Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 24, 2019 · 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 2020 – Ron Faul land use documents. 2020 – Joan Probala 2022 – Joy Lewis Membership 2022 – Janice Carle The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2022 – Bill Rinehart seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2022 – Jason Voiss several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2023 – Randy Harrison 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 – Tom Haskins see IMC 18.03. 2020 – Robin Beukers 2020 – Vacant 2020 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 10, 2019

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:15 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-10-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]

Proposed Amendments to Issaquah Municipal Code Regarding Reassignment of the Urban Village Development Commission (UVDC) to Development Commission (DC) and Planning Policy Commission (PPC), (A)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager · packet pp.7–18

▶ Watch from 57:46 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Introduction These proposed amendments to the Issaquah Municipal Code (IMC) section 18.03, Administration, seeks to reassign the responsibilities of the Urban Village Development Commission (UVDC) to the Development Commission (DC) and Planning Policy Commission (PPC).

4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.317

▶ Watch from 2:22:26 Open packet at p.317 ↗

Staff report:

OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2019 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 10/15/19) All meetings located in Council Chambers unless noted January 2019 September 2019 1/10/19 Cancelled 9/5/19 Public Hearing: Olde Town Code Amendments 1/24/19 Public Hearings: a) Comp Plan 2019 Docket 9/12/19 Open House: Olde Town Architectural Standards/Design Guidelines b) Code amendment: Wireless Communication Facilities cancelled Also: Comments from the Mayor Introduction: Sign Code Update 9/26/19 • Public Hearing: Olde Town Code Amendments (continued) February 2019 • Comp Plan Amendments: Capital Facilities Element & Utilities Element 2/14/19 • Land Use Element re: Tree Canopy/policies (may be postponed until 2020) Continued Public Hearing: Code amendment: Wireless Facilities • Public Hearing (1 of 2): Comp Plan Amendments: Community Facilities Introduction: Comp Plan Amendments: Treasures rezones

3185 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ you

0:15 ↗ good evening and welcome to the October

0:19 ↗ 24th meeting of the Planning Policy

0:21 ↗ Commission this evening we're going to

0:24 ↗ have two public hearings the first of

0:26 ↗ which is a discussion on changing the

0:30 ↗ edu whatever it is a uu VDC and

0:38 ↗ incorporating into the planning

0:40 ↗ department in the development Commission

0:44 ↗ and then we're going to have a public

0:46 ↗ forum on 14 proposed amendments updates

0:52 ↗ to the comp plan to rezone 14 different

0:55 ↗ parcels one of which is I'm sure you're

0:58 ↗ concerned with is the Providence Point

1:01 ↗ property next to Providence point but be

1:04 ↗ first before we start that we need to

1:07 ↗ clean up a little bit and approve the

1:10 ↗ minutes from our last meeting which was

1:12 ↗ quite eventful I'd like to make a motion

1:15 ↗ to approve the minutes for playing a

1:17 ↗ policy Commission from September 26th I

1:20 ↗ second that

1:23 ↗ October 10th my apologies I second that

1:26 ↗ all those in favor say aye aye opposed

1:30 ↗ motion carries so we're going to start

1:32 ↗ the meeting quickly with Lucy sloman who

1:36 ↗ is the lead development man land the

1:41 ↗ land development manager and she's going

1:44 ↗ to talk about you VDC and I just want to

1:49 ↗ remind the audience that if anyone is

1:53 ↗ interested in speaking on this matter

1:55 ↗ there's a separate sign-up sheet up

1:56 ↗ front from the one for the second public

2:00 ↗ hearing so as chairperson pro Bella

2:04 ↗ mentioned I'm Lucy Sloman Land

2:06 ↗ Development Manager for the development

2:08 ↗ services department tonight I am

2:11 ↗ speaking about reassigning the duties of

2:14 ↗ the urban village Development Commission

2:16 ↗ to the Development Commission and the

2:18 ↗ Planning Policy Commission that's a

2:20 ↗ mouthful

2:22 ↗ so currently we have two processes or

2:27 ↗ for more than 20 years we had two

2:28 ↗ processes one was for the urban villages

2:31 ↗ we had our urban village Development

2:35 ↗ Commission uvd C which did both

2:38 ↗ development permit review and standards

2:42 ↗ and policy review whereas in the rest of

2:44 ↗ the city we had two separate

2:46 ↗ Commission's the Development Commission

2:48 ↗ who did permit reviews and the Planning

2:51 ↗ Policy commission yourselves who

2:53 ↗ reviewed standards and policies so let

2:56 ↗ me give you a little bit of history in

2:58 ↗ 1996 when the iske Islands development

3:01 ↗ agreement was adopted a new commission

3:04 ↗ was created to serve the needs of that

3:08 ↗ development agreement that urban village

3:10 ↗ and as I mentioned it did both permit

3:13 ↗ review and policy review as other urban

3:16 ↗ villages were created through the

3:18 ↗ adoption of development agreements their

3:21 ↗ reviews were also assigned to the urban

3:24 ↗ village development Commission until

3:27 ↗ 2013 and after 2013 any new development

3:32 ↗ agreements that created urban villages

3:35 ↗ were assigned just to a commission it

3:37 ↗ was not specific which Commission they

3:39 ↗ were assigned to last year we terminated

3:45 ↗ the Issaquah Highlands and the talus

3:47 ↗ development agreements and so that

3:50 ↗ leaves only the Rallye development

3:52 ↗ agreement that specifically refers to

3:54 ↗ the urban village development commission

3:57 ↗ additionally when we terminated those

3:59 ↗ development agreements we put

4:01 ↗ replacement regulations in place to

4:03 ↗ serve those two areas of the city and

4:07 ↗ those replacement regulations specified

4:10 ↗ that development permits that would now

4:13 ↗ go to the development Commission

4:15 ↗ following the termination of those

4:17 ↗ agreements so you know kind of where are

4:22 ↗ we right now in the seven years since

4:26 ↗ the Rallye development agreement was

4:27 ↗ adopted they've had zero permits that

4:30 ↗ met the threshold to come to a

4:32 ↗ commission so it's not that they haven't

4:34 ↗ had

4:35 ↗ hermits they just aren't large enough to

4:38 ↗ require they go to the Development

4:40 ↗ Commission so and you can see with some

4:43 ↗ of the other development agreements

4:45 ↗ that's very similar the one exception is

4:49 ↗ the wash dot TDR development agreement

4:52 ↗ where Bellevue college might be located

4:54 ↗ someday there were two plats so the de

4:58 ↗ subdivision of land that took place and

5:01 ↗ went to the urban village development

5:03 ↗ Commission however those are complete

5:06 ↗ there's nothing left to do and

5:08 ↗ development agreement development

5:11 ↗ agreements applicability has been

5:13 ↗ terminated for those areas for the land

5:16 ↗ that's left where Bellevue college might

5:18 ↗ potentially go they have an active site

5:21 ↗ development permit so they are able to

5:24 ↗ build that out as long as that

5:26 ↗ development agreement is placed so it's

5:29 ↗ a relatively low workload that we're

5:31 ↗ looking at at this time I also just

5:35 ↗ wanted to point out to you that at your

5:38 ↗ place you can see the letter that IHI FC

5:42 ↗ or shelter submitted to the city today I

5:45 ↗ emailed that to you but in case you

5:47 ↗ hadn't seen the email I wanted to

5:49 ↗ provide the letter next steps after our

5:55 ↗ conversation today we may be going to

5:58 ↗ Council on the 4th but that depends on

6:01 ↗ the nature of our conversation any

6:04 ↗ questions it open up the public hearing

6:10 ↗ so unless you have any other comments

6:15 ↗ I'm going to open up the public hearing

6:18 ↗ in regard to the u VDC at 6:35 and I see

6:28 ↗ one person signed up to make a comment

6:31 ↗ if she would Christy if you would come

6:33 ↗ to the microphone and tell us who you

6:35 ↗ are

6:39 ↗ good evening chair provola and

6:41 ↗ commission members I'm Kristy triple

6:43 ↗ with Raleigh properties at one five nine

6:45 ↗ five Northwest Gillman boulevard suite 1

6:48 ↗ here in Issaquah and I am here this

6:51 ↗ evening to speak to this topic

6:55 ↗ so understanding the U V DC will no

6:57 ↗ longer have the workload necessary with

6:59 ↗ the two major development green

7:01 ↗ development agreements success in

7:03 ↗ creating this COIs Highlands and tellus

7:06 ↗ communities I am here on Raleigh

7:07 ↗ properties behalf to support the

7:10 ↗ administration's recommendation we are

7:13 ↗ in agreement the UV DC's duties be

7:15 ↗ reassigned to the development and

7:17 ↗ planning policy commissions to continue

7:19 ↗ their important work moving forward we

7:22 ↗ recognize and respect the necessary

7:24 ↗ transition and understand that our pace

7:26 ↗ of redevelopment and needs are not

7:28 ↗ sufficient to retain the U VDC alone I

7:31 ↗ did want to take a moment and share we

7:34 ↗ have appreciated up close and from afar

7:37 ↗ UV DC's knowledge of urban design and

7:40 ↗ their thorough

7:41 ↗ well informed decisions necessary to

7:43 ↗ community building new development and

7:46 ↗ related projects over its many years of

7:49 ↗ service we will look forward to

7:50 ↗ continuing that same spirit and

7:52 ↗ cultivation working with the development

7:55 ↗ and planning policy Commission's as it

7:57 ↗ truly does take a village to create and

7:59 ↗ connect community thank you

8:02 ↗ what everybody like to speak to this

8:05 ↗ topic would anybody like to speak to

8:09 ↗ this topic whatever anybody I have to do

8:15 ↗ it three times would anybody like to

8:17 ↗ come to the microphone and speak to this

8:20 ↗ topic

8:20 ↗ hearing none I'm going to close the

8:23 ↗ public hearing at 6:30 7:00 and ask

8:32 ↗ staff ask the Commission if they would

8:37 ↗ like to vote on this a couple questions

8:41 ↗ yeah I think we have like a few

8:43 ↗ questions okay questions

8:47 ↗ you want to go first run but one of the

8:51 ↗ questions I have is how seeing this

8:54 ↗ email today how is this city basically

8:59 ↗ addressing the concerns in this email

9:01 ↗ that seems like there might be

9:04 ↗ it seems according to this letter that

9:06 ↗ there might be a few things that they

9:07 ↗ feel weren't checked off properly in

9:10 ↗ order for us to move ahead to absorb

9:12 ↗ these this Commission I just want to

9:15 ↗ make sure we cross all our T's and dot

9:17 ↗ or dot all our eyes so just a little

9:20 ↗ concern like as moving forward I don't

9:22 ↗ want to do anything that would put the

9:23 ↗ city in peril and I don't want to

9:25 ↗ overstep our bounds and take over you V

9:29 ↗ DC's jurisdiction something that might

9:32 ↗ retro actively have to go back even

9:33 ↗ though it seems that this Commission's

9:35 ↗ been dispersed and it's no longer

9:37 ↗ functioning as a body anyway

9:39 ↗ well staff doesn't agree with the

9:41 ↗ positions that have been provided in the

9:45 ↗ letter we disagree that procedures are

9:50 ↗ vested - once the development agreement

9:54 ↗ is terminated we disagree that the

9:56 ↗ procedures are vested and we also

10:01 ↗ believe that we are not eliminating the

10:04 ↗ functions of the U VDC we're reassigning

10:06 ↗ the duties so the we have a different

10:11 ↗ perspective than the letter writer I can

10:17 ↗ I ask a follow-up along the same veins

10:20 ↗ what are the practical implications

10:22 ↗ given the concerns whether you agree

10:24 ↗ with them or not expect expressed in

10:26 ↗ this letter it seems there's been delays

10:29 ↗ for whatever reason what are the

10:30 ↗ practical implications accruing from a

10:36 ↗ transfer would this further slow down

10:38 ↗ the process that is it the concerns for

10:40 ↗ about which are expressed in this letter

10:42 ↗ so what whether if we do this what are

10:45 ↗ the practical implications are aside

10:47 ↗ from legal implications can we can the

10:49 ↗ process still move forward for AI hif in

10:53 ↗ accordance with their desires or are we

10:55 ↗ adding further to their delay

10:57 ↗ so their land use permits were before

11:01 ↗ the Development Commission for quite a

11:04 ↗ while the Commission made a decision and

11:08 ↗ so that that body of work in front of

11:13 ↗ the Commission has been completed they

11:16 ↗ have a preliminary plat in front of

11:19 ↗ staff and the decision maker on that is

11:22 ↗ the Hearing Examiner

11:23 ↗ so if there was another permit that

11:27 ↗ needed to go to a commission the

11:31 ↗ Development Commission is still

11:32 ↗ available to carry out those duties they

11:35 ↗ would serve the function that the urban

11:39 ↗ village Development Commission has done

11:41 ↗ by reassigning those duties so in short

11:44 ↗ then if we were to approve this then

11:45 ↗ there would be no practical issues

11:49 ↗ facing the developer as a result solely

11:52 ↗ and only of that transfer whatever was

11:54 ↗ gone in the past has happened and here

11:56 ↗ we are now and going forward is that

11:58 ↗ right we believe that there are there is

12:02 ↗ a commission to meet the requirements

12:04 ↗ that would might come from their land

12:07 ↗ use permits thank you anything else so

12:16 ↗ would you like to vote on this and your

12:20 ↗ motion to accept the amendment to

12:27 ↗ reassign the u VDC I'd like to move to

12:32 ↗ accept the amendment to transfer the

12:35 ↗ responsibilities of the U VDC to the PPC

12:37 ↗ and the DC have a second I second it all

12:41 ↗ those in favor say aye

12:45 ↗ Thank You Lucy thank you motion carries

12:49 ↗ so with that I'm going to call up the

12:53 ↗ tag team

13:25 ↗ [Applause]

13:31 ↗ and we're aware of that he was their

13:35 ↗ technical guy he's just down here

13:36 ↗ checking he's trying to fix that right

13:38 ↗ now but yes in the meantime we will try

13:40 ↗ and speak louder I can't get any closer

13:44 ↗ just to give you a background there are

13:48 ↗ 14 different sections that we are

13:51 ↗ eventually going to look at tonight to

13:54 ↗ rezone them okay well that's part of

13:58 ↗ that's part of the comprehensive plan

14:00 ↗ amendments but just a portion of the

14:02 ↗ amendments are the redesignate eras and

14:05 ↗ 14 parcels I think there's only eight

14:08 ↗ eight parcels

14:10 ↗ okay yes eight parcels the five parcels

14:13 ↗ off five or six parcels off of Newports

14:15 ↗ way were polled were removed will remove

14:17 ↗ tried after it in the beginning let it

14:19 ↗ just be included all of them right okay

14:21 ↗ so eight okay so welcome back to the

14:27 ↗ continued public hearing can you hear me

14:29 ↗ okay am i close enough

14:30 ↗ a little louder okay belted out there

14:36 ↗ American Idol right here first I wanted

14:39 ↗ to let you know that something different

14:41 ↗ has happened since the tenth since that

14:43 ↗ great Thursday night we were in the

14:45 ↗ Pickering room and an appeal has come in

14:47 ↗ just the other day of the final sefa

14:50 ↗ determination for the comprehensive plan

14:52 ↗ amendments that includes the rezone

14:54 ↗ xandrie designation and so what I wanted

14:57 ↗ you all to know is that council is the

15:00 ↗ decision-maker on the appeal and

15:02 ↗ according to our code they have 90 days

15:05 ↗ to make a decision on that and a an

15:08 ↗ appeal date has not yet been set for

15:10 ↗ that but we will keep if you all are on

15:13 ↗ our notice list we will let you know

15:16 ↗ when that happens but it has not been

15:18 ↗ set yet that I know of the PPC public

15:21 ↗ hearing does continue tonight and if you

15:24 ↗ are comfortable giving a recommendation

15:26 ↗ tonight that's fine too - a reminder to

15:33 ↗ you all that

15:34 ↗ your role is either you can approve the

15:38 ↗ recommend approval of the amendments you

15:40 ↗ can recommend denial of the amendments

15:43 ↗ or you can recommend approval with

15:45 ↗ conditions and those conditions can

15:47 ↗ range from as you remember with the

15:50 ↗ impact fees a few years ago you

15:52 ↗ recommended that council update the

15:55 ↗ impact fees and you recommended that

15:57 ↗ they take a look at level of service you

15:59 ↗ can recommend things that you would like

16:02 ↗ them to look at that you've heard from

16:04 ↗ the public or that you've heard from

16:05 ↗ staff that you would like Council to pay

16:07 ↗ close attention to during their review

16:09 ↗ of the projects so those are the kind of

16:13 ↗ conditions that you can add to your to

16:16 ↗ your recommendation and I know most of

16:18 ↗ you know that you can do that but some

16:20 ↗ there's some new ones that may not know

16:22 ↗ that they can add pieces and parts of to

16:26 ↗ the recommendation if you choose to and

16:28 ↗ if you have questions on that later on

16:30 ↗ we can talk about that more as we get

16:34 ↗ further along tonight so the first thing

16:39 ↗ I wanted to mention is there seem to be

16:41 ↗ a lot of confusion about the process to

16:44 ↗ do redesignate Sandri zones and the

16:47 ↗ process to actually do a construction

16:49 ↗ permit for a building and there we call

16:53 ↗ them two steps they also have two

16:55 ↗ different kinds of environmental review

16:56 ↗ they have two different groups that

16:58 ↗ recommend to the council and so they're

17:01 ↗ very different processes for the two

17:04 ↗ steps the first step is what we're doing

17:07 ↗ now through the planning policy

17:09 ↗ Commission its legislative meaning that

17:11 ↗ it's a policy question it's more general

17:14 ↗ than a construction permit that actually

17:17 ↗ has site plans and buffers and wetlands

17:21 ↗ and slopes and those kinds of details

17:23 ↗ that you don't get into because you're

17:25 ↗ the policy group the CEPA determination

17:29 ↗ for your types of projects for policy

17:31 ↗ level are very general because there

17:34 ↗ isn't any earth-moving when you all make

17:37 ↗ a recommendation that specificity for

17:40 ↗ environmental review comes at the second

17:42 ↗ step when there's actually a permit

17:44 ↗ that has been applied for that does have

17:47 ↗ a site plan and buffers and wetlands and

17:49 ↗ slopes and those kinds of things at that

17:52 ↗ time that environmental review goes into

17:54 ↗ depth on traffic and slopes and all

17:58 ↗ those kinds of physical pieces that a

18:02 ↗ site permit would would need to have

18:04 ↗ evaluated before that could move forward

18:06 ↗ the public outreach is similar in both

18:10 ↗ in that in your process all the folks

18:13 ↗ that lived within 300 feet of the

18:16 ↗ proposed re-designation and reasons

18:19 ↗ received letters in the mail and that

18:21 ↗ also happens with the construction

18:24 ↗ permit the other piece that happens with

18:26 ↗ the construction permit before the

18:29 ↗ application comes in there's a community

18:31 ↗ conference in front of the development

18:33 ↗ Commission and that's when the neighbors

18:36 ↗ that live the property owners within 300

18:38 ↗ feet of the property are all invited to

18:41 ↗ hear the proposal the preliminary

18:44 ↗ proposal with the development Commission

18:47 ↗ there and they talked about it before

18:48 ↗ there's an official application that

18:50 ↗ comes in for this project that you're

18:53 ↗ all here for that has not happened yet

18:55 ↗ because we haven't gotten an actual

18:57 ↗ preliminary application we're still

19:00 ↗ talking about the the site plans that

19:03 ↗ the school has submitted and they're not

19:05 ↗ official yet they're not they're not in

19:09 ↗ that way in the condition that we're

19:12 ↗ ready to have a community conference and

19:14 ↗ to be scheduled yet but it will be

19:16 ↗ scheduled if this is moving forward

19:18 ↗ because that's part of the process for

19:20 ↗ the second piece the council is the

19:24 ↗ decision-maker on both processes on the

19:27 ↗ legislative process where you all

19:29 ↗ recommend and on the construction permit

19:32 ↗ that the development commission would

19:34 ↗ make their recommendations so the

19:36 ↗ council decides on both of those the

19:42 ↗ CEPA of non project actions which is

19:46 ↗ what has been done for this proposal it

19:50 ↗ identifies cumulative impacts it talks

19:53 ↗ about it evaluates the comments that

19:55 ↗ were received during the con

19:57 ↗ period it talks about possible

19:59 ↗ alternatives for the sites it identifies

20:03 ↗ project mitigation measures that should

20:06 ↗ occur or could occur when the actual

20:08 ↗ construction permit is evaluated and it

20:11 ↗ also identifies an appeal deadline so

20:14 ↗ those are the big items that a SEPA an

20:16 ↗ environmental review at this level at

20:18 ↗ the legislations

20:20 ↗ the legislative level has to contain

20:23 ↗ because there was some questions on what

20:26 ↗ does what does environmental review at

20:27 ↗ this level need to include the other

20:33 ↗ piece that to me is fascinating is for

20:38 ↗ community facility standards which all

20:40 ↗ of the parcels in your packet are to be

20:44 ↗ redesignated or rezone and rezone to one

20:47 ↗ of the community facilities zones and by

20:51 ↗ the very definition of community

20:54 ↗ facility it has to be owned by a public

20:57 ↗ entity and the use has to be a public

21:00 ↗ use and they're listed in the code some

21:04 ↗ some of those that can happen in those

21:07 ↗ zones they're just flat-out listed that

21:10 ↗ those are considered okay in that zone

21:12 ↗ and so when the community when folks

21:15 ↗ come to us and say you know I'm King

21:18 ↗ County and I would like to put a

21:19 ↗ courthouse on the corner of here and

21:22 ↗ here

21:22 ↗ courthouse if courthouse is listed

21:25 ↗ already that's one of the criteria that

21:27 ↗ staff looks at when we see if we're

21:30 ↗ going to if we're going to recommend

21:31 ↗ that you recommend approval or not and

21:34 ↗ let's say King County came in and they

21:37 ↗ wanted a needle exchange site that is

21:41 ↗ not listed in the community facilities

21:44 ↗ purpose or intent or the listing and so

21:46 ↗ we would look at that very carefully

21:48 ↗ they would probably say it was a public

21:51 ↗ use and so we that would be something

21:54 ↗ that we would look at very hard very

21:56 ↗ closely to see if it met our other

21:58 ↗ criteria of being a community facility

22:00 ↗ but for the most part the list that's

22:03 ↗ already listed in the code helps us make

22:06 ↗ our decision

22:07 ↗ whether we're going to recommend to you

22:09 ↗ all approval or not of the community

22:12 ↗ facility redesignate and rezone I've

22:15 ↗ also put the chart in here on the

22:18 ↗ slideshow of the actual code provision

22:20 ↗ the standards that a public building or

22:23 ↗ a public school would need to meet in

22:25 ↗ the capital facility in the community

22:28 ↗ facilities zone just to let you know

22:30 ↗ that once it's ruiz owned or if it's

22:33 ↗ reasoned they have specific standards

22:36 ↗ that they have to meet as even though

22:38 ↗ they're a public entity for public

22:40 ↗ purpose and some of you are on the

22:42 ↗ commission when we worked on those in

22:44 ↗ the last couple years do you want to do

22:50 ↗ the transportation element or Jimmy keep

22:52 ↗ going you can go we can see how before

22:57 ↗ the the lights go up so I'm moving to

23:00 ↗ another comprehensive plan amendment

23:02 ↗ okay and I'll go fast because I know the

23:06 ↗ other ones might not be as fascinating

23:07 ↗ to the group as they as they are to us

23:09 ↗ the transportation element is updated

23:12 ↗ every year to add the new Transportation

23:15 ↗ Improvement Program the six-year

23:17 ↗ improvement program we also updated the

23:19 ↗ concurrency numbers because we updated

23:23 ↗ concurrency in 2018 we updated the

23:27 ↗ roadway and non-motorized project maps

23:29 ↗ and the non-motorized map that that

23:32 ↗ connects to the urban villages those are

23:34 ↗ the changes that you reviewed I think

23:35 ↗ two different meetings you reviewed

23:37 ↗ those in the transportation element here

23:43 ↗ are the proposed community facility

23:45 ↗ rezone and REE designation the first

23:47 ↗ three are those that are adjacent to

23:49 ↗ Providence point their existing land

23:52 ↗ uses low density the proposed land uses

23:55 ↗ community facilities facilities the

23:58 ↗ existing zoning is single-family small

24:00 ↗ lot and the proposal for zoning is

24:03 ↗ community facilities slash facilities

24:05 ↗ because the school district would like

24:07 ↗ to put two schools there the next one is

24:11 ↗ owned by King County it's at the top of

24:14 ↗ what some of us know is the Bergsma

24:16 ↗ property King County owns it and they

24:18 ↗ would like it to be community facilities

24:20 ↗ open

24:20 ↗ space it is within the city limits

24:23 ↗ but they have asked it asked us to zone

24:26 ↗ it opens community facilities open space

24:28 ↗ so it can connect with Cougar Mountain

24:30 ↗ wildland Park that surrounds it this one

24:36 ↗ oh okay

24:38 ↗ didn't recognize the shape this one is

24:40 ↗ in talus and also owned by the is Crosse

24:44 ↗ School District and they would like to

24:45 ↗ put a school there as well

24:50 ↗ these are mitigation sites for South

24:54 ↗ East 62nd Street their existing

24:58 ↗ mixed-use but there's actually a road

25:00 ↗ and a roundabout and some wetlands in

25:03 ↗ there and so we want to get it pulled

25:05 ↗ out of the existing zone so it can be

25:08 ↗ community facilities those are those two

25:11 ↗ parcels and the little one at the corner

25:16 ↗ this is connect we have the city would

25:19 ↗ like to connect it as part of the future

25:20 ↗ Front Street Park assemblage so this is

25:23 ↗ owned by the city and we would like it

25:25 ↗ to be community facilities recreation

25:31 ↗ moving on to another amendment this is

25:33 ↗ the land-use element these are the job

25:36 ↗ targets and the housing target updates

25:38 ↗ that we went over with you I think in

25:41 ↗ July it's clear I think in your packet

25:45 ↗ because it certainly looks blurry to me

25:48 ↗ up there but we're we continue to make

25:51 ↗ advances towards our growth targets

25:53 ↗ we're doing better on our I shouldn't

25:57 ↗ say better there's no better or worse

25:58 ↗ we're getting closer to our meeting our

26:00 ↗ housing target than we are to our jobs

26:02 ↗ target but our jobs target is still

26:04 ↗ we're still doing very well on that the

26:08 ↗ pout the only policy updates we made to

26:11 ↗ the land-use element is we because of

26:13 ↗ the recent update to the shoreline

26:14 ↗ master program that you worked on

26:16 ↗ there's a couple of changes in the land

26:20 ↗ use element regarding that and we also

26:22 ↗ did some policy changes actually we

26:25 ↗ enhanced the policy for the mountains to

26:27 ↗ Sound Greenway I believe you looked at

26:29 ↗ those in July

26:32 ↗ for utilities the only thing we we

26:36 ↗ corrected we updated our recent adoption

26:38 ↗ of King County's comprehensive solid

26:41 ↗ waste plan and all the recycling that

26:43 ↗ we're doing so that that was good news

26:45 ↗ that we had good numbers for that and

26:48 ↗ then the other one that you all worked

26:50 ↗ with actually Ron worked on the

26:52 ↗ subcommittee to update the goals and

26:54 ↗ policies for the parks strategic plan

26:56 ↗ that also will go into our parks element

26:59 ↗ and that was something you had asked for

27:01 ↗ last year that in fact that was a

27:03 ↗ recommendation you all made to council

27:05 ↗ is that you be able to work with the

27:07 ↗ park board and the park and planning

27:10 ↗ departments to update the goals and

27:11 ↗ policies and counsel agreed with you and

27:13 ↗ put that in the work plan for this year

27:15 ↗ so that's another example of a

27:18 ↗ recommendation condition that you all

27:21 ↗ can add the capital facilities element

27:26 ↗ we updated it with the fire police

27:29 ↗ schools transportation all the

27:32 ↗ mitigation and impact fees are included

27:35 ↗ as well as some general language about

27:39 ↗ park impact fees because we're not quite

27:41 ↗ done drafting those yet so we tried to

27:44 ↗ make the element be able to be flexible

27:46 ↗ for when the park impact fees are done

27:49 ↗ that they would just fit very nicely

27:51 ↗ within the framework that we left for

27:54 ↗ them we also modified the level of

27:56 ↗ service language to try to only to try

27:59 ↗ to refer only to those fees that are

28:03 ↗ actually impact fees because level of

28:05 ↗ service tends to be a state defined term

28:08 ↗ related to impact fees and not to

28:10 ↗ mitigation fees so we tried to clean

28:12 ↗ that up as well and we updated the map

28:15 ↗ to show that the school district offices

28:18 ↗ have moved that's the only change on the

28:21 ↗ map there were several items that we did

28:24 ↗ not address on the docket this year and

28:27 ↗ I have to state these because it's a

28:29 ↗ state requirement that everyone know the

28:31 ↗ ones that we didn't and

28:33 ↗ finishing or doing this year we haven't

28:37 ↗ finished the master the mobility master

28:39 ↗ plan yet so we weren't able to include

28:41 ↗ whatever provisions come out of that

28:43 ↗ into this year's update but maybe we'll

28:46 ↗ be able to do that next year the tree

28:49 ↗ canopy policies and targets are not

28:51 ↗ completely we've done the study but we

28:54 ↗ haven't actually looked at what does

28:56 ↗ that mean to our goals and policies

28:58 ↗ related to tree canopy so we're going to

29:00 ↗ hold that over til next year to give you

29:02 ↗ a chance to really talk about those and

29:04 ↗ see where you want to go on the tree

29:06 ↗ canopy goals and policies we didn't

29:09 ↗ amend the sub area map because we're not

29:11 ↗ quite sure where those lines will fall

29:13 ↗ we'd like to do some more neighbourhood

29:15 ↗ work before we do that the the property

29:19 ↗ adjacent to Swedish Hospital and the

29:22 ↗ part the property off of Northwest

29:24 ↗ Sammamish and Bergsma properties were

29:27 ↗ pulled off the community facility rezone

29:29 ↗ redesignate enlist because we weren't

29:31 ↗ ready to move forward with those yet

29:35 ↗ anything in the central plan update

29:37 ↗ related to title 18 we didn't touch that

29:39 ↗ yet because Title 18 which is the land

29:41 ↗ use code isn't moved I had enough yet

29:45 ↗ for us to know what the changes will be

29:47 ↗ but that might be either in the next

29:48 ↗ year or the year after that depending on

29:51 ↗ how title 18 goes but you'll be very

29:53 ↗ involved in the title 18 update so don't

29:56 ↗ worry about that that's coming soon we

29:59 ↗ weren't able to merge capital facilities

30:00 ↗ and utility element yet we're hopeful

30:03 ↗ someday and the stormwater management

30:05 ↗ plan isn't done yet so we weren't able

30:07 ↗ to put that into the utility and public

30:10 ↗ service element also we didn't update

30:13 ↗ the treasurer's because that just seemed

30:15 ↗ overwhelming for us and there's some

30:17 ↗ other pieces like the branding it's a

30:19 ↗ quad branding moving forward and the

30:21 ↗ wayfinding piece is moving forward and

30:24 ↗ so we wanted to see where those went

30:26 ↗ before we started looking at the

30:29 ↗ treasures again are there that's it

30:33 ↗ the next steps most of which are up to

30:37 ↗ you the public hearing is continued

30:39 ↗ tonight and if you feel that you can you

30:42 ↗ can make a recommendation of what

30:44 ↗ type that you feel passionate about you

30:49 ↗ can continue it if you don't feel that

30:50 ↗ you know enough or feel strongly enough

30:53 ↗ you can continue it to another date

30:55 ↗ night site location certain that's up to

31:01 ↗ how you feel at the end of the night and

31:02 ↗ then if you do make a recommendation

31:04 ↗ tonight it would be a study there'd be a

31:06 ↗ study session at Council on November

31:08 ↗ 12th and then December 2nd would be the

31:12 ↗ regular meeting where council could take

31:14 ↗ action with the appeal in there I don't

31:17 ↗ know what that does to the schedule

31:18 ↗ because a date hasn't been set to

31:20 ↗ settled it to figure out the appeal yet

31:22 ↗ but that's the next steps that I knew of

31:26 ↗ before the appeal came in so that's as

31:29 ↗ far as I can tell you they're questions

31:32 ↗ from but for me before you open the I

31:35 ↗ have one question you go back to the

31:38 ↗ 62nd the mitigation yeah yes so it's

31:45 ↗ it's been used as mitigation for the

31:49 ↗ Costco well part was it not part of it

31:54 ↗ was so parcel number 12 most of that is

31:58 ↗ a mitigation site that was used for

31:59 ↗ Costco yes and then the bottom

32:01 ↗ right-hand corner and then Olive 13 were

32:03 ↗ actually used for the road so if it's

32:09 ↗ used for mitigation you're planning to

32:12 ↗ rezone it into capital facilities right

32:18 ↗ community facilities facilities because

32:20 ↗ of the road ok so that means what

32:23 ↗ exactly you can build on it

32:27 ↗ no there's already a road there so it we

32:30 ↗ won't be building anymore on it and

32:32 ↗ there's an agreement or something in

32:34 ↗ place that there's an agreement that

32:36 ↗ says that the rest of it will be a

32:38 ↗ mitigation site for the road ok so why

32:42 ↗ do you have to rezone it because right

32:45 ↗ now it's mixed-use it's not zone

32:47 ↗ community facilities ok so this is to

32:50 ↗ continue with the mitigation he

32:53 ↗ basically yes and tend to recognize it

32:55 ↗ as a public use

32:57 ↗ okay there any other question rather

33:00 ↗ question and we consider in deliberating

33:05 ↗ tonight are we to consider all all the

33:08 ↗ sites the eight sites as one in terms of

33:12 ↗ we approve them then as a total or can

33:15 ↗ we strip out site that we might not want

33:19 ↗ to get lured we can do however you want

33:22 ↗ and secondly would you go back over the

33:24 ↗ seat there can the letter you just got

33:26 ↗ the seat I didn't quite catch the issue

33:28 ↗ with the CEPA they're concerned the

33:30 ↗ legal that you just got you mentioned in

33:33 ↗ the appeal we received an appeal the

33:37 ↗ appeal was appealing the final stipa

33:41 ↗ determination and it the majority of the

33:48 ↗ letter looked exactly like the letter

33:50 ↗ that you all received October 9th I want

33:56 ↗ to say from the attorneys representing

33:59 ↗ the umbrella the province plain umbrella

34:02 ↗ group and then I have a question too on

34:07 ↗ building on what my fellow commissioners

34:10 ↗ said is it also possibly we can also

34:13 ↗ approve amendments but we don't have to

34:15 ↗ approve them as an entire package so we

34:17 ↗ can improve like the transportation

34:18 ↗ element correct

34:20 ↗ okay whatever works for you all is great

34:25 ↗ originally we were going to take out the

34:27 ↗ three and then discuss that one and then

34:31 ↗ go on to the other one so now we just

34:33 ↗ put them all together so we can discuss

34:36 ↗ each one any one you want and I know

34:39 ↗ that there'll be a lot of discussion on

34:40 ↗ the ovens point one so are there any

34:46 ↗ other questions for Trish before we open

34:49 ↗ up the public hearing I have a question

34:53 ↗ on the issue of the non project SEPA

34:56 ↗ review as I read the document that we

35:00 ↗ had the city had submitted it was came

35:04 ↗ across as if it were answering whether

35:06 ↗ the fact

35:07 ↗ rezoning that just fact of rezoning

35:11 ↗ resulted in any impact as opposed to the

35:15 ↗ subsequent effects of what would happen

35:17 ↗ with any potential development that was

35:21 ↗ not part of the scope of the the non

35:24 ↗ project review is correct correct and

35:26 ↗ one of the component comment letters

35:29 ↗ raised the issue that is at the

35:32 ↗ Department of Ecology rules for this

35:35 ↗ suggest that if there are obviously

35:38 ↗ foreseeable impacts that they should be

35:40 ↗ included in that non project SEPA is

35:43 ↗ that correct or not correct under the

35:47 ↗ city's understanding I I can't speak to

35:51 ↗ Department of Ecology I can say that the

35:54 ↗ way that the city has always done non

35:57 ↗ project of this nature where it's a

35:59 ↗ community facility redesignate and

36:02 ↗ rezone is it's in two steps the first

36:05 ↗ step is they have to the applicant

36:07 ↗ whether it's us King County the school

36:09 ↗ district has to meet the criteria of is

36:11 ↗ it a public entity using the property

36:14 ↗ for public purpose and if those two are

36:17 ↗ okay then they can proceed to the next

36:20 ↗ step of what is the building and the

36:22 ↗ site plan going to look like and if they

36:24 ↗ can't pass that part then the building

36:27 ↗ the construction doesn't go forward

36:28 ↗ because they have to meet both but in

36:31 ↗ the non project part it's only that

36:33 ↗ criteria of is it a public entity that

36:36 ↗ owns it and are they using the property

36:38 ↗ for public will they be using it for a

36:40 ↗ public purpose those are the those are

36:45 ↗ the components that we look at in

36:49 ↗ deciding whether to approve this but are

36:52 ↗ those the only factors that get

36:54 ↗ evaluated from the perspective of

36:58 ↗ approving the CEPA report that's my

37:02 ↗ understanding of how how it occurs thank

37:05 ↗ you anything else before we open it up

37:10 ↗ no

37:13 ↗ so before okay

37:46 ↗ so before we before I open the public

37:50 ↗ hearing I do want to make a couple

37:52 ↗ comments and I assume that this

37:56 ↗ guidelines were going to be up on the

37:58 ↗ screen but just to continue on quickly

38:04 ↗ if you are going to address a commission

38:10 ↗ this evening you will have three minutes

38:12 ↗ to present your case for those who

38:17 ↗ signed up which I have only one sheet

38:20 ↗ you will be first and if there's

38:24 ↗ additional people that would like to

38:25 ↗ speak after that the people who have

38:28 ↗ signed up you're certainly welcome to

38:29 ↗ come up and add your comments if you are

38:34 ↗ speaking for a group maybe you can

38:38 ↗ designate when you come up what group

38:41 ↗ you are speaking for if you hear

38:46 ↗ testimony or comments you support please

38:49 ↗ raise your hand we like to keep a little

38:53 ↗ bit of order and we want to know how

38:54 ↗ many people kind of agree with what is

38:57 ↗ being said so raise your hand if it's

39:01 ↗ possible limit your comments to

39:03 ↗ information and perspectives that have

39:05 ↗ not yet been addressed so that all

39:08 ↗ viewpoints have the opportunity to be

39:11 ↗ heard by the Commission does that make

39:14 ↗ sense to you all with that I'd like to

39:17 ↗ open the we continue the public hearing

39:20 ↗ that was delayed from October the 10th

39:25 ↗ and September the 29th something like

39:29 ↗ that at 7:10 and the first person who is

39:36 ↗ on the list is Tom

39:46 ↗ I have asked that the school district

39:50 ↗ have the opportunity to have three

39:53 ↗ minutes to discuss their plans perfect

39:57 ↗ good evening tom Mullins with the is

40:00 ↗ across school district good evening

40:03 ↗ members of the Planning Commission my

40:04 ↗ name is Tom Mullins I am the director of

40:06 ↗ capital projects for the is across

40:08 ↗ school district our district

40:11 ↗ superintendent and board members cannot

40:12 ↗ be here this evening as they have a

40:14 ↗ board meeting occurring at the same time

40:16 ↗ however this item is of considerable

40:19 ↗ importance to the district we can't

40:22 ↗ emphasize enough our community's need

40:25 ↗ for new school capacity recent and

40:28 ↗ ongoing growth has strained our existing

40:30 ↗ schools without new schools in place by

40:33 ↗ 2025 we will be over capacity at the

40:37 ↗ elementary level by nearly 1300 students

40:39 ↗ at the middle school by about 600

40:43 ↗ students at the high school level by

40:45 ↗ over a thousand landed in the urban area

40:49 ↗ is scarce we have searched for years to

40:51 ↗ identify developable school sites near

40:54 ↗ our student population in meeting the

40:57 ↗ county and city's regulatory framework

41:00 ↗ this search in just the last six years

41:03 ↗ and conducted with the aid of a

41:05 ↗ professional broker included review of

41:08 ↗ nearly 70 parcels totaling over 700

41:11 ↗ acres across the urban area of our

41:14 ↗ district we've considered

41:16 ↗ non-traditional sites

41:18 ↗ complicated property assemblages joint

41:21 ↗ new sites and condemnation however even

41:25 ↗ with these considerations we've

41:27 ↗ struggled to locate suitable land often

41:31 ↗ even if the land is in the right

41:32 ↗ location or even fit a fair location

41:35 ↗ critical areas topographic issues and

41:38 ↗ access restrictions make it unusable for

41:41 ↗ a school site the three parcels about 40

41:46 ↗ acres fit our critical student service

41:48 ↗ needs for future high school and

41:50 ↗ elementary school capacity the mostly

41:53 ↗ flat site will provide flexibility for

41:55 ↗ future design is located within our

41:58 ↗ districts grow

41:59 ↗ areas and near our student populations

42:02 ↗ sits between Scylla in high school and

42:05 ↗ Issaquah high school and will allow us

42:07 ↗ to alleviate current capacity issues in

42:10 ↗ avoid the eminent capacity strain at

42:12 ↗ both of these schools and provides us

42:15 ↗ with a high school and elementary school

42:17 ↗ sight in an area where both schools are

42:19 ↗ needed and we have otherwise not been

42:21 ↗ successful in locating alternative

42:24 ↗ property for either school in addition

42:27 ↗ the joint sighting opportunity allows us

42:29 ↗ to use taxpayer dollars carefully and

42:32 ↗ efficiently given that the urban land

42:34 ↗ costs are nearly 1 million dollars per

42:36 ↗ acre and construction and design costs

42:39 ↗ continue to rise we understand that the

42:43 ↗ neighborhood like any neighborhood would

42:45 ↗ has concerns about the new school

42:48 ↗ building buildings and wants to be a

42:50 ↗ part of the process we appreciate and

42:53 ↗ welcome this involvement as you know the

42:55 ↗ proposed resignation and rezone is the

42:58 ↗ first step in our process and have only

43:02 ↗ at this point prepared conceptual

43:04 ↗ designs for further review the district

43:07 ↗ appreciate you thank you very much nope

43:11 ↗ not a problem the light goes it starts

43:19 ↗ blinking green and then when you have 30

43:20 ↗ seconds yet it starts just yellow like

43:23 ↗ caution just so when you're up there you

43:25 ↗ can kind of pace yourself Denise

43:36 ↗ Denyce yes it's very distant in the back

43:45 ↗ of the room good evening members of the

43:47 ↗ Planning Commission my name is Denise

43:49 ↗ stiff-arm with Pacifica law group 1191

43:51 ↗ second Avenue and I will speak as loud

43:55 ↗ as I can 1191 second Avenue and I'm also

43:58 ↗ legal counsel for these across school

44:00 ↗ district just wanted to re-emphasize

44:03 ↗ what staff have provided for you this

44:05 ↗ evening that this is a very narrow focus

44:07 ↗ before you this evening and that is

44:09 ↗ whether or not to redesign eighth and

44:12 ↗ resume publicly owned property as

44:15 ↗ community facilities again there's not a

44:18 ↗ project before you there's not a SEPA

44:21 ↗ decision before you this is very narrow

44:23 ↗ to that underlying land use designation

44:26 ↗ it is absolutely true that the district

44:29 ↗ does need this like this site to provide

44:31 ↗ for a new high school in a new

44:33 ↗ elementary school and that they have

44:34 ↗ searched very long and very hard to find

44:38 ↗ appropriate sites for this purpose along

44:41 ↗ with the other schools that were

44:42 ↗ approved by the voters in the 2016 bond

44:45 ↗ it is difficult in King County to locate

44:49 ↗ land for schools in 2012 King County

44:52 ↗ restricted the development of schools

44:54 ↗ outside of the urban growth boundary

44:56 ↗ there's a cross School District crosses

44:59 ↗ the over in growth boundary and actually

45:00 ↗ most of its land base is over on the

45:02 ↗ rural side but they are restricted to

45:05 ↗ looking within the urban area for

45:06 ↗ schools this site happens to be in an

45:09 ↗ area where a lot of the growth is

45:10 ↗ occurring because as we know residential

45:13 ↗ growth commercial growth it continues to

45:15 ↗ happen the city of Issaquah has

45:17 ↗ comprehensive plan projects that by 2025

45:20 ↗ population will grow by about 17% and

45:23 ↗ that is reflected in the district's own

45:24 ↗ student population so this site is an

45:27 ↗ area that reflects that where the

45:29 ↗ students are living and where a new

45:31 ↗ school is needed but also reflects that

45:33 ↗ it's very difficult to locate land for

45:35 ↗ schools the other thing that's important

45:40 ↗ to remember is that the district has

45:42 ↗ followed the regulatory framework set up

45:45 ↗ by the city for purposes of siting

45:47 ↗ schools some of you who sat here and

45:49 ↗ 20-17 know that it was a very long and

45:52 ↗ arduous process to consider your public

45:55 ↗ testimony and deliberate on the compact

45:58 ↗ school regulations and those those

46:01 ↗ procedures were put in place to

46:02 ↗ recognize the scarcity of land within

46:04 ↗ the urban area and the need for new

46:06 ↗ schools and so the district's siting

46:09 ↗ considerations have followed that and

46:10 ↗ have done that in a very thoughtful way

46:12 ↗ to implement what the city has in place

46:15 ↗ for those purposes the work is just at

46:20 ↗ the very beginning again the community

46:22 ↗ will have opportunities for involvement

46:23 ↗ and should have opportunities for

46:25 ↗ involvement when this becomes a project

46:28 ↗ proposal that can be meaningfully

46:30 ↗ reviewed meaningfully reviewed under the

46:33 ↗ State Environmental Policy Act and

46:34 ↗ meaningfully reviewed through the permit

46:36 ↗ processing with the city so with that we

46:39 ↗ appreciate your consideration again

46:41 ↗ wanted to re-emphasize that the

46:43 ↗ superintendent and the board members

46:45 ↗ very much would like to be here but they

46:46 ↗ are meeting across town right now thank

46:48 ↗ you

46:49 ↗ perfect timing Leo gram can I pass

46:59 ↗ something out

47:05 ↗ [Music]

47:10 ↗ my name is Leo Graham I'm the resident

47:13 ↗ that Providence point microphone okay

47:16 ↗ I'm Leo Graham I'm a resident and

47:18 ↗ Providence Point I'm here tonight to

47:22 ↗ speak to the issue of the new school we

47:24 ↗ would like to please request that the

47:28 ↗ Commission consider not rezoning this

47:31 ↗ property leave it the low-density

47:33 ↗ single-family with the potential for an

47:35 ↗ elementary school because of the intense

47:38 ↗ use that this new to school development

47:41 ↗ will have again next to Providence point

47:46 ↗ so with that said we are going to have

47:50 ↗ several residents of Providence Point

47:52 ↗ come up and speak to different issues

47:54 ↗ that affect Providence point they'll try

47:56 ↗ to stay to the 3-minute limitation and

47:59 ↗ not be redundant to try to get all of

48:02 ↗ our points across then there'll be two

48:04 ↗ experts and our attorney speak to the

48:07 ↗ more specific issues and technical

48:09 ↗ issues I'm chair the government affairs

48:12 ↗ committee at Providence Point that

48:15 ↗ doesn't mean much but that's my title

48:18 ↗ the history of Providence point is that

48:22 ↗ it's a unique facility it's been there

48:24 ↗ 35 years it has about 1,400 people in it

48:28 ↗ it's condos for seniors 55 and over the

48:32 ↗ units that abut this property are two

48:35 ↗ and three-story they look out at a tree

48:37 ↗ park light setting at this point and it

48:41 ↗ is a senior community it's not expensive

48:43 ↗ it's an affordable community for those

48:45 ↗ seniors the condo units are not fancy

48:50 ↗ they're located with in an area with

48:54 ↗ very special amenities park like trails

48:57 ↗ common facilities alright and and the

49:01 ↗ like almost all of the condos are owned

49:05 ↗ by our owner occupied the cost of the

49:08 ↗ units is well below the average Issaquah

49:11 ↗ residents Providence Point was built as

49:13 ↗ a part of a master plan for retirement

49:15 ↗ living in 1978 the sisters of Providence

49:18 ↗ sold the land

49:20 ↗ to the Lutheran bap Bible Institute with

49:24 ↗ the provision that a senior retirement

49:25 ↗ community be developed the results are

49:28 ↗ the Providence point 160 acre

49:31 ↗ development Bellwood and assisted living

49:33 ↗ facility Marian wood a skilled nursing

49:36 ↗ facility and spirit wood a memory care

49:38 ↗ facility all that border this property

49:41 ↗ we surround the parcels that you are

49:43 ↗ looking to rezone there are no kids in

49:46 ↗ the area

49:46 ↗ and it is bordered on the other side by

49:49 ↗ 43 and 228 which as I'm sure you know

49:53 ↗ are highly congested roads that don't

49:58 ↗ support this kind of activity the

50:03 ↗ rezoning if approved will allow the

50:05 ↗ district to build the entire build on

50:08 ↗ the entire property with the removal of

50:10 ↗ all the trees grading of the site and

50:13 ↗ construction of schools and facilities

50:15 ↗ which will cover the site thank you

50:17 ↗ you're welcome

50:20 ↗ we'll all talk faster next time f knee

50:34 ↗ oh I'm definitely again from Providence

50:38 ↗ Point and I thought maybe I would give

50:41 ↗ you a thumbnail sketch of what

50:44 ↗ Providence point is like I don't know

50:47 ↗ how many of you have ever driven through

50:49 ↗ there but if you drive through

50:50 ↗ Providence point you're not going to see

50:53 ↗ massive parking lots nor are you going

50:56 ↗ to see immense buildings you're going to

51:00 ↗ see nice open spaces and lots of trees

51:02 ↗ and a lovely lovely place to retire it's

51:10 ↗ an over 55 community its surrounds that

51:17 ↗ rezone on three sides and I'll tell you

51:21 ↗ when you go and drive it you will see

51:24 ↗ how close it feels

51:30 ↗ there are over 3,100 lineal feet of

51:37 ↗ boundary between Providence point and

51:39 ↗ this this rezone and in Providence point

51:48 ↗ 160 acres there are walking paths there

51:54 ↗ are large retention ponds because we're

51:57 ↗ careful about keeping the water out of

52:00 ↗ the lake in addition to that there is a

52:05 ↗ pea patch there are landscape berms

52:10 ↗ there is a even a stream that we care

52:15 ↗ about a lot all these lovely residents

52:20 ↗ pay a lot of money to professionally

52:23 ↗ keep these areas landscaped and mowed

52:27 ↗ and they keep them and they like the

52:29 ↗ fact that it's green in addition to the

52:35 ↗ 1,400 residents there are who live in in

52:39 ↗ the units

52:43 ↗ there are four community buildings which

52:46 ↗ they stay in they have activities in and

52:50 ↗ I don't know if you knew but 85% of the

52:54 ↗ people there are retired and they are

53:02 ↗ then impacted 24 hours a day by this

53:06 ↗ school and it is important that you

53:09 ↗ consider the impact of this intrusive

53:15 ↗ and inappropriate development that you

53:18 ↗ can allow I looked at your chart seven

53:20 ↗ feet do you know what seven feet is they

53:23 ↗ could they can put a basketball court

53:26 ↗ seven feet from your property line again

53:31 ↗ I hope you folks understand how

53:33 ↗ important it is to all these wonderful

53:35 ↗ people who instead of staying home

53:38 ↗ watching jeopardy here talking to you

53:41 ↗ thank you

53:47 ↗ [Laughter]

53:56 ↗ they okay Paul Paul Claypool good

54:12 ↗ evening my name is Paul Claypool I'm a

54:14 ↗ resident of Providence Point

54:15 ↗ - nobody's surprised I'm speaking to

54:19 ↗ oppose of the Purple's

54:20 ↗ rezoning of the three Providence Point

54:22 ↗ Provident height parcels by highlighting

54:25 ↗ some negative impacts on the residents

54:27 ↗ traffic patterns and safety of the

54:29 ↗ surrounding community and to express my

54:32 ↗ concern about the lack of communication

54:34 ↗ and petition partnering between the

54:35 ↗ sister quad school district and the

54:37 ↗ Providence Point community as a three

54:40 ↗ year Providence Point resident an owner

54:42 ↗ of the first-floor apartment in the

54:44 ↗ Highlander ten units of which looked

54:47 ↗ directly on the proposed property I have

54:53 ↗ a direct and unobstructed view of the

54:54 ↗ Providence high-poverty I should

54:56 ↗ probably point out that my window was

54:57 ↗ probably at the most 30 feet from the

55:00 ↗ property line so a lot of this stuff

55:03 ↗ will bear directly there are seven

55:06 ↗ residential buildings in Highland

55:07 ↗ Village and directly boarded the

55:08 ↗ Northwest portion parcels one and two of

55:10 ↗ the province Heights property and all of

55:13 ↗ them will have direct negative impacts

55:14 ↗ from the lack of any buffer if the

55:16 ↗ region rezoning is approved and anything

55:19 ↗ like the current building plan is

55:22 ↗ followed the remainder of Highland

55:24 ↗ Village totally 143 units will be

55:26 ↗ negatively impacted by noise exhaust

55:28 ↗ from school buses increased automated

55:31 ↗ automobile traffic stray foul balls from

55:34 ↗ the baseball field and possible

55:39 ↗ trespassing by students washington

55:42 ↗ village and hilltop village will have

55:43 ↗ their own negative impacts from this

55:45 ↗ relationship two parcels two and three

55:48 ↗ the current conceptual maps and tree

55:51 ↗ removal plans show a total lack of any

55:53 ↗ buffer zone between the plan campus and

55:56 ↗ the high level

55:57 ↗ which is unlike the existing ISD schools

55:59 ↗ in the area

56:00 ↗ pine light middle school Sunny Hills

56:02 ↗ Elementary School and Skyline High

56:04 ↗ School all have substantial forests and

56:06 ↗ buffer zones between the campuses and

56:08 ↗ residential areas another Factory in my

56:11 ↗ opposition to the rezoning proposal

56:14 ↗ there's the lack of interaction between

56:16 ↗ the ISD and the problem this point the

56:20 ↗ school superintendent did meet with the

56:22 ↗ government affairs committee in

56:23 ↗ Providence Point on June 28 2018 a year

56:26 ↗ ago and assured the committee that the

56:29 ↗ ISD design team would be conferring with

56:31 ↗ province point in the formation of in

56:33 ↗ the form of an open meeting with

56:35 ↗ Providence Point residents once the

56:37 ↗ property was obtained by the ISD this

56:41 ↗ open meeting would be to explain

56:43 ↗ construction plans and listen to the

56:44 ↗ concern of residents there has been no

56:47 ↗ such meeting scheduled or offered and

56:49 ↗ the government affairs committee has

56:50 ↗ reached out numerous times to ISD to

56:53 ↗ request a meeting no positive response

56:55 ↗ has been achieved

56:56 ↗ received in closing I urge the

57:02 ↗ Commission to require that the school

57:04 ↗ district include an analysis of any plan

57:06 ↗ submitted before any rezoning is

57:08 ↗ approved and to require that the ISD

57:10 ↗ make public an application to the city

57:12 ↗ which would generate a staff report that

57:14 ↗ would furnish vital information about

57:16 ↗ the project of the surrounding community

57:18 ↗ thank you

57:26 ↗ I figured I figured I would get a lot of

57:31 ↗ those yeah it is is marry one to speak

57:36 ↗ to okay I wasn't sure how you good

57:47 ↗ evening my name is Mary Faye Hellman and

57:49 ↗ I live in at Providence point in

57:52 ↗ Washington Village which is one of the

57:54 ↗ ones that's most affected and I've lived

57:56 ↗ there for 17 years I'm here tonight to

57:59 ↗ talk about the adverse impact of schools

58:02 ↗ on adjacent residential communities the

58:06 ↗ proposed change of zoning for parcels

58:08 ↗ one two and three to allow its across

58:10 ↗ school district to build two new schools

58:13 ↗ would negatively impact the Providence

58:15 ↗ point residential community in a number

58:17 ↗ of ways the biggest would be the loss of

58:20 ↗ trees I think you've seen the poster and

58:23 ↗ perhaps you have heard about or seen the

58:26 ↗ drone video showing the dense woods that

58:28 ↗ are now on the district property if the

58:31 ↗ new zoning were approved there would

58:33 ↗ only be a minimal setback from adjoining

58:35 ↗ property and the arborist plan and

58:38 ↗ pardon my low tech shows most all trees

58:42 ↗ on the border would be cut down the loss

58:45 ↗ of trees would create a very negative

58:47 ↗ environmental and visual impact where I

58:50 ↗ now see trees on the other side of the

58:53 ↗ fence line I would see a three-story

58:56 ↗ building the loss the loss of trees

59:02 ↗ would create a very negative

59:04 ↗ environmental and visual impact I

59:06 ↗ already said that this is just one

59:08 ↗ example of the many negative visual

59:11 ↗ impacts residents would experience along

59:13 ↗ the more than 3,100 feet linear feet of

59:17 ↗ border with this with the district

59:19 ↗ property other adverse effects are bus

59:22 ↗ noise and fumes made worse by lack of

59:25 ↗ trees school and activity lights and

59:27 ↗ noise sports area lights and noise noise

59:31 ↗ from large numbers of teens and young

59:33 ↗ children in one place and from outdoor

59:35 ↗ school Public Address systems from these

59:38 ↗ we would hear a now

59:39 ↗ it's min-sun much more football fields

59:42 ↗ need as you know huge tall glaring

59:46 ↗ lights for games at night and for

59:48 ↗ practices when it is gets dark early

59:52 ↗ football games mean cheering crowds

59:54 ↗ loudspeakers marching bands and loud

59:56 ↗ music all of these impacts would be a

59:59 ↗ huge change from the unlighted quiet we

1:00:02 ↗ now have construction of two schools and

1:00:06 ↗ the amenities and parking lots would be

1:00:08 ↗ a lengthy process and would subject the

1:00:12 ↗ residents at Providence point to noise

1:00:14 ↗ and dust and and disruption associated

1:00:18 ↗ with that massive construction I oppose

1:00:22 ↗ the rezoning of parcels 1 2 & 3 because

1:00:25 ↗ it would have significant net negative

1:00:27 ↗ impacts on the environment and on our

1:00:30 ↗ residential community we choose to live

1:00:32 ↗ at Providence Point because of the

1:00:34 ↗ beauty and tranquility we delight in our

1:00:38 ↗ many trees and quiet peaceful streets

1:00:40 ↗ the addition of two schools on the

1:00:42 ↗ adjacent property would permanently

1:00:45 ↗ impact the quality of life that we enjoy

1:00:48 ↗ now thank you for the opportunity to

1:00:51 ↗ comment thank you Ron M huff

1:01:11 ↗ hello my name is Ron M Hoff my wife and

1:01:14 ↗ I have lived at Providence point unit so

1:01:16 ↗ call for about one and a half years I

1:01:18 ↗ would like to discuss several issues

1:01:20 ↗ regarding rezoning of parcels one two

1:01:22 ↗ and three for this across school

1:01:24 ↗ district particularly access to the

1:01:25 ↗ property and traffic impacts I will

1:01:28 ↗ start with a question why select the

1:01:30 ↗ site when it doesn't make sense just as

1:01:32 ↗ you wouldn't allow hotel to get a

1:01:34 ↗ property rezone for its use without all

1:01:36 ↗ issues addressed to make sure that

1:01:38 ↗ property was appropriate for the planned

1:01:40 ↗ use you shouldn't allow the ESO Crosse

1:01:42 ↗ School District to get a property rezone

1:01:44 ↗ without all issues addressed regarding

1:01:47 ↗ access to the property that property

1:01:49 ↗ only has one Road 200 28th Avenue

1:01:52 ↗ southeast that abuts the property so all

1:01:55 ↗ traffic and students have to enter off

1:01:57 ↗ of that road considering the amount of

1:01:59 ↗ traffic generated in the amount of

1:02:01 ↗ traffic that already uses 228 to pass

1:02:04 ↗ that property that will cause additional

1:02:06 ↗ bottlenecks and congestion the access

1:02:09 ↗ road to the property is also up a hill

1:02:11 ↗ which will make entry and exit difficult

1:02:13 ↗ and dangerous during winter weather to

1:02:16 ↗ compare access to the school property

1:02:18 ↗ with other schools we can look at the

1:02:19 ↗ two closest school to the property both

1:02:22 ↗ Pine Lake middle school and Sunny Hills

1:02:24 ↗ Elementary School have bus entry Nexus

1:02:27 ↗ separate from auto entry and exit both

1:02:30 ↗ of those schools are also adjacent to

1:02:32 ↗ two main roads with the buses exiting

1:02:35 ↗ from a different road than the cars if

1:02:37 ↗ the planned school population of the

1:02:39 ↗ proposed high school in elementary

1:02:40 ↗ school is to be about two thousand

1:02:43 ↗ students plus teachers and staff then

1:02:45 ↗ that's two or three times the population

1:02:47 ↗ so those schools with less access both

1:02:51 ↗ of those schools also are near

1:02:52 ↗ residential areas where at least some of

1:02:54 ↗ the students live however this property

1:02:57 ↗ is surrounded by Providence point where

1:02:59 ↗ a world that there will not be any

1:03:01 ↗ students living therefore there will be

1:03:03 ↗ few students that can walk or bike to

1:03:05 ↗ school even if they wanted to their

1:03:07 ↗ problem parents probably wouldn't let

1:03:09 ↗ them because 228 it's a dangerous street

1:03:11 ↗ to walk or bike on if we want to

1:03:14 ↗ encourage the Issaquah multimodal vision

1:03:17 ↗ that we would want a school property

1:03:19 ↗ where many of the students will be able

1:03:21 ↗ to walk or bike to attend in fact if we

1:03:24 ↗ consider reduction

1:03:24 ↗ of carbon a worthy goal for the students

1:03:26 ↗ to champion I doubt that they would want

1:03:29 ↗ to go to a school where it is necessary

1:03:31 ↗ to use fossil fuel to get there

1:03:34 ↗ 228 there's also a major traffic

1:03:37 ↗ corridor and you have to go up 43rd if

1:03:40 ↗ you're coming from the valley which is a

1:03:41 ↗ very steep hill and it's not one we'd

1:03:45 ↗ want our students to drive on every day

1:03:47 ↗ to get to school we often see people the

1:03:51 ↗ speed limit is 35 we often see people

1:03:53 ↗ going 45 50 or more it seems that the

1:03:57 ↗ drivers don't even care that they're

1:03:59 ↗ violating the law any accident on that

1:04:02 ↗ street can cause a gridlock ripple

1:04:03 ↗ throughout is a quad Sammamish in fact

1:04:06 ↗ just last week that occurred a dump

1:04:08 ↗ truck accident on 43rd backed-up 43rd

1:04:12 ↗ East Lake Sammamish Parkway it isn't

1:04:14 ↗ quite plan Lake Road in 228 thank you i

1:04:21 ↗ way back

1:04:25 ↗ Eirene rice

1:04:38 ↗ thank you for the opportunity to provide

1:04:41 ↗ comment on the proposed Issaquah School

1:04:43 ↗ District a budding project abutting

1:04:46 ↗ Providence Point my name is Irene rice

1:04:49 ↗ my husband and I have been residents of

1:04:52 ↗ Providence Point and Washington Village

1:04:54 ↗ for the last 11 years

1:04:56 ↗ we are both registered voters tonight I

1:05:00 ↗ want to express my grave concerns about

1:05:02 ↗ the proposed plan for the development of

1:05:05 ↗ the former Providence Heights property

1:05:08 ↗ and specifically the inadequacy of the

1:05:11 ↗ proposed buffer between the school

1:05:13 ↗ property and Providence Point community

1:05:16 ↗ Washington Village is composed of three

1:05:18 ↗ of five three-story buildings with 181

1:05:23 ↗ individual condominium use units all

1:05:27 ↗ five buildings face the school property

1:05:29 ↗ the distance between the building's

1:05:32 ↗ garage and the proposed elementary

1:05:35 ↗ school building is 20 feet that is ten

1:05:39 ↗ feet from the garage to the fence

1:05:40 ↗ problem the fence line property line and

1:05:44 ↗ then another 10 feet beyond that fence

1:05:47 ↗ to the school to visualize that distance

1:05:50 ↗ it's less than the length of my living

1:05:52 ↗ room

1:05:55 ↗ most importantly the arborist plan for

1:05:59 ↗ the site shows that all the trees on the

1:06:03 ↗ northwest side of the property will be

1:06:05 ↗ removed the most recent iteration of the

1:06:10 ↗ plan shows retaining walls on the corner

1:06:13 ↗ of the site where they plan to place an

1:06:17 ↗ elementary school meaning that the

1:06:21 ↗ intent is to elevate this building

1:06:23 ↗ instead of green space facing the front

1:06:26 ↗ of the entrance of Olympia building in

1:06:30 ↗ our village you will see the backside of

1:06:31 ↗ the school building and a concrete wall

1:06:34 ↗ that phase showed you you will one of

1:06:38 ↗ the primary reasons our owners purchased

1:06:41 ↗ in the property is the park like setting

1:06:44 ↗ concrete walls and backsides of

1:06:46 ↗ buildings are hardly Park like it also

1:06:49 ↗ appears that there is a

1:06:51 ↗ to retain a few signature trees to give

1:06:54 ↗ a nod to the Issaquah tree program a

1:07:00 ↗ reasonable buffer will retain green

1:07:03 ↗ space for both schools and Providence

1:07:05 ↗ point one of the commissioners pointed

1:07:08 ↗ out at the September 26th earing that if

1:07:11 ↗ parcel 3 was Rees owned to common

1:07:14 ↗ facilities open space then the buffer

1:07:17 ↗ could be preserved thank you for

1:07:19 ↗ listening we hope you'll consider the

1:07:22 ↗ needs of Providence point as you make

1:07:24 ↗ this decision thank you getting your

1:07:32 ↗ exercise tonight yeah

1:07:33 ↗ John Ashton

1:07:47 ↗ good evening I'm John Bastian my wife

1:07:51 ↗ and I live in Providence Point for the

1:07:54 ↗ last eight years

1:07:55 ↗ I am currently serving as a director on

1:07:58 ↗ the umbrella board while other speakers

1:08:04 ↗ have talked to you tonight about traffic

1:08:06 ↗ noises and residential concerns I will

1:08:11 ↗ tell you about another area of concern

1:08:15 ↗ which would be affected by the proposed

1:08:18 ↗ school site that will be the location in

1:08:21 ↗ the Laughing Jacob Creek watershed and

1:08:24 ↗ the negative effect it could have on

1:08:26 ↗ drainage in that area the watershed

1:08:30 ↗ consists of 3600 acres across the

1:08:34 ↗ southern portion of Sammamish in the

1:08:37 ↗ northern part of Issaquah the Creek

1:08:40 ↗ flows through forest village parallel to

1:08:43 ↗ 43rd Street and into Lake Sammamish the

1:08:47 ↗ Laughing Jacobs basis plan has been set

1:08:52 ↗ in motion with funding of two three

1:08:54 ↗ hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars

1:08:56 ↗ split between Sammamish and Issaquah the

1:09:01 ↗ plan is designed to assess the current

1:09:03 ↗ health of the basin and identify

1:09:06 ↗ priority projects to help reduce

1:09:09 ↗ flooding and preserve natural habitat

1:09:12 ↗ the importance of preserving and

1:09:15 ↗ enhancing life and Jack Jacobs Creek

1:09:18 ↗ cannot be overlooked it is one of only

1:09:22 ↗ three creeks that flow into Lake

1:09:24 ↗ Sammamish and suitable for kokanee

1:09:26 ↗ salmon spawning this species of salmon

1:09:31 ↗ native to our lake is in danger of

1:09:34 ↗ extinction only 19 fish were counted in

1:09:39 ↗ a spawning count taken in 2018 plans for

1:09:43 ↗ creeks renovation are underway with

1:09:46 ↗ interested parties from Trout Unlimited

1:09:48 ↗ Washington State Parks and staff from

1:09:52 ↗ Issaquah and Sammamish the initial

1:09:55 ↗ meeting on April

1:09:57 ↗ for 2019 resulted in a work plan to

1:10:01 ↗ assess the health of the creek and

1:10:03 ↗ drainage area and determine what can be

1:10:06 ↗ done to make the creek hospital for

1:10:09 ↗ kokanee to spawn about 600 feet of

1:10:13 ↗ laughing Jacob's Creek runs through

1:10:15 ↗ Providence point forest village we take

1:10:18 ↗ good care of the creek by providing

1:10:20 ↗ about 250 feet of buffer on either side

1:10:23 ↗ of the stream and maintaining a non

1:10:25 ↗ impactful walking trail without proper

1:10:30 ↗ drainage control and the basin improving

1:10:32 ↗ the condition of the creek spawning will

1:10:34 ↗ become impossible the creek needs to be

1:10:37 ↗ wide widen in some areas grab a line and

1:10:41 ↗ stream beds and pools created however as

1:10:47 ↗ the Issaquah school board site plan

1:10:49 ↗ shows the 40 acre site will be

1:10:51 ↗ transformed into a high percentage of

1:10:54 ↗ impervious surfaces thank you which will

1:10:59 ↗ hinder the drainage from that area Russ

1:11:20 ↗ good evening commissioners my name is

1:11:23 ↗ Ross Tillman in 46 1840 4th Avenue South

1:11:28 ↗ Seattle I'm a transportation planner

1:11:30 ↗ speaking on behalf of Providence Point

1:11:33 ↗ first let me acknowledge and thank you

1:11:36 ↗ for the service you provide on this

1:11:38 ↗ commission I understand the effort that

1:11:42 ↗ takes I recently completed five years on

1:11:45 ↗ the Seattle design Commission so thank

1:11:47 ↗ you for what you're doing to make it a

1:11:48 ↗ better community

1:11:49 ↗ the reason request before you has some

1:11:53 ↗ profound implications particularly for

1:11:55 ↗ transportation to which I'll speak

1:11:57 ↗ I provided written comments prior to the

1:11:59 ↗ October 10 meeting I hope you've had a

1:12:03 ↗ chance to read that I will summarize

1:12:04 ↗ some of the key points here again the

1:12:07 ↗ rezoning request I think in terms of

1:12:09 ↗ transportation needs to be considered in

1:12:11 ↗ terms of the context in the location of

1:12:14 ↗ this site because it faces systemic

1:12:18 ↗ deficiencies in the transportation

1:12:21 ↗ network that are beyond mitigation so

1:12:26 ↗ one the site is basically two isolated

1:12:30 ↗ from its students and lacks too much

1:12:33 ↗ pedestrian bike transit infrastructure

1:12:35 ↗ to comply with comprehensive plan

1:12:37 ↗ policies indeed the comprehensive plan

1:12:40 ↗ says the new compact school should be

1:12:42 ↗ located to offer safe pedestrian bicycle

1:12:45 ↗ transit and public access from the

1:12:48 ↗ community to the facility but this site

1:12:51 ↗ has no sidewalks within 1,500 feet over

1:12:54 ↗ a quarter of a mile it has no public

1:12:56 ↗ transit within 4,000 feet almost a mile

1:13:00 ↗ away the bike lane that exists on 228th

1:13:04 ↗ is but the paved shoulder unprotected on

1:13:08 ↗ a street with over 18,000 daily vehicle

1:13:11 ↗ trips multimodal access from the Jason

1:13:16 ↗ community is simply non-existent and it

1:13:20 ↗ is not likely to exist in the future

1:13:22 ↗ because as has been amply described the

1:13:24 ↗ serac

1:13:24 ↗ the neighborhood is a retirement

1:13:26 ↗ community the area has too few arterial

1:13:30 ↗ roads and it's too congested to take on

1:13:32 ↗ a large traffic generator with over

1:13:34 ↗ 4,000 daily trips 3,000 those would be

1:13:37 ↗ from the high school as proposed 1,000

1:13:40 ↗ from the elementary school locating it

1:13:43 ↗ on a single arterial simply concentrates

1:13:45 ↗ traffic and creates congestion unlike

1:13:47 ↗ other high school campuses that usually

1:13:50 ↗ take advantage of access from two

1:13:52 ↗ arterioles spreading traffic a workable

1:13:55 ↗ second access for emergency purposes has

1:13:58 ↗ yet to be credibly identified the

1:14:01 ↗ comprehensive plan never anticipated

1:14:04 ↗ this type of use and makes no provision

1:14:05 ↗ for the pedestrian bicycle and transit

1:14:08 ↗ facilities it needs from a practical

1:14:11 ↗ transportation perspective as well as

1:14:13 ↗ from the comprehensive plans goals the

1:14:15 ↗ site is not appropriate for large

1:14:17 ↗ schools and rezoning should avoid

1:14:21 ↗ creating problems that can't be fixed

1:14:24 ↗ thank you thank you Dave living my

1:14:37 ↗ name's Dave Wagner I'm a land-use

1:14:38 ↗ consultant my business address is 502

1:14:41 ↗ North East sixth Street in Cookeville

1:14:43 ↗ Washington 98 to 39 and I'm here tonight

1:14:47 ↗ on behalf of the Providence Point

1:14:48 ↗ Community Association my review for the

1:14:53 ↗ Association focused on the comprehensive

1:14:55 ↗ plan policies the countywide planning

1:14:58 ↗ policies and your rezone criteria in the

1:15:00 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Code so that was the

1:15:03 ↗ focus of my review I also touched on

1:15:08 ↗ some of the the impacts that the

1:15:09 ↗ citizens have discussed tonight so I'm

1:15:11 ↗ gonna kind of go past that they've

1:15:15 ↗ already explained what the potential

1:15:17 ↗ impact should be and I wanted to answer

1:15:19 ↗ Commissioner Karl's question real quick

1:15:20 ↗ you asked whether we can consider

1:15:24 ↗ environmental impacts and land use

1:15:27 ↗ designations at this point in the

1:15:29 ↗ language designation process both this

1:15:31 ↗ part of CP and your decision yes you can

1:15:34 ↗ I've been the responsible SEPA official

1:15:36 ↗ in three jurisdictions in Washington

1:15:37 ↗ State

1:15:38 ↗ and that is fairly commonly done to use

1:15:41 ↗ another example if this were rezone for

1:15:44 ↗ an airport you should anticipate planes

1:15:50 ↗ so I've reviewed the application

1:15:53 ↗ materials that's posted on the city and

1:15:55 ↗ school district websites submitted a

1:15:56 ↗ report to you that reports dated October

1:15:58 ↗ 8th the response to the those criteria

1:16:02 ↗ as I mentioned and looking at the

1:16:04 ↗ approval criteria in total the project I

1:16:06 ↗ don't believe satisfies them it's not

1:16:08 ↗ just a reason on either we know what the

1:16:11 ↗ impacts are going to be as I stated and

1:16:13 ↗ the gist of the amendment criteria all

1:16:15 ↗ of those the countywide planning policy

1:16:17 ↗ is your own comp plan policies and the

1:16:19 ↗ rezone criteria can be boiled down to

1:16:21 ↗ three words make it fit make it fit the

1:16:25 ↗ site the land use designation is that

1:16:28 ↗ first step and yes as staff mentioned

1:16:30 ↗ there are suitable steps that happened

1:16:32 ↗ beyond that where we sort of sharpen the

1:16:35 ↗ pencil on what those impacts might be

1:16:36 ↗ and how we mitigate them if they can be

1:16:38 ↗ mitigated but there are in your

1:16:42 ↗ comprehensive plan there are land-use

1:16:44 ↗ element there's five different policies

1:16:46 ↗ on school siting and even examples on

1:16:48 ↗ how to satisfy those policies the

1:16:50 ↗ district hasn't addressed the city's

1:16:52 ↗ comp plan policies or the countywide

1:16:54 ↗ planning policies which also address

1:16:58 ↗ school siting and the regional criteria

1:17:01 ↗ of your own code and so that is really a

1:17:03 ↗ step that needs to happen I think for

1:17:05 ↗ the Planning Commission make a finding

1:17:07 ↗ that this rezone and comprehensive plan

1:17:09 ↗ amendment should take place the findings

1:17:13 ↗ that were drafted for you simply state

1:17:15 ↗ that the map change has to be consistent

1:17:17 ↗ consistent with the decision to approve

1:17:20 ↗ that much is true but there's no

1:17:22 ↗ substance to the actual finding that

1:17:24 ↗ it's met your plan criteria so I'd

1:17:28 ↗ recommend that you either denied the

1:17:30 ↗ amendment will reduce the scale of the

1:17:32 ↗ area available for development of the

1:17:33 ↗ project by requiring substantive

1:17:35 ↗ mitigation through the land use

1:17:37 ↗ designation process to control impacts

1:17:40 ↗ that are entirely predictable and I'm

1:17:42 ↗ here to answer any questions you might

1:17:43 ↗ have about my report thank you I'm

1:17:46 ↗ missing jeopardy too

1:17:51 ↗ brick can I get you to put up that the

1:17:57 ↗ comments we were looking at before word

1:17:58 ↗ before I started that's how much you

1:18:16 ↗ looking for I'm looking for 120

1:18:20 ↗ page 128 while we're waiting most times

1:18:27 ↗ people put their email address on here

1:18:30 ↗ am i assuming that everybody that spoke

1:18:32 ↗ tonight has signed up and is receiving

1:18:35 ↗ all the information from the city or

1:18:37 ↗ their email yes if not after the meeting

1:18:42 ↗ maybe you could add your email so that

1:18:44 ↗ the city can keep you abreast okay I

1:18:51 ↗ think I'm ready to go it's I'm Richard

1:18:53 ↗ Aram borough I'm here tonight

1:18:54 ↗ representing the Providence Point

1:18:56 ↗ umbrella board and the board that that

1:18:59 ↗ does represent the entirety of the

1:19:01 ↗ thirteen hundred units of or excuse me

1:19:05 ↗ one thousand units and in Providence

1:19:07 ↗ point and I've submitted letters to you

1:19:12 ↗ dated September 27 October 2 and October

1:19:16 ↗ 9 I'm not going to repeat those letters

1:19:18 ↗ to you tonight I know you've read them

1:19:20 ↗ and you've carefully considered them I

1:19:23 ↗ will say one thing I've been in going to

1:19:28 ↗ land-use hearings for the better part of

1:19:30 ↗ my professional life which is more than

1:19:35 ↗ 40 years and this hearing is absolutely

1:19:38 ↗ unique because no one has discussed the

1:19:42 ↗ property if you notice that staff says

1:19:46 ↗ well it's now owned by the s-cross

1:19:48 ↗ School District and it's across school

1:19:50 ↗ district says well we own the property

1:19:52 ↗ there's not one word in this record from

1:19:56 ↗ staff or from the district that

1:19:59 ↗ considers the nature of this property or

1:20:02 ↗ its surroundings there is no staff

1:20:05 ↗ report

1:20:06 ↗ there is no suggested findings for the

1:20:10 ↗ commissioned act on to show consistency

1:20:13 ↗ with the comprehensive plan none of this

1:20:16 ↗ exists I mean what's going on in

1:20:20 ↗ Issaquah that we don't have that kind of

1:20:22 ↗ consideration now the question before

1:20:26 ↗ you is this property

1:20:29 ↗ suitable and acceptable for cff uses

1:20:34 ↗ that's the question before you both uh

1:20:37 ↗ stood the comp plan and the reason I

1:20:39 ↗ suggest to you that the significant

1:20:43 ↗ amount of information has been provided

1:20:44 ↗ by the community indicates only one

1:20:48 ↗ conclusion that you can reach and that

1:20:50 ↗ is that it's not suitable because

1:20:51 ↗ there's nothing on the other side

1:20:55 ↗ property doesn't become suitable for a

1:20:57 ↗ use just because somebody buys it

1:20:59 ↗ Costco doesn't walk in here and say I

1:21:01 ↗ need to have this property for our store

1:21:04 ↗ and you say okay well fine now you're

1:21:06 ↗ consequent we can do that for you so I

1:21:10 ↗ want to talk about some conditions that

1:21:14 ↗ I put into report and these these follow

1:21:18 ↗ up from commission members we would ask

1:21:23 ↗ if you do decide to consider this to

1:21:26 ↗ take parcel three and spread it out

1:21:29 ↗ along the area of Providence point to

1:21:32 ↗ provide a buffer to enhance that buffer

1:21:35 ↗ and to not approve for the property any

1:21:39 ↗ element in only one school and have the

1:21:43 ↗ football stadium if that's a part of the

1:21:46 ↗ proposal not be not be permitted or

1:21:48 ↗ allowed I'm I'm hesitant even to bring

1:21:51 ↗ that up when there isn't any showing

1:21:53 ↗ about this property but I'm going to

1:21:56 ↗ anyway you found it in my plan it's up

1:21:58 ↗ on the board here if you have any

1:22:00 ↗ questions I'm here to answer well we're

1:22:03 ↗ not going to take any questions or give

1:22:05 ↗ any questions right now so thank you for

1:22:08 ↗ your detailed report Francie would you

1:22:16 ↗ spell okay

1:22:27 ↗ good evening my name is Francie graffito

1:22:32 ↗ I appreciate this opportunity to speak

1:22:35 ↗ with all of you and I can be very brief

1:22:38 ↗ because most of what I have written has

1:22:42 ↗ been well addressed by the folks that

1:22:46 ↗ have spoken before me the professionals

1:22:49 ↗ the professionals from other walks of

1:22:53 ↗ life and from Providence Point the issue

1:22:56 ↗ that I would like to bring up tonight

1:22:59 ↗ has to do with an environmental issue

1:23:03 ↗ and so it most likely will be included

1:23:06 ↗ in the CEPA I certainly hope that would

1:23:09 ↗ I would like to I objected to the

1:23:14 ↗ rezoning I think that at this point it's

1:23:17 ↗ premature there the issue that I'm

1:23:21 ↗ concerned about

1:23:22 ↗ environmentally is has to do with the

1:23:26 ↗ potential environmental impact of

1:23:30 ↗ asbestos in the left in the area from

1:23:34 ↗ the dismantling the demolition of the

1:23:38 ↗ cement dormitories and part of the

1:23:41 ↗ cement blocks on the building of the

1:23:43 ↗ Education Center from this site and when

1:23:47 ↗ I witnessed before they put the barriers

1:23:50 ↗ up on the roads

1:23:51 ↗ I witnessed the demolition of one of

1:23:54 ↗ these dormitories that was made of

1:23:56 ↗ cement block concrete block and it was

1:24:01 ↗ they were demolished by heavy equipment

1:24:03 ↗ the walls blew out the cement blocks

1:24:09 ↗ tumbled down onto the carpet of the

1:24:11 ↗ ground below the dust rained down and

1:24:15 ↗ then other equipment came in and crushed

1:24:20 ↗ up those blocks the important issue here

1:24:23 ↗ is that concrete contains asbestos

1:24:30 ↗ concrete contains Portland cement

1:24:33 ↗ certainly contains silica which can move

1:24:38 ↗ into

1:24:38 ↗ our lungs either by dust or by handling

1:24:43 ↗ and silicosis I think most of us have

1:24:47 ↗ heard about silicosis which can damage

1:24:49 ↗ your airway and your pulmonary system so

1:24:55 ↗ that's something that needs to be

1:24:57 ↗ addressed for any reasoning to find out

1:25:03 ↗ what happened to all that concrete dust

1:25:07 ↗ and you know there was a where I lived

1:25:09 ↗ in California there was a school

1:25:11 ↗ district that had a huge project and

1:25:14 ↗ they had a problem with a high school

1:25:17 ↗ and a middle school next to it and they

1:25:20 ↗ built this school with serpentine rock

1:25:22 ↗ which is very accessible in California

1:25:26 ↗ in Central California and the serpentine

1:25:29 ↗ Rock when broken down had the same

1:25:31 ↗ effect as concrete and it caused a lot

1:25:35 ↗ of problem pulmonary problems for the

1:25:38 ↗ kids

1:25:39 ↗ thank you and a lot of money thank you

1:25:43 ↗ Tim Jim is there anybody else that would

1:25:57 ↗ like to make a comment tonight

1:26:04 ↗ should I go there yes

1:26:22 ↗ do you state your name yes my name is

1:26:25 ↗ Pat Martin I live at Providence point

1:26:27 ↗ for 10 years and I was on the grounds

1:26:32 ↗ committee in 2017 and 16 with Ernie wolf

1:26:36 ↗ who started off this whole thing what

1:26:38 ↗ are we gonna do with that property is it

1:26:40 ↗ gonna be houses or are we gonna have a

1:26:42 ↗ school and what are we gonna do as a

1:26:44 ↗ community how would we like Daphne was

1:26:47 ↗ on that committee John was on that

1:26:49 ↗ committee at that time and we did meet

1:26:52 ↗ with the superintendent and the Board of

1:26:54 ↗ Education and ordering he meant often

1:26:58 ↗ and I'm the name in my top talk tonight

1:27:01 ↗ as I'm disappointed I was excited as of

1:27:05 ↗ the choice I thought it would be I'm a

1:27:06 ↗ teacher of 43 years and I thought it

1:27:09 ↗ would be great to get back in the you

1:27:11 ↗ know the the superintendent said to us

1:27:14 ↗ that night we're gonna leave that we're

1:27:16 ↗ gonna have a nice buffer it's good to be

1:27:18 ↗ quiet

1:27:19 ↗ we're gonna have an elementary school

1:27:21 ↗ we're not gonna have got lights or any

1:27:23 ↗ of that stuff I've never even thought of

1:27:25 ↗ a football field I was still in my nice

1:27:28 ↗ little condo which is very close to the

1:27:30 ↗ wall and I was thinking about how I like

1:27:33 ↗ the darkness there the first time in my

1:27:35 ↗ life I was thinking that everything's

1:27:37 ↗ fine and now I can go to the new school

1:27:40 ↗ and I can volunteer and maybe I'll

1:27:42 ↗ volunteer to be the person who

1:27:44 ↗ coordinates this for our community and

1:27:46 ↗ we'll get a lot of folks over there to

1:27:48 ↗ help we're not bad people and we do like

1:27:50 ↗ children a lot and we volunteer in the

1:27:53 ↗ neighborhood in the city a lot of ways

1:27:55 ↗ that in the state and all over the place

1:27:57 ↗ and so anyway I'm just really

1:28:00 ↗ disappointed and I don't think it's

1:28:03 ↗ appropriate I think it's too much too

1:28:05 ↗ many and I don't know what we can do but

1:28:10 ↗ I think compromise we thought we were

1:28:12 ↗ compromising then and we thought we were

1:28:15 ↗ gonna have this kind of good thing I'm

1:28:19 ↗ disappointed I hope you can do something

1:28:21 ↗ about it for us thank you

1:28:25 ↗ with it would anybody else like to like

1:28:28 ↗ what anybody else like to make a comment

1:28:42 ↗ yeah if you want to make a comic um to

1:28:45 ↗ the or if you'd like to make a question

1:28:46 ↗ in view you're welcome to take three

1:28:48 ↗ minutes to speak we can't answer

1:28:49 ↗ directly but this is our time to hear

1:28:51 ↗ you but you're welcome to come to the

1:28:53 ↗ microphone with any questions concerns

1:28:55 ↗ or comments that you have for us to hear

1:28:56 ↗ oh there's somebody up there already

1:29:16 ↗ hello I'm Karen Stevens and I spoke at

1:29:19 ↗ the first meeting I'm a resident of

1:29:21 ↗ Providence Point Highland Village and my

1:29:24 ↗ question is my understanding was that

1:29:28 ↗ this projected area is about 40 acres I

1:29:33 ↗ wanted to know what are the king county

1:29:37 ↗ or state or city regulations of land

1:29:42 ↗ requirement for an elementary school and

1:29:46 ↗ for a high school and how are you going

1:29:50 ↗ to shoehorn that into thank you thank

1:29:57 ↗ you is it would anybody else like to

1:29:59 ↗ make a comment the gentleman that was up

1:30:01 ↗ there Connie you're next growing pains

1:30:10 ↗ as I'm getting hard of hearing please

1:30:13 ↗ hear me out at this hearing and while

1:30:17 ↗ I'm at it your name I'll get to the

1:30:21 ↗ muting of that but my vision isn't what

1:30:25 ↗ it used to be so with all due respects I

1:30:29 ↗ must not be the only one I'm Russ Miller

1:30:34 ↗ transplant has lived and worked in the

1:30:36 ↗ area for over three decades my wife is a

1:30:39 ↗ native who taught school for over 45

1:30:42 ↗ years starting here in this lovely place

1:30:44 ↗ the reason why my friends and neighbors

1:30:47 ↗ at Providence Point and the rest of us

1:30:50 ↗ care is just that we love Issaquah and

1:30:54 ↗ like proud parents want the best for

1:30:57 ↗ those who come after us I've seen

1:31:00 ↗ firsthand how the growth and the greater

1:31:02 ↗ Seattle area is tripled and who could

1:31:05 ↗ have seen it coming especially Issaquah

1:31:08 ↗ changes a mixed bag and now I'm not a

1:31:12 ↗ gambling man I'll bet that because of

1:31:14 ↗ the need of school hopefully singular

1:31:17 ↗ adjoining property gets built students

1:31:21 ↗ await and I know the push is on the

1:31:26 ↗ powers that be are under pressure and

1:31:28 ↗ somewhat limited by state law for how

1:31:31 ↗ things get done and I get that but my

1:31:35 ↗ fear is that you're moving too fast on

1:31:37 ↗ this project so we humbly ask that the

1:31:41 ↗ planners think outside the box and not

1:31:43 ↗ create another cookie cutter campus

1:31:47 ↗ Issaquah has so much potential the area

1:31:49 ↗ was just reported to be the richest in

1:31:51 ↗ the state it can be the model community

1:31:54 ↗ that inspires while keeping the small

1:31:56 ↗ city charm build solar built green

1:32:01 ↗ unconventional can be beautiful plant

1:32:04 ↗ more trees to replace the ones you're

1:32:05 ↗ cutting down now no one has a crystal

1:32:08 ↗ ball see technology who could have after

1:32:11 ↗ all believed the kingdom after such a

1:32:13 ↗ short lifespan be imploded or our

1:32:15 ↗ traffic congestion but we can with

1:32:19 ↗ greater insight and vision build

1:32:22 ↗ something that lasts for our grandkids

1:32:24 ↗ and their kids to be proud of it's a

1:32:26 ↗ challenge for all of us and I encourage

1:32:30 ↗ and employ our city planners to do the

1:32:32 ↗ right thing we only get one chance

1:32:35 ↗ change and growth can be beneficial for

1:32:38 ↗ our community that we cherish so dearly

1:32:40 ↗ please work with us on our requested

1:32:45 ↗ concessions traffic now traffic wow I

1:32:53 ↗ love football but can't stadiums be

1:32:58 ↗ shared thank you thank you thank you

1:33:04 ↗ honey

1:33:15 ↗ my name is Connie Mershon I don't I

1:33:18 ↗ don't live in Provence I don't my name

1:33:22 ↗ is Connie Marsh and I don't live in

1:33:23 ↗ anywhere around you all I live over on

1:33:26 ↗ squawk and I think you are amazing so

1:33:28 ↗ I'm reading the comprehensive plan again

1:33:31 ↗ because I do that for fun in my spare

1:33:33 ↗ time and I gotta say everything in the

1:33:37 ↗ comprehensive plan says not only you can

1:33:40 ↗ not have a football stadium you're

1:33:44 ↗ supposed to with a compact school share

1:33:47 ↗ facilities you are supposed to use the

1:33:50 ↗ smallest amount of land possible and it

1:33:53 ↗ continues to tell you you're supposed to

1:33:55 ↗ be building the right thing in the right

1:33:56 ↗ place so as not to impact the people

1:33:58 ↗ around you so to have the school

1:34:02 ↗ district come out with a plan that is

1:34:05 ↗ likely not even what the rules would

1:34:09 ↗ allow them to build and cause such

1:34:11 ↗ concern for everyone

1:34:14 ↗ is not new they have a habit of doing it

1:34:19 ↗ and so the city in the school district

1:34:21 ↗ to solve this problem now and in the

1:34:22 ↗ future need to figure out a way to

1:34:24 ↗ mutually read the comprehensive plan and

1:34:28 ↗ create a legitimate plan for review if

1:34:32 ↗ you are going to somehow be meshing your

1:34:34 ↗ razones

1:34:35 ↗ with new schools because this is I think

1:34:37 ↗ the third time I've been in this almost

1:34:40 ↗ identical hearing in the space of two

1:34:41 ↗ years and it has not been solved and it

1:34:45 ↗ needs to be sought that's not you all

1:34:47 ↗ I'm actually speaking to people sort of

1:34:49 ↗ above you from here now so I'm all I'm

1:34:54 ↗ all for what they're talking about but I

1:34:56 ↗ have a different topic of conversation

1:34:58 ↗ and that is the old Costco parcel rezone

1:35:00 ↗ that is mitigation yet for some reason

1:35:03 ↗ we're going to rezone it community

1:35:05 ↗ facilities facilities which means that

1:35:08 ↗ you can build buildings on it and you

1:35:10 ↗ can use it for huge utilities and it is

1:35:13 ↗ a mitigation parcel for Road impacts it

1:35:17 ↗ should be community facilities open

1:35:19 ↗ space and there has been no rationale

1:35:21 ↗ for why it would be anything different

1:35:24 ↗ than that because it's pretty

1:35:26 ↗ affected already they're making wetlands

1:35:30 ↗ out of it and as as mr. Ram bruges said

1:35:34 ↗ they don't show you what's on it and why

1:35:36 ↗ it should be what it a different zone

1:35:40 ↗ and I think that is huge information

1:35:42 ↗ that needs to be changed for the future

1:35:45 ↗ for all these reasons conversations

1:35:46 ↗ because how can anybody make an

1:35:48 ↗ intelligent decision if you can't see or

1:35:51 ↗ know what's on the land right so

1:35:54 ↗ remember that when it's the Costco

1:35:56 ↗ parcel I forget what number it is but

1:35:59 ↗ it's a mitigation parcel community

1:36:01 ↗ facilities open space not community

1:36:04 ↗ facilities facilities thank you thank

1:36:07 ↗ you we support each other yeah would

1:36:15 ↗ anybody else like to make a comment this

1:36:17 ↗ evening please come to the microphone

1:36:31 ↗ hi my name is Tina come for tea I don't

1:36:35 ↗ live in Providence points but I heard of

1:36:38 ↗ all these people

1:36:39 ↗ I have saw concerned about it this

1:36:43 ↗ project these people they work hard

1:36:46 ↗ their life for the retirement in peace

1:36:50 ↗ and tranquility how can he survive don't

1:36:53 ↗ think about it

1:36:55 ↗ what is their right and their retirement

1:36:57 ↗ I really think that mr. Ross made a very

1:37:03 ↗ good point a plan of transportation you

1:37:06 ↗ are and I think most my my comment to

1:37:11 ↗ the City Council

1:37:12 ↗ they are unsafe the issue for children

1:37:16 ↗ pedestrian we don't have we don't even

1:37:21 ↗ plan ahead

1:37:22 ↗ where are the safety on the road so

1:37:26 ↗ let's give the safety to everyone and

1:37:30 ↗ let's give them a peaceful tranquility

1:37:33 ↗ to the people they deserve after they

1:37:36 ↗ work all of their life thank you thank

1:37:40 ↗ you

1:37:44 ↗ would anybody else like to make a

1:37:46 ↗ comment would anybody else like to make

1:37:51 ↗ a comment third time would anybody like

1:37:56 ↗ to make a additional comment on any of

1:37:59 ↗ the land use rezone hearing none I'm

1:38:04 ↗ going to close the public hearing at

1:38:09 ↗ 8:07 and open it up for discussion among

1:38:13 ↗ the commissioners if you would like to

1:38:17 ↗ ask a question of anybody that spoke you

1:38:21 ↗ can call them out and ask a question if

1:38:25 ↗ you want at this point in time or you

1:38:27 ↗ can make any comments so that are there

1:38:32 ↗ any comments first of all I want to call

1:38:36 ↗ out the first 1 2 & 3 and just discuss 1

1:38:40 ↗ 2 & 3 at this point in time and look at

1:38:43 ↗ the other 5 reasons after we make a

1:38:47 ↗ decision on this one if that's okay with

1:38:49 ↗ you so we don't confuse the issues so

1:38:53 ↗ any comments that you would like to make

1:38:56 ↗ I'd like to start by asking staff that

1:38:59 ↗ they would like to respond to any of the

1:39:00 ↗ comments they heard tonight we had

1:39:04 ↗ direct questions we had direct comments

1:39:06 ↗ I want to see if there's anything that

1:39:08 ↗ staff wants to add right now

1:39:19 ↗ Baban I have two or three questions

1:39:22 ↗ actually primarily off mr. Mullen the

1:39:26 ↗ school district please come to the yes

1:39:38 ↗ and this is a question for both planning

1:39:41 ↗ and future at the first am I correct in

1:39:43 ↗ understanding that either in 2017 or 18

1:39:47 ↗ there's an agreement between the school

1:39:49 ↗ district and the city that the compact

1:39:52 ↗ school design that you'll use going

1:39:55 ↗ forward for budgetary reasons I think

1:39:58 ↗ but it was not would not be applicable

1:40:01 ↗ for the particular development under the

1:40:04 ↗ bond funding that was raised in 2060 am

1:40:08 ↗ I correct in that I'll have to say that

1:40:11 ↗ I'm brand-new to the director of capital

1:40:13 ↗ projects I don't I wasn't part of those

1:40:16 ↗ talks that they had so I would be remiss

1:40:20 ↗ and trying to answer that the reason I

1:40:24 ↗ asked him I guess can you answer that

1:40:26 ↗ question was there an agreement made

1:40:31 ↗ it's my understanding that when you all

1:40:34 ↗ went out for the bond the prices that

1:40:37 ↗ you used the estimates for the cost were

1:40:41 ↗ based on suburban schools or whatever

1:40:43 ↗ the name would be before we worked out

1:40:47 ↗ the compact school regulations that go

1:40:50 ↗ for smaller smaller site plans higher

1:40:54 ↗ more efficient use of land and because

1:40:57 ↗ they hadn't put the extra cost because

1:40:59 ↗ it's more costly to build up and more

1:41:01 ↗ efficient than it is to build out they

1:41:05 ↗ didn't have enough money in the bond to

1:41:08 ↗ be able to do all the schools in that

1:41:09 ↗ with that kind of design we tie there

1:41:14 ↗ was no commitment or the or we didn't

1:41:17 ↗ sign

1:41:18 ↗ Memorandum of Understanding anything

1:41:20 ↗ like that but in our discussions of

1:41:22 ↗ having a compact school code they

1:41:26 ↗ informed us that when they went out for

1:41:28 ↗ the bond those were not the cost

1:41:30 ↗ estimates used for the bond and so that

1:41:34 ↗ they wouldn't have probably wouldn't

1:41:35 ↗ have the funding to make all of the new

1:41:37 ↗ schools fit the compact design that we

1:41:41 ↗ worked out afterwards jump in I keep

1:41:44 ↗ sniffing do I have a reason for asking

1:41:46 ↗ that question yeah and I'm gonna

1:41:47 ↗ contradict my staff so I felt like I

1:41:49 ↗ needed to come up so if I understood

1:41:52 ↗ your question it was hi everybody

1:42:00 ↗ Keith Niven director of development

1:42:02 ↗ services so if your question was do the

1:42:08 ↗ compact standards apply to this property

1:42:10 ↗ if it's rezone re-designated to

1:42:13 ↗ community facilities facilities the

1:42:15 ↗ answer is yes and what Trish was

1:42:19 ↗ responding to was there's actually two

1:42:21 ↗ gradations of compactness what we talked

1:42:25 ↗ about was the first step was compact

1:42:27 ↗ schools and the second step was urban

1:42:29 ↗ schools and we had an urban set of

1:42:31 ↗ standards and a compact set of standards

1:42:33 ↗ that we talked about with the school

1:42:34 ↗ district and these ones they're in code

1:42:39 ↗ now would apply to this property as

1:42:42 ↗ compact or urban has compact enough okay

1:42:45 ↗ I asked it because I'm trying we were

1:42:48 ↗ charged here with trying to deliberate

1:42:50 ↗ on a rezone to a classification that

1:42:55 ↗ permits a variety of uses one of which

1:42:57 ↗ is a school okay so I read the in the

1:43:00 ↗ bond indenture I read the verbiage

1:43:04 ↗ behind the the raising of the sixty nine

1:43:07 ↗ million dollars

1:43:08 ↗ Pacifica laws used the word

1:43:10 ↗ comprehensive school

1:43:12 ↗ in our zoning there's the word school

1:43:14 ↗ and I don't understand what the word

1:43:16 ↗ school it means so and I'll try to talk

1:43:19 ↗ about philosophical lack of

1:43:20 ↗ understanding I'm talking about

1:43:21 ↗ infrastructural lack of understanding

1:43:23 ↗ well I'm trying to figure out well if

1:43:25 ↗ we're going to this is going to be

1:43:27 ↗ resumed and we're indirectly there in

1:43:29 ↗ fermenting the possibility of a school

1:43:31 ↗ or schools what does it mean to permit a

1:43:34 ↗ school does that mean football stadium

1:43:38 ↗ we're all those were those ancillary

1:43:41 ↗ uses contemplated in the 16 million

1:43:43 ↗ dollar bond fund so okay so it was

1:43:46 ↗ partly what's the definition of a school

1:43:48 ↗ what's encompassed that was why I wanted

1:43:49 ↗ to ask the representative from the

1:43:51 ↗ school district what are we talking

1:43:53 ↗ about when we talk about schools he left

1:43:56 ↗ quickly I know there's there's two parts

1:44:01 ↗ I think to your question one is what is

1:44:03 ↗ the school district plan to put on the

1:44:05 ↗ property if there is a high school in

1:44:08 ↗ elementary school there in terms of

1:44:10 ↗ buildings and facilities like stadiums

1:44:13 ↗ or not the other piece is what's in code

1:44:17 ↗ in terms of what requirements have to be

1:44:23 ↗ followed for the for the permitting of

1:44:25 ↗ its school and the compact standards

1:44:29 ↗ envisioned a smaller footprint for the

1:44:32 ↗ school there's there's been a lot of

1:44:34 ↗ concern raised by the community about

1:44:37 ↗ the initial land plan that the school

1:44:40 ↗ district has developed for the property

1:44:42 ↗ staff have not okayed that concept

1:44:46 ↗ there's there's tree retention there's a

1:44:50 ↗ minimum floor area ratio that needs to

1:44:53 ↗ be accomplished on the property and so

1:44:56 ↗ there's a number of things that we will

1:44:58 ↗ be doing when we actually get a formal

1:45:01 ↗ permit application in in discussing that

1:45:04 ↗ with the school district to make sure

1:45:06 ↗ that it meets the code requirements from

1:45:09 ↗ a city standpoint from a school district

1:45:12 ↗ standpoint what they plan to actually

1:45:13 ↗ include on the property I'm gonna let

1:45:15 ↗ mr. Mullins respond to that thank you

1:45:20 ↗ and by the way I know we're not supposed

1:45:22 ↗ we are not supposed to consider

1:45:24 ↗ the actual nature development I'm just

1:45:26 ↗ trying to understand when you use the

1:45:28 ↗ words school and it was in the budget

1:45:30 ↗ and in the funding what it's adding to

1:45:33 ↗ the football stadium for example well in

1:45:36 ↗ tennis courts exaggerated cetera in the

1:45:38 ↗ 2016 bond we had multiple schools that

1:45:41 ↗ were approved for new to elementary one

1:45:45 ↗ middle and one high there were some

1:45:48 ↗ other rebuilds and different yep and

1:45:52 ↗ high school the three high schools we

1:45:55 ↗ have in the district have football

1:45:56 ↗ fields tennis courts parking lots and

1:46:00 ↗ such so that was I think always the plan

1:46:06 ↗ in our mind a comprehensive high school

1:46:08 ↗ included all of those we have an equity

1:46:12 ↗ that goes throughout the district school

1:46:15 ↗ to school whether it be playgrounds and

1:46:17 ↗ things like that in Elementary's

1:46:20 ↗ multi-purpose rooms gymnasiums these

1:46:23 ↗ kind of things and trying to keep all of

1:46:25 ↗ the school's north-to-south

1:46:27 ↗ equitable so in searching for the over

1:46:30 ↗ the years for sites and you've done an

1:46:32 ↗ exhaustive search the assumption duck

1:46:34 ↗ the criteria for the sites that you have

1:46:37 ↗ looked at and accepted or rejected all

1:46:40 ↗ contemplated being large enough and

1:46:43 ↗ owned appropriately to accommodate

1:46:46 ↗ school football stadiums etc etc is that

1:46:50 ↗ right we would we would hope that they

1:46:53 ↗ would be zoned appropriately enough to

1:46:55 ↗ be able to do that there aren't large

1:46:58 ↗ tracts of community facilities

1:46:59 ↗ properties out there that would already

1:47:02 ↗ be zoned community facility and be able

1:47:04 ↗ to accommodate a high school do you know

1:47:07 ↗ what I'm saying I mean the zoning now as

1:47:09 ↗ I understand it would allow an

1:47:11 ↗ elementary and a middle school but

1:47:14 ↗ wouldn't allow a high school that's my

1:47:19 ↗ understanding so henceforth we are

1:47:21 ↗ bought property under the assumption

1:47:24 ↗ that we would not under the assumption

1:47:26 ↗ but the hope that we would be able to

1:47:28 ↗ rezone too so if you saw our site for

1:47:31 ↗ example that was just large enough to

1:47:33 ↗ the structure of a school I'm talking

1:47:36 ↗ about the educational part of a that

1:47:38 ↗ academic party with maybe some

1:47:40 ↗ administrative offices perhaps he was

1:47:41 ↗ two or three acres for example you would

1:47:43 ↗ and you could share you could perhaps

1:47:45 ↗ share with some other school a football

1:47:47 ↗ stadium which is part of actually of the

1:47:49 ↗ the group commander that aspirations

1:47:51 ↗ would you eliminate that site because

1:47:53 ↗ it's not large enough yes okay thank you

1:47:57 ↗ very much

1:47:57 ↗ no that's going forward just as a

1:48:00 ↗ individual given the importance of

1:48:02 ↗ education in this city we have no land

1:48:06 ↗ for the comments coming out from you and

1:48:09 ↗ from your lawyer going forward and

1:48:11 ↗ whatever happens here with this these to

1:48:13 ↗ these schools and yours down the road

1:48:16 ↗ we're gonna have the same issue what's

1:48:18 ↗ the plan if there's no land what's the

1:48:22 ↗ plan I I would like to be able to

1:48:26 ↗ predict the future and know what that

1:48:27 ↗ plan would be but we're dealing with the

1:48:30 ↗ commitment we made and the voters of

1:48:32 ↗ Issaquah voted in for a comprehensive

1:48:34 ↗ high school and that way and elementary

1:48:37 ↗ to Elementary's in the middle and we

1:48:40 ↗ have certain amenities that we were

1:48:42 ↗ hoping to be able to do for these

1:48:44 ↗ properties would we buy a piece of

1:48:47 ↗ property that could only handle just the

1:48:49 ↗ physical building no parking no nothing

1:48:52 ↗ like that and everybody would be bused

1:48:55 ↗ to the site probably not you know who's

1:48:59 ↗ to say then how many parking spots you

1:49:02 ↗ need and would we have even a basketball

1:49:04 ↗ court or would all the kids just stay

1:49:06 ↗ inside and you know your your deal about

1:49:11 ↗ putting just a box on a site that's an I

1:49:14 ↗ I don't kind of understand where your

1:49:18 ↗ question is going that's fine yeah no I

1:49:21 ↗ appreciate your answer yeah thank you

1:49:23 ↗ very much a few patients with your

1:49:27 ↗ permission I think I follow-up but it's

1:49:29 ↗ only with your permission

1:49:35 ↗ if you have another question that you

1:49:38 ↗ want to add if we want to ask any of you

1:49:41 ↗ a question we have a right to ask the

1:49:44 ↗ question I think it the question was

1:49:47 ↗ Robin's and he specifically asked for

1:49:50 ↗ the school district to answer the

1:49:52 ↗ question is it okay if I do a follow-up

1:49:57 ↗ to answer directly with your with regard

1:49:59 ↗ to what is the plan in the future for

1:50:01 ↗ purposes of finding school sites when

1:50:03 ↗ there's no land available the the plan

1:50:06 ↗ is is to work with the city as directed

1:50:09 ↗ in the comprehensive plan to work

1:50:10 ↗ together to provide for the public

1:50:13 ↗ infrastructure this being the schools to

1:50:16 ↗ support the growth that the city is

1:50:18 ↗ permitting and that plan in in this case

1:50:21 ↗ has been laid out in the comprehensive

1:50:23 ↗ plan and through the city code with

1:50:25 ↗ those compact school siting mechanisms

1:50:27 ↗ and that is why you're seeing two

1:50:29 ↗ schools proposed here on what normally

1:50:32 ↗ the state code would require forty acres

1:50:34 ↗ for one high school site the district is

1:50:36 ↗ shrinking that down consistent with the

1:50:38 ↗ compact schools you yeah I want to

1:50:47 ↗ clarify something that I think is not

1:50:49 ↗ common knowledge right now the only

1:50:51 ↗ thing that would drastically change

1:50:53 ↗ right now is the permitting of a high

1:50:55 ↗ school currently an elementary school

1:50:57 ↗ and a middle school are able to be built

1:51:00 ↗ on site under the current code can you

1:51:03 ↗ verify that that's correct trash correct

1:51:04 ↗ right so the big change that right now

1:51:08 ↗ the school district is asking is in my

1:51:11 ↗ mind really was exacerbated by

1:51:16 ↗ announcing a site plan that right now

1:51:18 ↗ the school district isn't standing by

1:51:20 ↗ the city isn't standing by and

1:51:22 ↗ everybody's been very upset with the

1:51:24 ↗ projected site plan that it's completely

1:51:27 ↗ hypothetical and nobody is willing to

1:51:29 ↗ stand by right now I'd like to say for

1:51:31 ↗ the record that I hope the school

1:51:32 ↗ district can learn from this and see

1:51:34 ↗ that this is not the way to engage with

1:51:36 ↗ communities and this is not the way to

1:51:38 ↗ try to draw up support in a community

1:51:40 ↗ that wants to support schools and wants

1:51:42 ↗ to support children and the way that

1:51:44 ↗ this came

1:51:45 ↗ about did not come about very well and

1:51:47 ↗ for the record I think that it's

1:51:49 ↗ important to recognize that how we build

1:51:51 ↗ schools starts with how we build them

1:51:53 ↗ with our neighbors and that did not

1:51:55 ↗ happen here

1:51:57 ↗ [Applause]

1:52:06 ↗ so quick question for city what are the

1:52:09 ↗ current and forcible setbacks for any

1:52:12 ↗ new school or high school on this land

1:52:16 ↗ I'd have to go to my powerpoint slide

1:52:19 ↗ it's

1:52:43 ↗ I can't read it from heaven side and

1:52:46 ↗ rear that backs right side under your

1:52:48 ↗ setbacks are seven feet and believe

1:52:50 ↗ there's a footnote that says if it's

1:52:52 ↗ next to a residential area it takes that

1:52:54 ↗ setback it does it says if the adjacent

1:52:57 ↗ uses single-family then the side and/or

1:53:00 ↗ rear yard setbacks is the same as the

1:53:02 ↗ contiguous zoning and I did that would

1:53:06 ↗ be whatever the zoning is the setbacks

1:53:07 ↗ are for single-family small lot and then

1:53:12 ↗ the built in line for the front is 20

1:53:13 ↗ feet 0 to 12 0 to 20 feet so if the

1:53:20 ↗ school district comes in with a plan and

1:53:23 ↗ follows those guidelines as a city throw

1:53:27 ↗ up their hands and say that's what the

1:53:29 ↗ guidelines are and we have to approve it

1:53:31 ↗ they don't believe so but I would ask

1:53:33 ↗ Keith to come up because he does more

1:53:35 ↗ current planning than I have ever done

1:53:42 ↗ so these are minimum standards and a lot

1:53:47 ↗ of there's it's it's like putting

1:53:50 ↗ together a puzzle when you do a site

1:53:53 ↗ plan review you have to make sure that

1:53:55 ↗ you meet all the standards there's also

1:53:56 ↗ things that are not on here like tree

1:53:59 ↗ retention there's a wetland on the side

1:54:02 ↗ which is gonna and which has its buffers

1:54:05 ↗ that's gonna need to be you know kept

1:54:07 ↗ out of and so as you as we review what

1:54:11 ↗ they include on the plan you then weigh

1:54:14 ↗ it against the code requirements you

1:54:17 ↗ also then incorporate public comments to

1:54:21 ↗ the best ability that you can and then

1:54:24 ↗ that ultimately goes to the Development

1:54:27 ↗ Commission where there's a hearing will

1:54:29 ↗ be another opportunity for the community

1:54:31 ↗ to participate in that

1:54:34 ↗ there's also before we even get to

1:54:36 ↗ before staff even really starts doing a

1:54:39 ↗ review on the plan we have a community

1:54:41 ↗ conference so there'll be an opportunity

1:54:42 ↗ for the community to talk to the school

1:54:45 ↗ district and the school district to

1:54:46 ↗ hopefully incorporate and think about

1:54:49 ↗ the comments they're getting a lot of

1:54:51 ↗ comments tonight but there will be more

1:54:53 ↗ specific comments when there's actually

1:54:55 ↗ a plan that we can

1:54:56 ↗ I'll stand around and look at it so to

1:54:59 ↗ answer your question could they do the

1:55:01 ↗ minimum they could do the minimum at the

1:55:04 ↗ end of the day it's usually some

1:55:08 ↗ combination of minimum plus other stuff

1:55:11 ↗ as it fits on the site and this is not

1:55:14 ↗ all of the standards that are going to

1:55:16 ↗ apply to that site this is just kind of

1:55:18 ↗ the density provisions from the code but

1:55:23 ↗ so it's more complicated I guess yes

1:55:26 ↗ than just this what in essence if all of

1:55:31 ↗ the other the wetlands are over on the

1:55:33 ↗ other side of the property or whatever

1:55:35 ↗ they could come in with seven feet and

1:55:39 ↗ you have no recourse but to approve it

1:55:44 ↗ based on what is written on this if

1:55:48 ↗ there are no mitigating circumstances

1:55:50 ↗ like these have to be 8 feet or whatever

1:55:56 ↗ it is basically if there is nothing else

1:55:59 ↗ set that comes in there you as a city

1:56:02 ↗ will have to approve it we have to prove

1:56:06 ↗ it as long as it's meeting code which is

1:56:08 ↗ yep and the current code means they

1:56:11 ↗ wouldn't be forced necessarily to add a

1:56:13 ↗ buffer of any kind other than 7 feet

1:56:15 ↗ right so so part of part of this process

1:56:22 ↗ can include I don't know I haven't been

1:56:26 ↗ to all these meetings so my apologies

1:56:28 ↗ but you guys can actually place

1:56:31 ↗ conditions on your recommendation for

1:56:34 ↗ this particular piece of the comp plan

1:56:37 ↗ docket so even if it's not specific even

1:56:40 ↗ if it was that you want to give

1:56:42 ↗ direction to the City Council to

1:56:44 ↗ consider a vegetated buffer or something

1:56:48 ↗ along the perimeter with Providence

1:56:50 ↗ point you could do that that's within

1:56:52 ↗ your ability to do so as you think about

1:56:55 ↗ your choices I want to make sure you

1:56:57 ↗ understand there's kind of no edges to

1:57:00 ↗ how you recommend this move forward to

1:57:02 ↗ the City Council eating your experience

1:57:05 ↗ when schools are being built does he is

1:57:07 ↗ across school district generally asked

1:57:09 ↗ temp shion's on a site plan so the

1:57:14 ↗ answer historically was yes which is one

1:57:17 ↗ of the reasons why we change the code

1:57:19 ↗ for the compact schools because it was

1:57:23 ↗ more in line with what they were asking

1:57:25 ↗ for so besides the fact that we were

1:57:28 ↗ recognizing that the footprints needed

1:57:30 ↗ to shrink because there just was not

1:57:32 ↗ available land at the historic sizes

1:57:35 ↗ that they were requiring for their

1:57:38 ↗ facilities it was also like for example

1:57:40 ↗ you know their schools were taller than

1:57:42 ↗ what the code would allow so they'd

1:57:44 ↗ asked for a deviation standards for that

1:57:46 ↗ and so what we did with these updated

1:57:49 ↗ standards was the expectation is is they

1:57:52 ↗ should be able to meet all of these

1:57:54 ↗ standards at a minimum so if tonight we

1:57:57 ↗ make a recommendation that the gloss

1:57:59 ↗ school district doesn't find favorable

1:58:01 ↗ to them while we make a written

1:58:03 ↗ recommendation to Council they can also

1:58:05 ↗ go to Council and make their own

1:58:06 ↗ recommendation and supersede whatever we

1:58:09 ↗ decide here tonight is that correct

1:58:11 ↗ who was who's they what school district

1:58:13 ↗ so the school district has the

1:58:15 ↗ opportunity to participate in the public

1:58:17 ↗ process as well so they can they can

1:58:20 ↗ so the rezone Andry designation of the

1:58:25 ↗ property to cff is a legislative process

1:58:29 ↗ through the City Council as the

1:58:31 ↗ decision-maker

1:58:32 ↗ and so as a legislative process the

1:58:35 ↗ council members can talk to members of

1:58:38 ↗ the community both Providence point and

1:58:40 ↗ people that are supportive of this

1:58:42 ↗ school districts proposal and so they

1:58:44 ↗ can get that information and have

1:58:47 ↗ conversations as part of a legislative

1:58:49 ↗ process a quick question on the bond did

1:58:56 ↗ we were designed plans or standards part

1:58:59 ↗ of like specific language part of the

1:59:01 ↗ bond so did the bond say hey we want the

1:59:04 ↗ money to build a high school and it

1:59:05 ↗ comes with a full stadium it comes with

1:59:08 ↗ or was it generic I'm gonna defer to

1:59:12 ↗ someone who knows the bond my question

1:59:15 ↗ I would have to look into the bond exact

1:59:20 ↗ language the bond the line-item that

1:59:24 ↗ I've been looking at says fourth

1:59:27 ↗ comprehensive high school there's a lot

1:59:29 ↗ more backup in during the bond committee

1:59:31 ↗ discussions and what more specifics and

1:59:34 ↗ I would have to get that information and

1:59:37 ↗ get it Tia is right now we're not sure

1:59:40 ↗ if if you say hey I found land but I

1:59:43 ↗ can't build a stadium you don't know if

1:59:45 ↗ that would apply to the bond or not we

1:59:50 ↗ if we stated in the bond that we did it

1:59:54 ↗ listed a stadium we would have purchased

1:59:57 ↗ land that would be able to sustain a

2:00:00 ↗ stadium but I don't know that we it

2:00:03 ↗ listed specifically in the bond language

2:00:08 ↗ did not did not I also have some

2:00:11 ↗ question mr. Mullin yeah as far as being

2:00:17 ↗ able to build a middle school in an

2:00:18 ↗ elementary school wouldn't one of those

2:00:20 ↗ facilities also require a football /

2:00:23 ↗ soccer track field as well yes yeah

2:00:28 ↗ there and she's right taking comments

2:00:32 ↗ from her they're more there a field they

2:00:34 ↗ have the lights they have in but they're

2:00:36 ↗ not a stadium they don't have the

2:00:39 ↗ seating Pine Lake middle school is a

2:00:41 ↗ good example anything else ask question

2:00:49 ↗ of you Trisha

2:00:51 ↗ Kristin I'm looking at page talks about

2:00:55 ↗ land use policy g6 and g7 okay I can

2:00:58 ↗ give you the page numbers but and back

2:01:01 ↗ to this idea the compact school design

2:01:03 ↗ which I believe is applicable here 74 of

2:01:06 ↗ 213 yeah thank you thank you

2:01:08 ↗ it says the least amount of land for

2:01:10 ↗ development and supporting

2:01:11 ↗ infrastructure that is reasonable as the

2:01:13 ↗ circumstances

2:01:14 ↗ using nearby public parks and

2:01:16 ↗ recreational facilities when available

2:01:19 ↗ in minimizing use of modular units and

2:01:21 ↗ the next one

2:01:23 ↗ when appropriate to provide shared use

2:01:25 ↗ of facilities on and off recreational

2:01:28 ↗ facilities so my reason to bring it up

2:01:30 ↗ is back to this the issue around what is

2:01:34 ↗ a school and does do all the facilities

2:01:36 ↗ that are defined under the word school

2:01:39 ↗ have to be on the same site and I'm

2:01:41 ↗ going around in this but it looks to me

2:01:44 ↗ is that this is are these are our own

2:01:46 ↗ land use policies and I should be

2:01:48 ↗ forcing at least forcing or encouraging

2:01:50 ↗ the use of shared facilities like

2:01:52 ↗ football stadiums and I think somewhere

2:01:54 ↗ else where we can and policy that you

2:02:00 ↗ read is the policy that underpins the

2:02:03 ↗ actual code language that talks about

2:02:06 ↗ smaller sites taller buildings but the

2:02:09 ↗ policy itself can't force that to happen

2:02:13 ↗ but it tells the city's intent of what

2:02:16 ↗ compact school is and that we believe

2:02:18 ↗ that shared facilities are okay it comes

2:02:21 ↗ into the negotiation when they have a

2:02:24 ↗ site plan which is why I asked you

2:02:25 ↗ initially about the compact versus non

2:02:28 ↗ compact design criteria where I thought

2:02:31 ↗ there was an agreement with the city but

2:02:33 ↗ the parent is not so the sharing I just

2:02:35 ↗ want to add the sharing is not it is not

2:02:40 ↗ sorry it's late and it's been a long day

2:02:42 ↗ manat only mean that they could share

2:02:46 ↗ like a stadium between two schools it's

2:02:49 ↗ also intended to envision that that

2:02:52 ↗ those if they build facilities like a

2:02:56 ↗ football stadium or a soccer field that

2:03:00 ↗ that could be a shared facility with

2:03:02 ↗ City Parks Department so rather than us

2:03:05 ↗ having to build a park nearby they would

2:03:07 ↗ have also a soccer field on it that we

2:03:10 ↗ would have a relationship with the

2:03:12 ↗ school district where we can make use of

2:03:14 ↗ facilities that they would provide on

2:03:16 ↗ their property and we do that already in

2:03:19 ↗ other places in the city so that shared

2:03:21 ↗ terminology that's not necessarily

2:03:23 ↗ inclusive only of school to school

2:03:25 ↗ it could be schooled to City thank you

2:03:32 ↗ if for some reason we approved this

2:03:37 ↗ rezone and the school district was not

2:03:41 ↗ able because of sefa environmental and

2:03:46 ↗ all the other issues were not able to

2:03:47 ↗ build on that would it automatically go

2:03:52 ↗ back to what it is or would we have to

2:03:56 ↗ come through and go through this again

2:03:57 ↗ and have entry's owned I would say if

2:03:59 ↗ the school district had to sell it

2:04:01 ↗ because it school didn't work we would

2:04:03 ↗ rezone it when it you know like if a

2:04:05 ↗ developer of single-family bought it we

2:04:09 ↗ would have to take it out of community

2:04:10 ↗ facilities to make it not publicly owned

2:04:14 ↗ for public use what if somebody came in

2:04:16 ↗ there and wanted to build something else

2:04:19 ↗ that was legal under they'd have to be a

2:04:22 ↗ private a public entity even if the King

2:04:25 ↗ County came in to build a courthouse

2:04:27 ↗ yeah we would entertain whatever project

2:04:32 ↗ application they had as long as it fit

2:04:35 ↗ in with the listing and the code

2:04:38 ↗ provisions I know I struggled with this

2:04:45 ↗ we've spent a lot of time on it I'm sure

2:04:49 ↗ my fellow commissioners have spent as

2:04:51 ↗ much time as I had reading through these

2:04:52 ↗ documents and looking at this I find

2:04:55 ↗ right now that we need schools

2:04:58 ↗ desperately and our community has a

2:05:02 ↗ unique opportunity with this parcel and

2:05:04 ↗ what I hope to achieve right now is that

2:05:07 ↗ we are able to have a compromise where

2:05:09 ↗ we are able to both find a way not only

2:05:14 ↗ for the existing community that is

2:05:16 ↗ around these parcels but also for the

2:05:18 ↗ future of the parcel I think what that

2:05:20 ↗ really means is saying that we hope that

2:05:24 ↗ a school does come on to this site I

2:05:27 ↗ don't know right now the two schools or

2:05:29 ↗ that one of those schools being a what's

2:05:32 ↗ our word a comprehensive high school is

2:05:34 ↗ the best use of this property

2:05:36 ↗ considering a lot of the uses that are

2:05:40 ↗ currently happening

2:05:41 ↗ now we talk about neighbors like

2:05:43 ↗ Providence point but we also have

2:05:44 ↗ neighbors like wildlife and the stream

2:05:47 ↗ that need to be considered and right now

2:05:49 ↗ designating all three parcels as

2:05:51 ↗ community facilities allows something

2:05:54 ↗ that I'm not comfortable with at this at

2:05:57 ↗ this level but what I want to do is

2:06:00 ↗ encourage this parcel be used as the

2:06:04 ↗ school district intended for a school I

2:06:06 ↗ can't say right now to a specific site

2:06:08 ↗ plan but I can say that allowing all

2:06:12 ↗ three parcels to have complete near

2:06:16 ↗ complete and pervy you know impervious

2:06:17 ↗ services put on is not in the best

2:06:19 ↗ health of the parcels and in the

2:06:21 ↗ community so I would I

2:06:24 ↗ I put forward two meetings ago that we

2:06:27 ↗ consider something else with these three

2:06:29 ↗ parcels to my fellow commissioners and I

2:06:31 ↗ would be interested to see if anyone has

2:06:33 ↗ a discussion about that right now

2:06:35 ↗ or if I'm or if I'm alone and right now

2:06:38 ↗ there is a consensus to go ahead and

2:06:40 ↗ move forward with the current proposal

2:06:42 ↗ by the city first sites one two and

2:06:44 ↗ three I kind of a in a kind of agreement

2:06:47 ↗ in the same way that I felt like there

2:06:49 ↗ is a quad school district could have

2:06:50 ↗ done a better job putting out this

2:06:52 ↗ conceptual idea unfortunately it sounds

2:06:55 ↗ like it caused a lot of confusion and

2:06:57 ↗ sound like there were some people in

2:06:58 ↗ this audience who were willing put the

2:07:01 ↗ very least hear proposals for possibly

2:07:06 ↗ an elementary school but it seems like

2:07:07 ↗ the school district might have got

2:07:09 ↗ themselves too far fell in front of

2:07:12 ↗ themselves so ultimately I agree with my

2:07:15 ↗ commissioner on the left that I this

2:07:18 ↗ particular parcels are going to be

2:07:21 ↗ developed whether it's small Lots

2:07:22 ↗ whether it's a school I prefer to see

2:07:25 ↗ schools there is going to be traffic

2:07:27 ↗ there is going to be clearing of land

2:07:29 ↗ there is going to be construction

2:07:31 ↗ however I also heard what the community

2:07:34 ↗ had to say tonight and putting a high

2:07:37 ↗ school a comprehensive high school a

2:07:39 ↗ compact high school with an elementary

2:07:41 ↗ seems excessive

2:07:42 ↗ and also it doesn't seem like there was

2:07:45 ↗ a lot of you know involvement with

2:07:49 ↗ Providence point which is a shame but I

2:07:52 ↗ would agree I think this

2:07:54 ↗ these parcels would serve a school

2:07:57 ↗ district far more than they will another

2:08:00 ↗ plot of small homes oh yes I I would

2:08:04 ↗ agree with that how we move forward if

2:08:08 ↗ we're willing to make conditions on

2:08:11 ↗ parcel three I mean again it's it's hard

2:08:14 ↗ to say without seeing some type of

2:08:16 ↗ conception from the school district

2:08:18 ↗ other than just boundary lines would you

2:08:23 ↗ like to see a new design before you make

2:08:29 ↗ a decision it's hard because it is a

2:08:32 ↗ narrow focus that we're being asked to

2:08:34 ↗ do tonight which is simply the up zone

2:08:35 ↗ and I understand that the school

2:08:36 ↗ district isn't going to spend all of

2:08:40 ↗ this money but I suppose something is

2:08:43 ↗ better than what's going on right now

2:08:44 ↗ which is a lot of confusion amongst the

2:08:46 ↗ community and again I'll state it there

2:08:48 ↗ seem to be some support from the

2:08:49 ↗ community to have a school there I just

2:08:52 ↗ think that they're pretty fearful and

2:08:54 ↗ rightfully so I mean I'm pretty familiar

2:08:56 ↗ with Bellwood in Providence Point and

2:08:59 ↗ you have another plat that I think just

2:09:00 ↗ wanting across the street of about 30

2:09:02 ↗ small homes so again I think it's not

2:09:06 ↗ the building that I think the the

2:09:08 ↗ citizens are concerned with it's the

2:09:11 ↗ amount that they're trying to squeeze

2:09:12 ↗ into these two parcels and not really

2:09:14 ↗ having an idea of what the Issaquah

2:09:17 ↗ school district is planning to do in our

2:09:20 ↗ role really is a recommendation to

2:09:22 ↗ Council and I can't in good faith

2:09:26 ↗ believe that the school district isn't

2:09:28 ↗ going to make a bid regardless of what

2:09:31 ↗ we do tonight that is going to be

2:09:33 ↗ largely out of our control so the best

2:09:35 ↗ that I can do is to say from where I sit

2:09:37 ↗ what I think the best thing is for our

2:09:39 ↗ community as we grow I think that it's

2:09:42 ↗ important to have a school on this site

2:09:45 ↗ and I don't believe right now that it is

2:09:49 ↗ important to rezone this to allow for a

2:09:52 ↗ comprehensive high school and right now

2:09:55 ↗ this site allows us to put schools on it

2:09:58 ↗ so I had proposed that right now we put

2:10:02 ↗ parcel three as

2:10:05 ↗ as not as a community facilities and

2:10:07 ↗ instead that we put it as community

2:10:08 ↗ facilities open space my recommendation

2:10:11 ↗ for that is to require a large buffer

2:10:13 ↗ not a small buffer but a huge tract of

2:10:16 ↗ land that will allow there to still be

2:10:20 ↗ some of the unique characteristics that

2:10:21 ↗ exist on the property I think this then

2:10:24 ↗ still allows the bulk of the acreage of

2:10:27 ↗ both parcel two of 28.8 six acres and

2:10:31 ↗ parcel one of being 5.8 acres to be

2:10:35 ↗ allowed for the school to use for what

2:10:38 ↗ they think is going to be able to best

2:10:39 ↗ serve the community and that's where I

2:10:41 ↗ defer to the school district for them to

2:10:42 ↗ be able to say this is what the

2:10:44 ↗ community needs and we're going to

2:10:46 ↗ provide that I can't speak to a site

2:10:48 ↗ plan and I don't need to see a site plan

2:10:49 ↗ because that's not really what we're

2:10:51 ↗ here to do right now but I absolutely

2:10:53 ↗ want to convey to Council that right now

2:10:56 ↗ the way that the parcels are situated

2:10:58 ↗ that parcel 3 really should not be built

2:11:00 ↗ on and parcel 3 should be used as the

2:11:03 ↗ buffer zone and without with parcel 3

2:11:05 ↗ that means that allowing the school

2:11:07 ↗ district to build to the minimum setback

2:11:09 ↗ of 7 feet will still allow there to be a

2:11:12 ↗ diversity within this parcel that

2:11:13 ↗ currently exists it's that emotion than

2:11:18 ↗ joy right now I'm trying to see if

2:11:20 ↗ there's any backing right now or if I am

2:11:21 ↗ alone in having this designation I'd

2:11:24 ↗ like to suggest that this and this

2:11:27 ↗ partially three parcels will be taking

2:11:29 ↗ entirely out of this package I think the

2:11:33 ↗ process of asking us to deliberate on a

2:11:37 ↗ rezoning from one use which has a public

2:11:41 ↗ benefit I mean we might not all want to

2:11:43 ↗ see more houses but they're an unneeded

2:11:45 ↗ a necessity in this city and I can see

2:11:48 ↗ an argument for some public benefit

2:11:50 ↗ moving from one public benefit to

2:11:52 ↗ something else I'm not sure it's an up

2:11:53 ↗ though nor just a rezone and so I'm

2:11:55 ↗ sorry I think the process of trying to

2:11:58 ↗ rezone this without going through the

2:12:00 ↗ steps and and addressing the issues and

2:12:03 ↗ concerns that various experts have put

2:12:05 ↗ forward as well as as as all the

2:12:07 ↗ audience eliminates a critical step so

2:12:11 ↗ I'd like to suggest that we take all

2:12:13 ↗ three sites other this

2:12:15 ↗ and recommend to council that this site

2:12:18 ↗ to rezone to a a designation which

2:12:22 ↗ permits schools or schools and let us

2:12:25 ↗ say that the school district come

2:12:28 ↗ forward with their plans and make that

2:12:30 ↗ rezoning contingent on a full approval

2:12:33 ↗ of the of their plans or not yeah so I'd

2:12:38 ↗ go one step further I just think this

2:12:39 ↗ whole process is inappropriate for this

2:12:42 ↗ critical path site

2:12:44 ↗ I suppose I'm more in agreement with my

2:12:48 ↗ commissioner to the left that again I

2:12:50 ↗ would like to see this lot used to be

2:12:52 ↗ actually build a school however evidence

2:12:57 ↗ points a unique community in Issaquah

2:12:59 ↗ and I understand that and I also

2:13:01 ↗ understand that just down the road as

2:13:02 ↗ Bellwood and just beyond that a medical

2:13:04 ↗ facility it is unique and I also

2:13:07 ↗ understand that the school districts

2:13:08 ↗ concerns the school district is having a

2:13:11 ↗ hard time to find places to teach our

2:13:13 ↗ young people so I'm more in agreement

2:13:16 ↗ that we keep arsal basically facilities

2:13:24 ↗ open they keep that as a buffer for the

2:13:27 ↗ city to work with a unique piece of

2:13:29 ↗ property that is Providence Point

2:13:30 ↗ community but leaving two and three with

2:13:34 ↗ the ability to I don't even think it's

2:13:36 ↗ necessary we do anything because it

2:13:38 ↗ sounds like they can already build an

2:13:39 ↗ elementary or a middle school on those

2:13:41 ↗ two well correct me if I'm wrong if we

2:13:43 ↗ redesign it to community facilities

2:13:45 ↗ recreation instead of facilities C F F F

2:13:49 ↗ instead of and we did recreation that

2:13:51 ↗ would allow still the current code of an

2:13:54 ↗ elementary and a middle school however

2:13:56 ↗ it wouldn't allow the middle the high

2:13:58 ↗ school no the only thing that would

2:13:59 ↗ allow schools would be facilities

2:14:01 ↗ community facilities facilities so I'm

2:14:03 ↗ okay with doing that with two-in-one no

2:14:08 ↗ great couldn't put a great school and

2:14:10 ↗ recreation Wow great school and single

2:14:13 ↗ family and single family don't change

2:14:16 ↗ anything you can get two schools in

2:14:18 ↗ there and that's again that's another

2:14:20 ↗ question more for the school district I

2:14:22 ↗ mean to my mind it seems more reasonable

2:14:24 ↗ to have a middle school in an elementary

2:14:25 ↗ school together not a high school

2:14:28 ↗ the high school also has you know

2:14:29 ↗ stadium requirements that the middle

2:14:31 ↗ school wouldn't so again I'm in favor of

2:14:34 ↗ one and two being community facilities

2:14:39 ↗ number three being open so before I make

2:14:43 ↗ a motion I do want to say that we really

2:14:46 ↗ appreciate your involvement this is why

2:14:48 ↗ we have meetings this is why we

2:14:50 ↗ volunteer and this is why the city is

2:14:52 ↗ structured like this is to allow for

2:14:54 ↗ this kind of involvement so as this

2:14:56 ↗ project moves forward please make your

2:14:58 ↗ voices heard please continue to raise

2:15:00 ↗ your concerns and continue to be open to

2:15:03 ↗ work and compromise with a school

2:15:04 ↗ district because we know that change is

2:15:07 ↗ hard and is a quasi growing and we want

2:15:09 ↗ to do that in the right way that's good

2:15:10 ↗ for all members of our community as best

2:15:13 ↗ as we can and so we want to encourage

2:15:15 ↗ you to continue to be involved in this

2:15:18 ↗ project you have every right as a

2:15:20 ↗ neighbor to be proud of what's coming in

2:15:22 ↗ next to you and not resent it and so we

2:15:25 ↗ really hope that moving forward you guys

2:15:27 ↗ continue to be involved we want to thank

2:15:29 ↗ you for your voices being heard and we

2:15:32 ↗ want to say that we know that this

2:15:34 ↗ process can feel arduous but that we do

2:15:37 ↗ hear you Louis so with that being said

2:15:42 ↗ on parcels 1 2 & 3 I would like to make

2:15:44 ↗ a motion to council that we designate

2:15:48 ↗ parcel number 3 as community facilities

2:15:51 ↗ open space and we keep the current

2:15:54 ↗ designation of single-family lot on

2:15:57 ↗ parcels 1 & 2 I'd second it there any

2:16:03 ↗ discussion yeah yeah I just think again

2:16:09 ↗ we're the lawyer parcel number 3 impacts

2:16:13 ↗ only one part of the province point okay

2:16:15 ↗ we're still left no it borders all all

2:16:18 ↗ of the buildings

2:16:19 ↗ that's the part it's our importer

2:16:21 ↗ survived of the buildings right now but

2:16:23 ↗ not all of them and we are effectively

2:16:25 ↗ we are trying to make a site plan layout

2:16:29 ↗ through the back door here and I think

2:16:32 ↗ that that's not we're here to do that

2:16:36 ↗ amendment does not address all the

2:16:37 ↗ transportation environmental and other

2:16:39 ↗ issues that have been so so simply put

2:16:42 ↗ forward tonight so I just supposed to be

2:16:44 ↗ addressed in the subsequent project I

2:16:46 ↗ know what we're trying to do something

2:16:48 ↗ here we're trying to accommodate we're

2:16:50 ↗ trying to make some sort of motion

2:16:53 ↗ apparently addresses some of these

2:16:56 ↗ issues and I'm suggesting that number

2:16:59 ↗ three alone does nothing for most of

2:17:02 ↗ these issues including it does nothing

2:17:04 ↗ for the buildings that are directly

2:17:06 ↗ adjacent to two and one sure and there's

2:17:09 ↗ a motion on the floor that's one second

2:17:13 ↗ and we need to vote on it all those in

2:17:19 ↗ favor say aye aye opposed well the

2:17:25 ↗ motion carries because it's three

2:17:27 ↗ against two

2:17:32 ↗ motion carries

2:17:36 ↗ well it's it's complicated and do I

2:17:42 ↗ explain what you just said okay so right

2:17:44 ↗ now the city proposed for the Watts 1 2

2:17:48 ↗ & 3 to be designated community

2:17:50 ↗ facilities facilities C F F currently

2:17:54 ↗ there's single family small lot that's

2:17:57 ↗ what it currently is what we just voted

2:17:59 ↗ and passed was to recommend to council

2:18:01 ↗ that that parcel 3 be changed to

2:18:05 ↗ community facilities open space that

2:18:08 ↗ does not allow anything that is of great

2:18:12 ↗ vast building on it and is open space

2:18:14 ↗ that again what will then happen to

2:18:18 ↗ parcels 1 & 2 will to remain as they are

2:18:21 ↗ currently zoned a single family small

2:18:24 ↗ lot and to break that down that

2:18:26 ↗ currently allows for both a middle

2:18:27 ↗ school or an elementary school to be

2:18:31 ↗ built

2:18:31 ↗ however we are recommending to council

2:18:34 ↗ right now that none of these parcels

2:18:36 ↗ allow for a comprehensive high school to

2:18:38 ↗ be built

2:18:40 ↗ [Applause]

2:18:53 ↗ you talk through the other ones yeah are

2:18:56 ↗ we done with this we don't know we

2:18:59 ↗ haven't an alternate yeah and we already

2:19:02 ↗ had a quorum he did though

2:19:04 ↗ five of us so he's got three two one

2:19:12 ↗ right well I opposed right that's a joke

2:19:36 ↗ me don't know yes I didn't vote against

2:19:44 ↗ it based on the results I just didn't

2:19:48 ↗ think that taking out parcel three did

2:19:50 ↗ enough to accomplish what you wanted to

2:19:55 ↗ accomplish because half of the houses

2:19:58 ↗ were still yes Joan and Janice were

2:20:03 ↗ against yep

2:20:05 ↗ Joan I completely agree with you because

2:20:08 ↗ but at large I'm not able to address all

2:20:11 ↗ the issues right now you know I

2:20:13 ↗ understand but I don't well we've

2:20:15 ↗ already voted so it doesn't make any

2:20:17 ↗ difference but I just want to be clear

2:20:20 ↗ that the end result of not having

2:20:25 ↗ multiple schools built on that

2:20:29 ↗ property it's not accomplished by taking

2:20:32 ↗ out a parcel three and keeping

2:20:34 ↗ everything else the same if you wanted

2:20:36 ↗ to keep everything the same you should

2:20:38 ↗ have kept all of it the same and then

2:20:41 ↗ you would have had the ability just just

2:20:44 ↗ to build two schools on it by taking out

2:20:46 ↗ three and making an open space you're

2:20:50 ↗ eliminating a lot of stuff yeah it

2:20:53 ↗ by my opinion but at any race that's

2:20:56 ↗ that's what stands the quorum the ultra

2:21:05 ↗ doesn't count

2:21:05 ↗ right I just wanted so what we're doing

2:21:14 ↗ right now is we're making sure that

2:21:16 ↗ procedurally that we're all on the same

2:21:17 ↗ page with our very astute reporter and

2:21:21 ↗ we're recording our votes so that it for

2:21:23 ↗ the record it's all accurate as what

2:21:24 ↗ we've been talking about now there are

2:21:27 ↗ five members on this board that are

2:21:28 ↗ permanent members and there's one is an

2:21:31 ↗ alternate and as an alternate you don't

2:21:33 ↗ vote if there is a there is a quorum

2:21:36 ↗ with the permanent members and so we're

2:21:38 ↗ just clearing up the fact of who voted

2:21:41 ↗ how many voted for and against is we're

2:21:45 ↗ not continuing on the discussion there's

2:21:47 ↗ already been a vote it's already it's

2:21:50 ↗ already voted on and it's going to go to

2:21:52 ↗ Council the way it is and I would like

2:21:55 ↗ to say Trish that the intent of the of

2:21:58 ↗ the motion is to say that we want to

2:22:00 ↗ protect green space there's the intent

2:22:03 ↗ of having of limiting the amount of

2:22:06 ↗ building that is on the site and then

2:22:07 ↗ also specifically limiting the uses of

2:22:11 ↗ the site to being elementary and middle

2:22:14 ↗ schools it was more worried about the

2:22:18 ↗ numbers the intent completely I just

2:22:21 ↗ wanted to get the logistics of the nine

2:22:23 ↗ right so we're clear on that so we still

2:22:26 ↗ have other business and price we do we

2:22:27 ↗ have another five to vote on yes we only

2:22:33 ↗ voted on one two and three so we have

2:22:35 ↗ five more to

2:22:37 ↗ questions yes so I I would like to go

2:22:40 ↗ back to parcel 12 and as we be quiet so

2:22:45 ↗ we can have continued our meeting oh we

2:22:47 ↗ have a red clip here sorry just the

2:22:50 ↗ bound together so I'm personal 12 the

2:22:53 ↗ two eating's ago when we first discussed

2:22:55 ↗ this I had asked you about the breed

2:22:58 ↗ designation and as you said tonight the

2:23:02 ↗ difference was the road so it was my

2:23:06 ↗ understanding from talks that it was the

2:23:10 ↗ designation that made the most sense

2:23:11 ↗ however nothing would be built on the

2:23:13 ↗ site so is there something that

2:23:16 ↗ basically guarantees that that says that

2:23:20 ↗ facilities won't also then include

2:23:22 ↗ something else the development agreement

2:23:24 ↗ with Costco says that nothing else will

2:23:26 ↗ be built there okay and I was told by my

2:23:28 ↗ higher higher up not too long ago that

2:23:31 ↗ if you would be quiet so we will

2:23:35 ↗ continue our meeting and and the reason

2:23:38 ↗ for community facilities that Road was

2:23:40 ↗ never plaited it's just an easement

2:23:41 ↗ across that parcel so there is a road on

2:23:44 ↗ that parcel which was the reason for

2:23:46 ↗ community facilities facilities so a

2:23:51 ↗ road is part of community facilities I

2:23:54 ↗ didn't understand that as part of the

2:23:55 ↗ uses how utilities I understand but the

2:23:57 ↗ role use utility is Erin yes how does

2:24:02 ↗ the Costco agreement how does it

2:24:05 ↗ override the designation so its

2:24:08 ↗ facilities as always about we can't

2:24:09 ↗ build because there's an existing

2:24:11 ↗ agreement yes

2:24:12 ↗ that's what that's what I was told but I

2:24:14 ↗ may again defer but he's tied up

2:24:22 ↗ arraignments are those in perpetuity or

2:24:25 ↗ truly run with the land this is true

2:24:28 ↗ this this development agreement is 120

2:24:32 ↗ years I think this one is so after on

2:24:34 ↗ the 21st year that's correct and

2:24:36 ↗ something actually could be built on

2:24:38 ↗ that please

2:24:40 ↗ to the front the microphone if you are

2:24:42 ↗ able would have to sarah mmunity

2:24:44 ↗ facility

2:24:49 ↗ apparently he he's making his way

2:24:51 ↗ through the crowd I can verify he's

2:24:55 ↗ heard our call I asked this question

2:25:07 ↗ earlier about this particular parcel and

2:25:11 ↗ I don't understand how a piece of

2:25:13 ↗ property that's being used as mitigation

2:25:15 ↗ and we rezone and with the possibility

2:25:20 ↗ of being built on we're talking 12 and

2:25:22 ↗ 13 right now we're talking to Costco

2:25:24 ↗ mitigation properties specifically the

2:25:25 ↗ one on the left that the road goes over

2:25:27 ↗ just the southeast corner do you need me

2:25:29 ↗ to pull it up I'm sure he has it just

2:25:32 ↗ right on top of his head

2:25:33 ↗ so my understanding so I assume the

2:25:37 ↗ question sorry I was distracted

2:25:39 ↗ I assume the question was why is it

2:25:42 ↗ being recommended cff and not CF o s my

2:25:48 ↗ understanding is so typically when we do

2:25:52 ↗ public roads we do that within dedicated

2:25:56 ↗ right away and if you ever look at our

2:25:58 ↗ zoning maps you'll see there's big

2:26:00 ↗ swaths of white because right away isn't

2:26:04 ↗ zoned it's basically not nothing 62nd

2:26:09 ↗ Street is actually not right away it's

2:26:12 ↗ got an easement on this property and so

2:26:15 ↗ because it clips this property and is on

2:26:18 ↗ this property if we do OS which we can

2:26:24 ↗ it would be non-conforming so we'd be

2:26:27 ↗ creating a nonconformity and you tend to

2:26:31 ↗ not want to do that because it's it's

2:26:33 ↗ just a weird that you don't it's like

2:26:34 ↗ bland new stuff so stop making faces so

2:26:37 ↗ so that would be that would be the

2:26:39 ↗ outcome if if if the Commission wanted

2:26:43 ↗ to recommend OS do so knowing that

2:26:46 ↗ you're going to create a nonconformity

2:26:48 ↗ because we have a road in what would be

2:26:50 ↗ OS which is not allowed

2:26:53 ↗ I what are the impacts of a

2:26:55 ↗ non-conforming use in this particular

2:26:57 ↗ context what what what does that mean in

2:27:00 ↗ real world stuff so non-conforming uses

2:27:04 ↗ are restricted in how they sew so if if

2:27:11 ↗ act of God so lightning comes down

2:27:14 ↗ destroys the road a non-conforming use

2:27:17 ↗ can be built back as is if it is

2:27:21 ↗ demolished through act of God if and and

2:27:26 ↗ most the time non-conformities are

2:27:28 ↗ things like you have a an auto repair

2:27:32 ↗ shop in a zone that doesn't allow that

2:27:34 ↗ anymore

2:27:35 ↗ okay if I wanted to expand my auto

2:27:37 ↗ repair shop in a non-conforming zone I

2:27:41 ↗ could only do that in a small increment

2:27:44 ↗ the code is specific about how much you

2:27:46 ↗ can expand a nonconformity so let's take

2:27:49 ↗ worst-case scenario we create this

2:27:51 ↗ nonconformity and at some point the city

2:27:55 ↗ and Costco make another agreement and

2:27:59 ↗ this road wants to be four lanes instead

2:28:03 ↗ of two okay we might have a problem at

2:28:06 ↗ that point I'm just I'm covering bases

2:28:09 ↗ so so all's so I just want you to take

2:28:14 ↗ away you're gonna create a nonconformity

2:28:18 ↗ the only issue about an unconformity is

2:28:22 ↗ there's limits to expansion of an

2:28:24 ↗ unconformity development agreement with

2:28:27 ↗ costco 30 years on 31st year and that

2:28:34 ↗ something could be built on that site is

2:28:36 ↗ that that right absolutely you know so

2:28:39 ↗ that's site my understanding is that

2:28:40 ↗ site is as Ms Marsh stated earlier that

2:28:44 ↗ site is a mitigation site so it's got

2:28:47 ↗ property encumbrances on it like legal

2:28:51 ↗ property encumbrances in perpetuity in

2:28:54 ↗ perpetuity yes

2:28:57 ↗ thank you any other question no other

2:29:06 ↗ concerns with anything that I'm really

2:29:09 ↗ happy to see that 11 is gonna become

2:29:12 ↗ hopefully well is on its way to becoming

2:29:15 ↗ a school it's something that we had

2:29:19 ↗ talked about years ago as a possibility

2:29:22 ↗ and I'm excited about the prospect of it

2:29:25 ↗ you know what kind of school is gonna be

2:29:27 ↗ on there the middle school middle school

2:29:29 ↗ and I'll note that there's no Tallis

2:29:31 ↗ community people here protesting it

2:29:36 ↗ sites 5 through 9 or 10 I get number 5

2:29:41 ↗ is wanting to be set back set aside for

2:29:44 ↗ opening making space to link up with

2:29:46 ↗ Cougar Mountain the that leaves roughly

2:29:50 ↗ I think was 20 80 acres which is the

2:29:51 ↗ rest of the other sites forth for

2:29:53 ↗ whatever there's through ten for ten

2:29:55 ↗ four four six seven or six thank you I

2:29:59 ↗ asked you this email what's the idea of

2:30:03 ↗ Holi they're holding that back has to be

2:30:06 ↗ considered what's what's the I want to

2:30:09 ↗ do a park plan for it to find out where

2:30:11 ↗ the trails where will it hook up with

2:30:14 ↗ Harvey Manning Park up at the top of

2:30:16 ↗ Talas how will it hook into the wild

2:30:19 ↗ Land Park to the west and so they

2:30:22 ↗ thought instead of having it all be

2:30:25 ↗ zoned recreation they wanted to be more

2:30:29 ↗ careful on which pieces maybe some of

2:30:31 ↗ the pieces will be open space and some

2:30:33 ↗ of them will be recreation once they

2:30:35 ↗ have a better idea of exactly where the

2:30:38 ↗ trails will be and if there's a bathroom

2:30:40 ↗ or if there's a whatever so they wanted

2:30:42 ↗ to wait and do the planning for it first

2:30:44 ↗ and then ask for the rezone definitely

2:30:46 ↗ not for school there's a lot of slope

2:30:50 ↗ there which is why though

2:30:52 ↗ the residential didn't work out thank

2:30:57 ↗ you other questions on the properties

2:31:03 ↗ we're hearing no other questions I need

2:31:06 ↗ a motion to accept the remaining five

2:31:09 ↗ parcels the rezone as requested mekka

2:31:19 ↗ Bhushan to accept the rezoning proposal

2:31:22 ↗ for the remaining five parcels I'll

2:31:24 ↗ second all those in favor say aye

2:31:27 ↗ aye opposed the rest of the elements the

2:31:34 ↗ land-use element transportation

2:31:36 ↗ utilities parks facilities that's all of

2:31:42 ↗ them

2:31:42 ↗ thank you for putting in we I had

2:31:45 ↗ mentioned before about the writer for

2:31:46 ↗ for the impact fees mm-hmm I like that

2:31:50 ↗ that makes me happy leaving that for

2:31:52 ↗ when it to be decided so I appreciate

2:31:55 ↗ that change is could you thanks on that

2:31:59 ↗ page T for page 20 out of 213 it's about

2:32:03 ↗ a concurrency system and you mentioned

2:32:05 ↗ that there's an additional capacity of

2:32:07 ↗ eleven thousand five hundred and twenty

2:32:09 ↗ seven vehicles and about six lines down

2:32:11 ↗ and I'm just confused by how this all

2:32:13 ↗ works confirm the proposed development

2:32:15 ↗ generates less than the trip Bank

2:32:17 ↗ capacity starting at eight thousand four

2:32:20 ↗ hundred and forty-one troops which was

2:32:22 ↗ the old number why is it not

2:32:25 ↗ I mean I'm confused as to why you but

2:32:27 ↗ two numbers going on there how does that

2:32:28 ↗ work

2:32:33 ↗ maybe I'm not saying they shouldn't be

2:32:35 ↗ I'm the only asking how does it work

2:32:39 ↗ yeah I think looks like we missed one of

2:32:47 ↗ the one of the old numbers when we were

2:32:50 ↗ putting in the new numbers from the will

2:32:57 ↗ dude then I thought it was them thank

2:33:00 ↗ you so you'll make that change I guess

2:33:03 ↗ good catch anything else I'm sure you

2:33:13 ↗ read it off it's fascinating

2:33:16 ↗ I did prove it

2:33:20 ↗ we need a uni didn't want another one me

2:33:23 ↗ there was a motion to approve the

2:33:26 ↗ remaining comp plan as described in the

2:33:28 ↗ findings of fact yeah I'll make a motion

2:33:31 ↗ second all those in favor say aye any an

2:33:35 ↗ additional comment just to go by Roberts

2:33:38 ↗ rule all those in favor say aye aye

2:33:41 ↗ opposed

2:33:43 ↗ hearing none they are accepted most of

2:33:47 ↗ them are just little lying right there's

2:33:49 ↗ there's no yeah I didn't find anything

2:33:52 ↗ substantial on any of it it's just all

2:33:54 ↗ right clearing out the numbers all right

2:33:57 ↗ thank you to staff for your work on the

2:34:01 ↗ comp plans it is a huge document we

2:34:04 ↗ really appreciate it

2:34:05 ↗ there's a reason that we look at it a

2:34:07 ↗ lot too is because we need to keep

2:34:09 ↗ having eyes on it so we thank you for

2:34:11 ↗ those opportunities to do not squish it

2:34:13 ↗ all into one me thank you for

2:34:14 ↗ maneuvering through the public comments

2:34:16 ↗ and the change of venues and the

2:34:17 ↗ technical difficulties appreciate all

2:34:20 ↗ sending us all the comments if you all

2:34:22 ↗ watch the

2:34:28 ↗ I was really surprised because I thought

2:34:30 ↗ when we went into recess we would it

2:34:33 ↗ would cut off and it didn't but is there

2:34:35 ↗ any updates that you want to Candice I

2:34:38 ↗ was gonna say the next meeting I think

2:34:40 ↗ it's Tuesday right Tuesday with unit

2:34:43 ↗ Service Commission and that it just was

2:34:45 ↗ emailed out today it's a real short

2:34:49 ↗ document to read about the healthy

2:34:51 ↗ community strategy and the reason if you

2:34:54 ↗ didn't get it the reason that you're all

2:34:56 ↗ invited is a part of it is housing

2:34:57 ↗ strategy nine that's about homeless and

2:35:02 ↗ adults with special needs finding

2:35:06 ↗ housing for them it was the whole

2:35:08 ↗ strategy number nine that sort of got

2:35:10 ↗ everything thrown in at the end of our

2:35:11 ↗ Housing Strategy work all the really

2:35:13 ↗ hard stuff went into nine and that's

2:35:15 ↗ what we're working with Human Services

2:35:17 ↗ to to address that and so that's why

2:35:19 ↗ we're having a joint meeting so and

2:35:21 ↗ that's again in the Pickering room where

2:35:22 ↗ we had so much fun on the 10th hopefully

2:35:25 ↗ there won't be any issues and I'm

2:35:27 ↗ looking forward to it'll be fun working

2:35:29 ↗ with that Commission again what's the

2:35:31 ↗ date again Tuesday today that 29th I was

2:35:34 ↗ gonna say 29th but I didn't want to get

2:35:36 ↗ her on easy I'll be there I think

2:35:41 ↗ Robyn's not going to be there but I

2:35:42 ↗ can't remember and it was that I'd know

2:35:45 ↗ what set up today was emailed this

2:35:46 ↗ afternoon it's a real it's pretty short

2:35:49 ↗ I'm sure a lot of it will be described

2:35:51 ↗ in the meeting but the the handout was

2:35:53 ↗ pretty short we have updated census data

2:35:57 ↗ for that when we were doing when we were

2:35:59 ↗ making those that year that we spent

2:36:01 ↗ making those strategies we had do we

2:36:05 ↗ have updated census data since then I'm

2:36:07 ↗ not the consultant working on it so I'm

2:36:09 ↗ not sure what she'll have what they'll

2:36:11 ↗ present to us it might there might be

2:36:14 ↗ something in the memo but I haven't

2:36:16 ↗ gotten through it all yet we'll find out

2:36:18 ↗ on Tuesday yes though with no other

2:36:21 ↗ comments no other updates I'm going to

2:36:23 ↗ close the meeting at 9:06 nice

2:36:27 ↗ hold on

2:36:29 ↗ [Applause]

2:36:33 ↗ 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 (9)

Administration/Staff: Joan Probala

Trish Heinonen

Policy Planning Manager Janice Carle Christen Leeson

Sr. Planner Joy Lewis Lucy Sloman

Land Dev. Manager Bill Rinehart Keith Niven

Dev. Srvs. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Jason Voiss Robin Beukers

Alt. (non-voting) Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Ron Faul

Randy Harrison Tom Haskins

Alt