okay first of all is

1:34:50 ↗ this in order of importance no okay okay

1:34:54 ↗ it's just on the docket then so that

1:34:57 ↗ means you have the authority or the

1:34:58 ↗ ability to actually move forward

1:35:00 ↗ getting the funniness supposing the

1:35:04 ↗ consultant is able

1:35:05 ↗ to finish their work not for yes okay

1:35:13 ↗ right all right excellent

1:35:16 ↗ and when you think of the process we

1:35:17 ↗ hope to come to you in September for a

1:35:19 ↗ public hearing which would mean all

1:35:21 ↗ their work would have to be done before

1:35:23 ↗ that so we would have the numbers by

1:35:24 ↗ then so I'm not sure we would have them

1:35:26 ↗ all but we might have one we might have

1:35:29 ↗ police done or whichever they do first I

1:35:32 ↗ just have to see how fast they can go

1:35:37 ↗ next I need a motion to approve what

1:35:42 ↗ we've just changed on the docket I'm

1:35:46 ↗ chairman I move that we approve a

1:35:48 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment docket for

1:35:53 ↗ 2018 with the changes we've discussed

1:35:57 ↗ including the new highlighted and red

1:36:01 ↗ portion on this slide for numbers 11 and

1:36:07 ↗ 12 and that's the new 11 and the old 11

1:36:14 ↗ being added becomes 13 into 2018 well

1:36:22 ↗ yep second all those in favor say aye

1:36:29 ↗ opposed say no motion carries

1:36:34 ↗ done how are anything else for the good

1:36:38 ↗ of the order besides when our next

1:36:39 ↗ meeting is not that I know of but I've

1:36:43 ↗ sent an email out because yes we're

1:36:45 ↗ looking for yet another night for a

1:36:47 ↗ quorum for the vision and I've heard two

1:36:51 ↗ responses of yeses so we're well on our

1:36:53 ↗ way and it would be Wednesday February

1:36:57 ↗ 28th so make sure you let me know if

1:37:00 ↗ you're able to do yet another exciting

1:37:02 ↗ vision night on a Wednesday I know it's

1:37:05 ↗ exciting you know I was planning a world

1:37:07 ↗ tour well it was either Valentine's Day

1:37:10 ↗ or the 28th and as much as we love

1:37:12 ↗ I went with xx so something that's okay

1:37:16 ↗ if I already responded to your email

1:37:17 ↗ because if not yes you did so thank you

1:37:21 ↗ you and Lindsay have said yes and so yes

1:37:25 ↗ okay well I need I need verification and

1:37:28 ↗ right I will but thank you but the other

1:37:31 ↗ dates then would be you have next week

1:37:33 ↗ off like what will you do with your

1:37:35 ↗ spare time but you have homework to do I

1:37:37 ↗ sent you home work this morning

1:37:38 ↗ and then next week you can either send

1:37:41 ↗ me the answers to your homework and we

1:37:43 ↗ can make beautiful slides so that when

1:37:44 ↗ you share your thoughts with the rest of

1:37:46 ↗ the commissioners they'll be on slides

1:37:48 ↗ or you can just bring them yourself and

1:37:50 ↗ we can go from there and then next the

1:37:53 ↗ next week after that you have two

1:37:54 ↗ meetings in a row so January is all very

1:37:57 ↗ exciting so use your time off next week

1:38:00 ↗ wisely okay and thank you very much for

1:38:05 ↗ all your work it's pretty exciting with

1:38:08 ↗ that I will call the meeting closed at

1:38:11 ↗ 8:11 thank you

1:38:25 ↗ 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