Planning Policy Commission – Special Meeting · Wednesday, February 28, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 8, 2018

packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 2:33 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH JOINT MEETING: PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION and PARK BOARD SPECIAL MEETING—MINUTES

Minutes of February 15, 2018

packet pp.9–15

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 25, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Feb 1, 2018

▶ Watch from 7:33 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING—MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

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

Keith Niven, Development Services Director

Topics: Land Use

2954 segments .txt ↗

0:16 ↗ - Oh, so it's in the back, okay. - Actually, sit,

0:21 ↗ no, right where, I mean, if you wanna sit, sit the

0:27 ↗ three facing us. Good evening. And welcome to the February 28th

0:32 ↗ meeting of the Planning Policy Commission. Tonight is our big meeting.

0:38 ↗ We are hopefully going to finalize the vision for the Central

0:44 ↗ Area District of Vistaqua. We're doing things a little different tonight. You'll

0:50 ↗ notice that we're back up here and you're the rest of the community

0:56 ↗ activists that have been with us all this time. It's kind of down

1:01 ↗ there. And I started this for two reasons. First of all, Mayor

1:07 ↗ and the council have given us the planning policy the directive to actually do this

1:13 ↗ and so when it's done they will have our name on it and I want

1:18 ↗ to be able to have these people say as much and get all their information

1:24 ↗ out. And then I'm going to call on you and get your input if that's

1:29 ↗ okay. Just so, because when we were around the table it was very difficult to

1:34 ↗ distinguish who was on the commission, who was not on the commission. And so this

1:39 ↗ was a way to at least keep you involved because you've done such a good

1:44 ↗ job and put in so many hours like we have to make the city, the

1:49 ↗ central area a great place to live, work and play. So with that, after we

1:54 ↗ go through all of this, we are going to be, the reason that table is

1:59 ↗ like that is because we have five maps that we're gonna put on the table

2:04 ↗ to go through and make sure that we have the ending the the of the

2:10 ↗ the boundaries of each one of the neighborhoods where we think it should be

2:16 ↗ so that's why the table is there actually the way it is so with

2:22 ↗ that I'm going to ask is we have a quorum here we have two

2:27 ↗ minutes that we have to approve so the minutes of the February 8th meeting

2:33 ↗ Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve

2:39 ↗ the minutes. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries.

2:45 ↗ The minutes of the February 15th meeting. Need a motion? So moved.

2:51 ↗ We'll get a second for you. Second. All those in favor say

2:57 ↗ aye. Aye. Motion carries. Keith. Are you ready

3:03 ↗ to start us through the process? I am. So

3:09 ↗ good evening Commission and interested parties. So this evening

3:15 ↗ you guys have a red line version of the

3:20 ↗ draft visions. I also have uploaded a separate document

3:26 ↗ which is just the restructured future So if you want

3:32 ↗ to go through that as kind of a consolidated, here's all the future visions, we

3:38 ↗ can do that as a separate thing or as part of the overall page by

3:44 ↗ page discussion. Once we get through the draft visions, the last thing that we have

3:49 ↗ to do this evening would be to kind of go through the maps of each

3:55 ↗ neighborhood. and talk about the proposed neighborhood boundaries and make sure that

4:01 ↗ we're all in agreement that each neighborhood is displayed as it should

4:06 ↗ be or as we think it should be. So unless the chair would like

4:12 ↗ to handle this differently, it seemed like maybe the best thing to do would

4:18 ↗ be to just run through this page by page and you guys could stop

4:24 ↗ and talk about it when you had questions, comments or suggested edits. But

4:30 ↗ if you want to handle it differently, I'm open. No, that's fine. But what I'd

4:34 ↗ like to do, because I spent some time on the future. You want to do

4:39 ↗ that first? No. Oh. I actually want to go through this first so that we

4:43 ↗ can understand exactly what's going on in the neighborhood. Then we can go back to

4:47 ↗ the future and see if there's anything we need to put in there and put

4:52 ↗ some flower language in it. Fluff it up. And then do you still want to

4:56 ↗ do that neighborhood by neighborhood? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, okay. Yeah. All right. Let's do that

5:02 ↗ then. So you don't want to do the little overview part first to frame it.

5:07 ↗ Yeah, we're gonna go through that page one. Yeah, you guys don't stop me. I'm

5:12 ↗ just gonna keep scrolling page. Yeah, so I know I know This isn't a change,

5:18 ↗ but I just went for the for the good of the record. So the double

5:23 ↗ underlined Yes. That is the line that we're anchoring on

5:29 ↗ that means this has real Yes and what that is

5:35 ↗ showing is that language is an amendment to the existing

5:40 ↗ 1819 a one one see so there's code section and

5:46 ↗ what we're proposing here is an added to that. So

5:52 ↗ that it gives the city the teeth to require developers to comply

5:58 ↗ with the developer obligations that are listed in each neighborhood. And do we

6:03 ↗ have an opinion from Council that concurs that this is kosher. when you

6:09 ↗ say council do you mean lawyers yeah yeah legal sorry not your not personal council

6:14 ↗ uh city council no yeah so um yes uh uh the city attorney has weighed

6:19 ↗ in uh that he believes that we can you know at the end of the

6:24 ↗ day what happens is we point developers to this language and we say okay look

6:29 ↗ this says you have to comply and And ultimately, they're either going to comply or

6:34 ↗ they're going to try and appeal that to a hearing examiner. So there's a process

6:38 ↗ in the city code right now that allows for someone to protest that if they

6:43 ↗ believe that this doesn't have standing or doesn't have the right amount of standing. So

6:48 ↗ there's ways that that can work itself out over time. But generally, the way it

6:53 ↗ would work is most developers would say, "Okay, I get that. And now here's how

6:58 ↗ I'm going to comply." okay good just one that for the record sure so we

7:03 ↗ update the sip yearly is that correct is how often is it reviewed because basically

7:09 ↗ this document can be amended whenever we're dealing with our centralized squad plan yes it's

7:14 ↗ roughly annually correct uh - Yeah, it's the company. - If I give you an

7:18 ↗ ish, is that correct? - Yes. - Okay. - I mean, so as definitely as

7:22 ↗ needed. I mean, if we saw an issue, we could deal with a code change.

7:26 ↗ So anything in the SIDS, the Central Lizzie Quad Development and Design Standards, We could

7:31 ↗ do that anytime. If it was a plan change, so let's assume we got the

7:36 ↗ vision update wrong. Oh my gosh, I hope not. But if we did, that could

7:41 ↗ be reviewed as part of an annual comp plan change because Central Elizabeth Quad plan

7:46 ↗ is kind of a mini comp plan. Yeah. I asked because there really wasn't any

7:52 ↗ kind of section that addressed how this is a living document and how we want

7:57 ↗ it to change. And especially as these neighborhoods, you know, we're we're shrinking down. We're

8:01 ↗ having these new ideas they're obviously going to amend and to grow and as that

8:06 ↗ life continues to To kind of change the document will also need to change as

8:10 ↗ we see how these neighborhoods are are living and breathing this document And so I

8:15 ↗ don't know there needs to be a section saying how that change is happening I

8:20 ↗ just kind of wanted to bring up some waves of referencing that even if it's

8:24 ↗ just a staff and I would say I that this is just a small part

8:29 ↗ of the central plan and that language that you described is in the bigger plan

8:33 ↗ that of what it's entailed and that's 20 plus years and all those kinds of

8:37 ↗ thoughts that you had so that we were able to adjust it when needed. So

8:42 ↗ the good news is I think joy that we we dove into the weeds on

8:46 ↗ this right. And so we've all kind of sat around and said, okay, what is

8:50 ↗ this going to be? What's it going to look like? And I think what I

8:54 ↗ would say is, so let's assume something radical happens in one of the neighborhoods that

8:58 ↗ we hadn't anticipated. Okay. Let's assume that, let's say that like, for example, Pickering is

9:03 ↗ the site of a new high school. Okay, you know what, that would be, that

9:07 ↗ wouldn't necessarily be antithetical to what we were thinking should happen there, but it might

9:12 ↗ be a big enough driver that we might want to go back in and look

9:16 ↗ at the vision for Pickering and say, okay, now that we know that there's a

9:21 ↗ high school there, should we change anything? Do we need to look at any other,

9:26 ↗ you know, anything in there that we may not have thought about in 2017, 18?

9:31 ↗ - Okay, thank you. - Good. - Okay, we ready for page two? Okay,

9:37 ↗ so page two and this first section of the plan or the document I'm going

9:43 ↗ to say is really just kind of outlining how the plan pieces fit together because

9:48 ↗ it seemed like that was something that was going to be helpful. So now we

9:54 ↗ get into really the updated visions. Should we be peppering grammar and wording changes or

10:00 ↗ email that to you after the meeting? That's your choice if you want to do

10:06 ↗ it now, that's fine if you would rather just shoot me an email later I

10:10 ↗ can I can I'll let you know that I will definitely go through those and

10:15 ↗ put those in if you want to do it later your choice we wait. Something

10:19 ↗ major or no just the come after attainable the underlying line. I think you can

10:24 ↗ do that now and I think the fact down on page 2 page 2, yeah,

10:28 ↗ the on to underline clear table measurable passed up a little bit. Oh, sorry,

10:34 ↗ I didn't even see the underline. So you want a comma after attainable? I

10:40 ↗ agree. You know, I had an English teacher that told me like... No, it

10:45 ↗ doesn't go there. I'm going to hope there's also commas that's consistent with the

10:51 ↗ rest of the document. all right i'll try to restrain myself that's all right i

10:56 ↗ was just asking if this is the right venue i might cut you off from

11:01 ↗ cookies at some point since i did bring up cookies um this might take for

11:06 ↗ a while tonight and there are two boxes of cookies over there so if you

11:11 ↗ really need some sustenance please uh feel free to go over and get some i'll

11:16 ↗ be hanging out over there yeah we've already had ours so you know we're ready

11:21 ↗ um let me know that you are you want to make

11:27 ↗ a comment absolutely okay what what is it um and those

11:32 ↗ supposed of the city just before chapter three um i just

11:38 ↗ looked up the definition of supposed and it says maybe

11:44 ↗ And so I think the city is supposed to do their obligations. I mean they

11:50 ↗ must, right? Down just before Chapter 3, Regional Growth Center, you say those supposed of

11:55 ↗ the city. And so the things that you have that the city says they're going

12:01 ↗ to do, I think they need to do. I don't think you're just suggesting that

12:07 ↗ they might. Would you say required by instead of supposed of? Well something

12:12 ↗ that's different so so we can't with so what I

12:18 ↗ will tell you is that that those are identified as

12:24 ↗ city actions right within within the individual neighborhoods so we

12:30 ↗ have developer obligations and city actions and the measures for

12:36 ↗ success so right now those are You know if

12:42 ↗ the Commission wants different language there, that's fine. What I'll tell you

12:48 ↗ is obligating the city to do something through a comprehensive plan document

12:54 ↗ is probably not the right protocol. Just saying those actions of the

13:00 ↗ city just like you just said out loud. You just don't supposed.

13:05 ↗ It is a weird word choice. Necessity by the city?

13:13 ↗ We're only Keith so I think that make this and so not clear so the

13:18 ↗ clause beforehand is talking about the developer obligations and everyone's clear about that when you

13:24 ↗ move after the semi colon are you continuing to speak about the developer obligations are

13:30 ↗ you starting to speak about the city implementation actions city actions. Do we do you

13:36 ↗ even need that cause. I think it's good to show that there's 2 things going

13:41 ↗ on one is the developer and one is the city that we're at almost partners

13:47 ↗ in it. That's just a description of what

13:52 ↗ comes later. So I would just say and

13:58 ↗ city of the implementing actions or maybe by

14:04 ↗ the setting here. Eric, you're ready. Yeah, just

14:09 ↗ reusing this use reusing the the verbiage in

14:15 ↗ the columns and said implementation actions. OK, anything

14:21 ↗ else on page 2, 3. So here we

14:27 ↗ get to the updated visions and really this section of one through 10 was really

14:32 ↗ just a summary of kind of the high points of what we saw and what

14:38 ↗ we changed. So hopefully it's still accurate. When you say removing service, do you need

14:43 ↗ to say removing most of service? Because part of it's going into East Lake? I

14:49 ↗ don't know if that's... Or is that covered under number six? No, it's different. I

14:55 ↗ think it goes to 6 but it doesn't. I changed it. Okay. So

15:00 ↗ yeah, so originally we took all of service out. Right. And then we

15:06 ↗ had buyer's remorse and we put a couple pieces of property back in.

15:12 ↗ Do you want to switch that and say removing old route 10 and

15:17 ↗ most of service so that it's not most of old route 10? Right.

15:23 ↗ Is this the right spot to talk about how we're trying to toss

15:29 ↗ old route 10 off to Old Town? some area um no let's let

15:35 ↗ let's let that so you guys are gonna hopefully um get that conversation soon when

15:40 ↗ the old town plan update comes back here okay like a boomerang all right anything

15:46 ↗ else on the list of 10. now obviously if we make some other boundary changes

15:51 ↗ so right now all i'm anticipating is this one that's five and then we've talked

15:56 ↗ enough about six that i'm gonna guess there's gonna be at least some tweakage on

16:02 ↗ the east side of east lake um if there's anything else um you know we'll

16:08 ↗ i'll just go back in and and fill in the blanks after we talk about

16:13 ↗ the maps later tonight are we going to keep green necklace i don't know because

16:18 ↗ i missed that last meeting is it going to be network necklace glob spiderweb something

16:23 ↗ you know i don't i don't think i don't think we came to a firm

16:28 ↗ decision yeah we didn't yeah i yeah we're lindsay and i were just talking about

16:32 ↗ this before the meeting i think i like i like a necklace because then as

16:37 ↗ a as a derivative you could talk about the green jewels mountains the state park

16:42 ↗ and whatnot and then either the green thread or the green chain which then holds

16:46 ↗ them together which is the trails which i thought was kind of a nifty visual

16:51 ↗ metaphor so does that decision belong to us or city council

16:56 ↗ or parks So parks is probably going to drive that and so you

17:02 ↗ know if if there's clarity on the 8th then we'll either leave a green necklace

17:08 ↗ or change it to green whatever it is if that is still not decided on

17:13 ↗ the 8th my my my guess would be to leave green necklace here because if

17:19 ↗ if ultimately parks is going to change that to something else then we'll just go

17:24 ↗ back into the plan and fix it later. I'm with that.

17:30 ↗ Okay, so now we get into our new vision statement. So

17:36 ↗ this was kind of the old vision with new sense at

17:42 ↗ the beginning that Ron had suggested. Remember we talked this one

17:47 ↗ through? Where this one landed. Missing. Yeah, it reads entirely wrong

17:53 ↗ as far as grammar, but it just doesn't feel... like

17:59 ↗ anything it's missing an a a prosperous distinctive neighborhood central is an environmentally

18:04 ↗ rich vibrant and prosperous set of distinctive neighborhoods you could do that but

18:10 ↗ it still doesn't say anything a bunch of words it is but you

18:15 ↗ guys said you liked it i think ron liked it except for joy

18:21 ↗ who wasn't here she gets a pass So is it is

18:27 ↗ it fine or do you want to wordsmith it a bit? I'm fine if you

18:32 ↗ guys want to work it a little bit prosperous collection of distinctive neighborhoods you need

18:38 ↗ something between prosperous and instinctive I think I like collection of because the idea is

18:43 ↗ you have the neighborhoods which is which are each distinctive and then central Mexico which

18:48 ↗ is itself distinctive beyond in the greater city so I make sure that's clear come

18:54 ↗ thriving businesses and just adjust

19:00 ↗ so i think when we're talking about the central isaac area the

19:05 ↗ things that we're trying to convey is that it is a mix

19:11 ↗ of residential and business it is thriving it is dense Well, part

19:16 ↗ of having all these neighborhood visions too is to insinuate this is a community. This

19:21 ↗ isn't just where we go to buy our goods and we go back to our

19:25 ↗ homes. This is an integrated part of our city in a way that we want

19:29 ↗ it. This is the vision. So to me, it's missing that community heart to it.

19:34 ↗ So even if that's the word community right now, I think that's the point of

19:38 ↗ defining these are our neighborhoods, these are the fields, this is what we want. So

19:42 ↗ it's almost like central Issaquah, It does say where people live, work, play, and

19:48 ↗ learn, which can... Is it community? So instead of collection, what about community there, Joy?

19:54 ↗ Or would it be community before? Central Elizabeth is a community of environmentally rich, vibrant...

19:59 ↗ And I think you can just swap out collection for community. So it's a rich,

20:05 ↗ vibrant, prosperous community. Does that sound like it's more... Yeah. I like community. Because

20:11 ↗ you very much want the name prints. Well, I think that's the

20:16 ↗ point of why we're defining all these things is to-- we're really

20:22 ↗ trying to lace all these things together. So let's think about that.

20:28 ↗ You go to the next thing, and the first sentence is not

20:33 ↗ a sentence. Oh, it is at the very end. It's just-- Sensualist

20:39 ↗ will be is your subject verb. But everything before that is one

20:44 ↗ long qualifier. So you want me to move that to the beginning?

20:51 ↗ Central is a call will be a livable

20:57 ↗ and vibrant Center for our city comprised of

21:02 ↗ thriving or just comma and will be comprised

21:08 ↗ of then comma or Yeah, and will be

21:16 ↗ Yeah, you don't need a comma, sorry. Yeah, no comma. You and your commas. Yeah,

21:22 ↗ sorry. My seventh grade English teacher reprised me. I don't love how we say distinctive

21:28 ↗ neighborhoods twice. That is more of a pet peeve of mine. We have a community

21:33 ↗ of distinctive neighborhoods. Next sentence. I think you can get rid of and distinctive neighborhoods.

21:39 ↗ In which sentence? The second one. I like it in the first one. Oh, no,

21:45 ↗ yeah. I don't know if I was supposed to... Can you get

21:50 ↗ rid of thriving businesses and distinctive and just say comprised

21:56 ↗ of neighborhoods served by-- I like thriving. We really veto

22:02 ↗ districts too. Are we not doing that anymore? Yeah, we

22:08 ↗ have. You died. Identifiable neighborhoods? I don't think you need, I

22:14 ↗ don't think, I don't think name brands needs a qualifier. What is, what are

22:19 ↗ you trying to get with the comprised of part? I get the multimodal transportation

22:25 ↗ systems actually. I was trying to say businesses and housing together. But that's covered

22:31 ↗ by livable and vibrant. Livable and vibrant. Can you just get rid

22:37 ↗ of that whole section, just say, and will be served by a multiple introduction? No,

22:43 ↗ because livable doesn't necessarily mean residential and business together. Livable can mean a lot of

22:49 ↗ things. This is us being specific. But there's no residential in the... Can we table

22:55 ↗ this paragraph? Intimate instead of distinctive. Oh, I like that. Intimate neighbor? No. Because urban.

23:00 ↗ I wouldn't consider Pickering and Gilman particularly intimate. no i'm serious can we we might

23:06 ↗ get bogged down this can we table this and get circled back to it i

23:10 ↗ just don't like the distinctive neighborhoods being repetitive twice sure two sentences in a row

23:15 ↗ so you want me to try and find a word for distinctive so we get

23:19 ↗ a different word choice yeah all right or just just community of neighborhoods you don't

23:23 ↗ you don't you don't you don't need a word up there sure we go into

23:27 ↗ detail talking about why what their distinctions are comprised of thriving businesses and neighborhoods doesn't

23:32 ↗ have to be distinctive but we threw it out up here oh okay i like

23:37 ↗ i like having it if you're gonna have it somewhere have it down at the

23:41 ↗ bottom yeah okay uh question first sentence is second paragraph will be yeah it needs

23:46 ↗ to be a will be in the first will be no no paragraph above

23:52 ↗ will be yeah so in all of the uh city visions that i

23:58 ↗ have seen it usually addresses a year or says in the future blah

24:04 ↗ blah blah is something something something not will be well but that's not

24:10 ↗ how we've written the rest of them did you want to change them

24:16 ↗ all to is's I think you guys edited the future stuff.

24:22 ↗ Say "is." Oh, it's a mix. So in Newport, it's

24:27 ↗ a "will be," Pickering, it's an "is." So we need

24:33 ↗ standardization. That goes, I'll bring it up when we get there, but there's nothing that

24:39 ↗ always says "has" like it's in the past tense. Our tenses actually do get mixed

24:44 ↗ around a lot. Gilman is a has-been. Yeah. I wrote it off already. All right,

24:49 ↗ do you guys care is or will be? I like is because will be implies

24:54 ↗ that it isn't right now. Okay. Yes. everyone that i'm looking at because i've

25:00 ↗ got all of them up here everything except for bell red in

25:06 ↗ bellevue says is it is is so maybe a big comment fix

25:11 ↗ that yeah i'll just um all right i show up a note

25:17 ↗ yeah because you've you've got it it's every year you've got four

25:23 ↗ or five times i'm glad i mean it's three glad i'm consistently

25:28 ↗ inconsistent yeah and we still have two distinctives No, you know the

25:34 ↗ one about it's got a strike through yeah, this one's gone. The bottom of the.

25:39 ↗ Yeah, I was another one. I thought that was the end is not to write

25:45 ↗ yeah, but yeah that that distinctive is your better different meaning. Yeah, yeah. You do

25:50 ↗ need to come after connected though. Clear with that color. Anybody wants to make a

25:56 ↗ comment on that particular thing. I don't like the wording for the will serve

26:02 ↗ as well as visitors from surrounding neighborhoods and regions. I can see will serve

26:08 ↗ the citywide will serve you know citywide residents and you know the region but

26:13 ↗ to say the visitors are from surrounding neighborhoods I think it's a little bit

26:19 ↗ weird. Same thought I had. Any comment on that? I think it's a little

26:25 ↗ bit funky of wording, but I like the meaning saying residents and employees, people

26:31 ↗ from surrounding neighborhoods in Issaquah and people from the rest of the region. Do

26:37 ↗ you want to just call them people, not visitors? Yes. Well, or citizens because

26:42 ↗ you really want to put the Issaquah, I would think people first and then

26:48 ↗ other outside regions.

26:55 ↗ You could see what the 3 of you look like. So

27:01 ↗ you take the surrounding neighborhoods and the region to the front

27:06 ↗ side neighborhoods. Most of us and some players. Additionally.

27:12 ↗ No, I think it flows with just commas. We do want people to come in

27:17 ↗ and shop and stuff. They do now. We have to consider the region and how

27:22 ↗ we get through. Yeah, this is still a node for people from the Ritten Highlands

27:28 ↗ and Sammamish and whatnot that were the big nearby city for them to come and

27:33 ↗ work, live and play. Or not live, but work. I guess what I'm seeing is

27:38 ↗ you're glumping all the rest of the city with the others. I don't see it

27:44 ↗ that way. I just see it as a way that's describing this is going

27:50 ↗ to be an area used by all of these people, not necessarily in ranked

27:55 ↗ order. Yeah, I think as Keith as you edited it, I think it's good.

28:01 ↗ Okay, moving on. I like the next section. Very short and succinct. Hard to

28:07 ↗ criticize that one. You could make it green. So, can I

28:13 ↗ do my comments now? Okay. I don't see us protecting the

28:18 ↗ environment at all there. What I see is the environment is

28:24 ↗ serving residents, employees, the neighborhoods in the region. And I don't

28:30 ↗ think that's what our environment is going to be doing. We're

28:35 ↗ supposed to be protecting the environment to serve the natural environment,

28:41 ↗ not necessarily the built environment and the shoppers, right? Yeah. I think

28:47 ↗ it's fine. Environment is heavily stressed elsewhere in the document. I don't

28:53 ↗ think we need to name check it in each paragraph. This is

28:59 ↗ the vision. This is the, this is, this is what's setting the

29:04 ↗ tone for the rest and if we're saying that our environment is supposed to be

29:10 ↗ serving the residents, employees and surrounding neighborhoods in the region, that, that does not proclaim

29:16 ↗ the greenness of Issaquah and one of our core values of the environment. So I

29:22 ↗ disagree.

29:29 ↗ i'm good with it as is what do you guys think i mean is would

29:33 ↗ city staff back uh saying that isaacwa finds it a priority to protect our environment

29:38 ↗ i think they would so so that we start we start off you can't disassociate

29:43 ↗ this first sentence from the rest of it so you start you start off the

29:48 ↗ vision by central isaac was an environmentally rich vibrant and prosperous community so for me

29:53 ↗ i mean that that i think goes to connie's point that it's environmentally I mean,

29:58 ↗ so I think that's there. I'm not concerned that it's lacking

30:04 ↗ in the vision statement because I think it's there, but, and

30:10 ↗ I don't know. So I also think that this piece of

30:15 ↗ the puzzle It's really high level. I think we get to

30:21 ↗ there's environment in every neighborhood in terms of obligations and city

30:27 ↗ actions and measures of success. So I'm fine with it the

30:32 ↗ way it is. I know. Tomorrow night. Well, we're accommodating new development. Why can't we

30:38 ↗ also say that we're protecting our environmental resources? I mean, that's just an add-on that's

30:43 ↗ like three or four words, so it doesn't really change our thing that much, but

30:48 ↗ yet it adds something that we think is of core value. So if we're going

30:52 ↗ to say that we want to accommodate development, then why can't we also just say

30:57 ↗ that we're protecting... I think the "we're going to grow gracefully," I think that that

31:02 ↗ captures that sentiment. Yeah, and it says... Transition gracefully is the way they put it.

31:07 ↗ ...sustinctive, livable, connected, and sustainable are prioritized. Can we say gracefully over time while protecting

31:12 ↗ our natural... These sentences are so long, I don't... They are very long, so why

31:17 ↗ not make them longer? I don't really want to shove any more phrases into it.

31:22 ↗ Why don't we get rid of some of our duplication of words and add the

31:26 ↗ environment instead? What if you say, "Distinguished

31:32 ↗ by community amenities and a strong relationship with the environment"?

31:38 ↗ I like that. Does that help? I do. I think

31:43 ↗ so. Where were you reading? Middle of the paragraph. And

31:49 ↗ a strong relationship after the "A"? Stay in the word

31:55 ↗ "strong". Yep. Great. Fine. So you say put

32:00 ↗ the green necklace section here, but then later on, if

32:06 ↗ I am not mistaken, there's another page that says green

32:12 ↗ necklace. So where is it going to be? Like five

32:17 ↗ pages down. That bubble. The green cloud. It shouldn't be

32:23 ↗ there. It should be gone. Oh, it may be. It's on. No

32:28 ↗ bubble. We're looking at an older version. Sorry, that was probably the version that was

32:34 ↗ sent out. Bubble free. Good. All right. Moving on. I'm backing up. Sorry. Okay, map,

32:40 ↗ right? Map is hopefully good, at least for now. We're going to talk about map

32:46 ↗ boundaries later. And later on you will be, I mean, like maybe each neighborhood's a

32:51 ↗ different color, right? If you think that would be helpful. I do. Okay.

32:59 ↗ but know then that you'll probably have to continue that same color for each neighborhood

33:03 ↗ because then people start to be like it was blue here but it's not blue

33:07 ↗ here what are you saying so you may want to just you know say this

33:11 ↗ is what we're picking and we're sticking to it and when it's not open to

33:14 ↗ suggestion i picked cerulean blue and that's how it's going to be because down the

33:18 ↗ line i can see people referencing back you might not want to pick the same

33:22 ↗ colors that we use for livable distinctive connective and sustainable so as not to associate

33:26 ↗ them yes color confusion the other yeah okay all

33:32 ↗ right uh we got two paragraphs on neighborhood visions

33:38 ↗ comments edits suggestions yeah so seconds engines after visions

33:43 ↗ no no comma where are you um first paragraph

33:49 ↗ first paragraph second line right you don't like that

33:55 ↗ one all right just killed it anything else no

34:01 ↗ no that one's supposed to be there that one

34:07 ↗ should stay No, the one before it needs to

34:13 ↗ be deleted because it's subject verb, not because it's a list.

34:19 ↗ Yeah. Okay. Are you ready? I think this is good. Okay.

34:24 ↗ I have one. It should be monitored by the city. And

34:30 ↗ I would say will be monitored by the city because...

34:36 ↗ You know my suggestion for all of those mandates to the city I would suggest

34:42 ↗ leaving them as suggestive and let the council decide if they want them to be

34:48 ↗ mandates and I I understand where you're coming from Connie. I just have Less comfort

34:54 ↗ that we can tell the council they have to do things Earlier in the document

34:59 ↗ you talked about it needing to be measurable. Yep, and And that can be

35:05 ↗ an argument that the city should have to do it, right? So when you take

35:10 ↗ this before Land and Shore, could you make a note to bring that up? I

35:16 ↗ definitely can. That would be great. Just basically an asterisk of saying right now it's

35:21 ↗ stated like and we would like you to determine. That there was concern over the...

35:26 ↗ Not concern, but saying right now it's stated as a should and we want to

35:31 ↗ see where you lie on it being a will. Right. and that just that just

35:37 ↗ puts our comment to it without it necessarily we're saying what they should or will

35:41 ↗ or versus just so they're aware of the fact that we're reading something into that

35:44 ↗ and that way they need to make a decision and say no we we wanted

35:48 ↗ to should intentionally yep versus a will why don't we just put will in parentheses

35:52 ↗ and let them say here's our recommendation do you like it or not I see

35:58 ↗ it more as an asterisk of even keep it in keep it keep

36:03 ↗ it in mind so that they're like yeah this is intentionally what we

36:09 ↗ want to do rather than us telling them what it should be or

36:15 ↗ will be sure okay livable we have words that describe livable and then

36:21 ↗ a bunch of bullet points underneath livable I've got one harmonize new development

36:26 ↗ in its setting do we want to clarify that

36:33 ↗ As we harmonize new development For that one as we I'm

36:38 ↗ thinking specifically Gilman and Pickering as new development comes in they

36:44 ↗ may and there might be a brief transition period where if

36:49 ↗ there won't be harmony in the setting as there might be

36:55 ↗ a story building next to a strip mall and And I think specifically

37:01 ↗ with those two neighborhoods, there's gonna be a bit of a transition. We wanna be

37:05 ↗ sure that after those neighborhoods have finished being redeveloped, everything is in harmony. Is there

37:10 ↗ a way for that sentence to add a qualifier or do you think that that's

37:14 ↗ adequately captured elsewhere by the fact that we're trying to have density and fun stuff

37:19 ↗ like that? But I just wanna make sure that no one reads that and thinks

37:23 ↗ that as new development comes in, it's gonna be necessarily harmonious with existing development. specifically

37:28 ↗ I think in Gilman and Pickering. So these are desired objectives, right? I mean we're

37:34 ↗ trying, we want it to harmonize at the end of the day. Okay, so this

37:40 ↗ is the goal that by the time we're finished it will all be in harmony.

37:46 ↗ That I'm good with that. I just want to make sure it's not that as

37:52 ↗ we transition things will necessarily always be in harmony. Just one

37:57 ↗ comp it should be in harmony even during construction in that the

38:03 ↗ existing residents should not be really impacted negatively so your definition of

38:09 ↗ harmony may change afterwards it may be the setting in the buildings,

38:14 ↗ but during construction bullet point is about scale architecture. Well even and

38:20 ↗ so I think so I think your point is that This is supposed

38:26 ↗ to be where we're supposed to be at the end of it. I think I'm

38:31 ↗ good with it. I just want to make sure that it's not trying to suggest

38:36 ↗ that the scale and architecture buildings will necessarily be in harmony as the neighbor as

38:41 ↗ as yeah as neighborhoods transition, but if they say this what do you guys think

38:46 ↗ you go with it. Yeah, I think the explanation that this is the goal is

38:51 ↗ that the objectives that's what they're listed as but I think it's a good point

38:56 ↗ to bring up just kind of change that too. I don't necessarily think

39:01 ↗ it needs to be changed. I think having explained that these are end

39:07 ↗ goals as opposed to-- End goals, exactly. I think I'm good with it.

39:13 ↗ Why is social interaction capitalized under foster-- the first one under urban community?

39:19 ↗ Beats the heck out of me. OK, sorry. I'm just curious. I didn't

39:25 ↗ know there's some deep meaning behind that. That's fixed in the redlined version

39:31 ↗ that I have. Oh. So

39:36 ↗ is there a reason sustainability is in the top

39:42 ↗ bar? Is that an intentional duplication, accessible and sustainable,

39:48 ↗ even though we have a whole component part called

39:53 ↗ sustainable? I think that's fine because it points that

39:59 ↗ they buttress each other. And we could do that

40:05 ↗ with some of the other ones. I have no

40:10 ↗ opinion on that one. You realize that we've gone

40:16 ↗ through all of this before? Mm-hmm. um there's

40:22 ↗ a uh third bullet down from urban community instead of saying foster because you've

40:28 ↗ already used the word foster once i must like foster yes maybe instill okay

40:34 ↗ do you want to kind of create that that's that awareness um make it

40:40 ↗ more personal and then provide neighborhood schools to support community I think we

40:46 ↗ want to include that in somewhere. I heard your keys provide neighborhood schools to

40:51 ↗ support community. Yeah, what was your question run. We want to insert urban into

40:57 ↗ that what point not not. They're going to be urban. I don't think there's

41:03 ↗ another choice but you know because I just not a plan. I mean their

41:09 ↗ their model of suburban sites won't happen here. I think it's fine. It just

41:15 ↗ won't. Okay, so you can change foster the second to instill or

41:20 ↗ nurture nurture sense of safety I like foster because it's because it's speaking.

41:26 ↗ It's not just necessarily sense of safety, but it's the actual infrastructure that's

41:32 ↗ going to be in the neighborhood. Well, you want to use foster twice

41:38 ↗ that was the point. Yeah, that's fine. We use provide twice what I

41:43 ↗ don't like nor to nurture but. Hey. uh so in the

41:49 ↗ cr the redlined version that i have under economic vitality um the

41:55 ↗ second bullet has minimized job loss crossed out i think that should

42:01 ↗ remain in look i fixed it not sure which version's the latest

42:07 ↗ this one we're going with this one okay lindsay she's got fresh

42:13 ↗ printouts i'll grab one there as well but Yes,

42:19 ↗ I realize that they're

42:24 ↗ different. Okay. Okay, ready

42:29 ↗ to ramble to distinctive?

42:34 ↗ Is there a reason

42:39 ↗ why in an environment

42:45 ↗ there isn't a bullet

42:50 ↗ point about wildlife corridors?

42:55 ↗ Why we don't mention

43:00 ↗ the other members of

43:05 ↗ our community here? Seems

43:10 ↗ like a... I think that might go on the

43:16 ↗ very first paragraph under environmental features. You've got the creeks, the wetlands, open spaces. You

43:21 ↗ could add environmental corridors to that list. I know we just like to always say,

43:26 ↗ well, you know, we know about the corridors and we mentioned other places, but it

43:31 ↗ just seems like this is the place to mention them. Because you've got an environmental

43:37 ↗ corridor show up in the sustainable columns. Right. i think

43:42 ↗ you know maybe it's something about you know maintaining and or prioritizing our wildlife corridors

43:47 ↗ and their functionality i mean you want that as a separate bullet or do you

43:52 ↗ want to just include wildlife quarters in the laundry list that's in bullet number one

43:58 ↗ i put it in the list because i think in maybe in sustainable because i

44:03 ↗ like i like integrate i really like what that means because you're you're we're protecting

44:08 ↗ them and nurturing them but also integrating the corridors into our yeah, it's part of

44:14 ↗ our environment. Yeah, it's still but it's still an urban environment that they need

44:19 ↗ to be interfacing with so I like having them there. Okay. Question Keith on

44:25 ↗ the first bullet for economic vitality. Yep. Our creeks. Businesses that are special to

44:31 ↗ the city. Protected open spaces, natural views and wildlife corridors. yes

44:36 ↗ do you not like that one are there businesses that aren't special that are not

44:42 ↗ special um i just don't want to go there you know that doesn't read really

44:48 ↗ well it just kind of asks the question like is there a list there is

44:53 ↗ a list okay that was a question okay um we'll maybe rework bullet number one

44:59 ↗ so it seems less preferential apparently okay um i think what i was going to

45:05 ↗ do um the person that i have says retain and support existing businesses that are

45:11 ↗ oh that are special to the city So I think what was what was trying

45:17 ↗ to be gotten there Please we have certain small businesses Like things that are in

45:22 ↗ Gilman village We also have some big businesses like Costco and others and Swedish that

45:28 ↗ are important to the city It's not to imply that there are others that are

45:33 ↗ not so important to the city. So this one's just fraught with problem. Yeah.

45:39 ↗ So we will do something with that that's hopefully genius. Yes.

45:44 ↗ Okay. I've got a question to the my commissioners. I learned

45:50 ↗ a new term today. rain gardens and how rain gardens actually process water runoff. We've

45:55 ↗ never talked about it here, but I thought something like that might be a great

46:00 ↗ addition to environment for our central Isoquel plan because it's a great way to get

46:04 ↗ rid of water runoff. And there's probably going to be a fair amount of it.

46:09 ↗ we talk i mean there's green streetscapes and then there's green buildings right but a

46:14 ↗ rain garden is actually designed to process and filter the water and that's a tool

46:20 ↗ that we're use existingly in the city we have sample projects already that are rain

46:25 ↗ gardens so we're already actively doing rain gardens as stormwater It's a pretty small micro,

46:30 ↗ so I don't know mentioning it. I mean, we'd have to start getting into a

46:35 ↗ huge list of how we treat stone water drain up. Right, because we're not talking,

46:41 ↗ you know, solar panels. I mean, we're doing more umbrella kinds of things in this,

46:46 ↗ whereas that's actually a specific implementation piece. That's true. Okay. I thought I'd just bring

46:51 ↗ it out because it's like, when I heard about it, I was like, wow, hey,

46:57 ↗ what a great idea. Okay, so just those two. All right, anything

47:02 ↗ else indistinctive? Any other potential objectives that

47:08 ↗ we find more troubling than not? All

47:13 ↗ right, let's move to connected. On the

47:19 ↗ first bullet, when you say complete, would

47:24 ↗ it be helpful to add multimodal? Do

47:30 ↗ you think that's implied by complete?

47:36 ↗ I think either way so complete means something to me because we have a complete

47:41 ↗ streets program which is you know care towards those kind of things like putting in

47:46 ↗ I'm missing sidewalks and bike lanes and stuff, but if that's not as transparent. I

47:51 ↗ can you guys think is just complete station system means complete streets to you guys.

47:57 ↗ Yeah, I think complete is fine. Okay, I'm good with it. Okay. And on bullet

48:02 ↗ point three, create safe, convenient, and comfortable travel routes. I didn't really understand the word

48:07 ↗ comfortable. To me, I prefer like efficient, you know, like not sitting at the same,

48:11 ↗ harmonizing traffic lights. You know, I think of more... quick efficiencies. I don't know about

48:17 ↗ comfortable. So I think comfortable there is specifically for like the bikers and walkers. Think

48:21 ↗ of Newport Way is a great example because you'll see that I think in the

48:26 ↗ Newport and then I think in Gilman talks about Newport Way being making a more

48:31 ↗ comfortable street. I think that's not for the... for the vehicular drivers to become more

48:35 ↗ comfortable. So that it's also the people that are sharing the street are more comfortable.

48:40 ↗ It's also kind of loosely aimed at getting towards things like weather protection and things

48:45 ↗ like benches so that people can't walk very far. Maybe there's places for them to

48:50 ↗ stop and rest along the way. Okay, I can appreciate that. It didn't come through

48:54 ↗ to me in that work, but I was clearly in a wrong mindset. Yeah, because

48:59 ↗ I also think it's-- DANNY WARSHAY: Some of these are kind of veiled. I also,

49:03 ↗ when I see that, in addition to what Keith said about covers and branches and

49:07 ↗ whatnot, I also think sometimes a route can be perfectly safe, but that doesn't necessarily

49:10 ↗ mean people are comfortable using it. DANNY WARSHAY: Right. And so I think that there's

49:15 ↗ a very different design if you're trying to simply be safe, where you might just

49:20 ↗ put up concrete barriers versus something comfortable where you have more of a harmonious, more

49:25 ↗ pedestrian friendly street environment. I came at that from the wrong perspective. So I understand

49:30 ↗ what you're saying by comfort. But is there a way to talk about-- efficiency effectively

49:35 ↗ of you know, like harmonizing traffic lights or you know, these are small again small

49:40 ↗ things but being able to just even just integrate of the concept of us wanting

49:46 ↗ to. Does the second bullet cover that improving connectivity that's not simply new connections but

49:51 ↗ also making sure the existing connections are. A fact that it's a patient system covers

49:57 ↗ that too. Yeah, we think it's covered that's cool. I don't I don't think efficiency

50:02 ↗ is covered because You can have all these other things. It

50:08 ↗ could be connected, but it doesn't mean you don't have to go out of your

50:12 ↗ way. And you know when you set down any structure, you're going to have the

50:17 ↗ people who are trampling through the grass to create the efficient route for commuter walking

50:21 ↗ and by bicycling especially you want to create efficient pathways so people will get

50:27 ↗ out of their cars and use those for the multimodal so I I agree

50:33 ↗ with your efficiency as a separate issue. So I think so what if I

50:39 ↗ agree to I think what if you added efficiency into bullet to so it's

50:45 ↗ improve neighborhood connectivity efficiency and remove barriers. Because it all seems like the same

50:51 ↗ bucket. Okay. And you guys can say no. For the

50:56 ↗ very last bullet, would it be helpful to say a vehicle light and vehicle free?

51:01 ↗ I don't know how you'd ever get to a vehicle free. No, I think in

51:06 ↗ the vision we have, I could see, especially if you don't have kids, you live

51:11 ↗ in Esquire, you're by the transit center, I could see if people could live vehicle

51:15 ↗ free. It won't be a large majority, but especially with car sharing and whatnot, I

51:19 ↗ think it'll be much more feasible. Is vehicle light a thing? So the reason I

51:23 ↗ brought that up is because you'll see that sometimes that in worse, and sometimes the

51:27 ↗ attempt is to get people to stop using their car for commutes and whatnot, but

51:31 ↗ still own a car. You know what? No, no, nevermind. Now that I talked through

51:35 ↗ it out loud, I'm good with it. Keep it.

51:41 ↗ one minor one Keith uh yeah in connectivity uh middle human size I think the

51:47 ↗ street grid instead of the grid Street thank you um and is that what that

51:53 ↗ green picture is supposed to be isn't it cool oh yeah didn't we say we

51:58 ↗ wanted a an identifier sure right I think Vicki's another version okay - Is

52:04 ↗ it a something something picture? - I mean, yeah. - I don't mind. - I

52:10 ↗ see it in the other version. - I don't mind that if you labeled it

52:15 ↗ saying what it was, that makes sense. - Yeah, I actually thought it was kind

52:20 ↗ of very Tron-like. For those of us who are old. - Is that what we're

52:25 ↗ aspiring to? - I think that's gonna happen. - And then safe, convenient, and comfortable,

52:31 ↗ comma after convenient. - Where? - Third bullet. - Safe, convenient, comma. And in

52:37 ↗ all of these, does anybody else want the titles bolded? Yes. Sure.

52:42 ↗ We're in a previous version. Serious. I know, I do love this

52:48 ↗ crossing. You're nailing it. And then I'm wondering under urban community where

52:54 ↗ the first sentence provide robust telecommunications infrastructure, I'm wondering if we should

53:00 ↗ also be saying something to the notion of power or electrical infrastructure?

53:07 ↗ That's very important for us as a community. I think

53:12 ↗ in this connected one the goal of saying the robust

53:18 ↗ telecommunication infrastructure was so that people can work from home

53:23 ↗ and so I might clarify that a little bit further

53:29 ↗ just say to enable No, because I think you also

53:34 ↗ need it so that people will you know tech companies

53:40 ↗ will be comfortable working here. Oh good point. Good point.

53:45 ↗ Okay. Sustainable? Can I, consistent and can we have some

53:51 ↗ descriptors over the energy? Because our problem is it's like this.

53:56 ↗ I don't think energy belongs in the connected section. Would you

54:02 ↗ put it in sustainable? I think it does because, oh go

54:08 ↗ ahead. Well I'd agree that it does because you talk about

54:13 ↗ urban infrastructure which is connected for us as a city, greater region, businesses,

54:19 ↗ homes, all of those things. Infrastructure is really key. But we don't ever, we don't

54:25 ↗ ever, we don't touch on energy anywhere else in the document. No, and in sustainable,

54:30 ↗ there's an economic vitality section which says ensure infrastructure investment support future growth. I think

54:36 ↗ you could add it in that area. You don't work for PSE anymore, do you?

54:41 ↗ No, I don't. So I don't know, I don't have a horse in this anymore.

54:47 ↗ Okay. Um... So to Kristi's point, I don't know where it belongs.

54:52 ↗ Maybe it doesn't belong in Connected. Maybe it does. So power is-- so

54:58 ↗ I think maybe Connie and Kristi know a little bit more about this

55:04 ↗ than maybe you guys do because you haven't heard it. So clean power--

55:10 ↗ so PSC tracks power outages. PSC doesn't track power brownouts. And so what happens

55:16 ↗ is we have a lot of tech people who work in our community

55:22 ↗ who rely on very clean power. And even Swedish, if their power gets

55:28 ↗ to a certain point, it kicks on their backup generators because if they're

55:33 ↗ doing surgeries, they can't have dirty power. So they keep logs and it

55:39 ↗ actually goes gray more than you'd guess. And for those of us who have

55:45 ↗ backup batteries for our CPUs, they click all the time. So I think it

55:50 ↗ is important. I think it is part of an urban infrastructure that we need

55:56 ↗ to rely on to grow. We have a couple substations in town that haven't

56:02 ↗ been built on. One up in the Highlands, and then the one on Newport

56:08 ↗ has the ability to double in size. And so not Newport, SR 900, it's

56:13 ↗ kind of on Newport. So the question is, where should it go? I think

56:19 ↗ it should go somewhere. I think livable and economic vitality might actually

56:25 ↗ be the best spot. Because if you're talking about having green power, I think that

56:30 ↗ would go under sustainable. But if you're talking about having safe, reliable power, I think

56:36 ↗ livable economic vitality would go there, along with things like job creation, retaining workforce, and

56:41 ↗ whatnot. So the sustainable sections, one of the kind of word cloud is planning for

56:47 ↗ the present and future. I think that's where it goes and I would talk about

56:52 ↗ also water maybe. Yeah, then we should also be talking, I mean there's a few

56:57 ↗ things, if we're gonna be adding, which I think it's actually a good idea to

57:01 ↗ talk about all that the grid entails, but then we're also talking about how we

57:05 ↗ make trash as a community. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, yeah, hold on, yeah, time out.

57:10 ↗ These really sound like City of Issaquah issues, not Central Issaquah issues. And so

57:16 ↗ I think all of these things, these aren't unique to the neighborhoods. And I think

57:21 ↗ if they should be addressed in the planning documents, it should be at a city

57:27 ↗ level and not at a sub-area level. Because you're right, because then you start talking

57:33 ↗ about trash and sewage. And I don't think that that's appropriate in this document. I

57:38 ↗ think that the amount of growth that you're planning in a narrow area makes power

57:44 ↗ core. because we don't have it and that's one of the energy sucks

57:50 ↗ sort of like traffic, right? We're spending chapters on mobility here. I mean,

57:56 ↗ we're talking about it forever, but when you get a large infrastructure blip

58:01 ↗ like that, if you don't have power and that is the rest of

58:07 ↗ town is small compared to this future growth. i i think it needs

58:13 ↗ to be addressed i don't know that the other ones do we have a water

58:19 ↗ plan going in but we don't have a plan for power in the city we

58:25 ↗ have no other place okay so i I don't think it goes in connected because

58:30 ↗ you're talking more about transit and like bikes and walkings in this one. I

58:36 ↗ like it in sustainability. And so is there anything else on this particular one

58:42 ↗ that you want to change? Interconnected. Okay. Yes, I have one. On the create

58:48 ↗ safe convenient and comfortable travel routes, I recommend removing the word travel and add

58:53 ↗ a pedestrian and bicycle routes. puts the emphasis on the two things that

58:59 ↗ we're trying to accomplish no but your vehicle routes still need to be safe yeah

59:04 ↗ no travel there's no reason no reason to exclude cars nowhere in here do we

59:09 ↗ actually talk about bicyclists so what happens is we're going to develop a neighborhood and

59:14 ↗ there aren't going to be they're at the top of the page and then and

59:19 ↗ as we talked about complete transportation system no that that is you don't think that

59:25 ↗ bicycle routes will get removed. - No. - No. - The opposite. - So

59:31 ↗ we're looking at more bicycle routes. - Yeah. - Yeah, aspire to the creation

59:36 ↗ of a vehicle-free lifestyle option. Again, that doesn't say anything about bicycles.

59:42 ↗ So I don't think I mean skateboards. So there's a reason why I'm

59:48 ↗ bringing that out. Yeah. Well, so hang on so I don't disagree. I

59:54 ↗ mean so transit we have something in here that says increased transit routes.

59:59 ↗ Okay, transits over the top we say increased transit service. So I I

1:00:05 ↗ could see adding a new bullet that says increase bike routes. That's good

1:00:10 ↗ service. Increased bike ability or something like that because it's

1:00:16 ↗ but you're both adding around so pads and sidewalks, you know I mean

1:00:22 ↗ like in that it can that bullet part point service all three modes

1:00:28 ↗ that are non-vehicle transit service bicycle routes and Pedestrian paths actually I like

1:00:33 ↗ what Keith said add bicycle routes simple and the reason why I'm bringing

1:00:39 ↗ that up is because I When we're talking about

1:00:45 ↗ doing some of these TPI road improvements, bicyclists are getting moved

1:00:51 ↗ off in favor of parking. Thank you. What are you going

1:00:56 ↗ to add it as? Another bullet. Are you going to add

1:01:02 ↗ another bullet? What's the bullet going to say? Give him some

1:01:07 ↗ direction. Increase bike routes or add bike routes. That's it? That's

1:01:13 ↗ it. Sustainable. This is going to council. You need to change

1:01:18 ↗ your color so you can read the block. It's

1:01:24 ↗ dark blue on the paper. It's nice turquoise on the screen.

1:01:29 ↗ All right, so when we talk about the grid, should that

1:01:35 ↗ be an urban community? Where? I mean, what section do we

1:01:41 ↗ want to put when we talk about the grid? Would that

1:01:46 ↗ be under urban community? I would put it under economic vitality,

1:01:52 ↗ where it says ensure infrastructure investments support future growth with adequate...

1:01:58 ↗ Power, soup or water. Maybe infrastructure should be its own thing. I mean, maybe it

1:02:03 ↗ needs to have another one. We have bullet points underneath that, having the grid be

1:02:08 ↗ one of the bullet points under infrastructure. I disagree. I think infrastructure can rest and

1:02:13 ↗ support future growth is important. And if there is a bullet, I don't think we

1:02:18 ↗ need to be highlighting specific infrastructures. I don't think that this planning document is the

1:02:23 ↗ right spot for that. I completely hear you and I think we obviously

1:02:29 ↗ need to think about this as a city-wide thing. I don't know. I mean, I

1:02:35 ↗ agree we're looking at adding mass, a massive amount of volume that the city has

1:02:41 ↗ never seen before. That means an increase in the way that we interact in our

1:02:47 ↗ environment through trash, power. I mean, I always, water is one of my go-to's especially

1:02:53 ↗ when we think about the runoff from the fire station and our wells. I mean

1:02:58 ↗ like so to me all these things having a bullet point isn't really that difficult

1:03:03 ↗ for us. It's not like we're it takes away from this document by mentioning it.

1:03:07 ↗ But I just I just don't see but I don't see that that buttressed anywhere

1:03:12 ↗ else elsewhere in the plan. for us to go here and then name check different

1:03:18 ↗ parts of infrastructure, but then not address it anywhere else. We're name checking different parts

1:03:22 ↗ of the environment that we're protecting. We're name checking that we're doing transit and bike

1:03:27 ↗ and walking and schools. And we're name checking development as far as retail and Right

1:03:31 ↗ and then when you look elsewhere in the plan we have specific requirements around retail

1:03:36 ↗ and no net job loss. We have specific requirements about where we want trail corridors,

1:03:42 ↗ specific requirements around sound transit stations and whatnot. I think, I don't think infrastructures fit

1:03:47 ↗ elsewhere in this document. I think the infrastructure requirements are very much a citywide issue.

1:03:52 ↗ I think especially, you know, my PAC hat that I don't own anymore. I mean

1:03:57 ↗ the amount of growth that we're looking at here psc would never look at just

1:04:03 ↗ central isaac as an environmental need it would be blended in with the entire east

1:04:08 ↗ county for their planning purposes so it's just it's just it's just not that material

1:04:14 ↗ when you look at things like water electricity planning that stuff that's being planned well

1:04:19 ↗ beyond the sub area yes but we can also ask for it to be included

1:04:24 ↗ in part of being necessary for this area Yeah, I gotta be honest, I knew

1:04:29 ↗ PSC had issues with Clean Energy. I didn't realize how much they were affecting this

1:04:33 ↗ community. So that's on me for not being aware of that. And that makes me

1:04:37 ↗ want to be like, I think we're missing a chunk in this document when we

1:04:41 ↗ talk about the planning of it. Maybe this is something that, not that we need

1:04:45 ↗ to start having Keith rewrite whole sections about it, But maybe this does need to

1:04:49 ↗ be integrated in a way and to me either we can do it with bullet

1:04:52 ↗ points here or we can start adding it to all of our other neighborhoods. I

1:04:56 ↗ don't know that it's appropriate in all the neighborhoods because that's actually one of my

1:05:00 ↗ complaints is that we start to repeat our bullet points and they're not actually very

1:05:04 ↗ specific. So I don't think we're going to have specifics here about the grid to

1:05:08 ↗ be able to contribute to the rest of the document. So I would be a

1:05:12 ↗ proponent of adding something here to talk about the increased need. We talk about that

1:05:16 ↗ all the time when we go over the SIP on the semiannual basis of being

1:05:20 ↗ like, hey, how are we catching up with resources? How is this, how is fire

1:05:24 ↗ and police responding to our growth? I mean, this is a constant thing that we're

1:05:29 ↗ talking about with our growth is how do we have our resources match what we

1:05:33 ↗ perceive is going to be coming in and not falling behind and I think that

1:05:37 ↗ water power are things a part of that. And I think at the SIPP level,

1:05:41 ↗ I think that's appropriate. I don't think that that's, I don't think that that needs

1:05:45 ↗ to be gone into detail at the sub area level. Even on a bullet point?

1:05:49 ↗ Is that in detail? I mean it's not like we're adding it now throughout all

1:05:53 ↗ the neighborhood visions. But one of the things that's really happening differently is these codes

1:05:57 ↗ are going to be written from here and because of the density and all this

1:06:01 ↗ being added to it, the city's probably gonna have to go through and rewrite its

1:06:06 ↗ existing codes for a lot of this stuff, which if they were not to do

1:06:10 ↗ this, they wouldn't have to do. So that's the reason to have it in this

1:06:15 ↗ document. And we haven't talked about fire, and I think fire's another one. We may

1:06:19 ↗ have to have five new fire trucks in the downtown area. So you need to

1:06:24 ↗ think about growth the other thing which someplace in here I would like to see

1:06:30 ↗ is the livability while it's growing Because I do know Gateway had major brownouts out

1:06:36 ↗ there while the power grid was coming on for the Gateway project And if we

1:06:42 ↗ don't have some codes and standards in their livability while we're growing around infrastructure I

1:06:48 ↗ think we've fallen short. I really appreciate that comment Mary. I'd like to Excuse

1:06:54 ↗ me, I'm sorry, Ron. Build on that point as well. I like what you're saying,

1:06:58 ↗ Joy, because it's really important even today. If you think about the central Esquadra Valley

1:07:03 ↗ floor, it's where our neighborhoods connect. People come down. Whenever there's power out, people come

1:07:08 ↗ down here to get gas. They come down here to get - Resources, yeah. -

1:07:13 ↗ All sorts of resources. And so it's not only important today at this moment, but

1:07:17 ↗ as we grow as a community, we need to be able to support the entire

1:07:22 ↗ city. - I like that, it is. It is something that connects, that it can,

1:07:26 ↗ you know, this area connects our whole community. It's kind of our hub and so

1:07:31 ↗ I'm fine. I like the idea of actually putting infrastructure as its own thing under

1:07:36 ↗ sustainability and having bullet points and spilling that out. But if that's too detailed and

1:07:41 ↗ we don't want to go there, then I do think that at least it needs

1:07:45 ↗ to be mentioned in a bullet point under economic fatality. Anybody else? I think this

1:07:51 ↗ obviously suggests that we need to have a larger conversation about

1:07:57 ↗ this or maybe get an update how the city is handling

1:08:03 ↗ this in general. I support either listing or adding some bullet

1:08:08 ↗ points for the main areas. Exactly what would you put in

1:08:14 ↗ that bullet point? I would

1:08:20 ↗ put another bullet point under economic fatality if we don't and I agree I understand

1:08:25 ↗ if people are like hesitant to add another section that is infrastructure but that would

1:08:31 ↗ be my recommendation because to me I think it's important enough to do so but

1:08:37 ↗ if we did I would suggest it then be another bullet point that would say

1:08:42 ↗ that we continue to scale infrastructure as as as needed and then we list what

1:08:48 ↗ that is and that is you know, fire

1:08:54 ↗ and rescue, that's water, that's waste, and that's

1:09:00 ↗ power. How about infrastructure and public amenities should

1:09:05 ↗ occur concurrently with or in advance of development,

1:09:10 ↗ including... Yep. I like that. I really like

1:09:16 ↗ that. That's from Bell Red's version. oh yeah i'm

1:09:22 ↗ i'm just doing i'm good with that and so you have infrastructure actually you

1:09:27 ↗ have that language about advancement concurrently it's in there somewhere yeah that that that

1:09:33 ↗ i see value with stressing that the the infrastructure investments need to be concurrent

1:09:38 ↗ or an advancement of growth that i actually i see value in having that

1:09:44 ↗ language here Boom. We've satisfied multiple people's concerns. So I just

1:09:50 ↗ have one confusion. Connected on the purple says urban infrastructure in its title.

1:09:56 ↗ And so it's a little confusing then not to discuss much urban infrastructure

1:10:02 ↗ there, but to discuss it in sustainable instead. So should that be somehow

1:10:08 ↗ moved over? No, because I think in the connected section, it's talking about

1:10:14 ↗ specifically transportation infrastructure. Streets, paths. Signage. Well, then you would just

1:10:20 ↗ call it out and it wouldn't be Infrastructure it would

1:10:26 ↗ be streets. That's right Not urban infrastructure or you know

1:10:31 ↗ mobility infrastructure I can understand that to me. It's confusing.

1:10:37 ↗ Yep. I can understand that. Thank you funny Okay, let's

1:10:43 ↗ go back to sustainable That's a

1:10:49 ↗ language you or we all you good anything else unsustainable only got added is if

1:10:54 ↗ we're gonna list all the stuff that needs to be grown and concurrent are you

1:11:00 ↗ gonna so are we gonna just have that language are we gonna then name check

1:11:06 ↗ a bunch of different types of infrastructure I wasn't gonna name check do you want

1:11:11 ↗ to check no no mention of power then correct I might say including blah blah

1:11:17 ↗ blah blah blah where blah is each of those

1:11:23 ↗ things. Clarify. It seems like the things you should mention are the things that

1:11:29 ↗ are of concern. And so power is of concern so you would mention it.

1:11:34 ↗ So the infrastructure failures that we have now, things that aren't working, I would

1:11:40 ↗ focus on. Things that seem to be moving along appropriately, I don't think you'd

1:11:45 ↗ have to call out as much. So I think it's our going Keith

1:11:51 ↗ so just gonna say powers the only one we don't control right can't make PSE

1:11:57 ↗ provide anything I Disagree, so I think for for fire. We've got to coordinate with

1:12:03 ↗ Eastside And the other one was I would add schools as another key piece of

1:12:08 ↗ infrastructure that needs to grow concurrently with I mean if you think

1:12:14 ↗ about you know, all the other either remember the kids so right now so water

1:12:20 ↗ wise, okay, so let's just we'll tackle these guys one by one so water were

1:12:26 ↗ part of cascade water alliance, which provides enough water for our continued growth out into

1:12:32 ↗ the future stormwater is regulated by the state through the county. I'm sorry the county.

1:12:38 ↗ Well, it comes down from the state, right? So the state and the

1:12:44 ↗ NPDES requirements are mandated to the localities. And so we have to comply

1:12:50 ↗ with those. They're regulations just like any other regulations that come down from

1:12:55 ↗ the RCWs. Trash is a or waste collection is

1:13:01 ↗ a private contract. So there are companies that bid for service

1:13:06 ↗ Eastside fire and rescue is a regional fire protection entity of

1:13:12 ↗ which the city is the largest kind of shareholder You know, so,

1:13:18 ↗ but you know, true, we could always go back to having our own fire department.

1:13:23 ↗ But, you know, so part of this, so it's not really infrastructure, it's services. So

1:13:28 ↗ this starts to kind of unravel as soon as you start to include some services.

1:13:33 ↗ So then do I put police in there? I mean, so where does this list

1:13:37 ↗ stop? And if we're really concerned about power, And maybe AJ and I have different

1:13:43 ↗ perspective on how much control the city has. I mean, if I tell PSC to

1:13:48 ↗ go build a substation tomorrow, they're gonna say, "Yeah, no, we're not gonna do that."

1:13:52 ↗ So this is one of those things where I think the city is an influential

1:13:57 ↗ part of that decision process, but ultimately we have maybe 49% of the vote. So

1:14:02 ↗ for me, power is a little different than some of the others because the others

1:14:07 ↗ we control. But I'm willing to write whatever you guys want listed. If you want

1:14:13 ↗ to grocery list this thing. I think we don't want to grocery list it because

1:14:19 ↗ you're going to forget something or you're going to broaden it too long and it

1:14:24 ↗ becomes meaningless. I think public safety is an important one because public safety is falling

1:14:30 ↗ behind because we had a 2006 capital facilities plan for a long time. So if

1:14:36 ↗ we don't mention it, it won't sustain itself. But I don't but I think

1:14:42 ↗ that's my point that I don't think I don't think this document is the right

1:14:47 ↗ point I don't think adding bullet points is gonna actually drive any action by the

1:14:52 ↗ city But unlike unlike all the detail we have in the same limitation actions elsewhere

1:14:58 ↗ in the document Lindsay Can you read what you were suggesting that we put in

1:15:03 ↗ there? Do you if you still have it? Infrastructure and public amenities are provided concurrently

1:15:08 ↗ with Or in advance of growth. Actually, that's probably good enough. Yeah, I think

1:15:14 ↗ just-- Well, what if we added the power? I mean, in that, we have-- there's

1:15:20 ↗ two points then. You're saying public amenities. Why don't we just add the power grid?

1:15:25 ↗ So then it's three things, right? So then it's-- We don't own power grid. We

1:15:31 ↗ don't have any influence in power grid. Well, we do, 49%, but we don't have

1:15:36 ↗ controlling. well that was just a hypothetical number his point is that we don't

1:15:42 ↗ have the majority stake what you do is you don't allow growth until the power

1:15:48 ↗ is there to sustain it and that's that's that's implied by saying infrastructure i think

1:15:54 ↗ it is i mean i mean if you want to be if you want to

1:16:00 ↗ say like eg like such as um power et cetera, then that's

1:16:06 ↗ fine. You can be specific about power, but then not imply

1:16:12 ↗ that it's a finite list. I like that. So I would

1:16:18 ↗ say infrastructure, e.g. power, and public amenities, e.g. schools, occur

1:16:24 ↗ I like that because I think power and school are the two ones that

1:16:29 ↗ people are most concerned about lagging growth. They're certainly lagging. Schools are definitely lagging.

1:16:35 ↗ Yeah, that works for me. And parks, of course. What does the EIS call

1:16:41 ↗ them? Because they're all clustered under the one chapter in the EIS. What's the

1:16:46 ↗ term they use? Do you remember? Each of those component parts was

1:16:52 ↗ called out in the impact statement saying that they had to do X things in

1:16:58 ↗ order to be able to continue to grow and still be inside the environmental envelope

1:17:04 ↗ for which they were approved. And I don't know that anybody's particularly checked back to

1:17:10 ↗ see if that is the case.

1:17:16 ↗ not the expense not what i was expecting from you keith i i don't

1:17:22 ↗ i don't read the uh central is across eis um on a frequent basis

1:17:28 ↗ okay not in my uh to-do list so we're gonna add that one bullet

1:17:34 ↗ Okay, I'm bulleted up. Are we good? Yeah, we're good. To Connie's point, should

1:17:39 ↗ we, is that something that we need to add? I think she was using

1:17:45 ↗ that as a way to potentially structure the conversation that we just had. If

1:17:51 ↗ you guys want me to check what we agreed to against what was in

1:17:56 ↗ the EIS, I can do that. It was more a matter of using the language

1:18:02 ↗ that we've already used to discuss all those things so that we had some, it

1:18:08 ↗ would be referring to something as compared to something new, right? I

1:18:13 ↗ had one comment under housing. I would like to see affordable, maintain

1:18:19 ↗ existing and build more affordable housing because providing smaller options for singles

1:18:25 ↗ and smaller families doesn't mean that it's affordable. I remember seeing affordable

1:18:31 ↗ somewhere though. Would that also include age and place? They're in the

1:18:37 ↗ neighborhoods. It's in the neighborhoods. Pardon. It's in there and then that

1:18:42 ↗ in under one of the other can you have promote affordable housing and the

1:18:48 ↗ promotes a nice remember saying it flexible verb. There was that moment, you know,

1:18:54 ↗ remember now it's in the I know that the whole time livable.

1:19:00 ↗ so we can do it here i mean we've talked about potentially putting things in

1:19:05 ↗ a couple places where it makes sense yeah i think i think promote affordable housing

1:19:10 ↗ is a second bullet under housing okay that adds value adds more length to this

1:19:14 ↗ section too which would be good would it be appropriate to say uh to promote

1:19:19 ↗ affordable housing and agent place is that the right conversation to have here no i

1:19:23 ↗ think no i think agent agent place is too specific for this no that's all

1:19:29 ↗ right i do like the additional bullet point so we just

1:19:35 ↗ looked up the planned action eis for the central squad plan

1:19:41 ↗ and it's um public public services and utilities okay thank you

1:19:46 ↗ it's less homework i used to do no i'm finding a

1:19:52 ↗ blank spot she was writing get milk on the way home

1:19:58 ↗ She had a few too many of those cookies.

1:20:04 ↗ Public services and amenities? Utilities. Utilities. I was going

1:20:09 ↗ to say, now you made me forget the last

1:20:15 ↗ part. Well, but we're not... That's just what they're

1:20:21 ↗ called in the EIS. Place is consistent. Okay. Are

1:20:26 ↗ we ready for West Newport? Yes. Thank you, Trish.

1:20:32 ↗ So my big comment here is that the future sections, I don't

1:20:38 ↗ like the idea of them being bullet points. When I'm looking at

1:20:44 ↗ the other city's neighborhood visions, when they're creating these future paragraphs, they

1:20:50 ↗ are paragraphs. And if I think about the reader, the intended reader

1:20:55 ↗ of this part, It's community members and the city and it's to create

1:21:01 ↗ an image, a picture in their head of what they can see that neighborhood

1:21:07 ↗ being. I don't get that conveyed by bullet points. That just is a list

1:21:12 ↗ to me. It's not an image. This is your bullet points. I did not

1:21:18 ↗ present it in bullet points. I presented it in paragraphs. In paragraphs. Yeah.

1:21:26 ↗ - Can I go off of that for a second? I actually don't mind the

1:21:30 ↗ bullet point. What I mind is the fact that these bullet points get repeated from

1:21:34 ↗ neighborhood to neighborhood without any change or distinction. And so I'm gonna go for this

1:21:39 ↗ and I'm gonna hope that I don't say this four times with every neighborhood that

1:21:43 ↗ we bring up. but we start and we have the two main repetitive bullet points.

1:21:48 ↗ Noise from the I-90 has been managed by WSDOT. And then we say that the

1:21:52 ↗ city has worked with Issaquah School District to improve schools. And that is in every,

1:21:57 ↗ mostly in every single one. And then we then go, when we go down into

1:22:01 ↗ our charting, it says, oh, and we're gonna work with them. It is has no

1:22:06 ↗ accountability and it has no distinction between the differences that each community needs. I would

1:22:12 ↗ love to see something that says that maybe Confluence needs more crosswalks whereas maybe Pickering

1:22:18 ↗ needs more buses. I don't know what specifically in schools, maybe more students are spread

1:22:23 ↗ out across the neighborhood whereas maybe they're more dense and we actually just need more

1:22:27 ↗ resources than that or maybe like in Confluence it's more about walkability and trying to

1:22:31 ↗ make that safer but there's no difference in any of the neighborhoods between what we

1:22:36 ↗ need from the school district other than we have worked with them. I don't like

1:22:40 ↗ the has worked with. I think it's past tense. rather than an active. And I

1:22:45 ↗ also don't like that we don't say what that is. And that goes back to

1:22:49 ↗ the noise from my 90. I mean, does that mean that some neighborhoods need to

1:22:53 ↗ have a wall built? Or does that mean that some are having some, you know,

1:22:57 ↗ what is it that each community needs? Because the whole point of this is to

1:23:01 ↗ say we're distinctive. They're their own spaces. They have their own separate needs, but we

1:23:06 ↗ don't define what those are. So distinctive is distinctive. And I think each distinctive section

1:23:10 ↗ within each neighborhood is different. because I can tell you I wrote these and I

1:23:15 ↗ can tell you that each one of them started from scratch whereas livable, what makes

1:23:20 ↗ each neighborhood livable may actually be the same. So for example, being able to walk

1:23:25 ↗ to a school. So whether you live in Confluence or Pickering or Gilman or West

1:23:30 ↗ Newport, you and you have a school-aged kid, you want your kid to be able

1:23:35 ↗ to get to school in a very safe and convenient way, right? So whether that

1:23:39 ↗ school is... The confluence may already have taken care of and have an abundance of

1:23:44 ↗ one type of resource and not another. And so I'd like to identify what that

1:23:48 ↗ is. But the problem is we're trying to look out 20 years, right, Joy? And

1:23:53 ↗ if we're gonna put 7,000 households in the Regional Growth Center, that would tell me

1:23:57 ↗ that that's enough for two elementary schools. just in the regional growth center and so

1:24:02 ↗ i don't know where those are the school district doesn't know where those are i'm

1:24:06 ↗ based on the conversation i had right before this meeting they're not even thinking that

1:24:10 ↗ way just yet but but we had that conversation so we're starting to at least

1:24:14 ↗ prime the pump for them to start thinking they're going to have to buy urban

1:24:18 ↗ school sites in central is a clock because that's where the kids are gonna be

1:24:22 ↗ and buying them at the edge of the city because It's cheaper to buy land

1:24:27 ↗ in talus or somewhere else and build the school there That's just not a good

1:24:32 ↗ outcome that we're okay with so we're happy for that. So we're having side has

1:24:36 ↗ a side point Thank you for that conversation So as you as you then start

1:24:41 ↗ to think about these neighborhoods and how they're livable I mean Most people choose to

1:24:46 ↗ live in Issaquah either because they like the environment or they've got kids and they

1:24:52 ↗ want their kids in the school system out here, right? And so if you've got

1:24:56 ↗ kids and want them in the school system, then you want to be able to

1:25:00 ↗ get them to school in an efficient and safe way, right? But that's true for

1:25:04 ↗ every neighborhood. And so I guess the question is, if you don't like that repeated

1:25:08 ↗ in every neighborhood, but you think it is true for every neighborhood, then where do

1:25:12 ↗ we put it in a way that doesn't water it down? Ooh. If it applies

1:25:17 ↗ to every neighborhood, it goes to the boxes that we just talked about. If

1:25:23 ↗ it's specific to a neighborhood, it goes in the neighborhood vision portion for that

1:25:29 ↗ neighborhood. Okay, so if everybody thinks yes, then the ones that are replicated, like,

1:25:35 ↗ for example, you know, monitoring and maintaining open spaces in every neighborhood, because we

1:25:41 ↗ said that's necessary everywhere. If that's getting lifted up, to the overall central

1:25:46 ↗ Issaquah as a whole, I want you all to nod and say, "Yes, let's do

1:25:52 ↗ that." If not, let's talk about that as a structural thing right here, right now,

1:25:58 ↗ so that we can get clarity. To Joan's point... Joan? Joan Jr. You haven't been

1:26:04 ↗ here for a while. To Joan's point, There are certain things here where

1:26:10 ↗ we could change what it says there to make it more applicable to

1:26:16 ↗ that neighborhood, the specifics there. And I understand it's a 20-year document.

1:26:22 ↗ And if schools is a bad example, then let's try noise from the I-90 has

1:26:26 ↗ been managed and you know, and so then we go back and we're like, yeah,

1:26:30 ↗ we needed to deal with noise. I mean, but how are we dealing with noise?

1:26:34 ↗ I mean, it's so vague and it's just kind of this notion of... I have

1:26:39 ↗ a counter argument. Yeah. My counter argument. Because for me the function of the

1:26:44 ↗ neighborhood sheets would be the tool for the developer in the city to sit

1:26:50 ↗ down with those neighborhood sheets and say, This is what's going on in your neighborhood

1:26:56 ↗ and this is what you're gonna need to do and that puts them all on

1:27:00 ↗ the same page. If you pull too much of that out, even though it seems

1:27:04 ↗ redundant to us now, when you look at them one at a time because the

1:27:08 ↗ developer wants to know what to do, then it's very clear. This and this and

1:27:12 ↗ this and this and this are the hot topics. they do each of those things

1:27:16 ↗ is what is flexible because it's going to be a little bit different in each

1:27:21 ↗ neighborhood and that's the discussion that the developer will have with the city and then

1:27:26 ↗ when it goes to development commission they would be in theory using this same tool

1:27:31 ↗ to say well did you do that are you actually getting rid of the sound

1:27:36 ↗ can you walk to the schools and so I like The repetitiveness, not because I

1:27:41 ↗ enjoy reading it, but because I see it as a functioning tool to get us

1:27:46 ↗ what we need in each neighborhood. And so this is not for my reading enjoyment

1:27:52 ↗ like a novel, and I had to give that up. So I just try tearing

1:27:57 ↗ each sheet apart and saying, okay, am I going to get what I want using

1:28:01 ↗ these words in this neighborhood? And I don't know if that helps. I think I

1:28:05 ↗ agree. One, I think it is super important to repeat things in the tables. So

1:28:09 ↗ I think in the tables, the repetition is there, and I think we all agree

1:28:14 ↗ on that. For the future statements, there might be a few of these to pull

1:28:18 ↗ out, but I like each of these being able to stand on their own. But

1:28:22 ↗ I think if there's some that apply to all neighborhoods, I think it's okay to

1:28:27 ↗ pull them out. But I think all of these, I don't think there are any

1:28:32 ↗ that apply to all neighborhoods. all five neighborhoods i think any i i think there's

1:28:38 ↗ all i think for all these like for instance i-90 it's not in confluence no

1:28:42 ↗ it's not there is there's one next to conflict yeah yeah and so like so

1:28:46 ↗ the only one that i could i could maybe see that we should perhaps pull

1:28:50 ↗ out of this and pull forward might be uh might be the school's one but

1:28:55 ↗ i also think that's really important and i like having it show up yeah i'm

1:28:58 ↗ less i'm less a proponent of pulling it out as i am trying to be

1:29:01 ↗ a little more specific but i guess what your your point is to say that

1:29:05 ↗ we won't always know what those needs are and so you're just trying to say

1:29:08 ↗ that the need exists yeah because i think so when you look at that i

1:29:12 ↗ think those two things one because i think for the schools one i think we

1:29:15 ↗ still need to be vague because we don't know where the residential growth is going

1:29:19 ↗ to be let alone where the schools and i guess i'm reading it i'm not

1:29:23 ↗ seeing the accountability but to connie's point how do we have the how do we

1:29:27 ↗ have the account like the accountability if we don't mention it yeah i'm just wanting

1:29:32 ↗ i wanted a little more meat to the to the to the especially the schools

1:29:36 ↗ just you know especially is there a reason that it's past tense that we it

1:29:41 ↗ has worked for him in the neighborhoods rather than being more active These are supposed

1:29:46 ↗ to be future visions. Yeah. So-- Yeah, so you're supposed to read this as if

1:29:51 ↗ you're 20 years from now. Yeah. So you look back and you say, yeah, the

1:29:56 ↗ noise from my 90s now no longer problems because we have noise walls or we

1:30:01 ↗ have other attenuation devices that then allows residential to be right next to the freeway

1:30:06 ↗ and people live there and are happy. You also might be confused because it says

1:30:11 ↗ West Newport will be and that's going to change. In the document it's going to

1:30:16 ↗ say West Newport is. So that probably threw you off. Why can't we also say

1:30:22 ↗ the city is working with? Well, because by the time that this happens, that will

1:30:26 ↗ have been done and be finished. The noise walls or whatever they... be will be

1:30:31 ↗ done in 20 years from now we won't be working with west shot that project

1:30:35 ↗ would be complete because because like for that for that specific one for west newport

1:30:39 ↗ the noise walls are going to get put in as a part of adding the

1:30:43 ↗ new access line like that should happen in the next five years so it's so

1:30:47 ↗ it's the way that it just kind of got structured was this was kind of

1:30:51 ↗ looking back So it's almost like what is it now looking in the rearview mirror

1:30:56 ↗ and you can say, okay, the noise walls have been built, you've got a park

1:31:00 ↗ in Anthology. We work with the school district, that's no longer a problem of, hey,

1:31:05 ↗ all the schools are on the edges. I mean, so this is kind of the,

1:31:10 ↗ this is the outcome or the hopeful outcome, right? I mean, if we do it

1:31:15 ↗ right, this is the hopeful outcome. - It's inconsistent in all of this. So the

1:31:20 ↗ thing is, whichever way you choose, - Choose. - Yes, we've said that. -

1:31:25 ↗ Yeah, and so I think you're just fighting with the same inconsistency 'cause every other--

1:31:31 ↗ - I admire your consistent inconsistency. - I agree with Lindsay, I like the paragraphs

1:31:36 ↗ better. - So let me do two things. Let me read to you something from

1:31:42 ↗ Bell, a Redmond's thing that says the neighborhood division describes the Bear Creek neighborhood in

1:31:48 ↗ 2030. it represents what the vision what the neighborhood will look and feel like

1:31:54 ↗ when the neighborhood plan is implemented I think that statement may be up in

1:32:00 ↗ the before the vision or before the neighborhood area explains why we're talking in

1:32:06 ↗ the future with that tense. Or add that sentence to page two of this document

1:32:09 ↗ where you explain how things flow. Can you email me that please? Thank you. I

1:32:13 ↗ think you can stick that on page two at the very beginning of the document

1:32:17 ↗ that just explains how things flow. But I agree. I think that would be helpful

1:32:21 ↗ because I think we all get that it's a look back. But if someone's encountering

1:32:25 ↗ this document the first time that might not be clear. Okay, and then the second

1:32:31 ↗ thing I was going to say is related to that paragraphs idea

1:32:36 ↗ the what I'm looking for when I talk about this livable section

1:32:42 ↗ for West Newport is to be able to describe what that neighborhood

1:32:48 ↗ looks and feels like to create that vision, that image for somebody who's reading it.

1:32:54 ↗ And so when I'm looking at, say, for example, Bear Creek's parks and recreation, residents,

1:32:59 ↗ employees and visitors alike enjoy parks in the neighborhood that offer a balance of active

1:33:05 ↗ and passive recreation opportunities. Natural park areas are walkable, educational and design main. So the

1:33:10 ↗ idea is it paints a vision, an image for you. And I just don't think

1:33:16 ↗ that does that. originally what i wanted to do was go to the go through

1:33:21 ↗ each one of them and then go back to the to the few for the

1:33:26 ↗ future part of it that beginning because after you read what it's supposed to be

1:33:32 ↗ you can picture in your mind what you want to be in there exactly

1:33:38 ↗ what you said I mean things like sounds from Lake Sammamish children playing but

1:33:43 ↗ voting entertainment those are the vision statements that you really want to have in

1:33:49 ↗ there the fluff So you want in each one of those. So Joan do you

1:33:55 ↗ want us do you want us to pivot and focus on the tables and work

1:33:59 ↗ through each neighborhood? Well no I mean you've gone through this And then I want

1:34:04 ↗ to go back to that. So go through this first. What are the things in

1:34:09 ↗ here that you want to change? Is there anything that you want to add? I

1:34:14 ↗ like, I like, I have to say that I like the fact that there are

1:34:19 ↗ the same things are the repetitive in other, in the different ones because each, you're

1:34:24 ↗ looking at each individual community separately and you should have what's going to happen. there

1:34:29 ↗ so I really like it repetitive in the tables when we're talking about the

1:34:35 ↗ developer obligations the city implementing actions and the measures of success when you're painting

1:34:41 ↗ a vision of a neighborhood I want that to be distinct and unique so

1:34:47 ↗ that I can have an idea what this is gonna look like and so

1:34:53 ↗ to Joyce point if we're gonna talk about used for many

1:34:59 ↗ locations of the four, you know, one of those that has been duplicated in each

1:35:04 ↗ area. In order to get a vision of what that means for this neighborhood, we

1:35:10 ↗ need to be something specific and unique for that neighborhood. I mean, like, I guess

1:35:16 ↗ I just wanted, like, as a measure of success, it's just... Yeah, we're working with

1:35:21 ↗ the school district. I mean that to me that isn't a measure of success talking

1:35:26 ↗ about the communication that's happening. I want to hear, I want to see something that

1:35:31 ↗ says our schools are located within a walkable distance, you know, for this neighborhood our

1:35:35 ↗ schools are located within a walkable distance for the majority of the kids. You know,

1:35:40 ↗ I wanted to see something that was a little bit more detailed. Let's look at

1:35:45 ↗ the actual measure of success bullets. I think the tone of the measure of success

1:35:50 ↗ i think generally meets what you're looking for so so with the schools there's a

1:35:55 ↗ city action so work with isd to provide safe and convenient access to nearby schools

1:36:00 ↗ so and and so i did not have a measure of success for working with

1:36:05 ↗ the school district we could um you know this is where it starts getting a

1:36:11 ↗ little fuzzy in terms of you know how specific do we want to get I

1:36:16 ↗ don't know. Can we get a little more specific? I mean, is it, and again,

1:36:20 ↗ if you tell me, you know what, this achieves what we want, we get your

1:36:24 ↗ point, move on, that's okay. It was just when I was reading it, I really

1:36:28 ↗ wasn't getting anything that was specific to these neighborhoods about, really directing the school district

1:36:31 ↗ of saying hey we want in this neighborhood we want the schools to be embedded

1:36:35 ↗ right on it whereas we can say hey in this neighborhood because of the layout

1:36:39 ↗ of where it is you can do it on the outskirts and we need a

1:36:43 ↗ lot more resources to be able to get kids to that you know having that

1:36:47 ↗ realistic detail of what we anticipate the same way we do with developers saying this

1:36:51 ↗ is how we want what we want it to look like I felt like we

1:36:55 ↗ weren't giving that to the school district and that concerned me So part of the

1:37:00 ↗ problem is, you know, the school district's gonna buy whatever land they're gonna buy, right?

1:37:05 ↗ We can have conversations, we can try and push them to Central, you know, and

1:37:11 ↗ let's assume we're successful and they build an elementary school, you know, in one of

1:37:16 ↗ the Central neighborhoods to start with. You know, whether it's Pickering or Gilman or West

1:37:21 ↗ Newport or Confluence or Eastlake, I mean, I guess the question is, do we

1:37:27 ↗ need to be specific? Does that matter to one neighborhood or another? And what I

1:37:32 ↗ was trying to get to was, I think, we want this to be true for

1:37:38 ↗ all of them, that it's safe and convenient access to nearby schools. Now, nearby might

1:37:44 ↗ be next door, or nearby might be underneath the freeway in Gilman if you live

1:37:49 ↗ in Pickering. I think either way, that seems like that's probably what you would call

1:37:54 ↗ your neighborhood school, right? And so, I guess I don't know how far down you

1:37:59 ↗ want to go with this one because for me it just gets really fuzzy really

1:38:04 ↗ fast. I mean we're having conversations now with the school district about just thinking about

1:38:09 ↗ Central Issaquah versus all the stuff around the perimeter which is kind of where they're

1:38:14 ↗ looking right now. But that's a conversation, and if we don't continue to have those

1:38:20 ↗ conversations, they'll never get there. So Joyce asked for more specifics in the measures of

1:38:26 ↗ success. I think I can support that, whether it's related to schools or something else.

1:38:32 ↗ So then just show you I'm not I'm not gonna let you just be vague

1:38:37 ↗ because this is our last moment, right? No, so you need to tell me what

1:38:41 ↗ you want Lindsay if you want a measure of success for West Newport on schools

1:38:46 ↗ What is it? Because I'm gonna tell you there probably won't be a school in

1:38:50 ↗ West Newport. Yeah, so then the priority for West Newport would be a Special emphasis

1:38:55 ↗ on resources like there I say buses. Yeah to be able to get kids to

1:38:59 ↗ another neighborhood to be able to allow a uh to a better connectivity so if

1:39:04 ↗ if we anticipate no school in this neighborhood and connectivity is then the thing that

1:39:10 ↗ we want to push for so so what we have on the city's action items

1:39:15 ↗ is safe and convenient right because right now there is bus service on newport and

1:39:20 ↗ i think a lot of people would say it's it's maybe not that well well,

1:39:25 ↗ I'm not going to use that word, that it's dark. There's not necessarily facilities. So

1:39:29 ↗ the bus stops, puts its red flashing lights on, right? And the kids who are

1:39:34 ↗ all lined up by the side of the road in a driveway get on the

1:39:39 ↗ bus. is that a good is that where we want this to be or or

1:39:43 ↗ if we know that we're going to have you know bus pickups and drop-offs on

1:39:48 ↗ newport you know school district needs to exactly exactly that's something a little bit better

1:39:52 ↗ perfect example of what where i think each neighborhood has a different need and calling

1:39:56 ↗ that out may be helpful but but i think we've got that because so look

1:40:01 ↗ at your measure of success newport way becomes a local street and is not used

1:40:05 ↗ for regional commuters And that will facilitate safer bus pickup and drop-offs. You see pedestrian

1:40:11 ↗ connections to other areas are safe and convenient. That bullet point covers the ability for

1:40:16 ↗ someone to walk to Sunset Elementary School. So I think, Joy, I think the things

1:40:21 ↗ that you want, I think they're in here. They're covered in different ways. I can

1:40:26 ↗ appreciate that. And again, Keith, if you tell me, look, there's a reason that we're

1:40:30 ↗ not getting into the weeds on this, I can respect that. It was, again, something

1:40:34 ↗ that struck me as I read the document. So maybe, and I think you're, I

1:40:39 ↗ don't want to dismiss your point, Joy, because I think it's important. I think the

1:40:43 ↗ question for me is, There are a lot of variables still. You guys have asked

1:40:48 ↗ for, well, gee, it's already March, in three months for us to come back and

1:40:54 ↗ talk urban schools, right? Because the urban school policy, which morphed into the compact schools,

1:40:59 ↗ you know, ends up that we need to come back and have a policy conversation.

1:41:05 ↗ I think we said in the first half of the year? Yeah, so in the

1:41:10 ↗ next three months we got to be talking about urban schools and I think that's

1:41:15 ↗ gonna about I'm looking forward to it too. Yeah, so that's gonna be so that's

1:41:20 ↗ gonna be about the same time that the City Council and the school board are

1:41:24 ↗ gonna get together because that meeting is not happening as fast as it was hoping

1:41:29 ↗ to so so I guess what I would say is we need a placeholder so

1:41:34 ↗ that we know that this is an important thing for us and To your point

1:41:38 ↗ earlier about when do we come back and say, okay, let's tune this up again.

1:41:43 ↗ That may be one of those ones where once we make some progress with the

1:41:48 ↗ school district, because right now it's literally ground zero in terms of talking about. If

1:41:52 ↗ you look at where they've identified the next two elementary schools and the high school,

1:41:57 ↗ it's on the edge of the city. Right. OK. So the next round, the next

1:42:02 ↗ round of schools where they're going to buy property, they need to be in central.

1:42:08 ↗ So that's part of the conversation that we'll have. That's part of the ongoing conversations

1:42:13 ↗ we'll be having with ISD. It just for me it's it's words so not there

1:42:18 ↗ yet. Yeah, Jack I can imagine if we're sitting here 3 years from now updating

1:42:22 ↗ this document and we know schools come in a particular neighborhood then I think adding

1:42:27 ↗ specific language makes absolute sense. I think we're just not quite there yet. i i

1:42:31 ↗ don't think you added this already i was doing something else but uh under connectivity

1:42:37 ↗ residents of west newport find convenient mobility to other parts of the city uh convenient

1:42:42 ↗ this is measures of success third column first first bullet yeah could that also be

1:42:48 ↗ safe and comfortable again because because we use that at the beginning, but it's worth

1:42:54 ↗ re-emphasizing. And so then the mobility for the schools then has to be

1:42:59 ↗ safe and pleasant or comfortable. At least it adds some more modifiers rather

1:43:05 ↗ than just convenient. I mean, it's a token. And

1:43:11 ↗ just to add, because what we don't have is working with the schools to get

1:43:16 ↗ safe, comfortable bus stops. And we need a definition of what that is, because we're

1:43:20 ↗ going to have gateway with no bus stops, and they will be standing in the

1:43:25 ↗ driveway along the road.

1:43:33 ↗ No, I mean I do. I'm torn between what I, this is exactly my point

1:43:37 ↗ when I read the document. I mean each neighborhood has different needs and I think

1:43:42 ↗ the conversations with Issaquah School District is a good example of saying we're still not

1:43:47 ↗ getting our needs and wanting this to be a place where we have a little

1:43:52 ↗ bit of meat. But I can appreciate the fact that you're saying we're not, we're

1:43:57 ↗ not there yet. So. If that's all. I trust you, Keith, if you say this

1:44:02 ↗ is the best we can do right now and I appreciate you hearing me, you

1:44:06 ↗ know. So this is so so part of this is and I'm sorry if my

1:44:11 ↗ bar is really low. Part of this is we're moving the visions. I don't mean

1:44:15 ↗ that in a bad way. to you guys or you who worked on this earlier.

1:44:21 ↗ But we're moving it from very general to a lot more specific. Is this the

1:44:26 ↗ landing spot? Probably not. But this is moving the needle a long ways from where

1:44:32 ↗ it was in the previous version. And so I guess I look at that and

1:44:38 ↗ say, this doesn't necessarily land all of the things that we're talking about, but it

1:44:43 ↗ at least puts them on the radar. Placeholder. Yeah, absolutely. and i think

1:44:49 ↗ there's value to that yeah i appreciate it now more after talking to you

1:44:54 ↗ i like the fact that we're coming going around in the circle and coming

1:45:00 ↗ back to the original plan so it must have been okay in the beginning but

1:45:06 ↗ i like the fact that you're actually you know throwing arrows at it darts to

1:45:11 ↗ make sure that we're where we're supposed to be so anything else on here i've

1:45:15 ↗ got one more for west newport under distinctive we um the last bullet point is

1:45:20 ↗ that west newport provides the most access to preserved open space of all central isaac

1:45:25 ↗ neighborhoods It currently does that. I'm assuming that means we want it to stay doing

1:45:30 ↗ that since we have this future tense of in 20 years. Again, it's in the

1:45:35 ↗ distinctive bullet points. Not, keep going up. It's back. It's in the future section. It's

1:45:40 ↗ in the distinctive, yeah, the future section. Yeah, yeah. So, so am I correct in

1:45:44 ↗ saying that it currently has the most access to a preserved open space? We want

1:45:49 ↗ it to stay that way. And so I was hoping that we had something that

1:45:55 ↗ kind of ensure is there some sort of protections in place? How are we how

1:46:01 ↗ are we achieving that future concept? So It's a good question. So right

1:46:07 ↗ now part of part of the neighborhood is being preserved as open space.

1:46:12 ↗ So what's the eastern part of the Gateway project or the anthology project?

1:46:18 ↗ I'm gonna try and use its new name is actually going to be

1:46:24 ↗ preserved as open space. There's also then you know it's adjacent to West

1:46:30 ↗ Newport so Cougar Mountain and the permanent open space owned by the county

1:46:36 ↗ comes all the way down to Newport and it's right across the street

1:46:42 ↗ from West Newport. So I think that because the rest of the neighborhoods

1:46:48 ↗ are much more urban and surrounded by other kind of development areas. I think

1:46:54 ↗ this one will always have the most at it's one of the distinctive pieces I

1:46:58 ↗ think of West Newport is it's definitely much has much more connection to the open

1:47:03 ↗ space. I think the anchor for this is really Cougar Mountain which I think is

1:47:08 ↗ fine because it's either County or state or the county County County land and then

1:47:13 ↗ in your implementation actions measure success that there's a couple of points that specifically speak

1:47:17 ↗ to the trailhead and how that will be transformed and enhanced. as a neighborhood amenity.

1:47:22 ↗ I think you've got that. Okay. You've got the vision bullets there and I think

1:47:26 ↗ it's in your, it's spoken to you in your bullet point around the traffic. How

1:47:30 ↗ we get there, yeah, how we keep that. So if you were to talk about

1:47:34 ↗ the five neighborhoods of Central, And this is part of that kind of what makes

1:47:40 ↗ this one distinctive. I think this connection to the open space for West Newport is

1:47:45 ↗ much more prevalent than the rest. It doesn't mean it's not important in the rest.

1:47:51 ↗ It just means that there's more opportunities, I think, here. Yeah, I agree and I

1:47:57 ↗ guess I just wanted in reading it as being this future tense of it is

1:48:01 ↗ and we wanted to stay how we did that I was wondering, you know, so

1:48:05 ↗ but if you think that we're achieving that by saying that we're gonna provide convenient

1:48:10 ↗ and safe trail access Cougar Mountain Trailhead, I mean, okay. I guess I was trying

1:48:14 ↗ to see where where is that where is the teeth in that of keeping that

1:48:19 ↗ a core tenant of the neighborhood? So one of the big things I

1:48:25 ↗ think about this neighborhood is it's the most isolated neighborhood except for the one directly

1:48:29 ↗ across the freeway. So there's again, this is like last time. How do you get

1:48:34 ↗ across SR 900? and do it safely and pleasantly because it says that we

1:48:40 ↗ are supposed to provide residents with walking, bicycling options for accessing daily retail and service

1:48:46 ↗ needs, yet you haven't really done that and there's no way to get across SR

1:48:52 ↗ 900 more easily that you've talked about. So I feel like that's missing in this

1:48:58 ↗ situation and this is much echoes a conversation that we had at the last meeting

1:49:05 ↗ How do you bridge that gap? And

1:49:11 ↗ I don't think this does that yet.

1:49:16 ↗ - Under city implementation actions, so, i added a

1:49:22 ↗ comment over email where we added the last bullet under measure success cougar mountain trail

1:49:26 ↗ has expanded to be a neighborhood and regional destination um just for the good of

1:49:30 ↗ my fellow um commission members my thought about that was as that that trail headed

1:49:34 ↗ a lot of those trees are going to get cut down it's going to be

1:49:38 ↗ transformed to a parking lot and so my vision was in addition to making that

1:49:42 ↗ a parking lot have it you know be park amenity itself and not simply an

1:49:46 ↗ access to the park and so i think that's covered in a measure of success

1:49:50 ↗ But under the same implementation actions, it still just work with King

1:49:56 ↗ County to expand trailhead. Could we extend that to say to expand

1:50:02 ↗ trailhead and transform trailhead into park into itself or maybe just expand

1:50:08 ↗ and transform trailhead or park into itself? I meant that that's a

1:50:13 ↗ little Do you see I'm saying Keith? No. So... I typed

1:50:19 ↗ something. Yeah, so we're working counting to expand and transform Trailhead. Right, so...

1:50:25 ↗ Because the Trailhead is a park. It's a part of the park, but

1:50:30 ↗ the idea is to make that flat area before you start running up

1:50:36 ↗ the ridge into a place that people can go to... into a gathering place

1:50:42 ↗ or whatnot or whatever what to a gathering place yeah perfect okay i think there's

1:50:46 ↗ room for a bathroom and parking oh there's no i've i've walked that space there's

1:50:51 ↗ room for you can have you can have a little bit it can be a

1:50:55 ↗ little bit more than literally just a parking lot with a bathroom it has a

1:51:00 ↗ picnic table now yeah But I think what you need is a park a real

1:51:04 ↗ public park. Oh, yeah. Yeah, this isn't this isn't in lieu of a public park

1:51:08 ↗ but the point is is if you're if you're gonna go through the expense of

1:51:12 ↗ clearing and leveling the land and put it in a bathroom and put it in

1:51:16 ↗ a parking lot might as well they're talking 80 plus parking stalls in there and

1:51:19 ↗ so you've got to have safe access on and off and they're widening Newport Way

1:51:23 ↗ right there too. So there's not going to be a lot and you're right next

1:51:27 ↗ to a creek. So what looks like A lot of land you've got 2 creeks

1:51:31 ↗ on either side so without really changing the whole characteristic of that trail you're not

1:51:36 ↗ really going to be able to do a whole lot with it. But that's my

1:51:41 ↗ point I think for the first quarter mile that if the trail won't be a

1:51:45 ↗ trail of the park. Please take a landscape it.

1:51:52 ↗ i'm i'm i'm good with the addition i just added a bit more so i

1:51:56 ↗ could share what my well my thing we need like a concept like an urban

1:52:00 ↗ park where we have an urban schools like a mini mini park is what you're

1:52:04 ↗ kind of yeah it doesn't doesn't have to be much space i just want to

1:52:08 ↗ make sure that i just want to have in the vision statement it shouldn't just

1:52:12 ↗ be just be the concrete yeah just remember that okay so those are the things

1:52:16 ↗ that you wanted to change now let's go back to the future so we're moving

1:52:20 ↗ on to the next game so In order to have this as a vision

1:52:26 ↗ and to have it fly, you have to, as Lindsey was talking

1:52:32 ↗ about, other areas that talked about things that you imagined in

1:52:38 ↗ that neighborhood. So what I want you to do is give me

1:52:43 ↗ like three or four keywords that then can be put together to

1:52:49 ↗ make a longer statement. Things like... Joan, I don't think we want

1:52:55 ↗ more fluff here. I like it that it's very precise and to

1:53:01 ↗ the point. I disagree, but I think it needs something else.

1:53:07 ↗ What do you think it needs? Just an imaginary statement of what you think it's

1:53:13 ↗ going to look like or what people are going to feel like when they're there.

1:53:19 ↗ But do we have that in the objectives pages? I feel that's a lot more

1:53:24 ↗ fluff that has pictures and then you've got the words and the bubbles at the

1:53:30 ↗ top of each one. I think that covers it. I think these neighborhood sections are

1:53:36 ↗ meant to be more tactical. It's your... I think the developer obligation city

1:53:42 ↗ implementing options and measures of success are supposed to be tactical. There's the part

1:53:48 ↗ that's going to be used by city staff and developers. I think this section

1:53:54 ↗ as a vision is meant to be used by the community and somebody trying

1:54:00 ↗ to create a picture of the area to show what this neighborhood will look

1:54:06 ↗ like So so can I ask a question? So when you said

1:54:12 ↗ you want it not to be bullet points but to be paragraphs is

1:54:18 ↗ it is but paragraphs but still segregated by topic. So for paragraphs per

1:54:24 ↗ neighborhood. I still I like the bullets I think they're crisp and there

1:54:30 ↗ is there easy to navigate. I hate bullets because I don't it doesn't

1:54:36 ↗ create a picture. And you have all the bullets, all the rest of it, so

1:54:42 ↗ you go bullet, bullet, bullet. I just like a couple of paragraphs as a descriptive

1:54:47 ↗ narrative and that gives a normal person a sense of what the neighborhood is going

1:54:52 ↗ to be, and then you go into the bullet points for those of the engineering

1:54:57 ↗ persuasion who like the bullet points better. It's because it speaks to a variety of

1:55:02 ↗ brains. So, so i've written that livable one for west newport if you want me

1:55:06 ↗ to read it and see what we think between them so residents have built a

1:55:12 ↗ tight-knit community thanks to a local part park located at the edge of the anthology

1:55:17 ↗ project which provides a convenient place for local recreation and gatherings single and family multi-family

1:55:22 ↗ housing plus senior housing complexes are well maintained The

1:55:28 ↗ idea is

1:55:32 ↗ it creates

1:55:37 ↗ a vision

1:55:41 ↗ using all

1:55:46 ↗ of those

1:55:50 ↗ things. i'm

1:55:56 ↗ looking for you guys you're taking away the bullets and and making it into a

1:56:01 ↗ paragraph i think it says it it communicates same information it's packaged differently i don't

1:56:07 ↗ it's i don't think we have time it will just let's just think about it

1:56:12 ↗ it's packaged just so differently beautifully done lindsay first of all sure uh and the

1:56:17 ↗ same information that is really what we have to decide is what are we trying

1:56:23 ↗ to convey i do get a image in my head. I get a better picture

1:56:28 ↗ with the paragraph, but I think that I get more detail when I see it

1:56:33 ↗ in a bullet point way. So really, I think what we have to decide is

1:56:37 ↗ how are we trying, how and what are we trying to convey? Do we want

1:56:43 ↗ the fuzzy picture in our head or do we want the concise here is what

1:56:48 ↗ it is? I don't think it's what we see and what we need. It's how

1:56:53 ↗ we're going to sell it not only to the City Council but to the community.

1:56:58 ↗ And they have to see something. They have to use the language that Lindsey said.

1:57:04 ↗ so why can't we do both why can't we have a couple of the ideas

1:57:08 ↗ that lindsay talked about and put them in the in the beginning paragraph and still

1:57:13 ↗ have the bullets so we have both we have the picture and then we have

1:57:18 ↗ the bullets wouldn't that just be repetitive because what she did was she took the

1:57:22 ↗ bullet points and made that her paragraph so that way you can change it i

1:57:27 ↗ mean i mean if you get an idea of of imagining what it can be

1:57:31 ↗ um I just think it needs more. Narrative. You

1:57:37 ↗ just need a picture. Narrative. Why don't you guys think the

1:57:43 ↗ bullet points are already described to the nth degree in the chart. It feels

1:57:48 ↗ to me like we're just repeating basically the same bullet points in bullet form again,

1:57:53 ↗ in bullet form. And so they're already bullet formed. - So behind that doing the

1:57:58 ↗ paragraph and then doing the chart to act as our bullet points. I can get

1:58:03 ↗ behind that. I do think that it does a better job of creating a picture

1:58:07 ↗ if that's what our goal is. if we think that that's an easier way of

1:58:12 ↗ selling this, I tend to think that people have a harder time reading these days.

1:58:16 ↗ And so the more paragraphs you have, the more they get lost and wander off.

1:58:21 ↗ So that's why I think bullet points are helpful. That was why I wanted to

1:58:25 ↗ put the labels on it in the first place. Right. So that's why we don't

1:58:30 ↗ get rid of the chart because maybe they can just skip reading.

1:58:36 ↗ I mean, Lindsay, your paragraph was beautiful, but like I don't, I don't, it doesn't,

1:58:40 ↗ it doesn't change the content of the document. I think we just need to, I

1:58:45 ↗ think we just need to get a document to Landon Shore. We can maybe put

1:58:50 ↗ as a point of discussion, ask Landon Shore, are these bullet points too bullity? And

1:58:55 ↗ would a paragraph be more consumable? I think that's a fair caveat and say like,

1:59:00 ↗ hey, one of the things we wrestled with was what's the best way to package

1:59:04 ↗ this particular piece of information. But the actual content of this page is not going

1:59:08 ↗ to change. So then in that case, then I would be for the paragraph and

1:59:13 ↗ the charting because I think that's better packaging. But don't we need to get this

1:59:17 ↗ to Landon Short tomorrow? I don't think Keith wants to go to bed tonight. I

1:59:21 ↗ mean... so i don't but i want to go to bed tonight so if if

1:59:27 ↗ you guys decide paragraph and i don't i don't care you guys just tell me

1:59:32 ↗ which direction you think makes the most sense we will change it from bullet points

1:59:38 ↗ to paragraphs and then you guys can review that on the 8th along with the

1:59:43 ↗ green necklace and council will get it after that so they're getting it in pieces

1:59:49 ↗ So like you guys got it in pieces. They're getting it in pieces. So all

1:59:55 ↗ I expect to talk about with council tomorrow night is chapter 1, which is not

2:00:01 ↗ this. We're not into the neighborhoods. Oh, that's interesting. Is there a reason that staff

2:00:06 ↗ had the position of bullet points and chart versus? So the reason why it came

2:00:12 ↗ out this way is each of these things

2:00:18 ↗ are a different idea, right? And so trying to link

2:00:24 ↗ them all together starts to make issues of

2:00:29 ↗ sequencing like what do you what do you say first is that the most important

2:00:34 ↗ thing as bullets they're all even right that's why you didn't number these you know

2:00:39 ↗ because then you assume one is bigger than two right but as bullets they're just

2:00:43 ↗ they're just all bullets now if I don't disagree with the comment that one of

2:00:48 ↗ you made it might have been Connie that that um There's different brains that read

2:00:53 ↗ things differently, as I think has been evidenced by the conversation that you all

2:00:59 ↗ have had. Some people like fluffy narrative prose, and some people like laundry lists.

2:01:05 ↗ What you take away from that, if ultimately we want a document that is

2:01:11 ↗ navigatable or memorable by the biggest slice of the population, maybe we have both.

2:01:17 ↗ So that somebody who wants to read something that's fluffy because that's what they expect

2:01:22 ↗ in a vision document, this is what, you know, you could basically say we don't

2:01:26 ↗ have any of that. And maybe doing that here is where you could point people

2:01:31 ↗ to and say that's the visionary piece. That's the, you know, if you want to

2:01:36 ↗ see what this is going to be in the future, there it is. I think

2:01:41 ↗ that to your comments on the tactical tables, I do think that landed in the

2:01:45 ↗ right spot. That's a tool that the staff and development commission and developers, it's going

2:01:49 ↗ to be easy to navigate. It's like, okay, here's my neighborhood, here's my laundry list

2:01:53 ↗ of things to go through. And it's like, okay, I'm either going to do it

2:01:57 ↗ or I'm going to argue with the city and say I don't have to do

2:02:02 ↗ it. But that's, you know, there won't be ambiguity, which is one of the things

2:02:06 ↗ I think we were trying to overcome with this work effort. So what you guys

2:02:10 ↗ want to do in terms of the future and whether it's bullets or paragraph, I'll

2:02:15 ↗ go either way. It's not going to be done tonight unless you like the bullets

2:02:19 ↗ and then I can say it's done. But if you guys want to see it

2:02:24 ↗ as narrative, what I would do is change it and then you guys would need

2:02:29 ↗ to read it and give feedback before the 8th because on the 8th with the

2:02:34 ↗ green necklace we need to be done done. So so if if we're going to

2:02:40 ↗ if you guys want to see it in paragraph form to just then and I

2:02:45 ↗ know we can't really have conversations outside of Commission meetings because that seems wrong, but

2:02:51 ↗ you guys can send us individually your comments and suggestions and if you thumbs up

2:02:56 ↗ great or thumbs down, but we need some clarity and there's a little bit more

2:03:01 ↗ time to bake this if you guys want to I guess is my long answer

2:03:06 ↗ joy. I like that answer. It makes me feel better actually makes me feel warmer

2:03:11 ↗ and cozier. What do you think? Without putting you on the spot, Keith, in

2:03:17 ↗ a hypothetical world, what would you have thought about Lindsay's paragraph? The author, where you

2:03:23 ↗ were like, did you feel like that worked? I mean, again, hypothetically, I don't

2:03:29 ↗ want to. I'd probably add some commas. Just kidding. Two more commas. So. You feel

2:03:34 ↗ like that was on track to, you know, as the author of what you see

2:03:39 ↗ as being a little more dreamy, visionary paragraphs. Sure. I mean, I think you could

2:03:45 ↗ lace these things together. And And I don't know if her sequencing worked for me.

2:03:49 ↗ I mean, you know, like the school thing might not wanted to have been there,

2:03:54 ↗ might wanted to have been somewhere else. But I mean, you know, yeah, that's, if

2:03:59 ↗ you guys, you know, so part of this work effort, if you guys want paragraphs,

2:04:04 ↗ is you guys need to look at the bullet points and say, yeah, that's basically

2:04:08 ↗ the content. And now let's just fluff it up, right? Yeah. Okay, the reason, one

2:04:13 ↗ of the reasons that this started was the paragraph that was there was hard to

2:04:18 ↗ read. It was like all of these thoughts were stuck together and it didn't flow.

2:04:23 ↗ And that's why we put it into a bullet form. And I think it works

2:04:27 ↗ with a bullet form, but I also think it needs a little bit more, not

2:04:32 ↗ a whole big paragraph, but maybe a few words to, in the beginning. I, I,

2:04:37 ↗ That's my thought. So you're of a middle ground. Keep the bullet points but add

2:04:42 ↗ a little more fluff into it with the future paragraph above it. Yeah, it's always

2:04:48 ↗ been that way. Yeah. So that's, we have three positions. Yeah, so right now you

2:04:53 ↗ can decide which position you want to do. So, AJ, what would you like to

2:04:58 ↗ see? No change, as is. Ron? I think we need more ciphers so it's more

2:05:04 ↗ cryptic. I say keep it the way it is. I can read it both ways.

2:05:12 ↗ Lindsay. I think the comments from City Council when I went back to

2:05:18 ↗ watch the video was that they wanted something that created a vision for

2:05:23 ↗ each of the areas that was specific to those. And I think particularly

2:05:29 ↗ when we're looking at the repetitive bullet points that are the same for

2:05:34 ↗ multiple neighborhoods, that that's going to get called out by them.

2:05:40 ↗ and they won't like that. Additionally, looking at who is

2:05:46 ↗ the reader of this section of the document, I think

2:05:51 ↗ having something that creates a narrative solves, addresses the reader.

2:05:57 ↗ I want to say something about the idea of having

2:06:02 ↗ it somewhat repetitive across multiple neighborhoods, and that is if

2:06:08 ↗ I'm a developer and I'm going to be developing in

2:06:13 ↗ Westport, I'm not going to read what's in the Regional Growth Center, most likely. I'm

2:06:19 ↗ going to focus on West Newport. So if it's repeated throughout different neighborhoods, I'm going

2:06:24 ↗ to take notice to the neighborhood that I'm building it. Yes, and I think it's

2:06:30 ↗ perfectly fine for it to be repetitive in the boxes section that talks about the

2:06:35 ↗ developer obligations and things like that. When you're talking about a vision for the area,

2:06:41 ↗ I think we need specifics and something that creates an image of

2:06:47 ↗ what that is specific to that neighborhood. Right. Each neighborhood needs a

2:06:52 ↗ stand on its own. Yes. So does not what this does. But

2:06:58 ↗ that doesn't make any of the neighborhoods distinct. That says. The distinctive

2:07:04 ↗ piece does, right? I mean, those are specific bullets to West Newport.

2:07:11 ↗ Yeah, yeah, I think your point about bullets being repeated. I think we want to

2:07:15 ↗ avoid that in the distinctive section, but I think in the other ones, I think

2:07:20 ↗ the rest of us, I think, are okay with that. I think I think if

2:07:24 ↗ you can if you can find something in the distinctive section that is repetitive across

2:07:29 ↗ neighborhoods, I think that that would be something that would be good to highlight and

2:07:33 ↗ fix. but i think outside the distinctive section i think it is appropriate many of

2:07:38 ↗ our neighborhoods have stuff in common and so stuff will be repeated okay i think

2:07:43 ↗ it's uh we're going to keep the repetitiveness so let's not go back on that

2:07:48 ↗ again so that's done we need to decide i mean this will work for all

2:07:52 ↗ of the neighborhoods do you want to adjust the bullets do you want a all

2:07:57 ↗ paragraphs and all reformatted again which I think would be way time consuming and delay

2:08:02 ↗ things or do you want a little bit of creativity in the beginning with the

2:08:08 ↗ bull bullet points you have to make at least you have to give. So John

2:08:13 ↗ are you looking to add a paragraph that takes that little future sentence and flush

2:08:18 ↗ that out yeah, but then leaves the bullets underneath because because something that I would

2:08:23 ↗ be comfortable with thinking to the meetings is if we came back. address that fluff

2:08:28 ↗ and we're like not allowed to touch the bullets and touch the tables. That's what

2:08:33 ↗ I want. Okay, because one of the things I'm pushing against is if is like

2:08:37 ↗ if we converted these all to paragraphs we would spend the entire next meeting rediscussing

2:08:41 ↗ all the parts of the paragraph. That's not going to happen. I just want to

2:08:45 ↗ add two or three sentences to the top. I'm fine fluffing out the top of

2:08:50 ↗ the future section. I do see some value with that. - How do we

2:08:55 ↗ fluff that out without being third repetitive? - Well, you don't highlight the various

2:09:01 ↗ bullets. You have just fluff. But each neighborhood has something but it's fluff - it's

2:09:06 ↗ it's fluff for framing right so for an example for West Newport would we say

2:09:12 ↗ then that The because it's you know closely connected to all of our natural amenities

2:09:17 ↗ that you predominantly hear the sound of birds I mean, is that what we're looking

2:09:23 ↗ for is to try to highlight that in this neighborhood? I don't hear you humanity

2:09:27 ↗ I hear nature. Is that the is that the fluff specifically for West Newport? I

2:09:32 ↗ mean We've already add fluff for each neighborhood and it's a specific characteristic Is that

2:09:37 ↗ the characteristic of West Newport is its connection to the environment? I think the question

2:09:42 ↗ is what are we trying to sell right and for West Newport? Is that its

2:09:46 ↗ connection to the environment? Is that the defining characteristic we would add the fluff to

2:09:51 ↗ in the future? I Okay, is there what what what I mean, I'm not

2:09:57 ↗ seeing what is the what is another characteristic of that separate from West Newport from

2:10:02 ↗ the others. That's why I wanted to do the bottom before we did this. But

2:10:06 ↗ I think we've I think we've I think we're done with Newport yes except for

2:10:11 ↗ yes, the fluff so I think I think we're done there what what would what

2:10:16 ↗ what would what would the what would the for with the framing paragraph be maybe

2:10:21 ↗ that's not called fluff. How would you how would how would you frame. neighborhood. What

2:10:26 ↗ do you see doing in Newport? What would people be able to

2:10:32 ↗ do? Hiking, biking, stores, children restaurants. What is the two or three

2:10:38 ↗ things that you see as making this a vision in this neighborhood?

2:10:44 ↗ What would you be doing? I see it as being predominantly live

2:10:50 ↗ and play, less work. Okay, so-- Whereas I would see pickering being more work, less

2:10:55 ↗ play. Okay. So I would say that the-- you know, so that's what I'm asking.

2:11:00 ↗ I think the fluff to Newport is its connection to the environment. So I-- Okay,

2:11:06 ↗ what do you do in the environment? I'm predominantly, you know, hearing the sounds of

2:11:12 ↗ nature versus the sounds of humanity. I'm interacting more with my community in that I'm,

2:11:17 ↗ you know, waving at the bicyclist going past rather than shaking my fist at them.

2:11:23 ↗ Okay, so in different words, but yeah. Okay, so those are the only things I

2:11:28 ↗ want to put in there, if that's acceptable to you. Yes? I mean it's not

2:11:34 ↗ going to hurt anything. You still have... No. Okay. So let's move on to the

2:11:39 ↗ next neighborhood. Can I... Just one point to get back to the... because Connie brought

2:11:45 ↗ up and it kind of got overlooked was the crossing of I-90 or S-900 and

2:11:50 ↗ when I look at one of the next sections we talk about 17th is a

2:11:55 ↗ less crossing is less of a barrier for pedestrians and bicyclists. Could we

2:12:01 ↗ add that to Newport also? Or the West Newport? So it's already in

2:12:07 ↗ some of the other ones and a measure of success for connectivity. So

2:12:13 ↗ right now the reason why it's in the other ones is you have

2:12:19 ↗ neighborhoods that are split by arterials. Right. West Newport is not. So it

2:12:25 ↗ does not abut SR 900. But we talk about getting to

2:12:31 ↗ the you have to go to other places to get

2:12:36 ↗ to humanities. I think the members of the commission are

2:12:42 ↗ good as is and we're ready to move on the

2:12:47 ↗ next thing right next. Regional growth center. You say this

2:12:53 ↗ week, what. Did you say it that loud? All right. So, yes, you did. So,

2:12:58 ↗ um... Were we really set on keeping RGC as the name of this neighborhood? No,

2:13:03 ↗ the neighborhood's actually Pickering and Gilman. Right. But there's just, so AJ had asked for,

2:13:08 ↗ um, a kind of a primer here to say, "Got the Regional Growth Center and

2:13:12 ↗ it's made up of these two neighborhoods, Pickering and Gilman." This is your fluff. No,

2:13:18 ↗ I'm serious. This is your framing sentence with the framing map that kind of tees

2:13:23 ↗ up how Pickering and Gilman are different than-- or are highlighted or whatever you want

2:13:29 ↗ to do and how those two neighborhoods specifically relate to each other in unique ways.

2:13:34 ↗ So it's just a quick paragraph that highlights that. There is no table associated with

2:13:40 ↗ it because the tables are specific to Gilman and Pickering. I mean we've we've done

2:13:45 ↗ is we were trying to write the paragraphs for Gilman and pickering you kept we

2:13:49 ↗ kept trying to want to talk about each other and so we just have that

2:13:53 ↗ have the regional growth centers just a quick tee up for the so are actually

2:13:57 ↗ the RGC is our fluff it's our wave it's a painting a picture actually I

2:14:01 ↗ could I can get behind that. So Keith good news I have just a couple

2:14:05 ↗ wordsmithing OK. Instead of strategy, rewriting the whole thing. I'm looking

2:14:11 ↗ at the first sentence where it says the vision of the

2:14:17 ↗ Regional Growth Center is to bring about urban density development that

2:14:23 ↗ creates a thriving pedestrian and bicyclist oriented mixed use center. I'm

2:14:28 ↗ shocked. And in the middle, green necklace? Yes. I'm thinking green

2:14:34 ↗ necklace backslash mountains and sound corridor because it could be one

2:14:39 ↗ and the same or different. And now I the

2:14:45 ↗ reason why I'm bringing up the mountains of sound quarters because it's such

2:14:51 ↗ a instrumental campaign across the region and it's supposed to be a very

2:14:56 ↗ substantial trail going through our city so and bringing that language into the

2:15:02 ↗ vision is basically embracing the concept. so i think the mountains to

2:15:07 ↗ sound trail is a key component of the green necklace or the green network whatever

2:15:13 ↗ we're calling it so i missed the one meeting you guys had with park board

2:15:19 ↗ and you guys are going to have another one but i believe that that map

2:15:25 ↗ has the mountains to sound yeah, very specifically identified on it. Yeah, so I so

2:15:30 ↗ it will so I guess I guess my question Ron is I think it's a

2:15:34 ↗ subset of green necklace or whatever the green thing we're calling this. So I don't

2:15:38 ↗ know that you need to call it out specifically any any different than you would

2:15:42 ↗ call out say the East like some Amish trail or the Preston trail. or any

2:15:47 ↗ of the other kind of significant connections. I mean, it's a big deal, but we

2:15:52 ↗ have some other big deals too. Yeah, it'll get its love elsewhere in the document.

2:15:58 ↗ I just wanted to bring it out as a call out because it is a

2:16:03 ↗ big deal, but I'm satisfied. Thank you. Okay, Pinkering. No, do we not have more

2:16:08 ↗ than one new crossing of I-90 to help tie them together? We do. It's discussed

2:16:14 ↗ here. As more vibrant day and evening activities and a new crossing. But are we

2:16:19 ↗ looking at potentially multiple because so that the pet crossing will be not in the

2:16:24 ↗ growth center that will be that that will be in Newport and then they'll be

2:16:29 ↗ the road crossing and 11 to 12. The world is there a 3rd. Well that

2:16:34 ↗ transit center potential lid nobody's going to find out we're talking about and that's in

2:16:40 ↗ regional see how it's up in the corner there's a crossing up in the corner

2:16:45 ↗ of this very map right no so um so you've got one well you've got

2:16:51 ↗ one from anthology across right we all are agreeing so anthology has an actual ped

2:16:56 ↗ bridge landing as part of that site plan so there is a place to land

2:17:02 ↗ a bridge there to get it over to it's probably going to be over to

2:17:07 ↗ greenwood trust There's also the crossing that we've talked about somewhere in here whether

2:17:13 ↗ it's 12th or 11th or maple or something that somewhere in this vicinity right.

2:17:19 ↗ So that there's others so I think. - Aren't you showing a crossing right

2:17:24 ↗ there on this map? - I think that's the boundary. - Those purple lines

2:17:30 ↗ are borders. - That's a neighborhood boundary and this is I think the RGC.

2:17:36 ↗ Oh. Yeah, that's a border not a road. So you're just-- In this view, assuming

2:17:41 ↗ that we build out to the text that Keith is promising us, We will

2:17:47 ↗ have three PED crossings of I-90. We would have the one that's down near the

2:17:53 ↗ post office now. We have the one at 900 and we would have another one

2:17:58 ↗ somewhere in between. Yes, and then one farther west. And then one further west. And

2:18:04 ↗ then one further west, which is Newport, which is not part of this conversation. Right.

2:18:10 ↗ New crossings. But one new crossing. One new one. I don't, so I don't think

2:18:15 ↗ you're going to get more than one new one. i mean that would be another

2:18:21 ↗ conversation yeah the yeah the the sound transit station may function as a crossing but

2:18:25 ↗ i don't know that's not but that's not what this is saying this is there

2:18:29 ↗ will be a new crossing and there will be a new station i think what

2:18:33 ↗ you'll see next week is that there is okay yeah and if and if we

2:18:36 ↗ need to adjust this because what we're getting from the green necklace then we can

2:18:40 ↗ that was in the green necklace map uh it was in the green necklace map

2:18:46 ↗ so we'll see i mean i think you know i think the reality is so

2:18:51 ↗ so wash dot's working on ijr right and the ijr will deal with crossings and

2:18:56 ↗ to my knowledge they're not talking about anything more than one so doesn't mean there

2:19:01 ↗ won't be more than one i just don't know that that's a conversation point between

2:19:07 ↗ the city and wash dot at this time what's igr interchange justification report sorry

2:19:12 ↗ for the acronym it's looking at the redoing the Front Street interchange but

2:19:18 ↗ it goes all the way back to us or 900 because of looking

2:19:24 ↗ at how you would potentially kind of improve the functioning might actually be

2:19:30 ↗ things like slip lanes and other stuff which might actually start farther back

2:19:41 ↗ are we ready to go to pickering before you move on i

2:19:47 ↗ know right where you are just don't go to the next page

2:19:52 ↗ um pickering is listed there as number one because it's underneath the

2:19:58 ↗ regional growth center but it should be three so is west newport

2:20:04 ↗ i would just remove the numbers right because it would be weird

2:20:10 ↗ if you listed that as two necessarily uh okay yeah

2:20:16 ↗ All right, we good? Kay? So we're gonna skip

2:20:21 ↗ the future and do the same thing we did

2:20:27 ↗ with the first one. So we're gonna skip that

2:20:33 ↗ right now and go into the rest of it.

2:20:38 ↗ Ooh. Why did the word opportunities get added to

2:20:44 ↗ jobs? You talk about that for 1.4. So the

2:20:50 ↗ point was made, what if it's empty?

2:20:56 ↗ So in other words, so it's a job, so there's job opportunities there. So if

2:21:01 ↗ you had a commercial building that was empty, and we actually have a couple, could

2:21:06 ↗ the developer argue that there's no jobs there, so he's not displacing any jobs, the

2:21:11 ↗ jobs were zero. And so we wanted to try and avoid that conversation, because that

2:21:17 ↗ seemed like that might be a loophole. So we changed it to job opportunities because

2:21:22 ↗ there's a certain number of jobs per square footage that groups like ITE use as

2:21:27 ↗ calculus to figure out trips. So would it be helpful to, and this might be

2:21:32 ↗ something you want to float by land and shore, not in this document, I think

2:21:38 ↗ for the purposes of this document that's fine, but to have like a city memo

2:21:44 ↗ that explains what you guys actually mean by job opportunities. I think for the Development

2:21:49 ↗ Commission, I think that would be super useful. It doesn't need to be in this

2:21:53 ↗ document. It doesn't need to be dealt with. It's on videotape now forever. Yeah. So

2:21:57 ↗ we can just play this video and then submit that as evidence. But I also

2:22:01 ↗ think this might be the kind of thing, I assume you'll stress this when you're

2:22:06 ↗ putting this in front of Land and Shore. They will probably also ask the same

2:22:10 ↗ question. What does that mean? There's probably a better way to describe that. I'm not

2:22:14 ↗ sure how, though. I like this because I think this makes sense for non developers

2:22:18 ↗ on what we try to mean But there probably also needs to be some sort

2:22:24 ↗ of legal memo II type thing outside of this document that So that all the

2:22:29 ↗ developers can read it today and understand what I agree with AJ and I really

2:22:34 ↗ like the way you put this together because You're right. The opportunities is the opportunity

2:22:39 ↗ cost right of losing it. Yeah. No, I like it That's a win. Christine. I

2:22:45 ↗ - I'd like to make a comment for consideration. I understand

2:22:50 ↗ the livable aspect under city implementing actions of incorporate noise reducing

2:22:56 ↗ measures, but when livable is introduced as a bullet point, it

2:23:02 ↗ talks about the entire length of the Gilman and Pickering neighborhoods.

2:23:08 ↗ And I think that when you think about things from a

2:23:14 ↗ visibility and economic vitality perspective or economic development, we'll want

2:23:20 ↗ to have some pockets to see into the city what the city has to offer

2:23:25 ↗ if you just have an entire sound wall or an entire grouping of trees running

2:23:31 ↗ the entire length of the city to kind of buffer us from the freeway we're

2:23:37 ↗ also missing out on visibility aspect which i think is an important consideration

2:23:44 ↗ you don't want to miss out on that but you also want to think about

2:23:49 ↗ those who are living in a mixed-use environment as well so if you think about

2:23:54 ↗ seattle or bellevue they're not completely screened off a lot of times they use buildings

2:24:00 ↗ for some of that noise necessary make it complicated i i see what you're saying

2:24:05 ↗ but i think my i think my vision is is different i think Specifically for

2:24:11 ↗ this one, I think it was more like Mercer Island, where when you're on 90,

2:24:16 ↗ you just don't see because the freeway is so clearly isolated. That was actually close

2:24:21 ↗ to the vision I have. Not like going through downtown Bellevue where you see the

2:24:26 ↗ towers. Right. I wanted to clarify, I don't think Issaquah wants to be like Bellevue

2:24:31 ↗ or Seattle, but I think there's going to be commerce also happening in the city.

2:24:37 ↗ And so how do you address that component? Maybe there's views or something, but to

2:24:42 ↗ say it's going to run the entire length of your two densest neighborhoods, it's supposed

2:24:47 ↗ to be a regional growth center. I think that could be confusing in the future.

2:24:52 ↗ So... So the problem with that is, you know, so you have gaps in

2:24:58 ↗ walls and the noise just funnels into the gaps. And so, you know, if you

2:25:03 ↗ think about like the relationship of the freeway to Anthology and the big buildings that

2:25:08 ↗ they're building next to it, you know, you're not going to get Mercer Island. They're

2:25:12 ↗ not going to build, you know, 80-foot sound walls along the freeway. I mean, you

2:25:17 ↗ know, at most it would be like a, you know, a 10-foot, 12-foot, 15-foot tall

2:25:22 ↗ concrete wall. you're gonna see the buildings above it. You know, you'll see the buildings

2:25:26 ↗ above it. Isn't that just gonna create bounce then? It's not actually gonna absorb the

2:25:31 ↗ sound, it's just gonna redirect it? It puts, it keeps it in a channel. So

2:25:35 ↗ you have to put them on both sides, right? And so it keeps it in

2:25:40 ↗ a channel and it goes up over and by the time it gets over, it,

2:25:44 ↗ it, So noise works on line of sight for the most part. And so

2:25:50 ↗ if you can block the line of sight, then by the time it dissipates

2:25:56 ↗ by going over, it loses its intensity. So I mean, it's one of those

2:26:02 ↗ things where I did urban freeways in Phoenix before I left. We built a

2:26:07 ↗ lot of sound walls. So it's one of those things where it's... and one of

2:26:13 ↗ the reasons why we tried to put some language about the walls in terms of

2:26:19 ↗ trying to meet our neighbor our community character is so that they don't just get

2:26:24 ↗ to be blank concrete barriers right so it's a trade-off it's if you want residential

2:26:29 ↗ next to the freeway and i'm not saying we do or we don't i mean

2:26:34 ↗ right now we're trying to promote residential on the valley floor and and I think

2:26:39 ↗ if we do want it and want it to be livable, there needs to be

2:26:43 ↗ some sound attenuation from the freeway. But how that gets accomplished, now right now you're

2:26:48 ↗ right, it does say for the length. Now part of the problem is if you

2:26:52 ↗ have this conversation with WSDOT, you're going to need to be specific about what your

2:26:57 ↗ intended outcome is right and so it's it's not you can have a conversation of

2:27:01 ↗ please build it where we have residential or where we're going to have residential because

2:27:05 ↗ they're going to say well where is that we're like we don't know right so

2:27:08 ↗ I don't know the answer to your question I'm not dismissing it I'm just saying

2:27:12 ↗ I don't know how to solve that problem it seems like it's kind of all

2:27:16 ↗ or nothing. If they put the light rail above the freeway then we have to

2:27:20 ↗ have a conversation. So for example, with Gateway Senior, we tried

2:27:26 ↗ or I tried to get them to build the buildings between the freeway

2:27:32 ↗ and where the public plazas were going to be for the people and instead they

2:27:37 ↗ built all of their buildings leaving all the public spaces exposed to all the freeway

2:27:43 ↗ noise and the echoes bouncing off the buildings so is this language going to give

2:27:48 ↗ us the ability to do anything when a developer comes in say you have not

2:27:53 ↗ are they going to have to build a sound wall for I-90. So how do

2:27:59 ↗ we get that protection for the incoming community so that the plazas

2:28:05 ↗ aren't like right there next to I-90? Because if that's not going

2:28:10 ↗ to do this, then something else needs to happen because that's bad.

2:28:16 ↗ Aren't the sound walls a WSDOT thing, not a developer thing? WSDOT,

2:28:22 ↗ not developer. I could say for us with the Hilah Crossing neighborhood, even though

2:28:27 ↗ we're under a development agreement, we wouldn't want, and maybe we're different because we're local

2:28:33 ↗ and connected community, but we wouldn't want a sand wall blocking off Hilah Crossing and

2:28:39 ↗ its visibility. We would want to work within our own processes to make sure that

2:28:45 ↗ we were addressing issues like that around noise. We'd want people to see into the

2:28:50 ↗ neighborhood and all the things that are offered, but not to be completely walled off.

2:28:56 ↗ So you're saying you want, you know, if I own the Ford dealership, I want

2:29:01 ↗ that to be visible from the freeway so people know there's a Ford dealership there,

2:29:06 ↗ so people know to go there to buy cars and get service and whatnot. Totally.

2:29:12 ↗ Totally. So the difference is they control where they put specific land uses on all

2:29:17 ↗ of their property right so they can make decisions about putting the residential next to

2:29:22 ↗ the creek where it may be a much better place to put residential than next

2:29:28 ↗ to the freeway. But if you're but in other places where let's say I

2:29:33 ↗ I bought the you dub clinic right and the old you dub clinic that

2:29:39 ↗ was by where big lots is and I wanted to put apartments there. Okay,

2:29:45 ↗ well that's actually freeway and so you know I don't have another choice. That's

2:29:50 ↗ where I'm putting my apartments. And if really we want livable neighborhoods next to freeways,

2:29:56 ↗ I mean, I hate to say it, but look at the freeways in Southern California,

2:30:01 ↗ look at the freeways in Puget Sound where there are residential enclaves built next to

2:30:07 ↗ the freeways. They're noise walls. And so I just, I mean, I don't, I

2:30:12 ↗ mean, if you guys would rather not have noise walls, we can take it out.

2:30:17 ↗ But I think that right now it's probably what you would want if, you know,

2:30:22 ↗ the other choice is you do stuff like what Gateway did. You know, they just

2:30:28 ↗ built big buildings next to the freeway to shelter their three-story, you know, woody walk-ups,

2:30:33 ↗ okay? So, okay, so they used their own buildings as a noise wall for the

2:30:38 ↗ rest of their project. choice they made. You know, but I think what we're trying

2:30:44 ↗ to do is trying to figure out, okay, we're trying to, there's reasons why there's

2:30:49 ↗ not residential next to the freeway now. And that's what something we want to change.

2:30:55 ↗ I think this says incorporate noise reducing measures into I-90. It doesn't say the entire

2:31:01 ↗ length. It does somewhere. The bullet point on page 15. That's the bullet point.

2:31:09 ↗ But if it's a if it's a washed out responsibility and a developer wants

2:31:14 ↗ to build their I'm not quite getting how you're going to get something to

2:31:20 ↗ happen. We get something out my way the wash dot as I well as

2:31:26 ↗ but not necessarily when things are being built right correct. Right, there

2:31:32 ↗ is no sequencing connection there because DOT, if they were to do a

2:31:38 ↗ noise attenuation project, it would be for a stretch of a roadway that

2:31:44 ↗ wouldn't be as residential development was happening. yeah i i hear what you're saying about

2:31:49 ↗ about hyla but i think i think the vision for prickly and gilman is that

2:31:54 ↗ people will be out and about and there will be mixed use bringing in residential

2:31:58 ↗ along the whole corridor and so i think if it's i think if it's an

2:32:03 ↗ all or nothing i think i would pretty firmly land on the sound wall understanding

2:32:07 ↗ that that that does diminish some commercial opportunity i think the bringing in the more

2:32:12 ↗ mixed use is more in the direction we want the neighborhood to go in so

2:32:16 ↗ it doesn't say Sound walls there it says attenuation improve rice. Oh because

2:32:22 ↗ there's different so there are some different choices now what i would say to christy

2:32:26 ↗ is this may ultimately if we're successful here then maybe what we need to do

2:32:31 ↗ is go back and look at our sign code right which right now would probably

2:32:36 ↗ block most of the signage of some of those businesses because unless you're a corporate

2:32:40 ↗ center that can put something at the roof line you're basically limited to a ground

2:32:45 ↗ sign which might be behind a noise wall so there might you know so this

2:32:49 ↗ might then necessitate some changes to our sign code which we have to change anyway

2:32:54 ↗ right and i'm not intending to complicate or continue the length of the meeting this

2:32:59 ↗ evening i just when it says running the entire length of the neighborhood that makes

2:33:04 ↗ me concerned and so i just felt a responsibility to bring that to everyone's attention

2:33:09 ↗ and personally speak on behalf of the rallies we wouldn't want our neighborhood particularly screened

2:33:15 ↗ - Thank you. - So I've got a few in there.

2:33:21 ↗ 2.6 in distinctive. I don't like the word consider when we're

2:33:27 ↗ talking about developer obligations, I would strengthen that. - Require. -

2:33:33 ↗ Provide is the easier, but. - Yeah, I think provide works

2:33:39 ↗ with the rest of the bullets too. - 4.1 in sustainable.

2:33:45 ↗ I mean, sorry, provide appropriate, you know, because we

2:33:51 ↗ don't want just lighting. We want it to be

2:33:57 ↗ dark skies compatible lighting. Provide, you know, the appropriate

2:34:02 ↗ lighting. And the qualifiers to promote evening public activity.

2:34:08 ↗ Now, does that work? Having them provide appropriate lighting?

2:34:14 ↗ Yes? Yeah, I think staff would. Okay. Just making

2:34:20 ↗ sure. What? No. 4.1 that reads a

2:34:25 ↗ little bit odd to me provide a variety of housing for different populations

2:34:31 ↗ as present um yeah i think you originally had a variety of housing

2:34:36 ↗ as president i don't think yeah i don't know i would just get

2:34:42 ↗ rid of is present yeah at the end of that uh 4.3 you

2:34:48 ↗ use has um development has resulted in um i'm not sure if that

2:34:54 ↗ No, that's that's blue perfect. I think that's okay. Okay Can I add on to

2:35:00 ↗ that the question of that actual sentence that? The only result in game employment is

2:35:06 ↗ since this is under developer obligations It would mean every development has to result in

2:35:12 ↗ a net gain of jobs Yes, and I think that one's probably does that go

2:35:17 ↗ as a measure of success? Yeah Yeah, I could point out

2:35:33 ↗ You know, there's a topic that we've sort of missed throughout

2:35:39 ↗ the whole document and that is creating spaces and environment connectedness

2:35:45 ↗ for people with disabilities such as the blind and/or wheelchair accessibility.

2:35:50 ↗ We don't have any trails that even handicapped people can use.

2:35:56 ↗ Like for instance, if... Well, we have paved trails, but we

2:36:02 ↗ don't have any dirt trails or nature

2:36:08 ↗ We don't provide pathways into nature for people who have wheelchairs. I think that's a

2:36:14 ↗ larger scope conversation outside of the neighborhood visions. Yeah, I think it goes without saying

2:36:20 ↗ that Central Issaquah will be ADA compliant. So I think that should cover most of

2:36:26 ↗ that. Yeah, ADA compliant, but do we want to create an environment that is

2:36:35 ↗ So so the problem with doing something like that in a sub area and not

2:36:40 ↗ the city as a whole then you start to make implications that were discriminating in

2:36:46 ↗ the rest of the city for people with special needs right. I'd say that's in

2:36:52 ↗ this it's going to be in the park strategic plan. I mean for the whole

2:36:57 ↗ city they have to address that. i don't know if they do address it but

2:37:03 ↗ that's where it should be citywide i was thinking we haven't mentioned it and i

2:37:07 ↗ thought i'd bring it up but i'm right satisfied because it should be in the

2:37:11 ↗ big plant in the big park plan keep remembering there are three plans above this

2:37:15 ↗ that they cover 90 percent for 1.7 is that the uh kind of where the

2:37:21 ↗ soccer is that referencing where the soccer fields are where east lakes of amish and

2:37:26 ↗ exit 15 are and the redesign that the state has requested yeah it kind of

2:37:31 ↗ felt a little bit like a slip-in is there uh is that is that saying

2:37:36 ↗ that in 20 years we basically see that as being completely ripped down redesigned or

2:37:41 ↗ it's i think what we're trying to say there is that There's a there's a

2:37:47 ↗ perception I think in the city that that that's a significant recreational asset that feels

2:37:53 ↗ a little bit walled off both because of the amount of vegetation that's there but

2:37:59 ↗ also because of where the entrances so whether or not we can move the entrance

2:38:04 ↗ or or some other means I think what we're trying to get is better porosity

2:38:10 ↗ with the park. so that people feel like it's easy to get there and they

2:38:15 ↗ can enjoy the amenities that might happen to be there so i don't know if

2:38:20 ↗ it's reading that way but that's where we were trying to get to what we

2:38:24 ↗ talked about last week was making sure that new development didn't have their back to

2:38:29 ↗ that's yeah that's 56 to think the 56th the idea that I can write a

2:38:34 ↗ lot of this that's Northwest some that's Northwest some and whatever whatever it's called that

2:38:40 ↗ the idea that right now some of those buildings they're clearly designed so that that

2:38:45 ↗ road is the back of the building and the first in words and then so

2:38:50 ↗ this requirement is that when it goes to the development Commission the new buildings must

2:38:56 ↗ initially be oriented but each it you should have clear pedestrian access to that you

2:39:01 ↗ the state Park which the wind and be across. The parkway. So it's more

2:39:07 ↗ the idea that you're you're you're physically reorienting pickering the better access to the

2:39:13 ↗ park whether or not the actual park entrance moves okay, yeah, this is under

2:39:18 ↗ develop obligation right under same actions there's work to the park and work yeah,

2:39:24 ↗ I'm sorry I got lost. He just right. We play Pickering Park

2:39:30 ↗ right now pick the gun farm. I think you know we called

2:39:35 ↗ it like everything where where's that under sustainable bullet point one city

2:39:41 ↗ implementing actions say barn you got to. sorry we're

2:39:47 ↗ just talking amongst ourselves apparently

2:39:53 ↗ everybody is at this point

2:39:59 ↗ of the meeting four can

2:40:05 ↗ we change the order of

2:40:10 ↗ that sentence It would make more sense

2:40:16 ↗ to me provide missing pedestrian through redevelopment instead of the

2:40:22 ↗ other way around I'm sure question If you don't mind

2:40:28 ↗ the on 3.3 right before that I'm sorry 3.2 provide

2:40:34 ↗ transit pedestrian bicycle circulation from Pickering to Gilman That sounds

2:40:40 ↗ like more of a city obligation because I don't think

2:40:46 ↗ one development project would be able to create that connection

2:40:51 ↗ from a neighborhood to the next. That's talking about circulation, not connections. I

2:40:57 ↗ think you said it is that the development itself. How that's laid out.

2:41:03 ↗ To be able, you can get to what would then get you to

2:41:08 ↗ the neighborhood. It's kind of one degree removed. I mean, Mel,

2:41:14 ↗ you can tell me if you don't think that's going to fly. To me, if

2:41:19 ↗ I looked at that as a developer requirement and I looked at my property, I'd

2:41:25 ↗ be afraid the city could say, you're supposed to trail from Pickering to Gilman because

2:41:30 ↗ it says from Pickering to Gilman. It doesn't say access to... a trail that the

2:41:35 ↗ city bills. So now I agree. I guess the question is what if that was

2:41:41 ↗ restated to following the construction of the new I 90 crossing. So I think the

2:41:46 ↗ point is once there is that connection made we want bikes and pads in transit

2:41:52 ↗ service to to make that crossing right so as a developer, you know we want

2:41:57 ↗ you to be able to you know to recognize that there is that multimodal expectation.

2:42:03 ↗ So So what if it's after the crossing's been made? Or even just a more

2:42:08 ↗ general, like provide transit pedestrian bicycle circulation to all adjacent connections. So even before a

2:42:13 ↗ crossing goes in, that they would have to, there would be an emphasis that they

2:42:19 ↗ connect everything. Yeah, I like that, because I don't think you want to anchor it

2:42:24 ↗ just on the new bridge, but also if you're building something in Pickering and your

2:42:30 ↗ closest point is the nice bridge that's next to... 900 to be

2:42:36 ↗ able to make sure you have access to that. All adjacent properties.

2:42:41 ↗ It's like all adjacent areas. Properties would just be the parcels nearby,

2:42:47 ↗ right? Right. But if everybody connects to the one next to them,

2:42:53 ↗ right? Then you have a chain? So where is it?

2:42:59 ↗ impossible to complete a human scale street grid in and except for

2:43:04 ↗ a 90 right what what would that mean because you say where

2:43:10 ↗ possible complete a human scale street grid. If the lot you're developing

2:43:16 ↗ is she's is in a full block. So if there's a critical

2:43:21 ↗ area or natural feature in the way We don't want

2:43:27 ↗ them to connect a street over a wetland,

2:43:32 ↗ right? I mean, so in some places there's--

2:43:37 ↗ Well, maybe you do. No. Honey, did you

2:43:43 ↗ just say that? Well, if you're putting a

2:43:48 ↗ pedestrian bridge over a creek to create a human scale street grid so that people

2:43:54 ↗ will actually get out and walk as compared to getting in their car and having

2:43:59 ↗ to drive all the way around. I think you might want to do that. So

2:44:04 ↗ I was just trying to figure out when, what that would mean exactly when you

2:44:09 ↗ looked at that. Because if a developer can say, well, I can't because there is

2:44:14 ↗ a I have to cross the north. Well, we're in

2:44:20 ↗ the wrong area. Tributary 0-1-7-0. And it's a critical area.

2:44:25 ↗ So, it's just not very clear. Good point. So, I

2:44:31 ↗ mean, so it's clear to me. I mean, it says

2:44:36 ↗ where possible, right? So you'd have to demonstrate that it

2:44:42 ↗ was not possible because maybe you can't get a permit

2:44:47 ↗ to do that. I hear Connie's point. So what if a developer comes back and

2:44:53 ↗ says, well, it costs too much because it's going over a critical area. That's practical,

2:44:58 ↗ not possible. A cost prohibitive is not. Yeah. So those are different words. So for

2:45:02 ↗ me, practical, if it says it's not practical, then it's then it can say, you

2:45:07 ↗ know what, it cost me $3 million to do a bridge. I'm not going to

2:45:11 ↗ do that. Possible is different. Possible is I can't engineer it. I can't get permits

2:45:17 ↗ to do it. I have another property owner that's not allowing me

2:45:23 ↗ to land. You're not allowing practical to be part of that conversation.

2:45:29 ↗ You're allowing possible. Yeah. Okay. I got it. Well, then they don't

2:45:35 ↗ develop. Okay. I've got another one. Okay. Under city implementing actions connections,

2:45:41 ↗ the first bullet point there, I know Council said, "Hey, why

2:45:46 ↗ are you making the decision about where the Sound Transit station is

2:45:52 ↗ gonna go?" Uh-huh. So I would just change that to work with

2:45:58 ↗ Sound Transit to locate the ST station as a neighborhood focal point.

2:46:04 ↗ Just remove the within the I-90 right away. Council was very specific

2:46:10 ↗ that they don't want that decision being made in a policy

2:46:16 ↗ document without it being a wider community conversation. I say let them

2:46:21 ↗ take it out. I agree. This was our ninja move to get

2:46:27 ↗ into right of way. Yeah. I'm okay with that. I wanted to

2:46:33 ↗ address it. All right. Okay. Where's the maintenance yard addressed in this?

2:46:39 ↗ It's not. The what? this this comes with a big old maintenance

2:46:44 ↗ yard that's going to suck up land and wherever it goes put that in kirkland

2:46:49 ↗ actually if it is in the i-90 right-of-way doesn't need to have a maintenance yard

2:46:54 ↗ they can do some storage capacity because it's at the end of the line and

2:46:58 ↗ they need to be tail tracks which can be in the right-of-way that the maintenance

2:47:03 ↗ yard Might be here, but it doesn't need to be because it'll be connected the

2:47:08 ↗ rest of the network, right? So it from what I understand on sound transits planning

2:47:13 ↗ that the maintenance yard in Bellevue and the one in Seattle are enough to handle

2:47:18 ↗ the capacity for the network And so we shouldn't as a community Be required to

2:47:24 ↗ happen. That's what I've heard Obviously, you work for sound transit now, right? I not

2:47:29 ↗ yet. Oh, I will I will in a week and a half I didn't know

2:47:34 ↗ if you needed to recuse yourself from this conversation. Not yet. So

2:47:40 ↗ the intent is so the maintenance yard is going to be linked to the station.

2:47:46 ↗ They're connected if there is a maintenance yard. And I think our vision has always

2:47:51 ↗ been put the station, leave the station in the right of way so we don't

2:47:56 ↗ have tracks running through any of our neighborhoods. And then if you need an extension

2:48:01 ↗ for a maintenance yard, it stays in the right of way too. You know, I

2:48:07 ↗ think I think you guys have given some clarity on where the station should go

2:48:13 ↗ I think if we can I mean if you want to put and maintenance yard,

2:48:18 ↗ that's fine If you want to leave it as is that's fine Okie doke. I'm

2:48:24 ↗ gonna keep us rolling. Are we anybody else on anything in? Pickering all

2:48:30 ↗ right did you want to go back up to future now no

2:48:36 ↗ we're gonna we've already discussed it the first time so we'll add

2:48:42 ↗ stuff okay oh i gotta get rid of my three i really

2:48:48 ↗ like the numbers but i'm like yeah but then that that ranks

2:48:54 ↗ the importance of the neighborhood it does all right gilman rolling down

2:49:00 ↗ to the tactical chart i didn't know there was a word miscellany

2:49:13 ↗ So, so I guess question for y'all since the conversation we had

2:49:19 ↗ earlier about power that last bullet on sustainable about construct what we

2:49:25 ↗ have right now is construct mobility improvements with or before new projects.

2:49:31 ↗ I guess the question is, is do you want to expand that

2:49:37 ↗ to include anything else? Yes. Okay. I hope people don't kill me

2:49:43 ↗ for this, but I have I just thought of something here. looking

2:49:49 ↗ at 1.6 hold on can we can we wrap up the bullet i think it

2:49:54 ↗ might uh do you want to do it as a second bullet say something i

2:49:59 ↗ was going to do it as a separate one i mean i think i think

2:50:04 ↗ the concurrency one is a big enough thing that it should be its own which

2:50:09 ↗ is what's intended by this bullet so the next one i would just put uh

2:50:14 ↗ public services and utilities as a similar um

2:50:21 ↗ Let him finish. You can let him

2:50:27 ↗ wrap. Okay. All right. So Keith, can

2:50:33 ↗ we move on to the next item

2:50:38 ↗ here? Yes. Okay. 1.6. Yes. Provide weather

2:50:44 ↗ protection for primary pedestrian walkways and bus

2:50:50 ↗ stops, transit centers. The reason why I bring that up is because

2:50:55 ↗ we've had this conversation before where we're we are a wet community Yeah, and if

2:51:00 ↗ you're standing waiting for the bus, you don't want to get wet Can you say

2:51:04 ↗ walkways and waiting areas or walkways and gathering place or something like that? Because it

2:51:08 ↗ well, you don't want to say it gathering places as in over an entire park

2:51:12 ↗ or something That's a good point. Yeah, and this would be applicable for both sections.

2:51:16 ↗ I and transit stops I like that yes I

2:51:22 ↗ agree with what Ron said I think that needs to

2:51:28 ↗ go up to um occurring so I want 1.6 repeated

2:51:34 ↗ yes I think that's great no you had your lighting

2:51:40 ↗ thing before somewhere else is that lighting thing here too

2:51:46 ↗ is when it gets dark at 3 30. yep

2:51:53 ↗ It becomes tough walking and being at transit centers. Sometimes you have to wear a

2:51:58 ↗ flashing beacon so the bus drivers can even see you to stop. Yeah, I think

2:52:03 ↗ taking the lighting text. In in Pickering and wasn't that for it was

2:52:09 ↗ activities or something? It was a new part night the day and night one No,

2:52:15 ↗ it was in no, it's just in the last lighting and amenities to promote evening

2:52:21 ↗ public activity Yeah, so do you have 2.6 public activity? Okay good. Yeah, just have

2:52:27 ↗ 5 2.6. Just repeat that. Yeah, great. I So on pickering

2:52:33 ↗ you jump from 1.6 to 1.8. That should be one clearly

2:52:38 ↗ 1.7 didn't make the cut. Yes, like. All right. Develop a

2:52:44 ↗ mall street promenade plan and a plan for going Boulevard because

2:52:50 ↗ those be 2 different plans right. Yes, so a plan and

2:52:56 ↗ a plan for going Boulevard for that. Yeah, yeah.

2:53:02 ↗ thanks and and we're only planning gilman we aren't planning any other roads in the

2:53:06 ↗ future we don't want to plan for 56 through east lake sammamish and all that

2:53:11 ↗ do we have plans for all of the major roads or

2:53:18 ↗ I don't so I don't know the answer to your question. I think what I

2:53:23 ↗ know of is that we need a plan for Gilman and we need a plan

2:53:28 ↗ for mall. Right. I think we need a plan for East Lake Sammamish Parkway and

2:53:33 ↗ for 56th. As all of these things develop and you have to look at the

2:53:39 ↗ access and how people cross the street and everything, I think all the major roads

2:53:44 ↗ sort of need a plan and they've never had them before. So if you're only

2:53:49 ↗ doing things that you know are going to happen, that's not going to last very

2:53:54 ↗ long, like two years, right? Do we want plans for those roads? I think we

2:53:59 ↗ do, but is this document a place for it? I think we're good. 56 than

2:54:05 ↗ spanish parkway or spoken to in the relevant neighborhood so i was gonna

2:54:11 ↗ say it's not a part of it's not a part of this neighborhood

2:54:16 ↗ but yeah i i do find that is it why is it not

2:54:22 ↗ mentioned because it's you know it's not being addressed right now i mean

2:54:28 ↗ like let's take it easily because mannish parkway so um you know i

2:54:33 ↗ i think what's going to happen We have I think the city has

2:54:39 ↗ put in put some different emphasis on different streets depending on. Probably less when probably

2:54:45 ↗ less proactive and it should have right so you know for example were like knee

2:54:51 ↗ deep in Newport right now because of all the development on Newport and all the

2:54:57 ↗ unhappy people that live on Newport. I think why you don't have a similar level

2:55:03 ↗ of kind of concern on East Lake Sammamish is nobody's nobody lives there now. Yeah,

2:55:08 ↗ right. But as soon as we get a couple apartment buildings going in on East

2:55:13 ↗ Lake Sam, you know, it's kind of like the conversation we had as we drove

2:55:18 ↗ through the area where Microsoft is right now Sammamish residents kind of cut through that

2:55:23 ↗ area all the time in the AM peak. As soon as we have people living

2:55:27 ↗ in there, that's going to be, you know, a huge thing for the city to

2:55:32 ↗ deal with to cut that off, right? So I think, I mean, I guess I'm

2:55:36 ↗ answering your question that there's a million and one things always to do. Is there

2:55:41 ↗ any less need to look at East Lake Sammamish or... It goes back to my

2:55:45 ↗ comment before about this being a living document and basically right now, While we hate

2:55:50 ↗ being reactive, it tends to be we don't really know what's going in right now.

2:55:54 ↗ I think they're covered in the document. On 56th Street, we have a bullet point

2:55:59 ↗ that specifically talks about making it more permeable and including the crossings. And for East

2:56:04 ↗ Lake Sammam, you have a bullet point that currently says something something in the document.

2:56:08 ↗ But I think that's meant to mean the same thing as what we're doing here

2:56:13 ↗ with Gilman. So I think all of the major boulevards are covered in the document.

2:56:18 ↗ There's no implementation to get you there. That's the difference. This one has a plan

2:56:24 ↗ for Gilman that is supposed to create what you expect. I don't think there's an

2:56:30 ↗ implementation. I disagree. I actually think this bullet is the least specific and tactical of

2:56:36 ↗ the three examples. Well, they're making a Gilman Boulevard plan as we speak, which is

2:56:42 ↗ why it's there. So I guess, you know, if we're going to unpack this anymore,

2:56:48 ↗ I mean, I guess, so council's already... said we want to plan for gilman and

2:56:53 ↗ we want to plan for mall i mean so those two those two are here

2:56:59 ↗ because council's already kind of supported that um you know the others i mean you

2:57:04 ↗ know is it called fall city road i mean there's there's a lot of streets

2:57:10 ↗ we don't have plans for um you know we need a plan for sun we

2:57:15 ↗ need a plan for sun we need a plan for sunset you know i mean

2:57:20 ↗ there's where does it stop now that's not in central isaac it stops in the

2:57:25 ↗ central isaac club plan well i'm going to agree with connie here i think that

2:57:30 ↗ we are naming out very important streets here as far as plans that are needed

2:57:34 ↗ i do think we need a plan for northwest manish or east lakes and manish

2:57:39 ↗ parkway and sr 900 It's theory if we think about this is

2:57:45 ↗ being a 20 year document. I mean so as a 900 is addressed as making

2:57:50 ↗ it more permanent for us more about the mobility issues rather than development. Yes, I

2:57:55 ↗ mean 56 tree they don't need planes is to be more permeable and that's called

2:58:00 ↗ out I think the only way you might have changes in East Lake right now

2:58:04 ↗ we have something something yes to maybe have that language and where this language. When

2:58:09 ↗ we get these like remind me. because I will have forgotten. We don't want to

2:58:15 ↗ put something something in front of the land shore. Does it still say something something?

2:58:20 ↗ It does in my printout. You know, Saturday was a tough day. At some point,

2:58:26 ↗ I just needed to be done with this. So I might have just missed something.

2:58:31 ↗ Sorry. As long as you didn't miss something something. I got the something something. So

2:58:37 ↗ what was it, AJ, what was it that you just proposed? East Lake Sam.

2:58:43 ↗ When we get to the East Lake neighborhood, there should be developed a plan

2:58:48 ↗ for East Lake Sammamish Parkway. Yeah, so no change to this page. Wouldn't that

2:58:54 ↗ be part of the creek? No. No, because that stops at the creek. Yeah,

2:59:00 ↗ no, it's East Lake neighborhood. Mm-hmm. No, that would be 56th if you

2:59:05 ↗ wanted to do a plan for a road in Pickering, it would be 56th. That's

2:59:10 ↗ what I was thinking of because we had that conversation last week. we were fighting

2:59:15 ↗ for yeah and there's a bull in there that talks about making

2:59:21 ↗ a more permanent and better crossings i would say that that development

2:59:27 ↗ area is really um handled by the costco development agreement yes so

2:59:33 ↗ we don't need to address that here yes we just need to

2:59:38 ↗ talk about mobility across that street no moving on east lake do

2:59:44 ↗ it so keith my first suggestion is something something um

2:59:51 ↗ So where is that by the way? So under connected implementation actions in between the

2:59:56 ↗ second and third bullet. It should be its own bullet. I think that's I think

3:00:01 ↗ what you did is. So it was under a distinctive because we're talking about a

3:00:06 ↗ plan to create it being a distinctive area. I think it's on connected. Oh I

3:00:11 ↗ thought you were talking about the develop a plan. No, it's under, it's, yeah, so

3:00:16 ↗ right now it's under connected, but I, I think, like. I know, I was saying

3:00:21 ↗ that needs to. I think, yeah, I think I agree. So, so take, take where

3:00:26 ↗ you have right now, the transform, just the transform part. Yes. And then get, get

3:00:30 ↗ rid of that and then have. It does say something, something. I vividly remember us

3:00:35 ↗ writing that last time. And then here, have the same language before. So create a

3:00:40 ↗ plan. Or something. Or. is it so is it under it's under distinctive yep

3:00:46 ↗ so yeah so good so i think i think the pedestrian bike facilities and

3:00:52 ↗ east lake sam are the connected and then under the distinctive it's develop a

3:00:58 ↗ plan or east lake samanich parkway do we want to have language around transforming

3:01:03 ↗ it into And then this was the something something into more of a neighborhood because

3:01:09 ↗ the point that I think that what we wanted to add this in at the

3:01:13 ↗ meeting last week was the idea that between 56 and Front Street can you make

3:01:18 ↗ that road into more of a boulevard and not simply highway. Is once it because

3:01:23 ↗ the key to talk with us at length last time Eastlakes ma'am once you like

3:01:28 ↗ leave the city streets Is it as it as heads into Samama sure that's fine

3:01:33 ↗ as as an arterial but can it be to develop a plan for Eastlakes Amish

3:01:38 ↗ Parkway to be a Boulevard and not an arterial To reflect the evolving community

3:01:44 ↗ or do you want to just have just develop a plan and neighborhood Street,

3:01:50 ↗ I know I know but what's weird is that I'm like I see it

3:01:56 ↗ as an arterial so I would need to know what else is coming cuz

3:02:01 ↗ right now I'm like, well, yeah, that's what it is You're you're writing in

3:02:07 ↗ the wrong column Keith so so you have the plan develop the plan here right

3:02:12 ↗ yeah but then over here um oh so you're going to keep it in both

3:02:17 ↗ spots so we're going to keep it in both because part of it is so

3:02:21 ↗ so you want it to so part of it is we're trying to make these

3:02:26 ↗ roads that right now function more as regional connectors to be more city oriented right

3:02:30 ↗ and so i think what you're wanting to say if I and maybe and no,

3:02:35 ↗ no, I was right is that we wanted to be more neighborhood friendly. OK and

3:02:41 ↗ I have it that needs a bullet for a transform. Yeah, as opposed to continuation

3:02:46 ↗ of OK. Yes, it's going to have to develop a so in the newport area

3:02:52 ↗ measures of success for distinctive it says newport becomes a model for successfully challenge changing

3:02:57 ↗ a high speed regional roadway to an asset for the neighborhood. I don't know whether

3:03:03 ↗ That as a measure of success on East Lake make sense. So

3:03:09 ↗ similar to Newport. Yeah. I think that makes sense. You say vehicular

3:03:15 ↗ dominated streets, dominant streets have been transformed into shared facilities with bikes

3:03:20 ↗ and pedestrians and whatever that is connected. I like what Connie said.

3:03:26 ↗ It's already there. No, no, no. She's just repeating what's there. It's

3:03:32 ↗ right here. Thank you. Okay. Then we've already got it, just in a different

3:03:37 ↗ way. Yeah. That's fine. So it's a measure of success, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I'm

3:03:43 ↗ with you. But basically the measure... Look, I said something positive. It's like Sam should

3:03:49 ↗ be the driver. I'm going. They can yeah,

3:03:55 ↗ I still find kind of love. I'm sorry, good day mail. All

3:04:01 ↗ right so 1.5 out. Yes, Sir 1.5 the addition of the development

3:04:06 ↗ will not reduce non residential square footage or job opportunities. So we've

3:04:12 ↗ talked about this last time for Gilman and pickering we've added it

3:04:18 ↗ here which means The Gateway neighborhood West Newport is essentially built

3:04:24 ↗ out Confluence is a very small portion We're essentially saying for all the

3:04:30 ↗ developable portions of Central Issaquah You have to redevelop with commercial uses in

3:04:35 ↗ them on any property you can't go in anywhere and just build an

3:04:41 ↗ apartment unless you're building on a parking lot and Right. Or

3:04:47 ↗ covering or retaining. Yeah. And I guess I would look at something like say BMC,

3:04:53 ↗ the very north end of town that's not retail oriented, there's not walking distance anything.

3:04:58 ↗ Somebody came and said I wanted to do a, build an apartment project there.

3:05:04 ↗ you would be telling them you have to put job related development in right and

3:05:08 ↗ I so the so the good news is lumber yards don't have that many jobs

3:05:13 ↗ so you're probably creating a very small retail space to go in a redevelopment project

3:05:17 ↗ I think you could argue in a you know if you looked at the square

3:05:22 ↗ footage of the buildings and if you go by a building code type of thing

3:05:26 ↗ of how many people work per square foot and in the summer it can be

3:05:31 ↗ quite a few I I disagreed with this with the other two. I think to

3:05:37 ↗ extend this into the other, we're in essence saying you have to do, for the

3:05:42 ↗ most part, mixed-use development throughout the Central Issaquah area and I don't think we necessarily

3:05:47 ↗ want to be doing that. Coming through the back door. Right. And I mean, I

3:05:52 ↗ definitely get the intention of what this is saying and what the hope to accomplish

3:05:58 ↗ is, but We talked briefly about this at the Economic Vitality Commission that there's a

3:06:04 ↗ lot of unintended consequences that come from this. And so really be sure you know

3:06:09 ↗ what you're asking and what all those potential unintended consequences are because they could-- created

3:06:15 ↗ challenges i thought we did and i thought it was on purpose yeah yeah we

3:06:19 ↗ we discussed this at length i think we had really good discussion last week and

3:06:23 ↗ i think we're comfortable like we're comfortable with it and i think this is something

3:06:26 ↗ that you're going to bring up to land and shore and they can make a

3:06:30 ↗ final call on and there will be vigorous debate would be my guess on this

3:06:34 ↗ one at land and shore because i'm not sure they will all be on the

3:06:38 ↗ same page yeah because anything and then As as we discussed last week, remember it's

3:06:42 ↗ not always retail too soon you have lots that aren't retail conducive there are other

3:06:47 ↗ ways to have non residential development. The land and sure wants to know what we

3:06:52 ↗ think. We they don't want us to send them something and say well here it

3:06:58 ↗ is. But what do you think no, no, I think the commission feels pretty strongly

3:07:04 ↗ that we want to keep that line. I think the point is is that when

3:07:09 ↗ the public is pushing back we're saying that's fine. You'll have more opportunity to push

3:07:14 ↗ back as it goes to committee and Council, but the commission is comfortable with it.

3:07:20 ↗ Okay confluence. It's really short. Well, actually it's on two pages. It's long. Oh,

3:07:26 ↗ I'm sorry. I have one thing on Eastlake. I know, livable. The first one is

3:07:30 ↗ the noise from I-90 has been managed, but it's not mentioned in the livable section

3:07:35 ↗ the way the other ones are. I mean, you know, we normally have a bullet

3:07:40 ↗ point that says incorporate noise reducing measures. So we have it bullet pointed, but we

3:07:45 ↗ don't have it in our chart. Is that on purpose? I think at

3:07:50 ↗ that point the I 90 is elevated and he's

3:07:56 ↗ like you're not going to have noise wall and

3:08:01 ↗ there is no. It was left off. In that area.

3:08:07 ↗ That doesn't mean there won't be. Is it purposefully left off in the charting? I

3:08:12 ↗ don't think so. Since I didn't have a map, I probably got really confused. But

3:08:18 ↗ then just make a note because it can mirror the same language as all the

3:08:24 ↗ other ones. In livable, incorporate noise reducing measures, wall, landscape, et cetera on I-90. So

3:08:29 ↗ I added it, Joy. It was a good catch. Thank you. Sorry. Confluence. Confluence.

3:08:35 ↗ All right, so a little Confluence. So I

3:08:41 ↗ put Gilman Village back in Confluence because it

3:08:46 ↗ migrated to East Lake for a while. Do

3:08:52 ↗ we have anything about, and then this might

3:08:58 ↗ belong in East Lake, the Issaquah Creek, the

3:09:03 ↗ Parks Division, as that being a complete corridor?

3:09:10 ↗ this this this i by this i put in our in my comment that i

3:09:14 ↗ emailed you keith and i don't remember what you wrote back but the idea that

3:09:19 ↗ that creek from confluence park to like i think i told you that or i

3:09:23 ↗ suggested maybe this is more of a green necklace conversation point than it was okay

3:09:27 ↗ any of the neighborhoods all right thank you because if it's if it's about trails

3:09:31 ↗ and connectivity green necklace okay Confluence is one of the neighborhoods that

3:09:37 ↗ going back to the discussion about the Issaquah School District of improving connections for the

3:09:42 ↗ neighborhood. Yes. I was wondering if there was a way to put something in about

3:09:47 ↗ maybe currently what the pain point is that is a little more specific of how

3:09:52 ↗ we want because confluence is though evolving is already has needs and so maybe that

3:09:57 ↗ something specifically says we want a school in we want another school in confluence. I

3:10:02 ↗ mean is there - To our first bullet point, is there something that's

3:10:08 ↗ actionable regarding the school district that's different for Confluence than the other neighborhoods? If not,

3:10:14 ↗ no problem. - No, it shouldn't be. - We don't need to relive the conversation,

3:10:20 ↗ but. - I mean, so to kind of walk backwards on this one, Joy. So

3:10:25 ↗ this one, kind of what we talked about was we know that IBE is just

3:10:31 ↗ to the, Set South. Of the neighborhood and then they're talking about turning their admin

3:10:37 ↗ offices into a middle school. Right? And so where we started with this one is

3:10:43 ↗ we want to make sure that developers realize that there's schools in the vicinity and

3:10:48 ↗ that you know making sure that kids that there's crosswalks and you know connected walking

3:10:54 ↗ paths and all that kind of stuff seemed like that was what we wanted. And

3:10:59 ↗ so, but then when I thought about it, I thought about it well, but we

3:11:03 ↗ want that in all the neighborhoods. So that's when I kind of backed it off

3:11:07 ↗ and said what's true here, because there are schools nearby, we want in the rest

3:11:11 ↗ of them. So it kind of became the same for all. Okay. I just double-check

3:11:16 ↗ again. Yeah, I don't mean to relive the conversation other than Confluence to me stands

3:11:20 ↗ out as a distinctive neighborhood in this point. So... So under

3:11:25 ↗ city implementing actions, it says work with developers

3:11:31 ↗ where possible. And so when would it be

3:11:37 ↗ impossible to work with a developer? I can

3:11:42 ↗ take that out.

3:11:48 ↗ Or what were you meaning, you think? Who knows? Hey, Keith, in Connected for Pickering

3:11:54 ↗ and Gilman, we have provided for transit, pedestrian, bicycle circulation from Pickering to Gilman or

3:12:00 ↗ Gilman to Pickering. Yes. Would it be helpful to have the same thing, have the

3:12:06 ↗ same language in Confluence and say Confluence to Gilman? Is that a developer obligation? Yes.

3:12:12 ↗ So 3.1. So it doesn't yet exist in Confluence. But I'm saying taking the same

3:12:18 ↗ language. I'd say Confluence to Gilman. Yes. What was that

3:12:23 ↗ again? What were you, what was you? So that's, so

3:12:29 ↗ we talked, we talked about this in those two neighborhoods.

3:12:35 ↗ So right, I'm reading off of the printout. I think

3:12:40 ↗ you might have changed it slightly, but provide for transit,

3:12:46 ↗ pedestrian, bicycle circulation. Beach 20. From Pickering to Gilman. Same

3:12:52 ↗ language, Gilman to Pickering. And then same language, Gilman to

3:12:57 ↗ Confluence to Gilman. Having that mirror in the two neighborhood

3:13:03 ↗ sections. All adjacent. Yeah, whatever the final language was.

3:13:08 ↗ You can walk before you would get on a bus and pay

3:13:14 ↗ $2.50 from Confluence to Gilman size. Then I

3:13:20 ↗ just have a quick special request of PPC members. When you talk about the fluff

3:13:26 ↗ for the neighborhood, I know that you just had the conversation about connectivity in terms

3:13:31 ↗ of the green necklace, but we talk about Confluence Park today. In the today, I

3:13:37 ↗ think it should be something celebrated in the future because there's been a lot of

3:13:43 ↗ investment made. both public and I think some private in that park

3:13:49 ↗ and I think it really has an opportunity to be something

3:13:54 ↗ even greater. You know, Keith, that comment I had, I don't

3:14:00 ↗ know if it's that different than 3.1. So maybe now that

3:14:06 ↗ I'm thinking it through, it might be superfluous, whatever the word

3:14:12 ↗ is. You talked about transit too

3:14:18 ↗ though and this is just walking right walking and biking and your other comment

3:14:23 ↗ had transit connections No, this is non vehicular. Oh, no Yeah, I think I'm

3:14:29 ↗ fine with it cuz I don't where's trains are gonna go through confluence I

3:14:35 ↗ might be running up and down Front Street, but that's it. I think that's

3:14:40 ↗ fine. Or it'll be along Newport. Yeah, that's fine. I Okay, I think

3:14:46 ↗ I see your eyes kind of glassing over here. Do we need

3:14:52 ↗ more cookies? We have boundaries still. So we have two things left

3:14:58 ↗ to do. The first thing we talked about super briefly last time

3:15:04 ↗ and I blew your brains. So this is a proposed code amendment

3:15:10 ↗ to limit HOTELS, MOTELS, TIMESHARES, LODGING AND CONFERENCE CENTERS TO

3:15:16 ↗ PICKERING. AND THIS IS ALSO A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT SELF-STORAGE TO

3:15:22 ↗ LIMIT TO PARCELS FRONTING EAST LAKE SAMAMISH PARKWAY OR 221ST PLACE.

3:15:28 ↗ SO THAT IS -- SO THE STORY BEHIND THIS IS CONCERN

3:15:34 ↗ IS THAT AS SOON AS THE MORATORIUM IS LIFTED THAT WE

3:15:39 ↗ WILL GET THREE Three more mini storages along Gilman, although the one that's under

3:15:45 ↗ construction now I'm gonna say on public record is a darn good-looking storage unit

3:15:51 ↗ I think in my opinion surprised me it's it's Of all the other ones

3:15:57 ↗ that have been built in town I think so kudos to seek on for

3:16:02 ↗ that Okay, so what what's the logic for keeping it along East like Sam

3:16:08 ↗ I So right now you have some storage on East Lake Sam now, so

3:16:14 ↗ there's a cross from But we have someone Gilman right now So that doesn't so

3:16:19 ↗ part of it is I think again getting back to the conversation we had a

3:16:25 ↗ little bit earlier where East Lake Sam is You know, nobody lives on East Lake

3:16:31 ↗ Sam yet. I know. And so if you were going to allow opportunities, I think

3:16:37 ↗ there was a perception. I don't want to read too much into this. This was

3:16:43 ↗ a direction that was suggested out of the mayor's office. And so if you guys

3:16:49 ↗ want to tinker, this is why this comes to PPC. This is vetting it with

3:16:55 ↗ the community. And ultimately you guys get to decide what you want to push forward

3:17:00 ↗ as a recommendation coming out of PPC on these Is it too tight? Is it

3:17:05 ↗ wrong location? Is it not something that you're worried about and you know, but this

3:17:11 ↗ is what's so drawing from the conversation We just had about East like Sam should

3:17:16 ↗ be up if it's gonna be the primary Boulevard and a mix using lighting it

3:17:21 ↗ with many storages wouldn't be yeah, I think I think any Understand that right now.

3:17:26 ↗ It's a lot more conducive for many stories than Gilman is I think if the

3:17:31 ↗ vision is that East Lake Sam Should be up a boulevard just like Gilman is

3:17:36 ↗ then I think if we don't want storage and Gilman I think the same logic

3:17:42 ↗ applies to East Lake Sam. I would totally agree with that. Okay, I answer that

3:17:47 ↗ question And I forgot what area I think it's part of East Lake and

3:17:52 ↗ the where the service yards are we're talking about where the potential dealership would be

3:17:58 ↗ going in that area would be maybe the more appropriate place for storage because it's

3:18:04 ↗ sort of out of the way and it's not going to be taking up prime

3:18:09 ↗ retail real estate and what about 2 21st Sorry, where is 221st? Where the brown

3:18:15 ↗ bear and the taco time and-- I think that's too valuable of property to put--

3:18:20 ↗ Yeah, 221st is-- that seems like a great spot for an apartment building at some

3:18:25 ↗ point in the next decade. I get my car-- I think whatever logic that exists

3:18:29 ↗ that-- So what I'm hearing, I'm going to translate and see if you guys are

3:18:34 ↗ giving me thumbs up or thumbs down. You guys would rather self-storage not be allowed

3:18:39 ↗ in central Issaquah? Yeah, I'd rather put on the outskirts. Okay, so we're gonna

3:18:45 ↗ take that one P with the 24 and we're just gonna delete it. So not

3:18:49 ↗ allowed period. So the area because Ron the area that you were suggesting back behind

3:18:54 ↗ in the industrial area that's out of central that's now out of central Issaquah. Yeah,

3:18:59 ↗ that's not near the cannabis company. It is near the cannabis company. Well, it's because

3:19:04 ↗ it says it's on Google. I don't actually know where it is. It's never been

3:19:09 ↗ there before. Yeah, I don't think storage fits our mixed use vision. And that's That's

3:19:15 ↗ the reason why, you know, the old service area is not in Central Issaquah. It's

3:19:20 ↗ so you can do things like storage units. I am curious, what is 20? We

3:19:25 ↗ have sub notes for 23 and 24, but isn't that a 20 next to both

3:19:31 ↗ the self storage? This one? And below, yeah. So that's already there. So those first

3:19:36 ↗ two are the existing and those next two are the proposed. But we don't have

3:19:40 ↗ a footnote of what 20 is. Right now you have 23, 24. I don't have

3:19:44 ↗ footnotes for 1 through 22 actually. So I was just adding, so I started at

3:19:49 ↗ 23 because they were new. So 20 is, whatever 20 is, I think it's like...

3:19:53 ↗ I don't know. It probably explains it. It doesn't matter because it's not permanent. They

3:19:58 ↗ probably send you to the standards for what... Okay, so you guys, so right now,

3:20:02 ↗ right now you guys, so this is coming off in its entirety at this point

3:20:07 ↗ since you guys are not supportive of that. What about the hotel? I'm okay with

3:20:11 ↗ hotel. Pickering only. Pickering only. I don't understand why we're banning it from Gilman. I

3:20:16 ↗ don't see that. Or from 221st. When you think about the way that the road's

3:20:22 ↗ going to be going through, I don't see why you couldn't put a nice, you

3:20:27 ↗ know, boutique hotel on 221st. Because Raleigh already has hotels in the Gilman area. I

3:20:32 ↗ reject the idea that we have enough hotels. So you think that means that it

3:20:37 ↗ wasn't a... I don't know what that means and no one else is going to

3:20:41 ↗ be interested in the space. Yeah. I mean, if one doesn't get built, that's fine.

3:20:45 ↗ We don't need to encourage it. But I see no reason to prohibit it. If

3:20:48 ↗ we end up having all the hotels built in Gilman and not in Pickering, then

3:20:52 ↗ where are the Costco people going to stay? And the idea is to get them

3:20:55 ↗ closer to Costco so they can actually walk. So let's talk about the negatives. 221st

3:20:59 ↗ would do that. Yeah. So we obviously see the negatives in having self-storage located

3:21:05 ↗ in certain areas because it doesn't provide for an active use of the

3:21:10 ↗ area, you know, yada, yada, yada. We envision, yeah. What is the negative

3:21:16 ↗ of allowing a developer to put a hotel in different areas?

3:21:22 ↗ So the argument that was made was, and there's not

3:21:28 ↗ a lot of data to support this. So if you

3:21:34 ↗ can build an argument that says that right now our

3:21:40 ↗ biggest hotel generating demand is Costco's international headquarters. and many

3:21:46 ↗ of the stays are related to that, which is why most of them

3:21:52 ↗ are maybe or maybe not where they are. Then if part of what

3:21:58 ↗ you are saying is we're fine with more hotels, But if they're doing

3:22:04 ↗ business with Costco, then they should be within walking distance of Costco. So in theory,

3:22:09 ↗ they could maybe not have a rent-a-car, maybe have less trips on the streets. And

3:22:14 ↗ that's the intended outcome for, I think, the suggestion that it be limited to pickering.

3:22:20 ↗ So the idea is exclude it from everywhere else, not because it's a negative there,

3:22:25 ↗ but because we want to direct it. Direct. Actually, I think the market will de-

3:22:30 ↗ determine where the best place is for a hotel. Yeah, if if Costco is really

3:22:34 ↗ driving the hotel then I think the market will put a hotel next to Costco.

3:22:38 ↗ Or Costco puts their own hotel there because they're thinking hey, you know. I guess

3:22:42 ↗ like I'm thinking as a business traveler and I've got two hotels and they're roughly

3:22:45 ↗ the same price point and one of them is next to the place I'm working

3:22:49 ↗ at. Like that's easily enough to make me choose that. But the other one is

3:22:53 ↗ in the downtown area where you can walk to - Food and all that. -

3:22:57 ↗ Yeah, both are supposed to be walkable. - So let's take a hypothetical. So let's

3:23:02 ↗ say I can buy a cheap piece of property 'cause it's a hillside behind Fred

3:23:07 ↗ Meyer. - That's exactly what I wanna talk about. - And there's a brand new

3:23:12 ↗ road that goes from that street, that internal driveway up over the creek right into

3:23:17 ↗ Costco. So I might decide to build there, right? And everybody who stays at the

3:23:22 ↗ hotel who's doing business with Costco, they will drive through that shopping center over 60

3:23:26 ↗ second into Lake drive and that's what you'll get so is that an okay outcome

3:23:32 ↗ if that's what the market wants to provide. Well, I don't i'm just asking a

3:23:38 ↗ question personally there's no judgment in my i don't want to see a hotel sitting

3:23:42 ↗ on that hillside yeah we could talk about hillside if it's a nice looking hotel

3:23:46 ↗ but that's exact parcels when we did our tour through i mean but isn't that

3:23:51 ↗ in east lake not in it's in east lake yeah so that's not that's not

3:23:55 ↗ urban core well but but so so this is our conversation right so how far

3:24:00 ↗ if you're gonna unpack it beyond you So are you I'm looking for suggestions. So

3:24:05 ↗ are you saying you know what I think pick rings too tight of a not

3:24:10 ↗ let's say urban core. Yeah, I there's a reason that they have the same zoning

3:24:15 ↗ I think is because I think things like allowing hotels should be just consistent across

3:24:21 ↗ the zone. I agree. The RGC. And you could you could also say that the

3:24:26 ↗ new crossing of I 90 would make Gilman walkable to Costco as well right. Yeah,

3:24:32 ↗ you would just have to get it. Yeah, eventually. That's fine. Yeah, because I think

3:24:37 ↗ if you if you want to talk about the one in the hill, that's a

3:24:42 ↗ separate conversation, which is why are we dropping hotel lodging from MU, right? Wouldn't that,

3:24:48 ↗ isn't that mixed use? No. So I don't need this footnote anymore because now it's

3:24:53 ↗ urban core. You don't need either of them. You don't need either one either. So

3:24:59 ↗ for clarification, because I see urban core crossed out and I see regional growth center,

3:25:05 ↗ RGC. So what are we calling this? So the zoning district, so this is a

3:25:10 ↗ zoning table. So the zoning is still urban core, but we're calling it the regional

3:25:16 ↗ growth center and now we're also calling it Pickering and Gilman neighborhoods. We're just not

3:25:21 ↗ calling it a sub-district. Don't go back there. Are we going to line up? Are

3:25:27 ↗ we going to realign our... growth center to align with our neighborhood boundaries.

3:25:32 ↗ I looked at them they said no I don't know. All right so

3:25:38 ↗ let's can we have a conversation about why we're not allowing hotels in

3:25:44 ↗ the other zones that are not urban core. Right so that would be

3:25:50 ↗ Things like the Highlands, Talus, any of that? Could you please? No, no, no, no,

3:25:55 ↗ no. This is central. This is just central. Great. So this is so really what

3:25:59 ↗ you're-- so you guys took out destination and intensive commercial by getting rid of old

3:26:04 ↗ Route 10 and service. So those two columns are gone. um it's not allowed right

3:26:09 ↗ now in mixed use residential this is confluence right here okay so so what you've

3:26:14 ↗ got so you got village residential which is west newport okay yeah that makes sense

3:26:19 ↗ it's not gonna happen um and so really the only thing that's that you've taken

3:26:25 ↗ away is mixed use so that's pretty much almost all of east lake So

3:26:30 ↗ if you want to put that back, if you want to say basically no change,

3:26:35 ↗ then you'd be saying I think East Lake is fine too. I think it's fine.

3:26:40 ↗ Yeah, I mean I don't mind you pro and conning me on it, but right

3:26:45 ↗ now I don't really mind the idea of it just off the cuff. We think

3:26:51 ↗ about a boulevard concept in our you know versus an arterial we think about the

3:26:56 ↗ future that It doesn't seem like a terrible place to put it. Well, I mean

3:27:01 ↗ that's up on the hill again remember so if you want to restrict things to

3:27:06 ↗ Alongside the road for example so that they would have access on to the main

3:27:11 ↗ corridor You can do things like that in your in your footnotes, too so it

3:27:16 ↗ doesn't have to be Just in the area it could be in the

3:27:21 ↗ area but but that's a certain street building discussion Footnotes of these zoning

3:27:27 ↗ maps so Keith. Yes, sir. If we put a hotel I don't have

3:27:33 ↗ any problem with putting the hotel in Eastgate. I'm sorry. That's okay. I

3:27:40 ↗ - I don't have any problem with that. - Well actually I want the LTACs

3:27:45 ↗ for that. - No, we actually want them here, really. I actually think we do.

3:27:50 ↗ The only thing I have a problem with is putting development on that hillside. And

3:27:55 ↗ if that's the only discussion or if that's the only con we have here, then

3:28:01 ↗ what can we do to prevent that from happening in that parcel that we are

3:28:06 ↗ all so concerned about and still open that up for East Lake? Well, you could

3:28:12 ↗ do what Connie said is one option where you say if there's a hotel, it

3:28:18 ↗ has to have direct access on the East Lake Sammamish Parkway, right? So the hillside

3:28:23 ↗ would not. The problem is, so the hillsides, the hillsides private property, so it's developable.

3:28:29 ↗ It's, I mean, it's, it could be developed. I don't know if it's developable or

3:28:34 ↗ not. Somebody would have to provide all the geotech that says you could actually get

3:28:39 ↗ into that hillside and not have something really bad happen. So that part, so you

3:28:44 ↗ can, you can say where you want it more than you can say, I don't

3:28:49 ↗ want it on a hillside, right? so you could so you can so if you're

3:28:54 ↗ going to be selective in east lake um you could say it has to be

3:28:59 ↗ on an arterial street okay well that could be east lake sammamish parkway that could

3:29:04 ↗ be um you know uh that could be gilman because we have a little bit

3:29:09 ↗ of east lake over on gilman um Could that argument also be made for was

3:29:14 ↗ that what's the name of that road that goes like nugget black nugget? Yeah, could

3:29:18 ↗ that also be it's not an arterial? It's a it's a collector. I mean so

3:29:22 ↗ so you could I mean and I would double check those with engineering to make

3:29:26 ↗ sure that they're the right names but I mean so if If the commission wants

3:29:31 ↗ to carve East Lake into hotel non hotel spaces that just has to be

3:29:37 ↗ rational it can't look like you did it purposely to exclude a parcel. Then

3:29:43 ↗ we get in trouble. So run facing to East Lake in Eastgate are East.

3:29:49 ↗ I think some of the Parkway East Lake neighborhood is late. Yeah, I've been

3:29:54 ↗ up since 5. I don't see any reason to to carve

3:30:00 ↗ up the neighborhood. Neither. Okay, I'm seeing 3 no development via a hillside conversation.

3:30:06 ↗ I don't think that should be in what you're saying by doing that as

3:30:12 ↗ you're opening up the whole area to tell which is I'm OK with but

3:30:18 ↗ except on black nugget is a bad idea. - Why, I mean, if the market

3:30:24 ↗ bears it and an environmental impact study says it's fine, I'm not sure that I'm

3:30:30 ↗ following why it's about it yet. - Because you can get a EIS report that

3:30:35 ↗ says something is safe. On that hillside and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe.

3:30:41 ↗ There are many cases to show that we can start to the whole system can't

3:30:46 ↗ be bad if this is our plan of how we attack development. What would you

3:30:51 ↗ rather have there? Do you want a hotel or do you want to develop on

3:30:57 ↗ nothing? That's not an option. It's private property and if it's able to be developed

3:31:02 ↗ then so okay so time out. Come out. Trish is smarter than all

3:31:08 ↗ of us. So this particular item, we wanted to unpack it

3:31:13 ↗ a little bit, which we did. And I would suggest that all of you hold

3:31:19 ↗ your opinion because we have to have a public hearing because it's a code amendment.

3:31:24 ↗ So the public hearing is scheduled for the 22nd of March. So this will be

3:31:29 ↗ an opportunity for the public, Mel can bring all his friends, you know, to say

3:31:34 ↗ why this is a good or a bad idea. Okay, so so we

3:31:40 ↗ can just put this back on the sideboard you guys have had some good conversations

3:31:46 ↗ Let's save it for the 22nd and then you guys need to make a recommendation

3:31:51 ↗ on this Can you put in front of public the two changes we've already made?

3:31:57 ↗ Absolutely as the as the recommended proposed or whatever the packet is anybody down to

3:32:03 ↗ adding it to East Lake Sammamish hotels would also then move Yes Yes, I would

3:32:08 ↗ not So we have that thing ironed out. So you guys are conversing. Yeah, you

3:32:14 ↗ guys are split on that one. So so for the three of you who are

3:32:19 ↗ not seeing any limitations to East Lake. You know, it'd be basically no code change.

3:32:24 ↗ Right. Because right now it's just permitted. Okay. All right. With that, I think we're

3:32:30 ↗ ready to go to maps and go through each of the five neighborhoods and see

3:32:35 ↗ if we want to change any boundaries. I always do. So we have a lot

3:32:40 ↗ of fun. A lot of energy at the end of this meeting. Yeah, so I

3:32:44 ↗ have a thought related to that. Several meetings ago, we were looking at zoning maps

3:32:48 ↗ when we were deciding our neighborhood boundaries. Yes. And we were like, that's the wrong

3:32:53 ↗ way to do it. Are we going to, now that we've, after we set our

3:32:57 ↗ neighborhood lines, are we going to go back and make sure our zoning matches our

3:33:01 ↗ neighborhoods? No. Not necessarily. Why not? uh because i don't know that it's that important

3:33:06 ↗ that the neighborhood lines and the zones match but i thought i just remember we

3:33:11 ↗ had we had a big discussion about how the zoning should follow am i glad

3:33:16 ↗ we have a zoning map in this room where did it go so okay so

3:33:21 ↗ we have a zoning map we can cross reference as we discuss and if it

3:33:26 ↗ seems like that's a um a determining factor let's have that conversation okay

3:33:32 ↗ all right so you guys need to come down to

3:33:37 ↗ the floor uh we got big maps we're gonna unroll

3:33:43 ↗ bobby sit down all right Okay. Okay. Yeah.

3:33:48 ↗ We're allowed to stand up. Oh, yeah.

3:33:54 ↗ We're standing up. Oh, my gosh. Do

3:34:00 ↗ we get to take these home? I

3:34:05 ↗ don't understand. Nope. Oh, Wes. Oh.

3:34:13 ↗ Hi,

3:34:17 ↗ Wes.

3:34:20 ↗ Can

3:34:23 ↗ we

3:34:26 ↗ have

3:34:30 ↗ a

3:34:33 ↗ two-minute

3:34:36 ↗ break?

3:34:39 ↗ You

3:34:43 ↗ know,

3:34:46 ↗ where

3:34:49 ↗ you

3:34:52 ↗ put

3:34:56 ↗ the

3:34:59 ↗ fun

3:35:02 ↗ little

3:35:05 ↗ thing

3:35:08 ↗ on

3:35:12 ↗ the...

3:35:15 ↗ Thanks.

3:35:18 ↗ Did

3:35:21 ↗ someone

3:35:25 ↗ already

3:35:28 ↗ run

3:35:31 ↗ out?

3:35:34 ↗ Are

3:35:38 ↗ you

3:35:41 ↗ happy

3:35:44 ↗ you

3:35:47 ↗ got

3:35:50 ↗ your

3:35:54 ↗ phone?

3:35:57 ↗ They're

3:36:00 ↗ the

3:36:03 ↗ exact

3:36:07 ↗ same.

3:36:10 ↗ They

3:36:13 ↗ have

3:36:16 ↗ the

3:36:20 ↗ exact

3:36:23 ↗ same

3:36:26 ↗ boundaries.

3:36:29 ↗ Oh,

3:36:32 ↗ we're

3:36:36 ↗ back

3:36:39 ↗ on.

3:36:42 ↗ This

3:36:45 ↗ one

3:36:49 ↗ is

3:36:52 ↗ just,

3:36:55 ↗ if

3:36:58 ↗ you

3:37:02 ↗ guys,

3:37:05 ↗ it

3:37:08 ↗ may

3:37:11 ↗ be

3:37:14 ↗ easiest

3:37:18 ↗ to

3:37:21 ↗ mark

3:37:24 ↗ up.

3:37:27 ↗ That

3:37:31 ↗ one

3:37:34 ↗ shows

3:37:37 ↗ zoning,

3:37:40 ↗ because

3:37:44 ↗ exactly

3:37:47 ↗ the

3:37:50 ↗ conversation

3:37:53 ↗ I

3:37:57 ↗ had. this

3:38:02 ↗ is how it has been amended

3:38:07 ↗ but not approved right i know

3:38:12 ↗ but yes by you all and

3:38:18 ↗ you all have the most questions

3:38:23 ↗ on this yeah east lake conforms

3:38:28 ↗ so let's start with important

3:38:34 ↗ I mean to AJ's point that contains part of

3:38:39 ↗ Rally, Rally Development Agreement. So do you shift it

3:38:45 ↗ over? Yep, right. Which is easy to see on

3:38:50 ↗ the zoning map. Okay, do we move to Gilman?

3:38:56 ↗ If we try to change the zoning to match

3:39:02 ↗ - You can't change that, that's part of the development. - Right, but I mean

3:39:07 ↗ that's to-- - But you could put that into Gilman. - But you could put

3:39:12 ↗ it into the Gilman. - You could put it in Gilman if you wanted. You

3:39:17 ↗ could bump the line to include Olive Rowley in Gilman. - So what's the pros

3:39:21 ↗ and cons of doing that? - Some people were talking about the zoning being more--

3:39:26 ↗ - Okay, what is Rowley? - It was separated originally because it's a creek there,

3:39:31 ↗ it's an obvious divider between the parks. Tibbetts Creek goes right up. -

3:39:37 ↗ I don't think it makes a functional difference. - How long

3:39:43 ↗ is the development period? - 30 years. - So what's the

3:39:48 ↗ benefit to having it this way? - This is how it

3:39:54 ↗ is existing. - What would be your, would you leave it

3:40:00 ↗ in or take it out? - I mean, today it doesn't

3:40:06 ↗ matter. In five years, I think,

3:40:12 ↗ I think

3:40:17 ↗ I'm good

3:40:23 ↗ with the

3:40:29 ↗ boundary as

3:40:34 ↗ is. With the understanding that those parcels

3:40:40 ↗ aren't going to get rezoned no matter what we do. Well, and this is all

3:40:45 ↗ the same development room, correct? So this is actually only, it's a five max as

3:40:50 ↗ long as everything around it stays under five. And it's not built in the development

3:40:55 ↗ room, they're able to be higher than whatever the highest building is. Not that particular

3:41:00 ↗ location? - So this isn't all the same as the other one? - It

3:41:05 ↗ is, but there's a, we wanted a view access and to preserve that,

3:41:11 ↗ so we can buy one and get the other. So that one's specific

3:41:17 ↗ to the land use, whereas these are more flexible, depending on where it

3:41:23 ↗ is in proximity to the tree. - All right, so last report, we're

3:41:28 ↗ all good? - Sweet. - Great, let's move on to number two.

3:41:35 ↗ So I think pickering is probably the second easiest. Yep.

3:41:40 ↗ Remind me if this is developable or who owns this.

3:41:46 ↗ The 200 foot bridge. Well, this is going to be

3:41:52 ↗ a road. Oh yeah, that's going to be 67th. And

3:41:57 ↗ then this is the buffer to the creek that's owned

3:42:03 ↗ by the homeowners, the Costco homeowners association thing and then

3:42:08 ↗ we have the same one. size darst park

3:42:14 ↗ there's a costco wetland over here houses single family

3:42:19 ↗ houses city property single family houses jordan creek office

3:42:25 ↗ building and New taco... So this isn't staying green. There's a

3:42:30 ↗ road that's gonna come through over the creek. They're building it right now.

3:42:36 ↗ So why do we have the jet out? Why would this have to

3:42:42 ↗ be straight line? We did it because it's all part of one parcel.

3:42:48 ↗ When we did the urban... Everything on the straight line,

3:42:54 ↗ everything to the east of that is accessed from

3:43:00 ↗ 221st, right? Right. So this path just goes through

3:43:05 ↗ the Falls River Boundaries. So remember the purple

3:43:11 ↗ is the original growth center so technically that's not...

3:43:17 ↗ Yeah, because what we would be showing that isn't

3:43:22 ↗ a jut out, it's an edge there. Yeah. Any

3:43:28 ↗ reason here versus there? Is that a boundary?

3:43:36 ↗ Actually, we'll, yeah, it doesn't matter. We can just extend the corner out. It doesn't

3:43:41 ↗ matter. We'll just extend the orange to move the red. Yes. Okay. Yeah.

3:43:47 ↗ - And then I guess that would be the same. - No, sorry. - Oh,

3:43:52 ↗ that's because that's for three. - That's why. There was no point in having a

3:43:57 ↗ third. - That was just the original boundary. - Yeah, with the road, why match

3:44:03 ↗ the original road boundary? Why is this on the other side of the road? Why

3:44:08 ↗ wouldn't you make it a nice square? - I wouldn't do that. All

3:44:13 ↗ right. - Is there

3:44:18 ↗ a reason that this

3:44:24 ↗ line doesn't match up

3:44:29 ↗ to the road? That's

3:44:35 ↗ the regional . That's the regional . That's the regional . It's probably

3:44:40 ↗ the limited access for . And actually, yeah. That's the right away. And

3:44:46 ↗ that actually is, that's right away, right there. So it goes to the

3:44:52 ↗ parcel down there. Yeah. And we split the neighborhoods down the middle. So

3:44:57 ↗ now as we have it, Gilman Village is in . Yes. Gilman Village

3:45:03 ↗ is-- It's just to the east of the creek in South . All

3:45:09 ↗ right, you guys want to do Eastlake Confluence? So Eastlake's the hard one.

3:45:14 ↗ So let's go Confluence. So we need to talk about this line, which

3:45:20 ↗ should be here versus the 90. Well, if you do that, then you

3:45:26 ↗ would have the Medical Center and you have the strip mall that has

3:45:31 ↗ the big old tires. It would be part of the Confluence. I

3:45:37 ↗ definitely think this does not belong in confluence, whether it's Eastman or Hillman, we can

3:45:42 ↗ talk about it in a minute, but I think this is the appropriate word. You

3:45:48 ↗ guys talked about having it go across to create more of a sense of connection.

3:45:53 ↗ No, no, no, we're talking confluence. I remember when we originally discussed this, we had

3:45:59 ↗ pulled in Hillman and confluence, and we had limited it because we really felt that

3:46:04 ↗ this So if we're just talking confluence, then that is

3:46:10 ↗ the edge. Makes sense. Anything down here? Yeah, because this is

3:46:16 ↗ now like the paint store. Well, not right now. But this

3:46:22 ↗ is the gas station that needs cleaning up. -

3:46:28 ↗ Yeah, this is the Old Town Quarter, right? - It is, yeah. - Are there

3:46:34 ↗ any parcels that are in neither? - It's not Old Town. - It is part

3:46:39 ↗ of Old Town. - Old Town extends? - Up to Gilman. -

3:46:45 ↗ Off the front, up to the end. - Working on the Old Town sub-area

3:46:51 ↗ plan. It's there, I promise. - I just wanna make sure there isn't-- -

3:46:57 ↗ No, I think there is. - Okay, so that's-- - Wait a second, we're

3:47:02 ↗ confused here. We thought that the next discussion about the Old Town sub-area plan

3:47:08 ↗ was to possibly extend it or not extend it. - Well, that was the

3:47:14 ↗ cover of Old Service. The conversation

3:47:20 ↗ was to put the Grange

3:47:26 ↗ into Old Town. Right. So

3:47:32 ↗ did that happen? No, we're coming back to you guys. Because we're coming back to

3:47:36 ↗ you guys to talk about that with the Old Town Plan. Remember how there was

3:47:41 ↗ a discussion about, like, you guys wanted, I mean, staff was proposing the possibility of

3:47:45 ↗ stopping Old Town back where the creek was. Right. Over the creek was, right. And

3:47:49 ↗ so that got vetoed and nixed out? No, it hasn't been vetoed or nixed out.

3:47:54 ↗ When we come back, we're talking about all the boundaries of Old Town. Is there

3:47:58 ↗ any reason to include this triangle? It's going

3:48:03 ↗ to be a car wash,

3:48:08 ↗ so it got bought by

3:48:14 ↗ Brown Bear. There's a food

3:48:19 ↗ truck. No, I'm not in

3:48:25 ↗ there. I know. Would

3:48:30 ↗ you ever, if you

3:48:35 ↗ wanted, if we wanted

3:48:40 ↗ to do a different

3:48:46 ↗ zoning south of June

3:48:51 ↗ 3rd, is that possible

3:48:56 ↗ down the road? What were you thinking? Well,

3:49:02 ↗ what I'm wondering is that, I mean, you can go pretty tall there now. So

3:49:07 ↗ one of the city action items for Confluence, and I had this conversation with Mary

3:49:12 ↗ Lou either today or yesterday, I don't know, it all blurs together, is we made

3:49:18 ↗ that commitment to basically pull the zoning back down for the MUR to keep Confluence

3:49:23 ↗ in central, but to reduce the height bulk and mass. We talked about that at

3:49:29 ↗ the first meeting. To the old MUR? Yeah, probably back to the old MUR. Yeah.

3:49:35 ↗ Well, I guess I would see the possibility of it being taller on the north

3:49:40 ↗ side, shorter on the south side. Yeah, I mean, given some of this here in

3:49:46 ↗ this . So if we're going to tweak the zoning, we'll have to talk that

3:49:51 ↗ all the way through. But I appreciate the thought on that moment. I heard that.

3:49:57 ↗ - The zoning is transitioned. - That's why we did it. - So, and one

3:50:02 ↗ thing, is Brady the elementary school? - Yes. - Is there any value of bringing

3:50:07 ↗ it into CIP to apply the contract school requirements to it? So when that school

3:50:13 ↗ is revoked? - Yeah, the compact school already applies to it. - So it already,

3:50:18 ↗ is there a policy to that? - 'Cause that's citywide, yeah. - So architecture would

3:50:23 ↗ apply if it's in central. - Can you value that? - Yeah. - Having that

3:50:28 ↗ school, So I think if you were going to take this south of

3:50:34 ↗ Pauli. Looks kind of nasty now, so it's not going to get any worse. Sorry.

3:50:39 ↗ So I think if you were going to take that south of Pauli to include

3:50:44 ↗ the schools, you'd also have to look at whatever is over here. No, no, no,

3:50:49 ↗ no. If anything, this should go away even after it's developed so you aren't continually

3:50:55 ↗ eroding yet another forested hillside. not to get upset about

3:51:01 ↗ the court, it's the hill sides that are under constant-- - So you're

3:51:06 ↗ saying by including it in there that would potentially mean that those would--

3:51:12 ↗ - Well it raises the-- - The height. - What you can do.

3:51:18 ↗ - Yeah, okay, got it. - What do you guys think about bringing

3:51:24 ↗ the school in to have, say, a beer party? - So when they,

3:51:30 ↗ when they, when they, When they do the middle school, it would have

3:51:35 ↗ to meet architectural standards as opposed to not. That's just one. Well, that's a

3:51:41 ↗ nice idea, except for-- They're going to. They're going to put the parking under

3:51:47 ↗ the track. So they're going to put the track on a deck. Sorry, was

3:51:53 ↗ that on camera? I don't know what they're doing. Just kidding. Are they actually

3:51:59 ↗ going to-- Do the development on the other side of

3:52:05 ↗ Newport that seems to be stalled? Inniswood? They said they're

3:52:10 ↗ going to break ground this year. That's what they said

3:52:16 ↗ because we asked. Because if they don't do it, because

3:52:22 ↗ we want to make sure that it's still going to

3:52:28 ↗ be security approved. If we remove it and they do

3:52:34 ↗ not do it, then what could go wrong? The IMC,

3:52:40 ↗ which is the old code. Which means they could build-- They have

3:52:46 ↗ more impervious surface. In other words, what would be the pros and cons of-- There's

3:52:51 ↗ no architectural-- Assuming that they do not-- As far as their parking requirements-- Yeah, the

3:52:57 ↗ standards would change. Yeah, I think if that gets developed, it would develop . Yes.

3:53:02 ↗ But if you don't, then you-- but it's already-- It's permitted. I think so. I

3:53:08 ↗ think that's a move. I think the only thing that's interesting is what-- If they

3:53:13 ↗ don't build it, it will still be in the central . So it

3:53:19 ↗ sounds like two didn't want the school in? Is that right?

3:53:25 ↗ Two didn't have school? I don't see a value in bringing

3:53:30 ↗ the school in. Okay. Anybody else have an idea about the

3:53:36 ↗ school? If we brought it in, it would have the architectural

3:53:41 ↗ and urban design standard. Structured parking. They never appeared in yet.

3:53:47 ↗ That's why we did, in theory, that's why we did the

3:53:52 ↗ compact school zone code changes. So they wouldn't have to do

3:53:58 ↗ that, right? Yeah. But should we use... - Then I'm

3:54:04 ↗ always asking for exemptions as a reason to not-- - So the other, so Lindsey,

3:54:10 ↗ so the other things are setbacks, right? So in Central, you've got zero setbacks, you've

3:54:16 ↗ gotta be up against the street. Now we did that with compact schools, so some

3:54:22 ↗ of it, some of it you're gonna get regardless. In my mind, the biggest-- -

3:54:28 ↗ Well, yeah, they'd have to go through architectural review. Right? Mel and I are both

3:54:34 ↗ looking forward to that. Whenever those projects start wheeling through. And to be honest, I'm

3:54:39 ↗ sort of questioning the architectural standards that we have, the six guidelines that we can

3:54:44 ↗ fit within. I think it's going to be interesting to see what comes out. I

3:54:50 ↗ don't know how school would fit kind of in many of those. I think it

3:54:55 ↗ would be a barn. It would be Grange. It would be Grange. Yeah, Grange. Story.

3:55:02 ↗ Main Street. It's really nice to say that schools do

3:55:08 ↗ this when schools have certain certain needs and restrictions and they have a piece of

3:55:14 ↗ property that they're gonna try to pull all their stuff into, it's kind of hard

3:55:18 ↗ to say, you have to do it this way, when it doesn't work. - It's

3:55:23 ↗ really fun. - Okay, all right, that sounds like a no. - Okay, so we're

3:55:27 ↗ on to Eastlake. - So now we're on to Eastlake? - Eastlake. - Okay, Eastlake.

3:55:32 ↗ - All right, so we know there's been some conversations about the eastern boundary of

3:55:36 ↗ Eastlake. So do you want to start at the North? Let's start at the

3:55:42 ↗ North End. Okay. So does it make sense to stay along the road

3:55:48 ↗ rather than coming anything out? What is that? Haynes-Jensen. The State Park. Okay.

3:55:53 ↗ I agree. Church. Fire station. So we've got the... Oh, not the

3:55:59 ↗ fire station. Oh, there's the dentist's office and then the church and then

3:56:05 ↗ BMC. Right. And so... And I don't... I would rather have it go

3:56:11 ↗ BMC here because it's limited limited land here and then you've got your hillsides

3:56:17 ↗ coming up pretty fast. So I would prefer that mound break and then have

3:56:22 ↗ it start with the MC. So coming south, that's like a gateway first thing

3:56:28 ↗ you see. Would we want to have that, the central Issaquah controls on look

3:56:34 ↗ and everything at that property? Well, central Issaquah starts here, so that's not your

3:56:39 ↗ gateway. There. No, but the first property you see on the left side is going

3:56:45 ↗ to be where the dentist office is. Because this side has the whole pathway, so

3:56:50 ↗ you're not going to get that dense development on the trail. I think this is

3:56:56 ↗ your more natural gateway. I have this huge BMC property. We aren't going to have

3:57:01 ↗ much of a gateway for this little... Why wouldn't we want to control, have

3:57:06 ↗ more control over looking at it? What are you going to do with

3:57:12 ↗ its gateway-age? Not as a gateway, but in terms of fitting in within

3:57:18 ↗ the architectural design standards. Well, if you remember what it fits in the

3:57:24 ↗ architectural design standards, you're also giving it things that it can do with

3:57:29 ↗ its property. The zoning doesn't change. yeah i think we only have a

3:57:35 ↗ limited amount of space on east lake north of 56. so to say on

3:57:41 ↗ this side that the only thing we want on east lake sammamish is this

3:57:47 ↗ bnc property i feel like that's too limited so question for keith yes sir

3:57:52 ↗ what's the worst case scenario For the church and the dentist office.

3:57:58 ↗ If it's outside of the... Storage unit. Or a hotel. Or a

3:58:04 ↗ hotel. So since you guys have just precluded storage from Central, anything

3:58:09 ↗ outside is going to be a target for storage. Five-story storage unit. A

3:58:15 ↗ tire. A tire. A tire. Which means it should be in because it

3:58:21 ↗ has the protections. Keep the boundaries. So this falls along the lines. Connie's

3:58:27 ↗ on a board. They don't have a line. Connie's on a board. I

3:58:33 ↗ know, but she's got really valid oversight. So there's a split decision there

3:58:39 ↗ as to whether I should speak. So I'll speak to counsel. That's fine.

3:58:45 ↗ I want her to speak. So where would that, do we

3:58:51 ↗ want to discuss this part? So the- This whole boundary line

3:58:56 ↗ is this BMC? That's BMC. So that's the edge of BMC

3:59:02 ↗ and then there's this- So the next conversation is should that

3:59:07 ↗ be in Central? No. The residential behind BMC. Are those apartments

3:59:13 ↗ or condos? Yes. And their entry point is 56th. Yeah, they're coming

3:59:19 ↗ off of 56th. I think they should be included because they're interfacing with

3:59:25 ↗ this game. They're not facing-- Yeah, yeah. Yeah, this makes sense because these

3:59:31 ↗ are facing away, out in the hell. But these parcels here, I know

3:59:37 ↗ that the people who live there, they should be able to walk and

3:59:43 ↗ live. So the extent that this gets redeveloped, they have to

3:59:48 ↗ pay attention to this property. It's all part of the same

3:59:54 ↗ connection. So that's flat. No, that's a nice hill. So I

4:00:00 ↗ think one of the arguments is this is flat area that

4:00:06 ↗ because of the hill. That's part of the hill. I think

4:00:12 ↗ you've got it. So let me ask some questions. What is this? It's

4:00:18 ↗ the Bartels Shopping Center. Yeah, so then that's where you're going. So this is the

4:00:24 ↗ hill. This is the property that Ron was saying he'd like to stay, right? This

4:00:30 ↗ is the wall. Yeah, because this is Fred Meyer. That's 24-hour fitness. Right, this is

4:00:35 ↗ the overlay. And then this is an office, right? Yeah. Yeah, that used to be

4:00:41 ↗ right here. It's the wall. What about the wall? There's a brick

4:00:47 ↗ in the wall. Oh. Okay. And again, this goes, this here goes across the boundary

4:00:52 ↗ line? Yes. Okay. I could go direction on that. I hear... So that's some, I'm

4:00:58 ↗ looking at the terrain now. That, this is very much still, I mean, you're starting

4:01:03 ↗ to go up the hill, but the seeding line's here. Okay. Okay, so let's go

4:01:08 ↗ up to here in 56. Who's in favor of keeping it like this up to

4:01:14 ↗ this point? Okay, so we come around, we have

4:01:19 ↗ the wall. And the whole argument of that is this

4:01:25 ↗ slide is developed into a natural high-CIP control program. Right.

4:01:31 ↗ If you go up here, then you get that. There is a remarkable difference between

4:01:37 ↗ up here and up here. And any property that would be here would be oriented

4:01:43 ↗ this direction. You wouldn't have street access. So anything that has access on that... So,

4:01:48 ↗ question for Keith. I think we've sort of talked about it, but not to Greg's

4:01:54 ↗ likes. Why wouldn't we put the quarry in the service area? I didn't see.

4:02:01 ↗ Central supposed to be formed the new growth for

4:02:06 ↗ the next 20 years and so I don't think

4:02:12 ↗ we're gonna get housing or commercial there anytime soon

4:02:18 ↗ so they were never We have control through the

4:02:23 ↗ IMC we just don't have any architecture standards for

4:02:29 ↗ you this down before we necessarily get there.

4:02:35 ↗ This is San Marcos. Okay, so that is

4:02:40 ↗ up the hill. That's all one property. Once

4:02:46 ↗ you get past that. Okay, so that's two

4:02:51 ↗ properties. Those make sense in. I don't think they do.

4:02:57 ↗ But it's also, it's an office park. It's not a bunch of... Well, actually, it

4:03:03 ↗ opens up the University House. In this one, University House? Yeah. Yeah, because Sand Marsh.

4:03:08 ↗ Yeah. I don't think we're going to lose jobs. So I think having the no-loss

4:03:13 ↗ jobs... Yeah. I'm just saying, like... So we figure out... I think we might keep

4:03:19 ↗ that. Yeah, I would agree. It's funny that... It's the first thing we ever mentioned

4:03:24 ↗ after the process. You're making Trish and Kristen feel good. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

4:03:27 ↗ Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

4:03:29 ↗ Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

4:03:30 ↗ Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

4:03:31 ↗ Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

4:03:33 ↗ Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

4:03:34 ↗ Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

4:03:36 ↗ Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh- You

4:03:38 ↗ can tell John, I stayed till 11 o'clock because I got two. You got

4:03:44 ↗ smarter than the rest of us. The master's degree wins out. So what's going

4:03:49 ↗ to happen is two different standards. So let's talk about this triangle parcel. That's

4:03:55 ↗ a quarry, isn't it? No. That triangle isn't?

4:03:59 ↗ was

4:04:12 ↗ that

4:04:25 ↗ had in them, you can correct me if my paraphrasing is incorrectly, the quarry had

4:04:29 ↗ instigated a backdoor discussion with the city saying when we stop being a quarry and

4:04:33 ↗ we're not extracting whatever we want to do, we can sell this and turn this

4:04:38 ↗ into residential and make big bucks. It came before us and we're like, wait a

4:04:42 ↗ minute, is this really a great idea? And they're like, hey, the city already told

4:04:47 ↗ us we could do it. And the city's like, yeah, this is what we're doing.

4:04:51 ↗ It's already been agreed upon in the past. So everything that's owned right over there

4:04:55 ↗ is not its own strip is poor anymore. It is a passive availability to be

4:04:59 ↗ sold and a home to put on it pending development of, you know, other properties.

4:05:03 ↗ - They're taking the considerations and making sure that whatever whatever they do on the

4:05:07 ↗ property, it will be set for residential. So, putting it into this-- Anybody

4:05:13 ↗ wants a different version of that? So, every quarry has a state mandated reclamation plan.

4:05:19 ↗ And so, the state says, okay, if you're going to mine, you have to have

4:05:25 ↗ a plan for what you're going to do with afterwards, right? So, Lakeside basically said,

4:05:31 ↗ hey, we want to do a development agreement. So, they have their own development agreement.

4:05:37 ↗ And it allows for residential up above. So the valley floor will always

4:05:42 ↗ be in their minds an asphalt plant. So they'll stop coring out the hillside,

4:05:48 ↗ which is where they're getting raw materials both for the asphalt production as well

4:05:54 ↗ as they sell stuff to Cadman for cement. At some point they will be

4:05:59 ↗ out of mineable materials, but they are, Lakeside is an asphalt contracting company and

4:06:05 ↗ they will continue to process asphalt on the valley floor as long as their family

4:06:11 ↗ still owns the business, basically, is the way they've described it. But up above,

4:06:17 ↗ all the way up to Highlands Drive, that has been included in a development

4:06:22 ↗ agreement, and they can build up to 1,200 residential units. There is some non-residential

4:06:28 ↗ associated with that. I forget how much. And if they were to sell the

4:06:34 ↗ portion, it right now is owned to the

4:06:40 ↗ So the development agreement doesn't come all the way down to the valley floor. It

4:06:46 ↗ goes, it starts up and it goes... The code says minimum. The code says minimum.

4:06:52 ↗ It's not saying... There's no homes that are... Yeah. Yeah, but it's pretty much just

4:06:58 ↗ minimum. So that's where it would cut off. Yes. Does it have a hatching on

4:07:04 ↗ it? Oh, that's pretty good. It does look like a different hatching.

4:07:10 ↗ Well, we're talking about the boundary of what we want to say to you, so

4:07:14 ↗ really what it's akin to. Or if we can't-- Right. --it's only on the bottom.

4:07:19 ↗ No, no, no. The development agreement is up the hill. The development agreement is not

4:07:24 ↗ by this person. Correct. Correct. I don't believe so. I think it's-- And what about

4:07:29 ↗ this? That's still mineral. And it's mineral, but it's-- No, the development agreement only applies

4:07:34 ↗ to the carpets of orange with stripes and not the red with stripes. So we

4:07:39 ↗ could put it in this shed. OK. I didn't make the couch.

4:07:44 ↗ I don't know that there would be any so that property

4:07:50 ↗ owner has said no way no how never ever ever and

4:07:56 ↗ every action they take annually is about retaining their asphalt contracting

4:08:01 ↗ business I know because they have a development agreement I mean

4:08:07 ↗ well so the bottom so I That would

4:08:13 ↗ cause a rift, yes. I think they would have an issue with being now included

4:08:18 ↗ in some types of-- And that-- we were talking about that trying. Any of it.

4:08:25 ↗ So can you explain the two triangles that made it in, well the other one's

4:08:29 ↗ not a triangle, but that made it in from service? Well, Carlson Kennel, so... Just

4:08:33 ↗ so they know why some of it was brought in and some of it not.

4:08:38 ↗ So Carlson Kennel, so what we did was we tried to have a conversation about

4:08:43 ↗ That has a frontage on East Lake Sam. So as

4:08:48 ↗ you get off the freeway, really Carlson Kennel and this

4:08:54 ↗ parcel, which is the boat place, and the big billboard.

4:09:00 ↗ Our one billboard in town. So these two have a presence on East

4:09:06 ↗ Lake Sam. And so the idea was, let's include them in the-- let's

4:09:12 ↗ keep them in the area that has higher standards, as opposed to letting

4:09:18 ↗ them out. So now, the unintended consequences-- I mean, we talked about it

4:09:24 ↗ here. But now, anywhere that's outside of Central is prone to have mini storage, right?

4:09:29 ↗ I mean, because you've just taken 1,000 acres out of the city and said, no

4:09:34 ↗ mini storage, right? Not you personally, but that's where that ball landed. So that just

4:09:39 ↗ means that if somebody was wanting to build mini storage, I'm looking now anywhere around

4:09:44 ↗ the perimeter that has good storage It has good frontage, good exposure. And a

4:09:50 ↗ gateway area as well. Can you do mini storage in Old Town? Actually, that

4:09:56 ↗ was going to be my next question. If we're going to not say mini

4:10:01 ↗ storage in here, then we need to say no mini storage in Old Town.

4:10:07 ↗ Or you could see this area, which is supposed to be our...

4:10:15 ↗ That's coming to a theater near you very soon. Do we

4:10:20 ↗ agree that those parcels, because they are in East Lake Sam,

4:10:26 ↗ should be included? Excellent. So that's it, right? The question is,

4:10:32 ↗ why wouldn't this section here? It's not fronting East Lake Saman.

4:10:37 ↗ It's also part of Lake Saman. Yeah, that's part of it.

4:10:44 ↗ All right, so this is done.

4:10:50 ↗ We've already set this. Let's talk

4:10:56 ↗ about this.

4:11:00 ↗ Well,

4:11:12 ↗ this

4:11:24 ↗ - Correct, yeah. So this, that would be all this. - Oh, there was some

4:11:30 ↗ adjustments tonight. - So we're already agreeing on a confluence that this is perfect. -

4:11:35 ↗ It's accurate. - This is a janky. So let's talk through these four parcels here

4:11:41 ↗ and these parcels here. We believe that we're laying these out correctly, these being a

4:11:46 ↗ part of Eastlake because they're anchored Eastlake via Fort Adam. - Anything that's up here,

4:11:52 ↗ - This is the touchdown flooring. -

4:11:58 ↗ Okay, there you go. And then the

4:12:03 ↗ food wall floor. And then you got

4:12:09 ↗ like the check and a go, right?

4:12:14 ↗ - Yes. - Check and catch. -

4:12:20 ↗ Isn't that a joke? I was talking about these spots. Well, yes,

4:12:26 ↗ and we're asking should that be in the scope? Can it be in scope? Well,

4:12:30 ↗ it used to be in Central. That's it. Yeah. You guys tell. And now we're

4:12:35 ↗ talking about adding that to the whole town. I think that makes more sense to

4:12:39 ↗ do that because I feel like this is oriented. Well, you'll have a question. No,

4:12:44 ↗ I think it's oriented. I think it's oriented this way because if you have If

4:12:49 ↗ you have this developed to this standard, then this is going to be a mismatch

4:12:55 ↗ to that. True. So this is a natural boundary. And this is all we're having

4:13:00 ↗ our conversation about this possibly being Old Town Gateway or something of that sort. It's

4:13:06 ↗ still to be decided, but I don't think we're ready to make that decision. What's

4:13:12 ↗ the edge of that parcel there? The street. Okay, so you have like two parcels

4:13:18 ↗ there here and here that you could potentially include. Well,

4:13:23 ↗ because these ones do

4:13:29 ↗ have access onto the

4:13:34 ↗ front street. I think

4:13:40 ↗ that whole section there

4:13:45 ↗ is a problem. Have

4:13:51 ↗ Old Towne start at the 90th. Because the idea is to

4:13:57 ↗ take that whole highway 10th. And then the only reason you're

4:14:03 ↗ not doing that on this side of Front Street is because

4:14:08 ↗ basically it takes a gas station there.

4:14:14 ↗ So, I think we're going to include that. So what about, so looking at

4:14:20 ↗ these parcels here that are circled around the fourth, on the south side of

4:14:26 ↗ Miami, do you guys agree that that should be anchored in East Lake? I

4:14:32 ↗ don't see what it would go to. It seems weird to jot out

4:14:38 ↗ I mean, they are more, okay, there you go, that's a good discussion.

4:14:44 ↗ They are more building to me than they are Eastlake. The 90 seems

4:14:50 ↗ like the dividing line of Eastlake, right? Yeah. Yeah. So my experience in

4:14:55 ↗ town is if I'm going down to Gildan, I'm not thinking at all

4:15:01 ↗ about Eastlake. And I know right now these are commercial. I would rather

4:15:07 ↗ have these, I think, associated with Gilman and have the continued

4:15:13 ↗ experience of ex-juice residential. Yeah, once I cross under the freeway, then

4:15:19 ↗ I'm in East Lake. But when I'm coming back, I'm coming up.

4:15:24 ↗ Why did we beat this to death in the last conversation? Because

4:15:30 ↗ we said that fourth and this mean that it's oriented that way.

4:15:36 ↗ We decided to say we're going to make it with Gilman and then all of

4:15:41 ↗ a sudden we said, no, we're going to sell it. So we followed the zoning.

4:15:46 ↗ We took the fur poll and then we're now backtracking. You're right. So most people

4:15:51 ↗ don't track the zoning, right? So they track with like Gilman the road and why

4:15:57 ↗ would that not be Gilman the neighborhood? Because this is the post office. And the

4:16:02 ↗ post office. So your suggestion is that we keep the zoning and So

4:16:07 ↗ you just, you take this out, you take this and include it,

4:16:13 ↗ so Gilman now has a KO. So rather than, yeah, that being

4:16:19 ↗ a square. Gilman's out. You see the good part there. This line

4:16:25 ↗ in East Lane is the 90, the 90 steps, right? That's up

4:16:30 ↗ the front street. Thoughts, everybody? What does that drive Gilman being

4:16:36 ↗ part of the growth center? Or do you like the idea that Gilman is the

4:16:41 ↗ growth center plus the corridor along the way? I mean, it already is.

4:16:45 ↗ I

4:16:51 ↗ think

4:16:56 ↗ it's

4:17:01 ↗ all

4:17:07 ↗ about

4:17:12 ↗ You're trying to make neighborhood edges that resonate with people, that make sense for

4:17:18 ↗ them. And so if part of our conversation with folks is take East Lake

4:17:24 ↗ and spill it to the south side of 90, I think people will have

4:17:29 ↗ a tough time with that. Because 90 is clearly a divisive edge. I mean,

4:17:35 ↗ even though we're trying to knit it together in multiple places. So I think--

4:17:41 ↗ I mean, I could see it going. I think that's fine. I think most

4:17:47 ↗ people will consider it part of that neighborhood. Yeah, I think as long as we

4:17:53 ↗ don't care that the border of Gilman doesn't matter. Or you see if that, if

4:17:57 ↗ we're already a federated doesn't matter then I'm perfectly okay. It actually may make it

4:18:02 ↗ better to make it a bigger differential. Right. Because now you don't think it's, that's

4:18:06 ↗ a mapping error, right? Right. Okay. All right. So this is going to have that,

4:18:11 ↗ this is going to sit right here. Yeah. And it just comes down here instead.

4:18:15 ↗ Yes. Is it even more of a pool of ice? I'll read

4:18:21 ↗ through Eastlake and see if anyone of that will

4:18:26 ↗ move. I think because the language in Gilmore was

4:18:32 ↗ about Bill and Goldberg and the language for Samantha

4:18:37 ↗ was about Eastlake Sam. I'm thinking more from the

4:18:43 ↗ same. And there's also another caveat. - Okay,

4:18:49 ↗ so we're comfortable with that. That's

4:18:55 ↗ our last decision for tonight. We

4:19:01 ↗ have to do one more thing.

4:19:07 ↗ I move we recommend approval of the updated draft visions as amended this

4:19:13 ↗ evening with the proposed boundary adjustments as we've just discussed and incorporation of

4:19:18 ↗ a map and a description of the green necklace as agreed on the

4:19:24 ↗ March 8th meeting to be had. That'll be a joint PCC meeting with

4:19:30 ↗ Parks Board. I second the motion. All those in favor say aye. Any

4:19:35 ↗ more discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed?

4:19:41 ↗ Hearing none, the motion passes. It is

4:19:46 ↗ five minutes to 11. Is there any

4:19:52 ↗ other good for the order? Otherwise, I'm

4:19:57 ↗ going to close the meeting at 11

4:20:03 ↗ at 10:52. Five.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF