Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 14, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting · May 17, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 6, 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 2019 – Joan Probala land use documents. 2020 – Ron Faul 2020 – Troy Rahmig Membership 2022 – Joy Lewis The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Jamie Rosen seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Bill Rinehart several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2022 – Lindsey Walsh 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, 2020 – AJ McGauley see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Chris Rodriguez 2020 – Jason Voiss 2020 –…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 24, 2018

packet pp.5–6

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · May 10, 2018 Planning Policy Commission · Jun 6, 2018

▶ Watch from 1:03 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Introduction - Gilman Boulevard Visioning, (I)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.7–147

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 17, 2018

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Parks & Recreation 301 Rainier Blvd. S | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3300 issaquahwa.gov

Public Hearing - 2018 Parks Strategic Plan, (D)

Jennifer Fink, Park Planner

Topics: Parks

Election of Commission Officers

packet pp.149–169

Topics: Elections

Open packet at p.149 ↗

Staff report:

On May 10, 2018, PPC took another look at the updated draft Olde Town Subarea Plan remanded from City Council. During this meeting, PPC asked staff to amend the 2018-2019 Action Item, #11, regarding a financial study for the Downtown Streetscape Improvements. The amendment changed it from a financial study for all phases of the plan to a financial study for those pedestrian zones which include Front Street from Sunset Way to Gilman Boulevard. The Alder Festival Street and remaining future items were moved to Later Action Items (2020-2021).

Public Hearing - Olde Town Subarea Plan, (D)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

Topics: Land Use

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.171

3948 segments .txt ↗

0:15 ↗ and

0:16 ↗ and welcome to the June 14th meeting in

0:19 ↗ the planning policy commission tonight

0:22 ↗ we have three items on the agenda all of

0:25 ↗ which are extremely important for our

0:27 ↗ city that makes us different from all

0:29 ↗ the other cities but first I would like

0:31 ↗ to take a second to do a shout out to

0:36 ↗ the mayor had a meeting with the mayor

0:38 ↗ today it was awesome her energy of wear

0:41 ↗ how she understands everything that

0:44 ↗ we've been working on and what the

0:45 ↗ future of the city is I'm really excited

0:47 ↗ and that energy is just contagious so

0:49 ↗ I'm really glad and I appreciate the

0:54 ↗ work she's done so I wanted to thank her

0:55 ↗ for that the time that she gave us this

0:58 ↗ morning so thank you as always we have

1:03 ↗ approval of the minutes I'd like to make

1:06 ↗ a motion to approve the minutes of May

1:08 ↗ 24th 2018 for a second second all those

1:12 ↗ in favor say aye

1:13 ↗ I host the meeting on the 24th was a

1:18 ↗ little strange the first part was rules

1:21 ↗ and regulations on how to be a good

1:23 ↗ commissioner and the second part was a

1:25 ↗ tour of Old Town so we kind of got a

1:29 ↗ good idea of what was going on and I

1:32 ↗ kind of like to get some input of what

1:35 ↗ you thought and what you thought you

1:37 ↗ learned in the process we had a great

1:40 ↗ driver and commentary during the whole

1:44 ↗ process does anybody have anything that

1:47 ↗ they'd like to maybe bring up the value

1:50 ↗ of going out and actually seeing what

1:53 ↗ was going on okay nobody's saying

1:57 ↗ something so I will I thought it was

2:00 ↗ great I've lived in the city since 1979

2:03 ↗ and I Drive around all those places and

2:09 ↗ you drive and you don't pay attention to

2:11 ↗ how it's going to be in the future what

2:13 ↗ what should happen and so going through

2:15 ↗ I think we all had a better idea of just

2:21 ↗ looking at well should this this be a

2:23 ↗ two-story building or a three-story

2:25 ↗ building and how it all works together

2:26 ↗ so I thought it was a great opportunity

2:28 ↗ and I think that driving again through

2:32 ↗ the city I'm going to take a little bit

2:34 ↗ more notice of where we are and how we

2:37 ↗ can put it together since we're going to

2:39 ↗ be you know looking at issues that

2:40 ↗ affect Old Town so anyway so we're going

2:45 ↗ to go off to our first thing on the

2:48 ↗ agenda is kristin is going to give us an

2:52 ↗ introduction on what's happening with

2:55 ↗ Gillman Boulevard visioning yeah so I

2:58 ↗ just wanted to give you a heads up that

3:00 ↗ this project is starting eventually it's

3:02 ↗ going to come to you I don't know at

3:05 ↗ this point if it'll be a recommendation

3:06 ↗ or informational but it will be coming

3:08 ↗ back to you so we're working on a

3:09 ↗ Gillman visioning project and we're

3:11 ↗ doing this because right now Gilman is

3:13 ↗ not hugely bike or friendly bike or

3:15 ↗ pedestrian friendly it has narrow

3:16 ↗ sidewalks and places and no bike lanes

3:18 ↗ and places they're little spotty has a

3:20 ↗ high number of vehicle collisions on

3:22 ↗ this street in part because of the turn

3:24 ↗ lanes and they you know the queue spaces

3:26 ↗ there's no standard cross section here

3:29 ↗ so when developers come in staff doesn't

3:32 ↗ know how to tell developers weird build

3:35 ↗ their buildings where the front of their

3:36 ↗ line is going to be and the right away

3:38 ↗ varies a lot it goes from 85 feet to 120

3:41 ↗ feet in places and there are places that

3:43 ↗ have teeth in it so it just there needs

3:46 ↗ to be a vision so people know what to

3:48 ↗ expect so our goals are to fix that will

3:53 ↗ improve safety will improve the

3:54 ↗ landscaping will hopefully bring in some

3:56 ↗ parks into the area and create a

3:58 ↗ signature street with character and

3:59 ↗ provide predictability for both staff

4:01 ↗ and developers currently there's an

4:04 ↗ online survey on our website it's it's a

4:07 ↗ quoi if you go to Issaquah waa gov slash

4:10 ↗ Gilman there's a survey and I have done

4:13 ↗ it and it's really cool it's you

4:15 ↗ actually get to mover Montand map around

4:17 ↗ and put dots on there write comments in

4:19 ↗ there it's a really good interactive

4:20 ↗ surveyed it's a little different than

4:21 ↗ the others and it runs through July 13th

4:26 ↗ on July 11th there's a community open

4:29 ↗ house where we will let people know

4:31 ↗ about the goals for Gilman the existing

4:34 ↗ corridor assets the beach that should be

4:36 ↗ protected or enhanced will let people

4:38 ↗ know what we know so far from the survey

4:39 ↗ and talk about what we want division you

4:43 ↗ know how this whole process is going to

4:45 ↗ work so next there will be a document we

4:51 ↗ can we're going to have a document for

4:52 ↗ the community's vision for this and

4:54 ↗ strategize how to actually implement

4:55 ↗ that vision and they will present the

4:58 ↗ draft vision at the economic vitality

5:00 ↗ commission and planning policy

5:01 ↗ commission and park board in

5:02 ↗ october/november I think ours will be in

5:05 ↗ October will present this accounts this

5:07 ↗ vision to Council in January and then

5:10 ↗ we'll start developing the corridor

5:11 ↗ concept after that and I think that's it

5:15 ↗ it was intended to be quick but do you

5:16 ↗ all have any questions about it it's

5:18 ↗ we're really excited to finally have a

5:20 ↗ vision and and some predictability here

5:22 ↗ and perhaps some more greenery and

5:24 ↗ pedestrian friendliness it's hopefully

5:26 ↗ going to be a great thing I do have a

5:28 ↗ question is that also going to include

5:30 ↗ North East Gilman Boulevard east of

5:32 ↗ Front Street no it's gonna go from SR

5:35 ↗ 900 to Front Street there's been talk

5:37 ↗ about it but not yet did I snot see us

5:43 ↗ are 900 it includes s Arnott well it

5:47 ↗ goes yeah okay I will find out all the

5:51 ↗ details yes you will find all the deep

5:54 ↗ find out all the details so do

5:56 ↗ participate in the survey it is a good

5:58 ↗ one

5:58 ↗ July 11th there is the open house and

6:00 ↗ then the public works is going to come

6:03 ↗ back here in October to present

6:04 ↗ everything that they have found so far

6:05 ↗ and where we are oh I do I have some

6:09 ↗ cards here for any public or PPC who

6:12 ↗ wants it that tells you a little bit

6:13 ↗ more about it I'll leave them on the

6:15 ↗ table to see anybody a PPC want them

6:16 ↗ just same on the table I'll let him on

6:18 ↗ the table up here okay okay

6:20 ↗ any other questions okay

6:23 ↗ we're excited excellent me too that was

6:28 ↗ fast it was fast the next thing is a

6:31 ↗ presentation by Jennifer Bank the park

6:34 ↗ planner about a strategic plan that has

6:41 ↗ been looked at for a long time and yes

6:44 ↗ it has

6:46 ↗ by a lot of people and a lot of input

6:48 ↗ and and so for sure the some updating

6:53 ↗ sounds great well thank you I'm Jennifer

6:54 ↗ pink park planner couldn't be more

6:57 ↗ thrilled to be here tonight to share

6:59 ↗ with you the park's strategic plans we

7:02 ↗ have been working on this for quite some

7:05 ↗ time let me get this there we go

7:12 ↗ for tonight's presentation I'm just

7:14 ↗ gonna go through a real quick

7:15 ↗ introduction of the strategic plan

7:17 ↗ tonight's focus isn't really to dive

7:19 ↗ deep in it it's already been through the

7:21 ↗ parks board and they've made their

7:22 ↗ recommendation to Council we're really

7:24 ↗ here tonight for public hearing and

7:26 ↗ discussion on the goals and policies

7:28 ↗ portion of it but to give you a little

7:30 ↗ background in context for further

7:32 ↗ discussion on the goals and policies I'm

7:34 ↗ gonna likely walk through very quickly

7:36 ↗ the plans development and kind of what

7:39 ↗ is in there as far as structure the type

7:41 ↗ of information and the public engagement

7:43 ↗ that we went through to then inform the

7:46 ↗ goals and policies so the plan we

7:53 ↗ started working on this back in early

7:55 ↗ last year so we've been at this for

7:57 ↗ about over a year and a half now and we

8:01 ↗ have month-to-month been to the park

8:04 ↗ board they've acted as the steering

8:05 ↗ committee for the entire project we've

8:08 ↗ done several phases of public engagement

8:12 ↗ which I'll get into in just a little bit

8:14 ↗ we did our joint work on the green

8:17 ↗ necklace and the planning process was

8:22 ↗ very intentional in this was an

8:24 ↗ extensive process that really created

8:28 ↗ the foundation for all of the work

8:30 ↗ that's within the park strategic plan as

8:34 ↗ we let's see here as we enter into the

8:38 ↗ final stages of the plans adoption this

8:41 ↗ is coming to you as I mentioned with the

8:42 ↗ parts board recommendation which was

8:44 ↗ made on May 17th

8:46 ↗ and this also went to services and

8:48 ↗ Safety Committee earlier this week with

8:50 ↗ referral to Council in July

8:55 ↗ so the public engagement we did two big

9:00 ↗ phases the first phase was very

9:01 ↗ aspirational high level how are things

9:03 ↗ working for you or what are your hopes

9:05 ↗ and dreams how are we how we doing what

9:08 ↗ do you want to see within the system we

9:10 ↗ did public meetings online survey and

9:13 ↗ then also Phase two we did an additional

9:17 ↗ public engagement but it was a little

9:19 ↗ more in depth and this assisted us in

9:23 ↗ the online survey with identifying some

9:27 ↗ strategies some priorities and also

9:30 ↗ helped assist with themes that came out

9:32 ↗ of the public engagement which was also

9:34 ↗ going to be seen in the goals and

9:36 ↗ policies as well and the strategic

9:38 ↗ projects we also kind of did a third

9:42 ↗ public engagement as part of it once we

9:46 ↗ had a draft document we did have it

9:49 ↗ online for a four-week period receive

9:51 ↗ some public comment we shifted a few

9:53 ↗ pages no substantial changes were really

9:56 ↗ made to it no tech changes were made to

9:59 ↗ the goals and policies during that time

10:00 ↗ so there's been no change from the park

10:02 ↗ board's recommendation or public input

10:04 ↗ to date so out of the public engagement

10:10 ↗ five themes really emerged and there

10:13 ↗ placemaking connectivity innovative

10:16 ↗ action and a vital environment and these

10:19 ↗ themes helped shape some of the changes

10:22 ↗ that we're going to talk about in the

10:23 ↗ goals and policies and almost every

10:26 ↗ strategic project has at least two of

10:28 ↗ these themes in a summary chart the main

10:32 ↗ theme is highlighted some projects have

10:35 ↗ multiple themes that they attribute to

10:41 ↗ we also from those themes in the public

10:45 ↗ engagement we came up with a whole bunch

10:47 ↗ of strategic projects this is some of

10:50 ↗ the work that also melds with the green

10:52 ↗ necklace work 51 of these are spread out

10:56 ↗ geographically throughout the city we

11:01 ↗ also had four operational projects that

11:04 ↗ came out of it that are not represented

11:05 ↗ on here because they're not really a

11:07 ↗ site-specific

11:09 ↗ and those were a recreation facilities

11:11 ↗ strategic plan to initiate an urban

11:14 ↗ forest green Issaquah program improve

11:18 ↗ park signage trail wayfinding and also

11:21 ↗ to initiate a neighborhood grant program

11:25 ↗ yeah there's a good time to ask

11:28 ↗ questions

11:29 ↗ you can't churches oh I'm looking over

11:31 ↗ at Tiger Mountain you've got two circles

11:35 ↗ I'm not exactly sure but they are I

11:37 ↗ can't read the orange area the vast

11:42 ↗ orange area on the west side northwest

11:44 ↗ side of tiger and then there's a circle

11:48 ↗ with a red ring ring around it

11:52 ↗ those are trail heads okay so that are

11:56 ↗ we creating new trail heads they're

11:58 ↗ expanding existing or creating new

12:01 ↗ connection points yeah in the final plan

12:03 ↗ the red ring isn't there that was a

12:06 ↗ right those trails defined or is just

12:10 ↗ not the right place I discussed that we

12:12 ↗ can talk about that hang on a second let

12:14 ↗ me grab my handy-dandy cheat sheet list

12:17 ↗ that has the list of all the projects

12:20 ↗ and I can tell you what those are

12:22 ↗ specifically if I can find him so 28 is

12:32 ↗ the east sunset trailhead which is right

12:37 ↗ there so that's east central head and

12:41 ↗ then 27 is Park yeah southeast 2nd or

12:47 ↗ South 2nd and pse trailhead and the kind

12:50 ↗ of the Rainier Trail access point here

12:53 ↗ what is the time frame for those that

12:55 ↗ expansion

12:57 ↗ I have to look in the strategic projects

13:00 ↗ all the strategic projects in the

13:02 ↗ summary chart on page 73 of the park

13:05 ↗ strategic plan great specifically asks

13:08 ↗ I'm curious how that impacts that

13:09 ↗ homeless encampments it's their parks

13:13 ↗ department I'm going to be working to

13:15 ↗ relocate it as they're gonna be moving

13:17 ↗ that yeah if you know of a camp that we

13:20 ↗ need to address we can certainly I think

13:22 ↗ that's a high point on 20 yeah I don't

13:25 ↗ think I said that spot

13:27 ↗ what do you think 29 you think it's a 20

13:30 ↗ it's a 29 in the 28 there's a parks

13:36 ↗ department have any plan to deal with

13:38 ↗ the homeless encampments at 29 yeah we

13:42 ↗ do

13:43 ↗ go out and deal with them we have

13:45 ↗ protocol that we follow in doing so so

13:48 ↗ we can I can certainly make note of it

13:50 ↗ and make sure our department knows about

13:52 ↗ them they yep the homeless encampment is

13:56 ↗ is still currently at 29 there do you

14:00 ↗ know specifically where out there cuz

14:01 ↗ it's very less so if you just go to the

14:04 ↗ left of the trailhead when you when

14:06 ↗ you're at when you're at what it's now

14:08 ↗ marked at 29 there you'll follow the

14:11 ↗ trail of needles newly old 429 this is

14:13 ↗ 29 yeah I think that's right it is 29 hi

14:16 ↗ pointers 29 high points actually out

14:19 ↗ here okay so I was gonna say there's no

14:23 ↗ issues with trail expansion if you're

14:24 ↗ yeah that's awesome quarantine County

14:28 ↗ areas okay the designated tent city no

14:31 ↗ it's not okay King County you can report

14:37 ↗ him to them and they have protocol as

14:39 ↗ well to follow no I want to know what

14:41 ↗ the role of less about reporting and

14:44 ↗ more about the role of health Parks

14:45 ↗ Department was working with that

14:46 ↗ community less of a reporting issue so

14:54 ↗ and sorry so last question is what is

14:57 ↗ the orange highlighted area the 28 is at

15:01 ↗ 29 this here yeah that is all public

15:06 ↗ open space it's part of tradition

15:08 ↗ Plateau okay so we're gonna be building

15:12 ↗ new trails in that area or just

15:14 ↗ potentially there's maybe some enhanced

15:18 ↗ recreation out there we work closely we

15:22 ↗ just the other night took to council an

15:25 ↗ agreement for in our local with

15:27 ↗ Department of Natural Resources for Co

15:29 ↗ management of that trailhead so there's

15:32 ↗ hopes by both parties to expand use

15:35 ↗ increase recreational activities because

15:38 ↗ it's one of the more heavily used trail

15:40 ↗ heads in the state thank you

15:51 ↗ so one of the major projects in one of

15:55 ↗ the anchors that came out of the

15:57 ↗ strategic plan was the Crete corridor

15:59 ↗ this is anchor project that comes from

16:03 ↗ squawk Valley Park to the south and can

16:05 ↗ connect us all the way to Lake State

16:08 ↗ Park it includes the Rainier Trail so it

16:12 ↗ kind of woulda been play with its

16:14 ↗ connection to existing neighborhoods

16:15 ↗ connections to Old Town it's also

16:17 ↗ represented and the green necklace work

16:19 ↗ that we did you can see this is what we

16:23 ↗ currently own as parks open space we've

16:27 ↗ made some very great connections over

16:30 ↗ time we've been acquiring properties up

16:33 ↗ and down a squawk Creek for quite some

16:35 ↗ time there's a lot more work that needs

16:37 ↗ to be done as far as how that would get

16:39 ↗ laid out but one of the projects is that

16:41 ↗ anchor corridor connecting the city

16:44 ↗ connecting neighborhoods connecting with

16:47 ↗ the mountains to sound Greenway Trail

16:48 ↗ which was also another identified

16:50 ↗ corridor and also fed into the green

16:56 ↗ necklace work which we jointly did as

17:02 ↗ you may recall we earlier this year did

17:05 ↗ a joint effort on that one of the great

17:09 ↗ exciting things was when we were working

17:11 ↗ together on this everyone instantly

17:14 ↗ forgot about the boundaries of central

17:16 ↗ Issaquah and wanted to connect to the

17:18 ↗ greater Ring the natural open space the

17:20 ↗ hillside areas which is great because

17:23 ↗ that's exactly what the parks plan is

17:24 ↗ doing our strategic plan the green

17:29 ↗ necklace you know addresses system-wide

17:31 ↗ mobility for non-motorized connections

17:38 ↗ and this was also part of the central

17:42 ↗ Issaquah visions and this work really

17:44 ↗ bridges the parks strategic plan with

17:46 ↗ central Issaquah vision work and the

17:50 ↗ strategic projects that were identified

17:52 ↗ in the green necklace work also

17:54 ↗ correlate with the strategic projects

17:55 ↗ the numbering and descriptions for the

17:59 ↗ park strategic plan

18:03 ↗ so the parks strategic projects were

18:07 ↗ went through a filtration system uh of

18:10 ↗ sorts or toolkit and we broke them into

18:14 ↗ kind of three buckets here you can see

18:16 ↗ they're arranged by their priorities the

18:19 ↗ main priorities are have a bold ring on

18:22 ↗ them but we have near-term midterm and

18:24 ↗ long-term projects these problem buckets

18:27 ↗ will help inform how the visionary

18:30 ↗ document strategic plan gets implemented

18:33 ↗ through our CIP and actionable into

18:36 ↗ eventual projects and funded how did we

18:41 ↗ identify the short term medium and long

18:43 ↗ term

18:44 ↗ so we went through let's see here

18:50 ↗ there was a toolkit planning tool and it

18:54 ↗ is on page starts on page 92 and there's

19:00 ↗ a list that we run projects through

19:04 ↗ score them see if there's two really

19:07 ↗ there's the first one see if a project

19:09 ↗ suitable you know if you get a new shiny

19:11 ↗ idea that you want to focus you know ten

19:14 ↗ days after the park plan is adopted we'd

19:17 ↗ run it through this filtration system

19:19 ↗ per se and see if it's even a viable

19:21 ↗ project if it is and it would go through

19:23 ↗ the same scoring that the other projects

19:25 ↗ did and they all kind of competed

19:27 ↗ against each other and we separated the

19:29 ↗ mountain two buckets there was a phase

19:32 ↗ two checklist which I don't have the

19:34 ↗ image on but it's on page 90 starts on

19:37 ↗ page 95 the description but 96 97 and so

19:43 ↗ all the projects went through that and

19:45 ↗ then we're just kind of rated within

19:47 ↗ each other they naturally fell into

19:48 ↗ three buckets those will vary over time

19:52 ↗ and there's going to be near-term and

19:53 ↗ long-term aspects to some of those

19:55 ↗ projects which are also highlighted as

19:58 ↗ well this strategic plan is really meant

20:04 ↗ to be a very dynamic and ever-changing

20:06 ↗ document we really don't want it to be

20:08 ↗ sitting on the Shelf and we hope that it

20:10 ↗ gets changed in the future as we work

20:12 ↗ through it and keep modifying it and

20:14 ↗ because

20:14 ↗ a really a working tool for the parks

20:17 ↗ department you know a note about that I

20:19 ↗ recognized that the state mandates that

20:21 ↗ you updated every six years but I'm

20:23 ↗ curious how much discussion you guys had

20:25 ↗ about updating it more frequently six

20:27 ↗ years is a long time to kind of set it

20:29 ↗ on the shelf and even doing an interim

20:30 ↗ three-year I feel like would really help

20:33 ↗ to keep this document a little more

20:34 ↗ relevant mm-hmm I agree

20:37 ↗ we actually would start the process

20:40 ↗ though when we apply to our CEO it's

20:42 ↗ good for a six year period of time right

20:44 ↗ though we usually start that process at

20:46 ↗ year four through council discussions

20:48 ↗ earlier this week they hadn't made a

20:50 ↗ recommendation that to come back on a

20:52 ↗ yearly basis and at least do a report

20:53 ↗ out as to how we're doing you know part

20:56 ↗ of our measurings of success like kind

20:57 ↗ of check-in thank you that's right so

21:00 ↗ that would be like coming back every

21:02 ↗ year with the TI P where we change and

21:05 ↗ know we have a two year adopted CIP

21:08 ↗ process but it would be how are we doing

21:11 ↗ on our projects where are we how's the

21:13 ↗ plan working for us

21:15 ↗ yeah but it would be the same kind of

21:16 ↗ process let's see here so the strategic

21:26 ↗ projects so implementation here is just

21:31 ↗ kind of a nice graphic that really talks

21:32 ↗ how the strategic plan is gonna work you

21:36 ↗ know it's kind of the big picture idea

21:37 ↗ the 30,000 foot elevation which is gonna

21:40 ↗ you know help feed the comp plan or

21:43 ↗ six-year capital or five-year capital

21:46 ↗ improvement this was outdated five-year

21:49 ↗ help identify funding strategies and

21:51 ↗ also inform other city plans which also

21:54 ↗ helps us then set our annual operating

21:56 ↗ and capital budgets which then gets us

21:59 ↗ into the master planning process for

22:01 ↗ each of the specific strategic projects

22:03 ↗ which then at each project level we go

22:06 ↗ out and engage the public and then we

22:09 ↗ have our outcomes which are the final

22:10 ↗ projects why did you delay identifying

22:16 ↗ the funding of 2020 2021

22:22 ↗ an implementation plan for fun

22:25 ↗ process why did you delay it to 2021

22:30 ↗ well that's what our CIP is right now to

22:35 ↗ the 20 year 21 as we update that that

22:38 ↗ I'll get keep getting pushed out the

22:40 ↗ near term projects are intended to be

22:42 ↗ you know like year 1 through 6 the whole

22:45 ↗ plan is intended to be a 20 year

22:46 ↗ document of course that you know can

22:49 ↗ change but that's really what it's

22:52 ↗ intended to be it's just hard to plan

22:55 ↗ and decide which projects at first dibs

22:59 ↗ hmm if there's no funding mechanism for

23:02 ↗ them so I was just wondering why so in

23:05 ↗ the plan we do have we mentioned funding

23:07 ↗ that's really up to council you know as

23:10 ↗ far as the discussions they want to have

23:12 ↗ on some of those we have a lot of

23:13 ↗ various options available to parks for

23:16 ↗ funding them you know whether we go

23:19 ↗ bonds and capital improvement projects

23:23 ↗ operating we do grants you know there's

23:25 ↗ levy funds there's all sorts of options

23:28 ↗ available many projects are multi have

23:32 ↗ multiple funding mechanisms so we'll as

23:37 ↗ we go through this next update of the

23:39 ↗ CIP for next year right now we're in a

23:42 ↗ mid-year so next year when we update it

23:44 ↗ we'll be taking a much harder look at

23:47 ↗ the funding of all of these specific

23:48 ↗ projects I don't know if it makes sense

23:53 ↗ in this type of a plan or whether it

23:56 ↗ makes more sense in a yearly update but

23:59 ↗ it would be really nice to know which of

24:01 ↗ these projects have funding already

24:03 ↗ associated with them and what percentage

24:06 ↗ funded they already are

24:08 ↗ so that we can get a sense of okay out

24:11 ↗ of all of the near-term projects here

24:14 ↗ the areas that are at the RET of not

24:17 ↗ happening yep well what we did as you

24:20 ↗ can see on here where's my mouse this is

24:24 ↗ kind of a general funding kind of the

24:26 ↗ Yelp version how many how many dollar

24:29 ↗ signs is it going to take you to get

24:31 ↗ that project done and then as we go

24:34 ↗ through the CIP process we'll start

24:36 ↗ allocating

24:37 ↗ those specific funding sources we

24:38 ↗ specifically did not get detailed in the

24:42 ↗ funding on this in future updates if we

24:45 ↗ were to go to a performance based L OS

24:47 ↗ and some other things we'll probably get

24:49 ↗ in to that as this plan matures and

24:51 ↗ grows and as future updates but for this

24:55 ↗ first version we just didn't really yeah

24:58 ↗ and I think that makes a larger six year

25:01 ↗ plan it just does leave questions there

25:04 ↗ and I think it's appropriate to

25:06 ↗ understand when those questions are

25:08 ↗ gonna be answered yeah especially we

25:10 ↗ start thinking about acquiring land

25:11 ↗ along the creek and really trying to get

25:14 ↗ vital parcels to really expand what our

25:18 ↗ options are is kind of you know

25:20 ↗ time-sensitive and so I think

25:21 ↗ understanding where we're at on that

25:23 ↗ really helps the public to better

25:24 ↗ understand where we're at and where we

25:27 ↗ need to go and that was something that

25:28 ↗ again I read this is a good start but it

25:31 ↗ kind of lacked a little bit of those

25:33 ↗ details to kind of figure out what what

25:35 ↗ really needs to happen and what does

25:37 ↗ success really look like no we

25:41 ↗ appreciate your having that kind of

25:42 ↗ mindset for future work mm-hmm

25:45 ↗ we agree so with that I think we'll

25:54 ↗ probably jump into the goals and

25:56 ↗ policies let's see did you those pulled

26:05 ↗ up

26:07 ↗ do you know where I can find uh-huh yeah

26:16 ↗ that would work well just doing that I

26:21 ↗ forgot to ask you during the beginning

26:23 ↗ before we start at the meeting if we

26:26 ↗ could move the election the end of the

26:31 ↗ meeting instead of where it is I want to

26:33 ↗ make sure that the audience haven't

26:35 ↗ enough time to do their dope you don't

26:37 ↗ have any problem with that then we'll

26:38 ↗ change that green

26:52 ↗ let's graduate yeah well probably look

27:03 ↗ embarrassed this one bad this one yeah

27:26 ↗ so the goals and policies within the

27:30 ↗ park strategic plan came from the 2015

27:33 ↗ comprehensive Penn Park element update

27:35 ↗ they were modified according to the

27:38 ↗ feedback we received from the public the

27:42 ↗ goals the aspiration some of the

27:43 ↗ strategies the themes and tonight I

27:46 ↗ really just wanted to touch on some of

27:49 ↗ the major ones that I felt were the

27:52 ↗ newest that really related to the work

27:56 ↗ that was done the new input that was

27:57 ↗ received many of the themes you can see

28:01 ↗ were just rearranged or moved a lot of

28:05 ↗ information or deleted irrelevant and

28:07 ↗ put in some updated information but not

28:10 ↗ too much was really rearranged through

28:15 ↗ that but the new policies really are

28:18 ↗ directly related to the work that was

28:24 ↗ done and probably the first one I would

28:26 ↗ like to touch base on is policy a1 here

28:30 ↗ which is a reinvestment when we went out

28:34 ↗ to the public it was really important

28:36 ↗ for them that we heard that we take care

28:39 ↗ of what we have or we improve what it is

28:42 ↗ we have and so that that need for

28:45 ↗ reinvestment within our park spaces was

28:49 ↗ really important to them so we felt that

28:51 ↗ was a good addition to the policies the

28:59 ↗ next one I want to touch on is really a

29:02 ↗ 1/4 which is placemaking again this was

29:06 ↗ one of the themes and this came directly

29:08 ↗ out of the work people wanted a sense of

29:10 ↗ place when they go experience a park

29:12 ↗ that makes it unique that this is their

29:17 ↗ space you know that they want to hang in

29:19 ↗ and linger that they frequent and feel

29:22 ↗ at home so providing a sense of place

29:25 ↗ making was really important to the

29:28 ↗ public and we felt we being a theme we

29:30 ↗ really needed to have a policy to

29:32 ↗ address it

29:37 ↗ the next two as we also had the theme

29:40 ↗ connectivity a connected trail

29:43 ↗ experience whether you live on the

29:45 ↗ valley floor or you live on a hillside

29:48 ↗ being able to get from A to B via

29:50 ↗ different routes off right-of-way was

29:54 ↗ really important and using multiple

29:57 ↗ modes to do it so providing a connected

30:01 ↗ trail experience throughout the city

30:03 ↗ that's through central Issaquah and it's

30:07 ↗ a qua Highlands connecting down and I

30:09 ↗ think you see that in some of the

30:10 ↗ strategic projects that we're really

30:11 ↗ expanding those connection pieces and

30:15 ↗ also the trail heads we while we spoke a

30:18 ↗ lot about trails we never specifically

30:20 ↗ had a policy addressing trail heads and

30:22 ↗ the need for the improvement there we

30:25 ↗ get too many cars parking on the side

30:27 ↗ and it's not safe there Cheryl has that

30:29 ↗ really need to be expanded and are worth

30:31 ↗ investing in for access because some are

30:35 ↗ in really strategic locations and sorry

30:43 ↗ one got out of order here the next one

30:47 ↗ is also the policy 83 which is create a

30:51 ↗ focused vision for the creek corridor

30:54 ↗ this was being our anchor project felt

30:58 ↗ it was again important to have a policy

31:00 ↗ that directly spoke to that connecting

31:03 ↗ people to the public park spaces and

31:06 ↗ interacting with the different city

31:08 ↗ districts neighborhoods as I said it

31:11 ↗ would really Evan flow through the city

31:15 ↗ and connecting with central Issaquah

31:17 ↗ also the mounts to sound trail and so it

31:22 ↗ would be that you serve as our primary

31:24 ↗ feature within our park system so since

31:28 ↗ that policy talks about creating a

31:31 ↗ vision and a strategy is there a sense

31:33 ↗ of when that is going to be worked on as

31:36 ↗ a specific part not yet but that's a

31:40 ↗ additional work coming out of this

31:41 ↗ strategic plan is is determining that

31:44 ↗ okay yeah

31:49 ↗ the next policies I would like to move

31:52 ↗ you to most of these were just some

31:56 ↗ rearrangements these were kept in a

32:08 ↗ similar format as far as layout to the

32:10 ↗ 2015 for consistency purposes and we

32:15 ↗ understand as the plan matures over time

32:18 ↗ and we take future updates to it that

32:21 ↗ they could take a different form as well

32:24 ↗ so they're on C 1.1 I was curious about

32:28 ↗ the addition of no changes of use within

32:30 ↗ Park shall occur without parks

32:31 ↗ coordination or assessments of impact

32:34 ↗ and any mitigating measures completed

32:37 ↗ it's a new phrasing I was hoping you

32:40 ↗ could expand on a little bit have you

32:43 ↗ found that parks has been cut out of the

32:44 ↗ process right no we just want to ensure

32:47 ↗ that we are at the table with those

32:49 ↗ processes and you know making sure that

32:53 ↗ city interests for a prioritization and

32:56 ↗ for some of these connections are there

32:58 ↗ and that we are at the table tend to

33:00 ↗ help negotiate how did have you not been

33:03 ↗ I guess I was a little surprised that

33:04 ↗ seemed a little bit of a no it was

33:06 ↗ important when we both to the park board

33:08 ↗ and through the public that we heard

33:11 ↗ that they want to make sure we're there

33:13 ↗ and with those connections so which is

33:17 ↗ why it was included do you think that

33:18 ↗ this addition helps to cement that

33:21 ↗ better I I think it does I think I think

33:26 ↗ by not having it it loses a little teeth

33:30 ↗ by having it I think you know it assures

33:32 ↗ us a place at the table ensures our

33:36 ↗ involvement especially as it's a quad

33:39 ↗ grows and changes things can no longer

33:42 ↗ happen in isolation everything really is

33:44 ↗ a codependent work you know Gilman any

33:48 ↗ development so it's really just ensuring

33:51 ↗ that we're there

33:57 ↗ let me page down sorry if I make you

34:00 ↗ dizzy here there's not a lot of change

34:02 ↗ that happened through here so please

34:04 ↗ forgive me

34:10 ↗ next well the way you separated it it's

34:14 ↗ easier to understand and to focus so I

34:17 ↗ think you did a good job with taking a

34:20 ↗ long sentence and dividing it up and the

34:22 ↗ things there was more specifics to be

34:24 ↗ done yeah and a few policies that were a

34:27 ↗ little verbose we trimmed down a little

34:33 ↗ the next policy I wanted to bring your

34:36 ↗ attention to is that we added was this

34:39 ↗ about the impact fees and how they

34:41 ↗ should be used there's I think there was

34:45 ↗ some confusion amongst some people park

34:48 ↗ board members even as to how impact fees

34:51 ↗ get used and why we use them so this is

34:53 ↗ more of a clarifying this is state law

34:57 ↗ as to why we charge impact fees but

35:00 ↗ people didn't really know and so I think

35:02 ↗ it was important for us just to call it

35:04 ↗ out and really identify it for them as

35:06 ↗ to why we do that because you know we

35:11 ↗ use them for a lot of our parks

35:13 ↗ developments and it's an important

35:15 ↗ features you know where that growth pays

35:17 ↗ for growth what is the percentage you

35:23 ↗ know I would have to go back and look it

35:25 ↗ really varies upon the rate of

35:26 ↗ development you know we can go periods

35:28 ↗ of time where we're not generating a lot

35:30 ↗ and then there's times where we get a

35:32 ↗ lot so it can really vary over the years

35:36 ↗ but I don't have those figures with me

35:38 ↗ right now but I can get them to you how

35:42 ↗ often is that redress how often are you

35:43 ↗ reassessing what those fees are so the

35:46 ↗ impact fees we actually delayed a recent

35:49 ↗ him update of the impact fees for the

35:52 ↗ parks because we were going through the

35:54 ↗ strategic planning process and we knew

35:55 ↗ they were changed however the last rate

35:57 ↗ study was done in 2015 and it is updated

36:01 ↗ annually with the index so you don't

36:06 ↗ specifically

36:08 ↗ change the impact charge a percentage of

36:11 ↗ the or impact these it's a city

36:16 ↗ associated determined yes yeah I wanted

36:20 ↗ to make that clear because didn't so

36:28 ↗ that one and then f3 was the other one I

36:31 ↗ wanted to be sure to bring to your

36:33 ↗ attention is going to eventually a

36:40 ↗ performance based level of service which

36:43 ↗ would take into consideration quality of

36:45 ↗ our park spaces you know that was one

36:47 ↗ thing we heard from the public during

36:49 ↗ our engagement well you have all these

36:52 ↗ great spaces but they're lacking in some

36:53 ↗ qualities so being able to help look at

36:57 ↗ our park spaces with that third

37:00 ↗ dimension would really help it would

37:03 ↗ take some additional work as future work

37:05 ↗ that we would like to go you know strive

37:08 ↗ towards but I think is what the public

37:11 ↗ is asking for from our park system that

37:15 ↗ we really you know look at how it's

37:17 ↗ being funded the quality of the

37:18 ↗ improvements that are there and that

37:20 ↗ goes back to one of the first themes I

37:22 ↗ our policies I spoke of which was let's

37:24 ↗ take care of and reinvest in what we

37:26 ↗ have and it's adding that third

37:28 ↗ dimension in that equation

37:30 ↗ I think this level of service idea is

37:34 ↗ fantastic I would also encourage that be

37:37 ↗ part of the metric so that you bring

37:39 ↗ back annually I'm wondering what what

37:43 ↗ stands in the way of getting that done

37:46 ↗ is it just time and effort that the park

37:49 ↗ board and Parks Department needs to put

37:53 ↗ together on this or there are other

37:54 ↗ pieces there's other pieces it also goes

37:57 ↗ to our facilities and asset management

37:59 ↗ getting some of that updated so there's

38:02 ↗ been some initial steps so we've needed

38:04 ↗ to take to really jump into this body of

38:07 ↗ work okay I think we're getting we want

38:10 ↗ to get there go toward that direction

38:11 ↗ but also think about how do we get there

38:15 ↗ and what's holding us back

38:17 ↗ is there a timeframe on when

38:19 ↗ implementation well you know I haven't

38:21 ↗ heard yet but hopefully sooner than

38:24 ↗ later is our goal when you do your

38:27 ↗ presentation at every year your yearly

38:33 ↗ update you plan on coming back to PPC to

38:37 ↗ update us or do are you updating the

38:39 ↗ city that was just a council request at

38:41 ↗ services on Tuesday so but we could

38:46 ↗ always come back and let you know I do

38:49 ↗ need to be clear because I know that

38:52 ↗ commissioners are saying when you bring

38:54 ↗ it back to us but I wasn't clear that

38:56 ↗ you were actually going to do that those

38:59 ↗ updates will go to City Council or it

39:01 ↗ was a bouncer or whoever you services

39:04 ↗ but we're always welcome to come visit

39:06 ↗ if you want us to so with that if you

39:15 ↗ have any other questions about the

39:17 ↗ policies I'm happy to ask so if if you

39:23 ↗ can hold your questions until after the

39:26 ↗ public hearing because you always hear

39:28 ↗ things in the public hearing that you

39:30 ↗ might might want to add that so if

39:34 ↗ that's okay with you guys so with that

39:37 ↗ I'd like to thank you open the public

39:40 ↗ hearing on 2018 parks strategic plan and

39:47 ↗ only that at 7:13 and ask if anybody

39:54 ↗ would like to speak through the parks

39:59 ↗ plan has anybody signed up with that

40:06 ↗ well that's okay if you want to be first

40:08 ↗ and then and then we'll go you and you

40:10 ↗ okay how did the podium date your name

40:16 ↗ and your address and give us your

40:18 ↗ thoughts I'm Tom Anderson 8:37 Front

40:22 ↗ Street south

40:23 ↗ I live south end of town they're fairly

40:27 ↗ close to the second Avenue intersection

40:31 ↗ with the Rainier Trail and and the true

40:33 ↗ little trail had there that is often

40:35 ↗ called the high school trail and well

40:38 ↗ that that trail had is not signed or

40:40 ↗ anything and and it's it just struck me

40:44 ↗ as I was reading through the policy I

40:45 ↗ discovered and in policy C 2.4 on

40:49 ↗ signage the usage of signage shall be

40:52 ↗ limited in order to preserve the visual

40:53 ↗ integrity and natural character of all

40:55 ↗ the parks etc well maybe that's why

40:57 ↗ there's not a sign there it's in

40:59 ↗ violation of that clause of a policy

41:01 ↗ well if it is then the policy should be

41:03 ↗ changed well maybe it's not that maybe

41:06 ↗ there are the reasons but if I could

41:09 ↗ have a nickel for every time that

41:10 ↗ somebody asked me is this the way to

41:13 ↗ pooh-pooh point or can I get to lake

41:15 ↗ tradition this way or whatever I could

41:19 ↗ retire but alas I must keep my nose to

41:22 ↗ the grindstone because I don't have

41:23 ↗ those nickels so you know I applaud the

41:27 ↗ the the the spirit of what's being

41:30 ↗ described here but this is there's a

41:31 ↗ very good example of total failure to

41:35 ↗ really do something with that trail it's

41:37 ↗ a very popular trailhead

41:38 ↗ maybe the strategy is to keep it a

41:40 ↗ secret but I'm sorry to tell you it's

41:43 ↗ the secret is out and there's lots of

41:46 ↗ people will use that trail and there's

41:49 ↗ lots of people who get lost because they

41:51 ↗ can't find their way so if there is any

41:56 ↗ conflict between the signage policy and

42:02 ↗ what's going on there well then let's

42:05 ↗ straighten that out or whatever maybe

42:06 ↗ there's some other reason why there

42:08 ↗ can't be a sign there I don't know but

42:10 ↗ it shouldn't require very many years of

42:13 ↗ study to figure

42:14 ↗ how to put a sign there is my feeling

42:18 ↗ that's all I have to say thank you

42:20 ↗ what policy were you just quoting see

42:24 ↗ 2.4 signage 2.4 all right thank you and

42:28 ↗ specifically the statement about the use

42:30 ↗ of signage shall be limited in order to

42:32 ↗ blah blah etc so if that is the reason

42:36 ↗ why there's no sign at a trailhead then

42:39 ↗ well let's rethink that policy you know

42:42 ↗ where the city likes to call itself

42:44 ↗ trailhead City and here's a here's a

42:47 ↗ popular trailhead that has no clue that

42:50 ↗ it's a trailhead well it gets used and

42:53 ↗ there's there's some problems of the

42:54 ↗ usage there and all but this is a this

42:58 ↗ is a kind of a it is not putting our

43:02 ↗ best foot forward in terms of the people

43:04 ↗ who are using that trail and I guess I

43:06 ↗ see this problem not only from the

43:09 ↗ hikers that are on that trail wandering

43:12 ↗ around and going the wrong way and

43:14 ↗ coming out over by the Gun Club instead

43:16 ↗ of where they thought they had their car

43:18 ↗ etc but also when people ask me about oh

43:21 ↗ you know I want to go to a pupu point

43:24 ↗ but the Cherico trail is so busy what do

43:28 ↗ you recommend tom and I say oh well

43:30 ↗ there's a better way to get there let's

43:32 ↗ let's not make the problem at Jericho

43:34 ↗ worse let's make it better and park in

43:37 ↗ town park at the high school or

43:39 ↗ something but I have a there's a

43:42 ↗ challenge in me even communicating with

43:44 ↗ these people about where to park and

43:46 ↗ where to go because there's no signs it

43:50 ↗ would be helpful if there if there were

43:51 ↗ some sites thank you

43:54 ↗ so that main reason for public hearing

43:57 ↗ is to get comments from the public who

44:01 ↗ are actually out in the inter land of

44:06 ↗ Issaquah so thank you for your comments

44:09 ↗ I think Jennifer will

44:10 ↗ look at that a little bit more closely

44:12 ↗ okay thank you

44:14 ↗ anybody else

44:25 ↗ ice-t Pereira old town about ten years

44:29 ↗ so first of all thanks for I'll be

44:30 ↗ serving and I think I see a new face up

44:32 ↗ there so thank you for public service

44:33 ↗ and be involved it's a chance to me to

44:37 ↗ say thank you and also a chance to

44:40 ↗ recognize that service it's also a

44:42 ↗ chance for you to say to take it heart

44:45 ↗ are the things that you're being

44:46 ↗ presented with the best things and the

44:48 ↗ best interest or how we can do it better

44:49 ↗ not maybe just accepting what comes

44:52 ↗ before you but every critical eye and

44:54 ↗ what can be improved or what can we made

44:56 ↗ better what fall short so thank you for

44:58 ↗ taking that responsibility seriously so

45:01 ↗ no specific item I want to talk about

45:04 ↗ our debt has been an effort I think in

45:07 ↗ some areas I would like to see more

45:10 ↗ concrete mechanisms on how these things

45:13 ↗ are going to happen it may be a direct

45:15 ↗ link between a parks plan and maybe city

45:18 ↗ council saying we're going to spend X

45:19 ↗ amount of money or X percentage of the

45:22 ↗ budget doing implementing this green

45:27 ↗ necklace to make sure it happens because

45:29 ↗ otherwise it's just gonna be an

45:30 ↗ aspirational goal and I'm gonna put it

45:32 ↗ up there and it's not going to

45:33 ↗ necessarily pan out as other things get

45:37 ↗ given larger commitments I also think

45:40 ↗ the scope should be larger than just

45:42 ↗ this idea green necklace but I think it

45:44 ↗ should apply to having a group or

45:47 ↗ whether its first mission look at

45:49 ↗ something larger and look at the tree

45:51 ↗ canopy overall look at green space urban

45:55 ↗ forests retention not just from a

45:59 ↗ planned destination or a destination but

46:02 ↗ maintaining the green throughout this

46:04 ↗ choir yeah thank you

46:12 ↗ this wall

46:18 ↗ I'm Janet wall and I live at two-two

46:21 ↗ seven-four-zero South East 56th Street

46:24 ↗ in the over Dale Park area and my main

46:30 ↗ passion is habitat restoration I'm a

46:33 ↗ retired fishery biologist one of the I

46:38 ↗ must admit that I have been so busy I

46:42 ↗ haven't had too much chance to look at

46:44 ↗ or find the strategic plan until this

46:48 ↗ afternoon I quickly went through the

46:54 ↗ main points of it I didn't see much

46:57 ↗ mention about wildlife or even our

47:01 ↗ iconic salmon on considerations on what

47:07 ↗ the park should be doing and that

47:10 ↗ bothers me I have spent numerous times

47:14 ↗ talking about the importance of wildlife

47:16 ↗ corridors one of the main reasons that I

47:19 ↗ moved I lived in Seattle for many years

47:22 ↗ while I was working but one of the main

47:25 ↗ reasons I moved to this area was I was

47:28 ↗ tired of just seeing English sparrows

47:31 ↗ and starlings at my bird feeder and I do

47:36 ↗ enjoy seeing a much greater variety and

47:39 ↗ seeing deer and I just talked to my some

47:44 ↗ neighbor children and they were just

47:45 ↗ ecstatic because they just recently saw

47:48 ↗ a bobcat and we're very excited about

47:51 ↗ that

47:52 ↗ and I think it's important to recognize

47:55 ↗ the needs of wildlife in an urban

47:59 ↗ increasingly urban area that we need to

48:03 ↗ preserve our wildlife corridors so that

48:06 ↗ they can move from area to area that

48:09 ↗ they need to get to and to not isolate

48:12 ↗ the Issaquah alps from one another

48:20 ↗ it I I do in general agree with with

48:24 ↗ most of the major points and the things

48:28 ↗ but as a as other people have pointed

48:31 ↗ out there's kind of a lack of detail and

48:35 ↗ I'm also evaluating what has been

48:38 ↗ happening I've I spend a fair amount of

48:41 ↗ time volunteering for veldt Bellevue

48:45 ↗ because there isn't a good volunteer

48:48 ↗ program in Issaquah

48:50 ↗ right now and for years they've only had

48:53 ↗ they finally got a volunteer coordinator

48:55 ↗ but they're only dealing with large

48:57 ↗ groups so I think you know there there

49:04 ↗ are other people that are interested in

49:06 ↗ doing projects and they'd like to work

49:10 ↗ with other people but it's it's not it's

49:14 ↗ not you know I go out and see something

49:18 ↗ and and I go ahead and do it but it's

49:21 ↗ you know would help if there was a

49:23 ↗ little more coordination there was no

49:30 ↗ mention of restoring the the Creek

49:33 ↗ buffer for salmon another another arel

49:37 ↗ wildlife I just walked today on the west

49:40 ↗ side of the creek I mean they were just

49:43 ↗ considering the east side of the creek

49:45 ↗ and the west side of the creek it had

49:47 ↗ been restored before I had worked on

49:49 ↗ there were a number of organizations

49:53 ↗ that had worked on that restoration on

49:56 ↗ the west side of the creek from Newport

49:59 ↗ way to the south and I was been a couple

50:07 ↗ of years since I'd been there and I was

50:10 ↗ dismayed that there wasn't had been no

50:14 ↗ maintenance and so it's 99% blackberries

50:19 ↗ and Ivy climbing up the trees those

50:22 ↗ trees aren't going to last long and they

50:24 ↗ provide shade for the salmon so one of

50:28 ↗ the and I know that there was a

50:29 ↗ restoration that the parks do

50:31 ↗ I did in the engi oh I can't remember

50:35 ↗ the name of the park and it wasn't

50:41 ↗ maintained and so it's you can barely

50:45 ↗ find it anymore

50:47 ↗ so that's putting a lot of hard work for

50:53 ↗ for no lasting benefit also so anyway

51:03 ↗ well yeah I could certainly use some

51:10 ↗ help by every year or for the last about

51:13 ↗ four years I've been working on removing

51:16 ↗ tanzir Eggbert from the spa area because

51:19 ↗ it was it was in danger of going

51:21 ↗ completely out of control and last year

51:24 ↗ the finally the Highlands land manager

51:27 ↗ after I had a noxious weed program

51:33 ↗ person talked to them about the need to

51:38 ↗ deal with the issue and they actually

51:44 ↗ did and so there's some hope that we can

51:48 ↗ control the tansy rag word but I've got

51:52 ↗ over 50 sites that I have to check and

51:55 ↗ remove tanzir Egbert and carrying those

51:59 ↗ heavy bags of tancy it's a real chore so

52:04 ↗ I could I could use help but you know I

52:07 ↗ haven't I've asked for it and asked for

52:09 ↗ it I've asked for help with with having

52:13 ↗ inspector to check construction areas

52:15 ↗ because it's difficult for me to get

52:17 ↗ into a construction area I don't want to

52:19 ↗ be contending with with trucks and

52:22 ↗ construction equipment so I thought you

52:26 ↗ know would make sense to have us the

52:29 ↗ site inspectors that that go in there

52:31 ↗ and check for various other erosion

52:34 ↗ other issues why not have them recognize

52:37 ↗ what tansy raggert and some of the other

52:41 ↗ Class B noxious weeds that we have in

52:44 ↗ our area

52:45 ↗ and require that they be removed but no

52:50 ↗ I try after I tried all that no dice

52:54 ↗ so what I had to do was go in on a

52:57 ↗ weekend and there was tansy right you

53:03 ↗ know in plain sight and nobody had done

53:06 ↗ anything so I had to do it on weekends

53:10 ↗ so there are a lot of things that that

53:13 ↗ could be easily changed that would help

53:17 ↗ a lot in making things much better

53:22 ↗ environment and much for both wildlife

53:26 ↗ and and more enjoyable for people so the

53:36 ↗ trail that I walked on on the west west

53:39 ↗ side of this aquatic once again the

53:43 ↗ signage issue many people don't know

53:46 ↗ about it and it's not clear whether

53:49 ↗ that's a public trail or not so that's

53:54 ↗ something that should be clarified in

54:00 ↗ [Music]

54:07 ↗ I like that policy D 1.4 speaks about

54:11 ↗ you utilizing citizen involvement

54:13 ↗ steward stewarding and maintaining the

54:16 ↗ city of is sequest park system but as

54:19 ↗ they say I haven't really found that

54:25 ↗ that they're really utilizing that and I

54:29 ↗ hope that that changes and I've seen

54:34 ↗ Bennifer write down most of your

54:38 ↗ comments so I think that something will

54:41 ↗ happen along those lines it would be

54:44 ↗ nice to have like four or five hundred

54:46 ↗ more of you that are out there working

54:49 ↗ on the making you know things better

54:53 ↗ we're out there hopefully you know be

54:55 ↗ nice to try to find some group that is

54:59 ↗ interested in doing that with the

55:02 ↗ ability of the city to allow them to do

55:05 ↗ it I know that it takes insurance and

55:09 ↗ you know you have to have all these

55:11 ↗ safeguards I really wanted to let yes

55:14 ↗ people do that but thank you and if you

55:19 ↗ have any other comments let Jennifer

55:22 ↗ know we'll see I mean like the last

55:25 ↗ gentleman you're the one out there

55:26 ↗ looking at these things and I think it's

55:28 ↗ important I know that you've spent a

55:30 ↗ long time working in the city on

55:34 ↗ Commission's on special projects so they

55:39 ↗ take your your ideas seriously so thank

55:42 ↗ you thank you honey welcome

55:56 ↗ so Connie Marsh I live on squawk there

56:00 ↗ actually are groups with the insurance

56:01 ↗ but we've never gotten much help from

56:04 ↗ the parks department so we're all used

56:06 ↗ up so we've stopped I spent 15 years

56:10 ↗ reading and without support you can't do

56:16 ↗ it for more than 15 years and we don't

56:19 ↗ have it and haven't for a long time but

56:21 ↗ I'm here to talk about the policies oh I

56:23 ↗ guess I can answer the signage issue we

56:26 ↗ do have a sorry Jennifer my

56:30 ↗ father-in-law gave the city a grant

56:33 ↗ maybe 12 years ago in Scott Alps a grant

56:36 ↗ 12 years ago for signage on Park Point

56:40 ↗ so finally the signs got ordered this

56:43 ↗ summer this spring to be put into place

56:47 ↗ for the park point trails is a potential

56:51 ↗ template for signage it only took 12

56:55 ↗ years but now they're being manufactured

56:57 ↗ and hopefully will be installed shortly

56:59 ↗ it's good thing we're patient so I'm

57:03 ↗ hoping that you all got the matrix that

57:06 ↗ I also spent many hours working on

57:09 ↗ because looking at the goals and

57:12 ↗ policies made me a little crazy they

57:15 ↗ were mixed up redundant and there was

57:18 ↗ implementation mixed in with things that

57:21 ↗ I would be considered to be visions

57:24 ↗ goals and policies and so in order to

57:28 ↗ unscramble my brain I tried separating

57:31 ↗ them out and the highlights of that for

57:33 ↗ me was that we actually have quite a bit

57:36 ↗ on parks in general but on some of the

57:41 ↗ topics that you have heard today which

57:43 ↗ would be trails recreation which you

57:46 ↗ haven't heard but council talked about

57:48 ↗ and open space we basically don't have a

57:52 ↗ vision and incredibly limited goals and

57:56 ↗ policies for these things that are the

58:00 ↗ core of our park system and I think that

58:04 ↗ each of those strong areas needs their

58:08 ↗ own

58:09 ↗ independent vision sort of like having a

58:11 ↗ corporation that has their corporate

58:13 ↗ vision but you have departments that

58:16 ↗ need guidance so that they know what

58:18 ↗ they're doing to satisfy the whole

58:20 ↗ vision your goals and policies don't

58:23 ↗ have that all you have is sort of the

58:25 ↗ top vision and so right now you're

58:31 ↗ thinking wow we can't write this whole

58:34 ↗ thing tonight and so my solution to that

58:44 ↗ is you would create a work item to

58:50 ↗ rewrite this this year and let this pass

58:55 ↗ through as a temporary because I think

58:58 ↗ it is a heavy lift I don't think this

59:02 ↗ will get us even close to what we want

59:04 ↗ in the comprehensive plan so Parks

59:12 ↗ Department might be having a seizure

59:14 ↗ right now I'm not looking I she's there

59:16 ↗ out of the curve my eye but I did warn

59:19 ↗ them in advance that these were my

59:20 ↗ concerns and they don't particularly

59:22 ↗ feel like doing the work right now but

59:27 ↗ maybe they could be persuaded to do the

59:29 ↗ work in the next six months so that we

59:31 ↗ get it right as compared to just like

59:33 ↗ slapping er together Thanks anybody else

59:39 ↗ like to make a comment about the parks

59:42 ↗ plan

59:46 ↗ during seeing nobody I'm gonna close the

59:51 ↗ public hearing at 7:30 - and open it up

59:56 ↗ for no joy what would you like I very

1:00:04 ↗ much agree with Connie's comments and

1:00:06 ↗ that when I was reading a document I

1:00:08 ↗ found it to be very high level vision

1:00:10 ↗ I appreciated the being able to see the

1:00:13 ↗ comparison of where we were in 2015 and

1:00:16 ↗ where we are now but like some of my

1:00:19 ↗ questions tonight I'm kind of well do we

1:00:20 ↗ have a plan of when this is going to be

1:00:22 ↗ happening there's no timetable

1:00:24 ↗ whatsoever so I would I would like this

1:00:30 ↗ document to evolve past where it is and

1:00:33 ↗ quickly so whether that means passing it

1:00:37 ↗ along with kind of these conditions I'm

1:00:39 ↗ a fan of because I think that this

1:00:41 ↗ document is again a nice start but I I

1:00:45 ↗ felt that it was a little incomplete but

1:00:48 ↗ I don't know that again when I was

1:00:50 ↗ reading it that I felt that you know

1:00:51 ↗ Connie went through I have to say a

1:00:54 ↗ tremendous amount of work for what we

1:00:56 ↗ got emailed today and it was actually

1:00:57 ↗ something that I wasn't able to put that

1:00:59 ↗ much time and effort into and I was

1:01:01 ↗ wondering why the Parks Department

1:01:03 ↗ hadn't and why it hadn't been brought up

1:01:06 ↗ previously in all the reviews why they

1:01:08 ↗ hadn't also kind of dissected something

1:01:11 ↗ that kind of laid out a more meaningful

1:01:14 ↗ dialogue of where they want to go next I

1:01:16 ↗ don't need to have all the answers right

1:01:18 ↗ now I see that that being a little bit

1:01:20 ↗ unrealistic of staff but a little more

1:01:22 ↗ of a framework of saying what what are

1:01:26 ↗ we missing

1:01:26 ↗ and when are we going to be providing

1:01:28 ↗ that even I think it's a little as

1:01:29 ↗ helpful in the document even at a

1:01:31 ↗ minimum so passing it along with a

1:01:35 ↗ recommendation of having certain aspects

1:01:40 ↗ brought into this document I think it's

1:01:44 ↗ a good idea now well everybody else is

1:01:47 ↗ saying something

1:01:48 ↗ would you write down the specific things

1:01:52 ↗ that you would put into a motion and I

1:01:56 ↗ hear first it how I want to however

1:01:59 ↗ no I understand that but would you do

1:02:03 ↗ that to kind of move this along

1:02:07 ↗ sure okay I'm with joy I agree I think

1:02:12 ↗ she and Connie although I didn't get an

1:02:17 ↗ email from Connie today with my tricks

1:02:19 ↗ in it I wish I had okay

1:02:25 ↗ oh yeah I did not see that I agree with

1:02:32 ↗ uh with joy I had a couple questions but

1:02:35 ↗ I'll hold off with my questions until

1:02:36 ↗ some of my other commissioners had

1:02:38 ↗ chance well I'll take a shot so I think

1:02:41 ↗ I agree and I'll speak it for a minute

1:02:45 ↗ in a minute about the goals and policies

1:02:46 ↗ but I there's a lot in here that I do

1:02:48 ↗ like in in beyond the goals and policies

1:02:51 ↗ the the draft document wasn't in this

1:02:55 ↗ packet but we had in our digital packet

1:02:57 ↗ and I mean visually I like it I like the

1:02:59 ↗ screening criteria for the major

1:03:01 ↗ projects I like having the projects in

1:03:02 ↗ there and having them on a map but you

1:03:04 ↗ know I think there's a lot there that's

1:03:05 ↗ great

1:03:06 ↗ and it's pretty clear that there's a lot

1:03:09 ↗ of work that went into it and we were

1:03:10 ↗ involved it steps along the way and I'd

1:03:12 ↗ like to seeing what we did here show up

1:03:14 ↗ in the plan so thank you for that on the

1:03:17 ↗ on the policies I think I what I thought

1:03:20 ↗ when I was looking at them I - initial

1:03:23 ↗ thoughts one is man there's a lot of

1:03:26 ↗ words here it's a lot and just to kind

1:03:29 ↗ of get through first of all and then I

1:03:31 ↗ realized Oh most of that actually was

1:03:33 ↗ there before you know from the previous

1:03:35 ↗ document and in so it could have been

1:03:39 ↗ that we and it could have been

1:03:41 ↗ intentional to lead to do it this way I

1:03:43 ↗ feel like we might have just been a

1:03:44 ↗ little bit too beholdin to the previous

1:03:47 ↗ structure and their previous words and

1:03:51 ↗ and maybe didn't quite take the

1:03:53 ↗ opportunity to do a complete refresh on

1:03:55 ↗ it and maybe and maybe that was the

1:03:57 ↗ intention and if so then that's okay

1:03:59 ↗ [Music]

1:04:00 ↗ we've on lots of other plans and visions

1:04:05 ↗ and strategic things lately we've been

1:04:07 ↗ doing big refreshes so I think we're in

1:04:09 ↗ big refresh mode which is good

1:04:11 ↗ but so you know maybe you could speak to

1:04:15 ↗ that at some point maybe that was the

1:04:17 ↗ intention

1:04:17 ↗ it's go around and there are plans to to

1:04:19 ↗ do another big refresh in juggling and

1:04:22 ↗ then the last thing I'll say and I think

1:04:24 ↗ this gets to the the general comments

1:04:25 ↗ that enjoy and and Connie and others

1:04:28 ↗ were making and even just going back to

1:04:30 ↗ the discussion about wildlife corridors

1:04:31 ↗ and wildlife connectivity in ecology you

1:04:34 ↗ know I see it all in here but it's in

1:04:36 ↗ lots of different places and I think

1:04:37 ↗ that speaks to what Connie was saying

1:04:40 ↗ there's you know opportunities I think

1:04:43 ↗ just to move some things around and

1:04:45 ↗ organize it like they the analogy of

1:04:48 ↗ departments organized a little bit more

1:04:50 ↗ so that if you want to know about you

1:04:53 ↗ know wildlife connectivity or

1:04:55 ↗ restoration you can go and find it or if

1:04:58 ↗ you want to know about you know wave you

1:05:02 ↗ know wayfinding or trail heads or

1:05:04 ↗ whatever you can find it and so me and

1:05:07 ↗ so what it could be rather than a rework

1:05:09 ↗ of the policies it could be just a bit

1:05:11 ↗ of a crosswalk and maybe that's where

1:05:12 ↗ Connie was going with it is you know

1:05:15 ↗ where and the policy you can find you

1:05:17 ↗ know those things that people care about

1:05:19 ↗ so because you know word elgyn group and

1:05:24 ↗ we work through up if somebody in town

1:05:27 ↗ wants to say hey what are they doing

1:05:29 ↗ with that trail had their then they have

1:05:30 ↗ to go and sort of like sort through a

1:05:31 ↗ bunch of stuff it becomes a bit of a

1:05:33 ↗ barrier I think to them so just the user

1:05:35 ↗ experience might be better if it's

1:05:36 ↗ organized differently so I'll leave it

1:05:39 ↗ at that

1:05:40 ↗ and I support the idea of a bit of a

1:05:44 ↗ reorg there either you know now or at

1:05:48 ↗ some point in the future and we can talk

1:05:50 ↗ about what that looks like if we need to

1:05:54 ↗ yeah I would agree there everyone here I

1:05:56 ↗ think the overall document was great I

1:06:00 ↗ think what I'd like to see is you know

1:06:02 ↗ we we went through a list of prioritized

1:06:05 ↗ projects where we like to see in the

1:06:06 ↗ future short term medium long term and

1:06:10 ↗ then we had a single sentence or two

1:06:12 ↗ about reinvestment and what I'd like to

1:06:15 ↗ see is in the plan what features trails

1:06:19 ↗ etc do we have now that we know we want

1:06:22 ↗ to reinvest in

1:06:23 ↗ and how does that rank up against

1:06:25 ↗ existing projects we may find ourselves

1:06:28 ↗ you know having a three dollar sign type

1:06:32 ↗ of investment and it seems showing up

1:06:34 ↗ and I'm not sure how that funding works

1:06:37 ↗ if it's Timon on the list to get

1:06:39 ↗ approved so while it's great to say hey

1:06:43 ↗ we really need to make sure that what we

1:06:44 ↗ have stays up-to-date and maintained I

1:06:47 ↗ like to see that integrated into the

1:06:49 ↗ overall project list great idea

1:06:58 ↗ several thoughts going back to it Troy

1:07:01 ↗ said it about the idea of maybe we can

1:07:05 ↗ just do some reorganization to make the

1:07:08 ↗ document easier to digest for somebody

1:07:13 ↗ who's coming into this for the first

1:07:14 ↗ time wanting to know about trails and

1:07:18 ↗ what our policies are for that

1:07:20 ↗ and quite honestly honey did that mm-hmm

1:07:25 ↗ so if we could just take that document

1:07:29 ↗ and hand it over and say it's our

1:07:33 ↗ blessing this is beautiful and

1:07:36 ↗ represents tons and tons of hours of

1:07:38 ↗ work yeah and doesn't get rid of any of

1:07:42 ↗ the work that was done for the parks

1:07:45 ↗ strategic plan just rearranges it I

1:07:48 ↗ think that would be fantastic and I

1:07:52 ↗ think it's an option we should really

1:07:54 ↗ consider with that idea secondarily on

1:07:59 ↗ the idea of implementation and timelines

1:08:04 ↗ coming into a strategic plan my concern

1:08:09 ↗ with that is funding and all of that

1:08:15 ↗ really belongs to City Council and you

1:08:18 ↗ know when it I feel like even if we put

1:08:22 ↗ something in here there's no authority

1:08:26 ↗ behind it and so I wonder whether it's

1:08:30 ↗ the right method for saying it's really

1:08:34 ↗ important to have

1:08:35 ↗ an implementation plan and a funding

1:08:38 ↗ plan for this I don't know whether that

1:08:42 ↗ belongs in the strategic plan or whether

1:08:45 ↗ that it needs to come as a separate

1:08:47 ↗ report of like the CIP I think that's

1:08:51 ↗ interesting because it to me that talks

1:08:53 ↗ about specific projects when we when we

1:08:56 ↗ think about you know what we had laid

1:08:58 ↗ out in front of us I agree with you as

1:09:00 ↗ far as like when we look at like you

1:09:01 ↗ know we look at the tip or things like

1:09:03 ↗ that of seeing the exact you know land

1:09:06 ↗ acquisition versus a dog park versus

1:09:09 ↗ this or that but as far as there are so

1:09:11 ↗ many places in the document to talk

1:09:12 ↗ about well we're planning on doing this

1:09:14 ↗ and so it's actually what I think more

1:09:17 ↗ of implementation is about the workload

1:09:18 ↗ that we we really expect from parks and

1:09:21 ↗ to say great you've identified areas

1:09:25 ↗ that need addressing when is that going

1:09:27 ↗ to be addressed and so we constantly

1:09:29 ↗ talk to staff about you know when can we

1:09:31 ↗ get to this and they say we don't we

1:09:33 ↗ don't have the hours to do this this

1:09:34 ↗ year you know we have to do this this

1:09:36 ↗ year when being able to get an

1:09:37 ↗ understanding really from parks because

1:09:39 ↗ I don't want there to be another you

1:09:42 ↗ know issue of 12 years you know when we

1:09:44 ↗ know if we want to put a number on it of

1:09:46 ↗ these things that seem like hey this is

1:09:49 ↗ great and we'd all like this but then

1:09:50 ↗ they kind of evaporate into the ether

1:09:52 ↗ and so I agree with you as far as actual

1:09:55 ↗ agendas and assets but as far as every

1:09:58 ↗ time in the document we start seeing

1:09:59 ↗ well we'll plan on doing this I would

1:10:02 ↗ like to know when that is going to

1:10:04 ↗ happen and I'd like to know how staff is

1:10:06 ↗ going to be addressing that and who's

1:10:07 ↗ who's to say they're behind or ahead

1:10:10 ↗ when it's just in into the ether you

1:10:14 ↗ know and to me the dogs are very good at

1:10:15 ↗ clarification and I agree with that

1:10:17 ↗ concept of let's make sure that the

1:10:20 ↗ planning for this and the specific ideas

1:10:23 ↗ behind it and the work doesn't get lost

1:10:27 ↗ track yeah I don't know if we're able to

1:10:30 ↗ have Jennifer speak to kind of how she

1:10:31 ↗ felt about Connie's document because

1:10:33 ↗ when I read it I I was kind of in a bit

1:10:36 ↗ a bit of a block you know I felt like

1:10:38 ↗ this was a document that had a really

1:10:41 ↗ good first start but I was I was I

1:10:43 ↗ didn't know how to make it go to the

1:10:45 ↗ next level in this meeting of saying

1:10:48 ↗ where does it then progress to me this

1:10:50 ↗ was a really good first draft but to

1:10:52 ↗ stay like now we're done and washing our

1:10:54 ↗ hands of it and darting on to the

1:10:56 ↗ whatever the rest of the workload is the

1:10:58 ↗ rest the year for staff so I would love

1:11:00 ↗ to hear about how you guys felt the way

1:11:03 ↗ that it was laid out because it it to me

1:11:05 ↗ identified a lot of holes it helped

1:11:07 ↗ clean some stuff up some redundancies

1:11:09 ↗ and I'm curious how you guys felt about

1:11:12 ↗ the document before you answer that can

1:11:13 ↗ I get some clarification on exactly what

1:11:16 ↗ our role in PPC is in relation to this

1:11:21 ↗ land it was was it brought to us just as

1:11:25 ↗ a here it is and this is a really good

1:11:28 ↗ thing and this is what we worked on or

1:11:30 ↗ are we supposed to unless there was

1:11:34 ↗ something major wrong with it basically

1:11:37 ↗ you know pat you on the back and say it

1:11:40 ↗ was good where is where we in this the

1:11:42 ↗ PPC's role is the goals and policies as

1:11:45 ↗ they go directly into the comprehensive

1:11:47 ↗ plan and the parks element of the

1:11:49 ↗ comprehensive so we have so that's your

1:11:51 ↗ narrow focuses the goals and policies

1:11:53 ↗ okay Trish when is the next update of

1:11:55 ↗ the park element we update it when you

1:11:58 ↗ do the your plan that's when we update

1:12:00 ↗ our when is the next plan okay but its

1:12:04 ↗ annual the comp plan is amended every

1:12:07 ↗ year but we wait three or five years six

1:12:09 ↗ year to update that element what is the

1:12:13 ↗ next step

1:12:14 ↗ did you perceive would be the next step

1:12:17 ↗ in in this process well the next step

1:12:22 ↗ would hopefully be council adoption in

1:12:24 ↗ July for the plan and then we would go

1:12:28 ↗ back and start we know this this parks

1:12:31 ↗ strategic plan was really it was a first

1:12:34 ↗ big and bold effort for the Parks and

1:12:36 ↗ Recreation Department for the city for

1:12:38 ↗ parks it's very different than our past

1:12:40 ↗ planning documents which is one reason

1:12:43 ↗ why there were so many other things

1:12:45 ↗ changing with it we kind of left the

1:12:47 ↗ goals and policies that kind of as was

1:12:49 ↗ knowing that as we get into this plan

1:12:53 ↗ and we start working with it we know

1:12:55 ↗ changes are going to happen and we are

1:12:57 ↗ going to have to make changes and we

1:12:59 ↗ knew addressing and simple

1:13:01 ↗ buying the goals and policies would be a

1:13:03 ↗ future thing we didn't feel by changing

1:13:07 ↗ them at this point it was really making

1:13:09 ↗ any significant changes in the

1:13:12 ↗ information that was in there I do

1:13:14 ↗ understand you know an ease of reference

1:13:17 ↗ Connie is weren't all verbatim and they

1:13:21 ↗ had been vetted through the park board

1:13:23 ↗ already

1:13:23 ↗ so we'd you know have to go back through

1:13:27 ↗ them and make sure that we'd get the

1:13:29 ↗ update according to their so liking do

1:13:33 ↗ you have time to go back and rearrange

1:13:38 ↗ we do we put in extra things that all

1:13:42 ↗ the things that they've talked about do

1:13:43 ↗ you have time to do that and is there a

1:13:49 ↗ deadline for getting this passed yeah

1:13:51 ↗ well this was going to council July 16

1:13:54 ↗ well it was the second and I think it's

1:13:56 ↗ been moved to the 16th and one project

1:13:59 ↗ that's waiting for this is the update of

1:14:01 ↗ the park impact fees and so we're

1:14:03 ↗ waiting for this to move forward so that

1:14:05 ↗ we can come back and update the fees

1:14:07 ↗ because the fees are based on the future

1:14:09 ↗ projects so we can collect money from

1:14:11 ↗ applicants to help pay for those new

1:14:13 ↗ projects where we all send this back to

1:14:16 ↗ the park board do they have time in

1:14:17 ↗ their calendar - no that would delay the

1:14:23 ↗ park impact fees what you could do

1:14:25 ↗ though is add it to the recommendation

1:14:27 ↗ and then council can choose whether to

1:14:30 ↗ send it back have it on next year's work

1:14:32 ↗ plan they have more options that way if

1:14:37 ↗ you chose to forward it that way

1:14:39 ↗ everything at least I think everything

1:14:42 ↗ that's in there our great ideas whether

1:14:46 ↗ they're arranged in the wrong place or

1:14:48 ↗ not connected you're always going to

1:14:52 ↗ change it and if there is a reason like

1:14:55 ↗ the impact fees that have to be we need

1:14:58 ↗ them in order to do it and so I going

1:15:02 ↗ back to what I said - joy if you could

1:15:06 ↗ put down the four or five six things

1:15:09 ↗ that you think

1:15:10 ↗ to be added then we can forward that on

1:15:16 ↗ to the part board - to Jennifer and to

1:15:20 ↗ the council for them to take a stab at

1:15:24 ↗ looking at this and you know they could

1:15:26 ↗ just say hey you know we need all this

1:15:29 ↗ done and we're going to wait for the

1:15:30 ↗ impact fees so it's so it has all these

1:15:33 ↗ things put together but I think right

1:15:35 ↗ now this is one of the things that needs

1:15:40 ↗ to be they'll have another year to go

1:15:44 ↗ back and really address sufficiently

1:15:47 ↗ everything that come up so if we could

1:15:51 ↗ you know you what's in there is it all

1:15:58 ↗ those ideas good let me take a step back

1:16:02 ↗ Trish can you tell us more about the

1:16:05 ↗ impact fee and what's waiting on that

1:16:08 ↗ and then Jennifer I think you said you

1:16:11 ↗ guys need to do calculations based on

1:16:13 ↗ the projects that came up during this

1:16:16 ↗ park strategic plan in order to figure

1:16:19 ↗ out what impact fee you'd like to charge

1:16:24 ↗ and then what's the timeline requirement

1:16:28 ↗ for that right we were supposed to start

1:16:30 ↗ the park impact the update last year but

1:16:32 ↗ the park strategic plan the outreach and

1:16:35 ↗ the different pieces we're taking longer

1:16:37 ↗ and so we postponed it and because the

1:16:40 ↗ impact fees have to be based on future

1:16:43 ↗ projects that are going to add capacity

1:16:45 ↗ for the new growth that's coming because

1:16:48 ↗ the applicants can only pay for the new

1:16:50 ↗ capacity they can't pay for an existing

1:16:53 ↗ deficiency and so without knowing what

1:16:56 ↗ those new park facilities would be we

1:16:58 ↗ can't calculate a new impact and updated

1:17:00 ↗ impact fee

1:17:01 ↗ so the impact fees remain on based on

1:17:03 ↗ the old projects so we've been waiting

1:17:06 ↗ on that data until the strategic plan

1:17:09 ↗ has a list of the of though those new

1:17:12 ↗ facilities that would add capacity and

1:17:15 ↗ then we can base the fee on that can

1:17:19 ↗ those

1:17:20 ↗ can those get up if we approved the

1:17:25 ↗ strategic plan even with the idea of

1:17:28 ↗ sending some of these policies to you

1:17:31 ↗ know be revisited what would be the

1:17:33 ↗ timeline in figuring out what impact fee

1:17:38 ↗ you'd like to charge and then taking

1:17:41 ↗ that through council and jump in if I'm

1:17:45 ↗ wrong but we're hope we were hoping at a

1:17:47 ↗ staff level that if the strategic plan

1:17:50 ↗ has finished this summer in July then

1:17:52 ↗ the parking Peck fees can be updated and

1:17:54 ↗ in place by the end of the year okay and

1:17:58 ↗ that's usually when the impact fee is

1:18:00 ↗ overall are reviewed for the city it's

1:18:03 ↗ usually you just it takes them some

1:18:05 ↗ months to do the analysis based on how

1:18:08 ↗ much the park facility costs what's the

1:18:10 ↗ percentage that the city would have to

1:18:12 ↗ pay and the percentage that the

1:18:13 ↗ applicant would have to pay there's a

1:18:16 ↗ whole lot of calculation that goes into

1:18:18 ↗ the rate study so that it can be a

1:18:20 ↗ legally defensible fee but there's

1:18:23 ↗ nothing where we have to meet a deadline

1:18:26 ↗ in order you know it like they annually

1:18:29 ↗ have to update no but at this point

1:18:32 ↗ because it's based on the old work you

1:18:36 ↗ could say that we're subsidizing

1:18:37 ↗ development because our fees aren't

1:18:39 ↗ connected to the new projects that would

1:18:43 ↗ help and I was just trying to get a

1:18:44 ↗ sense of the timelines

1:18:46 ↗ can I add a little tidbit to that is the

1:18:48 ↗ impact piece can only be charged for

1:18:50 ↗ projects that are an approved capital

1:18:52 ↗ improvement plan so we need the plan to

1:18:56 ↗ be adopted to add the projects to the

1:18:58 ↗ CIP to then in add them to the park

1:19:01 ↗ impact fee update so there is a trickle

1:19:03 ↗ effect right oh maybe a good strategy

1:19:07 ↗ would be to pass this with the with a

1:19:13 ↗ carrier that it be revisited in a year

1:19:16 ↗ from now that's that way they can get

1:19:20 ↗ what they need for funding and we can

1:19:23 ↗ move forward with the idea of maybe

1:19:25 ↗ restructuring it and

1:19:26 ↗ a few attributes yeah I have a

1:19:29 ↗ clarification question related to that

1:19:31 ↗ if we so if if we if this moves forward

1:19:36 ↗ to counsel and counsel approves or

1:19:37 ↗ whatever is there a point in time at

1:19:39 ↗ which the the policies would come back

1:19:42 ↗ to PPC or is that I mean without

1:19:45 ↗ anything happening or does that wait six

1:19:47 ↗ years or how do I think we can update

1:19:51 ↗ the park element at any time cause you

1:19:54 ↗ do it annual one sees all right we have

1:19:56 ↗ you can always come back

1:19:57 ↗ annually so he could so I think what

1:19:59 ↗ you're saying Ron it it falls in line

1:20:01 ↗ with what an option would be move it

1:20:04 ↗ forward with the rider that it that we

1:20:08 ↗ we do come back and revisit the policies

1:20:11 ↗ so we could think more about the

1:20:14 ↗ reorganization and the presentation of

1:20:16 ↗ them I mean I think that makes sense to

1:20:19 ↗ me I mean that assumes because I don't

1:20:24 ↗ think he doesn't seem feasible for that

1:20:25 ↗ to happen between now and the council

1:20:27 ↗ meeting I mean maybe it does but Jeremy

1:20:30 ↗ it wasn't so I mean I guess that's I'm

1:20:32 ↗ thinking about that as another option

1:20:33 ↗ ever since we have you one other thing

1:20:35 ↗ that was talked about tonight from the

1:20:36 ↗ public was kind of the the missing

1:20:39 ↗ element of the other members of our

1:20:41 ↗ community of our wildlife neighbors and

1:20:43 ↗ I'm curious I heard a lot about play

1:20:45 ↗ fields in this document but a lot less

1:20:46 ↗ about about them and I'm curious if you

1:20:49 ↗ can speak to why that was not a major

1:20:51 ↗ section it is mentioned a little bit but

1:20:57 ↗ the operational strategic project the

1:21:01 ↗ green s aqua as we look at tree canopy

1:21:06 ↗ can also as we formulate that scope take

1:21:09 ↗ a look at where those wildlife corridors

1:21:11 ↗ are and that would be an opportunity to

1:21:13 ↗ include that in that body of work so

1:21:16 ↗ would you say since you said take a look

1:21:18 ↗ at would you say it's fair that the

1:21:20 ↗ Parks Department doesn't really know

1:21:22 ↗ right now that you guys ourselves don't

1:21:24 ↗ even have a map laid out of wildlife

1:21:26 ↗ connections corridors places to be

1:21:28 ↗ improved where did there's existing maps

1:21:31 ↗ from other agencies and stuff that we

1:21:34 ↗ utilize has that all been centralized

1:21:36 ↗ into one document that's easy for people

1:21:38 ↗ to see

1:21:39 ↗ I don't kind of like we were working on

1:21:41 ↗ the green necklace is there another one

1:21:42 ↗ that I don't believe so okay is that

1:21:44 ↗ something that you guys have talked

1:21:45 ↗ about doing yeah as part of those as I

1:21:48 ↗ said when we get ready to formulate the

1:21:50 ↗ scope of the green s aqua

1:21:52 ↗ you know tree canopy would be part of

1:21:53 ↗ that also you know wildlife looking at

1:21:58 ↗ all of our green infrastructure really

1:22:01 ↗ and we were discussing the green

1:22:04 ↗ necklace and a central Issaquah plan we

1:22:09 ↗ had mentioned protecting wildlife

1:22:12 ↗ corridors and wasn't it brought to our

1:22:14 ↗ attention that that was going to be part

1:22:15 ↗ of the parks plan instead of the CIP I

1:22:22 ↗ don't remember that was at rest you know

1:22:24 ↗ I'm sorry I'm good question I was

1:22:26 ↗ reading a note oh so when we were

1:22:28 ↗ discussing the green necklace and the

1:22:31 ↗ central ah plan months back I think it

1:22:34 ↗ was brought to our attention that

1:22:36 ↗ because we had talked about wildlife

1:22:38 ↗ protecting our life corridors and the

1:22:41 ↗ creeks it was discussed that those

1:22:46 ↗ protections would be part of the parks

1:22:49 ↗ plan right there bigger than central so

1:22:52 ↗ they wouldn't be just in central they'd

1:22:54 ↗ have to be a in the bigger plan a bigger

1:22:56 ↗ plan right but if they're not so

1:23:00 ↗ wouldn't it be in this policy document

1:23:03 ↗ to have the protections covered I think

1:23:06 ↗ there's also pieces in our in the

1:23:09 ↗ comprehensive plan under they have to

1:23:13 ↗ look but I'm picturing them in land use

1:23:15 ↗ that there's parts about protection of

1:23:18 ↗ wildlife protection of open spaces but

1:23:21 ↗ we can look at those but I think as Jen

1:23:23 ↗ said there's parts that allude to that

1:23:25 ↗ in the park strategic plan okay there's

1:23:30 ↗ also important about me

1:23:35 ↗ I don't either

1:23:41 ↗ there's we get a general sense that we

1:23:46 ↗ don't have a lot of dressing open space

1:23:49 ↗ wildlife corridors tree canopy

1:23:54 ↗ you know how the parks department is

1:23:56 ↗ going to maintain some of that open

1:23:59 ↗ space idea and that was one of the

1:24:02 ↗ things that I pulled out looking at what

1:24:04 ↗ Connie had created was this sense of oh

1:24:07 ↗ that's where it is that's how we're

1:24:10 ↗ going to deal with and address these

1:24:13 ↗ things it's important to us so yes I

1:24:20 ↗ think some of it is there and some of it

1:24:24 ↗ is handled through reorganization but I

1:24:26 ↗ also feel like it's just less addressed

1:24:30 ↗ than perhaps it should be

1:24:32 ↗ I would like to can I add one little

1:24:34 ↗ item in one of the appendices I forget

1:24:38 ↗ which number there is a habitat

1:24:40 ↗ conservation account which was part of

1:24:42 ↗ the prior adopted plan and we ended up

1:24:45 ↗ moving it forward basically unedited as

1:24:48 ↗ an appendices to this document so it is

1:24:51 ↗ still in effect and it speaks of our

1:24:52 ↗ natural areas and our salmon species and

1:24:56 ↗ vegetation and preserving those and our

1:24:59 ↗ corridors okay so maybe this comes into

1:25:04 ↗ kind of a feeling from the community

1:25:09 ↗ that I'm getting the much like the idea

1:25:13 ↗ of we need to reinvest in our parks and

1:25:17 ↗ understand how we're going to do that

1:25:19 ↗ also just generally how is parks going

1:25:23 ↗ to Endel and maintain and improve the

1:25:28 ↗ open spaces and yuna kate - yeah yeah

1:25:31 ↗ yeah right now it's just a lot of people

1:25:34 ↗ don't have a clear concept of of it only

1:25:37 ↗ that they care about it and so being

1:25:38 ↗ able to concretely say here are values

1:25:41 ↗ and here's how we wreck securing them

1:25:42 ↗ well I think somebody boat was seen in

1:25:44 ↗ the vital environment theme that came

1:25:46 ↗ forward and how it really

1:25:48 ↗ it's to multiple projects that you know

1:25:50 ↗ it is an important feature to the

1:25:52 ↗ community I think though what we're

1:25:54 ↗ getting so far is that it didn't come

1:25:57 ↗ through quite maybe how we're hoping it

1:25:59 ↗ does that would be our aspirations for a

1:26:03 ↗ version two which would be we are

1:26:06 ↗ looking for more environmental

1:26:08 ↗ protections I mean I think at this point

1:26:12 ↗ the at least my what I'm thinking is

1:26:14 ↗ that we we send this through with the

1:26:17 ↗ recommendation that the goals and

1:26:20 ↗ policies come back to PPC at some point

1:26:22 ↗ in the near future whenever possible so

1:26:25 ↗ we get another chance to just you know

1:26:28 ↗ work on it a little bit more and I don't

1:26:31 ↗ know what the actual process for that is

1:26:33 ↗ if it goes back through parks board and

1:26:34 ↗ then us or whatever but I think we would

1:26:37 ↗ have more opportunity to to make those

1:26:40 ↗ specific kind of wordsmithing and

1:26:42 ↗ rearranging things at that point in time

1:26:44 ↗ that's just my thought but I don't know

1:26:46 ↗ if that's true or not right you could do

1:26:50 ↗ it both ways you could do it that way

1:26:52 ↗ that it comes back or you could sort of

1:26:55 ↗ bullet them that everything looks great

1:26:57 ↗ except you would like a policy or

1:26:59 ↗ clearer direction on open space habitat

1:27:03 ↗ you know whatever the five things might

1:27:04 ↗ be so that council gets to sort of chill

1:27:07 ↗ those through their thought process and

1:27:09 ↗ maybe add them or maybe just throw them

1:27:11 ↗ all to us next year so you could do it

1:27:14 ↗ either way those two yeah I would do

1:27:17 ↗ both I would say here are the things

1:27:20 ↗ that we feel are missing and also we

1:27:26 ↗ want a chance to come back at this and

1:27:28 ↗ say it needs to be reorganized so that

1:27:32 ↗ we have a clear consensus of the

1:27:36 ↗ important areas in the park strategic

1:27:39 ↗ plan and that we get a chance to really

1:27:42 ↗ hash through it yeah I'd like to do with

1:27:46 ↗ park support agreed agreed

1:27:50 ↗ yeah that's a given

1:27:53 ↗ so what are maybe the four things that

1:27:59 ↗ we feel are unaddressed you know needs

1:28:05 ↗ changes or should be talked about

1:28:10 ↗ so we've mentioned wildlife connectivity

1:28:12 ↗ I think just ecosystem restoration so

1:28:17 ↗ the scope of the green is applause was

1:28:19 ↗ the language of the parks department

1:28:22 ↗ kind of encompasses things like tree

1:28:25 ↗ canopy well life corridors is that

1:28:27 ↗ correct Jennifer yeah we can different

1:28:29 ↗ language just wouldn't say the scope of

1:28:30 ↗ green Issaquah entails all all kind of

1:28:34 ↗ oaths all multiple bullet points is that

1:28:36 ↗ correct your language you said what's

1:28:39 ↗ the scope of green Issaquah so I'm

1:28:40 ↗ wondering if that's actually department

1:28:42 ↗ lingo we haven't formulated what the

1:28:45 ↗ entire scope would be but it is one of

1:28:47 ↗ the items we've identified that can be

1:28:49 ↗ part of that well then we would like

1:28:51 ↗ that formulated I think that's I think

1:28:53 ↗ that's the formulate the scope of green

1:28:56 ↗ Issaquah and then that has those sub

1:28:58 ↗ standard points of things like

1:28:59 ↗ identifying maintenance for noxious

1:29:01 ↗ weeds that has you know riparian

1:29:04 ↗ corridor maintenance that has tree life

1:29:07 ↗ tree canopy that has wildlife corridors

1:29:10 ↗ you know I I'm assuming I you know I

1:29:13 ↗ didn't defer to my my fellows at the

1:29:15 ↗ park for because I'm sure they can go on

1:29:16 ↗ and on about about that about those

1:29:18 ↗ bullet points so I have that one bullet

1:29:21 ↗ point I think then in Casper

1:29:22 ↗ encapsulates that remind me Jennifer the

1:29:32 ↗ the public had had a resounding

1:29:36 ↗ agreement of this plan to have to kind

1:29:40 ↗ of implement a what are we talking about

1:29:43 ↗ I'm sorry I'm totally spacing on what

1:29:45 ↗ the implementing kind of the feedback of

1:29:47 ↗ how the Parks Department was doing level

1:29:50 ↗ of service level of service I would so I

1:29:52 ↗ would put that on I would like to know

1:29:53 ↗ exactly when that plan is going to be

1:29:55 ↗ created and how how and when it's going

1:29:58 ↗ to be implemented so I think that was a

1:30:01 ↗ big one that for me felt like it was

1:30:02 ↗ kind of out there so I would put that

1:30:04 ↗ one along with

1:30:06 ↗ so you're wanting information on a

1:30:08 ↗ strategic project I would like to know

1:30:11 ↗ when we're going to switch to that to

1:30:14 ↗ the the level of service I think that's

1:30:16 ↗ part of a bigger council discussion good

1:30:19 ↗ I think that's a discussion that needs

1:30:21 ↗ to so I think that isn't that part of

1:30:22 ↗ what we're identifying is saying here

1:30:24 ↗ are things that we felt are loose yeah I

1:30:30 ↗ don't think that's a specific policy

1:30:33 ↗ necessarily but I do agree that it needs

1:30:36 ↗ follow-up and we'd like to know what the

1:30:42 ↗ plan is for it progressing hmm I

1:30:44 ↗ wouldn't be part of her emotions emotion

1:30:48 ↗ has to stick to policies and goals

1:30:50 ↗ because that's the only thing that we're

1:30:52 ↗ supposed to be looking at so then I

1:30:56 ↗ policy eight to four is the community in

1:30:59 ↗ neighborhood NORC relational corridor

1:31:01 ↗ distribution connectivity a to 700

1:31:13 ↗ different place in mine

1:31:21 ↗ Our client acquisition 82 for support

1:31:26 ↗ them implementation of the green

1:31:27 ↗ necklace you know create an active

1:31:29 ↗ non-motorized connections when is that

1:31:31 ↗ going to be finalized I mean that's

1:31:35 ↗ that's the thing a lot of these things a

1:31:37 ↗ lot of these policies we feel all speak

1:31:40 ↗ for myself are don't have any kind of

1:31:42 ↗ measurable timeline up to when they're

1:31:44 ↗ going to be addressed just that we like

1:31:46 ↗ them and so that's part of this these

1:31:48 ↗ policies being high-level so we're

1:31:51 ↗ saying we're adding an addendum to

1:31:52 ↗ counsel of when when are we know we'd

1:31:56 ↗ like to park espera what to say when is

1:31:57 ↗ this going to be a part of their

1:31:58 ↗ workload when when will it be addressed

1:32:00 ↗ it's not a part of their workload now is

1:32:03 ↗ it able to be in the next calendar year

1:32:05 ↗ if not why not

1:32:09 ↗ or maybe somehow connecting the list of

1:32:12 ↗ projects to the policies so while these

1:32:15 ↗ policies speak directly to projects that

1:32:18 ↗ are listed out if we can connect those

1:32:20 ↗ two and a year from now we could an

1:32:22 ↗ update and we see you know no projects

1:32:26 ↗ being done that relate to policies at

1:32:29 ↗ that we have say on then we know there

1:32:33 ↗ might be an issue okay so number one

1:32:37 ↗ let's come up with a list of say six

1:32:41 ↗ things that would like to include that

1:32:42 ↗ we feel are missing so what are they so

1:32:47 ↗ one is just a general reorganization of

1:32:50 ↗ the goals and policies that aligns in a

1:32:53 ↗ similar fashion to what was presented by

1:32:54 ↗ the public iconi specific this is

1:32:56 ↗ specifically I think that's the main

1:32:58 ↗ thing I I think everything that's in

1:33:00 ↗ there isn't fine it just needs to be

1:33:02 ↗ organized so that you can find trail

1:33:04 ↗ heads you can find while I live

1:33:05 ↗ connectivity you can find placemaking

1:33:07 ↗ right now it's all there it's just

1:33:09 ↗ scattered about a bit okay second one

1:33:13 ↗ I'd like to see stronger language around

1:33:16 ↗ the signage and wayfinding and

1:33:20 ↗ prioritizing those resources I think the

1:33:22 ↗ language that we have here is at c24

1:33:27 ↗ yeah also c24 is weak and I certainly as

1:33:33 ↗ a

1:33:33 ↗ trail user can appreciate knowing where

1:33:36 ↗ I am when I'm on a trail so I think

1:33:39 ↗ people saying that the shall be limited

1:33:44 ↗ in order to preserve the visual

1:33:46 ↗ integrity of the land yes absolutely but

1:33:48 ↗ I think we can also put a sign even if

1:33:50 ↗ it's a small sign I think those are

1:33:53 ↗ important things number three a

1:33:57 ↗ connection between policies and goals

1:33:59 ↗ and our projects list so if we're saying

1:34:05 ↗ something like you know we want to

1:34:06 ↗ protect existing features trails etc

1:34:10 ↗ what projects do we have that actually

1:34:12 ↗ back that up or make that a reality or I

1:34:18 ↗ actually disagree with that concept

1:34:21 ↗ I love timelines in a sense of when

1:34:24 ↗ things are gonna be implemented I'm not

1:34:26 ↗ sure if it belongs in a policy document

1:34:30 ↗ well so let me restate maybe not a

1:34:32 ↗ timeline on deliverables but you know if

1:34:35 ↗ we have a list of projects that you know

1:34:37 ↗ 50 projects I think we're 45 rolls of

1:34:40 ↗ course if all of those kind of route

1:34:43 ↗ back to only 50% of the goals and

1:34:46 ↗ policies that are listed I think we

1:34:48 ↗ identify there's an issue there so in my

1:34:50 ↗ mind the goals and policies kind of

1:34:52 ↗ create you know ensure that the projects

1:34:55 ↗ that we do have the books that were

1:34:56 ↗ planning on kind of make it make a

1:34:58 ↗ reality so wasn't that the the idea of

1:35:03 ↗ the checklist was to kind of see if the

1:35:06 ↗ project's met the goals of the policies

1:35:09 ↗ yeah and also the themes within hi so

1:35:12 ↗ yeah we kind of did that as part of the

1:35:14 ↗ exercise with the prioritization of the

1:35:18 ↗ projects looking at what themes they

1:35:21 ↗ were were the themes that were within

1:35:23 ↗ those buckets the near-term long-term

1:35:25 ↗ were those projects where their policies

1:35:28 ↗ relating to those included so that's why

1:35:31 ↗ we added some of those theme based

1:35:33 ↗ policies to make sure that they were

1:35:36 ↗ touching on specific projects okay so

1:35:38 ↗ that that really is taken care of well I

1:35:43 ↗ think I'm hearing what you're saying is

1:35:45 ↗ you

1:35:45 ↗ not getting a sense of whether or not

1:35:47 ↗ that the specific projects meet the

1:35:55 ↗ policies and so what we're hearing is

1:35:58 ↗ maybe that happened behind the scenes

1:36:00 ↗ but isn't in the document are you yeah

1:36:02 ↗ or do you agree I it's hard for me to go

1:36:05 ↗ to a single page and say here's all you

1:36:07 ↗ know obviously we have the policies and

1:36:09 ↗ the goals are in front of us right now

1:36:10 ↗ but mapping those directly to projects

1:36:13 ↗ that's the piece that I'm not finding in

1:36:16 ↗ the document there's a theme page that

1:36:20 ↗ references both the projects and the

1:36:22 ↗ goals of policies then we should be good

1:36:25 ↗ but I didn't see that I think there's a

1:36:29 ↗ page 73 I think it is has the strategic

1:36:35 ↗ projects kind of at a glance okay this

1:36:38 ↗ is where you can kind of see which

1:36:40 ↗ projects are really hitting which themes

1:36:42 ↗ like connectivity so the conductivity

1:36:44 ↗ themes would then you know be seen in

1:36:47 ↗ that project now some of the goals and

1:36:49 ↗ policies I would like to add are more

1:36:51 ↗ for operational purposes and they will

1:36:53 ↗ not tie to specific projects that were

1:36:57 ↗ identified in here okay fair enough

1:36:59 ↗ so Joan then the other one is to

1:37:01 ↗ formulate the scope of the green of

1:37:03 ↗ green Issaquah there's the other point

1:37:06 ↗ that we we're heading on you wanted to

1:37:10 ↗ list our water blends of importance

1:37:16 ↗ when we started this there was I'm

1:37:18 ↗ missing some of the original thoughts

1:37:21 ↗ that you were going to use and I don't

1:37:27 ↗ think we've captured him in the four

1:37:29 ↗ things that we've talked about here and

1:37:31 ↗ I can't remember what they were but I

1:37:34 ↗ think they were green Issaquah idea

1:37:37 ↗ covers there's a lot of several of those

1:37:39 ↗ right maybe we want to specify them

1:37:42 ↗ because I'm not sure councils gonna know

1:37:44 ↗ well I think Jennifer does so I'm

1:37:47 ↗ thinking you want to see more policies

1:37:50 ↗ addressing things like wildlife

1:37:52 ↗ corridors those other three noxious weed

1:37:57 ↗ things like that in the policies we

1:38:00 ↗ don't know when we're gonna get funded

1:38:02 ↗ to do the green necklace work or the

1:38:04 ↗ green Issaquah work we know what we

1:38:06 ↗ would like to do but it's all based upon

1:38:07 ↗ what funding we get from council to be

1:38:10 ↗ able to go out and do that so it may be

1:38:12 ↗ premature for us to do that but we know

1:38:14 ↗ what body of elements we would like to

1:38:16 ↗ include in that when we do get ready to

1:38:18 ↗ attack that project and so then you

1:38:20 ↗ would be able or I'm sorry I don't mean

1:38:21 ↗ to cut you off no that's okay I'm just

1:38:23 ↗ it's hoping to be a real near-term

1:38:25 ↗ project for us because we understand the

1:38:27 ↗ need and the importance for that but

1:38:29 ↗ it's you know gonna be up to councils to

1:38:31 ↗ when we get the funding sure so but you

1:38:33 ↗ would be able to then it sounds like

1:38:35 ↗ pretty quickly put together a document

1:38:37 ↗ that states the policy of what you would

1:38:39 ↗ like that what what you'd like it to be

1:38:42 ↗ right now well it would be a special

1:38:43 ↗ point that we had send out for an RFQ or

1:38:45 ↗ RFP something like that I think if

1:38:48 ↗ there's specific policies related to

1:38:50 ↗ wildlife corridors or native habitats

1:38:53 ↗ that you would like to see we can make

1:38:54 ↗ sure those are addressed we just know

1:38:56 ↗ that in that work when we work on the

1:38:58 ↗ green essa quad they will be included as

1:39:01 ↗ part of that because it's looking at our

1:39:03 ↗ green infrastructure really in all of

1:39:05 ↗ our native areas in the management of

1:39:07 ↗ them I think that's what we're looking

1:39:09 ↗ for right now because as they're moving

1:39:11 ↗ forward they can take some of these

1:39:13 ↗ policies things and import

1:39:15 ↗ today's there are so looking at it

1:39:20 ↗ policy be 1.4 is recreation and habitat

1:39:25 ↗ interface it's the only policy that I'm

1:39:27 ↗ really seeing that really relates to you

1:39:31 ↗ know like riparian corridors and

1:39:33 ↗ wildlife habitats and and that doesn't

1:39:36 ↗ even come close to there I think we'd

1:39:40 ↗ like to address where where are you

1:39:42 ↗ seeing yeah so there is actually I

1:39:46 ↗ Circle them somewhere sorry there's a so

1:39:55 ↗ policy be policy be one is you know city

1:39:58 ↗ saw promote and protect environmental

1:39:59 ↗ quality open space wildlife habitat

1:40:01 ↗ multi-use recreation opportunities on

1:40:04 ↗ and on the the tricky which is I think

1:40:07 ↗ fine and that's where you could house a

1:40:09 ↗ lot of that a lot of the policies about

1:40:11 ↗ wildlife and any other ecologic

1:40:13 ↗ resources the I think the tricky part is

1:40:17 ↗ that then you go and like policy be 1.3

1:40:20 ↗ and and I'm not saying these for like

1:40:22 ↗ changes I'm just pointing out my

1:40:24 ↗ thoughts we talked about connectivity

1:40:27 ↗ strive to protect if 'ti of natural and

1:40:29 ↗ built environments which is a good thing

1:40:31 ↗ connectivity puros health sustainability

1:40:33 ↗ interaction wayfinding mobility which is

1:40:35 ↗ all about people connectivity and then

1:40:37 ↗ in parentheses at the end it says

1:40:38 ↗ wildlife and habitat which has nothing

1:40:40 ↗ to do with any of that stuff

1:40:41 ↗ and then if you go over to policy C

1:40:44 ↗ under policy C to policy C 2 is all

1:40:49 ↗ about encouragement of play and wise use

1:40:50 ↗ of vegetation which is fine for some

1:40:53 ↗ reason there's native vegetation drought

1:40:55 ↗ tolerant vegetation which are all good

1:40:56 ↗ things and then play areas and signage

1:40:58 ↗ all under the same policy which seems

1:41:01 ↗ like you could take native vegetation

1:41:01 ↗ and native drought and I'm just

1:41:03 ↗ restating what Connie who's done all

1:41:04 ↗ right by the way and pull it up under

1:41:06 ↗ policy b1 and there are other examples

1:41:10 ↗ you know further down and see 3.2 is a

1:41:13 ↗ native environment and and so anyway I

1:41:15 ↗ think it's just I think it's there a lot

1:41:17 ↗ of it is there it's just a matter of

1:41:19 ↗ reorganizing it into those departments

1:41:21 ↗ or buckets so that you can you know find

1:41:24 ↗ the wild corridors you can find the

1:41:26 ↗ trailhead you can find wayfinding

1:41:28 ↗ so for me that the reorganization is is

1:41:31 ↗ the first and most important thing and

1:41:34 ↗ then if at some point in the future you

1:41:36 ↗ know we wanted to come back and look at

1:41:38 ↗ the goals and policies more thoroughly

1:41:39 ↗ you know that could be a something that

1:41:42 ↗ happens in the future and I'd be fine

1:41:43 ↗ with that

1:41:44 ↗ is that something we want to see this

1:41:46 ↗ year like in five months or is that

1:41:47 ↗ something we want to see next year I

1:41:49 ↗ think not knowing completely how the

1:41:52 ↗ process works my recommendation I guess

1:41:54 ↗ would be that that would be something

1:41:55 ↗ that we would see after I mean I think

1:41:59 ↗ if parts could do what they can and

1:42:01 ↗ depending on what council says obviously

1:42:02 ↗ they do what they can with that they get

1:42:05 ↗ there they're blanking on the

1:42:08 ↗ terminology the impact fees squared away

1:42:11 ↗ because that's already behind schedule

1:42:13 ↗ by here and then we could come back and

1:42:15 ↗ revisit this you know I guess either

1:42:17 ↗ later this year possibly next year

1:42:19 ↗ whenever the timing worked out to really

1:42:20 ↗ dig in with a park board dig into the

1:42:22 ↗ goals and policies that's that's my I

1:42:25 ↗ think that's the sort of path of least

1:42:29 ↗ resistance at this point in time we we

1:42:32 ↗ have we've organized keep on going here

1:42:39 ↗ so reorganize sign my sign language

1:42:42 ↗ signage language formulation goals were

1:42:47 ↗ stood with the green and the goals be

1:42:50 ↗ specific and I'm back to us especially

1:42:56 ↗ in the years and some point you put down

1:43:01 ↗ a year I think they're gonna you know

1:43:03 ↗ they have to go battles and they're

1:43:05 ↗ working on other programs and putting

1:43:07 ↗ this all together just lost one staff

1:43:09 ↗ member to so like to add that we can put

1:43:16 ↗ in a year but if it takes them a year

1:43:17 ↗ and a half and they're not done you know

1:43:20 ↗ that processes takes longer but if you

1:43:23 ↗ want to put a date in it or you can just

1:43:24 ↗ say come back to us when you're done

1:43:26 ↗ what is your opinion who's your I put a

1:43:29 ↗ year in there

1:43:30 ↗ sure okay I'm gonna back in here

1:43:37 ↗ as a subjective that's adjusted target

1:43:40 ↗ adjusted target so it sounds like for

1:43:45 ↗ our as far as our safe so for action

1:43:52 ↗ taken 0.3 and it's for these reasons

1:43:54 ↗ that he is a qua PPC decided to

1:43:58 ↗ recommend temporary approval of these

1:44:00 ↗ comp plan amendments with the

1:44:02 ↗ understanding that the parks department

1:44:03 ↗ will return to PPC in one year to work

1:44:06 ↗ on reorganization and amendments needed

1:44:09 ↗ as detailed okay you can recommend that

1:44:21 ↗ it comes back

1:44:24 ↗ yeah we're recommending temporary

1:44:27 ↗ approval with the Enders with the

1:44:29 ↗ understanding that parks comes back to

1:44:31 ↗ us obviously council can say okay we're

1:44:33 ↗ not into that but I'm trying to I'm

1:44:35 ↗ trying to give you the actual language

1:44:36 ↗ of what we're giving back to you that

1:44:39 ↗ we're able to pass along this document

1:44:41 ↗ with the understanding that we want it

1:44:42 ↗ to be a living document that actually is

1:44:45 ↗ got a concrete date of when I suggest

1:44:48 ↗ conditional instead of temporary

1:44:50 ↗ temporaries a little funky okay

1:44:52 ↗ conditional it's on the condition that

1:44:55 ↗ this other thing happens right okay can

1:45:00 ↗ you change this - yeah yes okay so and

1:45:06 ↗ then add my name to it we did it is that

1:45:13 ↗ good that we found do we find - I think

1:45:15 ↗ do we find an area where we're able to

1:45:17 ↗ move forward while still having this

1:45:20 ↗ document be something that is more

1:45:22 ↗ tangibly being worked on so I just I

1:45:27 ↗ know that the parks board and and you

1:45:30 ↗ have put in an enormous amount of work

1:45:31 ↗ in this and you get on a certain way of

1:45:35 ↗ doing things and it sounds great and it

1:45:38 ↗ is great I mean I think everything in

1:45:40 ↗ there sounds good but there's just a few

1:45:44 ↗ little pieces so don't don't look at

1:45:46 ↗ this is like where we redesigning

1:45:48 ↗ everything or you know doing drastic

1:45:51 ↗ stuff it just needs a couple little

1:45:53 ↗ things that maybe you forgot to do and

1:45:55 ↗ that's basically all we're asking you to

1:45:57 ↗ do so one make sure you understood that

1:46:00 ↗ well actually I mean closer I think you

1:46:02 ↗ guys did a really great job with it well

1:46:04 ↗ thank you

1:46:05 ↗ I just as in any strategic plan it's

1:46:11 ↗ always sound so wonderful why can't we

1:46:13 ↗ do it tomorrow we want magic arms we

1:46:17 ↗ want the scientists we want the bushes

1:46:19 ↗ and trees and the canopy and everything

1:46:22 ↗ else so anything else

1:46:24 ↗ oh that emotion it was kid you want me

1:46:30 ↗ to restate what I had said before about

1:46:32 ↗ the changes to action after the action

1:46:35 ↗ taken by the PBC restate the motion yes

1:46:41 ↗ you're here okay I'd like to make a

1:46:42 ↗ motion for a finding of fact as stated

1:46:45 ↗ with the amendment of for section three

1:46:50 ↗ action taken and as there is for these

1:46:52 ↗ reasons that the Issaquah planning

1:46:53 ↗ policy Commission decide to recommend

1:46:56 ↗ conditional approval of these comp plan

1:46:58 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments with the

1:47:01 ↗ understanding that the parks department

1:47:03 ↗ will return to PPC in one year to work

1:47:05 ↗ on the reorganization and the amendments

1:47:08 ↗ needed as we've detailed as submitted to

1:47:11 ↗ the City Council

1:47:21 ↗ if you've got a meal that line

1:47:24 ↗ second second the emotion about Lindsey

1:47:30 ↗ second is imperfect all those in favor

1:47:32 ↗ say aye

1:47:34 ↗ motion carries so I'm gonna put Susan

1:47:37 ↗ okay so thank you for your input I think

1:47:40 ↗ I think we're all on the same page we

1:47:43 ↗ just have to put it together a little

1:47:45 ↗ bit better that's it thank you and now

1:47:55 ↗ we're off to the horse that's the horsey

1:48:01 ↗ horse so do you know the history behind

1:48:04 ↗ the horse I don't know if I do I'll tell

1:48:07 ↗ you I was like that's a good one of our

1:48:11 ↗ artists in the city put it together and

1:48:15 ↗ the Arts Commission planted it where it

1:48:18 ↗ was a big big deal that we we did great

1:48:22 ↗ horse

1:48:24 ↗ okay are we on - hold on Kristen we are

1:48:29 ↗ we're gonna continue with what Troy

1:48:32 ↗ collar a big refresh mode here and we're

1:48:36 ↗ gonna talk about the old town plan but

1:48:37 ↗ what I'd like to do first is our tour on

1:48:39 ↗ the 21st part of the purpose of that was

1:48:41 ↗ to help us figure out what the

1:48:42 ↗ boundaries were gonna be because we've

1:48:43 ↗ had several discussions one was to

1:48:45 ↗ include a northeast gilman and what used

1:48:49 ↗ to be old rotten and part of central

1:48:51 ↗ Issaquah in with old town and another

1:48:53 ↗ discussion came up regarding the south

1:48:55 ↗ the southern part of old town so we've

1:48:58 ↗ got the maps set up at the table and

1:49:00 ↗ we'll just stand around it like we did

1:49:01 ↗ before and I have some markers and we

1:49:03 ↗ can talk about that because it's kind of

1:49:05 ↗ hard to discuss but you want your

1:49:06 ↗ policies to be if you're not sure which

1:49:08 ↗ area you're talking about so I'd like to

1:49:09 ↗ do that first so originally that route

1:49:13 ↗ 10 was in hotel and then we had it was

1:49:19 ↗ in the same essentially sukhasan and

1:49:21 ↗ then it's been discussed that we it was

1:49:23 ↗ moved out of central Issaquah because

1:49:25 ↗ the density wasn't wanted there it

1:49:27 ↗ didn't really have the same feel is what

1:49:28 ↗ we were looking for in central Issaquah

1:49:29 ↗ so it was pulled out of that door

1:49:31 ↗ the visions which are adopted on May

1:49:33 ↗ 21st and we're out of our moratorium and

1:49:36 ↗ then the discussion came up hey let's

1:49:39 ↗ maybe potentially move that into old

1:49:40 ↗ town so exactly how do you want to

1:49:44 ↗ handle this if we do that we are going

1:49:47 ↗ to have a public hearing right so we

1:49:52 ↗ have to make sure that whatever we

1:49:54 ↗ discuss is able for the rest of the

1:49:59 ↗ people that are here to understand and

1:50:01 ↗ see so it's not go here and just point

1:50:04 ↗ here and just kind of discussion I mean

1:50:06 ↗ it's going to be something that they're

1:50:08 ↗ going to base it on so let's do this and

1:50:13 ↗ then have a public hearing right right

1:50:15 ↗ okay so there's microphones down at the

1:50:17 ↗ table so that you're able people are

1:50:19 ↗ able to understand your discussion so we

1:50:22 ↗ would be down there for as long as

1:50:23 ↗ anybody else wanting to come and see

1:50:27 ↗ what we're pointing to you're certainly

1:50:28 ↗ welcome to do that

1:50:50 ↗ we get cookies okay so this the solid

1:50:59 ↗ red line right here is the existing out

1:51:01 ↗ of your old town and this dotted line is

1:51:04 ↗ old route 10 that used to be in central

1:51:07 ↗ and it's now out there on its own and

1:51:09 ↗ being proposed and then this general

1:51:14 ↗ area here is what we discussed also I

1:51:18 ↗ don't know what we would do if it's just

1:51:20 ↗ come up a few times so this is up to you

1:51:22 ↗ guys to discuss and draw and would you

1:51:25 ↗ like so these what have you heard from

1:51:34 ↗ I heard mixed I've only heard from two

1:51:39 ↗ businesses specifically regarding this

1:51:41 ↗ and one was we really want to be a

1:51:43 ↗ particle town and the other was I don't

1:51:46 ↗ really feel like a part of old town by

1:51:48 ↗ the weed would be a partner so what is

1:51:52 ↗ the advantage the zoning right now I

1:52:03 ↗ will let you know next week there's a

1:52:04 ↗ public hearing and right now the

1:52:06 ↗ existing zoning is destination retail

1:52:08 ↗ the proposal is to rezone it to retail

1:52:13 ↗ which is what they were prior to being

1:52:15 ↗ part of central Issaquah reason being in

1:52:18 ↗ central Issaquah that's where we wanted

1:52:19 ↗ our growth to go and our density to grow

1:52:21 ↗ so my Heights actually burning grease

1:52:24 ↗ the base height was increased a little

1:52:25 ↗ bit as destination retail the maximum

1:52:27 ↗ height was still 65 feet but the

1:52:29 ↗ impervious surface was increased to 90%

1:52:31 ↗ and as under retail would be reduced to

1:52:35 ↗ 65% but because it's no longer where we

1:52:39 ↗ are trying to focus growth so which is

1:52:44 ↗ not

1:52:45 ↗ this area our density is fine it's not

1:52:48 ↗ trying to drive over there either

1:52:49 ↗ so you downgrade to 65 how does that

1:52:52 ↗ change does anybody have to do anything

1:52:54 ↗ different the peoples are they're going

1:52:56 ↗ to stay exactly where they are they can

1:52:58 ↗ stay exactly as they are in there would

1:53:00 ↗ be an image of this needed uses I

1:53:02 ↗ checked they'd still be fine they were

1:53:05 ↗ all there under retail in the first

1:53:06 ↗ place so they were there there are some

1:53:10 ↗ that you look at you that have freedom

1:53:12 ↗ pavement there they're several that were

1:53:14 ↗ built prior to even being annexed into

1:53:15 ↗ the city some of those were

1:53:17 ↗ non-conforming under retail

1:53:19 ↗ anyway just as far as moving the

1:53:20 ↗ impervious surface goes or something

1:53:32 ↗ right that's some pretty much paid all

1:53:36 ↗ the way probably and I can't speak

1:53:40 ↗ specifically specifically the evening of

1:53:42 ↗ these properties I haven't sat down and

1:53:43 ↗ said I think this one has this much

1:53:44 ↗ impervious but just if you drive by and

1:53:46 ↗ look at it we haven't really did and

1:53:56 ↗ underneath it if you want to see it as

1:53:58 ↗ an air Nomad

1:53:58 ↗ - we were just trying to flatten these

1:54:00 ↗ out so from what we've discussed before

1:54:08 ↗ trying to go through the neighborhoods I

1:54:10 ↗ remember us being pretty confident

1:54:14 ↗ this every breath saying well we have a

1:54:17 ↗ gas station here it's a paint shop right

1:54:21 ↗ here I mean this could possibly be

1:54:22 ↗ redeveloped it will be moving in central

1:54:27 ↗ but we were pretty much more about this

1:54:43 ↗ so we include this then does that mean

1:54:46 ↗ that redevelopment of this now we'll

1:54:48 ↗ have to align the whole town anyway okay

1:54:52 ↗ so right now we were is there anyone

1:54:58 ↗ here who's questioning that boundary

1:55:01 ↗ all right see what we got it looks like

1:55:03 ↗ oh man yes right do-do-do-do and this is

1:55:06 ↗ the other boundary we were all referring

1:55:08 ↗ to is why is this over here

1:55:11 ↗ [Music]

1:55:20 ↗ our Java can think of the you know I

1:55:23 ↗ looked at the sewer and water lines mom

1:55:24 ↗ think it was there showing septic down

1:55:26 ↗ there there's no when you crystallinity

1:55:39 ↗ said you know when we talk about that

1:55:40 ↗ everything you talked about this area is

1:55:42 ↗ that we I know we have talked about

1:55:44 ↗ ahead of others but yeah I think it was

1:55:52 ↗ very different going dependent so losing

1:56:19 ↗ it all so yeah so give me give me the

1:56:21 ↗ argument of why we would not know I have

1:56:24 ↗ a hard time with this because to me it's

1:56:25 ↗ like I want to hold the schools

1:56:28 ↗ accountable the only just ask for

1:56:30 ↗ exemptions anyways and so they build

1:56:31 ↗ whatever they wanted we're not within

1:56:33 ↗ the design standards anyway so it's kind

1:56:36 ↗ of a loose argument but why would we not

1:56:38 ↗ want to adhere to Oldtown standards

1:56:42 ↗ within that area yeah it doesn't feel

1:56:45 ↗ like Old Town

1:56:48 ↗ they're going down on second I

1:56:50 ↗ definitely felt that way by the time

1:56:52 ↗ we're down here yeah and the way the

1:56:53 ↗ cioppino development is and then you

1:56:57 ↗ also think front as it comes house to

1:57:00 ↗ this point whether at what point do I

1:57:03 ↗ switch to an area where I know well at

1:57:25 ↗ some point it could be leveled and

1:57:27 ↗ rebuilt do we want those two here the

1:57:32 ↗ standard yeah well yeah and I think yeah

1:57:35 ↗ that was so one related question their

1:57:37 ↗ comment that we've heard at one point I

1:57:39 ↗ was like where is the gate with South

1:57:42 ↗ right now it feels like yeah if you you

1:57:48 ↗ know in the future if this kind of

1:57:51 ↗ reward to redevelop that would be a real

1:57:53 ↗ opportunity to kind of change the

1:57:55 ↗ character of that gateway right now it's

1:57:58 ↗ the intersection one second there but

1:58:00 ↗ then you know it's doesn't like feeling

1:58:02 ↗ here in the whole town tight get up here

1:58:03 ↗ these are dated I shouldn't say

1:58:07 ↗ [Music]

1:58:28 ↗ so here's why I struggle with this is

1:59:13 ↗ that you have runs free basically you

1:59:18 ↗ have one side would be the old town here

1:59:20 ↗ this side over here that not be in the

1:59:23 ↗ old town it was redeveloped and they're

1:59:25 ↗ all they actually could be competing

1:59:28 ↗ with each other so to those yz-plane

1:59:31 ↗ almost when I cut it off up here or use

1:59:37 ↗ the cream it is oh yeah this is owned by

1:59:39 ↗ the city yes yeah when you're coming up

1:59:42 ↗ there there's a lot of green here so

1:59:44 ↗ it's not it doesn't look the same as the

1:59:46 ↗ other side right now like when you're

1:59:48 ↗ coming up here this is a lot of coconut

1:59:50 ↗ green all our minds here this is not

1:59:52 ↗ yeah so this is

1:59:54 ↗ the city tries today was acquired yes

1:59:56 ↗ he's trying to it tries to just fire

1:59:58 ↗ copies all along you previously as part

2:00:02 ↗ of I think our question is doing one of

2:00:12 ↗ either chopped off dissidents or do you

2:00:14 ↗ want to chop off this fence right now

2:00:16 ↗ we're saying we'd want to include all of

2:00:18 ↗ this in Old Town it's a problem that it

2:00:23 ↗ looks disjointed so we're trying to make

2:00:26 ↗ this boundary to be friends where right

2:00:28 ↗ now we're saying this is this is a

2:00:30 ↗ horrible right here he were coming down

2:00:32 ↗ from discussion about coming up yes

2:00:47 ↗ would do a thing yes because the feel of

2:00:51 ↗ all of this you know if you're looking

2:00:53 ↗ at all of this this is all similar

2:00:57 ↗ density feel to it you get down to this

2:01:02 ↗ you've got school school and older

2:01:05 ↗ different density you know it definitely

2:01:08 ↗ doesn't have the same street right yes

2:01:15 ↗ yeah that was designation his own town

2:01:21 ↗ missing me that's human old town

2:01:25 ↗ specific set up and then you go into the

2:01:29 ↗ school district and I don't see

2:01:38 ↗ you know it's not gonna be built like

2:01:40 ↗ your house or any of the other downtown

2:01:44 ↗ homes I should say now these get default

2:02:06 ↗ design standards in there but if you

2:02:23 ↗ eliminated this from Old Town and these

2:02:27 ↗ could potentially be an empty

2:02:29 ↗ high-density but there would be no

2:02:32 ↗ architecture standard no

2:02:34 ↗ the zoning is the same they still if

2:02:36 ↗ there is opening under a out of town

2:02:38 ↗ there's still multifamily so we stopped

2:02:41 ↗ a fight with the multi families on the

2:02:42 ↗ same these over here multifamily might

2:02:44 ↗ as well so I think they have the same

2:02:46 ↗ but their architectural standards would

2:02:48 ↗ be different than okay they already are

2:02:49 ↗ they already are

2:02:50 ↗ yeah because the standards in Old Town

2:02:53 ↗ only apply to sunset and the CBD right

2:02:57 ↗ down there not all right so here's

2:03:02 ↗ they're gonna back up a little bit

2:03:04 ↗ what's the point of having this already

2:03:14 ↗ in there we don't have to change it and

2:03:17 ↗ we are enabled a it when Gateway down at

2:03:22 ↗ the bottom of their rather than up in

2:03:25 ↗ this very arty yeah cuz you're

2:03:27 ↗ undeniably it is if I went yeah but are

2:03:32 ↗ you in Old Town that's the big

2:03:33 ↗ difference

2:03:34 ↗ you're an issue well but are you in Old

2:03:35 ↗ Town I don't think you're a different

2:03:38 ↗ working feel yeah I feel like Old Town

2:03:49 ↗ because that was so close to the CBD it

2:03:53 ↗ was we wanted to know just a small area

2:03:55 ↗ to be effective right I'd be weird

2:04:02 ↗ though because there just is the first

2:04:23 ↗ thing I don't know down here are you

2:04:32 ↗ innocent remark until you get up to here

2:04:45 ↗ these are all mid-century modern these

2:04:49 ↗ are not mid-century modern

2:04:51 ↗ this is mid-century modern like fine

2:04:58 ↗ fine residential units or a mid-century

2:05:00 ↗ body there's anything after that I don't

2:05:04 ↗ have a strong feeling about really this

2:05:06 ↗ much but I do it is better for all town

2:05:09 ↗ so this is my first night so someone

2:05:13 ↗ what is the what is the difference

2:05:15 ↗ people

2:05:16 ↗ here I mean there's a code difference

2:05:18 ↗ right there's just a little bit the

2:05:21 ↗ design standards are match here as they

2:05:23 ↗ do standards only apply so this phase

2:05:38 ↗ Oldtown smooth tears one of these

2:05:40 ↗ buildings down and build a new one is it

2:05:42 ↗ going to be the same music business

2:05:49 ↗ right now there's not because you told

2:05:52 ↗ about what we're putting the entry side

2:05:54 ↗ sounds like something if we feel that

2:05:58 ↗ right now this doesn't feel like old

2:06:00 ↗ town but yet maybe we wanted to we're

2:06:03 ↗ planning for the future we say no we

2:06:05 ↗ want old town to draw rather than shrink

2:06:08 ↗ I think is right even though right now

2:06:13 ↗ that isn't the case design centers go in

2:06:15 ↗ the future we could you know our

2:06:19 ↗ children's children look winning policy

2:06:22 ↗ Commission could say no we bought

2:06:23 ↗ strictly by a standard for all yeah I

2:06:28 ↗ understand stretch why back in 1999

2:06:30 ↗ Sanders

2:06:50 ↗ [Music]

2:06:55 ↗ exciting back to I think the basic

2:06:57 ↗ question that we're are they develop

2:07:02 ↗ erosive develop and it's here there was

2:07:05 ↗ a devolve units here make it look

2:07:10 ↗ exactly the same don't value it really

2:07:16 ↗ comes down to where we're gonna put the

2:07:17 ↗ sign I personally vote here this is a

2:07:22 ↗ word to me it feels like I'm entering as

2:07:24 ↗ an old Municipal Center it should be

2:07:27 ↗ these welcome to Issaquah that could be

2:07:29 ↗ you're entering old alright I like to

2:07:32 ↗ make a proposal that we start down here

2:07:37 ↗ because these are all gold houses or

2:07:40 ↗ Venus right and that kind of feels like

2:07:42 ↗ that word we're sorry I mean you could

2:07:44 ↗ make a deer I think that's kind of where

2:07:51 ↗ it starts

2:07:52 ↗ doesn't word kilos and it is all this

2:08:03 ↗ eventually you'll never have an e we

2:08:19 ↗ need to consensus all right so let me

2:08:23 ↗ have some consensus they call town from

2:08:25 ↗ this point please I have a really hard

2:08:29 ↗ time chopping off all this it feels like

2:08:31 ↗ we're shrinking it's all potential I get

2:08:36 ↗ though on the face of it that it doesn't

2:08:38 ↗ actually kill me it's only cosmetic

2:08:42 ↗ because I mean these over here are not

2:08:48 ↗ all that different so we're not remember

2:08:53 ↗ that it was at our last meeting in the

2:08:56 ↗ training when you showed all like the

2:08:58 ↗ original town and then all the

2:09:00 ↗ annexations that map that the original

2:09:03 ↗ town old town was smaller yeah it is

2:09:07 ↗ smaller than that but you said we had

2:09:10 ↗ people from this neighborhood they

2:09:13 ↗ wanted to be I mean we're really talking

2:09:28 ↗ about where we feel the whole town

2:09:30 ↗ starts and stop

2:09:34 ↗ [Music]

2:09:49 ↗ [Music]

2:09:54 ↗ and I don't see any value already the

2:09:56 ↗ other plate has change to the hotel is

2:09:58 ↗ based on business that's don't you get

2:10:02 ↗ here this is where the business is

2:10:03 ↗ started this is what feels like will

2:10:04 ↗ come to me it's not residential it's the

2:10:10 ↗ residential that surrounds and

2:10:12 ↗ incorporates those businesses but I

2:10:15 ↗ would agree that that is the the other

2:10:22 ↗ thing to think about is how could this

2:10:25 ↗ old town sub area be used in the future

2:10:30 ↗ to perhaps designates thing was like

2:10:37 ↗ architectural standards yeah and if so

2:10:42 ↗ would we want it applied to that area or

2:10:46 ↗ does this area feel morally

2:11:04 ↗ yeah we just consolidated all

2:11:43 ↗ neighborhood seems crazy now create a

2:11:46 ↗ sub area plan we're absorbing another

2:11:48 ↗ one you know we have to create another

2:11:57 ↗ neighborhood for that then yes it would

2:12:00 ↗ be part of we'd have to divvy up the sub

2:12:02 ↗ areas in a different way but he was like

2:12:05 ↗ we're forcing it to leave residential

2:12:08 ↗ they tear one of these down they're

2:12:10 ↗ having the same architectural we have it

2:12:16 ↗ clean we have our creepy the school yeah

2:12:18 ↗ words in four five five neighborhoods

2:12:19 ↗ thinking 20 30 years out and someone

2:12:24 ↗ else to come in

2:12:36 ↗ I just think it's odd to have that it is

2:12:42 ↗ too odd you can stop it

2:12:48 ↗ the problem is I'm not hearing a sailors

2:12:50 ↗ reason to take it out on my hair and

2:12:52 ↗ celebrate yeah the sales reason to take

2:12:55 ↗ it out is it doesn't feel special Oh

2:13:06 ↗ business or misuse right so it's one but

2:13:15 ↗ it's gridded residential that is

2:13:18 ↗ designed to get a walk to the business

2:13:22 ↗ areas there so why would we not want to

2:13:33 ↗ because it's it would even have to come

2:13:37 ↗ we'd have to create another sub area

2:13:38 ↗ playing rather than right now

2:13:39 ↗ it's part of a neighborhood you don't

2:13:40 ↗ necessarily have to create a better sub

2:13:42 ↗ area planted to these other areas we

2:13:47 ↗ have to create another neighborhood

2:13:49 ↗ named Warren bulletins

2:14:04 ↗ okay so that mean an administrative the

2:14:07 ↗ movie what's the value yeah I really

2:14:15 ↗ we're just changing main one they want

2:14:19 ↗ to know what is the physical 20 30 15

2:14:27 ↗ years out why would we value this when I

2:14:43 ↗ come down here I'm not going to say oh

2:14:45 ↗ look there's old town that here's

2:14:46 ↗ somewhere else when I get here I know

2:14:49 ↗ hotel hotel those directions out of my

2:14:52 ↗ car I'm in the middle of can someone

2:14:56 ↗ tell me why would we especially the only

2:15:03 ↗ reason I can think is if somebody wanted

2:15:06 ↗ to take the old town sub area and create

2:15:09 ↗ architectural and design standards and

2:15:12 ↗ we Littleton applied down to that area

2:15:16 ↗ personally I don't I mean that's

2:15:20 ↗ stretching that's yeah well to your

2:15:23 ↗ point cats out the bag - this is

2:15:24 ↗ nineteen eighties and nineties

2:15:25 ↗ construction with pulling two or three

2:15:27 ↗ dimensions

2:15:41 ↗ the only thing that the whole town with

2:15:45 ↗ me is a special district right Boulevard

2:15:51 ↗ it has it's not old it sir words with

2:15:59 ↗ four original it's it's different now

2:16:03 ↗ that's why you have to eat on old town

2:16:05 ↗ because it's special so we can go and

2:16:22 ↗ discuss this forever

2:16:23 ↗ so we have too much no no you're right

2:16:27 ↗ because we can't make up our minds you

2:16:30 ↗ know it's wellness yes there's no reason

2:16:33 ↗ for this so either we is it emotion or

2:16:48 ↗ just raise our hands and see who we need

2:16:50 ↗ to talk to you do yeah so I moved to

2:17:00 ↗ change the boundary of old town

2:17:02 ↗ I request we hold any motions until

2:17:05 ↗ after we have the public areas that

2:17:11 ↗ doesn't have a consensus on two options

2:17:16 ↗ is to chop it

2:17:21 ↗ [Music]

2:17:24 ↗ okay so we have option one is is the

2:17:28 ↗ shop where as option two is the leave it

2:17:31 ↗ yes I throw an option three inverse I'd

2:17:48 ↗ like to explain the idea because for

2:17:57 ↗ some reason we ever wanted to play say

2:18:00 ↗ on street lights laying or something

2:18:03 ↗ like that some of the decorative form

2:18:05 ↗ that comes down here would you match

2:18:07 ↗ this as people are coming in to there'd

2:18:09 ↗ be a soft entry into it

2:18:11 ↗ John the sign says you're almost old

2:18:14 ↗ town

2:18:26 ↗ so we have the concept we have 1 2 now 3

2:18:30 ↗ I can tell that I'm in a winning

2:18:32 ↗ position I don't think so ok just we

2:18:54 ↗ needed that for discussion ok so if we

2:18:56 ↗ start talking about the science

2:18:57 ↗ standards and whether or not I'll see

2:19:11 ↗ you keep taking either we keep it in

2:19:14 ↗ Norwood we chop it I think it's I think

2:19:16 ↗ it's ready I don't you know even if we

2:19:18 ↗ don't decide that that's where you drop

2:19:20 ↗ it I think that it can be decided that

2:19:23 ↗ somewhere in there based on whatever so

2:19:27 ↗ what we're going to go back up and then

2:19:28 ↗ we will have a volunteering so we could

2:19:31 ↗ get comments and then yeah I'm going to

2:19:45 ↗ it's in here ok it's in here ok but are

2:19:47 ↗ they taking testimony first or no well I

2:19:50 ↗ was gonna do my presentation first ok ok

2:19:54 ↗ switching gears oops wait

2:20:07 ↗ so switching gears for those who are

2:20:12 ↗ relatively new to this and maybe not

2:20:14 ↗ have attended before this was first

2:20:17 ↗ adopted in 1999 there has only been one

2:20:20 ↗ amendment to it which was in 2009 at

2:20:22 ↗ which point we took out any policies

2:20:24 ↗ referring to the bypass in 2015 a

2:20:28 ↗ council goal was to start addressing Old

2:20:32 ↗ Town there were several different things

2:20:33 ↗ that came up so a task force was

2:20:35 ↗ established was pregnant primarily an

2:20:37 ↗ economic task force but it was a task

2:20:39 ↗ force 2016 based on some of their

2:20:42 ↗ recommendations the old town plan update

2:20:44 ↗ began and part of it was the task force

2:20:47 ↗ like I said addressed mostly businesses

2:20:48 ↗ and front street and sent and sunset but

2:20:52 ↗ the council said we want it to be a

2:20:53 ↗ bigger look so that's what we looked at

2:20:56 ↗ the whole plan and making revisions to

2:20:57 ↗ the plan which would include single

2:20:59 ↗ family in 2017 April 2017 a year over a

2:21:03 ↗ year ago you all made a recommendation

2:21:05 ↗ to approve the amendments that we'd made

2:21:07 ↗ they went to council they went to land

2:21:08 ↗ and Shore three times and then they

2:21:11 ↗ remanded it back to PBC so one of the

2:21:14 ↗ reasons groups we've already discussed

2:21:16 ↗ that one of the reasons that it was

2:21:18 ↗ remanded back was because the plan was

2:21:23 ↗ very abbreviated from the first from the

2:21:27 ↗ tooth from the 1999 plan but then it was

2:21:30 ↗ abbreviated even more so that the

2:21:32 ↗ council thought that it needed another

2:21:33 ↗ look by PBC and another public hearing

2:21:35 ↗ for the public we also have added an

2:21:39 ↗ action program which includes now and

2:21:41 ↗ short term and longer term and the

2:21:44 ↗ proposed changes to the boundary so I

2:21:49 ↗ don't think I will go through every

2:21:51 ↗ policy I will kind of touch on them if

2:21:53 ↗ you all want me to stop feel free I will

2:21:55 ↗ take a look at all of the goals and just

2:21:59 ↗ kind of talk about some of the things in

2:22:00 ↗ there so the first one is goal a so it's

2:22:02 ↗ these have this we have the same

2:22:03 ↗ elements or chapters in here that we do

2:22:05 ↗ in central we have community

2:22:08 ↗ connectivity and mobility environment

2:22:11 ↗ economic vitality

2:22:12 ↗ housing and we actually added housing

2:22:15 ↗ section that was not in the 1999 plan so

2:22:19 ↗ placemaking create inviting identifiable

2:22:22 ↗ and desire lee desirably aesthetic civic

2:22:24 ↗ and cultural gatherings places that

2:22:26 ↗ inspire community engagement so make

2:22:29 ↗ public improvements where people want to

2:22:31 ↗ gather design gateway features and at

2:22:33 ↗ your recommendation we added north south

2:22:35 ↗ east and west not just one use

2:22:38 ↗ wayfinding an art to showcase old town

2:22:40 ↗ and support special events like the Art

2:22:43 ↗ Walk the wine walk salmon days in here

2:22:46 ↗ continuing with goal a formally

2:22:50 ↗ recognize the abundant treasures that

2:22:51 ↗ are in Issaquah or in Old Town I mean

2:22:54 ↗ about 1/3 2/3 1/2 to 2/3 of those are in

2:22:58 ↗ it Old Town incorporate additional

2:23:00 ↗ lighting into public gathering spaces

2:23:01 ↗ and partner with property owners and the

2:23:05 ↗ downtown is across association idea to

2:23:08 ↗ consolidate amenities such as garbage

2:23:10 ↗ and parking which is something that came

2:23:12 ↗ up during public comments B green

2:23:15 ↗ necklace continue the green necklace

2:23:17 ↗ through Old Town by way of a

2:23:18 ↗ concentrated and connected Park green

2:23:20 ↗ space and non-motorized system this will

2:23:22 ↗ evolve as the park play involves but

2:23:24 ↗ we've worked with the park plan on this

2:23:26 ↗ policies and they are fine with them as

2:23:28 ↗ they exist now see this is to maintain

2:23:35 ↗ the traditional building character in

2:23:36 ↗ both the cultural and and business

2:23:39 ↗ district and the sunset neighborhood

2:23:41 ↗ while allowing these areas to grow and

2:23:43 ↗ evolve so things that have come up are

2:23:45 ↗ reducing the height in on the CBD down

2:23:50 ↗ to four feet with setbacks to change it

2:23:53 ↗ from impervious surface requirements to

2:23:55 ↗ green requirements because we have with

2:23:57 ↗ the task force called grubber II which

2:23:59 ↗ might be a little 3 foot 3 square foot

2:24:02 ↗ area of shrubs that don't do anything to

2:24:06 ↗ update design standards and ensure that

2:24:09 ↗ the scale remains consistent with

2:24:10 ↗ everything else similar it's similar in

2:24:13 ↗ the multifamily along sunset the

2:24:16 ↗ multifamily high area but that is to

2:24:19 ↗ allow a maximum of 3 stories as opposed

2:24:22 ↗ to essentially the floor that are

2:24:23 ↗ allowed now I think it's 40 feet

2:24:25 ↗ a neighborhood ownership this is a plan

2:24:31 ↗ to engage residents more often right now

2:24:35 ↗ I'll admit there's no plan to it either

2:24:37 ↗ annually or semi-annually or as events

2:24:39 ↗ come up but come up with a more

2:24:40 ↗ formalized way to engage neighborhoods

2:24:42 ↗ and what's going on in Old Town

2:24:45 ↗ connectivity and mobility this support

2:24:50 ↗ the place making vision and character of

2:24:52 ↗ Old Town by developing safe efficient

2:24:53 ↗ and effective multimodal transportation

2:24:55 ↗ network that prioritizes pedestrians and

2:24:58 ↗ by cliffs so prioritized pedestrian

2:24:59 ↗ facilities meaning fill in some of the

2:25:01 ↗ sidewalk gaps that we have especially in

2:25:03 ↗ the single-family neighborhoods enhance

2:25:06 ↗ and make better connections for

2:25:07 ↗ bicyclists not only within old town but

2:25:09 ↗ to trails and trail heads and work with

2:25:14 ↗ Dia to add weather protection along

2:25:17 ↗ front support the placement continuing

2:25:24 ↗ on that prioritized cyclist facilitate

2:25:28 ↗ mobility options such as the trolley

2:25:30 ↗ which came up here a shopping shuttle to

2:25:33 ↗ improve mobility options for Old Town

2:25:34 ↗ and work with King County Metro and

2:25:36 ↗ other service providers to add routes

2:25:38 ↗ increased frequency of service and

2:25:39 ↗ increased service options in and around

2:25:41 ↗ Old Town reinvest this has already

2:25:47 ↗ started revisit traffic neighborhood

2:25:49 ↗ calming strategies and implement

2:25:50 ↗ improvements that discourage cut through

2:25:52 ↗ traffic huh we did define this you all

2:25:57 ↗ asked us to this is an old version and

2:25:59 ↗ we did define it it's in your packet the

2:26:02 ↗ vision definition of cut through traffic

2:26:04 ↗ and develop and apply solutions to

2:26:05 ↗ manage regional traffic impacts on front

2:26:07 ↗ and sunset increase availability of

2:26:13 ↗ parking spaces and come up with

2:26:14 ↗ alternative solutions such as shared or

2:26:16 ↗ parking districts and update parking

2:26:17 ↗ requirements for new development this

2:26:19 ↗ one came up with the task force they

2:26:21 ↗ were interested in potentially they say

2:26:24 ↗ that one of the difficulties in

2:26:25 ↗ redeveloping their properties is the

2:26:26 ↗ amount of parking that's required yet

2:26:28 ↗ the amount of space that is not there so

2:26:30 ↗ they were looking at potentially

2:26:31 ↗ duplicating the central Issaquah parking

2:26:33 ↗ standards but none of that has been

2:26:35 ↗ decided it's just a proposal from the

2:26:37 ↗ task force

2:26:41 ↗ so environments in rich old town

2:26:45 ↗ retaining and enhancing connections both

2:26:46 ↗ visual and physical to the natural

2:26:48 ↗ environment one that you all worked on

2:26:50 ↗ was required building setbacks to

2:26:52 ↗ preserve use of Issaquah Alps Mount

2:26:54 ↗ Rainier for Northeast Gilman Rainier

2:26:56 ↗ East sunset way west sunset way Front

2:26:58 ↗ Street and Front Street south became

2:26:59 ↗ very s'more specific than it used to be

2:27:05 ↗ protect and contribute to the

2:27:07 ↗ enhancement of old towns natural I think

2:27:10 ↗ that's amenities amen but this is more

2:27:18 ↗ about the it's the development itself by

2:27:21 ↗ means of its after garden ok

2:27:24 ↗ taking fast I don't know what happened

2:27:27 ↗ who knows economic vitality retention in

2:27:32 ↗ attraction promote old town as a vibrant

2:27:34 ↗ neighborhood business opportunity so

2:27:37 ↗ attract businesses that provide goods

2:27:39 ↗ and services both daily goods and

2:27:40 ↗ services to both residents and visitors

2:27:43 ↗ look at pop up ideas temporary solutions

2:27:47 ↗ commit to expand the fiber

2:27:49 ↗ infrastructure we talked about and

2:27:51 ↗ implement code revisions that allow old

2:27:52 ↗ town businesses to be competitive with

2:27:54 ↗ other businesses and retail spaces this

2:27:57 ↗ one we're going to talk about so last

2:27:59 ↗ time we were here we talked about

2:28:00 ↗ formula businesses which are either

2:28:02 ↗ franchises or chains and we asked if you

2:28:05 ↗ all are interested in looking at a way

2:28:07 ↗ to potentially regulate our limit what

2:28:09 ↗ can come in here so what we threw at you

2:28:12 ↗ was is 4.5 proposed policy but after a

2:28:18 ↗ little discussion took place we thought

2:28:19 ↗ huh is it really the use that people

2:28:23 ↗ don't like or say for example heaven

2:28:26 ↗ forbid

2:28:26 ↗ Jax went out of business and an office

2:28:29 ↗ depot went into that space as this would

2:28:32 ↗ that be okay is it really the use that

2:28:36 ↗ is the concern or is it the look of the

2:28:38 ↗ use that's the concern so up here are

2:28:40 ↗ two other options for you all to discuss

2:28:43 ↗ so the first one is actually dealing

2:28:46 ↗ with formula businesses themselves and

2:28:48 ↗ maintain

2:28:50 ↗ consider limiting those but they would

2:28:52 ↗ still allow grocery stores gas stations

2:28:55 ↗ banks without drive-throughs and some

2:28:58 ↗ services professional services other

2:29:01 ↗ options are to amend the design

2:29:03 ↗ standards to ensure that these new

2:29:05 ↗ businesses you know need to comply with

2:29:08 ↗ treasurer number three which is old

2:29:10 ↗ historic district old front Street was

2:29:11 ↗ small and independent shops which also

2:29:13 ↗ kind of limits it but within the

2:29:16 ↗ character and the other one is a little

2:29:17 ↗ more is a little tighter consider

2:29:18 ↗ establishing a threshold for

2:29:19 ↗ redevelopment projects in the culture

2:29:22 ↗ and business district that determines

2:29:24 ↗ whether at which point non-compliant

2:29:25 ↗ properties must come into compliance

2:29:27 ↗ with the old-time design standards

2:29:28 ↗ meaning if a property comes in and

2:29:30 ↗ they're going to develop redevelop their

2:29:32 ↗ property or remodel their property and

2:29:33 ↗ what they're doing is say 25% more than

2:29:36 ↗ the assessed value of their property as

2:29:37 ↗ it exists then their whole building

2:29:39 ↗ would have to come into compliance ok

2:29:43 ↗ any questions about that

2:29:44 ↗ so just to use an example so in in

2:29:50 ↗ downtown right now like the DOM and I

2:29:52 ↗ was down there Domino's is clearly a

2:29:54 ↗ formula franchise but they've moved in

2:29:58 ↗ and they're they're in you know the

2:30:00 ↗ historic building as it is so under

2:30:02 ↗ option a that would be okay under under

2:30:06 ↗ the original proposal they wouldn't be

2:30:08 ↗ able to go in there at all right and can

2:30:13 ↗ you specify what a professional services

2:30:15 ↗ it would be you know my Keith our

2:30:19 ↗ economic development director might be

2:30:22 ↗ able to explain it better but when it

2:30:23 ↗ comes to me I think of insurance and

2:30:25 ↗ maybe banking and I am track there yeah

2:30:29 ↗ that kind of thing attorneys attorneys

2:30:32 ↗ exactly okay Oh would we consider a

2:30:37 ↗ big-box store or grocery actually one of

2:30:41 ↗ the things that's in here that would be

2:30:42 ↗ exempt would be a grocery store right I

2:30:44 ↗ was saying what a big-box be considered

2:30:46 ↗ a grocery oh you mean like a target that

2:30:49 ↗ sells groceries yeah or let's say you

2:30:52 ↗ know yeah or there's the you know

2:30:54 ↗ smaller Wal Mart that is mainly

2:30:57 ↗ groceries I think that would need to be

2:31:00 ↗ looked at because that's a good question

2:31:01 ↗ we have a definition of grocery yeah

2:31:04 ↗ yeah that's the thing is we know we want

2:31:07 ↗ and the community needs to be able to

2:31:09 ↗ have a grocery store in Old Town however

2:31:12 ↗ most you know I be an independent

2:31:14 ↗ grocers are unfortunately going by the

2:31:16 ↗ wayside and it's harder and harder for

2:31:18 ↗ them to survive and so so I'm assuming

2:31:22 ↗ that if we went with either one of these

2:31:24 ↗ that and we did a definition of grocery

2:31:26 ↗ store which you all are looking at is

2:31:27 ↗ you know say 75% of it is groceries or

2:31:30 ↗ you know 75% are up somewhere in there

2:31:38 ↗ I'm just looking for their idea of what

2:31:40 ↗ different of the grocery store is

2:31:41 ↗ because she's right you cannot you

2:31:44 ↗ cannot limit or mandate anything that

2:31:46 ↗ happens within the building itself but

2:31:48 ↗ I'm sure there's a good definition of

2:31:51 ↗ grocery store versus big-box store out

2:31:54 ↗ there that we can find right news okay

2:31:56 ↗ help me understand the formulas business

2:32:00 ↗ again what is the definition of a

2:32:03 ↗ formula of business a formula business I

2:32:06 ↗ can actually pull up it's like a chain

2:32:08 ↗ but it is it or a friend or is it that

2:32:10 ↗ yeah a chain store a franchise store

2:32:11 ↗ that has that has 10 or more 10 or more

2:32:16 ↗ businesses throughout the United States

2:32:17 ↗ ended up 10 or more of its businesses

2:32:20 ↗ throughout the United States okay Oh in

2:32:23 ↗ Old Town going with option B Domino's

2:32:28 ↗ would not be able to open up an

2:32:30 ↗ establishment in Old Town even if they

2:32:32 ↗ don't met the architectural standards

2:32:35 ↗ well that would be if they were if they

2:32:38 ↗ were made again they couldn't open up a

2:32:40 ↗ store they can stay there as long as

2:32:42 ↗ they want that barbecue could because

2:32:44 ↗ Dan's barbecue is a one-shot deal

2:32:46 ↗ correct well where do we draw the line

2:32:50 ↗ like let's say let's let's say Burger

2:32:52 ↗ master wants to come in you're a local

2:32:53 ↗ business but they have several options

2:32:55 ↗ at what point are we saying you know

2:32:57 ↗ franchisee versus legions mm-hmm 210

2:33:00 ↗ locations and Tenant them thank you

2:33:03 ↗ actually like that and keep it more

2:33:07 ↗ mom-and-pop keep it more

2:33:08 ↗ Old Town look and feel is there a

2:33:12 ↗ position of the city on these three no

2:33:14 ↗ not right now you want us to decide

2:33:16 ↗ tonight or this staff doesn't have a

2:33:19 ↗ position Dacian tonight and then we take

2:33:23 ↗ it to City Council and discuss their

2:33:25 ↗ because this was something that you all

2:33:26 ↗ asked for mhm

2:33:29 ↗ just a quick question on option B which

2:33:33 ↗ is you know they would be able to come

2:33:35 ↗ in if they did an upgrade that was

2:33:40 ↗ greater than some Tony you said 25% I

2:33:43 ↗ think in the rest of the city it's 50%

2:33:45 ↗ okay out there

2:33:47 ↗ so that would be essentially the spirit

2:33:50 ↗ of that then is that they're investing

2:33:52 ↗ in Old Town so we're letting them come

2:33:55 ↗ in because they're investing and

2:33:56 ↗ complying with the architectural

2:33:57 ↗ standards and all that stuff correct

2:33:59 ↗ okay so I was just clarification I I

2:34:07 ↗ mean I think my my position on this is I

2:34:09 ↗ like the way 4.5 is written which

2:34:13 ↗ doesn't you know doesn't allow and

2:34:17 ↗ doesn't have any exceptions to it

2:34:19 ↗ basically it just says no formula or

2:34:20 ↗ chain restaurants are allowed in Old

2:34:22 ↗ Town I'm good at that okay ooh to Old

2:34:26 ↗ Town design standards and did they deal

2:34:28 ↗ with height do they deal with super

2:34:30 ↗ footage no not with square footage

2:34:32 ↗ they're limited by their setbacks so

2:34:35 ↗ they may have a zero foot setback in the

2:34:38 ↗ front but they have a ten or fifteen

2:34:40 ↗ foot setback in the rear and then they

2:34:43 ↗ have side set bet they may have side

2:34:45 ↗ setbacks as well so there's - it is

2:34:47 ↗ limited that way but it doesn't Street

2:34:49 ↗ or alleys in the wrench of our

2:34:54 ↗ discussion down there about the tooth

2:34:56 ↗ and actually going all the way out to

2:34:58 ↗ the original boundary if we went with

2:35:01 ↗ 4.5 and Keith this question for you but

2:35:07 ↗ businesses open up in the southern side

2:35:13 ↗ Front Street well are you taking you

2:35:17 ↗ mean South End or family sorry this is

2:35:18 ↗ for Keith but are you do you mean south

2:35:20 ↗ of Evans yes yes if they're allowed

2:35:24 ↗ there by the zoning Oh in sense we would

2:35:26 ↗ actually have protected old town using

2:35:31 ↗ 4.5 but then we would have Domino's

2:35:35 ↗ yourself there's a nor'easter why I

2:35:40 ↗ don't know that you said in Hampton I

2:35:41 ↗ mean I was in multifamily I don't know

2:35:43 ↗ we need to know the zoning duh right

2:35:45 ↗ affirm its multifamily it's multifamily

2:35:48 ↗ high in single-family small lot and

2:35:50 ↗ those aren't allowed there so you

2:35:52 ↗ couldn't get a Domino's I'm trying to

2:35:54 ↗ think out 25 years when when we have all

2:35:57 ↗ these people moving in and we our

2:35:59 ↗ population doubles and all some

2:36:01 ↗ businesses go you know we can't be in

2:36:03 ↗ the middle of old town but we want to be

2:36:05 ↗ close to all towns so we're gonna go

2:36:07 ↗ south oh we didn't see that happen yeah

2:36:12 ↗ they would go on Gilman central right so

2:36:14 ↗ so think about this a little bit

2:36:16 ↗ differently wrong because what this

2:36:18 ↗ affects is the property owners not the

2:36:20 ↗ businesses so if you guys if you guys

2:36:23 ↗ create a smaller bucket right if I'm a

2:36:25 ↗ property owner and I own one of those

2:36:27 ↗ storefronts and I have a tenant leave

2:36:30 ↗ the only people that I can populate that

2:36:33 ↗ space with is now a smaller bucket those

2:36:37 ↗ local mom-and-pop businesses generally

2:36:39 ↗ can't afford the same as those regional

2:36:43 ↗ franchises so as a property owner what

2:36:46 ↗ you're doing is potentially diminishing

2:36:49 ↗ their rent that they could get for their

2:36:51 ↗ space so it's not about the businesses

2:36:54 ↗ there will always be some small business

2:36:56 ↗ wanting to go into a space if it's cheap

2:36:57 ↗ enough but this is really more affecting

2:37:01 ↗ the property owners so just I wanted to

2:37:03 ↗ put that spin on it because that's

2:37:05 ↗ really the way this works out that's

2:37:06 ↗ yeah but that's maybe not promised fully

2:37:09 ↗ happened yet it's easier to expand in

2:37:11 ↗ the future that is to contract it it's

2:37:14 ↗ easier to say you know what we're not

2:37:15 ↗ getting the growth we need or we people

2:37:17 ↗ are going out of business we have empty

2:37:19 ↗ buildings and opening up to chain stores

2:37:22 ↗ or what have you than it is to allow

2:37:24 ↗ them all and now and decide we made a

2:37:26 ↗ huge mistake and

2:37:27 ↗ to contract it in the future and this

2:37:30 ↗ would also prevent things like the

2:37:32 ↗ dollar store

2:37:33 ↗ lazy boy and those establishments from

2:37:37 ↗ coming into old town as they have the

2:37:41 ↗ city attorney seen this pardon me the

2:37:43 ↗ city attorney signed off on this no

2:37:46 ↗ we've talked to the city attorney about

2:37:48 ↗ it and what you can and can't do and

2:37:49 ↗ what we've written down here is fine

2:37:52 ↗ yeah I know you not regarding a specific

2:37:56 ↗ pockets remember - these are policies

2:37:58 ↗ weed sir if this went through we would

2:38:00 ↗ certainly have him help us with the code

2:38:02 ↗ yeah Kristen I know you you already to

2:38:06 ↗ death but can you talk me through option

2:38:08 ↗ B again with the investment so so what

2:38:12 ↗ I'm because I like I'm hearing what

2:38:14 ↗ you're saying Keith that we don't want

2:38:16 ↗ to limit the pool of you know potential

2:38:19 ↗ tenants for property owners but then I'm

2:38:23 ↗ thinking it then how does option B

2:38:26 ↗ affect property owners is that it seems

2:38:29 ↗ like that would be a good thing for them

2:38:30 ↗ because we're acquiring chain stores to

2:38:33 ↗ invest in that so Chili's wants to come

2:38:36 ↗ in - Jax yeah and but they need to make

2:38:40 ↗ improvements and their improvements are

2:38:42 ↗ gonna cost more than 50% of the assessed

2:38:44 ↗ value of what that property is currently

2:38:47 ↗ valued at if that's the case then they

2:38:49 ↗ need to bring the rest of the building

2:38:51 ↗ fully into compliance with the standards

2:38:53 ↗ or let me do is a different ones you've

2:38:55 ↗ got houses up on Front Street that are

2:38:59 ↗ part of CBD and they want to do it

2:39:02 ↗ they'd have to come fully into

2:39:03 ↗ compliance and if the standards are that

2:39:04 ↗ they have to come up to the front come

2:39:06 ↗ up to the front property line and all

2:39:09 ↗ the parking has to be in the back it's

2:39:11 ↗ essentially a rebuild of that property

2:39:12 ↗ and to build something in compliance and

2:39:18 ↗ the city staff reach out to dia and get

2:39:22 ↗ a comment on this we can

2:39:27 ↗ tell about the chamber no the downtown

2:39:29 ↗ is going downtown this Christmas wish

2:39:31 ↗ like there's no reason not to reach out

2:39:36 ↗ to the chamber as well because yeah yeah

2:39:40 ↗ because I you know like on on the

2:39:43 ↗ surface I like the idea of not allowing

2:39:46 ↗ change towards Middletown but I don't

2:39:48 ↗ like the idea of you know penalizing the

2:39:51 ↗ property owners basically and not

2:39:53 ↗ getting up and giving them the

2:39:54 ↗ opportunity to have tenants and I don't

2:39:58 ↗ know enough about the relationship

2:40:00 ↗ between property owners and tenants to

2:40:01 ↗ know what B would do like because B

2:40:04 ↗ might also limit it if the tenants like

2:40:06 ↗ well if I'm not gonna go there because

2:40:07 ↗ it's just the economics don't work

2:40:09 ↗ because I have to invest a bunch of

2:40:12 ↗ money to come up to standards then I'm

2:40:14 ↗ gonna go somewhere else but I don't have

2:40:15 ↗ to so seems like and and that's a

2:40:18 ↗ completely hypothetical my with no data

2:40:21 ↗ but it seems to me that right now I'm

2:40:25 ↗ changing my mind that the best option I

2:40:27 ↗ think is option B I know I'm wishy-washy

2:40:30 ↗ is anyone in here familiar with the

2:40:32 ↗ dollar store and how that process led up

2:40:35 ↗ I'm just curious because it's at naked

2:40:38 ↗ for a while so was it vacant because we

2:40:40 ↗ couldn't find local businesses to invest

2:40:44 ↗ in or was it vacant because the owners

2:40:47 ↗ were waiting for the highest bid which

2:40:48 ↗ is a chain store thing was the highest

2:40:51 ↗ paid so so it's so this is economics

2:40:59 ↗ there was red apple market could was

2:41:04 ↗ willing to take that space at eight

2:41:07 ↗ dollars a square foot Dollar Tree is 12

2:41:11 ↗ what was it what was the market or they

2:41:15 ↗ markets which you can get right no no

2:41:17 ↗ when the original market was out I shut

2:41:19 ↗ down where were they paying for a square

2:41:20 ↗ foot

2:41:21 ↗ [Music]

2:41:23 ↗ so they were probably around eight or

2:41:26 ↗ ten the problem is also that that market

2:41:29 ↗ because they kind of closed in the

2:41:32 ↗ middle of the night they left the owner

2:41:34 ↗ with not only a big problem because the

2:41:38 ↗ store needed to be cleaned out but also

2:41:41 ↗ expectation for lease payments that the

2:41:45 ↗ property owner then obviously didn't get

2:41:46 ↗ so so their desire to potentially risk

2:41:51 ↗ that outcome on another local user was

2:41:55 ↗ also another reason why they went with

2:41:57 ↗ guaranteed money right that's why the

2:42:00 ↗ concern right is we open this up to

2:42:02 ↗ chain stores and they start out bidding

2:42:05 ↗ out pricing the mama pops that may have

2:42:08 ↗ the economic ability to move in there

2:42:11 ↗ all sudden were stuck with chain stores

2:42:13 ↗ in old town yeah I was thinking the same

2:42:15 ↗ yeah and chain stores can go anywhere

2:42:19 ↗ else in the city and so being able to

2:42:22 ↗ Highland because it's economics in the

2:42:25 ↗ building I'm absolutely gonna want the

2:42:27 ↗ most I can possibly get per square foot

2:42:29 ↗ I I don't know if I'm morally going to

2:42:34 ↗ say I'm gonna save it for a mama pop and

2:42:36 ↗ make half the money right this that's

2:42:38 ↗ not what they're there to do and what if

2:42:40 ↗ it didn't look like a franchise or a

2:42:42 ↗ chain store what if it was the a chain

2:42:44 ↗ store but they just changed the logo

2:42:46 ↗ changed the sign changed what the inside

2:42:49 ↗ looked like so it looked you know

2:42:51 ↗ there's some towns that that require you

2:42:54 ↗ not to look like the storefront nursing

2:42:57 ↗ right like the logos different or

2:42:59 ↗ because they're trying to look more like

2:43:01 ↗ the town that they're in Leavenworth is

2:43:04 ↗ a great some ideas over here all right

2:43:08 ↗ I'm just saying is the prescription is

2:43:11 ↗ it the use or is it what the use looks

2:43:13 ↗ like it's really a deep a deep analysis

2:43:16 ↗ to think about because we are really

2:43:18 ↗ making the decision between franchises

2:43:22 ↗ that can pay more money versus the

2:43:24 ↗ mom-and-pop so we're really creating a

2:43:26 ↗ protection or small mom-and-pop

2:43:30 ↗ operations

2:43:32 ↗ to have businesses in Oldtown versus

2:43:36 ↗ chain operation that could easily be in

2:43:39 ↗ the CIP I think that's fair Trish to

2:43:41 ↗ your point if you know we'll call it

2:43:44 ↗ mom-and-pop couch store and moved in

2:43:47 ↗ where you know where some lazy boy was

2:43:50 ↗ what we feel differently I think we

2:43:52 ↗ would I from my from my seat here and

2:43:55 ↗ saying that somebody's selling chairs

2:43:56 ↗ versus a chain store who had already had

2:43:59 ↗ a failed spot in the city coming in I

2:44:02 ↗ feel differently about so to use the

2:44:05 ↗ examples that we have I would say that

2:44:08 ↗ it's less about what they're selling and

2:44:10 ↗ more about how they're contributing to

2:44:11 ↗ community and so I think it's more than

2:44:14 ↗ just how it looks

2:44:15 ↗ yep and if they go with option B all

2:44:19 ↗ they have to do is say we're gonna we're

2:44:21 ↗ going to change 25 percent or more of

2:44:23 ↗ our building and then we're going to go

2:44:24 ↗ ahead and take the whole building down

2:44:26 ↗ and rebuild a new building and it may be

2:44:28 ↗ within our height Stanners but we lose

2:44:30 ↗ the character character of the

2:44:33 ↗ centralizer

2:44:36 ↗ they'd have to meet that yeah it still

2:44:39 ↗ have to meet the design standards which

2:44:41 ↗ are pretty involves windows and

2:44:46 ↗ materials and doors and locations and it

2:44:48 ↗ wouldn't be final colors yeah I mean so

2:44:52 ↗ the design stairs do they are they

2:44:54 ↗ current designs for the dollar store and

2:44:56 ↗ for lazyboy are those do those match in

2:44:58 ↗ design Staters they do not they were not

2:45:01 ↗ on place right okay got it

2:45:03 ↗ what do you mean they were not in place

2:45:05 ↗ weren't they not in place when those

2:45:07 ↗ plans were approved that correct yeah

2:45:10 ↗ yeah

2:45:16 ↗ okay should we I mean

2:45:20 ↗ Joan do you want to move on do you want

2:45:22 ↗ to continue this discussion we want to

2:45:24 ↗ wrap up and actually have a vote on this

2:45:27 ↗ portion or do you want to well we need

2:45:30 ↗ public comment before any of it yes I

2:45:34 ↗ don't know if I would just what mom and

2:45:37 ↗ pop I would like or is that draw people

2:45:43 ↗ in and generally that draw people in and

2:45:48 ↗ and stay in and provide a service that

2:45:51 ↗ the people here want you're not gonna

2:45:55 ↗ have any big stores they're small units

2:46:01 ↗ I don't know if that's really the right

2:46:05 ↗ way of go

2:46:06 ↗ I don't want box stores in there but I

2:46:08 ↗ don't want just mom and pop even just an

2:46:12 ↗ old town I think is you have the

2:46:13 ↗ Highlands I mean there's other places in

2:46:15 ↗ this city for all variety of businesses

2:46:18 ↗ to come but if you live in Old Town you

2:46:20 ↗ want to have some basis of staying in

2:46:23 ↗ there you don't want to have to get in

2:46:24 ↗ your car and drive to the islands for

2:46:26 ↗ everything you need you think this will

2:46:28 ↗ drive out the ability to have services

2:46:31 ↗ in the area oh this is just a comment to

2:46:33 ↗ me I'm not sure if I want just mom and

2:46:37 ↗ pop now you can come in with mom and pop

2:46:39 ↗ card store and a mom and pop this and a

2:46:42 ↗ mom and pop dot and that's all good and

2:46:44 ↗ and they you know as a business that's

2:46:47 ↗ great but is that what you want for

2:46:50 ↗ downtown you want an insurance company

2:46:53 ↗ and a card store or do you want

2:46:55 ↗ something that's actually going to bring

2:46:57 ↗ people downtown and I don't know how you

2:47:00 ↗ do that a mom-and-pop could bring bring

2:47:02 ↗ people downtown and so could a box store

2:47:05 ↗ that maybe is not the big Lowe's but a

2:47:09 ↗ national brand that is basically a small

2:47:13 ↗ or so to me that's very difficult and

2:47:17 ↗ you mentioned footprints we have

2:47:19 ↗ buildings on Front Street that have

2:47:20 ↗ multiple businesses right what's to stop

2:47:23 ↗ a single business coming in and

2:47:25 ↗ occupying

2:47:27 ↗ of multiple locations to where you have

2:47:30 ↗ you do have a big box turn out that you

2:47:32 ↗ know stretches 200 feet of Front Street

2:47:35 ↗ I am familiar with two different

2:47:37 ↗ locations now they're in northern

2:47:38 ↗ Michigan but two locations where Ace

2:47:41 ↗ Hardware has come in and occupied

2:47:43 ↗ buildings in old towns their central

2:47:46 ↗ downtown's

2:47:47 ↗ and in one case they did that they

2:47:49 ↗ knocked down the shared walls and took

2:47:52 ↗ it all along the street but the street

2:47:54 ↗ still has the same character you still

2:47:56 ↗ have the same windows you still have the

2:47:57 ↗ brick you still have everything that was

2:48:00 ↗ there you know 80 years ago it's just

2:48:03 ↗ how the piece sorry it just has an Ace

2:48:05 ↗ Hardware I think we need to think this

2:48:09 ↗ through we're all over the place there's

2:48:13 ↗ no consistency well there is some

2:48:15 ↗ consistency no we've changed our stories

2:48:17 ↗ multiple times here's I think we what's

2:48:20 ↗ our timeline deadline what's the

2:48:22 ↗ requirements the idea was that there'd

2:48:25 ↗ be a recommendation tonight I mean but

2:48:28 ↗ but there is no deadline and just put

2:48:31 ↗ you know just postpones it all right you

2:48:32 ↗ know we'd like to get started on the

2:48:33 ↗ design standards sooner rather than

2:48:35 ↗ later but you want to get it right you

2:48:37 ↗ want to know what your vision is and

2:48:38 ↗ what you're designing for before you

2:48:40 ↗ start that so there's two issues it's

2:48:43 ↗ drawing of where it is and the rest of

2:48:48 ↗ that goals so I want you to keep that

2:48:51 ↗ thought and I want to open up the public

2:48:53 ↗ hearing can I can I pull out one more

2:48:55 ↗ thing okay please okay so I'll skip most

2:48:57 ↗ of this seat none it hasn't changed you

2:48:59 ↗ can't evict ality housing I will bring

2:49:01 ↗ up the point though for residents that

2:49:04 ↗ there is a proposal to do design

2:49:07 ↗ standards for single-family housing

2:49:09 ↗ which would be like our single-family

2:49:10 ↗ duplex area that has not been done in

2:49:12 ↗ the city before but PBC has proposed it

2:49:14 ↗ and that's just to keep the character of

2:49:17 ↗ the area there's there are two new

2:49:21 ↗ things that have come up you'll see

2:49:23 ↗ number six down here so one of the

2:49:26 ↗ things that we've discussed is kind of

2:49:27 ↗ reducing or maintaining the density in

2:49:29 ↗ Old Town there are areas and this is an

2:49:32 ↗ extension of that there are areas in Old

2:49:34 ↗ Town that are actually receiving sites

2:49:36 ↗ which means bill that there are sin

2:49:40 ↗ sites and receiving sites and if they're

2:49:41 ↗ sending sites or areas that we would

2:49:43 ↗ like to see remain natural or open

2:49:46 ↗ spaces and the development rights for

2:49:48 ↗ those properties could be purchased and

2:49:50 ↗ then applied to receiving sites who can

2:49:53 ↗ build higher so there are some receiving

2:49:55 ↗ sites in Old Town and this proposal

2:49:58 ↗ would be to make code revisions to

2:49:59 ↗ remove all of the Old Town parcels that

2:50:01 ↗ are receiving sites from that from being

2:50:05 ↗ able to do that thank you

2:50:07 ↗ so that is new in here tonight another

2:50:13 ↗ thing that I apologize I didn't put in

2:50:16 ↗ here but I just want to point out that

2:50:17 ↗ we did do it let's see it's number 12 up

2:50:23 ↗ here which would now be number 13 it

2:50:26 ↗ came up last time to conduct a fight net

2:50:29 ↗ this says conduct a financial analysis

2:50:31 ↗ to identify funding for implementation

2:50:33 ↗ of the front street streetscape plan in

2:50:34 ↗ the plan that does say at a

2:50:37 ↗ recommendation last time to do the

2:50:39 ↗ funding implementation of mmm and it's

2:50:42 ↗ cut off here unfortunately phases that

2:50:45 ↗ address pedestrian areas which would be

2:50:48 ↗ front all the way in three different

2:50:50 ↗ phases all the way from sunset up to

2:50:52 ↗ Gilman do the financial analysis for

2:50:57 ↗ that piece first and then in the next

2:50:59 ↗ section 22 21 or 22 22 then do the look

2:51:04 ↗ at a physical analysis for the rest of

2:51:06 ↗ the streetscape plan that came up at our

2:51:09 ↗ last meeting whether we discussed this

2:51:10 ↗ that change was made okay I'm done

2:51:15 ↗ so now I will open up the public hearing

2:51:19 ↗ at 9:25 and ask if anybody wants to

2:51:24 ↗ discuss to the old town plan please sir

2:51:32 ↗ and I hope your wife is doing well she

2:51:35 ↗ is thank you

2:51:36 ↗ it's some political thing any rate I'm

2:51:41 ↗ bill Frey singer I live at 4:15

2:51:42 ↗ southeast Bush Street in the old town

2:51:45 ↗ area there's a quick aside the idea of

2:51:49 ↗ not renting transfer of Delevan right

2:51:52 ↗ seems like a really great idea and an

2:51:56 ↗ objective for you tonight might be to

2:51:57 ↗ agree at least on the boundaries of the

2:52:00 ↗ map there and I have an input on that in

2:52:04 ↗ that initially I like the idea of the

2:52:06 ↗ grip going down Front Street where

2:52:12 ↗ there's old houses and - you can't go

2:52:14 ↗ down to where the apartments are but in

2:52:15 ↗ thinking about it I don't know what the

2:52:19 ↗ zoning is in those houses but sooner or

2:52:20 ↗ later they're going to be that's going

2:52:22 ↗ to be developed anyway it's on a it's

2:52:25 ↗ not a busy street so I'd be tempted to -

2:52:29 ↗ those houses that that slide down a

2:52:32 ↗ couple of blocks to have that outside on

2:52:35 ↗ the grounds that it's bound to get

2:52:37 ↗ redeveloped in an area that wouldn't fit

2:52:40 ↗ in with Old Town on the subject of

2:52:46 ↗ they're really naughty one about how

2:52:49 ↗ you're gonna what you gonna permit I

2:52:53 ↗ agree it's naughty but keep in mind that

2:52:56 ↗ the two big spots you've got where

2:53:00 ↗ dollar is right now and we're lazy boy

2:53:03 ↗ is it's very different than then kind of

2:53:09 ↗ the rest of it and what makes sense for

2:53:12 ↗ the rest of it but necessarily make

2:53:14 ↗ sense for those grocery store could go

2:53:16 ↗ and either one of those admittedly but I

2:53:19 ↗ can't think of anything else they could

2:53:22 ↗ go in that would fit your standards if

2:53:25 ↗ you if you had rules about the you know

2:53:29 ↗ like big

2:53:29 ↗ big-box stores if you had rules about

2:53:32 ↗ appearance then that would be easier to

2:53:35 ↗ work I sort of like the idea that he had

2:53:39 ↗ a rule that you know what a lot Apple

2:53:42 ↗ come in was that less sort of attractive

2:53:44 ↗ but not only is it awkward for the owner

2:53:49 ↗ but I got another big store and I don't

2:53:52 ↗ know what I put in that spot so anyway I

2:53:57 ↗ have think about these big sites in

2:54:00 ↗ addition to the little sites when you're

2:54:02 ↗ trying to decide what to do thank you

2:54:04 ↗ very much

2:54:15 ↗ I guess looking at the empty audience

2:54:18 ↗ it's my turn so several thoughts so I

2:54:22 ↗ kind of think of this conceptually I

2:54:24 ↗ think there's a lot of charges for their

2:54:26 ↗ christie pereira old town about ten

2:54:28 ↗ years it seems like there's a lot of

2:54:32 ↗ neighborhoods in this quad they're kind

2:54:34 ↗ of organized and involved and they had

2:54:35 ↗ kind of specific plans like talus and

2:54:37 ↗ the highlands area and there was

2:54:41 ↗ particular vision and kind of what i

2:54:43 ↗ hear now when i look at development of

2:54:46 ↗ the old town neighborhood is a group

2:54:49 ↗ that doesn't really have that same

2:54:50 ↗ organization and i hear a lot of people

2:54:54 ↗ saying this is what we want you to

2:54:55 ↗ become and it's not so much i think or

2:54:57 ↗ an organic sense of what people living

2:54:59 ↗ there want to be to be told to have

2:55:03 ↗ higher density less improved or more

2:55:09 ↗ yeah less impervious or more impervious

2:55:11 ↗ service i was get that mixed up so that

2:55:17 ↗ kind of concerns me specifically i was

2:55:20 ↗ thinking about the old route 10 area was

2:55:23 ↗ talked about being removed from central

2:55:26 ↗ Issaquah plan one of the things i guess

2:55:28 ↗ i would like to hear as part of that is

2:55:30 ↗ what are the reasons pro and con for

2:55:32 ↗ that from the city standpoint the same

2:55:35 ↗ thing could be said about moving the

2:55:37 ↗ area that's south what are the areas of

2:55:39 ↗ pros and cons I'm not even really heard

2:55:41 ↗ that strong argument why one or the

2:55:43 ↗ other the thing that occurs to me as far

2:55:45 ↗ as the old route 10 it was originally

2:55:48 ↗ thought it could be its own neighborhood

2:55:49 ↗ I know there are some businesses I would

2:55:51 ↗ specifically like to slap this central

2:55:54 ↗ cultural business district label on like

2:55:59 ↗ like bombs chocolate like the grains

2:56:02 ↗ like I'm sorry the hamburger place that

2:56:07 ↗ I can soon remember the name of thank

2:56:08 ↗ you that are definitely cultural

2:56:11 ↗ treasures that I think we're going to

2:56:12 ↗ lose to development if we just let it be

2:56:15 ↗ zoned er without protecting them in some

2:56:18 ↗ way I think though you keep the area

2:56:22 ↗ expanded from a sense of protecting what

2:56:26 ↗ is the old town historic

2:56:28 ↗ hood and have it that it kind of be a

2:56:30 ↗ transitional area I think you need to

2:56:32 ↗ look again 10 20 25 years out for our

2:56:36 ↗ kids as kids to be there what do we

2:56:39 ↗ wanted you to protect that area do we

2:56:40 ↗ want to look at change in the zoning all

2:56:42 ↗ that I think that needs to be a part of

2:56:44 ↗ the discussion going forward that was

2:56:49 ↗ kind of big picture the memo from the

2:56:55 ↗ fine and a fact sheet I found strange

2:56:58 ↗ and that are talked about On June 14th

2:57:00 ↗ the PBC recommends doing certain things

2:57:03 ↗ it was printed out beforehand I don't

2:57:05 ↗ understand why it was been Dad presuming

2:57:06 ↗ you were all going to prove what was

2:57:09 ↗ encouraged so I found that strange

2:57:12 ↗ specifically amen amendment 3 this is on

2:57:15 ↗ defining a fact sheet I guess I'm

2:57:22 ↗ looking at the PPC not recommending I'm

2:57:31 ↗ trying to find the exact wording

2:57:38 ↗ environmental reviews not be considered

2:57:42 ↗ that were applied to April 21st 2017 I

2:57:44 ↗ think you gotta have requirement to have

2:57:49 ↗ that for each each proposed construction

2:57:53 ↗ it has it goes forward not a blanket

2:57:55 ↗ statement applied the table of contents

2:58:01 ↗ on the tape of the actually the whole

2:58:04 ↗ town the old town map with the whole

2:58:07 ↗ with the horse picture on it

2:58:10 ↗ I just wanted with that and yes I'm

2:58:13 ↗ sorry I do have some comments the

2:58:15 ↗ quality of life sections of page four I

2:58:18 ↗ didn't like the open the statement truly

2:58:20 ↗ gate great neighborhoods are those that

2:58:22 ↗ organic those that have evolved and

2:58:24 ↗ grown over time take place where people

2:58:25 ↗ want to live work and visit I think we

2:58:28 ↗ can be a great neighborhood and still

2:58:29 ↗ keep that character and charm that's in

2:58:31 ↗ place so I kind of reject that premise

2:58:37 ↗ number two cut through traffic has been

2:58:44 ↗ worse I think we definitely do something

2:58:47 ↗ about that but I think adding density of

2:58:49 ↗ apartment complexes and businesses

2:58:55 ↗ retail businesses and ground-floor and

2:58:57 ↗ apartment complexes on the top floors

2:58:59 ↗ are going to only add to the density add

2:59:01 ↗ to the parking pressures that exist when

2:59:04 ↗ folks have already rejected a tax

2:59:06 ↗ proposal to add parking and you already

2:59:11 ↗ have traffic zones traffic's streets

2:59:14 ↗ that are exempted because we're already

2:59:15 ↗ feeling for the traffic areas I think

2:59:18 ↗ that needs to be considered as part of

2:59:19 ↗ the discussion going forward same page

2:59:23 ↗ number five a lot of the business owners

2:59:29 ↗ feel that development calls are outdated

2:59:30 ↗ again we're not meant to be the CIP were

2:59:32 ↗ meant to be the cultural business

2:59:33 ↗ searchers do Old Town sub-area plan just

2:59:36 ↗ because somebody wants to develop

2:59:37 ↗ something doesn't mean the standard is

2:59:38 ↗ old so I think I reject that premise if

2:59:42 ↗ you want something different then

2:59:44 ↗ developing the Hyland's develop in the

2:59:47 ↗ Gilman Boulevard area lots of places to

2:59:49 ↗ develop

2:59:58 ↗ page five all-time zakat will be looks

3:00:03 ↗ like the fifth fourth the fourth bullet

3:00:06 ↗ a safe diverse and welcoming

3:00:07 ↗ neighborhood

3:00:08 ↗ I'm just understanding what the what the

3:00:11 ↗ term diverse means to is it doesn't mean

3:00:13 ↗ types of businesses to be something

3:00:16 ↗ different than a unique and special

3:00:17 ↗ character place will be big-box stores

3:00:19 ↗ will be whatever that's the part that

3:00:21 ↗ concerns me if it's going to be

3:00:22 ↗ something different than the business

3:00:24 ↗ opportunities that make it unique and

3:00:26 ↗ quaint that draw people to it that is

3:00:29 ↗ the Issaquah that we think of when we

3:00:31 ↗ think of as Gua then I have concerns

3:00:34 ↗ with changes that would allow that take

3:00:38 ↗ place page six number one just two

3:00:45 ↗ comments isn't so place making there are

3:00:51 ↗ some businesses restaurants that have

3:00:53 ↗ placed umbrellas and public parking I

3:00:55 ↗ like to make sure the umbrellas don't

3:00:56 ↗ have advertisement for another place it

3:00:59 ↗ just becomes a billboard it doesn't

3:01:00 ↗ become part of the restaurant proceeding

3:01:03 ↗ so it becomes more marketing so no I'm

3:01:07 ↗ working loud the other was that you're

3:01:10 ↗ not allowed to smoke within 25 feet of

3:01:12 ↗ public buildings so I think those all

3:01:13 ↗ those places should be no smoking it

3:01:16 ↗ should be marked in the forest by the

3:01:17 ↗ current restaurant if not then enforced

3:01:19 ↗ by the law

3:01:22 ↗ moving down goal c 1.9 I'm guess I'm

3:01:30 ↗ only in favor of two stories worth of

3:01:33 ↗ growth there are not the four stories

3:01:36 ↗ that are proposed the same for one point

3:01:38 ↗ ten which to apply to the sunset area

3:01:40 ↗ part of my concerns are traffic is

3:01:46 ↗ already good LOC parkings or a good

3:01:47 ↗ locked you're going to add more people

3:01:48 ↗ more density where even apart and place

3:01:50 ↗ those people when you don't have that in

3:01:51 ↗ place today

3:01:56 ↗ golde 1.11 established regularly

3:02:00 ↗ recurring community forum with all ten

3:02:02 ↗ residents property and business owners

3:02:04 ↗ and I guess I understand what the

3:02:05 ↗ mechanism is for residents who have

3:02:08 ↗ concerns that that is not just listened

3:02:10 ↗ to and heard but

3:02:11 ↗ some type of mechanism that allows

3:02:12 ↗ enforcement of those concerns over the

3:02:17 ↗ prioritized business development that

3:02:19 ↗ seems to be occurring

3:02:23 ↗ goli balanced transportation 2.3 I'm not

3:02:28 ↗ a fan of allowing weather protection on

3:02:30 ↗ the facades I think the cultural

3:02:32 ↗ business district is unique character

3:02:35 ↗ and charm if you allow weather

3:02:36 ↗ protection it's going to have uniformity

3:02:39 ↗ and sameness of the businesses I think

3:02:40 ↗ that's a bad feature it rains in

3:02:43 ↗ Issaquah but it also blocks the sunshine

3:02:45 ↗ when you put in weather parking so I'm

3:02:48 ↗ not in favor of that for that reason oh

3:02:55 ↗ gee parking 2.9 I guess I'm in favor if

3:02:59 ↗ businesses want to increase parking then

3:03:01 ↗ let them pay for parking let them pay

3:03:04 ↗ for strikes that will allow that I don't

3:03:06 ↗ think that should be public funder

3:03:08 ↗ dollars to promote the business goal age

3:03:11 ↗ natural environment this is page 8 3.1

3:03:17 ↗ [Music]

3:03:24 ↗ so I guess I'm not as much a fan of

3:03:26 ↗ green facades living walls and landscape

3:03:28 ↗ walls I'm in favor of the greenery and

3:03:30 ↗ the lower density permeable spaces I

3:03:34 ↗ think if you take out an existing tree

3:03:36 ↗ you need to replace it with an existing

3:03:37 ↗ style tree not shrubbery or a smaller

3:03:41 ↗ green tree that can fit into a tree pot

3:03:47 ↗ again keep the same existing permeable

3:03:52 ↗ surface requirements that are in place I

3:03:54 ↗ don't think you should allow a 95%

3:03:55 ↗ permeable surface non permeable surfaces

3:03:59 ↗ I guess I'm not not a fan of the the

3:04:03 ↗ setbacks for the buildings that was

3:04:06 ↗ three point four three point five again

3:04:10 ↗ replace existing agent Ruiz with the

3:04:12 ↗ same style a tree that you removed for

3:04:16 ↗ carbon offset goal I sustainability so I

3:04:25 ↗ guess there's I just want to talk about

3:04:27 ↗ it talks about the word encourage I'm

3:04:28 ↗ sure we're not saying that we're in

3:04:30 ↗ incentivize so again I'm not sure that I

3:04:32 ↗ want to say public dollars spent for

3:04:34 ↗ solar energy necessarily on the

3:04:37 ↗ businesses without better understand at

3:04:41 ↗ least what that is and 3.7 was the

3:04:45 ↗ charging stations I think residents

3:04:47 ↗ already if they live in Issaquah they

3:04:49 ↗ probably and have an electric car they

3:04:50 ↗ have charging options at home so I don't

3:04:51 ↗ think we need that for residents and I'm

3:04:55 ↗ not sure that the college you have any I

3:04:57 ↗ don't want to cut you off but you've

3:05:00 ↗ gone through every I haven't gone

3:05:02 ↗ through every respectfully really close

3:05:05 ↗ I've got three pages but there is sort

3:05:10 ↗ of a time limit III don't know how to

3:05:13 ↗ incorporate everything that you said I

3:05:16 ↗ know that some of the ideas are you know

3:05:21 ↗ valid I don't know how to this is fair

3:05:30 ↗ to say you don't like this documents to

3:05:31 ↗ you I have some concerns with the

3:05:34 ↗ document I'm not sure that I'd say that

3:05:35 ↗ I'm dislike it

3:05:37 ↗ and I was trying to address the

3:05:39 ↗ specifics of what I didn't like to try

3:05:42 ↗ to be actionable in the hopes that you

3:05:46 ↗ could find support for those things and

3:05:49 ↗ make changes in in order to fully

3:05:54 ↗ address I mean that's what public

3:05:57 ↗ hearing is is to hear your comments but

3:06:01 ↗ since there are so many the only way I

3:06:05 ↗ could really understand and really look

3:06:08 ↗ at what you're saying is if you actually

3:06:11 ↗ write it out if you're willing to take

3:06:16 ↗ the time to put some of those ideas take

3:06:21 ↗ the first onee and give us some idea I

3:06:28 ↗ mean cuz I'm having a hard time hearing

3:06:31 ↗ everything that you're saying and I

3:06:33 ↗ certainly want to be able to address

3:06:36 ↗ those ideas so if you could write them

3:06:40 ↗ down you know you know I can't even read

3:06:43 ↗ my own handwriting let alone you know so

3:06:45 ↗ yes I accept you're gonna be except

3:06:48 ↗ you're gonna be possibly approving these

3:06:53 ↗ things too I like I can't if I may

3:06:56 ↗ interrupt like for instance your comment

3:06:58 ↗ about like umbrellas you wanted to fit

3:06:59 ↗ with the theme of Old Town rather than

3:07:01 ↗ have them be advertisements on the

3:07:03 ↗ umbrellas to me that's code you know

3:07:05 ↗ that's less policy than code and so some

3:07:08 ↗ of these things are suggestions we can

3:07:10 ↗ give staff to say hey when you're

3:07:11 ↗ building the code for Old Town based on

3:07:14 ↗ this policy we'd like to see a

3:07:16 ↗ continuous feel and so that to me that's

3:07:19 ↗ a good example of something that you

3:07:21 ↗ said that maybe you know wouldn't apply

3:07:23 ↗ necessarily to this document but does

3:07:24 ↗ apply to how we want to create you know

3:07:27 ↗ this policy document to create the life

3:07:30 ↗ of bull town no maybe III I'm hearing

3:07:37 ↗ what you're saying and I I guess I found

3:07:43 ↗ words are just intrinsically value and

3:07:47 ↗ it's the granularity when appropriate

3:07:51 ↗ I think bill or umbrellas in that

3:07:57 ↗ example umbrellas that advertise for a

3:07:59 ↗ product you either that store or a third

3:08:01 ↗ party store is a policy question and

3:08:04 ↗ it's not a code issue from my

3:08:08 ↗ perspective than obviously I'm sure I

3:08:10 ↗ have my biases like anybody else does

3:08:13 ↗ I'm not sure what things are already

3:08:19 ↗ addressed in other other areas but some

3:08:22 ↗ of them are good additions but again if

3:08:28 ↗ you can email the staff email you know

3:08:32 ↗ and we haven't decided that we're going

3:08:34 ↗ to accept this as we have a little bit

3:08:37 ↗ of discussion here so we know that you

3:08:40 ↗ have you as a member of the community

3:08:42 ↗ have some comments and issues about some

3:08:45 ↗ of the some of the goals and policies in

3:08:50 ↗ here but I don't think we can address

3:08:54 ↗ all of them tonight may I make a request

3:08:57 ↗ I want to ask Trish next week we're

3:09:00 ↗ having a special meeting is it possible

3:09:03 ↗ that we have time in our agenda to to

3:09:06 ↗ finish this old town discussion would

3:09:09 ↗ that allow Steve to be able to submit

3:09:10 ↗ and then the you know viewing public at

3:09:13 ↗ home to submit changes to this document

3:09:15 ↗ and we would finalize it we could try is

3:09:19 ↗ there time to have a lot of time to cuz

3:09:21 ↗ the packet for next week goes out

3:09:23 ↗ tomorrow morning but we could certainly

3:09:27 ↗ because if you continue tonight's

3:09:28 ↗ hearing you have to continue it to a

3:09:30 ↗ date and time certain so oh is there

3:09:34 ↗ time in our in our calendar to continue

3:09:38 ↗ the discussion I'm just saying I don't

3:09:40 ↗ even know that there is time right well

3:09:41 ↗ if you continued it to next week you'd

3:09:43 ↗ have to let us know what you wanted to

3:09:46 ↗ have to be done by next week by when we

3:09:48 ↗ come back if you wanted new policies

3:09:51 ↗ drafted if you wanted because that's a

3:09:55 ↗ pretty short turnaround dependent but if

3:09:57 ↗ you just want time to discuss it that's

3:09:59 ↗ not ten o'clock at night

3:10:01 ↗ you know that would be perfect for next

3:10:04 ↗ week but it all depends on what you

3:10:06 ↗ expect what you would like to happen

3:10:08 ↗ between now and the next meeting and

3:10:09 ↗ this I think what I would expect is that

3:10:12 ↗ this document would look relatively the

3:10:14 ↗ same but yet we would maybe have more

3:10:17 ↗ comments from both Steve and maybe other

3:10:21 ↗ people email out to us to be able to be

3:10:24 ↗ able to go through the document

3:10:26 ↗ piece by piece to see what they're

3:10:27 ↗ saying to continue the discussion

3:10:29 ↗ I can certainly commit to having typed

3:10:32 ↗ comments and before you all it would

3:10:34 ↗ also allow us to maybe reach out to dia

3:10:37 ↗ and Z or the Chamber of Commerce and see

3:10:41 ↗ if they want to contribute to the

3:10:43 ↗ conversation

3:10:47 ↗ [Music]

3:11:13 ↗ yeah I would I would love that because I

3:11:18 ↗ think from my perspective we've been

3:11:19 ↗ looking at this document and it's been

3:11:20 ↗ turned over it's been turned over you

3:11:22 ↗ know we you know Christine went over a

3:11:25 ↗ lot of things we've asked for and we've

3:11:27 ↗ gotten about clarification and adding

3:11:30 ↗ things and so this is document has grown

3:11:32 ↗ in a way that I'm really proud of and so

3:11:34 ↗ it sounds like there's still some issues

3:11:36 ↗ that I wasn't really aware of and so

3:11:38 ↗ being able to have that time to respond

3:11:40 ↗ to it if it's in our docket to do so I

3:11:43 ↗ think it could be nice especially with

3:11:45 ↗ the kind of the considerations if we're

3:11:47 ↗ not ready to make a call yet on on

3:11:49 ↗ franchises because we could do if you

3:11:53 ↗ wanted to continue it to next Thursday I

3:11:56 ↗ think there's a bunch of questions and I

3:11:58 ↗ think we need to be cognizant of some of

3:12:02 ↗ the comments that we're receiving so if

3:12:05 ↗ we can do that that would be great it is

3:12:06 ↗ almost 10 o'clock so the key is that

3:12:10 ↗ next week is not in this room it's at

3:12:13 ↗ the Pickering room

3:12:14 ↗ over by the Holiday Inn in City Hall

3:12:16 ↗ Northwest right which is why it's

3:12:18 ↗ important for us to be able to receive

3:12:20 ↗ staff receive the public's input through

3:12:24 ↗ staff so we have it ahead of next

3:12:27 ↗ meeting also to be able to adjust it and

3:12:30 ↗ if it can't be answers to all of them at

3:12:34 ↗ least you know you can go through them

3:12:37 ↗ and pick the major ones that might have

3:12:39 ↗ actual an impact or change some of them

3:12:43 ↗ are probably already addressed in other

3:12:45 ↗ areas or can't be if we could get those

3:12:49 ↗ from staff I know you're busy it would

3:12:52 ↗ be nice to get some comments you settle

3:12:57 ↗ this okay so with that I'm going to step

3:13:03 ↗ aside and I will work on the coming days

3:13:05 ↗ on time and something and getting it

3:13:06 ↗ submitted okay if you're if you're going

3:13:09 ↗ to submit any any of your comments

3:13:11 ↗ you're going to have to do them very

3:13:13 ↗ quickly like Mauro the next day yes you

3:13:20 ↗ have to work very hard to I have been

3:13:25 ↗ working very hard but I take that and

3:13:27 ↗ under I will meet that standard well you

3:13:32 ↗ know I realistic thing I think you know

3:13:34 ↗ there there are comments that you made

3:13:36 ↗ that are really that you feel are really

3:13:39 ↗ important and those are the ones that I

3:13:41 ↗ think we should address so if you can at

3:13:43 ↗ least give us that information so that

3:13:46 ↗ we can discuss it you know otherwise I

3:13:49 ↗ think we were ready to make some final

3:13:54 ↗ decisions on this so we're doing which

3:13:57 ↗ is what I understood this for this the

3:14:00 ↗ purpose of being here was so I will work

3:14:02 ↗ on Yin this typed up I'm sure probably

3:14:04 ↗ won't be until tomorrow night

3:14:05 ↗ well you know it depends on how fast you

3:14:08 ↗ can get a man how fast the staff can do

3:14:10 ↗ something so I understood

3:14:12 ↗ we're continuing again again I was

3:14:15 ↗ trying to respect to cup up a comment

3:14:17 ↗ process so thank you all again for your

3:14:20 ↗ service thank you you okay with that

3:14:23 ↗ we're going to continue that publicly

3:14:27 ↗ your hearing till next next there's what

3:14:30 ↗ it first and there's already a public

3:14:33 ↗ hearing so it would be the the time

3:14:35 ↗ would be sometime after 6:30 p.m. okay

3:14:38 ↗ oh yes because we have another one

3:14:40 ↗ that's already scheduled for 6:30 okay

3:14:42 ↗ so do your homework and all right so I

3:14:53 ↗ have four bullet points I wanted to

3:14:54 ↗ share with you before we close on this

3:14:56 ↗ topic of the boundary I believe that we

3:15:00 ↗ should involve the southern Oldtown

3:15:04 ↗ stakeholders to get their feedback there

3:15:11 ↗ may be intrinsic stakeholder value that

3:15:13 ↗ we are not considering there is no

3:15:19 ↗ foreseeable value or reason to removing

3:15:23 ↗ this other neighborhood now removing it

3:15:26 ↗ today may be short-sighted and not fully

3:15:30 ↗ understanding the pros or cons of the

3:15:33 ↗ decision

3:15:34 ↗ I haven't been sold on why we should

3:15:37 ↗ other than the fact that it looks funny

3:15:40 ↗ on paper I don't know if that's really a

3:15:43 ↗ good enough reason to do something like

3:15:45 ↗ oh I just want to close them back

3:15:49 ↗ thank you listen oh they'll consider it

3:15:52 ↗ and it will be on the docket for next

3:15:56 ↗ two we continued yes - to be continued

3:15:59 ↗ so elections yeah so on the last thing

3:16:07 ↗ on that

3:16:08 ↗ on the agenda is elections of chair and

3:16:12 ↗ vice-chair do you have any nominations I

3:16:19 ↗ would like to nominate Joan to be our

3:16:21 ↗ chair as as I think M is the second no

3:16:25 ↗ the second longest serving member

3:16:27 ↗ standing policy Commission I could say

3:16:30 ↗ the her insight has been highly valued

3:16:33 ↗ and I

3:16:34 ↗ agree a lot with her leadership

3:16:36 ↗ decisions on how she runs this and I

3:16:38 ↗ would like to nominate Joan to continue

3:16:40 ↗ to be our chair I would second that

3:16:54 ↗ competition you have to vote all in

3:16:57 ↗ favor of Joan continuing to be your

3:16:59 ↗ chair I think you're all way too late

3:17:11 ↗ mm-hmm

3:17:13 ↗ well we need a vice chair and even

3:17:17 ↗ though I think all of you would be

3:17:20 ↗ capable you're all awesome know your

3:17:25 ↗ stuff and great ideas and I love you

3:17:28 ↗ you know normally you could run this

3:17:31 ↗ meeting with raise your hand and I don't

3:17:35 ↗ you know looking at the people that are

3:17:37 ↗ on the Commission I don't think that

3:17:38 ↗ would work because you're you get into

3:17:41 ↗ it and you're you know I've had a couple

3:17:43 ↗ comments and said hey you know you

3:17:45 ↗ should be more and and I don't want to

3:17:48 ↗ do that because I think that's gonna cut

3:17:49 ↗ down on your your ideas and your

3:17:52 ↗ interest in it but Ron has been the vice

3:17:58 ↗ chair for a year and he has not had the

3:18:00 ↗ opportunity to run a meeting and he

3:18:03 ↗ really wants to run a meeting and so I'd

3:18:09 ↗ like to nominate him to continue in this

3:18:16 ↗ position because I know I'm gonna be go

3:18:18 ↗ in for a couple meetings this year and

3:18:20 ↗ it's been it's been working hard and you

3:18:24 ↗ know kind of getting in the mold to to

3:18:28 ↗ run a meeting and

3:18:29 ↗ the vice-chair so I would like to

3:18:33 ↗ nominate him to stay at nice chair

3:18:37 ↗ that's okay second of me any other

3:18:43 ↗ nominations that would you vote on we

3:18:50 ↗ need to huzzah wasn't favor say aye

3:19:00 ↗ thank you with that I'll close the

3:19:03 ↗ meeting at 10:00 I'm think ten nine

3:19:06 ↗ fifty nine ten ten ten

3:19:10 ↗ John someday I'll be never did 951

3:19:22 ↗ 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