0:15
I call the regular City Council meeting of February 8th to order. Due to the
0:20
inclement weather and the closure of City Hall and City offices on February 6th, the
0:26
City Council regular meeting was adjourned and continued to this evening. Mayor Fred Butler and
0:31
Councilmember Tola Martz are unavailable to attend tonight's meeting. The record should reflect that their
0:36
absences are excused. I also would like to report that Mayor Butler had a minor
0:41
fall this morning and he's at home resting tonight. So if you're watching, Fred, we
0:46
wish you well and look forward to your State of the City address later this
0:50
month. I would like to invite those in the audience who would like to join
0:55
me and the Council to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
1:03
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United
1:08
States of America and to the republic for which
1:14
it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
1:19
and justice for all. First item on the agenda
1:25
tonight is special business, proclamation honoring the Issaquah Press.
1:30
I would like to ask, those are here.
1:35
Debbie Birdo and Christina
1:40
Corrales-Toy and Greg Farrar
1:45
and anybody else from
1:50
the press? I see
1:55
Liz Giordano coming in
1:59
to please come to
2:04
the lectern. Stuart Miller
2:09
is here and Liz
2:14
Giordano is also here. First
2:20
of all, I want to say that having spent nearly 10 years at the Issaquah
2:25
Press myself as an editor and a reporter, this particular duty tonight is difficult and
2:30
emotional for me. I am at once grateful to be part of this presentation, but
2:35
I'm also extraordinarily sad that we were having this presentation tonight. Never ever occurred to
2:40
me since my initial work with the Issaquah Press starting in 1996 that we would
2:45
be here. I'm profoundly, profoundly sad. So
2:51
I'm going to read a proclamation. They usually have several whereases. Whereas in January
2:56
1900, the Issaquah Independent was founded and later became known as the Issaquah Press,
3:02
the oldest newspaper on the East Side. And whereas the Issaquah Press has chronicled
3:08
our community's milestones and been published continuously for the past 117 years. And whereas
3:13
the Issaquah Press has worked to embody its mission to foster community pride, history,
3:19
and identity. And whereas the Issaquah Press has exemplified our community's commitment to
3:25
First Amendment freedoms, and whereas the Issaquah Press has been recognized in numerous times for
3:31
its high quality journalism and dedication to community service, and whereas the Issaquah Press and
3:37
its sister newspapers will cease operations in February 2017. Now therefore, Fred Butler, Mayor of
3:43
the City of Issaquah, did hereby recognize and honor the Issaquah Press, as I also
3:49
do today, for more than a century of service to Issaquah and I can
3:55
encourage our community to join me in recognizing the newspaper's invaluable contributions to Issaquah
4:00
on the east side. In witness whereof, Mayor Fred Butler set his hand and
4:06
seal of the city of Issaquah this eighth day of February 2017. Before we
4:12
go on, I do have some separate words myself. Proclamation is one thing and
4:17
I just want to I'm not representing the council or the mayor, but I
4:23
did have a few more words just because I think it's important to recognize the
4:28
contributions of Issaquah Press. "The purpose of journalism," wrote Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel in
4:33
The Elements of Journalism, "is not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques
4:39
they employ. Rather, the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic:
4:44
the function news plays in the lives of people." News is that part of communication
4:50
that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world. Though
4:55
it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a
5:01
utility to empower the informed. The purpose of journalism then is to provide citizens with
5:07
the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities,
5:13
their societies, and their governments. Community journalism is local. professional news coverage that
5:18
focuses on city neighborhoods, individual suburbs or small towns rather than the
5:24
metropolitan, state, national or world news. The Issaquah Press is our community
5:29
newspaper for 117 years. It has provided our small town with the
5:35
information that our citizens need to make the best possible decisions about
5:41
their lives, their community and their local government. their
5:47
purpose one of their primary purposes is to watch our local government all of us
5:52
here and to hold us accountable of course the isaac press has done so much
5:58
more than that reflecting our community telling our stories together and as individuals and embracing
6:03
a leadership role and it has served that purpose for 117 years no other newspaper
6:09
or publication has ever come close to infiltrating in a good way our community,
6:14
homes, graduations, sports, schools, politics, meetings, and so on. The press has had such
6:20
a vital role in our community, but more importantly, it is a member of
6:26
our community. So it is indeed a very sad day when we say goodbye
6:32
to the Issaquah Press, the oldest member of our community. You will be missed.
6:39
I want to thank you all for
6:44
your service and for being such a
6:49
vital member of our community. No, no
6:55
comments. All right. - Thank you. -
7:00
Thanks. The next item on our agenda
7:06
was agenda bill 7311, mayor state of
7:11
the city address. But in light of
7:17
mayor Butler's absence, the state of the
7:22
city address will be heard at the
7:27
February 21st council meeting. Next item on
7:33
the agenda is audience comments. Citizen comments
7:38
are an important part of the public
7:44
process. We take them seriously and factor
7:49
them into the decisions we make. Anyone from the
7:55
public who wishes to comment will have the opportunity to do so. Please direct comments
8:00
to the whole council and not individuals. While this is not a question and answer
8:04
session, we will contact you to follow up if needed. If you did not have
8:09
an opportunity to include your email address on the sign-in sheet, you may leave that
8:14
information on the clipboard at the front table after speaking. When recognized, use the lectern
8:19
and speak into the microphone. State your name, address, and relationship to the city. For
8:23
example, if you are a resident, property owner, or business owner, limit your comments to
8:27
five minutes and submit any written comments to the city clerk. A visual timer has
8:31
been placed on the lectern. When it turns yellow, you are within the last minute
8:36
of your comment period. If you use the full five minutes, the timer will sound
8:40
to indicate the end of your allotted comment time. Personal attacks, obscene language, derogatory remarks
8:45
and disruptive behavior will not be permitted. If a speaker is out of order, the
8:50
mayor will direct the speaker to return to his or her seat. If a speaker
8:55
does not comply, the mayor will ask, I will ask him or her to leave
9:00
the council chambers. Again, citizen comments written and verbal are an important aspect of the
9:05
public process Please note that comments relating to the closed record appeal, which is agenda
9:10
bill 7319, Talos Parcels 7 and 8, will not be allowed as part of audience
9:15
comment, as council will be hearing the appeal later this evening. Has anyone signed up
9:20
to speak this evening? No, no one signed up to speak. Is there anyone who
9:25
has not signed up this evening who would like the opportunity to speak, as long
9:30
as it's not related to the closed record appeal hearing? One final call. Does anyone
9:35
wish to speak? Okay, seeing no one, audience comments are closed and we
9:41
will move to committee regional reports and we will start with Council Member Batiste. -
9:47
Thank you. My first King Conservation District Advisory Committee meeting will be February 15th at
9:52
4:00 p.m. with SCA caucus meeting beforehand at 3:00 p.m. This is at the
9:58
King County Wastewater Treatment Plant in Renton. On Tuesday, February 28th, I'll attend my
10:04
first Economic Development Council Board meeting at 3:00 PM in Seattle, and they're also
10:10
hosting an orientation for new members on February 15th. On Wednesday, January 18th, I
10:16
attended the Eastside Human Services Forum Board Meeting. At that meeting, we
10:22
approved the budget, approved the state legislative agenda previously discussed, discussed
10:27
a federal legislative agenda for the first time and the 2017 work plan. I
10:33
just wanted to give you a couple bullet points on what we talked about
10:38
for the work plan. So the items are to engage and advocate to address
10:44
emergent human services issues on the east side, impact local funding and policies, impact
10:50
state and federal funding policies and enhance forum capacity. And this year, there's both
10:55
the state and federal legislative agenda with different bullet points, but both falling under the
11:01
same four categories. To support access to basic needs and health services, to make homelessness
11:07
rare, brief, and one time, to support older adults and people with disabilities, and to
11:12
strengthen early learning and youth programs. And all of the bullet points would be available
11:18
on the website. That concludes my report. Thank you. Council Member Bill
11:24
Ramos. - Thank you. On January 18th, I attended the Regional Transit Committee meeting.
11:30
Main focus on that, this meeting and a few to come will be
11:36
working on implementing Metro Connects, their long range plan, how to get into the details
11:42
of working with that. And following that RTC on the 18th, next meeting is scheduled
11:47
for the 15th of February. That meeting may get moved, so I don't know for
11:53
sure, but it may get moved because of Washington City's day in the legislature. On
11:59
the 1st of February, I attended the SCA orientation. And then on the
12:05
8th, today, I was at the Emergency Management Advisory Council, and they're working
12:10
mainly on catastrophic planning, particularly, again, what we learned from Cascadia Rising. Tomorrow
12:16
will be my first Eastside Fire and Rescue meeting as an alternate there.
12:22
Friday, the Eastside Transportation Partnership and on the agenda, as I noted, there is an
12:27
item that I'm going to find something out about there. I don't know, it's on
12:32
the South King County Transportation Benefit District. And I have not been able to find
12:37
anything about that, but I will find out Friday and report back on that. And
12:41
the next infrastructure committee meeting is on the 16th, coming next week, and we're working
12:46
on that agenda and that'll be out shortly, includes my report. Council Member Winterstein.
12:52
Thank you. I'm going to give the Council Infrastructure Committee report from the meeting
12:58
in January the 19th. And as Council Member Ramos just mentioned, the next one
13:03
is coming up on February 16th. That's because after two years as the committee
13:09
chair, Bill is replacing me as the chair and will be running those meetings and
13:14
giving reports in the future. So this is my last report as chair for the
13:19
Council of Infrastructure. And we met back on January 19th here in Council Chambers. There
13:24
were four items on the agenda of special note, two of which are going to
13:29
be in front of the council later this evening during regular business. The first was
13:34
agenda bill 7290, which is now item 9B on tonight's regular business agenda, and it
13:39
concerns the proposed winning bid for construction of the 62nd Street extension. I'll save my
13:44
comments for that during that item under regular business. Next, we discussed Agenda Bill 7308,
13:49
which was funding for Phase 1 of a Gilman Boulevard corridor study for
13:55
the stated purpose of improving safety for all users, improving accommodations for non-motorized
14:01
users, and developing standard consistent redevelopment standards. The committee voted to the one against the
14:06
proposal. However, it was felt that further work on the proposal was warranted and it's
14:11
back in the hands of council leadership and in the administration how and when to
14:16
bring this back to council. Next we addressed agenda bill 7309 which is now
14:22
item 9c on tonight's agenda and it concerns funding for safety and usage improvements on
14:27
Maple Street at the intersection of the Trader Joe's and Target's parking lot entranceways and
14:33
I'll reserve comments for that under regular business. And then we also had a continuation
14:39
of the discussion about enhancements to the Complete Streets programs and potential projects for 2017,
14:44
including on Second Avenue North at the high school where the Rainier Trail crosses that.
14:50
And then one item that we did not get time to address was to pick
14:55
up the discussion about the formation of the Transportation Mobility Board. We simply ran out
15:00
of time. And so, and as I already mentioned, Bill will be taking over the
15:06
chairship of that committee starting on February 16th, 6:30 here in council chambers. My second
15:11
report is regarding the Puget Sound Regional Council's Growth Management Policy Board, or GMPB. The
15:16
GMPB met on February 2nd at PSR headquarters in Seattle. The notable item on the
15:21
agenda was just for discussion. There was no action. And I'm going to read some
15:26
comments that I wrote. I actually read them a month ago because it still pertains.
15:31
And then later on, I think during the, for the good of the order, there's
15:36
some additional information I'm going to want to share and discuss. with the council but
15:41
we received an update under update on the regional centers framework project there has been
15:46
a working group developing a proposal and this will come in front of the GMPB
15:51
next month actually they'll be released the working groups report will be released this week
15:56
I looked and it wasn't there earlier today so we the GMPB will be considering
16:02
changes to the regional centers program of which our city's regional growth center is part
16:07
These changes will affect future city designations and it may even affect our
16:13
own designation and the funding formula for transportation projects. So this will be
16:19
important to us. It will also provide input to the region's Vision 2040
16:25
and Transportation 24 guiding documents that will be updated starting, process will start
16:30
in next year in 2018. So for all these reasons, the Regional Center Framework Update
16:35
Project is critical to Issaquah and our citizens both now and long into the future.
16:39
And I will be bringing issues related to this back to the council for discussion,
16:43
probably ongoing for the next three or four months. And like I said, during good
16:48
of the order, I have some other material I'll share for your consideration. That concludes
16:52
my report. - Council Member Barber. - Thank you. No active meetings
16:57
so far, but I will be attending Eastside Fire and Rescue this Thursday. So I'll
17:03
be back as a commissioner on that particular meeting. And on the 16th, I'll be
17:08
attending WIRA 8, the Water Resource Inventory Area. And that will be held on the
17:14
16th. So that's my report, thank you. Council Member Pauley. Thank you.
17:20
On January 26th, I attended the WFCA Washington Fire Chiefs Association Legislative Day
17:26
down in Olympia. We were able to meet with Senator Mullet and Representatives
17:31
Sen, Claiborne, and Graves. The top priority issues that were brought up that
17:37
day were restructuring of the 1% levy lid and how important that is
17:43
to cities and agencies. Some topics included wildlife fire prevention and
17:49
mitigation, capital improvements for the Fire Training Academy, and an issue that cities also
17:55
deal with, which is public records abuses and potential legislative changes to address that.
18:01
The next Eastside Fire and Rescue Board meeting is this Thursday as was mentioned at
18:06
four o'clock at EFERS headquarters on Newport Way. Most of the items for business that
18:11
day are administrative updates and the representatives this year as Councilmember Barber mentioned are myself
18:16
and Barber and Councilmember Ramos as our alternate for this year. That concludes my report.
18:21
Thank you. As chair on Land and Shore, I would like to report out that
18:26
Land and Shore met on February 2nd One item on our agenda was
18:32
transfer, sorry, transit-oriented development. We had an update on that. King County
18:38
has a $10 million grant for transit-oriented development, for a transit-oriented development
18:44
project in our area of the county. The administration is planning to
18:50
apply for that grant and so has sought requests for proposals for a
18:55
project and selection of the development team is scheduled to be made on
19:01
February 10th. The components of the transit oriented development would include vertical mixed
19:06
use, at least 350 affordable and market rate housing units, ground floor commercial,
19:12
a city owned space for non-profit services and perhaps some others. The identified
19:18
site right now is the CenturyLink property which is adjacent to the park and ride
19:23
on State Route 900. CenturyLink of course would need to move and the thought right
19:29
now is likely to the King County property near the north side of I-90 nearer
19:34
to the shop site, city shop site which the city is in the process of
19:40
purchasing. The policy considerations for the council would include annexation of the King
19:46
County property, zoning for that land, and other policy items such as whether to and
19:52
how to facilitate affordable housing and maybe some other policy items. There's planned to be
19:58
a presentation to the council at its April Committee of the Whole meeting. And the
20:03
entire council received the presentation that Land and Shore received. I think after Land
20:09
and Shore, but you did all receive it. So there's additional information, additional details in
20:14
there. It was just an update. Oh, actually it was first presentation. We also received
20:19
a moratorium update and primarily we reviewed the preliminary calendar for the work items that
20:25
need to be accomplished this year before lifting the moratorium either in parts or all
20:30
at once. The schedule was in the Land and Shore packet. So if you have
20:35
questions, you can let leadership know. We also had on our
20:41
agenda, agenda bill 7219, the development agreement for Gilman Lofts, This is a
20:47
proposal for a development agreement for development on the north side of Gilman at the
20:52
intersection of Rainier and Juniper. The proposal would include 3700 square feet of first floor
20:57
retail and 44,000 square feet of commercial space. The purpose would be to allow the
21:02
development to move forward during the moratorium, but also to provide a cost sharing agreement
21:07
between the city and the developer for adding a traffic signal to that intersection.
21:13
Currently, C curbing is permitted and required in the SEPA decision. Neither the businesses
21:19
in that area nor Seacon, the developer, like that requirement as it creates right
21:25
in, right out only and the development agreement provides for a light there instead.
21:31
The intersection light is estimated to cost about $1.4 million. The city's share would be
21:36
about half a million dollars, and the developer would pay the rest. We had quite
21:42
a discussion over a couple of meetings, and the committee focused very generally on a
21:47
couple of questions. One was the public benefit of the development agreement, and the other
21:52
was the function of that intersection. If a light went in, there were concerns raised
21:58
about the south side of Gilman that the light would not change that south side
22:04
arrangement, which is awkward. So the committee ended up to be a two
22:09
to one split to recommend in favor of the development agreement coming to
22:15
the full council. And I don't have it in my notes, and I
22:21
think maybe February 21st, it was scheduled to come back to the full
22:27
council. Also, we had agenda bill 7270, 2016 comp plan amendments. that was a
22:33
thick packet we got pretty far kind of proud of us um and uh it's
22:37
coming back in march because we did have um asked for a little more information
22:41
on a couple of items and we asked for some revised language the next land
22:45
and shore meeting is march 2nd and the agenda has not been set The
22:50
mayor's report tonight is very brief. There will be an executive session held this
22:56
evening for the purpose of discussing property acquisition per RCW 42301101B. This item is
23:02
expected to take approximately 15 minutes. Action is anticipated to follow in open session.
23:08
Moving on to the consent calendar on the agenda, I would ask, have the
23:14
payables and payroll for February 6 been reviewed? Yes, they have.
23:19
I would now ask the clerk to read the consent calendar into the record. The
23:24
consent calendar was distributed to council in advance for study. If authorized, council action will
23:29
occur by single motion regarding the following items. Item A seeks approval of the accounts
23:34
payables and payroll of February 6th. Items B, C, and D seeks approval of the
23:39
minutes of the regular meeting of January 17th, the council committee of the whole of
23:44
January 24th, and the special meeting of January 25th. Item E, AB 7282, Arch 2017,
23:50
Proposed Work Program and Budget, seeks referral to Council Services and Safety Committee.
23:56
Item F, AB 7283, 2016, Arch Fall Trust Fund, seeks referral to Council
24:02
Services and Safety Committee. And Item G, AB 7323, Interlocal Agreement for Public
24:08
Defense Monitoring Services, seeks authorization. This concludes the reading. Does any
24:13
council member desire to remove any of the items from consent
24:19
down to the regular agenda? I would entertain a motion on
24:25
the consent calendar. So moved. Second. Motion has been moved and
24:31
seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any
24:37
opposed? Thank you. Next item on the agenda is agenda bill
24:43
7319, appeal of Talos parcels seven and eight, quasi-judicial matter. This
24:48
is a closed record appeal. This is
24:54
a closed record appeal of the hearing examiner's decision to grant final plat approval for
25:00
Talus Parcels 7 and 8. I would ask the City Attorney to please explain what
25:05
a closed record proceeding is and lay out the final plat approval criteria.
25:13
- Thank you. What is before the council tonight is a closed record appeal of
25:19
the hearing examiner's decision on the final plat of Talos seven and eight. A closed
25:25
record appeal means that the record is limited to the materials and evidence that was
25:30
presented to the hearing examiner in this matter and that there will be no additional
25:36
testimony putting in any additional facts into the record tonight. What will occur tonight
25:42
is oral argument by the parties based on the record that was made
25:48
at the hearing examiner's level. And according to the procedure to be followed
25:54
this evening, that oral argument There will be oral argument from both the
26:00
appellant or a TALIS at approximately 10 minutes according to the city's
26:05
closed record appeal procedures. There will also be argument from the applicant,
26:11
TALIS 7 and 8 investment, again, approximately 10 minutes. The staff is
26:16
also charged with making a brief factual or background staff report for
26:22
the council and that's supposed to last about five minutes.
26:28
The council is in the position in this appeal to consider the
26:34
decision of the hearing examiner. The city's code provides that that decision is
26:40
to be given substantial weight, which means that the hearing examiner's decision is
26:45
entitled to some deference by the council and that the appellant, in this
26:51
case, Ora Tallis, nine, has the burden of proving that the hearing examiner decision
26:57
was clearly erroneous. Clearly erroneous is a standard that is adopted
27:02
by the courts and is enshrined in the Land Use Petition
27:08
Act law as well. The clearly erroneous standard holds that a
27:14
decision is clearly erroneous only if after reviewing the entire record
27:20
of the proceedings before the hearing examiner, the counsel is left
27:26
with the definite and firm conviction that the hearing examiner made
27:31
a mistake. The hearing examiner in this matter used
27:37
two criteria to make the decision on the final plat. Those
27:43
criteria are set forth in the Issaquah Municipal Code. They are
27:48
one, whether or not the final plat meets the conditions or
27:54
is consistent with the conditions set forth in the preliminary plat
28:00
approval, which occurred on the TALIS 7 and 8 plat. And
28:06
second, whether the plat, the final plat is consistent with the provisions
28:11
of the state subdivision law relating to final plats and the provisions
28:17
of the Issaquah Municipal Code. In order to overturn the hearing examiner,
28:22
the city council would have to find that the hearing examiner's decision
28:28
that this final plat met those two criteria was clearly erroneous. So
28:34
if that will be, that's the standard of review and the task of the
28:40
council tonight is to listen to the oral argument made by the parties and
28:46
then to make a decision as to whether or not the hearing examiner's decision
28:52
should be upheld or affirmed or whether the hearing examiner's decision should be overturned.
28:58
Thank you. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding, so
29:03
at this time I would ask council members, including myself, by
29:09
a show of hands, if there are any disclosures based on
29:15
appearance of fairness to be disclosed. I see none. Let's see.
29:21
Procedural matters. We need to be led, city attorney, through any
29:27
procedural matters. - I think the procedures are set forth in
29:33
the council's procedures manual and resource manual. They're also set forth in the memo
29:38
that I provided to the council that's in your packet. And there's also a copy
29:44
of the council resource manual that is in the packet relating to this. I think
29:50
that's all the procedures that I know of that you need to follow. If there
29:56
are any questions from the parties concerning the procedures, you may wish to entertain them
30:01
now. Okay. Do we have any questions about the process from
30:07
the parties? Thank you. Well, this time, it would be time for the
30:13
staff presentation. I understand that's Mike Martin, and this should take, my understanding
30:18
is approximately five minutes. Good evening. My name is Mike Martin. I'm a
30:24
senior planner with the Development Services Department, and I am the project planner
30:30
for the final application.
30:40
There's a very concise history of the permit background on the second page of
30:46
the agenda bill and I'm just going to read that briefly as it provides
30:52
some good background as to the permit process up to this point. The preliminary
30:58
plat application for TALIS parcel 7 through 9 file number PP1400001 was brought before
31:04
the Urban Village Development Commission on April 1st. April 15th, 2014 and May
31:09
6th, 2014. On May 6th, the UVDC entered its recommendation to the city
31:15
council to approve the preliminary plat application with conditions. The preliminary plat was
31:21
then brought before the Land and Shore Committee on May 13th, 2014. The
31:26
committee recommended by a vote of three zero to approve the preliminary plat
31:32
application. The preliminary plat was then brought before the full city council on
31:38
June 2nd, 2014. the council voted to approve the preliminary plot application by
31:44
a vote of 6-0 with council member Scher recusing himself. The final plat
31:49
application then came forth for parcels 7 and 8 only. Parcel 9 which
31:55
was included in the pre-plat was sold and was not included in the
32:00
final plat. That final plat application number is 150003 which was submitted on
32:06
September 18, 2016. The Development Services Department issued the final plat
32:12
staff report on December 9th, 2016. And the final plat public meeting
32:17
rather was held before the hearing examiner on December 16th, 2016. The
32:23
hearing examiner issued the notice of decision to approve the final plat
32:28
on January 4th, 2017. And that's exhibit B. And then lastly, the
32:34
appeal of the final plat, application number APP 1700001, was brought forth
32:40
on behalf of the ownership group, Oratelis 90 LLC on January 18th, following
32:45
the January 4th decision of the hearing examiner. And I'll allow the appellant
32:51
to summarize their arguments there. That's a brief history of the permit overview.
32:57
And then I'll just give a refresher here as to the plat itself
33:03
and the location. Parcels 7 and 8 are located in the red area.
33:09
kind of a top talus. This plaque calls for 63 single-family
33:15
detached residences. There additionally is 27 open space road and utility
33:20
tracks, also walls. Parcel 9 is this area right here located
33:26
just outside of the final plat boundary if you can see
33:31
that and the site is served by public roads shangri-la extension which
33:37
will come which would be a future public road here foothills drive provides most
33:43
of the access there are a couple other roads associated with the project you've
33:48
probably seen the two water towers that have been constructed at the top those
33:54
will be pulled online at a future date upon completion i'm happy to answer
34:00
any questions about the plat itself as noted in the staff report staff
34:05
reviewed this for applicable approval criteria with the state subdivision code, RCW
34:11
5817 and the applicable IMC criteria for final plats and found that
34:17
it was consistent with those criteria and issued its recommendation to the
34:22
hearing examiner to approve the final plat. So I'll conclude my presentation
34:28
there and I'm happy to answer any questions at the applicable time.
34:33
Thanks. - Thank you. At this
34:39
time, I would ask the appellant to come forward and make
34:45
their presentation. For a Talus 90 LLC and the appellant has
34:50
approximately 10 minutes to present its case. Before you begin, do
34:56
you wish to reserve any time for rebuttal? Okay. Yes, we
35:02
will reserve two minutes for rebuttal. Thank you. The clerk is
35:07
going to track the time and provide a prompt at one
35:13
minute remaining for your presentation. Thank you. My name
35:19
is Chris Brain. I represent Ora Thales and we are the appellant in this action.
35:24
According to the memorandum of the city attorney as well as the staff report which
35:29
was dated December 9th, the approval is based upon the consistency of the preliminary plat
35:34
or the final plat to the preliminary plat. One of the issues here however is
35:39
that the preliminary plat approval was for all three parcels, 7, 8, and 9. And
35:45
so today you're only looking at 7 and 8. In the interim period
35:50
of time, there was a significant slide on 9. You know about that
35:56
slide. Yet the staff report does not mention the slide at all. The
36:02
memorandum of counsel doesn't mention the slide at all. And it's a significant
36:07
event. If you were truly making sure that the preliminary, that the final
36:13
plat followed the preliminary plat, and all three parcels were before you today,
36:19
ask yourselves, would you approve the final plat knowing that there was
36:25
a slide that has not been remediated or completely studied on nine
36:31
so clearly you're not necessarily following the preliminary plat and making it
36:37
consistent now there have been very few changes except for the fact
36:42
that we have the landslide on parcel 9 and it is significant
36:49
and i'd like to point out as testified to by mr schlep
36:54
at the december hearing recommending the plant approval that the critical area
37:00
study for parcels seven eight and nine again a study for all
37:06
three and the peer review of that critical area study was done
37:12
in 2014 early 2014 and there has been no subsequent review
37:18
post slide of the issues addressed in the critical area study. What
37:24
impacts they would have on nine, what impacts eight has on nine.
37:30
And indeed, these weren't addressed at all during the staff report recommending
37:36
final plan or anything in the record. If you review the written
37:42
record, the only items you will find that reference the slide
37:48
and a soldier pile wall are in the December 15th letter from Hart Krauser and
37:54
the oral statements made at the hearing. There is no written evidence submitted by anyone
37:59
else. At this point, I'd like to turn this over to Gary Horvitz, who is
38:05
a senior principal geotechnical engineer with Hart Krauser, and let him address some of the
38:10
issues that we had raised in that letter. Thank you.
38:16
We believe that it would be premature to allow completion of development of Parcels 7
38:22
and 8 without first confirming slope stability of these parcels given the recent landslide activity
38:28
on Parcel 9. As you know, a significant landslide occurred over a substantial area, and
38:33
that is currently under investigation with regard to the cause, and also we are looking
38:39
at remedial alternatives that can be implemented to stabilize the site. We've
38:45
reviewed the geotechnical investigation, slope stability analysis, and engineering recommendations for Talus
38:50
Parcel 7 and 8 sites by Terra Associates, and in particular, their
38:56
proposed shoring wall plant along Shangri-La Way between Talus 8 and Talus
39:02
9. Based on our review of these documents, our evaluation reveals
39:08
that initial soil investigation and slope stability analyses do not adequately characterize
39:13
existing site subsurface conditions in this mapped landslide area or analyze all
39:19
likely landslide causes and potential for landsliding on Talus 8.
39:25
We are specifically concerned that the design of the proposed soldier pile wall
39:31
on Shangri-La Way between Talus 8 and 9 may be under designed if
39:36
it needs to provide stabilization of a larger than currently envisioned slide mass.
39:46
Again, we think what's significant here, and I'll go to Mr. Shepherd's response to Hart-Crowser,
39:52
and the only response, by the way, to that letter, again, is an oral statement
39:58
at the time of the hearing. There is no written response. But that response doesn't
40:03
have any evidence as to the design of the wall, the peer review of the
40:09
wall, or what could happen in areas that are adjacent to the wall
40:15
and adjacent to. Realize that on parcel 8 itself, there are seven individual
40:20
lots. Those lots are basically between the large concrete city water system tank
40:26
and the two new tanks. If you've ever been to the site, it's
40:32
quite steep. These are directly above the road where there was a slide,
40:38
and this slide actually was right up next to that. And so
40:44
these things simply haven't been addressed. It's as if it's incomplete. And
40:50
to a certain degree, you've got to realize that it is the
40:56
stability of this entire area, which is an issue, primarily eight and
41:01
nine, which hasn't been studied. You've had the slide, but there's been
41:07
no study. The basic statement by Mr. Shepherd was, well, it hasn't
41:13
slid in again. well it hadn't slid before the slide either
41:18
and so you can't simply look at whether there was a slide and then say
41:24
well now it's stable to say there won't be another one or there's problems on
41:29
eight and there has been nothing submitted on eight as to how it can impact
41:34
nine so why are we here why do we care well we're very concerned that
41:40
a slope failure on nine or eight could affect both parcels And we're very
41:45
concerned that if it happens on 8, it causes more problems for 9. These are
41:50
large parcels, and there's a lot of money involved for all the parties. And we
41:56
really ask that the I's be dotted and the T's crossed, because you are dealing
42:01
with a unique situation. This is not a preliminary plat that had been studied and
42:06
nothing happened, and people are objecting to the density or they're objecting to the typical
42:11
things that are happening. This is a preliminary plat for three parcels. where one
42:16
of the three slid significantly. One minute remaining. I'll hold for rebuttal.
42:22
Is that for, we still have two minutes? Yes. Three. We'll take
42:28
the three minutes. Thank you. Thank you.
42:34
I'm for the applicant response. Talus 7 and 8 investment LLC and Talus 9 investment
42:39
LLC. You have approximately 10 minutes and the Thank you. or 10 minutes and the
42:45
clerk will time. Okay. Good evening. My name is Patrick Mullaney. I'm a land use
42:50
attorney at Foster Pepper here tonight on behalf of the applicant Talus 7 and 8
42:55
LLC. The issue on this appeal is that a landslide occurred on November 13th
43:01
2015 on the ORA property. It's important to understand that that landslide originated and was
43:07
contained on ORA's property. It did not start or extend to the TALA 7 and
43:12
8 property and there is absolutely no evidence in the record that there are landslide
43:18
hazard conditions on TALA 7 and 8's property. The testimony at the
43:24
hearing, and I would particularly refer you to the testimony of Terra
43:30
Associates Engineer Mr. Shepper and the City Engineer, which is found at
43:36
pages 29 through 30 and 12, 14, and 32 of the hearing
43:42
transcript, and that's what I'll be speaking to primarily. was that both before
43:47
and after the Auris slide, the slope stability on Tallis' property was thoroughly
43:53
analyzed. At the hearing, Mr. Shepper from Terra Associates testified that the detailed
43:59
landslide hazard mapping for Tallis 7 and 8 was rated the landslide risk
44:05
as low. He also testified that the ground conditions encountered during the Platte
44:10
infrastructure construction were consistent with the characterizations that were included in the 2014 critical
44:16
areas and geotechnical studies that had been submitted to the city and had been
44:22
peer reviewed by the city's engineering consultant subterra as part of the preliminary Platte
44:27
process. He concluded, quote, "No unforeseen conditions were encountered that would give us cause
44:33
for concern. Mr. Shepherd's testimony was corroborated by the city engineer. He
44:39
stated that instrumentation installed on ORA's property to monitor its landslide demonstrated there
44:45
was no indication of the slide migrating off-site. He also testified that monitoring
44:51
on Parcels 7 and 8 showed no indication of instability.
44:59
Now, one of the issues that ORA raises is that there was a
45:05
large wall constructed on Talus 7 and 8, and I'd like to quickly
45:11
talk about why that occurred. A portion of the ORA landslide came near
45:16
Talus 7 and 8's property line at the outer edge of the Shangri-La
45:22
right-of-way, which is now called Foothills Drive as it extends up into the
45:28
Platts. After the ORA landslide occurred, the city told TALIS 7 and 8 that
45:33
in order to obtain its final plat approval, it would have to come up with
45:39
an engineering solution to ensure the integrity of the Foothills Drive extension. For the first
45:44
part of 2016, TALIS 7 and 8 worked with ORA and the city on the
45:49
assumption that an engineering solution to stabilize the road right-of-way could occur on ORA's property
45:55
and be included in their landslide remediation plan. ORA did submit a draft plan,
46:00
however around July 2016 it stopped communicating with the city. At the hearing, Mr.
46:06
Shepherd testified that ORA told him "to stand down from discussing the landslide with
46:12
the city." The ORA landslide delayed TALIS 7 and 8's final plat by nearly
46:18
a year. Because ORA was not moving forward with its remediation plan, TALA 7 and
46:24
8 directed Terra Associates to come up with a shoring wall design that could be
46:29
constructed on its property. There are several reasons why the ORA appeal
46:35
should be denied. Perhaps the most straightforward reason is the hearing testimony showed that ORA
46:40
is just plain wrong when it claims the landslide condition on its property was not
46:45
taken into account in the design of the shoring wall that Talus 7 and 8
46:51
recently completed on its property. The expert testimony at the hearing demonstrated several things. One,
46:56
that the Tallahassee 7 and 8 property was examined for potential landslide risks both before
47:02
and after the ORA landslide. That the shoring wall design was peer reviewed by the
47:08
city's consulting engineer, Golder Associates. That the shoring wall design was very robust and specifically
47:13
took into account the landslide condition on ORA's property. In fact, the shoring wall
47:19
was engineered so that it will support the Foothills Drive road right away, even if
47:25
the ORA landslide remobilizes at some point in the future. That was the testimony of
47:31
Mr. Sheppard at pages 29 and 30, as I mentioned before. What ORA apparently failed
47:36
to understand or refuses to acknowledge is that the shoring wall was permitted as part
47:42
of a separate city permit. SW1400049 not as part of the
47:48
final plat. Thus, contrary to ORRA's appeal, there is
47:53
no missing information or unanalyzed danger. Had ORA looked at
47:59
the appropriate files, it would have discovered that there was geotechnical analysis that was specific
48:05
to the ORA slide, there was design comment notes from the city's third-party engineering consultant,
48:10
and that detailed plans for the wall design had already been approved by the city.
48:16
Unfortunately, ORA waited until 4 p.m. on the afternoon before the hearing to have Hart
48:22
Krauser submit its objection letter. Before that, it never spoke with the
48:27
applicant and apparently didn't review the city's permit files that were associated
48:33
with the final plat. The failure to review those relevant documents flaws
48:38
both the Hart-Krauser letter and the ORA appeal because they ignore the
48:44
information they claim is missing. Now, another thing about the Hart-Krauser
48:50
letter, if you look at it closely, it lists three documents that Hart-Krauser claims they
48:56
reviewed. Those documents were from the 2014 preliminary plat. One of the problems with the
49:02
letter is that they misstate the dates for those studies and claim that they are
49:08
2016. For two of the three documents, they also inexplicably add the word landslide into
49:14
the document titles for reasons that I don't know. But the point
49:19
of that is that they didn't have the information that they claim was missing because
49:25
they were looking in the wrong place for it. Now I'd like to quickly turn
49:31
to the law and say that it's important to note that ORRA's appeal statement does
49:37
not point to any preliminary plat approval criteria, city code, or provision of state subdivision
49:42
law that TALIS 7 and 8 somehow failed to meet. Here the hearing
49:48
examiner reviewed the evidence and applied the proper legal standards. He concluded that
49:54
each of the 32 preliminary plaque conditions of approval had been met. That
50:00
was a decision paragraph 9. And he heard testimony from all three engineers.
50:06
The city engineer, the applicant's engineer, and the appellant's engineer. When confronted
50:11
with that expert testimony, he was entitled to weigh the evidence and
50:17
the decision shows he did just that. His conclusion, one on decision
50:22
page 17, is supported by findings 21 and 23 where he discusses
50:28
the testimony of Mr. Shepper and the city engineer. He
50:34
also discusses the testimony of Mr. Bingham, Hart-Krauser's engineer, and ORAS representative
50:39
Susan Wilson at finding 22. After weighing this testimony, the examiner concluded,
50:45
and I'll quote this, Although concerns have been raised about slope stability,
50:51
especially on adjacent parcel nine, comments at the public meeting from both the city
50:57
and the applicant's professional engineers reveal that the site had been continually monitored for
51:02
approximately one year, that all geotechnical and critical area reports were peer reviewed, and
51:08
that the proposed plat may move forward without threat to public health, safety, or
51:14
welfare. So in conclusion, The examiner correctly applied the appropriate legal standards
51:20
and determining the final plat met the 32 conditions of approval. His decision was
51:26
supported by substantial evidence that included testimony regarding the evaluation of Talus 7 and
51:31
8 for landslide hazard and that the shoring wall was subject to rigorous engineering
51:37
evaluation which resulted in a robust design that addressed the slide conditions on Orr's
51:43
property. Orr's appeal is based on its erroneous understanding of the record and
51:49
it has not meant its burden of showing that the examiner's decision was clearly
51:54
erroneous. It also cannot collaterally attack the building permit that was issued for the
52:00
shoring wall or the engineering and geotechnical design that was behind that in this
52:06
proceeding when it failed to appeal those permits when they were issued. For
52:11
all of these reasons, TALIS 7 and 8 respectfully request that
52:17
the Council affirm the hearing examiner's decision and approve TALIS 7
52:23
and 8's final plan. Thank you very much. Thank you. And
52:28
the appellant has three minutes for rebuttal. Hopefully I won't use
52:34
them all. As a practical matter, Hart-Krauser did review the other
52:40
documents the Council referred to. And there was a lot of statements that
52:46
were outside the record, but I would like to point out that Terra was told
52:50
to stand down because Terra had been the designer for all of the geotechnical work
52:55
and there was a slide. And they didn't even point out in those reports the
53:00
slide risk. And so that's when Hart Krauser was retained to do the independent study
53:05
and to look into this problem. And there were correspondence that was sent to the
53:10
city that was never responded to. So where we are is we're in a situation
53:15
now where we are working and tend to work toward the remediation and the cause
53:20
of this slide to figure it out and know what we're doing. But again, you
53:25
have parcel 8 right above this and you have a partial wall. This is not
53:31
a wall along the entire Foothills Drive. This is a very small portion of the
53:36
wall that is basically between the city water tank and the Talus 9 parcel.
53:43
The real important thing is, is read the record and look at what was stated.
53:49
There's a very little testament. The only written documentation which raises issues regarding the soil
53:54
and the stability is the Hart-Krauser report. The rest of it is self-serving statements by
53:59
the engineers who did the initial analysis saying that there were no slide issues or
54:05
no risks. Where is the safety? Where is the peer review that is being talked
54:10
about having to do with parcel eight, parcel nine? These are the questions that we
54:16
raise, and we raise them because they hadn't been answered. They haven't been answered. And
54:22
this is a very unique situation. And again, the criteria that council has talked about
54:27
and the other criteria, think about it. If you had all three before you or
54:33
the hearing examiner said, we're going to look at this as a three-lot plat. One
54:39
minute remaining. And one of them slid. Would it be approved? No,
54:44
you would have said go back, do your homework, let's figure
54:50
this out. And that's what we're asking. Thank you. Thank you.
54:55
We were at the point now where we have an opportunity
55:01
for council questions. When we're asking questions, are we just asking
55:06
either the appellant's lawyer or the applicant's lawyer or we also
55:12
let us ask questions of any staff, any consultants that they
55:17
might have brought? You are allowed to ask questions
55:23
of any of the parties and the staff. They are to
55:29
confine their answers to what is in the record. But yes,
55:34
you can ask questions of any of those. Okay. So yes,
55:40
I will start with the Appellants Group, which is called-- -Or
55:46
a-- -Or a-- -Or a TALIS. -Or a TALIS. Thank you.
55:51
And my question is, In talking about geotechnical studies that were done, actually I'll
55:57
start with the applicant. I think that makes it simpler and then I may have
56:02
a follow-up question for the appellant. And when questions are asked, could you please come
56:06
up to the lectern and speak in the microphone to answer? Thank you. Start with
56:11
the applicant. There is reference in the transcript from the hearing that
56:17
I had a hard time following in terms of when studies happened,
56:22
when peer review happened. And so in looking through the documents and
56:28
then reading the transcript, documents state that in the original application during
56:34
preliminary plat that the information submitted showed that there was no landslide
56:39
hazard. And then in 2014, there was a geotechnical report and
56:45
a peer review. Subsequent to that in 2015 there was a slide and it
56:51
was hard to see in the transcript record if that geotechnical study for 7 and
56:56
8 was redone and re-peer reviewed not for the wall that was built along the
57:01
road but for the actual development itself in light of the fact that a slide
57:07
had happened and now it's a landslide area and not just a no risk. So
57:12
Mr. Shepard is here if you want more of the technical details, but I'll
57:18
try to answer your question. You're correct. There was an original set of peer-reviewed
57:24
studies that were done in 2014 as part of the preliminary plat. Those were
57:30
peer-reviewed at the time by, and let me, I'll find the right, the city's
57:36
consultant at that time was Subterra. The following, so there were
57:42
those studies. Then there were the observations when the plat infrastructure was
57:48
built out that Terra and Associates did as they were building out.
57:53
They confirmed that the soil conditions on 7 and 8 were consistent
57:59
with the borings and things that had been done in those original
58:05
geotechnical studies. In addition, Tara and associates also characterized the
58:10
landslide when it occurred on Talus 9. And the city engineer at
58:16
pages, I believe it's 12 through 14 and 32 at the hearing
58:22
transcript, testified that there was monitoring set up both on parcel 9
58:28
and parcel 7 and 8. to check the landslide conditions and that
58:34
there was no indication that any of the properties were moving finally in
58:40
regards to the wall there was additional geotechnical studies done then that were
58:45
reviewed by another city consultant and that was golder and associates and that
58:51
was also testified to by mr shepherd and the city engineer that looked
58:57
at and specifically looked at the area of um around the wall and in this
59:02
and conjunction with these ora landslide and this is mr pew he's one of the
59:07
principals with talus seven and eight and he might be able to elaborate better than
59:13
I can on the details. Let me just rephrase the question. So I think you
59:19
just restated exactly what I said I saw in the record. The question is after
59:25
the slide was the geotechnical study that originally said the risk of slide was non-existent
59:31
or low re-looked at in light of the fact that an actual slide happened?
59:37
Do you want to answer that? And then peer review Jay. Maybe Ted can
59:43
answer a little bit of that, but I think there are a couple facts
59:49
that go to that. First of all, TELUS 7 and 8 construction started in
59:54
2014. So right after the preliminary plat approval, we started construction. majority of
1:00:00
the, matter of fact, all of the grading and all the wall work and
1:00:06
infrastructure work for the plat was complete prior to the slide and
1:00:12
prior to ORA starting construction on their property. So we had already done
1:00:18
everything, all of our construction. It was monitored by Terra Associates during that.
1:00:24
There was nothing found during that construction that would change any of those.
1:00:30
And then subsequently following the slide, we monitored it continuously for a year
1:00:35
to determine if there are any other, any movement or anything that we
1:00:41
should be concerned with regarding the plat and we found nothing in those observations. So
1:00:47
specifically there were no re-review of that report because there was no reason to re-review
1:00:53
it. There was no evidence of anything to re-review. I think another minor point is
1:00:59
that I don't think anybody has said the review said there was no existence of
1:01:05
any slide hazard. It's in a steep slope area. Those hazards were reviewed, and I
1:01:10
think as Ted has indicated in both the record previously, that was a low risk,
1:01:16
but not non-existent. Okay, thank you. - Can you answer my question? There was, I
1:01:22
guess I'm still a little confused. Even though it slid, and now it's an active
1:01:27
slide area, there was never a new study done. Not that there was
1:01:33
not a study done, certainly evaluation and observation and testing was completed
1:01:39
to verify that the slide limits were contained within parcel 9 and
1:01:44
were not affecting Talus 8, 7 and 8. We did extensive testing,
1:01:50
installation of instrumentation on the Talus 9, our Talus 9 slide.
1:01:56
We actually produced a report in February of 2016 that was
1:02:01
submitted to the city on behalf of the developer. It was
1:02:07
reviewed by both Golder Associates and Shannon & Wilson, two geotechnical engineering
1:02:13
firms. And based on the peer review, I believe that they were
1:02:18
satisfied that the limits of the slide that we had delineated on
1:02:24
parcel 9 were correct. And we were just in the throes of going through
1:02:30
conceptual mitigation procedures that we were going to implement to stabilize the slide on a
1:02:35
permanent basis. We were continuing with that work up through into June of
1:02:41
2016 when we were basically, like I testified, we were asked to stand
1:02:47
down by the developer on parcel 9. We're still continuing to monitor the
1:02:53
instruments up there. Our crews are going out there on a weekly basis
1:02:59
during the winter season and after a one-inch rainfall. and we have been I
1:03:04
think we have like 12 instruments that are called slope indicators that are installed that
1:03:09
give us an indication if the slide is still active. Also have piezometers installed that
1:03:14
give us pore pressure readings and we've been monitoring that continue on a regular basis
1:03:19
and reporting those results to the city as well as to the developer and his
1:03:24
and their and their and their consultants and so we have still been active on
1:03:29
from that perspective and again from a From a characterization of
1:03:35
the slide on 9, it's been determined that
1:03:41
it's totally contained on parcel 9 and does
1:03:46
not affect 8 at all, and particularly not
1:03:52
7. 7 is pretty well removed. Other questions?
1:03:58
No? Did you get your question answered? No
1:04:04
more questions from anyone. Okay. So I would
1:04:10
just remind the council has two options. Uphold
1:04:16
the decision of the hearing examiner granting final
1:04:22
plat approval and adopt the hearing examiner's findings
1:04:28
and conclusions in support of that decision.
1:04:34
or overturn the decision of the hearing examiner and deny final
1:04:40
plaid approval, entering the council's own findings and conclusions in support
1:04:46
of denial based on the evidence in the record. At this
1:04:52
point, we should probably entertain a motion, whatever that motion is.
1:04:57
- We don't have a written motion.
1:05:03
Stacey? Yeah. Paul? Yeah. I would move that we
1:05:09
affirm and uphold the decision of the hearing examiner
1:05:14
granting final plat approval and adopt the hearing examiner's
1:05:20
findings of conditions in support of the decision. Second.
1:05:25
Deliberations? Comments? I'll just -- I want to comment
1:05:31
that, you know, given the criteria we have to
1:05:36
use, and especially the phrase not about -- there
1:05:42
was I didn't see or hear or read anything that the hearing examiner was clearly
1:05:47
erroneous in this decision. I appreciate the line of questioning, trying to understand
1:05:53
was there any other changes on 7 and 8, as you, I think,
1:05:59
Mary Lou, were saying, in light of 9. I'm not really sure what
1:06:04
that means in light of. I think it means after the fact that
1:06:10
there was further examination done. Even that line of questioning, I haven't heard
1:06:16
or seen anything that makes me think that the hearing examiner was clearly
1:06:22
erroneous in this decision. Other comments?
1:06:29
- So I see it a little differently. I see a
1:06:35
question that's asked a number of times and not been answered.
1:06:40
So in my mind, there's more information needed when someone asks
1:06:46
and says the record, the question that has come up has
1:06:51
not been answered. So I see that's, to me, that's an
1:06:57
error. If the question comes up, new information that needs to
1:07:02
be answered, to me it wasn't answered, as Council Member Pauley
1:07:08
asked a number of times. - Fair.
1:07:20
I think considering the standard that we have and the burden
1:07:26
of proof on the appellant to show that the hearing examiner
1:07:32
made a, was clearly erroneous. I'm not convinced of the clearly
1:07:37
erroneous either. The hearing examiner is afforded deference, which includes the
1:07:43
ability to judge credibility of witnesses and so forth. And so
1:07:49
at this point I would not find But I
1:07:55
would not find that the decision was
1:08:00
clearly erroneous. Other comments? I would just
1:08:06
echo that based on the criteria given,
1:08:11
and in hearing the presentation, and while
1:08:17
I appreciate all of the information and
1:08:22
complications here, I did not see something
1:08:28
that told me that the decision was
1:08:33
clearly erroneous. I did not see that.
1:08:39
Others? Yeah, I think it's a pretty high standard. I
1:08:45
think that the question that we're being asked tonight typically is more of an administrative
1:08:50
one that a lot of the heavy thinking and the big lifting is done during
1:08:56
the preliminary plot. And that when you get to the final plat piece, what the
1:09:01
hearing examiner is looking at is checking the boxes to make sure that all the
1:09:05
different conditions were met. And I get that, but I believe that one of the
1:09:10
conditions that has changed is that part of the body of the record that goes
1:09:14
along with this final plat approval is a geotechnical report and a geotechnical peer review
1:09:20
that occurred prior to a landslide. And that is part of what makes
1:09:25
this decision go forward. I think that is an error on the hearing
1:09:31
examiner's part. I think that's a significant change in conditions and that this
1:09:37
is not, it doesn't make sense to me.
1:09:49
Anybody else? Paul? - Yeah, I think that's a good question to ask. I agree
1:09:53
with you, but it appears in the record, and I think it was told to
1:09:58
us this evening as well, that there was additional monitoring and
1:10:04
study. So of parcels, primarily parcel eight, for the
1:10:09
permitting process for the wall and just done of
1:10:14
the land after it was already graded and the
1:10:20
infrastructure built out. And the testimony given and accepted was that there
1:10:25
is no further evidence of any impact to eight after the slide on
1:10:31
nine. And I think the hearing examiner considered that and made his judgment
1:10:37
based upon the evidence and the testimony that was given. And I cannot
1:10:43
disagree with his judgment. Don't disagree with his judgment. There was analysis done
1:10:49
afterwards. Any other
1:10:55
comments, deliberations? Are you ready to vote? So
1:11:01
the motion that has been seconded is to
1:11:06
affirm the hearing examiner's decision. All those in
1:11:12
favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Opposed. Okay.
1:11:18
Give me that board of two. Board of
1:11:24
two. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the
1:11:30
agenda is agenda bill 7114 strategic, the park
1:11:35
strategic plan regarding authorizing additional funding I'd like
1:11:41
to invite Parks Director Jeff Watling to introduce this item. Thank you.
1:11:47
Before you tonight is a request for additional funding. As you know,
1:11:52
updating the City's Parks, Open Space and Trails Plan is a key
1:11:58
City Council, community and staff priority to be accomplished in 2017. We
1:12:04
have been at work last fall and through the winter working through consultant
1:12:10
team selection. We've selected a consultant team. It's the team of Berger Partnership
1:12:15
and Burke Consulting. With their work and our work, we've been putting together
1:12:21
a framework for actual completion of this plan. that's really starting to take
1:12:27
shape through that work with the consultant team we have developed a much better
1:12:33
idea of the tasks needed to complete this work and the time it's going
1:12:39
to take to get this work done and produce the document and the product
1:12:45
that we're all seeking all that to say we're going to need more
1:12:51
than the $50,000 needed to produce this plan. And so the request tonight before
1:12:56
you is for an additional $25,000 to fund this refined scope of work. I
1:13:02
included in the packet a timeline, an overview of some of the primary tasks
1:13:07
and key sort of groupings and process that we're going to take. Clearly with
1:13:13
the goal we have for a rather robust public engagement plan, a real keen
1:13:19
look at goals, putting together an actual vision and some mapping work that we want
1:13:25
to get done for this plan as well as the prioritization and the identification of
1:13:31
some real actionable projects. It's pretty clear that additional funding will be needed to get
1:13:37
that done. Included with the request, we've identified a suggested funding
1:13:43
source for this and that would be the King County Parks Levy
1:13:48
Funds. This is the six year levy that is from 2014 through
1:13:54
2019. As you likely know, a small portion of the overall King
1:13:59
County proceeds are allocated to cities. Issaquah's share of that allocation is
1:14:05
approximately $90,000 a year. Proceeds from the King County Levee have
1:14:10
recently funded and been used towards Confluence Park Phase 2. They've also
1:14:16
been utilized for some restoration work on the Swamp Trail up at
1:14:22
Lake Tradition. These funds, as an example, are also identified to help fund
1:14:27
the interpretive signs that we want to get done at Salmon Run Nature Park this
1:14:33
year, and also are allocated for some trail renovation work we want to get done
1:14:39
along the Central Park Falls Drive Trail. uh looking forward into the
1:14:45
completion of this park plan there does remain some funding in
1:14:51
this allocation that's not yet identified for a project or allocated
1:14:57
The investment, the requested investment of this additional $25,000 to complete this park plan work
1:15:03
will in a lot of ways provide the strategic vision and the priorities that will
1:15:08
help us determine where we want that additional funding, that unallocated funding, as well the
1:15:14
remaining two years of King County levy funding that would be coming our way.
1:15:22
If approved, the $75,000 to complete this work is still a very cost-effective way to
1:15:28
get this important work done. When you look at comparisons of recent park plan updates
1:15:33
that have been done in neighboring cities around King County, we are still below the
1:15:39
cost of those recent efforts. As staff, we're very excited and ready to proceed with
1:15:45
this first phase of public engagement that will really kick off the park planning effort.
1:15:51
and thank you for considering this tonight appreciate it thanks have questions for jeff just
1:15:57
a clarification i mean um jeff i under i heard you say that the 25
1:16:03
000 would be coming from the king county parks levy fund of which that pot
1:16:08
of money is ninety thousand dollars That is our yearly, we receive about $90,000
1:16:14
a year for- From King County Parks. From King County, correct. And we will be
1:16:20
taking the $25,000 we need from that pot of money. We would actually be taking
1:16:25
the $25,000 from some unallocated funds from prior years. So this wouldn't even address the
1:16:31
$90,000 from this year. So we wouldn't be impacting those dollars for future use. What's
1:16:36
that? The $90,000. would not be touched for this particular project. - Correct. -
1:16:42
Okay. - Questions? - Just to clarify, I thought I knew this, but the way
1:16:48
you said it, just want to make sure. - You said the 75 would come
1:16:54
from King County. I think you're talking about just the 25 would come from the
1:16:59
fund and the 50,000 we already allocated to that. - Correct, yes. - And you're
1:17:04
saying so 17 King County money, the 90,000 is not from that but it's from
1:17:09
15 or 16 or something that's left over and hasn't been spent yet. - Correct,
1:17:14
correct. 25,000 request is to augment the 50 already budgeted. I'd like to
1:17:20
make a motion. Sure. I'd like to move to authorize $25,000 of the
1:17:26
2014-2019 King County Parks Levy Funds for the 2017 Park Strategic Plan and
1:17:31
direct the Finance Director to include $25,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment.
1:17:37
Second. Second. A lot of seconds. Comments or?
1:17:43
Yeah, thank you, Jeff, for the information. You know, there's a number of reasons why
1:17:48
I'm supporting this. This actually really wasn't difficult. First of all, you know, it was
1:17:53
this council who charged the administration to develop a strategic plan for parks. And so
1:17:57
this is exactly the carrying out of that legislative intent. And so doing this work
1:18:02
is our priority. We've made that very clear. The fact that we do have the
1:18:08
funds, so we're not in an appropriate account that we can use, that's important. And
1:18:13
also I would say that the original amount of $50,000 was never really presented to
1:18:18
us at all as being based upon any clear assessment of what type of effort
1:18:23
would be required to complete the work. Well, I know now that you and your
1:18:28
staff have been putting in that work to develop a project plan to meet the
1:18:33
objectives of developing a strategic plan and so now you've got much better tools to
1:18:37
estimate the amount of effort. You've got a refined number of what it will take
1:18:41
for the consultant's time. So I think based upon that more complete assessment with the
1:18:46
availability of the funds and also that it is in the direction of completing a
1:18:50
strategic plan, that's why I'm gonna support this ask this evening. - I'll
1:18:56
also be supporting it. I think what I like most about it is some of
1:19:02
the previous discussions we were talking about. The plan laid out is really that first
1:19:08
part of you had marked as listen and learn. That's like really taking what I
1:19:13
want in our public involvement and getting their cares, their intents, their drives, whatever they
1:19:19
want into that plan. I really see this as really being a model for driving
1:19:24
that public input side on this. So we're looking forward to see how that comes
1:19:29
out and how that works and seeing that as you described that as really, really
1:19:33
front loaded to get all that information, not come up with a conceptual design and
1:19:37
then start worrying but really get the input because it's a complicated question. There's a
1:19:41
lot of lands involved, a lot of different types of things from very high use
1:19:45
to low use and it's a lot, it's a big question to ask and that's
1:19:49
what we want you to answer so go forth and do it.
1:19:55
I can call, I can just go. So I'm going to support it as
1:20:00
well. However, I do want to mention that it is a, this is a
1:20:06
one touch agenda bill and I'm generally not supportive of those for transparency reasons.
1:20:12
They should be referred to committees so that we can have deliberation and have
1:20:17
the public have the opportunity to comment before we make a decision. And that's
1:20:23
just, generally what I like the process to be, but for
1:20:28
the reasons I've heard tonight and I agree with those reasons,
1:20:34
it's just not ideal. And I just don't like to see
1:20:40
that very often. Everybody for the vote? All those in favor?
1:20:46
of authorizing $25,000 of 2014 to 2019 King County Parks levy funds
1:20:51
for the 2017 parks strategic plan and directing the finance director to
1:20:57
include $25,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment signify by saying aye.
1:21:03
- Aye. - Okay, that passes unanimously. - Thank you. - Moving
1:21:09
on, thank you. Next item on the agenda is agenda bill
1:21:15
7290, bid award regarding the North Issaquah Southeast 62nd Street Extension Construction
1:21:20
Contract. Coming out of the January 19th Council Infrastructure Committee meeting. -
1:21:26
I mentioned this earlier as coming out of the meeting, I'll just
1:21:32
make some introductory comments and then I believe staff has some additional
1:21:37
information to share with us. So this bill requests the City Council to award
1:21:43
a contract for the construction of the Southeast 62nd Street extension. This project will
1:21:49
provide for a new roadway over Issaquah Creek that connects East Lake Sammamish Parkway
1:21:55
to Lake Drive, which is a public street that runs through and adjacent to
1:22:01
Costco headquarters. and it will also include improvements along lake drive and a
1:22:07
what's known as a grade separated trail crossing of the east lake sammamish
1:22:13
trail at 62nd street so that's the so you know that's accounting for
1:22:18
the trail that's already there so um this project um you
1:22:24
know really the the idea of this project started um uh back in
1:22:30
in 2010 when some preliminary design studies were concluded and then when the
1:22:35
council approved the costco development agreement a part of that development agreement was
1:22:41
transportation funding of a significant portion for the completion not
1:22:47
only of this project but also a number of others in
1:22:53
the vicinity of their property. So this is a very significant
1:22:59
project to address circulation in the North Issaquah area in the
1:23:05
vicinity. And the contract, we went out for bid.
1:23:10
The design was complete, they put it out for bid, we got a number of
1:23:15
responses, and I think Sheldon, if you're gonna maybe talk a little bit about the
1:23:20
responses that we get, so it gives us, it speaks to perhaps to the confidence
1:23:24
that we have in the bid that we're selecting. And so before us tonight is,
1:23:29
and this is what we always have to do, we have to approve contracts like
1:23:34
this. And so Sheldon, I'll turn it over to you to give us the background,
1:23:39
a little bit more background and also on the contract itself. - Thank you, Council
1:23:44
Member Winterstein. My name's Sheldon Lin. I'm the Director for Public Works Engineering And yes,
1:23:50
tonight I'm going to talk about the Southeast 62nd Street Extension Bid Award, Agenda Bill
1:23:55
7290. And as Council Member Winterstein mentioned, I'm going to speak a little bit about
1:24:01
the project, about the bids, and a little bit about the actual total estimated project
1:24:07
cost as well as the funding partners that are involved in this project. First, I'm
1:24:12
going to talk a little bit about the project. From an aerial perspective,
1:24:18
we have East Lake Sammamish Parkway over here on the right. We have the existing
1:24:24
lake drive right here with Costco headquarters right here and the wholesale store just off
1:24:30
the map. This project actually does work in a number of different arenas. It does
1:24:36
work for the non-motorized connectivity from the regional trail here, upgrades the Pickering Trail through
1:24:42
here to make it wider, makes it a concrete trail in accordance with our construction
1:24:47
standards, as well as it's going to provide some baller lights along the trail as
1:24:53
well for users. The other thing it's going to do, which is a major connection,
1:24:58
brand new road connection between East Lake Sammamish Parkway here, it's going to realign 62nd
1:25:03
Street and widen it, create a large roundabout intersection here, and as Mr. Winterstein mentioned,
1:25:09
a grade separated trail crossing for the existing East Lake Sammamish Trail so that the
1:25:14
trail users don't have to cross the roadway. They'll actually go under the roadway. And
1:25:19
then extending the road with a brand new road connection across the North Fork, across
1:25:25
the sensitive areas, and across Sissiquah Creek, all as one large bridge structure. And then
1:25:30
we're going to bring it back down and at grade come in here and tie
1:25:36
into Lake Drive. And then improve Lake Drive from this intersection all the way up
1:25:41
to 10th. A very large road improvement project and as Mr. Winterstein mentioned, it's a
1:25:47
series of three major projects that the city has on the docket for the north
1:25:52
side of I-90 and Issaquah. East Lake Sammamish Parkway was the first of the three
1:25:57
projects. This is the second and the third one that's dialed up in
1:26:03
the development agreement is actually intersection over by the Holiday Inn 12th and SR
1:26:09
900 intersection. There's some capacity improvements there that are slated to occur once this
1:26:15
project is open for use. So this is an aerial picture of the project.
1:26:21
Zooming in on the portion on the east side in this area because there's
1:26:27
a lot going on there, I want to give you a better picture of what
1:26:33
that is going to entail. This work in here involves bringing in a large amount
1:26:38
of fill material, which once that material is in place, we're going to have to
1:26:42
give time for the soils to consolidate before we can do any further work in
1:26:47
that area. So what's going to happen is we're going to see a major road
1:26:52
closure at the intersection of 4th, 62nd, and 220 First. in order for the fill
1:26:58
to be placed and for the work to occur before we can even get this
1:27:04
back open. And it won't open until we basically get it to a finished product.
1:27:10
So it's a closure that's going to occur likely mid to late June of 2017
1:27:16
and is likely going to be in place for over a year, 12 to 18
1:27:21
months likely. So it's a major thing for the public, but it may look like
1:27:27
not a lot's going on, but there's a lot going on. Trust me. So this
1:27:33
does give you a nice view though from an aerial oblique angle, shows the entrance
1:27:39
to the grade separated crossing for the trail. It shows the amount of fill that's
1:27:44
being placed generally, and then a large scale roundabout and touching in with the bridge
1:27:50
over here. So in general, that's the project. Bids. results, reference checks. We
1:27:56
had eight bidders on this project. Of the eight bidders,
1:28:01
the low five bidders were all within 5% of one
1:28:07
another, with the top two bidders being within 1% of
1:28:13
each other. The lowest bidder was Quigg Brothers with a
1:28:18
bid of $23,078,983. The total bids ranged, of all
1:28:24
the eight bids, they ranged from approximately $23 million to $27
1:28:29
million, 20% range. What this indicates is a very good set
1:28:35
of bid documents where the bidders felt comfortable enough to really
1:28:40
compete closely together. Sorry, I have to put my glasses on,
1:28:46
read my notes. Reference checks. The construction management firm KBA has
1:28:51
been retained by the city to help it manage this project.
1:28:57
As part of this, they've done reference checks on the lowest bidder and the reference
1:29:03
checks came back stellar. They came back with remarks such as, "We'd love to work
1:29:09
with Quigg Brothers again." So we feel not only did we get a good set
1:29:14
of bid documents, a very good competitive environment in the bids we received, but we
1:29:20
also got an excellent contractor to boot as the low bidder. Things have
1:29:25
lined up really well for the city in this instance.
1:29:31
Estimate for the project as well as revenues, i.e., the
1:29:37
funding partnerships, the total project cost estimate right now is
1:29:43
at about $44,042,700. That includes design, right-of-way acquisition, construction management,
1:29:48
construction, all the costs associated with it. One caveat to that
1:29:54
number is that we don't know yet the total cost for right-of-way acquisition. So we're
1:29:59
still in the cusp of finaling out a couple of properties for acquisition for this
1:30:04
project, but we should know those shortly. But at the time in which this estimate
1:30:10
was done, we don't know that number exactly. So that number may change. So just
1:30:15
be aware of that. The revenues from this come from multiple different partners. It comes
1:30:21
from the Transportation Improvement Board from the state, comes from the State Department of Commerce,
1:30:26
and then it comes from the development agreement with Costco and then the city putting
1:30:32
in its share. Those four entities make up the partnerships that fund this project, all
1:30:37
$44 million of it. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
1:30:45
Yeah, one more. When we talked about this in committee a little bit, when I
1:30:49
look at the pictures, I'm not sure I see it. So for the tunnel, I
1:30:53
know some people don't like tunnels and I understand why. And I asked, was there
1:30:56
a way around and you said going to East Lake Sammamish crossing over and coming
1:31:00
back. But when I see the picture here, it looks like there's a sidewalk only
1:31:04
on one side and there wouldn't be one on the other. So I'm just asking
1:31:08
if that is truly. So if you don't want to go through the tunnel and
1:31:11
you're coming from the south here, I understand an option to cross at this crosswalk
1:31:16
on East Lake Sammamish, but how do you get there from the trail right here?
1:31:21
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your question in committee, Mr. Ramos. I understood it
1:31:26
to be during construction when this is closed for people to cross through there.
1:31:33
There would be a detour during construction to bring people to East Lake Sammamish Parkway
1:31:38
and utilize that. Otherwise, they would have to go under the tunnel, come back up,
1:31:43
and then use the trail and sidewalk on the north side of 62nd. The reason
1:31:48
for that is that we had environmentally sensitive areas down in this area. I.E., the
1:31:53
north fork right adjacent to almost adjacent to the pavement here that we're trying to
1:31:59
protect and not encroach further on. So we're trying to maintain our distance there, which
1:32:04
is why there's no sidewalk and there's no bike lane on the south side of
1:32:10
62nd Street. It all got moved to the north side with a cycle track and
1:32:15
I believe it's an eight foot wide pedestrian path. So there is no alternative.
1:32:21
Once it's finaled, once the pedestrian reaches this
1:32:27
area, they could actually come up on the
1:32:32
left-hand side of the tunnel. of the road, let me get my
1:32:38
mouse here, come up through here, cross at an RRFB here and they can come
1:32:42
around here and then cross here. It's a long way around. They've got to cross,
1:32:47
you know, a couple more crossings but there is a way around the trail at
1:32:51
this intersection. There will be crossings there actually? There will be crossings, yes. So they
1:32:56
can get around the town going that way? Surface crossings, that's correct. Otherwise, they could
1:33:01
take the High Point Way Trail back further south than this point, and they could
1:33:07
walk just north of the interstate along the regional trail, connect in, and then walk
1:33:13
up the sidewalk northbound on East Lake Sammamish Parkway if they didn't like this undercrossing.
1:33:19
Okay, thank you. Other questions? You have your hand up, Paul? Yeah, I was --
1:33:25
we don't have a motion in front of us, so I wanted to actually --
1:33:31
Can we make a motion? Make the motion. I would move to
1:33:36
award the construction contract to Quigg Brothers Incorporated the amount of $23,078,983.03
1:33:42
including sales tax. - Second. - Okay, it's been moved and seconded.
1:33:48
Paul? - A couple other important facts that came out during the
1:33:53
committee meeting is, and Sheldon had the number up there of 44
1:33:59
million total. Now originally when we looked at this it was 40
1:34:05
million, and change, so the cost has gone up. And so those
1:34:10
sources that he identified, the TIB, the Transportation Investment Board, and I think
1:34:16
there was one of the departments, what was the State Department from Commerce,
1:34:22
that grant, and from Costco, those amounts right now, those are basically fixed.
1:34:28
So if costs fluctuate anymore, it's all the burden is fully upon the
1:34:34
city. And normally we carry some percentage of the estimated costs as
1:34:40
also contingency. And that would be fully responsible for the city right now.
1:34:45
So really at this point, including covering the contingency, the council has not
1:34:51
yet fully approved all the funds we think it's gonna take. So that question will
1:34:56
be in front of us in the future. But what that number actually will be,
1:35:01
whether that will be nearly zero or two and a half million dollars more, we
1:35:06
won't know until we get further along in the project and whether or not any
1:35:11
contingency is known. So I just think it's very important that we all understand that
1:35:16
we're at a place where we can proceed but the actual final cost of the
1:35:21
city will probably won't be known until 2018. Right and to help clarify that Mr.
1:35:26
Winterstein I appreciate you bringing that up the $44 million does include a contingency of
1:35:31
approximately 10% just a hair over 10% and it's about two and a half million
1:35:36
dollars. Yes, and I think it's something that we as the council haven't authorized at
1:35:41
this point. That's correct. You've only authorized budget for 2017, and it was from a
1:35:46
cash flow perspective of we expect to spend a certain amount this year, and then
1:35:51
we're expecting to spend another certain amount next year. And so it's an estimate of
1:35:56
what we think will get done this year under construction. So it's just from a
1:36:01
budgetary perspective rather than budget the full budget. 25, 26 million for construction when you
1:36:06
start adding in construction management and things like that. We tried to estimate from a
1:36:11
cash flow perspective what was needed and asked for that for this year's budget. And
1:36:15
then next year we'll have to come back and ask for more. Okay. And I
1:36:20
also appreciate during your presentation that you did mention, I think this is very important,
1:36:25
that if it proceeds on the current schedule, it would be in June of this
1:36:30
year. maybe four months from now roughly, that area would be closed at 4th,
1:36:35
62nd, and 221st, and that it could, you said up from 12 to 18
1:36:41
months. So this could be closed for 18 months. Now that's, through December
1:36:47
2018. So that's got a very big impact, obviously, but it's the price we
1:36:52
have to pay to get this improvement. But it also suggests, could you just
1:36:58
share with us what, and maybe this is just normal, but what are we
1:37:04
doing specifically for this project for overall notification to the public and to guests
1:37:10
and visitors and shoppers here in Issaquah, but also people, especially the people who
1:37:15
live here. What is gonna be our program for notification and keeping people informed
1:37:21
on the progress? We're going to have large-scale pushes utilizing social media, the website.
1:37:27
We'll have email lists. We'll have sign-ups for people that can sign up on
1:37:33
the website for direct emails of status, things like that. We'll be using our
1:37:39
variable message boards. We're going to pretty much be using every tool that we
1:37:44
have available to us. We'll be coordinating with City of Sammamish, WSDOT, Metro. everybody
1:37:50
you can think of we're going to be coordinating with because this is a big
1:37:56
deal. While Metro may not have a route on 221st or 4th, when that traffic
1:38:01
starts to get diverted, you bet they're going to be interested to know what's going
1:38:06
on. So we're not going to leave any stone unturned. All right. Thank you. Mariah?
1:38:12
Is there other construction in the city or Sammamish or surrounding areas that would sort
1:38:17
of during that time of the closure? - Yes, one particular
1:38:23
project is a WSDOT project, which is on East Lake Sammamish Parkway. It's
1:38:29
for fish passage. It's just between the intersection of 229th and the Front
1:38:35
Street interchange, so just north of Front Street interchange. WSDOT has a
1:38:41
fish passage project where they're relocating the north fork of Issaquah Creek outside
1:38:46
of the interchange, but creating a fish passage culvert across East Lake Sammamish
1:38:52
Parkway. They're expecting to have roughly about a four to five day closure,
1:38:58
full closure, 24/7, of East Lake Sammamish Parkway. We've been working very closely with WSDOT
1:39:04
Northwest Region and their design team to coordinate between the two projects so that we
1:39:09
can minimize risk of the two closures happening at the same time. I do say
1:39:15
minimize that risk. It's, you know, when construction happens and they start digging in the
1:39:20
ground, They may get delayed, but their goal is to be in and out of
1:39:26
there before the end of June. And so we're hopeful that we don't do the
1:39:31
closures until the end of June, keeping another detour available to them. So, yes, we
1:39:36
are coordinating closely. That is one project that is very high on the radar screen.
1:39:42
i i'm not aware of other projects that are going to impact necessarily in sammamish
1:39:48
or locally that we're going to have that are going to impact the traffic flow
1:39:53
in this area thank you other questions or well i want to make sure anybody
1:39:59
else who has a question or comments i think they're yeah i just -
1:40:05
Just to reiterate, that 18 month closure of our one, basically our one of three
1:40:09
ways across I-90 isn't very important and it's gonna be quite a bit of effect
1:40:14
'cause of course most locals use that to avoid the other two ways and when
1:40:18
everything goes those other two ways for 18 months and we have to, can't sneak
1:40:23
through there, it's gonna be a big deal so I wanna get that out as
1:40:27
soon as possible. I've heard people asking me about that as well 'cause that's gonna
1:40:32
have a large effect on everybody including, So I regret that we have to do
1:40:37
that, but I don't know how else to build otherwise. - Paul? - I think
1:40:43
another, thank you, another point that's important that the public has awareness as well as
1:40:47
any construction project. When you're in the ground and you're digging, that's when you have
1:40:51
the biggest risk, right? As long as you're in the ground, what you might run
1:40:55
into and the likelihood of delay or something that'll affect the scope and have some
1:41:00
downstream impact happens when we're in the ground, when we're digging holes or digging a
1:41:04
tunnel, what have you. And I know this is gonna go in the ground quite
1:41:08
a bit. to put in those pylons to support the bridge. But during the committee
1:41:14
meeting, I asked you about that. I think I'd like to ask you to kind
1:41:19
of share for the public watching now about what we have done to minimize and
1:41:25
mitigate the likelihood of some unexpected finding when they're actually down there constructing and in
1:41:30
the ground for this project. - Thank you, yes. What the city has done with
1:41:36
this project is, They've done an extraordinary amount of soil boring and test
1:41:42
holes along the alignment of the new bridge, specifically to minimize risk and
1:41:47
increase knowledge of what the conditions are going to be like for the
1:41:53
piling, the deep foundations for the bridge structure that support the bridge.
1:41:59
This also was shown when we talked about how well the-how close the bids were.
1:42:05
It shows a confidence in the bidders of a relatively low risk. They understand what's
1:42:10
in the ground. The other way that we help minimize that risk is the type
1:42:16
of piles that are going in the ground are going to be driven pipe piles
1:42:22
rather than large diameter drilled caissons. So the risk is much more reduced
1:42:28
or it's reduced quite a bit by driving piles rather than having to drill
1:42:34
the hole and then keep it open and then pour concrete in there and
1:42:39
put your rebar in. So that's another way we reduce risk. Can't eliminate it
1:42:45
100%. Probably the largest risk would be hitting the log or something like that
1:42:50
as we're driving the piles. Okay. And I
1:42:56
just had one more thing. I think it's very important. Previously, we've received public comment,
1:43:01
as a matter of fact, from someone who's even here this evening, a concern about
1:43:05
the tunnel that the East Lake Sammamish Trail is going to pass through. And I
1:43:09
wanted to share, I had a conversation with our chief of police about that, and
1:43:13
I asked him if, you know, when it comes to safety, user safety, I think
1:43:17
Bill mentioned it as well, maybe some people who wouldn't want to use a tunnel,
1:43:21
you know, what is their alternative? And I think that's a good consideration. So a
1:43:25
couple things about that. We know it's going to have lighting. We also know that
1:43:30
it's going to have very straight lines of sight. So anybody who, before they even
1:43:35
enter that tunnel, they're going to be able to see the full distance. So if
1:43:40
there's anybody else in there or any obstruction or anything, they're going to have the
1:43:45
opportunity to see that before they enter. And also, and this is what the chief
1:43:51
told me as well, is that they, and I think those diagrams, the pictures kind
1:43:56
of showed it, But, so those look kind of straight if you look at that
1:44:01
opening there, but he said that design where it's kind of, where it's a little
1:44:06
bit wider at the opening than the tunnel itself and the slope of that, it
1:44:10
makes it also very, very difficult. for anybody to kind of hide around a corner
1:44:16
when you come in or out of it. And so he said, so with that,
1:44:21
with a clean line of sight, with lighting and the way the openings are designed,
1:44:27
he didn't feel that this tunnel represented any additional risk than frankly many other places
1:44:32
that we have in the city where you could be obscured from sight or sound
1:44:38
of anybody else And then the last thing he mentioned is that even
1:44:44
compared to our neighbors nearby, Issaquah, our community, does have an excellent history
1:44:49
of a very low person-on-person crime, the kind of crime that you would
1:44:55
maybe worry about in a hidden place like this. He said, "We do have
1:45:01
other places in town. They're along trails. They're in parking garages and long hallways in
1:45:06
buildings where these same kind of circumstances could arise, and we don't have much of
1:45:11
a history at all." Matter of fact, relative to our neighbors, a very safe community
1:45:16
from that type of crime. I just wanted you to know that those concerns were
1:45:21
raised. I thought that was a fair line of questioning. I was pleased to know
1:45:26
that the chief and his staff had kind of taken some consideration of that and
1:45:31
that was the opinion that he had offered to me in response to that request.
1:45:36
So I just wanted to share that for everybody's information. - Rayla? - Sure, actually,
1:45:42
just something that Bill had said triggered a question in my mind about the closure.
1:45:46
So I think you'd stated that there was no bus routes that we would have
1:45:51
to worry about, but have we also been in touch with the school district? And
1:45:55
I'm not sure about bus routes for them or if there is even any over
1:46:00
there, but just thinking of other major users that might. - We're gonna have to
1:46:05
contact the school district, Metro, just as a general purpose, we need to contact the
1:46:09
mass transportation people and things like that. I'm not aware of this being
1:46:15
a school bus route. It's mostly industrial along 221st. There's a small residential
1:46:21
population at the Confluence area off of, I think it's southeast 221st, southeast
1:46:26
64th. or something like that. But yeah, it's mostly industrial. Second part to that, I
1:46:32
think it was a good point that what Bill had made about the disruption that
1:46:36
that will be to everybody. One of the major disruptions with the Gateway project at
1:46:41
the other end of town isn't just to the residents who are trying to get
1:46:46
home or to shop or whatever, but also the number of trucks that are going
1:46:50
to be in that area for a long period of time in terms of slowdown.
1:46:55
That just seems to make matters worse. But how do we factor that in when
1:47:01
we're planning alternate routes and all the rest of it? Because it seems like between
1:47:06
the working hours, the construction hours, they are adding to the pain, if you will.
1:47:11
There is going to be a heavy trucking element to this. They are moving and
1:47:17
importing thousands of yards of material to create this fill embankment here that builds up
1:47:22
the road here. We also have a similar situation on the west bank of Issaquah
1:47:27
Creek where they have to bring in a considerable amount of material there, similar type
1:47:32
of construction. It's gonna be a lot of trucks that are gonna go down Lake
1:47:38
Drive and we're coordinating that very closely with Costco given their wholesale as well as
1:47:43
their business corporate, two separate hours of operation and so we're working very closely with
1:47:49
them. On this one, we're basically gonna have to notify people what's happening. I'm guessing
1:47:54
we haven't heard from the contractor yet on what their preferred haul route would be,
1:47:59
but I would guess their preferred haul route is going to come off of East
1:48:04
Lake Sam and come right in right here and start putting the material down and
1:48:09
they'll probably either turn around and go right back out or until Most of it's
1:48:15
done. They may just head north on 221st and make a loop around. Depends
1:48:21
on where their pit is. But my guess is they're going to come right
1:48:26
off the interstate or come right out of the lakeside pit and deliver. But
1:48:32
you're right. It's going to add truck trips. Other questions or comments? Are we
1:48:38
ready to vote? All those in favor of awarding the construction contract to Quigg
1:48:44
Brothers Incorporated signify by saying aye. Aye. That was unanimous. Correct? Nobody said nay.
1:48:50
Oh. Who's opposed? Next item on the
1:48:55
agenda, agenda bill 7309, Trader Joe's Target Maple
1:49:01
Street Intersection and Interim Improvements. This is also
1:49:07
coming out of the infrastructure committee meeting.
1:49:14
Yes, thank you. So I'm going to just introduce it and then I know
1:49:20
that there is a staff presentation as well. And so this bill requests the
1:49:26
Council for Council direction and funding for a preferred alternative for improvements to the
1:49:31
intersection of Maple Street and Trader Joe's/Targets Driveways. Let me ask the
1:49:37
staff who's standing there now. In your material, are you going to give
1:49:43
the background about the work that was done in the original recommendation by
1:49:49
TSI, the Transportation Solutions, Inc.? We are, yes. Okay. So I won't repeat
1:49:55
that right now because it is in the bill, the background. So this
1:50:00
came to infrastructure in the January meeting. We were not unanimous.
1:50:06
There's actually two alternatives in the original proposal or in terms of a mini
1:50:12
roundabout. And one is, I think we're going to hear about both of them.
1:50:17
One at a lower cost is doesn't have the kind of the, I would,
1:50:23
you know, the cosmetic and other kind of improvements, especially when it comes to,
1:50:29
you know, just for the visual element of this with landscaping. The second improvement
1:50:35
does have this landscaping and it has a higher cost as well. So in the
1:50:40
committee, We had one committee member, myself, who was in favor of the landscape option.
1:50:46
Another committee, Stacy, was in favor of the lower cost option without the landscaping.
1:50:52
And Council Member Ramos was in opposition to both choices. So that's where the
1:50:58
committee lands. So it's not a unanimous or clear direction from the committee for
1:51:04
us to consider this evening. So with that as an introduction, I'll turn it
1:51:09
over to staff. Thank you, Curt. Thank you, Councilman Winterstein. We're very happy to be
1:51:15
here to follow up with our conversation that we had with the Infrastructure Committee a
1:51:21
few weeks back and talk about potential solutions on Maple Street Northwest in the
1:51:27
vicinity of Target and Trader Joe's. As everyone's aware, this is an intersection
1:51:33
that's been a long time source of confusion and aggravation, I think, for
1:51:38
both our residents and shoppers in the area. It was identified as a
1:51:44
high priority project to be looked at by our traffic task force here
1:51:50
last year. And then most recently the council has set
1:51:56
aside $50,000 for improvements to this intersection and The main
1:52:02
reason we're here tonight is that council directed the administration to look at additional
1:52:07
potential options for that intersection and to come back with those and explain those
1:52:13
to you. And so we're very happy to do that tonight. Brianne Ross here
1:52:19
from our transportation group is going to walk you through those three alternatives. And
1:52:24
we do have a recommendation to the council and I'm as a
1:52:30
way to move forward on this project and to make improvements at this confusing
1:52:36
intersection. So with that as an introduction, I'll turn it over to Brianne and
1:52:42
she's got about 10 or 12 minutes of slides to walk you through the
1:52:47
various options here. So thank you. All right. So as been discussed,
1:52:53
we have three options. And the first is what is currently
1:52:59
included in our Complete Streets budget that you have already approved,
1:53:04
which is the $50,000 recommendation out of the TSI Pedestrian Crossing
1:53:10
Study. This was identified in the Pedestrian Crossing Study as an
1:53:16
intersection of interest and TSI recommended different levels of improvements, the
1:53:22
first being this option. They also mentioned a mini roundabout or a full-scale
1:53:28
roundabout should funding and opportunities arise in the future. This option simply removes
1:53:33
the decorative pavement and tightens up the intersection, bringing in the stop bars
1:53:39
and crosswalks closer together. That way it creates a standard two-way stop intersection
1:53:45
and helps to reduce the confusion and frustration that we see
1:53:50
with the decorative pavement and the current intersection layout. And all in
1:53:56
all, this is a similar, what would be a similar intersection at
1:54:02
Mall and 12th. So in that same neighborhood, standard two-way stop intersection
1:54:08
with a commercial driveway. So the
1:54:14
second option is a mountable rubber-curbed mini roundabout with an asphalt center.
1:54:20
This would just install temporary roundabout rubber curbing on top of the
1:54:25
existing intersection. It's pinned in and then the center of that rubber
1:54:31
curbing is filled in with asphalt. And this, we would then
1:54:37
also have pedestrian refuge islands on Maple and upgrade some ADA ramps.
1:54:43
And this again should reduce confusion and frustration, providing an intuitive intersection
1:54:48
for people to use. And it helps pedestrian access with the pedestrian
1:54:54
refuge island, allowing them to cross one lane at a time on
1:55:00
Maple and improves access for the commercial driveways.
1:55:05
And then our third option is what you would see as
1:55:11
more of a standard roundabout. It's removing the existing concrete roadway
1:55:17
in the center. It's pouring standard wash dot curb and gutter
1:55:22
roundabout curb and a truck apron for access and also the
1:55:28
Landscape Center in the middle. This provides the option for landscape,
1:55:34
some sort of a gateway feature, or things like that. Again,
1:55:39
there's pedestrian refuge islands on Maple, and the splitter islands on
1:55:45
the driveway access are paint, and it also upgrades the curb
1:55:50
ramps on Maple. So this option, again, It provides a standard
1:55:56
intersection, reducing confusion at what we currently have with the decorative intersection. It's
1:56:02
intuitive. It's like any other roundabout that you would see. It provides pedestrian,
1:56:08
improved pedestrian access with pedestrian refuge islands and improves access and safety for
1:56:14
the users. So, suitability of a mini roundabout in
1:56:20
this area, it improves mini roundabouts, both options two and three,
1:56:25
would improve motorist and pedestrian safety and reduce the severity of
1:56:31
potential crashes in the area. and it is well suited
1:56:36
for the volumes of this roadway. WSDOT actually recommends replacing stock
1:56:42
controlled intersections with mini roundabouts to reduce delay and increase capacity.
1:56:48
And with our current ADT of 9,700, we're well within our
1:56:54
15,000 ADT limit of installing this without even having to do
1:57:00
a detailed capacity analysis. So our recommendation is
1:57:06
alternative three. The advantages that we see of the landscaped center being
1:57:11
that distinguishing feature of a standard roundabout further helps to reduce any
1:57:17
confusion that there might be had at that intersection. It clearly indicates
1:57:23
that drivers can't go through the intersection and it discourages pedestrians from
1:57:28
trying to cross the street in the middle of the intersection. Discussion?
1:57:34
- Do we have any questions? I've got a few,
1:57:40
but I just wanted to start with one. Could you, in alternative
1:57:46
two and three, could you show me where the crosswalks would be
1:57:51
with the roundabouts? So, yes. Because it talks about the pedestrians taking
1:57:57
sort of refuge in the center is the point to walk.
1:58:03
onto the roundabout, wait there, and then cross again? - No, so with options two
1:58:09
and three, there would be the roundabout in the middle of this intersection,
1:58:15
but there would also be pedestrian refuge islands that would be located here, the splitter
1:58:20
islands that you would typically see in a roundabout. So that this, the left turn
1:58:25
lanes would go away, those would not be in existence, and cars would be forced
1:58:31
to stay in this lane and go around, and this area here that is currently
1:58:36
the left turn lane would be a pedestrian refuge island. So pedestrians would cross be
1:58:42
in this refuge island and then cross again. So they're not going through the
1:58:48
center of the roundabout. They're staying out here. And then would that be a
1:58:54
crosswalk? Would that be marked? This would be a marked crosswalk. In both 2
1:59:00
and 3? Correct. Okay. Other questions? Brianne? Yeah. Brianne, could you please give us
1:59:06
more information about the difference in cost between what you're calling options 2 and
1:59:12
3? And let me make one comment really quick. option one isn't really
1:59:18
on the table that's what we've already approved in the budget for 2017. so the
1:59:23
potential options that we're considering are really two and three i mean we're not gonna
1:59:29
there's no intention here this evening to vote up or down on option one. I
1:59:35
mean, that's already what's been improved. We've added that during the budget process already. So
1:59:40
what we're gonna, questions we're gonna be considering this evening is whether or not to
1:59:45
what you're calling options two and three is whether to look at those. But I
1:59:50
don't feel like we've nearly heard enough to explain the difference in cost. There's a,
1:59:55
you know, many hundreds of thousands of dollars in difference between the two.
2:00:01
Yes, one has landscaping and one doesn't, but that doesn't by itself seem
2:00:07
to explain the difference. Sure, absolutely. So the biggest difference between two and
2:00:13
three is that the second option, that temporary rubber curbing, is placed on
2:00:18
top of the existing roadway. so they can go out there and pin
2:00:24
it in to the existing concrete and fill it. So it's a much
2:00:30
shorter duration for construction and it's much less disruptive. Our option three, you
2:00:36
have to remove the existing roadway in the center of that intersection, those
2:00:41
concrete panels, so that you can form and pour the standard curb and
2:00:47
gutter that you see around the outside here. and then pour in the
2:00:53
construction or the truck apron here. And then this is actually another set of curb
2:00:59
that's poured there. And then whatever costs we would choose, whatever we would choose to
2:01:04
put in here, which is currently proposed as landscaping, we bring in irrigation.
2:01:10
and a water meter to fill in, to have irrigation
2:01:16
there as well. So the main cost difference is that
2:01:22
the construction takes longer. There's additional traffic control required during
2:01:28
construction, and it's the removal of the roadway. Instead of
2:01:33
using a prefabricated rubber curbing, you're forming and pouring more
2:01:39
traditional curbing. - And bringing in the irrigation and
2:01:45
the metering for that, I mean, how much does that
2:01:51
add itself as a percent of that total additional cost?
2:01:56
- If I recall correctly, the irrigation is roughly like
2:02:02
15,000 and then the landscaping is an additional 15 or
2:02:08
so thousand on top of that. off the top of
2:02:14
my head. Okay. Thank you. Mariah. Could you explain a little bit in three as
2:02:19
opposed to two. So you talked about a truck apron. Yeah. Could you explain that
2:02:24
a little bit? Does that allow the trucks to just go up on there if
2:02:29
they need to up on to the Correct. So in option three,
2:02:35
we would use, we would look at the truck turning movements
2:02:41
and dictate the center, the size of the center landscaped median
2:02:46
that would accommodate vehicles, but large trucks would still go over
2:02:52
what you can see this outside truck apron as being.
2:02:58
Passenger cars would not need to utilize that in any way. In option two,
2:03:04
the whole thing is actually mountable. So technically anybody can drive up and over
2:03:10
it in any fashion. Does that answer? - Thank you. - Mm-hmm. - And
2:03:16
I'm looking at the cost of these. - Yes. - And am I correct
2:03:22
in the fact that alternative three is $480,000 as opposed to what two is
2:03:28
100? - So, As Paul mentioned, we
2:03:33
already have 50,000 approved. So option
2:03:39
three is 500,000 as shown here with one thing I
2:03:45
didn't really discuss, it was at some point we were also asked to look
2:03:50
at the RRFBs, installing RRFBs on the crosswalks across Maple and that's an additional
2:03:56
30,000. - Those are, what are RF, what's an RFB? - Sorry, rectangular rapid
2:04:02
flashing beacon that similar to exactly the same as what was installed here on
2:04:08
Front Street this year. So that actually brings alternative three to a
2:04:14
total if you would elect to also include the RFBs to a
2:04:19
total of 530,000. And so to do alternative three in addition to
2:04:25
the 50,000 that we currently already have, it would be an additional
2:04:31
480,000. And then alternative two would be $100,000 and
2:04:37
that has the RFPs in there? No. Or that would
2:04:42
then be an additional $30,000? Right, it would be $130,000
2:04:48
to include the RFPs. So an additional $80,000 into what's
2:04:54
already budgeted. Other questions? Mariah? I was trying to think back. I
2:05:00
don't have it in my head right now, but could you, the deliveries that one,
2:05:05
two or three talked about deliveries and I think one of those options restricted
2:05:11
deliveries on the street could you talk a little bit about that um
2:05:17
yeah so option three so since option two is fully mountable you can
2:05:22
go over it any truck can it does not restrict access in any
2:05:28
way option three would not allow large delivery trucks to turn left into
2:05:34
either driveway Because they would be going around and trying to
2:05:40
turn left that way so there are other entrances for both of
2:05:45
these properties and Technically this is not this is not a frequently
2:05:51
used intersection for delivery There could be a substitute driver that occasionally
2:05:57
tries to use it but with the congested nature of this intersection
2:06:03
It's not moving those deliveries to another entrances would be something
2:06:09
that would be considered. Thank you. Yeah, the most of them are already
2:06:15
happening at the rear of the properties because their delivery accesses and ramps
2:06:20
are all located in the back of their buildings. Yeah, so they have
2:06:26
other entrances off of Gilman and also off of the street that's over
2:06:32
here. - So as far as function goes, two and three
2:06:37
will function exactly the same, correct? - Similar. So two is fully mountable, three
2:06:43
there is the landscape center, so it restricts the left turns. - You're saying
2:06:49
that left turns, a large truck would make a left turn over that? -
2:06:55
A large truck could make a left turn over the option two. But
2:07:01
option three, the landscape center prevents large trucks from turning left into there. Or one
2:07:05
of those had a sign in the middle, something in the middle. You could actually
2:07:10
put something in there that would make it function exactly the same way, basically, and
2:07:15
not left turns of large trucks and have it look a little bit better than
2:07:20
just a... piece of concrete in the middle and have it more visible functioning more
2:07:26
in a safety standpoint because it would have more visibility to it just versus something
2:07:30
just off the ground, right? - That's something that we can consider. - And then
2:07:35
the actual-- - That's not something that's included in the current cost in front of
2:07:39
you. - Okay. And then as far as the mounting, the truck mounting, They would
2:07:44
have a smoother, obviously designed one, they'd have a smoother rolling path of that versus
2:07:49
the rubber mount would be more of a jolt. So it discouraged some of that,
2:07:54
but from other folks, because it would actually be less smooth than a regular one.
2:07:59
Even from a car cutting the corner, you wouldn't want to do it on this
2:08:04
option two. It's pretty jarred. I mean, a car in general wouldn't really want to
2:08:08
jump either one of them. In general, you wouldn't want to, but. to mention
2:08:14
that thank you all right so just to clarify um bill's question so
2:08:20
something could be placed on top of two other than just the sign
2:08:26
that is something that we can explore that's not something that we currently
2:08:32
have looked into there because we're not removing that existing roadway it would
2:08:38
have to be something that was very that didn't need a deep
2:08:44
foundation or we're gonna be in a similar position where we're removing the
2:08:49
existing roadway. And like I said, that's not considered in our current cost.
2:08:55
- Thank you. - Motion. - We wanna entertain a motion. - Move
2:09:01
to direct the administration to proceed with Maple Street Northwest Trader Joe's target
2:09:06
intersection improvement, alternative three, an installation of rectangular rapid flash beacons and
2:09:12
authorize an additional allocation from the general fund ending
2:09:18
balance to fund the intersection improvements and direct the
2:09:23
finance director to include $480,000 in the next 2017
2:09:29
budget amendment. Second. She can pick herself. Oh, that's
2:09:34
me. I forgot. I keep forgetting. - Yeah, so
2:09:40
I don't support spending a total of $530,000, as I mentioned
2:09:46
in committee, on a roundabout that functions essentially the same way.
2:09:51
Because what, maybe it's more permanent, maybe it has landscaping.
2:09:57
I haven't seen any pictures that make it look prettier. I
2:10:03
think we can spend a total of $130,000. And as I
2:10:09
mentioned in committee, we can figure out ways to make it
2:10:14
pretty. It's supposed to be, it's not temporary, but it's considered
2:10:20
although it could be long-term interim, nobody knows what that means. But I
2:10:26
mean, for an extra few hundred thousand dollars, we could do a lot
2:10:32
with that money. Mary Lou? - So first a comment for staff. I
2:10:38
wanna thank you for all the work you did on the, actually in
2:10:44
telling us what improvements were coming, already approved, and a couple of options. Council
2:10:49
requested this after we decided not to include this in the bond proposal for last
2:10:55
year and recognized that it was one of the citizens' highest priority. So thank you
2:11:00
for getting back this. I think it's a great complete package. It's fantastic. I disagree
2:11:06
with Mayor Pro Tem Goodman. in that I do see that a more permanent, the
2:11:11
more expensive option that looks more permanent, I think will have a much higher level
2:11:16
of traffic calming because it looks like an actual road improvement. Option B to me
2:11:21
looks like a bandaid for a problem. I don't think it's a significant enough improvement.
2:11:26
I think when we were originally considering putting this in and doing a significant traffic
2:11:31
circle, we were talking about a $5 million project. I look at what staff has
2:11:36
brought for $500,000 and I am really impressed. I like it. I think it will
2:11:41
work better. And I think it looks like a permanent fixture, whether it's there for
2:11:45
a year or 15 years. The only thing that's missing for me is some artwork
2:11:50
or signage that says, welcome to Central Issaquah. I still think we need to give
2:11:54
this neighborhood some identification. And I know that's not in the budget, but I felt
2:11:59
like I had to say it. Art commission can take care of that for you.
2:12:03
Art commission. I'm in favor of the third alternative, which is the $500,000 alternative. And
2:12:08
I think the Arts Commission can take care of the second. Eileen? I can't support
2:12:14
$500,000 for this roundabout either. I can do the lower dollar amount at
2:12:20
a hundred and some thousand dollars. We just need to make sure that
2:12:25
the consumer is able to cross the streets in a safe fashion. To
2:12:31
be honest, there's not that much traffic, foot traffic on that particular piece.
2:12:36
And I believe that our residents will be just as safe at
2:12:42
the lower dollar, not the $500,000. I can't support $500,000 for
2:12:48
this roundabout. Mariah? - So this is something that obviously we
2:12:53
talked about, that we got a lot of feedback about trying
2:12:59
to solve what was happening at this intersection. So again, I
2:13:05
would also thank staff for putting together all these great options
2:13:10
that we can take a look at. And I
2:13:16
understand sort of the background behind the $500,000
2:13:21
option. But to me, this could be interim,
2:13:27
even long-term interim. and I think that there's some things that we
2:13:33
could do with option two that would get us to the same place. So I
2:13:39
would support option two. I would support the beacons as well. I think that that
2:13:45
would be really important. And I guess what was in the back of my mind
2:13:51
is we had several agenda bills that we talked about that that could
2:13:56
be coming forward and probably other things coming down
2:14:02
the road. So I was really looking at this
2:14:08
as trying to solve the situation and make that
2:14:13
safe for both pedestrians and drivers. So I would
2:14:19
go with option two. So I need to say a few things because I
2:14:25
was actually a dissenting vote according to the chair of the committee and that wasn't
2:14:30
brought up at all. So I just want to give a little background on why
2:14:34
I was dissenting in committee. In committee, the neighbor, Jason Landor over there, requested that
2:14:39
we don't do this right now. They wanted to work with us on an alternative
2:14:44
because they didn't like this one. And there's some history behind that and I don't
2:14:49
know all the details of the history, but I felt it was a fair request
2:14:52
to take two months, I didn't talk about a long time, but like two months
2:14:56
to work with them to see if they wanted to come up with another alternative
2:15:00
that we could work on together. And they're talking about partnering with us and maybe
2:15:04
we could get something nicer in a partnership. So that wasn't, that isn't being discussed
2:15:07
here. I just want to give you a note because It was mentioned that I
2:15:12
was a dissenting vote. So I'm not against the roundabout in any way. But that's
2:15:17
what I was looking at there. So I'm actually torn here on this because I
2:15:21
hate temporary things because most temporary things turn into long-term things. And you sit there
2:15:26
and go, why did we do that that way? Because 15 years later, you've been
2:15:31
complaining about it never being quite right. But at the same time, there's a lot
2:15:36
of money to do this. Both these function the same way. In my mind, they're
2:15:40
totally functioning in the same way. And I thought a lot about this since
2:15:46
our committee meeting. It functioned the same way, but I think if you
2:15:52
pull up the pictures of the alternative two, these are as bad as
2:15:57
stark as you can imagine. And I think we can take these and
2:16:03
turn them into something else a very little bit amount of money of something even
2:16:08
if you just put flower pots in the middle that we have on front street
2:16:13
when they're done from that front street landscaping could be done something could be done
2:16:18
interestingly to make them look a lot better and and function just as well and
2:16:22
then that money could be used in many other places that we do have a
2:16:27
lot of other needs it's not like we yes we have it there but there's
2:16:32
other needs we need as well so i'd like to see something other than just
2:16:37
bare bones here to make it look. So the people drive up, you see that,
2:16:41
if you just see, you know, a six inch curb in the middle of the
2:16:46
street, that doesn't tell you anything. Roundabouts have something more as you're coming up to
2:16:50
see them in the middle that tells you it's a roundabout, not just a little
2:16:54
slight elevation. So we have to do something of that nature to make it function.
2:16:58
And that's where I am on that. So I would prefer alternative two.
2:17:04
- Any other comment? So one thing we haven't discussed and to Bill's point as
2:17:09
well, I think you have to imagine and I wish we had more visuals to
2:17:13
go with this in that the striping that would happen. So as you approach and
2:17:18
every roundabout generally you see there's some signage that you're approaching a roundabout to indicate
2:17:22
that. Also, I think we need to learn to stop saying turn left. I mean,
2:17:27
when you really learn how to use a roundabout, you're talking about take the first,
2:17:32
second or third exit. And that's turn right, go straight, or
2:17:38
go left, we're used to now. But I supported the
2:17:43
motion for the same reasons that Mary Lou gave as
2:17:49
well. Honestly, it is about cosmetics and some about function
2:17:55
as well. I would look at this as it's an interim solution. It's
2:18:01
gonna be there for, we don't know how many years. It could be
2:18:07
five, it could be 15, it could be something different. And we
2:18:13
have a very healthy fund balance in the general fund to
2:18:19
work with. And I've always said that if we're going to
2:18:25
use that, we should use that to create assets of value
2:18:30
to the community. And this is just a, a percentage of
2:18:36
that fund balance above our financial policy limits of 15, our goals of 15%.
2:18:42
We're still gonna be way, very, very healthy general fund balance even with the
2:18:48
additional roughly over 300,000 additional over OSHA under two. So from a funding perspective, I
2:18:53
realize it's more, but I think what we get in terms of aesthetics, overall functionality,
2:18:58
something that we can be proud of, something that we can say, we really have
2:19:03
made a difference here. And Mary Lou, I think makes a really good point. I
2:19:08
think the overall calming effect and the proper use and the net goal of creating
2:19:13
a safer, more intuitive system intersection is achieved with a full-fledged mini roundabout still but
2:19:18
one with the proper type of design including the the what people are used to
2:19:24
seeing along as well you know with the with the the landscaping in the
2:19:30
middle of vibrant growing plants that are permanent. So it's really, those are the
2:19:36
reasons for I think better functioning, something that we would be proud of. We
2:19:41
do have the money to fund that and that's why I'm gonna be supporting
2:19:47
the motion. So in option two you had talked at one point I'm
2:19:53
not sure which option it was that in the crosswalk piece there would be these
2:19:58
pedestrian refuges do you still get that in plan B in in the option B
2:20:04
or do you is it just striped you get a concrete So in option two
2:20:10
you would get the same materials. You would get a pedestrian refuge island. You still
2:20:15
would get the pedestrian refuge island. But it would not be the concrete curb and
2:20:21
gutter. It would be the temporary rubber curbing. So the left turn lane still goes
2:20:27
where? Correct. And you get the refuge. It's just made out of rubber. Correct. Correct
2:20:32
me. It'd still be out of concrete with rubber curbing as this one would say.
2:20:38
So you got, would you, The mini roundabout is concrete. It really is concrete.
2:20:44
It just has the rubber curb around the edge. So the refuge island, I'm assuming
2:20:49
it would be the same kind of thing? Yeah, asphalt and probably asphalt inside of
2:20:55
the rubber curb. So it's not a rubber island, refuge island. Okay. Are we ready
2:21:01
for a vote? So all those in favor of directing the administration to proceed with
2:21:06
the Maple Street Northwest Trader Joe's Target Intersection Improvement Alternative 3, an installation
2:21:12
of rectangular rapid flash beacons and authorizing the additional allocation from
2:21:18
the general fund ending fund balance to fund the intersection improvements
2:21:24
and direct the finance director to include $480,000 in the next
2:21:30
2017 budget amendment signify by saying aye. - Aye. - Those
2:21:36
opposed? - Nay. - The motion fails. So I would make
2:21:42
a motion. First I have a question. So if the
2:21:48
alternative two, there's already, so it would be directing the administration to
2:21:53
move ahead with number two and for directing additional $80,000 and that
2:21:59
would be ending fund balance then. - Right, that would be alternative
2:22:04
two with the rapid flashing beacons. - So I would make a
2:22:10
motion directing the administration to proceed with the Maple Street Northwest Trader
2:22:16
Joe's Target Intersection Improvement Alternative Two. installation of the rectangular rapid
2:22:21
flash beacons and authorizing an additional allocation from the general fund
2:22:27
ending balance to fund the intersection improvements and direct the finance
2:22:33
director to include $80,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment. Second.
2:22:39
Comments? Bill? Point here. Can we put an amendment with this?
2:22:45
You propose it. I propose an amendment that we add
2:22:51
I don't know what, how much here, but something to beautify this and make it
2:22:55
a more substantial piece in the middle, not just a flat piece of concrete. So
2:22:59
I don't know how you want to word that, but I don't know how much
2:23:03
money to put there, but somehow we want to add something more than just a
2:23:07
flat piece of concrete out there. So I would, so I had the same comments
2:23:11
at infrastructure about somehow beautifying it. I think there are a lot of ways to
2:23:15
do that. You could have get the Arts Commission involved, you could have some
2:23:21
kind of a competition, I don't know. We don't have any idea what,
2:23:27
how much that would be to include, but we could send message, direction,
2:23:33
I guess, to the administration if it passed that we wanted the administration
2:23:39
to come back with us with proposals, alternatives of how we might be
2:23:44
able to beautify it. And that if there were if there needed to
2:23:50
be a budget allocation for that and that could come along with that. Um, I'd
2:23:56
be okay with that versus a full fledged amendment. I think would if that if
2:24:01
directions on that work, I think that's simpler. So I'll just i don't know
2:24:07
if this is appropriate i'll just jump in here though so um thank you uh
2:24:12
so sure so we can look at that and i am understanding from the council
2:24:18
that it's something something along the lines of option two here but not exactly something
2:24:23
a little a little more aesthetic or a little something more than this and so
2:24:28
i guess uh we'd be happy to look at that and i don't tonight um
2:24:34
I don't know if I can tell you what that is or what that would
2:24:39
cost. One of the things, you know, as we, so Brianne didn't mention this, but
2:24:44
we've talked about this somewhat. I think we talked about this at infrastructure as being
2:24:49
sort of like a pancake. So it's just placed on top, on top of the
2:24:54
existing roadway. And so, I don't know structurally if we start putting, if we start
2:24:59
adding things to that, if that's artwork or what that might be, how that would
2:25:03
all work. So I guess it's a long, long way of saying we don't know
2:25:08
exactly - We would be happy to look at alternatives here. I don't know
2:25:14
what those are exactly or what those might cost, but it's likely to cost something
2:25:19
more than, obviously something more than option two and presumably something less than option three,
2:25:25
but we don't really know that tonight. - That would be the idea. - Yes,
2:25:31
I understand. - Move the horse from front street. - So any other comments?
2:25:38
no are you ready for the vote then okay all those in favor of i'm
2:25:44
going to say this one more time just because it's fun directing the administration to
2:25:49
proceed with the maple street northwest trader joe's target intersection improvement alternative two an installation
2:25:55
of rectangular rapid flash beacons and authorizing an additional allocation from the general
2:26:01
fund ending fund balance to fund the intersection improvements and direct the finance
2:26:07
director to include $80,000 in the next 2017 budget amendment signify by saying
2:26:13
aye. - Aye. - Those opposed say nay. - Nay. - If that
2:26:19
passes, order two. And with the, you heard the direction to come back
2:26:25
with the budget amendment. - And enhanced. - Yes, ideas
2:26:31
on how it might be beautified, whatever that means. - Simple enhancement. -
2:26:36
Okay, thank you very much. And I would echo the comments about appreciating
2:26:42
all the work that you've done, particularly in the short amount of time
2:26:48
that we sort of directed to be done with alternatives. Next is agenda
2:26:54
bill 7321, citizen survey and online engagement tool. And we have deputy city
2:27:00
administrator Emily Moon, Yes, Autumn's going to be joining me.
2:27:05
This is co-presented. Thank you very much. We have before you
2:27:11
a proposal, and that proposal in a nutshell is to authorize
2:27:17
use of technology budgeted funds for the strategic planning effort, at
2:27:22
least the first portion of that effort in a different way than
2:27:28
perhaps you had envisioned during the budget adoption this fall and early
2:27:33
winter. And that's to use, reallocate or authorize the use of that
2:27:39
budgeted amount in part to complete a national citizen survey and also
2:27:45
purchase an online engagement tool. So Autumn's going to cover the
2:27:51
latter. I'm going to talk just briefly about the National Citizen Survey.
2:27:57
The reason that we are pitching this idea now is we don't
2:28:02
have a well-built game plan yet on how to execute on the
2:28:08
strategic plan. And that was put aside during the budget development process as
2:28:14
a future conversation with council members. And we also had discussed that additional
2:28:20
resources would likely be needed in order to complete a full plan.
2:28:27
So with that, I'm going to talk about the citizen survey. The last
2:28:33
time we did a national citizen survey, this is an instrument that's used
2:28:38
across the country and is considered best practice by a lot of local
2:28:44
government organizations, was in 2014. We reported the results out in early 2015.
2:28:50
And at that point in time, City Council stated a desire to do that survey
2:28:56
on a regular basis. We had a little bit of discussion about whether that would
2:29:02
be every year or something a little less frequent. And it was my recommendation that
2:29:07
we do it every two or three years at that time. And so we have
2:29:13
gone beyond that point in 2017. So the National Citizen Survey
2:29:19
is a really important tool for us in a lot of different ways.
2:29:25
It's a way for us to gauge the preferences of the community, their
2:29:30
satisfaction levels with the community as a whole, its quality of life, and
2:29:36
also our local government services. In addition, because that's a national instrument, we
2:29:42
get regional and national comparison data. That's very helpful for us as well to
2:29:48
understand in comparison how well we are doing. and we believe that that survey
2:29:54
will provide helpful data for us to use as we begin to
2:30:00
contemplate how to complete the strategic plan for the city it would
2:30:06
for example highlight some areas of investigation potentially some themes that we
2:30:11
want to explore with the community and It would also provide us with
2:30:17
that updated data that we use for our performance measurement and benchmarking that we
2:30:23
do in our departments. We also believe that this would be a great precursor
2:30:29
tool for some of the efforts that you know are identified on our work
2:30:34
plan this year, including aligning our capital and operating budgets more with
2:30:40
our various strategic plans. And the National Citizen Survey will help us
2:30:46
to understand, give us a data point about where people would like
2:30:51
us to invest public funds. So with that,
2:30:57
I'm going to turn it over to Autumn. Autumn's
2:31:03
going to talk about the online engagement tool and
2:31:09
then after she does, be happy to answer any
2:31:15
questions about either of these opportunities. Hi, my name
2:31:21
is Autumn Monahan. I'm the assistant to the city
2:31:27
administrator and work very closely with our city's communications
2:31:33
team. Tonight I'm here talking about an online engagement tool that I'm quite excited about
2:31:38
and excited to show you a demo tonight. First up, I've already talked to you
2:31:43
several times about the fact we have a lot of engagement efforts coming up in
2:31:48
2017, including what we've dubbed the mega projects. So that includes the Old Town sub
2:31:53
area plan, our housing strategy, the Central Issaquah district visions, the park strategic plan, and
2:31:57
the end of the development agreements. We have a lot of other examples that are
2:32:03
on my list for the coming years as far as assistance with engagement with our
2:32:08
departments, including the sustainable building strategies, the alternative service project with Metro, our neighborhood engagement
2:32:14
program, the CIP revamp, budgeting, and a lot more, including a lot of capital projects.
2:32:19
So what does an online engagement tool have to do with our strategic plan?
2:32:29
Each engagement effort will provide data to inform our future strategic plans. So all of
2:32:33
these smaller efforts that we're working on in the coming year can definitely help inform
2:32:37
a larger strategic plan moving forward. So how does
2:32:43
this tool fit in with our so far? We are a national leader when it
2:32:47
comes to social media. We have thousands and thousands of followers. One area we've struggled
2:32:50
with now for a couple years is how to close that loop. And I've talked
2:32:54
with you several times about finding ways to do that. So how can we leverage
2:32:58
all of those followers and all those people we're engaging with all the time to
2:33:01
ensure that they're providing you feedback that's useful as elected leaders? Right now we have
2:33:07
a survey tool via our website which is hosted by Civic Plus. There are limited
2:33:12
options for how we can build forms on our website and also the results spit
2:33:17
out in Excel documents. So oftentimes when we're asked to aggregate data or to look
2:33:22
at what the responses are, it takes a lot of staff time in synthesizing those
2:33:27
results. We also have utilized social media polls via Facebook and Twitter. These are really
2:33:33
quick, great ways to ask one or two simple questions in your feed. But oftentimes,
2:33:38
you can't really dig into a subject. And also, if you use the same polls
2:33:43
in multiple platforms, it's very hard to also aggregate that data and package it up
2:33:48
for you guys. So we have struggled with how to best collect engagement. We're great
2:33:52
at communicating and letting people know about opportunities, but as far as finding a tool
2:33:58
where people can come and provide their feedback has been a struggle. So some benefits
2:34:03
of having an online engagement tool. All of our online surveys would live in one
2:34:07
place. Right now our engagement efforts can vary. You can find something on SurveyMonkey. You
2:34:10
can find something on the city's website. You can find something on social media. So
2:34:14
we've tried a lot of different tools, but there's not one place that you can
2:34:18
go to. If there is, and we've got several engagement efforts going on at one
2:34:21
time this coming year, someone might come to this tool and want to provide input
2:34:25
on our park strategic plan and say, oh, I also have some input about Old
2:34:28
Town. So there's some cross connection that can go on there as we drive people
2:34:32
to this tool. They can see there's multiple ways that you can engage and provide
2:34:36
feedback to the community or to the council. Results are also shown in real time.
2:34:39
So right now when you submit your feedback to the city via the website, it
2:34:43
comes in just as submitted to us and it's not something that can be engaging
2:34:47
for community members to see each other's feedback and kind of leverage their ideas. And
2:34:51
also we're looking for some approved reporting and data we can provide both you and
2:34:55
the community as far as what the community wants. So we've researched several tools online
2:35:01
and they've gotten better over the years and gotten a lot of feedback from other
2:35:06
agencies that are using these types of tools. We've been conducting some demos and considering
2:35:11
cost, the customer service of these tools and the support that's offered. And our favorite
2:35:16
so far is called Peak Democracy and I'll show you some demos tonight of that
2:35:20
tool. Several local agencies are using Peak including King County, the City of Sammamish, Auburn,
2:35:26
Ellensburg, and Walla Walla here in Washington state.
2:35:32
So peak democracy offers I think it's 10 ways that you can set
2:35:37
up a survey online. And there's a lot of different ways you can fill out
2:35:42
these forms. You can offer up just a simple survey with a single or multiple
2:35:46
choice question. You can ask open-ended questions where people can offer in their support, a
2:35:51
thumbs up if they like your response. You can prioritize lists that the city provides.
2:35:55
There's a budget tool that I'll show you that's really cool. You can provide feedback
2:36:00
via maps. You can also provide photos, videos, or files of examples that you'd like
2:36:05
to share, and you can also annotate documents. And then there's several analytics and ways
2:36:11
to look at the data. So you can look at it in many different filters,
2:36:17
including demographics, by a map, by percentages, several different ways, even word clouds. So I'll
2:36:22
show you a few demos now.
2:36:36
So the city of Sammamish just launched using Peak Democracy a few months ago and
2:36:40
have had some very good success in participation. And so I'm just going to show
2:36:44
you an example of a few different cities that are using this tool and what
2:36:49
they're using them for. So this is a question the city of Sammamish is asking
2:36:53
about their proposed plan and strategies for acquiring new lands. And just to start, it
2:36:56
asks me if I'd like to submit my information with my name, without my name,
2:37:01
or do it completely anonymously. So you can register and let the city see who
2:37:05
you are, or you can do it completely anonymously. I like having these options because
2:37:10
oftentimes we've heard from other cities, and I've seen it too, that when you require
2:37:14
people to register, you see a huge drop off in participation. So giving people this
2:37:19
choice is a really good feature. So I'm just going to pretend to fill this
2:37:23
out. This is not how I feel about the city of Sammamish and them acquiring
2:37:27
new lands. But just want to show you a few options. So no, I'm not
2:37:31
a resident of Sammamish. I could fill in my information on my address. I'll say,
2:37:35
yes, I think the city should acquire more lands for parks, recreation, and open space.
2:37:38
And then it says, if you answered yes to the previous question, what should be
2:37:42
the focus? I'm going to say active use. And if you support active use, prioritize
2:37:48
what or more of the following uses you'd like to see. So I think the
2:37:52
priority should be playgrounds. I'm going to make that the first priority. And then waterfront
2:37:57
recreation. Again, this is not my own opinion. This is just showing you how you
2:38:02
can use this tool. A predictable answer, I would say. So anyway, you can set
2:38:07
these to what priorities you want. You can move them up and down. You can
2:38:12
say, you know what? Playgrounds actually are not something that I want to support. So
2:38:17
you can prioritize a set list that the city provides. You can also upload images,
2:38:22
which is pretty cool. So people can react to an image. And this one is
2:38:26
based on a map. And I think that's all I want to show you on
2:38:31
this. survey so you also can see as i mentioned the responses in real time
2:38:36
of how this this survey is going for the city so far and you can
2:38:40
look at it in many different ways so you can look at it via the
2:38:44
demo well first you can see just the raw data so autumn yeah when you
2:38:48
say you who do you mean can see that in real time the public the
2:38:53
public okay yep so this is me just at the city of sammamish's site right
2:38:57
now yep So you can see just all of the raw data and you can
2:39:02
say, you know, you can see here the average priorities of 100 responses so far.
2:39:07
Waterfront recreation is the number one and then it's playgrounds. So I wasn't totally off.
2:39:12
You can also filter this information by demographics that people provide when they register. So
2:39:17
of the responses, most people are of the age of 50 to 59. You can
2:39:22
look at it by gender, the frequency of participation. So you can see
2:39:31
For 35 people, this is the first time they used this forum or
2:39:37
this tool. Others have used it and this is their second topic. So
2:39:42
you can see just kind of level participation of who we reached, if
2:39:48
it's someone that's an active participant in city government or someone that may
2:39:54
be new. When you register, you also can provide your address. This is
2:39:59
something our neighborhood engagement coordinator is very excited about, in that you can
2:40:05
provide GIS layers of neighborhoods and see the responses by neighborhood. so you
2:40:11
can click on this i can see there is a high level response to
2:40:17
this neighborhood so i click on it and then the tool will spit out
2:40:22
those 10 responses so i know in this neighborhood these are the responses so
2:40:28
in that area the number one priority for that neighborhood is waterfront recreation and
2:40:34
then you also can filter the data too so i may decide that i
2:40:40
only want to look at people who say that they're residents of sammamish and
2:40:45
i only want to look at the responses from people who do think that they
2:40:51
should be acquiring more land for parks, recreation, and open space. And then you apply
2:40:55
the filter and you can look at the results that way too. So you can
2:41:00
pick your own filters. This information then can be downloaded in PDF or a CSV
2:41:05
file. You also can go back after you've registered and look at your own response.
2:41:10
And then what's great about this is after a decision's been made, staff can go
2:41:14
in and upload what the outcome of that is. project was. So we can go
2:41:19
back and close the loop with folks. When you register and sign in, you provide
2:41:23
your email address and we can let you know about future opportunities for engagement or
2:41:27
let you know what the outcome was, which I think is also a really great
2:41:31
way that right now we're asking for a lot of feedback, but we're not always
2:41:35
closing the loop with residents or community members about what the outcome was. So I
2:41:39
like that feature a lot as well. Here's another example where the
2:41:45
city asked several really open-ended questions and just gave respondents a field that said, go
2:41:49
ahead and fill out what you want. I just wanted to show this option because
2:41:54
this is one way that you can support other people's comments so you can see
2:41:59
what are the most popular ideas or responses from the community. And then you also...
2:42:08
can see who has very similar responses to that one. So a connected statement means
2:42:13
that this software has looked at what some common words are to see what kind
2:42:18
of statements are connected. You can also look at this not only by text, but
2:42:23
You can say, all right, this person who decided not to share their name, they
2:42:28
have connections with eight other people. And you can look in and say, this person
2:42:32
also has the same kind of feedback as Bob Moss does, that Paul does. So
2:42:37
you can kind of start to see a network of who all the supporters are
2:42:41
or who has some connected thoughts. So I thought that was an interesting feature as
2:42:46
well. You can also just look at word clouds. So when you ask an open-ended
2:42:50
question, you can see what, just on a snapshot, what people are talking about.
2:43:02
This option is really fun, especially for CIP planning and budgeting. And this is where
2:43:08
you can provide community members $100, $500 and say, how would you best spend that
2:43:14
money? So it would give you feedback on what priorities are for the community. So
2:43:20
again, these are not my own feelings, but for police services, I'm going to dedicate
2:43:26
$20. For neighborhood and policing, I'm going to dedicate $5. And crime prevention,
2:43:32
I'm going to dedicate $7. So you can go through and you can
2:43:37
start to build your budget and see how much you're spending as you
2:43:43
go along. I'm going to give a lot of money to code enforcement.
2:43:49
So you can see your budget building. And then here is an example
2:43:54
of how the aggregate submissions look like. So that way you can say,
2:44:00
all right, in this community, for their $500, the biggest priority is police
2:44:06
services. The next would be Let's see, economic development and then animal services.
2:44:12
So you can see it broken down by what priorities are. So that would be
2:44:17
also really interesting for CIP priorities or any other lists we want people to provide
2:44:22
their feedback on. And it's a great way to distill that down into how would
2:44:27
you spend your money in your budget. You can also ask for comments via a
2:44:32
map. So here the community is asking where should some new bike stations go in
2:44:37
their community. And I can just dig in on this.
2:47:30
There's more than one option of things to engage on. This tool is also responsive
2:47:35
for tablets and phones. About 50% of our web traffic is mobile-based, so that's really
2:47:40
important for us. Also, this is an exciting tool we could use if we were
2:47:45
to bring a few iPads to neighborhood meetings and ask for feedback on something that
2:47:49
may not be the topic of the meeting, but we're looking for some engagement on.
2:47:53
So we could hand out those tablets and people could submit their comments really easily,
2:47:58
which is a nice option. And they also have a... an option where you can
2:48:03
create, it's called Open Town Meeting. So you can post a survey at a meeting
2:48:07
and everyone can get on their phones and vote live and you can see your
2:48:12
results voted live. So kind of a fun icebreaker, a way we could do some
2:48:16
kind of fun intro before a community engagement meeting. So something else to try that
2:48:21
other communities have had some success with.
2:48:34
So how would we drive people to this tool? Neighborhood meetings is one thing I've
2:48:39
already mentioned. Social media will be a huge way that we can drive people online.
2:48:45
The Issaquah Insider E-News, which has several thousand followers. Our website, and then we've got
2:48:50
plenty of other communication tools where we can drive people to this one engagement spot.
2:48:55
So with that, Emily and I are available for any questions. I have a question.
2:49:01
In the agenda bill, the... - The engagement tool, it says $10,000
2:49:07
cost annually. So it'd be an ongoing cost. And is there a limit
2:49:13
with that price, with that ongoing maintenance cost or whatever you call it?
2:49:19
- Nope. - You can do it however much you want. - I
2:49:24
find the structuring of the bill a little bit odd. It really seems
2:49:30
like two different asks. I think you're trying to just be more efficient
2:49:36
with it. But if there is some other kind of nexus between the
2:49:42
engagement tool and the survey we want to do for the purposes of informing
2:49:48
our strategic plan development. Could you address that for me? Sure. I'm very excited
2:49:54
about how those two pieces complement each other and also will assist us collectively
2:49:59
with the work plan for this year, which does involve a lot of
2:50:05
strategic planning efforts, a lot of major capital projects, a lot of
2:50:11
engagement topics. And I'm also excited about how the two will also contribute
2:50:16
to where we're going with the strategic plan. I think both will initially the national
2:50:22
citizen survey will provide us with a foundation. So let's hypothetical would be we see
2:50:28
some response on that survey that we want to dig in a little bit deeper
2:50:34
on and pose a variety of questions. the online engagement tool will allow
2:50:40
us to do that. So National Citizen Survey can be a springboard to posing
2:50:46
additional questions and then ultimately getting the quality of a strategic plan that you're
2:50:52
looking for. The national citizen survey, as I said earlier, will
2:50:57
help us to identify community priorities, which I think is a basic element in
2:51:03
a strategic plan. You need to know, as we've talked about, a starting place
2:51:09
of understanding what your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats might be. Survey helps to
2:51:15
assess that and then you can pose more in-depth questions. You can lead
2:51:21
discussions around focused topics on the online engagement tool that will then provide
2:51:27
some of that content for your strategic plan. - Okay, thank you for
2:51:33
that. So I have one other question and then a comment for your
2:51:38
consideration. So the question is, so it appears within the language of this
2:51:44
bill that we're conceding that we are not gonna complete the strategic plan in
2:51:50
2017. - That's correct. And during budget deliberations, we talked about that installation being
2:51:56
just part of it. - Okay, but this is the kind of the first
2:52:01
time I've seen in writing anywhere or in front of us that this is
2:52:07
really gonna be the actual completion next year in 2018. Okay, so that's
2:52:13
unfortunate. I really do. I think the time is now, and so this
2:52:18
is unfortunate of that timing. The comment is, or I guess it's a
2:52:24
question as well. Autumn, the last slide you had up there on ways
2:52:30
that you are going to use, ways that you can promote the availability
2:52:36
of this tool and citizens opportunities to participate. I would maybe add another one to
2:52:41
the list and I will maybe ask the clerk if this is actually okay. There
2:52:45
may be other opinions as well. But you know, why not embed links to certain
2:52:50
specific questionnaires right inside some of our documentation? Like this, we have agenda bills that
2:52:55
have all kinds of elements in them, right? And you could write within an agenda
2:53:01
bill or some attachment to an agenda bill, have a link out to a specific
2:53:06
questionnaire where we could get specific feedback on content of some policy that we're doing.
2:53:12
So the link to it could be right within some of the policy language that
2:53:17
we're working ourselves. Just an idea. But it would be very focused. You know, if
2:53:23
someone is actually reading the same material and the same considerations that we're making, if
2:53:28
they would then contribute and we could gather some type of input. You know, you
2:53:34
can embed links and documents. So it was just another way to maybe use the
2:53:39
tool to gather feedback on specific policy elements or other legislation we may be considering.
2:53:45
Mariah? Could you remind me if we were to go forward,
2:53:50
what would be the timeline to have the results back on the
2:53:56
citizen survey and be able to take a look at that and
2:54:02
analyze that? Sure. which is the consultant that has the proprietary national
2:54:08
citizen survey, has told me that depending on, of course, when we start
2:54:14
and how much time we want to allocate for each piece of the
2:54:20
schedule, they can hit a May or June final report presentation or delivery.
2:54:26
And that would be my goal, That means finalizing the tool in the
2:54:31
questionnaire in the next couple of weeks or very early March and then
2:54:37
getting underway with the distribution into the community in say March timeframe. My
2:54:43
goal would be to wrap up May or June because I think it
2:54:49
would be helpful for us to have that information as we, look
2:54:55
toward our budget development process internally and staff first over
2:55:01
the summertime. Also that would sequence well with a potential
2:55:06
retreat between senior leadership team and the council to start
2:55:11
talking about budget priorities. - Thank you. - I'd like
2:55:17
to move to Authorize the use of $36,000 of the
2:55:22
2017 budget allocation for the strategic plan for the purpose of
2:55:28
conducting a national citizen survey, which is $26,000, and purchasing an
2:55:34
online engagement tool at $10,000. Moved and seconded. I
2:55:40
just have a comment to what Paul was saying. It's also a disappointment to me
2:55:45
that we may not demonstrate any progress on even a first step in a process
2:55:50
for a strategic plan, but maybe there is an opportunity if we have a council
2:55:55
retreat or mini-retreat or something this year. that we could have it after this data
2:56:00
is collected and after this tool is in use and maybe schedule strengths, weaknesses, opportunity,
2:56:05
threats, some sort of first step discussion in a strategic plan. I'd like to demonstrate
2:56:10
some progress this year on that. We're not going to get the plan, but I
2:56:15
don't want to put the whole thing on the back burner. I kind of agree
2:56:20
with you, it's a bit disappointing. But the presentation they did, exciting. Mariah? We just
2:56:25
echo Mary Lou's comments in terms of I'm disappointed too that we wouldn't
2:56:31
be focusing on that but with the amount of work that we have
2:56:37
I would hope that we could take this as a starting point and
2:56:42
maybe do something toward the end of the year when the results are
2:56:48
back to sort of launch into a little mini strategic planning effort I
2:56:53
guess. Bill? - So just to clarify, so there's 50,000 we set aside, so
2:56:59
this would leave 14,000 basically unallocated. And if you do the national survey, you gave
2:57:05
us a timeline on that. The timeline on the software here is probably fairly quickly
2:57:11
and implement that Basically, because they're going to be totally separate. The national survey is
2:57:15
using their stuff. This will be our stuff for anything we want in addition to
2:57:20
that, right? Yeah, and that tool would go, I'd want to implement that as soon
2:57:24
as possible. We have several engagement efforts starting this month. And one of the largest
2:57:28
projects, the park strategic plan and working with the consultant was very excited if we
2:57:32
were to be using the peak democracy tool. So I'd like to get that going
2:57:36
soon. Yeah. I MIGHT JUST CLARIFY THAT $14,000 WOULD STAY ALLOCATED IN YOUR BUDGET
2:57:42
TOWARD THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AS THE AGENDA BILL STATES, WE ARE PLANNING TO COME
2:57:47
BACK MID-YEAR-ISH, SORT OF DURING BUDGET DEVELOPMENT TIME, TO TALK TO YOU MORE ABOUT
2:57:53
how do you want to proceed with doing a strategic plan knowing that we do
2:57:59
need additional resources to complete that. But you'd have the 14,000, we'd be having the
2:58:05
conversation about how to proceed and certainly there are opportunities to either use that allocation
2:58:10
or a different allocation to get some scope of work done later in the year.
2:58:16
Thank you. - Yeah, I just, I wanna clarify my comment a little bit about
2:58:22
disappointment. I know when we went through budget that we were very clear on where
2:58:27
our priorities were and things related to work program related items related to the moratorium
2:58:32
and transportation. But we never were definitive that we weren't gonna get the strategic plan
2:58:38
done in 2017. I also know that there were some other requests for additional staff
2:58:44
that you had made that would have helped that actually achieve that. I don't
2:58:49
need to rehash all we went through there. And so I always knew that it
2:58:54
wasn't we made it, not the top tier. That's correctly reflected in the agenda bill,
2:58:59
so I'm not debating that at all. But just to now know that, okay, you
2:59:04
know, we're at this point where we've made this assessment and getting more clarity on
2:59:09
how we do want to proceed, that the actual kind of completion, to be able
2:59:14
to kind of deliver, you know, like, you know, the... like Chief Clark did for
2:59:19
the Eastside Fire and Rescue. We got a document, we got the strategic plan. And
2:59:23
when we can begin putting together our budgets and our work plans in light of
2:59:28
this new framework that set priorities and also some sequencing of some key things. So
2:59:33
my comment was more of, okay, I was hoping it wasn't gonna be true, but
2:59:37
now I'm hearing it's likely to be true that we're not gonna have that available
2:59:42
to us. in 2017. So it's not that I didn't know the possibility didn't
2:59:48
exist. But to the bill itself, it's a very compelling point about doing the
2:59:54
survey. I mean, that is very critical part of any strategic plan to actually
2:59:59
get that type of SWOT analysis. I know which is something that you mentioned
3:00:05
a number of times that we want to complete. and the
3:00:11
engagement tool is, my only concern about the
3:00:16
engagement tool is that I hope we don't
3:00:22
create an impression that maybe certain decisions we need to
3:00:28
make. Some we can completely blue sky them. We're going to be open to, now
3:00:33
we don't design and sell t-shirts, but if we wanted to do t-shirt design, we
3:00:37
could totally 100% crowdsource that and do it. It could be totally open. But some
3:00:42
things as a city, as a municipality, as a corporation that we run certain lines
3:00:47
of business, there's a lot more structure. And the input that we receive from our
3:00:52
citizens, It's not as open. We're gonna give people more limited choices. That's just the
3:00:57
way a municipality operates. And there's a range of those with a lot of choice,
3:01:03
versus it's gonna be more restricted, choose between A, B and C. And I hope
3:01:08
with the survey, I don't wanna create this false impression that everything is wide open
3:01:14
all the time. We just be setting ourselves up and for our citizens for some
3:01:20
disappointment. I just wanna make sure that we have clear policy and administrative procedures in
3:01:26
place that we use that in constructive ways without creating false impression of what
3:01:31
we're trying to accomplish with a given survey or citizen engagement and feedback.
3:01:37
I don't know if anybody else kind of shares my concern, but I
3:01:43
mean, this is so wide open and the capabilities are very, very powerful.
3:01:48
We still need to be very smart on how we use that.
3:01:55
- Right, so I have the same comment, first of all, about
3:02:00
this one that I have about the One Touch agenda that we
3:02:06
talked about earlier. One Touch, I don't like it. As a policy,
3:02:11
we shouldn't do it. I understand the timeliness of it, and I
3:02:17
think in particular, the online engagement tool looks really exciting, and I
3:02:22
think I find myself wanting to say, I hope we
3:02:28
don't end up relying on this as a substitute for face-to-face
3:02:34
interactions. But at the same time, we've also been looking for
3:02:39
trying to find ways to get more interaction. So, you know,
3:02:45
be careful what you wish for, right? So I think it
3:02:50
looks very exciting. and I'll be supporting it. I too am
3:02:56
disappointed about the strategic plan. This is year four of disappointment. So
3:03:02
I am at least happy to see that it looks like we
3:03:08
will make some progress on it this year. Everybody for a vote?
3:03:15
All those in favor of authorizing the use of $36,000 of the 2017 budget
3:03:21
allocation for the strategic plan for the purpose of conducting the National Citizen Survey
3:03:27
for $26,000 and purchasing an online engagement tool for $10,000 signify by saying aye.
3:03:33
Aye. Those opposed? Say nay. Passes unanimously. Thank you.
3:03:39
- Madam Pro Tem Mayor. - Yes. - I had a family event this evening
3:03:43
that started at six and I'm just going to ask if it's okay if I
3:03:48
can be excused a little early to catch the time. - Yes, you already asked
3:03:52
me earlier. - Thanks. - Thanks, you're excused. Next item on the agenda is good
3:03:56
of the order. And after that, we will have an executive session. So is there
3:04:01
anything for the good of the order? - You know, I said earlier, I was
3:04:05
gonna talk at the good of the order a little bit about this, but I
3:04:09
think I'm looking at the time that we've put into this. I guess I wanna,
3:04:14
this meeting already this evening, I think there would be diminishing returns to try to
3:04:18
start educating you on regional growth centers and the framework changes. There are some really
3:04:22
good material. I'll work through the clerk to get that distributed. And I won't be,
3:04:28
I'll be traveling and I will not be at the work session a week from,
3:04:34
well, next Monday on the 13th. And that would have been maybe another opportunity to
3:04:40
talk about this a little bit more. So we're gonna kind of miss that opportunity.
3:04:45
But the second regular business meeting, later this month, I'm gonna try to be
3:04:51
more, I'm gonna get, be prepared and have some more structured thing. The issue is
3:04:57
is that with the regional center kind of redefinition that's gonna happen, there were real
3:05:02
clear advantages for the city at the time we said let's go forward and apply
3:05:08
for a regional growth center designation. And maybe some of those advantages are gonna be
3:05:14
now put at risk. We don't know that. but they could be. But just the
3:05:19
fact that they've opened this up and they're gonna reform how new centers are designated
3:05:25
and what happens, the kind of the tiering potential system of existing centers, the likelihood
3:05:31
of it kind of affecting what we thought we might be eligible for and the
3:05:36
benefits, I think is pretty significant. So it would be very important for this council
3:05:40
to be very clear on any type of kind of stake we put in the
3:05:44
ground and trying to affect this change in a way that we think is right.
3:05:49
for the region, but also especially right for Issaquah. Everybody's gonna need to be a
3:05:54
little bit more informed. I'm looking at you two because you weren't on the council
3:05:59
when we went through that whole designation process and there was a lot of learning
3:06:04
that we did about that. So I think, I've said this many times before, we
3:06:09
now know this, that when any one of us represents the council at a regional
3:06:15
committee or somewhere, when we say, "I've talked to my council and my council prefers
3:06:20
this position or we've taken some position," You see it at the PIC and SCA
3:06:25
quite a bit. That's a very powerful testimony, and it's the best way for actually
3:06:30
us to get leverage and actually influence other policy makers. And so that's, I mean,
3:06:35
I'd like to be able to get to the point where we could do that
3:06:39
same thing. But it will require some additional time and coming up to speed and
3:06:44
I know by the end of June, the Growth Management Policy Board will be making
3:06:49
a recommendation to the Executive Committee at PSRC. So that's the very latest by which
3:06:55
we have to be, I think as a city and as a council, clear on
3:07:01
what type of recommendation, what type of updates we would like to see. So
3:07:06
I'll be providing more information and talking about it and maybe we could brainstorm a
3:07:12
little bit more as we did during leadership this morning on how we can help
3:07:17
with the education process. - For all of us? - For all of us, absolutely.
3:07:22
- Okay, anything else for good of the order? Mariah. - I just wanted to
3:07:27
quickly echo the comments during the proclamation for the Issaquah Press. And I just wanted
3:07:32
to say that I, was shocked and saddened by the news. With my journalism
3:07:37
background, I have been impressed ever since I moved to Issaquah with
3:07:43
the Issaquah Press and their whole journalism team. And I just think
3:07:49
this is a huge loss for our community and they're going to
3:07:55
be greatly missed. - Thank you. Anything else for good of the
3:08:01
order? Okay.
3:08:04
The
3:08:21
next
3:08:38
item
3:08:55
on
3:09:11
our
3:09:28
agenda
3:09:45
is
3:10:01
executive
3:10:18
session.
3:10:35
We
3:10:51
will
3:11:08
now
3:11:25
recess
3:11:42
into
3:11:58
executive
3:12:15
session
3:12:32
for
3:12:48
the
3:13:05
purpose
3:13:22
of
3:13:39
discussing
3:13:55
property
3:14:12
acquisition
3:14:29
per
3:14:45
RCW
3:15:02
4230.110.1b.
3:15:19
This
3:15:35
item
3:15:52
is
3:16:09
expected
3:16:26
to
3:16:42
take
3:16:59
approximately
3:17:16
10
3:17:32
minutes.
3:17:49
Action
3:18:06
is
3:18:22
anticipated
3:18:39
to
3:18:56
follow
3:19:13
in
3:19:29
open
3:19:46
session.
3:20:03
Okay,
3:20:19
we
3:20:36
are
3:20:53
back
3:21:09
in
3:21:26
session
3:21:43
and
3:22:00
we
3:22:16
are,
3:22:33
we'll
3:22:50
make
3:23:06
a
3:23:23
motion
3:23:40
in
3:23:56
just
3:24:13
a
3:24:30
minute.
3:24:51
in just a few
3:24:57
seconds. - Looking for
3:25:02
the actual acquisition for
3:25:08
4.7 million. - Appreciate
3:25:13
it. I move that
3:25:19
we authorize the mayor
3:25:24
to execute a purchase
3:25:29
and sale agreement for
3:25:35
the Costco property for
3:25:40
$4.7 million. - Second.
3:25:46
- Any discussion? All
3:25:51
right, ready for the
3:25:56
vote. All those in
3:26:02
favor say aye. -
3:26:07
Aye. - Any opposed?
3:26:13
It passes. - All right, if you don't have anything else
3:26:19
on our agenda, we are adjourned, thank you.