← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, December 13, 2018

6:30 PM · 1h 0m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Proposed Amendments: 2018 Comprehensive Plan, Central Issaquah Plan, IMC and Central Standards AB 7682 6/8
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.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
2a
Minutes of November 8, 2018
packet pp.5–9
Staff report:
point about aligning changes on Gilman with the Green Necklace, but the plan does appear to be on the right track, in her view. PROBALA spoke in favor of the general concept behind the plan. She said there are a few points that need more clarification, like what having more crosswalks on Gilman will do to traffic. Polanski replied that will be an important part of the Phase II work on this project. The Commissioners briefly discussed potential traffic issues.
2b
Minutes of November 15, 2018
packet pp.11–13
Staff report:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION—SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
2a
2018 Amendments to Issaquah's Comprehensive Plan, (D)
Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Emily Arteche, Senior Planner · packet pp.15–96
Topics: Land Use
Staff report:
By State Law, Comprehensive Plan amendments may only be done once a year and a Docket (list) of amendments must be established by Council. This is to ensure that all the items on the Docket are reviewed together in a thoughtful way, not piecemeal as requests trickle in throughout the year.
4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
4a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.97–98
Staff report:
1. Safe Injection Sites (Moratorium) 1/11/18 3/5/18 2. Small Cell Wireless Facilities 2/1/18 5/7/18 Ord 2833 3. Olde Town Plan update 7/12/18 11/19/18 Ord 2849 4. Central Standards update a. limit Hotel/ Motels and Self Storage uses 3/22/18 5/21/18 Ord 2837 (self- storage uses) b. Table 4.3B Permitted Land Uses 8/23/18 11/19/18 Ord 2851 c. Change in zoning: Destination Retail and 6/28/18 11/19/18 Ord 2850 Intensive Commercial 5. Housing Strategy: ADUs 3/22/18 5/21/18 Ord 2839 6. Housing Strategy: Inclusionary Zoning 10/26/17 5/7/18 Ord No 2832 7. 2018 Comp Plan/Central Plan Amendments a. District Visions 3/22/18 Ord 2838 5/21/18 b. remaining amendments 12/13/18 Ord 2842 7/16/18 (boundary delay) 8. 2018 Parks Strategic Plan 6/14/18 7/16/18 - Res 2018-12 Other Topics TDRs (end of Issaquah Highlands Dev 4/26/18 6/4/18 Agreement) Talus Parcel 9 5/10/18 6/2/18 * Red indicates tentative date
0:17 welcome to the December 13 meet 13th
0:20 meeting of the Planning Policy
0:21 Commission tonight we're going to talk
0:24 about the amendments to the
0:25 comprehensive plan and if anybody would
0:30 like to make any comments we'll be glad
0:32 to hear them I see lots of people out
0:35 there but first of all we have to now
0:39 that we have a official quorum we have
0:41 two things we have the approval of the
0:44 minutes from November the 8th so I have
0:48 a motion to approve the minutes I would
0:51 like to move to approve the minutes of
0:53 November 8th
0:55 second do I have any discussion we've
0:59 all read them so the motion is on the
1:02 table all those in favor say aye aye
1:04 opposed motion carries
1:08 moving on to the minutes of November the
1:11 15th do I have a motion like to make a
1:13 motion to approve minutes from November
1:15 15th well second although any discussion
1:19 all those in favor say aye
1:21 all right all those opposed hearing none
1:24 the motion carries with that I'm going
1:27 to open up the floor to our enemy policy
1:33 manager or an update on what the
1:38 amendments are to the comp plan
1:42 perfect perfect tonight is the
1:45 culmination of the 2018 Kathlyn
1:48 amendments that we do annually just to
1:52 remind you in January we've did the
1:54 docket list we had a public hearing and
1:57 you added some items to the docket list
1:59 that went through council and council
2:01 approved the docket list and we started
2:04 working on those items we've brought you
2:06 items three different meetings we did
2:09 the whole land-use element the first
2:11 meeting with you all and the parks
2:13 update and remember the parks element we
2:16 updated based on the parks strategic
2:18 plan we just pulled all those policies
2:20 from that adopted plan into the
2:22 Comprehensive Plan element so that was
2:24 pretty basic then
2:27 the 27th Kristin was here telling you
2:30 all about the transportation element
2:31 there was just a few changes to the
2:33 element itself and we also included the
2:36 transportation improvement program that
2:38 you've previously seen earlier in the
2:41 year and council had previously adopted
2:43 by state law that has to also be brought
2:45 into the transportation element so
2:47 that's sort of a housekeeping shall we
2:50 say measure to pull that into the
2:53 adapted new element and then we had a oh
2:57 you also did the implementation
2:59 strategies where we tried to prioritize
3:01 and get a finer grain on the
3:03 implementation strategies for the whole
3:05 comp plan and so that was kind of an
3:06 interesting discussion we had on all the
3:08 all the projects we would love to do
3:11 then we had a really great discussion
3:13 with the school board and the school
3:15 district about urban schools and compact
3:18 schools and what their expectations are
3:21 and what your expectations are and we
3:24 had a super great discussion with them
3:26 which ended up to have some compact
3:28 school policies some urban school
3:31 policies and two definitions of urban
3:34 schools and compact schools for you all
3:37 tonight you're going to be seeing two
3:40 pieces that you haven't seen before and
3:42 one of those is the utilities public
3:44 service element and the other one is
3:46 capital facilities element and the
3:48 reason these are coming later than we
3:51 would have liked is the water system
3:53 plan which is a huge document that's
3:56 moving through the council right now
3:58 it's supposed to be adopted by them
4:00 we're hoping in January and we need to
4:03 put the policies in the water service
4:06 plan and make sure they're in our
4:07 comprehensive plan because our
4:09 comprehensive plan is the umbrella of
4:11 everything in the city and so we put
4:14 those in and so it's just like the park
4:16 plan and the park element that we're
4:18 trying to make the Comprehensive Plan
4:20 the the holder of all that's current and
4:23 so you'll be getting a presentation by
4:25 Emily on that tonight for capital
4:27 facilities we were not going to update
4:29 that because as you all know parts of it
4:33 are very out of date and need to have
4:35 rate studies and for the L OS for fire
4:38 police
4:39 you know the list goes on but as we
4:42 started the fire the work on the fire
4:45 impact fees we realized that there was
4:48 no capital plan for future capital
4:51 facilities that are needed by fire in
4:54 the plan because it's so old and so we
4:57 needed to tuck those into this go-around
4:59 so we could update the fees next year
5:02 otherwise we couldn't get them in till
5:04 next year at the end of the year and we
5:05 couldn't do the fire impact fees then
5:08 until 2020 so we wanted to quick get
5:12 those in and also from all of our
5:14 discussions with the school impact fees
5:15 we took another look at what growth
5:18 Management Act requires us to say about
5:21 the school districts six-year plan and
5:24 we made sure that our element says
5:26 exactly what GMA says we have to say
5:29 about the school district plan so that
5:31 we are able to have impactful school in
5:34 PEG fees just as a quick summary in the
5:39 land-use element that you saw in
5:41 September it updated the population
5:43 housing data and the job data we updated
5:47 the land use designation map transfer of
5:49 development rights policy direction for
5:52 building on slopes acquisition of
5:55 forested hillsides yay and we had the
5:59 policy for compact and urban schools and
6:02 at the end as you may recall
6:04 Lindsay wrote a great email right after
6:06 she got the packet thank you very much
6:08 of all the questions she had and then
6:10 staff trying to answer them all and got
6:13 it back to you all on Monday and so if
6:15 we want if anyone wants to go over any
6:17 or all of that email and the questions
6:19 she had we're happy to do that part of
6:25 that that she brought up was the the
6:27 interesting way that the population
6:29 projections are calculated and we
6:32 thought she made a very good point that
6:34 they were probably more complicated for
6:38 forecasting than they had to be knowing
6:40 that forecasting is never absolutely
6:43 correct
6:43 there's many variables that are part of
6:46 that
6:47 none of which we have a crystal ball and
6:50 can guess them accurately every time so
6:52 we simplified them like Lindsay had
6:54 mentioned to just to be divided by how
6:59 many year you know the growth divided by
7:01 how many years so that there's not
7:04 we even contacted the planner that had
7:06 done this before for many years and she
7:08 said she agreed yes it was pretty
7:10 convoluted it made sense at the time but
7:13 if I were you and with the end of the
7:15 development agreements and central you
7:17 know being going strong now and the
7:19 moratorium being over she goes I would
7:20 just go back to having it be
7:22 straightforward we said okay so the
7:25 highlighted areas in yellow are
7:28 different than in your packet based on
7:30 Lindsay's question and our delving into
7:32 the formulas a little better and those
7:35 are much more the question that I had
7:37 there was basically that if our most
7:40 recent growth and I'm I'm having to find
7:45 it on here but I believe it was
7:47 something like 6% why we were looking at
7:50 closer to 1 to 2% in the future years I
7:55 can't quite read that up there so I
7:57 don't know what you corrected to I think
8:01 it's now the first change from 2010 to
8:04 2011 4% which is accurate because it is
8:13 2018 but the other two then as we
8:16 project from 19 to 2020 we just took the
8:21 growth and divided it by the years so
8:24 it's pretty much the same as it is from
8:27 210 to 218 and then we did a similar
8:32 formula for 2020 to 2025 and that went
8:36 down to 1.8 6%
8:40 ok let me see if I get this correctly in
8:43 my head so what was in our packet was a
8:47 6.8%
8:49 average yearly gross right for a total
8:54 increase of twenty one point nine five
8:56 percent but what you're correcting to is
8:59 saying well it didn't actually grow
9:01 twenty two percent over that eight-year
9:04 period because a growth of from thirty
9:07 thousand four hundred and thirty four
9:09 people to thirty six thousand seven
9:12 hundred and fifteen is not twenty one
9:15 percent right okay so we have now the
9:19 corrected numbers which is good and it
9:24 shows similar to slightly decreasing
9:28 growth over those periods rather than
9:31 rapidly dropping growth right didn't
9:34 make sense all right and and while we're
9:36 on the table you had asked two really
9:39 good questions why are the Highlands and
9:41 talus why are those numbers changing now
9:45 that it's 2018 and because we did the
9:47 end of development agreements we
9:49 actually knew what was left entitled and
9:53 what wasn't and so they're actually
9:54 existing conditions in this chart
9:57 whereas all the years before we just
10:00 gave them their entitlement and we never
10:02 questioned if they're going to make it
10:04 or not because they had so much time to
10:07 make to get their entitlement and so now
10:09 that we knew that things were over we
10:11 adjusted them all to end the development
10:14 agreement use existing conditions for
10:17 this year and then in the future just to
10:19 put the remaining entitlement that was
10:22 agreed upon in the development agreement
10:24 ending for the future years so that's
10:30 why this one looks a little different
10:31 than it has for many many years for
10:34 those two yeah so it's not like we lost
10:36 houses it's just that we were estimating
10:39 over and when we had to do the actual
10:42 count for the end of the development
10:43 agreement these are now actual numbers
10:46 correct kind of correct any other
10:49 questions with the pop chart
10:54 transportation was pretty
10:56 straightforward again it was the
10:58 six-year TI P that you had already
10:59 looked at it was the commute trip
11:01 reduction act information that Kristin
11:04 presented we revised the Sound Transit
11:06 three policies a little bit and updated
11:11 the non-motorized map and also the
11:18 commuter production act also went into
11:20 the central plan as well and some of the
11:23 wording we had those new the new words
11:25 that they want us to use that are longer
11:27 than the old words still don't quite
11:29 understand why we have to use a longer
11:31 word but there it is and this is the new
11:35 word we have to use the non-drive alone
11:38 trip instead of single occupancy vehicle
11:41 and we added transportation management
11:44 action plan to the definitions as well
11:48 we already talked about the Parks and
11:51 Rec element being now the same as the
11:54 strategic plan and remember next year
11:56 you all asked to go through the goals
11:58 and policies again and you got your wish
12:01 it's on the docket for next year so
12:03 hoorah for that and then we also did the
12:07 implementation strategies we've already
12:09 looked at those we've updated them and
12:11 prioritized them and these are the new
12:16 pieces I'm going to turn over to Emily
12:17 and she's going to share what happened
12:19 with the two new elements
12:40 hello commissioner is not my name is
12:43 emilie are tha I'm a Senior Planner here
12:45 in development services I have some
12:47 notes at the bottom of the screen I
12:49 wanted to display why I gave my brief
12:52 presentation do you mind if I restart
12:55 the PowerPoint presentation okay I think
13:06 you just hit
13:26 yeah but I was just wondering on when
13:28 you hit the PowerPoint presentation
13:30 there's a display that allows you to
13:32 show not without my notes on it though
13:34 oh yeah if you hit if you hit
13:37 oh so you can see their notes what they
13:39 can't see yeah yeah hi do you help it's
13:51 pretty simple because I've done it many
13:53 times before I know you could do mmm
13:56 like slide master yeah it's a review
14:00 slide show that was on VOD there was a
14:04 human tation automatic news timing play
14:07 narratives show media controls used to
14:12 having use view presentation monitor
14:19 primary monitor I might have to just not
14:25 use them if I can't figure that out
14:33 can you I don't think they mind sing the
14:36 notes yeah it's really fine okay I mean
14:39 it's not like you used any bad words or
14:41 anything as far as I know so Trish I'm
14:45 sorry where do you you just you just do
14:48 that and how do you pull it up right
14:55 okay and then you would just when you
14:58 want to go to that when you just really
14:59 like to bring up anything while we're
15:01 waiting so that everybody knows all
15:03 right we're actually all right well you
15:05 can see my notes and hopefully I didn't
15:07 misspell anything on the bottom because
15:08 they weren't intended they were not
15:10 intended for a public view so this is
15:13 the first time that Trish had as Trish
15:15 introduced that you'll be seeing the
15:17 water plan it was last updated in 2012
15:21 so it's been a while and since that a
15:25 lot has changed the city's had the
15:27 development agreements there's Dallas
15:30 and is Highlands and central
15:33 Issaquah plan that was recently adopted
15:37 I mean basically right at the same time
15:39 that the last water plan was updated and
15:42 as at the same time about a thousand new
15:45 service connections south Cove and the
15:48 Greenwood Point neighborhood came on
15:51 board this water plan is a substantial
15:55 document it's it's equivalent to having
15:57 a comprehensive plan like the one these
16:00 amendments are going into so it is a
16:03 full-bodied document up to two hundred
16:05 and thirty nine pages similar to what
16:07 you'd see for the Sammamish plateau
16:09 Water and Sewer District water
16:11 comprehensive plan so it's a substantial
16:13 document and if you haven't noticed
16:19 there's been a significant increase in
16:21 the number of policies added to the
16:23 document thirty-two new additional
16:26 policies came on board and they deal
16:30 mostly with
16:32 water system design and operation and I
16:37 also just wanted to mention too that as
16:40 a result of this update a significant
16:43 finding in the study that they did to
16:45 update this plan determined that
16:47 additional treatment of groundwater
16:49 would be needed and then along with that
16:52 the 32 new additional policies and
16:54 they're very detailed with regards to
16:57 operation and design system design so if
17:00 you read through them you'll see a lot
17:01 of the words of maintenance and and
17:03 indications of fire flow and things like
17:06 that and you'll also notice that there's
17:10 a uniform treatment and information of
17:13 these policies all geared towards the
17:15 utility customer including the one we
17:18 have right now as well as future utility
17:20 water utility customers and you may not
17:26 have noticed but this was part of a
17:28 larger public involvement program back
17:31 in May 2018 the City Council had a
17:34 public hearing on this and so it went
17:37 through a full process in order to get
17:40 to the point where it's out right now to
17:42 have the developed goals and policies in
17:45 the plan which we can literally lift and
17:47 put into our comprehensive plan to
17:50 provide a proper storage or housing for
17:54 it though the document is really very
17:59 large and it's right now if you'd like
18:01 to look at it I put up the website where
18:03 you could go and find the document on
18:05 the Issaquah webpage under is s AQ u HW
18:10 a.gov dot backslash water plan are there
18:17 any questions with regards to the water
18:20 plan update is this actual what's
18:30 actually going to be in the comp plan or
18:32 is once the water
18:35 is approved by the city that then
18:39 changes are going to come back here
18:40 right we did think about that that's a
18:42 great question there are no anticipated
18:45 changes to the goals and the policies
18:48 and for that reason it is not likely to
18:51 come back with any additional changes
18:54 but should it go through the council and
18:57 should a change occur we could address
18:59 that and/or bring it back to you if you
19:02 prefer that would be next year though it
19:05 would be next year yeah it's scheduled
19:08 to go through to the council on January
19:10 22nd that was kind of what my question
19:14 was is that are we would we be naturally
19:16 reviewing this with next year's comp
19:18 plans when we kind of go through the
19:20 entire document obviously not the new
19:22 material but if they changed anything
19:24 between now and January you would see it
19:27 again next year so it's my understanding
19:33 that with the water system plan and City
19:37 Council's review that there are some
19:40 questions that are still up in the open
19:42 such as fluoridation and you know
19:46 whether or not they're going to move
19:48 between the three choices of how to
19:52 provide water do do any of those affect
19:58 the policies or is that just the
20:00 implementation side okay so
20:13 so should there be policies in here
20:17 about water fluoridation and potentially
20:24 like the pretty fast treatments and
20:27 different things like that
20:29 there there could be there could be
20:31 there could be a floor of fluoride
20:34 related policy at this point there are
20:38 there's not it's not anticipated it's
20:41 what the Public Works Department has
20:43 indicated so again I'm going off of
20:49 information from outside of this meeting
20:52 and outside of what we're presented so
20:55 excuse me if I say something incorrectly
20:58 but my understanding is it's a qual
21:01 receives two sources of water from
21:05 groundwater and from yeah cascade is
21:10 that what it is yeah cascade water
21:12 alliance yeah yeah and one of them is
21:15 fluoridated and the other one is not and
21:18 so that comes in and certain areas are
21:22 receiving or are there suggesting that
21:26 Telus is only going to receive one of
21:29 those sources of water and so basically
21:33 I think what I'm getting at is it feels
21:35 like we do not have a lot of the
21:38 information that would be needed to
21:40 evaluate the policies behind a water
21:44 system plan I would back that up I I
21:49 think what I was wondering is if
21:50 basically this was a little bit like our
21:52 Parks Department thing where we're like
21:54 this is a good update and how do we
21:57 actually then take this and implement
21:59 policy I mean we've we've dictated a lot
22:00 of things in the comp plan about what we
22:02 want for the city why do we not have
22:05 anything that says this is exactly what
22:07 we want from our water right now it felt
22:09 a little bit like well we're gonna leave
22:10 to the utility and you know hope it
22:12 shakes out okay and so I was kind of
22:15 wondering if this was like our first
22:16 stab and next year we'll be fine-tuning
22:19 this there could be an opportunity for
22:21 fine-tuning it is very much like the
22:23 parks element
22:24 so the parks element goals and policies
22:26 were cultivated through the parks
22:28 department on their own through a
22:30 separate process and they asked us to
22:32 put it into our comprehensive plan
22:34 so unlike the land-use element and other
22:37 elements this is one that the work was
22:39 done elsewhere and we were simply asked
22:41 to put it back into the comprehensive
22:43 plan
22:44 it certainly is there's an opportunity
22:47 for us to come back with the utilities
22:49 element again next year show you what
22:52 exactly was adopted from the council and
22:55 do any additional work that time along
22:58 with the parks plan I'd feel better with
22:59 that writer moving it along yeah I'm I
23:04 don't see anything in here that is a
23:06 problem to put into the comprehensive
23:08 plan but I'm a little bit like I feel
23:12 kind of floored that that's coming in
23:14 and I'm like whoa what what are the
23:16 questions that should be asked you know
23:17 what and what are the policies that are
23:20 gonna come out of this and with that
23:23 information like I felt like we kind of
23:25 missed a step a little bit and I I
23:27 didn't feel like it was a negligent
23:29 thing I felt like it was like we're
23:31 still processing what we want our water
23:33 plan to be so I appreciated the update
23:35 and was kind of after going through it I
23:37 kind of realized I was like alright well
23:39 we'll see what were presented tonight
23:40 but I kind of wanted to see if this was
23:42 something that could be a little more in
23:44 process mm-hmm so am I correct hearing
23:47 that you'd like to see this come back to
23:49 you again maybe even at the same time
23:51 that the parks element comes back I
23:53 don't think they're related as far as
23:56 when they come to to us but and
23:59 especially I'm not sure when it's coming
24:01 to us but I'd like this to have a little
24:03 bit more time I don't know that I
24:04 definitely want to look at this again in
24:06 January or February I want to see what's
24:08 adopted and be able to actually have you
24:10 guys take the time to peace out and say
24:12 what is our policy plan as far as as far
24:16 as what is our standards for water how
24:19 are we going to get that where our
24:20 checks and levels rather than just right
24:22 now it's just all kind of dumped on the
24:23 utilities that make sense so I'd like to
24:26 see it again I wouldn't I would love to
24:27 have that writer of we it would make me
24:30 happy to pass this along knowing that we
24:32 were going to redress how the
24:37 actually bakes into our policy I would
24:42 agree
24:45 the only part that comes to mind that I
24:47 would warn about and we'd have to check
24:50 with Public Works is the water system
24:53 plan is regulated by the state whereas
24:56 the parks plan is not and so let's say
24:58 next year you looked at the goals and
25:00 policies and you had changes I'm not
25:02 sure how often we're allowed to go to
25:04 the state with changes I'm not aware
25:07 because that's not a program that that
25:09 we've ever been in charge of you know we
25:11 usually put whatever they've adapted
25:13 through their public process into our
25:15 conference into our comp plan so we
25:18 could we could see on you know if you
25:20 worked on the policies and goals if we
25:22 would be able to actually amend them
25:24 before the next roll through of the
25:26 water system plan Lindsay brought up the
25:30 question of fluoridation mm-hmm that's
25:33 not determined by the state I mean in
25:37 the way that there are two different
25:39 things coming in one has fluoride one
25:43 does not so the state is not going to
25:45 recognize that it comes from the city
25:47 right they regulate one we have to
25:49 update water swim plans well I think
25:52 it's every six or eight years it's
25:54 something like that like the comp plan
25:56 is every year so I'm just worried that
25:58 if you should change things I'm not sure
26:00 when the state would let us actually put
26:03 those amendments in play
26:04 it's a deadline just submit to the state
26:09 one is that I'm not sure because that's
26:11 again that's public works its process
26:13 and they hope to be adopted in January
26:15 but we'll certainly run that through to
26:17 see if we're able to do that like we are
26:19 with the parks element
26:20 yeah I actually heard some of the
26:23 commissioners indicate that they wanted
26:25 maybe more of an in-depth understanding
26:27 of the water plan is that correct of how
26:31 it functions and works that
26:36 right in theory you would the city I'm
26:40 sorry I mean you Emily um would take
26:42 that in-depth research and then be able
26:44 to parlay that into what is it that we
26:46 want to see for our city maybe that
26:48 means something you know fluoridation is
26:50 an example of something where we have a
26:52 disconnect and something where we may
26:54 hold ourselves to a higher standard than
26:57 what the utility may bring us and so
27:00 then what are we going to do to create
27:01 that situation where we kind of have our
27:03 own our own plan we create policies for
27:08 the water plan based on that study so it
27:14 wouldn't be the entire plan because
27:16 obviously we don't need to go into
27:17 detail about where pipes and connections
27:20 and you know all of those things but the
27:23 policies around what our water treatment
27:29 should be like for our city whether or
27:31 not it again we have higher standards or
27:35 something like that I think is something
27:39 that we'd like to talk about so I don't
27:44 know how that meshes in with water
27:48 system plan and when it's required to be
27:51 submitted the next update is in 10 years
27:57 after this so it's 10 at 10 it's a 10
28:00 year update yes mm-hmm the plan has not
28:05 been adopted by council so they could
28:07 add in there whatever they want they
28:09 could they could and if they change
28:11 something I think it would be more
28:14 important to bring it back and show you
28:16 what those changes are okay so with the
28:18 input from the commissioners that there
28:20 a few things that need to be can be
28:23 added with that discussion then go to to
28:26 the council as you're presenting the
28:28 plan so they at that point in time they
28:31 could put specific things into the plan
28:34 that do not have to be actually
28:38 addressed in this policy statement right
28:41 here
28:44 let me write let me see if I understand
28:46 what you're saying if they put something
28:48 additional into the plan it doesn't
28:51 affect what you have before you right
28:53 now if they change but if they change
28:56 specifically the policies or the goals
28:58 that are in that plan well that yeah
29:02 then it would affect what you see right
29:03 here right that's true but adding in a
29:06 description of of what the water quality
29:09 should be like yet would not affect no
29:12 yeah that might not affect at all the
29:15 goals in the policy that you have before
29:16 you yeah correct and it's not likely
29:18 that the goals and policies are going to
29:20 change and that's why we felt
29:22 comfortable bringing to that these to
29:24 you at this point so we felt like they
29:26 were volatile and they were change and
29:28 shifting we wouldn't have been able to
29:30 bring it forward and the council will be
29:31 done with that before they're done with
29:34 this so if they do change things they
29:37 would be able to put the changes also
29:39 into the comp plan if they choose so
29:41 they're seeing this after that right but
29:43 then we would bring it back to you to
29:45 show you what the final piece was and
29:48 see if you had that's exactly what
29:50 you're asking I think so okay great the
29:56 other element that has some minor
29:59 changes to it again it it's only minor
30:02 because we don't have all the fees study
30:04 the impact fees study done is to the
30:07 fire services which needed a six year
30:11 CIP listed in there so you'll see that
30:15 there's a new table in there that shows
30:16 that a new fire aid unit is going to be
30:19 needed as well as a new fire station and
30:23 so those are numbers that will help with
30:25 the city's future planning efforts
30:26 moving forward once they're established
30:29 in the city's comprehensive plan and
30:31 then there's another minor edit to
30:33 schools which indicates the latest CIP
30:36 for is Squa school district as I've
30:39 dated this year in 2018 so how do you
30:43 set impact these the amount of impact
30:47 these what is it
30:49 that the city is looking for we're doing
30:51 a rate study right now where we look at
30:54 their calls for service there the
30:57 facilities that they have now meaning
30:59 the buildings and the vehicles and we
31:03 find out if all of that match is still
31:05 with what they were before and if we're
31:08 able to keep keep the level of service
31:11 up for the growth that we're expecting
31:13 and fire is a little different than the
31:15 others in that fire we try to be ahead
31:18 of the curve and then the people that
31:21 come later sort of do a not a late
31:25 comers fee but it's sort of we we don't
31:28 want to be behind in fire service and
31:30 build-up to the growth we would rather
31:32 be a we've chosen to be ahead of growth
31:34 and then the late comers pay into it so
31:37 that the system is already built for a
31:40 little bit of growth so we have a buffer
31:42 there that we don't drop below and when
31:45 we start to drop below there's the chart
31:46 in there that you'll see when we update
31:49 them next year
31:50 and when you sort of get to that danger
31:52 how many minutes does it take to get to
31:54 a call and and that's when they hit they
31:57 need the new aid car and the new
32:00 facility so that they don't drop below
32:02 the how many minutes it takes for them
32:05 to get to the emergencies so when was
32:07 the last time it was updated 2006 so are
32:17 you sure that we are meeting our goals
32:19 right now yes because we did start the
32:23 update and that's when we realized that
32:25 the future piece was missing out of the
32:28 capital facilities like we totally
32:31 missed it because it's it's from 2006 so
32:34 that's why that had to go in here so we
32:36 could keep doing the rate study and
32:38 adopt new fees and a new rate study this
32:40 next year I understand that you have to
32:43 do it in the future to base it on it but
32:46 I was just from your explanation I was
32:49 concerned that 2006 is a it's a long
32:52 distance from 2018 right and I think we
32:55 had this discussion several times before
32:57 that
32:58 our police were not necessarily updated
33:01 to the right standard right and and
33:03 you're right that the the the rate study
33:06 wasn't updated but fire continues to do
33:10 everything they normally do with or
33:11 without a rate study that we would do
33:13 for them I mean they've been putting in
33:15 there the facilities that they need and
33:18 that vehicles they need you know they've
33:20 been carrying on that one you know
33:22 thankfully without us that concerned me
33:26 that that's such a you know you're
33:28 supposed to do six years well we we are
33:30 at about twelve years right right but no
33:33 they've been carrying on really well
33:35 without us keeping up as well as we
33:37 should have yeah and that's why you see
33:39 the aid card listed in the future in
33:42 2023 it's something they're predicting
33:44 they need by that time I would like to
33:49 make one request when you look at the
33:53 transfer I guess it's with utilities the
34:00 water the plant amendments that are here
34:05 your you have everything in yellow right
34:09 it's very difficult to read no I've
34:13 missed something because it's all blends
34:15 together so in the other amendments
34:19 you're you're fine you have have it in
34:22 red and so you can see the difference
34:25 between the two but it's very difficult
34:27 in this situation good point thank you
34:33 does anybody have any questions it's the
34:38 whole thing
34:38 I think Trish you have one more slide
34:41 don't you for next steps oh sure I just
34:46 have one question on the fire service
34:48 area before we move on considering we
34:52 know that there's going to need to be a
34:55 new fire station north of the i-90
34:59 when does that come up within the City
35:01 of locating what that person would be I
35:08 know that's not part of the
35:10 comprehensive plan but that obviously
35:13 comes up with this I would guess that
35:16 fire is looking for one as we speak just
35:19 because as we know from schools parcels
35:22 are hard to find so I would guess that
35:23 fires is in the process of looking now
35:26 knowing that it might take them till
35:28 when they would need it to find one to
35:30 find a suitable spot so fire is already
35:37 done a response study basically so it's
35:42 think about something with like
35:43 concentric circles for you could get to
35:45 this line in this many minutes in this
35:48 line in this many minutes so they know
35:50 we're optimally that new facility would
35:56 be and we actually acquired a piece of
36:00 property on East Lake Sammamish with
36:03 that intent unfortunately I think what
36:06 we found is that that piece of property
36:09 can't can't accommodate a fire station
36:15 so we're looking for another piece of
36:17 property so you know as we know with the
36:21 school district finding property is not
36:23 easy in Issaquah and so we actually have
36:28 a meeting with the chief maybe next week
36:31 maybe next week
36:33 where they're gonna help us understand
36:37 kind of their optimization map so that
36:40 we can then go look for property so it's
36:42 uh I mean they would build a temporary
36:44 station tomorrow if they could we've
36:47 actually talked to some property owners
36:50 Minh of along East Lake Sam and kind of
36:54 back behind where Siemens and Microsoft
36:56 are to see if there's property that
36:59 those property owners would be willing
37:01 to allow a temporary fire station to
37:04 sublease for a while so those things are
37:08 all happening right now and I think part
37:11 of you know the goal for us is having
37:15 that North Station would alleviate you
37:19 know the way our arrangement is with
37:22 Eastside Fire and Rescue is if something
37:25 in the city of Issaquah is served by a
37:27 station and Sammamish we pay a surcharge
37:30 and right now basically to get to
37:33 providence point they're coming from
37:35 Sammamish so that's the problem we're
37:38 trying to solve and I think it's you
37:42 know I think we're on as fast a track as
37:45 we can as soon as we find property then
37:48 assuming it's in the city we then have
37:51 to purchase it because stations built in
37:55 the city of Issaquah are built and paid
37:57 for by the city so that's a basic that's
38:01 a big capital expense right anything on
38:07 that
38:26 in a whole different place
38:31 she's am these would be the next steps
38:34 should you decide to move it forward
38:37 tonight it would go in January to the
38:40 council and the council Landon Shore
38:42 committee would would review it and I
38:46 guess now that the January meetings
38:48 canceled it would be February in March
38:50 for Landon Shore and then we would be
38:52 done in hopefully in March they just
38:57 canceled the January
38:59 Landon Shore I didn't update my slide
39:01 but we'd hope to be done in March then
39:04 any questions about the process or any
39:07 of the amendments or I'd like to go back
39:12 to the transportation element of this
39:14 and I'm looking at this lovely sheet
39:20 that we do every year and I understand
39:23 that past a certain year its hope that
39:27 we can get the funds it's something that
39:30 we think that maybe there's a
39:31 possibility of getting so under 2019 are
39:35 all of those funds and do you know what
39:41 page it is Joan it doesn't have a it's
39:46 the transportation capital request 29
39:48 that's out your own age something 9 of
39:52 69 I can't read it yeah might be 40 29
39:55 of 98
40:00 okay and are you asking if all of 2019
40:05 is funded yes
40:10 typically most of it should be shouldn't
40:15 be if it's in the 2019 I mean that being
40:17 that transportation engineer and having
40:21 this have been adopted I would think
40:25 that most of 2019 should be ready to go
40:28 otherwise it wouldn't be in 2019 but I'd
40:32 have to check to be completely sure that
40:36 that 2019 is funded I would hope that
40:42 you have the funds for I understand the
40:48 further out groundhogs that you hope and
40:53 assume that you're going to apply for
40:55 grants and and have funds from the city
41:00 but when you're in 2019 I'm assuming
41:04 that those things are being done like
41:06 six million dollars for the forty-third
41:08 way you have forty-third should be done
41:13 by sometime next year right we're not
41:18 forty wasn't specifically a second
41:20 budget was it so so part of the budget
41:27 deliberations there was a very brief
41:31 discussion that there are certain number
41:35 of transportation projects that I think
41:37 the council thought were fully funded
41:39 that are not and that was a 14 million
41:43 dollar number of unfunded projects that
41:48 I think the council thought were funded
41:50 the Providence point signal and there
41:56 were a number of people from Providence
41:57 point that came to the council budget
42:00 deliberations that particular project is
42:03 somewhere around eight million dollars
42:05 of unfunded appropriation councilmember
42:09 Ray as part of
42:12 his recommendations to include in the
42:16 budget was funding that unfunded eight
42:20 million dollars which then started a
42:22 conversation amongst the council about
42:24 well how do we talk about one and not
42:26 the entire thirteen but in the end of
42:29 the day they did include that eight
42:32 million dollars from Providence point in
42:35 either in the budget or in the council
42:38 president's letter with the budget so
42:42 somewhere it's immortalized that that
42:45 the council is going to have another
42:46 conversation about that eight million
42:48 dollars and fund that project I think
42:51 this year next year sorry it's December
42:55 so so that's so the answer is there are
43:01 a number of things that are not
43:04 completely funded so like well so the
43:10 hard thing is so you look at like TR 23
43:13 which is Newport maple to sunset and you
43:15 see there's an appropriation in 2019 but
43:18 then you also can see there's
43:20 appropriations in 2020 2021 so right now
43:25 if you were to ask if that project was
43:27 completely funded it is not there is an
43:30 appropriation that's set aside for 19
43:32 but you also need to get those future
43:34 appropriations to make that project
43:37 actually work I wasn't I assume that
43:42 there's going to be follow-on I just
43:44 wondered if what was actually in 2019
43:48 was funded whatever portion of those
43:51 projects were being done at least they
43:53 were being worked on like Providence
43:57 point that's been in the plan for 20
44:01 years now right so and I think I
44:05 answered specifically Providence point
44:07 the rest of this thing I am NOT I I do
44:11 not want to speak authoritative ly on
44:14 the TI p super not my ball of wax we
44:18 were more than happy to
44:20 we might be bringing some Public Works
44:22 Engineering's folks to the next PPC
44:24 meeting because
44:26 I think it would be helpful to have Bob
44:28 York here for conversation about the
44:30 water the water plan so so if if PPC
44:36 would like additional conversation about
44:37 the T IP because T IP is incorporated
44:42 into the comp plan so you guys kind of
44:45 touch it so if you have questions I
44:50 think we might want to have maybe
44:52 Sheldon come and answer those okay I
44:58 mean it depends on how deep you want to
45:00 get into the weeds I'm good at like this
45:02 level if you want to be down here I'm
45:04 gonna say probably not meaning no I just
45:08 basically I assume that if you put it in
45:12 a particular year that you especially
45:16 since it's next year that you would have
45:18 some understanding that yes indeed we
45:21 have that particular money to to work on
45:24 instead of well yeah but I'm gonna put
45:26 it over here and now I'm going to put it
45:28 back here you have at least some
45:29 semblance of order yes that's a good
45:34 answer
45:45 anything up yes
45:47 the the fire services area if that's a
45:55 six year period shouldn't that be
45:57 updated in the implementation actions on
46:02 the longer term ones that should also
46:09 basically it should be in the longer
46:11 term actions for 2024 and it's not
46:14 listed there on page 89 of 98 and which
46:26 ones not where the fire so let's see
46:32 what did we call it the capital
46:33 facilities plan that should be updated
46:36 at a six year period correct correct and
46:41 we have it in 219 to 220 and so you're
46:44 saying put it back in in the future year
46:47 yeah because particularly if we missed
46:50 doing it one time I think it would be
46:53 important to have that future date in
46:55 there so that we don't miss doing it
46:57 again and you would put it in the longer
47:01 term or this short term the longer term
47:03 well it should be in the longer term
47:05 actions if it's supposed to be a six
47:07 year update then it would be 2024 2025
47:10 okay
47:28 okay good catch any other comments I
47:32 have one minor question in the
47:38 transportation element there is a goal
47:43 to get 17% of the trips into biking and
47:50 walking mm-hmm what is that going to do
47:52 to the overall transportation plan if
47:56 17% only it's doing that how is that
48:00 going to help I think and what page are
48:05 you on is that just in central that
48:08 we're trying to I thought that was just
48:09 a central goal to get more transit or
48:13 more ped bike in transit it could be so
48:16 how did you come up with the the goal of
48:20 17% and what does that do to the
48:22 transportation itself in the city right
48:26 when we did that the original
48:29 transportation work for Central and we
48:31 figured out what our mode split between
48:34 single occupancy vehicle I'm still going
48:36 to call him that for a while
48:37 and all others transit ped bike I think
48:41 we were at 7% non sov bike and so we
48:47 were saying that in 20 years or whatever
48:49 I think it was a 20 year time period we
48:52 wanted to double it through through more
48:55 transit more bikes more peds and through
48:58 just the way that central was going to
48:59 be designed it would be much easier to
49:01 be a pet and a bike and we'd be denser
49:04 so hopefully we'd have more transit so
49:06 that would help us to double what the
49:09 existing condition was I think at 7:00
49:11 when we first started and that should
49:14 help the whole city because then it
49:16 won't be the inside would be working
49:20 much better because of all those options
49:23 and so then it would help the on the
49:25 outer as well and I know we're updating
49:27 concurrency next year so we'll get to
49:30 see how we're doing I hope to see if
49:31 we're any closer to that 17% we're
49:35 basing our goals for the city in the way
49:39 of transport
49:40 our amendments are everything that we
49:46 write is based on getting more
49:49 bike-friendly
49:51 getting more walkability and I'm looking
49:54 at 17% and I'm not seeing a huge
49:57 reduction in traffic and I'm looking at
50:02 all of the improvements and the ways to
50:07 work with all the businesses to get
50:09 transportation better in the city how
50:12 are we doing you know that's great but
50:16 we still have this flow through that is
50:18 causing all our problems so you know
50:21 it's kind of hard if what we've got to
50:23 do something on both both sides you know
50:27 you're going to put all this new
50:29 construction into the city like that new
50:32 complex that's going on behind Safeway
50:35 which is you know it's going to affect
50:39 the traffic in the city that it has to
50:43 you can live work and play in the city
50:46 but 99% of the people are working
50:48 outside and that traffic is still going
50:50 to be going in and out so right and I
50:53 threw and part of that I'd answer with
50:55 the concurrency update oh let us know
50:57 I'm hoping how we're doing you know it's
50:59 sort of like another snapshot of time
51:01 how we're doing since the last time we
51:03 updated concurrency in 2015 I think we
51:06 adopted in January and also there's the
51:09 transportation Advisory Board that's
51:11 getting put together as we speak they
51:13 just finished their interviews for that
51:15 and they're going to be going through a
51:17 year or two of putting together the
51:19 master mobility plan which is going to
51:21 have all the different parts
51:22 it'll have transit non-motorized it'll
51:25 start looking I would imagine at st3
51:28 once they get further along but they're
51:30 also going to look closer at the city's
51:33 transportation issues because that keeps
51:35 coming up of course as the city's
51:37 biggest problem biggest challenge I
51:39 should say and so they're going to be
51:41 looking at different ways that we can
51:43 help the flow-through and that internal
51:45 and
51:46 all of that kind of thing and hopefully
51:50 we'll be updating you as we move through
51:52 that process so that you're aware of
51:54 what what the transportation group is
51:56 doing I hope they're good at their jobs
52:00 Kristen was in all the interviews of
52:02 this card and she said our - yeah he
52:05 said the people are just super good that
52:07 they interviewed so she's pretty excited
52:09 about the new Commission so is there
52:14 anything else no not for me
52:16 very often I had a question on page 28
52:20 and specifically regarding our climate
52:23 change and we have projections for
52:25 reducing citywide greenhouse gases yeah
52:27 I was curious if we're on track for that
52:29 25 percent by 2020 right now I know that
52:32 this isn't an official update but when I
52:34 saw that I was curious if we're if we're
52:36 still obviously we're intending to meet
52:38 those targets as we've kept them as our
52:40 policy but you know with this thing I
52:43 would have to ask David Fujimoto and our
52:46 office of sustainability because you're
52:49 right that would be that would be coming
52:50 up in two years I was just kind of
52:53 curious you know with that first
52:54 benchmark how close we are to hitting it
52:57 and to give a gauge of how how good we
53:00 are on track with those numbers that's a
53:03 good question
53:04 my other question was on page 25
53:07 regarding our tree canopy I seem to
53:10 recall next year while ago a there was a
53:16 suggestion from the public about a
53:17 catalog of our trees and and actually
53:21 you know of that tree retention and
53:23 being able to actually monitor you know
53:26 if if our if our green necklace is one
53:29 of our treasures that's also made up of
53:31 our you know obviously our tree canopy
53:33 and with using current satellite imagery
53:35 drone technology being able to actually
53:37 map and know what is our trees and if
53:41 we're losing them and if there had been
53:42 any traction on making a policy right
53:44 that right in the park strategic plan
53:47 one of their work items for next year is
53:49 to redo you know and analyze again the
53:52 city's tree canopy see where we are on
53:55 our goal see if we're doing better or
53:57 for the same are not so great and then
53:59 on the docket for next year is once we
54:02 get the report from the parks department
54:04 and their work on the tree canopy then
54:07 we would update our tree canopy policies
54:09 and goals in the comp plan once we see
54:11 the new data on how we're doing because
54:13 maybe we're doing great and you know we
54:15 need to maintain and keep going or maybe
54:17 not so great and then we need to think
54:19 of new things to do but yeah that's
54:21 great that's been found that people have
54:24 been wanting to update that for a while
54:25 right thank you
54:27 well is there any other concerns
54:30 questions about in front of you the big
54:34 packet you guys did a lot of work will
54:36 really appreciate it it's uh you know we
54:38 see the nitty-gritty throughout the year
54:40 and it shows in something like this so
54:43 thank you I have a great team I think
54:46 it's hard to understand how difficult it
54:49 is to pull all these pieces together and
54:51 get the right wording based on what the
54:54 city what the county what the state all
54:56 wants to put together and sometimes I
54:59 think we have a tendency not to
55:02 understand that and want specifics that
55:04 really can't be put in there the way
55:08 that we want so I think it you know it
55:11 looks really good oh good with that I
55:17 need a motion to approve
55:19 digital did you want to open the public
55:22 hearing
55:25 okay I will open up the public hearing
55:28 at 7:29 is there anybody that would like
55:33 to make any comment is there anybody
55:37 that would like to make a comment
55:41 needing to do it three times is there
55:44 anybody else that would like to make any
55:46 public comment hearing none I will close
55:49 the public hearing at seven twenty nine
55:53 and a half perfect Lindsey how do you
55:57 want a word it kind of sounds like we
56:00 want to add a writer to approval right
56:02 now of
56:03 rhe coming back to the water plan Oh No
56:07 so basically we're asking too weird
56:11 because I think right now we're wanting
56:13 to adopt to pass along an adopt this
56:15 document as is with the condition that
56:18 the water plan come back to us
56:22 yes shear once once it's actually been
56:26 fully gone through I don't know if I
56:28 cancel I wouldn't like to make that the
56:31 same motion I mean if you want to make
56:33 another motion I'd like to keep it
56:36 separate yeah so that would mean voting
56:43 on it as is rather than as we had
56:45 discussed well you could I mean could I
56:47 mean it just to me it doesn't seem like
56:53 it's part it should be part of a motion
56:55 to pass this on okay how do you what do
57:00 you want you can have it you can have
57:05 another request to the City Council you
57:09 can present it any way you want I guess
57:13 you can draft a letter you can make it
57:16 part of it too is carrying back Trish
57:19 you guys are gonna do a little bit of
57:20 investigation as far as what is mandated
57:22 by the state and what we're able to do
57:24 as far as amending it once it's been
57:26 submitted
57:27 yeah amending our policies so I mean I
57:33 would also be fine with I think you hear
57:35 our ask and I think that Lindsay and I
57:37 have communicated yeah and you
57:38 understand what's going on so if you
57:40 would like it so that's kind of what I'm
57:41 wondering too is if you would rather
57:43 have that be a point that you're like we
57:45 know what you want and we will figure
57:48 out how to get it back to you when and
57:51 how it's appropriate versus us reading a
57:54 condition like we did with the parks
57:56 document right I think how whatever
57:59 venue whatever way you want to convey it
58:02 I think we know what you want well you
58:05 know however you want to convey it
58:07 officially would be fine I think
58:09 understanding that they remember what
58:13 they asked for I'm a fully aware of that
58:20 okay with that I'd like somebody like to
58:24 make a motion to incorrect I would make
58:27 a motion to accept the amendments to the
58:30 Issaquah comprehensive plan central is
58:32 called sub area plan and related
58:33 amendments to the escrow municipal code
58:35 and central Isco standards very good I
58:40 read it off over there was it person
58:45 okay double second any further just to
58:50 make sure any other further questions
58:53 understanding concerns with that the
58:57 motions on the table it's been seconded
58:59 all those in favor say aye
59:01 aye opposed hearing none the motion
59:05 passes so that it will go now to the
59:10 council and then to Landon shores
59:12 correct well done
59:16 so our next meeting will be January 24th
59:20 mm-hmm
59:22 another public hearing and a public
59:25 hearing I hope that we have many more
59:27 than we had tonight to offer their
59:30 support and concerns and ideas because
59:34 that's what this is for basically it is
59:38 you get the city involved people
59:41 involved in the city to be part of the
59:43 city right
59:45 so since we are not going to have a
59:49 meeting in December I would like to take
59:53 the opportunity to wish everybody in the
59:56 city from the Planning Commission a
59:59 Merry Christmas and a very healthy happy
1:00:02 new year thank you so with that I'm
1:00:05 going to close the meeting at 7:30 or
1:00:09 okay thank you

Attendance

Council / Members (1)
Administration/
Staff (2)
Joan Probala, Chair Trish Heinonen, Planning Policy Manager Joy Lewis Keith Niven, Econ. Dev
Dev. Services Director Bill Rinehart Emily Arteche, Senior Planner Lindsey Walsh Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Ron Faul, Vice Chair AJ McGauley, Alt. Troy Rahmig Jason Voiss, Alt. 1