Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 15, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

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 – AJ McGauley see IMC 18.03. 2018 – Althea Saldanha 2018 – Vacant 2018 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 25, 2018

packet pp.5–10

▶ Watch from 0:26 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

Minutes of February 1, 2018

packet pp.11–15

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 24, 2017 Planning Policy Commission · Jan 10, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Jan 11, 2018

▶ Watch from 5:26 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Discussion: Central Issaquah District Visions and Green Necklace, (I)

Keith Niven, Development Services Director Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager · packet pp.17–25

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

Continued

3296 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ good evening and welcome to the February

0:07 ↗ 15th meeting in the planning competition

0:10 ↗ tonight we're going to talk continue our

0:13 ↗ discussion on revisions or it's a clop

0:16 ↗ we're gonna look at two of the

0:19 ↗ neighborhoods and see where we should go

0:22 ↗ with that but first we have two minutes

0:26 ↗ to approve the minutes of January 1st

0:30 ↗ 5th and February the first do I have a

0:33 ↗ motion to approve the minutes for

0:35 ↗ January 25th I'd like to make a motion

0:38 ↗ to approve the minutes for January 25th

0:41 ↗ second any discussion any changes all

0:46 ↗ those in favor say aye

0:47 ↗ all right the minutes of February first

0:50 ↗ I need a motion like to make a motion to

0:53 ↗ approve the minutes of 2018 it's a great

0:57 ↗ first very first what do they say second

1:03 ↗ second any discussion hearing none all

1:08 ↗ those in favor say aye

1:12 ↗ okay so you can pull up the different

1:20 ↗ neighborhoods

1:24 ↗ I just like to kind of remind suckers

1:28 ↗ everybody um me included the City

1:33 ↗ Council gave us the directions to do a

1:36 ↗ vision it did not give us the authority

1:40 ↗ or the directions to do any code so when

1:45 ↗ we go through this tonight I want you to

1:48 ↗ just look at the various issues with the

1:55 ↗ idea that they are visions and we're not

1:58 ↗ going to add any codes or any assumption

2:02 ↗ that there's gonna be codes in the

2:04 ↗ vision so we're going to go and do

2:09 ↗ something a little different I know that

2:11 ↗ they planted the taskforce put a lot of

2:15 ↗ time into creating a packet couple years

2:19 ↗ ago and it was never approved by the

2:23 ↗ City Council but there is

2:26 ↗ a lot of valuable information in there

2:29 ↗ they spent a long time doing it even a

2:32 ↗ lot longer than we have even though it

2:35 ↗ seems like we've been doing this forever

2:37 ↗ and so Lindsey came up with the in her

2:43 ↗ reading and homework with the link that

2:50 ↗ Trish gave to all of you about going

2:54 ↗ back to the original report by the by

2:58 ↗ the task force I don't know if you've

3:00 ↗ had a chance to look at it but what I'd

3:03 ↗ like to do tonight if I have your

3:05 ↗ approval is I like to go through what

3:09 ↗ the city has going to be in front of us

3:12 ↗ what you have in your packet and then

3:14 ↗ after we go through the first community

3:18 ↗ that we're going to go and look at what

3:21 ↗ the original task force had a lot of the

3:25 ↗ issues on there are things that don't

3:28 ↗ really compute to what we're looking at

3:31 ↗ now but there might be some ideas in

3:33 ↗ there that actually well we missed that

3:36 ↗ one we need to put that into our final

3:39 ↗ vision of what we wanted to do so if

3:42 ↗ that's okay with you yes okay so with

3:46 ↗ that Kate would you pull up those

3:50 ↗ communities that we're gonna look at

3:51 ↗ tonight

3:57 ↗ so we're gonna with what used to be

4:01 ↗ called gateway is now being called

4:04 ↗ Wesley port so so structurally just to

4:13 ↗ kind of go through the framework and

4:15 ↗ then we'll go back up to the top is we

4:18 ↗ have a paragraph kind of describing

4:21 ↗ what's going on with the area today

4:24 ↗ there's a paragraph about what the

4:28 ↗ future we expect the area to evolve into

4:32 ↗ there's a map and then we have our

4:38 ↗ developer obligations city implementing

4:41 ↗ actions and then measures for success

4:44 ↗ [Music]

4:48 ↗ segregated by the four objectives that

4:52 ↗ we identified in this story section

4:54 ↗ which is livable distinctive connected

4:56 ↗ and sustainable so with that I'm gonna

4:59 ↗ scroll back up to the top and

5:05 ↗ look at you all awkward okay yeah so I

5:09 ↗ have some thoughts on the whole livable

5:11 ↗ distinctive connective sustainable thing

5:13 ↗ because I went back and I looked at

5:15 ↗ neighborhood visions for Bellevue and

5:17 ↗ Redmond and Kirkland and Renton and all

5:20 ↗ around the area and none of them include

5:24 ↗ developer obligations and things like

5:27 ↗ that as far as trying to create code

5:30 ↗ language some of them have policy

5:33 ↗ languages things for the city to think

5:37 ↗ about but none of them have the

5:39 ↗ developer obligations and they're all

5:44 ↗ all of their content is organized around

5:50 ↗ certain topics that people care about

5:54 ↗ things like character scale of the

5:57 ↗ neighborhood the connectivity and

5:59 ↗ mobility housing in residential parks

6:03 ↗ and natural environment and I feel like

6:07 ↗ those are essential to getting a vision

6:11 ↗ for what that neighborhood is or will be

6:15 ↗ whereas the information that's included

6:18 ↗ in that liveable distinctive just

6:21 ↗ doesn't doesn't provide a picture for me

6:26 ↗ and then secondarily thinking about the

6:31 ↗ user of the document whether or not the

6:34 ↗ public and staff and developers would

6:39 ↗ read that as it is

6:42 ↗ so those are kind of my two concepts

6:45 ↗ here why I don't think that necessarily

6:48 ↗ works for what we're going for as a

6:51 ↗ vision so instead of developer

6:56 ↗ obligations as I read some of these

7:02 ↗ issues here I look at that more as what

7:09 ↗ the vision is what it's going to look

7:11 ↗ like instead of what the developer is

7:13 ↗ going to support

7:21 ↗ parks and trails will be will create

7:25 ↗ social opportunities to me that's more

7:28 ↗ of a vision than having a statement in

7:31 ↗ there for developer obligations and I

7:35 ↗ think if you're trying to create a

7:37 ↗ distinctive view of what is West Newport

7:40 ↗ saying providing parks and trails that

7:42 ↗ creative social opportunities that's

7:44 ↗ something that we want in every

7:45 ↗ neighborhood sure and so trying to bring

7:51 ↗ this down to what really is that

7:55 ↗ neighborhood what do we need to know

7:57 ↗ about it to create a vision that

7:59 ↗ developers and the public and staff can

8:02 ↗ buy into so that we're all working off

8:04 ↗ the same page and I just don't think

8:07 ↗ that those things do that for me so

8:13 ↗ we've spent multiple nights getting to

8:16 ↗ this place right agreed and you guys

8:20 ↗ told us to get to this place

8:21 ↗ I can bring up video footage and so so

8:25 ↗ what you're hearing from staff is we've

8:29 ↗ had like six meetings to get to here

8:32 ↗ because you guys have funneled it to

8:34 ↗ this place so the problem with that

8:35 ↗ Keith is we didn't have the task force

8:38 ↗ report and you didn't provide us any

8:42 ↗ other examples that we should be working

8:46 ↗ from in order to know what some of the

8:50 ↗ other options were so what we did was

8:52 ↗ look at what you had presented and say

8:54 ↗ okay yes we want something to be livable

8:57 ↗ and distinctive and you know things like

8:59 ↗ that whereas when I went back and looked

9:02 ↗ at other options I realized what's

9:05 ↗ missing and what things are important

9:11 ↗ okay okay so when you look at the on the

9:16 ↗ first page the future can we add

9:22 ↗ additional things on there and still

9:25 ↗ have our livable distinctive

9:31 ↗ if we feel like that's useful I think

9:35 ↗ that's fine what I would want to see in

9:38 ↗ the future section is things that cover

9:42 ↗ things like the mobility and the parts

9:45 ↗ of a natural environment and things that

9:48 ↗ talk about what this neighborhood is in

9:51 ↗ the specifics what are the things that

9:53 ↗ make this West Newport well I was just

10:00 ↗ gonna say that ya know I have a couple

10:03 ↗ thoughts first I think thinking about

10:07 ↗ how we sort of got funnel to this place

10:09 ↗ I actually like this because it's

10:13 ↗ different than every other plan general

10:15 ↗ plan or comprehensive plan or whatever

10:17 ↗ they've ever seen which I've always felt

10:19 ↗ was sort of our oh they're always sort

10:22 ↗ of disjunct parks over here and

10:26 ↗ something else over here and something

10:27 ↗ else over here and this I think gives us

10:28 ↗ the opportunity to kind of tie it all

10:30 ↗ together but so I like the organization

10:33 ↗ of it but but it's maybe what you're

10:35 ↗ saying Lindsey and I think you're onto

10:37 ↗ something there is that we're missing an

10:39 ↗ opportunity to get more specific and

10:41 ↗ talk about in this case West Newport in

10:44 ↗ the next case you know something else

10:45 ↗ because we have more general language

10:48 ↗ which we talked about several meetings

10:50 ↗ past that flies up above this that

10:52 ↗ generally talks about what we want to

10:54 ↗ see so maybe it's just a matter of

10:56 ↗ getting more specific I do I mean I'm

10:59 ↗ not wedded to the idea of I love the

11:03 ↗ measures of success like that tells us

11:05 ↗ when we know we got there I'm not wedded

11:08 ↗ to whether we have developer obligations

11:10 ↗ or city implementing actions I would I

11:12 ↗ would look to developers in the city you

11:14 ↗ know staff to tell me if that's

11:16 ↗ important because I think you know where

11:20 ↗ we're going and whether and when we get

11:22 ↗ there is more important to me and I

11:25 ↗ think that the first piece is where

11:27 ↗ we're going and then the measures of

11:29 ↗ success is how we know when we got there

11:30 ↗ so that's

11:32 ↗ that's those are my thoughts though

11:38 ↗ nobody said anything I'm gonna call on

11:40 ↗ you Ron I have more things to say

11:46 ↗ Oh

11:48 ↗ you need a microphone

11:54 ↗ if no one illnesses well I'd like to

11:56 ↗ hear from the commissioners first I read

11:58 ↗ and by all means I've read through this

12:16 ↗ three times and

12:27 ↗ do you not like the way it's set up or

12:30 ↗ do you like the garbage in it to be more

12:33 ↗ specific what would you ask

12:36 ↗ [Music]

12:43 ↗ I would add more storytelling time

12:49 ↗ and someone reads this I want them to be

12:51 ↗ able to visualize what we're looking for

12:55 ↗ as opposed to this sounds very realistic

13:00 ↗ and not very aspirational okay so would

13:03 ↗ you add more to the future and add maybe

13:09 ↗ two or three paragraphs that gives you

13:12 ↗ the aspirational stuff and then what

13:15 ↗ Lindsay wants or suggests that she wants

13:19 ↗ what she suggests I would say yes it

13:23 ↗ needs more me here okay

13:25 ↗ it needs more meat there and we can work

13:28 ↗ on that what about the this part would

13:31 ↗ you keep it the way it is I would change

13:36 ↗ theirs sponsor than that the way it is

13:40 ↗ structured now it's difficult to read

13:42 ↗ it's difficult to understand so the way

13:46 ↗ I think it's laid out if there's just

13:48 ↗ too much too many words it's too worried

13:53 ↗ we're a person who's going to look at

13:56 ↗ this they should be able to look at this

13:58 ↗ and once they read it understand what

14:01 ↗ they just read within 30 seconds 45

14:07 ↗ seconds and this takes almost two

14:10 ↗ minutes to be able to read and to end

14:13 ↗ and then when you are done with it you

14:15 ↗ go what did I just read that's the way I

14:18 ↗ look at this so I think there's too many

14:22 ↗ words and I understand we also want meat

14:24 ↗ to the to the vision so that it's more

14:29 ↗ when we write the code it's better

14:32 ↗ understood but I think that's the

14:34 ↗ competency of the code writer as opposed

14:39 ↗ to this document

14:44 ↗ where you find a seat

14:50 ↗ okay so one of the things I tried to do

14:55 ↗ when looking at each of the

14:57 ↗ neighborhoods was to do a SWOT analysis

15:00 ↗ as former mayor Butler used always say

15:03 ↗ strengths weaknesses opportunities and

15:06 ↗ threats and I think that allows you to

15:10 ↗ take a look at the individual

15:12 ↗ neighborhood and kind of have a

15:14 ↗ brainstorming session on okay what's

15:17 ↗ really important to West Newport what

15:20 ↗ are the things where we have an

15:22 ↗ opportunity there and what are the

15:26 ↗ weaknesses that we need to make up for

15:28 ↗ in that and so I was able to identify a

15:31 ↗ few things that I think those are the

15:33 ↗ unique things that really talked about

15:35 ↗ what that neighborhood is so I think

15:37 ↗ that would be a useful technique as well

15:40 ↗ so we back to just that perfect you know

15:45 ↗ we're adding the paragraphs we can add

15:47 ↗ that we can come up with two or three

15:51 ↗ additional ideas that you want to put

15:54 ↗ into that and I'm sure staff can create

15:57 ↗ and we can add bullets underneath this

16:01 ↗ what I want to know is after we do that

16:05 ↗ what are you doing with it

16:08 ↗ do we want it set up the way it is I

16:11 ↗ mean we originally said that we like the

16:15 ↗ the format I don't like some stuff I

16:19 ↗ think one of the great reasons that it's

16:21 ↗ hard to read it's because the way it's

16:23 ↗ written you know it it goes back and

16:27 ↗ forth between different ways to start

16:29 ↗ the 2.32 starts a different way than two

16:33 ↗ point one and it's not easy and

16:35 ↗ consistent to read if you tell me what

16:42 ↗ the

16:44 ↗ you know I mean my perspective is I like

16:46 ↗ the structure I the one thing that I

16:47 ↗ could see maybe used to make it more

16:49 ↗ simple would be you could actually

16:52 ↗ combine the developer obligations and

16:54 ↗ city implementing actions to one quatre

16:56 ↗ category that's just implementing

16:59 ↗ actions whether that be developer or the

17:00 ↗ city or whomever I do like again like I

17:04 ↗ said the measures of success I mean I

17:06 ↗ like the structure we can work on

17:08 ↗ consistency in wording or you know being

17:12 ↗ more specific but as I go through here

17:13 ↗ and start looking you know circling

17:15 ↗ things like there's a lot of specificity

17:16 ↗ in here there are some places where it's

17:18 ↗ general but maybe by combining developer

17:23 ↗ obligations and city implementing

17:25 ↗ actions we could you know cut it down on

17:27 ↗ the word the number of words a little

17:28 ↗ bit and combine some things I like the

17:31 ↗ structure so the reason the developer

17:35 ↗ obligations stuff was put in was so that

17:38 ↗ we could satisfy the idea of the

17:41 ↗ original plan didn't end up giving us

17:47 ↗ what we wanted and many thought that was

17:51 ↗ because it didn't have the code language

17:53 ↗ that solidified that vision and so if

17:57 ↗ I'm not mistaken the developer

17:59 ↗ obligations was put in kind of a pseudo

18:03 ↗ code so that we can say developers you

18:06 ↗ have to do this in these neighborhood so

18:09 ↗ that we get this vision yes yes okay so

18:16 ↗ my question is do we think that

18:21 ↗ accomplishes that does it meet the need

18:24 ↗ of that audience that reader of the

18:27 ↗ document

18:30 ↗ and I guess that's more for the

18:32 ↗ commissioners

18:36 ↗ because there's a lot of ways that we

18:37 ↗ can handle code and I think many of us

18:40 ↗ believe that the original CIP didn't

18:45 ↗ give us what we wanted because the code

18:49 ↗ wasn't there to back that up but whether

18:54 ↗ or not this developer obligations idea

18:57 ↗ satisfies that or whether there's

18:59 ↗ another way for us as PPC to make a

19:03 ↗ recommendation to Council to say we

19:07 ↗ approve of these neighborhood visions

19:11 ↗ but you have to put a plan in place to

19:16 ↗ create the code that codify is these

19:18 ↗ ideas I don't know what the best option

19:22 ↗ is but I feel like we need to come up

19:24 ↗ with something solve a question so are

19:29 ↗ these and written are these actually

19:31 ↗ enforceable yes so would any development

19:36 ↗ need to meet all 12 of these so you

19:41 ↗ would apply them as applicable so like

19:45 ↗ for example because it got worse so like

19:50 ↗ if so let's say that there's some

19:53 ↗ objectives oriented to open space right

19:58 ↗ if I've got a piece of property that has

20:00 ↗ open space on it or adjacent to it and

20:04 ↗ that would not apply right so if it so

20:07 ↗ it would be as applicable

20:10 ↗ so like ensure variety of housing

20:13 ↗ choices are available does that mean the

20:16 ↗ code says you can no longer have a

20:18 ↗ development where it's all the same

20:21 ↗ housing type so it would give the city

20:23 ↗ the opportunity to have a conversation

20:24 ↗ with an applicant to say you know what

20:28 ↗ the only thing the only housing that we

20:30 ↗ have in this neighborhood is apartments

20:32 ↗ and they're all two and three-bedroom

20:34 ↗ Apartments and that's what you're

20:37 ↗ proposing we've got something here that

20:40 ↗ says we're trying to get a variety of

20:42 ↗ housing so you know what's the

20:45 ↗ opportunity to get you to do something

20:46 ↗ different defend your project to be

20:49 ↗ offer a different type and if the

20:52 ↗ developer doesn't play ball can you

20:53 ↗ actually deny them a permit so on that

20:57 ↗ one is I would say the answer is

20:59 ↗ probably no because unless it's the last

21:03 ↗ project in the neighborhood you know

21:05 ↗ there's always opportunities for

21:07 ↗ something else to build differently but

21:10 ↗ this is an opportunity for us to have a

21:12 ↗ conversation because it's clear we want

21:15 ↗ a variety of housing right and so

21:20 ↗ there's good in there's gonna need to be

21:22 ↗ some discretion in the enforcement of

21:25 ↗ these but I think that's I think that's

21:27 ↗ what I'm struggling with is if you can't

21:29 ↗ deny a permit on these are they actually

21:32 ↗ enforceable so they're so they are

21:36 ↗ [Music]

21:38 ↗ they give the city leverage to to have a

21:41 ↗ conversation and that's better than what

21:44 ↗ we have now right we have now is we want

21:48 ↗ mixed use neighborhood okay I you know

21:52 ↗ so there's there's a level of

21:53 ↗ specificity here that allows for a

21:56 ↗ different conversation to happen I mean

21:59 ↗ yeah I mean some of them and some of

22:00 ↗ them are more directive than others

22:02 ↗ right I mean if there's if there's you

22:05 ↗ know there's some in here that talk

22:07 ↗ about orientation to open soon aces or

22:11 ↗ even you're gonna provide opportunities

22:12 ↗ for people to get you know into an

22:15 ↗ appreciate open space as well okay

22:18 ↗ that's pretty clear you have to do that

22:20 ↗ right and if the developer says no I

22:22 ↗ just want to put a chain-link fence up

22:24 ↗ against wetland you know to keep people

22:27 ↗ out of it then for real situation we had

22:32 ↗ an applicant who wants to put a parking

22:34 ↗ lot next to a creek okay that's a great

22:38 ↗ relationship to that open space which is

22:40 ↗ supposed to be amenity to your property

22:42 ↗ right with this I can tell him now you

22:44 ↗ can't do that

22:45 ↗ maybe there needs to be a trail there

22:47 ↗ may be the parking lot needs to be set

22:49 ↗ back and there needs to be actually a

22:51 ↗ public space next to the creek right so

22:55 ↗ there's so it's not it's not prescribing

22:57 ↗ like you can only build a four-story

22:59 ↗ building here right that's code these

23:02 ↗ are in the conversation

23:04 ↗ trying to not use this because it's

23:06 ↗ gonna open up a whole other endures box

23:09 ↗ these are like design guidelines so

23:11 ↗ these are there's they're more they're

23:14 ↗ not prescriptive their performance-based

23:17 ↗ so that's like okay you know we expect

23:20 ↗ you to do this you might be able to

23:22 ↗ accomplish that 12 different ways but it

23:25 ↗ doesn't mean you get to ignore it right

23:28 ↗ so so AJ you were late I was and now

23:34 ↗ that everybody knows if you're right

23:36 ↗ we weren't directed to write code we

23:40 ↗ were directed to creative vision

23:43 ↗ and we can't think of all of those

23:47 ↗ builder requirements in school

23:51 ↗ our idea is the vision of the general

23:54 ↗ you know aspirational thing if the City

23:58 ↗ Council reads this and they decide that

24:01 ↗ they want specific codes then they'll go

24:03 ↗ back and they'll tell the city write

24:06 ↗ codes to make this happen and then it

24:08 ↗ will come back to us to review the code

24:10 ↗ right so and I get that like I don't I

24:14 ↗ don't want this to be code that's not

24:15 ↗ what this is supposed to be and this

24:17 ↗ this is this is great and it is much

24:19 ↗ better than where we had before but I

24:20 ↗ feel like it's not it's still

24:23 ↗ aspirational and so when we deliver this

24:25 ↗ to council can we recommend that it

24:28 ↗ still needs code sure you can recommend

24:31 ↗ anything you want okay

24:34 ↗ that would be my approach - yeah well

24:37 ↗ yeah because I totally you what you're

24:40 ↗ saying in that like this this isn't code

24:42 ↗ and it's not supposed to be code you

24:43 ↗ know we don't want it to be code but I

24:45 ↗ just feel like it's it doesn't do

24:47 ↗ anything until there is also okay your

24:52 ↗ turn

24:54 ↗ so

25:00 ↗ in my own okay y'all

25:04 ↗ good we're all on the paragraphs are

25:09 ↗ pretty specific to the neighborhood they

25:13 ↗ are not describing anything but the

25:15 ↗ things in that neighborhood I suppose

25:18 ↗ you could get more detailed and

25:22 ↗ aspirational in that I think I've done

25:25 ↗ that before though I think you would

25:31 ↗ need to suggest what you think is

25:33 ↗ missing from each of those neighborhoods

25:36 ↗ in particular now the way I envision the

25:44 ↗ next pages being used

25:46 ↗ our staff and the developer look at

25:51 ↗ these concepts together and from the

25:54 ↗ very beginning you're all aligned going

25:58 ↗ in a better direction than you are now

26:00 ↗ and everybody is on the same page with

26:05 ↗ their neighborhood and what it's

26:07 ↗ supposed to be and that never happened

26:09 ↗ before and I see this then following

26:11 ↗ through to Development Commission as a

26:13 ↗ part of a neighborhood checklist where

26:16 ↗ the development Commission then says

26:18 ↗ well you know but all of your your

26:21 ↗ obligations are not being fulfilled and

26:24 ↗ so then the Development Commission has

26:28 ↗ more tools code for each neighborhood to

26:33 ↗ this detail is like crazy hard

26:40 ↗ gives no flexibility and variability so

26:44 ↗ well it does seem like it I of all

26:49 ↗ people would love to say and you shall

26:52 ↗ do exactly this I also know that that's

26:55 ↗ how you get a stagnant town and we well

27:00 ↗ we don't need the freedom that they've

27:02 ↗ had to this point where staff just sort

27:06 ↗ of interprets and it's not very guided I

27:09 ↗ think this actually gets us to a far

27:14 ↗ better place without the extraordinary

27:16 ↗ cost than the extraordinary impacts to

27:18 ↗ the people who do want to develop the

27:20 ↗ right way in our town so is it

27:23 ↗ perfection I'm sure that there's 10

27:26 ↗ gazillion things wrong with it so what I

27:29 ↗ were interested in hearing I guess from

27:31 ↗ everyone well there always is you know

27:34 ↗ that's true I do what I were interested

27:37 ↗ in hearing is neighborhood by

27:39 ↗ neighborhood cuz and there you've all

27:40 ↗ walked it okay what are the

27:42 ↗ opportunities that all of you saw that

27:45 ↗ should be in the future for that

27:47 ↗ descriptive language the language that

27:49 ↗ you're talking about is housing

27:51 ↗ this all used to be set up and it didn't

27:53 ↗ work and so something else is happening

27:55 ↗ those exact words and and so I'm happy

28:01 ↗ to have it changed to this and I'm

28:03 ↗ rarely happy so now language tweaking

28:15 ↗ ideas all fine but I don't think you

28:18 ↗ want to change the structure

28:25 ↗ do any of you what but if I jump in the

28:28 ↗ because I was I totally agree with

28:30 ↗ Connie in terms of process and the way

28:32 ↗ it's set up I like it because and I I

28:36 ↗ think from a Development Commission

28:38 ↗ standpoint and I think Carl would go

28:40 ↗ along with this that we can we can use

28:42 ↗ these developer obligations in a review

28:46 ↗ of a project it's it's specific enough

28:48 ↗ for us to say we don't think you're

28:50 ↗ meeting this as opposed to building high

28:52 ↗ during the box and so forth

28:54 ↗ I think that's workable and I like how

28:56 ↗ it's kept separately from the city is

28:59 ↗ then the city can be doing their things

29:00 ↗ and we can all see if they're meeting

29:02 ↗ their requirements and then I like the

29:04 ↗ third part because the public can look

29:05 ↗ at that and say yeah are we are we

29:08 ↗ getting this vision in the end I see

29:11 ↗ everybody shaking their heads that we're

29:13 ↗ gonna continue with this yes so do you

29:17 ↗ want to go through the list of the 1 2 3

29:21 ↗ 4 5 whatever things that are under

29:24 ↗ livable do you want to take them

29:25 ↗ individually do you want to change them

29:28 ↗ so I wanted to make a comment before we

29:32 ↗ get to that stage

29:36 ↗ I'm actually really frustrated with the

29:38 ↗ way this document reads not the way that

29:42 ↗ it's set up a way that it reads and why

29:46 ↗ we are saying what like for instance in

29:49 ↗ today

29:51 ↗ Newport Way is missing sidewalks and

29:53 ↗ bicycle facilities why are we even

29:55 ↗ putting that language in this document

29:57 ↗ we should be saying this from a

30:00 ↗ aspirational standpoint a vision we

30:04 ↗ should have a vision for each

30:05 ↗ neighborhood isn't that the next

30:07 ↗ paragraph so you're the today is just

30:10 ↗ too grounded and then you have a vision

30:13 ↗ yeah you can sort of go that direction

30:16 ↗ but I say we get rid of today altogether

30:21 ↗ because it's just extra words

30:23 ↗ I think it's anything it's helpful when

30:25 ↗ you're looking back at these documents

30:26 ↗ years later who might not be super

30:28 ↗ useful for the audience today but you

30:30 ↗ consider that you know these documents

30:32 ↗ really updated five years or so could we

30:34 ↗ do that on another points instead

30:39 ↗ so we the first sentence up there since

30:44 ↗ adoption of these sir I mean I can read

30:51 ↗ that

30:53 ↗ breathing emphasize a gateway and

30:56 ↗ arrival into Issaquah where its unique

30:59 ↗ history in connection with nature is

31:02 ↗ visible create a create a harmony with

31:07 ↗ nature and a blending with the green

31:10 ↗ environment let forms and the built

31:13 ↗ environment reinforce the arrival into

31:15 ↗ Issaquah be natural and modest in scale

31:22 ↗ you love that don't you I hate that so

31:26 ↗ so first off I'm just gonna go ahead and

31:29 ↗ attack this is not the arrival into

31:32 ↗ Issaquah this is this is mid street I

31:37 ↗ mean is applause farther west than

31:39 ↗ that's right and so you know it's like

31:41 ↗ okay I mean if you if you want this

31:45 ↗ transcribed you don't want that but I

31:48 ↗ want I'm trying to get to what Ron wants

31:52 ↗ in the way of a taking away J okay so

31:58 ↗ now we're going to read Nelligan a reef

31:59 ↗ future all right we made

32:03 ↗ well here's my point if you have never

32:07 ↗ been to a car before yes and you read

32:10 ↗ this you're a developer you're gonna

32:12 ↗ build a building or a West in West

32:14 ↗ Newport neighborhood yes in any of one

32:17 ↗ of these neighborhoods and you read this

32:19 ↗ does this sell you hard but it's

32:26 ↗ instinct yeah it's supposed to sell you

32:34 ↗ today I'm talking about the neighborhood

32:36 ↗ there's it's the language that's in here

32:40 ↗ is dry it's boring and it's it's it

32:45 ↗ doesn't there's no sales aspect to it it

32:47 ↗ doesn't draw me in and say that's

32:50 ↗ neighborhood honor I'm gonna build my

32:51 ↗ building in I want to be part of that

32:53 ↗ neighborhood don't think it's for the

32:56 ↗ developer I think it's for the community

32:58 ↗ but even the community did I don't read

33:02 ↗ this in Qom best place I want to be okay

33:07 ↗ so I can agree with that idea that we

33:09 ↗ can change up the future language to do

33:11 ↗ things like this is going to be a

33:13 ↗ tight-knit community with communal

33:16 ↗ spaces that they really enjoy and like

33:18 ↗ give a vision of what somebody would buy

33:24 ↗ into we can do that by emailing Keith

33:28 ↗ those ideas this is supposed to be a

33:31 ↗ well this is our this is our district

33:35 ↗ visions this is a sales document

33:38 ↗ and we're not treating it as a sales

33:40 ↗ document I think it's a planning

33:42 ↗ document but even a planning document

33:44 ↗ can be a sales document or it can be

33:46 ↗ really dry and uh nests per a tional and

33:51 ↗ that's why we're not getting one what we

33:53 ↗ really want is because we can't even

33:54 ↗ sell the idea to anyone because we can't

33:57 ↗ even figure out what the idea is we just

33:59 ↗ these are this is a collection of words

34:02 ↗ and it just it doesn't work and we're

34:07 ↗ trying to make something that we're

34:09 ↗ trying to make it work and I just I'm

34:12 ↗ frustrated with this so I can tell you I

34:14 ↗ I've written this sales paragraph for

34:17 ↗ each of these neighborhoods and those

34:24 ↗ paragraphs did not make it did not make

34:30 ↗ the cut and I can hazard a guess as to

34:32 ↗ why because I probably spent 20 hours

34:35 ↗ writing sales paragraphs and fighting to

34:38 ↗ get them in the document but no and I

34:42 ↗ expect is the that they want the future

34:46 ↗ paragraph to in some way linked to the

34:51 ↗ next pages in a way that you can sort of

34:54 ↗ check them off right so that these are

34:59 ↗ the component parts would make my

35:04 ↗ neighborhood in theory that I yeah you

35:07 ↗ wanted to be specific articulate and

35:10 ↗ actionable Weston leads you to the

35:13 ↗ tactical stuff in the next page you

35:15 ↗ don't want it to be fluffy and in it

35:17 ↗ that was the fluff to sell their

35:21 ↗ development AK you've gotten these

35:24 ↗ pulling parts put in so so

35:30 ↗ I have people to take their heads and

35:33 ↗ this was a good process so we're going

35:37 ↗ to leave we could talk about this all

35:40 ↗ night

35:42 ↗ we can do that we can

35:47 ↗ and add some things to make your

35:51 ↗ aspirational idea

35:54 ↗ shortly what Linton's they wants we can

35:59 ↗ do that but right now can we look at

36:01 ↗ this and see if what we have is here if

36:06 ↗ it works and then go back and see if

36:09 ↗ just like we were talking about that the

36:13 ↗ first page was a brand new to this at

36:17 ↗ this house the first page has to fit

36:19 ↗ into this we could talk about the first

36:23 ↗ page forever can we get into business so

36:26 ↗ and just to say that a different way

36:27 ↗ Jones I think you're saying and I want

36:30 ↗ to say it just just a little bit

36:31 ↗ different is if if you do these things

36:37 ↗ you know if the developer does those

36:39 ↗ things if the city does their things and

36:42 ↗ you know we'll get success but we're

36:45 ↗ also gonna then achieve the future

36:47 ↗ vision for this neighborhood I mean it

36:49 ↗ needs to work in both directions

36:51 ↗ so I don't mind so if we're going to

36:53 ↗ have things to how we describe this like

36:56 ↗ close-knit you know then the question is

36:59 ↗ okay so what in here is gonna make that

37:02 ↗ close-knit you know okay so so usually

37:06 ↗ it's making spaces with a community park

37:10 ↗ okay so so if that's if that's what

37:14 ↗ close-knit needs then then there should

37:17 ↗ be something in here between the city's

37:19 ↗ actions and the developers obligations

37:21 ↗ that gets us that right so that

37:24 ↗ I mean that's how this should work and

37:26 ↗ so if we're gonna we're gonna add stuff

37:29 ↗ to the future which I'm not problem with

37:30 ↗ and I'm fine with more aspirational

37:32 ↗ stuff she's right she populated actually

37:36 ↗ a lot of the aspirational stuff has been

37:38 ↗ in earlier versions you guys have hated

37:41 ↗ it

37:41 ↗ stripped it out and so I'm finding this

37:44 ↗ a very interesting conversation kind of

37:47 ↗ Groundhog Day

37:50 ↗ so but that's fine we're gonna find that

37:53 ↗ balance point that hopefully we can all

37:56 ↗ nod our heads at the end of the day

37:58 ↗ which will be February 28th Wednesday I

38:07 ↗ think to answer your question Jonah I

38:10 ↗ think yes I think if we actually deliver

38:12 ↗ everything on this page this

38:14 ↗ neighborhoods gonna be awesome

38:16 ↗ so I think I think what I think what

38:18 ↗ we've laid out about the developer in

38:21 ↗ the city and it is better this is a

38:22 ↗ measure of success I would say yes if

38:24 ↗ we're able that's cute if we the

38:26 ↗ community the city and future developers

38:29 ↗ able execute on all points yes I think

38:31 ↗ the neighbor version will be she

38:33 ↗ [Music]

38:36 ↗ so is it a wave since general

38:43 ↗ how do we look at or not as development

38:45 ↗ by development in a neighborhood but the

38:47 ↗ neighborhood is old we keep that and

38:48 ↗ there is there some aspirational

38:50 ↗ statement that makes that happen so we

38:52 ↗ don't just say development by

38:54 ↗ development or parcel by parcel so the

38:56 ↗ community as a whole develops the second

38:57 ↗ is I think some some folks like Raleigh

39:00 ↗ proper you've done a great job of

39:01 ↗ demonstrating their commitment to the

39:02 ↗ city and some that's gonna last

39:04 ↗ others don't necessarily have that track

39:07 ↗ record is their way of saying maybe in

39:10 ↗ the way of a for a developer list and

39:12 ↗ every else gets more measured as far as

39:15 ↗ requirements so that we don't end up

39:17 ↗ with the neighborhood that has all

39:18 ↗ apartment buildings that we can look at

39:20 ↗ something more comprehensive before we

39:22 ↗ get to that point

39:27 ↗ and goes

39:33 ↗ if we need to change anything if we

39:38 ↗ we need to add anything to

39:41 ↗ to do it so if we can go down the list

39:45 ↗ livable and go all the way down

39:50 ↗ is there is the language correct it's

39:56 ↗ the

40:01 ↗ can I ask a question is there so it

40:05 ↗ would be more readable if it was just

40:07 ↗ bullet points that were basically like

40:10 ↗ for the first one rather than saying

40:11 ↗ provide parks and trails that create

40:13 ↗ social opportunities if we just said

40:16 ↗ neighborhood parks and trails is there a

40:19 ↗ requirement more of the full scope in

40:23 ↗ order to make it more of a developer

40:25 ↗ obligation yeah that was what I was

40:27 ↗ concerned about because so I will take a

40:29 ↗ second to talk about that because I

40:31 ↗ think it's important because is this is

40:33 ↗ glimpse into my brain and Mel I think

40:35 ↗ likes it because it works for them so

40:38 ↗ the reason why it's number is so like in

40:40 ↗ a staff report you can say you know you

40:43 ↗ have to respond to 1.3 right so if

40:46 ↗ everybody knows that 1.1 1.3 is because

40:49 ↗ it's listed here as 1.3 as opposed to

40:50 ↗ just bullet number 3 right because

40:53 ↗ there's like a lot even know what bullet

40:54 ↗ number 3 means right so their number for

40:57 ↗ clarity for reference right and then you

41:01 ↗ know the more words and I Ron I love

41:04 ↗ less words if I could have less words

41:06 ↗ and make this readable in 90 seconds I

41:08 ↗ would love that but do you need to have

41:10 ↗ a certain amount of words for it to be

41:12 ↗ clear what's expected of somebody right

41:15 ↗ and so you know so the reason why it's

41:19 ↗ parks and trails it's not just provide

41:21 ↗ parks and trails because that doesn't

41:23 ↗ tell me why right it's provide them to

41:26 ↗ create social opportunities so now it's

41:28 ↗ like okay somebody says well yeah I've

41:30 ↗ got this trail and it doesn't go

41:32 ↗ anywhere and but it goes around the

41:35 ↗ building and I can say well yeah but

41:37 ↗ where's the social opportunities that

41:38 ↗ that trail is going to create so now it

41:40 ↗ gives you the opportunity to have a

41:42 ↗ a more in-depth conversation about what

41:44 ↗ the purpose of that is and they might

41:46 ↗ say well okay I provided that you know

41:49 ↗ over here in a different way and we

41:51 ↗ might say okay great there's

41:52 ↗ opportunities for social engagement over

41:54 ↗ here and you know maybe you don't have

41:57 ↗ to have a trail around the building you

41:59 ↗ know so so that gets back to having some

42:01 ↗ flexibility about this why it's not code

42:03 ↗ and why trying to write code for each of

42:05 ↗ these is a little crazy because it would

42:07 ↗ be a lot of code so that's the way these

42:11 ↗ are intended to work is it gives enough

42:13 ↗ clarity for an expectation but then it

42:16 ↗ gives the unique circumstances of each

42:19 ↗ project maybe resolve it in a different

42:22 ↗ way that is my question I have one

42:31 ↗ question and two times it just refers to

42:33 ↗ a couple times it just refers to Newport

42:36 ↗ I assume that's always Newport way it is

42:39 ↗ okay trying to keep this to a page I

42:42 ↗ don't know if that was part of it

42:44 ↗ I think that's one of the problems in

42:49 ↗ making this readable is just like there

42:53 ↗ isn't space between the sections just I

42:56 ↗ know you're trying to keep it to one

42:57 ↗ page trying to you to a page I get that

43:00 ↗ that's really hard to read it's hard to

43:02 ↗ read all right so part of it is I don't

43:08 ↗ think it actually I don't think I was

43:09 ↗ successful in keeping it to a page later

43:11 ↗ so give me very well be that maybe we

43:15 ↗ take measures of success out of kind of

43:19 ↗ those categories are out of the same

43:21 ↗ page just so that we have a little bit

43:24 ↗ more space to work with just widen the

43:26 ↗ margins

43:27 ↗ yes so I'm gonna like Kristyn work for

43:34 ↗ change either the font or something to

43:38 ↗ divide would be yeah this doesn't have

43:43 ↗ enough contrast with that okay those are

43:45 ↗ little things do you want to put

43:48 ↗ anything else in livable are you fine

43:51 ↗ with that

43:53 ↗ good 1.4 at the very end add two more

43:58 ↗ orgs look and feel so blend new

44:04 ↗ development with existing areas to

44:07 ↗ create a unified neighborhood look and

44:08 ↗ feel right because you're talking about

44:11 ↗ it you want something that is a little

44:14 ↗ bit more meaty so if you just left it as

44:16 ↗ a unified neighborhood well what is that

44:19 ↗ and if you say look and feel your

44:21 ↗ building needs to look like this needs

44:24 ↗ to be X color because all the other

44:27 ↗ buildings are similar color or your

44:31 ↗ parking lot needs to look like this to

44:33 ↗ match the rest okay so just to play

44:37 ↗ devil's advocate on that one what if

44:39 ↗ what you're integrating with isn't what

44:42 ↗ you want you could say I'm building next

44:46 ↗ to a storage unit I'm integrating with

44:49 ↗ that I guess I'm just thinking how do we

44:52 ↗ make sure that we're clear about what we

44:55 ↗ want new development to be versus what

44:58 ↗ we're working with that's already there

45:00 ↗ that

45:01 ↗ may not fit this future vision also I

45:04 ↗ think it's important that it's both you

45:06 ↗ not really unified and looking field but

45:08 ↗ also unified at present like

45:09 ↗ navigability and stuff like that so it's

45:11 ↗ a unified neighborhood in terms of how

45:12 ↗ you move from some block two blocks I

45:15 ↗ think I would I would oppose to add that

45:17 ↗ because I want to keep it unified as not

45:19 ↗ only doesn't feel like unified

45:20 ↗ neighborhood as you visually look at it

45:23 ↗ but also as you as you navigated whether

45:24 ↗ it's my car on foot but I guess I'm part

45:27 ↗ of that would be that the all new

45:29 ↗ development has to comply with the

45:30 ↗ design guidelines right so right that's

45:33 ↗ where we're picking up that is that true

45:35 ↗ ah yes so okay everything in Central has

45:39 ↗ to comply with your contextual manual

45:42 ↗ that just got adopted so there's gonna

45:45 ↗ be an architectural palette that you can

45:47 ↗ pick from and I think what this is is

45:51 ↗ really trying to get to is not about

45:55 ↗ gingerbread it's about kind of Vulcan

45:57 ↗ scale so if you've got a two-story

46:00 ↗ something and the guy next to it wants

46:03 ↗ to build it Tennant story something you

46:05 ↗ know maybe there needs to be some

46:06 ↗ transition or separation or somehow you

46:10 ↗ know it it wants to blend that blending

46:13 ↗ piece needs to get somehow thought about

46:16 ↗ and integrated into the new project

46:19 ↗ doesn't mean it has to be two stories

46:22 ↗ but it needs to somehow work its way to

46:25 ↗ recognize that what's next to it might

46:27 ↗ be of a smaller scale or a different

46:29 ↗ scale

46:31 ↗ so you're no baby in the file yes

46:40 ↗ my concern

46:44 ↗ as we can talk this from now until the

46:47 ↗ council keith is said we've we've we've

46:53 ↗ worked Smith going backward Smith it

46:57 ↗ again

46:58 ↗ now we've worked Smith it again and

47:04 ↗ depending on who's asking the question

47:07 ↗ we can work Smith it again and I'm not

47:11 ↗ sure pushing anything I personally think

47:14 ↗ it's a pretty good document right now

47:16 ↗ it's a vision as we've all said none of

47:20 ↗ this is gonna matter unless there's code

47:23 ↗ to enforce it and the developer could

47:28 ↗ come in and Ron says doesn't know

47:31 ↗ anything about it so probably wouldn't

47:32 ↗ come here who didn't know something

47:34 ↗ about it so far but it'll come to look

47:35 ↗ wants to develop and you can say oh yeah

47:38 ↗ okay I want to make sure that there's

47:39 ↗ affordable housing or a variable housing

47:42 ↗ wonder what that means

47:43 ↗ Keith can you tell me what that means

47:46 ↗ he'd tell and then he'd look into the

47:50 ↗ developer Development Commission would

47:52 ↗ ask the code to say what he couldn't

47:54 ↗ build this is becoming very frustrating

47:58 ↗ to me because we're just we're beating

48:01 ↗ this dead horse at some point we have

48:04 ↗ the reveal will be that graphically and

48:12 ↗ we need to move ahead and I don't think

48:15 ↗ we're going to get it to the City

48:16 ↗ Council if we sit here debate language

48:20 ↗ lousy I'm pretty comfortable with what

48:24 ↗ we've got right here and I think we

48:26 ↗ could expand the description I'm not

48:31 ↗ sure we accomplished we can put spaces

48:34 ↗ between everything and make it twice as

48:38 ↗ twice as long because of physical space

48:40 ↗ I don't know what we accomplished I

48:42 ↗ think we should just go what we've got

48:44 ↗ and perfume so I agree thank you and and

48:48 ↗ this is obviously a commission that can

48:50 ↗ have a conversation about that I am

48:54 ↗ happy to incorporate everybody's

48:56 ↗ wordsmithing suggestions I would love to

48:59 ↗ do that via email and you know what I

49:03 ↗ would say is maybe what we want to do is

49:07 ↗ focus our conversation about the future

49:09 ↗ description of each of these

49:10 ↗ neighborhoods because if that's wrong it

49:13 ↗ affects everything on the following

49:15 ↗ pages and if we're not capturing what

49:18 ↗ those neighborhoods want to be now I

49:20 ↗ think West Newports the easy one so you

49:22 ↗ know we're sitting here on this first

49:23 ↗ one and it's

49:25 ↗ probably the easiest one to capture what

49:27 ↗ its gonna be you know in 20 years

49:30 ↗ because most of its already kind of just

49:32 ↗ redeveloped and I think it's pretty easy

49:35 ↗ well we moved to Gilman and Pickering we

49:38 ↗ talked about with those are you know

49:41 ↗ down the field that's a much harder

49:43 ↗ conversation and so I think if we want

49:47 ↗ to spend time of value to Karl's point I

49:51 ↗ think maybe we just sit and let's talk

49:54 ↗ about the content of the future

49:56 ↗ description of these neighborhoods and

49:57 ↗ see if we got them right I just want to

50:08 ↗ I want to have a buy-in from that this

50:12 ↗ is what you want to go I wanted to but I

50:15 ↗ didn't want to Fort Smith what I wanted

50:16 ↗ to do is ask

50:18 ↗ additionally wanted to ask any of the

50:23 ↗ board take it out I'm I have a

50:25 ↗ clarifying question that might come over

50:28 ↗ adding something the public park that's

50:31 ↗ a measure of success the little park

50:33 ↗ that's gonna give built with the Gateway

50:35 ↗ development is that intended to be this

50:37 ↗ Park or the idea is that there would be

50:39 ↗ an additional park somewhere in the

50:41 ↗ neighborhood above and beyond that that

50:45 ↗ sounds like a loaded question what I

50:48 ↗ would tell you is there is a separate

50:53 ↗ part plan in central Issaquah plans so

50:58 ↗ they talked about where those mandatory

51:00 ↗ community spaces were right and so there

51:03 ↗ is one in in the Gateway neighborhood or

51:06 ↗ now in West Newport so the reason why

51:08 ↗ this is saying there's there's it's as

51:10 ↗ clear as there should be a park there's

51:12 ↗ because there's another illustration in

51:15 ↗ the plan that says there should be a

51:16 ↗ park here right now that is the park in

51:20 ↗ it's actually called Anthology now it's

51:24 ↗ the development area part of development

51:26 ↗ so eight weeks now Anthology so it is it

51:31 ↗ is that now there's been some

51:32 ↗ conversations the Park Department has

51:35 ↗ been

51:37 ↗ and I don't know if this came up in the

51:38 ↗ green necklace because I was

51:40 ↗ unfortunately over very short but

51:43 ↗ there's been some talk about maybe and

51:45 ↗ acquiring another parcel in West Newport

51:49 ↗ now I don't know if that's gonna happen

51:51 ↗ or not but if not then we're talking

51:54 ↗ about the park space in anthology that

51:59 ↗ was a long way to get to an answer sorry

52:01 ↗ okay so that I I think my life I think

52:05 ↗ my I have a question with the Commission

52:06 ↗ I think fits the spirit of what both you

52:07 ↗ guys are asking is that is our vision is

52:10 ↗ that that Park that's in the anthology

52:12 ↗ development is that the is that the park

52:14 ↗ that we want and then that meets the

52:16 ↗ vision of our neighborhood or are we

52:18 ↗ hoping that our aspirational visions

52:20 ↗ that there should be an additional part

52:22 ↗ somewhere in the neighborhood I think

52:24 ↗ there should just be a park whether it's

52:26 ↗ an additional

52:31 ↗ yeah well I think I think I'm asking

52:33 ↗ like when the anthology development is

52:35 ↗ complete and that Park is open to the

52:37 ↗ public would we consider that that

52:38 ↗ particular measures successfully

52:41 ↗ implemented unless there's something

52:43 ↗ else written I would say that would be

52:46 ↗ success okay

52:48 ↗ I'm okay with that I just wanted to

52:49 ↗ clarify so without any more

52:56 ↗ addition subtractions whatever is there

52:59 ↗ anything else on here that you would

53:02 ↗ like to change a specific things Ross

53:05 ↗ Jules and then question for you Keith

53:11 ↗ this neighborhoods have there are the

53:14 ↗ mountains of some trail is going through

53:17 ↗ this neighborhood should we have any

53:19 ↗ language in this document to embrace the

53:25 ↗ mountains of sound trails corridor or

53:29 ↗ something already here support to mount

53:32 ↗ stop

53:32 ↗ oh it is yes Roger is also indistinctive

53:38 ↗ and connected

53:46 ↗ it is I was actually looking to see if

53:49 ↗ it was part of our future description

53:54 ↗ that was one that was one of my comments

53:56 ↗ was I liked and connected down the first

53:59 ↗ bullet it under a measure of success and

54:01 ↗ connected which is presidents of Western

54:04 ↗ gateway find convenient safety

54:05 ↗ multimodal povo I think a sentence like

54:08 ↗ that should be in the future

54:10 ↗ paragraph yeah it doesn't have to be

54:12 ↗ exactly that but just something about

54:14 ↗ connectivity to the because it's because

54:17 ↗ of the location of Western gateway and I

54:23 ↗ think one of the things that we could

54:25 ↗ point out is a weakness of the area that

54:28 ↗ was I think kind of mentioned in the

54:31 ↗ today section the Cougar Mountain

54:32 ↗ trailhead is difficult to get to and

54:34 ↗ under parked I would want to see

54:36 ↗ something reflected in the future

54:38 ↗ concept the talks about how this has

54:41 ↗ become a gem of the neighborhood

54:44 ↗ destination yes for that locals can walk

54:48 ↗ to safely in regional you know was

54:52 ↗ enjoyed by people from the region okay

54:54 ↗ something like that okay yeah so you've

54:57 ↗ got that's kind of called out in

54:59 ↗ developer obligations in simply ashley's

55:01 ↗ you've got the childhood call Val yep

55:03 ↗ something you don't have the travel and

55:04 ↗ measure success show but now might might

55:07 ↗ be nice ad has a third bullet saying

55:10 ↗ what's our measure of success is it

55:12 ↗ under the distinctive column I think

55:14 ↗ that yeah you put in a string to Hoover

55:16 ↗ connected distinctive because I think

55:19 ↗ what Lindy's comments in people get to

55:21 ↗ it but that's fine I like that it's just

55:23 ↗ a signature reality it is a signature

55:25 ↗ Marco but I think you've got we find an

55:29 ↗ expenditure and so I think that would be

55:30 ↗ a mistake dude okay okay this is this is

55:34 ↗ where what you become anything else I

55:36 ↗ had a question on sustainable under City

55:40 ↗ implementing actions second bullet down

55:42 ↗ what boardwalk are we replacing in this

55:45 ↗ neighborhood it's it's the one so the

55:49 ↗ one the Gateway now Anthology built is

55:52 ↗ ours the board walk the boardwalks to

55:55 ↗ the boardwalk that goes over Tibbets

55:57 ↗ Creek from the new boardwalk that is

56:00 ↗ coming yes it's not actually it's not

56:02 ↗ built yet no but it's the Gateway that's

56:06 ↗ er yeah because we're gonna own it okay

56:07 ↗ and this is making sure that we can

56:11 ↗ replace it that like when it needs

56:13 ↗ your place is we don't do that very well

56:15 ↗ sometimes okay thank you

56:17 ↗ yeah not the s or 900 large that's what

56:20 ↗ I thought yeah after

56:26 ↗ so I don't know last meeting I talked

56:29 ↗ about qualitative language and saying

56:32 ↗ this says that you're gonna get things

56:35 ↗ it doesn't provide the quality of the

56:38 ↗ things and that was making me grumpy

56:40 ↗ last time but nobody liked or cared that

56:43 ↗ I was grumpy about that last time so I'm

56:45 ↗ happy to see her come along then the

56:50 ↗ next thing is uses right because one of

56:56 ↗ the frustrations in theory with with

56:59 ↗ gateway is it's not housing only and so

57:05 ↗ this picture basically continues it into

57:09 ↗ the future housing only with people

57:15 ↗ popping off into rally or central or the

57:18 ↗ central area for any other uses

57:22 ↗ do you yes so is that what y'all want

57:26 ↗ that wasn't the original vision of this

57:29 ↗ area so that's a significant change in

57:31 ↗ here so wanted to call it out because if

57:34 ↗ you look at this language and you say

57:36 ↗ what did we do wrong and just this

57:38 ↗ language correct what we did wrong if

57:41 ↗ you say that still needs to be mixed

57:43 ↗ used in the future you need to put that

57:45 ↗ in that so and I think what some people

57:50 ↗ would say that we did wrong is we

57:53 ↗ or this neighborhood we were never

57:54 ↗ getting gay I'm not judging I'm just

57:57 ↗ saying what do people think right

57:59 ↗ because that's the only that's really

58:01 ↗ the only significant change that I see

58:04 ↗ from the original vision this is just

58:06 ↗ fleshing out and and in theory making it

58:10 ↗ so you will get what you said you wanted

58:12 ↗ before more clearly because we didn't

58:15 ↗ get the park we we got this boardwalk

58:17 ↗ that we have to maintain getting the

58:20 ↗ transportation through was a bugger

58:22 ↗ because it was totally unconnected and

58:25 ↗ so I see most of the issues that we had

58:28 ↗ with this neighborhood to be resolved in

58:30 ↗ this document and that's one way I've

58:32 ↗ been thinking of it we just did it now

58:34 ↗ what was wrong would this solve the

58:36 ↗ problem and just one other way to look

58:40 ↗ at it but the big one

58:41 ↗ make sure use so I think this is a well

58:47 ↗ we don't call out a specific date I

58:50 ↗ think it's perfectly fine to consider

58:53 ↗ this document as kind of like a vision

58:55 ↗ 2040 or something like that at which

58:58 ↗ case I wouldn't assume that any of this

59:01 ↗ would redevelop and therefore the idea

59:05 ↗ of putting in a vision that this is a

59:07 ↗ mixed-use area I just don't think is

59:11 ↗ reasonable I think if we had code that

59:14 ↗ said it had to be mixed-use if it was

59:17 ↗ redeveloped I think that's fine without

59:21 ↗ necessarily stating that in this midterm

59:24 ↗ vision so I don't know if these this

59:28 ↗ even allows from excuse if somebody

59:30 ↗ wanted to put retail or some or other in

59:34 ↗ their gateway would they be able to put

59:36 ↗ in their coffee shop haircutting salon

59:39 ↗ real estate office in a barbecue

59:40 ↗ restaurant so the uses are regulated by

59:44 ↗ the

59:44 ↗ and so I don't even know what zone

59:49 ↗ that's it's it's weird it's a weird pink

59:52 ↗ thing from salmon-colored it was this is

59:55 ↗ a warrant village residential and which

59:58 ↗ I assume would allow it allows for

1:00:01 ↗ resident retail and last week a smaller

1:00:03 ↗ scale stock so this doesn't give any

1:00:06 ↗ description of what that's patent needs

1:00:10 ↗ to mean if it needs to say anything so

1:00:15 ↗ for example if the three houses on

1:00:17 ↗ Newport get bulldozed and turned into

1:00:21 ↗ something else

1:00:22 ↗ you know the zoning would allow for that

1:00:25 ↗ to the number of things other than

1:00:27 ↗ residential you know does the vision

1:00:31 ↗ need to address that I don't know that

1:00:34 ↗ it does so in kind of reworking the

1:00:38 ↗ vision that I had using the categories

1:00:40 ↗ that I saw in the other neighborhood

1:00:41 ↗ stuff one of the sections was on

1:00:44 ↗ business in economy when I wrote that up

1:00:47 ↗ for West new part

1:00:49 ↗ I said residents will be able to walk to

1:00:52 ↗ local coffee shops and will have access

1:00:55 ↗ to a grocery store just outside of the

1:00:57 ↗ neighborhood something that that gives

1:00:59 ↗ the vision they this isn't gonna turn

1:01:01 ↗ into a mixed-use but that it would be

1:01:05 ↗ appropriate to see local small retail

1:01:11 ↗ yeah I think if you've got a sporadic

1:01:14 ↗ retail you would still call it a

1:01:16 ↗ residential neighborhood

1:01:18 ↗ I think that meets the vision and I

1:01:22 ↗ would think that any commercial use

1:01:23 ↗ would want to integrate well with that

1:01:26 ↗ with that kind of residential feel and

1:01:29 ↗ not be you know not just some chain

1:01:32 ↗ restaurant coming in and plunking down

1:01:34 ↗ on Newport in the middle of an otherwise

1:01:37 ↗ pretty friendly neighborhood so I don't

1:01:40 ↗ know how to get that in there or if

1:01:44 ↗ maybe it already is covered with

1:01:46 ↗ language so the reality is chick-fil-a

1:01:50 ↗ is not gonna want to go on new pork

1:01:52 ↗ right I mean you know I mean it's like

1:01:54 ↗ it's just not a retail sweet it

1:01:55 ↗ chick-fil-a's I'm gonna make money no

1:01:56 ↗ matter where that goes

1:01:58 ↗ I don't know we had the adult massage on

1:02:01 ↗ Newport Fred Fred shut it down okay I've

1:02:13 ↗ got one thing yell at me if this is Fort

1:02:16 ↗ Smith in that continent but on the

1:02:18 ↗ measure of success

1:02:20 ↗ multimodal access other parts of the

1:02:22 ↗ city I would I would add that you know

1:02:25 ↗ and also the greater region because it's

1:02:26 ↗ talking about adding transit service and

1:02:29 ↗ implementation actions and then in the

1:02:32 ↗ in the future statement talk about

1:02:34 ↗ access to points west and then the sound

1:02:36 ↗ trans I think I would measure success

1:02:38 ↗ it's not only can you very quickly get

1:02:39 ↗ else within the city but you can also

1:02:41 ↗ get greater in the region there's to be

1:02:48 ↗ because I think it would be great to

1:02:50 ↗ have the Metro routes that go through

1:02:51 ↗ here that aren't simple and shoulder

1:02:53 ↗ routes but just something that takes you

1:02:54 ↗ all the way to Bellevue or or the

1:02:56 ↗ islands or something like that

1:02:59 ↗ yeah and then meet you at the end of the

1:03:02 ↗ first boy and I think similar to that

1:03:07 ↗ idea the idea that one of the one of the

1:03:11 ↗ strengths of this is that it's close

1:03:13 ↗ enough to the Transit Center that you

1:03:15 ↗ can take advantage of that but you've

1:03:17 ↗ got the issue of that last mile

1:03:19 ↗ connection and so I know that's

1:03:21 ↗ mentioned in the bullets but I'd like to

1:03:23 ↗ see something up in the future that kind

1:03:26 ↗ of talks about this neighborhood will be

1:03:29 ↗ connected and such yeah I think that if

1:03:36 ↗ it's it's convenient access I read that

1:03:39 ↗ as meeting that that last mile

1:03:50 ↗ no major changes okay I don't know if

1:04:03 ↗ anything else so we're fine with this or

1:04:11 ↗ that those I have three or four

1:04:16 ↗ different things in it we need to add in

1:04:20 ↗ some way to the description in theory

1:04:23 ↗ what else do you imagine

1:04:27 ↗ in here anything specific you should

1:04:31 ↗ start a new portrait yeah

1:04:33 ↗ is there anything else in here besides

1:04:36 ↗ those few little additions that bring it

1:04:39 ↗ back to what

1:04:46 ↗ so okay great so and you guys are I

1:04:51 ↗ wrote down the things you suggested but

1:04:53 ↗ feel free to email additional stuff

1:04:55 ↗ Lindsay feel free to email so before we

1:04:59 ↗ dive into Pickering and Gilman so I

1:05:02 ↗ think one thing to ask you guys you know

1:05:07 ↗ for when we were talking about what

1:05:11 ↗ these things are going to look like in

1:05:12 ↗ the future you know I think because

1:05:18 ↗ they're part of the regional growth

1:05:20 ↗ center you know for me they they they're

1:05:24 ↗ kind of very close cousins I think we

1:05:28 ↗ see these as being our denser

1:05:29 ↗ neighborhoods you know the train

1:05:31 ↗ stations most likely going to be located

1:05:34 ↗ in the vicinity of these neighborhoods

1:05:38 ↗ you know and so as we got to as we got

1:05:42 ↗ to doing the kind of objective page I

1:05:47 ↗ just did one for both because it started

1:05:51 ↗ to and do be kind of mean if it wants to

1:05:54 ↗ be two separate ones

1:05:55 ↗ we can do two separate ones but right

1:05:57 ↗ now I love them into one because I

1:06:01 ↗ thought the things that were applicable

1:06:02 ↗ to Gilman really were

1:06:03 ↗ likeable to victory but let's start by

1:06:06 ↗ just kind of reading through I'm not

1:06:10 ↗ gonna spend time on today we know what

1:06:12 ↗ today is so the future for Pickering

1:06:15 ↗ rather than feeling Keaton

1:06:18 ↗ I have a comment on that is there any

1:06:20 ↗ reason so I like having just a single

1:06:25 ↗ single chart and then you still need

1:06:27 ↗ different future visions for the

1:06:28 ↗ neighborhood's would it make sense to

1:06:30 ↗ have a brief future vision for both and

1:06:35 ↗ have a sentence or two talking about

1:06:38 ↗ what the collective vision is and then

1:06:40 ↗ in addition to these two future ones

1:06:42 ↗ basically the little monologue you just

1:06:45 ↗ went on and I think I think that my see

1:06:48 ↗ you'd have Pickering today future Gilman

1:06:50 ↗ today future and then like Vickery and

1:06:52 ↗ Ann Gilman and you can have a future

1:06:53 ↗ that can just be one or two-sentence the

1:06:55 ↗ talks about that it's a single urban

1:06:57 ↗ environment it's connected kind of some

1:07:00 ↗ of the some of the some of the things

1:07:01 ↗ that we've that I think the Commission

1:07:03 ↗ was trying to envision we were trying to

1:07:05 ↗ slip this in as a single neighborhood

1:07:08 ↗ I believe chronological I think that the

1:07:12 ↗ the reason we're breaking them back out

1:07:14 ↗ is because I don't think council was

1:07:15 ↗ super amenable to that but I think we

1:07:17 ↗ can still put an A in addition to the

1:07:20 ↗ future statements we have have a picker

1:07:21 ↗ in Gilman future that doesn't duplicate

1:07:25 ↗ this but then talks about how I think

1:07:27 ↗ we're envisioning that it is up it is a

1:07:29 ↗ single a single urban environment fabric

1:07:33 ↗ that is then just two neighborhoods

1:07:36 ↗ together as one rude I like what you

1:07:41 ↗ just said but why don't we put that in

1:07:44 ↗ the beginning

1:07:44 ↗ and have a general this is what it's

1:07:47 ↗ going to be and then

1:07:49 ↗ oh sure if you wanted to top for the

1:07:51 ↗ bottom that's fine say the goal is to

1:07:54 ↗ create this as you know a unified area

1:07:57 ↗ while right now it is not so it is

1:08:00 ↗ broken out and well even though it's one

1:08:06 ↗ neighborhood it's so separate that yeah

1:08:13 ↗ I think there's thanked as good reasons

1:08:14 ↗ we're articulating them separately and

1:08:17 ↗ then I think the visions for them are a

1:08:19 ↗ little bit different but I think it

1:08:20 ↗ would be helpful and constructive to

1:08:24 ↗ additionally have a pretty name Gillman

1:08:27 ↗ vision that that's that's all I'm

1:08:30 ↗ suggesting and in the spirit of

1:08:36 ↗ wordsmithing what are we calling the two

1:08:39 ↗ of them together is it a neighborhood is

1:08:41 ↗ it a district I think because they're

1:08:45 ↗ they're both Pickering is a neighborhood

1:08:47 ↗ Gilman's a neighborhood pekurny Gilman

1:08:49 ↗ is there's a cress Center okay

1:08:55 ↗ that expense is mine oh so I think I

1:08:59 ↗ sent you a very confusing email about

1:09:01 ↗ this you know for a while there we had

1:09:04 ↗ districts and sub districts and they

1:09:06 ↗ were eggs and I think it was it was it

1:09:09 ↗ was there were too many levels so we

1:09:11 ↗ tried to back out of all of that so we

1:09:14 ↗ just dumped the district piece so now

1:09:16 ↗ we've got a sub area plan made up of

1:09:20 ↗ five neighborhoods these two

1:09:22 ↗ neighborhoods together generally the

1:09:24 ↗ regional center so that so the way we

1:09:26 ↗ could talk about sa the regional growth

1:09:28 ↗ centre will be a single urban fabric

1:09:31 ↗ that consists of two neighborhoods or

1:09:34 ↗ something like that

1:09:35 ↗ yeah we're constant words okay I using

1:09:38 ↗ they'll be helpful because also someone

1:09:39 ↗ looking at the document they're like why

1:09:41 ↗ do they stick these together yeah cuz

1:09:43 ↗ they because we did it with very strong

1:09:45 ↗ purpose I think sorry I jumped on that

1:09:57 ↗ really

1:09:59 ↗ and I can tell you why I have to go to a

1:10:02 ↗ different meeting so can I tell you why

1:10:04 ↗ I'm gonna run and you yeah the

1:10:07 ↗ infrastructure so I'm gonna sound like

1:10:14 ↗ ronon's benzene I read this listen I

1:10:17 ↗ this this is not either of those

1:10:20 ↗ neighbourhoods to me this is a mash of

1:10:22 ↗ the two and I feel like they are not

1:10:25 ↗ getting what they deserve you do not

1:10:27 ↗ have the connections showing through

1:10:29 ↗ here to Lake Sammamish state cart that

1:10:31 ↗ is going to be one of the core values of

1:10:34 ↗ that neighborhood and I think you need

1:10:37 ↗ to focus on the transitioning from this

1:10:41 ↗ odd cost go flat 56 though there's a

1:10:48 ↗ state park scenario and it needs to be

1:10:51 ↗ very specifically described to get

1:10:53 ↗ success on the other side you have your

1:10:58 ↗ new high density areas that are now

1:11:03 ↗ codified you must build this high and

1:11:06 ↗ you have your Transit Center and you're

1:11:08 ↗ supposed to transit oriented development

1:11:10 ↗ I don't think you can adequately cover

1:11:13 ↗ all of that using one chart and this

1:11:16 ↗ chart seems super thin to me thinner

1:11:18 ↗ than any of them because you're trying

1:11:21 ↗ to sort of generally spot between the

1:11:24 ↗ two so I emphatically and you'll hear it

1:11:27 ↗ ten thousand times if you don't do it

1:11:28 ↗ this way think - I may even sending

1:11:32 ↗ emails

1:11:35 ↗ I agree with what Connie just said the

1:11:44 ↗ same reasons what's gonna be divided I

1:12:03 ↗ like this one I think if we're gonna

1:12:14 ↗ divide it into two we should talk about

1:12:16 ↗ how important we think it is to connect

1:12:18 ↗ the two with you know we talk so much

1:12:22 ↗ about the transit hub being at the

1:12:24 ↗ middle and making sure that one side is

1:12:26 ↗ connected to the other and maybe it's in

1:12:30 ↗ that you know added paragraph or

1:12:33 ↗ whatever format it is you know each each

1:12:37 ↗ district gets its own attention as to

1:12:40 ↗ what it is but there's something that

1:12:42 ↗ focuses on what that what the gravy's

1:12:45 ↗ good yeah could we not to get too

1:12:48 ↗ excited but could we do this can we

1:12:50 ↗ break this into three so case because if

1:12:55 ↗ you look at it so if you're this is yeah

1:12:57 ↗ and this and this is why I liked it as

1:12:59 ↗ one if you would have a Pickering

1:13:01 ↗ section ago my section then you'd have a

1:13:03 ↗ brief pretty earning Gilman section when

1:13:06 ↗ you would say things like the divisive

1:13:07 ↗ impact of i-90 has been lessened and

1:13:09 ↗ stuff like that because they were and

1:13:10 ↗ then the one about the Sound Transit

1:13:13 ↗ beam it's really everything and they

1:13:15 ↗ connected a lot of that it applies to

1:13:17 ↗ both really doesn't apply to one so if

1:13:20 ↗ you're gonna break them apart

1:13:22 ↗ you almost need to have a third set that

1:13:25 ↗ applies to both I don't know if I matter

1:13:27 ↗ if I'm overthinking this but that would

1:13:31 ↗ be I would say let's let's break it into

1:13:34 ↗ tubes it's like and if there seems like

1:13:37 ↗ there's a missing link we can chat about

1:13:40 ↗ because because the other ways you then

1:13:42 ↗ simply have to have bullets just

1:13:44 ↗ repeated right that's right thanks yeah

1:13:46 ↗ cuz some of them are duplicate right

1:13:47 ↗ yeah no they're true for both yeah okay

1:13:51 ↗ because I like I look at like liveable

1:13:52 ↗ one through six like you would just have

1:13:55 ↗ the exact same sex in both both

1:13:57 ↗ neighborhoods I just I just got really

1:14:04 ↗ excited about this I had a question for

1:14:09 ↗ you on one point for under livable that

1:14:13 ↗ preserved the amount of non-residential

1:14:14 ↗ square footage as an as redevelopment

1:14:16 ↗ occurs as of what remember is that

1:14:19 ↗ parcel by parcel is that overall by the

1:14:21 ↗ neighborhood is it as of today or does

1:14:24 ↗ it evolve it you go right so this is

1:14:26 ↗ this is a huge one this is huge and it's

1:14:31 ↗ not true in that is it doesn't show up

1:14:36 ↗ in every neighborhood it just shows up

1:14:37 ↗ in a Korean Gilman and so the

1:14:39 ↗ conversation this is a high-level

1:14:42 ↗ conversation for y'all that kind of

1:14:43 ↗ plant your flag on is you know in these

1:14:47 ↗ two neighborhoods if you're gonna go in

1:14:50 ↗ and you know this is this is the Atlas

1:14:53 ↗ example if you're gonna go in and blade

1:14:55 ↗ an existing retail strip mall do you

1:14:59 ↗ have to replace the amount of square

1:15:01 ↗ footage non-residential square footage

1:15:03 ↗ in your redevelopment project on that

1:15:05 ↗ parcel on that parcel

1:15:06 ↗ so no net loss of jobs even if next door

1:15:09 ↗ they've built a massive retail cut

1:15:12 ↗ important first what well if they do it

1:15:14 ↗ as a combined project and sure but the

1:15:16 ↗ idea is if they're delivering those

1:15:17 ↗ stuff individually you have to each one

1:15:20 ↗ has to stand on its own and the other

1:15:21 ↗ challenge of being this that there's a

1:15:23 ↗ lot of small ownership in these parcels

1:15:25 ↗ right so right now so it's a big deal

1:15:30 ↗ this is a big one yeah yeah so this is

1:15:33 ↗ and if I own contiguous acres do I I

1:15:38 ↗ still have to play by those same rules

1:15:40 ↗ can I not move it over here and

1:15:43 ↗ something different over here so that's

1:15:45 ↗ that's the so this is where it not being

1:15:48 ↗ code has some advantage because you can

1:15:51 ↗ ultimately do the reasonable thing so if

1:15:53 ↗ if somebody says well you know I'm gonna

1:15:56 ↗ take out 40,000 square feet of retail

1:16:00 ↗ and build residential then the

1:16:03 ↗ conversations could be well where's the

1:16:05 ↗ replacement going to be and if you did

1:16:07 ↗ have another project underway or that

1:16:09 ↗ you'd already done maybe there is a

1:16:11 ↗ conversation say ok we netted out a

1:16:13 ↗ positive for job if you're truly gonna

1:16:18 ↗ build mixed-use that balances itself out

1:16:20 ↗ over time because of parking because

1:16:22 ↗ your residential and your commercial

1:16:24 ↗ have opposite parking and you have the

1:16:26 ↗ ability to do shared parking if you can

1:16:28 ↗ co-locate them within a reasonable

1:16:30 ↗ walking distance so that your parking

1:16:32 ↗ space can be utilized day and night by

1:16:35 ↗ different users and that makes the

1:16:36 ↗ project more economically feasible so in

1:16:40 ↗ moving toward a mixed-use model you have

1:16:42 ↗ a natural incentive to to do that but I

1:16:47 ↗ think the rub is that's great on a

1:16:49 ↗ neighborhood but then sometimes it's

1:16:50 ↗ tricky to pull off on a

1:16:51 ↗ project-by-project do you have your

1:16:53 ↗ requirement project so the different

1:16:55 ↗ developers can ultimately end up leaning

1:16:57 ↗ on each other as that as the new

1:17:00 ↗ development of parking comes in so this

1:17:02 ↗ is so the council already adopted code

1:17:04 ↗ for part of what would be the Gilman

1:17:08 ↗ neighborhood and that's the mandatory

1:17:09 ↗ vertical mixed-use okay but the rest of

1:17:12 ↗ its the rest of it so you know so take

1:17:15 ↗ for example Pickering and let's assume

1:17:18 ↗ somebody by you know where Barnes and

1:17:22 ↗ Noble and the leathers furniture store

1:17:24 ↗ is and wanted to build six story

1:17:27 ↗ condominiums what this would say is they

1:17:32 ↗ should build ground-floor retail or

1:17:35 ↗ commercial space or have an officer take

1:17:38 ↗ a story of building just right yeah so

1:17:41 ↗ this is this is intense this is a big

1:17:43 ↗ thing and so we should talk about

1:17:45 ↗ whether we think whether we think this

1:17:47 ↗ is appropriate or not well and if

1:17:50 ↗ they're building that ground-floor

1:17:51 ↗ retail space there's probably not

1:17:52 ↗ parking out in front of it because they

1:17:56 ↗ can't afford to put the parking spaces

1:17:58 ↗ so its retail that you'd have to walk to

1:18:01 ↗ of that same size do we do we want to

1:18:06 ↗ articulate why are we doing this is it

1:18:08 ↗ for neighborhood vibrancy and like

1:18:10 ↗ parking congestion I thought it was also

1:18:12 ↗ Ford that was also for tax reasons I

1:18:19 ↗ heard I'm looking at Ron and Mary Lou

1:18:23 ↗ was also very clear on this

1:18:26 ↗ is the concern is we we could lose a

1:18:31 ↗ significant number of jobs in our job

1:18:34 ↗ which is it's our job

1:18:37 ↗ you know Viki over the Korean Gilman is

1:18:39 ↗ and where we see most of our employer

1:18:41 ↗ code no no I think this is great I was

1:18:44 ↗ just I was just asking as a leading

1:18:45 ↗ question because I think the vision we

1:18:46 ↗ need to talk because because the

1:18:48 ↗ divisions we don't want to just be a

1:18:49 ↗ commuting suburb for the job centers

1:18:52 ↗ elsewhere in King County we want to be a

1:18:54 ↗ job destination in her own I really like

1:18:56 ↗ how it's not a residential so allows me

1:18:58 ↗ development to flip between commercial

1:19:00 ↗ and office space or whatnot

1:19:02 ↗ yes as if I see even hard space oh well

1:19:06 ↗ what's your baseline is it today's

1:19:08 ↗ square footage so if Costco builds and

1:19:10 ↗ adds on I don't know 800,000 square feet

1:19:14 ↗ of commercial space what does that mean

1:19:16 ↗ for the neighborhood does that change

1:19:17 ↗ the balance of what your will so let's

1:19:20 ↗ let's let's do a hypothetical so if if

1:19:24 ↗ Costco bought the theater and bought the

1:19:29 ↗ leathers and the Barnes and Noble and

1:19:32 ↗ Big Lots and pure ones to build you know

1:19:36 ↗ another office building because that's

1:19:38 ↗ expansion area for them

1:19:40 ↗ they would take out a certain number

1:19:42 ↗ square foot of retail and they would

1:19:45 ↗ build hundreds of thousands of square

1:19:48 ↗ feet of commercial yeah so they would

1:19:50 ↗ meet this because it's not you know they

1:19:53 ↗ are replacing it and then yes you know

1:19:56 ↗ the concern is

1:19:57 ↗ is if you know if a residential builder

1:20:00 ↗ bought the Big Lots and what used to be

1:20:04 ↗ the u-dub space and wanted to build an

1:20:07 ↗ apartment building they would have to

1:20:09 ↗ build ground floor non-residential even

1:20:11 ↗ if costco bailed 800,000 square feet new

1:20:14 ↗ door

1:20:15 ↗ really yes and you think that and you

1:20:18 ↗ think that's enforceable if this can

1:20:21 ↗ once it's not ready if we leave it like

1:20:23 ↗ this yes all right I like it I think I

1:20:30 ↗ think it's a big mistake

1:20:34 ↗ because you think it's twos beside so

1:20:38 ↗ the physical has been developed over

1:20:41 ↗ several decades in the suburban type of

1:20:44 ↗ fashion and the developments that got

1:20:45 ↗ built were built on that model and it's

1:20:49 ↗ now saying okay whatever amount of

1:20:51 ↗ commercial was built on that lot is

1:20:53 ↗ locked in forever

1:20:55 ↗ and has to be on that lot forever and

1:20:57 ↗ that's not a vision going forward that's

1:21:00 ↗ just saying they're going to preserve

1:21:01 ↗ that amount that that exact amount of

1:21:03 ↗ square footage there which may not be

1:21:05 ↗ feasible at all in crandall or ambulant

1:21:09 ↗ talked about there one of the aspects

1:21:11 ↗ they talked about was mixed to use and

1:21:13 ↗ they pointed it out specifically that

1:21:16 ↗ mixed-use doesn't work everywhere so if

1:21:18 ↗ you take a place like the leathers that

1:21:21 ↗ parcel and say okay you have to replace

1:21:23 ↗ that with commercial and you put

1:21:25 ↗ ground-floor retail there and there's no

1:21:28 ↗ retail customers coming there it'll sit

1:21:31 ↗ vacant so it's forcing stuff to go in

1:21:34 ↗ places just because it was developed

1:21:37 ↗ maybe 30 years ago that way so funell

1:21:40 ↗ could you argue that since I can tell

1:21:43 ↗ you that we don't have very much vacant

1:21:46 ↗ retail space in the valley floor now

1:21:48 ↗ that all of it is marketable right so if

1:21:52 ↗ you're gonna go and take out the

1:21:54 ↗ leathers and the Barnes and Noble

1:21:57 ↗ you know what used to be could you keep

1:21:59 ↗ to Katina and Katina and build something

1:22:02 ↗ else there can you make the argument

1:22:05 ↗ that that amount of square feet of

1:22:07 ↗ retail was marketable before it

1:22:10 ↗ redeveloped so why wouldn't it be

1:22:12 ↗ marketable after redeveloped if you

1:22:13 ↗ added six floors of housing on top of it

1:22:16 ↗ because those rooftops would go

1:22:17 ↗ downstairs and buy their coffee on the

1:22:19 ↗ ground floor I mean so I guess I'm you

1:22:23 ↗ know I agree we can't push for

1:22:26 ↗ non-residential where the market doesn't

1:22:28 ↗ want it to be right but in theory

1:22:32 ↗ everything that we have now is occupied

1:22:36 ↗ its leased and there's a market for it

1:22:40 ↗ now and as you densify and put something

1:22:45 ↗ above it it seems like that ground floor

1:22:48 ↗ space should still be marketable well

1:22:52 ↗ but as Carrie point in that right now if

1:22:53 ↗ you go there to go to Barnes and Noble

1:22:55 ↗ to buy a book right

1:22:56 ↗ I can drive there park my car walk in

1:22:59 ↗ get a book come out if that's

1:23:01 ↗ redeveloped as a residential development

1:23:04 ↗ with some ground-floor retail and I go

1:23:08 ↗ there in second where do I park well the

1:23:10 ↗ parking garage is for the residents it's

1:23:13 ↗ more difficult there's right there's no

1:23:15 ↗ walk through traffic things like that

1:23:17 ↗ another example I think could be say

1:23:19 ↗ cascade Business Park which is a is that

1:23:23 ↗ I think thriving it's over next to the

1:23:25 ↗ CenturyLink Yards so go for the park and

1:23:28 ↗ ride CenturyLink and it's the single

1:23:30 ↗ story

1:23:30 ↗ hip its incubator space

1:23:33 ↗ yeah so a development that's very

1:23:36 ↗ typical in a suburban model if that gets

1:23:39 ↗ redeveloped I can easily see that being

1:23:41 ↗ a multi-story you know five story and

1:23:44 ↗ maybe there's some ground-floor retail

1:23:46 ↗ at the street level in front of parking

1:23:49 ↗ behind it

1:23:50 ↗ but that wouldn't be nearly as large as

1:23:52 ↗ all the commercial development that's on

1:23:54 ↗ there right now and if you said you have

1:23:56 ↗ to put that much commercial development

1:23:58 ↗ in that building I just don't see how

1:24:00 ↗ that would work and so it's only it's

1:24:03 ↗ not that I'm against the mixed-use

1:24:05 ↗ development and keeping commercial I

1:24:08 ↗ think those are good ideas but the

1:24:10 ↗ codifying it this way in saying whatever

1:24:12 ↗ commercials on each parcel is the

1:24:15 ↗ commercial amount you would always have

1:24:17 ↗ there

1:24:18 ↗ I just don't think that works I hear

1:24:20 ↗ your point I'm an interesting

1:24:22 ↗ conversation with the friend of mine who

1:24:26 ↗ just bought a piece of retail property

1:24:29 ↗ in Pickering and he said it's he spent

1:24:34 ↗ six months trying to find a piece of

1:24:38 ↗ retail property in Issaquah that is

1:24:41 ↗ affordable and

1:24:45 ↗ he's not a huge shop but he does pretty

1:24:47 ↗ well he is considered maybe within the

1:24:51 ↗ top three for his particular shop within

1:24:56 ↗ the Puget Sound and he's having a hard

1:24:58 ↗ time finding affordable retail space and

1:25:01 ↗ as a quote we don't want to have such a

1:25:04 ↗ shortage of retail space that what is

1:25:07 ↗ here is so high that people can't afford

1:25:09 ↗ it then we lose out as a community

1:25:12 ↗ because then we don't have that retail

1:25:14 ↗ opportunity so diversity right not every

1:25:17 ↗ retail shop is gonna be a million dollar

1:25:20 ↗ shop right but if you build a brand new

1:25:22 ↗ buildings that retail is gonna be even

1:25:24 ↗ more expensive true but does he have

1:25:27 ↗ enough retail space than what we we

1:25:31 ↗ don't have an impact at retail models

1:25:33 ↗ what I'm trying to say right so if we

1:25:36 ↗ don't have enough space retails becomes

1:25:38 ↗ impacted and then it's a premium for

1:25:42 ↗ rent and then the retail space is that

1:25:45 ↗ we like to shop at can't afford to exist

1:25:48 ↗ here because because you're right if you

1:25:51 ↗ build a new building you're in ELISA to

1:25:52 ↗ Starbucks or someone else is gonna pay a

1:25:54 ↗ premium for your space what that does is

1:25:57 ↗ bring the Starbucks there means the

1:25:58 ↗ Starbucks isn't down the street which

1:25:59 ↗ then opens up space for someone else so

1:26:01 ↗ I think you're right even though the new

1:26:02 ↗ new development will be priced here you

1:26:05 ↗ Ranjan argue we want it we want to

1:26:07 ↗ ensure that there's still ample amount

1:26:08 ↗ of commercial space that makes this the

1:26:09 ↗ vibrant center it is and we don't want

1:26:11 ↗ that to a road I think the other point

1:26:13 ↗ is don't get too caught up on on retail

1:26:15 ↗ I think when you look at some of these

1:26:17 ↗ developments really my coffee shop

1:26:18 ↗ couldn't survive over there what's fine

1:26:20 ↗ you can put other things in whether it's

1:26:22 ↗ a medical office or some sort of office

1:26:24 ↗ space I think the fact that it's we're

1:26:26 ↗ not we're not looking to preserve retail

1:26:28 ↗ we're looking simply to preserve not a

1:26:30 ↗ residential which i think is a bit

1:26:31 ↗ broader which I think adds a lot of

1:26:32 ↗ flexibility and then I think the last

1:26:35 ↗ point I make is this is this is a vision

1:26:38 ↗ I think we have the same conversation

1:26:39 ↗ around vertical mixed-use I think if the

1:26:42 ↗ argument is oh well that doesn't

1:26:44 ↗ financially make sense for a developer

1:26:46 ↗ right now that's fine that just means as

1:26:48 ↗ parcels won't get developed until prices

1:26:51 ↗ continue to

1:26:52 ↗ as they will in the valley because it's

1:26:54 ↗ more physically constrained and

1:26:55 ↗ eventually it will pencil out to rebuild

1:26:58 ↗ those if having this requirement means

1:27:01 ↗ it takes longer for a parcel to

1:27:02 ↗ redevelop I think that's fine because I

1:27:04 ↗ think what ultimately gets created on

1:27:06 ↗ those on those parcels it is a better

1:27:08 ↗ fit for the vision we have for these two

1:27:10 ↗ neighborhoods because if you look at the

1:27:12 ↗ Big Lots yes if you put something in

1:27:14 ↗ there now it'll be very difficult to get

1:27:16 ↗ to

1:27:17 ↗ unless you're adding hundreds of parking

1:27:19 ↗ there's a parking spot start sides but

1:27:21 ↗ if that gets put in 20 years from now

1:27:24 ↗ people will just walk from the train

1:27:26 ↗ station so the vision what we want these

1:27:29 ↗ neighborhoods in terms of access and the

1:27:31 ↗ density can handle it was a lot

1:27:33 ↗ different 20-30 years from now that it

1:27:35 ↗ will and it is is right now so this is a

1:27:38 ↗ hard one I don't disagree with anything

1:27:42 ↗ any of the four of you have said about

1:27:44 ↗ this the problem with this one is if you

1:27:48 ↗ add flexibility you're not gonna get it

1:27:52 ↗ I think that the the concern that I have

1:27:54 ↗ it goes back to you know our friends

1:27:59 ↗ friends from Lennar who built Atlas and

1:28:02 ↗ their comment to the city was if you

1:28:05 ↗ want a ground-floor retail you should

1:28:06 ↗ have made us do it

1:28:07 ↗ and that's hard that's hard for a city

1:28:10 ↗ to hear that because then it's like okay

1:28:12 ↗ we're gonna make you do it you know if

1:28:14 ↗ you you know I've thought about the

1:28:16 ↗ words here to see if you could kind of

1:28:18 ↗ broaden it a bit and you know the

1:28:23 ↗ concern I have is as soon as there's an

1:28:25 ↗ escape door we're gonna get people that

1:28:29 ↗ are gonna say well I read this it allows

1:28:32 ↗ me not to do it I'm not gonna do it now

1:28:34 ↗ we could start there you can always

1:28:36 ↗ start in one place and look at it and

1:28:39 ↗ see what the unintended consequences are

1:28:42 ↗ so we could either choose to make it

1:28:45 ↗ more discretionary or flexible and we

1:28:48 ↗ can see what the next few projects come

1:28:50 ↗ or we could leave it as is and you know

1:28:54 ↗ see if nothing happens so there's a

1:28:58 ↗ choice there I don't have a crystal ball

1:29:00 ↗ I don't know what's gonna come but I

1:29:04 ↗ think you know the reason why it's only

1:29:07 ↗ included in these two neighborhoods

1:29:08 ↗ again I think part of this has to do

1:29:11 ↗ with the number of jobs and the number

1:29:14 ↗ of housing units that were supposed to

1:29:17 ↗ put in this area and be able to

1:29:20 ↗ accommodate and so I'm I don't know

1:29:28 ↗ but I can also argue the other side and

1:29:31 ↗ say well the council just went through

1:29:32 ↗ the vertical mixed-use conversation and

1:29:35 ↗ they did not include all of both of

1:29:38 ↗ these neighborhoods they just picked a

1:29:40 ↗ small swath south you know of tippets

1:29:45 ↗ and you know so you could say well

1:29:47 ↗ clearly councils said what they want

1:29:49 ↗ they want that not this this takes that

1:29:52 ↗ and adds another 300 acres to it I mean

1:29:57 ↗ because I made that up so you know so I

1:29:59 ↗ think but this is one of the big when we

1:30:01 ↗ go through these twelve pages of vision

1:30:05 ↗ this is one of the big ones this is this

1:30:07 ↗ is big and it's very absolute so I think

1:30:11 ↗ you guys you know this is about the

1:30:13 ↗ reason why we have a commission is for

1:30:15 ↗ the community to weigh in and to help

1:30:17 ↗ the administration figure out what to

1:30:20 ↗ recommend I I think it does fit with the

1:30:23 ↗ vertical mixed-use being only a small

1:30:24 ↗ footprint because I think it fits with

1:30:26 ↗ things loosely and as you move from the

1:30:27 ↗ center ok so the vertical mixed-use

1:30:29 ↗ requirement that's super duper rigid and

1:30:32 ↗ then you will refer the way for the rest

1:30:35 ↗ neighborhood you have a still somewhat

1:30:36 ↗ rigid but still a little bit more

1:30:38 ↗ flexible you can do like the like try to

1:30:40 ↗ point to a couple different properties

1:30:41 ↗ and then as you leave these two

1:30:43 ↗ neighborhoods then that that disappears

1:30:46 ↗ so I think the fact that the vert that

1:30:48 ↗ super-tight vertical my first

1:30:50 ↗ requirement is only a subset of neighbor

1:30:53 ↗ but I think actually makes sense because

1:30:54 ↗ you you you allow more flexibility as

1:30:56 ↗ you as you move broader right that works

1:30:59 ↗ well and this would allow somebody to do

1:31:00 ↗ like a four story office building

1:31:01 ↗ without having to

1:31:03 ↗ makes use Niki's you know you're not

1:31:05 ↗ requiring the addition of residential

1:31:07 ↗ right because I think we're assuming

1:31:08 ↗ that's gonna come

1:31:13 ↗ of our time with 1.4 as we've been

1:31:17 ↗ discussing I think what we've talked

1:31:21 ↗ about is that we want to make sure that

1:31:23 ↗ there is ground-floor retail but

1:31:25 ↗ preserving the amount of like this is

1:31:28 ↗ very specific the amount of non

1:31:30 ↗ residential square footage that's

1:31:32 ↗ already there right we want to keep that

1:31:35 ↗ so saying there's a big lots a giant

1:31:40 ↗ store right taking all that square

1:31:42 ↗ footage that building would have to have

1:31:44 ↗ that same footprint if you don't

1:31:46 ↗ necessarily want so I'd rather I'd

1:31:50 ↗ rather get rid of 1.4 in lieu of just

1:31:54 ↗ requiring ground-floor retail III distri

1:31:59 ↗ because I don't think grand for a retail

1:32:01 ↗ makes sense everywhere ground floor

1:32:06 ↗ non-residential

1:32:10 ↗ no because they think you can have

1:32:12 ↗ something where there's walk-up

1:32:14 ↗ residential and then on the other side

1:32:15 ↗ of the block you have office space would

1:32:18 ↗ it be would it be helpful to maybe leave

1:32:19 ↗ that in and then add a bullet under city

1:32:22 ↗ implementation actions and that the city

1:32:24 ↗ will work with developers to ensure that

1:32:27 ↗ one point four is delivered in like a

1:32:29 ↗ flexible manner something that makes it

1:32:31 ↗ clear that it it's not as prescriptive

1:32:34 ↗ as you have to meet your footprint but

1:32:36 ↗ that the city is tasked to work flex

1:32:40 ↗ would be to you know coordinating

1:32:42 ↗ parcels and do those kinds of things but

1:32:43 ↗ that would that be helpful to throw that

1:32:45 ↗ bullet in there so let's let's maybe ask

1:32:47 ↗ the question here because maybe we all

1:32:49 ↗ have different purposes what's the

1:32:51 ↗ purpose for one point for for you all it

1:32:54 ↗ is is it a vibrancy issue or is it a

1:32:58 ↗ jobs issue or is it I think it's both if

1:33:03 ↗ we don't enforce it we don't you know

1:33:07 ↗ let me back up for a second the amount

1:33:09 ↗ of square footage that we have there now

1:33:11 ↗ for commercial it's probably not enough

1:33:16 ↗ we need even more than what's already

1:33:18 ↗ there it's one for jobs economic

1:33:23 ↗ vitality it's gonna bring revenue into

1:33:25 ↗ the city it's gonna give a place for

1:33:28 ↗ these residents to shop at because here

1:33:30 ↗ we're talking about meeting jobs housing

1:33:32 ↗ and everything needs everything needed

1:33:35 ↗ in a day going back if we don't have

1:33:38 ↗ enough space for retail I'd rather have

1:33:42 ↗ too much than not enough because then

1:33:44 ↗ you have an impact and model and if you

1:33:46 ↗ have an impacted model those rents are

1:33:48 ↗ going to be even higher and they're not

1:33:51 ↗ going to attract the retailers or

1:33:54 ↗ commercial entities that will be able to

1:33:57 ↗ afford there and provide us with our

1:33:59 ↗ everyday needs we're looking at big-box

1:34:01 ↗ and higher end retail to afford that

1:34:05 ↗ space and I don't want that because

1:34:06 ↗ that's not a healthy economic model and

1:34:09 ↗ it doesn't it's not healthy for the

1:34:11 ↗ neighborhood because in people have to

1:34:12 ↗ get in their cars and drive

1:34:16 ↗ alright I'm off my cell boss

1:34:23 ↗ yes I would just encourage you to keep

1:34:26 ↗ some flexibility in there just in

1:34:28 ↗ looking at what Bellevue did when

1:34:31 ↗ initially they did require commercial on

1:34:34 ↗ the ground floors of their buildings and

1:34:36 ↗ as they spread out from their core what

1:34:37 ↗ they found was they'd get out a certain

1:34:39 ↗ distance and it wouldn't work nobody

1:34:41 ↗ would leased the space any kind of

1:34:44 ↗ retail any kind of commercial and so

1:34:46 ↗ they ended up resolving this and you can

1:34:49 ↗ see this when you drive and I can't

1:34:50 ↗ remember about the name what number the

1:34:52 ↗ street is but it's the one that goes

1:34:53 ↗ past the hotels you keep going into

1:34:55 ↗ Bellevue you'll see some apartments on

1:34:57 ↗ the left-hand side and retail was built

1:34:59 ↗ on the ground-floor of those apartments

1:35:01 ↗ but it has since been converted from

1:35:03 ↗ retail into residential because that's

1:35:06 ↗ the only thing that would work there but

1:35:07 ↗ the people that live in those units have

1:35:09 ↗ to keep their drapes closed because

1:35:11 ↗ they're on the ground floor right there

1:35:12 ↗ at the street level so but it's it's a

1:35:15 ↗ temporary thing once the light rail

1:35:17 ↗ station comes into the neighborhood then

1:35:19 ↗ it will become possible for more of a

1:35:22 ↗ commercial use to happen in those

1:35:24 ↗ buildings buildings change as

1:35:25 ↗ neighborhoods change and so it's

1:35:27 ↗ important to have some flexibility to

1:35:29 ↗ allow them to evolve to respond to their

1:35:31 ↗ surroundings retail will work well when

1:35:33 ↗ you get a critical density of people

1:35:35 ↗ that can walk to it but until you've got

1:35:38 ↗ the parking issue

1:35:39 ↗ we're very suburban right now and so

1:35:41 ↗ most of our retail does require drive up

1:35:43 ↗ access and without that a retailer can

1:35:47 ↗ struggle unless they have enough people

1:35:49 ↗ that can walk to them to survive Keith

1:35:51 ↗ would you consider work live apartments

1:35:54 ↗ to meet this requirement because I see

1:35:57 ↗ that a lot in some of the apartments

1:35:58 ↗ that go through Seattle where it's not

1:36:00 ↗ in the retail core and they have street

1:36:03 ↗ facing

1:36:04 ↗ work love apartment units that it is

1:36:06 ↗ zoned and you can either be in

1:36:07 ↗ apartments a good if we're gonna show us

1:36:09 ↗ a lot off sure I mean so we there are a

1:36:12 ↗ number of projects up on the islands

1:36:14 ↗ where the first floor are basically were

1:36:18 ↗ built to accommodate home offices and

1:36:21 ↗ basically live work so so is that is

1:36:25 ↗ that you know is that is that equivalent

1:36:27 ↗ I would say yes yeah I mean if you're if

1:36:30 ↗ you're designing in so that it basically

1:36:33 ↗ has that street front and openness that

1:36:38 ↗ you know somebody that would have a

1:36:40 ↗ basic business would use I think that

1:36:43 ↗ would be that'd be great I think that

1:36:45 ↗ would be we have a ton of home-based

1:36:47 ↗ businesses and it's a far right now

1:36:49 ↗ because I think that what they would do

1:36:51 ↗ well who are you're saying it's probably

1:36:52 ↗ be an apartment you have to start yeah

1:36:55 ↗ and then as intensifies which aren't you

1:36:58 ↗ know you know then maybe transition and

1:37:00 ↗ being more you know point though peccary

1:37:03 ↗ NAND Gilman are our economic central

1:37:06 ↗ hubs and we are talking about allowing

1:37:10 ↗ retailer allowing residential mostly

1:37:14 ↗ residential to be built there that's a

1:37:17 ↗ that's a strategic flaw we cannot do

1:37:21 ↗ that we have to hold our own and insist

1:37:24 ↗ a commercial and retail have the space

1:37:28 ↗ to build their aura will not happen and

1:37:30 ↗ when we're talking about 7,000 units

1:37:34 ↗ that's just what the first 15 years 20

1:37:40 ↗ years the reality is that can support

1:37:43 ↗ maybe a lot more than that

1:37:45 ↗ that's the capacity of bickering and

1:37:47 ↗ Gilman or just Pickering the regional

1:37:49 ↗ growth Center said both of them so but

1:37:51 ↗ that's a target that's not capacity

1:37:59 ↗ still a lot but I think around what

1:38:01 ↗ you're driving it is it's a job center

1:38:04 ↗ you know and we did the idea the vision

1:38:07 ↗ is we don't want to replace that with

1:38:09 ↗ residential we want to add residential

1:38:11 ↗ into it but can still keep and keep what

1:38:13 ↗ we have all right I said yes because of

1:38:15 ↗ also the vibrancy the energy of the

1:38:17 ↗ neighborhood has changed if it's a

1:38:19 ↗ residential it's can be quiet people

1:38:21 ↗ aren't gonna want to build retail there

1:38:22 ↗ but if you have both you create more

1:38:25 ↗ energy this is more of an economic

1:38:27 ↗ engine

1:38:34 ↗ so

1:38:40 ↗ not sure you have one voice yet no I

1:38:43 ↗ think maybe for those who are concerned

1:38:46 ↗ I think also keeping my you could we can

1:38:48 ↗ always back away from this it's it's

1:38:50 ↗ much easier to be too prescriptive and

1:38:53 ↗ then ease up than it is to allow for

1:38:56 ↗ development and then be like you know

1:38:58 ↗ maybe not so I think for those for those

1:39:00 ↗ who have pause keep mind you can keep

1:39:03 ↗ this and if we find it's it's not

1:39:05 ↗ penciling out and we have you know small

1:39:08 ↗ business owners who are screaming bloody

1:39:10 ↗ murder because they can't they can't get

1:39:12 ↗ done with anything get done I think will

1:39:14 ↗ hear that and that could be incorporated

1:39:16 ↗ in the next in the next planning cycle

1:39:20 ↗ you can always change

1:39:24 ↗ but we need commercial we need retail we

1:39:29 ↗ need a cohesive Navy

1:39:33 ↗ so so into Mel's point just one more

1:39:38 ↗ thing on this I think I think cascade

1:39:41 ↗ Business Park is an interesting example

1:39:43 ↗ and I guess what I would say is if this

1:39:46 ↗ is here what you'd end up happening I

1:39:49 ↗ think is you could you could build you

1:39:52 ↗ could split that parcel build an

1:39:55 ↗ apartment building on one side and an

1:39:57 ↗ office and multi-story office building

1:39:59 ↗ on the other and Eclipse the amount of

1:40:01 ↗ square footage that's there now you know

1:40:04 ↗ in a multi-story commercial space you

1:40:09 ↗ know as well I guess my but my objection

1:40:12 ↗ is then to that I understand what you're

1:40:15 ↗ saying it's I just looked it up it's 96

1:40:18 ↗ thousand square feet of commercial space

1:40:19 ↗ right now so I don't see any way you

1:40:22 ↗ could put 96 thousand square feet of

1:40:24 ↗ ground floor retail in an apartment

1:40:26 ↗ building there right and to me I'd look

1:40:28 ↗ at that overall it's a perfect spot to

1:40:31 ↗ put residential with the park the

1:40:34 ↗ Transit Center within walking distance

1:40:35 ↗ hotels retail I mean it's a purchase

1:40:39 ↗ it's it's where we would want high

1:40:41 ↗ density residential to go but we'd be

1:40:44 ↗ saying no you can only do that let's say

1:40:47 ↗ on the half of the property not the rest

1:40:49 ↗ of it we're going to force 96 thousand

1:40:52 ↗ square feet of commercial property onto

1:40:55 ↗ that side into my in my mind we're

1:40:59 ↗ starting to then create our zoning that

1:41:02 ↗ codifies what's there right now

1:41:05 ↗ but I think Eastwood saying it doesn't

1:41:08 ↗ need to be sight for sight and so I

1:41:10 ↗ think the challenge then is is if a

1:41:12 ↗ developer says I want to build an

1:41:13 ↗ apartment building then the city says ok

1:41:15 ↗ great

1:41:16 ↗ go show me where else you're going to

1:41:18 ↗ add incremental ninety six thousand

1:41:20 ↗ square feet within the neighborhood well

1:41:22 ↗ and then so then that it is more

1:41:25 ↗ difficult for the developer because

1:41:26 ↗ developer needs either acquire a partner

1:41:28 ↗ with another parcel but I don't I think

1:41:30 ↗ it's still written broad enough that the

1:41:33 ↗ individual parcel doesn't have to

1:41:34 ↗ maintain so but then you're telling an

1:41:36 ↗ apartment developer ok you have to go

1:41:39 ↗ build 96 thousand square feet of office

1:41:41 ↗ space on another parcel in addition to

1:41:44 ↗ any of the commercial space that was on

1:41:46 ↗ that parcel yeah and that doesn't happen

1:41:49 ↗ you're an apartment developer you're an

1:41:51 ↗ office developer the markets be

1:41:53 ↗ operating different differently an

1:41:55 ↗ apartment person comes in and says I'm

1:41:57 ↗ going to build an apart

1:41:59 ↗ I'll put I'm a ground-floor but that's

1:42:02 ↗ but but I think that's what that's the

1:42:04 ↗ most important thing the markets do

1:42:06 ↗ operate differently and that's why we

1:42:07 ↗ have this requirement we don't want to

1:42:09 ↗ be caught in a market where we lose all

1:42:11 ↗ of our commercial space just like we if

1:42:14 ↗ we were in a different market and all of

1:42:16 ↗ a sudden houses were getting raised

1:42:17 ↗ because we can offices office buildings

1:42:19 ↗ and all of a sudden way too short of

1:42:20 ↗ housing if that was the problem we had

1:42:22 ↗ we would write something that I would

1:42:24 ↗ say you have to preserve residential

1:42:27 ↗ space and some other neighborhood but

1:42:28 ↗ like it's like so this would never

1:42:30 ↗ happen but let's say housing was cheap

1:42:32 ↗ oven space was crazy high people were

1:42:35 ↗ houses and islands and tearing them down

1:42:37 ↗ and putting in office buildings if that

1:42:41 ↗ was happening and we were suddenly had a

1:42:42 ↗ shortage of you know we were losing the

1:42:44 ↗ character the highlands and there

1:42:45 ↗ weren't enough residential I can see

1:42:47 ↗ that the city would pass a code say hey

1:42:49 ↗ if you're gonna tear down houses because

1:42:51 ↗ you want to add offices because that's

1:42:52 ↗ what the market is dictating that's fine

1:42:54 ↗ but make sure you're adding like for

1:42:56 ↗ like residential that's that that's what

1:42:59 ↗ this is the markets are different the

1:43:00 ↗ market says residential pencils out

1:43:03 ↗ commercial space often doesn't and is in

1:43:06 ↗ where a sequoias right now in the region

1:43:08 ↗ and so then this this rule is

1:43:10 ↗ specifically because we're trying to

1:43:13 ↗ combat where the market is right now and

1:43:15 ↗ forced developers to meet the vision we

1:43:19 ↗ want and not simply meet what the market

1:43:22 ↗ once

1:43:23 ↗ Kevin banana I would still disagree that

1:43:26 ↗ you are forcing it on parcel by parcel

1:43:30 ↗ to do this instead of saying this is a

1:43:32 ↗ bigger vision you're saying your parcel

1:43:35 ↗ do you own that has X amount of square

1:43:37 ↗ footage commercial has to have X amount

1:43:39 ↗ of square footage commercial I know is

1:43:41 ↗ that true though

1:43:42 ↗ I mean this is really if I was on the

1:43:45 ↗ Development Commission reading this we

1:43:47 ↗ do we need to well that's why I threw in

1:43:49 ↗ the point about adding something on the

1:43:51 ↗ city implementation size to make it

1:43:52 ↗ clear that there is flexibility so so

1:43:57 ↗ this is this is where we're trying to

1:43:59 ↗ land this you know to Mel's point

1:44:01 ↗ earlier the way this is written I would

1:44:03 ↗ say if you wanted to come into Issaquah

1:44:05 ↗ and you're gonna build an apartment

1:44:07 ↗ holding project you know you you're not

1:44:10 ↗ gonna find vacant land and you're not

1:44:11 ↗ gonna find housing that you're gonna

1:44:13 ↗ take out most likely so you're gonna

1:44:15 ↗ take out something that's

1:44:15 ↗ non-residential so what this would tell

1:44:18 ↗ me is I've got to go to either East Lake

1:44:20 ↗ or confluence right I can't do it in the

1:44:23 ↗ regional growth center so that's the

1:44:25 ↗ first thing is that okay because that's

1:44:26 ↗ what this says if what we're trying to

1:44:29 ↗ do and that's I think we're run is what

1:44:31 ↗ we're trucking for what we're trying to

1:44:32 ↗ do is say that this is you know we're

1:44:34 ↗ gonna keep tabs on a neighborhood basis

1:44:37 ↗ so and I think this might have been

1:44:39 ↗ where kiri was earlier I didn't ask but

1:44:41 ↗ you know so let's say Costco builds six

1:44:44 ↗ hundred thousand square feet of office

1:44:46 ↗ space are we now in Pickering up six

1:44:50 ↗ hundred thousand square feet so then if

1:44:52 ↗ the next four projects want to wipe out

1:44:54 ↗ 60,000 square feet of retail we're we're

1:44:58 ↗ on the plus side of the column so if you

1:45:01 ↗ look at it more as on a neighborhood

1:45:03 ↗ basis then you could as long as you're

1:45:06 ↗ never below the line you could let some

1:45:09 ↗ people redevelop as residential only and

1:45:11 ↗ take out you know you could take out a

1:45:14 ↗ non-residential space and not have to

1:45:16 ↗ put

1:45:16 ↗ back if that's okay you know we can

1:45:21 ↗ tweak the language to allow that but

1:45:22 ↗ right now the way it reads is if you

1:45:25 ↗ come in and you can take out the Holiday

1:45:27 ↗ Inn

1:45:27 ↗ to build apartments you have a problem

1:45:32 ↗ hotels are non resident non-resident

1:45:35 ↗ hotels or non-residential it would be a

1:45:39 ↗ lot easier as one person just came in

1:45:40 ↗ and bought the whole thing I see I see

1:45:49 ↗ the points that are being made yeah this

1:45:52 ↗ is this is complicated it is complicated

1:45:54 ↗ because this is multiple parcels with

1:45:58 ↗ different square footage of commercial

1:46:03 ↗ space on it and I think what we want to

1:46:05 ↗ look at is the spirit of the

1:46:07 ↗ neighborhood as opposed to the each

1:46:09 ↗ individual factual piece of property so

1:46:14 ↗ it's almost getting too granular and I

1:46:17 ↗ don't want to lose commercial space I

1:46:20 ↗ know I'll lose retail space and when I

1:46:23 ↗ mean retail it's not always necessarily

1:46:25 ↗ a bike shop or a Taco Time it could be a

1:46:29 ↗ graphics studio which would be kind of

1:46:32 ↗ commercial retail

1:46:37 ↗ but it could also be distributed

1:46:39 ↗ throughout so if we had someone come in

1:46:41 ↗ or a collective maybe create a co-op of

1:46:44 ↗ sorts where if developer came in and

1:46:48 ↗ wanted to develop the Lowe's building

1:46:50 ↗ and the big loss building and take out

1:46:52 ↗ the Petco area as well and create the

1:46:56 ↗ next fuse each parcel may not produce

1:47:01 ↗ the same square footage of commercial

1:47:04 ↗ but together they would still produce

1:47:08 ↗ similar or more commercial space right

1:47:13 ↗ people following that so that's kind of

1:47:16 ↗ what we're looking for I suppose the

1:47:18 ↗ same big lot sells we need to have in a

1:47:22 ↗ developer was to come in and develop

1:47:24 ↗ that into an apartment complex we're not

1:47:26 ↗ going to expect that much square footage

1:47:28 ↗ to be underneath that apartment complex

1:47:29 ↗ because that might be totally

1:47:30 ↗ unrealistic but you don't want them to

1:47:34 ↗ say well hey I'm gonna buy this parcel

1:47:36 ↗ Big Lots put a apartment complex and by

1:47:40 ↗ the way I have another parcel off in

1:47:41 ↗ Highland so I'll put my commercial up

1:47:43 ↗ there because then you're taking it

1:47:44 ↗ you're taking the commercial out of it

1:47:46 ↗ the bickering area that needs to be

1:47:47 ↗ there and moving it somewhere else

1:47:49 ↗ within the city and I don't want that to

1:47:52 ↗ happen either because I know that

1:47:53 ↗ happens

1:47:56 ↗ I think when you talk about how someone

1:47:59 ↗ who would suggest build an apartment

1:48:00 ↗ building will look here and say no I'm

1:48:02 ↗ not going to do that go someplace else

1:48:03 ↗ think that's fine I think that's the

1:48:04 ↗ vision we're looking forward I think you

1:48:06 ↗ know your big national home builders

1:48:08 ↗ might look at this environment say I'm

1:48:11 ↗ not gonna fall I'll do my development oh

1:48:13 ↗ I think you're more local development

1:48:17 ↗ companies whether it's a Vulcan or

1:48:19 ↗ something smaller than that I think they

1:48:20 ↗ would be much more based upon the type

1:48:22 ↗ of development going on in places like

1:48:23 ↗ Seattle and Redmond those those projects

1:48:27 ↗ I think meet that and I think what

1:48:29 ↗ mystic war aspires to do is to have in

1:48:32 ↗ these two neighborhoods the type of

1:48:33 ↗ development that right now is coming in

1:48:35 ↗ the pipeline in places like Redmon's

1:48:37 ↗ over Lake neighborhood I feel like what

1:48:40 ↗ were like and a desert is pretty similar

1:48:42 ↗ and those ones sometimes developer who

1:48:44 ↗ pulls together a full block and has

1:48:46 ↗ apartment buildings and office buildings

1:48:48 ↗ and so even though it's not like for

1:48:50 ↗ like the net-net

1:48:51 ↗ is you're adding residential while also

1:48:54 ↗ adding the the non-residential anything

1:48:59 ↗ that needs your question please I don't

1:49:01 ↗ the way I read this is if Costco adds

1:49:05 ↗ energy thousand square feet and then two

1:49:11 ↗ years later someone's then developed the

1:49:13 ↗ Big Lots parcel I don't think they can

1:49:15 ↗ point the Costco because they didn't

1:49:17 ↗ they didn't contribute that I I

1:49:18 ↗ interpret it as that that each

1:49:20 ↗ individual development action needs to

1:49:24 ↗ needs to have no net loss now that can

1:49:26 ↗ be coordinated across parcels and across

1:49:27 ↗ developers that you know maybe do some

1:49:30 ↗ handshake agreement or kind of point to

1:49:31 ↗ each other I think that's fine but I

1:49:33 ↗ don't I don't think one developer can

1:49:34 ↗ say well those guys built an office

1:49:36 ↗ building two years ago or so

1:49:39 ↗ I'm scot-free for my development I know

1:49:41 ↗ that's not a howl or anything but rather

1:49:43 ↗ with what you just said is that

1:49:45 ↗ developers won't get together because

1:49:48 ↗ one development comes in and then maybe

1:49:50 ↗ two years later something else comes in

1:49:52 ↗ and it's not coordinated

1:49:54 ↗ but we're providing a financial

1:49:56 ↗ incentive from them to coordinator cuz

1:49:58 ↗ if I'm a developer and if I am told

1:50:00 ↗ brothers or Lennar and I want to build

1:50:02 ↗ an apartment building I'm gonna go

1:50:04 ↗ figure out how to go find someone else

1:50:07 ↗ that wants to build an office building

1:50:08 ↗ because that's what I have to do in

1:50:10 ↗ order to make money off of this

1:50:11 ↗ apartment building I want to make though

1:50:13 ↗ I think people will figure it out

1:50:15 ↗ it will happen even if now's not the

1:50:18 ↗ right time it will happen

1:50:21 ↗ this property is way too valuable

1:50:23 ↗ and when st3 comes in it's not gonna be

1:50:27 ↗ a Lowe's it's not gonna be empty it will

1:50:30 ↗ happen

1:50:31 ↗ it's just when the right time happens in

1:50:34 ↗ the right chemistry of people come

1:50:35 ↗ together and if we create language

1:50:38 ↗ that's too soft we're not gonna get what

1:50:41 ↗ we want when the time comes and in time

1:50:43 ↗ may come very quickly or the time may

1:50:45 ↗ come 10 15 years from now so are you

1:50:49 ↗ looking at this as an a

1:50:51 ↗ because I can't see a neighborhood with

1:50:56 ↗ apartments or condos right next to a big

1:51:01 ↗ commercial building next to a another

1:51:05 ↗ apartment building how that creates a

1:51:10 ↗ neighborhood I would rather see

1:51:15 ↗ underneath where you can walk and you

1:51:18 ↗ have parks in the middle and you can

1:51:21 ↗ create a neighborhood so I'm having a

1:51:25 ↗ hard time because that's what but that's

1:51:28 ↗ what that's what mix used is mix uses

1:51:30 ↗ and just apartments and coffee shops

1:51:32 ↗ I mean mix uses I'm you go places like

1:51:36 ↗ you gotta like Redmond you know if you

1:51:38 ↗ see it in Bellevue and they have small

1:51:40 ↗ apartment buildings and next to it is

1:51:42 ↗ you know a 20-story office tower now

1:51:45 ↗ that's not a leafy residential

1:51:47 ↗ neighborhood because that's that's not

1:51:49 ↗ what quick reading Gilman are I agree

1:51:50 ↗ with this if we were looking at

1:51:52 ↗ confluence and someone wanted a drop-in

1:51:55 ↗ eight story medical office tower that

1:51:59 ↗ would not fit with the intent of that

1:52:00 ↗ neighbor it is because it would be

1:52:02 ↗ disruptive to the residential space

1:52:04 ↗ that's there but I think in Pickering

1:52:05 ↗ Gilman it is a more urban space and

1:52:09 ↗ having office buildings and whatnot I

1:52:12 ↗ think is an appropriate use because it

1:52:15 ↗ keeps it airy very active during the day

1:52:16 ↗ and then will drive all the foot traffic

1:52:18 ↗ for the for the for the shops and the

1:52:21 ↗ restaurants and all the other amenities

1:52:22 ↗ that are in procreating Gilman it's

1:52:24 ↗ gonna be quite different than it is now

1:52:26 ↗ I think it's what the vision is so so

1:52:28 ↗ this is so what I've been saying for

1:52:32 ↗ Pickering and I think if we're

1:52:34 ↗ successful those spaces will be utilized

1:52:39 ↗ I mean right now

1:52:40 ↗ what I can tell you is so like I can I

1:52:44 ↗ can you know what's been going through

1:52:45 ↗ my head it's been our building right you

1:52:48 ↗ look at our building and you look at one

1:52:50 ↗ of the most likely buildings to

1:52:52 ↗ redevelop and figuring that would be our

1:52:54 ↗ building right and so the question is so

1:52:57 ↗ you got 24,000 square feet of office

1:52:59 ↗ there now and that would be a place that

1:53:03 ↗ I could see a five-story apartment

1:53:05 ↗ building happen and so you know if you

1:53:07 ↗ could you know if you said you just had

1:53:10 ↗ to have ground floor non-residential

1:53:12 ↗ space they they build that and some

1:53:15 ↗ retailers would go in there and you know

1:53:17 ↗ be whatever it is maybe it's a dry

1:53:20 ↗ cleaners and a something but 24,000

1:53:24 ↗ square feets an interesting conundrum

1:53:26 ↗ that's that's a big space so the

1:53:27 ↗ question is you know if you wanted to

1:53:30 ↗ build apartments in there and you were

1:53:32 ↗ gonna take out our floor our building

1:53:35 ↗ you know okay now I got to build you

1:53:38 ↗ know so the footprint of whatever gets

1:53:39 ↗ built there would probably be big enough

1:53:41 ↗ to do it on one floor would be my guess

1:53:43 ↗ because that building is kind of

1:53:45 ↗ smooshed to the back of the property and

1:53:48 ↗ well and you'd have to do it on one

1:53:50 ↗ floor because typically in those

1:53:51 ↗ mixed-use building right they don't want

1:53:53 ↗ to share elevators for security presence

1:53:55 ↗ so you've got to have a whole separate

1:53:56 ↗ core for residential than you do for

1:53:59 ↗ commercial but the thing with that and

1:54:01 ↗ this is a little bit to Ron's point

1:54:03 ↗ earlier so if it's marginal space from

1:54:06 ↗ the get-go because there's not enough

1:54:08 ↗ other rooftops around in they did really

1:54:10 ↗ good space it'll be in the lower price

1:54:12 ↗ point right which gives opportunities

1:54:15 ↗ for certain retailers that might not

1:54:17 ↗ otherwise be able to afford to be in

1:54:19 ↗ Pickering

1:54:19 ↗ but also Costco has its own weird

1:54:23 ↗ dynamic

1:54:24 ↗ that there are vendors from all over the

1:54:26 ↗ country that want office space

1:54:28 ↗ approximate to Costco because they then

1:54:31 ↗ at Costco and so if I would guess with

1:54:35 ↗ you if a builder built 24,000 square

1:54:38 ↗ feet of spec commercial space it would

1:54:42 ↗ get filled up by Costco vendors and they

1:54:46 ↗ and the apartments would be above so if

1:54:48 ↗ part of this is about jobs the number of

1:54:50 ↗ jobs in my building now would be

1:54:53 ↗ replicated with the new space you know

1:54:56 ↗ what it is and that could change over

1:54:58 ↗ time maybe it starts off as commercial

1:55:00 ↗ space but then at some point it becomes

1:55:02 ↗ more vibrant for it to be retail maybe

1:55:05 ↗ it wants to be you know restaurants and

1:55:08 ↗ other things later those kind of spaces

1:55:10 ↗ can transform that way but the building

1:55:13 ↗ itself once it builds so if it built as

1:55:16 ↗ a straight apartment building it would

1:55:18 ↗ be there for the next 50 to 75 years

1:55:21 ↗ before anything happened to it okay you

1:55:23 ↗ know the interesting thing that you just

1:55:25 ↗ brought up is essentially when you're

1:55:26 ↗ building for commercial on the ground

1:55:28 ↗ floor you have taller ceiling heights so

1:55:31 ↗ as long as you build your ground floors

1:55:33 ↗ with those taller ceiling heights they

1:55:35 ↗ can be anything over time

1:55:39 ↗ so now how would you change how would

1:55:44 ↗ you change it that would work for the

1:55:46 ↗ Development Commission and incorporating

1:55:49 ↗ capsulate everything - we've been

1:55:52 ↗ talking about any suggestions on how

1:55:54 ↗ well for the Development Commission the

1:55:57 ↗ way it's written is clear I would

1:55:58 ↗ interpret it would be an easy one to

1:56:04 ↗ interpret and personally I I would just

1:56:10 ↗ take it out but I'm not on the

1:56:12 ↗ commission but that was I think there's

1:56:18 ↗ other ways to incentivize commercial

1:56:21 ↗ development downtown in the core that if

1:56:25 ↗ we wanted through incentives to

1:56:28 ↗ developers whether its high other things

1:56:31 ↗ yeah but to put something in that will

1:56:34 ↗ lock into place a certain amount of

1:56:37 ↗ commercial square footage on each law

1:56:42 ↗ well again I think I don't think it

1:56:44 ↗ gives the Department of the city enough

1:56:46 ↗ flexibility I think it comes back to the

1:56:49 ↗ spirit of the neighborhood and the

1:56:52 ↗ amount of square footage for a lot I

1:56:54 ↗ don't know if that's aI don't know if

1:56:58 ↗ that's a great way to look at it being

1:57:01 ↗ so granular as opposed to looking at

1:57:04 ↗ maybe from a 30,000 foot level the

1:57:06 ↗ neighborhood needs the square footage

1:57:08 ↗ the parcel may not necessarily have to

1:57:11 ↗ provide it exactly that spec maybe could

1:57:15 ↗ provide half in in collaboration with

1:57:18 ↗ another landowner who's going to build

1:57:22 ↗ an apartment complex with shared

1:57:25 ↗ commercial space on bottom as long as we

1:57:28 ↗ don't shrink the amount of space in that

1:57:33 ↗ again even gets back to the idea that

1:57:35 ↗ are saying okay for this spot we've said

1:57:37 ↗ we have to have this amount of

1:57:38 ↗ commercial in this location well when I

1:57:42 ↗ look at location I am looking at

1:57:44 ↗ Pickering as a location that's the

1:57:47 ↗ neighborhood we don't want to lose the

1:57:49 ↗ amount of commercial and retail space

1:57:52 ↗ that is in that neighborhood today if it

1:57:56 ↗ it should be equal to or more than what

1:57:59 ↗ is there now but if a developer wants to

1:58:03 ↗ sell the Big Lots I'm just using big

1:58:05 ↗ loss but if someone if that landowner

1:58:09 ↗ was to develop into a an apartment

1:58:13 ↗ building

1:58:15 ↗ I think a portion of that which should

1:58:18 ↗ be commercial but that's a huge store it

1:58:21 ↗ would have to be a humungous apartment

1:58:23 ↗ complex to accommodate that much

1:58:25 ↗ commercial space and I'm looking at it

1:58:27 ↗ from the spirit what can we if if he's

1:58:30 ↗ going to remove some of that commercial

1:58:31 ↗ space where is that commercial space

1:58:34 ↗ going to land in that neighborhood and

1:58:38 ↗ you have to have a receiving party to

1:58:41 ↗ work together to make that compromise

1:58:43 ↗ and again I guess I would get back to

1:58:46 ↗ that premise of saying all that

1:58:48 ↗ commercial space we we're now saying it

1:58:50 ↗ has to be preserved like historical

1:58:53 ↗ preservation that we have that square

1:58:55 ↗ footage has to be preserved within the

1:58:57 ↗ city because again if Costco builds

1:58:59 ↗ 600,000 square feet of office space we

1:59:03 ↗ have a lot more jobs that come in do we

1:59:06 ↗ now go back and rewrite the code to say

1:59:07 ↗ we can we have 600,000 square feet of

1:59:11 ↗ space if people could buy you know could

1:59:15 ↗ you buy credits for how much office

1:59:17 ↗ space Costco built or replaces all right

1:59:19 ↗ well let's play devil's advocate let's

1:59:21 ↗ say the all the wayon owners got

1:59:24 ↗ together and developed the entire

1:59:26 ↗ Pickering area and they went with

1:59:28 ↗ commercial space down below and Costco

1:59:30 ↗ says great I'll take all of it we have

1:59:34 ↗ mixed cues but we have all one brand

1:59:37 ↗ underneath that we have no retail how do

1:59:41 ↗ we fix that how do we prevent that from

1:59:43 ↗ happening because I don't think there'd

1:59:46 ↗ be a very vibrant neighborhood that

1:59:47 ↗ would be a very tall neighborhood

1:59:50 ↗ so I do you have anything well I have

1:59:53 ↗ two thoughts and neither of them are

1:59:54 ↗ solutions so I sorry about that in

1:59:56 ↗ advance but I mean first of all for me

1:59:59 ↗ we're talking about you know commercial

2:00:02 ↗ all that I mean for me it's more about

2:00:03 ↗ jobs and we go but keep going back to

2:00:06 ↗ the Big Lots example like not that many

2:00:07 ↗ people actually work at Big Lots it's

2:00:08 ↗ huge but not that many people work there

2:00:10 ↗ and so I wish there was a I mean I don't

2:00:13 ↗ think there is but I wish we could use a

2:00:15 ↗ jobs metric here instead of a square

2:00:18 ↗ footage metric because I think I mean

2:00:20 ↗ really you talk about the the you know

2:00:23 ↗ the vendors Costco vendor idea I mean

2:00:26 ↗ that could actually create quite a

2:00:27 ↗ number of jobs in a very small space

2:00:30 ↗ compared to a big-box store that has you

2:00:33 ↗ know five people working there in the

2:00:35 ↗ evening um so I don't know if that if

2:00:39 ↗ you can even do that but that might help

2:00:41 ↗ and then the the other thing is I mean

2:00:47 ↗ so originally I was just sitting here

2:00:48 ↗ kind of listening and and somehow

2:00:50 ↗ agreeing with everybody I don't know if

2:00:51 ↗ that's possible but I mean I think the I

2:00:54 ↗ agree with the idea that we're really

2:00:55 ↗ talking about the neighborhood like

2:00:57 ↗ what's happening in the neighborhood in

2:00:58 ↗ terms of number of jobs we don't want

2:01:02 ↗ the jobs to go some to another name to

2:01:04 ↗ an adjacent neighborhood or another town

2:01:05 ↗ but I've

2:01:09 ↗ I'm also finding a hard way to figure

2:01:11 ↗ out how do we do that without regulating

2:01:13 ↗ it at the parcel level so you know I

2:01:16 ↗ mean as much as we want people to

2:01:18 ↗ coordinate in there to be you know

2:01:21 ↗ discussions and handshakes and all that

2:01:23 ↗ I mean in an ideal world I think that's

2:01:24 ↗ true but I don't think in reality and in

2:01:26 ↗ time and space that doesn't really work

2:01:28 ↗ out and so by forcing those

2:01:31 ↗ conversations I think that that helps a

2:01:33 ↗ little bit but I still don't think it's

2:01:34 ↗ seamless and so again those are two just

2:01:38 ↗ Saab survey shion's and not solutions

2:01:39 ↗ but I wish we could use a jobs metric

2:01:41 ↗ instead of the square footage metric and

2:01:43 ↗ then if there was a way to I mean I

2:01:46 ↗ don't think we can get away from dealing

2:01:48 ↗ with a project big project unfortunately

2:01:49 ↗ and even though it's constraining so if

2:01:53 ↗ you take off preserve the exact same

2:01:56 ↗ amount of non-residential and added some

2:02:00 ↗ way that addresses either jobs or

2:02:07 ↗ we encourage commercial or we something

2:02:11 ↗ some other way of saying we want to have

2:02:16 ↗ commercial in there but not at a

2:02:19 ↗ specific one for one is that what I'm

2:02:22 ↗ hearing you guys say these are robust

2:02:26 ↗ employment centers I have a suggestion

2:02:30 ↗ because we were kind of hung up on this

2:02:33 ↗ one thing and we still got a lot to go

2:02:35 ↗ through maybe we should take that off

2:02:38 ↗ line as a homework assignment and circle

2:02:40 ↗ back to it next week I was gonna suggest

2:02:44 ↗ very similar except ask staff to see if

2:02:48 ↗ there are any any other options or

2:02:52 ↗ things that we can sit should consider

2:02:54 ↗ something that other cities have done as

2:02:57 ↗ a way to preserve their jobs or like

2:03:03 ↗ commercial square footage because I

2:03:06 ↗ assume we're not the only city who has

2:03:09 ↗ dealt with a housing boom and the

2:03:12 ↗ results of that so a couple things one

2:03:17 ↗ is if you guys wanted to do jobs we

2:03:20 ↗ could do jobs that's why I asked you

2:03:21 ↗ guys if you if it was about jobs or if

2:03:24 ↗ it was about the amount of square

2:03:26 ↗ footage the vibrancy cuz you could have

2:03:28 ↗ a lot of jobs and you know they're all

2:03:30 ↗ day jobs and they all go home and I even

2:03:31 ↗ it's not very vibrant and so that's

2:03:34 ↗ that's part of it but we could do jobs

2:03:36 ↗ because then you could then you could

2:03:38 ↗ definitely the big-box my equate to if

2:03:42 ↗ you have equivalent jobs you know it

2:03:44 ↗ might be a smaller you know restaurant

2:03:47 ↗ or something that would have a similar

2:03:49 ↗ number of jobs as a big bucks

2:03:51 ↗ does to Lindsey's question part of the

2:03:56 ↗ problem we're facing is that the zoning

2:03:59 ↗ allows everything right you know if you

2:04:01 ↗ wanted commercial you could have

2:04:03 ↗ commercial zoning and you could only do

2:04:05 ↗ commercial there

2:04:06 ↗ and we wouldn't have to have this

2:04:08 ↗ conversation because it's like okay half

2:04:10 ↗ of this is now just read it's commercial

2:04:12 ↗ and you have to do commercial there and

2:04:14 ↗ if you don't like it you go somewhere

2:04:15 ↗ else right now though our zoning allows

2:04:18 ↗ everything and so what we're trying to

2:04:19 ↗ do now is to actually provide some level

2:04:24 ↗ of control over zoning which is very

2:04:26 ↗ broad and allows a lot of different

2:04:30 ↗ things so so I don't know to answer your

2:04:34 ↗ question I don't know specifically I'm

2:04:36 ↗ another city that's gone in and tried to

2:04:38 ↗ manipulate something in this way it's

2:04:42 ↗ really not the right tool the right tool

2:04:44 ↗ would be to rezone it but I don't think

2:04:46 ↗ anybody's wants to do that I think we

2:04:49 ↗ like there's some benefits to having the

2:04:51 ↗ kind of wide open zoning and I think

2:04:54 ↗ we're just trying to put some edges to

2:04:56 ↗ the box so that's kind of a long answer

2:05:01 ↗ to say no I don't think I'd support

2:05:06 ↗ something workers like square preserve

2:05:09 ↗ the amount of square footage like for

2:05:11 ↗ jobs you simply have to be one or the

2:05:13 ↗ other threshold that seems that seems

2:05:16 ↗ reasonable that allows some flexibility

2:05:18 ↗ yep that's what we need

2:05:22 ↗ yeah and maybe something in the measures

2:05:25 ↗ of success that says you know we at the

2:05:29 ↗ end of the day we have more help more

2:05:30 ↗ housing and more jobs right that would

2:05:34 ↗ be a measure of success I don't know if

2:05:38 ↗ that's enforceable on a parcel by parcel

2:05:41 ↗ basis but well that's part of the vision

2:05:44 ↗ the measures of success are after the

2:05:47 ↗ fact looking at you know how are we

2:05:48 ↗ doing right so if you added that I think

2:05:51 ↗ that's a great suggestion is then as we

2:05:54 ↗ track along you know you could say well

2:05:56 ↗ where are we are we in the you know has

2:05:58 ↗ Costco allowed us to be in the in the

2:06:00 ↗ plus column and then where's the housing

2:06:03 ↗ yeah I think I think that's super

2:06:04 ↗ important because we've got the

2:06:05 ↗ diversity of housing options as a

2:06:07 ↗ measure of success but the fact that

2:06:08 ↗ we've maintained and grown jobs and

2:06:13 ↗ neighborhood I think would be another

2:06:15 ↗ great measure success how do we measure

2:06:17 ↗ vibrancy so you have daytime and evening

2:06:21 ↗ vibrancy in a neighborhood so that it

2:06:23 ↗ isn't all daytime commercial/office jump

2:06:27 ↗ we have well what is the last bullet

2:06:31 ↗ point in city implementing actions and

2:06:34 ↗ livable it says work for day and night

2:06:37 ↗ activities

2:06:40 ↗ where's that sorry the third bullet

2:06:43 ↗ point under liveable and city

2:06:46 ↗ implementing for isn't a great way of

2:06:50 ↗ describing it whose words are this

2:06:56 ↗ because I think that I think that bullet

2:06:58 ↗ is hitting the day and that you guys

2:07:00 ↗ yeah but I don't so I'm not yeah so and

2:07:06 ↗ I don't know how the city's doing that I

2:07:08 ↗ you know

2:07:14 ↗ I mean I would almost push that one down

2:07:17 ↗ to measures of success I mean that is

2:07:20 ↗ that one that I think we were trying to

2:07:22 ↗ talk about because I mean I'm not I mean

2:07:28 ↗ this the city's not gonna program you

2:07:31 ↗ know evening concerts and Pickering I

2:07:33 ↗ just I don't maybe we will at some point

2:07:35 ↗ could you use a word like facilitate so

2:07:38 ↗ whether it's program or because like one

2:07:41 ↗ one thing that's you know that wouldn't

2:07:43 ↗ allow for people to do nine activities I

2:07:47 ↗ mean I mean that takes into account

2:07:50 ↗ things like like NORs noise audience

2:07:51 ↗ noise ordinances and what not like these

2:07:55 ↗ NIT knees and every words that are

2:07:56 ↗ supposed to still be lively in the

2:07:59 ↗ evening unlike anything the other

2:08:01 ↗ neighborhoods doesn't that cover it when

2:08:03 ↗ you just say vibrate neighbor

2:08:05 ↗ no no but I think the fact that it's

2:08:07 ↗ talking about night activities being

2:08:08 ↗ called out you can be vibrant during the

2:08:11 ↗ day and then just shut down at night I

2:08:13 ↗ don't think that's our vision

2:08:17 ↗ it looks like like that like downtown

2:08:19 ↗ valise hoppin during the day and there's

2:08:21 ↗ program activities and there's food

2:08:23 ↗ trucks and whatnot and then it just

2:08:24 ↗ shutdowns don't

2:08:30 ↗ but what I like city is to do anything

2:08:32 ↗ it just has to be open to it

2:08:34 ↗ so I guess let me let me kind of pull

2:08:37 ↗ the crowd is there a desire for kind of

2:08:43 ↗ a day and night activity level in

2:08:45 ↗ Pickering and Gilman I would think

2:08:47 ↗ that's appropriate okay so let me let me

2:08:51 ↗ try and add something mean in terms of

2:08:56 ↗ kind of day night vibrancy see what we

2:09:00 ↗ can find

2:09:01 ↗ - maybe populate that I think it's a

2:09:03 ↗ missing piece cuz I know and I don't

2:09:06 ↗ know if it was big enough for this but

2:09:07 ↗ I've read about like cities have like

2:09:08 ↗ nightmares mayor's in ma y ou R 9 IG HT

2:09:14 ↗ ma re for where they have where they

2:09:17 ↗ have like in position and this makes

2:09:19 ↗ more sense if you're a city like Seattle

2:09:20 ↗ but they have someone in city staff and

2:09:23 ↗ I think something that's elected

2:09:25 ↗ sometimes it's just a position and their

2:09:27 ↗ job is to kind of be the point person

2:09:29 ↗ for all the city services and permitting

2:09:32 ↗ for all the evening and nighttime stuff

2:09:35 ↗ that goes on so they recorded a night

2:09:37 ↗ owl service and it's your permanent and

2:09:38 ↗ make sure

2:09:39 ↗ there's Lisa Street cleaning during the

2:09:41 ↗ night and what not I mean I don't think

2:09:43 ↗ I don't think it's going to get to that

2:09:44 ↗ point but like you can have there's ways

2:09:46 ↗ for cities to go out of the way to

2:09:47 ↗ ensure you know the city's vibrant and

2:09:50 ↗ services are being delivered outside of

2:09:53 ↗ the nine-to-five so the city of

2:09:55 ↗ plummeting action might be support both

2:09:57 ↗ daytime and nighttime activities or

2:10:02 ↗ something along those lines Center

2:10:03 ↗ wouldn't you get that vibrancy

2:10:07 ↗ retail restaurants whatever

2:10:12 ↗ would you need you need it's a chicken

2:10:15 ↗ and a you need res even disease at

2:10:18 ↗ Hearst and in the restaurant so right

2:10:22 ↗ now you have the daytime population in

2:10:24 ↗ Pickering with the offices and the

2:10:27 ↗ retail you know you could guess that if

2:10:31 ↗ you added a thousand housing units that

2:10:34 ↗ those restaurants would be busier at

2:10:37 ↗ night and then maybe some more would

2:10:39 ↗ come in because of that round-the-clock

2:10:43 ↗ are you poor what's their soccer fields

2:10:45 ↗ and the set of links to interstate park

2:10:48 ↗ that have lights you know if you're

2:10:50 ↗ having an eleven soccer games going on

2:10:51 ↗ at 7:00 p.m.

2:11:01 ↗ so we keep trying to get a bowling alley

2:11:03 ↗ nobody nobody wants to build a bowling

2:11:06 ↗ I'm on the holding alley would be great

2:11:14 ↗ I still say like I'm one just final note

2:11:21 ↗ on that the day time I think I'm not

2:11:22 ↗ really sure the city has a role in that

2:11:23 ↗ no I'm moving it to success I think I

2:11:26 ↗ mean I think if we if we're successful

2:11:27 ↗ with what we want right we will have a

2:11:31 ↗ vibrant day and night time neighborhood

2:11:34 ↗ okay I was gonna kind of dim it I was

2:11:37 ↗ looking at some of the stuff talked

2:11:39 ↗ about engaging with the State Department

2:11:40 ↗ there's no language here engagement with

2:11:43 ↗ Eastlake with the East Lake neighborhood

2:11:46 ↗ yeah and sharing that Pickering and east

2:11:50 ↗ lake access each other well from from a

2:11:55 ↗ connected standpoint so that may be

2:11:58 ↗ something that is rediscovered when we

2:12:00 ↗ break this into two it may have been

2:12:02 ↗ something that got overlooked when we

2:12:05 ↗ plumbed it into one so when we're

2:12:07 ↗ pulling it out to - that may show that

2:12:09 ↗ may show that I want to make sure we

2:12:12 ↗ want the State Park to engage well with

2:12:14 ↗ bigger

2:12:17 ↗ just like that board then ending their

2:12:20 ↗ thing while we talk mr. grannies gave

2:12:23 ↗ themselves and I think a lot of us are

2:12:27 ↗ for difference it's a second why not

2:12:28 ↗ yeah it's going to achieve a petition

2:12:32 ↗ you have this bar chi-x meeting yeah

2:12:36 ↗ well the next meetings supposed to be

2:12:39 ↗ confluence in East Lake well actually so

2:12:42 ↗ is the next meeting confluence in East

2:12:45 ↗ Lake yeah and then we're meeting with

2:12:47 ↗ parks again right I think it goes parks

2:12:50 ↗ and parks isn't tomorrow

2:12:53 ↗ oh that's right we have still more weeks

2:12:55 ↗ of it in February first yes so yes I

2:13:00 ↗ think I think I think the changes that

2:13:03 ↗ you guys are suggesting on these

2:13:04 ↗ neighborhoods aren't that dramatic my

2:13:07 ↗ hope would be that I could get you guys

2:13:11 ↗ these changes and the other two

2:13:14 ↗ neighborhoods tomorrow so next steps is

2:13:18 ↗ but then you guys have to give me your

2:13:20 ↗ edits and so it's whatever if we're

2:13:22 ↗ gonna get them out to you again that

2:13:24 ↗ quickly it won't have your guys's edits

2:13:26 ↗ in it so it's your choice either I can

2:13:29 ↗ hang on to it for another week and you

2:13:31 ↗ guys can give me edits or I can get you

2:13:32 ↗ something back that you can then edit

2:13:35 ↗ away and so if you want to wait then

2:13:37 ↗ you'll have another version too like

2:13:41 ↗ your edits or two I don't I hope there

2:13:44 ↗ are no

2:13:45 ↗ additional evidence well 1.4 we haven't

2:13:54 ↗ decided on 1.4 that's tilde no I heard

2:13:56 ↗ our jobs were cops

2:13:58 ↗ we're jobs so unless we're gonna talk

2:14:00 ↗ about that hordes we're adding more jobs

2:14:05 ↗ yeah I mean my recommendation would be

2:14:07 ↗ that for the next meeting we could we've

2:14:09 ↗ just spent I think this has been a good

2:14:11 ↗ exercise for these two but if we could

2:14:12 ↗ all do that for the next two and either

2:14:15 ↗ get them to you before the next meeting

2:14:17 ↗ or just you know come in and we can go

2:14:20 ↗ really fast if that's why I say that you

2:14:24 ↗ know I'm not gonna be here

2:14:33 ↗ waiter here then when you're in you're

2:14:36 ↗ in you're trying to think of things it

2:14:41 ↗ it opens up so much more and we have the

2:14:45 ↗ discussion from the development

2:14:48 ↗ condition

2:14:49 ↗ it's more static when you do it that way

2:14:54 ↗ but you looked at I'm assuming you've

2:14:58 ↗ read through this and we picked out the

2:15:01 ↗ big things and change things I don't

2:15:04 ↗ expect to come back next week and have

2:15:07 ↗ 45 Evan Atta teeth and so what I would

2:15:11 ↗ like to see is the things that have

2:15:14 ↗ separated and put in the changes that we

2:15:20 ↗ wanted and then we're going to talk to

2:15:22 ↗ AJ and his gonna say right I had to I

2:15:25 ↗ had two things I wanted to potentially

2:15:27 ↗ okay they connected one one on the Miss

2:15:33 ↗ a transit station one thing that I was

2:15:36 ↗ passionate about it not only is it an

2:15:38 ↗ even with focal point and amenity they

2:15:40 ↗ can talk we talk about who's being

2:15:43 ↗ - but also that the station itself was a

2:15:45 ↗ way to give between the two

2:15:47 ↗ neighborhoods so I don't I don't know if

2:15:50 ↗ you guys think that's that's necessary

2:15:52 ↗ or if that's harder particularly here

2:15:53 ↗ but I think it's right now okay I'm

2:15:59 ↗ sorry I was actually unfinished sentence

2:16:01 ↗ that my vision is the this train stages

2:16:04 ↗ and some that should get to but it also

2:16:05 ↗ is a yet another way to make I nine a

2:16:08 ↗ more permeable between two neighborhoods

2:16:09 ↗ so I think I think that's something

2:16:11 ↗ that's something important that conveyed

2:16:12 ↗ that could end up being quite a

2:16:14 ↗ different architecture design and then

2:16:16 ↗ the second one was something that I

2:16:18 ↗ think I had floated before I don't

2:16:20 ↗ remember how a minnow people were but

2:16:22 ↗ from Wall Street I really like the idea

2:16:24 ↗ of that potentially being a non car

2:16:27 ↗ street and so I won't know whether you

2:16:30 ↗ thought that this language was the the

2:16:32 ↗ mall street that doesn't exist on having

2:16:34 ↗ that potentially features like a pure

2:16:36 ↗ true pedestrian promenade with tree

2:16:38 ↗ facing retail is that something that

2:16:40 ↗ that as written that would be possible I

2:16:43 ↗ want to make sure it doesn't it's not

2:16:45 ↗ written such a that's just like oh

2:16:46 ↗ what's good it's gonna be a street so

2:16:48 ↗ there's gonna be cars and then I

2:16:49 ↗ wouldn't mind saying pedestrian oriented

2:16:52 ↗ I don't think there's been a decision

2:16:55 ↗ that it would be good I don't I don't

2:16:58 ↗ want to commit to having no cars because

2:17:00 ↗ that would be way too early to do that

2:17:01 ↗ strong if I just want to make sure that

2:17:03 ↗ that is a possibility that it doesn't

2:17:06 ↗ so right now right now it says that

2:17:12 ↗ [Music]

2:17:13 ↗ so right now the second bullet under

2:17:15 ↗ distinctive says mall street has been

2:17:18 ↗ constructed to be a neighborhood amenity

2:17:21 ↗ now that's fraud and I guess the

2:17:26 ↗ question is do you want it dialed in no

2:17:30 ↗ I don't think so because I think that

2:17:31 ↗ wasn't covered in the mall Street

2:17:33 ↗ prominent plan I just wanted to make

2:17:35 ↗ sure that it wasn't prescribed that it

2:17:38 ↗ had to be car accessible no okay

2:17:41 ↗ I don't know that we know that much

2:17:43 ↗ about that yet no no I don't think so

2:17:45 ↗ either

2:17:46 ↗ well it for those of us that are still

2:17:47 ↗ making Li d payments on the improvement

2:17:49 ↗ of these this team all Street and have a

2:17:51 ↗ few years to go but don't pay that off

2:17:52 ↗ you might have a look at this let's

2:17:54 ↗ don't change it right away so I I had a

2:17:59 ↗ question on three point one yep you're

2:18:03 ↗ doing a new crossing across from West

2:18:05 ↗ Newport yes where's that so so gateway

2:18:12 ↗ anthology has an landing yes and so it's

2:18:18 ↗ going across its ninety cost i-90 right

2:18:22 ↗ and it'll land somewhere in what's now

2:18:27 ↗ nickering so to be over by like the new

2:18:31 ↗ point it'll be it'll be it'll be

2:18:37 ↗ probably somewhere close to Greenwood

2:18:39 ↗ Trust property would be I guess yeah is

2:18:41 ↗ it in the neighborhood

2:18:43 ↗ West so we extended Pickering when we

2:18:48 ↗ when we I'm just a confused by the West

2:18:52 ↗ Newport reference yeah well that's the

2:18:54 ↗ start

2:18:56 ↗ okay so Southwest Newport okay which is

2:19:00 ↗ now anthology the apartment complex it's

2:19:05 ↗ it's a pedestrian bridge so to get to

2:19:07 ↗ from Newport you would first have to

2:19:09 ↗ walk the three quarter mile gotcha

2:19:12 ↗ public access in the Newport thank you

2:19:15 ↗ histology whatever then you get to the

2:19:16 ↗ bridge to cross over gadget access

2:19:19 ↗ another sidewalk or whatnot

2:19:20 ↗ Thanks

2:19:24 ↗ and then 4.3 was my other one I would be

2:19:29 ↗ lovely to construct the mobility

2:19:30 ↗ improvements before anything is done but

2:19:32 ↗ how are you gonna do that who's gonna

2:19:35 ↗ pay for it well right now that's under

2:19:39 ↗ the developer obligations right so I

2:19:41 ↗ think I think what that says to me is

2:19:45 ↗ well there's how you gonna do that this

2:19:48 ↗ says a lot more to me than what it says

2:19:50 ↗ what this says to me is that yeah that

2:19:56 ↗ one says I won't pay my mitigation fee

2:19:58 ↗ yeah I know so right so right now

2:20:03 ↗ there's a disconnect between impact fees

2:20:08 ↗ and concurrency projects and geography

2:20:11 ↗ yeah they've been they've been when he

2:20:13 ↗ connected yeah and I think you know and

2:20:17 ↗ probably over the past three years since

2:20:20 ↗ we adopted simplified concurrency

2:20:22 ↗ probably worked out as poorly is it good

2:20:24 ↗ just because all the projects got built

2:20:26 ↗ in two places either Newport or seven

2:20:30 ↗ and so and so the question is I don't

2:20:36 ↗ think we're suggesting this early that

2:20:39 ↗ currency changes but what this would say

2:20:42 ↗ and maybe that actually needs to be

2:20:44 ↗ moved down to city obligations that the

2:20:48 ↗ city needs to maybe look at making its t

2:20:52 ↗ IP a little bit more closely related to

2:20:55 ↗ the development projects they're

2:20:57 ↗ happening exactly right now it's not

2:21:00 ↗ right so I can move that down I feel I

2:21:04 ↗ don't mind living that down because I

2:21:05 ↗ think that's probably where it goes I'd

2:21:10 ↗ one comment Keitha you mentioned the

2:21:12 ↗ importance of the future statements and

2:21:13 ↗ I don't think I saw neither one of them

2:21:15 ↗ a discussion of the overcrossing mi9 in

2:21:18 ↗ connecting the two neighborhoods it's in

2:21:21 ↗ the this portion but I don't think I saw

2:21:26 ↗ the division and that and that might be

2:21:29 ↗ to a Jays point earlier when he was

2:21:31 ↗ lobbying for a third section so talking

2:21:37 ↗ about the Regional Growth Center maybe

2:21:38 ↗ as one thing so maybe there wants to be

2:21:40 ↗ a paragraph about what we envision that

2:21:42 ↗ being with this crossing this new

2:21:45 ↗ crossing of i-90 being Mac connector

2:21:49 ↗ piece which might also coincide with the

2:21:52 ↗ sound transit station which will become

2:21:54 ↗ a destination and a hub for both

2:21:56 ↗ neighborhoods that that's been part of

2:21:59 ↗ our conversation here but has been

2:22:01 ↗ somewhat lost in the in the text and so

2:22:06 ↗ that I don't disagree with AJ that that

2:22:09 ↗ might want to show up in some form so

2:22:12 ↗ maybe there's a connected paragraph of

2:22:15 ↗ the future regional growth center before

2:22:18 ↗ we dive into each neighborhood

2:22:19 ↗ description and then

2:22:20 ↗ in the neighborhood descriptions that

2:22:22 ↗ should mention that that whole

2:22:24 ↗ neighborhood needs to connect back to

2:22:26 ↗ that hub to then right yeah or in some

2:22:31 ↗ way should be some language in both of

2:22:33 ↗ those yes and then one last thing under

2:22:36 ↗ distinctive for measures of success

2:22:38 ↗ you've got redevelopment densities allow

2:22:40 ↗ for the realization of the regional

2:22:42 ↗ growth center housing targets might

2:22:43 ↗ it'll just add add jobs targets yes

2:22:50 ↗ Keith when you circulate these in

2:22:53 ↗ addition to PDF because you is ancient

2:22:55 ↗ you could provide these in Excel or

2:22:58 ↗ publisher or whatever probably using

2:23:00 ↗ just from an edit standpoint it might be

2:23:02 ↗ easier to just like track changes and

2:23:04 ↗ send you the file back yeah we could do

2:23:07 ↗ that thank you so we have them in this

2:23:10 ↗ word document that's perfect cuz you

2:23:12 ↗ have you sent us Word documents or do I

2:23:14 ↗ send PDFs

2:23:15 ↗ yeah you could send the word though yeah

2:23:17 ↗ that might be easier so I had brought up

2:23:21 ↗ at the beginning the idea that I think

2:23:23 ↗ the future paragraph should be split up

2:23:28 ↗ into the subject areas that I think are

2:23:32 ↗ important and are reflected in the other

2:23:35 ↗ cities neighborhood visions that I

2:23:37 ↗ looked at I can send to Keith that as my

2:23:41 ↗ edit but I kind of wanted to pull the

2:23:45 ↗ idea of saying we should have a section

2:23:48 ↗ on connectivity and mobility in order to

2:23:50 ↗ very distinctly call out what

2:23:54 ↗ connectivity looks like sorry where is

2:23:57 ↗ that going in the neighborhood or before

2:23:59 ↗ the in the future sense your description

2:24:02 ↗ so the idea of being able to maybe flesh

2:24:07 ↗ out the future idea of a neighborhood a

2:24:10 ↗ little bit more and call out the

2:24:13 ↗ specifics that are related to parse

2:24:18 ↗ connectivity but isn't isn't that the

2:24:21 ↗ whole point of the measures of success

2:24:23 ↗ section

2:24:28 ↗ I don't know I kind of feel like you

2:24:31 ↗ would just take those bullets and then

2:24:32 ↗ just repeat them in a paragraph form

2:24:34 ↗ which is fine for a readability

2:24:37 ↗ standpoint I think your staff and I

2:24:40 ↗ might billing the ones that like bullet

2:24:42 ↗ points in the room but I don't I don't I

2:24:46 ↗ don't I don't see how you would any like

2:24:48 ↗ anything that you would want to add to

2:24:50 ↗ that paragraph that's not covered I feel

2:24:51 ↗ like I would take that as where the

2:24:55 ↗ witcher stat is to pull it so it might

2:24:57 ↗ be a great exercise to do to kind of get

2:24:59 ↗ your thoughts organized but then if you

2:25:01 ↗ find yourself adding something to that

2:25:02 ↗ paragraph then maybe that maybe then

2:25:05 ↗ your actual feedback is okay that we

2:25:07 ↗ need to add a bullet to a particular

2:25:08 ↗ column and the measures of success

2:25:10 ↗ my vision is articulating something

2:25:12 ↗ specific that I don't yet see I think

2:25:15 ↗ part of my problem for now is the idea

2:25:18 ↗ that because of the format of the column

2:25:22 ↗ dariya I just find it really hard to

2:25:24 ↗ read and so I want that stuff easy to

2:25:28 ↗ read in the paragraphs but maybe that'll

2:25:31 ↗ change based on the formatting of that

2:25:35 ↗ actually a valid point because I look at

2:25:39 ↗ this and it's hard to understand it's

2:25:42 ↗ hard to it's difficult to read not hard

2:25:44 ↗ donors

2:25:45 ↗ to different audiences you have very

2:25:48 ↗ analytical and very qualitative and so

2:25:51 ↗ one likes more of story and more sales

2:25:54 ↗ document like myself and then someone

2:25:56 ↗ else you know AJ's a numbers guy may

2:25:59 ↗ like the number site so I like to see

2:26:02 ↗ I'm not like pull into the idea of the

2:26:05 ↗ different users of the document that

2:26:07 ↗ you've got the residents who want that

2:26:09 ↗ story and then you've got the developers

2:26:11 ↗ and staff who want the details

2:26:14 ↗ what can we hold people to and what our

2:26:17 ↗ requirements I like to see it I can give

2:26:23 ↗ us yeah I think I had done one for

2:26:26 ↗ Wesley smart yes so send it Joe is

2:26:30 ↗ looking at me like more work okay I was

2:26:39 ↗ just trying to to time

2:26:42 ↗ then back and forth and in one of the

2:26:44 ↗ sentences it says something about

2:26:49 ↗ will create a daytime vibrancy room

2:26:51 ↗ which will be matched by the nighttime

2:26:53 ↗ activity

2:26:54 ↗ residents that so the night and day is

2:27:01 ↗ actually already corporative in Tibet

2:27:04 ↗ the future

2:27:07 ↗ as our wasn't should be if you're going

2:27:12 ↗ through and you find something that is

2:27:15 ↗ not highlighted in this you can add it

2:27:19 ↗ but I don't think it has to be a

2:27:21 ↗ one-for-one or you know it's specific if

2:27:26 ↗ it's a general thing in the first future

2:27:29 ↗ thing but I like the fact that you know

2:27:32 ↗ you have it in there and they have

2:27:34 ↗ a city success

2:27:42 ↗ it's getting more logical yeah he's

2:27:45 ↗ getting my uncle so easily begin it's

2:27:49 ↗ always you know out here and then you

2:27:51 ↗ come into a point where it actually

2:27:55 ↗ makes sense so I don't think it needs

2:28:00 ↗ four or five paragraphs but I think it

2:28:03 ↗ needs to have a little bit more fluff

2:28:08 ↗ yeah just a little bit to to accomplish

2:28:12 ↗ a little bit and I you know I don't

2:28:14 ↗ think that we have to necessarily be

2:28:16 ↗ exactly look at things like Bellevue

2:28:21 ↗ Redmen because I hope their cities are

2:28:23 ↗ completely different than them they have

2:28:25 ↗ been flat areas where they can do

2:28:27 ↗ whatever they want we have a small

2:28:30 ↗ congested area you know we can't really

2:28:34 ↗ do that much with when you really think

2:28:36 ↗ about it so I think we're we're pretty

2:28:41 ↗ well there I would change some of the

2:28:44 ↗ way it's written but I don't think it's

2:28:46 ↗ enough to make a difference

2:28:51 ↗ not the idea is just some of that

2:28:56 ↗ more consistent

2:29:00 ↗ with that do we have some

2:29:08 ↗ anything else that anybody wants to I

2:29:11 ↗ just like say I think on behalf of all

2:29:13 ↗ of us that are not Commission members

2:29:14 ↗ that we really appreciate the ability

2:29:16 ↗ that is departing the discussion thank

2:29:19 ↗ you your own function and we appreciate

2:29:21 ↗ you absolutely here and I think that

2:29:27 ↗ when you guys put together the task

2:29:30 ↗ force I think you did a a really good

2:29:32 ↗ job and I think that step on your toes

2:29:35 ↗ by but I think we're coming to basically

2:29:38 ↗ kind of the same areas only getting into

2:29:41 ↗ a point where the city can actually use

2:29:44 ↗ it and go forward I don't think we're

2:29:45 ↗ coming up with any new ideas we're just

2:29:48 ↗ kind of taking what you'll have it's all

2:29:50 ↗ in the room yeah so next time you'll

2:29:55 ↗ have I would like to go over the know

2:29:58 ↗ just making sure like ten minutes and

2:30:01 ↗ the next meeting and just making sure

2:30:04 ↗ that everything works and then go into

2:30:06 ↗ the next to yes

2:30:10 ↗ trying try something out there are you

2:30:13 ↗ closing up do we speak we have a lot of

2:30:27 ↗ language about making SR 999 T better

2:30:33 ↗ with 900 drinking and 990 becoming more

2:30:35 ↗ permeable the intersection is a giant

2:30:39 ↗ footprint is there anything individually

2:30:42 ↗ one about fixing the actual interchange

2:30:44 ↗ to make it less of a giant chunk of land

2:30:49 ↗ or is the kind of the vision is like the

2:30:51 ↗ giant circle offering on-ramp like

2:30:56 ↗ that's we're kind of just stuck with

2:30:57 ↗ that and we'll just build around it no I

2:31:03 ↗ do we open watch done it is why's that

2:31:07 ↗ yeah so I'm sorry John

2:31:12 ↗ you know we focused on the visions for

2:31:17 ↗ the neighborhoods right but to your

2:31:19 ↗ point there's there is there is language

2:31:22 ↗ in here that talks about trying to

2:31:28 ↗ remove the barriers that right now

2:31:31 ↗ exists between moving around in the

2:31:34 ↗ neighborhoods I'll go back and look at

2:31:37 ↗ that I think it's a valid point

2:31:40 ↗ I don't know I'd have to go back and

2:31:42 ↗ read to see what we've got in there at

2:31:45 ↗ the end of the day it's gonna be the

2:31:47 ↗ city working with washed-out to try and

2:31:50 ↗ do those kind of things because we're

2:31:54 ↗ doing you guys are working closely with

2:31:55 ↗ them on but in front tree interchange

2:31:58 ↗ right so it would certainly be in the

2:32:00 ↗ east lake so we tried to do so we could

2:32:06 ↗ carry so we tried to revision SR 900

2:32:11 ↗ when we were working on the rally

2:32:13 ↗ development agreement and we got far

2:32:16 ↗ enough into it to start talking about

2:32:20 ↗ you know could we turn it into a

2:32:21 ↗ Boulevard

2:32:22 ↗ with a landscape median and and then it

2:32:25 ↗ just got really hard and it just and it

2:32:28 ↗ just was one of those things that we

2:32:29 ↗ just lost energy so this is this is the

2:32:33 ↗ place that you want to put stuff like

2:32:34 ↗ that because it's a reminder that yeah

2:32:37 ↗ we should be having those conversations

2:32:39 ↗ so let me look at that

2:32:41 ↗ and I'll specifically kind of see if it

2:32:45 ↗ needs more we don't we talk about those

2:32:48 ↗ a lot but I never did a lot about 9:30

2:32:50 ↗ sound walls and damages and whatnot what

2:32:53 ↗ if the interchange itself and their

2:32:54 ↗ their policies in the central square

2:32:56 ↗ plan that talked about that too but

2:32:57 ↗ you're right bringing it to the

2:32:58 ↗ forefront as a reminder to do that oh

2:33:01 ↗ yeah go look at those policies that are

2:33:03 ↗ in the plan

2:33:07 ↗ we in st3 comes in if we highway that

2:33:14 ↗ would be a great excuse to change that

2:33:16 ↗ whole area because we're already working

2:33:19 ↗ with lifestyle we're trying to conform

2:33:21 ↗ to sp3

2:33:28 ↗ it could be it's a heavy lift but if we

2:33:32 ↗ don't if we don't work on a nobody will

2:33:34 ↗ master good idea okay sorry I see you

2:33:40 ↗ result Joan you're saying good ideas

2:33:47 ↗ great great idea actually

2:33:54 ↗ okay don't go back to what I started say

2:33:56 ↗ so next week next week we'll spend just

2:34:00 ↗ a short amount of time to just because

2:34:03 ↗ they're gonna keep it's going to send it

2:34:05 ↗ out ahead of time but if there's

2:34:07 ↗ anything else you want to change or in

2:34:10 ↗ we I want to see it done I like to see

2:34:15 ↗ it done I don't want I want to make sure

2:34:17 ↗ that that's what you've said in

2:34:22 ↗ and then we can do the next two the same

2:34:26 ↗ way we're doing it now

2:34:27 ↗ collaborative and we kind of go over

2:34:31 ↗ going

2:34:37 ↗ yeah so you know and and and the way

2:34:40 ↗ that this worked out I mean we did get

2:34:42 ↗ into details but you know spending time

2:34:45 ↗ talking about the future of Eastlake

2:34:47 ↗ make sure we all agree with how we

2:34:50 ↗ painted that and then the future of

2:34:53 ↗ confluence because we haven't really

2:34:54 ↗ talked about either those two

2:34:55 ↗ neighborhoods very much so making sure

2:34:58 ↗ that we look at those visions for what

2:35:01 ↗ the future of those two neighborhoods

2:35:02 ↗ are that's the big thing we need to get

2:35:04 ↗ right all the kind of details then fall

2:35:07 ↗ out of that so as long as we get those

2:35:09 ↗ kind of bigger visions right that's what

2:35:12 ↗ we need to be okay okay so it is time to

2:35:18 ↗ close this meeting but I do want to make

2:35:20 ↗ one comment for anybody who actually

2:35:23 ↗ watches this on television now is the

2:35:27 ↗ time to apply for Commission's we will

2:35:31 ↗ have at least four open seats and so I

2:35:35 ↗ would love to have people from the

2:35:37 ↗ chamber community who are interested in

2:35:40 ↗ contributing to what we've talked about

2:35:44 ↗ tonight in the future the city so please

2:35:48 ↗ do apply would love to

2:35:53 ↗ encourage more people to be part of our

2:35:57 ↗ little round table here so I dropped a

2:36:01 ↗ date is February 28th what drop-dead

2:36:05 ↗ date is February 28th for applications

2:36:07 ↗ uh well that can always be moved a

2:36:11 ↗ little bit but please have your

2:36:14 ↗ applications in as soon as possible it

2:36:18 ↗ doesn't take very long you just have to

2:36:20 ↗ go online and it's a few of those

2:36:22 ↗ special buttons and answer the questions

2:36:25 ↗ and we will certainly take all

2:36:30 ↗ applications seriously so please do so

2:36:34 ↗ with that I'm going to close the meeting

2:36:36 ↗ at 9:10 thank you very much

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