Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, September 12, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of August 22, 2024

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 0:52 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, August 22, 2024

4. PUBLIC HEARING

2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (A)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.7–9

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission will hold a public hearing on the draft Environmental

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update: Draft Deliberation (A)

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.11–267

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 26:49 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission will deliberate and make a

Light Rail Visioning

Discussion · Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner · packet pp.269–286

▶ Watch from 1:01:11 Open packet at p.269 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the September 12, 2024, meeting is to review and discuss the first draft of Central Issaquah light rail station area vision and guiding principles. The Administration has the following questions for the Commission to consider:

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.287–289

▶ Watch from 2:05:30 Open packet at p.287 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2024 Schedule (subject to change) 1/11/24 1/25/24

2730 segments .txt ↗

0:09 ↗ good evening

0:11 ↗ everyone I would like to call the to

0:13 ↗ order the September 12th meeting of the

0:15 ↗ planning policy and it currently is 6:31

0:19 ↗ p.m. and look at this we've got the

0:22 ↗ whole band back together everybody's

0:25 ↗ here tonight that's great we even have a

0:27 ↗ lot of Staff wow this feels like old

0:31 ↗ time but we'll begin with some house C

0:33 ↗ cleaning and first thing is Stephen do

0:36 ↗ we have a quorum this evening chair

0:38 ↗ voice yes you do excellent and I just

0:41 ↗ like to make a quick note that our two

0:43 ↗ alternates this evening commissioner Kaa

0:46 ↗ zacharov and commissioner John crass

0:48 ↗ will also be acting as regular members

0:50 ↗ this evening our first item of business

0:52 ↗ is to take action to approve the minutes

0:54 ↗ for the August 22nd

0:57 ↗ 2024 planning policy commission meeting

1:00 ↗ I assume everyone's read those minutes

1:03 ↗ provided in the agenda packet does

1:05 ↗ anyone have any concerns questions there

1:09 ↗ wasn't a lot to it it was a very quick

1:11 ↗ meeting

1:14 ↗ so hearing none those meeting minutes

1:18 ↗ are

1:19 ↗ approved and right now we will hold our

1:21 ↗ public comment public comments are an

1:24 ↗ important part of the public process we

1:26 ↗ take them seriously we Factor them into

1:29 ↗ to the decisions that we make so for

1:32 ↗ this meeting we're holding general

1:34 ↗ public comment at this time these are

1:37 ↗ general public comments for the planning

1:39 ↗ policy commission they can be virtually

1:42 ↗ on

1:42 ↗ anything um we do have a public hearing

1:45 ↗ a little bit later for the draft Eis if

1:49 ↗ that is what you're here to speak about

1:51 ↗ I would urge you to hold your comment

1:53 ↗ till

1:55 ↗ then but we do ask that you please limit

1:58 ↗ your comments to 5 minutes or l less so

2:01 ↗ staff anyone signed up to speak this

2:04 ↗ evening yes chair an

2:12 ↗ Fletcher okay great thank you

2:15 ↗ man Amanda is there anyone else would

2:19 ↗ like I yes Cy please

2:32 ↗ uh my name's Connie Marsh I live up on

2:34 ↗ squawk and um I've been tossing all the

2:37 ↗ component parts of the city around in my

2:39 ↗ brain like a gigantic ball at 3 o'clock

2:42 ↗ in the morning because it's so fun so

2:45 ↗ the other day I went wow how does this

2:48 ↗ work for if we

2:50 ↗ have twice the number of units allowed

2:53 ↗ in a residential area and somebody comes

2:57 ↗ in for a permit to do do that and I'm

3:01 ↗ looking at that permit because I look at

3:03 ↗ all that stuff the first thing I do is I

3:05 ↗ say well what's the zoning and so I go

3:08 ↗ and I say what's the zoning now it's

3:10 ↗ what 4.25 for Suburban single family

3:13 ↗ it's not

3:15 ↗ changing yet everybody keeps saying

3:17 ↗ we're changing it and same with the land

3:20 ↗ use language that's describing it in the

3:22 ↗ code it describes it especially for

3:25 ↗ single family Suburban

3:27 ↗ as one one unit

3:30 ↗ and in our land use section in the comp

3:34 ↗ plant Etc it's also not changing and so

3:38 ↗ I'm saying well okay how are we actually

3:41 ↗ changing anything if we are not changing

3:44 ↗ the zoning of it to allow it and it

3:48 ↗ broke my brain you know 3 o'clock in the

3:50 ↗ morning it's like ah I need my dogs so

3:53 ↗ um then I I did I I I read the guidance

3:57 ↗ from the state on it and I said sent you

4:00 ↗ all that email that shows the guidance

4:02 ↗ language that does talk about changing

4:04 ↗ zoning and the comprehensive plans to be

4:07 ↗ able to put these new housing things

4:11 ↗ into place so uh if you could ask the

4:15 ↗ questions so that we can all understand

4:19 ↗ how we're actually changing anything in

4:22 ↗ doing what we're doing rather than just

4:24 ↗ saying we're changing it we're changing

4:27 ↗ it uh that'd be awesome appreciate that

4:35 ↗ thanks thank

4:37 ↗ you Amanda is there anyone online that

4:39 ↗ would like no

4:42 ↗ chair

4:45 ↗ okay we're going to move along to the

4:47 ↗ public hearing this

4:49 ↗ evening that's our first item of

4:51 ↗ business and it regards the draft

4:53 ↗ environmental impact statement for the

4:56 ↗ proposed 2024 comprehensive plan period

5:00 ↗ update that five times F the purpose of

5:04 ↗ this public hearing is to provide a

5:06 ↗ formal opportunity for public comment

5:08 ↗ for the draft Eis but tonight we will

5:11 ↗ not be deliberating it we're not looking

5:13 ↗ for recommendations this is basically a

5:16 ↗ time for the public to be able to uh

5:18 ↗ comment on it feel free to ask some

5:20 ↗ questions but ultimately this is not

5:23 ↗ something we're required to have action

5:25 ↗ or input this is something that is

5:27 ↗ coming so

5:29 ↗ that's how we're going to

5:31 ↗ start we'll open the public hearing

5:33 ↗ it'll be followed by a presentation from

5:36 ↗ staff again we can ask follow-up

5:38 ↗ questions and then we will take public

5:40 ↗ testimony close the public

5:42 ↗ hearing that'll be that so Steven our

5:46 ↗ longrange planning manager will be

5:47 ↗ presenting this this evening Stephen

5:50 ↗ when you're ready please go ahead thank

5:53 ↗ you chair voice good evening

5:55 ↗ Commissioners tonight I'm going to

5:57 ↗ briefly run through the draft

6:00 ↗ environmental impact statement you all

6:03 ↗ uh received a longer presentation on

6:05 ↗ this earlier in August um with our

6:09 ↗ consultant Mandy Roberts who's the

6:11 ↗ principal with BAC who's our main

6:13 ↗ consultant helping us with the draft

6:15 ↗ B the just a little background

6:18 ↗ information the State Environmental

6:19 ↗ Policy Act also known as sepa requires a

6:23 ↗ process to identify and analyze

6:25 ↗ environmental impact associated with

6:27 ↗ government projects and decisions and or

6:30 ↗ in this case it's the comprehensive plan

6:31 ↗ Amendment so the key objective of sepa

6:34 ↗ is to

6:36 ↗ include identifying and mitigating

6:39 ↗ potential impacts with what's being

6:42 ↗ analyzed from the conference plan and

6:43 ↗ then providing opportunity for the

6:44 ↗ public to provide

6:47 ↗ comment the Eis itself analyzes

6:50 ↗ potential impacts within a reasonable

6:52 ↗ range of Alternatives that being the

6:53 ↗ growth

6:54 ↗ alternative it identifies mitigation

6:56 ↗ measures that could avoid or reduce the

6:58 ↗ level of impacts it provides

7:01 ↗ opportunities for public local state and

7:03 ↗ federal agencies and tribal governments

7:05 ↗ to review and provide comment on project

7:09 ↗ and then longrange plans such as the

7:10 ↗ comprehensive plan are primarily

7:13 ↗ considered

7:16 ↗ non-project so for the draft Eis there

7:18 ↗ is a minimum 30-day public comment

7:20 ↗ period um once P comments are received

7:24 ↗ the final Eis will be prepared and

7:26 ↗ that'll include responses to all the

7:28 ↗ comments that we received

7:30 ↗ for isqua there is no preferred

7:31 ↗ alternative the scenarios of the growth

7:34 ↗ Alternatives analysis is for the purpose

7:36 ↗ of the planning ahead

7:39 ↗ proac so in the draft Eis includes all

7:43 ↗ these topics Community profile the

7:47 ↗ Alternatives consistency with plans and

7:49 ↗ policies land use Transportation Public

7:52 ↗ Services utilities Community design

7:54 ↗ Aesthetics and natural

7:58 ↗ environment for the is a we have adopted

8:00 ↗ growth targets that being

8:02 ↗ 3,500 housing units above the based um

8:07 ↗ housing units that we had in

8:10 ↗ 2019 and for employment or jobs that's

8:14 ↗ 7,950 jobs above what the base number

8:18 ↗ was established in

8:20 ↗ 2019 we

8:23 ↗ have in according to or accounting for

8:26 ↗ the the the housing inits we had in 201

8:29 ↗ 22 we now we have to accommodate 2,427

8:34 ↗ units and that also being

8:37 ↗ 5,565

8:39 ↗ jobs but we have the current capacity

8:42 ↗ zoned for just over 12,000 housing units

8:46 ↗ and just over 16,000

8:52 ↗ jobs when looking at the Alternatives we

8:55 ↗ assumed um in this table the numbers

8:59 ↗ being for alternative one we assume just

9:01 ↗ over 3,000 housing units above the 2019

9:04 ↗ base line so for each of these

9:06 ↗ Alternatives

9:08 ↗ it's actually for this table it's

9:10 ↗ looking at the 2022 Baseline so for

9:13 ↗ alternative one we're assuming just over

9:15 ↗ 3,000 housing units and just over 11,000

9:20 ↗ jobs for alternative two we're assuming

9:22 ↗ just over 4,000 units and 13,000

9:26 ↗ jobs and then for alternative three

9:28 ↗ we're assuming just over 6,000 units and

9:36 ↗ 16,000 so generally for the alternative

9:38 ↗ one we up we're looking at no action

9:42 ↗ alternative that being the updated

9:44 ↗ conference plan isn't adopted but growth

9:46 ↗ continues with the existing designed

9:48 ↗ construction projects that are currently

9:50 ↗ in the for alternative two we're we're

9:53 ↗ calling moderate growth that's where

9:54 ↗ more growth is occurring in housing

9:56 ↗ units and jobs with the majority of it

9:58 ↗ outside Central supp LA and then for

10:02 ↗ alternative three we are looking a

10:03 ↗ little more intense growth but a little

10:05 ↗ more concentration of growth within

10:11 ↗ Central so just a summary of the

10:13 ↗ analysis what you'll find in the draft

10:15 ↗ Eis um we looked at how it meets the

10:19 ↗ growth targets we looked at provides

10:22 ↗ capacity consistency with plans and

10:25 ↗ policies all the impacts of

10:27 ↗ Transportation utilities and public

10:28 ↗ services and Community design Aesthetics

10:31 ↗ and environmental impacts and we found

10:33 ↗ that yes what we have have established

10:37 ↗ the compr comprehensive plan does

10:39 ↗ consider the impacts and potential

10:41 ↗ mitigation for those impacts for all

10:44 ↗ those

10:46 ↗ different the one no you'll find in

10:48 ↗ there is are we consistent with City

10:50 ↗ plans with alternative one if the

10:52 ↗ comprehensive plan isn't adopted then we

10:55 ↗ are not consistent or compliant with

10:56 ↗ state or County regulations which means

10:59 ↗ that we cannot be certified for comp

11:01 ↗ that and what that means for the city is

11:04 ↗ that we are not eligible for any state

11:06 ↗ or federal

11:12 ↗ funding so for the disis it was

11:14 ↗ published on August 14th we have a

11:16 ↗ 37-day public comment period which will

11:18 ↗ end uh later next

11:20 ↗ week and then soon after depending on

11:23 ↗ the level of a comments that we receive

11:25 ↗ we'll issue the final e

11:30 ↗ that's it for my

11:33 ↗ presentation great thank you

11:38 ↗ Stephen so now is the time for questions

11:41 ↗ from any of our

11:42 ↗ commissioners is there anyone who'd like

11:44 ↗ to kick us

11:49 ↗ off Vice chair

11:51 ↗ Bader thanks and I apologize if this has

11:53 ↗ been asked before and it was at a

11:55 ↗ meeting I wasn't at so this might be a

11:57 ↗ um repeat question but

12:00 ↗ um for the alternative to I'm just

12:02 ↗ curious

12:04 ↗ why it's warded with most of the

12:07 ↗ development happening outside of central

12:08 ↗ isqua because I thought the plan was

12:10 ↗ already to concentrate development in

12:13 ↗ central isqua so I don't know why that's

12:14 ↗ the alternative and

12:17 ↗ not so the biggest difference between

12:19 ↗ alternative one and alternative two is

12:21 ↗ that it assumes um that all the

12:24 ↗ development Agreements are fully built

12:25 ↗ out alternative do that alternative one

12:28 ↗ only assumes partial build out of the

12:29 ↗ development agreements and the vast

12:32 ↗ majority of the development Agreements

12:33 ↗ are putting units outside of central Isa

12:36 ↗ so we're not assuming we're not assuming

12:38 ↗ much additional growth between

12:40 ↗ alternative one and alternative two in

12:42 ↗ centralis so the biggest difference

12:44 ↗ between one and two or um between three

12:47 ↗ and the others is that we're basically

12:49 ↗ taking those same assumptions from one

12:51 ↗ and two and just assuming more growth in

12:54 ↗ Sy

12:59 ↗ great thank

13:02 ↗ you anyone

13:06 ↗ else so I have one question for you

13:08 ↗ Stephen uh chair voice so ultimately

13:11 ↗ we're zoned the capacity is there

13:13 ↗ already for the city targets it's just

13:16 ↗ basically building it out so like in

13:19 ↗ option one you guys are option three I

13:21 ↗ guess would be a better

13:23 ↗ example in the planning policy or not

13:25 ↗ even the planning policy anymore now the

13:27 ↗ the Arbiter of the city whatever that is

13:30 ↗ I forget are you guys zoned for what you

13:33 ↗ need regardless of which option happens

13:35 ↗ I know three is a little bit dependent

13:37 ↗ on future growth it's not something that

13:40 ↗ the city can quite forecast you can TR

13:42 ↗ and push whereas two and one are more

13:46 ↗ obvious um but the city's already zoned

13:49 ↗ for what you need for the capacity I

13:50 ↗ mean it looked like that on your first

13:54 ↗ chart yes I I'll just bring up the chart

13:57 ↗ just so it I can show as I'm

14:01 ↗ talking give back

14:08 ↗ up so you'll

14:10 ↗ see um our Zone capacity is 12,000 units

14:14 ↗ Above This 18,000 right we are assuming

14:19 ↗ for alternative three only 6,000

14:21 ↗ additional units above the 22 so you're

14:23 ↗ correct it's with what we're assuming

14:25 ↗ with alternative three is within our

14:26 ↗ Zone City

14:30 ↗ yeah Mission CRA that assumes it's all

14:34 ↗ in the right places so I guess the way

14:38 ↗ to ask it also is the meet three does

14:40 ↗ any zoning have to change or is it

14:42 ↗ already in place it's all in place and

14:44 ↗ that's the reason why there's no

14:45 ↗ preferred alternative with this uh Eis

14:48 ↗ you would want a preferred alternative

14:50 ↗ if we were needing to change the

14:56 ↗ zoning okay

15:00 ↗ any other

15:02 ↗ questions

15:07 ↗ follow-ups right we will open the public

15:10 ↗ hearing this evening at 6:46

15:14 ↗ p.m. I believe we have people signed up

15:17 ↗ to speak but

15:18 ↗ sta yes we do and Fletcher

15:33 ↗ okay I'm Anne Fletcher and I'm a

15:36 ↗ resident 255 Southeast Andrew Street I

15:40 ↗ also um besides being a Community member

15:43 ↗ for a long time I have a climate lens um

15:48 ↗ in my uh

15:50 ↗ interests and um having heard some of

15:53 ↗ the questions I uh need to change some

15:57 ↗ of my comments because I had the same

16:00 ↗ confusion about why number two didn't

16:03 ↗ have more Central isqua and also didn't

16:06 ↗ understand that the that building out

16:11 ↗ all of the things that are vested and

16:14 ↗ that are um in the works would already

16:17 ↗ take us it sounds like to plan uh

16:21 ↗ alternative to um with that much growth

16:25 ↗ so if we want anything in central

16:29 ↗ it would have to be more than that so

16:32 ↗ that really changes my my thinking a

16:35 ↗ little bit but that's okay um this you

16:39 ↗ live and you learn right um so um so but

16:43 ↗ I did have some comments uh beyond that

16:45 ↗ and um I I do think that um having the

16:49 ↗ three

16:50 ↗ Alternatives is

16:53 ↗ interesting um at the same time it's was

16:56 ↗ mainly for analysis purposes I

16:58 ↗ understood that but it was that idea was

17:02 ↗ kind of lost in the in the discussion it

17:05 ↗ was a very um in-depth discussion so um

17:10 ↗ it it made uh it made it focused on

17:14 ↗ those three Alternatives rather than

17:16 ↗ there could be things in between that or

17:19 ↗ uh so on so um but

17:23 ↗ um I did want to mention that the the

17:26 ↗ the third growth option seems to be

17:29 ↗ favored in this deis even though I know

17:32 ↗ it's supposed to be kind of neutral um

17:35 ↗ and um it it

17:40 ↗ um this is the largest growth option and

17:43 ↗ it couples it with more development in

17:45 ↗ in central isqua I would think that

17:48 ↗ there could definitely be something in

17:50 ↗ between it that might be preferable but

17:53 ↗ along with alternative three comes the

17:54 ↗ highest amount of Road Improvement

17:56 ↗ projects needed uh a number that looks

17:59 ↗ it's unachievable for our budget um we

18:02 ↗ could spend a great deal in in looking

18:03 ↗ at the charts still have very low d&

18:07 ↗ levels of service um it's it's also not

18:10 ↗ clear in the deis from my climate

18:12 ↗ perspective is how much walking and

18:15 ↗ biking projects will reduce cars and

18:18 ↗ Emissions it's just in there and um it

18:23 ↗ would be interesting to have more

18:24 ↗ analysis of that also how providing more

18:28 ↗ Transit is Central isqua develops versus

18:31 ↗ cars um requiring more roads uh could

18:35 ↗ decrease vehicle miles um traveled and

18:39 ↗ um that's not discussed very much and

18:40 ↗ along that line the city could augment

18:43 ↗ this with its own Municipal transit

18:45 ↗ system to kind of fill the Gap and um it

18:48 ↗ would um help get people around without

18:51 ↗ cars and this Flex this mode has

18:54 ↗ flexibility and might be a better

18:56 ↗ investment than some of the additional

18:58 ↗ Road Project projects that would be

18:59 ↗ required um continued funding for

19:02 ↗ Metroflex uh would be another wise

19:05 ↗ investment and um should be emphasized I

19:08 ↗ think in the

19:09 ↗ deis um for uh neighborhoods um to

19:13 ↗ decrease your vehicle miles traveled um

19:16 ↗ with the differing but large increases

19:17 ↗ in population and all the Alternatives

19:19 ↗ there will be many more cars unless we

19:22 ↗ invest wisely and other option so I

19:24 ↗ think the dis could discuss more whether

19:27 ↗ or not the three alternatives atives

19:29 ↗ that are very similar um for all the all

19:32 ↗ the alternatives vmis are similar and

19:34 ↗ are they in line with achieving our

19:36 ↗ transportation goals and in the in the

19:39 ↗ IAP and the um Mobility master plan for

19:42 ↗ 2030 and

19:44 ↗ 2040 um and um the amount of walking and

19:48 ↗ biking which I've already mentioned

19:50 ↗ likewise with the housing our biggest

19:52 ↗ greenhouse gas emitter the deis I think

19:55 ↗ could make a better connection between

19:58 ↗ the growth variables and our chances of

20:00 ↗ reaching our Greenhouse goals in the

20:03 ↗ IAP um this is an important factor it's

20:06 ↗ it's all dependent on the IAP

20:08 ↗ implementation we know from the summer

20:11 ↗ interim report that um support crucial

20:14 ↗ support is needed to overcome barriers

20:16 ↗ and accelerate our emissions uh

20:19 ↗ reduction and the dis could point out

20:21 ↗ these challenges and make more specific

20:23 ↗ mitigation recommendations I I found

20:26 ↗ that the DI seem to want to be really

20:29 ↗ reassuring and perhaps could do a little

20:32 ↗ bit more with um admitting challenges

20:34 ↗ that we have and um

20:38 ↗ uh and M how to mitigate those so uh

20:43 ↗ thank you in my written comments I also

20:45 ↗ mentioned a couple of discrepancies that

20:46 ↗ are maybe just typographical errors or

20:48 ↗ something in the in the U that I'm sure

20:51 ↗ that the staff has gotten so thank you

21:01 ↗ chair we are done for comments oh sorry

21:10 ↗ Connie so Connie

21:13 ↗ again now there's

21:17 ↗ a zoning for how much buildable land you

21:22 ↗ have and then there's Zoning for what is

21:27 ↗ allowed in particular areas on your

21:30 ↗ zoning map and if you look at your code

21:33 ↗ in the comprehensive Plan update both

21:36 ↗ are part of the process and so one of

21:39 ↗ these is being described to you does not

21:42 ↗ resolve the other one which is why

21:45 ↗ aren't we changing our developable units

21:48 ↗ in our zoning maps and our use maps and

21:53 ↗ that is in the deis also the zoning map

21:56 ↗ is actually in the deis so now I want to

22:00 ↗ talk about Transportation because uh

22:03 ↗ we're dealing with reality here and the

22:06 ↗ transportation projects that are

22:08 ↗ proposed to be built to uh mitigate the

22:13 ↗ transportation impacts for leev for

22:16 ↗ alternative three are

22:19 ↗ so beyond

22:22 ↗ unrealistic that it will just never

22:25 ↗ happen especially in the pace pace of 20

22:28 ↗ years the growth is highly unlikely to

22:32 ↗ happen in the space of 20 years so when

22:36 ↗ you're looking at your

22:39 ↗ deis

22:40 ↗ examples I would like to see a little

22:43 ↗ reality in that there is not much

22:46 ↗ helpfulness in having your bookend be so

22:49 ↗ out far out in the future that it's

22:51 ↗ simple fantasy I would rather have it in

22:54 ↗ well what do we think we might actually

22:57 ↗ get into 20 years and with that level

23:02 ↗ and then go okay and where do we want to

23:06 ↗ have it because actually in the comp

23:08 ↗ plan there's language saying we want to

23:10 ↗ put it in the central isqua area so

23:13 ↗ where do we want it to go how are we

23:15 ↗ going to get it there then what is it

23:18 ↗ going to cost to actually be able to

23:20 ↗ have a city that anybody wants to live

23:23 ↗ in in Services utilities and

23:27 ↗ transportation Parks you know all these

23:29 ↗ lovelies right but we don't really talk

23:31 ↗ about that we're just saying yeah we

23:34 ↗ have all the stuff and it'll be good

23:36 ↗ everything's going to be mitigated and

23:37 ↗ that is not helpful when planning a

23:42 ↗ city because there's nothing to say it's

23:45 ↗ like oh okay I guess it's fine it's not

23:48 ↗ going to be fine we are not going to

23:50 ↗ build that much if we build that much we

23:52 ↗ are going to have a serious issue

23:53 ↗ because we're going to have $300 million

23:56 ↗ just in transportation projects that

23:58 ↗ will not be done and we will have said

24:01 ↗ it's fine in our

24:03 ↗ deis so I would like to see the focus of

24:07 ↗ the

24:08 ↗ deis be what do we want and what do we

24:12 ↗ think will happen and then let's talk

24:15 ↗ about the mitigations required

24:17 ↗ realistically including climate and the

24:20 ↗ environment um and our Mobility master

24:23 ↗ plan for what the city and who we want

24:25 ↗ to be let's have that conversation

24:29 ↗ um and this is the place to have that

24:30 ↗ conversation because now you have all of

24:33 ↗ the words there giving you the entire

24:35 ↗ picture of what is they're thinking

24:38 ↗ about for isqua and it's the first time

24:40 ↗ you can get a picture and have a cogent

24:42 ↗ conversation with those tools so now

24:45 ↗ you're going wow that sounds like

24:47 ↗ blowing something up um I think it is

24:50 ↗ but I also think it is the correct thing

24:52 ↗ to do if we want a functioning plan for

24:54 ↗ the city of isqua rather than a plan

24:57 ↗ where we just pick can choose whatever

24:59 ↗ we want and we just do whatever we want

25:03 ↗ without particular direction we've done

25:05 ↗ that in the past ah did it work sort of

25:09 ↗ so uh I know what I'm asking is hard but

25:12 ↗ if each of you can picture that isqua

25:15 ↗ that I'm talking about with the growth

25:17 ↗ and you think about what that looks like

25:19 ↗ to you in reality every day when you go

25:22 ↗ out and try to use your town that's what

25:25 ↗ we're talking

25:26 ↗ about thanks I know I think about it way

25:29 ↗ too much you wouldn't believe it it's

25:31 ↗ just spinning all the

25:38 ↗ time chair we have no more comments

25:41 ↗ thank

25:43 ↗ you all right thank you

25:47 ↗ Amanda that being our final public

25:51 ↗ comment um we will close the public

25:54 ↗ hearing at 6:57 p.m.

26:01 ↗ maybe I get in trouble if I do this

26:03 ↗ ultimately it's I mean the Eis is really

26:06 ↗ it's it's not really the metric that we

26:08 ↗ would typically use to engage some of

26:10 ↗ that more of that you're looking at a

26:13 ↗ large piece of legislation the comp plan

26:16 ↗ this is kind of a catch all kind of go

26:18 ↗ okay here's a few different scenarios

26:20 ↗ these are some of the problems we may

26:22 ↗ come down the road not that this is the

26:24 ↗ only metric by

26:26 ↗ any yes that's correct and and the main

26:29 ↗ thing with the analysis with the draft

26:30 ↗ theis is it's using all the established

26:32 ↗ level of service standards we have in

26:34 ↗ place to determine impacts and

26:37 ↗ mitigation okay thank

26:44 ↗ you okay on to regular

26:47 ↗ business and we have two items under

26:49 ↗ regular business tonight and the first

26:51 ↗ is a continuation of the public hearing

26:55 ↗ from August

26:56 ↗ 22nd but we want want to do this evening

26:59 ↗ is deliberate and take action on the

27:01 ↗ comprehensive draft plan Steven's going

27:04 ↗ to give us a presentation um and then

27:07 ↗ we'll have our deliberations ultimately

27:09 ↗ a carryover again from two a meeting the

27:11 ↗ last meeting two weeks

27:13 ↗ ago uh when we get there I'll kind of go

27:15 ↗ over what how we're going to do it how

27:17 ↗ we're going to uh take one bite at the

27:20 ↗ Apple at the time but ultimately Stephen

27:22 ↗ go ahead when you're

27:25 ↗ ready thank you your voice good evening

27:28 ↗ Commissioners thanks for having me back

27:30 ↗ um we are now going to talk about the

27:34 ↗ deliberation for the draft comprehensive

27:35 ↗ plan so as chair voice said this is a

27:38 ↗ continuation from the public hearing

27:41 ↗ that occurred on August 22nd from PPC

27:43 ↗ the commission voted to postpone the

27:46 ↗ deliberation to tonight's meeting um

27:48 ↗ which is what this discussion is going

27:49 ↗ to be on before we jump into the main

27:52 ↗ motion we wanted to kind of update the

27:54 ↗ commission on a couple things we met

27:56 ↗ with the planning velopment environment

27:59 ↗ Council committee earlier this week and

28:00 ↗ they asked for some changes to go into

28:02 ↗ the draft conference plan um the first

28:04 ↗ set of changes were into the int

28:06 ↗ introduction and that was to add a

28:09 ↗ little more context on the city of isqua

28:12 ↗ um specifically quot quoting from the

28:14 ↗ meeting where we were where we are and

28:18 ↗ where we're going added a little more

28:19 ↗ context on what what is the city of

28:23 ↗ isquad doing with this conference

28:25 ↗ there's also going to be additional

28:26 ↗ language kind of um highlighting

28:28 ↗ dedication to the National environment

28:30 ↗ this is addressing a comment that came

28:31 ↗ from the environmental board in their

28:33 ↗ letter to planning policy commission um

28:36 ↗ Council committee read the letter and

28:38 ↗ they wanted to include some of that

28:39 ↗ language there also was a request to

28:42 ↗ address the values that were established

28:43 ↗ in 1993 that's been carried forward in

28:46 ↗ all the comprehensive plans and so we'll

28:48 ↗ be doing that adding that into the ENT

28:50 ↗ so for tonight we don't have anything

28:52 ↗ for you to review because we just got

28:54 ↗ the feedback from C committee ear this

28:56 ↗ week but we're hoping to get a a little

28:58 ↗ bit of feedback from you if if you were

29:00 ↗ to see this type of language in the

29:01 ↗ introduction do you have is there

29:03 ↗ something particular that you would be

29:05 ↗ looking for um in terms of like what

29:08 ↗ should it address is there something you

29:10 ↗ would want to see in terms of where we

29:12 ↗ were where we are or even

29:14 ↗ accomplishments those are the type of

29:16 ↗ things we're going to be putting in in

29:17 ↗ this link and then uh Additionally the

29:20 ↗ council committee asked us to go back to

29:23 ↗ the direct recommendations from the

29:25 ↗ affordable housing committee um this

29:27 ↗ Commission

29:28 ↗ uh reviewed and provided some comments

29:30 ↗ the council committee uh really

29:32 ↗ appreciated the the the planning policy

29:34 ↗ commission's recommendations but we

29:37 ↗ they're wanting staff to directly

29:39 ↗ address the the request from the

29:42 ↗ affordable housing committee so staff's

29:43 ↗ going to be going back to that and um

29:46 ↗ likely going back to some of the

29:48 ↗ original language that we had um but

29:51 ↗ trying to incorporate some of the

29:52 ↗ feedback we got from the Bing

29:55 ↗ employes so for this item is there any

29:57 ↗ feed feedback from the commission on

30:00 ↗ introduction this type of language being

30:02 ↗ added into the

30:10 ↗ in commission Milligan hi thank you

30:13 ↗ Stephen and I think if I understand your

30:16 ↗ question you're looking from us um other

30:20 ↗ considerations as you draft the uh

30:24 ↗ introduction differently um I I

30:26 ↗ appreciate this and um one other thing

30:29 ↗ inspired by the Highlight dedication to

30:31 ↗ the natural environment one bullet point

30:33 ↗ you know where we are where we were

30:35 ↗ where we are where we're going is um uh

30:38 ↗ what is important to us now not just the

30:41 ↗ Environ uh the natural environment which

30:43 ↗ of course might be the top of that but

30:45 ↗ um what is important to us is something

30:47 ↗ that uh as I was looking through and

30:49 ↗ have further comments

30:51 ↗ later um was something that I hoped we

30:55 ↗ could incorporate in the comprehensive

30:56 ↗ plan because I think it should be a

30:58 ↗ reflection of who we are aspirational

31:01 ↗ self not not just a reflection of what

31:04 ↗ we are but who we want to be so what's

31:06 ↗ important to us would be another thing

31:09 ↗ to look for thank

31:14 ↗ you anything

31:21 ↗ further okay now moving on to um the

31:26 ↗ land use element we incorporated several

31:28 ↗ edits into the land use element based on

31:30 ↗ public comment that staff received and

31:33 ↗ I'm going hand it over to Kristen Leon

31:35 ↗ senior planner to kind of run through

31:39 ↗ those question thank you um commissioner

31:43 ↗ Milligan can you tell us a little bit

31:45 ↗ can you give us a road map we we have

31:46 ↗ our um regular business section 5A and

31:50 ↗ we're looking at it but can you tell us

31:51 ↗ a little bit more about how we're going

31:53 ↗ to get to our motion what what are we

31:55 ↗ doing tonight so we know where to go yes

31:57 ↗ thank you so we'll run through these

31:59 ↗ edits really quickly um similar to the

32:02 ↗ discussions we've had when we had policy

32:03 ↗ discussions for changes that went into

32:05 ↗ the comprehensive plan and then we're

32:07 ↗ going to ask for the main motion and

32:08 ↗ then that's when we'll have the

32:09 ↗ discussion for is there any additional

32:11 ↗ amendments to each of the sections and

32:13 ↗ what we'll do is is when we have the

32:16 ↗ main motion we'll actually run through

32:17 ↗ each of the elements to help kind of

32:19 ↗ organize the Amendments a little bit for

32:22 ↗ um that for the

32:25 ↗ deliberation after the motion correct

32:29 ↗ yeah it's kind of strange because it's a

32:30 ↗ continuation

32:31 ↗ so guess I mean there's obviously

32:34 ↗ there's going to be questions about some

32:35 ↗ of these new edits that ultimately some

32:37 ↗ of these things probably should have

32:38 ↗ happened ideally you know we don't want

32:40 ↗ to spend two hours going over the whole

32:42 ↗ comprehensive plan that's kind of why

32:43 ↗ it's messy when we did this continuation

32:46 ↗ um so again it's one thing to ask

32:48 ↗ questions about some of the presentation

32:49 ↗ that's going to happen tonight but yeah

32:51 ↗ we're not we're not trying to take

32:52 ↗ questions anything about the entire comp

32:55 ↗ plan this is just about the edits at

32:57 ↗ this point and and then we'll deliberate

32:58 ↗ on the entire packet um and like I said

33:01 ↗ like Stephen said we'll take it apart

33:03 ↗ element by element right and for each of

33:05 ↗ these elements we'll you know have a

33:07 ↗ general discussion and if we come to

33:08 ↗ consensus we'll move on but if we don't

33:10 ↗ come to consensus then we'll probably

33:12 ↗ ask for a vote otherwise we're only

33:13 ↗ asking for a vote when we get to the

33:15 ↗ main

33:16 ↗ motion right I'll hand it off to

33:26 ↗ Kristen hi uh Christen Leon senior

33:28 ↗ planner with long-range planning and you

33:30 ↗ know sometimes the mind works in

33:32 ↗ mysterious ways and get things backwards

33:33 ↗ so uh for some of these edits they

33:35 ↗ actually wound up uh in a red line that

33:38 ↗ you received rather than a matrix so

33:40 ↗ there was no reasoning behind what you

33:41 ↗ would have seen there so that's why we

33:43 ↗ want to go through these real quick um

33:48 ↗ so the first one is the

33:50 ↗ vision

33:52 ↗ way actually well okay I didn't want to

33:54 ↗ do this one first but we will uh the way

33:57 ↗ it was originally written is not here

33:59 ↗ but is it was isqua actively manage Land

34:08 ↗ Development can't make this

34:16 ↗ go

34:18 ↗ good did

34:20 ↗ something which way am I going I'm sorry

34:24 ↗ that wasn't working

34:33 ↗ Sten

35:09 ↗ thank you okay so I needed to be able to

35:11 ↗ see the original and the changes just

35:14 ↗ there so the first one the first comment

35:17 ↗ that we got was to clarify the vision a

35:20 ↗ little bit and it was isqua Will

35:23 ↗ actively manage Land Land Development

35:25 ↗ and natural resources to balance

35:26 ↗ economic social and environmental

35:29 ↗ considerations and it just natural

35:32 ↗ resources seem to be in the wrong place

35:35 ↗ um and it just didn't it just didn't

35:38 ↗ make much sense when I when we read the

35:40 ↗ comment so uh we have amended it just a

35:43 ↗ bit proposed amendment to isqua will

35:45 ↗ actively manage Land Development to

35:48 ↗ balance economic social and

35:49 ↗ environmental considerations while

35:51 ↗ protecting and enhancing the city's

35:52 ↗ natural environment and its resources

35:59 ↗ the next

36:00 ↗ one

36:01 ↗ was

36:03 ↗ B6 that you didn't see it originally

36:07 ↗ just said it talked about protecting

36:08 ↗ trees that are already there and making

36:10 ↗ sure that they're taken care of it did

36:11 ↗ not talk about planting new trees in the

36:14 ↗ urban environment so this just addresses

36:16 ↗ uh planting new trees and making sure

36:18 ↗ that those are where planted where they

36:21 ↗ can Thrive and how they can thrive

36:29 ↗ so when there's a new action like plant

36:32 ↗ which then

36:35 ↗ enlists buying trees and planting trees

36:38 ↗ is there budget concerns or is that not

36:40 ↗ part of that's not part of this okay

37:26 ↗ and we're back

37:28 ↗ okay uh so that was uh

37:31 ↗ B6 the next one where we made a change

37:34 ↗ was in D7 it talked about mitigating the

37:38 ↗ risk to lives and property uh posed by

37:41 ↗ wildfires and it said to residential

37:43 ↗ development but you know the public

37:45 ↗ comment was why just residential

37:47 ↗ development why not all development

37:48 ↗ which made sense so we just removed the

37:49 ↗ word

37:56 ↗ residential hey

38:02 ↗ stay all

38:07 ↗ right not working for

38:10 ↗ me

38:15 ↗ um yeah it's just can't see because of

38:17 ↗ that there we go okay so F2 we simply

38:20 ↗ deleted because it was duplicated in G2

38:23 ↗ it was the exact same policy in there

38:25 ↗ twice so it fit better under this next

38:27 ↗ section under Healthy Communities under

38:30 ↗ G2 Healthy Communities um we just tried

38:34 ↗ to make it a little clear rather than

38:36 ↗ courage we made it a little more uh a

38:38 ↗ little stronger to say require infill

38:40 ↗ and Redevelopment that will improve

38:42 ↗ Mobility options and walkability for all

38:45 ↗ so it still includes the equity it

38:47 ↗ clarifies all Mobility rather than just

38:51 ↗ walking and makes it a little stronger

38:53 ↗ with the word require rather than

38:56 ↗ encourage

38:58 ↗ G3 again it was just clarification um

39:01 ↗ maintain and enhance existing public

39:04 ↗ gathering spaces to recognize that we do

39:06 ↗ have existing public gathering spaces

39:09 ↗ and encourage development of new

39:11 ↗ community Gathering spaces using

39:13 ↗ ecologically sustain sustainable methods

39:16 ↗ which is typically language used and we

39:18 ↗ said it in a sustainable way so this

39:20 ↗ made a little more sense lastly uh in G5

39:23 ↗ we actually just changed the word City

39:25 ↗ uh city-wide green necklace because the

39:27 ↗ parks plan is proposing to change that

39:30 ↗ name so uh green necklace so we just

39:32 ↗ said uh consistent with the parks

39:48 ↗ plan all

39:53 ↗ right here we go goal

39:55 ↗ H um this one was interesting the so it

39:59 ↗ was ensure welcoming attractive and

40:01 ↗ walkable neighborhoods with V with

40:03 ↗ various amenities that support the

40:04 ↗ city's cultural and economically diverse

40:07 ↗ Community well when going this was a a

40:10 ↗ comment from another public comment

40:14 ↗ and the commenter noticed that

40:18 ↗ everything that was in our existing

40:20 ↗ Vision existed in policies and that the

40:22 ↗ first sentence that was in our

40:24 ↗ discussion was more of a Visionary

40:26 ↗ sentence rather than what was there so

40:28 ↗ our proposal was to replace the vision

40:30 ↗ with the first sentence in the

40:32 ↗ discussion um and you know reading

40:34 ↗ through the policies everything that was

40:35 ↗ there welcoming attractive walkable

40:37 ↗ those are all in the policies so what

40:39 ↗ we're proposing is to change the vision

40:41 ↗ to work with neighborhoods to ensure

40:43 ↗ each reflects its own unique diverse and

40:46 ↗ aesthetic experience as it continues to

40:47 ↗ grow and change over

40:50 ↗ time I think that is the last one yes

40:53 ↗ that is the last one for land use so I'm

40:55 ↗ do you all have any questions for me

40:59 ↗ are there any questions I mean

41:00 ↗ ultimately we want to keep it light

41:01 ↗ again the idea is not to have a a

41:03 ↗ separate public hearing so again if

41:06 ↗ you're unless you have something it'll

41:09 ↗ be part of our deliberations but again

41:11 ↗ if you do have some pretty

41:12 ↗ straightforward questions please go

41:16 ↗ ahead all right thank you Kristen thank

41:22 ↗ you thank you Kristen

41:27 ↗ the presentation

41:33 ↗ again he we're

41:38 ↗ back so next steps following tonight is

41:41 ↗ we're going to be going back to the

41:43 ↗ Planning Development environment

41:44 ↗ Committee in October then we'll be going

41:46 ↗ to the committee of the whole in Octo o

41:49 ↗ October to do full Council review of the

41:51 ↗ comprehens plan and draft and then

41:53 ↗ tenative action by City Council on

41:54 ↗ December 2nd so for tonight you have

41:57 ↗ your example motion this is the same

41:59 ↗ motion that was included in your uh

42:00 ↗ staff report um the process for tonight

42:04 ↗ after the main motion we'll go through

42:06 ↗ each of the draft elements and we'll ask

42:08 ↗ if there's any am amendments for each of

42:10 ↗ those individual elements just to keep

42:13 ↗ the conversation a little more

42:15 ↗ organized and for now I'll leave the

42:18 ↗ example motion on the screen someone

42:20 ↗ like a make a motion to kick this

42:24 ↗ off commissioner Patterson thank chair

42:27 ↗ I'd like to move to recommend approval

42:29 ↗ of the proposed periodic amendments to

42:31 ↗ the comprehensive plan as presented is

42:35 ↗ there a

42:36 ↗ second second all right Vice chair Bader

42:40 ↗ thank

42:41 ↗ you all right so we'll just take it

42:43 ↗ apart one by one and I think we'll just

42:47 ↗ pick up where we left off land use and

42:55 ↗ sustainability okay

42:58 ↗ deliberate

43:00 ↗ deliberations time to

43:03 ↗ shine I don't know if there's a

43:05 ↗ particular slide that would be helpful

43:07 ↗ introduction okay we never mind we're

43:10 ↗ going to kick it back to

43:14 ↗ introduction yeah okay yeah the

43:16 ↗ introduction is there anything as far as

43:19 ↗ vision statements introduction again

43:21 ↗ think of the uh questions that we were

43:23 ↗ asked a little bit early

43:24 ↗ earlier where we were Where We Are

43:27 ↗ those can all be talked about right now

43:30 ↗ as

43:53 ↗ well share voice I'll just mention that

43:56 ↗ I think it's a appropriate to I'm

43:58 ↗ interested to see how you guys work in

44:00 ↗ the 1993 values I think that is uh it's

44:03 ↗ good to also know where we're coming

44:05 ↗ from and where we're going so a little

44:06 ↗ bit of a backstory helpful even though

44:10 ↗ these are all forward-looking drafts um

44:12 ↗ I don't know how long it needs to be but

44:14 ↗ I think it was a good suggestion

44:30 ↗ anyone have anything

44:32 ↗ to add anyone have anything that they

44:36 ↗ don't like about the

44:38 ↗ introduction they want to see changed

44:40 ↗ about the

44:43 ↗ introduction Comm Patterson I'll throw

44:45 ↗ it that there um I I just want to say I

44:48 ↗ am in favor of the approach of the where

44:50 ↗ we are or where are and going um I wish

44:53 ↗ I had something more prophetic to say

44:55 ↗ about it but shooting from the hip uh

44:56 ↗ having just just learned about it um I

44:58 ↗ do think it's appropriate given that we

45:00 ↗ did receive a lot of public comment and

45:01 ↗ some feedback from our commission about

45:04 ↗ really celebrating what isqua has always

45:06 ↗ been or is currently uh but also being

45:09 ↗ realistic about the direction we're

45:11 ↗ going and the the growth and really the

45:13 ↗ plan around it and so I I do think it is

45:16 ↗ appropriate to address it in that way

45:18 ↗ and look forward to um seeing how that

45:21 ↗ fills

45:22 ↗ out I would agree with that

45:29 ↗ all right I believe that's all you're

45:31 ↗ going to get for introduction Stephen

45:34 ↗ so we'll move on to land use and

45:45 ↗ sustainability part of the fun of this

45:47 ↗ comp plan is we've seen it so many times

45:49 ↗ a lot of our comments have we've either

45:52 ↗ deliberated or they've already been

45:54 ↗ embedded so I don't really expect us to

45:57 ↗ take that long just because there's

45:59 ↗ really not a lot that you haven't

46:03 ↗ seen that doesn't mean we can have some

46:05 ↗ fun

46:08 ↗ and I TR B I'm struggling with my

46:13 ↗ framing my comments because my pass at

46:15 ↗ this was like looking at it as a whole

46:18 ↗ um and not just individually and so I

46:20 ↗ might have like something at the end

46:21 ↗ that like ties all of my thoughts

46:23 ↗ together but specifically for land use

46:28 ↗ um I had

46:30 ↗ two thoughts one is like a

46:33 ↗ minor like language tweak on that policy

46:36 ↗ B6 about planting trees where they can

46:38 ↗ Thrive um because that line reads to me

46:41 ↗ like trees only thrive in urban

46:43 ↗ environments it just kind of reads weird

46:46 ↗ and so I wonder if we can change that to

46:48 ↗ like identify and protect da da d da and

46:51 ↗ plant trees where they can Thrive like

46:53 ↗ or plant new trees where they can Thrive

46:55 ↗ and I think that that would take away

46:57 ↗ the I know just when I looked at it I

46:59 ↗ was like what it just felt weird to me

47:02 ↗ um so that's one um and then the other

47:07 ↗ just comment on the element as a whole

47:10 ↗ um that I noticed and one of the things

47:12 ↗ I like um in the other elements is that

47:15 ↗ they had these discussion items kind of

47:18 ↗ under each header and I think that that

47:20 ↗ got a little bit to like that right

47:22 ↗ what's important to us like why is why

47:25 ↗ are these policies like relevant and

47:27 ↗ important to isqua um and this land use

47:31 ↗ element doesn't really have those um and

47:33 ↗ I think that they would provide like it

47:36 ↗ doesn't need to be like super in- depth

47:37 ↗ but I think just adding like a little

47:38 ↗ bit of narrative of like why why are

47:41 ↗ these here like why did we set these

47:42 ↗ goals why are they important um what do

47:45 ↗ they mean where did they come from I

47:47 ↗ think would be helpful um also hearing

47:49 ↗ some of the previous public comments

47:51 ↗ about kind of getting to that like heart

47:52 ↗ and soul um piece that I think there was

47:55 ↗ some perception was missing

47:57 ↗ um and so that stuck out to me in this

47:58 ↗ element in particular um just that those

48:01 ↗ kind of discussion narratives were

48:03 ↗ missing and so I don't know if it's an

48:04 ↗ option to add them in or add something

48:06 ↗ in um here it's in one of them um but I

48:09 ↗ think that that would be a value add to

48:11 ↗ this

48:15 ↗ element I don't know if this is the

48:17 ↗ correct turn of phrase point of

48:19 ↗ order I don't think it's ever been used

48:21 ↗ up here as far as I can remember and uh

48:24 ↗ how would you like us to it so if Vice

48:27 ↗ chair Bader has an idea that we all like

48:29 ↗ and again I I I like that idea having a

48:33 ↗ small discussion paragraph is that need

48:35 ↗ to become an amendment it actually does

48:38 ↗ so would it be better to wait to make

48:41 ↗ the amendment at the very end uh no you

48:43 ↗ want to make them as we go

48:47 ↗ okay there it falls to

48:50 ↗ you assuming Sarah says things that

48:52 ↗ everybody likes who knows um but I

48:56 ↗ mooved to I'm amend amend the motion

48:59 ↗ right Lang or just amend I move to move

49:02 ↗ to

49:04 ↗ amend go forth with the section that you

49:07 ↗ want to amend okay so I move to amend

49:09 ↗ the land use element um to include

49:14 ↗ discussion sections under each

49:18 ↗ other yeah is there a

49:21 ↗ second second all in favor

49:27 ↗ oh I'm sorry

49:29 ↗ discussion yes yes there so this is a

49:34 ↗ sidebar this is a uh but yes is there

49:37 ↗ any discussion on Sarah's

49:43 ↗ Amendment okay commissioner so this is

49:46 ↗ uh more the opportunity of um

49:49 ↗ standardizing the formatting like it is

49:51 ↗ in the other elements yeah thank you

49:57 ↗ any further discussion and and I think

49:59 ↗ it's helpful context um for a user

50:04 ↗ of

50:07 ↗ okay um all in

50:19 ↗ favor Is there further debate on land

50:22 ↗ use and

50:24 ↗ sustainability Vice chair Bader you

50:26 ↗ still had the one on uh policy B6 that

50:29 ↗ you were suggesting a change we'll need

50:32 ↗ motion for Amendment motion too s stop

50:35 ↗ stop talking um okay so I also move to

50:40 ↗ amend policy B6 of the land Lu policy B6

50:46 ↗ um of the land use element to

50:52 ↗ read between two pages um identify and

50:55 ↗ protect trees within Urban environments

50:58 ↗ whose health is threatened by conditions

51:00 ↗ such as limited root and canopy space

51:03 ↗ poor soil quality inconsistent water and

51:05 ↗ various types of position and plant new

51:08 ↗ trees where they can

51:11 ↗ Thrive is there a

51:15 ↗ second is there a

51:21 ↗ discussion all right all in favor say

51:25 ↗ I all right

51:33 ↗ any further debate on land use and

51:38 ↗ sustainability Stephen do you have what

51:40 ↗ you need for that

51:43 ↗ element let's move to

51:52 ↗ housing

51:54 ↗ Milligan thank you

51:57 ↗ uh I wanted to talk about and make

52:00 ↗ should I make a motion first or intro it

52:03 ↗ I'm going to think the current motion

52:05 ↗ the current if I make an amendment move

52:08 ↗ to amend or just discuss first you can

52:10 ↗ do an introduction just so everyone

52:11 ↗ knows what motion will be on uh okay I'm

52:13 ↗ looking at the uh the introduction and

52:16 ↗ then at the appendices um if you look at

52:19 ↗ the uh first page of the housing there

52:21 ↗ are five paragraphs on there and the

52:24 ↗ third paragraph starts with

52:25 ↗ unfortunately

52:27 ↗ which um contradicts what I thought I

52:30 ↗ would like to see in a comprehensive

52:32 ↗ plan which is here's who we are and

52:34 ↗ here's who we want to be um the language

52:38 ↗ caught my eye and then I read the rest

52:39 ↗ of it uh and then when you see that the

52:42 ↗ disparate acts impacts analysis is found

52:44 ↗ in the appendices if you go to the

52:46 ↗ appendices you will find it says the um

52:50 ↗ the key findings in the those appendices

52:52 ↗ say that isqua does not have a

52:54 ↗ significant history of racial

52:57 ↗ restrictive covenants for instance and

53:00 ↗ in the appendices which is supporting

53:03 ↗ this it says that isqua is now roughly

53:06 ↗ as diverse as King County overall now

53:08 ↗ not to dismiss uh the desire for um

53:12 ↗ working on our diversity and serving all

53:15 ↗ communities and uh making um

53:18 ↗ opportunities and housing available to

53:20 ↗ those who haven't had it before uh I

53:22 ↗ think that the rest of the introduction

53:25 ↗ including the the discussion under

53:28 ↗ housing Equity is where those things go

53:31 ↗ and they say we want to support housing

53:34 ↗ equity and even use our diagram to show

53:36 ↗ that some people are um less capable of

53:39 ↗ reaching the housing um uh opportunities

53:42 ↗ that we want everyone to have so I I do

53:45 ↗ agree in having that language in the

53:48 ↗ housing um introduction I just um want

53:52 ↗ to reconsider the paragraph that starts

53:54 ↗ with unfortunately because I think it's

53:55 ↗ trying to address address

53:58 ↗ um uh it's inconsistent with the rest of

54:01 ↗ the document and doesn't add to our

54:06 ↗ objectives so I would make an amendment

54:09 ↗ I

54:10 ↗ amend uh I would like to make an

54:12 ↗ amendment to uh remove the third

54:14 ↗ paragraph that starts with unfortunately

54:17 ↗ because in some copies I've seen it's

54:18 ↗ the second uh starts with uh

54:21 ↗ unfortunately but maintain the last

54:24 ↗ sentence that says detailed analysis of

54:25 ↗ historical

54:26 ↗ inequities is available in the disparate

54:30 ↗ impacts analysis found in the

54:33 ↗ iny is there a

54:41 ↗ second

54:46 ↗ not motion

54:52 ↗ fails all right

54:59 ↗ is there

55:00 ↗ anything pardon

55:03 ↗ me in the draft comp plan is would like

55:06 ↗ to

55:16 ↗ debate how

55:19 ↗ sorry looking at like three different

55:21 ↗ things housing

55:24 ↗ housing commissioner crass hi um this is

55:28 ↗ John crass so we have gone through all

55:30 ↗ of these before correct and we've and

55:32 ↗ we've already given feedback on all of

55:34 ↗ these before yes sir okay so I assume

55:37 ↗ this is going to be super light because

55:39 ↗ we've already done this work once that's

55:41 ↗ kind of the point is as again as

55:43 ↗ we obviously you've seen it in different

55:45 ↗ iterations but uh yeah we we've probably

55:49 ↗ touched each section one to two times so

55:51 ↗ yes you've seen this this should all be

55:53 ↗ pretty familiar so we're not looking to

55:55 ↗ reopen I don't want to be reopening no

55:58 ↗ because we already had the public

55:59 ↗ hearing we've already had our

56:00 ↗ opportunity to do a lot of the input

56:02 ↗ it's just what staff has put together

56:04 ↗ was that the vision you had hoped

56:06 ↗ for are there conflicting things that

56:08 ↗ you see in there that you did not intend

56:10 ↗ to see you're really kind of looking at

56:12 ↗ staff's overall work and is this is this

56:15 ↗ what you your intentions on but this

56:18 ↗ wasn't really ever intended to be a very

56:20 ↗ heavy conversation because again you

56:22 ↗ have seen this many times and that's

56:24 ↗ kind of the same thought I had too when

56:26 ↗ I was rereading this is a lot of this

56:28 ↗ work's been iterative and we've already

56:30 ↗ done it so many times um yeah I'm not

56:33 ↗ probably expecting huge debates on any

56:35 ↗ of

56:36 ↗ this yeah no again that's that's yeah

56:41 ↗ ultimately like I said if if there's

56:43 ↗ glaring things I mean that's right now

56:44 ↗ is when you want to speak up I think

56:46 ↗ it's more like what's changed since the

56:47 ↗ last time we've gone through it in depth

56:49 ↗ and that was the good discussions to

56:51 ↗ have and understand why and then see if

56:53 ↗ that then creates a conflict somewhere

56:55 ↗ else or say hey we changed this but it

56:57 ↗ may be inconsistent with somewhere else

56:59 ↗ as opposed to going back and looking

57:02 ↗ head to toe from 285 pages to to re-edit

57:05 ↗ everything but I don't think that's what

57:06 ↗ the intent is correct no it's it was

57:08 ↗ like I said it's been an iterative

57:09 ↗ process the entire time I mean it's been

57:11 ↗ involving and you're basically seeing

57:13 ↗ the final package before it heads to

57:15 ↗ council um again I I wouldn't expect a

57:18 ↗ whole lot of debate about any of these

57:20 ↗ but it doesn't mean there there can't be

57:21 ↗ or there shouldn't be it just means that

57:23 ↗ most likely yeah you've probably said

57:25 ↗ your

57:26 ↗ probably all of us have set our peace on

57:28 ↗ a lot of this

57:30 ↗ so again it doesn't mean you can't it's

57:33 ↗ just I'm not expecting a whole lot of

57:36 ↗ it commissioner

57:38 ↗ Milligan thank you commissioner CR and

57:40 ↗ um chair voice

57:42 ↗ uh agreed on all that and but one thing

57:46 ↗ I found in considering the broad motion

57:50 ↗ of recommending adoption of the

57:52 ↗ comprehensive plan as it's presented is

57:55 ↗ that I felt that our deliberations were

57:57 ↗ focused on policy and policy changes and

58:01 ↗ its

58:02 ↗ matrixyl at things and I didn't uh once

58:05 ↗ I got into the full document I didn't

58:07 ↗ feel like I really had any time on the

58:09 ↗ introductions so absolutely those are

58:11 ↗ one place where I think it is a fair

58:13 ↗ game tonight because I don't think that

58:15 ↗ we really did deliberate those oh

58:16 ↗ absolutely and that's a great Point

58:18 ↗ commissioner Milligan is again the

58:19 ↗ introductions and stuff we didn't work

58:21 ↗ on it was basically policy work so

58:23 ↗ you're right um the introductions are

58:25 ↗ fair game this is how it's being

58:27 ↗ packaged and it's presented ultimately

58:29 ↗ it'll Bear all our names on it as well

58:31 ↗ as the city councils if they approve but

58:33 ↗ yeah if there's red flags and the

58:34 ↗ introductions or the vision statements I

58:36 ↗ mean by all

58:38 ↗ means you have the right to make motions

58:42 ↗ and amendments and

58:44 ↗ deliberate but again a lot of this work

58:46 ↗ you most likely have seen and worked on

58:49 ↗ so it should all look very familiar yeah

58:51 ↗ to add to chair Voice's statement I mean

58:54 ↗ we released the full draft of the

58:56 ↗ comprehensive plan back in July and

58:59 ↗ reiterated conversations with the

59:01 ↗ Planning Commission on if there's any

59:03 ↗ other sections beyond the policies that

59:05 ↗ commission would like to discuss where

59:07 ↗ we we're open in asking and repeating

59:09 ↗ the questions on if there's any

59:11 ↗ additional changes we wanted to do and

59:13 ↗ so um to chair voices uh point

59:17 ↗ on making the recommendations this is

59:19 ↗ the point where we we can continue the

59:21 ↗ conversation but we are looking for the

59:22 ↗ final recommendation tonight

59:30 ↗ so um before we move on would anyone

59:32 ↗ like

59:33 ↗ to have discussion um or make any

59:38 ↗ amendments to the motion regarding

59:46 ↗ housing it a few

59:52 ↗ seconds okay let's move on to

59:54 ↗ transportation

1:00:14 ↗ any

1:00:15 ↗ thoughts anything to add on

1:00:20 ↗ Transportation the other thing helping

1:00:21 ↗ us is we have phenomenal boards that

1:00:23 ↗ their

1:00:24 ↗ whole point of being the tab the

1:00:27 ↗ environmental boards do so much of the

1:00:28 ↗ heavy lifting for us so definitely want

1:00:31 ↗ to give a shout out to a couple of our

1:00:33 ↗ boards that clearly have done a lot of

1:00:34 ↗ work here um there might be something

1:00:36 ↗ more to say when we do get to the

1:00:37 ↗ environment because obviously you did

1:00:39 ↗ see some of their

1:00:47 ↗ comments everybody's happy with the

1:00:49 ↗ draft as far as it looks as far as

1:00:51 ↗ transportation is concerned

1:00:57 ↗ okay we'll move on to the environment

1:01:00 ↗ and climate

1:01:02 ↗ stewardship now

1:01:04 ↗ this again um you all possess this for a

1:01:07 ↗ while so maybe some of you have made

1:01:09 ↗ comments directly to staff through email

1:01:11 ↗ or something to that effect this did

1:01:13 ↗ come in a little

1:01:14 ↗ later you guys would have seen The

1:01:16 ↗ Matrix regarding the environmental board

1:01:19 ↗ suggestions you would have seen staff's

1:01:21 ↗ responses to those

1:01:23 ↗ suggestions um I myself felt that staff

1:01:26 ↗ did a great job a lot of this stuff is

1:01:28 ↗ technical about where things should go

1:01:31 ↗ and I really don't have a lot to add to

1:01:34 ↗ what staff did I thought they did a

1:01:35 ↗ great job responding to the

1:01:36 ↗ environmental board's um concerns and

1:01:38 ↗ suggestions and again I want to thank

1:01:40 ↗ the environmental board for doing such

1:01:42 ↗ thorough work on the comp plan

1:01:44 ↗ especially on this particular section

1:01:52 ↗ obviously commissioner

1:01:54 ↗ Milan um

1:01:56 ↗ just I I only want to amplify the public

1:02:00 ↗ comment earlier about the draft Eis

1:02:04 ↗ statement and how uh or the draft

1:02:08 ↗ environmental impact statement or study

1:02:11 ↗ that the um Council we just got that

1:02:15 ↗ review tonight that how the

1:02:18 ↗ comprehensive plan may not be fully

1:02:20 ↗ addressed in the draft Eis as far as

1:02:24 ↗ climate and environment and so I just

1:02:25 ↗ just uh and I don't have time to do it

1:02:27 ↗ on the cuff tonight I just wanted to

1:02:30 ↗ amplify the public comment earlier for

1:02:32 ↗ the

1:02:33 ↗ council re

1:02:43 ↗ listen give it a few more seconds again

1:02:45 ↗ that was

1:02:46 ↗ a yeah um just a comment

1:02:51 ↗ on this and it in some ways it's comment

1:02:54 ↗ on a lot of the elements but environment

1:02:58 ↗ specifically there's not a specific

1:03:00 ↗ environmental justice policy um in this

1:03:04 ↗ section it kind of there's like a little

1:03:07 ↗ bit of it in um the like emergency

1:03:10 ↗ planning kind of section um and I was

1:03:13 ↗ thinking about where could that go um

1:03:16 ↗ and I couldn't really fit it under one

1:03:18 ↗ header because I think it's like an

1:03:19 ↗ overarching thing and so I wonder if

1:03:21 ↗ it's in the like results and

1:03:23 ↗ accountability um piece if

1:03:26 ↗ um you know as the effectiveness right

1:03:29 ↗ and success of comprehensive plan and

1:03:32 ↗ achieving Community Visions goals and

1:03:34 ↗ policies is done if like an

1:03:37 ↗ environmental justice lens is used as

1:03:40 ↗ part of that um and so I don't

1:03:44 ↗ know how that word how that's worded um

1:03:47 ↗ or if that's the place for it that's

1:03:49 ↗ what the most obvious place and then

1:03:50 ↗ building on that I actually feel like

1:03:53 ↗ almost all of the elements could have

1:03:56 ↗ that lens um and in some ways housing is

1:03:59 ↗ done of the equity piece Justice piece

1:04:02 ↗ of housing is done really strong because

1:04:03 ↗ the state required it to be done so

1:04:06 ↗ strongly um and I worry that if we like

1:04:08 ↗ only did it really good where the state

1:04:10 ↗ required it kind of makes everything

1:04:12 ↗ else seem like it's falling short and

1:04:14 ↗ maybe it's not as much of a priority as

1:04:15 ↗ we as we the city want it to be um and

1:04:19 ↗ so I'd almost go beyond just adding

1:04:22 ↗ specific environmental justice policy to

1:04:23 ↗ results and accountability in the

1:04:26 ↗ environmental element but also um in

1:04:29 ↗ most if not all other elements add kind

1:04:32 ↗ of an equity lens to the measurement

1:04:36 ↗ piece of these um so I guess there's a

1:04:40 ↗ question in there too of

1:04:43 ↗ like it's not even doable

1:04:46 ↗ um I'm not sure if I'm at the point of

1:04:49 ↗ like opening it up for an amendment I'm

1:04:50 ↗ curious there I think what we can do is

1:04:53 ↗ take a look at the results and and

1:04:54 ↗ accountability and see if we can work

1:04:57 ↗ within the criteria that or add criteria

1:04:59 ↗ that address calls out environmental

1:05:01 ↗ justice as something that we

1:05:03 ↗ review in Fair voice the only thing I

1:05:06 ↗ would say is is Staff would have to

1:05:09 ↗ answer this but my understanding is

1:05:10 ↗ Staff that's what you guys have been

1:05:13 ↗ working on is trying to look at through

1:05:15 ↗ their you like said that lens particular

1:05:19 ↗ so it's been part of I mean even though

1:05:21 ↗ it's not explicitly said that is what

1:05:23 ↗ you guys have been trying to work on

1:05:25 ↗ basically the last last year or so is

1:05:27 ↗ trying to to focus in on that that

1:05:29 ↗ correct that's correct but with the lens

1:05:32 ↗ of equity not so much environmental

1:05:34 ↗ justice which is kind of a subset

1:05:36 ↗ concept from equity and so to Vice

1:05:38 ↗ chair's point of environmental justice

1:05:40 ↗ it's not mentioned as much in this

1:05:42 ↗ element particularly um so we can take a

1:05:45 ↗ look at Addie into results and

1:05:47 ↗ accountability um for this element as

1:05:50 ↗ well as uh the other elements but might

1:05:53 ↗ suggest two amendments if that's that's

1:05:55 ↗ Direction want to go I want to be

1:05:56 ↗ careful cuz I don't want to ask too many

1:05:57 ↗ questions because again our our question

1:06:00 ↗ I was no no no like I said no that's I

1:06:04 ↗ just again I just want to be careful

1:06:07 ↗ because we're not supposed to pick on

1:06:08 ↗ staff too much tonight um again that's

1:06:10 ↗ why it gets messy when we we move the

1:06:13 ↗ the deliberations from the other night

1:06:14 ↗ because ultimately the public is

1:06:17 ↗ supposed to have the benefit of our

1:06:18 ↗ questions

1:06:21 ↗ and um okay would anyone like to make

1:06:26 ↗ Amendment concerning the environment and

1:06:28 ↗ climate

1:06:29 ↗ stewardship and by all means staff can

1:06:31 ↗ still explain

1:06:35 ↗ things um so yes so I move to amend the

1:06:40 ↗ environmental element to

1:06:42 ↗ include can I say like to include a

1:06:45 ↗ policy in the results and accountability

1:06:47 ↗ section that

1:06:52 ↗ um a second

1:06:57 ↗ I'll second that any

1:07:01 ↗ discussion can I give an example because

1:07:03 ↗ I actually have an example from an

1:07:05 ↗ amendment I made earlier tonight that

1:07:07 ↗ could have Justice implications and so

1:07:09 ↗ before I made a com I made an amendment

1:07:12 ↗ to the tree language about where trees

1:07:14 ↗ can Thrive and it's possible that trees

1:07:19 ↗ can Thrive predominantly in single

1:07:21 ↗ family right areas or nice parks that

1:07:24 ↗ already exist and if that's where we're

1:07:26 ↗ now saying hey that's where we want to

1:07:28 ↗ plant our trees are we not going to

1:07:29 ↗ plant trees right maybe and I know it's

1:07:32 ↗ a CL like right we don't have

1:07:34 ↗ like super urban areas with like no

1:07:37 ↗ green space but is that language and

1:07:40 ↗ that policy does it have the potential

1:07:42 ↗ to say we're not going to plant a tree

1:07:44 ↗ here because it would do better here and

1:07:46 ↗ does that funnel the trees where the

1:07:47 ↗ trees already are um and so putting that

1:07:50 ↗ lens on it right opens it up to at least

1:07:53 ↗ look at it in that way of like does this

1:07:55 ↗ PO policy which seems completely

1:07:56 ↗ harmless right and makes sense and I

1:07:57 ↗ just said it myself but does it actually

1:08:00 ↗ have the ability to cause potential harm

1:08:03 ↗ um and so that's just an example of I

1:08:05 ↗ think why the that lens is so important

1:08:08 ↗ to to apply um because those things can

1:08:11 ↗ get missed super easily right because

1:08:13 ↗ it's not not necessarily obvious

1:08:17 ↗ um

1:08:20 ↗ me thank you you actually helped me out

1:08:23 ↗ because the person who makes the motion

1:08:24 ↗ is supposed to discuss it for so great

1:08:26 ↗ job Vice chair uh any further

1:08:32 ↗ discussion um so did you get the the

1:08:36 ↗ motion that you wanted as far as

1:08:38 ↗ language okay uh we'll go ahead and vote

1:08:41 ↗ all in favor of the amendment to the

1:08:43 ↗ motion say I or raise your

1:08:47 ↗ hand okay

1:08:52 ↗ unanimous is there any further

1:08:54 ↗ discussion on the environment

1:08:56 ↗ or climate

1:09:00 ↗ stewardship any at

1:09:03 ↗ all no but while we're on this point can

1:09:05 ↗ I also just for the sake of it make a

1:09:07 ↗ motion to amend all of the elements to

1:09:10 ↗ include um a policy that looks at kind

1:09:15 ↗ of equity and Justice um as a lens for

1:09:19 ↗ Success might not take I'm is there a

1:09:23 ↗ second

1:09:31 ↗ motion

1:09:34 ↗ fails so we will move on if everyone has

1:09:38 ↗ said with their piece about environment

1:09:39 ↗ and sustainability or I'm sorry climate

1:09:44 ↗ stewardship and we're going to move on

1:09:46 ↗ to arts and culture

1:10:11 ↗ obviously a big shout out to the

1:10:13 ↗ cultural board who've done great work

1:10:22 ↗ here I believe if uh anyone has any

1:10:25 ↗ anything they'd like to add an amendment

1:10:28 ↗ to the motion they'd like to

1:10:32 ↗ make that was a great idea to take this

1:10:34 ↗ piece by piece Stephen good

1:10:42 ↗ job going once going

1:10:47 ↗ twice

1:10:49 ↗ okay uh we'll move on to economic

1:10:52 ↗ vitality

1:10:55 ↗ another Great

1:10:57 ↗ Commission really enjoyed working with

1:10:59 ↗ them that was fantastic please tell Jen

1:11:02 ↗ and Chris and everybody from their High

1:11:05 ↗ hopefully we'll get a work with them

1:11:06 ↗ again

1:11:10 ↗ soon M

1:11:12 ↗ Milligan thank you chair voice uh I

1:11:15 ↗ wanted to revisit I didn't get

1:11:17 ↗ everything I wanted at Christmas um econ

1:11:20 ↗ uh economic Vitality policy A1

1:11:26 ↗ in the uh new revised draft I appreciate

1:11:29 ↗ the um revised language but what I I

1:11:32 ↗ think I didn't explain it very well

1:11:34 ↗ there are two things going on in this

1:11:38 ↗ policy and I think they each need their

1:11:40 ↗ own

1:11:41 ↗ policy because providing highquality

1:11:45 ↗ customer service in a regulatory

1:11:47 ↗ environment that's fair responsive

1:11:49 ↗ efficient and predictable for all

1:11:50 ↗ businesses is one thing and I think that

1:11:53 ↗ uh I recall in uh other strateg iic

1:11:55 ↗ plans other um City guiding documents

1:11:59 ↗ this being very important uh and

1:12:01 ↗ something and a somewhat of a corrective

1:12:04 ↗ measure that came from the past and then

1:12:06 ↗ the second part about businesses that

1:12:09 ↗ are small local historically black

1:12:11 ↗ Capital represent under served

1:12:14 ↗ communities and are at risk of

1:12:15 ↗ displacement is equally important but

1:12:19 ↗ when you put it in the

1:12:21 ↗ same policy A1 they conflict with each

1:12:25 ↗ other and so what I want to propose I

1:12:29 ↗ I'll put out an amendment for you um I

1:12:31 ↗ amend to revise policy A1 to only

1:12:37 ↗ include uh to end

1:12:39 ↗ [Music]

1:12:40 ↗ at efficient and predictable for all

1:12:43 ↗ businesses period and then to add an

1:12:46 ↗ additional policy could be I don't know

1:12:50 ↗ why there isn't an A2 maybe it's just

1:12:51 ↗ waiting for me uh that says is uh

1:12:57 ↗ cherish businesses that are small local

1:13:00 ↗ historically lack Capital represent

1:13:03 ↗ under served communities and are at the

1:13:05 ↗ risk of

1:13:09 ↗ displacement is there a

1:13:12 ↗ second commissioner

1:13:15 ↗ Kennedy discussion chair voice if I

1:13:18 ↗ could actually add some context on this

1:13:20 ↗ policy so please um the last portion of

1:13:22 ↗ this policy was actually recommended by

1:13:24 ↗ King County planning staff to comply

1:13:26 ↗ with King County Planning policies

1:13:28 ↗ specific to the first part and the

1:13:30 ↗ second part fitting together so

1:13:31 ↗ splitting itart would then now be

1:13:34 ↗ changing what we're saying how we're

1:13:37 ↗ complying with the King County Planning

1:13:38 ↗ policies for

1:13:42 ↗ contact okay let me uh um I'm going to

1:13:44 ↗ ask a question of stevenh in a moment

1:13:46 ↗ first I want to say that into the

1:13:48 ↗ discussion I use the word cherish could

1:13:50 ↗ be the word value could be the word

1:13:51 ↗ support might need some help here um but

1:13:54 ↗ I wanted to um saturate it with the the

1:13:58 ↗ um comprehensive plan feelings of this

1:14:01 ↗ is who we want to be um Stephen the um

1:14:06 ↗ from King County is this a

1:14:08 ↗ required element that these two things

1:14:11 ↗ go together otherwise we will not have a

1:14:15 ↗ certified comprehensive

1:14:19 ↗ plan we would need to show how we are

1:14:23 ↗ complying with the King County Planning

1:14:24 ↗ policies and if we're splitting it apart

1:14:26 ↗ it's no longer meeting that King County

1:14:28 ↗ Planning policies so we would need to

1:14:30 ↗ show it somewhere

1:14:32 ↗ else can you tell us why they wanted it

1:14:35 ↗ together what does that do for us it's

1:14:38 ↗ specifically showing how we're complying

1:14:40 ↗ with K planning policy so that's a

1:14:42 ↗ requirement as for for certification

1:14:57 ↗ okay I'm going to take this opportunity

1:14:59 ↗ to say something I want to say all night

1:15:01 ↗ and that is this has been a frustrating

1:15:03 ↗ process because a comprehensive plan

1:15:05 ↗ should be reflecting the community the

1:15:08 ↗ values of a community things that they

1:15:09 ↗ think are important like businesses that

1:15:12 ↗ are small local historically lack

1:15:14 ↗ Capital Etc um the environment um

1:15:18 ↗ environmental justice these other things

1:15:20 ↗ that we want to say about ourselves and

1:15:22 ↗ I find that lot of this update the

1:15:25 ↗ comprehensive plan has come from other

1:15:26 ↗ jurisdictions the county the regional

1:15:29 ↗ jurisdictions the state you know

1:15:32 ↗ uh you know it used to feel so much more

1:15:35 ↗ generative of of here's who we want to

1:15:37 ↗ be and let's put it in our comprehensive

1:15:39 ↗ plan and see if we can get there you

1:15:41 ↗ know um just a one of the opportunity

1:15:44 ↗ say then maybe now's the

1:15:49 ↗ time seems like there's a bigger

1:15:52 ↗ footprint um so they're technically is

1:15:56 ↗ still yeah there's technically your

1:15:59 ↗ motion and Amendment are still

1:16:02 ↗ there

1:16:05 ↗ um well we have to get us we got the

1:16:07 ↗ second so yeah there's more discussion I

1:16:08 ↗ apologize it's still out there so again

1:16:10 ↗ please

1:16:13 ↗ discuss uh commissioner Patterson I'm

1:16:15 ↗ gonna say the quiet thing out loud and

1:16:17 ↗ say I don't think this is the hill we're

1:16:18 ↗ going to be able to die on tonight and

1:16:21 ↗ unfortunately as much as I agree with

1:16:24 ↗ the idea of it I think we should I will

1:16:26 ↗ not be in favor of this motion this

1:16:29 ↗ amendment commissioner

1:16:34 ↗ Kennedy are we down One mic since

1:16:37 ↗ whoever's taking notes probably wants a

1:16:39 ↗ mic from commissioner Kennedy

1:16:42 ↗ um yes commissioner Milligan I agree we

1:16:45 ↗ we struggled with this section which is

1:16:47 ↗ why we ended up with the intentional

1:16:49 ↗ Focus to try and bring that language in

1:16:52 ↗ because it was odd attached to service

1:16:55 ↗ to business um but I also agree that I

1:16:59 ↗ don't know this is the hell we need to

1:17:00 ↗ die on so if separating them is that big

1:17:03 ↗ a thing let's just so the planning

1:17:07 ↗ policy commission can still make a

1:17:08 ↗ recommendation to split it up but staff

1:17:10 ↗ would have to continue the conversation

1:17:12 ↗ with Planning Development environment

1:17:13 ↗ Council committee on how we're going to

1:17:15 ↗ be compliant with County Planning policy

1:17:17 ↗ so just so you know the process for any

1:17:21 ↗ of the recommendations

1:17:25 ↗ I uh going to continue the conversation

1:17:28 ↗ a minute and maybe make a different

1:17:31 ↗ Amendment uh the concern that I have

1:17:34 ↗ here is that the way that it is

1:17:39 ↗ worded May to um Vice chair Bader's um

1:17:43 ↗ comment earlier about trees have an

1:17:46 ↗ unintended consequence in the future

1:17:48 ↗ that our fantastic employers and the

1:17:50 ↗ economic development the medical

1:17:53 ↗ facilities the things that are aren't in

1:17:55 ↗ that second group will become

1:17:58 ↗ disfavored and so I wanted to separate

1:18:00 ↗ them so that all employers get great

1:18:04 ↗ service all businesses get great service

1:18:07 ↗ and we also feel this way so that's uh

1:18:11 ↗ that was my concern perhaps um based on

1:18:13 ↗ what I just heard I could revoke my

1:18:15 ↗ Amendment and make a new one

1:18:18 ↗ to um let's see amend the motion to

1:18:22 ↗ request further consideration by

1:18:25 ↗ the city council for this um policy A1

1:18:30 ↗ staying combined is that a um would that

1:18:34 ↗ work okay

1:18:36 ↗ um commissioner Kennedy can I revoke my

1:18:39 ↗ Amendment okay uh I'm going to if this

1:18:43 ↗ is a proper uh process can I revoke my

1:18:46 ↗ Amendment so um that suggestion doesn't

1:18:49 ↗ actually need to be Amendment because

1:18:51 ↗ you're just asking city council to take

1:18:52 ↗ a look at it um so you can just make the

1:18:56 ↗ comment and then staff can relay that

1:18:58 ↗ information to the city council because

1:19:00 ↗ you're not making a change to the actual

1:19:02 ↗ document okay okay so I'm going to I'm

1:19:04 ↗ going to um revoke my am um Amendment to

1:19:10 ↗ the

1:19:10 ↗ motion and replace it with a um request

1:19:18 ↗ to um pass along this concern to the

1:19:21 ↗ city

1:19:23 ↗ council okay

1:19:25 ↗ thank you yeah I I think that was great

1:19:27 ↗ and I don't think your fears are

1:19:28 ↗ completely uh I don't I think that like

1:19:32 ↗ like you said there's it's hard because

1:19:34 ↗ you're trying to do so much and not

1:19:36 ↗ every Peg fits in every hole and like

1:19:40 ↗ you said at some point you don't want to

1:19:41 ↗ disenfranchise others while trying to

1:19:43 ↗ lift others so I I see your concerns um

1:19:46 ↗ but to our very mature Commissioners

1:19:48 ↗ this probably not the hill we want to

1:19:50 ↗ die on so great point and requesting

1:19:53 ↗ city council to take a deeper Di on

1:19:57 ↗ that okay still on economic

1:20:00 ↗ Vitality can I just add a followup to

1:20:03 ↗ that because I'm actually not in support

1:20:05 ↗ of splitting it up and um and I'm just

1:20:08 ↗ wearing again I for context I worked in

1:20:10 ↗ the equity space for many many years and

1:20:12 ↗ so that's the Hat I'm wearing it's not

1:20:13 ↗ personal experience it's not lived

1:20:15 ↗ experience it's knowing kind of what the

1:20:18 ↗ work of equity take um and the reason

1:20:20 ↗ that these things are called out are

1:20:22 ↗ because if you don't it'll get for

1:20:24 ↗ gotten um and so you know the power

1:20:27 ↗ dynamics between a health system right a

1:20:31 ↗ huge employer with 27,000 employees you

1:20:34 ↗ know and a small Mom and Pop Shop are

1:20:38 ↗ huge um and I don't think we really have

1:20:41 ↗ to worry

1:20:43 ↗ that the those big employers are going

1:20:46 ↗ to let themselves get pushed out of you

1:20:48 ↗ know what they want um or that you know

1:20:52 ↗ they're going to care if maybe like

1:20:54 ↗ somebody on the the phone is not quite

1:20:55 ↗ as helpful or not quite as friendly

1:20:57 ↗ right they they have the power to push

1:20:58 ↗ through the things that they want

1:20:59 ↗ whereas the Mom and Pops don't um and so

1:21:03 ↗ having language in here like that means

1:21:06 ↗ that the system as designed right has to

1:21:08 ↗ get tweaked a little bit because the

1:21:10 ↗ system as designed will always favor

1:21:12 ↗ kind of where the power flows um and so

1:21:15 ↗ I'm in support of that language um

1:21:18 ↗ because it makes us think about right

1:21:21 ↗ underserved um communities and they're

1:21:23 ↗ called underserved communities for a

1:21:25 ↗ reason right because they're underserved

1:21:27 ↗ um and so that's just kind of my two

1:21:31 ↗ cents on um why I feel differently about

1:21:33 ↗ that

1:21:35 ↗ policy commission mil D do I appreciate

1:21:39 ↗ that uh thank you very much and I and I

1:21:41 ↗ think that that is true um and it is it

1:21:44 ↗ is also true that um companies who are

1:21:48 ↗ highly valued by a community can move I

1:21:51 ↗ mean it is called the Kirkland brand and

1:21:53 ↗ that's because they used to be Kirkland

1:21:55 ↗ and REI was in bellw until it came here

1:21:58 ↗ and and and we are glad those companies

1:22:00 ↗ are here so uh I think um this the

1:22:05 ↗ pendulum can swing and that's what I was

1:22:07 ↗ looking for was a way to not get on a

1:22:10 ↗ swing that would have uh consequences

1:22:13 ↗ for our whole Community people who are

1:22:15 ↗ employed uh derive Services other things

1:22:18 ↗ from companies that happen to be have to

1:22:20 ↗ be big you know you have to be a big

1:22:21 ↗ hospital to have MRI imaging you know

1:22:23 ↗ for instance uh a mom and pop can't do

1:22:26 ↗ that so I all I'm doing was uh trying to

1:22:29 ↗ find a way to to balance it and not ride

1:22:32 ↗ on a pendulum but I I really appreciate

1:22:34 ↗ your comments thank you yeah and just

1:22:36 ↗ for clarification for staff ultimately

1:22:38 ↗ you're not saying to get rid of the

1:22:41 ↗ second portion you're just saying break

1:22:42 ↗ them up so the top portion doesn't seem

1:22:46 ↗ like it's dependent on the bottom so and

1:22:49 ↗ I hopefully staff captured commissioner

1:22:52 ↗ mils chair of voice we captured it but

1:22:54 ↗ um because we are not on consensus on

1:22:56 ↗ what we're sending to city council we

1:22:58 ↗ actually need a motion oh

1:23:06 ↗ okay all right so just an informal vote

1:23:09 ↗ um who's in favor of sending

1:23:11 ↗ commissioner Milligan's recommendation

1:23:12 ↗ to council just uh raise your

1:23:17 ↗ hands okay that's a

1:23:21 ↗ majority still on economic vitality

1:23:27 ↗ we're getting through there we only have

1:23:28 ↗ a couple more few

1:23:30 ↗ more

1:23:33 ↗ um anything else about economic Vitality

1:23:36 ↗ to provide

1:23:41 ↗ staff okay we'll move on to Human

1:23:43 ↗ Services

1:24:11 ↗ any any further discussion about human

1:24:14 ↗ services anything to

1:24:22 ↗ deliberate give it a few seconds

1:24:29 ↗ don't feel like you use it all up on

1:24:31 ↗ economic Vitality we could go we could

1:24:33 ↗ do this all night

1:24:42 ↗ everybody

1:24:44 ↗ okay U moving on to

1:24:47 ↗ Parks my G my big gripe about Parks is

1:24:50 ↗ why'd you change the

1:24:52 ↗ name I like green necklace

1:24:57 ↗ quite upset about

1:24:58 ↗ it but again not the hill we're going to

1:25:01 ↗ die on

1:25:05 ↗ tonight any comments about

1:25:11 ↗ Parks Richard grass on the vision I

1:25:15 ↗ understand the intent but some of it's

1:25:17 ↗ not realistic just is the point of

1:25:21 ↗ connecting every Park

1:25:23 ↗ together is

1:25:25 ↗ not a realistic thing when they're not

1:25:27 ↗ connected together so you have a vision

1:25:30 ↗ that is something that just can't be

1:25:33 ↗ done unless you're buying you know

1:25:34 ↗ people's land to then connect land so I

1:25:37 ↗ think that one may I'm being super

1:25:38 ↗ literal which I don't normally get into

1:25:40 ↗ word smithing that is one of the things

1:25:43 ↗ I think just kind of because it's in the

1:25:45 ↗ vision pops out as

1:25:47 ↗ something that you may lose credibility

1:25:50 ↗ immediately because you're like hey

1:25:52 ↗ they're not near each other so what are

1:25:53 ↗ you trying to do it opens up a set of

1:25:55 ↗ questions that you may not intend excuse

1:25:58 ↗ me commissioner CR that's actually the

1:26:00 ↗ point of creeks to

1:26:02 ↗ Peaks is it really going to happen

1:26:04 ↗ though because I live near parks and

1:26:05 ↗ some of them are not physically not

1:26:07 ↗ going to be able to be connected

1:26:08 ↗ together because that's the intent with

1:26:10 ↗ the park system plan is to figure out

1:26:12 ↗ how to make that make those connections

1:26:14 ↗ well then I am surprised and skeptical

1:26:17 ↗ but we'll I will wish you well on that

1:26:21 ↗ endeavor

1:26:30 ↗ let all right there uh anyone want to

1:26:33 ↗ discuss

1:26:36 ↗ Parks I share your skepticism Mr Crass

1:26:40 ↗ but I'm

1:26:45 ↗ hopeful give it a few seconds

1:27:00 ↗ okay let's move on this is uh utilities

1:27:04 ↗ public services and capital facilities

1:27:32 ↗ is there any discussion around our final

1:27:40 ↗ element these elements really don't this

1:27:43 ↗ element in particular doesn't get a lot

1:27:44 ↗ of love just really

1:27:48 ↗ doesn't you know we had a

1:27:51 ↗ presentation as a task force and that's

1:27:53 ↗ we specifically asked to go first

1:27:55 ↗ because nobody loves this

1:28:03 ↗ element anything for utilities public

1:28:05 ↗ services or Capital

1:28:16 ↗ facilities okay we'll do one last call

1:28:19 ↗ for all of the elements anything that

1:28:21 ↗ you thought you missed you wanted to say

1:28:25 ↗ commissioner

1:28:28 ↗ Patterson at the end of this long road I

1:28:30 ↗ would be remiss not to share some long

1:28:32 ↗ words um I did prepare a couple of

1:28:34 ↗ things because I did reflect a lot

1:28:36 ↗ especially after our last meeting um and

1:28:38 ↗ kind of how that went and think about

1:28:40 ↗ the whole big picture and um that's kind

1:28:42 ↗ of where I'm coming from tonight uh do

1:28:45 ↗ want to express appreciation to the city

1:28:47 ↗ staff uh thanks for being here

1:28:49 ↗ tonight um there's a tremendous amount

1:28:51 ↗ of work that was put into this comp plan

1:28:53 ↗ uh that we've seen in the last 18 months

1:28:55 ↗ but I'm sure stretch is far beyond that

1:28:57 ↗ um and I think the way it's impacted us

1:29:01 ↗ with how you've presented it to us like

1:29:03 ↗ element by element um the change

1:29:06 ↗ matrixes matrices each week or each

1:29:09 ↗ meeting to kind of show the updates and

1:29:10 ↗ help keep us focused on on changes uh

1:29:14 ↗ the COA public comments the presentation

1:29:16 ↗ of updates when reviewing uh even

1:29:19 ↗ tonight um those were all really vital

1:29:21 ↗ in keeping us organized and allowing us

1:29:23 ↗ to kind of track detail as we navigated

1:29:25 ↗ this process together um you know I

1:29:28 ↗ think we've all spent so much time on

1:29:30 ↗ this that uh it should really be no

1:29:33 ↗ surprise that we motioned last meeting

1:29:35 ↗ to move at one more meeting and keep it

1:29:38 ↗ keep it going um but you know we've just

1:29:40 ↗ grown really attached to it at this

1:29:42 ↗ point I suppose but uh Jokes Aside you

1:29:45 ↗ know I do recognize and respect the hard

1:29:46 ↗ work uh that was put in by City staff uh

1:29:50 ↗ our commission as well as the additional

1:29:52 ↗ commissions and boards um and the public

1:29:55 ↗ comments that we received uh throughout

1:29:56 ↗ the process um so I know we did probably

1:30:01 ↗ surprisingly extend this a few weeks and

1:30:03 ↗ I appreciate the opportunity for that

1:30:05 ↗ extension uh to deliberate this further

1:30:08 ↗ um it gave us time to ensure that our

1:30:10 ↗ Collective commission uh and the

1:30:12 ↗ community voice were heard on this what

1:30:15 ↗ I believe crucial recommendation that

1:30:17 ↗ you know three more weeks at the end of

1:30:19 ↗ 18 months really is a drop in the bucket

1:30:22 ↗ um with all that being said uh I am in

1:30:25 ↗ favor of approving this recommendation

1:30:26 ↗ for city council uh from my personal

1:30:29 ↗ perspective uh and really thank everyone

1:30:32 ↗ for their involvement in getting

1:30:34 ↗ here informal vote I'll agree with

1:30:37 ↗ commissioner Patterson I very much so

1:30:41 ↗ and thank you commissioner Patterson uh

1:30:44 ↗ couldn't have said it better myself and

1:30:45 ↗ again thank you very much for staff and

1:30:47 ↗ and for everybody that contributed

1:30:48 ↗ obviously the public and all of our

1:30:52 ↗ commissioners okay we're at the end of

1:30:54 ↗ the

1:30:54 ↗ road yes commissioner Milan thank you uh

1:30:58 ↗ I lost track of our amendments and uh

1:31:01 ↗ one of the things that I was uh

1:31:03 ↗ wondering if we've

1:31:04 ↗ already either Incorporated in the

1:31:07 ↗ introductions um or in our amendments

1:31:10 ↗ was that we deliberated very carefully

1:31:13 ↗ on all the policies and we had these

1:31:15 ↗ great matricies and great tracking and

1:31:17 ↗ all that but I for one can't say I

1:31:20 ↗ really

1:31:21 ↗ read all the utilities public services

1:31:24 ↗ and capital facilities element

1:31:26 ↗ introduction with enough analysis to say

1:31:29 ↗ yes I wholeheartedly uh support the

1:31:31 ↗ council taking uh this um this part of

1:31:35 ↗ the document so I wondered as far as the

1:31:38 ↗ introductions um do we did did we feel

1:31:41 ↗ like we deliberated enough or

1:31:43 ↗ contributed enough thought to the

1:31:46 ↗ introductions of each of these

1:31:49 ↗ elements um I'm thinking I didn't but

1:31:53 ↗ that might just be me and that would be

1:31:55 ↗ another call out that we could do to the

1:31:57 ↗ council to say Hey you know spend some

1:31:59 ↗ time on this because we didn't really

1:32:00 ↗ spend as much time as a body on that

1:32:03 ↗ even though we spent 18 months on

1:32:05 ↗ everything else uh question to fellow

1:32:08 ↗ Commissioners if that is worth adding

1:32:12 ↗ are you making a

1:32:14 ↗ recommendation okay fair enough uh a

1:32:18 ↗ follow-up question I guess because I

1:32:19 ↗ think that's a good point I also didn't

1:32:21 ↗ read um or Pro maybe process the um yeah

1:32:24 ↗ I read but didn't process the utilities

1:32:27 ↗ Amendment and for po utilities but I

1:32:30 ↗ guess the question is like did did

1:32:31 ↗ someone right so like we didn't spend as

1:32:33 ↗ much time with the environmental element

1:32:36 ↗ as the environmental board did um you

1:32:38 ↗ know we didn't spend as much time with

1:32:39 ↗ Transportation as Transportation board

1:32:41 ↗ did so was there some sort of like

1:32:45 ↗ border commission or Community

1:32:48 ↗ representation on maybe some of those

1:32:51 ↗ elements that we didn't quite touch as

1:32:52 ↗ heavily

1:32:54 ↗ utilities specifically uh in terms of or

1:32:57 ↗ is this a question on all the elements

1:32:58 ↗ or U utilities specifically well I know

1:33:00 ↗ we touched utilities I think it's mostly

1:33:02 ↗ the vision statements the opening and

1:33:04 ↗ introductions but like we workshopped

1:33:06 ↗ the you know we workshopped the vision

1:33:07 ↗ statements for housing we workshopped it

1:33:09 ↗ for land use the ones that were assigned

1:33:11 ↗ to us I'm assuming right that the other

1:33:12 ↗ boards and commissions did for their

1:33:14 ↗ respective elements so so we did bring

1:33:16 ↗ the utilities and capital facilities to

1:33:17 ↗ the planning policy commission prior to

1:33:19 ↗ bring to council committee last year and

1:33:21 ↗ so there was discussion not so much on

1:33:23 ↗ the introduction but on on the vision

1:33:25 ↗ goals and

1:33:27 ↗ policies but we did my point is that we

1:33:30 ↗ did the pieces but the

1:33:33 ↗ introduction um sections the

1:33:35 ↗ introductory paragraphs I didn't spend

1:33:38 ↗ in and if the rest of you guys did

1:33:41 ↗ that's great then let's say let's go but

1:33:43 ↗ if we didn't then let's tell them um

1:33:46 ↗ help us out and do a little

1:33:49 ↗ more go ahead commissioner Patterson

1:33:51 ↗ yeah I think like to summarize that we

1:33:53 ↗ didn't formally review the introductions

1:33:55 ↗ as a commission in a meeting like they

1:33:57 ↗ were there for us in the packets but to

1:34:00 ↗ be fair we did not give it a formal

1:34:02 ↗ review and com like comment in a meeting

1:34:05 ↗ outside of open open comments or open

1:34:08 ↗ feedback so I I guess maybe a just like

1:34:12 ↗ you said a recommendation to the council

1:34:14 ↗ to formally review the the introductions

1:34:17 ↗ as part of the full review Comm craft

1:34:20 ↗ I'm going to say something that may or

1:34:21 ↗ may not be liked how important is

1:34:23 ↗ introductions the meat of it the meat of

1:34:25 ↗ it is the vision no the meat of it's the

1:34:28 ↗ vision the goals the policies and come

1:34:31 ↗ out of that and if the

1:34:33 ↗ introductions I think it's lower

1:34:36 ↗ priority than the other ones we as I

1:34:38 ↗ said we may not agree on

1:34:42 ↗ that um I'm going to make an amendment

1:34:45 ↗ with the motion uh that the commission

1:34:48 ↗ recommend that city

1:34:50 ↗ council um give the introductions to

1:34:53 ↗ each of the elements uh more formal

1:34:55 ↗ review than we did in our deliberations

1:34:57 ↗ is there a

1:34:59 ↗ second is that a question or a second

1:35:01 ↗ second second Sor

1:35:03 ↗ second commissioner crft second okay

1:35:06 ↗ technically so I'm getting pretty good

1:35:07 ↗ at this I've been reading my Roberts

1:35:08 ↗ rules discussion you guys get to discuss

1:35:11 ↗ it again is there any

1:35:13 ↗ discussion okay all in favor I unanimous

1:35:18 ↗ so if you could ask city council to

1:35:21 ↗ review the introductions and vision

1:35:22 ↗ statements that would be great

1:35:24 ↗ so here's

1:35:26 ↗ um we are now at the end of the road I

1:35:29 ↗ believe we've captured everything all

1:35:31 ↗ ask one more time we do have a little

1:35:34 ↗ bit more new business regular business

1:35:36 ↗ to attend to but I do want to make sure

1:35:38 ↗ like you said we close this out

1:35:39 ↗ everybody feeling good about the packet

1:35:41 ↗ you're about to put your name

1:35:44 ↗ on anything in

1:35:48 ↗ addition

1:35:50 ↗ okay going to need a little bone of

1:35:53 ↗ friend friend a Little Help from staff

1:35:54 ↗ we have amendments all over the place I

1:35:56 ↗ believe I counted 1 two 3 4 five yeah

1:36:02 ↗ [Music]

1:36:06 ↗ so two amendments were approved oh I'm

1:36:10 ↗ sorry okay only two mends were

1:36:14 ↗ approved so there's oh there are three

1:36:17 ↗ yeah three apologize there is three

1:36:19 ↗ that's

1:36:20 ↗ okay the three amendments were approved

1:36:22 ↗ so

1:36:25 ↗ obviously someone's going to have to

1:36:27 ↗ this appropriately that we

1:36:31 ↗ move you can you can use the original

1:36:34 ↗ motion and say with the approved

1:36:37 ↗ amendments

1:36:42 ↗ okay have original of

1:36:45 ↗ them got it somewhere give me one second

1:37:15 ↗ okay so we move to recommend the

1:37:17 ↗ approval of the proposed periodic

1:37:19 ↗ amendments to the comprehensive plan

1:37:22 ↗ with the

1:37:24 ↗ three proposed amendments approv

1:37:28 ↗ approved

1:37:30 ↗ Amendment uh right now for a

1:37:34 ↗ second CH voice you already a second so

1:37:36 ↗ you're just

1:37:40 ↗ oh all right all in

1:37:47 ↗ favor thank you chair of voice and thank

1:37:49 ↗ you to planning policy commission I know

1:37:51 ↗ the last 18 months have been a whirlwind

1:37:54 ↗ of discussions on lots of different

1:37:56 ↗ topics and we really appreciate the time

1:38:00 ↗ to you dedicate to putting into the

1:38:03 ↗ packets reading the materials that we

1:38:05 ↗ put together so that you are prepared

1:38:07 ↗ for our discussions but also that you're

1:38:08 ↗ helping us move forward on the project

1:38:11 ↗ um we we're paid to do this and you do

1:38:13 ↗ this in your free time so we'd greatly

1:38:15 ↗ appreciate you dedicating your free time

1:38:18 ↗ to a lot of this

1:38:21 ↗ work excellent well thank you Stephen

1:38:23 ↗ and again thank you staff thank you

1:38:25 ↗ Commissioners uh big push and just in

1:38:28 ↗ time for fall so um I believe that is it

1:38:32 ↗ for the comprehensive plan we to have

1:38:35 ↗ one more regular business item and this

1:38:38 ↗ is an introduction to the Light Rail

1:38:40 ↗ visioning Project Thomas valdre our

1:38:43 ↗ senior Transportation planner will be

1:38:45 ↗ presenting this evening so Thomas when

1:38:48 ↗ you're ready please go ahead and again

1:38:51 ↗ thank you Kristen thank you Stephen

1:38:53 ↗ thank you

1:39:16 ↗ everybody uh yeah thanks chair voice

1:39:18 ↗ appreciate the time here um thank you

1:39:21 ↗ Commissioners my name is Thomas F Drees

1:39:23 ↗ and I'm the senior Transportation

1:39:25 ↗ planner uh tonight I'm hoping to get

1:39:27 ↗ your feedback on the Draft Central isqua

1:39:30 ↗ Area Vision uh and guiding

1:39:34 ↗ principles and tonight I have a couple

1:39:36 ↗ questions for you just hoping to get uh

1:39:39 ↗ a better understanding if you agree with

1:39:40 ↗ the vision and guiding principles as

1:39:43 ↗ presented or if there's any changes

1:39:45 ↗ you'd like to

1:39:48 ↗ see just to provide a little bit of

1:39:50 ↗ background and this was mentioned in

1:39:52 ↗ previous uh agenda items um there's a

1:39:55 ↗ lot of planed growth in central isqua

1:39:57 ↗ we're expecting about 2third of new jobs

1:40:00 ↗ in housing to be in this area and really

1:40:03 ↗ funneled specifically within that green

1:40:05 ↗ area which is the urban uh urban

1:40:09 ↗ center this is approximately where we're

1:40:12 ↗ expecting a light rail station um just

1:40:14 ↗ very generally in this area and in 2016

1:40:18 ↗ voters approved Sound Transit 3 which

1:40:20 ↗ was a ballot measure to expand um mass

1:40:24 ↗ transit within the region and that

1:40:25 ↗ includes the development of a South

1:40:28 ↗ Kirkland isqua uh link extension as well

1:40:32 ↗ as the Central esqua Station

1:40:36 ↗ itself in March um city council approved

1:40:40 ↗ a planning guide so this is officially

1:40:42 ↗ our playbook for um our discussions with

1:40:45 ↗ Sound Transit that we expect to have in

1:40:48 ↗ around

1:40:49 ↗ 2027 uh this guide includes uh some

1:40:53 ↗ basic information on sort of what a

1:40:55 ↗ station area is uh going to going to

1:40:58 ↗ have just to be successful uh in order

1:41:01 ↗ to support Light Rail as well as just

1:41:03 ↗ the jobs and housing sort of that would

1:41:06 ↗ be required um for that the doc uh the

1:41:10 ↗ document also includes information on

1:41:12 ↗ the expected um project timeline so we

1:41:15 ↗ assume that sound transit will approach

1:41:17 ↗ Us in 2027 so we're sort of working um

1:41:20 ↗ back from that

1:41:21 ↗ timeline there's also some key

1:41:23 ↗ considerations uh specific to isqua um

1:41:26 ↗ and we've had discussions with this

1:41:28 ↗ commission before about sort of the um

1:41:31 ↗ the you know the fact that Central isqua

1:41:33 ↗ Station is end of the line and there's

1:41:35 ↗ um you know a lot of considerations uh

1:41:37 ↗ just very specifically for Central isqua

1:41:40 ↗ that um are covered with this within

1:41:42 ↗ this document uh lastly I'll just say

1:41:45 ↗ that there's some proactive steps that

1:41:46 ↗ are included and that first proactive

1:41:49 ↗ step uh that we're talking about uh

1:41:51 ↗ which was a result of this guide is the

1:41:53 ↗ development of a vision and set of

1:41:56 ↗ guiding principles um specific to the

1:41:58 ↗ station area um and just for the

1:42:00 ↗ purposes of our discussion today uh I'm

1:42:03 ↗ defining station area as roughly like

1:42:06 ↗ the area that someone would be able to

1:42:07 ↗ walk to um which planners we say about a

1:42:11 ↗ quarter mile to a half mile so we can

1:42:13 ↗ sort of in our Mind's Eye think about

1:42:15 ↗ that as the station

1:42:19 ↗ area um so we're about a year into our

1:42:22 ↗ public engagement

1:42:23 ↗ process uh really started off with popup

1:42:27 ↗ events we did three of these uh and then

1:42:30 ↗ we developed a multilingual Community

1:42:32 ↗ survey uh which we had I think about 805

1:42:36 ↗ responses um which at the time uh was

1:42:39 ↗ the most responses we've ever received

1:42:42 ↗ from a

1:42:43 ↗ survey uh from there we really sort of

1:42:46 ↗ looked at the data opened up all the

1:42:48 ↗ comments there were hundreds of comments

1:42:51 ↗ um and we really just started to see

1:42:53 ↗ some themes emerging in terms of what

1:42:55 ↗ the community would like to see with the

1:42:57 ↗ station area uh we started grabbing

1:43:01 ↗ those themes and we developed uh focus

1:43:03 ↗ groups so we had seven focus groups with

1:43:05 ↗ 28 members uh these focus groups were

1:43:08 ↗ recruited from over 75

1:43:11 ↗ organizations and these organizations

1:43:13 ↗ represented various uh different

1:43:16 ↗ Community needs um generally the

1:43:18 ↗ community at large Transit Riders and

1:43:21 ↗ Mobility Advocates both folks with

1:43:23 ↗ limited English proficiency Human

1:43:25 ↗ Services

1:43:26 ↗ organizations uh large property owners

1:43:28 ↗ and developers seniors sustainability

1:43:32 ↗ Advocates and uh folks with youth

1:43:35 ↗ interests uh so we're now sort of

1:43:37 ↗ towards the end of our public engagement

1:43:40 ↗ uh process we're now at the boards and

1:43:42 ↗ commission's level uh we will be being

1:43:45 ↗ bringing this to city council um after

1:43:48 ↗ this is all done um but yeah this is

1:43:52 ↗ essentially where we're at with the

1:43:53 ↗ development of the vision and guiding

1:43:57 ↗ principles so attachment B in your uh in

1:44:01 ↗ your packet includes the full list of

1:44:04 ↗ you know the words uh for each guiding

1:44:06 ↗ principle as well as the vision

1:44:08 ↗ statement um and generally I'll just say

1:44:11 ↗ uh the draft vision and guiding

1:44:13 ↗ principles were just a uh a collection

1:44:16 ↗ of everything that we've heard to date

1:44:19 ↗ um so this is really uh sort of overall

1:44:21 ↗ encompassing of what the community hopes

1:44:23 ↗ to see um feel and experience within the

1:44:25 ↗ Central isqua Station

1:44:28 ↗ area so this first uh Vision so uh

1:44:32 ↗ looking at the left one accessibility

1:44:33 ↗ and connectivity a lot of interest in

1:44:36 ↗ ensuring that the station area functions

1:44:38 ↗ as a Transportation

1:44:40 ↗ Hub and there's some additional verbiage

1:44:42 ↗ in attachment B that sort of describes

1:44:45 ↗ uh how that should look and feel the

1:44:47 ↗ second one is experiences and uses um

1:44:51 ↗ essentially this is ensuring that the

1:44:53 ↗ area functions as a mixed use and

1:44:55 ↗ Transit oriented area um this has been

1:44:59 ↗ envisioned since the central isqua plan

1:45:01 ↗ and sort of uh is an extension of what

1:45:04 ↗ the community is also interested in

1:45:06 ↗ seeing and then lastly Community

1:45:09 ↗ connections and character uh and this is

1:45:12 ↗ mentioned in previous uh agenda items as

1:45:14 ↗ well it's really about ensuring that the

1:45:16 ↗ station area is reflective of the

1:45:19 ↗ community's character and values

1:45:24 ↗ so I did take this item to the economic

1:45:26 ↗ Vitality commission and received their

1:45:28 ↗ feedback each of their uh uh points of

1:45:33 ↗ feedback were incorporated into the

1:45:34 ↗ version that you see tonight so first

1:45:37 ↗ one was uh combining uh some principles

1:45:40 ↗ together which are now uh encompassing

1:45:43 ↗ of the third one which is community

1:45:45 ↗ connections and

1:45:46 ↗ character ensuring that there there were

1:45:50 ↗ some additional points that they would

1:45:52 ↗ like to make within the document so

1:45:54 ↗ those uh were uh folded in as well these

1:45:57 ↗ were related to safety which was a

1:45:59 ↗ really big um point that they wanted to

1:46:02 ↗ ensure that we we made accessibility to

1:46:05 ↗ uh employment and tourism and just

1:46:08 ↗ making sure that parking is Right sized

1:46:10 ↗ and easing

1:46:12 ↗ congestion the theme of sustainability

1:46:14 ↗ and safety was also added within the

1:46:16 ↗ Visions so the vision statement should

1:46:19 ↗ uh encap encapsulate the other three

1:46:21 ↗ guiding principles

1:46:25 ↗ so tonight I'm here to get your feedback

1:46:28 ↗ I'm hoping to learn more about what you

1:46:30 ↗ think about the vision and guiding

1:46:31 ↗ principles and if there's any um changes

1:46:33 ↗ You' like to see thank you great thank

1:46:36 ↗ you

1:46:37 ↗ Thomas yeah this was an exciting read

1:46:42 ↗ um all right we'll kick it off with some

1:46:45 ↗ discussion for Thomas commissioner CR

1:46:47 ↗ thanks for sharing um can't wait for

1:46:50 ↗ this train it'll be pretty old hopefully

1:46:52 ↗ they'll have a

1:46:53 ↗ handicap sections but I'll be in a

1:46:54 ↗ wheelchair by

1:46:57 ↗ then anyway on the vision um I was

1:47:01 ↗ wondering whether it

1:47:03 ↗ was on purpose or we should discuss is

1:47:06 ↗ like um the idea of having housing

1:47:08 ↗ nearby or vibrant housing as part if you

1:47:11 ↗ think about the Hub of what this is

1:47:14 ↗ going to be um H housing was not

1:47:17 ↗ mentioned in the vision aspect of it so

1:47:20 ↗ I wasn't sure if that was by Design or

1:47:23 ↗ if that's something that should be

1:47:24 ↗ discussed kind of comment one and then

1:47:27 ↗ on the guiding principles I really only

1:47:30 ↗ had one which doesn't fit into those

1:47:32 ↗ three but it's a guiding principle of

1:47:34 ↗ how you may come up with something that

1:47:35 ↗ may be um that will work well for isqua

1:47:39 ↗ and then hopefully work for Sound

1:47:41 ↗ Transit is um a guiding principle

1:47:44 ↗ leveraging the best practices from all

1:47:46 ↗ the other things that have already been

1:47:47 ↗ done from the other communities because

1:47:50 ↗ we're not we don't have to invent this

1:47:51 ↗ ourselves

1:47:53 ↗ um Belle's been doing it Redmond's been

1:47:55 ↗ doing it um Seattle's been doing it for

1:47:58 ↗ a long time and they've both had some

1:48:00 ↗ some successes and failures and we'd be

1:48:04 ↗ not only smart but of course we should

1:48:06 ↗ do is take take the learnings from them

1:48:09 ↗ and short you know short circuit our our

1:48:11 ↗ learning curve on that I wasn't sure if

1:48:13 ↗ that's a specific guiding principle that

1:48:15 ↗ doesn't fit in those three buckets but

1:48:17 ↗ it's just kind of a way to make sure

1:48:18 ↗ that we have the very best thing

1:48:20 ↗ possible those are my those are my two

1:48:22 ↗ two comments

1:48:25 ↗ great yeah I appreciate those comments

1:48:26 ↗ um housing was not intentionally left

1:48:28 ↗ out of the vision statement um it's sort

1:48:30 ↗ of implied um throughout but we can

1:48:32 ↗ certainly add that um that would be no

1:48:35 ↗ issue whatsoever housing is obviously

1:48:37 ↗ very important um and it is a major um

1:48:40 ↗ contributor to the success of the

1:48:44 ↗ station related to the second uh

1:48:48 ↗ statement um we're certainly interested

1:48:50 ↗ in uh updating our light rail planning

1:48:52 ↗ guide

1:48:53 ↗ um and really staying uh you know abast

1:48:57 ↗ to any sort of updates with how s how s

1:49:01 ↗ Sound Transit is approaching um station

1:49:04 ↗ development so we'll certainly look into

1:49:06 ↗ that as

1:49:08 ↗ well yeah great Point commissioner

1:49:13 ↗ grass commissioner

1:49:16 ↗ Patterson uh thanks for the presentation

1:49:18 ↗ the materials um overall I feel like the

1:49:21 ↗ vision and principles seem seem to uh be

1:49:24 ↗ really well defined uh and comprehensive

1:49:26 ↗ uh there seems to be a consistent thread

1:49:28 ↗ between the vision and principles on

1:49:31 ↗ important aspects like accessibility uh

1:49:33 ↗ incl inclusivity and Community

1:49:35 ↗ well-being uh I did have one suggestion

1:49:38 ↗ uh which is to ensure specific focus on

1:49:41 ↗ sustainability and environmental impacts

1:49:43 ↗ in The Guiding principles uh there is

1:49:46 ↗ one mention uh looked like feedback from

1:49:48 ↗ the economic Vitality to include

1:49:50 ↗ sustainability in the vision uh but that

1:49:52 ↗ that's one area that doesn't currently

1:49:54 ↗ translate much into the guiding

1:49:56 ↗ principles um I feel like that was a

1:49:58 ↗ topic that was mentioned a lot in like

1:50:00 ↗ the survey results and the public

1:50:02 ↗ comments and um I know just having gone

1:50:05 ↗ through the comp plan and other things

1:50:06 ↗ it's a top priority for isqua in general

1:50:09 ↗ um so I think explicitly including

1:50:11 ↗ sustainable practices and minimizing you

1:50:14 ↗ know the light rails ecological

1:50:15 ↗ footprint uh could be a valuable

1:50:18 ↗ addition to the document uh with some

1:50:20 ↗ specific ideas like sustainable infrast

1:50:22 ↗ structure in green

1:50:26 ↗ spaces

1:50:28 ↗ great commissioner

1:50:30 ↗ Kennedy um so maybe this is little too

1:50:33 ↗ into the specifics um but I saw there

1:50:35 ↗ was a mention of right siiz parking and

1:50:37 ↗ I think out here and esqua especially at

1:50:40 ↗ the end of the line for light rail going

1:50:42 ↗ into town parking is going to be huge

1:50:46 ↗ aspect because where we live there's

1:50:48 ↗ going to be a lot of people who would

1:50:50 ↗ love to take light rail but they're

1:50:53 ↗ going to need to drive to the station be

1:50:54 ↗ able to park their car and head into

1:50:56 ↗ Seattle and since we're the end of the

1:50:58 ↗ line I suspect we're going to get the

1:51:00 ↗ Preston and the North Bend and we're

1:51:02 ↗ going to get the other areas just past

1:51:04 ↗ us that are going to say oh sweet I can

1:51:06 ↗ drive 15 minutes into isqua park my car

1:51:08 ↗ and take Light Rail and this saves so

1:51:09 ↗ much off my commute and we want to get

1:51:12 ↗ cars off the street so the more we can

1:51:14 ↗ get people to take light rail the better

1:51:17 ↗ but if there's not parking it's going to

1:51:19 ↗ be a real challenge because people be

1:51:21 ↗ like well bot this is now doesn't par

1:51:22 ↗ because I have nowhere to park so I

1:51:25 ↗ suspect maybe unfortunately we're going

1:51:27 ↗ to need a lot of parking near our

1:51:37 ↗ station commissioner Milan thank you

1:51:40 ↗ commissioner Kennedy don't give up uh

1:51:43 ↗ right siiz parking I want to ask uh

1:51:45 ↗ where is that in the document uh is a

1:51:48 ↗ question first and then I have a comment

1:51:49 ↗ after

1:51:50 ↗ that um in the in the document we talk

1:51:53 ↗ about balancing needs um right sizing

1:51:55 ↗ parking is certainly part of that

1:51:56 ↗ equation um as we think about the

1:51:59 ↗ development uh potential of the area um

1:52:02 ↗ and the you know the fact that we are

1:52:05 ↗ trying to encourage um housing

1:52:08 ↗ opportunities um reducing the the cost

1:52:11 ↗ of uh building um so these are all

1:52:14 ↗ things that we're going to need to sort

1:52:16 ↗ of grapple with um incrementally uh so

1:52:19 ↗ we are doing a parking study to look at

1:52:21 ↗ that um next year um actually kicking

1:52:24 ↗ off this year um but yeah parking is

1:52:27 ↗ certainly a big part of that um it it

1:52:29 ↗ could represent you know 15 20% I'm not

1:52:32 ↗ a builder U 15 you know a good amount um

1:52:36 ↗ in terms of like the overall cost of

1:52:38 ↗ developing so U we are going to want to

1:52:41 ↗ make sure that there's parking available

1:52:43 ↗ to folks who really do need it um and

1:52:46 ↗ maybe we need to be creative about other

1:52:48 ↗ ways that we provide parking maybe it's

1:52:50 ↗ not specifically right there it could be

1:52:53 ↗ elsewhere maybe it's better Transit

1:52:55 ↗ connections um to available parking

1:52:58 ↗ spaces so um without being overly

1:53:01 ↗ prescriptive um it parking is certainly

1:53:04 ↗ like a huge thing that we're going to

1:53:05 ↗ need to tackle so we are certainly

1:53:08 ↗ looking at it um but I don't like I

1:53:10 ↗ guess without being overly prescriptive

1:53:12 ↗ in the vision or The Guiding principles

1:53:14 ↗ I think we've we've covered it um

1:53:19 ↗ yeah please yeah so thank you I'd like

1:53:22 ↗ to amplify what you said plus one on you

1:53:25 ↗ plus one on you uh all these are are

1:53:27 ↗ things I would support and agree and

1:53:29 ↗ wish I had said them too uh the what I

1:53:32 ↗ really liked about the um getting

1:53:34 ↗ principles and the vision is that uh we

1:53:38 ↗ want it to be a hub of Economic

1:53:40 ↗ Development and Community Connection and

1:53:42 ↗ that's where all those um qualitative

1:53:46 ↗ visioning descriptions are um I I was

1:53:49 ↗ really excited to read them and they can

1:53:52 ↗ and if if this is the um starting point

1:53:56 ↗ the principles then and without being

1:53:58 ↗ overly prescriptive the parking could

1:54:01 ↗ not could maybe not be at the station

1:54:04 ↗ but on the other side of of some

1:54:06 ↗ economic Center think about the places

1:54:08 ↗ that are are really good stations and

1:54:11 ↗ places that are are not good um in that

1:54:14 ↗ regard let's um think about Mercer

1:54:16 ↗ Island for a minute Park the stations

1:54:18 ↗ here the parkings there economic uh

1:54:21 ↗ Vitality of the communities over there

1:54:23 ↗ and if uh so th those things are divided

1:54:25 ↗ and and that would be an example of of

1:54:27 ↗ an unfortunate way that that worked out

1:54:29 ↗ really great examples are uh San

1:54:31 ↗ Francisco Ferry Station um Grand Central

1:54:34 ↗ Station places where uh people go to and

1:54:37 ↗ they and the train is there the

1:54:39 ↗ transportation or the ferry is all there

1:54:41 ↗ but it's also a great place um for

1:54:43 ↗ economic vitality and for community

1:54:45 ↗ building so I think um with this these

1:54:48 ↗ Visions perhaps um it'll be interpreted

1:54:50 ↗ in the in the appropriate way and keep

1:54:52 ↗ the parking lot where

1:54:55 ↗ else thank you and thanks for this work

1:54:57 ↗ thank you very

1:54:59 ↗ much commissioner

1:55:01 ↗ zacharov I would maybe add uh my

1:55:04 ↗ question is what is the completion date

1:55:08 ↗ approximate so our best understanding um

1:55:11 ↗ based on the information we have to date

1:55:13 ↗ um we're expecting Light Rail as early

1:55:15 ↗ as

1:55:16 ↗ 2041 um or 44 y so that um in the

1:55:20 ↗ document we we talk about the entire uh

1:55:23 ↗ sort of planning process but um those

1:55:25 ↗ discussions are going to be happening

1:55:26 ↗ very soon in about two years is um so

1:55:31 ↗ it's just it happens to be a very long

1:55:33 ↗ planning process environmental um

1:55:36 ↗ construction you know and they have to

1:55:38 ↗ test out everything so um it is a long

1:55:41 ↗ process but it is happening starting

1:55:43 ↗ very soon thank you so that's what I I

1:55:45 ↗ was actually meaning uh in addition to

1:55:48 ↗ barking we already we have to we're

1:55:51 ↗ expecting the growth both as we were

1:55:53 ↗ discussing today so it will be actually

1:55:55 ↗ even a bigger well hopefully not an

1:55:58 ↗ issue but a bigger thing to discuss and

1:56:02 ↗ figure out where to park where to get

1:56:04 ↗ all this people thank

1:56:08 ↗ you thank you commissioner Zach I I

1:56:11 ↗ definitely want to go around the table

1:56:13 ↗ so Vice chair

1:56:15 ↗ Bader yeah I am I feel Thomas like every

1:56:18 ↗ time you're up here all I do is complain

1:56:19 ↗ about palas um but like I see my house

1:56:23 ↗ on this map and I'm so close to that

1:56:25 ↗ green section but to get there it's like

1:56:29 ↗ I have to hike up and down a mountain

1:56:30 ↗ and there's no buts right there's no

1:56:32 ↗ other way to get there other than I

1:56:33 ↗ drive or I hike um and so I would like

1:56:37 ↗ somewhat selfishly but also there's a

1:56:39 ↗ lot of other people who live up there

1:56:40 ↗ the squawk people too they have a not

1:56:42 ↗ one to hike up I don't know if they have

1:56:43 ↗ a bus um of just like how do you get the

1:56:47 ↗ isqua people right there so that we're

1:56:49 ↗ not contributing to the need to be one

1:56:51 ↗ of those extra cars because right now

1:56:52 ↗ that would be my only way right that is

1:56:55 ↗ my only way to get you know off the

1:56:57 ↗ literal Mountain that I live on um

1:56:59 ↗ hopefully won't die on um and then

1:57:03 ↗ my other comment is super like minor um

1:57:09 ↗ and maybe nitpicky but I really like the

1:57:12 ↗ vision and The Guiding principles I

1:57:14 ↗ really like the language that's used in

1:57:16 ↗ them it feels really like aspirational

1:57:18 ↗ and like descriptive and like I can see

1:57:21 ↗ what this looks like and it excited um

1:57:24 ↗ the only like thing I had like that made

1:57:27 ↗ me pause was the phrase Community

1:57:31 ↗ connections because I immediately even

1:57:33 ↗ though I just read the accessibility and

1:57:34 ↗ connectivity I went to like a physical

1:57:36 ↗ connections place again maybe selfishly

1:57:38 ↗ because I was like how do I get here um

1:57:40 ↗ but that's where my brain went and so I

1:57:42 ↗ wonder if it's as simple as calling it

1:57:43 ↗ Community Connection instead of

1:57:46 ↗ connections um that again when you read

1:57:48 ↗ it it you don't go there but just in

1:57:50 ↗ terms of the header that's that's where

1:57:52 ↗ I I went and so again super

1:58:11 ↗ like yeah I I've seen them driving

1:58:14 ↗ around but can I bring like three kids

1:58:17 ↗ in a stroller on that you can I can yeah

1:58:20 ↗ you can y

1:58:22 ↗ how many toddlers can I pile into

1:58:26 ↗ the so uh yeah director Dolly Wall's

1:58:29 ↗ comment is about Metroflex that is a

1:58:31 ↗ provided service that we have um it

1:58:33 ↗ works great I've used it yeah um also

1:58:37 ↗ you know this is we're looking 20 years

1:58:39 ↗ out from now um but I'm not aware of

1:58:42 ↗ what uh King County Metro's service will

1:58:44 ↗ be like um but we are interested in

1:58:46 ↗ Beyond just a light rail station there

1:58:48 ↗ should be better bus connections to

1:58:50 ↗ serve it um so we are expecting that as

1:58:52 ↗ part of it we just don't know sort of

1:58:53 ↗ what that will look like at this

1:59:17 ↗ time yeah

1:59:28 ↗ well yeah I'll look into it because I

1:59:29 ↗ don't know how that not that this is the

1:59:31 ↗ time or place for it but like car seats

1:59:33 ↗ and that sort of thing right

1:59:37 ↗ bicycles is is always going to be the

1:59:40 ↗ end of the line or is that just for now

1:59:41 ↗ and will they extend it farther east the

1:59:45 ↗ the most recent planning documents have

1:59:46 ↗ isqua as the end of the

1:59:51 ↗ line okay chair voice I don't know if

1:59:53 ↗ this is a guiding principle but building

1:59:55 ↗ off what commissioner crft said

1:59:58 ↗ um I don't know again it's definitely

2:00:01 ↗ not a vision but I don't know it might

2:00:03 ↗ even be like a sub principle but the

2:00:05 ↗ fact that isqua will be in a unique

2:00:08 ↗ position to be the end of the

2:00:10 ↗ line um you know our our world's going

2:00:13 ↗ to be slightly different than Belle viw

2:00:14 ↗ SE so many different cities um because

2:00:17 ↗ we're in the unique position of being

2:00:19 ↗ end of the line whether it's a guiding

2:00:22 ↗ principle or sub principle but

2:00:23 ↗ definitely and I know you guys are

2:00:25 ↗ taking a look at this but what is going

2:00:26 ↗ to make our particular station unique in

2:00:29 ↗ the sense it uh to commissioner

2:00:32 ↗ Kennedy's point I mean you're going to

2:00:33 ↗ have a flood of people from East um

2:00:36 ↗ probably not so much from West because

2:00:37 ↗ of the belie station but definitely

2:00:39 ↗ samamish you're going to have I mean

2:00:41 ↗ just think of the traffic right now that

2:00:43 ↗ goes down 18 using isqua Hobart um

2:00:46 ↗ you're going to have a tremendous a very

2:00:49 ↗ different I I shouldn't say tremendous

2:00:51 ↗ you're going to have a very different

2:00:52 ↗ challenge than other stations and I

2:00:55 ↗ don't again I don't know if that's a

2:00:56 ↗ guiding principle but and I I know you

2:00:57 ↗ guys are thinking about that but clearly

2:01:00 ↗ it's something that's on all our our

2:01:02 ↗ minds because it'll affect our community

2:01:05 ↗ in a very different way than it will for

2:01:07 ↗ others um again not a really a guiding

2:01:10 ↗ principle but just something I thought

2:01:12 ↗ I'd

2:01:12 ↗ mention Amazon and Microsoft are local

2:01:16 ↗ and to commissioner cr's point the one

2:01:19 ↗ benefit I guess for being the last up is

2:01:22 ↗ we should be able to leverage and work

2:01:24 ↗ with these companies to make our station

2:01:25 ↗ the most high-tech the most sustainable

2:01:27 ↗ the most I mean it really I mean again I

2:01:31 ↗ bet these companies would probably be on

2:01:32 ↗ board with something like that but by

2:01:34 ↗ the time our station rolls around versus

2:01:38 ↗ Kirkland's and bells you know I think

2:01:40 ↗ the hope is you know theirs will look

2:01:42 ↗ kind of

2:01:43 ↗ outdated you know a little bit older

2:01:45 ↗ need as a remodel whereas ours should be

2:01:47 ↗ like Singapore ours should be

2:01:50 ↗ incredible um

2:01:52 ↗ and again I would just think working

2:01:53 ↗ with some of these companies that have a

2:01:55 ↗ history of working in

2:01:57 ↗ sustainability you know environmentally

2:02:00 ↗ friendly I think Amazon and Microsoft

2:02:02 ↗ again I'm I'm sure they're doing things

2:02:03 ↗ behind the scenes as it is but uh

2:02:06 ↗ clearly that would be a goal and then I

2:02:09 ↗ don't know if anyone feels like this but

2:02:12 ↗ as your part of your pie you know again

2:02:14 ↗ you're going to have a very big influx

2:02:15 ↗ of people into isqua and I don't know

2:02:19 ↗ about so I don't know if part of the pi

2:02:21 ↗ the the three pie chart that you showed

2:02:22 ↗ is also safety and

2:02:24 ↗ maintenance because right now you can

2:02:27 ↗ not that I would suggest it but you can

2:02:29 ↗ walk around is at 3:00 a.m. in the

2:02:30 ↗ morning and your biggest problem is

2:02:32 ↗ probably going to be Wildlife does that

2:02:34 ↗ change with a major Hub on the east side

2:02:39 ↗ and again that's not that's I don't know

2:02:42 ↗ but you know everything from proper

2:02:43 ↗ lighting to you know not having garbage

2:02:46 ↗ everywhere from people that are getting

2:02:47 ↗ into their cars and ditching things I

2:02:49 ↗ mean what's the security apparat at us

2:02:52 ↗ what does that look like those are all

2:02:54 ↗ things I would be questioning because

2:02:57 ↗ again we're going to have unique

2:02:58 ↗ challenges being the end of the line

2:03:00 ↗ that other stations do

2:03:02 ↗ not so again I don't know where they fit

2:03:05 ↗ but uh I really did enjoy reading your

2:03:07 ↗ memorandum I thought it was really

2:03:09 ↗ helpful you guys clearly did a lot of

2:03:11 ↗ work and a lot of Outreach which is

2:03:14 ↗ phenomenal and uh I was yeah to find out

2:03:18 ↗ that that was the most used or perused

2:03:21 ↗ survey

2:03:22 ↗ in City history that's phenomenal so

2:03:24 ↗ great job thank you um I want to kick

2:03:28 ↗ around one more time before we wrap this

2:03:30 ↗ up anyone have any further questions for

2:03:34 ↗ senior planner

2:03:39 ↗ vres Thomas did you get everything you

2:03:41 ↗ needed I did thank you chair okay well

2:03:44 ↗ wonderful thank you again for the

2:03:50 ↗ presentation we can all

2:03:57 ↗ night

2:03:58 ↗ okay well again thank you staff um the

2:04:02 ↗ next item on the agenda is

2:04:04 ↗ reports and we'll start with city

2:04:07 ↗ council updates Stephen do you have any

2:04:09 ↗ updates I just have a brief update um

2:04:13 ↗ last week we had culture fest last

2:04:15 ↗ Friday I don't I know Vice chair Peter

2:04:17 ↗ was there I don't know if the rest of

2:04:18 ↗ you were able to attend it was well

2:04:20 ↗ attended it was very nice nice event um

2:04:23 ↗ our department Comm be planning and

2:04:25 ↗ development had a booth and I want to

2:04:26 ↗ thank uh mine Nelson who's our planning

2:04:29 ↗ intern next to us uh helped organize us

2:04:32 ↗ according to the booth but I would if

2:04:35 ↗ you haven't attended that event in the

2:04:36 ↗ past I would highly encourage it for

2:04:38 ↗ next year and we're going to continue

2:04:39 ↗ having this event it's sort of designed

2:04:42 ↗ as a welcoming event and it is uh what

2:04:46 ↗ is is well attended and a lot of people

2:04:48 ↗ had a lot of fun um a last piece is on

2:04:53 ↗ September 16th city council is going to

2:04:54 ↗ be getting a presentation on the arch

2:04:56 ↗ work plan and budget so if you're

2:04:58 ↗ interested in learning more about that

2:04:59 ↗ you can listen in on the city council

2:05:01 ↗ meeting it for myc

2:05:04 ↗ report great thank you culture I wanted

2:05:08 ↗ to go I didn't realize it was on

2:05:10 ↗ Friday it was we had a lot of fun I went

2:05:12 ↗ with my kids

2:05:14 ↗ and and all three of

2:05:18 ↗ them I stay almost the full two hours

2:05:30 ↗ okay are there any other business or

2:05:33 ↗ announcements uh just a reminder that uh

2:05:35 ↗ the next meeting for September is

2:05:37 ↗ canceled for the commission so your next

2:05:38 ↗ meeting will actually be in

2:05:40 ↗ early October 12th right

2:05:43 ↗ correct earlyish

2:05:46 ↗ earlyish

2:05:48 ↗ okay um anything from the Commissioners

2:05:50 ↗ anything for the good of the order

2:05:53 ↗ well again as I said earlier it's good

2:05:55 ↗ to have the band back it's good seeing

2:05:58 ↗ everybody um we're actually going to be

2:06:00 ↗ conducting some interviews so uh we'll

2:06:02 ↗ let you know how that goes over the

2:06:04 ↗ course of the next

2:06:05 ↗ month but again thank you everyone for

2:06:09 ↗ coming and there being no further

2:06:11 ↗ business before the commission we will

2:06:13 ↗ adjourn at 8:37 p.m. thank you everyone

Approved minutes

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

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (2)

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Madeline Nelson, Planning Intern Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Thomas Valdriz, Senior Transportation Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of August 22, 2024 There were no comments or corrections

the Minutes were approved. 3

Recommendations & actions (11)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of August 22, 2024 There were no comments or corrections and the Minutes were approved.
The Commission had voted to postpone deliberation at the last meeting until this meeting with more Commissioners in attendance.
MOTION seconded by VICE-CHAIR BADER.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER ZAKHAROFF.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER MILLIGAN.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER PATTERSON.
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.
Padua stated that the last part of the policy was recommended by King County Planning staff to comply with King County Planning policy specific to the first and second parts fitting together and splitting the policy…
MOTION seconded by COMMISSIONER KRASS.
Padua confirmed that three amendments had been approved.
CHAIR VOISS asked for a vote to recommend the approval of the proposed periodic Comprehensive Plan with three approved amendments.