Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 13, 2018 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2019 – Joan Probala land use documents. 2020 – Ron Faul 2020 – Troy Rahmig Membership 2022 – Joy Lewis The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Vacant 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 – Vacant 2020 – Jason Voiss 2020 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 23, 2018

packet pp.5–9

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Commission reviewed proposed changes to Table 4.3-B and suggested the following changes.

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Discussion - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Land Use Element and Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Element, (D)

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Emily Arteche, Senior Planner · packet pp.11–61

Topics: Land UseParks

Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows jurisdictions to amend their Comprehensive Plans only once a year. In January, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) held a public hearing on the 2018 Docket of Comprehensive Plan amendments. This list of amendments is compiled by the City Administration and the PPC, and public comments provide information for additional Commission deliberation. After the public hearing and PPC deliberation, the Commission recommended the 2018 Docket to the City Council. The Council’s Land & Shore Committee reviewed the Docket in February and took action stating which amendments are the focus for 2018. The Docket, with additional information about PPC’s review, is included in the September 13 meeting packet.

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.63

Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2018 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 9/6/18) All meetings located in Council Chambers unless noted May September 5/10/18 9/13/18 Comprehensive Plan Amendments a) Talus End of DAs – Parcel 9 – remand from Council (public (Land Use Element, Parks Element) hearing) b) Olde Town Plan – vision/policies wrap up (public hearing) 9/27/18 Comprehensive Plan Amendments c) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 5/24/18: continued (Transportation Element, Utilities a) Training – (new & existing members) Element, Appendix Implementation) b) Olde Town Plan – Tour June October 6/14/18 10/11/18 Comprehensive Plan Amendments a) Official date new members begin: elect Chair/Vice Chair continued (Everything else etc) b) 2018 Parks Strategic Plan - (public hearing) c) Olde Town Plan: recommendation (continued public hearing) d) Intro: Gilman Blvd Visioning 10/25/18…

1836 segments .txt ↗

0:15 ↗ good evening and welcome to the

0:17 ↗ September 13th meeting of the Planning

0:19 ↗ Policy Commission the night we're going

0:22 ↗ to start our discussion of the comp plan

0:25 ↗ amendments the city has one chance every

0:31 ↗ year to make any additions and we're

0:34 ↗ starting our discussion right now we're

0:37 ↗ going to talk about land use parks open

0:39 ↗ space and trails but first we have to

0:44 ↗ have a little motion I move to approve

0:49 ↗ the minutes August 23rd 2018 a second

0:55 ↗ second all those in favor say aye

0:59 ↗ I posed hearing then the motion carries

1:04 ↗ but with that I'm going to ask Kristen

1:08 ↗ to explain what we're gonna talk about

1:10 ↗ tonight I would be happy to but first I

1:13 ↗ want to give you a quick update so

1:15 ↗ recently you all made recommendations to

1:17 ↗ the city is it I think it's on oh so

1:21 ↗ recently you all made recommendations to

1:23 ↗ the City Council regarding the Old Town

1:25 ↗ sub area plan and the table of permitted

1:28 ↗ uses 4.3 be in the central Issaquah plan

1:31 ↗ and just as an update those have both

1:33 ↗ moved on to Landon Shore we took those

1:36 ↗ to landon shore last Thursday and they

1:39 ↗ discussed and had some comments but they

1:41 ↗ are going back to Landon Shore for more

1:43 ↗ discussion on October 4th and we're

1:46 ↗ hoping that both of those will go or at

1:48 ↗ least the Old Town sub area plan will go

1:50 ↗ back to City Council for action on

1:52 ↗ October 17th it's the same hour October

1:56 ↗ 15th excuse me October 15th is it the

1:57 ↗ same for table permitted uses that's

1:59 ↗ what we're hoping and hoping the same

2:01 ↗ for that so just wanted to give you that

2:03 ↗ update and let you know where you're for

2:05 ↗ your stuff's going just a question yes

2:07 ↗ do you have any sense of what the

2:09 ↗ questions were that that precipitated a

2:13 ↗ lot regarding which topic either one of

2:16 ↗ them so Old Town I think more than the

2:20 ↗ discussion what took a while was that

2:22 ↗ one of the council members was new

2:25 ↗ and was not familiar with all town and

2:27 ↗ the other councilmember did not

2:28 ↗ typically sit on Landon Shore so he had

2:31 ↗ not heard the previous discussion that

2:33 ↗ took place the year before so they

2:35 ↗ really wanted to go through the entire

2:36 ↗ plan step by step by step and I I think

2:39 ↗ that that is what took a long time and

2:42 ↗ they had a few questions but nothing was

2:44 ↗ big there was nothing that was

2:45 ↗ controversial they just had some changes

2:48 ↗ in a couple of questions permitted uses

2:50 ↗ I didn't stay for right I think the main

2:54 ↗ issues they really liked that PBC added

2:57 ↗ some recommendations to the

3:00 ↗ administration's recommendations so they

3:02 ↗ were trying to understand what all the

3:04 ↗ use is worth not only that we were

3:06 ↗ trying to limit but that were already

3:08 ↗ that we're existing so we're finding

3:11 ↗ definitions of them all and I have a

3:13 ↗ feeling that if we can't find

3:14 ↗ definitions in the code for all of them

3:16 ↗ they may ask us to create them they were

3:20 ↗ also asking just some interesting ones

3:23 ↗ like you all had talked about like metal

3:25 ↗ fabricators glassblowing they were

3:28 ↗ intrigued with some of those ideas so it

3:31 ↗ was a good discussion we'll see how it

3:34 ↗ goes okay so back to the comprehensive

3:39 ↗ plan update and Joan took a lot of my

3:41 ↗ first slide but I wanted to remind you

3:42 ↗ that we do the comprehensive plan

3:45 ↗ amendments annually and every year we

3:49 ↗ collect proposed amendments and those

3:51 ↗ come from staff they come from the

3:52 ↗ Commission they come from council and

3:54 ↗ from the public we come by we compile

3:56 ↗ all of those proposed amendments into

3:58 ↗ what is called our docket our docket

4:01 ↗ then came to you all in January you all

4:03 ↗ reviewed it and recommended approval and

4:06 ↗ the City Council approved it in February

4:08 ↗ and so that's what we're working on so

4:11 ↗ because as John mentioned we can only do

4:13 ↗ this once a year if any other all of a

4:15 ↗ sudden you guys go oh tonight

4:17 ↗ we should amend this to that'll go on

4:19 ↗ next year's docket not this one so just

4:22 ↗ just a heads up and I think that's it

4:25 ↗ that's it for that okay so I'm going to

4:28 ↗ cover part of this and then Trish is

4:30 ↗ going to cover part of land use okay

4:35 ↗ I can see which once I'm going to do

4:38 ↗ that I'd be happy to do okay so I'm

4:43 ↗ going to talk numbers first they were

4:44 ↗ about seven updates in total for the

4:48 ↗ land resettlement proposed updates three

4:51 ↗ of them in Ward number two and they all

4:53 ↗ have to do with numbers population

4:54 ↗ housing and jobs and then we had

4:57 ↗ transferred development rights remove

4:59 ↗ and revise policies regarding the King

5:01 ↗ County Island because you might remember

5:03 ↗ that we annexed that last year and we

5:04 ↗ still had policies in the plan about it

5:06 ↗ and then add a policy regarding urban

5:10 ↗ schools that actually went into the

5:12 ↗ central Issaquah plan but we'll talk

5:14 ↗ about it tonight and then add a policy

5:16 ↗ regarding new housing without loss of

5:18 ↗ commercial square footage that went into

5:20 ↗ the economic vitality element it was

5:22 ↗ proposed as land use so we'll talk about

5:24 ↗ it tonight but I just want to like let

5:25 ↗ you know that's where it wound up this

5:28 ↗ is kind of small but we're gonna start

5:29 ↗ with table L 2 units toward the 2030 one

5:33 ↗ adopted state targets so our adopted

5:36 ↗ target is for 2030 1s 2006 to 2013 one

5:40 ↗ our proposed new housing unit number is

5:44 ↗ five thousand seven hundred and fifty

5:45 ↗ new units so last year we gained I've

5:49 ↗ got to get there he's like that's too

5:51 ↗ small for me to read last year we gained

5:55 ↗ that four hundred and forty five new

5:58 ↗ units we are total at 85% of reaching

6:04 ↗ our target so we're getting pretty close

6:06 ↗ these numbers are we submit numbers to

6:09 ↗ the Office of Financial Management the

6:11 ↗ office of Finance financial management

6:13 ↗ checks them and then we confirm them and

6:15 ↗ that's how we get our numbers we changed

6:18 ↗ the word constructed or completed to

6:20 ↗ permitted because we realized that ofn

6:24 ↗ the Office of Financial Management

6:25 ↗ actually counts the units that have been

6:27 ↗ issued building permits and not

6:29 ↗ necessarily units that have been

6:32 ↗ completed so we're in an effort to

6:34 ↗ remain consistent with what the state

6:36 ↗ has that's the way we have changed it

6:38 ↗ okay are there any questions about that

6:40 ↗ one you remind me what happens when we

6:44 ↗ hit our target and we're nowhere near

6:46 ↗ 2031

6:48 ↗ nothing it's not it's just a target it's

6:52 ↗ really more what we can accommodate it's

6:55 ↗ not a ceiling for us it's more of a

6:57 ↗ floor and what can you accommodate if

6:59 ↗ you go over that's great but we'd like

7:01 ↗ to see you hit this number so do we have

7:04 ↗ measures in place to maybe slow roll

7:06 ↗ once we fit that number we are there

7:08 ↗ conversations about things we would do

7:10 ↗ to at least try to spread it out a

7:13 ↗ little bit once we hit our target well

7:15 ↗ art our goal is to get all of the growth

7:16 ↗ inside central Issaquah right where

7:18 ↗ there isn't any housing and we need the

7:20 ↗ housing there so if we get it there

7:21 ↗ that's great I would you know I I can't

7:24 ↗ speak for council but I would imagine if

7:26 ↗ some you know maybe something starting

7:28 ↗ to develop closer to the hillsides that

7:30 ↗ we have policies in place for that mount

7:32 ↗ to but if there things started to

7:34 ↗ develop elsewhere we do have a policy

7:36 ↗ actually now that I think of it if

7:37 ↗ somebody wanted to rezone and try and

7:39 ↗ EPS owned so that they could do more

7:40 ↗ housing we do have a policy that says

7:43 ↗ that we have already met our growth

7:44 ↗ targets and so as long as those have

7:47 ↗ been met we're not going to up zone at

7:48 ↗ all I I guess one thing that I was

7:52 ↗ thinking I was looking at these where

7:54 ↗ we're at right now in our targets and

7:55 ↗ obviously we all compare our housing

7:57 ↗ with jobs or Tartu hard core numbers

7:59 ↗ that we're looking at and I was curious

8:02 ↗ if maybe staff wanted to try to start

8:05 ↗ thinking about something down the road

8:06 ↗ where in the next few years when we

8:08 ↗ anticipate meeting a target in one place

8:10 ↗ and not in the other how we might want

8:12 ↗ to link them and say well if we are

8:15 ↗ adding more housing which you know we've

8:17 ↗ already hit this target and we don't

8:19 ↗ necessarily need it but we really do

8:20 ↗ need some jobs so how we might want to

8:23 ↗ think it outside the box to kind of

8:25 ↗ boost one number when we're pretty

8:27 ↗ steady on the other mmm-hmm I know it's

8:29 ↗ a vague request but it's kinda one of

8:30 ↗ those things where rather than getting

8:32 ↗ there and being like oh what do we do

8:34 ↗ maybe start mulling around things right

8:35 ↗ now as to what we can incentives we can

8:38 ↗ think oh I think one thing we're doing

8:40 ↗ with that I'm sorry Chris good job one

8:42 ↗ thing when you're in bed

8:43 ↗ no net loss yes that was real that's

8:46 ↗ right what's going cuz right now the

8:47 ↗ market is delivering in Issaquah is

8:50 ↗ delivering housing and not jobs and so

8:53 ↗ in the exact spirit of what to point out

8:54 ↗ we don't want to lose the jobs we have

8:56 ↗ and so then these new standards say no

8:59 ↗ net loss right and so potentially five

9:02 ↗ ten years from now or we find a

9:04 ↗ situation where Costco is expanding like

9:06 ↗ crazy and no one's building housing

9:08 ↗ maybe maybe they would read rigor things

9:10 ↗ and say oh no net loss of housing

9:12 ↗ something like that and I think that's I

9:15 ↗ was gonna say that same thing and I

9:17 ↗ think that one of the reasons to the

9:18 ↗ council asked and I think you all asked

9:20 ↗ for it too to see the jobs numbers in

9:22 ↗ there is to kind of do that comparison

9:23 ↗ annually to see where we are and have

9:25 ↗ checkpoints so that if it does come to

9:29 ↗ that then yes we could read about you

9:30 ↗ thinking how how can we boost this

9:32 ↗ rather than not only the loss but also

9:34 ↗ how do we yeah that's good another thing

9:37 ↗ that I thought it was that was when we

9:39 ↗ did the vertical mixed-use analysis one

9:41 ↗ of the one of the things that the

9:42 ↗ markets that he said is that to build

9:45 ↗ high quality you know one over five to a

9:48 ↗ two over five or five over to the market

9:53 ↗ didn't support that right now and so

9:55 ↗ there's a little bit of scratching more

9:56 ↗ like what do we want to have these

9:57 ↗ there's a really high bar in our core of

9:59 ↗ really high quality vertical misuse like

10:01 ↗ what downtown Kirkland and downtown

10:03 ↗ Redmond gets if the market doesn't bear

10:05 ↗ it and then I think a couple of us made

10:08 ↗ this point we were like well we know our

10:10 ↗ intent isn't to deliver vertical

10:12 ↗ mixed-use you know in 2020 the point is

10:16 ↗ to intend it deliver high-quality

10:17 ↗ vertical mixed-use in 2035 and if right

10:20 ↗ now a land prices a rental rental prices

10:22 ↗ don't merit that it's fine we're well

10:26 ↗ we're well on our pace to meeting our

10:27 ↗ targets and we've got really high

10:29 ↗ standards in central Iowa and if that

10:31 ↗ means it takes a little bit longer for

10:32 ↗ the development to emerge that's fine

10:34 ↗ because we're very much on track to

10:36 ↗ meeting the commitments we've made to

10:38 ↗ the county state state well set AJ yeah

10:42 ↗ okay sorry I'm late

10:44 ↗ that's okay anything else on this one

10:47 ↗ that's a good right that's a good

10:48 ↗ thought joy though and yeah

10:50 ↗ duly noted I think it's

10:52 ↗ really an easy question but looking at

10:55 ↗ our new units permitted 2018 445 then

11:01 ↗ down in the sub table those new units

11:04 ↗ permitted 903 so never 45 our units that

11:09 ↗ were permitted within 2018 completed

11:12 ↗ within 2018 that's four thousand nine

11:14 ↗ hundred and three units there's a four

11:15 ↗ in front of it the blue is a strikeout

11:20 ↗ yeah yeah

11:22 ↗ so it's four thousand nine hundred and

11:23 ↗ three units permitted okay so those are

11:27 ↗ how many units are in the pipe and the

11:30 ↗ 445 is what's been constructed in 2018

11:34 ↗ or completed no they're all units that

11:38 ↗ have been permitted we're building

11:40 ↗ permits have been permitted in the

11:42 ↗ middle column right so it's four hundred

11:45 ↗ forty five s for 2018 correct well

11:48 ↗ that's how many units are permanent like

11:50 ↗ ins would would be in part of that for

11:52 ↗ this was three 2018 and Innis would had

11:54 ↗ not yet has not yet received its

11:56 ↗ building permit so that'll show up if

11:58 ↗ they get their building permit that

11:59 ↗ shows up next year okay what is the 445

12:05 ↗ then those were those were the number of

12:07 ↗ units that were permitted in 2018

12:09 ↗ between 2017 through 2018 okay and

12:14 ↗ what's the a prolonged that's it that's

12:20 ↗ it that's a 12-month number the 445 yes

12:22 ↗ yes okay and the 4903 is then what

12:26 ↗ that's the total number of units

12:28 ↗ permitted since 2006 middle it's a total

12:30 ↗ of oh okay it's guys it's a summation

12:33 ↗ yes yes are all of these numbers April

12:37 ↗ day April yes I say that and it's it's

12:41 ↗ in the footnote I did I did show up late

12:43 ↗ so you may very well say yeah it is

12:45 ↗ April April April forget I see it right

12:47 ↗ there footnote number one okay all right

12:50 ↗ are you ready for the next one okay this

12:54 ↗ one is new this year the City Council

12:56 ↗ asked for this this tracks our job

12:58 ↗ targets towards between twenty two

13:00 ↗ thousand six and twenty thirty one our

13:02 ↗ target is twenty thousand new jobs which

13:05 ↗ is

13:06 ↗ aggressive but that's what it is so it

13:11 ↗ shows just like the other one it shows

13:13 ↗ the new jobs per year or they were added

13:15 ↗ or in some cases lost and then the total

13:18 ↗ City jobs in the right hand column this

13:20 ↗ past year or since 2006 we've had seven

13:24 ↗ thousand and eighty nine new jobs which

13:26 ↗ gets us to just over thirty five percent

13:28 ↗ of our target so in a third of the time

13:30 ↗ that's that's kind of on track our

13:32 ↗ numbers come from the Employment

13:33 ↗ Security Department and you'll notice

13:35 ↗ that these are 2017 and the housing

13:37 ↗ numbers are 2018 not much we can do

13:39 ↗ about that

13:40 ↗ that's kind of how that's just the rate

13:42 ↗ at which they come in so any questions

13:45 ↗ about these and you probably guessed the

13:47 ↗ two where we lost jobs was the recession

13:51 ↗ how much would the full cost go build

13:54 ↗ out deliver ish I'm just curious and

13:58 ↗ it's in central squad yeah if they fully

14:01 ↗ built that what they're it's just over

14:03 ↗ 19,000 Wow central Issaquah will

14:07 ↗ accommodate most of those jobs yes

14:11 ↗ that's 19 thousand new jobs or $19,000

14:15 ↗ new jobs we're gonna shouldn't I like

14:20 ↗ well wait let's see fourteen thousand

14:22 ↗ fourteen thousand five hundred and fifty

14:24 ↗ five and I'm not sure if that's in the

14:26 ↗ urban core if that's in central Issaquah

14:27 ↗ but most of those would be in the core

14:28 ↗ so I was off I apologize fourteen

14:30 ↗ thousand five hundred fifty-five so that

14:39 ↗ we're going to exceed the jobs numbers

14:43 ↗ for jobs target that fourteen thousand

14:47 ↗ is if we had almost thirteen thousand

14:49 ↗ left to go for target once house code

14:52 ↗ assume Costco builds out as Ajay is

14:55 ↗ saying here would be fourteen thousand

14:57 ↗ five hundred jobs that's it happens

15:00 ↗ before 2030 right but I mean we can't

15:03 ↗ guarantee that oh yeah okay good

15:10 ↗ okay the next one is our population in

15:15 ↗ household projections this one's never

15:17 ↗ been in there for a long time it's

15:19 ↗ required by the state we use the same

15:21 ↗ of' note OFM numbers for housing units

15:24 ↗ and then we are provided also by the

15:27 ↗ state with existing population numbers

15:28 ↗ and the households and then we are

15:31 ↗ required to project out through the

15:32 ↗ planning horizon of our comprehensive

15:34 ↗ plan which is through 2031 and so we use

15:36 ↗ a formula for most of that to project

15:38 ↗ out and then we use and we use the same

15:40 ↗ numbers at the state uses and then for

15:42 ↗ the villages we work with local

15:44 ↗ knowledge and what is oh sorry right

15:49 ↗ here we work with the villages and we

15:53 ↗ work with local knowledge and with what

15:55 ↗ we know is has been allowed or in tight

15:57 ↗ the entitlement there what's been built

15:59 ↗ out as part of the entitlement and what

16:00 ↗ is left so right now we have just over

16:06 ↗ 37,000 people in Issaquah 37110 and

16:10 ↗ 16,000 647 units okay any questions

16:15 ↗ about that one I was carrying some we're

16:18 ↗ gonna get updated census data or we're

16:19 ↗ going through all the housing now I

16:21 ↗ think it's been two years they do it

16:23 ↗ every ten years where we're ramping up

16:25 ↗ for it right now

16:26 ↗ it'll be 2020 yeah it really yeah it'll

16:29 ↗ be 2020 we the information won't come

16:31 ↗ out until about 2021 or 2022 but before

16:34 ↗ then the state isn't projected to give

16:36 ↗ any any other updates to our local

16:40 ↗ disbursement of demographics yes well

16:43 ↗ sort of well do lands will do buildable

16:47 ↗ lands and targets in 2018 twenty-nine

16:49 ↗ art morning you're supposed to be this

16:51 ↗ year 2019 no FM every year right yeah

16:55 ↗ they're just not validated with the with

16:58 ↗ the census right and when you guys get

16:59 ↗ that you'll be sending out to us is just

17:01 ↗ uh it gets posted it gets put out to the

17:04 ↗ world yes

17:05 ↗ all right these numbers

17:07 ↗ mutually-exclusive looking at the total

17:09 ↗ housing total employment so that's those

17:11 ↗ are the numbers if we everything got

17:13 ↗ built housing and then if everything I

17:15 ↗ build jobs right so the reality is you

17:18 ↗ would get somewhere in between the two

17:20 ↗ of them

17:23 ↗ can I interrupt with going back to page

17:26 ↗ 21 where we had table L for our

17:29 ↗ remaining land supplying capacity and

17:31 ↗ used as an opportunity for an update on

17:33 ↗ the King County Island there was talk

17:35 ↗ about that piece of property being in

17:38 ↗ school I think there's talk about now

17:40 ↗ not being school the school district had

17:43 ↗ an option on it and they decided not to

17:45 ↗ they did some geotech borings and some

17:50 ↗ more analysis and I believe that they

17:52 ↗ chose not to use that site so yeah so

17:55 ↗ that's what I heard too what's now

17:57 ↗ projected with there I don't know what's

17:59 ↗ projected for that space but I know

18:01 ↗ they're looking at a site in Tallis now

18:02 ↗ who currently owns it we do yeah so I

18:06 ↗ think we're talking to staff about this

18:09 ↗ month to ago it's still zoned what I'm

18:17 ↗ curious about as if it's maybe any go

18:18 ↗ over to parks or I mean is it I haven't

18:21 ↗ heard it have discussions but that

18:22 ↗ doesn't mean that those higher up have

18:24 ↗ been discussing I don't know we can

18:26 ↗ certainly check when when yeah I guess

18:29 ↗ when I heard that I was a proponent of

18:31 ↗ not building a school there I didn't

18:32 ↗ think it was an ideal site so I was so

18:34 ↗ glad to hear that and I was like oh I

18:35 ↗ think this is a good opportunity to take

18:37 ↗ this space and see what what do we want

18:40 ↗ to do with it as a city in right so

18:42 ↗ right we can sure ask and bring it back

18:44 ↗ next time and seem like it might be a

18:46 ↗ nice thing to add to our greenery well I

18:49 ↗ wanted I thought it was a great school

18:51 ↗ side so I wouldn't hold on to it until

18:52 ↗ until the school district came around to

18:54 ↗ it for elementary schools 21 to 22 we'll

18:58 ↗ need them someday someday soon okay

19:02 ↗ thank you yeah you're welcome

19:05 ↗ so here's where I was gonna have Trish

19:07 ↗ take over but I will do my best

19:14 ↗ just to go to Ana tangents Trish walks

19:16 ↗ over what's the talus that they're

19:17 ↗ looking at is that the one that zone

19:19 ↗ four commercial is compact school and a

19:22 ↗ permitted use right now it's school is

19:25 ↗ and we're working with them to make it

19:27 ↗ as compact as possible German but it's

19:30 ↗ just they we're just in the early and

19:34 ↗ then before I forget I noticed we were

19:35 ↗ one of the pages we were referred to

19:37 ↗ urban schools yes I am this mm-hmm

19:40 ↗ are you guys ready for that discussion I

19:42 ↗ think it's number six we're on number

19:43 ↗ four we're getting there okay if we're

19:44 ↗ gonna cover it I had Donuts in my drive

19:49 ↗ over home okay okay well until we get to

19:55 ↗ there this is the transfer of

19:58 ↗ development rights you may recall that

20:00 ↗ we worked on some code last this past

20:04 ↗ year on transfer of development rights

20:06 ↗ based on the end of development

20:07 ↗ agreements for s qua highlands where

20:10 ↗ counsel put some limitations on we're in

20:14 ↗ the highlands transfer of development

20:16 ↗ rights can be used so we wanted to be

20:19 ↗ sure that the policy reflected the

20:22 ↗ limitation that council adopted in tho

20:27 ↗ so this is pretty specific we left a

20:30 ↗ little bit of it open that says the last

20:32 ↗ sentence the last part of the sentence

20:34 ↗ and other areas that can accommodate

20:35 ↗ additional density without negative

20:37 ↗ impacts to adjacent properties we added

20:40 ↗ that as sort of a catch-all in case

20:42 ↗ something amazing came up and we because

20:45 ↗ that if something amazing came up and we

20:47 ↗ only had specific locations we would

20:49 ↗ have to go through a comprehensive plan

20:51 ↗ amendment to provide for that so a

20:54 ↗ little bit of the door open in case

20:56 ↗ something amazing should come up that's

20:58 ↗ what the or other areas is for yes okay

21:02 ↗ and that's not because I saw that and

21:04 ↗ circled it and wrote loophole question

21:06 ↗ away another name for it yes we call it

21:09 ↗ an opportunity understandable okay but

21:14 ↗ if we so let's but let's say someone

21:16 ↗ comes so the developer wants to do a TDR

21:19 ↗ and it's not one of these locations

21:20 ↗ right say oh well this qualifies under

21:22 ↗ the

21:23 ↗ areas the city still the ability to say

21:25 ↗ no yeah I believe so well we'd have to

21:28 ↗ look into the TDR code and see if it

21:31 ↗ meets the other criteria and council

21:35 ↗ also has to approve TDRs but yeah true

21:38 ↗ so they can certainly say no okay

21:39 ↗ because I was still wondering because if

21:40 ↗ if the point of this was to narrow where

21:43 ↗ the TDRs land but it still is a loophole

21:45 ↗ that you could put TDRs anywhere I don't

21:47 ↗ know if this actually accomplishes

21:48 ↗ anything right not anywhere only places

21:50 ↗ that there you can't have negative

21:51 ↗ impacts to adjacent properties yeah

21:56 ↗ through the criteria I believe it would

21:58 ↗ be right so that so the controls is

22:01 ↗ still around the TDR stuff not yes we

22:05 ↗ still feel there's yes any other

22:06 ↗ questions on that one the King County

22:10 ↗ Island is if we skip age 23 and the

22:14 ↗ stuff around topographical character

22:15 ↗ that was highlighted if they're not it's

22:22 ↗ an order

22:23 ↗ she didn't go an order so which page are

22:25 ↗ you questioning know if they're not in

22:26 ↗ order I'm sure we'll get around to it

22:28 ↗ Lu policy a7 I was just going this is

22:35 ↗ and I'll get to that because I'm not

22:37 ↗ exactly sure what order the PowerPoint

22:39 ↗ is okay yeah if we'll get to it later

22:40 ↗ that's fine okay what can you call it

22:42 ↗ the page numbers then if they're not in

22:43 ↗ order

22:43 ↗ well the King County Island is number

22:45 ↗ seven its land use goal M which on my

22:50 ↗ trusty table of contents on the front of

22:53 ↗ your packet while you age five Landry

22:58 ↗ school M that's no that's different

23:04 ↗ [Applause]

23:08 ↗ now 32 you guys are good

23:13 ↗ yes I believe okay it might be the I

23:20 ↗ have page lu5 Lu 15 and Lu 16 are all

23:24 ↗ the King County references but this is

23:26 ↗ cleanup since we did annex the King

23:29 ↗ County Island we needed to take out all

23:31 ↗ the PA a language that still referred to

23:33 ↗ it as part of the county so this is

23:35 ↗ pretty much housekeeping we put in the

23:37 ↗ discussion what happened so we would all

23:39 ↗ remember what happened when we were

23:42 ↗ cleaning up the east cougar versus King

23:45 ↗ County Island and so that we all

23:47 ↗ remember that we still actually do have

23:49 ↗ a PAA left even though we're still

23:52 ↗ contesting that with King County but do

23:54 ↗ we still have to call it out cuz it's

23:56 ↗ technically yeah yeah yeah technically

23:57 ↗ it's still ours but and where is it

23:59 ↗ that's kind of not happy about it

24:01 ↗ it's west west below Montreux so it's

24:09 ↗ kind of above Montreux hairpin pass the

24:17 ↗ zoo that all of a sudden goes its way up

24:21 ↗ there and it doesn't have sewer the

24:23 ↗ roads are not really urban it we don't

24:27 ↗ believe it should have any kind of urban

24:28 ↗ development it has you know water it has

24:31 ↗ wells we just don't believe it's

24:33 ↗ acceptable for urban development up

24:36 ↗ there because it's we don't currently

24:37 ↗ deliver any city services to it we say

24:39 ↗ it again we don't deliver any city

24:41 ↗ services to that

24:42 ↗ no okay same can counting island again

24:49 ↗ urban schools is this the one you want

24:51 ↗ to talk about yeah hello

24:54 ↗ so myself last year you may have

24:57 ↗ remembered that when Jennifer was here

25:00 ↗ we did a code amendment for schools that

25:05 ↗ are not suburban and we called them

25:08 ↗ urban at first and there was a bit of a

25:11 ↗ ripple

25:13 ↗ and put folks in like the name urban

25:15 ↗ don't know why but they didn't and so we

25:18 ↗ started calling them compact schools

25:20 ↗ meaning they are not suburban they are

25:22 ↗ more sustainable they're on smaller Lots

25:24 ↗ there but you all were intrigued by the

25:29 ↗ idea and you said next time we do the

25:31 ↗ comp plan could you bring us policies

25:33 ↗ for urban because we believe that even

25:36 ↗ though there are compact schools we

25:38 ↗ believe that there's also another layer

25:40 ↗ of that kind of development which is

25:42 ↗ even more sustainable and efficient and

25:46 ↗ we would call that one urban and so we

25:50 ↗ have definitions that compact schools

25:54 ↗ would be all the schools that we would

25:56 ↗ like to see in Issaquah and those are

25:59 ↗ efficient they're sustainable there are

26:01 ↗ not as much land as the state would say

26:03 ↗ you need or could have for a school and

26:06 ↗ in that compact umbrella is a smaller

26:09 ↗ subset of urban schools and the urban

26:12 ↗ schools would be only and would be

26:15 ↗ located in central where everything is

26:18 ↗ supposed to be more dense more efficient

26:20 ↗ use of land housing really close to

26:23 ↗ everything so that you could walk

26:24 ↗ there'd be a lot more kids walking a lot

26:27 ↗ less single occupancy trips so we're

26:30 ↗ trying to differentiate an urban school

26:33 ↗ and a compact school and so we're using

26:36 ↗ this initial round of the comp plan

26:39 ↗ amendments to try to to try to separate

26:42 ↗ those and define them and set some

26:44 ↗ policies so that when you see standards

26:47 ↗ next year we hope for urban schools that

26:52 ↗ we will have already sort of laid the

26:53 ↗ groundwork for how are they different

26:55 ↗ that's kind of answering what my

26:58 ↗ question sounds like okay this is our

27:03 ↗ baby tiny little start and next year

27:08 ↗ we're going to see a nice juicy document

27:11 ↗ that says this is the policy this is

27:13 ↗ what they should look like and it dives

27:15 ↗ in a lot deeper

27:18 ↗ remember this year Udo then you already

27:22 ↗ did a code amendment for us for

27:24 ↗ standards for compact schools

27:27 ↗ you gave them F AR for the floor area

27:29 ↗ ratio you made 50% of the required part

27:33 ↗ can be structured parking for compact

27:35 ↗ schools you change the landscaping

27:37 ↗ requirements do you made them build

27:38 ↗ right out to the road I mean you did all

27:41 ↗ that but you had that niggling feeling

27:43 ↗ that you wanted to see some policies for

27:46 ↗ urban schools not for compact as much

27:49 ↗ because you felt it seemed like you felt

27:50 ↗ pretty comfortable with the compact

27:52 ↗ school piece I think what I remember to

27:56 ↗ that is you're correct

27:57 ↗ I remember to us having a discussion

28:00 ↗ with the community as well talking about

28:02 ↗ what do this look like looks like let's

28:05 ↗ paint a picture the same way that we've

28:07 ↗ been doing my old town and everything

28:08 ↗ let's do that for schools right because

28:10 ↗ the old way is not happening anymore

28:13 ↗ right we need a different way and it

28:15 ↗ sounded like we Fred it's a little bit

28:16 ↗ of miscommunication with the school

28:18 ↗ district on it look at crystal about how

28:21 ↗ we see this and let's let's break it

28:23 ↗ down let's and let's have a discussion

28:24 ↗ with the community about how do you see

28:26 ↗ that you want to interact with these

28:28 ↗ kinds of spaces and things like that

28:29 ↗ right so it sounds like my question goes

28:31 ↗ back to we have this nice start right

28:34 ↗ now does that mean that next year we're

28:36 ↗ gonna start to see this juicy policy

28:38 ↗ document that really dives into urban

28:40 ↗ schools and Issaquah well let me hang on

28:44 ↗ to that what we tried to do in the

28:46 ↗ policies is we tried to be real juicy

28:48 ↗ this time we're saying that that it they

28:52 ↗ have to offer safe ped bike routes

28:54 ↗ nearby transit routes they have to

28:57 ↗ minimize auto dependence they have to

28:59 ↗ make it easier for students teachers and

29:01 ↗ staff to walk biker bus they're supposed

29:05 ↗ to reduce automobile trips reduce

29:08 ↗ greenhouse gas I mean we we're thinking

29:11 ↗ we're trying to nail all the things that

29:12 ↗ would make them different than another

29:14 ↗ kind of school weather protection

29:17 ↗ waiting areas the next one has that they

29:20 ↗ have amenities for the neighborhood that

29:22 ↗ they're in like meeting spaces that you

29:24 ↗ can share the recreation opportunities

29:27 ↗ and then when you cite them

29:30 ↗ you use a smaller footprint green

29:31 ↗ building techniques and any kind of

29:34 ↗ sustainable practices that we haven't

29:36 ↗ even thought of yet

29:37 ↗ we just we sort of lumped him into

29:39 ↗ sustainable practices that you can use

29:42 ↗ for compact development so we were

29:44 ↗ trying to go through all of the school

29:47 ↗ topics and see how can we make them all

29:50 ↗ be more focused on being efficient and

29:54 ↗ sustainable and not power oriented not a

29:58 ↗ huge use of land and make them more

30:01 ↗ efficient is what we tried to do these I

30:03 ↗ liked all that do you want to jump in

30:05 ↗ before yeah so all these policies here

30:08 ↗ is this the first time we've seen them

30:09 ↗ or these all yes so yeah so a couple

30:14 ↗ questions one I think it would be

30:15 ↗ helpful to walk through what the for

30:17 ↗ each one of these have their different

30:18 ↗ than compact schools because some of

30:20 ↗ these it's it's hard to tell which of

30:22 ↗ these is just reiterating these would

30:26 ↗ all be for urban I know but I what I

30:29 ↗ want to see is like a I think I'm able

30:31 ↗ to see a side-by-side between the two to

30:33 ↗ understand the difference between right

30:35 ↗ well we don't have policies at this

30:38 ↗ moment for compact schools okay we have

30:43 ↗ code for for compact schools I think

30:45 ↗ that goes my second my second question

30:46 ↗ is looking at like urban policy a six

30:49 ↗ with like building heights and high-rise

30:52 ↗ spacing that really strikes me is like

30:54 ↗ Building Code specificity as opposed to

30:58 ↗ policy statements like like reduced the

31:01 ↗ amount of automobile trips that seems

31:03 ↗ like a fantastic comp plan statement but

31:05 ↗ some of these as you get a little bit

31:06 ↗ further on this really starts to read

31:08 ↗ like code so which part did you think

31:12 ↗ was code east six prioritize act a six a

31:17 ↗ six formally a three you see policy oh

31:22 ↗ I'm in central I'm sorry I'm in the

31:24 ↗ comfy aged Leu 22 or page 38 of print

31:33 ↗ oh I'm still I'm the first perk Solomon

31:38 ↗ now which page Oh after okay after pop

31:42 ↗ chart no they say find a baby I feel

31:50 ↗ like this is kind of something that

31:51 ↗ requires and so that's easy and doctor

31:55 ↗ so again I said we've been going through

31:57 ↗ all these subsets and neighborhood he

31:59 ↗ said he's talking about a year ago being

32:03 ↗ like yeah let's get some information

32:05 ↗ let's figure out how we're all feeling

32:06 ↗ about this and let's really fine-tune

32:08 ↗ this so that we don't have a situation

32:10 ↗ where our money keeps being spent on

32:13 ↗ schools that what's missing null well I

32:22 ↗ would love to see this be twenty pages I

32:25 ↗ would love to see this be like you know

32:28 ↗ I want but not in the complement this

32:30 ↗ isn't this isn't code though this is

32:32 ↗ only but to be able to base our our comp

32:36 ↗ plan off of something where we've had

32:37 ↗ public forums for people to talk about

32:40 ↗ where we've been able to open up in a

32:42 ↗ dialogue with the community bring in the

32:43 ↗ school district along the way to be like

32:46 ↗ hey this is what we're thinking

32:48 ↗ but what topic would be missing so what

32:51 ↗ one thing that I didn't see that was

32:53 ↗ addressed right now we're talking a lot

32:55 ↗ of like what's outside of the school

32:56 ↗ rather than what's in the school so for

32:59 ↗ instance sports fields no more multiple

33:03 ↗ sports fields we need to combine them

33:04 ↗ all into one area and working on it's

33:07 ↗ likely gonna be on a rooftop

33:09 ↗ there's no we're not gonna have space

33:12 ↗ for that we're gonna also have to think

33:13 ↗ about how we build schools as far as

33:16 ↗ like maybe grand atriums

33:18 ↗ that the school district loves to build

33:19 ↗ that can be classrooms we're having you

33:21 ↗ know it's tough to go walk into a brand

33:23 ↗ new school and be like this is beautiful

33:25 ↗ and that could have been five more

33:27 ↗ classrooms right there so the way that

33:29 ↗ we build the actual school the way it's

33:31 ↗ laid out in design isn't in this

33:33 ↗ document at all and that's okay as long

33:35 ↗ as we're like yes but we're working

33:38 ↗ towards really fine-tuning what we

33:40 ↗ expect to see and what are the

33:42 ↗ differences between schools in the core

33:44 ↗ versus our

33:46 ↗ our urban school design so something

33:49 ↗ like spaces almost like are to be used

33:52 ↗ for education and learning versus

33:56 ↗ something else that it would be focused

33:58 ↗ on maximizing space to just serve to

34:04 ↗ serve the community rather rather than

34:06 ↗ maybe just more grand architectural

34:07 ↗ design yeah so to me I see it you know

34:11 ↗ being something where because we're

34:13 ↗ gonna be stacking these schools in a way

34:15 ↗ that's very different to but and I think

34:16 ↗ you know growing vertically rather than

34:18 ↗ out and so that changes how you're

34:21 ↗ orienting also your space right and

34:24 ↗ they're gonna have to do that sort of

34:25 ↗ thing right and I if they I got this

34:27 ↗ feeling the last time that we had an

34:28 ↗ interaction with a school district that

34:29 ↗ they weren't quite on that same page so

34:33 ↗ the also besides creating this document

34:36 ↗ so that everyone is really clear on

34:38 ↗ everything in the community with the

34:40 ↗ city and with with a school district is

34:43 ↗ that we kind of build that together as

34:46 ↗ we go so rather than we reach a point

34:48 ↗ where the school district says hey we

34:50 ↗ have space we want to build and then we

34:52 ↗ start having kind of a collision I'm

34:53 ↗ hoping that we're kind of all coming

34:55 ↗ together and learning and creating

34:57 ↗ something and we're all on the same page

34:59 ↗ at the end of the day because right now

35:01 ↗ I don't know that we're able to be that

35:03 ↗ way I'm not saying that were not on the

35:04 ↗ same page I'm saying that I don't know

35:06 ↗ we've been had the opportunity to have

35:08 ↗ everybody come together and have a lot

35:09 ↗ of discussions in the community about

35:10 ↗ what do we want our schools to look like

35:12 ↗ and what is what is how does how is our

35:15 ↗ needs changed kind of a thing yeah yeah

35:18 ↗ my concern is more more processed but I

35:20 ↗ think that goes Joey I mean the term

35:23 ↗ urban schools could ever run all hot and

35:24 ↗ bothered in a lot we got a lot of public

35:26 ↗ engagement and I think we need that same

35:28 ↗ level of engagement on this text both

35:30 ↗ both from the public and I think

35:32 ↗ particularly from the school district I

35:33 ↗ mean you look at policy a to community

35:35 ↗ amenities in terms of meeting rooms in

35:38 ↗ schools like that that's if that's a big

35:40 ↗ Bugaboo sometimes that people are like

35:41 ↗ this building is vacant you know 280

35:45 ↗ days

35:45 ↗ 80 days a year why isn't it something

35:47 ↗ that's open to the community right and a

35:49 ↗ lot of school districts are just not

35:50 ↗ open to that concept because if they run

35:53 ↗ schools right I don't run public

35:55 ↗ facilities right like we can't week

35:58 ↗ throw that as a policy and they're not

36:01 ↗ actually engaged with the school and get

36:02 ↗ to school

36:04 ↗ and we I believe we sent these when we

36:07 ↗ first drafted them to the school

36:09 ↗ district and didn't hear a lot back but

36:12 ↗ I'm sure we will once we go to we you

36:14 ↗ know swoosh it around and go to public

36:16 ↗ hearing we will send whatever version we

36:18 ↗ have then and but I just don't want this

36:22 ↗ particular one to then crowd out

36:24 ↗ everything else in the discussions of

36:26 ↗ the public hearing and I feel like it

36:27 ↗ needs its own time in the Sun because I

36:30 ↗ want like I went to school to get

36:32 ↗ district to come and share their

36:34 ↗ thoughts and object to things we can

36:37 ↗ have that conversation okay I also feel

36:39 ↗ like historically the school district

36:41 ↗ has been very unique in that they've

36:43 ↗ been able to kind of in a way with

36:46 ↗ different behavior that we would expect

36:47 ↗ from other developers or other partners

36:50 ↗ in our city and they're constantly

36:52 ↗ getting exceptions well this is what we

36:54 ↗ need and so they kind of flout whatever

36:56 ↗ whatever they have because they kind of

36:58 ↗ have this kind of you know get out of

37:00 ↗ building you know you know you know jail

37:03 ↗ free card well this is what we need and

37:05 ↗ so we'll just get an exemption and we

37:06 ↗ can't do that here

37:07 ↗ and so it's really important to somehow

37:10 ↗ engage the community in a way that we

37:13 ↗ help to bring the school district around

37:16 ↗ to this concept and maybe they are and

37:18 ↗ that's phenomenal but the last time that

37:20 ↗ we saw them they weren't they weren't in

37:23 ↗ any way that I felt confident that we

37:25 ↗ were like moving forward together which

37:26 ↗ is really what we need to be successful

37:28 ↗ so I love this start I love a lot of

37:32 ↗ these concepts and I guess I just want

37:35 ↗ more okay kind of a central Issaquah

37:39 ↗ plan we need his whole plan yeah well

37:42 ↗ they have a schools plan

37:44 ↗ the school district what do you what

37:46 ↗ were unit right well it's not a it's its

37:49 ↗ capacity its kids its square footage

37:53 ↗ it's not what do they look like as much

37:55 ↗ as how do we pay for it where does the

37:57 ↗ bond go how many what's the capacity how

38:00 ↗ do we build out in six years and that's

38:02 ↗ second

38:03 ↗ that third job right our job is to say

38:05 ↗ this is how we way this is how we want

38:06 ↗ the buildings to interact with the space

38:08 ↗ around them we just went through all

38:09 ↗ this with design standards and we were

38:11 ↗ so excited to finally be like yeah this

38:13 ↗ is exactly what our city needs we need

38:15 ↗ that equivalent with education you know

38:18 ↗ it's not just how it looks it's how it

38:20 ↗ actually functions and interacts in our

38:22 ↗ community right right and it's my

38:24 ↗ understanding and when they come to

38:27 ↗ whatever meeting we want to specifically

38:29 ↗ invite them to talk about it I would

38:31 ↗ rather it be when Keith's back because

38:33 ↗ he has a better relationship you know

38:35 ↗ with with how they've moved forward but

38:37 ↗ that the bond that they did back in 16

38:41 ↗ hours 16 was based on not urban schools

38:46 ↗ it was based on the building plans that

38:48 ↗ they have had in the past and so urban

38:52 ↗ schools I have a higher construction

38:54 ↗ cost because you're going this way

38:55 ↗ instead of this way and so I think

38:57 ↗ they've committed to build urban compact

39:00 ↗ slash schools in the next round of

39:02 ↗ schools not the one that they've gotten

39:04 ↗ the bond money for but I think we're

39:07 ↗ trying to still edge them closer to a

39:09 ↗ compact school footprint even though we

39:11 ↗ know that the bond amount isn't based on

39:14 ↗ that knowing that they probably can't

39:16 ↗ call a hundred percent to an urban model

39:19 ↗ with this round of schools that they're

39:20 ↗ building just because they didn't have

39:22 ↗ that in their RFQ when they went out to

39:24 ↗ bond but I think that would be a good

39:26 ↗ discussion to have with them is are they

39:29 ↗ committed to go you know as far as they

39:32 ↗ could go with the money that they have

39:33 ↗ they're not planning on building the

39:35 ↗ school in the central Issaquah area well

39:38 ↗ they don't have any land no they don't

39:39 ↗ so yeah it was time to actually put a

39:43 ↗ policy together for schools policy you

39:46 ↗ know central is across we do still have

39:47 ↗ the bulk of that bond money left they I

39:50 ↗ think they have all of it because they

39:51 ↗ haven't bought any sites yet so in

39:53 ↗ theory and again this isn't my purview

39:56 ↗ so stop me if I'm correct they could

39:58 ↗ reverse course and be build something

40:01 ↗ that is more similar to a compact school

40:03 ↗ because even though they may be

40:05 ↗ delivering less they may be also

40:08 ↗ delivering more in that it's more in

40:10 ↗ line with what our community needs and

40:11 ↗ purchasing a piece of land that may be

40:13 ↗ considered more expensive but with still

40:15 ↗ having this glut

40:16 ↗ funds which i think has an expiration

40:18 ↗ right and i am again that's not my peru

40:21 ↗ either but from what yes from our

40:23 ↗ discussions they didn't allocate enough

40:25 ↗ money in the when they went out for the

40:27 ↗ bond to build vertical schools they they

40:32 ↗ went that shouldn't stop us from setting

40:34 ↗ better policy oh absolutely it doesn't

40:36 ↗ stop us but it stops them err it limits

40:39 ↗ them a little bit from this round of

40:40 ↗ schools to be built to have them all the

40:43 ↗ way that we would the community what

40:45 ↗ these are two different conversations

40:46 ↗ are that that's their issue this is

40:49 ↗ we're talking about the yeah we said we

40:52 ↗ said this day means everyone the school

40:54 ↗ this just has to figure out how to meet

40:56 ↗ their meet meet meet their needs within

40:58 ↗ those constraints just like as Joyce

41:00 ↗ said just like any any of our other

41:01 ↗ public partners that's right for them

41:03 ↗ right I think that would be generally

41:05 ↗ true right but our other partners don't

41:07 ↗ worry about children and their education

41:09 ↗ so I'm a little hesitant with this

41:12 ↗ conversation that dictating to the

41:16 ↗ schools that they need to do this this

41:18 ↗ and this what if they their their goal

41:21 ↗ is to get six sixth grade classes in

41:24 ↗ that building and because you have an

41:26 ↗ open atrium and this and that and a

41:28 ↗ compact school they're not going to be

41:30 ↗ able to do that

41:31 ↗ so I think we have to be very careful

41:34 ↗ about theme but that's it for me that's

41:36 ↗ the reason we need to have them at the

41:37 ↗ tables right so we can have the classes

41:39 ↗ but I just want reiterate the necessity

41:43 ↗ of being careful of going into a

41:45 ↗ conversation with saying you have to

41:48 ↗ have this this and this when the school

41:51 ↗ knows better hopefully what the children

41:54 ↗ need and how they can be taught that's

41:56 ↗ all well packed schools are thriving all

41:58 ↗ around this nation and I'm sure they are

42:01 ↗ and I think it's just important that we

42:03 ↗ they that we create something that works

42:06 ↗ for the community rather than falling

42:08 ↗ back on an old model even if there is

42:11 ↗ this concept of well this is harder

42:13 ↗ let's just keep doing what we know no I

42:15 ↗ think you know I I don't think we have a

42:17 ↗ choice but to go into compact schools I

42:19 ↗ just want to be careful about how much

42:21 ↗ we tell the schools that they have to do

42:25 ↗ in order to get what they actually need

42:28 ↗ I think we just have to be careful on

42:30 ↗ that at a high level the way I read it

42:31 ↗ is is this commission we can set the

42:35 ↗ policy around what what the outside

42:36 ↗ looks like how it interacts with the

42:38 ↗ community and the school district comes

42:40 ↗ into what happens inside our house

42:41 ↗ design inside the building right so it

42:44 ↗ sounds like we're creeping into the

42:45 ↗ inside of the school where maybe

42:47 ↗ historically we're we're set to see how

42:49 ↗ it like as the I think the a lot of

42:51 ↗ these call out great bullet points and

42:53 ↗ ideas for how the community interacts

42:55 ↗ with the school as a building but it

42:57 ↗ doesn't creep inside the walls to say

43:00 ↗ what they need you know I read a note

43:03 ↗ right yeah and that's true everything we

43:05 ↗ whenever write these policies even when

43:07 ↗ dealing with you know for-profit

43:08 ↗ developers we don't want to be too

43:10 ↗ prescriptive in Kremp development

43:12 ↗ because we want good developments that's

43:15 ↗ true for all these things and sometimes

43:16 ↗ we set standards from the outside which

43:19 ↗ we think is awesome but you end up

43:22 ↗ looking at the school district and well

43:25 ↗ I need that extra three feet because we

43:27 ↗ need these twelve other classrooms so I

43:30 ↗ mean you just can't dictate to the

43:33 ↗ extent that we think we can you know

43:36 ↗ it's not just the community it's the

43:38 ↗ kids and what how well they can be

43:40 ↗ educated and what they need in that in

43:42 ↗ that school so just a quick question

43:45 ↗ just about the process because we're

43:47 ↗ just getting introduced to all these

43:48 ↗ tonight and there will be a public

43:50 ↗ hearing it sounds like right now that's

43:53 ↗ the the one and only opportunity for

43:55 ↗ schools to come and talk and you know

43:56 ↗ interact with us on the issue

43:59 ↗ it sounds like others are hoping that

44:01 ↗ there might be more maybe a just an

44:04 ↗ informational session where they would

44:05 ↗ come but maybe they wouldn't come unless

44:07 ↗ it was a public hearing right I could

44:09 ↗ set up something because we have three

44:11 ↗ different meetings that we're talking

44:12 ↗ about comp plan amendments and if we

44:15 ↗ could agree on one that where most of

44:18 ↗ you all would be there that we could

44:19 ↗ invite the school specifically to talk

44:22 ↗ about that set of policies before the

44:25 ↗ public hearing so that if you work if

44:27 ↗ you work towards some kind of middle

44:28 ↗ ground that we have time to draft that

44:31 ↗ for the public hearing if that would be

44:33 ↗ a way back I think that's to have

44:35 ↗ already incorporated that the school the

44:37 ↗ school board's feedback before we okay

44:40 ↗ but go to the public so when we get to

44:42 ↗ next steps I'll have you guys look at

44:44 ↗ the dates that are listed there and see

44:47 ↗ which ones do you think I mean I know

44:50 ↗ you'll be at all of the meetings but

44:52 ↗ which one would be the best one to

44:54 ↗ invite and then see if the school

44:56 ↗ district can come and be with us at the

44:58 ↗ table and it will be an open meeting yes

45:01 ↗ oh yes it would just be we would just

45:03 ↗ have that on the agenda as talking about

45:05 ↗ the urban school policy does that work

45:09 ↗ yeah and just so you know when Ajay had

45:13 ↗ asked about why is some of the some of

45:15 ↗ them prescriptive the main the

45:18 ↗ overriding policy is urban community as

45:21 ↗ create a compact attractive mixed use

45:23 ↗ urban community that prioritizes

45:25 ↗ pedestrian safety comfort and enhances

45:27 ↗ the quality of life and so that's why we

45:30 ↗ talk about building heights and all

45:32 ↗ those other things in there it's not

45:34 ↗ just the schools that we talk about in

45:35 ↗ that it's it's the whole community being

45:38 ↗ compact and pedestrian oriented what

45:43 ↗ want one last point so you talked about

45:45 ↗ this the urban schools is a concept that

45:48 ↗ sits within the compact schools concept

45:50 ↗ we only have we only really have

45:52 ↗ language around urban schools would it

45:55 ↗ be would it be useful to have a

45:58 ↗ paragraph or section header that then

46:02 ↗ lays out what our comp plan vision is

46:05 ↗ for compact schools and then even though

46:09 ↗ there's a lot more text on the urban

46:10 ↗ side that's a subset of it right and we

46:12 ↗ would like that to go into the big comp

46:14 ↗ plan because this again it's just

46:16 ↗ central plan but we're not sure if we

46:18 ↗ can get that teed up in the next few

46:21 ↗ weeks because we're still trying to

46:23 ↗ figure out you know it's real

46:26 ↗ differentiation that if you're standing

46:28 ↗ in the lobby it's very small as it would

46:31 ↗ be of a compact school or a very small

46:34 ↗ lobby of an urban school how would you

46:36 ↗ really know that you know what makes

46:37 ↗ them different so that's what we're

46:39 ↗ trying to figure out is how do you make

46:41 ↗ them different but I think we I think we

46:43 ↗ need to have thought that through before

46:45 ↗ I can lay out urban standards because we

46:47 ↗ need to understand what the difference

46:48 ↗ well right right right that's what I'm

46:50 ↗ saying is we threw the first set down

46:52 ↗ and now when we

46:53 ↗ see it we go well if that's a band then

46:55 ↗ how do you back up a little to do the

46:57 ↗ compact ones because we already have

46:58 ↗ compact code yeah as long as we get

47:01 ↗ there right these are compact schools

47:03 ↗ and then these are these are urban right

47:05 ↗ okay right excellent discussion I knew

47:09 ↗ you guys would love those this was an

47:12 ↗ exciting one that you came up with this

47:15 ↗ was a head scratcher it you thought it

47:18 ↗ we all thought it would be in land you

47:20 ↗ so it ended up in economic vitality

47:21 ↗ because we thought it had a lot more to

47:23 ↗ do with economics than it did with land

47:25 ↗ use and this was the one you talked

47:27 ↗ about briefly that to make sure that

47:29 ↗ when we do non-residential to make sure

47:33 ↗ that we don't lose the jobs during the

47:37 ↗ sepoys redevelopment this applies only

47:39 ↗ to centralized Oakland correct do we

47:42 ↗ define job opportunities

47:45 ↗ I would guess not I would bet not I

47:49 ↗ think we're trying to we didn't want it

47:51 ↗ to be because again this isn't in code

47:55 ↗ yet it's just the idea that when you're

47:58 ↗ looking at redevelopment if you keep

47:59 ↗ redeveloping but I thought it was in

48:02 ↗ code when atlas came in and all the

48:09 ↗ little those strip mall with the garlic

48:10 ↗ restaurant went away you people were

48:12 ↗ getting nervous that are we gonna

48:14 ↗ replace all of our retail and commercial

48:16 ↗ with housing should there be some kind

48:18 ↗ of a check that if you come in and

48:20 ↗ you're going to redevelop on a

48:22 ↗ commercial site you have to have some

48:23 ↗ percentage of commercial that you've

48:26 ↗ displaced and so we're trying to figure

48:28 ↗ out how to write that and this is this

48:31 ↗ is how we try to write the policy so the

48:33 ↗ policy is written but if the funding

48:34 ↗ code is it well remember you can't

48:37 ↗ really you're not supposed to write code

48:39 ↗ without some policy direction that that

48:43 ↗ links it and so we didn't have anything

48:45 ↗ like that before because we were so

48:47 ↗ happy to have housing i'm gilman that we

48:49 ↗ didn't think it was a risk but if that

48:53 ↗ keeps calling gilman is going to be a

48:54 ↗ residential street pretty soon so we

48:56 ↗ should think about capping it so this is

48:59 ↗ what we started with but by adopting the

49:01 ↗ socialist core standards

49:02 ↗ i thought that made it in for code

49:04 ↗ enforceable

49:05 ↗ well there's no code standard in the

49:08 ↗ standards that that says that Atlas

49:11 ↗ should have put in I'm not I'm looking

49:14 ↗ forward to the next development and we

49:16 ↗ adopt this plan this is the policy the

49:22 ↗ next step would be the code how the code

49:23 ↗ would be so we so we've lifted the

49:26 ↗ moratorium so right now someone could

49:27 ↗ come in and redevelop one of the strip

49:29 ↗ malls and not and violate this policy

49:31 ↗ yes if they filed if they could yes they

49:37 ↗ could just come in and just do

49:39 ↗ residential so oh that's true

49:47 ↗ bonus points for senior planners over

49:50 ↗ here when you all did the vision which

49:52 ↗ of course I have forgotten because it

49:53 ↗ was just last week there are those

49:55 ↗ developer developer obligations that you

49:58 ↗ put in there and so those would and

50:00 ↗ they're they again that's a real general

50:02 ↗ statement

50:03 ↗ this is enforceable via the developer

50:06 ↗ obligations for a few of the

50:08 ↗ neighborhoods I don't think it's for all

50:10 ↗ of them though I think it's just it's

50:12 ↗ probably they were going to say

50:12 ↗ Pickering Gilman and one lick might be

50:19 ↗ maybe we couldn't look at that though

50:21 ↗ okay that's what I wanted to confirm

50:23 ↗ that this was they said this is

50:25 ↗ currently enforceable in the core unit

50:28 ↗ if it's some certain person right I

50:29 ↗ think it's loosely I think that's one of

50:34 ↗ if Lindsey was here at she be beating

50:37 ↗ that drum right like it's in the policy

50:39 ↗ statement but if it's not enforceable I

50:45 ↗ know this comment may just go into the

50:48 ↗ wind but I'd love to have this policy be

50:51 ↗ extended into our our other situations

50:56 ↗ and thinking particularly about

50:58 ↗ development agreements that we have with

51:00 ↗ developers and I'm also thinking

51:01 ↗ particularly about the rally development

51:04 ↗ that's adjacent to mall Street and

51:07 ↗ Gilman

51:08 ↗ and well we don't know when or where

51:10 ↗ that's going to look like we have a lot

51:12 ↗ of commercial there that's for Ferrari

51:15 ↗ yeah so we really do know what its gonna

51:18 ↗ look like the development agreement has

51:20 ↗ standards and pictures and requirements

51:23 ↗ and allotments for retail commercial

51:25 ↗ housing we would be able to apply no net

51:28 ↗ loss to that well no they already have

51:30 ↗ their and tight I mean we know it's like

51:32 ↗ a package we already agreed on with them

51:34 ↗ and the City Council on exactly how much

51:37 ↗ development they got how much has to be

51:39 ↗ retail commercial housing there would

51:41 ↗ cancel would you so I grant that we

51:43 ↗ can't change it I'm curious would you

51:44 ↗ say that we would have no net loss yes

51:49 ↗ we didn't have some housing thrown in

51:52 ↗ there where there's no housing now we'll

51:54 ↗ be losing any commercial correct we

51:56 ↗ would not be losing any commercial

51:57 ↗ because I don't remember how much it is

51:59 ↗ entitlement but it's a it's a big number

52:02 ↗ yeah it's a big number so that's awesome

52:04 ↗ for the rally is there any other

52:06 ↗ development agreements but you would say

52:07 ↗ where this doesn't hold it's putting

52:09 ↗ this policy appoints is there anybody

52:11 ↗ who would be like out of compliance no

52:13 ↗ cuz Lakeside's all residential and

52:15 ↗ that's sealed that's and Costco is just

52:17 ↗ the opposite Costco is all commercial

52:19 ↗ with no residential so they wouldn't be

52:22 ↗ losing commercial job opportunities in

52:27 ↗ the Costco development agreement either

52:29 ↗ good any other comments on this one

52:33 ↗ that's a good one

52:35 ↗ whoops whoops

52:39 ↗ oh well goodness and what pages sent on

52:49 ↗ page 23 of your packet and that's the as

52:54 ↗ I called Dominique's

52:55 ↗ page numbers at the very very bottom 23

52:58 ↗ of 63 yeah I should have remembered that

53:01 ↗ when I went over that today there were a

53:04 ↗ lot of items in this packet this time

53:06 ↗ these are part of the land-use element

53:10 ↗ in the entire comp plan not just in

53:13 ↗ central and the first one a six is

53:15 ↗ everybody there prioritize acquisition

53:19 ↗ of forested hillsides land that enhances

53:22 ↗ connections to public land and supports

53:24 ↗ community value of forested hillsides

53:26 ↗ that one was added to the docket I

53:29 ↗ believe by Landon Shore and that's how

53:34 ↗ we wrote it are there questions on on

53:37 ↗ that one

53:39 ↗ what are we prioritize it over in my

53:42 ↗ mind when we wrote it it was when we're

53:45 ↗ buying land that if it if there happens

53:48 ↗ to be a forested hillsides for sale

53:51 ↗ versus another piece of land for sale

53:54 ↗ that we would we would buy the forested

53:57 ↗ hillsides for the public versus perhaps

54:00 ↗ something else this of course doesn't

54:02 ↗ bind you bind your hands if you're the

54:05 ↗ council because again there's no code

54:07 ↗ connected to this that says thou shalt

54:09 ↗ only buy the forested hillsides if there

54:13 ↗ are two properties for sale but it's

54:15 ↗ sort of sense sets that intention that

54:18 ↗ that the community would like us to

54:20 ↗ prioritize hillside land to buy for the

54:24 ↗ public so this is a policy that may not

54:26 ↗ turn into a code if it turned into a

54:30 ↗ code it would be I'd be a tricky one

54:35 ↗ because it's about I mean its financial

54:37 ↗ so we would have to work with however we

54:40 ↗ do budgeting and that kind of thing to

54:43 ↗ see how we would craft that but it

54:46 ↗ definitely sends a message it sends an

54:48 ↗ aspirational goal that if it's available

54:51 ↗ that we would try

54:52 ↗ to buy it if if we were if we were in

54:55 ↗ the market to buy some land we wouldn't

54:57 ↗ implement this with owed we'd implement

55:00 ↗ this with budget well and that would be

55:03 ↗ right that was it that would be a way to

55:05 ↗ implement it to make it happen last

55:08 ↗ month there was a parcel over here off

55:10 ↗ the behind the Sunset Trail okay I was

55:14 ↗ actually going through development

55:16 ↗ prospect where it would actually I think

55:21 ↗ 40 40 condominium cottage units behind

55:26 ↗ there's a the trailhead that's right

55:29 ↗ back here the trailer right there would

55:31 ↗ be right next to that mm-hmm I can

55:34 ↗ actually share that the personal writer

55:36 ↗ no no I think I know where you are that

55:39 ↗ would actually go all the way and take

55:40 ↗ half the trailhead Sun Sun trailhead

55:45 ↗ right light parcel was actually for sale

55:48 ↗ it was you know it went up for a sale in

55:50 ↗ the city said we're not interested in

55:52 ↗ that

55:52 ↗ well why wouldn't we be interested in

55:54 ↗ buying that because that's actually well

55:57 ↗ we didn't have a policy yet because this

55:59 ↗ is just draft and I don't know the

56:01 ↗ history of that I know often things come

56:04 ↗ up for sale and often the property

56:06 ↗ owners ask us first would you like to

56:08 ↗ buy this for XY and Z and sometimes were

56:11 ↗ able to and sometimes we're not able to

56:13 ↗ so I'm I wasn't in the room when we

56:16 ↗ chose not to do that one I thought we

56:18 ↗ I thought we owned or somebody owned the

56:20 ↗ part of the trailhead there though yeah

56:24 ↗ it is actually owned by a private

56:27 ↗ individual the trailhead those trail

56:31 ↗ heads there's like 30 40 feet from

56:34 ↗ sunset to where this new property

56:38 ↗ boundary is which would actually be

56:40 ↗ almost parallel to the trail itself that

56:42 ↗ goes up to that okay

56:44 ↗ and that whole space is actually being

56:47 ↗ looked at now for cottages okay this

56:52 ↗ might be a good time to kind

56:54 ↗ look at this get this nailed down and

56:57 ↗ maybe look at that parcel because

56:59 ↗ looking twenty years out that's a major

57:02 ↗ trailhead for a lot of people right well

57:04 ↗ I don't think we would have lost the

57:06 ↗ trail head because I think that's ours

57:07 ↗ or King County where the sign in the

57:09 ↗ parking is located Jason right literally

57:13 ↗ right parallel to that trail right is

57:16 ↗ that parcel right and I don't know and

57:18 ↗ again I don't know why we didn't we

57:21 ↗ didn't go after it but but this is I

57:23 ↗ think this is why this one came up

57:25 ↗ bye-bye I think you all liked it I think

57:28 ↗ it came from land and shore but then you

57:30 ↗ all agreed that it should be on the

57:32 ↗ docket so that's how we that's how we

57:34 ↗ wrote it I personally like it in regards

57:38 ↗ to the public comment we got about the

57:39 ↗ word prioritize I didn't read the

57:41 ↗ document at all as being like this was

57:44 ↗ now the holy grail of our work and now

57:46 ↗ you know traffic and everything else

57:49 ↗ didn't matter I didn't read it like that

57:50 ↗ at all to me it's very clear when you

57:52 ↗ see what section were in what we're

57:54 ↗ talking about so I like the word

57:56 ↗ prioritize and I think it fits right in

57:58 ↗ line with what we feel so I wouldn't

58:00 ↗ change it okay good good to know any

58:03 ↗ other comments on that one that's the

58:06 ↗ short one of the two this is have any

58:08 ↗ impact on the I think it's the Bergsma

58:10 ↗ development the one that that's actually

58:13 ↗ there moving forward on those things but

58:16 ↗ this I think is another reaction to what

58:19 ↗ happened last year that they that

58:21 ↗ project is vested so this won't this

58:23 ↗ won't have any impact on it um I would

58:25 ↗ no vested is a tricky word I don't think

58:28 ↗ invest it's not the right word yeah I

58:29 ↗ don't I think I think we're still

58:32 ↗ working with the part I think we're

58:33 ↗ keeping all the options open that we can

58:35 ↗ as a city but yeah I don't think I don't

58:39 ↗ think the final chapter has been written

58:41 ↗ on that yet

58:42 ↗ and to be clear this policies about how

58:44 ↗ the city spends our money right on

58:47 ↗ buying land not necessarily on

58:50 ↗ enforcement I guess I was looking at a

58:51 ↗ seven always more whether or not that

58:53 ↗ would impact or what that development

58:55 ↗ can't can and can't do replica right

58:58 ↗ this isn't a the next one is a reaction

59:01 ↗ to hillsides and sloped sites how

59:04 ↗ they're developed

59:05 ↗ this part of this was solved in the

59:08 ↗ architectural design manual that you all

59:11 ↗ worked on for central as part of the

59:14 ↗ moratorium they wanted some of the

59:17 ↗ language actually put in policy form

59:20 ↗ that would help inform how that's how

59:23 ↗ that's implemented and so that's why and

59:26 ↗ we the actual quote at the bottom won't

59:29 ↗ be in there it's just helping you all in

59:31 ↗ helping us remember where we got the

59:33 ↗ language but that would be taken out

59:35 ↗ before it was adopted there any

59:38 ↗ questions on that the hillsides part

59:44 ↗ and the other ones that we missed any

59:50 ↗ other questions before we move to parks

59:54 ↗ doctor I give you Emily today is her

59:57 ↗ four-week anniversary at the city hmm we

1:00:01 ↗ are happy oh good evening commissioners

1:00:06 ↗ my name is Emily our touch-a and a

1:00:09 ↗ Senior Planner here at the city of

1:00:10 ↗ Sammamish and yes it's my for this

1:00:13 ↗ excuse me

1:00:14 ↗ that was a faux pas excuse me four-week

1:00:17 ↗ anniversary from a neighboring

1:00:20 ↗ jurisdiction not to be named so thank

1:00:26 ↗ you for bearing with me on that I am

1:00:28 ↗ here today to introduce to you some

1:00:30 ↗ changes to the parks element it has a

1:00:34 ↗ longer name the parks and recreation and

1:00:40 ↗ open space was an open space plan but

1:00:42 ↗ for black of brevity I just put the

1:00:45 ↗ parks element and as you recall the

1:00:48 ↗ parks department came to present some of

1:00:51 ↗ the work they were putting together that

1:00:54 ↗ recently was adopted in the 2018 park

1:00:57 ↗ strategic plan if you haven't seen that

1:01:00 ↗ it's available online city council

1:01:02 ↗ recently adopted this document just in

1:01:05 ↗ July of this year and the parks

1:01:07 ↗ department came to you to kind of

1:01:10 ↗ introduce the work they were doing in

1:01:11 ↗ June you had a public hearing on June

1:01:13 ↗ 14th so I'm here today to just go over

1:01:17 ↗ and acknowledge the changes that have

1:01:20 ↗ been embedded or proposed to be embedded

1:01:22 ↗ into the parks element from the

1:01:24 ↗ strategic plan and to go over a few

1:01:26 ↗ quick adjustments or amendments that

1:01:29 ↗ went on to the non policy non goal

1:01:33 ↗ related parts of the element so as you

1:01:40 ↗ can see in your packets I've organized

1:01:43 ↗ the changes that occurred from the work

1:01:46 ↗ that was done on the strategic plan and

1:01:48 ↗ how they were embedded into the goals

1:01:50 ↗ and policies of the city's comprehensive

1:01:53 ↗ plan in the parks element I'm not going

1:01:56 ↗ to go through each one of those but

1:01:58 ↗ did anybody have any questions at all as

1:02:01 ↗ you may have looked at the back pack of

1:02:03 ↗ material in advance are we gonna drop in

1:02:08 ↗ I noticed there was this this picture is

1:02:11 ↗ going away yes it already exists in the

1:02:15 ↗ comp plan

1:02:16 ↗ so it was duplicated yeah I did on my

1:02:18 ↗ next slide I do have a brief discussion

1:02:21 ↗ of other items that have been deleted or

1:02:25 ↗ from the existing parks element that's

1:02:29 ↗ one of them I also include on this list

1:02:35 ↗ here the state requirement just an

1:02:37 ↗ update that the parks element as you may

1:02:39 ↗ not have known is not a required element

1:02:41 ↗ but the cities had one for a very long

1:02:44 ↗ time and parks are very important and

1:02:46 ↗ though it's not required I just made the

1:02:48 ↗ adjustment in here the proposed

1:02:50 ↗ adjustment just to acknowledge that we

1:02:51 ↗ have a voluntary element that we're very

1:02:53 ↗ proud of a much of the other changes we

1:02:57 ↗ go back to refer back to work that's

1:03:01 ↗ already been done in the strategic plan

1:03:02 ↗ including the inventory summary and

1:03:05 ↗ future Park and Rec needs all of that is

1:03:08 ↗ very detailed in the strategic plan and

1:03:10 ↗ so in an attempt to try to eliminate you

1:03:13 ↗ know mimicking that was going on in the

1:03:15 ↗ more detailed plan we proposed to

1:03:18 ↗ actually eliminate that discussion is

1:03:21 ↗ there any questions about that

1:03:26 ↗ implementation what was appendix B could

1:03:33 ↗ you say that P 19 if people F regarding

1:03:37 ↗ implementation the discussion it says

1:03:42 ↗ the city has established a list of

1:03:43 ↗ implementation strategies appendix B oh

1:03:46 ↗ yeah we're working on that next time

1:03:48 ↗ that's a whole separate part where we

1:03:53 ↗ took all the implementation pieces out

1:03:55 ↗ of all the elements and put them in one

1:03:57 ↗ spot and then this year we're supposed

1:03:59 ↗ to go through those and try to

1:04:01 ↗ prioritize them yeah excellent question

1:04:02 ↗ so there is a reference to parks in that

1:04:05 ↗ implementation it's almost its own

1:04:07 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan

1:04:09 ↗ so that's still part of our work program

1:04:12 ↗ and this might be similar question so

1:04:17 ↗ like the inventory summary that got

1:04:18 ↗ taken out is that now is just showing up

1:04:20 ↗ someplace else

1:04:21 ↗ yeah as I referred to just a few minutes

1:04:24 ↗ ago in the park strategic plan they've

1:04:25 ↗ got a very nice comprehensive inventory

1:04:30 ↗ listed of and park classification as

1:04:33 ↗ well so it really belongs to be it

1:04:37 ↗ belongs in that strategic plan make

1:04:39 ↗ sense mm-hmm and then similarly the

1:04:41 ↗ level of service all that language

1:04:43 ↗ around our level of service is adequate

1:04:46 ↗ does that all address yeah we

1:04:48 ↗ abbreviated it quite a bit it is also in

1:04:51 ↗ the strategic plan and parks we'll be

1:04:53 ↗ coming back as I've noted on the screen

1:04:56 ↗ next year you've asked them to come back

1:04:58 ↗ again for another opportunity to look at

1:05:00 ↗ the parks element and I'm sure they're

1:05:02 ↗ going to be talking about LS as well I

1:05:06 ↗ mean they've got some ideas of how they

1:05:07 ↗ might want to redress that in the future

1:05:09 ↗ park strategic plan

1:05:20 ↗ well sounds like we'll have more

1:05:21 ↗ information in the next meeting Bretton

1:05:24 ↗ that would just be on the implementation

1:05:26 ↗ pieces yeah there's no more

1:05:29 ↗ we haven't scheduled any more

1:05:31 ↗ discussions for the parks element but

1:05:35 ↗ there'll be another opportunity in 2019

1:05:37 ↗ for the parks department to come back

1:05:38 ↗ and address the goals and policies again

1:05:41 ↗ with you as we've understood from a

1:05:43 ↗ previous meeting that you've had some

1:05:44 ↗ ideas about how you might want to

1:05:45 ↗ reorganize them or address them

1:05:47 ↗ differently and I think that'd be a

1:05:48 ↗ great opportunity as they plan to update

1:05:49 ↗ the strategic plan annually it's a great

1:05:53 ↗ opportunity to get them in the right

1:05:55 ↗ frame of mind for you know goals and

1:05:58 ↗ policies that you'd like to see us bring

1:05:59 ↗ back and put into the parks element and

1:06:02 ↗ actually it's theirs cycle of six years

1:06:05 ↗ further for updating they're not doing

1:06:07 ↗ it annually but it's an odd piece that

1:06:11 ↗ you all requested to do the goals and

1:06:12 ↗ policies again so they agreed to do

1:06:15 ↗ those next year but the whole plan

1:06:18 ↗ wouldn't thank you yeah so of course six

1:06:20 ↗ years yeah right Trish thank you so much

1:06:22 ↗ for clarifying that

1:06:23 ↗ because I can see that yeah it's not but

1:06:27 ↗ but they will be back next year not ever

1:06:30 ↗ a year after that right and then the

1:06:32 ↗ development impact fees got stricken and

1:06:36 ↗ put somewhere else

1:06:37 ↗ right right though yeah actually the

1:06:41 ↗ impact fees we're working on updating

1:06:43 ↗ those now we hope to have them done

1:06:46 ↗ early while mid next year because we

1:06:50 ↗ were waiting for them to finish the

1:06:51 ↗ strategic plan and the list of projects

1:06:53 ↗ and now we're waiting for them to put

1:06:55 ↗ price tags on the list of projects

1:06:57 ↗ because that's what goes into the impact

1:06:59 ↗ fee calculations is how much money will

1:07:02 ↗ it take for us to build those when

1:07:04 ↗ everybody comes to live here and that's

1:07:07 ↗ what gets rolled into the impact fee

1:07:09 ↗ isn't that usually cited here what that

1:07:11 ↗ calculation is in this document don't we

1:07:13 ↗ usually have the impact but no we do it

1:07:15 ↗ in a rate study and then we we put the

1:07:17 ↗ outcome of the rate study in the plan

1:07:19 ↗ and that's our that's what we call the

1:07:20 ↗ level of service okay so we will will we

1:07:23 ↗ have that updated number for this year

1:07:25 ↗ know that it won't be done until next

1:07:27 ↗ year

1:07:28 ↗ okay good question though

1:07:33 ↗ any more questions on the parks element

1:07:36 ↗ proposed amendments if not I'm going to

1:07:39 ↗ turn it back over to Trish for some

1:07:40 ↗ wrap-up on next steps next steps next in

1:07:55 ↗ two weeks not next week two weeks we're

1:07:58 ↗ gonna do the transportation element

1:08:00 ↗ amendments there's only a few very few

1:08:03 ↗ and Appendix B that it sounds like you

1:08:06 ↗ were all excited about those will be

1:08:08 ↗ coming back and if that's a night that

1:08:11 ↗ you're all gonna be here we could invite

1:08:13 ↗ the schools or we could invite the

1:08:16 ↗ schools October 11th you also have

1:08:19 ↗ another public hearing that night for a

1:08:22 ↗ new code amendment that you're gonna

1:08:24 ↗ love I think but we could also invite

1:08:28 ↗ the schools that night and have a really

1:08:30 ↗ great conversation about urban schools

1:08:31 ↗ or well those are the two that would be

1:08:35 ↗ coming before the 25th which was when we

1:08:37 ↗ hope to have a public hearing if you're

1:08:39 ↗ not ready on the 25th we could bump it

1:08:41 ↗ to November it wouldn't bother me to

1:08:45 ↗ bump everything to November the council

1:08:47 ↗ is busy with budget and all sorts of

1:08:49 ↗ things so I I think we would be fine if

1:08:52 ↗ you all needed more time because heaven

1:08:54 ↗ knows there's been so many other

1:08:56 ↗ projects going on with you all this year

1:08:58 ↗ that to start the comp plan in September

1:09:01 ↗ hasn't happened in many many years

1:09:03 ↗ usually we're well into it by September

1:09:06 ↗ and we've just all been very busy I

1:09:09 ↗ think for the school I just want to make

1:09:11 ↗ sure they have time to digest and give

1:09:13 ↗ us good feedback so if they could do

1:09:15 ↗ that in two weeks great but I also I

1:09:18 ↗ also want to respectful at the time for

1:09:19 ↗ the the staff probably needs to review

1:09:21 ↗ it it would be great if the board had an

1:09:24 ↗ opportunity to provide their thoughts to

1:09:27 ↗ staff before the okay the district staff

1:09:29 ↗ came here so I mean I think if they can

1:09:31 ↗ do that and we can have a good

1:09:32 ↗ conversation the twenty-seventh great

1:09:33 ↗ but I mean I'm sure that everyone's

1:09:36 ↗ over there with the start of the school

1:09:38 ↗ year there were a lot of things going on

1:09:40 ↗ so I wouldn't expect the two-week

1:09:41 ↗ turnaround so maybe October the 11:30

1:09:43 ↗ yeah I mean I love the idea of them

1:09:45 ↗ coming when we have when we're also

1:09:47 ↗ inviting the public and so I would ask

1:09:49 ↗ the chair to maybe create a space that

1:09:51 ↗ we could allow the public to comment on

1:09:53 ↗ it as well and just use it as an

1:09:55 ↗ opportunity to see as kind of a you know

1:09:58 ↗ engage and see what people are thinking

1:10:00 ↗ I couldn't hurt but again I would defer

1:10:03 ↗ to the chair for that agenda are you all

1:10:06 ↗ would you all mostly be here on October

1:10:09 ↗ 11th if we if we sort of thumbnail that

1:10:11 ↗ one as the first the first try yep is

1:10:20 ↗ that really enough time for you it's

1:10:23 ↗ only two weeks

1:10:23 ↗ October 11th that would be four weeks it

1:10:38 ↗ depends what Keith does it would just be

1:10:46 ↗ an open meeting like today is and again

1:10:52 ↗ if they're not available we can bump it

1:10:53 ↗ into October and then bump the public

1:10:56 ↗ hearing until November that's okay too

1:10:57 ↗ how do we instruct the school district

1:11:01 ↗ to review it based on what we talked

1:11:04 ↗ about tonight we just give them the set

1:11:06 ↗ of policies right right some of the

1:11:09 ↗ discussion that I was talking about lack

1:11:11 ↗ of policy so instead of you know

1:11:14 ↗ surprising them when they get here

1:11:15 ↗ I don't know how what do we think I can

1:11:17 ↗ send them give them kind of a heads up

1:11:20 ↗ of what right missing her this summary

1:11:23 ↗ would basically staff would basically

1:11:25 ↗ communicate that we're looking to create

1:11:27 ↗ policy for both urban and compact

1:11:30 ↗ schools and we'd like to create

1:11:32 ↗ something that works for both and

1:11:34 ↗ distinguishes both would being unique

1:11:36 ↗ and kind of exciting out those things

1:11:37 ↗ that we're hoping to figure out right

1:11:41 ↗ and and I could send them the link of

1:11:43 ↗ them of the video for tonight too so

1:11:45 ↗ they could actually see how you

1:11:46 ↗ discussed it but it wouldn't surprise me

1:11:48 ↗ if we tried to meet with them

1:11:50 ↗ for we met with them here just for to

1:11:52 ↗ keep the surprises at a minimum to just

1:11:55 ↗ kind of chat through stuff make some

1:11:56 ↗ more constructive will get through

1:11:57 ↗ absolutely absolutely and that's what we

1:11:59 ↗ want we don't want to surprise anybody

1:12:01 ↗ right start from basic scratch and come

1:12:11 ↗ together with some ideas then right tell

1:12:14 ↗ the school district or or anyone what

1:12:17 ↗ this is going to do at this point in

1:12:19 ↗ time I think when staffs put together so

1:12:20 ↗ far is you great starting point yeah I

1:12:23 ↗ do to agree I just think we need that

1:12:26 ↗ element of collaboration with the

1:12:27 ↗ community school district with the city

1:12:30 ↗ so that we create a policy that works

1:12:32 ↗ for what we want and can actually be

1:12:34 ↗ executed rather than just creating a

1:12:36 ↗ policy to the district and says well

1:12:38 ↗ that's a nice thought you know and also

1:12:40 ↗ that we address the needs of what

1:12:42 ↗ everyone is saying that they're that

1:12:44 ↗ they're wanting for creating school

1:12:51 ↗ okay other thoughts other ideas okay

1:12:58 ↗ so we'll do we'll redo the schedule

1:13:01 ↗ depending on when we can work with the

1:13:03 ↗ school district and when everybody's the

1:13:07 ↗ planets all aligned for all of us

1:13:09 ↗ and the public hearing might be in

1:13:12 ↗ November if we need to adjust we sent

1:13:15 ↗ out I think yes we did we sent out a

1:13:18 ↗ tentative not a tentative we sent out an

1:13:21 ↗ alternate meeting so we don't have to be

1:13:23 ↗ here on Thanksgiving although I know you

1:13:25 ↗ would want to be all together on

1:13:27 ↗ Thanksgiving we haven't ever done that

1:13:29 ↗ so we try to snag the meeting ahead the

1:13:32 ↗ Thursday ahead of Thanksgiving to all be

1:13:35 ↗ thankful for each other and to have a

1:13:37 ↗ PPC meeting and so I think we've already

1:13:39 ↗ snagged the date and done an RSVP to you

1:13:41 ↗ all because we figure you're probably

1:13:44 ↗ busy that next week so if we had to bump

1:13:47 ↗ the public hearing or any of the

1:13:49 ↗ meetings we do have to still have two

1:13:51 ↗ meetings in November that we can work

1:13:52 ↗ from I'd recommend not putting the

1:13:54 ↗ school district on that 11:15 slot just

1:13:57 ↗ because we're already in the pickering

1:13:59 ↗ room it's right right and that's kind of

1:14:01 ↗ an odd right right but I'm just saying

1:14:03 ↗ we still have two meetings in November

1:14:04 ↗ even though you might have thought that

1:14:06 ↗ we didn't any other thoughts on on that

1:14:10 ↗ whole piece okay anything else you would

1:14:15 ↗ like us to know about transportation or

1:14:17 ↗ implementation any update on the

1:14:20 ↗ transportation staff and/or the

1:14:23 ↗ Transportation Commission the staff is

1:14:25 ↗ coming the staff is coming on the same

1:14:28 ↗ Monday but I haven't heard what's going

1:14:30 ↗ on with the committee if they're right

1:14:32 ↗ they were waiting to get staff on board

1:14:34 ↗ before they started hiring and looking

1:14:35 ↗ for the committee the tab the

1:14:38 ↗ transportation Advisory Board is what

1:14:41 ↗ was an award it's a board transportation

1:14:43 ↗ Advisory Board and I think bylaws have

1:14:45 ↗ been adopted by council but they were

1:14:47 ↗ waiting to go out and interview people

1:14:49 ↗ until the staff had come on board yeah

1:14:51 ↗ okay

1:14:56 ↗ anything else what's the status we had a

1:15:02 ↗ meeting with the small cell wireless

1:15:06 ↗ communication what is the status has

1:15:09 ↗ anybody come in and requested permits

1:15:13 ↗ and I think yes however we just met

1:15:18 ↗ there's some sort of a moratorium that

1:15:22 ↗ we're trying to figure out Keith

1:15:24 ↗ mentioned at Keith that's usually

1:15:26 ↗ sitting here he mentioned it and we're

1:15:28 ↗ trying to sort out what it means is it

1:15:31 ↗ is it coming from and and all I heard

1:15:36 ↗ was that that all the cities are trying

1:15:38 ↗ to figure out what the moratorium is

1:15:40 ↗ does it usurp all the work that we did

1:15:42 ↗ or does it and that was on Tuesday and I

1:15:46 ↗ haven't heard an update on that but I

1:15:48 ↗ can find out

1:15:50 ↗ just from the different but but yes

1:15:53 ↗ someone had come in to with permits for

1:15:57 ↗ that but I think everything is kind of

1:15:58 ↗ stopped who did the moratorium the

1:16:01 ↗ County well that's what they're we're

1:16:02 ↗ trying to figure out it was one of those

1:16:04 ↗ you know we got an email from the law

1:16:06 ↗ firm we got an email from the state word

1:16:09 ↗ and it was one of those where you try

1:16:12 ↗ and figure out what everybody's saying

1:16:13 ↗ because everybody isn't really saying

1:16:14 ↗ the same thing so we were all trying to

1:16:16 ↗ sort it out in Keith's like oh I know

1:16:18 ↗ about it and then he's not here so this

1:16:20 ↗ was one of those if he was here he would

1:16:23 ↗ be able to go Joan I got all the answers

1:16:25 ↗ but yeah he took the answers with him

1:16:28 ↗ but he'll be back and I will find out we

1:16:31 ↗ had that long discussion it was

1:16:33 ↗ basically decided today we come back to

1:16:35 ↗ us in a year right now hopefully that's

1:16:39 ↗ on the schedule some time to actually do

1:16:41 ↗ that after the moratorium right over and

1:16:43 ↗ we know right but that's a good thing to

1:16:45 ↗ put on for next year is to make sure we

1:16:47 ↗ revisit small-cell

1:16:53 ↗ and I think it was to revisit after

1:16:56 ↗ someone had installed right for us to go

1:16:59 ↗ in okay because it was getting ready to

1:17:04 ↗ go into the permitting stage and we

1:17:07 ↗ wanted to know how it would look and act

1:17:09 ↗ right before we had 200 other one right

1:17:15 ↗ and we I can ask Lucy because she might

1:17:18 ↗ have heard more about it since Tuesday

1:17:21 ↗ okay any other good questions you guys

1:17:24 ↗ are on fire tonight this is exciting

1:17:26 ↗ see AJ what you miss when you're not

1:17:29 ↗ here no dang it it is very sad I could

1:17:33 ↗ add it back okay well that's all I have

1:17:37 ↗ I will leave you guys that's no other

1:17:45 ↗ updates for the good of the order or

1:17:47 ↗ anything I don't have anything that you

1:17:50 ↗ guys want to talk about Oh incoming

1:17:54 ↗ well I actually I had this speech

1:17:57 ↗ prepared that I was going to say you

1:17:58 ↗ know we would have a public comment

1:18:01 ↗ after we had discussed it but looking

1:18:03 ↗ out there I don't think I see too many

1:18:05 ↗ heads that are would be willing to come

1:18:09 ↗ up and say anything so with that I'm

1:18:12 ↗ gonna close that painting at 7:50 all

1:18:19 ↗ right well done

1:18:30 ↗ 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