← Back to City Council Digest

Planning Policy Commission Auto captions

Thursday, November 14, 2019

6:30 PM · 37m 16s · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Comprehensive Plan Amendments AB 9202 9/20
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 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
2a
Minutes of October 24, 2019
packet pp.5–12
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-24-19 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000]
2b
Minutes of October 29, 2019
packet pp.13–14
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 10-29-19 Human Services Commission Minutes Page [0001]
3. REGULAR BUSINESS
3a
Approval of Final Draft Findings & Recommendations for Amendments to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, Trails
Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager · packet pp.15–19
Topics: Land UseParks
Staff report:
1. Transportation Element 2. Land Use Element, including the Land Use Designation Map 3. Utilities and Public Services Element 4. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Element 5. Capital Facilities Element and 6. Zoning Map
4. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS
4a
Upcoming Schedule
packet pp.21
Staff report:
OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS a) 2019 PPC Schedule (tentative) (updated 11/5/19) 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
0:07 Hey so now the councilmember good
0:11 evening
0:12 [Laughter]
0:15 to the November 14th meeting of the
0:17 planning policy commission like we have
0:20 one thing on the agenda and it's a
0:23 verification of what we did in the last
0:25 meeting topic before we have two sets of
0:29 minutes to to approve so I need a motion
0:35 to approve the minutes of October the
0:37 24th I like to make a motion to approve
0:41 the minutes October 24th plan planning a
0:43 policy Commission meeting second all
0:47 those in favor say any discussion any
0:49 changes all those in favor say aye
0:52 opposed hearing none the motion carries
0:56 I need a motion to approve the minutes
0:58 of October 29th I'll make a motion to
1:01 approve the minutes of October 29th I
1:04 have a second any discussion changes all
1:12 those in favor say aye aye opposed
1:16 hearing none the motion carries so with
1:19 that I'm going to go right into wishes
1:23 presentation on what we need to clarify
1:26 from our last meeting thank you
1:29 you'll notice that the council chamber
1:31 is now configured a little differently
1:34 it is so that thank you it is so that
1:38 you all are able to I think you were
1:40 able to use the laptops to get to your
1:43 agenda materials if you should choose
1:45 and then the public sees this as well as
1:49 channel 21 sees this it went live for me
1:53 on Tuesday so Tuesday was a very fun
1:55 night and what is before you today I
1:59 don't know if we'll need the laptop in
2:01 the screen but since the last meeting on
2:04 the comprehensive plan amendments since
2:07 your recommendation was so very
2:09 different than the draft that I put in
2:11 the packet because I always just put a
2:13 draft in just to start so you have some
2:14 place to start we wanted to be sure that
2:17 you're comfortable with how the findings
2:20 of fact are written up and I know Randy
2:22 from development Commission you're used
2:23 to reviewing them at the next meeting
2:25 where as planning policy commission
2:27 usually you don't
2:28 you don't look at them again you just
2:31 either say we're comfortable with
2:33 whatever changes you might make or you
2:36 give us some kind of motion or we sort
2:37 of write it together at the meeting but
2:39 since this one was a pretty special one
2:41 we wanted to be sure so I rewatched the
2:44 tape it's very interesting to see it
2:46 again I looked at the minutes that Susan
2:48 did and I tried to craft as best as I
2:51 could
2:52 what I heard you say but you're able to
2:56 if I didn't capture it just right or if
2:58 I left out things that you're sure that
3:00 you said and you wished I would have
3:02 captured we can we can work on that as
3:05 well and so that's why you know it's
3:08 probably different for many of you that
3:09 we don't usually come back with the
3:12 findings but tonight we're going to and
3:14 would it help for me to put the findings
3:16 on the screen or are there questions or
3:18 comments that yes I I maybe that was
3:22 announced the meeting that I missed but
3:24 is there not a recorder she she had an
3:28 emergency and so she's going to do the
3:30 minutes from the video okay thanks yeah
3:34 sometimes things happen and I'm sure
3:36 yeah we we don't have everything covered
3:40 are there what is it worth it for me to
3:43 put it on the screen okay way to hood
3:47 and did you all get the email that I
3:49 sent it that I try because I tried to
3:51 explain it in the email thinking that
3:53 that might be easier to understand than
3:55 me trying to completely start over in
3:57 the meeting the only part that changed
4:00 from the draft that was actually in your
4:02 packet on the night of October 24th and
4:05 night of October 24th would be the 99th
4:12 oh that was the Human Services wasn't it
4:18 would be the page starting on depending
4:22 on which packet you're using two of five
4:24 or 16 of 21 and that's where I pulled
4:29 out the rationale for the land use
4:31 designation map for the recommendation
4:35 and and I think that this was joy
4:39 and Jason speaking most of these
4:44 rationale and and head nodding and that
4:48 sort of thing so so that's what I took I
4:50 took three rationales for not changing
4:55 parcels one and two the land use
4:59 designation to leave those as is are
5:04 there questions on though I'll let you
5:06 read through them
5:27 so this one includes parcels one and two
5:30 right this is the the big the land use
5:33 designation map which there's remember
5:36 there's two pieces there's the land use
5:37 designation which is community
5:40 facilities and then the second part is
5:42 the rezone which is the either open
5:44 space recreation or facilities and so I
5:47 put that in the second part of the
5:50 recommendation which is at the end which
5:51 is the zoning map which the zoning map
5:54 all three of the parcels change where
5:57 does a person throw anything personal
6:00 because you are wanted parcel three to
6:03 change to community facilities open
6:05 space it's not included in this because
6:08 you did agree with the administration to
6:09 change the designation to community
6:12 facilities but you didn't agree with the
6:14 zoning for facilities and so that's
6:17 listed in the at the very end under page
6:26 four of five or 18 of 21 this includes
6:33 all three of them believe as I read the
6:36 small print because they all change
6:38 because you didn't agree with the
6:41 administration on any of the three for
6:43 the zoning because you wanted one and
6:45 two to stay single-family small lot and
6:48 then you wanted three to be community
6:50 facilities open space so all three of
6:53 them are mentioned in the zoning map
6:55 rationale
7:13 Trish mm-hmm is this what a lot one two
7:16 and three are we talking about the
7:18 Providence Point Lots yes yes proposed
7:21 high school okay so I wasn't here I did
7:25 try to bring up bring myself up to speed
7:28 we are proposing that wanted to not be
7:32 designated for a high school correct the
7:37 zoning allows a middle school or an
7:39 elementary school if you don't change
7:42 the zoning if you leave it single-family
7:43 small a lot but it would not allow a
7:46 high school or a stadium where as
7:49 community facilities facilities would
7:52 allow a high school in a stadium and an
7:56 elementary school and a middle school
7:58 those are all permitted uses in
8:00 community facilities facilities that was
8:03 the agreement of the Commission was that
8:06 we don't want to it was that was was
8:08 treated to it's an emotion
8:20 what I think point be at the end where
8:24 it says to allow for an elementary
8:26 school or a middle school to be built I
8:28 would propose that that's a and a slash
8:31 or is that a friendly how do you want to
8:40 do it you want to take Isaac I thought
8:43 this single small lots included you
8:47 could put both of those on there I
8:50 didn't think it was one or the other
8:51 right I couldn't tell from when I was
8:54 listening to it if you were in favor of
8:56 two schools because several times I
8:59 heard two schools are excessive and I
9:01 didn't know if it was two schools if one
9:03 of them as a high school as excessive me
9:06 I don't think they made a designation
9:07 they it was just either/or but I could
9:11 be wrong
9:12 I remember the discussion being a limit
9:16 of how many schools that could put on we
9:18 just didn't want to change the zoning to
9:19 support high school okay that was my
9:22 record
9:22 so whatever the zoning is if it allows
9:26 both of them both the middle school and
9:31 so then would I take out because I from
9:34 I heard you say that to schools is
9:37 excessive on that parcel is it two
9:40 schools if one of them is a high school
9:42 is excessive correct okay it might have
9:45 been a statement that two works has said
9:47 by anyone on the Commission but it
9:49 wasn't part of the of the motion right
9:51 well no I was just trying to get the
9:52 rationale down okay so that I can't
9:55 speak for obviously Commissioner Lewis
9:58 no but yeah no I would think in
10:01 elementary in a middle school would be
10:03 fine I might concern and I believe the
10:05 concern of the community more had to do
10:06 with teenagers stadium lighting things
10:10 like that yeah and we're not worried
10:12 about them we're worried about your
10:14 rationale for your recommendation and so
10:17 I just want to be sure so when I heard
10:19 you say you all not you but you all say
10:22 that two schools are excessive it was if
10:25 one of those schools as a high school is
10:27 that correct
10:28 okay because I'm sure that even though
10:30 this was last week so the zoning right
10:33 now
10:34 does it allow a middle middle school yes
10:38 okay elementary school and middle school
10:43 are both permitted uses okay together
10:48 you'd have to do the site but they're
10:50 both permitted uses there but I I don't
10:54 know how they would if they had some
10:55 basic could put three here if they
10:57 wanted it would all depend on the site
10:59 plan so my proposed wording change is
11:01 not intended to imply that we show
11:04 anything to the underlying zoning
11:05 regulations only that for purposes of
11:08 conveying our rationale we not give the
11:12 impression that we only think there
11:13 should be one school there okay but I'm
11:18 just saying though I think in another
11:19 part of this and let me find it I
11:21 thought I put in the rationale that you
11:23 all thought that two schools were
11:25 accessed that number F into rationale
11:31 fine oh and disowning I'm sorry I'm in
11:34 there in front of a school well that's
11:37 what you said at the point of it is a
11:39 school school facility versus
11:41 single-family homes a school up
11:44 I'm just implementing ways that we said
11:47 it looks like it's point D under E it
11:50 says however two schools on this site is
11:52 excessive right so would you want me to
11:55 change that to two schools on this site
11:59 is excessive if one is a high school
12:01 true yes basically we did not change two
12:09 and three from the vote and so whatever
12:13 is approved to be on there allowed on
12:16 there is on there we haven't changed the
12:19 zoning on it correct correct four one
12:22 and two yes but I thought one of the
12:25 rationales for not changing was that you
12:27 thought two schools was excessive I
12:29 think that was in the discussion of the
12:31 high school okay
12:32 I just want to be sure I got that right
12:34 so so then I would change this site is
12:37 excessive if one is a high school and
12:40 then Janice's other one and
12:45 letter B for an elementary school and/or
12:49 a middle school to be built is that
12:52 right and or and then there's one more
12:57 on F on that same zoning map page four F
13:01 confirming that PPC would prefer a
13:04 school do you want that changed from a
13:08 school two holes with an S in our
13:14 parentheses open close parenthesis the
13:19 intent was I think that the land should
13:21 be used for this is across school
13:23 district so so as far as like lake he
13:28 said is that language conflicting just
13:29 being a school write to me it conflicts
13:33 now with B's we said and or a middle
13:35 school yes so what could I repeat it
13:39 prefer elementary school and or a middle
13:42 school and parcels one and two how about
13:44 just sort of any schools be placed on
13:47 personals one and two no because then
13:49 you could then you could be a high
13:50 school high school say a school or
13:53 schools or the like kind of like well
13:59 just go back to the so prefer an
14:05 elementary and or middle school on
14:12 parcels one and two rather than more
14:15 single-family homes
14:17 good but the zoning allows single-family
14:22 homes on it right but I heard you all
14:25 say that you would rather if you left
14:27 the zone the same you would rather it be
14:30 used for schools versus single-family
14:32 homes I was under the assumption that
14:35 school is only going to build schools
14:36 and not homes we don't care we PPC
14:44 doesn't I'm trying to get your rationale
14:46 by why you left it and you from my
14:48 understanding you didn't leave it
14:49 single-family so it could have home
14:51 someday you left it a single family so
14:54 the school district could continue to
14:56 build their elementary and or middle
14:58 school correct okay because truly they
15:01 could sell it for top dollar and someone
15:04 could build homes there but that's not
15:05 what you wanted you wanted to keep the
15:07 zoning but to keep the schools okay by
15:10 leaving it zoned residential they can
15:13 turn around and sell it for sure able to
15:15 find a better piece of property with the
15:17 money they make about it yeah I think
15:19 that would be hard but technically they
15:22 could certainly do that
15:23 were there other changes then I would
15:26 make if I've made those same mistakes in
15:28 A through F in the chart I would fix
15:31 those as well again because I'm not sure
15:35 if I
15:42 I think the summary of the
15:44 recommendation that you have under 6a is
15:46 accurate okay good you read it faster
15:50 than I did I was just reading it again
15:51 to make sure I didn't make one I just
15:53 agreed on is different then oh then
15:59 whatever this on
16:01 it's a did not occur recommended that
16:06 Parcells wanted to have no changes to
16:08 the zoning map and remain civil families
16:11 follow up because this zone loves
16:13 elementary middle and that's not allowed
16:16 high school mm-hmm no changes to the
16:19 zoning map for one and two for one and
16:22 two but yes to three that remained
16:28 single families follow
16:36 I think is just semantics but well it's
16:40 all semantics for it so it's what you
16:49 assumed it's reads right to me 1 & 2
16:54 have no changes the zoning map remains
16:56 owned single-family small lot that's a
16:58 current zone as the zone allows
17:02 elementary middle schools and does not
17:05 seems consistent technique at the top
17:07 you it's you discussed no homes but
17:14 there's a difference between the
17:15 language describing why we did what we
17:19 did and the way that we're recommending
17:23 the land be use the land braze I tried
17:26 to have the reason the actual legal code
17:29 right for the rationale I wanted to be
17:31 sure that council because council got
17:32 the draft of this and I warned them
17:34 though that it might change we might
17:35 tweak it at the meeting because you
17:37 hadn't actually seen it but I wanted
17:39 them to know the rationale that you had
17:42 in case they didn't watch the meeting
17:44 although some of them did yes
17:48 okay any other changes that you saw that
17:51 would be can you scroll down a little
17:53 bit to show fall of 6a okay a quick
18:00 question for you Trish mm-hmm a lot 1 &
18:04 we're only recommending that a single
18:08 family small lots or the purposes of
18:13 building a elementary or middle school
18:15 on pbc recommended no changes to the
18:22 zoning because the zoning right now you
18:24 could build an elementary and or a
18:26 middle school now today we are
18:30 recommending that they could build both
18:33 a elementary and middle school on Lots 1
18:39 & 2 the correct site plan allows it's a
18:41 recite plan allows a lot 1 is way
18:44 smaller than a lot - can they combine
18:47 these Lots and race play
18:49 because they own it they come up with a
18:52 site plan and it has to meet code or we
18:54 don't look at it so we leave that to you
18:57 know that ball is in their court to
18:59 design it and the city helps them if we
19:02 can and of course we want them to be
19:05 responsive to the neighbors they have
19:08 that flexibility okay understood right
19:10 and we're we agreed as a commission no
19:13 high school is that correct
19:15 the vote was three to two yeah okay it
19:18 was very close fun ship sailed perfect
19:21 thank you okay yeah no worries it was it
19:23 was a there was a lot of discussion that
19:25 night so any other changes and/or
19:30 additions subtractions things I missed
19:37 what a city council took this out they
19:41 had their study session on Tuesday and
19:44 they had two hours of public comment
19:48 then they then the appeal is December
19:51 2nd at the regular meeting and that's
19:54 when we hear the CEPA appeal so they
19:55 weren't able to ask us any questions
19:57 about the sea pup appeal or anything on
19:59 that because we'll do that December 2nd
20:03 and then they they see everything again
20:05 and I think it's the 16th set the next
20:10 no not the 16th is a Wednesday the 14th
20:14 maybe since it should be in your did I
20:19 put it in your packet as dates that are
20:21 exciting to us and if they're not done
20:30 with it on the WoW I have the 16th how
20:35 can it be this I'm sorry
20:41 which is a Monday this year not in 2020
20:45 though
20:45 yeah they shouldn't have that calendar I
20:47 bet that's a little confusing so it
20:49 would be December 16th on the regular
20:51 Council meeting they may take action or
20:53 they may not have enough information
20:56 they asked us for a lot of information
20:58 on Tuesday things that they wanted more
21:00 information on my commission to the
21:10 Commission I I have kind of a very long
21:14 range strategic issue that I don't quite
21:18 understand and maybe you can help me
21:20 maybe you can clarify it my
21:23 understanding is that this city has met
21:26 its state mandated growth target already
21:30 know is that not correct not correct we
21:33 have over 600 housing units to go I'm
21:37 talking just population growth
21:39 Management Act the mandatory pieces for
21:44 the growth Management Act is housing
21:45 growth and job growth in 20 years and we
21:48 haven't met either of the men we
21:49 probably depending on how permitting
21:52 goes and how it goes through the process
21:54 we may get the housing one done in two
21:56 years but the job one we're a little
21:59 farther off we're on track on both of
22:01 them but Johnson
22:02 so the school board's rationale for
22:07 needing more floor space for elementary
22:12 middle and high schools is built on is
22:15 based on projected growth in student
22:18 numbers mm-hmm okay and that growth will
22:22 be by the city's comprehensive plan the
22:26 most of it will be in the central area
22:28 mm-hmm and so students that will be
22:35 going to assuming there are schools
22:38 built on these properties that these
22:40 Lots that we've been talking about will
22:44 not I'm from this central area I mean
22:49 isn't that objective to try to get them
22:51 this close to where they right is pause
22:53 and what we'd heard from the school
22:55 district is their next bond that the
22:58 next set of schools would go in central
23:01 which would be great because then they'd
23:03 not be compact schools they'd have to be
23:05 urban schools right which is even so
23:08 what we heard Tuesday night was that 700
23:12 kids from Issaquah high and 700 kids
23:15 from skyline would be the ones that
23:18 would fill up the high school the
23:20 proposed high school at Providence
23:21 Heights and the school district has a
23:23 little different way of doing population
23:28 projections they don't want to build an
23:29 empty school and then start filling it
23:32 so it's sort of a when it's just about
23:35 to be overcrowded is when is you know
23:39 the bond came out and they thought
23:40 they'd hit the ground running but we're
23:41 already three years past the bond and
23:43 there's no construction on any of them
23:45 going just because land is so hard to
23:47 find and so they've really gotten behind
23:49 the eight ball because the market is so
23:51 great and made things so expensive but
23:54 but they do their population and kinds
23:56 of things a little different than than
23:58 the city because they have that whole
24:00 overcrowding and they don't want to
24:02 build empty facilities they want them to
24:03 be pretty full by the time they're open
24:06 so the the school board growth
24:10 projections they use a different
24:12 calculation of that are the numbers
24:13 significantly different than the city's
24:15 no I think they use we work with them we
24:18 always send them what our projections
24:20 are and then they they take a sampling
24:22 of whenever we do that we do the impact
24:24 fees every year and they send us their
24:27 new six-year projections and they take
24:29 like new multi-family like they might
24:32 take some in the highlands some in
24:33 Tallis some you know wherever else
24:36 they've been built lately to see what
24:38 the popular you know what the kid count
24:39 in some of them are because when the
24:41 Highlands was first built they didn't
24:44 know and thought any kids would be up
24:46 there and of course there's tons of kids
24:47 up there and so there that was quite a
24:50 high moment and so there's been some of
24:53 those where we thought the smaller the
24:55 unit they won't have any kids but it's
24:58 like the bumblebee not being able to fly
25:00 you know he's he's flying so so it's
25:03 it's done a little differently but I
25:05 think the hardest thing for them was
25:06 that they couldn't hit the ground
25:07 running and once they pass the bond
25:10 it was long stood on the presentation
25:14 from the school district they are
25:15 overcrowded now right right they were a1
25:18 routed in 2016 when then when the bond
25:21 yeah it's not it's just rejected problem
25:23 it's a current its current if ik n't
25:26 right and I understand it right and they
25:30 knew that when they went out for the
25:31 bond they just thought they'd be fixing
25:33 the problem a lot sooner than than they
25:35 are so I'm I want to follow up on
25:40 Randy's question and get clarification
25:43 that the goals that are set for housing
25:48 and jobs and land use is it set by the
25:56 state or is some of that set internally
26:00 by the city altum Utley is set by the
26:06 state but the process is that King
26:08 County and King County cities work on
26:11 the targets that are given to us from
26:13 the state and so at the regional level
26:15 there's a lot of divvying up some of
26:18 it's based on how well you did with your
26:20 previous 20 years some of it is
26:22 negotiating with other cities some
26:25 cities want a lot more but they're not
26:27 very productive in in and actually
26:31 having them happen and so so there's
26:34 there's a lot of negotiation that goes
26:35 on before everybody agrees that these
26:38 are the targets and I know council wants
26:40 to be more involved in that then in the
26:42 next go-round so the city does have some
26:46 say in what those goals are some right
26:53 we don't have veto power but we're
26:54 sitting at the table but in the the
26:57 latest the 20 vision 2020 50 we asked
27:03 King County we thought that since we
27:05 worked so closely with them and the
27:06 region we asked the region if they would
27:08 be at the table with us that we think
27:11 they should be at the table with the
27:12 cities because those of us that are
27:14 doing really well meeting our targets
27:16 would like a little more support when we
27:19 say
27:19 we kind of have to back off a little bit
27:21 so we can catch up with infrastructure
27:23 we would like to have the region help us
27:26 with that because you know
27:28 transportation funding isn't what we
27:29 would like it to be you know we get
27:31 behind on things obviously schools are
27:33 behind but they said well they sit at
27:36 the table but they you know they don't
27:38 weigh in like like we think the region
27:40 should weigh in but it would be nice if
27:43 we had our own veto power but we don't
27:53 need from us nothing tonight y'all did
27:57 well I was hoping you were gonna go one
27:59 more step Randy and say are we gonna
28:01 work with is the city going to work with
28:03 the school district now to try to find
28:05 sites in central Issaquah well because I
28:08 think that would be a brilliant thing to
28:10 start because if the land isn't gonna
28:12 get any cheaper I've never I haven't
28:14 understood that for you know a long time
28:16 it's weed that in the mass transit or
28:20 the the light rail terminus I makes me
28:24 you know very used about why there isn't
28:27 more progress identifying sites and
28:30 parking and stuff but yeah I it's a huge
28:35 huge issue that's gonna affect everybody
28:38 in this in the town mm-hmm if it's this
28:41 hard now I can't imagine that it's gonna
28:43 get any easier right I think they're
28:45 probably looking for the future but they
28:50 need to get this one settled before they
28:53 come out and say I won well you can
28:56 build it over there why do you need
28:58 Providence points so I think they're
29:00 doing its step by step right maybe it's
29:03 hopeful that there's a lot going on
29:04 behind the scenes that maybe well you
29:06 know I mean you hope you have to plan
29:10 right and it's coming and people are
29:13 coming and building is coming
29:18 concerning the high school based on the
29:23 calculus that they're using to determine
29:26 when
29:28 and where they need a high school they
29:30 haven't really looked beyond Providence
29:32 point no information they gave us was
29:37 they had looked already at 7 D sites
29:40 across school district area do we know
29:44 what those 70 sites are we know several
29:46 of them just because they had to work
29:48 them through you know their zoning could
29:51 we put one here and could we you know
29:53 can we site plan it here I don't we
29:56 don't know all 70 of them because we're
29:58 but we know of many of them and they've
30:01 been working on it well since 2016 since
30:04 the bond passed so it seems like the
30:07 point that I'm getting to is it seems
30:09 like it they're working kind of in a
30:13 bubble right where there should we be
30:18 looking at it marks from a team
30:19 standpoint because they're putting forth
30:21 the need that they need high schools
30:24 rising community if we don't have proper
30:30 space for high schools we're going to
30:32 have overcrowding that's going to impact
30:34 our kids futures so should we be coming
30:38 to the table and saying okay here's
30:40 areas that we would like to see high
30:41 schools and sort of be the driver's seat
30:46 also with them because it seems like
30:49 they're driving it but they're driving
30:50 behind everyone else and they're too
30:55 slow right I know we did that with the
30:58 elementary school with the parcel that
31:00 we bought up next to Swedish and the
31:02 Highlands knowing that they needed land
31:04 for one more elementary school and it
31:06 was within our reach that we could buy
31:08 it and so for a while they were site
31:10 planning for an elementary school up
31:13 next to Swedish but the land turned out
31:15 it wasn't feasible for for a school so
31:18 so we are we do work with them when when
31:20 we have land or when we know that the
31:23 land is available or that something
31:24 might happen we do work with them
31:26 because it's in our best interest that
31:28 schools get placed where they're needed
31:30 right but I mean shouldn't we have more
31:32 say so to speak because it seems like
31:38 they're just not there putting all their
31:41 a few buckets but I would point out that
31:46 the school board is elected the school's
31:47 profession selected and it's an elected
31:49 body and their responsibility is to is
31:52 to plan ahead so I I don't know I mean
31:56 there's in my personal opinion there's a
31:58 lot of room for improvement in the
32:00 cooperation between school district and
32:01 city in a lot of areas but I you know in
32:07 working a little more closely with them
32:10 to to identify these needs or honest is
32:12 there but you know that's kind of that's
32:15 kind of the job of the elected members
32:17 of the school district right right and
32:20 we meet with them the council our
32:21 council meets with their board a couple
32:23 times a year to talk about issues and
32:25 all that kind of thing because they work
32:28 together but as you said they're an
32:30 elected group and have their sovereignty
32:35 if you will as well but we do help as
32:38 much as we can help I think when I asked
32:41 gentlemen that was representing the
32:43 school district there was two or three
32:46 questions I had was once you this is the
32:48 issue now what's your plan going forward
32:49 I just was a general question I don't
32:52 know so I went away from that but what
32:54 is he really saying there enough she
32:56 didn't follow up with it wasn't
32:57 appropriate what was he saying there
32:58 when he said I don't know he said I'm
33:00 too new but he's the head guy this is
33:05 answer just to get me off the train I
33:07 don't know school district or the board
33:12 or so I don't know what there's true all
33:14 I know is their six year plan that I
33:16 look at every year when I do there its
33:18 impact fees so I only know out six years
33:21 I'm hoping that they know farther out
33:23 than six years but I don't know that so
33:26 I'm sure somebody knows that but I don't
33:28 know that yeah the school district he
33:30 was right because he is new he he's less
33:33 than a year here yes
33:42 anything else I'm trying to think what
33:44 is with us with no signs I'm trying to
33:46 think what your next meeting is it looks
33:51 like from my handi schedule that on
33:53 December 19th Oh what will you do with
33:56 all your free time coming up there's
33:58 another joint PPC Human Services meeting
34:01 on housing strategy and that would be
34:03 December 19th
34:05 up in the Pickering room again in our
34:07 favorite room up there but other than
34:10 that you guys had quite the year thank
34:12 you very much for that but I'll be
34:14 sending an RSVP around soon for December
34:17 19th since that seems so far in the
34:20 future anything else I can RSVP no I
34:25 won't be here
34:26 you already know ok write that down
34:32 anything else for the good of the order
34:34 yes I I really liked the response that
34:39 you gave to the individual that came in
34:42 and said I don't I don't understand this
34:44 who's last yesterday that email came out
34:47 from you I really thought that was
34:52 extraordinarily clear on a very complex
34:54 issue and it got me to thinking that for
34:58 this lot of the city Commission's but
35:00 particularly for PPC in on the you know
35:04 the section of our documents that has
35:08 the Planning Policy Commission and about
35:10 and a membership if if there were one
35:17 more little short paragraph basically
35:20 saying you know these are the parameters
35:21 about how the Commission can work and
35:24 and just very similar to what you said
35:27 in your response to them gentlemen and
35:30 frankly I think that would be good for
35:32 all the Commission's but I can't speak
35:34 for the other hand it just seemed to me
35:35 that that the addition of that in the
35:38 packet would help every time I can see
35:41 members of the public that write well
35:43 wait a minute how does this work and I
35:45 just thought it was extraordinarily
35:46 clear and sadly that's not my page that
35:51 I get to add things
35:52 but we can ask the clerk saw you know if
35:56 the rest of the Commission agrees that
35:57 that would be helpful it just struck me
35:59 as being something might might help
36:01 because especially with their you know
36:03 when people don't understand that
36:04 process we got a lot of calls just for
36:07 Jacqueline you know where do I go next
36:09 where do I show up how do I get my
36:11 thoughts across and so you know and
36:13 super easy to help them and to try to
36:15 you know steer them and they've all been
36:17 other than that night the 10th when they
36:19 were some that were very frustrated
36:22 they've all been super respectful to
36:25 work with it but that was just a really
36:26 bad night for everybody on the 10
36:28 including me some but I like that
36:36 anything else I have to say it's really
36:38 good to have Ron back and it's really
36:40 good to have Randy back thank you
36:41 and everybody in their seats again
36:44 except joy but um but this is good I
36:46 like this I like my commission
36:48 anything else till December okay have a
36:55 good long vacation thank you awesome
36:57 thank you and with that I'll close the
36:59 meeting at 7:10
37:13 you

Attendance

Council / Members (6)
Administration/Staff: Joan Probala
Trish Heinonen
Policy Planning Manager Ron Faul
Janice Carle Randy Harrison Bill Rinehart Jason Voiss Robin Beukers
Alt. (non-voting) Commissioners Not Present (Excused): Joy Lewis Tom Haskins
Alt