Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 27, 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

Discussion - 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Transportation Element Appendix B, Implementation Strategies

Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.5–19

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Open packet at p.5 ↗

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 27 meeting packet.

3. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.21

Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2018 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 9/19/18) 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, Appendix B a) Training – (new & existing members) Implementation) b) Olde Town Plan – Tour June October 6/14/18 10/11/18 a) Official date new members begin: elect Chair/Vice Chair a) Public Hearing: Compact Municipal Buildings b) 2018 Parks Strategic Plan - (public hearing) b) Comprehensive Plan Amendments continued c) Olde Town Plan: recommendation (continued public hearing) d) Intro: Gilman Blvd Visioning…

1107 segments .txt ↗

0:17 ↗ Misha but you guys just proposed it well

0:19 ↗ hey looks good evening and welcome to

0:24 ↗ the September 27th meeting in the

0:27 ↗ Planning Policy Commission tonight we

0:29 ↗ are going to watch the blinking light we

0:33 ↗ are going to discuss the transportation

0:36 ↗ element of the comprehensive plan and

0:39 ↗ our senior planner Chris Kristin will

0:44 ↗ start us on a discussion this evening I

0:47 ↗ will good evening so I'm gonna cover the

0:50 ↗ transportation element and they were not

0:51 ↗ not many amendments this year so we had

0:55 ↗ proposed four we have three the first is

0:58 ↗ the update of the Transportation

0:59 ↗ Improvement Program which the Planning

1:02 ↗ Policy Commission reviewed and

1:03 ↗ recommended this year and then it was

1:05 ↗ approved by City Council so this is

1:07 ↗ simply inserting the approved document

1:09 ↗ into the plan we also had update

1:13 ↗ transportation concurrency but that

1:14 ↗ didn't happen it was an update of a

1:16 ↗ transport of the model for traffic but

1:18 ↗ not for concurrency as policy stands so

1:20 ↗ that was taken off of our list update

1:23 ↗ information regarding the commute trip

1:24 ↗ reduction act a couple of years ago the

1:26 ↗ state updated the CTR program and there

1:28 ↗ are just some small required changes

1:30 ↗ that we needed to put into our code and

1:32 ↗ lastly the st3 election was in 2016 we

1:37 ↗ had policies in there to prep us for

1:39 ↗ that but now that we've been included in

1:41 ↗ that and we will be getting light rail

1:43 ↗ we've had to update those policies as

1:44 ↗ well AJ what is transportation

1:47 ↗ concurrency mean that Trish will you

1:52 ↗ explain that as a GMA growth management

1:55 ↗ act term that says that when you're

1:58 ↗ growing the growth should help pay for

2:01 ↗ the capacity it requires and so we're

2:04 ↗ allowed to charge some sorts of impact

2:06 ↗ fees to help cities with that and one of

2:09 ↗ them is the transportation impact fee

2:12 ↗ that we calculate based on with help

2:15 ↗ from our concurrency model which shows

2:18 ↗ it's a four it's it figures out now but

2:21 ↗ it also forecasts how our intersections

2:24 ↗ and the street segments work I don't

2:26 ↗ work

2:26 ↗ so it's a model to quantify what our

2:29 ↗ transportation impact fees should be

2:32 ↗ that's a byproduct of it but it also

2:35 ↗ shows us where we should be thinking

2:37 ↗ about maybe doing capacity projects to

2:39 ↗ show up on the TI P influencers long

2:43 ↗ term they use it for many things

2:45 ↗ yeah and in just a little history lesson

2:47 ↗ when was it back in 2002 thousand 2000

2:51 ↗ we had a moratorium because of

2:53 ↗ concurrency we weren't writing right

2:55 ↗ yeah so right so we did lose it as it's

2:58 ↗ supposed to be used that you can stop

3:00 ↗ growth or slow it down if you're not

3:01 ↗ needing your concurrency goals are we

3:04 ↗ aiming to tackle that next year we're in

3:08 ↗ the midst of an update right now and we

3:09 ↗ just didn't finish it in time to put the

3:11 ↗ outcome in the plan so yeah it would be

3:13 ↗ part of next year's update yes okay so

3:17 ↗ I'm gonna fly through these unless

3:18 ↗ because they're pretty obvious so

3:21 ↗ there's the Improvement Program

3:22 ↗ Transportation Improvement Program that

3:24 ↗ you all reviewed and recommended and

3:27 ↗ council approved this is the map that

3:28 ↗ shows where the projects are and will

3:30 ↗ this will the will event flow through

3:33 ↗ the Transportation Commission the next

3:36 ↗ time my guess is that yes it would that

3:39 ↗ would be yeah because I always this was

3:41 ↗ one that I always felt the PCC never

3:44 ↗ really PPC never really got a good

3:47 ↗ chance to provide feedback kind of just

3:49 ↗ asked in front of us but it would still

3:52 ↗ come here still come you but I never

3:56 ↗ felt like it was got much of that right

3:58 ↗ it is something that would go to the

3:59 ↗ transportation advisory board okay

4:01 ↗ hand-in-hand with like land-use it does

4:04 ↗ well it does yeah and the reason that it

4:08 ↗ comes to PPC is because there's projects

4:11 ↗ in the comp plan and land use projects

4:13 ↗ and what you all would do is make sure

4:15 ↗ that what was on the map that we said we

4:17 ↗ needed for growth was actually showing

4:19 ↗ up on that on the TI P and so for a

4:22 ↗ while when Gary used to do it we would

4:24 ↗ have him tell us he had a special list

4:27 ↗ of the comp plan projects that were

4:28 ↗ listed in our plan that met with the

4:31 ↗ growth and how it how it fit into his

4:34 ↗ plan so they're all one plan yeah so for

4:37 ↗ example we have

4:38 ↗ like three new roads and an over

4:39 ↗ crossing with i-90 that you know we're

4:42 ↗ anticipating on this growth in central

4:43 ↗ Issaquah and so those were included in

4:45 ↗ the model to see how they would or would

4:47 ↗ not help transportation concurrency it

4:49 ↗ turns out that they will help so those

4:51 ↗ are included on the tee IP right they're

4:53 ↗ not funded yeah the TA P includes a very

4:57 ↗ large amount of funding very large lists

4:59 ↗ and right but like the first seconds

5:01 ↗ it's going in now that was part of the

5:03 ↗ the growth that we need every interest

5:05 ↗ 62nd by Costco oh yeah that was one of

5:08 ↗ the ones that we needed to help with the

5:10 ↗ growth there in that area yeah that goes

5:16 ↗ sort of in the side the back end at

5:17 ↗ Hawkstone not it was gonna be open by

5:19 ↗ the end of the opening yes opening soon

5:22 ↗ November I think I don't supposed to

5:24 ↗ remember December in 248 a year I'm not

5:26 ↗ sure the day everything's fully northern

5:30 ↗ fighting ok commute trip reduction act

5:34 ↗ like I said this is required 2015 or

5:36 ↗ 2016 CTR updates they changed things

5:39 ↗ like they no longer you no longer call

5:41 ↗ it single occupancy vehicle it is now a

5:43 ↗ non drive alone trip so we had to train

5:46 ↗ change that and we they asked us to

5:49 ↗ include transportation management action

5:52 ↗ plans which is something we have sort of

5:54 ↗ done in the past but it's never been

5:55 ↗ very formal so we need to formalize that

5:57 ↗ and then and transportation management

6:00 ↗ action plans are when projects larger

6:02 ↗ projects come in you sit down with them

6:04 ↗ and it's sort of a contract where you

6:05 ↗ say you will do these things provide

6:07 ↗ Orica cards provide ride share provide

6:09 ↗ vans that kind of thing to your

6:11 ↗ employees to help reduce the number of

6:13 ↗ trips on the road and then we differ

6:16 ↗ made definitions for both of those so

6:19 ↗ you can see here where we just said

6:21 ↗ improve the number of non drive alone

6:22 ↗ trips same there transportation

6:27 ↗ management action plans just use those

6:29 ↗ during the development review process

6:32 ↗ you go back

6:41 ↗ including commute your production chair

6:44 ↗ vehicles that cheer vehicles comma

6:45 ↗ transit comma and bike share or those to

6:48 ↗ your vehicle's trans into bike share

6:49 ↗ examples of community yeah it should be

6:52 ↗ a comma what page is that on I see the

6:59 ↗ tip but I don't see these as I see the

7:04 ↗ i9 oh here we go okay page 11 okay which

7:13 ↗ employers do we do commuter production

7:16 ↗ with oh now we're trying to do it with

7:18 ↗ all employers okay but in prior years

7:20 ↗ its pending any employer who had 100

7:22 ↗ employees or more okay and there were

7:24 ↗ about eight of them but the the new goal

7:27 ↗ is to do with all yes video at all so

7:29 ↗ regardless longer it's no longer it's

7:32 ↗ now all trips instead of just those the

7:36 ↗ comater trip with larger employers yeah

7:38 ↗ pardon me Jason I was gonna say so it's

7:40 ↗ regardless the size of company now it is

7:43 ↗ okay yes again non driving on trips non

7:51 ↗ drive alone trips or actually we said

7:53 ↗ trips other than cars and then non

7:56 ↗ driving alone trips good okay this is

8:01 ↗ one of the definitions that we have for

8:03 ↗ transportation management action plan we

8:06 ↗ don't actually have a formal different

8:08 ↗ definition we had a draft that was done

8:09 ↗ several years ago along with something

8:11 ↗ else that was in our code so we combined

8:13 ↗ those two and made this let me to read

8:17 ↗ it and do we have team apps with major

8:22 ↗ employers wait to I think are in place

8:24 ↗ and that's all Moscow and I was I

8:29 ↗ thought it was the school that I'm not

8:31 ↗ sure we did it I know I thought it might

8:33 ↗ have been in apartment complex but I

8:37 ↗ don't remember but I - I think is what

8:39 ↗ are in place and so do we have in our

8:41 ↗ comp planning goals in terms of how many

8:43 ↗ or in which scenarios we want these it

8:47 ↗ is in the know we're working on it so

8:49 ↗ part of that we have our CTR commute

8:52 ↗ trip reduction program

8:53 ↗ it's actually an adopted ordinance that

8:55 ↗ talks about it and then once we more

8:58 ↗ we're trying to get these more

8:59 ↗ formalized and I think that'll be part

9:01 ↗ of the master mobility plan and it would

9:04 ↗ be listed there but we don't get that

9:05 ↗ specific and the comp plan okay so we

9:08 ↗ just say this is something that can't

9:09 ↗ happen but we're not we don't have any

9:11 ↗ goal like it this is what we would like

9:13 ↗ to happen this is what it is and then

9:15 ↗ we'll figure out the numbers later it's

9:16 ↗ kinda like when you say we want lower

9:18 ↗ building heights don't know what those

9:19 ↗ are yet we'll figure it out the

9:20 ↗ standards so it's the same kind of thing

9:22 ↗ and for now though for development we

9:24 ↗ have transportation demand programs

9:26 ↗ that's sort of the right a distant

9:28 ↗ cousin of this that we're trying to get

9:30 ↗ better and better so we do require when

9:32 ↗ businesses come in that they tell us you

9:34 ↗ know that they try to carpool that they

9:36 ↗ try to do or cards that they do all that

9:37 ↗ good stuff but this is like the next

9:39 ↗ generation of that and non drive alone

9:45 ↗ trips a knee commute to work a store a

9:48 ↗ home a park that does not involve one

9:49 ↗ person driving in a car it's made by

9:52 ↗ alternative modes such as bike foot bus

9:54 ↗ or carpool so why do you use why to use

9:59 ↗ the word commune

10:00 ↗ wouldn't you say any trip or work a

10:02 ↗ store at home park I'm good with that

10:05 ↗ that's a good point I think his commute

10:09 ↗ yeah I think a trip yeah Sartre saying

10:12 ↗ any trip okay then I and then I would

10:15 ↗ throw in to work a store a home a park

10:18 ↗ or another I were throwing like another

10:21 ↗ destination

10:22 ↗ do you have any thoughts cuz I couldn't

10:23 ↗ think I won no no I meant literally put

10:25 ↗ in another destination it's because I

10:30 ↗ could see something to read that and be

10:31 ↗ like well why are we just managing work

10:34 ↗ shopping and park trips right or a trip

10:39 ↗ yeah it's just for another destination

10:42 ↗ yeah okay one person driving one car

10:46 ↗ anything else on this one I think I

10:48 ↗ would switch bus to transit

10:54 ↗ because it's a form of transit though

10:56 ↗ right yes it could also mean light rail

10:59 ↗ but you wanna you want it to be more

11:00 ↗ that's of Zain use use transit to be

11:02 ↗ more to be less specific because you

11:04 ↗ could you could get lighter oh you like

11:06 ↗ shuttles yep more broader okay lastly

11:15 ↗ like I said st3 was in play

11:20 ↗ last time we wrote when we wrote these

11:21 ↗ policies and we were trying to get it

11:24 ↗ and then lo and behold we have it coming

11:26 ↗ so we updated some of these we called it

11:28 ↗ for example high-capacity transit at the

11:30 ↗ time because we didn't know if it was

11:31 ↗ going to be a bus rapid line a rapid bus

11:33 ↗ line or if it was going to be light rail

11:36 ↗ so it was just all-encompassing

11:37 ↗ high-capacity transit so we just trained

11:39 ↗ to change that we had initially put

11:43 ↗ satellite operations maintenance center

11:45 ↗ in there as a way to help encourage and

11:49 ↗ say sure we'll take it off we'll take a

11:51 ↗ maintenance center but now it's you know

11:54 ↗ are we do are we doing no longer one the

11:58 ↗ OMF

11:59 ↗ not necessarily no maintenance centers

12:02 ↗ are really large and hard to find a

12:04 ↗ location and yeah is the idea with us t3

12:08 ↗ that the sound transit light rail that

12:10 ↗ comes through there's not gonna it's not

12:11 ↗ like Bellevue where they're gonna have a

12:13 ↗ large Depot with his equality just kind

12:16 ↗ of comes in it has a stop and then it

12:18 ↗ moves along fun fact the st3 plan does

12:21 ↗ not end does not have any language

12:23 ↗ around the OMF for this line around the

12:27 ↗ way so the operations operates maintence

12:29 ↗ asila t unlike all the other extensions

12:31 ↗ this line does not have any language

12:33 ↗ around it okay and so it's in its

12:35 ↗ currently open what they'll do right and

12:37 ↗ and Bellevue got a maintenance Center I

12:39 ↗ don't know that it's likely that they'll

12:41 ↗ put one here that's just the current

12:45 ↗ plan I'll take off my Commission and put

12:48 ↗ on my Sound Transit hat the current plan

12:50 ↗ is it will be an independent line mm-hmm

12:52 ↗ and so will not enter line with the idea

12:54 ↗ being that they want to be flexible

12:56 ↗ around technology and so while might be

12:58 ↗ light rail won't necessarily be the same

13:01 ↗ breed of cars that the other lines are

13:03 ↗ moving and so it

13:06 ↗ highly likely that it'll get its own

13:07 ↗ maintenance facility which will just

13:09 ↗ look very different than we're building

13:10 ↗ now because the thought is technology

13:12 ↗ should have changed sufficiently in the

13:14 ↗ next 10 or 15 years it will that the

13:17 ↗ cars would look quite different because

13:18 ↗ the cars were running right now and the

13:20 ↗ one that we're buying right now are

13:22 ↗ based on 1990s technology okay and so

13:25 ↗ the thought was to to to have it be

13:28 ↗ distinct enough so the technology look

13:31 ↗ quite different okay

13:32 ↗ we have 22 years to decide but we're

13:37 ↗ planning now we're planning for the

13:39 ↗ place it'll it'll what its gonna look

13:41 ↗ it'll open and open in 22 years but most

13:43 ↗ of the important decisions will be made

13:45 ↗ in the next 8 to 10 I understand I don't

13:47 ↗ yeah and therefore its associated use

13:50 ↗ discuss who knows what its gonna need

13:52 ↗ yeah

13:55 ↗ this one at the time but they were also

13:58 ↗ doing the Metro long-range plan and we

14:00 ↗ were anticipating light rail and we were

14:05 ↗ we wanted to we wanted to connect better

14:08 ↗ with Sammamish now the press we didn't

14:09 ↗ know if it would be light rail or what

14:10 ↗ it was going to be in the fact it looked

14:11 ↗ a little confusing so now we're just

14:13 ↗ saying we just want to officially

14:14 ↗ efficiently connect with our neighboring

14:17 ↗ jurisdictions their employers such as

14:19 ↗ Microsoft's you know anything else that

14:22 ↗ may be up there the people who live

14:23 ↗ there

14:23 ↗ we just want a more efficient system

14:25 ↗ between those areas Kathir one

14:28 ↗ suggestion to the same train systems a

14:30 ↗ transit network I feel like it

14:33 ↗ integrated a network I think it's got

14:34 ↗ our language sure yeah that works

14:42 ↗ and then the last one the when we wrote

14:46 ↗ that the Metro connects plan was not and

14:48 ↗ played a minute mentor connects plan as

14:50 ↗ Metro his long-range plan and it hadn't

14:51 ↗ been written yet her adopted so we just

14:54 ↗ included that to update it and that's

14:59 ↗ all I have for me can I any questions or

15:01 ↗ comments yeah can I add a pata policy so

15:04 ↗ one thing that we talked at length when

15:06 ↗ we so this is this is within this so

15:09 ↗ maybe it's expanding a policy maybe one

15:11 ↗ dozen okay because one thing we talked

15:13 ↗ at length and we were talking about the

15:16 ↗ light rail station location I remember

15:18 ↗ we talked about we were talking about a

15:23 ↗ map and where we wanted to put the

15:25 ↗ representative project and we talked at

15:27 ↗ length about whether or not we wanted it

15:28 ↗ in i-90 right outside about ninety one

15:30 ↗ of thoughts from ever be in ninety was

15:32 ↗ it that would means we could leverage

15:34 ↗ the ste three project to help make I

15:37 ↗ ninety itself more permeable the idea

15:40 ↗ being that if you build the station

15:41 ↗ there will be INAT crossings associated

15:43 ↗ with and so forth is that something that

15:45 ↗ we want to add within this transit

15:46 ↗ network so I would propose that we maybe

15:50 ↗ do that next year because right now

15:52 ↗ we're coming out with a strategic plan

15:53 ↗ and if you've seen the draft strategic

15:56 ↗ plan one of it which I think the survey

15:58 ↗ is out for people to comments just gonna

15:59 ↗ know the survey is out and available for

16:03 ↗ you to comment on the draft strategic

16:05 ↗ plan and I was on the transportation

16:07 ↗ group that came up with our objectives

16:09 ↗ there and had a very long discussion

16:11 ↗ about the light rail station and we did

16:13 ↗ propose to work with Sound Transit to

16:17 ↗ identify a transit stop a transit

16:21 ↗ location so I would kind of wait and see

16:25 ↗ what happens there okay and then we can

16:27 ↗ put it in there Trish do you have any

16:29 ↗ other thoughts on that and because I

16:30 ↗ think it deserves a bigger conversation

16:32 ↗ than four of us putting it in and yeah

16:34 ↗ I'm having it go to council because

16:36 ↗ there's going to be some pondering on

16:38 ↗ that and the where and the how and and I

16:40 ↗ think it deserves more than just our

16:43 ↗ comp plan process I think it it's better

16:45 ↗ fits in the city strategic plan

16:47 ↗ discussion I mean no it elevates it to a

16:50 ↗ bigger discussion it does the

16:52 ↗ transportation mobility group spent

16:53 ↗ hours talking about just that

16:56 ↗ okay and then we took it to the bigger

16:57 ↗ strategic plan group and spent time

16:59 ↗ talking about it there so I think it's a

17:01 ↗ much bigger discussion so I say we wait

17:03 ↗ and see just a little bit kind of where

17:05 ↗ we're going with that and then put it in

17:07 ↗ there maybe next year and they'd

17:08 ↗ probably be on the new transportation

17:10 ↗ group would be talking about that too

17:12 ↗ wouldn't they right right

17:14 ↗ depending on what happens with the

17:15 ↗ strategic plan right yeah I don't think

17:17 ↗ we should make any reference to where we

17:19 ↗ would want it I think there's still this

17:23 ↗ discussion with Sound Transit and they

17:25 ↗ have a their ideas just like Bellevue

17:29 ↗ had back and forth so I think we need to

17:32 ↗ wait and discuss that okay all right

17:38 ↗ Trish

17:53 ↗ this part this is a really exciting part

17:56 ↗ I'm not sure if you remember from the

17:59 ↗ docket this was one that you guys pulled

18:02 ↗ up from us not doing it so this is

18:06 ↗ number 12 back in 2015 I think Joan was

18:10 ↗ probably the only one here in 2015 we

18:14 ↗ had to do the 8 year complete comp plan

18:16 ↗ update with all the elements and when we

18:19 ↗ started going through all the elements

18:21 ↗ we realized that back in the day a lot

18:24 ↗ of the implementation went in with the

18:27 ↗ policies and the goals and so it went

18:30 ↗ you know the aspirational we want to do

18:32 ↗ this we want to do that and then we

18:34 ↗ actually had projects and plans that

18:36 ↗ would get us to the goals and the policy

18:38 ↗ so in 2015 we realized we had a lot in

18:43 ↗ all the elements so we pulled them all

18:45 ↗ out and put them in this appendix and

18:48 ↗ said we're gonna get to those we can't

18:51 ↗ sort them out yet because it's 2015 and

18:54 ↗ we're updating all the elements so we'll

18:55 ↗ come back to those and figure them all

18:57 ↗ out well today was the day so we

19:01 ↗ unearthed them all and went wow that is

19:04 ↗ a lot of stuff in this in this appendix

19:07 ↗ and so we because you guys were so

19:09 ↗ brilliant when you did Old Town and you

19:11 ↗ had the three specific time frames so we

19:14 ↗ structured it like that and so we we

19:18 ↗ made the little charts we talked to all

19:20 ↗ the departments to ask them if they

19:21 ↗ remembered all these implementation

19:23 ↗ plans and projects that were listed in

19:26 ↗ the appendix and most of them they

19:28 ↗ recognized some of them they did not and

19:32 ↗ then they told us what date did they do

19:35 ↗ the original or whatever the most

19:36 ↗ current one was and then the anticipated

19:40 ↗ update so that's how they're listed in

19:41 ↗ the table is what's the most current one

19:44 ↗ of whatever it is and then when is the

19:46 ↗ update and the the piece I want to

19:49 ↗ stress that we stressed when we first

19:52 ↗ adopted this is an appendix is there's

19:55 ↗ no requirement to fund these council is

19:57 ↗ not

19:58 ↗ and because they're listed here to put

20:01 ↗ them in the budget on any given time

20:02 ↗ it's just used as a tool to remind them

20:05 ↗ of all the projects and programs that

20:07 ↗ they wanted to do at one time or the

20:09 ↗ ones that are out there that are maybe

20:11 ↗ in need of an update there's no funding

20:14 ↗ requirement because they're in here okay

20:17 ↗ I wanted to just stress that that we're

20:20 ↗ not telling the council what to do by

20:22 ↗ putting them in here and putting when we

20:24 ↗ anticipate they'd be updated so that's

20:27 ↗ the background and then I just through

20:29 ↗ the charts and their most of them are to

20:32 ↗ be updated in the next couple of years

20:34 ↗ from 2019 to 2020 a lot of them are

20:39 ↗ gonna be pretty exciting Kristin talked

20:41 ↗ about number seven the mobility master

20:43 ↗ plan I know you all had talked about

20:46 ↗ that the tree canopy study we're going

20:48 ↗ to update that again next year with the

20:50 ↗ street parks strategic plan that was

20:52 ↗ listed there we're gonna have a

20:54 ↗ comprehensive wayfinding plan we've been

20:56 ↗ talking about that for a long time and

20:58 ↗ that's supposed to be on tap for next

21:00 ↗ year

21:02 ↗ the Historic Landmarks that's gonna be a

21:05 ↗ fun one I'm so that's the first I think

21:08 ↗ there's a couple charts of the different

21:11 ↗ ones we don't currently have landmarks

21:13 ↗ we did we have we don't have we have an

21:17 ↗ inventory of all the ones that could be

21:19 ↗ but we only have actually landmarked a

21:22 ↗ handful of them four four four it's an

21:26 ↗ example of like a landmark Hickory Creek

21:29 ↗ Farm is a national landmark not not a

21:30 ↗ local landmark but Gillman Town Hall is

21:32 ↗ local Depot is local the Shell station

21:34 ↗ is local and then the Qunari house was

21:37 ↗ designated by mark Miller's oh wait gum

21:39 ↗ in a Gillman Town Hall is not yet

21:40 ↗ they're about to nominate it right so I

21:43 ↗ think I'm curious about what's promote

21:45 ↗ mean then that we're trying to establish

21:47 ↗ some is landmark so we're just trying to

21:48 ↗ take our existing landmarks and so many

21:53 ↗ better potentially could be but no one a

21:57 ↗ lot of folks don't even realize that if

21:59 ↗ they own a property that could that

22:01 ↗ there's even a mechanism that you could

22:03 ↗ do that and so I think we would be more

22:05 ↗ letting folks know what the program

22:08 ↗ would be for them to land market

22:10 ↗ then what things they couldn't couldn't

22:11 ↗ do with it and just to maybe be more

22:14 ↗ proactive on all the historic buildings

22:17 ↗ that we do have right and several years

22:19 ↗ ago as for part of confluence park I

22:23 ↗ wasn't here for the very beginning of it

22:25 ↗ but we wound up taking down an Anderson

22:26 ↗ house which the Army Corps felt like it

22:29 ↗ was a could have been a landmark

22:30 ↗ building and we wound up taking it down

22:32 ↗ so as mitigation we gave the state

22:35 ↗ funding to be used for historic

22:37 ↗ preservation projects and they've done a

22:38 ↗ grant but they just went through their

22:40 ↗ first grant cycle and you know they have

22:43 ↗ like two hundred thousand dollars to use

22:46 ↗ and I think only ninety three thousand

22:49 ↗ was used so they still have money so

22:50 ↗ they would like to potentially use some

22:53 ↗ of that funding to go out and talk to

22:54 ↗ these property owners who are on the

22:56 ↗ historic resources inventory and just

22:58 ↗ educate them about land marking okay I

23:02 ↗ think that's great but I don't I don't

23:05 ↗ like churches promoting historic land

23:07 ↗ landmarks is clear right that's how it

23:10 ↗ was listed in the appendix so and we

23:12 ↗ don't want as well we don't have we

23:13 ↗ don't really know what its gonna be so

23:15 ↗ we just sort of left it there as a

23:16 ↗ placeholder that something supposed to

23:18 ↗ happen on that but yeah we agree there

23:22 ↗ were some wordings that we were like

23:23 ↗ well we don't want to just say something

23:25 ↗ something glamorous we could I might not

23:28 ↗ get very far but what's what's the

23:30 ↗ process for moving them from the

23:32 ↗ appendix into more actionable sections

23:37 ↗ well because their implementation we

23:40 ↗ didn't want to put them back in the comp

23:42 ↗ plan because the comp plans supposed to

23:43 ↗ be goals and policies but if they like a

23:46 ↗ lot of these actually live on their own

23:48 ↗ as a document but this is sort of

23:51 ↗ keeping track of what's the most current

23:53 ↗ and when are they going to be updated so

23:56 ↗ the fact that they're in an appendix

23:58 ↗ doesn't mean they're any less alive than

24:01 ↗ than being out in the world like the

24:02 ↗ water planned the sewer plan those exist

24:04 ↗ but we're just keeping track of sort of

24:07 ↗ when the newest one is and when they

24:09 ↗ would be redone and back in 2015 when we

24:12 ↗ were I think Chris mentioned it but when

24:14 ↗ we were going through the comple and the

24:15 ↗ council felt like a lot of these were

24:16 ↗ too actionable to be listed as policies

24:19 ↗ in the comp plan so that's why they were

24:21 ↗ pulled out

24:22 ↗ these are considered somewhat actionable

24:25 ↗ is that this committees job to see which

24:28 ↗ ones are valuable to pull out and make

24:31 ↗ more actionable or there there might be

24:35 ↗ ones that when you see the new and

24:36 ↗ update in the Far column if you think it

24:41 ↗ should be updated sooner than not that

24:44 ↗ again we can't fund it or not fund it

24:46 ↗ based on our group but you may think

24:48 ↗ that something may need to go sooner

24:50 ↗ than something else if there's something

24:52 ↗ in a later years oh this is still the

24:58 ↗ first the first set if you thought for

25:00 ↗ example that the old town sub area plan

25:03 ↗ should be updated sooner than five years

25:06 ↗ I mean that's number three the historic

25:10 ↗ preservation plan here you go AJ we're

25:13 ↗ supposed to do an all new one in 2022

25:15 ↗ because we don't have one so that's if

25:19 ↗ that's something that you think should

25:20 ↗ go sooner you can certainly recommend

25:24 ↗ that but that doesn't necessarily get it

25:26 ↗ any any new font anymore finding sooner

25:30 ↗ no so what kind of feedback are you

25:32 ↗ looking for on this particular section

25:34 ↗ do you want us to kind of review the

25:36 ↗ timing and give you feedback we do want

25:38 ↗ to when we gave you this for Old Town

25:40 ↗ you moved a lot of things around you

25:42 ↗ wanted a lot of things sooner and not so

25:44 ↗ many things later so it's not exactly

25:48 ↗ the same format because a lot of these

25:52 ↗ we don't have any like as much as I love

25:55 ↗ the Emergency Management Plan there's

25:57 ↗ nothing I can do to make it go faster or

26:00 ↗ slower but we've listed it in there

26:02 ↗ because it was listed in the in the plan

26:05 ↗ and it it will get updated in 2021 but

26:09 ↗ certainly if there's pieces that you'd

26:11 ↗ like to alert the council that you feel

26:13 ↗ should be done sooner we can certainly

26:15 ↗ put that in the recommendation I think

26:20 ↗ it's also more to let you know all of

26:23 ↗ the different pieces and parts that the

26:25 ↗ city has available to it that are tools

26:27 ↗ to help us find our destiny through all

26:30 ↗ these different planning and project and

26:32 ↗ implementations there's so many things

26:34 ↗ out there that were

26:35 ↗ doing or were updating or were to help

26:39 ↗ us reach the future that we want I know

26:43 ↗ we had a long discussion about level of

26:47 ↗ service for various parts of the city

26:50 ↗ and I know we talked about fire and

26:52 ↗ police and you have it in here 1819 is

26:55 ↗ it coming soon because I think it's a

26:58 ↗ really important piece right we're doing

27:00 ↗ the data collection now but we're not

27:02 ↗ able to get all of the data wrapped

27:04 ↗ around the projects before the end of

27:07 ↗ the year so so they're being we're

27:10 ↗ thinking and I still haven't heard back

27:11 ↗ from the person that's helping me if

27:14 ↗ we're gonna get transportation done this

27:15 ↗ year but for Parks Fire and Police

27:21 ↗ those are bumped til the beginning of

27:23 ↗ next year to finish and then part of us

27:25 ↗ at least on the schedule we're in the

27:28 ↗ midst of them right and then Parks is

27:29 ↗ the end of next year it should be done I

27:32 ↗ understand the necessity of parks and we

27:35 ↗ all love parks but I also like fire and

27:38 ↗ policemen sound right sure that they're

27:40 ↗ right because we haven't done fire for a

27:42 ↗ while

27:43 ↗ yes 2006 or some south way or is pretty

27:46 ↗ long time to go and I know okay okay so

27:51 ↗ it doesn't sound like there's any just

27:55 ↗ to clarify my understanding so some of

27:56 ↗ it is like you said it's just itemized

27:59 ↗ being is what previously was thought was

28:02 ↗ more immediate action and then some of

28:05 ↗ it is you guys are actually waiting or

28:07 ↗ data or information or waiting for

28:09 ↗ things so it doesn't necessarily mean

28:11 ↗ that it's if it's in the short term

28:13 ↗ actions 21 to 22 doesn't necessarily

28:16 ↗ mean that it's languishing because I'll

28:20 ↗ prioritize it just means you might be

28:21 ↗ waiting for something right or it might

28:23 ↗ be on a five-year cycle or a six-year

28:25 ↗ cycle or something that would put it in

28:27 ↗ those later years like the the water

28:31 ↗ system plan on this last page they have

28:33 ↗ a 10-year cycle and they're just about

28:35 ↗ to be adopted and so that would run it

28:38 ↗ you know they would be done for a while

28:40 ↗ which then they can work on other things

28:43 ↗ but it just depends on like the parks

28:45 ↗ plan has a six year cycle so

28:48 ↗ this is just a way to keep track of when

28:51 ↗ things are coming around again so a the

28:56 ↗ last question I think I have is for the

28:58 ↗ public art program going from half

29:00 ↗ percent to one percent in 2019 has it

29:08 ↗ been talked about or is it just bad I'm

29:11 ↗ buddy decided to put it on the know that

29:13 ↗ made it into the that's 14 isn't it

29:17 ↗ yeah that's 14 in the in the immediate

29:21 ↗ okay

29:22 ↗ and she says they're actually working on

29:23 ↗ that and they hope to have it done in

29:25 ↗ 2019 Oh Amy I talked to Amy on that

29:28 ↗ because it's the Arts Commission working

29:30 ↗ on this or as Amy as a government

29:35 ↗ employee working on it I I always think

29:38 ↗ it's she and the Arts Commission I

29:40 ↗ didn't ask her specifically but do you

29:42 ↗ know they don't have any control over

29:44 ↗ how much money it is so it really should

29:47 ↗ be coming from somebody else who

29:48 ↗ approves oh one percent okay and I just

29:52 ↗ assumed that they was working with King

29:54 ↗ County through the Arts Commission and

29:56 ↗ it's up to the city a to the right side

29:59 ↗ if it's gonna be one percent or a half

30:01 ↗ percent so okay Arts Commission just

30:03 ↗ spends it and makes wonderful decides

30:05 ↗ discussion freo they do she was how much

30:08 ↗ money they get right well this was the

30:10 ↗ language that she gave me and you're

30:12 ↗ right it doesn't actually say who she's

30:14 ↗ working with as the executive right cuz

30:21 ↗ Amy's out of the executive department so

30:23 ↗ that's her department so I can ask her

30:26 ↗ if you want on how she's doing that or

30:27 ↗ how it's moving through I just like to I

30:30 ↗ mean I I think that's a you know with

30:33 ↗ all the money that's spent for so many

30:35 ↗ different programs in the city I mean it

30:37 ↗ would be great if it were 1% as long as

30:39 ↗ it didn't interfere with budget for

30:43 ↗ something else that was critical

30:50 ↗ yeah it seems like a fun I like the

30:53 ↗ offending that money yeah a lot of

30:56 ↗ neat examples on where the money's gone

30:58 ↗ already that I had no idea the things

31:01 ↗ that it's funded it was a pretty cool

31:02 ↗ list I

31:03 ↗ I want some more in the electrical boxes

31:06 ↗ covered yeah those are really fun yes

31:09 ↗ there's some great ones

31:11 ↗ awesome idea from Mary Lorna yeah that

31:15 ↗ was a fun one okay anything else on I've

31:21 ↗ got to come one the st3 planning process

31:25 ↗ you guys were talking about this should

31:26 ↗ that be called it as a separate line and

31:28 ↗ if that's such a big deal or do you

31:29 ↗ think that's captured in some of the

31:30 ↗ other transportation elements because

31:34 ↗ that's kind of its own I think that's

31:36 ↗ hard see its own thing coming out of the

31:38 ↗ strategic plan right and right and the

31:40 ↗ master mobility plan and I think it's

31:43 ↗ his own animal so but since its own

31:45 ↗ animal should be its own line item on

31:47 ↗ this ability is in their numbers right

31:54 ↗ and I and I would I would still wait on

31:58 ↗ that one with a strategic plan are you

32:05 ↗ thinking though what just just to

32:07 ↗ acknowledge that that's in a like is

32:08 ↗ that an immediate action or is that a

32:10 ↗ short-term action to establish city's

32:13 ↗ policies around specifics of st3 I went

32:18 ↗ like what's our timeline on when the

32:20 ↗ city is gonna attempt to put a stake in

32:22 ↗ the ground as we begin the conversations

32:25 ↗ with Sound Transit I'd still wait on the

32:27 ↗ strategic plan yeah the way you've just

32:30 ↗ phrased it though it doesn't seem to

32:32 ↗ back us into a corner though if like

32:34 ↗ yeah and I was trying to vacuum or 19 to

32:37 ↗ turn earlier

32:38 ↗ that comes around just say add something

32:41 ↗ but and they may take it out at Council

32:43 ↗ because they might think we're putting

32:44 ↗ it hurt before the horse but you know

32:47 ↗ why do you think if I'd be okay adding

32:50 ↗ up if the point of these pages is just

32:52 ↗ for everyone and say hey these are all

32:53 ↗ the balls that are in the air or will be

32:56 ↗ in the air this couple years I just

32:57 ↗ thought that that's an extra write all

32:59 ↗ in the air that just to keep track of

33:00 ↗ like I'm certain staff won't forget

33:02 ↗ about it but more for the more for the

33:04 ↗ public

33:05 ↗ they just keep it on there as an extra

33:06 ↗ line right and what was your language on

33:08 ↗ it again did you write it down or did

33:10 ↗ you just say it I just had it update

33:12 ↗ policies regarding sound transit light

33:15 ↗ rail or something or do your around

33:16 ↗ around around st3 okay

33:25 ↗ and the other one was I remember we

33:28 ↗ talked a lot at the remove on what date

33:31 ↗ are we thinking about for that these all

33:33 ↗ have dates right is that in media I

33:35 ↗ didn't know well I think that's what

33:36 ↗ that's what I was curious is that an

33:37 ↗ immediate action a short-term action

33:39 ↗ last for what do you think it's not an

33:44 ↗ immediate you wouldn't want it by 2020

33:46 ↗ to nowhere 2020 I think I think the city

33:51 ↗ means to have staked out an initial

33:53 ↗ position like right so you have a

33:58 ↗ starting point so that you can then

33:59 ↗ begin the work when st actually brings

34:01 ↗ on consultants starts actually looking

34:02 ↗ at it because that still years away but

34:04 ↗ the city kind of needs to have put some

34:06 ↗ thought into that it's like right I

34:08 ↗ thought and so I think I think that's

34:11 ↗ immediate 2020 I mean I guess 2019 seems

34:13 ↗ too quick but if it media action

34:15 ↗ includes end of 2020 hype I think so you

34:18 ↗ know you can always anticipated 2020 but

34:22 ↗ things get changed as things get updated

34:24 ↗ well if it's in brain you know that

34:27 ↗ moves sort of concurrently with the

34:28 ↗ mobility master plan so those two could

34:30 ↗ work together yeah yeah so I would think

34:32 ↗ it would either be aligned with element

34:35 ↗ 7 or you would just add or you can add

34:37 ↗ language to element 7 right just

34:39 ↗ acknowledges that st 3 is probably the

34:42 ↗ most important new thing to the mobility

34:44 ↗ master plan right so Jeff and I'll

34:46 ↗ certainly be a game changer whatever it

34:49 ↗ ends up right because if we done if you

34:52 ↗ dust off previous transportation plans

34:53 ↗ SC 300 past right but that's the biggest

34:57 ↗ new thing right right so you can just

35:00 ↗ add including sp3 on there and you would

35:03 ↗ be happy yeah

35:05 ↗ similar to make a reference to it that's

35:08 ↗ yeah kind of similar to I think element

35:12 ↗ 2 in the long term like there's the

35:14 ↗ deliverable and then it kind of talks

35:16 ↗ about some specific things oh right

35:20 ↗ either that or element 9 on the

35:25 ↗ immediate either of those kind of work

35:27 ↗ something like that okay you know in

35:30 ↗ particular such as or something like

35:32 ↗ that I think it just adds to the

35:38 ↗ equation that that Issaquah actually is

35:41 ↗ working on it and when it wants it to

35:44 ↗ come and and great you know found

35:47 ↗ transit can say yes there you know they

35:50 ↗ want to work with us they want right

35:52 ↗ they want some to start planning right

35:54 ↗ that was good it's at the same time I

35:56 ↗ think we're expecting to see other

35:58 ↗ transition plans before st3 is arise in

36:01 ↗ 20 years right right

36:03 ↗ will be a whole lot more connected to

36:05 ↗ committee I'm hoping I think we have a

36:07 ↗ long list of things that we want to get

36:10 ↗ done it's just always a problem there's

36:13 ↗ no money to do them right

36:16 ↗ sadly that's true okay so that's all of

36:20 ↗ them I had I had one others so one thing

36:23 ↗ we talked about around the the CIP a lot

36:27 ↗ the sense of scope laying was view

36:29 ↗ corridors and how there was a lot of

36:31 ↗ language referencing preserving view

36:33 ↗ corridors but no specificity about what

36:36 ↗ a view quarter actually is is that

36:38 ↗ something that would be captured I don't

36:40 ↗ know if that gets covered under the

36:41 ↗ parks strategic plan or that's an extra

36:44 ↗ action item this would be this would

36:45 ↗ certainly be in the longer term actions

36:47 ↗ but right and we did we changed the

36:49 ↗ language in the development standards on

36:52 ↗ how to measure if your building is

36:54 ↗ blocking a view corridor we did we did

36:57 ↗ because we said it had to be a public a

36:59 ↗ public viewing place it wasn't that you

37:01 ↗ could protect from all the private homes

37:04 ↗ in the private areas it was just

37:06 ↗ protecting those views that are from a

37:07 ↗ public right-of-way but did that but we

37:09 ↗ never specified which views were

37:11 ↗ protected I'll check on that but I

37:14 ↗ thought because we had to do that whole

37:15 ↗ amendment when I thought it was part of

37:18 ↗ the Costco

37:19 ↗ discussion no I don't I mean I don't I

37:24 ↗ don't think so I think we had we

37:26 ↗ certainly spent a lot of time eating the

37:28 ↗ language right about

37:29 ↗ how to protect few corridors and what we

37:32 ↗ meant by that but we never see never

37:33 ↗ specified which views were protected

37:36 ↗ okay is it just a matter just a view of

37:41 ↗ Mount Rainier that's protected is it it

37:42 ↗ is the views of all the Alps like I

37:45 ↗ don't I know I'm a forested hillsides

37:48 ↗ from pub it has to be from public

37:50 ↗ vantage places like from a public park

37:52 ↗ from a public street but not from like

37:54 ↗ your house right what we did we did

37:57 ↗ specify that the protected view is of

37:59 ↗ the forested hillsides that's that

38:01 ↗ that's the that's the I don't remember

38:03 ↗ that making it in I just remember it was

38:06 ↗ so involved yet I see I see my our the

38:09 ↗ research is going on over there but your

38:12 ↗ backup is uh so I will write that down

38:15 ↗ because if if it's there great and I'm

38:18 ↗ sorry if I missed it but if it's not I

38:20 ↗ thought that was another element that I

38:22 ↗ think still needs to be filled in we

38:23 ↗ need to have a public process to

38:25 ↗ identify which views are the ones who

38:27 ↗ want to protect I would assume that it

38:33 ↗ goes in with the parks plan but it's

38:37 ↗ more of a I know that's what that's what

38:40 ↗ I was trying to think do you add that to

38:42 ↗ under the parks strategic plan there's

38:44 ↗ some other stuff and something that we

38:45 ↗ quoted I don't know if the section would

38:47 ↗ be in regulations because it B so you

38:49 ↗ don't build your building too high

38:50 ↗ yeah something but you trained up your

38:57 ↗ that's one of the first components we

38:59 ↗ did preserve to the extent possible

39:02 ↗ while achieving other city goals

39:04 ↗ existing views of the Issaquah Alps

39:06 ↗ Mount Rainier in the Sammamish plateau

39:07 ↗ from public spaces including circulation

39:10 ↗ Philly facilities parks and open space

39:12 ↗ using methods such as increasing

39:14 ↗ distances between high-rise buildings

39:15 ↗ retaining or creating peak orders and

39:17 ↗ strategic placement of building bulk or

39:19 ↗ height it was that first part I don't

39:22 ↗ remember that all right I can send it to

39:25 ↗ you tomorrow where that is

39:26 ↗ I guess it's landing its land use policy

39:29 ↗ h9 no oh it's not in the code

39:33 ↗ no it's in the comp plan that's the copy

39:34 ↗ in the language okay yeah

39:36 ↗ doesn't seem to be in the code does it

39:38 ↗ need to be in the code I think it's in

39:39 ↗ central I think that's one of the first

39:41 ↗ amend that was one that was where my

39:43 ↗ ruble was whether it was actually made

39:44 ↗ it into the code okay I will check

39:47 ↗ though but I remember with mell that

39:49 ↗ that was one of the first amendments we

39:50 ↗ had to do oh really okay so those are

39:53 ↗ the two from AJ any others okay

39:58 ↗ oh here's the last ones so next step so

40:04 ↗ you guys have a busy fall coming up next

40:08 ↗ meeting October 11th you're going to

40:11 ↗ have a public hearing on a code

40:13 ↗ amendment and that's going to be compact

40:16 ↗ municipal buildings like a new City Hall

40:20 ↗ a new fire station would have to be do

40:23 ↗ you remember those of you that were here

40:24 ↗ in 2017 we did compact schools a small

40:28 ↗ footprint idea we'll remember we tried

40:31 ↗ to have city halls in that amendment and

40:33 ↗ you guys took it out so we're coming

40:35 ↗ back again to see if we can get through

40:38 ↗ this time and so that all of our new

40:41 ↗ buildings city halls and fire stations

40:44 ↗ and that kind of stuff would have to be

40:45 ↗ compact so that's coming to you on

40:48 ↗ October 11th and if we have any extra

40:51 ↗ time we can do more review of this but

40:53 ↗ it seems that the complan stuff is

40:56 ↗ pretty much all done the only thing

40:58 ↗ we're still trying to work on with the

40:59 ↗ school district is if they will come

41:01 ↗ talk to us about that great conversation

41:03 ↗ we had last week about urban schools and

41:05 ↗ compact schools and all the good things

41:08 ↗ about schools so the person we're trying

41:11 ↗ to meet with Steve Crawford is out of

41:12 ↗ the office so we're hoping to talk to

41:14 ↗ him next week to invite him to the 25th

41:17 ↗ has the district been receptive that yet

41:20 ↗ or are you still just trying to when we

41:23 ↗ did the compact schools last year and so

41:26 ↗ this is the whole policy piece that we

41:28 ↗ shared with you all last time and the

41:30 ↗ definitions and so you all had asked if

41:33 ↗ they would actually come and and visit

41:35 ↗ with us and so we had sent it to them we

41:37 ↗ hadn't gotten comments back and so we

41:39 ↗ sent it again said you all wanted to

41:41 ↗ meet and so we're gonna try and meet

41:42 ↗ with him first and you know see what

41:44 ↗ ideas and thoughts he has

41:46 ↗ and hopefully he'll be happy to come

41:48 ↗ here on the 25th the 8th of November a

41:52 ↗ great doubleheader for you guys the

41:55 ↗ Development Commission is going to be

41:56 ↗ here with you guys love those guys and

41:59 ↗ gals and that you're gonna be looking at

42:01 ↗ the Gilman Boulevard corridor concept

42:04 ↗ presentation and Kristen will be part of

42:06 ↗ that she's on that team and the

42:09 ↗ development Commission's being invited

42:10 ↗ as well to hear it with you and that

42:13 ↗ same night we're hoping while we have

42:15 ↗ the Development Commission here we're

42:17 ↗ gonna do try and do a code amendment

42:19 ↗ that changes the level of level 3 review

42:23 ↗ that goes to the Development Commission

42:25 ↗ to add some more criteria on what

42:27 ↗ projects would go to them so we thought

42:30 ↗ why not have that discussion when

42:31 ↗ they're actually here to tell you yeah

42:33 ↗ or nay it makes sense er it doesn't make

42:35 ↗ sense so we thought that was a brilliant

42:37 ↗ use of having the Development Commission

42:40 ↗ here with you all because they're just

42:41 ↗ great well you guys haven't met together

42:43 ↗ for a while so this will be a lot of fun

42:45 ↗ so then the 15th of November is the

42:49 ↗ public hearing on the comp plan so what

42:52 ↗ we'll do is all the comp plan amendments

42:54 ↗ that you've reviewed already land use

42:55 ↗ transportation the appendix that we just

42:58 ↗ did will will make all your changes put

43:01 ↗ them in the public hearing package and

43:02 ↗ then we send it out to you for the 15th

43:04 ↗ and hopefully you'll be comfortable

43:06 ↗ enough to forward that to the council

43:09 ↗ with your recommendation that would be

43:11 ↗ great and then in December who knows

43:14 ↗ what we could do in December we could do

43:16 ↗ more code amendments we could start on

43:18 ↗ all new things it's just really exciting

43:20 ↗ we did we just don't even know what we

43:22 ↗ would do in December if we were done

43:24 ↗ with the comp plan any questions or

43:27 ↗ thoughts

43:29 ↗ another thing is I sent you an email

43:32 ↗ right before I came here and this

43:33 ↗ because you all helped with a strategic

43:35 ↗ plan sort of laying the baseline for

43:38 ↗ what was important and we had the flip

43:39 ↗ charts remember and we had someone in

43:41 ↗ the audience was helping us with our

43:43 ↗ with our great conversation well that's

43:45 ↗ sort of in its first layer of baking and

43:47 ↗ they're sending a survey out to all of

43:49 ↗ you that worked on it to see what you

43:52 ↗ think about how far it's come and does

43:54 ↗ it make sense still and

43:56 ↗ so I've sent that out to you and I think

43:57 ↗ the survey is open for maybe til the 8th

44:00 ↗ of October so it's like a little over a

44:03 ↗ week and that would be great if you guys

44:05 ↗ could could could fill out the survey

44:08 ↗ and keep keep your input in there

44:09 ↗ because you guys are all the good wise

44:11 ↗ people of the city anything else for the

44:15 ↗ good of the order Oh Old Town and the

44:18 ↗ table of permitted uses is going one

44:20 ↗ more time we hope to land in Shore

44:23 ↗ next week and so we're hoping that

44:25 ↗ they'd be done with both of those and

44:27 ↗ then they would be going back to council

44:29 ↗ for action by the end of October so

44:33 ↗ that's another two big projects you guys

44:35 ↗ work done yes ma'am yes both mam's so

44:42 ↗ Emily did find language on views and

44:44 ↗ vistas it's in the standard centralist

44:45 ↗ quest and row it is it's not in the land

44:47 ↗ it's not in the ladies code it is in the

44:49 ↗ standards so memory is there but the

44:52 ↗ standards are enforceable because the

44:54 ↗ CIP okay yes but I will still send that

44:56 ↗ to you tomorrow yes because I knew that

44:58 ↗ I could not have dreamt that I should I

45:01 ↗ should never doubt you Trish should

45:03 ↗ often trust yet verify I think we're the

45:06 ↗ famous words

45:06 ↗ all right thanks Emily super anything

45:09 ↗ else for the good of the order that's

45:10 ↗ coming we're gonna look at the agenda I

45:12 ↗ think the Commission felt pretty

45:14 ↗ strongly that the compact at urban

45:16 ↗ school should be a conversation with the

45:18 ↗ school district is a key stakeholder so

45:20 ↗ if the 25th doesn't work I would just

45:23 ↗ throw out being a little bit flexible

45:24 ↗ with the if they say if we need to grab

45:27 ↗ one of the other slots for that sir so

45:29 ↗ sure hopefully does but if they want if

45:32 ↗ they want to come but the 25th doesn't

45:34 ↗ work I would say encourage us to try to

45:36 ↗ be a little bit flexible thorough

45:37 ↗ schedule right to ensure that we can

45:39 ↗ have that conversation right with them

45:40 ↗ and be productive and that's why we

45:41 ↗ bumped the public hearing all the way in

45:43 ↗ November in case we needed to move

45:46 ↗ something around but yeah because we

45:48 ↗ think it's better if everybody's at the

45:50 ↗ table for that anything else thank you

45:56 ↗ all for being here and being our quorum

45:58 ↗ what ratio should membership mean on the

46:01 ↗ call to order oh that's always there

46:03 ↗ just to show so that we take attendance

46:06 ↗ and if you look at the next page it

46:08 ↗ shows

46:10 ↗ all of you guys and go that's

46:12 ↗ just--that's address it's just

46:13 ↗ connecting it okay seeing no other

46:16 ↗ comments you sure close the meeting at

46:21 ↗ 7:16 nicely

46:35 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (1)

Administration/

Staff (1)

Joan Probala, Chair Trish Heinonen, Policy Planning Manager AJ McGauley, Alt. (Acting as Voting Member) Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Bill Rinehart Emily Arteche, Senior Planner Jason Voiss, Alt. (Acting as Voting Member) Members Not Present (Excused): Ron Faul, Vice Chair Joy Lewis Troy Rahmig Lindsey Walsh