Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, May 10, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 12, 2018

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 April 26, 2018

packet pp.5–10

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Apr 12, 2018

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MOVED BY FAUL, SECONDED BY SWEDBERG that the proposed amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code regarding Transfer of Development Rights Resulting from the End of the Issaquah Highlands Development Agreement, as presented in the agenda and staff comments, be forwarded to Council for approval. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code Regarding the Expiration of Talus Development Agreement, Remand of the Zoning for Parcel 9, (R)

Lucy Sloman, Land Development Manager · packet pp.11–55

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

Development Services 1775 – 12th Ave. NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3100 issaquahwa.gov

7:30 PM Amendments, (R)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.113–117

Open packet at p.113 ↗

Staff report:

Public Works Engineering 1775 – 12th Ave NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3400 issaquahwa.gov

Discussion: Proposed 2019 - 2024 Transportation Improvement Program

Kurt Seemann, Engineering Manager

Topics: Transportation

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.119–120

Open packet at p.119 ↗

Staff report:

c) City Strategic Plan - outreach May November 5/10/18 11/8/18 Central Issaquah Standards amendments a) Talus End of DAs – Parcel 9 – remand from Council (public hearing) 11/14/18 (tentative/to replace 11/22/18 meeting) b) Olde Town Plan – vision/policies wrap up (public hearing) 11/22/18 cancelled (Thanksgiving) c) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

3307 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ evening good evening we're on the air

0:16 ↗ welcome to the may 10th planning policy

0:20 ↗ Commission meeting first item on the

0:23 ↗ agenda is a quick approval of the last

0:25 ↗ meeting minutes or any additions or

0:29 ↗ Corrections a motion to accept the

0:32 ↗ minutes I'd like to move to accept the

0:35 ↗ minutes for our last meeting I'll second

0:37 ↗ all in favor aye

0:40 ↗ it's approved let me we're gonna have

0:46 ↗ the public hearing we have a number of

0:49 ↗ things to discuss tonight hopefully we

0:52 ↗ will move quickly I ask everybody be

0:54 ↗ patient I ask you to be respectful when

0:58 ↗ you're talking with other peoples may be

1:01 ↗ differing opinions we'll try to get

1:04 ↗ everybody a chance to talk I don't know

1:07 ↗ how many have signed up but if it starts

1:09 ↗ going on I will let everybody have five

1:11 ↗ minutes talk when their turn comes with

1:14 ↗ the public hearing and we'll proceed

1:16 ↗ along that way we have the municipal

1:21 ↗ regarding the expiration of Taos

1:23 ↗ agreement and then another town hearing

1:25 ↗ on old town sub area plan and also

1:28 ↗ proposed transportation improvement

1:30 ↗ program tonight so we have a busy agenda

1:33 ↗ we will proceed with Lucy's gonna run

1:36 ↗ the first part I guess yes but we're

1:38 ↗ gonna start with the city attorney so

1:40 ↗ the attorneys gonna talk to us Thank You

1:43 ↗ mr. chairman

1:44 ↗ very briefly I have a few preliminary

1:46 ↗ comments concerning the the Commission's

1:49 ↗ consideration of the the tellus

1:54 ↗ development agreement we are aware of

1:57 ↗ some procedural arguments that have been

1:59 ↗ raised by legal counsel for the owner or

2:02 ↗ developer of the talus nine parcel and

2:04 ↗ this concerns the extent to which

2:06 ↗ tonight's proceedings are legislative

2:09 ↗ versus quasi judicial in nature and

2:11 ↗ whether the proposed classification of

2:15 ↗ the talus nine parcel constitutes a

2:18 ↗ site-specific rezone under state law

2:20 ↗ much of this argument is based upon a

2:23 ↗ decision of the Washington State Supreme

2:25 ↗ Court that was just issued today our

2:28 ↗ office is currently reviewing that case

2:30 ↗ with city staff and we have not yet

2:32 ↗ formulated any final procedural

2:34 ↗ recommendation based upon the potential

2:37 ↗ impact of the Supreme Court's opinion on

2:39 ↗ these proceedings

2:40 ↗ however without conceding that these

2:43 ↗ proceedings are in fact quasi judicial

2:45 ↗ it is our recommendation that the PPC

2:48 ↗ members receive and undergo the brief

2:51 ↗ appearance of fairness disclosure

2:53 ↗ process that mrs. Lowman will now lead

2:55 ↗ you through good evening Lucy slum and

2:58 ↗ land development manager this is gonna

3:00 ↗ be new to you guys don't typically get

3:02 ↗ this so we're gonna go through three

3:05 ↗ slides to talk about go through the

3:07 ↗ quasi judicial review process the

3:10 ↗ purpose of this is that a quasi-judicial

3:12 ↗ permit is like a court and the

3:15 ↗ proceedings need to both be fair and

3:17 ↗ appear fair in this case that is for

3:20 ↗ some predominantly a procedural due

3:23 ↗ process activity part of it is around

3:27 ↗ the kind of noticing and other

3:30 ↗ procedural things that we need to follow

3:32 ↗ but also to ensure and discuss the

3:35 ↗ decision maker or recommenders

3:38 ↗ relationship with any people who benefit

3:40 ↗ from the decision so I would like you to

3:43 ↗ read through their questions that are up

3:45 ↗ on the screen and then I will ask you

3:47 ↗ some questions related to them

4:00 ↗ how many people answer no to all the

4:04 ↗ questions what's the definition of own

4:10 ↗ or control property near the subject

4:13 ↗ property so the city attorney has

4:17 ↗ mentioned to me that it he uses within

4:21 ↗ 300 feet so if you received a notice

4:24 ↗ okay so you would answer no to that okay

4:27 ↗ great

4:28 ↗ thank you and then the other piece of

4:30 ↗ this is ex parte con contacts that would

4:34 ↗ be any conversations amongst

4:36 ↗ commissioners with the public with

4:38 ↗ anyone else that were not part of the

4:40 ↗ official record which would be basically

4:43 ↗ outside of these proceedings as anyone

4:45 ↗ talked about this matter outside of

4:47 ↗ these proceedings I have I had a meeting

4:50 ↗ with Chris Rea he requested that as a

4:54 ↗ way to talk about the fact that this was

4:56 ↗ going to come to pay BC that gave me the

4:59 ↗ ability to get into the research a

5:01 ↗ little bit early and but I have not made

5:04 ↗ any official decisions prior to coming

5:08 ↗ to this meeting anyone else

5:12 ↗ okay does does the anyone care to

5:15 ↗ challenge the participation of any of

5:18 ↗ the commissioners this evening miss

5:27 ↗ lemon I just wanted to address

5:29 ↗ Commissioner Walsh's disclosure it's

5:32 ↗ appreciated the fact that you disclosed

5:35 ↗ the meeting and the substance of it I

5:38 ↗ believe addresses the appearance of

5:40 ↗ fairness concerns that the property

5:42 ↗ owner would have I do ask that because

5:44 ↗ councilmember Rey is a proponent of the

5:47 ↗ project that the commissioners not have

5:49 ↗ further meetings with him about it and I

5:54 ↗ should identify who I am who are you why

5:57 ↗ are you talking my name is richard hill

5:59 ↗ and i'm counsel for the property owner

6:01 ↗ thank you

6:05 ↗ so thank you that's the end of the

6:08 ↗ quasi-judicial portion so let me give

6:12 ↗ you a brief introduction to Lucy I'm I'm

6:17 ↗ sorry if I could briefly interject with

6:20 ↗ respect to the disclosure made by

6:21 ↗ Commissioner Walsh I think it would be

6:24 ↗ appropriate to remind the audience that

6:26 ↗ any member who wishes to speak tonight

6:28 ↗ is able to rebut the substance of the

6:32 ↗ disclosure that Miss Walsh made during

6:34 ↗ the course of your public comments and

6:36 ↗ that would be the opportunity for you to

6:39 ↗ do so okay perfect thank you so the

6:42 ↗ structure of this evening we only had

6:45 ↗ the planning policy Commission as a

6:48 ↗ seven member body quorum is for members

6:52 ↗ hello quorum and so Commissioner

6:56 ↗ McCauley is only able to be here until

6:58 ↗ 7:45 that is the extent of time that we

7:01 ↗ can meet this is a public hearing we

7:05 ↗ will I will make a brief presentation we

7:08 ↗ will watch a 15 minute video clip then

7:11 ↗ we will take public testimony and we

7:15 ↗ will hope to accomplish as much as we

7:17 ↗ can in the time that we have this

7:18 ↗ evening

7:19 ↗ so what we are bringing to you is

7:24 ↗ related to towels parcel nine and ending

7:26 ↗ of the development agreements the

7:29 ↗ process began early last year in the

7:32 ↗ spring this is just a record of all the

7:35 ↗ various meetings public meetings that we

7:38 ↗ have had either with the community with

7:40 ↗ various Commission's or council council

7:43 ↗ committees on in March this the council

7:47 ↗ remanded to PPC the designation of

7:52 ↗ parcel 9 within the context of the

7:55 ↗ replacement regulations and the question

7:59 ↗ is whether it should be you vmf for

8:02 ↗ multifamily or you vsf for single-family

8:06 ↗ you may remember because we worked with

8:09 ↗ you last summer that there were three

8:12 ↗ goals they've evolved a little bit since

8:14 ↗ you've seen them but they're essentially

8:15 ↗ the same

8:16 ↗ that we had three goals through this

8:18 ↗ process one was retaining the character

8:20 ↗ of each urban village two was to create

8:23 ↗ as few non-conforming situations as we

8:26 ↗ could and lastly was to replace 15 to 20

8:29 ↗ year old regulations using and used the

8:33 ↗ city regulations to the greatest extent

8:35 ↗ we could without affecting the character

8:39 ↗ to do that we sat down with each of the

8:44 ↗ parcels in Tallis we examined the the

8:51 ↗ uses that were in place and based on

8:55 ↗ those uses if the property was developed

8:57 ↗ or if it only had entitlement and had

9:00 ↗ not been developed then we proposed

9:03 ↗ zoning to either match what had been

9:07 ↗ built or to implement what the

9:10 ↗ entitlement that they possessed this

9:13 ↗ chart was developed for the community

9:15 ↗ meeting at Alice in January the left

9:21 ↗ hand side is the what was in the

9:24 ↗ original talus development agreement the

9:27 ↗ right hand side is the proposed talus

9:30 ↗ replacement regulations you'll notice

9:33 ↗ that some of these in this column and

9:35 ↗ this column there are some many arrows

9:37 ↗ that are blue pointing down that means

9:40 ↗ that over the course of the property's

9:42 ↗ being developed either the density or

9:45 ↗ the height was reduced so that was not

9:48 ↗ part of developing the replacement

9:50 ↗ regulations it was part of developing

9:52 ↗ each parcel along the way and there was

9:56 ↗ one parcel the orange was the one parcel

9:59 ↗ where it was increased during their land

10:01 ↗ use permitting phase all the white cells

10:05 ↗ mean there was no change so to clarify

10:07 ↗ those who decisions made by the relevant

10:09 ↗ developer within the development

10:12 ↗ agreement or those decisions made by the

10:13 ↗ city or both so generally you could

10:17 ↗ reduce your category through an election

10:20 ↗ process so it might have been the master

10:23 ↗ developer or it might have been the

10:24 ↗ individual parcel developer the city had

10:27 ↗ to confirm that it was consistent with

10:28 ↗ the criteria

10:29 ↗ but there was no significant action

10:33 ↗ needed to take that it was built into

10:35 ↗ the development agreement so just to

10:39 ↗ cover the history a little bit more of

10:42 ↗ parcel 9 on the left you can see this is

10:46 ↗ the image that was in the development

10:49 ↗ agreement and Talas parcel 9 was

10:52 ↗ assigned high-density and those

10:54 ↗ development regulations are shown here

10:58 ↗ then but you know that didn't actually

11:02 ↗ subdivide the land so the first action

11:04 ↗ that took place immediately the year

11:07 ↗ after the development agreement was

11:08 ↗ adopted was a master plat of Olive

11:11 ↗ Tallis it did not change any development

11:14 ↗ regulations but it established the first

11:16 ↗ sort of first set of boundaries for each

11:18 ↗ parcel subsequently in the years 2004 to

11:23 ↗ 2013 there were three lot line

11:24 ↗ adjustments to the parcel again did not

11:27 ↗ change any of the development standards

11:30 ↗ it was still designated as high-density

11:32 ↗ residential but for purposes of

11:34 ↗ infrastructure reservoir and development

11:39 ↗ parcel size lot line adjustments were

11:42 ↗ performed then in 2014 a preliminary

11:46 ↗ plat of parcel 7 and 8 was submitted the

11:51 ↗ density categories such as high density

11:53 ↗ or medium density actually have both a

11:55 ↗ minimum and a maximum density and so any

11:59 ↗ proposal land use proposal must fall

12:01 ↗ within that range both parcels 8 and 9

12:05 ↗ fell below the range so each of them was

12:08 ↗ reduced by a density category so that

12:11 ↗ was the time at which parcel 9 was

12:13 ↗ reduced to medium density so now we're

12:20 ↗ at the point where we're considering

12:22 ↗ with the replacement regulations the

12:25 ↗ zoning up until this time all the

12:28 ↗ parcels in talis were zoned urban

12:30 ↗ village and it was basically that sent

12:33 ↗ you to the development agreement which

12:34 ↗ had all the details when we were

12:37 ↗ considering the replacement regulations

12:39 ↗ we had to say okay how do we take what's

12:41 ↗ in the development agreement

12:43 ↗ and change that into zoning so our

12:47 ↗ decision tree is essentially what is the

12:50 ↗ land use it's residential what our

12:53 ↗ zoning options for solely residential

12:56 ↗ property it can either be you V

12:58 ↗ multifamily or UV single-family and a

13:02 ↗ lot of that fell to do we have one unit

13:05 ↗ on the property or do we have multiple

13:08 ↗ units on the property that was the

13:11 ↗ primary question at the end and so

13:15 ↗ that's where it kind of the crux of the

13:17 ↗ situation because parcel 9 is in this

13:20 ↗ purgatory between having an approved

13:22 ↗ preliminary plat and not being final

13:26 ↗ plaited with 90 dwelling units on a

13:28 ↗ single parcel staff identified you V

13:32 ↗ multifamily however if the final plat

13:35 ↗ had gone through and it had been parse

13:38 ↗ alized if that's a word

13:42 ↗ thank you for accepting it then it would

13:46 ↗ have been zoned UV single-family so

13:49 ↗ we're kind of in this betwixt in between

13:51 ↗ and that is the question that we're

13:53 ↗ coming back to you with I think the last

13:57 ↗ piece that we want to loose you to

14:00 ↗ clarify on that so whether or not it's

14:04 ↗ MF or SF it so it still has the same 90

14:08 ↗ entitlement yes is the proposed plant 90

14:13 ↗ property units either way yes

14:16 ↗ so the plat had 90 Lots for the 90 units

14:20 ↗ okay so the total number of watts inside

14:23 ↗ parcel 9 will not change with this

14:27 ↗ discussion so right now it has it is

14:31 ↗ proposed to have a zoning cap of 90 the

14:35 ↗ plat had 90 Lots I don't know what else

14:40 ↗ I I don't we don't know exactly what's

14:43 ↗ going to happen going forward subsequent

14:46 ↗ to the landslide in 2015 and the

14:48 ↗ stabilization work that's going on now

14:50 ↗ so it's my understanding we're not

14:53 ↗ getting into lot line

14:55 ↗ and anything around that in either let's

15:02 ↗ see in either case could it be built up

15:06 ↗ versus individual units I don't know how

15:13 ↗ to put okay between them let me give let

15:15 ↗ me give it a shot and see if I actually

15:17 ↗ am answering your question yeah so under

15:21 ↗ UV multifamily you can build either

15:26 ↗ stacked flats or or attached units or

15:30 ↗ detached units so it's a broader range

15:34 ↗ of uses as you can see listed here

15:40 ↗ single-family has only detached and

15:45 ↗ attached units on individual Lots and

15:51 ↗ these uses are consistent with the

15:56 ↗ property if it was final plaited if it

16:01 ↗ was not final plaited and they had 90

16:04 ↗ units than they would so but even with

16:11 ↗ the UV MF if they wanted to create what

16:16 ↗ would have been the final Latinization

16:20 ↗ to create another word for you thank you

16:23 ↗ they could because it includes

16:25 ↗ single-family detached and single-family

16:27 ↗ attached townhomes yes on individual

16:30 ↗ love okay but to point out some of the

16:33 ↗ concerns that have been raised I think

16:35 ↗ part of it is that there is a broader

16:39 ↗ range of uses than were that the plat

16:42 ↗ would have resulted in the current the

16:48 ↗ they were allowed to have up to sixty

16:51 ↗ feet under medium density me a

16:55 ↗ multi-family would be consistent in

16:58 ↗ having the 60 feet although it has some

17:00 ↗ different restrictions under the

17:01 ↗ replacement regulations whereas the

17:06 ↗ single-family has the height of 45 feet

17:10 ↗ so I think that there you'll hear this

17:12 ↗ in the video in a moment I think there's

17:14 ↗ some concern about expectations versus

17:18 ↗ possibilities and then lastly the chart

17:26 ↗ at the bottom is just my crazy chart

17:27 ↗ I'll explain that in a minute but the so

17:32 ↗ here's parcel 9 in the zoning map

17:34 ↗ here's parcel 9 in the land-use map the

17:38 ↗ zoning map

17:39 ↗ pink is single-family I someone else

17:41 ↗ picked these colors I have no idea why

17:43 ↗ and lilac is multifamily and so you can

17:50 ↗ see the variety of zoning that's in this

17:55 ↗ area oh you can't because they all look

17:58 ↗ the same

17:59 ↗ oh okay I'm sorry yeah okay let me point

18:03 ↗ to this so 6a is lilac this is the

18:07 ↗ proposed zoning parcel 9 is lilac parcel

18:14 ↗ 14 is lilac and then this little parcel

18:20 ↗ 8a right here this it's a little quarter

18:22 ↗ acre those are the four parcels that are

18:25 ↗ [Music]

18:29 ↗ proposed for multifamily thank you have

18:32 ↗ any of those been flattened so none so

18:36 ↗ as multifamily they wouldn't be plaited

18:38 ↗ some of them are built but okay that's

18:40 ↗ time I'd say okay folks a is built okay

18:43 ↗ and 14 is built obviously parcel 9 is

18:47 ↗ not built and 8a is not built okay

18:50 ↗ what's on parcels 6 and 14 6 is a

18:54 ↗ stacked flat apartment building project

18:58 ↗ multiple buildings as is these parcel 14

19:02 ↗ is kind of a garden apartment style so

19:06 ↗ it's a lot of different buildings and

19:09 ↗ then the land-use map you can see the

19:16 ↗ the letters standing for low medium

19:19 ↗ and hi for instance and this map has

19:24 ↗ been carried forward only because the

19:26 ↗ urban design guidelines for Tallis are

19:28 ↗ based on those categories so it's not a

19:31 ↗ regulatory map anymore but it just is

19:35 ↗ another way of looking at the area and

19:39 ↗ sort of because it does represent

19:41 ↗ densities so you can see that can you

19:45 ↗ know

19:46 ↗ okay the check mark look like they're

19:48 ↗ checkmarks so in zoning there are you

19:53 ↗ know many parcels that are single-family

19:55 ↗ and three that are multifamily the

19:58 ↗ single-family are both single-family

19:59 ↗ detached and single-family attached

20:03 ↗ multi-family housing type and

20:06 ↗ multi-family zoning obviously match up I

20:08 ↗ think the only thing and I'm not sure

20:11 ↗ this chart means anything I just did it

20:12 ↗ so I thought I should give it to you you

20:17 ↗ can see that the low medium and high

20:19 ↗ don't necessarily match any particular

20:23 ↗ housing type or zoning it's there's a

20:25 ↗ little more diversity so I don't know

20:28 ↗ that there's any conclusion to draw

20:30 ↗ other than that happened so that's the

20:35 ↗ end of my presentation I think our next

20:38 ↗ step would be to show you the video clip

20:40 ↗ from the council and then we would open

20:42 ↗ it up for public testimony

20:50 ↗ additional information that I wanted to

20:53 ↗ read into the road hearing last week

20:57 ↗ councilmember Rey had submitted various

21:00 ↗ questions and had discussions with our

21:02 ↗ city staff and legal staff and I wanted

21:05 ↗ to provide some

21:24 ↗ you never see this happen huh apologies

21:47 ↗ the concern is that it was supposedly

21:52 ↗ based on

22:19 ↗ Lucy's woman is trying to show a video

22:24 ↗ that just right but it's a book from

22:27 ↗ unit and the ions were formed when two

22:30 ↗ counsel was okay we recommended

22:42 ↗ hard to push it through okay okay thank

22:50 ↗ you you have to find that point again

22:54 ↗ she knows she knows like three hours in

22:56 ↗ yeah hours in four minutes

22:58 ↗ hey go no yeah that's it that's gonna

23:09 ↗ I have some additional information that

23:11 ↗ I wanted to read into the record during

23:16 ↗ last week councilmember Rey had

23:18 ↗ submitted various questions and had

23:19 ↗ discussions with our city staff and

23:22 ↗ legal staff and I wanted to provide some

23:25 ↗ of that information on the record today

23:26 ↗ for other councilmembers who may not

23:28 ↗ have been aware of it and for the public

23:30 ↗ a council and ensure committee met on

23:33 ↗ March 1st 2018 to discuss the ending of

23:36 ↗ the talus ta and the adoption of

23:38 ↗ replacement regulations during their

23:39 ↗ discussion the three committee members

23:41 ↗ discussed the various options for

23:43 ↗ replacement zoning on unbuilt parcels

23:46 ↗ and talus the committee recommended that

23:48 ↗ the bill be moved to the March 19th

23:50 ↗ council meeting for action and that

23:52 ↗ additional discussion could occur as to

23:54 ↗ the options for zoning for unbelt

23:56 ↗ parcels since the committee meeting

23:59 ↗ additional questions have been asked by

24:01 ↗ council members of our city attorney and

24:03 ↗ ESD staff the information below answers

24:05 ↗ the questions and is being provided to

24:07 ↗ Council for consideration during

24:09 ↗ deliberations the information describes

24:11 ↗ the zoning designations for council and

24:14 ↗ provides additional background

24:15 ↗ information on parcel 9 which was the

24:17 ↗ subject of the committee questions there

24:20 ↗ are several options that can be

24:22 ↗ considered for the unbuilt parcels

24:24 ↗ multifamily zoning this zoning would

24:26 ↗ allow the dwelling unit entitlements

24:28 ↗ assigned to a parcel to be used for

24:30 ↗ multifamily or single-family development

24:31 ↗ a parcel 9 this multifamily zoning would

24:35 ↗ permit both townhouses or apartment

24:37 ↗ buildings Gerdes of the building form

24:39 ↗ the maximum height would be 60 feet

24:41 ↗ single-family zoning this zoning would

24:44 ↗ allow the entitlements assigned to a

24:46 ↗ parcel to be used for single-family

24:47 ↗ development a parcel 9 this zoning is a

24:50 ↗ lower density category than originally

24:52 ↗ assigned to the property under the DA

24:54 ↗ this zoning would reduce the building

24:56 ↗ height allowance to 45 feet

24:58 ↗ single-family this zoning would permit a

25:00 ↗ townhouse building form and would be

25:02 ↗ buildable under the existing approved

25:04 ↗ preliminary plat for parcel 9 personal 9

25:07 ↗ was originally designated as high

25:09 ↗ density on a 3.5 7 acre parcel this

25:13 ↗ would have permitted the development of

25:14 ↗ the entire

25:15 ↗ 90 dwelling units to be in a building or

25:17 ↗ buildings up to 85 feet tall

25:19 ↗ subsequently the parcel was redesignated

25:22 ↗ as medium density and the parcels post

25:24 ↗ parent was expanded to over five acres

25:26 ↗ under the current development agreement

25:28 ↗ this allowed for the 90 unit entitlement

25:31 ↗ to be built in a building or buildings

25:33 ↗ up to 60 feet in height if the developer

25:36 ↗ of parcel 9 which has an approved

25:38 ↗ preliminary plat for 90 single-family

25:40 ↗ attached lots that are townhomes does

25:43 ↗ not wish to or cannot construct what is

25:45 ↗ shown on the preliminary plan then the

25:47 ↗ developer would need to propose the

25:49 ↗ subsequent development that meets the

25:51 ↗ requirements of the replacement

25:52 ↗ regulation City Council adopts the

25:55 ↗ council chooses to proceed with the

25:56 ↗ staff recommendation from the AV the

25:58 ↗ process tonight would be to move second

26:01 ↗ deliberate and vote on the move to the a

26:03 ↗ B if the council chooses to consider

26:06 ↗ assigning single-family medium density

26:08 ↗ zoning instead of multifamily medium

26:11 ↗ zoning to any parcels the process would

26:13 ↗ be to move and second emotion to discuss

26:16 ↗ the proposal to reconsider the

26:18 ↗ recommended zoning designations and to

26:20 ↗ request a public hearing at a council

26:22 ↗ meeting at a date certain to allow for

26:24 ↗ discussion of this change to the

26:26 ↗ administration's recommendation the vote

26:28 ↗ on the motion may be considered after

26:30 ↗ the public hearing there would be no

26:31 ↗ vote on the main motion at the council

26:33 ↗ meeting tonight the council may wish to

26:35 ↗ consider the following when reviewing

26:37 ↗ their options the December for City

26:39 ↗ Council meeting Council reviewed the

26:41 ↗ goals for ending of the da's in both

26:42 ↗ Highlands and talus they were to retain

26:46 ↗ the character of each urban village read

26:48 ↗ as few non-conforming situations as

26:50 ↗ possible and replace an update the 15 to

26:52 ↗ 20 year old standards

26:54 ↗ he's standards use current and city

26:57 ↗ regulations to the greatest extent

26:59 ↗ possible except where it will

27:01 ↗ significantly impact character that was

27:04 ↗ delivered to Council on the weekend by

27:05 ↗ an email and I just want to make sure

27:07 ↗ that the public was also aware of this

27:09 ↗ information

27:13 ↗ any questions for Lucy let's remember

27:16 ↗ winters thing thank you earlier Lucy

27:19 ↗ when you had this slide up when you were

27:20 ↗ presenting you you talked you said that

27:22 ↗ these proposed reg you reg ulation for

27:25 ↗ parcel 9 were difficult I think you used

27:27 ↗ that word which but I look up there and

27:31 ↗ I remember the same thing when we were

27:33 ↗ in committee at land and shore and the

27:36 ↗ currently kind of what's allowed there

27:39 ↗ per the revised preliminary plat looks

27:41 ↗ exactly like proposed replacement

27:44 ↗ regulations so that seems pretty

27:48 ↗ straightforward to me what what am I

27:50 ↗ missing anything so I think the two

27:54 ↗ sides to this coin are that in terms of

27:57 ↗ the where the parcel is right now and

28:01 ↗ the regulations that were in place with

28:05 ↗ the preliminary plat plaque and the

28:08 ↗ proposed regulations they match what I

28:11 ↗ think the concern is that if the

28:15 ↗ preliminary plat had gone to final plat

28:18 ↗ we would and and those it had been

28:21 ↗ plaited into those 90 Lots we would have

28:24 ↗ applied single-family zoning to that

28:27 ↗ completed parcel and so I think that is

28:30 ↗ the concern is do we zone it based on

28:34 ↗ where it is right now and carry forward

28:38 ↗ with more flexibility or do we carry

28:42 ↗ forward what would have been if it

28:46 ↗ hadn't slid and if it moves to final

28:48 ↗ plat okay thank you remember right I

28:53 ↗ still have a lot of questions and and so

28:55 ↗ if you if you all would indulge me for a

28:57 ↗ couple minutes I mean have a lot of

28:58 ↗ questions and part of the reason I want

29:01 ↗ to go through these questions is there's

29:02 ↗ a lot of uncertainty about the evolution

29:05 ↗ of parcel 9 there's a lot of information

29:08 ↗ that that has been presented in ways

29:12 ↗ that have been difficult to understand

29:14 ↗ for both the council and for the public

29:16 ↗ and I want to make sure that we have all

29:18 ↗ the

29:19 ↗ nation they lighted before we make this

29:23 ↗ decision that it really could have a

29:25 ↗ significant impact and we heard it today

29:26 ↗ from the public significant impact on

29:29 ↗ the community so so I'm going to take us

29:32 ↗ back to to Ground Zero so work with me

29:35 ↗ here

29:36 ↗ how's parcel denying currently zoned

29:38 ↗ urban village what's that mean right a

29:43 ↗ development agreement how was uh and you

29:46 ↗ talked about this one so I got got my

29:48 ↗ notes here that's okay okay thank you

29:50 ↗ see how it was a parcel I originally

29:53 ↗ designated in terms of density in the DA

29:55 ↗ so it was high density it's it's this

29:58 ↗ left-hand column and I'm just pointing

30:00 ↗ to it help guide us through it high

30:04 ↗ density residential which did not allow

30:07 ↗ single-family detached only attached and

30:09 ↗ multi-family 85 feet in height 23 to 150

30:14 ↗ dwelling units per acre awesome and the

30:16 ↗ changes that were made to the

30:18 ↗ development agreement that changed it

30:20 ↗ into density and expanded the size of

30:24 ↗ the parcel that was done so the change

30:26 ↗ in the size of the parcel was I believe

30:29 ↗ a lot line adjustment that was made

30:32 ↗ prior to the preliminary plat I'm so

30:38 ↗ impressed that you think I remember

30:39 ↗ everything so they the parcel 7 8 and 9

30:47 ↗ you can see how for instance the road

30:50 ↗ alignment changed between the original

30:54 ↗ adopted development agreement and the

30:56 ↗ planning for parcel 9 and so in

30:59 ↗ adjusting to create the three parcels

31:02 ↗ that would be plaited there was a lot

31:03 ↗ line adjustment then when they were

31:06 ↗ ready to do the preliminary plat and we

31:09 ↗ were going through the sort of

31:10 ↗ preliminary discussions we recognized

31:12 ↗ that based on the number of units that

31:14 ↗ they had purchased and the size of the

31:16 ↗ property they could not meet the minimum

31:18 ↗ density which is the 23 dwelling units

31:21 ↗ per acre for high-density so there's an

31:24 ↗ election process within the

31:29 ↗ development agreement which allows them

31:31 ↗ to shift down one density category

31:34 ↗ without anything other than just saying

31:36 ↗ we want to do that which is what they

31:37 ↗ did which took them to medium density

31:40 ↗ residential which added detached

31:43 ↗ residential as a use reduce the height

31:45 ↗ and reduce the density and they had

31:48 ↗ purchased as their entitlement 90

31:50 ↗ dwelling units and and those those

31:53 ↗ changes were approved by the master

31:54 ↗ developer and the city so that became

31:57 ↗ the new law of the land in the due day

32:03 ↗ so when the preliminary platform was

32:06 ↗ filed how was the the land identified in

32:09 ↗ the preliminary plat was it

32:10 ↗ single-family multifamily that is a

32:14 ↗ level that is a kind of zoning approach

32:17 ↗ that isn't used within the development

32:19 ↗ agreement so it just was classified as

32:21 ↗ medium density residential which had

32:24 ↗ this range of residential uses that were

32:26 ↗ allowed and as long as it fell within

32:28 ↗ that range of uses the ones I've shown

32:31 ↗ here in the middle and was within the

32:34 ↗ density met fell between the density

32:37 ↗ minimum and maximum it was allowed so we

32:40 ↗ did not classify it as one thing or the

32:42 ↗ other and the the platform and showed

32:44 ↗ individual property lines which would be

32:46 ↗ consistent with single-family not

32:48 ↗ multifamily extinct family attached

32:53 ↗ right so I was just looking at a couple

32:56 ↗ of neighborhood neighboring

32:57 ↗ neighborhoods so a sentence in Terra

32:59 ↗ which both have attached townhomes that

33:03 ↗ show individual property line and are

33:06 ↗ being designated or zoned proposed

33:09 ↗ zoning on them is single-family right

33:11 ↗ and I think you're touching on the point

33:13 ↗ of being in this kind of purgatory

33:16 ↗ between preliminary and final plat was

33:20 ↗ the was how we ended up in between yeah

33:24 ↗ I'm just I'm just trying to get to

33:26 ↗ intent because you know we're right

33:27 ↗ where I said is we're trying to balance

33:29 ↗ two things neighborhood expectations we

33:31 ↗ heard those earlier today and property

33:34 ↗ owner in town

33:34 ↗ and so I'm trying to establish what but

33:36 ↗ what really is the intent so let me go

33:40 ↗ ask you some questions that bet you

33:41 ↗ won't know the answer to what if I go to

33:45 ↗ the king county assessors parcel viewer

33:47 ↗ how would the this this parcel be

33:50 ↗ identified as its current use go family

33:55 ↗ if I were to go down and read the thing

33:57 ↗ that said what's the highest and best

33:59 ↗ use if they can't smell rain just reader

34:01 ↗ the answers I don't get it all right

34:03 ↗ you're saying no each time it's a thank

34:05 ↗ you that I only had the two so it's

34:07 ↗ highest and best use right now is single

34:09 ↗ family so I'm moving on so when you

34:15 ↗ presented to the Tallis community on

34:18 ↗ January 23rd you indicated that this was

34:21 ↗ going to be oh your table showed adopted

34:25 ↗ density on parcel nine was high with an

34:28 ↗ 80-foot cap and that we were down zoning

34:31 ↗ to get to medium density so I was just

34:35 ↗ curious why you didn't disclose that

34:37 ↗ we'd already done that down zone

34:38 ↗ actually that was a discussion item I

34:42 ↗ believe at that meeting and what I

34:45 ↗ identified wasn't that we were down

34:48 ↗ zoning it that over the course of

34:50 ↗ propertied about well in in thinking

34:54 ↗ back there was one parcel that was up

34:56 ↗ zoned through the process and so we

34:58 ↗ talked about how the table represented

35:01 ↗ what had happened as the parcels were

35:03 ↗ being developed and those changes mostly

35:05 ↗ of down dropping to the next lower level

35:09 ↗ and the one kampl of it being going to a

35:13 ↗ higher level had all happened during its

35:16 ↗ development it was not part of the

35:18 ↗ replacement regulation process okay

35:21 ↗ so recognizing that the parcel 9 is will

35:27 ↗ be vested under our vesting rules the

35:29 ↗ irr most restrictive vesting rules and

35:32 ↗ it could be built as currently plotted

35:35 ↗ as single-family attached homes would it

35:40 ↗ also be possible on that property with a

35:41 ↗ with a multifamily designation 60-foot

35:44 ↗ to put in a five to six story apartment

35:46 ↗ buildings

35:46 ↗ on that parcel you know I thought about

35:50 ↗ that while there some of that is true

35:54 ↗ but the hillside designation are the

36:00 ↗ hillside regulations that have been

36:03 ↗ added in the urban villages would be

36:07 ↗ more restrictive than typical

36:09 ↗ multifamily parcels because the

36:12 ↗ limitations on regrading and walls and

36:16 ↗ stepping through the site so there would

36:19 ↗ be the ability to put in stacked flat

36:22 ↗ apartments the form of the building

36:24 ↗ might be different than a traditional

36:27 ↗ apartment building we could put in

36:29 ↗ fairly large apartment buildings I mean

36:31 ↗ I guess that's not a good question

36:33 ↗ apartment buildings would definitely be

36:35 ↗ a form factor we could put into that

36:37 ↗ parcel yes and and they could be and not

36:43 ↗ you told me about this so I'm the

36:46 ↗ because it's on a slope it would be the

36:49 ↗ bottom could be 60 feet tall so it's I

36:58 ↗ said no but I think that the diagram

37:01 ↗ that is here sorry I'm using a PDF

37:04 ↗ because I thought it would work better

37:07 ↗ so from the road the maximum building

37:10 ↗ height would be fixed it would not be

37:13 ↗ able to average the grade so the topmost

37:16 ↗ level would be the 60 feet but the

37:20 ↗ building would be required to step its

37:23 ↗ roofline following the grade which would

37:27 ↗ therefore restrict it from being 60 feet

37:31 ↗ at the street or defeat at the street I

37:35 ↗ unless I evaluated yeah okay but but

37:39 ↗ tall and also because there's

37:41 ↗ multi-family no setback so it could be

37:42 ↗ right at the street right so good single

37:44 ↗ family you know single family that's a 5

37:47 ↗ foot setback ok

37:50 ↗ so when you were talking to the

37:52 ↗ community did you share the the fact

37:54 ↗ that we could be building apartment

37:55 ↗ buildings on this parcel with them we

37:59 ↗ and councilmember Rey the question might

38:02 ↗ be was whether or not building forms

38:04 ↗ were discussed because I'm not sure no I

38:08 ↗ think it's more than form because it's

38:10 ↗ also use I think there's a difference

38:12 ↗ between single-family individual

38:15 ↗ ownership and multifamily rental and it

38:20 ↗ has it has significance not only in the

38:22 ↗ form of the building but in the quality

38:25 ↗ of the neighborhood so I think it's

38:27 ↗ significant I think it's something that

38:28 ↗ it would have been very important that

38:29 ↗ for the public to understand at that

38:31 ↗ time to provide some feedback and what

38:34 ↗ I've heard from the community is while

38:36 ↗ we felt like we were getting kind of

38:38 ↗ partial information and we didn't really

38:41 ↗ understand all of this because it's very

38:43 ↗ technical and very jargony and they were

38:46 ↗ feeling very much like they used the

38:50 ↗ word bum's rush but they weren't getting

38:52 ↗ complete information so that they could

38:54 ↗ react to it so I'm gonna kind of stop

38:58 ↗ there and kind of summarize and the

39:01 ↗ reason I brought this up is if we

39:04 ↗ designate this property as single-family

39:08 ↗ we can build exactly what is entitle or

39:11 ↗ what is currently envisioned on that

39:13 ↗ Plata's designated by the current plat

39:17 ↗ on nine so the developer can build what

39:19 ↗ exactly what is currently envisioned on

39:22 ↗ that Platt was a single-family

39:23 ↗ designation if we designated as

39:26 ↗ multifamily then the community is at

39:31 ↗ risk of that parcel being turned into

39:33 ↗ apartment buildings which is something

39:35 ↗ that I've heard pretty loud and clear

39:37 ↗ from the community community is not

39:39 ↗ something that they think is appropriate

39:42 ↗ my incredibly succinct fear is if we

39:47 ↗ don't own this thing as multifamily

39:49 ↗ we're back here three years from now

39:50 ↗ we're having a quasi-judicial proceeding

39:52 ↗ and we're gonna have to go ahead with

39:55 ↗ something we know is wrong councilmember

39:57 ↗ Rey I don't think we've made a motion

39:59 ↗ okay whatever thank you you can you can

40:03 ↗ deliberate more after the motion is made

40:07 ↗ are there any other councilmembers who

40:09 ↗ have questions Oh council member Ramos

40:11 ↗ thank councilmember hunt

40:12 ↗ I just want Christian on height because

40:14 ↗ I had no went from 85 to 60 but then I

40:18 ↗ heard that it's 45 but I haven't seen 45

40:21 ↗ anywhere so I'm trying to fit where the

40:22 ↗ 45 came from so I believe 45 came up

40:27 ↗ because single-family zoning would limit

40:31 ↗ the development to 45 feet Oh the

40:34 ↗ current the current buy-in is 45 foot

40:39 ↗ lemon no the current proposal is 60 feet

40:43 ↗ which is multifamily zoning and that was

40:48 ↗ the concern that was raised now the

40:51 ↗ other possibility I don't remember

40:52 ↗ exactly when 45 feet was mentioned it

40:54 ↗ may be partly because the townhouses

40:57 ↗ would likely have been built at 45 leave

41:00 ↗ council member Ramos that was part of

41:02 ↗ the information I gave any answer to

41:03 ↗ counselor grace questions this weekend

41:06 ↗ is about single family versus

41:08 ↗ multi-family that has been the 45-foot

41:12 ↗ it's not on the slide because it's new

41:14 ↗ information from this video

41:17 ↗ councilmember hunt okay

41:27 ↗ so I believe we're gonna open it up for

41:29 ↗ public testimony um is there anyone who

41:32 ↗ would like to sign up who hasn't okay

41:35 ↗ I'm gonna take the clipboard up after

41:39 ↗ watching that video we'll open it up for

41:41 ↗ public comment at 7:18 there's only two

41:47 ↗ people signed up so far inside usual and

41:59 ↗ then let's since since we've got a hard

42:01 ↗ stop at 7:45 let's stick with the

42:02 ↗ five-minute limit yeah five minute limit

42:04 ↗ no problem hi I'm Brooke Ixchel the

42:09 ↗ president of the Tallis residential

42:11 ↗ Association I'm at five to two Timber

42:14 ↗ Creek Drive Northwest in Issaquah hello

42:19 ↗ committee members in 2014 rez mark

42:24 ↗ received approval to build 90 time

42:27 ↗ townhomes on parcel nine and if the

42:30 ↗ landslide would not have happened in

42:32 ↗ 2015 today we would be looking at 90

42:35 ↗ mountainside townhomes no higher than 45

42:38 ↗ feet when we drive up to the top of Taos

42:40 ↗ Drive but we did have a slide and so

42:43 ↗ regardless of Zoning because that's a

42:46 ↗ lot of stuff that's very technical

42:48 ↗ really what we want to get at is all we

42:51 ↗ want is what we thought we were gonna

42:53 ↗ get back in 2014 this whole issue really

42:56 ↗ is coming down to fear of the unknown so

43:00 ↗ I guess I'd like to lay out our fears

43:02 ↗ and hope that through this process you

43:04 ↗ can help us alleviate those so first or

43:07 ↗ worried that ninety mountain side

43:10 ↗ townhomes will turn into one giant 60

43:13 ↗ foot tall monstrosity at the top of Taos

43:15 ↗ Hill frankly we're also worried that 90

43:20 ↗ will become a bigger number and then

43:23 ↗ we're also worried that due to the

43:25 ↗ financial impacts of the slide that the

43:28 ↗ goals of the Builder will be to build

43:29 ↗ whatever is easiest whatever's cheapest

43:32 ↗ and fastest to get out and though we

43:35 ↗ will be the only ones left with that

43:37 ↗ outcome

43:38 ↗ so to ease our fears and focus less on

43:41 ↗ zoning speak I'm asking that the PCC as

43:45 ↗ part of this process

43:46 ↗ just ask the owner or lawyer of parcel 9

43:50 ↗ to disclose what they do intend to build

43:52 ↗ when the hill is stabilized and we would

43:55 ↗ all benefit from knowing their

43:57 ↗ intentions

43:58 ↗ thanks mr. Hill

44:22 ↗ thank you

44:34 ↗ commissioners good evening my name is

44:36 ↗ rich hill and I'm counsel for the owner

44:39 ↗ of parcel 9 very much appreciate the

44:42 ↗ opportunity to address you this evening

44:44 ↗ and your consideration of the issue

44:46 ↗ that's been remanded to you by the

44:48 ↗ council the phone owner of parcel 9 to

44:53 ↗ respond to brookey's question fully

44:56 ↗ intends to develop the approved project

45:00 ↗ pursuant to the preliminary plat upon

45:03 ↗ completion of the retaining structure

45:06 ↗ walls that as you know are currently

45:09 ↗ under construction at talus that's their

45:11 ↗ goal that's their objective with that

45:14 ↗ said the proposed down zone is of grave

45:18 ↗ concern to the owner because one we

45:21 ↗ don't know what the world will look like

45:24 ↗ at the time that the the walls are

45:27 ↗ complete we don't know what the world

45:29 ↗ will look like the creating a Down zone

45:34 ↗ at this point in time does a number of

45:36 ↗ things that affects property value it

45:39 ↗ reduces allowable height it means that

45:42 ↗ the existing proposal will be a

45:43 ↗ non-conforming one it increases setbacks

45:47 ↗ and it deprives the opportunity to do

45:50 ↗ multifamily use on the property now

45:56 ↗ tonight the owner respectfully asks the

46:00 ↗ Commission to postpone the hearing and

46:02 ↗ mr. lell addressed the council on that

46:05 ↗ point earlier tonight in light of the

46:08 ↗ Schnitzer decision and I've made copies

46:10 ↗ of the Schnitzer decision I know you

46:12 ↗ probably love to read court decisions so

46:14 ↗ I don't expect you to read it tonight

46:16 ↗ but if you have trouble sleeping tonight

46:18 ↗ you might want to walk through it but

46:20 ↗ the Schnitzer decision just came out

46:23 ↗ today as mr. Lowe mentioned that

46:25 ↗ decision makes it clear that the city's

46:27 ↗ consideration of this down zone is

46:29 ↗ what's called a site-specific rezone

46:31 ↗ process and as commissioners I'm sure

46:33 ↗ you're familiar with that process in the

46:35 ↗ city of Ithaca Watsa types it

46:37 ↗ process the reason Schnitzer would say

46:41 ↗ that what is your app being asked to

46:43 ↗ consider is a site-specific rezone is

46:46 ↗ the test in that case is is it a

46:48 ↗ specific tract of land here it is it's

46:51 ↗ tract parcel 9 is there a request for

46:54 ↗ reclassification yes it's a request for

46:57 ↗ reclassification different from what the

46:59 ↗ development agreement had applicable to

47:01 ↗ it and 3 is there a specific part in in

47:04 ↗ this case it would be the City Council

47:06 ↗ that asks you to consider it there the

47:09 ↗ the consequence of it being

47:10 ↗ site-specific

47:12 ↗ is that as I mentioned it becomes a type

47:14 ↗ 6 process in the city the procedure that

47:17 ↗ we're following here today is not

47:19 ↗ consistent with that type 6 process

47:22 ↗ secondly it is quasi-judicial and mr.

47:25 ↗ Lall I think very appropriately tonight

47:26 ↗ reserved rights but said let's deal with

47:30 ↗ the quasi judicial process and deal with

47:32 ↗ that the burden is on the proponent of

47:35 ↗ the rezone the the proponent has to

47:38 ↗ demonstrate what's called change

47:39 ↗ circumstances and I'm sure you've dealt

47:41 ↗ with that in your experience on the

47:43 ↗ Commission to justify the down zone and

47:46 ↗ then finally the appearance of fairness

47:47 ↗ doctrine is applicable with respect to

47:49 ↗ the commissioners as I mentioned earlier

47:51 ↗ tonight I have no objection to your

47:52 ↗ participation here as I mentioned the

47:56 ↗ city is not following the type 6 process

47:58 ↗ for this to meet the criteria of your

48:01 ↗ own ordinance that process would need to

48:04 ↗ be followed in addition the staff has

48:07 ↗ not had an opportunity and I don't blame

48:09 ↗ your very effective staff because this

48:10 ↗ decision just came down today but the

48:13 ↗ staff has not had an opportunity to

48:15 ↗ evaluate the burden of proof issues the

48:17 ↗ change circumstances issues or the other

48:19 ↗ rezone criteria that are set forth in

48:22 ↗ your ordinance in the event the city

48:27 ↗ attorney nonetheless advises you to

48:28 ↗ proceed at this point with the hearing

48:32 ↗ with reservation of its rights the

48:35 ↗ property owner would respectfully ask

48:36 ↗ that you stay the course you set last

48:40 ↗ September when you recognized

48:41 ↗ recommended the MF designation of the

48:44 ↗ property and maintained this designation

48:47 ↗ there's no evidence in the record

48:49 ↗ members of the committee

48:50 ↗ that supports down zoning the property

48:54 ↗ at this point in time there's no factual

48:55 ↗ basis for the Commission to say there

48:57 ↗ are change circumstances since we looked

49:00 ↗ at this in September I've set forth the

49:03 ↗ property owners views in some detail

49:06 ↗ perhaps too much detail for the

49:08 ↗ commissioners but in some detail in my

49:10 ↗ letter and I know you've probably had an

49:11 ↗ opportunity to review it we very much

49:14 ↗ appreciate the Commission's

49:15 ↗ consideration of what we set forth in

49:17 ↗ the letter

49:18 ↗ in conclusion want to meet my five

49:20 ↗ minutes in conclusion the hearing from

49:23 ↗ the property owners perspective should

49:24 ↗ be postponed because this should be

49:27 ↗ pursuant to a type six process staff has

49:29 ↗ not had the opportunity to provide the

49:32 ↗ Planning Commission with analysis of the

49:34 ↗ applicable rezone criteria if the if the

49:37 ↗ Commission does decide tonight to

49:40 ↗ proceed with consideration of the

49:42 ↗ council's remand request again with

49:44 ↗ reservations of Rights five minutes is

49:49 ↗ up may I have 45 seconds to finish the

49:51 ↗ sentence it's up to you sure go ahead

49:56 ↗ okay and the property owner asked

50:00 ↗ respectfully that you stay the course

50:02 ↗ you set last September 28th only eight

50:05 ↗ months ago and maintain multifamily

50:07 ↗ zoning on the property thank you very

50:09 ↗ much thank you anybody else in the

50:12 ↗ public want to make a comment

50:19 ↗ now all the people came don't nobody

50:22 ↗ else wants to talk that case we will

50:28 ↗ close the public hearing

50:31 ↗ did you at 7:27 oh no did you just come

50:37 ↗ in you closed it oh no no no that's fine

50:45 ↗ I didn't didn't know that you were there

50:47 ↗ again five minutes please okay

50:53 ↗ my name is Connie Marsh and I live up on

50:55 ↗ squawk Mountain and I think my takeaway

51:00 ↗ from this is this is the last decision

51:06 ↗ with the talents and Issaquah Highlands

51:10 ↗ end of days and this is the one that has

51:13 ↗ caused the most concern and well the

51:16 ↗ guidance all along was to keep it as

51:19 ↗ close as possible to the development

51:21 ↗ agreement when you have the one

51:24 ↗ outstanding thing that is causing a lot

51:26 ↗ of community anxiety and concern about

51:30 ↗ changing the the expectations of an area

51:37 ↗ you can zone it however you want to its

51:41 ↗ unsewn and you can you can do what you

51:46 ↗ want and break that well we have to do

51:49 ↗ what the original DA said there's

51:51 ↗ nothing saying that you have to stay

51:53 ↗ with that community expectations is that

51:56 ↗ it's gonna look like the pre plat like

52:00 ↗ what what they were told was going to

52:02 ↗ happen so given you have the artistic

52:06 ↗ license in this case I would go with the

52:10 ↗ community expectation that's it

52:16 ↗ Thank You Connie anybody else I don't

52:20 ↗ want to cut anybody off

52:25 ↗ seeing no other volunteers will those of

52:30 ↗ public comments now at 7:29

52:44 ↗ so I I have one clarifying question well

52:46 ↗ in the public comment that the H where

52:48 ↗ president made one of the concerns was

52:50 ↗ that this would increase the number of

52:53 ↗ units that is incorrect just to clarify

52:56 ↗ because in either case it's gonna be

52:58 ↗ capped at 90 so the decision here is all

53:01 ↗ about form setbacks and Heights

53:04 ↗ the total the total entitlement will not

53:06 ↗ change this process would not change the

53:10 ↗ entitlement I think the HOA president

53:12 ↗ was just speaking to general fears that

53:16 ↗ that somehow through this process this

53:20 ↗ process would not increase it as as far

53:23 ↗ as I know and it would be true that any

53:27 ↗ property owner could come back to the

53:28 ↗ council at any time and ask for an

53:31 ↗ increase and that would be a public

53:33 ↗ process ya know it was it was it was a

53:35 ↗ good question I just wanted wouldn't

53:37 ↗ wanted to clarify so no matter no matter

53:38 ↗ what we do we will neither increase nor

53:40 ↗ decrease the number of housing units

53:42 ↗ that's entitled there's been no proposal

53:45 ↗ to change that ground as we last looked

53:50 ↗ at this when we did our joint sessions

53:52 ↗ and we went through the end of the

53:53 ↗ development agreements has staff found

53:55 ↗ something that would cause them to

53:58 ↗ change their recommendation to us we

54:01 ↗ have not proposed a change in

54:02 ↗ recommendation but I think it's it's the

54:07 ↗ being trapped in purgatory between

54:10 ↗ preliminary plat and final plat

54:11 ↗ community expectations and concerns

54:14 ↗ about changes in the future that caused

54:19 ↗ the council to remand this back for

54:23 ↗ further discussion here so is counsel

54:26 ↗ requesting the down zone from medium to

54:28 ↗ two single-family density or they just

54:31 ↗ want us to talk about it more

54:34 ↗ they thought that single-family should

54:36 ↗ be considered for this property I don't

54:39 ↗ know that they had a recommendation I

54:42 ↗ think that they were remanding back I

54:46 ↗ don't have the exact language in front

54:49 ↗ of me split split yeah so I

54:53 ↗ I watched the I watched the clip did and

54:56 ↗ then I dug it and I kind of watched the

54:58 ↗ whole meeting to give myself kind of the

55:01 ↗ brevity around around the clip and from

55:04 ↗ what I recall is it was a split decision

55:05 ↗ and so council would then actually I

55:08 ↗ think the decision was around process

55:11 ↗ about whether it would come to PPC or

55:14 ↗ whether the hearing would and all action

55:18 ↗ would be held at the council I'm not

55:21 ↗ they were not taking a vote at that time

55:23 ↗ on on one use or the other because the

55:27 ↗ hearing had to take place before they

55:29 ↗ could do that yes is there any new

55:33 ↗ information from when the last time when

55:37 ↗ we said when we recommended medium

55:40 ↗ density is there any new information

55:41 ↗ well I think all the I'm not sure that

55:45 ↗ it depends on how you view new

55:47 ↗ information the process we went through

55:52 ↗ the process we made a recommendation we

55:55 ↗ provided all the sort of history and

55:59 ↗ detail that we included in the memo

56:01 ↗ which was sort of back-of-house before

56:05 ↗ and where we're trying to be very

56:08 ↗ transparent about all those steps and

56:11 ↗ how the property has evolved okay so

56:14 ↗ presumably this is all public

56:16 ↗ information we've just focused de

56:18 ↗ lighted and kind of repeated and

56:20 ↗ consolidated I've everything zeroing in

56:23 ↗ on parcel 9 right none of none of this

56:26 ↗ none of this is new nothing they were

56:29 ↗ just it was just buried among tens of

56:31 ↗ thousands of other pieces of paper well

56:33 ↗ right I don't think that we we thought

56:35 ↗ about these things but we didn't

56:37 ↗ necessarily present all of this and I

56:41 ↗ think that the crux of the matter is

56:45 ↗ that the preliminary plat has been

56:47 ↗ approved the final plat has not been

56:50 ↗ approved if the final plat had been

56:52 ↗ approved it would have automatically

56:56 ↗ liked all the parcels that were

56:58 ↗ identified have been zoned UV

57:01 ↗ single-family but that sort of overt

57:05 ↗ conversation did not have

57:07 ↗ and either at PPC or at the Tallis

57:10 ↗ community meeting and the property owner

57:12 ↗ since it's just a preliminary plat has

57:15 ↗ full legal right to come back with a

57:17 ↗ completely different plat as long as it

57:19 ↗ fits the zoning correct right the

57:23 ↗ property the just because you have a

57:26 ↗ preliminary plot does not mean that you

57:28 ↗ have to follow through on that and I

57:30 ↗ think that is part of the community

57:31 ↗ concern and part of what I remember from

57:34 ↗ our discussions because there was

57:36 ↗ another parcel that was actually a much

57:37 ↗ more hotly debated within within Taos at

57:40 ↗ the time and one of the reasons that we

57:42 ↗ didn't focus the nitty-gritty on this

57:44 ↗ and why maybe mr. Hill wasn't a part of

57:46 ↗ our discussions at that time was because

57:48 ↗ we understood that the that the plat was

57:50 ↗ still undergoing structural issues and

57:54 ↗ was not actually at a point that we

57:55 ↗ needed to be looking at what was what

57:58 ↗ was to be happening on it that we

57:59 ↗ weren't or we weren't at that level yet

58:01 ↗ so there was a reason that we weren't

58:02 ↗ going over this we were just going off

58:05 ↗ of what we already knew from the

58:07 ↗ preliminary plat as the plan right is

58:10 ↗ that is a correct understanding like

58:11 ↗ then I think staff made certain

58:13 ↗ assumptions based on its state at the

58:17 ↗ time and that the council felt that a

58:20 ↗ very overt conversation was necessary to

58:24 ↗ ensure that the possibilities and

58:29 ↗ expectations had been fully aired at

58:32 ↗ that time there was an encouragement

58:35 ↗ from from the Joint Commission's

58:38 ↗ for Tallis to really work with

58:40 ↗ developers to communicate their their

58:42 ↗ intent with them and the developer at

58:44 ↗ the time had one direction they wanted

58:46 ↗ to go I'm forgetting which part was

58:48 ↗ seventy right yeah on the corner thank

58:51 ↗ you

58:52 ↗ and so I I would kind of go back to that

58:54 ↗ and I would encourage mr. Hill to go

58:56 ↗ back to his client to really encourage

58:58 ↗ them to work with the Tallis community

58:59 ↗ that's having open lines of

59:01 ↗ communication it sounds like a big issue

59:02 ↗ here is really the community cares a lot

59:06 ↗ about the parcel and that's a great

59:07 ↗ opportunity for the applicant to be able

59:09 ↗ to reach out and really take that

59:11 ↗ feedback and really be a part and a

59:13 ↗ member of the community rather than

59:14 ↗ having a lot of mystery and I think that

59:16 ↗ would help the situation a little bit so

59:18 ↗ that's a kind of

59:19 ↗ side that I would never bring 40 with

59:21 ↗ the applicant but so Lucy I would say my

59:24 ↗ only frustration with this process is

59:26 ↗ looking back to that September timeframe

59:28 ↗ that PPC's discussion was very focused

59:32 ↗ on that 17b and I think we had a little

59:35 ↗ bit of blinders on probably based on the

59:39 ↗ information that we were getting or not

59:41 ↗ getting from staff about parcel 9 and

59:45 ↗ that if we had had the opportunity at

59:46 ↗ that point to go through this process I

59:50 ↗ think that would have delighted

59:52 ↗ information much earlier on so that we

59:56 ↗ weren't having to go back and look at

59:59 ↗ one parcel in specific which can become

1:00:02 ↗ a legal problem well I'm not going to

1:00:08 ↗ speak to the legal problems we have

1:00:09 ↗ enough lawyers in here that kind of can

1:00:11 ↗ discuss that I think I point taken

1:00:15 ↗ I think one of the challenges that we

1:00:18 ↗ face with the complexity of all of this

1:00:21 ↗ and being the first time through the

1:00:23 ↗ process is that staff made their best

1:00:28 ↗ effort and at the same time that was

1:00:34 ↗ part of why we brought we you know all

1:00:37 ↗ those meetings that you see I think that

1:00:39 ↗ was we were asked a lot of really

1:00:42 ↗ interesting and varied questions that

1:00:45 ↗ sent us back to scratch our heads and

1:00:47 ↗ think through things and unfortunately

1:00:50 ↗ parcel 9 just didn't come up at that

1:00:52 ↗ time I don't think that there was I it

1:00:56 ↗ at the time it didn't seem like such a

1:01:00 ↗ big deal we were wrong at the time I

1:01:02 ↗ remember we discussed a lot was the

1:01:04 ↗ issue of the slide and wanting to make

1:01:06 ↗ sure that whatever was built on nine

1:01:07 ↗ however it came out was going to go

1:01:09 ↗ through super review and it was going to

1:01:11 ↗ fit criteria of of not being a huge

1:01:15 ↗ safety concern for the community so that

1:01:18 ↗ was what I remember us really focusing

1:01:21 ↗ on for this particular parcel because we

1:01:22 ↗ didn't actually have an applicant in

1:01:24 ↗ front of us saying this is not what we

1:01:26 ↗ want to have happen and we also didn't

1:01:27 ↗ have the community in front of us saying

1:01:29 ↗ this is not what we want to have happen

1:01:30 ↗ within those discussions so I think that

1:01:32 ↗ was a big thing that we talked about was

1:01:34 ↗ making sure that staff recognize that we

1:01:37 ↗ put in place as to win this parcel was

1:01:39 ↗ going to be built out that it was going

1:01:41 ↗ to adhere to everything that we needed

1:01:43 ↗ as a community to feel that it was of

1:01:45 ↗ sound being absurdly built yeah that's

1:01:48 ↗ what that was my recollection when I

1:01:50 ↗ went back through my notes for this so

1:01:51 ↗ is so again and I asked it an Aes that

1:01:56 ↗ there's nothing on this since we've

1:01:58 ↗ looked at it other than the issues that

1:02:02 ↗ the community is feeling that it's not

1:02:04 ↗ appropriate to what they're wanting to

1:02:06 ↗ envisioned for the parcel is that

1:02:09 ↗ correct as far as city staff is

1:02:11 ↗ concerned I think I think that the the

1:02:13 ↗ point that city staff I think are

1:02:15 ↗ continued to return to is that that

1:02:19 ↗ we're caught kind of between what what

1:02:24 ↗ would have happened with a final plot

1:02:25 ↗ and where we are right now and I think

1:02:29 ↗ if anything explaining the zoning in

1:02:34 ↗ light of that would have been a great

1:02:36 ↗ thing to have done last year and I just

1:02:40 ↗ don't think we thought about it that way

1:02:42 ↗ and yeah and you know that's why we're

1:02:44 ↗ back here I think these are extremely

1:02:46 ↗ important conversations to have in an

1:02:49 ↗ overt way pending and you go maybe I

1:02:53 ↗ don't remember I'm letting I have been

1:02:55 ↗ here for that meeting but I'm very

1:02:57 ↗ confused between this plat B and as you

1:03:01 ↗ say purgatory so it sounds like your

1:03:05 ↗ preliminary was one thing and if we had

1:03:09 ↗ proceeded long it's not it's not as much

1:03:13 ↗ purgatory I know you would have got

1:03:15 ↗ something different totally than what

1:03:18 ↗ was in the preliminary back right no and

1:03:21 ↗ thank you for clarifying so the per

1:03:24 ↗ limited so we don't anticipate if they

1:03:28 ↗ go to final plat we we were assuming

1:03:31 ↗ that it would be consistent with the

1:03:34 ↗ preliminary class I think the challenge

1:03:36 ↗ is that at a sort of very gross level

1:03:40 ↗ multifamily is more than

1:03:42 ↗ one unit on a piece of property

1:03:45 ↗ single-family is either detached or

1:03:48 ↗ attached one unit per one piece of

1:03:50 ↗ property because this has 90 units on

1:03:53 ↗ one piece of property we thought

1:03:57 ↗ multifamily but the truth of the matter

1:04:00 ↗ is if the slide hadn't happened it would

1:04:03 ↗ have gone to final plat in and we and

1:04:05 ↗ therefore it would have already been

1:04:06 ↗ planted by the time we started the

1:04:08 ↗ process mapping in 2017 and therefore we

1:04:13 ↗ would have proposed you V single family

1:04:17 ↗ and I think that's the where the

1:04:18 ↗ community's concerning expectations come

1:04:21 ↗ from is that they wanted they want the

1:04:27 ↗ zoning to match that planning so let's

1:04:34 ↗ so let's talk about community concerns

1:04:37 ↗ so I think the comments that the HOA

1:04:40 ↗ director made were about about the form

1:04:43 ↗ and the bulk of the building which are

1:04:45 ↗ reasonable and legitimate but I want to

1:04:48 ↗ anchor in on the comments that

1:04:50 ↗ councilmember Rea made which I think of

1:04:52 ↗ pertinent since he's the one that

1:04:53 ↗ started this and highlighted this and he

1:04:56 ↗ said what typically goes unsaid and

1:04:58 ↗ these conversations about multifamily

1:05:01 ↗ versus single-family and I appreciate

1:05:03 ↗ that mr. Ray had the balls to actually

1:05:06 ↗ say what you know I'm like it sunset

1:05:07 ↗ which is he doesn't want renters on this

1:05:11 ↗ block of land and if you look at if you

1:05:14 ↗ look at his quote his problem isn't

1:05:16 ↗ all-day family where it's a single

1:05:18 ↗ family his problem is with ownership and

1:05:20 ↗ with renters and so the one thing that

1:05:22 ↗ and I don't want to presuppose that any

1:05:25 ↗ of the good people in this audience

1:05:26 ↗ think that because none of you have said

1:05:28 ↗ this but the one thing that concerns me

1:05:30 ↗ about this is with is with councilmember

1:05:33 ↗ Rea bringing this up is he basically it

1:05:36 ↗ if you go through the whole song and

1:05:38 ↗ dance that he did he basically and

1:05:40 ↗ concludes with I want to make sure I

1:05:41 ↗ don't have renters living near me well I

1:05:45 ↗ would say that that was a point that

1:05:48 ↗ councilmember Ray made and that

1:05:51 ↗ ownership versus rental is not something

1:05:54 ↗ that the city has a

1:05:55 ↗ roll in except with affordable housing

1:05:58 ↗ but potentially I think there was also a

1:06:01 ↗ form concern about the sort of scale and

1:06:05 ↗ mass of the building that the townhouses

1:06:11 ↗ although the height limit was 60 feet

1:06:13 ↗ that townhouses are probably not going

1:06:16 ↗ to be 60 feet while an apartment

1:06:19 ↗ building could be 60 feet tall and so I

1:06:23 ↗ think there was both an ownership and a

1:06:25 ↗ form concern that he was daylighting

1:06:30 ↗ pending going through the the new

1:06:34 ↗ directive we have handed down to us from

1:06:36 ↗ the Supreme Court what can you tell me

1:06:39 ↗ about what would change about this

1:06:41 ↗ process mr. Hill mentioned going through

1:06:43 ↗ number six what was that level said he

1:06:46 ↗ said type six review so how did what so

1:06:50 ↗ I will say that at 4:30 this afternoon I

1:06:52 ↗ got to do something about this so I will

1:06:55 ↗ just say that I'm not quite sure what

1:06:58 ↗ mr. Hill is referring to because a the

1:07:01 ↗ rezone process is PPC and counsel and

1:07:04 ↗ the process we're going through is

1:07:07 ↗ rezone is similar to a rezone which is p

1:07:10 ↗ pc and council so there may be some

1:07:13 ↗ nuances to that process that he is

1:07:18 ↗ concerned have not taken place but in

1:07:21 ↗ general the typical steps are the same

1:07:27 ↗ well that raises a question to the city

1:07:30 ↗ attorney I guess is what does this

1:07:34 ↗ decision in the Supreme Court do and

1:07:38 ↗ should we hold this in abeyance until

1:07:41 ↗ you and the staff have had a chance to

1:07:43 ↗ fully really review and decide what is

1:07:45 ↗ appropriate regards to what level it

1:07:47 ↗ should be done well to answer your

1:07:50 ↗ question mr. chairman as I indicated

1:07:52 ↗ previously the decision of the Supreme

1:07:54 ↗ Court is under review by my office and

1:07:56 ↗ we're in consultation about staff

1:07:58 ↗ regarding that we should have that done

1:08:00 ↗ within the next few days I will be able

1:08:02 ↗ to provide a more definitive

1:08:03 ↗ recommendation if it's the council's

1:08:05 ↗ preference to postpone action and

1:08:08 ↗ withhold your your substantive

1:08:10 ↗ recommendation until that's complete

1:08:12 ↗ that's certainly within your prerogative

1:08:13 ↗ I think that's the prudent thing for us

1:08:17 ↗ to do is to wait until this thing is

1:08:18 ↗ angry had a chance to be resolved by the

1:08:21 ↗ staff and the attorney so that would

1:08:25 ↗ mean continuing the public hearing to

1:08:27 ↗ your next meeting our guys next chance

1:08:31 ↗ that we have a public meeting yeah I

1:08:33 ↗ mean I'm fine making decision tonight

1:08:35 ↗ but I don't think any of you three guys

1:08:36 ↗ are I'm not multifamily which would not

1:08:41 ↗ end up with a legal concern so I I am as

1:08:46 ↗ well I have right at but at this point I

1:08:49 ↗ am tending towards to come of not doing

1:08:51 ↗ a rezone to the SF and sticking with the

1:08:53 ↗ MF however in light of this new

1:08:56 ↗ information I do think it's prudent to

1:08:58 ↗ continue on and give the public another

1:09:00 ↗ opportunity to review this information

1:09:02 ↗ but I think I might disagree with you I

1:09:05 ↗ think if if our thought was we wanted to

1:09:07 ↗ go with a Down zone then I think we

1:09:10 ↗ would clearly need to postpone and make

1:09:12 ↗ sure that we did that through the proper

1:09:13 ↗ steps but I think if if if if the

1:09:15 ↗ Commission's position is to stick with

1:09:17 ↗ the multifamily then I don't think this

1:09:20 ↗ is relevant because then nothing changes

1:09:22 ↗ mr. Chanin do you agree actually mr.

1:09:26 ↗ Commissioner given if the Commission's

1:09:29 ↗ preference is to postpone the

1:09:33 ↗ recommendation until a legal

1:09:36 ↗ recommendation from my office and and

1:09:38 ↗ staff has been received by you I don't

1:09:41 ↗ think it matters which direction you'd

1:09:43 ↗ actually be making or forwarding your

1:09:45 ↗ recommendation on the legal concerns

1:09:48 ↗ that have been raised by mr. Hill would

1:09:50 ↗ apply across the board regardless at

1:09:53 ↗ which if what's being presented to you

1:09:55 ↗ is in fact a site-specific rezone

1:09:57 ↗ proposal irrespective of how it

1:10:01 ↗ ultimately is concluded that process

1:10:03 ↗ under the landowners theory would would

1:10:10 ↗ would be the same irrespective of which

1:10:13 ↗ direction the ultimately

1:10:15 ↗ because I'm just I'm just tempted to

1:10:18 ↗ make a decision and move on because we

1:10:20 ↗ don't like holding things up when we

1:10:22 ↗ have the opportunity to move them

1:10:23 ↗ forward I understand the the legal

1:10:27 ↗ concern and the idea that if we are

1:10:29 ↗ considering a single property rezone

1:10:32 ↗ outside of the process so that it's

1:10:34 ↗ supposed to go through yeah and if I

1:10:39 ↗ could commissioners the city will have

1:10:43 ↗ an opportunity at the City Council level

1:10:45 ↗ to address any of those procedural

1:10:48 ↗ concerns if you would like to proceed

1:10:50 ↗ tonight with your recommendation there

1:10:53 ↗ will be essentially a procedural

1:10:55 ↗ off-ramp at that point that the council

1:10:57 ↗ can be advised upon just to my concerns

1:11:03 ↗ with the idea that if we were to move

1:11:05 ↗ forward with this with a similar

1:11:08 ↗ recommendation to what we had provided

1:11:10 ↗ back in September and then council has

1:11:14 ↗ the opportunity to again secondarily

1:11:16 ↗ review that and review the Supreme Court

1:11:20 ↗ decision and whether or not the process

1:11:21 ↗ was followed as it should

1:11:24 ↗ that is correct and the council as the

1:11:28 ↗ ultimate decision-maker in this context

1:11:30 ↗ is really where the the substantive

1:11:33 ↗ where the rep termination will be made

1:11:37 ↗ you make basically we're in the ball

1:11:42 ↗ back in their Court which is what we

1:11:45 ↗ always do because we only make

1:11:47 ↗ recommendation that's right so can I

1:11:52 ↗ make a motion to make a motion okay I

1:11:54 ↗ would like to make a motion and I don't

1:11:57 ↗ have the ad in front of me so I'm not

1:12:00 ↗ sure what language we should be going

1:12:01 ↗ with we don't have findings of fact so

1:12:07 ↗ so two things I'm not sure the form of

1:12:11 ↗ your motion so I had a very crude

1:12:13 ↗ version that I provided the second piece

1:12:16 ↗ is because it was completely unclear

1:12:18 ↗ what direction you might take or if you

1:12:21 ↗ would even take direction tonight

1:12:24 ↗ the second piece of on the sheet of

1:12:26 ↗ paper that's provided to you was a

1:12:30 ↗ motion that would have a staff prepare

1:12:34 ↗ findings of fact and conclusions to be

1:12:36 ↗ reviewed and signed by the acting

1:12:38 ↗ chairperson that's very typical in the U

1:12:43 ↗ V DC and DC to have those findings of

1:12:46 ↗ fact reviewed and signed by the

1:12:49 ↗ chairperson and so I just wanted to

1:12:51 ↗ offer that as an option because we did

1:12:53 ↗ not bring those this evening not knowing

1:12:56 ↗ how many permutations there might be to

1:12:59 ↗ consider so we could move to recommend

1:13:06 ↗ that the agenda bill goes back to City

1:13:11 ↗ Council which has the same

1:13:15 ↗ recommendation we did in September yeah

1:13:17 ↗ exactly what would that make sense as a

1:13:19 ↗ motion I would say maybe not in

1:13:22 ↗ September because some changes have

1:13:23 ↗ taken place since then but potentially

1:13:26 ↗ retaining the UVM F for parcel 9 okay so

1:13:33 ↗ I move that PPC recommend agenda bill

1:13:38 ↗ seven five to four to City Council with

1:13:42 ↗ the multifamily designation for personal

1:13:47 ↗ nine I second moved in a second any more

1:13:53 ↗ discussion I can you do the second

1:14:00 ↗ motion I move the PBC direct development

1:14:07 ↗ services department to prepare finding

1:14:09 ↗ as a fact in conclusions for review and

1:14:11 ↗ approval by this evenings acting PPC

1:14:14 ↗ chairperson affirming the PPC's

1:14:18 ↗ recommendation to once again approve the

1:14:22 ↗ agenda bill 752 for to counsel with the

1:14:25 ↗ multifamily designation for personal

1:14:28 ↗ nine thank you second is there a second

1:14:31 ↗ I second

1:14:32 ↗ all in favor any discussion all in favor

1:14:35 ↗ aye thank you not sure how many people

1:14:42 ↗ in the audience are planning to stay for

1:14:45 ↗ well the next public hearing but I hope

1:14:48 ↗ a lot I believe we are losing our yes

1:14:52 ↗ yes I have a public hearing because we

1:14:54 ↗ don't have enough we won't have a bounce

1:14:56 ↗ so thank you all for coming we just need

1:15:12 ↗ to close the meeting at this point well

1:15:13 ↗ you know we think we're gonna do or

1:15:16 ↗ asking Curt I'm trying to get the

1:15:24 ↗ attention and we're trying to see if

1:15:25 ↗ Curt wants to go first with the TI p

1:15:27 ↗ we're losing our quorum right well the

1:15:31 ↗ TI PD isn't a public hearing okay

1:15:33 ↗ I don't think we should do it well it's

1:15:40 ↗ going to council within a few weeks so

1:15:43 ↗ if you didn't see it now you wouldn't

1:15:45 ↗ get to see it the TI p the good news is

1:15:49 ↗ it'll be on TV so folks can watch it on

1:15:52 ↗ TV

1:16:04 ↗ the third attachment at the last page

1:16:06 ↗ it's very hardly any information we have

1:16:10 ↗ an interested party who's not able to

1:16:11 ↗ ask actively ask questions and we move

1:16:14 ↗ to have a push to another meeting is

1:16:15 ↗ quicker cool as I was saying that the

1:16:18 ↗ council is holding their public use me

1:16:20 ↗ hold on a second please can those people

1:16:22 ↗ letter at the earlier meeting maybe go

1:16:24 ↗ on the horn we have to continue our

1:16:26 ↗ business council thank you thank

1:16:30 ↗ everybody for coming tonight City

1:16:33 ↗ Council is having their public hearing

1:16:35 ↗ on the tee IP in a few weeks so if you

1:16:38 ↗ all don't look at it now you won't have

1:16:40 ↗ a chance to look at it that's you guys

1:16:43 ↗ the issues with PPC and quorums is we

1:16:47 ↗ don't always yeah scheduling isn't

1:16:50 ↗ always perfect I'll see if I can squeeze

1:16:52 ↗ my questions in 45 seconds there you go

1:16:55 ↗ and remember you can send him in after

1:16:58 ↗ the meeting as well AJ you can send him

1:17:01 ↗ in after the meeting as well - Curtis

1:17:04 ↗ this is so this is really to determine

1:17:06 ↗ 2019 2020 not much information compared

1:17:10 ↗ to the old tiph project yeah I agree

1:17:27 ↗ yeah definitely next time we need actual

1:17:30 ↗ project level detail it's just the

1:17:32 ↗ description does it really it was a huge

1:17:33 ↗ change from how we usually get this

1:17:35 ↗ information I was surprised

1:17:39 ↗ Nigel because we got using each of the

1:17:42 ↗ items as to what's involved in regards

1:17:45 ↗ to the work mm-hmm

1:17:47 ↗ Carl do we need to pass this over that's

1:17:50 ↗ what we did I don't know if it needs to

1:17:51 ↗ be filled out or can you give you stated

1:17:53 ↗ on the record and I can asking how much

1:17:55 ↗ of the work is to work for your bottom

1:17:56 ↗ do the line I don't know but just needs

1:17:57 ↗ to be stated or if it actually needs to

1:17:59 ↗ be like how much of how much of this is

1:18:04 ↗ the work that we were supposed to be

1:18:05 ↗ doing with their transportation level

1:18:17 ↗ okay so since we are still on air uh-huh

1:18:25 ↗ people at home are watching this

1:18:28 ↗ exciting yeah what the hell is going on

1:18:31 ↗ what they didn't see was the 30 or so

1:18:34 ↗ people in the audience who cleared out

1:18:37 ↗ after the Telus da bill was good pushed

1:18:42 ↗ through well for those at home waiting

1:18:44 ↗ to see won the raffle we didn't have one

1:18:50 ↗ the public hearing on the old town sub

1:18:52 ↗ area plan will have to be postponed

1:18:54 ↗ because we don't have a quorum or public

1:18:57 ↗ hearing no right for the old town for

1:19:06 ↗ the old town public hearing we're just

1:19:07 ↗ opening the public hearing tonight and

1:19:09 ↗ introducing some things but then we're

1:19:11 ↗ continuing the public hearings so we

1:19:13 ↗ don't need the quorum because it

1:19:14 ↗ requires the quorum to make a

1:19:15 ↗ recommendation

1:19:16 ↗ there's no vote about okay are we good

1:19:18 ↗ are we going out of order then yeah okay

1:19:23 ↗ okay I'll do the TI P first I guess and

1:19:29 ↗ then we will

1:19:32 ↗ open public hearing but close it right

1:19:37 ↗ away cuz we don't have a corner is that

1:19:39 ↗ correct

1:19:40 ↗ maybe okay there blink at you cuz you're

1:19:54 ↗ talking without a mic but that's alright

1:19:58 ↗ okay we're ready to proceed with the TI

1:20:03 ↗ p with what we have okay and so a

1:20:09 ↗ courtesy of the transportation manager

1:20:11 ↗ at the city I I'm not sure what you had

1:20:15 ↗ in previous years but you used to have

1:20:17 ↗ for urine we used to get a list every

1:20:20 ↗ every project would have a page that

1:20:22 ↗ would have the funding on it and a

1:20:25 ↗ little description of what was going on

1:20:27 ↗ there regards versus just this blanket

1:20:31 ↗ spreadsheet like the overlay program and

1:20:35 ↗ not more those are all kind of standard

1:20:37 ↗ but the first one is the southeast 43rd

1:20:41 ↗ and Providence point intersection and I

1:20:45 ↗ think that's the one I hopefully we

1:20:47 ↗ would gotten resolved 15 years ago but

1:20:51 ↗ now we're getting closer to the top of

1:20:53 ↗ the pile okay and it would have a

1:20:54 ↗ description and might even show a little

1:20:57 ↗ picture of what we're talking about

1:20:58 ↗ every project had its own page and just

1:21:01 ↗ to specify as far as the top of the pile

1:21:03 ↗ these are in no order right I think I've

1:21:05 ↗ ever seen there is no hierarchy right

1:21:07 ↗ well so let me I think I can answer now

1:21:09 ↗ that's true I think they can answer used

1:21:12 ↗ to be they were an order as well so so

1:21:15 ↗ [Music]

1:21:17 ↗ well head with presentation and we'll

1:21:19 ↗ see if we have questions let me tell you

1:21:21 ↗ let me give you what I've got here let's

1:21:23 ↗ start there so for those of you that

1:21:28 ↗ aren't from the aren't familiar with the

1:21:30 ↗ TI P what it is and why we do it this is

1:21:34 ↗ a brief presentation to go through that

1:21:38 ↗ talk about the projects I've highlighted

1:21:40 ↗ some projects I'd like to go through

1:21:41 ↗ with you

1:21:43 ↗ but the the T IP is a six-year plan it's

1:21:47 ↗ with fun with funding shown and then

1:21:50 ↗ beyond that all the projects that the

1:21:53 ↗ city anticipates building in the long

1:21:55 ↗ term it's a requirement it's a RCW

1:21:58 ↗ requirement that cities towns and

1:22:01 ↗ counties prepare it's an advance plan

1:22:03 ↗ that looks into the future for not less

1:22:06 ↗ than six years and it's the the the code

1:22:11 ↗ requirement the reason behind the code

1:22:13 ↗ is to assure that each city and town

1:22:17 ↗ perpetually has advanced plans looking

1:22:19 ↗ towards the future for not less than six

1:22:22 ↗ years it's also a very useful document

1:22:25 ↗ for us because it's a requirement for us

1:22:29 ↗ to participate and to compete from grant

1:22:33 ↗ funding this goes to all the other

1:22:35 ↗ regional organizations sound transit and

1:22:40 ↗ so forth it will be sent to washed out

1:22:44 ↗ once it's adopted by the City Council

1:22:46 ↗ and and then it's our plan here for 2019

1:22:54 ↗ through 2024 and then it will be revised

1:22:58 ↗ again next year to be 2020 to 25 so we

1:23:02 ↗ are bringing it to you to share with you

1:23:05 ↗ tonight we all sort go into the council

1:23:08 ↗ Infrastructure Committee next week to

1:23:10 ↗ hear their comments and questions there

1:23:13 ↗ is a public hearing set for June 4th to

1:23:18 ↗ get public testimony on this and then

1:23:21 ↗ the plan is to have it adopted at the

1:23:24 ↗ accounts the following council meeting

1:23:26 ↗ that would be the 18th I believe and

1:23:30 ↗ that public hearing is council right

1:23:33 ↗ that public hearing is the Monday June

1:23:35 ↗ 4th at council correct and then assuming

1:23:40 ↗ we have the plan adopted then it would

1:23:43 ↗ be filed with the state so that's a

1:23:47 ↗ brief overview of that

1:23:52 ↗ and so the TI P is informed by a lot of

1:23:57 ↗ our a lot of different plans we have a

1:23:59 ↗ comprehensive land use plan we have

1:24:01 ↗ centralized de quoi plan we have the wok

1:24:03 ↗ and roll plan traffic concurrency

1:24:06 ↗ there's a lot of regional work going on

1:24:10 ↗ with I 90 for example the the

1:24:13 ↗ interchange justification report that

1:24:15 ↗ we're working with the state on and then

1:24:17 ↗ as well as staff input and and community

1:24:20 ↗ input so that's there's some of the

1:24:22 ↗ other players that are involved and

1:24:24 ↗ here's the document that again I'm not

1:24:28 ↗ sure I would I was out of town when this

1:24:30 ↗ went t so I'm not sure all what you got

1:24:32 ↗ we do have a idea we do have the packet

1:24:35 ↗ that's the agenda bill that went to City

1:24:37 ↗ Council that has each project along with

1:24:39 ↗ a property with a project description

1:24:40 ↗ and funding for each one so if you don't

1:24:43 ↗ have access to that we certainly can

1:24:45 ↗ make that available to you i'm sounds

1:24:47 ↗ like perhaps you didn't get that packet

1:24:48 ↗ but every project has its own project

1:24:52 ↗ descriptions sheet and then it also has

1:24:54 ↗ a the fund the proposed funding for that

1:24:58 ↗ project for all however many projects we

1:25:01 ↗ have here so there's what I'd like to

1:25:03 ↗ focus on tonight is are the projects if

1:25:08 ↗ you see the the double the heavy double

1:25:11 ↗ line there so those are the projects

1:25:12 ↗ that are in our six-year plan and have

1:25:15 ↗ funding proposed through through the

1:25:18 ↗ next six years starting with 2018 and so

1:25:21 ↗ those are the projects that we are

1:25:22 ↗ really focused on here in transportation

1:25:25 ↗ and I would like to spend a little time

1:25:28 ↗ especially since you didn't get as much

1:25:30 ↗ information as perhaps you'd like to

1:25:31 ↗ have seen I'd like to spend a few

1:25:33 ↗ minutes going through each of these

1:25:35 ↗ projects above the line because I think

1:25:37 ↗ there's their most interesting because

1:25:39 ↗ there were we're focused our our time

1:25:42 ↗ and our staff time and our money on for

1:25:45 ↗ the next for the next six years so

1:25:46 ↗ that's what I and then there are back

1:25:50 ↗ here there are not too happy to talk

1:25:53 ↗ about any projects below the line but

1:25:56 ↗ that those are in further years out

1:25:59 ↗ beyond to 2024 you can see those to the

1:26:03 ↗ bottom half of this

1:26:04 ↗ as well as the other projects on the

1:26:06 ↗ next sheet so here's the these are the

1:26:11 ↗ projects that want to talk about in a

1:26:12 ↗ little more detail these are the

1:26:14 ↗ projects above the line as I just

1:26:16 ↗ mentioned and these are the projects

1:26:18 ↗ that we are planning to design and

1:26:20 ↗ construct and move forward with in the

1:26:23 ↗ next six years and I don't expect you to

1:26:26 ↗ read that because I'm going to go

1:26:27 ↗ through each one of these individually

1:26:29 ↗ and then here's the in the aggregate

1:26:31 ↗ here's all the projects on the entire

1:26:33 ↗ list and so you can if you can't can't

1:26:39 ↗ see this at this scale but if you look

1:26:40 ↗ at your packet you should be able to see

1:26:42 ↗ that each project it has a code number

1:26:46 ↗ and a project and identify on the map so

1:26:48 ↗ you can see what the projects are and

1:26:50 ↗ where they are I really like seeing both

1:26:53 ↗ of those two visuals that's a really

1:26:55 ↗ nice way to show where we're looking to

1:26:58 ↗ spend money on transportation

1:27:00 ↗ improvements and seeing that it's

1:27:02 ↗ focused in our urban core area and then

1:27:06 ↗ also as you continue on that we're

1:27:09 ↗ looking at the entire scope yeah okay so

1:27:15 ↗ now I'd like to if you want to follow if

1:27:21 ↗ you look at I can't really flip I won't

1:27:23 ↗ flip back and forth here but now we're

1:27:26 ↗ gonna start here working down the list

1:27:28 ↗ and I talked about the ones first time I

1:27:30 ↗ talked about the ones that are location

1:27:33 ↗ specific so there's a couple here that

1:27:35 ↗ I'll skip over for now but I'll be happy

1:27:36 ↗ to come back to so for example the

1:27:38 ↗ overlay program and non-motorized

1:27:40 ↗ program and the camera i TS camera

1:27:42 ↗ system upgrades which are the first

1:27:44 ↗ three of the first four projects on your

1:27:47 ↗ list are pretty much citywide and I'll

1:27:50 ↗ talk about those in a minute but I would

1:27:53 ↗ for starters like to go through the

1:27:55 ↗ location specific ones so again I know

1:28:01 ↗ we struggle with this this no particular

1:28:04 ↗ order idea and trust me I there's no one

1:28:09 ↗ in this room that wants to more wants to

1:28:11 ↗ have a transportation master plan that

1:28:13 ↗ helps give us

1:28:14 ↗ more specificity and and priority to our

1:28:17 ↗ projects and we're working on that but

1:28:19 ↗ this is what we have now and so this so

1:28:21 ↗ I'll just go through the projects

1:28:22 ↗ briefly and so this is a a proposed

1:28:24 ↗ crossing of i90 and we don't know if

1:28:27 ↗ it's going over the freeway or perhaps

1:28:30 ↗ we're thinking another option is to

1:28:32 ↗ actually raise the grade of the freeway

1:28:34 ↗ up in it and then this crossing would be

1:28:36 ↗ at grade with the width or the City this

1:28:39 ↗ a quarter of town that are not very well

1:28:44 ↗ connected now we see this is out there

1:28:47 ↗ it's an expensive project I get the

1:28:51 ↗ dollar now is here this is project

1:28:53 ↗ number 3 PR 0-0 394 million and it's an

1:29:02 ↗ expense I mentioned it's an expensive

1:29:04 ↗ project so it's not a project we're

1:29:05 ↗ gonna build on our own the kind of the

1:29:07 ↗ cool exciting thing about this aside

1:29:09 ↗ from the opportunities to connect how

1:29:10 ↗ many 1 million in six years yeah connect

1:29:13 ↗ both sides of the city

1:29:14 ↗ we know that sound transits coming -

1:29:17 ↗ it's probably don't know exactly where

1:29:19 ↗ that where that station location is

1:29:22 ↗ going to be but we think there's some

1:29:23 ↗ opportunities to start thinking about a

1:29:25 ↗ crossing and there's potential

1:29:27 ↗ partnerships with wash dot and what

1:29:30 ↗ sound transit and so there's a there's a

1:29:34 ↗ lot of great reasons to think about

1:29:38 ↗ looking at this project it's also tied

1:29:41 ↗ to the ijr if you're familiar with that

1:29:43 ↗ so the IGR is interchange justification

1:29:45 ↗ report what a lot of people don't

1:29:47 ↗ realize with that is we're although

1:29:49 ↗ we're looking at front street as the as

1:29:53 ↗ the center of that study the

1:29:55 ↗ requirements for IJ are is that you look

1:29:57 ↗ upstream and downstream from that so it

1:30:00 ↗ may be that what comes the work that

1:30:01 ↗ comes out of the IGR may be a

1:30:03 ↗ recommendation to make it crossing

1:30:05 ↗ somewhere in this location so it's a

1:30:06 ↗ pretty fuzzy line here we don't know

1:30:08 ↗ exactly what what that would look like

1:30:11 ↗ or where exactly it would go but we

1:30:13 ↗ think that crossing roughly between

1:30:15 ↗ that's our 900 and the Front Street

1:30:18 ↗ interchange makes a lot of sense for a

1:30:20 ↗ lot of reasons so that's and I'm just

1:30:22 ↗ going to go through these all not happy

1:30:25 ↗ to come back and have more conversation

1:30:27 ↗ on any of them

1:30:28 ↗ that you'd like to so this is another

1:30:30 ↗ project interesting project this is

1:30:33 ↗ right next to where I work over there on

1:30:36 ↗ the other City Hall and this is a

1:30:38 ↗ project where the Tully's was in a

1:30:41 ↗ Holiday Inn and it's meant to improve

1:30:44 ↗ that energy set interchange at twelve

1:30:46 ↗ and nine hundred and fifty-six there

1:30:50 ↗ Northwest and I showed that whole piece

1:30:53 ↗ there and we have a project planned for

1:30:59 ↗ that and pretty well described in our TI

1:31:01 ↗ P what's interesting about this is the

1:31:03 ↗ state is now looking at potential

1:31:06 ↗ alternate entrances and looking at some

1:31:09 ↗ reconfiguration potentially to their

1:31:10 ↗ state park so before our plan was to

1:31:14 ↗ move forward this I think start designed

1:31:17 ↗ this year but we're going to hold off

1:31:19 ↗ until we're so where you have entered

1:31:20 ↗ into agreement with the state we're

1:31:22 ↗ gonna be working with them to better

1:31:23 ↗ understand what that all means when when

1:31:27 ↗ we talk about looking at another

1:31:29 ↗ entrance to the State Park because if

1:31:32 ↗ that's that could likely or I shouldn't

1:31:37 ↗ say likely it's potentially impacts the

1:31:39 ↗ design of this intersection so we're

1:31:41 ↗ going to do that work first with the

1:31:42 ↗ state and then we're going to come back

1:31:44 ↗ and make an intersection improvement in

1:31:46 ↗ the in this vicinity that that makes

1:31:48 ↗ sense and supports what the state wants

1:31:52 ↗ to do with their Park based on that

1:31:55 ↗ discussion that we're having is our time

1:31:57 ↗ frame now that's been adjusted for

1:31:59 ↗ addressing this I'm sorry do we have a

1:32:02 ↗ time frame of the state's gonna get back

1:32:04 ↗ to us right so that's right so that's I

1:32:08 ↗ the parks department's taking the lead

1:32:10 ↗ on that side and don't know if I know

1:32:11 ↗ exactly a schedule the time frame

1:32:13 ↗ generally is about a year that that

1:32:15 ↗ efforts we're doing some traffic study

1:32:17 ↗ work as a part of that so I think within

1:32:19 ↗ the next year we'll have a lot better

1:32:21 ↗ clarity about that thank you

1:32:25 ↗ so that's that one and then I won't talk

1:32:29 ↗ too much about this this hopefully it's

1:32:31 ↗ going to be off our list and complete

1:32:33 ↗ here for the holiday season I I know

1:32:38 ↗ that our public works director is

1:32:39 ↗ working very hard

1:32:41 ↗ weekly with the contractor to make sure

1:32:43 ↗ that this happens and gets completed for

1:32:46 ↗ minimum minimal impacts around the

1:32:48 ↗ holiday season to all the businesses in

1:32:51 ↗ in the area so big project

1:32:53 ↗ another important connection this is an

1:32:57 ↗ east-west connection would fit nicely

1:33:00 ↗ with the project I was describing

1:33:02 ↗ earlier which is that north-south

1:33:05 ↗ crossing of i-90 and would because I one

1:33:09 ↗ thing that we know and this that

1:33:11 ↗ Issaquah really would benefit from is

1:33:14 ↗ stronger connections both motorized and

1:33:16 ↗ non-motorized but the better we can

1:33:18 ↗ connect our our city the easier it is

1:33:20 ↗ going to be to get around we have the

1:33:24 ↗ advantage or disadvantage as depending

1:33:26 ↗ on how you look at having i-90 sort of

1:33:29 ↗ bifurcate our city right through the

1:33:31 ↗ middle of it so these projects that can

1:33:34 ↗ make connections are really important we

1:33:36 ↗ think and so here's I'm sorry quick

1:33:40 ↗ question on that last one where is that

1:33:42 ↗ 13 million in change coming from since

1:33:44 ↗ we but it's the funding since we don't

1:33:46 ↗ have what I guess you guys gave council

1:33:48 ↗ that breaks apart every project and says

1:33:50 ↗ where funding came from so that project

1:33:54 ↗ is fully funded I know dude can i I'm

1:33:57 ↗ asking where that funding came from so

1:33:59 ↗ it's a comment so it's I can give you

1:34:01 ↗ the big game from college the big

1:34:03 ↗ picture answer is that it's a joint

1:34:05 ↗ agreement between the city and Costco

1:34:07 ↗ huh and that breakdown of that 13 is

1:34:09 ↗ Carl just alluded to is it half is that

1:34:11 ↗ what it was it it's for the it's roughly

1:34:13 ↗ it's the split is roughly 50/50 City

1:34:17 ↗ Costco yes thank you and so this project

1:34:24 ↗ so this is making the east-west

1:34:26 ↗ connections we know that this next

1:34:28 ↗ project this is a weak link in our

1:34:33 ↗ transportation network on in this part

1:34:36 ↗ of town and so it makes sense to us if

1:34:39 ↗ we are completing this project this year

1:34:42 ↗ that it would make sense to make this

1:34:45 ↗ other north-south connection between

1:34:46 ↗ basically it's one way we've thought

1:34:50 ↗ about this is that this

1:34:53 ↗ the point so this 60-second project this

1:34:56 ↗ project here the 221st project and then

1:35:00 ↗ the project that we were talking about

1:35:02 ↗ over here in the vicinity of the State

1:35:04 ↗ Park can work together as a system so

1:35:08 ↗ which is how we like to look at things

1:35:10 ↗ rather than just piecemeal individually

1:35:12 ↗ so this is another this once this

1:35:16 ↗ project

1:35:17 ↗ 60-seconds complete want to be looking

1:35:19 ↗ at this design and construction of this

1:35:22 ↗ piece and then also as I mentioned

1:35:24 ↗ earlier over here we also we know that

1:35:26 ↗ it's it's disruptive enough to have one

1:35:29 ↗ project going on any one area so our

1:35:31 ↗ idea here is to is to phase these in

1:35:33 ↗ some way so that we would build one

1:35:35 ↗ completed have the design complete for

1:35:38 ↗ the next one and then and then the third

1:35:39 ↗ one so that's the story there so for

1:35:42 ↗ number eight here it looks like it put

1:35:44 ↗ the project wouldn't begin for two years

1:35:46 ↗ so it's that's one of the begins to be

1:35:49 ↗ funded yeah and so I have to have my

1:35:52 ↗ funding for years pardon me thank you

1:35:54 ↗ yeah till 2022 warriors so I'm curious

1:35:58 ↗ about that distance you're telling me

1:35:59 ↗ that the 62nd Street it's gonna be

1:36:02 ↗ finished you're thinking come holiday

1:36:04 ↗ time right so this year right and then

1:36:07 ↗ why is there a foreign you don't want to

1:36:08 ↗ have an overlap wiser for your gap well

1:36:11 ↗ let me let me go through all the

1:36:13 ↗ projects and then can we come back to

1:36:15 ↗ that question sure sure

1:36:16 ↗ that's a great question I mean we would

1:36:18 ↗ like to have these currently problem and

1:36:22 ↗ currently we would like to do everything

1:36:23 ↗ on this list I would like to do

1:36:25 ↗ everything on this list very quickly

1:36:27 ↗ there's well let me just go through the

1:36:29 ↗ rest of the projects I think that will

1:36:30 ↗ help answer that question and it's a the

1:36:33 ↗ short answer is it's a funding and it's

1:36:35 ↗ a staffing constraints at this point so

1:36:38 ↗ if we had sort of unlimited staffing and

1:36:40 ↗ unlimited funding we could do unlimited

1:36:42 ↗ work it's so anyway that's that's the

1:36:45 ↗ short answer

1:36:46 ↗ are we constrained or understaffed in

1:36:50 ↗ your department well let me let me go

1:36:54 ↗ through the product let me go through

1:36:55 ↗ the projects first okay and then you and

1:36:58 ↗ then you can maybe you can tell me about

1:37:00 ↗ you we have it we have three senior

1:37:03 ↗ engineers and we have these projects so

1:37:05 ↗ I'll be presenting to you so you can

1:37:06 ↗ maybe

1:37:07 ↗ be the judge of that then we could

1:37:09 ↗ supplement that work of course with

1:37:10 ↗ consultants so here's a project that

1:37:12 ↗ it's pretty exciting this is a project

1:37:15 ↗ that's been on the list for a while I

1:37:19 ↗ believe the system to make improvements

1:37:22 ↗ in the vicinity of the school Central

1:37:26 ↗ Park along North East Park Drive

1:37:29 ↗ interestingly enough this is we've been

1:37:32 ↗ doing some work some traffic calming

1:37:34 ↗ work and neighborhood outreach with the

1:37:38 ↗ Highlands and this particular stretch of

1:37:40 ↗ Park Drive along the school and

1:37:42 ↗ specifically the crossings is a very

1:37:44 ↗ high priority for Highlands and so this

1:37:47 ↗ project which originally I think was

1:37:50 ↗ scoped as a signal at Central Park and

1:37:54 ↗ Park Drive we've expanded that scope a

1:37:58 ↗ bit to look more at that Park Drive

1:38:00 ↗ corridor sort of couple blocks each

1:38:04 ↗ direction so that we can better

1:38:06 ↗ understand the whole piece of that

1:38:08 ↗ rather than just signalizing the

1:38:10 ↗ intersection and not worrying about the

1:38:12 ↗ other issues there so that's that

1:38:14 ↗ project in that project are you

1:38:17 ↗ considering a roundabout yes we are

1:38:20 ↗ considering a roundabout

1:38:22 ↗ instead of a traffic signal where what

1:38:27 ↗ does that Central Park comes into Park

1:38:29 ↗ Drive that's still proposed to be a

1:38:31 ↗ signal we're looking at it rounded I

1:38:33 ↗ think the it location we're thinking

1:38:35 ↗ about probably a little bit further back

1:38:37 ↗ where College Drive comes into so that's

1:38:40 ↗ I think what we're looking at there but

1:38:41 ↗ the the intersection of Central and Park

1:38:45 ↗ Drive is still

1:38:46 ↗ we're planning for that to be a signal

1:38:48 ↗ at this point so this is friend sunset

1:38:55 ↗ this project has been around for a long

1:38:56 ↗ time this is primarily the the changes

1:39:00 ↗ on this one and it has there's different

1:39:03 ↗ schools of thought on the on this one

1:39:05 ↗ but it has been a project on our list

1:39:08 ↗ for some time it is part of a it's a

1:39:10 ↗ concurrency required project

1:39:12 ↗ it's to put turn lanes on the east and

1:39:16 ↗ west legs of sunset so it rather right

1:39:20 ↗ now that you

1:39:20 ↗ it's either you wait in one lane to make

1:39:23 ↗ a left or go through six years out and

1:39:25 ↗ so this is to have a separate left turn

1:39:30 ↗ and three lane on both legs of sunset it

1:39:34 ↗ does to do that it does it's likely to

1:39:37 ↗ require the removal of some parking

1:39:38 ↗ there right near served in the the

1:39:41 ↗ Senate of the rogue route house thank

1:39:46 ↗ you so there's a loss of parking that's

1:39:48 ↗ that's we understand that's challenging

1:39:53 ↗ in our downtown where Tory are trying to

1:39:55 ↗ maximize parking but that's how far back

1:39:58 ↗ that would go like all the way to the

1:39:59 ↗ fish hatchery and not that it's just

1:40:01 ↗ it's just that I don't think preliminary

1:40:06 ↗ designs I've seen it doesn't extend past

1:40:09 ↗ that brew house so it's it's it's a loss

1:40:12 ↗ of I want to say you know three or four

1:40:15 ↗ parking stalls something on the order

1:40:17 ↗ that it's not it's not saying that

1:40:19 ↗ that's not significant but it's it's a

1:40:21 ↗ minimal amount of parking and so that as

1:40:26 ↗ a project is one of the least expensive

1:40:29 ↗ and the ones that we're looking at in

1:40:31 ↗ this six year period but I would say

1:40:34 ↗ goes down to one of those areas where we

1:40:36 ↗ have the biggest traffic issues I sure

1:40:42 ↗ would love to know why that is in 2024

1:40:45 ↗ versus you know something like the

1:40:47 ↗ Central Park traffic signal and I'm

1:40:49 ↗ saying that as a Highlander you know

1:40:51 ↗ what the priority between those and this

1:40:54 ↗ is exactly the reason why I'm happy to

1:40:57 ↗ be here sharing this information with

1:40:58 ↗ you used to get that kind of input

1:41:01 ↗ absolutely so that's that project and so

1:41:07 ↗ now the Gilman Boulevard improvements so

1:41:09 ↗ this is a we're starting on this effort

1:41:13 ↗ and I want to put a plug in for the

1:41:16 ↗ outreach effort we're doing there's a

1:41:18 ↗ survey is going online starting next

1:41:20 ↗ Monday I think I'd you like to to

1:41:22 ↗ encourage everyone to take a look at

1:41:23 ↗ that and give us your input we have some

1:41:25 ↗ business outreach plans soon we have an

1:41:27 ↗ open house tentatively planned for July

1:41:30 ↗ 11th that's a Wednesday so it's pretty

1:41:32 ↗ exciting to have a great consultant

1:41:34 ↗ team working on this and we're working

1:41:38 ↗ very hard to have take a

1:41:41 ↗ multidisciplinary approach to this study

1:41:43 ↗ so it's not a transportation project

1:41:46 ↗ where the lead but it's not a

1:41:47 ↗ transportation project only its parts

1:41:51 ↗ and DSD and operations and emergency

1:41:55 ↗ police and fire is everyone looking at

1:41:58 ↗ this together it's a it's a very dated

1:42:02 ↗ corridor in the city it's pretty much

1:42:05 ↗ unchanged in its design and since the

1:42:10 ↗ 70s I think has a lot of driveways and

1:42:13 ↗ not telling anything you don't know but

1:42:14 ↗ you know what's so that's been gilman

1:42:17 ↗ till now and and and part of the big

1:42:20 ↗ part of the work here is to to plan for

1:42:23 ↗ gilman in the future and what that so

1:42:26 ↗ what is the improvements so then since

1:42:29 ↗ we don't have that pack in front of us

1:42:31 ↗ right I apologize for that so this is

1:42:36 ↗ preliminary design work and study work

1:42:39 ↗ so the work we're doing this year is

1:42:42 ↗ just to understand along with the

1:42:44 ↗ community what that future Gilman should

1:42:47 ↗ look like and then the next phase which

1:42:49 ↗ is scheduled for next year I believe and

1:42:53 ↗ in a bit into 2020 is to continue with

1:42:56 ↗ that preliminary design work so there is

1:42:59 ↗ no construction project in the TI P for

1:43:03 ↗ Gilman and there's a couple reasons for

1:43:06 ↗ that one of the main reasons is we don't

1:43:08 ↗ know what's going to come out of the

1:43:12 ↗ study so it may be it so at one extreme

1:43:15 ↗ it could be an entire corridor

1:43:18 ↗ reconstruction that the city that's a

1:43:20 ↗ city capital project more likely it's

1:43:25 ↗ it's likely to be a set of plans and

1:43:27 ↗ designs that we that will be very useful

1:43:29 ↗ as we go forward and approve development

1:43:31 ↗ and redevelopment that comes in along

1:43:33 ↗ Gilman so and there may be some spot

1:43:37 ↗ improvements to fill in those gaps so

1:43:39 ↗ the city maybe be making some

1:43:41 ↗ intersection improvements along Gilman

1:43:43 ↗ as a result we don't really know what

1:43:46 ↗ the outcome is

1:43:47 ↗ but we know that without a plan without

1:43:50 ↗ a vision for that corridor it's it makes

1:43:53 ↗ it very difficult to approve

1:43:56 ↗ redevelopments it comes in because we

1:43:58 ↗ don't really know what we want there's a

1:44:00 ↗ lot of issues access issues along that

1:44:02 ↗ corridor and it's a pretty high accident

1:44:04 ↗ corridor because of so many driveways

1:44:06 ↗ and so many conflict points making it

1:44:09 ↗ difficult to get across for pedestrians

1:44:12 ↗ and other non motorized uses so there's

1:44:16 ↗ a lot of value in this work but I'm

1:44:20 ↗ sorry did they order they approve the

1:44:25 ↗ study approved the study but was this a

1:44:28 ↗ request from staff a request from

1:44:29 ↗ Council to look at I think it was it I

1:44:32 ↗ think it was I think it was initiated

1:44:34 ↗ the staff level and we explained all of

1:44:38 ↗ what I'm sharing with you to council and

1:44:40 ↗ that made sense to them so they funded

1:44:42 ↗ this initial preliminary design work and

1:44:46 ↗ this is separate from looking at the

1:44:48 ↗ intersection at juniper Rainier Gilman

1:44:52 ↗ yeah because that's already been funded

1:44:55 ↗ right I don't think that includes that's

1:44:58 ↗ no longer on that tee IP right this is

1:45:02 ↗ right this is a core this is to look at

1:45:04 ↗ the entire corridor and get clear about

1:45:06 ↗ what that corridor should look like

1:45:09 ↗ going forward so just going back to that

1:45:13 ↗ idea the Juniper Rainier Gilman

1:45:17 ↗ intersection I don't see that on the TI

1:45:20 ↗ p you do 38 i think you're talking about

1:45:26 ↗ the the three trails crossing

1:45:28 ↗ improvements i think is that what is

1:45:30 ↗ that I think that that's that is juniper

1:45:33 ↗ and Rainier and Gillis crossing okay

1:45:36 ↗ it's that what that I'm going to talk

1:45:37 ↗ about that in a minute okay that hasn't

1:45:41 ↗ gone away

1:45:46 ↗ and so you're probably pretty familiar

1:45:49 ↗ with our work on Newport west of 900 so

1:45:55 ↗ we've done a lot of we did a lot of

1:45:57 ↗ preliminary work with the neighborhoods

1:46:00 ↗ a lot of concerns along that corridor

1:46:01 ↗ because of the all the development

1:46:04 ↗ that's happened out there so we were

1:46:08 ↗ very successful I feel and developing a

1:46:10 ↗ plan that reflects what the community's

1:46:12 ↗ interests are for that corridor we are

1:46:14 ↗ now this year working on moving forward

1:46:19 ↗ with engineering design for that

1:46:22 ↗ corridor and if you look on there on

1:46:24 ↗ your sheet our plan is to design and

1:46:28 ↗ build that project it's not a cheap

1:46:30 ↗ project either they're both of the

1:46:34 ↗ Newports make sure tell you the right

1:46:36 ↗ numbers two years right they're both

1:46:38 ↗ very they're both quite expensive that

1:46:40 ↗ that Newport piece is about nearly 37

1:46:46 ↗ million the other Newport we'll talk

1:46:48 ↗ about in a minute is nearly 30 million

1:46:49 ↗ we are working on getting as many grants

1:46:53 ↗ as we can but grants by themselves won't

1:46:55 ↗ pay for that those projects obviously

1:46:58 ↗ but back to what I was saying earlier

1:47:01 ↗ about connections this is a really we

1:47:05 ↗ don't have a lot of key east-west

1:47:08 ↗ north-south connections but certainly

1:47:10 ↗ the team Newport projects are key

1:47:12 ↗ east-west connections across town so

1:47:15 ↗ that's that Newport and then here's the

1:47:17 ↗ other Newport which we are under design

1:47:19 ↗ for right now and that's from April the

1:47:24 ↗ sunset some discuss so the project does

1:47:28 ↗ stop this was always intended that the

1:47:32 ↗ grant money we received so far has been

1:47:34 ↗ intended to stop at sunset there is some

1:47:37 ↗ discussion about what this other piece

1:47:38 ↗ here whether we should can continue with

1:47:42 ↗ that other piece to take it all the way

1:47:44 ↗ to Front Street we're not doing that in

1:47:46 ↗ this design but it's its word it's it's

1:47:50 ↗ been this the idea is out there so

1:47:52 ↗ that's that one and then this is a

1:47:56 ↗ misleading graphic I'm going to

1:47:57 ↗ apologize for its that the project

1:48:00 ↗ here the TR 28 is specifically I believe

1:48:04 ↗ it's a million dollars if I'm not

1:48:06 ↗ mistaken for the pinch point and so that

1:48:08 ↗ pinch point is this area right in here

1:48:12 ↗ roughly and so if you're not aware of

1:48:16 ↗ what's happening there so watch dot as

1:48:18 ↗ part of there they're turning the

1:48:21 ↗ shoulder into a another travel lane

1:48:23 ↗ along i-90 along this portion of i90 and

1:48:26 ↗ along with that work they'll be putting

1:48:29 ↗ in sound walls and when they build the

1:48:31 ↗ sound wall they'll be building the sound

1:48:33 ↗ wall in a location such that we will now

1:48:36 ↗ have room for bike lanes and sidewalks

1:48:38 ↗ in that very narrow part of West Lake

1:48:45 ↗ Sammamish so it's it's right in here

1:48:47 ↗ it's a it's a small section it's only I

1:48:51 ↗ want to say less than a thousand feet of

1:48:53 ↗ improvements but it's a real it

1:48:55 ↗ literally is a pinch point and so this

1:48:58 ↗ whole community over here is challenged

1:49:00 ↗ to get over to this part of town and get

1:49:02 ↗ to the State Park and all that so it's

1:49:04 ↗ it it's an important piece that will

1:49:08 ↗ that will make it will make a

1:49:11 ↗ significant improvement for mobile

1:49:12 ↗ especially non motorized mobility for

1:49:15 ↗ these folks there is another project

1:49:18 ↗ that is not in our six-year plan that is

1:49:21 ↗ another very expensive project I think

1:49:23 ↗ you see towards more towards the bottom

1:49:24 ↗ of the list that that anticipates design

1:49:29 ↗ and construction of this entire corridor

1:49:31 ↗ which would be a which would be a great

1:49:33 ↗ connection a great east-west connection

1:49:37 ↗ on the north side of i90 but that's

1:49:39 ↗ another expensive project and out there

1:49:42 ↗ where is the funding for the pinch point

1:49:44 ↗ coming for the pinch point that was that

1:49:48 ↗ was already put aside by council the

1:49:51 ↗ million dollars okay a specific source

1:49:54 ↗ of that I'm not sure if I can share with

1:49:56 ↗ you but I don't because because I don't

1:49:58 ↗ know but but that's million dollars and

1:50:01 ↗ that's specifically so I think it's a

1:50:05 ↗ good deal for the city the state is

1:50:07 ↗ doing the bulk of the work with by

1:50:10 ↗ moving that wall and giving us the extra

1:50:12 ↗ space they'll be provide

1:50:14 ↗ it's a gravel area basically when

1:50:16 ↗ they're done that we can come and come

1:50:18 ↗ back and do our design in our

1:50:19 ↗ construction for reconstructing that

1:50:23 ↗ portion of the roadway and the bike

1:50:24 ↗ lanes in the sidewalk so that's the

1:50:26 ↗ million dollars and we we believe we can

1:50:28 ↗ do that that piece for the million

1:50:30 ↗ dollars but not obviously not the bigger

1:50:35 ↗ the bigger chunk there and then we've

1:50:39 ↗ talked about this I think you were

1:50:41 ↗ mentioning I came up here we've been

1:50:44 ↗ talking about this it certainly predates

1:50:47 ↗ me say this is we are actually so here

1:50:53 ↗ and well we so the good news is we had

1:50:59 ↗ either 95 or close to hundred percent

1:51:01 ↗ plans here maybe eight eight or so years

1:51:06 ↗ ago I think something like that and

1:51:08 ↗ didn't have the funding to move forward

1:51:10 ↗ the construction so we have we're

1:51:13 ↗ currently dusting off those plans it's a

1:51:16 ↗ it's a fairly small engineering effort

1:51:18 ↗ to bring those up to current standards

1:51:20 ↗ look at stormwater regulations those

1:51:22 ↗ kinds of things but we'll have those

1:51:24 ↗ plans ready to bid this year so I think

1:51:30 ↗ it's about a four to six month effort is

1:51:32 ↗ what we're planning and we're just

1:51:33 ↗ getting started with that so we'd have

1:51:35 ↗ we would be ready with our plans for

1:51:36 ↗ this year that's I think of six million

1:51:42 ↗ six million roughly yeah six million

1:51:44 ↗ dollar project and so that's a that

1:51:47 ↗ needs to go back to council for funding

1:51:50 ↗ for that project but we'll be ready to

1:51:52 ↗ go with our plans here this fall and

1:51:56 ↗ that is and just for those of you that

1:51:59 ↗ don't know that realigns those are it

1:52:02 ↗ aligns the two sides of of Providence

1:52:05 ↗ points which they're currently not

1:52:08 ↗ aligned and then this is a project fits

1:52:12 ↗ in our list for a long time I actually

1:52:15 ↗ what I was out of town for these

1:52:16 ↗ discussions the most recent discussions

1:52:18 ↗ on this but I think we've moved this up

1:52:19 ↗ because that wall is not it's not going

1:52:23 ↗ to fix itself as they say and it's not

1:52:24 ↗ it needs some

1:52:26 ↗ it needs to repair and eat some repairs

1:52:28 ↗ sooner than later there was some talk I

1:52:30 ↗ think of a possible development along

1:52:32 ↗ this this area here hotel or something I

1:52:35 ↗ don't think that that we're gonna wait

1:52:37 ↗ for that to happen I think there are

1:52:39 ↗ repairs that we need to do now I'm not a

1:52:42 ↗ structural wall design engineer but I'm

1:52:45 ↗ being told that that's something that we

1:52:47 ↗ can't we can't neglect for much longer

1:52:51 ↗ so that's I don't know if that's a

1:52:53 ↗ transportation project per se but it is

1:52:55 ↗ it will allow us to keep black nugget

1:52:59 ↗ road operating safely by repairing that

1:53:04 ↗ wall and then here so this is the

1:53:05 ↗ project I think you were talking about

1:53:08 ↗ it so this is the as you know the

1:53:10 ↗ developer is putting in a signal and

1:53:14 ↗ making improvements on the north side of

1:53:17 ↗ Gilman and so that they are not doing

1:53:19 ↗ design or improvements on the south side

1:53:23 ↗ of Gilman and that's a that's a kind of

1:53:26 ↗ a complicated area that doesn't work

1:53:28 ↗ very well so we know that that needs

1:53:31 ↗ some thoughtful design to figure out how

1:53:33 ↗ those streets come together and how they

1:53:37 ↗ especially the non-motorized uses will

1:53:40 ↗ get through there safely so that's the

1:53:43 ↗ three trails crossing improvements and

1:53:48 ↗ then I just got a couple more the East

1:53:51 ↗ Lake Center next roundabout we have we

1:53:53 ↗ have a consultant study that recommends

1:53:57 ↗ removing say this right here removing

1:54:00 ↗ the the southbound the second southbound

1:54:06 ↗ lane on that roundabout and using it for

1:54:10 ↗ pedestrian and non motorized bicycle

1:54:12 ↗ uses so it won't impact the function of

1:54:16 ↗ the roundabout for vehicles but it will

1:54:18 ↗ give us a much stronger and safer

1:54:20 ↗ pedestrian connection through there and

1:54:22 ↗ then reduce to one lane a roundabout

1:54:27 ↗ remember on the southbound how there's a

1:54:30 ↗ kind of site it's a sign that kind of

1:54:33 ↗ goes to the side of it yeah

1:54:35 ↗ there's still two lanes yeah that's the

1:54:38 ↗ that's the bypass thing yeah it's that

1:54:40 ↗ slip lane it's so hard to merge back in

1:54:45 ↗ there is great it's gonna be gone it's

1:54:47 ↗ gonna be it's going to be the peds and

1:54:50 ↗ bikes are going to take back that right

1:54:53 ↗ so those are the projects in the next

1:54:58 ↗ six years there's I have a question we

1:55:01 ↗ haven't covered on number 18 which is

1:55:03 ↗ the camera system upgrade the ITF camera

1:55:07 ↗ system upgrades yeah

1:55:08 ↗ can I hear a little bit more about what

1:55:09 ↗ that is you can so that's our that's our

1:55:12 ↗ intelligent transportation camera

1:55:15 ↗ systems throughout the city and it helps

1:55:17 ↗ us manage our signals and our signal

1:55:21 ↗ system and also has other uses for

1:55:23 ↗ safety and a police sometimes use it for

1:55:26 ↗ different events and that kind of thing

1:55:28 ↗ and they're they're not an expert on

1:55:31 ↗ cameras and computer software but

1:55:33 ↗ basically they're ten year old that's a

1:55:36 ↗ ten year old camera ten year old system

1:55:37 ↗ and it's hard to they don't integrate

1:55:40 ↗ very well with any of the new equipment

1:55:42 ↗ so it's it's an upgrade to that entire

1:55:46 ↗ system and I think it also includes new

1:55:48 ↗ cameras or more cameras as well okay and

1:55:51 ↗ those cameras the purpose of it is

1:55:53 ↗ specifically to be able to help with

1:55:55 ↗ timing of traffic yes and and as I

1:55:59 ↗ mentioned if there's sometimes there's

1:56:01 ↗ times when emergency services have used

1:56:04 ↗ those if there's some kind of direct

1:56:06 ↗ yeah sure if there's some kind of a I

1:56:08 ↗ don't know what some protest or some

1:56:11 ↗ kind of event that's happening the city

1:56:13 ↗ the cameras are helpful for for our

1:56:15 ↗ Police Department for example to see

1:56:17 ↗ what's going on at a specific

1:56:18 ↗ intersection balance yeah a question yes

1:56:22 ↗ yeah I 90 crossing yes

1:56:26 ↗ we're holding off on the holiday and

1:56:31 ↗ 12th Avenue thing waiting for the state

1:56:35 ↗ to decide what they're going to do with

1:56:37 ↗ the entrances to the park correct or

1:56:41 ↗ that

1:56:42 ↗ I I mean they're not moving their

1:56:46 ↗ entrance over there so that whole

1:56:47 ↗ intersex regime that's not my question

1:56:49 ↗ they'll question is more on the i-90

1:56:53 ↗ over cross it's that one right are we

1:56:55 ↗ holding off on that as well till we find

1:56:59 ↗ out what if anything the st3 terminal is

1:57:03 ↗ going to be the short answer is no not

1:57:08 ↗ as we proposed it here and the idea

1:57:11 ↗ behind that would be so again we know

1:57:14 ↗ Sound Transit's coming to us a claw we

1:57:16 ↗ know it's you know some twenty years out

1:57:18 ↗ or less but we also know that a crossing

1:57:23 ↗ in this vicinity would be very

1:57:24 ↗ advantageous be very beneficial for the

1:57:26 ↗ city and we believe that the more work

1:57:32 ↗ we can do on this and the more certain

1:57:35 ↗ we can be about where we want a crossing

1:57:38 ↗ to be and and that that will help inform

1:57:41 ↗ that sound transit discussion we

1:57:43 ↗ wouldn't do that we wouldn't move

1:57:45 ↗ forward this work without a bunch of

1:57:47 ↗ partners at the table so sound transit

1:57:50 ↗ would be in any kind of conversations

1:57:52 ↗ that we have with this way that's

1:57:53 ↗ crossing along with wash dot and and

1:57:56 ↗ businesses along going a whole whole

1:57:58 ↗ slew of folks it's and we're not just

1:57:59 ↗ doing it and you know CERN is that we're

1:58:02 ↗ dealing six years out in its twenty

1:58:04 ↗ years before we ever gonna see it turn

1:58:06 ↗ away and and and so I hate down build

1:58:09 ↗ something and find out that's right

1:58:11 ↗ we're sound transit although he doesn't

1:58:13 ↗ we're gonna tear it down so we can put

1:58:15 ↗ in a great train station that's that's

1:58:18 ↗ good input and so and maybe I didn't

1:58:20 ↗ describe this exactly accurately this

1:58:22 ↗ isn't I don't think that we're saying

1:58:26 ↗ that this would be the location of the

1:58:28 ↗ sound transit station we say that what

1:58:31 ↗ we're saying is there's a real advantage

1:58:38 ↗ to us to have a second an additional

1:58:40 ↗ crossing of i-90 in this area and we

1:58:43 ↗ know that sound transits coming as well

1:58:45 ↗ and there may be opportunities for us to

1:58:47 ↗ work together but I don't think we're

1:58:48 ↗ saying that this just to be clear we're

1:58:51 ↗ not saying and this is the location of

1:58:53 ↗ the sound transit station

1:58:55 ↗ yeah because we haven't gotten that far

1:58:57 ↗ players on the shame yes there's a lot

1:58:59 ↗ of moving pieces okay thank you so along

1:59:04 ↗ with the I TS camera system upgrade are

1:59:06 ↗ we considering any intelligent

1:59:09 ↗ signalling updates those systems are

1:59:12 ↗ also somewhere around 10 years old we so

1:59:18 ↗ not in this budget not currently but

1:59:21 ↗ it's it's a good question we've talked

1:59:23 ↗ about it some and and there's some

1:59:25 ↗ there's some newer technology and

1:59:28 ↗ signals there's adaptive signal

1:59:29 ↗ technology now from our preliminary

1:59:33 ↗ investigation to that it doesn't seem

1:59:36 ↗ like the cost would would be worth the

1:59:39 ↗ benefits so it's not in here now but

1:59:42 ↗ it's not it's not off the table it's not

1:59:44 ↗ we haven't what is that rough cost that

1:59:47 ↗ you would say it's not one so adaptive

1:59:49 ↗ signals sort of start start at five

1:59:51 ↗ million dollars and then up from there

1:59:53 ↗ an adapter issue is that we've got pinch

1:59:57 ↗ points there so and the other thing just

2:00:02 ↗ without Intel auto detail the adaptive

2:00:03 ↗ signals worked well in the shoulder

2:00:06 ↗ portions of a commute they can they can

2:00:09 ↗ make the corridors work more smoothly in

2:00:13 ↗ the areas on either side of the peaks

2:00:16 ↗ but in the peak when it's fully

2:00:18 ↗ congested and adaptive signals not like

2:00:20 ↗ a silver bullet that's going to make

2:00:22 ↗ traffic flow unfortunately it's not the

2:00:25 ↗ Silver Bullet that will make traffic

2:00:26 ↗ flow smoothly through town so so it's

2:00:29 ↗ not it to be clear it's not it's not off

2:00:31 ↗ the table it's not you don't see it here

2:00:32 ↗ it's not currently planned but we've

2:00:35 ↗ been talking about and there's yeah

2:00:37 ↗ there is one item that's number forty

2:00:40 ↗ one that's below our line but it's being

2:00:43 ↗ funded this year can you speak

2:00:45 ↗ specifically to what the front street

2:00:47 ↗ streetscape is going to be done this

2:00:49 ↗ year we can I can so

2:00:54 ↗ [Applause]

2:00:57 ↗ yes it's below-the-line streetscape if

2:01:02 ↗ it's the second project below the line

2:01:04 ↗ so it's below the line for funding in

2:01:07 ↗ the in the years starting at una 2019 we

2:01:11 ↗ do have funding as you'll see in 2018

2:01:14 ↗ there so it's not below the line in that

2:01:17 ↗ sense we do have we're currently working

2:01:21 ↗ with parks and planning the folks

2:01:24 ↗ downstairs to come up with a scope of

2:01:28 ↗ work we're looking at front street

2:01:30 ↗ between sunset and alder and making

2:01:34 ↗ improvements there this 156,000 that you

2:01:36 ↗ see here we don't think that's enough

2:01:38 ↗ money to do everything that needs to be

2:01:40 ↗ done in that block our idea would be

2:01:42 ↗ that we would complete that block and do

2:01:45 ↗ all the landscaping and the trees and

2:01:47 ↗ and everything that was envisioned in

2:01:49 ↗ that work that economic development did

2:01:52 ↗ for Front Street streetscape in that

2:01:55 ↗ vicinity of sunset to alder our

2:02:01 ↗ preliminary estimates are more than this

2:02:03 ↗ they're more like four to five hundred

2:02:05 ↗ thousand so we need to have some we need

2:02:07 ↗ to finalize what that work is we're in

2:02:09 ↗ the process of finalizing what that work

2:02:10 ↗ is and then probably coming back to

2:02:13 ↗ council for more money to do that

2:02:16 ↗ there's nothing in future years there's

2:02:19 ↗ currently nothing there's no additional

2:02:21 ↗ work for there were some other elements

2:02:23 ↗ in that that work that for that

2:02:26 ↗ streetscape work I know that there were

2:02:29 ↗ and those aren't currently in here

2:02:36 ↗ so what are the next steps for any

2:02:39 ↗ public that might be watching this where

2:02:41 ↗ the TI P goes from here if they want to

2:02:45 ↗ comment on their favorite or disliked

2:02:48 ↗ transportation project curve they are

2:02:50 ↗ that's a great question so probably the

2:02:54 ↗ best opportunities are the so this is

2:02:58 ↗ being discussed similar to be a similar

2:03:01 ↗ presentation to what I've shared with

2:03:03 ↗ you next Thursday night at the council

2:03:06 ↗ Infrastructure Committee which will be

2:03:08 ↗ here in this room so that's and that's

2:03:11 ↗ on the agenda for discussion with that

2:03:14 ↗ group next Thursday and then the the

2:03:19 ↗ that's a more that's a that's a less

2:03:23 ↗ formal conversation at infrastructure

2:03:26 ↗ and I know that mr. Ramos typically asks

2:03:30 ↗ for public comment at that meeting the

2:03:33 ↗ formal public hearing where your

2:03:36 ↗ comments are actually going to the

2:03:38 ↗ record are is June 4th in front of City

2:03:42 ↗ Council and you know that depends on the

2:03:46 ↗ the volume of comments I that could be

2:03:49 ↗ that could be a one meeting type deal if

2:03:51 ↗ there's a lot of people I've seen

2:03:52 ↗ council continue those hearings to a

2:03:56 ↗ second meeting so we'll see how that

2:03:58 ↗ goes but those are the those of this are

2:04:01 ↗ the key check-in points for the for the

2:04:03 ↗ public

2:04:08 ↗ anything else questions thank you

2:04:16 ↗ typically PPC either gives like some

2:04:21 ↗ things that you would like to see moved

2:04:23 ↗ up or down or backwards or and we we

2:04:27 ↗ write a letter that that he can take

2:04:29 ↗ that to Council that you've looked at it

2:04:31 ↗ and you've recommended things if you

2:04:34 ↗ choose not to if you're fine with the

2:04:35 ↗ way it is that's fine - I'm just letting

2:04:37 ↗ you know that you have the opportunity

2:04:38 ↗ to send a letter on with Kurt's tip2

2:04:41 ↗ Council if you choose to just giving you

2:04:44 ↗ that you don't have to the front and

2:04:50 ↗ sunset intersection I would opponent I

2:04:53 ↗ think when we start thinking about a

2:04:55 ↗ value add being able to concretely see

2:04:58 ↗ some actual work being done rather than

2:05:01 ↗ you know I'm not a big proponent of this

2:05:04 ↗ going Boulevard study this being fun it

2:05:05 ↗ when you look at them they're basically

2:05:06 ↗ apples to apples and cost one we

2:05:08 ↗ actually will be able to see in effect

2:05:10 ↗ from and one we're planning for a future

2:05:12 ↗ which you guys know we love to do up

2:05:15 ↗ here that's that's the point of what we

2:05:16 ↗ do however I worry about at some point

2:05:20 ↗ the plant but we're spending money to

2:05:22 ↗ implement a plan for something that's so

2:05:23 ↗ far in the future but by the time we get

2:05:25 ↗ there we're gonna have to have another

2:05:26 ↗ study of the current plan based on the

2:05:28 ↗ new information that we have I think

2:05:29 ↗ it's actually way too early on and start

2:05:32 ↗ talking about funding the Gilman

2:05:34 ↗ Boulevard improvements the way they are

2:05:35 ↗ right now I would slip those by a few

2:05:37 ↗ years because it's really not productive

2:05:39 ↗ for us to be talking about a hard

2:05:41 ↗ concrete plan and a study coming through

2:05:43 ↗ that being said it clearly councils

2:05:45 ↗ funded it until it's gonna happen but to

2:05:47 ↗ me I would rather see something that's

2:05:49 ↗ more concrete like number 12 the front

2:05:51 ↗ Street sunset intersection exactly like

2:05:56 ↗ Providence Point example yeah that's

2:05:59 ↗ been on here so long and now all of a

2:06:02 ↗ sudden this year we're having to spend a

2:06:05 ↗ ton seed that's about two hundred

2:06:07 ↗ thousand whatever amount of money to

2:06:09 ↗ make sure it's up to current standards

2:06:12 ↗ because there's been so much other

2:06:14 ↗ growth in that intersection we got to

2:06:16 ↗ figure out how we're going to make

2:06:18 ↗ intersection work I'm just happy to see

2:06:21 ↗ that hey maybe next year it'll finally

2:06:24 ↗ come to fruition I also don't know that

2:06:26 ↗ this camera system upgrade should really

2:06:28 ↗ be coming out of our transportation

2:06:29 ↗ budget I don't know that we're getting

2:06:32 ↗ getting the most benefit from it from a

2:06:33 ↗ transportation perspective I think that

2:06:35 ↗ might actually be something that really

2:06:36 ↗ falls under Health and Human Services as

2:06:38 ↗ far as it's really more for police and

2:06:41 ↗ emergency vehicles so I would wonder if

2:06:43 ↗ then that amount of money could actually

2:06:45 ↗ be spent on improving a corner and

2:06:47 ↗ making it making it an actual difference

2:06:49 ↗ in transportation so the other one that

2:06:53 ↗ looks like it's fairly inexpensive and

2:06:56 ↗ could have a big benefit for

2:06:59 ↗ non-motorized transportation as the East

2:07:02 ↗ Lake Sammamish Parkway around about

2:07:03 ↗ modifications yeah so that would be one

2:07:07 ↗ I could see moving up and getting a

2:07:11 ↗ benefit particularly for bikers going

2:07:14 ↗ through that area to improve their

2:07:16 ↗ safety so those are Tricia I mentioned

2:07:21 ↗ those are exactly the kinds of comments

2:07:22 ↗ that would be we would welcome those

2:07:25 ↗ comments from you know those who those

2:07:27 ↗ are helpful and in shaping this for sure

2:07:29 ↗ you know with us not getting approval

2:07:33 ↗ from citizens for a tax increase to

2:07:35 ↗ cover the different traffic I think it

2:07:37 ↗ helps to actually have concrete things

2:07:39 ↗ to show you have these big numbers

2:07:41 ↗ you're looking at things you know 90

2:07:43 ↗ million dollars for you know these

2:07:44 ↗ different things feels very abstract but

2:07:47 ↗ when you actually are interacting in a

2:07:48 ↗ community and you're like hey it's much

2:07:50 ↗ easier for me to turn onto the street

2:07:51 ↗ it's much easier for me to bike through

2:07:53 ↗ the street I think it really helps as

2:07:55 ↗ far as building kind of future credit in

2:07:58 ↗ a sense because you know I'm sure

2:07:59 ↗ there's gonna be another point in time

2:08:00 ↗ where taxpayers are gonna be asked to to

2:08:03 ↗ foot the bill for these massive projects

2:08:05 ↗ and it really helps to have what seem

2:08:09 ↗ like smaller projects it makes a big

2:08:11 ↗ difference in people's lives and so I

2:08:12 ↗ guess I would encourage having that kind

2:08:14 ↗ of these focusing on more smaller

2:08:16 ↗ improvements that make a difference in

2:08:18 ↗ everyday lives rather than maybe as big

2:08:20 ↗ picture some years or big picture some

2:08:22 ↗ years our corners and blocks yeah I

2:08:26 ↗ think what I hear you saying and we've

2:08:28 ↗ talked about this to some obviously is

2:08:31 ↗ is if there's low-hanging fruit if

2:08:33 ↗ there's smaller type things that you

2:08:35 ↗ know maybe they don't have a huge impact

2:08:36 ↗ but they but they do have some benefit

2:08:39 ↗ and they can be done relatively

2:08:42 ↗ inexpensively and relatively quickly I

2:08:44 ↗ think it's what you're saying yeah you

2:08:46 ↗ mentioned that corner you know the

2:08:48 ↗ tollis t-mobile yeah you know Costco has

2:08:51 ↗ some offices back there in Lake

2:08:52 ↗ Sammamish Parkway okay I asked like well

2:08:55 ↗ when is the state going to be finalizing

2:08:56 ↗ their decisions about where they want to

2:08:58 ↗ be moving the entrances because it's

2:08:59 ↗ like at some point we need to move on

2:09:01 ↗ that's a massive intersection that's

2:09:02 ↗ used with our community so it's like

2:09:04 ↗ alright you need a year we've entered in

2:09:06 ↗ this agreement that's fine but that's

2:09:07 ↗ why I asked about timeliness that we

2:09:09 ↗ don't want to have this happen to be

2:09:10 ↗ something eight years down the road and

2:09:12 ↗ we're still having that same interests

2:09:14 ↗ yes intersection that's good input thank

2:09:16 ↗ you so the other two that I would just

2:09:19 ↗ kind of put notes on not necessarily

2:09:20 ↗ move up but with the three trails

2:09:22 ↗ crossing I would really want to make

2:09:24 ↗ sure that whatever we're getting out of

2:09:27 ↗ the developer there at that light is is

2:09:31 ↗ able to be used by the money that we're

2:09:34 ↗ spending so that there isn't too much of

2:09:37 ↗ a disconnect between those two projects

2:09:42 ↗ with the three trails crossing

2:09:44 ↗ improvements the developer is obviously

2:09:47 ↗ making improvements to the north side of

2:09:51 ↗ the street I just want to make sure we

2:09:52 ↗ don't lose the benefits of those by

2:09:55 ↗ pushing the south side of the street

2:09:57 ↗ improvements way later okay yeah all

2:10:00 ↗ right yeah and then the second one I

2:10:03 ↗ have major concerns about the black

2:10:06 ↗ nugget road retaining wall and I would

2:10:10 ↗ just I think well 2.8 million dollars is

2:10:15 ↗ not chump change it's also a whole lot

2:10:18 ↗ less than we would have to spend if

2:10:21 ↗ something like flatus traffic happens it

2:10:24 ↗ won't that 2.8 a to my understanding is

2:10:27 ↗ that doesn't do anything like we build

2:10:30 ↗ that wall it's a it's a it's a it's a

2:10:32 ↗ path it's a really keeping it functional

2:10:34 ↗ yeah so I have major concerns with that

2:10:39 ↗ and would like to know kind of who

2:10:43 ↗ the city is in charge of that and kind

2:10:47 ↗ of what monitoring is happening there so

2:10:50 ↗ that we know whether or not that money

2:10:52 ↗ needs to be spent yesterday or three

2:10:56 ↗ years no right and I would encourage

2:10:58 ↗ council to meet its who to explore if

2:11:01 ↗ this is the cost of a patch what is a

2:11:02 ↗ rebuild what do we need and to really

2:11:04 ↗ encourage that being a way to you know a

2:11:07 ↗ place to divert funds great

2:11:17 ↗ I don't know Trish do you information I

2:11:20 ↗ figure out what we need to do yes okay

2:11:29 ↗ you want opinions we got him mm-hmm now

2:11:33 ↗ we're ready thank you very much for your

2:11:34 ↗ time and your and your input is great

2:11:36 ↗ thank you thank you very much

2:11:38 ↗ so are we taking any public comments

2:11:41 ↗ even though it's not a public hearing

2:11:43 ↗ okay just making sure

2:11:53 ↗ last but certainly not least not sure

2:12:00 ↗ what Chris is gonna tell us other that

2:12:02 ↗ we're gonna open it and continue it and

2:12:09 ↗ I feel like I'm starting to sound like a

2:12:10 ↗ broken record I think this is our third

2:12:12 ↗ time in a row does talk about this say

2:12:26 ↗ oh my word

2:12:38 ↗ there we go

2:12:44 ↗ I loved how wouldn't YouTube video was

2:12:46 ↗ up was like top of the line PPC Oldtown

2:12:55 ↗ yeah maybe no it was on the art drive

2:13:04 ↗ huh shoot I double-checked it it was on

2:13:15 ↗ the air drive it's not here

2:13:23 ↗ it's not here I know I was trying it

2:13:31 ↗ just in case

2:13:40 ↗ I think so yeah would ya I apologize

2:13:49 ↗ it's not just under there

2:13:51 ↗ no okay that's okay well yeah there may

2:13:55 ↗ be nothing to see anyway we'll see okay

2:14:01 ↗ it's the art drive and I checked it was

2:14:03 ↗ on the air drive you checked it

2:14:09 ↗ well it's not everyone it's not on the

2:14:15 ↗ website mm-hmm I can talk through it

2:14:24 ↗ okay could you do the presentation from

2:14:28 ↗ April to kind of point out any areas of

2:14:30 ↗ changes no just gonna continue anyway so

2:14:36 ↗ I'm not sure what okay well okay tell

2:14:39 ↗ you what I remember most of it and I

2:14:42 ↗ have a hard copy in my hand that might

2:14:49 ↗ work

2:14:52 ↗ I was just gonna say it I was just gonna

2:14:54 ↗ walk through it so fortunately you all

2:14:58 ↗ have I apologize fortunately you all

2:15:00 ↗ have seen this and two or three times

2:15:01 ↗ before this so just as a brief history

2:15:05 ↗ for the public this you all made a

2:15:09 ↗ recommendation to City Council back in

2:15:10 ↗ April of 2017

2:15:12 ↗ it went to council into three different

2:15:14 ↗ lands and Shore meetings and eventually

2:15:15 ↗ was remanded back to PPC because we felt

2:15:17 ↗ there were so many changes to the

2:15:19 ↗ original document that she recommended

2:15:20 ↗ that it needed to be Racine and we heard

2:15:23 ↗ again so the major changes that took

2:15:26 ↗ place were it was look at my look at my

2:15:31 ↗ notes it was abbreviated so there was

2:15:33 ↗ more history more background there were

2:15:34 ↗ some more maps and the policies were

2:15:36 ↗ just longer and their attendant there

2:15:38 ↗ was an objective or a discussion with

2:15:40 ↗ most of the policies a lot of that was

2:15:42 ↗ removed but having cross-referenced the

2:15:45 ↗ document that you originally recommended

2:15:46 ↗ and the new document we felt that the

2:15:49 ↗ policies that needed to be there were

2:15:51 ↗ still there and when I asked you all

2:15:53 ↗ this a few weeks a few meetings ago you

2:15:55 ↗ all concurred that that was the case

2:15:57 ↗ since then we've made a few changes we

2:16:00 ↗ talked about we were more specific on

2:16:02 ↗ the treasurers and we referenced the

2:16:03 ↗ comprehensive plan another big change

2:16:05 ↗ that took place was that we added an

2:16:07 ↗ action program and as you all looked

2:16:10 ↗ closely at the action program in our

2:16:12 ↗ last meeting and the meeting before and

2:16:13 ↗ we rearranged some things we added some

2:16:15 ↗ things I think probably the most

2:16:17 ↗ significant change that was made was

2:16:18 ↗ that we requested that City Council find

2:16:21 ↗ a consultant and/or staff to do a fiscal

2:16:23 ↗ study to determined funding the best

2:16:26 ↗ funding to implement the downtown

2:16:28 ↗ streetscape plan I think that was the

2:16:30 ↗ biggest piece that was in there one

2:16:32 ↗ thing that I wish I could show you

2:16:33 ↗ tonight although I can't is a map we

2:16:37 ↗ needed to include a map and we need to

2:16:39 ↗ determine what that map needs to be so

2:16:42 ↗ in our plan we need to have a land use

2:16:44 ↗ designation map we had we need to have

2:16:47 ↗ that one is there anything else that you

2:16:49 ↗ all want in it and there were two grey

2:16:51 ↗ fuzzy areas one both of those indicated

2:16:54 ↗ boundary discussions that need to take

2:16:57 ↗ place when was it the very south where

2:16:58 ↗ you had the tooth the jogs down there

2:17:00 ↗ South at the high school and you asked

2:17:02 ↗ me why that was why the jog was there

2:17:04 ↗ there is no

2:17:05 ↗ Sewer there and that is likely why that

2:17:08 ↗ jog was there in the first place now

2:17:10 ↗ it's all in the city so it I don't know

2:17:13 ↗ that it matters if it's there or not so

2:17:16 ↗ you can change that boundary and the

2:17:19 ↗ other one is up north route 10 we need

2:17:21 ↗ to look at not only confirm that that we

2:17:23 ↗ want the boundary to include the route

2:17:24 ↗ 10 area the old route 10 but also we

2:17:27 ↗ need to figure out eventually what the

2:17:28 ↗ land use designation needs to be is it

2:17:30 ↗ going to be a retail can because right

2:17:32 ↗ now it's in a different designation than

2:17:35 ↗ CBD CBD is in a retail one and

2:17:38 ↗ destination retail is in mixed use

2:17:40 ↗ so we need to figure out discussions and

2:17:43 ↗ this is something to think about over

2:17:44 ↗ the next month and during the tour what

2:17:47 ↗ we want that land used to be because

2:17:49 ↗ that will determine the zoning as well

2:17:50 ↗ so they were gray areas on that map that

2:17:52 ↗ I submitted to you that you all got in

2:17:54 ↗ your packets so the zoning still needs

2:17:57 ↗ to be figured out but not the boundary

2:17:58 ↗ we've already decided on the boundary we

2:18:00 ↗ pretty much decided on the boundary part

2:18:02 ↗ of the tour is just to confirm it sure

2:18:04 ↗ sure right and the tour of wise but as a

2:18:07 ↗ body I thought we had basically to spend

2:18:09 ↗ on the boundary we just haven't decided

2:18:10 ↗ on the zoning correct and I think the

2:18:11 ↗ northern boundary was confirmed the

2:18:13 ↗ southern boundary was not because you

2:18:14 ↗ wanted more information so we need to

2:18:16 ↗ look at that as well we wanted to see

2:18:17 ↗ whether that includes the notch or

2:18:19 ↗ whether it goes all the way up to DAR

2:18:20 ↗ Street so we'll figure that out okay so

2:18:24 ↗ that needs to be discussed and then if

2:18:26 ↗ there are any other Maps that you all

2:18:27 ↗ went in there then we need to know that

2:18:28 ↗ as well but land use has to be there

2:18:32 ↗ there is one issue that you need to

2:18:35 ↗ think about that for the next meeting

2:18:37 ↗ where we talk about this is that we got

2:18:40 ↗ an email today that talked about the

2:18:43 ↗ fact that there are formula businesses

2:18:46 ↗ also known as chain stores such as a

2:18:50 ↗ Domino's or subway or lazyboy that are

2:18:54 ↗ coming into old town and the discussion

2:18:58 ↗ and the email was is there a way to mmm

2:19:01 ↗ either restrict that or control how many

2:19:06 ↗ come in or control what it looks like

2:19:08 ↗ ones that come it comes in different

2:19:09 ↗ cities do it different ways so I don't

2:19:13 ↗ know if that's something you all want to

2:19:14 ↗ consider including in the plan

2:19:16 ↗ you know proposed

2:19:18 ↗ I didn't print it up you know proposed

2:19:20 ↗ policy may say you know consider another

2:19:24 ↗ restrict the restriction counsel here

2:19:26 ↗ does he have an opinion on I don't know

2:19:30 ↗ do you have an opinion do you have an

2:19:39 ↗ opinion since we have you here you have

2:19:46 ↗ so the email that came through we had a

2:19:49 ↗ a resident talked about potentially

2:19:51 ↗ restricting or prohibiting more

2:19:54 ↗ prohibiting in-store change stores or

2:19:57 ↗ yeah franchises and it's the discussion

2:20:02 ↗ wasn't in Old Town we just were opening

2:20:04 ↗ it up to Old Town but the discussion

2:20:06 ↗ happened to be on Front Street where

2:20:08 ↗ this was happening and I know that there

2:20:09 ↗ are other cities that do it it's

2:20:11 ↗ required to go through double review and

2:20:13 ↗ they have to they restrict what they can

2:20:15 ↗ really do as a franchise there or there

2:20:18 ↗ are some areas that say you can only

2:20:19 ↗ have stores that are you know less than

2:20:22 ↗ 75,000 square feet or 25,000 square feet

2:20:26 ↗ is there do you are there legal issues

2:20:28 ↗ that you would see sure as far as I'm

2:20:31 ↗ concerned that's just a straightforward

2:20:32 ↗ application of the city zoning power as

2:20:35 ↗ long as you have a rational reasonable

2:20:38 ↗ justifiable basis for imposing a

2:20:40 ↗ restriction like that whether it is

2:20:43 ↗ consistency with the surrounding areas

2:20:46 ↗ buffering concerns aesthetics can play a

2:20:50 ↗ significant role as long as you build a

2:20:53 ↗ significant or a reasonable legislative

2:20:56 ↗ record that shows that you are imposing

2:20:59 ↗ a restriction like that for a rational

2:21:01 ↗ reasonable basis typically you can't be

2:21:04 ↗ successfully a second guest so I think

2:21:07 ↗ that the devil in the details is really

2:21:09 ↗ how you justify it that does thank you

2:21:13 ↗ for so something to think about over the

2:21:16 ↗ next couple of weeks and just driver in

2:21:18 ↗ an honor and on our tour that that might

2:21:20 ↗ be something that you all want to

2:21:22 ↗ consider staff have an opinion about

2:21:24 ↗ that I think of like for instance the

2:21:26 ↗ Highlands was originally envisioned to

2:21:27 ↗ be something that

2:21:29 ↗ had more of a mom-and-pop field and the

2:21:32 ↗ Highlands ended up attracting a lot of

2:21:34 ↗ genes and the community has had

2:21:36 ↗ displeasure with it but on the other

2:21:38 ↗ hand you get what you get you know if

2:21:39 ↗ that too is moving in and that's he's

2:21:41 ↗ paying that's what you have so I think

2:21:43 ↗ it's a very interesting discussion

2:21:44 ↗ specifically for Old Town when we think

2:21:47 ↗ about keeping the character in the

2:21:49 ↗ nature and using this opportunity to

2:21:51 ↗ really push what we want it to be so it

2:21:55 ↗ would be nice if when we think about

2:21:58 ↗ what we want a staff does the same it

2:22:01 ↗ comes back with us with you know

2:22:02 ↗ depending on you know I understand the

2:22:04 ↗ question of what do you guys want but it

2:22:06 ↗ would be nice to see if you guys are

2:22:07 ↗ like we want to do this you know just an

2:22:10 ↗ old town we you know do we see this

2:22:12 ↗ being all the way through is a call all

2:22:14 ↗ the way you know into the core I'm

2:22:16 ↗ doubting you're gonna say that but you

2:22:18 ↗ know it would be nice to have staff have

2:22:20 ↗ a edging one way or the iron and being

2:22:23 ↗ that we just got this email this

2:22:24 ↗ afternoon we haven't formed an official

2:22:25 ↗ opinion but did do some looking into it

2:22:28 ↗ and there are some things that I found

2:22:30 ↗ that we're kind of interesting such as

2:22:31 ↗ you know the business has to do at least

2:22:33 ↗ 51 51 percent of the business has to

2:22:35 ↗ interact with customers you know you

2:22:37 ↗ don't want necessarily if you're trying

2:22:40 ↗ to create a pedestrian-friendly downtown

2:22:43 ↗ that's going to bring people there a

2:22:45 ↗ dental office isn't always going to do

2:22:47 ↗ that or a some some big box isn't going

2:22:51 ↗ to be what you want there with that

2:22:53 ↗ interaction that's dream no see some

2:22:56 ↗ other examples of cities that have done

2:22:58 ↗ that and how they have restricted it

2:23:00 ↗ location wise

2:23:02 ↗ my other concern would be particularly

2:23:05 ↗ for the Old Town area and the fact that

2:23:08 ↗ they do not have a grocery store I would

2:23:11 ↗ not want to restrict a chain grocery

2:23:13 ↗ store from being able to come in there

2:23:16 ↗ if for some reason Front Street Market

2:23:19 ↗ property became open once again or

2:23:22 ↗ something like that in that area to

2:23:25 ↗ support that community okay okay I will

2:23:29 ↗ come back with examples

2:23:31 ↗ all right so I apologize that somehow

2:23:35 ↗ it's not on here but I think really

2:23:38 ↗ that's I what I had I was gonna go

2:23:39 ↗ through just the goals not the policies

2:23:41 ↗ see if you all had any heartburn but

2:23:44 ↗ being that we've already been through it

2:23:45 ↗ two meetings prior to this I was remiss

2:23:49 ↗ to miss the last meeting and when going

2:23:51 ↗ through what you guys had done I had a

2:23:54 ↗ little bit of a different take away that

2:23:56 ↗ was not popular so I wanted to voice

2:23:59 ↗ that to you and it was specifically

2:24:00 ↗ regarding the front street streetscape

2:24:03 ↗ plan okay

2:24:05 ↗ and everybody was like pretty gung-ho

2:24:07 ↗ about how do we get funding and how do

2:24:08 ↗ we move forward let's let's find this so

2:24:10 ↗ that we have it we can make it happen

2:24:13 ↗ i I felt like there are some changes

2:24:17 ↗ that are happening and that are still

2:24:18 ↗ happening that are very relevant to that

2:24:20 ↗ streetscape plan so for instance the

2:24:23 ↗ inclusion of of doing the old route town

2:24:27 ↗ boundary you know Connie had mentioned

2:24:29 ↗ maybe that should be the festival street

2:24:31 ↗ and I thought that was a very

2:24:32 ↗ interesting comment it doesn't

2:24:34 ↗ necessarily mean that we don't make

2:24:36 ↗ those changes to alder but I think that

2:24:38 ↗ it does actually change the way that we

2:24:40 ↗ could envision old towns kind of

2:24:44 ↗ facelift and so the idea of being like

2:24:47 ↗ we're hard pressed into this plan I was

2:24:49 ↗ I know I don't see it as being hard fake

2:24:51 ↗ I guess it's what I'm thinking and so

2:24:53 ↗ everyone was kind of like yeah let's

2:24:55 ↗ move forward and push this through and

2:24:56 ↗ do as much as we can and we're really

2:24:58 ↗ excited to implement it and I almost

2:25:00 ↗ kind of think that it there's a reason

2:25:02 ↗ that there's when we have the funds then

2:25:06 ↗ we kind of can figure out what we want

2:25:08 ↗ to do rather than this concept of this

2:25:10 ↗ is what we're doing and let's move

2:25:11 ↗ forward because it may not be the best

2:25:13 ↗ situation for us when we actually get to

2:25:15 ↗ doing it and I worry that we're going to

2:25:17 ↗ be focusing on something that we're not

2:25:20 ↗ even out able to implement this six or

2:25:22 ↗ eight years down the road there may be a

2:25:24 ↗ better plan then you know the design

2:25:26 ↗ works we've done is good but is that

2:25:29 ↗ going to be the right thing for when we

2:25:30 ↗ actually start breaking ground that make

2:25:33 ↗ sense it does when the plan was done

2:25:36 ↗ Gilman was not considered to be a part

2:25:39 ↗ of Old Town so the study didn't go up

2:25:40 ↗ that far north

2:25:43 ↗ so perhaps and there's there's not much

2:25:47 ↗ you can do as far to right as far as

2:25:49 ↗ right away and bike lanes go you know

2:25:51 ↗ this was really the plan deals mostly

2:25:53 ↗ with the sidewalks and the pedestrian

2:25:55 ↗ feel and the trees and not so much where

2:25:59 ↗ cars and bikes would go because there's

2:26:01 ↗ not much you can do there so it's part

2:26:04 ↗ of this as a result of stormwater

2:26:05 ↗ projects that have been happening but

2:26:07 ↗ point being most of this there probably

2:26:10 ↗ won't be better plans not that this

2:26:12 ↗ one's perfect but there won't be better

2:26:14 ↗ plans however there is still the

2:26:16 ↗ potential of moving the festival street

2:26:19 ↗ from alder to Gilman so maybe based on

2:26:23 ↗ what you're saying suggesting just

2:26:25 ↗ pulling those pits those two pieces out

2:26:28 ↗ of the plan for now until the fiscal

2:26:31 ↗ study is done for the rest of it is done

2:26:33 ↗ and then maybe evaluate those two

2:26:35 ↗ possibilities at a later date and then I

2:26:38 ↗ know that this is kind of a broken

2:26:40 ↗ record because I just happen to disagree

2:26:42 ↗ with it but the plan that we had seen

2:26:44 ↗ previously when we originally passed it

2:26:47 ↗ before was brought back to us of that

2:26:49 ↗ front street sunset way redesign of how

2:26:52 ↗ the all crossings I strongly disagreed

2:26:55 ↗ with with that as being a resource

2:26:57 ↗ allocation right and so I I think that

2:27:01 ↗ there are some things that that money

2:27:03 ↗ would be better spent in then for

2:27:05 ↗ instance that particular part of it so

2:27:07 ↗ right yeah so what wound up with that

2:27:10 ↗ was that Council just approved a I think

2:27:12 ↗ was about five thousand dollars just to

2:27:14 ↗ even do a feasibility study to see if

2:27:16 ↗ that's something that would even work

2:27:17 ↗ there in the first place so I think

2:27:19 ↗ knowing whether or not that would is

2:27:21 ↗ even really a feasible possibility he's

2:27:24 ↗ worth leaving in there so to Joy's point

2:27:28 ↗ I think you could kind of segment down

2:27:31 ↗ some of the ideas that were presented in

2:27:33 ↗ the front street streetscape plan as

2:27:37 ↗ separate concepts in that I wouldn't

2:27:41 ↗ want to push off the pedestrian

2:27:44 ↗ improvements and the addition of the

2:27:46 ↗ street trees back and things like that

2:27:48 ↗ that can make that a much more usable

2:27:52 ↗ area particularly because

2:27:54 ↗ as we get distance from the plan then

2:27:57 ↗ maybe somebody wants to have to study it

2:27:59 ↗ again I don't want that happy have to

2:28:01 ↗ happen but given the idea that we could

2:28:05 ↗ consider either a different area for a

2:28:09 ↗ festival street or a second one you know

2:28:13 ↗ the festival street I think that could

2:28:15 ↗ be a discussion that's worth having yeah

2:28:17 ↗ I think as we grow and I think what we

2:28:19 ↗ envision from the community I think that

2:28:21 ↗ I'm using old around 10 could be

2:28:23 ↗ something really fantastic mm-hmm so

2:28:26 ↗ much room there and they are to use it

2:28:27 ↗ for the car shows mm-hmm yeah so does

2:28:31 ↗ the first thing I said kind of worked in

2:28:32 ↗ leaving in the pedestrian pieces and the

2:28:35 ↗ crossing pieces but then pulling out the

2:28:36 ↗ potentially pulling out the alder pieces

2:28:39 ↗ that are already so far out it's not and

2:28:42 ↗ I wanted to lay doing the festival

2:28:44 ↗ Street we know I think a lot of people

2:28:46 ↗ are really excited about it

2:28:47 ↗ I love the potential of it I think that

2:28:49 ↗ but the disconnect is is that for things

2:28:51 ↗ that are already pushed out not making

2:28:55 ↗ that a priority necessarily for the

2:28:57 ↗ feasibility study okay financially I

2:28:59 ↗ don't know that does make sense so so

2:29:02 ↗ don't worry about doing when we do the

2:29:04 ↗ fiscal study don't worry about doing say

2:29:06 ↗ dogwood to Gilman right now because that

2:29:08 ↗ one's not even in yeah maybe look up

2:29:11 ↗ through alder or through dogwood for

2:29:14 ↗ those pieces yeah and then leave out the

2:29:18 ↗ rest we phase one he's faced one you

2:29:20 ↗ know but yeah that that that was my

2:29:23 ↗ takeaway that makes sense do you all can

2:29:26 ↗ and we can talk about it more later but

2:29:27 ↗ do you all concur before I go and make

2:29:30 ↗ me I should go either direction on them

2:29:32 ↗ I think my priority is the DES trian

2:29:36 ↗ zones okay I'd look to see the alder

2:29:40 ↗ Festival Street move forward but to me

2:29:45 ↗ that's secondary okay

2:29:47 ↗ funding issue is always yep yes

2:29:53 ↗ so one other thing may seem small I love

2:29:56 ↗ getting the feedback that we had from

2:29:59 ↗ the open houses and I don't know if

2:30:01 ↗ maybe these people were specifically

2:30:03 ↗ asked if we could share their their

2:30:05 ↗ thoughts but maybe in the future walking

2:30:08 ↗ out their names uh or their names all in

2:30:11 ↗ their names are autistic

2:30:13 ↗ it's just basically a photocopy of

2:30:14 ↗ they're filled out for okay they're

2:30:16 ↗ comments and so maybe they gave

2:30:19 ↗ permission and it's fine but maybe in

2:30:20 ↗ the future maybe showing that info a

2:30:24 ↗ little differently it's not a big big

2:30:26 ↗ thing but I just wanted to mention that

2:30:27 ↗ I did find that very valuable to not

2:30:30 ↗ only see how the room was set up and

2:30:33 ↗ kind of the images of the pictures of

2:30:37 ↗ putting the dots in the different areas

2:30:39 ↗ to give a sense of the data and then

2:30:42 ↗ also the individual comments was yeah

2:30:44 ↗ very nice especially I mean you get that

2:30:47 ↗ I I love that from that that dot

2:30:49 ↗ perspective I think that gives it really

2:30:51 ↗ helps to kind of see a cross-section of

2:30:53 ↗ how the group is feeling but also it was

2:30:55 ↗ nice that you gave people the

2:30:55 ↗ opportunity to just be like what are

2:30:57 ↗ your comments rather than a meeting to

2:30:59 ↗ align specifically to a thing I know I'm

2:31:02 ↗ gonna get on beat one of my dead horses

2:31:04 ↗ which someone made a comment about I

2:31:06 ↗ wish the school district had have had a

2:31:08 ↗ better attitude I wanted to change the

2:31:11 ↗ way they saw things that I was like yeah

2:31:13 ↗ that's how I feel often is that I wish

2:31:15 ↗ that they would see that there's a new a

2:31:17 ↗ new way to do things rather than

2:31:19 ↗ building schools how we built them

2:31:20 ↗ twenty and thirty years ago we can do it

2:31:23 ↗ better and so I appreciated that the way

2:31:26 ↗ you guys created that forum it was a

2:31:28 ↗ space that people felt free and

2:31:29 ↗ comfortable to be able to talk about the

2:31:31 ↗ community which is really what we always

2:31:32 ↗ want to see I really liked if you had

2:31:35 ↗ one wish what would you do that really

2:31:37 ↗ forces somebody to kind of think through

2:31:39 ↗ now this is what's important to me cuz

2:31:42 ↗ it does so our next steps we do have

2:31:47 ↗ public here but our next steps are on

2:31:49 ↗ May 24th we're doing the tour and we

2:31:53 ↗ will post like we did with Central

2:31:54 ↗ Issaquah our tour stops and

2:31:56 ↗ approximately what time we will be there

2:31:57 ↗ so that the public could let us know if

2:31:59 ↗ they're going to be joining us as well

2:32:00 ↗ and then on June 14th we will that is

2:32:04 ↗ the set date for the continuation of the

2:32:05 ↗ public hearing

2:32:06 ↗ and we will bring back any of these

2:32:08 ↗ changes we'll have discussion about the

2:32:10 ↗ boundaries and the land use final

2:32:12 ↗ discussion about policies and then

2:32:13 ↗ hopefully make a recommendation that day

2:32:17 ↗ so now I have to open it up for public

2:32:21 ↗ comment but since we don't have a quorum

2:32:25 ↗ we will continue it right and it has

2:32:27 ↗ continued anyway that's for I think

2:32:29 ↗ that's posted any paper to June 14th ok

2:32:49 ↗ so we want to take public comment from

2:32:52 ↗ anybody who is willing to give it today

2:32:54 ↗ and then we're also going to continue

2:32:55 ↗ the public hearing to June 4th and we'll

2:32:58 ↗ continue public public hearing on the

2:33:00 ↗ June 14th as well right now but the

2:33:02 ↗ public is here because it because it was

2:33:04 ↗ advertised as a public hearing so we

2:33:06 ↗ open it up to them ok I'm not sure what

2:33:09 ↗ word I guess Steve if you have some

2:33:15 ↗ comment we're willing to hear from you

2:33:17 ↗ although it doesn't count since there's

2:33:19 ↗ not a quorum it goes on to the record at

2:33:24 ↗ the very least I want to hear what Steve

2:33:27 ↗ has thank you I appreciate that

2:33:30 ↗ so I actually I'm gonna step back a step

2:33:32 ↗ process wise I don't understand the TTIP

2:33:35 ↗ discussion having a public forum but not

2:33:38 ↗ taking public input process wise that

2:33:40 ↗ just seems wrong and backwards to me I

2:33:42 ↗ think that should be revisited that said

2:33:45 ↗ moving that part of the discussion the

2:33:48 ↗ TI p the old town the plan going forward

2:33:55 ↗ we're looking at intersections in the

2:33:57 ↗ old town that are have failed and have

2:33:59 ↗ been failed for a long time and we're

2:34:02 ↗ talking about adding density to the area

2:34:04 ↗ and we're talking about a TI PE that

2:34:06 ↗ maybe just look in the front streets

2:34:07 ↗ sunset intersection isn't going to be

2:34:10 ↗ looked at until 24 24 even a broader

2:34:12 ↗ picture I think you need to look at

2:34:14 ↗ where and why we approved development

2:34:17 ↗ and

2:34:17 ↗ don't have a plan for improving

2:34:18 ↗ transportation and why that's not part

2:34:20 ↗ of the discussion I don't think you can

2:34:22 ↗ not link those things together

2:34:25 ↗ so that very much needs to be part of

2:34:28 ↗ the discussion there's so much I would

2:34:32 ↗ say about old town and another process

2:34:34 ↗ question I guess I came expecting to see

2:34:37 ↗ part of that discussion presented I'd

2:34:39 ↗ and I know it's no fault of staff or

2:34:41 ↗ anybody else that we're not able to view

2:34:42 ↗ that to me that I don't know that that

2:34:44 ↗ counts as a public discussion or a

2:34:46 ↗ public forum if that isn't reviewed

2:34:48 ↗ publicly for the one person I guess who

2:34:51 ↗ decided to stay for that

2:34:53 ↗ so process wise I think that needs to be

2:34:55 ↗ looked at further I'll reserve any

2:34:58 ↗ substantive comments on the Old Town

2:35:00 ↗ piece until having a more presentation

2:35:05 ↗ of it or a chance to review it I won't

2:35:07 ↗ take any more time tonight to do that so

2:35:08 ↗ thank you thank you any other comments

2:35:14 ↗ from the public

2:35:14 ↗ ahead of the continuation till what date

2:35:20 ↗ June 4th 14 14 14 yes at 6:30 p.m.

2:35:28 ↗ 6:30 p.m. please come there will be a

2:35:32 ↗ raffle no no promises that case we will

2:35:40 ↗ adjourn the meeting at nine twelve

2:35:55 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF