Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 22, 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 – Vacant 2018 – Vacant 2018 – Vacant

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Discussion: Central Issaquah District Visions, (I)

Keith Niven, Development Services Director Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager · packet pp.5–22

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Feb 15, 2018

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Continued

2976 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ good evening and welcome to the February

0:23 ↗ 22nd meeting of the planning policy

0:25 ↗ commission

0:26 ↗ tonight we're going to discuss the last

0:29 ↗ two areas in our central area district

0:36 ↗ vision plan so before we do that when we

0:41 ↗ ended up last week I made the comment

0:46 ↗ that for the first like 10 10 minutes 15

0:49 ↗ minutes of this meeting we were going to

0:52 ↗ go over and make sure that there was

0:54 ↗ nothing else that you had that came out

0:59 ↗ on the two areas that we discussed last

1:02 ↗ week and so Keith do you want to start

1:06 ↗ with West Newport and kind of give us a

1:08 ↗ little rundown of what you've done

1:12 ↗ yes okay I'm given a choice okay so I'm

1:22 ↗ gonna have to like actually remember you

1:24 ↗ don't have the one that has all the

1:25 ↗ little squiggly things in it I think I

1:31 ↗ think she meant to start with page 17

1:33 ↗ then work backwards

1:41 ↗ oh no oh I'm sorry

1:48 ↗ [Music]

1:50 ↗ so the word version

1:56 ↗ [Music]

1:59 ↗ so there's there was a redline version

2:02 ↗ yeah the word version was redlined good

2:06 ↗ thing I brought my thumb drive give me

2:13 ↗ like one second for a little bit longer

2:16 ↗ than one second so talk amongst

2:17 ↗ yourselves

2:17 ↗ okay so again welcome to round table and

2:24 ↗ I'm gonna welcome the some of the old

2:28 ↗ task force members and some community

2:32 ↗ members that are especially interested

2:35 ↗ in okay helping us okay so we're gonna

2:44 ↗ look at what we changed

2:46 ↗ so before you increase the font size on

2:49 ↗ that for me please yes yeah okay yes I

3:00 ↗ apparently I can okay so I what I didn't

3:04 ↗ do what I did and what I didn't do what

3:07 ↗ I did do is you can see a couple small

3:10 ↗ edits in the future description I did

3:15 ↗ not spend time really putting in more

3:19 ↗ aspirin other asks from the Commission

3:21 ↗ last week and the reason for that is I

3:25 ↗ think we had a structural conversation

3:27 ↗ that we're gonna have a little bit later

3:29 ↗ about whether it looks like this or

3:31 ↗ whether there was another suggestion for

3:34 ↗ how to kind of pull it apart and whether

3:36 ↗ the Commission wants option one or two

3:38 ↗ once you guys decide that then I'll go

3:41 ↗ back in and add some more language and

3:42 ↗ we can talk about that next week when we

3:45 ↗ have our weekly PBC meeting so two

3:49 ↗ things one one cut the first edit was to

3:53 ↗ talk about how the pedestrian and

3:56 ↗ bicycle connections are not only helping

4:01 ↗ out this neighborhood but are also

4:03 ↗ making connections to the region and

4:06 ↗ then the second was to just add light

4:09 ↗ rail

4:10 ↗ to clarify what we were talking about in

4:13 ↗ this last sentence as opposed to the

4:16 ↗ sound transit current bus station on SR

4:20 ↗ 900 now anybody have anything that

4:25 ↗ stands out that you would like to add

4:27 ↗ besides the aspirational languages so so

4:30 ↗ your stuff I'll incorporate your stuff

4:33 ↗ if that's what you were gonna do you

4:36 ↗ send in some edits yeah I said some

4:38 ↗ edits in a few comments should I just

4:39 ↗ wait till you've cycled that I'll do

4:41 ↗ that tomorrow so the next version that

4:44 ↗ we do the 28th will have those and we

4:46 ↗ will make it we will provide the red

4:49 ↗ lines so you guys can actually see the

4:50 ↗ edits we will send it out a different

4:57 ↗ way thank you yes all right

5:04 ↗ moving down to yeah something that came

5:09 ↗ up with the previous projects was where

5:13 ↗ we're talking about views and view

5:14 ↗ corridors in this section and I don't

5:16 ↗ really see this addressed and I don't

5:19 ↗ know where it will be addressed but the

5:21 ↗ original taskforce was talking about

5:23 ↗ views from i-90 and then when Gateway

5:26 ↗ came along they said well no we're

5:27 ↗ really talking about views and gateway

5:29 ↗ from Newport way I don't see in this

5:38 ↗ where it designates when we're talking

5:39 ↗ about gateways and you know from what

5:42 ↗ from is it for my ninety or is it is it

5:45 ↗ from Newport way are we looking at

5:52 ↗ putting it in there or in so we have the

5:58 ↗ sentence views to our forested mountains

6:01 ↗ are retained and the second sentence of

6:03 ↗ the future paragraph

6:07 ↗ so doesn't that cover it well when we

6:12 ↗ talked about that during the project and

6:15 ↗ Development Commission meetings they

6:16 ↗ were saying it was only from Newport way

6:18 ↗ and not from i-90 because if you drive

6:21 ↗ along i-90 now because of the way

6:23 ↗ Gateway is built you basically block the

6:26 ↗ views of the mountains and the trees so

6:35 ↗ I think the fact that we're trying to

6:37 ↗ make the central area more dense is

6:41 ↗ going to mean that we are going to have

6:43 ↗ taller buildings and whether we want to

6:46 ↗ protect the view from people who are on

6:51 ↗ i-90 who are passing through versus

6:54 ↗ people who are in town I think that's a

6:56 ↗ conversation to have but personally I

7:00 ↗ would prefer to protect the view for

7:02 ↗ somebody who's in town I think one of

7:09 ↗ the other side impacts of that is and

7:11 ↗ one of the things I've heard about is

7:13 ↗ noise mitigation issues and I think that

7:15 ↗ that project was designed in such a way

7:17 ↗ so that those buildings next to i-90

7:19 ↗ help mitigate the noise for those deeper

7:21 ↗ in something I have a view quarter

7:26 ↗ question I threw this in a comment

7:28 ↗ because of one of the other I elsewhere

7:31 ↗ there's like City actions it says these

7:34 ↗ like will be maintained we talked at the

7:36 ↗ last meeting about how this document

7:38 ↗ will go into it won't be code but it'll

7:42 ↗ operate as pseudocode can you can you

7:46 ↗ talk a little bit about how that would

7:48 ↗ work if there's a project being built

7:52 ↗ Newport may not be the best example but

7:55 ↗ particularly Pickering and Gillman let's

7:58 ↗ say I have a two-story building and I

8:01 ↗ have a great view of squawk Mountain or

8:03 ↗ whatever and then across the street

8:05 ↗ someone comes in and builds a six story

8:06 ↗ building because that's we wanted

8:08 ↗ Pickering my view has been blocked can I

8:12 ↗ point to this document and say my views

8:14 ↗ not being maintained

8:16 ↗ so you could say that so you know part

8:22 ↗ of it is I think that what's gonna

8:26 ↗ happen and I don't know if this was

8:27 ↗ Lindsay's point or not you know what's

8:29 ↗ gonna happen is as buildings kind of

8:33 ↗ start to take up the empty spaces or the

8:36 ↗ less or dense spaces your views are

8:41 ↗ going to be filtered to some extent I

8:45 ↗ mean I think they're they're still you

8:48 ↗ know we've not identified like a view

8:51 ↗ corridor down Gilman or a view corridor

8:53 ↗ down Newport or a view corridor down any

8:55 ↗ particular street is the view the view

8:58 ↗ corridor that is important when we we I

9:03 ↗ want to say argued about this but we

9:05 ↗ debated this extensively I'm looking at

9:07 ↗ melt with Costco's development agreement

9:11 ↗ in their site plan because if you go

9:14 ↗ down if you look down Lake Drive there

9:17 ↗ is a view to the south that's pretty

9:19 ↗ nice but what we found is we have a lot

9:23 ↗ of general language about views and the

9:27 ↗ importance of views and you know the

9:30 ↗ reality is and I think Mary brought this

9:32 ↗ up before related to the Marriott is

9:35 ↗ that changed the view of that maple

9:39 ↗ that's maple you know and it changed it

9:41 ↗ there's no doubt about it changed it now

9:43 ↗ can you still see the mountains you can

9:46 ↗ you might have to move to see them so

9:49 ↗ this is this is this is this one's not

9:53 ↗ an absolute black and white either you

9:55 ↗ have user you don't I think it's more of

9:58 ↗ views are wanting to be maintained you

10:04 ↗ know but they're gonna be less absolute

10:07 ↗ in other words you know maybe I can't

10:09 ↗ stand in the middle of the city and see

10:11 ↗ squawk tiger and cougar all at the same

10:14 ↗ time I might have to walk a block but

10:17 ↗ you keep keen I think what I'm

10:19 ↗ struggling with and keep in mind that

10:22 ↗ in that like the example I gave I would

10:25 ↗ be 100% in favor of the six storey

10:27 ↗ building should be built you know tough

10:30 ↗ cookies about the views that's the

10:31 ↗ direction the neighborhood's going but

10:33 ↗ when I'm struggling with is I can't see

10:35 ↗ an example in which this aspirational

10:37 ↗ sentence will ever actually make

10:41 ↗ anything happen because if we don't have

10:43 ↗ any specific few corridors and we don't

10:45 ↗ have any specific view language it seems

10:48 ↗ kind of meaningless because you can just

10:50 ↗ build anything you want because when I

10:52 ↗ know one's gonna go and build a 30-story

10:54 ↗ building so I don't like I don't I don't

10:58 ↗ see how this actually drives any change

11:00 ↗ and how the community will develop over

11:03 ↗ the next 20 years and going back to Mel

11:06 ↗ I thought because thank you when we had

11:10 ↗ that I thought we amended the standards

11:12 ↗ the central standards that views were

11:14 ↗ defined from public areas from public

11:16 ↗ parks from different public right away

11:19 ↗ so that there was a narrower maybe

11:22 ↗ that's the wrong word but there was a

11:24 ↗ more defined definition of what our

11:27 ↗ views what we're trying to protect that

11:28 ↗ their views from public places do you

11:32 ↗ recall that that that was how we ended

11:34 ↗ up changing that amending the standards

11:37 ↗ what would that have been before the

11:38 ↗ moratorium yeah I'm not sure if we ended

11:41 ↗ up with that or not but I I think so

11:43 ↗ because I just as Lindsey had said I had

11:46 ↗ the same argument that about I think our

11:50 ↗ views from our citizens locations are

11:53 ↗ far more important than the i-90 pasture

11:56 ↗ people and so I I'm not sure that what

12:00 ↗ language we might have ended up with

12:01 ↗ that but I don't think we don't think we

12:04 ↗ ended up trying to protect I 90 views

12:06 ↗ from I know the i-90 corridor I thought

12:09 ↗ it came from the Costco discussion that

12:11 ↗ you'd raised some really good points

12:13 ↗ that what views are we protecting and

12:15 ↗ what ones you know not so much yeah and

12:18 ↗ that also came about with in terms of

12:20 ↗ the building standards and whether you

12:21 ↗ had to push a building all the way up to

12:23 ↗ the sidewalk which created a pointed

12:25 ↗ building that blocked the views Lake

12:27 ↗ Drive curbs all right so maybe I can

12:30 ↗ suggest a couple things one is I think

12:33 ↗ as a homework

12:35 ↗ item Trish has now to check and see what

12:39 ↗ we actually put in either the plan or

12:43 ↗ the SIDS

12:43 ↗ to address that and give us a little bit

12:46 ↗ more clarity the second piece is so

12:49 ↗ there's a difference for me between this

12:52 ↗ section which may not seem very

12:55 ↗ aspirational but it's trying to be maybe

12:57 ↗ towards aspirational and the next

13:00 ↗ section where we actually get into the

13:01 ↗ obligations but I'm not I don't want to

13:04 ↗ dismiss your point AJ because I think

13:06 ↗ it's it's a it's a valid point and the

13:08 ↗ question for y'all I guess is this

13:11 ↗ we can either need to leave this in here

13:14 ↗ and and I agree with you it's it's gonna

13:17 ↗ mean different things to different

13:18 ↗ people which isn't necessarily a great

13:21 ↗ piece of language or we can take it out

13:25 ↗ or we can suggest editing this so that

13:29 ↗ it's a little bit more it's clear so my

13:33 ↗ suggestion under that I put in my

13:35 ↗ comment I sent to you is I think I think

13:37 ↗ the sentence where it is is fine it's

13:39 ↗ the one that's nothing is more

13:40 ↗ problematic is if I can you go up a page

13:42 ↗ back to the get to the Gillman section

13:45 ↗ it's right there at the bottom lead down

13:47 ↗ for me oh it's actually not in this look

13:55 ↗ I got it

13:56 ↗ yeah increased you know views views of

13:59 ↗ squawk tiger cougar remains like we have

14:01 ↗ it in our metal this is success it I

14:03 ↗ think it's I think it's in all of them

14:07 ↗ yeah alright Gilman Gilman yeah so at

14:12 ↗ the bottom right you've got it as the

14:14 ↗ second last bullet on the bottom left

14:16 ↗ second to last bullet and so we've got

14:19 ↗ it there and our measures of success so

14:22 ↗ I what I think I recommend is I think

14:24 ↗ the language we have in this document is

14:26 ↗ fine and I don't think it needs to

14:28 ↗ change but I think I recommend that PCC

14:32 ↗ takes as an action in our upcoming year

14:35 ↗ of work to have a meeting I think

14:38 ↗ devoted to few corridors and we sit down

14:41 ↗ and do something like wait like when we

14:45 ↗ say like we want to have more open space

14:47 ↗ or something like that or we want to

14:48 ↗ have

14:48 ↗ trails and ultimately you try to create

14:50 ↗ some sort of document that says okay

14:51 ↗ what do we actually mean by that I think

14:53 ↗ for this one I think when we want to

14:55 ↗ have views we actually need to figure

14:57 ↗ out what we mean by views and identify

14:59 ↗ which views are important which ones do

15:02 ↗ we want to protect how do we want to

15:03 ↗ protect them what all that means I don't

15:06 ↗ think we can we neither can nor want to

15:09 ↗ do that now and I think what's in this

15:10 ↗ doctrine is perfectly fine but I think

15:12 ↗ my request is coming out of the

15:14 ↗ moratorium I think that's something we

15:16 ↗ should we should try to delve into and I

15:17 ↗ think could take up take up a whole a

15:19 ↗ whole meeting at some point in the next

15:21 ↗ couple months statement that you just

15:27 ↗ read in the West Newport used to the

15:32 ↗ forested mountains far retain and and

15:36 ↗ added to by reason stuff around here how

15:43 ↗ I don't know how to say that and we add

15:45 ↗ that into that sentence so that you know

15:47 ↗ you're not going to keep all the views

15:48 ↗ there's just no way you're going to keep

15:50 ↗ and make it exactly the way it is so I'm

15:54 ↗ happy with a view where I have a nice

15:56 ↗ Park with lots of trees and lots of you

15:59 ↗ know incorporated into the view as far

16:03 ↗ as I'm concerned so can you add that

16:04 ↗ into into that one sentence

16:08 ↗ what's the addition

16:13 ↗ it was basically saying views for

16:16 ↗ forested mountains are retained and

16:18 ↗ mirrored by nature closer by you know

16:23 ↗ something like that that says to buy

16:25 ↗ implemented I can't think of a word to

16:28 ↗ add into that right now

16:30 ↗ I think that's that's fine and I don't

16:35 ↗ disagree with that but I think the

16:36 ↗ intent of the views to retain I think

16:39 ↗ the idea is that we have very specific

16:40 ↗ views that are important that we want to

16:43 ↗ protect rather than just generally

16:46 ↗ wheedle ever we want everyone be able to

16:48 ↗ see the mountains from everywhere is

16:49 ↗ that do you guys agree because I think I

16:52 ↗ think those mean two very different

16:53 ↗ things is it we want people generally to

16:55 ↗ be able to see the mountains or is it we

16:58 ↗ really want to maintain that view of

17:00 ↗ Renier along the routier trail because I

17:02 ↗ think those I think those mean two very

17:03 ↗ different things from a policy

17:04 ↗ standpoint what do you guys think it

17:11 ↗ means I think from public spaces it

17:14 ↗ would always be nice to be able to see

17:16 ↗ and know that you are in Issaquah and

17:20 ↗ you're in this valley with these

17:21 ↗ mountains around so in any public space

17:23 ↗ you should be able to see all these what

17:26 ↗ we're talking about forested mountains

17:28 ↗ if you're in a dense urban setting where

17:34 ↗ it's just you know a street grid and

17:36 ↗ there's no real public square there

17:37 ↗ maybe there should be one nearby right I

17:40 ↗ don't think it's important necessarily

17:42 ↗ that we absolutely have to have a view

17:44 ↗ to a mountain if you're just walking

17:46 ↗ down any given sidewalk that would be my

17:49 ↗ opinion okay so so John did we make you

17:55 ↗ make your own name tag tonight

17:58 ↗ [Laughter]

18:01 ↗ Triss can I give you some more homework

18:04 ↗ [Laughter]

18:13 ↗ so do you want to add I mean I thought

18:17 ↗ that we could get through this in about

18:18 ↗ 10 15 minutes in a minute yeah and we're

18:21 ↗ looking at specific so I don't know how

18:25 ↗ to put in there so I I will work on

18:29 ↗ something I think I think my thing is I

18:31 ↗ didn't I don't want to change this I'm

18:33 ↗ fine moving forward but I think that

18:35 ↗ particular the line required those two

18:38 ↗ circles so so can I ask point of order

18:40 ↗ so you had a suggestion from one of the

18:43 ↗ commissioners to set aside a meeting

18:46 ↗ this year to talk about views did the

18:48 ↗ Commission feel like that's a something

18:51 ↗ they want to do or you want to think

18:53 ↗ about that and maybe to look at our

18:58 ↗ schedule and see how many other things

19:00 ↗ have to be discussed and if there's a

19:02 ↗ way to put it in there sure I think

19:07 ↗ similar to what we're doing with the

19:08 ↗ green necklace where it's a term that we

19:10 ↗ use but we're putting an effort into

19:13 ↗ making sure that it's well defined I

19:15 ↗ think I think like a crit maybe the term

19:18 ↗ critten you where critical views or

19:20 ↗ something like that or priority views or

19:22 ↗ I don't know what that is is there

19:25 ↗ something that's specifically talking

19:26 ↗ about being able to see Mount Rainier

19:28 ↗ right and that's one thing and then

19:31 ↗ another thing is kind of a we want to

19:33 ↗ make sure we in order in this beautiful

19:35 ↗ and the outcome and that meaty might be

19:37 ↗ we don't have any specific views you

19:38 ↗ want to protect I think that's fine I

19:40 ↗ just think we need to outside of this

19:42 ↗ process we need to sit down and talk

19:44 ↗ there what that means okay if there's a

19:47 ↗ room on the schedule

19:48 ↗ absolutely Connie you got a comment I

19:51 ↗ think it needs to be a city implementing

19:53 ↗ action but you creative that you create

19:58 ↗ a product that says what you want what

20:04 ↗ the views are because we don't have such

20:06 ↗ a document right now so in your

20:08 ↗ lamenting actions should be a city

20:10 ↗ project that's not just a meeting - PPC

20:13 ↗ but a process where we actually have a

20:16 ↗ community discussion about what that

20:18 ↗ means I think the problem with putting

20:21 ↗ it in one of these city implementing

20:23 ↗ actions is that these are all

20:25 ↗ neighborhoods based and it needs to be

20:27 ↗ in each of the neighborhoods right

20:30 ↗ because you're gonna be looking at it

20:31 ↗ neighborhood by neighborhood because if

20:34 ↗ you want to if you want to protect your

20:37 ↗ views in each neighborhood you're gonna

20:41 ↗ have to have a product that allows you

20:43 ↗ to do that I'm not I'm not sure that we

20:45 ↗ need to have a whole plan around this I

20:46 ↗ think we just need to think we need to

20:48 ↗ talk about it some more than maybe why

20:49 ↗ the plan so then I'll say later on in

20:52 ↗ the document you say that buildings

20:54 ↗ cannot be closer than certain buildings

20:57 ↗ if certain height can't be closer than

20:58 ↗ 125 feet apart and the comprehensive

21:03 ↗ plan has language on this to the so

21:08 ↗ there is some language on this already

21:12 ↗ that defines it but I still think it

21:17 ↗ needs to be a citywide discussion not

21:21 ↗ just a casual discussion at PPC because

21:24 ↗ the community is really invested in the

21:27 ↗ views of their mountains and that makes

21:30 ↗ it too small okay I don't disagree

21:40 ↗ Mel did you have something you

21:41 ↗ understand I was going to say that I

21:44 ↗ think it would be very helpful for the

21:45 ↗ Development Commission for you to have

21:47 ↗ that discussion about views and even if

21:50 ↗ it's your views of views to get some

22:03 ↗ feeling because you know project does

22:04 ↗ come in and somebody could say well hey

22:06 ↗ this building is blocking my view your

22:10 ↗ code says you can't block my view of the

22:12 ↗ mountain so you shouldn't build that

22:14 ↗ there something that we would need

22:17 ↗ months now when we do this is like this

22:19 ↗ I think the staff we need to walk us

22:20 ↗ through like okay if there is a view

22:21 ↗ quarter like what does that mean how do

22:23 ↗ you do that how do you define it what

22:24 ↗ does that prevent from happening yeah

22:26 ↗ okay so we are eating it's gonna be a

22:31 ↗ hard discussion because everybody has

22:33 ↗ different views of what a view is and

22:36 ↗ what could be maintained

22:38 ↗ I don't do use on views I views yeah

22:41 ↗ okay

22:43 ↗ through this I mean we have I've tried

22:51 ↗ to to get you into this has become a

22:55 ↗ very personal person yeah personal quest

22:58 ↗ for all of you guys to get this done

23:01 ↗ self so the next the next one was in 1.4

23:05 ↗ so this was Ron's I think so

23:09 ↗ new development will blend with existing

23:10 ↗ areas to create a unified neighborhood

23:13 ↗ in both look and feel okay and then this

23:21 ↗ was just a leftover and so let's see

23:26 ↗ residents of West New Port find

23:28 ↗ convenient mobility to other parts of

23:30 ↗ the city in the region that gets back to

23:33 ↗ AJ's kind of connectivity piece so those

23:39 ↗ were all the oh no I added and then

23:41 ↗ there was Cougar Mountain trailhead is

23:43 ↗ expanded to be a neighborhood and

23:45 ↗ regional destination that's one of the

23:47 ↗ measures of success anything else

23:49 ↗ that pops out when I add one other thing

23:55 ↗ and this may or may not be a thought

23:57 ↗ that's worthwhile we we've done a lot of

23:59 ↗ work so we no longer have these problems

24:01 ↗ now but we used to have a lot of

24:02 ↗ flooding issues in various parts of town

24:04 ↗ and so in my vision of success we just

24:08 ↗ consider that - which of course we have

24:10 ↗ regulations that help us with that but

24:12 ↗ my view of success would be that there

24:14 ↗ may still be some flooding but if it

24:15 ↗ happens it occurs in natural areas that

24:17 ↗ are designed for that to be able to

24:20 ↗ happen and not creating damage to

24:23 ↗ buildings and things like that I make it

24:33 ↗ go into sustainable I don't watch isn't

24:53 ↗ so will tell folks that when their cars

24:56 ↗ are underwater actually you know they

25:01 ↗ they didn't allow pathways for

25:04 ↗ pedestrians out except for through flood

25:06 ↗ waters and that so because it wasn't a

25:11 ↗ requirement so if it floods there's no

25:13 ↗ way to get in or into or out of the

25:16 ↗ building that is out of the flood waters

25:18 ↗ and I I doubt this is the place to

25:23 ↗ change that but flooding is a concern

25:27 ↗ safety is a concern and I don't see much

25:29 ↗ in safety in in this because it just

25:33 ↗ seems so broad throughout the city but

25:39 ↗ does that happen there's a whole nother

25:42 ↗ place a whole another section that talks

25:44 ↗ about

25:46 ↗ sustainability and climate resilience

25:49 ↗ and that kind of thing right so I don't

25:53 ↗ know if it needs to be put in no it's

25:55 ↗ just we don't have any rules to make it

25:57 ↗ so that you don't have to walk through

25:58 ↗ flood waters when you build so the

26:01 ↗ reality is that's what happened right

26:04 ↗ and we're talking about the same areas

26:05 ↗ in the same places of flooding and it

26:07 ↗ will happen again because there's no

26:09 ↗ rule saying you have to do it any

26:10 ↗ differently

26:19 ↗ [Music]

26:25 ↗ okay so this was new so we added kind of

26:31 ↗ a tie together paragraph on the regional

26:33 ↗ growth center before we split off into

26:37 ↗ Pickering and Gillman and you know I

26:42 ↗ took this paragraph from somewhere and

26:44 ↗ it had green necklace in it so I

26:46 ↗ highlighted that because if it turns

26:48 ↗ into green Network or green spiderweb or

26:50 ↗ green moss whatever it's turning into

26:52 ↗ I'll make sure we remember to update

26:54 ↗ that so this is this is here anybody

27:01 ↗ okay I pulled up with the file I sent

27:08 ↗ you so one thing was you have it will

27:10 ↗ evolve into neighborhoods

27:12 ↗ I switched that to it will consist of

27:16 ↗ because do we want it to beat two

27:19 ↗ neighborhoods are we trying to say it's

27:20 ↗ like four neighborhoods we wanted to

27:21 ↗ remove all I was just confused by evolve

27:23 ↗ I think I think the intent of what I was

27:29 ↗ trying to say was they're not two

27:31 ↗ neighborhoods now they're not they're

27:34 ↗ just they're a bunch of strip malls and

27:36 ↗ osomon involvement become a neighborhood

27:39 ↗ yeah okay but if you've got some other

27:43 ↗ language I'm more than happy to swap I

27:46 ↗ just wanted to comment that one of the

27:48 ↗ things I'd like Tibet this was was it

27:50 ↗ when did you get here

27:55 ↗ one of the things I liked about this who

27:58 ↗ was more specific that it talks about

27:59 ↗ density and growth and becoming I'd like

28:02 ↗ to see some of that language moved to

28:03 ↗ our vision instead of talking about

28:05 ↗ prosperity the tox bomb was specific

28:07 ↗ tangible things like denser plant growth

28:10 ↗ bill denied that language should be

28:13 ↗ moved to our vision and now we talk

28:14 ↗ about prosperity because that's

28:16 ↗ intangible as far as who's financially

28:19 ↗ prospering and how the city is

28:21 ↗ prospering so just wanna throw that out

28:23 ↗ there any other changes so so when I

28:37 ↗ split this apart so who ever thought

28:41 ↗ that was a good idea it became clear

28:47 ↗ there was maybe some pieces that were

28:49 ↗ not included so for example now that we

28:53 ↗ were specifically talking about

28:55 ↗ Pickering you know it seems like we

28:57 ↗ needed to say you know this is the home

28:59 ↗ of our biggest employer and it's

29:01 ↗ hopefully always going to be the

29:03 ↗ neighborhood of our biggest employer and

29:05 ↗ that's gonna drive a lot of what happens

29:07 ↗ in Pickering so so we added that

29:09 ↗ sentence we talked about what did you

29:15 ↗ mean by tenure rental or ownership so we

29:24 ↗ cleared other people I don't I thought

29:27 ↗ that had some sort of wonky definition

29:29 ↗ is tenure like when I read tenure I

29:31 ↗ thought of like length of age of the

29:33 ↗ building okay I will look that up in the

29:38 ↗ dictionary and see if I've used it

29:39 ↗ accurately really I understand I think

29:45 ↗ people won't know what you mean by ten

29:47 ↗ okay I will I'll seek out maybe a better

29:50 ↗ word the intent was that we we are

29:53 ↗ hoping for both rental and ownership

29:58 ↗ units within this neighborhood now for

30:01 ↗ those of you who were

30:02 ↗ part of the conversations about housing

30:05 ↗ strategies we found out this week the

30:08 ↗ draft legislation to change the condo

30:13 ↗ liability laws died because Seattle

30:18 ↗ thinks it's just fine the way it is

30:21 ↗ because they're building condos in

30:23 ↗ Seattle so that's unfortunate and we're

30:28 ↗ gonna have to swing at it again next

30:30 ↗ session but at least for now all that

30:33 ↗ what seemed like a lot of good energy to

30:36 ↗ potentially get us condominiums again in

30:39 ↗ the in the near term has petered out

30:42 ↗ Peterson if everybody contacts their

30:46 ↗ legislator and tells them that we need

30:48 ↗ to have this yeah all right it was a

30:52 ↗ question I guess and maybe a bit off

30:54 ↗ scope but is there a way of I know

30:57 ↗ wouldn't do not in zoning but is there a

30:58 ↗ way to reserve some spots for condos or

31:02 ↗ owned housing no we can't we can't

31:06 ↗ mandate either rental or ownership we

31:10 ↗ can we can we can put regulations on

31:15 ↗ Heights and densities but not whether

31:18 ↗ its ownership or rental unless we want

31:21 ↗ to get sued

31:26 ↗ so in the paragraph that was in the word

31:30 ↗ document you emailed which looks very

31:32 ↗ different than that paragraph doing yeah

31:34 ↗ you opening with Pickering with its

31:36 ↗ connectedness Tillich Spanish State Park

31:38 ↗ in East Lake neighborhood and some of

31:40 ↗ this stuff like that really yeah and I

31:47 ↗ sent today yeah no the word document

31:50 ↗ that you sent a couple days ago that I

31:52 ↗ what comments on it sent back okay I

31:55 ↗ believe that I thought it was this

31:56 ↗ document but if this looks different

31:58 ↗ than the one I'm looking at now because

32:00 ↗ I know Kristin sent one last week with

32:02 ↗ the agenda and then I sent a new one

32:04 ↗ that you had requested I think yesterday

32:06 ↗ or today

32:06 ↗ yeah the week is like that the one that

32:09 ↗ Kristensen out so I think the one was

32:13 ↗ the there's no in the future there's no

32:16 ↗ mention of Lake Sammamish State Park and

32:19 ↗ its connectedness so I got the

32:22 ↗ connectedness to East Lake neighborhood

32:27 ↗ right here okay I'm getting I'm sorry so

32:34 ↗ confused about my version control

32:38 ↗ wouldn't expect to be so I got a couple

32:43 ↗ suggestions things that I don't see in

32:46 ↗ the document that I think it should be

32:48 ↗ they're looking at mid-rise I think it

32:52 ↗ should be mid rise mixed-use housing

32:54 ↗ because we're when you say mid rise

32:57 ↗ housing it's like there's no mixed-use

33:00 ↗ in that formula so so we've got

33:05 ↗ mixed-use definitely in Gilman you want

33:08 ↗ in Gilman there's a mandate for it in

33:11 ↗ Gilman vision for Pickering also so this

33:15 ↗ one's a little bit so what I would say

33:16 ↗ is this one's a little bit of a finer

33:18 ↗ thread in that you guys have language in

33:23 ↗ there about no net loss of square

33:26 ↗ footage or jobs right so if I was gonna

33:29 ↗ take out Big Lots right I would have to

33:33 ↗ do apartments with commercial or

33:38 ↗ Hale on the ground floor to replace the

33:40 ↗ number of jobs or the square footage so

33:41 ↗ I would do I would do make shoes there

33:44 ↗ but let's take a different example and

33:46 ↗ say I'm just gonna take out a big swath

33:48 ↗ of Lowe's parking lot right if I was

33:51 ↗ gonna do that then I could just do an

33:54 ↗ apartment building or a condominium

33:56 ↗ building where there used to be just a

33:58 ↗ surface parking lot if I wasn't taking

34:00 ↗ out any jobs so I don't I don't know I

34:07 ↗ don't know how much we want to

34:11 ↗ differentiate Pickering from Gilman

34:14 ↗ because they're kind of weirdly Siamese

34:16 ↗ twins but I don't have a problem if the

34:21 ↗ Commission feels like they'd rather that

34:23 ↗ say makes u s-- mid-rise house you know

34:26 ↗ or you know mid-rise housing mostly in a

34:32 ↗ mixed-use form i mean i if i can do that

34:35 ↗ if you guys want that in here I'm open

34:40 ↗ I'll worry about what you call it I just

34:43 ↗ I think I'm good with it because it's

34:46 ↗ immediately followed by a commercial and

34:48 ↗ retail vibrancy yeah so okay I

34:52 ↗ personally think building a few

34:54 ↗ mixed-use buildings would be great but I

34:55 ↗ think if the buildings are not mixed-use

34:57 ↗ but there's still a lot of housing in

34:59 ↗ retail that's fine so okay I had a

35:03 ↗ couple other things here to talk about

35:05 ↗ and that was

35:13 ↗ commercial and retail employment and a

35:15 ↗ Youth Center will provide daytime

35:17 ↗ vibrancy and evening sports and a future

35:19 ↗ opportunities for youth to seniors so

35:22 ↗ you are wanting a Youth Center put in

35:26 ↗ here

35:32 ↗ we want to commit that dog not

35:34 ↗ necessarily a youth center but something

35:37 ↗ to provide leisure opportunities for

35:39 ↗ youth to seniors because that's going to

35:43 ↗ be a lot of people living in one little

35:44 ↗ space and if they don't have a place to

35:48 ↗ meet is in this state park across the

35:51 ↗ street create a daytime vibrancy comma

35:55 ↗ for youth through seniors comma or just

35:59 ↗ for all ages or something like that that

36:07 ↗ was partly why we were gonna try and

36:09 ↗ make Pickering barn and farm have more

36:14 ↗ that's right that's a great way but I

36:17 ↗ think that's still in the isn't that

36:19 ↗ still in that we have we have some

36:22 ↗ language about making Pickering more

36:25 ↗ active actually with that mention of

36:30 ↗ Pickering I don't see it in that future

36:34 ↗ other than the giant we're taking all

36:40 ↗ right I will add something about the far

36:42 ↗ bit all of the green necklace stuff in

36:46 ↗ this because we haven't to this point we

36:51 ↗ had it sort of separated out in the

36:54 ↗ green parks element right it's almost a

36:58 ↗ separate overlay so if you start adding

36:59 ↗ it in here it seems like you have to

37:01 ↗ then start adding it in elsewhere if you

37:04 ↗ had something that maybe wouldn't be in

37:09 ↗ that green necklace like you know

37:12 ↗ daytime vibrant vibrancy for all ages

37:14 ↗ that wouldn't necessarily be in the

37:16 ↗ green necklace that makes sense to me

37:18 ↗ but not to start identifying components

37:20 ↗ in the parks personally well I think

37:24 ↗ another ones we've named out confluence

37:27 ↗ and Tibbets Valley and things that are

37:30 ↗ amenities for the people of that area

37:33 ↗ things that are very specific

37:35 ↗ and talk about what this area is and

37:41 ↗ talking about

37:42 ↗ Pickering barn and the amenity that it

37:44 ↗ provides to residents Green Park is up

37:53 ↗ up there in the current right

37:56 ↗ Pickering Park is a strong feature for

37:59 ↗ events in summertime public market but

38:01 ↗ it is underutilized yeah so we should

38:06 ↗ have an answer to that in the future

38:07 ↗ section says how are we going to utilize

38:10 ↗ it better yeah like an active Pickering

38:12 ↗ Park or something like that

38:14 ↗ I'm just throw it in there the only

38:19 ↗ thing I see there is you're

38:20 ↗ concentrating not putting an onus back

38:23 ↗ on the developers and I still think that

38:25 ↗ they need that just like gateway you did

38:27 ↗ specify that they had a communal area I

38:29 ↗ think you need to leave room that the

38:32 ↗ developers are also accountable within

38:34 ↗ their land to provide that it's where

38:37 ↗ the green is going to be a broader use

38:39 ↗ the local ones can use it but it's going

38:41 ↗ to be more of a public too far out

38:42 ↗ reaching facility and that is part of

38:46 ↗ the new Pickering they need to have some

38:48 ↗ of their own communal spaces we did in

38:57 ↗ gateway you you mentioned that that so I

39:00 ↗ think in here if you're going to put

39:01 ↗ something it should be that liveable or

39:04 ↗ the you know for all ages should be part

39:07 ↗ of the development and mix juice area

39:13 ↗ here and then

39:16 ↗ whatever you want to call this it's open

39:21 ↗ so it's Keith I wasn't quite done yet

39:24 ↗ I'm not yeah I think this is good I

39:27 ↗ we're focusing a lot on data I think

39:29 ↗ there should be also evening but the

39:32 ↗ other thing is leisure evening leisure

39:36 ↗ activities doesn't the nighttime

39:40 ↗ activity covers you've got daytime

39:41 ↗ nighttime need that covers evening I

39:44 ↗ suppose you could I just wanna make sure

39:46 ↗ we protect a place or give a place for

39:48 ↗ people to take their dates it's gonna be

39:52 ↗ a very boring

39:53 ↗ they brought one want to be a romantic

39:56 ↗ neighborhood you know that address the

40:00 ↗ flooding issues too yeah so if you got

40:08 ↗ rid of beautiful green necklace that

40:10 ↗ might need to be a sentence all to

40:11 ↗ itself so it totally blows that sentence

40:14 ↗ ounce of water well you're actually

40:16 ↗ looking for is Pickering Park is

40:20 ↗ multifaceted were what we're doing is

40:24 ↗ we're just expanding the park system to

40:28 ↗ be

40:35 ↗ to serve to serve all in a larger

40:42 ↗ variety of ways

40:43 ↗ I don't it's such a there's with the

40:47 ↗ State Park and and Pickering farm there

40:51 ↗ and the walking corridor linkages and

40:54 ↗ the green necklace it just seems like

40:56 ↗ there's too much to pull out without

40:59 ↗ just getting in the weeds and I would be

41:01 ↗ happier just to have a better

41:03 ↗ description indicating improvement in

41:06 ↗ the green necklace and then when you go

41:08 ↗ down to the actual actions then call

41:11 ↗ them out I don't I don't want to waste

41:15 ↗ the words in this calling out each item

41:20 ↗ individually they might you guys happy

41:25 ↗ with just a better descriptive sentence

41:27 ↗ I think it's fine Anson yeah I think it

41:29 ↗ needs to be called out I think if we

41:32 ↗ don't then saying that this is Pickering

41:35 ↗ seems a little empty okay

41:40 ↗ I don't like all it should be the whole

41:44 ↗ community or something okay so I've got

41:51 ↗ something different

41:52 ↗ pea-green is dominated by cops with

41:54 ↗ corporate headquarters I think that's

41:57 ↗ too strong he's like anchored by

42:00 ↗ [Music]

42:03 ↗ it may be true

42:05 ↗ well good but I don't think we wanted to

42:07 ↗ be true we don't want an eight-story

42:09 ↗ Cosco building that dominate the

42:10 ↗ surroundings it can anchor the

42:12 ↗ neighborhood but I don't I don't I think

42:16 ↗ I think we won stuff of comparable scale

42:18 ↗ juice or tankers mr. economic

42:23 ↗ development man anchor okay another

42:35 ↗ suggestion here we haven't really

42:37 ↗ addressed mountains of sound gateway or

42:40 ↗ mountains of sound corridor and I though

42:43 ↗ that could be part of the green necklace

42:45 ↗ discussion which we may want to overlay

42:48 ↗ this would it be appropriate to that in

42:51 ↗ here that this may accommodate the

42:53 ↗ mountains of sound corridor was this not

42:57 ↗ the right place I don't know that it's

43:02 ↗ the right place I mean so the question

43:03 ↗ is you know the green necklace my and

43:06 ↗ I'm looking at Trish because seesawed

43:08 ↗ later than I have but they're there map

43:11 ↗ clearly the mountains to sound corridor

43:14 ↗ is a prominent feature on the on the

43:18 ↗ green network plan so isn't it south of

43:24 ↗ 99 not some 90 yeah it is south at least

43:27 ↗ it is on the pilot ditch yeah none of

43:31 ↗ that's really been defined yet I think

43:33 ↗ that's why our discussion with the parks

43:36 ↗ department is gonna be about the green

43:37 ↗ necklace is to help define that too but

43:40 ↗ so I think it's I think it's a part of

43:42 ↗ the green necklace in some form and some

43:44 ↗ thinking you've got green decals called

43:46 ↗ out here I think that covers right I

43:49 ↗ mean you guys fix the fix that in fact

43:52 ↗ they're meeting on Monday if any of you

43:54 ↗ are interested in going they're still

43:55 ↗ working on it without us but once that

43:57 ↗ you fit what you work on in here then it

44:00 ↗ will be covered okay

44:04 ↗ just on the cost of being the city's

44:07 ↗ largest employer I agree hopefully they

44:09 ↗ will always be but I think this squads

44:11 ↗ opening the idea of having another

44:12 ↗ comparable oh yeah so I don't think you

44:16 ↗ should spell

44:17 ↗ the home with city's largest employer

44:19 ↗ per se because that limits somebody that

44:22 ↗ might be bigger as a potential major

44:25 ↗ major

44:33 ↗ you can probably just get rid of let's

44:34 ↗ go far out in front

44:37 ↗ yeah I'm going to tell you it will take

44:39 ↗ us decades for somebody to catch them

44:42 ↗ even even with me doing hard work but I

44:45 ↗ will about just national headquarters

44:48 ↗ because that's pretty special that we

44:50 ↗ are the national headquarters of cost

44:52 ↗ yeah I think you can just get rid of the

44:53 ↗ as the home of so you can just have say

44:55 ↗ Pickering is anchored by Costco's

44:57 ↗ corporate headquarters I don't I don't

45:01 ↗ think you need that

45:02 ↗ really

45:15 ↗ this is also the other side of this or

45:17 ↗ 900 right the other side the 56th side

45:22 ↗ yeah yeah yeah it's called that Bullard

45:30 ↗ and 56th and i-90 create noisy and

45:33 ↗ difficult barriers to pedestrians and

45:35 ↗ bicycles yes we did we we didn't figure

45:42 ↗ it out apparently I think convenient

45:49 ↗ connectedness and it has that covered

45:52 ↗ well well the other thing we said on

45:55 ↗ those in the business area that those

45:57 ↗ could be more geared towards a state

45:59 ↗ park and enhance amenities and and

46:02 ↗ support the state park is what was part

46:04 ↗ of the task force that's what we saw

46:06 ↗ that to be so so it's less direct Connie

46:12 ↗ I mean so obviously you have to cross 56

46:16 ↗ to get to the park and to get to East

46:18 ↗ Lake because we're Microsoft and FedEx

46:23 ↗ are is East Lake I'm talking about

46:31 ↗ motels Motel six a gas station and all

46:36 ↗ that is in this I have a question for

46:40 ↗ everyone is everyone expecting that

46:42 ↗ other side where Motel 6 the gas station

46:44 ↗ in the corporate places are to also turn

46:47 ↗ in to this somehow yes so and they're

46:55 ↗ Park or their amenities and their

46:58 ↗ feeling is also going to be this this

47:02 ↗ housing thing I just don't feel like

47:07 ↗ that is very house' below

47:09 ↗ wedged in right by the freeway there so

47:12 ↗ I I actually in my brain segregated that

47:17 ↗ into a slightly different more business

47:22 ↗ style neighborhood with small retail so

47:26 ↗ yeah we're not gonna create another

47:28 ↗ neighborhood no I'm not okay the whole

47:32 ↗ neighborhood in your brain has to be

47:34 ↗ that homogeneous so I don't think

47:36 ↗ there's I mean I think Timberlake

47:39 ↗ apartments which is just down the street

47:41 ↗ and it's as close to i-90 the properties

47:45 ↗ that we're talking about is clearly an

47:48 ↗ occupied housing project it's recently

47:51 ↗ been built you know what we talked about

47:53 ↗ is that we're trying to also diminish

47:58 ↗ the kind of the adverse residential

48:03 ↗ impacts of the freeway by having you

48:06 ↗ know some sort of noise attenuation

48:08 ↗ included you know what that would do

48:10 ↗ would be to hopefully improve the

48:13 ↗ likelihood that some housing could be at

48:16 ↗ least considered for the west side of SR

48:20 ↗ 900 okay so minimally how are those

48:23 ↗ people gonna get to their retail places

48:27 ↗ they have to be able to get across fifty

48:30 ↗ six 900 900 and I don't see getting

48:34 ↗ across 900 here or the connectivity

48:36 ↗ between those two neighborhoods

48:38 ↗ emphasized as a thing that needs to

48:40 ↗ change or happen maybe take the sentence

48:45 ↗ that's in Gilman that talks about

48:47 ↗ handling the nine hundred and bring it

48:51 ↗ in a shoe thing yeah so maybe just

48:54 ↗ review what that sentence was because I

48:57 ↗ think that handled it for the southern

48:58 ↗ portion I think I think if we go to the

49:02 ↗ option to contract this will be a lot

49:05 ↗ easier so this goes to do want to do is

49:10 ↗ a paragraph or do want to do it as a

49:11 ↗ bunch of sections I think if we broke

49:13 ↗ this into a bunch of sections these kind

49:15 ↗ of connectivity issues would be a lot

49:17 ↗ easier to justify it so

49:23 ↗ I don't I don't mind the paragraph at

49:26 ↗ this I just think that sr9 bit it was

49:29 ↗ just left out so if you guys are happy

49:31 ↗ with it having the same tone and I'm

49:36 ↗ happy with the connectedness any comment

49:43 ↗ huh

49:44 ↗ Ron can we move on you know no comments

49:49 ↗ yes move on okay okay I haven't asked us

50:02 ↗ is anybody have anything different

50:04 ↗ everybody's happy with that

50:06 ↗ oh no but so I don't remember why I

50:11 ↗ didn't do this as red line so for

50:13 ↗ example we talked about changing the

50:16 ↗ non-residential square footage to jobs

50:17 ↗ or we spend a bunch of time talking

50:19 ↗ about that

50:31 ↗ [Applause]

50:34 ↗ question under four point five of the I

50:38 ↗ guess it's Angliss development but does

50:41 ↗ that include solar panel projects and if

50:45 ↗ not could it could so it's not specific

50:49 ↗ to solar panels it's it's basically

50:51 ↗ telling them they have to do something

50:54 ↗ that is green in their building it could

50:58 ↗ be solar panels it could be increased

51:02 ↗ insulation it could be triple pane

51:06 ↗ glazed window so it's not just let's say

51:08 ↗ a green roof top it smoothly but it okay

51:12 ↗ thank you it also doesn't say it has to

51:16 ↗ be more than one thing or two things

51:20 ↗ it's a low bar it's a bar though there

51:25 ↗ was no bar there before right I mean

51:27 ↗ it's all about encouraged that's good

51:30 ↗ and now you have to do something

51:31 ↗ so sometimes it's about moving the

51:34 ↗ needle a bit

51:36 ↗ is there another spot that defines green

51:40 ↗ building elements so we we have a we

51:46 ↗ have a green building initiative thing

51:49 ↗ that we just passed so yes okay so is

51:55 ↗ there is this saying refer to that and

51:58 ↗ include something from that that meets

52:01 ↗ those guidelines or could you just say

52:05 ↗ planted a tree check

52:10 ↗ and I guess an honor to make sure the

52:13 ↗ old same thing so what we would want to

52:17 ↗ make sure is look at the glossary on the

52:20 ↗ CIP and make sure that it mentions green

52:22 ↗ building I mean like low-impact

52:24 ↗ development right for example is low amp

52:28 ↗ low-impact development stormwater

52:30 ↗ management is required that is right

52:32 ↗ considered a green building element and

52:34 ↗ therefore all projects comply without

52:36 ↗ going above and beyond that no so we

52:39 ↗ will cross-reference the green building

52:42 ↗ initiatives so that they will look at

52:45 ↗ the right document under city

52:51 ↗ implementation actions far-left second

52:53 ↗ bullet would that make more sense to say

52:55 ↗ SR 56 than 90 since its Pickering not

52:58 ↗ Gillman instead of SR 956 we in Gillman

53:08 ↗ know we're in Pickering 56 or 900 and I

53:14 ↗ yeah you know that Street has like 12

53:17 ↗ names they're calling it Sammamish

53:22 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road now the whole

53:24 ↗ way they've changed the sign if it no

53:27 ↗ longer says 56 good evening

53:29 ↗ I noticed that vandals okay Oh

53:40 ↗ what does facilitate access to the State

53:42 ↗ Park mean for as a developer obligation

53:48 ↗ which number is that 3.5 no I need a

53:53 ↗ glass so I do this so hey Keith before

53:58 ↗ you answer that question

54:00 ↗ yeah I have something that ties directly

54:03 ↗ into that strengthens up

54:07 ↗ at the bottom of connectedness you have

54:09 ↗ third bullet crossing 900 is less of a

54:12 ↗ barrier for pedestrians and bicycles

54:15 ↗ doesn't say it does anything I'm

54:19 ↗ thinking we create a safe and friendly

54:23 ↗ non motorized crossing of 900 and while

54:28 ↗ we're that because we have a major

54:31 ↗ pathway it goes on the westside of 900

54:36 ↗ but you have to go through a very busy

54:38 ↗ intersection to get to the other side

54:41 ↗ and that is not a pedestrian friendly

54:43 ↗ intersection I think that's I mean that

54:46 ↗ bullets in the measures of success and

54:48 ↗ to me that is a measure of success

54:50 ↗ statement not an action there are

54:53 ↗ actions that should lead to that that

54:56 ↗ statement to me reads as a good measure

54:59 ↗ of success because I don't know I don't

55:03 ↗ think we want to prescribe that it's

55:05 ↗ gonna be a great separate of crossing it

55:06 ↗ could also involve Street narrowing

55:08 ↗ something like that the 900 thought

55:12 ↗ intersection you're gonna narrow the

55:13 ↗ street no but we've we've got that we've

55:15 ↗ got semilla language in the Ben Gilman

55:19 ↗ so also I think wouldn't it be more

55:23 ↗ relevant to say crossing 50 my same

55:25 ↗ comment before 56 because I think I

55:29 ↗ think that I think that bullet was from

55:30 ↗ this was when Pickering and Gilman

55:32 ↗ together

55:39 ↗ that Connie mentioned the part across

55:42 ↗ from 900 that's the motel 6 in them at

55:45 ↗ least that's what I pictured it to yeah

55:46 ↗ I see III read that as what's what's

55:51 ↗ more important is making sure that North

55:54 ↗ East 56th is permeable for pedestrians

55:56 ↗ and bicycles I think they're both

55:58 ↗ important you're ending on which but if

56:01 ↗ we're talking about this other

56:02 ↗ neighborhood the motel 6 neighborhood

56:04 ↗ that is a terrible crossing so so

56:10 ↗ there's another City action here it's

56:15 ↗ actually in the Costco development

56:16 ↗ agreement but it doesn't talk about

56:19 ↗ prioritizing pets and bikes or not

56:22 ↗ prioritizing but at least considering

56:25 ↗ them significantly so I think I think

56:28 ↗ this I want to keep this down here I

56:30 ↗ think it's good as a measure of success

56:32 ↗ but I think the missing piece was the

56:35 ↗ action on how to get there and that same

56:38 ↗ bullet could also tie the language in to

56:41 ↗ Connie's point the connection to State

56:45 ↗ Park because that state park entrance is

56:47 ↗ going to be right there as well maybe we

56:50 ↗ don't know that yet across so he's 6 or

56:59 ↗ whatever it's called now also needs a

57:03 ↗ city implementing action of some sort

57:06 ↗ but that's right now you can't get

57:08 ↗ across 56 or Sammamish road to get to

57:12 ↗ the State Park

57:13 ↗ except for long long blocks so somebody

57:21 ↗ has got to to make sure you can get

57:26 ↗ across the street easily on 56 and so

57:31 ↗ when you say facilitate access to State

57:34 ↗ Park it's the intent that the developer

57:38 ↗ is going to be having to create

57:42 ↗ intersections every 200 feet to get off

57:44 ↗ across to the State Park

57:47 ↗ No okay so what is what does that mean

57:50 ↗ there so right now you have you have

57:57 ↗ from Pickering I think you have three

58:01 ↗ ways to get to the state park

58:03 ↗ you have 12th Avenue which is horrible

58:08 ↗ you have tenth Avenue which is the

58:12 ↗ traffic light where the espresso and the

58:15 ↗ bet place is and it's okay and then you

58:19 ↗ have the trail that goes underneath the

58:22 ↗ 56 which is stinky and those are it

58:27 ↗ there's a there's a sewer vent which is

58:31 ↗ underneath well apparently it's metros

58:34 ↗ now because we were gonna go after Sam

58:36 ↗ flat and apparently it's metros now but

58:38 ↗ that's on Sheldon's homework list

58:40 ↗ because you have this great trail

58:41 ↗ crossing and it's stinky so that's so so

58:47 ↗ the idea is right now you have kind of

58:51 ↗ three ways to get to the State Park and

58:54 ↗ hopefully all of those crossings will be

58:58 ↗ either maintained or improved and so

59:01 ↗ what you expect from the developer is

59:04 ↗ connectivity to those crossings right so

59:07 ↗ if if you've got a project in Pickering

59:09 ↗ and you know you know people are gonna

59:14 ↗ want to get and you're over on say the

59:16 ↗ PCC or Tully side assuming that doesn't

59:20 ↗ get wiped out by some new traffic

59:22 ↗ configuration you know having your

59:26 ↗ project have pedal bike access out to 12

59:31 ↗ would be how you facilitate that

59:33 ↗ connection

59:36 ↗ that's not very pervious that's a long

59:38 ↗ distance between those intersections for

59:42 ↗ its

59:44 ↗ so no that doesn't to me facilitate

59:47 ↗ access we already have those we are need

59:49 ↗ to improve the access to the State Park

59:52 ↗ and all that does this may be mildly

59:53 ↗ improve it so under I would I

1:00:00 ↗ that seems week city implementing

1:00:04 ↗ actions to that same consideration does

1:00:07 ↗ the city have any responsibilities for

1:00:10 ↗ making 56th more porous the bikes and

1:00:15 ↗ pits

1:00:16 ↗ it's a Connie's point specifically where

1:00:19 ↗ the East Lake Sammamish trail crosses 56

1:00:22 ↗ I don't know if this is the right

1:00:26 ↗ conversation for that because that's a

1:00:29 ↗ different neighborhood that's in East

1:00:30 ↗ Lake it's a nice Lake Lake Sammamish

1:00:34 ↗ Trail as part of Pickering no stops at

1:00:38 ↗ the creek Pickering goes to the creek

1:00:43 ↗ you're right next conversation yeah

1:00:45 ↗ scratch keep this in a box all right so

1:00:49 ↗ go ahead on your measures of success

1:00:52 ↗ take out the sentence about Mall Street

1:00:54 ↗ because it is not in this neighborhood

1:01:01 ↗ non unless it moved

1:01:09 ↗ North maaske and then I think you have

1:01:13 ↗ this bullet in Gillman but not Pickering

1:01:15 ↗ you can have it in both under

1:01:17 ↗ connectedness or connected have us

1:01:21 ↗ measured success the Sound Transit

1:01:23 ↗ station connects neighborhood to the

1:01:25 ↗ greater region oh very well full and

1:01:33 ↗ bikable neighborhood in yes but you

1:01:36 ↗ can't get across the street I have to

1:01:43 ↗ ask every week it's have you all tried

1:01:45 ↗ getting across 56 to get to the State

1:01:48 ↗ Park yeah do you yeah but do you think

1:01:50 ↗ that that is that is how it should be in

1:01:53 ↗ the future with that that placement of

1:01:57 ↗ crosswalks second is that good enough

1:02:00 ↗ no terrible intersection the whole I'm

1:02:05 ↗ talking about the corridor right because

1:02:08 ↗ you're going basically from the point

1:02:10 ↗ all the way to where Pickering farm ends

1:02:14 ↗ I guess I'm making because I'm trying to

1:02:19 ↗ figure out if we want a biking walkable

1:02:22 ↗ connected to Lake Sammamish State Park

1:02:25 ↗ area and Keith just described the

1:02:29 ↗ crossings that exist will be the

1:02:30 ↗ crossings that they intend to have and

1:02:33 ↗ no more is that enough I don't think

1:02:37 ↗ this document is prescribing a specific

1:02:39 ↗ solution for pedestrian crossings 56

1:02:42 ↗ well I was asking about his intent the

1:02:45 ↗ intent when he described sorry Keith

1:02:47 ↗ when I said developer facilitating

1:02:51 ↗ getting to the state park and he

1:02:54 ↗ basically said make it nicer to get

1:02:56 ↗ across those existing intersections and

1:03:02 ↗ you're Simon saying I think we need I

1:03:05 ↗ I'll pitch it I don't think that's gonna

1:03:08 ↗ make a biking walking connection because

1:03:11 ↗ those are far apart and it's of

1:03:13 ↗ and even if they make it nicer it's

1:03:15 ↗ really hard and wide in the cars go fast

1:03:18 ↗ so I think there needs to be more if you

1:03:20 ↗ actually want to really connect the

1:03:23 ↗ neighborhood to the state part but I am

1:03:25 ↗ one voice in the wilderness out here

1:03:27 ↗ because Keith doesn't want to so I just

1:03:32 ↗ want to know what you all think that's

1:03:34 ↗ two voices I think it really depends on

1:03:39 ↗ how the State Park redevelops their

1:03:42 ↗ entrance and how open they make

1:03:44 ↗ themselves to the city and if we work

1:03:48 ↗ with in that situation we'll be able to

1:03:52 ↗ determine if there are more Processing's

1:03:55 ↗ and entrances that we or entrances that

1:03:58 ↗ we need to open up to crossings but I

1:04:02 ↗ think at this point with the way that it

1:04:04 ↗ is developed that's fine and I really

1:04:08 ↗ don't think there's a way to add that

1:04:10 ↗ into this document I guess I would like

1:04:16 ↗ to see more pedestrian friendly

1:04:17 ↗ crossings and if you look at design

1:04:20 ↗ those actually moved away from key

1:04:22 ↗ intersections so that you don't have

1:04:24 ↗ turning traffic and that sort of thing

1:04:26 ↗ so I really think we can add that we

1:04:28 ↗ need specifically pedestrian bike

1:04:31 ↗ crossings that will connect with a state

1:04:34 ↗ park that would be separate from the

1:04:36 ↗ existing ones Oh Keith can you come up

1:04:41 ↗ with some suggested language well we've

1:04:44 ↗ got something in there on the bullet

1:04:46 ↗ that says lessen barriers of SR 956 and

1:04:49 ↗ i-90 for pedestrians and bicyclists and

1:04:53 ↗ we also say that it needs to be very

1:04:55 ↗ walkable and bikable so that means that

1:04:57 ↗ it needs to be better than now I don't

1:04:59 ↗ again I don't think this is the right

1:05:01 ↗ document or venue to start solutioning

1:05:03 ↗ how we improve crossings of 56th Street

1:05:07 ↗ I think it needs to get better and the

1:05:08 ↗ document specifies that I think the

1:05:11 ↗ language won't get you your D measure of

1:05:13 ↗ success vehicle free crossing

1:05:19 ↗ it's not gonna happen so I think I mean

1:05:23 ↗ I think for guys basically if you want

1:05:26 ↗ if you want I mean I would I would think

1:05:29 ↗ of this this way right now

1:05:31 ↗ Pickering has its back 256 you know and

1:05:35 ↗ that's the way was developed it was

1:05:37 ↗ developed as a kind of an internal

1:05:39 ↗ project that has its more oriented to

1:05:43 ↗ those internal streets and so you know

1:05:46 ↗ the the bigger question here from an

1:05:48 ↗ urban design standpoint is do you expect

1:05:51 ↗ when Pickering redevelops that there are

1:05:53 ↗ buildings fronting on 56 because if

1:05:56 ↗ there are front doors on 56 you've now

1:05:58 ↗ changed what the whole character of that

1:06:01 ↗ Street is and I would be more inclined

1:06:03 ↗ to agree with Connie that yeah now you

1:06:05 ↗ have to talk about if that's the front

1:06:08 ↗ of a project you know its front needs to

1:06:12 ↗ relate to the park across the street and

1:06:14 ↗ how do you do that Lindsay said I think

1:06:17 ↗ that really matters what the park does

1:06:19 ↗ first and and and that's and and you

1:06:23 ↗ know I would disagree with that because

1:06:26 ↗ the park is there now so if we if

1:06:29 ↗ Pickering develops and I'm going to work

1:06:32 ↗ with Connie and Mary on this if

1:06:35 ↗ Pickering develops and we have 1,000

1:06:38 ↗ people moving in there we're gonna ask

1:06:41 ↗ those people to cross the street across

1:06:43 ↗ 56 56 is already a very very busy and

1:06:49 ↗ very dangerous Street to cross I do not

1:06:53 ↗ feel safe crossing it so there's dozens

1:06:57 ↗ of people that cross every day cuz I see

1:07:00 ↗ them because I work there you know

1:07:02 ↗ because they're coming from Costco over

1:07:05 ↗ to the retail to get lunch or to go to

1:07:08 ↗ Tully's and so but it's not a pleasant

1:07:11 ↗ experience I don't think anybody in this

1:07:12 ↗ room would say crossing 56 is fun or can

1:07:16 ↗ or convenient to do but people are doing

1:07:19 ↗ it now I think what we're saying is we

1:07:21 ↗ want to improve that crowd those

1:07:23 ↗ crossings you know so that people have

1:07:27 ↗ choices you know right now if you don't

1:07:30 ↗ want to battle the cars you take the

1:07:32 ↗ trail

1:07:33 ↗ underneath the street that goes past

1:07:35 ↗ Pickering barn that's you that's a

1:07:39 ↗ choice if you're more you know trying to

1:07:42 ↗ go directly you might choose 12th Avenue

1:07:45 ↗ and that's a choice so so you know the

1:07:51 ↗ question about whether there's more

1:07:54 ↗ opportunities to cross than at 12 and I

1:07:59 ↗ think 11th doesn't have a crosswalk

1:08:02 ↗ because of there's like I think they

1:08:05 ↗ took the c-curve out but there used to

1:08:09 ↗ be C curb out there

1:08:11 ↗ separating the HOV Lane so I I mean if

1:08:16 ↗ you guys as a group feel like we we need

1:08:20 ↗ more crossings of 56 then it should say

1:08:25 ↗ that I think there it needs to be more

1:08:27 ↗ crossings and they need to be vehicle

1:08:30 ↗ free crossings for pedestrians okay so

1:08:33 ↗ that's a whole different animal so who's

1:08:35 ↗ who's building grade-separated crossings

1:08:37 ↗ I don't I don't know that we like

1:08:42 ↗ they're saying we don't need to design

1:08:44 ↗ it but I think we need to figure out

1:08:45 ↗ language that creates porous fifty-sixth

1:08:51 ↗ in this language does not create a

1:08:54 ↗ porous 56 for pedestrians and bikes to

1:08:58 ↗ my right you just take the descendants

1:09:03 ↗ we have for us are 900 is less of a

1:09:04 ↗ barrier for pedestrians bicyclists say

1:09:06 ↗ the same thing about 56 in that what

1:09:08 ↗ we're trying to do except for we just

1:09:12 ↗ have the conversation with with Keith

1:09:14 ↗ about all the language that we had and

1:09:16 ↗ he is sort of insisting that that's not

1:09:18 ↗ going to change anything except for to

1:09:20 ↗ make the existing crossings somewhat

1:09:23 ↗ nicer to get across so it doesn't sound

1:09:26 ↗ like the language is getting us where we

1:09:28 ↗ want to go but I have said the same

1:09:29 ↗ thing eight times and you have said the

1:09:31 ↗ same thing eight times and so maybe I'll

1:09:33 ↗ just try pounding in another place at

1:09:37 ↗ another time well Joan and Rob haven't

1:09:41 ↗ said anything

1:09:43 ↗ um I I think it covers what it has to

1:09:48 ↗ cover and I think that the developments

1:09:51 ↗ are going to come in and be change a lot

1:09:56 ↗ of things and I think the city

1:09:58 ↗ at least I'm hoping the city is is will

1:10:02 ↗ look at each development and see if

1:10:05 ↗ there's a possibility of putting in new

1:10:07 ↗ crossing I don't I personally don't care

1:10:10 ↗ if there's another crossing I just want

1:10:12 ↗ to make sure that the crossings there is

1:10:14 ↗ safe and and the only way I think you

1:10:17 ↗ can do that is put a bridge over and so

1:10:20 ↗ there's you know even if you put a

1:10:22 ↗ crossing down further you're still going

1:10:25 ↗ to be crossing traffic you're still

1:10:27 ↗ going to have that so as long as at

1:10:30 ↗ least the ones that are there are made

1:10:35 ↗ safe oh I would be fine with it

1:10:40 ↗ now I don't think it needs to have extra

1:10:43 ↗ crossings in this document I think I

1:10:48 ↗ think people depending on where the main

1:10:50 ↗ entrance ends up being now I don't know

1:10:54 ↗ all the other little entrance points

1:10:57 ↗ along the way there but I think people

1:11:00 ↗ are from Pickering generally traveling

1:11:04 ↗ west

1:11:05 ↗ so if within Pickering there's kind of

1:11:08 ↗ this way to travel west towards where

1:11:10 ↗ the main entrance is and having that

1:11:14 ↗ 12th crossing at 12th

1:11:17 ↗ either one that's the safest I guess

1:11:21 ↗ kind of make sense to me to get you

1:11:24 ↗ closest to the main entrance now if

1:11:29 ↗ you're trying to like kind of funnel

1:11:30 ↗ people if people are generally whether

1:11:32 ↗ they're traveling north and then west or

1:11:34 ↗ west and then north I don't know I guess

1:11:38 ↗ some I would be interesting to know how

1:11:40 ↗ people you know with kind of the vision

1:11:43 ↗ so we're gonna make it a smaller grid

1:11:45 ↗ right we want it to be smaller grid

1:11:49 ↗ inside those people are gonna travel

1:11:51 ↗ somehow through that grid to the park

1:11:55 ↗ it's wherever that primary point wants

1:11:58 ↗ to be needs to be the safest well we

1:12:01 ↗ supposedly have a what every three

1:12:03 ↗ hundred feet we have a thing we're

1:12:06 ↗ crossing a block I'm not hearing a lot

1:12:10 ↗ of consensus here how about a compromise

1:12:12 ↗ enhanced crossing it's you know I think

1:12:16 ↗ it's it's already it's already there

1:12:19 ↗ they're seeing an intent that I don't

1:12:22 ↗ think will be realized I think that's

1:12:24 ↗ just the point okay for City

1:12:27 ↗ implementing actions rather than Lessing

1:12:29 ↗ barriers how about enhanced crossings of

1:12:41 ↗ so that city implementing actions first

1:12:43 ↗ column rather than lesson barriers of

1:12:46 ↗ enhanced crossings of

1:12:59 ↗ or pedestrians and isolate bicyclists

1:13:03 ↗ what's that it's there it says to pay

1:13:07 ↗ for

1:13:11 ↗ I like that next and that could mean

1:13:16 ↗ about it

1:13:17 ↗ frosting for tomboy time we want to add

1:13:22 ↗ an equestrian so that was good

1:13:27 ↗ well I thought that was gonna take all

1:13:30 ↗ of ten minutes and it's taken an hour

1:13:31 ↗ and a half so let's get on together my

1:13:38 ↗ one ask on this one is that you remove

1:13:40 ↗ the words small town on the promenade

1:13:42 ↗ for mall Street successful small town

1:13:45 ↗ promenade in your urban I agree I hadn't

1:13:49 ↗ Tim comment that in the future yeah it's

1:13:51 ↗ in the future very last yeah

1:14:09 ↗ okay moving on you haven't even gotten

1:14:14 ↗ to tonight's agenda yet and in this one

1:14:17 ↗ under city implementing actions take out

1:14:19 ↗ the relocate entrance to the State Park

1:14:21 ↗ that's in the other neighborhood didn't

1:14:26 ↗ didn't didn't say I got them all or even

1:14:29 ↗ maybe half and then can you add the same

1:14:31 ↗ Sound Transit station connects neighbor

1:14:33 ↗ to greater region under measure success

1:14:46 ↗ and the no flooding comment applies here

1:14:48 ↗ to do what what I'm going to just write

1:14:53 ↗ that down carry as adding Gillman to the

1:14:58 ↗ lesson barriers because one of the

1:15:01 ↗ hardest streets to get across is Gilman

1:15:02 ↗ and frankly so is Newport way to get

1:15:12 ↗ across

1:15:16 ↗ Newport way yes yeah it's just a it's

1:15:21 ↗ just a two-lane road and Gilman Newport

1:15:26 ↗ at Gilman oh and mall there's mall I'm

1:15:30 ↗ thinking of a Newport way mid-block

1:15:33 ↗ crossing it mall everybody desk

1:15:35 ↗ - oh yeah maple sorry yeah Mall is easy

1:15:39 ↗ maples heart you have mid-block

1:15:41 ↗ crossings with people dashing across

1:15:43 ↗ between the hotel and the mall Street

1:15:45 ↗ building right basically any main road

1:15:54 ↗ is too large of a grid currently make it

1:16:01 ↗ so that people get a good pedestrian

1:16:03 ↗ friendly yeah I don't know how you

1:16:05 ↗ address all of that yeah I think you've

1:16:08 ↗ already got somewhere in there about

1:16:10 ↗ reducing the block sizes and where you

1:16:12 ↗ have those opportunities to reduce the

1:16:13 ↗ block sizes you have additional crossing

1:16:15 ↗ opportunities maybe just adding Gilman

1:16:21 ↗ yeah reducing speed would do it

1:16:30 ↗ [Music]

1:16:32 ↗ they've got a Gillman project right now

1:16:34 ↗ let them have that fun there yeah change

1:16:39 ↗ that one to enhance crossing lesson out

1:16:41 ↗ of there not enhance barriers so Mary

1:16:48 ↗ what Mary just said every time you put

1:16:51 ↗ in enhanced crossings you're also

1:16:54 ↗ removing the other ways to make it

1:16:56 ↗ easier to cross and one of those is to

1:16:58 ↗ one reduce the road with and two to

1:17:01 ↗ reduce the speed limit and all of those

1:17:06 ↗ of those make it safer for pedestrians

1:17:07 ↗ to get across so those aren't all

1:17:12 ↗ enhanced crossings safer crossing sure

1:17:16 ↗ safer and more pleasant I don't know but

1:17:19 ↗ it's if Gillman was 25 miles an hour you

1:17:24 ↗ could actually see where you were going

1:17:25 ↗ and you could get across the street and

1:17:28 ↗ it would become more of a people would

1:17:31 ↗ would move to the retail areas on either

1:17:33 ↗ side but it at its current speed limits

1:17:37 ↗ it's hard and it's hard to walk along

1:17:40 ↗ because it's unpleasant so on City

1:17:46 ↗ opening actions the second or the first

1:17:48 ↗ bullet providing monitoring and

1:17:50 ↗ maintenance of creeks and wetlands I

1:17:51 ↗ just think this is something that's in

1:17:53 ↗ the larger green necklace things

1:17:56 ↗ throughout the document not necessarily

1:17:58 ↗ specifically in now it's part of

1:18:01 ↗ development why wouldn't you want that

1:18:05 ↗ to happen throughout the city throughout

1:18:09 ↗ the whole central as well you do and I

1:18:11 ↗ think we've got it in every neighborhood

1:18:14 ↗ okay and if anything I would like to

1:18:17 ↗ enhance that who has responsibility for

1:18:19 ↗ maintaining the natural green or the

1:18:22 ↗ natural beauty throughout this whole

1:18:25 ↗ document I think that's part of this

1:18:28 ↗ document as a whole as well so who did

1:18:33 ↗ you want to do that I want the city to

1:18:35 ↗ do that it's under city implementing

1:18:37 ↗ actions so that provides monitoring and

1:18:39 ↗ maintenance of creeks and wetlands okay

1:18:46 ↗ so does anybody else okay we're gonna go

1:18:52 ↗ to East Lake and confluence right save

1:19:07 ↗ [Applause]

1:19:09 ↗ yes sir this is a conversation about

1:19:12 ↗ whether or not we want Gillman to be

1:19:15 ↗ part of East Lake or woods yes yes so I

1:19:24 ↗ think the Gillman should be part of

1:19:28 ↗ confluence but maybe call it the Gillman

1:19:31 ↗ retail strip so Gillman village

1:19:34 ↗ yeah Gillman village is its

1:19:36 ↗ characteristic is different than

1:19:38 ↗ confluence but if we add it to East Lake

1:19:40 ↗ that it's a very different look and feel

1:19:42 ↗ yeah I couldn't remember when you guys

1:19:44 ↗ talked about it landed it landed in

1:19:48 ↗ confluence all right I'll stick it in

1:19:50 ↗ confluence yeah so then there's a few

1:19:52 ↗ Corrections to both easily can

1:19:53 ↗ confluence okay and I don't necessarily

1:19:56 ↗ know that I would agree with confluence

1:20:00 ↗ as being a mixed use neighborhood you

1:20:05 ↗ don't think it's all structures are

1:20:09 ↗ mixed use it just means that is

1:20:10 ↗ residential and in the neighborhood if

1:20:15 ↗ that's concerned the Gilman retail strip

1:20:17 ↗ then yeah that's good I just don't want

1:20:19 ↗ to see I don't think it's appropriate to

1:20:21 ↗ see mixed-use mid-rise buildings no one

1:20:27 ↗ of the implementing actions Ron just to

1:20:29 ↗ remind you is that the city was going to

1:20:31 ↗ initiate code revisions to ensure this

1:20:35 ↗ neighborhood retains its role as a less

1:20:36 ↗ dense smaller scale neighborhood so the

1:20:39 ↗ whole idea was this

1:20:41 ↗ this needs to kind of get down zoned but

1:20:45 ↗ we would have to do that as a subsequent

1:20:47 ↗ action if assuming the vision got

1:20:49 ↗ adopted yeah I'm gonna Lamar I think

1:20:52 ↗ your problem with that is the mid rise

1:20:53 ↗ component not the mixed-use component

1:20:56 ↗ and I think that jives with what's in

1:20:57 ↗ the document yeah well you just called

1:20:59 ↗ it out here so I just want a

1:21:00 ↗ clarification if that's the spirit of

1:21:03 ↗ where we're going and I am in agreement

1:21:04 ↗ does it say mid right somewhere no okay

1:21:09 ↗ smaller mixed juice will be an ideal

1:21:12 ↗ transition okay yeah can I go back to

1:21:16 ↗ your Eastlake document and the map the

1:21:20 ↗ one that actually has a map map of the

1:21:23 ↗ area let's say I think I have to go to

1:21:25 ↗ here

1:21:25 ↗ hang on sorry Gilman sorry center

1:21:36 ↗ confluence East Lake map there yeah why

1:21:41 ↗ is the southern border on the south side

1:21:45 ↗ of i90 it feels like that those are kind

1:21:48 ↗ of orphaned properties because to get

1:21:50 ↗ them to feel like a part of that

1:21:52 ↗ neighborhood with i-90 going through the

1:21:54 ↗ middle of them and not being connected

1:21:57 ↗ with the light rail station in that

1:21:58 ↗ section just they just feel like orphans

1:22:02 ↗ so I think part of why we talked about

1:22:06 ↗ including this in East Lake and not

1:22:08 ↗ confluence is because the character on

1:22:13 ↗ the south side of Gilman is a lot

1:22:16 ↗ different than what's happening on the

1:22:18 ↗ north side so right now I don't disagree

1:22:21 ↗ with you Kerry it's a little you know

1:22:23 ↗ i-90 definitely feels like a you know

1:22:26 ↗ where you should draw the split so

1:22:29 ↗ fourth Avenue does help the fact that

1:22:32 ↗ fourth Avenue does provide a vehicular

1:22:36 ↗ crossing of i-90 and then the King

1:22:40 ↗ County trail provides bike and ped

1:22:43 ↗ crossing kind of mid block if you will

1:22:46 ↗ you know the hope is also that the ijr

1:22:48 ↗ will turn this into less of a monster

1:22:53 ↗ I don't know if it will but the hope

1:22:55 ↗ would be that it will I don't know if

1:22:57 ↗ that means that you would then be able

1:22:58 ↗ to walk this a little bit better so when

1:23:02 ↗ you talk about you've got you've got the

1:23:06 ↗ post office

1:23:07 ↗ you've got the Medical Center that's

1:23:09 ↗ kind of dying back in the back you've

1:23:13 ↗ got Madison developments property it's

1:23:17 ↗ got a four these sign on it I just think

1:23:20 ↗ like when you when you're visualizing

1:23:21 ↗ the axis of the neighborhood in the

1:23:24 ↗ northern part is very much like Spanish

1:23:26 ↗ Parkway but we get to the south it's not

1:23:28 ↗ as much the parkway is it is fourth

1:23:29 ↗ Avenue and in that sense it kind of

1:23:31 ↗ spills across and I need Keith every

1:23:37 ↗ time I see one of these maps I'm not

1:23:39 ↗ really sure exactly where the boundary

1:23:46 ↗ is it just seems like it's drawn right

1:23:48 ↗ through a middle of a set of trees is

1:23:51 ↗ there a clear way to distinguish exactly

1:23:57 ↗ which side of the road this is on so so

1:24:08 ↗ what I would say is I'll try to explain

1:24:11 ↗ what I understand so there here's the

1:24:13 ↗ creek so the creek runs up here splits

1:24:15 ↗ Pickering and East Lake and then you

1:24:18 ↗ have 56 which then we've included this

1:24:22 ↗ area which is where the Microsoft Office

1:24:24 ↗ buildings are Siemens and what used to

1:24:28 ↗ be space labs and the FedEx and the

1:24:30 ↗ courthouse bmc's over here you know

1:24:36 ↗ you're doing it by parcel right those

1:24:38 ↗ are those are all personal boundaries

1:24:39 ↗ correct their parcel boundaries you know

1:24:43 ↗ the conversation that happened at land

1:24:46 ↗ and Shore which we haven't even started

1:24:48 ↗ talking about is kind of this jagged

1:24:51 ↗ East edge there was some conversation at

1:24:56 ↗ committee about kind of looking at

1:24:59 ↗ whether some of these properties like

1:25:02 ↗ this one particularly belong in central

1:25:06 ↗ Issaquah

1:25:07 ↗ or should they not and so to Joan's

1:25:13 ↗ question of what parcels or what areas

1:25:17 ↗ have we included no now I just wanted

1:25:21 ↗ that the boundaries defined a little bit

1:25:25 ↗ better so we can add with that so we can

1:25:28 ↗ add the names of the streets or do you

1:25:32 ↗ need to do is blow it up so that you can

1:25:34 ↗ see where it goes think can you zoom in

1:25:37 ↗ is that what you okay so are you asking

1:25:44 ↗ like why did he choose what the other

1:25:47 ↗ side of Gilman Boulevard or if indeed he

1:25:49 ↗ did choose the other side of Gilman

1:25:51 ↗ Boulevard is the boundary is that like

1:25:53 ↗ your question no I just want to know

1:25:55 ↗ what streets make the boundary so if I'm

1:25:58 ↗ a builder and I want to I have to know

1:26:01 ↗ if I'm in the confluence or easy-like

1:26:03 ↗ and I need to know what that founder is

1:26:06 ↗ I can't tell from that picture

1:26:07 ↗ I'll ask cristen to work on clear maps

1:26:10 ↗ she'd be happy to write to ish all right

1:26:15 ↗ keep the reference in the interchange

1:26:17 ↗ you said I I J are so I'm like that it's

1:26:20 ↗ called an interchange justification

1:26:22 ↗ report so wash dot has funded the

1:26:26 ↗ interchange justification report for

1:26:29 ↗ Front Street and i-94 eat at such a

1:26:39 ↗ funky angle it really doesn't float

1:26:45 ↗ traffic very well and so what happens

1:26:48 ↗ right now in in the evening or in the PM

1:26:52 ↗ peak is you know traffic will back up on

1:26:55 ↗ Gilman all the way back to Gilman

1:26:59 ↗ village and so part of what we've been

1:27:03 ↗ asking wash to do is to look at

1:27:05 ↗ redesigning this interchange to not only

1:27:10 ↗ improve flow for traffic getting on and

1:27:13 ↗ off the freeway but also to improve what

1:27:16 ↗ it functions like on the city streets

1:27:19 ↗ so that interchange justification report

1:27:22 ↗ is under way I vaguely remember which

1:27:28 ↗ consultant was chosen to do it let's say

1:27:31 ↗ it might be perjury BAM I don't know but

1:27:36 ↗ anyway it's also going to go back so the

1:27:39 ↗ most important part to me personally is

1:27:41 ↗ it's gonna examine the freeway from

1:27:45 ↗ front Street all the way back to 12th

1:27:50 ↗ and where the potential Crossing will be

1:27:53 ↗ in between us are 900 and Front Street

1:27:57 ↗ so you know this unknown of where that

1:28:01 ↗ crossings going to be is it going to be

1:28:02 ↗ a jack-in-the-box is it going to be

1:28:04 ↗ somewhere else that will get decided by

1:28:09 ↗ this washed out report which will then

1:28:12 ↗ help potentially funnel down that

1:28:16 ↗ conversation about where the train

1:28:17 ↗ station is going to go so super exciting

1:28:21 ↗ all that stuff is starting and it starts

1:28:23 ↗ with the washed piece so are they

1:28:26 ↗ looking to decide whether or not there's

1:28:29 ↗ an interchange or just whether you

1:28:32 ↗ design any design a lot like they're

1:28:35 ↗ gonna justify and say oh we don't need

1:28:36 ↗ this no no no definitely know whether or

1:28:40 ↗ not they're gonna put millions of

1:28:41 ↗ dollars into making a change to it okay

1:28:45 ↗ will it be a public comment process for

1:28:48 ↗ that oh yeah okay City Council is

1:28:52 ↗ already starting to address it

1:28:59 ↗ yes Ron question for either boundary why

1:29:03 ↗ does it include sixty sixth place in 66

1:29:08 ↗ Street

1:29:10 ↗ it seems very it seems like a really odd

1:29:14 ↗ are these is that down here yeah okay

1:29:17 ↗ parcel it looks like one parcel or two

1:29:19 ↗ parcels that are in the rest of it is so

1:29:23 ↗ so we took we took the service

1:29:25 ↗ neighborhood out remember we drove back

1:29:26 ↗ in there and said yeah this really

1:29:28 ↗ doesn't seem like central Issaquah I'll

1:29:31 ↗ just go ahead and be like why not so

1:29:34 ↗ this is potentially the location of a

1:29:39 ↗ new auto dealership and so as we talked

1:29:43 ↗ about what design standards we would

1:29:45 ↗ want for that auto dealership whether we

1:29:47 ↗ would want the central Issaquah

1:29:49 ↗ standards which are very much more urban

1:29:52 ↗ and ped oriented as opposed to suburban

1:29:56 ↗ we said let's keep it in central

1:30:00 ↗ Issaquah because these properties

1:30:02 ↗ because they're a long Front Street or

1:30:04 ↗ East Lake Sam as it comes out from

1:30:07 ↗ underneath the freeway they are I think

1:30:11 ↗ visually very prominent and having them

1:30:15 ↗ in central Issaquah made made more sense

1:30:18 ↗ for us which is why we suggested

1:30:21 ↗ including them so yeah it makes the

1:30:23 ↗ boundary look a little wonky but I think

1:30:26 ↗ if you if you saw those properties

1:30:29 ↗ redevelop and we developed into

1:30:30 ↗ something that was still suburban and

1:30:33 ↗ not had oriented I don't I think we'd be

1:30:35 ↗ doing a disservice to the East Lake

1:30:38 ↗ neighborhood whereas if you get back

1:30:40 ↗ into this area back in here back past

1:30:44 ↗ the gravel pit and into you know where

1:30:47 ↗ it's more industrial I don't know that

1:30:50 ↗ much of the city really interacts with

1:30:52 ↗ that neighborhood too much but because

1:30:54 ↗ of the amount of traffic that's on East

1:30:56 ↗ like Sam this has a very different

1:30:59 ↗ I think impact on how you perceive the

1:31:03 ↗ city what is this so sorry quickly that

1:31:08 ↗ name that parsley you're talking about

1:31:10 ↗ possibly being a dealership you have a

1:31:12 ↗ bike path going right through the middle

1:31:14 ↗ of that video about removing it it's

1:31:19 ↗ yeah it goes next to it

1:31:20 ↗ it's a Preston yeah you're gonna squeeze

1:31:23 ↗ that bike trail right up against the

1:31:25 ↗ freeway I don't think modes a bike trail

1:31:28 ↗ yes it is the interesting sewers on one

1:31:36 ↗ side and fours on the other but what are

1:31:39 ↗ the two little triangles that cut into

1:31:42 ↗ what would otherwise be a pretty logical

1:31:44 ↗ boundary so there's the larger this one

1:31:47 ↗ sure no not not that are included in

1:31:51 ↗ that are out of line that's the boat

1:31:56 ↗ place a plumbing shop and the two auto

1:32:00 ↗ body shops the little nose shaped the

1:32:04 ↗ fingers and the unico why so why should

1:32:11 ↗ why wouldn't that be in so I don't know

1:32:15 ↗ if this is so Kristen drew this so I'm

1:32:17 ↗ gonna send that frontage to the to East

1:32:20 ↗ Lake Sammamish Park I'm gonna guess

1:32:21 ↗ that's a parcel boundary John I don't

1:32:23 ↗ know I don't have a parcel map up we can

1:32:26 ↗ pull a parcel viewer up if that would be

1:32:28 ↗ a good thing to do no I guess I'm just

1:32:30 ↗ wondering if it did get redeveloped why

1:32:33 ↗ wouldn't we want it in in central just

1:32:37 ↗ add this is a homework point to check

1:32:40 ↗ why those lines were decided that way

1:32:42 ↗ and maybe come back to us with a

1:32:44 ↗ justification yes so I'm just I've got a

1:32:49 ↗ map of just google maps here so I think

1:32:52 ↗ 230th Avenue should be the boundary and

1:32:55 ↗ that's what separates the gravel pit

1:32:57 ↗ from

1:33:00 ↗ I see so we're we're bumping up to the

1:33:05 ↗ creek so I think the creek then should

1:33:09 ↗ be the boundary yep let's just get a

1:33:11 ↗ justification so that we can come back

1:33:13 ↗ to it yeah there's a creek that goes

1:33:16 ↗ right through it you just seem like a

1:33:27 ↗ little less like parcel cherry-picking

1:33:29 ↗ if it was a more like if it was the

1:33:32 ↗ creek boundary then come back and tell

1:33:34 ↗ us why you did we did and then I think

1:33:39 ↗ you can do that the same for that one

1:33:40 ↗ neighborhood up toward the north eastern

1:33:44 ↗ portion whether or not that should be in

1:33:47 ↗ that way right there isn't the church

1:33:57 ↗ and the other property isn't that

1:33:59 ↗ frontage on to East Lake what I I don't

1:34:05 ↗ know what you would gain from those

1:34:06 ↗ parcels in this situation anyway so I

1:34:09 ↗ would still like an explanation as to

1:34:10 ↗ why you would want those well I think if

1:34:13 ↗ we're looking at BMC potentially

1:34:15 ↗ redeveloping into something that's a

1:34:17 ↗ little bit denser than including the

1:34:19 ↗ parcels that are nearby that that have

1:34:22 ↗ that same ability to develop toward that

1:34:25 ↗ more order in the environment I think

1:34:27 ↗ that makes sense and I'm perfectly fine

1:34:29 ↗ with looking at a justification for some

1:34:32 ↗ of those cutouts because those are

1:34:34 ↗ mainly steep slope they're just a little

1:34:36 ↗ bit at the bottom and then you're backed

1:34:38 ↗ right up to your forested hills yeah so

1:34:40 ↗ that would be the question that we would

1:34:42 ↗ kind of want to bring in is maybe call

1:34:45 ↗ out those ones and say the question here

1:34:46 ↗ is steep slope the question there is

1:34:49 ↗ this is a neighborhood and the reason

1:34:51 ↗ this was chosen and those weren't was

1:34:52 ↗ because Creek or otherwise yeah we could

1:34:56 ↗ do that will bring a big map that we can

1:34:58 ↗ unroll big mattress especially since the

1:35:03 ↗ city bigger I can we do bigger than that

1:35:05 ↗ actually especially since the city

1:35:08 ↗ counts since they requested y-yeah yep

1:35:13 ↗ we should have an answer for him for

1:35:16 ↗ them yeah and the parcel behind Fred

1:35:18 ↗ Meijer we had a discussion about that at

1:35:21 ↗ length to get my food or exclude from

1:35:24 ↗ this map yep parcel we decided to keep

1:35:31 ↗ it in because it has a more protections

1:35:35 ↗ there so right now there's more

1:35:38 ↗ protections in central Issaquah than the

1:35:41 ↗ rest of the city that's why we kept it

1:35:43 ↗ ok now on that idea in the Sustainable

1:35:47 ↗ one of the bullet points there says

1:35:50 ↗ something about property owners will

1:35:52 ↗ help maintain or build up the black

1:35:55 ↗ nugget wall east lake yeah yeah working

1:36:04 ↗ with property owner to preserve oh no to

1:36:06 ↗ revegetate the he'll sign replace the

1:36:08 ↗ black nugget wall yes yeah cities that's

1:36:11 ↗ in the city's bucket okay so it's the

1:36:14 ↗ ideas work with them not expect them to

1:36:17 ↗ pay for that well okay so before we talk

1:36:26 ↗ let me read that was County owner than

1:36:32 ↗ we annex so we annexed the problem yeah

1:36:36 ↗ we annexed it it was not county owned it

1:36:39 ↗ was it was it was County jurisdiction it

1:36:42 ↗ was privately owned and was an old

1:36:47 ↗ quarry site actually

1:36:51 ↗ load the wall who owns the wall

1:36:54 ↗ unfortunately you do as a taxpayer of

1:36:56 ↗ Issaquah yep can we take it down just

1:36:59 ↗ kidding oh we could take it down come

1:37:03 ↗ down by itself at some point just taking

1:37:06 ↗ a lot of other things outside I hope not

1:37:07 ↗ because I this is he's like revegetate

1:37:14 ↗ provide additional public access to its

1:37:17 ↗ a clogged creek but we have the North

1:37:19 ↗ Fork in there too right we do now no um

1:37:32 ↗ changes yeah

1:37:38 ↗ and then I think you need to remove ya

1:37:42 ↗ Gilman village we talked about that yeah

1:37:44 ↗ I'll do that

1:37:46 ↗ where is it Lyndsey distinctive City

1:37:50 ↗ implementing actions

1:37:53 ↗ there we go convenient access to Lake

1:37:56 ↗ Sammamish State Park will be a priority

1:37:57 ↗ now I like that one let's put that one

1:38:01 ↗ over in Pickering yeah Pickering like it

1:38:06 ↗ because there you go vegan usable I'll a

1:38:14 ↗ friendly I'm not gonna die

1:38:32 ↗ and then the other one I had mentioned

1:38:34 ↗ in there indistinctive it says something

1:38:37 ↗ about an eclectic image of architecture

1:38:42 ↗ 2.3 yes what does that mean who knows so

1:38:54 ↗ so because this is outside of the core

1:38:59 ↗ or the architectural manual offers like

1:39:02 ↗ I think six different architectural

1:39:05 ↗ styles that could be chosen so I think

1:39:10 ↗ right now what you would say about this

1:39:15 ↗ area of town is there is not really a

1:39:19 ↗ consistent architectural thing there's a

1:39:21 ↗ variety of architecture and it is

1:39:24 ↗ somewhat eclectic and I think there's

1:39:26 ↗ something that's genuine about eclectic

1:39:30 ↗ imagery as opposed to everything looking

1:39:32 ↗ the same and so I not go with

1:39:37 ↗ architectural diversity rather than

1:39:41 ↗ necessarily eclectic okay so let's ask

1:39:44 ↗ the question that goes to Development

1:39:48 ↗ Commission what are they going to do is

1:39:50 ↗ that no I mean it's very set now as to

1:39:59 ↗ the one of the six that they can choose

1:40:03 ↗ the question would be if somebody came

1:40:07 ↗ in and said okay we're going to do Lodge

1:40:09 ↗ style and there were three other large

1:40:12 ↗ style buildings with the city be able to

1:40:14 ↗ say no you have to do something

1:40:16 ↗ different because everybody else is

1:40:18 ↗ large style right next to you and so

1:40:20 ↗ with this you could I think you could

1:40:22 ↗ say you have to do Grange right the

1:40:25 ↗ first diverse palette so the question is

1:40:30 ↗ is do we feel that's important or not I

1:40:33 ↗ mean you know if you had four lodges in

1:40:36 ↗ a row on East Lake Sam that all were

1:40:39 ↗ mini-storage

1:40:45 ↗ you know sorry I mean start what we're

1:40:49 ↗ thinking is not real what he just said

1:40:50 ↗ is now gonna happen it's not going to be

1:40:57 ↗ blue anymore so there's there's a couple

1:41:00 ↗ of when we don't let me forget where are

1:41:06 ↗ we when he's like right okay so I have a

1:41:10 ↗ couple proposed code edits that are

1:41:15 ↗ coming from the administration that

1:41:21 ↗ effect land use and it's it's vision

1:41:26 ↗ there's a vision piece to it but it's

1:41:28 ↗ it's gonna it's gonna it's gonna show

1:41:32 ↗ itself as it as a code change so when we

1:41:35 ↗ get to a certain spot don't let me

1:41:37 ↗ forget to talk about that because

1:41:39 ↗ otherwise and you you can think about it

1:41:41 ↗ before our last conversation and since

1:41:45 ↗ I've already started let's go ahead and

1:41:46 ↗ go there so so so one of the concerns

1:42:00 ↗ that was expressed is right now the

1:42:03 ↗ zoning for Central is very broad I mean

1:42:07 ↗ it allows a lot of different uses pretty

1:42:09 ↗ much anywhere and so what that does is

1:42:12 ↗ it allows the market to decide what

1:42:15 ↗ should be built the concern that has

1:42:18 ↗ been expressed to me is that that we

1:42:27 ↗ don't want mini storage and hotels all

1:42:31 ↗ over central Issaquah and so what's

1:42:35 ↗ being proposed and we'll talk about it

1:42:37 ↗ next time because this is this is new to

1:42:40 ↗ me is limiting hotels to Pickering and

1:42:46 ↗ limiting mini storage to 221st or East

1:42:52 ↗ Lake Sammamish

1:42:58 ↗ no 221st

1:43:02 ↗ farm with hotels seriously so the

1:43:05 ↗ perspective is right now we have a good

1:43:10 ↗ number of hotels for our population

1:43:12 ↗ today and if we were going to build

1:43:18 ↗ another hotel they would likely because

1:43:21 ↗ of one thing that's in our city and

1:43:25 ↗ that's Costco and if if Costco drives

1:43:30 ↗ the need for another hotel then the

1:43:33 ↗ hotel should be located within walking

1:43:35 ↗ distance of Costco that's the that's the

1:43:38 ↗ idea that is out there for us to talk

1:43:41 ↗ about more fully next time if those are

1:43:46 ↗ the terms and you can get over i-90 you

1:43:49 ↗ could walk we could have a hotel

1:44:01 ↗ conference center over i-90 and we need

1:44:05 ↗ conference centers which we don't have

1:44:06 ↗ meeting rooms here okay but we're not

1:44:08 ↗ gonna put that in the vision right now

1:44:10 ↗ so we're not so that's gonna be a

1:44:12 ↗ corollary code amendment that's gonna

1:44:15 ↗ come with this that will talk about you

1:44:19 ↗ guys will get it for next time I know

1:44:22 ↗ things are changing everyday and we'll

1:44:26 ↗ talk about it hopefully the rest of the

1:44:28 ↗ conversation about the final package

1:44:30 ↗ will be shorter and we'll be able to

1:44:32 ↗ spend some time talking about that

1:44:34 ↗ whether or not we want to do something

1:44:36 ↗ different than that okay getting back to

1:44:39 ↗ this yes sorry we put in there the

1:44:44 ↗ convenient access is a priority do you

1:44:47 ↗ want to add something either in the city

1:44:49 ↗ implementation or the measure of success

1:44:51 ↗ to go with

1:44:55 ↗ I mean there's the create trail

1:44:59 ↗ activities space no oh no that's sorry

1:45:04 ↗ that's safe and non-motorized crossing

1:45:06 ↗ right so this first one was intended to

1:45:09 ↗ kind of help with that yep I think you

1:45:15 ↗ could would it make sense to have

1:45:17 ↗ something that says work with the state

1:45:18 ↗ to ensure that there is direct access to

1:45:22 ↗ the State Park murder easy convenient

1:45:27 ↗ access we have we have work with state

1:45:32 ↗ parks to improve neighborhood access I'm

1:45:34 ↗ sorry that's yep okay let's go so Ron

1:45:37 ↗ here's your chance if you want something

1:45:39 ↗ for the Lake Sammamish trail crossing of

1:45:41 ↗ 56th it would be here where would so do

1:45:46 ↗ you want it yes all right I will add a

1:45:53 ↗ bullet that intersection makes me

1:45:56 ↗ paranoid every time I cross it I've

1:45:59 ↗ almost been hit three times the problem

1:46:11 ↗ is it's that it's more the and I'm I

1:46:14 ↗ will probably upset some of our viewing

1:46:17 ↗ public it's the mentality of the drivers

1:46:19 ↗ on 56th and East Lake Sam it's very auto

1:46:23 ↗ oriented people are trying to get to the

1:46:27 ↗ plateau as quickly as they can and and

1:46:30 ↗ it they're just not looking out for

1:46:31 ↗ bikes and peds it's they're just in

1:46:33 ↗ their way I mean if you watch people

1:46:35 ↗ coming southbound set south east south

1:46:40 ↗ east bound on on East Lake Sammamish you

1:46:43 ↗ know when they get to the traffic light

1:46:45 ↗ at 56 that's really their first I mean

1:46:49 ↗ the roundabout doesn't really count

1:46:50 ↗ because you can kind of time it so you

1:46:52 ↗ can fly around that right so they're

1:46:54 ↗ coming down the hill they're flying

1:46:56 ↗ around the roundabout they're coming

1:46:57 ↗ south on East Lake Sam and most of them

1:47:00 ↗ even if they have our bill just kind of

1:47:01 ↗ blow through that and May

1:47:03 ↗ they're right turn without even stopping

1:47:05 ↗ it's just it's like they haven't even

1:47:07 ↗ hit the mentality of being in the city

1:47:10 ↗ yet and having conflicts of bikes and

1:47:14 ↗ heads

1:47:14 ↗ it's just not in it's not in their mind

1:47:16 ↗ because when you come down that way

1:47:18 ↗ there's just really no conflicts that

1:47:20 ↗ you have to deal with because there's

1:47:21 ↗ not many people walking up and down 43rd

1:47:25 ↗ and then if you are on the trail you're

1:47:28 ↗ kind of out of sight for most drivers so

1:47:31 ↗ sorry for that whole little diet

1:47:33 ↗ streetscaping could improve that the

1:47:36 ↗ perception that they're coming into an

1:47:38 ↗ area with pedestrians and bikes well one

1:47:41 ↗ thing we talked about you know so

1:47:43 ↗ there's possibility that there will be a

1:47:45 ↗ new light if a fire station ever gets

1:47:49 ↗ built south of hands Jensen we also

1:47:52 ↗ talked about if BMC redevelops that you

1:47:55 ↗ need to be able to get people from that

1:47:57 ↗ side of Eastlake Sam over to where the

1:48:00 ↗ Microsoft and Siemens Building is and so

1:48:03 ↗ so that that will evolve over time it's

1:48:06 ↗ just not great now it's not great now so

1:48:10 ↗ remember you can always change the road

1:48:13 ↗ design to get the people to go slower

1:48:16 ↗ and potentially have a 25 mile an hour

1:48:18 ↗ speed limit which is the most efficient

1:48:21 ↗ way to get the largest number of cars

1:48:23 ↗ through a place but they're going slower

1:48:25 ↗ and it makes it easier to cross the

1:48:27 ↗ street so nowhere though we keep saying

1:48:31 ↗ pedestrian priority we keep giving the

1:48:35 ↗ priority to the cars and saying well you

1:48:38 ↗ know the pedestrians they can they can

1:48:40 ↗ cross occasionally and I think we're

1:48:43 ↗ missing an opportunity to actually

1:48:45 ↗ create a situation where the pedestrians

1:48:48 ↗ feel safe and comfortable and the cars

1:48:50 ↗ know that they are in an area where they

1:48:53 ↗ have to slow down right now the central

1:48:56 ↗ Issaquah plan is not put together to do

1:48:59 ↗ that nor are these visions with W

1:49:03 ↗ dressed in code

1:49:05 ↗ much like we're going to talk about

1:49:08 ↗ hillsides and then AJ had expressed

1:49:13 ↗ another thing that's kind of another

1:49:16 ↗ visionary idea of how do we handle

1:49:20 ↗ people crossings and stuff where that

1:49:24 ↗ would be we have a master pedestrian

1:49:26 ↗ network right or try a trail network

1:49:29 ↗ think I've ever seen that in the CIP we

1:49:33 ↗ have a non-motorized plan yes

1:49:35 ↗ that's actually do or I don't know if it

1:49:37 ↗ calls for anything you know you you know

1:49:40 ↗ slow down the car that describes how

1:49:46 ↗ each of the road corridors should be

1:49:48 ↗ handled and that is the overriding

1:49:51 ↗ vision of the road corridor sort of be

1:49:53 ↗ irrespective of the development that's

1:49:55 ↗ going in around them and so it's it's

1:49:58 ↗ those definitions that are that are

1:50:01 ↗ reviewing that if you have a non

1:50:02 ↗ motorized master plan wouldn't that be

1:50:05 ↗ your starting point for it to define

1:50:07 ↗ intersections they need to be improved

1:50:09 ↗ for non motorized access right but if

1:50:13 ↗ the solution is to slow down the traffic

1:50:14 ↗ with a different speed limit that's not

1:50:17 ↗ in that landscape piece that wouldn't be

1:50:21 ↗ in the non motorized and over two years

1:50:24 ↗ ago the police actually recommended that

1:50:26 ↗ that be dropped to 35 to match Sammamish

1:50:30 ↗ and the whole corridor and at that time

1:50:33 ↗ city council said no so you know that's

1:50:37 ↗ part of what I think we really need to

1:50:39 ↗ do with the whole network and part of

1:50:41 ↗ this is say what is to make it

1:50:42 ↗ pedestrian friendly we need to look at

1:50:45 ↗ the whole network and reset the codes of

1:50:47 ↗ the speed limits so Joan Keith I'm not

1:50:50 ↗ sure if that's something that we could

1:50:52 ↗ put on our conversation point but and I

1:50:56 ↗ don't even know if that would be a PPC

1:50:58 ↗ thing versus City Council but the idea

1:51:01 ↗ of talking about how we prioritize

1:51:04 ↗ Destry ins and bikes so PPC could make a

1:51:10 ↗ recommendation to send that particular

1:51:13 ↗ item to the transportation advisory

1:51:15 ↗ board because there is a new Trans

1:51:19 ↗ rotation advisory board that's getting

1:51:20 ↗ formed and I think thought we weren't

1:51:23 ↗ getting the transportation person in the

1:51:25 ↗ city and so that was going to get pushed

1:51:27 ↗ off well the wind blew a different

1:51:33 ↗ direction so as far as I know the

1:51:38 ↗ transportation planner is coming and

1:51:43 ↗ that is moving forward okay well talk so

1:51:51 ↗ we've got that covered under measures of

1:51:53 ↗ success talking about vehicular

1:51:54 ↗ dominated streets have been transformed

1:51:57 ↗ do we assume me to add something to the

1:51:59 ↗ Sanitation actions that talks about

1:52:00 ↗ improving I don't think speed is the

1:52:05 ↗ right word though speed is I think is

1:52:07 ↗ how you get to it specifically on a Lake

1:52:09 ↗ Sammamish Parkway I think we so you've

1:52:11 ↗ got the motor success so I think the

1:52:13 ↗ city implementation actions need a

1:52:14 ↗ bullet that specifically addresses so

1:52:18 ↗ you've got pedestrian and complete

1:52:19 ↗ pedestrian bike facilities I think

1:52:20 ↗ Spanish park right right I think they're

1:52:22 ↗ I think that sounds like there needs to

1:52:24 ↗ be an additional bullet that says it's

1:52:28 ↗ not cars navigate Lake sandwich Parkway

1:52:32 ↗ as if they're on a city street and not

1:52:34 ↗ an urban Boulevard but you feeling when

1:52:37 ↗ I'm reaching for something something

1:52:39 ↗ about like the city needs to look at

1:52:40 ↗ true damage Parkway into something yeah

1:52:47 ↗ yeah there needs to be some sort of I

1:52:51 ↗ mean a road diet not like not in

1:52:52 ↗ eliminating lanes but like narrowing

1:52:55 ↗ lanes changing intersections changing

1:52:57 ↗ speed whatever

1:53:03 ↗ yeah but I don't see a road deck is

1:53:05 ↗ usually Road diet involves eliminating

1:53:07 ↗ the lane or two I don't think that's

1:53:09 ↗ necessary just narrowing that means like

1:53:14 ↗ what's up in like that makes sense key

1:53:15 ↗ that if as like as you transition from

1:53:18 ↗ the Parkway into the actual urban

1:53:23 ↗ neighborhood you know it's lands Genaro

1:53:25 ↗ or not that would help you down slow

1:53:26 ↗ down something like that

1:53:27 ↗ transform LSP if dome or something Road

1:53:31 ↗ in an environment you know urban

1:53:34 ↗ environment whatever yeah I'll figure

1:53:36 ↗ something to suggest for a night that is

1:53:38 ↗ a key fed is a city street correct yeah

1:53:44 ↗ oh yeah yes so that is so unlike SR 900

1:53:48 ↗ where we can we have problems think they

1:53:49 ↗ have limitations there and that's if we

1:53:52 ↗ this one's got a lot of we've got a lot

1:53:53 ↗ of flexibility just eat his arms okay

1:53:55 ↗ yeah yeah I think that would be a great

1:53:58 ↗ additional action you just have to be

1:54:00 ↗ careful that you know we have to let the

1:54:03 ↗ city be moving and we can't cut it down

1:54:06 ↗ to restrict it enough to write which is

1:54:08 ↗ which is why I want to be clear like I'm

1:54:10 ↗ not advocating that we're like

1:54:11 ↗ eliminating lanes

1:54:12 ↗ it's just the traffic slows down as they

1:54:15 ↗ go through and navigate either getting

1:54:17 ↗ died 9 you're getting Sammamish faster

1:54:26 ↗ doesn't mean more cars move through

1:54:30 ↗ McKibben point in time slower actually

1:54:32 ↗ platoons the cars most efficiently

1:54:36 ↗ it's just when there isn't a lot of cars

1:54:38 ↗ that are gonna have to go slower to

1:54:40 ↗ that's all so Keith to your point you I

1:54:44 ↗ want to make sure we don't miss a gap

1:54:46 ↗ you were saying that we might want to

1:54:49 ↗ recommend something could you explain

1:54:51 ↗ more about that so so if if you feel

1:54:56 ↗ like there's a missing piece here that's

1:54:58 ↗ transportation related I think what we

1:55:02 ↗ can do so we're gonna come up with our

1:55:04 ↗ visions but there can be a whole set of

1:55:07 ↗ other things that you might want to

1:55:09 ↗ recommend to the City Council

1:55:12 ↗ and like I said I think there is a new

1:55:15 ↗ transportation advisory board being put

1:55:18 ↗ together and you know they will they

1:55:22 ↗ will have some things on their work

1:55:24 ↗ plate already

1:55:25 ↗ but getting recommendations going from

1:55:29 ↗ PPC to Council for maybe redirection to

1:55:33 ↗ the TA be that absolutely makes sense so

1:55:37 ↗ so I think I think you guys shouldn't

1:55:39 ↗ lose those ideas as you talk through

1:55:42 ↗ these things and if it makes sense like

1:55:44 ↗ for example you know with the green

1:55:46 ↗ necklace you know it didn't make sense

1:55:49 ↗ for you guys to solve that puzzle

1:55:51 ↗ because that's really the parks board

1:55:53 ↗ needed to you know carry that that

1:55:56 ↗ burden but you guys got to work with

1:56:00 ↗ them and maybe there's an opportunity at

1:56:02 ↗ some point for this group to have a

1:56:05 ↗ joint meeting with the TA B once it's

1:56:07 ↗ put together and to talk about that

1:56:09 ↗ issue to say hey look you know as we

1:56:11 ↗ were going through the visions this

1:56:13 ↗ became an issue that we felt like it

1:56:15 ↗ wanted a public conversation and so you

1:56:18 ↗ guys could then see that for them too

1:56:20 ↗ because that's really the policy behind

1:56:23 ↗ how we treat pedestrians in the city

1:56:26 ↗ right there's I mean there's a bigger

1:56:29 ↗ policy piece and I don't know if you

1:56:31 ↗ want to touch the third rail or not but

1:56:33 ↗ the whole issue of regional so the

1:56:35 ↗ streets right now that push regional

1:56:36 ↗ traffic so Eastlake Sam is definitely

1:56:39 ↗ one right as his 56 as his Newport and

1:56:43 ↗ Front Street and so you know the

1:56:45 ↗ question is and I think we've heard it

1:56:47 ↗ in various places is how do we turn

1:56:50 ↗ those streets right now that function

1:56:53 ↗ more for regional traffic movement back

1:56:56 ↗ towards more local city function not to

1:57:00 ↗ say they're not going to still move

1:57:01 ↗ regional traffic but how do we

1:57:03 ↗ reprioritize what the purpose of those

1:57:06 ↗ are so so that's that's a bigger

1:57:10 ↗ conversation but these two things 56th

1:57:15 ↗ and East like Sam potentially fall into

1:57:18 ↗ that because you know the reason they

1:57:20 ↗ are what they are is because they're

1:57:21 ↗ moving traffic to Sammamish

1:57:23 ↗ so can I ask that we just consider a

1:57:27 ↗ conversation about that dependent

1:57:30 ↗ obviously on whether the transportation

1:57:31 ↗ advisory board comes on board and if we

1:57:34 ↗ have time in our schedule but just

1:57:36 ↗ something so that we at least look at

1:57:38 ↗ whether we're gonna talk about it I

1:57:40 ↗ think it's a topic that we all want are

1:57:43 ↗ really concerned about and if we had any

1:57:46 ↗ opportunity to discuss it further

1:57:50 ↗ outside of today I noticed Trish is not

1:57:53 ↗ taking notes scheduled and there were

1:58:01 ↗ you know one or two weeks where we

1:58:04 ↗ actually didn't meet in the whole year

1:58:12 ↗ just in case you had nothing else to put

1:58:14 ↗ on there but again it would be outside

1:58:17 ↗ today's discussion I did circle the last

1:58:22 ↗ liveable thing from the measures of

1:58:24 ↗ success I wasn't sure how you were going

1:58:27 ↗ to make managed regional traffic gun on

1:58:33 ↗ Sammamish Lake Sammamish Parkway I

1:58:36 ↗ didn't know how you were going to do

1:58:37 ↗ that yeah I think that goes to the

1:58:40 ↗ implementation at Osakis

1:58:42 ↗ yeah so do we need to actually make a

1:58:44 ↗ motion for that or were generally giving

1:58:46 ↗ you a recommendation okay

1:58:48 ↗ we don't have to make a recommendation

1:58:50 ↗ to anybody except to Trish to put on the

1:58:53 ↗ schedule down the homework Mike turned

1:59:01 ↗ it off Oh married wayfinding for all of

1:59:04 ↗ these things everybody's always lost in

1:59:06 ↗ this in town and as things change

1:59:10 ↗ they're gonna be they're gonna continue

1:59:12 ↗ to be lost

1:59:14 ↗ is there an overarching wayfinding

1:59:21 ↗ creature not just for trails but for

1:59:25 ↗ streets too because people are always

1:59:26 ↗ there they they can't tell which side of

1:59:29 ↗ the freeway they're on they all the

1:59:30 ↗ shopping centers look the same so we've

1:59:35 ↗ been

1:59:36 ↗ so that I don't I don't know that that

1:59:41 ↗ particular topic is specific to central

1:59:44 ↗ Issaquah I mean I think that general

1:59:47 ↗ wayfinding conversation wants to be

1:59:49 ↗ citywide only if you want the developer

1:59:55 ↗ to feed into your wayfinding scheme if I

2:00:03 ↗ mean so the way that we did it in the

2:00:05 ↗ highlands is if you wanted a kiosk with

2:00:08 ↗ sign on it you know it had to have a

2:00:11 ↗ public amenity component to like a trail

2:00:14 ↗ sign or something like that so we did

2:00:18 ↗ something in the highlands and you can

2:00:20 ↗ see some wayfinding kiosks up there but

2:00:23 ↗ we're a little bit we haven't moved that

2:00:26 ↗ conversation along on the valley floor

2:00:27 ↗ yet

2:00:29 ↗ and part of it is just staffing

2:00:31 ↗ resources we haven't had the bandwidth

2:00:33 ↗ to work on it so that'll be something

2:00:35 ↗ that's gonna sort of overlay onto it

2:00:38 ↗ maybe like agreement necklace so we have

2:00:40 ↗ to update the sign code anyway because

2:00:43 ↗ of yes case in Arizona so so we can

2:00:52 ↗ incorporate it into our sign code update

2:00:55 ↗ there's something related to branding as

2:00:57 ↗ well a brandy yeah the branding and the

2:00:59 ↗ wayfinding our tenets are connected and

2:01:02 ↗ both of those are a little bit we're

2:01:06 ↗ stuck because we're we're missing a

2:01:10 ↗ resource in communications back to here

2:01:14 ↗ yes welcome back is there anything else

2:01:17 ↗ on this I had a couple questions on if

2:01:21 ↗ you can scroll up key to see the

2:01:28 ↗ developer obligations under distinctive

2:01:30 ↗ yep vertical mixed you - yeah - - does

2:01:35 ↗ that mean that each project would have

2:01:37 ↗ to be mixed use either horizontal or

2:01:40 ↗ vertical

2:01:44 ↗ [Music]

2:01:45 ↗ so what that says to me is that we have

2:01:49 ↗ both it's not it's not one or the other

2:01:54 ↗ it's you have both vertical and

2:01:56 ↗ horizontal mixed use I'm thinking for a

2:01:59 ↗ developer obligation if a developer came

2:02:01 ↗ in and said I'm going to build this

2:02:02 ↗ apartment building right right next to

2:02:05 ↗ the retail center well what if it was

2:02:08 ↗ between two other apartment buildings

2:02:10 ↗ would we say you can't do that you have

2:02:13 ↗ to include some excuse in it I don't

2:02:17 ↗ think we would Oh Oh crud so my third

2:02:25 ↗ surprise always more surprises

2:02:29 ↗ so in Pickering and Gilman we have the

2:02:32 ↗ no loss of square footage or jobs the

2:02:38 ↗ other recommendation that that goes in

2:02:39 ↗ East Lake - right so so to Mel's

2:02:45 ↗ question now now that we know that what

2:02:54 ↗ I would say is if you were taking out

2:02:57 ↗ this goes back to the example I gave in

2:03:00 ↗ Pickering if you're taking out taking

2:03:03 ↗ out residential or if you're taking out

2:03:05 ↗ just surface parking lot you could build

2:03:07 ↗ apartments or condominiums without it

2:03:10 ↗ being vertically mixed-use if you're

2:03:12 ↗ taking out retail or commercial space

2:03:15 ↗ you have to replace at least as much

2:03:18 ↗ jobs or square footage to make it no net

2:03:21 ↗ loss so if we have the no net loss do we

2:03:25 ↗ still need to point - probably not

2:03:27 ↗ I'll put a question mark for now and

2:03:30 ↗ think about it longer than just three

2:03:32 ↗ seconds

2:03:34 ↗ I don't know you you would have to know

2:03:38 ↗ that lots of jobs as we haven't known

2:03:39 ↗ that loss is 1.5 then you can remove 2.2

2:03:42 ↗ and I get see 2.2 is being a measure of

2:03:45 ↗ success and with different wording oh

2:03:48 ↗ that's what we'd like to see like that

2:03:50 ↗ but not the developer obligation and we

2:03:55 ↗ don't really have a very good definition

2:03:57 ↗ of horizontal mixed-use in in our world

2:04:02 ↗ so is this whole thing going to have a

2:04:06 ↗ new ad definitions added anywhere or

2:04:10 ↗ glossary yeah that are words that have

2:04:13 ↗ not yet been defined I'm trying to not

2:04:18 ↗ use those words okay makes juice it's

2:04:24 ↗ not defined anywhere is anything

2:04:26 ↗ functional so let's let's see if it

2:04:28 ↗ stays because right now there's a

2:04:30 ↗ question mark do we still need this like

2:04:33 ↗ in phrased again we need a definition

2:04:35 ↗ for horizontal makes juice anyway

2:04:41 ↗ another question if you don't mind that

2:04:44 ↗ the Gilman village we've got developer

2:04:47 ↗ obligations to the implementing action

2:04:49 ↗ and a measure of success we say it's

2:04:53 ↗ it's connection small town charm should

2:04:56 ↗ be retained work with the property line

2:04:58 ↗ to preserve the character and then

2:04:59 ↗ measure success is that gilman village

2:05:03 ↗ is preserved as a city treasure walks

2:05:08 ↗ you right through it doesn't it exactly

2:05:10 ↗ I guess the question is I mean it's it's

2:05:13 ↗ starting to me it's I'm not the owner of

2:05:16 ↗ a feeling village but it sounds to me

2:05:17 ↗ like somebody's spot zoning my property

2:05:20 ↗ to say you can't do anything else on

2:05:22 ↗ that property and I don't know if that's

2:05:24 ↗ because what does not say that I think

2:05:28 ↗ you could do anything with it you just

2:05:30 ↗ have to preserve character right so so

2:05:37 ↗ you're trying to you're trying to

2:05:40 ↗ preserve so ideally so there's this as a

2:05:43 ↗ this is maybe this is a continuum of

2:05:47 ↗ the far right hand side is yes somebody

2:05:50 ↗ this it may be the city buys up the

2:05:52 ↗ development rights and it gets preserved

2:05:54 ↗ as is period right that's I think that's

2:05:57 ↗ ultimate success somewhere in the middle

2:06:01 ↗ is maybe part of it gets redeveloped and

2:06:05 ↗ you save some of it as kind of a

2:06:08 ↗ commercial component or retail component

2:06:11 ↗ but then there's maybe some apartments

2:06:13 ↗ or something gets built in amongst that

2:06:15 ↗ okay you still got a connection to the

2:06:18 ↗ small town those old structures at least

2:06:20 ↗ some of them maybe get preserved maybe

2:06:21 ↗ there's a way to do that the far

2:06:24 ↗ left-hand side is they do something

2:06:26 ↗ that's very disney like and the whole

2:06:30 ↗ thing gets plated and there's some

2:06:32 ↗ remnant of incorporated into

2:06:35 ↗ redevelopment so this is a small town

2:06:37 ↗ after all so so this this so i don't

2:07:02 ↗ know

2:07:04 ↗ so mel this one's a hard one i think i

2:07:07 ↗ think if we and maybe as the city goes

2:07:11 ↗ through i'm gonna plant a seed and we'll

2:07:13 ↗ see if any of you try and move it

2:07:14 ↗ forward maybe as the city goes through

2:07:17 ↗ its strategic planning process and

2:07:19 ↗ identifies the things that are very

2:07:21 ↗ important to it maybe this gets put on

2:07:23 ↗ the table for consideration in terms of

2:07:25 ↗ you know what you guys should really

2:07:27 ↗ start thinking about buying the

2:07:29 ↗ development right i mean if if we came

2:07:31 ↗ to aaron and said we'll buy the

2:07:32 ↗ development rights off this property if

2:07:34 ↗ you leave it the way it is

2:07:35 ↗ he'd say sure here's the price tag for

2:07:38 ↗ that i mean there's a you know he's not

2:07:41 ↗ gonna say no so but it's but that

2:07:43 ↗ conversation will never happen if this

2:07:46 ↗ isn't in this plan it's just it just

2:07:48 ↗ won't so I don't know what your point

2:07:50 ↗ was but it's like I guess part of

2:07:53 ↗ there's a question if somebody comes in

2:07:54 ↗ with a project yes

2:07:56 ↗ we want to we want to put an apartment

2:07:59 ↗ project there you know and they come to

2:08:02 ↗ the Development Commission and it said

2:08:03 ↗ you know reading this says should be

2:08:06 ↗ retained well sure it's not a shalt

2:08:08 ↗ write you know could be tricky decisions

2:08:12 ↗ and yeah so this the way I would read

2:08:16 ↗ this one is there would be hopefully a

2:08:18 ↗ conversation if they came in with the

2:08:21 ↗ complete bulldoze and redo you know the

2:08:25 ↗ question is okay there's some things

2:08:26 ↗ about Gilman Village that people really

2:08:29 ↗ like if there's some small-scale retail

2:08:32 ↗ opportunities there's some kind of

2:08:36 ↗ quaint walking opportunities you know

2:08:38 ↗ what could you do with your project if

2:08:42 ↗ you're not going to save any of it what

2:08:43 ↗ could you do to bring some of those

2:08:46 ↗ qualities into your project so I mean

2:08:48 ↗ it's so that would be how I would

2:08:51 ↗ approach that one it's not an absolute

2:08:54 ↗ right if it wasn't absolute we should

2:08:56 ↗ turn show it into shower okay imagine

2:09:00 ↗ the school district wanting to build a

2:09:01 ↗ school Gilman Village flat developable

2:09:06 ↗ property with affordable housing on top

2:09:18 ↗ [Music]

2:09:22 ↗ okay all right punchy crowd what else I

2:09:27 ↗ think we're done

2:09:31 ↗ one was unlivable and the no loss of

2:09:34 ↗ jobs and this is that the replaceable

2:09:38 ↗ retail spaces it seems to me there was a

2:09:41 ↗ Gilman gallery that used to exist where

2:09:43 ↗ the Atlas is that moved to buy the value

2:09:45 ↗ village is no longer there for I think a

2:09:48 ↗ loss of lease for varying reasons I

2:09:50 ↗ think we lost something that the

2:09:52 ↗ character charm when that left I don't

2:09:54 ↗ know if we're gaining necessarily

2:09:56 ↗ something a character by having a lazy

2:09:57 ↗ boy store per se but I think this is

2:10:00 ↗ more than just a jobs issue it's a

2:10:02 ↗ character issue part of that small town

2:10:04 ↗ feeling and part of that I'd like to

2:10:06 ↗ turn capture that as more than just to

2:10:08 ↗ no loss of jobs that's talked about a

2:10:10 ↗ character of a retail space I think

2:10:16 ↗ that's a great goal Steve I think the

2:10:19 ↗ problem is so the city doesn't get to

2:10:21 ↗ choose who occupies the retail spaces

2:10:24 ↗ right so what happens is so we could we

2:10:27 ↗ could put a ton of design guidelines in

2:10:30 ↗ that say you know spaces have to be a

2:10:32 ↗ certain size to try and exclude national

2:10:36 ↗ chains I agree and I'm not trying to

2:10:38 ↗ solution it here but I'm saying I think

2:10:40 ↗ that there's a conversation that goes

2:10:42 ↗ along with that being part of the

2:10:45 ↗ discussion I agree at 8:45 I don't know

2:10:49 ↗ that necessarily at tonight but I'd like

2:10:51 ↗ to capture the idea I'll write it was a

2:10:54 ↗ sacred maybe not the other thing I want

2:10:55 ↗ to mention was under city and inactions

2:10:58 ↗ the last bullet offered technical

2:11:00 ↗ assistance for green buildings it seems

2:11:02 ↗ like that should be something that's

2:11:03 ↗ carried throughout the document that

2:11:05 ↗ should be in every neighborhood well I

2:11:07 ↗ don't know that it's in currently okay

2:11:10 ↗ if it's not I will check

2:11:29 ↗ okay Coughlin's 15 minutes and we have

2:11:34 ↗ to talk about the structure the options

2:11:37 ↗ okay okay confluence loving it loving it

2:11:48 ↗ all right shorty the Gilman village

2:11:50 ↗ stuff on the previous one needs to move

2:11:52 ↗ over to migrate at all hey I have my

2:11:56 ↗ pitch I don't think it's still I don't

2:11:58 ↗ think it should be in the central this

2:12:00 ↗ co-op plan I think all these things are

2:12:02 ↗ very close to the mur and it should just

2:12:03 ↗ go back to them where where it was

2:12:05 ↗ before does that mean she would take it

2:12:12 ↗ so like nerve so like week

2:12:14 ↗ so that's mixed-use residential zoning

2:12:16 ↗ so so she would take it out of central

2:12:19 ↗ and just have it be a floater which we

2:12:22 ↗ have the mixed-use residential which is

2:12:24 ↗ basically saying this but okay pitch it

2:12:30 ↗ one way versus the other quick short

2:12:32 ↗ well like is there a specific reason

2:12:36 ↗ that we want to keep it in to protect

2:12:39 ↗ something

2:12:41 ↗ [Applause]

2:12:47 ↗ so sorry so you have to share I will

2:12:55 ↗ pass my cup of ice around so what I

2:13:01 ↗ would say is I don't know the answer

2:13:03 ↗ that's a that's an interesting question

2:13:05 ↗ I don't know what the advantages are in

2:13:09 ↗ or out I think right now we at least

2:13:12 ↗ have a vision for that neighborhood

2:13:14 ↗ since it's in right there's an

2:13:16 ↗ opportunity to scribe what's there what

2:13:18 ↗ we want what we expect as soon as it

2:13:20 ↗ goes out nothing it is whatever it is

2:13:23 ↗ right and so I guess because I'm a

2:13:27 ↗ planner I would say I'd rather have it

2:13:31 ↗ here where we've described it it it has

2:13:33 ↗ architectural standards that apply if

2:13:35 ↗ it's in if it's out it doesn't you could

2:13:37 ↗ build a super-modern something something

2:13:41 ↗ I use that before so I don't know I I I

2:13:46 ↗ mean I know what it is when it's in I

2:13:49 ↗ don't I feel like I have less control if

2:13:52 ↗ it's out I don't know if unless there's

2:13:59 ↗ a great reason to take it out I don't

2:14:03 ↗ and I when can I make a suggestion about

2:14:09 ↗ this what about the possibility of sort

2:14:12 ↗ of bifurcating that at juniper so I

2:14:15 ↗ think there could be and I don't know if

2:14:17 ↗ it's in around but juniper for this one

2:14:19 ↗ right I think there's a very distinct

2:14:21 ↗ difference and development potential and

2:14:24 ↗ what could and should happen north of

2:14:26 ↗ juniper

2:14:27 ↗ I've already see it happened we've got

2:14:29 ↗ the admin building we've got the Dale

2:14:31 ↗ apartments we've got the at work that

2:14:33 ↗ would be redeveloped all that stuff

2:14:36 ↗ there seems to me that it would be and

2:14:39 ↗ should be redeveloped at the central

2:14:42 ↗ newzik wok einde of scale and then south

2:14:45 ↗ of Juniper I can see where you maybe

2:14:48 ↗ take that portion out and

2:14:50 ↗ that into outside or read that zoning

2:14:56 ↗ differently there I like the idea of

2:14:59 ↗ treating the zoning different is if you

2:15:02 ↗ take it out then we lose control to his

2:15:05 ↗ point right we would lose control of

2:15:07 ↗ what could be there or instance the lot

2:15:11 ↗ where the auto shop sitting on across so

2:15:19 ↗ if we so that would be in because that's

2:15:23 ↗ on the you know what's that south of

2:15:26 ↗ there that's one of our loving stories

2:15:30 ↗ and then the the field across next to

2:15:34 ↗ the storage unit is actually a reservoir

2:15:36 ↗ right right so that's not buildable

2:15:38 ↗ either aren't they gonna with the school

2:15:44 ↗ then the school lot getting fully

2:15:47 ↗ redeveloped right to be kind of an urban

2:15:50 ↗ type school so we'd want to be able to

2:15:54 ↗ control what happen I guess we would

2:15:56 ↗ miss a gap there to connect central to

2:15:59 ↗ that kind of urban school lot if we did

2:16:04 ↗ it's a good point should we include the

2:16:06 ↗ school in that they already have their

2:16:09 ↗ own urban standards right well once we

2:16:13 ↗ talk about a to its compact standards a

2:16:17 ↗ Newport anyway not yet

2:16:20 ↗ well yeah I think it's important to keep

2:16:23 ↗ the stuff south of Juniper mainly

2:16:26 ↗ because of the east and west boundaries

2:16:28 ↗ because we want to make sure those Van

2:16:32 ↗ Nuys

2:16:35 ↗ so we'll get to have a whole

2:16:37 ↗ conversation about the zoning standards

2:16:40 ↗ for this neighborhood and and I don't

2:16:43 ↗ even know what that is yet you know

2:16:46 ↗ we're gonna have to look at what's

2:16:47 ↗ allowed there now what was allowed there

2:16:50 ↗ prior to including it in central

2:16:53 ↗ Issaquah and see if it's this if it's

2:16:56 ↗ this or if it's something completely

2:16:57 ↗ different so so that's something we

2:17:01 ↗ would do is that later this year is that

2:17:03 ↗ this year thing if it comes out of

2:17:06 ↗ central you know as an implementing

2:17:09 ↗ measure so remember we talked about

2:17:12 ↗ initiate a code revision whether we do

2:17:14 ↗ that this year I believed we were gonna

2:17:17 ↗ try okay how many free weeks did you

2:17:21 ↗ have weekend's okay and and I want to

2:17:39 ↗ maybe unpack a conversation that might

2:17:43 ↗ have been before the meeting started

2:17:44 ↗ tonight so this is the only neighborhood

2:17:46 ↗ that talks about schools and access to

2:17:50 ↗ schools and I guess the question for

2:17:52 ↗ y'all is does that language about

2:17:57 ↗ walking to schools and opportunities to

2:18:00 ↗ walk to schools should that need to

2:18:02 ↗ populate all the neighborhoods or leave

2:18:05 ↗ it just in this one or something in

2:18:07 ↗ between I think it's more than school

2:18:13 ↗ walking routes it's also school

2:18:15 ↗ locations but I'm not sure how we

2:18:19 ↗ handled that both as a city and as a

2:18:22 ↗ vision to add to that I don't know where

2:18:26 ↗ this was land but

2:18:29 ↗ all care resources if in Pickering and

2:18:35 ↗ Gilman we have X number of people living

2:18:38 ↗ in a very confined area could be

2:18:41 ↗ convenient to have child varying

2:18:44 ↗ services within the community respond to

2:18:49 ↗ that you think that would be private or

2:18:51 ↗ you think that would be like a garden

2:18:55 ↗ would we with schools daycare would be

2:18:58 ↗ private I mean right now I you guys got

2:19:02 ↗ a transit-oriented development

2:19:04 ↗ presentation right so they're planning a

2:19:06 ↗ Bright Horizons in that project so that

2:19:10 ↗ will be kind of what will happen more

2:19:13 ↗ frequently is with those multi-story

2:19:16 ↗ residential projects there probably will

2:19:17 ↗ be daycare that comes with just because

2:19:21 ↗ there's a need but I think it will be

2:19:23 ↗ market-based the most part well I'd like

2:19:26 ↗ to see that schools are at at any place

2:19:28 ↗ where there are considerable more more

2:19:32 ↗ density as housing is we ought to put

2:19:34 ↗ urban schools there so there's

2:19:36 ↗ walkability because we already know that

2:19:39 ↗ they're maxed out and land and so if we

2:19:42 ↗ don't bring it to the table sooner I

2:19:45 ↗ don't know what's going to happen and I

2:19:47 ↗ would like to see something in the

2:19:49 ↗ Gilman that we put schools in there and

2:19:52 ↗ walkability and Issaquah does have

2:19:54 ↗ preschool in their school systems now so

2:19:57 ↗ you know just say that that's nothing

2:19:59 ↗ you know gonna be private I don't think

2:20:01 ↗ it's also accurate it can be also public

2:20:04 ↗ yeah so would that be in city

2:20:06 ↗ implementing actions to work with the

2:20:08 ↗ sequester all district to plan locations

2:20:14 ↗ yeah it would not be obviously developer

2:20:17 ↗ obligation yeah I don't think we would

2:20:19 ↗ have it I think you could include the

2:20:21 ↗ walking routes on each of the Arians

2:20:24 ↗ but in developer obligations but I do

2:20:27 ↗ think city implementing actions for each

2:20:29 ↗ of the neighborhoods

2:20:30 ↗ well at least Pickering and Gillman

2:20:34 ↗ how many of the others do you think we

2:20:36 ↗ need to think about schools maybe youth

2:20:40 ↗ like you need a minimum the elementary

2:20:43 ↗ schools and that's where the Midwest

2:20:45 ↗ works with the developers and and builds

2:20:49 ↗ the development of round the elementary

2:20:51 ↗ schools and so I think some sort of you

2:20:54 ↗ know partnership with developers could

2:20:56 ↗ be put in here I think we need to hold

2:21:02 ↗ the school district around to that idea

2:21:06 ↗ before putting it in a vision the idea

2:21:11 ↗ of working with developers to kind of

2:21:13 ↗ cite their schools think it would help

2:21:18 ↗ pull it pull them alright so I will I'll

2:21:25 ↗ work on some school language that

2:21:26 ↗ permeates more than just confluence just

2:21:34 ↗ coming to having the the elementary

2:21:37 ↗ schools close to housing could eliminate

2:21:39 ↗ potentially cars Geographic can you just

2:21:44 ↗ add it in the daily retail and service

2:21:47 ↗ needs under sustainability for consoles

2:21:51 ↗ for all of them as you do that for all

2:21:54 ↗ don't you and schools be in there that's

2:21:59 ↗ the bicycle and walking in bicycle

2:22:01 ↗ options so it's sort of going at it in

2:22:03 ↗ the back door it could also live in may

2:22:07 ↗ be livable I think maybe better

2:22:11 ↗ Mel like livable as I recall yeah I

2:22:14 ↗ would put it in livable city

2:22:16 ↗ implementing let's receive it your city

2:22:20 ↗ put it in

2:22:22 ↗ okay Jonah moving us along so one of the

2:22:28 ↗ suggestions from last meeting was as we

2:22:33 ↗ talked about the today in future section

2:22:36 ↗ of do I need to increase the size for

2:22:40 ↗ that okay control mouse scroll hold ctrl

2:22:49 ↗ and scroll your mouse in really all

2:22:59 ↗ right

2:23:01 ↗ so we talked about last time a way to

2:23:06 ↗ maybe better connect the future

2:23:10 ↗ description to what we're actually doing

2:23:13 ↗ in the objectives piece and so Lindsay

2:23:17 ↗ provided a suggestion for how that might

2:23:21 ↗ work for just one neighborhood so rather

2:23:23 ↗ than do this for all of them this is

2:23:26 ↗ more I think we're using as a talking

2:23:29 ↗ conversation point to say okay we've got

2:23:31 ↗ really two options here bless you

2:23:34 ↗ and so which do you like better and you

2:23:38 ↗ know if you guys choose option two I

2:23:40 ↗ think AJ voted for option two before he

2:23:42 ↗ left you know and maybe Lindsay wants to

2:23:45 ↗ talk about it a little bit I was just

2:23:47 ↗ gonna say I didn't rewrite any of that

2:23:48 ↗ it's just the idea that it's kind of

2:23:50 ↗ broken down so that somebody can very

2:23:52 ↗ clearly say here's what the scale of

2:23:55 ↗ this neighborhood is going to be here's

2:23:57 ↗ how we view it treating residential

2:24:00 ↗ areas here's how the parks natural

2:24:02 ↗ environment are handled or focused on

2:24:06 ↗ just in a clearer way or the reader of

2:24:11 ↗ the document I just pulled basically the

2:24:16 ↗ stuff from the future I think I might

2:24:18 ↗ have added a sentence or something but

2:24:21 ↗ generally where there wasn't anything in

2:24:24 ↗ the future one but generally it's the

2:24:26 ↗ idea that it's just broken out and

2:24:28 ↗ making sure that we're addressing each

2:24:30 ↗ of those areas distinctly because those

2:24:33 ↗ were the areas when I went and looked at

2:24:35 ↗ Kirkland and Bellevue and Redmon's

2:24:39 ↗ vision neighborhood visions they all had

2:24:42 ↗ either specific labeled paragraphs or

2:24:45 ↗ the paragraphs were obviously subject

2:24:48 ↗ oriented toward each of those areas okay

2:24:52 ↗ did you consensus did you look at how

2:24:55 ↗ trying to fit those into the four

2:24:57 ↗ categories that we already have it

2:24:58 ↗ broken down into or does it not you know

2:25:01 ↗ I chose those categories because that

2:25:03 ↗ was what was distinct on all of them

2:25:06 ↗ including going back to the task force

2:25:10 ↗ those were consistently mentioned and so

2:25:16 ↗ I didn't put it into those four

2:25:19 ↗ primarily because that character and

2:25:22 ↗ scale idea I think it's really important

2:25:26 ↗ to call out because really if we're

2:25:28 ↗ talking about a vision for a

2:25:29 ↗ neighborhood that's one of those really

2:25:32 ↗ important things to say this

2:25:34 ↗ neighborhood is this and that doesn't

2:25:39 ↗ necessarily match what those are yeah

2:25:41 ↗ I'm fine with that I don't care what the

2:25:44 ↗ labels are those were just kind of my

2:25:46 ↗ descriptors to give you guys an idea

2:25:47 ↗ they can be pretty if I'd I like this

2:25:50 ↗ because it makes sure that in each

2:25:53 ↗ neighborhood we hit on all of those

2:25:55 ↗ things and don't leave out one of those

2:25:57 ↗ important categories just because it's

2:26:00 ↗ in paragraph form we don't skimp on it

2:26:02 ↗ right I like the flow

2:26:06 ↗ when they I think it makes a lot more

2:26:08 ↗ sense the second I think it could be

2:26:11 ↗ enhanced a little bit by indenting the

2:26:14 ↗ paragraph sure but actually I'd like the

2:26:17 ↗ way for it I think it draws your

2:26:21 ↗ attention to specifically what's

2:26:23 ↗ important to Lindsey's point yeah so I

2:26:27 ↗ like it okay so the four of us and vote

2:26:32 ↗ on this yep okay now that can I say why

2:26:37 ↗ I don't like it now that you voted okay

2:26:43 ↗ well then I won't know you can't this

2:26:47 ↗ almost think this exact thing was there

2:26:49 ↗ before and what happens is it parses it

2:26:56 ↗ down into categories and then you're

2:26:58 ↗ reap arcing your categories again so

2:27:00 ↗ when you're reading it you've you you

2:27:05 ↗ are now adjusting to a new schematic in

2:27:07 ↗ your brain and then you go past this and

2:27:10 ↗ there is yet another series of

2:27:12 ↗ information that is yeven does not echo

2:27:16 ↗ this and so in this document then you

2:27:19 ↗ would have three different structures

2:27:21 ↗ that you are trying to figure out how

2:27:24 ↗ you were supposed to use them as tools

2:27:26 ↗ so if you wanted to try to break I think

2:27:33 ↗ you I think that get broken down in the

2:27:37 ↗ structure that was already created if

2:27:39 ↗ you didn't like the categories that were

2:27:44 ↗ created and you had wanted to use these

2:27:46 ↗ then you could have done that but that

2:27:48 ↗ isn't how it went so I would just go

2:27:50 ↗ with the simplicity of a paragraph which

2:27:53 ↗ most people will may or may not read and

2:27:56 ↗ then they will get into the nitty-gritty

2:27:58 ↗ of the structure because too many

2:28:00 ↗ structures just creates confusion I mean

2:28:03 ↗ and that's why I would just go with a

2:28:05 ↗ paragraph that then flows into the

2:28:07 ↗ structure and then we have to deal with

2:28:10 ↗ the next structure which would be having

2:28:14 ↗ talked about so too many structures just

2:28:17 ↗ makes it confusing okay so what if we

2:28:21 ↗ then change this up to you so it's I

2:28:25 ↗ think if these are your important

2:28:26 ↗ categories I think this is a good tool

2:28:30 ↗ to make sure that you get your important

2:28:33 ↗ categories in your list but then use as

2:28:36 ↗ a tool and then drop it off after you've

2:28:37 ↗ used it as a tool I think it's good for

2:28:41 ↗ the readers to have call-outs because

2:28:43 ↗ some people are going to be more

2:28:44 ↗ interested in certain areas so I would

2:28:50 ↗ want to see it as labeling for the

2:28:53 ↗ reader what you're categorizing first

2:28:58 ↗ and then you're categorizing in an

2:28:59 ↗ entire different way later yes so I mean

2:29:02 ↗ are you that's not helpful

2:29:04 ↗ yeah no I hear you and I think that's

2:29:06 ↗ very important so I mean you could take

2:29:11 ↗ the character scale idea and just use

2:29:14 ↗ that without a label as kind of an

2:29:16 ↗ introduction and then potentially use

2:29:20 ↗ the four categories I think the first

2:29:23 ↗ two could be considered liveable yeah

2:29:26 ↗ and then mobility and connectivity is

2:29:30 ↗ obviously connected parts and natural

2:29:32 ↗ environment is obviously sustainable

2:29:33 ↗ distinctive could be that kind of idea

2:29:36 ↗ of character and scale so we could

2:29:40 ↗ bundle them into those four if we wanted

2:29:43 ↗ to right and that would at least make

2:29:46 ↗ sense it would be consistent is it

2:29:49 ↗ necessary I don't know for those who

2:29:52 ↗ like to read paragraphs it's it's not

2:29:55 ↗ helpful because some people actually

2:29:56 ↗ like to read paragraphs it's all it's

2:29:59 ↗ all there's like three different several

2:30:05 ↗ different ways to read the same

2:30:06 ↗ information the way it is and I don't

2:30:08 ↗ really I don't care as long as they're

2:30:10 ↗ consistent if you have the headers as

2:30:13 ↗ long as they don't this looks like their

2:30:17 ↗ categories in some way yeah

2:30:19 ↗ does that make sense I I think I mean I

2:30:23 ↗ totally agree that there's places where

2:30:26 ↗ paragraphs are great and some people

2:30:28 ↗ read that I think our paragraphs as they

2:30:31 ↗ stand Ile fragmented and less of like a

2:30:34 ↗ continuous thought right so I think

2:30:37 ↗ breaking it down into categories from

2:30:39 ↗ what it is now makes more sense and

2:30:41 ↗ makes it more readable and usable and I

2:30:44 ↗ think if they did lead into kind of

2:30:47 ↗ breaking it down into our further

2:30:48 ↗ structure right then that I think that

2:30:51 ↗ would be a little more cohesive right so

2:30:54 ↗ the same concept but just with headers

2:30:57 ↗ of the categories that you can be

2:30:59 ↗ creative yes yes if there's a way yeah

2:31:07 ↗ you get that I did that's not what you

2:31:11 ↗ voted on voting thing around the table

2:31:20 ↗ is because you get more ideas I would I

2:31:25 ↗ have this thing about no I don't like

2:31:27 ↗ the paragraph because it it to me it

2:31:30 ↗ just all bands together but I like the

2:31:33 ↗ fact that there is one sentence up there

2:31:36 ↗ and then you go into the more things

2:31:40 ↗ that you do the one sentence could be

2:31:42 ↗ just the West Newport will be this and

2:31:45 ↗ then you have your other things under it

2:31:50 ↗ it's because I think it can't start with

2:31:53 ↗ that it has to have a beginning

2:31:56 ↗ okay so we've you changed everything

2:31:58 ↗ like a vision sentence basically yeah

2:32:01 ↗ okay yeah

2:32:06 ↗ which is the first sentence I like the

2:32:10 ↗ discussion we just had evolved alright

2:32:18 ↗ we will work on that for next time

2:32:21 ↗ and so so you guys are gonna get Trish

2:32:29 ↗ already sent something or it's going out

2:32:31 ↗ tomorrow yeah so you're gonna get a new

2:32:36 ↗ version on Monday because I find need

2:32:38 ↗ the weekend to work on it so you'll get

2:32:40 ↗ it Monday

2:32:40 ↗ so disregard what you got from Trish

2:32:44 ↗ earlier what you get on Monday is what

2:32:47 ↗ we're going to talk about on the 28th

2:32:51 ↗ which is Wednesday so it'll be red line

2:32:55 ↗ so you guys will be able to see what's

2:32:57 ↗ been changed and hopefully I've captured

2:33:01 ↗ everything that we talked about tonight

2:33:03 ↗ and if not we'll talk about it on

2:33:05 ↗ Wednesday so since this is going to be a

2:33:07 ↗ package package will go to Landon Shore

2:33:11 ↗ yes following week or so we get you know

2:33:16 ↗ the beginning the vision statement yes

2:33:19 ↗ put together

2:33:20 ↗ yes whole package yes and just as a

2:33:24 ↗ addendum to what you said that the new

2:33:27 ↗ story is in this one

2:33:30 ↗ this new debt this new package that I

2:33:33 ↗ passed out today okay so that the other

2:33:35 ↗ pieces are old but that's the new

2:33:37 ↗ package that I found in a crossed out

2:33:39 ↗ version from you and Kristin so so

2:33:43 ↗ everything will be there Monday except

2:33:46 ↗ for the green Network I'm gonna leave

2:33:48 ↗ that as a TBD because we won't have

2:33:53 ↗ finished that until the 8th when we meet

2:33:55 ↗ with Parks Board for the second time

2:33:58 ↗ right so we'll just leave that as a to

2:34:01 ↗ be plugged in so you're gonna hand out

2:34:03 ↗ the news story on Monday as well yeah

2:34:05 ↗ okay so it's gonna be all together

2:34:06 ↗ they're gonna get the news story and

2:34:08 ↗ neighborhoods one through five okay it

2:34:12 ↗ will be basically starting what

2:34:14 ↗ Landon Shore will get except yours will

2:34:17 ↗ be redlined since it's part of our

2:34:19 ↗ sation ultimately they'll get a clean

2:34:21 ↗ copy all those other things that we

2:34:25 ↗ talked about for the year the size

2:34:29 ↗ height and all those things all those

2:34:31 ↗ different housing that we looked at is

2:34:34 ↗ that part of the vision I mean the code

2:34:39 ↗ amendments for the moratorium like

2:34:41 ↗ structured parking vertical mixed juice

2:34:42 ↗ yeah those are already adapted and in

2:34:44 ↗ place I know they're adopted they're not

2:34:47 ↗ in the so those things like the

2:34:50 ↗ architectural manual and and all that

2:34:53 ↗ stuff is not part of the vision or the

2:34:55 ↗ plan they're code that those all that

2:34:59 ↗ stuff the requirement for structured

2:35:01 ↗ parking all that got put into the SIDS

2:35:04 ↗ standards yeah okay okay be clear

2:35:13 ↗ there's no homework this weekend we have

2:35:15 ↗ to wait to get the weekend off Ron wait

2:35:20 ↗ a break so you guys will get the new

2:35:26 ↗ package and the new proposed code

2:35:30 ↗ amendments relating to hotels and mini

2:35:33 ↗ storage on Monday that's on Monday -

2:35:37 ↗ yeah Ed's done I just okay it's gonna

2:35:41 ↗ talk to you about it never see you talk

2:35:47 ↗ about the first two communities in ten

2:35:50 ↗ minutes and just go through and make

2:35:51 ↗ sure that the edits were all done and it

2:35:53 ↗ took an hour and a half so if you put in

2:35:55 ↗ all those other things next Wednesday

2:35:58 ↗ it'd be a long meeting you might need

2:36:00 ↗ some tea cookies or something you know

2:36:06 ↗ cookies or brownies or what do you want

2:36:08 ↗ I'm in a water fountain water fountain

2:36:12 ↗ let's call the bathroom it's coming soon

2:36:16 ↗ I'm just saying don't make be a long

2:36:19 ↗ meeting because it will be the last time

2:36:20 ↗ we look at hopefully the last time we

2:36:23 ↗ look at vision so be prepared it's Trish

2:36:25 ↗ writing down trees yes I am I don't know

2:36:29 ↗ about the water fountain I can't help

2:36:30 ↗ you there but see if I can bring sweetly

2:36:32 ↗ helps and isn't cider okay so you see

2:36:37 ↗ always used to have treats a young girl

2:36:39 ↗ and by next Wednesday at 6:30 hear hear

2:36:48 ↗ okay Yahoo so we will be here so

2:36:53 ↗ anything for the good of the order yes

2:36:57 ↗ no no thank you all with that I close

2:37:00 ↗ the meeting at 9:10

2:37:14 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

McGAULEY asked staff to talk about how this vision document would function as pseudo-code, and gave an example of how someone might assert that their view was not being retained as described here.
Pereira said he likes the specificity of the language here and would like to see some of this specific language moved to other portions of the document.
The Commission asked staff to check the boundary lines and report back to the Commission with a justification for why some parcels, particularly on the eastern edge and on the northeastern portion, were included and/or…
WALSH suggested the wording “architectural diversity.” Morgan asked if a developer wanted to use the approved “lodge” style for a new building in Eastlake, and there were already three lodge-style buildings nearby,…
The Commissioners generally agreed to keep Gilman Village within Central Issaquah and Confluence boundary.